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 and published in 1975 as "Logic and Conversation". Grice's framework explains one of the most basic puzzles in human communication: how is it that speakers can convey far more than the literal words they utter, and how is it that listeners reliably grasp that extra meaning? When you say "It's getting late" and your guest understands "I would like you to leave", a great deal of inferential work has happened in a fraction of a second. Grice's achievement was to model that work with a small set of principles, and his apparatus remains one of the most frequently examined pragmatic theories at A-Level. On the AQA specification these methods of language analysis are integrated across Paper 1, Paper 2 and the Non-Examined Assessment (NEA), and the objective they serve most directly is AO1 — applying appropriate methods of language analysis using associated terminology — with strong responses pushing into AO3 by relating Gricean choices to context, audience and purpose.
A vital framing point at the outset: Grice did not claim that people always tell the truth, give the right amount of information, stay on topic and speak clearly. The opposite is plainly false of real conversation. His claim is subtler and far more powerful — that listeners assume speakers are being cooperative, and it is precisely this background assumption that allows an apparent breach to communicate something. The maxims are best understood not as rules speakers obey but as expectations listeners hold; meaning is generated in the gap between the expectation and what is actually said.
Grice's fundamental insight was that conversation is a cooperative activity. Participants do not normally produce random, unrelated utterances — they work together towards a shared communicative purpose, even when they disagree about the topic itself. Grice formalised this with 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 plainer terms: contribute to the conversation in the way that is appropriate to its current purpose and direction. Notice the three qualifications built into the wording — "such as is required" (the right amount and kind), "at the stage at which it occurs" (timing and sequence matter), and "by the accepted purpose or direction" (relevance is judged against what the talk is for). Even people having a bitter argument are, in Grice's technical sense, cooperating: they are taking turns, addressing each other's points and using a shared language towards the joint project of having the argument.
Key Definition: The Cooperative Principle (Grice, 1975) — the overarching principle that participants in a conversation are expected to make contributions appropriate to the accepted purpose and direction of the exchange. It is a presumption listeners bring to interpretation, not a behavioural rule that speakers always follow.
Grice elaborated the Cooperative Principle into four specific maxims — categories of expectation that listeners hold and against which they measure what is said. Grice borrowed the term, and the framing, loosely from Kant's categories, grouping the maxims under Quantity, Quality, Relation and Manner. The first three concern what is said (the content); the fourth concerns how it is said (the form). It is worth memorising both the names and the sub-clauses precisely, because examiners reward candidates who can name the exact maxim at stake rather than gesturing vaguely at "cooperation".
Provide the right amount of information — not too much and not too little. Grice gave two sub-maxims:
A: "What time is it?" B: "It's half past three."
B provides exactly the amount of information requested — no more, no less, so the maxim is observed.
Giving too little:
A: "Where do you live?" B: "In England."
If A needs a specific address, providing only the country gives too little information for the purposes of the exchange.
Giving too much:
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 than is required, which can itself implicate something — pedantry, evasiveness, or a desire to display knowledge. Grice connected the maxim of Quantity to scalar implicature: if I say "some of the students passed", I implicate "not all of them passed", because had all passed, the more informative "all" would have been required. The chosen weaker term on the scale (some / many / most / all) generates an upper-bound inference.
Be truthful — say only what you believe to be true and have evidence for. The two sub-maxims:
This is arguably the most fundamental maxim; Grice himself gave it a kind of priority, since the other maxims operate on the assumption that what is contributed is information at all. If we could not generally assume people were telling the truth, communication would collapse.
"The train leaves at 9:15." (spoken by someone who has checked the timetable — observed) "I definitely posted the letter yesterday." (said by someone who knows they forgot — a covert breach to deceive)
The maxim of Quality is the engine behind irony, sarcasm, metaphor and hyperbole, which all say something the speaker manifestly does not believe to be literally true and rely on the listener noticing.
Be relevant — make your contribution bear on the current topic. Grice stated this in a single line: "Be relevant." It is his most concise and, on the surface, his simplest maxim, yet it is also the most undertheorised, because what counts as "relevant" is left undefined. The vagueness here is exactly what later motivated Sperber and Wilson's Relevance Theory (Lesson 9), which tried to give relevance a precise cognitive definition.
A: "Is Sarah coming to the party?" B: "She has to work late."
B's reply is relevant because it lets A infer the answer (probably not).
A: "How is your new job?" B: "The weather has been lovely this week, hasn't it?"
