This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Linguistics: Applied Linguistics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Applied Linguistics Task Force.

The stub suggests that explicature is a notion that stems from Gricean pragmatics, yet I don't believe Grice himself used the term. As far as I'm aware, 'explicature' in current pragmatic theory is *not* complementary to 'implicature', as in "sth. that is explicitly stated, rather than implicated". Rather, it's interpreted as a technical notion introduced in the context of relevance theory. As far as I'm aware, it goes back to Carston. This article by Bach might be a good place to start gathering material: http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~kbach/Bach.ImplExpl.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.49.103.77 (talk) 18:49, 25 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Here's the definitions from Carston 1988:

Explicature

An ostensively communicated assumption that is inferen- tially developed from one of the incomplete conceptual representations (logical forms) encoded by the utterance.

Implicature

An ostensively communicated assumption that is not an explicature; that is, a communicated assumption which is derived solely via processes of pragmatic inference.

According to the Concise Encyclopedia of Pragmatics, Carstons definitions are in accord with Sperber and Wilsons interpretation of the terms. The article should stress that explicature, like implicature, is something that isn't as explicit as suggested by the term, rather than something that needs to be computed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.49.103.77 (talk) 18:57, 25 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

As far as I know, there is no consensus that only explicatures contribute to an utterance's truth value; see e.g. [1] #7. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 21:13, 26 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

I think it's a bit hard on old Raoul to say he lied. Even if he knows he's approximately five minutes from the outskirts, it's not clear what the other guy means when he says "there". And how accurate can you be when you say you are x time or x distance from the destination? Just trying to process that can be hard. It's not as if he makes this commute every day, and he's operating a car. I think we need to cut Raoul some slack and let him drive. Good on you for even answering such a vague and inane question, Raoul.