Docsity
Docsity
Prepara tus exámenes
Prepara tus exámenes

Prepara tus exámenes y mejora tus resultados gracias a la gran cantidad de recursos disponibles en Docsity

Consigue puntos base para descargar
Consigue puntos base para descargar

Gana puntos ayudando a otros estudiantes o consíguelos activando un Plan Premium

Orientación Universidad
Orientación Universidad
Vende en Docsity
Vende en Docsity
Docsity AI
Docsity AI
Inicia sesiónRegístrate

Prepara tus exámenes

Prepara tus exámenes y mejora tus resultados gracias a la gran cantidad de recursos disponibles en Docsity

Busca documentos

Prepara tus exámenes con los documentos que comparten otros estudiantes como tú en Docsity

Busca tu universidad

Encuentra los documentos específicos para los exámenes de tu universidad

Video Cursos

Estudia con lecciones y exámenes resueltos basados en los programas académicos de las mejores universidades

Quiz

Responde a preguntas de exámenes reales y pon a prueba tu preparación

Docsity AINEW

Resume tus documentos, hazles preguntas, conviértelos en quiz y mapas conceptuales

Ver preguntas

Despeja tus dudas leyendo las respuestas a las preguntas que realizaron otros estudiantes como tú

Consigue puntos base para descargar

Gana puntos ayudando a otros estudiantes o consíguelos activando un Plan Premium

Compartir documentos
download point icon20 Puntos

Por cada documento subido

Responde a las preguntas
download point icon5 Puntos

por cada respuesta dada (máx. 1 al día)

Todos los modos para conseguir puntos gratis
Consigue puntos de inmediato

Elige un plan Premium con todos los puntos que necesitas.

Oportunidades de estudio

Elige tu próximo programa de estudio

Ponte en contacto inmediatamente con las mejores universidades del mundo. Busca entre miles de universidades en todo el mundo. Busca entre miles de universidades partner oficiales

Comunidad

Pregúntale a la comunidad

Pide ayuda a la comunidad y resuelve tus dudas de estudio

Ebooks gratuitos

¡Nuestros e-books salva-estudiantes!

Descarga nuestras guías gratuitas sobre técnicas de estudio, métodos para controlar la ansiedad y consejos para la tesis preparadas por los tutores de Docsity

Conversational Implicatures: A Guide to Understanding Implicit Meaning in Communication, Apuntes de Filología Inglesa

Universidad de Sevilla (US)Filología Inglesa

Units of the subject Semantics and Pragmatics of English Language.

Tipo: Apuntes

2021/2022

Subido el 28/10/2023

lidimaciasmart
lidimaciasmart 🇪🇸

5 documentos

1 / 6

Toggle sidebar

Esta página no es visible en la vista previa

¡No te pierdas las partes importantes!

bg1
UNIT 5: CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURES
INDEX
1. IMPLICATURE VS. EXPLICATURE.
2. CONVERSATIONAL MAXIMS AND THE COOPERATIVE
PRINCIPLE.
3. ADJACENCY PAIRS.
4. PRINCIPLE OF POLITENESS: NEGATIVE AND POSITIVE FACE,
FACE-THREATENING ACTS.
5. RELEVANCE THEORY.
1. IMPLICATURE VS. EXPLICATURE.
• In a series of lectures at Harvard University in 1967, the English
language philosopher Paul Grice outlined an approach to what he term
conversational implicature – how hearers manage to work out the
complete message when speakers mean more than they say.
• An example of what Grice meant by conversational implicature is the
utterance “Have you got any cash on you?” where the speaker really
wants the hearer to understand the meaning: “Can you lend me some
money? I don’t have much on me”.
• The conversational implicature is a message that is not found in the
plain sense of the sense. The speaker implies it.
• The hearer is able to infer (work out, read between the lines) this
message in the utterance, by appealing to the rules governing
successful conversational interaction.
• The explicature of a sentence is what is explicitly said (in the linguistic
context), as opposed to the implicature, the information that the
speaker conveys implicitly.
• Grice proposed that implicatures can be calculated by understanding
three things:
o The usual linguistic meaning of what is said.
o Contextual information (shared or general knowledge).
o The assumption that the speaker is obeying what Grice calls the
cooperative principle.
2. CONVERSATIONAL MAXIMS AND THE COOPERATIVE
PRINCIPLE.
• Paul Grice proposes that in ordinary conversation, speakers and
hearers share a cooperative principle.
o Speakers shape their utterances to be understood by hearers.
• The principle can be explained by four underlying rules or maxims.
o David Crystal calls them conversational maxims.
pf3
pf4
pf5

Vista previa parcial del texto

¡Descarga Conversational Implicatures: A Guide to Understanding Implicit Meaning in Communication y más Apuntes en PDF de Filología Inglesa solo en Docsity!

UNIT 5: CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURES

INDEX

1. IMPLICATURE VS. EXPLICATURE.

2. CONVERSATIONAL MAXIMS AND THE COOPERATIVE

PRINCIPLE.

3. ADJACENCY PAIRS.

4. PRINCIPLE OF POLITENESS: NEGATIVE AND POSITIVE FACE,

FACE-THREATENING ACTS.

