As a direct, blunt communicator I needed to hear/learn this information. It is not my intent to hurt others, but to be clear,efficient and not be manipulated. Thank you.
Hello Professor! Your videos are a godsend. I have diagnosed ASD+ADHD, which has always isolated me socially. I'm a very cynical person: I say the quiet parts out loud, I call out people on their inconsistency, I have no problem antagonizing anyone if conflicts arises... Only from watching your videos did I realize that my behavior is extremely 'face-threatening' for the persons who interact with me, and why/how I should change that in order to enjoy better relationships. I'm a recovering a$$hole, so to speak 😂
I'm researching Grice's Cooperative Principle for my PhD, specifically examining exchanges during cross-examination. It's often difficult to express everything in the theory in such a succinct way, but your video executes it brilliantly. Loved listening to you.
Good sir, the quality and delivery of your explanations is something I aspire to. I found this video while pursuing my interests in Linguistics and NLP. Your content has opened my eyes to my other prospects in Comm Studies. Thank you!
Grice must be happy to finally have spotted someone knows how to explain the principle the way he really wanted it.. Seriously, no puns, this is the first time for me to have no difficulities knowing how this works. Thank you sir.. I'm just wondering if we could apply this strategy on translation! ? Thank you.
@@HowCommunicationWorks Thank you for your quick reply.. Well I just meant whether the 4 maxims could be applied between two different languages. Communicative translation, for instance, is about conveying the meaning of the discourse. Now looking back at your example of the fired employee. How possibly could a translator convey the hidden meaning to the target language audience in case that all hidden meaning is built on assumption! I hope I made it clearer this time.
Thanks Alex! I hope you’re right about heavy lifting. But it still seems hard to me to keep putting out good content and to try to break through to a larger audience. Most of my videos still only reach a very small audience. I am considering making some changes to content and style to see if I can create more appealing content. Hope all is well with you.
I hear you. I know those struggles personally. The biggest change I made that helped my channel was following advice on titles, tags, and descriptions. Once I worded my videos based upon what viewers were already searching for, then my videos appeared higher up on the search results page and the audience grew a lot more quickly. Have you looked at any videos on that from channels like Justin Brown, Think Media, and Video Creators, and Morning Fame? I just basically follow their advice. But, your channel is kicking butt, for sure. Keep up the good work.
I'm reading a pragmatics textbook right now, (for my linguistics major) and I've watched a few videos on this topic so far.. Yours is by far the best, so much more engaging, easier to understand, and just better all around. Thank you!
I'm profoundly thankful for this great explanation , it goes like very simple , i wonder if possible to make a short video explaining the difference between flouting and violating maxims with examples please
Waw ,really helpful I don't know why our teachers try to complicate things.thanks a lot.I Hoped if there were further information about implicatures typs,but it's more enough to grab thé concept first.thanks again
Wow that was really fascinating. It's awesome that there's a name for this principle. Crazy that you're not a bigger channel yet! With regular insights as you have been doing I'm sure you'll have lots of more subscribers at some point! Thanks for the wisdom as usual!
Marcus Gerber Thank you for the kind words. I do appreciate it. I do my best to bring you interesting, important principles about communication. It’s very gratifying when people like you find it to be useful. Please do share my videos with your friends so we can grow the community.
Such an amazing philosopher! BUT IT WORKS BETTER IF YOU GIVE AN A BRIEF IDEA AT THE END OF THE VIDEO AND IN SIMPLE WORDS TO BE UNAMBIGUOUS TO POOR STUDENTS LIKE MYSELF. THANK MR.
Thank you Sir! Your way of explaining things is impressive.ur words r easily understandable for us people from South Asia. Can u plz explain the theory of Relevance in pragmatics in some days please , in detail with examples.
Hello, sir thanks for the outstanding explanation, i have been searching on the video that can explain grice's fabulous theory properly, and here i am nodding, smiling like my eyes cant take off the excellent explanation. A raising question sir, is there any relationship between what you've been talking about--these cooperative principle and conversational implicature?. Thanks sir, you're so cool
Thanks. Yes there is. The cooperative principle explains *when* it’s necessary to make an inference. When someone makes what seems to be an uncooperative contribution, this should trigger a person’s search for an inference that will make the contribution seem cooperative. This is how implicature works.
Yes, but the problem with using this kind of analysis on a forensic statement is that the critical content or meaning is always indirectly implied rather than directly stated. And the key virtue of indirectness is its deniability because of the lack of a direct statement.
U did not mention the flauted situation. For that example you mentioned: A: Can I get a ride with you ? B: My car is not working. You said it is violating of relation maxim and you supposed to say that it has a relation but indirectly so it is flauted and not considered to be Violation of relation !
The English language is plentyfull of irony in my opinion, as French with fairness. I'm looking for a book writen as an essay I assume : "the role of language in communication". Anything recent?
for the video to be perfect, you should try to squeeze in a bit of critique of the theory - pointing out problems, shortcomings and rival theories otherwise, great work
I understand all that you say, but when it comes to Asperger syndrome it's so not true. Many times I got into trouble because i cannot infere what people is really saying, and I truly think the world would be so much easier if people respect those maxims.
