Conversational Implicatures

Conversational implicatures are pragmatic inferences: unlike entailments and presuppositions, they are not tied to the particular words and phrases in an utterance but arise instead from contextual factors and the understanding that conventions are observed in conversation. The theory of conversational implicatures is attributed to Paul Herbert Grice, who observed that in conversations what is meant often goes beyond what is said and that this additional meaning is inferred and predictable.

Grice’s Theory of Conversational Implicatures

Grice proposed that participants in a communicative exchange are guided by a principle that determines the way in which language is used with maximum efficiency and effect to achieve rational communication. He called it the Cooperative Principle.

The Co-operative Principle

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 cooperative principle is an umbrella term for nine components that guide how we communicate. These nine components are grouped together into four categories, called the Maxims of Conversation: the maxim of quality (truthfulness), the maxim of quantity (informativeness), the maxim of relation (relevance), and the maxim of manner.

a. The Maxims of Quantity

·         Make you contribution as informative as is required (for the current purposes of the exchange)

·         Do not make your contribution more informative than is required

            Example:

A: Do you have any pets?

B: I have two wee baby turtles.

Implication: B doesn’t have any other pets besides the two turtles.

According to maxim of quantity, we are supposed to say the strongest statement we

possible can. So we have to assume that’s what B is doing. If he actually had, say, two

turtles and a cat, he should have made the stronger statement “I have two turtles and a cat”

instead of the weaker (but still true) statement “I have two turtles.”

b. The Maxims of Quality

·         Do not say what you believe to be false

·         Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence

Example:

A : Come on, I’m taking you to the gym.

B : Yeah, and pigs can fly.

B refuses to go to the gym with Laura. B is saying something which is clearly untrue. By combining the “yes” response with a clearly untrue statement, B is implying that the actual response is “no.”

c. The Maxims of Relation

·         Be relevant

Example:

A: We just have to fly real close to the corona of the sun!

B : You’re lucky you’re pretty.

B implies that A’s idea is stupid. It is Relation, because B is going off topic, talking about John’s looks rather than his idea.

d. The Maxims of Manner

·         Avoid obscurity of expression

·         Avoid ambiguity

·         Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity)

·         Be orderly

Example:

A : What happened?

B : He got attacked by a giant bug, and he passed out.

Implication: He passed out because he was first attacked (in other words, the order in which the

events occurred is: (1) he got attacked; (2) he passed out.)

It is Manner, because according to the maxim of manner, we are supposed to say things in an orderly way, so we should say events in the actual order in which they occurred. When a person says “This happened and that happened,” we assume they mean “this happened, and then that happened.”

Flouting

A speaker who makes it clear that they are not following the conversational maxims is said to be

flouting the maxims and this too gives rise to an implicature. That is, the addressee understands the

speaker flouted the maxims for a reason and infers further meaning from this breach of convention.

Here are some examples.

Flouting Quality

A: Tehran’s in Turkey, isn’t it, teacher?

B: And London’s in Armenia, I suppose

Ø  Tehran is not in Turkey

 Flouting Quantity

ie:  Either John will come or he won’t

Ø  I don’t care whether or not John comes

Flouting Relation

A: (Letter of Recommendation) what qualities does John have for this position?

B: John has nice handwriting.

Ø  John is not qualified for the job

            Flouting Manner

 The Corner of John’s lips turned slightly upwards

Ø  John did not exactly smile

Thomas, J. 1995. Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. New York: Longman