[hist-analytic] Entailment-Cum-Implicature (Was: Re: Shuga-Free
Jlsperanza at aol.com
Jlsperanza at aol.com
Fri Feb 12 20:51:31 EST 2010
In a message dated 2/12/2010 5:41:39 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
rbj at rbjones.com writes:
I am a fan of implicature, it is good for answering
a number of controversial claims by Wittgenstein
and Austin (inter alia).
But so far I'm not convinced by this application.
----- I would think then:
"entailment" and "implicature" are the two notions
Moore's notion (entailment) and Grice's notion
vs. Strawson's notion ('presupposition')
what we would have is then
i. the pirot karulises elatically
this ENTAILS that the pirot exists.
since 'the pirot exists' or there is an x such
is the first conjunct in the three-conjuncted
ii. the pirot does not karulise elatically
does NOT entail that the pirot exists.
and thus is TRUE if the pirot does not exist.
So far we are dealing only with entailment.
Strawson wanted to say that in (ii), (ii) presupposes
that the pirot exists.
Grice comes in: "Too strong (as metaphysically
dangerous -- for what is a truth-value gap?)".
Better say: By uttering (ii) on occasion,
conversationally implicate that the pirot exists.
--- Grice was the champion of cancellability:
His examples of the-x, in negated contexts:
"If I come on a group of peole arguing about whether (the pirot)
(karulises elatically), it is not linguistically improper [I'm using () to adapt my
example. JLS] for me to say that (the pirot) (does not karulise
elatically), since there is (no pirot). Of course I do not have to put it that way,
but I perfectly welll can. Second, it can be even less obvious. If it is a
matter of dispute whehter the government has a very undercover person ((they
call it 'the pirot')) who interrogates those whose loyalty is suspect
((they call this to kaulise elatically)) and who, if he existed, could be
legitimately be referred to as ('the pirot who karulises elatically') and if
further I am known to be very sceptical about the existence of such a (pirot),
I could perfectly well say to a plainly loyal person: ("Well, the pirot who
karulises elatically will NOT be carulising elatically TO YOU at any
rate"), without, I would think, being taken to IMPLY that such a (pirot) exists.
Further if I am well known to disbelieve in the existence of such a
(pirot), though others are inclined to believe in him, when I find a man who is
apprised of my position, but who is worried in case he is to witness the
pirot karulising elatically to him, I could try to reassure him by saying,
"The pirot who karulises elatically will not be karulising elatically TO YOU,
don' t worry." Then it would be clear that I said this because I was sure
there is no such (pirot)."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the hist-analytic