Abstract
AbstractApart from a passing reference to Kant, Grice never explains in his writings how he came to discover his conversational maxims. He simply proclaims them without justification. Yet regardless of how his ingenious invention really came about, one might wonder how the conversational maxims can be detected and distinguished from other sorts of maxims. We argue that the conversational maxims can be identified by the use of a transcendental argument in the spirit of Kant. To this end, we introduce Grice’s account of conversational maxims and categories and compare it briefly with Kant’s thoughts on categories. Subsequently, we pursue a thought experiment concerning what would happen if speakers constantly broke one or another of the maxims. It seems that it would not be possible for children to recognize a significant number of lexical meanings under such circumstances. Hence, the conversational maxims are rules whose occasional application is a necessary condition of language and conversation.
Funder
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference38 articles.
1. Bach, K. (2012). Saying, Meaning, and Implicating. In K. Allan & K. M. Jaszczolt (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics (pp. 47–67). Cambridge University Press.
2. Bardon, A. (2020) Transcendental Arguments. In: Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from http://www.iep.utm.edu/trans-ar/. Accessed 19 Mar 2020.
3. Carston, R. (2002): Thoughts and Utterances. The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Blackwell.
4. Carston, R. (2005). Relevance theory, Grice, and the Neo-Griceans. A response to Laurence Horn’s ‘Current issues in neo-Gricean pragmatics.’ Intercultural Pragmatics, 2, 303–320.
5. Chapman, S. (2005). Grice. Philosopher and Linguist. Palgrave.