Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Avramides - Grice, Davidson and The Social Aspects of Language PDF

    Uploaded by

    Maxih72
    140 views13 pages

    Original Title

    Avramides - Grice, Davidson and the social aspects of language.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    140 views13 pages

    Avramides - Grice, Davidson and The Social Aspects of Language PDF

    Uploaded by

    Maxih72

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 13
    ASPECTS OF LANGUAGE, In ie 1990 paper, “The stractare and content of wut”, Davidson Sentra co hte: Cnn 150 31 ‘To same devotees of Davidson's work this claim may be somewhat expected, Even more unexpected may be the foots that Davidson ‘spends this clam where he writs: “The infvnceof HP. Grice's “Meaning [.] wil be evident here” (Uh: 31, footnote 83). Suprise ‘nay for om unto lam when Davidson i ound wring (as away ‘of distancing hinsel fom a setin positon here) “Tec an wh we el atte mens of ward mag Clvaghen 8110 ° What teenies the postion Davidson wants oho frm the pos sion fom which he wises to distance himself i that the postion Davidson advocates “puts no primary weight onthe concept of a gage er something shared by spaker and iateretet, or by speaker Sn speech community.” (bz 11) ‘Aca, devotee of Davidson's work shoold not realy be su prised by sich clans, for Davidson is ce sing igs ike this for 4 ond ong ime now In his puper, “A nice derangement of epitaph | (1986) Davidson shocked may inthe phlesophiel world by sing ita Avramides | DAVIDSON, GRICE, AND THE SOCIAL. by way of enchsion to that pope, “There is therefore no such thing 8 a langage, not if Ingiage i anything Hike what many plosopbers ‘nd ngs ve suppose (Lapor (ei. 1986: 446). And what many piilosophers nd inghss have suppsed isha communication opet "eo th ass of shared conventions ores, Wha shocking se So mich that sch positon shouldbe proposed, but that Davidon of rrr eS 16 aaa al people shoul propos it Wha, aera, are we to make often ‘Seth dear and ts le inthe theory of meaning? This sone of the things watt ny something bout in this paper. “Aroher thing [ant to dScus in this paper i the relation this Inte wor of Davidson's Bears to the ork of Grice. We find, for fmwanc, Grady and Warner remaking i thi introduction to # cl Testo of papers dewotod to the work of Paul Grice (Grandy & Warner 1986, 39) that Davison’ rjetion ofthe idea tat communication requires the sharing of eonveatons or rules and more important his ‘sont fr that ejection led ir poston no dissimilar othat ‘Gre Indeed an Hacking, ina reply to Doviduons paper Hacking 1986 48) as witen tl the robles of Hat paper woul it well {oto a book of ess for Paul Gre Ta Sct, the very paper to which acy was refering ~ inthe same Year as its appearance in a col Toston of papers devoted tothe work of Davidson ~ was published in ft eoleton of papers for Pal Grice (Grandy & Warner 1986). And Daviduon himself as we have see, expe acknowledges an line fy berwcen his work ad hat of Grice References to Gre are pep peed throvghout many of Davison’ ltr papers “This seeming convergence ofthe work of Davidson with hat of ‘orice sus anoter ofthe things Dat is bound to evoke spi and onfusin in those who fllow Davidson's work Aer al, many of us Stee mised, philosophically speskng, to believe thatthe work of “Grice nd Davidson as ranged on oposite sides of peat ul Ibis amous inaugural lestre of 1969 PF Stason wrote ofa "struggle o0 [cl central sue in philosophy (J fwbich es) something of Fomeie quality” (Stason 1969: 172) He identified oa onesie of {his sale the work of, among others, rice? and onthe oer he ‘give as an example the work of Davidson? Davidson himself in his ‘dy work eid tot sper tis division, In “Belief andthe basis of ‘mesning” Davison (1974) writes ofa tadton, which he associates ‘wih Ge, tht tet explain Liagustic meaning on the tas of oligos itestons and ses, and explicly rejects it. When 1 frote my book Meaning and Mind (Avramides 1959), one of the things Hat msivated my interest Grice work was an tempt to ‘understand Davidson's ejection of it So where exactly does Davidson's work stand vss that of ‘tice now? That isthe main question of is paper T want to begin i fection 1, by looking at Davision's mare recent references Grice, Divbson ok AND THE OCA ARC OF LANGE ry ‘dt explain why student of his later papers might be forgiven for taking Davidson now tobe espousing a positon not disilarto that which Grice fist proposed over 40 years ago. Ia soetion 2 T shall frpain what I see the remaining dierence beeween the work of these vo philosophers ferences tat an only be found by digging below the sure of tv sinlaries. The ifereneeshetween the O40 fe sill profound. However, if we are to retain the poweeul image inroduce by Straws, we shal either have tater the allegiance of ‘one ofthe protagonist (4, Daidson, or we sall have to ote ‘Gee and Davidson and eden theatre of hi dispute. 