Features Of Grices Cooperative Principle

Features Of Grices conjunct beliefIt was in 1975 when Herbert Paul Grice announced one of his most famous and influential papers Logic and Conversation including the Cooperative dogma with its Conversational maxims. This paper targets at introducing the Cooperative prescript as well as alternative dogmas which have been developed as a response to Grices efforts. make up if the founders of these alternative conventions take Grices rule as a basis they have been criticizing it in arrange to refine his notions and ideas of how human communication works (Herbst 2010 268). Taking the Cooperative Principle as the initial point of this paper in that location will be an introduction of Grices principle at archetypal. In a further timber the paper will provide an outline of the alternative principles in a chronological order as they were published. The final chapter is concerned with a conclusion base on current research as well there will follow an evaluation by taking into a ccount how the views on Grices Cooperative principle changed over time.2. Main features of Grices Cooperative PrincipleAccording to Grice human talk deputises be rational because while speaking we connect our remarks and if we would not do so they would not be rational (cf. Grice 1975 45). hence talk exchanges are not usu anyy just a collection of context-free and separate sentences (cf. Grice 1975 45). Grice describes them further as conjunct efforts in which for each one participant shadower recognize to more or less extent a common purpose or a set of purposes or sort of a mutually accepted direction (Grice 1975 45). Furthermore he mentions that this purpose or direction whitethorn be fixed from the start, or it may produce during the exchange (Grice 1975 45). Here it is not incumbent if the direction of the talk exchange is established from the beginning on or if it is developing during the conversation because at each stage of the conversation there will be some possi ble conversational moves which would be excluded as conversationally inappropriate (Grice 197545). Due to these conversationally unsuitable moves Grice (1975 45) was the first who tried to delineate in a general principle the mechanisms by which people interpret conversational implicature (doubting Thomas 1995 61). This general principle is called the Cooperative Principle and it is expected to be distinguishd by all participants of a talk exchange (cf. Grice 1975 45). The Cooperative Principle according to Grice (1975 45) is defined in the following representation Make your conversational component part such as is undeniable, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged. The Cooperative Principle is followed by four Conversational precepts which are divided into the categories Quantity, Quality, Relation and Manner (Grice 1975 45).1These Conversational Maxims roughly put the guidelines in words on which we orientate our communicative behavior or rather as Levinson rephrases them in his work Pragmatics as the maxims specify what participants have to do in order to converse in a maximally efficient, rational, co-operative way they should speak sincerely, pertinently and clearly, while providing sufficient information (Levinson 1983 102). In Logic and Conversation Grice (cf. 1975 45-f.) lists the maxims in the following wayThe Maxim of Quantity- relates to the quantity of information to be provided, and under it fall the following maxims 1. Make your contribution as informative as required (for the current purposes of the exchange). 2. Do not make your contribution more informative than is required.The Maxim of Quality- under the category of Quality fall a supermaxim -Try to make your contribution one that is true- and two more specific maxims1. Do not say what you believe to be false. 2. Do not say that for which you lack equal to(predicate) evidence.The Maxim of Relation under the category of Relation Grice places a single maxim, namely Be relevant.The Maxim of Manner under the category of Manner Grice understands them as relating not (like the previous categories) to what is said but rather, to HOW what is said to be said. The Maxim of Manner includes the supermaxim Be perspicuous and various maxims such as 1. re turn on obscurity of expression. 2. Avoid ambiguity. 3. Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity). 4. Be orderly.As Grice indicates further in his paper a participant in a talk exchange may fail to fulfill a maxim (Grice 1975 49). Thus, there are situations in which a participant is not able to stick to the maxims listed above. The four possible shipway of non- sight the maxims mentioned by Grice (cf. Grice 1975 49) will be listed in the following and after that there will follow one example for each type of non-observance in order to examine the failure(1) A participant in a talk exchange may quietly and unostentatiously VIOLATE a maxim if so, in some cases he will be liable to mislead.