DOCSLIB.ORG

Three Views of Language & the Mind

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Three Views of Language & the Mind Three Views of Language & the Mind Jeffrey Speaks Submitted May 16, 2003 A dissertation presented to the faculty of Princeton University in Candidacy for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Recommended for acceptance by the Department of Philosophy November 2003 c by Jeff Speaks, 2003. All rights reserved. Abstract. The essay which follows is about the relationship between mind and language. Most recent thought about intentionality has it that (i) mental states of individuals are largely, or in the most fundamental cases, independent of social facts about public languages, and (ii) these social facts are derived from, or constituted by, the mental states of individuals. The purpose of this essay is to challenge this individualist orthodoxy (as well as the view of the relationship between mind and action which often accompanies it), and suggest in its place a communitarian picture of intentionality which gives public languages a role to play in the constitution of thought. iii Preface This essay is an attempt to give at least a partial answer to a traditional question about the relative priorities of mind and language: Is language prior to thought, or is thought prior to language? I defend the claim that the truth lies closer to the first of these alternatives than is usually supposed. But, as will become clear quickly in what follows, this simple-sounding traditional question breaks down into a number of different questions about the relationship between specific linguistic and mental phenomena. Because the issues involved with some of these may often seem far removed from our initial question, it will be useful to begin with a brief overview of the structure of what follows. As the title indicates, this essay is concerned with three different ways of answering this question; as you might expect, I argue against two, and defend the third. The two views I criticize are both ways of substantiating what I call the thesis of the priority of the mental, or, equivalently, the priority of the individual. To substantiate this thesis is to defend a claim about language, and a claim about the mental. The thesis about language is that the meaningfulness of public language expressions is derived from more fundamental facts about the mental states of individuals who use the lan- guage. This thesis may take one of two forms: [1a] Expressions in public languages have only a derivative kind of intentionality. In particular, the meanings of such expressions are constituted by the propositional attitudes — the beliefs and intentions — of speakers of the language. [1b] Expressions in public languages have only a derivative kind of intentionality. In particular, the meanings of such expressions are constituted by the meanings of expressions in private languages — in, that is, the idiolects or languages of thought of speakers of the language. The thesis about the mental is that the contentfulness of the mental states of individuals is not to be explained by facts about shared, public languages; rather, mental states are con- stituted in the first instance by facts about the individuals who have those thoughts. Again, this thesis can take two forms: iv [2a] Facts about the beliefs and thoughts of agents are prior to and independent of facts about the public languages spoken by those agents. In particular, we can say what it is for an agent to have a certain belief in terms of certain properties of internal states of that agent, which do not involve any facts about public languages. [2b] Facts about the beliefs and thoughts of agents are prior to and independent of facts about the public languages spoken by those agents. They are, however, derived from facts about the private languages of such agents. We can explain what it is for an agent to have a certain belief in terms of the contents of representations in that agent’s idiolect or language of thought, and can explain what it is for a representation in such a language to have such a content in terms which do not invoke any facts about meaning in shared, public languages. Each of these theses has, in one form or another, enjoyed wide support in recent analytic philosophy. The two views of language and the mind that I argue against in the first two parts of this essay are the mentalist picture of intentionality, which consists centrally of the a- theses above, and the private language picture of intentionality, which consists of the b-theses above. The structure of the essay is very simple. After Chapter 1, which explains some key methodological notions used in stating foundational claims about intentionality, I turn in Part I to critical examination of the mentalist picture of intentionality. Chapters 2 and 3 are devoted to showing the falsity of [1a], and Chapter 4 is targeted against [2a]. Many of the problems faced by mentalism can be seen as motivations for the private language picture of intentionality, with is another way of spelling out the thesis of the priority of the individual. Accordingly, in Part II I turn to discussion of this view, arguing in Chapter 5 that thesis [2b] is false, and in Chapter 6 that thesis [1b] is false. This opens the way to a defense of a communitarian picture of intentionality, which I present in Part III of the essay. Communitarianism is partly defined by the negations of the four theses above. It holds that many of the mental states of agents are constituted by facts about the public languages they speak. In Chapter 7, I show how the failure of individualism motivates such a view, and present a positive account of one such mental state — belief — in Chapter 8. Giving an account of the beliefs of agents partly in terms of the meanings