0202 ‫ ساڵى‬4 ‫ ژمارە‬02 ‫پاشكۆی بەرگى‬ ‫گۆڤارى زانکۆ بۆ زانستە مرۆڤایەتییەکان‬

Conversational Implicatures in Shaw’s ‘How He Lied to Her Husband’

pp. (42-48)

Salam Neamah Hirmiz Hakeem (PhD) Hoshang Najmaddin Mustafa (MA)

Salahaddin University, College of Languages Salahaddin University, College of Languages
salam.hakeem@su.edu.krd hoshang.mustafa@su.edu.krd

Abstract
The researchers have selected various texts from one of Bernard Shaw‟s plays, which is entitled „How He Lied
to Her Husband‟, in an attempt to analyze the characters‟ use of language on the basis of Paul Grice‟s proposed
maxims which the speakers and hearers are assumed to abide by in their conversations. In this play, the
characters tend to violate or flout these maxims resulting in various conversational implicatures. Thus, there can
be a gap between what is literally expressed and what is intended because the characters lie, manipulate, and
deceive in order to achieve their goals. The results show that in their attempt for hiding the truth, the characters
tend to especially violate and flout the maxims of quality and manner the most.

Keywords: conversational implicature, cooperative principle, violation, maxim.

1. Introduction:

T his study analyzes conversations taken from Bernard Shaw's playlet "How He Lied to
Her Husband" in order to unfold the intended meaning according to the cooperative
principle. The playlet was published in 1905, and it is about an eighteen-year-old boy
who is in love with a 37-year-old married woman. The boy, Henry, had written poems to the
married woman, Aurora, who has lost the poems and she is worried that her sister-in-law,
Georgina, finds the poems and gives them to Aurora's husband, Teddy. The husband
eventually gets the poems, which explicitly mention the name Aurora many times. In the
beginning, Henry has a fight with Teddy and he denies that the poems were written for
Aurora, but later he confesses the truth but he claims that the relation between them was one-
sided platonic love. Teddy believes this and he actually even offers to have the poems printed
and published with the name "How He Lied to Her Husband ".

2. Theoretical framework
This study is based on Grice‟s pragmatic concept „conversational implicature‟, which arises due
to the violation of the „Cooperative Principle‟ (henceforth, CP) and its maxims. The CP states:
“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” (Grice 1975, cited
in Verschueren 1999: 32). The CP gives rise to four conversational maxims:
1. The Maxim of Quantity:
- Make your contribution as informative as is required for the
current purpose of the exchange
- Do not make your contribution more informative than is
required

2. The Maxim of Quality: try to make your contribution one that is

true.
- Do not say what you believe to be false
- Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence

3. The Maxim of Relation (later called relevance):be relevant

4. The Maxim of Manner: be perspicuous
- Avoid obscurity of expression
- Avoid ambiguity

42 Supplementary Issue Vol.20, No.4, 2016

0202 ‫ ساڵى‬4 ‫ ژمارە‬02 ‫پاشكۆی بەرگى‬ ‫گۆڤارى زانکۆ بۆ زانستە مرۆڤایەتییەکان‬

- Be brief
- Be orderly
It should be borne in mind that these maxims are psychological principles to which people
are assumed to be adhering in any act of communication (Asher and Simpson 1994:3254).
In other words, any interacting people are supposed to be as informative as possible, tell
the truth, say what is relevant, and speak as clearly as possible. Even when a speaker
flouts, or seems not to be adhering to, one of these maxims, the hearer still assumes that
the speaker is being cooperative and therefore tries to infer the intended meaning through
conversational implicature (Yule 1996:128). Thus, conversational implicatures denote
meanings that a speaker intends to convey but does not explicitly express, for example:
(1) Pete: Coming down to the pub tonight?
Bill: I‟ve got to finish a piece of work.
Bill‟s response implies and is understood as a refusal although he does not explicitly say
„no‟ (Cruse 2006: 3).
Levinson (1983: 104) notes that “implicatures are not semantic inferences, but rather
inferences on both the content of what has been said and some specific assumptions about
the cooperative nature of ordinary verbal interaction”. In fact, conversational implicatures
are intended implied meanings that are derived from the context of conversation and
inferred through the assumptions of the CP and its maxims. However, a speaker may also
violate the conversational maxims intentionally with aim of misleading the hearer or
hiding the truth. In other words, a speaker sometimes “deliberately supplies insufficient
information, says something that is insincere, irrelevant or ambiguous, and the hearer
wrongly assumes that they are cooperating.” (Cutting 2002:40).

