LIN1280 PRAGMATICS ICooperation and Implicature

COOPERATION

Much of what we have dicussed so far relies on

the implicit assumption that:

Speakers are being cooperative when they

communicate

Examples:

Reference requires collaboration and respect for

mutual knowledge.

We assume that if a speaker utters some sentence s

that presupposes p, then the speaker really means p.

COOPERATION

In general, in communicating we assume that our

interlocutors are:

being truthful

giving roughly the information required

...

and that they are not:

indulging in trickery

being purposely misleading

giving irrelevant information

...

PART 1Grice’s maxims of communication

A COUPLE OF MOTIVATING EXAMPLES

Example 1:

A: Do you have the time?

B: Yes I do.

Example 2:

A: Does your dog bite?

B: No.

(A reaches down to pet the dog, which bites his

hand)

A: You said your dog doesn’t bite!

B: Yes. And it’s true. Only, that’s not my dog.

SOME OBSERVATIONS

A: Does your dog bite?

B: No.

(A reaches down to pet the dog, which bites his hand)

A: You said your dog doesn’t bite!

B: Yes. And it’s true. Only, that’s not my dog.

B seems to have violated a “rule” of communication here.

It’s not about presupposition! Your dog presupposes that B has a dog, and this is in fact

true. (Only it’s not the dog physically present).

It seems that, when A asks Does your dog bite, we would expect B to specify that the dog in question isn’t hers.

In not giving the information expected, B is being uncooperative.

COOPERATION REVISITED

Paul Grice (1975) suggested that in communication we follow a general Principle of Communication:

Make your conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at whcih it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the exchange.

By this principle, we would expect B to inform A that, in spite of what he thinks, the dog in question isn’t her dog.

Even though A doesn’t ask Is that your dog, her assumption that it’s B’s dog is clear.

COOPERATION AND THE MAXIMS

Grice went further in trying to outline four areas

in which cooperation is exhibited.

The result was a set of “maxims of conversation”.

These are intended as observations about the

principles of communication we normally

observe, implicitly.

MAXIM OF QUANTITY

Grice:

Make your contribution as informative as is required.

Do not make your contribution more informative than

is required.

Example:

A: Sit down at the newly painted table.

This referring expression contains information that

may be useful to identify the referent. However:

Under the assumption that A is being cooperative, we might

expect that the property of “being newly painted” is being

chosen for a purpose.

MAXIM OF QUALITY

Grice:

Make your contribution one that is true.

Do not say that which you believe to be false

Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.

Example:

A: Where’s the nearest supermarket?

B: I think there’s one round the corner, but I’m not from these parts.

We do feel a general “obligation” to tell the truth, and if we’re uncertain, we indicate that this is the case.

MAXIM OF RELATION

Grice: Be relevant!

Example: A (to a foreigner she’s only just met): So where are you

from?

B: Louwesveg 1, 1066 EA, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Europe

Probably, B could’ve just said: Amsterdam.

Clearly, B is giving more information than necessary (hence, violating Quantity)

Much of this information is completely irrelevant, since the exchange is clearly not intended to go into that level of detail.

MAXIM OF MANNER

Grice: Be perspicuous.

Avoid obscurity of expression.

Avoid ambiguity.

Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity)

Be orderly.

Example: A: So sir, do you agree with the new law on hunting?

B: Not entirely disagreeable, as I must confess myself not to be, I find certain, shall we say, solecisms in said law.

Violations of Manner are a rather good source for humour, but in everyday life give rise to impressions of unbearable pedantry and/or confusion.

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WE ASSUME THESE

MAXIMS

Very often, the things we say go well beyond their literal meaning.

When we assume that speakers are being cooperative, we are led to assume that there is a purpose or reason behind what they are saying and the way they are saying it.

Example: A: D’you like your new flat?

B: Well, a flat is a flat, you know...

Taken literally, B has simply uttered a tautology, violating Quality.

However, we are capable of interpreting this in such a way that we assume that B does not in fact want to violate this maxim.

Therefore, there must be something else that B is trying to say, over and above the literal content.

PART 2Hedging

VIOLATIONS OF THE MAXIM OF QUALITY

A: Excuse me, do you know what time the shops

close?

B: As far as I know, they close at 7, but I’m not from

around here.

We’re often in situations where we can’t

guarantee that the information we impart is in

fact true.

This leads to potential violations of the Quality

maxim.

VIOLATIONS OF THE MAXIM OF QUANTITY

I don’t know if you know this already, but the shops

close at 7, so you might want to hurry up.

To cut a long story short, she decided she would

leave for Hawaii.

In these situations, we are in a position where:

We’re not sure the interlocutor knows something

already (which would make our contribution “extra”

or “unnecessary”)

So we have to acknowledge this, but still make sure

the background information is in place.

VIOLATIONS OF THE MAXIM RELEVANCE

Oh, by the way, did you notice he’s not wearing a

wedding ring anymore?

This may sound silly, but did you come here on your

own?

Here too, the speaker displays an awareness that

what she is saying may be irrelevant (or already

known).

However, there are scenarios where speakers do

make remarks which are otherwise unconnected

to the conversation.

VIOLATIONS OF THE MAXIM OF MANNER

Sorry, but I find this a little difficult to describe...

I don’t know if this is at all clear, but I do believe

the man burst in through the window.

And here, the speaker seems to be aware of his

contribution being confused, or verging on

obscurity, thus potentially violating Manner.

HEDGES

As far as I know...

To cut a long story short

By the way

I don’t know if this is

clear

Hedges are

expressions which

sound a note of

caution.

They display

awareness on the

speaker’s part that he

may be violating one

of the maxims of

conversation.

WHAT HEDGES SHOW US

Ultimately, speakers’ use of hedges suggests that

Grice’s maxims are on the right track:

When the maxims are violated – usually for some

purpose – the speaker indicates that she is aware

of this.

BUT NOT ALWAYS...

In many circumstances, speakers may actually

refuse to be cooperative.

This happens whenever cooperativeness may

endanger or compromise the speaker in some

way.

Courtrooms...

Political debates...