The Cooperative principle

UNIVERSITY OF BABYLON COLLEGE OF EDUCATION FOR HUMAN SCIENCES DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH The Cooperative principle in English and Arabic, a Contrastive Analysis By Lect. Hussain Hameed Mayuuf Contents 0. Introduction 1.Cooperative Principle in English 1.1 Obeying the cooperative principle 1.2 Grice's Maxims 1.2.1 Maxim of Quality 1.2.2 Maxim of Quantity 1.2.3 Maxim of Relation 1.2.4 Maxim of Manner 1.3. Discussion 1.4. Criticism of Grice's Theory 1.5. Flouting the Maxims 2. Cooperative principle in Arabic 3. Contrastive Analysis 7. References 8. Bibliography 0. Introduction This paper will be concerned with the way in which Grice’s Cooperative Principle is represented in the literature of both English and Arabic, and the interpretations and conclusions to which this can lead through showing the similarities and differences in those two languages with reference to the implementation of the cooperative principle and its maxims. Grice’s Cooperative Principle is an assumed basic concept in pragmatics. Grice has relocated the Cooperative Principle from philosophy to linguistics. 1. Cooperative Principle in English Speakers can mean to communicate more than they say. It is never possible to say what one means in so many words, speakers require hearers to work to a greater or lesser extent to derive their message from the words uttered. A special and interesting type of communication has been explored by the Philosopher Paul Grice under the label of conversational implicature, so called because what is implied (or as Grice prefers to say, implicated) is implicated by virtue of the fact that the speaker and hearer are cooperatively contributing to a conversation (Akmajian et al., 1995: 381). The cooperative principle describes how people interact with one another. It has been devised by Paul Grice as a way of analyzing implicatures based on the cooperative principle and its maxims of relevance, quality, quantity and clarity. As phrased by Paul Grice, who introduced it, it states, "Make your contribution such as it is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged" (Akmajian et al., 1995: 381). Though phrased as a prescriptive command, the principle is intended as a description of how people normally behave in conversation. Listeners and speakers must speak cooperatively and mutually accept one another to be understood in a particular way. The cooperative principle describes how effective communication in conversation is achieved in common social situations. The cooperative principle can be divided into four maxims, called the Gricean maxims, describing specific rational principles observed by people who obey the cooperative principle; these principles enable effective communication (Kordić, 1991:31-32). Grice proposed four conversational maxims that arise from the pragmatics of natural language. The Gricean Maxims are a way to explain the link between utterances and what is understood from them. 1.1Obeying the cooperative principle Speakers who do not violate the cooperative principle in their language use will make sure that what they say in a conversation adheres the purpose of that conversation. The requirements of different types of conversations will be different. The cooperative principle goes both ways: speakers (generally) observe the cooperative principle, and listeners (generally) assume that speakers are observing it. This allows for the possibility of implicatures, which are meanings that are not explicitly conveyed in what is said, but that can nonetheless be inferred. For example, if Alice points out that Bill is not present, and Carol replies that Bill has a cold, then there is an implicature that the cold is the reason, or at least a possible reason, for Bill's absence; this is because Carol's comment is not cooperative, does not contribute to the conversation, unless her point is that Bill's cold is or might be the reason for his absence. This is covered specifically by the Maxim of Relevance. 1.2Grice's Maxims Richards et al. (1992: 85) defines a maxim by saying it is an unwritten rule about conversation which people know and which influences the form of conversational exchanges. For instance: A: Let's go to the movies. B: I have an examination in the morning. Here B's reply might appear not connected to A's remark. However, since A has made an invitation and since a reply to an invitation is usually either approval or disapproval, B's reply is here understood as an excuse for not accepting the invitation. B has used the maxim that speakers normally give replies which are relevant to the question that has been asked (Ibid.: 85-86). As such, Grice suggest that such conversations are governed by the Cooperative Principle. 1.2.1Maxim of Quality Be Truthful: Try to make your contribution one that is true: 1.Do not say what you believe to be false. 2.Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence. (Akmajian et al., 1995: 382) The following example show how a speaker may obey the quality maxim: -John has two PhDs. The speaker believes John has, and have adequate evidence that he has. 1.2.2. Maxim of Quantity Quantity of Information (or be informative): 1.Make your contribution as informative as is required (for the current purposes of the exchange). 2.Do not make your contribution more informative than is required. (Ibid.) The following example show how a speaker may obey the quantity maxim: -Nigel has fourteen children. (Levinson, 1983: 106) 1.2.3. Maxim of Relation: Relevance This simply means be relevant. With respect to this maxim, Grice writes, "Though the maxim itself is terse, its formulation conceals a number of problems that exercise me a good deal: questions about what different kinds and focuses of relevance there may be, how these shift in the course of a talk exchange, how to allow for the fact that subjects of conversations are legitimately changed, and so on. I find the treatment of such questions exceedingly difficult, and I hope to revert to them in later work." (Grice 1989:27) The following example show how a speaker may obey the relevance maxim: -Pass the salt. (pass the salt now) (Levinson, 1983: 107) 1.2.4. Maxim of Manner Be perspicuous (=Clear): 1.Avoid obscurity of expression. 