The term ‘explicatures’ pertains to the inferential developments made of utterances with the objective of attaining a greater degree of clarity by the speaker (Sperber and Wilson 1986). It was first introduced by relevance theory to provide evidence that the explicit part of communication may contain a pragmatically inferred material, which facilitates communication and makes it more relevant (Carston. 2000. Explicature and semantics. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 12. 44–89). Nevertheless, there are instances where explicatures are deliberately not fully articulated (...) in order to achieve certain social meanings as well as communicative goals. This research article examines the social functions, which are accomplished when communicators do not articulate pragmatically inferred material which is part of the explicit content of the utterance. Based on the analysis of genuine communications, obtained from real-life interactions from Jordanian Arabic, this article demonstrates that the act of not fully articulating explicatures serves certain social purposes, such as not inviting evil eye, not damaging the positive face of the addressee or the person under discussion, and avoiding the explicit mentioning of delicate matters like illnesses and social taboos; hence conforming to the established social conventions. Furthermore, the results referred to a remarkable association between particular areas of explicatures identification and certain social functions. (shrink)

Discourse and grammar often complement each other, each imposing a different set of constraints on speakers' utterances. Discourse constraints are global, pertaining to text coherence, and/or to interpersonal relations. Grammatical constraints are local, pertaining to possible versus impossible structures. Yet, the two must meet in natural discourse. At every point during interaction speakers must simultaneously satisfy both types of constraints in order to communicate properly. It is also during conversational interaction that language change somehow takes place. This overview first explains (...) and exemplifies how discourse constraints guide addressees in selecting specific grammatical forms at different points in the interaction. It then examines the relationship between discourse and grammar from a grammaticization point of view, demonstrating how a subset of discourse patterns turn grammatical. The central theme is then that discourse depends on grammar, which in turn depends on discourse. (shrink)

Self-praise has traditionally been interpreted as a potentially face threatening act, which infringes the ‘Modesty Maxim’ proposed by Leech. Certain discourse genres, however, like application letters, job interviews or the LinkedIn summaries which are the research object of this article serve, by definition, to promote the professional as skilful. Hence, the question arises to what extent these discourse genres take into account the risky nature of self-praise. On the basis of a corpus of some 90 French and US LinkedIn summaries, (...) this article shows, on one hand, that besides asserting explicitly which competent identity and skills one has, LinkedIn-members use a whole array of more or less subtle indirect strategies to express skilfulness, including strategies pertaining to the area of reported speech. On the other hand, the analysis reveals that downgrading devices are hardly attested, contrary to upgrading modifiers, which also exhibit a remarkable variation. (shrink)

Legal texts are often given interpretations that deviate from their literal meanings. While legal concerns often motivate these interpretations, others can be traced to linguistic phenomena. This paper argues that systematicities of language usage, captured by certain theories of conversational implicature, can sometimes explain why the meanings given to legal texts by judges differ from the literal meanings of the texts. Paul Grice's account of conversational implicature is controversial, and scholars have offered a variety of ways to conceptualize implicatures and (...) Grice's maxims of conversation. Approaches that emphasize the systematic nature of implicatures can provide explanatory accounts of the gap between literal meaning and the meaning communicated in the text. For example, a theory of scalar implicature, a type of generalized conversational implicature, can account for the application of the interpretive principle known as ejusdem generis, which narrows the scope of “catch-all” clauses located at the end of lists of items. Despite the availability of such theories, some scholars have argued that conversational implicatures are not applicable to legislation. The arguments, based primarily on the uniqueness of the legislative context and its noncooperative nature, though, do not establish the inapplicability of conversational implicatures to legislation. (shrink)