Grice's Cooperative Maxims in Oral Arguments: The Case of Dispute Settlement Councils in Iran

Tajabadi, Azar; Dowlatabadi, Hamidreza; Mehri, Ehsan

doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.616

Cited by 9 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Later, he has accepted the crime is committed by Saudi Arabia; and, he has given hope to bring justice and not to happen again in the future. In last, the result of this study is in line with Tajabadi et al (2014), who has investigated Grice's cooperative maxims in oral arguments. Their study revealed that the maxim of quantity is mostly violated because the participants in the court are providing more information than required.…”

Section: Opting Out the Maxims Showed Rejecting The Co-operation Withsupporting

confidence: 85%

“…Hence, they believed that legal language seems to be over informative and overcrowded and presented awkwardly. Thus, Tajabadi et al (2014) contended that the contribution of involved parties is more than required due to explaining the situation, telling a story, saving face, and blamed others guilty. Including this, Ceballos and Sosas' (2018) findings showed that the violation of maxims is unostentatious, quiet, and non-observance of a maxim of conversation.…”

Section: Opting Out the Maxims Showed Rejecting The Co-operation Withmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Gricean Maxim Violation(s) in the Murder Case of Jamal Khashoggi

Radfar

Sudana

Gunawan

2020

NOBEL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The murder of Jamal Khashoggi in the consulate of Saudi Arabia in Turkey is still controversial. The judgment relies on valid and reliable evidence. This study is vital due to investigating a murder case based on pragmatic meanings as language evidence broadcasted in media. This research employs Grice’s conversational implicature to investigate the murder of Jamal Khashoggi by analyzing the exposed recorded tapes of Jamal Khashoggi and the accused inside the consulate, the utterances of Khadija Changiz, the fiancée of Jamal Khashoggi, and Adel al Jubeir’s statements, the foreign minister of Saudi Arabia as a representative of the Saudi Arabian. The design of this research is a case study, and content analysis is used to analyze the data based on Mayring’s (2000) qualitative content analysis. Based on the findings of the study, the recorded tapes of Jamal Khashoggi and the accused are outlined as ambiguous language. Saudi Arabia denied the murder by saving face, misleading the hearer, and skipping the questions, but later on, affirmed the murder and promised to bring justice. Hence, the results of this study will affect the verdict on the judicial decree, and the accusations will be prosecuted, and justice will be served to Jamal Khashoggi.

show abstract

Section: Opting Out the Maxims Showed Rejecting The Co-operation Withsupporting

confidence: 85%

Section: Opting Out the Maxims Showed Rejecting The Co-operation Withmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gricean Maxim Violation(s) in the Murder Case of Jamal Khashoggi

Radfar

Sudana

Gunawan

2020

NOBEL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They were realized in the unclear and ambiguous speeches by the artists. Basically, in an interaction, maxim of manner is needed by speakers in order avoid ambiguity and unclarity (Tajabadi and Mehri, 2014). It demands the speakers to tell something clearly, no multiple interpretations and coherence.…”

Section: Maxim Of Manner Violationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Violations of Cooperative Principle as The Creativity Of Humour In Banjar Madihin Art

Faridah¹,

Rustono²,

Nuryatin³

et al. 2018

Proceedings of the International Conference on Science and Education and Technology 2018 (ISET 2018)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Madihin art is one of the oral literatures in Banjarmasin, Indonesia. It is performed alongside humour that can be used as a way of communication. The purpose of this study was to find out the violations of the cooperative principle in Banjar madihin art by identifying the violations of conversational maxims. It employed descriptive qualitative method. Meanwhile, the research data consisted of ten videos of Banjar madihin art performances chosen randomly either the date or location of performances and downloaded from Youtube from February 2017 until December 2017. The data collection of those videos was done by the methods of recording, relating and note-taking. Further, the collected data were analysed using normative method. The results showed that the violations of cooperative principle, namely 6 violations of the maxim of quantity or 17%, 8 maxim of quality violations or 23%, 11 violations of the maxim of relevance or 31% and 10 violations of the maxim of manner or 29%. It showed that the highest rank of the maxim violation was the maxim of relevance violations. Moreover, there were found irrelevant, unclear, disorderly and ambiguous speeches in accordance with the matter discussed. They are intended a means of creativity of humour.

show abstract

“…It is a set of principles that are offered to construct unified communication. (Grice, 1975) in (Tajabadi et al, 2014) propose a complete cooperative principle and its maxim that consists of 1) the maxim of quantity; a) be truthful, b) only say that for which you have adequate evidence, 2) the maxim of quality; a) provide as much information as required, b) do not provide more information than is required, 3) maxim of relevance; be relevant, 4) maxim of Manner: a) avoid obscurity of expression b) avoid unnecessary ambiguity, c) be brief, d) be or orderly. The cooperative principle is proven to be applicative based on several theory reviews.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Flouting Relevance Maxim Benefits of Hillary Clinton's President Candidate Debate on 2016

Kurniawan

Indriani

2023

JOPR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research has an objective to analyze and reveal the benefits of flouting the relevance maxim of Hillary Clinton's speech in the 2016 USA candidate presidential debate. The data consist of the debate transcript which was taken from the Washington Post website, and a video that could be watched on YouTube. They are analyzed by confirming the relevance of semantic answers to every question within the context of speech. In the end, there are nine findings of the benefits of flouting the relevance maxim, which consists of increasing positive self-impression, avoiding giving direct agreement to a sensitive issue, closing potential negative attacks, decreasing the rival's credibility, guessing truthfulness, beating the rival's credibility, increasing effort to show positive personal credibility, telling the rival's past negative history, and proposing indirect conclusion. The findings are the implication of the complex use of verbal speech that is combined with action. The formal situation of the debate supports the maximum benefit of every flouting relevance maxim. The main conclusion of this research is that flouting the relevance maxim only sometimes negatively impacts both a speaker and an interlocutor. The impact is influenced by complex factors such as the background of the occasion, past conditions, and passion for an interaction.

show abstract

Grice's Cooperative Maxims in Oral Arguments: The Case of Dispute Settlement Councils in Iran

Cited by 9 publications

References 5 publications

Gricean Maxim Violation(s) in the Murder Case of Jamal Khashoggi

Gricean Maxim Violation(s) in the Murder Case of Jamal Khashoggi

The Violations of Cooperative Principle as The Creativity Of Humour In Banjar Madihin Art

Flouting Relevance Maxim Benefits of Hillary Clinton's President Candidate Debate on 2016

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About