The purpose of this study was to investigate to what extent the fourth year English majored students at Tay Nguyen University are able to understand English conversational implicatures. The subjects of this study were 50 fourth-year students of the Faculty of Foreign Languages Studies at Tay Nguyen University. They were asked to do the questionnaire about their opinions about the importance of understanding conversational implicatures and their understanding of the basis of the interpretation of conversational implicatures as well. Also, they were required to do the multiple-choice English conversational implicature exercise. The result shows that most of students recognized the importance of understanding conversational implicature. In addition, the students could know factors that we need to interpret conversational implicatures. However, the result also reveals that the students did not have enough understanding of conversational implicatures in English. Also, the results show that cultural knowledge could affect the students’ ability to understand English conversational implicatures.
INTRODUCTION
Statement of the problem
In today's global landscape, English serves as a vital medium of communication across numerous countries and is integral to education from primary schools to universities, significantly influencing social interactions and career opportunities For English majors at Tay Nguyen University, the curriculum includes essential subjects like semantics and pragmatics, which present both excitement and challenges, particularly in understanding conversational implicatures that enhance real-life interactions As noted by Lee (2002), effective communication relies on shared pragmatic rules that guide language use and interpretation Thus, successful spoken interactions depend on speakers effectively conveying their messages and listeners accurately interpreting them Misunderstandings can disrupt conversations and lead to complications in various aspects of life, making it crucial to grasp the intended meanings behind spoken words for successful communication.
According to Taguchi (2005), for students to accurately infer a native speaker's communicative purpose, they must understand the intended meaning behind the speaker's message.
Understanding conversational implicatures in English is crucial for English majors at Tay Nguyen University to effectively communicate with native speakers This ability to grasp the intended meaning of native speakers is essential for their success in language use Consequently, the study titled “An Investigation into the Ability to Understand English Conversational Implicatures of the Fourth Year English Majored Students at Tay Nguyen University” has been conducted to explore this important skill.
Objectives of the study
- to find out the fourth year English majored students’ opinions about the importance of understanding conversational implicatures.
- to find out to what extent the students understand English conversational implicatures.
- to find out factors influencing the skill English majored students in understanding English conversational implicature
- to suggest some solutions to help the learners to improve their ability to understand English conversational implicatures.
Significance of the study
First of all, theoretically, it provides learners of English, not excluding the researcher, with the useful knowledge of conversational implicature
The findings highlight students' perspectives on the significance of grasping conversational implicatures and their comprehension of the foundational elements necessary for interpreting these nuances The research provides insight into the extent of students' understanding of conversational implicatures in English, as demonstrated through specific exercises, while also identifying factors that influence their pragmatic competence in this area.
Thirdly, it also suggests solutions for improving the ability to understand conversational implicatures in English of the students.
Outline of the study
This research contains five chapters:
Chapter 1 : INTRODUCTION This chapter establishes the rationale of the study, the aims of the study, the significance of the study, and the outline of the study.
Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW This chapter consits of four sections. Section 1 reveals about concepts of conversation, utterance, and implicature. Section 2 introduces Cooperative Principle with the definition of Cooperative Principle, the four maxims, and the flouting of the maxims Section 3 focuses on conversational implicature This part consists of definition, and classsification of conversational implicature The next part reveals about the basis of the interpretation of conversational implicature The last section reveals about the importance of conversational implicature.
Chapter 3: METHODOLOGY This chapter includes such four parts as subjects of the study, scope of the study, research questions, and research methods Chapter 4: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION This chapter presents the results of the study.
Chapter 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This chapter gives a summary of the study and gives some suggestions after the findings of the study
LITERATURE REVIEW
The concepts
According to Grice (1975), the interpretation of conversational implicature relies on a shared understanding between the speaker and the listener regarding the utterance This indicates that conversational implicature arises from the speaker's utterance Key concepts involved in this process include conversation, utterance, and implicature.
Conversation can be defined as a talk, especially an informal one, between two or more people, in which news and ideas are exchanged. (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/conversation )
The follwing is an example of a conversation between two people:
B: Is the Pope Catholic? (Bouton, 1994, p 101)
Or a conversation among three people presented as follows:
Kate: I wish we didn’t have that test next Friday I wanted to leave for Florida before that.
Jake: Oh, I don’t think we’ll really have that test Do you?
Professor Schmidt has announced that he won't be leaving for vacation, raising questions about whether he will administer the test Kate, do you think we need to stay until Friday to find out?
Kate: Does the sun come up in the east these days?
Hurford & Heasley (1983) defines an utterance as follow:
An utterance refers to a segment of speech produced by an individual, characterized by silence from that speaker before and after the spoken words It represents the specific use of language by a speaker at a given time, which can range from a sequence of sentences to a single word or phrase.
