[lit-ideas] Re: Ishiguro's Implicature in the pink
- From: "Donal McEvoy" <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> (Redacted sender "donalmcevoyuk" for DMARC)
- To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2017 16:31:36 +0000 (UTC)
I think Ritchie’s point isthat it is an error in ‘usage’. Surely it does
pertain to what Witters calls ‘depthgrammar.’>
Sources at the Yard say that Sir David of Ritchie, by rumour a pimpernel figure
on the international stage of grammatical disputes, never specified the
character of the alleged "error".
JLS may be right that it pertains to W's "depth grammar" (whatever that is).
Other possibilities include that Sir David threw the error on the ground
unidentified, so headless chickens might peck at it for bystanders' amusement,
while he, agent provocateur, left pursued by a bear.
Whether the truth will out may hinge on the Slovenia result. Already Strachan's
tactically surprised everyone by taking field in a pink not seen on any males
in Scotland between the time Oscar Wilde lectured in Greenock in 1885 and the
rise of cheap casual leisure wear in twenty-first century Govan.*
DL
*Rod Stewart swanning around L.A. in a leotard dis nae count.
From: "dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, 7 October 2017, 14:23
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Ishiguro's Implicature
It all started whenRitchie was reading the Guardian and spot a big error,
which, he comforted hisself, “is common.” He was looking for feedback about it,
though – as if he werein the ‘common room’ of some Oxonian college. The
utterance was: i. Born in Japan, Ishiguro’sfamily moved to
the UK when he was five. McEvoy notes that it isnot obvious this is an
error, in that it is not obvious that the utterer neednot care to ‘inform’ his
addressee where Ishiguro’s family was born, onlyIshiguro alone. For the
record, if one must be asinformative as is required (alla Grice), Ishiguro was
born in Nagasaki, the son of Shizuoand Shizuko Ishiguro (Vide: Barry Lewis,
“Kazuo Ishiguro.” ManchesterUniversity Press). In a way, Lewis is not being as
informative is required.Cfr.: Herbert Paul Grice was born in Harborne, the son
of Herbert Grice andMabel Fenton.) McEvoy goes on: “Meaning analysis can
bevery complicated, and may not reduce to exceptionless ‘rules,’ and I think
wemay get further by looking at the intended meaning [or implicature],
andconsidering the words used as an attempt to solve a problem in conveying
acertain meaning. Now we can take "Born in Japan, Ish's family” McEvoy is
using Ishiguro’snickname – Cfr. the NYT: “Ishiguro— his friends call him
Ish — became a public figure in [some time ago], but to anyonepaying attention
he seemed to have arrived fully formed as a writer.” The writer of the NYT
piece seems to be implicating thatMcEvoy is Ishiguro’s friend – but I disgress
on an important point (or common ‘error’). McEvoy quotes The Guardian’s
utterance “Born in Japan,Ish[iguro]’s family moved to the UK when he was
five.” and notes that it can beexpanded [via the explicature of the
implicature] it in various ways. The expansion McEvoychooses is – it’s more
like a replacement, but I see his point. He means thatthe original Guardian
utterance can be ‘rephrased’ in terms of these ‘expansions’(or ‘conflations’):
McEvoy:
"Ish's family (including Ish) being born in Japan , they(including Ish) moved
to [the UK] when Ish was five."
Six according to some sources. It might come as a surprise that, as
anoceanographer, Ish’s father moved to inland Guildford, but the implicature
isthat those in the know know that that’s where the Institute of Oceanography
islocated. The ‘Ish’ family spoke Japanese since, to rephrase Ish’s wording,
“Myfather wasn’t sure we were going to stay for long; so he wanted us to keep
theculture.” He does not expand on whether Shikuzo Ish was happy with the
moving –but he does later grant that, to rephrase him, “I’ve always seen the
worldthrough MY PARENTS [_sic_ plural]’s eyes.” (The implicature being that
whilehis Japan may be ‘imaginary,’ it is rooted in both his parents’ conception
ofit – very real. But back to TheGuardian: McEvoy: “The
parentheticals maybe taken as "implicatures" (as, in most families, all family
membersare typically born in the same country - unless there is a move
abroad).” Well, Ish has said that ‘inthe future’ this [that McEvoy is
referring to] will not be that ‘obvious’. Idon’t know about oceanographers
much, but it might well be possible that Ishsenior met a colleague
oceanographer from say Finland. Oceanography, like otherdisciplines, can be
very specific. McEvoy:
“We can also have avariant where it is only Ish's birthplace we take as
referenced by the"Being born..." Giving: "(Ish) being born in Japan, his
familymoved (with him) to the UK when Ish was five." I like that. I
wouldactually explicate that to read Nagasaki. Especially when it is H.
