[lit-ideas] Re: Conversation Without Implicature

--- On Sat, 25/6/11, Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx <Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx> wrote:

>Grice takes 

"I shall see Dylan" as 'self-imperative' (to use Kenny's somewhat  
misleading jargon), or 'intentional' to use Grice's preferred term. When this  
'intentional mode' gets embedded in an erotetic context -- with submodality  
"should" -- we do get not the plain 'intentional' but what Grice calls  
"volitive" (or "bouletic) _cum_ interrogative, which can only be _inquisitive_  
when 
it comes to others ("Should you see Dylan?"), but it's properly labelled  
"reflective" when self-addressed ("Should _I_ see Dylan?"). And so on.>

Why bring characters from Southpark into it? Of course, the real lesson to be 
drawn here is that anyone foolish enough to question whether they should see 
Dylan, may find them themselves v severely punished for their temerity. Btw, is 
Grice's "cream in my coffee" business connected, in "masturbatory" fashion, 
with how Baldrick produces cappucino in Blackadder Goes Forth?

Just one more thing:- several of Columbo's cases, I suspect, would not stand up 
in court [e.g. "Catch Me If You Can", Ruth Gordon would walk provided she made 
no admissions]; and some still don't make sense after several viewings [the one 
where she murders her brother to keep the family museum going and the 
notoriously weird end-of-season episode "Last Days of the Commodore"]; and then 
the kidnapped bride one that is so unbelievably pointless, there's not even a 
mystery...but stranger still is how the classic episodes come up fresh no 
matter how many times you've seen them: it's like you haven't seen them before. 
And I don't know how they do that. The Falk magic must be part of it.

D 


------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts: