Explaining quantity implicatures

We give derivations of two formal models of Gricean Quantity implicature and strong exhaustivity in bidirectional optimality theory and in a signalling games framework. We show that, under a unifying model based on signalling games, these interpretative strategies are game-theoretic equilibria when the speaker is known to be respectively minimally and maximally expert in the matter at hand. That is, in this framework the optimal strategy for communication depends on the degree of knowledge the speaker is known to have concerning the question she is answering. In addition, and most importantly, we give a game-theoretic characterisation of the interpretation rule Grice (formalising Quantity implicature), showing that under natural conditions this interpretation rule occurs in the unique equilibrium play of the signalling game

Scalar Implicatures: a Gricean vs. a Relevance Theory Approach

Griceans have always supported the idea that scalar implicaturesare Quantity-based generalized conversational implicatures (GCI). With the purpose of explaining this phenomenon, they derived their own principles inspired in Grice’s Quantity maxims and concluded that whenever a speaker uses a weak linguistic item of a given scale, no matter the context she is in, she will be implying (a) that she is not in a position to be more informative and that therefore (b) a stronger item of the scale will not hold. For instance, if there is a scale such as and the speaker chooses the weaker element some, she will automatically be implying not all. However, Relevance theorists believe that scalar implicatures are context-based. Thus, they claim that theseimplicaturesdo not depend on any Quantity maxim to arise but on a notion of relevance that considersthe context in which sentences are uttered. So although the speaker chooses the linguistic term somefrom the previously mentioned scale,the context should be taken into account to infer that she is implicating not all. Thepresent paper aims to compare both pragmatic theories’approach to the scalar implicature case. Consequently, I will first explain the main features of each theory: how human verbal communication works, how implicatures are generated and how the information contained in such implicaturesis recovered by hearers according to them. Then, I will introduce scalar implicatures and contrast the Gricean and Relevance Theory approaches (based on the previously explained features of each pragmatic tendency) to such phenomenon. To conclude, I will discuss what experimental pragmatics says about each proposal.The results from the application of each theory’s approach to the case of scalar implicatures indicate that Relevance Theory predicts their generation more accurately. In the same way, experimental pragmatics denies that the Griceansystem for generating scalarimplicatures isthe correct and most efficient one and verifies Relevance Theory’s predictions about it as well as its analysis of scalar implicatures

Editorial: Relevance Theory and Intercultural Communication Problems

This editorial to the special issue of RiL dedicated to relevance theory and problems of intercultural communication addresses the general requirements that a theory of communication must meet to be applicable to the analysis of intercultural communication. Then it discusses criticism levelled against Grice’s theory of conversational implicature and Brown and Levinson’s theory of politeness on the grounds that these theories were not universal enough to be applied to all data. Finally, it offers some remarks on the applicability of relevance theory to intercultural pragmatics

Investigating the timecourse of accessing conversational implicatures during incremental sentence interpretation

Many contextual inferences in utterance interpretation are explained as following from the nature of conversation and the assumption that participants are rational. Recent psycholinguistic research has focussed on certain of these ‘Gricean’ inferences and have revealed that comprehenders can access them in online interpretation. However there have been mixed results as to the time-course of access. Some results show that Gricean inferences can be accessed very rapidly, as rapidly as any other contextually specified information (Sedivy, 2003; Grodner, Klein, Carbery, & Tanenhaus, 2010); while other studies looking at the same kind of inference suggest that access to Gricean inferences are delayed relative to other aspects of semantic interpretation (Huang & Snedeker, 2009; in press). While previous timecourse research has focussed on Gricean inferences that support the online assignment of reference to definite expressions, the study reported here examines the timecourse of access to scalar implicatures, which enrich the meaning of an utterance beyond the semantic interpretation. Even if access to Gricean inference in support of reference assignment may be rapid, it is still unknown whether genuinely enriching scalar implicatures are delayed. Our results indicate that scalar implicatures are accessed as rapidly as other contextual inferences. The implications of our results are discussed in reference to the architecture of language comprehension

Rethinking Implicatures

This paper advances the following criticisms against the received view of implicatures: (1) implicatures are relations of pragmatic implication and not attempts to convey particular speaker meanings; (2) conversational implicatures are non-cancellable; (3) generalised conversational implicatures and conventional implicatures are necessary to preserve the cooperative assumption by means of a conversational maxim of conveyability; (4) implicatures should be divided in utterance implicatures and assumption implicatures, not speaker implicatures and sentence implicatures; (5) trivial implicatures are genuine implicatures; (6) Grice’s theory of conversation cannot explain most of his own examples of particularised conversational implicatures; (7) the apparent attempts of explicit cancellation of implicatures are apologies, not attempts to avoid misunderstandings

Truthfulness and Gricean Cooperation

This paper examines the Gricean view that quality maxims take priority over other conversational maxims. It is shown that Gricean conversational implicatures are routinely inferred from utterances that are recognized to be untruthful. It is argued that this observation falsifies Grice’s original claim that hearers assume that speakers are obeying other maxims only if the speaker is assumed to be obeying quality maxims, and furthermore the related claim that hearers assume that speakers are being cooperative only to the extent that they assume they are being truthful