 If a speaker violate CP by the principle itself, there is no conversation at all, so there cannot be implicature. Implicature can only be caused by violating one or more maxims.

     Four Cases of “Violating” the maxims given by Grice and Conversational Implicature

     The people in conversation may violate one or more maxims secretly. In this way, he may mislead the listener.

     For this case, in the conversation [2] above, we assume that B is observing the CP and Bill has a yellow car. But if B is intentionally trying to mislead A to think that Bill is in Sue’s house, we will be misled without knowing. In this case, if one “lies” in conversation, there is no implicature in the conversation, only the misleading.

     He may declare that he is not observing the maxims or the CP.

     In this kind of situation, the speaker directly declares he is not cooperating. He has made it clear that he does not want to go on with the conversation, so there is no implicature either.

     He may fall into a dilemma. For example, for the purpose observing the first principle of the maxim of quantity (make your contribution as informative as is required), he may be violating the second principle of the maxim of quality (do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence).

     For this case, Grice gave an example:

    [3] A: Where does C live?

    B: Somewhere in the south of France.

     In [3], if B knows that A is going to visit C, his answer is violating the maxim of quantity, because he is not giving enough information about where C lives. But he has not declared that he will not observe the maxims. So we can know that B knows if he gives more information, he will violate the principle “do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence”. In other words, he has fallen into a “dilemma”. So we can infer that his implicature is that he does not know the exact address of C. In this case, there is conversational implicature.

     He may “flout” one or more maxims. In other words, he may be obviously not observing them.

     The last situation is the typical case that can make conversational implicature. Once the participant in a conversation has made an implicature, he or she is making use one of the maxims. We can see that from the following examples:

    [4] A: Where are you going with the dog?

    B: To the V-E-T.

     In [4], the dog is known to be able to recognize the word “vet” and to hate being taken there. Therefore, A makes the word spelled out. Here he is “flouting” the maxim of manner, making the implicature that he does not want the dog to know the answer to the question just asked.

    [5] (In a formal get-together)

    A: Mrs. X is an old bag.

    B: The weather has been quite delightful this summer, hasn’t it?

     B is intentionally violating the maxim of relation in [5], implicating that what A has said is too rude and he should change a topic.

     The politeness principle (PP)

     Leech points out that CP in itself cannot explain why people are often so indirect in conveying what they mean. Grice’s theory of CP is, fundamentally, logic-oriented.

     Conversational interaction is also social behaviour. Choice of linguistic codes is central in language use. There are social and psychological factors that determine the choice.

     Besides being cooperative, participants of conversations normally try to be polite. The speakers consider the matter of face for themselves and others. Based on this observation, Leech proposes the politeness principle (PP), which contains six maxims.

     Tact

     Minimize cost to other.

     Maximize benefit to other.

     Generosity

     Minimize benefit to self.

     Maximize cost to self.

     Approbation

     Minimize dispraise of other.

     Maximize praise of other.

     Modesty

     Minimize praise of self.