Trouble at the Pussycat Lounge
I’m not going to lead you on. The trouble I’m talking about is what Austin would call a (possible) rhetic misfire. Firearms are involved, but no one is actually harmed in the telling of this story. Hang on for a few paragraphs and you will understand.
It is Saturday night, and Bill and I are sitting at our usual table at the Pussycat. Our table faces the bar, not the stage, because we are here to discuss metaphysics and semantics, not anatomy. I notice that Bill is paying attention to one real looker at the bar. I noticed something earlier that I think it would be useful for Bill to know something about her. The woman is carrying a automatic pistol in her handbag, a Glock .45 cal, I think, from my brief glance at it when she opened her purse.
The woman has been drinking rather conspicuously from a champagne flute. The Pussycat is not noted for its fine cellar, but presumably it is decent vintage. Probably a 2004 Korbels, I’d guess. My problem is how to identify this woman for Bill so he will know which of the woman at the bar I’m talking about. No one else is drinking from a flute so I decide to go with
“The woman over there drinking champagne is carrying an automatic pistol in her bag.”
Unbeknownst to me or Bill, the woman is in fact drinking Perrier in the flute. But Bill has no difficulty identifying whom I’m referring to. He says, “I’ve been watching, her. You noticed, ah? What a looker! “
“Yes,” I say, “she’s very attractive. But it’s real gun, Bill. The slim .45 cal Glock. Not a little toy.”
“You saw it?” he asks.
“I saw it, “ I reply.
I’ve warned Bill that the woman he was showing an interest in is packing, and packing something dangerous. As a rule, the ladies at the Pussycat don’t go in that sort of hardware. My warning illocution has succeeded and has had the intended perlocutionary effect: Bill is alerted and cautious.
But what about the fact that I used as my referring expression a definite discussion that is not literally true of the lady in question, a so-called vacuous definite description? Did that, or could, that have caused any problems? The first thing to notice is that it in fact caused no problem for Bill in identifying the woman whom I was speaking about. He immediately understood whom I meant and that I was warning him that that woman with the flute was packing a gun. There was no miscommunication, no uncertainty about reference or meaning on his part. My meaning and reference were crystal clear.
“But the woman wasn’t actually drinking champagne and that could have caused a problem for Bill.” How? How did Bill understand my use of “the woman drinking champagne”? She was obviously drinking something from a champagne flute. I could have said instead “the woman whom I assume to be drinking champagne from a champagne flute”, but why bother with his qualified, wordy description when it obviously didn’t matter exactly what she was drinking from the flute. Didn’t Bill understand that that was what I meant? Didn’t he understand that I, like he, was making a reasonable assumption from her use of a flute? The wordy, qualified description is otiose and distracting in a circumstance where it doesn’t matter for the purpose of identifying the proper referent.
“But suppose Bill had known that she was drinking Perrier rather than champagne? Couldn’t that have confused him” How could he have known, sitting here with me? And even if somehow he had, would he have automatically assumed in the circumstances that I just meant the only woman drinking a clear bubbly liquid from a champagne flute? Again, how was it plausible for either of us to know it wasn’t champagne, and what did it matter whether the liquid in the flute was champagne or Perrier? The piece of information was irrelevant to the function of identifying the intended referent. My communication was completely successful.
In this situation, “we have a substantial intuition that the speaker said something true of the [wo]man to whom he referred in spite of his misimpression [ about what she was drinking]. So says Saul Kripke in “Speaker’s Reference and Semantic Reference ( 1977).” But that is not quite right. Several of the things we believe here are clearly true. I believe that I identified the right woman for Bill with the description “ the woman drinking champagne.” I believe that I warned him that she had a handgun. I believe he understood me completely. All of these are true. But from these intuitions it does not follow that what I said was literally true. What Bill assumed I meant to say, “The woman drinking what I assume to be champagne is carrying a gun.” was clearly true. And so was “The woman drinking from a champagne flute…” But, I submit, that we have no clear intuition that the statement I actually uttered, “the woman drinking champagne is carrying a gun” , was true here. She was not, after all, drinking champagne. The surprising lesson seems to be that that fact did matter to the success of my communicating what I wanted to communicate.
