---
title: "A Grice-ful Examination of Offensive Language: Using NLP"
description: "The authors present this as a model for computationally assisted discourse analysis. 9 references."
authors: ["Katerina Korre", "Federico Ruggeri", "Alberto Barrón-Cedeño"]
year: 2024
venue: "Proceedings of the 1st LUHME Workshop"
source: "https://aclanthology.org/2024.luhme-1.2/"
licence: "CC BY 4.0 (ACL Anthology)"
licence_url: "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"
summary_licence: "Elamur Cosmic License"
canonical: "https://research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/korre-2024-grice-ful-examination-offensive-language/"
---
[Elamur Research](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/) · [this page in HTML](https://research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/korre-2024-grice-ful-examination-offensive-language/)

[home](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/) / [papers](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/) / [2024](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/2024/page/14/) / A Grice-ful Examination of Offensive Language: Using NLP Methods to Assess the Co-operative Principle

# A Grice-ful Examination of Offensive Language: Using NLP Methods to Assess the Co-operative Principle

**Authors:** [Katerina Korre](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/authors/katerina-korre/), [Federico Ruggeri](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/authors/federico-ruggeri/) and [Alberto Barrón-Cedeño](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/authors/alberto-barron-cedeno/) · **Year:** 2024 · **Venue:** [Proceedings of the 1st LUHME Workshop](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/venues/luhme/) ([LUHME Workshop 2024](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/venues/luhme/2024/)) · **Licence:** [CC BY 4.0 (ACL Anthology)](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

**Links:** [Publisher's page](https://aclanthology.org/2024.luhme-1.2/) · [PDF](https://aclanthology.org/2024.luhme-1.2.pdf)

## Summary
The paper asks whether offensive online talk breaks Grice's Co-operative Principle more often than ordinary talk. The authors turn each of the four maxims (Quality, Quantity, Relevance, Manner) into an automatic, measurable proxy built from NLP tools. They apply these proxies to offensive and non-offensive instances from ToxiChat, a corpus of Reddit-style threads with titles and replies. They then compare the two classes statistically. Instances the metrics flag are hand-checked in a qualitative discourse analysis. The main finding is that the classes mostly behave alike. Clear differences appear only for Manner, driven largely by heavy profanity, and partly for Quality, since untruthful comments are more frequent among offensive items. The close reading also shows the metrics sometimes misfire, for example on a playful "No homo" / "yes homo" exchange. The work matters because it shows that pragmatic theory can be semi-automated. NLP narrows a large dataset to candidate cases, and human analysis then interprets them. The authors present this as a model for computationally assisted discourse analysis.

## Key points
- Data: ToxiChat conversations labelled offensive vs. safe. The Quantity and Relevance metrics look at the whole thread (title plus replies), while Quality and Manner judge single utterances.
- Manner is operationalised through several signals: an ambiguity score, Flesch Readability, and profanity presence. Profanity is far more common in the offensive class (per-class splits are given in Figure 5).
- Statistically, offensive and non-offensive discourse do not differ significantly on most maxim metrics. The exceptions are Manner and some aspects of Quality.
- The paper separates violation (an unintended departure from a maxim) from flouting (a deliberate departure that triggers an implicature).
- Stated limitations: the metrics are imperfect and lack expert validation, and each qualitative example was checked against only one maxim, although several breaches can co-occur.

## Interesting ideas
- Each abstract pragmatic norm is split into its sub-maxims, and each sub-maxim gets its own cheap, measurable proxy, which makes a vague theory testable and comparable across classes.
- The automatic metric is used only as a filter, and humans then read the flagged items; this exposed the metric's false positives and its errors on playful or broadened replies.
- Some maxims are scored at conversation level and others at utterance level, because relevance and informativeness only make sense against prior turns.
- Violation and flouting are kept apart, so the same surface breach is read either as an error or as a deliberate signal of implied meaning.
- Scalar implicature over an ordered scale (excellent > good > OK) is used as the textbook way to infer unstated meaning.

## For Mova

How these ideas could serve Mova, our small open language model — its files, stages and tests:

- **I1** (frames): crate prag could score Quantity, Relevance and Manner per utterance with explicit, inspectable proxies, giving each implicature candidate a traceable trigger.
- **I2** (learn): treat pragmatic detectors as candidate generators, and check a random sample of their flags against negative controls (for example, safe banter) before trusting them as silver labels.
- **I3** (world): relevance checks should compare a reply's frames against entities and claims already in the world of the text, not against the reply alone.
- **I4** (frames): when prag detects a maxim breach, it could branch explicitly into "noise" vs. "intended implicature/irony" and record which cue chose the branch.
- **I5** (answer): readers of fables and tales could derive "merely satisfactory" style inferences from value scales stored in compiled knowledge, explaining the answer through the scale.

