Discourse as action
The cooperative principle
Lesson 6
Fri 11 March, 2016
The cooperative principle
When discussing direct and indirect speech acts, we noticed
how the same linguistic form (locution) can have many different
functions (illocutions). We also realised that the correct
interpretation of speech acts depends on many different factors
‒ linguistic elements (IFIDS), knowledge of the discourse
situation, knowledge of the world.
In short: utterances often conveys more than the literal
meaning of the words uttered.
How can people communicate in spite of all these ambiguities?
The cooperative principle
Philosopher Herbert Grice (1975) claimed that communication
works despite all its ambiguities because the participants
normally adhere to the cooperative principle:
“Make your conversational contribution
such as is required, at the stage at which it
occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction
of the speech exchange in which you are
engaged.”
The cooperative principle
Suppose that Andy and Bob are talking about a mutual friend,
Carl, who is now working in a bank. Andy asks Bob how Carl is
getting on his job, and Bob replies: “Oh quite well, I think; he
likes his colleagues and he hasn’t been to prison yet.”
At first glance, Bob’s remark about prison seems superfluous.
Andy can conclude that Bob does not hold a high opinion of Carl,
but this cannot be derived from the literal meaning of Bob’s
words.
Why then can Andy draw this conclusion?
The cooperative principle
According to Grice, the answer lies in the cooperative
principle. In fact, as long as Andy assumes that Bob is being
cooperative, he will consider Bob’s remark about prison as
being relevant to the conversation, so he will try to work out its
meaning (i.e. that Bob thinks Carl is a potential criminal).
All meaning that participants in a conversation can derive/infer
in this way is broadly defined as pragmatic meaning (as
opposed to literal meaning).
The cooperative principle
Can you explain the following dialogue in the same way?
Sarah: “What time is it?”
Ben: “Dad has just got home.”
Sarah: “Okay, thanks.”
Ben’s reply is apparently irrelevant, yet Sarah is able to derive
its pragmatic meaning: “it’s 6pm” (for example), because both
Sarah and Ben know that dad comes home around that time.
Grice calls this derivation conversational implicature.
The cooperative principle: maxims
To understand how conversational implicature works, we need
to consider the four maxims of the cooperative principle:
1. Maxim of quantity: make your contribution as informative
as is required (don’t be too brief or too wordy).
2. Maxim of quality: try to make your contribution one that is
true (be true).
3. Maxim of relevance: make your contribution one that is
relevant to the conversation (be relevant).
4. Maxim of manner: avoid ambiguity and obscurity, be
orderly (be clear).
The cooperative principle: maxims
Grice argues that conversational implicatures are created
every time a speaker deliberately violates (flout) one or
more maxims. The maxims are therefore meant to be broken!
Flouting and implicature
Flouting the maxim of quantity (don’t be too brief / too wordy)
A: “Well, how do I look?”
B: “Your shoes are nice.”
B provides too little information, thereby flouting the maxim of
quantity. What is the conversational implicature?
Conversational implicature: the rest of the outfit is not nice;
speaker A does not look very good.
Flouting and implicature
Flouting the maxim of quality (be true)
1.
2.
3.
4.
“I’m literally starving.” (exaggeration)
“He is as nice as a kick in the teeth.” (irony/sarcasm)
“I would give you the Moon.” (metaphor)
“I love you, you stupid creature.” (banter)
In all four cases the maxim of quality is being flouted. What are
the conversational implicatures?
Conversational implicatures: 1) I am very hungry; 2) he is not nice
at all; 3) and 4) I am fond of you.
Flouting and implicature
Flouting the maxim of relevance (be relevant)
A: “So what do you think of Mark?”
B: “His flatmate is a wonderful cook.”
B provides irrelevant information, thereby flouting the maxim
of relevance. What is the conversational implicature?
Conversational implicature: B does not think very highly of
Mark, or B does not feel like talking about Mark.
Flouting and implicature
Flouting the maxim of manner (be clear)
A: “Where are you going?”
B: “I was thinking of going to get some of that funny white
stuff for someone.”
A: “Okay, but don’t be long – dinner’s nearly ready.”
B’s contribution is obscure and ambiguous. What is the
conversational implicature?
Conversational implicature: It does not matter where I’m going,
it’s just usual business.
Flouting and implicature
Activity: identify all the cases in which a maxim is being flouted.
Which maxims are being flouted? What are the conversational
implicatures?
Sarah: “That’s the telephone.”
Ben: “I’m in the bath.”
Sarah: “Okay.”
Ben flouts the maxim of relevance. The conversational
implicature is that Ben cannot answer the phone. Sarah
understands it correctly.
Flouting and implicature
Activity
Ben: “Yummy, undercooked potatoes again!”
Sarah: “You know I’m very busy these days.”
