GRICE - MEANING, LOGIC AND CONVERSATION

GRICE

• Grice includes the subject (speaker) in his theory
• Meaning is defined in relation to the speaker´s intention
• Meaning is the locutor´s intention in relation to the interlocutor
• The speaker is aware of his/her own intentions and believes they can be transmitted.
• Language becomes a tool at the speaker´s service to communicate his/her intentions.
•Grice (1957) is concerned with the types of meaning which can be identified in language.

The first distinction made is between natural meaning and nonnatural meaning:





NATURAL MEANING

(1a) "Those spots mean (meant) measles."

"Those spots didn’t mean anything to me, but to the doctor they meant measles."

(1a) Those spots meant measles.
(1b) Those spots meant measles, and he had measles.
(1c) *Those spots meant measles, but he hadn’t got measles.
(1d) Those spots didn’t mean measles, and he didn’t have measles.

In example (1a), the relationship between spots and measles is a natural one; one cannot state this relationship and then deny that it is true (1c).




Both propositions p mean (spots, measles) and q have(x, measles) must have the same truth value for the sentence to make sense (1b & 1d).

In semantic terms, p meant that q entails q.

• These are cases of natural meaning (meaning (n)

• In general terms, natural meaning refers to symptoms, signals or a state of affairs.

“The recent budget means that we shall have a hard year.”

• See that not all the examples of natural meaning refer to events or natural facts – the last one refers to a budget.

• In the case of natural meaning, the link between the signal and the state it indicates DOES NOT depend on agency.

• The relation established between spots e measles is natural: it is not possible to state the existence of a situation and at the same time deny it.


• Grices provides examples of sentences which he classifies as representing cases of nonnatural meaning:

2) (a) Those three rings on the bell (of the bus) mean that the bus is full.
(b) Those three rings on the bell (of the bus) mean that the bus is full, and in fact, the bus is full.
(c) Those three rings on the bell (of the bus) mean that the bus is full, but in fact, the conductor has got it wrong and the bus isn’t full.
In the examples above, the relationship between the ringing of the bell and the bus being full is a nonnatural one.

Essentially, the meaning is conveyed because of a conventional link between that signal and the intended meaning.

There is no natural reason why three rings rather than one or two should convey this meaning, it is simply an accepted fact.

Grice terms this as ‘meaningNN’, and his contention is that much of language is concerned with this type of non-natural meaning.

He uses the following formula to represent this:
“Sentence x meantNN something (on a particular occasion).”

This concept of meaningNN is then taken beyond the level of a particular instance of meaning, and is applied to first sentence-meaning and then speaker-meaning.

This idea is explained in a simplified fashion in this quotation from Grice (1968):

““U meant (nonnaturally) something by uttering x”, [which can be formulated as]

“For some audience A, U intended his utterance of x to produce in A some effect (response) E, by means of A’s recognition of that intention.””

Grice places emphasis on the role of speaker-intention in the process of meaning-recognition.

This is the first step towards his reductive theory of speaker and sentence meaning.
Two stages are proposed:
(1) Speaker-meaningNN is explained in terms of utterer’s intentions.
(2) Sentence-meaningNN is explained in terms of speaker-meaning.

Therefore, Grice has developed a reductive analysis of sentence-meaning in terms of utterer’s intentions.

Let us take each of these stages in turn:

The first stage:
(1) “Speaker A meantNN something by sentence x (on a particular occasion).”

If we take the utterance:

“Terry is a good electrician.”

Grice argues that there are three necessary and sufficient conditions for speaker-meaning:
1. Speaker’s intention that his utterance should induce the belief that ‘Terry is a good electrician’ in his Audience.
2. Speaker intends that the Audience should recognise the intention behind his utterance.
3. Audience’s recognition of Speaker’s intention plays a part in explaining why the Audience should form this belief.


(Fundamental notions: the importance of speaker intention and the concept of language as an active protagonist in the communication of information.)

As a Hearer, I should recognise why you said
something, and any change in my beliefs should come (at least in part) from what is said.

Communication an active process where a Speaker (or Communicator) attempts to convey their belief to the Hearer.





A contrast is drawn between a person showing Mr. A a photograph of Mrs. A and Mr. B being ‘over familiar’ versus a person drawing a picture for Mr. A of the same event.

