Sei sulla pagina 1di 9

CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURE

A Chapter Report

I. INTRODUCTION
Using a language is not only using words to encode ones 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 Grices 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).
This will be more complicated and more difficult to be understood if, as it often happens in practices,
understanding the implicature depends on the context of utterance.

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?"

: "It's Dannys 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 Bs lovely little son, and that B always spends the time to
celebrate his sons 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 As 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 Grices 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


Grice distinguished two different sort of implicature: conventional and conversational implicature. They
have in common the property that they both convey an additional level of meaning beyond the semantic
meaning of word uttered. They differ in that in the case of conventional implicature, the same implicature
is always conveyed, regardless of context, where as in the context of utterance.

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 doesnt 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


industry: I get

breakdowns

And I got one that I sent back

perceptions of women in the film

from the studios of the scripts that theyre

developing.

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 Grices lectures. But Grice didnt 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?
B: Jokos been going to the market everyday.
What is said: Jokos been going to the market everyday.

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 speakers
flouting of a conversational maxim.
Example:
A: Lets 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 Muslims 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 : Ive been looking for medicine for my mother.
B : Oh; theres a pharmacy just around the corner.

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 Bs 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 As remark was not welcome to B) from Bs 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 Bs
statement. This is due to As belief that B is observing the conversational maxim of relation or relevance
in the specific context of As 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."
It may also cause an implicature derived from the addressees belief that the speaker is flouting the
maxim quality.

In the following exchange, the obvious falsehood of Bs utterance implicates that B is saying that A is
wildly incorrect:
* A: Tehrans in Turkey, isnt it, teacher?
B: And Londons 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.Kesumos 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:
John

: Wheres the fried chicken?

Mary

: Look! The cat looks happy.

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 Grices 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:

Speaker A is a newly widowed who finds living with her interfering mother a strain.

* A: I wish you wouldnt creep up on me, Mother.

B: I dont 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: its my birthday today.
B: Manny happy returns. How old are you?
C: Im five.
It is a straightforward request for information.
* A: How old are you?
B: Im eighteen, Father.
A: I know how old you are, you fool.
It is implying that the sons 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 ambulance-man who goes to help him. The ambulanceman says Great, thats really great! Thats 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:
* A: Lets have a drink.
B: Its not one oclock yet.
An hour or so later
A: Lets have a gin and tonic its after one oclock.
B: I dont say that you couldnt drink before.
The implicature can be cancelled, without making complete nonsense of the first contribution.

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.
Grices 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, Grices 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/
Yule, George. (1996). Pragmatics. England: Oxford University Press.

Potrebbero piacerti anche