0
Anonymous Posted 15 years ago
Linguistics Studies
Grice's Conversational Implicature,infringing maxims?
Hello,
I'm a student and working on my project for pragmatics having some difficulties.
I'm analyzing a transcript of the TV show "How I Met Your Mother" by looking for conservational implicatures, which are responsible for the humurous effects.
Story of the scene:
Ted, the series' protagonist, is invited by his ex-girlfriend to an event. Since she is bringing a date, Ted's friend Barney sets him also up on a date in order to make Ted's ex-girlfriend feel jealous. For his own entertainment, Barney tells Ted that his date Mary is a prostitute, but in reality she is a paralegal. During the evening they realize that they both like each other and on the way to the hotel room they are having the conversation I will analyse.
Now obviously, during the conversation Ted has in mind that Mary is a prostitute, while Mary of course thinks that they both are aware that they are on a regular date.
With the help of Griece's theory I would like to analyze the following part:
Ted: I feel kinda like Richard Gere.
(infringing Maxim of Manner: Ambiguity?)
Mary: Not shy about your looks, are you?
(infringing Maxim of Relevance?)
Ted: You know, Mary, I've never ahhh done this before.
Mary: Done what?
Ted: You know. Been ---- on a "date"
(Infringing maxim of Manner, Ambiguity?)
Mary: Right ----- Wait, you're kidding right?
Ted: No. Why, is that ---- so odd?
Mary: Well, Ted, I have been going on dates since I was 15.
(Infringing maxim of Relevance?)
He refers to the movie Pretty Woman, in which Richard Gere plays the protagonist, who usually does not deal with prostitutes but after his wife leaves him he meets and invites the prostitute Vivian to his house and falls in love with her.
Now she thinks he refers to the actor Richard Gere, who is widely seen as a handsome actor by a wide range of women.
Now, since they both are violating maxims accidently, I don't think it's flouting a maxim, but infringing according to Griece. Is that true?
When Ted speaks about Richard Gere he is being ambiguous, isn't he? Otherwise Mary would not be infringing the maxim of relevance. This is my next question: Is she infringing the maxim of relevance in that moment? She is not flouting, because she answers to the question the way she understood the question, right?
Then the conversation goes on, when Ted says that he has never been on a "date". He means by the "date" to have sex with a prostitute (maybe a taboo topic for him , so he uses date). He once again infringes the maxim of manner, doesn't he? Then the answer "I had been going since I was 15" is infringing the maxim of Relevance, since she once again doesn't answer to his question, but to the one she thinks he has raised?
Our professor told us that students tend to "discover" often the maxim of Manner (espec. maxim of Ambiguity) when it is not there.
Thank you so much for your help!
Stephen
I'm a student and working on my project for pragmatics having some difficulties.
I'm analyzing a transcript of the TV show "How I Met Your Mother" by looking for conservational implicatures, which are responsible for the humurous effects.
Story of the scene:
Ted, the series' protagonist, is invited by his ex-girlfriend to an event. Since she is bringing a date, Ted's friend Barney sets him also up on a date in order to make Ted's ex-girlfriend feel jealous. For his own entertainment, Barney tells Ted that his date Mary is a prostitute, but in reality she is a paralegal. During the evening they realize that they both like each other and on the way to the hotel room they are having the conversation I will analyse.
Now obviously, during the conversation Ted has in mind that Mary is a prostitute, while Mary of course thinks that they both are aware that they are on a regular date.
With the help of Griece's theory I would like to analyze the following part:
Ted: I feel kinda like Richard Gere.
(infringing Maxim of Manner: Ambiguity?)
Mary: Not shy about your looks, are you?
(infringing Maxim of Relevance?)
Ted: You know, Mary, I've never ahhh done this before.
Mary: Done what?
Ted: You know. Been ---- on a "date"
(Infringing maxim of Manner, Ambiguity?)
Mary: Right ----- Wait, you're kidding right?
Ted: No. Why, is that ---- so odd?
Mary: Well, Ted, I have been going on dates since I was 15.
(Infringing maxim of Relevance?)
He refers to the movie Pretty Woman, in which Richard Gere plays the protagonist, who usually does not deal with prostitutes but after his wife leaves him he meets and invites the prostitute Vivian to his house and falls in love with her.
Now she thinks he refers to the actor Richard Gere, who is widely seen as a handsome actor by a wide range of women.
Now, since they both are violating maxims accidently, I don't think it's flouting a maxim, but infringing according to Griece. Is that true?
When Ted speaks about Richard Gere he is being ambiguous, isn't he? Otherwise Mary would not be infringing the maxim of relevance. This is my next question: Is she infringing the maxim of relevance in that moment? She is not flouting, because she answers to the question the way she understood the question, right?
Then the conversation goes on, when Ted says that he has never been on a "date". He means by the "date" to have sex with a prostitute (maybe a taboo topic for him , so he uses date). He once again infringes the maxim of manner, doesn't he? Then the answer "I had been going since I was 15" is infringing the maxim of Relevance, since she once again doesn't answer to his question, but to the one she thinks he has raised?
Our professor told us that students tend to "discover" often the maxim of Manner (espec. maxim of Ambiguity) when it is not there.
Thank you so much for your help!
Stephen
Top answer
Well, the interesting thing is that Grice himself is not very clear about the category Manner, which contains the maxim Be relevant . As far as I understand Grice, it is quite a good theory to explain how successful communication can be achieved, but to understand why we understand something which is not actually said (or, why we know what is implicated), I would check Relevance theory by Sperber and Wilson. In an article which they wrote, it is called On Grice theory of conversaton, they discuss such phenomena, especially why you run into problems when trying to analyze sentences like those described above.
- Well, the interesting thing is that Grice himself is not very clear about the category Manner, which contains the maxim Be relevant .
- As far as I understand Grice, it is quite a good theory to explain how successful communication can be achieved, but to understand why we understand something which is not actually said (or, why we know what is implicated), I would check Relevance theory by Sperber and Wilson.
- In an article which they wrote, it is called On Grice theory of conversaton, they discuss such phenomena, especially why you run into problems when trying to analyze sentences like those described above.
- Because you sometimes do not flout a maxim, nevertheless you want to imply something else, as in Well, this was not my best game.
- WIlson and Sperber show that the whole theory of Grice can be reduced to one important "maxim", and that is relevance.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
1 Answers
0
Well, the interesting thing is that Grice himself is not very clear about the category Manner, which contains the maxim Be relevant. As far as I understand Grice, it is quite a good theory to explain how successful communication can be achieved, but to understand why we understand something which is not actually said (or, why we know what is implicated), I would check Relevance theory
0
Related Questions