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

 G.: Let us begin, if we must, with Fra Cipolla’s first opening to La Nanna. What is the implicature? S.: That he means to patronise her before he has properly earned the right, which is the oldest clerical sport. G.: That is social diagnosis, not implicature. Is it conventional, conversational, or merely your Abruzzese irritation speaking? S.: Conversational, then. He says one thing in the tone of guidance and means another in the posture of superiority. G.: Particularised? S.: Entirely. Without the relation between friar and woman, and without the local asymmetry, it evaporates. G.: Good. Now La Nanna’s reply. She appears submissive. Is she? S.: Not in the least. Her politeness is a blade wrapped in linen. G.: Then what is implicated? S.: That she understands his game before he has finished setting the board. G.: Again particularised? S.: Yes, because it depends upon her over-obedient wording and the hearer’s awareness that she is not, in fact, simple. G.: So not conventional implicature. S.: No. No one gets that merely from a lexical particle or connective. G.: You are learning. Now Fra Cipolla asks a question to which, on the surface, a plain answer would suffice. Why does La Nanna answer too fully? S.: Because excess itself is her irony. She gives more than is required in order to imply that his demand was already impertinent. G.: Quantity flouted, then. S.: Yes, though elegantly. G.: Particularised? S.: Entirely. The same words in a catechism would be only tedious. G.: Very good. Now Cipolla’s next move: he pretends not to notice the rebuff. What is his implicature? S.: That he will continue to occupy the moral high ground even after losing it. G.: That sounds almost like Acito. But classify it. S.: Conversational, certainly. He says, in effect, “let us proceed calmly,” and means, “I refuse to acknowledge that you have struck me.” G.: Not entailment? S.: No. The literal content need not include any such refusal. G.: Presupposition? S.: I should hope not. G.: Hope is not enough. Why not? S.: Because nothing in the syntax requires that he has been struck and is now ignoring it. The force is pragmatic, not structural. G.: Good. Now La Nanna uses an honorific for him that is one degree too polished. Implicature? S.: That she is calling attention to the office only to expose the man beneath it. G.: Is that conventional? S.: No. Excessive respect does not always mean mockery. G.: So again particularised. S.: Yes. It depends on her timing, on what he has just said, and on the reader’s suspicion that she is cleverer than he would like. G.: “Than he would like” itself has an implicature. S.: You are impossible. G.: I am exact. Continue. Fra Cipolla invokes authority. Does that carry a conventional implicature? S.: Only in the weak sense that citing authority invites deference. G.: That is not my sense. Conventional implicature attaches stably to the form. Does his invocation of authority conventionally imply anything beyond explicit appeal? S.: Not beyond the ordinary air of “I need not argue further.” G.: Which is not bad. Then perhaps it is a socially sedimented but not strictly conventional implicature. S.: One of your intermediate shadows. G.: Civilisation lives in the shadows. La Nanna answers with a proverb. What is she doing? S.: She is moving from private reply to public wisdom. By speaking proverbially, she implies that his manoeuvre is not unique to him but belongs to a recognisable species of nonsense. G.: Excellent. Particularised or generalised? S.: Generalised, perhaps, if one allows that proverbs usually carry surplus moral uptake beyond their immediate literal fit. G.: Better: the reply has a generalisable implicatural tendency, though this instance is sharpened by the local target. S.: You always want both the knife and the anatomy of the knife. G.: Naturally. Now Cipolla laughs. Is the laugh itself an implicature? S.: Yes, but not a linguistic one. G.: Very good. Continue. S.: It implies either that he is above offence or that he has not understood the insult. La Nanna, naturally, counts on both readings damaging him. G.: Ah. Ambiguity by behaviour. Particularised? S.: Entirely. A laugh in another place might mean ease. Here it means self-defence disguised as ease. G.: And if a reader took it simply as ease? S.: Then that reader deserves the friar. G.: Excellent. Now La Nanna asks a question whose answer she clearly does not need. What is the implicature? S.: That she is forcing him to hear his own absurdity aloud. G.: