Further Notes on Logic and Conversation

I would like to begin by reformulating, in outline, the position which I took in an earlier article ("Logic and Conversation"). I was operating, provisionally, with the idea that, for a large class of utterances, the total significations of an utterance may be regarded as divisible in two different ways. First, one may distinguish, within the total signification, between what is said (in a favored sense) and what is implicated; and second, one may distinguish between what is part of the conventional force (or meaning) of the utterrance and what is not. This yields three possible elements – what is said, what is conventionally implicated, and what is nonconventionally implicated – though in a given case one or…