CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by CSCanada.net: E-Journals (Canadian Academy of Oriental and Occidental Culture, Canadian Research & Development Center of Sciences and Cultures) ISSN 1712-8056[Print] Canadian Social Science ISSN 1923-6697[Online] Vol. 13, No. 10, 2017, pp. 15-21 www.cscanada.net DOI:10.3968/9905 www.cscanada.org Critical Voices Against the Cooperative Principle KE Weichu[a],* LI Zhanfang[b] [a]School of Foreign Languages, North China Electric Power University, long been controversies on it from wide-ranging fields. Beijing, China. Affirmative opinions are mainly from linguistics and [b]Associate Professor, School of Foreign Languages, North China Electric Power University, Beijing, China. pragmatics. In linguistics, it is widely recognized that the *Corresponding author. CP has huge historical significance due to the separation of pragmatics from linguistics (Hadi, 2013; Ke, 2016). Received 21 July 2017; accepted 17 September 2017 Grice’s theory makes language study more practical and Published online 26 October 2017 closer to the reality, and also inspires linguists to adopt a more dynamic pragmatic approach in researches rather Abstract than only study static language form and meaning (Grandy, The Cooperative Principle (CP), Grice’s influential 1989). More specifically, there is a consensus that the CP contribution to pragmatics, advances strongly in is helpful for the hearer to infer the intended meaning and linguistics, philosophy, psychology and sociology. understand exactly the speaker’s real purposes and attitudes However, doubts and criticisms on it have been unceasing. (Cheng & Zheng, 2001; Feng, 2013). Grice’s theory They are mainly concerned with the following four works much better as an analysis of informing, telling, and aspects: The term “cooperation” itself is ambiguous; communicating (Davis, 1998, p.114; Ke, 2016). the question of whether the CP belongs to a range of The CP also gains many positive remarks from principles or rules has not been decided; The four maxims semantics. Blome-Tillmann (2013) reckons that Grice’s cannot be applied extensively; The descriptions of the theory provides principled and systematic ways to violations are not too persuasive. These critical views are account for a multitude of utterance meaning. It makes a the results of some scholars’ misunderstandings. First, breakthrough in traditional semantics which only focuses they ignore to give self-definition of “cooperation” in on truth-value (Xiong, 2008). Thereby, as the centre of the CP; Second, they mix the concepts and relationship this theory, the CP opens the door of a more fruitful and between the cooperative principle and conversational constructive study of natural language semantics. Those maxims; Thirdly, they indiscreetly impose the cooperative who study the language under cultural backgrounds essence of the CP on the maxims so that maxims are hold that the CP offers a new option for approaching imprisoned. implicature that is historically sensitive and culture- Key words: The Cooperative Principle (CP); Doubt; specific (Davis, 2008; Ke, 2016). Criticism; Misunderstanding Additionally, in light of philosophy, Feng (2008) thinks that the CP is a philosophical methodology by which Ke, W. C., & Li, Z. F. (2017). Critical Voices Against the Cooperative Principle. Canadian Social Science, 13(10), 15-21. Available people realize the abstract nature of relationship between from: http://www.cscanada.net/index.php/css/article/view/9905 logic and conversation. Wang (2012) and Zhang (2010) DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3968/9905 present that the CP gives the perspective of application and feasibility of communicative analysis, which structures, concretes and formalizes the obscure talk exchange phenomena into different degrees (Ke, 2016). INTRODUCTION As the centre of the discipline of pragmatics (Hadi, Since the Cooperative Principle (CP) was proposed by 2013), it is obvious that Grice’s theory, with its unique Grice in Logic and Conversation in 1967, there have advantages, advances strongly in linguistics, philosophy, 15 Copyright © Canadian Academy of Oriental and Occidental Culture Critical Voices Against the Cooperative Principle psychology and sociology. However, doubts and criticisms pragmatic cooperation and rhetorical cooperation. on the CP have been unceasing. The deficiencies of the Furthermore, Lumsden (2008), Sarangi and Slembrouck theory are mainly criticized as the follows: (a) the term (1992), Thomas (2008) share the view that Grice’s “cooperation” itself is ambiguous; (b) whether the CP “cooperation” includes social goal sharing cooperation belongs to a range of principles or rules has not been and linguistic cooperation. While some scholars approve decided yet; (c) the four maxims cannot be applied that Grice’s concept not only deal with cooperation on extensively; (d) the descriptions of the violations are not language but also concerted efforts on behavior (Holdcroft, too persuasive. 