GRICE E VIO

 

Grice turns to a third mode of unification, which he would describe as Cajetan in nature, and what is possibly the most baffling of the various ways explicitly suggested by Aristotle as being those in which what Grice is calling this unification or aequi-vocality the multiplicity of significations may arise, even if made less baffling by Vio – vide Ashford. These will be those cases in which the application of an epithet or expression E to a range of items is accounted for by an analogy detectable within that range. More explicitly, an analogy between the specific ‘universal’ which determines the application of the epithet or expression, or between an exemplification of that ‘universal’ by this or that type of item. Even more explicitly, an analogy between the universals U1, U2, … Un, which determines the application of the epithet or expression, or between an exemplifications of U1, U2, … Un, by items of the sorts ly. lo etc., The puzzling character of Aristotle's treatment of this topic arises from a number of different factors. First, there are a few things which Aristotle himself might have done to aid our comprehension. He might have given us a firm list of examples of epithets or expressions, the application of which to a given range of items is to be accounted for in this way. Alternatively, Aristotle might have given us a reasonably clearer characterisation of the kind of accounting which analogy is supposed to provide, leaving it to us to determine the range of application of this kind of accounting. Unfortunately he does neither of these things. Aristotle only offers us the most meagre hints about the way in which analogy might ‘unify,’ via aequi-vocality, the various applications of an epithet. We are told, for example, that as seeing is in the eye, so understanding is in the soul with the implicature that this fact accounts for the application of see both to a case of optical vision and a case of intellectual ‘vision.’ He also suggests that analogy is responsible for the application of the calm both to an undisturbed body of sea water and to an undisturbed expanse of air. Such offerings do not get us very far. Furthermore, not surprisingly, where Aristotle seems to fear to tread his commentators are most reluctant to plant their own feet. Perhaps the least unhelpful suggestion comes from a latter-day commentator, not Avicenna, but the influential Oxford, indeed Scottish, philosopher W. D. Ross, who suggests, as Aristotle's view, that the application of good is attributable to the fact that within one category C1 items which are good are related to an item in general belonging to that category, in a way which is analogous to the way in which a good item (say, a good cabbage) in some second category C2 is related to the general run of items which belong to that second category. Apart from the obscurity in the presentation of this idea, Ross's suggestion takes for granted something which Aristotle himself does not tell us, viz. that the application of the epithet good is one exemplification of unification or aequi-vocality of a value-oriented concept which is the outcome of analogy. Ross's suggestion about good would, moreover, be at best only a description of one special case of analogical unification via aequi-vocality, and would not give us any general account of such unification. Grice adds that little supplementary assistance is derivable from those who study general concepts. Such philosophers seem to adhere to the principle that silence is golden when it comes to discussion of such questions as the relation between analogy, and her sisters: metaphor, simile, allegory, and parable. So far as Aristotle himself is concerned, it seems fairly clear to Grice that the primary notion behind the concept of analogy is that of ‘proportion’: a:b::c:d. This notion is embodied, for example, in Aristotle's treatment of just. where one kind of just is alleged to consist in a due proportion between return, reward, or penalty, and antecedent desert, merit, or demerit. But it does remains a bit of a mystery how what starts life as, or as something approximating to, a quantitative relationship gets converted into a non-quantitative relation of correspondence or affinity. It looks as if we might be thrown back upon what we might hope to be an inspired conjecture. Grice takes as task the provision of an example, congenial to Aristotle, of the unification by analogy of the application to a range of objects of some epithet. Grice expects this to involve the detection of an analogical link between the exemplifications of the variety of this or that universal which the epithet may be used to ‘signify.’ Grice’s chosen specimen is grow. In the case of grow, a number of different kinds of shifts might be thought of as possessing an analogical unification by aequi-vocality. One of these would be examples of shifts in respect of what might be termed a syntactical metaphysical or ontological category. A substance, indeed a physical substance like a lump of wax or a mass of metal, might be said to grow. It would be tempting here to suggest that the relevantly involved ‘universal,’ that of increase in size or getting larger, provides the foundational instance of the literal ‘signification’ or sense of a universal by the application of th expression grow. We have here, so to speak, the 'ground-floor' signification – dictiveness -- of grow. But now, not only the physical substance itself but some accident of the substance may also be said to grow. Not only the piece of wax, but its magnitude, some event or process in its history, its