Speranza


Some comments which will be RT-relevant on Grice on ஃ. Thanks to Gutt for the link. I see the referred source cares to quotes Grice, when referring to Gundel as having thought of her 'thing' 'in terms of the Gricean 'maxims', originally. I do own Gundel's contribution to the "Legacy of Grice" symposium which I treasure. May I add a _philosophically_ relevant ref. here: Urmson, op.cit. below in PAS, an impressive piece seldom quoted. Urmson is particularly important historically in being more or less of Grice's generation, and therefore making his points specially early ones (His account of aposite, as he calls them, choices to refer to 'the postman', "Jenny's husband", etc. are charming. I enjoyed Gundel’s analysis, which I don’t think K. Scott cares to mention, on ‘medial’ demonstratives. Loving English dialects as I do, I treasure the Trudgill (op. cit.) ref. to them (as ‘standard’ within the context). The trichotomy of demonstration has a good Indo-European basis, and I feel that “this or that” simplifies things relevantly, when it’s this, that, or yonder. And of course, philosophically (since Davidson noted it in _Synthese_) and etymologically, Grice’s lovely iota-operator (WoW:ii), ‘the’, IS a demonstrative, too. Recall Grice's “phi” feature as a “quasi-demonstrative” in WoW:xvii. I note that Scott expands on Strawson and Grice on ‘therefore’ (and the latter's ‘on the other hand’ as in the Darien-example in WoW:RE, with Scott bringing ‘so’ into the picture as yet another realisation of the philosophically important ஃ. In a nod to Strawson against Russell (op. cit.) Grice closes his relevant essay (WoW:xvii) with the important caveat: “I have not [here or elsewhere] given ANY consideration at all to what might _well_ [but then might not. JLS] turn out to be the _best_ treatment of definite descriptions, namely to the idea that they are, in the first place at least, to be regarded as being, _semantically_ [Grice’s irreverence in avoiding ‘pragmatic’. JLS] a special subclass of referential expressions” (p. 282), which is what K. Scott is all about. Then there's also Schiffer. When I was expanding on Grice’s shaggy-dog story vis a vis ‘referential’ expressions in WoW:vi, Schiffer let me have his important pre-conversion paper on this in Synthese: it struck me that the complex deictic nature of the m-intentions involved is enough to support Kemmerling's claim that one should avoid schiffering when one can safely grice! Why Grice may have kept a narrow conception of ‘what is said’ to include “sense and reference” (his account of 'he' in ‘He is caught in the grip of the vice’ in WoW:ii) may well be Austinian in nature: these philosophers were wedded to the Fregean idea (made popular in England via Geach’s translation, and recall Austin was Frege's translator, too); it was the bill of fare for them, and it worked for the philosophical intentions they were trying to pursue. Finally, as an Oxonian, should I say that Scott’s referring to Hedley’s thing as a PhD was appropriately decoded by yours truly as DPhil? And her parochial, if prestigious, ref. to Magdalen turned to "Merton" in my more hierarchical view of how things work at The Place?
Refs.: Davidson, On saying that. Synthese. -- Grice, WoW -- Gundel in "Legacy of Grice" ed. K. Hall, Berkeley. -- Russell, "Mr. Strawson on referring", Mind. -- Schiffer, Referential expressions. Synthese. .. Trudgill, Dialects of England, Blackwell -- on 'medial' demonstratives -- Urmson, Criteria of intensionality, Proc. Arist. Soc.
Cheers, JLS