11

GRICE’S GRICE’S COOPERATIVE COOPERATIVE

PRINCIPLE PRINCIPLE

AND AND CONVERSATIONALCONVERSATIONAL

IMPLICATUREIMPLICATURE

Ahmed Qadoury AbedAhmed Qadoury Abed

Ph D CandidatePh D Candidate

Baghdad UniversityBaghdad University

College of ArtsCollege of Arts

English DepartmentEnglish Department

2012-20132012-2013

22

THE PRINCIPLE ITSELFTHE PRINCIPLE ITSELF

In his William James Lectures at Harvard In his William James Lectures at Harvard University in 1967, H. Paul Grice posited a University in 1967, H. Paul Grice posited a general set of rules contributors to ordinary general set of rules contributors to ordinary conversation were generally expected to follow. conversation were generally expected to follow. He named it the He named it the Cooperative PrincipleCooperative Principle (CP), and (CP), and formulated it as follows: formulated it as follows:

Make your conversational contribution such as is Make your conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engagedexchange in which you are engaged (Grice, 1989: (Grice, 1989: 26).26).

33

CP :IS AN IDEALISTIC CP :IS AN IDEALISTIC REPRESENTATION?REPRESENTATION?

At first glance, the Cooperative Principle may At first glance, the Cooperative Principle may appear appear an idealistic representationan idealistic representation of actual of actual human communication. After all, as Grice himself human communication. After all, as Grice himself has learned from his detractors, many believe has learned from his detractors, many believe ‘‘. . ‘‘. . . even in the talk-exchanges of civilized people . even in the talk-exchanges of civilized people browbeating disputation and conversational sharp browbeating disputation and conversational sharp practices are far too common to be offenses practices are far too common to be offenses against the fundamental dictates of against the fundamental dictates of conversational practice.’’conversational practice.’’ Further, even if one Further, even if one discounts the tone of an exchange, discounts the tone of an exchange, ‘‘much of our ‘‘much of our talk exchange is too haphazard to be directed talk exchange is too haphazard to be directed toward an end cooperative or otherwise’’toward an end cooperative or otherwise’’ (Grice, (Grice, 1989: 369).1989: 369).

44

GRICE’S INTENTIONGRICE’S INTENTION

Grice has never intended his use of the Grice has never intended his use of the word ‘cooperation’ to indicate an ideal word ‘cooperation’ to indicate an ideal view of communication. Rather, Grice was view of communication. Rather, Grice was trying trying to describe how it happens to describe how it happens that – that – despite the haphazard or even agonistic despite the haphazard or even agonistic nature of much ordinary human nature of much ordinary human communication – most discourse communication – most discourse participants are quite capable of making participants are quite capable of making themselves understood and capable of themselves understood and capable of understanding most others in the course understanding most others in the course of their daily business.of their daily business.

55

WHAT COUNTS AS WHAT COUNTS AS COOPERATION?COOPERATION?

Grice invites us to consider the following, quite Grice invites us to consider the following, quite unextraordinary exchange:unextraordinary exchange:

A: I am out of petrol.A: I am out of petrol. B: There is a garage round the corner B: There is a garage round the corner (Grice, 1989: 32).(Grice, 1989: 32). Assuming A immediately proceeds to the garage, secures Assuming A immediately proceeds to the garage, secures

the petrol, and refills his car, we may describe B’s the petrol, and refills his car, we may describe B’s contribution as having been successful. By what rational contribution as having been successful. By what rational process of thought was A so quickly able to come to the process of thought was A so quickly able to come to the conclusion that the garage to which B refers would fulfill his conclusion that the garage to which B refers would fulfill his need for petrol? Why did B’s utterance work? Grice’s need for petrol? Why did B’s utterance work? Grice’s answer: because A and B adhere to the Cooperative answer: because A and B adhere to the Cooperative Principle of Discourse. It is not hard to imagine that two Principle of Discourse. It is not hard to imagine that two friends sharing a ride would want to help each other friends sharing a ride would want to help each other through a minor crisis; thus, ‘cooperation’ in this scenario through a minor crisis; thus, ‘cooperation’ in this scenario seems quite apt. seems quite apt.

66

ANOTHER WAY OF ANOTHER WAY OF COOPERATIONCOOPERATION

But imagine the exchange went this way instead:But imagine the exchange went this way instead: A: I am out of petrol.A: I am out of petrol. B: (sarcastically) How nice that you pay such close B: (sarcastically) How nice that you pay such close

attention to important details.attention to important details. In this second scenario, In this second scenario, not only does B refuse to not only does B refuse to

assist A in solving the problem, he uses the assist A in solving the problem, he uses the occasion to add to A’s conundrum an assault occasion to add to A’s conundrum an assault upon his characterupon his character. Assuming A feels the sting; . Assuming A feels the sting; again B’s contribution has been successful. So again B’s contribution has been successful. So how and why in this case has B’s contribution how and why in this case has B’s contribution worked? How can such a sour response as B’s worked? How can such a sour response as B’s callous retort be considered ‘cooperative’?callous retort be considered ‘cooperative’?

Again, Grice’s Cooperative Principle proves a Again, Grice’s Cooperative Principle proves a useful answer. The explanation requires closer useful answer. The explanation requires closer inspection of the strictness with which Grice uses inspection of the strictness with which Grice uses the term.the term.

77

GRICE’S LIMIT OF CP GRICE’S LIMIT OF CP APPLICATIONAPPLICATION

Grice finds that most talk exchanges do Grice finds that most talk exchanges do follow the CP because most talk follow the CP because most talk exchanges do, in fact, exhibit the exchanges do, in fact, exhibit the cooperative characteristics he outlines:cooperative characteristics he outlines:

Our talk exchanges . . are Our talk exchanges . . are characteristically, to some degree at characteristically, to some degree at least, cooperative efforts; and each least, cooperative efforts; and each participant recognizes in them, to participant recognizes in them, to some extent, a common purpose or some extent, a common purpose or set of purposes, or at least a mutually set of purposes, or at least a mutually accepted direction accepted direction (Grice, 1989: 26). (Grice, 1989: 26).

