On the Theory of Conversational Implicature
On the Theory of Conversational Implicature 1. Introduction Implicature is an important topic in pragmatic study. ... Oxford philosopher Herbert Paul Grice coined the term implicature. Based on non-natural meaning and intentional communication, Grice (1975) develops the theory of conversational implicature. ... Finally, I¡¯ll concentrate on the distinction of three kinds of implicatures in terms of characteristics, namely conventional implicature, generalized conversational implicature and particularized conversational implicature. Thus I attempt to briefly touch upon Grice¡¯s theory of conversational implicature. ... It is stated like the following: ¡° Make your conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged¡± (1975: 45). ... The observance of the maxims usually generates standard implicatures (the term is not Grice¡¯s) while the flouting of the maxims usually generates conversational implicatues. ... And the speaker¡¯s flouting of a maxim combined with the hearer¡¯s assumption that the speaker has not really abandoned the cooperative principle leads to an implicature. ... In (9), the implicature is that many women want to marry him. ... Distinction of three kinds of implicatures in characteristics Conversational implicature is a type of implied meaning, which is deduced on the basis of the conventional meaning of words together with the context, under the guidance of the CP and its maxims. It is classified into particularized conversational implicature and generalized conversational implicature. Particularized conversational implicatures are based on particular context or special scenario while generalized conversational implicatures do not need such specific contexts. ... Particularized conversational implicature has four characteristics, which may not be shared by generalized conversational implicature and also distinguish it from conventional implicature. ... 1 Calculability One characteristic of particularized conversational implicatures is calculability. ... A general pattern for the working out of a particularized conversational implicature might be: S has said that p; there¡¯s no reason to think S is not observing the maxims, or at least the co-operative principle; in order for S to say that p and be indeed observing the maxims or the co-operative principle, S must think that q; S must know that it is mutual knowledge that q must be supposed if S is to be taken to be co-operating; S has done nothing to stop me, the addressee, thinking that q; therefore S intends me to think that q, and in saying that p has implicated q (Levinson, 1983: 113-114). ... An implicature is defeasible if it is possible to cancel it by adding some additional premises to the original ones. Both particularized and generalized conversational implicatures are cancellable, while conventional implicatures are not. ... ) The particularized implicature generated in the first part of (12), which is Mike has only three pens, is cancelled in the second part without any obvious contradiction or deviation. And in (13), the generalized implicature is also cancellable since it is completely acceptable. But in (14), the cancellation of the conventional implicature creates some contradiction. ... So the conventional implicature is not cancellable. ... 3 Non-detachability Non-detachability means that the implicature is attached to the semantic content of what is said, not to the linguistic form, and therefore implicatures cannot be detached from an utterance simply by changing the words of the utterance for synonyms. ... In other words, the implicature generated from the ironic use of (15) is non-detachable from the propositional content of this utterance when synonymous utterances are used as in (17)-(19).