Abstract: Conversational Implicature Theory is an important pragmatic concept which plays an instructive role in English listening comprehension. With the help of this theory, students can understand the implicatures through the literal meaning so as to improve their English listening ability.

Key words: Conversational implicature; Cooperative principle; Listening comprehension

In communication, it is not uncommon to see that a large amount of information is not conveyed directly. The speaker means more than what the words or phrases in the utterances might mean by themselves. The listener then has to make inferences about what is said in order to arrive at an interpretation of the speaker’s intended meaning. The additional conveyed meaning is called an implicature. In English listening comprehension, students are often required to infer what is implied or conveyed by the speakers in a conversation. In reality, what students are required to do is to understand the conversational implicatures. This paper discusses the application of conversational implicature theory to English listening comprehension so as to help students understand the conversational implicatures through the literal meaning and improve their English listening ability.

Implicature is a technical term in the linguistic branch of pragmatics coined by Paul Grice. It refers to what is suggested in an utterance, even though not expressed or strictly implied by the utterance. Take the following dialog for example.

From the literal meaning, it seems that Tom is saying something unrelated to Mary’s invitation while from the context we can infer what Tom really means is that the ground is still wet and he doesn’t want to take a walk. Conversational implicatures are typical examples of more being conveyed than said.

Before focusing on the interpretation of conversational implicatures, some basic cooperative principle should first be introduced. The Cooperative Principle was proposed by Paul Grice, who pointed out that to ensure the progress of a conversation and the understanding of each other, both of the speaker and the listener must observe some basic rules, that is, the cooperative principle.

The cooperative principle: Make your conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged.

The maxims:

1.        Make your contribution as informative as is required (for the current purposes of the exchange).

2.        Do not make your contribution more than is required.

Quality Try to make your contribution one that is true.

1.        Do not say what you believe to be false.

2.        Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.

Relation Be relevant.

Manner Be perspicuous.

1.        Avoid obscurity of expression.

2.        Avoid ambiguity.

3.        Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity).

4.        Be orderly.

These maxims are generally adhered to in communication. We assume that people usually provide enough needed information, tell the truth, try to be relevant and as clear as they can. The speaker and the listener are normally cooperating with each other in a conversation and trying to understand each other.

However, in some cases, people don’t observe all the maxims of the cooperative principle in communication for various purposes, thus leading to the conversational implicatures. Therefore, conversational implicatures derive from the speaker flouting some of the maxims. In order to understand the speaker, the listener will have to infer from the implicatures since the speaker means more than what he says literally.

In English listening comprehension, students are often required to infer what is implied or conveyed in a conversation beyond the literal meaning. The common question forms are

According to Paul Grice, conversational implicatures are caused by the violation of the maxims of the cooperative principle. So long as students find out what maxims are flouted by the speaker, they can infer what the speaker implies in what he says literally. The following are cases in which the speakers violate the maxims of the cooperative principle and thus cause the conversational implicatures to be inferred.

1)      Implicatures caused by the violation of Quantity Maxim

Example 1:

In this conversation, the man could have told the woman what he would like exactly but he didn’t give enough information, so he flouted the maxim of quantity. The woman then had to infer the implied meaning that he preferred tea to coffee as coffee would keep him awake the whole night.

Example 2:

In this conversation, it is clear that the woman wants the man’s comment on both Mary and Betty, while the man only comments on Mary. He doesn’t give as much information as she wants, so he violates the maxim of quantity, which leads to the implicature that Betty may not be so kind as Mary.

2)       Implicatures caused by the violation of Quality Maxim

Example 1:

From the conversation we can know that the man flouts the maxim of quality as Steven can’t be a log. Here the comparison of Steven to a log conveys the implied meaning that Steven is sleeping soundly.

Example 2:

Actually if the man’s response is just “nonsense”, we will be quite clear that the man can give up smoking. But when he adds that smoking is the easiest thing in the world to give up and he has done it hundreds of times, we can see he flouts the maxim of quality, for he is saying something untrue. It is easy to infer that he can’t give up smoking.

3)      Implicatures caused by the violation of Relation Maxim

Example 1:

The man is supposed to give the answer “yes or no” instead of telling something seemingly unrelated, so it is obvious that he flouts the maxim of relation. By analyzing his answer, we can easily infer that he hasn’t finished his assignment as his computer doesn’t work.

Example 2:

Instead of telling the woman whether he has found the book in the library, he told her that the library was closed before he got there. Obviously, he flouts the maxim of relation. The implicature is that he didn’t get the book as the library was closed.

4)      Implicatures caused by the violation of Manner Maxim

Example 1:

From the conversation, it can be inferred that the woman didn’t tell the man directly that Tom did badly in the exam. She flouted the maxim of manner by failing to say something briefly and clearly as she was unwilling to tell the bad news directly.

Example 2:

D.     The man said he loved the woman.

The man in the conversation wanted to express love for the woman but he said L-O-V-E, not love. He flouted the maxim of manner as he was shy to say the word love directly.

Nowadays more and more emphasis is put on students’ ability to infer important information from seemingly unrelated or meaningless utterances in listening comprehension. The conversational implicature theory serves as an instructive tool which helps students figure out the additional implied meaning in conversations. It is suggested that students should attach more importance to the application of the conversational implicature theory to English listening comprehension, and try to expose themselves as much as to western cultures and customs so as to improve their pragmatic abilities.

[1]Yule, George. Pragmatics. 上海: 上海外语教育出版社, 2000.

[2] Verschueren, Jef. Understanding Pragmatics. 上海: 外语教学与研究出版社,2000.

[3] 何自然,冉永平. 语用学概论. 湖南: 湖南教育出版社, 2006.

[4] 姜望琪.当代语用学.北京: 北京大学出版社, 2003.

[5] 冉永平. 语用学:现象与分析. 北京: 北京大学出版社, 2006.

[6] 黄关福. 中级英语测试指导高考英语试题样卷精选汇编. 上海：复旦大学出版社，2008.

[7] ≤高中英语教学与评估≥编写组. 高中英语教学与评估. 上海：光明日报出版社，2009.

[8] ≤高考英语听力模拟试题集≥编写组. 高考英语听力模拟试题集. 上海：上海译文出版社，2007.

 

 

 

分享按钮