8/12/2019 GRICE (1975)

1/11

19

Logicand

H . P . C R I C E

Conversation

Il is a commonplace ol ' philosophical logic

that there are. or appear o be. divergenccs nnrcaning between. on the onc hand. at lcastsomc ol 'what I shall call the lbrmal deviccs-. - . n . v. l . ( Vr ' ) . 3 t ) . ( r . r ) w h e n h e s c r eqrven a stan(lard w

8/12/2019 GRICE (1975)

2/11

306

ments involving them cannot. in some cir-cumstances, e assigned definite ruth valueiand the ndefiniteness fthese concepts s notonly objectionable n itself but also leavesopen the way to metaphysics-we cannot becertain hat none ofthese natural anguage x-pressions s metaphysically loaded'. For thesereasons, he expressions, s used n naturalspeech. annot tre regarded as inally accepta-ble, and may turn out to be, finally, not fullyintelligible. The proper course s to conceiveand bcgin o construct an ideal anguage. n-corporating he formal devices, he sentencesof which will be cl ear. determinate n truthvalue, and ccrtifiably ree from metaphysicalimplications; he foundations [ science il lnow be philosophically ecure, ince he stale-ments of the scientist will tr expressible(though not necessrrily actually expressed)within this ideal anguage. l do not wish osuggest hat all formalists would accept hewhole f this outline. ut I think hat all wouldaccept t least ome part of it.)

To this. an informalist might reply n th e

following ein.fhe

philosophical emand oran dcal anguagc csts n cenain assumptionsthat should not be conceded; hese are. thatthe primary yardstick by which to judge thcadequacy f a language s its ability to servethc nccds f science, hat an cxpression annolbe guaranteed s ully intelligible nless n ex-plication or analysis f its meaning has beenprovided. and that evcry explication or anal-ysis must ake hc form of a precise cfinitionthat is the expression r assertion f a logicalequivalencc. anguag e erves many mportantpurposes esides hose f scicntihc nquiry; wecan know perfectly well what an expressionmeans and so a fortiori hat t is ntelligible)without knowing ts analysis. nd the provi-sion of an analysis may (and usually does)consist n the specification, s generalized spossible, f thc conditions hat count fbr oragainst the applicability of the expressionbeing analyzed. Moreover. while t is no doubttrue that the formal devices are cspeciallyamenable o syslematic realment by the ogi-cian. it remains he case hat there are verymany inferences nd arguments, xpressed nnatural anguage nd not in terms ofthese de-vices, which are nevertheless ecognizablyvalid. So there must be a place or an unsim-plitied. and so more or less nsystematic, ogic

CONVERSATIONAT MPLICATURE ND RELEVANCE

of the natural counterparts of these devicesithis logic may be aided and guided by the sim-plified ogic of the formal devices ut cannotbe supplanted y it. lndeed, not only do thetwo logics differ, but some times hey comeinto conflict: rules hat hold for a formal de-vice may not hold for its natural counterpart.

On the general uestion of the place n phi-losophy of the reformation of natural lan-guage, shall, n this essay, ave nothing tosay. shall confine myself o the dispute n itsrelation to the alleged divergences. have,moreover. o intention of entering he fray onbehalf of either contestant, wish. rather. omaintain hat he common assumption f thecontestants hat the divergen ces o in factexist s broadly peaking) common mistake,and that the mistake arises rom inadequatcattention o the nature nd mportance f th econditions governing onversation. shall.therelbre, nquire nto the general onditionsthat, in one way or another, apply o conver-sation as such, rrespective f its subject mat-ter. begin with thecharacterization fthe no-

tion ol'implicature'.

