International Journal of Education and Pedagogy (IJEAP) eISSN: 2682-8464 | Vol. 5 No. 1 [March 2023]
Journal website: http://myjms.mohe.gov.my/index.php/ijeap
A STUDY OF THE EXPLOITATION OF GRICE’S COOPERATIVE PRINCIPLE MAXIMS IN TOEFL
LISTENING SECTION
Đào Thị Vân Hồng1*
1 FELTE, University of Languages and International Studies, Vietnam National University, Hanoi, VIETNAM
*Corresponding author: [email protected]
Article Information:
Article history:
Received date : 27 January 2023 Revised date : 18 JFebruary 2023 Accepted date : 26 February 2023 Published date : 6 March 2023
To cite this document:
Dao, D. T. V., (2023). A STUDY OF THE EXPLOITATION OF GRICE’S COOPERATIVE PRINCIPLE MAXIMS IN TOEFL LISTENING SECTION. International Journal of Education and Pedagogy, 5(1), 31-38.
Abstract: This study, carried out in the light of pragmatic approach, is attempting to help test takers understand more about how speakers in the listening section exploit certain maxims of Gricean cooperative principle to generate implicatures in interaction. The results of this study suggest that in the listening section of the TOEFL test, the speakesr deliberately flout the maxim of quantity in order to send implicit messages with the hope that listeners will understand their unspoken notes. The second most frequently flouted maxim is the maxim of relation. The speakers choose not to observe the maxim of relation in order to avoid subjects that would embarrass them or put them in unpleasant situations as well as hint at something that they would not want to say straight out. The findings of this study not only help improve students’ understanding of what the speakers mean in Toelf listening section but also assist teachers to explain more clearly and effectively when teaching the test.
Keywords: TOEFL, listening, cooperative principle, Grice, maxims.
1. Introduction
The TOEFL, formally known as Test of English as a Foreign Language, is a test of an individual's ability to use and understand American English in an academic setting designed and administered by Educational Testing Service (ETS) and TOEFL is a registered trademark of ETS. It was developed to address the problem of ensuring English language proficiency for non-native speakers wishing to study at US universities. It has become an admission requirement for non-native English speakers at many English-speaking colleges and universities. Additionally, institutions such as government agencies, licensing bodies, businesses, or scholarship programs may require this test.
This study, carried out in the light of pragmatic approach, is attempting to help test takers understand more about how speakers in Toelf listening section exploit certain maxims of Grice’s cooperative principle (Grice, 1975) to generate implicatures in interaction. This theory helps to analyze not only the linguistic features of the implicatures generated from those conversations but also the mechanisms that generate those implicatures. This is the reason why the author decided to use Grice’s cooperative principle as the basis for this study.
1.1 Aims of the Study
This study is carried out specifically to aim at:
(1) investigating how speakers in Toelf Listening test exploit certain Grice’s cooperative principle maxims to generate implicatures in interaction.
(2) identifying which of the maxims of Grice’s conversational cooperative principle is more likely to be flouted in TOELF Listening tests.
1.2 Scope of the Study
The research on non-observances of maxims of Grice’s cooperative principle is so broad that it is impossible to cover all its aspects. Therefore, this study narrows down the study only to the art of flouting certain maxims of Grice’s cooperative principles to create implicatures in Toelf Listening section.
2. Literature Review
2.1 Grice’s Cooperative Principle
In order to explain how hearers, interpret the utterance implicature, Grice (1975) noticed that in order for the conversation to go smoothly, participants must assume that all interlocutors are following some set of rules. Grice (ibid.) called these rules the Cooperative Principle (CP). The CP runs like this: “Make your 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” (Grice 1975: 45). According to the Cooperative Principle both speaker and hearer converse with the willingness to deliver and interpret a message. The speaker and hearer cooperate and that is why they communicate efficiently (Thomas 1995:63).
2.2 Conversational Maxims
In order to illustrate how we interpret meaning, Grice (ibid.) presented, in addition to the Cooperative Principle, four conversational maxims to show how we communicate effectively in the light of certain rules. Thanks to Grice’s maxims, we can interpret and understand the underlying implication of an utterance (Thomas 1995:63).
