Conventional Implicatures in Ukrainian Discourse

Authors

  • Liliia Bezugla V.N. Karazin Kharkiv National University
  • Nataliia Govorukha V.N. Karazin Kharkiv National University
  • Sergiy Kryvoruchko V.N. Karazin Kharkiv National University
  • Olesya Malaya V.N. Karazin Kharkiv National University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1305.20

Keywords:

conventional implicatures, conversational implicature, dialogical discourse, implicature trigger

Abstract

The present study aims at the analysis of conventional implicatures (Grice, 1991) actualized in Ukrainian dialogical discourse. The distinction between conventional and conversational implicatures is described. We argue that what is commonly considered conventional implicature is in fact implicature only in discourse. Implicatures are inherently conversational because they are intended by the speaker and derived by the addressee in discourse. Therefore, it makes sense to regard conventional implicatures as such that are actualized not only in discursive context (such being the case with conversational implicatures), but by certain language means in virtue of their semantics. They serve as triggers allowing the addressee to derive implicature through its conventional meaning. Implicature triggers are culture-specific, since their semantics is determined by conventions of a particular natural language. Depending on language status of the trigger, conventional implicatures are divided into lexical, paroemiac and syntactic.

Author Biographies

Liliia Bezugla, V.N. Karazin Kharkiv National University

Department of German Philology and Translation

Nataliia Govorukha, V.N. Karazin Kharkiv National University

Department of German Philology and Translation

Sergiy Kryvoruchko, V.N. Karazin Kharkiv National University

Department of German Philology and Translation

Olesya Malaya, V.N. Karazin Kharkiv National University

Department of German Philology and Translation

References

Bach, K. (1999). The Myth of conventional implicature. Linguistics and Philosophy, 22, 327–366.

Bally, C. (1965). Linguistique gènèrale et linguistique française [General linguistics and French linguistics] (4th ed). Éditions Francke.

Davis, W. A. (2003). Meaning and implicature. In G. Meggle, C. Plunze (Eds.), Saying, Meaning, Implicating (pp. 120-132). Leipziger Universitätsverlag.

Fleischer, W. (1997). Phraseologie der deutschen Gegenwartssprache [Phraseology of contemporary German language]. Niemeyer Verlag.

Gazdar, G. J.M. (1979). Pragmatics: Implicature, Presupposition and Logical Form. Academic Press.

Grice, H. P. (1991). Studies in the Way of Words. Harvard University Press.

Karttunen, L. & Peters S. (1979). Conventional implicature. Syntax and Semantics, 11, 1–56.

Lyons, J. (1979). Semantics (Vol. 2). Cambridge University Press.

Levinson, S. C. (2001). Pragmatik [Pragmatics] (M. Wiese, Trans.). Niemeyer Verlag.

Liedtke, F. (1995). Das Gesagte und das Nicht-Gesagte: Zur Definition von Implikaturen [What is said and what is not said: On the definition of implicatures] (pp. 19-46). In F. Liedtke (Ed.), Implikaturen. Grammatische und pragmatische Analysen. Niemeyer Verlag.

Meggle, G. (1993). Kommunikation, Bedeutung und Implikatur. Eine Skizze [Communication, meaning and implicature. An outline] (pp. 483-507). In G. Meggle (Ed.), Handlung, Kommunikation, Bedeutung. Suhrkamp Verlag.

Meibauer, J. (2001). Pragmatik [Pragmatics]. Stauffenburg.

Rolf, E. (1994). Sagen und Meinen. Paul Grices Theorie der Konversations-Implikaturen [Utterance and meaning. Paul Grice’s theory of conversational implicatures]. Westdeutscher Verlag.

Rolf, E. (2013). Inferentielle Pragmatik: Zur Theorie der Sprecher-Bedeutung [Inferential Pragmatics: On theory of speaker’s meaning]. Erich Schmidt Verlag.

Sadock, J. M. (1974). Toward a Linguistic Theory of Speech Acts. Academic Press.

Searle, J. R. (1993). Intentionality. An essay in the philosophy of mind. Cambridge University Press.

Seyfert, G. (1978). Sprechakttheorie [Speech act theory] (pp. 134-186). In M. Braunroth, G. Seyfert & K. Siegel (Eds.), Ansätze und Aufgaben der linguistischen Pragmatik. Athenäum.

Stelmakh, M. (1973). Kum korolyu [Happy-go-lucky] (Vol. 6, pp. 464-499). In M. Stelmakh, Tvory v shesty tomakh. Vydavnytstvo Dnipro.

Zarudnyy, M. (1950). Vesna [The spring]. Derzhvydav.

Zarudnyy, M. (1971). Rym, 17, do zapytannya [Rome 17, poste restante] (pp. 565-618). In M. Zarudnyy, Оstriv tvoyeyi mriyi. Vydavnytstvo Dnipro.

Zarudnyy, M. (1976). Pid vysokymy zoryamy [Under high stars]. Vydavnytstvo Dnipro.

Zarudnyy, M. (1982a). Dorohy, yaki my vybyrayemo [Ways that we choose] (Vol. 4, pp. 295-350). In M. Zarudnyy, Tvory v choturiokh tomakh. Vydavnytstvo Dnipro.

Zarudnyy, M. (1982b). Nu i dity! [Children they are!] (Vol. 4, pp. 403-462). In M. Zarudnyy, Tvory v choturiokh tomakh. Vydavnytstvo Dnipro.

Zarudnyy, M. (1982c). Veselka [A rainbow] (Vol. 3, pp. 119-184). In M. Zarudnyy, Tvory v choturiokh tomakh. Vydavnytstvo Dnipro.

Downloads

Published

2023-05-01

Issue

Section

Articles