Discussion subject english pragmatics topic the cooperation and implicature

Grice divided the cooperative principle into four maxims, such as; maxim of quality, maxim of quantity, maxim of relation, maxim of manner.. Grice in Yule 1996, p.37 states that to fulfi

THUONG MAI UNIVERSITY ENGLISH FACULTY

DISCUSSION SUBJECT: ENGLISH PRAGMATICS

Topic THE COOPERATION AND IMPLICATURE

Class: 231ENTH293101

Ha Noi - 2023

principle + The four maxims

2 | 21D170317 | V6 Thi Nhu Quynh Hedges

Nguyễn Ngọc Diệp Definition + Feature of

3 | 21D170006

Implicatures Dang Thi Phuong Conversational implicatures

6 | 21D170241 , ¬

Ảnh unplicatures

7 | 21D170203 Phan Thi Hao Conventional mmplicatures

8 | 21D170320 | Khuat Thi Thanh Thu Scalar implicatures

9 | 19D170229 Lé Thi Mai Huong Exercises

Discussion process

Meeting Time and Place Task

The 1st | - Online via gg meet - Vote leader and secretary

meeting - At 10pm on August 30, | - Require all members to make the outline

2023 - Be a unified way of working (submit

deadline via gg drive, exchange work via chat group at Zalo)

- Assign duties

The 2nd | - Online via gg meet - Test run and balance the time, correct the

meeting - At 10pm on September | unreasonable things

OUTLINE

1 Definition of ImplicafUre - ¿c1 122121211211 121 151111 112 111111012111 1111 111 1 xe 10

2 Features of ImpÌICafUFe :- c 12c 2212211121111 121 111 110111811111 1111 11110 11011 11k 10

3.1 Conversational ImpÏICafufe§ - - c1 2222221211121 1211 122111211 58121115 512 x cgy 11 3.1.2 Generalized conversational ImplÌicatuf€s - 5 2c 2222 2xx s2 15 3.1.3 Particularized conversational mpÌIcatures . 2c 2 2c z2 c 2x22 16 3.2 Conventional 1mpÌicafUF€S 5c c2 22222111221 121 112211521115 1111 1181511211 re 17

ch vi 0i 8n 18 00.0 23 4 24

A Introduction

Pragmatics is the study of the relationships between linguistic forms and the

users of those forms Pragmatics is the study of detxis, implicature, presupposition,

speech acts, and aspects of discourse structure (Levinson, 1983)

In communication, people cannot be separated from conversations where actually there is something to be implied on The existence of implicature, however, is hardly needed as a tool to bond the interlocuters Implicature 1s divided into two, 1.e.,

conventional implicature and conversational implicature To understand the

implicature, the instruments such as speech events, reference, cultural background, and

daily experience are used

In this essay, our group will present the topic: “Cooperative and implicature: Types of implicature; The cooperative principle”

The cooperative principle is a principle of conversation that was proposed by

Grice 1975, stating that participants expect that each will make a “conversational

contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted

purpose or direction of the talk exchange”

The cooperative principle describes how people achieve effective conversational communication in common social situations, which is, how listeners and speakers act cooperatively and mutually accept one another to be understood in a particular way

2 The 4 maxims of cooperative principles

Paul H Grice divided the cooperative principle into four maxims, such as; maxim of quality, maxim of quantity, maxim of relation, maxim of manner Every maxim has its own category that is discussed, and the violating of the maxims are different from each other

2.1 Quantity

Maxim of quantity emphasizes information The information should be neither

too little, nor too much Grice (1975) explained that the participants should make contribution as informative as - possible to fulfill maxim quantity

For example:

A: Where ts the train station?

B: In the next to that hospital

In the example above, speaker B gives an informative answer Speaker B answers the question as informative as possible by giving the location of the hospital B’s answer 1s as informative as required

2.2 Quality

Maxim of quality can be defined be as truthful as required Cutting (2002, p.35)

states that maxim of quality regulates a speaker to be sincere, to be honest in saying something They have to say something that they believe corresponds to reality

Some speakers like to draw their listener’s attention to the fact that they are

only saying what they believe to be true, and that they lack adequate evidence

Maxim of relation means that the utterance must be relevant to the topic being

discussed Grice in Yule (1996, p.37) states that to fulfill the maxim of relation, both speaker and listener of conversation should be relevant with the topic being talk

For example:

A: How do you like your steak?

