Pragmatic Analysis of Campus Conversational Implicature

1. Introduction：

Using language indirectly is a universal phenomenon in a communication， it also happens on the campus frequently. Full of turn， language indirectness means to “talk in a roundabout way” In other words， the speakers do not always express their intention directly while communicating； In opposite， they would choose an indirect way to achieve their communicative goals. In this case， some points and information are hidden between lines on purpose . Therefore， if one person wants to successfully recover the implied meanings of speakers， he or she must get his psychological interference or pragmatic inference involved. This paper mainly analyses the conversational implicative happening on the campus by utilizing the Adaptation Theory. According to the Adaptation theory， language use is defined as the continuous making of linguistic choice， which can be conscious or unconscious and can stem from the internal reasons or external reasons of language. Thanks to the characteristics of variability， negotiability and adaptability that language possesses， language users can always make various proper choices during the using of language. Here， variability and negotiability are the base， and adaptability is the core. These choices can be situated at any level of linguistic form： phonetic/phonological， morphological， syntactic， lexical， semantic. They may range over variety-internal options， or they may involve regionally， socially or functionally distributed types of variation. A theory of language us should， therefore， be able to make sense of this “making of choices”. In the paper， I will analyze that what choices people actually do and what people adapt while conveying the conversational implicatures， and what ingredients affect their choices. The research targets will aim at conversation happening on the campus. The analysis is made of four perspectives――contextual correlates of adaptability， structural objects of yadaptability， dynamics of adaptability and salience of the adaptation processes.

2. The theory of conversational implicature

As the objective of pragmatic study is to explain how language is used to effect successful communication， conversation， as the most common and natural forms of communication， has drawn the attention of many scholars. An Oxford philosopher and logician Herbert Paul Grice made an attempt to explain the course of natural conversation， in which implied meanings are frequently involved. His idea is that in making conversation， the participants must first of all be willing to cooperative； Otherwise， it would not be possible for them to carry on the talk.

2.1 The definition of conversational implicature

It is important to note that people do not always observe these maxims strictly. These maxims can be violated for various reasons， but only when they are “flouted”， and both the speaker and hearer are aware of the violation does conversational implicature occur. In the end， we may summarize conversational implicature as a type of implied meaning， which is deduced on the basis of the conventional meaning of words together with the context， under the guidance of CP and its maxims.

2.2 Classification of conversational implicature

As Levinson’s classification picture has showed， the conversational implicature has two categories―Generalized Conversational Implicature and Particularized Conversational Implicature. When no special background knowledge of the context is required in the context to calculate the additional conveyed meaning， it is called a generalized conversational implicature. However， most of the time， our conversations take place in very specific contexts in which locally recognized inference are assumed. Such inferences are required to work out the conveyed meanings， and such implicature is called particularized conversational implicature.

Examples：

1. A：星期天一起去野餐吧？

B：恐怕不行，我那天还有课。

This is said when it is known to both A and B that B is not having any class that will prevent him from going for the picnic. Thus B is saying something that he himself knows to be false and is violating the maxim of quality. His implied message is “I do not want to join you for the picnic on Sunday”.

2. A： 汤姆， 今天你数学考得怎么样啊？

B： 今天的足球比赛我们赢了其它几个班。

This is said when it is known to both A and B that it is entirely possible for B to tell A how well or how poorly he did in the math exam. B’s response is thus totally irrelevant to A’s question. Therefore he is flouting the maxim of relation. The implicature is “I don’t wish to talk about the math exam now.”

3. 老师： 你带笔和计算器了吗？

学生： 我带了笔。

In this case， everyone can easily calculate student’s implicature that he has forgotten to take calculator with him， although we have no special background knowledge of the context. Therefore when no special knowledge is required in the context to the implicature’s interpretation， as example 3 ， it is called a generalized conversational implicature.

4. In this example， Wang Lin has just met Xiao Hong outside the class and invited her out to see a film. But Xiao Hong had to refuse due to lots of homework that the teacher had assigned.

王林：不是吧！这么多作业啊！你们的老师该不会是疯了吧？

小红：对了，你准备去哪啊？

Xiao Hong’s response here seems to violate the maxim of relevance. So in order to preserve the assumption of cooperation， Wang Lin has to infer some local reason why Xiao Hong makes such an apparently non-relevant remark. Maybe Xiao Hong’s teacher is coming towards them. In this case， the implicature is that Xiao Hong cannot answer Wang Lin’s question in that special context. Such implicature is called particularized conversational implicature.

3.The Adaptation Theory

Analyzing and explaining of examples by utilizing Adaptation Theory.

Examples：

1. Imagine a university student Li Juan is trying on her clothes in dormitory because she will go to an important party.

李娟：这件蓝色的怎么样啊？

王玲：蓝色适合你，丽丽是这样认为的。

Note that Wang Ling actually produces the utterance. but no doubt that she is not the real source of this utterance. When Li Juan ask Wang Ling for advice， why does Wang Ling tell her what Lily had said. Obviously， Wang Ling makes such a choice in order to convey the implicature that she doesn’t think blue suits her or she doesn’t know either what suits Li Juan very much. If Wang Ling only says that blue suit you， the implicature can be cancelled， but in that case， Wang Ling’s real intention would not be expressed. Therefore， here， Wang Ling chooses to be an physical utterer for adapting her real intention. It is the language user―utterer as a contextual correlate of adaptability that makes language choice adapt with the speaker’s real intention.

