1 / 24

Conversational implicature: Consolidation exercises

Conversational implicature: Consolidation exercises. Shaozhong Liu, Ph.D. (Pragmatics) / Ph.D. (Higher Education) School of Foreign Studies, Guilin University of Electronic Technology Homepage: www.gxnu.edu.cn/Personal/szliu Blog: cyrusliu.blog.163.com Email: shaozhong@hotmail.com.

luann
Download Presentation

Conversational implicature: Consolidation exercises

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Conversational implicature:Consolidation exercises Shaozhong Liu, Ph.D. (Pragmatics) / Ph.D. (Higher Education) School of Foreign Studies, Guilin University of Electronic Technology Homepage: www.gxnu.edu.cn/Personal/szliu Blog: cyrusliu.blog.163.com Email: shaozhong@hotmail.com essentials in pragmatics, fall 2011

  2. Terms • Implicature • Conventional / general conversational implicature • Particular / particularized conversational implicature • Cooperation • Principle • Maxim • Violating • Flouting • Mutual knowledge essentials in pragmatics, fall 2011

  3. Types of implicature and degree of background knowledge dependence • There are basically 2 types of implicature: general / conventional convensational implicature and particular / particularized conversational implicature. • Their difference lies in the degree of background knowledge dependence in inferring the speaker meaning: Normally the former needs less than the latter. essentials in pragmatics, fall 2011

  4. Definite vs. indefinite knowledge • Articles, possessives, demonstratives, etc. may indicate levels of certainty or definiteness of inference. • Most people may infer the following without more contextual information or effort. E.g.: • Carmen: Did you get the milk and the eggs? Dave: I got the milk. Did Dave buy the eggs? (Like in TOEFL listening test!) essentials in pragmatics, fall 2011

  5. 2) Carmen: Did you manage to fix that leak? Dave: I tried to. Did Dave fix the leak? 3) Faye: I hear you’ve invited Mat and Chris. Ed: I didn’t invite Mat. Did Ed invite Chris? 4) Steve: What happened to your flowers? Jane: A dog got into the garden. Did the dog belong to Jane? essentials in pragmatics, fall 2011

  6. 5) Jane: Who used all the printer paper? Steve: I used some of it. 6) Jane: I hear you’ve always late with the rent. Steve: Well, sometimes I am. 7) Jane: Mike and Annie should be here by now. Was their plane late? Steve: Possibly. 8) Jane: This cheese looks funny. The label said to store it in a cool place. Steve: Yeah, I did. essentials in pragmatics, fall 2011

  7. Hedges and scalar implicature • Words like “some”, “all”, maybe”, “possibly”, “late” etc. are vague in meaning. • In conversations, such words may give rise to levels of implicature, hence scalar implicature. • Scale of quantity: some, most, all • Scale of frequency: sometimes, often, always • Scale of coldness: cool, cold, freezing • Scale of likelihood: possbily, probably, certainly essentials in pragmatics, fall 2011

  8. Normally, we assume, following the cooperative principle, that, where speakers have a scale of values at their disposal, they will choose the one that is truthful (maxim of quality) and optionally informative (maxim of quantity). • And normally we draw the implicature “not any of the higher values on the scale.” • Such drawn implicatures do not require an extra knowledge to extract the meaning, hence generalized conversational implicatures. essentials in pragmatics, fall 2011

  9. Implicature requiring extra background knowledge in inference 9) Tom: Are you going to Mark’s party tonight? Annie: My parents are in town. (No) 10) Tom: Where’s the salad dressing? Gabriela: We’ve run out of olive oil. (There isn’t any salad dressing) 11) Steve: What’s with your mother? Jane: Let’s go into the garden. (I can’t talk about it here) 12) Mat: Want some fudge brownies? Chris: There must be 20,000 calories there. (No) essentials in pragmatics, fall 2011

  10. Cancelling presuppositions or implicatures • Cancelling an existential presupposition: Mike: What happened? Annie: Steve’s dog wrecked the garden – and in fact, Steve doesn’t have a dog. • Cancelling a lexical presupposition: Mike: What’s up? Annie: I’ve stopped smoking – although I’ve never smoked. essentials in pragmatics, fall 2011

  11. Cancelling a generalized implicature: Mike: What’s happened to the shampoo? Annie: I used most of it – actually, I used all of it. • Cancelling a particularized implicature: Mike: Are you coming to the party? Annie: My parents are in town – but I am coming. essentials in pragmatics, fall 2011

  12. Now you try your hands on the cancellation exercise: 1) Linda: What’s with Jean? Jen: She discovered that her central heating’s broken. (Her central heating is broken.) 2) Terry: How do you like your bath? Phil: Warm. (I don’t like it hot.) essentials in pragmatics, fall 2011

