Conversational Implicature

We've all been there; you have watched five episodes of a tv show on Netflix and are just about to fall asleep when the screen has a pop-up message asking 'are you still watching...?'. Netflix is implying that you don't want to lose your place, but the question also implies that it should power down for the night. This is an example of Conversational implicature, which is a term used to describe instances of conversation when the speaker means more than they say. Let's look at the meaning, examples, and some Gricean maxims that explains how conversational implicature can be used in day-to-day situations.

Conversational implicature: meaning

Implicature refers to the meaning that is inferred or implied in a conversation, beyond the literal or explicit meaning of the words used. It involves the speaker conveying additional information or intentions indirectly. For instance, if someone says, "The weather is nice today," during a picnic, the implicature could be that they are inviting others to enjoy the good weather and join them outdoors. Implicatures play a vital role in effective communication by allowing for subtle nuances and shared understanding between participants in a conversation.

The philosopher HP Grice first suggested that in conversation we often convey information beyond that which we say and that this added meaning is inferred and predictable. He referred to this as 'conversational implicature'. Since Grice's initial proposal and work, conversational implicatures have become one of the major research areas in pragmatics.

Conversational implicature: examples

Conversational implicature occurs when meaning is implied or suggested by a speaker, even though it is not explicitly stated. An example of conversational implicature is when someone asks, "Do you have any plans tonight?" and the other person responds, "I have a book I've been meaning to read." The implicature here is that the person does not have any plans and intends to spend the evening reading the book.

Conversational implicature is also known as Implication: this happens when the speaker says something that requires interpretation and is an indirect way of saying something.

From this we understand: 'It is hot and sunny outside, so you might get sunburned '.

Here is another example of conversational implicature:

In the question, the implied meaning could be: 'It's time to go / We're going to be late / What is taking you so long?'

In the answer, the implied meaning could be: 'I don't know, maybe / I will be ready soon, you have time for another drink.'

These are indirect exchanges, where the original information or query is 'encoded'; by doing this, we imply something (which means we don't explicitly state it). Exchanges like this rely on context, situation, and inferences to be understood.

Fig 1. - Most of the time, when we ask "are you nearly ready?", we're implying that we need to leave soon.

We use conversational implicature to supplement what we say; it also offers us a discreet way of supplying sensitive information.

Let's say Jeff wants to take on a new assistant called Flint. Jeff's friend also knows Flint, and when Jeff asks him about Flint, the friend says:

At first glance, these could all seem like positives, but what his friend might actually be saying is that Flint is not best suited to the role Jeff is offering. However, to avoid appearing indiscreet, or unhelpful, the friend chooses to encode his message - and this is an example of implicature.

Have a look at the following two exchanges:

In the question 'Are you watching this?' A communicates one or more of the following: 'I am bored with this programme/neither of us is watching, so why not change it? A doesn't explicitly say either of these things - it is implied.

Based on the situation and the inferences B can make from A, B deduces that A is in fact asking for the TV to be switched off. So A's question is an example of implicature.

Fig 2. - When we ask questions, we often are wanting to know something else. Here, the speaker want's to know if he can change the channel.

C, a newcomer to the area, needs to find something to eat; D's reply at first glance might seem irrelevant or unconnected. We (and C if he wants to get his breakfast) need to use our powers of inference to understand that D is showing us where to get essentials for breakfast.

Conversational implicature: Gricean Theory

Let's look a little closer at Grice's Theory of Conversational Implicature.

Grice was the first to properly study how what a speaker says can be different from what they mean. He introduced the terms 'implication' and 'implicature' to illustrate this phenomenon.

Conversational implicature: conversational maxims

Grice's Theory suggests that people in a conversation are guided by the Cooperative Principle and Maxims of Conversation. This means that people are expected to communicate in a cooperative, helpful way by following these maxims. There are four Maxims, which are as follows:

• The Maxim of Quality, which requires us to aim for truthfulness (i.e. what you believe to be true, or have evidence for).

• The Maxim of quantity says we should only be as informative as is necessary/useful for the current exchange, and no more.

• The Maxim of Relation tells us to be relevant.

• The Maxim of Manner requires us to be brief, clear and orderly.

In a conversation, the speaker may

• observe the maxims

• opt-out by 'hedging', eg: - using cautious or vague language that signals hesitancy

• flout a maxim, in full knowledge of the addressee

Opting out or flouting the maxims are what cause conversational implicatures to arise in speech; these actions are also signalled to the addressee.

A participant may be trying to follow the maxims and discover they cannot, and this can lead to a clash of maxims.

Types of conversational implicature - maxim clashes

It isn't always possible to follow all the maxims at the same time, which leads to a maxim clash. This is where conversational implicature comes in.

X's answer does not contain enough information to plan the occasion; by not having the exact information, X cannot obey either the quantity or quality maxim. By saying 'somewhere' X suggests 'I know sort of where it is - I just don't have the exact address'; this becomes an indirect answer, hence implicature.

Fig. 3 - Flouting maxims can leave someone with either incorrect or not enough information.

