Examining Conversation of Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder
(ASD)
An Application of Grice’s Cooperative Principle
Yana Andira Aprilidya and Ernie D. A. Imperiani
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia
Keywords: Grice’s Cooperative Principle, Observance of Maxims, Non-Observance of Maxims, Autism Spectrum
Disorder (ASD).
Abstract: This study looks at how individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder (henceforth ASD) understand messages
in a conversation. This study is a case study that focuses on two children with ASD in schools for special
needs in Bandung. Applying Grice’s Cooperative Principle, this study examines the observance and non-
observance of maxims as well as the possible reasons underlying the non-observance of maxims by children
with ASD. The data which are in the form of texts are obtained from recorded conversations and are
analyzed qualitatively. Findings reveal that both children mostly observe all four maxims. However, there
are also a small number of instances of non-observance of maxims; namely, flouting, infringing, violating,
and opting out that are committed. The reasons behind the non-observance of maxim are, among others,
impairment in speaking performance and imperfect command of language. The findings indicate that
children with ASD in this context generally manage to create successful communication with their
interlocutors. Nevertheless, there are also very rare cases of breaking maxims in which they sometimes
make attempts to evoke jokes, avoid uncomfortable situations, and generate other meanings. In fact, these
children sometimes fail to produce true and brief utterances due to the characteristics of their language
skills.
1 INTRODUCTION
As a means of social interaction, communication has
its own purposes such as conveying messages and
maintaining relationships. In order to create and
enhance successful communication, Grice (1975)
proposes Cooperative Principles that speakers need
to adhere, which are widely known as four Gricean
maxims. The four maxims require the speakers to
give true, sufficient, relevant, brief, and clear
information or contribution.
However, people do not always observe or pay
attention to the maxims, in which it can be done
secretly, intentionally, or unintentionally due to
several reasons (Rundquist, 1991; Dornerus, 2005;
Mukanin and Izzah, 2006; Patridge, 2006; Mukaro,
Mugari and Dhumukwa, 2013 and Thomas, 2013).
This is what is referred to non-observance of
maxims. Non-observance of maxims is divided into
five types, namely flouting, violating, infringing,
opting out, and suspending (detailed explanations for
each types of non-observance see Thomas, 2013).
This makes the applications of Gricean maxims vary
from time to time, which are interesting to be
investigated. Therefore, this opresent study is
conducted to examine both observance and non-
observance of maxims. More specifically, it attempts
to discover how children with ASD observe and
break the maxims.
Autism Spectrum Disorder is a disorder which
commonly begins in infancy or the first three years
since the individuals are born (Lord, Cook,
Leventhal, and Amaral, 2000). Individuals with
ASD have distinctive characteristics in three skills,
which are in behavior, social or interactional skills,
and language and communication skills (de Villiers,
Stainton, and Szatmari, 2007).
Regarding behavior, individuals with ASD have
unusual attachments to objects (de Villiers et al.,
2007), have stereotyped behaviors such as hand
flapping, twirling, and repetitive finger movements
(Johnson and Myers, 2007), and have a routine like
go through the same order of routines again and
Aprilidya, Y. and Imperiani, E.
Examining Conversation of Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) - An Application of Grice’s Cooperative Principle.
DOI: 10.5220/0007168003990405
In Proceedings of the Tenth Conference on Applied Linguistics and the Second English Language Teaching and Technology Conference in collaboration with the First International Conference
on Language, Literature, Culture, and Education (CONAPLIN and ICOLLITE 2017) - Literacy, Culture, and Technology in Language Pedagogy and Use, pages 399-405
ISBN: 978-989-758-332-2
Copyright © 2018 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved
399

again, thus making it uneasy for them to adapt to
changes which might mix up the order of the
routines (Nordqvist, 2015).
In terms of language and communication skills,
Philofsky and Hepburn (as cited in Wallace, 2011)
state that children with ASD have poor topic
maintenance and lack reciprocity in conversation.
Furthermore, Johnson and Myers (2007) add that
they have echolalia, a condition when they repeat
words or phrases spoken by their interlocutors.
Echolalia may also exist throughout their lifetime.
