Page 114 - 6688

114
Particularized conversational implicatures
Іn the preceding examples, the implicatures have been calculated without special
knowledge of any particular context. However, most of the time, our conversations take place
in very specific con-texts in which locally recognized inferences are assumed. Such inferences
are required to work out the conveyed meanings which result from particularized
conversational implicatures. As an illustra-on, consider example [І6], where Tom's response
does not appear on the surface to adhere to relevance. (A simply relevant answer would be
'Yes' or 'No'. )

[І6] Rick: Hey, coming to the wild party tonight?
Tom: My parents are visiting.
In order to make Tom's response relevant, Rick has to draw on some assumed knowledge that
one college student in this setting expects another to have. Tom will be spending that evening
with his parents, and time spent with parents is quiet (consequently +> Tom not at party).
Because they are by far the most common, particularized con-versational implicatures are
typically just called implicatures. A further example, in which the speaker appears not to adhere
to (i. e. to 'flout') the maxim of manner, is presented in [17].
[17] Ann: Where are you going with the dog?
Sam: TotheV-E-T.
In the local context of these speakers, the dog is known to re-cognize the word 'vet', and to
hate being taken there, so Sam pro-duces a more elaborate, spelled out (i. e. less brief)
version of his message, implicating that he doesn't want the dog to know the answer to the
question just asked.
In [І8], Leila has just walked into Mary's office and noticed all the work on her desk. Mary's
response seems to flout the maxim of relevance.
[І8] Leila: Whoa! Has your boss gone crazy?
Mary: Let's go get some coffee.
In order to preserve the assumption of cooperation, Leila will have to infer some local reason
(for example, the boss may be nearby) why Mary makes an apparently non-relevant remark.
The implicature here is essentially that Mary cannot answer the question in that context.
In addition to these fairly prosaic examples of implicatures, there are other more entertaining
examples, as in [19] and [20], where the responses initially appear to flout relevance.
[19] Bert: Do you like ice-cream?
Ernie: Is the Pope Catholic?

[2o] Bert: Do vegetarians eat hamburgers?
Ernie: Do chickens have lips?
In [19], Ernie's response does not provide a 'yes' or 'no' answer. Bert must assume that Ernie is
being cooperative, so he considers Ernie's 'Pope' question and clearly the answer is 'Yes'. So,
the answer is known, but the nature of Ernie's response also impli-cates that the answer to the
question was 'Obviously, yes!'. An additional conveyed meaning in such a case is that,
because the answer was so obvious, the question did not need to be asked. Example [20]
provides the same type of inferencing with an answer 'Of course not!' as part of the implicature.

Properties of conversational implicatures
So far, all the implicatures we have considered have been situated within conversation,
with the inferences being made by people who hear the utterances and attempt to maintain the