Three Ways to Infringe a Conversational Maxim: Grice’s Theory of Conversational Implicature as a Theory of Action

In the process of presenting his theory of conversational implicature, Paul Grice (1975) segmented cases of conversational implicature into three groups: Group A, where no maxims are violated; Group B, where the violation of a maxim is to be explained by the supposition of a clash with another maxim; and Group C, which involves the exploitation of a maxim. Yukiko Kawaguchi, however, claimed in her 2001 article that this categorization is ill-grounded. This paper proposes, in opposition to Kawaguchi, an interpretation of Grice’s theory of conversational implicature which accords with his treatment of conversational implicature and provides reasonable evidence in support of his categorization of it.