Jlsperanza at aol.com
Jlsperanza at aol.com
Mon Mar 1 14:36:49 EST 2010
Good he cites Alchourron. I actually quote him too in my first paper ever!
(published). He was out there when I was lecturing on conversational
implicature. My example (in Buenos Aires) was:
Searle: How do you like Buenos Aires?
Davidson: I haven't been robbed yet.
-- I was just being provocative! Alchourron was all the rage, as they say!
("Surely, if your implicature is that Buenos Aires is not safe enough, you
should spend some time in Stockholm!" -- where the man had spent more than
his share!). I loved Alchourron, and we'd participate in seminars together,
usually in logic. He was a born philosopher -- even though the mandate
from his family (the land-owing elite) was elsewhere! May he R. I. P.
---- Good Vranas quotes from DeRooy. He has worked extensively on
formalising "conversational implicature" as nobody else has!
iii. Vranas quotes specific references on 'disjunctive commands'. I love
them! My favourite had to be:
-- Post the letter, or burn it!
Post the letter
Don't burn it!
--- as discussed by Hare 1967. The first (but let's not spread the word)
collocation of "conversational implicature" in print! (The OED editor is
having Grice 1967 (MS) instead -- and indeed there is now Grice 1964 to add to
--- I am very pleased Vranas quotes the seldom quoted OXFORD vintage
(Univ. of Brum, indeed, but formerly Oxford). (I think his daughter married
a famous writer, but why do we hear so little of this genius? Vranas
quotes from an early 1952 paper, on "Assertions and Commands").
--- Vranas quotes specific bibliography on 'alethic'. I was surprised to
learn from the OED that the term was indeed coined by Wright. Not surprised
about THAT, because he was a genius with words. But, still. The word, Greek
and all, had not received, 'aletheia', has NOT given too many other
derivatives. The Grecian Gricean, Grice, loved 'alethic' and uses the term often
enough (in fact, too often enough) in his "Aspects of Reason". Sadly, he
opposes it to 'practical', but surely he knows that the best antonym for
'practical' as per Anscombe et al, is 'theoretical'. Words!
--- The excellent Oxford connection here (that gave Atlas, etc.) is indeed
Kenny. His seminal "Practical Inferences" paper which joins with Hare. A.
J. P. Kenny, once of Wolfson. I once contacted him, regarding this or that
topic, and I must keep his correspondence somewhere. I was amused that we
were able to have a look at Grice's ref. to Kenny in "Intention and
Uncertainty" (Proc. Brit. Ac.). (And I know Bayne regards Kenny very highly, as he
Vranas seems to share my (good, ha!) taste for historical, even
obscure-historical research (Tapper says I'm the obscure historicist -- always
looking for some 'obscure' historicist connection (In any case, Tapper should
enlighten us more often!). Vranas cares to quote from very early -- earliest
stuff --. I mean, who (else) is going back to Hare 1949! Lovely! -- (He
quotes too from Gonzalo Rodriguez Pereyra -- I mean, he can combine the old with
Pity it's Grice for next round!
Grice, H. P. 2001. Aspects of reason. -- for an extended treatment of
deontic inferences. Vide "precis" of Aspects of Reason, elsewhere.
At the level of specific analysis Vranas deals with, he can cope not only
with Grice's _established_ theory per se (established to Grice, that is,
:)), but with Grice's _exceptions_ in terms of his 'implicature'. Oddly,
yesterday I was reading S. Yablo's rather too privileged-accessed opinion when
he says (words):
"Grice regretted his invention: the implicature.
Because he didn't know what to do with it.
I.e. how to use it NON-opportunistically."
(Yablo has that passing comment at the end of a long discussion on
fictionalism and figuralism. He is making the good analogy that 'figures' HAPPEN.
Implicatures happen. So, while Yablo hypothesises (?) that Grice may have
regretted that, "surely he never regretted that 'implicatures' happen!" or
For Grice, for example, the 'crunch' as he says, with 'deontic' logic (I
think he exaggerates) 'comes with 'negation''. He immediately provides such
an elegant way out of problems of 'prohibitions' in terms of clashes with
expectations in deontic discourse (alla his treatment of 'truth-value'
(alleged) gaps in assertoric discourse) that one does not feel the crunch anymore
-- and can move on! Genius!
Anyway, many thanks, S. R. Bayne, for the reference! Truly enjoyable!
J. L. Speranza
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the hist-analytic