IMPLICATING/EXPLICATING, IMPLICATURE/EXPLICATURE, IMPLICATUM/EXPLICATUMOr how to split hairs in "RT".
by JL.
Consider
1. The table is too wide.
2. The table which is in the downstairs sitting room is
too wide to go thru
the door. (1 + Reference Assignment, Disambiguation
+ Enrichment = Truth conditions)
3. I suggest that 2. (2 + Illocutionary Force Indicator,
where the indicator is analysed in terms of
a meta-representation.
4. The speaker says that the table [which is in the downstairs
sitting-room] is too wide [to go through the door].
F. Yus writes,
"If I'm not wrong, explicatures are propositions WHICH ARE COMMUNICATED
explicitly. In other words, for me if (2) WAS communicated, then it would
turn into an explicature. Of course there are many cases in which (2) is NOT
communicated as an explicature (novel metaphors, many instances of irony,
non-assertive speech acts...). Consequently, for me (2) would only be the
proposition expressed by (1), and (4) would be an explicature of (1), and
NOT, as I have read several times already, (2) as the explicature of (1) and
(4) as a higher-level explicature of (1)."
I don't know if this will answer the question but will surely complicate
things nicely forya. Grice coined "implicature" as a nominalisation of
"impliacating" (or of "to implicate"), i.e. as a nominalisation of a VERB.
It is *utterers* who *implicate* this or that, not utterances themselves.
Recall, too, that no *words* (or "sayings") are necessary. Any utterance can
do (a finger sign, etc). See Grice, Studies in the Way of Words, p.216).
I believe the case with Wilson & Sperber's concoction of the "explicature"
is similar. No explicit linguistic utterances need be involved. Similarly,
"explicature" is, like "implicature", merely the handy nominalisation for
what is actually a process, or, perhaps more strictly speaking, a
propositional attitude (or meta-representation) which derives from an
inferential process. The utterer EXPLICATES this or that. So, I would
rephrase 4 as 5:
5. The utterer explicates that the table, which
is in the sitting room downstairs, is
too wide to go thru the door.
Deleting explicit mention of "speaker" and "saying" - qua general
illocutionary verb. Now, is 4 or 5 NECESSARY for an understanding of (1)? I
would think (4), or, as I prefer, (5), is merely a so-called representation
of RT (relevance theory), i.e. a theoretical construct, but not something
conversationalists need invoke. It is merely the VERBAL (or "agentive")
version of (2), as it were. So, while (2) would be the EXPLICATURE (or
EXPLICATUM. Cf. Grice on implicature vs. implicatum, Studies, p.24), (4),
or, as I prefer (5), would formulate that nominal version (2) into what is
strictly the primitive verbal version out of which (2) derives, i.e. where
it is the utterer (and not the "utterance") which implicates/explicates this
or that.
Best,
JL
BA Arg
======
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun May 20 2001 - 22:51:29 GMT