Grice’s Cooperative Principle and Argumentation Theory

Posted on Oct 1, 2024 in Philosophy and ethics

Grice and the Cooperative Principle

Grice’s theories focus on the principles governing the interpretation of utterances. The core of his theory is the Cooperative Principle, formulated as follows:

“Make your contribution to the conversation at the time it is required, and in the way it is required, by the purpose or direction of the communicative exchange.”

Grice argues that communicative exchanges are not simply series of disconnected observations. If our observations are collaborative efforts, we seek to cooperate to achieve a particular goal. The Cooperative Principle is descriptive, not prescriptive. It describes a condition for rational communication where the message is intelligible and meaningful. This principle aligns with Searle’s preparatory conditions.

When participants in a conversation do not respect the Cooperative Principle, the conversation becomes disjointed and absurd. This principle is further developed in four lower-level rules, which Grice referred to as maxims, inspired by the philosopher Kant:

1. Maxim of Quantity

This maxim refers to the volume or quantity of information to be transmitted. It is subdivided into two sub-maxims:

  • Make your contribution as informative as is required for the current purposes of the exchange.
  • Do not make your contribution more informative than is required.

2. Maxim of Quality

This maxim states that your contribution should be truthful. Do not say what you believe to be false, and do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.

3. Maxim of Relation

Be relevant. Participants expect that their contributions will be related to the topic of conversation.

4. Maxim of Manner

Be perspicuous (clear). This maxim contains four sub-maxims:

  • Avoid obscurity of expression.
  • Avoid ambiguity.
  • Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity).
  • Be orderly.

These maxims can be seen as descriptive categories that evaluate linguistic performance. Non-adherence to these maxims can entail social consequences, such as expulsion from the dialogue.

Implicatures

Grice makes an important distinction between what is said and what is communicated. What is said corresponds to the propositional content of the statement, understood from a logical point of view, which can be assessed in terms of truth or falsity. What is communicated is all the information that is transmitted with the statement but is different from its propositional content. These are called implicatures.

There are two kinds of implicatures: conventional and non-conventional. Conventional implicatures are those that directly result from the meaning of the words used. Non-conventional implicatures are generated by the intervention of other principles and constitute the largest class. These are divided into conversational implicatures and non-conversational implicatures. Non-conversational implicatures imply that the content is derived from social, aesthetic, moral, or other non-linguistic contexts. Conversational implicatures fall into two categories: generalized and particularized. Generalized conversational implicatures do not directly depend on the particular context of utterance, while particularized conversational implicatures are directly dependent on the context of utterance.

Breaches of the Maxims

Grice outlines four types of breaches of the maxims:

  1. Violation: This is a discreet violation of a maxim, often leading to misleading the other speakers.
  2. Opting out: The speaker openly refuses to cooperate with a maxim. For example, a speaker might say, “I cannot say more.”
  3. Clash: A speaker fails to fulfill one maxim because there is a conflict with another maxim.
  4. Flouting: The speaker blatantly violates a maxim, often for rhetorical effect, such as irony or sarcasm.

Conversational Implicatures and the Maxims

Conversational implicatures are generated by combining three elements:

  1. Information contained in the utterance.
  2. Factors that shape the conversational context.
  3. The Cooperative Principle and its maxims.

Three types of relationships exist between the maxims and implicatures:

  1. An implicature arises without an apparent violation of a maxim.
  2. An implicature arises, and it must be inferred that there is a conflict between maxims.
  3. An implicature arises because a maxim is openly violated (flouting).

Episode 4: Argumentation Theory of Auscombre and Ducrot

Auscombre and Ducrot’s theory of argumentation focuses on the internal adequacy of statements within a discourse, in contrast to the external focus of pragmatics as represented by Grice.

Argumentation vs. Demonstration

For Auscombre and Ducrot, argumentation involves establishing a discursive relationship linking one or more arguments (E1) to a conclusion (E2). This differs from logical demonstration, which is a formal procedure to test the validity of a conclusion. Argumentation in discourse is not bound by the rules of classical logic.

Linguistic Structure and Argumentative Force

Auscombre and Ducrot argue that for a statement (E1) to function as an argument in favor of another statement (E2), it is not sufficient for E1 to provide reasons for accepting E2. The linguistic structure of E1 must also fulfill certain conditions that allow it to function as an argument. They emphasize the importance of the linguistic form of utterances in determining their argumentative potential.

Difference Between Logical Argument and Discursive Argumentation

In a logical argument, the number and type of premises leading to a conclusion are predetermined. The conclusion follows necessarily from the premises. In discursive argumentation, the number of premises is not fixed in advance, and the conclusion does not automatically follow. The accumulation of arguments does not impose the logical necessity of a particular conclusion. Arguments in discourse can remain implicit and may not be explicitly stated in the linguistic environment or the discourse situation. They may be suggested by features of the language or context.

Argumentative Force

Another feature of discursive argumentation is that arguments do not all have the same weight. This is referred to as argumentative force. Some arguments are stronger or more persuasive than others in supporting a particular conclusion.