closely related concept, seems to be simply essential if various basic facts about language to be accounted for properly. Finally, the principles that generate
implicatures have a very general explanatory power : a few basic principles provide explanations for a large array of apparently unrelated facts Levinson
1983: 97-98.
2.5 Observing the maxims
Grice himself was quick to point out; these maxims don’t always apply and are easily violated. Grice himself distinguishes between ‘violating’ a maxim
i.e. unconsciously or unavoidably, as in telling lies and blatantly ‘flouting’ it or exploiting it
The least interesting case is when a speaker observes all the maxims as in the following example:
16 Husband : Where are the car keys? Wife : They’re on the table in the hall.
The wife has answered clearly Manner truthfully Quality, has given just the right amount of information Quantity and has directly addressed her
husband’s goal in asking the question Relation. She has said precisely what she meant, no more no less, and has generated no implicature i.e. there is no
distinction to be made here between what she says and what she means, there is no additional level of meaning.
However, there are many occasions when people fail to observe the maxims. There are three ways of failing to observe a maxim according to Grice;
flouting a maxim, violating a maxim and opting out of a maxim. a. A flout occurs when a speaker blatantly and ostentatiously fails to observe
a maxim at the level of what is said, with the deliberate intention of generating an implicature.
b. Grice defines ‘violation’ especially as the unostentatious non observance of a maxim. If a speaker violates a maxim she ‘will be liable to mislead’
1975:49. c. A speaker opts out of observing a maxim by indicating unwillingness to
cooperate in the way maxim requires. Examples of opting out occur frequently in public life, when the speaker cannot, perhaps for legal or
ethical reasons, reply in the way normally expected. On the other hand, the speaker wishes to avoid generating a false implicature or appearing
uncooperative. Examples of such cases could include a priest, counselor or even an investigate journalist refusing to relay information given in
confidence. Meanwhile
Levinson 1983 : 104 in Pragmatics gives several definitions,
they are; flouting implicature is a conversational implicature based on an addressee
s assumption that the speaker
is deliberately breaking flouting a conversational maxim
while still being cooperative. The term flouting implicature is a coinage. The concept of an
implicature derived from the flouting of a maxim
is an important one in the literature of conversational implicature, but there is not
a specific name for it. It would commonly be more appropriate to speak of an implicature derived from the speaker’s flouting of a conversational maxim. In the
following exchange, B flouts the maxim of manner, thereby implying that an open discussion of the ice cream is not desired:
17 A: Let’s get the kids something. B: Okay, but I veto I-C-E C-R-E-A-M-S.
A standard implicature is a conversational implicature based on an addressee
s assumption that the speaker
is being cooperative by directly observing the
conversational maxims . In the following exchange, A assumes that B is being
cooperative, truthful, adequately informative, relevant, and clear. Thus, A can infer that B thinks A can get fuel at the garage: 18 A: I’ve just run out of petrol.
B: Oh; there’s a garage just around the corner. http:www.sil.orglinguisticsGlossaryOfLinguisticTermsWhatIsAFloutingI
mplicature.htm
2.6 Theory of Humor