1. Davidson, Grice and speaker meaning 1 should be remember tht Davidson sever denied a certain dependence of language on speakers intentions and bli inde no Plover who wants t give an account of matwal language can tifrd to eve out reference to netons. But acceeng some mention (fintetion in ones acsount of meaning isnot yet to agee with a ‘Griceanapprcoch to language. Let me put befere us ‘Grce'spmprarmne~bihlighting some notable estues of that we may compare it with what Dvidon snow uring. Gree, ‘work on mening, conceed to spell ou in dtl psychologielcon- tions both sufficient and necessary for meaning. And as i well Known, Grice is intrested in understanding th phenomenon of mean- ing ast oceurs both within and outside language. As ares, Grice pro- poses to begin his analyse of meaning wt suggested conions for Sneaker cccasion meaning. An important ting to remember about ‘Speaker oceasion meaning is hat can exist ouside language; this is Why speaker meaning needs t be ted doe to an occasion of tse. Tiers fm oveason cr ocasian independence ~ comes with the nove to fmeless meaning. Crieane wach a8 Lewis and Schitferpro- pe that this move be made withthe hel ofthe waen of convention, butwe shoud remerer that Grice himself never liked tht idea much, 1 "Meaning revised” Grice writs one tik ht eg esi ec wih ie frei ‘Wht resi cxoeaeé na sone yo uta vt sme no Comes indeed cow oft ay, bt roth Toe ‘Ste sto ier ch atedy spss Ta mse he ry an ay wht proper Cs 18298) ia somtaninaunes Grice, then, wishes to keep the idea of conventional meaning apt ffom that of fixed (or what be els) established ncaing~ the later being applicable oheoless (ibs 124), With hisin mind Grice makes two proposal, oe to account fr tinelss meaning of an ident and tne slo to account fo imeess meaning ina community Tn neither ‘does he invoke the iden of consetion ‘Once tbe notin of timeless meaning s established Grice ino der yet further notions Thre is, or example, the noton of the “pple timeless meaning of an wteraace type This ides i important itive are to distinguish between eo more diferent meanings a tiene may have within langurge.Gric’s discussion of apie timeless meaning is part of his eftemgt to elucidate what he cll the “Conventional meaning ofan uterance ype” (Grice 1989; 119) and his verching im in eluting tis notion isto dow atenton 1 8 ‘isintion between what peer as Sad and what he has npc ‘ed either comventiosly of noaconveninaly (conversational) ‘mplcated. The “covetonal memisg” ofan uteanse type i taken by Grice tobe the concience oF aplied timeless meaning and oo: ‘on meaning, Grice considers the posi of analyzing the notion St sving nthe same manner, bu points ou tha the existence of con- Seronalimplicatre eves a wedge between the conventional mea ing ofan citerance and what said. This notion of saying resis unanalysed in Grice’ wor, butitplys an imporantrol, fortis wed te inrduee the tea of tonconventenal ~ of conersationa ~impli- (ate, Bocase the de of what sb uterer has sais, for Gri clse- Ig elated othe conventional tating ofthe words oe sentence tit be es utered, it would not be fr fom the eth i ne were to suggest that what Gris ans fom the ies of Wha ssi i, oughly what is ‘liens refer toa tral meazig e he muon of meaning. Ieis by relying on this tea hat he isin position o introduce the tion of mpicatre. ric is clear frm is earliest writing hat this Ulistincon between saying and implying sis "wider roprammne” of | ‘whi the eftempt to give an aecount of speaker meaning fms only the iil pare ‘Now Davidson, 00, skeen t preserve de autonomy of meaning He writes, “Take for granted] that nothing shoud be allowed 19 ‘blest or even blur the dsinctio bebe speaker's meaning and tera meaning” (Davidson 1986: 434), So ther is nothing soo radical Jn Davison yt. But Davidson coatinuss a gO ok, HE SOCAL ASPECTS OF LANOUASE 19 Incr rere te stn wes] a cea con pe SATE ee pyoetwes l agg ea oo Sentero 0 “Ths fir Davidion