CC BY
18THEORETICAL BACKGROUND OF CO-OPERATIVE PRINCIPLES AND CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURE
A.E. .Nosirova1
The philosopher H.Paul Grice introduced and phrased 'cooperative principle' in his pragmatic theory. The cooperative principle describes how people achieve effective verbal communication in common social situations -how addresser and addressee act and mutually accept one another. In order to underlie a successful communication in normal circumstances there are particular rules we encounter while speaking and interpreting utterance. That being the case, CP studies how people normally behave in conversation.
Key words: conventional implicature, conversational implicature, scalar implicature, triggering words, quality, quantity, manner, relevance, maxims.
Implicature and its main types. In the process of communication, the addresser expresses more than the words in the utterance. He expresses additional information by means of implicature. The word 'implicature' is originated from 'to imply' (to fold something into something else) which implies 'folded in' and has to be 'unfolded' in order to be understood. A conversational implicature is something which is left implicit in actual language use (Mey 2001:45).
For example: A: Are you going to Jane's birthday party today?
B: My parents are visiting me this evening.
Speaker B says that he is not going to the party, but the sentence My parents are visiting me doesn't say it. B only says that his parents are visiting him. In this case, the correct answer should be: No, I am not, of course, but it is impoliteness to answer directly like that.
The term 'implicature' was first introduced by the Anglo-American language philosopher Paul Grice in 1989 in his seminal article 'Logic and Conversation'. According to Grice, 'what is said' and 'what is implicated' are part of speaker meaning. 'What is said' can be studied in semantics, but to analyze 'what is implicated in the utterance' belongs to pragmatics.
There are two types of implicature:
> Conventional implicature
> Conversational implicature.
Conventional implicature is a type of implicature that has a stable association with a particular linguistic expression [Cruse 2006]. Conventional implicature is 'determined by the meaning of the sentence used' [Grice 1975:25]. Conventional implicatures are 'triggers' and they are irrespective of the context they are used. But, even, yet, still, too, already, again, stop, start, know, regret are 'triggering' words of the conventional implicature.
Example: It is an old car, but it is reliable.
In this expression but implies a connection between two propositions conveying contrast.
Example 2. Even John came.
Even means in addition, as well, too. The interpretation of the particle even is that 'John's coming was the least expected.'
Conversational implicature is 'determined by the meaning of the sentence used' [Grice 1975:25]. 'Conversational implicature' concerns the way we understand an utterance in conversation in accordance with what we expect to hear [Mey 2001: 46]. In this type of implicature contextual information is crucial and must be inferred. Concern:
C: What time is it?
1Nosirova Arofat Erkinovna - Teacher of the chair World languages and literature, Uzbekistan State Institute of Arts and Culture.
D: The bus just went by.
In order to understand what the addresser mean; an addressee has to interpret what they say. According to the situation, D's answer is a good sense to answer. But sometimes the answer may be tricky one or misunderstandings may also occur.
E: When is aunt Rosie's birthday:
F: Someday in April.
We may suspect that F doesn't want to answer the question, or interpret that answer that her birthday may be at the beginning of the April or at the end of April, or sometime in the middle of April. The hear can guess that the speaker only remembers the month of her birthday. All these answers logically mean 'Sometime in April'.
Conversational implicature are divided into two types in accordance to Grice: generalized conversational implicature (GCI) and particularized conversational implicature (PCI).
Generalized conversational implicatures do not require special context. For instance: Peter is meeting a woman this evening. From the indefinite article we can interpret that a woman is not Peter's wife or close relative.
When no special knowledge is required to calculate the additional conveyed meaning, it is called a generalized conversational implicature.
GCIs are also called scalar implicatures. Scale is a word which means a quantity from the highest to the lowest: all, most, many, some, few; always, often, sometimes.
The essence of scalar implicature is that, when any form in a scale i8s asserted, the negative of all forms higher on the scale is implicated (G.Yule, 1996: Pp 41). It means that, the most informative and truthful (quantity and quality) scales are selected in producing an utterance by the speaker. Example:
A: Did all the students attend the conference?
