Talk:Gricean maxims

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Gricean maxims was copied or moved into Cooperative principle with this edit on 9 October 2011. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

The examples given in the first section are really poor and should be replaced -- some are directly misleading. Liontooth (talk) 05:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"For example: "It's raining" is in violation of quality and quantity of spoken language; however, in context (e.g. when someone has suggested a game of tennis) the reasoning behind this 'fragment' sentence becomes clear." (from the article) I don't see how this is in violation of either maxim (especially quality). If it is raining, there is ample evidence that it is, and obviously you wouldn't believe it to be false. It would be hard to say that the statment provides more information than necessary, as there is nothing to cut out. Assuming that the purpose of the exchange was to inform the other that it is raining, then it definitely provides the required information. 121.44.230.185 (talk) 11:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the examples, and I'm pretty sure everyone will agree they're better than the original ones.70.171.44.214 (talk) 05:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Gricean maxims are used in some discourse algorithms (e.g. Computational Interpretations of the Gricean Maxims in Gerneration of Referring Expressions). In that field of study, the application of Gricean maxims is known to depend heavily on the discussion context, i.e. the speaker's model of the hearer's model of the conversation. Might it be useful to define that discussion context in this article? If not, is there a better article in which to describe it?

(Oops. I forgot to log in. The above talk entry is mine.) The Rod 19:50, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It ought to be stressed out that atleast on his article "Logic and Conversation" Grice makes clear that in order for conversational implicature to be possible there has to be some sort of "exploitation" of one of the maxims. Grice's own example is as follows: "Oh quite well, I think; he likes his colleagues, and he hasn't been to prison yet." where the violation is on the maxim of relation. Due to this violation (and if the hearer understands it and the speaker knows that the hearer understands it) hearer knows that something else than what is said is implicated, thus functioning as a basis for conversational implicature.

--88.148.204.180 15:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These maxims are often summed up as : "be brief, be clear be relevant, be truthful" would this be appropriate information to add in? Alastairthegreat (talk) 06:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...

I dare to say that the article sucks. The examples are not good and actually violate one or two of the maxims they are intended to clarify.

In the case of the maxim of clarity, the two VS-examples are even confused. WTF!?