Conversational Implicature

An Oxford philosopher, HP Grice, points out that our implications can be divorced from the obvious meaning of our language. Say we don't think much of our friend's idea on global warming but we don't actually wish to come out and bluntly say so.

When asked if his views of global warming have any merit, we could say: 'he did blow alot of air around yesterday." Our obvious meaning would seem to have no relation to the question but everyone would know that we didn't think much of that opinion.

I picked up this idea from Colin Mcginn's autobiographical/philosophical book The Making of A Philosopher. In it, Mcginn points out that politicians use this technique all the time. In his example, an interviewer qustions a senator about his opponant's alleged pot smoking. The senator replies "I think that anyone not tough on crime has a dubious past." If the reporter is aware of the coversational implicature concept she could confront the senator on it.

However, as we know, most reporters are either unaware of how polticians love to slam enemies without being culpable or they just don't care enough to call our illusturious, wonderful, public servants out.