Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Cooperative principles and implicatures
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Cooperative principles and implicatures


Published on



1 Comment
No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

No notes for slide


  • 1. GRICE’S COOPERATIVE PRINCIPLE ANDCONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURE Ahmed Qadoury Abed Ph D Candidate Baghdad University College of Arts English Department 2012-2013 1
  • 2. THE PRINCIPLE ITSELF In his William James Lectures at Harvard University in 1967, H. Paul Grice posited a general set of rules contributors to ordinary conversation were generally expected to follow. He named it the Cooperative Principle (CP), and formulated it as follows: Make your conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged (Grice, 1989: 26). 2
  • 3. CP :IS AN IDEALISTIC REPRESENTATION? At first glance, the Cooperative Principle may appear an idealistic representation of actual human communication. After all, as Grice himself has learned from his detractors, many believe ‘‘. . . even in the talk-exchanges of civilized people browbeating disputation and conversational sharp practices are far too common to be offenses against the fundamental dictates of conversational practice.’’ Further, even if one discounts the tone of an exchange, ‘‘much of our talk exchange is too haphazard to be directed toward an end cooperative or otherwise’’ (Grice, 1989: 369). 3
  • 4. GRICE’S INTENTION Grice has never intended his use of the word ‘cooperation’ to indicate an ideal view of communication. Rather, Grice was trying to describe how it happens that – despite the haphazard or even agonistic nature of much ordinary human communication – most discourse participants are quite capable of making themselves understood and capable of understanding most others in the course of their daily business. 4
  • 5. WHAT COUNTS AS COOPERATION? Grice invites us to consider the following, quite unextraordinary exchange: A: I am out of petrol. B: There is a garage round the corner (Grice, 1989: 32). Assuming A immediately proceeds to the garage, secures the petrol, and refills his car, we may describe B’s contribution as having been successful. By what rational process of thought was A so quickly able to come to the conclusion that the garage to which B refers would fulfill his need for petrol? Why did B’s utterance work? Grice’s answer: because A and B adhere to the Cooperative Principle of Discourse. It is not hard to imagine that two friends sharing a ride would want to help each other through a minor crisis; thus, ‘cooperation’ in this scenario seems quite apt. 5
  • 6. ANOTHER WAY OF COOPERATION But imagine the exchange went this way instead: A: I am out of petrol. B: (sarcastically) How nice that you pay such close attention to important details. In this second scenario, not only does B refuse to assist A in solving the problem, he uses the occasion to add to A’s conundrum an assault upon his character. Assuming A feels the sting; again B’s contribution has been successful. So how and why in this case has B’s contribution worked? How can such a sour response as B’s callous retort be considered ‘cooperative’? Again, Grice’s Cooperative Principle proves a useful answer. The explanation requires closer inspection of the strictness with which Grice uses the term. 6
  • 7. GRICE’S LIMIT OF CP APPLICATION Grice finds that most talk exchanges do follow the CP because most talk exchanges do, in fact, exhibit the cooperative characteristics he outlines: Our talk exchanges . . are characteristically, to some degree at least, cooperative efforts; and each participant recognizes in them, to some extent, a common purpose or set of purposes, or at least a mutually accepted direction (Grice, 1989: 26). 7
  • 8. Grice’s Types of Meanings What is meantWhat is said What is implicated Conventionally Non-conventionally Conversationally Generally Particularly Non-conversationally 8
  • 9. CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURES According to Grice, utterance interpretation is not a matter of decoding messages, but rather involves (1) taking the meaning of the sentences together with contextual information,(2) using inference rules(3) working out what the speaker means on the basis of the assumption that the utterance conforms to the maxims. The main advantage of this approach from Grice’s point of view is that it provides a pragmatic explanation for a wide range of phenomena, especially for conversational implicauture is--- a kind of extra meaning that is not literally contained in the utterance. An implicature is a piece of information that is conveyed indirectly by an utterance. It is neither a part nor a necessary consequence of the utterance. 9
  • 10. GRICE’S MAXIMS Grice identified the Cooperative Principle as a ‘ super principle’ or a ‘supreme principle’ (1989: 368f) that he generalized from four conversational ‘maxims’ he claimed discourse participants ordinarily follow. Grice(1989: 28) identifies the maxims as: 1. The Maxim of Quality Try to make your contribution one that is true: A. Do not say what you believe to be false. B. Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence (Say what you believe to be true) 2. The Maxim of Quantity A. make your contribution as informative as is required (for the current purpose of the exchange) B. Do not make your contribution more informative than is required 10
