Using Reformulation And Paraphrasing

Published Date: 02 Nov 2017

Samira idelcadi

CNFI

PragmaticsDirections : Answer the questions in your own words using reformulation and paraphrasing. Give a thourough analysis of all the questions and devise your own examples. Use tables, charts, etc. to present the information in your answers.

In referring to maxims in this assignment : the term flouting and violating are used interchangeably.

1. Explain the meaning of terms from the pragmatic stand point: (Use your own wording)

Inference :

Inference can be referred to as a kind of conclusion that is reasonably drawn from a sentence or an utterance.

Example 1-: (A)Laura's Mum has found a treasure.

What is infered is that Laura has a Mum . This is an example of entailment.

Example 2- (A) : Have you done your homework and brushed your teeth?

(B) : I have done my homework.

What is inferred is that " I haven't brushed my teeth"

This is an example of (conversational ) implicature

entailment (logical)

Entailment can be defined as a logical conclusion that follows from what is asserted in an utterance. Entailment is usually written by the symbol II-. When we talk about about entailment we usually refer to the relationship between two sentences whereby the truth of one (A) necessitates to the truth of the other (B).

Example 1-: These two sentences have an entailment relation

Sara drives a Rolls Royce

Sara drives a car

We can note that If sentence (A) is true then sentence (B) is true. So sentence (A) entails sentence (B). However, the opposite may not be true in this case. If we say that Sara drives a car it doesn't entail that Sara drives a Rolls Royce.

Example 2-

The president was assassinated

The president is dead

(A) entails (B) If it's true that the president was assassinated then it's true that he is dead.

implicature (conversational)

(Conversational )Implicature may be referred to as a set of assumptions that are inferred by the hearer from a speaker's utterance. These assumptions are not usually encoded in the words uttered by the speaker but rather , they are generated by the hearer. According to Paul Grice, implicatures are produced by speakers either through adhering or not adhering to certain maxims. These maxims are : Manner, Quality, Quantity, Relation or Relevance.

Example1 :

Husband : Where are the car keys ?

Wife : They are on the table in the hall.

In this example, the maxims have been observed. The wife has answered in a clear way which adheres to the maxim of Manner. She has also answered truthfully, thus observing the maxim of Quality. The maxim of Quantity is also observed as she has provided the exact amount of information needed. Her answer was also relevant (maxim of relation) as she has directly answered the targetted question. And she said exactly what she wanted to say no more no less.

Example 2:

Wife : I hope you have brought the bread and cheese.

Husband : Ah, I brought the bread.

In this example the husband didn't mention the cheese. So what the husband Implicates is that : He hadn't brought cheese. The wife will infer that what is not mentioned wasn't brought. So through conversational implicature the husband has conveyed more that what the words in an utterance can say. This is a example of failing to observe (flouting) the maxim of quantity or informativeness.

Example 3-

Paul : Do you like the novel I gave you ?

Jennifer : Oh, I like the red cover.

What can be implicated from this sentence is that Jennifer may be implicating that there is nothing interesting in the novel , may be not even the red cover. The maxim that is flouted here is the maxim of relevance. Jennifer answer wasn't really relevant to the question posed.

cancellation of implicatures

Because implicatures are derived on the basis of assumptions about the speaker which might turn out to be wrong, implicatures can be easily removed or "cancelled". They can be cancelled if another part of the utterance or a following utterance explicitly contradicts it.

Example 1:

: Did you attend the seminar and saw the presentation on " Action Research"

: I have attended the seminar

: Yes, I have attended the seminar and really enjoyed the presentation on " Action research"

In utterance (B) The implicature is that the hearer has attended the seminar but missed the presentation on "Action Research"

However, in utterance (C) additional material cancelled the implicature. The hearer here implicate (infers) that s/he has attended the seminar and also enjoyed the presentation.

Example 2:

John : " It's a bit chilly in here"

What is implicates here is that, it's chilly in the room and it's a request for the hearer (Mary) to close the window. This however can be cancelled if John says :

" It's a bit chilly here , but some fresh air won't do any harm"

The implicature was cancelled by the second part of the sentences. John believes that the room is chilly but he doesn't want Mary to close it.

co-operative principle

This term was framed by Paul Grice in 1975. Paul used the term to refer to the fact that in a conversation both the speaker and hearer assume that the addressed will be helpful enough in contributing to the conversation to make it meaningful. This is referred to as being cooperative . Which simply means to be helpful to your hearer.

There are four sub-parts to the cooperative principle these parts are four rules of maxims that speakers engaged in a conversation tend to respect to make the communication smooth and meaningful.

1- Quantity also termed informativness : means giving the right amount of information needed not too little ,not too much.

2- Quality : which means being truthful, not saying what is false or what lacks evidence.

