Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Presents:
CONVERSATION
AL
IMPLICATURE
By:
IMPLICATURE
Implicature is a component of speaker meaning
that constitutes an aspect of what is meant in a
speakers utterance without being part of what is
said.
According
to
Grice
(1975),
The
term
Implicature accounts for what a speaker can
imply, suggest or mean, as distinct from what the
speaker literally says.
Implicature is one of the ways that one
proposition can be conveyed by a speaker
uttering or under appropriate.
Example:
John is meeting a woman this evening.
+> The woman John is meeting this evening is
not his mother, his sister or his wife.
Implicature includes two types which are
conversational implicature and conventional
implicature.
CONVERSATIONAL
IMPLICATURE
Conversational Implicature is implications derived
on the basis of conversational principles and
assumptions, relying on more than the linguistic
meaning of words in a sentence.
A (conversationally) implicates B if it is the case
that uttering A in a certain conversational context
systematically suggests, everything else being
equal, that B is true. However, the implicature can
be called off (i.e., cancelled).
Example:
Student A: Do you like Linguistics?
Student B: Well, lets just say I dont jump for joy
before class.
+> A asked B about his feelings about the
class, and B said B didnt celebrate before the
class. It shows the uninterested feeling of B about
Linguistics subject.
(1)
John ate some of the cookies
The sentence in (1) expresses the proposition that
John ate a portion of the cookies and is true just in
case it corresponds to the outside world.
Intuitively, all of the cookies still constitutes a
portion of the cookies. So the sentence in (1) is
true even if in the outside world John ate all of the
cookies. However, something interesting happens
when this sentence is uttered in a conversation
like (2).
(2)
A: John ate some of the cookies
B: I figured he would. How many are left?
It is clear from (2) that A conveys the literal
meaning of the sentence in (1), i.e., its semantic
content. It is equally clear that A impliesor at
least B infersthe proposition expressed by (3).
(3)
John didnt eat all of the cookies
You might suspect that what the word some really
means is something like a portion but not all, so
that the sentence in (1) literally means that John
ate a portion but not all of the cookies and (1)
entails (3). Let me show you that this is not the
case by comparing the sentences in (4).
(4)
a. John ate some of the cookies;
# in fact, he ate none of the cookies
b. John ate some of the cookies;
# in fact, he ate all of the cookies
In (4a), I cannot follow the sentence John ate some of the
cookies with the sentence in fact, he ate none of the cookies
because the second sentence contradicts the first sentence. In
other words, there is no way in which the world could
correspond to both sentences simultaneously. However, no such
contradiction arises in (4b) and the two sentences are mutually
consistent. This proves that (1) does not entail (3). If it did,
there would be a contradiction. That leaves us with an
intriguing puzzle. The meaning of (3) is not part of the literal
meaning of (1) and yet it is implicated by the utterance of (1). It
is a systematic inference by the addressee, one the speaker
does not try to discourage and therefore must intend. We note
this inference using the symbol +>, illustrated in (5).
(5)
John ate some of the cookies
+> John didnt eat all of the cookies
This inference obtains through a special reasoning process,
one that relies on our understanding of the conventions of
communicative exchangesor conversations. Lets assume
the speaker and addressee are in some sense cooperating
in this exchange to make it smoother and beneficial to
both. The speaker utters the sentence in (5) and in so
doing conveys its literal meaning. The speaker (in the spirit
of cooperation) is being as informative as he can in the
exchange and the addressee (assuming he is being
cooperative) believes this.
Generalized Implicature
Generalized Implicature is a conversational
implicature that is inferable without reference to a
special context ( no special knowledge is required to
figure out the additional meaning). It means that a
generalized conversational implicature is one which
does not depend on particular features of the
context, but is instead typically associated with the
proposition expressed.
Example :
"Fred thinks there is a meeting tonight."
+> Fred doesnt know for sure that there is a
meeting tonight.
Scalar Implicature
Particularized Implicature
Special knowledge is required in special context in which speaker and hearer
understand only. In another word, a particularized implicature is a conversational
implicature that is derivable only in a specific context.
Example 1 :
Vernon: Do you like Monica?
Bill: Shes the cream in my coffee.
+> Bills implicated message: yes, more than you know
Bill must be speaking metaphorically, and there must be a reason for doing so. A
simple yes apparently wasnt enough. Hes trying to tell Vernon that ordinary
words cant express what he feels for Monica, so hes using a metaphor to indicate
that his feelings are at another level.
Example 2 :
Where is my book?
Your young sister is drawing something.
The action draw of young sister would ordinarily not convey anything about her
book, so implicature in this case depends on the context as well as the utterance
itself.
Flouting
A speaker who makes it clear that they are not
following the conversational maxims is said to be
flouting the maxims and this too gives rise to an
implicature. That is, the addressee understands
the speaker flouted the maxims for a reason and
infers further meaning from this breach of
convention.
Here are some examples:
Flouting Quality
A: What if the USSR blockades the Gulf and all the oil?
B: Oh come now, Britain rules the seas! [sarcasm]
+> There is nothing Britain can do about it
A: Tehrans in Turkey, isnt it, teacher?
B: And Londons in Armenia, I suppose
+> Tehran is not in Turkey
Flouting Quantity
War is War
+> Terrible things happen in war. Thats its nature and theres no use
lamenting that tragedy.
Either John will come or he wont
+> I dont care whether or not John comes
Flouting Relation
A: (Letter of Recommendation) What qualities does John have for this
position?
B: John has nice handwriting.
+> John is not qualified for the job
A: Susan can be such a cow sometimes!
B: Lovely weather, isnt it?
+> B finds As comment inappropriate (for some reason or other)
Flouting Manner
The Corner of Johns lips turned slightly upwards
+> John did not exactly smile
Miss Singer produced a series of sounds corresponding closely to an
aria from Rigoletto
+> Miss singer did not perform well.