Chapter 2

Theoretical Framework

2.0 Preliminaries

This chapter lays down the theoretical framework for the present research.
The theories and concepts which are central in Pragmatics for the analysis of
data are discussed here. Thus, major theories and concepts like Pragmatics,
Language, Context, Grice’s theory of Cooperative Principle, Conversational
Implicature, Speech Acts, Politeness Principle, Hinting Strategy, Political
Discourse, Rhetoric, Oratory, Political Speech, biography of Barack Obama
and American Dream are discussed in this chapter.

2.1 Pragmatics

The usage of the term Pragmatics, as understood in the modern sense, is

attributed to the philosopher Charles Morris (1938). While defining the
scope of Semiotics (semiotic as preferred by Morris) – a science of signs, he
distinguished the following three distinct branches of inquiry within
Semiotics:

i. Syntactics (or syntax) dealing with the study of formal

relation of signs to one another.

21
 ii. Semantics dealing with the study of the relations of signs to
the objects to which the signs are applicable (their
designata)

iii. Pragmatics dealing with the study of the relation of signs to

interpreters.

The term Pragmatics has been used in two very distinct ways since the
introduction of Morris’ trichotomy of Syntax, Semantics and Pragmatics. On
one hand, the term Pragmatics refers to the very broad use as intended by
Morris which includes socio-linguistics, psycholinguistics and more. On the
other hand, the scope of the term Pragmatics was successively narrowed and
here Carnap, the philosopher and logician was very influential. As quoted by
Levinson (1983: 2-3) Carnap gave the following version of the trichotomy:

“If in an investigation explicit reference is made to the speaker, or

to put it in more general terms, to the user of the language, then we
assign it (the investigation) to the field of pragmatics…. If we
abstract from the user of the language and analyse only the
expressions and their designata, we are in the field of semantics.
And, finally, if we abstract from the designata also and analyze
only the relations between the expressions, we are in (logical)
syntax.”

According to Yule (2002), traditional distinction in language analysis

contrasts Pragmatics with Syntax and Semantics. Syntax studies the
relationships between linguistic forms, how the linguistic forms are arranged
in sequence and which sequences are formed well. Syntax, generally does
not take into consideration the world of reference (context) or users of

22
language while analyzing language. Semantics deals with the study of the
relationships between linguistic forms (signifiers) and the objects in the
world (signified). It studies the way words literally connect to things in the
world. Semantic analysis is also concerned with the understanding of relation
between verbal descriptions and the things described in the world as true or
false irrespective of who produces the description. Pragmatics as opposed to
syntax and semantics, studies the relationships between linguistic forms and
the persons who use those forms. In this three tier distinction, only
Pragmatics takes humans into consideration while analyzing language.

The advantage of studying language via Pragmatics is that it brings to the

fore speakers’ / writers’ intended meanings; their assumptions, purposes and
goals. It also takes into account various actions like commands, requests,
apology, etc, people perform through their utterances. But, the disadvantage
is that it is extremely difficult to analyse the human concepts in a consistent
and objective way.

Thus, Pragmatics is very engrossing and stimulating as it endeavours to

understand what people mean rather than what they say.

2.1.1 Semantics and Pragmatics

Both Semantics and Pragmatics study ‘meaning’ but their approaches and
tools for the understanding of meaning are different. This is because meaning
is not stable and is influenced by factors like speaker, hearer and context.
This difference can be understood if we consider the distinction made
between the linguistic system and the use of that system by its speakers and
hearers. Saussure differentiated between Langue (language) and Parole
(speaking). Chomsky also made a similar distinction between Competence

23
(language) and Performance (actual use). Both Saussure and Chomsky
exclude the individual use of language (Parole / Performance) and take into
account language as a system (Langue / Competence) as the proper study of
linguistics. This distinction in linguistics can also be extended to the study of
‘meaning’. There is a difference between the literal meaning of a word or a
sentence and the meaning the same word / sentence generates in a particular
context. This difference points to the distinction between ‘meaning’ and
‘use’ or Semantics and Pragmatics. Due to this distinction, what is ‘said’ is
different from what is ‘meant’ by speakers. This difference between
Semantics and Pragmatics can be illustrated by the following one word
example:
America!

As suggested by Leech (1983), semantics is concerned with ‘what does the

word America mean?’ and Pragmatics is concerned with ‘what did the
speaker mean by America?’ Semantics relates the word- America with a
fixed meaning i.e. the name of a country. Whereas in Pragmatics as per the
context the word gives rise to various implied meanings like (i) America
means a land of great opportunities and possibilities, (ii) American Dream,
(iii) a powerful country, etc.

It is evident from the above example that Semantics studies the meanings of
words and of word combinations in phrases and sentences without
considering context and users. Pragmatics, on the contrary deals with
meaning in relation to factors like context and the relationship between the
speaker and hearer.

According to Leech (1983) Semantics is rule governed as it takes into

consideration rules of grammar while arriving at meanings of words or

24
sentences. Whereas, Pragmatics is controlled by principles of communication
like cooperation and politeness. The rules of grammar are fundamentally
conventional. On the contrary, the pragmatic principles are non-conventional
and are influenced by conversational goals.

The distinction between sentence and utterance is of prime importance for

both Semantics and Pragmatics. According to Levinson (2003:18), a
sentence is an abstract theoretical entity governed by the rules of grammar,
whereas an utterance is the issuance of a sentence, a sentence-analogue or
sentence-fragment in an actual context. An utterance is the paring of a
sentence and a context. Thus, a sentence is a static grammatical entity
isolated from the context. As opposed to this, an utterance is a speech act
embedded in a context and hence dynamic.

The most useful distinction is made by Lyons (1977) in terms of sentence

meaning and utterance meaning. Sentence meaning is derived from the
grammatical and lexical features of a sentence and utterance meaning is
derived from context. To sum up, Pragmatics deals with the utterance
meaning which is derived from the context which includes factors like the
social status of the speaker and the hearer, illocutionary force, shared
knowledge of the interlocutors, etc.

2.1.2 Language Use and Speaker Meaning

Language use is determined by its appropriateness in relation to those who
use it and those they address in a particular context. The following example
underpins the importance of appropriateness in language use and the
phenomenal change a word can bring in the approach to a particular
situation:

25
 ‘Call her survivor, not victim’

The above news headline was published in daily, The Times of India (Pune
edition), in relation to the victim of Mumbai gang rape which took place on
22 August 2013. Several women groups and activists urged, The Times of
India, that the females who have survived rapes should be addressed as
‘survivors’ and not ‘victims’. There is merit in their suggestion about the
use of language. The two words evoke two opposite meanings and contexts.
The word ‘victim’ has negative connotation and implies helplessness of the
victim and stigmatizes women. Whereas the word ‘survivor’ reinforces a
positive outlook and suggests:
i. that rape was not invited like cancer
ii. her struggle to come to terms
iii. the courage and determination to rebuild her life
iv. the support of the society to face the ordeal
v. and rape is not the end of life
The above example can be immediately recognized as appropriate ways of
using language to get things done by its users. Thus, a mere choice of a word
brings a big change in the world. Therefore, according to Grundy (2000),
Pragmatics is about explaining how speakers produce and understand such
everyday but apparently rather peculiar uses of language. A simple
observation of the pragmatic properties of the above single utterance
exemplifies how subtle are the uses of the most apparently straightforward
language. Hence, Pragmatics is the study of language usage.

Yule (2002) also supports the above observation regarding language use by
its speakers. He defines Pragmatics as the study of meaning as
communicated by a speaker or writer and interpreted by a listener or reader.
Consequently, it has more to do with the analysis of what people mean by

26
their typical use of utterances than what words or phrases in those utterances
might mean by themselves. Hence, he defines Pragmatics as:
“ Pragmatics is the study of speaker meaning” (P:3)

2.1.3 Context
Culture creates context. As language is a part of culture, it is also embedded
in a typical context. This context exists at the macro level in the form of
history, geography, politics, economics, social practices, etc. At the micro
level, the relationship between the speaker and hearer, their social status,
place, time and circumstances form the immediate context in which language
is produced and understood. As a painter paints a picture against a
background, in the same manner interlocutors encode and decode utterances
against a certain background i.e. context.

Context gives a definite direction and shape to a conversation or an utterance

and thus makes a discourse coherent and meaningful. It is impossible to
think of an utterance divorced from its context. H. P. Grice’s (1989) theory
of Cooperative Principle justifies the above point:

“Our talk exchanges do not normally consist of a succession

of disconnected remarks and would not be rational if they
did. …each participant recognizes in them, to some extent, a
common purpose or set of purposes, or at least a mutually
accepted direction.”
(P:26)

This common purpose or direction forms a context to our talk exchanges.

27
If we think of an utterance devoid of its context, then, we will face the
chaotic situation of indeterminacy of meaning. An utterance without a
context would generate uncontrolled multiplicity of meanings and the
common purpose or direction of the talk would be lost, making the discourse
ambiguous and confusing. Therefore, every utterance is produced in a
context and also, interpreted in a context.

