Grice’s Cooperative Principle, Maxims of Conversation
& Conversational Implicature
The Cooperative Principle
The Gricean cooperative principle refers to the concept of the philosopher Grice
about the cooperation between speakers in using the maxims. A basic underlying
assumption we make when we speak to one another is that we are trying to
cooperate with one another to construct meaningful conversations. This
assumption is known as the Cooperative Principle. As stated in H. P. Grice’s
“Logic and Conversation” (1975):
Make your conversational 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. i
In other words, we as speakers try to contribute meaningful, productive utterances
to further the conversation. It then follows that, as listeners, we assume that our
conversational partners are doing the same.
You can think of reasons why someone might be uncooperative in
conversation (maybe they’re being interrogated for information they don’t want to
give up; maybe they hate the person they’re talking to; maybe they’re just crazy)
but in the vast majority of conversations, it’s safe to assume that both participants
are trying to be cooperative.
This assumption (that the cooperative principle holds, and the people we’re
speaking to are trying to cooperate) explains two things:
(i) why speech errors are often ignored (or even go unnoticed) in
conversation. As long as the meaning the speaker is trying to get across is clear, the
listener usually gives them the benefit of the doubt and focuses on the meaning.
(ii) why we can find meaning in statements which, on the surface, seem
ridiculous, untrue or unrelated (i.e. metaphors, sarcasm, overstatement,
understatement, etc.) Rather than assuming that our conversational partner is lying,
crazy, or speaking at random, we assume they’re trying to get across some
meaning, and we can figure out what that meaning is.
1
The Maxims of Conversation
Grice came up with the following maxims of conversation. (A “maxim” is kind of
like a rule of thumb. But these rules aren’t nearly as hard and fast as the
Cooperative Principle, as we’ll see.)
Quantity
 Make your contribution as informative as required. (Don’t say too
much or too little.)
 Make the strongest statement you can.
Quality
 Do not say what you believe to be false.
 Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.
Relation
 Be relevant. (Stay on topic.)
Manner
 Avoid obscurity of expression.
 Avoid ambiguity.
 Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity).
 Be orderly.ii
The simplest way to think of Grice’s maxims is general rules we follow in
conversation. However, that’s not entirely accurate. The interesting thing about
these “rules” is that often, we don’t follow them.
Maxim Violations
There are several ways/reasons a speaker might break one of the rules:
1. Violating the Cooperative Principle. (See “Grice’s Cooperative
Principle.”) One instance in which a speaker might break the maxim of
quality is if they are really trying to deceive the listener; but this would also
be a violation of the cooperative principle. For the really interesting
violations
2. Signaling a violation (minor violation). A person might essentially come
out and tell you they are violating a maxim and why.
Examples.
“I don’t know if this is relevant, but...” (relation)
“I’m not sure how to say this, but...” (manner)
“I can’t tell you; I’m sworn to secrecy.” (quantity)
2
“This is just the word on the street; I can’t vouch for this information.” (quality)
3. Maxim clash. A speaker might violate one maxim in order to preserve
another.
Example.
Carson is driving John to Meredith’s house.
CARSON: Where does Meredith live?
JOHN: Nevada.
Maxim Violated: Quantity.
Why: There is clash between quantity and quality. Carson is looking for a street
address, but John gives a weaker, less informative statement (hence the quantity
violation). If John really doesn’t know anything more specific, however, he cannot
give a more informative statement without violating quality.
4. “Flouting” a maxim (major violation) to create a conversational
implicature. By clearly and obviously violating a maxim, you can imply
something beyond what you say.
Examples.
1. JOHN: Where’s Meredith?
ELIZABETH: The control room or the science lab.
Maxim Violated: Quantity; Elizabeth didn’t give as much information as John
wanted (Meredith’s exact location), but instead gave a weaker statement (giving
two possible options).
Implication: Elizabeth doesn’t know which of the two places Meredith is.
2. SIMON: When are you coming home?
ELIZABETH: I will codify that question to my superiors and respond at such a
time as an adequate answer is probable.
Maxim Violated: Manner; Elizabeth is using unnecessarily complicated and
confusing words and construction.
Implication: Elizabeth does not know or does not wish to give an answer to the
question.
3. MEREDITH: You really love me?
JOHN: I like Ferris wheels, and college football, and things that go real fast.
3
Maxim Violated: Relation; John is changing the topic.
Implication: Either John doesn’t want to respond to Meredith (perhaps he has
problems discussing his feelings) or the answer is “no.”
4. ELIZABETH: A lot of people are depending on you.
MEREDITH: Thanks, that really takes the pressure off.
Maxim Violated: Quality; knowing that “a lot of people are depending on you”
does not, in fact, take the pressure off. Meredith is saying something obviously
untrue.
