1

Pragmatics 4
The difference between what somebody says and what he implies or
Outline: A. Recap: Indirect SA suggests.
B. H.P. Grice (1975) "Logic and Conversation"  what somebody says = the conventional/explicit meaning
 Implicatures of the words uttered, derivable from the sense of the
 The cooperative principle & conversational words and the way syntax combines them (referring to an
maxims entity and predicating something of it).
C. Hedges
D. Non-observance of the maxims  what is implied = depends on the Speaker's intentions,
the evaluation of the context, etc.
A. Introduction
(2) A: How is John doing?
Indirectness in language - speakers say one thing and mean that thing B: Well he likes his new colleagues and he hasn't been to prison yet.
but also something else
what A says:............................................................................
Indirect SA - Speech acts in which one SA is performed through another what is implied: .................................................................

(1) A: I am very thirsty. [looking expectantly at the hearer]
Direct SA: .....
Indirect SA: ....
The theory of Indirect Speech Acts developed by Searle tells us how the
Speaker can formulate SA indirectly (by what mechanisms)
Requests:
- stating / questioning whether the felicity conditions obtain
- asking whether the Hearer wants the Speaker to perform an action
- suggesting it is reasonable for the H to perform an act
(3) A: What is your hamburger like?
B: A hamburger is a hamburger.
what B says:............................................................................
what is implied: .................................................................
The implicit meaning in (2) and (3) are called by Grice implicatures
> implicatures are a special type of inferences, namely inferences based on
language, on what is said
 Inference = deduction based on evidence

B. H.P. Grice (1975) "Logic and Conversation"
Grice's theory of conversation explains the way in which the Hearer is able
to get to the implicit meaning suggested by the Speaker.
Notions introduced by Grice: Implicatures, the cooperative principle of
conversation & conversational maxims
B. Implicatures
(3') a. John is very pale and groans. His co-workers infer that he is
feeling sick.
b. Mary's husband is never late for dinner. He is late today so Mary can
infer that something urgent occurred at work.
Definition of implicature: The implicature is an inference through
which we reach the implicit meaning starting from the explicit meaning
of an utterance.

1
 2

The principle of cooperation can be reformulated as 4 sub-principles or

C. The cooperative principle conversational maxims:

In order to produce implicatures, a principle of cooperation between the I. Maxims of Quantity:

speaker and the hearer must be in operation. 1. Make your contribution as informative as is required for the current
purposes of the exchange.
(5) The cooperative principle of conversation (formulated by Paul Grice 2. Do not make your contribution more informative than is required.
1975 “Logic and conversation”)
II. Maxims of Quality: Try to make your contribution one that is true.
Make your conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at 1. Do not say what you believe to be false.
which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange 2. Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.
in which you are engaged.
III. Maxim of Relation: Be relevant.
Our conversations are not made up of disconnected remarks (that would be
irrational), but they seem to follow certain common goals. IV. Maxims of Manner: Be perspicuous.
Each participant recognizes some common purpose of the conversation. 1. Avoid obscurity of expression.
This purpose may be fixed from the start or may develop during the 2. Avoid ambiguity.
exchange. 3. Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity).
4. Be orderly.
(4) Situation: woman sitting on a park bench, dog lying in front of the
bench, man comes along and sits down on the bench These maxims are assumptions we have when we engage in conversations.
Man: Does your dog bite? We assume people obey these maxims. We assume that:
Woman: No. - people are going to provide an appropriate amount of information
(The man reaches down to pet the dog. The dog bites the man's - they are telling the truth
hand) - they are being relevant
Man: Ouch! You said your dog doesn't bite. - they are being clear
Woman: He doesn't. But that's not my dog.
Observing the maxims  S says exactly what s/he means, neither more nor
Problem: the man assumed that more was communicated that what was less, there is no distinction btw. what is said and what is implied (no
said. For the man, the woman's answer provides less information than inferential work for H)
necessary.
(5') A: Where are the car keys?
Speakers expect a certain amount of information to be given by their B: They’re on the table in the hall.
interlocutors in conversation. => speakers are supposed to be cooperative
in conversation The purpose of the talk exchange = maximally effective exchange of
information.

