Reflecting Critical Thinking through Conversational Implicature Interpretation: Students’ Analysis of Gricean Maxim Flouting

Abstract

As one of the most in-demand skills in 21st-century learning, critical thinking has become a crucial skill for students. Among the various parameters for measuring critical thinking, pragmatic analysis is particularly well-suited for language learners. This study investigates students’ ability to analyze short conversations containing Gricean maxim flouting to reveal their levels of critical thinking. Using a qualitative descriptive design, the study analyzed written responses from undergraduate students using a rubric adapted from Facione’s (2011) critical thinking framework, focusing on four indicators: analysis, interpretation, inference, and evaluation. The findings indicate that while most students were able to correctly identify the flouted maxims, many experienced significant difficulties in inferring conversational implicature and providing deep contextual justification. High-level critical thinking was characterized by the integration of maxim identification with nuanced contextual reasoning, whereas lower-level thinking was limited to mere descriptive responses. These results suggest that pragmatic analysis of maxim flouting serves as an effective lens for examining critical thinking in EFL contexts. Furthermore, the study highlights the necessity for explicit instructional support to develop students' inferential and evaluative reasoning skills within pragmatics education.