Ishiguro whowas born in Tokyo. Ritchie was talking about bigness and Japan is
big. But TheGuardian is not recognized as following Grice’s ‘be as informative
as you can’.The Daily Telegraph is! (even with “Daily” dropped as otiose).
McEvoy:
“I think the actual wording is open-ended as to what variant we adopt - i.e.
itcould be interpreted either way.” Perhaps we shouldresearch more into the
actual Guardian utterer. Regular readers of The Guardianmight recognise the
utterer and be more ‘familiar’ with the type ofimplicatures this utterer has a
penchant for inviting, if that’s theexpression. McEvoy:
“But this difference in interpretation is irrelevant to the intended gist
-which does narrow to the fact Ish was, from the age of five, raised in
adifferent country from his birth country (and perhaps thebirth country of his
family).” Six, according to othersources. And since his father was not sure
he liked Guildford, he kept speakingJapanese in the home, thinking that Ish
might want to return. In fact, Ish didreturn, only to find that his Japanese
was ‘poor’ (I’m rephrasing) and – this surprisedme – “I couldn’t get awards
there.” He adds, “But the people in Japan still seeme as one of their own” (I’m
rephrasing). Lots of implicatures there in that itis, for Popper, an implicated
universal quantifier-dominated utterance, almost. McEvoy:
“As a matter of economy,” Exactly, an abiding ofGrice, ‘be brief.’ “the
actual wordingconveys this gist - but perhaps at the expense of grammatical
explicitness onthe whole factual matrix from which this gist is extracted.”
Is there also theimplicature that five is a crucial age? I mean, when H.
Ishiguro moved to theUK (Oxford), she did it on her own. There may be an
implicature that Ish never ‘decided’to move – “His family, born in Japan, did.”
On his behalf, we may even extractas an implicature. The oceanographer could
have travelled to Guildford on hisown and visit his family on extended leaves
or something. But then, when Griceleft Oxford, he left on his own. Hiswife,
and two children, followed suit, but ONE YEAR later! So it was up toGrice to
buy the house in the New World, and the rest of it. Consider: “Born in
England, Grice’schildren moved to the New World, after Grice himself had done
one year earlier.” Since at the time thechidren could ‘choose,’ the
implicature is different, we assume, from Ish’scase. McEvoy:
“Thus here we have a typical example of a trade-off in how we could go
aboutsolving a problem of conveying meaning. Whatever the differences inopinion
on the trade-off made, and whether it is a good one or not, I amsceptical that
the drawbacks of the trade-off made constitute "grammaticalerror" (though of
course it is open to someone to argue otherwise).” I think Ritchie’s point
isthat it is an error in ‘usage’. Surely it does pertain to what Witters calls
‘depthgrammar.’ But since for Witters meaning is almost usage, and then there’s
‘depthgrammar,’ this is a trick! I think it’s an error inimplicature,
alleged. McEvoy:
“This of course raiseswider issues of how we characterise "grammatical error",
on whichthere is a lot of rubbish written - often by people mistaking
theirstipulations and conventions for necessities.” I agree. Ritchie saidthe
‘error’ (unqualified) was ‘common’ – and I would add: to “The Guardian”
notnecessarily being the implicature. It perhaps would not have slipped
aneditorial in THE TIMES, say? (Further implicature?). If Witters is right
thatthere IS a ‘depth grammar,’ surely the way to test this is to provide,
allaGrice, the logical form of (i) – considering what Chomsky says about
anaphora –and provide the deductively arrived conclusion. Or not, of course!
(To knowwhat is implicated, we need to know what is explicated in the first
place, sortof thing). Cheers, Speranza
Other related posts:
