UNIT 3: CONVERSATION ANALYSIS
Main Topics
1. Ordinary language philosophy: H.P. Grice
2. Implicature
3. The Cooperative Principle and its maxims of conversation
4. Non-observance of the maxims
5. Final remarks
1. ORDINARY LANGUAGE PHILOSOPHY: H.P. GRICE
Grice worked with Austin at Oxford in the 1940s and 1950s. Ordinary language
philosophers: fathers of pragmatics. They developed works against positivism. Grice never
developed his theory completely, but it is one of the most influential.
Austin: distinction between what speakers say and what they mean (indirectness).
Grice wished to explain how, with shared rules or conventions, language users understand
one another. Bridging the gap between what is expressed and what is implied.
2. IMPLICATURE
Grice: distinction between natural meaning (literal or abstract meaning) and non-natural
meaning (implied or speaker meaning). Implicature is the process of what is said to what is
implied. Two types of implicature:
● Conventional implicature: Generated by the conventional meaning of the words or
expressions used. She is fat but beautiful. Pragmatic presupposition
● Conversational implicature: They are inferred from conversational rules. Not about
something that is said. I have three books. The hearer knows that the speaker does
not have four books.
○ Generalized conversational implicatures: Triggered without the need for a
special context
○ Particularized conversational implicatures: Only triggered in a certain
context.
Grice listed some distinctive properties of conversational implicatures:
- Non-detachability/non-conventionality: a: I love Tom and Penny, they are delightful!.
b: Well, I Penny is delightful, yes. Even if the sentence is rephrased, (Penny is
amazing) the implicature cannot be detached from the utterance.
, - Implicature changes. How much do you make? If the context is changed, the
implicature changes. For example if someone is asking that before getting engaged
- Calculability: We can calculate how to generate an implicature, following some steps
- Cancelability/Defeasibility: Implicatures can be canceled, as they are not said
explicitly. For example, speaker b can say that they don’t dislike Jane, but they
merely do not know her enough.
Inferential meanings may sometimes become:
1. Conventionalized. Accepted way of expressing indirect meaning, for example:
a. Do you think Mark is gay?
b. Is the sky blue? (the answer is obvious, yes)
There are strategies for these expressions. This one is answering a ridiculous question with
another more ridiculous question. This is to show that the answer is self-evident.
a. I have won the lottery!
b. Yes, and I'm Alexander the Great! (I don’t believe a word you say)
This strategy is replying to an interlocutor’s lie with a more exaggerated and ridiculous lie to
show that you are not fooled.
a. Paul is very nice, right?
b. If Paul is nice, then Hell has frozen over (not agreeing with the proposition, no)
This strategy is replying with the formula “If x, then y: not x” to show disagreement
This can go to the point that the indirect meaning becomes ingrained in the grammar of the
language, the indirect meaning coexists or even replaces the direct meaning. This is:
2. Grammaticalization: Going beyond conventionalization because inference is no longer
involved. It cannot be changed. What was an indirect meaning is now a direct meaning:
● you know (manipulative a lil, to explain that they share common ground)
● I mean (adding more info to justify)
● See (to make the hearer agree)
3. THE COOPERATIVE PRINCIPLE AND ITS MAXIMS OF CONVERSATION
Main Topics
1. Ordinary language philosophy: H.P. Grice
2. Implicature
3. The Cooperative Principle and its maxims of conversation
4. Non-observance of the maxims
5. Final remarks
1. ORDINARY LANGUAGE PHILOSOPHY: H.P. GRICE
Grice worked with Austin at Oxford in the 1940s and 1950s. Ordinary language
philosophers: fathers of pragmatics. They developed works against positivism. Grice never
developed his theory completely, but it is one of the most influential.
Austin: distinction between what speakers say and what they mean (indirectness).
Grice wished to explain how, with shared rules or conventions, language users understand
one another. Bridging the gap between what is expressed and what is implied.
2. IMPLICATURE
Grice: distinction between natural meaning (literal or abstract meaning) and non-natural
meaning (implied or speaker meaning). Implicature is the process of what is said to what is
implied. Two types of implicature:
● Conventional implicature: Generated by the conventional meaning of the words or
expressions used. She is fat but beautiful. Pragmatic presupposition
● Conversational implicature: They are inferred from conversational rules. Not about
something that is said. I have three books. The hearer knows that the speaker does
not have four books.
○ Generalized conversational implicatures: Triggered without the need for a
special context
○ Particularized conversational implicatures: Only triggered in a certain
context.
Grice listed some distinctive properties of conversational implicatures:
- Non-detachability/non-conventionality: a: I love Tom and Penny, they are delightful!.
b: Well, I Penny is delightful, yes. Even if the sentence is rephrased, (Penny is
amazing) the implicature cannot be detached from the utterance.
, - Implicature changes. How much do you make? If the context is changed, the
implicature changes. For example if someone is asking that before getting engaged
- Calculability: We can calculate how to generate an implicature, following some steps
- Cancelability/Defeasibility: Implicatures can be canceled, as they are not said
explicitly. For example, speaker b can say that they don’t dislike Jane, but they
merely do not know her enough.
Inferential meanings may sometimes become:
1. Conventionalized. Accepted way of expressing indirect meaning, for example:
a. Do you think Mark is gay?
b. Is the sky blue? (the answer is obvious, yes)
There are strategies for these expressions. This one is answering a ridiculous question with
another more ridiculous question. This is to show that the answer is self-evident.
a. I have won the lottery!
b. Yes, and I'm Alexander the Great! (I don’t believe a word you say)
This strategy is replying to an interlocutor’s lie with a more exaggerated and ridiculous lie to
show that you are not fooled.
a. Paul is very nice, right?
b. If Paul is nice, then Hell has frozen over (not agreeing with the proposition, no)
This strategy is replying with the formula “If x, then y: not x” to show disagreement
This can go to the point that the indirect meaning becomes ingrained in the grammar of the
language, the indirect meaning coexists or even replaces the direct meaning. This is:
2. Grammaticalization: Going beyond conventionalization because inference is no longer
involved. It cannot be changed. What was an indirect meaning is now a direct meaning:
● you know (manipulative a lil, to explain that they share common ground)
● I mean (adding more info to justify)
● See (to make the hearer agree)
3. THE COOPERATIVE PRINCIPLE AND ITS MAXIMS OF CONVERSATION
