TRANSYLVANIA UNIVERSITY BRASOV FACULTY OF LANGUAGES AND LITERATURES DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH

PRAGMATICS
Conversational principle - cooperation in a dialogue taken from Gilmore Girls

Maria Bungu 3rd year, EF

Brasov 2009

[Richard hears from his mother at Friday night dinner.] Line 1 Line 2 Line 3 Line 4 Line 5 Line 6 Line 7 Line 8 Line 9 Line 10 Line 11 Emily: [So] you were on the phone Richard: Long distance. Lorelai: God? Richard: London. Lorelai: God lives in London? Richard: My mother lives in London. Lorelai: Your mother is God? Richard: Lorelai Lorelai: So, God is a woman. Richard: Lorelai Lorelai: And a relative! That's so cool. I am gonna totally ask for favors.

1. Introduction

In this paper I am going to analyse a piece of conversation taken from the sitcom Gilmore Girls, from the point of view of the cooperation conversation principle and, to various extends, from the speech act theory point of view where this approach can be applied in order to underline a certain idea or to highlight a point made by means of the cooperation conversation principle analysis. The aim of this analysis is to show how a conversation can evolve when the maxims of cooperation are not respected and to see the dynamics of a conversation when implicatures are made.

2. Analysis

First of all, it is important to mention the fact that the analysis will give only a general view of what it is communicated and implied by the participants in the dialogue, taken into consideration that it is used a single pragmatic point of view. Furthermore, one should take into account the fact that the fragment analysed is a transcript of an oral interaction and that there are details like intonation or issues of body language which might be omitted when dealing with a written text.

2.1.Conversational implicature: implicatures and inferences

When discussing cooperation in relation to conversational principle, an issue which must be taken into account is that of implicatures and inferences. In his theory of implicature, Grice explains that, in a conversation, there is a certain distance between the level of expressed meaning and the level of implied meaning. Moreover, these two notions of implicature and inference are related to the verbs to imply and to infer. The term implicature is used when a speaker generates a meaning which goes beyond the semantic level of the words or in other words, when he implies something somehow different then what it is actually uttered. The term inference is the correspondent of implicature and represent the meaning deduced by the hearer which may be the same or different to the meaning implied by the speaker.

Lets take for instance the first 7 lines in our dialogue. Emily is asking indirectly, by means of an assertion, to whom Richard had been speaking on the phone. Consequently, Richard answers long distance. So, the implicature in the first line is that Emily asked for some information related to the phone call and Richard deduced it and answered accordingly. Another example of implicature and inference is given by the exchange of lines from line 2 to line 7. Richard and Lorelais subject of conversation is Richards previous phone call. Richards laconic answers create a context favourable for the analysis of implicatures and inferences. By Lorelais question in line 3 God? it is implied that if someone is talking on the phone and it is long distance, then it must be God. In the next line, Richard is being receptive to Lorelais question, and joke, answering London, somehow explaining that long distance meant in fact London and thus showing that he deduced what Lorelai implied, this being another example of inference. The next exchange of lines, from line 5 to line 7 continues the same pattern. Lorelai continues to ignore the information given by Richard and she manipulates it, whereas Richard, with his answers, tries to keep the conversation on a serious level. This piece of conversation is an example of how a speaker can understand what a certain phrase implies and still continue to act and speak like he does not deduced the implicature, which is the case of Lorelai. As for Richard, we can say that his inferences are well made and not only do they offer some relevant information, but they also sustain Lorelais joke. It is important to mention the fact that the two participants in this dialogue, Richard and Lorelai have different approaches to the conversation. Richard has a rather serious tone, while Lorelai tries to make a joke and this mismatching between implicatures and inferences contributes to the development of the joke, even though it is possible that this was not Richards intention. Another example which illustrates the issue of implicature and inference is the exchange of lines from line 7 to line 11. When Lorelai asks Richard if his mother was God, she probably expected a yes/no answer. Instead, Richard answers with an expressive Lorelai... which suggests a feeling of annoyance. From Lorelais line we may deduced that she considered Richards answer a yes to her question taking into consideration that her line So, God is a woman seems like a confirmation of an already stated idea. Lorelai deliberately deduced that Richards mother is God, which is an inference that does not correspond to Richards implicature, and thus Lorelai is able to make her next assumption, which is that God is a woman. The next lines somehow repeat the same pattern. Instead of denying what Lorelai is asserting, Richard uses again an expressive and Lorelai continues making deductions, which

in the end give a hilarious tone to the conversation. Lorelais inference is the same, which is that Richard approves of what she is saying. In this way she continues her game, concluding that God is a relative and that she can ask for favours. By using a syllogism and by deliberately assuming that her inferences correspond to Richards implicatures, although it is not the case, Lorelai makes a joke and creates a funny atmosphere.

