Why does conversational implicature rely so heavily on shared context between a speaker and listener, rather than explicit semantic encoding?

💡 Explanation

Conversational implicature uses pragmatic inference to understand the speaker's intended meaning, going beyond the literal semantic content, because the listener interprets unsaid meaning using shared knowledge. Therefore, implicature relies on pragmatics, rather than only semantics, because semantics can be ambiguous in context.

• If a storyteller omits the inciting incident in a narrative arc, which consequence follows?
• A prelinguistic infant exhibits reduced variegated babbling — which consequence follows regarding their phonetic inventory development?
• Why does the phonological structure in sign language permit greater morphological complexity than spoken languages?
• Why does agglutinative morphology in Turkish facilitate efficient information transfer compared to isolating morphology in Mandarin Chinese?
• Why does a patient with damage exhibiting double dissociation between Broca's and Wernicke's areas show impaired speech production, yet maintain comprehension of complex sentences?
• What distinguishes the burst characteristics of a /p/ sound from a /b/ sound in speech acoustics?