Implicature

Implicature is a term from the philosophy of language and pragmatics, a sub-discipline of linguistics.

Term

In an implicature of an utterance is an aspect of meaning which communicates by the utterance, but is only indicated by the speaker ( rather than said). In other words, the implicature makes it a speaker able to communicate more than the literal meaning of the terms used actually means. The strict separation between the literally said and what is produced as implicature, goes back to the linguistic philosopher Paul Grice, who coined the concept of implicature in the article " Logic and Conversation" in 1975. For " throwing an implicature " has been coined as " implikatieren " the made-up word ( " a spokesman / an utterance implikatiert something ").

Accordingly, the range of what is said is limited by the (semantic ) sentence meaning ( ie the meaning of single set of elements, such as words and their order and syntactic character ), but he is contextually enriched (Reference determining disambiguation ) until it is propositional, that is to it can be checked for truth out. Thus, a sentence like "He went into the house " are checked only on its truth back when I know because of situation of utterance, reference time, etc., who in the sentence with "he" is called and on which house is referred etc. This determination of what is said is controversial, since it already incorporated by the contextual pragmatic enrichment processes. The relationship between what is said and semantics - pragmatics distinction is the subject of much philosophy of language debates. But is important in Grice: only predicted importance wahrheitskonditional, ie only plays a role for the truth value of a sentence.

The Implikatierte, however, is never wahrheitskonditional as it is not part of what a speaker says in his statement. Grice distinguishes

• Conversational implicatures
• Conventional implicatures

Conversational implicatures

Conversational implicatures are based on the cooperation principle formulated by Grice. This means in short that rational rules are assumed in the communication: every speaker should contribute, as it requires the current time of the utterance. Specific Under conditions Grice calls in the four conversational maxims. A conversational implicature can arise now, for example the fact that what is said only makes sense if we add an implicature. An example: ". Around the corner is a gas station " if I, as motorists say to a pedestrian that my fuel is all, and he answers me, then I will assume that he gives us to understand his utterance, that I at this gas station gasoline get:

Now if it turns out that the gas station has been closed for 10 years, I 'll be able to make B not blame: in his own words he has just said that around the corner is a gas station - that there is gasoline, it has only implikatiert.

Grice distinguishes (in reference to the Kantian table of categories ) four categories of maxims of conversation:

• Maxims of quantity: Make your statement exactly as informative as necessary!
• Maxims of Quality: Do not say what you think is wrong or what you do not have sufficient justification!
• The maxim of Relation: Be Relevant!
• Maxim of manner: Express yourself clear, precise, short and neat!

The implicature in the example above would go to the maxim of relation back ( " be relevant" ). In this case, I go ( or the motorists A) due to the cooperation principle assumes that the speaker B will abide by the principle of cooperation and follow the maxims of conversation. Just can implicatures but utterances with " meaning fill " that are not, strictly speaking, true or even nonsensical, such as metaphors or tautologies. Thus, e.g. the metaphor of "You are the sun in my eyes " or the tautology " A woman is just a woman " one make sense that they do not have purely semantic - their spokesperson will communicate with them more than he says.

Grice distinguishes between generalized conversational implicatures and particularized conversational implicatures. The former are not dependent on a particular context of utterance, that is, they would be triggered in every conceivable situation by an utterance. So implikatiert a sentence like "I have three children. " Always that the speaker has no more than three children:

Mind you: the speaker does not say this, because if he had five children, it was true also that it (namely, under these five) are three children, apply to the same thing. However, it is perceived as misleading, then to mention only the existence of three children; and it is this intuition is explained that the implicature was drawn, after which the speaker has called the maximum number. Other examples are: someone who says " In Holland it is warm. " Implikatiert that it is not hot in Holland, etc. In generalized ( Quant ) implicatures therefore always scales play a role (so-called Horn- scales). In the particularized conversational implicatures, however, always the context plays a role. The gasoline sample is an example of such implicature, because the phrase " Around the corner is a gas station. " Implikatiert not always and in every situation, that there is at the designated gas station gasoline.

For all conversational implicatures certain properties apply. The most important:

• They are voidable (English: cancelable ) ( that is, they may be redeemed by the speaker, without this act strange, for example: ". Around the corner is a gas station, but which has long since gone bankrupt " )
• They are not separable (English: nondetachable ) ( that is, you can have a different expression that says almost the same use, and the implicature arises anyway, since it is clear from what has been said, for example: " At the corner is because right purely to 'ne gas station. " )
• They are bekräftigbar without this act redundantly ( because their content is not part of what is said, for example: ". Around the corner is a gas station, because you can refuel " )

Conventional implicatures

Conventional implicatures are significantly reduced under Grice and are even more controversial than the conversational. These implicatures are based on the conventional meaning of a particular concept and yet they are not to be part of what was said, since they are not relevant to the truth of a statement. An example would be a sentence such as "She's poor, but pretty. ". The "but" implikatiert a sort of contrast between poverty and physical attractiveness. That this contrast - as commonly believed - is nonsense, appears clear. Nevertheless, the sentence according to Grice would be true if the referent is poor and is pretty. Other examples: "Even Schröder regretted the reforms. " ( The speaker implikatiert that this is surprising ); "He is a businessman, so he has good taste. " (Logical inference is implikatiert ), etc. Meanwhile, are new approaches that either reject the concept of conventional implicature entirely (eg Bach ), or significantly modify ( for example, Potts ).

Terminology ( translation )

Grice speaks in the English original of " implicature " and "to implicate ". Grice, there was a concern, there is no confusion with the semantic terms " implication " and " imply " ( "to Imply " ) to avoid, which is why these terms are generally transmitted " implikatieren " with " implicature " and.

Andreas Kemmer Ling, who has the Grice - essay Logic and Conversation translated, has now been translated Although " implicature " with " implicature ", but "to implicate " with " imply ", which does not fulfill the above-mentioned differentiation. In his manual entry " implicature " used Kemmerling for "to implicate " but " implikieren ". The Duden sees the expression implicature a synonym of implicature, which also levels the differentiation, implicate as for that of an implication and which is of a implicature Included.

Therefore: For "to implicate " are implikatieren and implikieren to use without problems; " Imply " should probably be avoided or at least imply by conversationally be referred to in more detail ( the difference to " logically imply ", " imply conventional" etc. to make it clear ).

The criticism of Grice's conception has led to further terms. So Robin Carston leads still the " Explikatur ", which is criticized by Kent Bach, for " Implizitur " suggests. Thus, the concentration of a propositional fragment cases such as the following should be addressed:

• " You will not die already. " ( Explikatur / Implizitur: from this small wound)
• " I have not eaten yet. " ( Explikatur / Implizitur: Today)

Mohamed Mohamed Yunis Ali has tried to show that Grice's Concept of Implicature in approximately corresponds to what in the Islamic legal text hermeneutics as " meaning of what is understood " ( dalālat al - mafhūm ) called and the " importance of the spoken " ( dalālat al - mantūq ) is compared. In the " importance of what is understood " is further distinguished in this hermeneutical theory between the " what is understood of Coincidence" ( mafhūm al - muwāfaqa ) and the " comprehended the antithesis " ( mafhūm al - muchālafa ). Ali translates these Terms with " congruent implicature " ( congruent implicature ) and "counter- implicature " ( counter implicature ). For example, with the statement " In free-grazing sheep, the alms tax must be paid. " That the sheep in the barn held on alms tax is payable counter - implicature ( mafhūm al - muchālafa ). The principle plays an important role in the development of legal standards from the religious texts Quran and Hadith.