14.2 Conversational implicature and Grice's maxims

Understanding Conversational Implicature

Conversational implicature is about the meaning behind what someone actually says. When your friend asks "Did you like my presentation?" and you respond with "The slides were colorful," you haven't answered the question directly, but your friend probably gets the message. This gap between what's literally said and what's actually meant is conversational implicature, and it shows up constantly in everyday communication.

Understanding implicature matters for grammar and communication because it reveals that meaning doesn't come from words alone. It depends on context, shared knowledge between speakers, and the listener's ability to make inferences. Implicature is also what makes things like politeness, humor, and indirect requests possible.

Grice's Cooperative Principle

The philosopher Paul Grice proposed that conversations work because speakers generally cooperate with each other. This is the Cooperative Principle: the idea that people in a conversation typically aim to be helpful and make sense. Grice broke this principle down into four maxims, which are guidelines speakers are expected to follow.

• Quantity: Give enough information, but not too much. If someone asks where you live, saying "Earth" is too little; reciting your full address, zip code, and GPS coordinates is too much.
• Quality: Be truthful. Don't say things you believe are false or things you lack evidence for. Court testimony is a clear example where this maxim is taken very seriously.
• Relation (sometimes called Relevance): Stay on topic. Your contributions should be relevant to the current conversation. If someone asks what time it is, they don't want to hear about your lunch plans.
• Manner: Be clear and orderly. Avoid ambiguity, unnecessary complexity, and disorganization. Think of how a good set of instructions is written: step by step, no confusing language.

Applying Grice's Maxims

Flouting vs. Violating Grice's Maxims

There's an important distinction between flouting and violating a maxim.

Flouting means you openly and obviously break a maxim, and your listener is meant to notice. The whole point is that the listener recognizes the break and figures out the implied meaning. Flouting creates implicature.

• Quantity: "I've told you a million times." Obviously an exaggeration, used to emphasize frustration.
• Quality: "Great weather we're having," said during a thunderstorm. This is sarcasm, and the listener knows you mean the opposite.
• Relation: Someone asks about your exam grade and you say, "How about those sports teams?" The abrupt topic change implies you don't want to talk about it.
• Manner: "Life is a rollercoaster." Using a metaphor instead of plain language to make a point more vivid.

Violating means you quietly break a maxim, and the listener isn't meant to notice. This typically results in deception or miscommunication.

• Quantity: Leaving out key details in a police report to hide something.
• Quality: False advertising that makes misleading claims about a product.
• Relation: A politician giving irrelevant answers to dodge a tough question.
• Manner: Using dense legal jargon to confuse someone who isn't a lawyer.

When you need to analyze an implicature, follow these steps:

1. Identify which maxim(s) the speaker isn't following.
2. Determine whether the break is open (flouting) or hidden (violating).
3. Consider the context and shared knowledge between speakers to figure out the intended meaning.

Scalar Implicature and the Quantity Maxim

Scalar implicature is a specific type of implicature tied to the Quantity maxim. It happens when a speaker uses a weaker word on a scale, and the listener infers that the stronger word doesn't apply.

Common scales include:

• Quantifiers: some < many < most < all
• Modals: might < can < should < must

Here's how it works:

1. The speaker chooses a weaker term on the scale (e.g., "some").
2. The listener reasons: if the stronger term (e.g., "all") were true, the speaker would have said so.
3. The listener infers the stronger term doesn't apply.

For example, if a teacher says "Some students passed the exam," the implicature is that not all students passed. The teacher didn't say "not all" directly, but the choice of "some" implies it.

One way to tell that scalar implicature is different from logical entailment: you can cancel it without creating a contradiction. Saying "Some students passed the exam; in fact, all of them did" makes perfect sense. That cancellability is what makes it an implicature rather than a strict logical consequence.