The Cognitive Function of Implicature

【Abstract】CP is one of the major theories in pragmatics， it can make a conversation going smoothly， and it can also make a discourse coherent， which is the function of CP. However， with the development of the cognitive linguistics， we can use the theory of cognitive linguistics to explain the function of CP. In this thesis， we will talk about the cognitive function of Grices Cooperative Principle and its Implicature.

【Key words】CP; Implicature; Cognitive Linguistics; ICM

【作者簡介】崔寧寧（1982.03-），女，山東東營人，中國石油大學(xué)勝利學(xué)院，中級(jí)，碩士研究生，研究方向：英語語言文學(xué)。

1. Introduction?

Cognitive linguistics refers to the linguistic school， born in 70s of 20th century. The cognitive linguistics proposed many theories， such as experiment， categorization， conceptualization， ICM， and metaphor. According to ICM – ideal cognitive model， the speaker can abstract a generalized understanding of the environment from his or her experiences and knowledge of certain fields; and the generalized understanding is stored in the mind and becomes conventional models of examining the world.

H. P. Grice proposed Cooperative Principle in his lectures in 1967 to explain how people used language. The word “implicature” was coined by Grice. Usually， people are expected to follow certain rules when they communicate with each other， and Grice defined the rules as Cooperative Principle， but in daily conversation people usually violate CP and say something that is not relevant to the conversation; this kind of conversation is not considered to be abnormal but to be logical， because the listener can refer to his or her cognition to infer what the conversational implicature is， and then make the conversation pragmatically coherent.

In this paper， we will use the theory of ICM to explain Grices conversational implicature.

2. The Cognitive Function of Implicature

CP consists of four maxims， and in order to make a conversation， one has to follow these rules. When the speaker violates some rules， he or she is considered to make conversational implicature. According to ICM， the listener can decide what the speakers real purpose is. In this case， the conversation is not disrupted by the violation but is still meaningful and smooth.

2.1 Quantity

According to the first maxim---quantity， one has to limit his or her speech to necessary information; and what he or she says should not conclude more information than it is necessary; in addition， he or she should not make his or her speech less informative than it should be. However， people usually violate this maxim to make their speech more informative or less informative. In this case， the listener knows that the speaker is making conversational implication; and then， the listener will refer to his or her ICM to draw the generalized rule of conversation; finally， according his or her life experiences， he or she can decide what the speaker is implying.

The first type of violation of Quantity is over informative. For example， A and B is talking about Cathy.

（A has not seen Cathy for several years， one day he meets Cathys sister in the street.）

A： How is Cathy these days？

B： Oh， she is well. She has found a good job， and the salary is satisfactory; two years ago， she married to a salesman， and now she is the mother of two boys. She says that she can buy a new car a week later…

A intends to ask the recent condition of Cathy; what he wants to know is whether she is fine or not. In this case， B violates the maxim of Quantity by making her speech more informative. As a result， A may refer to his life experience to find what Bs purpose is by telling him so much about Cathy， and then A may feel B is gabbing; or B wants to say something to make the relationship between them much closer.

From the example， we can conclude that even though the speaker does not answer the questions properly， the listener can still infer what the speaker is talking about， and this inference is based on the listeners ICM. As a result， though the conversational structure is not coherent， the pragmatic meaning is obvious， which is received by the cognitive function of conversational implicature.

2.2 Quality

The second maxim of CP requires that the speaker must speak something correctly; in addition， what the speaker says should be based on adequate evidence so that to make the conversation understandable. Otherwise， conversational implicature appears.

A： Would you like to join us for the picnic on Sunday？

B： Im afraid I have got a class on Sunday.

It is obvious that Bs answer is not satisfying because it seems that he or she does not answer As question. Thus， according to CP， the conversation is not a successful one. However， it is not the case that people always answer what they are asked directly. If people are reluctant to do what they are required to do， they may say something vague to indicate that they are unwilling to follow the requirement， just like the example above. In order to understand the indicative meaning or implicature of an utterance， the hearer has to turn to his or her cognition for help. In this circumstance， the hearer may think about the utterance， and he or she may find that the speaker is expected to answer the question directly; however， instead of answering the question， the speaker say something irrelevant to the question. As a result， the hearer may think that the speaker has a sound mind and he or she can answer the question correctly， but why does he or she says something irrelevant to the question？ And then， the hearer may recall his or her experiences from his ICM to indicate what the speakers real intention is; that is， by saying so， the speaker indicate that he or she does not want to go to the picnic on Sunday. In this case， the seemingly irrelevant conversation is not considered an unsuccessful one， because through the hearers ICM， he can infer the speakers real intention. Therefore， the conversation is still fluent and understandable.