IMPLICATURI

Suppose hat A and B are alking bout a mu-tual riend, C. who s now working n a bank.A asks B how C is getting n in hisjob. and Brcplies, Oh quitt' n'ell. think: he likr"r ti.t ttl-leogut,.r, nd he ha.sn't bcen o pri.xtn vu. Arthis point. A might well inquire what B wa simplying. whal he was suggcsting. r evcnwhat he meant by saying hat ('had not yetbecn o prison. -he answer might be any oneof such hings as that C is the sort of Jrrsonlikely o yield o the temptation rovided yhis occupation, hat C's colleagues re reallyvery unpleasant nd trcacherous eople, andso forth. t might. ol'course, e quite unnec-essary or A to make such an inquiry of B , theanswer o it treing, n the context, clear n ad-vance. t is clear hat whatever implied. ug -gested, meant n this example. s distinct romwhat B said. which was simply hat C had notbeen to prison yet. I wish to introduce. asterms of art. he verb mplicate and he relatednouns nrplicature cf. implving) and mplica-tum (cf. what is implied\. The point of this

8/12/2019 GRICE (1975)

3/11

TOCIC AND CONVERSATION

maneuver s to avoid having, on each occa-sion. o choose between his or that memberof the family of verbs or which implit'ateistodo general uty. I shall, or the time being atleast. have o assume o a considerable xtentan intuitive understanding f the meaning of.rn.r,n such contexls. and an ability to recog-nizc particular erbs as members f the familywith which mplicatc s associated. can, how-ever. make one or two remarks hat may helpto clarily the more problematic of these as-sumptions. amely. hat connected ith th emeaning of thc word .ra.t'.

ln the sense n which I am using he word.ra.l', intend what someone has said to becloscly elated o the conve tional meaning fthe words thc sentence) e has ultered. Sup-pose omeone o have uttered he sentence /cis in thc grip ol u vitr'. (iivcn a knowledge fthc English anguage. ut no knowledge fthecircumstances f the utterance' nc wouldknow somcthing bout what hc speakcr adsaid, on the assumption hat he was speakingstandard nglish. nd spcaking iterally.On c

would know that he had said. about some par-ticular malc person r animal r' that at thetimc of the utterancc whatcver hat was)' ci -thcr ).r was unable o rid himself f a certainkind of bad character rail or (2) somc part of.r's person was caught n a certain kind of toolor ins t rumcnl (approximate ccounl ' o fcourse). ut lbr a full identification f whatthe spcaker ad said, one would nccd o know(a) he dentity of .x, b) he ime of utlcrance.ancl c) the meaning. orr the particular occa-sion ofutterance. ofthe phrase rr ha grip d ovicc a decision between l) and (2)1. -hisbrief ndication of my use of .ta1' eave rt openwhether a man who says today) larold W'il-son s a greal man and another who says alsotoday) Ilrr' Briti.shPrinr( lllinisttr is u ,qrcalman would, f each knew hat the wo singularterms had the same reference, ave said thesame thing. But whatever decision s madeabout this question. he apparatus hat I amabout o provide will be capable faccountinglbr any mplicatures hat might depend n thepresence f one rather han another of thesesingular erms n the sentence ttered. Suchimplicatures ould merely be relatcd o differ-enl maxlms.

In some cases he conventional meaning ofthe words used will determine what is impli-

307

cated. besides helping to determine what issaid. f I say smugly). He i.t an Englishman;he i.g. herelitre, rave. have certainly com-mitted myself. y virtue of the meaning of mywords, o its being he case hat his being braveis a consequence f (follows rom) his bcing anEnglishman. ut while have said hat he san Englishman. nd said hat he s brave. donot want o say hat I have raful(in he avoredsense) hat it follows from his being an En '

glishman hat he s brave, hough have cer-tainly ndicated, nd so mplicatcd. hat his sso. I do not want to say hat my utterance fthis scntence ould be, stric 1.1,speaking. alseshould he consequence n question ait tohold. So .rolrc mplicalures rc conventional,unlike he one with which introduce his dis-cussion f implicature.

I wish o represcnt ccrtain sutrclass f non-conventional mplicatures, hich I shall call(rrnt,u.\ulionul mplicatures, as being essen-tially connectcd with certain gcneral -eaturesol'discoursc: o my ncxt stcp s to trv to sa ywhat these eatures are. The lollowing may

provide a hrst approximation toa gencral

principle. ur talk exchanges o not normallyconsist ol'a succession f disconnected e-marks. and would not bc rational f thcy did.They are characteristically. o some degree tleast, ooperative fforts: nd each paflicipantrecognizes n them, to somc cxtent. a com-mon purpose or set of purposes, r at least amutually accepted irection.

