Answer

Communication is Cooperative

Drawing on an original example or set of examples and the views of 2-3 philosophers we have examined in class (e.g., Davidson and Grice), outline and defend an account of how communication is cooperative.

In the field of linguistics, the cooperative principle provides a description of how people achieve an effective conversational communication when faced by common social circumstances. This can include how the speakers and the listeners cooperate and mutually accept each other to be understood in a specific manner. Taking into consideration the sentiments of Paul Grice, the linguist who introduced the pragmatic theory, it is evident that one should make a contribution when needed at the phase where it takes place, and by the accepted aim of direction of the communication exchange in which an individual is engaged (Grice, 1975). According to Nordquist (2019), within a conversation process, the cooperative principle refers to the assumption that the conversation participants normally strive to be truthful, informative, clear and relevant. Davidson’s philosophy of language is founded on conceptual connections as the linguist draws between the traditional questions on issues and language originating from other philosophical perspectives. For instance, Davidson draws connection from action theory, philosophy of the mind, metaphysics and epistemology (Davidson, 1986). This essay explores the views of Davidson and Grice and identifies a set of examples from the work of the philosophers to defend a stand of the cooperative communication principle.

Grice’s Stand on Cooperative Communication

Communication is cooperative because all the conversation participants can establish that a maxim has been broken by the communicator or the writer on purpose to establish new meaning which can be derived through inference (Grice, 1975). According to Grice (1975), people will always engage in assumptions whenever they communicate. However, it is a fact that they engage in the assumptions without their knowledge that the persons that they are conversing with are conversationally cooperative. This factor suggests that the people will cooperate with an aim of attaining a mutual conversational end. The conversation cooperation is also effective in the events when people are not socially cooperative (Grice, 1975). For instance, people can engage in an argument and still cooperate conversationally to achieve the argument.

The conversational cooperation, as outlined by Grice, is manifested under several conversational maxims which people should take into consideration. The maxis consider the first sight as rules. However, they later seem to be broken more often in comparison to the phonological or grammatical rules. This provides an explanation why Grice utilizes the word “maxim” rather than “rule.” According to Grice (1975), when engaging in a conversation, people adhere to the following maxims. The first one includes the quantity maxim. In this case, people remain cooperative when most of the information they provide is considered as helpful. To illustrate this, Grice (1975) implies that this maxim is similar to a baby bear porridge temperature which is just the right amount. For instance, one may feel like a magazine site offers too much information. However, the company is remaining cooperative by trying to be honest and helpful.

Grice (1975) also suggests that the conversational cooperation can also be achieved by being honest and helpful. The major focus of this maxim is to communicate a truthful message to maintain the cooperation principle. Despite the fact that the quality maxim seems complicated, it is considered simple to follow. Notably, this maxim is founded on an advantage that people will find it difficult to lie in the events when they are directly questioned. Arguably, this is founded on a belief that in most cases, people will communicate without thinking, especially when communicating a written message. This is founded on the fact that writers normally have more time to think about the information they are relaying in comparison to the speakers (Grice, 1975).

The relation maxim provides a depiction that people will cooperate when engaging in a conversation by remaining relevant. Evidently, when a person joins a conversation, they simply cannot start talking without having an idea of the message they are communicating. It is mandatory that one should take time to connect to the conversation to ensure that the message being relayed is relevant to the topic under discussion. For example, when people are talking about taking a vacation and a person want to talk about Mexico, the two topics should connect. For instance, one can make a statement such as “the last time I took a leave from work; I went to Mexico for a vacation.”

Grice (1975) presents the maxim of manner to support the conversational principle argument by depicting that people should always communicate their message in the clearest, briefest and the most orderly way to achieve the requirement of cooperation. One of the best illustrations for this maxim includes the fact that a person can get penalized for writing an essay in vague manner which results to the loss of marks. Evidently, when one writes an overly wordy essay, chances are higher that the writer will lose marks because the reader will get bored of going through the essay to understand the message being relayed. Despite the fact that one does not lose marks when engaging in a conversation, it is highly likely that one will lose friends when he/she fails to follow the presented maxims.

Davidson’s Stand on Cooperative Communication

Davidson maintains a view that what contributes to the aesthetic nature of the conversation is what has to do with the nature of the interaction which takes place between the people who engage in a conversation (Carroll, 1992). An effective orientation stemming from the conversationalists can be effective in establishing an effective communication. However, this will not provide a guarantee that the level of interaction between conventionalists will provide a desirable aesthetic experience.

Evident, an aesthetic form of conversation should maintain a specific form of structure. Notably, Davidson’s work in relation to the communication complexities builds on Dewey’s arguments related to aesthetic communication (Bresnahan, 2014). Notably, Davidson has taken a more fundamental look at how people engaging in conversation interact to achieve the aesthetic communication requirement. According to Davidson (1986), the views provides an emphasis on the indispensable role attached to the conventions and the rule governing practices associated with linguist that meaning cannot offer a complete picture regarding how one can successfully communicate. Davidson indicates that the views fail to consider the linguistic phenomenon such as novel sayings and malapropisms which are experienced in the events when the conventions are broken unintentionally or deliberately (Davidson, 2005). Besides drawing his arguments from Dewey’s work, Davidson also draws connection from action theory, philosophy of the mind, metaphysics and epistemology

Following Grice’s provisions, Davidson establishes a view which further connects the meaning of what a speaker says with his/her intentions. The speaker is required to consider the readiness of the interlocutor with an aim of ensuring an effective form of interpretation. According to Davidson (1986), this is referred to as the interpretability requirement. Arguably, this involves offering sufficient clues or taking actions which directs the conversation to a direction that one requires the listeners to grasp the meaning being communicated. To cooperate, it is evident that the linguistic conventions do not impose a limit which can be easily determined depending on the ways in which the speaker makes himself interpretable. To illustrate this factor, Davidson relied on the linguistic experiments completed by Joyce on Finnegan Wake and Ulysses. In this case, Davidson observes that even with enough creativity, it is difficult to establish how much the use of language can maintain its meaning even by deviating from the standard.

Furthermore, by drawing a distinction between the passing and the prior theory in linguistic, Davidson maintains that the theoretical frameworks have varied roles to play depending on the perspective being explored. This can be the speaker’s perspective, listener or the conversation itself. Notably, the passing theory is considered as the true finding point of the communication process since it determines how the communicator will express the message being communicated to attain the required meaning based on the speakers’ words.