- Formalist: Formal language is different and better than ordinary language
- Informalist: Ordinary language has a broader use
1. Implicatures
Logic and Conversation
Divergence Thesis
Prior Consensus The
( ) and the ("and", "or", "if...then...", "not") mean different things Example
"
" means " and " However, in the example of
- They got married and they had a baby
- They had a baby and they got married
"and" has a different use
Grice's Position: This consensus is not warranted
The formal connectives and the natural language terms mean the same thing
Often, however, we add to the meaning of sentences in conversation by non-explicit means, or Implicatures
Types of Implicature
Conventional implicature
Conversational implicature
Grice's paper is about this says something, and can infer the implicature from the context
Why do Implicatures arise?
The Maxims (see 2.) are responsible for conversational implicatures
2. Cooperative Conversation
Cooperative Principle
"Make your contribution such as required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged"
Grice: Conversation is not a random succession of sentences, it should have some common direction / purpose
Simply Put: conservation has a purpose and what you say should serve that purpose
The Maxims
Relation
Everything that is said should "be relevant" to the conversation being had
Quality
Do not say what you believe to be FALSE
Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence
Quantity
Make your contribution as informative as is required
Do not make your contribution more informative than is required
Manner
Avoid obscurity of expression
Avoid ambiguity
Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity)
Be orderly
3. Grice's Predictions
Grice's theory makes certain predictions that are verifiably true
Cancellability
When embedding a sentence under a logical connective, sometimes the connective will become logically stronger. As such, the implicature will disappear
Simply Put: Implicature can be cancelled by SAYING MORE
Example
- You may have soup or salad
- You may have soup and salad
- You may not have soup or salad
- If you have soup or salad, then you must pay
Implicature of [1]: "It is FALSE that [2]"
- Otherwise, by the Maxim of Quantity, the speaker would directly say [2], since this is logically stronger
Embedding [1] under Negation leads to [3]
- [3] is equivalent to "You may not have soup and may not have salad"
- The Implicature of [1] is covered explicitly in this sentence, hence no longer an implicature
- And it does not violate the Maxim of Quantity
Embedding [1] under Conditional leads to [4]
- [4] means that either you have soup, or have salad, or have both, then you have to pay
- The Implicature of [1] is no longer of significance, hence no longer an implicature
- And it does not violate the Maxim of Quantity
For conjunction, its implicature will disappear in certain language context
Examples
Toto is a dog or an animal
- Unlike the previous "soup or salad" example, dog is a subset of animal!
- So there is no implicature like "It is FALSE that Toto is a dog and an animal"!
You need to take Logic or Discrete Math (to satisfy the course requirement)
- Considering the context, you can take both courses, but only one is required
- There is no stronger thing you can say, then there is no implicature
Context-Sensitivity
In making sentences relevant in different contexts, it is expected that different information will be taken as implied
Example
"It’s getting late!" as uttered
to one’s child at home
Implicature: "Time to wash up and sleep!"
at a business meeting
Implicature: "Time to wrap up!"