Page 412 - Encyclopedia of Philosophy of Language

Pragmatics and Speech Act Theory 2.2 Flouts which 'Exploit'a Maxim
According to Grice's theory, interlocutors operate on the assumption that, as a rule, the maxims will be observed. When this expectation is confounded and the listener is confronted with the blatant non- observance of a maxim (that is, the listener has dis- counted the possibility that the speaker may be trying to deceive, or is incapable of speaking more clearly, succinctly, etc.), he or she is again prompted to look for an implicature. Most of Grice's own examples of flouts involve this sort of 'exploitation.'
Flouts which exploit the maxim of quality, for example, occur when the speaker says something which is blatantly untrue or for which she or he lacks adequate evidence. In the 'wheel clamping' example given in the opening section, an implicature is gen- erated by the speaker's saying something which is patently false. Since the speaker does not appear to be trying to deceive the listener in any way, the listener is forced to look for another plausible interpretation. According to Grice, the deductive process mightwork like this (5):
What Grice's theory (at least as originally formulated) fails to say is why in this example one is expected to seek a comparison between crab grass in lawns and big sisters in life, whereas in the previous example one looked for a proposition which was the exact opposite of the one expressed. Developments in relevance the- ory (Sperber and Wilson 1986) could help to rescue Grice's theory at this point.
Examples of floutings of the maxim of relation are legion. The one in (7) is typical (it has to be assumed that it is clear in the context that B has heard and understood A's question):
A: Who was that you were with last night? (7) B: Did you know you were wearing odd socks?
It would be tedious once again to work through all the steps in the informal deductive process— suffice it to say that A is likely to come to the conclusion that B is irritated or embarrassed by the question and wishes to change the subject. Again, Grice's theory fails to address a very important issue, viz. why does B choose to indicate only indirectly that she is irritated or embarrassed? After all, if A were a particularly insensitive person, there is the risk that she might ignore B's hint and pose the question again. B could remove that possibility by saying: Mind your own busi- ness \ In the 1970s and 1980s, much effort in the field of pragmatics was put into developing theories of politeness (see, for example, Brown and Levinson (1987) and Leech (1983)) which, proponents argue, 'rescue' Grice's theory by explaining the social con- straints governing utterance production and interpret- ation.
The following example (8) illustrates a flout of the maxim of manner. It occurred during a radio interview with an unnamed official from the United States Embassy in Port-au-Prince, Haiti:
(a) A has expressed pleasure at finding his car clamped.
(b) No one, not even the most jaded masochist, is likely to be pleased at finding his car clamped.
(c) His passenger has no reason to believe that A is trying to deceive him in any way.
(d) Unless A's utterance is entirely pointless, he must be trying to put across to his passenger some
other proposition.
(e) This must be some obviously related proposition.
(f) The most obviously related proposition is
the exact opposite of the one he has expressed.
(g) A is extremely annoyed at finding his car clamped.
(5)
The following example (6) works in much the same way, but this time involves what Grice rather vaguely terms 'generating a conversational implicature by means of something like a figure of speech'. The speaker is the Peanuts character, Linus, who com- ments wearily: Big sisters are the crab grass in the lawn oflife.
(a) It is patently false that big sisters are crab (6) grass.
(b) Linus does not appear to be trying to make readers believe that big sisters are crab grass.
(c) Unless Linus's utterance is entirely pointless, he must be trying to put across some other proposition.
(d) This must be some obviously related proposition.
(e) The most obviously related proposition is that, like crab grass in lawns, big sisters are a bane.
Interviewer:
Official:
Did the United States Government (8) play any part in Duvalier's depar- ture?Didthey,forexample, actively encourage him to leave?
I would not try to steer you away from that conclusion.
390
The official could simply have replied: 'Yes.' Her actual response is extremely long-winded and con- voluted, and it is obviously no accident, nor through any inability to speak clearly, that she has failed to observe the maxim of manner. There is, however, no reason to believe that the official is being deliberately unhelpful (she could, after all, have simply refused to answer at all, or said: No comment).
The hearer must therefore look for another expla- nation, and, once again, there is nothing in Grice's theory to help explain the official's flouting of the maxim of manner. In this case, it is not a clash of maxims which has caused her to flout the maxim of manner in this way. Rather, it is occasioned by the desire to claim credit for what she sees as a desirable