The following are examples of utturances:
“Hello”, “Not much”, “Not at all”, “Can you close the door?”, “ Could you give me a hand?”
The term “implicature” is used by Grice (1975) to account for what a speaker can imply, suggest, or mean, as distinct from what the speaker literally says.
(Brown & Yule, 1983, p 31) The following is an example of implicature:
John and Cathy are talking about a mutual friend, David, who is now working in a bank.
John: How is David getting in his job?
Cathy: Oh, quite well, I think; he likes his colleages, and he hasn’t been to prison yet (Grice, 1975, p 43)
In a recent conversation, John may question Cathy's implication regarding David's situation, particularly her statement that he had not yet been to prison This remark suggests that David's colleagues are unfriendly and deceitful While it might seem unnecessary for John to seek clarification, the underlying message is clear: Cathy's intent differs from her literal words She employed a form of indirect speech known as conversational implicature, indicating that her true meaning extends beyond the surface of her statement about David's prison status.
Cooperative Principle
Linguists and pragmatics researchers, as noted by Jia (2008), emphasize the importance of cooperation in successful conversations For effective communication, it is essential that participants maintain a cooperative attitude, acting as collaborators in the dialogue.
Yule (1996) suggests that the assumption of cooperation is fundamental in conversations, leading to a cooperative principle that is further defined by four maxims.
2.2.1 What is the Cooperative Principle
The main branch of conversational implicature is Cooperative Principle In
In 1975, American linguistic philosopher Herbert Paul Grice introduced the Cooperative Principle, which emphasizes that conversational contributions should be appropriate to the context and purpose of the dialogue This principle suggests that interlocutors must cooperate to ensure their utterances remain relevant, enabling them to accurately infer the speaker's intended message and enhance the effectiveness of their communication.
The Cooperative Principle, according to Grice, consists of four maxims with their own regulation respectively presented in the next part.
Grice's theory of conversation outlines how individuals utilize language through four key maxims that align with the Cooperative Principle: Quantity, Quality, Relation, and Manner These Gricean maxims serve as essential guidelines for effective communication.
- Make your contribution as informative as is required (for the current purposes of the exchange).
- Do not make your contribution more informative than is required.
- Do not say what you believe to be false.
- Do not say that for which you lack of adequate evidence.
The maxim of Relation - Be relevant.
- Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity).
The following is an example about the four maxims.
Father : Where are the children?
Mother: They are in the garden or in the play room, I’m not sure which. (J Thomas Conversational Maxims cited in Peter V Lamarque, 1997 (Eds),
Concise Encyclopedia of Philosophy of Language, p 389)
In this scenario, the mother effectively communicates by adhering to the four maxims of conversation: she provides truthful and clear information, offers just the right amount of detail, addresses her husband's inquiry directly, and expresses her thoughts in an understandable manner There is a seamless alignment between her words and intentions, resulting in a conversation devoid of implicature.
Effective speakers strive to provide clear and relevant answers, avoiding vague responses and unnecessary information that the audience may already know They focus on delivering understandable content while steering clear of misleading statements, ensuring that their communication remains on topic and engaging for the listener.
2.2.3 The flouting of the Maxims
Nguyen Thi Tu Anh (2012) emphasizes the importance of the Cooperative Principle and its four conversational maxims in effective communication However, there are instances where interlocutors may intentionally flout one of these maxims, leading to the creation of conversational implicatures This flouting can enhance the richness of the conversation, adding depth and meaning beyond the literal exchange.
J Thomas (in Peter V Lamarque (1997) (Eds), Concise Encyclopedia of
Philosophy of Language, p 390) states that “ a ‘flout’ occurs when a speaker
In conversational contexts, speakers may intentionally flout maxims to convey deeper meanings, known as implicature This deliberate failure to observe conversational maxims encourages listeners to focus on the implied messages rather than the literal statements By infringing upon these maxims, speakers aim to engage their audience more effectively, suggesting that there is a richer layer of meaning beneath the surface of their words, as described by Grice.
(1975) has proved Let’s take a look at the following example:
Leila has just walked into Mary’s office and noticed all the work on her desk.
Leila: Whoa! Has your boss gone crazy?
Mary: Let’s go get some coffee.
Mary's choice not to reveal additional meanings does not violate the Cooperative Principle, as she aims to prevent Leila from drawing certain conclusions Aware that she must provide the necessary information, Mary understands that Leila can infer the presence of her boss nearby Consequently, Mary intentionally appears to disregard the maxim of relevance to sidestep Leila's inquiry.
