IMPLICATURE

ENTAILMENT
1.
2.
3.
4.

Definition
Characteristics
Classification
Subtypes of entailment

Definition
Definition 1: E is a relationship that
applies between two sentences,
where the truth of one implies the
truth of the other because of the
meanings of the words involved
(Goddard, 1998).
Definition 2: An entailment is
something that logically follows from
what is asserted in the utterance.
[Yule, 1996]

2. Characteristics
2.1 Entailment is concerned with the
meaning of the sentence itself
2.2 Hyponymy involves entailment.
2.3 En applies cumulatively
2.4 Entailment can also involve the
use of determiners

3. Classification
3.1 One- way and two-way
entailment

3.1.1 One- way entailment: The first

sentence entails the second but not
the other way round
3.1.2 Two-way entailment: is the
entailment that has meaning
relationship and the sentences that
contain mutual entailment are
paraphrases of each other.

3. Classification
3.2 Background and
foreground entailment
Background entailments helping to
determine context
Foreground entailments contributing to
the main point of utterance (stress
pattern )

4. Subtypes of entailment
4.1 Assertion
4.1.1 Definition
A declarative sentence typically
asserts that a state of affair exists. In
other words, assertion is the
characteristic of all declarative
sentences.

4. Subtypes of entailment
4.1 Assertion
4.1.2 Principles of assertion
A proposition is always true in some but
not in all of the possible worlds in the
context set.
Any assertive utterance should expresses
a proposition, relative to each possible
world in the context set, and that
proposition should have truth value in
each possible world in the context set.
The same proposition is expressed
relative to each possible world in the
context set.

4. Subtypes of entailment
4.2 Presupposition
4.2.1Definition: Presupposition is what
a speaker or writer assumes that the
receiver of the message already
knows.[Richards et al, 1987]
Ex: John doesnt write poems
anymore. -> presupposes that John
once wrote poetry

4. Subtypes of entailment
4.2 Presupposition
4.2.2Characteristics
The presupposition ofan utterance
remains the same under its
NEGATION
The presupposition ofan utterance
remains the same under its
INTERROGATION
The presupposition of an utterance
may be cancelled under its
EXTENSION

4. Subtypes of entailment
4.2 Presupposition
4.2.3 Comparison between
entailment and presupposition
Entailment

Presupposition

The relationship
between two
sentences where the
truth of one (A)
requires the truth of the
other (B).

Presupposition is often
treated as the
relationship between
two propositions.

4. Subtypes of entailment
4.3 The relation between
assertion and presupposition
Propositions are presupposed in a
conversation if they are on record as
belonging to the common ground between
the speakers. When an assertion is made
and accepted in the conversation, its
content is added to the common ground,
and the the truth of the proposition in
question will be presupposed in later
stages

1. Definition
Implicature is a technical term,
which refers to what is suggested in
an utterance, even though neither
expressed nor strictly implied.
Example:
John is meeting a woman this
evening.
+> The woman John is meeting this
evening is not his mother, his sister
or his wife.

2. Subtypes of implicature
Implicature includes two types which
are conversational implicature and
conventional one.

2.1. Conversational implicature

2.1.1. Definition
Conversational implicature: Implications
derived on the basis of conversational
principles and assumptions, relying on
more than the linguistic meaning of
words in a sentence.
A (conversationally) implicates B if it is
the case that uttering A in a certain
conversational context systematically
suggests, everything else being equal,
that B is true. However, the implicature
can be called off (i.e., cancelled).

2.1. Conversational
implicature
Example 1:
Student A: Do you like Linguistics?
Student B: Well, lets just say I dont
jump for joy before class.
+> A asked B about his feelings
about the class, and B said B didnt
celebrate before the class. It shows
the uninterested feeling of B about
Linguistics subject

2.1. Conversational
implicature
- Cooperative Principle:
1. Quantity: give the right amount of
information (not too little, not too
much).
2. Quality: try to say only what is true
(don't say that for which you lack
adequate evidence; don't say what you
know to be false).
3. Relevance: make what you say
relevant to the topic at hand.
4. Manner: be clear (avoid ambiguity,
excessive wordiness, obscurity, etc.).

2.1. Conversational
implicature
- Implicatures arise from the
interaction of the following 3 factors:
1. The proposition actually expressed
in the utterance,
2. Possibly certain features of the
context (in any of the 3 notions of
context)
3. The assumption that the speaker
is obeying the rules of conversation
to the best of their ability.

2.1. Conversational
implicature
Ex2: A standard implicature
(speaker is trying to obey the rules
conversation).
A: Will Sally be at the meeting this
afternoon?
B. Her car broke down.
+> Sally won't be at the meeting.

2.1.2. Type of conversonal

implicature
Conversational implicature includes
generalized conversational
implicature and particularized
conversational implicature.

2.1.2. Type of conversonal

implicature
* Generalized conversational
implicature:
+No special knowledge is required in
the context
+a/an X =>not speakers X

Generalized conversational
implicature
Example 4
"Fred thinks there is a meeting
tonight."
+> Fred doesn't know for sure that
there is a meeting tonight.
Example 5
The Browns went to a park outside
the city last week

2.1.2. Type of conversonal

implicature
Scalar implicature: is greater detail
of a particular sort of implicatures,
expressing quantity and terms are
listed from the highest to the lowest
value.

Scalar implicature:
Example:
I ate some of the cake => this sentence
implies I did not eat all of the cake
In the utterancesome of the boys went
to the party,the wordsomeimplicates
"not all of the boys went to the party."
The wordsnone,some,andallform an
implicational scale,in which the use of
one form implicates that the use of a
stronger form is not possible.

2.1.2. Type of conversonal

implicature
* Particularized conversational
implicature:
+Special knowledge is required in
special context in which speaker and
hearer understand only.
In another word, a particularized
implicature is a conversational
implicature that is derivable only in a
specific context.

Particularized conversational
implicature
Example 1
Vernon: Do you like Monica?
Bill: Shes the cream in my coffee.
+> Bills implicated message: yes,
more than you know
Bill must be speaking metaphorically,
and there must be a reason for doing
so. A simple yes apparently wasnt
enough. Hes trying to tell Vernon that
ordinary words cant express what he
feels for Monica, so hes using a
metaphor to indicate that his feelings
are at another level.

Particularized conversational
implicature
Example 2:
A: What on earth has happened to
the roast beef?
B: The dog is looking very happy.

In the above exchange, A will

likely derive the implicature "the dog
ate the roast beef" from Bs
statement. This is due to As belief
that B is observing the
conversational maximof relation or
relevance in the specific context of

2.2. Conventional implicature

Conventional implicature is an
implicaturethat is:
part of a lexical items or
expressions agreed meaning, rather
than derived from principles of
language use, and
not part of the conditions for the
truth of the item or expression.

2.2. Conventional
implicature
Example:
Joe is poor but happy
+> This sentence implies poverty
and happiness are not compatible
but in spite of this Joe is still happy.
This sentence will always necessarily
imply Surprisingly Joe is happy in
spite of being poor.