SEMIOTICS AND

COMMUNICATION
UNIT 3 - PRAGMATICS
DOCENTES A CARGO
 Prof. Luis Posadas

LICENCIATURA EN INGLES
 LICENCIATURA EN INGLÉS

SEMIOTICS AND COMMUNICATION – UNIT 3

Specific objectives
The student should be able to:
1. Understand the fundamentals of semiotic and epistemological principles that
support the discipline and serve as a basis for associated disciplines.
2. Establish relationships between semiotics and its various branches, with an
emphasis on human language and communication.
3. Address the complexity of human communication in some of its dimensions.
4. Recognize and analyze some pieces of discourse typical of today's society.

Contents
Pragmatic analysis of verbal communication. The conversational implicatures: what is
said and what is meant.
1) The cooperative principle and conversational maxims.
2) Cases of breach of the conversational maxims.
3) Exploitation of conversational maxims: implicatures.
4) Semantic (non-pragmatic) inferences.
5) Types of inferences generated from the conversational maxims.
6) Examples of conversational implicatures.
7) Generalized vs. particularized conversational implicatures.
8) Distinctive features of particularized conversational implicatures.

Página | 2 | MODULE – UNIT 3

 LICENCIATURA EN INGLÉS

A PRAGMATIC ANALYSIS OF VERBAL COMMUNICATION

CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURES: WHAT IS SAID AND WHAT IS
MEANT
Like Austin, Paul Grice is a philosopher of language. His fundamental contributions are
relatively short but so significant articles that they have become an inescapable
reference for almost every line of pragmalinguistic research.
Searle argues that there is a rational system of rules that governs human
communication. The idea of a rational principle is also in Grice, but he does not think
of a system of constitutive rules but of a "Cooperative Principle" (CP) that allows us to
understand that the conversation is a fluid exchange in which each participant
contributes his utterances. The metaphor of the conversation is that of a dance before
that of a battle. It looks like this would be so even for shouting matches, because each
speaker contributes (even with insults) to the development of the conversation.
The concept of conversational implicature is pragmatic per se, because, like no other,
it focuses on the relationship and the difference between what speakers say and what
the speakers mean. In this sense, Gray is concerned with explaining that hiatus that
exists between the semantic representation of sentences and the meaning in use that
is expressed through the emission of the sentences. In short, the concept of
conversational implicature allows us to understand how it is possible that I say Racing
always had a great team but I actually want to say Racing is not doing well. To
understand in depth what is a conversational implicature is, it seems convenient to
follow Grice's argument, which starts from the idea of a cooperative principle.
1) The cooperative principle and conversational maxims
Grice maintains that, during a conversation, the interventions carried out by the
participants are predictably related. So they obey a mutual interest to a common
orientation, which means that the interventions of the participants follow a common
cooperative effort. This " common orientation" may or may not be explicit: it exists
from the moment there is a speech exchange (i.e., the conversation). Since this is an
essential feature of conversations, it functions as a presumably general principle or
universal. This is how the cooperative principle (CP) arises, according to which it is
expected that all participants sustain the conversational exchange. This CP explains
human communication in a way analogous to the constitutive rules of Searle. It works
through a set of rules called conversational maxims. In this context, the words norm or
maxim seem more appropriate than the word rule. The latter is usually associated with
models of grammatical explanation. When pragmatic phenomena are analyzed (i.e.,
Página | 3 | MODULE – UNIT 3
 LICENCIATURA EN INGLÉS

related to the use, with wanting to say, with the intention) the word rule is usually
avoided because this term suggests a description or a formal explanation that belongs
to the domain of the linguistic system, and not to the communication.
Precisely, in each case of communication, compliance with the conversational maxims
is what maintains the CP. The conversational maxims constitute guidelines for the
efficient and effective use of language in conversation for cooperative purposes.
Starting from Kant's categories, Grice recognizes four classes of maxims: of quantity, of
quality, of manner and relation or relevance. Let us remember that complying with
these maxims means respecting the CP and thus having a conversation
Table 1. Conversational maxims

