Generalized Implicature

Overview

Generalized implicature describes meanings that are characteristically, though not necessarily, associated with a given linguistic expression. It’s a concept developed in pragmatics to explain how speakers convey more than what they literally say, and how listeners infer these additional meanings.

Key Concepts

Unlike particularized implicatures, which depend heavily on specific contexts, generalized implicatures arise from the conventional use of words. They are not tied to a single utterance but to the general way a word or phrase is employed.

Distinction from Literal Meaning

The core idea is that the implicature is not part of the truth conditions of the statement. If the implicature is cancelled, the literal meaning remains intact. For example, saying “Some students passed” typically implies “Not all students passed,” but this can be cancelled.

Deep Dive

Paul Grice, who introduced the concept, distinguished between particularized and generalized conversational implicatures. Generalized implicatures are presumed to hold in the absence of special circumstances, making them a more stable feature of language use.

Types of Generalized Implicatures

• Scalar Implicatures: Derived from scales of informativeness (e.g., some < some but not all < all).
• Adverbial Implicatures: Related to adverbs and their conventional meanings.
• Connective Implicatures: Involving conjunctions like ‘and’ or ‘or’.

Applications

Understanding generalized implicature is crucial for:

• Linguistic Theory: Explaining semantic and pragmatic interfaces.
• Natural Language Processing (NLP): Building AI that can understand nuanced human communication.
• Communication Studies: Analyzing how meaning is negotiated in discourse.

Challenges & Misconceptions

A common misconception is that generalized implicatures are always present. However, they are defeasible, meaning they can be cancelled or overridden by context. It’s also debated whether they are truly pragmatic or have semantic components.

FAQs

What is the difference between generalized and particularized implicature?

Particularized implicatures rely heavily on specific contextual details, while generalized implicatures are associated with the linguistic expression itself, arising in most contexts.

Are generalized implicatures always true?

No, they are defeasible. The speaker can cancel the implicature, and the literal meaning will still hold.