University of Baghdad

College of Education for Humane

Sciences / Ibn Rushd

A Pragmatic Study of Violation of Grice’s Conversational Maxims by

Women in Selected Plays

By:
Summer Mohammed Fadhil
 Abstract
Pragmatics is the study of language forms in the linguistic and situational
context. So, utterances are said in an environment which is highly related to
the interpretation of language users. Participants in the speech event
sometimes flout the pragmatic principles in order to deceive or mislead the
hearers. The present research examines flouting and violating of Grice’s four
maxims in two selected plays. It shows the key pragmatic theories that
explain language use in everyday communication and interaction. Most
notably, it shows how language can express distinct underlining meanings
through indirect or implicated speech acts. The aim of this study is to
investigate the violation and flouting of Grice’s maxims made by British
women compared to the American ones. It will be looking how women use or
break the maxims in conveying different emotions or simply expressing their
opinions towards people, occasions or anything else. Hence, in order to do so,
there would be a need to go across a theory known as, “Co-operative
Principles and non-observance of those maxims.” A mixed method is
followed to clarify the pragmatic concept and their meaning in actual
linguistic interaction as well as providing the results of the study in terms of
numbers to be as accurate as possible. It is hypothesized that the British
women (characters in the play) violate the maxim of relation more than the
American ones. American women (characters in the play) violate the maxim
of quantity and quality more than the British. As stated in the discussion of
the results, the drama delves into the challenge women encounter in
harmonizing their professional and personal life. The drama, which recently
marked its 40th anniversary, addresses the challenges that modern women
encounter.
Keywords: Pragmatics, co-operative principles, drama, qualitative method,
non- observance
1. Introduction
The study investigates two plays: American vs. British one. The American
one is by Wendy Wasserstien entitled Uncommon Women and Others (1977)
and the British one is by Caryl Churchill entitled Top Girls (1982). The study
focuses on identifying the instances where Grice's conversational maxims are
flouted and the reasons behind their flouting, as well as the speech acts
performed via flouting Grice’s conversational maxims in order to highlight
whether any face-threatening acts occur within the course of both plays or
not.
This paper investigates the instances of Grice's conversational maxims flouted
by women in two plays: Uncommon Women and Others by Wendy
Wasserstein and Top Girls by Caryl Churchill. The study aims to identify the
reasons behind the flouting of Grice's conversational maxims by women in
both plays and analyze the speech acts performed via flouting Grice’s
conversational maxims to highlight whether any face-threatening acts occur
within the course of both plays or not. The study presents the main
approaches that are dominant in the field of pragmatics: Grice's
conversational maxims, speech act theory, and the relevance theory. Finally,
the study concludes with the data analysis and conclusions based on the
findings of the research.
In essence, the most flouted maxims by women in both plays are quantity and
relation. Women often provide overstatements and very little understatements
and try to indirectly convey their messages rather than saying what they mean
directly. They also tend to flout the maxim of quality to be funny and
maintain a sense of humor, and the maxim of manner when they provide more
information than required, which can lead to non-brief, elliptic expressions.
The women in the plays also shift the topic of conversation to avoid
expressing their disturbance or to talk about more important topics. Overall,
the study suggests that women exploit the conversational maxims for
generating implicatures, especially when discussing sentimental issues,
mutual friends, and situations they have been through.
2. Literature Review
This section is a theoretical survey providing a background to this paper. It
introduces what “pragmatics” is, supporting it with providing Grice’s co-
