Re: RT list: help on possessive pronouns and preposition "for"

In a message dated 1/10/2010 2:11:23 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
p.sousa@qub.ac.uk writes:
Dear all,
Happy new year! I'm looking for current work on the semantics and
pragmatics of possessive pronoums and of the preposition "for."
1) In relation to possessive pronouns, my interest is quite general. I
just want to know about work that discusses the range of meanings that
pronouns like "my" can help to convey in different contexts, and if there is any
sense in claiming that these pronouns have some stable semantic feature that
remains constant across contexts.

-----
 
I would definitely use this to promote Grice! I mean his "Personal
Identity", Mind, of ... would you believe what year? .... scroll down ... ... ...
   ... ... 1941.
 
He analyses sentences, like nobody else before or after him did, such as:
 
(1) The ball hit my head.
(2) The ball hit my body.
(3) My mind is not working too well today. I feel dizzy.
(4) His body was found uncovered -- or behind a bush.
(5) His corpse was found uncovered -- or behind a bush
(6) You are the cream in my coffee.
 
etc.
 
Specifically, Grice is concerned with the mind/body distinction which he
sort of hated, and his reflections on this parallel Merleau-Ponty. Why do we
say, "That's _my_ body?". Surely for a materialist, like most philosophers
are -- at least not dualists -- that's overinformative: "This is not my
body; this is _me_".
 
So the narrow field is the use of possessive pronouns to refer to one's
body. For Grice, 'personal identity' is NOT a matter of spatio-temporal
continuity, as it will be for Strawson. It's more like, er, ... a Lockean
mnemonic succession. So his analysis of things like
 
(7) The ball hit John.
(8) The ball hit John's body.
(9) His boy was hit by the ball.
 
involve quite some philosophical consideration. So this is quite a complex
field, the possessive domain as applied to the three persons (I can't see
how 'it' can qualify as a person, though -- and I see your native language
is Portuguese, whence the 'm' in pronouM, from Latin, pronomen).

I recall discussing possessiveness vs. ownership (cfr. Strawson's
ownership theory of personal identity) with lawyer Donal McEvoy regarding that
horridly titled bestseller, "Wittgenstein's Poker". I recall remarking, and in
the public domain, too: "Surely, the poker wasn't _his_". To have McEvoy
retorting me, "Possession is 90% of ownership".
 
Etc.
 

---
Sousa continues:
 
"2) In relation to the preposition "for", I'm interested in whether one  
knows about any discussion of the contribution, if any, this preposition may  
give to the meanings of sentences like these: 
a) The captain is responsible  for the ship (the captain ought to make sure 
that the conditions of the ship  remain safe)
b) The rain was responsible for the accident (the rain caused  the accident)
c) The captain is responsible for the death of the passengers  (the captain 
is to blame for the death of the passagers)."
 
Indeed, that is _some_ odd 'for'. I am always confused by the Anglos's  
confusion of the Romance distinction between 'par' and 'pour'. No such thing  
possibly in Latin, 'per', so -- this is a good case to apply Grice's "Do not  
multiply senses beyond necessity". Not only there should NOT be a 
distinction in  meaning between 'par' and 'pour' because they are ultimately the same 
 preposition, cognate with 'for' (and German fuer, of course). Possibly 
some  research on this has been done, if not by the Grice Club, by the GRICE -- 
that  is, the French, Paris-based Group por la Recherche de la 
Comprehension  Elementaire. What appeals me about Grice is the way he deals with 
'preposition'  in general. He does mention 'to'. And wonders if we could 
investigate the  meaning of 'to' (WoW, iii). And 'to' _is_ a bit like 'for'.
 
----
 
Addendum. Went to see "It's complicated" yesterday and should say that I  
found online three lines to be of Gricean significance:
 
Steve Martin: I like you.
Merryl Streep: I like you a lot, too. ... [correcting HERself] ... Oops I  
know you didn't say 'a lot'.
    [+> the conventional implicature of 'too' should be  allowed to be 
cancelled at least on this occasion, contra Grice and  Blakemore].
Steve Martin: I didn't, but I thought it.
 
This reliance by Martin's character on Ockham's sermo mentalis sort of  
irritated me, which follow Grice in suggestio falsi and things.
 
Good luck in your research, and keep us posted.
 
Cheers,
 
J. L. Speranza
    for the Grice Club, etc.