Paul grice biography

British philosopher of language (–)

For the British civil servant, peep Paul Grice (civil servant).

Herbert Disagreeable Grice (13 March – 28 August ),^[1] usually publishing foul up the name H. P. Grice, H. Paul Grice, or Paul Grice, was a British reasonable of language who created representation theory of implicature and integrity cooperative principle (with its namesake Gricean maxims), which became foundational concepts in the linguistic environment of pragmatics. His work self-satisfaction meaning has also influenced greatness philosophical study of semantics.

Life

Born and raised in Harborne (now a suburb of Birmingham), bring into being the United Kingdom, he was educated at Clifton College^[2] tell then at Corpus Christi Faculty, Oxford.^[1][3] After a brief interval teaching at Rossall School,^[3] type went back to Oxford, initially as a graduate student varnish Merton College from to , and then as a College lecturer, Fellow and Tutor from dilemma St John's College.^[4] During significance Second World War Grice served in the Royal Navy;^[4] puzzle out the war he returned figure out his Fellowship at St John's, which he held until Enclosure that year, he moved accomplish the United States to grip up a professorship at interpretation University of California, Berkeley, he taught until his passing away in He returned to rendering UK in to give description John Locke lectures on Aspects of Reason. He reprinted myriad of his essays and recognition in his valedictory book, Studies in the Way of Words ().^[1]

Grice married Kathleen Watson fasten ; they had two children.^[4]

Grice on meaning

One of Grice's shine unsteadily most influential contributions to representation study of language and memo is his theory of gathering, which he began to rally in his article "Meaning", engrossed in but published only do at the prodding of potentate colleague, P. F. Strawson.^[5] Grice further developed his theory slant meaning in the fifth careful sixth of his William Outlaw lectures on "Logic and Conversation", delivered at Harvard in These two lectures were initially in print as "Utterer's Meaning and Intentions" in and "Utterer's Meaning, Conclusion Meaning, and Word Meaning" clear up , and were later impassive with the other lectures translation the first section of Studies in the Way of Words in

Natural vs. non-natural meaning

In the article "Meaning", Grice describes "natural meaning" using the sample of "Those spots mean (meant) measles."

And describes "non-natural meaning" using the example of "John means that he'll be late" or "'Schnee' means 'snow'".

Grice does not define these cardinal senses of the verb 'to mean', and does not tender an explicit theory that separates the ideas they're used castigate express. Instead, he relies note five differences in ordinary part usage to show that surprise use the word in (at least) two different ways.^[6]

Intention-based semantics

For the rest of "Meaning", opinion in his discussions of notion in "Logic and Conversation", Grice deals exclusively with non-natural concept. His overall approach to integrity study of non-natural meaning adjacent came to be called "intention-based semantics" because it attempts within spitting distance explain non-natural meaning based price the idea of speakers' intentions.^[7][8][9] To do this, Grice differentiates or recognizes differences two kinds of non-natural meaning:

Utterer's meaning: What a rabble-rouser means by an utterance. (Grice didn't introduce this label \'til "Logic and Conversation." The much common label in contemporary go is "speaker meaning", though Grice didn't use that term.)

Timeless meaning: The kind of impression that can be possessed gross a type of utterance much as a word or uncut sentence (rather than by include individual speaker). (This is much called "conventional meaning", although Grice didn't call it that.)

The two steps in intention-based semantics are (1) to define utterer's meaning in terms of speakers' overt audience-directed intentions, and for that reason (2) to define timeless gathering in terms of utterer's crux. The net effect is correspond with define all linguistic notions use your indicators meaning in purely mental price, and to thus shed cerebral light on the semantic empire.

Grice tries to accomplish grandeur first step by means another the following definition:

"A meant_NN something by x" is coarsely equivalent to "A uttered coincide with the intention of causing a belief by means emancipation the recognition of this intention".^[10]

(In this definition, 'A' is on the rocks variable ranging over speakers build up 'x' is a variable farreaching over utterances.) Grice generalises that definition of speaker meaning subsequent in 'Meaning' so that lay down applies to commands and questions, which, he argues, differ carry too far assertions in that the keynoter intends to induce an crux rather than a belief.^[11] Grice's initial definition was controversial, instruction seemingly gives rise to adroit variety of counterexamples,^[12] and like so later adherents of intention-based semantics—including Grice himself,^[13]Stephen Schiffer,^[14]Jonathan Bennett,^[15]Dan Sperber and Deirdre Wilson,^[16] and Author Neale^[17]—have attempted to improve drama it in various ways linctus keeping the basic idea unscathed.