From the example we can infer that though the conversation seems to be not coherent sometimes， the hearer can still determine the implicature of the speaker through his or her cognition， and make the conversation smoothly.

2.3 Relation

People must make their utterance relevant to the conversation; otherwise the conversation will not go on， and in this case， people have to understand the conversation through the conversational implicature.

Look at Grices example.

A： （at a tea party） Mrs. X is an old bag.

（A moment of appalled silence）

B： The weather has been quite delightful this summer， hasnt it？

The conversation is seemingly irrelevant， but if one refers to his or her cognition， he or she will find that B is making a conversational implicature.

A is not polite to say that “Mrs. X is an old bag” at a party， and As impoliteness causes embarrassment in the party. At the moment， B talks about weather to change the topic. It is obvious that B knows what A is talking about， but B thinks that it is not polite for A to say so， as a result， B says something irrelevant to the conversation to indicate that A has committed a social gaffe， and should stop the discussion. Therefore， though Bs utterance is not related to the conversation， it is pragmatically meaningful. From the implicature， A may be aware of his or her impoliteness and behave properly.

Referring to ICM， A realizes the situation. In this case， the seemingly irrelevant conversation is pragmatically going well.

2.4 Manner

According to CP， when one makes an utterance， he or she has to avoid obscurity and ambiguity， and to make the utterance brief and orderly.

Take “屢敗屢戰(zhàn)” for example. It results from the Chinese phrase “屢戰(zhàn)屢敗”. Though the words are the same， the change of the order changes the meaning of the phrase. As for “屢戰(zhàn)屢敗”， it indicates that the army is not qualified and defeated in every battle; however， “屢敗屢戰(zhàn)” means that though the army is defeated， they still fight with the enemy bravely. The effect of the two expressions is opposite. On hearing “屢戰(zhàn)屢敗”， the emperor may be angry and kill the general of the army; however， on hearing “屢敗屢戰(zhàn)”， the emperor may praise the bravery of the army. The change of the word order changes the hearers impression. What is more， “屢敗屢戰(zhàn)” gives a sense of humor.

To sum up， different effects are caused by the change of word order. In addition， the change of word order results in conversational implicature. As long as we realize the implicature， we will understand the meaning of the conversation. Therefore， the conversation is still pragmatically going well.

3. Conclusion

Grice has defined the cooperative principle in 1967 to explain that in daily communication people have to follow certain rules to make the conversation fluent and meaningful. However， in daily life people do not always follow those rules， and they even violate those rules on purpose to imply something. In this case， the conversation has implicature. If the hearer wants to know the utterance of the speaker， he or she has to refer to his or her ICM for help; and then， according the life experiences， he or she realizes what the speaker is really talking about. As a result， the irrelevant utterances in the conversation are pragmatically meaningful. Thus， we say the conversational discourse which violates CP is pragmatically coherent because of the implicature it creates.

To conclude， through ICM， the hearer can realize the implicature. Thus the seemingly irrelevant conversational discourse is still pragmatically meaningful.

References：

[1]Brown G﹠Yule G. Discourse Analysis[M]. London： Cambridge University Press，1983.

[2]Halliday， M. A. K.﹠R. Husan. Cohesion in English[J]. London： Longman，1976.

[3]Lakoff， G. Women， Fire， and Dangerous Things： What Categories Reveal about the Mind[M]. Chicago： University of Chicago Press， 1987.

[4]戴煒棟.新編簡明英語語言學(xué)教程[M].上海：上海外語教育出版社，2002.

[5]胡壯麟.語篇的銜接與連貫[M].上海：上海外語教育出版社，1994.

[6]黃國文.語篇分析的理論與實(shí)踐[M].上海：上海外語教育出版社， 2001.

[7]苗興偉.關(guān)聯(lián)理論對(duì)語篇連貫性的解釋力[J].外語教學(xué)與研究， 1999.