H. P. GRICE E J. L. SPERANZA: LA CONVERSAZIONE -- I VERBALI: PANDULLO

 G.: This Pandullo—“ragionata”—you winced. S.: I did. It sounds like an Italianism for “raisonnée,” and I cannot imagine Cicero tolerating a past participle of rationari so cheerfully paraded in a title. G.: Why shouldn’t he? S.: Because it smells of schoolroom Latin gone feral. G.: My dear S., who reasons grammar? S.: The grammarian, I suppose. G.: Not at all. The speaker. S.: The speaker hardly knows he is doing it. G.: Precisely. Which is why when he does it well, we call the result “ragionata,” whether Cicero approves or not. S.: You are letting the Italians off lightly. G.: I am letting language off heavily. If the utterer is apt—cfr. O. P. Wood on the force of linguistic rules—he produces a system that is, if not rational, at least reasoned. S.: And if he is not apt? G.: Then he produces Pandullo badly. S.: So “ragionata” is a compliment to the speaker. G.: Or a hope. S.: A hope masquerading as a participle. G.: All grammar is hope masquerading as necessity. S.: That is almost mystical. G.: Only until you look at the subtitle: Analisi metafisica degli elementi del linguaggio. S.: There. That is where I feel at home. Metafisica. G.: So Oxonian of him. S.: But what are these “elementi”? G.: Ah. The question of quantification. How many elements has language? S.: I should have said several. G.: Aristotle would have said ten. S.: Ten what? G.: Categories. And Pandullo, being properly nineteenth-century, would count something like parts of speech, relations, accents, and so forth, until he reaches a respectable ten. S.: So we have nouns, verbs, adjectives— G.: Already too many. S.: And then prepositions, adverbs— G.: And you see how the list expands under pressure of examples. S.: Then the “analisi metafisica” collapses into a taxonomy. G.: Exactly. Metaphysics by enumeration. S.: You disapprove. G.: I admire the ambition. “All languages,” he says. S.: “Tutte le lingue.” An unregulated quantifier. G.: Quite. Strawson would wince. S.: And you? G.: I catalogue. S.: Of course you do. G.: If one is to keep the proceedings, one must allow Pandullo his universality. S.: Even if it is “on the cheap.” G.: Especially then. S.: But tell me: is “analisi metafisica” really different from “analisi morfo-sintattica”? G.: In practice, no. S.: In title, yes. G.: In aspiration, certainly. S.: So Pandullo dresses morphology in metaphysical robes. G.: As we do with “logical form.” S.: That is unfair. G.: Entirely fair. We say “form” and mean “pattern.” S.: He says “metafisica” and means “classification.” G.: Precisely. S.: Then “ragionata” is his apology. G.: Or his boast. S.: Which? G.: Both. He is saying: this grammar is not merely described; it is justified. S.: By whom? G.: By reason. S.: Whose? G.: That is the delicate implicature. S.: You are turning Pandullo into one of your cases. G.: He is begging to be turned. S.: Then let me try. If he says “ragionata,” he implies that un-ragionata grammars exist. G.: Indeed. S.: And that his is superior. G.: Naturally. S.: And that the student will proceed “più spedita ed agevole.” G.: A promise, not a theorem. S.: So the title is already doing work. G.: Titles always do. S.: Then what of “elementi del linguaggio”? G.: A fiction of discreteness. S.: You mean language does not come in elements? G.: Not in the way tables of categories suggest. S.: But Aristotle— G.: Snared us. S.: With his ontology. G.: Exactly. He gives us categories, and we spend centuries pretending language obeys them. S.: And Pandullo joins the tradition. G.: Faithfully. S.: Whereas you— G.: Prefer practice to map. S.: So for you, the “element” is not a part of speech. G.: It is an occasion of use. S.: That is intolerably vague. G.: It is intolerably accurate. S.: Then “analisi metafisica” misses the point. G.: It relocates it. S.: From use to structure. G.: Yes. S.: And from speaker to system. G.: Precisely. S.: But you insisted earlier that the speaker reasons grammar. G.: He does. But not by consulting Pandullo. S.: Then Pandullo is redundant. G.: He is pedagogical. S.: Ah. So the grammar disciplines the speaker. G.: Or tries to. S.: And where it fails— G.: Implicature begins. S.: So your theory is the residue of Pandullo’s failure. G.: A rather elegant way of putting it. S.: Then “ragionata” is an ideal never fully realised. G.: As with most participles in philosophy. S.: You are very forgiving. G.: I am very classificatory. S.: Like Pandullo. G.: Heaven forbid. S.: You both love lists. G.: Yes, but mine leak. S.: His are watertight. G.: Until someone speaks. S.: Then the water gets in. G.: And the implicatures float. S.: I begin to see the charm. G.: Or the incantation. S.: We are back to Italianisms. G.: Always. S.: Then final question: is “ragionata” legitimate? G.: If uttered by a competent speaker in a cooperative context, yes. S.: That is your answer to everything. G.: It is my answer to most titles. S.: And Cicero? G.: Would have written a better one, and meant the same.