of expressions of their public languages raises the question of what constitutes public language meaning. As it turns out, this question is only one of a number of related questions which threaten the communitarian position with circularity. I turn to discussion of these problems, some possible responses, and some of the philosophical consequences of communitarianism in Chapter 9. Part III leaves a number of important questions unanswered; in particular, I ignore the role of intentions in communitarianism. It is intended not to provide a full foundational account of intentionality, but rather to do no more than to show the possibility of a communitarian alternative to more well-worked out individualist views of thought and language. These issues have been much discussed in analytic philosophy in the last half-century; accordingly, many of the issues have become quite technical and complex. Sometimes it has v been impossible to avoid delving into technicalities in the main text; but, when possible, I have consigned discussion of complicated but relatively peripheral issues to appendices. Footnotes in the main text indicate when discussion in one of the appendices is relevant. ... This essay has benefited from conversations with and comments from a number of people in Princeton’s Department of Philosophy. I cannot single out the many conversations with fellow graduate students over the last few years which have, in a variety of ways, changed the shape of this dissertation; but I can say with certainty that it would have been much worse without their help. Special thanks are due to the members of the Dissertation Seminar of the last three years, and especially to Antony Eagle, who read and commented on large parts of the penultimate version of the essay. It is is similarly difficult to recall all of the individual instances in which members of the faculty contributed to this dissertation; but special thanks are owed to Paul Benacerraf, Sean Kelly, Mark Greenberg, Jim Pryor, Gideon Rosen, and Scott Soames. In particular, Mark introduced me to many of the topics in the philosophy of mind and language with which this essay is concerned in his seminar on mental content in the fall of 2000. I am sure that my approach to these problems, in more ways than I am aware, bears the stamp of Mark’s thinking. In the last several years he has read several drafts of various parts of the dissertation, and invariably has responded with helpful comments on both very general issues in the philosophy of mind and technical details of the relevant piece. Without his help, my understanding of the issues discussed in what follows would have been greatly impoverished. The person to whom I owe the greatest academic debt is my advisor, Scott Soames. In many places in the dissertation, I note that certain points or formulations are due to the advice of one or another philosopher; I have not followed this practice with respect to Scott’s comments, simply because such an acknowledgement would appear on virtually every page. Scott has read every page of what follows, some of them many times, and with each reading uncovered new objections to and implications of my work. In more than one case, whole sections of chapters emerged from Scott’s comments. I do not think that it is an overstatement to say that Scott taught me how to do philosophy in a rigorous and systematic way; for this, and much else, I am greatly in his debt. Of course, anyone who has written a dissertation has personal as well as academic debts to acknowledge. In my case, three stand out: my friends at Princeton, to whom I owe a very happy five years; my parents, to whom I owe ceaseless support and encouragement; and, most of all, Elyse Deeb, to whom I owe more than I can say. vi Table of Contents 1 Mentalism, Private Languages, & Communitarianism 1 1.1 Introduction .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association
    September 2007 Volume 81, Issue 1 Proceedings and Addresses of The American Philosophical Association apa THE AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL ASSOCIATION Eastern Division Program University of Delaware Newark, DE 19716 www.apaonline.org The American Philosophical Association Eastern Division One Hundred Fourth Annual Meeting Marriott Waterfront Hotel Baltimore, MD December 27 - 30, 2007 Proceedings and Addresses of The American Philosophical Association Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association (ISSN 0065-972X) is published five times each year and is distributed to members of the APA as a benefit of membership and to libraries, departments, and institutions for $75 per year. It is published by The American Philosophical Association, 31 Amstel Ave., University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716. Second-Class Postage Paid at Newark, DE and additional mailing offices. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to Proceedings and Addresses, The American Philosophical Association, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716. Editor: David E. Schrader Phone: (302) 831-1112 Publications Coordinator: Erin Shepherd Fax: (302) 831-8690 Associate Editor: Richard Bett Web: www.apaonline.org Meeting Coordinator: Linda Smallbrook Proceedings and Addresses of The American Philosophical Association, the major publication of The American Philosophical Association, is published five times each academic year in the months of September, November, January, February, and May. Each annual volume contains the programs for the meetings of the three Divisions; the membership list; Presidential Addresses; news of the Association, its Divisions and Committees, and announcements of interest to philosophers. Other items of interest to the community of philosophers may be included by decision of the Editor or the APA Board of Officers.