2.2.Co-operative principles

Paul Grices theory also includes the four conversational maxims which should be obeyed by the participants of the conversation in order to produce a comprehensive message, understandable by the speaker and the hearer. The maxims proposed by Grice represent a way to link what it is uttered to what is understood from a specific utterance. In a conversation, listeners and speakers should cooperate and mutually accept one another to be understood in a particular way. The principle describes how effective communication in conversation can be achieved in common social situations. The four maxims are the maxim of quality, of quantity, of relevance and of manner. The maxim of quality states that a speaker must be truthful, only saying what he or she believes to be true or what he or she has evidence for. The maxim of quantity is related to the amount of information given in a conversation. The speakers contribution should be as informative as it is required for the purpose of the exchange and any further informative contributions should be avoided. The maxim of relevance explains that one should make his or her contribution relevant to the interaction and should also indicate where this contribution is not relevant. As for the maxim of manner, it states that the speaker ought to be clear, avoid obscurity of expression, ambiguity, that he or she should be brief and orderly. If we take the cooperative principles in order to analyse our dialogue we will see that not all the maxim will function and that in some cases it is not just a matter of ignoring the maxims but more of avoiding them with a special purpose. In these situations we may speak about flouting the maxims, which represents a way of sending, indirectly, a message. Lets take for instance the first 2 lines. Emilys line is an assertion but with the function of an interrogative so it is obvious that she wants to know to whom did Richard spoke on the phone.

In this light, we can see that Richards answer long distance does not obey the maxim of quantity, because he does not mention the persons name but rather where he or she is from. So he is giving extra information. As for the maxim of quality, we can say that it is respected because Richard is the person who spoke on the phone and he must know whether his interlocutor lives or does not live somewhere near. The maxim of relation is not respected also. Richard is not being relevant and instead of mentioning the name of his interlocutor he mentions something related to the place where he or she lives. Finally, the maxim of manner is not respected and we can also say that it is a case of flouting the maxim. Even though Richard is being brief, he offers an ambiguous answer and we can presuppose that his obscurity of expression has a reason. As we read the whole dialogue, we could see that in a way Richard is trying to avoid saying that he spoke to his mother. Another hint could be the fact that Emily did not ask him information about the phone call directly, but rather by using an indirect speech act. In the next exchange of lines between Lorelai and Richard (line 3 and 4) we can see that the maxims work in a similar way. When Lorelais was asking if God was on the phone, Richard could have answer yes or no. But not only that he did not answered properly to Lorelais questions, flouting the maxim of relation, but he also gave more information that asked, flouting the maxim of quantity. The maxim of quality is the only maxim respected, whereas the maxim of manner is again flouted, because Richard continues to give laconic answer and to be ambiguous. We can see that this pattern, of obeying the maxim of quality and flouting the other three, repeats itself until line 7 and I would not say that this is a coincidence. We already decided that flouting the maxim of manner is related to the fact that Richard tries to avoid to say that he had spoke to his mother. Flouting the maxim of quantity is again a way of being more or less obscure, especially when one gives information which was not needed or asked for. As for flouting the maxim of relation, it is obvious that it is done on purpose. Richard is giving only contiguous information (not false, indeed, in order to obey the maxim of quality) and his intention is not that of being relevant, but to discuss as less as possible about his mother. In the lines that follow, from line 7 to line 11 this pattern somehow changes. Richards answers are not giving information anymore, so it can be said that the maxim of quantity is being flouted. As for the maxim of quality, one cannot say that Richards answers were true

or false or that what he said was lacking evidence. In this case the maxim of quality cannot be observed. For the maxim of relation, we can say that the degree of irrelevancy of Richards answers suggests the fact that this maxim is also flouted. The maxim of manner is also flouted, because by not giving an adequate answer to Lorelais questions, answer which might have been yes or no, Richard creates ambiguity. He is indeed brief, but the brevity of his answer is not enough for obeying the maxim of manner. It is important to add to this discussion the fact that Richards answer in line 8 and 10 is in fact an expressive, a speech act that state a feeling or a psychological state of the speaker and it is rarely transmitting that kind of information necessary for the maxims to work and to be obeyed. This can be one explication for which in this exchange of lines the maxims are being flouted or cannot be observed. Furthermore, we can notice that, by using this expressive Lorelai... the attitude of Richard toward Lorelai is changing, from being somehow cooperative and giving some information, to not being cooperative at all. However, it can also be said that this lack of cooperation served the purpose of Lorelais joke. 3. Conclusion To summarize, it is necessary to mention that this present analysis is not an exhaustive one due to the fact that it is made only from the point of view of the cooperative conversational principle, with very few references to the speech act theory. The outcome of this analysis shows the fact that in an everyday conversation it is possible to ignore or to deliberately flout the maxims of cooperation and still making sense and contributing to the conversation, even though not in an informative manner. Furthermore, I have to emphasize the importance of an interdisciplinary approach to this type of analysis, which is the analysis of a fragment from a movie, because some other different approaches may bring extra information based on the examination of elements of body language, intonation and other non-verbal details.