Analysis Of Herbert Paul Korta's Implicature?

980 Words 4 Pages
‘Implicature is a component of speaker meaning that constitutes an aspect of what is meant in a speaker’s utterance without being part of what is said’ (Horn 2006: 3). Broadly speaking, what speaker intends to say is definitely richer than what he directly expresses. This term means the literal sense and non-literal sense of utterance (Horn 2006: 3).
Herbert Paul Grice focused on what is said, what particular words mean, what the speaker wants to convey, what the speaker really conveys. Korta easily explained it by inviting someone for a lunch. Invited person replied him in indirect way using words: ` I have a one o'clock class I'm not prepared for` (Korta 2015). He did not have to answer that way, he could also use other words what would have
…show more content…
This co-operative principle and four maxims were stated by Paul Grice, mentioned by Yule, ‘make your conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged` (Yule 2010: 147). There are four ‘Gricean maxims’ which supports co-operative principle: the Quantity maxim – to inform in an amount adequate to the purpose of the conversation, not to make it more informative as it is required, the Quality maxim- to give true information, the Relation maxim – to be relevant, and the Manner maxim- to say something clearly and understandable (Yule 2010: …show more content…
It will be analysed on the basic of designing statements. First of all, when the speaker wants to make a sentence, he has to take into consideration the fact whether the hearer knows e.g. a person or a thing that he would like to talk about. The speaker assumes that the hearer will be able to understand utterance. Sometimes assumptions are wrong but in most cases they are appropriate. Presupposition is described as those things, that the writer or speaker assumes as known by the reader or hearer. When you ask someone ‘When did you stop smoking?’, in the question will be involved two presuppositions: you used to smoke and you stopped doing it. Such useful questions which involved assumptions (answers) are often used by lawyers (Yule 2010: 133). Stalnaker, who was mentioned by Horn,

Related Documents