P

HILOSOPHY OF

L

ANGUAGE

8: Grice

(1 of 3)

Grice, Meaning

Natural vs. non-natural meaning



There are two kinds of meaning:



Natural meaning. This is the kind of meaning something has when it is a
non-conventional sign for something.



„Those spots mean measles‟.



The spots are a non-conventional signal for the presence of measles.



Non-natural meaning (meaning

NN

). This is the kind of meaning something

has when it is a conventional sign for something.



„Those three rings on the bell (of the bus) mean that the bus is full‟.



It could just as easily have been four rings!



„The sentence „Snow is white‟ means that snow is white‟.



It could just as easily have meant anything else.



It isn‟t quite correct to draw the distinction in terms of conventional/non-
conventional signs:



Words (e.g. „abstract‟) can have meaning

NN

but not be signs.



Some gestures can have meaning

NN

but not be conventional.



The recent budget has a natural meaning but is not a sign.



In any case, the kind of meaning distinctive of linguistic expressions is non-
natural meaning.



Speaker meaning. Someone S means (meant) something by x.



Mike means something by „Snow is white‟.



Sentence meaning. Someone S means (meant) by x that …



Mike means by „Snow is white‟ that snow is white.

What is non-natural meaning?



Stevenson’s causal analysis. For x to mean

NN

something, x must have

(roughly) a tendency to produce in an audience some attitude and a tendency, in
the case of a speaker, to be produced by that attitude (where these tendencies
are dependent on an “elaborate process of conditioning attending the use of the
sign in communication”).

P

HILOSOPHY OF

L

ANGUAGE

8: Grice

(2 of 3)



Counterexample 1. Putting on a tail coat satisfies Steven‟s causal
conditions by producing in an audience the attitude that one is going to a
dance and by being produced by an attitude in the tail coat-wearer that he is
going to a dance; but the wearer meant nothing by wearing the tail coat.



Counterexample 2. To say „Jones is an athlete‟ tends to make someone
believe that it is true that „Jones is tall‟. But the latter is not part of what is
meant by the former. We cannot explain this away by invoking linguistic
rules, since that is just to invoke meaning

NN

.



Objection. It‟s not obvious how to extend Steven‟s causal analysis to what is
meant by an expression on a particular occasion of use.



Grice’s analysis of speaker meaning.



1

st

proposal. S meant

NN

by x that P iff

(1) S uttered x intending for his audience to form the belief that P.



Handkerchief counterexample. If S leaves B‟s handkerchief at the
scene of the crime with the intention of getting the detective to believe
that B did it, then my leaving the handkerchief meant

NN

that B was the

murderer. But it did not.



2

nd

proposal. S meant

NN

by x that P iff

(1) S uttered x intending his audience to form the belief that P; and
(2) S also intended that his audience recognize that that‟s what he

intended to do.



St. John the Baptist counterexample. Herod didn‟t mean

NN

that St.

John the Baptist was dead by bringing his head on a charger to Salome.



Child counterexample. The child didn‟t mean

NN

that it was sick by

showing its mother how pale it is.



Broken china counterexample. I didn‟t mean

NN

that my daughter

broke the china by leaving it for my wife to see.



To fix this, we need to invoke the difference between showing a picture
and drawing a picture—a difference in intent.



3

rd

proposal. S meant

NN

by x that P iff

(1) S uttered x intending his audience to form the belief that P; and
(2) S also intended that his audience recognize that that‟s what he

intended to do; and

(3) S also intended that his audience form the belief that P at least

partly because they recognize that that‟s what he intended to do.



Objection 1. Audiences aren‟t required—can‟t I soliloquize?



Reply. I am my own audience!

P

HILOSOPHY OF

L

ANGUAGE

8: Grice

(3 of 3)



Objection 2. I don‟t always intend to produce any beliefs in you when I
utter meaningful sentences—I might tell you a proof for 2+2=4.

From speaker meaning to sentence meaning



Grice‟s strategy is to explain speaker and sentence meaning in terms of how
speakers and sentences may mean something on particular occasions.



What a speaker meant on a particular occasion.



S meant

NN

something by x.



S meant

NN

by x that so-and-so.



The meaning of a sentence on a particular occasion of use.



x meant

NN

something.



x meant

NN

that so-and-so.



Sentence meaning. x means

NN

something.



Speaker meaning. S means

NN

by x something.



What‟s more, Grice believes we can explain a sentence‟s meaning in terms of
what speaker‟s mean.



Grice suggests that x meant

NN

something is (roughly) equivalent to

somebody meant

NN

something by x.



Objection. A red traffic light means

NN

stop; but who meant

NN

stop?



Finally, x means

NN

that so-and-so is (roughly) equivalent to what people

generally intend to mean

NN

by uttering x.



Issues. There are some apparent facts which seem hard for Grice to explain:



I might answer a stupid question by grunting in order to get you to recognize
my contempt; but I didn‟t mean

NN

anything by it.



This suggests the intended effect must be under the audience‟s control.



More generally, speakers can mean anything by anything, but sentences
are constrained only to mean certain things.



Some sentences almost always are used to mean something other than their
literal meaning.



Most sentences are never uttered at all, but are still meaningful.



Novel sentences have no pre-established conventions for use, and yet we still
instantly find them meaningful.