- External reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicature
- External reference: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicature_conversationnelle
To me, it could be linked to the gestalt1 and in a sense system 12 and chevrotine mentale.
Goes beyond the oral communication. Each time there is room for cooperation, if one does not cooperate explicitly:
- either per is not being cooperative,
- or per is trying to convey a meaning that can only be conveyed implicitly in the given context,
An implicature is something the speaker suggests or implies with an utterance, even though it is not literally expressed
- A (to passer by): I am out of gas.
- B: There is a gas station ‘round the corner.
Here, B does not say, but conversationally implicates, that the gas station is open, because otherwise his utterance would not be relevant in the context
L’implicature conversationnelle est un terme de la linguistique pragmatique forgé par le philosophe Paul Grice1, qui explique ce concept à l’aide de ses maximes 2. Elle se réfère à ce qui est suggéré ou signifié par un locuteur
réfère à ce qui est suggéré ou signifié par un locuteur, de façon implicite
mplicature conversationnelle: la réponse « non, je travaille », veut dire que je n’irai pas à la fête.
L’implicature conversationnelle n’est donc pas incompatible avec une implication logique de l’énoncé lui-même .
maxims can also be blatantly disobeyed or flouted, giving rise to another kind of conversational implicature. This is possible because addressees will go to great lengths in saving their assumption that the communicator did in fact – perhaps on a deeper level – obey the maxims and the cooperative principle. Many figures of speech can be explained by this mechanism.
They are defeasible (cancellable), meaning that the implicature may be cancelled by further information or context. Take the examples from above:
That cake looks delicious. +> I would like a piece of that cake. versus: That cake looks delicious, but it looks too rich for me. (implicature defeated)
cannot be “detached” by rephrasing the utterance, as they are consequences of the meaning and not the wording
explicatures of an utterance are the communicated assumptions that are developed from its logical form (intuitively, the literal meaning) by supplying additional information from context: by disambiguating ambiguous expressions, assigning referents to pronouns and other variables, and so on. All communicated assumptions that cannot be obtained in this way are implicatures. For example, if Peter says
Susan told me that her kiwis were too sour.in the context that Susan participated in a fruit grower’s contest, the hearer might arrive at the explicature
Susan told Peter that the kiwifruit she, Susan, grew were too sour for the judges at the fruit grower’s contest.
Now assume that Peter and the hearer both have access to the contextual information that
Susan is ambitious. If she loses at something, she’s pretty downcast.and that Peter intended the hearer to activate this knowledge. Then this is an implicated premise. The hearer can now draw the contextual implications that
+> Susan needs to be cheered up. +> Peter wants me to ring Susan and cheer her up.If Peter intended the hearer to come to these implications, they are implicated conclusions. Implicated premises and conclusions are the two types of implicatures in the relevance theoretical sense.
Notes linking here
- Don’t Make Assumptions
- Gricean Pragmatics
- hooliganisme et arrêt du jeu de la communication
- implicature vs not making assumptions
- jeu de la communication
- mes valeurs
- no silver bullet
- rasoir philosophique
- science est une croyance
- « je t’aime pour plein d’autres choses, vient on parle d’autre chose »