Turing's alleged autism in the film -- annoying -- when Grice is exploited for comical effect

Speranza

Jones wrote:

"I too found the suggestion that Turing was autistic and the evidence adduced for it incredible and annoying, showing the filmmakers preference for spectacle over reality."

The funny (funny odd) thing is that there is a Griceian side to Turing's alleged misunderstandings of others' implicatures, and not just of his alleged misunderstandings themselves. Let's consider the sources.

(i) My first source is the New York Times review of the film. Notably A. E. Scott's commentary to

"We're going to have lunch"

as uttered by Cairncross.

(ii) The autism allegation itself, in the Wikipedia entry for the film:

The film, the entry notes, has been criticised for "exaggerating Turing's social difficulties to the point of depicting him having Asperger syndrome or otherwise being on the autism spectrum."

"While a few writers and researchers have tried to assign such a retrospective diagnosis to Turing, and it is true that he had his share of eccentricities, the Asperger's-like traits portrayed in the film – an intellectual snob with no friends, no sense of how to work cooperatively with others, and no understanding of humour – bear little relationship to the actual adult Turing, who had friends, was viewed as having a sense of humour and had good working relationships with his colleagues.^"



 

CAIRNCROSS:
We were going to get
some lunch? (+> Are you coming?)

(Alan ignores him) {+> No, I'm not).


------- Now let us consider Scott on this:

"[Cumberbatch's] Turing, whom the film seems to place somewhere on the autism spectrum, is as socially awkward as he is intellectually agile. He can perceive patterns invisible to others but also finds himself stranded in the desert of the literal. Jokes fly over his head, sarcasm does not register, and when one of his colleagues says, “We’re going to get some lunch,” Turing hears a trivial statement of fact rather than a friendly invitation. “The Imitation Game” derives some easy amusement from the friction between this “odd duck” and the prevailing culture of his native pond. The film’s notion of Britain — not inaccurate, but also not hugely insightful — is as a land of understatement, indirection and steadfast obedience to norms of behavior that seem, to a fiercely logical mind like Turing’s, arbitrary and incomprehensible."

"Turing hears a trivial statement of fact, rather than a friendly invitation".

But another description: Turing does catch the implicature, "Are you coming?" and by blatantly ignoring it, as we might put it, he is issuing a negative answer to it.
 

The comical effect, or alleged comical effect, provides much of the stuff for "Imitation Game",

"showing the filmmakers preference for spectacle over reality", to echo Jones's apt description.

Consider the follow up to Turing's implicated, "No, I'm not coming to lunch with you".

CAIRNCROSS (who after all, is a Soviet spy, so he OVER-IMPLICATES, as Grice would have it):
Alan?

ALAN TURING

Yes.

JOHN CAIRNCROSS:

I said we were going to get some

lunch?

(Alan keeps ignoring him) (Implicating: I heard your implicated invitation, and the answer obviously is, "No thanks, I'm not going -- still trying to be overpolite with me. You know I'm immersed in some serious stuff right now, and right from the start I told Denniston, which brought us to a fight, that I'd rather work ALONE! So leave me ALONE!).
 

Alan?

ALAN TURING:
Yes.

JOHN CAIRNCROSS

Can you hear me?

ALAN TURING

Yes.

(The implicature in Cairncross ("You are deaf?") is disimplicated by Turing -- "I hear you, but still decide to answer your implicated invitation by an implicated answer via my ignorance and silence).

JOHN CAIRNCROSS

I said we’re off to get some lunch.

(silence)

This is starting to get a bit

repetitive.

ALAN TURING

What is?

(Here the question is interesting in that 'it' is usually overused, notably in "It's raining". I think Witters thought that it should be, "Rains". Cfr. Strawson in "Introduction to logical theory". "It is raining (what is 'it'?)".
 

JOHN CAIRNCROSS

I had asked if you wanted to have

lunch with us.

ALAN TURING

No you didn’t. You told me you were

getting lunch.

---- This is rather genial of Turing. He is just CANCELLING Cairncross's implicature. Implicatures not only are indeterminate but are by nature cancellable. And while some implicatures are harder to cancel than others, in this case, Turing is over-reacting for having been criticized for his silence (implmicating, "No thank you") as an offense.

This was studied by Searle early enough:

"Can you pass me the salt?" (+> if you excuse me the stupid question, since I assume you can, and in which case, WOULD you please pass me the salt container to me?)

----

 

JOHN CAIRNCROSS

Have I offended you in some way?

[Perhaps by rejecting his invitation for lunch. Also there's this fact about Cairncross being a Soviet spy that Turing may have experienced somehow. So he is not inclined to be 'nice' to him].

ALAN TURING

Why would you think that?

JOHN CAIRNCROSS

Would you like to come to lunch

with us?

ALAN TURING

When is lunchtime?

 

------- [This is complex. It's not a "No, thank you", but a mechanical, almost, requirement for further information because he can proceed with the implicature game].
 

 

HUGH ALEXANDER

(calling out)

Christ, Alan, it’s a bleeding

sandwich.

ALAN TURING

What is?

[Again, he is criticizing the over-use of 'it'. In this case, 'it' is lunch.

HUGH ALEXANDER

 

Lunch.

[The italic in the screenplay indicates that people take implicatures for granted when they shouldn't].

ALAN TURING

I don’t like sandwiches.

JOHN CAIRNCROSS

Nevermind.

HUGH ALEXANDER

John was trying to be nice.

ALAN TURING

How?

[implicature: How on hell, when you all know I rather you leave me alone?].

JOHN CAIRNCROSS

Let it go.

HUGH ALEXANDER

You know: to pull off this irascible

genius routine, one has to actually

be a genius. Yet we’re the ones

making progress here, aren’t we?

ALAN TURING

You have?

HUGH ALEXANDER

We’ve decrypted a number of German

messages by analyzing the frequency

of letter distribution.

ALAN TURING

Oh. Even a broken clock is right

twice a day.

----- [Must say this should be translated to Latin and ascribed to TERTULIANUS. Great quote! Only they didn't have clocks back then].

That’s not progress at

all, that’s just blind luck. I’m

designing a machine that will allow

us to break every message, every

day, instantly.

We see his work: ELECTRICAL SCHEMATICS. He’s designing a

STRANGE NEW MACHINE.

ON THE TEAM: A machine? That’s ridiculous.

PETER HILTON

Who’s hungry? Let’s go.

 

[Here the "Who's hungry" is crucial for what follows in the "Implicature Game"].

 

HUGH ALEXANDER

Bye, Alan.

The guys gather their things and walk out...

ALAN TURING

I’m hungry.

... They turn.

JOHN CAIRNCROSS

What?

ALAN TURING

Peter asked if anyone was hungry. I

am.

(they stare at him)

[In fact, Hilton uttered, "Who's hungry". The report of this would be: Hilton asked who was hungry, I think. NOT "if anyone was hungry". So here Turing is decoding or catching (as I prefer, since no 'code' is involved, really, even if this is a game) the implicature.

May I have some soup, please?

--------------- (which politely implicates: "Thank you, boys, for inviting me for the sandwich, but if you could get me some soup back when you return to work, that would be appreciated it. And keep it warm, please -- onion soup, preferably).

The thing about the jokes is different, since the French-anthem song is pretty 'dirty', as Joan Clarke allows, and Turing's being 'confused' is an indication that he is not sharing the 'common ground' that the joke implicates.