Talk:Implicature

message: The page was moved from Implication (pragmatics), and there had been already some discussion at Talk:Implication (pragmatics). The reason for moving it is, as stated there: implicature is the term used to refer to the special kind of inferences in natural language semantics & pragmatics, and they are special compared to the general idea of implication in mathematical logic.--Imz 19:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related 

message: ? The factual accuracy of this article is disputed.
This is too brief to be blamed for "factual accuracy." What matters above all would be the content of this article, which at the moment is just better than nothing. What a shame, if no blame, to compare it with the referenced counterpart of Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy! 
Another shame may be generosity to jargons or technical if not commercial terms such as "implicature," and "impliciture," which may better be marked by the "SEE" cross-reference to commonsensical or metalinguistic "implication," synonymous to connotation, intension, etc. as well. Minimal invention of synonyms should help maximal convention of words on which language bears. This would better be the ethical code of lignuists at least. 
It appears immoral to unnecessarily invent such new words as "implicature" and "impliciture," and then necessarily make private scientific interest area, say, "implication," perhaps the best of similar encyclopedic entries. The scientist would like to invent new words, but the encylopedist should like to paraphrase them in metalanguage or critical observer's language to avoid becoming an advertising media for too many competing words. --ishiakkum 15:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You say "unnecessarily invent such new words," but the point is that 'implication' has many dictionary definitions while  implicaturee restricts definitions in a particular way.  The "jargon"  in this case reduces unnecessary imprecision.  Thomasmeeks 14:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's really wanted 

message: Implicatures are a ubiquitous part of daily conversations, and as such, it is unfortunate that this page is lacking in depth and verified information. Only three sources are listed with all three pertaining to the first third of the article; it also seems queer that the third source, used in the section describing Grice's three conversational implicatures, is only used on the first one, while the latter two are unverified. Beyond that, the article talks about scalar and conventional implicatures, and especially confusing is the fact that there are no sources for the scalar implicature section when there are several of them on the proper scalar implicature page. Perhaps some of them can be used here on this page? On another note, the section comparing implicatures to entailments seems a bit obtuse. While differentiating between the two is useful and important, just looking at these two underscores the other pragmatic terms such as paraphrase, contradiction, and particularly presupposition. To make this section more relevant, the differences between implicature and these other terms could be mentioned with simple and clear examples to add more educational weight to the article and give the reader a more in-depth look at pragmatics. 
Dar-bear-dar (talk) 00:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources and Relevance 

message: This article is broad in its example usage and does a good job at differentiating the different types of implicature. The examples are unique and help people who are not familiar with the field process what is being talked about. But I think there is too much assumed background knowledge applied to this article that either needed to be explained clearer or just not mentioned at all. For example, under the conventional implicature section, you write: "Conventional implicature is independent of the cooperative principle and its four maxims. A statement always carries its conventional implicature." This introduction sentence does not really define what conventional implicature is and the person reading it would have to solely rely on your example to guess what it is.
Your article could be improved if clear explanation were used before introducing examples. As of right now, there is a large reliance on the examples rather than the content itself. 
But the most important thing to take note of is to make sure that when you are explaining something, you introduce the concepts without assuming the reader has taken a pragmatics or semantics 101 course. Under you implicature and entailment section, you bring up an example that is a classic entailment vs implicature example but it is not explained in a way that the lay person would know they are analyzing two separate utterances: "This can be contrasted with cases of entailment. The statement "the President was assassinated", for example, not only suggests that "the President is dead" is true, but requires this to be so. The first sentence could not be true if the second were not true; if the President were not dead, then whatever it is that happened to him would not have counted as a (successful) assassination." you should explain that you are analyzing two sentences right away. Otherwise it sounds like you kind of just threw a random sentence in afterwards that would prove your point.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjosifoski (talk • contribs) 15:34, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marija's Peer Review 

message: I'm rewriting this article at User:Anypodetos/sandbox. Input is welcome. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 15:47, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite 

message: I've made an edit to the introductory paragraph for two reasons: 
1. The old paragraph began with the term "pragmatics" before the term "implicature" was even introduced. Echoing Marija's Peer Review, the content does not read well to someone who is not of a linguistic background. So, I have begun the paragraph by defining an implicature, then relating it to linguistics. 
Forgive me for not adding what was originally there, I did not save it and I am not sure if I was meant to do that: this is my first edit ever on Wikipedia and I've already contacted a Wikipedia Expert to see what to do about that, if I wasn't meant to. 
Back to the content: I've also described an implicature importantly as caused by a "divergence in meaning", which is an important point that Grice uses in his definition of implicature.    
I also found while reading that a useful edit would be to include more under the Criticism section and how the implicature could contradict entailment, of which little if anything is already said. 
 
Thank you for reading. I hope these edits are helpful and conducive to others understanding what an implicature is and how it relates to the field of linguistics. 
Piercelogan (talk) 21:50, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome! Thanks for your edits. It's a good idea to place the definition before mentioning pragmatics. But what do you mean by "divergence of meaning"? Grice said that some philosophers saw a divergence of everyday "and, if" etc. from the corresponding logical concepts, but he argued against this view. Also, could you please have a look at your insertion "but may not know both the rules of standard English, for example and the circumstances of the utterance" – I don't understand that. Thanks again, ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 10:05, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introductory Paragraph  

message: Quantity is listed twice and quality is not listed. This seems to be a mistake. 199.119.99.37 (talk) 00:15, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quantity