Frictionless Pulleys and First Recorded Use by Grice of Implicature (1964)

The vagaries of implicature are fascinating. In 1966 Chomsky is quoting in his ultrafamous "Aspects of the theory of syntax" one "A. P. Grice" (sic) as suggesting that 'and' implicates 'and then'.

It was all exposed later in 1967. But Chapman now notes that in Grice's handwritten 1964 lectures on implicature he does, naturally, speak of 'implicature':

The relevant passage is cited by Chapman on p.192 of her bio:

I REPEAT:

It's page 192

-- beware, philosopher, because this is her 'linguistics' chapter that philosophers will skip.

But it's on this page that she mentions the 'frictionless pulleys':

And it's on those handwritten notes of 1964 that we find 'implicature':

So the thing was coined in Oxford for Oxford students, and not ad lib for Harvardites, 3 years later.

Grice writes:

"Since the object of

the present exercise is to

provide a bit of theory

which will explain,

for a certain family of cases,

why is it that a

particular implicature

is present,

I would suggest that the final

test of the adequacy and utility

of this model should be

a) can it be used to construct

explanations of the presence of

such implicatures, and is it

more comprehensive and more economical

than any rival [?] (b) Are the

no doubt pre-theoretical explanations

which one would be prompted to give

of such implicatures consistent with,

or better still favourable pointers

towards, the requirements involved in

the model?"

note 32 ---


"We never know what Grice is doing", Chapman complains. But she is a teacher of English at Liverpool. Philosophers do. She is very clever enough and indeed to unbury the things by Grice from us. "He does say what he is doing in some "unpublished" stuff. Personally, I agree with those philosophers who say, "Burn all I left, after you burn me". But not when it comes to Grice: because I love him, and because many of that stuff is things he SAID in public. As a historian of 20th century Oxford philosophy, I'm interested I was interested as to what they were getting (and it's here that what McPherson is trying to do may illuminate): Grice, Chapman says, in this unpublications, "defends his method of working with as few 'cards on the table' as possible, in the knowledge that this WILL result in certain deliberate simplifications" (cfr. McPherson's abstraction). --- "In another lecture, proposing to address some questions put to him a previous discussion about the nature of his undertaking" he notes that
he is
"considering what is (or may be)
only an IDEAL (emphasis Grice's --JLS) case,
one which is
artificially simplified
-- McPherson's abstracted. JLS--
by ABSTRACTING from all considerations
OTHER than those involved in ... [say an illumination of 'contract'. JLS].
"I do not claim that there ACTUALLY [empahsis Grice's. JLS]
occur any ... conversations [write state of nature for McPherson]
of this artificially simplified kind."
"It MIGHT" and this is where Grice gets to be my CHARMING GRICE:
"even be that these COULD [emphasis Grice's] not be (cf frictionless pulleys)."
"..."
"Since the object of this exercise is to provide a bit of THEORY
-- vs.analysis.JLS, as he had undertaken in "Meaning"--he is specifically making the change of methodology here]
"...which will EXPLAIN, for a certain family of cases,
why is it that a ...."
"I would suggest that the final
TEST
for the adequacy and utility
of this model should be"
"First: can it be used to construct
explanations of the presence of ...
and is it more comprehensive and more economical
than any rival
--- McPherson say on 'divine' formation of contracts --
"Second, "Are there no doubt crude, PRETHEORETICAL (Grice's emphasis. JLS)
explanations which one would be prompted to give of ... (this or that)
consistent with, or better still, favourable pointers towards, the
requirements invovled in the model."

(I NOTE then FOR THE RECORD that Grice is using "implicature" here -- so this predates the OED3 quote which gives is at 1967. This is 1964).

Cheers,

JL