8.1 Conversational and conventional implicatures
2 min read•july 19, 2024
Conversational and conventional implicatures are key concepts in pragmatics. They help us understand how speakers convey meaning beyond literal words. Conversational implicatures arise from context and intentions, while conventional ones are tied to specific words or structures.
These implicatures differ in , detachability, and . Conversational ones can be denied without contradiction and inferred from context. Conventional implicatures are constant across contexts and linked to particular expressions. Both types reveal hidden layers of communication.
Conversational and Conventional Implicatures
Conversational vs conventional implicatures
Top images from around the web for Conversational vs conventional implicatures
Conversational Implicature of Peanuts Comic Strip Based on Grice’s Maxim Theory | Humaniora View original
Is this image relevant?
Frontiers | Context in Generalized Conversational Implicatures: The Case of Some | Psychology View original
Is this image relevant?
Frontiers | Children’s and Adults’ Sensitivity to Gricean Maxims and to the Maximize ... View original
Is this image relevant?
Conversational Implicature of Peanuts Comic Strip Based on Grice’s Maxim Theory | Humaniora View original
Is this image relevant?
Frontiers | Context in Generalized Conversational Implicatures: The Case of Some | Psychology View original
Is this image relevant?
1 of 3
Top images from around the web for Conversational vs conventional implicatures
Conversational Implicature of Peanuts Comic Strip Based on Grice’s Maxim Theory | Humaniora View original
Is this image relevant?
Frontiers | Context in Generalized Conversational Implicatures: The Case of Some | Psychology View original
Is this image relevant?
Frontiers | Children’s and Adults’ Sensitivity to Gricean Maxims and to the Maximize ... View original
Is this image relevant?
Conversational Implicature of Peanuts Comic Strip Based on Grice’s Maxim Theory | Humaniora View original
Is this image relevant?
Frontiers | Context in Generalized Conversational Implicatures: The Case of Some | Psychology View original
Is this image relevant?
1 of 3
- Conversational implicatures stem from the cooperative principle and maxims of conversation (), depend on the context and the speaker's intentions, can be cancelled or denied without contradiction, and are not tied to specific words or phrases
- Conventional implicatures are tied to specific lexical items (words) or grammatical constructions, remain constant regardless of context, cannot be cancelled without contradiction, and contribute to the overall meaning of the utterance
Features of conversational implicatures
- Cancellability enables conversational implicatures to be explicitly denied or cancelled without contradiction ("Some of the students passed the exam, in fact, all of them did")
- means conversational implicatures are not tied to specific words or phrases and the same implicature can be conveyed using different expressions with the same meaning ("John has three children" and "John has a trio of offspring" carry the same implicature of exactly three children)
- Calculability allows conversational implicatures to be worked out based on the cooperative principle and maxims, with hearers inferring the intended meaning based on the context and the speaker's adherence to or flouting of the maxims (relevance, quality, quantity, manner)
Lexical aspects of conventional implicatures
- Specific lexical items like words or phrases consistently carry conventional implicatures ("but" implies a contrast between two propositions, "even" implies something is surprising or unexpected)
- Grammatical constructions such as certain syntactic structures can also trigger conventional implicatures ("John managed to solve the problem" implies it was difficult for John to solve the problem)
- Conventional implicatures form part of the conventional meaning of these lexical items or constructions, are not derived from the cooperative principle or maxims, and remain constant across different contexts
Implicature analysis in context
- example:
- Context: A asks B, "Are you going to the party tonight?" B responds, "I have to study for an exam."
- Implicature: B is not going to the party tonight (flouting the maxim of relevance)
- Cancellability: B could add, "But I'll still go to the party for a little while" without contradiction
- example:
- Sentence: "Even John could solve the problem"
- Implicature: It was unexpected or surprising that John could solve the problem (triggered by "even")
- Non-cancellability: One cannot say, "Even John could solve the problem, and it was not surprising at all" without contradiction
- Analyzing implicatures in context helps understand the speaker's intentions and the additional meaning conveyed beyond the literal meaning of the words (pragmatic meaning)
Key Terms to Review (18)
Calculability: Calculability refers to the ability to derive conversational implicatures through logical reasoning based on the context and the information conveyed in a conversation. It connects the speaker's intentions with the listener's interpretations, often relying on shared knowledge and conversational norms. This concept helps to understand how meaning can be inferred beyond the literal content of utterances.
Cancellability: Cancellability refers to the ability to withdraw an implicature from a conversation without altering the literal meaning of the utterance. It plays a crucial role in distinguishing between conversational and conventional implicatures, as conversational implicatures can often be canceled, while conventional implicatures cannot. Understanding cancellability helps clarify how meaning can shift depending on context and speaker intent.
Contextual Meaning: Contextual meaning refers to the interpretation of a word, phrase, or sentence that is influenced by the surrounding context in which it is used. It emphasizes how meaning can shift based on situational factors, speaker intentions, and the relationship between participants in a conversation.
