The cooperative Principle Flouting and implicature

4 Maxims of the cooperative Principle These ‘rules ‘ of conversation were first formulated by the Paul Grice (1975) as the Co-operative Principle. This states that we interpret the language on the assumption that a speaker is obeying the four maxims (known as Grice’s Maxims) of: 1 QUALITY (BEING TRUE) 2 QUANTITY (BEING BRIEF) 3 RELATION (BEING RELEVANT) 4 MANNER (BEING CLEAR)

coherence 3. Relation. Key to the maxim of relation is the notion of coherence. Coherence is not something that exists in language, but something that exists in people. It is people who ‘make sense’ of what they read and hear. They try to arrive at an interpretation that is line with their experience of the way the world is.

  Her: That’s the telephone Him: I’m in the bath Her: OK He expects her to understand that his present location makes it impossible for him to act on her speech act (directive) There are no cohesive ties in this fragment nevertheless both interactants make sense of what the other says. Certainly a knowledge of Speech Acts is involved: She makes a request of him to perform an action He states the reasons why he cannot comply with the request She undertakes to perform the action

Conversational Implicature Grice argues that although speakers, usually choose to co-operate, they can also refuse to abide by that principle, or, in other words, flout it. If a maxim is deliberately broken, it is normally done so to achieve a very specific effect and communicate a specific meaning, known as a conversational implicature, in other words, the special meaning created when a maxim is flouted.

Flouting and pragmatic meaning Listeners can deduce not only the literal meaning, but the pragmatic meaning, namely, what the producer is doing or intending with the words, even when their literal meaning may be quite different. Understanding how people communicate is actually a process of interpreting not just what speakers say, but what they ‘intend to mean’. Grice argues that when speakers appear not to follow the maxims they expect hearers to appreciate implied meanings. We call this flouting the maxims. Flouting means that the speaker implies a different function from the literal meaning of the words used.

Flouting quantity Flouting quantity involves giving either too much or too little information.   A Well, how do I look? B Your shoes are nice…

Flouting quality Flouting quality can be done in a variety of ways; some of the most common are? Exaggeration, e.g. I’m starving, I could eat a horse Hearers would be expected to know that the speaker to infer that the speaker is very hungry.   Metaphor e.g.: My house is a refrigerator in winter, I could murder a pint. (Euphemism): I’m going to wash my hands

Flouting quality: irony irony (violates quality by saying the opposite of what we mean, i.e. the words are the opposite of intended meaning. Irony is often used in a friendly fashion,   [sigh] You know, there’s nothing I love more than waking at four in the morning to the celestial music of next door’s next door’s little angel crying. The speaker here would expect the hearer to see this as a humorous attempt to make the best out of an uncomfortable or annoying situation.

sarcasm Sarcasm is a less friendly and frequently used to make criticisms. It is normally obvious because of the gap between what is said and what is meant.   Ah, undercooked potatoes again. Yummy!

banter Banter: expresses a negative sentiment and implies a positive one. The Linguist Leech called it ‘ an offensive way of being friendly. It is common between friends, longstanding colleagues and teammates and partners. It can often be used to tease and flirt. It can often take the form of abusive or offensive language. Naturally it can backfire if the hearer of banter doesn’t recover the conversational implicature.

Flouting relation If speakers flout the maxim of relation, the expect hearers to infer or imagine what the utterance did not say. A: So what do you think of Mark? B: His flatmate’s a wonderful cook. In this case, the speaker, by not mentioning Mark in the reply, and hence by being irrelevant, she implies that she didn’t think very much of him.

Flouting manner Flouting manner, this very frequently takes the form of obscurity or ambiguity; quite often it can be used to exclude another interactant. A Where are you off to? B I was thinking of going to get some of that funny white stuff for someone. A Ok, but don’t be long – dinner’s nearly ready.

Violating maxims Unlike flouting, violating maxims means that the speaker knows that the hearer will not recover the implicature and will only see the surface truth. In other words the hearer will take the words at face value and act accordingly.

quantity Violating the maxim of quantity means deliberately providing insufficient information so that the hearer will not fully understand the situation. Example from the Pink Panther   A Does your dog bite B No A (Bends down to stroke dog and is bitten ) Ow! But you said it doesn’t bite. B It’s not my dog.

Violating quality Violating the maxim of quality (and therefore being insincere or lying) needs little explanation. It is quite permissible and acceptable in some contexts and cultures, especially a lie that protects or a white lie, the kind that are told to children. Imagine a husband asks his wife the following question: How much did that new dress cost?   She might answer, I know, why don’t we eat out for a change? in order to change the subject, in which she would be deliberately violating the maxim of relation. If, on the other hand, she answered ‘A tiny fraction of my salary, though most probably a very high fraction of the salary of the shop assistant who sold it to me”, she would be violating the maxim of manner, avoiding clarity and being deliberately obscure.

Infringement and opting out according to Grice there are two forms of non-observance of maxims Infringement is due to an imperfect mastery of the language due to their level of language skills (child, foreigner) impairment ( drunkenness, nervousness, excitement) or if they have cognitive problems or speech impediments.   Opting out occurs when a speaker is unwilling, although they do want to be cooperative. Sometimes they cannot reply in the expected way for legal or professional reasons, or for ethical reasons ( I’m afraid I can’t answer that question, I can’t give you that information). No comment.