[lit-ideas] "No offence made"; "None taken" -- the implicatures

From: Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 17:19:48 EDT
We are discussing certain implicatures of what, after P.  Stone, I call 
'underhanded'. One was the "no pun intended" supplied by J.  Krueger
 
<_http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/livescience/sc_livescience/storytext/emotio
nsrunamokinsleepdeprivedbrains/24915165/SIG=127c1sb4q/*http://www.livescience.
com/humanbiology/060323_sleep_deprivation.html_ 
(http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/livescience/sc_livescience/storytext/emotionsrunamokinsleepdeprivedbrains/
24915165/SIG=127c1sb4q/*http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/060323_sleep_d
eprivation.html) 

<<In modern life, people often deprive themselves of

sleep almost  on a daily basis," Walker said. 
"Alarm bells should be ringing about that behavior 
-- no pun intended.">>

 
I pointed to the 'pragmatic' contradiction and compared it  with an example 
given by Grice in "The Causal Theory of Perception", part II,  unfortunately 
NOT reprinted in WOW -- Studies in the Way of Words.
 
P. Stone makes interesting comments and furthers the topic  into another 
area. He writes:
 
>in some cases this kind of construction is underhanded  and
>the implicature is insulting. In your case, the utterer is making  sure
>that his pun doesn't go unnoticed
 
Precisely. Although I do have to take with some seriousness  the 
consideration by W. Okshewski that the utterer can CLAIM that the pun was  NOT 
intended. 
Grice concedes this point re:
 
          "He has  a beautiful handwring; I don't mean
            to say that he is a bad student of
            philosophy"
 
-- I should recheck with the source. But Grice goes on to say  that the 
utterer can NOT be longer DEEMED to _have_ implicated that "he" (the  referred 
student) is a bad student of philosophy. Grice adds somethng to the  effect,
 
          "Even  if that is what the addressee
            ends up believing in any case".
 
So, I believe similarly a case can be made for the "no pun  intended" 
construction. The pun may be said to be "not m-intended" (in Grice's  
terminology, 
where m just stands for meaning). Personally, the 'alarm bells' 
beats me because the utterer must feel like _guilty_ that she  may be thought 
as _intending_ the pun. 
 
P. Stone continues:
 
>in my case (to follow) the speaker
>thinks he's  actually sneaking something by me by pointing it out?
>I have a friend who likes to preface his 'advice' with 
>
>             "No offence, but ..."
>
>I hypothesize that he  knows what he is about to say has a potential to
>cause offense, but  instead of reconstructing his writing/speaking to
>be more diplomatic and  less [since he is aware of its potential,
>deliberately] offensive, he  just blurts it out. I guess I should
>appreciate him for his candor. 
 
Yes, I think you should, if you want to keep referring to him  as 'a friend' 
(whose friend, as Okshewski would say). 
 
I notice that the usual exchange here -- in Eng.Lit. -- seems  to be: 
 
            A: You are a ^$&#*(@   
                                       ('empiricist', 'rationalist',  
                                       ' utilitarian',  'futilitarian',  etc.)
                No offence meant.
          B: None  taken.
 
The sneakiness of the construction -- in 'no pun intended' and  'no offence 
meant' -- seems to come from the NEGATIVENESS of it  all.

While some people (boring) do say, "pun intended" and "offence made"  (less 
common? not so boring), the "no pun intended"/"no offence made" makes it  for a 
more controversial rubric under 'noninformative'. On this I am reminded of  
the couple of times L. Horn acknwledged my contributions in an endnote:

"Thanks to J. L. Speranza for the comments, etc.  Needless to say, ..."

He just closes the article like that which I think is rather cute. I  find 
the "none taken" rather stoopidly polite. Should we accept as 'acceptable'  
something like:
         A: You are a rotten  ^$&#*@( -- and offense *IS* meant.
         [Geary, Christ]: None  taken, though 
         
Only the minister of a metaphysical ministry would behave like that, or  
Christ.
 
We should find a rubric to label these implicatures with. I was thinking of  
"Trouser-Implicatures" (after Grice/Austin on 'trouser-words' or words that 
wear  the skirt -- but that's SURELY, as Grice recognises, 'artless sexism'), 
so 
no  offence taken, needless to say, and no POOM! intended
 
Cheers,
 

JL 

 



JLS:
> > For Grice (or Griceans), this is a pragmatic  contradiction. Because, by 
> > pointing  the
> >  addressee's attention to the pun, it _is_ somehow intended; yet it is a
>  > sneaky act of  communication.
>





************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
[lit-ideas] "No offence made"; "None taken" -- the implicatures

Other related posts:
