T Wharton writes re:
>what Grice meant-nn
>by 'what is said'.
>Neale (1992) points out that Grice (1975) - Essay 2 in WOW - is a (slightly)
>amended form of Lecture II, that Grice (1978) - Essay 3 in WOW - is a
>(slightly) amended form of Lecture III, that parts of Lectures VIII and IX
>were published as Grice (1968) - Essay 6 in WOW - and that parts of Lectures
>VI and VII were published as Grice (1969) - Essay 5 in WOW.
I think you should contact Neale -- he's now at Rutgers. Levinson
(_Conversational Implicature_ 2001) refers to one important paper on this:
ARUNDALE, R. B. 'Studies in the way of words': Grice's new directions in
conceptualising meaning in conversational interaction. Mimeo. Department of
Communication, University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Paper presented at the
International Communication Association, Chicago.
(which Levinson describes as: "the only careful collation of versions of
Grice's text that I know of". You may cc. Levinson on this. He's in Nijmegen).
Your remarks above seem a bit inaccurate. For one, the lectures were only
seven (I would _say_), so I can't see how you can refer to Lecture VIII and
IX. Let's revise:
>Grice (1975) - Essay 2 in WOW - is a (slightly)
>amended form of Lecture II.
Of course the progress is: Lecture II -> Grice 1975 -> Essay 2. And note
that Grice 1975 can be Cole/Morgan _or_ Davidson/Harman, Logic of Grammar
(full ref. below).
>Grice (1978) - Essay 3 in WOW - is a
>(slightly) amended form of Lecture III.
Well, Levinson makes a lot of this. He notes that in the _printed_ version
of Lecture III -- i.e. in Essay 3 (as different from the mimeo, which by
the way, was titled, _in toto_, _The Logic Of Conversation_), Grice omits
that bit, which _is_ included in the 1978 version (Cole), about the
importance (or relevance, shall we say) of _generalised conversational
implicature_. Having myself philosophical background, I find the passage
cited by Levinson (or rediscovered by Levinson, _so to say_) of great
interest not so much for what it says about generalised conversational
implicature but for "philosophy" at large, which is indeed Grice's primary
topic in what philosophers regard as mainly _methodological_ lectures.
Grice writes:
"I thought that this notion of a generalised conversational
implicature might be used to deal with a variety of problems,
particularly in philosophical logic, but also in other areas"
(We discuss those a lot in our Analytic Saturday Mornings).
>parts of Lectures VIII and IX
>were published as Grice (1968) - Essay 6 in WOW -
The route is as follows: Lecture VI -> Grice 1968 (_Foundations of
Language_) -> Essay 6. True that I have no access to the Neale essay in
Phil-Ling, but if I am wrong tell me so! Grice explicitly says in the
Preface that he resists a temptation by J. F. Bennett & proposes to reprint
the lectures in their original format partly because "the scope and content
of [them] has long been fairly familiar to many philosophers" (Grice, WOW,
p.i).
>parts of Lectures
>VI and VII were published as Grice (1969) - Essay 5 in WOW.
I think the idea is: Lecture V -> Grice 1969 (_Philosophical Review_) ->
Essay 5. I note here that more than _editing_ Grice here adds an
introductory section to that essay ('Saying & Meaning') -- a part which is
most relevant to your present interest -- which is not in the
_Philosophical Review_ version.
>I would be very interested in insights anyone might have regarding
>disparities between the original typescripts of the lectures and the
>published versions (either the original publications, or their reproductions
>in WOW -in particular, Essays 5 and 6).
Well, Essay 6, the first two sections, are pretty relevant for your concern
with "saying", too, of course.
>Naturally, I would also be
>interested to receive *any* communication regarding your views on Grice and
>his notion of 'what is said'.
There is an online essay on this (also in _Ling & Phil_) by J. M. Saul, who
teaches philosophy at Sheffield. No doubt there are other pieces, but that
must be one of the few which has "Grice" and "Say" in the title...
>All definitive answers re. Grice's thinking, suggestions, clues or mere
>indications of the direction in which I may seek relevance will be
>gratefully received...
In a post sent to this forum, I discussed what the O.E.D. has about "say"
-- which I found of great interest! It's not a particularly favourite verb
with me, but you should perhaps analyse Grice's use with _his_ colleagues
at one time in Oxford: -- the Saturday morning philosophers: J. L. Austin,
R. M. Hare, J. O. Urmson, G. J. Warnock, to name a few. E.g. Hare wrote the
T. Green Oxford thesis on the "Dictor" which resembles what Grice says on
Dictive Content (in 'Retrospective Epilogue'). Bits of that thesis Hare
reprints in _Practical Inferences_. A study of Austin's _locutio_ qua
"dictum" should fill a few pages, too!
>Refs:
>Grice, H. P. (1968) 'Utterer's meaning, sentence meaning and word meaning'.
>Foundations of Language 4: 225-242.
I find it a source of mild amusement of Grice writes in 1979: Aspects of
Reason -- John Locke Lectures -- repr. OUP 2001 of this essay as "a
published article the exact title of which I always fit it difficult to
remember". The funnier thing is that he does not mention it -- the editor
does!
My hunch is that he sent the mimeo to _FL_ because he knew J. F. Staal
(indeed they have joint work), and Grice was in FL's Advisory Board.
>Grice, H. P. (1969) 'Utterer's meaning and intentions'. Philosophical Review
>78: 147-177.
A footnote to this reads to the effect that he intends to publish this in a
book to be published by Harvard -- which alas Grice never saw in print --
and that earlier version was presented in one of those famous Oberlin
Colloquia. (This reminds me of two more Oxford philosophers whose views on
saying may be relevant. Grice having discussed with them in this
colloquium: S. N. Hampshire and O. P. Wood.). Grice no doubt chose
_Philosophical Review_ because Strawson had sent to this review Grice's
original 'Meaning'! (The story behind this is in R. Dale's PhD with SR
Schiffer on the Theory of Meaning, available online.
>Grice, H. P. (1975) 'Logic and conversation'. In Cole, P. & J. Morgan (eds)
>(1975) Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts. Academic Press: NY.
Yes, and perhaps more quoted by philosophers is the reprint in D Davidson/G
Harman, _The Logic of Grammar_, Encino: Dickenson, pp. 64.75 (Grice and
Davidson were colleagues at Berkeley). Indeed, in the list of "Publications
of Grice" in PGRICE, ed. Grandy & Warner -- Philosophical Grounds of
Rationality: Intentions, Categories, Ends -- to which Wilson & Sperber
contributed -- the editors mention the _Encino_ reprint, not the
Cole/Morgan one.
>Grice, H. P. (1978) 'Further notes on logic and conversation'. In Cole, P.
>(ed) Syntax and Semantics 9: Pragmatics. Academic Press: NY.
>Neale, S. (1992) Paul Grice and the philosophy of language. Linguistics and
>philosophy 15.5: 509-559.
Two more refs. on the _dichotomy_ meaning and saying are Furberg (M, his
book on Austin) and S. Cavell, _Must we mean what we say_... (and you
should contact the Analytic Saturday Morningers)...
Good luck in your research and keep us posted!
Cheers,
JL
==
J L Speranza, Esq
Country Town
St Michael's Hall Suite 5/8
Calle 58, No 611 Calle Arenales 2021
La Plata CP 1900 Recoleta CP 1124
Tel 00541148241050 Tel 00542214257817
BUENOS AIRES, Argentina
Telefax 00542214259205
http://www.netverk.com.ar/~jls/
jls@netverk.com.ar
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 17 2002 - 19:03:31 GMT