Talk:Implicature/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Lingzhi2 (talk · contribs) 10:26, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Anypodetos: Nice to see someone using harvcol (LSA format). I put that together about a billion years ago. I think you need to follow the advice at User:Lingzhi2/reviewsourcecheck, however. I see 11 Harv errors and many others of other kinds (some are less important than others; e.g., I think there's a debate going on right now about "Cite web requires |website=", and some other errors/warnings can arguably be ignored) ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 10:26, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lingzhi2! Thanks for reviewing this article and for pointing me to the ref checker. I am going through the errors at the moment. Con you help me with the Blome-Tillmann ref? I can't find out what's wrong with it. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 12:17, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the other (non-Harv) errors don't show in Firefox and Edge, but they do in Chrome. Any ideas on that? It's not a problem for me, just being curious. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 12:28, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the Blome-Tillman in the bibliography may have had an endash but the ref may have had a hyphen....as for second question, try fiddling with "hid ref check/show ref check" under the "More" tab of the toolbar atop the page... ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 12:33, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1st question: Thanks, could have seen that myself :-/ 2nd question: nope, but never mind. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk)

Re ref errors

Missing ISBNs and ISSNs: Birner & Ward 2006 and Brown 2014 don't seem to have one; Grice 1975 is given under Cole & Morgan 1975 and Grice 1989
Missing publisher: Bach 2005 is give under Birner & Ward 2006; for Grice 1975 see above
Missing pagenums: I don't have access to this book, only a PDF
Missing archive links: How do I do that? "Fix dead links" doesn't do anything, even if I check "Add archives to all non-dead references". --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 13:30, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Firefox -- I use it almost exclusively, and ref checks always and everywhere works for me. Archive links: Not urgent. Some people really think they are needed, but I've seen one person go so far as to label them spam. But that guy was a bit of an outlier. As for why it doesn't work, IAbot is cantankerous and goes down sometimes. Also:

Bach, Kent (2006). "The top 10 misconceptions about implicature". In Birner, Betty J.; Ward, Gregory L. (eds.). Drawing the Boundaries of Meaning: Neo-Gricean Studies in Pragmatics and Semantics in Honor of Laurence R. Horn. John Benjamins Publishing. pp. 21–30. ISBN 90-272-3090-0. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

@Anypodetos: References are looking much more pleasant... Changing topics, by cosmic coincidence, the Stanford encyclopedia seems to have undergone a substantial revision just yesterday. Two useful experiments might be 1) Look up the old version via wayback, compare to new, see what those revisions are, 2) Cast your eye up and down that page's TOC and see whether their emphases etc. are the same as ours. I am not suggesting we mirror Stanford; just suggesting a survey to see if anything large jumps out. I might do these later but if you wanna try then go for it.... I ran the copyvio software on it and nothing seems amiss. Don't be offeneded when I ask, and I have not seen any reason to ask this except that it always needs to be asked: are there any close paraphrase instances here? I will look later... ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 00:58, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the example sentences are taken from the sources (e.g. the gas station example is a classic), and of course there are the two boxes (near) quoting Grice's and Sperber&Wilson's definitions. No other quotations or near paraphrasings. I will have a look at the Stanford Encyclopedia tomorrow. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 20:37, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(←) It ocurred to me that one way to compare the two most recent versions would be to copy/paste both into subsequent edits of one user subpage (soon to be deleted, for copyvio reasons) and compare them using Wikipedia's diff function. So I did just that. The two versions are in my userspace, but you could just look at this diff. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 05:41, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, that's not as easy to interpret as I had hoped. I will look further. It seems that the new version is shorter than the old, due to considerable trimming. The new has new examples e.g., "Trump is a stable genius"... Looking for completely new info... ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 06:44, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article makes hard reading even without comparing versions. Davis keeps presenting controversial things as facts, and also redefining technical terms ... I am on it, anyway. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 10:10, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Anypodetos: This bit is new. I wioll look for more:

Implicature plays a well-attested diachronic role in grammaticalization and the origin of new meanings and idioms.[24] For example, metaphors have a typical life cycle: beginning as something a speaker means on a particular occasion; being picked up by others; catching on, which means becoming self-perpetuating and spreading through the population; and finally, dying and becoming a new lexical meaning or idiom. When dead, what used to be indirectly expressed is directly expressed. The term virus as applied to computers went through this evolution in the last few decades, originally denoting a biological organism that spreads from host to host, now having another meaning on which it denotes computer programs that spread from computer to computer in a similar fashion. When a dead metaphor has syntactic structure like go viral, it is an idiom. When metaphors become widespread and self-perpetuating, but are not yet idioms, they generate generalized conversational implicatures.[25]

♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 10:34, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh another one: the new version also has talk of "trigger, triggered, triggering" which the old version does not. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 10:39, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Third: He kinda makes a point of switching from "generalized implicatures" to "generalized conversation implicatures" or GCI. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 10:47, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth, there are new ideas in this:

Many forms of implicature are not figures of speech, and have become widely recognized only since Grice (1975). (1) illustrates relevance implicature: the speaker implicates an answer to an expressed or implied question by stating something related to it by implication or explanation. [5b] is a quantity (or scalar) implicature: the speaker implicates the denial of a proposition stronger than the one said. (6) illustrates ignorance implicature: the speaker implicates that something stronger than what was said is unknown. (7) illustrates metalinguistic implicature: the speaker implicates that something has a certain name by using that name to describe it. These "modes of speech" (non-figurative forms of implicature) are not taught in school, and names for them are not in general use. Nevertheless, they are as frequent and natural as figurative speech, and are learned at the same time. Modes of speech are not marked intonationally, and the speech is literal. They are not used to make speech or writing lively. Speakers do not intend what they say to be obviously false, and generally do mean what they say.

♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 12:21, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification on my talk page. (#1) I think the bit about metaphors is a bit off-topic; it belongs in Metaphor, where there is a very short section about that issue. (#2) Included "trigger" in the section on conventional implicature. Thanks for catching this. (#3) I changed "generalized implicature" to "generalized conversational implicature" in some places for clarification. (#4) I think this is sufficiently covered (please feel free to disagree), except for "metalinguistic implicature" – not sure whether this is more widely accepted to be an implicature, so I'm hesitant to add it. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 14:57, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am satisfied that this article meets all the requirements of WP:WIAGA. PASS GA Nomination. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 02:11, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]