Implicatures in law

1. Implicaturesinlaw

2. Theinterpretationofanylegaldocumentrequiresanalysisof a relevantintentionwhichhasbeenincorporatedintothetext • Thenotionofintentionalityrelates to the problem ofimplicitnessandexplicitnessinlanguage • Grice’sconversationalimplicatures (1975) Intentioninlegaldocuments

3. This model helpsus to understand how communicationworksand how people use language to communicatesthotherthanwhatthewordsliterallymean • Thereis a differencebetweenthemeaning (thewordsspokenandthemessage (how they are understood) • Thisdifferencecanbeaccounted for intermsof ‘implicature’ • Legal examplesrely on the same communicativeconventions Grice’s Co-operative Principleandconversationalmaxims

4. YourfriendSallyistalkingabout a mutualacquaintance, Bernard • ‘I’mnotsaying Bernard is a liar, but don’tyouthinkit’sstrangethat he said he wasthere but no-one remembersseeinghim?’ • IsSallysaying Bernard is a liar? Activity

5. Imagineyouoverhearthefollowingconversation: • A: Are John andMarybacktogetheragain? • B: I saw a red Porcheparkedoutside 1128 Green Street lastnight…anditwasstilltherethismorning! Grice’sconversationalmaxims

6. In theexchangeabove, wemightassumethatB’sresponseisproviding A withtheinformationrequested. • Wecan make theconnectionbetweenthequestionandtheanswerbyrelying on presupposition: B presupposesthat A alsoknowsthefollowing: • John has a red Porche • Marylives at 1128 Green Street Grice’sconversationalmaximes

7. Considerthefollowingquestionandanswersequence: • Police officer: Didyou take partintherobbery? • Suspect: I wasn’tevennearthebank on John Street. Activity

8. Ifthetopic had alreadybeenintroducedbythe police, itis ‘given’ andsoof no consequence • Ifitis ‘new’ the police officerwouldprobablyask some follow-upquestions • Thesuspectalsoindicatesthatthereis a bank on John Street; he doesnot put thefactinexactlythatway; rather, sthlike ‘thereis a bank on John Street’ isembeddedinhisutterance - presupposition Cont.

9. Police officer: Canyoustepoutofthe car? • Driver: Yes (but driver doesnotmove) Example

10. Anindirectspeechact: request, not a question • Thereis a differencebetweenthe (literal) meaningofanutteranceanditsmessage • Grice’s Co-operative Principleandmaximshelpexplain how peoplearrive at themessage Comment

11. In order to helpusunderstand how contextworksindecipheringmeaningin a givensituation, wecanlook to Grice’sCooperativePrinciple, whichexplains how peopleactinconversation: ‘Make yourconversationalcontributionsuch as isrequired, at thestage at whichitoccurs, bytheacceptedpurposeordirectionofthe talk exchangeinwhichyou are engaged’ Grice’sCooperativePrinciple

12. Griceisnottellinguswhat to do, but ratherprovidinganexplanation for how webehaveincommunicativesituations ad how weassumeotherpeoplebehave Grice’sconversationalmaxims

13. GricefurtherdividedhisCooperativePrincipleinto sub-principlesof: • Quantity • Relevance • Quality • Manner Grice’sconversationalmaximes

14. 1. Quantity: ‘Make yourcontribution as informative as isrequired’ and ‘do not make yourcontribution more informativethanisrequired’ • 2. Quality: ‘Do notsaywhatyoubelieve to befalse’ and ‘Do notsaythat for whichyoulackadequateevidence’ • 3. Manner: ‘Avoidobscurityofexpression’, ‘Avoidambiguity’, ‘Be brief’, ‘Be orderly’ • 4. Relevance: ‘Be relevant’ Grice’sConversationalMaxims

15. Leads to implicature • Theimplicatureisgenerated to make thecontributionmeaningful • A clashoccurswhenfulfilling one maximwouldlead to theviolationofanother Flouting a maxim

16. Whenwebreakanyofthe sub-principles, wecreatean instance ofconversationalimplicature: • A: I heardyoudidwell on theexam • B: Yes, andpigsfly. • Floutingthemaximofquality, as I am tellinganobviousuntruth Grice’sconversationalmaximes

