CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURE A Chapter Report
I. INTRODUCTION
Using a language is not only using words to encode one’s meanings. If it is only putting one does thoughts into words, therefore, understand an utterance would be merely a matter of decoding the words uttered by the speaker. However, in practices of language use, there are so many various phenomena that such a simplistic view cannot take into account to formulate the phenomena.
One of the phenomena is about the inexplicit meanings conveyed through utterances in conversation. An utterance has its’ capacity to convey meaning which can not only be caught by decoding the utterance from its words, even should be related to its context. Fortunately, the phenomena can be quite fairly well understood by operating the Grice’s theory on conversational implicature. This notion of conversational implicature is one of the single most important ideas in pragmatics (Levinson, 1983).
In relevance to the important notion of implicature, this paper discusses a topic on Implicature. The discussion includes the understanding of conversational implicature, the theory underpins the concept of conversational implicature, the two different short of implicatures and the kinds of conversational implcaures, the types of conversational implicature, their maxims and characteristics, and the testing for implicatures.
II. DISCUSSION
II.1. Understanding the Concept of Conversational Implicature
The term Implicature is proposed by the linguistic philosopher Paul Grice (1967) to explain meanings which are implied, rather than explicitly stated (Thomas, 1995).
For example, in this following conversation, it would be a problem if the hearer does not understand the context well.
A : "Are you coming to the jazz festival show tonight?" B : "It's Danny’s birthday party."
In the example above, the utterance stated by B will seem to be a completely irrelevant remark or response if A didn't know that Danny is B’s lovely little son, and that B always spends the time to celebrate his son’s birthday parties.
Grice derived his ideas from what he called the Co-operative Principle. This is based on the notion that when people are talking to each other they will normally co-operate, and will also assume that the other person is doing the same.
For this reason, in the example above, A would assume that was being co-operative when B told about his son's party, and would infer that B was telling A that B wasn't coming to the jazz festival show, rather than that he was changing the subject without answering A’s question.
Based on the cooperative principle, Grice further postulated four Maxims of Conversation; The Maxim of Quantity, the maxim of Quality, the maxim of relation, and the maxim of manner.
II.2. The Grice’s Theory of Conversational Implicature
According to Grice, two very different elements combine to make up the total signification of an utterance. These elements are ordinarily called what is said and what is implicated.
Roughly speaking, an implicature is a case of saying one thing but conveying something else. So, for instance, an utterance of ‘It is a well done work’ may, in the right context, implicate that it is a horrible work, even though this is not what the sentence literally means.
Paul Grice, an American language philosopher, proposes that in ordinary conversation, speakers and hearers share a co-operative principle. He identifies as guidelines of four basic maxims of conversation or general principles underlying the efficient co-operative use of language, which jointly express a general co-operative principle (Yule, 1996). These principles are expressed as follows:
1. Make your contribution as informative as is required for the current purposes of the exchange 2. Do not make your contribution more informative than is required
II. 3. Two Different Short of Implicatures
II.3.1. Conventional Implicature
It is non-truth-conditional meaning associated with a particular linguistic expression like- but, even, therefore, yet, and for.
Example:
• She doesn’t have her own house, but far from poor. • Even Mbah Maridjan can not predict what will happen. • He is a Javanese man; he is, therefore, tender.
• The American actress, Kathleen Turner, was discussing perceptions of women in the film industry: ‘I get breakdowns from the studios of the scripts that they’re developing…. And I got one that I sent back furious to the studio that said “ The main character was thirty-seven but still attractive.” I circled the but in red ink and I sent it back and said, “Try again.” (Thomas, 1995).
Conventional implicatures are on the agenda throughout the paper that grew out of William James of which ‘logic of conversation’ (Potts, 2007). He was Grice’s lectures. But Grice didn’t devote his full energy to discuss about the conventional implicature.
The descriptive meanings are those that Grice identified with ‘what is said’, Potts calls it ‘at-issue’ with gesture at the fact that it is typically the content that speakers offer in primary the content that they are most expecting to have to negotiate with their interlocutor before it is accepted into the common ground.
