Gutt:
P acknowledged
importance of inferential processes in acquisition of knowledge in general
(deduction, induction, abduction), and hence applied inference to
communication as well; however, did not recognize the special challenge of
intentional human communication, esp. the challenge of coordinating the
inferential processing of the audience with the intentions of the
communicator. In that sense, while interpretative semiotics recognised the
insufficiency of coding alone and brought out the importance of inference
(as part of general epistemics), it did not really come up with an
inferential theory that would explain intentional human communication in
particular.
---- Re the latter bit, cfr. Ockham's parsimony. SHOULD we appeal to a
PARTICULAR explanation? Grice who loved a pun, would have argued with that!
Note that Peirce's theory is labelled 'general' and it is the 'general' that
sometimes appeals to Grice -- cfr. his 'out of context': "a 'general'
theory of context". In "Reply to Richards" Grice does however grant that a
theory of HUMAN communication may show WHY Schiffer was right and animals _are_
possibly deprived of what he crypotechnically calls 'm-intentions'! (my
last post today)
jls
Received on Wed Dec 9 12:40:29 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Dec 09 2009 - 12:41:08 GMT