Individual skill

s4h-linguistics-pragmatics

Analyzes what is implied rather than said — the gap between literal content and communicative meaning. Use when you say 'what does this really mean', 'what is this message actually doing', 'is this a threat', 'what is being implied here', 'what does this leave unsaid', 'why does this feel off even though it seems polite', or when a communication seems fine on the surface but something is wrong underneath.

skills/s4h-linguistics-pragmatics/SKILL.md

Read pinned source

Source commit a30df8b67698ccb03ef5e35d68c2eddc5321ad3f

What was checked

Matches the observed repository HEAD
Yes
Scanner rules are current
Yes
Repository scan complete
No
Skill scan complete
Yes
Observed behavior
Instructions only
Last checked
Nov 11, 2026

These are observations at the recorded commit, not a guarantee of safety. Review the source before running it.

Install this skill

Choose an agent in your Stack or copy a command below. Commands fetch the pinned commit and copy only this skill directory. Existing destinations are refused. Copying a command does not install anything.

An install command is unavailable: current rules, complete repository and skill scans, an eligible behavior level and a permitted license are required.

Repository context

Repository stars (not skill ratings)
241
Repository last updated
Jul 15, 2026
License
MIT

Observed agent integration: No specific integration evidence. Standard SKILL.md installation does not imply verified compatibility.

Files and excerpt

File metadata and permitted, redacted excerpts come from the recorded scan. Source links are pinned to that commit.

Browse files
Read excerpt

# Linguistics: Pragmatics

What people say and what they mean are rarely the same thing.

H.P. Grice's theory of conversational implicature — developed in his 1975 "Logic and Conversation" — is one of the most powerful tools in the analysis of communication. Grice observed that speakers routinely communicate far more than they literally say, and that listeners routinely infer far more than they are told. This works because communication operates against a background assumption of cooperation: speakers are expected to be relevant, truthful, informative, and clear. When they violate one of these maxims — saying less than is relevant, using indirect language when direct would do — listeners do not take the violation at face value. They infer that the speaker is communicating something the literal words do not state.

This is how "could you pass the salt?" functions as a polite request rather than a question about physical capacity. It is how "some of our guests have enjoyed the new policy" implies that others have not. It is how "we need to talk" implies something serious even before any content is delivered. J.L. Austin and John Searle extended this analysis to speech acts — the recognition that utterances do not just describe the world but perform actions: they promise, warn, threaten, command, apologise, and commit. "I'll get to it" is not just a prediction; in context, it can be a promise, a deflection, or a passive refusal.

This skill surfaces what a communication is actually doing below its literal content.

---

## Your Process
Back to top