Scalar implicature
Encyclopedia
In pragmatics
, scalar implicature (also known as quantity implicature) is a conversational inference
that attributes an implicit meaning beyond the explicit or literal meaning of an utterance
, and which suggests that the utterer had a reason for not using a more informative or stronger term on the same scale. The choice of the weaker element suggests that, as far as the speaker knows, none of the stronger elements in the scale holds. This is commonly seen in the use of 'some' to suggest the meaning 'not all', even though 'some' is logically consistent with 'all'. If Bill says 'I have some of my money in cash', this suggests to a hearer (though it does not logically imply it) that Bill does not have all his money in cash.
As with pragmatic inference generally, such inferences are defeasible
or cancellable - the inferred meaning may not be true, even though the literal meaning is true. This distinguishes such inferences from entailment
. They are also non-detachable. A conversational implicature is said to be non-detachable when, after the replacement of what is said with another expression with the same literal meaning, the same conversational implicature remains. This distinguishes them from conventional implicatures.
In a 2006 experiment with Greek-speaking five-year-olds' interpretation of aspectual expressions, the results revealed that children have limited success in deriving scalar implicatures from the use of aspectual verbs such as "start" (which implicates non-completion). However, the tested children succeed in deriving scalar implicatures with discrete degree modifiers such as "half" as in half finished. Their ability to spontaneously compute scalar implicatures was greater than their ability to judge the pragmatic appropriateness of scalar statements. In addition, the tested children were able to suspend scalar implicatures in environments where they were not supported.
Griceans
attempt to explain these implicatures in terms of the maxim of quantity, according to which one is to be just as informative as required. The idea is that if the speaker were in a position to make the stronger statement, they would have. Since they did not, the hearer must believe that the stronger statement is not true.
Uttering the sentence (a) in most cases will communicate the assumption in (b). This seems to be because the speaker did not use stronger terms such as 'there will be more than five people for dinner tonight' or 'she can't possibly get the job'. For example, if Bill really did have all of Chomsky's papers, the speaker would have said so. However, according to the maxim of quantity, a speaker will only be informative as is required, and will therefore not use any stronger terms unless required. The hearer, knowing this, will assume that the stronger term does not apply.
Pragmatics
Pragmatics is a subfield of linguistics which studies the ways in which context contributes to meaning. Pragmatics encompasses speech act theory, conversational implicature, talk in interaction and other approaches to language behavior in philosophy, sociology, and linguistics. It studies how the...
, scalar implicature (also known as quantity implicature) is a conversational inference
Inference
Inference is the act or process of deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true. The conclusion drawn is also called an idiomatic. The laws of valid inference are studied in the field of logic.Human inference Inference is the act or process of deriving logical conclusions...
that attributes an implicit meaning beyond the explicit or literal meaning of an utterance
Utterance
In spoken language analysis an utterance is a complete unit of speech. It is generally but not always bounded by silence.It can be represented and delineated in written language in many ways. Note that in such areas of research utterances do not exist in written language, only their representations...
, and which suggests that the utterer had a reason for not using a more informative or stronger term on the same scale. The choice of the weaker element suggests that, as far as the speaker knows, none of the stronger elements in the scale holds. This is commonly seen in the use of 'some' to suggest the meaning 'not all', even though 'some' is logically consistent with 'all'. If Bill says 'I have some of my money in cash', this suggests to a hearer (though it does not logically imply it) that Bill does not have all his money in cash.
Origin
Scalar implicatures typically arise where the speaker qualifies or scales their statement with language that conveys to the listener an inference or implicature that indicates that the speaker had reasons not to use a stronger, more informative, term. For example, where a speaker uses the term "some" in the statement, "Some students can afford a new car.", the use of "some" gives rise to an inference or implicature that "Not all students can afford a new car."As with pragmatic inference generally, such inferences are defeasible
Defeasible reasoning
Defeasible reasoning is a kind of reasoning that is based on reasons that are defeasible, as opposed to the indefeasible reasons of deductive logic...
or cancellable - the inferred meaning may not be true, even though the literal meaning is true. This distinguishes such inferences from entailment
Entailment
In logic, entailment is a relation between a set of sentences and a sentence. Let Γ be a set of one or more sentences; let S1 be the conjunction of the elements of Γ, and let S2 be a sentence: then, Γ entails S2 if and only if S1 and not-S2 are logically inconsistent...
. They are also non-detachable. A conversational implicature is said to be non-detachable when, after the replacement of what is said with another expression with the same literal meaning, the same conversational implicature remains. This distinguishes them from conventional implicatures.
In a 2006 experiment with Greek-speaking five-year-olds' interpretation of aspectual expressions, the results revealed that children have limited success in deriving scalar implicatures from the use of aspectual verbs such as "start" (which implicates non-completion). However, the tested children succeed in deriving scalar implicatures with discrete degree modifiers such as "half" as in half finished. Their ability to spontaneously compute scalar implicatures was greater than their ability to judge the pragmatic appropriateness of scalar statements. In addition, the tested children were able to suspend scalar implicatures in environments where they were not supported.
Griceans
Paul Grice
Herbert Paul Grice , usually publishing under the name H. P. Grice, H...
attempt to explain these implicatures in terms of the maxim of quantity, according to which one is to be just as informative as required. The idea is that if the speaker were in a position to make the stronger statement, they would have. Since they did not, the hearer must believe that the stronger statement is not true.
Examples of scalar implicature
Some examples of scalar implicature are:- 1a. Bill has got some of Chomsky's papers.
- 1b. The speaker believes that Bill hasn't got all of Chomsky's papers.
- 2a. There will be five of us for dinner tonight.
- 2b. There won't be more than five of us for dinner tonight.
- 3a. She won't necessarily get the job.
- 3b. She will possibly get the job.
Uttering the sentence (a) in most cases will communicate the assumption in (b). This seems to be because the speaker did not use stronger terms such as 'there will be more than five people for dinner tonight' or 'she can't possibly get the job'. For example, if Bill really did have all of Chomsky's papers, the speaker would have said so. However, according to the maxim of quantity, a speaker will only be informative as is required, and will therefore not use any stronger terms unless required. The hearer, knowing this, will assume that the stronger term does not apply.
See also
- ImplicatureImplicatureImplicature is a technical term in the pragmatics subfield of linguistics, coined by H. P. Grice, which refers to what is suggested in an utterance, even though neither expressed nor strictly implied by the utterance...
- Cooperative principleCooperative principleIn social science generally and linguistics specifically, the cooperative principle describes how people interact with one another. As phrased by Paul Grice, who introduced it, it states, "Make your contribution such as it is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or...
- Gricean maxims
- EntailmentEntailmentIn logic, entailment is a relation between a set of sentences and a sentence. Let Γ be a set of one or more sentences; let S1 be the conjunction of the elements of Γ, and let S2 be a sentence: then, Γ entails S2 if and only if S1 and not-S2 are logically inconsistent...
, or implicationImplicationImplication may refer to:In logic:* Logical implication, entailment, or consequence, a relation between statements* Material implication, or conditional implication, a binary truth functionIn linguistics, specifically in pragmatics:...
, in logic - Entailment (pragmatics)Entailment (pragmatics)In pragmatics , entailment is the relationship between two sentences where the truth of one requires the truth of the other ....
- Indirect speech act
- Implicate and Explicate Order
- Intrinsic and extrinsic propertiesIntrinsic and extrinsic properties (philosophy)An intrinsic property is a property that an object or a thing has of itself, independently of other things, including its context. An extrinsic property is a property that depends on a thing's relationship with other things...
- Laurence Horn