The Cancellability of the Explicature
-- Alessandro, How can you say you welcome 'constructive' criticism, yet go on to say, with a straight face, I hope, that the list-owner's idea of an explicature (an offlister from NewCastle reports) *just fails*!? Anyway, I am writing, "Spitzeriad: A Trilogy" and cannot comment right now. It's about the connection between Bakkhai and Eliot Spitzer's New York affair. This got me into re-reading my Euripides and found this delightful quote: The editor is criticising Euripides's technicalities with the proper use of the "Chorus" and writes: "Sometimes [the Chorus's comments] connection with the body of the play is tenuous and force. In the _Electra_, for example, an elaborate description of the arms of Akhilleus is justified on the ground that ??? *it is wicked* to murder ???? a general [Agamemnon] who had a so a soldier ???? so handsomely equipped in his army." (xiv, Ten Plays by Euripides -- intro and ed. by M. Hadas. --- It does remind me of Hobbes's _Leviathan_ and _Computatio_ where he discusses a LOONG explicature commenting the Death of Julius Caesar and Oliver Cromwell. For Hobbes, *everything* is _relevant_ (i.e. related, as per Aristotle's fourth category) *if you try* (hard?) Cheers, JL JL Speranza, Esq. The Grice Club, etc. St. Michael & St George Hall, Calle 58, No. 611 La Plata B1900BPY Buenos Aires, Argentina jlsperanza at aol.com ------ who volunteers criticism of the constructive type, I will share with her/him my paper entitled Are explicatures cancellable? Professor Burton-Roberts has commented on this paper for the second time and I have incorporated his comments and responded to them. Also if anyone has seen a good paper on the notion of semantic entailment, please let me know. According to Burton-Roberts Carston's definition of explicatures just fails (Burton-Roberts's comments on my paper not expressed in other papers seem really convincing). I am inclined to still preserve that definiton - albeit I wonder what the consequences for the overal theory are. -----Original Message----- From: alessandro.capone@istruzione.it To: relevance@linguistics.ucl.ac.uk Sent: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 5:35 pm Subject: RT list: If there is someone who would like to give a bit of practical help with language revision but also who volunteers criticism of the constructive type, I will share with her/him my paper entitled Are explicatures cancellable? Professor Burton-Roberts has commented on this paper for the second time and I have incorporated his comments and responded to them. Also if anyone has seen a good paper on the notion of semantic entailment, please let me know. According to Burton-Roberts Carston's definition of explicatures just fails (Burton-Roberts's comments on my paper not expressed in other papers seem really convincing). I am inclined to still preserve that definiton - albeit I wonder what the consequences for the overal theory are. Well, we shall see. AlessandroReceived on Sun Mar 16 00:36:13 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Mar 16 2008 - 00:43:19 GMT