Topic : Conversational & Conventional Implicatures

1. Subject : PRAGMATICSInstructor : Nguyễn Hoàng Tuấn, Ph. D. Topic : Conversational & Conventional Implicatures • … it is clear that implicature plays a major role in language change, triggering both syntactic and semantic changes. Indeed it seems to be one of the single most important mechanisms whereby matters of language usage feed back into and affect matters of language structure. • [Levinson, p. 166]

2. Nguyễn Ái Hoàng Châu Lữ thị Ngọc Lan Võ Duy Minh Nguyễn Hồng Lệ Ngọc Group 07 Lê Đức Thịnh Nguyễn Hồng Lệ Ngọc Lữ thị Ngọc Lan Nguyễn Ái Hoàng Châu Lê Đức Thịnh Implicature characteristics & Distinguishing the concept of Implicatures from others Applying the concept to teaching English Literature review & Definitions Applying the concept to translation

3. Nguyễn Hồng Lệ Ngọc Literature review & Definitions

4. Literature review & Definitions • Classification - George Yule (1998) - Conversational implicatures - Generalized conversational implicatures . Scalar implicatures - Particularized conversational implicatures - Conventional implicatures Nguyễn Hồng Lệ Ngọc

5. Literature review & Definitions • Classification - George Yule (1998) - Conversational implicatures: . An additional unstated meaning … to be assumed … to maintain the cooperative principle [p.128]. . … participants are adhering to the cooperative principle and the maxims [p.40]. - Generalized conversational implicatures . Scalar implicatures - Particularized conversational implicatures Nguyễn Hồng Lệ Ngọc

6. Literature review & Definitions • Definitions - George Yule (1998) - Generalized conversational implicatures: . no special knowledge is required in the context to calculate the additional conveyed meaning [p. 41] I was sitting in a garden one day. A child looked over the fence. Doobie : Did you invite Bella and Cathy? Mary : I invited Bella. +> that the garden and the child mentioned are not the speaker’s. +> I didn’t invite Bella. Nguyễn Hồng Lệ Ngọc

7. Literature review & Definitions • Definitions - George Yule (1998) - Scalar implicatures: . particularly obvious in terms for expressing quantity, as all, most, many, some, few, always, often, sometimes, … where terms are listed from the highest to the lowest value [p. 41]. . implicate not any of the higher values on the scale [Peccei, p. 35] This should be stored in a cool place. I’m studying linguistics, and I’ve completed some of the required courses. They’re sometimes really interesting. +> not always, +> not often +> not must (on the scale of obligation) +> not frozen (on the scale of coldness) +> not complete all required courses. Nguyễn Hồng Lệ Ngọc

8. Literature review & Definitions • Definitions - George Yule (1998) - Particularized conversational implicatures: . … inferences are required to work out the conveyed meanings … when our conversations take place in very specific contexts in which locally recognized inferences are assumed [p. 42]. Bert : Do you like ice-cream? Ernie : Is the Pop Catholic? Rick : Hey, coming to the wild party tonight? Tom : My parents are visiting. +> I cannot come to the party. +> Yes. Nguyễn Hồng Lệ Ngọc

9. Literature review & Definitions • Definitions - George Yule (1998) - Conventional implicature : . additional unstated meaning associated with the use of specific words, as but, and (Grice, 1961), therefore (Grice, 1975), even (Kempson, 1975; Kartunen & Peters, 1979), yet (Wilson, 1975), or (Levinson, 1983). Yesterday, Mary was happy and ready to work. Yesterday, Mary was ready to work and happy. +> p [… was happy] is plus q [… ready to work]. Mary suggested black, but I chose white. Mary is poor but honest. She left the house and put on her clothes. She put on her clothes and left the house. Bring the flowers into a warm room and they’ll soon open. +> q [bring the flowers into a warm room] causes (and therefore) p [… soon open]. +> p [Mary suggested black] is in contrast to q [I chose white]. +> p [… poor] is plus q [… honest]. +> q [… left the house] is after p [… put on her clothes]. = Mary is poor and honest. Nguyễn Hồng Lệ Ngọc

