The study of meaning in language
Levels of meaning in language:
Lexical m.
conceptual meaning - componential analysis:
spinster = [+female, - married]
bachelor = [+male, - married]
sense relations = polysemy: bank, present
synonymy: buy - purchase
antonymy: hot - cold
semantic fields = set of interrelated lexemes in a given area: body parts
studied within Semantics
- studies sentence meaning
Grammatical m.
grammatical categories: is working = [+present tense, +prog. aspect]
Sentence m.
s.= a sequence of words generated by the rules of language,
independent of any context of use
Compositionality:
Peter kicked Mike vs. Mike kicked Peter.
Ambiguity:
I know a man with a dog who has fleas.
We serve our customers all the year round.
SVOi vs. SVO(Oi)
Entailment:
Utterance m.
He killed the fish entails The fish is dead.
u. = „unique physical event“ (Lyons 1977)
implicature
Cf. I have eaten the meal.
Entailment → I ate the meal./The meal is eaten.
Implicature → I am not hungry.
But: Implicature can be cancelled:
I have eaten the meal but I am hungry.
Entailment can not:
*I have eaten the meal but I didn´t eat it.
utterance meanning is studied by Pragmatics
What is odd with this ad?
„Kúpte si mobil a získate darček zdarma“ - Buy a mobile phone and get a free present“.
M. Ferenčík Pragmalinguistics 2012
Strana 1
Problem = redundancy, tautology: a present is always foe free
zdarma is automatically inferrable from darček
it is entailed in it, hence the case of entailment
Question: A slip pf the tongue or a coercive technique of a clever copywriter?
Entailment
Other terms: semantic presupposition, semantic/logical implication, conventional implicature,
Assumption:
 when communicating, we take a lot of information for granted
as already known by addressees
what is known, or assumed to be known, is not stated
generally: more is communicated than how much is said
much information remains implicit
full expliciteness is not possible

inference = (Lat inferre = „to carry in“) collective term for several types of implicit
information which can be derived from discourse:
o a conclusion we can reasonably draw from a sentence/utterance
types of inference:

Entailment and Presupposition
o key notions to describe the „invisible“, implicit meaning
o two central issues of pragmatics

