Volume 15, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1598-7647
  • E-ISSN: 2451-909X
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


Translation scholars have been applying the Gricean maxims as analytical tools to handle pragmatic issues in translation. Not always this genuine application is successful regarding that the maxims are culture-bound in nature and may not have the same utility in a different culture and/or in translation. Rarely any attempts have been done to adjust these maxims to the needs of translation. The present article, while does not intend to criticize the basic applicability of the maxims in translation, aims at reformulating them, within a framework of faithfulness, to be more flexible and responsive to the needs of translation. To illustrate this and evaluate the maxims, examples are analyzed and re-analyzed.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Aghbar, Ali
    1995 “Grice’s maxims as applied to the translation of fiction.” InStudies in the Humanities, 22 (1–2), 76–85.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Alves, Fabio and Goncales, Jose Luis V. R.
    2003 “A Relevance theory approach to the investigation of inferential processes in translation.” InTriangulating Translation, ed. by Fabio Alves , 3–24. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/btl.45.04alv
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.45.04alv [Google Scholar]
  3. Alves, Fabio
    2007 “Cognitive effort and contextual effect in translation: A Relevance-theoretic Approach.” InJournal of Translation Studies, 10 (1), 57–76.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Baker, Mona
    1998Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. London/New York: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9780203359792
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203359792 [Google Scholar]
  5. 1992 InOther Words: A Coursebook on Translation. London/New York: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9780203327579
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203327579 [Google Scholar]
  6. Beckett, Samuel
    1956Dar entezar-e Godo [orig. Waiting for Godot]. Translated by Mustafa Abedini Fard . New York: Chelsea House.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Blum-Kulka, Shoshana
    1981 “The study of translation in view of new developments in discourse analysis: Indirect speech acts.” InPoetics Today, 2 (4), 89–95. doi: 10.2307/1772488
    https://doi.org/10.2307/1772488 [Google Scholar]
  8. Blum-Kulka, Shoshana , House, Julian , and Kasper, Gabriele
    1989Cross-cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Ablex: Norwood, NJ.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Chapman, Siobhan
    2011Pragmatics. New York: Palgrave McMillan. doi: 10.1007/978‑0‑230‑34519‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-230-34519-5 [Google Scholar]
  10. Clark, Herbert
    1996Uses of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511620539
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620539 [Google Scholar]
  11. Dynel, Marta
    2009 “Where cooperation meets politeness: Revisiting politeness models in view of the Gricean framework.” InBrno Studies in English, 35 (1), 23–43.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Fawcett, Peter
    1997Translation and Language: Linguistic Theories Explained. Manchester: St Jerome.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Grice, Herbert P.
    1989Studies in the Way of Words. USA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Gutt, Ernest A.
    1998 “Pragmatic aspects of translation: Some relevance-theory observations.” InThe Pragmatics of Translation, ed. by Leo Hickey , 41–53. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 1992Relevance Theory: A Guide to Successful Communication in Translation. Dallas/New York: Summer Institute of Linguistics and United Bible Societies.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. 1991Translation and Relevance: Cognition and Context. London: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Hadi, Atefeh
    2013 “A Critical Appraisal of Grice’s Cooperative Principle.” InOpen Journal of Modern Linguistics, 3 (1), 69–72. doi: 10.4236/ojml.2013.31008
    https://doi.org/10.4236/ojml.2013.31008 [Google Scholar]
  18. Hassani Laharomi, Zahra
    2013 “Conversational implicatures in English plays and their Persian translations: A norm-governed study.” InInternational Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 2 (5), 51–61. doi: 10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.2n.5p.51
    https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.2n.5p.51 [Google Scholar]
  19. Hatim, Basil and Mason, Ian
    1997The Translator as Communicator. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 1990Discourse and the Translator. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Hatim, Basil
    2006 “Relevance as effort and reward: A translation & interpreting perspective.” InFORUM, 4 (2), 25–40. doi: 10.1075/forum.4.2.02hat
    https://doi.org/10.1075/forum.4.2.02hat [Google Scholar]
  22. 1997Communication Across Cultures: Translation Theory and Contrastive Text Linguistics. Exeter: University of Exeter Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Hatim, Basil and Munday, Jeremy
    2004Translation: An Advanced Resource Book. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Margala, Miriam
    2009 “Grice in translation: The case of Hrabal.” InJournal of Language & Translation, 10 (2), 87–128.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Machali, Rokiah
    2012 “Gricean maxims as an analytical tool in translation studies: Questions of adequacy.” InTEFLIN Journal, 23 (1), 88–104.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. 1999 “Shift in Discourse Perspective and the Question of Translation Equivalence.” InJOTT (Journal of Textlinguistics and Translation), l (12), 30–46.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Neubert, Albercht and Shreve, Gregory M.
    1992Translation as Text. Kent, Ohio: Kent State University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Robinson, Douglas
    2003Performative Linguistics: Speaking and Translating as Doing Things with Words. USA/Canada: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9780203222850
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203222850 [Google Scholar]
  29. Sanatifar, Mohammad S.
    2016 “Explication of Implicatures in the Persian Translation of Barack Obama’s Selected Speeches.” InNew Voices in Translation Studies,14, Special Conference Issue: PhD thesis abstract.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Santibañez, Cristián
    2012 “The principle of relevance in the light of cooperation and trust: Discussing Sperber and Wilson’s theory.” InPragmatics & Cognition, 20 (3), 483–504. doi: 10.1075/pc.20.3.03san
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.20.3.03san [Google Scholar]
  31. Sperber, Deirdre and Wilson, Dan
    1995Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Trosborg, Anna
    ed. 2010Pragmatics across Languages and Cultures. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110214444
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214444 [Google Scholar]
  33. Venuti, Laurence
    1998The Scandals of Translation. Towards an Ethics of Difference. London: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9780203269701
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203269701 [Google Scholar]
  34. Verschueren, Jef and Östman, Jan-Ola
    2009Key Notions for Pragmatics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/hoph.1
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hoph.1 [Google Scholar]
  35. Wierzbicka, Anna
    1991Cross-cultural Pragmatics: The Semantics of Human Interaction. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Wilson, Deirdre and Sperber, Dan
    1988 “Representation and relevance.” InMental Representations: The Interface between Language and Reality, ed. by Ruth M. Kempson , 133–153. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): faithfulness; Gricean maxims; pragmatic translation; relevance
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error