The purpose of this article is to study the interpretation of anaphor by implicature. The coreference between two NPs is based on the pragmatic approach. There are three principles and implicatures which are revised Gricean maxim of quantity. They are Q-, I-, and Q/M- principles and implicatures. Speaker doesn`t provide a statement that is informationally weaker than his knowledge of the world allows and hearer takes it that the speaker made the strongest statement consistent with what he knows in Q-principle. Speaker says as little as necessary and recepient amplifies the informational content of the speaker`s utterance in I-principle. When interaction of Q- and I-principles clashes between them, the Q/M-principle comes out. If unmarkedness I-implicates restriction to any subset, then the use of alternative, unusual, marked or more prolix expression markedness will Q/M-implicates the comple- ment. These pragmatic implicatures can not only explain coreferece and disjoint reference between two NPs, but reduce Chomsky`s three binding principles to one. Of these binding principles, binding principle (A) has good explanatory power to explain the coreference between the two NPs on the basis of their structures. The other binding principles can be predicted by the G-, I-, and Q/M-principles. The implicature based on the binding principle(A) is a good way to explain coreference and disjoint reference than binding principles in discourse-oriented lan-guage. We conclude that the implicature is a proper way to study and analyse anaphor between two NPs.

• 방종수