  13. 3) Annie: What do you think of this necklace and bracelet? Mike: The bracelet is beautiful. (The necklace is not beautiful.) 4) Lois: Has the kitchen been painted? Gabriela: Tom’s away. (No.) 5) Jane: Have you seen my sweater? Steve: There’s a sweater on the sofa. (It’s not Steve’s sweater.) essentials in pragmatics, fall 2011

  14. 6) Mike: How come Mary’s all dressed up? Annie: We’re going to the D-E-N-T-I-S-T. (Annie hates the dentist.) 7) Austin: It works now. Barbara: When did Eric fix it? (Eric fixed it.) essentials in pragmatics, fall 2011

  15. Inference in brackets: presupposition or implicature? • Mike: I heard about the mess. Dave: Yeah, Steve really regrets sending that e-mail. (Steve sent that e-mail.) 2) Patric: I didn’t take it. Virginia: Why do you always lie? (You always lie.) 3) Doris: Did Carmen like the party? Dave: She left after an hour. (She didn’t like the party.) essentials in pragmatics, fall 2011

  16. 4) Mat: How did you do on those exams? Chris: I failed physics. (I didn’t fail the others.) 5) Reporter: Senator, what is the present state of your marriage? Senator: Well, we, I think have been able to make some very good progress and it’s – I would say that it’s – it’s – it’s delightful that we’re able to – to share the time and the relationship that we – that we do not share. (The marriage is not in good state.) essentials in pragmatics, fall 2011

  17. 6) Steve: Did you buy the car? Ed: It cost twice as much as I thought it would. (Ed didn’t buy the car.) 7) Maggie: The bathroom’s flooded! James: Someone must have left the tap on. (It wasn’t James who left the tap on.) essentials in pragmatics, fall 2011

  18. Hyponym, super-ordinate, and implicature Hyponym Super-ordinate rose flower salmon fish hammer tool jeep automobile China country Guilin city Lingui county essentials in pragmatics, fall 2011

  19. Mike: Did you buy her a rose? Annie: I bought her a flower. 2) Jane: There’s salmon on the menu. Steve: I don’t like fish. 3) Ed: Be careful of that sofa. Meridyth: It’s a piece of furniture, Dad. 4) Mat: so you’ve taken up teaching? Chris: It’s a job. 5) Mary: I want to divorce you. Mike: No way. 6) Mary: I want to divorce you. Mike: Sean is only 2. essentials in pragmatics, fall 2011

  20. 7) Mary: It’s time that we get divorced. Mike: That’s a stupid idea. 8) Mary: I want to divorce you. Mike: Anyway. 9) Mary: I want to divorce you. Mike: Don’t ever regret over your decision. 10) Mary: I want to divorce you. Mike: It that your idea? 11) Mary: I want to divorce you. Mike: Are you really serious? essentials in pragmatics, fall 2011

  21. Conjunctions and implicature • Tom stayed and Mark left. • Tom stayed but Phil stayed too. • Stop that or I’ll leave. • Do you want milk or juice? • She’ll stay unless you return before 10. • I’ll join you for the dinner if you can make it in Wei Dao Zhi Zao. essentials in pragmatics, fall 2011

  22. Summary • We have further discussed 2 types of conversational implicatures: generalized and particularized. • Generalized implicatures can be drawn with very little “inside” knowledge. If you heard a tape recording of the conversation but knew nothing about the participants or the physical characteristics of the context, you could still draw those implicatures. They are closely connected to the degree of informativeness that we normally expect a speaker’s utterance to prove. essentials in pragmatics, fall 2011

  23. Scalar implicatures are a special type of generalized implicature where the inference is made by reference to a scale of values, one of which has been chosen by the speaker. The speaker’s choice implicates ‘not the higher values’. • Particularized implicatures require not only general knowledge but also knowledge which is particular or ‘local’ to the speaker and the hearer, and often to the physical context of the utterance as well. • Both generalized and particularized implicatures differ from presuppositions in that they sound much less contradictory when they are cancelled by the speaker. essentials in pragmatics, fall 2011

  24. Grice’s work was an important first step in systematically examining how hearers work to derive the ultimate message from the words that are actually uttered. He recognized that, of all the maxims, relevance was probably the most important, although he never really tackled the issue of how speakers and hearers actually assign relevance to particular pieces of information. • Sperber and Wilson have carried this work forward by looking even more systematically at the various kinds of inferencing that take place in normal convergence. They suggest that all four maxims can be subsumed under relevance. essentials in pragmatics, fall 2011

More Related