• Choose a category
• All
• Classic-Fiction

By Root 729 0

some people hold that something is true (although this is not a way endorsed by many philosophers) is through an intuitive feeling or belief that it is true, and it is a feature of our culture that this is often expressed as a feeling in one’s gut. So, we are able to conclude that what Colbert means is that the way he identifies something as true is based on whether or not he feels that it is true in this physical, almost visceral way. For those that have some history with Colbert, we also know that Colbert thinks his feelings about reality are of are more importance than any facts that could be brought up (he often makes disparaging comments about the “factinistas,” another new Colbert word).

We are now at the point where we can explain how we come to understand what the sentence, “What is it with you wordinistas telling me what is and what isn’t a word?” means. What’s interesting about this sentence is that it introduces an original Colbert word. The sentence itself provides some context for figuring out what a wordinista is. From the context, it is clear that one thing a wordinista does is tell people what is and is not a word. This isn’t enough to capture the whole meaning of the term, however. The “What is with it with you” prior to the term also implies that the word is meant to have a negative connotation, as “what is it with you” normally precedes a negative term.

We’re not done, however. The “inista” part of the word should make most people immediately think of the word “Sandinista.” Some people are no doubt thinking: What does this word have to do with the Clash? But everyone else will recall that the Sandinistas are a radical Marxist political party from Nicaragua. So, it seems “wordinista” is also intended to suggest a radical disposition. Putting these things together, a “wordinista” is a person who is radical about correcting others about their misuse of words and their use of non-established words.

Let’s move on to an example I used earlier, “I am America (and So Can You!)” There are reasons why Colbert could not actually mean this sentence literally. First, he is not literally the country, and second the “can” makes the sentence ungrammatical. With an example this complicated, it will help to deal with these problems separately. The first seems pretty straightforward. “I am America,” if taken literally, violates Maxim 3 (Do not say what you believe to be false) because it is false. So, we should reason that he is implying something true. The context in which this sentence appears is as the title of Colbert’s book about various social issues that play an important role in American politics (homosexuality and families, for instance). Given that, the title must also be relevant, in order to conform to Maxim 6 (avoid ambiguity). The most obvious way that this part of the utterance can be relevant and true would be if it is a metaphor. What this metaphor means is something like I said above, that Stephen Colbert exemplifies American values. The second part of this sentence now seems to be less of a problem. If what “I am America,” means is this, then the “(and So Can You!)” would follow grammatically in the paraphrased sentence “I represent the values of America and so can you.”

Implicature and Humorosity

Violating the Maxims often helps to explain why some utterances are funny. When Colbert had Representative John Yarmuth on the Report for an interview, Colbert opened by saying: “Tonight’s subject: Throwing kittens in a woodchipper. I’m against it, I think it’s wrong. John, tear me a new one.”78

This violates Maxims 4 (Do not say that which you lack adequate evidence for) and 5 (Be relevant). Saying “John, tear me a new one,” implies that Representative Yarmuth is in support of throwing kittens in a woodchipper, something for which there is no evidence. Additionally, the comment isn’t relevent. The forum in which it is given is an interview with a politician on a political show, so unless the Representative has a public position on killing kittens, or this issue is topical (neither of which