10. Literature review & Definitions • Conversational Implicature properties • George Yule (1998) You have won five dollars! +> You won only five dollars. The property of SUSPENSIBILITY The property of CANCELLABILITY The property of REINFORCEABILITY Alice : Did all of the boys go to the soccer match?. Tom: Some of the boys went to the soccer match but not all. “+> only” can be cancelled by adding further information to the utterance, often the expression “in fact” You have won five dollars, in fact, you won ten! [p. 44, 45] “+> only” can be reinforced by adding additional information,as You have won only five dollars, that’s four more than one! [p. 44, 45] “+> only” can be suspended by adding “at least” to the utterance. You have won at least five dollars! [p. 44, 45] some of the boys +> not all of the boys “four more than one” reinforces “only five” “not all” reinforcesthe intended implicature Nguyễn Hồng Lệ Ngọc

11. Literature review & Definitions • Conversational Implicature properties • George Yule (1998) The property of DENIABILITY . the implicatures are part of what is communicated and not said, speakers can always deny that they intended to communicate such meaning[p. 44] . an expression with a single meaning may have different conversational implicatures[Levinson, 117-118]. It is cold. +> Close the windows, please. +> Sit closer to me, my darling. +> I feel not good. Nguyễn Hồng Lệ Ngọc

12. Literature review & Definitions • Conversational Implicature properties • George Yule (1998) The property of CALCULABILITY The implicatures that “the garden and the child are not mine” are calculated on the principle that if the speaker was capable of being more specific, then he/she would have said “my garden” and “my child” [p. 41] I was sitting in a garden one day. A child looked over the fence. +> The garden and the child are not mine. Nguyễn Hồng Lệ Ngọc

13. Literature review & Definitions • George Yule (1998) Properties of conversational implicatures: 1- calculability 2- cancellability 3- suspensibility 4- reinforceability 5- deniability None of these properties apply to conventional implicatures [Yule, p. 45]. Nguyễn Hồng Lệ Ngọc

14. Literature review & Definitions • Classification - Paul Grice (1967, in Levinson) meant-nn Conventional Implicatures said implicated implicated Conversational Implicatures conventionally conventionally non-conventionally . Generalized Implicatures . Particularized Implicatures non-conversationally conversationally conversationally (violate the maxims) (flout the maxims) Grice’s ideas are considered to be the foundation of contemporary pragmatics generally generally particularly particularly [Levinson (1995), p. 131] Nguyễn Hồng Lệ Ngọc

15. Literature review & Definitions • Paul Grice (1967) Properties of conversational implicatures: 1- cancellability (defeasibility) 2- non-detachability 3- calculability 4- non-conventionality 5- having different implicatures drawn Nguyễn Hồng Lệ Ngọc

16. Literature review & Definitions • Paul Grice (1967) - non-detachability … the implicatures are attached to the semantic content of what is said, not to linguistic form, and therefore implicatures cannot be detached from an utterance simply by changing the words of the utterance for synonyms [Levinson, p. 116]. John’s a mental prodigy. John’s an exceptional clever human being. John’s an enormous intellect. John’s a big brain. +> John’s genius. Nguyễn Hồng Lệ Ngọc

17. Literature review & Definitions • Paul Grice (1967) - non-conventionality … the implicatures are not part of the conventional meaning of linguistic expressions because the conventional meanings often don’t need to convey the conversational implicatures [Levinson, p. 117]. I hate you to the bone. (“hate” conventionally means “not love”) +> I love you. Nguyễn Hồng Lệ Ngọc

18. Literature review & Definitions • Levinson (1995) - add the property of universality to conversational implicatures … in every language in which the utterances are directly expressible, the equivalent utterances should carry the standard implicatures [p. 120] Minh : Tối nay đi chơi được không? Alice : Ồ! Tối nay ba mẹ em tới chơi. Phil : How about going out tonight? Alice : Oh! My parents are visiting tonight. +> Em không thể đi chơi tối nay. +> I cannot go out tonight. Nguyễn Hồng Lệ Ngọc

19. Lữ thị Ngọc Lan Implicature characteristics & Distinguishing the concepts from each other

20. Violating and flouting • Violating : very often used by linguists (Yules, other students’ materials…) • Flouting : used by Paul Grice (in Peccei, p. 27) • Others use the terms with the same meaning, as Levinson, Verchueren. Lữ thị Ngọc Lan