88

Grice’s Types of MeaningsGrice’s Types of Meanings

What is meant

What is said What is implicated

Conventionally Non-conventionally

Conversationally

Non-conversationally

Generally Particularly

99

CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURESCONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURES According to Grice, utterance interpretation is not a matter According to Grice, utterance interpretation is not a matter

of decoding messages, but rather involvesof decoding messages, but rather involves (1) taking the meaning of the sentences together with (1) taking the meaning of the sentences together with

contextual information, contextual information, (2) using inference rules (2) using inference rules (3) working out what the speaker means on the basis of the (3) working out what the speaker means on the basis of the

assumption that the utterance conforms to the maxims. assumption that the utterance conforms to the maxims. The main advantage of this approach from GriceThe main advantage of this approach from Grice’’s point of s point of view is that it provides a pragmatic explanation for a wide view is that it provides a pragmatic explanation for a wide range of phenomena, especially for range of phenomena, especially for conversational conversational implicauture isimplicauture is--- a kind of extra meaning that is not literally --- a kind of extra meaning that is not literally contained in the utterance.contained in the utterance.

An implicature is a piece of information that is conveyed An implicature is a piece of information that is conveyed indirectly by an utterance. It is neither a part nor a indirectly by an utterance. It is neither a part nor a necessary consequence of the utterance.necessary consequence of the utterance.

1010

GRICE’S MAXIMSGRICE’S MAXIMS

Grice identified the Cooperative Principle as a ‘Grice identified the Cooperative Principle as a ‘super super principleprinciple’ or a ‘’ or a ‘supreme principlesupreme principle’ (1989: 368f) that he ’ (1989: 368f) that he generalized from four conversational ‘maxims’ he claimed generalized from four conversational ‘maxims’ he claimed discourse participants ordinarily follow. Grice(1989: 28) discourse participants ordinarily follow. Grice(1989: 28) identifies the maxims as:identifies the maxims as:

1. 1. The Maxim of Quality The Maxim of Quality Try to make your contribution one that is true:Try to make your contribution one that is true: A. Do not say what you believe to be false. A. Do not say what you believe to be false. B. Do not say that for which you lack adequate B. Do not say that for which you lack adequate

evidence (Say what you believe to be true)evidence (Say what you believe to be true) 2. 2. The Maxim of Quantity The Maxim of Quantity A. make your contribution as informative as is A. make your contribution as informative as is

required (for the current purpose of the exchange)required (for the current purpose of the exchange) B. Do not make your contribution more informative B. Do not make your contribution more informative

than is requiredthan is required

1111

3- The Maxim of Relation3- The Maxim of Relation Be relevantBe relevant

4-The Maxim of Manner4-The Maxim of Manner A. Be perspicuous:.A. Be perspicuous:. B. Avoid obscurity of expression. B. Avoid obscurity of expression. C. Avoid ambiguity. C. Avoid ambiguity. D. Be brief (avoid unnecessary D. Be brief (avoid unnecessary

prolixity). prolixity). F. Be orderlyF. Be orderly

1212

Clear fulfillment of these maxims may be Clear fulfillment of these maxims may be demonstrated in the following exchange:demonstrated in the following exchange:

Husband: Where are the car keys?Husband: Where are the car keys? Wife: They ‘re on the table in the hall. Wife: They ‘re on the table in the hall.

The wife has answered clearly (manner) and The wife has answered clearly (manner) and truthfully (Quality), has given just the right truthfully (Quality), has given just the right amount of information (Quantity) and has directly amount of information (Quantity) and has directly addressed her husbandaddressed her husband’’s goal in asking the s goal in asking the question (Relation). She ahs said precisely what question (Relation). She ahs said precisely what she meant, no more and no less.she meant, no more and no less.

But Grice knew that people do not always follows But Grice knew that people do not always follows these maxims as they communicate ;these maxims as they communicate ;”What dull ”What dull business conversation analysis would be if they business conversation analysis would be if they did!”did!” Rather, interlocutors can fail to fulfill the Rather, interlocutors can fail to fulfill the maxims in a variety of ways, some mundane, maxims in a variety of ways, some mundane, some inadvertent, but others lead to what most some inadvertent, but others lead to what most consider the most powerful aspect of Grice’s CP: consider the most powerful aspect of Grice’s CP: conversational ‘implicature.’conversational ‘implicature.’

1313

Quality implicatureQuality implicature-John has two PhDs.-John has two PhDs.++<<I believe John has two PhDs,and have adequate evidence that he has.I believe John has two PhDs,and have adequate evidence that he has.

Quantity ImplicatureQuantity Implicature-Nigel has fourteen children.-Nigel has fourteen children.++<<Nigel has no more than fourteen children.Nigel has no more than fourteen children.

Relation ImplicatureRelation Implicature-A: Can you tell me the time?-A: Can you tell me the time?-B: Well, the milkman has come.-B: Well, the milkman has come.+>The time now is after the time the milkman arrived.+>The time now is after the time the milkman arrived.

Manner ImplicatureManner Implicature-A: How do I get into your apartment?-A: How do I get into your apartment?-B: Walk up to the front door, turn the door handle clockwise as far as it will -B: Walk up to the front door, turn the door handle clockwise as far as it will

go, and then pull gently towards you.go, and then pull gently towards you.+>Pay particular attention and care to each step of the instructions I’ve given +>Pay particular attention and care to each step of the instructions I’ve given

you.you.

- John is a tiger.John is a tiger.- His wife has wooden ears.His wife has wooden ears.

1414

FAILURE OF MAXIMS AND FAILURE OF MAXIMS AND IMPLICATURESIMPLICATURES

Grice describes Grice describes four ways four ways in which maxims may in which maxims may go go unfulfilledunfulfilled in ordinary conversation. in ordinary conversation.

1-infringing1-infringing2-Opting out2-Opting out3-suspending3-suspending4-flouting4-flouting The first three ways are fairly straight forward. The first three ways are fairly straight forward.

