This paper has the following structure: first, Paul Grice’s original account of non-natural meaning (in “Meaning”) is critically discussed; second, Stephen Neale’s analysis (in “Paul Grice and the Philosophy of Language”) is critically discussed; third, Kent Bach and Robert Harnish’s analysis of linguistic communication is critically discussed; lastly, due to considerations detailed in the previous section, doubts are raised about the viability of intentional based semantics. In discussing Neale and Bach and Harnish, two novel counter-examples are employed to show their analyses to be inadequate.
"Critical Reflections on Intentions and Linguistic Communication,"
International Journal of Undergraduate Research and Creative Activities: Vol. 8:
2, Article 8.
Available at: https://digitalcommons.cwu.edu/ijurca/vol8/iss2/8