Conversational implicature
Grice proposes the four maxims (quantity, quality, relation, manner) to define conversational implicatures which are the preponderant part of his theory He suggests,
A speaker who implies that q by stating p is considered to have conversationally implicated q, as long as it is assumed that he adheres to the conversational maxims or, at the very least, the Cooperative Principle.
The speaker assumes that the hearer understands the necessity of a certain presumption for the coherence of their statement Additionally, the speaker believes that the hearer is capable of intuitively recognizing this presumption as essential for interpreting the speaker's message accurately.
According to Grice (1975), there are two main kinds of conversational implicature: generalized implicature and particularized implicature.
Generalized conversational implicature is defined as “those that arises without any particular context or special scenario being necessary” (Levinson 1983, p 126)
Yule (1996, p 41) defines generalized conversational implicature as a situation where no specialized knowledge is necessary to understand the additional meaning conveyed in a conversation.
Doobie: Did you invite Bella and Cathy?
In the given scenario, Doobie infers that Mary is speaking and employs the maxim of quantity to indicate that Cathy was not invited This understanding does not necessitate any specific background knowledge about the context of the conversation.
Yule (1996) highlights a common feature in English where phrases using an indefinite article, such as "a" or "an," are often understood through generalized conversational implicature This implies that "an X" typically conveys the meaning of "not the speaker's X."
I was sitting in a garden one day A child looked over the fence (Yule, 1996, p 41).
In this example, the implication is that the garden does not belong to the speaker, nor does the child belong to them If the speaker were referring to their own garden or child, they would have used the terms "my garden" and "my child."
Yule (1996) aslo states another type of generalized conversational implicature, called a scalar implicature
Language conveys specific information by selecting words that represent particular values on a scale This is especially evident in terms related to quantity, which can be ranked from highest to lowest value.
< All, most, many, some, few>
Let’s consider the following examples. a, I’m studying Maths and I’ve completed some of the given excercises. b, I sometimes go to the beach with my friends.
In example (a), the speaker uses the word “some” to create an implicature It implies that he has not complete all the given excercises Also, by using
“sometimes”, the speaker means that he does not often or not always go to the beach with his friends.
A scalar implicature occurs when a speaker uses terms like "some of the given exercises," implying meanings such as "not most" or "not many" (Yule, 1996, p 41) Similarly, the use of "sometimes" suggests implicatures like "not always" or "not often," indicating a range of meanings beyond the literal interpretation.
According to Yule (1996), scalar implicatures can arise even when an expression is not part of a defined scale For example, when Peter states, "It's possible that they were delayed," the use of the term "possible" implies uncertainty.
The examples above illustrate that for a listener to deduce a generalized conversational implicature, they can depend on articles or terms that indicate a scale of values or frequency.
Particularized conversational implicature is implicature that arises on particular context of the utterance (Levinson, 1983).
Moreover, particularized conversational implicature, according to Yule
(1996) is an implicature which take places in a specific context during a conversation Let’s have a look at the following example.
Ann: Where are you going with the dog?
In this scenario, Sam understands that the dog will identify the location Ann is taking him to as the vet Believing that the dog dislikes this place, Sam elaborately spells out ‘V-E-T’ in his response, indicating his desire to keep the answer from the dog This behavior suggests that Sam is intentionally flouting the maxim of manner.
Conversational implicatures can take various forms, one of which is the indirect criticism implicature This type of implicature typically arises in responses to requests for judgment, where the speaker conveys a negative assessment while superficially complimenting an unimportant aspect of the subject in question (Bouton, 1994) For instance, when asked for an opinion, a speaker might highlight a minor positive feature, masking their true critical sentiment.
Two teachers are talking about a student’s term paper yet?
Mr R: Have you finished with Mark’s term paper yet?
Mr M: Yes, I have I read it last night.
Mr R: What did you think of it?
Mr M: Well, I thought it was well typed
In the given example, Mr M disregarded Grice's maxim of quantity, indicating his disapproval of Mark's term paper Additionally, Pope Q implicature refers to a conversational strategy where a response to one question is framed as another question, as demonstrated by Bouton (1994), who noted that the listener must infer that the responses to both questions align.
Ceila and Ron are discussing their boss, who is very unpleasant
Ceila: So, do you think Mr Stinguy will give me a raise?
In this scenario, Ron's response is not a straightforward "yes" or "no," leading Ceila to assume his cooperation and interpret his answer to the pope question as an implicit "no." This response appears to violate Grice's maxim of relevance, which emphasizes the importance of staying on topic Additionally, Bouton (1994) refers to this phenomenon as "Pope Q implicature." Furthermore, sequence implicature is evident in the unique order of events suggested by statements, highlighting how the arrangement of information can influence interpretation.
Two friends are talking about what happened the previous evening.
