You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
The philosopher H. Paul Grice (1913-1988) made one of the most influential contributions to pragmatics with his theory of the Cooperative Principle and conversational implicature, presented in his William James Lectures at Harvard University in 1967 (published in 1975 as "Logic and Conversation"). Grice's framework provides a powerful tool for analysing how speakers convey meaning beyond the literal content of their words — and it is one of the most frequently examined pragmatic theories at A-Level.
Grice's fundamental insight was that conversation is a cooperative activity. Participants in a conversation do not normally produce random, unrelated utterances — they work together to achieve mutual understanding. Grice formalised this insight as the Cooperative Principle:
"Make your conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged."
In simpler terms: contribute to the conversation in the way that is appropriate to its current purpose and direction.
Key Definition: The Cooperative Principle (Grice, 1975) — the overarching principle that speakers in a conversation are expected to be cooperative, making contributions that are appropriate to the purpose and direction of the exchange.
Grice elaborated the Cooperative Principle into four specific maxims — principles that speakers are expected to follow in cooperative conversation.
Provide the right amount of information — not too much and not too little.
Example of observing the maxim: A: "What time is it?" B: "It's half past three."
B provides exactly the amount of information requested — no more, no less.
Example of giving too little information: A: "Where do you live?" B: "In England."
If A needs a specific address and B provides only the country, B has given too little information for the purposes of the exchange.
Example of giving too much information: A: "Do you have the time?" B: "Yes, it's 3:32 and 17 seconds, Greenwich Mean Time, though my watch might be running about four seconds fast because I haven't synchronised it since Tuesday."
B has provided far more information than necessary.
Be truthful — say only what you believe to be true and what you have evidence for.
This is arguably the most fundamental maxim. If we could not generally assume that other people were telling the truth, communication would break down entirely.
Example of observing the maxim: "The train leaves at 9:15." (spoken by someone who has checked the timetable)
Example of violating the maxim: "I definitely posted the letter yesterday." (said by someone who knows they forgot to post it — a lie)
Be relevant — make your contribution relevant to the current topic of conversation.
This is Grice's most concise maxim and, seemingly, his simplest. But relevance is a complex concept — what counts as relevant depends heavily on context.
Example of observing the maxim: A: "Is Sarah coming to the party?" B: "She has to work late."
B's response is relevant because it explains why Sarah is or might not be coming.
Example of apparently ignoring the maxim: A: "How is your new job?" B: "The weather has been lovely this week, hasn't it?"
B's response seems irrelevant. If B is being cooperative, A must infer a reason for the apparent change of subject — perhaps B does not want to discuss the job, or perhaps the answer is so negative that B is avoiding the topic.
Be clear — avoid obscurity, ambiguity, and unnecessary complexity.
Example of observing the maxim: "Turn left at the traffic lights, then take the second right."
Clear, unambiguous, orderly instructions.
Example of not observing the maxim: "If you proceed in a generally sinistral direction upon encountering the automated traffic regulation device, and subsequently select the secondary dextral turning..."
Unnecessarily complex and obscure.
Grice recognised that speakers do not always follow the maxims, and he identified several distinct ways in which a maxim can be not observed. The distinctions between these types of non-observance are crucial and frequently tested.
Flouting occurs when a speaker blatantly and deliberately fails to observe a maxim, with the intention that the listener will recognise the non-observance and draw an inference (an implicature) about the speaker's intended meaning. The speaker is not trying to deceive — they are relying on the listener's ability to work out what they really mean.
Flouting is the most analytically important type of non-observance because it generates conversational implicature.
Flouting Quantity: A: "How was the film?" B: "Well, the popcorn was nice."
B says very little about the film itself, blatantly providing too little information. The implicature: the film was not good (otherwise B would have commented on it).
Flouting Quality: "Oh, that's just great!" (said after receiving bad news, with sarcastic intonation)
The speaker says something they obviously do not believe to be true. The implicature: the situation is terrible. This is how irony and sarcasm work in Gricean terms — they are flouts of the Quality maxim.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.