Conversational implicatureWord下载.docx

1、 How does the hearer get from what is said to what is meant, from the level of expressed meaning to the level of implied meaning. 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 la

2、nguages 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 Ill take you out to dinn

3、er be symbolized by q. Then the logical expression p q will stand for: if p, then q. If you cut my hedge （p）, Ill 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 t

4、rue （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 （

5、p）. Grice （1975） published an article Logic and conversation which raises the question how it is possible for a theory to deal with the fact that natural language utterances do not convey the same meaning that the corresponding logical proposition would. He made an attempt to offer a solution: The p

6、hilosophers assumption that natural language expressions diverge from the formal devices of the logicians is wrong. In other words, natural language expressions cannot be fully explained by formal logic.The argument is that the reason why people make a proposition （p） but often mean more than that （

7、q） is that the divergent or extra meanings that seem to crop up when certain kinds of natural language statements are made are not due to the syntactic or semantic rules of languages, but to rules and principles of conversation.1.2 Defining implicatures What is intended by the speaker, or the intend

8、ed speaker meaning. Invisible meaning or implicit meaning. Additional conveyed meaning that is more than what words mean. What is communicated in context, not the meaning of words, phrases or sentences.2. Grices theory of conversational implicature meaning-nn Two components The Cooperative Principle

9、 （CP）The first theory of meaning-nn is regarded as a theory of communication which might be achieved in the absence of any conventional means for expressing the intended message. The second theory is essentially a theory about how people use language.2.1 Meaning-nn Natural meaning and non-natural me

10、aning （meaning-nn）Grices analysis of meaning is mainly presented in his articles, Meaning, Utterers Meaning and Intention, and Meaning Revisited （1978, 1981, 1989）a） These spots mean measles.b） Clouds meant it is going to rain.c） His gesture meant that he was fed up.d） His cough meant that the super

11、visor had come to the classroom building.Questions: Is there any difference between the meaning of the verb mean in a） and b） and that of the verb mean in c） and d）?Natural meaning: factive or not involving intentionX means that p and X meant that p entail p. （related to natural signs）Non-natural me

12、aning: non-factive and intention involvedX means that p and X meant that p do not entail p. （related to conventional signs） Meaning and intentionSince the intention of the speaker has to be involved in communication, an analysis of meaning is necessarily done in terms of intention. S meant-nn someth

13、ing by X:This means that speaker intends the utterance of X to produce some effect in an audience by means of the recognition of his intention. For Grice, meaning has to be interpreted in terms of the hearer and so meaning and intention were brought together in his analysis. This is the crucial poin

14、t in understanding Grices theory and Searles one.Searles theory: meaning = intention represented by the speaker （intention to represent） meaning = intention interpreted by the hearer （intention to communicate）So what is an intention by Grices interpretation? Grices mechanism for pragmatic inferenceX

15、 intends to bring about a response on the part of Y by getting Y to recognize that X intends to bring about that response; Y does recognize Xs intention, and is thereby given some sort of reason to respond just as X intends him to.E.g. It is cold in here.Setting: in a classroomUtterance: it is cold

16、in here.The speaker X intends to make a request of the hearer Y to close the door.The hearer Y is able to recognize this intention by doing the action of closing the door.Austins illocutionary meaning = Grices perlocutionary meanings view: meaning Is a matter of intention and a matter of convention

17、as well. （Searle, 1979） Conversational implicature and conventional implicatureGrice distinguished what is said from what is implicated. By what is implicated it means an implicature as we have defined in the above. Grice went further to distinguish two different sorts of implicature: conventional i

18、mplicature and conversational implicature.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 conv

19、ention to particular lexical items （Levinson 1983）; or it is related to the use of certain words regardless of the context in which it occurs.Adverbs: already, also, barely, either, only, scarcely, still, too, yetConnectives: but, nevertheless, so, therefore, yetImplicative verbs: bother, condescend

20、, continue, fail, manage, stopSubordinating conjunctions: although, despite （the fact that）, even thougha） She is poor but honest.cf: She is poor and honest.b） He is an Englishman; he is, therefore, brave. He is an Englishman and he is brave.c） Even John likes Mary.But means that what follows will r

21、un counter to expectations; or what follows will be in contrast with what will be expected from what precedes.Therefore means that what follows will be the consequence of what precedes.Even means that the case will be more than might be expected.Properties: non-cancelable and detachableControversial

22、 issues:a） Is a conventional implicature a non-troth-conditional meaning or not?She is poor but honest. （What is implicated?She is poor and honest. （What is said?These two sentences have the same proposition, that is, they have the same truth value. If so, is a conventional implicature part of what

23、is said?b） Is a conventional implicature equal to semantic presupposition?The sentence She is poor but honest implicates that the poor people are not honest; but others may argue that this sentence is said by presupposing that the poor people are not honest, otherwise it would not make sense.c） Is a

24、 conventional implicature just a matter of implicature by intuition?Arthur was a lawyer but he was honest.Even though Arthur was a lawyer, he was honest.Arthur was a lawyer, nevertheless he was honest.These three sentences say nothing more than Arthur was a lawyer and he was honest. If this is true,

25、 then we may claim that conventional implicature is not detachable （because these sentences express the same semantic content）. So conventional implicature rests entirely on intuition.d） Do different words generate implicatures with different truth conditions? John is a philosopher but he is rich. J

26、ohn is a philosopher so he is rich. If this is true, do you still call conventional implicature a non-truth-conditional inference or not part of what is said ?Conversational implicature: non-troth-conditional inferences: derived from pragmatic principles in a particular context of utterance. Accordi

27、ng to J. Mey （2001）, conversational implicature concerns the way we understand an utterance in conversation in accordance with what we expect to hear.a） What time is it? b） The bus just went by or the milkman has just come.How does a） understands what b） means in this particular context? As Leech re

28、marks, interpreting an utterance is ultimately a matter of guesswork, or （to use a more dignified term） hypothesis formation （1983）. a） Whens Aunt Roses birthday? b） Its sometime in April.Does the hearer answer the speakers question? How does a） interpret what b） means? If b） does not know exactly w

29、hich day Aunt Roses birthday occurs, why does he or she chooses such a vague expression?The guesswork involves cooperation between the speaker and the hearer in conversation; assumption that certain principles are in operation. But the guesswork may be right or wrong because the implicature is gener

30、ated by the speaker and the inference is interpreted by the hearer. An implicature may lead to different inferences in a particular context.2.2 The Cooperative PrincipleBased on his observations of meaning and in order to explain the mechanisms by which people interpret conversational implicature or to explain why people often mean more than what they say, Grice （1975） proposed the Cooperative Principle and introduced four conversational maxims