Pragmatics: - Grice's Cooperative Principle
Pragmatics: - Grice's Cooperative Principle
Pragmatics: - Grice's Cooperative Principle
But also:
• Concept of doing things directly or indirectly
Tears filled his eyes; he cried easily in these days, not having
full control of himself, and Theo’s fate caused him great grief.
The Duchess had told him that she had been able to discover
nothing, and therefore it was assumed that he had been
released as entirely innocent. Maurice was convinced that
nothing of the kind had happened, and assumed that the
Duchess had found out that Theo was dead and had invented
the agreeable solution in order not to distress him. He could
not do anything about it and had accepted the statement in
silence, but he fretted a great deal over Theo’s death.
• Conversational Implicature:
– Always context-sensitive
1.3 Conventional Implicature
‘... she was cursed with a stammer, unmarried
but far from stupid.’
Or:
This is not a rule, it is how Grice believes that Speakers and Addressees
generally behave (and it is rational for them to behave in this way).
2. The Cooperative Principle
We assume (until proven otherwise) that our
fellow interactants say things that make sense.
If they don’t make sense on the surface, then
we look for an implied meaning.
According to Grice:
• If A assumes that, in spite of appearances, B is observing
the CP and has made an appropriate response to his
question, he will look for an alternative interpretation.
• Without this assumption, there is no reason for A to look for
another level of interpretation.
2.2 The Maxims
Relation: Be relevant.
2. Violation
3. Infringing
4. Opting out
4.1.1 Quality Flout
‘John’s room is a pigsty’
• The Speaker does not appear to be trying to make us believe that John’s
room is a pigsty
Pet: And you, good sir! Pray, have you not a daughter
Call’d Katherina, fair and virtuous?
Bap: I have a daughter, sir, call’d Katherina.
[The Taming of the Shrew]
A: Hi.
B: I’m eating dinner.
4.1.4 Manner Flouts
‘Has anyone taken the D-O-G for a W-A-L-K?’
The next day it was announced that Ms Modahl had been sent home
following a positive drug test.
4.3 Infringing a Maxim
The non-observance of a maxim stems from imperfect linguistic
performance rather than from a desire to generate a conversational
implicature. It is unintentional.
Grice says:
• imperfect command of language (e.g. young child, or language
learner)
• impaired performance (e.g. nervousness, drunkenness, excitement)
cognitive impairment, etc
But, I disagree:
• All of us do this, on occasion!
4.4 Opting out of a Maxim
Ruth Rendell, a famous crime novelist, was being interviewed by an equally
famous psychiatrist, Professor Anthony Clare. Clare asked Rendell about her
husband.
AC: You married him twice. You’ve been interviewed many times,
but I’ve never seen a satisfactory explanation for that very
interesting fact.
RR: Well [pause] I don’t think I can give you one. That is not to
say that I don’t know it but I do know that I cannot give it. I
don’t think that to give it would be a very good idea,
particularly for my husband.
5. Testing for Implicature
There are a series of tests which you can use to determine
whether an utterance generates an implicature. Grice suggests
six tests, Thomas (1995) has condensed these into four:
Implicature:
UK trains are better then those in the Third World.
Literal meaning:
Tells you that the description is unfair, but doesn’t say why.
Cancelled Implicature
Effect: greater than simply saying ‘British trains are rubbish’!
Reading
Most used:
Grundy, Peter (1995) Doing Pragmatics. Arnold.
Thomas, Jenny (1995) Meaning in Interaction. Longman [a lot of the examples
come from here]
Alternatives:
Cutting, Joan (2002) Pragmatics and Discourse. London: Routledge.
Levinson, Stephen (1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge: CUP.
Mey, Jacob L. (1993) Pragmatics - An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.