B: I'd like it mid-done

=> B contributes something relevant for the purpose of the conversation and not

something irrelevant like: “The curtains are of nice color!” This

Maxims tries to explain the regularity of being relevant in a conversation

2.4 Manner

Maxim of manner obligates speaker’s utterance to be perspicuous which is not

to be ambiguous, obscure, or disorderly Levinson (1983, p.102) states that maxim of manner specifies what participants have to do in order to converse in a maximally efficient, rational, and cooperative way They should also speak sincerely, relevantly, and clearly, while providing sufficient information

For example:

A: what do you think about the drama?

B: I really like each player They can play their role as good as possible

=> B’s answer is categorized as maxim of manner because he can answer the question from his partner about the drama orderly

A: Have you seen my car keys?

B: I may be mistaken, but I thought I saw it on the coffee table

=> It can be seen in the example above that the woman did not know whether the

information she gave was accurate or not, so she used the phrase "I may be mistaken, but | thought" to inform the listener that the information given does not guarantee

complete accuracy

2 Type of hedges:

2.1 Quality

The quality maxim requires participants to make their contributions authentic

and trustworthy The speaker does not say what he believes is false or does not say what he lacks evidence for

The speaker uses hedges when he feels that the information, he gives is not accurate or does not have enough evidence

Example:

A: Are they married?

B: As far as I know, they have been married for more than 10 years

=> B is not sure whether they are married or not If B does not use the phrase "As far

as I know", A will think that the information that they have been married for 10 years

is 100% correct, but in reality, B still does not know whether this information is true or false Therefore, the phrase as far as I know helps the speaker limit the exact scope of the information The information given is correct when based on the speaker's understanding and knowledge

Example

e “Pm not sure if this is right, but I hear that they have a 3-year-old boy.”

¢ “I may be mistaken, but I thought I saw they flew to Florida together”

=> In the two examples above, the phrases “I'm not sure 1f this 1s right” and “I may be

mistaken” help the speaker convey that the information he gives may be true or false,

which the listener can consider Prompt to select information received

2.2 Quantity

During communication, the speaker needs to make their contribution as

informative as required It is necessary to provide all necessary information for the purpose of the current exchange, without omitting any important information

The speaker uses Hedges when he sees that the information he is about to give has been mentioned before

2.3 Relation

Speakers use these phrases when they see that the information they are about to

give is not related to the content of the conversation

Example:

e This may sound like a dumb question, but how do we get there?

e Oh, by the way, can you grab me some orange juice?

=> The underlined phrases above have the role of informing the listener that the speaker 1s about to give information unrelated to the topic of the conversation taking place By using this introduction, the speaker can introduce a new issue or an issue that

suddenly occurred to him during the conversation without causing confusion or confusion for the listener Besides, these phrases also contribute to linking the given

content to increase the naturalness and seamlessness of the conversation

Speakers use these tenses when they see that the information, they are about to

give is unclear or ambiguous

Example:

“T don’t know if this is clear at all, but I think I followed a car since the driver looked

exactly the same as my friend.”

Put the above examples in the case where the speaker is lost and cannot describe exactly the road traveled or how the speaker got lost

=> Through the example, it can be seen that the welcoming words with underlined

phrases have the role of informing the listener that they are about to receive

information that will be somewhat vague and unclear The listener will partly grasp the content given by the speaker, without being surprised or confused when receiving information

III Implicature

1 Definition of Implicature

“Implicature” denotes either the act of meaning or implying one thing by saying something else, or the object of that act Implicatures can be determined by sentence meaning or by conversational context and can be conventional (in different senses) or unconventional Figures of speech such as metaphor and irony provide familiar examples, as do loose use and damning with faint praise In a more simple way,

umplicature is any meaning which is conveyed indirectly or through hints, and

understood implicitly without ever being explicitly stated

In general, “Implicature” accounts for what a speaker can imply, suggest, or mean, as distinct from what the speaker literally says Implicature 1s one of the ways in which one proposition can be conveyed by (a speaker uttering) another (under appropriate circumstances)

Examples:

Exl: J want to know whether you are going to wear that tie

Meaning: You are not really to go in public wearing that tie, are you?

Ex2: Some of the students are intelligent

Meaning: Not all the students are intelligent

=> Utterance meaning + Implicatures = Intended meaning

10

2 Features of implicature

Implicature serves a variety of goals: communication, maintaining good social relations, misleading without lying, style, and verbal efficiency Knowledge of common forms of implicature is acquired along with one’s native language

2.1, Implicatures are context - dependent

An expression with a single meaning (expressing the same proposition) can

give rise to different conversational implicatures in different contexts

Example: It’s the taste

« A slogan in an advertisement for Coca Cola: It is the unique taste that people look for

e An utterance made by a daughter to answer why she left her sandwich intact: | found the taste awful

e An utterance made by a shop assistant about a product: The product is vogue 2.2 Implicatures can be cancellable

An implicature can be canceled if additional premises are added without causing contradictions

Example: John is visiting Pat He and Pat are watching TV in a room with open

windows John says: “It’s a bit chilly here.”

