Conversational Implicatures

Conversational Implicatures

Introduction

The conversational implicature is a term of linguistic pragmatics coined by the philosopher Paul Grice, which explains this concept with its maxims. It refers to what is suggested or meant by a speaker, implicitly. The implicature is not property semantics of the statement itself, unlike an assumption implicit in it. For example, by stating the phrase "Mary had a baby and got married," the speaker suggests that Mary had a baby first, and then got married. But this statement remains true, strictly speaking, semantics, if it was first married, before having a baby. If we add the clause "not necessarily in that order" in this sentence, then its meaning is not altered, but the implicature disappears. The notion of implicature is different from that, used in pragmatic, of involvement. For example, the statement "the president was murdered" simply does not suggest that it is true that the President died, but requires it. In addition, involvement cannot be canceled, unlike an implicature that can disappear if you add a proposal (Kent, Bach, 2006). Character of pragmatic implicature also stands a presupposition implied, which is likely semantics.

Discussion

Grice distinguishes between the conventional meaning, purpose, a statement, and its subjective sense, according to what the speaker meant. He then distinguishes two types of implicature: conversational implicature depends on the context of the conversation, while the conventional implicature depends on the statement itself. It therefore refers to the semantics, the former to the pragmatic (Kent, Bach, 2006). Thus the exchange:

Are you going to celebrate tonight?

No, I work.

This statement has a conversational implicature: the answer "No, I work" mean I will not go to the party. She has another meaning in another conversational context. A statement with a conventional implicature could take, for example, the following form: "He is English, therefore he is brave. "This implies, but by the same semantics of the statement (in particular the presence of" therefore "):" the English are brave". A conversational implicature can be conventional in the sense of usual, eg "sports some smoke." This usually involves, but not logically, that "all athletes do not smoke" could well add "moreover, all athletes smoke." Thus someone who said "some athletes smoke," thinking himself all that smoke, does lie not: he would deceive his interlocutor, in so far as this statement implies, conversational manner, but not semantically, that all athletes do smokers . Conversely, a speaker can imply something by uttering a sentence with commitment semantics (Blackburn, 1996). It is the following exchange:

Nobody has ever done long jump beyond 8.50 meters.

Bob Beamon jumped 8.90 meters at the Mexico Olympics (Blackburn, 1996).

The conversation context itself may cancel a conversational implicature conventional, as is the case with euphemisms.

Performative sentences oppose constantivas, sentences that describe states of the world. In linguistic mediation might consider that these two groups need different treatments. As for prayers constantivas we consider only the meaning, in the performative must take into account the role that exercise, because the expression of the functions is different from one language to ...