I'his purpose rdirection may be fixed rom the start c.9.' byan lnttral proposal ot a question br discus-sion). r it may cvolve uring he exchange: tmay be lairly dcfinite, or it may be so indcfi-nite as o leave very considerable atitude othe participants as n a casual onversalron)'

But at each stage, rrrne possible conversa-tional moves would be excluded as conversa-tionatly unsuitable. e might hen ormulatea rough general principlc which participantswill be expecled (celcris paribus) to observc'namely: Make your conversational ontribu-tion such as s required. at the stage t whichit occurs, y the accepted urpose r directiono[the talk exchange n which you are engagcd'One might abel his he Cooperative rinciple(CP) .

On the assumption hat some such generalprinciple as this is acceptable' ne may pcr-haps distinguish our categories nder one or

8/12/2019 GRICE (1975)

4/11

30 8

another otwhich will fall certain more specificmaxims and submaxims' the lollowing ofwhich will, in general, ield results n accor-dance with the Cooperative rinciple' EchoingKant, I call hese ategories uantity, Quality,Relation. nd Manner. The category f Quan-tity relates o the quantity of information o beprovided. nd under t fbll the following max-lms:

l. Make our ontribution s nformative s s re-quired for the currcnt purposes fthc exchangc).

2. Do not makc your contribution more nforma-tive han s rcquired.

(The second maxim is disputable: t might bcsaid that to be overinformative s not a trans-gression f the CP but merely a waste of t ime.However. it might be answered hat such over-inlormativeness may be confusing n that it isl iablc to raise side ssues: nd there may alsobe an indirect cffcct. in that thc hcarcrs maybe mi s l ed as a r e su l l o l ' t h ink ing tha l l he rc ssome particulat ytint in the provision of thecxccss of intirrmaticln. Flowever his may be .there is perhaps a difl'erent reason lor doubtabout thc admission of this sccond maxim.namely. that its cffcct will bc sccurcd by a l atcrmaxim, which conccrns elevancc.)

[Jnder the category of Quality hlls a super-maxim-'Try to make your contribution oncthat is truc'-and two more specific maxims:

l . Do not say what you belicve o bc alsc.l . Do not say that l i lr which you lack adequatccvidcnct-

tinder the category )l 'Rclation place a singlemaxim, namely. 'Be relevant. '

' fhoughthe

maxim itsellis tcrsc, t s formulation conccalsa number of problems that exercise me a gooddcal: questions about what diflbrcnt kinds andlbcuses of relevance here may bc. how theseshift in the course of a talk exchangc. how toallow for thc fact thal subjects ofcclnversationare egitimalely changed. and so on. I l ind th etrealment of such qucstions exceedingly ifl t-cult . and I hope to revert to them in a latcrwork.

Finally. undcr the category ol Manner.which I understand as relating not (like th eprevious categories) o what is said but, rather,to /rou'what is said s to be said. include th e

CONVERSATIONAT MPTICATURE ND RETEVANCT

supermaxim-'Be perspicuous'-and variousmaxims uch as :| Avoid bscurity f expression.2. Avoid mbiguity.3. Be brief(avoid nnecessary rolixityl.4. Be orderly.And one might need others.

It is obvious hat the observance f some ofthese maxims s a matter of less rgency ha nis he observance fothers: man who has ex -pressed imselfwith undue rolixitywould. ngeneral. e open to milder comment thanwould a man who has said something e bc-lieves o be false. ndeed. t might be elt hatthe importance f at least he lrrst maxim ofQuality s such hat t should not be ncludcdin a scheme f the kind I am constructing;other maxims come nto operatron nl-v' nthe assumpt ion hat h is maxim ol 'Qual i ty ssatistred. hile this may be correct. o ar asthc generation f implicaturcs s conccrncd tseems o play a role not totally ditlerc-nt ionrthc o ther maxims. nd t wi l l bc convenrcnl .