For social or interactional skills, unlike children
in general, children with ASD often do not seek
other people when they are happy (Lord et al.,
2000). This is in line with de Villiers, Stainton and
Szatmari (2007) who state that children with ASD
lack peer relationship and shared attention. In
addition, those children also lose temper, have
outburst, and even cry every time they are
interrupted during play (de Villiers, Stainton and
Szatmari, 2007). Since individuals with ASD are
generally known as individuals who have difficulties
in several skills, including skills in communication,
it becomes essential for people, especially those who
have close relation with people with ASD, to
understand and learn more about the utterances they
produce in communication.
2 METHODS
This present study is a case study since this study
focuses on two ASD children who study at
elementary schools for special needs in Bandung to
describe and interpret the communication between
the ASD participants and other people regarding the
observance and non-observance of maxims. This is
in line with Hitchcock and Hughes (as cited in
Cohen, Manion, and Morrison, 2000) who state that
a case study focuses on an individual, individuals, a
group, or groups of individuals.
As a qualitative research, audio recording, non-
participant observation, and open-ended interview
are conducted to collect the data. This is in line with
Creswell (2009) who suggests that qualitative
researchers commonly gather multiple forms of data,
such as interviews, observation, and documents,
rather than relying on a single data source. In
addition, non-participant observation was used
because the study aims to gain and observe
occurrences which normally happen; those without
any involvement from the researcher. While for the
interview, open-ended type of interview allows the
researcher to ask the same questions in the same
order in which those questions can lead to different
yet comparable answers (Cohen, Manion and
Morrison, 2000).
Using theory from Grice (1975) and Thomas
(2013), the data were analyzed in five steps of data
analysis, which are, identifying what maxims are
observed and broken by both children with ASD,
categorizing the broken maxims into the types of
non-observance, discovering the possible reasons
underlying the cases of non-observance of maxims,
interpreting the findings by referring and relating to
theories, and drawing conclusions from the whole
findings.
3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The findings reveal that all maxims are both
respected and not observed. Yet, occurrences of
observance of maxims and occurrences of non-
observance of maxims have different numbers. Of
the two cases, the former has significantly larger
number than the latter. In other words, occurrences
of observance of maxims are more dominant.
Furthermore, the findings also show that there are
four out of five types of non-observance of maxims
committed. They are flouting, infringing, violating,
and opting out. In addition, the possible reasons
behind the non-observance of maxims include
reasons such as impaired speaking performance,
imperfect command of language in young children,
echolalia, and several other reasons which include
personal reasons. The following section discusses
findings in detail regarding observance of maxims,
followed by non-observance of the maxims and its
possible reasons.
3.1 Observance of the Maxims
With regard to observance of maxims, all four
maxims are evidenced in this study with a large
number of occurrences. This finding indicates that
most of the time, both children with ASD adhere to
Grice’s Cooperative Principle, suggesting that they
mostly create successful communication. However,
if a comparison is made between the two children
(Anggi and Fahri), Fahri performs more observance
of maxims than Anggi, suggesting that he observes
all four maxims more frequently than Anggi. The
number of each observed maxim by Anggi and Fahri
is presented in the next table.
CONAPLIN and ICOLLITE 2017 - Tenth Conference on Applied Linguistics and the Second English Language Teaching and Technology
Conference in collaboration with the First International Conference on Language, Literature, Culture, and Education
400

Table 1: The distribution of observed maxims by Anggi
and Fahri.
No
Observed
Maxims
Anggi Fahri
Frequency Percentage Rank Frequency Percentage Rank
1 Maxim of quality 67 24,8% 2
106 25,7% 2
2 Maxim of quantity 60 22,2% 4
96 23,2% 4
3 Maxim of relation 82 30,4% 1
108 26,1% 1
4 Maxim of manner 61 22,6% 3
103 25,0% 3
Total 270 100%
413 100%
From the table 1, it can be seen that maxim of
relation has the highest numbers of observance,
either by Anggi or by Fahri, followed by maxim of
quality, maxim of manner and maxim of quantity.
Due to the limited space of this paper, only
examples from the most and the second most
frequently observed maxims are provided in this
paper. Complete examples on each maxim
observance from both children are not provided here
but can be seen in Aprilidya (2016).
