Conversational implicature Interactional models Grammar-driven models Embedded Uncancelable Conclusion Conversational implicatures: interacting with grammar Christopher Potts Stanford Linguistics UIUC Linguistics, October 28, 2013 This talk: partly joint work with Mike Frank, Noah Goodman, Dan Jurafsky, Roger Levy & Adam Vogel Associated paper (draft form; comments welcome!): http://stanford.edu/˜cgpotts/papers.html 1 / 44
Conversational implicature Interactional models Grammar-driven models Embedded Uncancelable Conclusion Conversational implicature Definition (Grice 1975) Speaker S saying U to listener L conversationally implicates q iff 1 S and L mutually, publicly presume that S is cooperative. 2 To maintain 1 given U , it must be supposed that S thinks q . 3 S thinks that both S and L mutually, publicly presume that L is willing and able to work out that 2 holds. 2 / 44
Conversational implicature Interactional models Grammar-driven models Embedded Uncancelable Conclusion Conversational implicature Definition (Grice 1975) Speaker S saying U to listener L conversationally implicates q iff 1 S and L mutually, publicly presume that S is cooperative. 2 To maintain 1 given U , it must be supposed that S thinks q . 3 S thinks that both S and L mutually, publicly presume that L is willing and able to work out that 2 holds. Example Ann: What city does Paul live in? Bob: Hmm . . . he lives in California. (A) Assume Bob is cooperative. (B) Bob supplied less information than was required, seemingly contradicting (A). (C) Assume Bob does not know which city Paul lives in. (D) Then Bob’s answer is optimal given his evidence. 2 / 44
Conversational implicature Interactional models Grammar-driven models Embedded Uncancelable Conclusion Conversational implicature Definition (Grice 1975) Speaker S saying U to listener L conversationally implicates q iff 1 S and L mutually, publicly presume that S is cooperative. 2 To maintain 1 given U , it must be supposed that S thinks q . 3 S thinks that both S and L mutually, publicly presume that L is willing and able to work out that 2 holds. Implicature as social, interactional Implicatures are inferences that listeners make to reconcile the speaker’s linguistic behavior with the assumption that the speaker is cooperative. Implicatures and cognitive complexity The speaker must believe that the listener will infer that the speaker believes the implicature. 2 / 44
Conversational implicature Interactional models Grammar-driven models Embedded Uncancelable Conclusion Two strands of inquiry Interactional models • Embrace the social nature of implicatures. • Derive implicatures from nested belief models with cooperative structure. • Focus on contextual variability and uncertainty. Grammar models • Limit interaction to semantic interpretation. • Derive implicatures without nested beliefs or cooperativity. • Place variability and uncertainty outside the theory of implicature. 3 / 44
Conversational implicature Interactional models Grammar-driven models Embedded Uncancelable Conclusion Two strands of inquiry Interactional models • Embrace the social nature of implicatures. • Derive implicatures from nested belief models with cooperative structure. • Focus on contextual variability and uncertainty. Grammar models • Limit interaction to semantic interpretation. • Derive implicatures without nested beliefs or cooperativity. • Place variability and uncertainty outside the theory of implicature. My goal Despite divisive rhetoric, the two sides in this debate are not in opposition, but rather offer complementary insights. 3 / 44
Conversational implicature Interactional models Grammar-driven models Embedded Uncancelable Conclusion Plan for today 1 Conversational implicature 2 Interactional models of implicature 3 Grammar-driven models of implicature 4 Embedded implicatures 5 Uncancelable implicatures 4 / 44
Conversational implicature Interactional models Grammar-driven models Embedded Uncancelable Conclusion (Scalar) Implicature calculation Example A : Sandy’s work this term was satisfactory. Implicature : Sandy’s work was not excellent (= ¬ q ) 1 Contextual premise : the speaker A intends to exhaustively answer ‘What was the quality of Sandy’s work this term?’ 2 Contextual premise : A has complete knowledge of Sandy’s work for the term (say, A assigned all the grades for the class). 3 Assume A is cooperative in the Gricean sense. 4 The proposition q that Sandy’s work was excellent is more informative than p , the content of A ’s utterance. 5 q is as polite and easy to express in this context as p . 6 By 1 , q is more relevant than p . 7 By 3 – 6 , A must lack sufficient evidence to assert q . 8 By 2 , A must lack evidence for q because q is false. 5 / 44
