Introduction to Linguistics

1
Social Context of English

Social Context of English

The objectives of this module are:
1. To understand the Cooperative Principle;
2. To know how to apply the Gricean Maxims in daily conversation;
3. To appreciate the importance of the Politeness Theory; and,
4. To enhance the use of language to put ideas, opinions and feelings across
more effectively.

Grice's Cooperative Principle

The idea of implicature was first introduced by Paul Grice (1975) as the
solution to the issue of meaning which is not included in semantics. It is not
enough to use semantics to fully understand the meaning of utterances. To
understand exactly what is meant by the speaker in expressing the
utterances in a conversation, it is very essential to understand the idea
of implicature.

When conversing with people, the utterances created by either the speaker
or listener contains explicit and implicit meaning. Explicit meaning can be
worked out both by predicting the semantic meaning of the words within the
conversation and by recognizing the syntactic structure of the language
applied in the conversation. On the other hand, the rules of semantics and
syntactic of the language is not enough to recognize the implicit meaning in a
conversation. Therefore, the idea of implicature was introduced. According to
Brown and Yule (1983) implicature is used to analyze what is suggested and
meant by the speaker as a different thing from what was actually said
explicitly.

Furthermore, Grice (1975) asserts that there are two types of implicature,
these are: conventional implicature and conversational implicature. The
difference between them is that the former relies on something other than
Chapter 6
what is the truth-conditional in the conversational use, or meaning, of
particular form of expression, whereas the latter draws from a set of more
general principles which regulate the proper conduct of conversation.

So as to gain better understanding about the difference between

conventional and conversational implicature, observe the following
examples:

Beth was promoted and James was pleased

Beth was promoted but James was pleased.

The distinction between the two utterances above is in the conjunction “and”
and “but”. In the former, the conjunction “and” means that the promotion of
Beth makes James happy. In the latter, the conjunction “but” shows
contradiction, as a result, it can mean that Beth’s promotion makes James
unhappy. By knowing the different meaning between conjunctions “and” and
“but” properly, we easily recognize the clear meaning of the utterances since
the meanings are exactly the same with the meanings of the structure of the
utterances. This is referred to as conventional implicature.

Conversational implicature, on the one hand, has several meanings since

understanding the meaning of the utterance relies very much on the context
in which the utterance arises. The conversational implicature occurs as a
result of the strength of the cooperative principle. A conversational
implicature is, thus, something which is implied in conversation, specifically,
something which is left implicit in actual language use. Observe the example
of conversational implicature below:

A: Has Bert arrived?

B: There is a white car in the garage.

B’s answer for A’s question contains an implicature that Bert usually drives a
white car; B has noticed that there is a white car in the garage, which Bert
regularly drives. For that reason, B concludes that John has arrived.

Grice's (1975) Cooperative Principle concept describes how we infer hidden

meanings in ordinary conversations and how to use this to dramatic
conversations.
Grice says that when we communicate we assume, without realizing it, that
the people involved in communication will be conversationally cooperative
choosing to cooperate to attain mutual conversational goals.
In our everyday life a person unconsciously communicates with others in
various ways such as language, gestures and expressions. In communication
people anticipate to give or share information with others. So that
conversation is understood by the speaker and the hearer, there has to be a
general principle of language use, which is known as the cooperative
principle. (Meyer, 2009) The principle maintains that the speaker provides
contribution in conversation in which the speaker is engaged. This
cooperative principle includes four groups which are expressed as basic
rules or maxims. A maxim is a set of norms which language users abide by to
 Introduction to Linguistics
3
Social Context of English

sustain the effectiveness and efficiency of communication. These four

maxims are the maxim of quantity, maxim of quality, maxim of relation or
relevance, and maxim of manner.

Maxim of quantity expects that the speaker’s contribution be as informative

as is needed and no more informative than is needed. We have below some
examples of utterances that abide by the maxim of quantity and one that
violates the maxim:

Example of obeying:
A: “Where are you off to?”
B: “I’m going to the supermarket.”