1983; Asa, 1982; Okolo, 2017; Pratt, 1981; Sampson, 1982; Wilson & Sperber, 1981), Greenall (2002) claims that Gricean notion of the term is a kind of weak-form 1. THE DIVERSIFIED INTERPRETATIONS cooperation. OFTHE AMBIGUOUS TERM The ambiguity of the term “cooperation” is also the result of the different hierarchies involved in it. Yao “COOPERATION” (2012) deems that “cooperation” in the CP is defined Grice delineates that people tend to communicate basically as “making transferring and understanding cooperatively in a logical and rational way. The hearer information possible”. Grice’s “utterance” include would catch the implicature from the speaker’s remarks by “parole” and “nonverbal behavior”, which indicates that drawing on an assumption of cooperativeness. This habit his “cooperation” contains four hierarchies at least: (a) has been learned during their childhood and kept forever both sides make the conversation accessible and proceed (Yao, 2012), but Grice did not elucidate the concept of smoothly (Fraser & Nolen, 1981; Gu, 2003; Jiang, 2003) cooperation (Hadi, 2013; Ladegaard, 2008), which is in which the speaker gives utterances and the hearer comparatively vague (Yao, 2012). Many other critics have says something as response (Jiang, 2003); (b) satisfy the overlooked or even misunderstood the ambiguous term speaker’s requirements in verbal level instead of those of “cooperation” (Ladegaard, 2008; Sarangi & Slembrouck, social goal from the hearer (e.g perfunctoriness); (c) both 1992; Thomas, 1998). sides make utterances meet the social demands but not in The interpretations of the CP are sometimes verbal level; (d) both sides’ demands for social goal and problematic because Grice’s technical term “cooperation” speech both are met (Yao, 2012). often confounds with the general meaning of It is not suitable to explain Grice’s “cooperation” “cooperation” (Davies, 2007; Feng, 2005; Hadi, 2013; broadly, because it only takes place in verbal interactions Wang, 2011). Applying two interpretations in the same (Liang, 2006; Saeed, 2000), otherwise ambiguity would field creates confusion among linguistics “cooperation come. Back to the CP itself, as it said: “Make your drift” (Davies, 2007). Grice’s “cooperation” is different conversational contribution such as requires, at the stage from the everyday notion of cooperation (Hadi, 2013; at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction Ladegaard, 2008; Li, 2008; Mey, 2001), and thinks that of the talk exchange in which you are engaged”. From its meaning is much closer to the general meaning of Grice’s work, it is obvious that common aims of the “cooperation” (Davies, 2007). participants correspond with the cooperative nature Because of its ambiguity, many scholars make of conversation. “Accepted purpose” requires people distinctions between different kinds of cooperation in to make their utterances accessible by using the same order to specify Grice’s notion as well as to limit its scope language code, following particular language conventions of definition. One of the views holds that “cooperation” and social habits (Yao, 2012). Accepted purpose refers in the CP should include the cooperative attitude of the to communicate efficiently, or in general the effort of listener rather than the speaker’s effort only (i.e producing exerting effect on others (same as Grice), rather than utterance) (Lin & Yu, 2002; Jing, 2005). Based on the providing detailed information exactly in a narrow sense classification of “cooperation” in social activities (e.g ad, (Grandy, 1989; Gu, 2003). “Cooperation” should be literature) and “cooperation” in verbal behavior, Grice’s interpreted in terms of what people want to obtain from “cooperation” refers to the collective consulting process their communications (Ladegaard, 2008), and whether of communicative purpose and particular ways of how to the conversation is cooperative depends on interlocutors’ apply verbal behaviors with both sides’ effort of following purposes (Yao, 2012), especially by their “mutually interaction conventions of their community (Zhang, accepted goal” (Sarangi & Slembrouk, 1992). 2009). Pavlidou (1991) puts up that Gricean “cooperation” is a formal meaning that is following conversational maxims or against them, which differs from substantial 2. THE CONTROVERSIAL CATEGORY OF cooperation. Aireni (1993) generally divided it into communicative cooperation and extra-communicative PRINCIPLE OR RULE cooperation, while Grice’s notion is similar to the former. The CP has also been