The application of particularized
conversational implicature
According to Grice, this implicature focuses
on flouting or violating the maxims of cooperative principle. As is shown in
many rhetorical expressions, it bases on the following assumption: if the
speaker violates these maxims intentionally, he must observe the cooperative
principle on deeper level, or the hearer cannot understand his intention. We’ll
also discuss this implicature in the aspects of the four maxims.
1. Violating quantity maxim
(a) The following is an example of violating
the first point of quantity maxim, that is, not to offer adequate information
intentionally.
(13) B: Dear sir, Mr. X’s command of English
is excellent, and his attendance at tutorials has been regular.
In example (13), B implies that he considers
X not fit for the job and he’s unwilling to write the
recommendation.
In example (14), A and B will meet at the
gate of a restaurant which is entitled California Steak Noodle. But A is late.
So B goes into the restaurant and sends a short message by mobile phone, “I’m
in steak noodle.”
In this example, although B does not provide
enough information, the two parties can understand each other. B just means he
is in the restaurant. B believes A can understand it and he may be wanted to
create some humorous effect.
(b) To violate the second point of quantity maxim
is to talk something unnecessary.
(15) Father: How did you do your history
exam?
Son: Not well. They asked me things that
happened before I was born.
In example (15), the son’s additional
information implies that he thinks that it is not his fault to do badly in the
exam, but due to the questions on the exam papers.
2. Violating quality maxim
(a) To violate the first point of quality
maxim is to speak false on purpose. Some rhetoric methods belong to it, such as
irony, metaphor or exaggeration. For instance:
(16) A: Sorry, if you don’t have the passing
card, you can’t go outside the campus.
B: Thanks. You’re a big help.
In example (16), it is obvious that A
understands B’s meaning that B is dissatisfied and gives no sincere remark.
(17) She has a golden heart.
In this remark, actually her heart has not
any attribute of gold, but only owns some characters similar to gold, such as
precious, noticeable or rare.
(b) To violate the second point of quality
maxim is to speak unreasonable remarks which are lack of proof intentionally to
produce the particularized conversational implicature.
(18) A: Do vegetarians eat hamburgers?
B: Do chicken have lips?
In this example, B’s response shows that A’s
question need not to be asked, and means an answer “of course not”.
(19) A: Beirust is in Peru, isn’t it?
B: And Rome is in Romania, I suppose.
Here, B’s absurd answer implies that A’s
remark is far too wrong.