





































Microsoft Word - ELSR-V1N1-p43


Education, Language and Sociology Research 
ISSN 2690-3644 (Print) ISSN 2690-3652 (Online) 

Vol. 1, No. 1, 2020 
www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr 

43 
 

Original Paper 

The Iraqi EFL Learners’ Use of Conversational Maxims at the 

University Level 

Mohammed Jasim Betti1* & Karrar Salim Yaseen2 
1 Department of English, College of Education for Humanities, Thi-Qar University, Nasiriya, Iraq 
2 Ministry of Education, General Directorate of Education, Al-Muthanna, Iraq 
* Mohammed Jasim Betti, Department of English, College of Education for Humanities, Thi-Qar 

University, Nasiriya, Iraq 

 

Received: April 18, 2020       Accepted: April 24, 2020      Online Published: April 30, 2020 

doi:10.22158/elsr.v1n1p43         URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.22158/elsr.v1n1p43 

 

Abstract 

The current study is an attempt to measure the Iraqi EFL learners’ use of conversational maxims at the 

recognition level. The study aims at testing whether the Iraqi EFL learners observe or flout the Gricean 

maxims, assessing the Iraqi EFL learners’ mastery of the conversational maxims, and identifying which 

maxim(s) is/are frequently flouted by the learners of EFL. The study hypothesizes that the Iraqi EFL 

learners flout all the maxims of conversation, the maxim of relation is the least flouted one, the Iraqi EFL 

learners find the maxims difficult to adhere to, and the maxim of quantity is mostly flouted. The subjects 

of the study are one hundred Iraqi EFL learners at the fourth-year, Dept. of English, College of 

Education for Humanities, University of Al-Muthanna. The data elicitation tool a recognition test 

designed in accordance with nature of the study. The study brings forth the conclusions that the subjects 

have a difficulty in utilizing the maxims altogether, they flout all the conversational maxims in relatively 

different degrees, and the learners are mostly abided by the maxim of relation more than the other three 

ones. 

Keywords 

cooperative principle, conversational maxims, flouting, EFL learners 

 

1. Introduction 

Language is a powerful means of human communication. Via using language, the sender can deliver 

his/her intended meaning to the receiver. According to Grice, the communicative activity should go 

smoothly and straightforwardly. Thus, Grice postulates the cooperative principle. The cooperative 

principle (CP: for short) says that people should be cooperative in their communication. As a result, 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 1, No. 1, 2020 

44 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Grice supports the cooperative principle by four maxims, which speakers should follow. The quantity 

maxim says that the sender should be informative as is required, the quality maxim states that the speaker 

should be truthful, the maxim of relation means that the speaker has to produce the relevant information 

only, and finally the manner maxim says that people should deliver clear and abridged information 

(Grice, 1975, pp. 45-46). In a similar vein, pragmatics is a chief field in language assessment. For more 

than two decades, developments are made in conceptualizing the pragmatic field, improving assessment 

tools and applying current methods of data treatment to the manipulation of test performance (Kasper & 

Ross, 2013, p. 1). The current study, thus, is located in the field of interlanguage pragmatics. Schauer 

(2009, p. 2) states that interlanguage pragmatics is “the acquisition, comprehension, and production of 

contextually appropriate language by foreign/second language learners”. He (ibid: p. 15) declares that 

interlanguage pragmatics uses pragmatic notions, principles, and models to test how foreign/second 

language learners encode and decode meaning in their foreign language. Accordingly, the present study 

seeks answers for the following questions: 

1). Do the Iraqi EFL learners have the necessary pragmatic competence about the maxims of 

conversation? 

2). Do those learners master the conversational maxims? 

3). Which conversational maxims are mostly flouted by those learners of EFL? 

The study aims at: 

1). Assessing the Iraqi EFL learners’ mastery of the conversational maxims. 

2). Measuring whether the Iraqi EFL learners observe or flout these maxims. 

3). Identifying which maxim is frequently flouted. 

In accordance with aims of the study, the researchers put the following hypotheses:  

1). The Iraqi EFL learners flout all the conversational maxims. 

2). The Iraqi EFL learners find the maxims difficult to adhere to. 

3). The maxim of quantity is mostly flouted. 

4). The maxim of relation is the least flouted maxim. 

The scope of the study includes one hundred Iraqi EFL learners at the fourth-year, Dept. of English, 

College of Education for Humanities, University of Al-Muthanna for the academic year (2019-2020) 

who are selected to be the subjects of the study. The test is restricted to the recognition level, and to 

examine the Iraqi EFL learners’ use of conversational maxims in terms of observing or non-observing the 

maxims. In the case of non-observing the maxims, violating and opting out are not taken into 

consideration because they require the speaker’s intention whether the speaker intends to mislead or 

refuse to communicate. Therefore, flouting, as a form of non-observing the maxims, is utilized in the 

practical aspect of the study because it does not require the testees’ intention.  