  • 11. 3- The Maxim of Relation Be relevant4-The Maxim of Manner A. Be perspicuous:. B. Avoid obscurity of expression. C. Avoid ambiguity. D. Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity). F. Be orderly 11
  • 12. Clear fulfillment of these maxims may be demonstrated in the following exchange: Husband: Where are the car keys? Wife: They ‘re on the table in the hall. The wife has answered clearly (manner) and truthfully (Quality), has given just the right amount of information (Quantity) and has directly addressed her husband’s goal in asking the question (Relation). She ahs said precisely what she meant, no more and no less. But Grice knew that people do not always follows these maxims as they communicate ;”What dull business conversation analysis would be if they did!” Rather, interlocutors can fail to fulfill the maxims in a variety of ways, some mundane, some inadvertent, but others lead to what most consider the most powerful aspect of Grice’s CP: conversational ‘implicature.’ 12
  • 13. Quality implicature-John has two PhDs.+<I believe John has two PhDs,and have adequate evidence that he has.Quantity Implicature-Nigel has fourteen children.+<Nigel has no more than fourteen children.Relation Implicature-A: Can you tell me the time?-B: Well, the milkman has come.+>The time now is after the time the milkman arrived.Manner Implicature-A: How do I get into your apartment?-B: Walk up to the front door, turn the door handle clockwise as far as it will go, and then pull gently towards you.+>Pay particular attention and care to each step of the instructions I’ve given you.- John is a tiger.- His wife has wooden ears. 13
  • 14. FAILURE OF MAXIMS AND IMPLICATURES Grice describes four ways in which maxims may go unfulfilled in ordinary conversation.1-infringing2-Opting out3-suspending4-flouting The first three ways are fairly straight forward. One might violate or infringe a maxim. This infringement is often done with the intention of misleading; for example, one might say, ‘Patricia was with a man last night’ as a way of making Patricia’s routine dinner out with her husband seem clandestine. 14
  • 15. Maxim infringement Maxim infringement occurs when a Speaker fails to observe the maxim, although s/he has no intention of generating an implicature and no intention of deceiving. Generally infringing stems from imperfect linguistic performance (in the case of a young child or a foreigner) or from impaired linguistic performance brought about by nervousness, drunkenness, excitement, disability. –Rachel: Yeah, and also we need more umm, drinks. Hold on a second. (Gets up but stumbles a little bit.) Whup, okay. (She makes it to the phone and picks it up, without dialing.) Hello! Vegas? Yeah, we would like some more cola, and y’know what else? We would like some more pizza. Hello? Ohh, I forgot to dial! –(They both start laughing. There’s a knock on the door.) –Ross: That must be our cola and piza! (Gets up to answer it.) –Joey: Hey! –Ross: Ohh, it’s Joey! I love Joey! (Hugs him.) –Rachel: Ohh, I love Joey! Joey lives with a duck! (Goes and hugs Joey.) –Joey: Hi! –Rachel: Hey! –Joey: Look-look-look you guys, I need some help! Okay? Someone is going to have to convince my hand twin to cooperate! –Ross: I’ll do it. Hey, whatever you need me to do, I’m your man. (He starts to sit down on the bed. There’s one problem though, he’s about two feet to the left of it. Needless to say, he misses and falls down.) (Looking up at Joey.) Whoa-oh-whoa! Are you, are you okay? 15
  • 16. Opting out of a maxim •A Speaker opts out of observing a maxim whenever s/he indicates unwillingness to cooperate in the way the maxim requires. •This happens when a suspect exerts his right to remain silent or when a witness chooses not to impart information that may prove detrimental to the defendant. Detective: Has the defendant ever told you she hated her father and wanted him dead? Shrink: Such information is confidential and it would be unethical to share it with you. 16
  • 17. Suspending a maxim Under certain circumstances, as part of certain events ,there is no expectation on the part of any participant that one or several maxims should be observed (and non-fulfillment does not generate any implicatures). Such cases include: 1) Suspending the Quality Maxim in case of funeral orations and obituaries, when the description of the deceased needs to be praiseworthy and exclude any potentially unfavourable aspects of their life or personality. 2) Poetry suspends the Manner Maxim since it does not aim for conciseness, clarity and lack of ambiguity. 3) In the case of speedy communication via telegrams, e-mails, notes, the Quantity Maxim is suspended because such means are functional owing to their very brevity. 4) Jokes are not only conventionally untrue, ambiguously and seemingly incoherent, but are expected to exploit ambiguity, polysemy and vagueness of meaning, which entails, among other things, suspension of the Maxims of Quality, Quantity and Manner. 17