Hence, Context is at the core of pragmatic analysis of meaning and George

Yule’s (2002: 3) definition highlights this phenomenon:

“Pragmatics studies contextual meaning”.

Stephen C. Levinson (2003:21) also brings to the fore the importance of

context in interpreting language through the following definition:

“Pragmatics is the study of the relations between language

and context that are basic to an account of language
understanding.”

Thus, the relationship between context and language use is of prime

importance in Pragmatics.

Utterances get a definite meaning when they are interpreted in a particular

context. The meaning of utterances changes when the context changes. A
single utterance interpreted against different contexts gives rise to various
meanings as is illustrated in the following examples:

“Yes, we can!”

28
Context i
If the above utterance is used in the context of 2008 presidential election of
the United States of America, it reminds us of Barack Obama’s victory
speech and invokes politics of hope, realization of the American Dream and
the power of democracy.

Context ii
If the above utterance is uttered by the M.S. Dhoni to his players during the
Cricket world cup tournament, it means a deep faith and confidence in their
ability as a team to become world champions once again. It works as a
morale booster.

Context iii
A husband and wife are travelling together and are listening songs on the
music system in the car. The husband who is driving says, “ Yes, we can!”.
In this context of entertainment, the utterance functions as a request to the
wife to play the song, ‘Yes, we can!’

It is very much evident from the above examples that language use and
context are interconnected. As stated by Stanly Fish (1989), it is impossible
to think of an utterance without a context because utterances are produced
and understood in context only. There are as many meanings of an utterance
as many contexts, yet there is no fear of failure of communication or
indeterminacy of meaning due to shared context (shared knowledge) which
is called as ‘institutional nesting’ by Fish. As Pragmatics primarily deals
with the meaning of utterances, it takes context into consideration to
determine ‘what is meant’ than ‘what is said’ as is explicit in the following
example:
“ India Hit Pakistan For Six”

29
The above utterance is the headline published in daily, The Times of India,
(Pune edition) dated 16 February, 2015. This utterance will generate multiple
meanings when interpreted in different contexts. But, people who have
‘shared knowledge’ about the cricket world cup matches between India and
Pakistan will arrive at the intended meaning. If interpreted against this
context, the utterance means that India has defeated Pakistan consecutively
six times in world cup tournaments. It means that India has upheld its record
of never losing a world cup match to Pakistan.

This crucial relationship between context and language use forms the
essential subject area of Pragmatics.

2.1.4 The Invisible Meaning: How More gets Communicated

than is Said
In this approach listeners try to draw inferences about what is said in order to
understand the speaker’s intended meaning. Utterances have one meaning at
the surface level and quite different meaning at the deeper level. At the
surface level of an utterance, the intended meaning is invisible. It is only
when the listener tries to search for inferences, he arrives at the intended
meaning (invisible meaning) at the deeper level i.e. at pragmatic level. This
invisible meaning is called as the Conversational Implicature. Therefore,
in certain situations a speaker communicates more than what is said through
the Implicature. This phenomenon is pointed out by Yule (2002:3) who
describes Pragmatics as:
“Pragmatics is the study of how more gets communicated than is said."

30
This feature of language to mean more than what is actually said makes
language very expressive and dynamic.

2.1.5 Relative Distance

The distance between a speaker and a hearer in terms of physical, social or
conceptual closeness determines the choice between the said and the unsaid.
This closeness implies shared experience of a speaker and a hearer. A
speaker decides how much needs to be said taking into consideration his
distance or closeness with the listener. Therefore, Yule (2002) defines
Pragmatics as:
“Pragmatics is the study of relative distance” (P:3)

It can be summarized that Pragmatics deals with the study of speaker

meaning, contextual meaning, how more gets communicated than is said and
of the expression of relative distance.

2.2 The Cooperative Principle

The theory of Cooperative Principle was formulated by Herbert Paul Grice

(1989). Grice formulated the Cooperative principle in relation to his notion
of Conversational Implicature.

Communication is basically an act of cooperation between the participants

(speaker/writer and listener / reader) involved in the process of exchanging
information. The participants involved in communication assume that each
one of them is cooperating by being informative, truthful, relevant and

31
perspicuous while exchanging information. As explained by Grice, the
participants in a talk exchange normally do not make a series of disconnected
remarks and it would be irrational if they did so. Their talk exchanges are
cooperative efforts at least to some degree and the participants recognize in
them a common purpose or a mutually accepted direction. This common
purpose or direction may be there from the start or it may evolve during the
talk exchange and it may be fairly definite or it may be so indefinite so as to
leave it for the participants to decide as in a casual conversation. But, during
talk exchanges some utterances might seem conversationally unsuitable for
the current purpose of talk. Therefore, to align the talk exchanges to the
common purpose or the mutually accepted direction of conversation, Grice
(1989: 26) has formulated a rough principle which participants will be
expected to observe:

“Make your conversational contribution such as is

required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted
purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are
engaged”.

The above principle which the participants are expected to follow or adhere
to while conversing is termed as the Cooperative Principle. Grice has
further elaborated the Cooperative Principle of conversation into four
categories of (i) Quantity, (ii) Quality, (iii) Relation and (iv) Manner or
sub-principles called maxims.

I. Quantity:
1. Make your contribution as informative as is required (for the
current purpose of the exchange)
2. Do not make your contribution more informative than is required.

32
II. Quality: “Try to make your contribution one that is true”
1. Do not say what you believe to be false.
2. Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.

III. Relation: “Be relevant”

IV. Manner: “Be perspicuous”

1. Avoid obscurity of expression.
2. Avoid ambiguity.
3. Be brief ( avoid unnecessary prolixity ).
4. Be orderly.
(P: 26-27)

The adherence to the above maxims results in the observance of the

Cooperative Principle. These maxims are unstated assumptions of
cooperation which participants generally follow in their conversation. The
participants involved in a conversation normally assume that each one of
them will provide required amount of information-neither less nor more, a
speaker will impart information that is true, participants will make their
contribution relevant to the topic of discussion and each one will speak in a
clear and unambiguous way. Thus, with this belief in the Cooperative
Principle, we assume that people are informative (maxim of Quantity),
truthful (maxim of Quality), relevant (maxim of Relation) and clear
(maxim of Manner) during the talk exchanges; and with this assumption we
comprehend and interpret their talk. Therefore, it can be said that the
adherence to the maxims of Cooperative Principle makes communication
effective and unambiguous.

33
But, in real life situations, it is not possible for people to adhere to the
maxims of Cooperative Principle in all situations. People do not observe
these conversational maxims strictly in their talk exchanges and in certain
situations they flout the maxims for various reasons or purposes. The
following example taken from the research paper, ‘Violation of Cooperative
Principle in Mark Antony’s Oration on the Dead Body of Julius Caesar’
published in Asian Journal of English Studies (2015) illustrates this
phenomenon:

“I come not, friends, to steal away your hearts:

I am no orator, as Brutus is;
But, as you know me all, a plain blunt man,
That love my friend; and that they know full when
That gave me public leave to speak of him:
For I have neither wit, nor words, nor worth,
Action, nor utterance, nor the power of speech
To stir men’s blood: I only speak right on;”
(P:70)

In the above utterances, Mark Antony flouts the Quality maxim as he has
given false information about his oratorical skills. Antony says that he is not
an expert orator like Brutus and does not have the skill to stir people to
action through words which is contrary to his excellent oratorical skills. He
deliberately gives false information about himself by saying that he is a plain
blunt man.

The purpose is to be polite and diplomatic in instigating the Romans for

revolt against Brutus and the conspirators who have murdered Julius Caesar.

34
Antony like a shrewd diplomat and politician means exactly the opposite
through the conversational implicature. In fact, Antony’s speech is a
rhetorical masterpiece which moves the Romans to action – the mutiny
against the conspirators. Thus, Antony achieves his conversational and
political goal by flouting the maxim of Quality. His declaration that he is a
‘plain blunt man,’ is totally false because in reality he is very diplomatic and
witty. The power of his words is seen at the end of his speech when he
finally succeeds in instigating the crowd to mutiny against the conspirators.
Antony’s words rouse fury and vengeance in the hearts of the Romans.

One of the reasons for the violation of conversational maxims is that the
interlocutors want to convey more than is said. A speaker may flout one of
the maxims at the surface level of his talk but he observes the maxim of
cooperation at the deeper level (pragmatic level) by implying more than is
said (conversational implicature). There are situations in a talk exchange
when a listener encounters an apparently irrelevant utterance; but he assumes
that the speaker is cooperative and tries to search for the relevant meaning at
the deeper level. After passing through the inferences he arrives at the
implied meaning. The following example illustrates this phenomenon:

Surya: Would you like to visit Solapur ?

Rohan: I hate bad roads and dust!