3- Manner also termed maxim of clarity : this necessitates avoiding ambiguity, being clear and avoiding abscurity.

4- Relation also framed maxim of relevance : this means sticking to the topic of conversation and being relevant.

maxim of relevance

In very simple terms when a speaker observes the maxim of relevance, s/he is being relevant to the topic of the conversation.

Example 1 :

: How do like your steak cooked ?

: I like it medium rare please.

In utterance (B) the speaker is providing relevant information to the questions asked by the speaker in utterance (A). So the maxim here is observed (respected)

Now if we consider an answer (B) to the utterance such as (B) : "I like steak very much" or " the weather is really nice today". We would say that the maxims has been flouted as the information provided by the hearer in (B)is irrelevant.

Example 2- :

: Is Morgan a skilled finance manager ?

: he is a polite man and works on time

The implicature here is that Morgan is not a skilled finance manager.

So in providing the answer to utterance (A), the hearer has flouted the maxim of relevance because what is stated in utterance (B) doesn't contribute to the purpose of the conversation.

Example 3-

Do vegetarians eat hamburger ?

Do chicken have lips ?

The implicature is that it is quite obvious that vegetarians do not eat hamburgers. So here again the response in (B) is irrelevant. So it's another example where the maxim of relation is flouted.

maxim of informativeness

This maxim is also framed as maxim of Quantity. To put it in simple terms, the speaker observes this maxim when s/he tells the hearer what s/he needs to hear no more no less. This means that the contribution of the speaker to the conversation should not be too much or too little than what is required.

Example 1:

Do you have the time ?

It's 9:30.

Here the information provided is what is required no more no less. So we can say here the maxim of quantity or informativeness has been observed or respected by the speaker.

If we consider an answer to utterance (A)such as " It's 9:30 at night, Greenwich mean time, 18th December 2012" then the maxim of informativeness would be flouted because the speaker would be providing too much information than what is required.

Example 2-

: Do you have a selection of red shoes that aren't on display ?

: yes.

Here the maxim of informativeness is violated because the seller doesn't provide enough information for the customer. The information given is too little and useless to the customer.

The implicature here may be " yes, I have them but I am not willing to show them to you"

maxim of clarity (includes brevity, avoidance of ambiguity/obscurity)

This maxim as clearly stated by its name is simply being clear while conversing to keep the communication running smooth and in a meaningful way. This means that the speaker-hearer will make contribution to the conversation by avoiding ambiguity, obscurity, being brief and being orderly in the way things are stated.

If we consider the example :

I got up, brushed my teeth,got dressed, took shower, and went to school.

Here the order in which the information is presented is odd. The speaker refers to getting dressed then having a shower. So here the maxim of manner is violated. As information is not stated in the expected order of things.

Another example in which the maxim of manner is violated :

: What would you like to drink ?

: I would like a transparent glass of the concentrated orange juice that currently rests in the only orange juice container in the refrigerator, the one on the top shelf, which, like all the other shelves is make of shatterproof plastic and has curved edges so that spills do not extend to other parts of the refrigerator.

In this example both the maxim of manner and informativeness are violated. Manner in the sense that the hearer hasn't been brief, and informativeness in the sense that the hearer has provided too much information than is required .

2. What do the notions entailment and implicature have in common? How do they differ? What does it mean to say that implicatures are non-truth-conditional inferences?

Similarities between entailment and implicature

Differences between entailment and implicature

1- that they are both inferences.

Example :

:Does Sam like Mary and John.

: Sam Likes Mary

Entailment : Mary is a person

Mary exists

Sam likes Mary

Implicature : Sam doesn't Like John

1- Entailment follows from what is said. It is more related to the semantic meaning and sentences meaning. Whereas implicatures are based on what is said along with what the speaker is trying to achieve. So it's more related to the pragmatic meaning or speaker meaning.

For instance :

: It's a bit Chilly in here.

Entailment : It is chilly in here

Implicature : I want you to close the window.

2- Implicatures are context dependent. In the sense that an expression with a single meaning can give rise to different conversational implicatures when used in different contexts.

For example :

: It's a bit chilly here

Entailment : It's chilly here

So it doesn't change even if the context changes.

But if this utterance happens in a crowded room with too many people on a hot day and with no air conditioner it may implicate :

The speaker is suffocating and needs some fresh air.

3- Implicatures can be cancelled but entailment cannot be cancelled without causing a contradiction

Example : utterance can be cancelled

I tried to buy salt

I tried to buy salt , and in fact I succeeded

In utterance (A) The implicature is that , I tried to buy some salt but in fact I failed

This can be cancelled in utterance (B) the implicature from (A) is cancelled when additional material is added ( but in fact I succeeded)

Example : entailment can't be cancelled without causing a contradiction

I killed Robin

I killed Robin and Robin didn't die

The entailment from (A ) is that Robin is dead

But when additional material is added ( Robin didn't die ) it creates contradiction.

