Talk:Implicature

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Theoretical Linguistics, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to theoretical linguistics and theories of language on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

	Philosophy Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.
Additional information: Related task forces (major fields): Philosophy of language

Contents 1 Related 2 Old notice 3 Accuracy 4 What's really wanted

[edit] Related

The page was moved from Implication (pragmatics), and there had been already some discussion at Talk:Implication (pragmatics). The reason for moving it is, as stated there: implicature is the term used to refer to the special kind of inferences in natural language semantics & pragmatics, and they are special compared to the general idea of implication in mathematical logic.--Imz 19:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Old notice

This page has been Transwikied to Wiktionary. The transwiki process is complete.

[edit] Accuracy

Actually, what is written in the article is not correct, the content should be revised on the basis of some classical works on pragmatics (Grice) or some modern textbooks. For example, there are different classes of implicatures (as introduced by Grice), and the cancellability mentioned in the article is said to be a property of conversational implicatures, but not of conventional implicatures (see the article by Grice).--Imz 19:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

This is correct -- this article is wrong. I will re-write it when I get a chance. - Abscissa 04:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

In reply to your comment on my talk page: I have already pointed out one thing in my comment above: Grice used the word implicature in a more broad sense then just conversational implicature, but the properties the article lists are basically of the narrow class of conversational implicatures. Just compare what Grice writes with what is stated in the article. I think the modern usage of the word implicatureand the related words by linguists isn't in real conflict with how Grice outlined his system of notions.

Also, AFAIU the question of strictly defining what an implicature is is a rather vague question for the theory of formal semantics (as far as I remember, Grice basically says that he is going to give examples of some classes of implicatures, but that there is no guarantee this is all); the question of the relation of implicature to presupposition is hard. So, I htink, the article should refer to some definitions and explications that have been given by linguists in their works.--Imz 14:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, unfortunately I can't comment beyond Grice but I think that what's missing is the relationship between speakers. e.g. A: "Do you want any ice cream?" B: "It's 20 below freezing today!" The meaning of B's sentence requires A's question -- and there is the meaning of the words but also what is implied, i.e. "it's too cold for ice cream." Also, my background is philosophy, not linguistics... - Abscissa 23:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I would agree. One should always keep in mind the relationship between speakers when speaking about conversational implicatures, their nature. Otherwise strange conclusions might be made.--Imz 13:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I haven't see any reference to this in the context of Computational Linguistics, which would adhere more to a boolean definition of implicature than conversational implicature. Does anyone think this distinction worth including to assist with disambiguating Entailment_(pragmatics)? (FWIW, I'm a Ph.D. student in CL so my perspective may be admittedly skewed.) -- --Chrisirwin 02:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What's really wanted

? The factual accuracy of this article is disputed.

This is too brief to be blamed for "factual accuracy." What matters above all would be the content of this article, which at the moment is just better than nothing. What a shame, if no blame, to compare it with the referenced counterpart of Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy!

Another shame may be generosity to jargons or technical if not commercial terms such as "implicature," and "impliciture," which may better be marked by the "SEE" cross-reference to commonsensical or metalinguistic "implication," synonymous to connotation, intension, etc. as well. Minimal invention of synonyms should help maximal convention of words on which language bears. This would better be the ethical code of lignuists at least.

It appears immoral to unnecessarily invent such new words as "implicature" and "impliciture," and then necessarily make private scientific interest area, say, "implication," perhaps the best of similar encyclopedic entries. The scientist would like to invent new words, but the encylopedist should like to paraphrase them in metalanguage or critical observer's language to avoid becoming an advertising media for too many competing words. --ishiakkum 15:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

You say "unnecessarily invent such new words," but the point is that 'implication' has many dictionary definitions while implicaturee restricts definitions in a particular way. The "jargon" in this case reduces unnecessary imprecision. Thomasmeeks 14:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)