Kelompok 6 semprag (cooperation and implicature)

1,717 views

Published on

Published in: Business, Technology
0 Comments
4 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,717
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
99
Comments
0
Likes
4
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Kelompok 6 semprag (cooperation and implicature)

  1. 1. SEMANTICS AND PRAGMATICS COOPERATION AND IMPLICATURE DONA WIDIYA LECTURER : AINUL FAIZA, S.S ENGLISH DEPARTMENT COLLEGE OF TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION (STKIP) YDB LUBUK ALUNG 2012
  2. 2. COOPERATION AND IMPLICATURE Cooperation is the process by which the components of a system work together to achieve the global properties. Examples can be found all around us. Implicature is anything that is inferred from an utterance but that is not a condition for the truth of the utterance. Implicated , is a technical term in the pragmatics subfield of linguistics, coined by H. P. Grice, which refers to what is suggested in an utterance, even though neither expressed nor strictly implied (that is , entailed) by the utterance. For example : • The sentence "Mary had a baby and got married" strongly suggests that Mary had the baby before the wedding, but the sentence would still be strictly true if Mary had her baby after she got married. Further, if we add the qualification "— not necessarily in that order" to the original sentence, then the implicated is cancelled even though the meaning of the original sentence is not altered. • Some of the boys were at the party. on the sentence implicate, it’s mean not all of the boys were at the party
  3. 3. The cooperative principle is a principle of conversation that was proposed by Grice 1975, stating that participants expect that each will make a ” conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange.” The cooperative principle can be divided into four maxims, called the Grecian maxims, describing specific rational principles observed by people who obey the cooperative principle; these principles enable effective communication. Grice proposed four conversational maxims that arise from the pragmatics of natural language. The Grecian Maxims are a way to explain the link between utterances and what is understood from them. The cooperative principle goes both ways: speakers (generally) observe the cooperative principle, and listeners (generally) assume that speakers are observing it. This allows for the possibility of implicates, which are meanings that are not explicitly conveyed in what is said, but that can nonetheless be inferred. For example, if Alice points out that Bill is not present, and Carol replies that Bill has a cold, then there is an implicated that the cold is the reason, or at least a possible reason, for Bill's absence; this is because Carol's comment is not cooperative — does not contribute to the conversation — unless her point is that Bill's cold is or might be the reason for his absence. (This is covered specifically by the Maxim of Relevance). The cooperative principle
  4. 4. Hedges A hedge is a mitigating device used to lessen the impact of an utterance. Typically, they are adjectives or adverbs, but can also consist of clauses. It could be regarded as a form of euphemism. Examples: • There might just be a few insignificant problems we need to address. (adjective) • The party was somewhat spoiled by the return of the parents. (adverb) • I'm not an expert but you might want to try restarting your computer. (clause)
  5. 5. Hedges may intentionally or unintentionally be employed in both spoken and written language since they are crucially important incommunication. Hedges help speakers and writers indicate more precisely indicate how Grecian, maxims (expectations of quantity, quality, manner, and relevance) are observed in assessments. For example, 1. All I know is, smoking is harmful to your health. In (1), it can be observed that information conveyed by the speaker is limited by adding all I know and as you probably know. By so saying, the speaker wants to inform that she is not only making an assertion but observing the maxim of quantity as well. 2. They told me that they are married. If the speaker only says that “they are married” and they do not know for sure if they are married, they may violate the maxim of quality since they say something that they do not know to be true or false. Nevertheless, by adding they told me that, the speaker wants to confirm that they are observing the conversational maxim of quality.
  6. 6. 3. I am not sure if all of these are clear to you, but this is what I know. The above example (3) shows that hedges are good indications the speakers are not only conscious of the maxim of manner, but they are also trying to observe them. 4. By the way, you like this car? By using by the way, what has been said by the speakers is not relevant to the moment in which the conversation takes place. Such a hedge can be found in the middle of speakers’ conversation as the speaker wants to switch to another topic that is different from the previous one. Therefore, by the way functions as a hedge indicating that the speaker wants to drift into another topic or to stop the previous topic.