As revealed in Table 1, maxim relation has the
highest numbers of observance, either by Anggi or
by Fahri. This indicates that most of the time, Anggi
and Fahri give relevant contributions, which is in
line with Grice (1975) who states that the only way
to observe maxim of relation is by providing
relevant information or contribution. However, this
also suggests that they stick to the ongoing topics
almost all the time and they hardly ever break this
maxim in order to generate implicature as people
commonly do. An example of observance of maxim
of relation by Anggi is provided in the following
example:
[a1] T : ke mana Bu Ipehnya?
Where is she?
Anggi : ke rumah sakit ibunya
She is in a hospital
In example [a1], Anggi manages to give a
relevant answer to her teacher’s question. In that
example, she is aware that the question “where”
must be responded by mentioning a place.
Meanwhile, an occurrence of observance of this
maxim by Fahri is presented in the following
example.
[a2] T : paling juga istirahat ya, bentar lagi
istirahat da ini
Just wait until recess, it is almost recess okay
Fahri : Ibu::: po ih po ih (pop mie pop mie)
Ma:::m, pop mie pop mie
T : iya nanti tiitp dibeliin sama Wulan ya:::h
Right we will ask Wulan to buy it oka:::y
The example is one of the textual evidence that
Fahri respects maxim of relation. When his teacher
(T) mentions about recess, he is aware that he gets to
have meals, thus, he produces the utterance saying
what food he wants to have.
The second most frequently observed maxim is
maxim of quality which is fulfilled by Anggi and
Fahri for 67 and 106 times, respectively. This
suggests that Fahri respects this maxim more
frequently than Anggi. Despite those numbers, it is
evidenced that maxim of quality is mostly observed
by both Anggi and Fahri by giving true information
and being truthful. An occurrence of observed
maxim of quality by Anggi is presented as follows:
[b1] T : pagi::: Anggi udah makan belum?
Good morni:::ng Anggi, have you had breakfast?
Anggi : udah, sosis.
I have, I had sausage.
In example [b1], it is seen that Anggi provides
information which does not lack evidence.
According to the situational context, Anggi has
indeed had breakfast before she goes to school, thus,
the utterance “udah, sosis” observes maxim of
quality even though it breaks maxim of quantity.
Meanwhile, an occurrence of Fahri observing
maxim of quality is presented in the following
example:
[b2] T : Fahri ke sini naik apa?
How did you get here?
Fahri : na::: ih moto (naik motor)
I came here by motorcycle
In example [b2], it is also evidenced that Fahri
observes maxim of quality by giving true
information. By referring to the situational context,
he always goes to school by motorcycle with his
father.
3.2 Non-Observance of the Maxims
and Its Possible Reasons
Despite the large number of observance of maxims,
there are still a small number of non-observance of
maxims. Anggi and Fahri occasionally break the
maxims which are due to an attempt to create
another meaning, intention to tell a lie, and
incapability to speak clearly. Table 2 below presents
number of occurrences of broken maxims along with
the type of non-observance committed is presented.
Examining Conversation of Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) - An Application of Grice’s Cooperative Principle
401

Table 2: The distribution of types of non-observance of maxims by Anggi and Fahri.
No
Types of non-
observance of
maxims
Anggi
Total
Ran
k
Fahri
Total
Ran
k
Types of maxims Types of maxims
Qualit
y
Quantit
y
Relation Manne
r
Qualit
y
Quantit
y
Relation Manne
r
1 Floutin
g
6 18 4 11 39 2 - 10 1 3 14 1
2 Infringing 12 10 3 16 41 1 2 3 - 3 8 2
3 Violatin
g
5 - - - 5 3 1 - - - 1 4
4 O
p
tin
g
Out - 1 - 1 2 4 - 3 - 3 6 3
Total 23 29 7 28 87 3 16 1 9 29
From table 2, types of non-observance of
maxims which are committed are flouting,
infringing, violating, and opting out. Suspending,
another type of maxim non-observance, is not
evidenced in this study. Regarding flouting (a case
which occurs when a maxim is intentionally broken
because the speaker attempts to create an implicit
meaning), Anggi flouts more frequently than Fahri
which also means that she has more intention to
deliberately break the maxims. An example of
flouting by Anggi is presented as follows:
[c1] T : dua::: mata?
