The 5th Group

The 5th GroupPresents:CONVERSATIONALIMPLICATUREBy:IMPLICATUREImplicature 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 IMPLICATUREConversational 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.

Conversational implicatures are pragmatic inferences:unlike entailments and presuppositions, they are not tied to the particular words and phrases in an utterance but arise instead from contextual factors and the understanding that conventions are observed in conversation. The theory of conversational implicatures is attributed to Paul Herbert Grice, who observed that in conversations what is meant often goes beyond what is said and that this additional meaning is inferred and predictable. As an illustration of what Grice was talking about, consider the sentence in (1).(1)John ate some of the cookiesThe 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 cookiesB: 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 cookiesYou 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 cookiesb. 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 cookiesThis 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.The addressee reasons that if the speaker had known John ate all the cookies, he would have said so. Since the speaker did not say so, then he must know otherwise. In other words, the speaker must know that John didnt eat all of the cookies. So the addressee infersfrom what the speaker said, from what the speaker didnt say, and from the way in which cooperative exchanges take placethat John didnt eat all of the cookies.

Grices Theory of Conversational ImplicaturesGrice proposed that participants in a communicative exchange are guided by a principle that determines the way in which language is used with maximum efficiency and effect to achieve rational communication. He called it the Cooperative Principle.Conversational implication devided into four types which are the cooperative principle, generalize implicature, scalar implicature, and particularized implicature.

The Cooperative Principle According to Yule (1966) said that 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. In other words, the listener presumes that the speaker is being cooperative and is speaking truthfully, informatively, relevantly, exactly, and appropriately. This cooperative principle is an umbrella term for nine components that guide how we communicate. These nine components are grouped together into four categories, called the Maxims of Conversation: the maxim of quality (truthfulness), the maxim of quantity (informativeness), the maxim of relation (relevance), and the maxim of manner (perspicuity).

Cooperative principle devided into four typesThe maxim of Quantity: give the right amount of information (not too little, not too much).Make your contribution as informative as is required (for the current purposes of the exchange)Do not make your contribution one that is true.Example :A: Are you at the office?B: Yes, I am. You will see me at room 12 of Halley buildingQuality: try to say only what is true (dont say that for which you lack adequate evidence; dont say what you know to be false).Do not say what you believe to be false.Do not say that for which you lack evidence.Example :A: Do you think that smoking is good for health?B: No, I think its not good for our health.Relevance: make what you say relevant to the topic at hand.Be relevantExample :A: why do you learn English?B; Yes, I learn it because of my hobbyManner: be clear (avoid ambiguity, excessive wordiness, obscurity, etc.). Avoid obscurity of expression.Avoid ambiguity.Be briefBe orderly Example ;A: what do you think about Ha Long Bay?B: I like Ha Long Bay, it has a lot of beautiful caves.

Generalized ImplicatureGeneralized 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 ImplicatureScalar implicature is greater detail of a particular sort of implicatures, expressing quantity and terms are listed from the highest to the lowest value. In the other hand, scalar implicature is always communicated by choosing a word which expressed one value from a scale of value. The basic of scalar implicature is that when any form in a scale is asserted, the negative of all forms higher on the scale is implicated. Example: I ate some of the cake => this sentence implies I did not eat all of the cake In the utterance some of the boys went to the party, the word some implicates "not all of the boys went to the party." The words none, some, and all form an implicational scale, in which the use of one form implicates that the use of a stronger form is not possible.

Particularized ImplicatureSpecial 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 knowBill 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.

Hedges and Flouting (Supplemental)There is a way for the speaker to tactfully opt out of a maxim using a special word or phrase called a hedge. These hedges are used to signal the addressee not to read anything into the speakers disregard of one of the maxims. Using a hedge, the speaker effectively says he is not implicating q.Hedge a phrase that eliminates or at least mitigates one of the maxims.Quantity As far as I know; Im not sure if this is true, but; I may be wrong, but .Quality As you probably already know; I cant say any more; I probably dont need to say this, but .Relation Oh, by the way; Im not sure if this is relevant, but...; I dont want to change the subject, but .Manner: Im not sure if this is clear, but; I dont know if this makes sense, but; This may be a bit tedious, but.There is another way in which the speaker can signal to the addressee that he is going to ignore a maxim. It is called a flout and it too carries a conversational implicature, sometimes called a conversational implicatureF.Flouting a maxim is typically done by uttering something absurdly false, wholly uninformative, completely irrelevant, or abstruse so that the addressee understands the speaker is implying something entirely different.This is how metaphors get resolved.

FloutingA 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 QualityA: 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 itA: Tehrans in Turkey, isnt it, teacher?B: And Londons in Armenia, I suppose+> Tehran is not in Turkey

Flouting QuantityWar 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 RelationA: (Letter of Recommendation) What qualities does John have for this position?B: John has nice handwriting.+> John is not qualified for the jobA: Susan can be such a cow sometimes!B: Lovely weather, isnt it?+> B finds As comment inappropriate (for some reason or other)Flouting MannerThe Corner of Johns lips turned slightly upwards+> John did not exactly smileMiss Singer produced a series of sounds corresponding closely to an aria from Rigoletto+> Miss singer did not perform well.