this is our shared sandbox

This is a user sandbox of Dec150. You can use it for testing or practicing edits. This is not the place where you work on your assigned article for a dashboard.wikiedu.org course. Visit your Dashboard course page and follow the links for your assigned article in the My Articles section. Get Help

This will be the shared sandbox. User:Splacanica/sandbox Splacanica (talk) 14:55, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Conversational implicatures are implicatures that arise during conversation, where the speaker voluntarily flouts, or violates, one of maxims in the maxims of conversation that create an implied meaning to the addressee.^[1] These conversational implicatures have many uses in creating an additional meaning to a given utterance.

• Examples:
       1. "So where do you want to eat? Applebee's has a huge selection of burgers, appetizers, salads, and drinks! Everything is super affordable, too."
       As seen here, this utterance flouts the maxim of quantity because of the extra amount of information given about the types of options and pricing. giving examples about the types of options at the restaurant and mentioning their prices gives much more information than needed in reference to a name of a restaurant. Also, this example flouts the maxim of relevance because the name of a restaurant is not directly relevant to a list of food items and prices.
       2. "Who's driving?" and the addressee responds, "Well, my car only fits 3 people." In this context, the addressee is flouting the maxim of relevance, because the question of who is driving is not directly related to the amount of people that someone's car can fit. Also, the use of only is a quantity maxim that semantically flouts that there is a maximum amount of people that can fit in the car; and, that the amount of people present exceeds this limit.
       3. "What items on your menu are dairy free?" and the addressee responds, "The lobster mac and cheese." In this example, the addressee is flouting the maxim of quality because the utterance of mac and cheese is known to not always be dairy free. Since this utterance is not true, we can conclude that the maxim of quality is being violated. ^[2] Splacanica (talk) 16:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Scalar implicatures are implicatures that have both a semantic and pragmatic use in language. ^[3] These types of implicatures are types of quantity maxims. Below is a small list of these implicatures:

1. some
2. few
3. many

As mentioned, scalar implicatures have both semantic and pragmatic components. The implicature itself has a meaning and social use that imply something about the object. For example:

1. "John ate some of the cookies."^[4] In this example, the use of some semantically implies that more than cookie was eaten. Consequently, some pragmatically implies that not every cookie was eaten, but more than one did.
2. "I only need a few cupcakes for the dinner tomorrow." In this example, the use of 'few' semantically implies that more than one cupcake is needed, while pragmatically implies that more than one BUT not many are needed for the dinner.

The use of these implicatures flout to the addressee that semantically, a nonspecific amount exists in the utterance; and, pragmatically, that the quantity is defined in a certain interval of large or small.^[5] Splacanica (talk) 16:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Implicature differs from Entailment. Sentences with implicatures are open to interpretation because they “require contextual factors and conventions [...] observed in conversation.”^[2] Entailments must follow the literal meaning of utterances and do not require context outside of a given utterance, and thus also cannot be cancelled^[6].

• Example of Entailment:

Sentence A : “The President was assassinated”

Sentence B: “The president is dead”

If A is true, B must be true. “The President was assassinated” entails “The president is dead” No alterations can be made to the truth A without changing the truth of B.

• Example of Implicature:

Sentence A: “Raj was late to the wedding after he crashed his car.”

Sentence B: “Raj was late to the wedding after because he crashed his car.”

Sentence C: “A week after crashing his car, Raj was late to the wedding.”

If A is true, B and/or C can be true. “Raj was late to the wedding after he crashed his car” implicates “Raj was late to the wedding because he crashed his car” but could also mean “A week after crashing his car, Raj was late to the wedding.” Neither B nor C must be true for A to be true.

Dec150 (talk) 23:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

• Revise Structure: The structure of the article is somewhat inconsistent and messy. One example is the very first sentence, it's a very long winded explanation for implicature, which could cause confusion. It then provides an example of implicature and a longer explanation of that example, which shouldn't belong in a simple overview. It also doesn't follow the better format of information followed by examples on separate lines in the next section. Another example under Types - it is a bit confusing differentiating between Conversational, Scalar, and Conventional based on the formatting of this section. Grice's maxims are all listed as different kinds of Conversational implicatures as their own section, followed by Scalar implicature as its own subsection of different kind conversational implicature. Implicature vs entailment is formatted as a long paragraph, instead of following the structure from before of information then new line for example. Fixing the structure, namely the spacing and sorting, will reduce confusion. Fixing the structure of references and Bibliography is also necessary to meet the normal Wikipedia standards
• Useful and more up-to-date sources: In addition to needing more sources, half of the ones cited are >20 years old. The majority of the references in the Bibliography are from the 70's, and one is even written in Croatian. Many of these should be pruned.

• Clearly explain conventional implicature and entailment with examples: The conventional implicature heading and implicature vs entailment heading of this article do not go into enough detail or examples that properly explain their uses. For conventional implicature, the section is lacking in depth and explanation which could be enhanced with length and better examples. This "explanation" is given by example, rather than actual definition which it truly needs. More examples, two or three, would be helpful to show practical uses of conventional implicature.
        For the relationship with implicature and entailment, this needs to be better explained with more examples. This section is unclear, lacks definition, and would benefit from two or three examples. I would inquire through our new and previous sources to find a more proficient definition that clearly explains if there is or is not a relationship between the two. If we cannot find a reliable source for their relationship, I would consider taking this section out entirely. I would not want to keep something in this article that cannot be supported by literature. If we can keep this portion, I would add two to three practical applications of this relationship that sufficiently explain how they are related.
• Finding more sources: This article lacks in the amount of resources that support its information. There are about four references for the entire article, with the non-cited "Further Reading" and "Bibliography" section. But, these sections are not cited throughout the article which shows it lacks in informational density. I would look through these other readings and bibliography to see if this information could be used to support portions of the article. With respect to the sources, I would find more sources that support each section: Types of Implicatures (conversational, scalar, and conventional implicature) and the relationship between implicature and entailment. Splacanica (talk) 01:22, 17 February 2018 (UTC)