Transcript Group 07 - Webnode

Subject : PRAGMATICS
Instructor : 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]
Nguyễn Ái Hoàng Châu
Group 07
Lữ thị Ngọc Lan
Võ Duy Minh
Nguyễn Hồng Lệ Ngọc
Lê Đức Thịnh
Nguyễn
Nguyễn
Lữ
ÁiHồng
Lê
thị
Hoàng
Đức
Ngọc
LệThịnh
Châu
Ngọc
Lan
Implicature characteristics
& Distinguishing
the
of&toImplicatures
Applying
Applying
Literature
the concept
theconcept
concept
review
to teaching
Definitions
translation
English
from others
Nguyễn Hồng Lệ Ngọc
Literature review & Definitions
Literature review & Definitions
Classification - George Yule (1998)
- Conversational implicatures
- Generalized conversational implicatures
. Scalar implicatures
- Particularized conversational implicatures
- Conventional implicatures
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
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]
IDoobie
was sitting
: Didinyou
a garden
invite Bella
one day.
andACathy?
child looked over the fence.
+>: that
the garden
Mary
I invited
Bella. and the child mentioned are not the
speaker’s.
+>
I didn’t invite Bella.
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]
They’re
This
I’m
studying
should
sometimes
be
linguistics,
stored
really
in and
ainteresting.
cool
I’ve
place.
completed some of the required
courses.
+> not must
(on+>
thenot
scale
of obligation)
+>
always,
often
+>
notfrozen
complete
+> not
(onall
therequired
scale of courses.
coldness)
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].
Rick :: Do
Bert
Hey,you
coming
like ice-cream?
to the wild party tonight?
Ernie: :My
Tom
Is the
parents
Pop are
Catholic?
visiting.
+> Yes.
I cannot come to the party.
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 ready
happy to
and
work
ready
andtohappy
work..
+>
ppoor
[…
was
happy]
is
plus
qclothes
[…
ready
to work].
She
Mary
Bring
left
put
suggested
is
the
the
on
flowers
her
house
but
clothes
black,
honest.
and
into put
and
abut
warm
on
Ileft
chose
her
the
room
house.
white.
and
.they’ll
soon open.
+> qp [bring
[… poor]
[Mary
leftthe
suggested
theis
flowers
house]
plus qblack]
into
is
[…after
honest].
aiswarm
pin[…
contrast
room]
put onto
causes
her
q [Iclothes].
chose
(and
white].
therefore)
[… soon
open].
= Mary isppoor
and honest.
Literature review & Definitions
Conversational Implicature properties
George Yule (1998)
You have won five dollars!
+> You won only five dollars.
The property of REINFORCEABILITY
SUSPENSIBILITY
CANCELLABILITY
Alice
: Didcan
all be
of the
boys goby
toadding
the soccer
“+>
“+> only”
only”
can
be
suspended
cancelled
reinforced
by
by
adding
adding
further
additional
“at match?
least”
information
to. the
to
information,
utterance.
the
utterance,
the expression
“inmatch
fact” but not
Tom
: Some
of as
the often
boys went
to the soccer
. have
Youall
You
have
wonwon
fiveatdollars,
only
five
leastdollars,
five
in fact,
dollars!
that’s
you[p.
four
won
44,
more
ten!
45][p.
than
44,
some
the boys +> not all of the boys
45] [p.
one!
44,of45]
“four
“not all”
morereinforces
than one”the
reinforces
intended“only
implicature
five”
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]
expression with a single meaning may have
It is. an
cold.
different conversational implicatures [Levinson, 117+> ISit
Close
feel
closer
not
the good.
windows,
to
me, my please.
darling.
118].
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.
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].