ENTAILMENT
M. Ferenčík Pragmalinguistics 2012
Strana 2

much implicit information is inferrable form the meaning relationships between
words:
This present is free. is tautological, contains redundancy
An illiterate person cannot read or write.
= always necessarily true because illiterate entails not being able to
read/write = analytically true
*An illiterate person wrote a letter.
= contradiction of meanings
Illiterate? Write today for help. (advertisement) = a contradiction or a play?
Peter is illiterate.
= may be true or false depending on the actual situation
= synthetically true or false
o entailment = a term from logic → less studied in pragmatics than presupposition
 logical relationship bet.2 sentences
 information which „automatically“, or logically follows from what is
asserted
 those propositions which can be inferred from a sentence in ANY
context
 most „literal“ component of sentence meaning
 expresses core proposition which remains stable in any context
 can be drawn purely from the knowledge of semantics
 is a sentence-dependent notion → sentences have (several) entailments
 is valid regardless of whether the speaker´s beliefs are right
 = relationship between two sentences where the truth of the second (B)
necessarily follows from the truth of the first (A)
A entails B:
if A is true, B must also be true
but if B is false, then A must also be false
A
He is illiterate.
Peter killed Mike.
entails
if synthetically true
B
He can´t read or write.
Mike died/is dead.
is automatically synthetically true
Hence
He is illiterate and so he can´t read or write.
Peter killed Mike and so Mike is dead.
is acceptable
BUT if B false, then A must be false too:
If he can read or write (=B is false), he is not illiterate (=A is false too)
If Mike isn´t dead, Peter did not kill him.
M. Ferenčík Pragmalinguistics 2012
Strana 3
Hence:
*He can read or write, but he is illiterate.
or *He is illiterate, but he can read and write.
= contradiction, anomaly
= contradiction, anomaly
*Mike is not dead but Peter killed him.
Or *Peter killed Mike but he is not dead.
Similarly:
The president was assassinated. entails
if synthetically true
Hence:
The president is dead.
must also be synthetically true
If he is not dead, he was not assassinated.
*The president was assassinated, but he is not dead. is contradictory.
NOTE:
These entailments are ONE-WAY only, sentences are not perfect paraphrases:
He is illiterate.
(can´t read or write (illiterate))
The president was assassinated.
(assassinated (dead))
if synthetically true
entails
He can´t read or write.
entails
The president is dead.
must also be synthetically true
this is the case of HYPONYMY = hierarchical relationship in which the sense of 1
item (hyponym) is included within another (hyperonym)
HYPERONYM
HYPONYM
can´t read or write
↓
illiterate
BUT not vice versa:
B
He can´t read or write
dead
↓
assassinate/kill
A
does not entail
He is illiterate.
He may be sick/injured ...
Nor: (illiterate (can´t read or write))
The president is dead.
Not: (dead (assassinated))
If synthetically true
does not entail
The president was assassinated.
He may have died naturally
need not be synthetically true too !
TWO-WAY, mutual entailments, or perfect paraphrases
M. Ferenčík Pragmalinguistics 2012
Strana 4
Lexical entailments:
You are foolish.
You are crazy.
entails
You are crazy.
You are foolish.
Peter is Helen´s brother-in-law.
John is Peter´s son.
Helen is Peter´s sister-in-law.
Peter is John´s father.
Syntactic entailment:
Peter kissed Jane.
Jane was kissed by Peter.
Jane was kissed by Peter.
Peter kissed Jane.
Hence: paraphrase is a two-way entailment
Entailment and coherence
understanding entailment is necessary to make meaningful connections within texts
= to establish COHERENCE
Example:
Peter bought oranges. Unfortunately, he completely forgot that he had bought them. After
several weeks his cupboard started to smell of spoiled fruit.
Q: How is a link made between fuit and oranges?
A: By making an inference which is „automatically“ true:
Peter bought oranges
entails
Peter bought fruit.
Peter bought fruit.
is entailed in
Peter bought oranges
But not vice versa:
Peter bought fruit
does not entail
Peter bough oranges.
Hence a one-way entailment
Cf. hyponymy vs. hyperonymy:
orange
fruit
is a hyponym
is a hyperonym
of fruit
of orange
Entailment and sentence focus/foregrounding:
Speaker may indicate the ordering of the entailments and signal (=foreground) the main
assumption = the key one to the interpretation of the message.
Foregrounding entailments by stress:
MICHAEL´s wedding ring was found in the dustbin.
Michael´s wedding RING was found in the dustbin.
Michael´s wedding ring was FOUND in the dustbin.
Michael´s wedding ring was found in the DUSTBIN.
M. Ferenčík Pragmalinguistics 2012
Strana 5
Foregrounding te entailments by it-clefting:
It was MICHAEL whose wedding ring was found in the dustbin.
It was Michael´s wedding RING that was found in the dustbin.
It was the DUSTBIN where Michael´s wedding ring was found.
E = „free-of-charge inference“
Pragmatic „anomalies“ = statements containing contradictions but which are based on the
(intentional?) exploitation of entailments:
Illiterate? Write today for help. (advertisement)
Q: Doctor, how many autopsies have you performed on dead people?
A: All my autopsies have been made on dead people.
Performing autopsies entails performing them on dead people
Q: Were you acquainted with the decedent?
A:Yes, sir.
Q:Before or after he died?
Being acquainted with sb. entails that the person is alive
Q: I understand you´re Bernie Davis´s mother.
A: yes.
Q:How long have you known him?
Being one´s mother entails knowing that person since his/her birth (conception?)
M. Ferenčík Pragmalinguistics 2012
Strana 6
Presupposition

PRESUPPOSITION (conventional implicatures)
o a term from pragmatics
o = information which speaker assumes to be valid in order to make correct
interpretation of an utterance , to be commnicatively successful
o to presuppose (Slk. presuponovať) = „to assume beforehand“
o = necessary preconditions for statements to be true
o P = that which is considered valid/true if we want a proposition to make sense
o speaker-dependent notion → speakers have presuppositions
cf. entailments: language structures have entailments
o When uttering a sentence, speaker assumes:
 the adequacy of the context for its interpretation by the addressee
 that truthfullness of P is a matter-of-fact (faktické/samozejmé) for both
parties = they share common background knowledge related to the
context of the sentence
o P enables speakers to leave much unsaid, inexplicit, or ťake a shortcut´ (hence, in
service of feasible communication)
o another logical relationship involving statements dependent on one another, or
one proposition is pragmatically inferred from another
o difference from entailment is in he nature of the dependence
o the two are often confused, bec. they resemble each other:
 e.g. sentence presuppositions which are like entailments:

