On H. P. Grice's account of meaning

Abstract

B ECAUSE I believe the coin is counterfeit, because it seems to be gaining currency, I mean to examine and attempt to discredit an account of meaning circulated some time ago by H. P. Grice. 1 Those among us concerned with problems of semantics are much concerned with the sense(s) or meaning(s) of the morpheme 'mean' in (l)and( 2):(1) The sentence 'Snow is white' means snow is white.(2) The adjective 'ungulate' means having hoofs.Other senses or meanings of 'mean' are of interest in semantics primarily only in so far as they have some bearing on 'mean' in either (1) or (2).Grice's paper is entitled "Meaning".It appears to be an account of meaning that is supposed to have some bearing on the senses of 'mean' in (1) and ( 2).Grice apparently says that 'mean' in (1) and ( 2) is used in what he calls "nonnatural" senses of the verb.He uses the abbreviation 'meannn' to mark the "nonnatural" senses of 'mean'.He offers something of an analysis of 'mean-nn' (and of the morphological variants, 'meant-nn', 'means-nn', and so forth).Does 'mean' in (1) or (2) have the sense(s) indicated by Grice's analysis ?It will simplify matters to adopt the following convention: when the expression 'mean-nn' (or any of its variants) is used here, that expression is to have the sense(s) indicated by and in conformance with Grice's analysis.The problem of this paper can then be stated in a simple way.Consider (Inn) and ( 2nn):(Inn) The sentence 'Snow is white' means-nn snow is white.(2nn) The adjective 'ungulate' means-nn having hoofs.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 95 citations exist upstream.