Maria: Hey, I hear that Sandy went to Philadelphia last light and stole a car. Tony: Not exactly He stole a car and went to Philadelphia.
Maria: Are you sure? That’s not the way I heard it.
What actually happened is that Sandy stole a car in Philadelphia last night Which of the two has the right story then?
In this context, we understand that the events unfold in the order presented, confirming that Maria accurately recounted the story of Sandy stealing a car in Philadelphia last night This illustrates the concept of Minimum Requirement implicature, which occurs when the addressee seeks to ascertain whether a specific minimum criterion has been satisfied, as noted by Bouton (1994).
The basis of the interpretation of conversational implicature
According to Grice (1975, p.50), in order to recognize the exit of conversational implicature, the listener will depend on the following factors:
1) The conventional meaning of the words used and any references which may be involved as well.
2) The Cooperative Principle and its maxims
3) The context, whether linguistic or otherwise, of the utterance
5) The fact that all relevant elements presented above are available to both participants in a speech event
According to Grice (1975, p 50), the inference method is showed as follow:
He is likely adhering to the maxims of communication, particularly the Cooperative Principle, suggesting that he believes in the truth of proposition q His awareness of my understanding reinforces this assumption, as he has not taken steps to dissuade me from thinking that q Furthermore, his intention appears to be to encourage this belief, thereby implying the validity of q.
According to Lee (2002), effective communication requires listeners to draw inferences from shared cultural knowledge and assumptions, enabling them to interpret the speaker's message accurately This process assumes that both the speaker and listener are following the Cooperative Principle For instance, when a phone rings, it prompts a shared understanding that leads to a specific interpretation of the situation.
John: Can you get that, Susan?
Susan does not follow the relevance maxim as she does not give “yes” or
“no” answer However, John assumes that Susan is cooperating and John infers thatSusan cannot answer the phone based on the context that Susan is in the shower
According to Taguchi (2005), understanding implicatures requires the hearer to utilize contextual information, which can be divided into external and internal contexts External context encompasses sociocultural factors such as physical settings, cultural background, and the relationship between interlocutors In contrast, internal context involves the assumptions, beliefs, experiences, and knowledge that individuals possess about the world.
An Australian factory supervisor mistakenly believed that all workers were aware of the upcoming Easter holiday He inquired about the plans of a Vietnamese colleague, highlighting the cultural differences in holiday recognition among the factory staff.
You have five days off What are you going to do? (Yule, 1996, p 87)
Vietnamese workers quickly interpret the term "laid off" as a negative experience rather than a holiday As Yule (1996) notes, "something good in one person’s schema can sound like something bad in another’s" (p 87), highlighting the differing perceptions of situations based on individual perspectives.
By surveying the use of the quantity maxim in a Malagasian society, Keenan
In her 1976 study, Keenan explored how individuals from diverse cultures interpret conversational implicature in English, revealing that Malagasian listeners anticipate less information than their American counterparts This cultural difference can result in misunderstandings, as American implicatures may not align with Malagasian expectations Consequently, Keenan concluded that people from various cultural backgrounds can interpret identical utterances differently within the same context (Lee, 2002).
Also, Keenan, 1976; Nash, 1989; Olshtain & Cohen, 1989; Wierbicka, 1991; Lee, 2000 has stated that “the rules for discourse units or speech acts can vary significantly from culture to culture” (Lee, 2002, p 2).
This study aims to investigate whether fourth-year English major students at Tay Nguyen University misinterpret implicatures in English conversations due to cultural differences Specifically, it examines the impact of cultural knowledge on these students' ability to comprehend conversational implicatures in English.
The importance of conversational implicature
Conversational implicature is a crucial concept in pragmatics, highlighting the significance of conveying messages indirectly, as noted by Vo Thi Thanh Thao (2011).
Lee (2002) highlights that native English speakers often employ pragmatic strategies to manipulate language for communicative impact For instance, to convey irony, a native speaker might say, “Boy, she really knows how to sing,” when referring to a poor singer, illustrating how the intended meaning diverges from the literal interpretation.
Nguyen Thi Tu Anh (2012) emphasizes that interpreting the implicatures of a speaker or writer enhances our understanding of issues and facilitates effective communication Since conversational implicature is crucial in pragmatics, grasping these nuances is vital for improving our communicative skills.
Conversational implicature, as noted by Green (1989, cited in Bouton 1994), is a fundamental aspect of communication that reflects the natural conversational strategies employed by proficient speakers Understanding conversational implicature is essential for effective communication, highlighting its importance in developing communicative competence.
Understanding the intentions of native speakers is crucial for English as a Foreign Language students, as it enhances their communicative skills This comprehension prepares them to become proficient language learners capable of effective communication By employing suitable conversational strategies, students will be better equipped to navigate various communicative situations that require interpretation (Supaporn Manowong, 2011).
