J:
"Repetition seems to be one nearly pathological implicature."
Indeed. Indeed. Indeed. Indeed.
Seriously: I loved your label, "pathological implicature".
There are pet words. Some film stars, I know of, for example, overuse: 'divine'. They use that word every other two. And some socialites too.
In general, they say that to vary one's vocabulary is a mark of 'elaborated' rather than restricted speech -- the type of distinction emphasised by Bernstein when studying London youth. But I disagree. The most sophisticated lots -- alla Coward and Cole Porter, seemed to have used the same phrases ('wonderful', 'marvlz', divine, one and again).
So one wants to see if the pathological implicature is as black as she is painted. Or not.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
In regard to snooty, "British" and/or theatrical language, I am not sure "implicature" is the right word. Connotation? Or "register" as some call it. The syntax has a certain sound--it's not so much about content, but just saying the words correctly, with a certain diction, a ..je ne sais quoi. As with a Kelsey Grammer--just his speaking tends to irritate some, as does like Christopher Hitchens windy Oxfordian rhetoric. The specific points, or claims, "implicatures" don't really matter, any more than re-runs of Frazier do (tho Hitchens tries a pseudo-philosophy, sort of machiavelli-lite, at times. The Hegemonic Implicature! And that works the other way of course. Speak like a bumpkin--or even a Palin--and who cares what you say. There's some...mean, hopefully between pompous and pumpkin patch--yet I think the Vox Populi will more likely support politicians who speak bumpkin-ish --like Huckabee--than lawyerly types. Sad, in a way. Listen to a CSPAN broadcast of like UK parliament session--very eloquent debates. Even the Labour people (the lay-boor issue as Keynes would say) speak a very refined Queen's anglo
ReplyDeleteYes. The gift of the gab, I think they called it.
ReplyDeleteYes...but to take it a step further..what does being articulate, rhetorically skilled, having "the gift of gab"...imply??-- whether..psychologically, or politically speaking. That seems to be a topic of concern, tho' Im not sure how much could be said. The implicature-person might say..oh this was ironic, or something. But he doesn't say, Limabugh's rant a few days ago represented the speaker's unconscious hatred of all dark-skinned people, etc
ReplyDeleteThat's why I mentioned Freud--he attempted to take on that "macro" language issue, as with his essay on Jokes. Whether he succeeds or not is another matter. But listen to the usual comedy chatter, like Seinfeld or Leno-- the freudian Id creeps out quite often. Or pundit chat--it's not really about content (tho it takes some skills to write good jokes..or tell them). It's more about...aggression, even staking territory in a sense; Seinfeld as a type of ..imperialist. Arrrgh. Bio-linguistics
Yes. We should study this. I'll start with implicatures of sex.
ReplyDelete