17. Observingthemaxims • Violating one or more maxims (e.g. lying) • Optingout (e.g. refusing to answer a directquestion) • Notfulfilling one maximbecauseof a clashwithanother • Flouting a maximinorder to make a conversationalimplicature Grice’sconversationalmaximes: options

18. 1. Thespeakerdeliberatelyflouts a conversationalmaxim to conveyadditionalmeaningnotexpressedliterally, e.g. a speakerresponds to thequestion: „How didyouliketheguestspeaker?” withthefollowingutterance: „Well, I’m sure he wasspeaking English”. • Ifthespeakerisassumed to befollowingthecooperativeprinciplein spite offloutingtheMaximofQuantity, theutterance must haveanadditionalnonliteralmeaning, such as: „Thecontentofthespeechwasconfusing.” Conversationalimplicature

19. 2. Thespeaker’sdesire to fulfiltwoconflictingmaximsresultsinhisflouting one maxim to invoketheother, e.g. when he responds to thequestion „Whereis John?” bysaying: He’seitherinthecafeteriaorinhisoffice • TheMaximofQuantityandtheMaximofQuality are inconflict: a cooperativespeakerdoesn’twant to beambiguous but alsodoesn’twant to givefalseinformationbygiving a specificanswerin spite ofhisuncertaity. ByfloutingtheMaximofQuantity, he invokestheMaximofQuality Conversationalimplicature

20. A. How’syourworkcomingalong? • B. It sure issunnyoutside. Exercise: suggestwhichmaximisbeingflouted (Quality, Quantity, Relevance, Manner) andwhatisbeingcommunicatedthroughthatflouting

21. B isfloutingthemaximofrelevance. Giventhat B respondswithanutterancewhichisclearlyirrelevant, A canassumethatworkis NOT comingalong Key

22. 1. In a recommendationletter for a salesjob: • Dear Sir, I have been asked to write a few lines in suport for John Smith’s application for work in sales within your company. What perhaps is most impressive about John is that his appearance is impeccable, and his class attendance has been faultless. Sincerely, A. Whichmaximisflouted? (Quality, Quantity, Relavance, Manner)

23. Themaximofquantity, theletterisnotveryinformative. Thisseems to communicatethat A doesnothaveverymuch to saythatispositiveabout John, and to avoidviolatingthemaximofQualityandlying, and to avoidattacking John, A isnot as informative as thesituationrequires Key

24. A: How didMaryand John do on theirexam? B: Marydid fine. • B floutstheMaximofQuantity, as no informationisprovidedabout John. Thus A willassumethat John didnot do well, andthat B doesnotwant to provide displeasinginformation. Exercise: Quantity, Quality, Relevance, Manner

25. A. Are you free thisevening? B: I have had somuchworklately! I had to finish a 20-pages paper, mydoghasbeensickand I had to take him to thevet, andnowmymothersaysshe’scoming to visitthis weekend! • B floutstheMaximofQuantity/Manner – theansweris more informativethanrequired, anditisnotbrief. A willprobablygetthepicturethat B isnot free thatevening, andwillprobablynotfollowthroughwith a suggestionorinvitation Exercise: Quantity, Quality, Relevance, Manner

26. Floutingleads to implicature • Sometimespeoplecannotfulfil a maximbecauseofothercircumstances • E.g. once a promisehasbeenmadenot to divulge some information, therewillbequestionsthatcannotbeanswered • Choices on how to managequestionsasking for thesecretinformation: optingout, orfacing a clashwhenfulfilling one maximwouldlead to theviolationofanother (e.g. a clashbetweenmaximsofqualityandquantity) Notfulfilling a maxim

27. „He mayquietlyandunostentatiouslyviolate a maxim; ifso, in some cases he willbeliable to mislead” (Grice 1989: 30) • 1) ifthereis no signthat a violationhastaken place, therecanbe no implicature • 2) iftheviolationisquiettherewillbe no signofitintheutteranceitself • Thisdoesnotruleoutthepossibilitythatotherfacts, informationorknowledgemayexposetheviolation; but thisviolationisexternal to thespeechcontextandtheutteranceitself Violation v. flouting a maxim

