Dear all,
I'm online now so shan't elaborate much, I hope! I have heard the odd
lecture, & at the odd Gricean symposium, too, that although theories of
humour are either 1. nonhumoristic, or 2. nonexistant, some people (I
recall at least one Chilean linguist) have claimed that English humour is
all-ways some flout to Grice. And I happen to (_tend to_) find flouts to
Grice funny (By "flout to Grice" I mean "& as recognised by him", i.e. the
usual mechanism of the implicature): the punchline is the "flout" -- which
is directed to the audience as from the _humorist_ (qua utterer) and not
necessarily from the "literal" _utterer_ of the line (where divergence
applies. I doubt it does). All this pretty convolutedly expressed, but I
hope intelligible.
I mean: if you say "pigs", that would be the punchline to some joke
provided (or as Grice would say, "iff") "pigs" flouts "the cooperative
principle (or some of its maxims)". You find the context!
Best,
JL
Grice Circle
jls@netverk.com.ar
=============
Now, for the relevance-theorist, I guess relevance should figure large in
an attempt to construe (let alone explain, or is it explain, let alone
construe) "humour ala neo-Grice". Now, would _that_ mean that the funny
punchline is the irrelevant one!? Mmmm, don't think so!
JL's posts are irrelevant, but they are hardly funny (at least to me) --
they are _annoy-ing_ (and at best). Irritating or downright dumb at most...
(who _is_ JL?)
Anyone!? (explicature -> please/bitte?)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Aug 21 2001 - 19:22:28 GMT