Microsoft Word LX 502 Conversational Implicatures docx
tải về 120.73 Kb. Chế độ xem pdf
|
| Quality Implicatures
a. John has two PhD’s +> I believe John has two PhD’s, and have adequate evidence that he has. b. Does your farm contain 400 acres? +> I don’t know that your farm does contain 400 acres, and I want to know if it does In (14), what is literally said does not contain a statement of belief in the proposition or a statement of evidence backing it up. So at a literal level, the speaker does not seem to be observing the maxim of quality. However, the addressee assumes the speaker is at a deeper level. This assumption triggers the implicature, which is a statement of belief/evidence. Quantity implicatures are perhaps the most systematic of the lot. They typically arise because a less informative word or phrase is used when a more informative one could have been used, but wasn’t. (This was the case in (1), when the speaker utters some instead of all.) (15) Quantity Implicatures a. Nigel has fourteen children +> Nigel has no more than fourteen children b. The flag is white +> The flag is only white c. A: How did Harry fare in court today? B: Oh, he got a fine +> He got no more than a fine In (15), by using the less informative word or phrase, the speaker does not seem to be observing the maxim of quantity in what he has said. But the addressee still assumes that the maxims are being observed. Therefore, the addressee infers that the speaker knows the sentence containing the more informative word is false. So in (15a), the addressee infers that the speaker knows that Nigel does not have 15 children, Nigel does not have 16 children, etc. otherwise the speaker would have said so. All these negative statements taken together amount to Nigel has no more than 14 children. In (15b), the addressee infers that the speaker knows that the flag is not blue, the flag is not red, the flag is not pink, etc., otherwise he would have said so. Again, taken together this amounts to the flag is only white. In (15c), the addressee infers that the speaker knows that Harry did not get jail time, Harry did not get the death sentence, Harry did not get prosecuted, etc., otherwise 5 the speaker would have said so. Taken together, these statement amount to Harry got no more than a fine. As you can see, the reason is the same for all of these. Once the implicature and what is said are taken together, they satisfy the maxim of quantity. The maxim of relation is perhaps the hardest maxim to single out because it figures into almost every utterance. Relevance is often assumed and left unspoken. (16) Relation Implicatures a. Pass the salt +> Pass the salt now b. A: Can you tell me the time? B: Well, the milkman has come +> The time now is after the time the milkman arrived In (16a), the utterance is in the imperative so it has no contrast between present and past tense. The speaker has made a request but has not signaled when he wishes the salt. On a literal level, the speaker is not observing the maxim of relation but the addressee assumes that on a deeper level he is. The addressee infers that the request is relates to the here and now. The implicature is therefore pass the salt now. In (16b), A asks the time. B’s reply is not literally relevant to the question. A assumes be is cooperating and being relevant. A infers that B is relating the time at which the milkman came to the current time. The implicature is thus that the time now is after the time the milkman arrived. [Please don’t assume this is the only implicature—there is nothing to prevent one utterance from resulting in several implicatures.] Lastly, manner implicatures have to do with the form of the utterance. The maxim of manner requires that an utterance be perspicuous. When the speaker does not observe this maxim, his utterance is obscure or ambiguous or disorderly and this is intended to convey an implicit meaning. (17) Manner Implicatures A: How do I get into you apartment? B: Walk up to the front door, turn the door handle clockwise as far as it will go, and then pull gently towards you. +> Pay particular attention and care to each step of the instructions I’ve given you In (17), A asks a question and B’s literal reply is complicated. At the literal level, B does not appear to be observing the maxim of manner—a simple reply lie open the front door would have sufficed. But A assumes that B is being cooperative and following the maxim of manner. B could have just said open the front door but he didn’t, so the added detail must be necessary. In other words, B was being as perspicuous as he could be. And so A infers that B’s elaborate details are somehow important. Here’s a more complicated example. (18) a. A: Where’s Bill? X: He’s at Sue house. b. A: Where’s Bill? Y: There’s a yellow VW outside Sue’s house +> Bill might be at Sue’s house 6 In (18a), A asks a question and X fully answers A’s question. End of story. In (18b), A asks the same question but Y’s reply is not literally relevant to the question. Nevertheless, A assumes Y is cooperating and observing the maxim of relation. So, A infers that Y’s answer is relevant to Bill’s whereabouts, the location of the yellow VW (outside Sue’s house) is related Bill’s location. Second, A assumes Y is observing the maxim of quality. So, A infers that Y does not believe or have enough evidence to state that Bill is outside of Sue’s house. Finally, A assumes that Y is observing the maxim of quantity. Since Y used the less informative phrase a yellow VW rather than the more informative phrase Bill’s yellow VW, A infers that Y does not know that the VW is Bill’s. Taken together, the implicature is that Y thinks Bill might be at Sue’s house. The following is a general outline for working out conversational implicatures. This is different from what I presented in class. It is more streamlined and should be easier to work with. (19) Mechanics of Implicatures i. The speaker has said that p ii. If by saying p, the speaker does not appear to be observing the maxims, literally, the addressee nevertheless assumes the speaker is observing the maxims iii. For S to say that p and be indeed observing the maxims, S must think q iv. S has done nothing to stop the addressee from inferring that q v. Therefore S intends the addressee to infer that q, and so in saying that p has implicated q. 4. Hedges and Flouting (Supplemental) There is a way for the speaker to tactfully opt out of a maxim using a special word or phrase called a hedge. These hedges are used to signal the addressee not to read anything into the speaker’s disregard of one of the maxims. Using a hedge, the speaker effectively says he is not implicating q. (20) Hedge — a phrase that eliminates or at least mitigates one of the maxims. a. Quantity As far as I know; I’m not sure if this is true, but…; I may be wrong, but… . b. Quality As you probably already know; I can’t say any more; I probably don’t need to say this, but… . c. Relation Oh, by the way; I’m not sure if this is relevant, but...; I don’t want to change the subject, but… . d. Manner: I’m not sure if this is clear, but…; I don’t know if this makes sense, but…; This may be a bit tedious, but…. There is another way in which the speaker can signal to the addressee that he is going to ignore a maxim. It is called a flout and it too carries a conversational implicature, sometimes called a conversational implicature F . Flouting a maxim is typically done by uttering something absurdly false, wholly uninformative, completely irrelevant, or abstruse so that the addressee understands the speaker is implying something entirely different. This is how metaphors get resolved. 7 (21) Flouting A speaker who makes it clear that they are not following the conversational maxims is said to be tải về 120.73 Kb. Chia sẻ với bạn bè của bạn:
|