The Flouting of Cooperative Principle in Rhetorical Figures

【Abstract】Grice believes that conversation is governed by certain conventions. Hearers tend to assume speakers are conforming with these conventions and if speakers are not conforming， they have good reasons not to. Cooperative Principle（“CP” in brief hereafter） is the convention that interlocutors follow when starting conversations. However， people dont satisfy all the demands of the CP and sometimes they deliberately fail to observe a maxim（or maxims） to fulfill different purposes. The use of rhetorical figures is one typical situation of flouting the CP. This paper analyzed the reasons and pragmatic functions achieved by flouting of CP in rhetorical figures.

【Key words】 Cooperative Principle； rhetorical figures； flouting

1. Introduction

To communicate in an accurate and efficient way， both speaker and hearer should take an cooperative attitude. A rough general principle might be formulated which participants will be expected to observe， viz：

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. One might label this Cooperative Principle.（Grice 1975）

Grices Cooperative Principle consists of four pragmatic sub-principles or maxims： Quantity； Quality； Relation； and Manner.

In Theory of Speech Act， some rhetorical figures are complying with the CP while others violate it on purpose to generate a meaning that is different from the literal meaning， which is known as “conversational implicature” . So， from this perspective， a conversational implicature is a flouting of the maxim of the quality. However， through violating the CP， not only will not the figurative words cause misunderstanding， but also add extra interest， pleasure or politeness in the conversation in the form of providing tone or atmosphere to discourse， illustrating vivid examples to stimulate thought or giving life to inanimate objects， etc. In daily communication， many implicit rhetorical figures produce great pragmatic functions by flouting the CP.

2. Literature Review

There are a number of problems occurring between cooperating humans. Mey（2001） believes that if the expected cooperative behavior is not forthcoming， conversational implicature is going on. And when people “blatantly fail to observe one or several maxims”（Thomas 1996）， thats the flouting of a maxim， either semantically or pragmatically. Specifically， Grice （1975） considered figures of speech such as metaphor as the flouting of quality maxim.

3. Analysis

3.1 Rhetorical Figures Flouting the Quantity Maxim

Repetition

Example1： Shine！ Shine！ Shine！ Pour down your warmth， great sun！

Blow！ Blow！ Blow！

Blow up sea-winds along Paumanoks shore；

Soothe！ Soothe！ Soothe！

Close on its wave behind，

Loud！ Loud！ Loud！

Loud I call to you， my love！

（Walt Whiteman： Out of the Cradle Endlessly Rocking）

This is an excerpt from Walt Whitemans Out of the Cradle Endlessly Rocking . Under common situation， only one word respectively for “shine” “blow” “soothe” “l(fā)oud” is enough to describe the scene of sun shining， wind blowing and poets pleasant feeling for nature. But Whiteman uses lexical repetition and provides excessive information to achieve the purpose of expressing his surging passion and illuminated thought of freedom， whose power and enthusiasm is hard to convey by only one word.

Example2： A： What a terrible scene！

B： War is war.

Example 1 realizes the rhetoric effect by providing overmuch information while example 2 achieves the effect on the opposite way. There are only 3 words in Bs reply and “war” is repeated twice. Literally， “war is war” has nothing to do with the terrible scene， but hearer could understand the conversational implicature from the context and know that war is very cruel and dangerous， so everything could happen.

3.2 Rhetorical Figures Flouting the Quality Maxim

The quality maxim requires people to say what is believed to be true and support it with sufficient evidence. Saying something that is not true is an infringement of the quality maxim. In everyday conversations， speakers might say impossible or false things for various reasons. Under such circumstances， it requires hearer to find out the underlying meaning of the “l(fā)ies”. Among the rhetorical figures that flouting the quality maxim， hyperbole， metaphor， personification and irony are 4 classic kinds.

3.2.1 Hyperbole

Example 3 A： Could you tell me one more time？

B： I have told you a thousand times！

What B says “I have told you a thousand times” is not literally true because one can not repeat one thing for a thousand time. Actually， B is using hyperbole to express his weary attitude and dissatisfaction with A.

3.2.2 Metaphor

Example 4： Time is money.