Socratic, then. S.: Domestic Socratic, yes. Less elenchus in the agora than elenchus by the hearth. G.: And particularised? S.: Entirely. Such questions are weapons only under pressure. G.: Cipolla answers too quickly. What does haste implicate? S.: That he fears the shape of the question more than its content. G.: Not bad. Is that conversational implicature or merely psychological inference? S.: Both, if you insist on living dangerously. G.: I insist on distinctions. Which? S.: Conversational, because the pace of response belongs to the exchange and is interpretable under norms of poise, confidence, and relevance. G.: Good. Now she says “as everyone knows.” Is that conventional implicature? S.: It conventionally signals an appeal to common ground. G.: Better. And in this case? S.: In this case it also conversationally implies that he is threatening to place himself outside the company of the competent if he resists. G.: So we have a conventional function plus a particularised strategic use. S.: You look insufferably pleased. G.: I am. Fra Cipolla introduces a distinction. Real distinction or verbal one? S.: Mostly verbal. He wants the dignity of analysis without the labour of thought. G.: Implicature? S.: That the matter is subtler than La Nanna could perhaps grasp. G.: Which she immediately destroys. S.: Naturally. She accepts the distinction and redraws it in terms that make him sound even sillier. G.: Then her paraphrase carries what implicature? S.: That if his distinction is sound, it is sound only in the wrong universe. G.: Too elegant. Make it humbler. S.: Very well: she implies that his sophistication is a mere rewording of folly. G.: Excellent. Particularised? S.: Entirely. A paraphrase need not be insult; here it is. G.: Now, Cipolla appeals to piety. What is he counting on? S.: A non-conversational implicature of decorum, perhaps. That certain tones and subjects will check her wit. G.: Very good. Not conversational in the narrow sense because the force relies less on maxims than on politeness and shared devotional inhibition. S.: Exactly. He hopes sanctity will do what logic cannot. G.: And La Nanna? S.: She grants the pious frame while twisting its use. That is her chief talent. G.: So what is implicated by her pious concession? S.: That she is willing to speak within the sacred register, provided it is not monopolised by fools. G.: Better than many sermons. Particularised? S.: Yes. Her concession is strategic, not doctrinally exhaustive. G.: Cipolla then says something literally true but useless. Implicature? S.: That he wants the credit of truthfulness without the burden of relevance. G.: A classic clerical evasion. S.: Or academic. G.: You are improving. Is the useless truth itself an implicature trigger? S.: Only because irrelevance in context invites the search for ulterior point. G.: Precisely. Relevance flouted; implicature sought. Now La Nanna supplies the missing relevance herself. What does that imply? S.: That she can complete his reasoning better than he can, and that his sentence needed rescuing. G.: Particularised? S.: Entirely. In another context it would be helpfulness; here it is domination. G.: Excellent. Now there is a moment where Cipolla says “I did not say that.” Is the implicature that he nearly did? S.: Yes. Or that he recognises the line of consequence from what he did say and retreats from it. G.: So denial here implies proximity. S.: Very much so. G.: Conventional? S.: No. Denials do not conventionally imply guilt, though conversational life often treats them as if they did. G.: Good. La Nanna then repeats his phrase with a slight shift of emphasis. What is the force? S.: She turns quotation into exposure. The repetition implies that his own words are enough to convict him if merely heard properly. G.: A nice example of mention becoming judgment. S.: Yes. She does not need to add content; arrangement suffices. G.: Suetonian of her. S.: Heaven help us. Now you are importing emperors into kitchens. G.: Philosophy improves kitchens. Cipolla says “you misunderstand me.” What is implied? S.: That he has lost control of the exchange and wishes to blame the hearer’s competence rather than his own expression. G.: And is that generalised? S.: Fairly. “You misunderstand me” often carries that implication in quarrels, tutorials, and marriages. G.: Very good. A generalized conversational implicature, then, though intensified here. S.: I knew you would like that. G.: Naturally. La Nanna answers, “on the contrary.” Conventional implicature? S.: Not in your strict sense. But it