p5 Implicatures

Cooperation and implicature
BASIC CONCEPTS
We assume that speakers and listeners involved in conversation are generally cooperating with each other
- for reference to be successful it was proposed that collaboration is a necessary factor - in accepting speakers' presuppositions, listeners normally have to assume that a speaker who says 'my car' does have a car and is not trying to mislead the listener
People having a conversation are not normally assumed to be trying to confuse, trick, or withhold relevant information from each other sense of cooperation
In the middle of their lunch hour, one woman asks another how she likes the hamburger she is eating, and receives the answer: A hamburger is a hamburger
Tautology: statement that is always true, but has no communicative value In a conversation the speaker using a tautology intends to communicate more than is said. The additional conveyed meaning is an implicature (here: the hamburger tastes as usual, she has no opinion whether it's good or bad) Implicature stands as a paradigmatic example of the nature and power of pragmatic explanations of linguistic phenomena It is intended to contrast with terms like (logical) implication, entailment or consequence
Hauptseminar Introduction to Pragmatics
http://ifla.uni-stuttgart.de/~jilka/index.html

THE COOPERATIVE PRINCIPLE
Scenario: There is a woman sitting on a park bench and a large dog lying on the ground in front of the bench. A man comes along and sits down on the bench
Man: Does your dog bite? Woman: No. (The man reaches down to pet the dog. The dog bites the man's hand.) Man: Ouch! Hey! You said your dog doesn't bite. Woman: He doesn't. But that's not my dog.
The man erroneously assumed that more was communicated than what was said.
- this is not a problem involving presuppositions because the assumption that the woman has dog is true for both speakers. - From the man's perspective the woman's answer provided less information than expected a
giving sufficient information is an example for the cooperative principle of conversation There are four sub-principles, called conversational maxims according to Grice (1975) (key ideas delivered in the William James lectures at Harvard in 1967). 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.

MAXIMS
A. Quantity 1. Make your contribution as informative as is required (for the current purposes of the exchange) 2. Do not make your contribution more informative than is required B. Quality (Try to make your contribution one that is true) 1. Do not say what you believe to be false 2. Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence C. Relation 1. Be relevant D. Manner (Be perspicuous) 1. Avoid obscurity of expression 2. Avoid ambiguity 3. Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity) 4. Be orderly Summary: We assume that people are normally going to provide an appropriate amount of information, tell the truth, be relevant and try to be as clear as they can. Speakers rarely mention these principles, except when they may be in danger of not fully adhering to them hedges
Hauptseminar
Introduction to Pragmatics

HEDGES I
hedges: cautious notes to indicate that a speaker is aware of maxims, but fears not to adhere to them completely. Speakers are aware of the maxims and show that they are trying to observe them. Examples Quality
As far as I know, they're married I may be mistaken, but I thought I saw a wedding ring on her finger I'm not sure if this is right, but I heard it was a secret ceremony in Hawaii He couldn't live without her, I guess
Examples Quantity
As you probably know, I am terrified of bugs So, to cut a long story short, we grabbed our stuff and ran I won't bore you with all the details, but it was an exciting trip
Examples Relation
Oh by the way, his nephew is a member of parliament Anyway, that's also part of the program I don't know if this is important, but some of the files are missing This may sound like a dumb question, but whose handwriting is this? Not to change the subject, but is this related to the budget?
Hauptseminar

HEDGES II
Examples Manner
This may be a bit confused, but I remember being in a car I'm not sure if this makes sense, but the car had no lights I don't know if this is clear at all, but I think the other car was reversing
Situations where speakers may not follow the expectations of the cooperative principle: - in courtrooms and classrooms, witnesses and students are often called upon to tell people things which are already well-known to those people (violation of the quantity maxim) specialized institutional talk is different from conversation Examples for speakers not following the maxims on purpose
No comment My lips are sealed
(these statements are not as informative as required, but interpreted as communicating more than is said, i.e., the speaker knows the answer) APPARENT VIOLATION OF THE MAXIMS IS THE KEY TO THE NOTION OF CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURE!!!

CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURE
Basic assumption in conversation: Unless otherwise indicated, the participants are adhering to the cooperative principle and the maxims
Charlene: I hope you brought the bread and the cheese Dexter: Ah, I brought the bread
Charlene assumes the Dexter is cooperating and aware of the quantity maxim. If he did not mention the cheese, he must have done so on purpose. She infers that what is not mentioned, any definite noun phrase was not brought Dexter has conveyed more than he said via a conversational implicature
Charlene: b & c? Dexter: b (+> NOT c)
Speakers communicate meaning via implicatures - listeners recognize the communicated meanings via inference
Hauptseminar

GENERALIZED CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURE
Doobie: Did you invite Bella and Cathy? Mary: I invited Bella (b & c?) (b +> NOT c)
When no special background knowledge of the context of the utterance is required to make the necessary inferences, it is called a generalized conversational implicature Example: indefinite articles are typically interpreted as an X +> not speaker's X
I was sitting in a garden one day. A child looked over the fence.
not my garden, my child Quantity maxim: If the speaker were capable of being more specific/informative he/she would have said 'my garden' and 'my child'
John has two PhDs
Quality maxim: A speaker believes what she/he asserts to be true Therefore sentences like
??John has two PhDs but I dont believe he has
are anomalous (so-called Moores Paradox)
Hauptseminar

SCALAR IMPLICATURES
Words of a certain type can be classified as expressing one value from a scale of values, e.g., terms for expressing quantity
<all, most, many, some, few> <must, should, may> <always, often, sometimes> <n, , 5,4,3,2,1>
When producing an utterance, a speaker selects the one word from the scale which is the most informative and truthful (quantity and quality).
I'm studying linguistics and I've completed some of the required courses.
'some' creates the implicature +> not all scalar implicature: when any form in a scale is asserted, the negative of all forms higher on the scale is implicated
The linguistic courses are sometimes really interesting 'sometimes' creates the implicatures +> not often, +> not always It's possible that they were delayed implicates +> not certain (as a higher value on the scale of likelihood) This should be stored in a cool place implicates +> not must (on a scale of obligation) implicates +> not frozen (on a scale of coldness)
Speakers may correct themselves on the use of scalar implicatures:

I got some of this jewelry in Hong Kong - um actually I think I got most of it there.

PARTICULARIZED CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURE I
Most conversations take place in very specific contexts in which locally recognized inferences are assumed particularized conversational implicatures - by far the most common type of implicature, therefore usually just called implicatures
Rick: Hey, coming to the party tonight? Tom: My parents are visiting - seems to violate maxim of relevance. In order to make Tom's response relevant, Rick has to draw on assumed knowledge that one college student expects another to have (Tom will be spending the evening with his parents, who are unlikely to come to the party, consequently +> Tom not at party) Lloyd: What if the USSR blockades the Gulf and all the oil? Winston: Oh come now, Britain rules the seas! - any reasonably informed participant in the 1970s (and today) would know that Bs utterance is blatantly false. That being so, Winston cannot be trying to deceive Lloyd. His seeming violation of the maxim of quality must be intended to mean something different, namely the opposite ( irony) Possibilities: hyperbole (Im starving), metaphor (She devoured this book), irony (friendly way of being offensive: I just love being woken up at 4 a.m. by a fire alarm), sarcasm (less friendly form of irony: Why dont you leave all your dirty clothes on the floor?), banter (offensive way of being friendly, can have a flirtatious element: Youre nasty, mean and stingy. How can you only give me one kiss?)
Hauptseminar

PARTICULARIZED CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURE II
Ann: Where are you going with the dog? Sam: To the V - E - T
Sam 'flouts' (i.e. does not adhere to) the maxim of manner. The dog is known to recognize the word 'vet' and to hate being taken there, therefore Sam produces a more elaborate, i.e. less brief, version
Jane: John still has not said if hell come Beth: Hell either come or he wont
Beth flouts the maxim of quantity by saying nothing informative. Her true informative inference must be something like calm down, theres no point in worrying, we cant do anything about it anyway Leila has just walked into Mary's office and noticed all the work on her desk.
Leila: Whoa! Has you boss gone crazy? Mary: Let's go get some coffee.
Mary flouts the maxim of relevance. Leila has to infer some local reason (e.g., the boss is nearby) for why Mary makes a non-relevant remark Standardized flouting of relevance:
Bert: Do you like ice cream? Ernie: Is the Pope Catholic?
Cooperation and implicature EXERCISE

Which Gricean maxims have been flouted in the following example? 1 A: Lets get the kids something B: Okay, but I veto I C E C R E A M A: Wheres Bill? B: Theres a yellow VW outside Sues house A: Teherans in Turkey, isnt it? B: Yes, and Londons in Armenia War is war Miss Singer produced a series of sounds corresponding closely to the score of an aria from Rigoletto
Manner
Relevance
Quality
4 5
Quantity Manner
Hauptseminar

