Pragmatics in Legal Communication: How Implicature Shapes Legal Meaning
- Marc Roche
- Dec 10, 2025
- 5 min read
Updated: Jan 15
“In law, the most dangerous meaning is the one nobody says out loud.”
The judge’s polite pause, opposing counsel’s carefully neutral email, the client’s reassuring comment that doesn’t reassure you at all. Pragmatics in legal communication determines how people interpret intent, subtext, and meaning far beyond the literal words on the page.
Contents
Pragmatics: The Hidden Layer of Meaning Behind Every Legal Communication.
The legal profession devotes extraordinary attention to words. Entire careers, transactions, and reputations have turned on the placement of a comma.
But the word-by-word analysis hides a deeper truth:
In legal communication, the meaning that matters most is often the meaning no one actually says out loud.
That hidden layer is governed by pragmatics, the study of how context shapes interpretation. And at the center of pragmatics is implicature—the conclusions a listener draws even when the speaker never explicitly states them.
Put simply:
Pragmatics = the mechanics of legal subtext.
Implicature = the subtext itself.
Legal professionals rely on both constantly, often without realizing it. Understanding them consciously is one of the fastest ways to improve drafting, negotiations, advocacy, client management, and internal communication.
1. What Is Pragmatics in Legal Communication?
Pragmatics explains how context alters meaning.
The same sentence, delivered in a different tone or by a different person, can land very differently.
In legal settings, context includes tone, credibility, timing, hierarchy, what was asked, what was answered, what was avoided, and what was conspicuously not said.
Examples appear everywhere:
A judge says, “I’ll take that under advisement.”
Pragmatic meaning: your argument is not gaining traction.
Opposing counsel writes, “We’re reviewing your proposal.”
Meaning: expect silence until they have a more favorable response.
A partner comments, “This might need some polishing.”
Possible meaning: begin a complete rewrite.
Cognitive psychology shows that people interpret meaning primarily through inference and context, not literal wording.²
Pragmatics is the operating system behind that process.
2. What Is Implicature?
Implicature is what someone means even when they do not say it directly.
Lawyers encounter implicature constantly—often more frequently than they receive direct answers.
Example:
“We’ll do our best to meet your timeline.”
Literal meaning: effort.
Implication: the timeline will not be met.
Litigation example:
“We are open to discussing settlement.”
Literal meaning: willingness.
Implication: they want to settle and prefer not to go to trial.
Client Management: Fee-Related Implicature
Clients rarely address fees directly.Instead, they use softening strategies to maintain the relationship and avoid open criticism.³
A natural, real-world example:
Fee example 1:
“This budget should work as long as nothing unexpected comes up.”
Literal meaning: the budget is acceptable.
Implication: costs are being monitored closely and unexpected increases will not be well received.
Fee example 2:
“Can you give us a sense of where we’ll land on this?”
Implication: the last invoice caused concern, predictability matters, and internal finance teams are watching.
Fee example 3:
“Let’s keep costs tight this month.”
Implication: costs were not tight previously, scrutiny is increasing, and invoices will be reviewed closely.
This behavior is consistent with research on facework and conflict avoidance in professional communication.⁴
3. Why Lawyers Must Understand Implicature
Client expectations.
Clients rarely articulate concerns directly. Understanding implicature enables early intervention.
Negotiation leverage.
Indirect statements often reveal more than explicit ones. Negotiation psychology supports this pattern.⁵
Litigation strategy.
Witnesses often avoid direct answers when uncomfortable. Judges and juries notice. Identifying implicature improves cross-examination, testimony interpretation, and objections.
Risk management in writing.
A vague statement can imply uncertainty, admission, evasiveness, or unintended responsibility. Pragmatic awareness protects against these risks.
4. The Conversational Maxims Behind Implicature
Implicatures often arise from bending or violating Grice’s Maxims, a foundational framework in modern pragmatics.¹
Quantity: provide the right amount of information.
Too little suggests concealment; too much suggests insecurity.
