Analysis of Oprah Winfrey Talk Show from the Perspective of the Violation of Cooperative Principle
not say what you think to be false; do not say that for which you lack suitable evidence (Levinson, 201). That is to say, this maxim asks to say what we have sufficient evidence to prove it is truth. In the talk show, there are people of all trades and of course, they are dishonest. So the violation of quality maxim was hackneyed. 3.2.1Metaphor
Metaphor is a figure of speech occurring when a comparison is made by speaking of one thing in terms of another. It is an inferred comparison between two different things which share at least one attribute. It is an association between two unlike things(Avs.B) achieved by borrowing the language that refers to thing A and applying it to thing B. That is, to use one word or Phrase to indicate something different from the literal meaning, metaphor exists on the base of the similarity of two things. Its implicature is generated from some particular context.
(5)Oprah: When I look at those tapes of you, and heaven knows, putting this together I think I have seen every piece of video every done of you, and watching these tapes when, especially in the younger years, you seem to really come alive on stage. Were you as happy off stage as you appear to be on stage?
Michael: Well, on stage for me was home. I was most comfortable on stage but once I got off stage, I was like, very sad.
This is excerpted from an interview of super star-- Michael Jackson, in this part, Oprah asks Michael “ Is he as happy off stage as you appear to be on stage? ” Michael compares the “stage” to his “ home” to show that he feel relaxing on the stage just like feels at home,and he also explains that how much he loves the stage. What?s more, it also means how depressed he feels when off the stage. In the interview the guest would like to use the metaphor strategy to violate the the Quality Maxim. It is because he wants to make his sentence more vivid to let the hearer can better understand him.
(6)Oprah: So, when you?re standing there and there?s a sea of people responding to you, screaming your name as they were, what does it feel like?
Michael: Love, you just feel lots of love and I feel blessed and honored to be able to an instrument of nature that was chosen to give them that, what I give them, I?m very honored and happy about that.
This is also excerpted from an interview of Michael Jackson, at this clip, Oprah asks Michael?s feeling about a sea of people responding you, screaming your name as they were, Michael compares himself to “an instrument of nature” to tell us that he is natural singer, he is born to sing for his fans. He proud of these clapping and screaming, and responds the love from his fans. In the interview the guests will like to use the metaphor strategy to violate the the Quality Maxim. It is because he want to make his words more more vivid and appealing to let the audience know what he actually mean. 3.2.2 Rhetorical Questions
To ask a rhetorical question, the speaker has no intention of obtaining an answer
8
Analysis of Oprah Winfrey Talk Show from the Perspective of the Violation of Cooperative Principle
from the hearer. The answer to the question is very obvious. The speaker just invites implicatures to express his or her anger, criticism, surprise, irony etc. In fact, asking rhetorical question breaks a sincerity condition on questions and the speaker wants the hearer to get the indicated information. By employing rhetorical questions,the speaker violates the maxim of Quality and indirectly conveys what he means.For instant: (7)Oprah: All right. Just recently, there was a story and I know one of your attorneys held a news conference, there was a story about young wanting a little white child to play you in a Pepsi commercial.
Michael: That is so stupid. That is the most ridiculous, horrifying story I have ever heard. It?s crazy. Why, number one, it?s my face like a child to play me? I?m a black American, I am proud to be black American, I am proud of my face, I am proud of who I am. I have a lot of pride and dignity.
This is also excerpted from an interview of Michael Jackson. The two rhetorical questions serving as a criticism indirectly delivered by means of implicature which convey his anger about those ridiculous stories. Superficially, Michael does not directly express his criticism, but on a deeper lever, hearers may feel his anger and accusations stronger. That is the effect to rhetorical questions. 3.2.3 Hyperbole
Hyperbole is a strategy of speech in which exaggeration is used for stress or effect. Statement of hyperbole is not literally true. Even the speaker himself know she says something not true or lacking of evidence. Hence it is a flouting of Quality maxim. But People use “hyperbole” to sound impressive or stress on something, such as a feeling, effort or reaction. For example:
(8)Oprah: What do you think the finale will gonna be like ?
