1. The Cooperative Principle: Why a Strange Utterance Is Not an Error
Conversation works because both sides normally assume that the other person is willing to cooperate: each utterance should make the contribution required by the purpose of the conversation. Grice called this the Cooperative Principle and described it through four maxims. These are not rules of politeness or requirements for “correct” English. They are assumptions that listeners rely on and that speakers can deliberately use.
Therefore, a brief, exaggerated, or strange reply is rarely seen as a breakdown. The listener reasons as follows: the speaker could have answered differently, but I assume that they are cooperating, so I look for a meaning that makes this reply sensible. This search produces an implicature: a meaning inferred from what was said but not stated directly.
Implicatures arise both when maxims are observed and when they are openly flouted. If someone answers a question about a café with its opening time, the listener may infer “it is still closed” without any flout. This lesson focuses specifically on obvious deviation as one way of conveying additional meaning.
Cooperative Principle → maxims → obvious violation → inference
"Is the café open yet?" "It opens at nine, and it's ten to."
— Is the café open yet? — It opens at nine, and it’s ten to.
The reply remains relevant; the listener infers “it is still closed” from the opening time and the current time. An implicature is possible without a flout.
"Where is Dana?" "She's out of the office until Thursday."
— Where is Dana? — She’s out of the office until Thursday.
The cooperative contribution provides exactly the information needed for the purpose of the question.
2. The Four Maxims and Their Submaxims
The maxim of Quantity consists of two requirements: give as much information as the purpose of the conversation requires, and do not give more than is required. Insufficient and excessive information violate it in different ways, but both are noticeable to the listener.
The maxim of Quality requires you to try to make your contribution truthful: do not say what you believe to be false or what you lack grounds for saying. Most discussions of irony, metaphor, and hyperbole begin with this maxim.
The maxim of Relation, also called relevance, has one requirement: be relevant. The maxim of Manner concerns not content but form: avoid obscurity, ambiguity, and unnecessary wordiness, and be orderly.
Quantity · Quality · Relation · Manner
"Which floor is the dentist on?" "The second."
— Which floor is the dentist on? — The second.
Quantity: the reply gives exactly what is needed, no less and no more.
"I think the shop shuts at six, but I'm not completely sure."
— I think the shop shuts at six, but I’m not completely sure.
Quality: the speaker marks the limits of their evidence and does not claim more than they can support.
"First add the flour, then the eggs, and only after that the milk."
— First add the flour, then the eggs, and only after that the milk.
Manner: the instruction is clear, concise, and ordered according to the sequence of actions.
3. Flouting: A Violation the Listener Is Meant to Notice
In Grice’s classic analysis, flouting a maxim is a case in which the speaker expects the listener to recognize the deviation and recover an additional meaning. A strange utterance alone is not enough: context, shared knowledge, and assumptions about the speaker’s intention are important.
The implicature that arises in this way depends on the situation and the listener, so it can be denied or clarified: “I don’t mean he’s incompetent, only that...”. This distinguishes an implicature from literal meaning, which cannot be denied in the same way.
Each maxim has its own typical flouts: withholding or adding information, an obvious falsehood, an open change of topic, or deliberately unclear wording.
“Not quite” reply + assumption of cooperation → look for meaning → conclusion
"Is your cousin a reliable babysitter?" "He's very good at chess."
— Is your cousin a reliable babysitter? — He’s very good at chess.
Quantity: an assessment of reliability is needed, but an unrelated skill is mentioned instead, so the listener infers that there is nothing positive to say about his reliability.
"How was the hike?" "Oh, a gentle stroll: we only had to climb a glacier."
— How was the hike? — Oh, a gentle stroll: we only had to climb a glacier.
“Gentle stroll” and “only” ironically minimize the difficulty of the hike. The listener may infer that it was difficult; this is not literal praise and is not necessarily hyperbole.
"Would you lend me twenty pounds?" "Look at the time!"
— Would you lend me twenty pounds? — Look at the time!
Relation: the speaker openly changes the subject, which the listener interprets as unwillingness to answer.
"How was dinner at your boss's?" "We were presented with a sequence of edible items."
— How was dinner at your boss’s? — We were presented with a sequence of edible items.
Manner: a cumbersome paraphrase replaces an ordinary word, leading the listener to infer that the food was unimpressive.
4. Not Every Deviation from a Maxim Is a Flout
Grice distinguishes several cases. Violating is covert non-observance, often intended to mislead. Opting out is an open refusal to meet a particular conversational requirement. Clashing is a conflict in which observing one maxim prevents the speaker from observing another. Flouting is deliberate, obvious non-observance that invites the listener to infer additional meaning. A covert violation is not a flout, although such an utterance may also carry implicatures, including deceptive ones.
The difference depends on whether the listener notices the violation and whether the speaker is relying on that notice. The same false statement can be a flout (a hyperbole that everyone understands) or a violation (a statement that the listener is meant to believe).
A broker tells a client that every investor in the fund has doubled their savings, knowing it is untrue.
A broker tells a client that every investor in the fund has doubled their savings, knowing it is untrue.
The speaker hides the falsehood and expects the statement to be believed. This is a violation of Quality, not an obvious flout; it does not rule out other inferences by the listener.
