COOPERATIVE PRINCIPLES ANALYSIS
OF TEXT CONVERSATION
(A CASE STUDY: CONVERSATION TEXT IN
A GROUP OF FIVE WORKMATES)
Abstract
Grice is one of the
major principles guiding people’s communication from America (American
Linguist). Analyzing the cooperative Principle in a text or conversation shall
be the learning for us as people to communicate well using language each other.
The aim of the analysis is to find out the result which is the people in the
text obey the maxims or violate the maxims that was proposed by Grice. This
paper attempts to prove the cooperative principle is should be the orientation
or just a redundant rule.
.
Keywords: Cooperative Principle, Text, Conversation, Pragmatics
1. INTRODUCTION
In
the text, we will find the difficulties to interpret what is implied. The
people just say what in their minds with the words which are influenced by
their background knowledge, education, and culture. Sometimes, the addressee is
often confused with the words of speaker. They use
many kinds of expression to response that they try to understand such nodding, smile, and so on. The misunderstanding is often occurred even in the similar domain or culture. So that’s why we need to explore our knowledge by analyzing another people experience. There are some approaches to discourse such pragmatics, interactional sociolinguistics, ethnography of communication, conversational analysis, and systemic functional linguistics or grammar. In this case, the writer would like to analyze the text using pragmatics, particularly in cooperative principle’s perspective.
many kinds of expression to response that they try to understand such nodding, smile, and so on. The misunderstanding is often occurred even in the similar domain or culture. So that’s why we need to explore our knowledge by analyzing another people experience. There are some approaches to discourse such pragmatics, interactional sociolinguistics, ethnography of communication, conversational analysis, and systemic functional linguistics or grammar. In this case, the writer would like to analyze the text using pragmatics, particularly in cooperative principle’s perspective.
The
concept of cooperative principle or the maxims which proposed by Grice has
considered a major contribution to the area pragmatics, which not only plays an
indispensable role in the generation of conversational implications, but also
the good example showing how human communication is governed by the principle.
In the text or conversation in daily life, the four basic maxims have been
greatly as a innovation by the Grice for the conversation principle in which
the main purpose is to avoid misunderstanding. However, these have not
developed at the all situation, especially in the informal situation. Not all
the people obey the principle because of the positive effect like for joking,
proving the intimate, related to politeness etc, and negative effect like
misunderstanding, conflict, or wrong information. The phenomenon is natural,
but it’s good if the people easily understand each other.
The
writer try to give some kinds of knowledge by analyzing the sample text which
Participants are group of five workmates, aged from mid-thirties to mid-fifties
by using cooperative principle view. There are Harry, Keith, Steve (all
Anglo-Australians), John (a native speaker of Italian) and Jim (Scottish, with
a strong accent). Context: Launch break at a car factory, John has just
returned from his naturalization ceremony. The others have been congratulating
him, and asking him about ceremony. Therefore, it will help the reader to
improve the language they use or to be a motivation for the next researcher to
keep digging the knowledge of cooperative principle.
2. UNDERLYING THEORIES
a. The
general knowledge of cooperative principles and its maxims
In
the book entitled Pragmatics, George Yule provides us with the definition of
cooperative principle, i. e. make your conversational contribution such as is
required, as the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction
of the talk exchange in which you are engaged.
The
maxims
1)
Quantity
-
Make your contribution as informative as
is required (for the current purposes of the exchange)
-
Do not make your contribution more
informative than is required
2)
Quality
-
Do not say what you believe to be false
-
Do not say that for which you lack
adequate evidence
3)
Relation ( be relevance)
4)
Manner
-
Avoid obscurity of expression
-
Avoid ambiguity
-
Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity)
-
Be orderly
It is said that the
conversation would be most successful if the principle and these maxims would
be complied with. But people always violate this principle or these maxims,
which make the conversation partially successful or simply a failure, or
generate conversational implication.
b. The
cooperative principle’s functions
Barber
(2010: 106) states that a cross-disciplinary
examination of how Grice’s Cooperative Principle has been put into practice clearly
indicates that the Cooperative Principle has had tremendous appeal and
influence. It is precisely the Cooperative Principle’s flexibility and
context-dependent nature that makes it of such broad value. However, that same
flexibility and context-dependence has also generated a fair number of
critiques that cite lack of specificity and a too relativistic application to
discourse. Thus, it seems, the Cooperative Principle’s strength is also its
weakness. Certainly a great diversity of scholars has found the Cooperative
Principle of Discourse and its attendant Maxims of Conversational Cooperation
useful as analytical tools toward a variety of ends. It is doubtful, however, that
the notion of ‘cooperation’ among discourse participants will ever be universally
accepted.
