The Violation of Cooperative Principle and the Four Maxims in Psychological Consulting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Cooperative Principle (CP) and the four maxims are widely believed by linguists to be essential in the implementation of conversations. However, CP and the four maxims are also frequently flouted on such occasions as joke-telling or achieving politeness. This paper focuses on the environment of psychological consulting and attempts to explore the violation of CP in this specific environment. Through an analysis of conversational implicature and the occurrences of the violation of CP in the three selected excerpts from The female Psychologist by Bi Shumin, it is found that the recognition of conversational implicature is crucial for the understanding of the non-cooperative attitudes of the speakers and the violation of one or more CP maxims. Key words: the Cooperative Principle (CP), four maxims, conversational implicature, flouting, The Female Psychologist Resume: Le Principe Cooperatif (CP) et les quatre maximes qui sont largement estime par les linguistes sont essentiels a la mise en oeuvre des conversations. Toutefois, le CP et les quatre maximes sont souvent bafoues en telle occasion comme la blague ou l’achevement de la politesse. Le present document se concentre sur l'environnement de consultation psychologique et essaye a explorer la violation de CP dans cet environnement specifique. A travers une analyse de l’implication conversationnel et les occurrences de la violation de CP dans les trois extraits selectionnes de La Femme Psychologue par Bi Shumin, il est constate que la reconnaissance de l’implication conversationnel est crucial pour la comprehension de l’attitude non-cooperative des interlocuteurs et la violation de l'un ou plusieurs CP maximes. Mots-Cles: le Principe Cooperatif (CP), quatre maxims, implication conversationnel, moquerie, La Femme Psychologue
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".