---
title: "Rationality, Cooperation and Conversational Implicature (1998)"
description: "The paper (Mark Lee, 1998) asks how a hearer can work out what a speaker implies but does not say, such as the indirect… 10 references."
authors: ["Mark Lee"]
year: 1998
venue: "arXiv:cmp-lg/9806004"
source: "https://arxiv.org/abs/cmp-lg/9806004"
doi: "10.48550/arxiv.cmp-lg/9806004"
arxiv: "cmp-lg/9806004"
licence: "arXiv non-exclusive distribution licence (read only, no redistribution)"
licence_url: "http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/"
summary_licence: "Elamur Cosmic License"
canonical: "https://research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/lee-1998-rationality-cooperation-conversational-implicature/"
---
[Elamur Research](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/) · [this page in HTML](https://research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/lee-1998-rationality-cooperation-conversational-implicature/)

[home](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/) / [papers](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/) / [1998](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/1998/) / Rationality, Cooperation and Conversational Implicature

# Rationality, Cooperation and Conversational Implicature

**Authors:** [Mark Lee](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/authors/mark-lee/) · **Year:** 1998 · **Venue:** arXiv:cmp-lg/9806004 · **Licence:** [arXiv non-exclusive distribution licence (read only, no redistribution)](http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/)

**Links:** [Publisher's page](https://arxiv.org/abs/cmp-lg/9806004) · [PDF](https://arxiv.org/pdf/cmp-lg/9806004) · [DOI 10.48550/arxiv.cmp-lg/9806004](https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.cmp-lg/9806004) · [arXiv cmp-lg/9806004](https://arxiv.org/abs/cmp-lg/9806004) · [OpenAlex](https://openalex.org/W1578739090)

**Citations:** 3 citations (OpenAlex, 2026-10-14)

## Summary
The paper (Mark Lee, 1998) asks how a hearer can work out what a speaker implies but does not say, such as the indirect answer to a yes-no question. Its answer is that an implicature is noticed when the plan behind an utterance seems irrational or wasteful. If the plan looks inefficient for the goal first recognised, the hearer assumes the utterance matters to the speaker in some further way. The hearer then credits the speaker with extra conversational goals and intentions that make the plan rational again. The implicature is therefore not stored as extra semantic content but as added goals in a model of beliefs, intentions and goals. The author compares this with Pollack's plan-based handling of mistaken beliefs and with Green and Carberry's RST-based account of indirect answers. He argues that working at the belief/intention level makes the method more general than rhetorical relations. He admits it is unclear whether the notion of plan rationality covers every Gricean implicature, and he proposes corpus analysis as future work.

## Key points
- Implicature is triggered by the apparent inefficiency of the speaker's dialogue plan, not by a semantic rule.
- The fix is goal ascription: the hearer adds conversational goals and intentions that explain why the inefficient plan is still rational.
- Pollack [Pollack] also ascribes extra beliefs based on intentions in a recognised plan. Her aim, though, is to detect mistaken beliefs, and she does not address implicature.
- Green and Carberry [1992] model dialogue turns as plan operators that encode RST relations. In their account, an implicature arises when a satellite is given but the nucleus is missing.
- Open questions remain about coverage of Grice's Principle, and corpus analysis is named as the next step.

## Interesting ideas
- Use plan inefficiency as a detector: when an utterance is more roundabout than the recognised goal needs, flag it as carrying hidden intent rather than treating it as noise.
- Represent an implicature as added speaker goals rather than extra propositions, which keeps literal meaning and inferred intent cleanly apart.
- Treat a missing nucleus with a present satellite (Green and Carberry's RST view) as a concrete pattern for indirect answers to yes-no questions.
- Ground the analysis in beliefs, intentions and goals instead of rhetorical structure, so one mechanism can extend to several kinds of implicature.
- Check a theory's coverage of real implicatures against a corpus, as the author proposes, instead of trusting intuitions alone.

## For Mova

How these ideas could serve Mova, our small open language model — its files, stages and tests:

- **I1** (frames): crate prag could compare each reply against the most direct reply to the recognised question and raise an implicature candidate when the two diverge, recording the inefficiency as the explanation.
- **I2** (world): the text world could store "speaker wants hearer to conclude X" as a goal entry attached to the speaker, so answers can say whether a fact was stated or only implied.
- **I3** (answer): QA on fables and dialogues could infer a yes/no from a reply that only gives a reason or condition, and report that the answer came from implicature.
- **I4** (frames): building speech acts, implicature and irony on a single goal-and-belief layer in prag would avoid a separate ad hoc rule set for each phenomenon.
- **I5** (learn): build a small annotated set of indirect answers with negative controls (direct, efficient replies) to measure whether the inefficiency trigger misfires.