Suppose the woman drinking from the flute is a Russian national. I know this and assumed that Bill does also. The rest of the women at are hometown girls. So I say to Bill, “The Russian babe over there is carrying a gun in her purse.” It’s true that she is the only Russian at the bar and she is carrying a gun. But in fact Bill hasn’t a clue whom I referring to. He thinks the woman I’m talking about is a hometown girl. So “the Russian babe” means nothing to him. He assumes I’m trying to refer to some woman present, and possibly warn him about her gun-toting ways, but whom I’m referring him escapes him. My communication has seriously misfired because I’ve used a “true” description that Bill does not connect to the right woman. Much better to have a description such as “the woman drinking champagne” which, though literally false, is strongly credible and has a clear unique referent in this situation.
When a speaker wishes to tell his companion something about another person who is present and in view of both of them, he has a range of referring expressions to chose from. He can use a proper name ( Natasha Smith ), a pronoun ( she ), a definite noun phrase ( the woman ) or a definite description (The woman drinking champagne ). If the speaker is confident his listener knows the name of the woman, “Natasha” may be his easiest choice. Or if there is only one woman in view, “she” or “the woman” may be simplest. If there are several women is view, only one of whom appears to be drinking champagne, he may prefer “the woman drinking champagne”. All of these expressions are meant to serve the purpose of identifying clearly and simply the person about whom the speaker wishes to say something. If what he means to say about the woman in question is actually true, then it is true that what he said of her is true. But if his referring expression does not actually apply to the woman in question, there is a serious problem with saying that what he said was true.
A final point. Ironic descriptions are often literally false. Suppose that the woman I wished to refer to was stunningly beautiful, and I believe that my listener, Bill, shared this judgment. Then, since Bill also knows I am given to ironic comments, I might risk "That really unattactive woman over there is carrying a gun", using an ironic and literally false description. The fact there is not, in anybody's judgment, a really unattractive woman in sight does not matter to the success of communication.
I’m not going to lead you on. The trouble I’m talking about is what Austin would call a (possible) rhetic misfire. Firearms are involved, but no one is actually harmed in the telling of this story. Hang on for a few paragraphs and you will understand.
It is Saturday night, and Bill and I are sitting at our usual table at the Pussycat. Our table faces the bar, not the stage, because we are here to discuss metaphysics and semantics, not anatomy. I notice that Bill is paying attention to one real looker at the bar. I noticed something earlier that I think it would be useful for Bill to know something about her. The woman is carrying a automatic pistol in her handbag, a Glock .45 cal, I think, from my brief glance at it when she opened her purse.
The woman has been drinking rather conspicuously from a champagne flute. The Pussycat is not noted for its fine cellar, but presumably it is decent vintage. Probably a 2004 Korbels, I’d guess. My problem is how to identify this woman for Bill so he will know which of the woman at the bar I’m talking about. No one else is drinking from a flute so I decide to go with
“The woman over there drinking champagne is carrying an automatic pistol in her bag.”
Unbeknownst to me or Bill, the woman is in fact drinking Perrier in the flute. But Bill has no difficulty identifying whom I’m referring to. He says, “I’ve been watching, her. You noticed, ah? What a looker! “
“Yes,” I say, “she’s very attractive. But it’s real gun, Bill. The slim .45 cal Glock. Not a little toy.”
“You saw it?” he asks.
“I saw it, “ I reply.
I’ve warned Bill that the woman he was showing an interest in is packing, and packing something dangerous. As a rule, the ladies at the Pussycat don’t go in that sort of hardware. My warning illocution has succeeded and has had the intended perlocutionary effect: Bill is alerted and cautious.
But what about the fact that I used as my referring expression a definite discussion that is not literally true of the lady in question, a so-called vacuous definite description? Did that, or could, that have caused any problems? The first thing to notice is that it in fact caused no problem for Bill in identifying the woman whom I was speaking about. He immediately understood whom I meant and that I was warning him that that woman with the flute was packing a gun. There was no miscommunication, no uncertainty about reference or meaning on his part. My meaning and reference were crystal clear.