(2) A loudspeaker may OPT OUT from the operation both of the maxim and the CP he may say, indicate, or allow it to become plain that he is unwilling to cooperate in the way the maxims requires.(3) A speaker may be faced by a CLASH He may be unable, for example, to fulfill the first maxim of Quantity (Be as informative as is required) without violating the second maxim of Quality (Have adequate evidence for what you say).(4) A participant may FLOUT a maxim that is, he may blatantly fail to fulfill it. On the assumption that the speaker is able to fulfill the maxim and to do so without violating another maxim , is not opting out, and is not, in view of the blatancy of his performance, act to mislead This situation is one that characteristically gives rise to a conversational implicature and when a conversational implicature is generated in this way, I shall say that a maxim is being exploited.According to the first type of non-observance (1 ) it world power be useful to add as it is pointed out in Meaning in Interaction that many commentators incorrectly use the term violate for all forms of non-observance of the maxims (Thomas 1995 72). But nevertheless Grice defines violation very specifically as the unostentatious non-observance of a maxim (Thomas 1995 72). To clarify the phenomena of violating a maxim the following example as it is mentioned by Thomas might be helpful An English athlete was pulled out of her race and returned to England. A press officer for the England team said She has a family bereavement her grandmother has died. (1995 73). The following day it was proclaimed that the athlete had to leave because of a positive drug test (cf. Thomas 1995 73). Nevertheless the statement of the press officer was true, but the implicature which was the reason of the English athletes returning home was not true as it is explained in Thomas (cf. 1995 73). The second type of non-observing (2) means that a participant of talk exchange opts out of the conversation because he does not behave in the way as it is prescribed by the Conversational Maxims or rather the participant does so to express unwillingness (Thomas 1995 74). Therefore Thomas elaborates these kinds of non-observing are typically for general figures as they cannot, perhaps for legal or honourable reason, reply in the way expected (Thomas 1995 74). Relating to this Grice introduces the following example I cannot say more my lips are sealed (Grice 1975 49) or an instance for a public figures response would be No comment. The third possible type in falling to fulfill the maxims is given when the speaker is faced by a concussion (3) due to a conflict of two or rather of more maxims. Consequently in this situation a speaker is not able to observe the maxims. Aiming at illustrating this specific situation of incompatibility the instance given by Grice (cf. 1975 51-f.) in his work might be helpful For their vacation in France A is plan ning with B a route considering the point that both of them are aware of that A wants to meet his friend C. Furthermore Grice mentions that the meeting would not think too great prolongation of their journey (cf. Grice 1975 51) and additionally to these background information he introduces that A is asking Where does C live? and B answers Somewhere in the South of France. (Grice 1975 51). This clash can be explained by taking into account that B does not provide too much information as A wishes to get (cf. Grice 1975 51). By providing too little information B is obviously not observing the first maxim of Quantity (cf. Grice 1975 51) and this explains Grice by supposing that B is aware that to be more informative would be to say something that infringed the maxim of Quality, Dont say what you lack adequate evidence for (Grice 1975 51-f.). Thus, B acts as if he does not know exactly where C lives (cf. Grice 1975 52). The fourth type of an infringement of a maxim is expressed by fl outing a maxim (4) as stated in Thomas the most important category by far because it generates an implicature (1995 64). By generating an implicature on purpose the speaker is aware of doing so. Plausible reasons therefore might be that the speaker does not want to provide too little or rather too much information than the situation demands (Thomas 1995 65). The latter is given in the succeeding example as in Thomas (1995 66) A is asking B about a mutual friends new(a) boyfriend A Is he courteous? B She seems to like him. In the foregoing