[lit-ideas] Griceian Contextualism
- From: Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2012 11:26:57 -0400 (EDT)
McEvoy refers to a link that reads, inter alia, the utterance:
"Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get
your shit together otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!!"
and goes on to note that context is, er, important, or everything. It may
do to analyse in greater detail the implicata (as per implicature) of the
above. Or not.
McCreery raises a point in connection with W. O.: "Context is everything"
is self-contradictory, "Propositional content is everything" is
self-contradictory.
It may do:
--- to proceed case by case. In McEvoy's editorial, he does not refer to
the utterance, which is only LINKED, and goes on to provide commentary on
other types of utterance, "My name is Mickey Mouse" --extant person, definite
description, 'mouse' -- etc.
The link McEvoy provides commentary on, but it may do to deal with this
alla Grice. Alas, J. Stanley, the founder of contextualism, is not too clear
on this, and we may have to proceed case by case. But I don't think that
general remarks, like "It was meant as a joke" will serve the Griceian in us.
---- So, a serious philosophical (as per 'philosophy of language') account
as to whether the law is an ass (as the chains of e-mail in the link
provided by McEvoy indicate) is tautologous, etc.
---
Grice, in his essay, "Context":
"Philosophers often say that context is very important. Let us take this
remark seriously. Surely, if we do, we shall want to consider this remark
["context is very important", or as hyperbolically McEvoy puts it re: "My
name is Mickey Mouse" -- context is everything] not merely in its
relation to
this or that problem [e.g Mickey Mouse], i.e. in context, but also in
itself, i.e. out of context. If we are to take THIS seriously, we must be
systematic, that is, thorough and orderly. If we are to be orderly we
must start
with what is relatively simple. HERE, though not of course everywhere, to
be simple is to be as abstract as possible; by this I mean merely that we
want, to begin with, to have as few cards on the table as we can.
Orderliness
will then consist in seeing first what we can do with the cards we have;
and when we think that we have exhausted
the investigation, we put another card on the table, and see what that
enables us to do."
Stanley goes on to provide further implications for the study of context.
He concludes, "Implicatures happen". But still, to look for general remarks,
like, "it was a joke", don't do for the Griceian.
The Griceian, indeed, locates 'propositional content' -- somewhere. It is
somewhere in the realm of the EXplicit, as it were. But goes on to elucidate
on the IMplicit, which goes by various varieties. There is the
IMplicature, and there is the DISIMplicature ("I meant it as a joke") and so
on. In
all cases, the idea is to bring in an 'intention', in this case, on the
original tweeter, and the 'uptake' on recipients of his tweet. One indeed took
the tweet as a THREAT and proceeded accordingly. If we want to generalise
what's going on here we may have to realise that uttering a near otiosity
such as "context is everything, what a day" won't SAVE the day. Etc.
Stanley notes that
"It is raining"
lacks a context. ("I hope I don't mean in Indochina"). Grice's examples, in
logical form, do not help us with context either:
"There is a generalised conversational implicature to the effect that the
utterer of "p v q" implicates that he does not know for certain any of its
disjuncts" -- and so on.
In any case, Grice is a philosopher and he is not here to analyse specific
TWEETS. What he says, in context, has GENERAL significance, and so on.
----- In a paper on "Freedom", Grice speaks of -free as modifying sugar,
'sugar-free'. Chomsky took on this and speaks of 'context-sensitive' and
context-free. In general, a pirot, to use Grice's term, be better be
context-sensitive, even if freedom was a value for Kant, if not Aristotle (vide
"Kantotle"). And so on.
Cheers,
Speranza
In a message dated 7/27/2012 11:34:47 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:
That the court noted [without citing Robert Paul] 'context is everything'
was reported elsewhere:
_http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/jul/27/twitter-joke-trial-high-court_
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/jul/27/twitter-joke-trial-high-court)
Personally, I would advise anyone to heed the words of warning from the
lawyer at the end of the report. Courts need quite some context to accept
that something was just a joke: certainly those who tried to run a 'just a
joke' defence, for inciting others to riot on social media, last year received
short shrift. And in a case some twenty years it was held that while not
giving your name at all could not be regarded as 'obstructing the police in
the course of their duty' (where the police asked for it in the course of
their duty), it was obstruction if you answered 'Micky Mouse' (and your name
was not Micky Mouse). The High Court did not make clear whether this
result is because 'Micky Mouse' is a name of extant persons (and so might not
obviously be a joke) or simply isn't funny enough. The decision was
criticised by Sir John Smith, which - with a name as common as that - is
perhaps
only to be expected, but remains the law. The appellant should be thankful he
used clearly non-serious expression, but even then anyone trying the like
remains vulnerable to changes in actual terrorist expression: should
terrorists adopt a bright and breezy tone in their threats ['With some
aplomb/We
have planted a bomb/Act fast/Or you may breath your last'], we may find the
courts no longer accept there is a way of expressing yourself that clearly
puts you beyond menacing. All those baddies in superhero movies, who express
threats as idiotic wisecracks presumably to circumvent the law, take note.
Donal
Who found out on Monday he will not be lighting the flame tonight
London
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
