Griceren adibide galdua. Esanahi naturalari buruzko probaren gabeziak

EnglishWe found a curious fact about the second of the three examples at the very beginning of Grice’s “Meaning” (1957). He introduces it as an example of natural meaning, but he never uses it again, neither in that paper nor in “Meaning Revisited” (1982), devoted to the same topic. Furthermore, the example doesn’t meet the first and foremost criterion that Grice sets for natural meaning: factivity. The insertion of that example in “Meaning” is an error, we contend; an error that was never corrected in the multiple editions of the paper; a mistake that, besides its historic importance, might have conceptual relevance too. EuskaraGricek “Esanahia” (2007 [1957]) artikuluaren hasieran ematen dituen hiru adibideetatik bigarrenarekin gertaera bitxia topatu dugu. Esanahi naturalaren adibide nagusietako baten gisa aurkezten du, baina ez du inoiz ezertarako erabiltzen; ez artikulu horretan, ezta gai berari eskaini zion “Meaning Revisited”en (1982) ere. Gainera, adibideak ez du betetzen esanahi naturalarentzat Gricek ezartzen dituen irizpideetan lehena eta garrantzitsuena: faktibotasuna. Adibide hori “Esanahia”n sartzea, beraz, Griceren hutsegitea da; guk dakigula, artikuluak izandako berrargitalpen ugarietan sekula konpondu ez den hutsegitea. Nahastea agian, baina garrantzi historikoaz aparte, garrantzi kontzeptuala ere izan dezakeena.