Other
kinds of knowledge belong outside the language component, represented in terms
of principles of language use (Evan
2006: 230). This dichotomy between knowledge of language and use
of language, where only the former is modeled within the language component, is
consistent with the emphasis within formal approaches on the mental
representation of linguistic knowledge rather than situated language use.
c. The
application of cooperative principle
Ipsen states there are
cases, as you may know from your own experience, where even this cooperative
principle can be legitimately violated. Some lies are necessary due to cultural
conventions. In these speech acts one or more maxim is violated, however, since
both participants of the speech act recognize the violation the speech act as a
whole is seen to follow cooperative principles. The example given above belongs
to this type as, although the listener may not overtly recognize the violation,
he/she would potentially tolerate the violation. As such speech acts that
violate these maxims are seen to follow these principles indirectly.
We
all know such inconsistent sentences from our everyday experience. They derive
from the change of intention during the utterance. The change may be caused by
an internal reflection or by some external event, such as a frowning listener.
Nevertheless, when listening and talking we follow a cooperative principle,
which, in turn, places the text into an acceptable framework, even if
their surface structure neglects cohesion and coherence.
·
Maxim of quantity. If you are asked
something, you are expected to give neither too little nor too much
information. If you don't abide by this maxim, you will usually be regarded as
uncooperative. If your answer doesn't convey all of the information asked for,
the listener has incomplete data, whereas too much information distracts the
listener.
·
Maxim of relevance. Imagine asking
somebody: "What time is it?" and getting the answer: "I've been
to Switzerland three times." This answer clearly lacks all relevance in
the given context.
·
Maxim of manner. This refers to the importance
of details within the chronological order they are presented.
"First comes first" is a principle that is violated in the following
examples; the phrases that violate the maxim of manner are marked. "For
the station, you turn left at the next crossing. Then you walk for half a mile.
Down the street is a subway. Use it to cross the street. Turn left again. The
subway's walls are painted yellow. From that point, you'll be able to see
the station." "Germany is located in the center of Europe. You'll
find Hessen in the center of Germany. Kassel is a city in the north of Hessen.
There's a university in Kassel. Hessen is also famous for Frankfurt. At
Kassel University, there's a language department."
·
Maxim of quality. This maxim refers to
the truth or falseness of a statement. If a speech act lacks this principle, it
is a lie. Successful communication rests on the assumption that the other is
telling the truth, i.e. earnest about her/his statements. Hence this maxim is
the most important. It doesn't really matter if other maxims are violated, as
long as the quality of the speech act is assured. Note that the maxim of
quality refers to the conscientiousness of the speaker, in other words, it is
secondary if she/he is mistaken or not. A statement such as "I think Marx
was right" is qualified if the person really does think Marx was right;
the question then of whether Marx really was right or not is another subject
matter.
3.
DISCUSSION
Text. Mates
Participants: A group of five
workmates, aged from mid-thirties to mid-fifties.
Harry, Keith, Steve (all
Anglo-Australians), John (a native speaker of Italian) and Jim (Scottish, with
a strong accent)
Context: Launch break at a car
factory, John has just returned from his naturalization ceremony. The others
have been congratulating him, and asking him about ceremony.
Turn Speaker Text
(numbered of clauses)
NV1 John [eating
lunch]
1 Harry (i) You’ve got a mouthful of ……..
apple-pie there (ii) I know that.
(iii)
He can’t speak now (iv) even if he wanted to
[pause 2 secs].
(v)
You’re a guts Casher
(Violated maxim of quality: Harry didn’t
know what John had really got; He gave compliment with the word ‘guts’ /
‘brave’ only to know the truth of John)
2 John Oh yeah?
3 Keith (i) you are getting fat too. (ii)
You’d better watch that heart.
4 Harry (i) You know when you’re a – (ii)
when you become a bloody blackfella.
(iii) you gotta share all
these goodies with your bloody mates.
