gricean communication
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

9
(FIVE YEARS 2)

H-INDEX

4
(FIVE YEARS 0)

2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 20160107 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Moore

A prevailing view is that while human communication has an ‘ostensive-inferential’ or ‘Gricean’ intentional structure, animal communication does not. This would make the psychological states that support human and animal forms of communication fundamentally different. Against this view, I argue that there are grounds to expect ostensive communication in non-human clades. This is because it is sufficient for ostensive communication that one intentionally addresses one's utterance to one's intended interlocutor—something that is both a functional pre-requisite of successful communication and cognitively undemanding. Furthermore, while ostension is an important feature of intentional communication, the inferences required in Gricean communication may be minimal: ostension and inference may come apart. The grounds for holding that animal communication could not be Gricean are therefore weak. I finish by defending the idea that a ‘minimally Gricean’ model of communication is a valuable tool for characterizing the communicative interactions of many animal species.


Erkenntnis ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 69 (1) ◽  
pp. 55-67 ◽  
Author(s):  
Friedrich Christoph Doerge ◽  
Mark Siebel

existing code correlating a whistle with the information that now is the moment to attack. The information is obvious enough: it is the only information that A could conceivably have intended to make manifest in the circumstances. Could not the repetition of such a situation lead to the development of a code? Imagine that the two prisoners, caught again, find themselves in the same predicament: again a whistle, again an escape, and again they are caught. The next time, prisoner B, who has not realised that both guards are distracted, hears pris-oner A whistle: this time, fortunately, B does not have to infer what the whistle is intended to make manifest: he knows. The whistle has become a signal associ-ated by an underlying code to the message ‘Let us overpower our guards now!’ Inferential theorists might be tempted to see language as a whole as having developed in this way: to see conventional meanings as growing out of natural inferences. This is reminiscent of the story of how Rockefeller became a million-aire. One day, when he was young and very poor, Rockefeller found a one-cent coin in the street. He bought an apple, polished it, sold it for two cents, bought two apples, polished them, sold them for four cents . . . After one month he bought a cart, after two years he was about to buy a grocery store, when he inherited the fortune of his millionaire uncle. We will never know how far hominid efforts at conventionalising inference might have gone towards establishing a full-fledged human language. The fact is that the development of human languages was made possible by a specialised biological endowment. Whatever the origin of the language or code employed, a piece of coded behaviour may be used ostensively – that is, to provide two layers of information: a basic layer of information, which may be about anything at all, and a second layer con-sisting of the information that the first layer of information has been intentionally made manifest. When a coded signal, or any other arbitrary piece of behaviour, is used ostensively, the evidence displayed bears directly on the individual’s intention, and only indirectly on the basic layer of information that she intends to make manifest. We are now, of course, dealing with standard cases of Gricean communication. Is there a dividing line between instances of ostension which one would be more inclined to describe as ‘showing something’, and clear cases of communica-tion where the communicator unquestionably ‘means something’? One of Grice’s main concerns was to draw such a line: to distinguish what he called ‘natural meaning’ – smoke meaning fire, clouds meaning rain, and so on – from ‘non-natural meaning’: the word ‘fire’ meaning fire, Peter’s utterance meaning that it will rain, and so on. Essential to this distinction was the third type of communi-cator’s intention Grice mentioned in his analysis: a true communicator intends the recognition of his informative intention to function as at least part of the audi-ence’s reason for fulfilling that intention. In other words, the first, basic, layer of information must not be entirely recoverable without reference to the second. What we have tried to show so far in this section is that there are not two distinct and well-defined classes, but a continuum of cases of ostension ranging from ‘showing’, where strong direct evidence for the basic layer of information is provided, to ‘saying that’, where all the evidence is indirect. Even in our very

2005 ◽  
pp. 158-158

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document