  • 18. FLOUTING OF THE MAXIMS Without cooperation, human interaction would be far more difficult and counterproductive. Therefore, the Cooperative Principle and the Gricean Maxims are not specific to conversation but to interaction as a whole. For example, it would not make sense to reply to a question about the weather with an answer about groceries because it would flout the Maxim of Relation. Likewise, responding to a request for some milk with an entire gallon instead of a glass would flout the Maxim of Quantity. 18
  • 19. A: I hear you went to the theatre last night; what play did you see?B: Well, I watched a number of people stand on the stage in Elizabethan costumes uttering series of sentences which corresponded closely with the script of Twelfth Night. Here, B’s verbose answer, although it doesn’t say anything more than “I saw a performance of Twelfth Night,” invites A to infer that the performers were doing a miserably bad job of acting. 19
  • 20.  However, it is possible to flout a maxim intentionally or unconsciously and thereby convey a different meaning than what is literally spoken. Many times in conversation, this flouting is manipulated by a speaker to produce a negative pragmatic effect, as with sarcasm or irony. One can flout the Maxim of Quality to tell a clumsy friend who has just taken a bad fall that her nimble gracefulness is impressive and obviously intend to mean the complete opposite. The Gricean Maxims are therefore often purposefully flouted by comedians and writers, who may hide the complete truth and manipulate their words for the effect of the story and the sake of the reader’s experience. 20
  • 21. A: What are you baking?B: Be i are tee aitch dee ay wye see aykay ee.By answering obscurely, B conveys to Athe implicature that the information is tobe kept secret from the young child who isin the room with them. Flouting themaxim of manner is clear. 21
  • 22. PROPERTIES OF CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURES Conversational implicatures have the following characteristics:1- They are context dependent: an expression with a single meaning (i.e., expressing the same proposition) can give rise to different conversational implicatures in different contexts.A: Have you cleaned the table and washed the dishes.B: I’ve cleaned the table2- They are cancelable: … a putative conversational implicature that p is explicitly cancelable if, to the form of words the utterance of which putatively implicates that p, it is admissible to add but not p, or I do not mean to imply that p, and it is contextually cancelable if one can find situations in which the utterance of the form of words would simply not carry the implicature. (Grice,1989: 44.)A :Did you attend the seminar and the following presentation.B:I attended the seminar.C: I attended the seminar and really enjoyed the presentation.-The American and the Russians tested an atom bomb in 1962.~+> The American and the Russians tested an atom bomb in 1962 together, not one each. 22
  • 23. 3- They are non-detachable: The same propositional content in the same context will always give rise to the same conversational implicature, in whatever form it is expressed. The implicature is tied to the meaning ,not to form.A -Jazzy didn’t manage to walk as far as the crossroads.B- Jazzy attempted to walk as far as the crossroads.C- Jazzy didn’t walk as far as the crossroads.A==B , A==C , B=/=C-The film almost/nearly came close to winning an Oscar.- +>The film didn’t quite win an Oscar.4- They are calculable: A conversational implicature must be calculable ,using state able general principles on the basis of conventional meaning together with contextual information. Implicatures can transparently derived from the cooperative principle and its maxims-If a couple decided between them that if one says: ‘I’m leaving’, it automatically means that both should leave. 23
  • 24. 5- They are re-inforceableA conversational implicature can be made explicit without producing too much of a sense of redundancy.- The soup is warm.- +> The soup is not hot.- The soup is warm , but not hot.6- They are non-conventionalA conversational implicature ,though dependent on the saying of what is coded , are non-coded in nature. They rely on the saying of what is said but they are not part of what is said.- I’m leaving.- +>we together leave because we earlier have agreed on this.7- They are universalHuang (2007:34f) mentions that :- Some young people like pop music.- +> Not all young people like pop music.Can be found in English , Arabic , Catalan, Chinese, Modern Greek, Kashmiri, Malagasy , etc. 24
