The Cooperative principles, Flouting maxims,

Hedges, and Implicature

Arranged by:

Bagas Priyo Santoso (2088102004)

Maulana Hafidz Romadhoni (2088203097)

ENGLISH EDUCATION PROGRAM

FACULTY OF TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION

UNVERSITY OF MUHAMMADIYAH TANGERANG

2022/2023

i
 FOREWORD

Praise the presence of God Almighty because with the abundance of His grace and ridho,
we can finish this paper with the title The Cooperative principles, Flouting maxims,
Hedges, and Implicature well and finish on time. On this occasion, we do not forget to say
thank you to those who have encouraged us to complete this paper either directly or
indirectly.

Furthermore, we need to convey that in the preparation of this paper there may be errors or
shortcomings that come from ourselves as human beings. For this reason, criticism and
advice will be accepted for the better paper in the future.

Hopefully this paper can be useful for various groups, especially readers and for us as
compiler.

Tangerang, 10th April 2023

Compiler

ii
 TABLE OF CONTENT

COVER ................................................................................................................i

FOREWORD.......................................................................................................ii

TABLE OF CONTENT......................................................................................iii

BAB I INTRODUCTION

A. Background.............................................................................1
B. Problem Formula....................................................................1
C. Problem Purpose.....................................................................1

BAB II DISCUSSION
A. The Cooperative principles, , and...........................................2
B. Flouting maxims.....................................................................2
C. Hedges....................................................................................3
D. Implicature..............................................................................3

BAB III CLOSING

A. Conclusion............................................................................. 5
B. References.............................................................................. 6

iii
 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

A. Background
Utterances are produced to convey messages or ideas. However, sometimes one utterance
may contain hidden meaning apart from its literal meaning. Therefore, it should be interpreted by
the hearer using his/her intelligence which relates to the context of why the particular utterance
occurs. This kind of linguistic phenomenon was then formulated by Grice (1975) as implicature.
Implicature is used to bridge the gap between what is literally said and what is conveyed. In the
further development, there are two kinds of implicatures; conventional and conversational
implicatures. With regard to this study, conversational implicatures was one of the main topics
being discussed.

Later on, Grice (1975) developed another theory to explain and predict conversational
implicatures, namely the Cooperative Principles. The cooperative principles consist of four basic
maxims called the Gricean Maxims that help to describe how people attempt to be cooperative in
their communication. The Gricean maxims are; Quantity, Quality, Manner, and Relevance. In
this research a movie script entitled Monsters University was chosen as the data source since
conversational implicatures were found within the utterances produced by the characters of the
movie.

B. Problem Formula
1. What is The Cooperative principles?
2. What is , Flouting maxims?
3. What is Hedges?
4. What is Implicature?

C. Problem Purpose
1. To know What is The Cooperative principles?
2. To know What is,Flouting maxims?
3. To know What is Hedges?
4. To know What is Implicature?

1
 CHAPTER II

DISCUSSION

1. The Cooperative principles

Consider the following scenario. There is a woman sitting on a park bench and a large dog
lying on the ground in front of the bench. A man comes along and sits down on the bench.

Man: Does your dog bite?

Woman: No. (The man reaches down to pet the dog. The dog bites the man's hand.) Man: Ouch!
Hey! You said your dog doesn't bite.

Woman: He doesn't. But that's not my dog.

One of the problems in this scenario has to do with communication. Specifically, it seems
to be a problem caused by the man's assumption that more was communicated than was said. It
isn't a problem with presupposition because the assumption in 'your dog' (i.e. the woman has a
dog) is true for both speakers. The problem is the man's assumption that his question 'Does your
dog bite?' and the woman's answer 'No' both apply to the dog in front of them. From the man's
perspective, the woman's answer provides less information than expected. In other words, she
might be expected to provide the information stated in the last line. Of course, if she had
mentioned this information earlier, the story wouldn't be as funny. For the event to be funny, the
woman has to give less information than is expected.

The concept of there being an expected amount of information provided in conversation

is just one aspect of the more general idea that people involved in a conversation will cooperate
with other. (Of course, the woman in [2] may actually be indicate 'ng that she does not want to
take part in any cooperative interaction with the stranger.)

It is important to recognize these maxims as unstated assumptions we have in conversations.

We assume that people are normally going to provide an appropriate amount of information
(unlike the woman in [2]); we assume that they are telling the I truth, being relevant, and trying
to be as clear as they can. Because these principles are assumed in normal interaction, speakers
rarely mention them. However, there are certain kinds of expressions speakers use to mark that
they may be in danger of not fully.

2. Flouting maxims
A cooperative speaker can intentionally disobey a maxim, as long as (s)he or the context
provides enough indicators for the hearer to notice it. This is called flouting a maxim and is used
to indirectly convey information (e.g., using sarcasm or irony). For example:

• What an amazing PUBG player is!

This can either be a:

- Positive comment on PUBG player’s abilities (maxim of quality obeyed).

