What is the implied meaning of a word

Generally speaking, meaning
can be more or less described as a component of the word through
which a concept is communicated, in this way endowing the word with
the ability of denoting real objects, qualities, actions and abstract
notions. The complex relationships between referent
(object,
etc. denoted by the word), concept
and word
are
traditionally represented by the following triangle:

Figure 1

Thought
or Reference

Symbol Referent

By the “symbol” here is
meant the word; thought or reference is concept. The dotted line
suggests that there is no immediate relation between word and
referent: it is established only through the concept.

On the other hand, there is a hypothesis that concepts can only find
their realisation through words. It seems that thought is dormant
till the word wakens it up. It is only when we hear a spoken word or
read a printed word that the corresponding concept springs into mind.

The branch of linguistics
which specialises in the study of meaning is called semantics.
As with
many terms, the term semantics is ambiguous for it can stand, as
well, for the expressive aspect of language in general and for the
meaning of one particular word in all its varied aspects and nuances
(i.e. the semantics of a word =
the meaning(s)
of a word).

The meanings of all the
utterances of a speech community include the total experience of that
community; arts, science, practical occupations, amusements, personal
and family life.

The modern approach to
semantics is based on the assumption that the inner form of the word
(i.e. its meaning) presents a structure which is called the semantic
structure
of the
word.

Thus, meaning is a certain
reflection in our mind of objects, phenomena or relations that makes
part of the linguistic sign −
its so-called
inner
facet,
whereas the sound-form functions as its outer
facet:

Within grammatical and lexical aspects of a language grammatical and
lexical meanings are distinguished.

Grammatical meaning
is defined as the expression in speech of relationships between
words. The grammatical meaning is more abstract and more generalized
than the lexical meaning. It is recurrent
in
identical sets of individual forms of different words as the meaning
of plurality in the following words students,
books, windows, compositions.

Lexical meaning.
The definitions of lexical meaning given by various authors, though
different in detail, agree in the basic principle: they all point out
that lexical meaning is the
realization of concept or emotion by means of a definite language
system.

1)
The component
of meaning proper to the word as a linguistic unit, i.e. recurrent in
all the forms of this word and in all possible distributions of these
forms. (Ginzburg R.S., Rayevskaya N.N. and others).

2) The
semantic invariant of the grammatical variation of a word (Nikitin
M.V.).

3) The
material meaning of a word, i.e. the meaning of the main material
part of the word which reflects the concept the given word expresses
and the basic properties of the thing (phenomenon, quality, state,
etc.) the word denotes. (Mednikova E.M.).

The conceptual content of a
word is expressed in its denotative meaning. To denote is to serve as
a linguistic expression for a concept or as a name for an individual
object. It is the denotational
meaning
that makes communication possible.

Connotation is
the pragmatic communicative value the word receives depending on
where, when, how, by whom, for what purpose and in what contexts it
may be used. There are four main types of connotations: stylistic,
emotional, evaluative
and
expressive/intensifying.

Stylistic connotations
is what the word conveys about the speaker’s attitude to the social
circumstances and the appropriate functional style (slay
vs kill),
evaluative
connotation may show his approval or disapproval of the object spoken
of (clique
vs
group), emotional
connotation conveys the speaker’s emotions (mummy
vs mother;
UA батько
vs
татко; відомий vs
славетний vs
сумнозвісний.),
the degree
of intensity (adore
vs love;
UA
вітер
vs
вітерець vs
вітрище
vs
вітрюга.)
is
conveyed by expressive or intensifying connotation.

The interdependence of
connotations with denotative meaning is also different for different
types of connotations. Thus, for instance, emotional connotation
comes into being on the basis of denotative meaning but in the course
of time may substitute it by other types of connotation with general
emphasis, evaluation and colloquial stylistic overtone. E.g. terrific
which
originally meant “frightening” is now a colloquialism meaning
“very, very good” or “very great”: terrific
beauty, terrific pleasure.

The orientation toward the subject-matter, characteristic of the
denotative meaning, is substituted here by pragmatic orientation
toward speaker and listener; it is not so much what is spoken about
as the attitude to it that matters.

Fulfilling the significative
and the communicative
functions
of the word the denotative meaning is present in every word and may
be regarded as the central factor in the functioning of language.