The four maxims support the cooperative principle and make human communication
possible. Because of this, the speakers express themselves through sincere, relevant
and clear contributions, providing the amount of necessary information. The third
column of table 1 applies the conversational maxims (intended for communication) to
non-verbal exchanges. If that comparison is legitimate, then the maxims are even more
general and also govern aspects of non-linguistic cooperative interactions. But going
back to language, Grice recognizes that there is a gradation in the importance of
maxims. Relevance, for example, is more important than manner, because a verbose
speaker is more cooperative than another who makes irrelevant comments. Similarly,
a lying speaker is less cooperative still. These examples allow us to understand another

Página | 4 | MODULE – UNIT 3

 LICENCIATURA EN INGLÉS

aspect of relief of the conversational maxims and cooperative principles. A speaker

whose conversation is obscure or irrelevant may have "good will", i.e., he wants his
listener to understand, even though he doesn't achieve that goal. However, as we will
see later on, for communication to actually take place, it is not enough to have the
intention of the speaker but it is also necessary that the listener recognizes the
intention of the speaker.
Now, it is clear that people do not always follow the conversational maxims to the
letter. A person who participates in a conversation can fail to fulfill a maxim in various
ways. That is dealt with in the next section.
2) Cases of violation of the conversational maxims
To understand what a conversational implicature is, it is necessary to define the word
ostension (Grice 1967: 520). A person performs an act of ostentation when he does
that act openly and manifestly, with the intention that other people realize that he
carried out that act voluntarily. For example, the gentleman who courteously winks at
a lady is performing an ostensible act. The customer who steals an ashtray from a
coffee shop with the obvious intention that no one will see is performing an act without
any ostentation.
There are four ways in which a speaker H does not fulfill the maxims. As will be seen,
the idea of ostension is totally operative. 1) H can violate a conversational maxim
without any ostentation; this the case of speakers who are, for example, unclear,
irrelevant, or deceitful. If H has not intended that her listener does not understand him,
a misunderstanding occurs. Instead, if H lies or gives less information to confuse his
listener, deception is produced.
Example of misunderstanding
H: Did you know that Pedro found Maria buying a porn magazine in the
underground?!!!
Comment: The sentence form of this statement is ambiguous. Indeed, the syntax
allows us to explain that the person who was buying a porn magazine can be Pedro or
it can be María. Since Maria is "nearer" to the gerund buying, she seems the preferable
antecedent as "subject" of that gerund. But the sentence form is not ungrammatical if
the listener interprets that whoever was buying the porn magazine is Peter. Our
scandalized speaker has produced a misunderstanding. It was not intended to be
unclear or ambiguous. Unintentionally and not ostensibly, he has violated the maxim
of manner and, with it, the PC.

Página | 5 | MODULE – UNIT 3

 LICENCIATURA EN INGLÉS

Example of deceit
Bart Simpson, who hasn't studied for the history test, asks his classmates Jerry and Terry
for information about the time of the colonies.
Bart: Why did the Puritans leave England?
Jerry: Because of an invasion of giant rats.
Bart: Oh! The story is more interesting than I thought.
Jerry gives Bart false information with the intention that Bart believes it to be true. He
does not produce a misunderstanding but a deception: He violates the CP intentionally
and non-ostensibly.
2) H can put the CP to sleep. You can make manifest that you don't want to
communicate. For example, you might say, "I'm not talking anymore. My lips are
sealed".
3) H can lead to a contradiction between maxims. For example, a case may be given in
which the maxim of quantity cannot be met without violating that of quality. That is, if
H does not know what the listener is asking, he cannot make it up because if he did not
violate the maxim of quality, which requires that H not say something whose truth or
falsehood he does not know.
Example of contradiction between maxims
Principal: Who broke the glass in the classroom?
Guardian: I don't know.
The guardian violates the maxim of quantity (does not give the information that is
being asked). But he does so in order not to violate the maxim of quality: he cannot
sustain something without evidence. Since the violation of a maxim is understood
based on the fulfillment of another, there is no violation of the CP.
4) H "can gracefully ignore a maxim; that is, manifestly stop complying with it" (Grice
1967: 520). Precisely, the ostensible violation of a conversational maxim produces a
conversational implicature. These cases are analyzed in detail in the next section.
Table 2 attempts to summarize the essential characteristics of the four types of
breaches of maxims.