My I ask you something that's out of the topic? What is illocutionary goal and social goal? What is the differences between them? Hope you can answer cause I really confused about that
Hi thank you for responding. So i still working on thesis, analysing the reason of flouting maxim occurs in conversation using theory by leech(1983) which divided into 4: collaborative, conflictive, competitive, and convivial. In competitive it's explain that the illocutionary goal competes with social goal such as ordering, asking , demanding , begging. ... So I still confused what is the difference between illocutionary and social goal here..😭
Sir i belong to Pakistan i want to become a English professor in future but my writing and communication skill is not very will i want to improve them sir please tell me 'what i do?
Read as much English as you can. From journalism to literature to Movies, to television, expose yourself to as much English as you possibly can. The higher, the quality, the better.
Lying Politicians aren't taken as cooperative and implying a maxim unless they take a rhetorical or sarcastic tone or have clues to it being deliberate or transparently open flouting; manner? Autistics and technically minded people aren't always given the benefits of the doubt as being cooperative, false inferences are made - a map geek might give you those things. They aren't being uncooperative in their own mind. And people aren't always wanting to be understood as being evasive or to have those understandings & inferences be what's taken away.
These are the types of details that I wrestle with fruitlessly. It gets in the way, if a thorough understanding of Grice's Maxim's was all I was lacking. I'm not sure that's what it is or if that's why Grice was writing it down. It's more like the grammar you don't know you know - which is a book about innate ability with grammar. I think it covers some of the conflicts with formalized grammar and prescriptivsm but I didn't buy it. I'm a low income autistic and ADHDer & parent carer who struggles to read books, also books like conversationally speaking that I did buy were of limited help!? And sort of associated with some of my most desperate periods in my mind. Anyway linguistics books are random charity shop buys or online look-ups/summary-seeking. Understanding sarcasm (and indeed using it) is not all or nothing for me - mere understanding of these sorts of facts - be it thoroughly generalised or not - does not fully solve or explain my difficulty. My difficulty is varying sensitivity to the clues, which include Grice's Maxim's and other contextual factors. And sometimes heightened kind of internal push towards gravity or tangential humour, the literal or the points of potential interest or offence and similar extrapolation from the literal words, similar involvement or adjacencies. The word literal itself is a funny one. A bit like the mystery of how we make inferences and how people come to their conclusions - makes sense some of the time but not always. All words - especially the written word but the spoken as well - are representation of a figure or idea, with several layers of representation involved, though it varies. So they're all figurative and all literal. What exactly is the distinction between figurative or inference and on the other hand the literal!? Perhaps it consisted in the layers of these transformations! How familiar or intuitive it is in intself? Or how close to the core meaning of a word or words in a phrase!? A lot of us agreed on autistic twitter that 'in a nutshell' was one of the easier idioms to process, the most intuitive. "Branching" as a concept - is it a model or metaphor!? 'From acorns mighty oaks grow' Natural imagery, natural models and forms from which we get many interlinking idioms that translate well seem to be helpful, most intuitive. And have fewest layers of transformation as concepts. Whether or not the everyday meanings of words have complicated etymology because that's not something we usually are conscious of in terms of understanding language and how they have their meaning. Though the bouba-kiki effect is also interesting! Meaning isn't entirely arbitrary association all the time.
Sorry I'm rambling. And I haven't find it particularly hard to learn arbitrary & obscure idioms - but like polysyllabic technical & a acadet words sometimes they're harder to process , especially in denser forms Despite having pedantic speech, which as an autistic speech pattern pathologised & labelled thus, it is unlike the dictionary definition of pedantic: it is anxious about clarity and status, using a capacity, but not in sheer grandstanding ostentation as a flex.
Following the maxims presumably depends on the hearers/readers. Grice’s general intended audience for the article, people in his field and his time, could better understood the language in it, so it probably didn’t even violate that maxim.
@@kathybramley5609ess literalness maybe is…well, a spectrum…it can apply to the real meaning of a word or the meaning of a phrase…maybe other things. But also I think a lot of words have an inherent metaphor in them, and/or different meanings from that. I guess over time a word can take on a near ubiquitous metaphor, and morph into a separate, but still treated as literal, meaning of the word. I thought about this a while ago. I’m trying to think of a good example. Now branching…I don’t know if it started out as only describing plants, or just the physical pattern of branches…or it isn’t even inherent to plant branches!…
Im curious. How does this work for something like the phrase 'have you seen my charger?' It starts a conversation so how do we know to give more information than is asked for? Clearly we arent meant to answer literally but what maxim does it violate?
This is an example of conventional indirectness. "Have you seen my charger" violates the maxim of relation (or relevance). Someone asks you this, and you think, "that's an irrelevant question." Why would they care if I'd seen their charger. But we apply the cooperative principle and assume they must be being relevant. So we look for an inference that would make their utterance seem relevant. We infer, they must have lost their charger. They want to know if we know where it is. So instead of responding literally (with yes or no), we say, "I don't know where it is" or "It's in on the counter." There's another interpretation of indirectness that talks about violating the felicity conditions on requesting, but that's another story. I think I do talk about that in my video on requests.
@@HowCommunicationWorks flouting is intentional where even the hearer knows it and violating is hard to tell if the maxim was violated- like lying. Bottom line is, there's an inferred meaning. And please do post more videos on Discourse analysis/linguistics. It's really helping me with my A-Level revision!
@@HowCommunicationWorks I am glad you asked! Here's a few suggestions: features of spoken language; Structure, features and characteristics of unscripted speech; context of spoken language; language used to include/exclude; non standard features of English and theories of social variation in language! This is only a suggestion! Thank you so much!!