I regret having called you a liar presupposes You are a liar.
 regret = presupposition trigger
 but some presuppositions require a fair amount of the knowledge of the
world
She tripped before getting in the car.
>>
She got in the car.
She died before getting in the car. does not presuppose. She got in the
car.
requires pragmatic knowledge
o the degree of knowledge required is calculated on the background of context,
the degee of shared knowledge
Example:
Steve Jobs dies.
The utterance has these background entailments (= semantic presuppositions):
- somebody dies
= one-way entailment
- somebody is dead
= two-way entailment = paraphrase
M. Ferenčík Pragmalinguistics 2012
Strana 7
the relationship is as follows: if A is true, then B is true:
A true
Steve Jobs dies.
→
B true
somebody dies
The relationship of entailment is analysable in terrms of truth relations of sentences
(practiced by semanticists):
Truth table for one-way entailments:
A
B
→
←
→
←
1
2
3
4
T
T/F
F
F
1
A true
Steve Jobs dies.
→
B true
Somebody dies.
A true/false
←
B true
2
Steve Jobs dies.
Steve Jobs doesn´t die
(but somebody else does).
3
T
T
T/F
F
=T
=F
A false
B false
→
Steve Jobs dies.
4
Somebody dies.
A false
Somebody dies.
(not Steve Jobs)
Somebody dies.
(nobody does.)
=T
=F
B false
←
Steve Jobs dies.
Somebody dies.
Truth table for two-way entailment = paraphrase:
A
T
T
F
F
→
←
→
←
Steve Jobs dies.
M. Ferenčík Pragmalinguistics 2012
B
T
T
F
F
Steve Jobs is dead.
Strana 8
Presupposition:
Speaker is expected to have these pragmatic presuppositions:
A
Steve Jobs dies.
>>
A>>B
B
Steve Jobs existed.
A presupposes B
Michael found his wedding ring in the dustbin. >>
a person Michael exists
he has wedding ring
he is/was married
the dustbin exists
Presupposition holds even if the statement is negated:
Steve Jobs doesn´t die.
>>
Steve Jobs exists.
Michael didn´t find his wedding ring.
>>
Michael has a wedding ring.
Michael exists.
M is/was married.
The dustbin exists.
Cf. negated entailment and presupposition:
NEGATED ENTAILMENT:
A (NOT A)
Steve Jobs doesn´t die.
B true/false
Somebody doesn´t die. = T
Somebody dies (but not Steve Jobs). = F
Michael didn´t find his wedding ring.
→
Somebody didn´t find his w.ring. = T
Somebody found his w.r.
(but not Michael).
=F
NEGATED PRESUPPOSITION:
A (NOT A)
Steve Jobs doesn´t die.
B true !!!
Steve Jobs EXISTS.
Michael didn´t find his wedding ring.
>>
=T
Michael HAS a wedding ring. = T
NOT A>>B
M. Ferenčík Pragmalinguistics 2012
Strana 9
NOTICE
that presuppositions = assumptions can be wrong:
- there may Steve Jobs
- the wedding ring may have been stolen
- the wedding ring may have been thrown away
- the wedding ring may have been given to Michael by his mother
Presuppositions are negotiable!
CONSTANCY UNDER NEGATION = an important difference bet. entailment and
presupposition - presupposition remains TRUE!
Presupposition is the only type of information that is unaffected by the denial of the
original sentence: if we negate A, the relation of presupposition doesn´t change.
Example: disagreement with someone else´s statement:
A: Everybody knows that you are a liar.
B: Everybody doesn´t know that I am a liar.
I am a liar.
=A
= NOT A
= B remains
A>>B & NOT A>>B
While speaker disagrees on the validity of A, the presupposition B is still valid – speaker
admits that s/he is a liar !
Types of presupposition:
Potential – when indicated by particular constructions (see the list below)
Actual
- those which are actually intended by speakers to be recognized as such by
hearers in particular contexts
hence speakers (not structures) have presuppositions and these are
expected to be recognized by the addressee
TYPE
Existential
MEANING
