Arrested Development and Philosophy_ They've Made a Huge Mistake - Kristopher G. Phillips [48]
Gob: No. I’m my sister’s brother. You’re in love with me. Me.
Wife: No. I’m in love with Tobias.
Gob: My brother-in-law? [“Whistler’s Mother”]
Though ridiculous, Gob’s interpretation, “You’re in love with your own brother,” is not exactly wrong. It is true that Gob’s brother-in-law is his wife’s brother. Likewise, when he responds, “I’m my sister’s brother. You’re in love with me” his interpretation of what his wife has said is somehow both correct and incorrect. Of course any native English speaker less oblivious than Gob would know that his wife was not referring to her own brother when she said “your brother-in-law” to her husband, and of course anyone less self-absorbed than Gob would assume that his wife wasn’t referring to himself when she said “your sister’s brother.” The context clarifies what exactly is being pointed to with the use of the terms “brother-in-law” and “brother” for most of us; otherwise, her brother is her husband’s brother-in-law and her husband is his sister’s brother.
The idea that meaning in language cannot be divorced from the context of the utterance is nothing new. What is often overlooked, however, is the significance of the role of both the speaker and the hearer in speech. We know the speaker is important where meaning is concerned, and yet we often imagine that the hearer simply, passively, takes in meaning. But the role of the hearer is not simple, and certainly not passive. So much of what is funny about Arrested Development has to do with how the hearer interprets—or, more often, misinterprets—the context of the utterance in any given speech situation.
The problem in the previous example (for philosophers as well as for Gob) is that the term “brother-in-law” picks out multiple objects in the world (it’s referentially ambiguous). But, of course, Gob’s wife means something (and someone) quite specific when she utters, “I’m in love with your brother-in-law.” To put a label on the confusion, we might call it the difference between speaker meaning and sentence meaning.1 What Gob’s wife “means” by what she says is that she’s in love with Tobias (speaker meaning), but the meanings of the individual words of her utterance make it the case that the sentence can be taken to mean that she’s in love with her own brother (sentence meaning).2
For a very, very, very long time, philosophers have struggled to make sense of the nuanced and vague concept that is meaning. Although it’s safe to assume that most native, or even competent, English speakers would not interpret Gob’s wife’s utterances in the same way Gob does, it remains fascinating and curious that most speakers do, in fact, grasp the correct meaning of the term. How is it that most of us would (and do!) pick the “right” meaning of her utterance?
The space for humor arises in virtue of the multitude of ways that speakers and hearers can “get it wrong”—just as Gob mistakes sentence meaning for speaker meaning. The use and abuse of language in Arrested Development reveal interesting things about how “normal” language works (like the fact that who is hearing a particular utterance matters, a lot)—things we might not notice in non-comedic uses of language. Arrested Development pushes the application of language beyond the context in which we expect it to function—and meaning in language is all about context.
I Christen This Ship the Lucille
Nothing highlights the performative power of speech quite like the moment in “Fakin’ It” when the kids get married. In an attempt to secure a kiss from his cousin, George Michael convinces Maeby to take part in a fake wedding for Alzheimer’s patients. The first attempt is a fake ceremony that Maeby takes too literally, and she bolts. We’re told that for Maeby the fake wedding was “a little too real”; the speech act of uttering “I do” with George Michael, even though the context is “playing pretend,” feels wrong to her. The second attempt is “fake.” Both George Michael and Maeby believe they’re just role-playing. However, this time the officiant is real, and he’s not playing.