1

In Peter Pan 2: Return to Never Land, Captain Hook promises not to harm a single hair on Peter's head. Then, he plucks a single hair off of Peter's head and claims that is the one he chooses not to harm. The cleverness stems from the fact that we assume he meant any hairs on his head, but grammatically it could also refer to just a single hair. I know the phrase is an idiom, but I'm more interested in if there's a word for the logical substitution that can be made in the phrase.

user6490576
  • 127
  • 2
    In this specific case, is it appropriate to say that (semantically speaking) Captain Hook was *splitting hairs?* Which isn't that far removed from *nit-picking* (searching for metaphorical fleas eggs in someone's hair!). – FumbleFingers Dec 24 '20 at 16:32
  • From the earlier question cited as a duplicate; 'In English, sentences containing both a negative and a quantifier, or a negative and a modal, or a modal and a quantifier, are ambiguous, unless some care is taken in phrasing them.... In English, sentences containing both a negative and a quantifier, or a negative and a modal, or a modal and a quantifier, are ambiguous, unless some care is taken in phrasing them. ....' [John Lawler] So here, 'negation-quantifier ambiguity'. – Edwin Ashworth Dec 24 '20 at 16:34
  • Whatever - I don't see anything in the linked duplicate that looks like an answer to the specific question being asked here (is there a name for it?). So I offer *literalism* - *The interpretation of words in their literal sense*. – FumbleFingers Dec 24 '20 at 16:38
  • @FF They're both literal readings. – Edwin Ashworth Dec 24 '20 at 16:38
  • 1
    @EdwinAshworth: True, but only *one* of those "literal" meanings would normally be intended (and understood). And what matters in OP's context is that the *other* interpretation is the one that's actually intended by the speaker. I doubt there's a word for deliberately choosing phrasing which is literally* true, but intended to be misunderstood*, but I stand to be corrected. In which context the term "plausible deniability" seems at least "relevant". – FumbleFingers Dec 24 '20 at 16:47
  • @FF 'Perverse construal' is used but obviously refers to all instances of demanding a non-pragmatic reading where there is technical ambiguity: 'He agreed to a lump-sum payment in 1998 without realizing that the arbitrator's perverse construal of "a football injury" ...'. [cited by Zimmer; LanguageLog] – Edwin Ashworth Dec 24 '20 at 17:06

0 Answers0