Philosophy Pragmatics Questions Long
In Carston's pragmatics, implicature plays a crucial role in understanding the meaning of utterances beyond their literal interpretation. Implicature refers to the additional meaning that is conveyed indirectly or implicitly through the use of language. It involves the inferences made by the listener based on the context, shared knowledge, and the speaker's intentions.
Carston's approach to implicature is influenced by the Gricean theory of implicature proposed by philosopher H.P. Grice. Grice argued that communication is a cooperative activity, and speakers and listeners have certain expectations and assumptions about how conversation should proceed. He identified four maxims of conversation: the maxim of quantity (be as informative as required), the maxim of quality (be truthful), the maxim of relation (be relevant), and the maxim of manner (be clear and concise).
Carston builds upon Grice's theory by introducing the concept of explicature and explicature-driven implicature. Explicature refers to the explicit meaning of an utterance, which is derived from the linguistic form and the conventional meaning of the words used. It represents the information that is directly encoded in the sentence.
However, Carston argues that explicature alone is often insufficient to fully understand the intended meaning of an utterance. This is where implicature comes into play. Implicature arises when the speaker goes beyond the explicit meaning and conveys additional information indirectly. It involves the listener's ability to make inferences based on the context, background knowledge, and the speaker's communicative intentions.
Carston proposes that implicature is driven by the process of pragmatic enrichment. Pragmatic enrichment refers to the listener's ability to enrich the explicit meaning of an utterance by drawing on their knowledge of the world, the context, and the speaker's intentions. This process involves the recognition of various contextual factors, such as presuppositions, implicatures, and the overall coherence of the discourse.
According to Carston, implicatures can be categorized into two types: generalized and particularized implicatures. Generalized implicatures are based on general conversational principles and are applicable in most contexts. For example, if someone says, "I have some apples," the generalized implicature would be that they have more than one apple.
On the other hand, particularized implicatures are context-specific and depend on the specific circumstances of the conversation. For example, if someone says, "I have some apples," and it is known that they are at a grocery store, the particularized implicature would be that they are referring to the apples they intend to purchase.
In Carston's pragmatics, implicature plays a crucial role in understanding the intended meaning of utterances. It allows for the enrichment of explicit meaning and helps bridge the gap between what is said and what is meant. By considering implicatures, listeners can go beyond the literal interpretation of language and grasp the speaker's intended message, taking into account the context, shared knowledge, and the speaker's communicative intentions.