“But the woman wasn’t actually drinking champagne and that could have caused a problem for Bill.” How? How did Bill understand my use of “the woman drinking champagne”? She was obviously drinking something from a champagne flute. I could have said instead “the woman whom I assume to be drinking champagne from a champagne flute”, but why bother with his qualified, wordy description when it obviously didn’t matter exactly what she was drinking from the flute. Didn’t Bill understand that that was what I meant? Didn’t he understand that I, like he, was making a reasonable assumption from her use of a flute? The wordy, qualified description is otiose and distracting in a circumstance where it doesn’t matter for the purpose of identifying the proper referent.
“But suppose Bill had known that she was drinking Perrier rather than champagne? Couldn’t that have confused him” How could he have known, sitting here with me? And even if somehow he had, would he have automatically assumed in the circumstances that I just meant the only woman drinking a clear bubbly liquid from a champagne flute? Again, how was it plausible for either of us to know it wasn’t champagne, and what did it matter whether the liquid in the flute was champagne or Perrier? The piece of information was irrelevant to the function of identifying the intended referent. My communication was completely successful.
In this situation, “we have a substantial intuition that the speaker said something true of the [wo]man to whom he referred in spite of his misimpression [ about what she was drinking]. So says Saul Kripke in “Speaker’s Reference and Semantic Reference ( 1977).” But that is not quite right. Several of the things we believe here are clearly true. I believe that I identified the right woman for Bill with the description “ the woman drinking champagne.” I believe that I warned him that she had a handgun. I believe he understood me completely. All of these are true. But from these intuitions it does not follow that what I said was literally true. What Bill assumed I meant to say, “The woman drinking what I assume to be champagne is carrying a gun.” was clearly true. And so was “The woman drinking from a champagne flute…” But, I submit, that we have no clear intuition that the statement I actually uttered, “the woman drinking champagne is carrying a gun” , was true here. She was not, after all, drinking champagne. The surprising lesson seems to be that that fact did matter to the success of my communicating what I wanted to communicate.
Suppose the woman drinking from the flute is a Russian national. I know this and assumed that Bill does also. The rest of the women at are hometown girls. So I say to Bill, “The Russian babe over there is carrying a gun in her purse.” It’s true that she is the only Russian at the bar and she is carrying a gun. But in fact Bill hasn’t a clue whom I referring to. He thinks the woman I’m talking about is a hometown girl. So “the Russian babe” means nothing to him. He assumes I’m trying to refer to some woman present, and possibly warn him about her gun-toting ways, but whom I’m referring him escapes him. My communication has seriously misfired because I’ve used a “true” description that Bill does not connect to the right woman. Much better to have a description such as “the woman drinking champagne” which, though literally false, is strongly credible and has a clear unique referent in this situation.
When a speaker wishes to tell his companion something about another person who is present and in view of both of them, he has a range of referring expressions to chose from. He can use a proper name ( Natasha Smith ), a pronoun ( she ), a definite noun phrase ( the woman ) or a definite description (The woman drinking champagne ). If the speaker is confident his listener knows the name of the woman, “Natasha” may be his easiest choice. Or if there is only one woman in view, “she” or “the woman” may be simplest. If there are several women is view, only one of whom appears to be drinking champagne, he may prefer “the woman drinking champagne”. All of these expressions are meant to serve the purpose of identifying clearly and simply the person about whom the speaker wishes to say something. If what he means to say about the woman in question is actually true, then it is true that what he said of her is true. But if his referring expression does not actually apply to the woman in question, there is a serious problem with saying that what he said was true.
A final point. Ironic descriptions are often literally false. Suppose that the woman I wished to refer to was stunningly beautiful, and I believe that my listener, Bill, shared this judgment. Then, since Bill also knows I am given to ironic comments, I might risk "That really unattactive woman over there is carrying a gun", using an ironic and literally false description. The fact there is not, in anybody's judgment, a really unattractive woman in sight does not matter to the success of communication.
posted by Macuquinas d' Oro at 7:10 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home