B: Some didn't.
Some means 'a number of entities' is an implicature in this utterance which means (not all).
Particularized conversational implicatures arise when an addresser makes special contextual utterances. In contrast to GCIs, PCIs require a particular context (special knowledge of any particular knowledge):
A: Hey, are you going shopping?
B: I have to go to University.
G. Grice connected conversational implicatures with communicative postulates (maxims) of quality, quantity, relevance and manner. In short, these maxims are interpreted as:
Quality: to give true information when communicating;
Quantity: to give appropriate amount of information;
Manner: utterances should be clear, brief, orderly and not obscure;
Relevance: speak to the point.
Let us discuss these postulates and implicatures arisen from them briefly, as broad information about maxims due be quoted in the Cooperative principles.
Our speech should be clear and not obscure in accordance of maxims of manner. The violation of this maxim leads to implicature. For instance: -I was bitten by something in the Zoo. -Was it an insect?
'Something' creates an ambiguity in this sentence. The implicature of this speech act is easily noticeable- it can be a shoe, tiger, an insect, but not human being. 'Something' is a small thing rather than a big one in the utterance, as small things are not so visible. That's why, it may be an insect, and the addressee guessed it.
1.4.2 Conversational maxims
The cooperative principle encounters four types of maxims which are called the Gricean maxims. These maxims clarify how the cooperative principle is implemented in the plans of a speaker and understanding of a hearer.
Maxim of quantity
1. Make your contribution as informative as is required (for the current purposes of the exchange).
2. Do not make your contribution more informative than is required (avoid redundancy).
Example (1) A: Where does C live?
B: Somewhere in the South of France.
Grice illustrates this type of example where B's reply here seems to violate the maxim of quantity because it is not as informative as would be appropriate in this context. The intended implicature is, 'I do not know exactly where C lives.'
Maxim of quality
Try to make your contribution one that is true.
1.Do not say what you believe to be false.
2.Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.
For instance: A: Where does C live?
B: Somewhere in the South of France.
Grice's this example also illustrates the violation of maxim of quality. A is expected to be able to infer that B cannot be more informative without violating the maxim of quality (second sub-maxim) by saying something for which he lacks adequate evidence.
Maxim of relation (relevance)
Be relevant.
Example (2) A: Muzaffar doesn't seem to have a girlfriend these days.
B (1): He has been paying a lot of visits to Andijan these days.
B: Maybe he has a girlfriend in Andijan.
In this example, the maxim of relevance is violated (1), but it triggers an implicature that is relevant (2).
(2) Arthur: Can you tell me where the post office is?
Bill: I'm a stranger here myself.
Bill's statement I am a stranger here myself was an apparent violation of the maxim of relevance in this context.
Maxim of manner
(Supermaxim) Be perspicuous (clear) (Submaxim)
1.Avoid obscurity of expression.
2.Avoid ambiguity
3.Be brief (avoid prolixity)
4.Be orderly.
For example: Review of a vocal recital:
(3) 'Miss Xproduced a series of sounds that corresponded closely with the score of Home sweet home.'
The review in (3) flouts the maxim of manner, since there would have been a shorter and clearer way of describing the event, namely "Miss X sang Home sweet home."
1.4.3 Violation of maxims
Violation, as indicated by Grice (1975), happens when speakers purposefully refrain to apply certain maxims in their discussion to cause misunderstanding on their participant's part to accomplish some other purposes. The violation of the maxim doesn't mean that the speaker doesn't cooperate, he does but indirectly. The following are examples of above-mentioned maxims:
Mother: Did you tidy the rooms all day long?
Daughter: Who has been watching TV all day long. Yes, I have been tidying till now.
In this exchange, daughter is not truthful and she is violating the maxim of quality. She lies mother in order to avoid punishment or other unpleasant consequences.
