Abstract
Grice distinguished between generalized and particularized conversational implicatures. The latter he described as ‘cases in which an implicature is carried by saying that p on a particular occasion in virtue of special features of the context’. The former he characterized as cases in which the ‘use of a certain form of words … would normally (in the absence of special circumstances) carry such-and-such an implicature or type of implicature’ (Grice, 1989, p. 37). Grice did not develop the notion of a generalized conversational implicature (GCI) to any great extent. When he introduces the terminology in his paper ‘Logic and conversation’ he gives a few examples of the following sort:1
-
(1)
A man came to my office yesterday afternoon.
-
(2)
Max found a turtle in a garden.
-
(3)
Robert broke a finger last night.
In the case of (1) the hearer would be surprised to discover that the man was the speaker’s husband, for the use of the indefinite noun phrase ‘a man’ implicates that the speaker is not intimately related to the man. Similarly, in (2) we assume that neither the turtle nor the garden was Max’s own, for if they were, the speaker would surely have used the expressions ‘his turtle’ and ‘his garden’. On the other hand, the use of an indefinite noun phrase does not always implicate the lack of an intimate relation between the subject and the thing indicated by the noun phrase. In the case of (3) there is an implicature that it was Robert‖s own finger that Robert broke.2
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Atlas, J. D., and Levinson, S. C. (1981). It-clefts, informativeness, and logical form: Radical pragmatics (Revised standard version). In P. Cole (ed.), Radical Pragmatics: 1–61. New York: Academic Press.
Bach, K. (1994a). Conversational impliciture. Mind and Language 9: 124–62.
Bach, K. (1994b). Semantic slack: What is said and more. In S. L. Tsohatzidis (ed.), Foundations of Speech Act Theory: Philosophical and Linguistic Perspectives: 267–91. London: Routledge.
Bach, K. (1995). Standardization vs. conventionalization. Linguistics and Philosophy 18: 677–86.
Bach, K. (1998). Standardization revisited. In A. Kasher (ed.), Pragmatics: Critical Assessment London: Routledge.
Bach, K. (1999). The semantics-pragmatics distinction: What it is and why it matters. In K. Turner (ed.), The Semantics/Pragmatics Interface from Different Points of View: 65–84. Oxford: Elsevier.
Barton, S., and Sanford, A. J. (1993). A case-study of pragmatic anomaly-detection: Relevance-driven cohesion patterns. Memory and Cognition 21: 477–87.
Bezuidenhout, A. L., and Cutting, J. C. (2002). Literal meaning, minimal propositions and pragmatic processing. Journal of Pragmatics 34: 433–56.
Carston, R. (1988). Implicature, explicature and truth-theoretic semantics. In R. Kempson (ed.), Mental Representations: The Interface between Language and Reality: 155–82. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Carston, R. (1993). Conjunction, explanation and relevance. Lingua 90: 27–48.
Carston, R. (1995). Quantity maxims and generalized implicature. Lingua 96: 213–44.
Carston, R. (1997). Enrichment and loosening: Complementary processes in deriving the proposition expressed? Linguistische Berichte: 103–27.
Carston, R. (1998a). Informativeness, relevance and scalar implicature. In R. Carston and S. Uchida (eds), Relevance Theory: Applications and Implications: 179–236. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Carston, R. (1998b). Pragmatics and the Explicit-Implicit Distinction. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University College London, London.
Chierchia, G., Crain, S., Guasti, T., Gualmini, A., and Meroni, L. (2001). The Acquisition of Disjunction: Evidence for a Grammatical View of Scalar Implicatures. Paper presented at the 25th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development.
Coulson, S. (2001). Semantic Leaps: Frame-Shifting and Conceptual Blending in Meaning Construction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fauconnier, G. (1985). Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Fauconnier, G. (1997). Mappings in Thought and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Folk, J. R., and Morris, R. K. (1995). Multiple lexical codes in reading: Evidence from eye movements, naming time, and oral reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 21: 1412–29.
Frisson, S., and Pickering, M. J. (1999). The processing of metonymy: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 25: 1366–83.
Gazdar, G. (1979). Pragmatics: Implicature, Presupposition, and Logical Form. New York: Academic Press.
Gibbs, R. W., and Moise, J. F. (1997). Pragmatics in understanding what is said. Cognition 62: 51–74.
Giora, R. (2003). On Our Mind: Salience, Context, and Figurative Language. New York: Oxford University Press.
Grice, P. (1989). Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hirschberg, J. (1991). A Theory of Scalar Implicature. New York: Garland Publishing.
Horn, L. R. (1984). Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicature. In D. Schiffrin (ed.), Meaning, Form, and Use in Context: Linguistic Applications: 11–42. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Levinson, S. C. (1987a). Implicature explicated? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 10: 722–3.
Levinson, S. C. (1987b). Minimization and conversational inference. In J. Verschueren and M. Bertuccelli-Papi (eds), The Pragmatic Perspective: 61–129. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Levinson, S. C. (1995). Three levels of meaning. In F. R. Palmer (ed.), Grammar and Meaning: 90–115. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Levinson, S. C. (2000). Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Nicolle, S., and Clark, B. (1999). Experimental pragmatics and what is said: A response to Gibbs and Moise. Cognition 69: 337–54.
Noveck, I. A. (2001). When children are more logical than adults: Experimental investigations of scalar implicature. Cognition 78: 165–88.
Pickering, M. J., and Frisson, S. (2001). Why reading Dickens is easy (and reading Needham is hard): Contrasting familiarity and figurativeness in language comprehension. Ms.
Poynor, D. V., and Morris, R. K. (2003) Inferred goals in narratives: Evidence from self-paced reading, recall and eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 29: 3–9.
Pustejovsky, J. (1995). The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Pustejovsky, J. (1998). The semantics of lexical underspecification. Folia Linguistica 32 (3/4): 323–47.
Rayner, K., and Morris, R. K. (1990). Do eye movements reflect higher order processes in reading? In R. Groner, G. d’Ydewalle and R. Parham (eds), From Eye to Mind: 179–91. North Holland Press.
Rayner, K., Sereno, S. C., Morris, R. K., Schmauder, A. R., and Clifton, C. E. (1989). Eye movements and on-line comprehension processes. Language and Cognitive Processes 4: 21–50.
Recanati, F. (1991). The pragmatics of what is said. In S. Davis (ed.), Pragmatics: A Reader: 97–120. New York: Oxford University Press.
Recanati, F. (1993). Direct Reference: From Language to Thought. Oxford: Blackwell.
Recanati, F. (1995). The alleged priority of literal interpretation. Cognitive Science 19: 207–32.
Sperber, D., and Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Tyler, A., and Evans, V. (2001). Reconsidering prepositional polysemy networks: The case of over. Language 77(4): 724–65.
Van Deemter, K., and Peters, S. (eds). (1996). Semantic Ambiguity and Underspecification. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2004 Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Bezuidenhout, A.L., Morris, R.K. (2004). Implicature, Relevance and Default Pragmatic Inference. In: Noveck, I.A., Sperber, D. (eds) Experimental Pragmatics. Palgrave Studies in Pragmatics, Language and Cognition. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230524125_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230524125_12
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-4039-0351-8
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-52412-5
eBook Packages: Palgrave Language & Linguistics CollectionEducation (R0)