Are disimplicatures uncancellable?

Speranza

In this paper, the Gricean notion of explicit cancellability 1 is used as a testable characteristic, able to indicate different degrees of strength for different types of (ironic) implicatures. According to the definition adopted for this analysis, implicature strength is determined by the likelihood of retrieval of an implicature in a specific context and, essentially, by the degree of certainty that the hearer maintains about the correctness of the inferred interpretation. Ironic implicature strength is considered the product of various factors (“factors of implicature strength”), some of which are always present (such as the type and strength of assumptions on which a derivation is based), while others are optional and appear in tandem with specific irony strategies. Irony strategies are categorized into two general types (meaning reversal and meaning replacement), which are expected to show different degrees of implicature strength, being influenced by different factors. For the experimental testing of the hypotheses, subjects were presented with the task of judging the acceptability of the explicit cancellation of various implicated (ironic, as well as non-ironic) meanings. Findings show significant differences between irony types in terms of cancellability (measured as acceptability of cancellation – AC), under the influence of (i) type of syllogism and associated assumptions, (ii) co-textual cues, and (iii) humorous framing.

Keywords: irony; explicit cancellability; implicature strength; humorous framing; oxymoron

References

• Åkerman, Jonas. 2014. Infelicitous Cancellation: The Explicit Cancellability Test for Conversational Implicature Revisited. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 93(3). 465–474.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
• Attardo, Salvatore. 2000. Irony as relevant inappropriateness. Journal of Pragmatics 32. 793–826.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar
• Attardo, Salvatore, Jodi Eisterhold, Jennifer Hay & Isabella Poggi. 2003. Multimodal markers of irony and sarcasm. Humor 16(2). 243–260.Google Scholar
• Attardo, Salvatore, Christian Hempelmann & Sara Di Maio. 2002. Script oppositions and logical mechanisms: Modeling incongruities and their resolutions. Humor 15(1). 3–46.Google Scholar
• Blome-Tillmann, Michael. 2008. Conversational implicature and the cancellability test. Analysis 68. 156–160.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar
• Borge, Steffen. 2009. Conversational Implicatures and Cancellability. Acta Analytica 24(2). 149–154.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
• Burton-Roberts, Noel. 2006. Cancellation and intention. Newcastle Working Papers in Linguistics 12-13. 1–12.Google Scholar
• Burton-Roberts, Noel. 2013. Grice and cancellation. Journal of Pragmatics 48(1). 17–28.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
• Capone, Alessandro. 2003. On Grice’s circle (further considerations on the semantics/pragmatics debate). RASK: International Journal of Language and Communication 19. 1–29.Google Scholar
• Capone, Alessandro. 2009. Are explicatures cancellable?. Intercultural Pragmatics 6. 55–83.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
• Carston, R. 2010. Explicit communication and ‘free’ pragmatic enrichment. In B. Soria & E. Romero (eds.), Explicit Communication: Robyn Carston’s Pragmatics, 217–285. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
• Clark, Herbert. H. & Richard J. Gerrig. 1984. On the pretense theory of irony. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General113(1). 121–126.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
• Dahlman, Roberta. 2012. Conversatioal Implicatures are still cancellable. Acta Analytica 28. 321–327.Google Scholar
• Dynel, Marta. 2013. Irony from a neo-Gricean perspective: On untruthfulness and evaluative implicature. Intercultural Pragmatics 10(3). 403–431.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
• Feng, Guangwu. 2013. Speaker’s meaning and non-cancellability. Pragmatics and Cognition 21(1). 117–138.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
• Geurts, Bart. 2009. Scalar implicature and local pragmatics. Mind and language 24. 51–79.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
• Geurts, Bart. 2011. Quantity Implicatures. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
• Giora, Rachel. 1995. On irony and negation. Discourse Processes 19. 239–264.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
• Grice, Paul H. 1975. Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J.L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
• Grice, Paul H. 1978. Further notes on logic and conversation. In P. Cole (ed.), Syntax and Semantics 9: Pragmatics, 113–127. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