The expressive function
of the language (the speaker’s feelings) and the pragmatic
function
(the effect of words upon listeners) are rendered in connotations.
Unlike the denotative meaning, connotations are optional.

Connotation differs from the
implicational meaning
of the word. Implicational meaning is the implied information
associated with the word, with what the speakers know about the
referent. A
wolf is
known to be greedy and cruel (implicational meaning) but the
denotative meaning of this word does not include these features. The
denotative or
the intentional meaning
of the word wolf
is
“a
wild animal resembling a dog that kills sheep and sometimes even
attacks men”. Its figurative meaning is derived from implied
information, from what we know about wolves −
“a cruel
greedy person”, also the adjective wolfish means “greedy”.

Соседние файлы в предмете [НЕСОРТИРОВАННОЕ]

• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #

Conversational implicature: Gricean Theory

Quality: Zach has a doctorate in archaeology. (I believe Zach has a doctorate in archaeology and I have evidence of this) Quantity: He stayed in a forest cabin. (The cabin was not his own, or the speaker would say: ‘He stayed in his forest cabin’) Relation: Those cookies look good! (I would like one or more) Manner: The play ended and the audience trailed out to the bar. (By describing the events clearly, in the sequence they happened, the speaker is being clear and orderly)

X’s answer does not contain enough information to plan the occasion; by not having the exact information, X cannot obey either the quantity or quality maxim. By saying ‘somewhere’ X suggests ‘I know sort of where it is — I just don’t have the exact address’; this becomes an indirect answer, hence implicature.

Fig. 4 — Providing unnecessary information is a form of flouting the maxim of relevance.

Flouted maxim of manner:

The chocolate wafers you brought are to die for!

Speaking means that we express the meaning through language, and this meaning usually divide into two parts, that is：

• The literal meaning
•  The implied meaning

According to the content, it includes two groups:

• The direct speaking content
• The indirect speaking content

The direct speaking content –> The literal meaning

The indirect speaking content –>The implied meaning

The implied meaning –> implicature

The implicature in conversation –> conversational implicature

The term “Implicature” accounts for what a speaker can imply, suggest or mean, as distinct from what the speaker literally says (Grice, 1975). Implicature is a technical term, which refers to what is suggested in an utterance, even though neither expressed nor strictly implied, for example:

John is meeting a woman this evening.

> The woman John is meeting this evening is not his mother, his sister or his wife.

Implicature is one of the ways that one proposition can be conveyed by a speaker uttering or under appropriate. Implicature includes two types which are conversational implicature and conventional one.

Conversational Implicature

Conversational implicature is implications derived on the basis of conversational principles and assumptions, relying on more than the linguistic meaning of words in a sentence. It derives from the cooperative principle of conversation and a number of maxims expected to be followed by participants in a speech event.

Example 1:

Student A: Do you like Linguistics?

Student B: Well, let’s just say I don’t jump for joy before class.

A asked B about his feelings about the class, and B said B didn’t celebrate before the class. It shows the uninterested feeling of B about Linguistics subject.

Implicatures arise from the interaction of the following 3 factors:

1. The proposition actually expressed in the utterance
2. Possibly certain features of the context (in any of the 3 notions of ‘context’)
3. The assumption that the speaker is obeying the rules of conversation to the best of their ability.

Example: A ‘standard’ implicature (speaker is trying to obey the rules conversation).

A: Will Sally be at the meeting this afternoon?

B: Her car broke down.

> Sally won’t be at the meeting.

The Cooperative Principle

Grice (1975) proposed the cooperative principle which means making 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 (Yule, 1966). Thomas (1996) defines it as an attempt at explaining how a hearer gets from what is said to what it meant, from the level of expressed meaning to the level of implied meaning. In other words, the listener presumes that the speaker from both parties will normally seek to cooperate with each other to establish agreed meaning, that are speaking truthfully, informatively, relevantly, exactly, and appropriately.

The Maxims of the Cooperative Principle

Conversational implicatures are generated by a speaker’s presumed obedience to Cooperative Principle. In short, these maxims specify what the participants have to do in order to converse in a maximally efficient, rational, cooperative way: they should speak sincerely, relevantly and clearly while providing sufficient information.