  • 25. CONVENTIONAL IMPLICATURES This sixth property is what Grice considers crucial for distinguishing between conversational and conventional implicatures. Conventional implicatures are generated by the meaning of certain particles like ‘but’ ,’even’ , ‘yet’, or ‘therefore.’ They convey an idea of contrast , not completion , result , but these ideas don’t affect the proposition expressed by the utterance. Consider the difference between (1) and (2): He is an Englishman, therefore he is brave. He is an Englishman, and he is brave. His being brave follows from his being English. John lives in London and Mary lives in Oxford. John lives in London but Mary lives in Oxford According to Grice, a speaker has said the same with (1) as with (2). The difference is that with (1) he implicates (3). This is a conventional implicature. It is the conventional meaning of ‘therefore,’ and not maxims of cooperation, that carry us beyond what is said. Grices concept of conventional implicatures is the most controversial part of his theory of conversation for many followers like Sperber & Wilson (1986), for several reasons. According to some, its application to particular examples runs against common intuitions. By using the word ‘therefore’ is the speaker not saying that there is some causal connection between being brave and being English? 25
  • 26. TYPES OF CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURES Among conversational implicatures, Grice distinguished between ‘particularized’ and ‘generalized.’ The former are the implicatures that are generated by saying something in virtue of some particular features of the context, “cases in which there is no room for the idea that an implicature of this sort is normally carried by saying that p.” (Grice ,1989: 37).The above example of conversational implicature is, then, a case of particularized conversational implicature. A generalized conversational implicature occurs where “the use of a certain forms of words in an utterance would normally (in the absence of special circumstances) carry such-and-such an implicature or type of implicature” (Ibid.). Grices first example is a sentence of the form “X is meeting a woman this evening.” Anyone who utters this sentence, in absence of special circumstances, would be taken to implicate that the woman in question was someone other than Xs “wife, mother, sister, or perhaps even close platonic friend” (Ibid.) Being an implicature, it could be cancelled, either implicitly, in appropriate circumstances, or explicitly, adding some clause that implies its denial. -Most of John’s friends are from his neighbourhood . 26
  • 27.  Also , conversational implicatures can be scalar and non-scalar. They are scalar as in using ‘some’ ,,compared with <all, most, many , some , few >: I’m studying linguistics and I‘ve completed some of the required courses. 27
  • 28. CP CRITICISM:TANNEN’S CLAIMSTannen (1986:34-45) claims that Grice’s maxims of cooperative discourse can’t apply to ‘‘real conversations’’ because in conversation ‘‘we wouldn’t want to simply blurt out what we mean, because we’re judging the needs for involvement and independence’’. Tannen assumes that Grice’s maxims are prescriptions that conversations must follow strictly in order to be considered cooperative. 28
  • 29. CAMERON’S CLAIMS Cameron demonstrates a reductive view of Grice’s use of the term ‘cooperation’ when she describes Grice’s CP as an ‘inflexible’ and ‘unproductive’ apparatus that provides yet another way for both ‘chauvinists and feminists’ to believe that ‘whereas men compete in competition, women use co- operative strategies’ (1985: 40f). 29
  • 30. COOPER’S OPINION Cooper (1982), interested in applying Grice to theories of written composition, claims that Grice advocates cooperation because what enables conversation to proceed is an underlying assumption that we as conversants have purposes for conversing and that we recognize that these purposes are more likely to be fulfilled if we cooperate (p. 112). 30
  • 31. GRICE’S OPINION Grice himself acknowledged thedifficulty some have had interpretinghis use of ‘cooperation.’ As a finalchapter to his 1989 book, Gricewrote a ‘Retrospective Epilogue’ inwhich he considered criticism of histheories had engendered. It hasalready been related that here Griceacknowledged that his theory suffersfrom a perceived naïvete´. 31
  • 32. To combat the criticism, Grice adds usefulinformation about what counts as cooperative indiscourse. First, he reminds readers of the sort ofutterances he seeks to elucidate: voluntary talkexchanges that require some form of‘‘collaboration in achieving exchange ofinformation or the institution of decisions.’’ And,he points out that within exchanges intended toproduce information or determine decisions,cooperation ‘‘may coexist with a high degree ofreserve, hostility, and chicanery and with a highdegree of diversity in the motivations underlyingquite meager common objectives’’ (Grice, 1989:369). 32
  • 33.  In the maxims, Grice believes he has found universal conventions that all people may regularly follow in their meaning- making talk exchanges. In order for such a set of conventions to function, a certain degree of at least tacit assent to those conventions is necessary. Thus, the term ‘cooperation’ is quite apt. The crucial subtlety of Grice’s theory is this: interlocutors do not necessarily cooperate with each other; they cooperate with a set of conventions that allows each interlocutor to produce approximate enough meanings for communication to work. 33