looks to bein complete agreement with Grice: he “pol (oF limo) he fpr dstinction between literal mean- ing and speaker's meaning, and he renounees the ides of convention. [Before explnining why This the look of things here ay be misend- ing. want fist to eontins o lok tthe ways in which Davison has ‘begun to look very Gricean ins approach o meaning ais paper “The second peso” Davidson writs: “My present is (-} only to emphasize, following Gree, the ectal role of intention ia cowaunication” (Davidson 1992: 258). In "A nce ‘erangement of epitaphs” Davidson introduces « notion which he [bes ist meaning” ad again ie explo tht what be has in mind here is “Goughly) Gric’s nonnasral meaning”. Let's see how Davison explcstes his tion of fist meaning (Only then can We ‘sh just how fr eomesponds what Gece had in mind) Ft ofl evidsonclims that this notion of st meaning s designed to core- spo at least oughly to what gts called “iter meaning"? Ry sy ing that the notion ony oh coesponds the usual dea of er almeaning Davidson want both to preserve his idea of eral mean- ing and tthe sae net afer our conception of what this invlves [Ashe says andl quoted s moment ago ~ what he want (0 dois 0 rs vay the des ofthe lira fom tht of the conventional Instead ‘ofthe conventional being associated with wht i eral in lnguage, DDavion wants the idea of fit meaning tobe associated with itera meaning. So what exaly i this idea of Fst meaning, what make it rt? i answer his question Davidson writs, et mening] oes inte reo pene tr ema ‘ons hcnny tn ater eps a ‘ork anton mosey man (even 188 30) ‘And in aother place he writs thatthe cencapt of ist meaning “folie to words and sctences a red bya parclar speaker on 8 patcular occasion} Roughly Fstmesning comes fist the onder [oF itepretaton” (Davidson 1986: 435). The similarity with Grie’s ‘works coming evident: atthe very heart of literal meaning, as Davidion ses it i speaks intention. a} oma nasans Now this idea of firs meaning being what comes fst. ofintrpretetion ie gute important. Davidson pots ot that thats in what we con call standard or normal” cases ~ what comes Fest in he oder of eerpretation of one spesker by anothers whatone ‘wl find by onaulting a dictionary. However, Davidson elie that this des of standard or nora is embodied in a dictionary mest rot be understood out of context I is relevant fo meaning becanse ‘conforming i 8 ane ~ often the Best ~ way to be understood. Once ‘ne se this we slo se that wat one would find by consulting a d- tionary isnot alvays what comes fata the order of interpretation, “There ae cases where we simply have to puzzle out the meaning Davidson suggest then, thatthe best way to explicate st meaning is by reference tothe intention ofthe spaker Futbemnoe, because fst reining i ite to be grasped by an audience, we ean alo tal shout wat the audience or hearer must know fo be in postion to ineret he speaker. Putin al he piove opether Davison gives the following acsount of eral meting "how [2 speaker intend 1 be understood, ie what he, and his words, iterll meant on thst oesson. "Thee sre many otberitepetatons we give fo the notion of (teal, ‘eval meaning but the rest are parasite cn a" (Davidson 1945 2, “Thee ste several things 19 mate about Davidson's nation offs meaning, To start with, las elf open to avery natural objection, ‘vic hit fo sy har speakers form expres intentions aboat how thei audience will interpre their werances, ano give cet place to his des in one’ account of language is lst the phenomenolo- ay of language se (and, therefore, false). Davison’ ely to uch ‘bjecton 8 allows, Tage atte speed stl “man eat ac’ nde es hot nd ot stat even wn saps pig ed ‘ihsaealy epee ary hems wl he eon fing nde Tia ceria mys hs nent iene he abou tle Petco nes oun nds i iso {cas inca nn san tere ges nathan ‘ng was anaes os i'w an apn eon ce By ing ‘hah wou nese bea ta eens (Dion ar) ‘Davidson i bere defen is intentional stance exactly a did Gricens like Sehiffer and Lou before him ~ at to mention Grice soe nC, OTHE SHCA ASFCTSOF LANGUAGE nt Iimso® Stason writes in defence of Grice’ programme ina man- et that could have been writen by Davidson bimsele ty avy mi tam se, sce wo enn of Be os ‘ig tts iat or of steno msl of etn cho ‘neues ote pt of he cuca ery ae oma ‘Soren the nance ae pss Aa ‘iseo, errr schon at Hise pat ong aly ‘Sedna prt ofthe pie ammunaon etn. at ‘Scene prem sh evened easly ‘Seite umpc ein he commence) Scery {Sra ewwmn 