Grice’s Cooperative Principle and Turn-Taking Mechanism

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Conclusion
List of References

Introduction

The use of Grice’s cooperative principle and the turn-taking mechanisms are two of the most used and discussed principles of communication.

Generally speaking, the cooperative principle refers to a communication code used mostly in linguistics and social studies to refer to a certain set of principles (maxims) set by Paul Grice to help govern people such that they can communicate effectively(Grice, 1975).

According to Grice, communicators should strive to ensure that they contribute relevantly as is required of them during communication while intermittently making certain that during the exchanges in a given discourse or dialogue, the necessary purpose of communication is objectively achieved (Isenberg, 2008).

Even though Grice’s cooperative principle is usually viewed more as a prescriptive command, the main purpose of this principle is usually to describe the real nature of normal conversations and how people should behave when communicating with one another (Bach, 2005).

On the other hand, turn-taking simply refers to the instance in conversation whereby the communicators take turns when communicating. According to Isenberg (2008), turn-taking is a key aspect of any given social interaction as it creates a forum on which people get to express their opinions or ideas as is required during conversation.

However, in order for the turn-taking mechanism to take place in an objective manner, it is important that some principles are keyed in (Ladner, 2009). It is at this point that Grice’s cooperative principle, and other related principles, come in. A discussion of these two principles is done below with relevant explications being given from our sample dialogue.

In discussing Grice’s cooperative principle as well as the turn-taking mechanism, with special regards to the sample transcript conversation given; these two facets of language and communication will be looked at differently, at first.

Then once their intricacies have been individually outlined, a rejoinder will be given analyzing both of them and how they relevantly contribute to proper communication—with regards to our sample case.

Grice’s Cooperative Principle

Preliminarily, it is elemental to state that Grice’s Cooperative Principle is usually divided into four maxims namely: the Maxim of Quality, the Maxim of Quantity, the Maxim of Relevance and the Maxim of Manner (Grice, 1975).

In essence, all these maxims are typified variedly in conversations depending on the communicators and the nature of their communication.

However, as a standard rule, all these maxims primarily function to explain the important link between utterances in conversations and what people get to understand from them. In the sample transcript conversation, all these maxims play out variably—as is detailed below.

To begin with, the maxim of quality stresses on the value of truthfulness in any given communication (Grice, 1975). According to Grice, communicators should strive to be as truthful as possible and not just saying something for the sake of conversation even when we do not have sufficient evidence to back that which we say.

In the sample conversation between Lori and Michael, this maxim is repeatedly exemplified. For example, when Lori asks Michael if he’s a dog person, Lori says yes and when Lori goes ahead to probe further whether or not Michael is saying the truth; Michael says “Absolutely, 100% confirmed, dog person.

You bet.” This response goes a long way in asserting the fact that Michael is a dog person. And as we later proceed, this fact is ascertained through the various instances that Michael candidly talks of his experiences as a “dog-person.”

If Michael had lied about being a dog person, then the rest of the conversation would have been as good as nothing since there would be no objectivity in the conversation which, apparently, centralizes on the dog topic.

Based on the above example, it can therefore be said that the maxim of quality is a crucial part of any given conversation and, if objectivity is to be enhanced in any conversation, the communicators should strive to be as truthful as possible.

The second maxim, the maxim of quantity, is more-or-less similar and equally important as the maxim of quality. The variation here, however, is that the maxim of quantity stresses on the amount (quantity) of information.

To this regard, Grice says that communicators should make sure that their contributions in conversations are informative and insightful (Grice, 1975)). However, Grice warns that we should not be carried away to the extent that we give more information than is required of us just in the same way we should avoid not giving enough information (Bach, 2005).

In the sample case, the maxim of quantity is duly explicated both positively and negatively. On the positive side, when Lori asks Michael if he owns a dog, Michael says that “Yes, I have. Yes, I had — let me see, this would be about 10 years ago. I had my own doggy; I had a Norwegian Elk Hound.”

This response not only answers Lori in a candid manner but it also gives useful information about when Michael had the dog as well as the type of dog. On the negative side, when Lori asks the question “OK! Do you have a law in England or in your city that you have to pick up the dog poo when you’re walking your dog?”, Michael’s response seems too wordy and bit overstretched even to areas that were not in Lori’s question.

If the intended purpose of the conversation is to be achieved, it is inherently unavoidable that the communicators tailor their words in a way that only useful information is given while unnecessary verbosity and conversation fillers are avoided.

The third maxim, the maxim of relevance, just like the name suggests, stresses on communicators communicating relevantly using relevant words and expression.

Regarding this maxim, Grice emphasizes that the words and expressions that we use during communication should be relevant to the purpose and objective of our conversations. To a great extent, the maxim of relevance heavily relies on the maxim of quality and quantity (Grice, 1975).

Apart from the aforementioned instance when Michael seemed to have overstretched his answer, the conversation between Lori and Michael hugely emphasized on issues relevant to what they were talking about.

This, however, would have not been possible had the maxims of quality and quantity not been keyed in their conversation—with the elements of truth and quantity of information being emphasized.

The fourth maxim, the maxim of manner lays emphasis on the importance of clarity when communicating. Here, Grice stipulates that, during a conversation, the communicators should avoid things like ambiguity, prolixity and obscurity of expression while striving to be orderly and candid with their words and expressions.