2
- Negative comment on PUBG player’s abilities through irony (maxim of quality
disobeyed, clear to hearer, e.g., when said right after PUBG player didn’t knock the enemy).

3. Hedges
The importance of the maxim of quality for cooperative interaction in English may be best
measured by the number of expressions we use to indicate that what we’re saying may not be
totally accurate. The initial phrases in jja.-c] and the final phrase un [3d] are notes to the listener
regarding the accuracy of the main statement.

[3] a. As far as I know, they’re married.

b. I may be mistaken, but I thought I saw a wedding ring on her finger.

c. I’m not sure if this is right, but I heard it was a secret ceremony in Hawaii.

d. He couldn’t live without her, I guess.

The conversational context for the example in [3] might be a recent rumor involving a couple
known to the speakers. Cautious notes, or hedges, of this type can also be used to show that the
speaker is conscious of the quantity maxim, as in the initial phrases in [4a-c], produced in the
course of a speaker’s account of her recent vacation.

[4] a. as you probably know, I am terrified of bugs.

b. so, to cut a long story short, we grabbed our stuff and ran.

c. I won’t bore you with all the details, but it was an exciting trip.

Markers tied to the expectation of relevance (from the maxim of relation) can be found in the
middle of speakers’ talk when they I say things like ‘Oh, by the way’ and go on to mention some
potentially unconnected information during a conversation. Speakers also seem to use
expressions like ‘anyway’, or ‘well, anyway’, to indicate that they may have drifted into a
discussion of some possibly non-relevant material and want to stop.

All of these examples of hedges are good indications that the speakers are not only aware of the
maxims, but that they want to show that they are trying to observe them. Perhaps such forms also
communicate the speakers’ concern that their listeners judge them to be cooperative
conversational partners.

4. Implicature
According to Grice (1957) was the first to introduce the concept of implicature. This concept
means as the meaning conveyed in the utterance behind the denotative meaning of it. According
to Horn, the speaker‟s utterance has many possible meanings than what it actually is (2006: 3).
In delivering the message behind his/her utterances, the speaker will do that either explicitly or
implicitly. Thus, the hearer will have to infer the meaning behind the speaker‟s utterances by
looking at the connotative meaning. When the hearer just looks at the denotative meaning of the
speaker‟s utterances, the hearer cannot see the intention of the speaker in uttering them.

3
There are two kinds of implicature, conversational implicature and conventional implicature. The
first one, conversational implicature, arises by the speaker‟s meaning behind his/her utterances.
In achieving conversational implicature, Cooperative Principles and its maxims are highly
involved. Cooperative Principles and its maxims take part in creating conversational implicature
since it mostly depends on the conversation and the meaning of the utterances being said in the
ongoing conversation.

The second is conventional implicature. This kind of implicature does not depend on the
conversation, but it depends more on the meaning of a word when it is used in different
utterances. Conventional implicature only look at the meaning carried by the words when those
words are used in the different utterances, not by the context of the conversation when the words
are used.

For example “mary has a baby and got married” the sentence strongly suggests that mary had the
baby before the wedding, but the sentence would still be strictly true if mary had her baby after
she got married.

4
 CHAPTER III

CLOSING

A. Conclusion
Conversational Implicatures, intentionally or unintentionally, were adopted in the
conversation among the characters inside Monsters University. The context which mainly
focuses on the rivalry and competition has triggered most of the use of conversational
implicatures in the discourse. By referring towards the inference or the implied meaning, it could
be concluded that every single participant eventually attempts to be able to engage in such
cooperative conversation. Among the four Gricean Maxims within the cooperative principles
(quantity, quality, relevance and manner), the findings show that the maxim of relevance was
responsible prominently in producing the conversational implicatures found. It occurred because
the characters tend to convey irrelevant respond towards others’ questions or requests. Hence, a
deeper interpretation of the irrelevant answer (in the form of implied meaning) is needed to
preserve the assumption that the characters obey the Cooperative Principles.

5
 B. References
Beach, Richard. "Self-Evaluation Strategies of Extensive Revisers and Non-Revisers."
College Composition and Communication 27 (1976): 160-64.

Beaugrande, Robert de. Text Production: Toward a Science of Composition. Advances in

Discourse Processes, Vol. 11. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1984.

Bracewell, Robert J., Carl H. Frederiksen, and Janet D. Frederiksen. "Cognitive Processes in
Composing and Comprehending Discourse." Educational Psychologist 17 (1982): 146-64.

Hasan, R. (1989). The Structure of a Text. In Language, context, and text: aspects of language in
a social-semiotic perspective (pp. 52–69).
Widdowson, H. G. (2008). Text, Context, Pretext: Critical Issues in Discourse Analysis. In Text,
Context, Pretext: Critical Issues in Discourse Analysis.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470758427
Witte, S. P. (1987). Pre-Text and Composing. College Composition and Communication, 38(4),
397. https://doi.org/10.2307/357634