2.Avoid ambiguity. 3.Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity). 4.Be orderly. (Ibid.) -Miss Singer sang an aria from Rigoletto. (Levinson, 1983: 112) 1.3. Discussion Levinson (1983: 102) purports that these maxims specify what participants have to do in order to converse in a maximally efficient, rational, co-operative way: they should speak sincerely, relevantly and clearly, while providing sufficient information. These maxims may be better understood as describing the assumptions listeners normally make about the way speakers will talk, rather than prescriptions for how one ought to talk. Coulthard(1985: 31) argues that these maxims are not descriptive statements of how conversational contributions are: firstly, they are occasionally violated by speakers, they may lie, they may not give much relevant information or even offer ambiguous utterances, secondly, there will be occasions in which a speaker is seen to break a maxim either because he has been faced with a clash between two maxims making it impossible or because he has chosen to flout a maxim. The philosopher Kent Bach clarifies the character of Grice’s maxims saying that they are not sociological generalizations about speech, nor they are moral prescriptions or proscriptions on what to say or communicate. Although Grice presented them in the form of guidelines for how to communicate successfully, I think they are better construed as presumptions about utterances, presumptions that we as listeners rely on and as speakers exploit (Bach 2005). Gricean Maxims generate implicatures. If the overt, surface meaning of a sentence does not seem to be consistent with the Gricean maxims, and yet the circumstances lead us to think that the speaker is nonetheless obeying the cooperative principle, we tend to look for other meanings that could be implied by the sentence. Grice did not, however, assume that all people should constantly follow these maxims. Instead, he found it interesting when these were not respected, namely either "flouted" (with the listener being expected to be able to understand the message) or "violated" (with the listener being expected to not note this). Flouting would imply some other, hidden meaning. The importance was in what was not said. For example: Answering It's raining to someone who has suggested playing a game of tennis only disrespects the maxim of relation on the surface, the reasoning behind this 'fragment' sentence is normally clear to the interlocutor (the maxim is just "flouted"). 1.4. Criticism of Grice's Theory Grice’s theory is often disputed by arguing that cooperative conversation, as with most social behavior, is culturally determined, and therefore the Gricean Maxims and the Cooperative Principle cannot be universally applied due to intercultural differences. Keenan claims that the Malagasy, for example, follow a completely opposite Cooperative Principle in order to achieve conversational cooperation. In their culture, speakers are reluctant to share information and flout the Maxim of Quantity by evading direct questions and replying on incomplete answers because of the risk of losing face by committing oneself to the truth of the information, as well as the fact that having information is a form of prestige (Keenan, 1976: 67). However, Harnish (1976) points out that Grice only claims his maxims hold in conversations where his Cooperative Principle is in effect. The Malagasy speakers choose not to be cooperative, valuing the prestige of information ownership more highly. (It could also be said in this case that this is a less cooperative communication system, since less information is shared) Another criticism is that the Gricean Maxims can easily be misinterpreted to be a guideline for etiquette, instructing speakers on how to be moral, polite conversationalists. However, the Gricean Maxims, despite their wording, are only meant to describe the commonly accepted traits of successful cooperative communication. Geoffrey Leech created the Politeness maxims: tact, generosity, approbation, modesty, agreement, and sympathy. 1.5. Flouting the Maxims In the conversation people may or may not observe the maxims of conversation. Circumstances and contexts and often force the participants to deviate from the rules of conversation. A maxim can be exploited for communicative purposes. The violation of the maxims give rise to several "figures of speech". Without cooperation, human interaction would be far more difficult and counterproductive. Therefore, the Cooperative Principle and the Gricean Maxims are not specific to conversation but to verbal interactions in general. For example, it would not make sense to reply to a question about the weather with an answer about groceries because it would violate the Maxim of Relevance. Likewise, responding to a question with a long monologue would violate the Maxim of Quantity. However, it is possible to flout a maxim intentionally or unconsciously and thereby convey a different meaning than what is literally spoken. Many times in conversation, this flouting is manipulated by a speaker to produce a negative pragmatic effect, as with sarcasm or irony. One can flout the Maxim of Quality to tell a clumsy friend who has just taken a bad fall that her nimble gracefulness is impressive and obviously intend to mean the complete opposite. The Gricean Maxims are therefore often purposefully flouted by comedians and writers, who may hide the complete truth and manipulate their words for the effect of the story and the