I agree with Grice when he talks about the distinction between natural and non-natural meaning. This is because I do see how natural things and how a speaker says something are interpreted in two totally different ways, and they are treated as two distinct entities. Overall, I see why Grice separated these things into categories of natural and non-natural meanings for instances that require us to think about what the meaning really is between a natural occurrence or thing and an utterance by a speaker.
I am not sure that I completely agree with Grice when he talks about how an utterance has meaning only if the speaker intended for an audience to see the intention and how the meaning of a sentence is connected to the intention behind it. In my opinion, expressions can mean something without an audience, as long as they have some intention to it. I do not see how an audience is necessary for a sentence to have meaning, so I think this is a part where I might need a further explanation to fully understand where Grice is coming from with this.
A question I might have is for a more specific instance. What if my intentions are taken for something they are not intended for? Do we go off of what my target audience thinks I mean, or do we still go off of what my actual intentions are?
No comments:
Post a Comment