R.

Albu, Semantics and Pragmatics

WORKSHEET 10

Entailment, presupposition, implicature. Maxims of conversation.

Entailment is a logical relation between propositions.

Definition: A proposition P ENTAILS a proposition Q if the truth of Q follows necessarily from
the truth of P.
Examples John ate all the apples. => Somebody ate fruit.
John killed Bill => Bill is dead.

Note: For a proposition P to entail a proposition Q it is not enough for the truth of Q to be merely
an expected consequence. For instance, ‘X is a bird’ does not entail ‘X can fly’, even though
most birds can fly.

TASK 1. Look at the following pairs of examples and say which are entailments:
a. John cooked an egg. => John boiled an egg.
b. John boiled an egg. => John cooked an egg.
c. I saw a boy. => I saw a person.
d. John stole a car => John took a car.
e. His speech disturbed me. => His speech deeply disturbed me.

Definition: A presupposition is a proposition whose truth is taken for granted by the producer
of an utterance and which must be known and taken account of for the utterance to make sense
to an interpreter.
Example: Pete has stopped smoking.

The hearer takes it for granted that Pete used to be a smoker, although this is not explicitly
stated. The presumption that Pete had been a smoker is necessary for the sentence to make
sense to a hearer, even if that fact was not previously known. Presupposition is not the same as
entailment.

TASK 2. Consider the following examples; what are possible presuppositions in each case?
a. The flying saucer landed right here.
b. Liz regrets selling the house.
c. Liz does not play the bassoon very well.
d. Has John stopped beating his wife?

The study of conversational implicature is a major subarea within pragmatics.

Definition: Implicatures are parts of the meanings of utterances which, although intended, are not
strictly part of ‘what is said’ in the act of utterance, nor do they follow logically from what is said.
There are two basic sorts of implicature:
a. those which have a stable association with particular linguistic expressions (conventional
implicatures), such as the element of surprise associated with yet in Haven’t you finished yet?
(speaker does not actually say he or she is surprised)
b. those which must be inferred, and for which contextual information is crucial (conversational
implicatures), such as the implied negative in B’s reply in:
A: Can I speak to Jane?
B: She’s in the shower.
Conversational implicature arises only in a particular context of utterance.

TASK 4. Identify the implicature in each of the following:

1
R.Albu, Semantics and Pragmatics

a. It was very foggy and a car accident occurred.

b. He has been unhappy since his dog died last year.

c. She finished her degree and got married.

d. Speaker A: It's cold in here.

Speaker B: I’ll turn the heat up.

e. Speaker A: Where's Harry?

Speaker B: Jani's taking a holiday in Bermuda now.

f. Speaker A: What's the weather prediction?

Speaker B: Bring your coat.

g. Speaker A: Are your parents coming to visit?

Speaker B: My mother is.

h. Speaker A: Do you like Rosie?

Speaker B: Well, she has a nice husband.

TASK 5. Considering the Cooperative Principle is observed in all the following cases, what is
the implicature:
a. A: Can you tell me the time?
B: Well the evening news has just started.
b. Sue: Does Mary have a boyfriend?
Bill: She’s been driving to Santa Barbara every weekend.
c. John: Do you know how to change a tire?
Jane: I know how to call a tow truck.
d. Hellen: Can I borrow £5?
Jill: My purse is in the hall.

The Cooperative Principle The basic idea behind the Cooperative Principle (CP) according
to P. Grice (1913 – 1988) is that interlocutors are attempting to be cooperative in conversation.
Even when one might assume the participants are in fact being utterly uncooperative – say, in
the course of a bitter argument – they are in fact being conversationally cooperative, for
instance they stick to the topic (or at least relevant side topics – presenting other grievances,
perhaps, but not abruptly mentioning irrelevant sports scores), they say interpretable things in a
reasonably concise way, and they try to complete their thoughts while not giving distracting or
irrelevant details.
The CP consists of four “maxims,” each of which covers one aspect of linguistic interaction and
describes what is expected of a cooperative speaker with respect to that maxim. The maxims,
with rough paraphrases of their content, are:
1. The Maxim of Quantity: Say enough, but don’t say too much (or too little).
2. The Maxim of Quality: Say only what you have reason to believe is true.
3. The Maxim of Relation: Say only what is relevant.
4. The Maxim of Manner: Be brief, clear, and unambiguous.

TASK 5. Consider again Hamlet’s dialogue with Polonius and identify points where the four
maxims are eluded in Hamlet’s speech.
POLONIUS: What do you read, my lord?
HAMLET: Words, words, words.
2
R.Albu, Semantics and Pragmatics

POLONIUS: What is the matter, my lord?

