Hermeneutic Heretic

Evening News 24 - Refuse fire near City Hall  Arsonists sparked an emergency response after setting light to a rubbish container near City Hall on Saturday evening.

The suspects started the fire shortly after 7pm on St Giles Street.

Two fire engines were sent to the scene and firefighters used hoses to extinguish the flames.

This is an online newspaper article in its entirety. What caught my attention was the use of the word ’suspects’. By the rules of pragmatic implicature, this word is out of place in this context (we could even call it wrong or agrammatical). Suspects implies that the article is about people who have already been apprehended and it is not clear whether they had committed the crime (or legal restrictions require this unclarity). However, is we’re talking about the people who really committed the crime, even though they remain unknown, the word perpetrators or vandals or arsonists (as inthe introductory sentence) would be much more appropriate. In that case, there would be no confusion.

This created an interesting garden path text (flow of inference). When I caught sight of ’suspects’ I had to go back to reread the article to make sure whether they had been caught or not. And I’m still not sure. This is a quick bit of online news rather than a published and copy-edited piece (although similar errors slip through anyway) so the source of the error could be in both directions: 1. the writer misspoke or 2. forgot to mention the arrests. The former is more likely but the latter is not impossible particularly if the arrests had already been mentioned elsewhere or are being kept out.

But what is the source of this slip? Quite obviously the implicature of the word ’suspect’ was overridden by the constructional conventions of journalistic prose where ’suspect’ is used to describe agents in crimes as a matter of course. To use the word ’suspect’ is always safer and largely understandable so the pragmatic concerns can be shelved. So what we have here is a clash in constructional conventions which both enter into the cognitive modeling of the situation as described. In this case, the convention of genre-specific language use won over the the use where the logic of implicature is preserved. This is important to keep in mind when looking at pragmatics as equivalent to the study of logic.

The importance of convention in these cases reminded of the principle of ‘convention over configuration’ introduced by the programming framework Ruby on Rails:

"Convention over Configuration" means a developer only needs to specify unconventional aspects of the application. For example, if there’s a class Sale in the model, the corresponding table in the database is called sales by default. It is only if one deviates from this convention, such as calling the table "products_sold", that one needs to write code regarding these names.

This is exactly what happened in this case. The use of ’suspect’ causes the reader (or rather some readers) to search for information about the implied arrest. When none is forthcoming other avenues of resolving the conflict need to be sought. However, even though the process can be described broadly algorithmically, it is really much fuzzier and parallel and could not be all that easily modeled through a conventional flowchart that would be appropriate for a computer language. But the analogy is striking nevertheless. Particularly, since we could see this RoR convention as an expression of a hypostasis of the underlying pragmatic principles of language.

On The Media: Transcript of "Not So Innocent" (October 5, 2007) RICHARD HALPERN: Right. There’s often a kind of loss of innocence that takes place in the paintings themselves, which reflect on a potential loss of innocence on the part of the viewer. I think an interesting example of that is Rockwell’s painting called The Art Critic. That’s a painting of a young man, a young art student in a museum, who’s studying a painting on the wall of a kind of amply-endowed Rubenesque lady. And he’s peering at it closely through a magnifying glass, looking at a brooch on the woman’s breast. He doesn’t notice that he’s actually looking at her chest at the same time, but the woman in the painting does notice and leers back at him.

You have a young man, a kind of innocent, who doesn’t see what he’s looking at, but the painting does see. The painting isn’t innocent. And, in a way, that seems to me to spell out the relation between Rockwell’s viewers and the paintings themselves. The viewers may be innocent or may be in a state of denial or disavowal but the paintings themselves are very knowing and sophisticated. And they’re, they’re looking at us, in a way, more intently than we are at them.

There’s a strange certainty about most art and literary criticism. The discourse of the genre dictates that statements about artifacts are to be made in a particular manner that positions the audience into a place of inevitability of perspective. It is the object (painting, book, song…) that always tells of something and shows us something. Sometimes it’s the author, sometimes the audience ‘can’ see something. But it is rarely the critic who has any agency. S/he is always describing what is never what s/he perceives.

The above example of ‘activist’ criticism shows very clearly how the multiple mental spaces set up by the text interact. There is the space of people in the painting, there’s the space of the painting as painting, space of the viewers. Earlier the space of the painter was also established. However, it isn’t always clear which space is being referred to at any particular moment or rather what the boundaries of these spaces are. For instance, in the text in bold it isn’t clear whether the paintings stand metonymically for their author or speak directly of themselves. This indeterminacy of framing is not dissimilar to the indeterminacy that is the hallmark of art itself. Criticism is then a sort of meta-art (art here includes music, drama and literature) and similar standards can be applied to it.

Criticism is only one example of socially ritualized frame negotiation. It doesn’t stand apart from the work, artist, audience or the interaction the work, artist, audience has with the discursive space of the day. Criticism is an integral part of the artistic process at all levels. Creators and audiences take it into account (even if they ignore particular artifacts of criticism) and actively engage in it themselves (reminiscent of folk etymologies). The same applies to the political process, processes of language change. In all these instances, there is a ritualized parallel to the natural frame negotiation that goes on. The extent of how deep this frame negotiation can go is not quite clear yet but it may be guided to a large extent by the availability of given phenomena to introspection (as described well by Len Talmy).

Quote Details: William Hazlitt: Without the aid of… - The Quotations Page Without the aid of prejudice and custom I should not be able to find my way across the room. William Hazlitt English essayist (1778 - 1830)

It’s always disconcerting to find that something I’ve been saying for years has been said a long time ago. At least, I can be consoled by the fact that I can make sense of it with a whole lot of new language and conceptual aparati.

Here’s the radically antimodularist bottom line: the same principles that make it possible for us to recognize that a given instance of a chair is a chair and we can therefore exercise all of the properties associated with chairs (e.g. sit on it), viz principles of categorization and framing, that are responsible for issues like racial or gender prejudice. However, and that’s something Hazlit’s aphorism doesn’t recognize is the opposite process, one particularly dear to this blog, viz negotiation.

So here we have two acts of reductionism going against each other. On the one hand, we can reduce everything to the same process of categorization (incl. framing, metaphors, etc.), and on the other hand, any cognitive process can be subject to negotiation.

Without these two seemingly incompatible processes, life would be impossible. We can reject the inferior status of other races in the process of negotiation but at the same time we probably need to use a lot of distinguishing characteristics to classify people as belonging to a certain social group, for instance to avoid insult. Likewise, not all chairs will always readily accept our buttocks in the same predictable manner and still remain chairs. ‘Watch out! That chair was  designed by XY.’ somebody will cry out to remind you that not all of the ‘chair frame’ readily applies.

Thus our life is a constant battle between freedom of spirit and the determinism of prejudice. And without this dualism, we would die!