The maxim of Quality: requires that the speakers: (1) do not say what you believe to be false, and (2) do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence (Levinson 1983: 101).
The maxim of Quantity: According to the maxim of quantity, speakers should (1) make their contribution as informative as is required (for the current purpose of the exchange and (2) do not make your contribution more informative than is required. (Levinson ibid.).
The maxim of Relation: requires that the speaker make their contributions relevant. (Levinson 1983: 102).
The maxim of Manner: states that speakers should: (1) avoid obscurity of expression, (2) avoid ambiguity, (3) be brief (Avoid unnecessary prolixity), and (4) be orderly. (Levinson ibid.).
2.3 Mechanism for Working Out an Implicature
Grice (1975) proposed a general pattern for working out an implicature:
(i) S has said that p
(ii) there’s no reason to think S is not observing the maxims, or at least the co-operative principle
(iii) in order for S to say that p and be indeed observing the maxims, or at least the co-operative principle, S must think that q
(iv) S must know that it is mutual knowledge that q must be supposed if S is to be taken to be co-operating
(v) S has done nothing to stop me, the addressee, thinking that q
(vi) therefore, S intends me to think that q, and in saying that p has implicated q
All the situations in which maxims are flouted to generate conversational implicatures in this paper will be analyzed based on this pattern.
2.4 Problem Statement
This study is supposed to answer the following questions:
(1) How speakers in Toelf Listening tests exploit certain Grice’s cooperative principle maxims to generate implicatures in interaction?
(2) Which of the maxims of Grice’s conversational cooperative principle is more likely to be flouted in Toelf Listening tests?
3. Method
Researchers adopted a qualitative approach for analyzing the conversations. Two phases of analysis were carried out in order to investigate the exploitation of Grice’s cooperative principle maxims in TOEFL listening section. In the initial phase, each conversation is analyzed manually. The researcher reviewed both content and context in order to investigate how speakers flout certain maxim to generate conversational implicatures in TOEFL listening section. In the second phase, researchers identify the maxim flouted in each conversation using Grice’s cooperative principle and compare which maxim is mostly flouted to create conversational implicature in this test.
3.1 Materials
In regard with the limit of time, the data are only collected from scripts of the Toelf Listening section in two books: Longman preparation course for the Toelf Test by Deborah Phillips and Toelf Test Preparation Kit by ETS.
3.2 Procedures
First, the study will be based on the analysis of numerous materials on theories of pragmatics (mostly concerned with the implicature and the quality maxim of Grice’s cooperative principle). Second, the scripts of Toelf Listening tests were analyzed in order to select the situations in which certain maxims are flouted. After that, all the results received from this analysis would be synthesized and put into groups to discover which maxim is mostly exploited to generate implicatures.
4. Results and Discussion 4.1 Results
70 conversations have been selected carefully and explained in the light of Gricean cooperative principle. They are grouped into four categories; each category contains a number of situations exploiting certain maxims. The frequency of flouting the maxims in these conversations can be illustrated in the following chart:
Series1, Maxim of quantity,
64%, 64%
Series1, Maxim of relation,
36%, 36%
Maxim of quantity Maxim of relation
As can be seen in the chart, the maxim of quantity is the most frequently flouted in Toelf listening section (64%). The speakers deliberately provide too little or too much information when they’re not willing to expose what is in their mind. Their ultimate goal is to send implicit messages with the hope that listeners will understand their unspoken notes.
The second most frequently flouted maxim is the maxim of relation (36%). The character chooses not to observe the maxim of relation in order to avoid subjects that would embarrass them or put them in unpleasant situations as well as hint at something that they would not want to say straight out. Speakers flout the maxim in order to make their statements stronger.
The following part of the paper will present the analysis of some typical situations in which certain maxims are flouted to generate implicatures.
4.1.1 The Analysis on Situations Which Flout the Maxim of Quantity Conversation 1:
(man): Were all three students accepted to the university?
