#gricean maxims

[broganwen]

I always wondered why I’m so hyperfixated on Grice’s maxims… and then I realised it’s because it’s an insight into neurotypical conversation.

Grice’s maxims are meant to be followed if you’re being cooperative.

There are 4 maxims

Quality (you say statements with certainty that matches the evidence)

Quantity (You say no more or less than you need to)

Relevance (Your communication is relevant to prior communication)

Manner (communication is as unambiguous and clear as possible)

But people break these all the time.

Person A: Did you feed the tarantula last night?

Person B: I only got back this morning.

Breaks relevance. Implies the answer is ‘No’ but might not be: ‘I only got back this morning, but I fed him before I left last night’ also makes sense as a reply.

Person B: She has a tarantula!

Person A: And you’ve met him?

Person B: No, she told me about him.

Breaks quality, person A assumes person B’s confidence is from experience not word of mouth.

Person B: What species of tarantula is that?

Person A: One from South America.

Breaks quantity (not enough information to answer the question). Implies that Person A is observing Quality and doesn’t know, but not necessarily since ‘One from South America, but can you figure out which?’ Could work as a reply too. Especially in an educational environment.

Person A: There was a locust for every tarantula.

Person B: One locust each or one locust shared between them?

Breaks manner. Sentence is ambiguous. Implies that the English language is confusing.

[omegaphilosophia]

The Philosophy of Pragmatics

The philosophy of pragmatics is a branch of philosophy that focuses on the study of language use in context, particularly the ways in which speakers use language to communicate effectively and achieve their communicative goals. Pragmatics is concerned with how meaning is inferred from context, how speakers convey and interpret meaning beyond the literal content of their words, and how language is used to perform actions and achieve social purposes.

Key aspects of the philosophy of pragmatics include:

Speech Acts: Pragmatics examines the performative aspect of language, studying how utterances are used to perform actions and bring about changes in the world. Speech act theory, developed by philosophers such as J.L. Austin and John Searle, investigates the illocutionary force of utterances (what speakers do in uttering sentences) and the perlocutionary effects of utterances (the effects they have on hearers).

Implicature and Inference: Pragmatics explores implicature, which refers to the meaning that is conveyed indirectly or implied by an utterance beyond its literal meaning. Philosophers analyze how hearers infer implicatures based on conversational context, background knowledge, and pragmatic principles. Gricean maxims, formulated by philosopher H.P. Grice, outline principles of conversation that guide speakers and hearers in cooperative communication.

Presupposition: Pragmatics investigates presupposition, which refers to the assumptions that speakers make about what their interlocutors already know or accept as true. Philosophers examine how presuppositions are conveyed linguistically and how they affect the interpretation of utterances.

Context and Contextual Meaning: Pragmatics considers the role of context in shaping meaning and interpretation. Philosophers analyze how linguistic meaning is enriched or modified by contextual factors such as situational context, linguistic context, and social context.

Reference and Anaphora: Pragmatics explores issues related to reference and anaphora, studying how speakers refer to entities in the world and how they establish coherence and cohesion in discourse through pronouns, demonstratives, and other referring expressions.

Politeness and Face: Pragmatics examines politeness and face-saving strategies in communication, investigating how speakers manage interpersonal relationships and social status through language use.

Overall, the philosophy of pragmatics offers insights into the dynamic and interactive nature of language use, shedding light on how speakers navigate the complexities of communication to convey meaning effectively and achieve their communicative goals.

[stephen9260]

True love is finding someone to violate the gricean maxim of quantity with

[allthingslinguistic]

Pragmatics: Crash Course Linguistics #6

We don’t always say exactly what we mean, and yet we’re still pretty good at understanding each other. That’s because we don’t just use meaning to figure out what’s going on, we also use context. This episode of Crash Course Linguistics is all about pragmatics, the area of linguistics that deals with context. We’ll cover the four main assumptions we make about context in language, also known as Grice’s Maxims, as well as the ways that languages can use grammar to convey politeness, and the different types of conversational styles within and between languages.

For more on pragmatics, including exercises on Gricean Maxims with answer key, check out this week’s issue of Mutual Intelligibility. 

[nofatclips]

The Hidden Rules of Conversation

[linguist-breakaribecca]

I cannot dispute this, and it’s always an octave or two above the usual speaking tone.

Ope, sorry!

ᴼᴴ ᴺᴼ ᵞᴼᵁ'ᴿᴱ ᶠᴵᴺᴱ

[lingthusiasm]

Gretchen: Let’s talk about linguistic cooperation. Lauren: Okay, we’ll do it cooperatively as well! Gretchen: Cooperatively, yes! So, when linguists talk about cooperation, there’s a kind of very specific type of cooperative meaning that exists in linguistics. So, let’s do a model dialogue. Lauren, if I were to say to you, “Would you like some coffee?” Lauren: I would say, “Coffee would keep me awake.” Gretchen: And this could mean, depending on my knowledge of Lauren’s time zone and her current desires and so on, that she might want coffee or she might not want coffee. Lauren: So if it’s in the morning and I desperately need to be alert for the start of the day, it would be really great that coffee keeps me awake. But if it’s 11 p.m. at night, and I am known to not stay awake very late, probably would mean that I don’t want coffee. And even though there’s nothing in the linguistic content there to indicate clearly whether they desperately want coffee or do not want any caffeine right now, but we can tell from interaction, we can tell from the context and the person that we’re speaking to, whether that means a definitive yes or a definitive no, because we’re doing something more complicated with understanding what’s happening in that conversation than just looking at the words. Gretchen: And it’s often used to be politer, so rather than saying, “You want coffee?” “Yep!”, you might say, “Do you want coffee?” “Oh, coffee would keep me awake! That would be a great favour that you could do for me!” Or, “Ehn, coffee would keep me awake…” rather than saying “No,” which might be kind of blunt or rude.

From Episode 11 of Lingthusiasm: Layers of meaning - Cooperation, humour, and Gricean Maxims. Listen to the full episode, read the transcript, or check out the shownotes for further reading. 

[afterperfect]

I’m collecting examples of flouts and violations of conversational maxims, for in-class and quiz purposes, and the single best source (most bountiful and most amusing) is classic British comedy.