A man who by saying that p the's not in jail] has implicated g thes likely to steal money] may be said to have conversationally implicated g provided that: 1. He is presumed to have followed the maxims or at least the CP 2. The supposition that he is aware that (g) is required in order to make his saying(p) consistent with this presumption 3. The speaker thinks that it is within the hearer to workout that the supposition is required 4. And not what happens if it does not
A man who by saying that p [he’s not in jail] has implicated q [he’s likely to steal money] may be said to have conversationally implicated q provided that: 1. He is presumed to have followed the maxims or at least the CP. 2. The supposition that he is aware that (q) is required in order to make his saying (p) consistent with this presumption; 3. The speaker thinks that it is within the hearer to workout that the supposition is required. 4. And not what happens if it does not
Conventional schema ( things that are assumed to be in place) The conventional meaning of the words used together with the identity of any references that may be involved The CP and its maxims The context, linguistic or otherwise, of the utterance Other items of background knowledge; and The fact.that all relevant items falling under the previous headings are available to both participants and both participants know or assume this to be the case
Conventional Schema (things that are assumed to be in place) • The conventional meaning of the words used, together with the identity of any references that may be involved. • The CP and its maxims • The context, linguistic or otherwise, of the utterance; • Other items of background knowledge; and • The fact … that all relevant items falling under the previous headings are available to both participants and both participants know or assume this to be the case