Who’s got two eyes?
Anggi : saya:::
me:::
T : hidung saya?
my nose is?
Anggi : pese:::k ((smiles))
fla:::t ((smiles))
T : ((laughs))
((laughs))
In example [c1], it is obvious that Anggi does not
sing the right lyrics and thus flouts maxim of
quality. She says what she believes to be untrue and
attempts to crack a joke. This case is in accordance
with Dornerus (2005) who states that maxims can be
flouted for various reasons such as evoking humor.
As for Fahri, an example of flouting by Fahri is
presented as follows:
[c2] T : jam sepu:::lu:::h.Fahri udah makan?
It is ten o’clock. Have you eaten
something?
Fahri : u ah. Po ih, the ge ah (udah. Pop
mie, teh gelas)
Yes I have. I had pop mie and teh
gelas
In example [c2], by conveying more information
than required, he flouts maxim of quantity. This is in
line with Wallace (2011) who states that it is not
necessary to provide extra information to the one
who poses the question. The question is a yes or no
question, yet he answers not only with a yes but also
with additional information. In this example, it is
obvious that he wants his interlocutors to know what
food he has had
For infringing (a case when a maxim is
unintentionally broken by the speaker), Anggi
infringes all maxims for 41 times while Fahri
infringes three maxims (all maxims except maxim of
relation) for only 8 times. An example of infringing
by Anggi is presented in the following example:
[d1] R : di sekolah ada pelajaran olahraga
nggak?
your school have sport class, doesn’t
it?
Anggi : pelajaran olahraga nggak? Ada
Sport class, doesn’t it? Yes, it has
In the conversation, Anggi’s utterance infringes
maxim of manner because it contains unnecessary
words “pelajaran olahraga nggak?” Furthermore, the
reason for this infringement is a characteristic of
individuals with ASD called echolalia, a state of
repeating the last words or phrases uttered by one’s
interlocutors. As for Fahri, infringing occurs as
provided in the following example:
[d2] Fahri : Oma:::n (.) Oma:::n
Oma:::n (.) Oma:::n
F : apa?
what?
Fahri : hah hah
hah hah
F : kenapa?
what happened?
Fahri : hah hah ((flutters his hand around
his mouth))
hah hah ((flutters his hand around his
mouth))
Example [d2] is a conversation between Fahri
and his friend, more specifically when Fahri is
having a meal; a spicy one. By saying “hah hah”,
CONAPLIN and ICOLLITE 2017 - Tenth Conference on Applied Linguistics and the Second English Language Teaching and Technology
Conference in collaboration with the First International Conference on Language, Literature, Culture, and Education
402

maxim of manner is infringed because the utterance
“hah hah” alone is rather unclear and obscure for the
interlocutor. This clearly breaks the rules of maxim
of manner proposed by Grice (1975) which is to be
clear and to avoid obscurity. It is evidenced to be
obscure because Fahri’s friend as the interlocutor did
not understand what Fahri meant and he had to ask
Fahri afterwards. Furthermore, the reason underlying
this case of infringement is impairment in the
speaker’s speaking performance, as mentioned by
Thomas (2013). More specifically, his speaking
performance at that very moment is impaired due to
the sudden feeling he gets from the spicy food he is
eating. The spiciness is what makes it hard for him
to speak clearly.
Regarding violating, it refers to a case when a
speaker secretly breaks a maxim and wishes their
interlocutors to understand something which the
truth is not (Thomas, 2013). The findings show that
there are only a small number of occurrences where
Anggi and Fahri commit violating, and the only
maxim they violate is maxim of quality. Table 2.
shows that Anggi violates this maxim for five times
while Fahri violates this maxim for only one time.
This shows that they hardly ever tell lies, deceive, or
wish their interlocutors to know something except
the truth. An example of violating by Anggi is
presented in the following example:
[e1] T : Anggi tadi belajar apa? Kelas
pertama
Anggi, what did you learn in the
previous class?
Anggi : nggak tau
I don’t know
Example [g1] is a conversation between Anggi
and her teacher before starting the second class. In
the example, her teacher asks Anggi what Anggi has
learned in the first class. However, using the
utterance “nggak tau”, she tells a lie and thus,
violates maxim of quality. This is in line with
Mukanin and Izzah (2006) who states that maxim
can be broken for reasons such as hiding something.