  • 34. GRICE’S CLARIFICATION The aim for Gricean conversation analysis – and thus the CP and the maxims – is not to advocate benevolent cooperation, but to prove the rationality of conversation. ‘‘. . . observance [of the maxims] promotes and their violation [except in the case of implicature] dispromotes conversational rationality’’ (Grice, 1989: 370). 34
  • 35. COPERATIVE:INTERLOCUTORS OR THEIR CONTRIBUTION! Although many have claimed Grice’s writing on the CP is ambiguous and is on occasion inconsistent with terminology, this should not be said of Grice’s measured use of the term ‘cooperation.’ Precise readings of Grice’s writing on cooperation demonstrate that he rarely, if ever, describes interlocutors as being cooperative. Rather, he claims that interlocutors’ contributions to conversation are cooperative. The contributions are uttered in cooperation with a set of conventions for producing meaning. In this sense, we might think of a pair of interlocutors as each operating according to the dictates of a set of conventions (the maxims) and thus they are ‘cooperators’: two operators of discourse operating at once. 35
  • 36. COMMUNICATION IS HAPHAZARD The second major critique of the Cooperative Principle has been a topic of spirited discussion among linguistic philosophers since Grice first proposed it. Grice himself identifies the problem as resulting from the thought that communication is simply too ‘‘haphazard’’ to be described accurately as having a cooperative end. Some forms of communication are not appropriately described by the CP. 36
  • 37. GRICE’SUGGESTIONS Grice suggests the problem is two-fold: First, he agrees with critics that the maxims appear less ‘‘coordinate’’ than he would prefer. The maxim of quality appears in some ways more definitive of information than the other maxims. And, the maxims are not independent enough: relevance has been often regarded as containing the essence of the other maxims. Second, Grice’s selection of cooperation as the ‘‘supreme Conversational Principle’’ underpinning the rationalizing operations of implicature remains, to say the least, not generally accepted (1989: 371). 37
  • 38.  Though in his final work he admitted some misgivings and offered minor refinements of his maxims of cooperative discourse, Grice, up until his death in 1988, defended his selection of the Cooperative Principle as the ‘supreme principle.’ 38
  • 39. NEO-GRICEAN PRAGMATICS Grice’s influence is most apparent in a branch of linguistic study that has become known among some as Neo-Gricean pragmatics. Scholars in this field, like Horn(1989) and Levinson (1991) have greatly revised Grice’s maxims of cooperative discourse in a variety of interesting ways, but they have maintained the basic direction of Grice’s work, especially in regard to the concept of conversational implicature. 39
  • 40. THE RELEVANCE THEORY Sperber & Wilson (1986) produced one of the most influential alternatives to Grice’s theory. They developed a theory of relevance based on a number of assumptions about communication: 1- Every utterance has a variety of linguistically possible interpretations, all compatible with the decoded sentence meaning. 2. Not all these interpretations are equally accessible to the hearer (i.e. equally likely to come to the hearer’s mind) on a given occasion. 3. Hearers are equipped with a single, very general criterion for evaluating interpretations as they occur to them, and accepting or rejecting them as hypotheses about the speaker’s meaning. 4. This criterion is powerful enough to exclude all but at most a single interpretation (or a few closely similar interpretations), so that the hearer is entitled to assume that the first hypothesis that satisfies it (if any) is the only plausible one . 40
  • 41.  Sperber and Wilson argued that all of Grice’s maxims could be replaced by a single principle of relevance that the speaker tries to be as relevant as possible in the circumstances (1986). Davis (2005) argues that Sperber and Wilson’s theory suffers from some of the same problems as Grice’s, including: overgeneralization of implicatures a clash with the principle of style a clash with the principle of politeness 41
  • 42. How to analyze a text The selected text is The Creak, a short play by The selected text is The Creak, a short play by Yousif Al-Ani, translated by Dr.Mohammed Darweesh (Mamoon House,2010),pp.23-41. The procedure adopted in analyzing the text is the following: Numerating the starting of each line. The total number is 539 lines. The text will be examined from a conversationally- organized orientation , in the sense that a full conversation will be regarded as the functional context. Identifying the existent implicatures. Classifying implicatures into conventional or conversational (scalar or non-scalar). The selected approach is Grice ‘s classification into conversational vs conventional implicatures. Reference will be shed on their maxims. 42
