Why conversation works.

 Conversation works – even when we don’t say what we mean.  Why it works so well fascinated philosopher Paul Grice. He wondered about conversations such as this: Jack: You’ve got a mountain to climb. Lily: It’s better than a slap in the face.  What is going on here, and how do we know?

 British educated philosopher of Language  Spent the last two decades of his career in the U.S.

 Grice concluded that conversation must follow its own set of logical principles or ‘rules.’  He worked out how, even when we don’t mean what we say – that the full pragmatic force of our utterance is easily understood, as in this example: Lily: This bottle’s half empty already! Jack: Gosh – is that the time already? What does ‘pragmatic’ mean?

 Grice decided that communication is a co- operative activity: when two people communicate it’s in their own best interests to make it go as smoothly as possible.  Speakers behave in certain predictable ways.

 "Make your contribution such as it is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged“ (Paul Grice)  This translates into 4 maxims:  Quality - Manner  Quantity - Relation

 “Do not say what you believe to be false.”  “Do not say that for which you lack evidence.”  So... When someone speaks to us, we assume: - that what they say is not knowingly untruthful. - that the truthfulness of what they say does not need to be made stated.

 “Make your contribution as informative as is required.”  “Do not make your contribution more informative than is required.”  So... When someone speaks to us, we assume: - they do not purposefully hold back anything that is important - they do not give more information than is asked.

 “Be perspicuous” (clearly understood)  “Avoid obscurity of expression”  “ Be brief”  “Be orderly”  So, when someone speaks to us, we assume: - That what they say is being said as straightforwardly as they can say it.

 “Be relevant.”  So... When someone speaks to us, we assume: - That what they say is relevant to the conversation.

 In short...  1. Be true  2. Be brief  3. Be clear  4. Be relevant  These maxims ensure that conversation is maximally efficient, rational and co- operative. It also ensures that we understand conversation.

 A. “How do I get to Sainsbury’s, mate?”  B. “Go straight ahead, turn right at the school, then left at the bus stop on the hill.”  Speaker A assumes that: - B believes his directions to be genuine – the maxim of quality; - B believes the information to be sufficient – the maxim of quantity; - B believes his directions are to Sainsbury’s – the maxim of relevance; - B believes the information to be clear – the maxim of manner;

You can choose to ignore the maxims – usually to create a particular effect A speaker can choose to:  Violate – be intentionally misleading  Opt-out – refuse to co-operate  Flout – be intentionally ironic

Can you think of any examples of conversations you have had / heard recently where maxims have not been followed?

Joke from comedian Les Dawson. Not too bright, that particular lad. A salesman found him sitting on the doorstep one day. ‘Is your mother at home sonny?’ he asked. ‘Yes, replied the boy. So the salesman knocked on the door for a few minutes, then tried ringing the bell; finally he resorted to bashing on the window – all to no avail. ‘I thought you said your mother was at home,’ he snapped at the boy. ‘she is,’ came the reply, ‘only this isn’t our house.’ Is this violating / flouting/ opting out? Which maxim is being flouted?

 This is an interview between Jeremy Paxman and Michael Howard. The leader of the opposition violated the maxim of relation by not giving an answer that related to the question:  Paxman: Did you threaten to overrule?  Howard: I was not entitled to instruct Derek Lewis and I did not instruct him.  Paxman: Did you threaten to overrule him?  Howard: The truth of the matter is that.

 Here, Paxman asks the Prime Minister a question; the minister opts out of the maxim of relation:  Paxman: “When will war become inevitable?”  PM: “ Well I know you have to ask that question but it’s the kind of question I cannot answer.”

This is the most important ‘use’ of Grice’s maxims. Unlike ‘violating,’ ‘flouting’ a maxim allows a speaker to signal that although they seem to be ‘violating’ a maxim, they are still co- operating. “MMM, Donuts.” “Homie, those pants look awful tight to me.”

 1. Read the script and see if you can identify  when Grice’s Maxims are being followed  when Grice’s Maxims are being broken, and more importantly...  How? Which rules are not being adhered to? 2.Then have a go at writing your own scripted conversation in which Grice’s Maxims are broken.

Implicature

 Match the term to the definition TermDefinition Opt outBe intentionally ironic MannerDo not be perspicuous QualityBe intentionally misleading ViolateSay something relevant QuantitySay enough but not too much FloutDo not lie RelevanceRefuse to co-operate

 What Grice calls ‘implicature’ occurs when a speaker chooses to flout a maxim.  The listener, assuming that the speaker still intends being cooperative, looks for meaning, other than that which is said.  The intended meaning will be arrived at through the speaker working out the pragmatic force of the utterance rather than the semantic sense? What are semantics?

Flouting the maxim of… A: I hear you went to the theatre last night; what play did you see? B: Well, I watched a number of people stand on the stage in Elizabethan costumes uttering a series of sentences which corresponded closely with the script of the Twelfth Night. Which maxim is being flouted? What can we infer about the quality of the acting?

Flouting the maxim of …  A: What are you baking?  B: Be and I are tee aitch dee ay wye see ay kay ee. Which maxim is being flouted? What can we infer about the information being communicated to A?

Flouting the maxim of… A lecturer to his student: “So let me say straight away, James, that your essay is beautifully printed, the font has been immaculately well chosen and the positioning of those staples is a work of sheer genius…”  To James, the comment is not relevant to what he wants to hear – so he assumes the lecturer has ‘flouted the maxim’ of relevance.  BUT…James assumes the teacher is still co-operating in the conversation by taking his turn, so he must be saying something relevant about the essay. What can we / James infer about the quality of the essay?

 On first inspection, such a comment is apparently not relevant to what James wants to hear – so he could assume that teacher has ‘flouted the maxim’ of relevance.  BUT, James assumes the is still co-operating by taking his conversational turn, leaving James to assume he IS saying something relevant about the quality of the essay. Therefor he is flouting the maxim of manner.  SO, the listener assumes that the speaker assumes that the listener can work it out…

 So far we have looked at how the Maxims are adhered to, or not, in conversation.  However, many kinds of communication operate as interactions, a sort of ‘one sided’ conversation – letters, advertisments, and so on. Applying Grice’s maxims to written texts can allow us to develop subtle insights.

 It’s more difficult to flout Grice’s maxims in writing because it’s not so easy to ensure that your reader understands what is happening. Why? You lose prosodic features like stress and intonation. You also lose paralinguistic features like body language.

What maxims are being flouted? What implicatures are being created? To what effect? For what purpose?

 We are going to look at a transcript of conversation together.  I then want you to work individually to write an analysis of this extract, looking for: - Grice’s maxims - followed or not? - If not, which maxim is being ignored and in which way? Why? - What does this say about: the context of the conversation, the speakers, their relationship to one another etc.