II.3.2. Conversational implicature
Conversational implicature is inferred from the use of some utterance in context. It is one of the most important ideas in pragmatic. The salience of the concept in pragmatic based on Levinson (1983) is due to two important contribution of sources, they are;
1. implicature stands as a paradigmatic example of the nature and power of pragmatic explanations of linguistic phenomena,
2.
implicature provides some explicit account of how it is possible to mean more than what is actually ‘said’.Example:
* A: Can you tell me the time?
B: Well the adzan of Ashar has come.
What is said: ‘Well the adzan of Ashar has come’.
What is implicated: ‘The speaker believes that he knows the time the adzan of Ashar comes’.
* A: Has Joko got a job?
What is implicated: ‘The speaker believes that John may have been working in the market. II.3.2.1. Kind of conversational implicature
a. Flouting Implicature
A flouting implicature is a conversational implicature based on an addressee's assumption that the speaker is deliberately breaking (flouting) a conversational maxim while still being cooperative. It underlines the common view that there is some special class of utterances that are ‘figure of speech’ or exploitation of more straightforward ways of talking.
The term flouting implicature is a coinage. The concept of an implicature derived from the flouting of a maxim is an important one in the literature of conversational implicature, but there is not a specific name for it. It would commonly be more appropriate to speak of an implicature derived from the speaker’s flouting of a conversational maxim.
Example:
A: Let’s get the kids something.
B: Okay, but I veto I-C-E C-R-E-A-M-S. (Thomas, 1995)
B flouts the maxim of manner, thereby implying that an open discussion of the ice cream is not desired.
b Generalized Implicature
A generalized implicature is a conversational implicature that is inferable without reference to a special context. It arises without any particular context or special scenario being necessary.
Expressions with the form an X usually imply that X is not closely related to the speaker or subject, as in the following expression:
Example:
* Muslim walked into a house yesterday and saw a ghost.
This expression implies that the house is not Muslim’s house.
c. Standard Implicature
A standard implicature is a conversational implicature based on an addresses' assumption that the speaker is being cooperative by directly observing the conversational maxims.
Example:
A assumes that B is being cooperative, truthful, adequately informative, relevant, and clear. Thus, A can imply that B thinks A can get fuel at the garage.
d. Relevance Implicature
A relevance implicature is a conversational implicature based on an addressee's assumption as to whether a speaker is observing or flouting the conversational maxim of relation or relevance.
Example:
* A: Can you tell me the time?
B: Well, the adzan of Ashar has come.
A draws as to the time of day from B’s presumably relevant response is a relevance implicature.
* A: Mrs. X is an old bag.
B: The weather has been quite delightful this summer, hasn't it? (Levinson, 1983).
The implicature A draws (that A’s remark was not welcome to B) from B’s response is a relevance implicature
e. Particularized Implicature
A particularized implicature is a conversational implicature that is derivable only in a specific context. It requires such specific context.
Example:
* A: What has happened to the fried chicken? B: Look! The cat looks very happy.
In the above exchange, A will likely derive the implicature "the cat ate the fried chicken" from B’s statement. This is due to A’s belief that B is observing the conversational maxim of relation or relevance in the specific context of A’s question.
f. Quality Implicature
A quality implicature is a conversational implicature based on the addressee's assumption as to whether or not the speaker is observing or flouting the conversational maxim of quality
Example:
The sentence John has two Ph.D.'s implicates both of the following: "I believe John has two Masters."
"I have adequate evidence that John has two Masters."
In the following exchange, the obvious falsehood of B’s utterance implicates that B is saying that A is wildly incorrect:
* A: Tehran’s in Turkey, isn’t it, teacher? B: And London’s in Armenia, I suppose.
g. Quantity Implicature
A quantity implicature is a conversational implicature based on an addressee's assumption as to whether the speaker is observing or flouting the conversational maxim of quantity.
Example:
* Mr.Kesumo has 16 children.
The utterance Mr.Kesumo has 16 children commonly implicates ‘Mr.Kesumo has only 16 children’, even though it would be compatible with Mr.Kesumo’s having 20 children.
* War is war
The utterance War is war is itself uninformative; however, depending on its context, it will implicate items such as the following:
‘All war is undifferentiated (and thus uniformally unjust).’ ‘This is the way war is; stop complaining.’
II.4. Four Conversational Maxim
Based on these ideas, Grice further postulated four Maxims of Conversation; The Maxim of Quantity, the maxim of Quality, the maxim of relation, and the maxim of manner.
