Grice’s Analysis of Utterance-Meaning and Cicero’s

Grice’sAnalysisofUtterance-MeaningandCicero’sCatilinarianApostropheFredJ.KauffeldPublishedonline:10January2009
SpringerScience+BusinessMediaB.V.2009AbstractThepragmaticsunderlyingPaulGrice’sanalysisofutterance-meaningprovideapowerfulframeworkforinvestigatingthecommitmentsarguersundertake.Unfortunately,thecomplexityofGrice’sanalysishasfrustratedappropriaterelianceonthisimportantfacetofhiswork.ByexplicatingCicero’suseofapostropheinhisfamous‘‘FirstCatilinarian’’thisessayattemptstoshowthatafullcomplexofreflexivegriceanspeakerintentionsinessentiallytoseriouslysayingandmeaningsomething.KeywordsApostrophe
Argumentation
Burdenofproof
Cicero
InCatilinamI
Romanoratory
Grice
Pragmatics
Stampe
Strategicmanagement
Utterance-occasionmeaning
Sayingandmeaningsomething1IntroductionThepragmaticsunderlyingPaulGrice’sanalysisofutterance-meaningilluminatethestrategicrolesplayedbycommitmentsandobligationsinhumancommunica-tion,includingthegenesisandpracticalvalueofaspeaker’scommitmenttothetruthfulnessofwhatshesaysandtosuchprobativeobligationsasshemayincur.Introducedalmost50yearsago,Grice’sanalysisaffordsinsightintotheessentialcomponentsofthecommunicativeactofseriouslysayingandmeaningsomething.1F.J.Kauffeld(&)EdgewoodCollege,Madison,WI,USAe-mail:[e-mail]1Griceoffersananalysisof‘‘utterance-meaning,’’anartificialtermembracingverbalutterances,gesturesandothersymbolicmeansofexpression.Ifocusontheprimarycommunicativeactofseriouslysayingandmeaningsomethingandrelyontheordinarysenseof‘‘saying’’asitisemployedinindirectspeechreportsoftheform‘‘Ssaidthatp’’.IfGrice’sanalysisofthemeaningutteranceshaveonthespecificoccasionoftheirusehasanypurchaseintheworld,itmustatleastcapturewhatisessentialtothecommunicativeactofseriouslysayingthatp.123Argumentation(2009)23:239–257DOI10.1007/s10503-008-9123-xDennisStampehasidentifiedthepracticalcalculationwhichspeakerstypicallyemploywhenperformingthatcommunicativeact.AccordingtoStampe,whenaspeakersays,e.g.,thatUncleBillhasdied,sheopenlyandstrategicallytakesresponsibilityfortheveracityofherutterance.Accordingly,shemakesherselfinescapablyvulnerabletocriticismandresentmentformendacityshoulditturnoutthatsheisspeakingfalsely.Thespeakertherebygeneratesapresumptionofveracityonbehalfofherutterance,whichservestoprovideheraddresseewithassurancethatsheisspeakingtruthfully.Giventhespeaker’sopenlyincurredcommitments,heraddresseecanreason(ceterisparibus)andisintendedtoreasonthatthespeakerwouldnotbemanifestlywillingtoriskcriticismforspeakingfalsely,wereshenotinfactspeakingtruthfully(Kauffeld2001;Stampe1967,1975).ThisinterpretationofthepracticaldesignunderlyingtheconstituentsidentifiedbyGrice’sanalysisisamodelofnormativepragmatics.2Itexhibitsthegenesisofanormativeobligationinafamiliarcommunicativepractice:insayingthatp,thespeakeropenlyincursanobligationtospeaktruthfully.Anditidentifiesthepotentialefficacyofthatnormativeobligation,viz.,byopenlyincurringanobligationtospeaktruthfully,thespeakergeneratesreasonto,e.g.,believewhatshesays.Moreover,variantsofStampe’sstrategyforgeneratingpresumptionscanbeseentobeatworkinthegenesisofprobativeobligationsinsuchspeechactsasaccusing,proposing,praising,etc.(Kauffeld1998,2002).However,Stampe’saccountofthepragmaticsofseriousutterancereliesonaversionofGrice’sanalysiswhichmanyregardasimplausiblycomplex.AsGricedefendedhisanalysisinthefaceofcounterexamples,theconditionspositedasnecessarytoseriouslysayingandmeaningsomethinggrewincomplexity.TheversionwhichinformsStampe’saccountholdsthatitwillbetruethatsomespeaker(S)meanssomethingbyanutterance(u),ifandonlyifSproducesuwiththefollowingcomplexintention.S’sprimaryintention(I1):Sintends1thatsomeaddressee(A)respond(r)thatp(oratleastactasifSintends1thatArthatp);S’ssecondaryintention(I2):Sintends2thatArecognizeS’sprimarysub-intention(oratleastactsasifSintends2thatArecognizeI1);S’stertiaryintention(I3):Sintends3thatArecognizeS’ssecondarysub-intention(oratleastactasifSintends3thatArecognizeI2);andS’sfourthintention(I4):Sintends4thatA’scomplexrecognitionofS’sintentionsprovideAwithatleastpartofA’sreasonforringthatp(oratleastactsasifSwerespeakingwiththisintention)(Grice1969,pp.154–157;Stampe1967,1975;Strawson1964,pp.439–460).2Ofcourse,addresseesdonotneedtoreasonoutaspeaker’scommitmenttotruthfulnessineachandeveryinstanceofseriouscommunication.Personsacquirearepertoireofcommunicativeacts,includingtheactofseriouslysayingthings,andtheycanrelyonthatinheritedpracticalknowledgewithoutpuzzlingouttheinternalcalculationofeachcommunicativeact.Theyalsomakehighlynuancedanddeliberatechoicesbasedontheirgraspofthepragmaticsofcommunication.Theproblemforstudentsofcommunicationandofargumentationistoexplicatethepracticalrationalesandcorrespondingnormspersonshabituallyandoftenunreflectivelyrelyon,aswellastheirsituation-basedstrategiccalculations.240F.J.Kauffeld123Accordingtothisanalysis,itwillbetruethatMaryhassaidthatUncleBillhasdied,ifshehasutteredsomethingAistotakeassemanticallyequivalentto‘‘UncleBillhasdied,’’andifthisutteranceispartofacomplexeffortonherparttogetAto,e.g.,bel