topic conversational conventional implicatures n.
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Topic : Conversational & Conventional Implicatures

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 63

Topic : Conversational & Conventional Implicatures - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 458 Views
  • Uploaded on

Subject : PRAGMATICS Instructor : Nguy ễn Hoàng Tuấn, Ph. D. Topic : Conversational & Conventional Implicatures.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Topic : Conversational & Conventional Implicatures' - dean-parker


Download Now An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
topic conversational conventional implicatures

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]
group 07

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

nguy n h ng l ng c
Nguyễn Hồng Lệ Ngọc

Literature review & Definitions

literature review definitions
Literature review & Definitions
  • Classification - George Yule (1998)

- Conversational implicatures

- Generalized conversational implicatures

. Scalar implicatures

- Particularized conversational implicatures

- Conventional implicatures

Nguyễn Hồng Lệ Ngọc

literature review definitions1
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

literature review definitions2
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

literature review definitions3
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

literature review definitions4
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

literature review definitions5
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

literature review definitions6
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

literature review definitions7
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

literature review definitions8
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

literature review definitions9
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

literature review definitions10
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

literature review definitions11
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

literature review definitions12
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

literature review definitions13
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

literature review definitions14
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

l th ng c lan
Lữ thị Ngọc Lan

Implicature characteristics & Distinguishing the concepts from each other

violating and flouting
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

violating and flouting1
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

slide22

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

slide23

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

slide24

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.

slide25

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.

slide26

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

slide27

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.

slide28

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

slide29

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

slide30

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

cancellability
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

cancellability1
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

the property of constancy under negation
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

the property of constancy under negation1
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

presupposition
Presupposition

words, linguistic expressions or grammatical structures

Speaker’s thought

Hearer’s thought

Lữ thị Ngọc Lan

conversational implicature
Conversational Implicature

Co-operative principle & the four maxims

relevance

Speaker’s thought

Hearer’s thought

quality

quantity

manner

Lữ thị Ngọc Lan

conventional implicature
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

nguy n i ho ng ch u
Nguyễn Ái Hoàng Châu

Applying the concept of Implicatures to teaching English

slide39
Conversational Implicatures
  • in Teaching English

Nguyễn Ái Hoàng Châu

applying the concept to teaching english
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

applying the concept to teaching english1
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

applying the concept to teaching english2
Applying the concept to teaching English
  • Some suggested activities

Nguyễn Ái Hoàng Châu

applying the concept to teaching english3
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

applying the concept to teaching english4
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

applying the concept to teaching english5
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

applying the concept to teaching english6
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

applying the concept to teaching english7
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

applying the concept to teaching english8
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

l c th nh
Lê Đức Thịnh

Applying the concept of Implicatures to translation

applying the concept to translation
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

applying the concept to translation1
Applying the concept to translation
  • B - Translating English idioms into Vietnamese and vice versa

=> Nhập gia tùy tục.

When in Rome, do as the Romans do.

=> Trời mưa xối xả.

It rains cats and dogs.

When translating English idioms into Vietnamese and vice versa, we should find out equal idioms in the target language rather than translating word for word.

Lê Đức Thịnh

applying the concept to translation2
Applying the concept to translation
  • C - Translating the English expressions into Vietnamese and vice versa

Katherine : Do you still want to have some ice creams?

Maggie : Do the birds sing in the woods?

Maggie : Mèo mà chê mở à?

When an English expression is translated into Vietnamese or vive versa, the utterance in the target language should be paid much on the implicature rather than the surface meaning.

Lê Đức Thịnh

applying the concept to translation3
Applying the concept to translation
  • D – Translating the English relevance-hedging “Well, Ah, Oh, So, Anyway, Actually, Still, …”into Vietnamese

Katherine : How about going out tonight?

Maggie :

Oh! My parents are at home tonight.

Well! My parents are at home tonight.

“Well” serves the notice that the speaker is aware that he/she is unable to meet the requirements of the maxim of Quantity in full.

“Oh” shows that the speaker is surprised at what he/she just listened and implies that he/she refuses to accept the invitation.

Lê Đức Thịnh

slide54
The English discourse particles well, oh, ah, so, anyway, actually, still, after all and the like … might be described as “maxim hedges” that indicate for recipients just how the utterance so prefaced matches up to co-operative expectations [Brown & Levinson, 1978: 169 ff]

Katherine : How about going out tonight?

Maggie :

Well! My parents are at home tonight.

Oh! My parents are at home tonight.

Quên nữa! Tối nay ba mẹ em ở nhà.