In the above conversation, Rohan has flouted the Relation maxim as his
contribution appears irrelevant at the surface level of the talk. There seems to
be no connection between Surya’s question and Rohan’s answer. But, if one
analyzes the conversation carefully, one understands that Rohan’s reply
makes sense and is an apt answer. At the surface level we feel that Rohan has
flouted the maxim of Relation but at the deeper level he is cooperative and

35
conveys more than is said. For Surya to get at the implied meaning she has to
look beyond the obvious or the literal denotative meaning (natural meaning)
of Rohan’s reply. Rohan has indirectly not only conveyed to Surya that he is
not interested in visiting Solapur city but he has also given a valid reason for
it. The reason is that Rohan doesn’t like to visit a city which is infested by
bad roads and dust. Therefore, by violating the maxim of Relation, Rohan
has communicated more than what is said via ‘Conversational
Implicature’. In order to arrive at the implied meaning, Surya has to pass
through the ‘inferences’ or ‘inferential procedure’.

This example also substantiates Grice’s observation that there is a connection

between the maxims of Cooperative Principle and the Conversational
Implicature because when a maxim is flouted, it gives rise to an implicature.

The importance or the pervasiveness of the Cooperative Principle in our day-

to-day conversation can be understood through the following examples
dealing with the violation of the conversational maxims:

i. Maxim of Quantity
Scene: A lady is sitting at a table and there is a water bottle on the
table. One of her colleagues comes near her table and asks:

Colleague: It is very hot today. Do you have cold water in

your bottle?
Lady: Yes.
(The colleague hurriedly drinks water from the bottle and is upset)

Colleague: Oh! It’s not cold.

Lady: It is. But that is not my water bottle.

36
The misunderstanding in the above scenario is due to the lack of cooperation
in conversation. The situation becomes funny because the colleague assumes
more than is said. On the contrary, the lady gives less information than is
required. She should have given the information stated in the last utterance.
If the lady had given this information well in advance, the situation would
not have been so funny. Thus, the situation becomes funny due to the
violation of the maxim of Quantity because the lady provides less
information than is required.

ii. Maxim of Quality

“The noble Brutus hath told you Caesar was ambitious:

If it were so, it was a grievous fault,
And grievously hath Caesar answer’d it.
Here, under leave of Brutus and the rest,-
For Brutus is an honorable man;
So are they all, all honourable men;
Come I to speak in Caesar’s funeral.
He was my friend, faithful and just to me:
But Brutus says he was ambitious;
And Brutus is an honourable man.”

In the above utterances, Mark Antony has violated the maxim of Quality
because the utterance, “For Brutus is an honorable man; So are they all, all
honourable men;” is a deliberate false statement by Antony. The purpose is
to overtly praise Brutus and the conspirators and thereby win their
confidence and trust.

37
At the surface level of the talk, Antony flouts the maxim of Quality by
falsely praising Brutus and the conspirators. But, he is cooperative at the
pragmatic level as the implied meaning is exactly the opposite. Antony is
hinting at the irony in his utterance through the violation of the maxim. The
implicature is that Brutus and the conspirators are not at all honourable men
and instead Caesar was an honourable man whom the conspirators have
murdered. Thus, Antony conveys more than is said through the violation of
the Quality maxim.

iii. Maxim of Relation

Roohshad: Have you completed your Ph.D.?

Satish: Have you seen a person riding many horses at the same
time- family, job, farming and social work?

In the above talk exchange, Satish’s response appears to be irrelevant in

relation to the question posed by Roohshad. Therefore, it can be said that
Satish has violated the maxim of Relation. But, Roohshad believes that
Satish is cooperative at the deeper level and tries to draw inferences to arrive
at the implied meaning. He understands that it is impossible to ride many
horses at the same time and therefore draws the conclusion that Satish has
not completed his Ph.D. Roohshad also understands that Satish has not only
conveyed – ‘no’ as his answer but he has also given the reason for not
completing his Ph.D. The reason is that it is not possible to complete Ph.D.
while managing family, job, farming and social work simultaneously. Thus,
the robust belief in the Cooperative Principle makes Roohshad arrive at the
implied meaning.

38
iv. Maxim of Manner

Atish: Is it good for me to change my job as I have joined this

institute six months ago?

Mentor: A rolling stone never gathers moss.

The mentor in the above conversation gives a figurative answer to Atish’s

question. This metaphorical reply amounts to the violation of the Manner
maxim as it appears oblique and ambiguous at the surface level.

According to the principle of cooperation the mentor is expected to give his

answer in straight forward manner by saying whether it is good or not.
Instead of answering the question directly, he gives his reply through a
proverb which appears comparatively prolix and obscure. The purpose is not
to create confusion but to support Atish’s decision of changing his job with
the time tested principle of life. In this situation to understand the implied
meaning (conversational implicature) one should have the ‘shared
knowledge’ that a rolling stone does not gather moss around it. On the basis
of the shared knowledge, Atish works out the implied meaning that it is
better to change his job if he wants to progress in his career. This is called as
‘Hinting Strategy’ in Pragmatics.

Thus, at the surface level, the mentor’s utterance is not clear and processible.
But, the robust belief in Cooperative Principle makes Atish understand the
implied meaning.

39
Conclusion
The above examples illustrate the importance and the influence of the
Cooperative Principle on the everyday discourse of human beings. The
observance of the maxims of Cooperative Principle makes communication
effective and unambiguous. But, it is also true that communication does not
fail due to the deliberate violation of the maxims of cooperation. As noticed
in the above examples, utterances become more expressive and speakers
convey more than is said through the violation of the conversational maxims.
Thus, language becomes dynamic and overflows with multiple meanings due
to the flouting of the conversational maxims.

The participants involved in conversation violate the maxims for various

purposes and reasons as discussed in the above examples. Thus, the main
purpose is to achieve their conversational goals by conveying more than
what is actually said at the pragmatic level.

It is also a fact that due to the violation of the Cooperative Principle language
becomes comparatively artistic, whether it belongs to the domain of
literature or every day use.

2.3 Conversational Implicature

The theory of Conversational Implicature was formulated by H. P. Grice

(1989) in the William James lectures delivered at Harvard in 1967. He has
developed the theory of Conversational Implicature in relation to his theory
of the Cooperative Principle. In a conversation the participants normally
adhere to the Cooperative Principle but in certain situations they deliberately

40
flout the conversational maxims to convey implied meaning as is the case in
the following example:

Mother: Have you bought eggs and milk from the market?

Vishwesh: Oh! I have bought milk.

It appears that Vishwesh is not providing the required amount of information

because he has not mentioned eggs and hence flouts the maxim of Quantity.
But, the mother believes that Vishwesh is cooperating and understands that if
Vishwesh had bought the eggs he would have mentioned it, because he
would be adhering to the maxim of Quantity. Thus, the mother arrives at the
implied meaning by drawing the inference that what was not mentioned was
not brought. In this conversational situation, Vishwesh has conveyed more
than is said via ‘Conversational Implicature’.

According to Yule (2002) the above conversation can be represented in the

following manner:
The structure of what was said can be represented by e (= eggs) and m
(= milk) and the symbol + > for an implicature. Thus, the structure
can be represented as:

Mother: e and m ?

Vishwesh: m (+ > NOT e)

It should be noted that the speakers communicate the extra meaning via
Conversation Implicature and the listeners understand the implied meaning
via inference. The inferences selected by the listener for getting at the

41
implicature are those inferences which support the assumption of
conversational cooperation.

As suggested by Grice, it is amply clear from the above example that there
is a definite connection between the conversational maxims (Cooperative
Principle) and Conversational Implicature because when a maxim is
violated it gives rise to a Conversational Implicature. Thus, the inferences
beyond the semantic content of utterances are termed as Conversational
Implicatures and they are associated with non-conventional meaning. The
term Implicature, according to Levinson (2003), is meant to contrast with
terms like logical implication, entailment, and logical consequence
because these terms are generally used to refer to inferences that are derived
totally from the semantic or logical content of a sentence uttered. Therefore,
Conversational Implicatures are not semantic inferences.

According to Grice (1989: 31), for a hearer to work out that a Conversational
Implicature is present, she/he has to consider the following:

i. the conventional meaning of the words used, together with

the identity of any reference that may be involved

ii. the Cooperative Principle and its maxims

iii. the context, linguistic or otherwise, of the utterance

iv. other items of background knowledge

v. the fact (or supposed fact) that all relevant items falling

42
 under the previous headings are available to both participants
and both participants know or assume this to be the case

Thus, the conversational implicature is derived from the content of the

sentence uttered, the context in which it is uttered and the assumption of
cooperation during the verbal interaction.

