Children and Adolescent Literature [EL111]

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Criticism

Wonder| RJ Palacio

Submitted by:

Masinadiong, Danny Fe B.

BSED-English2B
1st
Semester

Submitted to:

Sir Arnie Kevin Valera

INSTRUCTOR
Cooperative Principle

In communication, there are some communication rules that must be obeyed

by the speaker. One of them is the cooperative principle. Cooperative principle is the
importance rules that must be followed to make the communication runs well. The
cooperative principle is a principle of conversation that proposed by H.P Grice in
1975, whereby those involved in communication assume that both parties will
normally seek to cooperate with each other to establish agreed meaning. People
have to obeyed the rules of cooperative principle to avoid misunderstanding between
speaker and listener.

In the social sciences in general, and linguistics in particular, the principle of

cooperation refers to how people achieve effective conversational communication in
common social situations—how listeners and speakers cooperate to be understood
in a particular way. This principle is based on the assumption that participants in a
conversation cooperate with each other and usually attempt to be truthful,
informative, relevant, and clear in order to facilitate successful communication.
Speaker should be cooperative and intents to communicate something. Speaker’s
intended meaning is more than what the words mean. It leads to implicature.

The 4 maxims of cooperative principle

1. The Maxim of Quantity: Say Just Enough

The Maxim of Quantity is all about giving the right amount of information in a
conversation – not too much and not too little. In simple terms, this means being
informative but not overwhelming. This maxim encourages speakers to be concise
and avoid excessive verbosity.

2. The Maxim of Relevance: Stay on Topic

The Maxim of Relevance emphasizes the importance of staying on topic and

providing information that is directly related to the conversation. In other words, what
we say should relate to the ongoing discussion. This maxim encourages speakers to
stay on topic and respond appropriately to questions or comments

3. The Maxim of Manner: Be Clear and Organized

The Maxim of Manner focuses on how you present your information. It suggests that
we should avoid being ambiguous or overly complicated when expressing
ourselves.This maxim encourages speakers to be clear and well-organized in
communication.

4. The Maxim of Quality: Be Truthful

The Maxim of Quality refers to the truthfulness and reliability of what people say. In
simple terms, it means not saying things you know to be false or for which you lack
evidence. This maxim encourages speakers to provide truthful and accurate
information in communication.
Examples of each maxim

Maxim of Quantity: Example No.1

Speaker A: Do you have the time?

Speaker B: It’s 9:30.

In this exchange, we find Speaker B’s response quite normal and expected. Why is
that? It’s because Speaker B is following the Maxim of Quantity.

How Speaker B Followed the Maxim of Quantity:

Speaker B’s response, “It’s 9:30,” is just the right amount of information needed for
the situation. Here’s why:

Not Excessive: Speaker B didn’t give too much information. They didn’t say, “It’s
9:30 at night, Greenwich Mean Time, 20 May 2009,” which would have been way
more information than Speaker A needed. That would be like giving a big, thick book
when someone asked for a short story!

Not Inadequate: Speaker B also didn’t give too little information. If they had simply
said, “It’s nighttime,” that would have been inadequate because it doesn’t give
Speaker A, a precise answer to their question about the time. It’s like giving no book
at all when someone wants a short story.

Maxim of Quantity: Example No.2

Speaker A: Liz, can I have John’s number?

Speaker B: Yes

In this conversation, Speaker A wants John’s phone number. Speaker B says “Yes,”
which means she agrees to give the number. So, everything seems fine, right? Well,
not exactly.

In this case, Speaker B’s response, “Yes,” is a bit weird because it violates this rule.
You see, Speaker B could have said more, like “Sure, here is John’s number,” to be
more clear and helpful. By just saying “Yes,” she doesn’t give enough information.
Speaker A might be left wondering how to get John’s number – does she need to
ask again, or will it be given automatically?

Maxim of Relevance: Example No.1

Speaker A: How do you like your steak cooked?

Speaker B: Medium rare, please.

Now, why do we think this conversation is normal and makes sense? It’s because
both Speaker A and Speaker B are following the Maxim of Relevance.

In this case, Speaker A asked about how Speaker B prefers their steak cooked.
Speaker B answered directly with “Medium rare, please.” This response is relevant
because it directly addresses the question. It doesn’t wander off-topic with things like
“I like steak very much” or “What nice weather!” Those would be irrelevant because
they don’t answer the question about the steak.

Maxim of Relevance: Example No.2

Speaker A: Daniel, is Morgan good as a financial manager?

Speaker B: He is a polite man and works on time.

In this conversation, Speaker A is asking about Morgan’s skills as a financial

manager. They want to know if Morgan is good at handling finances. But Speaker
B’s response talks about Morgan being polite and punctual.

This response doesn’t follow the Maxim of Relevance. Why? Because what Speaker
B said doesn’t really help answer the question about Morgan’s financial management
skills.

Maxim of Manner: Example No.1

Speaker A: What did Laura do when she heard that Lauri’s boat had arrived?
Speaker B: Laura jumped and ran to the pier.

In this conversation, Speaker A asks about Laura’s actions, and Speaker B responds
clearly and directly. This makes the conversation normal and easy to follow. Why?
Because the Maxim of Manner is observed.

If Speaker B had responded with a long, complicated answer or used confusing

language, it would have violated the Maxim of Manner. This might have made the
conversation hard to follow, and Speaker A could have been left feeling puzzled.

Maxim of Manner: Example No.2

Speaker A: What did Laura do when she heard that Lauri’s boat had arrived?
Speaker B: Laura ran to the pier and jumped.

