Analysis of Oprah Winfrey Talk Show from the Perspective of the Violation of Cooperative Principle
(1) avoid obscurity (2) avoid ambiguity
(3) be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity) (4) be orderly (Yu Dongming 73)
Levinson proposed speakers give enough and not too much information: quantity. They are sincere and genuine, saying “truth” or facts: quality. Utterances are relative to the Content of the speech: relation. Speakers try to deliver meaning concisely and clearly, Avoiding ambiguity:manner.(102)
That is to say, these maxims specify what Participants have to do in order to communicate in a rational,co-operative and maximally efficient way: “they should speak sincerely, relevantly and clearly, except provide sufficient information at the same time” (Levinson 102)
The conversational implicature will never generate if all the maxims are observed : As speaker says directly what he means and the force is the same as the sense. But in fact people often fail to observe these maxims on purpose and implication occurs.
2.2 Pervious Studies of Oprah Winfrey Show
Oprah Winfrey Show, acknowledged as the front runner of American shows, has been popular for over twenty years with the highly functional and efficient format. Many scholars have studied this program from various perspectives. Some scholars point out that the glamour of this program comes from Oprah Winfrey?s personality. She shares her personal experiences with guests and the audience in a friendly atmosphere.( Zhong Xin, 1999).She is an inspiring host. Zhong Xin from Renmin University of China carries out a study concerning the characteristics of Oprah Winfrey in the following two aspects: Oprah?s roles in the program and her image and background. Zhong Xin points out that Oprah?s roles in the talk show program exteriorize the combination of host role and leading role. Her host role is exhibited by the realities that she is the representative of the talk show, and has been the host of this show for 20 years; moreover, she always makes efforts to highlight guests as the focus of the audience. The leading role means that Oprah, by controlling the process, pace and tone of the program, becomes the soul of it. As for the image and background of Oprah Winfrey, Zhong Xin analyzes it in the following four aspects: first, since Oprah is plain-looking, guests and audience may feel easy to talk with her; second, in the talk show program, Oprah usually wears simple and informal clothes, which may serve to shorten the psychological distance between her and the guests; third, Oprah used to live in poverty and misery in her childhood, and for such a natural psychological and value identification with the audience, she can sincerely share her experience with them and makes the audience feel that she is just“one of them”; and finally, though Oprah did not even finish her college study, her ability to communicate with other people is outstanding.(4)
Cornelia Ilie from department of English, Stockholm University, has published
3
Analysis of Oprah Winfrey Talk Show from the Perspective of the Violation of Cooperative Principle
Question-response argumentation in talk shows and semi-institutional discourse: the case of talk shows, in which Oprah Winfrey Show is the object of the study. The former provides the interpretation of the discursive and argumentative functions of non-standard questions that occur in talk shows with focus on three types of questions, expository questions, rhetorical questions and echo questions. She carries out her analysis according to two criteria: response elicitation and argumentative orientation. In terms of response elicitation, she categorizes questions into four types: information-eliciting, answer-eliciting, action-eliciting and mental response-eliciting questions. In terms of argumentative orientation, she proposes three types: argument-eliciting questions, argument-prefacing questions and argumentative questions.(Ilie, Question-response argumentation in talk show 4) In semi-institutional discourse: the case of talk shows, Ilie explores the nature of talk show as a particular instance of broadcast discourse with focus on discursive features of the talk show, namely, host-controlled, participant-shaped and audience-evaluated speech event through analysis in aspects of discursive configuration and goal, participant role assignment and role switching, talk and topic control. (semi-institutional discourse, 5)
2.3 Previous Studies of Talk Show from Perspective of CP
Wang Ya from Shanghai Foreign Language University investigate this type of discourse from the perspectives of Pragmatics, adopting the CP and the Politeness Principle. Thus the analysis is divided into the observation of the CP and the PP and violation of the CP and the PP respectively. Through investigation, it is discovered that the hostess is always the party who can abide by the CP better because her effort is the foundation of the whole interview, without which the smooth going of the conversation would be impossible. In contrast to the hostess, the guests are more likely to flout the CP for they are often confronted with some questions they do not want to or feel awkward to answer. Under such circumstances, they have to flout the CP. However, as a rescue, they often follow some maxims of the PP consciously or unconsciously, through which they could mitigate the damage to each other?s face.(1)
Wang Ling from Wuhan University of Technology , in her thesis, as a qualitative case study, attempts to analyze the conversational implicature of conversations in Chinese TV talk show based on cooperative Principle and theory of conversational implicature in order to explore the way of analyzing interviewing Programs from Perspective of pragmatics.The author gives an elaboration of the conversational implicature produced by the selected examples from varieties of Chinese talk show programs in Chapter Four. The illustrations are classified into different categories in accordance with its violation of each maxims of cooperative Principle. In the section of case study, the author lists a series of tactful strategies often used by the host and the guest in the interview to analyze the Process of how both sides violate cooperative Principle and generate conversational implicature to avoid the direct confrontation,
4
Analysis of Oprah Winfrey Talk Show from the Perspective of the Violation of Cooperative Principle
embarrassment or other negative consequence.(2)
This article based on the violation of Grice?s Cooperate Principle to analysis the Oprah Winfrey Show. And the main part will quote some strategies to show how the host and guest violating the CP, those strategies listed in the case study are classified according to the four categories of non-observance of maxims: quality, quantity, relation, and manner, in order to avoid conflict and embarrass.