Implicatures can be classified into two main categories, which are as follows:

I. Conversational Implicature
II. Conventional Implicature

I. Conversational Implicature
The Conversational Implicatures as discussed above occur in a conversation,
are based on the Cooperative Principle and depend on special context for
interpretation. They are associated with non-natural meaning and are not
related to semantic inferences. The following are the types of
Conversational Implicature:

(1) Generalized Conversational Implicature

Generalized Conversational Implicature does not require special background
knowledge of the context of an utterance to get the implicature as is evident
in the following example:
Kaumudi: Did you visit Pune and Mumbai?
Shraddha: I visited Pune.

In the above scenario, one can get the implicature that Shraddha did not visit
Mumbai without the special background knowledge of the context because
what is not mentioned is not visited.

43
(2) Scalar Implicatures
In some situations, speakers convey certain information through their
utterances by selecting a word that expresses a value from a scale of values.
In such situations when a speaker chooses a particular form from a scale, the
negative of all the higher forms on that scale is implied by the speaker. For
the understanding of this type of implicature special knowledge of the
context is not required as in illustrated in the following example:

a. We sometimes go to hotel.
b. I’m writing my Ph. D. thesis and I’ve completed a few
chapters.

The speaker in (a) by choosing sometimes (from the scale of always, often,
sometimes) implies that they do not go to hotel always. Likewise, the
speaker in (b) by using few (from the scale of all, most, many, some, few) has
conveyed the implicature that all the chapters are not completed.

(3) Particularized Conversational Implicature

Unlike the preceding type of implicatures, one requires the special
knowledge of a particular context to understand the implied meaning
conveyed through Particularized Conversational Implicature. The following
example illustrates this:

Satish: Are you a non-vegetarian?

Shraddha: Does a deer eat flesh?

Here, Shraddha’s reply appears irrelevant at the surface because she is

expected to provide a ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ reply. But, Satish assumes that Shraddha

44
is cooperative in the talk exchange and calculates the ‘No’ answer by
considering the ‘deer’ question. The way Shraddha answers the question
implies that the answer was ‘obviously, no!’. Here, Shraddha has also
conveyed the additional meaning that the answer was so obvious and Satish
should not have asked this question.

Properties of Conversational Implicatures

Yule(2002) has stated the properties of Converstional Implicatures very

effectively. The following are the properties of Converstional Implicatures:

1. As the name suggests conversational implicatures are situated

within conversation as is illustrated in the preceding examples.

2. Conversational implicature are inferences drawn by a hearer

from the utterances.

3. These implicatures are an attempt to maintain the assumption of

cooperative interaction.

4. Conversational Implicatures are deniable because these

implicatures are related to what is implied and not to what is
said by a speaker. Thus, these implicatures can be explicitly
denied or alternatively, reinforced in different ways. This can be
understood from the following example of Yule (2002: 44):

(i) You have won five dollars! (+> ONLY five)

45
As shown in (i), a speaker can easily suspend the implicature (+> only) by
using the expression ‘at least’ as in (iia.); or can cancel the implicature by
further adding ‘in fact’ after the expression as in (iib.); or can reinforce the
implicature by supplying additional information as in (iic.)

(ii) a. You’ve won at least five dollars!

b. You’ve won five dollars, in fact, you’ve won ten!
c. You have won five dollars, that’s four more than one!

As discussed in the preceding examples, implicatures can be calculated by

listeners via inferences. Thus, Conversational Implicatures can be calculated,
suspended, cancelled and reinforced. These properties do not apply to
conventional implicatures.

II. Conventional Implicature

Conventional Implicature as opposed to Conversational Implicature is not
based on the Cooperative Principle and its maxims. Conventional
Implicatures are not situated within a conversation and are not dependent on
the special knowledge of the context for their interpretation. These
implicature are associated with particular words and when these words are
used by a speaker, they convey additional meanings. For example, words like
‘but’, ‘and’, ‘even’ and ‘yet’, when used by a speaker in his/her utterances,
give rise to various conventional implicatures. The use of conjunction ‘but’
in an utterance gives rise to the implicature of contrast as is the case in the
following example:

He studied hard but didn’t pass in the exam.

46
When ‘even’ is employed in an utterance, it gives rise to the implicature of
contrary to expectation, as illustrated in this example:

Even Mary bought a new car.

.
The use of ‘Yet’ gives rise to the conventional implicature that the present
situation is expected to be different or may be the opposite, at later point in
time as is understood from the following example:

The captain hasn’t arrived yet.

When ‘and’ is used to combine two statements containing static information,

the implicature is ‘in addition’ or ‘plus’ as in (i). If two statements
representing dynamic and action related information are combined, the
implicature is ‘and then’ as in (ii).
i. Parents love their children and take care of them.
ii. He took the gun and aimed at the terrorist.

In (i) the two parts (statements) can be reversed with little difference in
meaning but if the two parts in (ii) are reversed there is a big change in
meaning.

Conclusion
Thus, the theory of Conversational Implicature is one of the central concepts
in Pragmatics as it deals with the phenomenon of communicating more
than is said. There is a connection between the maxims of Cooperative
Principle and the Conversational Implicature because when a maxim is
flouted it gives rise to an implicature.

47
2.4 Speech Acts

Introduction
The theory of ‘Speech Act’ is one of the central theories in Linguistic
Pragmatics and researchers from diverse fields like Psychology, Philosophy,
Anthropology, Sociology, Linguistics, etc. have shown great interest in the
notion of Speech Acts. The pioneering work on Speech Acts was done by
John Langshaw Austin, a British philosopher, who evolved the Speech Act
Theory in the William James lectures which he delivered at Harvard in
1955 and which were posthumously published as How To Do Things With
Words (1962). This phenomenal philosophical work of Austin influenced
John R. Searle who further developed the Speech Act Theory.

What is a Speech Act?

Austin opposed the logical positivism view of language which did not accept
meaning outside the truth and falsity conditions. In the process of
developing his theory of language as a form of action, Austin distinguished
between ‘constative’ and ‘performative’ utterances. This dichotomy between
‘constative’ and ‘performative’ utterances can be understood from the
following examples:
1. I visited Pune last week.
2. I bet India will win the world cup of 2010.

The constatives as in (1) are utterances in which something is said and they
can be evaluated in terms of ‘truth conditions’. Whereas, the Performatives
as in (2) are utterances in which something is done irrespective of truth and
falsity of the utterances and moreover, the Performatives can be evaluated

48
along a dimension of felicity. Austin (1962) has explained performative
utterances with the following examples:

i. ‘I do (sc. Take this woman to be my lawful wedded wife)’- as

uttered in the course of the marriage ceremony.
ii. ‘I name this ship the Queen Elizabeth’- as uttered when
smashing the bottle against the stem.
iii. ‘I give and bequeath my watch to my brother’- as occurring
in a will.
iv. ‘I bet you sixpence it will rain tomorrow’
(P:5)

In the above examples it seems clear that to utter the sentence (of course in
appropriate circumstances) is not to describe what the speaker is saying or
doing but it is to do it. Thus, the speakers in the above utterances ‘perform’
various actions through their utterances as is evident in the following table:

Utterance Action Performed

i. Effecting a marriage
ii. Baptize the ship
iii. Bequeathing a watch or
Executing the will
iv. Betting

Through the above utterances, speakers do not just describe things as true or
false, or report on something or just ‘say things’ but they ‘do things’ with
words. Therefore, according to Austin, the issuance of an utterance is the
performing of an action. Thus, actions performed via utterances are generally

49
termed as ‘speech acts’. The speakers in the above examples bring about a
change in the world around them and this change is brought about via
language. Therefore, language is used by people to perform action.

Austin has also mentioned that for the ‘performative’ to be ‘happy’ i.e.
successful or to perform action, it should meet certain conditions like use of
appropriate words, by an appropriate person in appropriate situations or
circumstances. He has termed such conditions as ‘felicity conditions’. For
example, if the bridegroom utters: ‘I, Satish Lakde take you, Shradha
Mangrulkar, to be my wedded wife’, during a Hindu marriage ceremony, the
felicity conditions are not fulfilled as per Hindu culture because for effecting
the marriage ‘mangalsutra’, ‘chanting of mantras’ and other ‘Hindu rituals’
are essential. Therefore, in Hindu cultural context the above utterance
becomes infelicitous or ‘unhappy’, whereas in Christian culture, if uttered
by a Christian bridegroom, it is a felicitous utterance as it meets the felicity
conditions and performs the act of marrying.

As illustrated by Huang (2011) Searle developed Austin’s original felicity

conditions into a neo- Austinian classification of four basic categories: (i)
propositional content, (ii) preparatory condition, (iii) sincerity condition and
(iv) essential condition.