lbr thc present t least, o treal t as a nrenrbcrof the ist of maxims.There are. of coursc. ll sorts f othcr max-

ims (acsthetic. ocial. r moral n charactcr).such as Bc polite'. hat are also normally ob -served y participants n talk cxchanges, ndthcsc may also gencrate onconventional m-plicatures-'l.he onvcrsalirtnal axims. how-ever. rnd he ctlnversational nrplicaturcs on -nectcd with thcm. arc spccially onnccted lhope) with the particular urposes hat talk(and so, alk e'xchangc) s adaptcd o servc ndis primarily employcd o servc. have statedmy maxims s l ' th i s purposc crc maxi -mally clli 'ctive xchangc f information: hi sspecification s, ofcourse, oo narrow. and thescheme nceds o be generalizcd o allow lirrsuch cneral urposes s nllucncing r direct-ing he ac t ions fo thcrs .

As one of my avowcd ims s to see alkingas a special ase or varicty ol'purposive. n-deed ational. behavior. t may bc worth not-ing that he specilic xpectations r prcsump-tions connected with at least some of thelbregoingmaxims have heir analogues n th esphere of transactions hat are not talk ex-changes. list briefly one such analog br eachconversational ategory.

8/12/2019 GRICE (1975)

5/11

TOCIC AND CONVERSATION

|. Quontit"v.lf ou are assisting e o menda car. expect our contribution o be neithermore nor less han s required. l. for example.al a particular stage need our screws, ex-pecl you to hand me four. rather han two ors ix .

2. Qualitv. expect our contributions o begenuine nd not spurious. fl need ugar saningredient n the cakc you are assisting e tomake. do not expect ou to hand me saltl f

I need a spoon. do not expect a trick spoonmade of rubber.3. Rclatitm I expect a partner's contribu-

tion to be appropriate o the m mediate needsat each tage f the ransaction. f I am mixingingredients or a cakc. I do not expect o behandcd a good book, or even an oven cloth(though his might be an appropriatc ontri-bution at a later tage).

4. lllanner. I expect a partner to make itclcar what contribution c is making and toexccutc is perfclrmancc ith rcasonablc is -patch.

These analogies re relevant o what I rc-gard as a fundamcntal ucstion bout he Cl,and its attendant maxims, namely. what hehasis s br the assumption hich wc seem omake, and on which (l hopc) t will appcarthat a grcat range of implicatures dcpends.that taf ers will in general rctcris purilrrr.r ndin the absencc f indications o the contrary)procecd n the manncr hat thcse principlcsprescribe. dull but. no doubt at a cenainlevel. dequate nswer s that t is ust a well-rccognized mpirical act that people do be-have n these ways: hey have earned o do soin childhood and have not losr hc habit ofdoing so: and. ndeed. t would nvolve gooddcal o[cffort lo make a radical departure rom

thc habit. t is much easier. or example, o tcllthe ruth han o invent ics.I am, howcver. enough of a rationalist o

want to {ind a basis hat underlies hese acts.undeniable hough hey may be; would ik eto be able o think oflhe standard ype ofcon-versational ractice ot merely as somethingthat af or most do in lact follow but as some-thing hat t is rcasonahle or us o follow. ha twe should zr.rl bandon. For a time. I was at-tracted by the idea hat observance f the Cpand he maxims, n a talk exchange. ould bethought f as a quasi-contractual atter. with

309

parallels utside he realm of discourse. f youpass by when I am struggling with mystranded ar, I no doubt have some degree lexpectation hat you will offbr help. but onceyou oin me n tinkering under he hood, myexpectations ecome stronger and take morespecilic orms (in the absence f indicationsthat you are merely n ncompetent eddlerhand talk exchanges eemed o me to exhibit.characteristical y, certai l'eatures hat oi ntlydistinguish ooperative ransactions:

l. The panicipants ave ome ommon m-mcdiate im, ike getting car mended: heirultimate ims may, of course, e ndependentand evcn n conflict-each may want to gc tthe car mended n order o drive olf. leavingthe other stranded. n charactcristic alk cx -changes. here s a common aim evcn f. as nan over-lhe-wall hat. t is a second-order ne .namcly, hat each party should. or the tinrcbcing. dentify imselfwith he ransirory on -versational nteresls f' he other.

