Flouting the maxims

Thus far we have assumed that the co-operative principle and individual maxims are generally observed, with the risk that conversation will break down if they are violated. But the evidence with which we began suggests this is a gross oversimplification. Interactants frequently and blatantly infringe the maxims without negative consequences for communication, for example in (1) and (2) above, where the responses appear to violate the relevance maxim by bearing no relation to the question posed, or in (3), where the tautologous sentence appears to violate the maxim of quantity by being completely uninformative.

In cases like these, the maxims are not so much infringed as flouted: the speaker does not merely violate the maxim concerned, he/she does so ostentatiously and thereby actively sends a signal to an interlocutor that co-operation is in fact being maintained at a deeper level. Thus in (1) Paul interprets Sarah’s seemingly irrelevant reply as meaning: ‘I’m flouting the maxim of relation by referring to rain rather than washing. What connection about rain and washing do you draw, from our shared real-world experience, which might be construed as an answer to your request?’ and infers the implicature ‘I can’t put the washing out, because it would get even more wet if I did so.’

Metaphor works in a similar way, as in (2) above:

Sally: Has Sarah revealed her takeover plans?

Lynn: She’s keeping her cards close to her chest.

Lynn’s response is obviously irrelevant, on a literal level, to the question posed, but the co-operation principle is robust enough to induce the hearer to interpret it as relevant by looking for common ground between the two contributions. Sarah’s secret plans are likened to the cards held by a poker player, to be revealed, if at all, only at the moment of maximum advantage.

Finally, tautologous statements like Alan’s reply in (3) ‘Business is business’ (compare ‘Boys will be boys’) advertise their own lack of informativeness so blatantly as to suggest that it must be a deliberate choice on the part of the speaker, which invites the addressee to look for ways in which they might at some level be co-operative. This particular tautology is conventionally interpreted as meaning something like ‘The rules of successful business are unchanging and leave no room for sentiment’, satisfying the quantity maxim obliquely.

Skilled speakers exploit the potential of flouts to achieve a variety of ends. In (6), below, manner (here the sub-maxim ‘Be brief’) is deliberately violated to cast doubt on John’s culinary prowess:

(6) Paul: Did John cook you dinner last night?

Mary: He handed over a plate containing items which could be described as food, some of which had been heated in an oven. Some of it was edible.

The answer Mary appears to be groping for is ‘Yes’, but her wordy failure to offer it invites Paul to draw the appropriate conclusion.

The quality maxim is flouted in (7) to question the wisdom of the preceding contribution, while a relevance flout in (8) signals to Paul that Steve is in fact within earshot:

(7) Tony: I fancy England’s chances at the next World Cup.

Phil: And I think the Monster Raving Loony Party will win the next election by a landslide ( ‘And your suggestion is equally daft’)

(8) Paul: Since Steve got elected to the council he’s been a small-minded, irritating little jerk.

Amanda (spotting Steve): Did you see that Agatha Christie film on TV last night? (→‘Watch out! He might hear you!’)

Grice has also suggested that some implicatures are conventionalized, applying irrespective of context. The difference between and and but, for example, is that the latter generates an implicature that two items are contrasted:

Jenny was poor but honest. (cf. Jenny was poor and honest.)

Paul’s a nice guy but he votes Republican. (cf. Paul’s a nice guy and he votes Republican.)

The implicature of contrast or incompatibility associated with but may be readable in all contexts, but it remains an implicature rather than an entailment, because it is defeasible, for example by means of a ‘not that…’ clause:

Jenny was poor but honest – not that you can’t be both, obviously!

Paul’s a nice guy but he votes Republican – not that I have anything against Republicans, of course. (In fact, some of my best friends are Republicans…)