Conversational implicature Interactional models Grammar-driven models Embedded Uncancelable Conclusion (Scalar) Implicature calculation Example A : Sandy’s work this term was satisfactory. Implicature : Sandy’s work was not excellent (= ¬ q ) 1 Contextual premise : the speaker A intends to exhaustively answer ‘What was the quality of Sandy’s work this term?’ 2 Contextual premise : A has complete knowledge of Sandy’s work for the term (say, A assigned all the grades for the class). 3 Assume A is cooperative in the Gricean sense. 4 The proposition q that Sandy’s work was excellent is more informative than p , the content of A ’s utterance. 5 q is as polite and easy to express in this context as p . 6 By 1 , q is more relevant than p . 7 By 3 – 6 , A must lack sufficient evidence to assert q . 8 By 2 , A must lack evidence for q because q is false. 5 / 44
Conversational implicature Interactional models Grammar-driven models Embedded Uncancelable Conclusion (Scalar) Implicature calculation Example A : Sandy’s work this term was satisfactory. Implicature : Sandy’s work was not excellent (= ¬ q ) 1 Contextual premise : the speaker A intends to exhaustively answer ‘What was the quality of Sandy’s work this term?’ 2 Contextual premise : A has complete knowledge of Sandy’s work for the term (say, A assigned all the grades for the class). 3 Assume A is cooperative in the Gricean sense. 4 The proposition q that Sandy’s work was excellent is more informative than p , the content of A ’s utterance. 5 q is as polite and easy to express in this context as p . 6 By 1 , q is more relevant than p . 7 By 3 – 6 , A must lack sufficient evidence to assert q . 8 By 2 , A must lack evidence for q because q is false. 5 / 44
Conversational implicature Interactional models Grammar-driven models Embedded Uncancelable Conclusion (Scalar) Implicature calculation Example A : Sandy’s work this term was satisfactory. Implicature : Sandy’s work was not excellent (= ¬ q ) 1 Contextual premise : the speaker A intends to exhaustively answer ‘What was the quality of Sandy’s work this term?’ 2 Contextual premise : A has complete knowledge of Sandy’s work for the term (say, A assigned all the grades for the class). 3 Assume A is cooperative in the Gricean sense. 4 The proposition q that Sandy’s work was excellent is more informative than p , the content of A ’s utterance. 5 q is as polite and easy to express in this context as p . 6 By 1 , q is more relevant than p . 7 By 3 – 6 , A must lack sufficient evidence to assert q . 8 By 2 , A must lack evidence for q because q is false. 5 / 44
Conversational implicature Interactional models Grammar-driven models Embedded Uncancelable Conclusion Properties of conversational implicatures 1 Context dependence 2 Linguistic dependence 3 Cognitive complexity 4 Uncertainty (and re-enforceability) 5 Post-semanticality 6 / 44
Conversational implicature Interactional models Grammar-driven models Embedded Uncancelable Conclusion Cancelability • Cancelability is not a consequence of Grice’s (1975) definition. • The definition seems to leave room for cancelation in particular cases, but it does not ensure it for all. • Cancelation always compromises the speaker’s cooperativity to some degree. ◮ In many cases, this is tolerable. ◮ If the compromises are too great, the speaker’s behavior is uncooperative to the point of infelicity. 7 / 44
Conversational implicature Interactional models Grammar-driven models Embedded Uncancelable Conclusion Scales and partial orders Examples (Levinson 1983:134) � all, most, many, some, few � � and, or � � n, . . . , 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 � � excellent, good � � hot, warm � � always, often, sometimes � � succeed, V ing, try to V , want to V � � necessarily p , p , possibly p � � certain that p , probable that p , possible that p � � must, should, may � � cold, cool � � love, like � � none, not all � 8 / 44
Conversational implicature Interactional models Grammar-driven models Embedded Uncancelable Conclusion Scales and partial orders Examples (A few other standard lexical scales) � first, second, third, fourth, fifth � � definite, indefinite � � lover, friend � � need, want � � old, middle-aged, young � � general, colonel, major, captain, . . . � 8 / 44
Recommend
More recommend
