Scalar implicature

Last updated

In pragmatics, scalar implicature, or quantity implicature, [1] is an implicature that attributes an implicit meaning beyond the explicit or literal meaning of an utterance, and which suggests that the utterer had a reason for not using a more informative or stronger term on the same scale. The choice of the weaker characterization suggests that, as far as the speaker knows, none of the stronger characterizations in the scale holds. This is commonly seen in the use of 'some' to suggest the meaning 'not all', even though 'some' is logically consistent with 'all'. [2] If Bill says 'I have some of my money in cash', this utterance suggests to a hearer (though the sentence uttered does not logically imply it) that Bill does not have all his money in cash.

Contents

Origin

Scalar implicatures typically arise where the speaker qualifies or scales their statement with language that conveys to the listener an inference or implicature that indicates that the speaker had reasons not to use a stronger, more informative, term. [3] For example, where a speaker uses the term "some" in the statement, "Some students can afford a new car.", the use of "some" gives rise to an inference or implicature that "Not all students can afford a new car." [3]

As with pragmatic inference generally, such inferences are defeasible or cancellable – the inferred meaning may not be true, even though the literal meaning is true. This distinguishes such inferences from entailment. They are also non-detachable. A conversational implicature is said to be non-detachable when, after the replacement of what is said with another expression with the same literal meaning, the same conversational implicature remains. [4] This distinguishes them from conventional implicatures.

In a 2006 experiment with Greek-speaking five-year-olds' interpretation of aspectual expressions, the results revealed that children have limited success in deriving scalar implicatures from the use of aspectual verbs such as "start" (which implicates non-completion). [5] However, the tested children succeed in deriving scalar implicatures with discrete degree modifiers such as "half" as in half finished. [5] Their ability to spontaneously compute scalar implicatures was greater than their ability to judge the pragmatic appropriateness of scalar statements. [5] In addition, the tested children were able to suspend scalar implicatures in environments where they were not supported. [5]

Griceans attempt to explain these implicatures in terms of the maxim of quantity, according to which one is to be just as informative as required. The idea is that if the speaker were in a position to make the stronger statement, they would have. Since they did not, they must believe that the stronger statement is not true.

Examples

Some examples of scalar implicature [6] are:

1a. Bill has got some of Chomsky's papers.
1b. The speaker believes that Bill hasn't got all of Chomsky's papers.
2a. There will be five of us for dinner tonight.
2b. There won't be more than five of us for dinner tonight.
3a. She won't necessarily get the job.
3b. She will possibly get the job.
4a. The Russians or the Americans have just landed on Mars.
4b. Not both of them have just landed on Mars.

Uttering the sentence (a) in most cases will communicate the assumption in (b). This seems to be because the speaker did not use stronger terms such as 'there will be more than five people for dinner tonight' or 'she can't possibly get the job'. For example, if Bill really did have all of Chomsky's papers, the speaker would have said so. However, according to the maxim of quantity, a speaker will only be informative as is required, and will therefore not use any stronger terms unless required. The hearer, knowing this, will assume that the stronger term does not apply.

See also

Related Research Articles

The following outline is provided as an overview and topical guide to linguistics:

In linguistics and related fields, pragmatics is the study of how context contributes to meaning. The field of study evaluates how human language is utilized in social interactions, as well as the relationship between the interpreter and the interpreted. Linguists who specialize in pragmatics are called pragmaticians. The field has been represented since 1986 by the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA).

Implication may refer to:

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Paul Grice</span> British philosopher of language (1913–1988)

Herbert Paul Grice, usually publishing under the name H. P. Grice, H. Paul Grice, or Paul Grice, was a British philosopher of language who created the theory of implicature and the cooperative principle, which became foundational concepts in the linguistic field of pragmatics. His work on meaning has also influenced the philosophical study of semantics.

In pragmatics, a subdiscipline of linguistics, an implicature is something the speaker suggests or implies with an utterance, even though it is not literally expressed. Implicatures can aid in communicating more efficiently than by explicitly saying everything we want to communicate. The philosopher H. P. Grice coined the term in 1975. Grice distinguished conversational implicatures, which arise because speakers are expected to respect general rules of conversation, and conventional ones, which are tied to certain words such as "but" or "therefore". Take for example the following exchange:

Linguistic entailments are entailments which arise in natural language. If a sentence A entails a sentence B, sentence A cannot be true without B being true as well. For instance, the English sentence "Pat is a fluffy cat" entails the sentence "Pat is a cat" since one cannot be a fluffy cat without being a cat. On the other hand, this sentence does not entail "Pat chases mice" since it is possible for a cat to not chase mice.

In social science generally and linguistics specifically, the cooperative principle describes how people achieve effective conversational communication in common social situations—that is, how listeners and speakers act cooperatively and mutually accept one another to be understood in a particular way.

In linguistics and philosophy, a presupposition is an implicit assumption about the world or background belief relating to an utterance whose truth is taken for granted in discourse. Examples of presuppositions include:

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Relevance theory</span> Theory of cognitive linguistics

Relevance theory is a framework for understanding the interpretation of utterances. It was first proposed by Dan Sperber and Deirdre Wilson, and is used within cognitive linguistics and pragmatics. The theory was originally inspired by the work of Paul Grice and developed out of his ideas, but has since become a pragmatic framework in its own right. The seminal book, Relevance, was first published in 1986 and revised in 1995.