Austin further realized that the neat distinction he had made between
performative and constative utterances was problematic. He understood that
speakers generally do not use performative utterances having highly
conventional structure with a fixed sequence of words. He realized that the
notion of performative utterances had a greater general application. For
example, the utterance, “I promise you to buy a new toy”, can be uttered any
time, by anyone to make a promise to any person, in any place. Such acts of

50
promising are not restricted to any conventional use or procedure. In the
utterance, “I warn you he is a bad person”, the form of the performative is
‘explicit’. But, in certain utterances like, “He is a bad person”, the form is
‘primary’ or implicit. Austin understood that all the utterances he had
previously considered as constatives were actually primary or implicit
performatives. Thus, the distinction between performatives and constatives
became problematic due to the primary or implicit performatives. He came to
the conclusion that all utterances contain both constative and performative
elements. Therefore, the dichotomy between performatives and constatives
was discarded by Austin in favour of a general theory of speech acts in
which all utterances perform specific actions as per the force of the utterance
in appropriate circumstances.

Austin (1967) concluded that all utterances are sayings and doings at the
same time and put forward the idea that a speaker through his / her utterance
performs three related acts simultaneously:

1) Locutionary Act: It is the act of saying something with

determinate sense and reference. It is the act of uttering
sounds, words and phrases in a particular combination (well
formed) and stands for the literal, denotative or dictionary
meaning. It represents the constative aspect of a speech act.

2) Illocutionary Act: Illocutionary acts are what is done by

saying something. Illocutionary acts are the functions that
speakers achieve through their well formed utterances. For
example the utterance, “My dad has brought ice-cream” might
functions as a statement, an offer, an explanation, a warning,
etc. Illocutionary act represents the contextual meaning or

51
 implicative force of an utterance. It is also known as the
illocutionary force of an utterance. A speaker performs this act
by uttering a sentence in a particular context and hence
contextual meaning or implied meaning is taken into
consideration. Illocutionary act is under the control of a speaker
so the intention of a speaker matters here. It is necessary to
perform a locutionary act in order to perform an illocutionary
act.

3) Perlocutionary Act: The Perlocutionary Act is the effect an

utterance produces on the listener. It achieves or brings about a
change in the mind of a listener through an utterance. This is
also termed as perlocutionary effect. Therefore, Perlocutionary
Act is under the control of a listener. Austin describes the effect
produced by an utterance as ‘securing uptake’.

The above acts can be explained with the help of the following example:

“ I will complete my Ph.D thesis by December.”

In the above example, the speaker’s uttering the sentence is the locutionary
act which produces the illocutionary act of promising which in turn may
produce the perlocutionary act of assuring, warning, making the listener
happy, doubtful, jealous, etc.

For Austin, as compared to Locutionary and Perlocutionary acts, the

Illocationary Act is of prime interest as the concept of speech act is related to
this type of act.

52
Austin’s theory of speech acts was further developed by Searle. He (1969:
16) has defined Speech Act as, “…speaking a language is performing speech
acts, acts such as making statements, giving commands, asking questions,
making promises, and so on….”

Austin (1967) classified speech acts into five types: (i) verdictives (giving of
a verdict), (ii) exercitives (exercising of powers, rights or influence), (iii)
commissives (promising or otherwise undertaking), (iv) behabitives
(expressions of attitudes and social behaviour), (v) expositives (making
utterances fit into the course of an argument or conversation). There have
been many attempts to further develop the original Austin’s taxonomy. But,
as pointed out by Huang (2011), Searle’s neo-Austinian typology of speech
acts remains the most influential. In Searle’s taxonomy, speech acts are
universally grouped into five types: (i) representatives or assertives, (ii)
directives, (iii) commissives, (iv) Expressives, (v) declarations or
declaratives.

Yule (2002: 47) has described speech acts as, “Actions performed via
utterances are generally called speech acts and, in English, are commonly
given more specific labels, such as apology, complaint, compliment,
invitation, promise, or request.”

Thus, it can be stated that when people express themselves via language,
they just do not produce well formed utterances but they perform actions via
those utterances which are termed as speech acts. For example, when
President Franklin D. Roosevelt uttered the following sentence in his
‘Declaration of War Address’ delivered on 8 December, 1941 after the
unprovoked attack by Japanese forces on Pearl Harbour on 7 December,
1941, it was more than a statement:

53
 “I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and
dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, December 7th, 1941, a state of
war has existed between the United States and the Japanese empire.”
(www.americanrhetoric.com)

The above utterance performed the act of declaring war against Japan and
made the United States of America enter into the World War II.

Consider the following utterances:

i. You’re very beautiful!

ii. You’re always welcome.
iii. Could you pass the glass?
iv. I will buy you a new dress.

The speakers in the above examples perform various acts like giving a
compliment as in (i), acknowledgement of thanks in (ii), requesting in (iii)
and promising in (iv).

Therefore, an utterance is a Speech Act because when speakers use words,

they do things or perform actions like promising, apologizing, giving
commands, making statements, complaining, inviting, requesting, giving
compliments, etc.

A speaker through his utterances gets his thing done or brings about a change
in the situation or the world around them with the help of words (utterances).
Therefore, when people use language, they perform action with their words.
These linguistic actions are known as speech acts.

54
Direct and Indirect Speech Acts
On the basis of structure and function of utterances, speech acts can be
classified into direct and indirect speech acts. The three basic sentence types
in English provide a simple structural distinction between three general types
of speech acts. The following table shows this relationship between the three
structural forms and their corresponding three general communicative
functions.

Sr. Sentence Structural Function

no. Form
1 You wear a Declarative Statement
helmet.
2 Do you wear a Interrogative Question
helmet?
3 Wear a helmet! Imperative Command /
Request

If there is a direct relationship between a structure and a function, it is

termed as a direct speech act and if there is an indirect relationship between
a structure and a function, it is termed as indirect speech act. For example,
when a declarative is used to make a statement, it is a direct act but when a
declarative is used to make a request, it is an indirect speech act. The
following examples illustrate this logic:
i. Can you wash the clothes?
ii. I hereby ask you if you can wash the clothes.
iii. I hereby request you to wash the clothes.

55
As illustrated in the above examples, the utterance in (i) is an interrogative.
When it is used to ask a question as paraphrased in (ii), it functions as a
direct speech act. But, if it is used to make a request as paraphrased in (iii), it
functions as an indirect speech act.

As compared to direct speech acts, indirect speech acts are associated with
greater politeness in English.

Conclusion
The Speech act theory is a one of the central and fundamental theories in
Linguistic Pragmatics. The notion of Speech Acts is a revolutionary concept
because people get their things done via words. It illustrates how to do things
with word as highlighted by Austin. Speech Acts highlight the
‘performative’ character of language and points out that producing an
utterance is tantamount to performing action. Thus, speech acts can be
simply defined as actions performed via utterances. Austin’s phenomenal
philosophical work influenced Searle and H. P. Grice who further developed
Austin’s theory of Speech Acts.

2.5 Politeness Principle

Language serves a variety of functions. It is just not used for communicating

ideas (informative function), expressing feelings (expressive function) or
getting things done (directive function) but it is also used for establishing and
maintaining interpersonal relationships (phatic or social function). As
pointed by Yule (2002:59), “much of what we say, and a great deal of what
we communicate, is determined by our social relationships.” Therefore, a

56
linguistic interaction is necessarily a social interaction. The interlocutors’
choices of utterances in relation to politeness depend on their relative social
distance or closeness. Hence, Politeness Principle is related to the phatic or
social function of language.

Politeness Strategies
The Cooperative Principle deals with the effective transfer of information.
But, interlocutors are not always concerned about the effective transfer of
information. While using language, they are also concerned about the
politeness strategies in their talk exchanges. Consider the following
utterances where the speaker wants the listener to pass the salt.
i. Pass the salt.
ii. There’s salt
iii. Would you pass the salt?
iv. Would you be so kind as to pass the salt?

As per the Cooperative principle, (i) is sufficient. It sounds like an order. In

(ii), the speaker is indirectly suggesting to pass the salt. Both (i) and (ii) are
devoid of politeness. But, (iii) and (iv) represent degrees of politeness as
compared to (i) and (ii). Thus, Politeness Principle is an inseparable part of
language use.

Politeness in terms of language use can be defined as the choices of

utterances or forms which reflect polite social behavior or etiquette within a
culture. As suggested by Yule (2002), there are a number of different general
principles or norms for being polite in social interaction within a particular
culture. Some of the principles might include being tactful, generous,
modest, considerate, sympathetic, etc. The speakers are generally aware of
such principles or norms that exist in their society. It is necessary to

57
understand the concept of face for a better understanding of Politeness
Principle.

Concept of Face
The concept of ‘face’ was introduced by Erving Goffman (1956) and so his
work is very important and inspiring in the study of Politeness Principle.
According to Goffman, face means the public self-image of a person. Every
individual in the social process has the need to be appreciated by other
individuals and the need to be free and not interfered with. Thus, the need to
be appreciated is ‘positive face’ and the need to not to disturbed is ‘negative
face’. Thus, politeness in communication can be defined as the means
employed to show awareness of another individual’s face.