*Our summary of the paper, in our own words — not its text. The work belongs to its authors; read it at the links above.*

📚 Shelves (4): [🖥️ Computer Science](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/computer-science/) · 16,667 works · [🤖 Artificial Intelligence](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/computer-science/artificial-intelligence/) · 16,194 works · [🎭 Arts and Humanities](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/arts-and-humanities/) · 16,039 works · [🗣️ Language and Linguistics](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/arts-and-humanities/language-and-linguistics/) · 15,891 works

🧭 Topics (2): [😊 Sentiment & emotion](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/topics/sentiment-emotion/) · 972 works · [😉 Implicature](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/topics/implicature/) · 138 works

## Cite

Cite as: Katerina Korre, Federico Ruggeri and Alberto Barrón-Cedeño. 2024. A Grice-ful Examination of Offensive Language: Using NLP Methods to Assess the Co-operative Principle. Proceedings of the 1st LUHME Workshop.

The paper itself, not this page. BibTeX from the library's record of the work.

```bibtex
@inproceedings{korre2024grice,
  title = {{A Grice-ful Examination of Offensive Language: Using NLP Methods to Assess the Co-operative Principle}},
  author = {Katerina Korre, Federico Ruggeri and Alberto Barrón-Cedeño},
  booktitle = {Proceedings of the 1st LUHME Workshop},
  year = {2024},
  url = {https://aclanthology.org/2024.luhme-1.2/}
}
```

- [← previous A Functional Trade-off between Prosodic and Semantic Cues in Conveying Sarcasm](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/li-2024-functional-trade-off-between-prosodic/)
- [next → A Pre-trained Universal Knowledge Graph Reasoning Model Based on Rule Prompts](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/cui-2024-pre-trained-universal/)
- [↑ back to papers of 2024](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/2024/page/14/)

## References

9 references, 2 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

1. Language models and linguistic theories beyond words. Nature Machine Intelligence, 5(7):677–678, 07 2023. ISSN 2522-5839. doi: 10.1038/s42256-023-00703-8. URL https://doi.org/10.1038/ s42256-023-00703-8. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-023-00703-8)
2. A. A, S. G, S. H R, M. Upadhyaya, A. P. Ray, and M. T C. Sarcasm detection in natural language processing. Materials Today: Proceedings, 37:3324–3331, 2021. ISSN 2214-7853. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.09.124. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S2214785320368164. International Conference on Newer Trends and Innovation in Mechanical Engineering: Materials Science. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.09.124)
3. A. Baheti, M. Sap, A. Ritter, and M. Riedl. Just say no: Analyzing the stance of neural dialogue generation in offensive contexts. In M.-F. Moens, X. Huang, L. Specia, and S. W.-t. Yih, editors, Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 4846–4862, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, Nov. 2021. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/2021.emnlp-main.397. URL https://aclanthology.org/ 2021.emnlp-main.397. [↗](https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.emnlp-main.397)
4. L. Benotti and D. Traum. [A computational account of comparative implicatures for a spoken dialogue agent](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/benotti-2009-computational-account-comparative-implicatures-spoken/). In H. Bunt, editor, Proceedings of the Eight International Conference on Computational Semantics, pages 4–17, Tilburg, The Netherlands, Jan. 2009. Association for Computational Linguistics. URL https://aclanthology.org/W09-3704. [↗](https://aclanthology.org/W09-3704/)
5. J. Devlin, M.-W. Chang, K. Lee, and K. Toutanova. [BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/devlin-2019-bert-pre-training-deep-bidirectional/). In J. Burstein, C. Doran, and T. Solorio, editors, Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171–4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota, June 2019. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/N19-1423. URL https://aclanthology.org/N19-1423. [↗](https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/n19-1423)
6. G. Dupre. (what) can deep learning contribute to theoretical linguistics? Minds and Machines, 31(4):617–635, December 2021. ISSN 1572-8641. doi: 10.1007/s11023-021-09571-w. URL https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11023-021-09571-w. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-021-09571-w)
7. C. Fellbaum, editor. WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1998. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=C%2E+Fellbaum%2C+editor%2E+WordNet%3A+An+Electronic+Lexical+Database%2E+MIT+Press%2C+Cambridge%2C+MA%2C+1998%2E)
8. R. Flesch. A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology, 32(3):221–233, 1948. doi: 10.1037/h0057532. URL https://doi.org/10. 1037/h0057532. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1037/h0057532)
9. A. Freihat, M. Qwaider, and F. Giunchiglia. Using grice maxims in ranking community question answers. In Proceedings of The Tenth International Conference on Information, Process, and Knowledge Management (eKNOW 2018), Rome, Italy, 03 2018. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=A%2E+Freihat%2C+M%2E+Qwaider%2C+and+F%2E+Giunchiglia%2E+Using+grice+maxims+in+ranking+community+question+answers%2E+In+Proceedings+of+The+Tenth+International+Conference+on+Information%2C+Process%2C+and+Knowledge+Manage)

*Updated 29 October 2026*