INDICATORS:
existence of definite entities possessive construction
your dog>> you have a dog
Example: the dog scene
M. Ferenčík Pragmalinguistics 2012
Strana 10
A:Does your dog bite?
B:No, he doesn´t.
A:You said your dog doesn´t bite.
B:This isn´t my dog.
definite NP
the boy>>there exists a boy. The Boy and the Sea.
Factive
factuality of information, triggered by the factive verbs:
= sentence presuppositions (unlike semantic entailments)
know, realize, regret
be aware/odd/strange/glad/sorry/sad
Everybody knows that you are a liar.
Non-factive
>> you are a liar
non-factuality of information
dream, imagine, pretend, think
I thought you were my friend. >> I weren´t my friend.
Conditional sentences
If I have/had money, I´ll/would buy it. >> I don´t have money
Counter-factual counter-factuality of information
If-clauses
If I had a hammer... . >> I don´t have a hammer
Structural
a part of structure is assumed
to be true
wh-questions
A:Where did you steal that watch? >> you stole the watch
B:I didn´t steal it, I found it.
temporal clauses
Before Chomsky was even born, linguistics had already a considerable
history.
>> Chomsky was born
Questions
Who is the boss here?
>> there is a boss here
Is anybody here a boss?
>> Either there is a boss here or not
Lexical
the meaning of a form presupposes
another meaning
change of state verbs: start/stop/again/
begin/continue/finish/cease/leave/enter/
come/go/arrive
M. Ferenčík Pragmalinguistics 2012
Strana 11
When did you stop drinking? >> you were drinking before
implicative verbs: manage/forget
I forgot to lock the door.
>> I ought to lock it
Come again
iteratives: again/anymore/repeat/another
time/come back
>> you´ve been here before
Potential vs. actual presuppositions
A:What is he doing in my room?
B:I don´t know, he is looking for his keys or something.
B does not present the P, viz. he has keys, as a strong assumption, only tentatively
Note.
It is speakers who have presuppositions, not structures
structures have potential propositions
Presupposition and discourse for particulr stylistic reason: pun, mockery, coercion
Advertisements – No more back pain.
Presupposes „you have back pain“
Jokes
René Descartes is in a bar near closing time. The bartender asks him: „Would you like
another drink?“ Descartes replies, „I think not“ and vanishes.
So, Rene Descartes is in a pps
Cf.
A: Discover Slovakia!
B: But I have already discovered it!
A: Ok, I thought you maybe wanted
to know more about it.
B: Maybe you are right. What do
you suggest?
M. Ferenčík Pragmalinguistics 2012
→ presupposes B has not
discovered it yet
→ suggests that the P is wrong
→ admits that his presupposition
was wrong, or not entirely
accurate
→ starts negotiating the
reasonableness of the
presupposition
Strana 12
A: Fine. Let´s start with Prešov. Prešov is ...
B: Sounds interesting ...
NOTE: presuppositions are expected to be recognized
can be wrong/inaccurate
are negotiable
A: Have another cake
B: I haven´t had one yet.
A: I know. I´m just teasing.
B: You bastard!
TYPES OF INFERENCE
AMOUNT OF CONTEXT
-
+
inference
semantic
entailment
presupposition
pragmatic
conventional
implicature
non-conventional (conversational)
implicature
generalized
standard
(CP
observance)
A: Have
A: Have you
you eaten tried the suit?
the cake? B: I have tried
B: I have the trousers.
eaten
(QT)
some of it.
(QT)
scalar
I have eaten
my brother´s
banana. → I
have eaten
a fruit.
I have eaten
my brother´s
banana. →
I have
a brother.
A: Have you
spoken to
Tom?
B: Not yet.
M. Ferenčík Pragmalinguistics 2012
particularized
(non-standard)
(CP flouting)
A: Would you
like some
wine?
B: Do you
ever ask
a horse
whether he is
thirsty? (R)
Strana 13
Implicature