    [Show full text]
  • 9:30 - 11:00 SZB, Room 240
    PHILOSOPHY OF LANGUAGE Department of Philosophy, UT, Austin Phil 332, Spring 2013 Unique Number 42755 T/TH: 9:30 - 11:00 SZB, Room 240 INSTRUCTOR Lawrence Ray Buchanan E-mail: [email protected] Phone: (512) 471-7396 Office: Waggener Hall 4th Floor Room # 416B Office hours: Tuesdays 11:30 – 12:30 COURSE SUMMARY The course focuses on various philosophical issues concerning language. Topics to be discussed include, but are not limited to, the following: speaker-meaning, conversational implicature, sentence/expression-meaning, reference, modality, and propositional attitude ascriptions. COURSE REQUIREMENTS Assignments: • Two 6-7 page papers on topics selected from a list of prompts given by instructor. The first of these papers will be worth 20% of the student’s final grade for the course; the second will be worth 25% of the grade for the course. • One in-class midterm worth 25% of the student’s final grade. • A take-home final exam worth 25% of the grade. • Class participation and attendance (5%). Regarding the *participation* component of your grade: I expect regular attendance and participation in our course. Moreover, I expect you to have read the material for lecture carefully in advance. However, should my expectations on either front fail to be met, I reserve the right to assign (short) in-class written assignments regarding the required reading for the day that will then be counted towards the participation component of your grade. Late work: I do not accept work after the due date without a valid documented excuse. Please Note: One of the principal aims of this course is to give students experience with writing in an academic discipline.
    [Show full text]
  • Representation and Deconstruction of Turkish German Stereotypes Through Gegen Die Wand and Kebab Connections
    University of Tennessee, Knoxville TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Supervised Undergraduate Student Research Chancellor’s Honors Program Projects and Creative Work 5-2011 Representation and Deconstruction of Turkish German Stereotypes through Gegen die Wand and Kebab Connections Charli Celine Kerns [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_chanhonoproj Part of the Other German Language and Literature Commons Recommended Citation Kerns, Charli Celine, "Representation and Deconstruction of Turkish German Stereotypes through Gegen die Wand and Kebab Connections" (2011). Chancellor’s Honors Program Projects. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_chanhonoproj/1428 This Dissertation/Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Supervised Undergraduate Student Research and Creative Work at TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Chancellor’s Honors Program Projects by an authorized administrator of TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Representation and Deconstruction of Turkish German Stereotypes through Gegen die Wand and Kebab Connections Charli Kerns Honors Thesis submitted German Section of the Department Of Modern Foreign Languages and Literatures College of Art and Sciences Introduction: When we as the audience watch a film, we step into a world overtly comprised of plot, climax, and resolution. However, in every film, cultural nuances covertly exist that repossess
    [Show full text]
  • Stephen Neale, Facing Facts, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2001, Xv + 254 Pp
    Stephen Neale, Facing Facts, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2001, xv + 254 pp. Reviewed by Jaroslav Peregrin, Department of Logic, Institute of Philosophy, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Jilská 1, 110 00 Praha 1, Czech Republic. E-mail: [email protected]. It is now often taken for granted that facts are entia non grata, for there exists a powerful argument (dubbed the slingshot), which is backed by such great names as Frege or Gödel or Davidson (and so could hardly be wrong), that discredits their existence. There indeed is such an argument, and it indeed is not wrong on the straightforward sense of wrong. However, in how far it knocks down any conception of facts is another story, a story which is anything but simple and perspicuous. In his book, Stephen Neale takes pains to excavate the origins of the argument and the presuppositions which it needs to be usable for the purpose of exorcising facts. In the introduction of the book, Neale expresses his conviction that his analysis of the slingshot will not only compromise its usability for the purpose of discrediting facts, but also save representationalist conceptions of language and mind from the attacks of the anti- representationalist philosophers like Davidson and Rorty. „Representational philosophy,“ he claims, „survives the Davidson-Rorty onslaught because non-truth-functional logics and ontologies of facts, states of affairs, situations and propositions survive not only the actual arguments deployed against them, but also the most precise and powerful slingshot arguments that can be constructed.“ However, what he does take his analyses to show is that „the most precise and powerful slingshot arguments demonstrate conclusively that the logical and ontological theories originally targeted must satisfy non-trivial conditions if they are to avoid logical or ontological collapse.“ (P.
