Pragmatics supplemental problems

1. Consider whether each of Gail's conclusions is entailed by Kim's utterance, or whether the conclusion is merely implicated by what Kim says. Be very careful, because these can be tricky.

2. If the conclusion is entailed, explain how you know. If it's implicated, tell how the implicature was reached (i.e. what maxim or maxims are used) and give an example in which Kim's utterance is true but Gail's conclusion is false.

1. Gail: "Are you married?"

Kim: "I got married in 1990 and got a divorce in 2000."

Gail's conclusion: Kim is not married.

2. Gail: "Do you have any pets?"

Kim: "I have a parakeet."

Gail's conclusion: Kim has a bird.

3. Gail: "Who did you talk to last night?"

Kim: "I talked to two people: my daughter Julia and a woman named Margaret."

Gail's conclusion: Margaret is not another daughter of Kim's.

Part 2

1. Interpret the utterance as a direct speech act. Tell what act it is, and how you know that it's a direct act of that type.
2. Now interpret the utterance as an indirect speech act, and tell what type it is. Explain, using felicity conditions, why the utterance can be interpreted in this way. You may use felicity conditions discussed in the book or in class, or "make up" your own.

1. "It would be a shame if anything happened to that shiny new car of yours."
2. "Why don't you buy a newspaper while you're out?"