One might One might violate or infringe a maximviolate or infringe a maxim. This . This infringement is often done with theinfringement is often done with the intention of intention of misleadingmisleading; for example, one might say, ; for example, one might say, ‘Patricia ‘Patricia was with a man last night’ was with a man last night’ as a way of making as a way of making Patricia’s routine dinner out with her husband Patricia’s routine dinner out with her husband seem clandestine. seem clandestine.

1515

Maxim infringement Maxim infringement occurs when a Speaker fails to observe the maxim, although s/he has

no intention of generating an implicature and no intention of deceiving. Generally infringing stems from imperfect linguistic performance (in the case of a young child or a foreigner) or from impaired linguistic performance brought about by nervousness, drunkenness, excitement, disability.

–Rachel: Yeah, and also we need more umm, drinks. Hold on a second. (Gets up but stumbles a little bit.) Whup, okay. (She makes it to the phone and picks it up, without dialing.) Hello! Vegas? Yeah, we would like some more cola, and y’know what else? We would like some more pizza. Hello? Ohh, I forgot to dial!

–(They both start laughing. There’s a knock on the door.) –Ross: That must be our cola and piza! (Gets up to answer it.) –Joey: Hey! –Ross: Ohh, it’s Joey! I love Joey! (Hugs him.) –Rachel: Ohh, I love Joey! Joey lives with a duck! (Goes and hugs Joey.) –Joey: Hi! –Rachel: Hey! –Joey: Look-look-look you guys, I need some help! Okay? Someone is going to have to

convince my hand twin to cooperate! –Ross: I’ll do it. Hey, whatever you need me to do, I’m your man. (He starts to sit down on

the bed. There’s one problem though, he’s about two feet to the left of it. Needless to say, he misses and falls down.) (Looking up at Joey.) Whoa-oh-whoa! Are you, are you okay?

1616

Opting out of a maxim •A Speaker opts out of observing a maxim

whenever s/he indicates unwillingness to cooperate in the way the maxim requires.

•This happens when a suspect exerts his right to remain silent or when a witness chooses not to impart information that may prove detrimental to the defendant.

Detective: Has the defendant ever told you she hated her father and wanted him dead?

Shrink: Such information is confidential and it would be unethical to share it with you.

1717

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). Such cases include:

1) Suspending the Quality Maxim in case of funeral orations and obituaries, when the description of the deceased needs to be praiseworthy and exclude any potentially unfavourable aspects of their life or personality.

2) Poetry suspends the Manner Maxim since it does not aim for conciseness, clarity and lack of ambiguity.

3) In the case of speedy communication via telegrams, e-mails, notes, the Quantity Maxim is suspended because such means are functional owing to their very brevity.

4) Jokes are not only conventionally untrue, ambiguously and seemingly incoherent, but are expected to exploit ambiguity, polysemy and vagueness of meaning, which entails, among other things, suspension of the Maxims of Quality, Quantity and Manner.

1818

FLOUTING OF THE MAXIMSFLOUTING OF THE MAXIMS Without cooperation, human interaction Without cooperation, human interaction

would be far more difficult and would be far more difficult and counterproductive. Therefore, counterproductive. Therefore, the the Cooperative Principle and the Gricean Cooperative Principle and the Gricean Maxims are not specific to conversation Maxims are not specific to conversation but to interaction as a whole. but to interaction as a whole. For example, For example, it would not make sense to reply to a it would not make sense to reply to a question about the weather with an question about the weather with an answer about groceries because it would answer about groceries because it would flout the Maxim of Relationflout the Maxim of Relation. Likewise, . Likewise, responding to a request for some milk with responding to a request for some milk with an entire gallon instead of a glass would an entire gallon instead of a glass would flout the Maxim of Quantityflout the Maxim of Quantity..

1919

A:I hear you went to the theatre last night; what play did you see?

B: Well, I watched a number of people stand on the stage in Elizabethan costumes uttering series of sentences which corresponded closely with the script of Twelfth Night.

Here, B’s verbose answer, although it doesn’t say anything more than “I saw a performance of Twelfth Night,” invites A to infer that the performers were doing a miserably bad job of acting.

2020

However, it is possible to However, it is possible to flout a maxim flout a maxim intentionally or unconsciously and thereby convey intentionally or unconsciously and thereby convey a different meaning than what is literally spoken. a different meaning than what is literally spoken. Many times in conversation, this flouting is Many times in conversation, this flouting is manipulated by a speaker to produce a negative manipulated by a speaker to produce a negative pragmatic effect, as with pragmatic effect, as with sarcasmsarcasm or or ironyirony. One . One can can flout the Maxim of Qualityflout the Maxim of Quality to tell a clumsy to tell a clumsy friend who has just taken a bad fall that her friend who has just taken a bad fall that her nimble gracefulness is impressive and obviously nimble gracefulness is impressive and obviously intend to mean the complete opposite. The intend to mean the complete opposite. The Gricean Maxims are therefore often purposefully Gricean Maxims are therefore often purposefully flouted by comedians and writers, who may hide flouted by comedians and writers, who may hide the complete truth and manipulate their words for the complete truth and manipulate their words for the effect of the story and the sake of the the effect of the story and the sake of the reader’s experience.reader’s experience.

2121

A: What are you baking?B: Be i are tee aitch dee ay wye see ay kay ee.

By answering obscurely, B conveys to A the implicature that the information is to be kept secret from the young child who is in the room with them. Flouting the maxim of manner is clear.

2222

PROPERTIES OF CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURESPROPERTIES OF CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURES Conversational implicatures have the following characteristics:Conversational implicatures have the following characteristics:1- They are context dependent:1- They are context dependent: an expression with a single meaning (i.e., expressing the same an expression with a single meaning (i.e., expressing the same

proposition) can give rise to different conversational proposition) can give rise to different conversational implicatures in different contexts. implicatures in different contexts.

