Logic and Conversation by Paul Grice

Logic and Conversation by Paul Grice - LOGIC AND...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–7. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: LOGIC AND CONVERSATION BY PAUL GRICE The aim of “Logic and Conversation” For malist maintain that there are divergences between formal logical rules that govern inference and their natural language counterparts. They maintain that the formal logical rules are superior and that natural language suffers from certain defects that make it unsuitable for the purposes of constructing an ideal language for science. I nfor malist disagree, and argue that the use of inference in science is not the only metric for assessing natural language constructions, and that while formal languages are suitable for science, natural language inferences functions perfectly well for some non-scientific uses. Gr ice will challenge the assumption in the debate that there actually exists divergences between formal languages and natural languages. That is he will investigate the possibility of developing a formal account of some natural language inferences that are not treated by Logical inference In propositional logic (2) follows from (1): 1.) The U.S. will invade Korea only if the U.K. will support the war effort. 2.) If it is not the case that the U.K. will support the war effort, then it is not the case that the U.S. will invade Korea. The inference above is a clear instance of the rule of contraposition from the strict definition for the material conditional. Example of the Basic Phenomenon A: Will you join the math club? B: I am already in the philosophy club. Although B did not directly answer the question posed by A we have the intuition that B implied something like the following: O I cannot or do not want to join the math club because I am already in the philosophy club. How might we understand the kind of implication that is at play in the case above? Conversational Implicature Grice wants to introduce a notion of ‘implication’. The notion he wants to introduce can be captured as follows: O A implied that P by uttering S. Where A is a person, S a sentence, and P the proposition implied. What is important about this notion is the following: O ‘A implied that P’ is not equivalent to ‘A said S’. O What one says by uttering a sentence is closely linked to the literal or conventional meaning of the sentence. O What one implied by saying S is governed by a set of constraints that go beyond what the person literally says. O Conversational implicature is distinct from conventional implicature, and is a species of non-conventional implicature. The Cooperative Principle 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....
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page1 / 25

Logic and Conversation by Paul Grice - LOGIC AND...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 7. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online