(woman): John was accepted.
The mechanism in which implicature is generated in this situation can be analyzed as follows:
(i) The woman stated that John was accepted to the university, and she didn’t mention the two other students.
(ii) The man asked whether three students were admitted to the university. Obviously, in this situation, the woman contributed less than is required by the listener.
(iii) There’s no reason to think the woman is not observing the maxims, or at least the co- operative principle.
(iv) In order for the woman to give that information and be indeed observing the maxims, or at least the co-operative principle, she must be trying to put across some other proposition.
(v) This must be obviously related proposition.
(vi) The most reasonable way to explain the woman’s utterance is that those who are not mentioned were not admitted to the university.
(vii) The woman must know that it is mutual knowledge that the man must be supposed if she is to be taken to be co-operating.
(viii) The woman has done nothing to stop the man, the addressee, from making such an inference.
(ix) Therefore, in giving less information than required, the woman implicated not all three students are admitted to the university. In fact, 2 of them weren’t accepted.
4.1.2 The Analysis on Situations Which Flout the Maxim of Relation
The exploitation of the maxim of relation happens when the conversational participants deliberately say something which is unrelated to the topic under discussion to generate certain conversational implicatures. Let’s consider the analysis of the following conversations:
Conversation 2:
(man): What did you think of Professor Martin’s lecture on the migratory habits of whales?
(woman): I couldn’t keep my eyes open.
The mechanism in which implicature is generated in this situation can be analyzed as follows:
(i) The woman stated that she couldn’t keep her eyes open.
(ii) In this situation, the man is asking about the woman’s opinion Professor Martin’s lecture on the migratory habits of whales. The woman’s utterance is clearly unrelated to the topic of discussion. Thus, she is considered to be flouting the maxim of relation which requires speaker to make his contribution relevant.
(iii) There’s no reason to think the woman is not observing the maxims, or at least the co- operative principle.
(iv) The only way one an reconcile the assumption that the woman is co-operative with the content of her utterance is to assume that she is trying to lead the listener to an implicit message.
She couldn’t keep her eyes open during the lecture because she was sleepy. Thus, the listener might infer that the lecture was not so interesting.
(v) The woman must know that it is mutual knowledge that the man must be supposed if she is to be taken to be co-operating.
(vi) The woman has done nothing to stop the man, the addressee, from making such an inference.
(vii) Therefore, by flouting the maxim of relation, the woman implicated that the class was very boring.
4.2 Discussions
The findings of this study have provided further evidence for the relationship between conversational implicature and the flouting of Grice’s cooperative principle maxims. It has been verified that in order to generate conversational implicatures, speakers may choose to flout certain maxims to send implicit messages with the hope that listeners will understand their unspoken notes.
The maxim of quantity is mostly flouted in 70 exchanges (64%). The maxim of quantity is flouted when the character gives either too little or too much information. The scriptwriters have the speakers flout the maxim of quantity when they want to present them as mysterious or as not willing to expose what is in their mind in sensitive situations. The ultimate goal is to create conversational implicatures. The floutings are often obvious to the interlocutor and the speaker often appears as somewhat dim-witted.
In other cases, the interlocutors flout the maxim of relation (36%). The speakers decide not to observe the maxim of relation in order to avoid subjects that would embarrass them or put them in unpleasant situations as well as hint at something that they would not want to say straight out. Scriptwriters have the speakers flout the maxim in order to create irony and to make statements stronger.
The reason why maxim of quality and manner are not exploited in TOEFL listening section is quite obvious. TOEFL test is an academic test and the TOEFL listening section is designed to measure students’ ability to understand conversations and lectures in English. In an academic context, it is required that the speakers should only say what they believe to be true and produce clear, brief and orderly expressions. As a result, speakers usually do not have many opportunities to exploit maxims of quality and manner.
However, the process of analyzing and categorizing situations has encountered some difficulty.
