- Conversation Analysis
- Cooperative Principle
- Illocutionary Force
- Information Content
- Relevance Theory
Examples and Observations:
- "What a speaker intends to communicate is characteristically far richer than what she directly expresses; linguistic meaning radically underdetermines the message conveyed and understood."
(L. R. Horn, "Implicature." The Handbook of Pragmatics. Wiley, 2005)
- Dr. Gregory House: How many friends do you have?
Lucas Douglas: Seventeen.
Dr. Gregory House: Seriously? Do you keep a list or something?
Lucas Douglas: No, I knew this conversation was really about you, so I gave you an answer so you could get back to your train of thought.
(Hugh Laurie and Michael Weston, "Not Cancer." House, M.D., 2008)
- "The probabilistic character of conversational implicature is easier to demonstrate than define. If a stranger at the other end of a phone line has a high-pitched voice, you may infer that the speaker is a woman. The inference may be incorrect. Conversational implicatures are a similar kind of inference: they are based on stereotyped expectations of what would, more often than not, be the case."
(Keith Allan, Natural Language Semantics. Wiley-Blackwell, 2001)
- Origin of the Term
"The term [implicature] is taken from the philosopher H.P. Grice (1913-88), who developed the theory of the cooperative principle. On the basis that speaker and listener are cooperating and aiming to be relevant, a speaker may well imply something that he or she does not actually even refer to, confident that the listener will understand. Thus the conversational implicature of Are you watching this programme? might well be This programme bores me. Can we turn the television off?
(Sylvia Chalker and Edmund Weiner, Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar. Oxford University Press, 1994)
- Conversational Implicature in Practice
"Generally speaking, a conversational implicature is an interpretive procedure that operates to figure out what is going on. . . . Assume a husband and wife are getting ready to go out for the evening:
8. Husband: How much longer will you be?To interpret the utterance in Sentence 9, the husband must go through a series of inferences based on principles that he knows the other speaker is using. . . . The conventional response to the husband's question would be a direct answer where the wife indicated some time frame in which she would be ready. This would be a conventional implicature with a literal answer to a literal question. But the husband assumes that she heard his question, that she believes that he was genuinely asking how long she would be, and that she is capable of indicating when she would be ready. The wife . . . chooses not to extend the topic by ignoring the relevancy maxim. The husband then searches for a plausible interpretation of her utterance and concludes that what she is doing is telling him that she is not going to offer a particular time, or doesn't know, but she will be long enough yet for him to have a drink. She may also be saying, 'Relax, I'll be ready in plenty of time.'"
9. Wife: Mix yourself a drink.
(D. G. Ellis, From Language to Communication. Routledge, 1999)
- The Lighter Side of Conversational Implicature in The Office
Jim Halpert: I don't think I'll be here in 10 years.
Michael Scott: That's what I said. That's what she said.
Jim Halpert: That's what who said?
Michael Scott: I never know, I just say it. I say stuff like that, you know--to lighten the tension when things sort of get hard.
Jim Halpert: That's what she said.
(John Krasinski and Steve Carell, "Survivor Man." The Office, 2007)