The Unwritten Rules of Conversation: Are You Violating Grice’s Maxims?

Ever walked away from a conversation feeling like you were talking to a brick wall? Or maybe you’ve had the distinct impression someone was being evasive, but you couldn’t quite put your finger on why. These awkward, frustrating, and sometimes comical conversational missteps aren’t random. They often happen when we break a set of unwritten rules—rules we all follow instinctively without ever being taught them.

Enter Paul Grice, a 20th-century philosopher of language who pulled back the curtain on our daily chit-chat. He proposed that successful conversation isn’t just a series of random statements; it’s a cooperative effort. To explain this, he outlined the Cooperative Principle, which is supported by four guidelines he called “maxims.”

Think of these maxims not as strict laws, but as the shared assumptions we make when we talk to each other. We assume people are trying to be truthful, relevant, and clear. It’s when these assumptions are broken—either accidentally or on purpose—that conversations get interesting.

What is the Cooperative Principle?

At its heart, Grice’s Cooperative Principle is simple: we operate under the assumption that everyone involved in a conversation is trying to contribute meaningfully to its accepted purpose. His formal definition states:

“Make your conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged.”

In other words: try to be a helpful and constructive conversational partner. The four maxims are the practical pillars that hold this principle up.

The Four Maxims of Conversation

Let’s break down the four maxims that govern our cooperative talk. You’ll likely recognize them immediately, even if you’ve never heard their official names.

1. The Maxim of Quality: Be Truthful

• Do not say what you believe to be false.
• Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.

This is the most fundamental maxim. We expect people to be honest. When you ask a stranger for the time, you assume they’re not going to lie to you. If you ask a friend how they are, you expect a sincere (if brief) answer. A blatant violation of this maxim is, quite simply, a lie. It damages trust and can derail a conversation entirely.

Example of observing Quality:

You: “Is this milk still good?”
Friend: (Checks the date) “No, it expired three days ago.”

2. The Maxim of Quantity: Give the Right Amount of Information

• Make your contribution as informative as is required.
• Do not make your contribution more informative than is required.

This maxim is all about balance. If someone asks you where the bathroom is, they don’t need the architectural history of the building. Likewise, if they ask what you did over the weekend, a one-word answer of “Nothing” can feel withholding and uncooperative.

Example of violating Quantity (too little):

You: “How was your job interview?”
Friend: “Fine.”

Example of violating Quantity (too much):

You: “What time is it?”
Friend: “It’s 3:15. You know, the concept of time is fascinating. Originally, the Babylonians used a sexagesimal system, which is why we have 60 seconds in a minute and 60 minutes in an hour. It’s also why a circle has 360 degrees…”

3. The Maxim of Relevance (or Relation): Stay on Topic

• Be relevant.

This one seems obvious, but its power lies in its subtlety. We expect conversational turns to relate to what was just said. When they don’t, it’s jarring. A sudden, unexplained shift in topic can make the speaker seem distracted, rude, or desperate to avoid the current subject.

Example of observing Relevance:

You: “We should get pizza for dinner.”
Friend: “Good idea. Should we order from Tony’s or Mario’s?”

Example of violating Relevance:

You: “We should get pizza for dinner.”
Friend: “Did you know that squirrels can’t burp?”

4. The Maxim of Manner: Be Clear and Orderly

• Avoid obscurity of expression.
• Avoid ambiguity.
• Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity).
• Be orderly.

This maxim is about how you say something. It’s a call for clarity. Using confusing jargon, speaking in riddles, or telling a story in a jumbled, non-chronological order are all violations of the Maxim of Manner. The goal is to be understood easily.

Example of violating Manner:

You: “How do I get to the post office?”
Friend: “Proceed in a northerly direction for approximately 400 meters until you encounter the intersection, at which point you must execute a dextral maneuver.” (Translation: “Go up this street for a few blocks and then turn right.”)

Flouting, Not Violating: The Art of Implying

Here’s where Grice’s theory gets truly brilliant. He recognized that we break these rules all the time, but not always to be uncooperative. Sometimes, we deliberately and obviously break a maxim to make a point. This is called flouting.

When you flout a maxim, you expect your listener to notice the violation and understand that you’re communicating a hidden message. This hidden meaning is called an implicature.

Let’s look at some examples:

• Flouting Quality (Sarcasm): Your friend trips over his own feet. You say, “Wow, smooth moves.” You’re obviously not being truthful. The implicature is that your friend was clumsy, and you’re teasing them about it.
• Flouting Quantity (Understatement): You’ve just spent eight hours assembling a piece of IKEA furniture with terrible instructions. Someone asks how it went. You reply, “It was a little tricky.” You’re intentionally giving less information than required to imply, through massive understatement, that it was a nightmare.
• Flouting Relevance (Changing the Subject):

  Anna: “So, what do you think of my new boyfriend, Mark?”
  Ben: “Gosh, this coffee is really good, isn’t it?”
  Ben is obviously and abruptly changing the subject. The implicature is clear: he either doesn’t like Mark or doesn’t want to talk about him, but he’s too polite to say so directly.

• Flouting Manner (Being Obscure):

  Parent 1: “What did you get the kids for their birthday?”
  Parent 2: “I acquired the wheeled, two-pedal transportation device.”
  By using overly obscure language (“wheeled, two-pedal transportation device” instead of “bike”), Parent 2 is hiding the information from any children who might be listening. The implicature is “Let’s not talk about this plainly because the kids are here.”

Why This Matters in the Real World

Understanding Grice’s maxims gives you a superpower: the ability to analyze communication on a deeper level. You can better understand humor, sarcasm, and subtext. You can see how politicians evade questions by flouting the maxim of relevance or how advertisers use ambiguity (flouting manner) to mislead.

It also reminds us that communication styles are culturally specific. In some cultures, directness (strictly following quantity and manner) is prized. In others, indirectness and politeness—which often involve flouting maxims—are more important. What might seem like a violation in one context is standard cooperative behavior in another.

So, the next time a conversation feels “off,” take a moment to think like a linguist. Is someone violating a maxim by being uncooperative? Or are they flouting one to tell you something more than what their words are saying? The answer is often hidden in the beautiful, unwritten rules of how we talk to one another.