The Use of Grice's Maxims and Speech Act Theory - Literature review Example

Research on use of Grice’s maxims and speech act Introduction When one speaks, they convey a message to the person listening. There is that which one want them to understand. The way they perceive or receive this message is important because it builds the perception someone else has of them. This is why linguistics has set out to help us study certain theories in an attempt to create understanding among communicators. This paper sets out to look at an interview and apply the speech act theory as well as the cooperative principle and how these two are codependent in conveying the message intended by the participants of the discussion. The cooperative principle has been said to be essential in driving how an individual interprets a given message. The idea that govern this is theory is that people trust that the person they are conversing with will cooperate with them in getting to the end of the conversation they are having. It does not mean that the individual agrees with the idea an individual is proposing. What it means is that, if the two are engaging in an argument, they can structure their argument cooperatively. Grice's maxims focus on four areas; these are; quantity, quality, relations and manner that will be expounded in the paper. Speech act inclines towards the diverse ways in which we interpret a statement made. Moreover, philosophers have been able to classify the functions of the sentences we construct into five categories. This would mean that the sentences we construct are either representatives, directives, expressives, commissives or declaratives (Finnegan).These two theories seem to be codependent because, for there to be success in a conversation. There is dependence on the cooperative principle to be able to deliver our message and hope that the person understands it as we intended. Literature review Speech act theory bases its entire argument on that words have a motive behind them. A simple word can be used to convey a message in the speech act. This theory talks of locution as the message conveyed by the first speaker that carries with it meaning (Finnegan et al., 2008, p. 308). Illocution is the response given by the receiver in response to what had been said. The words thus influence behavior and how people act. As stated earlier, philosophers broke speech act into five categories. It is critical to distinguish between speech act since every type of speech act only makes sense in the context of the utterance (Finnegan, 2008, p. 308-310). According to Yule 2010, p. 42-43), every speaker of a language unconsciously has a knowledge of the sound patterns of a language. As such, they would immediately recognize such sounds and know what they mean immediately they are spoken. It is important to take into account that context and the wording of a speech act determines how it is understood. For instance, the rhythm and intonation placed upon words or sentences can determine whether a sentence is a representative, a directive, or a commissive (Finnegan, 2008, p. 64-67). The rate of fall or rise in the pitch of a sentence will indicate whether it is for instance a declarative or a question or if it indicates uncertainty (Finnegan, 2008, p. 66) A pragmatic approach to language asserts that people will not always mean what they say (Thomas, 1995, p. 1). He argues that meaning will usually progress from the abstract to the contextual meaning in any conversation. As such, he asserts that it is important to take into context any utterance to determine the meaning intended. In this regard, speaker meaning becomes a very critical aspect concerning the intended meaning and the context. Subsequently this ties in with Grice’s maxims of the cooperative principles of quantity, quality, relevance, and manner (Finnegan et al., 2008, p. 310-312). According to Grice, persons are expected to offer information that will be adequate for the listener to understand and hence it should be unambiguous. The message should also be true. Similar to the concept of context discussed by Thomas, Grice argues for the need for relevance in communication. The cooperative approach proposed by Grice is similar to (Tannen, 1984, p.189-194) who argues that there are eight levels of meaning to what persons say which are parallel to Grice’s four maxims. Tannen, (1984, p.150) asserts that conversational signals such as pacing and pausing, loudness, and pitch are critical in the developing of a relationship between the speaker and the listener. In “Disagreement and opposition in multigenerational interviews with Greek-Australian mothers and daughters”, Petraki argues that cross-cultural and intergenerational differences shape how communication is understood (Petraki, 2005, p. 269-296). Pomerantz and Fehr asserted that in order to analyze a conversation we have to select the sequence, characterize actions in the sequence, take into account how the speakers package their actions, analyze turn taking and lastly analyze how the actions performed reveals the identities, roles and expectations of the participants. In contrast to other scholars, Mohan 1997 asserts that nonverbal communication complements verbal communication. He asserts that it is important to analyze nonverbal communication separate from verbal communication to understand truly it. Nevertheless, in support of Petraki he states that intercultural dimensions also profoundly influence nonverbal communication (Mohan, 1997, p. 87-92). This is also similar to Eades, (2000, p. 161-194) who argues that what Aborigines say in court should be interpreted in an intercultural context since cultural norms heavily influence meaning Methodology I set out to show the application of these theories by looking at an already recorded interview. This led my search on YouTube to obtain one of the interviews by Jeremy Paxman (the interviewer) and Russell Brand (the respondent). After watching the video, I took down notes aimed at supporting the work I was doing. Results Jeremy keeps his opening question simple. Jeremy Paxman: Russell Brand, who are you to edit a political magazine? Russell uses sarcasm and follows his answer with honesty and clarity. Well, I suppose like a person who’s been politely asked by an attractive woman. I don’t know what the typical criteria is. I don’t know many people that edit political magazines. At some points, Jeremy gives pauses after posing a question to Russell. Jeremy Paxman: But is it true you don’t even vote? Russell Brand: Yeah, no, I don’t vote. However, they also keep interrupting each other at the various point. Russell Brand: Well, you say that, Jeremy, but – Jeremy Paxman: You can’t even be asked to vote. Russell Brand: It’s quite narrow, quite a narrow prescriptive parameter that changes within the – Jeremy Paxman: In a democracy, that’s how it works. Russell at one point makes a list of things that he thinks politicians should not do; Russell Brand: Well, I’ve not invented it yet, Jeremy. I had to do a magazine last week. I’ve had a lot on me plate. But I say, but here’s the thing you shouldn’t do. Shouldn’t destroy the planet, shouldn’t create massive economic disparity, shouldn’t ignore the needs of the people. The burden of proof is on the people with the power, not people like doing a magazine for a novelty Jeremy is also keen to point out facts. Russell Brand: Well, I imagine there are sort of hierarchical systems that have been preserved through generations – Jeremy Paxman: They get power by being voted in, that’s how they get power. …. Jeremy Paxman: In a democracy, that’s how it works. When Jeremy says things work that way in a democracy, Russell does not take it in as a statement of fact but takes it to be a question meant to allow him how things can be any different. There were statements that were clearly meant to invoke a particular reaction from the respondent who did not shy off from rising to respond to them. Jeremy asks Russell if he means he blames the political leaders for his drug problem in his early age. Russell finally admits that he indeed wants a revolution Jeremy Paxman: So you struck an attitude, what, before the age of 18? Russell Brand: Well, I was busy being a drug addict at that point, because I come from the kind of social conditions that are exacerbated by an indifferent system that really just administrates for large corporations and ignores the population that it was voted in to serve. Jeremy Paxman: You’re blaming the political class for the fact that you had a drug problem? Jeremy tells Russell that he is being facetious and follows to ask why he, (Russell) should be taken seriously. Russell was not keen to do his assignment that found the interviewer questioning the quality of his content from time to time. Like when he talks about a socialist egalitarian system and when asked who would levy the taxes, he seem uncertain of what he says. Russell Brand: I think a socialist egalitarian system based on the massive redistribution of wealth, heavy taxation of corporations, and massive responsibility for energy companies and any companies exploiting the environment. The respondent also uses too many words to elaborate his points in certain areas. The other theory noted was the various expressions such as when Jeremy asks Russell if he has ever voted, and he says no, Jeremy's face had a quizzical expression. Russell uses his hand to expound point and keenly looks at Jeremy. Discussions From the interview, I noticed the first utterance made by the first speaker follows the maxim of manner, Jeremy is keen to make it brief and clear. Russell uses sarcasm that one may interpret to mean that Jeremy had been rude in how he asked the question. Russell Brand: Well, I don’t think it’s working very well, Jeremy, given that the planet is being destroyed, given that there is economic disparity of a huge degree. What are you saying, there’s no alternative? There’s no alternative? Just this system The use of sarcasm in speech act is used to show more than the literal meaning of what has been said. It may imply that the person does not appreciate the comment made, or the comment is rather ignorant. At some points where both of them take a turn to answer or ask questions shows the essence of a cooperative approach (Finnegan et al., 2008, p. 316). The various interruptions show how when we get agitated by avoiding pauses and allowing turn taking in the conversation. Even with them doing this, they are still able to keep the relevance of what they are talking about which is important. When Russell makes a list of things people should not do, this reflects on a clear evidence of representative of speech part of the five categories of speech act. When Jeremy points out statements made by Russell that are questionable in terms of not been true, we see the issue of the maxim of quality come to play. Maxim of manner is also periodically ignored by Russell, who uses too many words to elaborate his points that end up making this more ambiguous. The question of whether Jeremy was asking questions that were implying certain things is important. It shows the importance of relaying quality information. When Russell says yes, he wants a revolution, and it will happen, he makes a threat that is a commissive statement that would lead to certain events. Jeremy Paxman: Do you see any hope? Russell Brand: Remember that – yeah, totally, there’s gonna be a revolution, it’s totally going to happen The other thing that was evident was the use of facial expressions and body language in the interview. This is an important part of nonverbal communication that is used to convey a message without necessarily using words (Mohan, 1997). This is why Russell can know when Jeremy is not taking him seriously. The intensity with which he answers the questions is also influenced by how he sees Jeremy's body language such as him shaking his head in disagreement. I appreciated that there was a cooperative approach to the conversation. They were able to sit through the entire conversation. It helps that the two come from the same culture. Otherwise, some would not take it kindly that Jeremy pointed it out that they were being facetious (Petraki, 2005, p. 269). Conclusion The interview conducted brings out the elements of the speech act and cooperative approach theory clear. There is indeed more in words and a motive behind it. For a conversation to be a success, there's need for a cooperative approach. This would mean that there is need to ensure the information one gives is clear, true and non-ambiguous. The success of a discussion depends on the message the first speaker intends to convey and how the receiver responds to their utterance. Therefore, we can agree with the various philosophers on their work used to describe how we communicate information. Reference Eades, D., 2000, I don’t think it’s an answer to the question: Silencing Aboriginal witnesses in court, Language in Society, vol. 29, pp. 161–195. Finnegan et al, 2014, Language use, Cengage Learning, NY: New York. Gardner, R, 2000, Resources for delicate manouvres: Learning to disagree, Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, vol. 16, pp. 31-47. Mohan, T. 2002, Communicating!: theory and practice. Sydney, Nelson Thomson Learning. Petraki, E., 2005, Disagreement and opposition in multigenerational interviews with Greek-Australian mothers and daughters, Walter de Gruyter, vol. 25, pp. 269-303. Pomerantz, A., & Fehr, B, 1997, Conversation Analysis: An Approach to the study of social action as sense-making practices, In Van Dijk, T, (Eds.), Discourse as social interaction (64-91), SAGE. Tannen, D., 1984, The pragmatics of cross-cultural communication: Applied Linguistics, Vol. 5, pp. 189-195. Thomas, J., 1997, Meaning in interaction: an introduction to pragmatics. London, Longman. Yule, G., 2010, The study of language, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. Read More