Chapter Four

Conversational
Implicature

4.1 What is implicaure?

The word implicature, like its cognate( )
implication, is derived from the verb to imply.
Etymologically speaking , to imply
means to fold something into something else. What is
implied, or folded in has to be unfolded in order to be
understood.
A conversational implicature is, therefore, something
which is implied in a conversation, that is, something which
is left implicit in actual language use.

4.2 Implication and Implicature

The use of the term implication, as distinguished from
implicature, usually indicates a rather narrowly defined
logical relationship between two propositions( ). We
use p and q to symbolize the two propositions. The logical
implication pattern is if p, then q or,
pq
This ifthen relationship is also well known in our daily
life, and can be expressed in everyday language. Suppose a
mother wants her son to finish his meal, and as a reward of
this, she promises to buy him his favorite dinosaur book.
Using ifthen relationship, we get the logical expression of
p q as:
If you finish your meal, I will buy you that dinosaur book.

Logical implication does not correspond with

what in everyday life we understand by implicature
or implies.
In a word, logic and everyday life do not always
look at things in the same way. Based on this
distinction, we may say that implicature is an
inferred meaning which is different from the logical
meaning (implication) of the original utterance.

4.3 Significance of the Notion of Implicature

4.3.1 The notion of implicature provides some explicit
account of how it is possible to mean more than what is
actually said, or more than what is literally expressed.
Consider the following exchange:
A: Shall we hold the football match tomorrow?
B: It is raining.
Semantic and literal meaning: his answer unrelated to the
question.
Intended meaning: the football match will be canceled as
the ground is wet and slippery after the rain.

Another example:
A: Can you tell me the time?
B: Well, the milkman has come.
B semantic and literal meaning:
Well, the milkman came at some time prior to the time
of speaking .
Bs implicature:
Sorry, I dont know the exact time of the present
moment, but I can provide some information
from which you may be able to deduce the
appropriate time, namely the milkman has come.

Conclusion:
There is a gap between what is literally said and
what is implied. This gap is so substantial( )
that we cannot expect a semantic theory to explain
how we communicate using language. The notion of
implicature, however, bridges the gap by explaining
how meanings are effectively conveyed.

4.3.2 The notion of implcature simplifies both the

structure and the content of semantic description. In
this sense, implicature does not explain how a word
or expression has several literal meanings but
explains how a word or expression could imply
different meanings by different language users.
e.g. The lone ranger jumped on his horse and rode into
the sunset.
The capital of France is Paris and the capital
of England is London.

So from semantic point of view, it may hold that and has

two meanings in the two sentences. But from pragmatic
point of view, it holds that the word and is a conjunction. It
is language users who use it to convey various meanings
under specific context.
Conclusion:
So in this sense, pragmatic study of the notion of implicature
simplifies both the structure and the content of semantic
description. It holds that a word meaning is generally simple,
straightforward and steady. Only context makes a word take
on different shades of meanings.
e.g. The cloth is white.
The cloth is white, red and green.

4.3.3 The notion of implicature has a very generative

explanatory power. With the help of the context,
implicature may explain how a large number of apparently
unrelated sentences may convey the same meaning. In this
way implicature helps to make our language use colorful.
Take the following sentences as examples
1) I want you to close the door.
2) Please close the door.
3) Can you close the door?
4) How about a bit less breeze?
5) Now, Johnny, what do big people do when they come in?
6) Okay, Johnny, what am I going to say next?

Conclusion:
So in this case, implicature helps to explain how
some seemingly unrelated sentences come to mean
the same. With the help of context, the use of
implicature makes our language use more colorful.
We may express the same meaning in different ways
to suit appropriate contexts. ( PP67-69)

4.4 Conventional Implicature

There is the kind of meaning that is always
associated with an expression so that on every
occasion when the expression occurs, the meaning
occurs.
This meaning which is naturally associated with
an expression is known as conventional implicature,
or entilment( ), or natural meaning.

