This video made the maxims and their application click for me haha. I had a habit of overthinking, thanks to the ambiguity of my professor's lectures, or maybe I'm just a simpleton, and I respond well to visual presentation, haha. Thank you!
I had lost track of this video for a long time. Tried for hours and hours to find it again. Finally found it again. I really hate misplacing valuable knowledge.
Thank you for the video. I'm doing a PhD currently but I've never felt dumber when engaging with journal articles in this area. Everything seems to convoluted! Thank you for simplifying it.
Haha! I've been watching these WiPhi videos for a while now. I'm in Professor Lewis' logic course, it was cool to run across this one. Really well done too!
Does anyone else have a strong desire to do a treasure hunt baking game? Bake this cake in under an hour - but with a twist! All of the ingredients are hidden. You must use the treasure maps provided to find your ingredients, make your cake and bake it before time runs out.
Dear Karen, You're my hero "of the day" with that "long" video about pragmatics! It's not an easy topic, but you're presentation is amazing! Thanx. Claude, a French teacher of philosohy in Montréal!!!
Can this concept be used when analyzing a written statement or verbal statement to find out if someone is being truthful about what they are saying? Great job on this video.
I disagree with your very last statement. The semantic content of the sentences are actually different, pragmatics just explains why and how. Remember Tarski's definition of semantics: "[a discipline] that deals with certain relations between expressions of a language and the objects (or states of affairs) "referred to" by those expression". Pragmatics falls well within this definition, just (perhaps) with more oblique relations.
Dear Karen, Thanks for your video. I am wondering if the Gricean theory is only applicable in conversation between two or more participants, or it is also appropriate to use this theory for advertising language analysis which commercials is kind of a one-way communication as viewers could not involve in the ideas exchange.
Karen shmaren, bananas. I like tea. Your presentation was... let's just say... I got my hair cut yesterday. You are French I see! I hope you appreciate my infringements of the maxims as much as I appreciated your excellent video! :)
+Wireless Philosophy maybe it's just me but the language series is by far the best. (tbh i've made a point to watch the language series, whereas i've only seen a couple of other videos on other topics.) more language videos!!!
This video in relation to the noticeable difference (often mentioned in comedy) between male and female communication has me pondering. Could the reason females often violate the second part of the Maxim of Quantity be because of the difference in thought between the genders and the resulting stigma that "Men are idiots" thus making the female believe they need to offer more information than the male thinks is necessary?
+FailedNuance , this is what i was thinking as well. In sociolinguistics there is the concept that men and women speak differently, females imploring language differently to males. Thus the conclusion that we are 'just different' or wired differently as people like Tanner state. Although i think it also has to do with how we are socialised and conditioned throughout life. With the Maxims (in regards to Grice and pragmatics), it's not just the fact that men and women may be speaking differently (use of language), but also their goals in the interaction are different. Also, women (as you have stated) might feel the need to give more information based on previous experiences of miscommunication. This is called a schema (expectations based on previous interactions and observations). So women and men may 'think' differently, and implore language differently, but at the end of the day, it's actually the speaker (regardless of sex) that has to take responsibility for what is said, what is implied, what the receiver infers and what is not said. We also have to consider that implicature works both ways: the speaker may have tried to imply something (Honey, it's really cold in here), and the receiver of the utterance may infer that his missus is making a literal statement about the temperature in the room, not implying to turn the heater on etc. So... a lot of communicate breakdowns, IMO are based not so much on the sex distinction, but on how receptive you are to understanding what is implied. Basically having shared and mutual understanding of what is said and what is not :)
![PHILOSOPHY - Ethics: Hedonism and The Experience Machine [HD]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/yJ1dsNauhGE/mqdefault.jpg)
![PHILOSOPHY - Ethics: Hedonism and The Experience Machine [HD]](/img/tr.png)
![[Introduction to Linguistics] Grice's Maxims, Implicature, Presupposition](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/CGJGIWqnSFY/mqdefault.jpg)
![PHILOSOPHY - Language: Conventional Implicature [HD]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YD82l_bUhLc/mqdefault.jpg)
![PHILOSOPHY - Language: Meaning and Language [HD]](/img/n.gif)
I am 3 minutes into this presentation, and I already understand more about implicatures than I did doing 2 days of reading, thank you
same
same
I'm studying autism and this was really helpful to frame where the struggles with social communication are essentially pragmatic in nature. Thanks.
Just imagine your professor giving you a reference note with nothing in it but "Bob has wondeful penmanship".
It would be a fun experiment to just disregard all of these rules in a conversation with a family member
+jortjuuuuuh i jackson pollocked my toilet bowl this morning
My fart smells goooooood. I love fart.
my mom already does that lol
This video made the maxims and their application click for me haha. I had a habit of overthinking, thanks to the ambiguity of my professor's lectures, or maybe I'm just a simpleton, and I respond well to visual presentation, haha. Thank you!
I wish we all shared this concept's common descriptive language so that we could quickly diagnose when or how we don't follow the maxims.
breaking the maxims can also be a way of communicating something!
Thank you! I was about to cry bitter tears over the original essay by grice. This.helped.so.so.much.
Excellent video. Grice certainly knows how to kill a conversation and how to do it by ignoring all his maxims.
I had lost track of this video for a long time. Tried for hours and hours to find it again. Finally found it again. I really hate misplacing valuable knowledge.
VERY clear, to the point and easy to understand! I'm sharing it with my students. Thanks a lot!
