This study attempts to indicate that ‘exclusivity’ is not organized adequately in semantic books. In these books, there is not a clear- cut boundary between different kinds of literary exclusivity; moreover its categorizations are based on the reader^,s’ mastery over the speakers or the addressees’ intentions. After analyzing and categorizing the three groups cited in semantic books, the author concludes that the real non- claiming exclusive sentences should be analyzed in the realm of language studies, and unreal daiming sentences in the realm of literature. Furthermore, a change in the tone of reading or the stress in pronunciation determines the adjective and noun or the noun and adjective. In order to clarify exclusivity of ‘singularity, metamorphosis and identification’, accurate identification of the addressee is highly necessary. Finally, the position of exclusive sentences and implications is not clarified. It is suggested that when teaching or analyzing ‘exclusivity’, the five fields of discourse analysis, literature, knowing the addressee, sentence recognition and implicatures must be taken into account.