Ilhamdi Hafiz Sofyan

1410731012

Pragmatics

Maxims

In a conversation, whether the speakers know or not, there are certain unspoken
principles that determine how the conversation goes. These principles are called maxims. In
linguistics, maxim can be described as a normative recommendation or a regulative principle
in the normative science of logic, which function is to guide the conduct of thought toward
the achievement of its purpose. In pragmatics, maxims are discussed in cooperative principle
(CP) that describes how effective communication in conversation is achieved in common
social situations. Furthermore, cooperative principle can be put as how listeners and speakers
must act cooperatively and mutually accept one another to be understood in a particular way
during a conversation. This principle is introduced by Paul Grice who said, “Your
contribution such as it 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 furthermore classified maxims in pragmatics into four. They are maxim of
quantity, maxim of quality, maxim of relation and maxim of manner. Maxim of quantity is
where one tries to be as informative as one possibly can. The information given should be
adequate, not less and not more either. For example, a person asked me, “What time do you
work tomorrow?” and I replied, “Tomorrow I work at 2pm.” In this example, I provide
enough information to my hearer that I would work tomorrow at 2pm. If I replied just “2pm,”
it could lead my hearer to think that I working at 2pm not only tomorrow, but also on the next
days, thus breaking the maxim of quantity. The same applies if I add another information
such as “I went to work with my car,” “after lunch,” etc. which is irrelevant to the question.

The next maxim is the maxim of quality. This maxim is where one tries to be truthful
and does not give false information or that is not supported by evidence. This maxim is
sometimes overlapping with the maxim of quantity in a sense that if a person gives adequate
information but is not supported by evidence, the maxim of quality is broken. Conversely, if
the person gives supported information but adds or reduces the information, it breaks the
maxim of quantity. For example, a person asked me, “Why were you late last night?” and
then I answered that, “My car broke down.” This example showed that I following the maxim
of quality by giving information related to the cause ‘why I’m late’. However, if I responded
with, “I don’t late last night, my car’s just broken down,” while the information I give
supported by evidence, the sentence “I don’t late last night” is incorrect because it’s against
the truth, thus violating the maxim of quality.

Maxim of relevance requires the speaker to provide relevant information to the

discussion, avoiding things that are not pertinent to the discussion. The difference between
the maxims is, in the maxim of relevance, while a person could respond by giving
information supported by facts, if it doesn’t have any connection to the speaker’s initial point,
it’s rendered to be irrelevant, thus breaking the maxim of relevance. For example, when a
person asked me, “Where is my book?” the appropriate response should be “It is in my bag,”
“It is left somewhere,” or any other answer that is relevant to the previous question. However,
if I responded by saying, “Mine is missing too,” the maxim of relevance is broken, because I
responded by giving an answer that has no relevance with the question being asked.

The last maxim is the maxim of manner, which requires the speaker to be clear, brief,
and as orderly as one can in what they say, and where they avoid obscurity of expression and
ambiguity. For example, when a person asked me, “Where are you going yesterday?” and I
wanted to answer that I had to pick up my brother from his school, the correct way to express
it in a clear and brief way is, “I went to pick my brother up from his school yesterday.”
However, if I responded by saying, “I have my brother picked up from his school yesterday,”
it would cause misunderstanding because it was ambiguous and obscure.