METHODOLOGY
Subjects of the study
This research is implemented with the participation of English majored students course 2013 at Tay Nguyen University
The study focuses on 50 fourth-year students from the Faculty of Foreign Languages Studies at Tay Nguyen University To ensure high response rates and accuracy, all participants were selected on a voluntary basis.
Scope of the study
In this research, the researcher mainly focuses on conversational implicatures
This study aims to explore students' perceptions of the significance of understanding conversational implicatures Additionally, it investigates the capability of fourth-year English major students at Tay Nguyen University to interpret these implicatures in English conversations.
Research questions
Question 1: What are the students’ opinions about the importance of understanding conversational implicatures?
Question 2: To what extent do the students understand conversational implicatures in English?
Question 3: What factors can influence the students’ability to understand conversational implicatures in English?
Research methods
This research involves a comprehensive process that includes data collection, evaluation, and the creation of questionnaires and exercises for fourth-year English majors at Tay Nguyen University Additionally, the researcher gathers relevant information from books, websites, and input from teachers to enhance the study's findings.
In this study, data was gathered through questionnaires, which were chosen for their cost-effectiveness and ease of analysis, as noted by Miller and Johnson (2013) referencing Gillham (2000) Additionally, interviews were conducted to explore students' strategies for understanding conversational implicature in English.
To get the students’ opinions about the importance of understanding conversational implicature and the basis that the hearer needs to interpret implicature, the questionnaire was used in this study
An exercise was created to help students interpret various types of implicature, featuring 14 items that cover different conversational implicatures such as Relevance, Pope Q implicature, minimum requirement implicature, Sequency, Indirect Criticism, and Irony Each item includes a brief scenario, a dialogue, and a question related to implicature, designed for fourth-year English majors at Tay Nguyen University to analyze and choose from.
- items (8), (9), were Minimum Requirement implicatures,
- items (11), (12) were Indirect Criticism implicatures,
Students at Tay Nguyen University were asked to complete a survey questionnaire followed by a conversational implicature exercise, where they selected one of four interpretations for each item After the exercise, a random selection of students participated in interviews to gather insights into their background knowledge and the challenges faced by fourth-year English learners in understanding conversational implicatures The study's data was analyzed using descriptive statistics, focusing on numbers and percentages.
Summary
Chapter 3 provides the methodology that the researcher uses in the study in order to find out the students’ opinions about the importance of understanding conversational implicatures, the students’ understanding of the factors that the hearer needs to be able to interpret conversational implicatures, the students’ ability to understand conversational implicatures in English through the exercise and whether cultural knowledge is the factor impacting the students’ ability to understand English conversational implicatures in English.
In the following chapter, we will compile and analyze the gathered information to provide recommendations and suggestions aimed at helping students enhance their ability to interpret English conversational implicatures.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
The students’ opinions about the importance of understanding
Help to understand the problem clearly 41 82%
Help to improve communicative skills 36 72%
Help to be able to be proficient language learners 34 68%
Table 2: The students’response about the importance of understanding conversational implicatures
The data indicates that almost all students recognize the significance of grasping conversational implicatures Approximately 82% of the students assert that comprehending the non-literal meanings conveyed by speakers enhances their understanding of issues more clearly.
In addition, the next significance of understanding conversational implicatures that the students think is helping to improve communicative skills. About 72% of the students choose this option.
Finally, we can see that 68% of the students realize that we can be proficient language learners if we can understand what the speaker intends.
Fourth-year English majors at Tay Nguyen University recognize the significance of grasping conversational implicatures, as it enhances their comprehension of communication, improves their communicative skills, and contributes to their proficiency as language learners.
The students’ ability to understand conversational implicatures
4.2.1 The students’ understanding of the basis of the interpretation of conversational implicatures
Lets’ take a look at question 3 in Appendix A as follows:
In your opinion, which of the following factors we need to be able to understand conversational implicatures? (you can choose more than one answer)
A The explicit meaning of the utterance (The conventional meaning of the words used)
B The interlocutors cooperate with each other by briefly saying sufficient relevant things (The Cooperative Principle)
C The context in which the utterance occurs (Physical setting)
D Something that unsaid, and helps provide meaning about what a person says
E The environment and surroundings in which a person grew up in (Cultural background)
F Knowledge relates to every day’s life, the community, the wider world…(the world knowledge)
G The hearer’s experience of communication or about sociocultural context
Chart 1: The students’ responses about the factors that the hearers need to understand conversational implicatures
Understanding conversational implicatures requires recognizing key factors that help hearers interpret them effectively, as acknowledged by most students.
