Grice, his critics, and pragmatics

1
Grice, his critics, and pragmatics

• Rong Chen
• California State University
• San Bernardino, USA

2
Pragmatics then

• Morris 1938 syntax, semantics, pragmatics
• Pragmatics anything else, things that do not
  fit into syntax or semantics

3
Pragmatics now

• Pragmatics has edged its way towards the center,
  embraced by at least some interested in
  syntaxe.g. functionalists, cognitivistsand many
  in semantics and language philosophy, and are
  still going strong, attracting more and more
  practitioners by the day.

4
Who is/are responsible?

• Oxonian run-of-the-mill-language philosophers
  Austin and students Searle and Grice.
• According to at least one scholar, Grice is the
  man Not only is Grices account highly
  illuminating, it is also, as far as I know, the
  only published attempt ever made by a philosopher
  or anyone else to say precisely and completely
  what it is for someone to mean something
  (Schiffer 1972 7).
• But that is also THEN, in 1972. How about NOW,
  in 2005?

5
The presence of Grice

• Cooperative Principle, maxims, implicature have
  become received terms one can use them without
  having to define them.
• (A biased and unscientific survey Cited in 221
  out of 300 articles and 78 out of 100 books on my
  shelf.)

6
So, we

• Look back at Grices critics in the past few
  decades
• Compare CP with Relevance Theory (henceforth RT).

7
Grice is, well, put simply, wrong.

• Are we as cooperative as Grice claims? (Gandy
  1989, Kasher 1976, Sampson 1976).
• Bargaining in a free market buyer wants to spend
  as little as possible, seller wants to get as
  much as possible. Goals are diametrically
  opposite.

8
A possible response

• They do talk to each other. Why?
• Even in a situation like this, there seems to
  exist a common goal that forces both parties to
  cooperate, that in order for each to get what
  she wants, a deal has to be made.

9
Another example

• Cross-examination in court, where the witness has
  no motivation to cooperate.
• But does she? Shes made to swear with her hands
  on the book. She would be punished by law if she
  doesnt.
• What does that suggest?

10
The world changes but the maxims are fixed
(Sampson 1976).

• But the maxims seemed to have held up through the
  ages (Schroeder, in preparation).
• In the Chinese context chit-chat on a train. 30
  years ago vs. now.
• The specific requirement may change, the maxims
  seem to remain.

11
How do we know speakers detect violation?

• Native speakers failure to understand the
  intention or read an implicature when it is not
  there.
• Second or foreign language learners

12
Heard in an auto mechanics shop

• C So, what do you think should be done?
• M I would have it fixed right away. Its not
• something you want to wait.
• C Please dont do it. I have to arrange my
• finances first.

13
Universality of maxims (Keenan 1974)

• Members of Malagasy society regularly provide
  less information than is required
• A Where is your mother?
• B Shes either in the house or at the market.
  
• It has been disputed by many (Green 1989 Brown
  Levinson 1987 Chen 1990, 1993), and Keenan may
  have admitted her own misunderstanding of Grice
  (Brown and Levinson 1987). But she still gets
  cited, until this day (Mooney 2004903)

14
Old ideas in new package?

• The Gricean maxims are Nothing less than the
  rules of classical rhetoric adapted to the modern
  position of speech (Morpugo-Tagliabue 1981).
• Definition of a good communicator. (Wilson and
  Sperper 1979, quoted in Kaufer 1981).

15
Replacing Grice

• Kempson 1975, but see Kiefer 1979
• Lakoff 1977. but see Lakoff 1987
• Gazdar 1977, but see Kiefer 1979
• Maxims of Communication (Leudar and Browning
  1988)

16
Patching Grice

• Incorporation of Mutual knowledge (Chen 1990,
  1993).
• Maxims of joking (Grices maxims contextualized
  for the joke genre (Attardo 1990).
• Incorporation of Levinsons activity types
  (Mooney 2004).

17
We now compare CP with RT

• Without a doubt, Sperber and Wilsons RT has
  proven to be the most serious competitor to
  Grices CP.
• We will compare the two in terms of theoretical
  assumptions, basic claims, as well as how well
  each handles a particular type of communication.

18
Sperber and Wilsons RT

• Optimal relevance something being said in such a
  way that it costs the least effort to process and
  produces the most effect.
• In ostensive communication, speakers try to be
  optimally relevant.
• When something is said in such a way that it
  costs more than the least effort for
  processing, the hearer looks around for
  interpretations that justify the additional
  effort, which is often what is not said but can
  be arrived at by considering contextual factors.

