Page 112 - 6688

112
what the words mean. It is an additional conveyed meaning, called an implicature. By stating
[І], the speaker expects that the listener will be able to work out, on the basis of what is already
known, the implicature intended in this context.
Given the opportunity to evaluate the hamburger, the speaker of [І] has responded
without an evaluation, thus one implicature is that she has no opinion, either good or bad, to
express. Depending on other aspects of the context, additional implic-atures (for example, the
speaker thinks all hamburgers are the same) might be inferred.
Implicatures are primary examples of more being communicated than is said, but in order for
them to be interpreted, some basic cooperative principle must first be assumed to be in
operation.

Conversational implicature
The basic assumption in conversation is that, unless otherwise indicated, the
participants are adhering to the cooperative principle and the maxims. In example [7], Dexter
may appear to be violating the requirements of the quantity maxim.
[7] Charlene: I hope you brought the bread and the cheese. Dexter: Ah, I brought the
bread.
After hearing Dexter's response in [7], Charlene has to assume that Dexter is
cooperating and not totally unaware of the quantity maxim. But he didn't mention the cheese. If
he had brought the cheese, he would say so, because he would be adhering to the-quantity
maxim. He must intend that she infer that what is not mentioned was not brought. In this case,
Dexter has conveyed more than he said via a conversational implicature.
We can represent the structure of what was said, with b • bread) and c (- cheese) as in
[8]. Using the symbol +> for an implicature, we can also represent the additional conveyed
meaning.
[8] Charlene: Ь & c?
Dexter: b (+>NOTc)
It is important to note that it is speakers who communicate mean-ing via implicatures
and it is listeners who recognize those com-municated meanings via inference. The inferences
selected are those which will preserve the assumption of cooperation.

Generalized conversational implicatures
In the case of example [7], particularly as represented in [8], no special background
knowledge of the context of utterance is required in order to make the necessary inferences.
The same process of calculating the implicature will take place if Doobie asks Mary about
inviting her friends Bella (= b) and Cathy (= c) to a party, as in [93. ], and gets the reply in [9=b.
]. The context is dif-erent from [7], but the general process of identifying the implica-ure is the
same as in [8].
[9] a. Doobie: Did you invite Bella and Cathy? (f&c?)
b. Mary: I invited Bella. (b+>NOTc)

When no special knowledge is required in the context to calculate the additional
conveyed meaning, as in [7] to [9], it is called a generalized conversational implicature. One
common example in English involves any phrase with an indefinite article of the type 'a/an X',
such as 'a garden' and 'a child' as in [ 10]. These phrases are typically interpreted according to
the generalized conversa-tional implicature that: an X +> not speaker's X.
[10] I was sitting in a garden one day. A child looked over the fence.