Week 13

Grice Implication and the Cooperative Principle

Grice Theory Implication

Introduction:

Grice explains the difference between what a sentence says and what a speaker means by saying it.
What is said refers to the regular, dictionary meaning of the sentence. What is meant refers to what the
speaker suggests or hints at when saying the sentence. Here's an example where what is meant is not
the same as what is said:
A and B are talking about their mutual friend, C, who is now working in a bank. A asks B how C is
doing in his job. B replies, "Oh quite well, I think; he likes his colleagues, and he hasn't been to prison
yet." (Grice 1975: 43)
In this example, B says that C hasn't gone to prison yet, but what B means is something like: C might get
tempted by the job and could do something wrong in the future. Grice uses this example to show that
what B suggests is completely different from what B actually says. The sentence just says that C hasn't
gone to prison yet. On the other hand, what is said when someone speaks is linked to the usual meaning
of the words in the sentence. For example, if someone says, "He is in the grip of a vice" (Grice 1975: 44),
we understand the meaning based only on our knowledge of English. We don’t need to know anything
about the situation in which it was said. Grice points this out: If someone knows English but doesn’t
know the situation in which the sentence was said, they can still understand what the speaker has said,
as long as the speaker is using standard English and speaking literally. (Grice 1975: 44)

2. Conventional and Conversational implicatures

Grice distinguishes between two kinds of implicatures, namely conventional an conversational

implicatures. The conventional implicature happens when the conventiona meaning of words used
determine what is implicated. Thus, the sentence "He is an Englishman; he is, therefore, brave",
implicates, but doesn't say, that his being brave is a consequence of his being an Englishman. This is
based on the conventional meaning of the words used in uttering that sentence. The conversational
implicature, on the other hand, is a subclass of nonconventional implicature, and is connected with
certain general features of discourse.

3. The Cooperative principle and its attendant maxims

Our conversations are characterized by some sort of cooperation between the speaker and the listener.
According to Grice (1975: 45) "Our talk exchanges do not normally consist of a succession of
disconnected remarks, and would not be rational if they did. They are characteristically, to some degree
at least, cooperative efforts; and each participant recognizes in them, to some extent, a common
purpose or sets of purposes, or at least a mutually accepted direction. Participants in a conversation try
to cooperate with one another in order to make communication successful. In other words, the
participants should observe the cooperative principle outlined as follows:
The Cooperative Principle

"Make your contribution such as required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or
direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged" (Grice 1975: 45) Grice further specifies several
maxims to which participants should abide to render the conversation meaningful. The maxims are sort
of advises to the participants telling them what to do in order communicate in a rationale and
cooperative way. They should for instance tell the truth, be relevant and clear, and provide sufficient
information. Flouting one of the maxims gives rise to a conversational implicature. The following is a list
of maxims as suggested by Grice:

The Maxims

Quatity

 Make your contribution as informative as is required (for the current purposes of the exchange).
 Do not make your contribution more informative than is required.

Quality

 Try to make your contribution one that is true.

 Do not say what you believe to be false.
 Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.

Relation

 Be relevant.

Manner

 Be perspicuous,
 Avoid obscurity of expression.
 Avoid ambiguity.
 Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity).
 Be orderly.

In short, these maxims specify what the participants have to do in order to converse in a maximally
efficient, rational, co-operative way: they should speak sincerely, relevantly and clearly whilst providing
sufficient information." The cooperative principle together with its attendant maxims plays a role in
generating conversational implicature. At every stage of a conversation, a participant should make his
contribution sufficiently informative, true, relevant and clear. However, there are various. ways in which
a participant in a conversation fails to fulfill a maxim:

1. He may quietly and unostentatiously violate a maxim, if so, in some cases he will be liable to
mislead,
 1. 2.He may OPT OUT from the operation both of the maxim and of the CP. He may indicate that
he is unwilling to cooperate in the way that the maxim requires. He may say, for example, I
cannot say more; my lips are sealed.
2. He may be faced with a clash. For instance, be unable to fulfill one maxim without violating
another.
3. He may flout a maxim; that is, he may blatantly fail to fulfill it. The hearer is faced with the
problem of how can his saying what he did say be reconciled with the supposition that he is
observing the overall CP.

It is the last situation which, according to Grice, gives rise to conversational implicature, and when a
speaker flout a maxim in order to implicate something the maxim is, therefore, exploited. For Grice, a
conversational implicature can be defined as follows: a speaker in saying p conversationally implicates Q
provided that:

1. The speaker is presumed to be observing the conversational maxims or at least CP.

2. The supposition that the speaker is aware that q is required to make p consistent with (1).
3. The speaker thinks (and would expect the hearer to think that the speaker believes) that the
hearer is competent enough to work out that the supposition in (2) is required.

Therefore, a conversational implicature can only be considered as such if the bearer is able to work out
its presence. The hearer relies on the following information to work out the presence of a
conversational implicature:

1. The conventional meanings of the words

2. The CP and its attendant maxims
3. The context of the utterance
4. The fact that both participants know all the items in the previously mentioned headings.

Grice provided many examples of cases of flouting of maxims which give rise to conversational
implicature. These are subdivided into three groups, in brief, the following is some of the examples:

Group A: examples in which no maxim is violated

 A: I am out of petrol.
 B: There is a garage around the corner.

In the conversation above, the maxim of relevance seems like being infringed by speaker B unless he
thinks that the garage is open and sells petrol.

Group B: Instances in which a maxim is violated but its violation is explained by a clash with another
maxim

 A: Where does Clive?

 B: Somewhere in the south of France.
Speaker B by uttering "Somewhere in the south of France," is suggesting that he does not know where C
lives. Speaker B infringes the maxim of quantity by being less informative because he is aware that to be
more informative would mean infringing another maxim that of quality "Don't say what you lacked
evidence for."

