Pragmatics implicature

ENTAILMENT
1. Definition
2. Characteristics
3. Classification
4. Subtypes of entailment

Definition

• Definition 1: E is a relationship that applies
between two sentences, where the truth of
one implies the truth of the other because of
the meanings of the words involved (Goddard,
1998).
• Definition 2: An entailment is something that
logically follows from what is asserted in the
utterance.” [Yule, 1996]

2. Characteristics
• 2.1 Entailment is concerned with the meaning
of the sentence itself
• 2.2 Hyponymy involves entailment.
• 2.3 En applies cumulatively
• 2.4 Entailment can also involve the use of
determiners

3. Classification
3.1 One- way and two-way entailment
3.1.1 One- way entailment: The first sentence
entails the second but not the other way
round
3.1.2 Two-way entailment: is the entailment
that has meaning relationship and the
sentences that contain mutual entailment are
paraphrases of each other.

3. Classification
3.2 Background and foreground
entailment
Background entailments helping to determine
context
Foreground entailments contributing to the
main point of utterance (stress pattern )

4.1 Assertion
4.1.1 Definition
A declarative sentence typically asserts that a
state of affair exists. In other words, assertion
is the characteristic of all declarative
sentences.

4.1 Assertion
4.1.2 Principles of assertion
• A proposition is always true in some but not in all of
the possible worlds in the context set.
• Any assertive utterance should expresses a
proposition, relative to each possible world in the
context set, and that proposition should have truth
value in each possible world in the context set.
• The same proposition is expressed relative to each
possible world in the context set.

4.2 Presupposition
4.2.1Definition: Presupposition is “what a
speaker or writer assumes that the receiver of
the message already knows.”[Richards et al,
1987]
• Ex: John doesn’t write poems anymore. ->
presupposes that John once wrote poetry

4.2 Presupposition
4.2.2Characteristics
• The presupposition of an utterance remains
the same under its NEGATION
• The presupposition of an utterance remains
the same under its INTERROGATION
• The presupposition of an utterance may be
cancelled under its EXTENSION

4.2 Presupposition
• 4.2.3 Comparison between entailment and
presupposition
Entailment Presupposition

The relationship Presupposition is often
between two treated as the
sentences where the relationship between
truth of one (A) two propositions.
requires the truth of the
other (B).

4.3 The relation between assertion
and presupposition
• Propositions are presupposed in a conversation if
they are on record as belonging to the common
ground between the speakers. When an assertion is
made and accepted in the conversation, its content
is added to the common ground, and the the truth of
the proposition in question will be presupposed in
later stages

1. Definition

• Implicature is a technical term, which refers
to what is suggested in an utterance, even
though neither expressed nor strictly
implied.
• Example:
John is meeting a woman this evening.
+> The woman John is meeting this evening is
not his mother, his sister or his wife.

2. Subtypes of implicature

• Implicature includes two types which are
conversational implicature and conventional
one.

2.1. Conversational implicature

• 2.1.1. Definition
• Conversational implicature: Implications derived
on the basis of conversational principles and
assumptions, relying on more than the linguistic
meaning of words in a sentence.
• A (conversationally) implicates B if it is the case
that uttering A in a certain conversational
context systematically suggests, everything else
being equal, that B is true. However, the
implicature can be called off (i.e., cancelled).

• Example 1:
• Student A: Do you like Linguistics?
• Student B: Well, let’s just say I don’t jump for
joy before class.
• +> A asked B about his feelings about the
class, and B said B didn’t celebrate before the
class. It shows the uninterested feeling of B
about Linguistics subject

• - Cooperative Principle:
• 1. Quantity: give the right amount of information
(not too little, not too much).
• 2. Quality: try to say only what is true (don't say
that for which you lack adequate evidence; don't
say what you know to be false).
• 3. Relevance: make what you say relevant to the
topic at hand.
• 4. Manner: be clear (avoid ambiguity, excessive
wordiness, obscurity, etc.).

• - Implicatures arise from the interaction of the
following 3 factors:
• 1. The proposition actually expressed in the
utterance,
• 2. Possibly certain features of the context (in
any of the 3 notions of ‘context’)
• 3. The assumption that the speaker is obeying
the rules of conversation to the best of their
ability.

• Ex2: A ‘standard’ implicature (speaker is
trying to obey the rules conversation).
A: Will Sally be at the meeting this
afternoon?
B. Her car broke down.
+> Sally won't be at the meeting.

2.1.2. Type of conversonal implicature

• Conversational implicature includes
generalized conversational implicature and
particularized conversational implicature.

• * Generalized conversational implicature:
• +No special knowledge is required in the
context
• +a/an X =>not speaker’s X

Generalized conversational
implicature
• Example 4
• "Fred thinks there is a meeting tonight."
• +> Fred doesn't know for sure that there is a
meeting tonight.
• Example 5
• The Browns went to a park outside the city
last week

• Scalar implicature: is greater detail of a
particular sort of implicatures, expressing
quantity and terms are listed from the highest
to the lowest value.

Scalar implicature:
• Example:
• I ate some of the cake => this sentence implies “I
did not eat all of the cake”
• In the utterance some of the boys went to the
party, the word some implicates "not all of the
boys went to the party."
• The words none, some, and all form an
implicational scale, in which the use of one form
implicates that the use of a stronger form is not
possible.

• * Particularized conversational implicature:
• +Special knowledge is required in special
context in which speaker and hearer
understand only.
• In another word, a particularized implicature
is a conversational implicature that is
derivable only in a specific context.

Particularized conversational implicature
• Example 1
• Vernon: Do you like Monica?
Bill: She’s the cream in my coffee.
• +> Bill’s implicated message: yes, more than you
know
• Bill must be speaking metaphorically, and there
must be a reason for doing so. A simple “yes”
apparently wasn’t enough. He’s trying to tell
Vernon that ordinary words can’t express what
he feels for Monica, so he’s using a metaphor to
indicate that his feelings are at another level.

Particularized conversational implicature

• Example 2:
• A: What on earth has happened to the roast
beef?
B: The dog is looking very happy.
• In the above exchange, A will likely derive
the implicature "the dog ate the roast beef"
from B’s statement. This is due to A’s belief
that B is observing the conversational maxim
of relation or relevance in the specific context
of A’s question.

2.2. Conventional implicature

• Conventional implicature is an
implicature that is:
• part of a lexical item’s or expression’s agreed
meaning, rather than derived from principles
of language use, and
• not part of the conditions for the truth of the
item or expression.

2.2. Conventional implicature
• Example:
• Joe is poor but happy
• +> This sentence implies poverty and
happiness are not compatible but in spite of
this Joe is still happy. This sentence will always
necessarily imply “Surprisingly Joe is happy in
spite of being poor”.

Pragmatics implicature

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

Similaire à Pragmatics implicature

Similaire à Pragmatics implicature (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Pragmatics implicature