Ben: “Really? Doing what?”
Sarah: “Oh, shut up.”
Ben flouts the maxim of quality (sarcasm). Sarah flouts the
maxim of relevance (implicature: she has no time for cooking).
Ben flouts the maxim of quality (irony). Sarah flouts the maxim
of manner (implicature: she gets the irony and doesn’t like it).
Flouting and implicature
Activity
Sarah: “How was school?”
Ben: (5)
Sarah: “So how was it?”
Ben: “It was hell.”
Ben’s silence flouts the maxim of quantity (implicature: I don’t
feel like talking about that). Ben then flouts the maxim of quality
(metaphor; implicature: it was very bad).
Flouting and implicature
Activity
Sarah: “We’re out of petrol.”
Ben: “There is a garage round the corner.”
Sarah: “You know I hate the smell of gasoline.”
Ben: “Alright, alright.”
Ben flouts the maxim of relevance (implicature: the garage is
open and sells gasoline). Sarah flouts the maxim of relevance
(implicature: she wants Ben to get the gasoline). Ben
understands the implicature.
Flouting and implicature
Activity
Sarah: “How old are you, Ben?”
Ben: “I’m 19 years, 4 months, 3 days and 9 hours old”
Sarah: “You know what I mean….”
Ben: “Okay, sorry, I’ll go clean my room.”
Sarah performs an indirect speech act (interrogative intended
to be a request for Ben to clean the room). Ben flouts the maxim
of quantity (implicature: I know I am going to be reproached so
I’ll tease you a bit). Sarah stops the teasing. Ben complies with
the indirect request.
Violating the maxims
Speakers flout the maxims in order to create conversational
implicatures, which they expect the hearers/readers to recover
and interpret in the correct way. This is possible because
normally we all adhere to the cooperative principle.
Sometimes, however, participants in a conversation may decide,
or be forced, to be uncooperative by violating the maxims.
Unlike flouting, violating the maxims means that the
hearer/reader will only be able to get the literal meaning.
Violating the maxims
Violating the maxim of quantity
A: “Does your dog bite?”
B: “No.”
(A bends down to stroke dog and gets bitten)
A: “Ow! But you said it doesn’t bite.”
B: “It’s not my dog.”
Violating the maxim of quantity means deliberately providing
either an insufficient or an excessive amount of information so
that the hearer will not fully understand the situation.
Violating the maxims
Violating the maxim of quality
A: “Did you steal my bike?”
B: “No.” (B is the thief)
A: “Mum, does Santa really exist?”
B: “Of course!”
Violating the maxim of quality (and therefore being insincere or
lying) requires some 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).
Violating the maxims
Violating the maxim of relevance
Wife: “How much did that new watch cost?”
Husband: “Why don’t we eat out for a change?”
When speakers abruptly change the subject of the conversation,
they are deliberately violating the maxim of relevance.
Violating the maxims
Violating the maxim of manner
Wife: “How much did that new watch cost?”
Husband: “A tiny fraction of my salary, though most
probably a larger fraction of the salary of the shop assistant
who sold it to me.”
When speakers avoid clarity and are deliberately obscure, they
are violating the maxim of manner.
Violating the maxims: infringement
Violating the maxims is not always a deliberate move to
‘sabotage’ the conversation. According to Grice, there are two
forms of non-observance of maxims that are ‘innocent’, so to
say.
The first is infringement, which occurs with people who have
an imperfect mastery of the language due to their language
skills (children, non-native speakers) or to impairment
(drunkenness, nervousness, excitement), or who have cognitive
problems or speech impediments.
Violating the maxims: opting out
The second is opting out, which occurs when speakers cannot
afford to be cooperative even if they wanted to. Sometimes
people cannot reply in the expected way for professional, legal,
or ethical reasons.
Examples of opting out:
“I’m afraid I can’t answer that question.”
“I am not allowed to give you that information.”
“No comment.”
Evaluation of Grice’s approach
In discourse studies the cooperative principle and its maxims
are often referred to as they provide a lucid description of how
listeners and readers can distill information from an utterance
even though that information has not been mentioned outright
(i.e. the pragmatic meaning).
Grice did, however, spell out some of the limitations of his own
approach. Firstly, he stated that maxims are only valid for
informative communication (e.g. not for small talk). Secondly,
he claimed that other maxims are possible, such as be polite.
Evaluation of Grice’s approach
In addition, the Gricean maxims have been criticised for several
reasons.
For example, how can it be determined how much information
is required (maxim of quantity)?
Also, the four maxims have been presented as being of equal
importance, but there are situations in which the maxim of
quality is more important than the maxim of manner, and vice
versa.
Evaluation of Grice’s approach
Example of a situation in which the maxim of quality (be true) is
more important than the maxim of manner (be clear):
psychoanalysis.