The study adopts the following procedure: 

1). Constructing a recognition test to be the data elicitation tool. 

2). Selecting Iraqi EFL learners at the fourth-year as the subjects of the study. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 1, No. 1, 2020 

45 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

3). Applying the test to the selected subjects of the study. 

The study is hoped to be valuable to teachers, researchers, and interlanguage pragmatists. It could also be 

beneficial to methods of teaching and FL specialists, namely, course designers and test-makers. 

 

2. Literature Review  

Due to the big shift towards dealing with language from a functional perspective, pragmatics becomes a 

much-flourished linguistic study. The principal task of pragmatics is how to infer the intended meaning 

by virtue of context. Hence, pragmatics takes into account a number of issues that are neglected in the 

formal description of language, such as the notion of context (Brown & Yule, 1983, p. 27). One of the 

most important inferential approach to the interpretation of meaning is that of Grice.  

This section discusses the key ideas in Grice’s pragmatic framework, namely, the CP and the 

conversational maxims, and it is necessary to state why such a principle is required. Previous works on 

the theory of speech acts by Austin (1962) and Searle (1969) had largely been concerned with the 

relationship between direct and indirect speech acts. Leech (2014, pp. 311-312) and Bousfield (2014, p. 

125) state that Grice’s notion of the CP comes to bridge the gap that illustrates indirectness between what 

is said and what is meant where a speaker can use one utterance to convey the meaning of another. Such 

a semantics-pragmatics gap is handled by proposing the CP as a mechanism of linking the semantic and 

pragmatic meanings. The CP can be defined as “A basic assumption in conversation that each participant 

will attempt to contribute appropriately, at the required time, to the current exchange of talk” (Yule, 1996, 

p. 128). The following classical example elucidates the function of the CP: 

(1) A: I am out of petrol. 

B: There is a garage round the corner. 

As Grice points out, the concealed relation between the questioner and the responder is clear. However, 

B’s remark means that A can get petrol from the nearby garage, but what B means is not actually 

retrievable from the words she uses. To reach the right interpretation, the CP must enter the scene. That is 

to say, the remark is meaningful to the range that A identifies that B is fulfilling the expectations A has 

about the CP. The competent speakers might have no difficulty in inferring the intended meaning that the 

garage is open and it has petrol to sell (Christie, 133, p. 2000). Accordingly, Grice proposes that in an 

interactive talk, there is an underlying principle, which harmonizes the way in which language is used 

maximally, effectively, and efficiently to fulfill logical interaction. Grice calls this organizing dictum the 

CP (Huang, 1994, p. 4). Hence, the CP stats: 

“Make your contribution such as required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose 

or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged” (Grice, 1975, p. 45). 

2.1 The Maxims of Conversation 

The maxims are general principles which motivate the efficient use of language, and which together 

identify the CP (Crystal, 2008, p. 298). These maxims are set to aid a pragmatic explanation of the 

divergence between semantic and pragmaticmeanings (Segerdahl, 1996, p. 61). Leech (1983, p. 8) and 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 1, No. 1, 2020 

46 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Cruse (2000, p. 357) point out that these maxims or principles are different from grammatical rules. They 

isolate four ways to show the dissimilarity: (i) they can be applied to different contexts; (ii) maxims can 

be applied in different gradations; (iii) they can overlap with each other, and (iv) maxims can be breached 

up without any rejection to the kind of activity, which they regulate, while breaching up a grammatical 

rule leads to an ill-formed utterance. 

2.1.1 The Maxim of Quantity  

This maxim deals with the amount of information delivered. It consists of two sub-maxims (Grice, 1975, 

p. 45): 

(a) Make your contribution as informative as require. 

(b) Don’t make your contribution more informative than is required. 

Locastro (2012, p. 49) comments on this maxim. She says that the maxim of quantity involves what is 

internally in the text. Thus, the speaker has to deliver the required amount of information no more no less. 

If the speaker provides more or less amount of information, s/he will breach up this maxim, such as:  

(2) A: Why did you leave the meeting early? 

B: I wanted to. 

The maxim of quantity comes into play: B’s remark is less informative than is needed, and the reason 

beyond that is that B does not like to declare the reason because it would be embarrassing, impolite, etc. 

(Leech, 2014, p. 312). 

This maxim, like the other maxims of conversation, can be hedged, such as: as you probably already 

know …/I cannot say any more. For example: 

(3) I would not bore you with the details, but it was an exciting trip. Here, the maxim of quantity is 

violated because the speaker contributes more than is required. The speaker can easily say it was an 

exciting trip. However, the use of the hedge (I would not bore you with the details, but…) is more than is 

required (Yule, 1996, pp. 38-39). 

2.1.2 The Maxim of Quality 

This maxim is set to deal with truth-telling. The speaker should provide only the truth. Under this maxim 

fall two sub-maxims (Grice, 1975, p. 46): 

(a) Don’t say what you believe to be false. 