19
A crude and possibly unjust comparison
CP RT
Assumption Cooperation Optimal relevance
Beyond the baseline Violation of maxims More than the least effort
That extra meaning Implicature Cognitive effect implicature
20
An example
A How do you like my new suit?
B1 It looks silly.
21
What would each say?

• RT B1 requires little (least?) effort and
  produces enough contextual effect for the hearer.

• CP B1 observes all maxims.

22
What if B says something different?
A How do you like my new suit?
B2 I really appreciate your tailors sense of
humor.
23
A. What do you think of my new suit? B2. I
really appreciate your tailors sense of humor.

• 1. Bs utterance requires more than the least
  effort (TRIGGER).
• 2. Assuming that B strives for optimal relevance,
  he must have intended additional contextual
  effect (ASSUMPTION).
• 3. Based on other contextual factors, he must
  mean that As suit is funny, that he doesnt
  think highly of it (ARRIVING AT CONTEXTUAL
  EFFECT, IMPLICTURE).

1. B1 violates the Maxim of Relation (TRIGGER) 2.
Assuming that B has no reason to cooperate, he
must have meant something else
(ASSUMPTION) 3. Based on what he says as well as
the context, he must mean that As suit looks
funny and that he doesnt think highly of it.
(ARRIVING AT IMPLICUTURE).
24
RT and CP similar or different?

• SIMILARITY
• Three major steps
• Trigger
• Using assumption
• Getting implicature

• DIFFERENCE
• In terms of details
• In terms of terminology

25
A. What do you think of my new suit?B1. It
looks silly. B2. I really appreciate your
tailors sense of humor.

• RT B1 and B2 are both relevant.
• B1 is relevant by costing the least effort.
• B2 is relevant by producing more effect that
  justifies the additional effort needed to
  process.
• Does the theory tell us which is more relevant?
  If they are equally relevant, arent we missing
  something here?

• CP B1 and B2 are both cooperative utterances but
  differing in important ways
• B1 cooperates by following the maxims.
• B2 cooperates by breaching at least one of
• them.

26
Irony
What lovely weather were having
27
Its pouring.A. What lovely weather were
having!

• As ironic utterance is echoic (echoing, for
  instance, a weather forecaster.)
• The process of understanding is no different from
  that of a non-ironic utterance.
• The hearer does not have to reject the literal
  meaning of the utterance the speaker does not
  mean the opposite of what is said. She means
  precisely what is said.

• A violation of Quality (Grice) for the purpose
  of
• expressiveness and possibly of politeness
• (Chen 1992).
• The hearer realizes the violation, rejects the
• literal meaning as being incongruent with
• context, and arrives at the intended meaning
• via implicature.

28
The key does the literal meaning have to be
rejected?
Maybe yes
Evidence?
Just click!
29

• Speakers DO miss ironytry Swifts A Modest
  Proposal in an American college freshman class
  and see what happens.
• 2. Lets go back to our examples.

30
Responding to irony
B1 Yes. Its awful.
A What lovely weather were having!
B2 It is, isnt it?
31
A. What lovely weather were having.B1. Yes.
Its awfulB2. It is, isnt it?

• RT would predicts that B2 is acceptable, as
  it doesnt recognize the semantic incongruity of
  an ironic utterance and does not admit that the
  hearer has to reject the literal meaning of the
  utterance (because theres no falsehood intended
  or recovered.)

• CP Allows for an explanation of the
  unacceptability of B2.
• It recognizes the two layers of meaning what is
  said and what is meant.
• Since the speaker means the opposite of what is
  said, she is cooperating by uttering a false
  statement.
• The hearer has therefore to do the same to
  cooperate by saying what she doesnt literary
  mean.

32
The power of irony
By saying the opposite of what I mean, I dictates
the mode of communication. Sorry, you have no
choice.
33
How about un-cooperation?

• A How do you explain the failed attempt to
• find any WMDs in Irag?
• B1 No comments.
• B2. My lips are sealed today.
• B3. walks away

34
Uncooperation cont.

• RT The speaker is either unwilling or unable to
  provide information (Sperber and Wilson 2004). Is
  it considered relevant, though?

CP if speakers assume cooperation under
normal circumstances, then when they
confronts a case of uncooperation, they
are encouraged to seek reasons for it.
Opting out of cooperation leads to
implicature about the speakers beliefs,
positions on an issue, or other things.
35
How about mis-communication?
Have you sent out the letter I asked you to this
morning?
No. I didnt mean that. I need to make a few
changes before it goes out.
Ill do it right now, Sir.
36
A. Have you sent out the letter I gave you this
morning?B. Ill do it right now, Sir.A. I
didnt mean that. I need to make a few changes.