In the example, B gives comments to A’s statement without having to add

other information. It provides the most helpful amount of information.

Example of a violation:
A: “Are you going to the office tomorrow?”
B: “My daughter is sick, so I have to bring her to her pediatrician. I have asked
my boss for permission.”

In this example, B’s reply violates maxim of quantity because B does not
provide information as needed by A, i.e. a simple yes or no. Instead, B offers
more information which is not needed or asked for at all.

Maxim of quality expects the speaker not to state what is thought to be false
and for which the speaker requires more evidence. Following below are
examples of utterances that abide by the maxim of quality and one that
violates the maxim:

Example of obeying:
A: “Why are you late for the meeting?”
B: “My car broke down so I had to take the MRT.”

In the example, B provides the truth that his car broke down so that he
arrived late. Do not say what you believe to be false.

Example of a violation:
A: “San Francisco is located in New York, right teacher?”
B: “And New York is in Florida, I suppose.”

In the example, B’s reply is intended to suggest that A is incorrect in a

sarcastic way and B violates the maxim of quality.

Chapter 6
Maxim of relation / relevance expects the speaker to be relevant.
Following below are the examples of utterances that abide by the maxim of
relation / relevance and one that violates the maxim:

Example of obeying:
A: “Where is my bag of peanuts?”
B: “It is on your desk.”

In the example, B’s reply is connected to the question, and does not talk
about something else. Take note that if you join a conversation you cannot
just start to talk about whatever you like. You have to be relevant and link
what you want to say to what is already being talked about.

Example of a violation:
A: “Where’s my bag of peanuts?”
B: “I didn’t eat mine either.”

In the example B’s answer does not even relate to A’s question. B says
something that is not relevant to A’s problem at all.

Maxim of Manner expects the speaker to avoid unclear expression and

ambiguity. Maxim of manner requires the speaker to be brief and orderly.
Following below are the examples of utterance that abide by the maxim of
manner and one that violates the maxim:

Example of obeying:
A: Where did Mike go awhile ago?
B: Mike went to the grocery and bought some snacks.

In the example, B’s response adheres to the manner maxim by being brief
and orderly, because it provides a clear explanation where A went. A good
illustration for this maxim is what you get penalized for when you compose
essays. If your are unclear or ambiguous you can be deducted points; if you
are too verbose you can be deducted points (we do not like to read
unnecessary words); if you do not submit what you say in the most sensible
order for your argument you can be deducted points. And even if you do not
lose points in conversation, you can lose friends if you do not obey these
maxims.

Example of a violation:
A: Why was he reprimanded?
B: He stole the money from the cafeteria.

In the example, B’s response is ambiguous. It can be construed that B did not
steal the money which is kept in the cafeteria. He had gone to the cafeteria
first then he stole the money from another place. Another understanding is
that he stole the money kept in the cafeteria. He got the money by robbing
the cafeteria.
 Introduction to Linguistics
5
Social Context of English

With the Gricean maxims above, it illustrates that when communicating, we

should speak sincerely, relevantly, and clearly while providing adequate
information.

Breaking the Maxims

Let it be known that conversational maxims are broken more often than
linguistic rules. There are various ways someone could violate a norm, either
accidently or unintentionally It could also be a consequence of some other
intended action, or instrumentally, meant to accomplish a specific result.
On one hand, flouting a maxim is one way of violating it. The word indicates
that the speaker is violating the maxim in an evident way. It is not the result
of confusion or a subtle misdirection. It is as if the speaker means to violate
the norm in order to be seen violating the norm. It is done deliberately with a
purpose.

In both ways, the person is not being cooperative. Their contribution to the
conversation is not helpful in the manner the other person expects.

We violate them.
To be more specific, when we violate the maxims we break them secretly, or
covertly, so that other people do not know. When we violate the maxim of
quality, we lie. When we violate the maxim of quantity by not giving enough
information, if someone finds out we can be accused of withholding
information, another deceit.

We flout them.
If we flout a maxim, we break it in a flagrant way, so that it is evident to
everyone concerned that it has been broken. If this occurs, then it is obvious
that the speaker is expecting the hearer to infer some extra meaning over
and above what is said. Consider these utterances:

A: What time is it?

B: It's five o'clock, in fact it's four pass five, and now it's Friday.

Maxim of quantity and its implicature take place when the speaker or the
writer expresses messages that are not as informative as they are expected
or the information is too much and unnecessary. B flouts the maxim of
quantity, since he gives needless information to A which can eventually
distract the listener. However, it is not hard to recover the implicature that B
wants to demonstrate to A that he is a sort of "on time" person.

A: What is the Capital City of New York?

B: I believe it's Manhattan, or maybe New York City, New York is the financial
district of the United States.

Chapter 6
 Maxim of quality and its implicature take place when your contribution is
one that is false or lacks enough evidence. B flouts the maxim of quality since
he provides an unsure answer for A's question. The implicature of this
flouting maxim would be that B does not exactly know about the capital city
of New York.

Mom: Have you done your chores?

Son: My bicycle has a flat tire mom.

Maxim of relevance and its implicature take place when the speaker deviates
from the specific topic being asked and discussed. The response of the son is
not answering the mother’s question. The son attempts to direct his mother’s
concern away from the question which he does not like.

It’s the taste! (a soft drink ad)

Maxims of manner and its implicature take place when the utterances are
vague and ambiguous. Advertisements such as the one you see above
often flout the maxim of manner. The statement flouts the maxim of manner
because it is unclear. The utterances prompt an inference process where the
addressee looks for the likelihood that it is relevant in the context that is
gathered – that the taste is good for people who favor that brand of soft drink
and bad for those who dislike it. (Meyer, 2009)

Hedges
Note the following sentences and determine the function of the italic words
and clauses in relation to the whole utterance:

1. I'm not sure if this is accurate, but I heard they divorced.

2. She couldn't live with him any longer, I guess.
3. He is a slightly temperamental person.
4. I am not an expert, but you might want to try rebooting your computer.
5. The party was somewhat spoiled by the early return of her parents.

Did you figure it out? The highlighted words and clauses above minimize the
impact of the respective utterance. We call this mitigating device a hedge. The
number of hedges, (i.e. indications that what we say may not be completely
accurate), indicates the importance of the maxim of quality for cooperative
interaction in English.
Consider the following speaker's account of her recent vacation (quoted from
Yule, 1996): Do you think the speaker might even be cognizant of another
maxim? If so, which is that?
As you probably know, I am scared stiff of bugs.
So, to cut a long story short, we seized our things and ran.
I won't bore you to death with all details, but it was an exhilarating trip.
 Introduction to Linguistics
7
Social Context of English

The initial phrases in the sentences above depict that the speaker is mindful
of the maxim of quantity, thus, she lessens her account to a length
appropriate for the current purpose of exchange.

Hedges may intentionally or unintentionally be applied in both spoken and

written language since they are significantly important in communication.
Hedges assist speakers and writers in communicating the degree of accuracy
and truth in assessments more precisely.

It seems that when people are engaged in conversations, they do not only
want to express information, but are also keen to demonstrate that they are
aware of and observing the maxims.

Politeness
Politeness is not a direct synonym for diplomacy and tact, but they are
definitely related. The Politeness Theory was developed which relied heavily
on the Face Theory, digging deeper into the concepts of face introduced by
Goffman in the 1950’s and expanded on his theory, specifically with focus on
politeness.

Politeness assumes that we all have face, and we all possess face wants and
needs. Face is the public self-image that every person tries to protect. In
addition, there are various kinds of face threatened in different face-
threatening acts, and sometimes the face threats are to the hearer, while
other times they are to the speaker. Sociological variables come into play
when in view of a face-threatening act, which these researchers call weight.

The weight of a face-threatening act is decided by considering the

combination of three variables: power, distance, and rank. Power refers to
the apparent power dynamic between speaker and hearer. As a speaker, is
the targeted hearer a boss, subordinate, or your colleague?

Distance refers to the extent of social distance between speaker and

hearer. As a speaker, is the targeted hearer a close friend or a distant
colleague?

Rank refers to the cultural ranking of the subject or the degree of sensitivity
of the topic within a certain culture. For example, a woman's age and weight
are two very touchy topics within American culture, as is a person's income,
while some other cultures do not regard these as sensitive topics, but instead
matters of fact to be simply shared.

Politeness theory hypothesizes that choices in applying a certain politeness

strategy rely upon the social circumstances in which the speech act takes

Chapter 6
place. That is, what is the topic, to whom are you speaking, and what is your
social relationship with that person?

Politeness theory depends, partly, on the concept that there are different
types of face: positive face and negative face. Positive face reveals an
individual's need for his or her wishes and desires to be appreciated in a
social context. This is the maintenance of a positive and consistent self-
image.

Negative face reveals an individual's need for freedom from imposition,

freedom of action, and the right to make one's own decisions. There is an
individual's face needs for autonomy and competence. This theory depends
on the assumption that most speech acts essentially threaten either the
speaker or the hearer's face, and that politeness is thus a necessary part of
inoffensive, i.e. non-face threatening, communication and requires the
redressing of positive and negative face.

Depicting from these assumptions, experts have identified three main

approaches for performing speech acts: positive politeness, negative
politeness, and off-record politeness.

In positive politeness, the speaker's purpose is to deal with the positive face
needs of the hearer, therefore boosting the hearer's positive face. This is also
called positive face redress. Positive politeness methods highlight friendliness
and camaraderie between the speaker and hearer; the speaker's wants are in
some way related to the hearer's wants. There are various ways to achieve
this familiarity and claim common ground. First, the speaker can see and pay
attention to the hearer's wants, interests, needs, or goods. Second, the
speaker can amplify his/her interest, approval or sympathy with the
hearer. Third, the speaker can show an intensified interest to the hearer. The
speaker can also apply in-group markers, which depict that both the speaker
and hearer belong to the same social group, such as a work group or religious
affiliation. These can consist of forms of address, use of in-group language or
dialect, use of jargon or slang, and linguistic contractions.

For example, "Hey dude, you know…" or, "Bro, I'd like to talk to you…" The
speaker can also try to find agreement with the hearer by picking harmless
topics and using repetition. On the one hand, the speaker can also try to stay
away from disagreement with the hearer by using a token agreement, a
pseudo-agreement, a white lie, or hedging is an opinion. Further, the speaker
can assume knowledge of the hearer's wants and attitudes, assume the
hearer's values are the same as the speaker's values, assume familiarity in
the speaker-hearer relationship, and assume the hearer's knowledge on the
topic. Another approach to appeal to familiarity between speaker and hearer
is to apply humor/joking.

In addition to asserting common ground, the speaker can apply some

methods to declare that the speaker and hearer are cooperators. These
consist of asserting or assuming the speaker's understanding of, and concern
for, the hearer's wants, offering or promising, being optimistic, including
 Introduction to Linguistics
9
Social Context of English

both speaker and hearer in a common activity, giving or asking for reasons,
and assuming or asserting reciprocity.

Finally, in an effort to develop positive politeness, the speaker can try to

fulfill the hearer's wants in some way. This can be brought about by gift-
giving, which can be material things, as well as sympathy, understanding, or
cooperation.

Some examples of positive politeness consist of compliments, and might also

consist of utterances like, "I really appreciate the way you've done this," or,
"It took me ages to figure this out, but what I finally concluded was…" or "You
know it's always essential for me to do the best work I can, and I know the
same is true for you. That's why I believe we should focus more on the key
details." or, "I really commend you for the way you approach this here. I think
the next section might be a little more solid with a similar approach." In these
instances, the speaker is conveying his own view into the equation with his
or her suggestions to the hearer. Here, the speaker is highlighting the
similarity and familiarity with the hearer and the content under discussion.

While positive politeness develops the hearer's positive and consistent self-
image through recognizing the hearer's need for his or her desires and
wishes to be appreciated socially, negative politeness deals with the hearer's
need for freedom from imposition and freedom of action in making his or her
own decisions. This is also referred to as negative face redress.

The first method to negative politeness is to be direct by being

conventionally indirect. A second method is to not presume or assume. These
approaches involve questions and hedges. Next, negative politeness can be
used by not intimidating the hearer. This can be done by being pessimistic
("I'm certain you don't want to do this…"), minimizing the imposition ("It's
just a tiny thing I need…"), or giving deference ("You know much more about
this than I do…").

The speaker can also convey his/her desire to not impose on the hearer. This
can be done by apologizing approaches that consist of admitting the
imposition ("I know this is a major request…"), demonstrating reluctance ("I
hate to do this…"), or begging for forgiveness. Further approaches to not
impose on the hearer include impersonalizing the speaker and hearer. This
approach includes making use of passive and circumstantial voices ("It's
generally done this way…"), substituting "I" and "you" with indefinites
("People tend to…"), pluralizing "I" and "you" ("We are not always sure of
what is up ahead…"), and stay away from using "I" and "you" all together.

Thus, negative politeness utterances may include, "Some people might tackle
the situation in this way," or "I think I would do it another way, but of course
whatever you think is best," or "I don't have enough experience about this
Chapter 6
but it looks like that this approach might be logical." or "I am aware you have
more experience here than I do, but it seems to me…" In these examples, the
speaker is acknowledging and addressing the hearer's right to make his or
her own decisions freely, therefore dealing with the hearer's negative face
needs.

Off-record politeness is a politeness method that depends on implication.

This approach is very indirect, and includes the breaking of conversational
norms to mean a specific recommended course of action. Here, the speaker is
depending on the hearer's ability to decode and figure out the speaker's
intended meaning, although it is indirectly suggested.

Off-record politeness is achieved in a number of ways with various

approaches for each. First, the speaker can encourage conversational
implicatures. Methods here are to provide hints, give clues of association,
assume, understate, overstate, use contradictions, tautologies, metaphors,
rhetorical questions, and be ironic. Secondly, the speaker can be purposely
unclear or ambiguous, also over-generalizing, displacing the hearer, and
being incomplete by applying ellipsis. Notice the following exchanges:

"What do you think about this red dress?"

"I see you have a lot of pretty clothes in your closet, especially dresses."

"Do you think we should leave by 6 or 6:30?"

"I know your brother is a stickler for promptness."

"I think I'd like to watch the new Star Wars movie."
"Yes, a little sci-fi adventure is a good way to spend a Friday night."

In each of these scenarios, speaker B is proposing a suggestion to speaker A.

Speaker B's intended meaning may or may not be vague to you as you read
through this, but given the context and their relationship, speaker A will
decipher the implications given by speaker B. The danger in off-record
politeness is that the implications are so unclear that the intended meaning is
not understood. That is the nature of off-record politeness.

Even if we all feel we have a sense of what politeness means, it is quite

challenging to zero in on it when someone asks you to define it. One thing
that experts agree on is that politeness is something that is learned or
acquired. It is not innate. We are socialized into it. And, because of this, it
obviously follows that different cultures have various concepts of what it is,
and how it should be appropriately applied. (Meyer, 2009)
 Introduction to Linguistics
11
Social Context of English

References
1. Meyer, Charles F. Introducing English Linguistics. 2009 Cambridge University Press.
2. Frommer, Paul R. & Finegan, Edward. An Introduction to Language (7th ed.). Cengage
Learning.
3. Brinton, Laurel J. Structure of Modern English: A Linguistic Approach. 2010 University of
British Columbia.
4. Davies, Alan and Elder, Catherine. The Handbook of Applied Linguistics. 2004 Blackwell
Publishing Ltd.
5. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEM8gZCWQ2w

Chapter 6