A: Have you cleaned the table and washed the dishes.A: Have you cleaned the table and washed the dishes.B: I’ve cleaned the tableB: I’ve cleaned the table2- They are cancelable: 2- They are cancelable: … … a putative conversational implicature that a putative conversational implicature that pp is explicitly is explicitly

cancelable if, to the form of words the utterance of which cancelable if, to the form of words the utterance of which putatively implicates that putatively implicates that pp, it is admissible to add but not , it is admissible to add but not pp, or , or I do not mean to imply that pI do not mean to imply that p, and it is contextually cancelable , and it is contextually cancelable if one can find situations in which the utterance of the form of if one can find situations in which the utterance of the form of words would simply not carry the implicature. (Grice,1989: 44.)words would simply not carry the implicature. (Grice,1989: 44.)

A :Did you attend the seminar and the following presentation. A :Did you attend the seminar and the following presentation. B:I attended the seminar.B:I attended the seminar.C: I attended the seminar and really enjoyed the presentation.C: I attended the seminar and really enjoyed the presentation.

-The American and the Russians tested an atom bomb in 1962.-The American and the Russians tested an atom bomb in 1962.~+> The American and the Russians tested an atom bomb in 1962 ~+> The American and the Russians tested an atom bomb in 1962

together, not one each.together, not one each.

2323

3- They are non-detachable: 3- They are non-detachable: The same propositional content in the same context will always The same propositional content in the same context will always

give rise to the same conversational implicature, in whatever form give rise to the same conversational implicature, in whatever form it is expressed. The implicature is tied to the meaning ,not to form.it is expressed. The implicature is tied to the meaning ,not to form.

A -Jazzy didn’t manage to walk as far as the crossroads. A -Jazzy didn’t manage to walk as far as the crossroads. B- Jazzy attempted to walk as far as the crossroads.B- Jazzy attempted to walk as far as the crossroads.C- Jazzy didn’t walk as far as the crossroads.C- Jazzy didn’t walk as far as the crossroads.A==B , A==C , B=/=CA==B , A==C , B=/=C

-The film almost/nearly came close to winning an Oscar.-The film almost/nearly came close to winning an Oscar.- +>The film didn’t quite win an Oscar.+>The film didn’t quite win an Oscar.4- They are calculable: 4- They are calculable: A conversational implicature must be calculable ,using state able A conversational implicature must be calculable ,using state able

general principles on the basis of conventional meaning together general principles on the basis of conventional meaning together with contextual information. Implicatures can transparently with contextual information. Implicatures can transparently derived from the cooperative principle and its maximsderived from the cooperative principle and its maxims

--If a couple decided between them that if one says:If a couple decided between them that if one says: ‘ ‘I’m leaving’,I’m leaving’, it automatically means that both should leave.it automatically means that both should leave.

2424

5- They are re-inforceable5- They are re-inforceableA conversational implicature can be made explicit without producing A conversational implicature can be made explicit without producing

too much of a sense of redundancy.too much of a sense of redundancy.- The soup is warm.The soup is warm.- +> The soup is not hot.+> The soup is not hot.- The soup is warm , but not hot.The soup is warm , but not hot.

6- They are non-conventional6- They are non-conventionalA conversational implicature ,though dependent on the saying of A conversational implicature ,though dependent on the saying of

what is coded , are non-coded in nature. They rely on the saying what is coded , are non-coded in nature. They rely on the saying of what is said but they are not part of what is said.of what is said but they are not part of what is said.

- I’m leaving.I’m leaving.- +>we together leave because we earlier have agreed on this.+>we together leave because we earlier have agreed on this.

7- They are universal7- They are universalHuang (2007:34f) mentions that :Huang (2007:34f) mentions that :- Some young people like pop music.Some young people like pop music.- +> Not all young people like pop music.+> Not all young people like pop music.Can be found in English , Arabic , Catalan, Chinese, Modern Greek, Can be found in English , Arabic , Catalan, Chinese, Modern Greek,

Kashmiri, Malagasy , etc.Kashmiri, Malagasy , etc.

2525

CONVENTIONAL IMPLICATURESCONVENTIONAL IMPLICATURES This sixth property is what Grice considers crucial for distinguishing This sixth property is what Grice considers crucial for distinguishing

between between conversationalconversational and and conventionalconventional implicatures. implicatures. Conventional Conventional implicatures are generated by the meaning of certain particles like implicatures are generated by the meaning of certain particles like ‘but’ ,’even’ , ‘yet’, or ‘therefore.’‘but’ ,’even’ , ‘yet’, or ‘therefore.’ They convey an idea of contrast , not They convey an idea of contrast , not completion , result , but these ideas don’t affect the proposition expressed completion , result , but these ideas don’t affect the proposition expressed by the utterance. by the utterance. Consider the difference between (1) and (2):Consider the difference between (1) and (2):

He is an Englishman, therefore he is brave.He is an Englishman, therefore he is brave. He is an Englishman, and he is brave.He is an Englishman, and he is brave. His being brave follows from his being English.His being brave follows from his being English.

John lives in London and Mary lives in Oxford.John lives in London and Mary lives in Oxford. John lives in London John lives in London butbut Mary lives in Oxford Mary lives in Oxford

According to Grice, a speaker has According to Grice, a speaker has saidsaid the same with (1) as with (2). The the same with (1) as with (2). The difference is that with (1) he implicates (3). difference is that with (1) he implicates (3). This is a This is a conventionalconventional implicature. It is the conventional meaning of ‘therefore,’ and not maxims implicature. It is the conventional meaning of ‘therefore,’ and not maxims of cooperation, that carry us beyond what is said.of cooperation, that carry us beyond what is said.

Grice's concept of conventional implicatures is the most controversial part Grice's concept of conventional implicatures is the most controversial part of his theory of conversation for many followers like Sperber & Wilson of his theory of conversation for many followers like Sperber & Wilson (1986), for several reasons. According to some, its application to particular (1986), for several reasons. According to some, its application to particular examples runs against common intuitions. By using the word ‘therefore’ is examples runs against common intuitions. By using the word ‘therefore’ is the speaker not the speaker not sayingsaying that there is some causal connection between that there is some causal connection between being brave and being English? being brave and being English?