In order to do this (ensure clarity in a conversation), it is advisable that simple and easily understandable words are used.

In the conversation between Lori and Michael, most of the words used were relatively simple and straight-to-the-point thus making it easy to understand what was being said.

Only in the instance where Michael mentions the 1970’s without any substantiation or any follow-up answers concerning what happened then, do we find his words somewhat far-fetched and kind of ambiguous.

Turn-Taking Mechanism

Based on the differences in languages, rules of communication and manner of communication, among many other factors; turn-taking comes in a myriad of ways—as was earlier glimpsed. Nonetheless, there are some basic principles that are usually constant for most instances of turn-taking.

For example, according to Isenberg (2008), we can easily recognize the points in which people shift turns in a conversation through pointers such as pauses, speaker change, question intonation and sentence intonation.

In prescribed excerpts, however, it is normally much easier to pin-point the instances of turn-taking since names, letters or numbers are used to differentiate the people involved in the conversation (Miller, 1999). The above pointers outlined by Isenberg can be identified in the conversation between Lori and Michael—as shown below.

Lori: Would you consider yourself a dog person or a cat person?

Michael: Oh, I’m a dog person, I can tell you straight away.

In this example, the question intonation (signaled by the question mark at the end of Lori’s transcription) signals Michael that it is his turn to talk. And as we can verifiably see from the extract, Michael decides to respond soon after Lori’s question.

For turn-taking to go on smoothly, it is advisable that the communicators give each other time to respond adequately to questions. If this is not practiced, then the communication will be one-sided thus not giving a fully objective communication.

In the case of Michael and Lori, it is worth commending that the two managed to give each other time to talk, ask questions or even give responses. As a matter of fact, by the end of the conversation, Lori had talked 9 times while Michael talked 8 times.

Going by the observation that Lori is the one who initiated conversation, and it was therefore natural for him to end it; it can be said that turn-taking between them was duly balanced. This balance is furthered by the uniform sequence of LMLMLMLMLMLMLMLML where L represents the instances where Lori talked and M represents Michael talking.

In some instances of turn-taking, interjections can be used—especially in cases where one of the people involved in the conversation is going overboard with his/her talks. In turn taking, the interjections can be in form of a laugh or even interruption by chipping in with some words.

In the conversation between Michael and Lori, this form of turn-taking was not exhibited since the communicators were disciplined.

In finality, Wardhaugh (2006) states that most people who are close to one another tend to find it easy to easily take turns without the unnecessary long pauses or speaking at the same time thus creating distortions.

Other studies also indicate that good communicators can easily “read between the lines” of their fellow communicators and thus avoid any overlaps, distortions or miscommunications (Cameron, 2001).

Based on these studies, it can therefore be assumed that Michael and Lori are close friends (they know one another) or they are good communicators based on the smooth flow of their conversation.

Rejoinder of Grice’s Cooperative Principle and the Turn-Taking Mechanism with relevance to the Sample Conversation Transcript

As was earlier mentioned, Grice’s cooperative principle and the turn-taking mechanism function symbiotically towards the objective of good communication. If the cooperative principles outlined by Grice are followed; relevance, objectivity, clarity and truthfulness are enhanced thus making it easy relatively for the people communicating to take turns in the required way.

On the other hand, by following the key elements of turn-taking, communication pitfalls like ambiguity and lack of clarity are avoided thus sustaining the objectives of Grice’s cooperative principle.

This mutual relationship was hugely typified in the conversation between Michael and Lori. Nonetheless, if ultimate objectivity is to be enhanced, then it is recommendable that other facets and principles of language and good communication are keyed in the conversation (Cameron, 2001).

Conclusion

In many important ways, Grice’s cooperative principle and the turn-taking mechanism have been repeatedly used in communication forums with many positive results found thereof by the communicators (Isenberg, 2008).

However, in looking at such aspects of conversations, it is important to keep in mind the fact that they are not all-perfect. For example, Keenan (1976) says that, just like most social behaviors, Grice’s Maxims are culturally dependent thus principles that apply in one place may not necessarily apply in another.

This, therefore, refutes the arguments that Grice’s cooperation principle can be applied universally. Maintaining a circumspectly keen eye on these principles is therefore paramount to avoid overstepping some language boundaries or misleading people during communication.

List of References

Bach, K., 2005. The top 10 misconceptions about implicature. Web.

Cameron, D., 2001. Working with spoken discourse. London: Sage Publications.

Grice, P. 1975. “Logic and conversation”. In syntax and semantics, 3: Speech Acts, ed. P. Cole & J. Morgan. New York: Academic Press. Reprinted in studies in the way of words, ed. H. P. Grice, pp. 22–40. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press (1989).

Isenberg, H. M., 2008. Organization of conversation. Web.

Keenan, E. O., 1976. On the universality of conversational implicatures. Language in Society, vol. 5, pp. 67–80.

Ladner, S., 2009. Designing for conversations: the critical importance of turn taking. Web.

Miller, E., 1999. Turn-taking and relevance in conversation. Web.

Wardhaugh, R., 2006. An introduction to sociolinguistics. Kansas: Blackwell.

Click Here To Order Now!