(b) Don’t say that for which you lack adequate evidence. 

Locastro (2012, p. 49) states that the maxim of quality, that is, the truth or falsity of the sender utterance, 

is concerned with aspects that are external to the text. In an interactive talk, the speaker should convey the 

information, which is true; the information that s/he can prove, otherwise, the maxim is going to be 

violated. On many occasions, this maxim seems not to be followed. An example is given below to clarify 

this point (Khosravizadeh & Sadehvandi, 2011, p. 122): 

(4) Mother: Did you study all day long? 

(Son who has been playing all day long) Yes, I have been studying untilnow! 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 1, No. 1, 2020 

47 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

The son’s answer is not true. He lies to avoid the undesirable consequences, therefore, he violates the 

maxim of quality which says (Be truthful). There are quality hedges: as far as I know, …/I am not sure if 

this is true, but… 

For example: 

(5) A: I will ring you tomorrow then. 

B: Em, I shall be there as far as I know, and in the meantime have a word with Mum and Dad if 

they are free. Right, good-bye then sweetheart. 

A: Good-bye, bye. 

In the above mini-conversation, B breaches up two maxims, on the one hand, the maxim of quality by 

using a hedging expression (as far as I know) which means “I cannot be totally sure if this is true”, and on 

the other one, B breaches up the maxim of quantity by saying more than is required (Cutting, 2002, p. 

35). 

2.1.3 The Maxim of Relation  

This maxim is simple and straightforward. Under this maxim, falls only one principle, which is, be 

relevant. Locasro (2012, p. 49) says the maxim of relevance is of a dissimilar order, and the maxim most 

frequently breached up. Birner (2013, p. 54) states that what is meant by the maxim of relation is that the 

current utterance must have something to do with the context; it must be related to what has come before 

it in the conversation and/or what is going on in the situation. Hymes (cited in Brown and Yule, 1983, p. 

37) maintains that the context has two crucial functions. On the one hand, context delimits the range of 

possible interpretations and, on the other one, supports the intended interpretation. Context is of two 

types: (i) the linguistic context or co-text; it can be defined as the set of other words used in the same 

phrase or sentence and (ii) the context of situation is defined as the time and place in which we encounter 

linguistic expressions (Yule, 2010, pp. 129-130): 

(6) A: I say, did you hear about Mary’s… 

B: Yes, well, it rained nearly the whole time we were there. 

Here, B’s remark is irrelevant to A’s question. Thus, B violates the relation maxim because Mary gets 

closer to them, noticed by B but not by A (Cruse, 2000, p. 361).The relation maxim can be hedged like: I 

am not sure if this is relevant, but…/I do not want to change the subject, but… 

For instance:  

(7) I do not know if this is important, but some of the files are missing. 

The speaker, here, does not know whether his remark is relevant or irrelevant; therefore, he violates the 

maxim of relation (Yule, 1996, pp. 38-39). 

2.1.4 The Maxim of Manner  

This maxim says, “Be perspicuous”. The speaker’s contribution to the conversation should not be 

nebulous and indistinct; rather it should be shortened, obvious, and organized. This maxim is sub-divided 

into four sub-maxims:  

(a) Avoid obscurity of expression. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 1, No. 1, 2020 

48 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

(b) Avoid ambiguity. 

(c) Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity). 

(d) Be orderly (Grice, 1975, p. 46). 

Locastro (2012, p. 49) states that the manner maxim involves the text itself; the semantic form and the 

manner in which a certain piece of information is observed in the text itself. The speaker should be clear 

in his participation; otherwise, s/he is going to violate the manner maxim, such as the following instance 

(Leech, 2014, p. 312): 

(8) A: How did you get here? 

B: I walked here on my own two feet. 

In the above utterance, B does not abide by the manner maxim. B can say by uttering one or two words (I 

walked). Hence, B says unnecessary prolixity. Besides, the maxim of manner can be hedged such as, I am 

not sure if this is clear, but…/I do not know if this makes sense, but…, etc. For instance:  

(9) This may be a bit confused, but I remember being in a car. 

In the example above, the speaker violates the maxim of manner because the speaker’s statement is vague, 

whether the speaker is being in a car or not (Yule, 1996, pp. 38-39).  

2.2 Observing and Non-Observing the Maxims 

Maxims observing and non-observing depend on the speakers whether they observe or do not observe the 

Gricean maxims. In observing the maxims, the speaker does not breach up any conversational maxim. 

S/he can straightforwardly succeed in observing all the maxims. For example: 

(10) A: Where are the car keys? 

B: they are on the table in the hall. 

Consequently, B observes the maxim of quantity by saying the required amount of information, the 

maxim of quality by being truthful, the maxim of relation by providing relevant answer, and finally, the 

maxim of manner by conveying distinct answer (See Thomas, 1995, p. 64). On the other extreme, there 

are many occasions when speakers fail to observe these maxims; see (Grice, 1975, p. 49; Thomas, 1995, 

p. 64 and Birner, 2013, p. 43). The failure to do so can take various forms: 

1). Violating: the unostentatious non-observance of a maxim with the aim of misleading the hearer. For 

example:  

(11) Teacher: Why did not you do your homework? 

