It´s very odd that some people call Leech a polytheist. What has theism to do with this? But I´ve seen it discussed: polytheism, monotheism, etc. As it deals with maxims.
Recall it´s four categories. For this German author in a Manuscrito essay, the idea is that indeed for Kant, the categories are FOUR, because, well, they ARE four
Quantiaet
Modus Relation
Qualitaet
For Aristotle (sans the first category which is the only one that counts, really, protousia) we get:
posotes
??? relatio
poiotes
-- Cicero´s qualitas, quantitas, etc. Quale and Quantum are interesting per se in that they involve the qu- suffix, interrogative in origin, and different suffixations of the same root. Quale and quantum _are_ cognate.
So, Grice seems _polytheist_ in that there _are_ categories, and not just ONE BIG one.
But issues remain.
Leech is sometimes dubbed, a "multiplicationist" (someone should be able to pun on "leech" here). He´s always willing to add a "maxim", turning the whole thing slightly "ad hoc". But the spirit of Grice is indeed polytheist. Many of the maxims which he postulate as "moral" or "aesthetic" in nature, "be polite", he mentions, would NOT be "conversational" (maxims). So one has to be careful here.
The "conversational category" -- Grice does use this collocation -- is what counts. The four conversational categories "generate" or subsume the "conversational" maxims. Other maxims which may operate in converation would not be strictly "conversational".
Here the class, nonvacuous for Grice of
what is nonconventionally implicated, yet not yet conversationally
is an important one. Leech´s
A: Well, I´m going to the other place, Alsace, tomorrow.
B: Good luck (-- "I wish you good luck")
Bad luck (-- "I regret your bad luck")
rather than, "I regret your good luck but wish you bad luck", are cancelled out via maxims which are not conversational. What they yield are not, strictly, assuming they derive from, "be polite", that Grice mentions, "conversational" implicatures -- but nonconventional nonconversational ones. Odd.
Odd? No. Not for a philosopher. Grice is into discussions of the philosophical type, or of a certain type. He cannot be bothered with "mannerisms" that can only interest Goffman!
Etc.
I have followed the avatars, if that´s the word, of the maxims. Levinson, for example, an author which I should NOT necessarily follow, accepts, or grants, that, after all, and after all the little divergences and petty disagreements with Grice´s four categories, it seems that they _are_ four after all.
I tend to think that Grice was not that convinced his-self. As I say, his earlier Oxford lectures are _freer_ in this respect, and he´s got enough candour to accept this or that new "conversational" maxim added to deal with this new philosophical puzzle.
And perhaps the whole idea of titling this "polytheism" _is_ misguided, but hopefull you´ll see what I mean.
Etc.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I have never liked the "be polite" maxim. Isn't it a subset of a more generic "Assume contextual defaults"?
ReplyDeleteSome conversations occur between enemies, and are understood as hostile. Two unfriendly men meet in a setting where violence is inappropriate. One says to the other "I like you shirt. Does it come in men's sizes?" What maxims apply? Are any being broken? Or is one jerk just communicating to someone he disrespects comme il faut.
The "Good luck" / "Bad luck" example assumes the good faith of the responder. But why? Maybe the responder is an enemy so that his response can be presumed in context to be ironic or sarcastic.
I don't know the jargon well enough to dope out whether the implicature is conventional or conversational, but I wonder if the word "contextual" doesn't have a job to do here. Almost all conversation take place in a known context, including a default context that applies to unknown contexts. Utterances are interpreted consistently with those contexts, and so, if you want to be understood, you should speak consistently with the context, only negating default inferences explicitly. Sometimes, that means "be polite," sometimes not. (Yes, "means"!)
Your pretexs engage me, Larry!
ReplyDeleteYour insistence on 'context' moves me to add a post blog here on 'pretext', so beware.
Mainly Grice did not like 'context'. He once lectured on this. I like to think of those (or them, as I prefer) Oxonian Griceans -- scruples thereof -- attending these evening seminars.
His tutorials went for one hour, "but he would often let the tutee overstay". I can get the feeling. Not for nothing (as my friend says) he was called "Godot" in Oxford, as piles if not scruples of tutees would pile up in the little corridor leading to his room in St. John's.
----
One of his lectures, now safely in "The Grice Collection" (Bancroft BANC 90/35c -- when are we SCANNING them?) is entitled
The general theory of context.
Grice plays with
context is all important.
context-i is-ii all-iii important-iv
context-ii is all important.
context-iii is all-i important-iv.
He is wanting to say that context is not important-v. He proves that 'ad absurdum', or 'ad nauseam' as my friend prefers (He, my friend, is sicko).
For, it is a philosophical cliche
-- and he hated cliches, good ol' Herbert --
that context is important.
But once you try and DE-contextualise the thing (and any philosopher worth her name is a DE-contextualiser) it turns to be a ... Pope?
C. E. Feiling, an Argentine philosopher I've met, would quote from the Lewis Carroll corpus here:
"He thought he saw an argument which turned to be some soap" (or words).
But, yes. Oddly when I was quoting from Leech I couldn't use the 'proper' keys. So perhaps what I meant -- and his example _is_ a good one:
ReplyDeleteA: I'm going to Alsace tomorrow
B: (i) Good luck (+> I wish you good luck)
(ii) Bad luck (+> I regret your bad luck)
Only a pendant, as I am, on Sundays -- rependant -- would object to the use of "+>" here, but I do!
I'm not sure the 'default' thing clarifies things.
Oddly, 'clarity' is a good one, that should merit a post, "Clarity is not enough".
---
I once read about the break(ing) of all maxims in diplomatic conversations. I forget the reference. In _Critica_, I think.
I once discussed flynt, I think it is called, elsewhere. If I find the quotes I may drop.
I think,
(a) To take "Good luck" ironically to mean "I regret your good luck" and "Bad luck" ironically to mean "I wish you bad luck" is different from
(b) To think that 'be polite' is NOT operative, and rather something like 'be impolite' is operative.
(c) Etc.
N. E. A. has elsewhere objected to my use of "Etc" so freely as reminding him of "Private Eye".