Scribd
Upload
142 views

Kawtar Filahi Types of Inference

This document discusses three types of linguistic inference: entailment, presupposition, and implicature. Entailment refers to a semantic relationship where one sentence is necessarily true if another is true. Presupposition involves assumptions that are taken for granted before an utterance. Implicature can be conversational, based on pragmatic meaning implied but not stated, or conventional, arising from specific lexical items. The types differ in their defeasibility, survival under negation, conventionality, and relationship to semantics versus pragmatics.

Uploaded by

عبد الرحيم فاطمي
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
142 views

Kawtar Filahi Types of Inference

This document discusses three types of linguistic inference: entailment, presupposition, and implicature. Entailment refers to a semantic relationship where one sentence is necessarily true if another is true. Presupposition involves assumptions that are taken for granted before an utterance. Implicature can be conversational, based on pragmatic meaning implied but not stated, or conventional, arising from specific lexical items. The types differ in their defeasibility, survival under negation, conventionality, and relationship to semantics versus pragmatics.

Uploaded by

عبد الرحيم فاطمي
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 14

Types of Inference:

Entailment, Presupposition, and


Implicature

Presented by: Kawtar Filahi


Outline
• Entailment
• Presupposition
• Properties of presupposition
• Projection problem of presupposition
• Implicature
• Types of implicature
• A brief comparison
Entailment
• Entailment:
• Is derived from Formal Logic
• Refers to a semantic relationship between a sentence and a proposition
that the sentence expresses.

• A sentence entails another sentence if whenever the first sentence is true the
other sentence is also true.

• Example:
Mary was not able to escape
ll- Mary did not escape
Entailment
• Semantic entailment:
Entailment is seen as semantic in nature because it is not defeasible; it cannot
evaporate in any linguistic or non-linguistic context

• It defines many semantic relations which are:

Propositional equivalence ; Contradictory


The hut was hidden by the trees ; No one likes dark tourism
The hut was concealed by the trees ; At least someone likes dark tourism

Contradiction ; Contrariety
John isn’t married, but his wife ; This skirt is blue
is a feminist This skirt is red
Presupposition

• Presupposition:
• Is something the speaker assumes to be the case prior to making an
utterance

Example:
(a) Joe speaks English fast
(b) Joe speaks English
Properties of Presupposition
• There are two major properties of presupposition:
1. Constancy under negation:

• When a presupposition of a statement remains constant even when


that statement is negated
Example:
(p) Jim is angry because Dave crashed the car
(q) Dave crashed the car p >>q
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Not p) Jim is not angry because Dave crashed the car


(q) Dave crashed the car Not p >> q
Properties of Presupposition
2. Defeasibility:
Presuppositions are cancelled if they are inconsistent with:

• Background assumptions or real world knowledge


(p) John died before he finishes his PhD
(q) John finishes his PhD p ~>> q

• Some verbs such as: tell, mention, ask, believe, think, etc.
• They can evaporate if they run contrary to what the immediate discourse tell
us
There is no king if France, therefore, the king of France is bald
~>> There is a king of France
Projection problem of presupposition
The most important issue in accounting presuppositions is:
• Projection problem of presupposition:
• The meaning of some presuppositions doesn’t survive to become the meaning of
some complex sentences.

Example:
I imagined that Kelly was ill and nobody realized that she was ill
Nobody realized that Kelly was ill >> Kelly was ill
I imagined that Kelly was ill >> Kelly was not ill
Implicature
• This notion was first introduced in the work of H.P. Grice
• Implicature has two types:

1. Conversational Implicature:
Refers to any meaning implied or expressed by, and understood from
the utterance of a sentence which is meant without being part of what is
said
Example
(a) Some of the tourists are admiring the view
(b) +> Not all/most/many tourists are admiring the view
Implicature
• Conversational implicatures have some characteristics:
• Defeasibility
They can vanish in certain lgx or non-lgx contexts
• Non-Detachability
Any expression with the same semantic content tends to carry the same Conv.
Implicature
• Calculability
They can be derived via cooperative principles and its component maxims
• Non-Conventionality
Rely on what is said without being part of it
Implicature
2. Conventional Implicature:
It is a non-truth-conditional meaning which arises from the conventional
features attached to particular lexical items and/or lgx constructions
-Those lexical or lgx constructions could be: but, therefore, even…

Example:

John is poor but he is honest (Contrast)


Even a child can scoff all small bananas (Contrary to expectations)
Lihua is a chines; she, therefore, knows how to us chopsticks (Follows)
Implicature

• Conventional implicatures have some characteristics:

• They are attached by convention to particular lexical items

• They are not calculable but given by convention

• They are not defeasible; they cannot be cancelled

• They do not tend to be universal


A brief Comparison
• Comparing between semantic entailment, presuppositions, conversational
an conventional implicatures in terms of:
• Defeasibility:
Semantic entailment and conventional implicature are not defeasible; most cases of
presuppositions and all cases of conversational implicatures are defeasible
• Negation:
Presupposition can survive negation, but entailment cannot
• Conventionality:
Semantic entailment (falls in semantics) > conventional implicature > presupposition >
conversational implicature (more sided to pragmatics)
• Semantics vs pragmatics
Conventional implicature can be considered either pragmatics or semantics depending
on how the boundary between semantics and pragmatics is placed
Thank you for your attention !

You might also like