Página | 6 | MODULE – UNIT 3

 LICENCIATURA EN INGLÉS

Table 2: Comparison of non-observance (violation) of the maxims

Type of violation Ostensible Intentional Fulfillment of
/ violation violation the CP
Case (flouting)
Case 1: - - -
misunderstanding
Case 2: deceit - + -
Case 3: opting out + + -
of CP
Case 4: - + +
contradiction
between maxims
Case 5: manifest + + +
violation /
flouting

3) Exploitation of conversational maxims: implicatures.

Case (4) of the previous section and table 2 allow us to begin to characterize what a
conversational implicature is. In case (1) H stops complying with or circumventing a
maxim in a non-obtrusive way. On the contrary, in (4) H stops fulfilling or flouts a maxim
but ostensibly, so that the listener notices the violation.
Example of the blatant violation of a conversational maxim
Manager: Juan Rodríguez's background seems interesting.
Chief of Staff: He has long hair.
Manager: Let's see the resume that follows.
Comment: The statement by the chief of staff violates the maxim of quantity because
he is giving less information than is asked: the length of the hair is not the main
background of a job applicant. However, that violation of the maxim of quantity is so
evident that it is communicative. The chief of staff says that Rodríguez has long hair
but he means that, perhaps for reasons of social image, Rodríguez cannot be taken into
account.
According to Grice, in cases like this, the listener wonders how to reconcile what the
speaker has said with the assumption that he is respecting the CP. The answer is that
a speaker ostensibly violates a conversational maxim, and it does that so overtly that

Página | 7 | MODULE – UNIT 3

 LICENCIATURA EN INGLÉS

the listener notices. This violation generates an inference of a strictly pragmatic type,
that is to say, a communicative inference. An inference consists of a reasoning carried
out by the listener from of the speaker's act of ostentation. Note then, that from the
concept of inference it is concluded that communication occurs if and only if the
listener recognizes the speaker's intention. The conversation is a joint task that is
sustained in ostensible acts of the speaker and in the recognition of ostensible acts by
the listener.
In short, a conversational implicature is a pragmatic inference, made by the listener,
based on the ostensible violation of a conversational maxim, performed by the
speaker. Ostensibly violating a maxim means complying with the CP and exploiting a
maxim. To do this, a speaker H says p and implies q. The expressions p and q are any
two propositions; for example, p: Rodriguez has hair long and q: Rodríguez cannot be
taken into account. A general guideline for diagnosing the presence of a conversational
implicature may be this hypothetical reasoning of the listener:
"He (the speaker) has said p; there is no reason to assume that
he is not observing the maxims, or at least the CP; he could be
fulfilling them if he thought q; he knows (and he knows that I
know he knows) that I have become aware of the need for
assumption that he thinks q; therefore, he intends me to think,
or at least he wishes to make it possible for me to think, that q;
and consequently has implied that q." (Grice 1967: 521).

Conversational maxims allow for pragmatic inferences to be generated, i.e., inferences

that go beyond the semantic content of the enunciated sentences. The conversational
implicatures clearly overflow the "semantic representation of the sentence", to which
reference was made at the beginning of this chapter.
4) Semantic (non-pragmatic) inferences
In this exposition it is worth noting that there are also semantic inferences. They are
different from pragmatic inferences because they come from the proposition itself,
and not from an ostensible violation of the conversational maxims. Roughly stated,
semantic inferences are drawn from the meaning of the sentence, not the use "in
context" of the statements.
In logics or in philosophical semantics, the truth is (informally) the relationship
between a sentence or a proposition and the world. (Informally, to the effect of this
explanation, sentence and proposition may be taken as synonyms). Indeed, a
proposition (a descriptive statement of the first of Austin's version) can be true or false.
From this semantic meaning of a sentence can several inferences can be drawn. For
example, a sentence S is considered a logical consequence of a sentence T, if S is true
under all conditions under which T is true. In such a case, we also say that S is a logical

