GRICE → The Theory of Conversational Implicature:

This theory is also known as implicit meaning.

Implicatures → they are another type of inferences and they have to do with implicit meaning. “Implicature”

is a technical term created by Grice from the verb to implicate. Nonetheless, implicature are different from

logical implications, where if we have a premise that is true, the conclusion must be true. This does not

necessary happen with implicature, for instance:

A: “How is getting on his job?”

B: “Oh, well. He likes his colleagues and he hasn’t been sent in prison yet.” → what is implicated in this

example is different from what it is said, and we can have a lot of different implicatures.

Inside his theory, Grice draws a distinction between natural and non-natural meaning:

Natural meaning → it is conventionally conveyed by certain grammatical and syntactical structures.

Non-natural meaning → it is the intentional one, in the sense that it is produced with the intention to

reach a specific effect in the hearer.

↓

These two effects (or meanings) are translated in two types of implicatures:

1. Conventional implicatures: are weak and shaky. We draw inferences by virtue of the words. They

are implicated in the use of certain words (like but and therefore), but they are not true as the

presupposition are. For example:

John was rich but (represents a contrast) generous → the implicature is: +> Rich people are

(generally) not generous.

He is an Englishman, he is therefore (represents a consequence), brave → the implicature

is: +> English people are (generally) brave.

↓

From these examples, we can understand that “but and therefore” are two common places, because they are

conventional implicated, and they translate the natural meaning which comes out from the language.

2. Conversational implicatures: are much stronger because they are completely based on the context.

For example:

Alan: “are you going to Paul’s party?”

Jenny: “I have to work”

Implicature: +> I am not going. → in this example Alan is authorised to draw the inference

that Jenny implicates “I am not going”. They are directly connected with the context and

therefore they are 100% pragmatic. From this example we understand that there is theory to

explain and predict this kind of implicatures.

Grice’s theory is founded on rationality, in other words human beings are rational creatures. The way in

which we as human beings use language does not produce a series of disconnected remarks. These talk

exchanges are indeed cooperative efforts and each participant in the conversation recognise a common

purpose. We recognise that in a conversational exchange there is always cooperation and even if the case we

do not see it superficially, we try to find it. Then Grice introduces the notion of Cooperative principle →

make your 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. To be more precise this principle guides our

rational use of language and it states that we must speak only when it is our turn and we cannot enter in a

conversation and talk about whatever we want. This principle contains four maxims (or four cognitive levels,

and they had been already introduced by Kant):

1) Maxim of Quantity: this maxim wants:

Anteprima parziale del testo

Scarica Grice's implicature e più Appunti in PDF di Linguistica Inglese solo su Docsity!

GRICE → The Theory of Conversational Implicature: This theory is also known as implicit meaning. Implicatures → they are another type of inferences and they have to do with implicit meaning. “Implicature” is a technical term created by Grice from the verb to implicate. Nonetheless, implicature are different from logical implications, where if we have a premise that is true, the conclusion must be true. This does not necessary happen with implicature, for instance: A: “How is getting on his job?” B: “Oh, well. He likes his colleagues and he hasn’t been sent in prison yet.” → what is implicated in this example is different from what it is said, and we can have a lot of different implicatures. Inside his theory, Grice draws a distinction between natural and non-natural meaning:  Natural meaning → it is conventionally conveyed by certain grammatical and syntactical structures.  Non-natural meaning → it is the intentional one, in the sense that it is produced with the intention to reach a specific effect in the hearer. ↓ These two effects (or meanings) are translated in two types of implicatures:

Conventional implicatures: are weak and shaky. We draw inferences by virtue of the words. They are implicated in the use of certain words (like but and therefore), but they are not true as the presupposition are. For example:  John was rich but (represents a contrast) generous → the implicature is: +> Rich people are (generally) not generous.  He is an Englishman, he is therefore (represents a consequence), brave → the implicature is: +> English people are (generally) brave. ↓ From these examples, we can understand that “but and therefore” are two common places, because they are conventional implicated, and they translate the natural meaning which comes out from the language.
Conversational implicatures: are much stronger because they are completely based on the context. For example:  Alan: “are you going to Paul’s party?” Jenny: “I have to work” Implicature: +> I am not going. → in this example Alan is authorised to draw the inference that Jenny implicates “I am not going”. They are directly connected with the context and therefore they are 100% pragmatic. From this example we understand that there is theory to explain and predict this kind of implicatures. Grice’s theory is founded on rationality, in other words human beings are rational creatures. The way in which we as human beings use language does not produce a series of disconnected remarks. These talk exchanges are indeed cooperative efforts and each participant in the conversation recognise a common purpose. We recognise that in a conversational exchange there is always cooperation and even if the case we do not see it superficially, we try to find it. Then Grice introduces the notion of Cooperative principle → make your 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. To be more precise this principle guides our rational use of language and it states that we must speak only when it is our turn and we cannot enter in a conversation and talk about whatever we want. This principle contains four maxims (or four cognitive levels, and they had been already introduced by Kant):

Maxim of Quantity: this maxim wants:

a) Make your contribution as informative as required b) Do not make your contribution more informative than is required For example: Mother: What did you have for lunch at school today? The daughter could reply in three ways:  Baked beans on a toast → it is the most rational answer  Food → too much generic  The girl gives an over informative answer, because she describes in every detail all the aspects of her lunch.

