《语用与交际》 论文-Pragmatic Anlysis on Coversational Implicature

成

绩

评卷人

姓

名

学

号

华

中

师

范

大

学

本

科

生

课

程

论

文

论文题目

Pragmatic Anlysis on Coversational Implicature

完成时间

2013.6

课程名称

《语用与交际》

授课教 师

_________

__

柯

贤

兵

_

___________

专

业

辅修第二学位英语专业

年

级

2010

英语双学位辅修

Title: Pragmatic Anlysis on Conversational Implicature

uction

1.1 Introduction of H.P.

Theory

of

conversational

implicature

is

essentially

a

theory

about

how

people

use language to get additional meanings across. The theory was proposed by

Grice,

an

Oxford

philosopher

who

later

went

to

America,

in

the

William

James

lectures delivered at Harvard in 1967. These lectures were only partially published in

1975,

entitled

??Logic

and

Conversation??,

and

in

1978,

entitled

“Further

Notes

on

Logic

and Coversation”.H

e attempted at

explaining how a hearer

gets

from

what

is

said

to

what

is

meant,

from

the

level

of

expressed

meaning

to

the

level

of

implied

meaning.

1.2 Introduction the reason of why choose this aspect

There exists a gap between what one literally says and what one contextually

conveys. When in a particular circumstances, the speaker?s meanings may not easily

be understood. In conversation, sometimes a speaker in giving a reply to a question,

try to mean something by just saying something intended meaning that is not

covered

in

the

literal

meaning

is

called

implicature.

The

theory

of

conversational

implicature

is

considered

one

of

the

key

concepts

in

pragmatics

for

its

powerful

explanatory

role

in

language

communication.

It

was

furst

put

forward

by

Grice,

an

American philisopher and linguist, who raised the famous “Cooperative Principle” in

order to explain conversational implicature. If we can realize the meaning conveys in

the

word

deeply,

we

can

prevent

us

from

being

misunderstood

and

understanding

others

better.

In

this

way,

the

grasp

of

conversational

implicature

is

important

for

English learners.

II. Theretical Framework

Grice s conversational implicature theory is the basis of pragmatic

theories,whereas relevance theory has more explanatory advantages than the

conversational implicature theory. Levinson helps to simplify meaning classification

and contributes to the formation of a theory of generalized conversational implicature

and the further development of conversational implicature studies. In this essay, we

will mainly talk about the application of conversational implicature from different

aspects. In grammar, we will discuss the conversational implicatures in sentences and

text. The tense of what a speaker uses also has its implicative meanings which are

considered to be improper to say it directly. In real communication, the conversation

participants not always follow the principle in their talk and the maxims are often

violated. When it comes to the violation of CP, the conversational implicature refers

to the extra meaning that is not contained in the utterance.

III.

Pragmatic Analysis on conversational implicature

3.0. Lets start with these examples

(1). A Chinese example from a film: a boy says to a girl

?

你不戴眼镜的时候很漂

亮

?and the

girl immediately responds

?

那我戴 眼镜一定很丑了

?

。

Now the boy may have reason to deny the girl?s interpretation is what he said. But

he may not able to deny in all fairness that this is, at least partly, what he implied.

Grice coined the term implicature to explore the question how people manage to

convey implicature, which is not explicity expressed.

(2) There is a woman sitting on a park bench and a large dog lying on the ground in

front of the bench.

Man: Does your dog bite?

Woman: No.

( Then th

e man reaches down to pet the dog. The bites the man?s hand.)

Man : Ouch! Hey! You said your dog doesn?t bite.

Woman : He doesn?t. But that?s not my dog.

The problem of the communication is caused by the man?s assumption that more

was communicated than was said.

The problem is the man?s assumption that his question “Does your dog bite??? and

the woman?s answer “No”. both

apply to

the dog in

front

of them. From

the man?s

perspective,

the

woman?s

answer

provides

less

information

than

expected.

In

other

words, she might be expressed to provide the information stated in the last line. Of

course, if she had mentioned this information earlier, the story wouldn?t be as funny.