"I'm sorry, I'm not allowed to discuss patients."
— I’m sorry, I’m not allowed to discuss patients.
Opting out: the speaker openly states the limit of their cooperation and does not pretend to answer.
"Where's the wedding?" "Somewhere in Portugal, I think."
— Where’s the wedding? — Somewhere in Portugal, I think.
Clashing: the exact location is unknown, and inventing one would violate Quality, so Quantity is knowingly sacrificed.
5. How Flouts Sound under Each Maxim
Quantity: withholding the main point in favor of something secondary (“giving less than needed”) or, conversely, adding excessive detail to signal avoidance. Quality: irony, metaphor, and hyperbole in which the literal meaning is obviously false and another meaning is inferred. Relation: an open change of topic or a reply whose connection to the question the listener must recover. Manner: deliberate vagueness, paraphrase, word splitting, or ambiguity.
To identify the maxim, ask about what was said: Has the topic changed (Relation)? Is it obviously false (Quality)? Is there too much or too little information (Quantity)? Is the form strange (Manner)? If several answers seem possible, what matters is what the listener infers, not the name of the maxim.
"Can you tell me the time?" "Well, my watch says ten past four, but it runs a few minutes fast, and I keep meaning to reset it since the clocks changed in March..."
— Can you tell me the time? — Well, my watch says ten past four, but it runs a few minutes fast, and I keep meaning to reset it since the clocks changed in March...
Excessive detail may be a deliberate joke or avoidance, but it may also simply be talkativeness. Without context, we cannot assign a precise implicature.
"What's your boss like?" "She's a shark."
— What’s your boss like? — She’s a shark.
Quality, metaphor: this is literally false, so the listener infers a predatory, ruthless character.
6. Boundaries: Empty Utterances, Two Possible Maxims, and Dependence on the Listener
The tautology “A promise is a promise” often conveys “a promise must be kept.” Even “The seminar was a seminar that was held” could, in context, suggest “there is nothing more to say.” An isolated form proves neither the presence nor the absence of an implicature: expectations and the situation are needed.
One utterance can sometimes be explained by several maxims: praising a minor detail gives less than is needed and may also seem irrelevant. Justify your analysis, and if several explanations are compatible, name them. There is no need to force yourself to choose only one label.
A hint may not be understood without shared knowledge. The listener may then interpret the utterance literally, ask for clarification, or simply fail to understand it. The distinction between generalized and particularized implicatures and the some / all scale are covered in neighboring lessons.
"A promise is a promise."
— A promise is a promise.
This tautology leads to the inference “you must keep your word”: the deviation is obvious, and the conclusion is recovered.
"The seminar was a seminar that was held."
— The seminar was a seminar that was held.
Without context, the utterance is uninformative. After a question about the speaker’s impression, it could suggest that the seminar was unremarkable; flouting cannot be ruled out categorically.
7. The Language of Analysis and the Language of Creation
English has established expressions for analytical description: to flout (exploit) a maxim, to give less (more) information than required, to infer, the implication is, to take something literally (at face value), and to be misled. An analysis usually has four parts: which maxim is involved, what was expected, what was said, and what was inferred. You should also explain separately why this is a flout rather than a covert violation.
When creating a flout, make sure that the deviation is noticeable and that the listener has a clue for decoding it, while the utterance itself remains polite and, when necessary, truthful. When responding to a flout, respond to the inferred meaning rather than the literal words.
His remark exploits the maxim of manner, so we infer that he would rather not name the problem.
His remark exploits the maxim of Manner, so we infer that he would rather not name the problem.
An analytical sentence: the maxim, the verb describing the violation, and the listener’s conclusion.
Taken literally, the remark is false; taken as a flout, it expresses irritation.
Taken literally, the remark is false; taken as a flout, it expresses irritation.
The sentence distinguishes the literal reading from the inferred meaning.
Common mistakes
Incorrect:Her reply flaunts the maxim of manner, so we infer that she avoids the question.
Correct:Her reply flouts the maxim of manner, so we infer that she avoids the question.
Flaunt means “to display or show off,” whereas openly disregarding a rule is to flout it.
Incorrect:By openly avoiding the question, she flout the maxim of relation.
Correct:By openly avoiding the question, she flouts the maxim of relation.
After “she” in the Present Simple, “flouts” is required. Whether the avoidance is an intentional flout and what meaning is inferred are established from the context.
Incorrect:The maxim of manner require speakers to be brief and orderly.
Correct:The maxim of manner requires speakers to be brief and orderly.
The subject “maxim” is singular, so the Present Simple verb takes the ending “-s.”
Incorrect:The maxim of quality is about being relevant to the topic.
Correct:The maxim of relation is about being relevant to the topic.
Relevance to the topic concerns Relation, whereas Quality concerns truthfulness and the grounds for making a claim.
Incorrect:The witness flouted the maxim of quality by describing a car she never saw, hoping the jury would believe her.
Correct:The witness violated the maxim of quality by describing a car she never saw, hoping the jury would believe her.
The speaker expects the violation to go unnoticed, so this is a covert violation, not a flout.