¹ Grice, H. P., ‘Meaning’, Philosophical Review 46 (1957), 377–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar; ‘Utterer's Meaning and Intentions‘, Philosophical Review 78 (1969), 147–177.Google Scholar

² Wittgenstein, Ludwig, Philosophical Investigations, Anscombe, G. E. M. (ed.) (Oxford: Blackwell, 1967)Google Scholar; The Blue and Brown Books, pref. by Rhees, R. (Oxford: Blackwell, 1960)Google Scholar; Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics, von Wright, G. H., Rhees, R., and Anscombe, G. E. M. (eds.), translated by Anscombe, G. E. M. (Oxford: Blackwell, 1956).Google Scholar

³ Palmer, Leonard, Descriptive and Comparative Linguistics (London, 1972), 321.Google Scholar

⁴ Augustine, St, De Magistro, translated by Russell, Robert P. in The Teacher; The Free Choice of the Will; Grace and Free Will (Washington, 1968), 14–15.Google Scholar

⁵ Wittgenstein, , PI, section 143 et seq.Google Scholar

⁶ Ibid., section 217.

⁷ Van de Vate, Dwight, ‘The Appeal to Force’, Philosophy and Rhetoric 8 (1975), 43–60.Google Scholar

⁸ Wittgenstein, , PI, section 199.Google Scholar

⁹ It is ironic to see in these very same sections the Master himself being corrected by his editor. In section 226 of PI, p. 86e, the manuscript read, ‘Suppose someone gets the series of numbers, 1, 3, 5, 7, … by working out the series x ²+1’. The editor has corrected this to ‘Suppose someone gets the series of numbers 1, 3, 5, 7, … by working out the series 2x+1’. How do we know that this is what Wittgenstein meant? Perhaps he meant ‘Suppose someone gets the series of numbers 1, 2, 5, 10, … by working out the series x ²+1’—which takes the variable x to move through the values 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, … Or perhaps he meant ‘… the series 2, 5, 26, 676, … by working out the series x ²+1’—taking the value of the variable x to be first 1, and thereafter the number produced by the formula. Or perhaps …

¹⁰ St Augustine, , De Magistro, p. 41.Google Scholar

¹¹ Copley, J., Shift of Meaning (London, 1961), 85–86.Google Scholar

¹² Schiffer, Stephen R., Meaning (Oxford University Press, 1972).Google Scholar

¹³ SirGardiner, Alan H., The Theory of Speech and Language (Oxford University Press, 1932), 52Google Scholar. There are distinct anticipations of Grice in Gardiner, (pp. 20, 79, 87, 100–101)Google Scholar and in the author to whom he frequently refers, Wegener, Ph., Untersuchungen über die Grundfragen des Sprachlebens (Halle, 1885), 67–69.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Austin, J. L., ‘A Plea for Excuses’ in Philosophical Papers (Oxford University Press, 1970), 201.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Anscombe, G. E. M., Intention (Oxford: Blackwell, 1957).Google Scholar

¹⁶ Feinberg, Joel, ‘Action and Responsibility’ in Philosophy in America, by Black, Max (ed.) (London: Allen and Unwin, 1964), 134–160 (p. 146).Google Scholar

¹⁷ Wittgenstein, , PI, section 659.Google Scholar

¹⁸ If the argument of this article is cogent, one can only arrive at a speaker's-meaning version of ‘knowing-that’, never at a fixed word-meaning version.

¹⁹ Merton, R. K., Social Theory and Social Structure (New York: Free Press, 1968), 81ff.Google Scholar

²⁰ Douglas, Mary (ed.), Rules and Meanings (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1973)Google Scholar. One might explore the relationship between tacit assumptions and the enthymeme as it appears in Aristotle's analysis of rhetoric.

²¹ Merton, , p. 81.Google Scholar

²² Johnstone, Henry W. Jr, Philosophy and Argument (University of Pennsylvania, 1959), 129.Google Scholar

²³ Canfield, John V., ‘Criteria and the Rules of Language’, Philosophical Review 83 (1974), 70–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁴ Nell, Edward J., ‘The Hardness of the Logical “Must”’, Analysis 21 (1960–1961), 68–72 (p. 70).Google Scholar

²⁵ Schutz, Alfred, Collected Papers. Vol. I: The Problem of Social Reality (The Hague: Nijhoff, 1962), 31–32.Google Scholar

²⁶ Schutz, , p. 32.Google Scholar

²⁷ Schutz, , p. 33.Google Scholar

²⁸ Schiffer, op. cit.

²⁹ Lewis, David K., Convention (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1969).Google Scholar

³⁰ Schutz, Alfred, On Phenomenology and Social Relations: Selected Writings, Wagner, Helmut R. (ed.) (Chicago, 1973), 199.Google Scholar

³¹ Nell, , p. 70.Google Scholar

³² Pitcher, George, ‘About the Same’ in Ludwig Wittgenstein: Philosophy and Language, Ambrose, Alice and Lazerowitz, Morris (ed.) (London: Allen and Unwin, 1972), 120–139.Google Scholar

³³ See Jones, J. R., ‘Characters and Resemblances’, Philosophical Review 60 (1951), 551–562 (p. 561)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Goodman, Nelson ‘Seven Strictures on Similarity’ in Experience and Theory, Foster, L. and Swanson, J. W. (eds.) (London, 1970), 25–26Google Scholar. It has often been said that any two things can be shown to be alike. What has not been pointed out is that such likenings would represent fictitious, ad hoc intention.

³⁴ Wittgenstein, , PI, sections 224 and 225, p. 86e.Google Scholar

³⁵ Nell, , p. 70.Google Scholar

³⁶ Ibid.

³⁷ de Saussure, Ferdinand, Course in General Linguistics, Bally, Charles and Sechehaye, Albert (ed.) in collaboration with Albert Reidlinger, translated by Baskin, Wade (London, 1960)Google Scholar; first edition Paris, 1916.

³⁸ Wittgenstein, , RFM, sections 113 to 116.Google Scholar

³⁹ Stroud, Barry, ‘Wittgenstein and Logical Necessity’, Philosophical Review 74 (1965), 504–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴⁰ Bogen, James, Wittgenstein's Philosophy of Language (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1972), 193ff.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Chibara, Charles S., ‘Wittgenstein and Logical Compulsion’, Analysis 21 (1960–1961), 136–140.Google Scholar

⁴² Mundle, C. W. K., A Critique of Linguistic Philosophy (Oxford University Press, 1970), 197.Google Scholar

⁴³ Doorbar, Roger, ‘Meaning, Rules and Behaviour’, Mind 80 (1971), 29–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴⁴ See Wright, E. L., ‘Similarity and Contiguity in Relation to Meaning’ (unpublished D.Phil, thesis, University of Oxford, 1975), ch. VIII.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Kripke, Saul A., ‘Naming and Necessity’ in Semantics of Natural Language, Davidson, Donald and Karman, Gilbert (eds.) (Dordrecht, 1972), 253–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴⁶ Kuipers, Aert H., ‘On Symbols, Distinctions and Markedness’, Lingua 36 (1975), 31–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar