Pragmatics
Implicature
Pragmatic implications — what speakers mean beyond what they say
Conversational implicature, introduced by H. Paul Grice (1967, published 1975), names the meaning a speaker conveys without literally saying it. "Some students passed" implicates "not all" — the literal semantic content is compatible with all passing, but the speaker would have said "all" if true (Quantity maxim). Implicatures are non-truth-conditional, defeasible (cancellable: "Some, in fact all, students passed"), reinforceable, and computable from the maxims. Grice distinguished generalized implicatures (default — "some" usually means "not all") from particularized (context-dependent — "It's cold in here" implicating "close the window"). Laurence Horn (1972, 1984) and Stephen Levinson (2000) developed neo-Gricean theories. Sperber and Wilson (1986) reformulated everything as Relevance Theory.
- Coined byH. Paul Grice (1967, pub. 1975)
- Two main typesGeneralized vs particularized
- Key propertyCancellable (defeasibility)
- Driven byCooperative principle + maxims
- Famous exampleSome → not all
- Non-truth-conditionalImplicature can be denied without contradiction
Interactive visualization
Press play, or step through manually. The visualization is yours to drive — try it before reading on.
Watch the 60-second explainer
A condensed visual walkthrough — narrated, captioned, under a minute.
Why implicature matters
- Pragmatics. Core mechanism for non-literal meaning.
- Discourse analysis. Most communicated content is implicated, not said.
- Translation. Implicatures often don't translate; need restructuring.
- NLU systems. Chatbots must infer beyond literal user words.
- Legal interpretation. "Did he say it or just imply it?" turns on implicature.
- Politeness theory. Indirect speech relies on implicatures.
- Language acquisition. Children master implicature later than semantics.
Common misconceptions
- Implicature = entailment. Implicatures are cancellable; entailments aren't.
- If something is implied, it's said. Implicature is precisely meaning without saying.
- All non-literal meaning is implicature. Metaphor, irony, presupposition differ.
- Implicature is rare. It pervades almost every utterance.
- Children compute implicatures from age 2. Scalar implicature emerges around 5-7.
- Implicatures are always intended. Sometimes inferred without speaker intent.
Frequently asked questions
What's the difference between saying and implicating?
Saying is the truth-conditional content. Implicating is what's communicated beyond that. "John has three children" semantically says "at least three" — adding "in fact, four" wouldn't be a contradiction. But it implicates "exactly three" — Quantity-driven. Implicatures are the pragmatic surplus on top of literal meaning, and they account for an enormous share of communicated content.
What is scalar implicature?
Implicatures from scalar lexical items where alternatives form a Horn scale: ⟨all, most, many, some⟩, ⟨and, or⟩, ⟨certain, likely, possible⟩. Using a weaker item implicates that the stronger doesn't hold. "John drank some of the wine" implicates "not all"; "John or Mary will come" implicates "not both"; "It's possible" implicates "not certain." The most-studied class of implicature in formal pragmatics.
What does cancellable mean?
Implicatures can be canceled without contradiction — they are defeasible. "Some students passed — in fact, all did" is fine; the speaker retracts the not-all implicature. Compare with entailment: "All students passed — in fact, none did" is contradictory. Cancellability is the diagnostic test for implicature vs entailment, due to Grice. Reinforceability is also valid: "Some, but not all, students passed."
What's a particularized implicature?
Context-specific. A: "How was the lecture?" B: "There were a lot of comfortable chairs." B's reply implicates "the lecture was bad" — but only in this context. Move the same words elsewhere and the implicature disappears. Particularized implicatures arise from flouting (Manner, Relation) and require pragmatic reasoning. They contrast with generalized implicatures, which are nearly default.
What is conventional implicature?
Grice distinguished implicatures triggered by conventional meanings of certain words from those driven by maxims. "He is poor but honest" — "but" conventionally implicates a contrast with "poor and honest." "Therefore," "even," "still" carry conventional implicatures. These are non-cancellable and not maxim-driven. Modern theorists (Potts 2005) treat them as expressives or use-conditional content.
What is Relevance Theory?
Dan Sperber and Deirdre Wilson's (1986) reformulation of Gricean pragmatics. They reject the four maxims, keeping only Relation (relevance). Speakers aim for optimal relevance: maximum cognitive effects for minimum processing effort. Hearers pursue inference until the most accessible interpretation that meets their expectations of relevance. Highly influential in cognitive pragmatics.
How is implicature computed?
Grice's recipe: hearer asks "Why did the speaker say P rather than Q?" — assumes cooperation, identifies the maxim flouted, computes the implicature that restores cooperation. "John has 14 children" + I assume he's cooperative + Quantity: he'd have said exact if known + therefore implicate "at least 14." Modern theories (game-theoretic, Bayesian RSA) formalize this inference computationally.