Quality: appear truthful and evidence-based.
Hedging indicates risk, uncertainty, or exposure.
Relation: stay relevant.
Irrelevance implies avoidance.
Manner: be clear.
Ambiguity indicates strategic hesitation.
Example:
“Is your client open to revising clause 8?”
Answer: “Our client has been traveling this week.”
Implication: no, and there is likely internal disagreement.
5. Strategic Use of Implicature Inside Law Firms
Avoiding commitment professionally:
“We are reviewing the matter.”
“We will revert shortly.”
Meaning: time is required.
Softening bad news:
“This timeline may be challenging.”
Meaning: it is nearly impossible.
“The court may seek clarification.”
Meaning: a problem is developing.
Signaling seniority:
“Noted.”
“Let’s keep this efficient.”
“We may need to rethink this.”
6. Pragmatics in Negotiation
Bluffs:
“We have other bidders.”
Weaknesses:
“We’re still waiting for internal approvals.”
Purported bottom lines:
“We can’t move further on price.”
Urgency signals:
“It would help to finalize this this week.”
Face-saving maneuvers:
“We need to confer with our client.”
Negotiation science confirms that indirect cues frequently disclose more than explicit statements.⁶
7. Pragmatics in Litigation
Litigation is full of implicature.
Question: “Did you see the document?”
Answer: “I was extremely busy that day.”
Meaning: yes, but the witness does not want to admit it.
Legal psychology shows that jurors assess credibility through evasiveness, tone, and omission, not only through content.⁶
In the 1978–79 trial of T. Cullen Davis, the defense called a sociolinguistics expert to perform a discourse analysis of taped “murder-for-hire” conversations. Based on detailed timing, topic-analysis, and overlap-of-speech arguments, the expert contended the tapes did not reliably show solicitation. The jury acquitted Davis — making the case one of the earliest and most influential uses of forensic discourse analysis in an American criminal court.
This illustrates how not only what is said, but how it is said and interpreted, can alter the outcome of a high-stakes case.
8. Pragmatic Traps Lawyers Must Avoid
Accidental admissions:
“We expect the product should have worked.”
This implies uncertainty or fault.
Unintended evasiveness:
“We hope to revert soon.”
Opaque in discovery.
Excessive vagueness.
Strategic in the moment, dangerous later.
Unintentional commitments:
“We’ll take care of this.”
Suggests responsibility that may not be desirable.
9. Using Pragmatics Deliberately
When clarity protects your client:
“Payment was made on March 12. Documents attached.”
When flexibility matters:
“We may need to explore alternatives depending on developments.”
When keeping discussions focused:
“To stay on the central issue…”
When avoiding liability:
“To the best of our knowledge…”
Pragmatics and implicature for lawyers
Pragmatics and implicature are not academic curiosities
They form the foundation of legal communication.
Mastering them improves negotiation, litigation, drafting, client relationships, internal management, risk control, and strategic awareness.
Words matter.
But the meaning behind the words matters more.
Understanding implicature allows communication to be interpreted the way experienced decision-makers interpret it: not literally, but strategically.
If you want to tighten the literal words on the page as well as the meaning behind them, read our guide to Grammar for Lawyers.
Footnotes
H. P. Grice, “Logic and Conversation,” Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3, 1975.
Dan Sperber and Deirdre Wilson, Relevance: Communication and Cognition, Harvard University Press, 1986.
Penelope Brown and Stephen Levinson, Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage, Cambridge University Press, 1987.
Erving Goffman, Interaction Ritual: Essays in Face-to-Face Behavior, Aldine Publishing, 1967.
Roger W. Shuy, “Discourse Analysis in the Legal Context,” in Deborah Schiffrin, Deborah Tannen, and Heidi E. Hamilton (eds.), The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, Blackwell, 2001, especially his discussion of Texas v. T. Cullen Davis.
Pinker S., Nowak M. A., & Lee J. J., “The Logic of Indirect Speech,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 2008;105(3):833–838. DOI:10.1073/pnas.0707192105.