But while some such quasi-contractual basis as this may apply to some cases,
there are too many types of exchange, like quarreling and letter writing, that it
fails to fit comfortably. In any case, one feels that the talker who is irrelevant or
obscure has primarily let down not his audience but himself. So I would like to
be able to show that observance of the Cooperative Principle and maxims
is reasonable (rational )along the following lines: that anyone who cares about
the goals that are central to conversation/communication (such as giving and
receiving information, influencing and being influenced by others )must be
expected to have an interest, given suitable circumstances, in participation in
talk exchanges that will be profitable only on the assumption that they are
conducted in general accordance with the Cooperative Principle and the max-
ims. Whether any such conclusion can be reached, I am uncertain; in any case, I
am fairly sure that I cannot reach it until I am a good deal clearer about the
nature of relevance and of the circumstances in which it is required.
It is now time to show the connection between the Cooperative Principle and
maxims, on the one hand, and conversational implicature on the other.
A participant in a talk exchange may fail to fulfill a maxim in various ways,
which include the following:
- He may quietly and unostentatiouslyviolatea maxim; if so, in some
cases he will be liable to mislead. - He mayopt outfrom the operation both of the maxim and of the Co-
operative Principle; he may say, indicate, or allow it to become plain that
he is unwilling to cooperate in the way the maxim requires. He may say,
for example,I cannot say more; my lips are sealed. - He may be faced by aclash:He may be unable, for example, to fulfill
the first maxim of Quantity (Be as informative as is required )without
violating the second maxim of Quality (Have adequate evidence for what
you say). - He mayflouta maxim; that is, he may blatantly fail to fulfill it. On
the assumption that the speaker is able to fulfill the maxim and to do so
without violating another maxim (because of a clash), is not opting out,
and is not, in view of the blatancy of his performance, trying to mislead,
the hearer is faced with a minor problem: How can his saying what he did
say be reconciled with the supposition that he is observing the overall
Cooperative Principle? This situation is one that characteristically gives
rise to a conversational implicature; and when a conversational implica-
ture is generated in this way, I shall say that a maxim is beingexploited.
I am now in a position to characterize the notion of conversational implica-
ture.Amanwho,by(in,when)saying(ormakingasiftosay)thatphas
implicated thatq, may be said to have conversationally implicated thatq,pro-
vided that (1 )he is to be presumed to be observing the conversational maxims,
or at least the Cooperative Principle; (2 )the supposition that he is aware that,
or thinks that,qis required in order to make his saying or making as if to say
p(or doing so inthoseterms )consistent with this presumption; and (3 )the
speaker thinks (and would expect the hearer to think that the speaker thinks)
that it is within the competence of the hearer to work out, or grasp intui-
tively, that the supposition mentioned in (2 )is required. Apply this to my initial
Logic and Conversation 725