As a matter of fact, she knows what she has learned
in the first class (as what she tells her teacher a few
minutes afterwards). Furthermore, using the
utterance “nggak tau”, she is likely to suggest that
she does not feel like talking about the ongoing topic
at that moment. An example of violating by Fahri is
presented in the following example:
[e2] T : rasanya a:::sem.Fahri kemarin
masuk sekolah nggak?
It is sou:::r. Did you come to school
yesterday?
Fahri : ma uk (masuk)
Yes I did
In the conversation, it is not quite obvious that
Fahri violates a maxim, particularly maxim of
quality. By saying “masuk” when his teacher asks
him whether he attended the class “yesterday”, it is
as if Fahri follow the maxim. But, in fact, he violates
maxim of quality because what he says is not true.
That day was a day off due to the teachers’ training
program outside the school. So, Fahri did not come
to school that day and neither did all of his friends.
This maxim violation is most likely due to one of the
characteristics of individuals with ASD; that is,
“having continuous routine.” More specifically, the
routine in this case is “going to school every day.”
As stated by Nordqvist (2015), having
continuous routine is a great deal in the individuals’
lives, thus, it is not easy for them to adapt to changes
that might appear in the order of the routines. What
Fahri remembers is that he always goes to school.
He does not quite remember the day he does not go
to school, which is why he provides the utterance
“masuk” in that conversation.
For opting out, Anggi opts out from observing
maxims for only two times while Fahri opts out for
six times. In addition, it is necessary to highlight that
in cases of opting out, both Anggi and Fahri opt out
by being silent and not saying anything. An example
of opting out by Anggi is provided in the following
example:
[f1] T : Anggi cantik nggak?
Anggi, are you pretty?
Anggi : cantik nggak?
(are) you pretty?
T : cantik nggak, jawab, ca:::nti:::k,
ca:::nti:::k
Pretty or not, you answer with (I am)
pretty:::, pretty:::
Anggi : ((silent))
((silent))
In the example, it is obvious that Anggi chooses
to be silent when her teacher asks her the question.
The reason for this case of opting out is more of a
personal reason, which is because she is not
interested in the question and thus, she decides to
refuse answering the question. While in Fahri’s case,
violating occurs as presented in the example as
follows:
[f2] T : jam berapa sekarang?
what time is it now?
Fahri : ((silent and then looks away))
((silent and then looks away))
Examining Conversation of Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) - An Application of Grice’s Cooperative Principle
403

In example [f2], it is also evidenced that Fahri
opts out from the conversation. Additional
information delivered by his teacher tells that Fahri
has not yet comprehended the concept of time and
currency. This is likely to be the reason which
causes him to refuse to answer the question and be
silent instead. Furthermore, it is plausible to state
that he chooses to keep silent because he does not
want to give a false answer. This is in accordance
with Thomas (2013, p. 74) who states that in opting
out, “the speaker wishes to avoid generating a false
implicature”. Due to the insufficient knowledge of
time, if he did answer the question, he might have
provided a false answer of the current time. Thus, he
decides to be silent.
From the whole findings of this case study, it is
apparent that cases of non-observance of maxims
influenced by characteristics of children with
Autism Spectrum Disorder are cases of infringing
and violating (in this case, violating by the second
participant only). Subsequently, cases of flouting
and opting out are due to their own personal
intentions of generating implicatures, avoiding
uncomfortable situations, cracking joke, hiding the
truth, and refusing to create false answers, as what
people in general commonly do. As a matter of fact,
this is all due to the causes or reasons of flouting and
opting out itself. Unlike infringing, flouting and
opting out are not influenced by impaired speaking
performance, imperfect command of the language,
or any distinctive characteristic of one’s language
skills. Cases of infringing occur unintentionally;
otherwise, cases of flouting and opting out occur
intentionally with the speakers’ deliberate intention.
Furthermore, from the occurrences of flouting,
opting out, and violating (violating by the first
participant), it is evidenced that children with ASD
in this research can respond to certain topics like
people in general usually do. On the other hand,
possible reasons behind infringing and violating
(violating by the second participant) such as
echolalia, unusual attachments to objects,
stereotypies in thought, and habit of having
continuous routine, can be further examined and also
treated to contribute to linguistic therapy for future
directions.