For the event to be funny, the woman has to give less information than is expected.

(3)

1)Virginia: Do you like my new hat?

Mary:

It?s pink.

2)Maggie : Do you like my new dress?

Linda: Oh , it?s green.

3)Phil: Are you going to Steve?s barbecue?

Terry: Well, Steve?s got those dogs now

4)Annie: Was the dessert any good?

Mike: Annie, cherry pie is cherry pie.

The

additional

or

different

meanings

which

we

observed

in

the

examples

are

conveyed by means of implicature.

1. I don?t like your hat.

2. I won?t have some coffee.

3. I don?t think I?m going to Steve?s barbecu

e.

4. No, the dessert was pretty boring.

* How can we arrive at these meanings?

3.1. The notion of conversational implicature

Pragmatics

helps

one

accurately

interpret

what

a

speaker

intends

to

mean

throngh his or her utterance. However, in various contexts, the literal meaning of

an utterance may be different from what is really meant by the speaker who makes

the utterance. The intended meaning that is not covered in the literal meaning is

called miplicature.

Horn has defined the conversational implicature: a conversational implicature

is “a component of speaker meaning that constitutes an aspect of what is meant in

a speaker?s utterance without being part of what is said”.

3.2.

The category of conversational implicature

There are some different ideas of the category of conversational implicature.

When Grice first introduced the conversational implicature, he categorized it into

two kinds according to the context. When people follow the Cooperative Principle

and

maxims

or

make

their

conversation

develop

towards

this

tendency,

they

produce

generalized

conversational

implicatures

that

can

be

achieved

without

certain contexts or background. To the contraty, when people violate these maxims

intentionally

to

convey

some

implicature,

they

generate

particularized

conversational implicatures that depend on certain contexts and backgrounds.

Basing

on

Grice?s

theory,

Levinson

categorized

the

conversational

implicature explicitly according to the context and principle. When speakers obey

the principle, they produce standard conversational implicature. On the contrary,

they produce non-standard conversational implicature.

Some other experts also have their own opinions. Sadock suggested to omit

the

non- standard

conversational

implicature.

姜望琪

combined

these

theories

together.

3.3. The application of conversational implicature

It is held that a sentence in itself has a fixed and clear meaning, but when it is

used in a certain context by a certain speaker for a certain prupose as an utterande,

its

real

meaning

changes.

Conversational

implicature

provides

some

explicit

account of how it is possible to mean more than what is literally expressed by the

conventional sense of the linguistic expressions uttered. Using it, we can infer the

speaker?s real attention, appreciate

figure of speech in literary work, and improve

our communicative competence.

（

1

）

Grice’s theory

Grice?s distinction between sentence

-meaning and speaker-meaning has noticed

the

discrepancies

between

context-independent

literal

meaning

and

context-determinate

conversational

implicature.

For

example,

“He

is

a

fine

friend”

said

ironically

may

be

intended

by

the

speaker

to

communicate

the

contradictory

meaning “He is a bad friend”. The details of what is implicated will depend upon the

particular context of utterance.

According

to

Grice,

one

sentence

indicates

more

meanings.

How

does

the

speaker convey implicature? And how does the hearer absorb the intended message?

In communication, the intention from the message sender is the mutual knowledge of

the sender and t

he receiver. How can the mutual knowledge be acquired? In Grice?s

opinion,

people?s

conversation

is

not

a

sequence

of

irrelevant

words,

but

a

kind

of

cooperative effort instead. Grice introduced the cooperative principle which provides

some clues to the mechanism of recognition.

Grice?s distinction between sentence

-meaning and speaker- meaning has noticed

the

discrepancies

between

context-independent

literal

meaning

and

context-

determinate

conversational

implicature.

For

example,

“He

is

a

fine

friend”

said

ironically

may

be

intended

by

the

speaker

to

communicate

the

contradictory

meaning “He is a bad friend”. The details of what is implicated will depend upon the

particular context of utterance.

According

to

Grice,

one

sentence

indicates

more

meanings.