2. l 'he contributions of the participanrsshould be dovctailed, utually cpcndent.

3. Thercis some sort of undcrstanding(which may be explicit but which is olrcn

tacit) hat, other hings eing qual. hc trans-aclion should continue n appropriate tylcunless oth partics re agrceable hat it shouldterminate. ou do not just shovc olr or startdoing somelhing lsc.

But while some uch quasi-contractual asisas his may apply o some cases, hcre are oomany types of exchange. ike quarreling ndletterwriting. hat t fails o fitcomfortably. nany case, ne feels hat the talker who is rrel-cvant or obscure as primarilv et down nothis audiencc ut himsclf. o would ike o beable to show that obscrvance f the CP andmaxims s reasonable rational) long he fol-lowing ines: hat any one who cares bout hegoals that are cenlral to conversation/com-munication such as giving and receiving n-formation, nflucncing nd being nfluencedby

8/12/2019 GRICE (1975)

6/11

3 1 0

a good deal clearer about the nature of rele-vance and of the circumstances n which it isrequired.

It is now time to show he connection be-tween he CP and maxims, n the one hand,and conversationa l mplicature on the other.

A participant n a talk exchange may fail tofulfilla maxim n various ways,which ncludethe following:

L He may quietly and unostentatiously

violale a maxim; f so, n some cases e will beliable o mislead.2. He may opt otil from the operation both

of the maxim and of the CPI he may say. n-dicate, r allow t to become lain hat he isunwilling o cooperate n the way he maximrequires. le may say. or example, canntilsav morc: mv lips arc sealed.

3. He may be laced by a clash: He may beunable. or example, o fulfill he irst maximof Quantity Be as nlormative s s required)without violating he second maxim of Qual-ity (llave adequate vidcnce or what youev).

4. He may lout a maxim; hat is. he mayblatanrly ail to fullill it. On thc assumprionthat the speaker s able o lutlill the maximand o do so without violating nother maxim(becausc f a clash), s not opling out, and snot. in view of the blatancy of his pcrfor-mance. rying to mislead. he hearer s faccdwith a minor problem: How can his sayingwhat hc did say be reconciled with the supposition hat hc is observing hc ovcrall CP ?This situation s onc that characleristicallvgivcs ise o a conversalional mplicature: nr lwhen a conversational mplicature s gener-ated n this way, shall say hat a maxim istring c.rploit

8/12/2019 GRICE (1975)

7/11

TOGIC AND CONVERSATION

oRoup A:Examples n v,hich o ma-rim s violated,or at leail n w,hit'ht is nol dear hat anv maxim st,ioluted

A is standing by an obviously mmobilizedcar and is approached y B: the following ex-change akes place:

( ) A: / am ou il pctrol.B'. I-hcrt' s a garagc ound ht'utrner.

(Gloss: B would be infringing he maxim 'Be

relevant' nless e hinks. or thinks t possible,that the garage s open, and has petrol o sell;so hc implic ates hat the garage s, or at leastmay be open, etc.)

In this example, nlike he case f the re -mark Hc hasn't hcen lo prixtn ].'(,1, he un-slated onncction retween 's remark and A'sremark s so obvious hat. even f one nter-prets he supermaxim f Manner. Bc perspic-uous.'as applying ot only to the expressionof whal is said but also o the connection fwhat is said with adjacent rcmarks. thereseems be no case or regarding hat super-maxim as nfringed n this example. hc ncxt

cxample s perhaps little less lear n this re-spect:

12\ A: Snith dtx,sn't stt,rtr o hovr' , irl, cnd hc:;t'darsB: Ile hu:; ven puinq u ht ol vi.sit.so Ncv,l'rrk lutaly.

