exercise

 https://benjamins.com/catalog/z.124/additional/Q_A-sample.pdf 

The Maxims are based on his cooperative principle, which states, ‘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,’ 

5 Explain how deliberate violations, or “floutings” as Grice calls them, of the cooperative principle as in (a) and (b) can still bear meaning. Also explain when such deliberate violations do lead, for example, to lying, by discussing some conditions that must be met for flouting to render the appropriate or intended effect. (This question is inspired by an example in Cook 1989.) 

a. I love it when you sing out of key all the time. 

b. My cell phone’s battery runs dead every five minutes.

Deliberate violations of the cooperative principle can only bear meaning when the sender intends the reader to perceive them as such. 

If the receiver does not perceive them as such or if he does not realize that the violations are deliberate, then the utterances are perceived as, for example, lies, and the communication becomes confusing or fails altogether. Examples (a) and (b) are not literally true, but most people will recognize them as figures of speech, in this case sarcasm and hyperbole, instead of lies.

In using these deliberate floutings it is important for the sender to correctly assess the receiver’s knowledge. They only work if the receiver has enough knowledge to know that singing out of key is not pleasant to listen to and that the average cell phone does not run dead very often. 

Children or foreign language learners sometimes take these figures of speech literally. Owing to the wrong assessment of their knowledge by the sender, the sarcasm in (a) is not recognized (“Thanks for the compliment, dad!”) and the hyperbole in (b) is perceived as a lie.

Argue for or against the following line of reasoning from Leech (1983:15,16).
“... of Grice’s two Maxims of Quality (which I call submaxims), the second seems to be a predictable extension of the first: 

Maxim 1: Do not say what you believe to be false. 

Maxim 2: Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence. 

If we say something for which we lack evidence, we do not know whether what we say is true or false. Therefore Maxim 2 simply says ‘Do not put yourself in a position where you risk breaking Maxim 1’; and both can be summarized in the precept ‘Avoid telling untruths’.” 

Leech’s reasoning is not correct. When speakers believe something, this does not necessarily mean that they can also prove it. Therefore, maxim 2 is not a predictable extension of maxim 1. There are more grounds on which a position can be taken or adopted than mere concrete, demonstrable evidence. When speakers say something which they believe to be true, this can also be based on religion, intuition, experience or a (reasoned) gamble. Actually, the second submaxim of quality is violated so often in practice that its existence is disputable. After all, people say so much more than they can actually prove.

2.4.4 Which maxims of the cooperative principle are being violated in the following dialogues? Indicate which conversational implicatures this leads to. 

a. A: Are we going to eat soon? I’m hungry. 

 B: In a minute. I just have to fry the liver.

 A: Suddenly, I’ve lost my appetite. 

b. A: Mrs. Johnson is an old witch. 

 B: It’s wonderful weather for this time of year, don’t you think?

In dialogue (a) also the maxim of relevance is violated. After B’s answer, one would expect a positive reaction, since dinner will be served shortly. A’s answer, a remark about the sudden loss of appetite, does not seem relevant in this dialogue. On the basis of the cooperative principle we have to assume that the remark is directly linked with the previous utterance. Thus we have to deduce the conversational implicature that A does not like liver and that he does not care when dinner is served.

In dialogue (a) the maxim of quality is violated. Probably A has not lost his appetite, but he just does not like liver. We can deduce this conversational implicature because appetite is not normally something that is lost all of a sudden. 

In dialogue (b) the relevance maxim is violated as well. Contrary to expectations, A’s remark is not followed by a reaction to this remark, but by a totally different statement. On the basis of the cooperative principle we have to assume that B does not utter his reaction for no reason. Why does B not go into A’s remark? Several conversational implicatures can be deduced: perhaps Mrs. Johnson is present or B finds it inappropriate to gossip about Mrs. Johnson.

Recall example (27) from Section 2.5. Now try to explain in your own words how the relevance principle works by applying it to the following example: a notice often found in the London Underground (subway). “Dogs must be carried on escalator.”

 The locution can bear the meaning that you must carry a dog whenever you want to make use of the escalator, but no one will interpret the notice like that. Almost everyone will understand that this message is only relevant if you have a dog with you, partially on the basis of the knowledge that a dog’s paws are small enough to become trapped in slots and moving parts of the escalator. To prevent this from happening, carrying the dog is advised (and not ordered).

 In the following dialogue, is B being positively or negatively polite? (B thinks the dress is ugly.) A: So, what do you think of my new dress? B: Well, it’s risqué, that’s for sure.

This is a matter of positive politeness. A wants to feel appreciated and B takes this into account. B does not say that the dress is ugly, but uses a more abstract and ambiguous description. In the case of negative politeness a speaker makes use of strategies that prevent a receiver from feeling forced into a certain position or action.

3 Rank the following statements from “extremely polite” to “less polite” using Brown and Levinson’s theory. Indicate which strategy has been used.

 a. Do you agree to pay half of the bill thirty days before delivery? 

b. Thirty days before delivery you will receive a bill for half of the order. 

c. You have to pay half of the bill before delivery. 

d. Though we do not like to make this demand, it is this company’s policy that half of the bill be paid thirty days before delivery.

d. with redressive action: negative politeness; 

a. with redressive action: positive politeness; 

b. off record; 

c. without redressive action, baldly.

Explain why B does not answer with “Yes”, but immediately makes an offer in the following dialogue. 

A: Do you have ice cream? 

B: Do you want chocolate topping?

B assumes that A wants to protect both A and B’s face just in case B doesn't have ice cream, and, therefore, A uses a pre-request in order to check the chances of a positive answer to the actual request. 

Since the answer to the pre-request is affirmative, B immediately reacts to the actual request (“Can I have an ice cream?”), by making a proposal. 

In this way, B prevents A from having to ask the question and thereby possibly taking up a vulnerable position. (After all, the answer can be negative, resulting in A losing face.)