The co-operative principle

An underlying assumption in most conversational exchanges seems to be that the participants are, in fact, co-operating with each other. This princi­ple, together with four maxims which we expect will be obeyed, was first set out by Grice (1975). The co-operative principle is stated in the following way: "Make your conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged." Supporting this principle are the four maxims:

Quantity: Make your contribution as informative as is required, but not more,

or less, than is required

Quality: Do not say that which you believe to be false or for which you lack evidence

Relation: Be relevant

Manner: Be clear, brief and orderly

It is certainly true that, on occasion, we can experience conversational exchanges in which the co-operative principle does not seem to be in opera­tion. However, this general description of the normal expectations we have in conversations helps to explain a number of regular features in the way people say things. For example, a number of common expressions like Well, to make a long story short and I won't bore you with all the details seem to be indicators of an awareness of the Quantity maxim. Some awareness of the importance of the Quantity maxim seems to lie behind the way we begin some conversational contributions with expressions like As far as I know..., Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but... and I’m not absolutely sure but.... We also take care to indicate that what we report is something we think and feel (not know), is possible or likely (not certain), may or could (not must) hap­pen. Hence the difference between saying John is ill and I think it's possible that John may be ill. In the first version we will be assumed to have very good evidence for the statement.

Given that we operate with the co-operative principle, it also becomes clearer how certain answers to our questions which, on the surface, do not seem to be appropriate, can actually he interpreted. Consider this conversa­tional fragment:

Carol: Are you coming to the party tonight?

Lara: I've got an exam tomorrow

On the face of it, Lara's statement is not an answer to Carol's question. Lara doesn't say "Yes" or "No." Yet, Carol will immediately interpret the statement as meaning 'No' or 'Probably not’. How can we account for this ability to grasp one meaning from a sentence which, in a literal sense, means some­thing else? It seems to depend, at least partially, on the assumption that Lara is being 'relevant' and 'informative'. (To appreciate this point, try to imag­ine Carol's reaction if Lara had said something like "Roses are red, you know.") Given that the answers contain relevant information. Carol can work out that 'exam tomorrow' conventionally involves 'study tonight’, and 'study tonight' precludes 'party tonight'. Thus, Lara's answer is not simply a statement of tomorrow's activities, it contains an implicature (an additional conveyed meaning) concerning tonight's activities.

It is noticeable that in order to describe the conversational implicature involved in Lara's statement, we had to appeal to some background knowl­edge (about exams, studying and partying) that must be shared by the con­versational participants. Investigating how we use our background knowledge to arrive at interpretations of what we hear and read is a crucial part of doing discourse analysis.

Background knowledge

A particularly good example of the processes involved in using background knowledge has been provided by Sanford & Garrod (1981). Their example begins with these two sentences:

John was on his way to school last Friday.

He was really worried about the math lesson.

Most people who are asked to read these sentences report that they think John is probably a schoolboy. Since this piece of information is not directly stated in the text, it must lie an inference. Other inferences, for different readers, are that John is walking or that he is on a bus. These inferences are clearly derived from our conventional knowledge, ill our culture, about 'going to school', and no reader has ever suggested that John is swimming or on a boat, though both arc physically possible, if unlikely, interpretations.

An interesting aspect of the reported inferences is that they are treated as likely or possible interpretations which readers will easily abandon if they do not lit in with some subsequent information. The next sentence in the text is as follows:

Last week he had been unable to control thee class.

On encountering this sentence, most readers decide that John is, in fact, a teacher and that he is not very happy. Many report that lie is probably driving a car to school. Then the next sentence is presented:

It was unfair of the math teacher to leave him in charge.

Suddenly, John reverts to his schoolboy status, and the 'teacher' inference is abandoned. The final sentence of this text contains a surprise:

After all, it is not a normal part of a janitor's duties.

This type of text and the manner of presentation, one sentence at a time, is, of course, rather artificial. Yet the exercise involved does provide us with some insight into the ways in which we 'build' interpretations of what we read by using a lot more information than is actually in the words on the page. That is, we actually create what the text is about, based on our expecta­tions of what normally happens.

