1. I agree with Grice that implicature is an important concept to introduce when considering conversation. Clearly, the intention of the speaker will not always have the same meaning of what is actually said, e.g., a sentence, and sometimes will hardly even be related to it. The way we get at what is implied requires some sort of an observation of the Cooperative Principle, context, convention, etc., and not an analysis of the sentence meaning alone.
2. I don't think I agree with Grice that his theory of implicature does much to resolve the conflict (or what I see the conflict as being based on Grice's introduction) between formalists and informalists. (Grice 1989, 23) I think his analysis of the conflict between formalists and informalists is spot on, but it seems like either can accept or see merit in Grice's theory of implicature and continue to believe that there are divergences in natural and logical/formal language.
3. Why does Grice think "that the mistake [of committing oneself to the view that natural language and logical/formal language diverge significantly] arises from inadequate attention to the nature and importance of the conditions governing conversation"? (Grice 1989, 24) It seems like what he shows is not that formalists and informalists are misguided in their arguing over divergences of the two kinds of languages, but if anything that the theory of implicature provides a better picture of what is going on in the domain of conversation. I was kind of confused by what he was trying to get across, but is he just making this milder claim, i.e., that local to the domain of conversation, the theory of implicature should supplant the idea that there are two diverging kinds of language that need to be accounted for?
No comments:
Post a Comment