    [Show full text]
  • Review of "Bertrand Russell De La Logique À La Politique", Special Issue of Herm
    Reviews 103 A FRENCH PERSPECTIVE ON RUSSELL ALASDAIR URQUHART Philosophy / University ofToronto Toronto, Ont., Canada M5S IAI Bertrand Russell de fa logique a fa politique. Hermes. NO.7 (1990). Paris: Edi­ tions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique. Pp. ii, 303. 8sE he new journal Hermes, which first appeared in 1988, bears the subtitle T "Cognition, Communication, Politique" and has set itself the admirable goal of introducing French readers to analytic philosophy, theories of ethics, and systems theory, in order to rescue internal French debate from the bog in which it is stuck. The publication of the present volume, containing a varied 104 Reviews Reviaus 105 collection of essays on both the technical and political writings of Russell, opens with an admirable essay by Alan Ryan; this is not a summary of his testifies to increasing French interest in Russell, an interest shown also in the recent book, but a clearly written critical discussion of the philosophical recent publication of a collection of Russell's writings on philosophical logic background of Russell's political writings, his ambivalence towards pacifism, (introduced and translated by J. M.. Roy), and of new translations (by Fran­ and his relationship with his public. Adam Stephenson expresses dissatisfac­ rrois Rivenc) of The Problems ofPhilosophy and Introduction to Mathematical tion that Russell never produced his grand work of Hegelian synthesis; this Philosophy. failure is blamed on Russell's atomism and individualism, which leave man a The first part of the collection is devoted to philosophy and logic. In the "metaphysical orphan". Dominique Colas provides a brief and sympathetic opening section of this part, on logic and ontology, Philippe de Rouilhan note on Russell's trip to the Soviet Union.
    [Show full text]
  • Putnam and Davidson on Coherence, Truth, and Justification
    The Science of Mind (精神科学) 54 (2016), pp. 51-70. Putnam and Davidson on Coherence, Truth, and Justification Lajos L. Brons Nihon University In the early 1980s both Donald Davidson and Hilary Putnam defended theories that superficially appear to be coherence theories of truth, but that upon closer inspection turn out to be better understood as coherence theories of justification (or perhaps, not as coherence theories at all). In Reason, Truth and History (1981a), Putnam argued that “truth is an idealization of rational acceptability” (55), and that rational acceptability of statements is their “coherence and fit” (id.). And in the same year Davidson gave a talk that would be published two years later as “A Coherence Theory of Truth and Knowledge” (1983) in which he defended “what may as well be called a coherence theory of truth and knowledge” (137). There are more interesting similarities between Putnam’s and Davidson’s theories than their closeness in dates of birth, however, and in later work Putnam’s theory further converged with Davidson’s. Furthermore, the most conspicuous difference – the role and nature of “conceptual schemes” – turns out to be smaller and more subtle than it may seem at a first glance. This paper introduces Putnam’s and Davidson’s coherence theories, and discusses the most important differences and similarities. The following two sections summarize “middle” Putnam’s and Davidson’s coherence theories respectively. The two sections after that look into the apparent disagreement on the possibility of different conceptual schemes, and discuss further developments in Putnam’s view and the consequent convergence of Putnam’s and Davidson’s coherentisms.
