Grice on Meaning [Morgan Johnson]

1. I agree with Grice that the causal theory of meaning struggles to account for when "a particular speakers of writer" uses "a sign on a particular occasion (which may well diverge from the standard meaning of the sign)" (Grice, 1957, 381).  If x "must have (roughly) a tendency to produce in an audience some attitude" and have a "tendency, in the case of a speaker, to be produced by that attitude"in order to meanNN, whenever a person uses a sign, it's meaning must line up with the standard interpretation of that sign but, in many scenarios, signs can be mean different things in different contexts (379). For example, 'Smith is farming' would most likely indicate Smith is growing and harvesting plants for food, but in some particular circumstances, such when playing a video game, 'Smith is farming' would mean Smith is killing enemy units in order to gain currency, and I agree with Grice that that causal theory of meaning would have difficulty accounting for examples like this one and the ones he includes in his article.

2. I disagree with Grice over his example of failing someone on an exam he gave. Grice says that "as an examiner" if he fails a person, Grice will likely "cause him distress or indignation or humiliation" and if he was vindictive, he would have intended this effect to happen, but Grice claims that he would "not be inclined to say that my failing him meantNN anything" (384). It seems to me that failing the student does mean something because even if Grice did not intend to attach any meaning to failing the student, the impact of that student failing would develop a meaning as it would transition to a lower grade, a failed class, etc, each of which have meaning.

3. A potential objection to Grice's theory of meaning would be against his claim on page 386 that "the indented effect must be something within the control of the audience, or at least the sort of thing which is within its control" (Grice, 1957, 386). Placing the intended effect in the control of the audience might create situations in which the utterer intended to convey one thing, but the audience, takes his statement as intending something else. For example, lets say person has the reputation of lying often, and when he is leaving a store and, when asked, says that he purchased the items he is carrying. He would intend the clerk asking him about the items to recognize that he is leaving a store carrying items in the open, and have the clerk recognize he paid for them, and then let him leave, but due to his reputation, he is accused of theft, because the clerk believes the man intended to convince them that he paid for the items when he actually didn't. Here, there is a disconnect in meaning and communication between the man and the clerk because the audience misinterpreted his intention and the effect he wanted to create.