Pragmatics II

The Cooperative Principle

• Language is an effective communication tool because we generally

cooperate in conversation and follow certain conventions.

• This notion is called the Cooperative Principle.

Gricean Maxims

• Philosopher of language Paul Grice first

proposed this Cooperative Principle.

• He also divided the principle into a few sub-

points that are known as Gricean Maxims or
conversational maxims.
Maxim of Quality
• Be truthful
Do not say what you believe to be false.
Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.

• A: What’s the capital of UK?

• B: Nanjing.
Maxim of Quantity
• Make your contribution as informative as is required (for the current
purposes of the exchange).
• Do not make your contribution more informative than is required.

• A: Do you know what time it is?

• B: Yes.
Maxim of Relation
• Be relevant.

A: Do you know what time it is?

B: I think this new haircut isn’t working for me.
Maxim of Manner
• Be perspicuous.
-avoid obscurity
-avoid ambiguity
-be brief
-be orderly
A: Do you know what time it is?
B: When rosy-fingered Eos doth appear, so shall ye locate the ever-
shifting present, even as Orpheus did meet Eurydice amidst the
deepest reaches of Hades.
• Hades and Persephone were moved to tears as well, allowing Orpheus to
take Eurydice with him back to earth on one condition only: that he
should not look back at her until both of them regain the light of the sun.
• Odyssey
Flouting the maxims
• Grice observed that we do not always appear to follow these maxims
in conversation.
• Often we are deliberately infringing a maxim to generate some
additional implicit meaning that can be derived from the maxim. This
is called flouting.
A: Did you contact the professor and the tutor?
B: I contacted the tutor.
• We assume that B is being as informative as he can: if he had
contacted the professor, he would have said so.
Conversational Implicature ( 会话隐含义 )

• The basic assumption in conversation is that, unless otherwise

indicated, the participants are adhering to the cooperative principle
and the maxims.

• Whether the speaker follows or violates these maxims, he produces

some IMPLICATURE—a kind of extra meaning that is not contained
in the utterance.
Flouting of Maxim of Quality
A: Do I look okay in this dress?
B: No, it’s hideous, I’m embarrassed to be seen with you.
• Sarcasm = flouting of maxim of quality.
• B can afford to be sarcastic because B believes that his true views are
obvious to A.
• Implicature: B thinks that A knows perfectly well that she looks great in this
dress.

• He is made of iron.
• Violating maxim of quality: men cannot be made of iron
• Implicature: he has some properties similar to those of iron.
Flouting of Maxim of Quantity
A: What did you do at school today?
B: Uh, you know, stuff.
• B is not being sufficiently informative.
• Implicature: B does not wish to discuss the details of what happened
in school.

• I’m Robert from Leeds, 28, unmarried.

• Boys are boys.
Flouting of Maxim of Relation
A: Can you come to the movies on Friday?
B: My sister wants me to go shopping with her.

• B’s contribution is not directly relevant, on the surface, to the topic of

conversation.
• Implicature: B can’t go to the movies on Friday because she has
already made plans to go shopping at that time.
Flouting Maxim of Manner

A: Let’s get the kid something.

B: Okay, but I veto C-H-O-C-O-L-A-T-E.

• (obscure, to keep the kid in the dark)

 A: Name and title, please?
B: John Smith, Associate Editor and professor.
• (Ambiguous)

A: What did she buy?

B: She bought a red dress. She bought a green dress, and she bought a
blue dress.
• (not brief enough, to make complaint)
Characteristics of Conversational Implicature
• Calculability: Implicatures can be worked out on the basis of some
previous information, maxims of CP and context, etc.

A: Did you contact the professor and the tutor?

B: I contacted the tutor.

• We can’t guess that B didn’t contact the professor only from the
sentence “I contacted the tutor” alone.
Cancellability/Defeasibility
• Implicatures may change in certain contexts.

John has three cows.

• Usual implicature: John has only three cows.

But: John has three cows, if not more.

• Implicature: John has at least three cows.
Non-detachability
• Implicature is attached to the semantic content of what is said, not to
the linguistic form. So it is possible to use a synonym and keep the
implicature intact.

A: What do you think of the lecture?

B: Well, I think the lecture hall was big/large/great .

• Implicature: The lecture itself was boring.

Non-conventionality
• Implicature is indeterminate, and varies with the context.

A: I’m going out now.

B: It’s raining.

• Implicature 1: take an umbrella.

• Implicature 2: you’d better wait a while.
Politeness
• Politeness is about not offending others, and this can be achieved in
various ways.

• Sometimes, using “polite” language can be interpreted negatively, as

snobby or rude.

• The situational and cultural context contributes to what language is

seen as appropriate.
Politeness Theory
• Brown & Levison (1987)
• Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage

• They distinguish between positive politeness

strategies and negative politeness strategies.
• Both strategies are about avoiding causing
offense to others.
Positive Politeness Strategies
• Strategies that avoid causing offense by highlighting friendliness.
• Example: You may want to use some casual words with a friend to
show closeness
Negative Politeness Strategies
• Strategies that avoid causing offense by showing deference.
• Example: You may want to use more formal addressing terms to a
professor
• Dear Professor Einstein…
Face

• Politeness is also about paying attention to the face wants of yourself

and your audience.

• Your “face” in politeness theory comes from the traditional Chinese

conception of face: your reputation, or public perception of you.
Positive Face
• Positive face is the want that your self-image and wants are
appreciated and approved of by others.
• Example: You pretend to like a present from a friend (even if you
don’t).
Negative Face
• Negative face is the want to have freedom of action and freedom from
imposition.
• Example: You tell your tutor that you'll understand if he's too busy to
meet with you today, allowing him enough room to say no.
Face-Threatening Acts
• When one member of a conversation says something that threatens the
face of the speaker or the hearer, this is a Face-Threatening Act (FTA).
• FTAs can threaten the positive or negative face of the speaker or
hearer.

• Apologizing threatens a speaker’s positive face. The speaker is

admitting that his/her actions did not meet someone’s approval.
• Thanking threatens a speaker’s negative face. The speaker is
admitting that they needed help to do something.

• Criticism threatens the addressee’s positive face. The speaker is

saying they do not approve of the addressee’s actions or views.

• Orders threaten the addressee’s negative face. The speaker is

infringing on the hearer’s ability to do whatever they want.
Three major factors in shaping politeness
strategies:
• Social distance: how well do we know each other?

• Power difference: is one of us in a more powerful social position?

• Cost of imposition: is the speaker asking for a big favour or talking

about a sensitive issue?