Student: May I go and get some water? I am so thirsty. 

In the above example, the student violates the maxim of relation; the student conveys an irrelevant 

answer to mislead the teacher to avoid the undesirable consequence because the student does not do his 

homework (Khosravizadeh & Sadehvandi, 2011, p. 122). 

2). Flouting: is the deliberate and intentional non-observance of a maxim that the hearer is expected to be 

aware of the non-fulfillment with no intention of deceiving the other person. For example:  

(12) A: Smith does not seem to have a girlfriend these days. 

B: He has been paying many visits to New York lately. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 1, No. 1, 2020 

49 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

In the above example, B flouts the maxim of relation by which B means a deliberate and a clear violation. 

B’s remark contains none of the information that would be expected that Smith has a girlfriend in New 

York; therefore, Smith pays lots of visits to New York (Kroeger, 2019, p. 144). The difference between 

examples (11) and (12) is that in (11), the speaker intends to deceive the partner while in (12), the speaker 

has no aim of misleading.  

3). Opting out: opting out the maxims altogether, in a sense, means that one refuses to cooperate in a 

conversation for some reason. For example, one may be legally bound not to provide information one has. 

An example is given below to clarify this form of non-observance: 

(13) A: … um I lived in uh a country where people sometimes need to flee that country. 

B: Uh, where was that? 

A: It is a country in Asia and I do not want to say any more. 

In the above conversation, A opts out two maxims the maxim of quantity because A delivers 

uninformative piece of information, and the maxim of manner because A’s remark is not clear and not 

abridged. Opting out occurs frequently in public life to avoid being uncooperative, or for ethical reasons, 

and sometimes the requested answer might hurt a third person; therefore, the speaker opts out the maxims 

(Thomas, 1995, p. 75). 

4) A clash between maxims: on some occasion, there is an overlap between maxims. An utterance may be 

both unclear and prolix, breaching the maxims of quality and quantity (Platridge, 2012, p. 47). An 

example is provided below to state the above point: 

(14) A: Where does C live? 

B: Somewhere in the south of France. 

In the above instance, B violates two maxims; one is of quality by being untruthful (somewhere in ……) 

and the other is of quantity since the piece of the information is uninformative as is required. B, then, 

violates the maxim of quantity (less informative) and the maxim of quality to avoid being a liar (Senft, 

2014, p. 35). 

  

3. Research Methodology 

This section maps out some of the practical facets of the study. The study aims at evaluating the Iraqi 

EFL learners’ ability to use the conversational maxims. 

3.1 Test Description  

A test is the data elicitation tool used in the present study. It is designed in accordance with the nature and 

aims of the study. It is a recognition test. The technique used in structuring the test of the current study is 

a multiple-choice test. It is used to examine the students’ ability to recognize the maxims of conversation 

at the recognition level. It comprises of fifteen items. The items of the test are all of a similar nature. Thus, 

each item of the test is provided with five alternatives. One of the alternatives represents the true response 

whereby all the Gricean maxims are observed. The other four ones represent flouting the four maxims 

quality, quantity, relation, and manner. In each situation, the contextual factors are taken into 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 1, No. 1, 2020 

50 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

consideration and bracketed in two cases: (i) True responses; when all the conversational maxims are 

observed, for example: 

A: How old are you?  

B: (Here is my ID) I am twenty.  

(ii) When the maxim of quality is flouted and no hedges are used, such as:  

A: How old are you?  

B: 1) I am twenty. (There is no proof). 

2) I am not sure, but it is said I am twenty-two.  

In B-2, no contextual factors are given since a hedgeisa clear violation of the maxim of quality.  

After establishing the test, it is sent to a jury, which consists of a number of specialists in approaches and 

methods of teaching EFL to guarantee its validity. 

3.2 The Subjects of the Study 

The total number of the subjects, on whom the test of the study is applied, is one hundred EFL learners at 

the fourth-year for the academic year (2019-2020) who are selected randomly from the Dept. of English, 

College of Education for Humanities, University of Al-Muthanna. The subjects are homogeneous. That 

is to say, the factors, which are isolated by the researchers include: the level of education, age, both 

genders are engaged, they share the same first language experience, and they share the same knowledge 

of English as a FL. 

3.3 Test Objectives, Validity and Reliability 

The test is constructed to achieve the following objectives: 

1). Testing the Iraqi EFL learners’ mastery of the Gricean conversational maxims at the recognition level. 

2). Examining students’ ability in terms of observing and non-observing the maxims.  

3). Stating which maxim is mostly flouted. 

A well-made test is featured by having two qualities; validity and reliability. The test validity is 

guaranteed by the jury members. All the items of the test are validated and approved. Taking into account 

some suggested modifications and notices on the test’s draft version. 