3. An Analysis of the Violation of CP in Oprah Winfrey Show
3.1 Violation of Quantity Maxim
Contribution as informative as is required, secondly, do not make your contribution more informative than is required (Grice, 175). So when people talk, they should make their information which was fixed in his or her words accurate, precise and effective. However, this rarely happens in a realistic conversation. Instead, people tend to give information over-needed or insufficient. 3.1.1 Repetition
Repeating indicates saying something one has already said again and again, either one or an umber of times. Repeating those word violates the quantity maxim that is giving more information than is required. But Particularized conversational implicature comes from the redundant information while the communicators use the strategy of repeating.
(1)Oprah: Ladies and gentleman, Michael Jackson. Oprah: How nervous are you? Michael: How What?
Oprah:How nervous are you right now? Micheal: I?m not nervous at all, actually. Oprah: You don?t? Michael: No.
Oprah: Not even for your first interview and it?s live around the world? I thought You?d be a little nervous but you?re not and that?s great because if you?re not nervous I won?t be nervous.
This is excerpted from an interview of super star—Michael Jackson, happened between the first Oprah met Micheal Jackson in his Neverland Ranch. The host repeats: “ are you nervous?” Obviously, Oprah opts out the Quantity Maxim by repeating the word “nervous”. Actually she knows that Michael was not nervous at all. Because he is such a super star who has experienced so many big spectacles. She asks those questions in order to avoid the embarrassment and can close the distance with hosts and guests. (2) Oprah:Well, you know, I had read that I was so actually impressed when I read that when you first came into this office, the very first time, you closed the doors,
5
Analysis of Oprah Winfrey Talk Show from the Perspective of the Violation of Cooperative Principle
spent ten minutes alone in the office. What did you-what did you-what did you think or do?
Obama: Well, y-y-you know, this office, I think, reminds you of what?s at stake, how many hopes and dreams are placed in, uh, what goes on here at the white house, all profound decisions that have impacted the American people, uh, and the world.
Oprah: But in that first minutes alone here, did you have a prayer? Obama:Oh, I pray all the time. Oprah: You pray all the time? Obama: Always pray.
This is an exclusive interview with American president—Barack Obama in White House. In the interview Oprah asks the question: What did you think when you closed the door, spent then minutes alone in the office in the very first time?” Obama does not talk about the feeling about himself, he talks about the American people, the world. So Oprah asks him, “Did you have a prayer?” to let him talk about himself. From the example, we can see that the host use repetition to revert to the original topic. It is one of the important strategies for hosts in their interview. 3.1.2 Prolixity
Prolixity means by saying more or providing more information than is required, is a violation of the Quantity Maxim, which invites the communicator to think why the speaker complements more information and what the real implicature is. (3)Oprah: What grade would you give yourself for this year?
Obama:Good solid B-plus. I-I mean, I think that we have inherited the biggest set challenges of any president since, uh, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Uh, we stabilized the economy, prevented the possibilities of a great depression or a significant financial meltdown. Uh, we have reset our image, uh , around the world. We have achieved an international consensus around the need for Iran and North Korea to disable their nuclear weapons. And I think that we?re gonna pass the most significant pie since social security—and that?s health—, health insurance for every American.
This is also a clip from an exclusive interview with American president—Barack Obama in White House. The dialogue is exemplified the feature of the prolixity strategy which violating the Quantity Maxim. Oprah wants to know what grade would Obama give himself for this year. Obama?s first sentence is totally enough for the question. By providing the additional information, He fills the post satisfactorily, in future he also has lots of plans for America, he deserve the B-plus. 3.1.3 Ellipsis
This strategy is a violation of the quantity maxim or manner maxim. the article will analyze It from the flouting of Quantity maxim. It is apparent that the speaker gives less
6
Analysis of Oprah Winfrey Talk Show from the Perspective of the Violation of Cooperative Principle
Information as the situation commands and leaves a whole sentence half undone, making the implicature unsettled. The hearer has to draw the speaker?s real intention by understanding the unfinished utterance. For example:
(4)Oprah: You?re not here for that. But she?s happy to accept any apologies or anything you want to say. So Deborah, come on out and let?s here. Bringing a little closure. Nice to see you. How you doing. Nice to see you. Here?s Deborah. Well now, so you all were married how long? Deb: About a year and a half.
Oprah: A year and a half. And you have been divorced for fourteen? Deb: Yes.
Oprah: For fourteen years. What?d you want to say to her? Ed: I?m sorry.
Deb: It?s OK. I accept your apology. Ed: I really treated her bad. Oprah: You did? Ed: Ah yes, Oprah. Oprah: How bad?
Ed: Too bad to mention on TV. Oprah: Too bad to mention on TV. Ed: Yeah.
Oprah: And you, now, you can laugh about it?
Deb: Well, uh, we were young, you know, things happened. And uhm, that?s how life goes.
This clip comes from an interview of a couple who has divorced. Edward is a recovering alcoholic. He acknowledges he was not an ideal husband during his short-lived marriage with Deborah, therefore he wants to make amends. Deborah comes to the show not only because she wants to get back with Edward but alao because she is ready to accept his apology. Facing the one that he had badly dealt with, Edward tells his heart felt sorry to her; Deborah also thinks it is okay to settle things down. While Oprah asks him how badly he had dealt with Deborah, he rejects to give detailed description of his previous deeds only by saying “too bad to mention”. He totally opts out the CP, out of shame and regret.The past time has been a heavy burden upon his mind; Now his intention is just to see if everything is alright with Deborah andgive a apologize to her. Reminding both parts of the old heartbreaking history would be a bad idea, so he refuses Oprah and opts out the CP. This rejection may goes contrary to her expectation, in order to ease the tension and once again to make sure he really does not want to talk about it, she repeats what he has said and then moves the interview to the next step.
3. 2 Violation of Quality Maxim
The maxim of Quality requires: try to make your contribution one that is true; do
7