My hunch is that the field of Pragmatics is far more advanced on these sorts of issues than General Semantics was. (In fact, that’s where Implicatures basically came from, and where they have been studied).
Frustratingly, the literature I’ve found on Pragmatics has often been more messy than I’d like. I think some of the issue is that I haven’t taken courses in Linguistics, and much of Pragmatics is steeped in that paradigm.
Recently I found this video pretty informative to help explain what has been going on there. (Though it’s still left me fairly confused)
My impression is that Pramatics scholars would definitely not recommend stopping equivocation, for similar reasons discussed in this thread. (The main reason for me is that there’s a lot of information you’re not allowed to communicate directly for different reasons, so implicature is often the only option.)
My hunch is that the field of Pragmatics is far more advanced on these sorts of issues than General Semantics was. (In fact, that’s where Implicatures basically came from, and where they have been studied).
Frustratingly, the literature I’ve found on Pragmatics has often been more messy than I’d like. I think some of the issue is that I haven’t taken courses in Linguistics, and much of Pragmatics is steeped in that paradigm.
Recently I found this video pretty informative to help explain what has been going on there. (Though it’s still left me fairly confused)
My impression is that Pramatics scholars would definitely not recommend stopping equivocation, for similar reasons discussed in this thread. (The main reason for me is that there’s a lot of information you’re not allowed to communicate directly for different reasons, so implicature is often the only option.)