As far as the reliability is concerned, the test is reliable because a reliable test must have a consistent 

scoring scheme. Since the testing technique used, in this study, is a multiple-choice one, in which there is 

only one predetermined correct response, this test is objective one (See Heaton, 1988; and Tavakoli, 

2012, p. 417).  

3.4 Administration of the Test 

Two issues are discussed in relation to the test administration, which are the pilot study and the original 

test administration. The pilot study is conducted and applied to ten fourth-year students on Tuesday 11 

February 2020.After carrying out the pilot study, a number of considerations are highlighted include: 

1). The required time to perform the test is one hour. 

2). The subjects show no difficulties. 

3). No modifications are made for the final administration of the test.  



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 1, No. 1, 2020 

51 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

In this regard, the test administration is conducted on Sunday 16th of February 2020. The subjects are 

asked to perform the test. One hundred EFL learners from the Dept. of English, College of Education for 

Humanities, University of Al-Muthanna, participate in the test implementation. The subjects are told to 

answer on the sheet. They are informed that the sheet of the test is name-free to reduce test 

embarrassment.  

 

4. Results and Discussion 

This section includes data analysis and discussion of observing and flouting the maxims of conversation. 

Results are shown via using tables and percentages. 

4.1 Observing the Maxims  

Observing the maxims, henceforth, represents the subjects’ correct responses, which are so because the 

subjects observe all the conversational maxims. Thus, the responses observing the maxims are analyzed 

and discussed. In all the fifteen items of the test, there is an alternative, which is correct. The letter of the 

correct alternative is inserted next to the number of the item (See Table 1). 

 

Table 1. The Frequency and Percentages of Observing the Maxims 

Item No. Observing the Maxims % 

1. e 46 3.06 

2. b 54 3.6 

3. d 39 2.6 

4. b 59 3.93 

5. c 50 3.33 

6. d 54 3.6 

7. a 62 4.13 

8. e 33 2.2 

9. b 48 3.2 

10. d 43 2.86 

11. c 64 4.26 

12. a 58 3.86 

13. c 45 3 

14. d 53 3.53 

15. e 40 2.66 

  Total 748/1500     49.87 

 

The test items share the same mechanism in which an alternative is true and the four other ones 

represent flouting each one of the Gricean maxims per option. The results demonstrate that the 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 1, No. 1, 2020 

52 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

frequency of the correct responses is 748 responses out of 1500 ones; making 49.87% and this indicates 

that the participants’ performance in using the maxims altogether is less than average, and this is so 

because the participants lack practicing the FL in their daily communication. Other reasons could be 

the lack of the necessary pragmatic competence of the FL maxims of conversation which results in 

misusing the appropriate language in certain context; moreover, the impact of the participants’ first 

language on the pragmatic performance of the FL. Another reason is that Arabs are not always abided 

by the maxims altogether particularly in an ordinary conversation (See Issa & Ahmed, 2019, pp. 3-13) 

4.2 Flouting the Maxims 

Flouting the maxims stands for the erroneous responses, which are so because the subjects flout one of 

the maxims per option. Unlike violating and opting out which require the speaker’s intention to cheat 

or refuse to converse, flouting is used in this study to refer to non-observing the maxims because it 

does not require the testees’ intention to mislead. Flouting, thus, is divided into four sub-sections in 

accordance with the type of the maxim being flouted. 

4.2.1 Flouting the Maxim of Quantity  

The principle of quantity deals with the amount of information conveyed. It says that the producer 

should deliver the required amount of information, no more no less than is needed. Hence, the results of 

flouting this maxim are illustrated below: 

 

Table 2. The Frequency and Percentages of Flouting the Quantity Maxim 

Item No.  Flouting the Quantity Maxim % 

1. a 5 0.33 

2. d 7 0.46 

3. a 21 1.4 

4. e 6 0.4 

5. a 4 0.26 

6. c 8 0.53 

7. b 12 0.8 

8. b 13 0.86 

9. c 17 1.13 

10. c 33 2.2 

11. e 14 0.93 

12. c 10 0.66 

13. e 10 0.66 

14. c 10 0.66 

15. c 13 0.86  

Total  183/1500     12.2 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 1, No. 1, 2020 

53 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Only 183 occurrences flout the maxim of quantity compared to the maximal number of cases in which 

the high majority of the subjects observe this maxim. This illustrates that the participants flout the 

maxim of quantity in relatively few cases. The reasons behind the cases in which there is a flouting of 

the quantity maxim could be the subjects’ low ability in English. In other words, the subjects do not 

keep drilling English as FL in their daily conversations. As a result, the subjects are limited to English 

lessons; this causes a limitation in the subjects’ performance in using the FL in general. However, the 

total percentage of flouting the maxim of quantity in all of the test items is 12.2%. This means that the 

subjects are good at utilizing the maxim of quantity at the recognition level. 

4.2.2 Flouting the Maxim of Quality 

The maxim of quality says that the speaker should not say anything that s/he does not have an adequate 

evidence for. In all the fifteen items of the test, there are some occurrences, which represent flouting 

the maxim of quality, which are shown in Table 3. 

 

Table 3. The Frequency and Percentages of Flouting the Quality Maxim 

Item No. Flouting the Quality Maxim % 

1. b 37 2.46 

2. e 20 1.33 

3. b 35 2.33 

4. c 6 0.4 

5. b 15 1 

6. b 30 2 

7. c 6 0.4 

8. c 36 2.4 

9. d 16 1.06 

10. e 6 0.4 

11. d 13 0.86 

12. b 15 1 

13. d 13 0.86 

14. b 19 1.26 

15. a 6 0.4  

  Total 273/1500 18.2  

 

Table 3 above illustrates that 273 occurrences 18.2% flout the maxim of quality in comparison to 1227 

occurrences. However, the total percentage of flouting the quality maxim is 18.2% out of 100% and 

this denotes that the subjects are good at using this maxim at the recognition level. Thus, the majority 

of the subjects observe this maxim. The reason behind the few occurrences flouting this maxim is that 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 1, No. 1, 2020 

54 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

when the participants are not sure about the item, which contains a hedging maxim, they select the 

hedging maxim. Though using a hedging maxim is a clear violation of that maxim, still using such a 

hedge is an attempt to follow the cooperative principle and its set of interactive maxims. The 

interactive activity in English may be best measured by the number of hedging expressions we use to 

indicate that what we are saying may not be totally accurate (See Yule, 1996, p. 38). The subjects’ 

erroneous responses of flouting the maxim of quality may be because the subjects do not intend to say 

anything that they have no an adequate evidence for and this is the nature of the maxim in question. 

Another reason may be attributed to the FL norms and cross-culture dissimilarities between English 

and Arabic in some situations. Besides, the B. A. program in Iraq is not supported by interlanguage 

studies and contrastive analysis between English and Arabic maxims of conversation. 

4.2.3 Flouting the Maxim of Relation 

This principle deals with the amount of information that is relevant to the conversation. The utterance 

under this principle must have something to do with the context. That is to say, the irrelevant utterance 

participates in inferring the intended meaning within a particular conversation. Therefore, the irrelevant 

options are given in all the situations presented to the subjects who perform the test of the study. Thus, 

Table 4 below shows the results of flouting the relation maxim. 

 

Table 4. The Frequency and Percentages of Flouting the Relation Maxim 

Item No. Flouting the Relation Maxim % 

1. c 2 0.13 

2. a 0 0 

3. c 2 0.13 

4. d 16 1.06 

5. e 2 0.13 

6. a 4 0.26 

7. e 3 0.2 

8. d 10 0.66 

9. a 1 0.06 

10. b 2 0.13 

11. b 3 0.2 

12. e 6 0.4 

13. a 1 0.06 

14. a 2 0.13 

15. b 21 1.4 

   Total 75/1500 5 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 1, No. 1, 2020 

55 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

The occurrences 75; it makes 5% flout the maxim of relation out of 1500. This means that the subjects 

are good at adhering to the maxim in question and they know how to use it at the recognition level. The 

reason behind the very few cases of flouting the relation maxim is the obvious shift in the topic.  

4.2.4 Flouting the Maxim of Manner 

This maxim says that the speaker should be clear and abridged in his/her contribution to the 

conversation, and does not say anything that is vague; the speaker should participate to the 

conversation in a clear, shortened, and organized manner. Table 5, thus, shows the results of flouting 

the maxim under examination. 

 

Table 5. The Frequency and Percentages of Flouting the Manner Maxim 

Item No. Flouting the Manner Maxim % 

1. d 10 0.66 

2. c 19 1.26 

3. e 3 0.2 

4. e 13 0.86 

5. d 29 1.93 

6. e 4 0.26 

7. d 17 1.13 

8. a 8 0.53 

9. c 18 1.2 

10. a 16 1.06 

11. e 6 0.04 

12. d 11 0.73 

13. b 31 2.06 

14. e 16 1.06 

15. d 20 1.33  

Total 221/1500 14. 73  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 1, No. 1, 2020 

56 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Table 5 above shows that only 221 occurrences 14.73% flout the maxim of manner which means that 

the majority of the subjects observe this maxim. The reasons behind the very low occurrences could be 

due to the subjects’ little practice of using the FL pragmatic rules and could be the impact of the first 

language or the subjects do not pay attention to the items very well. 