Implication: By saying something clearly untrue, Meredith is implying that the
opposite is true (sarcasm). The true meaning being expressed here is probably
more like “That really puts a lot of pressure on me” and perhaps, by extension,
“Stop pressuring me.”
__________________________________________________________________
More on Conversational Implicature:
As you can see from the above examples, flouting maxims to create
implications can be a powerful and creative way to get across a point.
Why imply instead of just saying what we mean? Well, implication can get
across a great deal of meaning with relatively little actual speech. Thinking of what
you want to get across, and interpreting what other people have said, seems to take
much quicker than the relatively slow process of actually verbalizing all the
necessary sounds. So saying a little, while implying a lot, is a way to avoid this
“phonological bottleneck” and communicate more efficiently.iii
Of course, we’re not always saving time. Sometimes, maxim violations are
creative. After all, without this capacity to draw inferences and understand
implications—to assume that speakers are being cooperative even when they are
saying things which are on the surface untrue, irrelevant, ambiguous or unclear—
we couldn’t have neat stuff like sarcasm, metaphor, hyperbole, irony, etc.
Exercises
Each problem presents a short dialogue. You must identify which a maxim is being
used or violated. You may be asked to figure out the implication, or it may be
given to you.
4
1. LAURA: Come on, I’m taking you to the gym.
MEREDITH: Yeah, and pigs can fly.
What is Meredith implying?
What maxim creates that implication, and why?
2. CARSON: What happened?
MEREDITH: He got attacked by a giant bug, and he passed out.
Implication: He passed out because he was first attacked (in other words, the
order in which the events occurred is: (1) he got attacked; (2) he passed out.)
What maxim creates that implication, and why?
3. JOHN: We just have to fly real close to the corona of the sun!
MEREDITH: You’re lucky you’re pretty.
What is Meredith implying?
What maxim creates that implication, and why?
4. LAURA: Do you have any pets?
CARSON: I have two wee baby turtles.
Implication: Carson doesn’t have any other pets besides the two turtles.
What maxim creates that implication, and why?
5. MEREDITH: Tell them what happened!
JOHN: Meredith saw an object or entity strongly resembling a giant bug.
What is John implying?
What maxim creates that implication, and why?
5
Answers to Exercises
1. LAURA: Come on, I’m taking you to the gym.
MEREDITH: Yeah, and pigs can fly.
What is Meredith implying?
Meredith refuses to go to the gym with Laura.
What maxim creates that implication, and why?
Quality. Meredith is saying something which is clearly untrue. By combining the
“yes” response with a clearly untrue statement, Meredith is implying that the actual
response is “no.”
2. CARSON: What happened?
MEREDITH: He got attacked by a giant bug, and he passed out.
Implication: He passed out because he was first attacked (in other words, the
order in which the events occurred is: (1) he got attacked; (2) he passed out.)
What maxim creates that implication, and why?
Manner. According to the maxim of manner, you are supposed to say things in an
orderly way, so you should say events in the actual order in which they occurred.
When a person says “This happened and that happened,” you assume they mean
“this happened, and then that happened.”
3. JOHN: We just have to fly real close to the corona of the sun!
MEREDITH: You’re lucky you’re pretty.
What is Meredith implying?
John’s idea is stupid.
What maxim creates that implication, and why?
Relation. Meredith is going off topic, talking about John’s looks rather than his
idea.
4. LAURA: Do you have any pets?
CARSON: I have two wee baby turtles.
Implication: Carson doesn’t have any other pets besides the two turtles.
What maxim creates that implication, and why?
Quantity. According to maxim of quantity, you are supposed to say the strongest
statement you possible can. So we have to assume that’s what Carson is doing. If
he actually had, say, two turtles and a dog, he should have made the stronger
statement “I have two turtles and a dog” instead of the weaker (but still true)
statement “I have two turtles.”
5. MEREDITH: Tell them what happened!
6
JOHN: Meredith saw an object or entity strongly resembling a giant bug.
What is John implying?
Whatever Meredith saw, it wasn’t a giant bug.
What maxim creates that implication, and why?
Manner. John is using unusually vague and ambiguous language. By describing
what Meredith saw in an unusual way, he’s signaling that there’s something
unusual about it—it isn’t what it seemed to be.
Alternate explanation. John is signaling a minor violation of quality. He can’t just
say “Meredith saw a giant bug” since he isn’t sure if it’s true, so he avoids
violating quality by using words especially chosen to signal his uncertainty.
i
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and Conversation. In Martinich, A.P. (ed). Philosophy of Language.
(pp. 165-175) New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
ii
Adapted from above.
iii
Levinson, S. (2000) Presumptive Meanings: The theory of generalized conversational
implicature. MIT.
7
8