operative principles, the non-observances of those principles and/or maxims,
as well as the American and the British plays to be represented as the data of
this research.
2.1 Pragmatics: Definitions
The Human beings live in a social environment which demands the use of a
tool for their communication and interaction. This tool is the language they
use every day which is either spoken, written, or sign language. They use it to
express their needs, opinions, ideas which all reflect a form of cooperation
between human beings. According to Crystal (2008, p.89), communication
refers to the “transmission and reception of information (a message) between
a source and a receiver” and of course the message needs not be understood
by the receiver. This point allows anyone to distinguish between
communication and interaction, for interaction demands the receiver to
understand the message which will lead for cooperation to take place between
the two (Rasha Al-Sabbah, 2004, p.10).
Pragmatics is the study focused on everyday interactions. Various scholars
have defined it in different ways, each offering a unique take on the term.
Morris (1938, p.35), Leech (1981, p.7), and Crystal (1985, p.240) define
pragmatics as the study of language focusing on language users and their
goals. Stalnaker (1972, p.383), Kempson (1988: 139), Fotion (1985/95,
p.709), and Lycan (1995, p.588) concur that pragmatics aims to achieve the
accurate interpretation of each language utterance. This can be accomplished
by connecting it to the context that pertains to the manufacturing situation.
Pragmatics aims to describe the aspects of the speech situation that influence
which idea is conveyed by a particular sentence. Gazdar (1979, p.2) defines
pragmatics as involving implicature, assumption, and logical form.
When comparing the previously mentioned definitions to Yule’s view, it can
be found that Yule (1996, p.3) talks about the four areas pragmatics is
interested in and hence defines it according to each.
The first area shows how it is “the study of speaker meaning,” (Yule, p.3).
That is, pragmatics is concerned with studying the meaning desired to be
conveyed and communicated by the producer/communicator whether it is a
speaker or a writer. Then he points out to the importance of context and how it
influences the way the utterances are interpreted and thus defines it as “the
study of contextual meaning” (Yule, 1996, p.3).
He further describes how sometimes listeners/addressee try to arrive to what
is being implicated in an utterance in order to understand what is being
communicated to them. In order to do so, they need to make an inference
which, of course, requires paying attention to what is communicated rather
than what is said. Therefore, he describes pragmatics as “the study of how
more gets communicated than is said” (Yule, 1996, p.3). And finally, it is
defined as the study “of the expression of relative distance” meaning that the
amount of what is said is determined by “how close or distant the listener is,”
(Yule, 1996, p.3).
Pragmatics is a branch of study that is context-dependent, understanding the
meaning can alter with any change in situation. Semantics is the study of
abstract word and sentence meaning. Semantics examines how words directly
relate to objects in the universe, without considering the contextual factors
that play a significant role in conveying meaning, (Patrick & Griffiths, 2006,
p.132).
2.2 Major Approaches of Pragmatics
In order to understand what interlocutors, attempt to communicate with each
other and how, several linguists have proposed certain theories each of which
is concerned with a specific angle of communication but still are somehow
related/connected to each other:
2.2.1 Speech Act Theory
When people attempt to communicate, they not only focus on the
grammatical structures and the words involved in speech production, but also
attempt to perform actions via the words they utter. Such a phenomenon has
been investigated by the well-known theory entitled SAT. It discusses how
people can perform various actions via the words they use. It has been first
introduced by the British Philosopher John Austin (1962), therefore he is
acknowledged as the founder of SAT. He believed that communication is a
series of speech acts used systematically to accomplish particular
communicative purposes.

To Austin (1962), utterances, at first, are of two types: constative and

performative utterances. Constative utterances are those used in describing a
situation or presenting facts and thus are either true or false. Performative
utterances, on the other hand, are those used in performing actions when they
are uttered. Performative utterances may either be explicit or implicit ones
and that depends on whether the verb indicating the action is mentioned or
not. For instance, “I order you to clear your boots” is an explicit
performative utterance since the verb “order” shows the action being
performed which is that of ordering. Whereas the utterance: “clean your
boots” reveals the same action, which is that of ‘order’, but rather in an
implicit way since the verb “order” is not explicitly uttered. Therefore, it is an
example of an implicit performative utterance (Cook, 1989, p.36).
Later, he abandoned this difference and categorized utterances into three
categories with deeds that precede them:

1.Locutionary acts
2.Illocutionaryacts
3. Perlocutionary acts

The locutionary act is “the utterance of certain words in a certain construction

and the utterance of them with a certain ‘meaning’” (Austin 1962: 64). That
is, they provide literal or propositional meaning without context. However,
they may not be speaking acts. A speaker may say, “Shoot her!” “Meaning by
shoot ‘shoot’ and referring by her to ‘her’” (Horn and Ward, 2006: 55).The
act of speaking the locution is an illocutionary act. Word or phrase force.
Saying “it is cold in here” is an example. The context determines whether it is
a statement or a request to close the window/door.
Perlocutionary acts relate to the speech(s)' subsequent effect on the
interlocutor, or the change caused by the utterance. Persuading, deterring, and
shocking example: “Shoot her!” is followed by “He persuaded me to shoot
her” (ibid.).
Same speech can have different illocutionary forces and perlocutionary
outcomes. How can speaker(s) ensure listener(s) recognize the intended
illocutionary force? Illocutionary Force Indicating Devices (IFIDs) and
felicity conditions may help.
2.2.2 Felicity Conditions
Austin says every speech act is created and interpreted within the complete
speech circumstance. This complete speech situation provides information
about “who is talking to whom, on what occasion, at what point in their talk,
in what social and cultural setting and for what purposes” (Turnbull, 2003,
p.47). This whole speech situation usually has characteristics that an utterance
must meet to be considered a speech act.
According to Yule (1996: 50), they are the conditions under which a speech
act is likely to be recognized. There are various FC types. Content,
preparation, integrity, and vital conditions stand out.
Yule (ibid.) defines propositional content conditions as those where the
utterance's content is suitable to the act done, such as promises and warnings
that need the speaker to execute an act in the future. Girls must follow their
pledges to their mothers, such as being home before midnight (Turnbull.
2003: 48).
Preparatory conditions “do not define the speech act” but “are necessary in
the sense that if they do not hold, the act has not been carried out” (Cruse,
2000, p.343). Usually precede content conditions. Since there are several
speech acts, their preceding conditions vary. Thus, promise preparation differs
from warning preparation. Two requirements precede a promise. “First, the
event will not happen by itself, and second, it will be beneficial” (Yule, 1996:
51). Before a warning, “it isn’t clear that the hearer knows the event will
occur, the speaker does think the event will occur, and the even will not have
a beneficial effect.”
The speaker must have appropriate beliefs and feelings to do the act with
sincerity. Thus, these conditions relate to preparation and the speaker. When
thanking someone, a speaker must feel gratitude. If the sincerity standards are
not met, the act is considered abusive or insincere (Cruse, 2000: 344).
The last condition provided in this section is essential. Speech acts that
modify the speaker's standing (Yule, 1996: 51). They “define the act being
carried out” and require the speaker to “carry out the act which corresponds to
its propositional-content”(Cruse,2000,p.344).
Why did Austin mention felicity conditions as an element to consider while
writing and interpreting speech acts? It seems that the goal is to demonstrate
“how utterances can be connected to the social actions that are produced by
making utterances in the total speech situation” (Turnbull, 2003, p.48).
2.2.3 Grice’s Cooperative Principle and its Conversational Maxims
This model can be understood only in terms of general features of discourse
encompassed within a principle which Grice labels as the “Cooperative
Principle”. He summarizes the required features of discourse to be as the
following:
At the stage where it arises, make your conversational contribution as
required by the acknowledged purpose or direction of the talk exchange in
which you are engaged, (Grice,1975).
The co-operative principles (CP) states that conversations between two or
more people cannot include unconnected utterances. They are interrelated,
making discourse a shared endeavor. Thus, what is produced is interpreted on
the assumption that the producer is obeying CP's maxims, general world
knowledge, and the literal meaning of what is said, which allows the receiver
to reach the pragmatic meaning and understand what the producer is trying to
communicate. Four maxims are supposed to be followed by the producer:
1. Quantity
2. Quality
3. Relation
4. Manner
What is important to focus on is the idea that all of these maxims should not
be considered as fixed rules since they can be broken and still preserve the
communication attempted. Leech (1983, p.8) proves that they are “regulative
rather than constitutive” since if one lies s/he will break the maxim of quality
but still have the ability to speak English and communicate with that lie.
Hence, the CP can be described as a system of social cooperation where the
participants involved share the same goal just like how Kiefer (1979: 60)
describes it by saying:
[T]he Gricean maxims attempt to describe cooperative communication in
which the participants strive after the same goal and are equally interested in
achieving this goal, as cited in Derek Bousfield (2008, p.25)

