4105165 Q33605 Language in the Limelight

Gricean Maxims and Politeness in Harold Pinters The Caretaker

In her stylistic analysis of modern drama, Deirdre Burton (1980) argues that the linguistic
frameworks used in the field of conversation analysis are suitable to be applied to dramatic
texts due to the performative element that is inherent within them. Modern play texts are
written in a style imitating naturally occurring speech because, whether or not the production
is intended to be naturalistic, the narrative will take the form of spoken conversation in
performance. However she warns against assuming that play texts operate in exactly the same
way; plays are unlikely to contain the hesitation-phenomena, repetitions, false starts and
stammers that characterise almost any transcript of naturally occurring talk. (4) Despite this,
the performative element allows the reader or viewer to relate the language used in a text, or
by an author, to the conventions of the language as a whole (5). Burtons argument is sound
and thereby gives the justification for the use of conversational techniques in the analysis of
drama texts.
I propose to examine an extract from Harold Pinters The Caretaker in relation to Gricean
maxims (1957), with some reference to Brown and Levinsons (1957) theory regarding
politeness and face. Grice (1957) put forward the notion that meaningful conversation is
governed by a mutually understood inter-personal and social contract (Herman, 1995: 173)
that ensures rational and effective communication between speakers. Grice (1957) refers to
this mutual understanding as The Cooperative Principle (45). The adherence to this principle
distinguishes meaningful conversation from a succession of disconnected remarks (45).
Grice (1957) organised this principle into a set of four rules or maxims that underpin
successful, cooperative conversation: quantity, quality, relation, manner.
The maxim of quantity denotes that a contribution must be no more or less informative than is
required for the current purposes of the exchange (Grice, 1957: 45).

4105165 Q33605 Language in the Limelight

The maxim of quality denotes that a speakers contribution must be truthful, although Grice
(1957) supplements this with two other maxims: say neither what you believe to be false nor
that for which you lack adequate evidence (1957:46).
The maxim of relation requires a speaker simply to make contributions that are relevant to the
conversation, although Grice (1957) admits that relevance is subjective and changeable within
an exchange.
The maxim of manner, unlike the other three, concerns HOW what is said is to be said (46).
This demands a speaker communicates in a manner that is neither obscure nor ambiguous.
Contributions must be brief and orderly.
As Burton (1980) points out, often the more informative moments in theatrical dialogue are
created when the cooperative principle is not adhered to, when the maxims are flouted.
Herman (1995) supports this idea, recognising that in dramatic discourse these maxims can be
violated specifically in order to generate what Grice (1957) termed implicatures (54).
Deliberately uncooperative behaviour implies specific meaning, which must be interpreted by
the receiver and, in the context of theatrical performance, the viewer. I will focus on these
moments in the extract and interpret the meanings suggested.
As a secondary and related insight into the exchanges in Pinters text, I will examine the
dialogue with regard to politeness. Brown and Levinsons (1987) concept of politeness is
thought to govern the nature of spontaneous discourse in a similar way to Grices (1957)
maxims. Indeed Herman (1995) suggests that politeness is a maxim to supplement (190)
Grices. It is based on the concept of face, the outward projection of self that has two needs
to be unimpeded (negative face)and to be approved of by other participants (positive face)
(Birch, 1991:60). As with Grices (1957) maxims, utterances that do not preserve the
receivers face (a face threatening act (Brown & Levinson, 1987: 12)) are of great interest for
they divulge important relationship information.
An examination of The Caretaker in terms of the cooperativeness of its dialogue yields some
fascinating insights into how Pinter constructs the taut and uncomfortable atmosphere

4105165 Q33605 Language in the Limelight

throughout the play. It is through the interaction of the characters and the establishment and
maintenance of their relationships with one another that meanings can be derived and
emotions can be conveyed to the audience.
Quigley (1975) argues that it is often the negotiation of these relationships that is central to
the linguistic function at issue here (54). He coins the term interrelational (54) to describe
the language used by Davies and Mick, who are preoccupied with a particular kind of concern
for the relationship in which they are involved (54).
More specifically, Pinters characters relationships are determined through a particular and
complex series of linguistic abnormalities; I label them abnormalities in the sense that there
are many deviations from what would be considered by Grice (1957) as ordered, cooperative
dialogue. According to Burton (1980), it is the deviance from linguistic norms that makes a
stylistic approach to dramatic texts so profitable in terms of the meanings generated (6).
This scene is particularly important and valuable as it is their first meeting, therefore the
preliminary establishment of their relationship dynamic. The viewer is at first conscious of the
tension in the interrelational exchanges between the two characters, despite there being no
explicitly menacing language used: Mick does not threaten Davies, demand an explanation of
his presence in his house or order him to leave. However, the uncooperative patterns of
language used by Mick serve the same purpose of alienating and overpowering Davies as an
explicit verbal attack. However, arguably the effect is much more powerful because it is
concealed in the linguistic structures he uses, rather than in the explicit content of the
utterances.
Encoding meaning in the structure of language is a defining feature of Pinters texts as Martin
Esslin (1970) points out: there is a complete contradiction between the words that are spoken
and the emotional and psychological action which underlies them (197). Herman (1995)
theorises that what is said by a speaker in a context of communication is generally
underdetermined in relation to what is meant (177). The discrepancy between the locution
and the illocutionary force (Herman, 1995) is much more pronounced in Pinters text and this

4105165 Q33605 Language in the Limelight

effect is achieved, amongst other techniques, by the staging of uncooperative and impolite
discourse. The flouting of maxims indicate that there is an underlying subtext to Micks words;
he is constantly implying secondary, more sinister meanings through apparently banal and
meaningless utterances such as Whats your name? (see appendix: turn 3).
Herman (1995) goes on to state that what is said forms the basis, merely, for the hearer to
work out, infer, what the speaker intends by the expression used (177). However what is
most disconcerting (for Davies and for the audience) is that it is unclear what the implied
meanings, or illocutionary force, of Micks utterances are; we dont know why he is breaking
the maxims, so the audience are put in the same position as Davies: trying to interpret his
unclear implicatures.
This positioning of the audience in this state of uncertainty is instrumental in enacting the
transition from text to performance as it creates curiosity on the viewers part: we, like Davies,
desire to know Micks motivations and reasoning. Similarly we desire to know the truth of
Davies identity and his status in society. The uncooperative dialogue provokes this interest,
leading us to expect that the implied meanings of the three characters will be made clear by
the end of the play. However as is so characteristic of Pinter, at the curtain the viewer is still
kept in the same position of uncertainty that Davies exhibits in this scene.
This uncertainty of meaning is sustained throughout, creating a sense of otherness in Davies
and the viewers perception of Mick, thereby creating an atmosphere of tension and fear. We
observe as Davies, himself not being openly communicative, grapples with the implicatures of
Micks uncooperative speech and trying to determine the right response. One interpretation is
that Davies fears being exposed as a fraud having exploited Astons kindness by lying about
himself, his employment situation, his identity and his motives concerning his lodging in the
room.
The general structure of the extract I have chosen appears to be that of an interrogation,
although the questions that Mick poses to Davies are mundane and yet unusual for the
particular situation. However Davies clearly feels agitated and this is in some part due to his

