The Implications of Lacey's Frown

-- By J. L. Speranza
----- for the Grice Club

I ONCE DISCUSSED EXTENSIVELY on Mitch (or Mitchell for long) Green, "Grice's Implication", oops, "Grice's Frown". Green is appropriately NOT concerned with the Latinate, 'imply', but with 'mean', and dwells on Grice's choice of 'frown' in WoW:"Meaning". O. T. O. H., there's Lacey in his "Dictionary", available online:

"Saying (which here includes asking, etc.) may even be replaced by something non-linguistic: ‘By (deliberately) frowning he implied he was angry.’ A non-deliberate frown could only ‘imply’ anger causally, rather as rainbows imply rain."

We have discussed this extensively, THIS BLOG, with L. J. Kramer. He aptly, in his apt remarks, referred to Boston back in the day when the lanterns meant this or that. We were tying to find out an ironic use of the lanterns. "By displaying two lanterns, I DO mean, 'by water', but I was being ironic, you fool."

--- This was vis a vis Grice's example of a hidden (undisplayed) bandaged leg.

A: Are you playing cricket today, Paul?
Paul displays bandaged leg.

----

What did he "IMPLY"? Nothing. How can you 'imply', if you haven't SAID?

Lacey's proviso, "'saying'" here can mean things OTHER than 'state' is otiose. But one gets his confused point.

The idea of the FROWN implying is even MORE confused! Or not!