28. Evenifotherinformationisavailablethatbringstheviolation to light, theonlyimplicature-typeresultwillbewhatcanbecalled a ‘socialimplicature’ • Discoveringa violationwillsuggeststhaboutthespeaker (e.g. that he isuntrustworthy), but therecanbe no implicaturewhichindicateswhatthetruthreallyis • Theoriesmaybegeneratedfromotherinformation, fromsocialimplicationsetc. but thereisnothinginthelanguagethatcanbeused Violating a maxim

29. Presupposition - when a speaker’s choiceofwordsshowsthat he is takingsth for granted • E.g.: Johnstoppedcrying at noon– makessenseif it is assumedthatJohnwascryingjustbeforenoon. Presupposition

30. an implicit assumption about the world or background belief relating to an utterance whose truth is taken for granted, e.g.: • Jane no longer writes fiction. • Presupposition: Jane once wrote fiction. • Have you stopped eating meat? • Presupposition: you had once eaten meat. • Have you talked to Hans? • Presupposition: Hans exists. Presupposition

31. A presupposition must be mutually known or assumed by the speaker and addressee for the utterance to be considered appropriate in context. Presupposition

32. Presuppositions are also hidden, but ‘hidden’ in plainsight • They are foundbypayingattention to whatissaid • Theworkingofpresupposition – verystraightforward Presupposition

33. The Co-operative Principleandpresuppositionmayworkdifferentlyin a legalcontextbecauseoftherulesandconventionsofspeakingandinterpretationwhichapplyinmanylegalsituations • Legal conversations may be designed with another audience in mind (p. 64, 66/7) Co-Operative Principlein a legalcontext

34. Mr Smith hasneverbeatenhiswife. Exactly how should he answerthefollowing? • Lawyer: Mr Smith, tell me, whendidyou stop beatingyourwife? Presupposition: example

35. Potential to confusewitnessesandmisleadhearersbyinserting as givencontentsomethingthatisnewordisputed • Questionspresupposingthepresenceofitemsorevents (‘Didyouseethebrokenglass?” elicitdifferentresponsesfromthosethatdidnot make thepresupposition („Didyouseeanybrokenglass?”) Presuppositions

36. Presuppositionsremainpresentevenifthe sentence isnegated: • ‘Mr Smith, tell me, whendidyounot stop beatingyourwife?’ • ThequestionpresupposesthatMr Smith has a wife. Itwould make no sense to say: • ‘Mr Smith hasstoppedbeatinghiswifeand/but Mr Smith doesn’thave a wife’. • Presuppositions – embeddedintheutterance; absolutelyunproblematic Test for presuppositions

37. Whilepresuppositionisembeddedinthe sentence, inferenceorimplicatureissththatthespeakercanassumethehearerwillknoworunderstand • Animplicaturehas to begeneratedbythehearer to ‘make sense’ oftheutterance • Aninferenceis a conclusionthehearermayreasonablycome to, but itisnotlogicallyentailedbyanutterance, norisitresultofimplicature • Aninferenceinvolvesapplyingcommonsense, orsharedknowledge, to aninteraction Presupposition– implicature - inference

38. Non-fulfillmentofmaximscanhappenin a numberofways • Thismaylead to implicatureorsocialimplicature • Theviolationcanbedifficult to detect • Presuppositions are embeddedinanutterance • Presuppositionsremaintrueeveniftheutteranceisnegated Summary

39. 1.Police: You got a gun in the car? • 2.Man: It’s my wife’s. She left it in the car. • 3.Police: Come on. Let’s go back over here to the car. • 4.Man: it’s in my pocket. I’m going to take it to my wife. • 5.Police: It’s in your pocket now? • 6.Man: Yes Sir (...) Which maxims were violated?

40. 7.Man: It’snot mine sir. I’mtellingyou. • 8.Police: I don’t care whoseitis. Itwasinyourpocket. Concealed. Loaded. • 9.Man: But therewas no bulletinthetriggerorwhateveryoucallit. • 10.Police: Doesn’tmatter. • 11.Man: See. I didn’tknowthat. I’venever. I’m a bountyhunter, I didnotknowthiskindofstuff. • 12.Police; How do younothave a permit to carry a gunwhenyou’re a bountyhunter? Cont.