2.2.3.1 The Maxim of Quantity

The maxim of Quantity is related to the quantity of speech and how the
producer should provide the receiver with the sufficient amount of
information required. It contains two submaxims which are expected to be
obeyed:
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.
Cited from Grice (1975: 45)
2.2.3.2 The Maxim of Quality
As for the maxim of Quality, Grice (1975: 46) states that the producer should
try to make his/her contribution true and thus he offers two more specific
submaxims in order to explain the demands of this category:
1. Do not say what you believe to be false.
2. Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.
2.2.3.3 The Maxim of Relation
As for the maxim of relation, it contains only a single sub-maxim which
demands the producer to make his contribution “relevant” (Grice, 1975: 53).
That is, participants must give relevant information. An example of obeying
this maxim is B’s response A’s question the following:
A: Where is my box of chocolates?
B: It is in your room

2.2.3.4 The Maxim of Manner

Finally, Grice has presented the maxim of manner which is concerned with
how what is said is most likely to be said. It involves the supermaxim “be
perspicuous” which includes the following submaxims:
1. Avoid obscurity of expression.
2. Avoid ambiguity.
3. Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity)
4. Be orderly. As cited in Grice (1975: 46)
An example which demonstrates the observance of the maxim of manner in
terms of being brief, clear, and orderly is the following:
Thank you, chairman. Jus – just to clarify one point. There is a meeting of the
Police Committee on Monday and there is an item on their budget for the
provision of their camera. As cited in (Cutting, 2002: 35)

2.3 Non-Observance of the Co-operative Principles

Speakers may fail to observe or fulfill a maxim in many ways. Of course,
there are reasons underlying such non-observances which serve as reasonable
justifications.
In such cases when a speaker fails to observe a maxim, the listener searches
for the implicature since s/he assumes that the speaker is being cooperative,
according to Grice’s CP, and communicating a meaning in an implicit way.
Hence, Grundy (1995, p.41) supports this idea by stating that breaking a
maxim “is the prototypical way of conveying implicit meaning”. Sometimes,
the non-observance of maxims is often performed intentionally either to
evoke humor or to avoid any embarrassment/discomfort.
Grice (1975, p.49) discusses four ways by which a speaker fails to observe a
maxim. These are:
1. Flouting
2. Violating
3. Opting out
4. Clash
However, Grice has later on proposed other types through which a speaker
may fail to observe a maxim. These are:

5. Infringing
6. Suspending
To Cook (1989: 31), floutings are ‘deliberate violations. They are instances
where the speaker intentionally fails to observe the maxim(s). However, by
flouting, the speaker attempts to acknowledge the hearer that s/he is flouting
and the hearer must perceive it as such otherwise it will be understood as a lie
and communication will break down. This is because the speaker wants the
listener to find the CI in their words. The speaker doesn't mean to mislead the
listener; s/he wants the listener to understand the underlying meaning. This
could happen if someone doesn't want to address the other since it's
uncomfortable and embarrassing.
2.3.1 Flouting
Cook (1989: 31) calls floutings ‘deliberate violations. They occur when the
speaker purposely breaks the dictum. By flouting, the speaker tells the listener
that s/he is flouting, which the listener must recognize or it will be interpreted
as a lie and communication will break down.
This is because the speaker wants the listener to find the CI in their words.
The speaker does not mean to mislead the listener; s/he wants the listener to
understand the underlying meaning. This could happen if someone does not
want to address the other since it is uncomfortable and embarrassing.
Thomas (1995, p.64) emphasizes that flouting is Grice's most important
category of maxim non-observance. Its crucial role in implicature makes it
important.
2.3.2 Flouting the maxim of quantity
An example of flouting the first submaxim is the following:
A: Have you done the washing-up and put everything away?
B: I have done the washing up.
B’s reply implicates that s/he has only finished the washing up but has not put
everything away. Therefore her/his reply is less informative than is required
(Lyons, 1995, P.278).
2.3.3 Flouting the maxim of quality
Irony, banter, metaphor, and hyperbole violate the first submaxim of quality,
“do not say what you believe to be false” (Grice, 1975: 46). Ironically, A calls
X, a former friend, “a fine friend” while criticizing him. This is because X
exposed A's secret. The fact that the speaker and audience know the truth
about X and his actions makes this case flouting.
Thus, irony occurs when “the speaker expresses a positive sentiment and
implies a negative one” as shown above. Unlike irony, banter lets the speaker
express “a negative sentiment and implies a positive one” like “You’re nasty,
mean and stingy. How can you kiss me once? Which is usually considered “an
expression of friendship or intimacy” rather than unpleasant and offensive
(Cutting, 2002, P.38). Irony is “an apparently friendly way of being offensive
(mock-politeness)” while banter is “an offensive way of being friendly (mock
impoliteness)” according to Leech (1983, P.144).
2.3.4 Flouting the maxim of relation
An example of flouting this maxim is B’s reply:
A: The clock is slow.
B: There was a power cut this morning.
It seems that B’s reply is not relevant to A’s statement. However, by holding
Grice’s concept of cooperation in mind, it is easy to conclude that B’s
statement is relevant enough and its interpretation depends on a number of
factors.
2.3.5 Flouting the maxim of manner
By flouting the maxim of manner, the speaker usually desires to exclude a
third party from the conversation by being ambiguous. By considering the
following conversation:
A: Where are you off to?
B: I was thinking of going out to get some of that funny white stuff for
somebody.
A: OK, but don’t be long – dinner’s nearly ready
It is obvious that B’s reply is an ambiguous one. Cutting (2002: 39) further
elaborates the reasons lying behind the ambiguity of B’s reply. So instead of
saying “ice-cream” s/he uses “that funny white stuff” and instead of
mentioning “Michelle” s/he uses “somebody”.
2.4 Violation
In cases of violation, Thomas (1995, p.73) points out that when a speaker
violates a maxim s/he intentionally generates a misleading implicature. That
is, the aim of violating any maxim is to mislead or deceive the hearer (Grice,
1975: 79). The speaker can simply deceive hearers by, deliberately, supplying
insufficient/irrelevant, ambiguous information through which “the hearer
wrongly assumes that they are cooperating” (Cutting 2002, p.40).
That is, a speaker may say the truth but intends to mislead the hearers by
making them imply what is false; or generally, the opposite of the true
statement uttered at first (Thomas, 1995, p.72).
When violating the quantity maxim, the speaker doesn’t provide sufficient
information for the right implicature to be reached. In the following question,
where a husband asks his wife about the new dress’s cost, there may be
multiple replies each of which may violate a different maxim:

Husband: How much did that new dress cost, darling?

Wife: (a) Less than the last one.

(b) Thirty pounds.

(c) I know, let’s go out tonight. Now, where would you

like to go?

(d) A tiny fraction of my salary, though probably a bigger

fraction of the salary of the woman that sold it to me.

The first reply, (a), violates the quantity maxim in that she has not precisely
defined how much less has it costs her compared to the last one. While (b)
violates the quality maxim if and only if it is the wrong information. (C) on
the other hand, violates the relation maxim in that she tries to change the
subject of talk in order to avoid answering his question. While, finally, (d)
violates the manner maxim in not being brief enough for she provides an
answer after which she hopes that the matter could be dropped (Cutting, 2002,
p.40).
3. Methodology
This study adopts a mixed research method. Mixed methods encompass a
range of procedures that can be clarified and quantified for various reasons.
Moreover, qualitative and quantitative approaches are based on arts
and humanities focusing on interpreting human cognition and behavior. (Yang
& Miller, 2008). The present research is going to focus on analyzing
Churchill’s Top Girl and Wasserstein’s Uncommon Women and Others. The
analysis is presented in the form of tables. Each table consists of four
columns.
4.Model of Analysis
The present paper adapts Grice’s (1975) the four maxims. Grice (1975, p.49)
discusses four ways by which a speaker fails to observe a maxim.
Importantly, only flouting and violating are selected to analyze how the four
maxims are disobeyed.
5. Analysis of the Data
The analysis will be enacted in the form of tables. The first indicates the
original text page numbers of the examined utterances. The studied utterances
are in the second column. The selected utterances in column two violated the
maxim(s) in the third column. The fourth column explains why column two's
utterances violate column three's maxims.

