Inference and Implicature

doi:10.1017/9781108954105.004

3 - Inference and Implicature

from Part I - Fundamentals of Sociopragmatics

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 April 2021

Edited by

Dániel Z. Kádár and

Michael Haugh: Affiliation:
University of Queensland
Dániel Z. Kádár: Affiliation:
Hungarian Research Institute for Linguistics, and Dalian University of Foreign Languages
Marina Terkourafi: Affiliation:
Leiden University

Book contents

Get access

Summary

This chapter covers the notions of inference and implicature from a broad pragmatic and sociopragmatic perspective. Starting from the fact that inference has wide applicability also in psychology and logic, while implicature is limited only to pragmatics, it opens by drawing three distinctions: (1) between inference in a broad and in a narrow sense, (2) between inference and implicature and (3) between inference and implicature as both product and process. It then discusses processes of implicature generation within Gricean and post-Gricean accounts. While the general position taken is that 'speakers implicate, hearers infer', this position is also problematized by drawing on sociopragmatics research that challenges the notion of the speaker’s intention and explores how (else) meaning can be generated.

Keywords

inference implicature natural meaning non-natural meaning intention Gricean world-knowledge

Type: Chapter
Information: The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics , pp. 30 - 47

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108954105.004 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allan, K. (2016). The reporting of slurs. In Capone, A., Kiefer, F. and Lo Piparo, F., eds., Indirect Reports and Pragmatics: Interdisciplinary Studies. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, pp. 211–32.Google Scholar

Ameka, F. K. and Terkourafi, M. (2019). What if … ? Imagining non-Western perspectives on pragmatic theory and practice. Journal of Pragmatics, 145, 72–82.Google Scholar

Bach, K. and Harnish, R. M. (1979). Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Blum-Kulka, S. (1987). Indirectness and politeness in requests: Same or different? Journal of Pragmatics, 11, 145–60.CrossRef Google Scholar

Carston, R. (2002). Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Clark, H. H. (1996). Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Danziger, E. (2011). Once more with feeling: A forbidden performance of the Great Speech of the Mopan Maya. Anthropological Quarterly, 84(1), 121–40.Google Scholar

Degen, J. and Tanenhaus, M. K. (2019). Constraint-based pragmatic processing. In Cummins, C. and Katsos, N., eds., Handbook of Experimental Semantics and Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Eckert, P. (2008). Variation and the indexical field. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 12(4), 453–76.Google Scholar

Fodor, J. A. (1983). Modularity of Mind. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Foucault, M. (1978). The History of Sexuality. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar

Franke, M. and Degen, J. (2016). Reasoning in reference games: Individual- vs. population-level probabilistic modeling. PLoS ONE, 11(5), e0154854. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0154854CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Green, M. (2019). Organic meaning: An approach to communication with minimal appeal to minds. In Capone, A., Carapezza, M. and Lo Piparo, F., eds., Further Advances in Pragmatics and Philosophy. Part II Theories and Applications. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, pp. 211–28.Google Scholar

Grice, H. P. (1957). Meaning. The Philosophical Review, 66, 377–88. Reprinted in: Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 213–23.CrossRef Google Scholar

Grice, H. P. (1969). Utterer’s meaning and intentions. The Philosophical Review, 78, 147–77. Reprinted in: Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 86–116.CrossRef Google Scholar

Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. and Morgan, J., eds., Syntax and Semantics. Vol. III: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, pp. 41–58. Reprinted in: Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 22–40.Google Scholar

Haugh, M. (2002). The intuitive basis of implicature: Relevance Theoretic implicitness versus Gricean implying. Pragmatics, 12(2), 117–34.Google Scholar

Haugh, M. and Jaszczolt, K. (2012). Speaker intentions and intentionality. In Allan, K. and Jaszczolt, K. M., eds., Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 87–112.Google Scholar

Huang, Y. (2007). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Hirschberg, J. (1991). A Theory of Scalar Implicature. New York: Garland.Google Scholar

Horn, L. (1984). Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicature. In Schiffrin, D., ed., Meaning, Form, and Use in Context. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, pp. 11–42.Google Scholar

Levinson, S. C. (1992). Activity types and language. In Drew, P. and Heritage, J., eds., Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 66–100.Google Scholar

Levinson, S. C. (2000). Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Lyons, J. (1995). Linguistic Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Marwick, A. and boyd, d. m. (2011). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media and Society, 13(1), 114–33.Google Scholar

Matsumoto, Y. (1989). Politeness and conversational universals: Observations from Japanese. Multilingua, 8, 207–21.Google Scholar

McCarthy, J. and Hayes, P. J. (1969). Some philosophical problems from the standpoint of artificial intelligence. Machine Intelligence, 4, 463–502.Google Scholar

McNally, L. 2017. Scalar alternatives and scalar inference involving adjectives: A comment on van Tiel, et al. 2016. In Ostrove, J., Kramer, R. and Sabbagh, J., eds., Asking the Right Questions: Essays in Honor of Sandra Chung. Santa Cruz: University of California Santa Cruz, Linguistics Research Center, pp. 17–28.Google Scholar

Noveck, I. (2010). Inferential comprehension. In Cummings, L., ed., The Pragmatics Encyclopedia. London: Routledge, pp. 220–22.Google Scholar

Pinker, S., Nowak, M. A. and Lee, J. J. (2008). The logic of indirect speech. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(3), 833–8.Google Scholar

Robbins, J. and Rumsey, A. (2008). Introduction: Cultural and linguistic anthropology and the opacity of other minds. Anthropological Quarterly, 81(2), 407–20.Google Scholar

Schank, R. C. and Abelson, R. P. (1977). Scripts, Plans, Goals, and Understanding: An Inquiry into Human Knowledge Structures. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Shannon, C. E. and Weaver, W. (1963). The Mathematical Theory of Communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar

Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. ([1986] 1995). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (2008). A deflationary account of metaphors. In Gibbs, R., ed., The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 84–105.Google Scholar

Tannen, D. (1993). The relativity of linguistic strategies: Rethinking power and solidarity in gender and dominance. In Tannen, D., ed., Gender and Conversational Interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 165–88.Google Scholar

Tanner, D., Goldshtein, M. and Weissman, B. (2018). Individual differences in the real-time neural dynamics of language comprehension. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 68, 299–335.Google Scholar

Terkourafi, M. (2005). Pragmatic correlates of frequency of use: The case for a notion of ‘minimal context’. In Nikiforidou, K., Marmaridou, S. and Antonopoulou, E., eds., Reviewing Linguistic Thought: Converging Trends for the 21st Century. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 209–33.Google Scholar

Terkourafi, M. (2014). The importance of being indirect: A new nomenclature for indirect speech. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 28(1), 45–70.CrossRef Google Scholar

van Tiel, B., van Miltenburg, E., Zevakhina, N. and Geurts, B. (2016). Scalar diversity. Journal of Semantics, 33, 137–75.Google Scholar

Wharton, T. (2003). Natural pragmatics and natural codes. Mind and Language, 18 , 447–77.Google Scholar

Wharton, T. (2009). The Pragmatics of Non-Verbal Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Wilson, D. and Sperber, D. (1986). Inference and implicature in utterance interpretation. In Myers, T., Brown, K. and McGonigle, B., eds., Reasoning and Discourse Processes. London: Academic Press, pp. 241–63.Google Scholar

Woods, J. (2010). Inference. In Cummings, L., ed., The Pragmatics Encyclopedia. London: Routledge, pp. 218–20.Google Scholar

Book contents

3 - Inference and Implicature

Summary

Keywords

Access options

References

Save book to Kindle

Save book to Dropbox

Save book to Google Drive