H. P. GRICE E J. L. SPERANZA: LA CONVERSAZIONE -- I VERBALI: PAPIRIO

 G.: We begin, then, with Cicero’s complaint. M.: Indeed. He writes to Papirius Paetus and takes him to task for what he calls verba turpia. S.: I like him already. G.: You would. M.: Mr Shropshire, you will supply the offending utterance. S.: Sir, d’you mean summat like, “’Ere now, tha talks a right load o’ rot, tha does”? M.: That will do as a specimen. Brief, if not quite gracious. G.: Nor quite Ciceronian. M.: Mr Grice, you will translate this into a Latin Cicero might tolerate. G.: I shall attempt to civilise it. Perhaps: “Nimis inepta loqueris.” S.: That sounds like it’s wearin’ a waistcoat. G.: Cicero insists upon waistcoats. M.: Again, Mr Shropshire. S.: “By gum, tha’s a daft un, an’ no mistake.” M.: Mr Grice. G.: “Valde stultus es.” S.: Short and sharp. G.: Cicero liked concision when it was his. M.: Let us sharpen the point. Suppose Paetus had said something less merely abusive. S.: “Tha knaws nowt, man, nowt at all.” G.: “Nihil omnino scis.” M.: Better. Now, why should Cicero object? S.: ’Cos it’s rude? G.: More than that. The implicature is not merely that the addressee lacks knowledge, but that he is not worth instructing. M.: Very good. The utterance carries more than its literal content. S.: It carries a bit o’ contempt, then. G.: Precisely. The contempt is not said, but meant. M.: And Cicero objects to the manner of meaning, not merely the words. S.: He should ’ave gone to our house at supper. G.: Cicero would not have survived. M.: Let us refine the example. Mr Shropshire, give me something of a convivial sort. S.: “Tha canna drink, tha’ll be under t’table afore long.” M.: Mr Grice. G.: “Bibere non potes; mox sub mensa iacebis.” S.: That’s rather good. G.: It is, I fear, prophetic in some cases. M.: Now, what is implicated? G.: Not merely that the man cannot drink, but that he lacks the fortitude expected in the company. S.: So it’s a sort o’ social verdict. G.: Yes, conveyed without explicit moralising. M.: Cicero might object not to the prediction, but to the tone. S.: He sounds a bit thin-skinned. G.: Or attentive to decorum. M.: Decorum is not thinness of skin. It is a principle of rhetorical fitness. S.: Like knowin’ when not to say “tha’s a fool.” G.: Exactly. M.: Now consider whether Paetus might defend himself. S.: He’d say, “I were only jokin’, sir.” G.: “Iocabar tantum.” M.: And the implicature shifts. G.: Yes. The same words, under the intention of jest, carry a different force. S.: So it’s not just what’s said, but what’s meant. G.: And what is recognised as meant. M.: Mr Grice is circling something. S.: Like a hawk over a field. G.: I prefer a more academic bird. M.: Continue. Mr Shropshire, a more robust specimen. S.: “Tha’s full o’ it, lad, full to t’brim.” M.: Mr Grice. G.: “Mendaciis plenus es.” S.: That’s harsher. G.: It accuses him of falsehood. M.: And the implicature? G.: That he is not to be trusted, which exceeds the literal claim. S.: Cicero’d have a fit. G.: He would compose a letter. M.: As indeed he did. S.: Did Paetus ever answer back? M.: Not in any surviving oratio recta. G.: Which leaves us to reconstruct his tone. S.: I’ll do it for him. M.: With restraint, Mr Shropshire. S.: “If tha dunna like it, don’t listen.” G.: “Si non placet, noli audire.” M.: A dangerous reply. G.: It implicates indifference to the interlocutor’s standards. S.: Which is half the fun. G.: It is also half the offence. M.: Now, consider Cicero’s position. Why object? G.: Because conversation, for him, is governed by norms of civility. S.: And Paetus breaks ’em. G.: Or appears to. M.: Yet Paetus might say the norms vary by context. S.: In t’pub, different rules. G.: Exactly. Context-dependence. M.: So the same utterance may be tolerable in one setting and intolerable in another. S.: Cicero were in t’forum, not t’pub. G.: And expected forum-language. M.: Now, Mr Grice, what do you infer about meaning? G.: That meaning is not exhausted by the words uttered, but includes what the speaker intends the hearer to recognise. S.: That’s a bit grand. G.: It is merely careful. M.: And Cicero’s complaint? G.: That Paetus’ intentions, as recognised, violate conversational propriety. S.: Or that Cicero thinks they do. G.: Quite. M.: Now let us attempt a slightly more elegant impropriety. S.: “Tha’s a fine philosopher, if talkin’ nonsense counts.” G.: “Pulcher philosophus es, si ineptias loqui philosophari est.” M.: That is almost a compliment. G.: Ironically so. S.: So it says one thing and means t’other. G.: Precisely. Irony as implicature. M.: Cicero, being sensitive to rhetoric, would notice. S.: And still complain. G.: Because the irony may be too sharp. M.: Now, Mr Shropshire, compress your utterance. S.: “Nonsense, lad.” G.: “Ineptum.” M.: And yet the implicature may still be rich. G.: Yes. Tone supplies what words omit. S.: We’ve got a lot o’ tone where I’m from. G.: One notices. M.: Finally, Mr Grice, give me a Ciceronian paraphrase that preserves content but removes offence. G.: “Mihi non probantur quae dicis.” S.: That’s polite. G.: It expresses disagreement without insult. M.: And the implicature? G.: That one remains within the bounds of civil discourse. S.: Boring, but safe. G.: Cicero preferred safety to amusement in public. M.: And Paetus preferred amusement to safety. S.: I’m wi’ Paetus. G.: As am I, in private. M.: That distinction will serve you both well. S.: Till we write letters. G.: And then we shall discover which of us Cicero would rebuke. M.: I suspect I already know.