Arnold: Where have you been? I searched everywhere for you during the past two months!
Jim: I wasn't around. What's the big deal?
Arnold poses a question in order to receive an answer from Jim. Jim's answer doesn't lack the truth; however, it is still insufficient. This can be due to that; Jim avoids to provide Arnold with the answer. This exchange sets example of violation of manner.
Teacher: Why didn't you do your homework?
Student: Teacher, your phone is ringing!
In the above example, student avoids to answer the teacher's question, this may be because he is trying to evade the interrogation posed by the teacher. Maxim of relevance is violated in this passage.
In some cases, we may come across a multiple violation. It occurs when a speaker violates more than one maxim simultaneously.
Sarah: Did you enjoy the party last night?
Anna: there was plenty of oriental food on the table, lots of flowers all over the place, people were dancing and chatting with each other.
Anna is not only ambiguous (violating the maxim of manner), but also verbose (violating the maxim of quantity) at the same time.
1.4.5 Flouting the maxims
Unlike the violation of maxims, which happens to cause misconception with respect to the hearer, the flouting of maxims happens when people intentionally stop to apply the maxims to convince their listeners to reveal the hidden meaning behind the expressions; that is, the speakers utilize implicature (S. C.
Levinson, 1983). On account of flouting (exploitation) of cooperative maxims, the speaker wants the most prominent comprehension in his/her recipient since it is normal that the questioner can disclose the hidden meaning behind the utterances. Individuals may flout the maxim of quality in order to convey implicitly a sarcastic or ironical tone in what they state.
Grice uses the term flouting instead of violating when the speaker expresses possible forms of implicature: irony, metaphor, meiosis (understatement), hyperbola, social censure, deliberate ambiguity, and deliberate obscurity (indefiniteness) (for example if one is trying to keep a secret from the children). In all of these cases maxims are broken and it results in specific information conveyed to the recipient of the utterance.
For example: Teacher to student who is chatting on telegram during the class: T: Wow! You are so attentive and active at the lesson today. S: Sorry, teacher. It won't happen again. (Irony)
It is noticeable from what the teacher says that he is teasing the student who is chatting on social media and ignoring the class. The teacher's purpose here is by no means praise and to force the student to concentrate on the class in a sarcastic way. He exploits the maxim of quality in this utterance (being truthful) to be sarcastic. Likewise, the student seems to notice the hidden meaning of the teacher's compliment and apologizes him in return.
References:
1. Akkuzova A., Mankeyeva Z. (2018) Some features of the meaning" literary text" in the
pragmalinguistic aspect. Opción, vol. 34, no. 85-2.
2. Austin J.L. (1962) How to Do Things with Words, -Oxford: Oxford University Press.
3. Ashurova D.U. & Galiyeva M.R. (2016). Text Linguistics. -Tashkent: "Turon-Iqbol".
4. Ashurova D.U. & Galiyeva M.R. (2016) Stylistics of Literary Text. -Tashkent: "Turon-
Iqbol".
5. Baldinger K. (1980) "Semantic theory". -Oxford: Blackwell.
6. Black E. (2006) Pragmatic Stylistics. -Edinburg: Edinburg University Press.
7. Brown G. & Yule G. (1983) Discourse Analysis. -Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
8. Brown R. and Levinson S. (1978) Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use. -Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University press.
9. Carston R. (2010) Metaphor: ad hoc concepts, literal meaning and mental images. Pro-
ceedings of the Aristotelian Society 110 (3). 297-323.
10. Clark H. and R.J. Gerrig. "On the Pretense Theory of Irony." Journal of Experimental
Psychology 113.1 (1984): 121-26.
11. Dynel M. (2013, January) Irony from a neo-Gricean perspective: On untruthfulness and
evaluative implicature. Intercultural Pragmatics, 10 403-431. DIO: 10.1515/Ip-2013-
0018.
12. Yule G. (1996). Pragmatics. -Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp 41.
© A.E. .Nosirova, 2023.