21. Violating and flouting Flouting - … failed to observe one or more maxims of the co-operative principle … [Peccei, p. 27-28] Violations - … the speaker has deliberately lied, supplied insufficient information, or been ambiguous, irrelevant or hard to understand [Peccei, p. 27] - … might hamper communication but not lead to implicatures [Peccei, p. 27] Rick :Hey coming to the wild party tonight? Tom : My parents are visiting. Rick :Did you invite Tom and Jerry? Alice : I invited Tom. Rick :Will Alice come to our party? Tom : She will or she will not. +>No. (flouting the maxim of relevance) +>I didn’t invite Jerry. (flouting the maxim of quantity) +>I don’t know. (flouting the maxim of manner) A : Can you open the window? B: Yes [and do nothing] A : Can you tell me the time? B: Yes. Lữ thị Ngọc Lan

22. Distinguishing Conversational Implicatures from Conventional Implicatures Properties Conversational Implicatures Conventional Implicatures cancellability non-cancellability non-detachability detachability calculability non-calculability universality non-universality deniability having [relatively] determinate content or meaning non-conventionality reinforceability [Grice, Yule, Sadock, Levinson] [Levinson, 128] Lữ thị Ngọc Lan

23. Conversational Implicatures Conventional Implicatures cancellability non-cancellability You have won five dollars, in fact, you won ten! Even John came to the party. +> You won exactly ten. “ten” cancels “five” +> John was not expected to come to the party. “even” can not be cancelled by any other words. Lữ thị Ngọc Lan

24. Conversational Implicatures Conventional Implicatures non-detachability detachability John is a big brain. John is an enormous intellect.. John is poor and honest. John is poor but honest. +> “poor” is plus “honest” The implicatture will be detached from the utterance when relating word is changed => the implicature is detachable. +> “poor” is contrast to “honest” +> “poor” is plus “honest” +> John’s genius. +> John’s genius. “John’s genius” cannot be detached by changing words in the utterance => the implicature is non-detachable.

25. Conversational Implicatures Conventional Implicatures calculability non-calculability Tom met a woman on the road. John hasn’t come to the party yet. +> Neither was the woman Tom’s wife nor the listener’s wife. The implicature is calculated from the article “a”. +> John is expected to come to the party. The meaning of the word “yet” leads to the implicature without being calculated.

26. Conversational Implicatures Conventional Implicatures deniability having [relatively] determinate content or meaning An utterance may have more than one implicature, and the speaker can deny the intended implicature. The implicature caused by the word used is inferred by the listener from the truth conditions of the utterance. “and” can be infered as a – plus b – and then c – and therefore

27. Conversational Implicatures Conventional Implicatures universality non-universality begin end xoay xở manage The speaker’s implication is similar in every language. The meaning of the word leading to the implicature can be different from a language to one another.

28. Distinguishing Conventional Implicatures from Presuppostions Conventional Implicatures are triggered by the different meanings of specific words. Presuppostions are triggered “by words or grammatical structures” [Peccei, p. 22] Both are conventional inferences [Peccei, p. 19] Lữ thị Ngọc Lan

29. Distinguishing Conventional Implicatures from Presuppostions Even John came to the party. +> John wasn’t expected to come to the party. >> Other people came to the party. John hasn’t come to the party yet. +> John was expected to come to the party. >> John hasn’t come to the party. Lữ thị Ngọc Lan

30. Distinguishing Conversational Implicatures from Presuppostiions Properties Conversational Implicatures Presuppostiions cancellability defeasibility non-detachability detachability calculability non-calculability non-conventionality conventionality reinforceability non-reinforceability universality constancy under negation deniability [Grice, Yule, Sadock, Levinson] [Staffan Larsson, online] Lữ thị Ngọc Lan

31. Cancellability • Cancellability in implicatures : the results of cancelling implicatures usually sound much more “normal” even though one of the two implicatures will explicitly cancel the other [Peccei, 1999: 37; Hurford & Heasley, 1984: 287 – 288]. Mike : What’s happened to the shampoo? Annie : I used most of it – actually, I used all of it. [Peccei, 1999: 37] Mike : Are you coming to the party? Annie : My parents are in town - but I am coming. [Peccei, 1999: 37] Lữ thị Ngọc Lan

32. Cancellability • “Cancellation” in presuppositions : the results usually sound rather contradictory or inherent, turning the sentence into a contradiction, in which the two parts contradict to one another [Peccei, 1999: 37; Hurford & Heasley, 1984: 287 – 288]. Mike : What happened? Annie : Steve’s dog wrecked the garden – and in fact, Steve doesn’t have a dog. [Peccei, 1999: 37] Mike : What’s up? Annie : I’ve stopped smoking – although I’ve never smoked. [Peccei, 1999: 37] Lữ thị Ngọc Lan