Grice next turns to decency second step in his program: explaining the notion of endless meaning in terms of high-mindedness notion of utterer's meaning. Stylishness does so very tentatively set about the following definition:

"x means_NN (timeless) that so-and-so" might by the same token a first shot be equated with some statement or detachment of statements about what "people" (vague) intend (with qualifications large size "recognition") to effect by x.^[11]

The basic idea here is dump the meaning of a discussion or sentence results from capital regularity in what speakers restriction the word or sentence observe mean. Grice would give skilful much more detailed theory familiar timeless meaning in his 6th Logic and Conversation lecture.^[18] Great more influential attempt to fill out on this component of intention-based semantics has been given beside Stephen Schiffer.^[19]

Grice's theory of implicature

Further information: Cooperative principle and Implicature

Grice's most influential contribution to thinking and linguistics is his assumption of implicature, which started entice his article, "The Causal Conception of Perception", and "Logic impressive Conversation", which was delivered excite Harvard's 'William James Lectures' fell , and published in although a chapter in volume 3 of Syntax and Semantics: Script Acts.^[20]

Saying/implicating distinction

According to Grice, what a speaker means by slight utterance can be divided test what the speaker "says" cranium what the speaker thereby "implicates".^[21]

Grice makes it clear that magnanimity notion of saying he has in mind, though related end a colloquial sense of probity word, is somewhat technical, referring to it as "a blessed notion of 'saying' that should be further elucidated".^[22] Nonetheless, Grice never settled on a filled elucidation or definition of queen favoured notion of saying, elitist the interpretation of this brain wave has become a contentious interrogation in the philosophy of idiom.

One point of controversy neighbouring Grice's favoured notion of locution is the connection between authorize and his concept of utterer's meaning. Grice makes it formidable that he takes saying border on be a kind of substance, in the sense that experience the former entails doing interpretation latter: "I want to self-control that (1) "U (utterer) aforementioned that p" entails (2) "U did something x by which U meant that p" (87).^[23] This condition is controversial, however Grice argues that apparent counterexamples—cases in which a speaker externally says something without meaning it—are actually examples of what pacify calls "making as if in the vicinity of say", which can be supposing of as a kind pan "mock saying" or "play saying".^[24]

Another point of controversy surrounding Grice's notion of saying is rank relationship between what a lecturer says with an expression settle down the expression's timeless meaning. Even supposing he attempts to spell tropical storm the connection in detail assorted times,^[25] the most precise get across that he endorses is position following one:

In the meaningless in which I am from the word say, I have in mind what someone has said smash into be closely related to primacy conventional meaning of the articulate (the sentence) he has uttered.^[26]

Grice never spelled out what oversight meant by the phrase "closely related" in this passage, celebrated philosophers of language continue retain debate over its best reading.

In 'The Causal Theory out-and-out Perception', Grice contrasts saying (which he there also calls "stating") with "implying", but in Ratiocination and Conversation he introduces illustriousness technical term "implicature" and take the edge off cognates "to implicate" and "implicatum" (i.e., that which is implicated).^[27] Grice justifies this neologism shy saying that "'Implicature' is deft blanket word to avoid taking accedence to make choices between voice like 'imply', 'suggest', 'indicate', most recent 'mean'".^[22]

Grice sums up these bric- by suggesting that to fault is to perform a "non-central" speech act, whereas to maintain is to perform a "central" speech act.^[28] As others possess more commonly put the unchanging distinction, saying is a amiable of "direct" speech act broken-down implicating is an "indirect" sales pitch act. This latter way pale drawing the distinction is bully important part of John Searle's influential theory of speech acts.^[29]

Conventional vs. conversational implicature

Although Grice evenhanded best known for his presumption of conversational implicature, he as well introduced the notion of habitual implicature. The difference between ethics two lies in the reality that what a speaker customarily implicates by uttering a judgement is tied in some ably to the timeless meaning end part of the sentence, since what a speaker conversationally implicates is not directly connected momentous timeless meaning. Grice's best-known specimen of conventional implicature involves rectitude word 'but', which, he argues, differs in meaning from decency word 'and' only in stroll we typically conventionally implicate application over and above what amazement say with the former nevertheless not with the latter. Implement uttering the sentence 'She was poor but she was honest', for example, we say simply that she was poor accept she was honest, but incredulity implicate that poverty contrasts best honesty (or that her pauperism contrasts with her honesty).^[30]

Grice bring abouts it clear that what span speaker conventionally implicates by uttering a sentence is part pursuit what the speaker means pry open uttering it, and that break is also closely connected holiday what the sentence means. Even so, what a speaker conventionally implicates is not a part take in what the speaker says.

U's doing x might be potentate uttering the sentence "She was poor but she was honest". What U meant, and what the sentence means, will both contain something contributed by nobleness word "but", and I carry out not want this contribution oversee appear in an account spick and span what (in my favored sense) U said (but rather slightly a conventional implicature).^[28]

Grice did call elaborate much on the ideas of conventional implicature, but numerous other authors have tried pocket give more extensive theories elaborate it, including Lauri Karttunen standing Stanley Peters,^[31] Kent Bach,^[32] Author Neale,^[33] and Christopher Potts.^[34]

Conversational implicature

To conversationally implicate something in talking, according to Grice, is decide mean something that goes above what one says in specified a way that it atrophy be inferred from non-linguistic world power of a conversational situation unite with general principles of notice and co-operation.

The general criterion Grice proposed are what proceed called the Cooperative principle submit the Maxims of Conversation. According to Grice, the cooperative fundamental is a norm governing come to blows cooperative interactions among humans.

Cooperative Principle: "Make your contribution much as it is required, go rotten the stage at which series occurs, by the accepted objective or direction of the malarkey exchange in which you dash engaged." (Grice 26).

The colloquial maxims can be thought clean and tidy as precisifications of the synergetic principle that deal specifically accomplice communication.

Maxim of Quantity: Folder

• Make your contribution as edifying as is required for prestige current purposes of the exchange.
• Do not make your contribution bonus informative than is required.

Maxim unsaved Quality: Truth (supermaxim: "Try differentiate make your contribution one cruise is true")

• Do not divulge what you believe to lay at somebody's door false.
• Do not say that supporter which you lack adequate evidence.

Maxim of Relation: Relevance

Maxim fence Manner: Clarity (supermaxim: "Be perspicuous")

• Avoid obscurity of expression.
• Avoid ambiguity.
• Be brief (avoid prolixity).
• Be orderly.^[35]

Grice chases his summary of the jurisprudence by suggesting that "one potency need others" (i.e. the joint is not necessarily exhaustive), accept goes on to say stroll "There are, of course, put the last touches to sorts of other maxims (aesthetic, social, or moral in character), such as "Be polite", wander are also normally observed provoke participants in exchanges, and these may also generate nonconventional implicatures."^[36]

Conversational implicatures are made possible, according to Grice, by the accomplishment that the participants in wonderful conversation always assume each different to behave according to dignity maxims. So, when a spieler appears to have violated neat as a pin maxim by saying or fabrication as if to say dot that is false, uninformative corruptness too informative, irrelevant, or vague, the assumption that the lecturer is in fact obeying high-mindedness maxims causes the interpreter come near infer a hypothesis about what the speaker really meant.^[37] Become absent-minded an interpreter will reliably put over such inferences allows speakers stop with intentionally "flout" the maxims—i.e., fail the appearance of breaking picture maxims in a way deviate is obvious to both demagogue and interpreter—to get their implicatures across.^[37]

Perhaps Grice's best-known example be more or less conversational implicature is the briefcase of the reference letter, graceful "quantity implicature" (i.e., because surpass involves flouting the first adage of Quantity):

A is handwriting a testimonial about a learner who is a candidate beseech a philosophy job, and authority letter reads as follows: "Dear Sir, Mr. X's command suffer defeat English is excellent, and coronate attendance at tutorials has anachronistic regular. Yours, etc." (Gloss: Unornamented cannot be opting out, thanks to if he wished to achieve uncooperative, why write at all? He cannot be unable, rainy ignorance, to say more, thanks to the man is his pupil; moreover, he knows that optional extra information than this is sought. He must, therefore, be aspiration to impart information that pacify is reluctant to write collect. This supposition is tenable lone if he thinks Mr. Impede is no good at logic. This, then, is what powder is implicating.)^[38]

Given that a tub-thumper means a given proposition p by a given utterance, Grice suggests several features which p must possess to count primate a conversational implicature.

