Cover not available

Article published In: Pragmatics
Vol. 12:2 (2002) ► pp.117–134

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF

The intuitive basis of implicature

Relevance theoretic implicitness versus Gricean implying

Open Access logo
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.
Published online: 1 June 2002
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.12.2.01hau
The notion of implicature was first introduced by Grice (1967, 1989), who defined it essentially as what is communicated less what is said. This definition contributed in part to the proliferation of a large number of different species of implicature by neo-Griceans. Relevance theorists have responded to this by proposing a shift back to the distinction between explicit and implicit meaning (corresponding to explicature and implicature respectively). However, they appear to have pared down the concept of implicature too much, ignoring phenomena which may be better treated as implicatures in their over-generalisation of the concept of explicature. These problems have their roots in the fact that explicit and implicit meaning intuitively overlap, and thus do not provide a suitable basis for distinguishing implicature from other types of pragmatic phenomena. An alternative conceptualisation of implicature based on the concept of implying with which Grice originally associated his notion of implicature is thus proposed. From this definition it emerges that implicature constitutes something else inferred by the addressee that is not literally said by the speaker. Instead, it is meant in addition to what the literally speaker says, and consequently, it is defeasible like all other types of pragmatic phenomena.
References (60)
Ariel, Mira (2002a) The demise of a unique concept of literal meaning. Journal of Pragmatics 34.4: 361-402.  BoPGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2002b) Privileged interactional interpretations. Journal of Pragmatics 34.8: 1003-1044.  BoPGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bach, Kent (1994) Conversational impliciture. Mind and Language 9.2: 124-162. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2001a) You don't say? Synthese 128.1/2: 15-44. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2001b) Seemingly semantic intuitions. In Joseph Campbell, Michael O'Rourke & David Shier (eds.), Meaning and Truth: Investigations in Philosophical Semantics. New York: Seven Bridges Press, pp. 21-33.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bezuidenhout, Anne, & J. Cooper Cutting (2002) Literal meaning, miminal propositions, and pragmatic processing. Journal of Pragmatics 34.4: 433-356. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blakemore, Diane (1987) Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2000) Indicators and procedures: Nevertheless and but . Journal of Linguistics 361: 463-486. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Breheny, Richard (2002) The current state of (radical) pragmatics in the cognitive sciences. Mind and Language 17.1/2: 169-187.  BoPGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carston, Robyn (1988) Implicature, explicature, and truth-theoretic semantics. In Ruth Kempson (ed.), Mental Representations: The Interface between Language and Reality . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 155-181.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1995) Quantity maxims and generalised implicature. Lingua 961: 213-244.  BoPGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1996) Enrichment and loosening: Complementary processes in deriving the proposition expressed. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 81: 61-88.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1998a) Postscript (1995). In Asa Kasher (ed.), Pragmatics. Critical Concepts. Volume IV1.London: Routledge, pp. 464-479.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1998b) Informativeness, relevance and scalar implicature. In Robyn Carston, & Seiichi Uchida (eds.), Relevance Theory. Applications and Implications. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 179-236.  BoPGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2000) Explicature and Semantics. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 121: 1-44.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2001) Relevance theory and the saying/implicating distinction. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 131: 1-34.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2002) Linguistic meaning, communicated meaning and cognitive pragmatics. Mind and Language 17.1/2: 127-148.  BoPGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(forthcoming) Thoughts and Utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford: Blackwell.
Davis, Wayne (1998) Implicature. Intention, Convention, and Principle in the Failure of Gricean Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gauker, Christopher (2001) Situated inference versus conversational implicature. Nous 35.2: 163-189. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond Jr. (1999a) Interpreting what speakers say and implicate. Brain and Language 68.3: 466-485. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1999b) Speakers' intuitions and pragmatic theory. Cognition 69.3: 355-359. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2000) Inferring what speakers say and what they mean. Paper presented at the Seventh International Pragmatics Conference, Budapest, Hungary.
Gibbs, Raymond Jr., & Jessica Moise (1997) Pragmatics in understanding what is said. Cognition 62.1: 51-74. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grice, Paul (1967) Logic and Conversation, William James Lectures.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1989) Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Groefsema, M. (1992) 'Can you pass the salt?': A short-circuited implicature. Lingua 871: 103-135.  BoPGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hamblin, Jennifer (1999) Understanding what is said and what is implicated. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Santa Cruz.
Hawley, Patrick (2002) What is said. Journal of Pragmatics 34.8: 969-991.  BoPGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haugh, Michael (in progress) Politeness implicature in Japanese. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Queensland.
Horn, Laurence, & Samuel Bayer (1984) Short-circuited implicature: A negative contribution. Linguistics and Philosophy 71: 397-414. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Iten, Corrine (2000a) Conventional implicature, tone and procedural meaning . Paper presented at the 7th International Pragmatics Conference, Budapest, Hungary.
(2000b) 'Non-Truth-Conditional' Meaning. Relevance and Concessives. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of London, London.
Kandolf, Cindy (1993) On the difference between explicatures and implicatures in relevance theory. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 161: 33-46. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey (1983) Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.  BoPGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen (1989) A review of Relevance. Journal of Linguistics 25.2: 455-472. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2000) Presumptive Meanings. The Theory of Generalised Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.  BoP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Matthews, P.H. (1997) Oxford Concise Dictionary of Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Morgan, Jerry (1978) Two types of convention in indirect speech acts. In Peter Cole (ed.), Syntax and Semantics, Volume 9. Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press, pp. 261-280.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nicolle, Steve, & Billy Clark (1999) Experimental pragmatics and what is said: A response to Gibbs and Moise. Cognition 69.3: 337-354. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Noro, Ken (1979) Generalized conversational implicature. Sophia Linguistica 51: 75-83.  BoPGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Noveck, Ira (2001) When children are more logical than adults: Experimental investigations of scalar implicature. Cognition 78.2: 165-188. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Obana, Yasuko (2000) Understanding Japanese. A Handbook for Learners and Teachers. Tokyo: Kurosio.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Papafragou, Anna (2000) Early communication: Beyond speech act theory. In Catherine Howell, Sarah Fish, & Thea Keith-Lucas (eds.), Proceedings of the 24th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, Volume 2 . Sommerville, Mass: Cascadilla Press, pp. 571-582.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2002) Mindreading and verbal communication. Mind and Language 17.1/2: 55-67.  BoPGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Recanati, François (1989) The pragmatics of what is said. Mind and Language 41: 295-329. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1993) Direct Reference. From Language to Thought. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2002) Does linguistic communication rest on inference? Mind and Language17.1/2: 105-126. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez, Francisco (1998) Implicatures, explicatures and conceptual mappings. In Jose Luis Cifuentes (ed.), Estudios de Linguistica Cognitiva I. Alicante, Spain: University de Alicante, pp. 419-431.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1999) The role of cognitive mechanisms in making inferences. Journal of English Studies (University of La Rioja) 11: 237-255.  MetBib Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez, Francisco, & Lorena Perez Hernandez (2001) Cognitive operations and pragmatic implication, Sincronia (E-Journal of Culture Studies) (Fall volume). [URL]Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sadock, Jerry (1978) On testing for conversational implicature. In Peter Cole (ed.), Syntax and Semantics Volume 9. Pragmatics . New York: Academic Press, pp. 281-297.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Saul, Jennifer (2002) Speaker meaning, what is said, and what is implicated. Nous 36.2: 228-248.  BoPGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan, & Deirdre Wilson (1995) Relevance. Communication and Cognition. (2nd edition). Oxford: Blackwell.  MetBibGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2002) Pragmatics, modularity, and mind-reading. Mind and Language 17. 1/2: 3-23.  BoPGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vicente, Begona (1998) Against blurring the explicit/implicit distinction. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses 111: 241-258. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre, & Dan Sperber (1993) Linguistic form and relevance. Lingua 901: 1-25. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1998) Pragmatics and time. In Robyn Carston, & Seiichi Uchida (eds.), Relevance Theory. Applications and Implications . Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1-22. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2000) Truthfulness and relevance. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 121: 215-257.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (14)

Cited by 14 other publications

Hassan, Aalaa Yaseen & Mahasin Abdulqadir Hasan
2025. Optimal Relevance in Interpreting and Translating Processes. Arabic Journal for Translation Studies 4:13 DOI logo
Czachor, Małgorzata Weronika
2023. Różnorodność znaczeniowa konstrukcji z imiesłowem przysłówkowym współczesnym: wieloznaczność a treść propozycjonalna zdania. Polonica 43 ► pp. 5 ff. DOI logo
Rahman, Abduwali & Wanzhi Xu
2023. Moderate semantic minimalism: an eclectic approach to trichotomy of meaning. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 10:1 DOI logo
Parvaresh, Vahid & Tahmineh Tayebi
2021. Taking offence at the (un)said:Towards a more radical contextualist approach. Journal of Politeness Research 17:1 ► pp. 111 ff. DOI logo
Terkourafi, Marina
2021. Inference and Implicature. In The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics, ► pp. 30 ff. DOI logo
Hummadi, Ali Salman, Seriaznita Binti Mat Said, Rafi’ M. Hussein, Ahmed Abdulateef Sabti & Huda Abed Ali Hattab
2020. Rhetorical Loss in Translating Prepositional Phrases of the Holy Qur’an. Sage Open 10:1 DOI logo
Stadler, Stefanie
2018. Conventionalized politeness in Singapore Colloquial English. World Englishes 37:2 ► pp. 307 ff. DOI logo
Moriya, Tetsuharu & Kaoru Horie
2015. The Neg-Raising Phenomenon as a product of grammaticalization. In New Directions in Grammaticalization Research [Studies in Language Companion Series, 166], ► pp. 121 ff. DOI logo
Haugh, Michael
2009. Intention(ality) and the Conceptualization of Communication in Pragmatics. Australian Journal of Linguistics 29:1 ► pp. 91 ff. DOI logo
Haugh, Michael
2012. Conversational Implicature. In The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, DOI logo
Haugh, Michael
2022. Utterance-final conjunctive particles and implicature in Japanese conversation. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) ► pp. 425 ff. DOI logo
Vergaro, Carla
2008. Concessive constructions in English business letter discourse. Text & Talk 28:1 DOI logo
Vergaro, Carla
2008. On the pragmatics of concessive constructions in Italian and English business letter discourse. MULT 27:3 ► pp. 255 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2021. Fundamentals of Sociopragmatics. In The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics, ► pp. 13 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue