I really enjoyed watching this ,your way of explaining the information is way better than reader a long book,but I will really appreciate it if you share with me the source of this information.
You've such good content! And I feel when it shouldn't be "violated" for the cinema example, instead it should've been "flouted"... as both are aware of the context. While violating would imply that the speaker is the only one who knows they've not followed the rule
the implicature is that when B said no I thought id go naked today he meant well ofcourse I will wear it what else can I wear. and maybe this flouts the maxim of manner and relevance. I hope im right lol. Thank you for the awesome easy to understand video !! 😊
I think the type of implicature is particular conversational implicature where B implied that he will not wear the outfit but rather go naked Please correct me
Thank you for sharing this video :) In your last dialogue, more than one of the maxims seem to be flouted. Firstly, the maxim of relevance is flouted since on the surface, B's answer does not seem to be appropriate. Then, the maxim of quantity: since either a yes or no (rather a yes in this case) is expected, and a (n unnecessarily) longer answer is given instead. And finally, the maxim of quality as B is deliberately lying. All this helps us draw the conclusion (or infer!) that A is either not particularly keen on this kind of garment, or that he/she finds it unsuitable for the occasion in question. Please feel free to correct me if I have made a mistake. I would appreciate it. Thank you :)
+Leipzigist Interesting analysis! I wouldn't go as far as saying that the maxim of quantity has been flouted in B's utterance, because both Yes or No are within the range of the preferred response (No actually seems to be the preferred response), and because we're not dealing with an amount of information that is too difficult to process, thus hindering communication. The implicatures you suggest for A's utterances are both valid, and you'd need to hear the intonation to be able to tell which of the two is more likely. But essentially, bringing up the question of seriousness makes it more likely for the implicature to be +> "I find this piece of clothing inappropriate". We would thus have to consider a breach of the maxim of relevance, because there is a strong chance that B is wearing the outfit already. I would also argue that from B's utterance we can conclude that he/she is taking offence of that comment. But instead of saying "I disagree with your taste in fashion, you're stupid, go away!', B wraps all these possible comebacks into his/her actual utterance, and through breach of the maxim of manner/quality implicates that the premise of the question is moronic (and thus deserves a moronic answer). To a certain degree, all of this is guesswork, and we'd need more contextual clues to come to a more reliable conclusion. To be fair, this is quite a lazy and uninspired example on my part, and a picture might have disambiguated a lot. The important thing, though, is to argue within the boundaries of the theoretical framework.
+Phloneme Thank you for replying :) Your analysis has opened my eyes a bit more :) I love analysing discourse though I find Grice's maxims a bit harder to analyse sometimes, especially when I think all of the maxims are flouted. More often than not I am in doubt as to whether the maxim of quality or relevance is flouted. I'm having my linguistics exam soon and it's getting a bit on my nerves not to be able to detect which maxim has been flouted. Do you think you can recommend any guidelines I can follow? Or you have a website of your own?
+Leipzigist Hm, I don't have a website or a guideline or anything, but from personal experience I would say that the maxim of quality is a strong contender for being violated (lying, hedging and irony are extremely common), so just look out for that. If something just seems awkward or inappropriate (being impolite, acting weird...) that's most a case of the maxim of manner being breached. The quantity maxim is concerned with the physical amount of information in an utterance and how processable it is, and relevance... well, if something is not a viable second pair for an adjacency pair, that'd be a violation of the maxim of relevance. Just keep in mind that Grice's maxims are a very rigid system of categories, and I dare say that 4 self-contained maxims are not enough to detect everything, so there are bound to be overlaps. For instance, I would say that an extremely lengthy and grammatical convoluted sentence violates both the maxim of quantity and the maxim of manner, but that also depends on the context: What has been said before, who the speakers are, which setting they're in, etc.
+Phloneme I really appreciate your time and will to help me out :) I'll take yours as a model analysis for my exam. Pity you have no website. Your explanations are all crystal clear. Keep it up! Greetings from Argentina.
I have a questions if anyone could help me to solve them Q/ Name the conversational implicature in each of the following 1- A and B are sitting in the room A asks B A : Do you watching this? B response by changing the channel on the TV 2-A where can I get fresh fruit here? B there is a daily market in the square 3-A Do you have a rolling pin I can borrow? B sorry I don’t bake 4- what quality does Jack have for this position? B Jack has a nice hand writing
Hi! I'm having a semantic exam tomorrow and currently revised my knowledge by watching from RU-vid video. So from your questions, I can conclude, 1) B shows the Maxim of Manner where his response to A shows a manner by changing the channel on the TV. 2) B follows the Maxim of Relevance. B has answered the questions given by A. 3) B has not followed/flouts the Maxim of Relevance. +> B said he don't bake +> If B said he don't bake it means he doesnt response to what A is asking for. 4) B has not followed/violates the Maxim of Relevance. +> B is not answering to A question +> When B said Jack has a nice handwriting, he doesnt response to A questions. I'm sorry im not sure also. I hope someone can correct me as I'm also curious for an exact answer.
B is (particular implicature) Flouting the maxim of Quality (the implied meaning is achieved). He is having banter (expresses a negative sentiment and implies a positive). It could be said, 'contradiction to the reality'. correct me, Please!
