Pragmatics, Part II

1
Pragmatics, Part II

• Weber State University
• Spring 2007

2
Conversational Implicature

• is a type of pragmatic theory applying to
  conversations.
• is a nonconventional implicature based on the
  addressees assumption that the speaker is
  following the conversational maxims or the
  cooperative principle.

3
Conversational maxims

• The set of rules a speaker is assumed to follow
  such that an addressee can understand what is
  being implied.

4
Conversational maxims

• A speaker is assumed to make a contribution that
• Is adequately but not overly informed (quantity
  maxim)
• The speaker does not believe to be false and for
  which adequate evidence is had (quality maxim)
• Is relevant (maxim of relevance) and
• Is clear, unambiguous, brief, and orderly (maxim
  of manner).

5
Examples of violations of maxim of manner

• I saw the lone ranger with his horse, so I gave
  him a carrot.
• Guilt, vengeance, and bitterness can be
  emotionally destructive to you and your children.
  You must get rid of them.
• We will sell gasoline to anyone in a glass
  container.

6
Cooperative Principle

• Participants in a conversation expect that each
  will make a conversational contribution such as
  is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by
  the accepted purpose or direction of the talk
  exchange.

7
How does implicature arise?

• the proposition actually expressed in the
  utterance
• the context of the utterance
• the assumption that the speaker is obeying the
  rules of conversation to the best of their
  ability.

8
Example of conversational implicature

• Harold Will Sally be at the meeting this
  afternoon?
• Gina Her car broke down.
• CI Sally wont attend at the meeting.

9
Particular v. General

• A particularized conversational implicature is
  one which depends on particular features of the
  context, as in the first example.
• The proposition Sallys car broke down would
  ordinarily not convey anything about Sally going
  to a meeting, so the implicature in this case
  depends on the context as well as the utterance
  itself.
• 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.
• Fred thinks theres a meeting tonight.
• CI Fred doesnt know for sure whether there is a
  meeting tonight.
• Mary has 3 children.
• CI Mary has no more than 3 children.

10
What distinguishes CI from conventional meaning?

• Cancellability (defeasibility) Implicatures can
  be denied without self-contradiction.
• Nondetachability any way you had expressed the
  proposition you uttered would have given rise to
  the same implicatures (with the exception of
  implicatures arising from the rules of Manner).
• Calculability you can trace a line of reasoning
  leading from the utterance to the implicature,
  and including at some point the assumption that
  the speaker was obeying the rules of conversation
  to the best of their ability.

11
Example of Calculability

• Harold Will Sally be at the meeting? Gina Her
  car broke down.
• CI Sally will not be at the meeting
• Harold reasons 
• (1) I assume Gina is following the rule of
  relevance.
• (2) Her remark would not be relevant unless the
  fact that Sally's car has broken down is relevant
  to whether or not she will be at the meeting.
• (3) I know that when people's cars break down
  often they cannot get to work, or cannot get
  there on time.
• (4) If Sally will be late to work or will not get
  to work at all, then she will miss the meeting.
• (5) Gina probably assumes I will reason in this
  way, and has not said anything to stop me from
  doing so.
• (6) I conclude that Gina intends to convey that
  Sally will not be at the meeting.