The maxim of relation is an expectation that people will say relevant things in a conversation. It is one of the four expectations that make up Grice’s Maxims, otherwise known as the Cooperative Principle.
According to this maxim, the expectation is that people in conversation:
- Say things that relate to the conversation.
- Say things that relate to the previous contribution.
- Avoid including any irrelevant information.
When we notice that someone hasn’t followed this maxim, it makes us wonder why they aren’t being straightforward with their speech.
This then causes us to interpret hidden, implicit meanings (implicature) under what they have said.
There are many occasions where you might break this maxim on purpose. Sometimes, you do it to purposefully create an implicature. Other times, you hope that no one will notice that you’ve done it.
Table of contents
Breaking the Maxim of Relation on Purpose
There are plenty of ways that you can break this maxim on purpose. Which one you use will depend on what kind of implicature you want to create – or if you want to generate an implicature at all!
When you are analysing speech, it can be useful to think about which ways people break maxims and why.
Remember: maxims aren’t set rules that dictate whether you are doing conversation “properly” or not. Instead, they are just ways to decide whether we’re going to take your language at face value or if we’re going to interpret a hidden meaning.
Flouting the Maxim
Flouting a maxim is when you make it very clear to the other people in the conversation (interlocutors) that you are breaking it. You want them to notice so that they can interpret your hidden implicature.
There are plenty of ways that you might flout the maxim of relation. Here is an example to help you understand.
Speaker 1: What did you think of Jack's singing? Speaker 2: We've had such nice weather lately.
In this exchange, the information seems irrelevant, but it is so blatantly off-topic that the speaker must be flouting the maxim of relation.
The implicature that is generated here is that Speaker 2 didn’t like Jack’s singing at all. However, they feel it would be impolite or mean to say that out loud, so they’re changing the topic.
It can sometimes be difficult to tell whether the speaker is flouting the maxim on purpose. Usually, in the case of an exchange like the one in the example, it will involve body language and tone – such as making yourself sound overly innocent and looking up to avoid eye contact.
There are also times when the literal meaning of the words (semantics) seems irrelevant at face value. However, we can assume from context (pragmatics) that they are actually relevant!
Here’s an example:
Speaker 1: My son doesn't have a girlfriend! You're a liar. Speaker 2: Have you been to the bowling alley lately?
Just like in the previous example, the information seems irrelevant, but it is so blatant that it has to be on purpose.
The implicature that it generates is that Speaker 1’s son is at the bowling alley with his girlfriend. So, if they went there, they’d see him with her.
Any time that someone wants you to notice that they have intentionally provided irrelevant information to the conversation, they are flouting the maxim of relation.
Violating the Maxim
When you violate a maxim, you say something that breaks the maxim, but you hope that no one notices. If you are successful when you violate a maxim, you generate no implicature.
In the case of violating the maxim of relation, people often try to get away with passing off irrelevant information as relevant to the conversation. This could be to mislead them or to answer a question quickly to shut the conversation down.
Let’s look at an example from real life: Rishi Sunak’s interview about the NHS.
Interviewer: Were you resigtered with a private GP and are you still? Sunak: My dad was a doctor. I grew up in an NHS family.
The fact that Sunak’s father was an NHS doctor doesn’t actually answer the question here. In fact, it’s not relevant at all! However, he is trying his best to slip this response past the interviewer so that it looks like he answered the question. So, it is clear that he is violating the maxim of relation.
Sunak is trying not to generate an implicature. However, he doesn’t have control over whether his words generate one or not. It’s just about whether the interview or the audience notices that he’s tried to violate the maxim.
Although he tried to successfully violate the maxim, it didn’t work. The press, the interviewer and the public perceived an implicature from his words: that he has a private GP.
Breaking the Maxim of Relation by Accident
Of course, there are also cases where you might break the maxim by accident. Usually, this will happen when someone doesn’t realise that they aren’t following a maxim. We call this “infringing a maxim”.
When someone infringes the maxim of relation, it usually happens because they aren’t aware that they are doing it, perhaps because:
- They don’t realise that what they have said isn’t related to the conversation or the thing they’re replying to.
- The use of drugs or alcohol has prevented the from thinking through what they’re saying fully.
- They misheard what was said or asked of them, meaning that their contribution wasn’t completely relevant.
When this happens, the speaker isn’t trying to create an implicature. However, they can’t prevent it if one is generated.
« Back to Glossary Index