Literature review & Definitions
Classification - Paul Grice (1967, in Levinson)
meant-nn
said
implicated
Conventional
Implicatures
Conversational Implicatures
conventionally
non-conventionally
. Generalized Implicatures
. Particularized Implicatures conversationally
non-conversationally
(violate the maxims)
(flout the maxims)
Grice’s ideas are considered
to be the foundation
generally
particularlyof
contemporary pragmatics
[Levinson (1995), p. 131]
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
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 aanbig
mental
exceptional
enormous
brain.
prodigy.
intellect.
clever human being.
+> John’s genius.
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.
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
Phil ::How
Tối nay
about
đi chơi
goingđược
out tonight?
không?
Alice
Alice::Ồ!
Oh!Tối
Mynay
parents
ba mẹare
emvisiting
tới chơi.tonight.
+> IEm
+>
cannot
không
gothể
outđitonight.
chơi tối nay.
Lữ thị Ngọc Lan
Implicature characteristics
&
Distinguishing the concepts from each other
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.
Violating and flouting
Violations
Flouting
- … the
failed
speaker
to observe
has deliberately
one or morelied,
maxims
supplied
of
the co-operative
insufficient
information,
principleor…been
[Peccei,
ambiguous,
p. 27-28]
irrelevant or hard to understand [Peccei, p. 27]
-…
might
hamper
communication
Rick
: Will
Hey
Did
you
Alice
coming
invite
come
to Tom
the
to our
wild
and
party?
party
Jerry?tonight? but not lead
to::implicatures
[Peccei,
p. 27]
Alice
Tom
My
She
I invited
parents
will orTom.
she
are will
visiting.
not.
+> INo.
didn’tknow.
don’t
invite Jerry.
A : (flouting
Can youthe
open
tell
methethe
window?
time?
maxim
of
relevance)
quantity)
manner)
B : Yes.
Yes [and do nothing]
Distinguishing
Conversational Implicatures
from Conventional Implicatures
Properties
Conversational Implicatures
cancellability
non-detachability
calculability
universality
deniability
Conventional Implicatures
non-cancellability
detachability
non-calculability
non-universality
having [relatively] determinate
content or meaning
non-conventionality
reinforceability
[Grice, Yule, Sadock, Levinson]
[Levinson, 128]
Conversational Implicatures
cancellability
Conventional Implicatures
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.
Conversational Implicatures
non-detachability
Conventional Implicatures
detachability
John is an
a big
enormous
brain. intellect..
John is poor but
andhonest.
honest.
+> John’s genius.
+> “poor” is plus
contrast
“honest”
to
“honest”
“John’s genius” cannot be
detached by changing words in
the utterance => the
implicature is non-detachable.
The implicatture will be
detached from the utterance
when relating word is changed
=> the implicature is
detachable.
Conversational Implicatures
calculability
Conventional Implicatures
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.
Conversational Implicatures
deniability
An utterance may have more
than one implicature, and the
speaker can deny the intended
implicature.
Conventional Implicatures
having [relatively]
determinate content
or meaning
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
Conversational Implicatures
Conventional Implicatures
universality
non-universality
begin
xoay xở
The speaker’s implication is
similar in every language.
end
manage
The meaning of the word
leading to the implicature can
be different from a language to
one another.
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]
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.
Distinguishing
Conversational Implicatures
from Presuppostiions
Properties
Conversational Implicatures
Presuppostiions
cancellability
non-detachability
calculability
non-conventionality
reinforceability
universality
deniability
defeasibility
detachability
non-calculability
conventionality
non-reinforceability
constancy under negation
[Grice, Yule, Sadock, Levinson]
[Staffan Larsson, online]
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 : Are
What’s
youhappened
coming totothe
theparty?
shampoo?
Annie : My
I used
parents
most are
of itin– town
actually,
- butI Iused
am coming.
all of it.
[Peccei, 1999: 37]
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’s
What happened?
up?
Annie : I’ve
Steve’s
stopped
dog wrecked
smokingthe
– although
garden – I’ve
and never
in fact,
Steve doesn’t have a dog .
smoked.
[Peccei, 1999: 37]
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.