powers or causal efficacy and its aesthetic quality or beauty might each be said to grow. And it seems not unplausible to suggest that though growth on the part of these non-substantial accidents is different, and more or, again, less boringly connected with growth on the part of the substance, there will always be some kind of correspondence, indeed analogical connection, between grow in the case of a non-substantial item and grow in the initial case of a substantial item. Another and different kind of categorial variation may separate some of the universals which the grow may be used to ‘signify’ from others. These will be connected with differences in some sub-category within the category of substance within which fall different sorts of items which may be said to grow. Different universals may be ‘signified’ by someone who speaks of a plant as growing and by someone who speaks of a human being as growing. The connection between these diverse realisations of grow may rest on, say, vegetal, analogy. In what is called the grow of a plant, such as a rose, internally originated increase in size seems to occupy a prominent place. In the case of a human being, the kind of development which may be involved in the grow may be much more varied and complex. The link between the two distinct universals which may be ‘signified’ might be provided by analogy between the roles which such changes fulfill in the development of the very different kinds of substances which are being characterised. No doubt many further kinds of analogical connection would emerge within the general practice of attributing this or that grow. Grice’s next endeavour will be an attempt to supply some general account of the way in which the presence of analogy may serve to unify multiplicity of signification; and if such an account should be found to offer prospects of distinguishing analogy from other concepts, particularly metaphor (as conversational implicature, as in the song title, ‘You’re the cream in my coffee’ to use Grice’s example in ‘Logic and conversation,’ which belongs to the same general family, that would be a welcome aspect of the account. It is Grice’s idea that, in metaphorical -- rather than literal -- description, a universal is ‘signified’ (you’re my pride and joy), which though distinct from that which underlies the literal signification of the epithet (the cream in the coffee) is nevertheless recognisably similar to the literal signification. Grice comes then to the concept of analogy itself. Grice starts by considering this or that item, I1, I2, … In, any one of which may be called an S. Grice initially supposes that being an S consists in belonging to a substantial type or kind, or category S, though that supposition may be relaxed. Grice’s move is to assume that being an S, consists in being subject to a system of laws which jointly express the nature, metier, or essentia, of the type or kind Si. Further, these laws, which furnish the core theory of S,, are to be formulated in terms of a finite set of Si-core properties -- let us say P1 to Pn. Each law involves an ordered extract from the core set. Their totality governs any fully authentic Sy. This totality may well not include every law which applies to S,: but it does include every law which is deemed to be relevant to the identity or identification of Sy, every law which determines whether or not a particular item I1, I2, … In, is to count as an 5. Grice next considers not merely things each of which is an S, but also things each of which is an Sz. It remains an open question whether or not the type S is to be deemed identical with the type S1. Grice assumes that, as in the case of S, membership of S, is determined by conformity to a system of laws relating to those properties which are central to S2. Grice symbolises these properties by the set of devices Or ... Q.. We now have various possibilities to consider. The first is that every law which is central to the determination of Sz is a mirror image of a law which is central to S,; and that the converse of this supposition also obtains. To this end, we assume that the properties which are central to being an S, are the properties of the devices O, through Os; and that if a law involving a certain ordered extract from the set P through P, belongs to the central theory of S to a law involving an exactly corresponding ordered extract from the set O, through O, will belong to the central theory of S; and that the same holds in reverse. In that case, we are in the position to say that there is a perfect analogy between the central theories of S, and Sz; in which case, it may also be tempting to say that the types S, and S, are essentially identical. We should recognize that if we yield to this temptation we are not thereby forced to say that Sy and S, are indistinguishable, they might, for example, be differently related to perception, only one of them, perhaps, being accessible to sight. We shall only be forced to allow that essentially, or theoretically, the types are not distinct. The possibility just considered is that of a total perfect analogy between the central theories of S, and Sa. There is also, however, the possibility of a merely partial pertect analogy between S, and Sz. That is to say part of the central theory of one type, say S, may mirror the whole of the central theory of Sz, or again may mirror some part of a central theory of Sz. In such a circumstance, one might be led to say, in one case, that the type S, is a special case of the type S,; or, in another case, that the types S, and S, both fall under a common