PRAGMATICS: COOPERATIVE PRINCIPLES
- 2. COOPERATIVE PRINCIPLE The success of a conversation depends on the cooperation between interlocutors. Grice (1975) proposes the cooperative principle (CP) as a guidance between the speakers and listeners in conversational interactions. When people are able to fulfill the CP is called observance of maxim. Observance of maxim categorized into four maxims. 1. Maxim of Quantity Maxim of quantity emphasizes information. The information should be neither too little, nor too much. Grice (1975) explained that, the participants should make contribution as informative as possible to fulfill maxim quantity.
- 3. For example: A: Where is the train station? B: in the next to that hospital. In the example above, speaker B gives an informative answer. Speaker B answers the question as informative as possible by giving the location of the hospital. B‟s answer is as informative as required. 2. Maxim of Quality Maxim of quality can be defined be as truthful as required. Cutting (2002, p.35) states that maxim of quality regulates a speaker to be sincere, to be honest in saying something. They have to say something that they believe corresponds to reality. Some speakers like to draw their listener’s attention to the fact that they are only saying what they believe to be true, and that they lack adequate evidence.
- 4. For example: (Cutting, 2002, p.35) B says that “as far as I know” means that “B cannot be totally sure if that is true”, so if A rings up and finds B not there, B is protected from accusations of lying by the fact that B did make it clear that B was uncertain. Most listeners assume that speakers are not lying, and most speakers know that. A : I will ring you tomorrow afternoon then. B : Ermm, I shall be there as fast as I know, and in the meantime Have a word with Mum and Dad if they are free. Right, bye bye then sweetheart. A : Bye-bye
- 5. 3. Maxim of Relation Maxim of relation means that the utterance must be relevant to the topic being discussed. Grice in Yule (1996, p.37) states that to fulfill the maxim of relation, both speaker and listener of conversation should be relevant with the topic being talk. For example: John: How about your score, Jane? Jane: I got an A. Here, Jane’s utterance fulfills the maxim of relation because her answer is relevant to the topic being discussed.
- 6. 4. Maxim of Manner Maxim of manner obligates speaker’s utterance to be perspicuous which is not to be ambiguous, obscure, or disorderly. Levinson (1983, p.102) states that maxim of manner specifies what participants have to do in order to converse in a maximally efficient, rational, and cooperative way. They should also speak sincerely, relevantly, and clearly, while providing sufficient information. B’s answer is categorized as maxim of manner because he can answer the question from his partner about the drama orderly. A : what do you think about the drama? B : I really like the each player. They can play their role as good as possible.
- 7. In most circumstance, people are able to fulfill the CP. However, there are many occasions, when people fail to observe the maxims, for example, they are incapable of speaking clearly or because they deliberately choose to lie. The phenomenon when people seem do not fulfill the maxims in CP can be defined as non-observance of maxim. 1. Maxim Violation Cutting (2002, p.40) states that a speaker can be said to violate a maxim when he/she knows the listener does not know the truth and will only understand the surface meaning of the words, the speaker is not being sincere and giving the listener wrong information.
- 8. For example: Mother : Did you study all day long? Son : Yes, I’ve been studying until know. (In fact, the son is playing all day long) In order to avoid his mother’s anger, the son tells a lie. He intends to give insufficient information to the mother. He intends to say what is not true in the reality to save him from bad consequences of telling the truth. Here, the son has violated the maxim of quality by telling a lie or being dishonest
- 9. Maxim Infringement • Infringement occurs when a speaker does not know the culture or does not master the language well enough, as when he/she is incapable of speaking clearly. • Cutting (2002, p.41) states that a speaker deals with infringement is because of his/her imperfect linguistic performance. If his/her performance is impaired (nervousness, drunkenness, excitement), and he/she has cognitive impairment, or he/she are simply incapable of speaking clearly.
- 10. For example: (Someone learning English as a second language speaks to a native speaker). In the example above, he/she does not understand about the native speaker just said. In this case, the second speaker of the conversation can be said as non-cooperative and incapable to speak clearly. English Speaker : Which one do you choose, cheese or salad on your sandwich? Non-English Speaker : No.
- 11. Maxim Opt out Cutting (2002, p.41) states that a speaker who is opting out of maxim indicates an unwillingness to cooperate, although he/she does not want to appear uncooperative. People can opt out a maxim when he/she fails to observe a maxim because he/she refuses to cooperate with the maxim. For example: Presenter : So, when is the celebration day for your engagement with your boyfriend? Artist : I will tell the public soon but I cannot share it now.
- 12. Maxim Flouting • Cutting (2002, p.36) states that when a speaker appears not to follow the maxim but expect the listener to appreciate the meaning implied, in other words he/she commits maxim flouting. It takes place when people deliberately cease to apply the maxims to persuade their listener to infer the hidden meaning behind the utterances. • Maxim flouting occurs when a speaker fails to observe a maxim in order to lead a listener to look for a hidden or an implied meaning.
- 13. For example: John : Hey! How are you? Ross : Oh, hi. I’m married. (Ross shows John her ring) From the dialogue above, Ross’s response to John’s question appears by giving superfluous information to John’s question. She give addition information, which has no relation with the question. The reason for her utterance is that John knows that she ever loved him in the past and he rejected her. Therefore, she gives that information.
- 14. References and Recommended Reading • Cutting, J. (2002). Pragmatics and Discourse: a Resource Book for Students. New York: Routledge. • Fromkin, V., Rodman, R. & Hyams, N. (2007). An introduction to language (8th ed.). Boston: Thomson Wadsworth. • Grice. H. P. (1975). Logic and Conversation. In Cole, P& Morgan, J. (eds) Syntax and Semantics, Vol 3. New York: Academic Press. • Levinson, J. (1983). Pragmatics. New York: Cambridge University Press. • Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press. • Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles in Pragmatics. New York: Longman Group Ltd. • Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in Interaction: an Introduction to Pragmatics. New York: Routledge.