Analysis of Cooperative Principle in Students’ Criticism

【摘 要】文章通過學(xué)生被老師批評所作出的反應(yīng)進(jìn)行個案簡析，從而對合作原則的違背現(xiàn)象進(jìn)行研究。

【關(guān)鍵詞】合作原則 學(xué)生 違背現(xiàn)象 個案研究

【中圖分類號】G642 【文獻(xiàn)標(biāo)識碼】A 【文章編號】1674－4810（2012）16－0025－02

In 1975， the philosopher of language H. P. Grice published a seminal article entitled “The Co-operative Principle” that created quite a stir on the linguistic scene and generated a large number of linguistic publications that built on Grice’s postulates. The basic assumption is that any discourse， whether written or spoken， is a joint effort. Both the speaker and the addressee have to follow certain pragmatic， syntactic， and semantic rules in order to communicate effectively. They have to co-operate. It is no doubt that most of conversations follow this principle， but there are still some exceptions， for example， the case when students are being criticized.

Ⅰ Theoretical framework

The English language philosopher Paul Grice（Grice， 1975） proposes that in ordinary conversation， speakers and hearers share a cooperative principle， and points out how the cooperative principle works with another. Speakers shape their utterances to be understood by hearers. From the cognitive level， hearers may observe， flout or violate what speakers said before. Grice analyzes cooperation as involving four maxims: quantity， quality， relation， and manner. The maxim of quantity is presented that speakers should be as information as is required， that they should give either too little information nor too much. The second maxim is that of quality， which says that Speakers are genuine， and sincere， speaking “truth” or facts. Utterances are assumed to be saying something that is relevant to the context of the speech， or what has been said before. This is called relation. The last maxim is manner， which says that speakers try to present meaning clearly， orderly and concisely， avoiding ambiguity（Cited in Cutting， Joan， 2002）.

1．quality: speaker tells the truth or provable by adequate evidence

2．quantity: speaker is as informative as required

3．relation: response is relevant to topic of discussion

4．manner: speaker’s avoids ambiguity or obscurity， is direct and straightforward

Ⅱ My case study

1．My case

This conversation was selected from my students’ answers in a higher vocational college. At the school gate， 2 students， two boys， one by one， were just caught being late by the principal. They were ordered to stand in a line and questioned in turn. The following is a dialogue between the principal（P）and the two students（S）:

P: What’s the matter with you? 〔1〕

S1:（Boy）（Cursing in murmur）What? 〔2〕

P: Don’t you know what wrong you have done? 〔3〕

S1: The alarm bell didn’t work this morning. It’s not my fault. 〔4〕

P: What a good excuse! There should be no excuse for the wrong deeds on the issue of study. 〔5〕

S1:（Muttering）Then why did you ask me to tell you the reason? 〔6〕

S2:（Boy）It is my first time to late for school， since no one will ever keep the school rule， why you are so mean? 〔7〕

2．Pragmatic analysis and discussion

When the principal comes to question the student， his purpose is to investigate the event， find out the reason and then educate them. The principal presupposes that the students have obviously done wrong and they should explain the true reason why they are late， not find some excuses to avoid their wrong， then realize their mistake and even promise not to be late for school again， to keep the school rule consciously. He may also hold the further presupposition that the students have been cooperative and listening at tentatively to him， especially when the principal is the obvious superior.

Utterance〔1〕， in the form of a question， is a demand for explanation， which is supposed to be answered in the form of a statement， according to the Cooperative Principle. We know he is the principal， who is the most authoritative person in the school. So， he is apparent to wish everybody must obey what he said in any conditions. However， to his surprise， student one turns out to be rambling and cursing in his own thoughts. He even hopes to avoid the principal’s question in the form of asking what. He is not relevant to the question that the principal asks. After the principal asks in a more serious way， the student tells him the reason he late for school in an unpleasant manner， showing his excuse that is not him， but the alarm bell’s fault.