(Harry said blood blackfella, to avoid
some kind of direct speech which become a conflict. The blackfella is a slang
used by Australian which means dark skin, So he violated maxim manner)
5 John (i) Yeah? You want some?
6 Harry = (i) Your Aussie mates.
(ii) No no
(Aussie mates
mean the autism mates in Australian slang)
7 John (i) yeah?
8 Harry [while laughing] (i) I don’t want
any
9 Jim (i) It’s your mates. (ii) he
said
10 John (i)
Well. YOU want some?
NV2 Harry & [laughter]
Jim
[pause 2 secs]
11 John (i)
Well I went there (ii) and this eh this pretty girl come in,
(iii)
She’s beautiful
(Actually, the meaning of pretty and
beautiful are similar, however he still repeated those kinds of words, he
violated maxim of quantity, not informative than was required)
12 Steve [eating]
What she said?
13 John (i)
She said (ii) ‘come in’.(iii) started to talk, you know? (iv) she is
Italian. (v) Only this
big – (vi) she had beautiful eyes, mate. (this big…. And beautiful eyes are not
relevant. He violated maxim of relation) (vii) My wife Next me,
(viii) she is only talking to me (the word ‘only’ was really brief, he obeyed the maxim of
manner)
NV3 All [laughter]
14 John (i)
I said (ii) she can answer the question
15 Keith (i)
Was she Eyetalian. (ii) Eyetalian descent was she?
16 John (i)
Yeah. (ii) Oh, she’s been here ten years (iii) she said.
17 Steve (i)
She is naturalized too (was she?)
18 John (i)
she said (ii) “I’m I’m very happy here in Australia (iii) but only one
thing”,
(Violated
maxim of relation)
19 Keith (i)
What’d she wanted?
20 John (i)
She said (ii) ‘We got no relatives here’ (obeyed maxim of quantity)
21 Harry (i)
You should have told here (ii) to have some bambinos
(iii) and she can make
them herself (code
mixing using bambinos that means baby / young child in Italian, he violated
maxim of manner, not orderly)
22 John (i)
Well I think she’s married. (ii) She had a wedding ring on (iii) but
She said (iv)”it
is only Mum and Dad”
(Obscurity of expression, violated maxim
of manner)
23 Steve =
(i) You could help her out. (ii) Probably married an Aussie.
(Aussie here
means she got bad husband, violated manner maxim)
24 Harry (i)
Yeah she’s (got) [laughter]
25 John Oh
yeah [pause 3 secs]
26 Harry (i)
Oh, she’ll get over that, John
27 Steve (i)
I think she’s got no one to pay off the house = as well
28 Harry =
So what else did she have to say John?
29 John er
30 Harry (i)
you didn’t go in (ii) an’ just say that (iii) and knick off out again?
(violated maxim
of manner)
31 John (i)
She asked a lot of question (ii) they already asked not a lot of question
(iii)
You have to answer a lot of questions on the paper they give you
32 Steve (i)
Did they ask you about criminal records and all that sort of thing?
(Anything
disturbed John’s mind)
33 John Nope!
34 Steve No
35 Keith (i)
That would be wonderful (ii) if they ever asked me
36 Harry (i)
Just look at them. (ii) Look at the little
37 John (i)
No no (ii) I get angry (iii) because she seemed to be a British Subject- (iv) her
name was on her (v) there were some Vietnamese there (vi) and
They
were having a fucking big problem really.
(Violated maxim
of quantity)
38 Keith (i)
Mmm (ii) she must meet = a lot
39 Steve =
They find it really hard to understand
40 Keith Hard
even to understand
(the word ‘hard’
above showed that the violated maxim of manner)
41 Harry (i)
some pick it up like a piece of cake (ii) and others. Christ
(a piece of cake
here means something easy to do, he violated maxim of
Manner,
in that situation he should avoid ambiguity)
42 Steve Hmmm
43 Harry (i)
then you got Wallace Bing down the motor inn.
(ii)
been there for fifteen bloody years.
(violated
maxim of quantity, not
informative
as is required)
44 Keith And
he understood
45 Harry (i)
Look he doesn’t want to
46 Steve it’s
laziness though isn’t it?
