Arguing with Blondie about the Implicatum

by JLS
for the GC

In "Cartoon strip implicature" I left the issue out. What's the good of a blog post EXPLAINING all?

Dagwood: I still don't see why it was such a big deal that you were wearing the same outfit that Lindsey Rogers wore at the banquet.

Blondie: That isn't what happened at all, Dagwood... Lindsey Rogers was wearing the same outtif that _I_ was wearing at the banquet!

Analysis:

Analyse it in terms of Grice's maxims.

Surely, a case may be made for Blondie being wrong, "That isn't what happened at all". For,

i. Blondie was wearing the same outfit that Lindsey Rogers wore at the banquet.

is truth-conditionally equivalent to

ii. Lindsey Rogers was wearing the same outfit that I was wearing at the banquet.

Or not.

------

The issue may have to do with Strawson's topic-comment distinction in his analysis of presuppositions:

iii. The king of France visited the Exhibition.
iv. The Exhibition was visited by the King of France.

i. Blondie was wearing the same outfit that Lindsey Rogers wore at the banquet.
ii. Lindsey Rogers was wearing the same outfit that Blondie was wearing at the banquet.

----

To simplify, the logical form of i.

i. a SAME b

The logical form of ii

ii. b SAME a

----

Perhaps the problem is 'same'. Surely they were wearing _different_ outfits. But that may not have comforted Blondie. Or not.