You're wet/bleeding

[randall henry eggert]

I'd like to add something to Larry LaFond's response. I agree that we can
get at least a partial explanation for the two examples via Grice's
maxims; however, even if we couldn't, I don't think it would pose a
problem for Grice's program. Grice wrote in 'Logic and Conversation'
(Grice 1989: 28):

	"There are, of course, all sorts of other maxims (aesthetic,
	social, or moral in character), such as 'Be polite,' that are
	also normally observed by participants in talk exchanges,
	and these may also generate nonconventional implicatures."

Grice stated his maxims as if the purpose "were a maximally effective
exchange of information," but he implies that other purposes may warrant
other maxims. Thus, Brown and Levinson's work on Politeness is not in any
sense at odds with Grice's program.

I believe there are some valid theoretical problems with Grice's theory,
but it is  rather hard to find data that serve as  counter-examples. This
is mostly because of the nature of the theory, which is not particularly
predictive. It is also because Grice's program as he states it is mostly a
sketch. To my mind, Grice never intended the 4 maxims as written to be
taken too seriously. They were provisory, a first stab at describing the
process. Most important to the theory is his distinction
between 'what is said' and 'what is conveyed'. Any successful attack on
Grice's theory will ultimately have to show that there is a problem with
the way Grice makes that distinction.

Happiness,
Randall Eggert



On Tue, 25 Jul 2000, Larry LaFond wrote:

> Greg queries whether the two examples he cites below provide ammunition for
> an attack
> on Gricean theory of conversational implicature?  I don't believe they do.
> Although both instances flaunt the maxim of relation, forcing a marked
> inference, that is precisely what the speaker intends.  For example, in the
> first instance the hearer hears the utterance 'You're wet!' and reasons
> thus..."Although the speaker has said something that is true (conforming to
> the quality maxim) this comment hardly appears relevant because it is so
> blatantly obvious.  But assuming the speaker is rational and 'cooperative',
> the relevance must rest in something other than the traditional
> interpretation.  You're wet could be a polite way of telling me not to stand
> on this airport's carpet in my condition, an economical way of telling me
> both to move and why I should move in the same utterance.  But in this case
> the woman's tone of voice and facial expressions do not support such a
> meaning.  I am left to conclude that woman that has made a marked choice
> that intentionally violates this maxim to emphasize her sympathy or concern.
> She has done this with an economy of words, also satisfying the quantity and
> manner maxims."  The point, of course, is not that maxims cannot be
> violated; rather, that when they are violated they are done so to invoke
> nonstandard, marked interpretations of utterances.
>
> Larry LaFond
> University of South Carolina
> lllafond at mindspring.com
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Greg Matheson" <gregyoko at PCMAIL.COM.TW>
> To: <DISCOURS at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2000 11:38 AM
> Subject: You're wet/bleeding
>
>
>
> > One was when I walked through a typhoon to the airport and the
> > woman at the check-in counter greeted me with the statement, "You're
> > wet!" or "You're all wet!" I can't remember the exact words. I can
> > remember this made me feel warm inside, but I also remember thinking
> > about it later perhaps and wondering how you would explain it in
> > terms of the Gricean maxim to be as informative as required, but no
> >  more informative than required.
> >
> > Being told I was wet did not tell me anything I didn't know at all, but
> > I did not feel it was odd, or  that I could respond with something like,
> > "Don't you know there's a typhoon outside?" or "Am I? I didn't notice."
> > or "No. This is the new look." But I couldn't put my finger on why it
> > wasn't odd.
> >
> > The other example was in a textbook where one of the characters comes
> > home after a motorcycle accident to get some money before going to
> > the hospital and the other character greets him with the words, "You're
> > bleeding!" This also is not informative. Why does the other character say
> it?
> >
> > I don't have any examples from native speakers, but it seems to me this
> > kind of thing is that it is something they say too. I searched some
> on-line
> > corpuses but couldn't find any examples.
> >
> > So, what do I do with this. Is there ammunition here for an attack
> > on Gricean theory of conversational implicature?
>