COOPERATIVE PRINCIPLE: Conversational Implicature

Ways when the speaker does not observe a maxim: flouting a maxim (deliberate implicit expression, the hearer has to decode the implied meaning); Violating a maxim (saying something which is true, hiding the implied meaning); Opting out a maxim (the speaker is not willing to cooperate) Suspending a maxim (the speaker does not cooperate; the hearer does not expect him to).

Conversational Implicature If one of the conversational maxims is violated by some utterance, and yet we are still assuming that that person is cooperating with us in communication, we can take that violation as a sign that something is being said indirectly. This is called exploiting or flouting a maxim (deliberately violating it). Implicature  what is implied. Conversational implicature  a meaning or message that is implicated in a conversation. When people oversay (or say more of) or undersay (say less of) something, they produce certain extra meaning or meanings beyond the literal meaning of words or sentences. This extra meaning is conversationally dependent, hence conversation implicature.

Conversational Implicature A : Are you going to John’s party? B : I have heard Mary is going. We may say that speaker B is implying something: he is meaning that Mary is a factor there to affect his decision of whether attending John’s party or not. If speaker A knows well B’s relationship with Mary and perhaps Mary with John, he certainly can conclude if speaker B will go or not. Therefore an implicature may also be seen as indirect way of expressing oneself.

Flouting the Maxim of Quantity In a court of law where someone may be asked to describe something in such detail, he would be flouting the maxim of quantity. Judge : What did you do on Friday? Witness : I woke up at seven forty. I made some toast and a cup of a tea. I listened to the news. And I left for work about eight thirty. Here, in order to be truthful, the speaker can no longer be so brief thus violating the maxim of quantity.

Flouting the Maxim of Quality On other occasions, speakers flout the maxim of quality but intend their hearer to be aware of this. For example: If you say ‘ My phone never stops ringing ‘ you know the person you are speaking to will know this is not literally true but that you intend what you say as a figure of speech, rather than a lie. Equally if you say ‘ She’s got nerves of steel ‘ you assume your hearer will not think this is literally true. The same is the case with sarcasm. So if I say ‘ I love it when you forget to tell me you won’t be in ‘ you know this is not literally true.

Flouting Maxims of Manner and Relation Someone might flout the maxim of manner by being purposely long-winded or complex in what he says. For example: Q : If (Monica Lewinsky) told someone that she had a sexual affair with you beginning in November of 1995, would that be a lie? A : It’s certainly not the truth. It would not be the truth. Someone might flout the maxim of relation by responding indirectly. For example : A : What time is it now? B : I haven’t heard the bell ringing.

Implicature Calculation To calculate an implicature, Grice argues hearers draw on: The conventional meanings of the words The cooperative principle and its maxims The linguistic and non-linguistic context of the utterance Items if background knowledge The fact that all of the above are available to both participants and they both assume this to be the case

Generalized Implicature Conversation Implicature Generalized Implicature Particularized Implicature Generalized or conventional conversation implicature It refers to an implicature whose meaning or meanings are inferable without anchoring it in specific contexts. In the utterance ‘ John went into a house and found a tortoise in front of a door ‘, may infer that John has gone into a house, which is not his. At least this is the implied meaning of the “a + noun” phrase.

Particularized Implicature Particularized conversation implicature It refers to an implicature which is deductible only in specific contexts. A : Where is the fish? B : The cat looks very happy. Why does speaker B say things like this when speaker A asks him the question? What is the relationship between fish and cat? We all know that cats eat fish, and when a cat has fish, it feels satisfied. Speaker B says things this because he assumes that it is commonsensical that all cats eat fish and all cats look happy after eating fish, and that he understands that speaker A has this common sense.

Conventional Implicature Conversation Implicature Conventional Implicature Scalar Implicature Conventional implicature Conventional implicature is not so much based on the cooperative principle nor dependent on a particular context for its interpretation. This implicature is, rather, associated with particular words that convey certain meanings when they are used. For examples: but to express contrast even to suggest something is contrary to expectation yet to suggest something will be different at a later time.

Scalar Implicature Scalar implicature Scalar implicature is derived when a person uses a word from a set of words that express some kind of scale of values. Examples of this are words such as all, most, many, some, and few. So if you say ‘ I’m doing an MA and I’ve completed some of the required subjects ‘. I create the implicature ‘ not all ‘. That is, I have cancelled out most, many, and all in the particular scale of values. We might also correct a scalar implicature while we are talking to cancel out a particular implicature as in ‘ I’ve completed some of the required subjects. Actually, I’ve completed all of them ’. Implicatures, therefore, are calculated by hearers through the process of inference.