  7. 7. Conversational implicature conversational implicature is an implicature that is part of lexical item’s or expression’s agreed meaning, rather than derived , from principles of language use , and part of the conditions for the truth of the items or expressions. A speaker using the word but between coordinate clauses thinks that some contrast or concession relation is relevant between the clauses. Paul Grice identified three types of general conversational implicated: 1. The speaker deliberately flouts a conversational maxim to convey an additional meaning not expressed literally. 2. The speaker’s desire to fulfill two conflicting maxims results in his or her flouting one maxim to invoke the other. 3. The speaker invokes a maxim as a basis for interpreting the utterance.
  8. 8. The conversational implicature is a message that is not found in the plain sense of the sentence. The speaker implies it. The hearer is able to infer (work out, read between the lines) this message in the utterance, by appealing to the rules governing successful conversational interaction. An example of what Grice meant by conversational implicature is the utterance: “Have you got any cash on you?” where the speaker really wants the hearer to understand the meaning: “Can you lend me some money? I don't have much on me.”
  9. 9. Scalar implicature In pragmatics, scalar implicature, or quantity implicature is an implicature (conversational inference) that attributes an implicit meaning beyond the explicit or literal meaning of an utterance, and which suggests that the utterer had a reason for not using a more informative or stronger term on the same scale. The choice of the weaker characterization suggests that, as far as the speaker knows, none of the stronger characterizations in the scale holds. This is commonly seen in the use of 'some' to suggest the meaning 'not all', even though 'some' is logically consistent with 'all'. If Bill says 'I have some of my money in cash', this suggests to a hearer (though it does not logically imply it) that Bill does not have all his money in cash.
  10. 10. Scalar implicatures typically arise where the speaker qualifies or scales their statement with language that conveys to the listener an inference or implicature that indicates that the speaker had reasons not to use a stronger, more informative, term. For example : Where a speaker uses the term "some" in the statement, "Some students can afford a new car.", the use of "some" gives rise to an inference or implicature that "Not all students can afford a new car.
  11. 11. Particularized conversational implicature Particularized conversational implicature is : • A conversational implicature that can be inferred depend on particular features of the context with special background knowledge. • A conversational implicature that is derivable only in a specific context. Examples : A : What on earth has happened to the roast beef? B : The dog is looking very happy. In the above exchange, A will likely derive the implicature "the dog ate the roast beef" from B’s statement. This is due to A’s belief that B is observing the conversational maxim of relation or relevance in the specific context of A’s question.
  12. 12. PROPERTIES OF CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURE 1. Defeasibility • Cancel ability • Implicates can be changed afterwards. • "Fritz has two bottles of wine. Even three, if you count the rosé.“ 2. Non-detachability • Linked to the semantic context, not the words, of an utterance • Cannot be detached from the utterance in its actual context (does not apply to implicatures that are due to the maxim of manner) • "Can you tell me the time?" - "Well, the postman hasn't been yet."
  13. 13. 3. Calculability • Can be calculated from the sentential meaning of an utterance plus the conversational maxims plus situational background knowledge. • In this sense: Regular logical inferences. • Defeasibility is a matter of revising the assumptions about cooperatively or background assumptions. 4. Non-conventionality • Implicatures do not rest on the conventional or truth- conditional meaning of linguistic expressions alone. • From "Harry hit Sally" does not follow truth- conditionally that "Harry didn't kill Sally by hitting her", but it does follow by conversational implicature.
  14. 14. Conventional implicatures Conventional implicature is an implicature that is • Part of a lexical item’s or expression’s agreed meaning, rather than derived from principles of language use, and • Not part of the conditions for the truth of the item or expression. Example: A speaker using the word but between coordinate clauses thinks that some contras or concession relation is relevant between the clauses.

×