in which fox paraphrases grice

[fox]

see previous entry for grice's definition of conversational implicature.

i have just described this, in my paper, as follows:

Speaker S says a, which implies b. If S can be presumed to be adhering to the Cooperative Principle; and if we must believe he knows or believes b in order to make his having said a consistent with that presumption; and if S can reasonably expect the hearer H to suppose that only if S believes b is he adhering to the Cooperative Principle by saying a; then S has conversationally implicated b.

that might not make any more literal sense than the original, but is the syntax at least easier to follow? i think it is.