Analyzing Pragmatic Failures in WeChat Conversations: A Perspective Based on Grice's Cooperative Principle

MingLiang Zhang

doi:10.63313/LLCS.9101

Authors

MingLiang Zhang Department of Foreign Languages, University of ShangHai for Science and Technology, ShangHai, 200093, China Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.63313/LLCS.9101

Keywords:

Pragmatic failure, Wechat Communication, Grice’s Cooperative Principle

Abstract

This study investigated pragmatic failure in WeChat conversations, analyzing how violations of Grice’s Cooperative Principle (1975) affect communication in digital, text-based interactions. Grice’s framework, comprising the maxims of quantity, quality, relation and manner, was employed to examine how users in Chinese WeChat exchanges unintentionally or intentionally flout these maxims, leading to miscommunication. The research focused on naturally occurring conversations from WeChat , collecting from a range of informal contexts between friends, family, and classmates. Using qualitative discourse analysis, the study categorizes pragmatic failures into two main types: pragmalinguistic failures, which involve the misuse of language forms, and sociopragmatic failures, which arise from misunderstandings of social norms. The findings showed that violations of the Maxim of Relation (relevance) and the Maxim of Quality (truthfulness) were the most prevalent, often leading to sarcasm, ambiguity, and emotional misunderstandings. The lack of contextual cues in text-based communication exacerbated these failures. This paper also highlighted the role of digital features, such as emojis, delayed responses, and informality, in influencing conversational dynamics. Overall, the study emphasizes the importance of understanding pragmatic failure in digital communication, particularly in platforms like WeChat.

References

[1] Chen, X., & Yang, H. (2020). Pragmatic strategies in WeChat communication: A cor-pus-based analysis. Journal of Pragmatics, 165, 38–50.

[2] Crystal, D. (2006). Language and the Internet (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

[3] Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and Se-mantics: Speech Acts (41–58). Academic Press.

[4] Haugh, M. (2013). Im/politeness, social practice and the participation order. Journal of Pragmatics, 58, 52–72.

[5] Hu, X. (2018). Digital discourse and pragmatic failure: A study of WeChat users. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 41(3), 339–356.

[6] Locher, M. A., & Graham, S. L. (2010). Interpersonal pragmatics. De Gruyter Mouton.

[7] Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 91–112.

[8] Yus, F. (2011). Cyberpragmatics: Internet-mediated communication in context. John Ben-jamins.

[9] Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts. Aca-demic Press.

[10] Huang, Y. (2014). Pragmatics(2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.

[11] Lee, C. (2018). Pragmatic adaptation in Chinese digital communication. Journal of Com-puter-Mediated Communication, 23(2), 89-105.

[12] Zhang, L. (2020). Miscommunication in WeChat: A Gricean analysis. Languag, 18(3)

[13] Clark, H. H., & Brennan, S. E. (1991). Grounding in communication. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition American Psycho-logical Association.