Conversational Implicature is the basic assumption in conversation in which the participants are adhering to the cooperative principal and the maxims.
Ex:
Wife : “I hope you brought the bread and the cheese”
Husband : “Ah, I brought the bread”
In this case, the husband did not mention the cheese. Then, he must intend that the wife infers what is not mentioned was not brought. The husband has conveyed more than he has said via a conversational implicature. Using the symbol +> for an implicature, we can represent the additional conveyed meaning.
Wife : b + c
Husband : b ( +> not c )
A. Generalized Conversational Implicature
Through the above example, it is possible to perceive that there is no special background knowledge required in the context to calculate the additional conveyed meaning. Thus, it is called a generalized conversational implicature.
One common example in English involves any phrase with an indefinite article of the type ‘a/an X’ such as ‘ a house’ and ‘a tortoise’ as in the following example.
These phrases are typically interpreted according to generalized conversational implicature that: an X +> not speaker’s.
Ex:
John walked into a house and saw a tortoise.
This expression implies that the house is not John’s house.
B. Scalar Implicatures
Occur when certain information is communicated by choosing a word which expresses one value from a scale of values.
from the highest to lowest in term for expressing quantity
( all, most, many, some, few)
( always, often, sometimes)
The basic of scalar implicature is that when any form in a scale is asserted, the negative of all forms higher on the scale is implicature.
+ by using (some of required courses), the speaker created an implicature (+> not all) and this is only one of the scale.
+ (all, most, many, some, few)
+ in fact, the speaker creates the implicatures (+> not all, +> not most, +> not many)
One noticeable feature of scalar implicature is that when speakers correct themselves on some detail, they typically cancel one of the scalar implicatures
"I got some of this jewelry in Hongkong- umm… actually I think I got most of it there."
The speaker initially implicates ‘ +> not most’ by saying “some”, but then corrects by asserting ‘most’. That final assertion is still likely to be interpreted, however, with a scalar implicature (+> not all)
C. Particularized Conversational Implicatures
Mostly, our conversations occur in very specific contexts in which locally recognized inferences are assumed. Such inferences are required to work out the conveyed meanings which results from particularize conversational implicatures.
Ex:
Rick: hey, coming to the wild party tonight?
Tom: my parents are visiting.
=> consequently +> Tom not at party.
D. Particularized Conversational Implicatures
Because they are by far of the most common, particularized conversational implicatures are typically just called implicatures.
Ann : Where are you going with the dog?
Sam : To the V-E-T.
Because the answer was no obvious, the question did not need to be asked.
Bert : Do vegetarians eat hamburgers?
Ernie : Do chickens have lips?
E. Properties of Conversational Implicatures
Conversational implicatures are deniable. They can be explicitly denied ( or alternatively, reinforced) in different ways.
E.g.:
You have won five dollars!
+> only five
Conversational implicatures can be calculated, suspended cancelled, and reinforced. None of the properties apply to conventional implicatures.
F. Conventional Implicature
are associated with specific words and result in additional conveyed meanings when those words are used. English conjunction ‘but’
e.g.:
Mary suggested black, but I chose white
= p = q
+> p is in contrast to q
‘even’ – appeared in any sentence describing an event, there is an implicature of “contrary to expectation”
e.g.:
Even John came to the party
He even helped tidy up afterwards.
‘yet’ – the present situation is expected to be different, or perhaps the opposite, at a later time.
e.g.:
Dennis is here = p
Dennis isn’t here yet. ( not p)
not p is true
( p expected to be true later)
‘and’: when two statements containing stactic information are joined by ‘and’ à means “in addition” or “plus”
When the two statements contain dynamic, action-related information, the implicature of ‘and’ is ‘and then” indicating sequence.
When the two statements contain dynamic, action-related information, the implicature of ‘and’ is ‘and then” indicating sequence.
a. Yesterday, Mary was happy and ready to work.
(p & q, +> p plus q)
b. She put on her clothes and left the house
(p & q, +> q after p)
Special Thanks to:
Mr. Jaja Muktahiri, I've learned a lot from this, I am about to share. Please be mind, thanks..