For those who aren't familiar with formal semantics: Conversational implicature is when the cooperative principle is used to deduce facts that were not explici

For those who aren't familiar with formal semantics: Conversational implicature is when the cooperative principle is used to deduce facts that were not explicitly stated. For example, let's say I show up at your doorstep and I say "my car ran out of gas". You reply "there a gas station just down the road" I deduce from your statement: - It is the nearest gas station - The station is open and has gas to sell - The station sells cans - It is not too far to walk. You did not say any of these things, but I know that they are true because if any of them were not true, the cooperative principle would have led you to say something different. And if any of them turn out not to be true, I will feel like you deceived me, even though you never said it, because you implied it by way of Grice's maxims. Fun fact: the Supreme Court of the United States says that deception by way of conversational implicature doesn't count as a lie and can't be used against you in a purjury case. It is legal to imply things that are not true on the witness stand. Lawyers have to word their questions very carefully as a result, and make all of the implicatures explicit. Famous example: Court - Have you ever had a Swiss bank account? Bronston - The company had an account there for about six months, in Zurich. Implicature (which later turned out to be false): I don't have any other swiss bank accounts in any other cities The follow-up question was never asked, the matter was settled, and Bronston squeaked away from his bankruptcy proceedings with his swiss assets in tact.