How

does

the

speaker convey implicature? And how does the hearer absorb the intended message?

In communication, the intention from the message sender is the mutual knowledge of

the sender and the receiver. How can the mutual knowledge be acquired? In Grice?s

opi

nion,

people?s

conversation

is

not

a

sequence

of

irrelevant

words,

but

a

kind

of

cooperative effort instead. Grice introduced the cooperative principle which provides

some clues to the mechanism of recognition.

①

The Cooperative Principle

We know that a speaker in giving a suply to a question, try to mean something by

just saying something else. How can we get the implied meaning exactly? How can a

speaker

try

to

mean

more

than

what

is

said?

Paul

Grice,

an

American

language

philisopher,

proposes

that

in

ordinary

conversation,

speakers

and

hearers

share

a

co-operative

principle.

He

indentifies

as

guidelines

of

four

basic

maxims

of

conversation

or

general

principles

underlying

the

efficient

co- orperative

use

of

language, which jointly express a general co-operative principle.

The General Principle:

Make your contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the

accepted prupose or direction fo the talk exchange in which you are engaged.

The Maxim of Quantity:

1) Make your contribution as informative as is required for the current purposes

of the exchange

2)

Do not make your contribution more informative than is required.

The Maxim of Quality:

Try to make your contriburion one that is true, specifically:

1)

Do not say what you believe to be false

2)

Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence

The Maxim of Relevance

What you say should be relevant to your conversation.

The Maxim of Manner

Be perspicuous, and specifically:

1)

Avoid obscurity

2)

Avoid ambiguity

3)

Be brief

4)

Be orderly

②

Convesational implicature

Grice does not of course prescribe the use of such maxims. Nor does he suggest

that we use them to construct conversations. But they are useful for analyzing and

interpreting conversation, and may generate inferences beyond the semantic content

of the sentences uttered. Conversational implicature may be generated by the maxims

which the speaker deliberately and ostentatiously breaches or flouts.

The flouting or exploitation of the maxims may be aroused by

(1) The speaker?s clear declaration, e.g. “No comment” or “Don?t talk”.

(2) The speaker?s secret violation which sometimes misleads the hearer, such as

lying.

(3) The speaker?s observation of one maxim at the expense of another, e.g. “I

know somebody there”

.

Here the speaker observes the maxim of Quality, but violates

the maxim of Quantity.

(4) The speaker?s conveying of conversational implicature.

The fourth one is the real interest. The inferences of the speaker?s conversational

implicature are based on the remarkable robustness of the assumption of co-operation:

if someone drastically and dramatically deviates from maxim-type behavior, then his

utterances are still read as underlyingly co-operative if this is at all possible. In this

way, the surface flouting of the co-operative maxims give us a clue or hint to infer the

conversational implicature, and can be seen to give rise to many of the traditional

?figure of speech?.

Some philosophers or logicians conclude that natural language is inadequate for

the precise, logical representation of meaning, and. so it is necessary to devise ideal

languages to solve the problem. Thus according to logical semantics, understanding

the meaning of natural language is understanding a logical relationship between two

propositions.

?

The logical representation of conjunction: p

q

E.g. Let you cut my hedge be symbolized by p; and I'll take you out to dinner

be symbolized by q. Then the logical expression p

q will stand for: if p, then q.

If you cut my hedge (p), I'll take you out to dinner (q).

?

The logical representation of conjunction: p & q

This logical

expression stands for: if p is true and q is true, then p & q is true.

If either p or q is

not true (i.e. false), then the conjunction of p and q is necessarily false.

E.g. The duck ran up to Mary (p) and licked her (q).

?

But this is not always true in real life as in the above example. Whenever p & q

is true, it logically follows that q & p is true:

The duck licked Mary (q) and ran up to her (p).

Conventional implicature: an implicature that arises not depending on particular

context of language use; or non-truth conditional inferences that are not derived from

superordinate pragmatic principles like the Gricean maxims but are simply attached

by convention to particular lexical items (Levinson 1983); or it is related to the use of