Talk:Paul Grice

Latest comment: 4 months ago by SMcCandlish in topic Grice's razor

Sources needed edit

The summary provided in the article, beginning from "He distinguished between four kinds of content: encoded / non-encoded content and truth-conditional / non-truth-conditional content" may be correct as a logical reconstruction of Grice's theories, but it would be helpful to be directed to the place in Grice's work (if there is one) where he draws these actual distinctions. The same applies to the remainder of the summaries.

And the 'Criticism' section needs expansion, to include, e.g., Wayne A. Davis. It is misleading, surely, to say that Sperber and Wilson 'challenge' Grice's ideas, since they are so heavily dependent on them? 194.81.81.51 13:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Actually, these aren't Grice's concepts at all, just distant relatives of them. Grice's key notions of meaning are "utterer's occasion meaning" (which is now most commonly called "speaker meaning"), timeless meaning (which is the kind of meaning possessed by utterance-types, including but not limited to words and sentences), and applied timeless meaning. These notions are enumerated in Logic and Conversation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.15.146.174 (talk) 21:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Grice's Maxims edit

Their should be a section in this article about Grice's Maxims. This is his notable theory of co-operation in convrsation. His Maxims are rules that Grice said should be followed in order to have a suucessful conversation, these maxims are: Quanitity, Relevance, Manner and Quality.--BusinessMan1 11:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Name edit

Did he ever publish anything as "Paul Grice"? Surely that should be "H.P. Grice"?KD Tries Again (talk) 15:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)KD Tries AgainReply

Yes. His book 'Studies in the Ways of Words' is published under that name. So is his contribution to the Grandy/Warner collection.109.148.117.29 (talk) 12:39, 26 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Grice's Paradox edit

Could someone add a resolution to the paradox? It is inherently unobvious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.72.182 (talk) 02:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

  • It's about as deep as the "missing dollar riddle," if that helps. 66.166.67.2 (talk) 00:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Vandalism by an unsigned? edit

I have restored (iii) to the "paradox" section

G. Robert Shiplett 13:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

What Grice wrote : the "paradox" edit

Grice wrote :

 To date there have been 100 games: 

then he writes:

 They played on of the 100 games last night.

From "Studies in the Way of Words"

G. Robert Shiplett 13:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Any video (I mean movie) or recording of him? edit

That would be interesting... פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 00:07, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Grice's razor edit

Philosophical razor includes:

References

  1. ^ Hazlett, A. (2007). "Grice's razor". Metaphilosophy. 38 (5): 669. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9973.2007.00512.x.
  2. ^ "Implicature, 6: Gricean Theory". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Archived from the original on 11 December 2016. Retrieved 27 December 2016.

Has sources, and should probably be covered here at least briefly, since the other article is sending people here.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  06:45, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply