A central element of Grice’s theory of language is that linguistic meaning is intention-driven. The creation and calculation of speaker meaning depend on the speaker’s intentions. In contrast, a central and fundamental concept of traditional psychoanalysis is the unconscious, that part of the mind to which we have no primary or privileged access; indeed, its content is not even given to us as a conscious mental state. Furthermore, these theories assert that unconscious processes influence the processes that appear in consciousness, and that through psychoanalytic work, the analyst can uncover unconscious contents by examining linguistic utterances. The psychoanalytic concept of the unconscious has been subject to criticism based on numerous considerations in the philosophy of science; however, the results of recently published research show that there are indeed motivated slips of the tongue that alter the content of the slip according to the stimulus presented to the subject, so it can be assumed that not all theories of the unconscious are entirely without foundation. I do not wish to commit to any particular theory of the unconscious at this time; my goal is to examine how the role of unconscious mental contents in meaning-making can be reconciled with a generally Gricean theory, in which the speaker’s intentions determine linguistic meaning. The question is whether we have unconscious intentions that participate in meaning-making, or whether mental contents other than intentions can also participate in meaning-making? In the latter case, does this possibility apply to conscious mental contents as well, or not? The aim of my presentation is to provide a detailed explanation of these claims, as well as to offer a brief comparison of the methods of Therapeutic Discourse Analysis—which diverges from the Gricean tradition but draws on psychoanalytic literature—with Gricean theory, and to highlight potential points of convergence.

_____________________________________________