0 48) Indeed, Serawon's way of king the point as impliatons which | ‘we sal ee in a moment, Davidson hinsel i to make much of. One ‘ould sum up this (we could now call) Grieat-Davidonian obse- ‘ation about Language by saying tht meaning something i proses that sud the atonal conto of peakers. "Another thing t noe about Davidson's notion of ist weaning i ‘hat isitnot tal lero hoe Grice relly. tay be questions ‘wheter this ton of Tit meaning canbe takes to corspoad 10 ‘Grice’ notion of speaker meaning. OF course the ation of fist mean- ing is Gricean ns far apes to speakers intentions, bu Thee i more to Grice’ notion of speaker meaning han tha This is 2 post 1 ‘hl develop inthe second sucon otis paper Placing this esc ‘nese forthe moment, thee is loa question wheter ~ even gen ‘Gace’ ejection of te notion of convertion ~ Grice and Davidson 08 tees over the se of what onattes literal meaning. There is esson to fold ht the nso of fist meaning as an account of literal meaning oes no dup Wha Grice had in mind when be identifi the noon of what a speaker sid! Indeed, Davidson should eect the non of Timeless meaning as Grice iedaces it, as Grc's reason for eetng the noon of conection soot his, Grice simpy wants alow for ater ‘was to acount ar established meaning, wile Davidson thinks We an 4p witho the noon of esalshed messing Is tempting os that he hike that we can do without th notion of exalted meaning al. ther butthat would ot eight Thee aplae fr etabished men ‘ng, an shal yt say more about tina moment “The final thing I vant 1g nove about Davdsons notion of fist meaning i that, a thas so far ben explained, itis ot ited olin fuss meaning, Davidson acknowledges this and asks what we need to add fo wat hs ben sid in ode o reset st meaning 10 Lin- im sma oman _pustic meaning He claims that the usual answer to this question isto Sy ta inthe ease of ings meaning the hearer shares a complex ‘Stem or teary with the speaker, system which makes possible the ‘culation of logical relations between uteance, and explains the Atty to itepret novel uterances in an organised wa. Davidson Svishes to agoe wth hs, but he want to understand what it means in Tisown distinctive way. Ava way of explaining this Davidson etines ‘athe sess tee component lent of he sual claim. They ae (© First meaning in language is semi; (Gi) Fist meaning i langage is shred; Gi ist meaning in language is goverod by learned conventions oc regulars, [Where Davison pars company frm his sua! account of what hp pes when fest meaning i eszted to linguist meaning 1 tht he Thinks thet (i) ame convenions or regulates ~ bas nshig to to witht This, Davidson advises ht we aia) and (i) ele- nents in our understanding of linguistic meaning ~ bt that we op (Gi and oy our understanding ofthe other two in the ight ofthis. none o understand wis Davidson finds itacessary drop (i) ‘we ight refer buck tothe Stmwspnian defence of ries programme (quoted a moment ag. Strawsoo, in wring what be des, is aiming to ‘Eien is preference fora rice account ofthe speakers intentions ‘ver John McDowell’ reference fora simple intention ~ the inte tion simply to say what sad, o the iteation to petorm inguist- tally ina way appropriate to rasmiting a cerain piece of informa tion Stawson's point is that itis so enough To stop where MeDowell does. We eed toad tothe acount thatthe speaker's ‘mention to perform ingistaly in away ta is appropriate to rans- ting a eetain pec of information must be ps of an intention that by so performing the audience wil recognize the speakers intention ttt this be en objet of ful mal awareness betwen the speaker ‘hd the audience, Staion’ eason for requiring more by way ofthe Speake’ intentions is at ¢ratreaudienco will Be aware tht tbe following is sivays«posibisty: he speaker ean make an honest mis take or heey intend to mislead, or he may be simply cles or vey casual nhs choice of words In such eases, wh the andene tas ely on are the speakers intentions which, hough omy “sub- ttn ice, so HE SOCAL ASRS OF LAROUACE ns ‘ed or submerze” canbe press ito service when needs (such as ‘hose ected bythe various eumsances just measone) be. "When we i to Davidson we ind tht his eon for roping the thd element inthe usual understanding ofthe notion of ist mening is nothing more tat an elaboration of this Suassonan insight. The ‘considerations Wat Davidson aduces az, he insists, 10 be distin [Bited fom the sors of consideration to which Grice did much