I agree with Grice in regards to his differentiation between natural and non-natural meanings when giving analyzing the word ‘meaning’. I think that it is quite important to know that depending on how people use the word ‘meaning’ in a sentence, where the main difference is in one case when one uses the word ‘means’ they are not making an assumption but rather an absolute (“these spots mean measles”)(Grice, meaning, 377), as opposed to making an assumption (“Those three rings on the bell (of the bus) mean that the 'bus is full.'")(Grice, meaning, 377).
I disagree with Grice for some aspects of natural meaning. More specifically on his example of, “The recent budget means that we shall have a hard year.”(Grice, meaning, 379). I am interpreting natural meaning as statements where the meaning must be true, such as “the recent budget means that we shall have a hard year, but we shan’t have” in some sense makes sense to me, because despite if there was a shortage in budget, it is still possible to not have a hard year. I do not understand how this case is categorized as a natural meaning.
Is there a difference from Grice’s point of view between one’s utterances between what a person says, as opposed to what the person is actually conveying? There is a big distinction between the two in terms of the meaning, and I was wondering what Grice would view the difference as.
I think in both instances the process of meaning is different, but the same meaning is resulted in the end. For example, if two people were trying to show you where the bathroom is, where by one was uttering and another was conveying, the way that they will differ will be based on how you interpret the intention's from person to other. An if these intention's are both the same, then they will both bring the same meaning.
ReplyDelete