SUMMARY OF IMPLICATURE II

4.6 FLOUTING MAXIM

A flout occurs when a speaker blantantly fails to observe a maxim at the level of whait is said, with the deliberate intention of generating an implicature.

4.6.1 Flouts Necessitated by a Clash Between Maxims

A speaker flouts the maxim of quantity by blantantly giving either more or less information than the situation demands.

4.6.2 Flouts which Exploit the a Maxim

According to Grice’s theory, interlocutor operate on the assumption that, as a rule, the maxims will be observed. Most of the Grice’s own examples of flouts involve this sort of ‘exploitaton’

 4.6.2.1 Flouts exploiting maxim of quality

Flouts which exploit teh maxim of quality occur when the speaker says something which is blantantly untrue or for which he or she alcks adequate evidence.

4.6.2.2 Flouts exploiting the maxim of quantity

It occurs when a speaker blantantly gives more or less information than the situation requires.

1.6.2.3 Flouts exploiting the maxim of relation

It is exploited by making a response or observation which is very obviously irrelevant to teh topic in hand,

4.6.2.4 Flouts exploiting the maxim of manner

The important thing to notice maxim of manner is by observing the blantancy of the non-observance which triggers the search for an implicature.

4.7 OTHER CATEGORIES OF NON-OBSERVANCE OF THE CONVERSATIONAL MAXIMS

Grice listed three ways in which a participant in a talk exchange may fail to fulfil a maxim: the speaker may fluot a maxim, violate a maxim or opt out of observing maxim. He later added infringing a maxim, and suspending a maxim.

4.7.1 Violating a Maxim

Grice defines ‘violation’ very specifically as the unostentatious non-observance of a maxim. Is a speaker viloates maxim s/he will be liable to mislead.

4.7.2 Infringing a Maxim

A Speaker who, with no intention of generating an implicature and with no intention of deceiving, fails to observe a maxim is said to ‘infringe’ the maxim.

4.7.3 Opting out of a Maxim

A speaker opts out of observing a maxim by indicating unwillingness to cooperate in the way the maxim requires.

4.7.4 Suspending a Maxim

Several writers have suggested that there are occasions when there is no need to opt out of observing the maxims because there are certain events in which there is no expectation on the aprt of any participant that they will be fulfilled.

4.8 TESTING FOR IMPLICATURE

Grice discussed six ‘tests’ for distinguishing semantic meaning from implied meaning:

4.8.1 Non-detachability and Non-conventionality

Some aspect of meaning are semantic and can bee cahnged or removed by relexicatization or reformulation (replacing one word or phrase with another closely related one, but lacking the supposedly unpleasant connotation).

4.8.2 Implicature Changes

Implicature are the property of utterance, not of sentences and therefore teh same words crry different implicature on difefrent occasions.

4.8.3 Calculability

The same words may convey, in different circumstances, very different implicature. The implicature conveyed in one particular context is not ramdom, however, it is possible to spell out the steps a hearer goes through in order to calculate the intended implicature.

4.8.4 Defeasibility

The notion of ‘defeasibility’ means that an implicature can be cancelled. This allows the speaker to imply something, and then deny that implicature.

REFERENCE:

Thomas, Jenny. 1996. Meaning in Interaction. New York: Longman. P. 55-86.

QUESTIONS:

1.    What is the difference between conventional and conversational implicature?

2. How does the interlocutor observe the existance of implicature in the conversation?

SUMMARY OF IMPLICATURE I

-->

4.1 INTRODUCTION

There are times when people say or write exactly what they mean, but, they are not generally explicit. Since, on the other occasion, they manage to convey far more than their words mean. The term is known as implicature; what is meant different from what is said.

4.2 H.P GRICE

Grice theory is an attempt at explaining how a hearer gets from what is said to what it meant, from the level of expressed meaning to the level of implied meaning.

4.3 IMPLICATURE

Grice distinguished two different sorts of implicature: conventional implicature and conversational implicature. They both convey an additional level of meaning, beyond the semantic meaning of the words uttered. However, conventional implicature is always conveyed, regardless of context. Whereas conversational implicature; what is implied varies according to the context of utterance.

4.3.1 Conventional Implicature

There are comparatively few examples of conventional implicature; levinson (1983: 127) lists four: but, even, therefore and yet.

4.3.2 Conversational implicature

This type of implicature arises only in particular context of utterance.

4.3.3 Implicature and Inference

Before i go further into Grice’s theory of conversational implicature, i want to interpolate a discussion of the difference between implicature and interference, implying and inferring. There are two reasons for doing this. The most important is that it is the confusion of these two levels of interpretation which is at the root of some misunderstandings of Grice’s theory. The second is that in Britain, if not in other parts of the English-speaking world, there is widespread misuse of the terms themselves – people frequently say inferring when they really mean implying. To imply is to hint, suggest or convey some meaning indirectly by means of language. An implicature is generated intentionally by the speaker and may (or may not) be understood by the hearer. To infer is to deduce something from the evidence (this evidence may be linguistic, paralinguistic or non-linguistic). An inference is produced by the hearer.

4.4 THE COOPERATIVE PRINCIPLE

In order to explain the mechanism by which people interpret conversational implicature, in ‘Logic and conversation’ Grice introduced four conversational maxims and the Cooperative Principle (CP). The CP runs as follow: “which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged.”

Consider the following example:

The speaker has accidentally locked herself out of her house. It is winter, the middle of the night and she is stark naked:

A: Do you want a coat?

B: No, I really want to stand out here in the freezing cold with no clothes on.

On the face of it, B’s reply is untrue and uncooperative, but in fact this is sort of sarcastic reply we encounter every day and no problem at all in interpreting. According to Grice, if A assumes that, in spite of appearances, B is observing the Cooperative Principle and has made an appropriate response to his question, he will look for alternative interpretation. Grice argues that without the assumption that the speaker is operating according to the CP, there is no mechanism to prompt someone to seek for another level of interpretations. The observation that the speaker has said something which is manifestly untrue, combined with the assumption that the CP is in operation sets in motion the search for an implicature.

4.5 THE FOUR CONVERSATIONAL MAXIM

Grice Propose four maxims:

Quantity: Make your contribution as informative as is required (for the current purpose of the exchange). Do not make your contribution more informative than is required.

Quality: Do not say what you believe to be false.

Relation: Be relevant.

Manner: Avoid obscurity of expression. Avoid Ambiguity. Be Brief. Be orderly.

4.5.1 Observing the Maxims

Example:

Husband       : Where are the car keys?

Wife                : They’re on the table in the hall.
-->

The wife has answer clearly (Manner), Truthfully (Quality), has given just the right amount of information (Quantity), and has directly addressed her husband’s goal in asking the question (Relation).

4.5.2 Non-observance of the Maxims

There are four ways of failing to observe a maxim: Flouting a maxim, Violating Maxim, Infringing a maxim, Opting out a maxim, and suspending a maxim.