RT list:

Some may even be encouraged to write an essay on

Hopeless Capone

(I use my own name, in this way nobody gets offended, and I know for sure
that I have no intention to offend anyone, myself included).

And that means, in a context, NOT that Capone is hopeless, for that may
mean nothing at all or may mean many things.

It means:

There is no hope that Dr/Professor Capone will do X, where X is what he is
expected to do or something which he expects to do or something which he
expects to be allowed to do.

Now, it is very interesting that these things even in no context, or with
very little context, may be interpreted negatively. (But the question OF
COURSE from my point of view is whether one should be allowed to
interpret these things negatively in the absence of supporting contextual
clues).

Anyway, surely this runs against all my precepts layed out in a paper
whose existence I have almost forgotten entitleld 'On positive thinking'.
That may not be a brilliant paper, but it embodies the sound principles of
living in a decent society of supporting human beings.

If there is a context, in which a positive person can be interpreted as
having said something, that is a positive context, and NOT a negative one.

Thus what a reasonable hearer can understand, in hearing

Capone is hopeless

is - in a supporting context - that Capone is, say, hopeless at driving
fast.

Aware of this, I can say to myself 'I am hopeless'.

And so far no offence must be taken by anyone at all. In fact, I can be
bad at doing X, while being good at doing many other things, and this may
well be true of most people chosen at random.

However, consider the poor child,

Mario,

who has a psychopatic or, bluntly put, negative mother who always scolds
him for small matters; then on hearing

(for the nth time)

You are HOPELESS,

(derogatory intonation here plays a role)

he has got an impulse to react in a violent way (or to escape, should this
move be available to him).

Use has also probably charged this word with more than what could be
literally meant by it, but surely there are other intepretations (here
native English speakers could have some say):

I am hopeless ---> I have lost (all) hope

And have I lost all my hopes or only some?

And could it mean in a context where everyone wears a t-shirt with the
word 'Hope' in it that I am without a 'Hope' shirt?

(perhaps in the oral mode, this interpretation will do).

Now suppose that one contextual implication of 'hopeless' gets
established in the dictionary. Is not there a move available to a language
user, to un-standardise the use of this word?

While surely 'I am hopeless' in the sense of 'I have lost all hopes' is
weird even to a foreign ear, is it NOT a possible move to un-standardise
this language use and impose all the weight of context on this word?
(Dante and Shakespeare were very good at using words with free
creativity).

Surely one could. (This is my opinion, of course)

And all these reflections about 'Hopeless X? reminds me of the strange
replies I get at conferences, when I address somebody else in reply to
what she has said in response to my paper. Some people may simply assume
that I may object to what they say and are unable to say how my answer can
be interpreted as being non-objective in spirit.

And, to put it bluntly, I wonder whether - instead of the positive
thinking precepts I exposed in my paper on positive thinking - some
paranoid thinking norms are prevailing over every body. (BUt prevalence
does not mean that this OUGHT to be the case or that people are right in
thinking this ought to be the case).

The Gricean spirit was positive. One always tried to repair something
which did not sound OK by making it part of a move that complied with the
norms through some extra, not easily available, interpretation.

And I conclude by saying that without a positive spirit, there can be no
society of decent human beings supporting one another and that I wish to
be taken in whatever I do or say as being constructive and positive in
spirit. Is not there enough evidence for this around? Should more be
provided?
Received on Fri Jan 15 20:40:19 2010