According to Goffman, participants in a conversation strive to achieve

stability in their interpersonal relationships. Therefore, participants should
not violate one another’s face. If a person says something which can be a
threat to another persons’ ‘face’ (public self image), it is termed as a face
threatening act (FTA). On the contrary, when some utterances work as a
possible threat to another person’s face, the interlocutor can say something
which minimize the possible threat. This is termed as face saving act (FSA).
Politeness prevents or repairs the damage caused by FTAs. Therefore,
greater the threat to face, the more politeness and face work technique is
necessary.

Penelope Brown and Stephen Levinson (1978) were inspired by Goffman’s

work and further developed the linguistic politeness theory. According to
Brown and Levinson’s theory, ‘face’ has two varieties, ‘positive face’ and
‘negative face’. Positive face is a person’s desire to be well thought of or
admired by others. It is the wish to be understood by others and the desire to

58
be treated as a friend and confidant. Thus, a complaint about a person’s
performance related to his job works as threat to his/her positive face.
Negative face is a person’s wish not to be imposed on by others and the
desire to be free and no interference by others. Thus, informing an employee
that he cannot meet the manager which is contrary to the employee’s wish is
a threat to his/her negative face. Therefore, the utterances of speakers are
oriented to the positive face or negative face of the addressee. The following
examples of Grundy (2000) explain this:
Got the time mate (P:156)
The above utterance is oriented to the positive face of the addressee because
the addressee is treated as a friend and an equal. Therefore, it is an example
of ‘positive politeness.’ But, the following utterance is an example of
‘negative politeness’:
Could I just borrow a tiny bit of paper (P:157)

The above utterance is oriented to the addressees negative face as it seeks to

compensate for the interference and the imposition on the addressee’s right
to free and self-determined action.

According to Brown and Levinson’s model, when a speaker wants to

perform a face threatening act, he/she has to choose from the three
superordinate strategies. The three strategies are: do the act on record, do the
act off-record and don’t do the act at all. This phenomenon can be explained
by using Grundy’s (2000) examples. If a speaker says:

Oh no, I’ve left my money at home

The above utterance is an off-record way of hinting, so that the addressee

might lend the speaker some money. If the speaker is asked whether he was

59
indirectly asking for money, he may deny it and may say that he was just
making an observation and this way the speaker has acted off-record. The
first strategy – do the face threatening act on record, is the most common.
There are three subordinate on-record strategies and this makes a total of five
available strategies when a speaker has a face threatening act to perform:
1. Do the act on-record (i) baldly, without redress (ii) with positive
politeness redress (iii) with negative politeness redress
2. Do the act off-record.
3. Don’t do the act.

Speakers when choose one of the above five strategies, they work with an
equation by considering the social distance, power and imposition factors to
determine the intensity of the threat to face and the use of appropriate
politeness strategy to compensate it. Thus, the intensity of the threat to face
is expressed by a weight (W) which is linked to an FTA. The weight is the
sum of the three social parameters which are:

(i) the rate of imposition which is the ‘absolute weight’ of a particular

act in a specific culture;
(ii) the social distance between the speaker and the addressee;
(iii) the power of the addressee over the speaker.

The term ‘absolute weight’ refers to the fact that the example, “May I
borrow your car?” belongs to a different category than the example, “May I
borrow your pen?” The request to borrow the car will not be quite a heavy
demand if the person making the request is the car owner’s brother or sister.
This shows that the factors ‘distance’ and ‘power’ influence the ultimate
weight. Thus, the ultimate weight of a FTA can be expressed by a value as
per the following formula:

60
Intensity of threat to face: W (FTA) = R + D + P

According to Grundy (2000:159), “the most important point about Brown

and Levinson’s five strategies is that they are ranked from Do the act on
record baldly, which has no linguistically encoded compensation, through a
sequence of escalating politeness strategies to Don’t do the act, where the
face threat is too great to be compensated by any language formula so that
the most appropriate politeness strategy is not to do the act.”

2.6 Political Discourse

2.6.1 Discourse
In simple words, the term ‘Discourse’ means a meaningful linguistic
interaction between a speaker(s) or writer(s) and hearer(s) or reader(s) on any
subject. From the discourse analysis point of view, ‘discourse’ means actual
instances of language as used for communication. Thus, discourse exists in
two forms, (i) spoken and (ii) written. Discourse can be viewed as social
parlance or language-in-use. It is not the manifestation of timeless
linguistic system but is the product and manifestation of particular social
conditions, class, and power relationships that alter drastically in the course
of history.

Language as an object of study can be classified into two broad categories:

one dealing with grammatically correct sentences used for teaching a
language or dealing with the study of abstract rules that govern a language
and the other used for communication which may or may not be conforming
to the rules of correctness but is coherent and makes sense. This latter type of

61
‘language in use’ for communicative purposes is termed as ‘discourse’.
These two categories of language cannot be divided into water tight
compartments. Often discourse is composed of one or more grammatical
correct sentences but it need not be always grammatically correct. Hence,
discourse may contain grammatical mistakes in it. As per the context and the
need, discourse conforms to the rules of grammar or even violates them. The
same applies to ‘meaning’ because discourse does not always conform to
conventional or denotative meaning. Discourse gives rise to a multiplicity of
meanings in various contexts. In discourse, adherence to grammar rules does
not matter as long as it achieves its communicative goals or makes sense and
is considered by the recipients or consumers as coherent. Discourse can be
anything from a single word, a sentence, a small piece of conversation, an
essay, a poem, an advertisement in print or electronic form, a speech, a
novel, a movie, etc.

2.6.2 Discourse Analysis

Discourse analysis deals with the study of relationship between language and
its context. It evolved in the 1960s out of the work in different disciplines
like Linguistics, Semiotics, Psychology, Anthropology and sociology. Thus,
according to McCarthy (1991), discourse analysis is the study of language in
use which is reflected in written texts, spoken data ranging from
conversation to highly institutionalized forms of talk. Today, discourse
analysis has grown into a multi-disciplinary field which describes and
analyses language above sentence in relation to its context and cultural
influences that affect language in use. Discourse analysis has two broad
approaches: formal and functional. The formal approach deals with the
cohesion created by cohesive devices. The formal approach does not take
context of the text into consideration while analyzing language. Whereas, the
functional approach takes the context into consideration while analyzing

62
language. Therefore, pragmatic analysis of discourse, which takes context
into consideration, is the functional approach to discourse analysis.

2.6.3 What is Political Discourse?

Political discourse can be understood and defined from various perspectives.
The following discussion is an attempt in this direction. Political discourse is
the interaction related to political forums such as debates, speeches and
hearings concerned with the citizens and constitutional institutions. Political
discourse is the exchange of reasoned views about several alternative courses
of action available to solve political, social and economic problems. While
doing so, it also expresses the political ideology of an individual, group,
political party or a government. The utterances are usually related to events
and happenings in the public sphere which require collective decision
making, policies, regulation or legislation. In brief, political discourse
comprises of all the formal and informal verbal material of a society, related
to the domain of polity which may include genres like talk exchanges,
debates, discussions, speeches, constitutional literature, etc. The talk and
speeches of politicians are distinctly an example of political discourse.

According to Teun A. van Dijk (1997), political discourse is identified by its

actors or authors, viz., politicians and the vast area of political discourse
deals with the studies about the text and talk of professional politicians or
political institutions, such as presidents and prime ministers and other
members of government, parliament or political parties, both at the local,
national and international levels.

However, politicians alone are not the only participants in the domain of
politics although they play a crucial role in Political Science and Political
Discourse Analysis (PDA) as actors and authors of political discourse and

63
other political practices. Therefore, from the interactional point of view of
discourse analysis, the various recipients in political communicative events,
such as the people, the citizens, the masses, and other groups or categories
must be included in the domain of political discourse. Thus, once politics and
its discourses are located in the public sphere, many more participants in
political communication appear on the scene.
Hence, the delimitation of political discourse by inclusion of only politicians
as the principal authors or actors is insufficient and it must be extended to a
more complex picture of all its relevant participants, whether they are
actively involved or not in political discourse, or merely are recipients in
one-way modes of communication.

Obviously, political discourse is shaped not only by the official or

professional politics and politicians but also by people as citizens and voters,
people as members of pressure and issue groups, demonstrators and
dissidents, etc. Thus, a broad definition of politics implies a vast extension
of the scope of the term 'Political Discourse' which includes all participants
and their practices in the political process.

Another (though overlapping) way of delimiting political discourse is by

focusing on the nature of the activities or practices being accomplished by
political text and talk rather than only focusing on the nature of its
participants. This means that even politicians are not always involved in
political discourse and obviously the same is true for other participants, such
as the public or citizens in general, members of social movements, action
groups, pressure groups, etc. It also implies that the members are participants
of political discourse only when acting as political actors or authors when
they are participating in political actions such as governing, ruling,
legislating, protesting, dissenting or voting.

