The document provides an overview of key concepts in pragmatics including explicit vs implicit meaning, presupposition and entailment, Grice's cooperative principles and maxims, implicature, proposed distinctions in meaning and use, and subareas of pragmatics such as speech acts and conversational structure. It discusses Grice's view that implicit meaning involves what is implicated rather than entailed from conventional meaning. Various types of implicatures are also outlined such as scalar, conventional, and conversational implicatures.

1. Pragmatics:
Presented by: Hina Javaid
Roll # 100884006
Mapping:
Explicit vs implicit meaning
Presupposition and
entailment
Grice‟s theory
Cooperative principles
Grice‟s Maxims Implicature

2. Proposed distinctions
• Meaning vs. Use
• Content vs. Force
• Type vs. Token
• Sentence/proposition vs. Utterance
• Saying vs. Implicating
• Competence vs. Performance
• Linguistic meaning vs. Speaker‟s meaning
• Literal vs. Non-literal meaning
• Compositionality vs. Non-compositionality
• Intention independence vs. intention dependence
• Conventional vs. Non-conventional meaning
• Context-independent vs. Context-dependent meaning
• Truth-conditional vs. Non-truth-conditional meaning
• Linguistically encoded vs. Non-linguistically encoded meaning

4. sentence conventional
meaning
disambiguation
reference
fixing, i.e., what is said
Explicit
meaning
(semantic
meaning)
Implicit vs. explicit meaning
• Gricean view
• Explicit meaning:
– sentence's conventional meaning
– the meaning obtained by the combination of
• Implicit meaning:
– The remaining of utterance meaning, presuppositions and implicatures.

5. Pragmatics
• Pragmatics is the study of deixis, implicature,
presupposition,
speech acts, and aspects
of discourse structure.
(Levinson, 1983)
Pragmatics is the study of how we don’t say
what we mean.

6. • Semantic context dependence
• Presupposition / Conventional implicature
• Conversational Implicature
• Speech Acts
• Textual cohesion and coherence
• Conversational structure (dialogue)
according to Levinson: Pragmatics. CUP
Pragmatics: Subareas

7. Linguistic communication is an Intentional-inferential process
linguistic communication=interpersonal context
Intension of utterance = speaker utters
Attributes of utterance = listener hears
Interpretation of utterance
We Infer possibilities of
intensions; warnings, requests
Utter (larger clues)-----hear ( attributes)
Select relevant aspects
Will you take a side?

8. Presuppositions and entailments
Two aspects of what is communicated but not said
• Gottlob Frege (1848-1925) noted presupposition in his book.
• Presupposition is what a speaker or writer assumes that the
receiver of the message already knows.
• In saying X, we presuppose Y.
• E.g. John doesn‟t write poetry anymore → John once wrote poetry.
• Speakers, not sentences, have presuppositions,
• symbolized as >> .

9. Entailment
(not a pragmatic concept)
• what logically follows from what is asserted in the
utterance, symbolized by II-.
• Sentences, not speakers, have entailments.
• The entailments are communicated without being said
• not dependent on the speaker‟s intention.
Ali‟s brother bought two houses.

10. Need for presupposition & Entailment
• Presupposition:
– help comprehend utterances contextually and deeply
• Entailment:
– Entailment we can find a relationship between two propositions
Works in presupposition analysis
G. Frege (1952), E. Keenan (1971),
R. Jackendoff (1972), R. M. Kempson (1977),
P. Grundy (1995).

11. Grice‟s Pragmatic Theory &
Intentional-inferential approach
• Grice‟s pragmatic theory (Grice 1989), shows how
semantic theories can be greatly simplified where
judgements about meaning can be accounted for via
the mechanism of conversational implicature rather
than derived by entailment from conventional
meaning.

12. Pragmatics: Inferred meaning
The use of language has a social function
Grice:
• said (= truth-condition)
• implicated (= non-truth-condition)
• Implicature is calculated on the basis of what is said;
what is said provides input to what is implicated.
• N-meaning NN-meaning
natural type non-natural type
no speaker intension involved speaker based
That spot on skin Oh! So poor.
Exclamation of pain,
haeee, ouch, ow!
???

13. (H.P.Grice 1975) Theory of conversation
Theory made distinction between
.
what someone says what someone „implicates‟
by uttering a sentence
Cooperative
principal
Four maxims
of
conversation
Guidelines
There is a set of guidelines for effective and rational use of language

14. i) Make your
contribution as
informative as is
required for the
current purposes
of the exchange.
ii) Do not make your
contribution more
informative than is
required.
iii) Do not say what
you believe to be
false.
iv) iv) Do not say that
for which you lack
evidence
vi) Avoid obscurity of
expression
vii) Avoid ambiguity
viii) Be brief
ix) Be orderly
v) Be relevant
Henry Paul Grice (1975):
The co-operative
principle

15. Gricean maxims and cooperative
principle
• 2 Way cooperation:
1. speakers observe the cooperative principle
2. listeners assume that speakers are observing it
• The Cooperative Principle and the Grecian Maxims
are not specific to conversation but to interaction as a
whole.

16. Gricean maxims and cooperative
principle
• Flouting the maxims:
– Manipulated positively and negatively
– produce a negative pragmatic effect, as with sarcasm or
irony.
This allows for the possibility of implicatures, which are
meanings that are not explicitly conveyed in what is said, but
that can nonetheless be inferred.

17. IMPLICATURE {Paul Grice (1975)}
implicature was coined by Patrick McBride
• Some of the boys are playing in the ground?
• Do you have room in your car for us?
• Can you pass the salt?
inferred meaning above and beyond the semantic
meaning (Non-Truth-Conditional)
Explicature: what is explicitly said (direct)
(The truth value of a sentence is determined using its explicature)
Implicature: The information that the speaker conveys
implicitly (indirect)
Linguistic
decoding
pragmatics
Explicature
(what is
stated)
Linguistic
explicature
pragmatics
Implicature
(what is
implied)

18. Types of implicatures
• Scalar Implicature ( +> not all)
– Express one value from a scale of values
– All, most, most, some, few, sometimes, often, always
• Conventional implicature
– But , even, yet, and
• Conversational implicature

19. Conversational Implicature (Grice 1967)
• By implicature we mean what is implied
• By conversational implicature, we mean a meaning or message that is
implicated in a conversation.
conversation
We over say (or
say more of) or
under say (say
less of)
something in
conversation
certain extra
meaning or
meanings
beyond the
literal
meanings
extra meaning is
conversationally
dependent
conversation
implicature.

20. Example:
• Mary: „Did you manage to fix that leak?
• Jim: „I tried to.‟
Jim‟s utterance may implicate that Jim didn‟t fix it

21. Two kinds of conversation implicatures
• Generalized or conventional conversation implicature
– an implicature whose meaning or meanings are inferable without
anchoring it in specific contexts.
“John went into a house and found a tortoise in front of a door”
• Particularized conversation implicature:
– an implicature which is deductible only in specific contexts.
A: Where is the fish?
B: The cat looks very happy.

23. Shumaila KiranNext presenter