"However you imagine it’s going, that’s how it’s going": Tautologies examined

by liberal japonicus

The title is lifted from a comment by Pete that had GftNC at a loss. I thought I'd talk a bit about tautologies, as an invitation to an open thread.

The linguist Paul Grice is probably most famous for a set of maxims, which are now termed Gricean maxims, that he proposed to explain communication in conversations. They were of Quantity (i.e. providing information that the listener was assumed to need), Quality (i.e truthful), Relevance, and Clarity. So it is supposed to work out that when we talk to each other, we expect that the other person's contribution(s) are going to be informative in the sense of containing new information), truthful, relevant to the conversation and understandable. They are also referred to as principles, but might best be called presumptions, if the idea of presumptions didn't have such a bad rap. Grice argued that if we violate those maxims, we have a reason to do so, be it saving face, being humorous, avoiding offending someone, among others. Some researchers take issue with both the argument that they apply to all conversation (some note that certain cultures don't accept these). Others reject the idea that speakers are cooperating to reach the same goal, and adding AI to the mix, one wonders if an algorithm driven program can be thought of as 'cooperating'. But by and large, what Grice started has been largely accepted.

Tautologies are especially interesting when we start dealing with Grices's Maxims. Grice thought tautologies like 'business is business' were semantically vacuous, so he argued, in an aside, that they were flouting the maxim of Quantity, but that isn't really satifactory. The usual violations of this maxim would be providing too little information or too much and if it does that, the information that is being transmitted has to be an implication. Looking at the case of Pete's comment, it doesn't seem like he's withholding information. However, examining it from a Gricean foundation where you start with the assumption that Pete has something he wants to communicate, I think it must be something like 'you know what he is like and if you imagine how an event like this might go with him at his usual, you wouldn't be wrong.'

Pete's use of the tautology is interesting in that it has us ponder the range of things we imagine Trump doing. I can't find anything in the literature, but I imagine you might be able to call a phrase like 'imagine what he would do and then multiply it by 10' could be termed a multiplicative tautology, where the speaker and listener share some image and use that.

But not everyone is enamored of tautologies. This APA blog points out Trump's use of tautologies, and argues that they are linked to Trump's turning away from questions and wanting to have the last word. And that tautologies are where conversation dies. I'd also note that Chief Justice Roberts complained about another tautology recently.

Roberts’ attention, however, was elsewhere. He said he found the appeals court opinion lacking in sufficient grounding, and he derided the unanimous panel decision as circular and tautological.

“As I read it, it says simply a former president can be prosecuted because he’s being prosecuted,” Roberts said.

The court apparently answered that with 'the president is the president'. Unfortunately, the time we live in is the time we live in. And an open thread is an open thread, so have at it.

 

Comments

[JanieM]

Grice thought tautologies like 'business is business' were semantically vacuous, so he argued, in an aside, that they were flouting the maxim of Quantity, but that isn't really satifactory. The usual violations of this maxim would be providing too little information or too much and if it does that, the information that is being transmitted has to be an implication. Looking at the case of Pete's comment, it doesn't seem like he's withholding information.

It seems like Grice lacks imagination about what kinds of information people are conveying when they converse. Your mention of "implications" seems right to me.

Consider "It is what it is." The statement may be semantically vacuous, but it's surely not empty of information. The information it conveys is information about about the speaker's attitude or mood in relation to the topic being discussed before the tautology was uttered, perhaps resignation or a wish for zen-like detachment from something bad.

There's plenty of information in it, and quite possibly information that the speaker is justified in thinking the listener wants to hear.

*****

lj -- the last part of the post is especially great. Love the bit about the president being the president. Too bad we can't skewer Roberts with it directly.

[wj]

I think part of Grice' issue with tautologies like "business is business" is that he assumes they are complete. Put another way, he ignores the relatively obvious (at least to me) point that there could be continuations which are implied by context.

For example, "business is business" could, in some contexts, have an implied continuation of "it's not personal." That is, more completely, "I am not doing this for personal reasons, like my relationship with (whomever). It's just a decision driven by the needs of the business."

Suddenly, the tautology isn't vacuous at all.

