Though M. agrees with the fact that some kind of conversational postulates is needed to derive conversational implicatures, he argues that an account must show in addition (i) that the linguistic expression L which entails the conversational implicature P given conversational postulates CP, is dissonant with a conversational maxim CM; (ii) that P resolves this dissonance; (iii) that conveying rather than saying P is justified, usually by a second implicature R which is accounted for in terms of non-conversational maxim M; (iv) that CP and CM systematize some aspect of pretheoretical intuitions about conversation as rational action. Hence, Grice's outline of a pragmatic theory of linguistic communication needs further elaboration.