example B does not observe the maxim of Quantity by providing a less informative response to As question as it is described in Thomas (1995 66).3. Alternative Principles to the Cooperative PrincipleAs the introduction of this paper previously indicated the Cooperative Principle has not been set free from critiques and thus it is not surprising that there exist suggestions for improvement or rather that there are alternative principles which will be presented in this chapter.3.1 The politeness Principle by Geoffrey LeechAccording to Geoffrey Leech there is a lack in Grices Cooperative Principle relating to the level of relationship while communicating because as the CP only refers to the content level as it is described in Bublitz (2009 209). Moreover one could infer that the aspect of discretion is missing. Especially politeness is absolutely obligatory for Leech to answer the question why people are often so indirect in conveyance of title what they mean and in addition he is convinced that the Politeness Principle is not just another principle to be added to the CP, but is a necessary complement, which rescues the CP from serious trouble (Leech 1983 80). The Politeness Principle is expressed in Principles of Pragmatics as follows Minimize (other things being equal) the expression of impolite beliefs Maximzie (other things being equal) the expression of polite beliefs (Leech 1983 81). To the Politeness Principle are six maxims added which tend to go in pairs (Leech 1983 132). In the following these six maxims (cf. Leech 1983 132-36) will be listed and will be explained short below.2(1) The Tact Maxim Minimize cost to other maximize benefit to other.(2) The Generosity Maxim Minimize benefit to egotism Maximize cost to self.(3) The acclaim Maxim Minimize dispraise of other maximize praise of other.(4) The Modesty Maxim Minimize praise of self maximize dispraise of self.(5) The Agreement Maxim Minimize disagreement between self and other maximize agreement between self and other.(6) The Sympathy Maxim Minimize antipathy between self and other maximize sympathy between self and other.In accordance with Thomas the Tact Maxim (1) contains three different components (1995 160-f.). Firstly the size of imposition, secondly the mitigation of the effort of a request by offering optionality and finally the cost/benefit scale (cf. Thomas 1995160-f.). The size of imposition refers to the way of how a speaker can make use of minimizer in order to belittle the implied cost to the hearer as it is in the example Ive got a bit of hassle (Thomas 1995 161). By the second component Leech means that the speaker should always give options or at least giving the appearance of allowing options (Thomas 1995 161). As the brave out aspect is the cost/benefit scale, it implies the speaker is able to express an utterance politely without employing indirectness if it is to the hearers benefit as shown in the following example Have a chocolate (Thomas 1995 161). Instancing the Generosity Maxim (2) by the sentences You must come and have dinner with us and We must come and have dinner with you Leech (1983 133) states that the first is regarded as polite whereas the latter sentence is more impolite. To the Approbation Maxim (3) Leech predicates that the speaker should avoid saying unpleasant things about others (1983 135) and thus it would be considered as very impolite to remark What an awful meal you cooked whereas What a marvelous meal you cooked would be regarded as very polite manners (Leech 1983 135). alter extremely in its application from culture to culture one has to take into account that the Modesty Maxim (4) in Japan is more powerful than it is as a rule in English-speaking societies (Thomas 1995 163). For instance the reaction to a compliment differs as English would accept it pleasantly whereas Japanese would deny it in a modest way (cf. Leech 1983 137). Second last the Agreement Maxim (5) implies that it is natural to emphasize agreement directly whereas people tend to diminish disagreement by expressing regret (Leech 1983 138). With the Sympathy Maxim (6) Leech examines why congratulations and condolences are courteous speech acts, even though condolences express beliefs which are negative (138). As it was mentioned at the beginning of the chapter Leech takes the view that the Politeness Principle is supposed to collaborate with, and even rescue, the Cooperative P rinciple and its associated maxims (Mey 20781). If this supposition can vindicate will be shown in the conclusion chapter.3.2 The Q- and R- Principle by Laurence HornHorn rethinks Grices Cooperative Principle but nevertheless his model keeps relevance within the general framework of Gricean theory (Mey 2007 82). Horns Q- and R-Principle consists of two principles. Namely, the Q- Principle (Q for quantity), telling us to say as much as we can and the R-Principle (R for relation), which says that we should say no more than we must (Mey 2007 84). Additionally the Q-Principle is hearer-based and it compromises the first half of the Gricean maxim of Quantity (Mey 2007 84) whereas the speaker-based R-principle includes the second half of the quantity maxim plus the maxims of manner and relation (Mey 2007 84). Furthermore the Q- and R- principle is concerned with the problem that there exist two kinds of utterances. On the one hand there are utterances which have a clear and unambiguous essence (Mey 2007 83) whereas on the other hand there are utterances which need to be interpreted by the hearer. Taking the following sentence as an example for observing the R-principle I cut a experience yesterday (Mey 2007 83). Thus one can come to the conclusion that the finger is mine and not a finger of someone else. Contrary to this is the sentence Wilfred is meeting a woman tonight for dinner (Mey 2007 83). The previous phrase invoke the Q-Principle in order to establish the fact that it is not his wife or regular girlfriend hes seeing (Mey 2007 84). Basically as Grundy states Horn argues that Grices maxims can be subsumed within two principles (Grundy 2008 110) and deductive he tries to simplify Grices maxim by reducing them.3.3 Relevance Theory by Dan Sperber and Deirdre WilsonThe Relevance Theory by Dan Sperber and Deidre Wilson is considered to be a cognitive theory of human communication (Yus 2006 512) as well as a minimalist theory of communication (Mey 2007 85). Name ly their Relevance Theory is based exclusively on the Principle of Relevance (Mey 2007 85) which operates as follows (cf. Bublitz 2009 211)Every act of ostensive communication communicates a presumption of its own optimal relevance. (a) The set of assumptions I which the communicator intends to make manifest to the addressee is relevant enough to make it worth the addressees while to process the ostensive stimulus. (b) The ostensive stimulus is the most relevant one the communicator could have used to communicate I.Thus in order to communicate successfully relevance is obligatory (Mey 2007 85). The former term of Relevance is explicated by Sperber and Wilson as assumption is relevant in a context if and only if it has some contextual effect in that context (1995 122). As Relevance Theory was first published in 1986 there exist many updated versions of it. The following description of Relevance Theory refers to the one given by Bublitz (2009 211-f.). Contrary to Mey Bublitz depicts R elevance Theory as a new approach than rather as a shortened adaption to Grices Cooperative Principle (cf. Bublitz 2009 211). Furthermore the Relevance Theory operates on a cost-benefit-principle which implies that human beings are trying to achieve a great increase of knowledge by avoiding too big effort in interpreting their talk exchange partners utterance (cf. Bublitz 2009 211). Consequently it is important that there is a balance between the given information and act of interpreting it (cf. Bublitz 2009 211).4. Conclusion based on current research5. bibliographical ReferencesBublitz, Wolfram. 2009. Englische Pragmatik Eine Einfhrung. 2nd edition. Berlin Schmidt.Grice, Herbert P. 1975. Logic and Conversation. In Syntax and Semantics 3 Speech Acts, Peter Cole and Jerry L. Morgan (eds), 41-58. newborn York Academic Press.Grundy, Peter. 2008. Doing Pragmatics. 3rd edition. London Hodder Education.Herbst, Thomas. 2010. English Linguistics A Coursebook for Students of English. Berl in De Gruyter Mouton.Leech, Geoffrey. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London Longman.Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge CUP.Lindblom, Kenneth. 2006. Cooperative Principle Encyclopedia of Language Linguistics 2nd edition, 176-183. Amsterdam Elsevier.Lumsden, David. 2008. Kinds of Conversational Cooperation. Journal of Pragmatics 40 1896-1908. (Seiten stimmen nicht, authors manuscript, da nicht verfgbar)Mey, Jacbob L. 2007. Pragmatics An Introduction. 2nd edition. Oxford Blackwell.Pfister, Jonas. 2010. Is there a need for a maxim of politeness? Journal of Pragmatics 42 (Issue 5) 1266-1282.Sperber, Dan Deidre Wilson. 1995. Relevance Communication and Cognition. 2nd edition. Oxford Blackwell.Tannen, Deborah. 2011. Thats not what I meant How Conversational Style Makes or Breaks Relationships. New York Harper. Thomas, Jenny. 1995. Meaning in Interaction An Introduction to Pragmatics. London Longman.Yus, F. 2006. Relevance Theory. In Encyclopedia of Language Linguistics 2nd edition, 512-523. Amsterdam Elsevier.