A Grammar of Catalan Sign Language (LSC)

Conversational implicatures are very much connected to the conversational maxims and the cooperative principle. Conversational maxims are a set of rules that interlocutors generally follow, and expect each other to follow, and without which the conversation would not be possible. These rules are embedded in the single overarching cooperative principle that requires to “make your contribution as is required, when it is required, by the conversation in which you are engaged.” Each of the maxims covers one aspect of linguistic interaction and describes what is expected from a cooperative signer with respect to that maxim (maxim of quantity, quality, relevance and manner). Frequently the maxims are not followed in purpose with the aim of wanting the receiver to generate a conversational implicature. Below an example of a context in which each maxim is flouted is shown, with the presentation of the context, the example, and a brief explanation of the corresponding descriptive meaning, the implicatum and the maxim that it flouted.

 

 

 

a)     Context: A professor is about to enter a class, but he realises that the buttons of his shirt are broken.

 

A: now ix₁ go class break buttons. ‘Now I have to go to class and the buttons (of my shirt) are broken!’

B: worry-not. ix₁ sew as. ‘Do not worry. I am a very good at sewing.’

 

Descriptive meaning: Do not worry. I am very good at sewing.

Implicatum: I can help you by sewing the buttons of your shirt.

Maxim of relation is flouted.

 

 

b)    Context: They have just hired a new employee that a colleague already knows. When he is asked about his opinion he answers:

 

A: ix₃ work colleague new ix₃. ix₃ ex ix₂ work colleague. good? ‘He is the new work colleague. He was a former colleague of your, right? How was he?’

B: well, work together duration short. before work interrupt+++ move-different-places. now next-turn let’s-see. ‘Well… we work together for a short period. Before he had worked in many different places but not finished the work. This is his next work place, let’s see…’.

 

Descriptive meaning: We worked together for a short period; he worked shortly in other places without finishing all the work.

Implicatum: He is not a very dedicated worker.

Maxim of manner is flouted.

 

 

 

c)     Context: There has been a meeting with the new president who is hearing. When she is asked how was the meeting she answers:

 

A: meeting ix₃ president person hearing well? ‘How was the meeting with the new hearing president?’

B: ix_3-1 communication best ability. ‘Oh! The communication between the two of us was super good. He’s many skills!’

 

Descriptive meaning: Communication was very good.

Implicatum: He’s hearing and he does not use sign language. Therefore, communication was very difficult.

Maxim of quality is flouted.

 

 

 

d)    Context: A is planning with B an itinerary for a holiday in France. They want to visit their mutual friend Jordi, if to do so would not involve too great a prolongation of their journey.

 

A: trip let’s-go france let’s-go. ‘Let’s go to France on a trip!’

B: yes. take-advantage jordi visit. where? ‘Yes! And let’s visit Jordi on the way. Where (does he live)?’

A: look-like south area. ‘Somewhere in the south.’

 

Descriptive meaning: Somewhere in the South of France.

Implicatum: B does not know where Jordi lives exactly.

Maxim of quantity is flouted.

 

 

There are some tests that characterize conversational implicatures in general, namely cancellability, reinforceability, non-detachability, and calculability. Below each test is defined and illustrated with and example in LSC.

 

Cancellability: the sender adds some lexical content to the utterance that entails the negation of the implicature. Below the implicature of the second utterance is that ‘most but not all players’ did a horrible job. However, with the last statement this implicature is negated with the more informative lexical item all.

 

 

 

 

A: yesterday match against madrid barcelona how? ‘How was the Madrid against Barcelona match yesterday?’

B: shame. most them players person++ barcelona horrible. wait, no. reality all horrible. ‘What a shame! Most Barcelona players did a horrible job. No, wait! Indeed, all did a    horrible job.’

 

Reinforceability: The sender implicates the extra information and then, if it seems important, adds some information to make sure that the conversational partner gets the point. Implicatures can be reinforced without redundancy, as shown in (a) as opposed to reinforcement of entailments, that leads to redundancy, as shown in (b), where eighty percent refers in fact to most of the answers.

 

 

 

 

a)     cristina woman ix₃ yesterday test type most answer, but last answer nothing.

‘Yesterday Cristina replied most answers in the test, but the last one she didn’t reply.’

 

 

b)    yesterday test woman cristina type most answer, reality approximately eighty percent.

‘Yesterday Cristina replied most answers in the test, in fact (she replied) approximately eighty percent’.

 

Non-detachability: Implicatures are not lexically triggered. That is, implicatures cannot be blamed on the meaning of particular words or signs that occur in the sentence. Implicatures are “non-detachable”: producing a synonymous utterance does not remove the implicature. The three instances below show different utterances with all sharing the same implicature: ‘please, close the door’.

 

 

 

a)     Context: Signer looking at the door open.

            feel cold.

 ‘It’s cold (in here).’

 

 

b)    Context: Door is open.

please door.

‘Please, (close) the door’.

 

 

 

c)     Context: Signer looking a bit upset.

door open again.

‘The door is open again.’

 

The final test is calculability, which refers to the fact that the addressee should be able to infer the implicatures of an utterance.

 

 

A: time? ‘What time is it?’

B: see already leave secretary woman. ‘The secretary already left.’

 

A goes through the following reasoning:

     -B would be flouting the maxim of relevance unless she thinks there is a time in which the secretary always leaves.

-B is abiding the cooperative principle.

-therefore, B is not flouting the maxim of relevance.

-B must think that the time the secretary leaves tells something about the time it is now since she may always leave at the same time.

 

The most distinguished kind of implicatures are scalar implicatures, which are often connected to lists of lexical items ordered by entailment and informativity, such as for example <all, most, many, some, few>, <and, or>, <always, often, sometimes>. Scalar implicatures attribute an implicit meaning beyond the literal meaning of an utterance, which suggests that the sender had a reason for not using a more informative term on the scale. The choice of the weaker term suggests that none of the stronger items in the scale hold. This is shown below in the use of ‘some’ to suggest the implicit meaning ‘not all’. The lexical item some triggers the conversational implicature that ‘not all professors in the faculty are dedicated to sign language’. 

 
          ix₂ know faculty pompeu_fabra ix, professors some focus lsc.

          ‘At the faculty, some of the professors are dedicated to LSC.’

 

          Descriptive meaning: some of the professors are dedicated to sign language

          Conversational implicature: Not all professors are dedicated to sign language