4.2.5 The Flouted Maxims 

This sub-section discusses and compares the highest and lowest maxims being flouted. Thus, the 

maxims flouted are stated below in Table 6: 

 

Table 6. Flouting the Four Maxims 

The Maxims 

Flouted 

Frequency % 

Flouting the quantity maxim 183 12.2 

Flouting the quality maxim 273 18.2 

Flouting the relation maxim 75 5 

Flouting the manner maxim 221 14.73 

Total          752/1500           50.13 

 

The above table shows that the highest maxim being flouted is the quality maxim 18.2% and the lowest 

one is the relation maxim 5%. Since the maxim of quality is flouted, the other maxims must also be 

flouted. In this regard, Grice (1975, p. 46) says, “the other maxims come into operation only on the 

assumption that the maxim of quality is satisfied”. 

The manner maxim comes second 14.73%. The percentage of flouting the quantity maxim comes third 

and this is clear by means of percentage 12.2%. Accordingly, the subjects are good at using each 

maxim in isolation, but they are not very good at using these maxims altogether which is the natural 

case of ordinary communication. The analysis and discussion show that the maxim of relation comes 

fourth in the grade of flouted maxims. This means that the participants are very good at adhering to the 

maxim of relation more than the maxim of quality. 

The analysis and discussion bring forth the conclusions that the participants flout the four maxims 752 

responses out of 1500 ones. Thus, this validates the first hypothesis of the study, which states that the 

Iraqi EFL learners flout all the conversational maxims. Additionally, the results show that the 

participants find the maxims of conversation difficult to observe at the recognition level. Thus, this 

proves the second hypothesis, which states that the Iraqi EFL learners find the maxims difficult to 

follow. 

Furthermore, the results show that the frequency of the subjects’ correct responses are 748 and the 

incorrect ones are put successively: the maxim of quality 273 responses, the maxim of manner 221, the 

maxim of quantity 183 responses, and the maxim of relation 75 out of 1500 responses. Accordingly, 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 1, No. 1, 2020 

57 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

the maxim of quality is the most flouted one, and hence, the third hypothesis, which says that the 

maxim of quantity is mostly flouted, is refuted and the alternative hypothesis, which says that the 

maxim of quality is the most flouted one, is accepted. The results also state that the relation maxim is 

the least flouted maxim 75 times and this verifies the fourth hypothesis, which says that the maxim of 

relation is the least flouted maxim. Thus, as a result of the practical facet of the study, and the results of 

the analysis and discussion, the findings achieve the research questions, aims, and hypotheses of the 

present study.  

Generally, the data analysis and discussion arrive at the conclusions that the participants perform 

incompetently at the recognition level when they use the maxims altogether. That is to say, in some 

cases, a problem might occur when the subjects are required to observe all maxims. The reasons behind 

that might be the subjects lack the necessary pragmatic competence of the FL conversational maxims, 

they may lack practice the FL in their daily communication, and the conversational maxims are not 

taught and emphasized in a comprehensive way at the university level. Another reason might be that 

language atmosphere does not encourage the participants to use English. A third reason is the 

interference of the Participants’ mother tongue and that the subjects need learning about contrastive 

analysis between English and Arabic in terms of the maxims of conversation. Iraqi Arabs are not 

always abided by the four maxims altogether especially in the ordinary communication. 

Furthermore, materials at the University level are not equipped enough to empower learners’ pragmatic 

rules to use the language in an appropriate manner. Another justification of the participants’ 

performance is the improper methods of teaching to develop speaking and listening skills because such 

methods place heavy emphasis on the formal aspects of the language, such as grammar, phonetics, and 

morphology at the stage of learning the FL. At the University level, most of materials focus on teaching 

grammatical rules rather than the sociolinguistic and pragmatic rules, and this limits the communicative 

competence of the learners of the FL. It must be taken into consideration that English and Arabic are 

not cognate, hence there are many cross-culture differences and the norms of the FL are different from 

those of the learners’ native norms, which cause some pragmatic errors in some circumstances.  

 

5. Conclusions 

In the light of the obtained results of data analysis and discussion, the current study arrives at the 

following conclusions: 

1). The Iraqi EFL learners have difficulty in utilizing the conversational maxims when they are 

required to observe all the maxims. 

2). The Iraqi EFL learners flout all the maxims of conversation when they are exposed to situations 

from real life in relatively different degrees. 

3). The maxim of quality is the most flouted maxim amongst the other three ones.  



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 1, No. 1, 2020 

58 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

4). The maxim of relation is the least flouted one because an irrelevant utterance entirely deviates from 

the topic, and hence participants have no sufficient knowledge concerning the related meaning 

conveyed by flouting the relevance principle. 

5). The Iraqi EFL learners are good at using each maxim in isolation, but they are not very good at 

using these maxims altogether. 

6). The maxim of manner comes second in the participants’ incorrect responses after the maxim of 

quality.  

7). The Iraqi EFL learners have a tendency to utilize hedging maxims to avoid being definite in their 

responses. 

8). The Iraqi EFL learners lack some of the necessary pragmatic competence of the FL conversational 

maxims in some cases. 

9). The Iraqi EFL learners do not take into account the notion of context, which is an important element 

in inferring the intended meaning.  

