RT list: "a few rather marked irrelevancies in his conversation"

RUTH. What symptoms did you notice?
DR. BRADMAN. Oh, nothing to be unduly alarmed about -- a certain air
of strain -- an inability to focus his eye on the person he is talking to

--
a few  _rather_ *marked* IRRELEVANCIES in his CONVERSATION.
RUTH. I see. Can you  remember any specific examples?
DR. BRADMAN. Oh, he suddenly shouted, 'What  are you doing in
the bathroom?' and then, a little later,  while I was writing him a
prescription, he suddenly said,  'For God's sake, behave yourself!"
MRS. BRADMAN. How extraordinary.
RUTH  [nervously]. He often goes on like that -- particularly  when
he's immersed in writing a book --
DR. BRADMAN.  Oh, I am not in the least perturbed about it really --
BUT  I _do_ think a rest and a change would be a good  idea.
N. Coward, Blithe Spirit, (1941) p. 74
-- role of Dr. Bradman created by  Martin Lewis.
--- A good study of the irrelevancies in the play may be in  order -- but 
what is slightly interesting in Bradman's words is the precise use  of 
'irrelevancies' which are "rather marked".
(For of course Charles is  talking to a ghost that nobody else can _see_).
Some obviously lead to  good _innuendo_:
p. 41:
RUTH [bringing [Charles] some more brandy.  Here -- drink this --
and then _we'll go to  bed_.
[ELVIRA. Get rid of her, Charles -- then we can talk in peace.][unheard  or 
unseen to Ruth]
CHARLES [replying to ELVIRA, really, but RUTH assuming  otherwise, i.e. as 
addressed to what _she_ had just said -- i.e. the dovetailed  previous 
conversational move, in Grice's parlance] That's a thoroughly IMMORAL  
SUGGESTION, you ought to be ashamed of yourself.
RUTH. What is there immoral  in that?
p. 54.
[At this moment [the ghost of] ELVIRA comes in  from the garden]
ELVIRA. You've absolutely ruined taht border.
CHARLES. O,  my God!
RUTH. What's the matter now?
CHARLES. She's here again?
RUTH.  What do you mean? Who's here again?
CHARLES. Elvirra.
RUTH. Pull yourself  together and don't be absurd.
[ELVIRA. It's all those nasturtiums -- they're  so _vulgar_.] [unheard and 
unseen to RUTH]
CHARLES. I like  nasturtiums.
RUTH. You like what?
---- Other 'irrelevancies' or out of  context 'relevancies' that are 
mis-interpreted include on p. 55:
CHARLES.  Please mind your own business.
...           How can you be  so inconsiderate?
...           You're utterly  heartless. 
On p. 57:
[ELVIRA. Have a cigarette, it will  soothe your nerves] [unheard/unseen to 
RUTH]
CHARLES. I don't want a  cigarette.
RUTH [indulgently]. Then you shan't have one, darling. 
On  p. 58:
CHARLES. Ruth -- you see that bowl of flowers on the  piano?
RUTH. Yes, dear -- I did it myself this morning.
[ELVIRA. Very  untidily if I may say so] [unseen/unheard to Ruth]
CHARLES. You may  not.
RUTH. Very well -- I never will again. I promise. 
---- So,  all in an all, a period piece, but not wholly irrelevant to 
mention on this  list!
It would be good to analyse Bradman's 'specific examples' in view  of the 
present latter-day polemic on the truth-conditional, vis a vis Richards  (Pr. 
Lit. Crit.) quote of the 'otiose' not being necessarily _false_.  
But:
The two specific examples have an odd direction of fit: they  are both 
'boulomaic' rather than doxastic:
i.    What are  you doing in the bathroom?
ii.   For God's sake, behave  yourself!
neither of which I would describe as _true_! (Cfr. Anscombe's  shopping 
list -- analysed in Bayne's book on Anscombe -- and Grice's discussion  of the 
shopping list in "Intention and Uncertainty". 
The remedial  procedure seems to be
To concoct a corresponding notion of  'satisfactoriness' for non-doxastic 
'moves'.  
I WANT TO KNOW -- what you are  doing in the bathroom  --
in a context where [Dr. Bradman] is NOT in the  bathroom.
I WANT YOU TO behave  yourself.
in a context where Dr. Bradman does not think he is  _not_.
Time-Line:
Coward, N. (1941). Blithe  Spirit.
NOWELL-SMITH (1955). Ethics. "Be relevant".  Penguin
GRICE, H. P. (1967). Logic and conversation. Lecture ii.  "be relevant".
-- 'relevant to the topic',  'relevant to the goal', 'relevant to the 
utterer's  goal'
'relevant to the  conversational goal/topic', etc. RELATION  borrowed
from Kant, borrowed  from Aristotle -- beyond the 'poson' (qua_nt_UM)  and
the 'poion'  (quaLE).
Dascal, M. "Conversational relevance" Journal of  Pragmatics.
Holdcroft, D. "Conversational relevance".  IPRA.
Sperber/Wilson. Relevance: communication and cognition.  Blackwell
Grice, WoW -- strand 6, 'relation' 'relevance'.  
OED. 'relevancy' as a technical term in Scots law. -- and not  really
_cognate_ (other than via the 're-'  with Aristotelian "Relatio" at all).
Nit-picking:
 
"a few rather irrelevances in HIS conversational moves to OUR  
conversation".
   or "in his contributions to the conversation".
For which we would have to IMAGINE what the conversation may have run like. 
 For a longer day.
 
I find that the use of 'conversation' as _monadic_ (alla Russell) is  
_offensive_. 
Cheers,
J. L. Speranza
The Grice Club, etc. 
 
**************An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy 
Steps! 
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222887319x1201497660/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&hmpg
ID=62&bcd=JulyExcfooterNO62)