• CP As question can be interpreted as both a
  question (observing the maxim of relation) and a
  request (violating Rela-tion). Since the theory
  allows two layers of meaning, it seems to
  accounts for such cases readily miscommunication
  such as this occurs when the speaker and hearer
  do not act on the same layer of meaning.

• RT B derives a contex-tual effect different from
  the one intended by A. What would the theory say
  about this discrepancy, since apparently both A
  and B have good reasons to say what they say?
  Both are relevant?

37
A summery of sorts

• RT has derived from CP
• RT is the only serious challenge/ alternative to
  CP
• Not clear if RT is indeed a more superior theory.

38
Grices reluctance to write leaves us wondering

• 1. Cooperation why are we under so much
• pressure to cooperate?
• 2. The power of the theory we derive
• meaning and intention even if we opt out
• of cooperation altogether.
• 3. Maxims how did he get them? Why
• four? Why these four?

39
Final musing

• Public discourse, legal issues, commerce, and
  other arenas of social life we argue about truth
  and falsity, about how much is enough
  information, about if something is relevant,
  about how to say things in ways that are clear.
• It seems that the four maxims have captured so
  much of our life, both linguistic and otherwise.

40
On will live Grice.
Attardo, S. 1990. The violation of Grices maxims
in Jokes. In Hall, K. and J. P. Koenig eds.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Meeting of the
Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley Berkeley
Linguistics Society pp 355-362. Chen, Rong.
1985. Grices conversational implicature. Foreign
Languages 3.3763-67. (In Chinese) Chen, Rong.
1990. Verbal irony as conversational implicature.
Ph.D. Dissertation, Ball State Univerity. Chen,
Rong. 1993.Conversational implicature and poetic
metaphor. Language and Literature (Trinity
University, Texas) 53-47. Gazdar, G. 1977.
Implicature, presupposition, and logic form.
Indiana Linguistics Club. Grandy, R. 1989. On
Grice on language. The Journal of Philosophy
86.10514-525. Grice, Paul H., 1975. Logic and
conversation. In Cole, P. and J. Morgan eds.,
Syntax and Semantics 3 Speech acts, 41-58. New
York Academic Press. Kasher, A. 1976.
Conversational maxims and rationality. In Kasher,
A. ed. Language in Focus, pp. 197-216. Dordrecht
Reidel. Kaufer, D. Understanding ironic
communication. Journal of Pragmatics
5495-510. Keenan, E. 1974. In R. Fasold and R.
Shuy eds. Studies in Language Variation,
255-265, Washington, DC. Georgetown UP. Kiefer,
F. 1979. What do conversational maxims explain?
Lingvistae Investigationes III.157-74. Kempson,
R. 1975. Presupposition and the delimitation of
semantics. Cambridge Cambridge University
Press. Lakoff, G. 1977. Pragmatics in natural
logic. In Rogers A, B. Wall, and J. P. Murphy,
eds. Proceedings of the Texas Conference on
Performatives, Presuppositions, and
Implicatures. Center for Applied Lingustics.
Lakoff, G. 1987. Wowen, Fire, and Dangerous
Things. Chicago The Chicago University
Press. Leudar, Ivan and P. Browning. 1988.
Meaning, maxims of communication and language
games. Language and Communication
8.11-16. Morris, C. 1938. Foundations of the
theory of signs. The Hague Mouton
(1971). Mooney, A. 2004. Co-operation,
violation, and making sense. Journal of
Pragmatics 36 899-920. Morpurgo-Tagliabue, G.
1981. Grammar, logic, and rhetoric in a pragmatic
perspective. In Parret, Spisa M., and
Verschueren, J. eds. Possibilities and
limitations of pragmatics Proceedings of the
International Conference on Pragmatics at
Urbino, July 8-14, 1979. Amsterdam John
Benjamins, PP 493-508. Sampson, G. 1982. The
economics of conversation Comments on Joshis
paper. In N. Smith ed. Mutual Knowledge. New
York Academic Press, 200-210. Schiffer, S.
1972. Meaning. Oxford Clarendon
Press. Schroeder, Peter. 1983. Hidden depth
Dialogue and characterization in Chaucer and
Malory. PMLA, May 1983347-387. Schroeder, Peter.
In preparation. Words, words, words Speech and
suggestion in Early English Literature. Wilson,
D. and D. Sperber. 1979. On Grices theory of
conversation. Unpublished manuscript. Department
of Linguistics, University of London. Wilson,
D. and D. Sperber. 2004. Relevance theory. In G.
Ward and L. Horn eds. Handbook of Pragmatics,
607-632. Oxford Blackwell.
Rong Chen rchen_at_csusb.edu [phone]