This work investigates the possibility of utilizing Grice's maxim of relevance to diagnose at-tashbeeh al-dhimn & icirc; (implicit simile). In implicit simile the analogy between two parties is not explicit. This investigation proceeds from the assumption that an analysis using the maxim of relevance can identify the implicit simile. Accordingly, this study aims to prove this assumption by analysing some examples of implicit simile. In implicit simile, the subject (topic) and the object of analogy (vehicle) are sentences that seem to have different themes. This feature of implicit simile makes it challenging to diagnose. Hence, a tool to analyze the simile is needed. On the other hand, the maxim of relevance, which is one of the conversational maxims, provides a tool for analyzing conversations and revealing their intended meaning. Like other types of similes, implicit simile contains two parties: the subject (topic) and the object (vehicle). The main difference of implicit simile is that the simile occurs between two sentences. In other words, the analogy is conducted between judgments rather than things. Another feature of implicit simile is that no preposition indicates the simile. The unique structure of the implicit simile is the reason behind its controversiality. Scholars of the classical period had different tendencies in classifying and defining this type of simile. It is pretty new for implicit similes to gain their place and name among the types of figurative expressions. The main feature that recent definitions draw attention to is that the simile is not explicitly stated in implicit simile. The implicit simile between two sentences can be subject to the fasl-wasl (conjunction) theory, a traditional theory. However, this theory is not concerned with determining the general meaning as much as it is concerned with different aspects of the use of conjunctions. No tool can be used to diagnose implicit similes among the traditional analytical approaches. Conversational maxims are paraphrased from the cooperative principle developed by Paul Grice. According to the cooperative principle, the parties conduct their conversations in cooperation because it makes sense. One of these maxims is the maxim of relevance. Suppose a speech does not follow these maxims, and it is considered to contain an implicature. Implicature, conversely, refers to the signifier that triggers the discovery of non-obvious meanings in a speech or the non-obvious meaning itself. In conversations that contain implicature, meaning is derived by inference. This characteristic of the cooperative principle makes its natural domain conversations. However, focusing on the conjunctions between the speeches, the cooperative principle can be utilized in all types of speech. A cooperative principle is an approach that focuses on the connection between utterances, making it a suitable tool for analyzing non-conversational speeches as long as they are independent statements. An implicit simile is one of the non- conversational speeches and needs a tool for its detection. In this study, five selected poems containing implicit similes are examined. In the selected five examples, the simile's identifiability was tested using the maxim of relevance. Therefore, the analysis method used in the study is conversational maxim analysis, which is one of the linguistic analyses. The first step of the analysis is the search for relevance. Since the analogy contains two seemingly unconnected sentences, the relevance is determined by obtaining a common theme. The identified common theme represents the aspect of resemblance. In all five examples to that we applied the analysis, it was possible to establish a similarity between the two judgments in the poem, and the implicit simile was revealed. As the examples were from poetry, it was easy to understand that the relevance was to make the parties look alike. In poetry, the context is almost in the words. Whereas in process and particularly in conversations, the context is primarily non-verbal. The inferences made in some examples are also supported by data from classical sources. It seems that this inference process works as follows: Since the reader's mind is focused on understanding, the difference in subject matter between two sentences attracts his/her attention, and then he/she looks for a relationship between unrelated statements that follow each other. Thus, the reader or the listener comprehends the implication and the implicit analogy. It is worth mentioning that this analysis model can identify implicit simile in only one type of speech, and that is poetry. This model of analysis needs to be further tested in other speeches where the context is non-verbal.