47 Harry Yeah
48 Keith (i)
did you see (ii) the other day they they they discharged a jury (iii)
Because
the jurors the jurors couldn’t write English
(they they they :
violated maxim of quantity)
49 Harry =
( )
50 John Yeah?
51 Steve Noosa?
NV4 All [laughter]
52 Keith well
he he told me the day before (ii) that he was going going on jury
Service
(iii) and when I heard on radio (iv) that the jury had been
Discharged
(v) I thought (vi) it may have been him (vii) he said (viii)
It
wasn’t (ix) The bloke ( )
(Violated maxim
of quantity)
53 John He
was a Greek
54 Keith eh?
55 John He
was a Greek
56 Keith (i)
yeah (ii) the bloke pleaded guilty (iii) so they all got discharged
57 John Right
58 Harry
(i) how the bloody hell could they should they could call up a person
Like
that? (He
violated maxim on quantity)
59 John I
was called a couple of times
60 Keith I’ve
been once
61 John And
I never went up
62 Keith you
didn’t go at all?
63 John No
64 Keith (i)
Never appeared? (ii) Never got …….?
65 John (i)
No (ii) They they sent a letter back (iii) ‘don’t worry about it’
(he violated
maxim quantity [they they] and more informative)
66 Keith (i)
jesus, you are lucky (ii) it’s a two hundred dollars fine, Isn’t it?
(Violated maxim
of quality, he said what he believed to be false)
67 John No
= ( ) (obeyed
maxim of manner, be clear)
68 Harry =
(i) he didn’t have to front in the finish, (ii) that’s what you’re
saying
Isn’t
it?
69 John (i)
yeah (ii) I didn’t have to front (obeyed maxim of
relation)
70 Harry (i)
Gee I wish (ii) you’d speak bloody English bro (casher) (iii) so
people
could
understand you. = (iv) you want to be
(Gee is a general exclamation of surprise or frustration, and
the word
‘bloody’
are too redundant, he violated maxim of quantity)
71 Steve That’s probably why they discharged
him
NV5 All [Laughter]
72 Harry Yeah
73 Steve Couldn’t
write his letter properly
74 Harry another
dumb bloody wog
75 Steve yeah
another wog
(term "wog" may be employed either
aggressively or affectionately
within
differing contexts. They violated maxim
of manner, because it
contain
ambiguity)
76 Jim I
might go to these English classes
77 Harry (i)
that’s good idea Jim (ii) The best suggestion I’ve ever heard you make
all
this year. (iii) Then maybe we can understand you Jim. (iv) I don’t
know
(v) How Harry understand you
78 Jim who?
79 Harry Harry
80 Jim who
is Harry?
81 Harry Harry
Krishna!
NV6 All [laughter]
82 Keith (i)
who is Harry? (ii) Harry Krishna
83 Steve (
)
84 Harry (i)
didn’t you say? (ii) you were going there?
85 Jim (i)
I told you (ii)I’m I’m breaking away from them now
86 Keith ==
he is changed
87 Jim ==
I have changed
88 Harry ==
You gotta get away?
89 Steve ==
He is shaved his mo’ off
90 Harry (i)
Hmin (ii) He’s only getting too lazy to carry this upper lip around
(violated maxim
of manner, contained ambiguity)
91 Keith (i)
Harry Krishna (ii) Harry
92 Jim (i)
This tablecloth is good, isn’t it?
(violated maxim
of manner, contained ambiguity)
93 Keith (i)
Yeah it’ s Leah’s (ii) She can leave that behind (iii) when she goes
(iv)
but someone is going to have to take it home (v) and wash it
94 Jim I
will at a price
95 Keith (i)
Yeah (ii) Otherwise it stinks
96 Jim You
all put the cents each (ii) and I’ll wash it
97 Harry (i)
yeah (ii) well I’d say she’s hanging her around a few places (iii)
(seeing
her) (iv) I said to her yesterday (v) “I been to church a few times”
(vi)
she said (vii) “oh well I been all here”
NV7 All [laughter]
98 Jim (i)
did you did you hear that one? (ii) The point oh eight one?’
99 Steve (i)
No (ii) I didn’t hear that one
100 Jim (i)
Ope John
101 Harry (i)
that’s your story
102 John (i)
Oh you know it (ii) you know it now
103 Jim (i)
I keep getting it mixed up
104 Harry (i)
A fella coming home from the pub drunk every night (a man)
(ii)
calls his missus (wife)“point of five” (iii) one night she asked him
Why
(iv) And he said (v) “honey, you’re the first silly bag I [starts
laughing]
I
get into (vi) when I’m pissed – (vii) I blow in you”
NV8 All [laughter]
105 Harry (i)
silly enough to ask the question…. (ii) reminded me of my wife.
