Grice's theory of conversational implicature
Download as DOC, PDF18 likes33,917 views
Grice's theory of implicature examines how speakers imply meanings beyond what is literally said through utterances. It distinguishes between what is said, based on literal meaning of words, and what is implicated or suggested. Grice provides an example where a speaker implies something different by saying "he hasn't been to prison yet." His theory also differentiates between conventional implicatures from literal meanings of words and conversational implicatures derived from cooperation between speakers. Grice proposes a cooperative principle and maxims like quality and quantity that speakers generally follow but can flout to generate implicatures. When maxims are flouted, hearers can infer additional intended meanings or implicatures.
Grice's theory of conversational implicature
- 1. Grice’s Theory of Implicature Summary by Lahcen GRAID 1. Introduction This paper review Grice’s paper Logic and Conversation which discusses the phenomenon of implicature. Grice distinguishes between what is said by a sentence and what is meant by uttering it. The former refers to the conventional meaning of the sentence, whereas the latter refers to what is implicated or suggested by uttering a sentence. An example in which what is meant is not determined by what is said is illustrated by the following example: A and B are talking about a mutual friend, C, who is now working in a bank. A asks B how C is getting on in his job, and B replies, Oh quite well, I think; he likes his colleagues, and he hasn’t been to prison yet. (Grice 1975: 43) In the above conversation, B by saying that “C has not been to prison yet” implies something like C may surrender to his job temptations. Grice by citing this example asserts that whatever B implied is totally different from what B said in that the latter would simply mean C has not been to prison yet. By contrast, what is said by uttering a sentence is related to the conventional meaning of the words which constitute that sentence. Thus, when someone utters a sentence such as “He is in the grip of a vice” (Grice 1975: 44), one would understand what is said by the speaker only based on his knowledge of English language and not on knowledge of the circumstances of the utterance as Grice emphasised: Given a knowledge of the English language, but no knowledge of the circumstances of the utterance, one would know something about what the speaker had said, on the assumption that he was speaking standard English, and speaking literally. (Grice 1975: 44)
- 2. 2. Conventional and Conversational implicatures Grice distinguishes between two kinds of implicatures, namely conventional and conversational implicatures. The conventional implicature happens when the conventional meaning of words used determine what is implicated. Thus, the sentence “He is an Englishman; he is, therefore, brave”, implicates, but doesn’t say, that his being brave is a consequence of his being an Englishman. This is based on the conventional meaning of the words used in uttering that sentence. The conversational implicature , on the other hand, is a subclass of nonconventional implicature, and is connected with certain general features of discourse. 3. The Cooperative principle and its attendant maxims Our conversations are characterized by some sort of cooperation between the speaker and the listener. According to Grice (1975: 45) “Our talk exchanges do not normally consist of a succession of disconnected remarks, and would not be rational if they did. They are characteristically, to some degree at least, cooperative efforts; and each participant recognizes in them, to some extent, a common purpose or sets of purposes, or at least a mutually accepted direction.” Participants in a conversation try to cooperate with one another in order to make communication successful. In other words, the participants should observe the cooperative principle outlined as follows: The Cooperative Principle “Make your contribution such as required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged” (Grice 1975: 45) Grice further specifies several maxims to which participants should abide to render the conversation meaningful. The maxims are sort of advises to the participants telling them what to do in order communicate in a rationale and cooperative way. They should for instance tell the truth, be relevant and clear, and provide sufficient information. Flouting one of the maxims gives rise to a conversational implicature. The following is a list of maxims as suggested by Grice:
- 3. The Maxims Quatity Make your contribution as informative as is required (for the current purposes of the exchange). Do not make your contribution more informative than is required. Quality Try to make your contribution one that is true. Do not say what you believe to be false. Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence. Relation Be relevant. Manner Be perspicuous. Avoid obscurity of expression. Avoid ambiguity. Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity). Be orderly. In short, these maxims specify what the participants have to do in order to converse in a maximally efficient, rational, co-operative way: they should speak sincerely, relevantly and clearly whilst providing sufficient information.’ The cooperative principle together with its attendant maxims plays a role in generating conversational implicature. At every stage of a conversation, a participant should make his contribution sufficiently informative, true, relevant and clear. However, there are various ways in which a participant in a conversation fails to fulfill a maxim: 1. He may quietly and unostentatiously violate a maxim, if so, in some cases he will be liable to mislead.
- 4. 2. He may OPT OUT from the operation both of the maxim and of the CP. He may indicate that he is unwilling to cooperate in the way that the maxim requires. He may say, for example, I cannot say more; my lips are sealed. 3. He may be faced with a clash. For instance, be unable to fulfill one maxim without violating another. 4. He may flout a maxim; that is, he may blatantly fail to fulfill it. The hearer is faced with the problem of how can his saying what he did say be reconciled with the supposition that he is observing the overall CP. It is the last situation which, according to Grice, gives rise to conversational implicature, and when a speaker flout a maxim in order to implicate something the maxim is, therefore, exploited. For Grice, a conversational implicature can be defined as follows: a speaker in saying p conversationally implicates Q provided that: 1. The speaker is presumed to be observing the conversational maxims or at least CP. 2. The supposition that the speaker is aware that q is required to make p consistent with (1). 3. The speaker thinks (and would expect the hearer to think that the speaker believes) that the hearer is competent enough to work out that the supposition in (2) is required. Therefore, a conversational implicature can only be considered as such if the hearer is able to work out its presence. The hearer relies on the following information to work out the presence of a conversational implicature: 1. The conventional meanings of the words 2. The CP and its attendant maxims 3. The context of the utterance 4. The fact that both participants know all the items in the previously mentioned headings. Grice provided many examples of cases of flouting of maxims which give rise to conversational implicature. These are subdivided into three groups; in brief, the following is some of the examples:
- 5. Group A: examples in which no maxim is violated • A: I am out of petrol. • B: There is a garage around the corner. In the conversation above, the maxim of relevance seems like being infringed by speaker B unless he thinks that the garage is open and sells petrol. 0669705632 Group B: Instances in which a maxim is violated but its violation is explained by a clash with another maxim • A: Where does C live? • B: Somewhere in the south of France. Speaker B by uttering “Somewhere in the south of France,” is suggesting that he does not know where C lives. Speaker B infringes the maxim of quantity by being less informative because he is aware that to be more informative would mean infringing another maxim that of quality “Don’t say what you lacked evidence for.” Group C: Examples in which a maxim is exploited in order to get in a conversational implicature Situation: A is writing a testimonial about a student who is a candidate for a philosophy job. “Dear Sir, Mr. X’s command of English is excellent, and his attendance at tutorials has been regular. Yours, etc.” A is implicating that Mr. X is no good at philosophy. A refuses to be more informative not because of his ignorance, but because he is reluctant to say something which may offend Mr. X.