5.1 Uncommon Women and Others

The maxim
No. Utterances Reasons of flouting
flouted
1 1
1 I love finger sandwiches. Relation To be cooperative, Susie
2
I’m Susie Friend. introduces herself and tells
them what she favors to eat.
2 Thank you, Mrs. Plumm. 1Relation Susie attempts to show her
1
Mrs. Plumm is my favorite and quantity admiration the two house-
house-mother. And Earl mothers: Mrs. Plumm and Earl
Grey. I love Earl Grey. Grey
3 No thank you. 1Kate, do you 1Relation Susie shifts the attention to
 want a ride to Cambridge
this weekend?
4 Well, if you ever need a
ride to Cambridge, I go
every weekend. 1I used to
date Wharton, but that was
before I knew what I
wanted.
1 1
5 Yes.
6 Oh, come off it, Holly.
1
Your father invented
“velveteen”.
1 1
7 Don’t call a freshman
“she”. It’s alienating. 2 I
learned that in psychology.
8 I think “Gracious” is a
cultural excess. 1When I get
out of here; I’m never going
to have dinner by
candlelight in the
wilderness with 38 girls in
hostess gowns. 2Unless, of
course, I train for Amazon
guerrilla warfare at the
Junior League. 3Also I can’t
stomach the way Mrs.
Plumm’s neck shakes when
Kate asking her whether she
wants to drive her to
Cambridge or not. She is
merely being cooperative by
offering her services.
The whole Susie, again, offers her
turn flouts services for Kate of giving
the maxim free rides to Cambridge to act
of quantity. friendly.
1
Relation She also tries to show her
charm by telling Carter whom
she used to date and how she
has grown and changed.
Manner Idk if her answer is ironical
(vague) one or just to show Susie that
she is paying attention, i.e. for
the purpose of
cooperativeness.
1
Relation Muffet intends to tell Holly
that they are rich enough that
she can afford anything she
wants.
She is merely criticizing what
Holly has said about not being
able to afford buying a skirt!
Quantity Susie tells Samantha not to
2
Relation make Carter feel alienated and
thus call her by her name.
The whole Holly attempts to cooperate
turn flouts with the others in conversing.
the maxim So first, she defines what
of quantity. “Gracious” is for her. Then
she starts talking about what
1
Relation she will do after she graduates.
2
Quality This reflect her feelings of
3
Relation dislike towards the
environment she lives in at the
college she is attending. One
of the things she dislikes at the
college is Mrs. Plumm’s neck
 she pours the sherry. and how it shakes when she
pours sherry.
9 Holly, have you ever been 1Quantity Susie merely expresses her
too “Gracious” at Smith? admiration of the “Gracious
Ours is much homier. 1I’m Living” at Smith.
glad I didn’t go there to
college. Smith’s much more
social
1
10 Not as much as Vassar. 2I 1Manner Kate means to say that
applied there as a safety (ellipsis) “Gracious” at Vassar is much
school. more social than the one at
2
Quantity Smith.
This shows why she has
chosen it to be the second
option on her list in terms of
school to be attended (were to
be applied)!! Not quite sure
yet!
1
11 Well, Bryn Mawr, of Relation She means to say that
course. But Wellesley lacks Wellesley College is not so
imagination. 1They just much of an academic one
marry Harvard and M.I.T. since its graduate will lack the
imagination necessary for the
creation of a successful future.
And thus, its graduates will
only get married to the
graduates from Harvard and
M.I.T. to depend on them in
providing a good life for
themselves.
1 1
12 Sometimes I wish I’d never Relation Samantha shifts the attention
left the Midwest. to herself and shows her regret
of a decision she has made.
Somehow, Rita reminds her of
this decision. (I need to
consider this point when I get
back to this utterance)
1
13 There’ll be a rule book test Relation For the purpose of persuading
for all freshmen tonight in the girls to attend the test in
the living room after the living room, Susie tells
 “Gracious.” 1Mrs. Plumm
has promised to bring
sherry.
14 Well, Carter, we each have
a separate napkin cubby
compartment. We take them
out and put them back after
each meal. Watch Kate fold
her Napkin. Your napkin,
Carter, is washed and
pressed every Wednesday
and Sunday in time for
“Gracious”.
Now your box is right to the
left as you enter the dining
room. 1And Carter if you
have any questions or you
just want to talk about
psychology, knock on my
door. It has the Snoopy
calendar on it. 2I got the
calendar as a present from
Kenny at Harvard. 3I used to
date Wharton but that was
before I knew what I
wanted. 4Good-night, 5oh,
and Carter. I would avoid
Rita. 6I don’t know what the
D.A.R. was thinking of.
them that sherry will be
served.
The whole To be cooperative with Carter,
turn flouts Susie begins explaining
the maxim everything related to her
of quantity napkin: when it is washed and
(more than how it is folded.
informative) She, then, offers her assistance
and show Carter where she
can find her if she wants any
assistance or just to spend
time in discussing issues
related to psychology.
1
Relation Then she starts talking about
where she got the calendar
2
Relation from which is the one hanged
on her room door and serves
3
Relation as a leading sign to her room.
4
Relation Then she shows her
admiration of herself in front
5
Relation of Carter by telling her whom
she used to date and why she
6
Relation no longer dates him because
of her current mature state.
She also warns her about
getting any close to Rita
because she makes fun of the
ones she doesn’t like and
those who try to impress
others. She hence can insult
Carter if she will be faced with
her.
Then she criticizes how the
D.A.R. has offered Rita a
scholarship to be their student
 while she holds such an
embarrassing behavior.
Table (4.1) Analysis of Act One, Scene Three
5.2 Top Girls

