The art of thinking · Language and meaning
Cooperative principle
Also known as: Gricean maxims, Conversational maxims, Maxims of conversation, Grice’s maxims
German: Kooperationsprinzip
In pragmatics, the cooperative principle is H. Paul Grice’s description of how conversation works: speakers are expected to make their contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose of the exchange — spelled out in the maxims of quantity, quality, relation and manner.
- Thinking models
- Philosophy
- Linguistics
In one sentence
Grice’s cooperative principle: contributions should fit the purpose of the exchange — informative enough, true, relevant and clear.
Example
A manual that says “Usually, the guard should be closed” implies, by the maxim of quantity, that sometimes it need not be. If that is not meant, the sentence misleads although every word is true.
How it applies
- The four maxims: Quantity (be as informative as required, not more), Quality (say only what you believe true and have evidence for), Relation (be relevant), Manner (avoid obscurity and ambiguity, be brief and orderly).
- Implicature: Because listeners assume cooperation, what is not said carries meaning. “Some of the bolts are tightened” implies that not all are. Grice called these inferences conversational implicatures.
- Description, not etiquette: The maxims describe the assumptions that make inferences possible; they are not rules of politeness. Later work (relevance theory, neo-Gricean pragmatics) revised the list.
- Technical documentation: Readers apply the maxims to instructions too. Extra hedges, a step left out, a warning placed elsewhere or a needlessly detailed passage each signal something — clarity means controlling what the text implies, not only what it states.
Cooperative principle vs. plain language rules
Plain language rules prescribe forms (short sentences, active voice); the cooperative principle explains why readers draw conclusions beyond the words. A text can follow every rule and still imply the wrong thing.
How to read this pool
Entries, context cards and transitional topics
The art of thinking explains ways of thinking — where a method comes from, what it asks of you and how it was adapted later. You meet four kinds of content here, each with its own job:
- Glossary entry
- Defines one concept or method of thinking: its origin, an example and how it relates to neighboring ideas. “X vs. Y” sections set two methods side by side.
- Context card of the art of thinking
- A short, self-contained answer to one question about a way of thinking — its lineage, its steps, its limits. These cards are listed on The art of thinking only.
- Transitional topicBridges both pools
- A context card that bridges both pools: it shows how a way of thinking was adapted into documentation, analysis or quality practice. It sits with the reference context cards and is marked as transitional wherever it appears.
- Reference entry or context card
- Belongs to the Glossary & Norms Space on regulation, norms and engineering. Entries here link to one only where a method is also an established tool of documentation or quality work, such as the five whys or a user’s mental model.