So do we go on high alert every time Chertoff has a bad tamale?
Ok, I stole that headline from another blog -- it's an homage.
I was watching CNN while working out, and practically scooted off the back end of the treadmill when this item came on.
"What's the big deal?" says K. "He says it's just a gut feeling."
This guy isn't allowed to have gut feelings. (Chertoff, that is: not K.)
Permit me to introduce my friend H.P. Grice. (Mr. Grice, these are both my readers.)
Among many other contributions to the field of pragmatics, Mr. Grice made the simple but consequential observation that people in a conversation assume cooperation on the part of the other actors. As part of this cooperation, we assume that we're all using the same basic conversational maxims -- essentially, we trust that our interlocutor is going to try to be relevant, be brief, be as informative as required for the context (not more; not less), etc.
Holy digression, Batman? Not quite.
The fun comes when people violate these maxims -- or rather, in the uniformity and certainty of the inferences their listeners draw.
So, for instance, if I ask you how the movie was and you say "it wasn't unfunny," you've violated the maxims of clarity and brevity and I'll feel justified in concluding you meant something other than "it was funny," even though "not unfunny" and "funny" should logically mean the same thing.
If I ask you "what time is it?" and you say "9:05:00000000159," you've violated the maxim of information level, and I'll feel justified in concluding you're a twit.
See how it works?
So, when the guy who has clearance for material that has to be burned before it's read says he has a "gut feeling"...?
Geez, my brain; she hurts. If he were a private citizen, he'd be entitled to a gut feeling -- but then, we wouldn't put him on TV to talk about it, would we? The "no double-standard" policy that grew out of the bombing of Pan Am 103 dictates that threats that are specific and credible must be widely shared with the general public. So which is it: we don't have that, but we'd like everyone to Griceanly infer that we do (and why?); or we do, and we're not?
Yeah, I got a theory. But I'm hoping that if I don't share it, it won't come true.
I was watching CNN while working out, and practically scooted off the back end of the treadmill when this item came on.
"What's the big deal?" says K. "He says it's just a gut feeling."
This guy isn't allowed to have gut feelings. (Chertoff, that is: not K.)
Permit me to introduce my friend H.P. Grice. (Mr. Grice, these are both my readers.)
Among many other contributions to the field of pragmatics, Mr. Grice made the simple but consequential observation that people in a conversation assume cooperation on the part of the other actors. As part of this cooperation, we assume that we're all using the same basic conversational maxims -- essentially, we trust that our interlocutor is going to try to be relevant, be brief, be as informative as required for the context (not more; not less), etc.
Holy digression, Batman? Not quite.
The fun comes when people violate these maxims -- or rather, in the uniformity and certainty of the inferences their listeners draw.
So, for instance, if I ask you how the movie was and you say "it wasn't unfunny," you've violated the maxims of clarity and brevity and I'll feel justified in concluding you meant something other than "it was funny," even though "not unfunny" and "funny" should logically mean the same thing.
If I ask you "what time is it?" and you say "9:05:00000000159," you've violated the maxim of information level, and I'll feel justified in concluding you're a twit.
See how it works?
So, when the guy who has clearance for material that has to be burned before it's read says he has a "gut feeling"...?
Geez, my brain; she hurts. If he were a private citizen, he'd be entitled to a gut feeling -- but then, we wouldn't put him on TV to talk about it, would we? The "no double-standard" policy that grew out of the bombing of Pan Am 103 dictates that threats that are specific and credible must be widely shared with the general public. So which is it: we don't have that, but we'd like everyone to Griceanly infer that we do (and why?); or we do, and we're not?
Yeah, I got a theory. But I'm hoping that if I don't share it, it won't come true.
5 Comments:
-
Anonymous said...
-
- 5:30 AM
-
Anonymous said...
-
- 9:35 PM
-
Anonymous said...
-
- 2:20 PM
-
Anonymous said...
-
- 8:11 PM
-
Anonymous said...
-
- 2:50 AM
Post a CommentGreetings from a land where the security services actually foil terrorist attacks and abide by your principles of specific & credible threats!
Could your theory possibly be described as a ... conspiracy theory? As in, every time there seems to be some step towards a rational response to the situation in Iraq, the government does its best to "remind" citizens of the "link" between 9/11 and Iraq? (Never mind, of course, that there was never any such link -- it's all emotional.)
Although I try not to be cynical, they make it so difficult not to be.
Now, now, italophile, pointing out the absence of that link is un-American.
(Says the one who's done the most un-American thing one can possibly do by swearing an oath of loyalty to the British monarch.)
I'm not sure swearing loyalty to one of the two international figures with which most Americans are familiar (i.e., the "Queen of England" and the Pope) is not the MOST un-American thing you could do. I mean, at least the Brits are Our Friends.
PS I got to *affirm* my loyalty since the UK acknowledges that not everyone wants to swear before God.
But the US exists because of a war fought to break ties with the British monarchy, n'est-ce pas?
I think most Americans choose to forget that bit. I mean, we have to have friends SOMEWHERE in the world.
By the way, for most Americans, your use of "n'est-ce pas?" is WAY more un-American than taking your Canadian citizenship oath: freedom fries and all that nonsense.
<< Home