P a r t 2

Study questions

Semantics

1. What is the basic lexical relation between the following pairs of words?

(a) shallow deep (b) mature ripe (c) suite sweet

(d) table furniture (e) single married (f) move run

2. How would you describe the oddness of the following sentences, using semantic features?

(a) The television drank my water (b) His dog writes poetry

3.Identify the semantic roles of all the noun phrases in this sentence:

With his new golf club, Fred shocked the bull from the woods to the grassy area near the river and he felt good.

4. Which of the following opposites are gradable, non-gradable or reversive?

(a) absent present (b) high low (c) fill empty

(d) fail pass (e) fair unfair (f) appear disappear

5. Which of the following examples are best described as polysemy or as metonymy?

(a) Computer chips are an important new technology.

(b) The bookstore has some new titles in linguistics.

Tasks

A One way to identify the semantic structure of sentences is to start with the verb as the central element and define the semantic roles required by that verb. For example, a verb like kill requires an agent and a theme, as in The cat killed the mouse. We can represent this observation as:

KILL [AGENT_____ THEME].

As another example, we can represent the verb give as in Mary gave the book to George:

GIVE [AGENT_____THEME, GOAL]

(i) How would you define the set of semantic roles for the following verbs, as in the pattern just shown?

break build die eat fear happen kiss like occupy offer put receive resemble send steal taste teach understand want write

(ii) Does it help, in this exercise, to make a distinction between obligato­ry roles (i.e. you must have these or the sentence will not be gram­matical) and optional roles (these are often present, but their absence doesn't make the sentences ungrammatical)?

B The words in the following list are all related in terms of the superordinate term tableware.

First, create a hierarchical diagram to illustrate whatever hyponymous relations exist among these words: glass cup plate cutlery napkin tumbler fork goblet teaspoon flat­ware bowl crockery tablecloth wineglass dish saucer spoon salt-shaker knife mug candlestick bottle pan tray peppermill bread-basket linen table-mat

(c) Yes, I love those. I ate a whole box on Sunday!

(d) I had to park on the shoulder of the road.

(e) The pen is mightier than the sword.

(ii) Second, can you work out what the prototype item of tableware is? One research procedure would be to create a list of these terms down one side of a page, with a scale beside each term. The scale would go from 5 (= excellent example of ’tableware’) to 1 (= not really an example of ’tableware’). Make copies of your list (plus scale) and ask people to indicate their choices on the scale. The high­est score would presumably be the prototype. What do you think of this procedure?

C A famous example of a sentence that is syntactically 'good', but semantically "odd', was suggested by Noam Chomsky (1957): Colorless green ideas sleep furiously. How many mismatches of meaning are present in this one sentence? Can it be interpreted at all'.' Having done that, what do you make of this advertisement from an American store: Colorful white sale this week?

D In the use of gradable antonyms there is generally one member of the pair that is used more often than the other in certain constructions. It is called the 'unmarked' member. For example, we usually ask How old is he? if we want to know someone's age, and not How young is he? This is taken as evidence that old is the unmarked member of the old-young pair. Additional evidence is the common practice of saying that some­one is five years old and not five years young in talking about age.

(i) Can you determine the 'unmarked' member in each of the following pairs?

small-big short-long wild-lame cheap-expensive

near-far many-few early-late dangerous-safe

good-bad fresh-stale easy-difficult strong-weak

thick-thin wide—narrow full-empty

(ii) Can you think of any special situations where the 'marked' member is more typically used? What kind of meaning is conveyed by such uses?

E There is one aspect of contemporary English that seems very redundant (to some people). One example would be: You will receive a free gift. We might complain that if it's a gift is necessarily free, so it is redundant to use both words. Do you agree with this point of view? Do the following expressions also contain redundancies? Might there be a reason for such combinations?

We should provide advance warning

I'll make it my first priority

That was an unexpected surprise

Could you repeat that again?

Discourse analysis

1. What is meant by the term 'cohesion' in the study of texts?

2. How would you describe this short exchange in terms of the actions per­formed by the speakers'?

Motorist: My car needs a new exhaust system

Mechanic: I'll be busy with this other car all day

3. What do you think is meant by the term 'turn-taking' in conversation?

4. What are the four maxims of the co-operative principle?

5. Which maxim docs (his speaker seem to he particularly careful about:

Well, to be quite honest, I don't think she is ill today.