So , Implicature can be cancelled but entailments can't be.

4- Entailments satisfy the test by which In every situation in which it is true that p it is true that q. This means that in an utterance such as :

Laura drives a Rolls Royce.

Laura drives a car. (entailment)

Laura is rich (implicature)

So here if (A) is true, then (B) is true. So sentence (A) entails (B)

But If we consider (C) , (A) doesn't always implicate (C) because may be Laura is driving someone else's car or she has a rich boyfriend. Or she may be daydreaming in a classroom and someone made the utterance " Laura drives a Rolls Royce"

What does it mean to say that implicatures are non-truth-conditional inferences?

Grice has made a difference between what is said by a speaker at a verbal level of an utterance and what is implicated . What is said is truth conditional in the sense that if what is said is false , the utterance is false. However, what is implicated is non-truth conditional. If what is said is false the utterance is simply odd.

Let's consider the example : In a letter of recommendation if a professor writes

(A)" Mr Smith has a beautiful handwriting and is neatly dressed"

What is implicated is that (B)" Mr Smith is a bad student" . Because the professor has found nothing to write about except his handwriting and his outfit.

If we consider the test that in every conceivable situation in which it is true that Mr Smith has a beautiful handwriting and is neatly dressed, it is true that Mr Smith is a bad student. We find it odd, this doesn't hold. So here If (A) is true it doesn't force (B) to be true. Because Mr Smith can be an excellent student with a beautiful handwriting and always neatly dressed.

So , the implicature here is non-truth conditional

On the opposite, If the professor wrote :

" Mr Smith is absolutely terrible at everything he does, including his studies "

This entails (B) Mr Smith is a terrible / bad students

In this case if (A) is true it forces (B) to be true

So , entailments are truth -conditional while implicatures are not.

3. An implicature can result through the flouting of one of the maxims by the speaker (B), in which the hearer (A) can infer something not explicitly said if the speaker (B) disregards one of the maxims (whether intentionally or not), though the hearer (A) assumes that the speaker is not doing so. Give an implicature of B’s utterance in each of the following situations, and then identify the maxim(s) (i.e. relevance, informativeness, or clarity) that has/have been flouted (and thus which led the hearer to this implicature).

Note that none of the implicatures from B’s utterances are actually entailed by the sentences uttered by B.

a A:‘Professor, will you write a letter of recommendation for me?’

B: ‘Certainly. I will say that you were always neatly dressed, punctual, and are

unfailingly polite.’

Possible Implicature : " you are a bad student"

Maxim Flouted : Maxim of Quantity / Informativeness because the information provided by the hearer is not the one required by the speaker. Given that the speaker needs a letter of recommendation other qualities should be stated in the letter to make the speaker qualify for a job, position or an admission to a college. So the maxim is violated because the contribution is less informative.

b A: ‘How are you today?’

B: ‘Oh, Lansing is the capital of Michigan.’

Possible Implicature : " Don't ask me about that "

Maxim Flouted the maxim flouted is the one of relation or relevance . A normal answer to A would be " am fine or not fine " but the response provided by the hearer is relevant to the topic of the conversation which is asking how one feels.

c A: ‘I’m not feeling very well today.’

B: ‘There’s a hospital across the street.’

Possible Implicature : "I don't really care much"

Maxim Flouted the maxim infringed is the maxim of relevance . As what is said is not relevant to the topic of the conversation. To cooperate better the hearer might have asked " what's wrong" or provided advice but the utterance (B) is rather an irrelevant contribution and might result in aconversation breakdown especially if speaker (A) infers that speaker (B) doesn't really care.

d A:‘What did you think of that new movie?’

B: ‘Well, the costumes were authentic.’

Possible Implicature " the film was a complete failure"

Maxim Flouted is the maxim of relevance or relation . Again what (B) utterance states is irrelavent to the questions. While the speaker is asking for opinion. The contribution made by the hearer is not a relevant contribution to the flow of communication.

e A:‘How did you get that car into the dining room?’

B: ‘It was easy. I made a left turn when I came out of the kitchen.’

Possible Implicature : " solving the problem was an easy job"

Maxim Flouted is the maxim of manner or clarity. It is not clear in the conversation what the information provided is . It rather vague and ambiguous. So may be the two speakers are talking codes in the presence of a third person or may be they are joking. What is said can only be understood from the context in which it was uttered and within a common knowledge between speaker-hearer.

f A:‘What colour did you paint your living room?’

B: ‘I painted the walls off-white to match the black sofa. The trimming will be gray

except by the door, which will be salmon to match the Picasso print I bought two

years ago.’