    [Show full text]
  • Rafts, Boats, and Cruise Ships Verhaegh, Sander
    University of Groningen Rafts, Boats, and Cruise Ships Verhaegh, Sander IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from it. Please check the document version below. Document Version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Publication date: 2015 Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database Citation for published version (APA): Verhaegh, S. (2015). Rafts, Boats, and Cruise Ships: Naturalism and holism in Quine’s philosophy. University of Groningen. Copyright Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons). The publication may also be distributed here under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the “Taverne” license. More information can be found on the University of Groningen website: https://www.rug.nl/library/open-access/self-archiving-pure/taverne- amendment. Take-down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum. Download date: 02-10-2021 RAFTS, BOATS, AND CRUISE SHIPS Naturalism and Holism in Quine’s Philosophy SANDER VERHAEGH RAFTS,BOATS,ANDCRUISESHIPS © Sander Verhaegh, Groningen, 2015 Cover design: Anne Jansen.
    [Show full text]
  • Proceedings Vol. 86, No. 1
    September 2012 Volume 86, Issue 1 Proceedings and Addresses of The American Philosophical Association apa The AmericAn PhilosoPhicAl AssociATion Eastern Division Program University of Delaware Newark, DE 19716 www.apaonline.org The American Philosophical Association Eastern Division One Hundred Ninth Annual Meeting Marriott Atlanta Marquis Atlanta, GA December 27 - 30, 2012 Proceedings and Addresses of The American Philosophical Association Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association (ISSN 0065-972X) is published five times each year and is distributed to members of the APA as a benefit of membership and to libraries, departments, and institutions for $75 per year. It is published by The American Philosophical Association, 31 Amstel Ave., University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716. Periodicals Postage Paid at Newark, DE and additional mailing offices. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to Proceedings and Addresses, The American Philosophical Association, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716. Editor: Amy E. Ferrer Phone: (302) 831-1112 Publications Coordinator: Erin Shepherd Fax: (302) 831-8690 Associate Editor: Richard Bett Web: www.apaonline.org Meeting Coordinator: Linda Smallbrook Proceedings and Addresses of The American Philosophical Association, the major publication of The American Philosophical Association, is published five times each academic year in the months of September, November, January, February, and May. Each annual volume contains the programs for the meetings of the three Divisions; the membership list; Presidential Addresses; news of the Association, its Divisions and Committees, and announcements of interest to philosophers. Other items of interest to the community of philosophers may be included by decision of the editor or the APA Board of Officers.
    [Show full text]
  • Dissertation Deposit Draft
    SPEECH ACT THEORETIC SEMANTICS by DANIEL W. HARRIS A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty in Philosophy in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, The City University of New York 2014 ii © 2014 DANIEL WALLACE HARRIS All Rights Reserved iii This manuscript has been read and accepted for the Graduate Faculty in Philosophy in satisfaction of the dissertation requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Gary Ostertag ______________ ____________________________________________________ Date Chair of Examining Committee Iakovos Vasiliou ______________ ____________________________________________________ Date Executive Officer Ernie Lepore Michael Devitt David Rosenthal Stephen Neale ____________________ Supervisory Committee THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK iv Abstract SPEECH ACT THEORETIC SEMANTICS by Daniel W. Harris Adviser: Professor Stephen Neale Abstract: I defend the view that linguistic meaning is a relation borne by an expression to a type of speech act, and that this relation holds in virtue of our overlapping communicative dispositions, and not in virtue of linguistic conventions. I argue that this theory gives the right account of the seman- tics–pragmatics interface and the best-available semantics for non-declarative clauses, and show that it allows for the construction of a rigorous compositional semantic theory with greater ex- planatory power than both truth-conditional and dynamic semantics. v PREFACE & ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Te ideas of Paul Grice have come up ofen during the
    [Show full text]
  • Pragmatism and Binding
    From Z. Szabó (ed.) Semantics versus Pragmatics, Oxford University Press, 2005, pp. 165-285. (Pagination matched as closely as possible) 5 Pragmatism and Binding Stephen Neale* 1. Introduction Names, descriptions, and demonstratives raise well-known logical, ontological, and epistemological problems. Perhaps less well known, amongst philosophers at least, are the ways in which some of these problems not only recur with pronouns but also cross-cut further problems exposed by the study in generative linguistics of morpho-syntactic constraints on interpretation. These problems will be my primary concern here, but I want to address them within a general picture of interpretation that is required if wires are not to be crossed. That picture will be sketched in sections 3 and 4; subsequent sections will focus on pronouns and binding, drawing heavily on what has preceded. * It will be obvious to linguists that this chapter is written by a philosopher, albeit one very sympathetic to the generative enterprise as articulated over the years by Noam Chomsky. Chomsky’s ideas permeate both the syntactic and philosophical theses pushed here. As I was completing the chapter I was introduced to several works in linguistics I wish I had seen earlier, in particular Bresnan (2001), Elbourne (2001, 2002), Jacobson (1999, 2000), Kayne (2002), Keenan (2002), Reuland (2001a,b), Reuland and Sigurjónsdóttir (1997), Safir (forthcoming), and Szabolcsi (2003). I gesture towards some of these in various footnotes (Very likely I would have gone about certain matters a little differently if I had come across these works earlier; and I am not convinced some of the discussion could not be more usefully formulated within variable-free systems.) I thank the members of the NYU Linguistics Department for inviting me to present this work at their colloquium series— discussion (then and subsequently) with Mark Baltin, Paul Elbourne, Richard Kayne, Paul Postal, Anna Szabolcsi, and Michal Starke was most helpful.