2626

TYPES OF CONVERSATIONAL TYPES OF CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURESIMPLICATURES

Among conversational implicatures, Grice distinguished between Among conversational implicatures, Grice distinguished between ‘‘particularizedparticularized’ and ‘’ and ‘generalizedgeneralized.’ .’

The former are the implicatures that are generated by saying The former are the implicatures that are generated by saying something in virtue of some something in virtue of some particularparticular features of the context, features of the context, “cases in which there is no room for the idea that an implicature “cases in which there is no room for the idea that an implicature of this sort is normally carried by saying that of this sort is normally carried by saying that pp.”.” (Grice ,1989: (Grice ,1989: 37).The above example of conversational implicature is, then, a 37).The above example of conversational implicature is, then, a case of particularized conversational implicature. case of particularized conversational implicature.

A generalized conversational implicature occurs whereA generalized conversational implicature occurs where “the use of “the use of a certain forms of words in an utterance would normally (in the a certain forms of words in an utterance would normally (in the absence of special circumstances) carry such-and-such an absence of special circumstances) carry such-and-such an implicature or type of implicature” implicature or type of implicature” (Ibid.). Grice's first example is a (Ibid.). Grice's first example is a sentence of the form “sentence of the form “XX is meeting a woman this evening. is meeting a woman this evening.” ” Anyone who utters this sentence, in absence of special Anyone who utters this sentence, in absence of special circumstances, would be taken to implicate that the woman in circumstances, would be taken to implicate that the woman in question was someone other than question was someone other than XX's “wife, mother, sister, or 's “wife, mother, sister, or perhaps even close platonic friend” (Ibid.) Being an implicature, it perhaps even close platonic friend” (Ibid.) Being an implicature, it could be cancelled, either implicitly, in appropriate circumstances, could be cancelled, either implicitly, in appropriate circumstances, or explicitly, adding some clause that implies its denial.or explicitly, adding some clause that implies its denial.

-Most of John’s friends are from his neighbourhood .-Most of John’s friends are from his neighbourhood .

2727

Also , conversational Also , conversational implicatures can be implicatures can be scalarscalar and and non-scalarnon-scalar. They are scalar as in . They are scalar as in using ‘using ‘somesome’ ,,compared with ’ ,,compared with <all, most, many , <all, most, many , somesome , few >: , few >:

I’m studying linguistics and I‘ve I’m studying linguistics and I‘ve completed some of the required completed some of the required courses.courses.

2828

CP CRITICISM:TANNEN’S CLAIMSCP CRITICISM:TANNEN’S CLAIMS

Tannen (1986:34-45) claims that Grice’s Tannen (1986:34-45) claims that Grice’s maxims of cooperative discourse can’t maxims of cooperative discourse can’t apply to ‘‘real conversations’’ because in apply to ‘‘real conversations’’ because in conversation conversation ‘‘we wouldn’t want to simply ‘‘we wouldn’t want to simply blurt out what we mean, because we’re blurt out what we mean, because we’re judging the needs for involvement and judging the needs for involvement and independence’’independence’’..

Tannen assumes that Grice’s maxims are Tannen assumes that Grice’s maxims are prescriptionsprescriptions that conversations must that conversations must follow strictly in order to be considered follow strictly in order to be considered cooperative. cooperative.

2929

CAMERON’S CLAIMSCAMERON’S CLAIMS

Cameron demonstrates a reductive Cameron demonstrates a reductive view of Grice’s use of the term view of Grice’s use of the term ‘cooperation’ when she describes ‘cooperation’ when she describes Grice’s CP as an ‘Grice’s CP as an ‘inflexibleinflexible’ and ’ and ‘‘unproductiveunproductive’ apparatus that ’ apparatus that provides yet another way for both provides yet another way for both ‘chauvinists and feminists’ to believe ‘chauvinists and feminists’ to believe that ‘whereas men compete in that ‘whereas men compete in competition, women use co-operative competition, women use co-operative strategies’ (1985: 40f). strategies’ (1985: 40f).

3030

COOPER’S OPINIONCOOPER’S OPINION

Cooper (1982), interested in applying Cooper (1982), interested in applying Grice to theories of written composition, Grice to theories of written composition, claims that Grice advocates cooperation claims that Grice advocates cooperation because what enables conversation to because what enables conversation to proceed is proceed is an underlying assumption that an underlying assumption that we as conversants have purposes for we as conversants have purposes for conversing and that we recognize that conversing and that we recognize that these purposes are more likely to be these purposes are more likely to be fulfilled if we cooperate fulfilled if we cooperate (p. 112).(p. 112).

3131

GRICE’S OPINIONGRICE’S OPINION

Grice himself acknowledged Grice himself acknowledged the the difficulty some have had interpreting difficulty some have had interpreting his use of ‘cooperation.’his use of ‘cooperation.’ As a final As a final chapter to his 1989 book, Grice chapter to his 1989 book, Grice wrote a ‘wrote a ‘Retrospective Epilogue’Retrospective Epilogue’ in in which he considered criticism of his which he considered criticism of his theories had theories had engenderedengendered. It has . It has already been related that here Grice already been related that here Grice acknowledged that his theory suffers acknowledged that his theory suffers from a perceived naïvete´. from a perceived naïvete´.

3232

To combat the criticism, Grice adds useful To combat the criticism, Grice adds useful information about what counts as cooperative in information about what counts as cooperative in discourse. First,discourse. First, he reminds readers of the sort of he reminds readers of the sort of utterances he seeks to elucidateutterances he seeks to elucidate: voluntary talk : voluntary talk exchanges that require some form of exchanges that require some form of ‘‘collaboration in achieving exchange of ‘‘collaboration in achieving exchange of information or the institution of decisions.’’information or the institution of decisions.’’ And, And, he points out that within exchanges intended to he points out that within exchanges intended to produce information or determine decisions, produce information or determine decisions, cooperationcooperation ‘‘may coexist with a high degree of ‘‘may coexist with a high degree of reserve, hostility, and chicanery and with a high reserve, hostility, and chicanery and with a high degree of diversity in the motivations underlying degree of diversity in the motivations underlying quite meager common objectives’’quite meager common objectives’’ (Grice, 1989: (Grice, 1989: 369). 369).

3333

In the maxims, Grice believes he has In the maxims, Grice believes he has found found universal conventions that all universal conventions that all people may regularly follow in their people may regularly follow in their meaning-making talk exchanges.meaning-making talk exchanges. In order In order for such a set of conventions to function, for such a set of conventions to function, a a certain degree of at least tacit assent to certain degree of at least tacit assent to those conventions is necessary.those conventions is necessary. Thus, the Thus, the term ‘cooperation’ is quite apt. The crucial term ‘cooperation’ is quite apt. The crucial subtlety of Grice’s theory is this: subtlety of Grice’s theory is this: interlocutors do not necessarily cooperate interlocutors do not necessarily cooperate with each other; they cooperate with a set with each other; they cooperate with a set of conventions that allows each of conventions that allows each interlocutor to produce approximate interlocutor to produce approximate enough meanings for communication to enough meanings for communication to work. work.

3434

GRICE’S CLARIFICATIONGRICE’S CLARIFICATION

The aim for Gricean conversation The aim for Gricean conversation analysis – and thus the CP and the analysis – and thus the CP and the maxims – is not to advocate maxims – is not to advocate benevolent cooperation, but benevolent cooperation, but to prove to prove the rationality of conversation.the rationality of conversation. ‘‘. . . ‘‘. . . observance [of the maxims] observance [of the maxims] promotes and their violation [except promotes and their violation [except in the case of implicature] in the case of implicature] dispromotes conversational dispromotes conversational rationality’’rationality’’ (Grice, 1989: 370). (Grice, 1989: 370).

3535

COPERATIVE:INTERLOCUTORS OR COPERATIVE:INTERLOCUTORS OR THEIR CONTRIBUTION!THEIR CONTRIBUTION!

Although many have claimed Grice’s writing on Although many have claimed Grice’s writing on the CP is ambiguous and is on occasion the CP is ambiguous and is on occasion inconsistent with terminology, this should not be inconsistent with terminology, this should not be said of Grice’s measured use of the term said of Grice’s measured use of the term ‘cooperation.’ Precise readings of Grice’s writing ‘cooperation.’ Precise readings of Grice’s writing on cooperation demonstrate that he rarely, if on cooperation demonstrate that he rarely, if ever, describes interlocutors as being ever, describes interlocutors as being cooperative. Rather, cooperative. Rather, he claims that interlocutors’ he claims that interlocutors’ contributions to conversation are cooperative.contributions to conversation are cooperative. The contributions are uttered in cooperation with The contributions are uttered in cooperation with a set of conventions for producing meaning. In a set of conventions for producing meaning. In this sense, we might think of a pair of this sense, we might think of a pair of interlocutors as each operating according to the interlocutors as each operating according to the dictates of a set of conventions (the maxims) and dictates of a set of conventions (the maxims) and thus they are ‘cooperators’: two operators of thus they are ‘cooperators’: two operators of discourse operating at once.discourse operating at once.

3636

COMMUNICATION IS COMMUNICATION IS HAPHAZARD HAPHAZARD

The second major critique of the The second major critique of the Cooperative Principle has been a topic of Cooperative Principle has been a topic of spirited discussion among linguistic spirited discussion among linguistic philosophers since Grice first proposed it. philosophers since Grice first proposed it. Grice himself identifies the problem as Grice himself identifies the problem as resulting from the thought that resulting from the thought that communication is simply too ‘‘haphazard’’ communication is simply too ‘‘haphazard’’ to be described accurately as having a to be described accurately as having a cooperative endcooperative end. Some forms of . Some forms of communication are not appropriately communication are not appropriately described by the CP. described by the CP.

3737

GRICE’SUGGESTIONSGRICE’SUGGESTIONS Grice suggests the problem is two-fold: Grice suggests the problem is two-fold: FirstFirst, he agrees with critics that the maxims , he agrees with critics that the maxims

appear less ‘‘coordinate’’ than he would prefer. appear less ‘‘coordinate’’ than he would prefer. The maxim of quality appears in some ways more The maxim of quality appears in some ways more definitive of information than the other maxims. definitive of information than the other maxims. And, And, the maxims are not independent enoughthe maxims are not independent enough: : relevance has been often regarded as containing relevance has been often regarded as containing the essence of the other maxims. the essence of the other maxims.

SecondSecond, Grice’s selection of cooperation as the , Grice’s selection of cooperation as the ‘‘‘supreme Conversational Principle’’‘supreme Conversational Principle’’ underpinning underpinning the rationalizing operations of implicature the rationalizing operations of implicature remains, to say the least, remains, to say the least, not generally acceptednot generally accepted (1989: 371). (1989: 371).

3838

Though in his final work Though in his final work he admitted he admitted some misgivings and offered minor some misgivings and offered minor refinements of his maxims of refinements of his maxims of cooperative discoursecooperative discourse, Grice, up until , Grice, up until his death in 1988, defended his his death in 1988, defended his selection of the Cooperative Principle selection of the Cooperative Principle as the ‘supreme principle.’as the ‘supreme principle.’

3939

NEO-GRICEAN PRAGMATICSNEO-GRICEAN PRAGMATICS

Grice’s influence is most apparent in a Grice’s influence is most apparent in a branch of linguistic study that has become branch of linguistic study that has become known among some as Neo-Gricean known among some as Neo-Gricean pragmatics. Scholars in this field, like pragmatics. Scholars in this field, like Horn(1989) and Levinson (1991) Horn(1989) and Levinson (1991) have have greatly revised Grice’s maxims of greatly revised Grice’s maxims of cooperative discourse in a variety of cooperative discourse in a variety of interesting ways, but they have interesting ways, but they have maintained the basic direction of Grice’s maintained the basic direction of Grice’s work, especially in regard to the concept work, especially in regard to the concept of conversational implicature.of conversational implicature.

