Theories of Grice’s Maxim of Conversation, Speech Act and Structuralism in the Select Speeches of Ba

These theories look at the way the speakers utilize language and it’s different uses.

Grice’s Maxim of Conversation. Grice, as qouted by Grundy (74), formalized his observation that when people talk, they try to be cooperative by elevating this notion into what he called “The Cooperative Principle (CP)”. One way of being cooperative is for a speaker to give as much information as expected. Cooperative Principle is a theory formulated by Herbert Paul Grice that was published firstly by Harvard University Press in his article entitle “Logic and Conversation”, stated: “make your conversational contribution such as required at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged” Grundy (45). Grice proposed that participants in a communicative exchange are guided by a principle that determines the way in which language is used with maximum efficiency and effect to achieve rational communication.

Levinson (102) summarized the CP as the specification of “what participants have to do in order to converse in a maximally efficient, rational, co-operative way: they should speak sincerely, relevantly and clearly, while providing sufficient information.” In an attempt to describe how the CP works, Grice formulated guidelines for the efficient and effective use of language in conversation. The guidelines are known as the maxims of conversation. This theory should be underlined that Grice introduces quantity, quality, relation and manner as categories. The fact that Grice quoted by Thomas (62) expressed the cooperative principle in the imperative mood has led some casual readers of his work to believe that Grice was telling speakers how they ought to behave. In all spheres of life people make similar assumptions all the time. Thomas gave a useful analogy that is driving a car to explain Grice’s theory. When people drive, people assume that other drivers will operate according to the same set of regulations as people do (or, at the very least, that they know what those regulations are). If people could not make such assumptions the traffic system would rapidly grind to a halt. Of course, there are times when people do have indications that another driver may not obey the rules (a learner, a drunk, a person whose car is out of control, an ambulance or fire tender with its lights flashing and siren blaring or that they may be following a different set of rules (a car with foreign number plates) and on these occasions people re-examine the assumptions or suspend it altogether. And of course, there are times when the assumption that others are operating according to the same set of rules is misplaced, and then an accident may occur. Thomas (62) points out that the same is true of conversation. Within a given community, when people talk people operate according to a set of assumptions and, on the whole, people get by. There will be times when people may suspend assumption that the interlocutor is operating according to the same conversational norms as people are. Sometimes people may be talking to a young child who has yet to acquire community’s conversational norms, to a drunk, to a person in pain or distress. Or people may be talking to a person whom people have reason to think may have different conversational norms from ones own (a member of a different cultural or linguistic community). And there will be times when assumptions are wrong and then mistakes and misunderstanding occur, or when people are deliberately misled by the interlocutor.

Grice argues that without the assumption that the speaker is operating according to the cooperative principle, there is no mechanism to prompt someone to seek for another level of interpretation. The four conversational maxims help people establish what the implicature might be. Mooney (900) stated that what initially look like uncooperative communicative exchange can in fact be viewed as cooperative if the activity type is properly understood. Even if an activity type is uncooperative, the maxims are still productive in understanding how communication takes place and how the activity type is conducted.

Grundy (73) stated that Grice deliberately chose the word “implicature” of his own coinage to cover any meaning that is implied, i.e., conveyed indirectly or through hints, and understood implicitly without ever being explicitly stated. Therefore, a conversational implicature is something which is implied in conversation, that is, something which is left implicit in actual language use Mey (99). Grice (43) made a very general distinction between what is said by a speaker and what he means or implicates. He gave a very popular example to explain the differences between them. Suppose that A and B are talking about a mutual friend, C, who is now working in a bank. A asks B how C is getting on in his job. A: How C is getting on his job? (2) B: Oh quite well, I think. He likes his colleagues, and he hasn’t been to prison yet. Grice explained that at this point, A might well inquire what B was implying, what he was suggesting, or even what he meant by saying that C had not yet been to prison. The answer might be any one of such things as that C is the sort of person likely to yield to the temptation provided by his occupation that C’s colleagues are really unpleasant and treacherous people, and so forth. It might, of course, be quite unnecessary for A to make such inquiry of B, the answer to it being, in the context, clear in advance. The researcher think it is clear that whatever B implied, suggested, meant, etc., in this example is distinct from what B said, which was simply that C had not been to prison yet. Speakers, writers, addressees assume that everyone engaged in communication knows and accept the communicational norms. This general acceptance is an important starting point for inferences, even if individuals are sometimes unable to meet the standards or occasionally cheat (for instance, telling lies). According to Laurence (3) implicature is a component of speaker meaning that constitutes an aspect what is meant in a speaker’s utterance without being part of what is said. What a speaker intends to communicate characteristically far richer than what s/he directly expresses; linguistic meaning radically under determines the message conveyed and understood. In addition, According to Yule (35 ) implicature is an implicit meaning or additional conveyed meaning behind the utterance. In this study the maxims used by Barack Obama has implicature is implicit meaning; what the speaker says is not what the speaker means, or what is said is not what is meant. The speaker more often means much more than the words they utter in order for them to be interpreted by the addressee. To interpret the additional meaning, one have to assume that the cooperative principle is in operation. In the case of implicature, context helps people to determine what is conveyed implicitly but not explicitly stated by the speaker. According to Thomas (58) an implicature is generated intentionally by the speaker and may (or may not) be understood by the hearer or the addressee. It is sufficient to notice that the context is very important in determining what someone means by what they say. Given different context, one would have understood that the same utterances will have different meaning. Conversational Maxims In an attempt to describe how the CP works, Grice formulated guidelines for the efficient and effective use of language in conversation. These guidelines are known as the maxims of conversation. It should be stated that Grice (45) introduces four (4) Maxims.

Speech Act theory. Speech acts are staples of everyday communicative life. It has been influential not only within philosophy, but also in linguistics, psychology, legal theory, artificial intelligence, literary theory, and other scholarly disciplines. Recognition of the importance of speech acts has illuminated the ability of language to do other things than describe reality. In the process, the boundaries among the philosophy of language, the philosophy of action, the philosophy of mind and even ethics have become transparent. In turn, speech allows them to be interconnected with each other. In addition, an appreciation of speech acts has helped lay bare an implicit normative structure within linguistic practice, including the part concerned with describing reality. Recent research aims at an accurate characterization of this normative structure underlying linguistic practice (Ideology and Speech-Act Theory).

Structuralism. Structuralism is the namegiven to a wide range of discourses that study underlying structures of signification. Signification occurs wherever there is a meaningful event or in the practice of some meaningful action. Hence the phrase, "signifying practice”. Such an analysis would reveal the patterns that characterize the system that makes such texts and practices possible. One cannot see a structure or a system per se. As a matter of fact, it would be inconvenient for us if people were aware at all times of the structures that make the signifying practices possible. Rather, they remain unconscious but still retain the necessary aspects that convey their purpose in imparting information. Structuralism therefore promises to offer insights into what makes people the way people are. Structuralism as a school of thought emphasizes the view that society is prior to individuals. It employs the nature of social interaction as patterned behavior and uses it as a tool in all sociological analysis.

The elements which are basic to human mind and those deemed universally applicable determine the possible varieties of social structure. This research paper is set to delve into analyzing the maxims employed in the speeches of President Barack Obama. Speech Act Theory and Structuralism will be applied as the main theories that will underlie this research study. Using the principles under which these theories operate under, this research study aims to make an in-depth analysis on the said speeches.