"would it not be better to use a single term like 'plicatures' which coversall assumptions of {I} as the theoretically more basic term, and only
distinguish between "explicatures" and "implicatures" where this is actually
necessary for communication-theoretical reasons?"
Interesting question, Ernest-August, & I should get hold of your more
philosophical papers, since I live translating from my Language of Thought
into the Local Dialect into UCL English and back to my Language of Thought.
Anyway, I would not call the set "I", if it's "plicature". I'd call it "P".
I think it would be worth revising the etym. of "imply" and "explicate". I'm
afraid I'm no good at it, for the time being. I do believe in Roman (Latin)
there were (at least) two verbs:
. im-plicare
. ex-plicare
In standard English, it seems we only have:
1. imply ("implicate" has a legalese use:
"he was implicated in the crime" does not imply
that he actually uttered anything, I would say)
2. explicate (circa: explain?).
I.e. there's an asymmetry. We needed Grice to coin for us
3. implicate (HP Grice 1967, Lectures on Logic of Conversation, II,
Harvard). (I write this as a lexicographer since I
think it a disgrace the verb is not yet in many
dictionaries).
4. explicate (D.Sperber/D.Wilson).
Grice's point in coining "implicate" was obvious (to him, and to me). S/W's
point in coining "explicature" (qua product of "explicate") was also obvious
(to them, to me).
Yet, I trust the Romans meant SOMETHING by
. plicare
What they meant I cannot submit, but a look at the OED2 or Short/Lewis's
Latin Dict. may clarify things for us?
(Perhaps "plicare" was Roman for "mean", and so "imply" and "explicate" come
out as the two main "shades" of "Gricean" utterer's meaning, as I like to
call'em: to EXplicitly mean (something, that p) and to IMplicitly mean
(something, that q) - if you excuse me the split infinitives - and the
cumbersome lingo).
Best,
JL
BA Arg.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 28 2001 - 08:56:11 GMT