4040

THE RELEVANCE THEORYTHE RELEVANCE THEORY Sperber & Wilson (1986) produced one of the most Sperber & Wilson (1986) produced one of the most

influential alternatives to Grice’s theory. They influential alternatives to Grice’s theory. They developed a theory of relevance based on a number developed a theory of relevance based on a number of assumptions about communication:of assumptions about communication:

1- 1- Every utterance has a variety of linguistically Every utterance has a variety of linguistically possible interpretationspossible interpretations, all compatible with the , all compatible with the decoded sentence meaning.decoded sentence meaning.

2. 2. Not all these interpretations are equally Not all these interpretations are equally accessible to the hearer accessible to the hearer (i.e. equally likely to come (i.e. equally likely to come to the hearer’s mind) on a given occasion.to the hearer’s mind) on a given occasion.

3. 3. Hearers are equipped with a single, very general Hearers are equipped with a single, very general criterion for evaluating interpretations criterion for evaluating interpretations as they occur as they occur to them, and accepting or rejecting them as to them, and accepting or rejecting them as hypotheses about the speaker’s meaning.hypotheses about the speaker’s meaning.

4. This criterion is 4. This criterion is powerful enough to exclude all powerful enough to exclude all but at most a single interpretationbut at most a single interpretation (or a few closely (or a few closely similar interpretations), so that the hearer is entitled similar interpretations), so that the hearer is entitled to assume that the first hypothesis that satisfies it to assume that the first hypothesis that satisfies it (if any) is the only plausible one .(if any) is the only plausible one .

4141

Sperber and Wilson argued that Sperber and Wilson argued that all of all of Grice’s maxims could be replaced by a Grice’s maxims could be replaced by a single principle of relevance that the single principle of relevance that the speaker tries to be as relevant as possible speaker tries to be as relevant as possible in the circumstances in the circumstances (1986). Davis (2005) (1986). Davis (2005) argues that Sperber and Wilson’s theory argues that Sperber and Wilson’s theory suffers from some of the same problems as suffers from some of the same problems as Grice’s, including:Grice’s, including:

overgeneralization of implicaturesovergeneralization of implicatures a clash with the principle of stylea clash with the principle of style a clash with the principle of politenessa clash with the principle of politeness

4242

How to analyze a textHow to analyze a text The selected text is The selected text is The Creak,The Creak, a short play by a short play by

Yousif Al-Ani, translated by Dr.Mohammed Yousif Al-Ani, translated by Dr.Mohammed Darweesh (Mamoon House,2010),pp.23-41. The Darweesh (Mamoon House,2010),pp.23-41. The procedure adopted in analyzing the text is the procedure adopted in analyzing the text is the following:following:

Numerating the starting of each lineNumerating the starting of each line. The total . The total number is 539 lines. number is 539 lines.

The text will be examined from a The text will be examined from a conversationally-conversationally-organized orientationorganized orientation , in the sense that a full , in the sense that a full conversation will be regarded as the functional conversation will be regarded as the functional context.context.

IdentifyingIdentifying the existent implicatures. the existent implicatures. ClassifyingClassifying implicatures into conventional or implicatures into conventional or

conversational (scalar or non-scalar).conversational (scalar or non-scalar). The selected approach is Grice ‘s classificationThe selected approach is Grice ‘s classification into into

conversational vs conventional implicatures.conversational vs conventional implicatures. Reference will be shed on their maxims.Reference will be shed on their maxims.

4343

11-He: Good morning life, good morning world…(Turns -He: Good morning life, good morning world…(Turns to the door) may you last long ,creak ,for as long as to the door) may you last long ,creak ,for as long as you are there, I am here! Go on with your music,for you are there, I am here! Go on with your music,for you are the sign of my life and existence.you are the sign of my life and existence.

+> He expresses his loneliness to the extent he +> He expresses his loneliness to the extent he regards the door creaky sound a lovely piece of regards the door creaky sound a lovely piece of music. music.

A conversational implicature where Flouting the A conversational implicature where Flouting the maxim of quality is so clear by using hedges like ‘as maxim of quality is so clear by using hedges like ‘as far as ‘, and the manner maxim in using the modal far as ‘, and the manner maxim in using the modal ‘may’.‘may’.

2- He: this is enough, it suffices to remind the muscles 2- He: this is enough, it suffices to remind the muscles

of life and workof life and work +> He regards the creak of the door as the ultimate +> He regards the creak of the door as the ultimate

sign of action and movement in the sense that his sign of action and movement in the sense that his life is such a quiet one. A conversational implicature life is such a quiet one. A conversational implicature of the maxim of manner is maintained by using of the maxim of manner is maintained by using ‘enough’ and ‘suffice’.‘enough’ and ‘suffice’.

4444

3-3-He: impossible …you…impossible!!He: impossible …you…impossible!! She: Let me at least say hello before you shout. It She: Let me at least say hello before you shout. It

reminds me of your voice when you used to rage and reminds me of your voice when you used to rage and scream.scream.

+> He saw her after a long period of time. Both are +> He saw her after a long period of time. Both are friends or relatives that she still had some memories friends or relatives that she still had some memories about his reaction. A conversational implicatures of about his reaction. A conversational implicatures of the maxim of relation. This implicatures is of two the maxim of relation. This implicatures is of two sides; in the first line ,it is flouted by using sides; in the first line ,it is flouted by using ‘impossible’ as scalar implicature .In the second ‘impossible’ as scalar implicature .In the second line ,this conversational implicatures is followed line ,this conversational implicatures is followed without any form of violation simply by using ‘at without any form of violation simply by using ‘at least’, which in turn stopped the possibility of least’, which in turn stopped the possibility of another scalar implicatures.another scalar implicatures.

44-She: My house is in a densely populated area.-She: My house is in a densely populated area. He: I do not …He: I do not … +> She lives in such a popular area or in a city, or +> She lives in such a popular area or in a city, or

many people always visit her, in comparison of his. A many people always visit her, in comparison of his. A conversational implicature where flouting of the conversational implicature where flouting of the maxim of quantity is clear ,since more than one maxim of quantity is clear ,since more than one alternative is possible. He opts out this maxim since alternative is possible. He opts out this maxim since he does not complete his statement.he does not complete his statement.