prepares a reversal. It signals that she is about to reclaim interpretive authority. G.: And what is the particularised implicature here? S.: That she understands him only too well, and that his complaint has merely furnished her next stroke. G.: Good. Cipolla then attempts compliment. Is compliment here mere compliment? S.: Of course not. He means to pacify, lower the temperature, and recover the relation of superior to inferior under the guise of admiration. G.: So the compliment has a conversational implicature of tactical appeasement. S.: Yes, and possibly one of condescension. G.: Which La Nanna hears. S.: Instantly. G.: Her reply is outwardly modest. What is she implying? S.: That if she is clever, he has been the schoolmaster of that cleverness by giving her so much nonsense to sharpen herself upon. G.: Excellent. Particularised? S.: Entirely. Modesty is rarely so industrious by accident. G.: Now a harder case. She says something which may simply entail the conclusion you are calling an implicature. How do we distinguish? S.: By asking whether the further point is logically required or merely rationally recoverable from the manner and context. G.: Good. Apply that here. S.: When she says, in effect, that words must fit things, the entailment is the obvious norm of apt speech. The implicature is that his words have not fitted anything for several turns. G.: Splendid. Cipolla invokes custom. What does custom do here? S.: It pretends to settle by inheritance what he cannot settle by argument. G.: So the appeal implicates “this is not for fresh scrutiny.” S.: Exactly. G.: Generalised? S.: Fairly. Appeals to custom often imply closure. G.: La Nanna counters with a more local custom. What is her move? S.: She provincialises his universality. She implies that his “everyone” means only his own tiny and interested circle. G.: Very good. That is a particularised correction of the common-ground claim. S.: And a socially cruel one. G.: Good cruelty is often diagnostic. Now Cipolla becomes vague. Why? S.: Because precision would expose him. G.: Implicature? S.: That vagueness is being used as a shelter, not as humility. G.: Particularised? S.: Entirely. Vagueness can be innocent. Here it is evasive. G.: Now the old danger. Is any of this presupposition? S.: Almost certainly less than lazy analysts would claim. G.: One example, please. S.: When La Nanna says “even friars may forget themselves,” the presupposition is only that friars are a class of persons. The sting, namely that this friar has forgotten himself already, is implicature. G.: Excellent. You are not wholly lost. Cipolla then says “let us speak plainly.” What does that implicate? S.: That things have not gone plainly for him thus far. G.: Generalised? S.: Yes, often. “Let us speak plainly” usually implies that the prior discourse was obscured, evasive, or unsatisfactory. G.: And in this case? S.: It also particularly implies that he wishes to reset rules he has just been losing under. G.: Good. La Nanna answers with a plainness that over-fulfils the invitation. Implicature? S.: That she is willing to grant his maxim and show him he cannot bear its consequences. G.: Quantity and Manner cooperating vindictively. S.: If you like. G.: I do. Now there is a joke at his expense that depends on double meaning. Is the second meaning conventional implicature? S.: No. That would confuse lexical ambiguity with implicature. G.: Excellent. So what do we have? S.: An ambiguity exploited conversationally so that one reading remains decorous and the other devastating. G.: And the devastative force is particularised. S.: Entirely. The dictionary does not insult him; the occasion does. G.: Cipolla pretends to choose the innocent reading. S.: Which implies he has heard the wicked one. G.: Yes. Denial by selective uptake. Very useful. Now La Nanna leaves something unfinished. Aposiopesis. Implicature? S.: That she trusts the hearer to complete the indecency or the judgment without requiring her to soil her own mouth. G.: Excellent. Particularised? S.: Yes, though the device has a fairly stable general tendency toward insinuation. G.: So a generalisable implicature pattern realised in a particular scandal. S.: You make vice sound pedagogical. G.: It usually is. Now Cipolla asks whether she mocks him. Why ask? S.: Because to ask is already to acknowledge the suspicion while trying to retain procedural innocence. G.: Very good. And her answer? S.: If she says no too quickly, she implies yes by style. If she says no with solemnity, she may imply that only a fool