 It is not possible to fully understand speakers without knowing what they have implicated as well as what they have said. Unless we know what Barb meant by saying that she has to work, we will not know that she has answered Alan’s question. Unless Carla knows what Don meant by saying that the weather is lovely, she might mistakenly infer that he will arrive on time. The difference between saying and implicating also affects how we evaluate speakers. If Barb knew she did not have to work, then she was lying in dialogue  (1).  If she knew she was going to Paul’s party, she might be guilty of misleading Alan, but not of lying or making a false  statement.[5]  In court, witnesses are typically required to answer questions directly. They cannot avoid perjury by implicating a falsehood rather than saying it.