IMPLICATURE

ž  An implicature is anything that is inferred from an utterance but that is not a condition for the truth of the utterance.

ž  Implicature is a technical term in the pragmatics subfield of linguistics, coined by Paul Grice, which refers to what is suggested in an utterance, even though not expressed nor strictly implied (that is, entailed) by the utterance.

ž  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 implicature is cancelled even though the meaning of the original sentence is not altered.

ž  The expression Some of the boys were at the party implicates in most contexts Not all of the boys were at the party.

Implicature: Actual+Potencial

Actual: conventional+nonconventional

Nonconventional: conversational+nonconversational

An actual implicature is any potential implicature that is not canceled by its context.

ž  The expression I think that some went has two potential implicatures:

¡  The matrix sentence I think ... has the potential implicature "I don’t know [that some went]."

¡  The complement clause ... some went has the potential implicature "not all went."

ž  Of the two potential implicatures, only I don’t know that some went is an actual implicature, because the other occurs in a complement clause that the matrix clause does not entail. If some went were uttered independently, as a main clause, its potential implicature ‘not all went’ would also be its actual implicature.

Potencial Imp:Is an implicature that would arise from any of the component of a given utterance if that component where uttered in some linguistics or extra linguistics context.

ž  I think that some were there

The sentence has two potential implicature the matrix sentence “i think” has the potential clausal potential implicature ( i dont know)

The complement clause “some were there” has the scala potential implicature (not all were there)

ž  Conventional implicature is independent of the cooperative principle and its maxims. A statement always carries its conventional implicature.

                                    Joe is poor but happy.

ž  This sentence implies poverty and happiness are not compatible but in spite of this Joe is still happy. The conventional interpretation of the word "but" will always create the implicature of a sense of contrast. So Joe is poor but happy will always necessarily imply "Surprisingly Joe is happy in spite of being poor". Conventional implicatures cannot be cancelled (unlike conversational implicatures, which can be).

An nonconventional implicature is a implicature that is drawn in accordance with pragmatic principles, such as the cooperative principle or the informativeness principle, rather than the meaning of a lexical item or expression.

Conversational Imp Is an interpretive procedure that operate to figure out what is going on

ž  They are dependent on the recognition of the Co-operative Principle and its maxims

ž  They will not be part of the meaning of the lexical items in the sentence since there interpretation depends on a prior understanding of the conventional meaning of the sentence

ž  The implicature of an utterance will characteristically not be the sole possible interpretation of that utterance

ž  The working out of an implicature will depend on assumptions about the world which the speaker and the hearer share

ž  They are cancellable 

Paul Grice identified three types of general conversational implicature:

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.

1. The speaker deliberately flouts a conversational maxim to convey an additional meaning not expressed literally.

            For instance, a speaker responds to the question “How did you like the guest speaker?” with the following utterance:

                        Well, I’m sure he was speaking English.

If the speaker is assumed to be following the cooperative principle, in spite of flouting the Maxim of Quantity, then the utterance must have an additional nonliteral meaning, such as: “The content of the speaker’s speech was confusing.”

2.The speaker’s desire to fulfill two conflicting maxims results in his or her flouting one maxim to invoke the other. For instance, a speaker responds to the question “Where is John?” with the following utterance:

                        He’s either in the cafeteria or in his office.

In this case, the Maxim of Quantity and the Maxim of Quality are in conflict. A cooperative speaker does not want to be ambiguous but also does not want to give false information by giving a specific answer in spite of his uncertainty. By flouting the Maxim of Quantity, the speaker invokes the Maxim of Quality, leading to the implicature that the speaker does not have the evidence to give a certain answer to where John is.

3.The speaker invokes a maxim as a basis for interpreting the utterance. In the following exchange:

ž  Do you know where I can get some gas? There’s a gas station around the corner.

The second speaker invokes the Maxim of Relevance, resulting in the implicature that “the gas station is open and one can probably get gas there”

ž  Scalar Implicature

According to Grice (1975), another form of conversational implicature is also known as a scalar implicature. This concerns the conventional uses of words like “all” or “some” in conversation.

ž  I ate some of the pie.

This sentence implies “I did not eat all of the pie.” While the statement “I ate some pie” is still true if the entire pie was eaten, the conventional meaning of the word “some” and the implicature generated by the statement is “not all”.

ž  A nonconversational implicature is a nonconventional implicature that arises from the operation of a principle or maxim of language usage other than the cooperative principle and conversational maxims, such as an implicature derived from an assumption of the informative principle.