We are considering a conjunction by McEvoy:
In a message dated 8/15/2015 3:26:57 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:
i. I haven't read this essay yet (I haven't even shaved yet).
My reference was to Jason Stanley, a Griceian. He notes that each conjunct
needs a special contextual index.
McEvoy expands on the implicature of the second conjunct in a later post:
In a message dated 8/15/2015 5:20:40 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:
ii. I haven't even shaved yet because I've yet to enter puberty.
Jason Stanley's point is _proved_ in that it would be otiose to assume
iii. I haven't read this essay yet because I've yet to enter puberty.
So, if the logical form of (i) is
iv. Not-p yet & Not-q yet.
"yet" triggers different implicatures. It may be assumed that it is COMMON
GROUND (as Grice has it) that someone who hasn't entered puberty has no
need to shave. It's diferent to make a common-ground assumption about reading
an essay. Therefore:
(ii)
'flouts' a Griceian maxim in that it is obvious that one who hasn't entered
puberty does not need to shave, or have not shaved yet.
In fairness to McEvoy he never made that explicit via EXPLICATURE -- but
the fact that he conjoins "not-p yet" with "not-q yet" should be enough to
have Stanley Jason utter one of his favourite philosophical
characterisations: 'marvellous'.
Cheers,
Speranza
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