3. Research problem
Bernard Shaw‟s playlet "How He Lied to Her Husband" is a literary work that involves
betrayal, deception, and manipulation. As such, the paper attempts to address the
following:
1- What are the reasons behind the characters' violation or flouting of the
conversational maxims?
2- Which maxims are mostly violated or flouted?
3- What are the implicatures that can be derived from the characters‟
conversations?

4. Research objective
This study aims to linguistically analyze the playlet "How He Lied to Her Husband"
according to the Gricean Cooperative Principle. Due to the deceptive nature of the
play, it tends to include numerous instances of violation and flouting of the
conversational maxims and the study aims to identify which maxims the characters
mostly fail to observe and to unravel the intended meanings in an attempt to specify the
reasons behind the characters‟ nonobservance of the maxims.

5. Research Procedure
The procedures that are followed in conducting this study involve collecting data
through a scrutinized reading of the dialogues and arguments in the playlet and
analyzing them according to the conversational maxims in order to specify the hidden
implicatures and clarify the reasons behind the violation and/or flouting of these
maxims.

43 Supplementary Issue Vol.20, No.4, 2016

0202 ‫ ساڵى‬4 ‫ ژمارە‬02 ‫پاشكۆی بەرگى‬ ‫گۆڤارى زانکۆ بۆ زانستە مرۆڤایەتییەکان‬

6. Data
The data of the study are taken from Bernard Shaw's playlet "How He Lied to Her
Husband". It consists of selected scripts from the arguments between the three major
characters of the playlet. The reason behind choosing this literary work is that it
involves concepts of appearance and reality in social and romantic relations, and
eventually includes lots of instances of hidden implicatures due to the characters
attempts to manipulate and hide the truth.

7. Implicatures through violation and/or flouting of maxims

The play opens with a description of a „beautiful‟ young boy of eighteen who is well-
dressed and carrying flowers for his 37-year-old beloved. The implication behind the
writer‟s use of the word „beautiful‟ might be to show that he is too young for her. His
juvenile love is later confirmed when he kisses and smells her cloud, gloves and even
the fan while waiting for her to come. Furthermore, the reader is prepared for the kind
of inappropriate relationship between the young man and the married woman when the
writer uses the words „his folly‟ in reference to Henry. As explained below, the playlet
includes lots of examples of violation and flouting of conversational maxims leading to
informative implicatures.

5.1 Violation and/or flouting of the quantity maxim

The playlet includes only a few instances of violation and flouting of the quantity
maxim, for example:
(2) SHE (i.e. Aurora) [jumping up distractedly] If you say that again I shall do something
I'll be sorry for. Here we are, standing on the edge of a frightful precipice. No doubt
it's quite simple to go over and have done with it. But can't you suggest anything more
agreeable?
She is giving too much information with little content because she is confused, but it
sounds like a threat of breaking up with her lover.
(3) SHE [springing up] Candida! No, I won't go to it again, Henry [tossing the flower on
the piano]. It is that play that has done all the mischief. I'm very sorry I ever saw it: it
ought to be stopped.
The audience is not given enough information about what has happened.

5.2 Violation and/or flouting of the quality maxim

There are numerous cases in which the characters violate or flout the quality maxim, as
explained below:
(4) HE. Ah, how I wish they had been addressed to an unmarried woman! How I wish
they had!
He wishes and imagines something unreal, i.e. he wishes that Aurora were not
married.
(5) HE. She [Georgina] will not understand them, I think.
He is lying to console her, since her name is mentioned many times in the poems.
(6) SHE [whisking herself abruptly away] Don't be selfish.
She is untruthful because she has been using him and her husband, so she is more
selfish and still accuses him of being the selfish one in the relationship.
(7) SHE. No, Henry. I will do nothing improper, nothing dishonorable.
She has already done an improper thing by having an affair with a young boy though
she is married and twice his age.

44 Supplementary Issue Vol.20, No.4, 2016

0202 ‫ ساڵى‬4 ‫ ژمارە‬02 ‫پاشكۆی بەرگى‬ ‫گۆڤارى زانکۆ بۆ زانستە مرۆڤایەتییەکان‬

(8) HE. All this alarm is needless, dearest. Believe me, nothing will happen. Your
husband knows that I am capable of defending myself. Under such circumstances
nothing ever does happen. And of course I shall do nothing. The man who once loved
you is sacred to me.
If her husband were truly scared to him, he would not dishonor him by having an
affair with his wife.
(9) SHE [turning to him with a gasp of relief] Oh, thank you, thank you! You really can
be very nice, Henry.
This is ironic and eventually untrue because she is hurt by him and she means exactly
the opposite.
(10) HE [with fierce politeness] I beg your pardon. What is it you want me to do? I
am at your service. I am ready to behave like a gentleman if you will be kind enough
to explain exactly how.
He pretends to be sorry and polite but he is upset and frustrated.
(11) SHE. Oh, well, if you come to that, what has become of you? Do you think
I would ever have encouraged you if I had known you were such a littledevil?
He is not a devil but he behaved in an evil manner when he threatened to beat her
husband.
(12) SHE. It matters a lot, I can tell you. If there's nothing about Bompas in the
poems, we can say that they were written to some other Aurora, and that you showed
them to me because my name was Aurora too. So you've got to invent another Aurora
for the occasion.
She is inventing a lie to hide the truth that the poems were written for her.
(13) SHE. Surely, as a man of honor--as a gentleman, you wouldn't tell the truth,
would you?
Being a man of honor, he should tell the truth. However, she is making him feel guilty
and behave chivalrously so as to push him to lie about their true relationship.
(14) SHE. Poor dear Georgina! I'm sorry I haven't been able to call on her this last
week. I hope there's nothing the matter with her.
She pretends to be worried about her but the truth is that she hates and is afraid of her
(because Georgina might have showed the poems to Teddy).
(15) HE. I assure you I am quite at a loss. Can you not be a little more explicit? He
pretends not to understand Teddy's accusations about writing the poems for his wife.
(16) HE [formally and carefully] Mr Bompas [i.e.Teddy]: I pledge you my word
you are mistaken. I need not tell you that MrsBompas is a lady of stainless honor, who
has never cast an unworthy thought on me. The fact that she has shown you my
poems—
He tries to hide the truth about their inappropriate relationship.
(17) HE [earnestly] Believe me, you are. I assure you, on my honor as a gentleman,
that I have never had the slightest feeling for MrsBompas[i.e. Aurora] beyond the
ordinary esteem and regard of a pleasant acquaintance.
He is making a big lie in an eloquent manner.
(18) HER HUSBAND. Jealousy! do you suppose I'm jealous of YOU? No, nor of
ten like you. But if you think I'll stand here and let you insult my wife in her own
house, you're mistaken.
He is jealous and this is why he is angry, but he wants to convey the message that he
and his wife are of a higher status than Henry.
(19) HE. Yes, I do mean it, and a lot more too. I asked Mrs Bompas to walk out of
the house with me--to leave you--to get divorced from you and marry me. I begged
and implored her to do it this very night. It was her refusal that ended everything

45 Supplementary Issue Vol.20, No.4, 2016

0202 ‫ ساڵى‬4 ‫ ژمارە‬02 ‫پاشكۆی بەرگى‬ ‫گۆڤارى زانکۆ بۆ زانستە مرۆڤایەتییەکان‬

between us. [Looking very disparagingly at him] What she can see in you, goodness
only knows!
He is lying in order to protect her and the relationship between them.

5.3 Violation and/or flouting of the relevance maxim

The playlet includes several instances of violation and flouting of the relevance maxim:

(20) SHE. I have lost your poems.

HE. They were unworthy of you. I will write you some more.
Instead of offering a solution, he talks about the value of the poems because he wants to
console her and he obviously has no solution for the problem.

(21) HE [painfully jarred] Have you got sisters-in-law?

SHE. Yes, of course I have. Do you suppose I am an angel?
Instead of answering this question, she asks an irrelevant question which may imply
that she is not in good relation with her in-laws.

(22) SHE. I shouldn't have let you: I see that now. When I think of Georgina
sitting there at Teddy's feet and reading them to him for the first time, I
feel I shall just go distracted.
HE. Yes, you are right. It will be a profanation.
She is scared that her husband would know about their affair and he is simply stating
that the sister-in-law's behavior is profane because he wants to divert her attention
from the real problem.

(23) SHE [a little frightened] Thank you, Henry: I was sure you would. You're
not angry with me, are you?
HE. Go on. Go on quickly. Give me something to think about, or I will--I
will--[he suddenly snatches up her fan and he is about to break it in his
clenched fists].
Instead of answering her question, he asks her to explain what to do. The implicature
is that he is really angry and wants to be busy with something before he does any
harm to her or her belongings.

(24) HER HUSBAND. Hallo! I thought you two were at the theatre.
SHE. I felt anxious about you, Teddy. Why didn't you come home to dinner?
Instead of responding to his inquiry, she pretends to be anxious about him and asks
him an irrelevant question because she wants to change the subject and not talk about
her and Henry.

