[lit-ideas] Re: Suppes on Grice: Hands Across the Bay
- From: Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 16:16:55 +0100
Of course, there is a couple of problems with using such internalistic
notions as "utterer's intentions" or "utterer's intuitions" for some kind
of scientific (e.g. linguistic) inquiry. Intentions or intuitions are not
empirically observable, we can only ask the speakers about their intentions
/ intuitions and take their word for it (or not). If on the other hand we
are attempting to infer intentions from what is said or from the context,
then it turns that the notion of 'intentions" is reducible to meaning or
usage and probably needs an Ockham razor.
From similar reasons, I think, literary criticism that was centered on the
notion of 'authorial intention' never got very far; either we are infering
the authorial intention from the text itself in which case the notion of
'intention' adds nothing useful to what we otherwise understand from the
text, or we are infering it from extra-textual sources (e.g. the author's
private diary) which are themselves no more reliable.
O.K.
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Redacted sender Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx for
DMARC <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> My last post today!
>
> There is an interesting essay by Suppes on Grice in P. G. R. I. C. E.,
> entitled, "The primacy of utterer's meaning", that may relate to O.
> Kusturica's
> commentary on the role of shared intentions and pragmatics and whether one
> should concentrate on one speaker, two speakers, three speakers, or what
> (or utterers, as I prefer).
>
> In that essay, Suppes considers three critics of Grice, and defends Grice
> against them. The three authors are Biro, Chomsky, and Yu.
>
> In fact, Biro was fascinated by Suppes's criticism, and wrote back to him.
> Their point concerns the distinction between observation and theory. One
> observes particular utterers but some think they can provide a theory for
> more than one utterer.
>
> While Suppes speaks of 'geometry' he concludes that what Grice is into is a
> 'physics' of meaning, since physics is much less abstract than geometry,
> and there's nothing abstract about utterer's meaning and its primacy.
>
> "The virtue of Grice's ideas is to require a strong sense of congruence",
> Suppes notes. And this, while geometrical in origin, finds its best
> realisation in physics.
>
> Suppes goes on to refer to permutational congruence alla Grice.
>
> He provides two pairs of examples:
>
> "All men are mortal"
> "Every man is mortal"
>
> and
>
> "John and Mary are here"
> "Mary and John are here"
>
> "I have argued ...", Suppes writes, "that what we should have is what I
> have termed a "geometrical" theory of meaning. By this I mean that we
> replace
> the search for any fixed concept of synonymy by a hierarchy of concepts of
> congruence as is familiar in modern geometry."
>
> Suppes criticises Yu's stipulative/descriptive definitions -- and we agree
> with Suppes!
>
> Yu's comments are, Suppes notes (and I agree), based on 'bad philosophy of
> science'.
>
> Suppes: Yu's distinction is "as useful in the theory of explanation as is
> Aristotle's distinction between violent and natural motion in classical
> mechanics!"
>
> Grice is an intentionalist -- not a behaviourist, Suppes rightly notes.
>
> He writes: "It seems to me that Chomsky is badly off the mark" and I agree
> "in the passages" on Grice in "Reflections on language" on Grice being a
> behaviourist."
>
> "In terms of more reasoned and dispassionate analyses, it seems to me that
> one would ordinarily think of Grice not as a behaviourist" -- as Ryle was
> -- "but as an intentionalist" -- as the good ole phenomenologists.
>
> When does Suppes speak of congruence? Suppes speaks of congruence, when he
> writes that "in affine geometry that makes any two triangles CONGRUENT."
>
> The idea of 'literal meaning' is an ABSTRACT one, in the literal sense of
> 'abstract'.
>
> Chomsky thinks 'literal meaning' INTRUDES. It never does!
>
> Suppes: "It would seem odd if someone were to ask me what I'm doing (he
> sees me writing an entry in my journal) and I were to reply:"
>
> "I am writing an entry in my journal -- and with STRICT MEANING, but of
> course it is NOT SUPPOSED to 'communicate' anything."
> Of course it communicates!
>
> Section I of Suppes on Grice: Suppes on Chomsky on Grice: the three
> issues: literal meaning, rules, and behaviourism
>
> Suppes notes: "Chomsky discusses Grice's theory of meaning along with a
> rather detailed discussion of related views of Strawson."
>
> Suppes writes: "Grice's own formulations of basic concepts are technical
> and intricate. It is a SURPRISING feature of his critics that they do not
> ENTER into real deatails of these analyses."
>
> Let p be a proposition and let *psi be a mood marker. Or mode-marker as
> Moravcsik would prefer.
>
> As Grice puts it, psi is 'an auxiliary correlated with a propositional
> attitude psi from a given range of propositional attitudes.'
>
> U means by uttering x that *psi p - U utters x intending
>
> i. that A should actively psi that p.
> ii. that A should recognize that U intends (i)
> iii. that the fulfillment of (i) should be based on the fulfillment of
> (ii).
>
>
> Suppes writes: "A central aspect of H. Paul Grice's theory of MEANING is
> the basic character of utterer's meaning".
>
> And it is.
>
> "This feature of Grice's theory has been criticized
> severely because of its deviation from the conception
> of semantics as an autonomous discipline independent
> of such general psychological concepts as speakers'
> intentions and listeners' recognition of intentions."
>
> Only I prefer 'utterer' and 'addresee'. Suppes goes on:
>
> "I believe that Grice is right and his critics are wrong."
>
> As most here at the Grice club! Suppes writes: "The purpose of this essay
> is to offer my reasons for holding this view", which may be worth
> reviewing.
>
>
> "Before getting down to business, there are some preliminary matters to get
> out of the way."
>
> "First, concerning the statement of Grice's views I primarily depend upon
> his three important
> essays ("Meaning", "Utterer's Meaning and Intentions", and "Utterer's
> Meaning, Sentence Meaning, and Word Meaning")."
>
> "The critics I shall explicitly consider are Chomsky ("Reflections on
> language"), Yu (On Grice) and Biro (Intentionalism)."
>
> Suppes has a footnote: "It is a pleasure to dedicate this essay to H. Paul
> Grice, who over the years has patiently instructed me on more philosophical
> points than I can HOPE to remember."
>
>
> Suppes: "Grice's programme is to use the
> basic notion of utterer's meaning
> to EXPLICATE at the next level
> of abstraction the concept of
> utterance-type occasion-meaning."
>
> "At the next higher level is the analysis of the concept of the applied
> timeless meaning of an utterance-type (complete or incomplete) on a
> particular
> occasion of utterance."
>
> "Finaly, we reach the timeless meaning of an utterance-type."
>
> Suppes met Grice when Grice had already settled in Berkeley and was engaged
> in the "Hands-Across-the-Bay" programme. The Bay being San Francisco's
> Bay, since Suppes was settled on what Grice called the 'wrong' side of it
> (the
> bay).
>
> Cheers,
>
> Speranza
>
> References:
>
> Suppes, P. "The primacy of utterer's meaning", in P. G. R. I. C. E.
> (Philosophical Grounds of Rationality: Intentions, Categories, Ends).
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
>
Other related posts:
