point and counterpoint

Adapting Grice’s maxims in the

teaching of writing
Ron White

Grice’s maxims, which define the conditions for eªcient spoken

communication, can be adapted to the teaching of writing by providing both
teachers and writers with a way of understanding successful and unsuccessful
written correspondence in mono- and cross-cultural settings. Cultural
di¤erences in writer–reader expectations are revealed in a survey of lay readers’
responses to a sample letter which show that, while there are individual
di¤erences in the way these maxims are interpreted, readers expect clarity,
brevity, and sincerity, and writing which fails to meet these expectations will be
unfavourably received. Also discussed are the issues of contrastive rhetoric, and
ways of helping writers to position themselves in relation to their real or
imagined reader.

Introduction The points discussed here had their origins in the kind of problem faced
by many teachers of writing: a student has produced a text which, while
grammatically acceptable, fails somehow to fulfil the requirements of the
writing task. Just such a problem with a student’s writing assignment
gave rise to the issues to be considered in this paper. While these issues
are especially relevant to teaching business correspondence, I believe
that they also have general implications for the teaching of writing,
particularly now that examination boards are incorporating writing tasks
modelled on ‘real world’ genres in public examinations, in order to
accommodate the vocational requirements of candidates and other
stakeholders. Furthermore, as Kirkpatrick (1997: 99) observes:
Teaching writing well depends on recognising that cultural
expectations about how texts are written are as important as grammar
and vocabulary.
In considering the implications of culturally-related expectations for the
teaching of writing, I will begin by discussing the applicability of Grice’s
Co-operative Principle (Grice 1975) and its associated maxims to writing.
Linked to this is the question of how authentic readers—rather than
teachers and students—respond to samples of writing (in this case, a
business letter). Thirdly, there is the issue of cross-cultural di¤erences in
the adaptation of Grice’s maxims to writing, and how these may e¤ect

62 ELT Journal Volume 55/1 January 2001 © Oxford University Press

 communication between writer and reader. Before concluding, I will
suggest questions which writers can pose themselves before and during
writing, so as to position themselves most e¤ectively in relation to their
readers.

Grice’s Co-operative In an attempt to account for the way conversationalists infer meanings
Principle (CP) and intentions other than those that are obvious from the surface
language, Grice (1975) proposed the Co-operative Principle (CP), and a
set of maxims which define the assumptions underlying a hearer’s
interpretations of a speaker’s intentions. Stated as a set of imperatives,
these maxims are presented in simplified form below.
1 Quality Speak the truth, be sincere.
2 Quantity Say neither more nor less than is necessary for the
purpose at hand.
3 Relation Be relevant.
4 Manner Be clear, be perspicuous.
Although writing di¤ers from speaking in channel, and grammatical and
discoursal features, the CP is not suspended when communicating in
writing. Indeed, in their discussion of written text as communication,
Grabe and Kaplan (1996: 41) point out that it, too, is ‘structured to
communicate information within certain accepted … principles’, which
include Gricean maxims, and ‘the systematically interpretable violations
of these maxims’. Whereas skilled writers flout, violate, or ignore these
maxims on purpose, less skilled writers do so by accident. In both cases,
implicatures are set up whereby writer’s intentions (or illocutionary acts)
are interpreted by the reader (the perlocutionary e¤ects). Consequently, it
is possible for the reader to derive quite di¤erent meanings from what
the writer intended. Indeed, for unskilled writers, there is a distinct
possibility that their intentions will be subverted by their inept or
unintentional flouting or violating of the maxims. As we shall see, this
point is demonstrated in the responses by the readers who took part in
the survey reported below.
Interestingly, Grice’s maxims also have much in common with the so-
called ‘C-B-S’ style of professional communication (Scollon and Scollon
1995: 94), which privileges clarity, brevity, and sincerity within what the
Scollons term the Utilitarian Discourse System (UDS). Defined in terms
of these three criteria, eªciency is a valued attribute of business writing,
brevity in particular ‘being a much-prized virtue’ (Eustace 1996: 53).
Furthermore, I believe that it is possible to perceive the ideology of the
UDS in the taken-for-granted assumptions of what constitutes good,
clear, communication in many assessment schemes.

Case study: a letter The text in this study was written by a Polish undergraduate as an
of adjustment assignment. A non-native writer of English, raised on a diet of essays and
literary criticism, she was concerned with displaying her competence in
English for assessment purposes. Her teachers had been educated within
a middle-European tradition of English philology and literary
scholarship, and although they were adapting quickly to the changing

Adapting Grice’s maxims in the teaching of writing 63

 educational needs of a free market economy, their forte was the essay
rather than utilitarian forms of discourse, such as business
correspondence. So neither teacher nor student was fully at home with
the kind of writing which was required for this task. The student’s
solution was to make use of a model text from a published source (Ashley
1984).
The set task was writing a reply to a complaint. Neither audience nor
word length was specified, although, given the display requirement
involved in the task, there tends to be an unspoken assumption, no doubt
shared by students and teachers alike, that it is better to write as much as
possible in order to demonstrate linguistic skill. As we shall see, this is an
assumption which may be counterproductive in the type of authentic
discourse that the student was required to emulate, in which brevity may
be more highly rated.
One of the problems the student faced was having to imagine context
(including reader) and content. A particular diªculty here is that in the
relationship assumed in this piece of correspondence, there is an
asymmetrical distribution of power between customer (the reader and
initiator of the correspondence) and supplier (the writer and responder).
If a supplier has failed to fulfil part of an undertaking, such as the
provision of goods or services, the customer is in an especially powerful
position, since the supplier owes the customer an apology as a way of
redressing—or adjusting—the imbalance of obligations.
A conventional way of o¤ering redress is the letter of adjustment, the
move structure of which appears to be as follows:
1 Establishing common ground
2 Admitting fault
3 O¤ering an apology
4 O¤ering an explanation
5 O¤ering redress
6 Concluding
Of the six moves I have identified above, 1, 3, and 6 are obligatory, while
2, 4, and 5 are optional, if desirable, while 2—admitting fault—could also
function as an indirect apology. Move 3—o¤ering an apology—can be
repeated prior to, or function as, the concluding move.

Gricean To find out how lay readers, rather than teachers, would respond to
interpretations of this particular letter (see Appendix), I approached seven people in
readers’ responses the UK who deal with customers and suppliers as part of their
routine work, and asked them to comment on the aim of the writer, her
success in achieving this aim, and what they thought about the amount
written. In part, I was interested to see if their reactions to the letter
matched my own feeling that the letter was too long, and that far from
satisfying the customer, the writer might well alienate his goodwill even
further.

64 Ron White
 Several conclusions can be drawn from the results (see Tables below). As
can be seen under the heading ‘Writer’s purpose achieved?’, most
readers felt that the letter was a failure, while their reactions as readers
indicate that the majority were either annoyed or not pleased. It should
be acknowledged, however, that there was not a complete consensus, and
that there was some variation in readers’ responses, as is clear from the
figures in Table 1.
Writer’s purpose Readers’ reaction Quantity appropriate?
achieved?
Yes No Unsure Pleased Indi¤erent Not pleased Annoyed Other Insuªcient Suªcient Too much
1 5 1 0 1 2 3 1 1 0 6

table 1 The one reader who felt that the writer had achieved her purpose said
Results of Survey that she was ‘satisfied that a full explanation has been given’ and that she
‘will probably give them a second chance’. Another reader, who was
unsure whether the writer had been successful, said that she was
‘pleased, with reservations’, and that while she was ‘happy to get an
explanation’, she ‘would expect some reassurance about the associates’
quality’, and that she felt that what the writer had written was ‘overall
about right.’
This was not the view of the majority, however: one reader commented
that she felt that the writer was an ‘unreliable supplier’, while another
criticized the letter as being ‘gushing and over the top. Not very
professional, could have stated facts without so much prose!’ More
bluntly, another subject said that ‘it is full of waºe and doesn’t tell me
what I want—i.e. when my order will be fulfilled’.
Finally, the results under ‘Quantity appropriate?’ show that most readers
felt that the writer had written too much, thus confirming my view that
the writer has violated the maxim of Quantity, as well as the maxim of
Relation, to ill e¤ect as far as the majority of these readers were
concerned. In fact, to judge from their responses, it appears that she had
taken insuªcient account of these readers’ expectations of clarity,
brevity, and sincerity. Furthermore, as their comments showed, some
readers were expecting that the writer would o¤er them a solution to the
problem caused by the failure to meet their order, rather than a detailed
explanation, which some of them interpreted as an excuse.

Cross-cultural Since the writer was Polish and the readers were British, the evident
implications mismatch of writer’s and readers’ expectations could be attributed in part
to cultural di¤erences, and there was some evidence from informal
responses by Polish teachers to this letter that a Polish readership would
have reacted di¤erently from a British one. To accommodate such
cultural di¤erences, Clyne (1996: 194) has relativized three of Grice’s
maxims, as follows:
Quantity:
‘Make your contribution as informative as is required for the purposes
of the discourse, within the bounds of the discourse parameters of the
given culture.’

Adapting Grice’s maxims in the teaching of writing 65

 Quality:
‘Do not say what you believe to be in opposition to your cultural norms
of truth, harmony, charity, and/or respect.’
‘Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.’
Manner:
Clyne retains the supermaxim: ‘Be perspicuous’, and then lists the
following maxims:
‘Do not make it any more diªcult to understand than may be dictated
by questions of face or authority. Make clear your communicative
intent unless this is against the interests of politeness or of
maintaining a dignity-driven cultural core value, such as harmony,
charity or respect.’
‘Make your contribution the appropriate length required by the nature
and purpose of the exchange and the discourse parameters of your
culture.’
‘Structure your discourse according to the requirements of your
culture.’
Finally, to his own three revised maxims, and the unchanged maxim of
Relation, he suggests adding a fifth maxim:
‘In your contribution, take into account anything you know or can
predict about the interlocutor’s communication expectations.’
This culturally relative version of the CP allows for the kinds of problems
which arise in inter-cultural communication when there are di¤erences
in writer–reader applications of the maxims, especially with regard to
such concerns as informativity, length, truthfulness, harmony, and
dignity-driven core values. This is exemplified in the letter of adjustment,
in which the writer presumably anticipates that her reader expects her to
demonstrate sincerity by writing as much as possible, giving detailed
reasons for failure, o¤ering an apology more than once, and providing a
solution. These expectations are summarized in Table 2, to facilitate
comparison with the reader’s expectations.
Sincerity Insincerity
Amount written As much as possible As little as possible
Reasons for failure Highly detailed Limited detail
table 2 Apology Multiple Single
Expectations in the
Solution O¤er Don’t o¤er
writer’s culture
If, however, the reader is from a di¤erent culture, the expectations might
be rather di¤erent, as displayed in Table 3.

66 Ron White
 Sincerity Insincerity
Amount written As much as necessary Too much (or too little)
Reasons for failure Limited but relevant detail Highly detailed
table 3 Apology Single Multiple
Expectations in the
reader’s culture Solution O¤er Don’t o¤er

If, furthermore, the reader of such a text is an examiner having the kind
of expectations summarized above, the writer who fails to meet these is
likely to be disadvantaged. There are alternative solutions to this
problem: either examiners—and communicators in the inter-cultural
world of English as an international language—will have to relativize
their expectations so as to take account of culturally-related di¤erences,
or candidates will have to adapt their discourse to the expectations of the
examiners. In fact, with the development of new norms for English as an
international language, evidence of mutual accommodation is beginning
to appear in the written discourse of non-native English writers in
English (Connor 1999), and such changes may have to be
accommodated within the assessment criteria of international
examinations. In the meantime, teachers, learners, and writers will need
to develop an awareness of cross-cultural di¤erences, using insights and
procedures from contrastive rhetoric (Kirkpatrick op. cit.), and prompted
by the kinds of questions outlined in the next section.

Positioning oneself One way of developing contextual awareness is to use questions like
as a writer those given below as a way of guiding analysis and drafting. These
questions, which can be adapted to many writing tasks, are based on
Grabe and Kaplan’s taxonomy of academic writing skills, knowledge
bases, and processes (op. cit.: 217f.), and the idea is to move away from
surface features of the text to the underlying motives and expectations of
writer and audience, in line with Clyne’s revision of the CP. After each
question, by way of example, there are points related to the letter of
adjustment, and where relevant, the maxims which relate to each main
question are indicated. It is suggested that writing teachers can select
from and adapt these questions to the specific writing tasks for which
they are preparing their students.
1 What is the reader’s main concern? In the letter of apology, this could
be inconvenience, loss of business, financial loss, etc. In an academic
essay, this could be the development of an argument on a given topic.
(Relation)
2 Why did the reader communicate with us? Expectation of receiving
apology, compensation, solution to problem, provision of
information, summarizing and development of argument and
evidence, etc.? (Relation)
3 Is there a track record of relations with this reader? If so, what has
been the nature of our relationship? In the case of an examiner, the
student writer will have to imagine what the nature of relations would
have been in the imagined context.

