xxv Mey 1993, p.45 states that the word ‘implicature’ is derived from the
verb ‘to imply’, as its cognate ‘implication’. Originally, ‘to imply’ means to fold something to something else from the Latin verb plicare ‘to fold’; hence, that
which is implied is ‘folded in’, and has to be ‘unfolded’ in order to be understood. We have discussed above that Pragmatics deals with conveying
message more than what is actually stated directly in a conversation. There is a chapter in Pragmatics which is called as Implicature. As what Mey has stated
above, to imply means to fold something to something else. Actually, implicature is the form of flouting maxim of conversation or conversation
principles proposed by Grice. However, implicature is not considered as the negative phenomenon because sometimes implicature is required to say
something impliedly based on some reasons. To know the folded meaning, we should unfold the conversation by using context of Pragmatics in order to be
understood. In implicature, we learn how to unfold the folded meaning in order to be successfully interpreting the intended meaning in a conversation.
Grice in Levinson 1983, p.126 distinguishes two different sorts of implicature: Generalized Implicature and Particularized Implicature.
1. Generalized Implicature
Grice in Levinson 1983, p.126 defines Generalized Implicature as the Implicature that arises without any particular context or special scenario being
necessary. Meaning that, interpreting the meaning in Generalized Implicature
xxvi can be done with the absence of particular context. The deeper thinking and the
deeper interpretation is not required in this case. See the following example: A
: “The dog is looking very happy.” B
: “Perhaps the dog has eaten the roast beef.” Taken from Levinson.1983. p.126
In the dialogue above, the particular context is not required to get the real meaning because B’s expression does not have the implied meaning that needs
particular context to unfold the real meaning.
2. Particularized Implicature
Grice in Levinson 1983, p.126 defines Particularized Implicature as the Implicature that arises because of specific context. This kind of implicature is
the one that gets most attention from the linguists because it discusses how people use language to say something indirectly and impliedly and how others
people understand the meaning of an expression which is indirectly and impliedly stated. In simple words, Particularized Implicature discusses how it is
possible to mean or to say more than what it is stated directly. See the following example:
A : “What on earth has happened to the roast beef?”
B : “The dog is looking very happy.” Taken from Levinson.1983,
p.126
xxvii In the dialogue above, B’s statement has the implied meaning that should
be unfolded by A. Whenever A is successful in unfolding B’s answer, A will feel that B’s answer satisfies A’s question because B’s answer has the implied
meaning that the dog has eaten the roast beef. Here, we can see the particular context is that the dog is looking very happy because it has eaten the roast beef.
2.4 Context