  • 43. 1-He: Good morning life, good morning world… (Turns to the door) may you last long ,creak ,for as long as you are there, I am here! Go on with your music,for you are the sign of my life and existence. +> He expresses his loneliness to the extent he regards the door creaky sound a lovely piece of music. A conversational implicature where Flouting the maxim of quality is so clear by using hedges like ‘as far as ‘, and the manner maxim in using the modal ‘may’.2- He: this is enough, it suffices to remind the muscles of life and work +> He regards the creak of the door as the ultimate sign of action and movement in the sense that his life is such a quiet one. A conversational implicature of the maxim of manner is maintained by using ‘enough’ and ‘suffice’. 43
  • 44. 3-He: impossible …you…impossible!! She: Let me at least say hello before you shout. It reminds me of your voice when you used to rage and scream. +> He saw her after a long period of time. Both are friends or relatives that she still had some memories about his reaction. A conversational implicatures of the maxim of relation. This implicatures is of two sides; in the first line ,it is flouted by using ‘impossible’ as scalar implicature .In the second line ,this conversational implicatures is followed without any form of violation simply by using ‘at least’, which in turn stopped the possibility of another scalar implicatures. 4-She: My house is in a densely populated area. He: I do not … +> She lives in such a popular area or in a city, or many people always visit her, in comparison of his. A conversational implicature where flouting of the maxim of quantity is clear ,since more than one alternative is possible. He opts out this maxim since he does not complete his statement. 44
  • 45. 5-She :I wanted to depend on myself. I am still able to be of value to people and the world, and be delighted by their happiness. I do not want to be a small part of a whole. He: You still philosophize as usual. +>She has the ability to help other people and she is willingly eager to do that A conversational implicatures that she is still productive and useful despite being in the sixties. She still has many ambitions to be done , which are regarded as somehow difficult therefore he described the situation as a sort of philosophy. Flouting of the maxim of quantity is clear in the scalar implicature by ‘able to’ and ‘small’. 6-He: Do not you feel lonely sometimes? She: Sometimes? Yes, I do and … He: And what? She: Aha! Am I on a social visit or to give you an account of my private life? +> He is behind something that at that age, does she feel lonely like him, or something else? The difference is that she has friends visiting her all the time ,whereas he has nothing. A conversational implicatures where flouting of the maxim of quantity is evident. Another implicatures is in the last line where the maxim of relation is clear. 45
  • 46. 7-He: Let me bring you coffee first …I will be back soon. She: still moving about like a small child. +> She is commenting on his way of moving may be because of his age or other factors. Also , the verb ‘moving’ can be interpreted as behaving ,since she has spent more than one hour without anything to be offered. A conversational implicatures with the maxim of quality. Using ‘first’ stops the possibility of violating this maxim. 8-She: I gave up smoking three years ago…Have you forgotten? He: I did too only a year ago. +> Both are not smokers now. A conversational implicatures suspended the quality maxim. It is quite easy to a speaker to suspend the implicatures (only) using the expression ‘at least’ : ‘I did too at least a year ago’. Also ,it can be cancelled by adding further information ,often following the expression ‘in fact’: I did too only a year ago, in fact , ten months from now. 46
  • 47. 9-She: I’ll finish some paper work and be back. +>She intends to do part of the work. This is realized as a scalar implicature <all ,most, many, some, few>. A conversational implicatures where flouting the quantity maxim is clear. 10-She: whenever she writes a letter to her uncle she includes lines of verse. +> Her granddaughter is either studying literary subjects and writing verse ,or quoting verse without studying literary subjects , or reading poetry without writing. A conversational implicature with flouting of the quality maxim. 11-She: To the bus. Perhaps it is repaired now and they are waiting for me….Thank you for the coffee. He: Thanks for the visit. Do it often…. +> She has finished her visit. The reason that led he to this visit is repairing the bus. So she lives away from him. A conversational implicature of the quality maxim where flouting is clear in using ‘perhaps’. 47
  • 48. 12-She: They repaired the bus quickly and took whoever was nearby, leaving the others behind? He: What will you do? She: I will wait for the next one. He: When will it arrive? She: Within an hour as well. +> They repaired the bus and left many behind and she is one of them. Her decision is to wait the next one. More than one conversational implicature here: the first one is related to the flouting of the maxim of manner by using ‘whoever’ and ‘others’. The second one is flouting the maxim of quality by using ‘within’ , and this maxim ,on the other hand is kept by using ‘the next’. 48