Wrote (In Alphabetical Order)

Speranza

Jones and I are discussing

Neale, S, B. Stoud, B. Vermazen, and B. Williams, "Grice", In Memoriam, University of California/Berkeley.

----

This from Neale, Ling. & Phil. SHOULD relate!


"Of course, there may well be uses of the English word ‘and’

that resist Gricean analysis — as in (e.g.)

‘Insult me again and I’ll divorce you’ — but all

I am trying to illustrate is that where

semantic and pragmatic accounts handle the same

range of data, the pragmatic account is

preferable. It seems unlikely that all

occurrences of ‘and’ that conjoin (e.g.)

noun phrases can be analysed in terms

of logical conjunction. While a sentence like


(i) Grice and Strawson taught at Oxford.

might be analysable in terms of the

conjunction of (ii) and (iii),

(ii) Grice taught at Oxford.

(iii) Strawson taught at Oxford.

such a proposal is quite unsuitable for

(iv) Grice and Strawson wrote “In Defence of a Dogma.”

--- Variations on a theme:

"Grice and Strawson wrote "In defence of a dogma"".

Pedant variant: "Grice and Strawson wrote "In defense of a dogma"".

--- It speaks VERY HIGHLY of Strawson that with the zillion of publications and republications (is that republican?) and reprints and compilations he has, he NEVER cared to have

Grice/Strawson, In defence of a dogma

reprinted ANYWHERE!

(He felt or found that Grice had written it!)

----- This was very okay. Yet, I was disappointed to see that, for all his love for Grice, Strawson DID care to republish his "If and )" in his "Identity" volume.

What's the good of a book supposed to be a "festschrift" if people (contributors) are going to REPRINT the thing elsewhere? Davidson did the same: his "A nice derangement of epitaphs" appeared elsewhere. Perhaps the prize goes for Nancy Cartwright, who contributed "Facts and equations" to the Grice festschrift. She writes, "I will be clearer about this in the next chapter." But next chapter is Judith Baker's. So my implicature is of course that Cartwright (Mrs. Hamsphire) just provided the chapter for her forthcoming "How the laws of nature lie."

And so on...

""In defence of a dogma"", Bennett wrote, "was written in 1956. Grice's "Meaning" came out in 1957: an obvious continuation." -- "Linguistic behaviour". But while we all love Bennett, the problem is that "Meaning" is dated 1948. I discussed this elsewhere. It does paint a lovely picture:

Grice/Strawson 1956 -- defending Carnap contra Quine.
Grice 1957 -- providing a non-circular account of "... means..."

The story is more convoluted and Oxonian (or convolutedly Oxonian) than THAT!
Cheers!