4105165 Q33605 Language in the Limelight

entrance, which occurs just before the extract starts. Mick enters the room and, finding Davies
investigating Astons possessions, wrestles him to the floor without saying a word. This might
be seen as normal behaviour seeing as it is Micks house and Davies is a stranger. However,
Mick then circles the room in silence, inspecting various objects before sitting and asking
Davies Whats the game? (Pinter, 1960: 31). The ambiguity of the utterance that frames this
scene designates it as a flout of the maxim of manner: it is not clear what game Mick refers
to nor what kind of response he desires from Davies. This flout clearly has the effect of
confusing and alienating Davies (as well as the viewer) for he can muster no response
whatsoever. The silence directed by the stage directions at the beginning of the scene indicate
Davies complete inability to respond to Micks utterance, which is too ambiguous to allow for
any meaningful and cooperative conversation to follow.
When pressed by Micks insistence in turn 1, Davies finally responds with the threefold
repetition of nothing. The repetition draws attention to the meaninglessness of Davies
utterance; Micks obscure question has left him with no adequate response to give, therefore
his only option is to prolong the obscurity. What is important to note here is that, despite his
inability to do so with any meaning, Davies does give a response rather than risk threatening
Micks negative face by asking for clarification of the question. This is the first indication of
Davies linguistic subservience because he ascribes to the question-answer structure that Mick
instigates, even though he doesnt have a suitable response. This places Mick firmly in the
position of power, as he can now dictate both the pattern of turns and the topics to be
discussed.
This strangeness created by Micks first flout is amplified by his next question in turn 3; Mick
doesnt, as one might expect in the situation, immediately try to ascertain why there is a
stranger in his house, he simply desires to know Davies name. The questions seem unnatural
and out of place, which adds to the uncertainty over Micks knowledge of Davies as it suggests
that he already knows why and how he has come to be in the room and that the only gaps in
his knowledge are details such as his name. This prior knowledge is similarly implied by the
lack of politeness strategies in turn 3, which suggests that Mick knows he can subjugate

4105165 Q33605 Language in the Limelight

Davies, perhaps because of his lower social standing. Here Mick does not seek to preserve
Davies negative face, as one might expect when speaking to a stranger, perhaps by
introducing himself first or apologising in order to atone for the inconvenience caused by his
request for identification (Birch, 1991).
As is so characteristic of Pinters oeuvre, it is not through the content of the utterances in
which the most important information is conveyed (Silverstein, 1993). Rather it is the flouting
of maxims that generates the implicature (Herman, 1995) that Mick has more information
about the situation he is in than expected, that he doesnt need Davies to tell him why or how
he has come to be in the room, as he already knows. The unequal power relationship, which is
integral in creating tension and intrigue in the play, is therefore a direct result of Micks
linguistic dominance, which is achieved (amongst other techniques) by flouting Grices (1957)
maxims.
The dominance of Micks linguistic structure is made evident by the next exchange (turns 3-6).
Davies attempts to impose himself linguistically by refusing to accede to Micks request for
identification, thereby flouting the maxim of relation. However his attempt to reverse the
situation, and thereby the power share, is weak; he cant manage to redirect the question
(Whats your name?) directly back at Mick, simply stating that he doesnt know him (Pinter,
1960: 32). Through this statement Davies is bringing to light his own lack of shared knowledge
in the situation, which puts him in a weaker position and allows him to be exploited (Birch,
1991: 60). Davies weakness is so that even in his attempt to assert himself he remains the
subject of discussion, thereby preserving and fortifying the interrogative structure established
by Mick. Quigley (1975) identifies this as a recurring phenomenon in the play, arguing that he
is a victim of his own verbal abilities (171). Ultimately the attempt to gain more power
through uncooperative speech fails; Davies is not socially powerful enough to impose his own
linguistic structure or to hijack Micks, therefore he remains in charge of turn-taking and topic
management. Turn 5 is simply a linguistic cue for Davies to answer Micks previous question,
an insistence of his dominance in the exchange. Turns 3-6 constitute the unsuccessful use of a
deliberate maxim flout by Davies.

