Literal vs. Nonliteral Communication: Degrees of Explicitness

Literal Versus Nonliteral Communication

A: Fancy a whisky?

B: I am a muslim.

B explicitly communicates I AM A FOLLOWER OF THE MUSLIM RELIGION.

B implicitly communicates I DON’T FANCY A WHISKY (BECAUSE IT’S ALCOHOLIC AND MUSLIMS DON’T DRINK ALCOHOL).

The more implicit communication is, the more risky it is. If you say “No, thank you” it’s easier to understand than if you say “I am a muslim”. So... Why engage in implicit communication at all? Needless to say, on many occasions one would not be able to provide the same quality and quantity of information unless one chose an implicit utterance.

Disambiguation

- Retired priest may marry Bruce Springsteen. Senses:

1. A retired priest may perform Bruce’s wedding ceremony
2. A retired priest may become the spouse of Bruce

Source of ambiguity: lexical ambiguity from multiple meanings of “marry”. But common sense knowledge makes (1) a more likely interpretation.

Explicit Communication

Max: How was the party? Did it go well?

Amy: There wasn’t enough drink and everyone left early. Implicates... The party did not go well. But contextualisation is also needed to get the explicit interpretation of Amy’s utterance:

• drink specifically “alcoholic drinks”
• everyone specifically “everyone at the party”
• early depends on what is commonly assumed to be “early” for parties

Degrees of Explicitness

The more information is coded, the more explicit an utterance is. As the speaker leaves more information not coded, the interlocutor will have to work harder to compensate for the lack of codification, and takes more responsibility in the eventual correct understanding. The more explicit, the easier to understand. Sometimes it is not hard to understand the less explicit because the hearer receives the same interpretation from all the answers and possibilities.

Degrees of Implicitness

The more contextual information is needed to derive the implicature, the more implicit an interpretation is. As the speaker demands more contextual information to be accessed, the interlocutor will have to work harder to obtain the implicature, and takes more responsibility in the eventual correct understanding. The less the speaker supports the implicatures, intends to communicate them and takes responsibility for them, the weaker the implicature is. There is distinction between implicatures (strong, intended by the speaker) and implications (weak, not intended by the speaker, and extracted by the hearer).