64
Although there are many approaches for defining and delimiting political
discourse, finally the context may be considered decisive for the
categorization of discourse as 'political'. Participants and their actions are at
the core of such contexts which include settings like time, place,
circumstances; occasions, intentions, functions, goals and legal or political
implications. Thus, politicians talk politically when they and their talk are
contextualized in communicative events like parliamentary sessions, cabinet
meetings, election campaigns, rallies, media interviews, bureaucratic
practices, diplomatic talk, protest demonstrations, etc. This skill of
integrating political texts and contexts in political encounters to accomplish
specific political aims and goals is very much evident in Barack Obama’s
political discourse.

While delimiting political discourse care must be taken to avoid the

extension of politics and political discourse to a domain that is so large that it
would coincide with the study of public discourse in general. Therefore, as
suggested by Teun A. van Dijk, one should not treat such forms of
‘discourse-with-possible-political-effects’ as political discourse. It means
that corporate, medical, educational, economic discourse, etc even affecting
the lives of citizens should not be considered as forms of political discourse.

The language of political discourse is very distinct and different from the
languages of other types of discourses. Here, language is employed as a
strategy by politicians. Especially, it is a persuasive tool in the hands of the
political leaders. There are certain inherent features like indirectness and
politeness in it. Refined statesmen and politicians are not always direct and
straightforward in their manner of saying things. When required, they are
indirect, oblique, ambiguous and irrelevant in their talk. They do this in their
speeches and talk exchanges because they know very well that they are not

65
just saying things or describing things but actively doing them. Therefore,
veiled or camouflaged utterances are one of the marked characteristics of
political discourse.

The American political discourse primarily hinges on how the government

can best support the United States of America and provide every individual
the best possible opportunity in terms of life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness. And this same ideology of the American Dream is reflected in the
political discourse of Barack Obama.

2.7 Rhetoric, Oratory & Public Speaking

Rhetoric is the art of persuasion through language and it includes speech as

well as writing. The Merriam-Webster dictionary (http://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/rhetoric) defines rhetoric as:

i. The art or skill of speaking or writing formally and

effectively especially as a way to persuade or influence
people

ii. The language that is intended to influence people and that

may not be honest or reasonable

The study of effective speaking and writing was regarded as an art in the
classical civilization. In ancient Greece, rhetoric dealt with the formal study
of persuasion.

66
The following are some of the scholarly definitions of rhetoric which are
taken from the website: American Rhetoric
(http://www.americanrhetoric.com/rhetoricdefinitions.htm):

Plato: [Rhetoric] is the "art of enchanting the soul." (The art of

winning the soul by discourse.)

Aristotle: Rhetoric is "the faculty of discovering in any particular

case all of the available means of persuasion."

Cicero: "Rhetoric is one great art comprised of five lesser arts:

inventio, dispositio, elocutio, memoria, and pronunciatio."
Rhetoric is "speech designed to persuade."

Quintilian: "Rhetoric is the art of speaking well" or "...good man

speaking well."

Francis Bacon: The duty and office of rhetoric is to apply reason

to imagination for the better moving of the will.

George Campbell: "[Rhetoric] is that art or talent by which

discourse is adapted to its end. The four ends of discourse are to
enlighten the understanding, please the imagination, move the
passion, and influence the will."

Philip Johnson: "Rhetoric is the art of framing an argument so

that it can be appreciated by an audience."

Andrea Lunsford: "Rhetoric is the art, practice, and study of

67
 human communication."

Kenneth Burke: "The most characteristic concern of rhetoric [is]

the manipulation of men's beliefs for political ends....the basic
function of rhetoric [is] the use of words by human agents to form
attitudes or to induce actions in other human agents."

The above definitions highlight the fact that rhetoric is an art, a skill or a
talent to use words or language and is aligned to the important goal of
communication: persuasion. Thus, rhetoric is a means to an end. Therefore,
apart from the primary purpose of persuasion, rhetoric is also used by
individuals for various purposes like to win people’s hearts and support,
inform and enlighten people, change people’s opinions and beliefs, inspire
and motivate people. It is employed to ignite passion and enthusiasm in
followers, stretch the limits of imagination and possibility and above all to
make the people act to bring the desired change. Barack Obama’s speeches
are a perfect example of this phenomenon of rhetoric.

The formal public speeches of political or religious leaders, speeches by

corporate executives or by academicians are one part of the huge field called
rhetoric. According to Leith (2012), rhetoric is not just an academic
discipline or the preserve of professional orators. It pervades everywhere in
the human world. The daily instances of persuasion through T.V. ads,
parents insisting their children to study, the utterances of salespersons,
request for a window seat in the train, etc. are all examples which show the
use of rhetoric by people. Thus, it can be said that rhetoric is the discourse of
persuasion.

68
But, the term ‘rhetoric’, once regarded as the formal study of persuasion in
ancient Greece, has acquired a negative meaning to a great extent in the
contemporary context. In contemporary English, ‘rhetoric’ is associated with
manipulative and deceptive persuasion. As pointed out by Charteris- Black
(2014), rhetoric, in the present age, is equated with hypocrisy or falsehood.
According to him, rhetoric is invariably contrasted with fact or reality and
linked with disparaged social groups such as politicians.

Rhetoric is an art and therefore like Science it can be positively used to build
trust or negatively used to misrepresent things. If rhetoric is used in the right
spirit, a man can bring the greatest benefits to his people and if used
wrongly, it will do the greatest harm than what weapons can do.

Oratory and Public Speaking

As discussed earlier, if rhetoric is the formal study of the art of persuasion,
oratory is the application of the knowledge of rhetoric especially to speech-
making. Oratory can be defined as a skill or eloquence in public speaking.
The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines oratory as:

1. the art of speaking in public eloquently or effectively

2. (a) public speaking that employs oratory
(b) public speaking that is characterized by the use of
stock phrases and that appeals chiefly to the emotions

It appears from the above definition that there is little difference in oratory
and public speaking. But, Charteris-Black (2014) in his book, ‘Analysing
Political Speeches’ has brought to the fore the difference between ‘oratory’
and ‘public speaking’. He highlights the fact that ‘oratory’ is associated with

69
words like persuasive, wit, brilliant, display, wonder, seductive and art. On
the contrary, ‘public speaking’ occurs with words like competition, skills,
debating, classes, courses, etc. He points out that public speaking, unlike
oratory, is something learnt rather than something intuitive. Therefore,
Charteris-Black uses the term, ‘oratory’ when referring to the status and
origin of speech-making in the classical rhetoric and ‘public communication’
when referring to contemporary use. The reason for the above distinction is
the major difference between the classical and contemporary situations. The
difference is the opportunity available today for the proliferation of a speech
through multiple media. Thus, the easy access to ‘Information and
Communication Technology’ (ICT) makes public speaking dynamic and
accessible 24/7 for public consumption.

In ancient civilization, oratory was conducted in face-to-face settings but in

the modern period a public speaker communicates not only through face-to-
face settings but also through a host of telecommunication media. Therefore,
as suggested by Charteris-Black it is better to consider contemporary oratory
as ‘public communication’

The minimum requirements for persuasion in public communication are

fluency in language, high confidence, sincerity, spontaneity, innovation,
proficiency in the use of multimedia and the ability to generate trust in the
audience. Barack Obama’s speeches are one of the best examples of
persuasion in public communication.

Political Speech
A political speech in the contemporary context is a type of public
communication in the spoken form dealing with a subject or an issue of

70
public importance which is delivered to an omnipresent audience through a
range of ICT.

Charteris-Black (2014: xiii) defines a political speech as, “a coherent stream

of spoken language that is usually prepared for delivery by a speaker to an
audience for a purpose on a political occasion.” He states that there are
broadly two main classes of political speech:

1. Policy-making speeches are concerned with the making of

political decisions
2. Consensus-building speeches are concerned with
establishing shared values

As pointed out by Charteris-Black, these two classes of political speech

cannot be divided into water-tight compartments because a policy-making
speech is also an attempt to build consensus and a consensus-building speech
also endeavours to persuade people for future policy decision. A policy-
making speech addresses certain specific aspects of policy about which a
decision needs to be made in the near future: for example whether to go to
war; on what terms and conditions to allow further immigration; whether
Scotland should remain in the United Kingdom, etc. Whereas, the occasion
of consensus-building speeches is very specific and may include immanence
of military combat, the election of a president or prime minister. The content
of such speeches is more general as compared to policy-forming speeches.
For example, Presidential Inaugural speeches or Party Convention speeches
deal with a broad range of topics and policy areas. This distinction is also
based on the contrast of purpose underlying these two classes of speech. A
policy-making speech points towards a decision so that policy can be made
usually through voting in the near future. On the other hand, consensus-

71
building speeches are primarily motivational. This type of speech serves to
display the shared beliefs of a speaker and an audience for generating a
feeling of unity for future policy.

Barack Obama’s campaign speeches fall in the category of consensus-

building speeches which reflect the shared beliefs of the American people in
the American ideals.