Possible Implicature : " I poured all my soul into making the living room a real art work"

Maxim Flouted the maxim infringed is the one of Quantity of informativeness. The hearer is providing too much information than is needed. The normal answer would be one word / one colour.

g. A: ‘How’s the weather?’

B: ‘It’s 86.7 degrees Fahrenheit. The air is humid, muggy, and the pavement is so hot I

can feel it through my shoes.’

Possible Implicature " The weather is unbearably hot "

Maxim Flouted the maxim infringed is one of informativeness or quantity as the hearer is poviding too much information than what is required.

h. A: ‘What’s your recipe for a birthday cake?’

B: ‘It should have icing. Use unbleached flour and sugar in the cake and bake it for

an hour. Preheat the oven to 325 degrees and beat in three fresh eggs.’

Possible Implicature " Flour , sugar and fresh eggs are the key ingredients"

Maxim Flouted is one of Manner of Clarity as the speaker that not present information in the corresponding order of things .s/ He refers to baking the cake and comes back to talking about beating the eggs so the information given doesn't contribute to the clarity of the conversation.

i A:‘How do you like my new suit?’

B: ‘Well, your shoes look nice.’

Possible Implicature " your new suit is awful"

Maxim Flouted is maxim of relevance or relation . The hearer contribution to the conversation is not relevant as the topic was a question about the suit and the hearer refers to the shoes.

j A:‘Have you done your homework and taken out the garbage?’

B: ‘I’ve taken out the garbage.’

Possible Implicature " I haven't done my homework"

Maxim Flouted is one of informativeness or quantity as the hearer only supplies half of the information required. What the speaker would infer is that the homework haven't been done. So the hearer contribution to the conversation is not as informative as required.

k A: ‘I may win the lottery for $83 million.’

B: ‘There may be people on Mars, too.’

Possible Implicature " you will not win"

Maxim Flouted is maxim of quantity or informativeness as the hearer's contribution to the conversation is not what is required.

4 For each of the following fill in an appropriate utterance for B which implicates (but does not entail) the indicated implicature. There may be several appropriate possibilities

a A:‘Let’s see if this store has what we are looking for.’

B: ...."we may also go bankrupt"...

B- ..."We may also shop at the Harrods"

B- " Get your cheque book first"

Implicature: The store sells expensive merchandise

b A:‘Why don’t we have lunch in this restaurant?’

B: ... "I will need 5 sessions of gym per week after that"

B " aren't there many obese people in the world already"

B- " do you want to boost your calories "

Implicature: The food there is too fattening

c A:‘Are the Browns at home?’

B: ...." Is their car in the driveway"

" have you seen their car in the driveway"

Implicature:The Browns are usually home when their car is in the driveway

dA:‘Should we turn right or left?’

B: ....."only God knows!"

" may be yes, may be no"

Implicature:B isn’t sure which way to turn

e A:‘How is your physics course going?’

B: ....." Oh, God!"

" Life can be so difficult sometimes"

Implicature:B is having trouble in the course

5. Think about the meaning relationship between the following pair of sentences.

a Most birds are on the lawn

b Many birds are on the lawn

Does (a) entail or merely implicate (b)? Explain

Sentence (B) is entailed by sentence (A) because they contain terms that express quantity and which are represented on the same scale of value < all , most, many, some , few> while "most" describes a much larger quantity than " many"

So when " Most" is used this entails that all the quantifiers that exist at lower points on the scale ( many, some, few) are true but it implicates that the use of higher points is false

So when we say : Most birds are on the lawn

It entails : Many birds are on the lawn

Some birds are on the lawn

A few birds are on the lawn

It implicates : not all birds are on the lawn

As entailments are not cancellable we can apply the test to "most " and " many" to see if they hold the test and if first entails the other.

We can say : Most birds are on the lawn but many of them are not.

The sentence sounds rather contradictory. So it holds the test that If (A) is true then it forces (B) to be true so sentence (A) entails (B)

6. Consider the following exchange.

A: I may win the lottery for $83 million

B: There may be people on Mars, too

A: What are you, some kind of astronomer?

B originally triggered an implicature in her response to A’s original statement.

What effect does A’s retort then have on the implicature originally triggered by B?

In the first part of the exchange : B's implicates that it's quite impossible for speaker (A) to win in Lottery. this utterance infringes the maxim of informativeness or Quantity. Because the hearer contribution doesn't provide enough information that is required to the purpose of the exchange.

In the second part of the conversation we notice a conversation breakdown as the speaker (A) has merely understood the semantic meaning of the utterance and was not able to figure out the implicature. Speaker (A) misunderstood what the hearer (B) wants to implicates and creates an even more misunderstanding as speaker (A) in his response to the implicature violates another maxim of informativeness.

In a word, infringing the maxims may sometimes lead to conversation breakdown.