• Haugh, Michael. 2008. The place of intention in the interactional achievement of implicature. In I. Kecskes & J. Mey (eds.).), Intentions, Common Ground and Egocentric Speaker-Hearer, 45–87. Berlin Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
• Haugh, Michael. 2013. Implicature, inference and cancellability. In A. Capone, F. Lo Piparo & M. Carapezza (eds.), Perspectives on Pragmatics and Philosophy, 133–151. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
• Haugh, Michael & Kasia Jaszczolt. 2012. Speaker intentions and intentionality. In K. Allan & K.M. Jaszczolt (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics, 87–112. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
• Horn, Laurence R. 2004. Implicature. In L.R. Horn & G. Ward (eds.), The Handbook of Pragmatics, 3–28. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
• Horn, Laurence R. 2012. Implying and inferring. In K. Allan & K. Jaszczolt (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics, 69–86. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
• Jaszczolt, Kasia M. 1996. Relevance and infinity: Implications for discourse interpretation. Journal of Pragmatics 25. 703–722.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
• Jaszczolt, Kasia M. 2009. Cancellability and the Primary/Secondary Meaning Distinction. Intercultural Pragmatics 6. 259–289.Google Scholar
• Kapogianni, Eleni. 2011. Irony via “surrealism”. In M. Dynel (ed.), The Pragmatics of Humour Across Discourse Domains, 51–68. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
• Kapogianni, Eleni. 2013. Irony and the literal versus nonliteral distinction: A typological approach with focus on ironic implicature strength. PhD thesis, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
• Kapogianni, Eleni. 2015. The ironic operation: Revisiting the components of ironic meaning. Journal of Pragmatics 91. 16–28.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
• Kapogianni, Eleni. 2016. The Ironist’s Intentions: Communicative Priority and Manifestness. Pragmatics and Cognition 23. 150–173.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
• Katsos, Napoleon. 2008. The semantics/pragmatics interface from an experimental perspective: The case of scalar implicature. Synthese 165. 385–401.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
• Kothoff, Helga. 2003. Responding to irony in different contexts: On cognition in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 35. 1387–1411.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
• Larson, Meredith, Ryan Doran, Yaron McNabb, Rachel Baker, Matthew Berends, Alex Djalali & Gregory Ward. 2009. Distinguishing the said from the implicated using a novel experimental paradigm. In U. Sauerland & K. Yatsushiro (eds.), Semantics and Pragmatics. From Experiment to theory, 75–93. New York: Palgrave-Macmillan.Google Scholar
• Partington, Alan. 2011. Phrasal irony, its form, function and exploitation. Journal of Pragmatics 43(6). 1786–1800.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar
• Sadock, Jerrold M. 1991. On testing for conversational implicature. In S. Davis (ed.), Pragmatics: A reader, 365–376. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Originally published in P. Cole (ed.) 1978. Syntax and semantics 9: Pragmatics, 281-297. New York: Academic Press.].Google Scholar
• Sanders, Robert E. 2013. The duality of speaker meaning: What makes self-repair, insincerity and sarcasm possible. Journal of Pragmatics 48. 112–122.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
• Saul, Jennifer M. 2002. Speaker meaning, what is said and what is implicated. Noûs 36.2. 228–248.Google Scholar
• Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson. 1981. Irony and the use-mention distinction. In P. Cole (ed.), Radical Pragmatics, 295–318. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
• Sperber, Dan. & Deirdre Wilson. 1986/1995. Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
• Weiner, Matthew. 2006. Are all conversational implicatures cancellable?. Analysis 66. 127–130.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
• Wilson, Deirdre & Dan Sperber. 1992. On verbal irony. Lingua 87. 53–76.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
• Wilson, Deirdre & Dan Sperber. 2012. Meaning and Relevance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
• Yus, Francisco. 2000. On reaching the intended ironic interpretation. International Journal of Communication 10(1-2). 27–78.Google Scholar
• Ziegeler, Debra. 2000. What almost can reveal about counterfactual inferences. Journal of Pragmatics 32. 1743–1776.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

About the article