In this conversation, Speaker A is asking a simple question about what Laura did
when she heard that Lauri’s boat had arrived. However, Speaker B’s response
violates the Maxim of Manner.

Here’s why it’s bewildering:

Lack of Clarity: The response does not directly answer the question. It includes
additional actions (running and jumping) that might not seem relevant to the listener.
This lack of clarity can make it challenging for Speaker A to understand what actually
happened.

Maxim of Quality: Example No.1

Speaker A: Jim, do you know where the Big Ben Clock Tower is?
Speaker B: It’s in London
Observing the Maxim of Quality

In this brief exchange, Speaker A asks for information about the location of the Big
Ben Clock Tower. Speaker B responds by stating, “It’s in London,” which is not only
a truthful answer but also a clear and accurate one. This response aligns with the
Maxim of Quality for several reasons:

Truthfulness: Speaker B provides a factually correct response. The Big Ben Clock
Tower is indeed located in London, and Speaker B does not provide any false or
misleading information.

Maxim of Quality: Example No.2

Speaker A: Jenny, how do you like this novel?

Speaker B: Oh, I like the red cover.

In this exchange, Speaker A inquires about Jenny’s opinion of a novel. However,

Speaker B’s response, “Oh, I like the red cover,” raises a perplexing issue since it
inaccurately describes the book’s cover color.

Jenny’s response is considered strange because it violates the Maxim of Quality.

Jenny’s reply is problematic for one reason:

False Information: The most apparent violation is that Jenny’s response contains
false information. She claims to like the “red cover,” even though the actual color is
blue. This can be seen as a lie, and providing false information can lead to confusion
and a lack of trust in communication.

Violations of the Cooperative Principle

The violation of the cooperative principle is a condition in which speakers

intentionally do not meet or obey the four sub -maxims (Zebua et al, 2017).

1. Violation of maxim of quantity

Speakers are considered violate the maxim of quantity when they speak less or
more than is required. When the speakers give less information, they violate of the
maxim since they do not provide sufficient information to the hearer. Meanwhile,
when speakers provide more information than is required, they also violate this
maxim since the information they provide will be too much.

2. Violation of maxim of relevance

Speakers are considered as violating the maxim of relevance when they speak
something that is not relevant. It happened when speakers change the subject of the
conversation.

3. Violation of maxim of manner

Maxim of manner is violated when speakers speaks in obscurity and doing
ambiguity.
4. Violation of maxim of quality

Speakers are considered violate the maxim of quality when they provide false
information. When speaker provide information but they do not have evidence is also
considered as violating the maxim.

Indirect Speech Acts

Indirect speech acts involve saying something but implying something else. For
example, when someone says, “Could you pass me the salt?” they may actually
mean, “I want the salt, please.” This indirectness can be a way to be polite, save
face, or soften a request.

Characteristics of Indirect Speech Acts

1. Indirect speech acts violate at least one maxim of the cooperative principle

But, in many instances, indirect speech acts intentionally violate one or more of the
cooperative maxims. For example, when someone responds to a question like, “Can
you pass the salt?” with “I’m not your servant,” they violate the Maxim of Relation by
not providing a relevant response and, instead, expressing their unwillingness
indirectly.

2. The literal meaning differs from the intended meaning

In indirect speech acts, what is said (the literal meaning) is not the same as what is
meant (the intended meaning). This requires listeners to infer the speaker’s true
intentions. For instance, when someone says, “It’s cold in here,” they may actually
mean, “Please close the window,” but they are conveying it indirectly.

3. Identification through cooperative principle assumption

Listeners identify indirect speech acts by noticing that an utterance violates one or
more cooperative maxims. They assume that the speaker is still following the
Cooperative Principle even though they are flouting a maxim. This assumption helps
them recognize the underlying message.

4. Context and world knowledge for intended meaning

Once hearers identify an indirect speech act, they rely on contextual information and
their knowledge of the world to discern the intended meaning. Context can include
the specific situation, the relationship between the interlocutors, and any shared
knowledge or cultural norms.

Indirect Speech Acts and Shared Knowledge

Shared knowledge plays a crucial role in understanding indirect speech acts. When
people communicate indirectly, they assume that both parties share certain
background knowledge or context. Without this shared knowledge, it’s challenging to
interpret the intended meaning.
For instance, if someone says, “I’m cold” while shivering in a freezing room, the
shared knowledge of the room’s temperature helps the listener understand that the
speaker actually means, “Could you turn up the heat?”

Politeness

Politeness is an essential aspect of communication. It involves showing respect and

consideration for others’ feelings and maintaining positive social interactions. Indirect
speech acts are often used to be polite.

For example, instead of directly saying, “You’re wrong,” a person might say, “I see
what you’re saying, but have you considered this perspective?” This indirect
approach is more polite because it avoids direct confrontation.

Respecting Independence and Showing Involvement

Respecting independence means allowing others the freedom to express

themselves and not imposing your thoughts or opinions. On the other hand, showing
involvement demonstrates active participation and interest in the conversation.

Indirect speech acts can help strike this balance by allowing individuals to convey
their intentions and thoughts without being overly direct or pushy. It enables
communication to flow smoothly while respecting each person’s autonomy.

REFERENCES

Grice, H. P. (1975). “Logic and Conversation.” In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and
Semantics, Vol. 3: Speech Acts (pp. 41-58).

Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press.

Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986). “Relevance: Communication and Cognition.” Wiley-
Blackwell.

Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press.

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage.
Cambridge University Press.

Zebua, E., Rukmini, D., & Saleh, M. 2017. The Violation and Flouting of Cooperative
Principles in the Ellen Degeneres Talk Show. Language Circle: Journal of Language and
Literature, 12(1), 103-113.