He characterized the decision not to participate in interpreting human communication, that is interpreted literally. In contrast to the usual way of interpreting what communicates is tied to the way in which it is communicated. The context which is the guidance for the interpretation of the parties that form the whole communication, does not have the same outstanding importance within the literalism. According to the critique of the literalism, there is an interpretation of meaning and sense can be literal. There is always something that adds the receiver. What adds Yes a literalist receptor, breaks the communication. Criticism argues that the literal interpretation is, somewhat pathological communication, or the receipt of the communication failure precisely when it rejects the sense that has put the transmitter. The meaning of the communication of the issuer, is submitted by the recipient to the word with that was issued, and therefore is not interpreted in the sense desired by the issuer. The criticism to the literalism puts the focus in the confusion generated in communication in general, since the issuer is put in the place of having to issue a communication in words that can understand the receiver and this, at one end as the literalism, is impossible since it is not in the knowledge of the limitations of the receiver transmitter.