According to Chart 1, 76% of students, totaling 38 individuals, believe that a person's cultural background significantly influences their ability to interpret conversational implicatures.
A significant 72% of students, totaling 36 individuals, believe that making inferences based on unspoken information is essential for understanding the meaning behind a person's words This suggests that listeners often need to rely on presuppositions to accurately interpret conversational implicatures.
Approximately 70% of the students, totaling 35 individuals, believed that the listener should utilize the Cooperative Principle to understand conversational implicatures This principle suggests that participants in a conversation work together by providing concise and relevant information.
Approximately 68% of students, equating to 34 individuals, believe that understanding a speaker's meaning requires the listener to consider the context and physical setting in which the conversation takes place.
Approximately 62% of students, totaling 31 individuals, identified the explicit meaning of utterances—defined as the conventional meaning of the words used—as a key factor for listeners in comprehending conversational implicatures.
Approximately 44% of students, equating to 22 individuals, believe that making inferences based on everyday knowledge, community context, and global awareness is essential for interpreting conversational implicatures.
Approximately 20% of the students, equivalent to 10 individuals, believe that the hearer's experience and sociocultural context significantly influence the interpretation of conversational implicatures.
Most fourth-year English majors can identify the essential factors that listeners require to comprehend conversational implicatures effectively.
4.2.2 The students’ understanding about English conversational implicatures through the exercise
Table 3: The students’ interpretation of conversational implicature through the exercise
Table 3 indicates that only 61.2% of students provided the expected answers, highlighting a significant number of students lacking a sufficient understanding of conversational implicatures in English.
The following parts will present more obviously about the results of the interpretation of the students about different types of conversational implicature.
4.2.2.1 The students’ ability to understand the relevance implicatures
Table 4: The interpretation of the students about relevance implicature
Table 4 indicates that approximately 72% of students provided correct answers across all four items related to relevance, suggesting that relevance implicature is relatively easy for students to grasp Grice's (1975) relevance maxim posits that conversational participants are expected to contribute information pertinent to the context When this expectation is unmet, listeners must infer an alternative meaning that aligns with the speaker's intended message (Bouton, 1994).
4.2.2.2 The students’ ability to understand the Pope Q implicatures
Table 5: The interpretation of the students about Pope Q implicature
Pope Q implicatures, as illustrated in Table 5, demonstrated a high success rate among students, with an average understanding percentage of 71.3% These implicatures are relatively straightforward, characterized by their formulaic nature, where an answer is provided through a subsequent question According to Bouton (1994), listeners are required to infer that the responses to both the initial and follow-up questions are consistent.
4.2.2.3 The students’ ability to understand the minimum requirement implicature
Table 6: The interpretation of the students about the minimum requirement implicature
According to Table 6, the average percentage of students providing correct answers related to the minimum requirement rule stands at 69% This figure indicates a moderate level of understanding, as it is neither particularly low nor high The minimum requirement implicature, much like Pope Q implicature, demonstrates a formulaic nature in its occurrence.
According to Bouton (1994), when the context indicates that the addressee is primarily interested in whether a specific minimum requirement has been fulfilled, it highlights the importance of understanding Sequence implicature among students This ability is crucial for effective communication and comprehension in various contexts.
Table 7: The interpretation of the students about Sequence implicature
In addition to such types of conversational implicatures as Relevance, Pope
The Q implicature, along with the Minimum Requirement implicature, was found to be easily understood by students, particularly the item based on Sequence Notably, there was only one Sequence-based item in the study According to the results in Table 7, 70% of students successfully interpreted the Sequence implicature, which is characterized by the distinct sequence of events suggested by statements.
4.2.2.5 The students’ ability to understand the Indirect Criticism implicature
Table 8: The interpretation of the students about Indirect Criticism implicature
Summary
In fact, we can give some conclusions as follows:
Firstly, most of the students could recognize the significance of understanding conversational implicature
While students grasp the theoretical foundations of conversational implicature, many struggle with practical understanding, particularly in English Types of implicature such as Relevance, Pope Q, Minimum Requirement, and Sequence are better understood, whereas Indirect Criticism and Irony present significant challenges Most students tend to interpret utterances literally, missing the intended meaning behind them, which indicates a gap in cultural knowledge that affects their comprehension of conversational implicature Therefore, enhancing students' understanding of English-speaking culture is essential for improving their ability to interpret these nuances effectively.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Conclusion
This thesis explores conversational implicature as a key factor influencing communication, focusing on the understanding of English conversational implicatures among fourth-year English majors at Tay Nguyen University The study aims to assess the students' comprehension levels and offers recommendations to enhance their pragmatic competence and proficiency in conversational implicatures.
