Page 115 - 6688

115
assumption of cooperative interaction. Because these implicatures are part of what is
communicated and not said, speakers can always deny that they intended to communicate
such meanings. Conversational implicatures are deniable. They can be explicitly denied (or
alternatively, reinforced) in different ways. To take a simple example, there is a standard
implicature associated with stating a number, that the speaker means only that number, as
shown in [21].
[21] You have won five dollars! (+> ONLY five)
As shown in [22], however, it is quite easy for a speaker to sus-pend the implicature (+>
only) using the expression 'at least' [22a. ], or to cancel the implicature by adding further
informa-tion, often following the expression 'in fact' [22b. ], or to reinforce the implicature with
additional information, as in [22c. ].
[22] a. You've won at least five dollars!
b.You've won five dollars, in fact, you've won ten!
c.You've won five dollars, that's four more than one!
.
Conventional implicatures
In contrast to all the conversational implicatures discussed so far, conventional
implicatures are not based on the cooperative prin-ciple or the maxims. They don't have to
occur in conversation, and they don't depend on special contexts for their interpretation. Not
unlike lexical presuppositions, conventional implicatures are associated with specific words and
result in additional conveyed meanings when those words are used. The English conjunction
'but' is one of these words. The interpretation of any utterance of the type p but q will be based
on the conjunction p & q plus an implicature of 'contrast' between the information in p and the
information in q. In [23], the fact that 'Mary suggested black' (= p) is contrasted, via the
conventional implicature of 'but', with my choosing white (= q).
[23] a. Mary suggested black, but I chose white.
b. p & q (+>p is in contrast to q)
Other English words such as 'even' and 'yet' also have conven-tional implicatures.
When 'even' is included in any sentence describing an event, there is an implicature of
'contrary to ex-pectation'. Thus, in [24] there are two events reported (i. e. John's coming and
John's helping) with the conventional implicature of 'even' adding a 'contrary to expectation'
interpretation of those events.
[24] a. Even John came to the party.
b. He even helped tidy up afterwards.
The conventional implicature of 'yet' is that the present situation is expected to be
different, or perhaps the opposite, at a later time. In uttering the statement in [25a. ], the
speaker produces an implicature that she expects the statement 'Dennis is here' (= p} to be
true later, as indicated in [25b].
[25] a. Dennis isn't here yet. (=NOTp)
b. NOT p is true (+> p expected to be true later)

It may be possible to treat the so-called different 'meanings' of 'and' in English
(discussed in Chapter І) as instances of conven-tional implicature in different structures. When
two statements containing static information are joined by 'and', as in [26a. ], the implicature is
simply 'in addition' or 'plus'. When the two state-ments contain dynamic, action-related
information, as in [26b. ], the implicature of 'and' is 'and then' indicating sequence.
[26] a. Yesterday, Mary was happy