5.4 Violation and/or flouting of the manner maxim

There are also various cases in which the characters violate or flout the manner maxim,
for example:
(25) HE: They will think that a man once loved a woman more devotedly than ever
man loved woman before. But they will not know what man it was.
He is unclear about the identity of the writer of the poems so he thinks that people can't
tell who the writer is.
(26) HE. She [i.e. Georgina] really sees the world in that way. That is her
punishment.

46 Supplementary Issue Vol.20, No.4, 2016

 0202 ‫ ساڵى‬4 ‫ ژمارە‬02 ‫پاشكۆی بەرگى‬ ‫گۆڤارى زانکۆ بۆ زانستە مرۆڤایەتییەکان‬

He is not perspicuous and the implication might be that Georgina does not appreciate
love, and this is why they should feel sorry for her instead of hating her.
(27) HE [coming to a sudden stop and speaking with considerable confidence] You
don't understand these things, my darling, how could you? In one respect I am unlike
the poet in the play. I have followed the Greek ideal and not neglected the culture of
my body. Your husband would make a tolerable second-rate heavy weight if he were
in training and ten years younger. As it is, he could, if strung up to a great effort by a
burst of passion, give a good account of himself for perhaps fifteen seconds. But I am
active enough to keep out of his reach for fifteen seconds; and after that I should be
simply all over him.
Instead of being brief and clear by simply saying that he is stronger than Teddy, he tries
to show off using a prolonged description of his abilities in order to impress her.
(28) HE. Yes: I'm capable of anything now. I should not have told him the truth by
halves; and now I will not lie by halves. I'll wallow in the honor of a gentleman.
It is unclear whether he is going to tell the truth or a complete lie to her husband because
he does not seem to have decided which one will work better for his relationship with
Aurora to continue.
(29) HER HUSBAND [grinning] Apjohn [i.e. Henry]: that's really very ready of
you. You are cut out for literature; and the day will come when Rory and I will be
proud to have you about the house. I have heard far thinner stories from much older
men.
Teddy indirectly accuses him of lying.
(30) HE. Oh, I don't mind. I am past minding anything. I have grown too fast this
evening.
He is unclear to imply that he went through a lot of situations that made him more mature
and indifferent about anything else that may happen.

6. Discussion
The analysis of the conversations between the characters of the playlet revealed various
instances of violation and flouting of conversational maxims due to various reasons, such as
politeness, caution, fear and deception. This is particularly true for Henry, the young lover,
who tries to satisfy and comfort Aurora, the married beloved, in every possible way and thus
flouting such maxims as relevance (through changing the topic) and manner (by being vague
about what could happen concerning the issue of his poems for Aurora). Besides, he blatantly
violates the maxim of quality in his attempt to hide the truth about his relation with Aurora
from her husband Teddy. Aurora, on the other hand, mostly violates and flouts the quantity
and quality maxims because she is embarrassed and confused about what she should do with
Henry and the issue of the poems, so she sometimes gives too much or too little information
and other times she tells lies to hide the truth because she does not want to lose her lover and,
at the same time, she does not want to destroy her marriage. We can eventually notice that
the maxims of manner and quality are the ones mostly violated or flouted because the two
major characters do not want to be transparent or truthful about the inappropriate relationship
between them.

7. Conclusion
It can be concluded that the characters use various strategies to manipulate, deceive and lie to
each other. This is reflected in the tricky ways they use in their arguments. In fact, the closer
we get to the end of the playlet, we find more and more instances of violation of quality
maxim especially on the part of the young man who uses different tricks to hide the truth
about this relationship with the married woman. It can also be noticed that most of the

47 Supplementary Issue Vol.20, No.4, 2016

 0202 ‫ ساڵى‬4 ‫ ژمارە‬02 ‫پاشكۆی بەرگى‬ ‫گۆڤارى زانکۆ بۆ زانستە مرۆڤایەتییەکان‬

conversational implicatures are derived through the violation and flouting of maxims of
manner and quality because the characters do their best to either be vague about the truth or
completely deny it.

8. References
Asher, R. E. and Simpson, J. M. Y. (eds.) (1994). The Encyclopedia of Language and
Linguistics. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Cutting, J. (2002). Pragmatics and Discourse. London: Routledge.

Cruse, A. (2006). A Glossary of Semantics and Pragmatics. Edinburgh : Edinburgh

University Press

Levinson, S. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Shaw, G. B. (1905). How He Lied to Her Husband. Retrieved on 25 Feb. 2016 from:
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3544/3544-h/3544-h.htm

Verschueren, J. (1999). Understanding Pragmatics. London: Arnold.

Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

48 Supplementary Issue Vol.20, No.4, 2016