This study surveys the ability of fourth-year English majors at Tay Nguyen University to understand English conversational implicatures It highlights students' opinions on the significance of grasping these implicatures and assesses their comprehension levels and interpretation strategies Findings indicate that while students acknowledge the importance of conversational implicatures for effective communication, their performance in related exercises was subpar, with varying levels of understanding across different types Many students relied on translation strategies and interpreted utterances literally, rather than as intended by native speakers Additionally, cultural factors were found to hinder their understanding, suggesting a need for students to deepen their knowledge of the target culture to better grasp non-literal meanings in English communication.
Recommendations
To enhance effective communication in real-life situations, it is essential to improve the pragmatic skills and proficiency of English majors at Tay Nguyen University in understanding conversational implicatures This section offers several recommendations for achieving these improvements.
Conversational implicature is a fundamental communication strategy, particularly in cross-cultural interactions, and is essential for effective communication Consequently, it is crucial for students to develop an understanding of the importance of recognizing and interpreting conversational implicatures to enhance their communicative skills.
To effectively interpret conversational implicatures, students must understand several key factors, including conventional meanings, the Cooperative Principle, the physical context, presuppositions, cultural backgrounds, and personal experiences These elements are crucial for listeners to grasp the intended meanings in conversations, as highlighted by Grice's theory.
The Cooperative Principle is essential for hearers to interpret implicature, as speakers may not convey additional meanings intentionally (1975) Lee (2002) emphasizes that listeners must rely on shared cultural knowledge and presuppositions to understand the speaker's message, assuming both parties adhere to this principle Taguchi (2005) categorizes contextual factors into external and internal groups; external factors include sociocultural elements like physical settings and relationships, while internal factors encompass assumptions, world knowledge, beliefs, and experiences To enhance their competence in interpreting conversational implicature in English, students are encouraged to engage in exercises available online or in books and practice with peers.
To enhance their understanding of English conversational implicatures, students must improve their knowledge of the culture associated with English-speaking communities This cultural awareness is essential, as certain types of implicature depend on an understanding of the target language's cultural context.
1 Nguyễn Thị Tú Anh (2012) Hàm ngôn trong truyện ngắn của Nguyễn Huy
Thiệp Ho Chi Minh University of Education, p 1-2.
2 Võ Thị Thanh Thảo (2011) A study of conversational implicatures in Titanic film.
3 Billy Clark (2013) Relevance Theory Cambridge University Press, pp 10-11.
4 Bouton, L F (1994) Can NNS skill in interpreting implicature in American English be improved through explicit instruction? - a pilot study In Pragmatics and
Language Learning Monograph Series, Volume 5. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED398742.pdf
5 Brown, G & G Yule (1983) Discourse Analysis Cambridge University Press, p. 31.
6 Grice H P (1975) Logic and Conversation In Cole, P & Morgan, J (eds).
Syntax and Semantics, vol 3, pp 41-58 New York: Academic Press. http://www.ucl.ac.uk/ls/studypacks/Grice-Logic.pdf
7 Eli Hinkel (1999) Culture in Second Language Teaching and Learning. Cambridge University Press, p 67-69
8 Jia, L I (2008) The violation of the Cooperative principle and the four Maxims in Psychological Consulting The Canadian Social Science, 4, pp 87-95.
9 J Thomas Conversational Maxims in Peter V.Lamarque (1997) (Eds), Concise
Encyclopedia of Philosophy of Language (pp 388-392): Springer
10 Haiyan Wang (2011) Conversational Implicature in English Listening Comprehension Journal of Language Teaching and Research, Vol 2, No 5, pp. 1162-1167.
11 Hurford, J.R & Heasley, B (1983) Semantics: A Coursebook Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p 15.
12 Lee, S J (2002) Interpreting conversational implicatures: A study of Korean learners of English The Korean TESOL Journal, 5 Fall/Winter, pp.1-26
13 Levinson, Stephen C (1983) Pragmatics Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 126.
14 Miller R B and Johnson Lee N (2013) Advanced Methods in Family Therapy Research: A Focus on Validity and Change Routledge.
15 Supaporn Manowong (2011) The study of ability to interpret conversational implicatures in English of Thai EFL learners The International Academic Forum, pp 138-148.
Online at http://iafor.org/archives/offprints/acll2011-offprints/ACLL2011_0106.pdf
16 Yule, G (1996) Pragmatics Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp 35-46
17 Taguchi, N (2005) Comprehending implied meaning in English as a foreign language The modern language journal, 89, pp 543-562.
18 https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/conversation )
This survey aims to investigate the ability of fourth-year English major students at Tay Nguyen University to understand conversational implicatures in English Rest assured, all data collected will be used solely for research purposes, and personal identification is not required Your participation in completing this survey is greatly appreciated, and we thank you for your cooperation.