2
 3

talking = a special variety of purposive, rational behaviour, similar to c. I'm not sure this makes sense, but the car had no lights.
transactional exchanges in some way. d. I may be mistaken, but I thought I saw a wedding ring on
her finger.
Q: Is Grice being prescriptive? Is he saying that the principle of cooperation e. This may sound like a dumb question, but whose hand
and the maxims should always be complied with? writing is this?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Are any maxims more important in conversation than others? Observing the CP and the maxims is ‘reasonable (rational)’ behavior,
because it is beneficial to both addresser and addressee.
D. Hedges
N.B. There are other maxims as well - e.g. BE POLITE! - they may also
Certain linguistic expressions invoke the maxims, and prove that they are generate implicatures.
operative in conversation = hedges
E. Non-observance of the maxims
Can you identify the hedges in the examples below?
There are circumstances where the cooperative principle is not observed
a) Hedges related to the maxim of quantity e.g. institutionalized conversations: teacher - student, lawyer - witness =
responses are already known => the maxim of .......... is violated.
(6) To cut a long story short, I ran away.
Violations also occur in day-to-day conversation, not only in
b) Hedges related to the maxim of quality institutionalized conversation.

(7) As far as I know, they're married. More often than not, people fail to observe the maxims  Several ways of
failing to observe a maxim, according to Grice and other authors
c) Hedges related to the maxim of relation
1. Violating
(8) I don't know if this is important, but some of the files are missing. 2. Opting out
3. Coping with a clash
d) Hedges related to the maxim of manner 4. Flouting => generates implicatures
5. Infringement
(9) This may be a bit confused, but I remember being in a car. 6. Suspending

Q: What about the hedges in (10)? 1. Violating the maxim = breaking a maxim in order to mislead the H
"quietly and unostentatiously" => "liable to mislead'
(10) a. I'm not sure this is right, but I heard it was a secret
ceremony in Greece. (10) Husband: Is there another man?
b. I won't bore you with the details, but it was a great Wife: No there isn't another man [there was in fact a woman].
experience. -maxim of quantity is broken

3
 4

2. Opting out = the speaker makes it clear that he does not want to vi) The paramedic is extremely annoyed at having the drunkard vomit
cooperate or observe the maxim. over him.

(11) A: Is his wife cheating on him? (14) Phil to his wife Vivian: You look great, did you lose some weight?
B: I cannot say more/ my lips are sealed. Vivian: Yes, and it seems to me that you have found it.
Implicature:.............................................................................................
3. Clashes - the speaker has to disobey one of the maxims in order to satisfy
another maxim Metaphors
(15) Woman about ex: “In all my greasy past, he’s the biggest grease spot.”
(12) A: Is there a train station nearby? Implicature:.............................................................................................
B: There is one in the city...
Inferences made by Hearer of (14) acc. to the Gricean framework:
Q: Why is there a clash between maxims in (12)? i) It is patently false that a man is a grease spot.
ii) The wife does not appear to be trying to make us believe that her
4. Flouting a maxim – breaking a maxim in order to get the H to think ex is a greasy spot.
about an implicature iii) Unless her U is entirely pointless, she must be trying to convey
some other proposition
4.1. Flouts exploiting the Quality Maxim: S says smth blatantly untrue in iv) This proposition must be somehow related to her U
order to make the hearer draw an implicature v) The most obviously related proposition is that, like grease spots,
her ex is extremely disgusting.
Quality I
Irony Understatement
(13) On Christmas, an ambulance picks up a drunkard who collapsed on the
sidewalk. Soon the drunkard vomits all over the paramedic. (15') a. Our friend was a little intoxicated when he broke all the
Paramedic: “Great, that’s really great! That’s made my Christmas!” furniture.
Implicature:............................................................................................. Implicature:.............................................................................................