Implicature, to implicate coined by Herbert Paul Grice: Logic and conversation (1975)
cf. common usage: imply, implication
general actions have implications but speech acts have implicatures
Assumption: speakers´ co-operation is necessary to achieve mutual understanding:
Example 1
A: What´s up?
B: I need to get to the office quickly.
A: Here. (hands him over a bunch of keys)
B: Thanks. You are terrific. (B departs for the office)
The assumption that A has a car is valid
Example 2:
A: What´s up?
B: I need to get to the office quickly.
A: Here. (hands him over a bunch of keys)
B: Thanks. You are terrific. (after a while) Where is the car?
A: What car?
B: I thought you gave me your car keys.
A: How could I do that? I don´t have a car.
B: 
The assumption that A has a car is invalid:
- A tries to mislead/trick/confuse B by not offering relevant information
- A is deliberately un-cooperative (impolite, rude, mean … ?)

Mutual assumption of co-operation is a prerequisite of sense-making:
M. Ferenčík Pragmalinguistics 2012
Strana 14
Cf. utterances may sometimes suggest a meaning opposite of its entailment
Entails:
→
→
Boss:
You are fired.
Employee: Terrific.
you lost your job
it is very good
The boss is
unlikely to interpret the employee´s response literally
likely to interpret it as to implicate the inverse of what it
entails viz. not terrific but terrible
Both mutually recognize that it cannot be intrepreted literally but ironically
Entails:
→
→
Boss:
You are fired.
Employee: Terrific.

you lost your job
it is very good
implicates:
→
it is very bad
IMPLICATURE
= what is suggested in an utterance, i.e. not entailed (= strictly implied)
or presupposed (= true beforehand)
by the utterance
= inference that is made on the basis of mutual understanding of speakers
= additional layer of meaning
Mary:
John:
Uncle Tom is coming over for dinner tonight.
I guess I´d better lock up our vodka.
John´s utterance raises the implicature that Uncle Tom has a drinking problem.
Implicature
is NOT a part of an utterance
does NOT follow as a necessary consequence of an utterance (as is the
case with entailment)
Cf. My cat died.
entails
My cat is dead.
If My cat died is (synthetically) true, then My cat is dead must necessarily be true
= two-way entailment
My cat was killed.
entails
= one-way entailment
My cat is dead.
My cat is dead.
does not entail My cat was killed.
M. Ferenčík Pragmalinguistics 2012
(e.g. s/he died of illness)
Strana 15
Note: entailments cannot be cancelled wihout contradiction:
*My cat died/was killed but it isn´t dead/didn´t die.
Utterances may raise more implicatures:
IMPLICATURE
Mary:
John:
Uncle Tom is coming over for dinner tonight.
I guess I´d better lock up our vodka.
→
Uncle Tom has a drinking problem
Also: he is a teetotaller, prohibitionist,
Muslim
Implicature is heavily dependent upon context: to be interpreted, some basic cooperative
principle, an overrirding social rule is assumed to be in operation:
 H.P.Grice´s Cooperative Principle
„Make your conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it
occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged.“
More simply: “be as helpful to your hearer as you can”
4 subprinciples/maxims: quantity, quality, relation, manner
Maxims:
1.Quantity: „ say enough“ and „do not say more than required at the moment“
2.Quality:
„do not lie“ and „do not say anything for which you lack sufficient evidence“
3.Relevance „say what is at the current moment relevant (important, appropriate ...)“
4.Manner: „be clear, unequivocal, perspicuous (orderly)“
„avoid obscurity and ambiguity“
Major assumption underlying cooperative behaviour is that, unless evidence exists to the
contrary, speakers
tell the truth
say what is needed
keep to the topic
package their message understandably
The maxims form a „baseline for talking“
are a source of a conversational implicature
= implied meanings in addition to what is explicitely stated
enable to form assumptions against which we judge possible departures

