Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Pragmatics 4
The difference between what somebody says and what he implies or
Outline: A. Recap: Indirect SA suggests.
B. H.P. Grice (1975) "Logic and Conversation" what somebody says = the conventional/explicit meaning
Implicatures of the words uttered, derivable from the sense of the
The cooperative principle & conversational words and the way syntax combines them (referring to an
maxims entity and predicating something of it).
C. Hedges
D. Non-observance of the maxims what is implied = depends on the Speaker's intentions,
the evaluation of the context, etc.
A. Introduction
(2) A: How is John doing?
Indirectness in language - speakers say one thing and mean B: Well he likes his new colleagues and he hasn't been to prison yet.
that thing but also something else
what A says:............................................................................
Indirect SA - Speech acts in which one SA is performed through another what is implied: .................................................................
(1) A: I am very thirsty. [looking expectantly at the hearer] (3) A: What is your hamburger like?
Direct SA: ..... B: A hamburger is a hamburger.
Indirect SA: ....
The theory of Indirect Speech Acts developed by Searle tells us how the what B says:............................................................................
Speaker can formulate SA indirectly (by what mechanisms) what is implied: .................................................................
Requests: The implicit meaning in (2) and (3) are called by Grice implicatures
- stating / questioning whether the felicity conditions obtain
- asking whether the Hearer wants the Speaker to perform an action Definition of implicature: Noveck (2001): The implicature is an 'inference
- suggesting it is reasonable for the H to perform an act that consists in attributing to a speaker an implicit meaning that goes
B. H.P. Grice (1975) "Logic and Conversation" beyond the explicit meaning of an utterance.'
Grice's theory of conversation explains the way in which the Hearer is able
to get to the implicit meaning suggested by the Speaker. => implicatures are a special type of inferences.
Inference = deduction based on evidence
Notions introduced by Grice: Implicatures, the cooperative principle of
conversation & conversational maxims (3') a. John is very pale and groans. His co-workers infer that he is
feeling sick.
B. Implicatures
1
2
b. Mary's husband is never late for dinner. He is late today so Mary can Speakers expect a certain amount of information to be given by their
infer that something urgent occurred at work. interlocutors in conversation. => speakers are supposed to be cooperative
in conversation
C. The cooperative principle
2
3
3. Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity). simply by virtue of being a rational agent. It also has to be noticed that even
4. Be orderly. a conscious breach of the maxims does not signal that they are not active: in
order to violate the maxim of quantity, for example, the speaker must hold
These maxims are assumptions we have when we engage in conversations. an assumption that this maxim should indeed be conformed to.' (Jaszczolt
2006).
We assume people obey these maxims. We assume that:
- people are going to provide an appropriate amount of information Q: Are any maxims more important in conversation than others?
- they are telling the truth
- they are being relevant D. Hedges
- they are being clear
Certain linguistic expressions invoke the maxims, and prove that they are
Observing the maxims S says exactly what s/he means, neither more nor operative in conversation = hedges
less, there is no distinction btw. what is said and what is implied (no
inferential work for H) Can you identify the hedges in the examples below?
(5') A: Where are the car keys?
B: Theyre on the table in the hall. a) Hedges related to the maxim of quantity
The purpose of the talk exchange = maximally effective exchange of (6) To cut a long story short, I ran away.
information.
b) Hedges related to the maxim of quality
talking = a special variety of purposive, rational behaviour, similar to
transactional exchanges in some way. (7) As far as I know, they're married.
Q: Is Grice being prescriptive? Is he saying that the principle of cooperation c) Hedges related to the maxim of relation
and the maxims should always be complied with?
(8) I don't know if this is important, but some of the files are missing.
'...although Grices maxims are formulated as if they were prescriptive laws,
their raison dtre is to spell out the principles that the human mind
naturally follows rather than some social or moral laws that people can d) Hedges related to the maxim of manner
choose to obey. Although it is possible to consciously disobey the maxims
or even overtly opt out of them, the standard presumption in every (9) This may be a bit confused, but I remember being in a car.
conversation is that they do apply. Unless the addressee has clear evidence
of such opting out, he/she assumes that the speaker obeys the maxims Q: What about the hedges in (10)?
3
4
(10) a. I'm not sure this is right, but I heard it was a secret More often than not, people fail to observe the maxims Several ways of
ceremony in Greece. failing to observe a maxim, according to Grice:
b. I won't bore you with the details, but it was a great
1. Violating
experience. 2. Opting out
c. I'm not sure this makes sense, but the car had no lights. 3. Coping with a clash
d. I may be mistaken, but I thought I saw a wedding ring on 4. Flouting => generates implicatures
her finger.
e. This may sound like a dumb question, but whose hand 1. Violating the maxim = "quietly and unostentatiously" => "liable to
writing is this? mislead'
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Observing the CP and the maxims is reasonable (rational) behavior, (10) Husband: Is there another man?
because it is beneficial to both addresser and addressee. Wife: No there isn't another man [there was in fact a woman].
-maxim of quantity is broken
When the maxims are disregarded, this may lead to the additional inferences
2. Opting out = the speaker makes it clear that he does not want to
called implicatures by Grice (to distinguish them from implications in
cooperate or observe the maxim.
formal logic).
3. Clashes - the speaker has to disobey one of the maxims in order to satisfy
another maxim
4. Flouting a maxim
Violations also occur in day-to-day conversation, not only in
institutionalized conversation.
4
5
5
6
v) The most obviously related proposition is that, like grease spots, tautologies:
her ex is extremely disgusting. (17) a. Women are women!
Implicature:.............................................................................................
Understatement
b. War is war!
(15') a. Our friend was a little intoxicated when he broke all the Implicature:.............................................................................................
furniture.
Implicature:............................................................................................. Quantity II b) a S gives more information that required
b. The war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's (18) A: Would you like some whiskey?
advantage. [the Japanese Emperor informing the Japanese people that Japan B: Whiskey and wine are my favourites.
would surrender at the end of the second world war] Implicature:.............................................................................................
Implicature:............................................................................................. 4.3. Flouts exploiting the Relation Maxim: the response is obviously
irrelevant to the topic (abrupt change of topic, overt failure to address
Hyperbole interlocutors goal in asking a Q)
(15'') The bag weighed a ton! (19) Father to daughter at family dinner: Any news about the SAT
Implicature:............................................................................................. results?
Daughter : Ice-cream anyone?
Quality II Implicature:.............................................................................................
(15''') A: Some people simply cant help hitting the shops every other day (20) Suspicious wife: Why would you smell of Chanel 5?
B: My sisters probably buying something right now! Husband: Im going to turn in. Ive been swamped at the office
[A has no evidence for this single event, the hearer has to assume that the these days.
speaker is getting at some related proposition] Implicature:.............................................................................................
Implicature:............................................................................................. 4.4. Flouts exploiting the Manner Maxim = ambiguity, obscurity, absence
of clarity and brevity - deliberate, that the speaker intends the hearer to
4.2. Flouts exploiting the Quantity Maxims: recognize
Quantity I a) a S gives less information that required. Ambiguity - more than one interpretation is possible - desired effect
(16) Patient: Is he a good man? e.g. in poetry
Wilson: He's a good doctor. (House MD - pilot episode)
Implicature:............................................................................................. (22) a. I sought to tell my love,
6
7