(iii)
she was bloody silly too
[pause 5 secs]
106 Harry (iv)
anyway I told her the one about the flannel
107 Jim (i)
YOU DIRTY BASTARD!
NV 9 Harry [laughter]
And?
The
notion of Cooperative Principle is relevant to the conversation in many ways.
First, the Cooperative Principle is one of major principles which guide
people’s communication. Second, the aim of communication is to improve people communicative
competence, and Cooperative Principle can have positive effect on communication.
Third, in order to work out the conversational implication it is necessary for the
people to master the basic knowledge of Cooperative Principle. As a result, the
Cooperative Principle can be applied to the conversation between workmates and
so on.
The
four maxims can be violated for various reasons, but only when they are
“flouted”, or violated blatantly, i.e. both the speaker and the hearer are
aware of the violation, does conversational implication occur. Violating the
maxims happened of conversational above are:
-
Maxim of quantity makes us make our
contribution as informative as is required for the current purpose of the exchange
and do not make our contribution more informative than is required. However, a
speaker violates the Quantity maxim and invites the hearer to consider the
conversational implication by saying more (that is, providing more information)
or less (providing less information) than is required. Let's see how the maxim
of quantity is flouted in the following examples:
John (i) Well I went there (ii) and
this eh this pretty girl come in,
(iii)
She’s beautiful
Analysis : He provided much information than the hearer needed. The
aim of his utterances was to show / make sure that the girl he met was really
really nice.
-
Maxim of quality requires us not to say
what we believe to be false and what we lack adequate evidence. The violation
of the Quality maxim is realized by saying things that are not true. The
following example is the analysis of conversational implications generated by
flouting the Quality Maxim of the Cooperative Principle. People often use
polite and indirect strategies to express their real meanings. Examples:
Harry : You’re a guts Casher
Analysis : Harry didn’t know what John had got;
He gave compliment by
the word ‘guts’ / ‘brave’ only to know the
truth / Indirect strategy
-
The violation of the Relation Maxim
means that the utterance of the speaker is irrelevant to the context for some
reasons. Some conversational implications are produced by violation of the
relation maxim. The speaker may not say anything explicitly related to the
topic of the conversation but invite the hearer to seek for an interpretation
of possible relevance. The following example can be used to analyze
conversational implications produced by the violation of Relation Maxim.
Steve : She is naturalized too, was she?
John : She
said “I’m I’m very happy here in Australia but only one thing.
This is a conversation
between workmates; John’s answer flouts the maxim of relation. What can we know
from John’s answer? He did not want to talk more about Steve’s topic.
-
The violation of the manner maxim means
giving obscure and ambiguous information. Below we analyze how the following
example violates the Manner Maxim that gives rise to conversational implications.
Harry : You should have told her to hsve some
bambinos (Baby)?
John : I think, she’s married. But she said it’s
only mum and dad
Here John intentionally breaks the maxim
of Manner by spelling out the word ‘only mum and dad’, and thereby conveys that
John would rather have a change mentioned indirectly to get the girl.
4.
CONCLUSION
Conversation
between mates has always been a drawback in the world though both speakers and hearers
consider it necessary to reinforce the communication. Practical Conversation is
confronted with many difficulties. As a cornerstone theory of pragmatics, the
Cooperative Principle is one of the major principles guiding people’s
communication. The principle and its maxims can neatly expound what is literary
meaning and its implication in communication. Applying the Cooperative
Principle in real communication can be conducive to developing communicative
competence. Unavoidably, limitations are guaranteed to exist in my study. Hence
I hope this will be overcome or supplemented through others’ deeper research
and exploration on the topic.
References
Barber,
Alex,. and Stainton, Robert J. 2010. Concise Encyclopedia of: Philosophy of
Language and Linguistics. Oxford: Elsevier Ltd
Evan,
Vyvyan., and Green, Melanie. 2006. Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction.
Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press
Ipsen,
Guido. The Interactive Multimedia Linguistics for Beginners Textbook. Universität Gesamthochschule Kassel
Yule,
George. 1996. Pragmatics. New York:
Oxford University Press
Zhou,
Mai. 2009. Cooperative Principles in Oral
English Teaching. Hangzhou: CCSE International Educates Study Journal
No comments:
Post a Comment