4105165 Q33605 Language in the Limelight

There is an interesting flout of the maxim of quality in the next turn when Davies finally
answers Micks question, but rather than give his real name, he uses his assumed identity,
Jenkins. Weve learnt in a previous scene that Davies found an insurance card bearing this
name and he uses this instead of his own papers, which he left with a bloke in Sidcup
(Pinter, 1960: 17) according to the myth that he perpetrates throughout. By saying that which
he knows to be untruthful, Davies communicates to the audience a sense of fear that drives
him to hide behind an identity that is not his. Davies projects a false sense of social standing in
order that he might gain greater respect and power from Mick because of it, however it does
not have the desired effect. Rather, Mick focuses on the name given to him, repeating it for
confirmation in turn 7, and to imply an unclear meaning in turn 9. Mick, who we can deduce
knows more about this situation than is to be expected, revisits the topic of Davies name
twice more in turns 13-17 and shortly after my extract ends. This would suggest that Mick
knows that Davies has not revealed his true identity, which becomes a central theme of the
play and a source of tension between all three characters. Similarly, from Davies standpoint,
there is a sense of fear that his true identity, and thus his uselessness, will be revealed and his
tenancy in the room terminated.
By repeatedly asking Davies name, Mick flouts the maxim of manner since on the surface
[repetitions] appear unnecessary prolix (Culpeper & Kyt, 2010: 143). Mick deliberately flouts
the maxim here to generate the implicature that he has no papers in Sidcup (Quigley, 1975:
169-70). By constantly referring to his identity, we can interpret between them a shared
knowledge (Herman, 1995: 238) that Davies is lying about who he is; that he is simply a
conniving tramp (Quigley, 1975: 167) and that he is exploiting the kindness of Aston by
passing himself off as someone who he is not. This gives Mick complete control in the
conversation because Davies fears being exposed as a user and expelled from his newfound
lodgings. Again Micks level of knowledge is not made clear, but the fact that we can interpret
that he has an ulterior motive for behaving in this strange way, by dominating Davies through
uncooperative and repetitious speech, creates tension and intrigue for the viewer. By

4105165 Q33605 Language in the Limelight

deliberately flouting the maxim of manner he interrogates Davies truthfulness in the
conversation and therefore his level of cooperation.
Turns 9 to 12 continue to follow in the established question-answer structure, cementing
Micks dominant role as turn and topic manager. Davies position as subordinate is confirmed
by his limitation to single word affirmative answers. By now he has become totally subjugated
by Micks linguistic patterning. Mick then makes an exaggerated use of positive politeness
strategies towards Davies in turn 13. The expression of joy at meeting Davies and gladness
that he has been able to sleep well would normally be read as appeals to his positive face.
However, given the uncooperative and impolite course of dialogue that has preceded it, these
sentiments are totally out of place. This suggests then that the maxim of quality is again being
flouted for particular implicature and that in fact, Mick is not pleased to have met Davies at all
and that he harbours a particular dislike for him, which Quigley (1975) suggests is connected
with his disappointment with his brother. Instead of having the expected effect, the use of
exaggerated politeness strategies in the conversational context invert their meaning, resulting
in a positive face threatening act.
The interrogative structure then resumes through the next turns until Micks long, rambling
monologue in turn 17. In terms of turn length, this is by far the longest in the scene apart
from a similarly long and pointless monologue later on. Mick takes no precaution to warn
Davies of his longer turn or request the floor for this extended period of time as it might be in
a more equal relationship (Herman, 1995). Instead he simply begins his long-winded story,
which is an evident flout of the maxim of relation, as the only connection is that Davies
reminds Mick of his uncles brother, the subject of the story. There are clearly more pertinent
matters to be discussed than this given the unique context. Similarly he flouts the maxim of
quantity, for Mick communicates this singular, irrelevant point through 13 lines of rambling,
non-linear description about his uncles eccentricities. Indeed so bizarre is the story that its
truthfulness is thrown into question. Much more likely than it being true is that Mick is simply
stringing out the story to exercise his dominance, his self-imposed right to tell this long story,
in order to alienate Davies. Despite there being no point to the story, Davies has no choice but

4105165 Q33605 Language in the Limelight

to be subject to it because Mick has completely commandeered the lines of communication.
The pause that follows this speech confirms Davies complete subjugation: he has been left
devoid of all communicative means.
The examination of the cooperation, or rather its lack, in this scene is particularly productive
as it reveals how Mick establishes his dominance over Davies, who is rendered completely
powerless in terms of his linguistic ability. Davies becomes subjected to Micks overpowering
linguistic structures as a result of Micks refusal to partake in cooperative dialogue, instead
forcing Davies to conform to his interrogative style of discourse. This gives Mick total social
power over Davies, a position that he maintains throughout the play by regularly flouting
Grices (1957) conversational maxims as well as committing face threatening acts (Brown &
Levinson, 1987).
Word Count: 3144

Bibliography
Birch, D. (1991). The Language of Drama: Critical theory and practice. London: Macmillan.

