Grices Cooperative Principle and maxims of conversation

As humans we are social beings and when we talk we usually talk with or to others (unless we do a
monologue). Paul Grice, an English language philosopher, argues that speakers intend to be
cooperative when they talk. For Grice, cooperative means that the speaker knows that each
utterance is a potential interference in the personal rights, autonomy and wishes (a potential face-
threatening act) of the other. That is why we have to shape our utterances in a certain way. Grice
formulated the principle of cooperation that underlies conversation, as follows:
Make your conversational contribution such as is 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)

Grices cooperative principle is a set of norms that are expected in conversations. It consists
of four maxims, we have to follow in order to be cooperative and understood:
Maxim of quality : As speaker we have to tell the truth or something that is provable by
adequate evidence.
Maxim of quantity: We have to be as informative as required, we should not say more or less.
Maxim of relevance: Our response has to be relevant to the topic of discussion.
Maxim of manner: We have to avoid ambiguity or obscurity; we should be direct and
straightforward.

Quantity:

Say no less than the conversation requires.

Say no more than the conversation requires.

Quality:

Don't say what you believe to be false.

Don't say things for which you lack evidence.

Manner:

Don't be obscure.
Don't be ambiguous.
Be brief.
Be orderly.

Relevance:

Be relevant.

COOPERATION VS. AGREEABLENESS

"We need to make a distinction between communicatively cooperative and socially cooperative . .
.. The 'Cooperative Principle' is not about being positive and socially 'smooth,' or agreeable. It is a
presumption that when people speak, they intend and expect that they will communicate by doing
so, and that the hearer will help at making this happen. When two people quarrel or have a
disagreement, the Cooperative Principle still holds, even though the speakers may not be doing
anything positive or cooperative. . . . Even if individuals are aggressive, self-serving, egotistic, and
so on, and not quite focusing on the other participants of the interaction, they can't have spoken
at all to someone else without expecting that something would come out of it, that there would be
some result, and that the other person/s was/were engaged with them.

That is what the Cooperative Principle is all about, and it certainly does have to continue to be
considered as the main driving force in communication." (Istvan Kecskes, Intercultural Pragmatics.
Oxford University Press, 2014)

THE LIGHTER SIDE OF THE COOPERATIVE PRINCIPLE (EXAMPLE)

Sheldon Cooper: I've been giving the matter some thought, and I think I'd be willing to be a house
pet to a race of superintelligent aliens.

Leonard Hofstadter: Interesting.

Sheldon Cooper: Ask me why?

Leonard Hofstadter: Do I have to?

Sheldon Cooper: Of course. That's how you move a conversation forward.

(Jim Parsons and Johnny Galecki, "The Financial Permeability." The Big Bang Theory, 2009)

Breaking the maxims

The conversational maxims are broken rather more often than linguistic rules (e.g. in grammar).
We can break the conversational maxims in two main ways:

We can violate the maxims:

This means that we break the maxims surreptitiously, or covertly, so that other people do not
know. If we violate the maxim of quality, we lie. If we violate the maxim of quantity by not giving
enough information, and someone finds out, we can be accused of 'being economical with the
truth', another deceit. If you like, violating the maxims amounts to breaking them 'illegally', just as
people who steal are guilty of laws concerning theft. As with laws, some maxim violations can be
more heinous than others. Lying in a court of law is disapproved, but 'white lies', small lies to keep
the social peace, are often thought as acceptable.

We can flout (disregard, disdain) the maxims:

If we FLOUT a maxim, we break it in a FLAGRANT (and often foregrounded) way, so that it is

obvious to all concerned that it has been broken. If this happens, then it is clear that the speaker is
intending the hearer to infer some extra meaning over and above what is said (evidence for this is
that people of say things like 'He said he was happy, but the way he said it implied he wasn't
really'. Grice distinguishes what he calls 'sentence meaning' from 'utterer's meaning' and he refers
to an utterer's meaning indicated through a flout as an IMPLICATURE. So the implicature is what
we have been referring to so far as the 'extra meaning'.

It is the flouting of maxims which constitute their 'extra-breaking' character, as compared with
linguistic rules. Essentially maxim-flouting is conversationally cooperative because all the
participants in the conversation can see that a maxim has been broken on purpose by the speaker
or writer in order to create an extra layer of meaning which is accessible by inference.

Exercise

Which of the four maxims are violated the five dialogues below? (Take a look at the
participants' Prezi presentation if you need help with the maxims.)
Quantity Manner Quality Relation
Mom: What did you think of Juniors childish behavior last
night? Dad: Well, boys will be boys
Student A: Do you like Linguistics? Student B: Well, lets
just say I dont jump for joy before class.
Student: I was absent on Monday - did I miss anything
important? Teacher: Oh no, of course not, we never do
anything important in class.
Student A: Can you tell me where the lecture is? Student
B: It is in room 254, the room in which I had my first
university class ever.