4545

55-She :I wanted to depend on myself. I am still able to be of -She :I wanted to depend on myself. I am still able to be of value to people and the world, and be delighted by their value to people and the world, and be delighted by their happiness. I do not want to be a small part of a whole.happiness. I do not want to be a small part of a whole.

He: You still philosophize as usual.He: You still philosophize as usual. +>She has the ability to help other people and she is +>She has the ability to help other people and she is

willingly eager to do that A conversational implicatures willingly eager to do that A conversational implicatures that she is still productive and useful despite being in the that she is still productive and useful despite being in the sixties. She still has many ambitions to be done , which are sixties. She still has many ambitions to be done , which are regarded as somehow difficult therefore he described the regarded as somehow difficult therefore he described the situation as a sort of philosophy. Flouting of the maxim of situation as a sort of philosophy. Flouting of the maxim of quantity is clear in the scalar implicature by ‘able to’ and quantity is clear in the scalar implicature by ‘able to’ and ‘small’.‘small’.

6-He: Do not you feel lonely sometimes?6-He: Do not you feel lonely sometimes? She: Sometimes? Yes, I do and …She: Sometimes? Yes, I do and … He: And what?He: And what? She: Aha! Am I on a social visit or to give you an account She: Aha! Am I on a social visit or to give you an account

of my private life?of my private life? +> He is behind something that at that age, does she feel +> He is behind something that at that age, does she feel

lonely like him, or something else? The difference is that lonely like him, or something else? The difference is that she has friends visiting her all the time ,whereas he has she has friends visiting her all the time ,whereas he has nothing. A conversational implicatures where flouting of nothing. A conversational implicatures where flouting of the maxim of quantity is evident. Another implicatures is the maxim of quantity is evident. Another implicatures is in the last line where the maxim of relation is clear.in the last line where the maxim of relation is clear.

4646

7-He: Let me bring you coffee first …I will be back soon.7-He: Let me bring you coffee first …I will be back soon. She: still moving about like a small child.She: still moving about like a small child. +> She is commenting on his way of moving may be +> She is commenting on his way of moving may be

because of his age or other factors. Also , the verb because of his age or other factors. Also , the verb ‘moving’ can be interpreted as behaving ,since she has ‘moving’ can be interpreted as behaving ,since she has spent more than one hour without anything to be offered. spent more than one hour without anything to be offered.

A conversational implicatures with the maxim of quality. A conversational implicatures with the maxim of quality. Using ‘first’ stops the possibility of violating this maxim.Using ‘first’ stops the possibility of violating this maxim.

88-She: I gave up smoking three years ago…Have you -She: I gave up smoking three years ago…Have you forgotten?forgotten?

He: I did too only a year ago.He: I did too only a year ago. +> Both are not smokers now. +> Both are not smokers now. A conversational implicatures suspended the quality A conversational implicatures suspended the quality

maxim. It is quite easy to a speaker to suspend the maxim. It is quite easy to a speaker to suspend the implicatures (only) using the expression ‘at least’ : ‘I did implicatures (only) using the expression ‘at least’ : ‘I did too at least a year ago’. Also ,it can be cancelled by adding too at least a year ago’. Also ,it can be cancelled by adding further information ,often following the expression ‘in further information ,often following the expression ‘in fact’: I did too only a year ago, in fact , ten months from fact’: I did too only a year ago, in fact , ten months from now.now.

4747

9-She: I’ll finish some paper work and be back.9-She: I’ll finish some paper work and be back. +>She intends to do part of the work. This is realized as a +>She intends to do part of the work. This is realized as a

scalar implicature <all ,most, many, some, few>. scalar implicature <all ,most, many, some, few>. A conversational implicatures where flouting the quantity A conversational implicatures where flouting the quantity

maxim is clear.maxim is clear. 10-She: whenever she writes a letter to her uncle she 10-She: whenever she writes a letter to her uncle she

includes lines of verse.includes lines of verse. +> Her granddaughter is either studying literary subjects +> Her granddaughter is either studying literary subjects

and writing verse ,or quoting verse without studying and writing verse ,or quoting verse without studying literary subjects , or reading poetry without writing.literary subjects , or reading poetry without writing.

A conversational implicature with flouting of the quality A conversational implicature with flouting of the quality maxim.maxim.

11-She: To the bus. Perhaps it is repaired now and they 11-She: To the bus. Perhaps it is repaired now and they

are waiting for me….Thank you for the coffee.are waiting for me….Thank you for the coffee. He: Thanks for the visit. Do it often….He: Thanks for the visit. Do it often…. +> She has finished her visit. The reason that led he to +> She has finished her visit. The reason that led he to

this visit is repairing the bus. So she lives away from him. this visit is repairing the bus. So she lives away from him. A conversational implicature of the quality maxim where A conversational implicature of the quality maxim where

flouting is clear in using ‘perhaps’.flouting is clear in using ‘perhaps’.

4848

12-She: They repaired the bus quickly and 12-She: They repaired the bus quickly and took whoever was nearby, leaving the took whoever was nearby, leaving the others behind?others behind?

He: What will you do?He: What will you do? She: I will wait for the next one.She: I will wait for the next one. He: When will it arrive?He: When will it arrive? She: Within an hour as well.She: Within an hour as well. +> They repaired the bus and left many +> They repaired the bus and left many

behind and she is one of them. Her decision behind and she is one of them. Her decision is to wait the next one. is to wait the next one.

More than one conversational implicature More than one conversational implicature here: the first one is related to the flouting here: the first one is related to the flouting of the maxim of manner by using ‘whoever’ of the maxim of manner by using ‘whoever’ and ‘others’. The second one is flouting the and ‘others’. The second one is flouting the maxim of quality by using ‘within’ , and this maxim of quality by using ‘within’ , and this maxim ,on the other hand is kept by using maxim ,on the other hand is kept by using ‘the next’.‘the next’.