Playing and Displaying

--- by JLS
----- for the GC

In "McCafferty", Kramer:

"I was not saying that the implicature is independent of the manner of saying what is said, just that an implicature can be raised in any medium."

Thanks. I wouldn't think I'd follow. I mean: it seems a bit of a stretch to even (if you excuse me the split) care to distinguish between play and display, imply and exply, etc. in the case of a medium OTHER than the 'linguistic' one. Mind: I'll have to think about this.

But it seems that in the case of the "U" displaying a bandaged leg, it IS a bit of a stretch to say that he IMPLIED that he could not play squash. But perhaps it's not too much of a stretch.

It seems PRETTY CLEAR (in spite of all the spite of a Recanati, and a Bach, not to mention a Korta) to analyse,

"I have a bad leg".

---- For this is the analog of Korta's example:

"I haven't had any breakfast"

to mean "I'm hungry".

----- and perhaps, "Feed me" (to a waiter, say).

But perhaps the line could go:

1. U has displayed a bandaged leg.
2. There is no reason to suppose he would be doing so, unless he meant that this action was the appropriate thing to do under the circumstances.

----

But again, how can such a rather rude act (displaying a bandaged leg) be the 'appropriate' thing to do? I rather he insulted me: "Are you an idiot -- or what? Can't you see my bloody leg is bloody bandaged?".

"Silence," as Kramer says, "is all implicature". But it's not music, either -- as J. Cage will NOT agree.