1. The maxims of Quantity

• Make your contribution as informative as is required (for the current purposes of the exchange).
• Give the right amount of information (not too little, not too much).
• Do not make your contribution one that is true.

Example:

A: Are you at the office?

B: Yes, I am. You will see me at room 12 of Halley building.

2. The maxims of Quality

• Try to say only what is true (don’t say that for which you lack adequate evidence; don’t say what you know to be false).

Example:

A: Do you think that smoking is good for health?

B: No, I think it’s not good for our health.

3. The maxims of Relevance

• Make what you say relevant to the topic at hand (be relevant).

Example:

A: Why do you learn English?

B; Yes, I learn it because of my hobby.

4. The maxims of Manner

• Be clear (avoid ambiguity, avoid excessive wordiness, avoid obscurity of expression, be orderly, etc.).

Example:

A: What do you think about Ha Long Bay?

B: I like Ha Long Bay, it has a lot of beautiful caves.

Tests for Implicature

Grice (in Levinson, 1995) says that implicatures exhibit the following four major distinguishing properties:

• Cancellability (or defeasibilty)
• Non – detachability (or inference based on meaning rather than form)
• Calculability
• Non-conventionality

Cancellability (or defeasibilty)

Example:

(70) Joe taunted Ralph and Ralph hit him.

(71) First Joe taunted Ralph and then Ralph hit him.

(72) Joe taunted Ralph and Ralph hit him, but not necessarily in that order.

Levinson (1995:119) concludes that one of the attractions of implicature is that it would make unnecessary ambiguity claims.

Non – detachability

Sadock (in Levinson,1995:119) points out, to test for non-detachability you have to have a set of synonymous expressions, which should share the same implicatures.

(73) some of the boys went to the soccer match.

(74) not all of the boys went to the soccer match.

(75) Some and perhaps all of the boys went to the soccer match.

So (73) and (75), being equivalent in meaning, should share the same implicatures. But they don’t, since only (73) implicates (74).

Calculability

Joe taunted Ralph and Ralph hit him.

But is substituted for and argues for a rejection of the ambiguity claim. Gazdar (in Levinson,1995:120) suggests that some designated implicatures can cancel others. In (75)There is an additional implicature due to the phrase perhaps all.

Non-conventionality

(79) that man has two children

(80) the cloth is white

(81) that man has no more than two children

(82) the cloth is wholly white

A further important feature of generalized conversational implicatures is that we would expect them to be universal.

Implicature and Logical Form

Implicatures can not sensibly be derived from uninterpreted surface structures. There are many utterances that differ in surface structure but which share the same implicature.

(84) perhaps P

May be P

Possibly P

Potentially P

Note: P is any declarative sentence expressing the proposition P.

There is one obvious but important exception to the claim that implicatures make reference to semantic representation and truth conditions but not to surface structure.

Kinds of Implicature

•       Standard implicature

Standard implicatures are derived from a simple assumption that the speaker is observing the maxims and derived in more complex ways on basis of speaker flouting or exploiting maxims.

•      Generalized implicature

That arises without any particular context or special scenario being necessary.

•       Particularized implicature

Do require such specific or special context scenario.

•       Conventional Implicature

Conventional implicatures are non – truth – condition inference that is not derived from superdinate pragmatic principles like the maxims.

Generalized Implicature

It is a conversational implicature that is inferable without reference to a special context (no special knowledge is required to figure out the additional meaning). It means that a generalized conversational implicature is one which does not depend on particular features of the context, but is instead typically associated with the proposition expressed.

Example:

A leader asked a staff:

A: How do you feel about John these days?

B: He usually goes out late at night with someone who has a husband.

A: That’s so bad. Do you know who that woman is?

B: Yes. She is his wife.

On generalized implicature to be best understood we should consider two specific and important sub-cases : scalar implicature and clausal Implicature.

Scalar Implicature

Certain information is always communicated by choosing a word which expressed one value from a scale of value. The basic of scalar implicature is that when any form in a scale is asserted, the negative of all forms higher on the scale is implicated. This is particularly obvious in terms for expressing quantity.

Example:

(1) I ate some of the cake.

This sentence implies “I did not eat all of the cake”.