33. The property of constancy under negation They were rich. “They are not rich” is implicature or presupposition. They were not rich. “They are rich” => Implicature of the utterance. Implicature will change when the utterance is negated. Presupposition is unchanged when the utterance is negated. Lữ thị Ngọc Lan

34. The property of constancy under negation Even John came to the party. Even John didn’t come to the party. +> John was expected to come to the party. >> Other peoples came to the party (triggered by even). >> John is a person that the listener already knew (triggered by the proper name John). >> “the party” is already known by the listener (triggered by the article the). +> John wasn’t expected to come to the party. >> Other peoples came to the party (triggered by even). >> John is a person that the listener already knew (triggered by the proper name John). >> “the party” is already known by the listener (triggered by the article the). Lữ thị Ngọc Lan

35. Presupposition words, linguistic expressions or grammatical structures Speaker’s thought Hearer’s thought Lữ thị Ngọc Lan

36. Conversational Implicature Co-operative principle & the four maxims relevance Speaker’s thought Hearer’s thought quality quantity manner Lữ thị Ngọc Lan

37. Conventional Implicature Meaning of specific words in the exchanges Co-operative principle & the four maxims but, therefore, and, or, even, yet, … Speaker’s thought Hearer’s thought Lữ thị Ngọc Lan

38. Nguyễn Ái Hoàng Châu Applying the concept of Implicatures to teaching English

39. Conversational Implicatures • in Teaching English Nguyễn Ái Hoàng Châu

40. Applying the concept to teaching English • WHY? - common in everyday life. - can be used in a listening comprehension test. - not easy for an EFL student to identify a conversational implicature. - not officially mentioned as a technique in teaching listening and speaking skills. Nguyễn Ái Hoàng Châu

41. Applying the concept to teaching English • HOW? - Explain what a conversational implicature is. (make explanations simple enough; avoid using linguistic terms) - Create teaching activities for all kinds of implicatures from easy (generalized) to difficult (particularized). - Conduct these activities in class. Some can be given as homework. Nguyễn Ái Hoàng Châu

42. Applying the concept to teaching English • Some suggested activities Nguyễn Ái Hoàng Châu

43. Applying the concept to teaching English • Activity 01: Ask a student to tell the class a short funny story, or, especially, a short funny conversation. Then, ask students to analyze the reason why it is funny [very often, because one of the four maxims is violated]. Nguyễn Ái Hoàng Châu

44. Applying the concept to teaching English • Activity 02: Ask some pairs of students to compose a short conversation which will make the class laugh. The class will vote which is the best. Students have to rehearse the conversation very naturally, including raising or lowering their voice => speaking naturally Nguyễn Ái Hoàng Châu

45. Applying the concept to teaching English • Activity 03: Ask two students to compose a short conversation in which the answer is not allowed to be direct from the question. Then, another student is asked to guess what the answer implies. Nguyễn Ái Hoàng Châu

46. Applying the concept to teaching English • Activity 04: Let students read a humor story which violates one of the four maxims; then ask the students why the story cause humor. Nguyễn Ái Hoàng Châu

47. Applying the concept to teaching English • Activity 05: Ask students to listen to some short conversations in which participants imply something behind the language used. Then, ask students what participants in each conversation means. Nguyễn Ái Hoàng Châu

48. Applying the concept to teaching English • Conclusion : • Advantages: • Make the lessons more interesting. • Make the class more active. • Make students speak more confidently. • Make students familiar to real communication. The role of Implicatures in communication is very important but it is not paid appropriate attention in teaching listening and speaking skills to EFL students. Nguyễn Ái Hoàng Châu

49. Lê Đức Thịnh Applying the concept of Implicatures to translation

50. Applying the concept to translation • A - Addressing Vietnamese names in English Lữ thị Ngọc-Lan => Ngọc-Lan thị Lữ Lữ thị Ngọc Lan => Lan thị Ngọc Lữ Võ Duy Minh => Võ-duy Minh => Minh Võ-duy Minh Duy Võ When Vietnamese people’s names are addressed in English, we should consider what the owner of the name implies when he/she utters his/her private and family name. Lê Đức Thịnh