super-type, determined by the limited area of perfect analogy between the central theories of S, and Sz. Another possibility will be that no perfect analogy, either total or partial, will hold between the two central theories. The best that can be found are imperfect analogies which will consist in laws central to one type approximating, to a certain degree, with the status of being analogues of laws central to the other. At this stage, Grice proposes a relaxation in the characterization of the signification of such symbols as 'S!', 'Sz etc., which till now I have been regarding as ‘signifying’ or denoting substantial types or kinds, reference to which is made in more or less regimented discourse of a theoretical or ‘alethic’ sort. But Grice allows for such symbols as being allowed to relate to what he hopes might be legitimately regarded as an informal precursor of the afore-mentioned substantial types, as expressing this or that concept of one or other classificatory sort, concepts which will be deployed in an unregimented description or explanations as pre-theoretical. Examples of such unregimented classificatory concepts might be concepts such as that of an investor, a doctor, a vehicle, a confidante, and so on. Grice would hope that in many ways their general character or metier might run parallel to that of their more regimented counterpart. In particular, Grice hopes and expects that the nature of such concepts would be bound up with conformity to a certain set of central generalities, like platitudes, truisms, etc. To be an investor or a vehicle will be to perform a metier, that is, to do a sufficient number of the kinds of things which are typically even stereotypically done by an investor or a vehicle. Grice expects, however, that the variety of possible forms of generalisation might considerably exceed the meagre armament which a theoretical enquirer normally permit themselves to employ. Grice also hopes and expects that the generalities which would be expressive of the nature of a particular classificatory concept would be formulable in terms of a limited body of features which would be central to the concept in question. This material might be sufficient to provide for the presence, from time to time, of analogy, at least of imperfect analogy, between such generalities which aro expressive of distinct classificatory concepts. When they occur, such analogies might be sufficient to provide for some unity or uni-vocality of ‘signification’ in the employment of a single epithet to ‘signify’ even different classificatory concepts; and this unity or aequi-vocality of ‘signification’, in turn, might be sufficient to justify the idea that, in such a case, the expression in question is used with a single ‘significatoin,’ lexical meaning, or Fregean sense.

Grice concludes his ‘Aristotle on the multiplicity of being’ with some suggestions about the interpretation of the concept of analogy as a possible foundation for the unity of ‘signification’ with two supplementary comments. His first comment is that there seems to be a good case for supposing that anyone who, like VIO did, accepts an account of an analogy-based unity of signification should not feel free to combine it with a rejection of the so-called analytic-synthetic distinction. After all, the analogy-based unity account relies crucially on a connection between the application of a particular concept and the application of a system of laws, or some such generalities, which is expressive of that concept. This, in tum, relies on the idea of a stock of further concepts, in terms of which these laws and generalities are to be formulated, being central to the original concept. But it seems plausible, if not mandatory, to suppose that such centrality involves a non-contingent connection between the original concept and the concepts which are said to be central to it, a connection which cannot he admitted by one who denies the analytic/synthetic distinction, as Quine and his fellow nominalists did. So either one does accept the analytic/synthetic distinction, or one rejects at least this account of analogy-based unity of ‘signification.’ Grice makes no attempt here to decide between these alternatives. Grice’s second comment is that material introduced in Grice’s suggested elaboration of the notion of analogy, particularly the connection between concepts and conformity to laws or some such generalities, may serve to provide a needed explanation and justification of an initial idea that the applicability of a single defining formula, couched in terms of the ideas of genus, but also species, and differentia is a paradeigmatic condition, if not an indispensable condition, for identity of ‘sigification,’ never mind unity. We might, for a start, agree to treat a situation in which the applicability of an epithet to an item I1 rests on a conformity to exactly the same laws or generalities as does its application to item I2, as being a limiting case of partially perfect analogy. But situations in which no such interpretation at all is required may be treated as limiting cases of situations in which, though re-interpretation is required, one such re-interpretation is available which achieves such partial perfect analogy. As one might say, a law is perfectly analogous with itself. Situations, then, in which an epithet or expression E applies to a range of items I1, I2, … In, solely by virtue of the presence of a single ‘universal,’ and so of a single set of laws, may be legitimately regarded as a specially exemplary instance of a kind of unity which is required for identity of ‘signification.’

