Marcos Durbn Segarra

How far would you go for a coffee? An analysis of Grices

Cooperative Principle and Sperber and Wilsons Relevance Theory

Pragmatics can be broadly defined as the science of language use and its context. Thus, it
claims that language cannot be studied as a self-contained system with no allusion to its use in
particular situations, as linguists did until the second half of the 20 th century. Later, other aspects
of meaning which are not derived solely from the literal meaning of words were recovered from
the waste-paper basket of linguistics, and pragmaticists, such as Grice or Sperber and Wilson,
began to study how language works in real communication1, as will be discussed in this paper,
focused on an advert by the coffee company Nespresso.
Both being inferential approaches to pragmatics, on the one hand, Grice elaborated the
Cooperative Principle theory, based on the assumption that people tend to co-operate to
communicate successfully, and on the other hand, Sperber and Wilsons Relevance theory is
based on the assumption that all humans seek for optimal relevance when communicating.
Accordingly, the purpose of this essay is to analyze both, Grices and Sperber and Wilsons
theories, through the communicative exchange which takes place in the aforementioned
Nespressos advert, in order to provide an overall comparison in terms of basic claims and
theoretical assumptions and reach conclusions regarding which approach comes up with a better
explanation for the process of communication.
In order to provide an in-depth analysis of the Co-operative Principle and Relevance theories
through this advert, it is important to introduce their essential features and to describe the ads
communicative exchange to see how it can contribute to a pragmatic analysis of this kind. As
noted above, both approaches are inferential theories of communication, which aim to explain,

1 Biletzki, Anat. Talking Wolves: Thomas Hobbes on the Language of Politics and the Politics
of Language. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academicc Publishers, 1997.

although in a different way, how the audience infers the communicators intended meaning 2
despite its absence from the literal meaning of what is uttered.
On the one hand, according to Grice, all acts of communication are governed by the maxims of
Quality (truthfulness), Quantity (informativeness), Relation (relevance) and Manner (clarity)
which speakers are expected to observe in order to cooperate. That being so, when in a
particular context a contribution creates an implicature, either by observing or flouting the
maxims, the hearer is able to understand the implied intention via inference and choose the right
interpretation on the assumption that his or her counterpart is trying to be cooperative. On the
other hand, Relevance Theory is based on the assumption that human cognition is geared to the
maximisation of relevance and that utterances create expectations of optimal relevance,
reducing Grices theory to just one maxim of relevance. From this point of view, a successful
recognition of intentions takes place because the expectations of relevance raised by an
utterance are precise and predictable enough, to guide the hearer towards the speakers
meaning.3
Thereby, the recent Nespressos advertising campaign featuring George Clooney and Jean
Dujardin constitutes an appropriate frame into which the aforementioned processes of
inferential pragmatics can be effectively evaluated because of its particular communicative
content. The ad in question shows Jean Dujardin making a coffee in a kind of social gathering
when suddenly George Clooney appears and suggests Jean to give him the coffee, which
apparently is the last one. Then, hesitating, Jean says nice shoes..., and George understands
that he will get the coffee if he gives his luxurious pair of moccasins in exchange for Jeans badlooking flip flops. Finally, they agree and get what they wanted. Thus, the question is: By what
rational process of thought is Clooney so quickly able to come to the right conclusion? And how
is this process explained by the CP and RT respectively?
2 Ward, Horn, ed. Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell, 2004.
3 Unger, C. On the cognitive role of genre: a relevance-theoretic perspective.University of London,
2001. PhD thesis.