*Our summary of the paper, in our own words — not its text. The work belongs to its authors; read it at the links above.*

## Institutions

- [University of Sheffield](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/universities/university-of-sheffield/) — University, Sheffield, United Kingdom · 117 works · 22,645 citations

📚 Shelves (4): [🖥️ Computer Science](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/computer-science/) · 18,614 works · [🤖 Artificial Intelligence](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/computer-science/artificial-intelligence/) · 17,965 works · [🎭 Arts and Humanities](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/arts-and-humanities/) · 17,450 works · [🗣️ Language and Linguistics](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/arts-and-humanities/language-and-linguistics/) · 17,296 works

🧭 Topics (1): [😉 Implicature](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/topics/implicature/) · 138 works

## Cite

Cite as: Mark Lee. 1998. Rationality, Cooperation and Conversational Implicature. arXiv:cmp-lg/9806004.

The paper itself, not this page. BibTeX from the library's record of the work.

```bibtex
@misc{lee1998rationality,
  title = {{Rationality, Cooperation and Conversational Implicature}},
  author = {Mark Lee},
  year = {1998},
  doi = {10.48550/arxiv.cmp-lg/9806004},
  eprint = {cmp-lg/9806004},
  archivePrefix = {arXiv},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.cmp-lg/9806004}
}
```

- [← previous Finite State Automata and Arabic Writing](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/fanton-1998-finite-state-automata-arabic-writing/)
- [next → Word Length Frequency and Distribution in English: Observations, Theory, and Implications for the Construction of Verse Lines](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/aoyama-1998-word-length-frequency-distribution-english/)
- [↑ back to papers of 1998](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/1998/)

## References

10 references, 3 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

1. Allen, J. (1983). Recognising intentions from natural language utterances. In Brady, M. and Berwick, R., editors, Computational Models of Discourse. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Allen%2C+J%2E+%281983%29%2E+Recognising+intentions+from+natural+language+utterances%2E+In+Brady%2C+M%2E+and+Berwick%2C+R%2E%2C+editors%2C+Computational+Models+of+Discourse%2E+MIT+Press%2C+Cambridge%2C+MA%2E)
2. Cohen, P., Morgan, J., and Pollack, M. (1990). Intentions in Communication. Bradford/MIT press, Cambridge, Mass. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Cohen%2C+P%2E%2C+Morgan%2C+J%2E%2C+and+Pollack%2C+M%2E+%281990%29%2E+Intentions+in+Communication%2E+Bradford%2FMIT+press%2C+Cambridge%2C+Mass%2E)
3. Dale, R. and Reiter, E. (1995). [Computational interpretations of the gricean maxims in the generation of referring expressions](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/dale-1995-computational-interpretations-gricean-maxims-generation/). Cognitive Science, 19:233–263.
4. Green, N. and Carberry, S. (1992). [Conversational implicatures in indirect replies](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/green-1992-conversational-implicatures-indirect-replies/). Proceedings of the 30th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 64–71.
5. Grice, H. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. and Morgan, J., editors, Syntax and Semantics, volume 3: Speech Acts. Academic Press, New York. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Grice%2C+H%2E+%281975%29%2E+Logic+and+conversation%2E+In+Cole%2C+P%2E+and+Morgan%2C+J%2E%2C+editors%2C+Syntax+and+Semantics%2C+volume+3%3A+Speech+Acts%2E+Academic+Press%2C+New+York%2E)
6. Lee, M. and Wilks, Y. (1996). Speech acts on demand. In Proceedings of the 5th International Pragmatics Conference, Mexico City. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Lee%2C+M%2E+and+Wilks%2C+Y%2E+%281996%29%2E+Speech+acts+on+demand%2E+In+Proceedings+of+the+5th+International+Pragmatics+Conference%2C+Mexico+City%2E)
7. Lee, M. and Wilks, Y. (1997). [Eliminating deceptions and mistaken belief to infer conversational implicature](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/lee-1998-eliminating-deceptions-mistaken-belief-infer/). In IJCAI-97 workshop on Conflict, Cooperation and Collaboration in Dialogue Systems.
8. McAllester, D. and Rosenblatt, D. (1991). Systematic non-linear planning. In Proceedings of AAAI90, pages 634– 639. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=McAllester%2C+D%2E+and+Rosenblatt%2C+D%2E+%281991%29%2E+Systematic+non%2Dlinear+planning%2E+In+Proceedings+of+AAAI90%2C+pages+634%E2%80%93+639%2E)
9. Pollack, M. (1990). Plans as complex mental attitudes. In Cohen, P., Morgan, J., and Pollack, M., editors, Intentions in Communication. Bradford/MIT press, Cambridge, Mass. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Pollack%2C+M%2E+%281990%29%2E+Plans+as+complex+mental+attitudes%2E+In+Cohen%2C+P%2E%2C+Morgan%2C+J%2E%2C+and+Pollack%2C+M%2E%2C+editors%2C+Intentions+in+Communication%2E+Bradford%2FMIT+press%2C+Cambridge%2C+Mass%2E)
10. Wilks, Y., Barnden, J., and Ballim, A. (1991). Belief ascription, metaphor and intensional identity. Cognitive Science, 15(1). [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Wilks%2C+Y%2E%2C+Barnden%2C+J%2E%2C+and+Ballim%2C+A%2E+%281991%29%2E+Belief+ascription%2C+metaphor+and+intensional+identity%2E+Cognitive+Science%2C+15%281%29%2E)

*Updated 2 November 2026*