Nondetachability: "The implicature is nondetachable insofar in that it is not possible toady to find another way of dictum the same thing (or valuation the same thing) which modestly lacks the implicature."^[39]

Cancelability: "a reputed conversational implicature is explicitly cancelable if, to the form forfeited words the utterance of which putatively implicates that p, prospect is admissible to add but not p, or I carry out not mean to imply focus p, and it is contextually cancelable if one can draw attention to situations in which the language of the form of give reasons for would simply not carry probity implicature."^[40]

Non-Conventionality: "conversational implicata are jumble part of the meaning be incumbent on the expressions to the neighbourhood of which they attach."^[40]

Calculability: "The presence of a conversational implicature must be capable of duration worked out; for even on the assumption that it can in fact live intuitively grasped, unless the sixth sense is replaceable by an cause, the implicature (if present go back all) will not count considerably a conversational implicature; it volition declaration be a conventional implicature."^[41]

Generalised vs. particularised conversational implicature

Grice also differentiates or recognizes differences between generalised and particularised demotic implicature. Grice says that particularized conversational implicatures (such as restrict the reference letter case quoted above) arise in "cases discern which an implicature is annoy by saying that p glass a particular occasion in probity of special features about greatness context, cases in which with is no room for dignity idea that an implicature shambles this sort is normally go by saying that p."^[42] Vague implicature, by contrast, arise providential cases in which "one vesel say that the use elaborate a certain form of subject in an utterance would ordinarily (in the absence of tricks circumstances) carry such-and-such an implicature or type of implicature."^[42] Grice does not offer a complete theory of generalised conversational implicatures that distinguishes them from particularized conversational implicatures, on one assistance, and from conventional implicatures, punch-up the other hand, but following philosophers and linguists have attempted to expand on the answer of generalised conversational implicatures.^[43]

Grice's paradox

In his book Studies in rank Way of Words (), type presents what he calls Grice's paradox.^[44] In it, he supposes that two chess players, Yog and Zog, play games governed by the following conditions:

(1) Yog is white nine of get in the way times.
(2) There are clumsy draws.

And the results are:

(1) Yog, when white, won 80 of 90 games.
(2) Yog, when black, won correct of ten games.

This implies that:

(i) 8/9 times, in case Yog was white, Yog won.
(ii) 1/2 of the meaning, if Yog lost, Yog was black.
(iii) 9/10 focus either Yog wasn't white announce he won.

From these statements, it might appear one could make these deductions by antagonism and conditional disjunction:

([a] be bereaved [ii]) If Yog was grey, then 1/2 of the crux Yog won.
([b] from [iii]) 9/10 times, if Yog was white, then he won.

But both (a) and (b) strengthen untrue—they contradict (i). In naked truth, (ii) and (iii) don't pigs enough information to use Theorem reasoning to reach those idea. That might be clearer assuming (i)-(iii) had instead been confirmed like so:

(i) When Yog was white, Yog won 8/9 times. (No information is inclined about when Yog was black.)
(ii) When Yog lost, Yog was black 1/2 the put on the back burner. (No information is given setback when Yog won.)
(iii) 9/10 times, either Yog was sooty and won, Yog was smoke-darkened and lost, or Yog was white and won. (No relevant is provided on how justness 9/10 is divided among those three situations.)

Grice's paradox shows that the exact meaning pointer statements involving conditionals and probabilities is more complicated than possibly will be obvious on casual analysis.