HAMLET: Between who?
POLONIUS: I mean, the matter that you read, my lord.
HAMLET: Slanders, sir, for the satirical rogue says here that old men have
gray beards, that their faces are wrinkled, their eyes purging thick
amber and plum-tree gum, and that they have a plentiful lack of
wit, together with most weak hams; all which, sir, though, I most
powerfully and potently believe, yet I hold it honesty to have it thus
set done; for yourself, sir, should grow old as I am. If like a crab
you could go backward.

There are four ways in which the speaker can behave with respect to the Cooperative Principle:
the speaker can:
 observe the maxims - to obey them
 violate a maxim ~ to fail to observe it, but to do so inconspicuously, with the assumption
that your hearer won’t realize that the maxim is being violated e.g. a lie ~ the speaker
makes an utterance which he/she knows to be false.
Example:
Mother: Did you study all day long?
Son (who has been playing all day long): Yes, I‘ve been studying till know
 flout a maxim ~ also to violate it – but in this case the violation is so intentionally
blatant that the hearer is expected to be aware of the violation
Example:
Teacher (to a student who arrives late more than ten minutes to the class
meeting): Wow! You’re such a punctual fellow! Welcome to the class.
Student: Sorry sir! It won’t happen again.
 opt out of the maxims ~ to refuse to make a relevant contribution

TASK 6. Consider the following letters of recommendation – is Sally likely to get the job?
Explain in terms of observing (or not) conversational maxims.
a. Dear Professor Stanhope:
I am writing in support of Sally Smith’s application for a job in your department. Ms.
Smith was a student of mine for three years, and I can tell you that she has excellent
penmanship and was always on time for class.
Sincerely
Jack Brown
b. Dear Professor Stanhope:
I am writing in support of Sally Smith’s application for a job in your department. Ms.
Smith was a student of mine for three years, and I can tell you that she is a fine mother,
a terrific practical jokester, and has my genuine admiration for her abilities in both table
tennis and badminton.
Sincerely,
Jack Brown

For an utterance to be considered a lie, it has to simultaneously meet at least three conditions
(Coleman & Kay, 1981):
a. The statement is in fact false.
b. The speaker intends it to be false.
c. The speaker intends to deceive the hearer by uttering it.
If one or more of these conditions are missing, there might reasonably be disagreement over
whether the speaker has lied.

3
R.Albu, Semantics and Pragmatics

TASK 7. Consider the following situations: did the bookshop owner lie? Give arguments.
a. A bookstore owner tells a customer that a certain book will arrive in the shop on January 1.
She believes this is so when she says it, because the publisher has assured her of it. In fact,
however, the book does not arrive until January 8. Has she lied?
b. This same bookstore owner, with the same belief (and evidence) that the book will arrive on
January 1, tells the customer that it won’t arrive until January 8 (because she wants to be able
to snap up all the copies for family members). As it happens, a delay in shipping results in the
book not arriving until January 8. Has she lied?
c. The bookstore owner has no idea when the book is going to arrive, because the publisher
hasn’t been able to give her an estimate. Nonetheless, in a fit of pique caused by overwork, she
tells a customer that it will arrive on January 1, simply to get him to stop asking her about it. As it
happens, the book arrives on January 1. Has she lied? What if the book doesn’t arrive until
January 8?
d. The bookstore owner has been told by the publisher that the book will arrive on January 1,
but she’s a pessimist and doesn’t believe it. So just to be on the safe side, she tells the
customer it will arrive on January 8. Has she lied? And does the answer depend on the book’s
actual date of arrival?

The lighter side:

Focus on beautiful in three different conversational contexts:

1. The conversation is about A’s new girlfriend.
A:‘Is she beautiful?’
B: ‘She’s beautiful.’

2. B is having an evening out with A and his new girlfriend. When she leaves for the restroom,
they start talking about her.
A: ‘Do you think she’s clever?’
B: ‘She’s beautiful.’

3. A talks about his girlfriend’s job.

A: ‘She managed to convince her boss to raise her salary.’
B: ‘She’s beautiful.’

Further details for the teacher:

So, violation, according to Grice (1975), takes place when speakers intentionally refrain to apply
certain maxims in their conversation to cause misunderstanding on their participants’ part or to
achieve some other purposes. Unlike the violation of maxims, which takes place to cause
misunderstanding on the part of the listener, the flouting of maxims takes place when
individuals deliberately cease to apply the maxims to persuade their listeners to infer the hidden
meaning behind the utterances; that is, the speakers employ implicature (S. C. Levinson, 1983).
In the case of flouting (exploitation) of cooperative maxims, the speaker desires the greatest
understanding in his/her recipient because it is expected that the interlocutor is able to uncover
the hidden meaning behind the utterances. People may flout the maxim of quality so as to
deliver implicitly a sarcastic tone in what they state

4
R.Albu, Semantics and Pragmatics