See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/351368064

Pragmatics - Implicature

Preprint · May 2019

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29133.77284

CITATIONS READS

0 1,234

1 author:

Kasim Al-Aazzawi
University of Mosul
5 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Kasim Al-Aazzawi on 07 May 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Pragmatics - Implicature… May 2019

Implicature
Assist. Lect. Kasim M. Basil Al-Azzawi
MA in Linguistics and Translation
College of Physical Education & Sport Sciences, University of Mosul, Iraq
e-mail: [email protected]

Introduction

The nation of Implicatures is introduced by Paul Herbert Grice in

1975. He observed that in conversations 'What is meant' goes often beyond
'What is said' and that this additional meaning is inferred and predictable

Implicature is a term which is derived from the verb 'to imply'. The
verb 'implicate' and the cognate noun 'implicature' are technical terms
denoting to 'implying something by saying something else'. Thus,
implicature in Grice's definition implies that unstated information is
conveyed to an audience that is able to work out what is being said by
reference to cultural or linguistic maxims that are being flagrantly flouted.

Implicature is dependent on the context of the utterance and shared

knowledge between the speaker and the hearer. For example:

A. David: Who are those two standing by the door?

B. Marry: That's my mother and her husband.

The implicature here, 'The man is not her father.

Grice also states that some implicatures depend on the conventional

meaning of the words. For example concerning Arabic culture, someone
says 'An Arab man'. The implicature here is that the Arab man is generous,
i.e. someone implicates that it follows from his being an Arab man that he
is generous. Grice's theory of implicature includes two main kinds of
implicature which he calls conversational implicature and conventional
implicaature. These two types will be explained in what follows

1- Conversational Implicature

Grice states that conversational implicatures are implicit meaning

(pragmatic inferences) i.e. the assumptions that hearers make and the
implicatures that speakers make. Conversational implicatures are tied to
particular words and phrases in an utterance.

1
Pragmatics - Implicature… May 2019

Conversational implicatures depend on a wide range of contextual

information including information about the participants and their
relationship with each other. Conversational implicatures demand to make
our utterances coherent, clear and orderly.
Grice attempted to account for conversational implicatures by
suggesting a general co-operative principle between speaker and hearer i.e.
a kind of agreement between speakers and listeners to co-operate in
communication. Grice conforms conversational implicatures to four
maxims of conversation which are :
1- Quantity:
- Make your contribution as informative as required.
- Do not make your contribution more informative than is required.
Ex: It may be raining.
It implies that the speaker does not know whether it is raining or not.
2- Quality:
- Do not say what you believe to be false.
- Do not say that for which you lack evidence.
Ex: I am out of petrol.
The reply is:
Ex: There is a garage round the corner.
It implies that the garage may be open.
3- Relation: Be relevant, make your contribution relevant.
(A) Can I borrow ten dollars?
(B) My purse is in the hall ( the implicature : Yes)
A's assumption is that B's reply is intended to be relevant that
allows the inference (Yes).
4- Manner: Be perspicuous. (clear)
- Avoid obscurity of expression.
- Avoid ambiguity.
- Be brief.
- Be orderly.
Ex: He cocked the chicken then he ate it.
The implicature here is that one can't eat the chicken unless he cooks it.

2
Pragmatics - Implicature… May 2019

Violating and Flouting the Maxims

Grice distinguished between quitely 'violating a maxim' and openly

'flouting' a maxim. Violating is 'quite' in the sense that it is not obvious at
the time of the utterance that the speaker had on purpose for example lied,
said a wrong information, been ambiguous, irrelevant or hard to
understand. In violation no maxim is followed i.e. responding to a
statement in a totally irrelevant way which breaks down communication. In
Grice's analysis, these violations might hamper communication but they do
not lead to implicatures.

What leads to implicatures is a situation where the speaker flouts the

maxim, i.e. a certain maxim is observed or followed but it is flouted on
purpose because, the speaker implies something which is not said.

These maxims are not rules, they are basic assumptions and can be
broken. The examples below show how can one violate and flout each
maxim.

1- Quantity:

Grice's best known example is of a reference for a job in philosophy

that reads:

'Dear Sir.

Mr. X's command of English is excellent and his attendance at

classes has been regular.

Yours , …… etc.

Since the writer knows that more information than this is required,
he is really flouting the maxim of quantity. Perhaps he does not wish to
say that Mr. X is no good at philosophy.

3
Pragmatics - Implicature… May 2019

2- Quality:

Grice also argues that the maxim of quality can also be flouted by
irony or as in the metaphor below. The hearer has to work out what it is
that the speaker is trying to convey.
Ex: John is a fine friend.
Ex: You are the cream in my coffee.
3- Relation:
(A) Susan can be such a genius sometimes!
(B) lovely weather, isn't it?

B's comment is un relevant (For some reason or other)

4- Manner:
Ex: John's lips turned slightly upwards.

Which means John didn't exactly smile.

1-1- Generalized Conversational Implicatures

It is a type of conversational implicature. The implicature in
generalized conversational implicatures is more predictable and less
context dependent as in the following example:
(A) : Did you drink all the bottles of milk in the fridge?
(B) I drunk some. (Implicature: didn't drink all)
1-1-1- Scalar Implicatures

Scalar implicatures are a special type of generalized conversational

implicatures where the inference is made by reference to a scale of values,
one of which has been chosen by the speaker. The following are examples
on scale of values:

1- Scale of quantity: some, most, all.

2- Scale of frequency: sometimes, often, always.
3- Scale of coldness: cool, cold, freezing.
4- Scale of likelihood: possibly, probably, certainly.
For example:
A. Jane: I hear you're always late with the rent.
B. John: Well, sometimes I am.

The implicature in the above example is that John is not always late
with the rent, but some times.

4
Pragmatics - Implicature… May 2019

1-2- Particularized Conversational Implicatures

It is another type of conversational implicature. The implicature in
particularized conversational implicatures is entirely context dependent.
particularized conversational implicatures require not only general
knowledge, but also a knowledge which is particular to the speaker and the
hearer, and often to the physical context of the utterance as well. For
example:
(A): Can I borrow $10?
(B): My purse is in the hall.
The Implicature of B's answer here is Yes.

2- Conventional Implicature

Conventional implicatures are not based on the cooperative principle

or the maxims. Conventional implicatures don’t occur in conversation and
are not dependent on special contexts for their interpretation. Conventional
implicatures are associated with specific words and result in additional
conveyed meanings when those words are used. There are comparatively
few examples of conventional implicatures such as ' even, but, therefore,
and, yet'.

Conventional implicatures are implicit meaning that must be

presupposed, understood and taken for granted for an utterance to make
sense. They can be logically inferred from forms of expression. They can
conventionally be inferred from forms of expression in combination with
assumed standard adherence to conversational maxims.

Conventional implicatures are considered to be aspects of sentence

meaning which are logically independent of literal illocutionary acts. For
example, the two sentences, 'He is fat and does not eat much' and 'He is fat
but does not eat much', express the same assertions in the same possible
contexts of utterance, but differ in meaning. Indeed, the utterance of the
first sentence only serves to make an assertion, whereas the utterance of
the second sentence serves moreover to express the conventional
implicature (due to the meaning of the word 'but') that there exists a
contrast between being fat and not eating much.

5
 Pragmatics - Implicature… May 2019

References

1- Yule, George (1996), Pragmatics, Oxford University Press, Oxford,

England, United Kingdom.
2- Palmer, F. (1976), Semantics, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, England, United Kingdom.
3- http://www.answers.com.

View publication stats