Grice's Theory of Language: Understanding Meaning and Communication.

We Say More Than We Mean.

Dec 16, 2024

Picture: By Kathleen Grice — Original publication: Proceedings Of The British AcademyImmediate source

I suspect there is not one student of linguistics who will not have heard of the British language philosopher Herbet Paul Grice (1913–1988) and his theory of language.

When you say something, how does your listener know what you really mean? This question sits at the heart of Grice’s work on language. Grice is best known for his theories on implicature and the Cooperative Principle. These concepts explore how people communicate more than they explicitly say and why this often works so smoothly when it should not.

What Is Grice’s Theory About?

Grice’s theory focuses on the distinction between what is said and what is meant. For example:

A: “Is Jane coming to the party?”
B: “She has to work.”

Here, B doesn’t explicitly say that Jane won’t attend the party. However, the implication is clear : Jane’s work prevents her from coming. This implied meaning is called a conversational implicature, a key concept in Grice’s work.

Grice argued that effective communication depends on shared assumptions and cooperative behaviour. People don’t just throw words into the air; they aim to make themselves understood. His Cooperative Principle describes this underlying effort.

The Cooperative Principle

Grice’s Cooperative Principle is simple:

“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.” (Studies in the Way of Words)

In everyday terms, this means: be helpful, relevant, and clear. To unpack this further, Grice developed four maxims, which guide how we communicate:

Maxim of Quantity: Give the right amount of information, not too much or too little.
Example: If someone asks for the time, replying, “It’s 3 p.m.” is enough. Adding “and I’ve had a very busy day” would be unnecessary.
Maxim of Quality: Be truthful, don’t say something you believe to be false or lack evidence for.
Example: Don’t say, “The train is always on time” if you know it’s often late.
Maxim of Relation: Be relevant, stick to the topic at hand.
Example: If asked about your weekend plans, talking about your love for spicy food is off-topic (unless your plans involve curry!).
Maxim of Manner: Be clear, avoid ambiguity or unnecessary complexity.
Example: Instead of “The individual residing in the flat above me,” say, “My upstairs neighbour.”

These maxims aren’t rigid rules; rather, they’re guidelines. People can and do flout them, and that’s where implicature often arises.

Flouting the Maxims

Of Quantity

A: “Where are you staying?”
B: “In a hotel.”

Here, B flouts the Maxim of Quantity by not giving information to A. B may be indicating they do not want A to come over. A must infer the meaning from this minimal answer.

Of Quality

Two friends are walking through a park, and one points to a small, scruffy dog.

A: “What a majestic creature!”
B: (laughs)

Here A’ s statement is clearly false: the small, scruffy dog is anything but majestic. By flouting the Maxim of Quantity (truthfulness) the speaker creates humour or exaggerates for comedic effect.

The listener recognises that the speaker isn’t intending to be truthful and infers the humorous or ironic intent. Flouting the maxim in this way often strengthens social bonds, as both parties share in the humour or absurdity. However, if the listener doesn’t realise the speaker is being ironic or playful, it could lead to misunderstanding or confusion.

Of Relation

Deliberately violating a maxim can still create meaning. For instance:

A: “How was the food?”
B: “The plate was lovely.”

Here, B flouts the Maxim of Relation (relevance). By commenting on the plate instead of the food, B implies that the food wasn’t good, without explicitly saying so. Listeners infer meaning based on shared assumptions about how conversations usually work.

Of Manner

A teacher is explaining how to solve a simple maths problem to a student

Student: ”How do I solve this equation?”
Teacher: “Well, to approach it, you must first conceptualise the numerical values as abstract entities within a theoretical framework, then manipulate them according to algebraic principles to achieve equilibrium.”

The teacher deliberately uses an overly complex and convoluted explanation for something that could be stated more clearly (e.g., “Rearrange the equation to find x”). This flouts the Maxim of Manner by being unnecessarily obscure and verbose.

This can create frustration or confusion. The listener may struggle to extract the intended meaning from the overly complex or unclear response. The flouting might imply something beyond the surface meaning, for instance, the teacher could be making a joke about overcomplicating things or subtly criticising the question.

Effective communication depends on clarity. By flouting this maxim, the speaker forces the listener to interpret their words with extra effort, potentially damaging understanding.

This ability to infer meaning from context is fundamental to human communication. Grice’s theory helps explain how we manage this so effortlessly.

Why Does Grice Matter?

Grice’s ideas go beyond casual conversation. They’re applied in many fields, including linguistics, philosophy, artificial intelligence, and law. His work helps us understand:

How meaning arises in context.
Why communication can fail when assumptions differ.
How we create humour, sarcasm, and indirectness.

For example, in legal settings, understanding implicature can clarify ambiguous contracts. In AI, Grice’s maxims inform the design of conversational agents, like virtual assistants.

Is this theory of language enough?

While influential, Grice’s theory has its critics. Real-life conversations often involve power dynamics, cultural differences, or non-cooperative behaviour that his maxims don’t fully address. Scholars like Deborah Tannen and Erving Goffman have expanded on these aspects, showing how factors like politeness and face-saving complicate communication.

Nonetheless, Grice provides a solid foundation for understanding the principles of language use. His insights remind us that communication isn’t just about words but the shared understanding behind them.

The next three articles will expand on Grice’s theory of language, trying to understand the concept of implicatures and the story of Yog and Zog!

LinguisticallyYours' Substack

Discussion about this post