top of page

Lesson 2: Conversation Maxims

Definition:

Generally speaking, there are four basic guidelines for interpersonal communication in conversation. These guidelines are not prescriptive, but observational, meaning one does not have to follow them.

Key Concepts

  • Cooperation Principle

  • Conversation Maxims

    • Quantity

    • Quality​

    • Relevance

    • Manner

  • Ignoring Maxims

prag 3.png

Activity 1

Group Puzzle

  1. Form groups of four. Divide the four maxims among you, so that everyone reads through one. Make sure you understand your own maxim. You all should read the short introduction before the maxims. 

  2. Exchange ideas in your own words, so you know and understand all four maxims at the end .

    If you encounter any problems with this, answer the following questions and use them as a guideline:

  • What information should a statement contain and why?

  • What does it mean to make a true contribution to the conversation?

  • Which maxim could the following example represent? Justify your solution.

A: Did you bring sandwiches?

B: I packed some money.

  • What could be the difference between unclear expressions and double meanings? What does it have to do with order?

  • Think of similar examples to those already given in the text and write them down. First, work individually and then exchange your ideas with your group.

UNIT 1: THE FOUR CONVERSATIONAL MAXIMS

To describe interpersonal communication, the so-called Cooperation Principle was developed in the 20th century by Paul Grice. This principle forms the foundation of a communication theory. It states that communication partners basically assume that their counterpart acts cooperatively and makes an effort to make meaningful contributions to the conversation. Thus, this principle does not want to dictate how we should communicate, but rather it tries to describe how we actually communicate in everyday life. For example, in a conversation we assume that our counterpart is saying something about the current topic of the conversation and is not lying to us. 

The cooperation principle is divided into four conversational maxims. A maxim is a generally applicable rule. Typically, we adhere to these four guidelines in a conversation and assume that our counterpart also adheres to them. However, we will see in Unit 2 that there are exceptions to this. Unit 1 first deals with the four conversational maxims: quantity, quality, relevance and manner. The maxim of quality refers to the form of what is said, while the other three maxims refer to the content.

​

Maxim of quantity

As the name implies, this maxim refers to the amount of information given in a conversation.

  • A statement should be as informative as required by the current purpose of the conversation.

  • A statement should not contain more information than necessary.

This means that you should say enough to be well understood, but also no more than necessary. This means there should be only a few ways to understand the statement when just the right amount of information is given.

An example of this is "Luisa has three children". This can only be understood to mean that Luisa has exactly three children, no more than three and no less. The person listening comes to this conclusion quite automatically without an active thought process.

​

Maxim of quality

Regarding quality, there is an umbrella maxim: make a true contribution to the conversation. This involves two aspects:

  • A statement should not contain information that one believes to be false.

  • A statement should not contain anything for which one cannot find reasonable grounds for its truthfulness.

An example of this is "Luisa is home". The person speaking expresses this to the best of their knowledge and strongly believes that Luisa really is at home. This may be based on the fact that the speaker lives across the street from Luisa and therefore sees her car in the parking lot. In addition, they could have prior knowledge like Luisa always has breakfast with her children at this time of day. A sentence as "Luisa is at home, but I don't think so." would be rather illogical and paradoxical.

​

Maxim of Relevance

This one is about adding contributions to a conversation that are appropriate in terms of content. Accordingly, the maxim goes as followed:

  • Be relevant.

An example of this is:

        A: "I'm out of gas."

        B: "There's a gas station around the corner."

At first glance, it seems as if person B is talking about something completely different, because the gas is not specifically mentioned. However, it is assumed that B is making a relevant contribution to the current conversation, so we have to interpret the statement as meaning that there is gas in stock at the gas station just mentioned, so that A can fill up the tank.

​

Maxim of manner

The maxim of modality requires us to express ourselves clearly, or more precisely, unambiguously. Ambiguous means there are multiple possible meanings and it isn’t clear which one is meant.  For this to be the case, four points must be observed: 

- Be clear:

  • Avoid unclear expressions.

  • Avoid ambiguity.

  • Be brief.

  • Stick to the right order.
     

There is a difference between unclear expressions and ambiguity. An unclear expression is something that is confusing, either through contradicting information or poor language use. Ambiguity on the other hand is understood as something that can have more than one meaning and the listener gets confused about what exactly they are talking about.

But especially the fourth point needs further explanation. We do not doubt the truth of what is said, no matter in what order the events are presented. However, the meaning of the sentence may become quite different once some events are placed before or after others. To explain this, let's look at an example:

Alexander heard a bang, went outside and saw the car accident.

Here, it is clear that Alexander first perceived the bang, then left the house and saw the car accident, which took place near his house.

