P. 23-36
The notion of implicature (both conversational and conventional) was originated by the Oxford philosopher H. P. Grice. Grice presented a panorama of his thinking on meaning and communication---what he called his "tottering steps"(Grice 1989:4) towards a systematic, philosophically inspired pragmatic theory of language use, which has since come to be known as Gricean pragmatic theory. The Gricean paradigm has revolutionized pragmatic theorizing and to date remains one of the cornerstones of contemporary thinking in linguistic pragmatics and the philosophy of language.
2.1 Classical Gricean theory of conversational implicature
On a general Gricean account of meaning and communication, there are two theories: a theory of meaningn(on)n(atural) and a theory of conversational implicature. In his theory of meaningnn, Grice (1957, 1969, 1989) emphasized the conceptual relation between natural meaning in the external world and non-natural, linguistic meaning of utterances.
Defined thus, the essence of meaningnn is that it is communication which is intended to be recognized as having been intended. In other words, meaningnn or speaker-meaning is a matter of expressing and recognizing intention.
2.1.1 The co-operative principle and the maxims of conversation
In his theory of conversational implicature, Grice (1961,1975, 1978,1989) suggested that there is an underlying principle that determines the way in which language is used with maximum efficiency and effectively to achieve rational interaction in communication. He called this overarching dictum the co-operative principle and subdivided it into nine maxims of conversation classified into four categories: Quality, Quantity, Relation and Manner.The names of the four categories are taken from the German philosopher Immanuel Kant(Grice 1989: 26).
2.1.2 Relationship between the speaker and the maxims
A speaker can straightforwardly observe the maxims.
A speaker can violate a maxim.
A speaker can opt out of a maxim.
2.1.3 Conversational implicature O versus conversational implicature F(the first Gricean dichotomy)
Assuming that the co-operative principle and its associated maxims are normally adhered to by both the speaker and the addressee in a conversational interaction, Grice suggested that a conversational implicature--- roughly, a set of non-logical inferences which contains conveyed messages--- which are meant without being part of what is said in the strict sense---can arise from either strictly observing or ostentatiously flouting the maxims. Let us call conversational implicatures that are engendered by way of directly observing the maxims conversational implicatures O.
Conversational implicatures can be generated by way of the speaker's deliberately flouting maxims. Let us call conversational implicatures thus induced conversational implicature F.
The distinction between those conversational implicatures that are generated from a simple assumption that the speaker is observing both the maxims and the co-operative principles, and those that are engendered in more complex ways on the basis of the speaker flouting a maxim but nevertheless following the co-operative principle.
2.1.4 Generalized versus particularized conversational implicature(the second Gricean dichotomy)
The second Gricean dichotomy, independent of the first, is between those conversational implicatures which arise without requiring any particular contextual conditions(generalized conversational implicature) and those which do require such conditions(particular conversational implicature).
2.1.5 Properties of conversational implicature
Conversational implicature are characterized by a number of distinctive properties.
Defeasibility or cancellability: conversational implicatures can simply disappear in certain linguistic or non-linguistic contexts. They are cancelled if they are inconsistent with semantic entailments; background assumptions; contexts, and/or priority conversational implicatures.
Non-detachability: any linguistic expression with the same semantic content tends to carry the same conversational implicature. This is because conversational implicatures are attached to the semantic content, rather that the linguistic form, of what is said. Therefore, they cannot be detached from an utterance simply by replacing the relevant linguistic expressions with their synonyms.
Calculability: conversational implicatures can transparently be derived via the co-operative principle and its component maxims.
Non-conventinality: conversational implicatures, though dependent on the saying of what is coded, are non-coded in nature(Grice 1989:39, Bach 1994a: 140). In other words, they rely on the saying of what is said but they are not part of what is said. They are associated with speaker or utterance but not proposition or sentence.
Reinforceability: conversational implicatures can be made explicit without producing too much of a sense of redundancy. This is because conversational implicatures are not part of the conventional import of an utterance.
Universality: conversational implicatures tend to be universal, being motivated rather than arbitrary.
没有评论:
发表评论