Types of departures from CP:
M. Ferenčík Pragmalinguistics 2012
Strana 16
A. Flouting CP maxims:
- speaker
evidently/apparently/visibly disregards a maxim
expects H to infer the additional non-literal = implied meaning
assumes that H knows that he should not be taken literally
contains built-in implicatures
- the CP enables speaker to comply with the maxim indirectly, at a further level
Example
Maxim flouted:
A: How did you like the guest speaker?
B: Well, I’m sure he was speaking English.
Quantity
results from attending to conflicting maxims: one maxim is satisfied
at the expense of another (while the over-arching assumption of
cooperation is upheld)
A: Where is John?
B: He’s either in the pub or in his office.
Quantity conflicts with Quality:
Flouting quantity speaker invokes Quality
Implicature: B has not enough evidence
to offer quality information
A: Professor, will you write a letter of recommendation for me?
B: Of course, I will say that you were always neatly dressed, punctual
and are unfailingly polite.
Quantity
A: I´m not feeling well today.
B: There´s a hospital across the street.
Relevance
A: How did you get that car into the dining room?
B: It was easy. I made a left turn when I came out of the kitchen.
Relevance
A: How do you like my new dress?
B: Well your shoes look nice.
Quantity
A: I may win the lottery for $ 1 million.
B: There may be people on Mars, too.
Relevance
A: Do you like ice-cream?
B: Is the Pope Catholic?
Relevance
A: Where are you going with your son?
M. Ferenčík Pragmalinguistics 2012
Strana 17
B: To C H U R C H.
Manner
On a golf course:
A: spoiled a hit
B: Nice shot.
Quality (sarcasm)
A: Where is the whiskey I got for my birthday?
B: Uncle Tom was here.
Relevance
B. Opting out of a maxim:
- evident indication of unwillingness to cooperate
- is interpreted as HAVING certain communicative value
A:How are you today?
B: No comment.
A: What happened to Mary?
B: My lips are sealed.
 C. Infringing on a maxim:
- failure to observe CP arising from imperfect linguistic or communicative competence
foreigner talk
impaired performance – e.g. emotional state
cognitive impairment - e.g. mental illness

D. Violation of a maxim
o is a deliberate non-cooperation, which is not immeditely obvious but which may
eventually cause communication breakdown, hence a communication failure
o does not conatin implicatures
providing deceitful, doubtful, nontruthful, false, economical with the truth, etc.
information = lying
providing too much/little/detailed information
being irrelevant
being clumsy, vague, uninterpretable

Implicature derived from CP maxims = NON-CONVENTIONAL (conversational)
implicature
for interpretation, depends largely on contextual information, e.g. people,
their relationships etc.

CONVENTIONAL implicature
o a type of implicature which is made regardless the context, automatically, as a
result of natural (not formal) logic
o is independent of the cooperative principle
M. Ferenčík Pragmalinguistics 2012
Strana 18
o YET
A: Have you spoken to Tom?
B: Not yet.
→
I expect a different situation to the present
o BUT
I am poor but happy.
Implicature: but implicates contrast – poverty and happines are not
compatible, yet I am still happy
o
AND
Mary got married and had a baby. implicates: first she got married
then she had a baby
o
OR
(in a restaurant) You may have salad or soup.
Or = exclusive - you may have one only
You may come today or tomorrow
Or = inclusive – you may come either day
o
o

EVEN
Even I understand now what implicature is. = contrary to expectations
YET
I don´t get it yet. = present situation is expected to be different later
NON-CONVENTIONAL (conversational) implicature
o generalized and particularized
o generalized: scalar and standard
o
SCALAR IMPLICATURES
Assumption: S selects a point on a scale which is the most informative and truthful
involve lexical items gradable along a scale:
< few, some, many, most, all>
< sometimes, often, always>
the asserted form implicates the negative of all forms higher on the scale
e.g.
some = not many/most/all
sometimes = not often/always
if an exp. is used, an inference is drawn that none of the stronger expressions
on the scale could have been used in the given context
Many people are unhappy.
I often walk to school.
A:How did I do at the test?
B:Some students passed it.
M. Ferenčík Pragmalinguistics 2012
Inf. – not all people are unhappy
I do no always walk to school
implicates
Not all students passed it.
Strana 19

STANDARD implicature – arise from the observance of CP, hence no contextual
knowledge needed
A: Have you tried the suit?
B: I have tried the trousers. (QT)

PARTICULARIZED implicature – arise from CP flouting

CANCELLATION of implicatures without contradiction:
o
Mary got married and had a baby, but not necessarily in that order.
o A:How did I do at the test?
B:Some students passed it, in fact, all students passed it.
o A: How many students in the class are your friends?
B: Some of the students are my friends, in fact, all of them are my friends.
Note:
Cf. cancellation of entailments leads to contradictions:
*Mary got married but she wasn´t married.
*The president was assassinated but he wasn´t dead.
*Some students passed the test but they failed it.
M. Ferenčík Pragmalinguistics 2012
get married
assassinate
pass the test
entails be married
be dead
not failing it
Strana 20