Grice’s Conversational Maxims
Grice proposed the “Cooperative Principle (CP)” as the overarching guide to ensure what you communicate is appropriate to the conversation’s purpose. To execute the Cooperative Principle, four “ Grice’s Conversational Maxims “or ‘guidelines’ have been created.
1. Quantity: Say enough but not too much
- Good amount: The office is on King Avenue, third floor
- Too little: It’s on King
- Too much: It’s on King Avenue, close to the school that opened in 2010
2. Quality: Be Truthful. Don’t say what you believe is false or can’t back up
- Good quality: I’m not sure, I’ll check
- Poor quality: They approve everyone
3. Relation: Stay on topic
If asked, “ What’s your favourite season”
- Good: I really like the fall
- Poor: I like to stay up late
4. Manner: Be clear
- Good: First you’ll have a session, then we’ll charge your credit card
- Poor: There’s things you do and some that we take care of
(UsingEnglish.com, 2024; Solis, n.d.)
Grice’s Maxims Across Languages
The general maxims of quantity, quality, relation and manner can be applied universally. However, the value, use and interpretation of each may differ across languages.
- Quantity:
- English: Moderate amount of information, concise but complete
- Japanese: Context-rich, explicit at times, adjusted for status and situation
- Spanish: Elaboration and rhetorical language flourish in several contexts
- Mandarin Chinese: Often elaborate with background context to provide alignment of understanding; may be dependant on relationship
- Quality:
- English: High value placed on explicit accuracy; admitting uncertainty is acceptable
- Japanese: Honesty balances with harmony, softened or indirect answers are commonly used to preserve ‘face’
- Spanish: Directness varies by region, often warmth and expressiveness and candor are valued
- Mandarin Chinese: Politeness moderates directness; may mitigate refusals and downplay self
- Relation
- English: Strong expectation to stay on-task; tangents often avoided
- Japanese: Relevance framed through context; relational cues used rather than explicit links
- Spanish: Narrative or relational information may signal relevance
- Mandarin Chinese: Relevance signaled through culturally shared genres (example: rhetorical, proverbial).
- Manner:
- English: Preference for plain, unambiguous phrasing with stepwise structure
- Japanese: Formal forms and honorifics (respect, politeness and status acknowledgement) signal clarity through social alignment
- Spanish: Clarity provided through vivid phrasing and flexible word order
- Mandarin Chinese: Clarity achieved through shared context and politeness alongside precise word choice
(Kádár & Haugh, 2013; Stivers et al., 2009; Pizziconi, 2020; Jia, 2021; Zygadło, 2017; Márquez Reiter & Placencia, 2005; Koike & Félix-Brasdefer, 2021)
Maxims in Professional Communication
Several clients I’ve worked with have experienced challenges with professional communication. They often report having a hard time expressing themselves, being direct and succinct, speaking with confidence and staying on topic. All of these speech qualities can be targeted through the Cooperative Principle and Grice’s Conversational Maxims. In professional communication, we aim to share in a manner that respects roles and time, give the right amount of information for someone to do their job and to contribute to the shared goal.
A) Meetings and Stand-ups
Quantity: 1-line update and what’s blocking you (blocker)
Quality: Share accurate information; clear about what’s unknown
Relation: Use agendas, parking lots, and timeboxes
Manner: Sequential order (Then/Now/Next)
Example:
Successful:
“This morning I completed the slide deck for the presentation. After this meeting I’ll be practicing my delivery. I’m waiting for the tech team to set up the microphone and teleprompter.”
→ This utterance is short, on topic and to the point (quantity, manner). Your team will be informed and know what you need (quality, relation).
Poor:
“ I have lots of things on the go.”
→ This utterance is vague (quantity), unclear (manner), off topic and unhelpful (relation.
Poor:
“ This morning I finished the slide deck. I spent extra time figuring out the colour scheme. I first chose yellow given that it’s a nice spring colour, but then chose blue and white to look more clean and professional.”
→ This utterance provides too much detail and doesn’t necessarily explain progress or blocks.
B) Presentations
Quantity: One message per slide
Quality: Use accurate data that’s up to date, using credible references
Relation: Aim to answer “so what” each slide
Manner: Organized with headlines, use bullet points not paragraphs
Example:
Successful:
Growth
- The new website has increased intakes by 15% over the last month.
- 80% of clients who book are reviewing bios
Next Steps
- Continue to monitor engagement and caseloads
- More support will be given to the admin team considering the increase in workload
→ This utterance has correct data (quality), direct and to the point (quantity, relation) and doesn’t hide negatives or opportunities for growth (quality). It also uses bullets and headings to support organization and understanding.
Poor:
- The new website might be increasing intakes but maybe it’s just because it’s a busy time of year for the clinic. The past few years it’s been busy this month because of insurance available to clients. Anyone who wants clients should support this approach.
→ There are several ideas on this slide, too many words to get a point across (verbose), and doesn’t respect the audience’s ability to have autonomy towards support and agreement. All information is presented in one bullet point in paragraph style
C) Interviews (Interviewee)
Quantity: 60-90 seconds, using STAR framework
Quality: Own limitations and opportunities for growth
Relation: Directly answer the question, linking relevant personal information
Manner: End with a memorable takeaway
Example
Prompt: “Tell me about a time you worked as part of a team”
Successful:
“When I was in school, I was the president of the Linguistics Network working alongside several committee members. We raised funds and provided academic support for students in the speech sciences program.