B implicates hat Smith has. or may have, agirlfricnd in New York. (A gloss s unneccs-sary n view of' that given for the previous ex -ample . )

In both examples. the speakcr implicatesthat which he must be assumed to believe inorder to preserve he assumption that he is ob-serving he maxim of Relation.

cRoup B: F).rumple.r n x'hith u mu.rim is violated.but it,; ,iolution s trt ba cxplaine'd 'tht \uppo.\ttton,,1 clu:;h ith un(tlh.'r nu.tim

A is planning with B an itinerary lor a hol-iday in France. Both know that A wants o se ehis friend C, if to do so would not involve toogreat a prolongation of his ourney:

(3\ A: l|'hcrc dttcs C lival'B'. Srnnax'ht:rc n tha Stntth f'['-rance.

(Gloss: -l'here is no reason o suppose hat B isopting out; his answer s, as he well knows, es s

3 1 1

informative than is required to meet A'sneeds. his infringement f the first maxim ofQuantity can be explained only by the supposition hat B is aware hat to be more nfor-mative would be to say something hat in-fringed he second maxim of Quality.

Don't

say what you ack adequate .,idence or'. so Bimplicates hat he does not know in whichtown C lives.)

cRot.rp : E.rumplas hat involva .rpktilutitm, hatis,u pnrtdurc hr u'hich ma-rim s lrrutad.litrhepurpo;;t,ol 1cttingn u convarsationalmpliruIur(b)'mtunl tl .something ol th

8/12/2019 GRICE (1975)

8/11

312

than is reqLtired', n the assumption hat theexistence f such a maxim should be admitted

A wants o know whether p, and B volun-teers not only the information hat p, but in-formation o the effect hat t is certain hat p,and hat he evidence or ts being he case hatp is so-and-so nd such-and-suc h.

B's volubility may be undesigned. nd if itis so regarded y A it may raise n A's mind adoubt as o whether B is as certain as he says

he is ('Methinks the lady doth protest oomuch'). But if it is thought of as designed. twould be an oblique way of conveying hat itis to some degree ontrovcrsial hether or notlr. It is. however. rguable hat such an impli-cature could be explained by reference o themaxim of Rclation without invoking an al-leged econd maxim of Quantity.

(2a) l:..ramples n u'hit'h hc /ir,tt tnaxim ttlQuulitv .s knucd

Inn.l'. X. with whom A has bcen on c loseterms until now. has betraycd sccrct f A' sto a business ival A and his audience othknow his. A says t' .s .lrnc.lricnrl. (iloss: tis perl 'ectly hvious o A and his audience'thatwhat A has said or has made as f to say ssomclhinB, c does not believe. nd he audi-cncc knows hal A knows hat his s obviousto the audiencc. o.unlcss 's utterance s en -tirclvpointless. musl be rying, o gel acrosssome other proposition han he one he pur-lx)rts to be putting forward.

'Ihismust be

somc obviously clated proposition: hc rnostobviously clatcd roposition s hc contradic-tory ol'thc onc hc puqrorls o bc putting irr-ward . )

l'ldulh()r lixamplcs ike l'orr ur( th( uurmi r trt.1' tllt 'acharacteristicallynvolve atego-rial falsity. o the contradictory f what th e

spcakcr has made as if to say will. strictlyspeaking, c a truism; o t cannol bc lal thatsuch a spcakcr s rying o gct across. l-hemostlikclysupposition s that he speaker s attrib-uting o his audiencc ome bature r l 'eaturcsin respect of which the audience esemblcs(morc or lcss ancil 'ully) hc menlioned ub -stancc.

It is possiblc o combine metaphor an dirony by imposing n the hearer wo stagcs fintcrpretation. say lrrrr ur., hc crcant n m.t'rrrli,c. intending he hcarer o reach irst themctaphor nterpretant You are my pride an d

CONVERSATIONAT MPTICATURE ND RELEVANCE

joy' and then the irony interpretant You aremy bane.'

Meiosis. Of a man known to have brokenup all the furniture, one says He w'as littleinto-ricatt'd.

