Conventional and conversational implicature

How should we think about these discrepancies between logical and conventional meaning? Grice introduced the term implicature in order to talk about these different facets of what we might call (informally) the meaning of an expression. The introduction of this term is a way of generalizing over the different types of communicative intention which hearers attribute to speakers: the implicatures of an utterance are what it is necessary to believe the speaker is thinking, and intending the hearer to think, in order to account for what they are saying. Some of these implicatures, like the implicature of contrast carried by but, are conventional implicatures: they are part of the typical force of the word, whether or not they conform to its strict, truth-conditional (logically defined) meaning. Conventional implicatures are what we might otherwise refer to as the standard or typical meanings of linguistic expressions. Other implicatures are conversational. Conversational implicatures are those that arise in particular contexts of use, without forming part of the word’s characteristic or conventional force: the choice of the term ‘conversational’ is explained by the fact that Grice’s examples are mostly taken from imagined conversations.

Here are some examples of exchanges involving conversational implicatures; in all of them, the sentence meaning of B’s reply has no direct connection to A’s question: it is the implicated utterance meaning which contains the answer:

In (8) B implicates that he hasn’t read anything by Sebald, since he hasn’t even read the back of the cereal packet. In (9) B implicates that he does not know how to get to the rue du Pasteur Wagner, but that he is prepared to consult his map for directions. In (10) B implicates that since the answer to his question is ‘yes’, then the answer to A’s question is also ‘yes’ and that, as a result, he does indeed like anchovies. In all these cases, what is implied goes beyond the conventional meanings of the words used. The sentence I haven’t read the back of the cereal packet is not usually able to convey the information ‘I haven’t read Sebald’; in the context of this conversation, however, this is precisely the information which it does convey. In order to understand the use of language in real communicative exchanges, therefore, it is essential to develop some analysis of the ways in which implicatures like these arise.

اخر الاخبار

اخبار العتبة العباسية المقدسة

وفد العتبة العباسية المقدسة يزور قضاء آمرلي ويشيد بجهود أهاليه في دعم الشعبين الإيراني واللبناني

قسم التطوير يقيم دورة عن أخلاقيات المهنة ضمن البرنامج التأهيلي لمنتسبي العتبة العباسية المقدسة الجدد

شعبة التوجيه الديني النسوي تحيي ذكرى ولادة الإمام الرضا (عليه السلام)

في ذكرى ولادته.. قسم الشؤون الدينية يستذكر فضائل الإمام الرضا (عليه السلام)

المزيد

الآخبار الصحية

أطعمة مفيدة وأخرى ضارة للأسنان

دراسة تكشف تأثيرا خفيا لتناول المانجو والأفوكادو معاً

لكسر الإدمان وحماية الصحة.. بدائل طبيعية للسكر المعالج

قرار تاريخي في بريطانيا.. منع التدخين تماما لمواليد 2008

المزيد

الآخبار التكنلوجية

10 أخطاء يومية تدمّر سيارتك ومحركها بصمت: كيف تحافظ عليها؟

روسيا.. تطوير هيدروجيل حيوي لتحسين كفاءة الري وتنظيم رطوبة التربة

حل لغز البرق البركاني ؟

تطبيق ذكاء اصطناعي يتصفح الإنترنت ومنصات التواصل بدلا عنك !

المزيد

مواضيع ذات صلة

Infringing the maxims

Gricean maxims and the Cooperative Principle

Discrepancies between truth-functional meaning and utterance meaning

Interpersonal context: implicature

Interpersonal context: speakers intention and hearers inference

Consequences of the illocutionary perspective

Locutionary, illocutionary and perlocutionary acts

Interpersonal context: illocutionary force and speech acts

Problems with the dictionary encyclopaedia distinction

Knowledge of meaning and knowledge of facts

Dictionary and encyclopaedia

Deixis