However, if the sentence reads as follows, the events are not in the same order as before:

Alexander went outside, saw the car accident, and there was a bang

Here, Alexander first left the house, for example to get the mail, then he saw the car accident happen and afterwards, quite independently, he heard another bang. This is a completely different picture from the one in the first sentence. We see that it is important to keep to the order in which the events happened. Otherwise the sentence may not make sense anymore, on its own or even put into context.

​

Another example of the maxim of modality: A and B are sitting in A’s closet and talking about movies.

A: "I don’t want to give too much away.”

B: "Don’t worry. You have enough clothes."

A is confused by B’s answer. A meant that they didn’t want to figuratively give too much information to B about a movie, so that B would still enjoy the movie. But B understood ‘give away’ as donating clothes. So the two have interpreted the same phrase with different meaning, and so a misunderstanding has arisen.

UNIT 2: VIOLATION OF MAXIMS

Now that we have learnt how human interaction in conversation ideally works, we can move on to when it does not work. Following these maxims is not everything, a person can decide to purposely go against what these maxims state. This means that they are ignoring the maxims. This can be done with a specific purpose in mind, but it can also happen accidentally. An example for this is:

A: “Can anyone please come help me with the dishes?”

B: “I’m grabbing ice cream. Who wants one?”

In the next couple of minutes, you will understand how exactly that is ignoring a maxim.

As soon as one conversational maxim is violated, we assume that our counterpart wants to express something meaningful with the violation. So the cooperation principle still applies. However, we then have to look for a meaning that fits into the given situation. Therefore, we have to reinterpret the statements. The following potential violations of the maxims exist:

  • Flouting a maxim: One intentionally uses an ambiguous statement so that the person listening has to decipher the implied truth. Thus, the person speaking overtly fails to cooperate in a statement.

  • Infringing a maxim: This can happen when the person speaking is accidentally or intentionally interrupted and therefore cannot finish the statement. There is no implied meaning here.

  • Opting out of a maxim: Again, the speaker is blatantly not cooperating with the person listening and is omitting important information from the conversation so that the listener no longer knows exactly what it is about.

  • Suspending a maxim: The speaker does not cooperate, i.e. deliberately disregards the maxims, but the listener does not expect cooperation either.

  • Violating a maxim: One speaks the truth, but is still hiding the implied meaning intentionally.
     

Here are some examples of the apparent ignoring of the maxims:

 

1) "War is war."

This sentence actually wants to express something as "In war it is simply like that". Sentences of this kind are always true, but they also have very little informational content. They suspend the maxim of quantity, because there is actually more behind it, but the speaker simply keeps the rest to himself or finds it too obvious to say. The listener assumes that more was meant than said.

 

2) A: "How much longer is the hike?"

B: "We already passed the house and are doing a second loop."

This brief interaction flouts the maxim of quality. It is obvious that they haven't reached the destination yet, because they are still walking. Otherwise they would have stopped. Therefore it must be irony.

​

3) This example is a telephone conversation, one person is at home, the other still at work:
A: "Well, then, we’ll have lasagna for dinner, is that okay, darling?"
B: "Agreed, Mr. Foster, then I'll call you again later."

At first glance, the two statements do not seem connected and what B says does not seem relevant to the conversation. The maxim of relevance is disregarded here so that B is not caught making private phone calls during work time.

​

4) "He produced a series of notes that approached the notes of an aria from Rigoletto."

Here, it is a long winded way of saying “he can’t sing." The maxim of modality is ignored here, mainly to make the sentence a little less harsh, but still expressing the truth. This is an example of flouting a maxim.

​

​

In the same group of four as before, discuss any questions about the text you have just read.

Now, on your own, you are going to watch eight videos and analyse, what maxims are ignored in these videos. Write your solutions down and think of a way you could rephrase the sentences, so that all the maxims are respected. After that, discuss your solutions in the group and decide, what version would be the most adequate.

prag 3.png

Activity 2

Group Work

Did you finish the exercise? 1. quantity → Go away! 2. quality → This is not how a friend usually behaves. 3. relevance → Find them yourself, I already helped you last time! 4. modality → Buy chocolate. 5. relevance → I certainly won't lend you money. 6. quantity → B: My bag is on the table. Take 10 bucks from the wallet. 7. quantity → B: I intended to, but didn't get around to it. 8. relevance → He is nice, but I don't like him.

Final thought for this lesson

 

What about yourself? Do you often notice when you disregard these maxims? Do you notice when others disregard these maxims? How does this affect you?

​

Sources

Finkbeiner, R. (2015). Einführung in die Pragmatik. Kapitel 2, S. 12 - 46.

Hedegard, Hannah. “Week 7” Introduction to Language and Linguistics, University of Bern, Power Point Presentation

Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge university press.

Saeed, J. I. (2015). Semantics (Vol. 25). John Wiley & Sons.

Schindler, Sara. “Pragmatischer Wandel” Tutorium: Historische Linguistik 1, 23.11.2020, University of Bern, Power Point Presentation

bottom of page