[lit-ideas] Re: The Split Implicature
- From: "Donal McEvoy" <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> (Redacted sender "donalmcevoyuk" for DMARC)
- To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2017 23:25:52 +0000 (UTC)
i. The judge seemsunpersuaded but decides to retire to
herself read a section. This contrasts with: ii. The
judge seemsunpersuaded but decides to retire to read herself a section.>
I think the answer is that I wrote (i) because I am Irish, and raised on Irish
constructions of English, whereas someone who went to an English private school
would find (ii) more natural.
In the Irishism, "herself" is emphasised, and this is is because Irish people
are very ingenious with their constructions: strictly "herself" is otiose and
needn't be mentioned at all for the propositional sense, but if "herself" is to
be mentioned then the Irish construction does so in an aptly emphatic way - the
mention of "herself" is made prominent, and its prominence brings out that,
while she is not taken with what others have told her, she will take seriously
what she "herself" finds by reading.
Irish versions of English are full of these differences from Oxbridge-type
English, and they are impossible for some English people to view other than
with amusement (either condescending or charmed, or both).
For example, Irish people would find it natural to say "Is it you
yourself?"/"It's you yourself" as a way of greeting, whereas this strikes a
certain kind of English person as absurd an expression - of course, it's them,
so why ask it, and why "you yourself", what other you is there? The point here
is that the Irishism softens the directness of "you" alone, and so is a more
friendly form. The redundancy is deliberate and is not 'redundant redundancy'
because it impacts on sense. It is obvious that writers like Joyce and Beckett
use a version of English (Beckett preferring French for a joke on the English)
that is continually indebted to such Irishisms, but what English middleclass
person understands this, and its vitality to their literature?
There's the case of the English person in Ireland asking directions to a place
from a native** - only be told "Well, I wouldn't start from here". Again a
certain English type (I've met several) regard this response as risible;
whereas it is only a politer, softer and more amusing way (because knowingly
absurd) of saying that "Well, from where you are, it's not the easiest to get
to" (which might be taken as an accusation that the person is at fault for
being where they are). Why the English find these Irishisms amusing is hard to
say: but I think it has a lot to do with the explanation of why, pro rata, so
few English-born writers have won a Nobel Prize for Literature - perhaps fewer
compared to Irish-born.*
DL
*Ish, for example, is not an English-born writer; if I had time I might
continue this post by lambasting Professor of English, John Mullan, who
interpreted Ish's Nobel as a return to right ways after the fashionable
deviancy of giving it to a songwriter - a view that is ignorant of many things
including (a) that Tagore got his for what was effectively songwriting (and
Yeats in part also) (b) Ish was a supporter of Dylan's Nobel and has even made
clear he would not been a writer but for Dylan (c) Ish has tried his hand at
songwriting, and songwriting technique is central to the techniques in Ish's
novels. Of course, these are things that only shovel handed Paddies know, and
can't be expected to be known to English-born, privately educated, Professors
of English, who probably wouldn't know the front teeth from the back arse of a
Dylan song. The truth is that Ish's Nobel is a sly rebuke to people like John
Mullan who think Dylan didn't merit the "literature" tag: "sly" because they
are too "thick" (as the Irish say) to notice.
**This is probably an Irishism: in middleclass English "to a place" would be
dropped as otiose.
From: "dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, 20 October 2017, 22:35
Subject: [lit-ideas] The Split Implicature
D. Ritchie was the other day comparing a danglingmodifier to a split
infinitive. Let me see if I find his amusing quote: Ritchie writes:
“As Donal points out sometimes it’s possible to squeeze sense out of
theconstruction; often not. But here’s the thing, in my world DMs aregetting
thicker on the ground. Could it be that they will follow thesplit infinitive
and “disinterested” meaning uninterested, and “notoriety”meaning “fame,” they
will pass into acceptance because that’s what people want? Much to the joy of
chickens, who will probably mistake them for computerbugs.” I raised the
topicwhether what Ritchie calls the DM – the dangling modifier – and the
splitinfinitive compare – only to have McEvoy soon afterwards uttering a
niceutterance. It is part of a nightmare he remberering as going to have, and
endedalong the lines: i. The judge seemsunpersuaded but
decides to retire to herself read a section. This contrasts with: ii.
The judge seemsunpersuaded but decides to retire to read herself a
section. Are (i) and (ii)truth-conditionally equivalent? I would think so.
In general, ‘split infinites’are considered okay – by Elizabeth II. The logical
form seems to be identical.In (i) we have a subject, “the judge”, a verb,
“decides,” an object of thedecision, an infinitive phrase (“to retire”), and a
clause espressing the judge’sintention in so doing, “to herself read a
[relevant] section [of this andthat].” The issue would be withthe expression
of this intention: Does an intention to read herself a noveldiffer from an
intention to read herself a novel? It might be argued that iii.
The judge retires toread a section. seems to do. “Noaberration without
modification,” as J. L. Austin would say (vide Searle, “Aberrationsand
modifications,” in “Contemporary British Philosophy”). It seems obvious
thatthe judge does not require someone to read the section to herself (as
opposedthe lady in “The French Lieutenant’s Daughter,” where the character
played byMeryl Streep is employed to do just that: read stuff to this lady).
Defendants of the ‘splitinfinitive’ argue that they (qua utterers) express a
“more intimate”connection: the judge is retiring to herself read a section.”
There is anintimate connection between the act of reading and the fact that it
is herselfwho’s doing it. In contrast, to retire to read herself a section”
seemsdistant. Or not, of course! Back to Richie: “Could it be
that[dangling modifiers] will follow the split infinitive and … pass
intoacceptance because that’s what people want?” Want or lack? Cheers,
Speranza
Other related posts: