[Context: the two characters, Ben and Gus, have recently arrived in

Birmingham and are in the main room. Ben has told Gus to go to the
kitchen and make some tea. But Gus has not yet done so because
his attention keeps wandering to other]

1. BEN (slapping his hand) Don't waste them! Go on, go and light it.
2. GUS Eh?
3. BEN Go and light it.
4. GUS Light what?
5. BEN The kettle.
6. GUS You mean the gas.
7. BEN Who does?
8. GUS You do.
9. BEN (his eyes narrowing) What do you mean, I mean the gas?
10. GUS Well, that's what you mean, don't you? The gas.
11. BEN (powerfully) If I say go and light the kettle I mean go and light the
kettle.
12. GUS How can you light a kettle?
13. BEN It's a figure of speech! Light the kettle. It's a figure of speech!
14. GUS I've never heard it.
15. BEN Light the kettle! It's common usage!

(CP)

(3) The maxim of quantity. His use of the pronoun 'it' is perfectly clear in
context and Gus should be able to interpret Ben's conversational intent
without difficulty.

(4) The maxim of quantity is flouted as a surface level at a literal level

whereas at a deeper level or implied level, it is observed because when Gus
asks question for the reference of 'it' to be specified, it would appear that he is
being uncooperative and obstructive.

(6) The maxim of quantity is flouting by telling Ben something he clearly

already knows and this at the surface level whereas the deeper level there is
a conventional implicature because Gus's conversational behaviour indicates
that he is being obstructive and challenging.

(11) It is a metaphor on the basis of that is a figure of speech which violates

the maxim of quality. The deeper level, if he says 'light the kettle' he does not
mean 'light the kettle' but 'light [the gas under] the kettle', and speech
implicates that Ben wants Gus to do as he is told.

(12) He is abiding by the maxim of quality. At the surface meaning, you can't
literally light a kettle because it is made of material which is not combustible
under normal circumstances whereas the deeper level, it is difficult to believe
that Gus is not aware of the conventional implicature of Ben's utterance. It is
just about possible that Gus is not aware of the idiomatic expression he is
challenging.

(13) The maxim of quantity is flouting here by repeating 'It's a figure of

speech!' implicating his exasperation at Gus's behavior.

(14) The maxim of quality is violating by denying Gus that he knows this figure
of speech and this is at the surface level.

(15) The maxim of quantity in 15 is violating by repeating the contentious

expression and his 'figure of speech' characterization of it.

(SA)

(3)- Ben's utterance is a direct speech act with the Illocutionary function of request,
command with an explicit performative (go and light).

(4)- Gus's utterance is a direct speech act with the perlocutionary function of
question, with an explicit performative (what?).

(5)- Ben's utterance is a direct speech act with the Illocutionary function which is
representative with an explicit performative (kettle).

(6)- Gus's utterance is an indirect speech act with the perlocutionary function which is
representative with an implicit performative (You mean the gas.).

(7)- Ben's utterance is a direct speech act with the perlocutionary function of
question, with an explicit performative (Who does?).

(8)- Gus's utterance is a direct speech act with the Illocutionary function which is
representative with an explicit performative (you do).

(11)- Ben's utterance is an indirect speech act with the illocutionary function of
directive, with an implicit performative (If I say go and light the kettle I mean go and
light the kettle.).

(12)- Gus's utterance is a direct speech act with the perlocutionary function of
question with an explicit performative (denying).