t0 ‘Gi atetion, There Grisean observations cal be taken to show us the way in which the he aspects of fist meaning in lnguoge men tioned above fl shot of giving fll ccour of meaning in lnguage. “These Gricean observations include (9 an account of ambiguity ~ in elect what Grice labeled the “applied timeless meaning ofan te ‘nce and (i) an account ofthe Way interpeters understand mpc fures~betey conventional ce non-conventional (Le conversational) implicates, Divicson mentions these at ways in which the ur scone of ist meaning in language til icomplte and lot di tinguish tem fom he sor of incompleteness he is about point out While Orie discussed the fst we problems in varying degrees of cept, here were other problems tht kad not ben discussed either by ‘Gnce or anyone sse These ince the existence of malapropiss, slips ofthe longus, new iol (hich night include the aiton of 4 proper name unknowa to the interpret), and incomplet>sea- tances "The problem introduced by sch use of language ca oly be ‘solved, suggests Davidson, if we let goof condition (i) ~ he learned ‘ouveaton or regulary condition — in our acount of ist meaning “Athi pot [wat to pas fora slight digression. Animadvesios ‘on the notion of convention 0 confine o Daido, Theisen ‘er well Anowa ejecon ofthis ies dus to Chomsky choose a single ‘uoution to ilustate Chemsky’s position hee: sare cnet of cman conn” is cnet so rm gun sohened =i isa ple sana coat my oe ‘onde sna shou coping mene mate Eee of ach thing temo ele ce ty ae a (Chl 198 5859) Alig Chomsky and Davidson aay apes on this pot her ise ‘se hut Davison sas ee with which Chomsky could agree. Wie ‘Chomsky eet teen of convention, he ejecta well the en of n- sige 8 soi phcumenon Although Davin eesti of con- ‘esto, he snow kac o emphasize the idea of lrguage as aoc phe omen, is ths emphasis tat drives hm eet condition (i) above, 4 omannaces ‘When we do let goof this hid condition what we se is that an interrees or audience i in poison to understan a speaker’ ter- nce on occasions when there hasbeen Tes than pefetemploy- ‘ment ofthe language on the speaker's pat by dint of such things asthe {interpreters exploitation a the surrounding context o comet ape ‘ate the speaker's itertions, Any “theory Ua the ner or nu ‘enemy have in conection with he speaker's language is of no help tere. What the intrresefandience nee to nd i a way of seeing sin the psaer's ntntions ae. As Davidson syst ne oi, what the interpreteaudince brings to bears not a theory of the peaker's Famguage but wit, hick, wisdom, taste and symptiy. The theory is ‘il here, Davison sintsns, Sut itis ne what eomes nt operation in the understanding of sich speakers. Now Davidson isnot content jst o make an servation shot a few cases where there are slips of| the tongue or where the speaker "g's ay witht despite bis dvi tion ftom the not. Rater, Davidson want use observations about ‘stat must be going on in these cases o make claim boat the use of language and communication gute generally. What we fear fom the ce where things go 40 very ons stat the interpreteiauience ‘Toes have something to g0.0n nthe sterpreain of the speaks Once ‘we sec this should be cleo us that hs is what important com Tmonsation anying els is merely heat. In this conection Davidson waite: ‘ng a wor in mst way ot of ener fi sa ‘Min ee wre ors efron asa ew ‘Tepes ong te wong fo to orig ont {tre wd ended he ewok (Dn 198°) Just as we don't ed owe ck what we a interested in nc iskment so we dont ned to fear the rls or enventions which govern the opaker's inguge i what we are intrested ins comico ‘Now this dee tht what i fundamen to communication mst involve veference to speakers intsotions isetitly Gricean. AS Well 8 insisting on these Grice elements, however, Davidson also now insists his main ners not ith the question ofhow we lear fist language Rate, hei inteestad in ow people who already have & language manage 10 communicate (or interpret one another)!” Davidson's point ist, although both the spear and bearer have mmehow managed to acute langage a ode for thm to come ti RIC AND THESOCAL AST OF LANGUAGE ps rmunicate they net ot share the some langue, Rater, what needs {0 hapen is thi the interrterinaione neds to bo ale vo manocu- ‘ae hse ina a sion where he 6 able to understand the speaker (along the ines cited above) The nec for corsmuniaton~ ike the ned for nourishment isa powerful ned It can die the itr- ettve process inthe absence ofa shared