4105165 Q33605 Language in the Limelight

Brown, G. and Yule, G. (1983). Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, J. R. (1972). Theatre Language: A Study of Arden, Osborne, Pinter and Wesker.
London: Allen Lane The Penguin Press.
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Burton, D. (1980). Dialogue and Discourse: A sociolinguistic approach to modern drama
dialogue and naturally occurring conversation. London: Routledge.
Culpeper, J. and Kyt, M. (2010). Early Modern English Dialogues: Spoken Interaction as
Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Esslin, M. (1970). The Peopled Wound: The plays of Harold Pinter. London: Methuen.
Evans, G. L. (1977). The Language of Modern Drama. London: J. M. Dent & Sons.
Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the Way of Words. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation, in P. Cole and J.L. Morgan (eds), Syntax and
Semantics III: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press: 41-58.
Herman, V. (1995). Dramatic Discourse: Dialogue as interaction in plays. London: Routledge.
Pinter, H. (1960). The Caretaker. London: Methuen.
Quigley, A. (1975). The Pinter Problem. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Silverstein, M. (1993). Harold Pinter and the Language of Cultural Power. London: Associated
University Presses.
Toolan, M. (2001). Narrative: A critical linguistic introduction. London: Routledge.
Trussler, S. (1973). The Plays of Harold Pinter: An Assessment. London: Victor Gollancz.

10

4105165 Q33605 Language in the Limelight

Appendix:
A few seconds later.
Mick is seated, Davies on the floor, half seated, crouched.
Silence
1. MICK. Well?
2. DAVIES. Nothing, nothing. Nothing.
A drip sounds in the bucket overhead. They look up. MICK looks back to DAVIES.
3. MICK. Whats your name?
4. DAVIES. I dont know you. I dont know who you are.
Pause
5. MICK. Eh?
6. DAVIES. Jenkins.
7. MICK. Jenkins?
8. DAVIES. Yes.
9. MICK. Jenkins.
Pause
You sleep here last night?
10. DAVIES. Yes.
11. MICK. Sleep well?
12. DAVIES. Yes.
13. MICK. Im awfully glad. Its awfully nice to meet you.
Pause.
What did you say your name was?
14. DAVIES. Jenkins.
15. MICK. I beg your pardon?
16. DAVIES. Jenkins!
Pause.
17. MICK. Jenkins.
A drip sounds in the bucket. DAVIES looks up.
You remind me of my uncles brother. He was always on the move, that man. Never
without his passport. Had an eye for the girls. Very much your build. Bit of an athlete.
Long-jump specialist. He had a habit of demonstrating different run-ups in the drawingroom round about Christmas time. Had a penchant for nuts. Thats what it was. Nothing
else but a penchant. Couldnt eat enough of them. Peanuts, walnuts, brazil nuts, monkey
nuts, wouldnt touch a piece of fruit cake. Had a marvellous stop-watch. Picked it up in
Hong Kong. The day after they chucked him out of the Salvation Army. Used to go in
number four for Beckenham Reserves. That was before he got his Gold Medal. Had a
funny habit of carrying his fiddle on his back. Like a papoose. I think there was a bit of
the Red Indian in him. To be honest, Ive never made out how he came to be my uncles
brother. Ive often thought that maybe it was the other way round. I mean that my uncle
was his brother and he was my uncle. But I never called him uncle. As a matter of fact I
called him Sid. My mother called him Sid too. It was a funny business. Your spitting
image he was. Married a Chinaman and went to Jamaica.
Pause.

11