Jump to content

User:Anypodetos/sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User:Anypodetos
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Anypodetos (talk | contribs) at 11:00, 28 November 2018 (Ref formatting. Relevance theory, with material from http://lemizh.conlang.org/appendix/pragmatics.php which is CC-BY-SA). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Implicature is a term used in pragmatics, a subdiscipline of linguistics. It was coined by H. P. Grice in 1975 to refer to what is suggested or implied in an utterance, even though it is not literally expressed.[1] Take the for example the following exchange:

A: I am out of gas.
B: There is a gas station round the corner.

Here, B does not say, but implicates, that the gas station is open.[2][3]

Later linguists introduced refined and different definitions of the term, leading to somewhat different ideas about which of the suggested meanings of an utterance are actually implicatures and which aren't.[4][5]

Conversational implicature

H. P. Grice

Conversational implicatures are implicatures that arise during conversation, where the speaker voluntarily flouts, or violates, one of maxims in the maxims of conversation that create an implied meaning to the addressee.[6][7] These conversational implicatures have many uses in creating an additional meaning to a given utterance.

"So where do you want to eat? Applebee's has a huge selection of burgers, appetizers, salads, and drinks! Everything is super affordable, too."

As seen here, this utterance flouts the maxim of quantity because of the extra amount of information given about the types of options and pricing. Giving examples about the types of options at the restaurant and mentioning their prices gives much more information than needed in reference to a name of a restaurant. Also, this example flouts the maxim of relevance because the name of a restaurant is not directly relevant to a list of food items and prices.

"Who's driving?"
"Well, my car only fits three people."

In this context, the addressee is flouting the maxim of relevance, because the question of who is driving is not directly related to the number of people that someone's car can fit. Also, the use of only is a quantity maxim that semantically flouts that there is a maximum number of people that can fit in the car; and, that the number of people present exceeds this limit.

"What items on your menu are dairy free?"
"The lobster mac and cheese."

In this example, the addressee is flouting the maxim of quality because the utterance of mac and cheese is known to not always be dairy free. Since this utterance is not true, we can conclude that the maxim of quality is being violated. [8]

A key characteristic of conversational implicature is that it is context dependent. This means that the utterance will not give rise to the implicature if said in a different context. Conversational implicatures are cancellable, meaning that the implicature may be cancelled with further information or context:[9]

(a) "That cake looks delicious."
I would like a piece of that cake.
(b) "That cake looks delicious, but it looks too rich for me."

We see in example (a) the implicature underneath is created. However, with the introduction of new information in example (b), the speaker is able to cancel the conversational implicature which was arisen.

Neo-Griceans

In relevance theory

In the framework known as relevance theory, implicature is defined as a counterpart to explicature. The explicatures of an utterance are the communicated assumptions that are developed from its logical form (intuitively, the literal meaning) by supplying additional information from context: by disambiguating ambiguous expressions, assigning references to pronouns and other variables, and so on. All communicated assumptions that cannot be obtained in this way are implicatures. For example, if Peter says

  • Susan told me that her kiwis were too sour.

the hearer might arrive at the explicature

  • Susan told Peter that the kiwifruit she, Susan, grew were too sour for the judges at the fruit grower's contest.

Now assume that Peter and the hearer both know that

  • Susan is ambitious. If she loses at something, she's pretty downcast.

and that Peter intended the hearer to activate this knowledge. Then this is an implicated premise. Further, if Peter intended the hearer to conclude

  • Susan needs to be cheered up.
  • Peter wants me to ring Susan up and cheer her up.

from his utterance and the implicated premise, then these are implicated conclusions. Implicated premises and conclusions are both implicatures in the relevance theoretical sense.[10][11]

Scalar implicature

Main article: Scalar implicature

Scalar implicature is a type of conversational quantity implicature. Prototypical examples include the words "some", "few", or "many". For example:[12][13]

John ate some of the cookies.

Here, the use of "some" semantically entails that more than one cookie was eaten. It does not entail, but implicates, that not every cookie was eaten.

I only need a few cupcakes for the dinner tomorrow.

Here, the use of "a few" semantically entails that more than one cupcake is needed, while it implicates that not many are needed for the dinner.

..............[14]

The flag is green. +> The flag is completely green.

At least some "scalar implicatures" seem not to be implicatures at all................[15][16]

Conventional implicature

Conventional implicatures are independent of the cooperative principle and the four maxims. They are instead tied to the conventional meaning of certain words and grammatical structures. In addition, they are not defeasible, but have the force of entailments.[17][18] An example:

Donovan is poor but happy.

This sentence states that Donovan is poor, and that he is happy. In addition, the word "but" implicates a sense of contrast. Taken together, the sentence means approximately "Surprisingly, Donovan is happy in spite of being poor".

An example of a grammatical structure producing conventional implicatures is the appositive:[19]

Yewberry jelly, toxic in the extreme, will give you an awful stomachache.

Because of the mentioned differences to conversational implicatures, it has been argued that "conventional implicatures" aren't implicatures at all but rather secondary propositions of an utterance.[20] Under this view, the sentence about Donovan would have the primary proposition "Donovan is poor and happy" and the additional proposition "There is a contrast between poverty and happiness". The sentence about yewberry jelly contains the two propositions "Yewberry jelly will give you an awful stomachache" and "Yewberry jelly is toxic in the extreme".

Implicature vs entailment

NOPE.[21]

Implicature differs from entailment. Sentences with implicatures are open to interpretation because they “require contextual factors and conventions [...] observed in conversation.”[8] Entailments must follow the literal meaning of utterances and do not require context outside of a given utterance, and thus also cannot be cancelled[22].

Example of entailment:

Sentence A: “The President was assassinated”
Sentence B: “The president is dead”

If A is true, B must be true. “The President was assassinated” entails “The president is dead” No alterations can be made to the truth A without changing the truth of B.

Example of implicature:

Sentence A: “Raj was late to the wedding after he crashed his car.”
Sentence B: “Raj was late to the wedding because he crashed his car.”
Sentence C: “A week after crashing his car, Raj was late to the wedding.”

If A is true, B and/or C can be true. “Raj was late to the wedding after he crashed his car” implicates “Raj was late to the wedding because he crashed his car” but could also mean “A week after crashing his car, Raj was late to the wedding.” Neither B nor C must be true for A to be true.

See also

References

  1. ^ Grice (1975:24)
  2. ^ Grice (1975:32)
  3. ^ Blackburn (1996:189)
  4. ^ Sperber & Wilson (1996:176–183, 193–202)
  5. ^ Carston (1998)
  6. ^ Levinson (1983)
  7. ^ Wilson & Sperber (1981)
  8. ^ a b Zabbal (2008)
  9. ^ Birner (2013)
  10. ^ Sperber & Wilson (1996:176–183)
  11. ^ Carston (2002)
  12. ^ Levinson (1983:132–136)
  13. ^ Holtgraves & Kraus (2018)
  14. ^ Carston (1998:3)
  15. ^ Carston (1998:14f)
  16. ^ Bach (2006, #9)
  17. ^ Grice (1975:25f)
  18. ^ Potts (2005:1)
  19. ^ Potts (2005:3)
  20. ^ Bach (1999)
  21. ^ Bach (2006, #3)
  22. ^ "ELLO". www.ello.uos.de. Retrieved 2018-04-09.

Bibliography

Further reading

Look up sandbox in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Anypodetos/sandbox&oldid=871013611"