5. RELEVANCE THEORY.

1. IMPLICATURE VS. EXPLICATURE.

  • In a series of lectures at Harvard University in 1967, the English language philosopher Paul Grice outlined an approach to what he term conversational implicature – how hearers manage to work out the complete message when speakers mean more than they say.
  • An example of what Grice meant by conversational implicature is the utterance “Have you got any cash on you?” where the speaker really wants the hearer to understand the meaning: “Can you lend me some money? I don’t have much on me”.
  • The conversational implicature is a message that is not found in the plain sense of the sense. The speaker implies it.
  • The hearer is able to infer (work out, read between the lines) this message in the utterance, by appealing to the rules governing successful conversational interaction.
  • The explicature of a sentence is what is explicitly said (in the linguistic context), as opposed to the implicature , the information that the speaker conveys implicitly.
  • Grice proposed that implicatures can be calculated by understanding three things: o The usual linguistic meaning of what is said. o Contextual information (shared or general knowledge). o The assumption that the speaker is obeying what Grice calls the cooperative principle. 2. CONVERSATIONAL MAXIMS AND THE COOPERATIVE PRINCIPLE.
  • Paul Grice proposes that in ordinary conversation, speakers and hearers share a cooperative principle. o Speakers shape their utterances to be understood by hearers.
  • The principle can be explained by four underlying rules or maxims. o David Crystal calls them conversational maxims.

o They are also sometimes named Grice’s or Gricean maxims. ▪ The Gricean maxims are quality , quantity , relevance or relation and manner. ➔ Quality: speakers should be truthful. They should not say what they think is false or make statements for which they have no evidence. ➔ Quantity: a contribution should be as informative as is required for the conversation to proceed. It should be neither too little, nor too much. (It is not clear how one can decide what quantity of information satisfies the maxim in a given case). ➔ Relevance or relation: speakers’ contributions should relate clearly to the purpose of the exchange. ➔ Manner: speakers’ contributions should be perspicuous: clear, orderly, and brief, avoiding obscurity and ambiguity.

  • The flouting of cooperative principles: Speakers communicate meaning by means of implicatures and listeners recognize those communicated meanings by means of inference. But speakers often flout the cooperative principles and are still thought to be cooperative. What they convey is the conversational implicatures.
  • “Flouting”: unlike “violating”, “flouting” a maxim allows a speaker to signal that although they seem to be “violating” a maxim, they are still co-operating. o For example: Husband : “Honey, what do we have for dinner tonight?”. Wife : “My sister broke her leg”. ▪ The maxim which is not observed in this exchange is RELATION.

4. PRINCIPLE OF POLITENESS: NEGATIVE AND POSITIVE FACE,

FACE-THREATENING ACTS.

  • If we really want co-operation, we also need to be polite.
  • We clearly attach great importance to speaking politely ( Brown and Levinson, 1978 ). This aspect of the communicative process was largely ignored by Austin and Grice. Yet, the need to be polite can often account for why we choose to imply rather than assert an idea or why we choose to use an indirect directive like “ Well, I really must get on with my work now ”, rather than a direct directive like “ Go home ”.
  • When the speaker is requesting some sort of action from the hearer, the smaller the “cost” of the action from the hearer, the more polite the speaker sounds.
  • Leech (1983) proposed a tact maxim which can be summarized as: minimize the cost to other, maximize the benefit to other.
  • Goffman’s Face: o “Co-operation is vital to conversation, but without politeness, all is lost”. o Erving Goffman saw that without politeness, conversation didn’t work and that the need for politeness was rooted in “ saving face ”. o Goffman recognised that whenever we talk, we need to feel liked. o As a consequence, conversations are sites for potential “ loss of face ” and that “ face work ” must, therefore, be a part of talk if “ loss of face ” is to be avoided and co-operation is to be maintained.
  • Politeness and face: o According to Brown and Levinson (1987), face refers to our public self-image. o There are two aspects of this image: ▪ Positive Face: refers to our need to be accepted and liked by others and our need to feel that our social group shares common goals. Positive politeness orients to preserving the positive face of other people. When we use positive politeness, we use speech strategies that emphasize our solidarity with the hearer , such as informal pronunciation, shared dialect or slang expressions, nicknames, more frequent reference to speaker and hearer as we , and requests which are less indirect. ▪ Negative Face: refers to our right to independence of action and our need not to be imposed on by others. Negative politeness orients to preserving the negative face of other people. This is much more likely if there is a social distance between the speaker and hearer.

When we use negative politeness, we use speech strategies that emphasize our deference for the hearer. Nicknames, slang, and informal pronunciation tend to be avoided and requests tend to be more indirect and impersonal , often involving “could you…” or “could I ask you to…” or even referring to the hearer in the 3rd person.

  • Face Threatening Acts: (FTAs) are the conversational turns that risk a “loss of face”.
  • Positive politeness “face work” addresses “positive face” concerns, by showing concern for the other’s face.
  • Negative politeness “face work” addresses “negative face” concerns, by acknowledging the other’s face is threatened. 5. RELEVANCE THEORY.
  • The Relevance Theory was proposed by Sperber and Wilson in their book Relevance: Communication and Cognition in 1986.
  • According to them, Relevance Theory was defined as: “ Every act of ostensive communication communicates the presumption of its own optimal relevance ”. (1986:158).
  • Ostensive communication : o Sperber and Wilson agree: ▪ From the speaker’s side , communication should be seen as an act of making clear one’s intention to express something. This act they call ostensive act.