Because language is basically culture-specific, conventional

implicature of the same expression may vary under different
cultural background.
For example, white gives the implicature of purity and
chastity( ) in western cultures and is associated
with a bride; but it indicates ill-luck and misfortune in China
and is associated with mourning.
Often the conventional implicatures are formed by the
conventional use of language within specific cultural
background. They may or may not be shared by all cultures.

Grice 1957 Philosophical

Review)
(Meaning) Grice
(natural meaning)
(non-natural meaning)

Those spots meant measles ( )

 Grice
S U
(i) S U H Z
(ii) H S S

U
Z

Grice

4.5 Conversational Implicature

Unlike conventional implicatures, conversational
implicatures are produced by relating to the conversational
context. To know what people mean, we have to interpret
what they say. But interpretation is a tricky affair, and misunderstandings are always possible. As Leech remarks,
interpreting an utterance is ultimately a matter of guesswork.
e.g. A: When is Toms birthday?
B: Its sometime in October.
Bs implicature: the only thing he remembered about
Toms birthday was the month in which it occurs, and that
he honestly didnt know whether it was at the beginning,
the middle or the end of that month.

How does a conversational implicature come about?

In analyzing an utterance, depending on strict
semantic or logical criteria will not help. The
guesswork that Leech talks about will have to be of
a somewhat qualified nature. The qualified guessing
must depend on the context, that is, the circumstances of this particular question, the person involved in
the situation, these persons background, etc. The
more we know about this context, the more wellgrounded our guesswork is going to be.

e.g.

A: I could eat the whole of that cake.

B: Oh, thanks.

As literal meaning: a statement of a fact.

The context: an exchange between a guest and a host.
As implicature: I compliment you on the cake, it is so
delicious that I want to eat the whole of it.
e.g.

A: Where is my box of chocolates?

B: I was feeling hungry.
I have got a train to catch.
Where is your diet sheet?
The children were in your room this morning.

Bs semantic meanings: nonsense

Bs intended meanings:
He has eaten the chocolates as he was hungry.
He took the chocolates as he got a train to catch.
He hid the chocolates as he knew that A was on
diet. (to lose weight, A should not eat them.)
He suggested that the chocolates might be eaten
by the children.

Conclusion:
The intended meanings of different speakers are
not drawn from semantic or logical content of
language, but are drawn from conversatinal
implicature which tries to explain language use
from functional, communicative and contextual
aspects rather than from linguistic aspects which
include phonology, syntax and semantics.

Question: Why dont people just say what they

mean so as to avoid all guesswork and
misunderstanding?
__ the way language users go about their
communicative businesses
Communication is not a matter of logic or truth,
but of co-operative; not of what people say, but of
what they can say under certain circumstances.
According to Grice, the reason why people
dont say what they mean is that they try to be cooperative by observing certain rules in
communication so as to make communication
smooth and successful.


Levinson,1983:131
=

 Grice

4.6 The Co-operative Principle( )

An American philosopher named H. Paul Grice
introduces the Co-operative Principle (CP) in his
book Logic and Conversation in
1975. In Grices opinion, in order to conduct
successful and happy interaction, people are actually
observing certain co-operative principles.

Within this principle, Grice suggests four sub-principles or

maximsas: P71
The Maxim of Quality :
try to make your contribution true,specially:
a) do not say what you believe to be false
b) do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence
The Maxim of Quantity :
a) make your contribution as informative as is required
for the current purpose of the exchange
b) do not make your contribution more informative
than required

The Maxim of Relevance :

make your contribution relevant.
The Maxim of Manner :
be perspicuous( ), and
specially:
a) avoid obscurity( )
b) avoid ambiguity( )
c) be brief
d) be orderly

4.7 Observing Grices Co-operative Principle

The maxim of quality: to speak sincerely
e.g. 1) John has two Ph.D.s.
+> I believe he has and have adequate evidence to
show that he has two Ph.D.s.
2) Does your farm contain 400 acres?
+> I dont know it does, and I want to know if it
does.
3) I will do it.
+> I sincerely intend to do as what I say.
( P72)

The maxim of quality suggests that, in co-operative

circumstances, when one says something, one
implies he believes it, and when one asks a question,
one implies that he sincerely desires an answer, and
by extension, when one promises to do something,
one implies that he sincerely intends to do it and so
on.