Group C: Examples in which a maxim is exploited in order to get in a conversational implicature

Situation: A is writing a testimonial about a student who is a candidate for a philosophy job.

"Dear Sir, Mr. X's command of English is excellent, and his attendance at tutorials has been regular.
Yours, etc."

A is implicating that Mr. X is no good at philosophy. A refuses to be more informative not because of his
ignorance, but because he is reluctant to say something which may offend Mr. X.

Pragmatics: Cooperative Principles

The success of a conversation depends on the cooperation between interlocutors. Grice (1975) proposes
the cooperative principle (CP) as a guidance between the speakers and listeners in conversational
interactions. When people are able to fulfill the CP is called observance of maxim. Observance of maxim
categorized into four maxims.

1. Maxim of Quantity: Maxim of quantity emphasizes information. The information should be neither
too little, nor too much. Grice (1975) explained that, the participants should make contribution as
informative as possible to fulfill maxim quantity.

For example:

A. A: Where is the train station?

B. B: in the next to that hospital.

In the example above, speaker B gives an informative answer. Speaker B answers the question as
informative as possible by giving the location of the hospital. B's answer is as informative as required.

2. Maxim of Quality: Maxim of quality can be defined be as truthful as required. Cutting (2002, p.35)
states that maxim of quality regulates a speaker to be sincere, to be honest in saying something. They
have to say something that they believe corresponds to reality. Some speakers like to draw their
listener's attention to the fact that they are only saying what they believe to be true, and that they lack
adequate evidence.

For example:

A. A: I will ring you tomorrow afternoon then.

B. B: Ermm, I shall be there as fast as I know, and in the meantime Have a word with Mum and Dad
if they are free. Right, bye bye then sweetheart.
C. A: Bye-bye
B says that "as far as I know" means that "B cannot be totally sure if that is true", so if A rings up and
finds B not there, B is protected from accusations of lying by the fact that B did make it clear that B was
uncertain. Most listeners assume that speakers are not lying, and most speakers know that.

3. Maxim of Relation: Maxim of relation means that the utterance must be relevant to the topic being
discussed. Grice in Yule (1996, p.37) states that to fulfill the maxim of relation, both speaker and listener
of conversation should be relevant with the topic being talk.

For example:

 John: How about your score, Jane?

 Jane: I got an A.

Here, Jane's utterance fulfills the maxim of relation because her answer is relevant to the topic being
discussed.

4. Maxim of Manner: Maxim of manner obligates speaker's utterance to be perspicuous which is not to
be ambiguous, obscure, or disorderly. Levinson (1983, p.102) states that maxim of manner specifies
what participants have to do in order to converse in a maximally efficient, rational, and cooperative way.
They should also speak sincerely, relevantly, and clearly, while providing sufficient information.

A. A : what do you think about the drama?

B. B : I really like the each player. They can play their role as good as possible.

B's answer is categorized as maxim of manner because he can answer the question from his partner
about the drama orderly.In most circumstance, people are able to fulfill the CP. However, there are
many occasions, when people fail to observe the maxims, for example, they are incapable of speaking
clearly or because they deliberately choose to lie. The phenomenon when people seem do not fulfill the
maxims in CP can be defined as non-observance of maxim.

1. Maxim Violation

Cutting (2002, p.40) states that a speaker can be said to violate a maxim when he/she knows the listener
does not know the truth and will only understand the surface meaning of the words, the speaker is not
being sincere and giving the listener wrong information.

For example:

 Mother: Did you study all day long?

 Son: Yes, I've been studying until know. (In fact, the son is playing all day long)

In order to avoid his mother's anger, the son tells a lie. He intends to give insufficient information to the
mother. He intends to say what is not true in the reality to save him from bad consequences of telling
the truth. Here, the son has violated the maxim of quality by telling a lie or being dishonest
Maxim Infringement

 Infringement occurs when a speaker does not know the culture or does not master the language
well enough, as when he/she is incapable of speaking clearly.
 Cutting (2002, p.41) states that a speaker deals with infringement is because of his/her
imperfect linguistic performance. If his/her performance is impaired (nervousness, drunkenness,
excitement), and he/she has cognitive impairment, or he/she are simply incapable of speaking
clearly.

For example: (Someone learning English as a second language speaks to a native speaker).

 English Speaker: Which one do you choose, cheese or salad on your sandwich?
 Non-English Speaker: No.

In the example above, he/she does not understand about the native speaker just said. In this case, the
second speaker of the conversation can be said as non-cooperative and incapable to speak clearly.

Maxim Opt out

Cutting (2002, p.41) states that a speaker who is opting out of maxim indicates an unwillingness to
cooperate, although he/she does not want to appear uncooperative. People can opt out a maxim when
he/she fails to observe a maxim because he/she refuses to cooperate with the maxim.

For example:

 Presenter: So, when is the celebration day for your engagement with your boyfriend?
 Artist: I will tell the public soon but I cannot share it now.

Maxim Flouting

Cutting (2002, p.36) states that when a speaker appears not to follow the maxim but expect the listener
to appreciate the meaning implied, in other words he/she commits maxim flouting. It takes place when
people deliberately cease to apply the maxims to persuade their listener to infer the hidden meaning
behind the utterances. Maxim flouting occurs when a speaker fails to observe a maxim in order to lead a
listener to look for a hidden or an implied meaning.

For example:

 John: Hey! How are you?

 Ross: Oh, hi. I'm married. (Ross shows John her ring)

From the dialogue above, Ross's response to John's question appears by giving superfluous information
to John's question. She give addition information, which has no relation with the question. The reason
for her utterance is that John knows that she ever loved him in the past and he rejected her. Therefore,
she gives that information.