Maxim of Quality: try to make you contribution on that is true, so we must remember: a) Do not say what you believe to be false b) Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence. For example: A: I’ll ring you tomorrow afternoon, then B: As far as I know, I shall be there. → he/she seems to be sincere With B’s answer, A is authorised to believe that B is sincere.
Maxim of Relevance → be relevant For example: A: I think Mary is a nice girl B: Oh, I agree, and I think she is clever too. → this example is a rational conversation and B’s answer is a relevant replay.
Maxim of Manner: we must be perspicuous, in other words you must be clear, that is why we must: a) Avoid obscurity of expressions b) Avoid ambiguity c) Be brief d) Be orderly or ordinate For example: John first went in a McDonald’s and then he bought two hamburgers. The maxims are not rule, in fact, Grice considers them more like guidelines. If we infringe them, it does not result in error as in the case of infraction of a grammatical rule. Indeed, they can be infringed in various ways and human beings continuously do it. These infractions are: a) Violation of a maxim: when we respect a maxim, instead of another. b) Out put: from the maxim and the cooperative principle (the cooperative principle is always there) an example of out put is the silence. For example: A: What time is it? B: “silence” → this example from a social point of view apparently represents a lack of the cooperative principle, while from a cognitive point of view though, it is difficult to prove that the cooperative principle is not in place, because we interpret all the time what is said but also the silence. When a person does not answer, the other interlocutor draws inferences and tries to understand the reason why he was not given an answer. This is because we always interpret, since we try to make sense of the world surrounding ourselves. Therefore, even silence is important. c) Clash: happens between to maxims when I want to be sincere in order to be rational. d) Flout of maxim. The maxims are expected to be present in every culture and society because they are rationally based. However, this does not entail that there is no difference. Culture are indeed different according to the relative importance that each of them allot to every maxim (for instance a strict observance of the quality maxim can be considered rude in some culture).

 Flouting quality: Greenpeace’s example: The earth is flat, and the protection of the environment is unnecessary. +> considering the protection of the environment unnecessary is anachronistic and ridiculous as holding the flat earth view today. From this example it is clearly something that is not true and ridiculous as saying that the protection of the environment is unnecessary. The flouting quality also produce: Irony: [John talking about someone who hurt him] John: he is a fine friend → +> he is not a friend at all Metaphor: You are the cream in my coffee → +> you are my pride and my joy → what we understand is that human being is not a cream in a coffee. Meiosis: it is called in this way because when we express it, we are somehow weakening what we are saying. So, what we say is an awakened version of what really happen. For example: He was a little intoxicated → +> he lost in it/ he went ballistic. Given context in which a man has broken up all the furniture of his house. The inference the someone could draw is not that he was a little intoxicated, but he completely lost his mind, so the implicature is stronger than what is said. Hyperbole: A: Are you hungry? B: I could eat a horse → this is an exaggeration +> I am very hungry → here the implicature is weaker than it is said.  Flouting relation/relevance: when we are not relevant, for example: A: Susan can be such a cow sometimes! B: oh, what a lovely day is today! +> one should not speak ill of people behind their back → what emerges here is that B (he/she is not coherent with his/her answer) soes not seem to be relevant, so A concludes that B wanted to conveys something else.  Flouting manner: here the context is important For example: a conversation between A and B A: I hear that you went to the Opera last night. How was the lead singer? B: The singer produced a series of sounds … → B’s answer is exceptionally good obscure/ambiguous. +> the singer was not particularly good Criteria to recognise the conversational implicature:

Indeterminacy: refers to the probabilistic nature of the inference, in the sense that there is no certainty in its accuracy. In other words, we do not know if what we assumed was what the interlocutor really meant.
Defeasibility/cancellability: they can be explicit cancelled by adding more information. The interlocutor authorises one to draw certain implicatures and then to cancel them by adding more information to what he/she says. For example: A: Did the Minister attend the meeting (1st^ information) and the sign the agreement (2nd information)?

B (I): The Minister attended the meeting → flouting the maxim of quantity and B only mentioned the meeting. +> the agreement was not signed. But also, B (II): The Minister attended the meeting; a statement will be issued later regarding the agreement. +> the agreement was not signed → this implicature is cancelled because of the more information added by B.

Context dependent: is the kind of implicature in which you are authorised to draw and depends on the context, this is the reason why is 100% pragmatic. For example: A: Coffee? B: it would keep me awake all night? → I would not sleep +> No, thanks → depends on the context.
Non-detachability: given the same context the implicature remains the same, even if the means used in the context can be substitute with the terms of synonymic expressions or paraphrases. For example: A: Have you cleaned the table and washed? B(I): I have cleaned the table (not informative at 100%) +> I have not washed the dishes. But if you change the synonyms of the implicature, it remains the same: B(II): I have taken all the things off the table. +>I have not washed the dishes.
Calculability: implicatures are therefore characterised by calculability, in fact, there are some steps to follow. This calculation was elaborated by Grice in order to understand implicature, but he did it in a philosophical explanation. The relevance theory → states that the only maxim necessary to know is the maxim of relevance, instead all the maxims are important to understand what is going on in conversations or in texts. Important: lying → the cooperative principle is always there. But we do not draw any inference, it involves is saying something, one believes to be false. They are violations of the first maxim of quality and this violation is covert, in he case of lies, there is a deception; indeed, they are effective if and only if the hearer is unaware of them and does not think the speaker is lying. The hearer presupposed that the interlocutor is respecting the cooperative principle. An example of lie from the handout of the mock question: A: Would you like to hear my rendition of “Feeling”? B: Yes, of course. I’d love to. [it is the last thing that you want to hear] +> B is lying → the maxim violated is quality.

Grice's implicature, Appunti di Linguistica Inglese

Documenti correlati

Anteprima parziale del testo

Scarica Grice's implicature e più Appunti in PDF di Linguistica Inglese solo su Docsity!