=> | want to have windows closed

=> The temperature is low

John may go on and add: “It’s a bit chilly here, but I do not want you to close the windows.”

In some cases, the second sentence is semantically related to the first (an

entailment or a presupposition) In other cases, it is an implicature Identify the meanings of the second sentences

based on an addressee's assumption that the speaker is following the conversational maxims or at least the cooperative principles

According to Levinson, conversational implicature promises to bridge "the gap between what is literally said and what is conveyed."

Conversational implicatures play a vital role in effective communication by allowing for subtle nuances and shared understanding between participants in a conversation

Examples:

e A: "The weather is nice today." during a picnic

=> The implication: A is inviting others to enjoy the excellent weather and join them outdoors

e« A: "Do you have any plans tonight?"

B: "Ihave a book I've been meaning to read."

=> The implication: B doesn’t have any plans and intends to spend the evening reading the book

« Acouple is getting ready to go to a party

A: “Are you going to be much longer?”

B: “You can mix yourself another drink”

=> In the question, the implication: “It's time to g0” or “We're going to be late” or

“What is taking you so long?”

In the answer, the implication: “I don't know, maybe” or “I will be ready soon”

or “You have time for another drink.”

b Characteristics

> Context-dependent

Context-dependent conversational implicatures refer to implied meanings or

Intentions in a conversation that can only be understood by taking into account the specific context in which they occur These implicatures arise from the interplay

between the words spoken and the situational or cultural factors surrounding the

conversation

People may draw somewhat different conservational implicatures from a certain utterance In everyday conservations, there appear to be many ways of saying “yes” or

12

“no” and we do not necessarily have to use these words in our conservation Sometimes, the same utterance can mean “yes” in one context but “no” in another According to Peccei, unlike presuppositions and entailments, implicatures are inferences that cannot be made in isolated utterances They are dependent on the context of the utterance and shared knowledge between the speaker and the hearer Examples:

e 6A: "It's cold in here”

=> The implication: A wants someone to close the window, even though A did not

directly request it

® Context: A friend offers B a slice of cake and B declines

B: "I'm trying to watch my weight."

=> The implication: B 1s currently on a diet or trying to maintain a healthy lifestyle, which is known through the context of the conversation

> Cancelability

An implicature can be canceled, by first implying something and then denying that implicature Since conversational implicature is part of what 1s communicated and not said, the speaker can explicitly suspend or deny that he/she intended to communicate such meaning in different ways

Cancelability refers to the property of conversational implicatures that allows them to be easily canceled or overridden by the speaker In other words, cancelability

means that implicatures can be negated or modified without violating the principles of

conversation

Examples:

e A: "John is a great singer."

B: "Well, he's not a singer at all."

=> The implication is that John possesses a high level of singing skills However, it can be canceled by stating that John 1s not a singer, thereby modifying the original unplicature

e A: "Sarah has three children."

B: "Actually, Sarah has two children."

13

=> The implication: Sarah has three children can be canceled by explicitly stating that she has two children This demonstrates cancelability because the implicature can be negated without violating the principles of conversation

> Non-detachability

Some aspects of meaning are semantic and can be changed or removed by reformulation, no matter how much you reword an utterance, the implicature remains The non-detachability of conversational implicature refers to the idea that implicatures cannot be detached or separated from their corresponding utterances In other words, 1mplicatures are inherently tied to the specific utterances that give rise to them and cannot be easily removed or ignored

This means that non-detachable implicatures are more firmly tied to the context and contribute to the overall understanding of the conversation

Examples:

¢ "He didn't even apologize."

"He never even expressed regret."

"He made no remorse at all."

“He made no effort to express regret.”

ft

=> All utterances imply that: "He didn't apologize." The speaker is expressing disappointment or surprise that the person did not apologize

« “T haven’t eaten breakfast before.”

“T skipped breakfast today.”

“T haven't had breakfast yet.”

“My breakfast is empty.”

=> All utterances imply that: “I haven’t eaten breakfast this morning”

> Universality

Implicatures tend to be universal, being motivated rather than arbitrary

Universality in conversational implicature refers to the idea that implicatures are

generally applicable and understood across different cultures and languages It

suggests that, despite variations in specific linguistic expressions, the principles underlying conversational implicature are universal and can be observed in various communication contexts worldwide This universality indicates that implicatures are

14