[lit-ideas] Re: Lawyers love to argue about words
- From: "" <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> (Redacted sender "Jlsperanza" for DMARC)
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2015 17:50:52 -0500
O. K. wrote:
I hereby disimplicate.
The issue is whether
i. I hereby disimplicate.
is analogous to
ii. I hereby IMPLICATE.
Holdcroft, in "Forms of indirect communication" (Journal of Rhetoric), that
Grice read, thinks it's not.
Thus,
ii. I hereby IMPLICATE.
is a contradictio in terminis.
Alla,
iii. Ironically, he is a fine friend (+> He is a scoundrel).
The whole point of implicating is that you cannot SAY it, because it
becomes a monstrous EXplicature.
Disimplicature belongs to the realm of IMPLICATURE (in some way), so if
implicature cannot be made explicit, neither can disimplicature.
Grice's example of disimplicature (one of them) is:
iv. You're the cream in my coffee (+> You're my pride and joy).
It is a metaphor where the truth is violated. But to add
v. Metaphorically, you're the cream in my coffee.
'kills' the effect -- as Quintilianus would have it -- of this 'flower of
rhetoric'. And flowers shouldn't kill, nor get killed, for that matter.
O. T. O. H., J. L. Austin was OBSESSED with 'hereby' because he is basing
his perfomative theory on Scots law that constantly uses 'hereby' ("most of
the times otiosely", Lawyer Mike Geary notes).
Cheers,
Speranza
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
