| Revision as of 18:54, 24 October 2008 editAmericanlinguist (talk | contribs)103 edits ←Created page with 'In ''pragmatics, '''scalar implicature''' (also known as a '''Quantity implicature''') is an inference that attributes an implicit meaning that goes beyond the ...' | Revision as of 18:54, 24 October 2008 edit undoOchib (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,354 editsmNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{db-nonsense}} | |||
| In ''], '''scalar implicature''' (also known as a '''Quantity implicature''') is an inference that attributes an implicit meaning that goes beyond the explicit or literal meaning of an utterance, and which suggests that the utterer had a reason for not using a more informative term on the same 'scale'. Thus the choice of a weaker element from a scale of elements ordered in terms of semantic strength suggests that, as far as the speaker knows, none of the stronger elements in the scale holds. This is commonly seen in the use of 'some' to suggest the meaning 'not all', even though 'some' is logically consistent with 'all'. If Bill says 'I have some of my money in cash', this suggests to a hearer (though it does not logically imply) that Bill does not have all his money in cash. | In ''], '''scalar implicature''' (also known as a '''Quantity implicature''') is an inference that attributes an implicit meaning that goes beyond the explicit or literal meaning of an utterance, and which suggests that the utterer had a reason for not using a more informative term on the same 'scale'. Thus the choice of a weaker element from a scale of elements ordered in terms of semantic strength suggests that, as far as the speaker knows, none of the stronger elements in the scale holds. This is commonly seen in the use of 'some' to suggest the meaning 'not all', even though 'some' is logically consistent with 'all'. If Bill says 'I have some of my money in cash', this suggests to a hearer (though it does not logically imply) that Bill does not have all his money in cash. | ||
Revision as of 18:54, 24 October 2008
| This article may meet Misplaced Pages's criteria for speedy deletion as a page that is patent nonsense, consisting purely of incoherent text or gibberish with no meaningful content or history. This does not include poor writing, coherent vandalism and hoaxes (G3), coherent material not written in English, badly translated material, etc. This criterion also does not apply to pages in the user namespace. See CSD G1.%5B%5BWP%3ACSD%23G1%7CG1%5D%5D%3A+%5B%5BWP%3APN%7CPatent+nonsense%5D%5D%2C+meaningless%2C+or+incomprehensibleG1
If this article does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. If you created this page and you disagree with the given reason for deletion, you can click the button below and leave a message explaining why you believe it should not be deleted. You can also visit the talk page to check if you have received a response to your message. Note that this article may be deleted at any time if it unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria, or if an explanation posted to the talk page is found to be insufficient.
Note to administrators: this article has content on its talk page which should be checked before deletion. Administrators: check links, talk, history (last), and logs before deletion. Consider checking Google.This page was last edited by Ochib (contribs | logs) at 18:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC) (16 years ago) |
In pragmatics, scalar implicature (also known as a Quantity implicature) is an inference that attributes an implicit meaning that goes beyond the explicit or literal meaning of an utterance, and which suggests that the utterer had a reason for not using a more informative term on the same 'scale'. Thus the choice of a weaker element from a scale of elements ordered in terms of semantic strength suggests that, as far as the speaker knows, none of the stronger elements in the scale holds. This is commonly seen in the use of 'some' to suggest the meaning 'not all', even though 'some' is logically consistent with 'all'. If Bill says 'I have some of my money in cash', this suggests to a hearer (though it does not logically imply) that Bill does not have all his money in cash.
As with pragmatic inference generally, such inferences are defeasible or cancellable, which distinguishes them from entailment, and they are nondetachable (pragmatics), which distinguishes them from conventional implicatures.
Paul Grice attempt to explain these implicatures in terms of the Maxim of Quantity, according to which one is to be just as informative as required. The idea is that if the speaker were in a position to make the stronger statement, he would have. Since he did not, he must believe that the stronger statement is not true.