The property of
constancy under negation
Even John
John didn’t
came to
come
the party.
to the party.
+> John
+>
John wasn’t
was expected
expected
to come
to come
to the
to the
party.
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).
Presupposition
words, linguistic
expressions or
grammatical
structures
Speaker’s
thought
Hearer’s
thought
Conversational Implicature
Co-operative principle
& the four maxims
relevance
Speaker’s
thought
quality
quantity
manner
Hearer’s
thought
Conventional Implicature
Meaning of specific
words in
Co-operative
the exchanges
principle
& the four maxims
Speaker’s
thought
but,
therefore,
and,
or,
even,
yet, …
Hearer’s
thought
Nguyễn Ái Hoàng Châu
Applying the concept of Implicatures
to teaching English
Conversational Implicatures
in Teaching English
Nguyễn Ái Hoàng Châu
WHY?
Applying the concept to
teaching English
- 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
HOW?
Applying the concept to
teaching English
- 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 English
Some suggested activities
Nguyễn Ái Hoàng Châu
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 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 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 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 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 English
Conclusion :
Advantages:
The
roletheoflessons
Implicatures
in communication
 Make
more interesting.
very
it is not paid
 is
Make
theimportant
class morebut
active.
in confidently.
teaching
 appropriate
Make studentsattention
speak more
and familiar
speaking
skills to EFL
 listening
Make students
to real
students.
communication.
Nguyễn Ái Hoàng Châu
Lê Đức Thịnh
Applying the concept of Implicatures
to translation
Applying the concept to
translation
A - Addressing Vietnamese names in English
Lữ thị Ngọc
Ngọc-Lan
Lan =>
=> Ngọc-Lan
Lan thị Ngọc
thị Lữ
Võ Duy Minh
Võ-duy
Minh =>
=> Minh Võ-duy
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
translation
B - Translating English idioms into Vietnamese
and vice versa
When
=>
Nhập
in Rome,
gia tùydo
tục.as the Romans do.
=>
It rains
Trời cats
mưaand
xối dogs.
xả.
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
translation
C - Translating the English expressions into
Vietnamese and vice versa
Katherine : Do you still want to have some ice
creams?
Maggie
: Do
Mèothe
màbirds
chê mở
singà?
in the woods?
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
translation
D – Translating the English relevance-hedging “Well, Ah,
Oh, So, Anyway, Actually, Still, …” into Vietnamese
Katherine : How about going out tonight?
Maggie : Well!
Oh! My
Myparents
parentsare
areatathome
hometonight.
tonight.
“Well”
“Oh” shows
serves that
the notice
the speaker
that the
is surprised
speaker isataware
what that
he/she
he/sheisjust
unable
listened
to meet
and the
implies
requirements
that he/she
of refuses
the
maxim
to accept
of Quantity
the invitation.
in full.
Lê Đức Thịnh
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 : Oh!
Well!My
Myparents
parentsare
areatathome
hometonight.
tonight.
Quên
Ồ!
Tiếc
nữa!
quá,Tối
Tốinay
naybabamẹmẹememở ởnhà.
nhà.
Lê Đức Thịnh
Applying the concept to
translation
E - Translating English plural words into
Vietnamese
the banks of the river
the sides of the triangle
=> hai bờ sông
=> 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
translation
F - Translating the English prepositions into
Vietnamese and vice versa
in the sky
to Ho chi Minh city
=> trên bầu trời
=> 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
translation
G - Translating tautologies
Annie : I thought the cherry pie would cheer you up.
Mike : Annie, cherry pie is cherry pie.
Mike : Vâng
Thì thếAnnie,
Annie,bánh
bánhhạnh
hạnhnhân
nhânluôn
bao là
giờbánh
cũng
vẫn lànhân
hạnh
bánhmà.
hạnh nhân .
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
Thank you for listening
Bibliography
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
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.
Bibliography
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
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 (reprinted): 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.
Bibliography
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
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.
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]