One of the most complex implicatures by A A Milne is perhaps when he sees his
son coming to their cottage in Sussex after the end of the Second World War.
Milne is happily surprised and communicates to his son:
i. Milne: They said you were dead. It said ‘presumed.’
In a previous scene (of “Goodbye Christopher Robin” – and so the implicature,
or disimplicature, rather, may be due to the screen writers rather) we see
Milne getting a letter, opening. The letter reads:
ii. Your son, C. B., is presumed dead.
Milne went to Trinity, Cambridge, and so he would be familiar with Whitehead
and Russell’s Principia Mathematica. It may be argued that
iii. Your son is dead.
is not entailed nor implicated, but only DIS-implicated, by (ii). So, is Milne
violating a Griceian maxim, to wit, “Do not say what you belive to be false”
when he tells his son (i) (“They told us you were dead.”)? This is
controversial, and the disimplicature connects with syntax. It’s a bit like
Kenko “The Hall of the Imperial Lecture” versus “The Imperial Lecture Hall”.
For here we have:
iv. They told us you were dead.
vs.
v. They told us you were presumed dead.
A very strict Griceian would argue that, strictly, Milne WAS told that his son
was dead. Yes, ‘presumed’ dead. But a strict Griceian would endorse J. O.
Urmson’s view on the parentheticals, like “I presume”. Consider:
vi. We presume your son is dead.
which is almost like
vii. We believe your son is dead.
Since one of Grice’s conversational maxims is “Say what you believe to be
true,” the “We believe…” is otiose (as is “Honestly,…” as used as an
utterance-opener).
So Milne has some Griceian right to report to his son that he was told that he
(his son) was dead. “The note did read, ‘presumed’,” he adds by way of
disimplicature.
The good thing is that his son knew all that you need to know about
disimplicature, and more!
Cheers,
Speranza
