American Research Journal of English and Literature Original Article ISSN 2378-9026 Volume 1, Issue 5, 2015 www.arjonline.org 24 A Critique of H. P. Grice’s Pragmatic Theory Acheoah, John Emike (PhD) 1 , Adeoye, Adeyinka O 2 , Olaleye, Joel Iyiola 3 Department of European Languages, Faculty of Arts, Management and Social Sciences, Federal University, Birnin-kebbi, Nigeria. Department of English, Faculty of Humanities, Ajayi Crowther University, Oyo, Nigeria Department of English, Waziri Umaru Federal Polytechnic, Birnin Kebbi, Kebbi State, Nigeria. Abstract: Pragmatic theories are either classical (e.g. those of Austin 1962, Searle 1969, Bach and Harnish 1979) or contemporary (e.g. those of Adegbija 1982 and Mey 2000). The contributions of Hubert Paul Grice to the literature of pragmatics remain epoch-making. This explains why most contemporary pragmatic theories make reference to Grice‟s Cooperative Principle of Conversation; hence, they are said to be neo-Gricean. In this paper, we investigate, locate and situate the place of Grice‟s pragmatic theories via a critique which hinges on the Pragma-crafting Theory. Conclusively, a major finding of thi s paper is that Grice‟s Cooperative Principle is indeed, not an attempt to legislate “what” and “how” human interaction should operate, but an attempt to elucidate “what” makes human interactions violate the basic principles of natural communication and “how” such violations produce meanings that can always be calculated or worked out. Keywords: Pragmatics, Pragmatic Theories, Grice‟s Pragmatic Theories, Cooperative Principle, Pragma-Crafting Theory I. INTRODUCTION From classical to contemporary time, pragmatic theories are essentially theoretical frameworks which explain the message-driven use of linguistic and extra-linguistic elements of communication according to contextual nuances. Therefore, pragmatic theories are immersed in communication and speech act theories. Communication cannot take place unless at least two agents are actively involved. Speech act theory “provides a way of talking about utterances not only in terms of their surface grammatical properties but also in terms of the context in which they are made, the intentions, attitudes, and expectations of the participants, the relationships existing between participants…rules and conventions that are understood to be in play when an utterance is made and received” (Pratt 1977). Theories of pragmatics include Austin (1962), Searle (1969), Sadock (1974), Grice (1975), Bach and Harnish (1979), Adegbija (1982), Mey (2000) and Acheoah (2015a). Austin (ibid.) contends that words are indeed, actions because in uttering certain words in certain contexts, actions are performed so long as the felicity conditions are obeyed. He classifies speech acts thus: locutionary act (performing an act OF saying something); illocutionary act (performing an act IN saying something); and perlocutionary act (performing an act BY saying something). Searle‟s seminal book, Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language which was developed in subsequent works such as Searle (1979) cited in Acheoah (2011), was a speech act proposal. His work mainly explains that the act of communication is rule-governed, and that speech act is the core of communication. According to Searle, participants obey the rules of communication intentionally. The Principle of “Expressibility”, that is, whatever can be meant can be said (p.19) is asserted in his postulations. He further contends that there is a series of analytical connections between the notion of speech acts, what the speaker means, what the speaker intends, what the hearer understands, and what the rules governing the linguistic elements are (p.21). Like Austin, Searle distinguishes “illocutionary acts” which he regards as the “complete” speech acts, from “perlocutionary acts” which concern the consequences or effects of illocutionary acts on hearers. Searle classifies rules into two: Regulative Rules and Constitutive Rules. Regulative Rules he says, regulate antecedently or independently, existing forms of behavior (p.33). Constitutive Rules, on the other hand, constitute and regulate an activity whose existence is logically dependent on the rules. Searle‟s speech act taxonomy is one of the attempts to refine Austin‟s and this taxonomy is based on “illocutionary point”, “direction of fit” and “sincerity conditions” (as well as other features including the role of authority, discourse relations, etc.). A linguistic theory in the main, Sadock (ibid.) contends that the idea of 1 Corresponding Author: actualemike@gmail.com