(2) Some of the boys went to the party.

In the utterance (2), the word some implicates “not all of the boys went to the party.”

The words none, some, and all form an implicational scale, in which the use of one form implicates that the use of a stronger form is not possible.

Clausal Implicature

If Sentences asserts some complex expression which contains an embedded sentence and neither entails nor presuppose and there’s an alternative expression of roughly equal brevity which contains such than implicate that doesn’t know whether is true or false.

Particularized Implicatures

A particularized conversation is the implicature that occurs when a conversation takes place in a very specific context in which locally recognized inferences are assumed. Special knowledge is required in special context in which speaker and hearer understand only. In another word, a particularized implicature is a conversational implicature that is derivable only in a specific context.

Example 1:

A: Where is my book?

B: Your young sister is drawing something.

The action “draw” of young sister would ordinarily not convey anything about her book, so implicature in this case depends on the context as well as the utterance itself.

Example 2:

A: What on earth has happened to the roast beef?

B: The dog is looking very happy.

In the above exchange, A will likely derive the implicature “the dog ate the roast beef” from B’s statement. This is due to A’s belief that B is observing the conversational maxim of relation or relevance in the specific context of A’s question.

Example 3:

Vernon: Do you like Monica?

Bill: She’s the cream in my coffee.

Bill’s implicated message: yes, more than you know. Bill must be speaking metaphorically, and there must be a reason for doing so. A simple “yes” apparently wasn’t enough. He’s trying to tell Vernon that ordinary words can’t express what he feels for Monica, so he’s using a metaphor to indicate that his feelings are at another level.

Metaphor

Figure of speech containing an implied comparison, in which a word or phrase ordinarily and primarily used of one thing is applied to another. It is the exploitations or floutings of the maxim of quality. It is distinct from, but related to simile. The primary difference is that a simile uses the word ‘like’ or as to compare two things, while metaphor simply suggests that the dissimilar things are same.

The purpose of Metaphors

• Expressions are used to give effect to a statement, the statement will be bland if it just uses the ordinary expression.
• Metaphors are meant to create an impact in the minds of readers.

Examples:

• He drowned in a sea of grief.
• She is fishing in troubled waters.
• Sam is giant.
• The light of my life.
• Time is a thief.
• Feel blue.

In two implicatures, the particularized conversational implicature is used widely, because it can provide with more contents, more aspects of speech than generalized conversational implicature. Accidentally or intentionally, the statement can create many implicatures and impacts on many people. At the same time, the troubles in conversation and the cases “one pulls one way, the other pulls the other way” occur.

Conventional Implicature

Conventional implicature is an implicature that is part of a lexical item’s or expression’s agreed meaning, rather than derived from principles of language use, and not part of the conditions for the truth of the item or expression. It is not based on the cooperative principle or the maxims. It does not have to occur in conversation. It does not depend on special contexts for their interpretation. It is associated with specific words and result in additional conveyed meanings when those words are used.

Some words are expressions for conventional implicature:

1. “but”: “A but B” will be based on the relationship between A and B and an implicature of contrast between the information in A and B.

Example: (1) Mary is crying but she is happy.

”Mary is crying” is contrast to “she is happy”

(2) Joe is poor but happy.

This sentence implies poverty and happiness are not compatible but in spite of this Joe is still happy. This sentence will always necessarily imply “Surprisingly Joe is happy in spite of being poor”.

2. “even”: implicature of contrast of “contrary to expectation”

Example:  David even helped the old woman to go home.

This sentence implies David is not expected to help the old woman but he did.

3. “yet”: the present situation is expected to be different, perhaps the opposite, at a later time.

Example:  Mum has not gone home yet.

This sentence implies negation of this sentence is “Mum went home”. So “mum went home” is expected to be true later.

Implicature and Language Structure

Conversational implicature is a theory of language use. However, it has implications for the study of language structure. The linguistic description of morphemes and lexical items must at times refer to the notion of conversational implicature. Conversational implicature plays a major role in language change, triggering both syntactic and semantic change.

References

Levinson, S. 1995. Pragmatics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mey, J. 1993. Pragmatics. An Introduction, Oxford: Blackwell.

Thomas, J. 1995. Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. London: Longman.

Yule, G. 1996. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.