2.8 Barack Obama: A Brief Biography

“In no other country on earth is my story even possible”

Barack Obama, July 27, 2004

Barack Obama’s rocketing rise from Hawaii high-schooler to exemplary

Harvard Law School student to politician of hope to history-making
President of the United States of America is the story of a legend.

Birth and Parentage

Obama’s father-Barack Obama Sr. received a scholarship from the
University of Hawaii and he moved to Hawaii to pursue his dream of higher
studies. He became the first African student of the university at the age of 23
where he studied econometrics. In a Russian language class, he met an 18
year old American lady- Ann Dunham, both fell in love and after a short
courtship got married in a civil ceremony. A son was born to them on August
4, 1961 and was named as Barack Hussein Obama, after his father and
grandfather. In Arabic, ‘Barack’ means blessed.

72
In 1963, Barack Sr. graduated by standing first in his class and left for
Harvard University to pursue Ph.D., leaving his two year old son – Barry
(lovingly called) and wife in Hawaii. Later, he and Ann got divorced. Barack
Sr. returned to Africa after leaving Harvard. Ann then married Lolo Soetoro,
a student from Indonesia at the University of Hawaii. Barack moved to
Jakarta, Indonesia when he was six years old along with his mother and his
step father. Barry learnt an important lesson in Indonesia from his step
father. As narrated by Obama in his book ‘Dreams From My Father’
(2004:40), Lolo told him, that – “ Men take advantage of weakness in other
men. The strong man takes the weak man’s land. He makes the weak man
work in the fields …… Which would you rather be?” Barack learnt four
important values from his mother: honesty, fairness, straight talk and the
ability to think about what’s right and what’s wrong. Ann, a scholar and
voracious reader gave him books about Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Civil
Rights Movement. She told him about the African – American heroes and
about the good side of Barack Sr. Thus, Barry got a mixed cultural heritage.

School and College Days

Barack was sent back to Hawaii when he was ten by Ann. She wanted Barry
to stay with his grandparents and attend the school there than doing his
schooling in Indonesia. She thought about the many opportunities that
America would offer to her only son and sent him back where he really
belonged to. Barry got enrolled in the prestigious Punahou School. When
Barry reached high school, Ann and Lolo got separated and Ann returned to
Hawaii along with Maya, Barry’s half sister.

During Barry’s high school days, the complicated questions about race
started cropping up in his mind. Being both black and white, he had a lot of

73
race issues and he struggled to understand what it meant by being African-
American. Barack wrote in his book , “ I was trying to raise myself to be a
black man in America”. His struggle and pain can be understood from the
incident in which Barry quit the tennis team when the narrow-minded coach
made a comment about the colour of his skin. During these formative years,
Barry acquainted himself with the works of Black authors like Langston
Hughes, Ralph Ellison, James Baldwin, etc. He felt very much connected to
the Autobiography of Malcolm X.

Barry longed to experience life beyond Hawaii and won a scholarship to

study at Occidental College. Here, Barack got involved in the popular
campus movement that urged the university not to do business with South
African companies because of South Africa’s apartheid policy. Through this
movement, he understood the power of words for the first time. Obama, in
his memoir, ‘Dreams From My Father’ (2004: 105) wrote:
“I noticed that people had begun to listen to my opinions. It was a
discovery that made me hungry for words. Not words to hide behind but
words that could carry a message, support an idea.”

Barack got transferred from Occidental College to Columbia University,

New York in 1981. Two years later in 1983, Obama graduated from
Columbia University in Political Science.

After working in Chicago as a community organizer, Obama understood that

to bring about a better change in the lives of people he needed to equip
himself with a law degree. Consequently, Obama enrolled in Harvard Law
school at 27. Harvard days were marked by intense study, writing and
friendship. His experience of being the first black president of the famous

74
Harvard Law Review taught him the first important lesson of managing
people with strong opposite views.

As a Community Organiser
After quitting a few jobs which did not hold his interest, Barack accepted the
offer of Jerry Kellman to do the work of a Community Organiser as it gave
him an opportunity to be what he always wanted to be: a person who would
make the world a better place. Kellman, described Obama as a man on a
mission to help people and said:

“Barack wanted to serve; he wanted to lead. And he was

ambitious, but never just for ambition’s sake. It was always mixed
in with a sense of service.”

Kellman saw the promise of Martin Luther King, Jr. in him. Obama’s work
as a community organizer in Chicago had a great influence in making him a
politician of hope. While doing this job, he came across a friend, philosopher
and guide, Mr. Wright who helped him in understanding Christianity.

Marriage and Family

In 1988, after the first year at Harvard, Barack met Michelle Robinson
during the summer job at a Chicago law firm. Michelle, also an Arfican-
American lawyer from Harvard, was Obama’s mentor in the firm. Barack
fell in love with Michelle and soon Michelle gave in. They continued the
relationship for some time and got married in 1992, bought a home in Hyde
park, their first daughter – Malia was born in1998 and Sasha, the second
daughter was born in 2001.

75
As a Politician of Hope
After working for over 9 years in law in Illinois, Obama realized that courts
are very slow and at this juncture he started thinking seriously about political
office. In 1996, he was elected to the Illinois state senate as a democrat. He
passed a decent number of laws in his first term. In 2000, Obama decided to
run against Bobby Rush in Democratic primary election with an aim of
winning a seat in the House of Representatives. But, eventually he lost it.
After losing the election, Obama thought whether he should continue in
politics or quit. But, Obama’s deep faith in the audacity of hope, made him
think about trying for the U.S. Senate race in 2004. Almost, everyone,
including Michelle advised him: don’t run. But, he told Michelle:
“ I really think there is a strong possibility that I can win this
race ….if it doesn’t work out, then I will step out of politics.”

Finally, he got a green signal from Michelle- his most trusted advisor. After
lot of hard work, sincere efforts, David Axelrod’s (Obama’s chief political
consultant) campaign strategies like T.V. ads and of course, honest and
inspiring speeches, Obama- a little known politician, won the primary
election with a whooping 53 percent of the votes. Then, in July 2004, he
delivered the famous keynote address at the Democratic National
Convention which put him on the road to White House. In November, he
won the general election for Senate by defeating Alan Keyes and in January
2005 he was sworn in as a Senator.

Obamamania
After returning from Africa, where he visited his father’s country, Obama
started thinking seriously about running for the U.S. President in 2008. By
now, no one had seen a politician to rise so fast and become famous so fast

76
as Obama did. From the moment Obama delivered the famous 2004
electrifying keynote address, he became a political star symbolizing hope;
then his landslide victory as the U.S. Senator; suddenly he was everywhere-
on TV, newspapers, magazines, and of course in the minds and hearts of the
Americans. This splendid journey could only end at one place- the White
House.

On a cold morning of February 10, 2007, in Springfield, Illinois, in the

presence of around 10,000 supporters, Obama declared that he was going to
run for the President of the United States of America. The campaign for
presidency transformed into a political movement called the ‘Audacity of
Hope’ or ‘Obama for America.’ A new generation of America reached the
ballot for Obama and in Obama’s words, “responded with a simple creed
that sums up the spirit of a people: Yes , we can”.

Barack Obama won the 2008 U.S. presidential election and was sworn in as
the 44th President of the United States of America on Tuesday, January 20,
2009.

2.9 Barack Obama and The American Dream

The political discourse of Barack Obama is based on the foundation of

American Dream. In his book, The Audacity of Hope- Thoughts on
Reclaiming the American Dream (2007) and his memoir, ‘Dreams From My
Father’ (2004), Obama reaffirms his faith in the ideals cherished by the
American Dream. The American Dream has its roots in the United States
Declaration of Independence which holds it true that “all men are created

77
equal” and they are “endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable
Rights” which include “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The
idea of American Dream has become a national ethos for the Americans. The
dream upholds a set of ideals in which freedom includes the opportunity for
prosperity and success. It also stands for an upward social mobility achieved
through hard work. James Truslow Adams (1931, www.loc.gov) defines
the American Dream as, “… life should be better and richer and fuller for
everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement. It is
not a dream of motor cars and high wages merely, but a dream of social
order in which each man and each woman shall be able to attain to the
fullest stature of which they are innately capable, and be recognized by
others for what they are, regardless of the fortuitous circumstances of birth
or position.” It cherishes ideas of hope, optimism, justice and fulfillment of
promise. The dream advocates that regardless of social class or
circumstances of birth, a person should get his fair share of opportunity and a
chance for upward mobility.

As pointed out by Dupuis M. and Boeckelman K. (2008), in their book

Barack Obama, The New Face of American Politics, some of the most
memorable and inspiring political rhetoric in American history deals with
defining and interpreting the ‘American Dream’. The concept of American
Dream refers to the idea that the United States of America is a ‘Land of
Opportunities’, where success depends on hard work and not on one’s race or
class.

Barack Obama is the true embodiment of the American Dream, given his
mixed race, class, difficult circumstances and his ascent from bottom down
to top. Taking this dream forward Obama (2007) says:
“Every child should get a decent shot at life”.

78