Implicature  and  the  Co-­‐operative  Principle  (also  see  reading  2a,  2b,  and  2c)    

 
An  we  have  discussed,  an  implicature  is  an  additional  conveyed  meaning.    This  ‘additional  
meaning’  would  require  that  the  listener  is  able  to  make  an  inference  to  understand  what  
meaning  the  speaker  intends  to  convey.  Consequently,  at  times  an  utterance  may  seem  to  
violate  a  Maxim  in  terms  of  Grice’s  Cooperative  Principle;  however,  the  implicature  may  
actually  provide  the  communicative  information  necessary  to  make  the  exchange  ‘Cooperative.’    
 
With  an  implicature,  the  speaker  is  being  cooperative  in  the  sense  that  they  expect  the  listener  
to  understand  the  ‘implicit’  violation  and  the  additional  meaning  conveyed.  So,  although  the  
Maxim  may  be  violated  by  an  implicature,  the  communication  is  still  cooperative  –  if  the  
listener  understands  the  implicature.    
 
To  further  clarify  this  notion,  let’s  look  at  some  of  the  examples  provided  by  Peccei  in  Reading  
2c.    
Example  (a)  
Virginia:  ‘Do  you  like  my  new  hat?’  
Mary:  ‘It’s  pink!’  
 
At  a  superficial  or  literal  level,  in  this  exchange  it  appears  that  Mary  is  violating  the  Maxim  of  
Relation.  The  information  she  provides  does  not  seem  to  correspond  to  the  question  presented  
by  Virginia.  A  relevant  response  would  have  literally  indicated  whether  she  liked  the  hat  or  not  
–  as  an  affirmative  or  negative  answer,  such  as  ‘Oh  yes,  it’s  lovely’  -­‐or-­‐  ‘No,  it’s  not  very  
attractive’.  But,  it  does  not.  Therefore  it  seems  to  be  violating  the  Maxim  of  Relation.    
 
However,  at  a  pragmatic  level,  what  can  we  infer  from  Mary  response?  
 
What  may  be  the  implicature  of  Mary’s  response?    
 
Perhaps  she  is  saying  something  like,  ‘Oh  my  gosh,  pink  is  a  horrid  color  for  a  hat!’,  which  is  
clearly  a  negative  response  to  the  question.  Or,  maybe  she  knows  that  Virginia’s  favorite  color  
is  pink,  so  she’s  saying,  ‘Oh  my  gosh  it’s  pink,  that’s  your  favorite  color,  it’s  perfect!’,  which  is  
clearly  a  positive  response.  In  either  case,  Mary  is  being  cooperative,  as  long  as  it’s  assumed  
that  Virginia  would  understand  the  implicature.  As  we  can  see,  ‘drawing  the  right  implicature  
can  require  a  considerable  amount  of  shared  knowledge  between  the  speaker  and  the  listener’  
(Peccei,  p.27).  *FLOUTING  A  MAXIM:  It  should  be  noted  at  this  point  that  Flouting  a  Maxim  is  a  more  
blatant  violation  that  a  typical  Conversational  Implicature.  It  is  not  as  subtle,  nor  does  it  require  as  much  
shared  knowledge.  However,  a  Flout  certainly  would  require  an  adequate  level  of  the  target  language  in  
order  to  identify  the  obvious  violation.  
 
Example  (b)  
Linda:  ‘Have  you  finished  the  student  evaluations  and  the  reading  lists?’  
Jeanette:  ‘I’ve  done  the  reading  lists.’  
 
What  Maxim  is  being  violated?  
 
What’s  the  implicature?  
  
Here  we  can  infer  from  Jeanette’s  response  that  she  has  not  done  the  student  evaluations,  yet.  
That  is  the  implicature.  This  example  could  possibly  have  another  implicature;  however,  the  
clear  implicature  is  presented  by  her  omission  of  part  of  the  response.  By  not  responding  to  the  
part  of  Linda’s  question  about  the  student  evaluations,  the  clear  implicature  is  that  Jeanette  has  
not  done  them  yet.    
 
The  Maxim  violated  is  Quantity,  because  (by  omission)  Jeanette  does  not  respond  to  all  of  
Linda’s  question.  She  only  responds  to  the  part  about  the  student  lists.  Therefore,  her  
contribution  is  not  as  informative  as  is  required.