On the one hand, as noted above, Grices CP explains this phenomenon in terms of
cooperation and its four maxims and argues that utterances automatically create expectations
which guide the hearer towards the speakers meaning, by either observing or flouting the
maxims. According to this approach, taking under consideration a context in which George asks
for Jeans coffee, it is clear that Jean does not observe, at least, all the maxims when uttering
nice shoes.... Although he observes the quality maxim by giving his true opinion of the shoes,
he clearly flouts the maxim of relation (trigger) because he is not being relevant, at least
apparently. Consequently, assuming that Jean is trying to be cooperative he reaches the
assumption that he must be trying to mean something else. Then, George takes the meaning of
the sentence together with the contextual information and arrives at the implicature inferring
that Jean wants his moccasins in exchange.
On the other hand, Sperber and Wilsons RT aim to explain this phenomenon in cognitively
realistic terms as an alternative to Grices CP, however, following a parallel path until arriving at
the implicature or extra meaning. Their theory is centered on the assumption that speakers seek
for optimal relevance in ostensive communication, that is, speakers try to say things in a way
that cost the least effort to process and produce the most effect on the hearer in order to achieve
understanding. When an utterance does not observe the optimal relevance and costs more than
the least effort to be processed, the hearer looks for reasons to justify that additional effort and
arrives at the implicature by means of inference and contextual information. 4 According to this
approach and taking into account the aforementioned situation between Jean and George, it is
evident that Jeans utterance is not optimally relevant and it costs some effort to be processed by
George (again, this is the trigger). But similarly as happened in Grices CP explanation, George
assumes that Jean seeks for optimal relevance and therefore, he must have intended an
additional effect. The reasons above, together with contextual factors led George to arrive at the
implicature that Jean only will give him the coffee in exchange of his moccasins.

4 Moodle Unizar. 4. Relevance Theory. 2014.

As previously indicated, the CP and RT are inferential approaches to pragmatics and share a
similar path to describe the process through which intended meaning is inferred. However, I
think that Sperber and Wilsons Relevance Theory provides a more satisfactory answer to how,
for example, George Clooney understands Jeans real intentions. One of the reasons is that
Grices explanation may be too linear and simplistic. According to the CP, the literal meaning of
utterances is analyzed first and later we infer until arriving at the implied meaning, as following
a linear path. In consequence, the inferential process becomes too long. Also, when more than a
maxim is flouted, as in Jean Dujardins utterance, it is difficult to determine which one is more
important. Moreover, it is a probabilistic principle not based on scientific evidence.
On the contrary, RT account for the inference of implied meaning is not linear. Sperber and
Wilson claim that the process starts by analyzing the implied meaning directly and not going
throughout different stages. The process of inference is much shorter and direct because the
hearer grasps the optimal interpretation by applying contextual information previously acquired.
Besides, this approach is based on scientific evidence and tested in real life, which casts down
Grices explanation.
In conclusion, Grices Cooperative Principle and Sperber and Wilsons Relevance Theory are
two inferential approaches to pragmatics which explain, in two different ways, how intended
meaning is understood. As analyzed through the Nesspresos advert, CP asserts that
understanding takes place as a result of either observing or flouting the four maxims which
together make up the cooperative principle that underlies all human communication and claims
that those involved in it will normally seek to cooperate with each other. Apart from that, RT
points out that human cognition is geared to the maximisation of relevance, and utterances
create expectations of optimal relevance in order to explain this phenomenon. Moreover, as
demonstrated above, the Relevance theory provides a more satisfactory explanation to the
process of inferring implied meaning because it is not so linear and more direct, also, opposed
to Grices approach, it is scientifically testable in real life and like other psychological theories
it has testable consequences. Sperber and Wilsons approach, thus, focus on the cognitive

aspects of communication and as noted above is more appropriate than CP to explain inferential
communication, however, although from the cognitive point of view it is a good explanation, it
is too ambitious because it does not consider other important aspects in human communication
yet, such as emotions or personality.

REFERENCES

- Biletzki, Anat. Talking Wolves: Thomas Hobbes on the Language of Politics and the Politics
of Language. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academicc Publishers, 1997.

- Moodle Unizar. 4. Relevance Theory. 2014.

- Nesspreso TV Commercial, 2014. https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=ZxoJSMXd0ZY

- Unger, C. On the cognitive role of genre: a relevance-theoretic perspective.

University of London, 2001. PhD thesis.

- Ward, Horn, ed. Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell, 2004.