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?