PROPERTIES OF CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURES I
conversational implicatures are defeasible Because implicatures are part of what is communicated and not said, speakers can always deny that they intended the communicate such meanings.
You have won five dollars! (+> ONLY five) standard implicature: only five dollars won
It is easy to suspend the implicature +> only five by adding 'at least'.
You have won at least five dollars! You have won five dollars, in fact, you've won ten! You have won five dollars, that's four more than one!
EXCURSION: LOGICAL REASONING

Deductive inferences are not defeasible i. If Socrates is a man, he is mortal ii. Socrates is a man -----------------------------------------iii. Therefore, Socrates is mortal if premises i. and ii. are true, then whatever else is true or false, iii. is true Inductive inferences are defeasible i. I have dug up 1001 carrots ii. Every one of the 1001 carrots is orange --------------------------------------------------iii. Therefore, all carrots are orange BUT: iv. The 1002nd carrot is green
implicatures are more like inductive inferences than deductive ones


PROPERTIES OF CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURES II
conversational implicatures are non-detachable (except those due to the maxim of manner) An implicature is attached to the semantic content of what is said, not to linguistic form, and therefore implicatures cannot be detached from an utterance simply by changing the words of the utterance for synonyms If for example an ironic interpretation of Johns a genius (i.e., Johns an idiot) is forced by flouting, then it does not matter, if it is worded differently
Johns a mental prodigy Johns a big brain Johns an enormous intellect
Hauptseminar

PROPERTIES OF CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURES III
conversational implicatures are calculable For every putative implicature it should be possible to construct an argument showing how from the literal meaning or the sense of the utterance on the one hand, and the co-operative principle and the maxims on the other hand, it follows that an addressee would make the inference in question to preserve the assumption of co-operation conversational implicatures are non-conventional Conversational implicatures are not part of the conventional meaning of linguistic expressions Since you need to know the literal meaning/sense of a sentence before you can calculate its implicatures in a context, the implicatures cannot be part of the meaning An utterance can be true, while its implicature is false:
Herb hit Sally
By the quantity maxim this would implicate

Herb hit Sally but didnt kill her
but a speaker might say Herb hit Sally nevertheless, attempting to mislead
Hauptseminar

CONVENTIONAL IMPLICATURES I
Conventional implicatures are not based on the cooperative principle or the maxims. They don't have to occur in conversation and depend on special contexts for interpretation. They are associated with specific words and result in additional conveyed meanings when those words are used. 'but' p but q will be based on the conjunction p & q plus an implicature of contrast between the information in p and the information in q
Mary suggested black, but I chose white p & q (+> p is in contrast to q)
'even' implicature of 'contrary to expectation'

Even John came to the party He even helped tidy up afterwards
Hauptseminar

CONVENTIONAL IMPLICATURES II
'yet' the present situation is expected to be different, perhaps the opposite, at a later time
Dennis isn't here yet NOT p is true (= NOT p) (+> p expected to be true later)
'and' the so-called different meanings of 'and' in English can be explained as instances of conventional implicature in different structures.
Yesterday, Mary was happy and ready to work She put on her clothes and left the house (p & q, +> p plus q) (p & q, +> q after p)
- when two statements containing static information are joined by 'and' the implicature is simply 'in addition' or 'plus' - when the two statements contain dynamic, action-related information, the implicature of 'and' is 'and then, indicating sequence. - in the second case the order of the two parts cannot be reversed without a change in meaning

p5 Implicatures

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

p5 Implicatures

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

p5 Implicatures

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cooperation and implicature

Cooperation and implicature

Cooperation and implicature

Cooperation and implicature

Cooperation and implicature

Cooperation and implicature

Cooperation and implicature

are anomalous (so-called Moores Paradox)

Cooperation and implicature

Speakers may correct themselves on the use of scalar implicatures:

Cooperation and implicature

Cooperation and implicature

Cooperation and implicature EXERCISE

Cooperation and implicature

EXCURSION: LOGICAL REASONING

implicatures are more like inductive inferences than deductive ones

Cooperation and implicature

Cooperation and implicature

By the quantity maxim this would implicate

Cooperation and implicature

'even' implicature of 'contrary to expectation'

Cooperation and implicature

You might also like