B wishes to cooperate by offering some information in this exchange (so obeying the maxim of quality, i.e. striving for truthfulness - he believes the sun is out); he isn't certain, however, so he opts out of the maxim of quantity (being informative). These contrasts become a maxim clash.

Hedging

We might also opt out of the Cooperative Principle by using cautious or vague language; this is to let the other person know that we are not totally certain of the information we are giving.

Brent is being cautious about the information he is about to share; he is hedging. This means that he is signalling to Amy that the information might not be correct and therefore should not be relied on too much.

Flouting

Conversational implicatures can also happen when a speaker clearly and intentionally violates the Maxims of Conversation, intending for this to be recognized. Let's look at what happens when the maxims of conversation are flouted:

Flouted Maxim of Quality:

Saying something that is obviously false can demonstrate figures of speech such as irony, hyperbole and metaphor.

In the above example, it is unlikely he was tall enough to hit the roof, or that he was propelled like a rocket to hit the roof; It is also very unlikely that the speaker was intentionally lying or mistaken - the addressee has to infer that the speaker was using a metaphor or figure of speech.

Flouted maxim of quantity:

Saying something that appears obvious, without being informative (including tautologies), can still suggest information via implicatures. Take a look at the examples in context below:

B means here: There's nothing we can do about it/no point in complaining about it.

This implies that whatever someone is about to do is unpleasant but necessary.

Another way to flout the quantity maxim is by damning with faint price:

This suggests the painting was terrible, but the frame was nice to look at.

Here the critic avoids saying there were problems with the play by focusing on the inexperience of the author.

Flouted maxim of relation/relevance:

In the exchange below, B's answer seems irrelevant, so A infers that B means something else:

A: Glenn's a bit of a bore, isn't he?

B: Have you seen Free Guy yet? (i.e. Glenn is standing behind you!)

Fig. 4 - Providing unnecessary information is a form of flouting the maxim of relevance.

Flouted maxim of manner:

It would be quicker to say 'the food was over-cooked / burnt/inedible' than the following:

By over-describing, the speaker avoids saying directly just how terrible the food was.

Particularized versus generalized implicature

The most common conversational implicatures only happen in specific contexts and are called particularized. Many of the examples we have looked at so far require some kind of context; this makes them particularized implicatures.

Other conversational implicatures can be inferred without reference to a special context and these are called generalized. Usually, the indefinite article 'a' / 'an' will imply that there is no close connection to the speaker or subject.

This shows us that Terry is unrelated to the park, the parakeet, and the tree: they could be anywhere, it could be any tree, and any parakeet.

Conversational implicature: properties

Grice attributed various properties to conversational implicatures. They are defeasible, non-detachable, calculable, non-conventional, and context-dependent.

Defeasible (cancellable)

This means the implicature can be cancelled by further information or context.

Take the examples from above:

'Those cookies look good! ' (I would like one or more)

Now compare it with:

'Those cookies look good, but I'm on a diet.' (implicature defeated; i.e. 'I won't have any.')

And compare this:

C: I need to get some breakfast.

D: There's a baker's just around the corner. (You can get what you need there)

With

C: I need to get some breakfast.

D: There's a baker's just around the corner. But they won't be open yet. (implicature defeated)

They are usually non-detachable

This means they rely on meaning and not the wording. So you can rephrase 'Those cookies look good!' as:

Those biscuits look delicious!

And the implicature will remain.

Fig. 5 - Here, "those look yummy" has a non-detachable implicature.

They are calculable

This means they can be worked out rationally, as they are inferred and implied (and not encoded/decoded).

They are non-conventional

They are not part of the literal meaning of a sentence.

They can be context-dependent

Conventional implicature: meaning

As well as conversational implicature, Grice also presented a theory of conventional implicature but never developed it. Conventional implicature does not rely on the cooperative principle and the four maxims; instead, it is directly attached to the literal meaning of the words being said.

Let's look at a simple sentence:

A) 'Tom is tall and weak.'

Both parts of this statement can be true.

B) 'Tom is tall but weak.'

Both parts of this statement are still true, only now there is a contrast, introduced by the word 'but'. If we replace 'but' with 'and', we lose the sense of contrast.

The contrast must be part of the conventional meaning of the word 'but'. At the same time, the contrast is not part of the truth condition. Therefore, statement B is not truth conditional (both statements contain truth conditions but only one contains the contrast).

So this kind of conventional, but non-truth conditional, meaning is what Grice called a conventional implicature.

(i.e. Kate is the least likely person to have known)

Jeremy is not at the gallery; the use of 'still' hints that he is expected there.

Unlike conversational implicatures, conventional implicatures are not defeasible. Certain verbs also introduce conventional implicature:

The speaker tells us Tom got there. The conventional implicature is: he had some difficulty in getting there.

This means he didn't get there. The conventional implicature is: he attempted to get there, but didn't succeed or, he could have got there but didn't try to.

What are the different characteristics between conversational and conventional implicature?

These are the main differences between conversational implicature and conventional implicature: