Implicatures are inferred assumptions that cannot be directly derived from linguistic forms. There are two types: conventional implicatures which are conventionally attached to linguistic forms, and conversational implicatures which are assumptions not fully encoded in what is said. Conversational implicatures are context dependent, defeasible, non-detachable, and calculable based on meaning and context. Approaches to explaining implicatures include the coding hypothesis, restricted coding mechanism, maxim-based accounts, and relevance-based accounts.

1. Implicatures
Definition: implicatures are inferred
assumptions which cannot be directly
derived from overt linguistic forms by
completion or enrichment.

2. Types of implicatures
 Conventional  Conversational
implicatures implicatures
 . It is the name given to non-
 They are briefly characterized
truth-conditional aspects of
meaning which are as propositions or assumptions
*“conventionally” attached to not encoded, completely or
particular linguistic forms. incompletely in what is actually
said.

3. Types of conversational
implicatures
 Context dependence
 Defeasibility/ cancel ability
 Non detachability
 Calculability

4. Context dependence:
 It means that an expression  Example:
with a single meaning (i-e,  A: Have you cleared the table
expressing the same and washed the dishes?
proposition) can give rise to
different conversational  B: I’ve cleared the table.
implicatures in different
.
contexts.
 From this example we may  Purpose of this criterion is
imply that B has not washed to distinguish between
the dishes implicatures and entailment.

5. Defeasibility/ cancel ability:
 Conversational implicature  Example: A: Did you attend the
seminar and saw the presentation
can be cancelled by of “3 idiots +1” group?
additional material without  B: I have attended the
contradiction or * anomaly. seminar.
 (* anomaly means  C: Yes, I have attended
the seminar and I thoroughly
irregularity) enjoyed that presentation.
 In utterance B we get a strong
presumption (implicature; implied  But in conventional implicatures,
statement) that though I attended the subsequent material simply gives
seminar I missed out this particular rise to anomaly.
presentation.  Example: Sobia hasn’t arrived
 In utterance C, additional material yet.
cancelled the implicature i-e, yes; I
attended the seminar and did happen to  (This example, implies that I know
see the presentation which was quite for a fact that she will be late as
entertaining for me.
always)

6. Non detachability:
 The same propositional  The implicature is
content in the same context tied to the meaning
will always give rise to the and not to form.
same conversational
implicature, in whatever
form it is expressed.
 Example: A: Jazzy didn’t
manage to walk as far as the
 A == B
crossroads.  A == C
B: Jazzy attempted to

walk as far as the cross roads.
 B =/= C
 C: Jazzy didn’t walk
as far as the cross roads.

7. Calculability
 A conversational implicature
must be calculable, using state
 Example: if a couple
able general principles on the
decides between them that
basis of conventional meaning
if one of them says that “I
together with contextual
am leaving”, it
information.
automatically means that “I
am leaving and you should/
must also leave with me”
 Completion:  Enrichment:
 Supplying any
 In it, first we extra information to retrieve
fill out the explicature, out or to fill out all the
of the said utterance. By explicatures in an utterance
doing so we get closer to a is called enrichment.
propositional form and we
call the process which leads

8. Main concept
 Example: A: When will this
presentation end?
 B: 9:00.
 C: This presentation will end at
9:00. If we consider utterance A and
utterance B, then it is
completion as utterance B
does answer utterance A
 But, if we consider utterance A
and utterance C, then
utterance C is more enriched,
as compared to utterance B, as
it gives out all the necessary
information, details,
suppressing possible
implicatures

9. Problems
 The stated criterion The difficulty is that it is not
clear; exactly how much
is not adequate to enrichment is allowed for
elements of explicature.
explain its own Example: A: I am out of petrol.
examples B: There’s a garage just
around the corner.
 . Example: student: may I A: No, it doesn’t. It’s only for
come in? repairs.
Now, in this utterance, “no, it
 Teacher: I have doesn’t” implies only to the fact that
already marked the the garage does not sell petrol,
attendance. enrichment provides the extra
 In this example, we observe needed information that it is only for
that utterance A has no direct repairs, and it does not imply that
the garage does not exist at all.
linguistic relevance with
utterance B.

10. Approaches to
explanation
Coding hypothesis: Restricted coding
mechanism

11. Approaches to
explanation
 Coding hypothesis:  Restricted coding mechanism:
 As the name suggests, it restricts the coding
 According to this view, messages mechanism with its strict, explicit algorithms,
are coded in their entirety and to the explicature and explains the
communication is matter of implicatures by a much more fluid mechanism,
governed by more general principles capable
encoding and decoding, according of responding to totally new situations.
to a set of rules whose observation  On the other hand, in this view there is no set
guarantees a successful outcome.
of rules whose observance will guarantee
success.
 Maxim based  Relevance based
accounts accounts:

 It proposes a general It essentially dispense with
principle and a set of the maxims, claiming that a
more specific maxims. satisfactory general
principle can handle
everything.