would need to ask. G.: Which kind does she choose? S.: The second, naturally. She has standards. G.: High ones. Now classify the implicature in “only a fool would need to ask,” where the “only” is not said. S.: Conversational, particularised, sharpened by irony. G.: Not entailment? S.: No. Nothing in the literal negative forces that conclusion. G.: Excellent. Cipolla then uses a diminutive. What is he up to? S.: He is trying to miniaturise the dispute and, with it, her authority in it. G.: Good. Does the diminutive itself conventionally implicate diminution of seriousness? S.: Often, but not rigidly. It may express affection, contempt, condescension, or mere scale. G.: So in this context? S.: A non-conventional but socially legible implicature of condescension. G.: Very nice. La Nanna repeats the diminutive and makes it bite him instead. S.: Exactly. She domesticates his patronage and returns it with interest. G.: Particularised? S.: Entirely. G.: Now a more abstract question. Would you say the dialogue overall relies more on generalised or particularised implicature? S.: Overwhelmingly particularised. The wit lives in local pressure, local asymmetry, local knowledge. G.: Good. But some recurring forms? S.: Yes. Appeals to custom, demands for plain speaking, complaints of misunderstanding, strategic compliments, excessive respect, and over-informative answers all carry rather stable generalised tendencies. G.: Excellent. We are getting somewhere. Cipolla says something pious and La Nanna replies with a domestic example. Implicature? S.: That theology without household intelligence is not worth the oil in the lamp. G.: Very good. Particularised? S.: Yes, though the broader anti-abstraction sentiment may be common enough. G.: Is there anywhere in the dialogue where you would actually grant a presupposition of some philosophical interest? S.: Perhaps where a correction takes for granted a shared standard of apt speech. But even there, most of the fun lies not in what must be taken for granted, but in what may be inferred from strategic deviation. G.: So presupposition is the dull furniture; implicature the theatre. S.: In this dialogue, emphatically yes. G.: Now Cipolla says “as a matter of charity.” Implicature? S.: That he wishes to moralise the next move in advance so that resistance appears uncharitable. G.: Excellent. Generalised? S.: Fairly. Such prefacing often loads the moral dice. G.: La Nanna replies charitably indeed, but to his disadvantage. S.: Which is her genius. She takes the announced norm and fulfils it in the wrong direction for him. G.: What is implied by over-fulfilling a norm? S.: That the speaker invoking it did not understand its consequences. G.: Very nice. Now if I ask whether La Nanna’s wit depends upon flouting Quality, what do you say? S.: Rarely. She tends not to lie. Her power comes from saying true things too pointedly or from arranging them too well. G.: Excellent. So the main engines are Quantity, Relation, and Manner. S.: With politeness forever hovering like a second legal code. G.: A non-conversational yet non-conventional reservoir. S.: Yes. She can imply insult through perfect civility. G.: Which is always the best sort. Cipolla ends with some form of retreat. What is the implicature of a dignified retreat after defeat? S.: That one still claims authorship of the ending. He cannot win the exchange, so he means to close it as though closure were victory. G.: Generalised? S.: Often, yes. The defeated frequently mistake last word for best word. G.: And La Nanna’s final line? S.: Usually a line that appears to release him while in fact fixing the reader’s judgment forever. G.: What kind of implicature is that? S.: Particularised, devastating, and perhaps best left unreported in mixed company. G.: Cowardice. S.: Prudence. G.: Accetto again. S.: Civilisation again. G.: Very well. Then let us conclude. Fra Cipolla says much, means less than he hopes, and implies more than he intends. La Nanna says just enough, means exactly what she wants, and lets the implicature do the strangling. S.: That is about right. G.: And the dialogue overall? S.: A manual of enlightened pressure under social constraint. G.: Too grand. S.: A friar’s defeat by conversational intelligence, then. G.: Better. One final classification. La Nanna’s wit: conventional, conversational, or diabolical? S.: Predominantly conversational, occasionally politeness-based, never merely lexical, and only diabolical if one is a friar. G.: Dry enough? S.: Sufficiently Chietine, with one excellent woman in command.