Drawing a picture shows an intention to convey the information, whereas a photograph could be seen by chance and cause a change of beliefs in Mr. A without input from another interlocutor.

The distinction being made is that in the case of the drawing, it is necessary for the other interactant to create the drawing in order to affect Mr. A’s beliefs. Whereas, in the case of the photograph, the interactant’s role is not strictly necessary – the photograph could be viewed by Mr. A without another person’s involvement.

According to Grice, the important aspect of speaker-meaning can be derived from speaker-intention.
The second stage:
(2) “Sentence x meansNN (timeless) something (that so-and-so).”

For example:
The sentence “Terry is a good electrician” meansNN (timeless) that Terry is a good electrician.

The speaker-meaning which has been identified via speaker-intention can only be said to be that sentence’s sentence-meaning if the elements of that sentence “Terry is a good
electrician” are conventionally associated with the speaker-meaning which has been identified.

In other words, the utterance:

Blue is a fat cat.

only meansNN (timeless) if there is an X, such that X is a cat, such that X is known as Blue, such that X is fat.
Here we are concerned with conventional meaningNN.


- Meaning is not in the signal; it is in the speaker´s intention.


CONVERSATIONAL PRINCIPLE: CO-OPERATION

The idea that conversation proceeds according to a principle, known and applied by all human beings, was first proposed by the philosopher Paul Grice (Logic and Conversation, 1967/1975), who put forward what he described as the co-operative principle.




Grice observed that conversations are governed by a cooperative principle:

“You should make your conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged”.

This implies that you need no and should not supply information which you can assume that your audience already has.

According to this principle, we interpret language on the assumption that its sender is obeying four maxims. These maxims concert what should be said in a conversation and how it should be said.

1. the maxim of quality
2. the maxim of quantity
3. the maxim of relation
4. the maxim of manner

Using this assumption, combined with general knowlwdge of the world, the receiver (interlocutor/hearer) can reason from the literal, semantic meaning of what is said to the pragmatic meaning, and identify what the sender is intending to do with his or her words.

1. the maxim of quality

Be true. Be truthful.
Do not say what you believe to be false.
Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence .

2. the maxim of quantity

Make your contribution as informative but not more informative than is required.

3. the maxim of relation

Be relevant.

4. the maxim of manner

Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity).
Avoid ambiguity.
Avoid obscurity.
Be orderly (present the information in an order that is pragmatically adequate for the conversation).

EXAMPLE:
In the case of a neighbour´s utterance:

There is a cat stuck under the gate at number 67.

(i) From my experience of the world, I know that a cat is likely to be very unhappy at being stuck under a gate; that a human is likely to be able to free such cat; that humans generally like to alleviate the suffering of pets;

(ii) From the co-operative principle, I also assumed that my neighbour was telling the truth (there is no evidence that she was lying or playing a practical joke);

(iii) I assumed by neighbour was being relevant.

Taking all this into account, I interpret this utterance as a request for help in freeing the cat.

Pragmatic meaning of the utterance:

Come and free the cat which is stuck under the gate at number 67.





FLOUTING A MAXIM

(A speaker may violate or opt out of a maxim in such a way that the listener can be assumed to understand that this is being done, with the intention of producing different meaning effects and implicatures).
It is important to understand that, in Grice´s concept of meaning, an implicature is what is implicated (implied) as a result of what was said, without being explicitly stated in the words being used in the utterance.

maxim of quality

I have millions of beer bottles in my cellar.
My car breaks down every five minutes.

- not literally true;
- perceived as figures of speech, hyperbole, metaphor, irony, sarcasm (a way of making the speaker´s point more forcefully)
- they have to be interpreted as deliberate floutings (not always the case with children and foreign language learners)



maxim of quantity

We can say more than we need (perhaps to mark a sense of respect in a certain context).

We can often say less than we need (perhaps to be rude or blunt).


maxim of relation

We can flout this maxim to signal embarrassment or a desire to change the subject.


maxim of manner

We can flout this maxim in order to establish solidarity between speakers nd exclude an overhearer from the conversation (lawyers and judges talking to each other; doctors diagnosing patients for medical students in a language which they know the patient will not follow, etc.)