Hyperbole. Everv nic'egirl loves a sailor.(2b) Examples n which he second maxim

of Quality.Do not say hal or which you ack

adequate vidence'. s flouted are perhaps oteasy o find. but the following seems o be a

specimen. say of X's wife. She is probahlvdcc

8/12/2019 GRICE (1975)

9/11

TOCIC AND CONVERSATION

more recondite or mor e far-fetched han theother. We might consider lake's ines: Never

seek o tell th], love, Love that never old canbe.' To avoid hc complications ntroduced ythe presence f the imperative mood. I shallconsider he related entence. unryht o tellmr lova. ove hat nc'tcr old can Dt'.There maybs a double ambiguity here. Mv fuuc'may eferto either a state of emotion or an object ofcmotion. and /ovc hat ncvar old run be may

mean ither'Love hat cannot be old' or'lovethat if told cannot continue o exist. ' Partlyhccausc f thc sophistication f the poet andparlly because f internal evidence that th eambiguity s kept up). here eems o bc no al -lernative o supposing hat he ambiguities redeliberate nd hal he poet s conveying othwhat hc would be saying f ont: nterpretationwcrc ntcndcd athcr han hc othcr. and vicevcrsa; houBh o doubt hc pocl s not explic-itly saying any onc of these hings but onlyconveying r suggesting hem (cl. Sincc sh eInaturc] pricked hec out lirr women's plea-surc. minc be'thy ovc. ancl hy ovc's se heirtrcasurc').

th ) F.xamplesn whichone nterpre ta t ionsnotably lcss straightforward han anothcr.'I 'akethe complcx xamplc f the British Gcn-cral who captured he province t'Sind andse l back he message 'ct'L'uvi. hc ambiguityinvolved 'l havc Sind'/ ' l have inned') s pho-ncmic. n()tmorphcmic: nd he cxprcssion c-tually uscd s unambiguous. ut since t is n alanguage brcign o speaker:rnd earer, rans-lation s called br. and the ambiguity esidesin thc standard ranslation nto native English.

Whcther or not the straighlforward nter-prctant 'l have sinned') s bcing conveyed, tsecms hat the nonstraightforward nterpre-tant musl be. l 'here might be stylistic easonslbr conveying y a sentence erely ts non-straightforward ntcrpretant. ut it would bepointless, nd perhaps lso slylisticallv biec-tionable, o go to the trouble of frnding anexpresion hal nonstraightforwardly onveysthat p, thus mposing n an audience he effortinvolvcd n frnding his nterpretant, f this n-tcrprelant wcrc otiosc so lar as communica-tion was concerned. Whether he straightfor-ward interpretant is also being conveyedseems o dcpend n whelher uch a supposi-tion would conflict with other conversational

3 1 3

requirements. or example, would it be rele-vant. would t be something he speaker ouldbe supposed o accept, nd so on. If such re-quirements re not satisfied. hen the straighr-forward nterpretant s not being conveyed. fthey are, t is. If the author of Pct't'avi ouldnaturally be supposed o think that he hadcommittcd some kind of transgressio n. or ex-ample. had disobeyed is orders n capturingSind. and if rel'erence o such a lransgresslon

would be relevant o thc presumed nterests [the audience. hen he would have been con-vcying both interpretants: therwise e wouldhe convcving only the nonstraighttbrwardone .

Oh.rutritv. How do I exploit, irr thc pur-poses of communication. deliberatc ndovert violation of the rcquirement hat Ishould avoid obscurity'l bviously. l 'thc Co -opcrativc rinciplc s o operatc, must ntendmy partncr o understand hat I am sayingdespite hc ohscurity import rnl(r my ultcr-arrcc. uppose hat A and B arc having a con-vcrsation n thc prescncc l'a third party, brcxamplc, child, hen A might bc deliberatclyobscure. hough nol too obscurc. n the hopethat B would undersland nd the third partynot. "urthcrmore, f A expects to scc hat Ais bcing delibcratcly bseurc. t sccms eason-able o suppose hat, n nraking is convcrsa-tional conlribution n this way, A is mplicat-ing that the contcnts l ' his communicationshould not bc mpaned o the hird party.

f'uilurc Io ltc hricl rtr nu't'inct C'ompare hcremarks:

(x) ,l1l.r.r ' .sung'llttnr Su'tcl Ilttnu'