My job was to build connections in the community, learn what kind of support students really needed. I’d share this data and experience with the committee where we would brainstorm and implement programs and activities that targeted these needs specifically.
The students provided feedback of feeling more knowledgeable about available resources, less stressed, more organized and expressed an increased sense of community within the program.”
→ This response follows the star framework and answers the question directly while staying on topic (quantity, relation). The speaker also used a successful captivating takeaway (manner).
Poor:
“I was the president of something in school. I did a lot of the work and just told my team what to do. I had a lot of responsibility, one time I had to go to town hall and on the way I stepped in dog poop, it was a terrible start to my day.”
→ This response is off topic (relation), not specific or well organized (quantity).
Maxims in Social Communication
The Cooperative Principle and Maxims also apply to social communication. The aim here is to communicate in a way that’s fair and not dominate the conversation, to care about the conversation partner’s needs and emotions and the aim to connect and not just give information.
Examples:
Quantity: Answer with more than one word but not a 7+ minute monologue, match the level of detail to the situation
Quality: Be honest about your feelings in a respectful manner, don’t pretend you know something when you don’t and own your limitations
Relation: Answer the actual question, share stories that aim to connect to what was just said, maintain and shift topics with a bridging relevance
Manner: Use simple, straightforward language, tell stories in a logical way, use tone, face and body language that matches your words
A) Friend Struggling
Prompt: “I’ve been so overwhelmed with work load and expectations lately.”
Successful:
“Thank you for telling me. I’ve been experiencing a demanding workload this month too so I understand how draining that can be. What about the workload has been overwhelming for you? If you’d like, we can grab coffee over the weekend to talk it through properly.”
→ This response gives validation, connection and focuses on one main idea (quantity). You respond authentically, saying you get it because you actually do (quality). You maintain the topic and keep the focus on their sense of overwhelm (relation). The response is short, has clear sentences and is well organized with clear next steps (manner).
Poor:
“That sucks, me too. Have you been to the Christmas market this year? I heard there’s a bunch of new vendors. I’ve been following their social media like a hawk. I don’t worry about work because that’s just a part of life. Build a bridge and get over it is my motto.”
→ Information provided is unhelpful or responsive to what was shared (quantity). You shifted the focus to yourself and minimized their experience (quality). You brought in a topic that was irrelevant (relation) and you jumped around with ideas (manner).
B) Reflecting After a Party
Friend says: “I think I talked way too much at the party last night. I was so awkward and know I cut people off. I felt a vibe that they were all annoyed with me by the end of the night.”
Successful response:
“I honestly don’t feel you came across as annoying or awkward at all. You talked more than usual but people seemed to be laughing and jumping off your ideas and asking your questions. Is there a moment you felt the vibe shifted? Did someone say something or act a certain way around you? If you want, we can put our memories together to walk through it together.”
→ This response is clear and reassuring (quantity). You commented on real observations and didn’t share a generalized comment like “everyone loved you” (quality). You stayed on topic, used similar language and asked a relevant question (relation). It was well organized, had consistent messaging and tone and you offered a way forward (manner)
Poor response:
“ Wow you’re still thinking about that? You’re making it a bigger deal than it is. I think we should be worried about what happened to me. The music was so loud I could barely hear Jeff’s compliments on my outfit. I also had a few too many drinks and overshared about work. You’re fine, stop overthinking.”
→ This response is invalidating and doesn’t explore the friend’s concerns (quantity, quality). You shifted the topic to yourself (relation) and your tone is inconsistent and judgemental.
Conclusion
The Cooperative Principle and Grice’s Conversational Maxims offer a framework for supportive, effective conversation that prioritizes genuine connection over simply hearing ourselves speak. When we intentionally reflect on quantity, quality, relation, and manner, we can meaningfully enhance how we communicate with others.
References
- Jia, M. (2021). Emancipating Chinese (im)politeness research. Journal of Pragmatics, 181, 215–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.05.024
- Kádár, D. Z., & Haugh, M. (2013). Understanding politeness. Cambridge University Press.
- Koike, D. A., & Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (Eds.). (2021). The Routledge handbook of Spanish pragmatics. Routledge.
- Márquez Reiter, R., & Placencia, M. E. (2005). Spanish pragmatics. Palgrave Macmillan.
- Pizziconi, B. (2020). Social deixis in Japanese. In W. M. Jacobsen & Y. Takubo (Eds.), Handbook of Japanese semantics and pragmatics (pp. 733–772). De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614512073-016
- Solis, N. (n.d.). Grice’s maxims of conversation: The principles of effective communication. Effectiviology. https://effectiviology.com/principles-of-effective-communication/
- Stivers, T., Enfield, N. J., Brown, P., Englert, C., Hayashi, M., Heinemann, T., … Levinson, S. C. (2009). Universals and cultural variation in turn-taking in conversation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(26), 10587–10592. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0903616106
- UsingEnglish.com. (2024, August 20). Grice’s conversational maxims. https://www.usingenglish.com/articles/grices-conversational-maxims.html
- Zygadło, P. (2017). Chinese politeness (lǐmào): Theory and practice. Chinese Language, Discourse and Communication, 1–19. (preprint/overview)
