Abstract
Sperber and Wilson (1995) ground their definition of communication on their criticism of Grice's intentional definition of non-natural meaning. In such a perspective, communication is considered as an act rather than as a process. Sperber and Wilson propose two definitions of this fundamental concept. In a first time, they argue that communication involves two specific intentions; afterwards, they equate it with ostension. This paper examines and criticizes their proposals, confronting them to ordinary intuition. Some crucial issues are discussed: the equivalence of Sperber and Wilson's two definitions, the nature of the evidence used in communication, the intentionality of communication, the content of the communicative intention, the notion of mutual manifestness, and the problem of infinite regress.
Highlights
Sperber and Wilson (1995) ground their defínition of communication on their criticism of Grice's intentional defínition of non-natural meaning
I will begin by distinguishing between two possible ways of considering communication, viz. as a process or as an act
They severely criticize Grice's attempts to account for communication as well as for interpretation processes, S&W consider that Grice's definition of non-natural meaning can be elaborated on in order to develop an inferential model of communication
Summary
They severely criticize Grice's attempts to account for communication as well as for interpretation processes, S&W consider that Grice's definition of non-natural meaning can be elaborated on in order to develop an inferential model of communication (see S&W, 1995: 21). S&W claim that "successful communication" only requires that the communicative intention be fulfilled Consider what they say in their final definition of ostensive-inferential communication : "the communicator produces a stimulus which makes it mutually manifest to communicator and audience that the communicator intends, by means of this stimulus, to make manifest or more manifest to the audience a set of assumptions {I}" (1995: 63). S&W never establish the equivalence of both definitions, they only state it, illustrating their point of view with examples They hold that the equation of communication with ostensión follows from their rejection of the idea that communication "consists in providing evidence for what the communicator means" (1995: 54). This point will be examined in detail
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
