? Four Cases of “Violating” the maxims given by Grice and Conversational
Implicature
? The people in conversation may violate one or more maxims secretly. In
this way, he may mislead the listener.
? For this case, in the conversation [2] above, we assume that B is
observing the CP and Bill has a yellow car. But if B is intentionally trying to mislead A to think that Bill is in Sue’s house, we will be misled without knowing. In this case, if one “lies” in conversation, there is no implicature in the conversation, only the misleading.
? He may declare that he is not observing the maxims or the CP.
? In this kind of situation, the speaker directly declares he is not
cooperating. He has made it clear that he does not want to go on with the conversation, so there is no implicature either.
? He may fall into a dilemma. For example, for the purpose observing the
first principle of the maxim of quantity (make your contribution as informative as is required), he may be violating the second principle of the maxim of quality (do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence).
? For this case, Grice gave an example:
[3] A: Where does C live?
B: Somewhere in the south of France.
? In [3], if B knows that A is going to visit C, his answer is violating
the maxim of quantity, because he is not giving enough information about where C lives. But he has not declared that he will not observe the maxims. So we can know that B knows if he gives more information, he will violate the principle “do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence”. In other words, he has fallen into a “dilemma”. So we can infer that his implicature is that he does not know the exact address of C. In this case, there is conversational implicature.
? He may “flout” one or more maxims. In other words, he may be
obviously not observing them.
? The last situation is the typical case that can make conversational
implicature. Once the participant in a conversation has made an implicature, he or she is making use one of the maxims. We can see that from the following examples:
[4] A: Where are you going with the dog?
- 31 -
B: To the V-E-T.
? In [4], the dog is known to be able to recognize the word “vet” and
to hate being taken there. Therefore, A makes the word spelled out. Here he is “flouting” the maxim of manner, making the implicature that he does not want the dog to know the answer to the question just asked.
[5] (In a formal get-together)
A: Mrs. X is an old bag.
B: The weather has been quite delightful this summer, hasn’t it?
? B is intentionally violating the maxim of relation in [5], implicating
that what A has said is too rude and he should change a topic.
? The politeness principle (PP)
? Leech points out that CP in itself cannot explain why people are often so
indirect in conveying what they mean. Grice’s theory of CP is, fundamentally, logic-oriented.
? Conversational interaction is also social behaviour. Choice of linguistic
codes is central in language use. There are social and psychological factors that determine the choice.
? Besides being cooperative, participants of conversations normally try to be
polite. The speakers consider the matter of face for themselves and others. Based on this observation, Leech proposes the politeness principle (PP), which contains six maxims. ? Tact
? Minimize cost to other. ? Maximize benefit to other. ? Generosity
? Minimize benefit to self. ? Maximize cost to self. ? Approbation
? Minimize dispraise of other. ? Maximize praise of other. ? Modesty
? Minimize praise of self. ? Maximize dispraise of self. ? Agreement
- 32 -
?
?
?
? ?
? Minimize disagreement between self and other. ? Maximize agreement between self and other. ? Sympathy
? Minimize antipathy between self and other. ? Maximize sympathy between self and other.
The maxims expressed in terms of maximize entail the concept of gradience in politeness. The tact maxim expressed in terms of cost and benefit can be exemplified by the following: ? Clean the rooms. Cost to H Less polite ? Get some chalks for me. ↑ ↑ ? Look at the map. ? Take a seat.
? Enjoy your trip. ↓ ↓ ? Have another cup of coffee. Benefit to H More polite Cost to hearer:
? Peel the potatoes. More direct Less polite ? Can you peel the potatoes? ↑ ↑ ? Will you peel the potatoes? ↓ ↓ ? Would you possibly peel …? Less direct More polite Benefit to hearer:
? Would you have another sandwich? Less direct Less polite ? Will you have another sandwich? ↑ ↑ ? Have another sandwich. ↓ ↓ ? You must have another sandwich. More direct More polite Politeness and appropriateness
? Distance, power, situational context Relation between CP and PP
? The PP is the superordinate principle standing above the CP. The PP
overrides the CP.
? People sometimes violate the CP in order to follow the PP.
? A general introduction to the principle of relevance (RP)
? From the four maxims of CP to the RP
? The code model
? Communication is a process of coding and decoding. ? The inferential model
- 33 -
? Communication is a process of producing and interpreting, or
coding and inferring.
? Theoretical assumptions
? General law: to use the minimal effort for the maximal effect for human
behaviour.
? To communicate is to claim others’ attention. ? Contractual effect/processing effort = relevance
? The theory of RP introduced here is only a tiny part. For further study, please
search the web from google.
? Conversational implicature
? What is a conversation?
? A conversation is changing ideas, or conversing. ? Conversation is the basic form of speech in human communication. ? Conversation is the dialogic form in spoken and written discourse. ? Analysis of conversation
? The global analysis – to analyze the whole structure, the whole process
of a conversation.
? The local analysis – to understand the internal structure of a
conversation, the turn-taking. ? Turn-taking
? Turn-taking refers to having the right to speak by turns.
? Conversations normally follow the pattern of “I speak – you
speak – I speak – you speak”, if there are two participants.
? Any possible change-of-turn point is called a transition relevance place (TRP). ? One speaks (takes the floor), the other listens. ? Adjacency pair
? Adjacency pairs are a fundamental unit of conversational
structure.
? Greeting/greeting, question/answer, invitation/acceptance,
offer/decline, complaint/denial are common cases of adjacency pairs.
? Insertion sequence
? Not all first parts are immediately followed by second parts. It
often occurs that the answer is delayed by another pair of
- 34 -
question and answer. Look at the following example: - May I have a bottle of Mich? (Q1) - Are you over 21? (Q2) - No. (A2) - No. (A1)
? The second part of adjacency pair is violated here.
? A conversation sometimes is organized in a preferential way. ? Pre-sequence
? Pre-invitation ? Pre-request
? Pre-announcement ? Post-sequence
? Explanation
Chapter 8 Language in Social Contexts
? What is sociolinguistics?
? The sociolinguistic study of language
? Language in relation to society
? Diversity of language, variation between societies or within a society
- 35 -