Grice [Korey Nuehs]

1.       Write 2 -3 sentences (not any more) stating something you agreed with in the readings from Grice. You should attempt to express agreement with something related to what you understand as the main point of the article.

I agree with Grice’s Cooperative Principle in regards to conversation. I wonder how far this can be taken, especially in regards to literature and poetry, which are in a way forms of conversation, or as Auden puts it, “art is our chief means of breaking bread with the dead”. Although in 'New Criticism' author intention is irrelevant, the author’s psychological states still influence the direction of a piece of literature, no doubt along lines similar to the Cooperative Principle, granted these principles would need to expanded a bit to account for poetic license.

2.      

         Write 2 - 3 sentences (not any more) stating something that disagreed with in the readings for that day. You should attempt to express agreement with something related to what you understand as the main point of the article.

I disagree with that in order for something to have meaning, non-naturally, it must have a speaker’s intention and the audience must recognize the intentions of the speaker. I feel that a sentence can have meaning without a speaker’s intention or an audience.

3.    

          Raise an objection about Grice's theory of meaning or his theory of conversational implicature.

It seems to me that someone could say something that is meaningful without any conscious intention on the part of the speaker, e.g., surrealism draws on the unconscious to produce meaningful sentences all the time (Of course, maybe Grice’s theory could or does account for this phenomena, or he might just conclude that they are, in fact, meaningless).