[hairshirthedonist]

I don't consider what Pete wrote to be tautological. "It is what it is" doesn't have an opposite that can be true. "It isn't what it is" isn't ever true.

But you could say, "However you imagine it's going, it's not going that way" without a logical contradiction. I mean, you could be wrong about what the other person's imagining (in either case), but it's not illogical.

[Girl from the North Country]

lj, I too love your final paragraph!

[wj]

Somehow the final paragraph seems repetitively redundant.

[nous]

"It is what it is" strikes me as emphasizing the unavoidable nature of the situation by stacking two passive constructions in a row. Makes perfect rhetorical sense in context.

Getting out now before the conversation goes full Wittgenstein (or Searle, or...).

[Pete]

I think it must be something like 'you know what he is like and if you imagine how an event like this might go with him at his usual, you wouldn't be wrong.'

I was thinking that a certain perspective could be that TFG was defiantly braving the lion's den to set the record straight and win over hearts and minds. Another perspective - certainly mine and one I think is common here - was, "TFG did what, now???". And perhaps a third unspoken suggestion was that no one has an imagination capable of conjuring a scenario in which that could possibly go well.

[liberal japonicus]

Pete, thanks for weighing in and I hope I didn't overstep in pulling up what you wrote. I generally don't do that, but the phrase was so striking.

Nous mentions 'it is what it is'. It's a sign of the times that I look at it as a way of establishing communication ('we both know it can't be changed') while the APA blog link argues it is the closing off of conversation.

[Girl from the North Country]

It's a sign of the times that I look at it as a way of establishing communication ('we both know it can't be changed') while the APA blog link argues it is the closing off of conversation.

It can be either, it totally depends on the intonation and the accompanying expression and gesture.

[wj]

perhaps a third unspoken suggestion was that no one has an imagination capable of conjuring a scenario in which that could possibly go well.

Say rather that nobody outside Trump's orbit can imagine it. Possibly nobody beyond Trump himself.

Hardly the first time someone there has come up with something that left me asking: "What in the world were they thinking???" Because it seems so obvious that it was nuts. I mean, unless Vance was bringing in huge amounts of cash, in advance, why in the world pick him? (But perhaps he was.)

[nous]

I mean, unless Vance was bringing in huge amounts of cash, in advance, why in the world pick him?

Because he's part of Eric's and Junior's peer group of Big Swinging Dick Entrepreneurs, and they feel like he's a brother in arms.

And because the Opus Dei crowd on the Project 2025 side of things see him as their bridge to the administration.

And because they believed that they could ratf@#k their way to a victory as long as Biden stuck around.

And because Kellyanne Conway lost.

[wj]

I'm still thinking that, knowing Trump, there had to be a big financial reason as well. And the boys don't have that, and likely never will; Dad's too busy blowing their inheritance on lawyers.

[nous]

wj - You mean like this? https://www.politico.com/news/2024/06/26/vance-crypto-00164859

[wj]

nour -- Trump's only interest in crypto is if he can get a rackoff from the grifters who run it. In real dollars that he can pay his lawyers with. I somehow doubt that Vance pushing this legislation, even if there were a prayer of it passing, would generate much money in Trump's pocket.

[Pete]

@lj

I hadn't heard anything about the Q&A with the NABJ, which is the kind of thing that would usually hit my radar. So when I found out about it, I dashed off that quick comment on the chance that others might want to watch the inevitable train wreck in real time. Upon reflection, the original phrasing was going to be "It's going just as poorly as you'd imagine" or something to that effect. That seemed too... obvious? So my writer's voice made a press-time editorial decision and that's what came out the other side of the keyboard.

I didn't give it a second thought until I saw the post. It's a rare thing to get that kind of analysis/feedback and I appreciate it. It may have unlocked a new editorial anxiety, but it is what it is. Whuddya gonna do?

[Pete]

Open thread, so...

Apparently it's down to Shapiro and Walz, with Shapiro being the consensus pick of the punditry. I like Walz and while I'm dreaming I wonder if he might put Ohio back in play? Trump's numbers look pretty good there, and it's JD Vance and Jim Jordan country. But it's also Sherrod Brown country and the reproductive rights bill passed last year. There might be some "persuadables" to be had. Maybe Shapiro moves the needle there as well?

