[lit-ideas] Re: "No pun intended": the implicature
- From: Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 11:02:10 EDT
W. Okshewski quotes my
> 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.
and comments:
"There is no pragmatic contradiction involved, as far as I can see. The
speaker
means that at the time of the utterance no pun was intended. If she did
intend
the pun and claimed otherwise, she is a liar, or perhaps a comedian. But why
not extend a principle of charity or cooperation to the speaker and give her
the benefit of the doubt? Imagine what communication would be like if we
didn't
trust others to be speaking the truth most of the time."
I think it is a sneaky form of communication (or 'in bad faith') because, to
refer to the 'alarm bells should be ringing' example:
if the utterer did not intend the pun -- then obviously the utterer thought
that someone may come up with the pun in their mind.
So, I think the language is pretty vast, and she (for I'm assuming Walker is
a woman) SHOULD have chosen another wording if she really wanted no pun
intended.
To say "no pun intended" is like saying "No spitting in the bus" while you
spit on the bus.
Grice discussed this in cases of 'failed-to-be-cancelled' implicatures. If I
say "He has beautiful handrwriting but I don't mean to intend he's not a
good student'" the cancellation fails because the thought was already
_directed_
towards that content in the addressee.
Cheers,
JL
************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
Other related posts:
