Semantics and Pragmatics

-Cooperative Principle-

The Concept of Cooperative Principle

Definition

The cooperative principle describes how people achieve effective conversational communication
in common social situations—that is, how listeners and speakers act cooperatively and mutually
accept one another to be understood in a particular way. As phrased by Paul Grice, who
introduced it in his pragmatic theory:

“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.”

Sub-principles or types of The Maxims (Observance of Maxims)

QUALITY: Try to make your contribution one that is true.

1. Do not say what you believe to be false.

2. Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.

QUANTITY:

1. Make your contribution as informative as is required (for the current purposes of the
exchange).

2. Do not make your contribution more informative than is required.

RELATION (or RELEVANCE): Be relevant.

MANNER: Be perspicuous.

1. Avoid obscurity of expression.

2. Avoid ambiguity.

3. Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity).

4. Be orderly.
Non Observance Of Maxims
Grice pointed out that not all people observe the maxims, when the speaker fails to observe the
maxims, this means that there is a distinction between what the speaker says and what he means,
in other words, an implicature arises as a result of non-observance of the maxims, and the
implicature here plays a great role to get the intended meaning of the speaker’s utterance.

I. Flouting a Maxim

It is where a participant in a conversation chooses to ignore one or more of the maxims by using
a conversational implicature. Ignoring maxims by using conversational implicatures means that
the participant adds meaning to the literal meaning of the utterance. The conversational
implicature that is added when flouting is not intended to deceive the recipient of the
conversation, but the purpose is to make the recipient look for other meaning (Thomas 1995:65).
Flouting a maxim also signals to the hearer that the speaker is not following the co-operative
principle (Cruse 2000:360).

1. Flouting the maxim of quality

In order not to get some punishments from addressee, addressor intends to say something untrue
or lies and denies something. The speaker misrepresents his information in order to make the
hearer understand the intended meaning of an utterance (Levinson, 1983:110).

An example of this from Thomas (1995:68) is a conversation held on a train ride, where a person
who just wants to read a book is being disturbed by a talkative stranger (Thomas 1995:68):

A: What do you do?

B: I'm a teacher.

A: Where do you teach?

B: Outer Mongolia

A: Sorry I asked!

The non-observance of the maxim in this case was not meant to deceive; since the other person
understood the answer to be deliberately untrue, this made the person look for another set of
meanings, i.e. the answer Outer Mongolia created an implicature, which told the other person
that she wanted to be left alone (Thomas 1995:68-69)
2. Flouting the maxim of quantity

When the speaker blatantly gives more or less information that the situation requires, the speaker
usually flouts this maxim because s/he uses insufficient words in conversation.

For example: Women are women

This utterance from the level of what is said is non informative, but it is informative at the level
of what is implicated.

3. Flouting the Maxim of relation

The participant flouts this maxim in such a way makes the conversation unmatched, the
participants’ topics are spoken in different ways; in this case the participant will change the topic
by means of irrelevance topic of the partner of the conversation (Levinson, 1983:111).

Example:

A: Mrs. X is an old bag

B: The weather has been quite delightful this summer, hasn’t it?

‘B’ has blatantly refused to make what he says relevant to A’s preceding remark. He implicated
that A’s remark should not to be discussed; more specifically perhaps, A has committed a social
gate (Grice, 1975:54).

4. Flouting the maxim of manner

When the speaker says ambiguous language or uses another language which makes the utterance
incomprehensible by addressee, this is the case of flouting the maxim of manner. Moreover, if
the addressor uses slang or his voice is not loud enough s/he will flouts this maxim (Levinson,
1983:104).

Interviewer: Did the United States Government play any part in Duvalier’s Departure? Did they,
for example, actively encourage him to leave?

Official: I would not try to steer you away from that conclusion.

In the above example the official response is extremely long and convoluted and it is obviously
no accident, nor through any inability to speak clearly, therefore, he has failed to observe the
maxim of manner. The official has replied ‘Yes’.

II. Violating the maxims

Violating a maxim is when someone in a conversation fails to observe one or more maxims with
the intention to deceive the recipient, often using an implicature with the intention to mislead.

1. Violating the maxim of quality

Mother: Did you study all day long?

Son who has been playing all day long: I’ve been studying till know!

In this conversation, the boy is not truthful and he violates the maxim of quality. He lied to avoid
unpleasant consequences such as, punishment or to be forced to study for the rest of the day
(Ibid: 122-123).

2. Violating the maxim of quantity

John: Where have you been? I searched everywhere for you during the past three months!

Mike: I wasn’t around. So, what’s the big deal?

John poses a question, which he needs to be answered by Mike. What Mike says in return does
not lack the truth, however is still insufficient. This can be due to the fact that Mike prefers to
refrain from providing John with the answer. John’s sentence implies that Mike has not been
around otherwise, he did not have to search everywhere. John does not say as much as it is
necessary to make his contribution cooperative.

3. Violating the maxim of relation

The following is an example of conversation between a teacher and one of his students:

Teacher: Why didn’t you do your homework?

Student: May I go and get some water? I’m so thirsty.

In this example the student’s answer is by no means irrelevant to the teacher’s question. One
reason for this answer can be the fact that the student is trying to evade the interrogation posed
by the teacher (Ibid: 123).

4. Violating the maxim of manner

The following is an example of conversation between two friends Sara and Anna:

Sara: Did you enjoy the party last night?

Anna: There was plenty of oriental food on the table, lots of flowers all over the place, people
hanging around chatting with each other.
Sara asked a very simple question, however what she receives from Anna is a protracted
description of what was going on in the party. Two interpretations can be made from Anna’s
description: 1.Anna had such a good time and2. She does not know how to complain about it.
Anna is ambiguous; therefore, she violated the maxim of manner (Ibid: 123).

III. Infringing the maxims

A participant who is infringing a maxim in a conversation has no intention to use an implicature,

nor does he have the intention to deceive the recipient of the conversation. Instead, infringement
occurs when someone is learning a language. The speaker may be a child or an adult learner.

Example :

English speaker: Would you like ham or salad on your sandwich?

Non-English speaker: “Yes”

The implicature has not been generated by interlocutor; s/he has not understood the utterance.
The answer might be interpreted as non-operative; this is a case of different social knowledge
which implied a different implicature (Dornerus, 2006:7).

IV. Opting out the maxims

Opting out of a maxim occurs when someone is indicating that they are unwilling to cooperate in
the way a maxim operates. The opting out of a maxim often occurs when someone wants to
withhold the truth for reasons that are ethical or private.

Example :

Caller: … um I lived in uh a country where people sometimes need to flee that country.

Ross: Uh, where was that?

Caller: It's a country in Asia and I don't want to say any more.

In this case the person is not trying to be uncooperative, but is withholding information so that he
or others will not get hurt.

V. Suspending the Maxims

Suspending the Maxims happens when participants in a conversation are not expecting the
maxims to be fully fulfilled, since the participants are withholding information that is to them
culturally necessary. This would not be seen as uncooperative by other members of that
community.
In this example, the speaker is the daughter of a murdered man and she is talking to an officer of
the Navajo Tribal police :

'Last time you were with that FBI man – asking about the one who got killed,' she said,
respecting the Navajo taboo of not speaking name of the dead. 'You found out who killed that
man?' (Thomas 1995:76)

In this case the woman is not observing the maxim of quantity, since she is speaking in vague
words about the man who got killed, despite the fact that she knows him very well.