Both a proper assessment of Aristotle's contribution to metaphysics and the analysis of ‘meaning’ or ‘signification,’ and studies in the theory of meaning themselves might profit from a somewhat less localised attention to questions about the relation between a ‘universal’ and ‘signification’ than is visible in Grice’s reflections. Grice has it in mind to raise not the general question whether, despite what he calls the school of latter-day nominalists, an analysis of ‘signification’ requires an abstract entity such as a ‘universal,’ to which Grice assumes an affirmative answer), but rather the question in what way the concept of a ‘universal’ is to be supposed to be relevant to the analysis of ‘signification.’ Consideration of the practices of latter-day lexicographers, so far from supporting a charge that, at least on Grice’s interpretation of him, Aristotle proposes an illegitimate divorce between the concept of a ‘universal’ and the concept of ‘signification’ suggests that it would be proper to go a deal further than did Aristotle himself in championing such a divorce. There will be many different forms of connection between the varieties of the concept of a ‘universal’ which may be ‘signified’ by a non-equivocable expression beyond that countenanced by the tradition of the theory of definition alla Robinson, and even perhaps beyond the extensions to that theory envisaged by Aristotle himself. These forms will include some form of connection like that involved in metonymy or synecdoche, recognised by later grammatical theorists, and no doubt others as well. It would, Grice suggests, be a profitable undertaking to study carefully the contents of a good modern dictionary, with a view to constructing an inventory of these various modes of connection. Such an investigation would, Grice suspects, reveal both that, in a given case, the invocation of one mode of connection may be subordinate and posterior to the invocation of another, and also that there is no prescribed order or limitation of order which such invocations must observe. Grice suspects, also, that it might emerge that the question whether variations in ‘signification’ are thought of as synchronic or diachronic has no bearing on the nature of these uniting connections. The same form of connection may be available in both cases, and either case may in turn well be found to correspond with the range of such different figures of speech which conversational practice may typically employ for the effect of implicature. Should this conjecture turn out to be correct, the underlying explanation of its truth might, Grice would guess, run along the following lines. Rational communication, in pursuit of its co-operative purpose, encounters a boundless, indeed unpredictable, multitude – indeed multiplicity -- of distinct situations. Perhaps unlike a computer we shall not have, ready made, any vast array of forms of description and explanation from which to select what is suitable for a particular conversational occasion. We shall have to rely on our rational capacities, particularly those for imaginative construction and combination, to provide for our needs as they arise. It would not then be surprising that the operations will reflect, in this or that way, the character of the capacities on which we rely.

Grice confesses to only the haziest of conception bow such an idea might be worked out in detail. Which is a long way from the aequi-vocality of ‘being’! Enter Aequi-vocality. In his fourth Kant lecture Grice confesses to have been so far in the early stages of an attempt to estimate the prospects of what he names as an AEQUI-vocality thesis,” – that is, a thesis, or set of theses, which claims that an expression is UNI-vocal. In ‘Aristotle on the multiplicity of being’ the univocity is veiled under the guise of unification, but the spirit lives on!