Firstly, one of the major problems was that a non-observance of an utterance sometimes does not only flout one maxim, but several at the same time. It has been decided that the problem should be disregarded and the research should only look at which maxim is most clearly being flouted. Secondly, it was also difficult to determine which maxims were flouted in the case of idiomatic expressions, puns and sayings. Thus, this research classifies such instances as flouting the maxims of relation since the literal meaning may be irrelevant. The last problem was to determine how maxims were used when the characters were making conversational implicature by changing voices since in many cases, the change of voice is of remarkable importance in deciding what the speakers actually mean. This paper had to neglect from these cases for the sake of the accurateness.
5. Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to analyze how speakers in listening section of the TOEFL test flout certain maxims of Gricean cooperative principle to generate conversational implicatures in interaction. The data, collected from scripts of the Toelf Listening section in two books:
Longman preparation course for the Toelf Test by Deborah Phillips and Toelf Test Preparation Kit by ETS, were analyzed in the light of the Gricean cooperative principle which can be divided into four maxims: maxim of quality, quantity, manner and relation. Grice (1975) also states that the flouting of certain maxims may generate what is called “implicature”.
This study adopted a qualitative approach for analyzing the conversations. 70 exchanges which flout certain maxims to generate verbal irony have been chosen for analysis and synthesis. The data have been grouped and compared to find out which maxim is the most preferably flouted to generate conversational implicature.
The results of this study suggest that in the listening section of the TOEFL test, the speaker deliberately flout the maxim of quantity (64%) in order to send implicit messages with the hope that listeners will understand their unspoken notes. The second most frequently flouted maxim is the maxim of relation (36%). The speakers choose not to observe the maxim of relation in order to avoid subjects that would embarrass them or put them in unpleasant situations as well as hint at something that they would not want to say straight out. The findings of this study not only help improve students’ understanding of what the speakers mean in TOELF listening section but also assist teachers to explain more clearly and effectively when teaching the test.
References
Aitchison, J. (2003). Teach yourself Linguistics. London: Hodder and Stroughton Educational.
Alison, R. (2006). The language of humour. London, New York.
Austin, J.L. (1975) “How to do things with words”, Oxford, England Allcorn. S (1994). Anger in the workplace. Westport: Quorum Books.
Barbe, K. (1995). Irony in Context. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Calabrese, K. (2000). Interpersonal conflict & sarcasm in the workplace. Genetic, social &
Geneal Psychology Monographs.
Christoph, H. (2006). Linguistic Approaches to Irony – An Analysis of British Newspaper Comments.
Dews, S., Kaplan, J. and Winner, E. (1995). Why not say it directly: The social functions of irony. Discourse Prpcesses.
Dews, S. and Winner, E. (1999). Obligatory processing of literal and nonliteral meanings in verbal irony. Journal of Pragmatics.
Gates, G. (1926). An observational study of anger. Journal of Experimental Psychology.
Gibbs, & Colston. (2001). Irony in Language and Thought: A Cognitive Science Reader. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Grice, H.P. (1975). ‘Logic and conversation’ In Cole, P. & Morgan, J. (eds.) Syntax and Semantics, Volume 3. New York: Academic Press.
Levinson, S.C. (1984). Pragmatics. London: Cambridge University Press.
Littmann, D. C. & Mey, J. L. (1991). “The nature of irony: Towards a computational model of irony”. Journal of Pragmatics.
Muecke, D. (1970). Irony. (J. D. Jump, Ed.) Norfolk, Fakenham: Methuen & Co Ltd.
Muecke, D. C. (1980). The Compass of Irony. London and New York: Methuen.
Roberts, Richard M. and Roger J. Kreuz. "Why Do People Use Figurative Language?"
Peter, G. (1995). Doing Pragmatics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1981). "Irony and the Use-Mention Distinction." Radical Pragmatics. Ed. Peter Cole. New York: Academic Press.
Thomas, J. (1996). Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. London and New York: Longman.
Wilson, D. & Sperber, D. (1992). “On verbal irony”. Lingua.
Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sitcom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony
Abrams and Hartman. A glossary of literary terms. From http://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/lit_terms_I.htmll Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. (2003). Gopsons Papers Limited, New Delhi. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. 7th edition. Oxford University Press.