Lisa: I think Jennifer will be out of breath, because she start crying on the action in the first day we got here this year. Oprah: Did you ?
Jennifer: I am crying right now. Oprah: You crying right now?
This is clip from the interview of Friends. When Oprah ask them about the feeling of the finale. Lisa says that Jennifer will out of breath. But actually, it is impossible for Jennifer out of breath, she is exaggerates it in order to show that Jennifer is so sensitive and she is easy to cry. From this clip, we can know that in the talk show, the guests like to use exaggerate strategy to stress on what they are talking about, it can also make their words humorous.
3. 3 Violation of Relevance Maxim
Some conversational implicatures are produced by violation of the relevance maxim. The speaker may not say anything that is explicitly connected to the topic of the conversation and invites the communicator to seek for an interpretation of the possible
9
Analysis of Oprah Winfrey Talk Show from the Perspective of the Violation of Cooperative Principle
relevance. The following are two ways of exploiting this speaking strategy. 3.3.1 Giving Hint
This strategy is a violation of the maxim of relevance of Grice?s CP.The speaker?s utterance, seemingly unrelated to the desired act, prompts the hearer to search for the possible relevance. For example:
(9)Oprah: “Dr. Hueston, you think mad cow's a threat to US cattle?” Dr. Hueston: “...there?s no evidence at all that we have BSE in the US.”
Oprah: “What else are they going to say “ Are they going to say, ?Public, you are at risk. Some of you may die and the cows are going to go crazy.?They could not have said that.”
Lyman: “Why are we skating around this when we know that [cease feeding cows to cows] would be the safest thing to do? Why is it? Because we have the greedy that are getting the ear of government instead of the needy, and that?s exactly why we?re doing it.... (P.S. BSE: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, an animal disease in British cattle )
Nowadays mad cow disease is familiar word to the public, but more than ten years ago, a hot discussion about the threat of mad cow disease was launched in Oprah Winfrey show. Among the guests are all representatives from the victims? families, officials from the government, and one ex-rancher turned vegetarian later, Howard Lyman. The public is deeply related to the safety of American beef. They want to know whether it is dangerous about their daily diet; they want to know the truth. When Oprah asks Dr. Hueston, an official from the government, whether mad cow disease is a threat to US cattle, in place of answering her question directly by saying “Yes” or “No”, he shifts the topic and says something very subtle: “...there?s no evidence at all that we have BSE in the US.” Apparently, as the spokesman of the government, The conversational implicature here is clear: he takes side with the government and the government has the right to stop some news from the public for the sake of authority and stability. Surely, Oprah does not believe him either; she doubts whether the government would give the public the truth by asking “What else are they going to say”? She feels angry at the government?s action and tries to speak for the people. 3.3.2 Giving Association Clues
Similar to the above strategies “giving hint” which is a sudden addition and has no necessary relation with the conversational aim or separation on the surface from current topic. Giving association clues, mentions something relevant to the Conversational goal by the—association clues.This clue functions as abridge between what speaker is talking about and the conversational implicature he tries to show. It also flouts the Relation maxim because speaker gives information by the indirect clue rather than expresses his true meaning straight forward. The clue must be reciprocal knowledge or precedential expression of speaker and hearer as to carry on the conversation smoothly, conversely,
10
Analysis of Oprah Winfrey Talk Show from the Perspective of the Violation of Cooperative Principle
the hearer can?t get across the conversational implicature. For instant:
(10)Arnold Schwarzenegger: Of course I can?t remember every interview. I don?t remember the Oui magazine interview, nor any of the others, because I?ve done thousands of interviews.
Oprah: But do you remember the parties, Arnold?
Arnold Schwarzenegger: I?ve done thousands of interviews. I don?t, I really don?t, no, but I mean, you know, these were the times when I was saying things like, you know, a pump is better than coming and all those kind of things, you know.