In philosophy—more specifically, in its sub-fields semantics, semiotics, philosophy of language, metaphysics, and metasemantics—meaning "is a relationship between two sorts of things: signs and the kinds of things they intend, express, or signify".

Stephen C. Levinson FBA is a British social scientist, known for his studies of the relations between culture, language and cognition, and former scientific director of the Language and Cognition department at the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics in Nijmegen, the Netherlands.

According to Geoffrey Leech, there is a politeness principle with conversational maxims similar to those formulated by Paul Grice. He lists six maxims: tact, generosity, approbation, modesty, agreement, and sympathy. The first and second form a pair, as do the third and the fourth. These maxims vary from culture to culture: what may be considered polite in one culture may be strange or downright rude in another.

Laurence Robert Horn is an American linguist. He is professor emeritus of linguistics in the department of linguistics at Yale University with specialties in pragmatics and semantics. He received his doctorate in 1972 from UCLA and formerly served as director of undergraduate studies, director of graduate studies, and chair of Yale's department of linguistics. In 2021, he served as president of the Linguistic Society of America.

Explicature is a technical term in pragmatics, the branch of linguistics that concerns the meaning given to an utterance by its context. The explicatures of a sentence are what is explicitly said, often supplemented with contextual information. They contrast with implicatures, the information that the speaker conveys without actually stating it.

The term abstraction has a number of uses in the field of linguistics. It can denote a process in the development of language, whereby terms become used for concepts further removed from the objects to which they were originally attached. It can also denote a process applied by linguists themselves, whereby phenomena are considered without the details that are not relevant to the desired level of analysis.

Experimental pragmatics is an academic area that uses experiments to test theories about the way people understand utterances—and, by extension, one another—in context.

In the Neo-Gricean approach to semantics and pragmatics championed by Yale linguist Laurence Horn, the Q-principle is a reformulation of Paul Grice's maxim of quantity combined with the first two sub-maxims of manner. The Q-principle states: "Say as much as you can ." As such it interacts with the R-principle, which states: "Say no more than you must ."

In the Neo-Gricean approach to semantics and pragmatics advanced by Yale linguist Laurence Horn, the R-principle is a reformulation of Paul Grice's maxim of relation combining with the second sub-maxim of quantity and the third and fourth sub-maxims of manner. The R-principle states: "Say no more than you must ." As such it interacts with the Q-principle, which states: "Say as much as you can ."

In the linguistic field of pragmatics, an inference is said to be defeasible or cancellable if it can be made to disappear by the addition of another statement, or an appropriate context. For example, sentence [i] would normally implicate [ii] by scalar implicature:

In linguistics, exhaustivity is the phenomenon where a proposition can be strengthened with the negation of certain alternatives. For example, in response to the question "Which students got an A?", the utterance "Ava got an A" has an exhaustive interpretation when it conveys that no other students got an A. It has a non-exhaustive interpretation when it merely conveys that Ava was among the students who got an A.

References

Endnotes

  1. ↑ Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard; Erling Strudsholm (May 1, 2008). "The semantics of particles: advantages of a contrastive and panchronic approach: a study of the polysemy of French deja and Italian gia". Linguistics . 46 (3). Walter de Gruyter: 471. doi:10.1515/LING.2008.016. S2CID   63999738. Archived from the original on October 22, 2012. Retrieved 2008-10-24. Moreover, the truth of a sentence like "It's a pretty big thing in itself if I recover the outlay." with an inherently scalar predicate allows, in principle, for the truthful application of a predicate higher up on the scale, but will, at the same time, carry a generalized conversational quantity implicature to the effect that the stronger proposition does not, in fact, hold (cf. Horn 1989; Levinson 2000): "Has Anne ever eaten squid? No, she has never eaten that."
  2. ↑ Noveck p. 165
  3. 1 2 Musolino, Julien; Jeffrey Lidz (July 1, 2006). "Why children aren't universally successful with quantification". Linguistics . 44 (4). Walter de Gruyter: 818. doi:10.1515/LING.2006.026. S2CID   16835462. Archived from the original on October 22, 2012. Retrieved 2008-10-24. Here we investigate experimentally the development of the semantics-pragmatics interface, focusing on Greek-speaking five-year-olds' interpretation of aspectual expressions such as arxizo ('start') and degree modifiers such as miso ('half') and mexri ti mesi ('halfway')." "Such expressions are known to give rise to scalar inferences cross-linguistically: for instance, start, even though compatible with expressions denoting completion (e.g. finish), is typically taken to implicate non-completion. Overall, our experiments reveal that children have limited success in deriving scalar implicatures from the use of aspectual verbs but they succeed with 'discrete' degree modifiers such as 'half'.
  4. ↑ Korta p.4
  5. 1 2 3 4 Staff (December 25, 2006). "Research reports from University of Delaware, Department of Psychology provide new insights into child language in children". Health & Medicine Week (Expanded Reporting ed.). NewsRX: 195. ISSN   1531-6459.
  6. ↑ taken from Carston (p. 1) and Levinson (p. 136)
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.