In another post, Geary was reporting us that he was engaged in a discussion
or argument with a 'linguist' (no less, a specialist in 'tongues', as the
etymology goes) as to what the essence of lingo is, and beg some NOT to use
algebra in their explanations!
McEvoy may agree.
It may relate to Buehler as used by Popper (Popper used or 'was influenced'
by many authors, as Helm might prefer).
And GRICE _needs_ a little algebra that is merely abbreviatory.
Grice would start by rejecting the idea that lingo has an 'essence'. This
is called 'anti-essentialism'. It should be called 'accidentalism'. Since
the opposite of essence is accident. But cfr. 'proprium'. Diogenes once said
that man was the featherless biped, or a featherless biped. Plato sent him
a gift: an unplucked chicken (there is a famous engraving on this). For
Diogenes, for Plato, had failed to _detect_ the essence, that should enter the
definition, of 'man', and 'featherless biped' may not even be a
'proprium', but a mere 'accident'.
It we say that lingo has an essence the polemic between Chomsky and Piaget
(which was the surname that Grice adapted in France) is that between
EXPRESSION
vs.
COMMUNICATION
For Grice, it is communication. It all starts with some DESIRE. Let this be
abbreviated by "D".
The desire is to tell one's addressee that 'the cat is on the mat'. Let
this be abbreviated by "p".
The opposite of the addressee (A) is _moi_, i.e. the utterer. Here we have
a complex state of affairs. In algebraic terms, it includes at least the
variables:
D(U, A, p).
The desire is usually not enough. For U has to find the LINGUISTIC means to
report to A that the cat is on the mat. Luckily, there is an English
expression that fits that bill, or foots the bill, I'm never sure. To wit.
"The cat is on the mat".
In the nineteenth-century, theorists argued about the evolutionary origin
of language, and communication featured large.
To what extent is the 'ouch' theory (the expression-theory) OPPOSED to the
communication-theory?
It may be argued that if U COMMUNICATES via lingo to A that the cat is on
the mat, he has expressed his BELIEF that the cat is on the mat. That is why
lingo has different _modes_, and 'the cat is on the mat' is indicative.
But there is optative:
Ah, for the cat to be on the mat (Expressed in a different verb in
Tagalog).
In this case, U expresses not his belief THAT the cat is on the mat but
his desire FOR the cat to be on the mat.
From there to Shakespeare's Sonnets, it's all a matter of degree -- with
this or that complication: Does Shakespeare communicate to his lady that he
wonders in how many ways he loves her? Is 'her' really a 'her', or is
Shakespeare's addressee really Wriothesley? Does Shakespeare care for
addressees
OTHER than the earl of Southampton?
None of these obstancles are unsurmountable to the Griceian! but a matter
of a tweak here or there.
Heidegger seems to agree when he speaks of Sprache as falling within the
MIT-SEIN, not the DA-SEIN. I.e. Sprache starts when SEIN realises that he is
with another SEIN, usually, in the case of Heidegger, his wife. He called
'the marriage of true minds', 'mitsein', or 'being with'. And in his case,
Sprache was Deutsche (which etymology means, the lingo of the 'people' --
from 'deut', people).
And so on.
Cheers,
Speranza
