I agreed with Grice's assertion in "Logic and Conversation" that there seem to be certain rules governing conversation which determine how we understand each other. We can understand sarcasm, metaphors, etc when we converse with one another which would have to mean that there are conventions or rules regarding conversation different from those regarding language since the literal meaning of such phrases are different from the figurative meaning.
I do not, however, agree that these rules of conversation somehow map onto language. If something is implied by sarcasm or a metaphor, it is just that - implied - the meaning of the words themselves shouldn't change. Even though language is an artifice of humans, I think it should be separate from conversation in terms of meanings of words. By making it separate in this way, it allows sarcasm and metaphor to be analyzed in terms of how novel and apt they are, not just if they get a certain point across.
I am confused as to how Grice arrived at the conclusion that "'A meant[nn] something by x' is roughly equivalent to 'A uttered x with the intention of inducing a belief by means of the recognition of this intention'" (Grice 1957, 384). I don't see why the recognition by the audience is necessary.
No comments:
Post a Comment