SlideShare verwendet Cookies, um die Funktionalität und Leistungsfähigkeit der Webseite zu verbessern und Ihnen relevante Werbung bereitzustellen. Wenn Sie diese Webseite weiter besuchen, erklären Sie sich mit der Verwendung von Cookies auf dieser Seite einverstanden. Lesen Sie bitte unsere Nutzervereinbarung und die Datenschutzrichtlinie.
SlideShare verwendet Cookies, um die Funktionalität und Leistungsfähigkeit der Webseite zu verbessern und Ihnen relevante Werbung bereitzustellen. Wenn Sie diese Webseite weiter besuchen, erklären Sie sich mit der Verwendung von Cookies auf dieser Seite einverstanden. Lesen Sie bitte unsere unsere Datenschutzrichtlinie und die Nutzervereinbarung.
Definition• Definition 1: E is a relationship that applies between two sentences, where the truth of one implies the truth of the other because of the meanings of the words involved (Goddard, 1998).• Definition 2: An entailment is something that logically follows from what is asserted in the utterance.” [Yule, 1996]
2. Characteristics• 2.1 Entailment is concerned with the meaning of the sentence itself• 2.2 Hyponymy involves entailment.• 2.3 En applies cumulatively• 2.4 Entailment can also involve the use of determiners
3. Classification3.1 One- way and two-way entailment3.1.1 One- way entailment: The first sentence entails the second but not the other way round3.1.2 Two-way entailment: is the entailment that has meaning relationship and the sentences that contain mutual entailment are paraphrases of each other.
3. Classification 3.2 Background and foreground entailmentBackground entailments helping to determine contextForeground entailments contributing to the main point of utterance (stress pattern )
4. Subtypes of entailment 4.1 Assertion4.1.1 DefinitionA declarative sentence typically asserts that a state of affair exists. In other words, assertion is the characteristic of all declarative sentences.
4. Subtypes of entailment 4.1 Assertion 4.1.2 Principles of assertion• A proposition is always true in some but not in all of the possible worlds in the context set.• Any assertive utterance should expresses a proposition, relative to each possible world in the context set, and that proposition should have truth value in each possible world in the context set.• The same proposition is expressed relative to each possible world in the context set.
4. Subtypes of entailment 4.2 Presupposition4.2.1Definition: Presupposition is “what a speaker or writer assumes that the receiver of the message already knows.”[Richards et al, 1987]• Ex: John doesn’t write poems anymore. -> presupposes that John once wrote poetry
4. Subtypes of entailment 4.2 Presupposition4.2.2Characteristics• The presupposition of an utterance remains the same under its NEGATION• The presupposition of an utterance remains the same under its INTERROGATION• The presupposition of an utterance may be cancelled under its EXTENSION
4. Subtypes of entailment 4.2 Presupposition• 4.2.3 Comparison between entailment and presupposition Entailment Presupposition The relationship Presupposition is often between two treated as the sentences where the relationship between truth of one (A) two propositions. requires the truth of the other (B).
4. Subtypes of entailment 4.3 The relation between assertion and presupposition• Propositions are presupposed in a conversation if they are on record as belonging to the common ground between the speakers. When an assertion is made and accepted in the conversation, its content is added to the common ground, and the the truth of the proposition in question will be presupposed in later stages
1. Definition• Implicature is a technical term, which refers to what is suggested in an utterance, even though neither expressed nor strictly implied.• Example: John is meeting a woman this evening.+> The woman John is meeting this evening is not his mother, his sister or his wife.
2. Subtypes of implicature• Implicature includes two types which are conversational implicature and conventional one.
2.1. Conversational implicature• 2.1.1. Definition• Conversational implicature: Implications derived on the basis of conversational principles and assumptions, relying on more than the linguistic meaning of words in a sentence.• A (conversationally) implicates B if it is the case that uttering A in a certain conversational context systematically suggests, everything else being equal, that B is true. However, the implicature can be called off (i.e., cancelled).
2.1. Conversational implicature• Example 1:• Student A: Do you like Linguistics?• Student B: Well, let’s just say I don’t jump for joy before class.• +> A asked B about his feelings about the class, and B said B didn’t celebrate before the class. It shows the uninterested feeling of B about Linguistics subject
2.1. Conversational implicature• - Cooperative Principle:• 1. Quantity: give the right amount of information (not too little, not too much).• 2. Quality: try to say only what is true (dont say that for which you lack adequate evidence; dont say what you know to be false).• 3. Relevance: make what you say relevant to the topic at hand.• 4. Manner: be clear (avoid ambiguity, excessive wordiness, obscurity, etc.).
2.1. Conversational implicature• - Implicatures arise from the interaction of the following 3 factors:• 1. The proposition actually expressed in the utterance,• 2. Possibly certain features of the context (in any of the 3 notions of ‘context’)• 3. The assumption that the speaker is obeying the rules of conversation to the best of their ability.
2.1. Conversational implicature• Ex2: A ‘standard’ implicature (speaker is trying to obey the rules conversation). A: Will Sally be at the meeting this afternoon? B. Her car broke down. +> Sally wont be at the meeting.
2.1.2. Type of conversonal implicature• Conversational implicature includes generalized conversational implicature and particularized conversational implicature.
2.1.2. Type of conversonal implicature• * Generalized conversational implicature:• +No special knowledge is required in the context• +a/an X =>not speaker’s X
Generalized conversational implicature• Example 4• "Fred thinks there is a meeting tonight."• +> Fred doesnt know for sure that there is a meeting tonight.• Example 5• The Browns went to a park outside the city last week
2.1.2. Type of conversonal implicature• Scalar implicature: is greater detail of a particular sort of implicatures, expressing quantity and terms are listed from the highest to the lowest value.
Scalar implicature:• Example:• I ate some of the cake => this sentence implies “I did not eat all of the cake”• In the utterance some of the boys went to the party, the word some implicates "not all of the boys went to the party."• The words none, some, and all form an implicational scale, in which the use of one form implicates that the use of a stronger form is not possible.
2.1.2. Type of conversonal implicature• * Particularized conversational implicature:• +Special knowledge is required in special context in which speaker and hearer understand only.• In another word, a particularized implicature is a conversational implicature that is derivable only in a specific context.
Particularized conversational implicature• Example 1• Vernon: Do you like Monica? Bill: She’s the cream in my coffee.• +> Bill’s implicated message: yes, more than you know• Bill must be speaking metaphorically, and there must be a reason for doing so. A simple “yes” apparently wasn’t enough. He’s trying to tell Vernon that ordinary words can’t express what he feels for Monica, so he’s using a metaphor to indicate that his feelings are at another level.
Particularized conversational implicature• Example 2:• A: What on earth has happened to the roast beef? B: The dog is looking very happy.• In the above exchange, A will likely derive the implicature "the dog ate the roast beef" from B’s statement. This is due to A’s belief that B is observing the conversational maxim of relation or relevance in the specific context of A’s question.
2.2. Conventional implicature• Conventional implicature is an implicature that is:• part of a lexical item’s or expression’s agreed meaning, rather than derived from principles of language use, and• not part of the conditions for the truth of the item or expression.
2.2. Conventional implicature• Example:• Joe is poor but happy• +> This sentence implies poverty and happiness are not compatible but in spite of this Joe is still happy. This sentence will always necessarily imply “Surprisingly Joe is happy in spite of being poor”.