language. ‘What then ofthe rules? A analogy’ take fam a ater different sat of philosophy may prove helpful in understanding the role Davidson now sees for tere rues | have in mind the distinction ‘toon set and ale uillarianisn, Both Kinds of uilitaran agree dat ‘the overarching im of ou ct must be io maximise the realest hap- pins for the gretst aumbe; there is, however, disagreement over the bes way to achiove thi end. The role utara thks that thi ean ‘only be achieved by wicking cern rules (which ales re adopted Testis of tei condulg to the greatest happiness for the gretest umber). The ac titan, the other band, holds that we must be Prepered to give up the rules in exon. According othe set lta fan the rae tara loses sight ofthe Tat hat sony the pinei- ple that matters and that we must accept that we may sorcies need to break the rl in ort ul the principe. In saying this, bower tte act utarian mst not be seen throwing ov rles wholes. “The act itera does acept hat mos ofthe ne we use and abide tothe as, This we do ad mist do if or o other reas han a stakes too ch tine to eluate the consequences of every acto, ‘A Joa Start Mil writs: “Nobody anes that heat of navigation ‘sno founded on astronomy, just becuse silos cannot watt caleu- Inte the National Almanac, Being rational eats, they got sea with st ready calultog™ (Mil 1975: 276). Mls pont stat these rules ‘st be undertod to be merely ruler of hums we can break dam ‘wen ead be. What we mist not oe sight of that isthe wsiia- ‘sn priciple tha i of ulate inporance in maters of morality Daisons appl tole of langage smile othe act witaran's lg of thumb, What we eased 0 epee ia both eases ietha what timely mates in each ase ~ moat or communica ‘Gon ~ fn dvorceable fom the les. We ave fo understand what mat- ter ber by reference, onthe one hand, othe aretest happiness pi- ‘ipl, and the the and, othe ned to comsmniate.Desptethis, we can Se that eles still ave a very lage role opty in our every 16 ee ay ats ~ be they linguistic or moral sets, Compare what Mil says ‘withthe follwing from Davidson: edo ease inp, onan ees mw ey oi san cho psa and snes fo he nome ane {houston stop rst aoe ero nan aba be ‘Thay uw ek he Baten 68 70) ‘The analogy with uss of thumb as employed by the at sltaran may help to clarify Davidson's postion with respect to rules of lan- ‘page, Adit may help ust defend Davideonsposiion agaist some things that Michael Dununet bas said by way of etc of it Dummet writs, in cera cnet uh iy of ae an sean mye mc, ‘ihr bel hey me ogg ee Fey a Tees ak ond ee chs ner ns ty my owner i be ngage ln ro se) ona en Damme 194 238) vison would be the first to agree. Ashe says, vey time we ask foe 2 cup of cofles, give drstions to a tx drier or order 2 crate of Jems, we st aru tat things wil proceed long standard lines. ‘But this is employing our rules rules of tub ~ rules that hep us fut most of he tie ead which we an set avoid the more onerous task of figuring Out what th speaker meats. In practice we employ ‘es a otf th tins; but we must at Bolen by this observation nto thinking tat hits vs anything abou the primary fanction of an ‘age Davidson wes, lah ae freien, cain ac sd res, we mo. ma ‘Sci tn gee We stony Sevan ele ee ‘Spaced conidetine Nene f his rate forsusingSblgaon, Tel neces buseer coos whe devas om el ‘Sem sy tr bpso or ntago do woh wg scm Seo Devin 1549)" ‘nthe question of ligation, Dummett snd Davison shal dis- agree, Durnmet does, wile Davison doesnt ake it that we have a ‘blgaton or esponsibility wo the noe even if we deviate fom itsome ‘of the dine, According to Davidson the ony obligation we have sto Speak in away tat ll make ourselves undrstod; responsiblity fs avon Rs. AND HE SOCIAL ASPECTS OF LANGUAGE i ether ere nor there where the ncod 10 communicate exists 2? Dunc tkes this act ony to be wrong, but extemey pensious. Language for Durmet ia finely tuned instrament. nme woes, rah ri ter ly eo ze pls. be wt ‘thay thease se ting and at at Pope wenscmplied Dunne 1B 285) luis tempting to agree with Durmet hare. But onside the allowing ‘Sey [use thi aoe cut spec of sting thats seangling my small ‘til. In his station would we pause to consider the comecness of this act when told that this was one's father’ ely bone rz? T ‘think not. What Davison is asking so evs is the idea of lan- page a= fine instument eo against the idea of language a ine Instrument ofcanmucation. New the need to ornmuicate ia far

    You might also like