2. A：你知道X现在哪吗？

B：他去图书馆了。他走得的时候是这样说的。

This example provides the same type of implicature as previous case. In a sense， the first part of B’s answer is enough for A’s question. But by adding the second part consciously， the speaker becomes a physical utterer but not a real provider of information， and implicates that he I not sure whether X has really gone to the library.

From these two examples， we can see that people will make different choices of who is a real utterer in order to adapt his or her intention.

3. If A and B is talking about student C， and D is nearby at this time. Meanwhile， A and B know that D has a special relationship with C， this would not necessarily stop the gossip， but it would greatly influence the phrasing， any offensive language would be carefully censored. In this situation， A and B may select a code name for student C they are talking about instead of calling C’s name directly. Due to the different roles of interpreters， student A and B make correspondent choice in order to adapt their language ， using code name and other implicatures， with the special context at that time.

4. A：星期天一起去野餐吧？

B：恐怕不行，我那天还有课呢。

Mental states have always been central to certain endeavors in linguistic pragmatics. Belief， for instance， are at the core of the ‘background assumption’ that verbal behavior is anchored into and that are implicitly communicated. In this example， the interpretation work in relation to the state of mind behind B’s utterance is very complicated. Any aspect of interpretation， moreover， may point at properties of B’s mental world that triggered the choices he made. We can hypothesize about aspects of B’s personality in which emotions， desires or wishes and motivations or intentions may be brought in. Is it conscious for B to say that in order to refuse A’s invitation？ Or it is the fact that B really wants to go but has to give up because of his or her class. Let us hypothesize B’s mental states as follows：

我很想去，但我星期天有课，实在没办法啊。

谢谢你的邀请，但我不是很喜欢野餐。再说星期天也有课。

虽然那天有空，但我不想去野餐。

不， 我不想和你一起去野餐。

我不喜欢野餐。

The adaptedness to specific mental states may be stronger or less vague and ambiguous in these reformulations. Although we have done some assumption about B’s mental state， this does not give an interpreter less room for legitimate speculation. Just as the utterance needs to interadapt with the utterer’s mental world， the choices making is always adapted， whether tentatively or successfully， to the utterer’s assessment of what the mental world of the interpreter looks like. Thus judgments of the interpreter’s personality traits， emotional involvement， patterns of beliefs， wishes and desires， motivations and intentions， may all enter the picture. Obviously， it is completely impossible to take all these factors into account in such a way that communicative problems and conflicts can be completely avoided. The choice has to be made. The choice has to be made with respect to which interpreter’s assumed mental states the utterance should be most tuned in to.

For example， if it is known to both A and B that B is not having any class that will prevent him from going for the picnic， utterance （c） and （d） may interadapt with A’s mental world. In contrast， if A knows that B really has class on Sunday， saying （a） and （b） become more interadaptable with B’s mental state than （c） and （d）. Take another assumption， if A and B are very close friends， and A knows whether B likes picnic or not， utterance （a） may be received favorably. In addition， we can assume that A gets information from other people that B don’t like making friends with A， in this case， saying （d） represents B’s mind state suitably.

8. Xiao Li and Shan Shan are dormates， three days ago Xiao Li borrowed some money from Shan Shan. But she has not returned money to Shan Shan till now. Shan Shan says something to Xiao Li as follows：

姗姗：我特想买那件黄色的裙子， 但是钱不够了。

小丽：对了，我还没还你钱呢。

姗姗：对啊，太好了，我这下就有钱了。

In this case， Shan Shan begins the conversation with Xiao Li on such a topic maybe in order to remind Xiao Li to return the money she has borrowed. That is， Shan Shan’s utterance has the implicature that she hopes Xiao Li to return money because of short of money. If so， we can clearly see that Shan Shan’s implicature convey has been planned previously， so he language choice this time shows a higher degree of salience or consciousness. If Shan Shan says ： “不着急，你先拿着吧。” instead of saying ： “对啊， 太好了，我这下有钱了。”， her degree of salience will lowered.

9. 小强：准备去哪过暑假啊？

宋刚：首都。

In this case， we can say that Song Gang conveys an implicature that he is going to Beijing for holiday. Because both Xiao Qiang and Song Gang know that the capital of China is Beijing， Song Gang does not have any intention （For example， he does not want Xiao Qiang know where he will go.） while conveying such an implicature. Clearly ， Song Gang’s degree of salience or consciousness is lowest in this dialogue.

Although we can relatively tell the degrees of salience， salience cannot be measured precisely. Moreover， it is not necessary to determine degrees of salience for all processes in every instance of language use. There is， however， a need to take salience into account whenever its traces can be shown to reveal its relevance for an understanding of meaning generation in the data under investigation.

5. Conclusion

In the paper， by adopting the pragmatic perspective， linguistic adaptation model in particular， campus conversational implicatures are pragmatically analyzed as adaptation to the physical， social and mental elements in language use and language interpretation. Meanwhile， the adaptation is processed dynamically， and the medium of adaptation is salience.

外语天地

Pragmatic Analysis of Campus Conversational Implicature

[参考文献]

[1] Levinson， C. Stephen. Pragmatics. Beijing： Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press， 2001.

[2] Peccei. Stilwell Jean. Pragmatics. Beijing： Foreign Language Teaching & Research Press， 2000.

[3] Yule， George. Pragmatics. Shanghai： Foreign Language Teaching & Research Press， 2000.

[4] 戴炜栋 何兆熊. 新编简明英语语言学教程. 上海：外语教育出版社， 2002.

[5] 胡壮麟. 语言学教程. 北京：北京大学出版社， 2001.

（作者单位：陕西理工学院，陕西 汉中 723001）