 

6. Implications for Pedagogical Practice and Research  

As result of the theoretical and practical facets of the study, the following pedagogical matters are 

recommended: 

1). Teachers and/or course designers ought to pay much attention to the maxims of conversation, 

highlighting the significance of such maxims in having a successful conversation, and providing 

explanations with ample examples for each maxim. 

2). The curriculum of Educational Colleges ought to be well equipped and supported by conversational 

activities to improve the learners’ FL skills in speaking and listening. 

3). Teachers ought to focus on the sociolinguistic and pragmatic rules rather than the rules of structures. 

4). Teachers ought to explain and pay much attention to cross-culture dissimilarities between English 

and Arabic.  

5). A contrastive analysis of the conversational maxim should be given to the learners to make them 

fully understand the FL maxims of conversation. 

6). Conversations should be emphasized because they represent language in use, and maxims ought to 

be applied in real situations or in the classroom activity. 

7). The B.A. program in the Colleges of Education for Humanities in Iraq ought to be provided with 

studies in interlanguage pragmatics to enhance and deepen the learners’ knowledge of the FL pragmatic 

notions and models.  

8). All the textbooks in pre-university teaching ought to be communicative and include authentic 

materials so that the learners can use the FL appropriately. 

As regarding to further studies, the following areas need investigation: 

1). A study can be conducted to analyze the violation of conversational maxims in selected political 

interviews. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 1, No. 1, 2020 

59 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

2). A contrastive study in English and Arabic can be conducted to analyze maxims violation in selected 

literary works. 

3). A study can be projected to analyze explicature in media discourse. 

4). An area can be investigated is the violation of maxims in doctor-patient conversation. 

5). A study can be conducted to assess the Iraqi EFL learners’ use of conversational implicature. 

6). A study can be conducted to test the Iraqi EFL learners’ use of hedging expressions.  

7). A study can be conducted to examine the Iraqi EFL learners’ use of explicature. 

 

References 

Birner, B. (2013). Introduction to Pragmatics. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell. 

Bousfield, D. (2014) Stylistics, Speech Acts, and Im/politeness Theory. In M. Burke (Ed.), The 

Routledge Handbook of Stylistics (pp. 118-128). London: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. 

Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511805226 

Christie, C. (2000). Gender and Language: Towards A Feminist Pragmatics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh 

University Press Ltd. 

Cruse, A. (2000). Meaning in Language: An Introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics. Oxford: 

Oxford University Press. 

Crystal, D. (2008). A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 

https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444302776 

Cutting, J. (2002). Pragmatics and Discourse: A Resource Book for Students. London: Routledge 

Taylor & Francis Group. 

Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and Conversation. In P. Cole, & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics: 

Speech Acts (Vol. 3, pp. 41-58). London: Academic Press. 

https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003 

Heaton, J. (1988). Writing English Language Tests. London: Longman. 

Huang, Y. (2007). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 

Issa, Q., & Ahmed, A. (2019). The Cooperative Principle in Political Discourse: Flouting Gricean 

Maxims in Modern Standard Arabic Political Speeches. Research Result. Theoretical and Applied 

Linguistics, 3, 3-13. 

Kasper, G., & Roever, C. (2005). Pragmatics in Second Language Learning. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), 

Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching (pp. 317-330). New Jersey: Lawrence 

Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publisher. 

Khosravizadeh, P., & Sadehvandi, N. (2011). Some Instances of Violation and Flouting of the Maxim 

of Quantity by the Main Characters (Barry & Tim) in Dinner for Schmucks. International 

Conference on Language, Literature, and Linguistics, 26, 122-127. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 1, No. 1, 2020 

60 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Kroeger, P. (2019). Analyzing Meaning: An Introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics (2nd ed.). Berlin: 

Language Science Press. 

Leech, G. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman. 

Leech, G. (2014). The Pragmatics of Politeness. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 

https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195341386.001.0001 

Locastro, V. (2012). Pragmatics for Language Educators: A Sociolinguistic Perspective. New York: 

Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203850947 

Paltridge, B. (2012). Discourse Analysis (2nd ed.). New Delhi: Bloomsbury.  

Schauer, G. (2009). Interlanguage Pragmatic Development: The Study Abroad Context. London: 

Contnuum. 

Segerdahl, P. (1996). Language Use: A Philosophical Investigation into Basic Notions of Pragmatics. 

London: Macmillan Press Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230375093 

Senft, G. (2014). Understanding Pragmatics. London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. 

https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203776476 

Tavakoli, H. (2012). A Dictionary of Research Methodology and Statistics in Applied Linguastics. 

Tehran: Rahnama Press.  

Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. London: Routledge Taylor 

& Francis Group. 

Valeika, L., & Verikaite, D. (2010). An Introductory Course in Linguistic Pragmatics. Vilnius: Vilnius 

Pedagogical University.  

Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (2012). Meaning and Relevance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139028370 

Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 

Yule, G. (2010). The Study of Language (4th ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

 

 


