Deciphering Implicatures: On NLP and Oral Testimonies (2025)

Abstract: The utterance of a word does not intrinsically convey its intended force. The semantic of utterances is not shaped by the precise references of the words used. Asserting that “it is shameful to abandon our country” does not merely convey information; rather, it asserts an act of resilience. In most of our exchanges, we rarely utilize sentences to describe reality or the world around us. More frequently, our statements aim to express opinions, to influence, or be influenced by others. Words carry more than just their syntax and semantics; they also embody a pragmatic normative force. This divergence between literal and conveyed meaning was depicted in the literature of philosophy of language as the difference between sentence meaning and speaker meaning. Where the former is the literal understanding of the words combined in a sentence, the latter is what the speaker is trying to convey through her expression. In order to derive the speaker meaning from the sentence meaning, J.L. Austin (the author of How To Do Things with Words) relied on conventions, whereas H.P. Grice (the author of Logic and Conversations) relied on conventional and non conventional implicatures. This paper aims to decipher how we can infer speaker meaning from sentence meaning and thereby capture the force of what has been articulated, focusing specifically on oral testimonies. I argue that oral testimonies are forms of speech acts that aim to produce normative changes. Following this discussion, I will examine various natural language processing (NLP) models that make explicit what is implicit in oral testimonies with its benefits and limitations. Lastly, I will address two challenges, the former is related to implicatures that are not governed by conventions and the latter is concerned with the biases inherent in hermeneutical approaches.

## introduction the utterance of a word does not intrinsically convey its intended force. for instance, when nayfah abd al tayih foot_0 , one of the testimony givers in the al jana collection found in palestinian oral history archives, expresses, " " ("shame on us if we leave our homeland"), or when fatime abd al samad foot_1 , another testimony giver in the same archive, states," " in the literature of the philosophy of language, the force of a word, known as illocutionary force, is central to speech act theories. j. l. austin, in how to do things with words, defines this force as follow: the utterance of the sentence is part of, the doing of an action, which again would not normally be described as... merely saying something. the action which is performed when we say something is an illocutionary act; for example, informing, ordering, warning, undertaking @xcite . speech can be viewed as a normative vehicle aimed at transitioning from a set of entitlements that enable the speaker to articulate a sentence toward instituting normative changes in the status quo. the former will be referred to as the input of speech, while the latter will be regarded as the output of speech. the input is the set of entitlements, conditions and circumstances that gives credibility to the speaker as a proper speaker i.e. one can only pronounce a couple husband and wife if he is a registered priest. the output is the normative changes the utterance institutes i.e. once the priest utters the expression then the couple are socially and legally referred to as a married couple. since the input of the expression is governed by a set of norms that enable the utterance in question, and the output of the expression is the normative changes it invokes in the status quo then linguistic practices can only be understood within a normative social structure. language is used as a tool to mitigate normative societal practices by inducing normative changes such as asserting a commitment is taken as a justification for your future behavior, making a promise is taken as producing expectations for the hearer, issuing an order is taken as inducing a feeling of obligation in the hearer etc. linguistic activities are interwoven with nonlinguistic activities. applying the dichotomy between input and output, we can analyze the relevant testimonies in the following manner. fatime is a testimony giver in a collection of archive that aim to provide the oral history of palestinians since pre 1948. fatime's set of input is successfully met, as she is a palestinian, she was living in a'akka in 1948 and she was chosen by the interviewer to be a testimony giver. in addition, the fact that she was resisting leaving her house behind, ensuring that she gets all her family members from under the rubble, insures that fatime is a legitimate candidate to deliver a testimony about her perspective on what her duty is. the output of the testimony in question does not only serve to mirror a reality about the facts that unfolded back then but rather it is an authoritative claim that assert her commitment towards her family members and her household. in this specific explication we can depict the interaction between the linguistic and nonlinguistic aspects of oral testimonies. in order for us to be able to recognize the output of the speech and give its proper normative aspect -as a prescription rather than a description-it is essential to be familiar with the context in question. ## digitalized oral testimonies whether it is the power of conventions or that of intuition, what was mentioned above is but a proof of the complexities reigning the realm of semantics. william schneier in oral history in the age of digital possibilities highlights the complexity in the epistemic approach towards the narrative. the oral historian must not only comprehend the voice of the narrator but also ensure that the force behind this voice is preserved in the written narrative.. he claims 'i have gained a strong appreciation for the value of hearing accounts many times over, and in different contexts, in order to understand the meaning and to recognize multiple meanings, depending on context and audience' @xcite . one has to be aware how easily one can make assumption about meaning. it should be as well clear that the variety of ways in which people use and understand oral narrative give birth to different accounts of the same discourse said or written. in order to make sure that the narrative is authentic to what was narrated, what needs to be preserved is the interchange between the researcher and the re-searched, the historical background in question, the nuances of oral narratives, the conventional meaning of the words used and the context at hand, while ensuring that the gricean principle and maxims are being observed. ## conclusion in navigating the interplay between oral testimonies, natural language processing, and hermeneutics, we are reminded that language is not merely a vehicle for information but a dynamic, context-dependent tool shaped by the voices that tailor it. this paper has explored how nlp models, when combined with deep learning, can serve as powerful resources for capturing both the explicit and implicit content of spoken narratives. however, the complexities in deriving conversational implicatures and the biases that underpin both human and ai hermeneutical scheme present significant challenges. to engage meaningfully with oral testimonies, particularly in diverse linguistic and cultural landscapes, we must be vigilant of the limitations and assumptions embedded in our approaches. only through recognizing these complexities that we can strive for an epistemic practice that respects the speaker's voice and preserves the force of their words. addressing these challenges demands a commitment to refining nlp models, not only to replicate patterns but to approach the nuanced approach of understanding-where words, identity, and meaning converge in testimonies.