Adapting Grice’s maxims in the teaching of writing 67

 4 How important is this reader/customer/client to us? Again, a student
writer will have to be encouraged to consider an answer to this
question within the envisaged or imagined context.
5 What does the reader expect us to do? (Relation) A response to this
question is linked to the reader’s reasons for communicating with the
writer. In writing academic or examination essays, the reader’s
expectations will, in part, be indicated in the rubric, as well as in
marking criteria.
6 What are the constraints on meeting these expectations? Legal?
Financial? Practical? (Quality)
7 How much information about the topic does the reader probably
expect from us? (Quantity, Relation) Getting the answer to this
question is as important in an examination answer or an essay as in a
business letter. Over-provision of information can be as fatal as
under-provision.
8 How much information is it feasible/sensible to provide? For
instance, if we give too much information, is this likely to be used
against us in litigation—or in an examination answer, by receiving a
lower grade? (Quantity)
9 How will the reader feel about receiving insuªcient information?
(Quantity, Quality, Relation)
10 How will the reader feel about receiving too much information?
(Quantity, Quality, Relation)
11 What form of compensation might the reader expect? (Quality,
Relation)
12 Is the form of compensation being o¤ered suªcient to meet the
reader’s expectations? (Quality, Relation)
Such questions can help writers to position themselves in relation to their
reader, while also developing an awareness of the cultural relativity of
many of the answers. The questions may also develop writers’ perceptions
of the relationship between themselves and their assumed—or even
actual—readers, so that they honour or flout the maxims of quality,
quantity, relation, and manner in ways which are compatible with
e¤ective written communication in English. In short, such questions will
help writers to adapt Grice’s maxims in ways which should enable them to
optimize the e¤ects they wish—or need—to have, whether on their
teacher, an examiner, or a reader in the international workplace.
Revised version received July 1999

References Connor, U. 1999. ‘ “How like you our fish?”

Ashley, A. 1984 (2nd edn. 1992). A Handbook of
Commercial Correspondence. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Clyne, M. 1996. Inter-cultural Communication at
Work: Cultural Values in Discourse. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Accommodation in international business
communication’ in H. Hewings and C. Nickerson
(eds). 1999: 115–28.
Eustace, G. 1996. ‘Business writing—some
aspects of current practice’. English for Specific
Purposes 15/1: 53–6.

68 Ron White
Grabe, W. and R. B. Kaplan. 1996. Theory and The author
Practice of Writing. C. N. Candlin (ed.). London and Ron White is founding chairman of the British
New York: Longman. Institute of English Language Teaching, and is
Grice, H. 1975. ‘Logic and conversation’ in Speech former Director of the Centre for Applied
Acts. P. Cole and J. Morgan (eds.). New York: Language Studies, the University of Reading, UK.
Academic Press. He has 30 years’ experience of teaching and
Hewings, H. and C. Nickerson (eds). 1999. managing in Britain, the Pacific and Japan, and
Business English: Research into Practice. Harlow: has recently acted as a consultant to the revision of
Longman and The British Council. the writing paper in the Cambridge Proficiency
Kirkpatrick, A. 1997. ‘Contrastive rhetoric and the Examination. His interests include management
teaching of writing: seven principles’. Australian in ELT , inter-cultural communication and the
Review of Applied Linguistics. Supplement 14: teaching of writing.
89–102.
Scollon, R. and S. W. Scollon. 1995. Intercultural
Communication—a Discourse Approach. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Appendix Dear Mr Smith,
Thank you for your letter of July 7th concerning the order No 179/XZ/93 which
should have been delivered to you on July 3rd.
First I would like to apologise for your order not being delivered on the due
date. Let me also apologise for the problems that you have experienced in
getting in touch with us about the delivery.
I am going to explain to you the reasons why ‘ALA’ Limited did not manage to
fulfil the above obligation. The point is that both our administrative sta¤ and
employees were involved in a very important industrial dispute. As a
consequence all production was held up over past few weeks.
I am glad to inform you that the dispute is over and we are back to normal
production. For obvious reasons there is still a backlog of orders to catch up on.
In order not to let our customers down we are using the associates of ours to
help us fulfil all our commitments.
I would like to assure you that ‘ALA’ Limited is vastly interested in continuing
our co-operation. That is why I want to assure you that your order has been
given priority and thus we should be able to deliver the pink buttons before the
end of this week. I can assure you there will not be other delays.
Once again I would like to say that I regret all the inconveniences this delay
has caused and emphasize the fact that it was due to the factors independent
of us. The dispute is an exceptional circumstance and could not have been
foreseen by us. We did not know anything about it when we accepted your
delivery dates.
Let me express the hope that our companies can still make it big in the
clothing industry. Thus I think our co-operation is worth continuing.
Please call me or send me a fax letting me know if you wish to complete your
order or whether you would prefer to make other arrangement within the next
few days.
I am looking forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely,
[Signature]
Name

Adapting Grice’s maxims in the teaching of writing 69