Implicatures

13,453 views

Published on

implicatures a topic of pragmatics

2 Comments
5 Likes
Statistics
Notes
No Downloads
Views
Total views
13,453
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
47
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
450
Comments
2
Likes
5
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Implicatures

  1. 1. Implicatures Definition: implicatures are inferred assumptions which cannot be directly derived from overt linguistic forms by completion or enrichment.
  2. 2. Types of implicatures  Conventional  Conversational implicatures implicatures  . It is the name given to non-  They are briefly characterized truth-conditional aspects of meaning which are as propositions or assumptions *“conventionally” attached to not encoded, completely or particular linguistic forms. incompletely in what is actually said.
  3. 3. Types of conversational implicatures  Context dependence  Defeasibility/ cancel ability  Non detachability  Calculability
  4. 4. Context dependence:  It means that an expression  Example: with a single meaning (i-e,  A: Have you cleared the table expressing the same and washed the dishes? proposition) can give rise to different conversational  B: I’ve cleared the table. implicatures in different . contexts.  From this example we may  Purpose of this criterion is imply that B has not washed to distinguish between the dishes implicatures and entailment.
  5. 5. Defeasibility/ cancel ability:  Conversational implicature  Example: A: Did you attend the seminar and saw the presentation can be cancelled by of “3 idiots +1” group? additional material without  B: I have attended the contradiction or * anomaly. seminar.  (* anomaly means  C: Yes, I have attended the seminar and I thoroughly irregularity) enjoyed that presentation.  In utterance B we get a strong presumption (implicature; implied  But in conventional implicatures, statement) that though I attended the subsequent material simply gives seminar I missed out this particular rise to anomaly. presentation.  Example: Sobia hasn’t arrived  In utterance C, additional material yet. cancelled the implicature i-e, yes; I attended the seminar and did happen to  (This example, implies that I know see the presentation which was quite for a fact that she will be late as entertaining for me. always)
  6. 6. Non detachability:  The same propositional  The implicature is content in the same context tied to the meaning will always give rise to the and not to form. same conversational implicature, in whatever form it is expressed.  Example: A: Jazzy didn’t manage to walk as far as the  A == B crossroads.  A == C B: Jazzy attempted to  walk as far as the cross roads.  B =/= C  C: Jazzy didn’t walk as far as the cross roads.
  7. 7. Calculability  A conversational implicature must be calculable, using state  Example: if a couple able general principles on the decides between them that basis of conventional meaning if one of them says that “I together with contextual am leaving”, it information. automatically means that “I am leaving and you should/ must also leave with me”  Completion:  Enrichment:  Supplying any  In it, first we extra information to retrieve fill out the explicature, out or to fill out all the of the said utterance. By explicatures in an utterance doing so we get closer to a is called enrichment. propositional form and we call the process which leads
  8. 8. Main concept  Example: A: When will this presentation end?  B: 9:00.  C: This presentation will end at 9:00. If we consider utterance A and utterance B, then it is completion as utterance B does answer utterance A  But, if we consider utterance A and utterance C, then utterance C is more enriched, as compared to utterance B, as it gives out all the necessary information, details, suppressing possible implicatures
  9. 9. Problems  The stated criterion The difficulty is that it is not clear; exactly how much is not adequate to enrichment is allowed for elements of explicature. explain its own Example: A: I am out of petrol. examples B: There’s a garage just around the corner.  . Example: student: may I A: No, it doesn’t. It’s only for come in? repairs. Now, in this utterance, “no, it  Teacher: I have doesn’t” implies only to the fact that already marked the the garage does not sell petrol, attendance. enrichment provides the extra  In this example, we observe needed information that it is only for that utterance A has no direct repairs, and it does not imply that the garage does not exist at all. linguistic relevance with utterance B.
  10. 10. Approaches to explanation Coding hypothesis: Restricted coding mechanism
  11. 11. Approaches to explanation  Coding hypothesis:  Restricted coding mechanism:  As the name suggests, it restricts the coding  According to this view, messages mechanism with its strict, explicit algorithms, are coded in their entirety and to the explicature and explains the communication is matter of implicatures by a much more fluid mechanism, governed by more general principles capable encoding and decoding, according of responding to totally new situations. to a set of rules whose observation  On the other hand, in this view there is no set guarantees a successful outcome. of rules whose observance will guarantee success.  Maxim based  Relevance based accounts accounts:   It proposes a general It essentially dispense with principle and a set of the maxims, claiming that a more specific maxims. satisfactory general principle can handle everything.

×