41. Floutingthemaximofquantity, relevanceandquality • Itisexpectedthatpeopleco-operatewiththe police; thismeansthatresponsesshouldnotrequirethe police to generateanimplicature • 8. ‘I don’t care…’ mayindicatethatthe police officerhasdecidedthatthesuspecthassaidenough; thelawisindifferent to anything more • Theman’scontinuedtalkinggetshiminto more trouble Key

42. Whatkindofpersonistheinterviewee? • Is he a witness, a suspectoranexpertof some kind? • Point to as muchevidenceinthetranscript as possible Activity:

43. 1. Police: There’scertainfacts I need to make youawareof at thisstage. I don’tthinktherecanbeanydisputein a lotofthem. Mrs Mellor’sbodywasburied on 18th May 1998 at HighfieldCementery, Stockport. Wouldyouacceptthatfrom me? • 2. Interviewee: Ifyousay. • 3. Police: Nowwouldyoualsoacceptthatthebodyof Mrs MellorwasexhumedwithconsentoftheCoroner on 22nd Sept. Thisyear? • 4. Interviewee: Ifyousayso. Police interview

44. 5. Police: And I think, fromwhatyouweresayingearlier, youwereawarethat a post-mortem examinationwassubsequentlyundertaken. Certainsamplesweretaken at that post-mortem for forensicanalysis. Wouldyouacceptthat? • 6. Interviewee: You’retellingthe story, yesofcourse. Cont.

45. Police: A Home Office pathologist – DrRutherford – carriedoutthat post-mortem examination. I think as youweregoing to mention, hisfindings do notsupportthatthis lady diedof a coronarythrombosis as youdiagnosed. Wouldyoulike to make anycomment on that – thatfinding? • Interviewee: Doctorsdon’talwaysdiagnose a heartattack as a heartattack, they’llcallit a coronarythrombosisormyocardialischaemiaormyocardialinfarction. To theaveragerunofthemill GP they are allthe same – thepatient’sdead. With a coronarythrombosisyou’dexpectthatthere’dbe a bit ofheartthat’ssortofdamaged but youcanhave had justanelectricaldisorganisationoftheheartwhichkillsyoujust as effectivelyandleaves no symptoms at all – no signs, sorry, no signs at all. Cont.

46. 9. Police: Well, inhisexpertopiniontherewasnothing to supportyourdiagnosisiswhatI’msaying. • 10. Interviewee: And he couldn’truleout a disorganisedelectricalactivityintheheart. Cont.

47. 11. Police: Forensicexaminationofthesamplestaken, includingmuscletissue, at that post-mortem havebeenexamined. These are thesamplestakenfrom Mrs Mellor. Andthere’scertainly a highlevelofmorphinestillcontainedinherbody – a fatallevel to beprecise. Canyouaccount for that? • 12. Interviewee: No. Cont.

48. Data used to examineresistance to police questioningroutines • confirmation-seekingquestions • Question 7 – a floutofthemaximofmanner: itisnotclearwhatisbeingasked; themessagemightbe: ‘Do youstillmaintainthatthewomandiedof a coronarythrombosis’ or ‘You lied, didn’tyou?’ • This interview – performance for anotheraudience, as itwillformpartofevidenceusedin a criminaltrial • 11-12 question-answerpairallowstheaudience to inferthattheintervieweeisguilty Comment

49. Thisisanextractfrom police interviewswithHaroldShipman, a GP foundguiltyofcausingthedeathof a numberofelderlypatientsunderhis care • Responses – evasive, cleveranddeceptive • If he wereinnocent, how might he haveansweredthesequestionsdifferently? Explanation

50. Harold Frederick Shipman(14 Jan.1946 – 13 Jan.2004) was a British GP andthe most prolificserialkillerinrecordedhistory. On 31 January 2000, a jury found Shipman guilty of 15 murders, but an inquiry after his conviction confirmed he was responsible for at least 218. He was sentenced tolifeimprisonment and the judge recommended that he never be released. • TheShipmanInquiry, chaired by DameJanet Smith, began on 1 September 2000. Lasting almost two years, it was an investigation into all deaths certified by Shipman. About 80% of his victims were women. His youngest victim was a 41-year-old man. Much of Britain's legal structure concerninghealth care and medicine was reviewed and modified as a result of Shipman's crimes. He is the only British doctor to have been found guilty of murdering his patients, although various other doctors have been acquitted of similar crimes in the country. • Shipman died on 13 January 2004, the day before his 58th birthday, after hanging himself in his cell atWakefieldPrison.