No. Utterances
1 I wanted to go to work.
2 To?
3 To three of them, really,
they share me. There’s Mr.,
Ashford, he’s the office
manager, and Mr. Philby is
sales and –
4 I’m not wearing a ring. 1 Quantity
We though we wouldn’t
spend on a ring.
5 There’s no need to mention 1Relation
it when you go for an
interview. 1Now Jeanine do
you have a feel for any
particular kind of company?
6 You mean how I dress? I Quantity
can dress different. I dress
like this on purpose for
where I am now.
7 I have a marketing
department here of a
knitwear manufacturer.
Marketing is near enough
advertising. Secretary to the
marketing manager, he’s
thirty-five, married, I’ve
sent him a girl before and
The maxim
Reasons of flouting
flouted
Relation Jeanine justifies why she had
O grades.
Manner
(ellipsis)
Jeanine justifies why she is
not wearing an engagement to
be married ring.
Marlene shifts back to
complete the interview
questions.
Jeanine justifies that she can
look glossier and dress better
in order to work in the
vacancies available in
advertising.
Marlene tries to persuade
Jeanine to work in a marketing
department and gives her
some information about the
manager’s personality, and
what her salary will be.
 she was happy, left to have
a baby, you won’t want to
mention marriage there.
He’s very fair I think, good
at his job, you won’t have
to nurse him along.
Hundred and ten, so that’s
better than you’re doing
now.
8 I’ve a fairly small concern Quantity Marlene continues to persuade
here, father and two sons, Jeanine to accept her offer.
you’d have more say
potentially, secretarial and
reception duties, only a
hundred but the job’s going
to grow with the concern
and then you’ll be at the top
with new girls coming in
underneath you.
9 There’s plenty of different Marlene
kinds of lampshades. So,
we’ll send you there, shall
we, and the knitwear second
choice. Are you free to go
for an interview any
interview any day they call
you?
10 I’d like to travel. Relation Jeanine shows her desire to
have a job that would require
her to travel from one place to
another.
1 1
11 We don’t have any foreign Relation Marlene means to tell her that
clients. You’d have to go her company do not deal with
elsewhere. foreign clients therefore
travelling is not part of their
job.
And if Jeanine insists on
getting such a job, then she
should search elsewhere.
12 You haven’t got the speeds Quantity Marlene asks her some
 anyway. So, I’ll send you to interview-routine questions.
these two, shall I? You Then she tells her how much
haven’t been to any other she wants her to get one of the
agency? Just so we don’t two jobs she told her about.
get crossed wires. Now Hence, he encourages her to
Jeanine, I want you to get have self-confidence.
one of these jobs, all right?
If I send you that means I’m
putting myself on the line
for you. Your presentation’s
OK, you look fine, just be
confident and go in there
convinced that this is the
best job for you and you’re
the best person for the job.
If you don’t believe it, they
won’t believe it.
Table (4.2) Analysis of Act One, Scene Two