sake of the reader’s experience. Speakers who deliberately flout the maxims usually intend for their listener to understand their underlying implication. In the case of the clumsy friend, she will most likely understand that the speaker is not truly offering a compliment. Therefore, cooperation is still taking place, but no longer on the literal level. Conversationalists can assume that when speakers intentionally flout a maxim, they still do so with the aim of expressing some thought. Thus, the Gricean Maxims serve a purpose both when they are followed and when they are flouted. Violation of Maxim of Quality: A: What if Iran blockades the Gulf and all the oil? B: Oh, come on, USA rules the seas! Violation of Maxim of Quantity: A: How much lands does your father own? B:With God's blessings, my father has five acre of land, a well, two bullock, a cart, five goats and a brick house. Violation of Maxim of Relevance: Johnny: Hey, Mary, let's play marbles. Mother: How is your homework getting along Johnny? Violation of Maxim of Manner: A: Miss Jones sang :Home sweet home". B: Miss Jones produced a series of sounds which corresponded closely with the score of "home sweet home". 2. Cooperative principle in Arabic Having analyzed the English data of the implementation of the cooperative principle, now it is the turn to some Arabic data in an attempt to show how it is used, obeyed and/or violated. In Arabic, the term "cooperative principle" is used under the rubric " مبدأ التضامن " and the term "conversational Maxims" under " قواعد الحديث " (Aziz,1997 : 190). The four maxims of Grice are rendered as : quality النوعية , quantity الكمية , relevance or relation الصلة , manner الاسلوب (Ibid). These maxims are claimed to be universal so they have their presence in Arabic as well as in other languages. As such, according to the maxim of quality ( مبدأ النوعية ), the speaker should not say: انها قطة . انه أسد. When he knows it is a leopard because he will be untruthful, a thing which flouts or violates this maxim. On the other hand, the maxim of quantity ( مبدأ الكمية ), which is related to the amount of information, is also present in Arabic language, for example: -من ذلك الرجل الواقف مع أحمد؟ A cooperative reply would be something like: ذلك صديقه الجديد حسن. An Uncooperative reply would be: "رجل شاب". or "انه حسن احمد المولود في تموز 1990 وهو احد اقرباءه. The first answer is too brief, while the latter is over long. The maxim of relevance ( مبدأ الصلة ) is adopted if A says : -ماذا لدينا للعشاء؟ B should reply with something like: سمك مقلي. And not : مناضد وكراسي. The maxim of manner relates not to what is said, but rather to how what is said, to be said. In other words, a speaker should be clear and orderly. For example, on should describe things in the order in which they occur, such as: -سارت الطائرة على مدرج الطيران وأقلعت باتجاه الغرب. And not : -أقلعت الطائرة باتجاه الغرب وسارت على مدرج الطيران. 3. Contrastive Analysis From the aforementioned description of the uses and functions of the Cooperative Principle, it can be concluded that: Both languages, English and Arabic, apply the Cooperative Principle in Conversations. Both languages employ the four maxims of conversations. The employment of the maxims in English varies from that in Arabic in that English they are socially oriented whereas in Arabic they are psychologically oriented. The use of the cooperative principle is more systematic than that in Arabic. The use of the cooperative principle and its maxims is deeply rooted in Arabic but it is scattered here and there whereas in English, it is more systematically developed. Interestingly, the cooperative principle has been coined and studied by philosophers (such as, Paul Grice) in English, in Arabic by grammarians and jurisprudents and not mainly by linguists. References Akmajian, A., R. Demers, A. Farmer and R Harnish(1995: 381). Linguistics: An Introduction to language and Linguistics. Massachusetts Institute of Technology: The MIT Press. Brown, P. and Levinson, S., (1978). “Universals in Language Usage: Politeness Phenomena”, ed. Goody, E., Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction, pp. 56-311, Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Cameron, D. (2001). Working with Spoken Discourse. London: Sage Publications. Coulthard, M. (1985). An introduction to Discourse analysis. Longman: Longman Group UK Limited. Grice, Paul (1975). "Logic and conversation". In Syntax and Semantics, 3: Speech Acts, ed. P. Cole & J. Morgan. New York: Academic Press. Reprinted in Studies in the Way of Words, ed. H. P. Grice, pp. 22–40. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press (1989) Harnish, R. (1976). Bever T G, Katz J J, Langendoen, D T. ed. Logical form and implicature. Crowel, New York. Keenan, Elinor Ochs. (1976). "On the universality of conversational postulates". Language in Society 5 (1): 67–80. Kordić, Snježana (1991). "Konverzacijske implikature [Conversational implicatures]" (in Serbo-Croatian). Suvremena lingvistika 17 (31-32): 89. ISSN 0586-0296. Archived from the original on 2 December 2012. http://www.webcitation.org/6ANNqArFh. Retrieved 9 December 2012. Leech, Geoffrey (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman Mey, Jacob. 2001. Pragmatics: An Introduction, page 76-77. Blackwell. Levinson, S. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Richards, J., J. Platt and H. Platt (1992). Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics. Longman: Longman Group UK Limited. Wardhaugh, Ronald. (2006). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Blackwell. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. For the principles governing the functioning of cooperatives, see Rochdale Principles. Arabic References الخليفة, هشام (2007). نظرية الفعل الكلامي. بيروت: مكتبة لبنان ناشرون. عزيز, يوئيل يوسف (1993). المعنى والترجمة. بنغازي: منشورات جامعة قار يونس. 12