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

 G.: Panigarola again. S.: You mean the man who thinks eloquence comes stamped “Italian.” G.: Precisely. As though Cicero required a passport. S.: He might have enjoyed one, if only to exclude the Gauls. G.: Quite. But Panigarola’s title is already doing the work: “eloquenza italiana.” Not argument, but suggestion. S.: A national implicature. G.: Exactly. He does not say “Italians are more eloquent.” He lets you supply it. S.: And we do, out of politeness. G.: Or laziness. The two are not always distinguishable. S.: So what is “eloquenza italiana,” then. G.: A way of speaking that pretends to be natural while being meticulously trained. S.: Like your tutorials. G.: Less honest, I should hope. S.: And “eloquenza inglese.” G.: That is easier. It consists largely in not saying what one means. S.: Then we are already masters. G.: Indeed. The Englishman implies; the Italian declares and then implies that he has not declared. S.: That sounds exhausting. G.: It is. Which is why they have espresso. S.: And we have tea. G.: A slower implicature. S.: Panigarola would not approve. G.: On the contrary, he would sermonise it into approval. S.: He was a preacher. G.: Yes, and therefore professionally committed to directed inference. S.: You mean implicature from the pulpit. G.: Precisely. Not conversation, but controlled reception. S.: One-to-many implicature. G.: Admirably put. The audience is not invited to cooperate; it is invited to comply. S.: Whereas you insist on cooperation. G.: I insist on the fiction of cooperation. S.: A useful fiction. G.: The most useful. Without it, conversation collapses into Panigarola’s pulpit. S.: And with it? G.: We pretend we are equal while we guide each other. S.: That sounds Italian again. G.: You see the difficulty. S.: So “eloquenza d’un italiano.” G.: Suggests that eloquence inheres in the man. S.: Whereas “eloquenza dell’italiano.” G.: Suggests it inheres in the language. S.: And which is it. G.: Neither. It inheres in the expectations of the audience. S.: That is disappointingly analytic. G.: It is meant to be. S.: Panigarola would prefer incense. G.: And a Latin quotation. S.: You have those too. G.: Yes, but I do not burn them. S.: What about “eloquenza inglese.” G.: A contradiction in terms, according to Italians. S.: And according to you. G.: A refined form of reticence. S.: Which still communicates. G.: Of course. Silence is our most articulate sentence. S.: Panigarola would call that failure. G.: Because he mistrusts what is not said. S.: Whereas you build a theory on it. G.: On what is not said but meant. S.: And meant because expected. G.: Exactly. Shared expectations do the work. S.: So the Italian shouts and expects admiration. G.: And the Englishman mutters and expects understanding. S.: Which is more efficient. G.: The English method economises on breath. S.: The Italian on inference. G.: Nicely balanced. S.: But Panigarola wants neither economy. G.: He wants effect. S.: Conversion. G.: Yes. Eloquence as instrument, not description. S.: You describe; he prescribes. G.: And that is the difference between Oxford and Milan. S.: Here we analyse talk. G.: There they deploy it. S.: You sound envious. G.: Slightly. It must be pleasant to be obeyed. S.: You are not. G.: Never reliably. S.: So Panigarola’s eloquence is not conversational. G.: Not in my sense. It is monological with implied dialogue. S.: The audience supplies the “yes.” G.: Precisely. A forced implicature. S.: That sounds suspicious. G.: It is effective. S.: And dangerous. G.: As all rhetoric is. S.: Including yours. G.: Mine is too polite to be dangerous. S.: That is itself an implicature. G.: You are learning. S.: Then what of “eloquenza d’un inglese italianato.” G.: Ah, the worst of both worlds. S.: Why worst. G.: Because he speaks too much and implies too little. S.: A betrayal of both traditions. G.: Exactly. He loses English restraint and fails to acquire Italian command. S.: A diavolo incarnato. G.: Quite. Neither silent nor persuasive. S.: Panigarola would despise him. G.: And I would avoid him. S.: Then the ideal. G.: An Englishman who understands Italian eloquence but practises English implicature. S.: That sounds like you. G.: I should not say so. S.: You have just implied it. G.: Then let us leave it implied. S.: As any good Englishman would. G.: And as any Italian would loudly deny. S.: While enjoying the compliment. G.: Which is the final lesson. S.: That eloquence lies not in what is said. G.: But in what is allowed to be understood. S.: Panigarola would preach it. G.: And I would footnote it. S.: And the audience. G.: Would supply the rest.