6. Assessment of the Two Plays

In this section, an assessment will be given in terms of the maxims flouted in
both of the selected plays. In order to facilitate the evaluation process,
statistics will be given in the form of tables.
Uncommon Women
Maxim
Number and Others – Total Percentage
Type
Usage
Quantity 6 %33
1
Quality 2 %5
2

3 Relation 10 %50
Manner 3 %12
4
Table 4.3: Maxim Flouting in Uncommon Women and Others
 Maxim Top Girls – Total
Number Percentage
Type Usage
Table 4.4:
Quantity 5 %50
1
Quality 2 %5
2
Relation 4 %40
3
Manner 1 %5
4
Maxim Flouting in Top Girls
7. Conclusion
American and British women exploit Grice's conversational maxims. The
researcher finds that both plays violate quantity and relation maxims most to
generate implicatures. Both American and British women overestimate when
violating the quantity maxim. They overstate to suggest shared friends, events
they've been through, and sentimental concerns to show their unhappiness in
life and people they know. They break the quality maxim to be hilarious.
Sometimes they try to prove a theory ironically to reduce the threat to the
listener's positive or negative face. Sometimes the maxim of relation is
flouted to change the topic of discussion to avoid expressing their displeasure.
They shun particular topics and prefer to discuss more essential ones.
American women experience this. The manner maxim is violated when
speakers give too much information and are not brief! They are usually
lengthy because they strive to prove their beliefs and defend themselves.
However, sometimes people try to be brief but end up using elliptic
expressions because it's the easiest way to speak. Both plays show that the
feminist movement has made women speak up for their beliefs. Their
subordinate roles have changed since the feminist revolution. They lead
themselves by taking charge of themselves and not relying on men. Their
outward demeanor shows strength and self-confidence even with strangers.
This proves that the feminist movement changed women's personalities and
language with friends, family, and strangers.

References

Cook, G. (1989). Discourse. Oxford University Press.

Cruse, D. A. (2006). A glossary of semantics and pragmatics. Edinburgh
University Press.
Crystal, D. (2011). A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. John Wiley &
Sons.
Cutting, J. (2005). Pragmatics and Discourse. Routledge.
Gazdar, G. (1979). Pragmatics. John Benjamin .
Griffiths, P., & Firm, P. (2006). An introduction to English semantics and
pragmatics. Edinburgh University Press.
https://www.academia.edu/23017967/
Modern_Theatre_Guides_Caryl_Churchills_Top_Girls
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/
498843.Uncommon_Women_and_Others
Leech, G. N. (2014). Principles of pragmatics. Routledge, Taylor & Francis
Group.
Leech, G. N. (2014). Principles of pragmatics. Routledge, Taylor & Francis
Group.
Marmaridou, S. S. A. (2000). Pragmatic meaning and cognition. John
Benjamins.
Searle, J. R., Kiefer, F., & Bierwisch, M. (1980). Speech Act Theory and
Pragmatics. Springer Netherlands.
Verschueren, J., & Bertuccelli-Papi, M. (1987). The Pragmatic Perspective.
John Benjamins Publishing.
Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford University Press.