Conventional implicature: Conventional implicature refers to the additional meaning that is conveyed by certain words or phrases in a sentence, independent of the context in which they are used. It differs from conversational implicature, as it relies on the conventional meanings associated with specific expressions rather than the cooperative principles of conversation. This type of implicature is essential for understanding how language can carry layered meanings and how those meanings interact with aspects like maxims and explicature.
Conversational implicature: Conversational implicature refers to the information that is suggested or implied in a conversation without being explicitly stated. This concept highlights how meaning can go beyond the literal interpretation of words, depending on context and shared knowledge between speakers, which makes it essential for understanding communication nuances.
Direct vs. Indirect Implicature: Direct implicature refers to the information that is explicitly conveyed by a speaker's utterance, while indirect implicature involves meaning that is suggested or inferred rather than stated outright. Understanding the distinction between these two types of implicature is crucial for grasping how communication works, as it highlights the difference between what is said and what is meant.
Grice's Maxims: Grice's Maxims are a set of conversational principles proposed by philosopher H.P. Grice, aimed at explaining how people communicate effectively and understand each other in conversation. These maxims, which include Quantity, Quality, Relation, and Manner, help to illuminate how conversational implicatures arise and how speakers often convey meaning beyond the literal interpretation of their words.
H.P. Grice: H.P. Grice was a British philosopher best known for his work in the field of language and communication, particularly for introducing the Cooperative Principle and the associated maxims that govern effective conversational exchange. His theories bridge semantics and pragmatics, emphasizing how speakers often imply meaning beyond the literal words they use, which connects to broader discussions about how meaning is constructed in social interactions.
Implicature Cancellation: Implicature cancellation refers to the ability to nullify or contradict a conversational implicature, allowing speakers to clarify their intentions and prevent misunderstandings. This phenomenon plays a significant role in communication, as it highlights how context and the cooperative principle influence meaning. When implicatures are canceled, the speaker ensures that the listener does not infer unintended meanings based on what was said.
Lexical vs. Grammatical Implicature: Lexical implicature refers to the additional meaning that arises from the use of specific words, while grammatical implicature is derived from the structure and grammatical rules of a sentence. Both types of implicature contribute to how meaning is conveyed in conversation, highlighting the subtle distinctions in what is communicated beyond the literal interpretation of words and phrases.
Non-detachability: Non-detachability refers to the principle that certain implicatures, particularly conversational implicatures, cannot be separated from the utterance they are associated with. This concept suggests that the meaning conveyed through implicature is inherently tied to the specific context of the statement, which means that if the statement is altered or detached from its original context, the implicature may be lost or misinterpreted.
Partitive Implicature: Partitive implicature refers to a type of conversational implicature that arises when a speaker implies that the subset mentioned is part of a larger whole. It often occurs in statements where the speaker refers to only some members of a group, suggesting that more exist without explicitly stating it. This implicature is important for understanding how context and implied meanings shape communication.
Politeness Theory: Politeness theory is a framework that explains how individuals manage social interactions in a way that maintains face, or the social image they present to others. It emphasizes the strategies people use to mitigate potential threats to face during conversations, recognizing the balance between being direct and being polite. This theory is crucial for understanding the subtleties of communication, especially when considering how implicatures arise from both conversational and conventional contexts, as well as how speech acts can be performed directly or indirectly while adhering to social norms.
Presupposition: Presupposition refers to the implicit assumptions or background knowledge that must be accepted as true for a statement to make sense or be meaningful in a given context. This concept bridges the gap between semantics and pragmatics by illustrating how meaning can depend on context and shared knowledge, highlighting the interaction of language with social norms and expectations.
Scalar implicature: Scalar implicature is a type of conversational implicature that arises when a speaker uses a term from a scale, implying more than what is explicitly stated by suggesting that the alternative options are not true. This often relies on the Gricean maxims of quantity and relevance, allowing speakers to convey additional meanings based on the context in which they communicate. By choosing a less informative term, speakers can lead listeners to infer that other options on the scale are not applicable.
Speaker meaning: Speaker meaning refers to the specific intent or communicative purpose behind what a speaker conveys in a given context, which may differ from the literal meaning of their words. Understanding speaker meaning involves grasping how context influences the interpretation of language, highlighting nuances such as implied meanings and the intentions behind statements.
Speech Act Theory: Speech act theory is the study of how people use language to perform various actions rather than merely convey information. It connects to the broader understanding of meaning and context in communication, highlighting that utterances can not only represent states of affairs but also execute actions like promising, commanding, or questioning.
Stephen C. Levinson: Stephen C. Levinson is a prominent linguist known for his contributions to the fields of semantics and pragmatics, particularly in understanding implicature. His work has significantly shaped our comprehension of how conversational and conventional implicatures function in communication, emphasizing the role of context in interpreting meaning.