4 CONCLUSIONS
From the findings, it can be concluded that children
with ASD generally manage to create successful
communication, which is indicated by the large
number of occurrences of observance of Gricean
maxims. However, there are also a small number of
non-observance of maxims. The non-observance of
maxims occurs when the two ASD children attempt
to crack jokes, avoid uncomfortable circumstances,
and generate another meaning including cases when
they produce utterances which are not quite brief
and unclear; thus, make their interlocutors confused.
Furthermore, Anggi and Fahri lack conversational
reciprocity. This means that conversations which
occur between Anggi and Fahri and their
interlocutors are started and kept going by the
interlocutors; they hardly ever start the conversation
first. This finding is in line with Philofsky and
Hepburn (as cited in Wallace, 2011) who state that
children with ASD find it hard to initiate
conversation or interaction with people. This is also
in agreement with Lord et al., 2000; de Villiers et al,
2007; and Wallace, 2011 who add that reciprocity in
conversation by children with ASD is lacking.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This paper was based on the first author’s
undergraduate research paper who was supervised
by Dadang Sudana, M.A., Ph.D. and Ernie D. A.
Imperiani, M.Ed. Our highest appreciation also goes
to those who have helped the whole process of
writing and publishing this article.
REFERENCES
Aprilidya, Y. A., 2016. Grice’s Cooperative Principle In
Conversation Of Children With Autism Spectrum
Disorder (Asd):A Case Study. Unpublished
Undergraduate Research Paper. Indonesia University
of Education, Indonesia
Creswell, J. W., 2009. Research Design: Qualitative,
Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, Sage
Publications. California, 3rd ed.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., Morrison, K., 2000. Research
methods in education, Routledge Falmer. London.
de Villiers, J., Stainton, R. J., Szatmari, P., 2007.
Pragmatic abilities in autism spectrum disorder: a case
study in philosophy and the empirical. Midwest
Studies in Philosophy, 31, pp. 292-317
Dornerus, E., 2005. Breaking maxims in conversation: A
comparative study of how scriptwriters break maxims
in Desperate Housewives and That 70's show.
(Unpublished thesis), Karlstad University, Sweden.
Grice, H. P., 1975. Logic and conversation. In Cole, P.
and Morgan, J. (eds.) Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech
Acts (pp.41–58). New York: Academic Press;
reprinted in Grice, H. P. 1989b, 22–40.
CONAPLIN and ICOLLITE 2017 - Tenth Conference on Applied Linguistics and the Second English Language Teaching and Technology
Conference in collaboration with the First International Conference on Language, Literature, Culture, and Education
404

Johnson, C. P., Myers, S. M., 2007. Identification and
evaluation of children with autism spectrum disorders.
American Academy of Pediatrics, 120(5), 1183-1215.
Lord, C., Cook, E. H., Leventhal, B. L., Amaral, D. G.,
2000. Autism Spectrum Disorders. Neuron, 28, 355-
363
Mukanin, S., Izzah, I., 2006. Prinsip kerja sama dan
pelanggarannya dalam bahasa anak usia 7,6 tahun.
Lingua Jurnal Bahasa dan Sastra, 8, 30-40.
Mukaro, L., Mugari, V., Dhumukwa, A., 2013. Violation
of conversational maxims in Shona. Journal of
Comparative Literature and Culture, 2(4), 161-168.
Nordqvist, C., 2015. What is autism? What causes autism?
Retrieved August 19, 2015, from Medical News
Today:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/info/autism/
Paltridge, B., 2006. Discourse analysis an introduction,
Continuum. London.
Rundquist, S., 1991. Flouting Grice’s maxims: A study of
gender differentiated speech. Unpublished Thesis.
University of Minnesota, United States.
Thomas, J., 2013. Meaning in interaction: An introduction
to pragmatics, Routledge. New York, 2nd ed.
Wallace, C., 2011. Pragmatic language development in
young children with ASD Honors Research Thesis.
The Ohio State University, United States
Examining Conversation of Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) - An Application of Grice’s Cooperative Principle
405