Página | 8 | MODULE – UNIT 3

 LICENCIATURA EN INGLÉS

implication of T and that T logically implies S. This formulation is easily seen in an

example.
Example of logical implication
T: The king of France is bald.
S: The king of France exists.
T logically implies S. For its part, S is a logical implication of T.
If The King of France is bald is a true proposition, then it follows from he who exists as
the king of France. It seems very clear that a logical implication depends on the
meaning of the sentence. That is why it is a semantic, not a pragmatic, inference.
Similarly, a sentence A logically presupposes a sentence B if the truth of B is a necessary
condition for the truth or falsity of A.
Table 3. Examples of logical assumptions
Proposition A Negation of A Example of
presupposition B of A
and -A
Daniel visited the Daniel did not visit the Patsy bought a house.
house that Patsy house that Patsy
bought. bought.
John quit smoking John did not quit John used to smoke
smoking
The President made a The President did not The President made a
mistake again make a mistake again. mistake at least once.
He who created our He who created our Someone created our
flag died in poverty. flag did not die in flag.
poverty.
Peter married Peter did not marry Smithey has a sister.
Smithey’s sister. Smithey’s sister.

The presupposition is maintained by the negation of the proposition. This indicates that
the presupposition affects the sense of the proposition. If assumption B were false,
then A and not-A would be meaningless. These thoughts belong to philosophical
semantics, also called truth-conditional semantics, because it deals with the truth
conditions of propositions. Unlike truth-conditional semantics, pragmatics is
concerned with meaning in use.
In short, the logical presuppositions (column 3) are examples of semantic or logical
implications. They depend on the content of the propositions. In contrast,
Página | 9 | MODULE – UNIT 3
 LICENCIATURA EN INGLÉS

conversational implicatures depend on the manner in which that the speaker uses
conversational maxims in a particular context.
5) Types of inferences generated from conversational maxims
Grice points out that three uses of conversational maxims can be distinguished in
relation to the implicatures they produce.
Group A: Examples in which no maxim is violated because they are fulfilled.
Example:
Student: Professor Porstman asked me to bring him some chalk.
Principal: The secretary's office is next door.
Through her response, the principal implies (on the basis of the maxims conversational)
that chalk can be found in the secretary's office. In this case, the principal fulfills the
maxim of relationship and this is how the student who he has asked for the chalk
understands it. In this case a conventional implicature has occurred. It is
communicative in nature, but it does not stem from an ostensible violation of the
maxims.
Group B: The speaker violates a conversational maxim in order not to violate
another.
For example:
Teacher A: Do you know where Professor Porstman is? I need to pass some grades.
Secretary: Somewhere in the school.
In this case, the secretary gives little or no information. But that violation of the maxim
of quantity is superficial because the secretary avoids giving a false information and
thus complies with the maxim of quality.
Group C: The third group of implicatures is of particular interest since it is what
constitutes the case of the ostensible violation of the maxims. To the deliberate and
blatant violation of a maxim (flouting), the speaker exploits the maxims.
(The wife and husband, with their three small children, stroll through the shopping
mall).
Mother: Let's buy something to eat for the kids.
Family Guy: Good, but no gelattos.
The father uses the word gelattos instead of ice cream. He is violating the maxim of
manner because, in terms of that maxim, he does not choose the manner of clearest