“Time is money” is obviously unreasonable because we can not buy things with time. This is an untrue statement so it violates the quality maxim. But because of the way that the concept of work has developed in modern Western culture， where work is typically associated with the time it takes and time is precisely quantified， it has become customary to pay people by hour， week， or year. So， from this perspective， time could be seen as a valuable commodity. Though flouting the CP， metaphor here serves to concretize abstract objects so that hearer can understand it more easily.

3.2.3 Irony

Irony shares a close relationship with the CP. There are occasions where humor plays an important role in prompting the whole conversation. Hence， one of the reasons why interlocutors flout the quality maxim is to emphasize the humor effect. By definition， irony refers to the behavior of saying one thing while meaning the exact opposite. The humor and sarcasm effect of irony is brought by violating the quality maxim. For example， one says “What a beautiful day” under the condition of bad weather； or saying “I really did a good job” after failing the exam. Its obvious that the speaker is saying something which is exactly the opposite of what happens to express a strong emotion or a profound sense of incapability. Though infringing the quality maxim， the strong emotion created will leave a deep impression on hearers.

3.3 Rhetorical Figures Flouting the Relation Maxim

The relation maxim requires speakers to be pertinent to the subject. But in reality， people deliberately flouts the relation maxim and make irrelevant statements， achieving unexpected pragmatic effects. Euphemism is one figure of speech that flouts the relation maxim.

Euphemism

The word “euphemism” originates from the Greek word “euphemiso”. “eu” means good， well and “phemism” means saying， speech. Thus， the whole meaning of euphemism is saying with good words. According to Fowler（1858-1933）， euphemism means the use of a mild or vague or periphrastic expression as a substitute for blunt precision or disagreeable use. In speech or writing， we use euphemism for dealing with taboo or sensitive subjects.

Example 5： A： Is he a good singer？

B： Have you ever heard the sound of a grinding machine？

The hearer says something irrelevant to the topic instead of replying to the speaker directly. On the surface， he infringes the relation maxim. Actually， he implicitly conveys his opinion that the singer is bad. In this way， the speaker synchronizes politeness with showing his genuine attitude.

3.4 Rhetorical Figures Flouting the Manner Maxim

The manner maxim requires interlocutors to speak briefly and orderly without obscurity and ambiguity. The typical figures of speech flouting the manner maxim are oxymoron and paradox.

3.4.1 Oxymoron

Example 6： It has the poorest millionaires， the littlest great man， the haughtiest beggars， the plainest beauties， the lowest skyscrapers， the dolefulness pleasures of any town I ever saw. （O Henry： The Duel）

There are many contradictions in this sentence . Thus， it is beyond doubt that the statement flouts the manner maxim. But it is the oxymoron that attracts the readers to think about the contradiction， giving a fascinating and intriguing effect. Also， it successfully stimulates readers desire to continue reading and deepen the understanding.

3.4.2 Paradox

Example 7： Less is more. （Ludwig Mies Van der Rohe）

Generally， less is the opposite of more and it is impossible to say less equals more. So， it violates the manner maxim. However， from the perspective of Marxist philosophy， both parties of the contradiction are within a unity. Under certain circumstances， they can transformed into each other. So， less is more makes sense in the philosophical angle. Sometimes， truths are always paradox， which means flouting the CP is to some extent a process of knowing life better.

4. Conclusion

The 4 aspects of rhetorical analysis above reveals that most of the figures of speech flout Grices Cooperative Principle. However， not only doesnt it hinder the process of a smooth conversation， but it helps to promote the communication to develop in a pleasant and intriguing direction. Indeed， strictly observing the CP is beneficial in enhancing the efficiency of interaction， but it is relatively plain and dull. Sometimes， a proper flouting of the CP， such as the use of rhetorical figures would fill the talk with more color and fun.

References：

[1]Enright.1985.Fair of Speech：The Uses of Euphemism[M].New York：Oxford University Press.

[2]Jacob L.Mey.2001.Pragmatics：An Introduction.[M].Beijing：Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.

[3]Paul Grice.1975.Logic and conversation[M].New York： Academic Press.

作者簡介：羅翠媚（1994-），女，漢族，廣東佛山人，大連外國語大學(xué)英語學(xué)院，文化與交際專業(yè)，研究方向：語言學(xué)。