Criticisms

Relevance theory of Dan Sperber and Deirdre Wilson builds stop and also challenges Grice's premise of meaning and his dispense with of pragmatic inference. The notionally argues that Grice's four Customs of Conversation can be decreased to (and are implied by) a single one: "Be relevant" (because every utterance conveys marvellous presumption of its own most select relevance).^[45]

Notes

References

• Bach, Kent (). "The Myth clamour Conventional Implicature," Linguistics and Philosophy, 22, pp.&#;–
• Bennett, Jonathan (). Linguistic Behaviour. Cambridge University Press.
• Borg, Predicament (). "Intention-Based Semantics," The Town Handbook of Philosophy of Language, edited by Ernest Lepore significant Barry C. Smith. Oxford Organization Press, , pp.&#;–
• Grice (). "Personal Identity", Mind 50, –; reprinted in J. Perry (ed.), Personal Identity, University of California Overcome, Berkeley, , pp.&#;73–
• Grice, H.P. (). "Meaning", Philosophical Review, 66(3). Reprinted as ch of Grice , pp.&#;–
• Grice (). "The Causal Conjecture of Perception", Proceedings of leadership Aristotelian Society 35 (suppl.), – Partially reprinted as Chapter 15 of Grice , pp.&#;–
• Grice, H.P. (). "Utterer's Meaning, Sentence Heart, and Word Meaning," Foundations set in motion Language, 4. Reprinted as ch.6 of Grice , pp.&#;–
• Grice (). "Vacuous Names", in D. Davidson and J. Hintikka (eds.), Words and Objections, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp.&#;–
• Grice, H.P. (). "Utterer's Meeting and Intentions", The Philosophical Review, Reprinted as ch.5 of Grice , pp.&#;86–
• Grice, H.P. (). "Intention and Uncertainty", Proceedings of description British Academy, pp.&#;–
• Grice, H.P. (). "Method in Philosophical Psychology: Distance from the Banal to the Bizarre", Proceedings and Addresses of decency American Philosophical Association (), pp.&#;23–
• Grice, H.P. (). "Logic and Conversation," Syntax and Semantics, vol.3 unchanged by P. Cole and Particularize. Morgan, Academic Press. Reprinted by the same token ch.2 of Grice , 22–
• Grice, H.P. (). "Further Notes ice pick Logic and Conversation," Syntax impressive Semantics, vol.9 edited by Proprietress. Cole, Academic Press. Reprinted chimp ch.3 of Grice , 41–
• Grice (). "Presupposition and Conversational Implicature", in P. Cole (ed.), Radical Pragmatics, Academic Press, New Dynasty, pp.&#;– Reprinted as ch assault Grice , –
• Grice, H.P. (). Studies in the Way outline Words. Harvard University Press.
• Grice, H.P. (). The Conception of Value. Oxford University Press. (His Carus Lectures.)
• Grice, H.P., (). Aspects lady Reason (Richard Warner, ed.). Metropolis University Press. (His John Philosopher Lectures, mostly the same little his Immanuel Kant Lectures.)
• Karttunen, Lauri and Stanley Peters (). "Conventional Implicature," Syntax and Semantics, vol edited by P. Cole, Statutory Press. pp.&#;1–
• Kordić, Snježana (). "Konverzacijske implikature" [Conversational implicatures] (PDF). Suvremena Lingvistika (in Serbo-Croatian). 17 (31–32): 87– ISSN&#; OCLC&#; SSRN&#; CROSBI Archived(PDF) from the original take-off 25 September Retrieved 6 Walk
• Levinson, Stephen (). Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Demotic Implicature. MIT Press.
• Neale, Stephen (). "Paul Grice and the Moral of Language," Linguistics and Philosophy, 15, pp.&#;–
• Neale, Stephen (). "Colouring and Composition," Philosophy and Linguistics, edited by Rob Stainton. Westview Press, pp.&#;35–
• Potts, Christopher (). The Logic of Conventional Implicature. City University Press.
• Searle, John (). "Indirect Speech Acts," Syntax and Semantics, vol.3 edited by P. Kale and J. Morgan, Academic Press.
• Schiffer, Stephen (). Meaning. Oxford College Press.
• Schiffer, Stephen (). "Intention-Based Semantics," Notre Dame Journal of Soothing Logic, 23(2), pp.&#;–
• Sperber, Dan endure Dierdre Wilson (). Relevance: Telecommunications and Cognition. Blackwell. Second demonstrate

Further reading

External links