Página | 10 | MODULE – UNIT 3

 LICENCIATURA EN INGLÉS

expression possible. However, the father hopes that this violation is ostensible to the
mother and that way she will understand that he is complying with the PC. The father
says gelattos instead of ice cream so that his wife understands that he does not want
to say ice cream in front of their children and thus be able to avoid a useless but
annoying waterfall of requests.
In short, when a speaker ostensibly violates a conversational maxim and when the
listener understands that the speaker has ostensibly violated a conversational maxim,
the listener makes an inference called particularized conversational implicature.
An implicit implicature that q by saying that p. This implication is particularized because
it occurs on a particular occasion and by virtue of the features specific to a specific
context.
An implicature is a case of exploiting a maxim. The speaker ostensibly violates a maxim
with the intention that the listener infers assumptions (ideas, representations, etc.)
that are not made explicit (they are not said). For this reason, it is evident that the
violation of the maxim works at the level of explicit and that the violation is so blatant
that it actually constitutes a CP compliance. The listener assumes that in these cases,
the speaker respects a maxim and therefore the CP at the level of the implicit (the
unsaid). The listener's inferences are based on the CP's remarkable strength.
6) Examples of conversational implicatures
The table below attempts to analyze in a didactic way different examples of
conversational implicatures. It is taken as a parameter. The relationship between
"saying p" and "wanting to say q" is fundamental.
IMPLICATURES
OSTENSIBLE GENERATED BY THE
VIOLATION OF OSTENSIBLE
MAXIM CONVERSATIONAL VIOLATION OF
MAXIMS CONVERSATIONAL
MAXIMS
SAYING P MEANING Q
1. Maxim of quantity Example 1 The teacher gives less
1.1 your contribution Dean: What is X like in information than he is
must be as informative English? asked when it seems
as is required that he can give it.
Teacher: He is well- By that it implies X is
mannered and has not good at Language.
been present most of
the time.

Página | 11 | MODULE – UNIT 3

 LICENCIATURA EN INGLÉS

Example 2 The interpretation of a

20 dollars are 20 dollars tautology depends on
your specific situation.
As the CP is supposed
to be kept there must
be some inference. In
example 2 the speaker
implies that you have
to value the money
that we earn, although
the amount seems little
significant
1.2 your contribution Example 3 The editor in chief, to
mustn’t be more Reporter: Do you have impress the reporter,
informative than is any idea who won the begins to answer him
required. first soccer world cup? by giving a quantity of
Editor in Chief: The information blatantly
First World Football excessive. In this case
Cup was played in the editor-in-chief
Montevideo in 1930 implies that he not only
and played by 13 he "has any idea" who
countries. Only three won the first world cup
from Europe: France, but he also knows
Belgium and Romania much more accurate
because the other historical data. The
countries boycotted editor in chief implies
the event as they that he knows a lot
claimed that Uruguay about football, much
had no merits the hold more than the reporter
the first world cup, had thought.
even when Uruguay
had won the gold
medal in the 1924 and
1928 Olympics. In spite
of that, Uruguay won
the first World Cup. In
the final, Uruguay won
4 to 2 against
Argentina.

Página | 12 | MODULE – UNIT 3

 LICENCIATURA EN INGLÉS

2.Maxim of quality. Example 4 (irony) Virtually any statement

Try for your President Menem is a can be ironic according
contribution to be true; great reader of to the context of
(See 2.1.) Socrates situation. In this
Don't say what you example, the speaker
think to be false implies that President
Menem is not a
great reader, because
Socrates left no work
published.

Example 5 (metaphor) Here we are facing a

I am a tree with no categorical falsehood.
leaves or fruit. Obviously I am not a
tree but a person. the
statement implies I
don't have a love, on
the assumption that
love is to people what
fruits and leaves are to
trees.

Naturally, the
Example 6 (metaphor) metaphor provokes
Presidente Illia was important inferential
made of sugar. associations that vary
not only according to
the contexts of
situation but also
according to beliefs or
ideologies. Example 6
can be a positive
metaphor that alludes
to kind and honest
character of the
President Illia or, on the
contrary, a metaphor
negative that alludes to
his lack of authority.

Página | 13 | MODULE – UNIT 3

 LICENCIATURA EN INGLÉS

The implicature is My
Example 7 (meiosis) dad got mad. Meiosis is
My dad got a little mad a kind of inverted
when he found out that exaggeration.
they I had flunked out
English.
Hyperbole is an
Example 8 (hyperbole) exaggeration or openly
Pretty girls don't marry false but effective
poor men. generalization. Here it
is implied, for example,
that female beauty can
be a means of
socioeconomic rise.
2.1 Don’t say that Example 9 Although Minister 2
which you cannot (The ministers of a does not know exactly
prove. certain American where the President is
country are chatting in in that precise
confidence). moment, he implies
Minister 1: How long is that the President must
the president taking! be doing something
Where could he be? unrelated with the
Minister 2: In the room protocol tasks because
with two brunettes. he has special
predilection for
brunettes.
3. Maxim of relevance Example 10 Mrs. Robson implies
(importance or During a large social that her husband’s
pertinence) Be relevant gathering the following statement should not
(Say something related interaction is heard: be discussed and that
to what is being said). Mr. Robson: Here he has made a social
comes Mrs. X. She is mistake that may bring
a witch. I wonder problems. In this sense,
where her broom is it seems that an abrupt
parked. change of subject
Mrs. Robson: What a supposes a blatant
beautiful day, isn’t it? violation of the maxim
of relationship.