    [Show full text]
  • NOTES on MINDREADING, METAREPRESENTATION, and MIMESIS Stephen Neale
    NOTES ON MINDREADING, METAREPRESENTATION, AND MIMESIS Stephen Neale We want to understand the relations these abilities bear to one another, in current cognition and evolutionarily: (1) our ability to comprehend expressions (word, phrases, sentences) (2) our ability to interpret utterances (3) our ability to interpret communicative behaviour (4) our ability to interpret intentional behaviour (5) our ability to figure things out (all-purpose reasoning; inference to the best explanation) 1 MINDREADING AND MODULARITY The idea: utterance interpretation—whether we are dealing with linguistic or non-linguistic utterances—is a form of mindreading, construed as the capacity to infer the mental states of others (e.g. beliefs, desires, intentions) from their behaviour. Just an instance? Or a special case involving proprietary capacities? It is widely assumed that answering that question requires understanding the extent to which utterance interpretation is modular. Fodor (1983). Our cognitive architecture contains dedicated input systems (e.g. the perceptual systems). On Fodor’s account they are fast, mandatory, domain-specific, informationally encapsulated. And they manifestly include a linguistic comprehension system. But does this yields representations of sentence meanings? Of what is said? Of what is meant? Cosmides and Tooby (1994), and Pinker (1997) have provided an alternative, evolutionary perspective: Modules are “designed” by natural selection to solve some particular adaptive problem faced by hunter-gatherers in the Pleistocene—finding
    [Show full text]
  • Paul Grice and the Philosophy of Language
    STEPHEN NEALE PAUL GRICE AND THE PHILOSOPHY OF LANGUAGE The work of the late Paul Grice (1913-1988) exerts a powerful influence on the way philosophers, linguists, and cognitive scientists think about meaning and communication. With respect to a particular sentence & and an "utterer" U, Grice stressed the philosophical importance of separating (i) what b)means, (ii) what U said on a given occasion by uttering 4), and (iii) what U meant by uttering 4 on that occasion. Second, he provided systematic attempts to say precisely what meaning is by providing a series of more refined analyses of utterer's meaning, sentence meaning, and what is said. Third, Grice produced an account of how it is possible for what U says and what U means to diverge. Fourth, by characterizing a philosophically important distinction between the "genuinely semantic" and "merely pragmatic" implications of a statement, Grice clarified the relationship between classical logic and the semantics of natural language. Fifth, he provided some much needed philosophical ventilation by deploy ing his notion of "implicature" to devastating effect against certain over zealous strains of "OrdinaryLanguage Philosophy", without himself aban doning the view that philosophy must pay attention to the nuances of ordinary talk. Sixth, Grice undercut some of the most influential argu ments for a philosophically significant notion of "presupposition". Today, Grice's work lies at the center of research on the semantics pragmatics distinction and shapes much discussion of the relationship between language andmind. In a nutshell, Grice has forced philosophers and linguists to think very carefully about the sorts of facts a semantic theory is supposed to account for and to reflect upon the most central theoretical notions, notions that otherwise might be taken for granted or employed without due care and attention.
    [Show full text]