[Pete]

And as I post that, CNN announces it's Walz!

[Girl from the North Country]

I'm glad. It looks like there is much less to attack there. Onward and upward!

[Hartmut]

I'm glad. It looks like there is much less to attack there. Onward and upward!

using an MSNBC blogpost to list his achievements and adding the way I think they are going to get attacked:

1) Walz enlisted in the National Guard as a teenager and served for more than two decades, including overseas deployments.

He is a sucker and loser.

2) He was a high school social studies teacher and football coach.

He is a woke groomer.

3) When he ran for Congress, Walz was expected to struggle in a rural district that rarely voted Democratic, but he prevailed anyway, and held the seat for 12 years.

A Washington insider who duped the constituents he secretly despises as hillbilly rubes.

4) He then ran two successful gubernatorial campaigns and racked up some impressive progressive policy wins.

'Progressive'- Do I have to say more?

5) Since 2022, when Democrats won control of the state Legislature, Walz has passed
billions in funding for schools,
including free school lunches;
shored up abortion rights;
secured stricter gun violence prevention laws;
expanded up legal protections for transgender youth;
restored voting rights for formerly incarcerated people.”

'Commie' all written over it. Indoctrinating children, instilling the spirit of laziness and dependency from an early age (poor kids should work for their food, if they can't pay).
A baby killer, a gun grabber, a perverter again of innocent minds, privileging the perverts, and soft on crime, coddling criminals.

6) NBC News’ report went on to note that Walz also “enacted laws expanding paid family leave, banned most non-compete agreements ... and capped the price of insulin in Minnesota (three years before Biden did it nationally).”

More communist, socialist, Marxist and generally anti-business policies.

[Girl from the North Country]

Perfect, Hartmut!

[wj]

Well, #1 seems likely to cement TCFG's support among the military. As in, concrete overshoes.**

** It belatedly occurs to me that there might be some readers who aren't familiar with that particular bit of American slang. Originally, I believe, from the criminal underworld (real or Hollywood?). The implication being that the guy fitted with concrete overshoes would then be dropped into the river or other deep body of water.

[hairshirthedonist]

Walz was the potential running mate I was least aware of. I live walking and swimming distance from PA (there's a river!), so I'm very familiar with Shapiro. Kelly's been peripherally on my radar for a while. I lived in Arizona as a kid and still have family there. A childhood friend of mine from Arizona who's a journalist heavily covered Gabby Giffords' shooting, so I paid attention more than I probably otherwise would have.

Aaaaannyway... I liked what I read here:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/aug/06/tim-walz-vp-kamala-harris

This jumps out:

Heidi Heitkamp, the former senator of North Dakota, said Walz’s plainspokenness works because it’s real. Contrast that with Trump’s VP pick: “There’s an inauthenticity about JD Vance that is the antithesis of what Tim Walz is. Tim is the most authentically kind of normal person you’re going to meet, and he has a background that is uniquely situated in these times, especially for people in my part of the country.”

[Hartmut]

First prediction coming true. This is an official statement from His Orangeness' campaign concerning Walz:

From proposing his own carbon-free agenda, to suggesting stricter emission standards for gas-powered cars, and embracing policies to allow convicted felons to vote, Walz is obsessed with spreading California’s dangerously liberal agenda.

[GftNC]

More:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/aug/06/tim-walz-vp-beliefs-policies-record

[hairshirthedonist]

and embracing policies to allow convicted felons to vote

Convicted felons!!!

[CharlesWT]

Convicted felons!!!

My inclination is that all citizens should retain the right to vote regardless of their legal status.

[Hartmut]

I think you will not find much disagreement there, CharlesWT. It's just a nice way to show the hypocrisy of one side that runs one while thinking that they should not be able to vote.

Btw, disenfranchisement (at least in Florida) is only for voting not getting elected, so it would just ban His Orangeness from voting for himself.
[deSantis is already on the record anyway that he would craft an exception, should the law actually apply to His Orangeness]