Página | 14 | MODULE – UNIT 3

 LICENCIATURA EN INGLÉS

4. Maximum of Example 11 (obscurity In a way, the resources

manner. or deliberate of expression that were
Be clear, to that effect: vagueness) analyzed as an
4.1. avoid obscurity May the rose destroy ostensible violation of
and vagueness our anger. the highest quality can
Note that the be understood, in this
statement is framework, as cases of
syntactically blatant violation of the
ambiguous because maxim of manner.
both the rose like our Precisely, one of the
icy anger can be the conceptions of
subject or the object literature expresses
direct from may that literary discourse
destroy. obscures the form of
expression for causes
of aesthetic pleasure.
The author of the
ambiguous farce may
imply that it is not clear
if the rose will end the
anger or vice versa.

The explanation of the

Example 12 previous paragraph can
(A wife and husband, be supplemented with
with their three examples like this one.
small children, walk Here the father implies:
through the mall). Don't say the word
Mother: Let's buy ice cream and they are
something to eat for not going to ask us for
the boys, ice cream.
Father: Good, but no
gelattos.
4.2 avoid ambiguity Example 13 (deliberate Is the speaker asking
ambiguity) someone to hail them a
Call me a taxi, please. taxi or to be called a
taxi?

Página | 15 | MODULE – UNIT 3

 LICENCIATURA EN INGLÉS

Marcy got the bath Was Marcy wearing the

ready for her daughter tutu? Or was her
wearing a pink tutu. daughter?

4.3. be brief Example 14 Instead of just saying

(avoid excessive Music Critic: Miss S Miss S sang After
formality, i.e., blurted out a series of Tonight, the critic is
verbosity) very powerful and verbose because he
energetic sounds, implies that Miss S sang
curiously combined badly.
with a metallic and
acute thunder that
corresponded -
according to
the announcement of
the program - with the
sheet music for After
Tonight.

4.4 be orderly Example 15 According to our

Chronicler: In the new expectations, the order
film by Barreda, the of actions is reversed.
Zorro rides the whole The chronicler implies
night and then gets on that the film is messy
his horse. like his story.

7) Generalized vs. particularized conversational implicatures

Grice tries to differentiate conversational implicatures from non-conversational, or
“normal” implicatures, i.e., those that do not need special or particular circumstances.
In this sense, generalized conversational implicatures are those which occur when a
form is employed that implies a general type of inference, which is not tied to a specific
context like those in the examples in table 4.
Example:
I'm going out with a girl.

