Conversational and conventional implicatures are key concepts in pragmatics. They help us understand how speakers convey meaning beyond literal words. Conversational implicatures arise from context and intentions, while conventional ones are tied to specific words or structures.

These implicatures differ in cancellability, detachability, and calculability. Conversational ones can be denied without contradiction and inferred from context. Conventional implicatures are constant across contexts and linked to particular expressions. Both types reveal hidden layers of communication.

Conversational and Conventional Implicatures

Conversational vs conventional implicatures

• Conversational implicatures stem from the cooperative principle and maxims of conversation (Grice's maxims), depend on the context and the speaker's intentions, can be cancelled or denied without contradiction, and are not tied to specific words or phrases
• Conventional implicatures are tied to specific lexical items (words) or grammatical constructions, remain constant regardless of context, cannot be cancelled without contradiction, and contribute to the overall meaning of the utterance

Features of conversational implicatures

• Cancellability enables conversational implicatures to be explicitly denied or cancelled without contradiction ("Some of the students passed the exam, in fact, all of them did")
• Non-detachability means conversational implicatures are not tied to specific words or phrases and the same implicature can be conveyed using different expressions with the same meaning ("John has three children" and "John has a trio of offspring" carry the same implicature of exactly three children)
• Calculability allows conversational implicatures to be worked out based on the cooperative principle and maxims, with hearers inferring the intended meaning based on the context and the speaker's adherence to or flouting of the maxims (relevance, quality, quantity, manner)

Lexical aspects of conventional implicatures

• Specific lexical items like words or phrases consistently carry conventional implicatures ("but" implies a contrast between two propositions, "even" implies something is surprising or unexpected)
• Grammatical constructions such as certain syntactic structures can also trigger conventional implicatures ("John managed to solve the problem" implies it was difficult for John to solve the problem)
• Conventional implicatures form part of the conventional meaning of these lexical items or constructions, are not derived from the cooperative principle or maxims, and remain constant across different contexts

Implicature analysis in context

• Conversational implicature example:
  1. Context: A asks B, "Are you going to the party tonight?" B responds, "I have to study for an exam."
  2. Implicature: B is not going to the party tonight (flouting the maxim of relevance)
  3. Cancellability: B could add, "But I'll still go to the party for a little while" without contradiction
• Conventional implicature example:
  • Sentence: "Even John could solve the problem"
  • Implicature: It was unexpected or surprising that John could solve the problem (triggered by "even")
  • Non-cancellability: One cannot say, "Even John could solve the problem, and it was not surprising at all" without contradiction
• Analyzing implicatures in context helps understand the speaker's intentions and the additional meaning conveyed beyond the literal meaning of the words (pragmatic meaning)