Thank you for the video. I'm doing a PhD currently but I've never felt dumber when engaging with journal articles in this area. Everything seems to convoluted! Thank you for simplifying it.
I am sitting for my exam in discourse analysis next week, thank you for this informative analysis
Teachers at my 8 to 11 years st school, used to describe me as "talkative" . They could've said I was sociable and gregarious. How mean spirited
This video made the topic so clear! I was reading about it and couldn't really understand what they were trying to say
Haha! I've been watching these WiPhi videos for a while now. I'm in Professor Lewis' logic course, it was cool to run across this one. Really well done too!
Does anyone else have a strong desire to do a treasure hunt baking game? Bake this cake in under an hour - but with a twist! All of the ingredients are hidden. You must use the treasure maps provided to find your ingredients, make your cake and bake it before time runs out.
Amazing explanation
Great video. Well done, Dr. Lewis.
a very useful lecture, fundamental , simplified and well-organized ,well done
Are there any more of Karen Lewis? She's great!
Very well elaborated and the illustrations did help a lot. Thank you very much!
Glad it was helpful!
Dear Karen,
You're my hero "of the day" with that "long" video about pragmatics!
It's not an easy topic, but you're presentation is amazing!
Thanx.
Claude, a French teacher of philosohy in Montréal!!!
derrida33 Thank you and thanks for watching!
+Wireless Philosophy good job
RECIEVE instead of RECEIVE..? (3:17) Miss Lewis...? You should have a reader.
DONT instead of DON'T..? (3:25) Let's stop here.
@@lesterduludis8892 oh wa wa wa
Watching this in 2020....Thank You
Everything Karen says is accurate and soooo helpful!
Thank you, Ms. Lewis. Very good job!
Thanks Karen. Waiting for other videos.
I already learned about Grice in by BA; in my MA we now have to read original texts and boy oh boy linguistic texts are quite the mess
Good job.
claudiaquat Thanks!
Can this concept be used when analyzing a written statement or verbal statement to find out if someone is being truthful about what they are saying? Great job on this video.
I disagree with your very last statement. The semantic content of the sentences are actually different, pragmatics just explains why and how. Remember Tarski's definition of semantics: "[a discipline] that deals with certain relations between expressions of a language and the objects (or states of affairs) "referred to" by those expression". Pragmatics falls well within this definition, just (perhaps) with more oblique relations.
ive been subbed to wiphi for a while, dunno how i missed this one. good video
Great teacher
Great video and great explanation! Thank you very much!
Thank you, this helped me a lot with my lingüístics exam.
clear and interesting! Thank you very much!
This is really clear and useful! Thank you for creating it!
Thank you so much for this video! It helped me a lot!
To know that someone who goes to work can not be at the party is not word knowledge, given both are in different places.
Thanks for you video!
thank you so much! this was a great explanation with very good examples! helped me understand a lot
Dear Karen,
Thanks for your video. I am wondering if the Gricean theory is only applicable in conversation between two or more participants, or it is also appropriate to use this theory for advertising language analysis which commercials is kind of a one-way communication as viewers could not involve in the ideas exchange.
Nah, man this shit aint useful for nothin man
excellent video
Karen shmaren, bananas. I like tea. Your presentation was... let's just say... I got my hair cut yesterday. You are French I see!
I hope you appreciate my infringements of the maxims as much as I appreciated your excellent video! :)
This was really concise and helpful, thanks so much! ^-^
I very much did not disenjoy this series of still images featuring a CGI hand
I’m so confused, my second name is grice
Thank you for this! :)
Good video!!
you need to adjust the content
good job
way to go Grice!
thanks
Saying 'random things for no reason at all' is, quite literally, 'small talk'.
This is a lot of good information, in such a little time. Really good. =D
Ravin Sharma Thanks!
+Wireless Philosophy maybe it's just me but the language series is by far the best. (tbh i've made a point to watch the language series, whereas i've only seen a couple of other videos on other topics.) more language videos!!!
thanks a million
I don't think you can bake a cake with sugar cubes.
This video in relation to the noticeable difference (often mentioned in comedy) between male and female communication has me pondering. Could the reason females often violate the second part of the Maxim of Quantity be because of the difference in thought between the genders and the resulting stigma that "Men are idiots" thus making the female believe they need to offer more information than the male thinks is necessary?
+FailedNuance , this is what i was thinking as well. In sociolinguistics there is the concept that men and women speak differently, females imploring language differently to males. Thus the conclusion that we are 'just different' or wired differently as people like Tanner state. Although i think it also has to do with how we are socialised and conditioned throughout life. With the Maxims (in regards to Grice and pragmatics), it's not just the fact that men and women may be speaking differently (use of language), but also their goals in the interaction are different. Also, women (as you have stated) might feel the need to give more information based on previous experiences of miscommunication. This is called a schema (expectations based on previous interactions and observations). So women and men may 'think' differently, and implore language differently, but at the end of the day, it's actually the speaker (regardless of sex) that has to take responsibility for what is said, what is implied, what the receiver infers and what is not said. We also have to consider that implicature works both ways: the speaker may have tried to imply something (Honey, it's really cold in here), and the receiver of the utterance may infer that his missus is making a literal statement about the temperature in the room, not implying to turn the heater on etc. So... a lot of communicate breakdowns, IMO are based not so much on the sex distinction, but on how receptive you are to understanding what is implied. Basically having shared and mutual understanding of what is said and what is not :)