Página | 16 | MODULE – UNIT 3

 LICENCIATURA EN INGLÉS

It can be said that the expression a girl designates neither my wife nor my fiancee.
Rather, it implies a somewhat more informal relationship. Generalized conversational
implicatures are directly related to the "conventional" implicatures from Group A that
were characterized in item 5. Both types of implicatures (generalized and conventional)
arise from the conventional observation of the maxims. For Grice, generalized
implicatures constitute a subset of conventional implicatures because they do not
require special contextual conditions to be inferred. Actually, Grice doesn't present an
entirely clear distinction between generalized conversational implicatures and
conventional implicatures. The most reasonable seems to integrate them into a single
set of implicatures that are produced by the fulfillment of the maxims. This topic will
be described in greater depth in the fourth part of this chapter, where the theory of
relevance is discussed. Thanks to this theory, it will be clear that any communicative
exchange requires that the listener make inferences.
In short, for Grice, not every implicature is the result of a ostensible violation of the
conversational maxims since there are also logical implications and conventional
implicatures. In any case, Grice’s contribution is the definition and characterization of
particularized conversational implicatures.
8) Distinctive features of particularized conversational implicatures
The proper functioning of an implicature, of course, cannot always be guaranteed.
Information is like money, says Grice, "whoever gives it away generally does not know
what the recipient is going to do with it." The third column of Table 4 explains what
each of the speakers who violates ostensibly a conversational maxim wanted to say.
That does not guarantee that the listener understands the speaker's intent. All in all,
this understanding must occur in order for communication to be successful.
Conversational implicatures present a series of distinctive features that allow us to
differentiate them from other logical and pragmatic inferences.
8.1. Conversational implicatures are cancelable. The effect of an implicature nullifies
its effect if the implied information is supplied. This is what occurs, in part, when what
the speaker means is made explicit. The cartoon character Homer Simpson is a real
expert for cancelling the implicatures that he himself tries to produce.
Example
(Homer is very angry with Moe, the bartender, because he has stolen his formula of a
successful drink that will produce large profits).
Marge (Homer's wife): Homer, you should be happy because even though you don't
make money, a lot of people are happy with what you invented.

Página | 17 | MODULE – UNIT 3

 LICENCIATURA EN INGLÉS

Homer: Oh yeah! I am the magical elf that delivers dreams and happiness. I am that
good! Laralala. (He leaves, closes the door and returns). By the way, I'm being sarcastic.
Here, Homer cancels the effect of his implicature, the product of a very ostensible
violation of the maxim of quality.
In short, every particularized conversational implicature can be cancelled when its
effect is made explicit. It is canceled because it no longer counts as an implicature: its
implicit content has been made explicit.
8.2. Conversational implicatures are inseparable from the meaning of the proposition
by which a maxim is exploited. This point is crucial for understanding the relationship
between semantics and pragmatics or, if you prefer, the relationship between saying
and wanting to say. Conversational implicatures, such as those analyzed in Table 4, are
inseparable from the meaning of the proposition. Let it be noted that they require,
along with contextual information, a knowledge of what is being said. Roughly put, I
can't mean anything by saying anything. This means that the conversational
implicatures remain tied to the semantic content of what is said. Even in cases where
the maxim of relevance is violated ostensibly (which supposes an abrupt change of
subject), the condition of non-separability is respected.

Example 10
During a large social gathering the following interaction occurs:
Mr. Smith: Here comes Mrs. X. She's a witch. I wonder where she parked her broom.
Mrs. Smith: What a beautiful day, right?
Mrs. Smith talks about the weather: the propositional content of her statement is so
different from what her husband said that it implies the need to change topic. In
addition, the topic of the "weather" is a typical neutral, non-confrontational topic,
because it favors the conversation for the sake of conversation and decreases the
chances of a fight.
By this Mrs. Smith implies My husband made a slip of the tongue. It is better to talk
about a topic that does not call for an argument.
8.3. Conversational implicatures are unconventional. A conversational implicature
presupposes a relation to the propositional content of the statement that produces it,
but, at the same time, it does not correspond to the conventional meaning of
expressions. In this sense, the statement Presidente Illia was made of sugar is
adequate. For some, the speaker implies that Illia was sweet and kind, to others it may
imply that Illia was a softie and pusillanimous. This shows that, in addition to being

Página | 18 | MODULE – UNIT 3

 LICENCIATURA EN INGLÉS

subject to a number of contextual factors, a conversational implicature relates to the

content of the proposition without conventionally expressing the meaning of the
proposition.
8.4. Conversational implicatures are calculable because speakers predict the effect
they intend to produce. This effect is directly linked with the conversational maxims
and is predicted based on them. Calculating an implicature is equivalent to calculating
what we must understand.
In short, particularized conversational implicatures are a type of pragmatic inference
that occurs from the ostensible violation of a conversational maxim and responds to
the fulfillment of a cooperative principle (CP) that governs communication between
human beings. They are, in short, the simplest example of how the listener understands
the relationship between what the speaker says and what the speaker means.

Página | 19 | MODULE – UNIT 3