1) The Maxim of Quantity.
This maxim insists: Make your contribution as informative as is required at that point in the conversation, and no more so than is required.
For example, recently, someone said about the Indonesian local football team: "Arema are doing well this season".
The implicature of this utterance was that they were not top of the Indonesian league, and if they had been, the speaker would have said so.
2) The Maxim of Relation.
This maxim insists: Be relevant with the context. Example:
The implicature of the second utterance of the conversation is that the dinner has been eaten by the cat.
Here, we work out on the basis that what she says is relevant to what he has been asked.
3) The Maxim of Manner.
This maxim insists: Avoid obscurity and ambiguity; relate things in order. Example: "I got up and had breakfast"
The utterance carries the implicature that I did those things in that order.
4) The Maxim of Quality.
This maxim insists: Do not say that which you believe to be false, or for which you lack adequate evidence.
For example, if someone says to someone else travelling to India: "Don't drink the tap water", the implicature is that the speaker believes or has evidence that to do so would be harmful.
This can also work with questions. If you ask me, "What is conversational implicature?" I will assume that the question is sincere and that it carries the implicature that you don't know what it is, that you want to know, and that you think that I can tell you.
All of those maxims can, of course, be flouted. Deliberate lies, rhetorical questions, tautology and metaphors could be regarded as flouting one or more of them. If one or more of those maxims is flouted, therefore, there must be any implicature behind the utterance.
The Grice’s co-operative principle doesn't hold good in all conversations all the time; but it does explain how we generally manage to understand what people mean, even if it's not exactly what they say.
II. 5. Testing for Implicature
a. Non-detecthability and Non-conventionality
Some aspects of meaning are semantic and can be changed by relexicalization or reformulation (replacing one word or phrase with another closely related one).
Example:
B: I don’t creep, dear. I merely refrain making gratuitous noise. Creep= method of interrogation and bribe
b. Implicature change
Implicatures are the property of utterences, not of sentences and therefore the same words carry different implicatures on different occasions.
Example:
A young boy is talking to a colleague of his father. * A: it’s my birthday today.
B: Manny happy returns. How old are you? C: I’m five.
It is a straightforward request for information. * A: How old are you?
B: I’m eighteen, Father.
A: I know how old you are, you fool.
It is implying that the son’s behavior is not appropriate.
c. Calculability
The implicature conveyed in one particular context is not random. It is possible to spell out the steps a hearer goes through in order to calculate the intended implicature.
Example:
*Late on Christmas Eve 1993 an ambulance is sent to pick up a man who has collapsed in Newcastle city centre. The man is drunk and vomits all over the man who goes to help him. The ambulance-man says “Great, that’s really great! That’s made my Christmas!”
(i) The ambulanceman has expressed pleasure at having someone vomit over him.
(ii) There is no example in recorded history of people being delighted at having someone vomit over him. (iii) …….
d. Defeasibility
The notion of defeasibility means that an implicature can be canceled. This allows the speaker to imply something, and then deny that implicature.
Example:
III. CONCLUSION
This chapter has discussed some aspects deal with the implicature; the understanding of conversational implicature, the theory underpins the concept of conversational implicature, the two different short of implicatures and the kinds of conversational implcaures, the types of conversational implicature, their maxims and characteristics, and the testing for implicatures. Some examples have been used to give clear understanding around the implicature.
Grice’s theory of implicature is explaining how the addressee get from what is said to what is meant, from the level of express meaning to the level of implied meaning. However, Grice’s co-operative principle doesn't hold good in all conversations all the time; but it does explain how we generally manage to understand what people mean, even if it's not exactly what they say.
It is clear that implicature plays a major role in language change syntactically and semantically. This phenomenon is inline with one of the natures of a language, that is, dynamic.
IV. READINGS
Grundy, P. (2000). Doing Pragmatics 2nd edition. London: Edward Arnold.
Levinson, C.S. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Blakemore, Diane. (1992). Understanding Utterances: an Introduction to Pragmatics. Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers Inc.
Thomas, Jenny. (1995). Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. England: Longman
Potts, W., (2007). Into the Conventional-Implicature Dimension. http:/www.philosophy-compass.com/