Ồ! Tiếc quá, Tối nay ba mẹ em ở nhà.

Lê Đức Thịnh

applying the concept to translation4
Applying the concept to translation
  • E - Translating English plural words into Vietnamese

the banks of the river

=> hai bờ sông

the sides of the triangle

=> ba cạnh của tam giác

When being translated into Vietnamese, the plural forms should be numbered if the number is defined.

Lê Đức Thịnh

applying the concept to translation5
Applying the concept to translation
  • F - Translating the English prepositions into Vietnamese and vice versa

in the sky

=> trên bầu trời

to Ho chi Minh city

=> lên/xuống Tp HCM

- Vietnamese people cognitively consider the world from speakers’ position

- English people cognitively consider the world from the entities’ position

Lê Đức Thịnh

applying the concept to translation6
Applying the concept to translation
  • G - Translating tautologies

Annie : I thought the cherry pie would cheer you up.

Mike : Annie, cherry pie is cherry pie.

Mike : Thì thếAnnie, bánh hạnh nhân bao giờ cũngvẫn là bánh hạnh nhân .

Mike : VângAnnie, bánh hạnh nhân luôn là bánh hạnh nhân mà.

Participants of speech events use tautological utterances chiefly to express their implicature through their voice, so the context or the speaker’s voice should be paid attention when translating tautologies.

Lê Đức Thịnh

bibliography
Bibliography
  • Curse, D.A., (1995), Lexical Semantics. Athenaeum Press Ltd.: Great Britain.
  • Finegan, E., (1994), Language: Its structure and use. United States: Harcourt Brace & Company.
  • Frederking E. R., (2006), Grice’s Maxims: “Do the Right Thing”. Online.
  • Fromkin, V., Blair, D. & Collins, P., (1999), An Introduction to Language. Harcourt: Australia.
  • Fromkin, V. & Rodman, R., (1993), An Introduction to Language. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers: Australia.
  • Goddard, C., (1998), Semantic Analysis: A Practical Introduction. Bookcraft (Bath) Ltd.: Great Britain.
  • Hưỡng, Đ.t., (1996), Semanics Review, in Student Material. The Faculty of English Linguistics and Literature - USS: Hồ Chí Minh city.
bibliography1
Bibliography
  • Heim, I., (1988), On the Projection Problem for Presuppositions in Proceedings of the Second West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, D.F.e. al., Editor. Standford University Press: California.
  • Hurford, J.R. & Heasley, B., (1984), Semantics: A Course Book, Cambridge University Presss Youth Publishing House (re-printed): Hồ Chí Minh city.
  • Karttunen, L., (1974), Theoretical Linguistics. Walter de Gruyter & Co.
  • Lado, R., (1957), Linguistics Across Cultures. Michigan University Press: United States.
  • Larsson, S., (2006), Presuppostions, online.
  • Levinson, S.C., (1995), Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press United States.
  • Lyons, J., (1996), Linguistic Semantics: An Introduction Cambridge University Press: Great Britain.
bibliography2
Bibliography
  • Peccei, J.S., (1999), Pragmatics. Routledge: London.
  • Bezuidenhout L. A. & Morris, K. R., (2004), Implicatures, Relevance, and Default Pragmatic Inference. In Sperber, D. & Noveck, L., Experimental Pragmatics(2004) Palgrave Press.
  • Thanh, T.M., (2002), Semantics : Some questions and their suggested answers, in Student Material. The Faculty of English Linguistics and Literature - USSH: Hồ Chí Minh city.
  • Thanh, T.M., (2004), Ngữ Nghĩa Học. National University Publisher: Hồ Chí Minh city.
  • Verschueren, J., (1999), Understanding Pragmatics. Hodder Headline Group: Great Britain. .
  • Yule, G., (1998), Pragmatics. Oxford University Press: London.
  • Hùng, Nguyễn tiến (1986), A Course in the Theory of Translation, Students’ Material, USSH.
slide63

Distinguishing Conversational Implicatures from Conventional Implicatures

1- A conventional implicature plays no role in the truth conditions of a sentence, whereas the various details of meaning in the narrow sense do affect truth conditions.

2- Conventional implicatures are borne by particular linguistic units, whereas conversational implicatures result from interactions among the words that the speaker used, the words that he could have used but chose not to, and diverse contextual factor, and there usually is no one linguistics unit that can be held for the implicature.

3- Conversational implicature can be cancelled but conventional implicatures cannot.

[McCawley, 317-318]

Lữ thị Ngọc Lan

ad