Inferences made by Hearer of (13) acc. to the Gricean framework: b. The war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's
i) The paramedic expressed pleasure at having smb vomit over him advantage. [the Japanese Emperor informing the Japanese people that Japan
ii) There is no example in recorded history of people being delighted would surrender at the end of the second world war]
at having smb vomit over them.
iii) I have no reason to believe that the paramedic is trying to deceive Implicature:.............................................................................................
us
iv) Unless the paramedic’s utterance is entirely pointless, he must be Hyperbole
trying to convey some other proposition.
v) The most obviously related proposition is the exact opposite of the (15'') The bag weighed a ton!
one he has expressed. Implicature:.............................................................................................

4
 5

Daughter : Ice-cream anyone?

Quality II Implicature:.............................................................................................

(15''') A: Some people simply can’t help hitting the shops every other day (20) Suspicious wife: Why would you smell of Chanel 5?
B: My sister’s probably buying something right now! Husband: I’m going to turn in. I’ve been swamped at the office
[A has no evidence for this single event, the hearer has to assume that the these days.
speaker is getting at some related proposition] Implicature:.............................................................................................

Implicature:............................................................................................. (20)’ Flat mate: Do you want to wash the dishes?

Student: I’ve got quite sensitive skin.
4.2. Flouts exploiting the Quantity Maxims:
4.4. Flouts exploiting the Manner Maxim = ambiguity, obscurity, absence
Quantity I a) a S gives less information that required. of clarity and brevity - deliberate, that the speaker intends the hearer to
recognize
(16) Patient: Is he a good man?
Wilson: He's a good doctor. (House MD - pilot episode) Ambiguity - more than one interpretation is possible - desired effect
Implicature:.............................................................................................
e.g. in poetry
tautologies:
(17) a. Women are women! (22) a. I sought to tell my love,
Implicature:............................................................................................. Love that never told can be (adapted from W. Blake)

b. War is war! 2 interpretations are possible and the poet wants to convey both
Implicature:.............................................................................................
b. A British general captured the town of Sind and reported
Quantity II b) a S gives more information that required back in coded language: 'Peccavi'
I have sinned.
(18) A: Would you like some whiskey? I have Sind. (ambiguity)
B: Whiskey and wine are my favourites.
Implicature:............................................................................................. Obscurity - e.g. when speaking in the presence of a child or a third party
and we don't want him/her to understand what we mean, but we want the
4.3. Flouts exploiting the Relation Maxim: the response is obviously Hearer to draw an implicature
irrelevant to the topic (abrupt change of topic, overt failure to address
interlocutor’s goal in asking a Q) (23) Letter from a Romanian living in the Soviet Union to one of his
relatives abroad: 'Things are really going well for us here. We haven't seen
(19) Father to daughter at family dinner: Any news about the SAT Mr Carne for a while and Mr Branza has retired.'
results? Implicature:.............................................................................................

5
 6

poetry - Maxim of .........

(24) Parents discussing in the presence of a young child who is not telegrams, text messages - Maxim of .........
allowed to drink Coca-Cola. (deliberate obscurity) courts of law - witnesses not expected to volunteer incriminating
information - ..Maxim of .........
A: What are we going to buy for drinks tomorrow?
B: You know, the brownish lethal liquid.
Implicature:.............................................................................................

Failure to be brief
(25) Music reviewer - instead of saying 'The band played X'
'The band produced a series of sounds that corresponded closely with the
score of X' (failure to be brief -> the word 'playing' does not apply, the
performance was deficient)
Implicature:.............................................................................................

5. Other forms of non-observance of the maxims

5.1. Infringing a maxim: occurs when a S fails to observe the maxim,

although s/he has no intention of generating an implicature and no intention
of deceiving.

Generally infringements stem from imperfect linguistic performance (young

child, foreigner), impaired L performance (nervousness, drunkenness,
excitement, disability)

(26) Kramer: You let out one emotion, and all the rest will follow. Just like
Andora's box.
Jerry: That was the mother on "Bewitched." I think you mean
"Pandora."
Kramer: Yeah, well, she had one too.

5.2. Suspending a maxim: Under certain circumstances/as part of certain

events there is no expectation on the part of any participant that one or
several maxims should be observed (and non-fulfillment does not generate
any implicatures).

e.g. funeral orations and obituaries - Maxim of .........