(b) tlr.rr .\ ' pnulttttrl o s(rt(.\ ttf .stntnd: ltttl utrn'.tptuulul t ltt:dy lith lht ' .sutn' ttl

'llrnnr '\ttt ' t ' lI rnt t t

'

Suppose hat a reviewer as choscn o ultcr(b) rathcr han a). Gloss:Why has he selcctcdthat rigmarole n place of the conci*- an dnearly synonymous ran,g,) resumably. o tn -dicate some striking difference etween MissX's performance nd hose o which he wclrdsing,ing s usually pplied. he most obvioussupposition s hat Miss X's performance uf:f'ered rom some hideous efect. The reviewerknows hat his supposition s what s ikety ospring o mind. so hat s what he s mplicat-ing . )

8/12/2019 GRICE (1975)

10/11

31 4

CENERATIZED ONVERSATTONATIMPIICATURE

CONVERSATIONAI.MPLICATURE ND RETEVANCE

I have so far considered nly cases f what Imight call 'particularized onversational m-plicature'-that is to say. cases n which animplicature s carried by saying hat p on aparticular ccasion n virtue o[special eaturesof the context. ases n which here s no roomfor the idea hat an implicature of this sort snormally carried by saying hat p. But thereare cases [ generalized onversational mpli-cature. Sometimes ne can say hat the use ofa cerlain orm of words n an utterance wouldnormally in the absence f special ircum-stances) arry such-and-such n implicatureor type of implicature. Noncontroversial x-amples re perhaps ard o find, since t is alttoo easy o treat a generalized onversationalimplicature s f it wcre a conventional mpli-calure. offer an example hat I hope may belairly nonconlroversial.

Anyone who uses sentence f the lorm .{ts tttt'ctittg u troman this cvenin.g ould nor_mally mplicate hat he person o be met wassomeone ther han X's wife. mother, ister.or perhaps ven close platonic friend. Simi-larf . if I were o say X u.ctr nto a hunt vcs-tcrdu.r utul limnd a ttrttti.st' n:;itlt tht lrrntdtxr. my hearer would normally be surpriscdif somc ime atcr reveated hat he house asX's own. I could producc similar inguisticphen

8/12/2019 GRICE (1975)

11/11

TOCIC AND CONVERSATION

that states or implies that the speaker hasopteci ut. or it may be contextually anceled.if the form of utterance hat usually carries tis used n a context hat makes t clear hat hespeaker s oPting out.

2. Insofar s he calculation hat a particularconversational mplicature s present equires.besides ontextual and background nforma-tion. only a knowledge f what has been said(or of the conventional ommitment f the ut -

tcrance). nd nsofar s he manncr o{'expres-sion plays o role n the calculation. t will notbe possiblc o hnd another way ol'saying hesame hing. which simply acks he implica-ture in question. xcept whcre some specialf 'eature f thc substituted ersion s tsell-relc-vant to the cletermination f an implicature(in virtue of one of the maxims f Manner)- [we call his eature ondetachability' nc mayexpccl a gencralized onversational mplica-ture hat s carried by a lamiliar. nonspecial o-cution to have a high dcgree of nondetacha-b i l i t y,

J . To speak pproximately. incc hc calcu-

lation of the prcsence f a convcrsationalm-

plicaturc rcsupp()scs n initiat knowlcdge l'the conventional brce of the exprcssion heuttcrance f which carries hc implicature.conversational mplicatum will be a condition

3 1 5

that is not included n the original specifica-tion of the expression's onventional brce'Though it may not be impossible or whatstarts ife. so o speak. s a conversation al m-plicature o become onventionalized. o sup-pose hat this is so in a given case would re-quire special ustification. o' nitiallyat east'conversational mplicata are not part of themeaning of the expressions o the employ-ment of which theY attach.

4. Since he ruth of a conversational mpli-catum s not required y the ruth of what rssaid what s said may be rue-what is mpli-catcd may hc alse). he mplicaturc s not car-ried by what s said. ut only by the saying fwhat s said, r by putting it that way.'

5. Since. o calculate conversalional m-plicaturc s to calculale whal has o bc sup-posc