Schwarzenegger is one of two Republicans running for Governor of California. It is the first time he appears on the Oprah Winfrey Show, trying to win the women?s vote, because there are suggestions he is a chauvinist or even a misogynist. His early interview with a magazine in which he said something very inappropriate has been dug out by tabloid correspondents. Here he has to explain the remarks which in California have deemed to be offensive and should never be uttered by a serious candidate for governor. In Oprah?s show, when confronted with this question, which makes him very embarrassed and nervous, Schwarzenegger does not reply directly but only emphasizes that he has done too many interviews and he could not remember everyone. Actually, being asked such a taboo question, his positive face is severely endangered, no wonder he is not willing to answer and only gives some information irrelevant to it. This is another example of violating the maxim of Relevance by giving association clues. 3. 4 Violation of Manner Maxim
Hearers presumed that speakers observe the cooperative principle. Besides, that it is the knowledge of the four maxims that allows hearers to draw inferences about the speakers? indications and implied meaning. The meaning conveyed by speakers and recovered as a result of the hearers? inferences, is known as conversational implicature (Grice, 175). In the first three maxims, we have seen how “what is said” violates the Cooperative Principle, for now, we analyze the ways in which “how to say” could violate.
3. 4.1 Obscurity
If the maxims of quality, quantity, and relation are related to what is said, the maxim of Manner is about how to say, Below we discuss two methods of the violation of the Manner Maxim that resulted in conversational implicatures. For example:
(11)Rowling: Yeah, I do. I couldn?t stop. I don?t think you can when you have been that involved with the characters for that long. It?s still all in there. They?re all in my heart still. I mean I could write--I could --I could definitely write a eight, ninth, tenth--could--easily. Winfrey: Will you?
Rowling: I?m not going to say I won?t. I don?t think I will. I loved writing those
11
Analysis of Oprah Winfrey Talk Show from the Perspective of the Violation of Cooperative Principle
books. I love writing it, So I feel I am done but you never know.
It happened between Oprah and famous writer J.K Rowling. When Oprah asks her “will you?” she says: I?m not going to say I won?t ...” You can see that she means nothing actually, because it is possible for her continue to write or stop. Maybe she has a thought of stop write but if she tell the audience directly some of her fans will be sad. So she just give this answer. By analyzing the conversation between Oprah and Rowling, we can know sometimes the guests want to avoid delicate some question, they will use the strategy of obscurity. 3.4.2 Ambiguity
When the recipient comes across the “non-obvious interpretation” or incongruity, which will occur unhappiness. But speaker can turn to the other explanation of the ambiguous expression so as to eliminate the annoyance.
(12)Oprah: I have to ask you this, so many mothers in my audiance have said to please ask you this question, Why do you always grab your crotch? Michael:(giggle) Why do I grab my crotch?
Oprah: You?ve got a thing with your crotch going on there.
Michael: I think it happens subliminally. When you?re dancing, you know you are just interpreting the music and the sounds and the accompaniment if there?s a
driving base, if there a cello, if there?s a string, you become the emotion of what that sound is, so if I?m doing a movement and I go bam and grab myself it?s... It?s the music that compels me to do it, it?s not is a great place you don?t think about it, it just happens, sometimes I?ll look back at the footage and I go ... and I go did I do that, so I?m a slave to the rhythm, yeah, okay.
This is selected from the interview of Michael. Here Oprah asks “ You?ve got a thing with your crotch going on there?” This sentence was ambiguous, it will lead audience to think that there are something wrong with Michael?s crotch. But in fact, she just wants to ask the reason why he like to grab his crotch. This part of the interview is made audience laugh, so use the strategy of ambiguity will make the conversation more interesting. 4. Conclusion
The main theory supporting this thesis is CP as well as its four subordinate maxims, Proposed by Grice. Grice suggests a set of rules that people are supposed to abide by inordinary conversations. However, in real human interaction, People frequently mean much more than their words literal convey or mean something quite different from what their words mean, even just the opposite. Grice?s CP is established to account for those uncooperative behaviors, describe their Producing Process and illustrate the relation between the utterance meaning and the implied meaning.
In this article, it has showed the general idea and analysis with CP firstly. In the
12