This chapter explores the role of context in the computation of implicit pragmatic meanings (implicatures). In the classic view of Gricean and neo-Gricean pragmatics, conversational implicatures are triggered by the Cooperative Principle and the maxims of conversation, and are defined as non-contextual, with the exception of particularized conversational implicatures (PCIs). On the other hand, it is assumed that generalized conversational implicatures (GCIs) and conventional implicatures (CIs) are not contextual, although GCIs can be defeated by the context or denied by the speaker. This non-contextual approach to pragmatics (the Gricean turn) has given rise to a default approach to implicatures. The second purpose of this chapter is to tackle the contextual dimension of neo-Gricean pragmatics, which has been developed by exponents of neo-Gricean pragmatics. Their approaches to pragmatics, limited to GCIs as scalar implicatures, are based either on pragmatic principles, the Q-Principle and R- or I-principle (Horn, Levinson), or on the reformulation of conversational maxims and reasoning (Gazdar, Chierchia, Fox). It is argued that the focus on GCIs, although it should minimize the role of context in the generation of implicatures, demonstrates on the contrary the pervasive function of context, which is not limited to implicature cancellation.

This chapter describes the process of analyzing a corpus. It discusses the general notions of quantitative and qualitative research methodologies within the context of various types of corpus analyses, including Biber’s work on multi-dimensional analysis as well as a more qualitative analysis of Donald Trump’s style of speaking termed Trump Speak. These analyses are used to illustrate the various stages of doing research in general, and corpus-based research specifically. For instance, the analysis of Trump Speak is linked to a discussion of “how to frame a research question"; “how to select relevant corpora that can be analyzed to pursue the research question"; “how to ‘extract’ grammatical and lexical information from a corpus,” using such tools as concordancing programs; and, finally, how to “integrate relevant linguistic theories into the analysis of corpus results,” so that the research does more than simply list, for instance, frequency counts. There is also a discussion of “mixed methods”: how to introduce quantitative and qualitative research methods into a corpus analysis, followed by an example corpus analysis employing descriptive statistics such as the chi square statistic, and additionally, a description of multi-dimensional analysis in the work of Douglas Biber.

Stage 7 of the journey moves to utterance meaning and to various ways of explaining how speakers communicate more than what the sentence says. It introduces the intention-and-inference-based concept of meaning in Grice’s and post-Gricean pragmatics, travelling though maxims, principles, and heuristics proposed by various scholars of this orientation. It then moves to introducing (i) approaches that advocate the ‘maximalist’, contextualist semantic content and (ii) semantic minimalism that preserves a much clearer boundary between semantics and pragmatics – suggesting ‘food for thought’ at many points in the discussion.

In this chapter, we introduce the influential work of H. Paul Grice, focusing on his claims about indirectly communicated meaning. Grice is generally acknowledged as the first person to propose an account of how hearers derive implied meaning. He coined the now widely accepted term implicature to describe any proposition that is communicated without being directly stated, and he offered an account of how hearers derive implicatures by working out what a speaker meant to communicate beyond what has been directly and explicitly stated in an utterance. We begin this chapter by exploring Grice’s distinction between ‘what is said’ and what is implicated. We then move on to discuss his cooperative principle (CP) and its associated maxims. Speakers, it is claimed, abide by certain norms when they take part in a conversation. We outline Grice’s formulation of these norms, and the role they play in inferential processes and implicature derivation. The chapter closes with a discussion of the different categories of implicature that Grice identified. We look at examples to illustrate the role that context plays in inferential processes for each category of implicature.

Verbal silence is examined and illustrated in light of the communicative functions it serves and the cooperative maxims it fulfils. Our starting point is Jakobson’s (1960) model. Each of Jakobson’s six functions (the referential function, emotive, conative, phatic, poetic and metalinguistic) is considered here in terms of the manner in which it is served by verbal silence in general, and particularly by iconic depictions of absences and presences (such as trauma or the shortage of words) as well as communicative events in which verbal silence is the unmarked means fulfilling the communicative function (such as in turn switching and the expression of threats). In addition to illuminating the functions served by verbal silence, this examination also contributes to the discovery of the circumstantial function overlooked by Jakobson and to the refinement of broadly studied linguistic issues such as the distinction between questions cooperatively answered in silence and rhetorical questions and the fundamental difference in terms of the function of silence between silence as consent and the right to silence. The unique pragmatic quality of verbal silence to activate the addressee moving hem to the addresser’s position is discussed and illustrated throughout our discussion of the communicative functions played by verbal silence.

Chapter 10 introduces readers to pragmatics, the study of meaning in context, and discourse analysis, which addresses language use in context. Both of these subfields of linguistics focus on units or texts larger than the sentence level. The chapter illustrates speech acts and shows how they are fundamental to how we use language to communicate. It examines the role of conversational analysis and what it means for turn taking. Linking to Chapter 6 Semantics, the chapter presents Grice’s Cooperative Principle and its four maxims in depth: quantity, quality, relevance, and manner. Politeness Theory and Impoliteness Theory address how we manage our social identities and those of others through language. These approaches show how our interactions are driven by two basic needs: the need to do as we please and the need to be appreciated by others. Reade are introduced to the concepts of genre and register and their relation to extralinguistic context. Finally, concepts such as coherence and cohesion in texts are examined in detail.

Claus Ehrhardt proposes an approach that considers politeness as an integrative part to intercultural communication. Intercultural communication and politeness, Erhardt argues, are both theoretical models and social practices, with politeness forming one of the most prominent links between languages, cultures and communication, allowing for deeper understanding of intercultural communication. At the same time, he calls for more extensive empirical work to fully explore the dynamics of social relations in intercultural communication.

Preference for semantic analyzability in ELF creates “utterer-implicatures” that usually do not implicate anything beyond what is said. But still we have kept calling them implicatures and not “implicitures” or “explicatures” as they are called in the Gricean literature because they are the results of the same mechanism as in L1. In ELF interactions there is a kind of pragmaticization of semantics which is a synchronic, one-off phenomenon in which coded meaning, sometimes without any specific pragmatic enrichment based on the target language, obtains temporary pragmatic status. ELF speakers need this online pragmaticalization because they cannot rely on pragmatic effects as in L1. So ELF users need to build up temporary frames and norms in the course of interaction. Actual situation context does not help because it is understood differently by interlocutors. So ELF users will produce and interpret a pragmatic act, including implicatures, mainly based on its semantic content that is pragmaticized not by the actual contextual effect or core common ground but by prior context and co-constructed emergent common ground. This ELF pragmatics relies not on existing norms and conventions but rather on emergent intention, innovation, emergent common ground, online frame building and one-off strategies.