The maxim of quantity: say as much as required

e.g. 1) Tom has four children.
+> Tom has only four children.
2) The cloth is white.
+> The cloth is wholly white.
3) A: How did Harry fare ( ) in court the other
day?
B: Oh, he got a fine.
+> He only got a fine
Generally speaking, the maxim of quantity suggests that
the information presented is the strongest, or most
informative that one can provide under the situation.

4.8 Flouting ( )Grices Co-operative

Principle
Grice is aware that people do not always follow
these maxims in language communication. He
observes that sometimes people are overtly(
) and blatantly( )not following some
maxims in order to exploit implicature (as this is
always the meaning that people intend to convey
under certain circumstances) for communicative
purposes. He calls this process as the flouting of

4.8.1 Flouting the Maxim of Quality

a) Flouting the first sub-maxim of quality (do not say
what you believe to be false) by saying things that are not
true to the fact. The purpose is to force the addressee to
make pragmatic implicature. Many figures of speech like
irony, metaphor, hyperbole, rhetorical questions, etc.
belong to this kind of flouting as shown in the following
examples:

A: What if the USSR blocks the Gulf and all the oil?
B: Oh come now, Britain rules the seas! (irony)
The fact: Britain has lost her controlling position over the
seas since World War I.
Bs implicature: since Britain no longer controls the seas,
there is nothing that Britain can do.
e.g. Queen Victoria was made of iron. (metaphor)
The obvious false statement: no human beings are made
of iron.
The implicature: Queen Victoria has some of the
incidental ( )characteristics that are similar with iron like hardness, non-flexibility (

e.g. I was frightened to death.

(hyperbole)

The fact: the speaker is actually still alive and is standing

on his/her feet.
The implicature: I was extremely frightened at that time
and you just cannot imagine how frightened
I was.
e.g. Was Mussolini going to be moderate?
(rhetorical question)
The fact: Mussolini was definitely not going to be
moderate.

b) Flouting the second sub-maxim of quality (do not say

that for which you lack adequate evidence)
by making irresponsible and insincere remarks as in the
following example:
e.g. A: Teherens in Turkey, isnt it, teacher?
B: And London s in America, I suppose.
Bs utterance is irresponsible and insincere. He deliberately violates the second sub-maxim of quality.
By doing so, he wants to force A to reach an implicature: you are absolutely wrong and you are

4.8.2 Flouting the Maxim of Quantity

a) Flouting the first sub-maxim of quantity (make your
contribution as informative as is required for the purposes of exchange) by providing non-informative
information as in,
e.g. Dear Sir,
Mr. Robinsons command of English is
excellent, and his attendance at tutorials
has been regular.
Yours, etc.

Generally speaking, a recommendation letter should cover

the referees comments on the applicants professional
ability, creative ability and some of his personal
characters. But this letter is non-informative to all these
aspects. So the professor has obviously violated the first
sub-maxim of quantity. The employer who got this letter
would understand the implied meaning (implicature) in it.
That is, the applicant was not suitable for such a job.

b) Flouting the second sub-maxim of quantity (do not

make your contribution more informative than is required) by either providing less or more information
than needed as in the following humour,
Aunt: How did Jimmy do his history examination?
Mother: Oh, not at all well. They asked him things
that happened before the poor boy was
born.
The mother violated the second sub-maxim of quantity
by adding something more to her adequate remark.
The mothers implicature: failure in the examination

Tautologies ( ) (needless repetition)

e.g. 1) War is war.
2) Either John will come or he wont.
3) If he does it, he does it.
Pragmatic implicature:
1) Terrible things always happen in war, that is its
nature and it is no good lamenting( ) over
that particular disaster.
2) Calm down, there is no point in worrying about
whether he is going to come or not because there
there is nothing we can do about it.
3) It is no concern of us.

