Pragmatics

– Grice’s Cooperative Principle

 Speaking Indirectly
Speech Acts:
• Concept of ‘doing things with words’

But also:
• Concept of doing things directly or indirectly

Grice is interested in how we manage to reliably get

meaning from indirect language
 ‘There’s a piece of fish on the table’
How do we know whether this is meant as:

• A complaint about the state of the kitchen

• A warning to keep the door shut and the cat out
• A suggestion about the likely content of dinner
• A query about whether the fish has been left out of the
fridge intentionally

Grice believed, that as rational beings, there must

be a logical way of explaining this.
 1. Implicature
This is Grice’s term.

It is derived from the word ‘implicit’ - i.e. not explicit.

It refers to the (intended) meaning of a text which is not

available solely through its semantic and syntactic content.

Implicature vs. Inference

• Speakers imply
• Addressees infer
 1.1 Implication vs. Inference

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.

implication: Theo was unharmed

inference: Theo was dead
 1.2 Two Types of Implicature
• Conventional Implicature:
– Triggered by particular words e.g. but, even,
therefore, yet
– Generally not context-sensitive

• Conversational Implicature:
– Always context-sensitive
 1.3 Conventional Implicature
‘... she was cursed with a stammer, unmarried
but far from stupid.’

• but carries the implication that whatever

proposition follows it, the content will be
counter to expectation.
 1.3 Conventional Implicature
The American actress, Kathleen Turner, was discussing
perceptions of women in the film industry.

“I get breakdowns from the studios of the scripts that

they’re developing ... and I got one that I sent back
furious to the studio that said “The main character
was thirty-seven but still attractive.” I circled the but
in red ink and I sent it back and said, “Try again!” “
 1.4 Conversational Implicature
‘Great, that’s really great! That’s made my Christmas!’

• ambulanceman vomited over by drunken partygoer

• dog eats turkey
• speaker wins lottery
• speaker is given a year off by their boss
 2. The Cooperative Principle

“Make your contribution such as is required, at the stage at

which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk
exchange in which you are engaged.” (Grice 1975: 47)

Or:

Your utterance should be appropriate to – i.e. make sense in – the context in

which it is spoken.

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.

So implicatures are generated when the literal

sentence does not make sense in the context.
 2.1 Cars and Conversations
Thomas (1995) uses the analogy of driving a car:

• all drivers are aware of the conventions

• we need the conventions for the system to work
• drivers normally follow the conventions
• there are occasions when they don’t (for good or
bad reasons!)
• other drivers must look for evidence that a driver
might break the conventions
Batman : get in.
Catwoman: my mother always warns me not
getting into cars with strangers. (implicates
that she is being careful)
Batman : this isn’t a car. (implicates: so, I’m
not a stranger, your mother is ok = you are
safe with me)
(5) The Speaker has accidentally locked herself out of her house.
It is winter, the middle of the night and she is stark naked
A: Do you want a coat?
B: No, I really want to stand out here in the
freezing cold with no clothes on.
[from the film Splash]

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

Quantity: Make your contribution as informative as is required (for

the current purpose of the exchange). Do not make your
contribution more informative than is required.

Quality: Do not say that which you believe to be false.

Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.

Relation: Be relevant.

Manner: Avoid obscurity of expression.

Avoid ambiguity.
Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity).
Be orderly.
 3. Observing the Maxims

Husband: Where are the car keys?

Wife: They’re on the table in the hall.
 4. Non-Observing of Maxims
1. Flouting (or Exploiting)

2. Violation
3. Infringing
4. Opting out
 4.1.1 Quality Flout
‘John’s room is a pigsty’

• It is patently false that John’s room is literally a pigsty

• The Speaker does not appear to be trying to make us believe that John’s
room is a pigsty

• Unless her utterance is entirely pointless, the Speaker must be trying to

put across some other proposition.

• The most obviously related proposition is that pigsties are thought to be

untidy, and thus so is John’s room (Metaphor)
 4.1.2 Quantity Flout 1
Petruchio has come to ask Baptista for his daughter’s hand in
marriage.

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]

[Too little information]

 4.1.2 Quantity Flout 2
The speaker was a BBC continuity announcer

At the time of recording, all the cast were members of

the BBC Drama Group.

[Too much information]

 4.1.3 Relation Flout

I’m ringing my sister.

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?’

‘Marjorie produced a series of sounds corresponding closely to

the Queen of the Night’s aria from Die Zauberflöte.’
 4.2 Violating a Maxim
The non-observance of a maxim in an unostentatious manner, such that it is
likely to mislead.

An English athlete, Dianne Modahl, the defending Commonwealth Games 800

metres champion, pulled out of her opening race and returned to England.
Caroline Searle, press officer for the England team, said:

“She has a family bereavement; her grandmother has died.”

Implication: she is leaving the Games because of her bereavement.

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:

• Non-detachability and non-conventionaility

• Implicature Changes
• Calculability
• Defeasibility (Cancellability)
 5.1 Non-detachability and Non-
conventionality
For something to be considered an implicature, you should be
able to replace the implicature-generating one with a near-
synonym without changing the implicature.

Speaker is looking at a ‘large-boned’ cat

• Underfed, isn’t he?
• Skinny, isn’t he?
• Slimline, isn’t he?

[intended meaning is the same - implicature]

 5.1 Non-detachability and Non-
conventionality
(16) John Stanley, M.P., was defending the Government’s new
policy of questioning social security claimants closely about their
availability for work.

‘“Methods of interrogation” was the phrase you used. I think we

would call it “questioning”’.

Because changing the lexical item changes the meaning, then

we would say that this is a change in connotation, and not an
implicature.
 5.2 Implicatures change

A young boy is talking to a colleague of his father

A: It’s my birthday today.
B: Many happy returns. How old are you?
A: I’m five.

Speaker A is talking to his son

A: How old are you George?
B: I’m eighteen, Father.
A: I know how old you are, you fool.

A psychiatrist is talking to a woman patient.

A: What do you do?
B: I’m a nurse, but my husband won’t let me
work.
A: How old are you?
B: I’m thirty-nine.
 5.3 Calculability
In different circumstances, the same words may convey different
implicatures. However, these implicatures are not random, we
should be able to spell out the steps a speaker goes through to
calculate the implicature.

Remember ‘John’s room is a pigsty’

Though Grice says nothing about how we generate the intended

implicature …
 5.4 Defeasibility (Cancellability)
From Cathal Caughlan’s webpage [ex-lead singer of Microdisney
and Fatima Mansions]:

Now you can download the whole Grand Necropolitan album in

MP3 from here. Please remember that downloading MP3 files
damages the music industry…

[Implication: You shouldn’t do it?]

… so do it early, often and cheerfully.

 5.4 Defeasibility

‘Describing our train network as Third World is unfair… … on the Third

World.’

John Curley, Railtrack boss, quoted in The Mirror, 13/12/2001, p.7.

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.