Utterance〔2〕， in the form of a question， instead， is his request for repetition. This is a violation of cooperative principle. This utterance reveals he is absent-minded， and his tone can be interpreted as a kind of disobedience， which is easy to make a bad impression on the principal. The implication is that the student is being impolite.The principal responds with another rhetorical question—Utterance〔3〕. By violating the cooperative principle deliberately， he means more than what he says to remind and accuse the student， and demand again that the student should realize his mistake. This implies that all of them， not just student one should keep the school rule firmly in future. When the principal utters〔3〕， there comes a problem with his questioning caused by his assumption that more should have been communicated than is said—the student， now， should feel sincerely sorry for his being late and show regret and， maybe more importantly， respect to the principal， the superior.

Until Utterance〔4〕， the conversation continues all in the form of question-question（Q-Q）， instead of the question-statement（Q-S） pattern. From the student’s perspective， the first half part of Utterance〔4〕provides relatively enough information for question [3]; but with the later half of Utterance〔4〕， the student makes his contribution more informative than is required; he wants to take off his responsibility. Here， he is violating quantity， but is in relation. However， in utterance〔4〕， the speaker’s purpose does not focus the principal’s attention， but express something more to take off his responsibility. From the principal’s perspective， on one hand， the student’s answer provides less information than expected—he needs the student to realize his mistake， not only the excuse; on the other hand， the student’s answer provides too much information than he wants—the student hasn’t realized his mistake. In another word， the student is not being cooperative in the whole conversation. Utterance〔5〕is actually the principal’s strong declaration that first， the student is guilty， according to the school rules; then the student is deliberately too uncooperative to truly realize his mistake; last he is too impolite.

The conversation should come to an end now， with the principal’s questioning and coming to a conclusion that the student is guilty， if only the student would be a little obedient， although， which is rare in reality and would not have said〔6〕. Utterance〔6〕is a counter-questioning， of course， another violation of cooperative principle. The student is sizing the weakness in the principal’s utterance， disobeying what the principal’s criticism， refusing his bitter education， showing no any guilty in what he have done. Needless to say， this is a failure example to criticize students. This utterance is enough to show that up even until now， the student has still been unwilling to realize his mistake and the principal’s “scolding” has not reached its purpose.

What is worse is that student two is seemed to find some courage from student one， and says something more irrelevant and impolite in the form of question-question（Q-Q）， which should answer in question-statement（Q-S）pattern〔7〕. He does not only realize his wrong， as well as find some more preposterous to avoid his responsibility for being late for school.

Ⅲ Results

This study presents the cooperative principle in students’ criticism. To some obedient students， the expected cooperative principle may work， who will observe the maxims of the quantity， quality， relation and manner. However， to some rebellious ones， it is uncooperative. They maybe violate the maxims of the terms of one or some even all these four rules. Here is a chart to show the summary of my study below.

The conversation is summarized in the following chart.

Ⅳ Conclusion

In daily life， we can actually observe the philosopher of language H. P. Grice’s cooperative principles at work on a highly technical level in language when people exchange their ideas. We can find them in any text of any genre in any language. If a speaker violates one or more of these fundamental maxims， the communication breaks down. This quite often happen in this case when a rebellious student is criticizes by his teacher， like the study I research above.

References

［1］Cutting， Joan，Pragmatics and Discourse: A Resource Book for Student［M］.London:Routledge，2002

［2］Grice， H. P. The Co-operative Principle［M］.New York: Academic Press，1975

［3］Grice， H. P. Logic and conversation［A］. In Syntax and Semantics， 3 ed.: Speech Acts［C］， P. Cole J. Morgan. New York: Academic Press，1975

［4］H. P. Grice， Reprinted in Studies in the Way of Words， ed. Cambridge， MA: Harvard University Press，1989

［5］G. Yule， Pragmatics［M］.Oxford: Oxford University Press，1996

〔責(zé)任編輯：王以富〕