Page 68 - Studio International - December 1973

ART THEORY& PRACTICE
r8,... rs) an implicature system? devise characterizations like this we are going to anaphoric. Much of what we want to call
A relation which will be of some importance require a sort of conversion operator such that conversation does not have to do with inducing
almost occurs ad lib. What one does is confer or agreement with x can be changed to or endeavouring to induce certain states of
express a degree of discreteness or autonomy disagreement with x. Now in a conversation belief, unless it's the state of belief that there_
(it's an object of study). Redundant sets should there are groups attempting to change assent are many problems to be considered. That
be looked at in this way. But how do we breach conditions. This is what a conversationalist is. might well be a lot to do with the parts of our
discreteness ? Do we just assume that A conversationalist is not just an attempted conversation that are more like an exhortation
discreteness has something to do with an `changer' (the implication being a failed (cf. Apostel). We might lay down a maxim of
enormous incompleteness in our knowledge ? `changer') but a worker for change. A our own: that our utterances should bei
The point is that the relations are neither conversationalist may fail to change the assent associated with certain anaphoric relationships
complete nor non-analysable (atomic). There conditions, what do we mean by this ? Do that are as multiramous as possible. This is
are presumably degrees of discreteness, i.e. we mean he may fail to change the social similar to Apostel's suggested 'dynamic' maxim.
stronger and weaker forms. Perhaps these conditions required for assent, or that he Differences are apparent between an anaphoric
would correspond to stronger and weaker forms actually fails to gain assent . . . given that a group relationship and conversational implicature.
of implicature. Is this really implicature ? Could may change its mind because of other factors (i) (A) Robert Johnson is dead.
it be better employed in relation to either dealing than those apparent in the conversation ? (B) He learnt a lot from Willie Newburn.
with idiolect or with the problem of meaning/ We have somehow to sort out the notion of (A) They say she put poison in his whisky.
mapping, i.e. the modifications produced on an attempted change, otherwise any (B) Eddie House was amazed.
extension set. This is a bit simple-minded as characterization will leave no possibility for (A) It was after the dance.
well. Induction: we want to say that (e.g.) a passivity. Does this mean that as soon as (B) I heard him for the first time last night.
statement s implies another in the sense that someone keeps quiet he is no longer a (A) Robert Johnson is dead.
there is some directionality associated with the conversationalist ? Back to speaker/hearer, etc. (2) (A) Robert Johnson is dead. Robert
two assertions/statements/sentences. But so far The point is that if someone keeps quiet we Johnson is dead.
all we have is an abstraction related to a form of want to be able to include them under (B) (remains silent).
interaction. Where do you stand in relation to conversationalist. There must, however, be If we consider these two examples, in (I) it is
sociology ? Back to the nursery and talk to each some sort of limit. If someone never says clear that the mappings of the idioloects are
other. The map of this context is hard to anything it's clear we cannot include him. The converging, they are related in same way. They
formulate. return of the active and the passive . .. we're may well be talking about the same object albeit
searching around for some sort of criteria of from different view points. Somehow we want to
II adequacy. It has to be generated somehow. say that despite A's attempts at informing B of a
What is required, at least initially, is that we list If anaphoric relations are built into clauses state of affairs, he does not seem to be altering
as many as possible of the relations and functions then they may well be built into sentences. That the information apparent for B. B is oblivious.
that hold or might hold within Art Language. is, there are just more things to be said. This is It is further possible to imagine that A is so
There are some problems that are more pressing clearly derived from an infra-textual approach. concerned to convey the 'news' of Robert
than others. We do have some hierarchy of Strangely, this seems to give us rules for Johnson's death that he is oblivious to the
problems, and presumably of supposed (at least) continuing — we are doing something different. informational content of B's remarks, etc. It's
relationships. It is also clear that this From this we may give varying degrees of clear that it is difficult to characterize such an
hierarchy is not fixed. If we want to build a anaphoric relationship. (It does seem to be the inter-change as (I). It's possible that A and B
`picture' of Art & Language, then we will have to way we go on.) At various stages each member are not 'communicating' at all. In (2) the
consider the development of hierarchies or of of Art & Language has mapped their idiolect repetition seems to be pointless unless in some
changes in hierarchy. But it still doesn't show (that's odd) onto the same set or part of a set of way B is prevented from hearing
how we continue. We might turn it all over to some other member of Art & Language. (understanding) the first time it is said. Is this
something like simple intolerance with the Noticeably, the idiolects of various members sort of pointless repetition anything to do with
situation as it pushes one into altering factors in develop by a sort of anaphoria and they may what we want to call a conversation ? How do
it that are particularly difficult. (Difficult for also develop by discrete elements of some sort. we decide ? We can't just say repetition 'is not
what ?) This suggests that we do have some If this is the case we will have some picture in allowed'. If we do we block out too much. If we
plans and they are not just destructive. historical terms via a straight-forward intra- let it in we have to be prepared to change our
If we do have plans then it's a case of how textual analysis. If we are looking for an conception of a conversation to include a notion
these plans are made, and once we've got them, accessible characterization then a silent listener of attempted change as well as actual change.
trying to use them. We might characterize these is not a conversationalist. Consider an ordered Attempting to change a state of affairs
various sets of members by the way in which pair (x, y) where x andy are sets of individuals. is a notion that is a lot harder to characterize
they map their position onto a sort of Art & There is still some sort of ordering preserved (or set limits for) than a notion of actual
Language ideology. This won't do. It leaves too here, but the speaker/hearer relationship is not change. Abject failures following an attempted
many questions unanswerable. We will have to implied. The ordering is of a different nature, change seem to be just as unlike conversation
consider how the group may be (at different and we can certainly have a conversation where as what went on in the two examples above.
times ?) broken down. It's not enough to say our conversationalist is pseudo-passive if that's (N. B. Grice's conversational maxims are
that some of us drive fast cars and others drive what we want. Further, neither x ory equals useless here.)
slow cars and others don't drive at all. It's the empty set. It's a group activity. Our
simply not enough to pick out one sentences/utterances also give us a series of III
characteristic and sort the group on that level. ordered pairs, or better, ordered n-tuples. Now in 'going on' there's some gross relation
We might want to say that we want to have out These ordered n-tuples are not at all regular. between something that is said. In what way can
way of sorting out the group continuously They would tend to be tree-like in structure. that be seen as an inductive situation ? Would it
changing, but this makes any sort of The conversational implicature (of sorts) simply be inductive by virtue of the fact that one
formalization impossible. We might sort it out in from p to q, r, s, t is in some ways seen as admits one is in an empirical situation, i.e. it's
terms of simple (and vague) covering notions inherent in p or at least as p occurs in the a non-rational situation ? (The adaptability of
such as: those who agree, those who disagree (potential) conversation. This relation between monalities ?) What would we want as the kind of
or those who understand, etc. Clearly, if we p and q, r, s, t is what we have been calling learning that ought to take place (e.g. that might
262