Conversational Implicatures
Grice(1967,1975) introduces his theory of CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURES to account for how interlocutors communicate and understand each other though what is said implies more meaning than what is literally expressed. Generally speaking, when conversationalists are engaged in a conversational encounter , they are guided by the COOPERATIVE PRINCIPLE which reads as follows: Make your conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs , by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged. This principle is supported by four maxims
Quantity: a. Make your conversational contribution such as is required(for the current purposes of exchange)
b. Do not make your contribution more informative than is required.
Quality: Try to make your contribution one that is true.
a. Do not say what you believe to be false.
b. Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence
Relation: Be relevant
Manner: Be perspicuous
a. Avoid obscurity of expression
b. Avoid ambiguity
c. Be brief
d. Be orderly
Conversationalists are expected to keep to these maxims. However, very often they do not abide by them and breach one or more of them for various reasons. In so doing , they generate IMPLICATURES which refer to the implied or suggested meanings other than the literally expressed ones.
There are in fact many occasions on which speakers break the conversational maxims above, i.e., they do not observe them. One of these occasions is that when they quietly violate a maxim, for example when they lie. Another occasion on which speakers do not fulfill a maxim is that when they are faced by a clash of maxims.In order to keep to a certain maxim , they are forced to violate another one. A third occasion on which a maxim is not observed is when speakers deliberately flout that maxim. For example, when a speaker responds to the question "How did you like the guest speaker?"by saying" Well, I m sure he was speaking English."For conversationalists to get the implicature(s) conveyed, they have to make a series of inferences based on shared knowledge and evaluating the contextual factors governing the situation in which they are engaged.
Generally speaking, conversational implicatures should not be confused with conventional ones. The latter refer to those which are not derived from the maxims of conversation but simply attached by convention to particular expressions. Examples of such implicatures are those attached to words such as but , yet , and . The meanings conveyed by such words do not depend on a special context. Their meanings remain the same regardless of any pragmatic principles. Besides, contrary to conversational implicatures, the meanings they convey cannot be cancelled. Similarly , a distinction should be drawn between GENERALIZED and PARTICULARIZED IMPLICATURES.The former refer to those whose additional conveyed meaning does not require the calculation of any special knowledge in the context. Their meanings remain constant in all contexts. Contrarily, the latter require knowledge of the situation and possibly background world knowledge in order to be inferred. There are other classifications of implicatures, e.g. hedged , scalar , clausal, in addition to standard implicatures.