4.8.3 Flouting the Maxim of Relevance

It is harder to provide examples of flouting the maxim of
relevance because it is not easy to give responses that
must appear irrelevant. Lets see an example provided
by Grice.
At a genteel ( ) tea party, A says.
A: Mrs. X is an old bag.
There is a moment of appalled ( )silence and
then B says,
B: The weather has been quite delightful this
summer, hasnt it?

Bs remark implies that As remark should not be perhaps

more specifically, that A has committed a social gaffe(
).
In appropriate circumstances, Bs utterance might imply:
Hey, watch out, her nephew is standing right behind
you!
More example:
Johnny: Hey, Sally, lets play marbles.
Mother: How is your homework getting along, Johnny?
This irrelevant remark must suggest something. Here
Johnnys mother is saying to him that he couldnt play

4.8.4 Flouting the Maxim of Manner

a) Flouting the first sub-maxim of manner (avoid
obscurity) by giving obscure information as in the
following exchange:
Father: Lets give the kids something.
Mother: Okay, but I veto C-H-O-C-O-L-A-T-E.
Mothers implicature: she agrees with the father, but she
doesnt want their kids to eat chocolate. She is afraid
that her kids might ask for some chocolate by hearing
the word. She uses spelling and a Latin word veto in
order to make the utterance obscure for the small kids
to understand.

b) Flouting the second sub-maxim of manner (avoid

ambiguity) by giving ambiguous( ) information
as in the following conversation between a receptionist
( ) and an associate( ) editor:
A: Name and title.
B: John Smith, Associate Editor and Professor.
By using ambiguous structure, B intends to prevent A
from knowing his true social status because Associate
Editor and Professor could mean both associate editor
and Associate Professor as well as Associate Editor and
Professor.

c) Flouting the third sub-maxim of manner (be brief) by

being wordy ( ) as in a newspaper comment:
e.g. Miss X produced a series of sounds that
corresponded ( )closely to the score
of Home, Sweet Home.
X

The implicature: The reviewer( ) is implying

that
Miss Xs performance suffered from some hideous

d) Flouting the fourth sub-maxim of manner (be

orderly) as in,
e.g. Her files of pins extend their shining rows;
puffs, powders, patches, Bibles, trifles,
billet-doux.
The implicature: The lady doesnt arrange her personal
belongings in an orderly way. She mixes Bibles with
powders, love-letters, trifles, etc. It implies that although the lady is very religious and takes Bibles
wherever she goes, she actually does not take the
Holy Book very serious.


S q
1 S
2 S q
3 S H H

q S
q
1 S
2
3
4

Grice
1 S P
2
3 P

q
4

q
5 q

4.9 Grices Distinction between Generalized Conversational Implicature and Particularized

Conversational Implicature
4.9.1 Standard (generalized) implicature is the implicature that arises as a result of observing the maxims.
This type of implicature can be understood and interpreted without making reference to any conversational contexts. (
)
e.g. I walked into a house.
+> The house is not my house. (

4.9.2 Particularized implicature

arises
from the act of flouting or violating the maxims. By
flouting the maxims, the speaker wants to force the
listener to draw extended implicature. Therefore,
the interpretation of a particularized implicature has to
rely on certain specific context as in the following
example )
The dog is looking very happy.
Suppose we provide an implicature for this remark:
+> Perhaps the dog has eaten the roast beef.
Then this particularized implicature would only arise in
the following context:
A: What has happened to the roast beef?

The dog is looking very happy.

Suppose we provide an implicature for this remark:
+> Perhaps the dog has eaten the roast beef.
Then this particularized implicature would only arise
in the following context:
A: What has happened to the roast beef?
B: The dog has eaten the roast beef and is looking
happy.

(entailment)

4.10 Features of Conversational Implicature

Five features: PP81-86
1) cancellability (or defeasibility)

2) non-detachability (or inference which is based on

meaning rather than on form)
3) calculability
4) non-conventionality
5) indeterminacy