B's reply seems irrelevant. If A still assumes B is cooperative, A must infer a reason for the abrupt swerve — perhaps B dislikes the job and is steering away from a painful topic.
Be clear — avoid obscurity and disorder. Unlike the other three, this maxim is about manner of expression rather than content. Its sub-maxims:
"Turn left at the traffic lights, then take the second right." (clear, unambiguous, orderly — observed) "If you proceed in a generally sinistral direction upon encountering the automated traffic regulation device, and subsequently select the secondary dextral turning..." (needlessly obscure and prolix — not observed)
The sub-maxim "be orderly" has a subtle effect worth noting: "She got married and had a baby" implicates a sequence (marriage then baby), whereas "She had a baby and got married" reverses it, even though and is logically symmetrical. The order of telling implicates the order of events.
Grice's most analytically productive move was to distinguish several distinct ways in which a maxim can fail to be observed. These distinctions are crucial and frequently tested, and candidates routinely lose marks by collapsing them — especially by confusing flouting with violating. There are four recognised categories.
Flouting occurs when a speaker blatantly and deliberately fails to observe a maxim, intending the listener to notice the breach and to draw an inference about what is really meant. The speaker is not trying to deceive — quite the reverse, they rely on the listener recognising the non-observance and reasoning their way to the intended meaning. Flouting is the most important category for analysis because it is the mechanism that generates conversational implicature.
Flouting Quantity:
A: "How was the film?" B: "Well, the popcorn was nice."
B says almost nothing about the film, blatantly under-informing. Implicature: the film was poor — had it been good, B would have said so.
Flouting Quality:
"Oh, that's just great!" (after bad news, with sarcastic intonation)
The speaker says something they obviously do not believe. Implicature: the situation is terrible. This is the Gricean account of irony and sarcasm — a flout of Quality. Metaphor ("you are the sun") and hyperbole ("I've told you a thousand times") are also Quality flouts: literally false, communicatively rich.
Flouting Relation:
A: "Did you enjoy the meal?" B: "Let's talk about something else."
The reply is conspicuously off-topic. Implicature: B did not enjoy the meal and prefers not to say so.
Flouting Manner:
A parent to another, in front of a child: "Shall we get some I-C-E-C-R-E-A-M?"
Deliberate obscurity (spelling the word) so the child cannot follow. The adult listener grasps both the message and the reason for the obscurity.
Violating occurs when a speaker quietly and unostentatiously fails to observe a maxim with the intent to deceive. The listener is not meant to notice. This is, in plain terms, lying (violating Quality) or misleading (violating other maxims). The decisive contrast with flouting is covertness and intent to deceive: a flout is open and meant to be caught; a violation is hidden and meant to slip past.
"I was at the library all evening." (said to a suspicious partner when the speaker was elsewhere — violating Quality) A witness who says "I saw him at the shop" while suppressing the crucial fact that they saw him stealing — violating Quantity to mislead.
Opting out occurs when a speaker explicitly signals that they are unwilling or unable to cooperate in the way a maxim requires. They neither generate an implicature nor try to deceive — they openly decline.
Infringing occurs when a speaker unintentionally fails to observe a maxim because of some limitation — not by design. There is no intention to implicate and none to deceive.
Key Definition: The four types of non-observance are flouting (blatant and deliberate, generating implicature), violating (covert and deceptive), opting out (openly refusing to cooperate), and infringing (unintentional, due to a limitation). The flout/violation distinction turns on whether the breach is meant to be noticed.
Conversational implicature is the meaning a speaker intends to convey — and a listener is able to infer — beyond the literal content of an utterance, arising from the assumption that the speaker is observing, or deliberately flouting, the Cooperative Principle.
A: "Can you pass the salt?" B: "I'll try."
Literally A asks about B's ability; the implicature is a request, "Please pass the salt", and B's playful reply shows the request was understood.
Grice distinguished two kinds. A generalized conversational implicature arises by default, regardless of special context: "I walked into a house" tends to implicate it was not the speaker's own house (had it been, "my house" would have been required). A particularized conversational implicature depends on the specific context: B's reply about working late implicates "not coming to the party" only because of this exchange about this party. Most implicatures that reward analysis in exam texts are particularized.
Grice argued that conversational implicatures have several diagnostic properties, and citing them by name is a strong AO1 move:
Unlike conversational implicature, which is computed from context and the Cooperative Principle, conventional implicature is locked to particular words and arises regardless of context. The crucial difference is that conventional implicature is not cancellable and not worked out by Gricean reasoning — it travels with the lexical item itself.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.