Äóëàòîâà Ñ. Á.,Òàäæèáàåâà À.À.
Ðåãèîíàëüíûé
ñîöèàëüíî – èííîâàöèîííûé óíèâåðñèòåò
The theory of communicative maxims by Grice in the
theory of politeness
Grice's work on the nature of meaning has
influenced the philosophical study of semantics. His theory of implicature is
among the most important and influential contributions to contemporary
pragmatics. Grice`s Maxims can be understood as pieces of advice for
participants in order to hold a cooperative communication:
v Maxims of quantity:
Ø Be brief
, give as much information as needed. Do not give more information than
required
v Maxims of quality
Ø Avoid stating false information.
Ø Avoid saying something for which you lack
adequate evidence.
v Maxims of Relation
Ø Be relevant. In other words, speak related
information only
v
Maxims of Manner
Ø Be perspicuous.
Ø Avoid obscurity of expression.
Ø Avoid ambiguity.
Ø Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity).
Ø Be orderly.
In brief,
these maxims are aimed in order to make communication maximally efficient.
However, G.
Leech claims that linguistic behavior exemplified by Grice`s Communication
Principle (CP) and maxims differs from the kind of rule normally formulated in
linguistics.
a) Principle and maxims apply variably to
different contexts of language use
b) Principle and maxims apply variably in
variable degrees, rather than in an all-or-nothing way
c) Principle and maxims can conflict with one
another
d) Principle and maxims can be contravened
without abnegation of the kind of activity which they control. However, there are some cases that maxims have to be violated.
Violation of the maxims of
quantity:
This Maxim demands the speakers` contribution informative as it is required
and no more informative as required. Below are the examples of an utterance
that obeys the maxim of quantity and one that violates the maxim! Example of
obeying:
A: Where are you going?
B: I am going to the post office
In the example B gives comment to A`s statement without adding other
information. Example of violation: A: Are you going to work tomorrow?
B: I am on jury duty, but I’ll have to go
to the doctor in the evening. I have asked the manager for permission
In this example, B`s reply violates maxim of quantity because B does not
give information as required by A, i.e, yes
or no. Instead B gives more
information which is not required or expected at all
Violations of Maxims of
quality:
Example of obeying: A:Why did you come late last night?
B: The car was broke down
Examples of violation: A: Kiev is in Russia, isn’t it ,teacher?
B: And London is in America
In the example B suggests that A is
incorrect and B violates the maxim of quality.
Violations of Maxims of relevance:
Example of obeying the maxim: A:Where is my box of chocolates?
B: It is in your room
In the example,
B`s reply relates to the question, not talking about something else.
Violations of Maxims of manner:
Example of obeying: A: Where was Alfred yesterday?
B: Alfred went to the store and
bought some whiskey
Example of violation of the maxim:A: Why
was he arrested?
B: He stole the money form the bank
In this example, B`s statement is ambiguous. I t can be interpreted that B
didn’t steal the money which is stored in the bank. He had gone to the bank
first and he stole the money in another place. Another interpretation is that
he stole the money stored in the bank. He got money by robbing it (Communication theory, April 21,2012)
Instances in which a maxim is violated but its
violation is explained by a clash with another maxim
· A: Where does Jacqueline live?
· B: Somewhere in
the south of France.
Speaker B by uttering “Somewhere in the south of France,” is suggesting
that he does not know where Jacqueline lives. Speaker B infringes the maxim of
quantity by being less informative because he is aware that to be more
informative would mean violating another maxim that of quality “Don’t say what
you lacked evidence for.”
In summary, it can
be understood that what a speaker intends to communicate is characteristically far wider than
what he/she directly expresses; linguistic meaning radically accounts for the
meaning with less than the amount of evidence needed for proof or certainty the
message conveyed and understood. That is now clear why Linguopragmatics and
problems around it have become an integral part in linguistic research.
The list of used literature:
1. Grice 1975 – Grice
P. Logic and
Conversation // P. Cole, J. Morgan (eds.) Syntax and Semantics, V. 3: Speech
Acts. N. Y.: Academic Press, 1975. P. 41–58.
2. Communication Theory. April 21,2012