Question 1: Are you interested in interpreting conversational implicatures?
Question 2: What is your opinion about the importance of understanding conversational implicatures? (you can choose more answers)
Helping us to understand the problem clearly
Helping to improve communicative skills
Helping to be able to be proficient language learners
Question 3: In your opinion, which of the following factors we need to be able to understand conversational implicatures?(you can choose more than one answer)
A The explicit meaning of the utterance (The conventional meaning of the words used)
B The interlocutors cooperate with each other by briefly saying sufficient relevant things (The Cooperative Principle)
C The context in which the utterance occurs (Physical setting)
D Something that unsaid, and helps provide meaning about what a person says
E The environment and surroundings in which a person grew up in (Cultural background)
F Knowledge relates to every day’s life, the community, the wider world…
G The hearer’s experience of communication or about sociocultural context
A conversational implicature exercise for students:
This exercise aims to investigate the ability of fourth-year English majors at Tay Nguyen University to understand conversational implicatures in English Your participation in this exercise is greatly appreciated, and please rest assured that all collected data will be used solely for research purposes.
Thank you very much for your cooperation:
Lars: Where’s Rudy, Tom? Have you seen him this morning?
Tom: There’s a yellow Honda parked over by Sarah’s house.
Tom recently observed that Sarah has purchased a new yellow Honda He is uncertain about Rudy's whereabouts and speculates that Rudy might be at Sarah's house Additionally, Tom has a fondness for yellow Hondas and expresses a desire to see one.
2 Frank wanted to know what time it was, but he did not have a watch.
Frank: What time is it, Helen?
Helen: The postman has been here.
Helen's statement about the postman suggests to Frank that it is around the time he should check his mail, indicating that he should pause his current activity However, by changing the subject, she may also imply that she is unsure of the exact time Ultimately, Frank might feel confused as Helen does not directly answer his question, leaving him without a clear message.
3 Sarah and Joan are colleages at work Joan turns to Sarah and says:
Joan: By the way, how much are you getting this year? I heard you got a really nice raise.
Sarah: Have you seen any good movies lately, Joan? I’d really like to see one or two before the workload gets heavier.
Sarah mentions going to the movies because she wants to enjoy them before her schedule gets hectic this fall After receiving a nice raise, she invites Joan to join her as her guest However, she prefers not to discuss her salary and admits that she hasn’t seen any good films in a long time.
4 When Jack got home, he found that his wife was limping.
Jack: What happened to your leg?
Today, I finally got some exercise jogging, but I hurt myself in the process It's nothing serious, so don't worry about it However, I'd prefer to change the subject because it's a bit embarrassing.
5 A group of students are talking over their coming vacation Their conversation goes as follows:
Kate: I wish we didn’t have that test next Friday I wanted to leave for Florida before that.
Jake: Oh, I don’t think we’ll really have that test Do you?
Professor Schmidt has announced that he will remain on campus during the vacation, raising concerns among students like Mark and Kate about the possibility of a surprise test They are left wondering if they will need to stay until Friday to prepare for it.
Kate: Does the sun come up in the east these days?
Kate's last question suggests a desire to shift the conversation, indicating that she prefers to avoid escalating emotions or conflicts She acknowledges the inevitability of receiving the test, affirming that it is a certainty Additionally, she points out that most others will likely leave early, implying that following suit might be the best course of action.
6 Ceila and Ron are discussing their boss, who is very unpleasant
Ceila: So, do you think Mr Stinguy will give me a raise?
What does Ron mean? a I don’t know Ask me a question I can answer. b Let’s change the subject. c No, he will not give you a raise. d Yes I think he will do that
7 Larry and Charlene are talking about a test they recently took
Charlene: Do you think you got an “A” on the test?
Larry: Do chickens have lips?
The name "Larry" can evoke various responses, such as a refusal to discuss test results, an affirmative statement about achieving an "A" on a test, a desire to shift the conversation, or a playful admission of uncertainty, prompting the listener to ask a different question.
8 Nigel Brown comes to the bank to borrow money The conversation between him and the banker occurs as follow:
Banker: Do you have 50 cows, Mr Brown?
Nigel's statement can be interpreted in various ways; it could mean he has exactly 50 cows, at least 50 cows possibly more, or no more than 50 cows potentially less Ultimately, the most accurate interpretation is that he could mean any of these three possibilities.
9 Ted and Sharon went to a bar to have beer and the following conversation took place.
Ted: Can we have a couple of Lite beers, please?
Sharon: Make mine a Bud Light, will you?
Bartender: I don’t know Are you two 21?
Ted: Yeah, we are Now can we have our beers?