Week #7: Conversational Implicature and Explicature A Follow-up from Previous Presentation and Discussion by Students

The Remnants from the Discussion: The distinctions between Semantics and Pragmatics Studies Implicatures: These are the parts of the meanings of utterances which, although intended, are not strictly part of ‘what is said’ in the act of utterance, nor do they follow logically from what is said. Two types of Implicatures: Conventional and Conversational ▫Conventional Implicatures: These are the components of the meanings of utterances which are not propositional in nature, but which have a stable association with particular linguistic expression and which therefore cannot be cancelled without anomaly. E.g. Salim hasn’t registered yet vs Salim hasn’t registered  Propositionally identical, but the presence of yet in the former implicates that Salim is still expected to arrive.

▫Conversational Five main features:  They are not entailments, that is they do not follow logically from what is said. E.g. we can infer from Agus has a cousin that ‘at least one of Agus’ parents is not an only child’. On the other hand, in the example given under implicature X: Can I speak to Yani? Z: Yani’s in the shower, the inference from Z’s answer, that Yani is not able to take a telephone call, is not an entailment.  They are cancellable (or defeasable), that is they are relatively weak inferences and can be denied by the speaker without contradiction. E.g., Q’s reply in the following would normally be taken to mean ‘I don’t intend to tell you’’: P: How old are you? Q: That’s none of your business. If Q added But I’ll tell you, anyway, this would cancel the inference, but Q would not be guilty of self-contradiction.  Generalised versus Particularised Implicatures

 They are context sensitive, in that the same proposition expressed in a different context can give rise to different implicature: A: I think I’ll take a shower B: Yani’s in the shower.  ‘You can’t take a shower just yet’ NOT ‘Yani can’t take a phone call’  They are non-detachable, that is, in a particular context the same proposition expressed in different words will give rise to the same implicature. In other words, the implicature is not tied to a particular form of words (cf. Conventional Implicature). For instance, if Q’s answer above That doesn’t concern you, the implicature would be the same.  They are calculable, that is to say they can be worked out by using general principles rather than requiring specific knowledge, such as a private arrangement between A and B that if one says X will mean Y.

Generalised vs Particularised Cooperative Principles ▫Maxim of Quality ▫Maxim of Quantity ▫Maxim of Relation ▫Maxim of Manner