Re: Levinsons's "Pragmatics"

Tom Chappell wrote:
>
> "overhearers" can be present only without the speaker knowing, so
> overhearers *cannot* be referred to as such in direct speech.
>
> [snip]
>
> Actually, I'm pretty sure "overhearers" can be present with the explicit
> or implicit knowledge of the speaker and/or the addressee.
(snipalot)
Actually, there is a difference between "overhearing" (accidental, speaker
can be aware that people not involved in the discourse can hear it-- e.g. in
a restaurant setting or (my experience :-(( ) in a brokerage: some brokers
will make of point of touting a [bad] stock in a loud voice...precisely so
that listeners will take the bait) and "listening in ~eavesdropping"
(deliberate, often secretive-- speaker may or may not be aware it's
happening). No???

(Just a quick first impression; sorry to say I didn't really read all the
post....)