8.

Pragmatic Analysis: Paul Grice’s Co-Operative Principle in Plays

Analysis

Drama Arm and the Man written by George Bernard Shaw’s has been analyzed because it has

been a good choice for me to interpret through the lens of CP presented by Paul Grice.

Further the last paragraph has been drawn as conclusion to take the jest of the analysis.

Dialogue 1

Raina: Is father safe? Page (20)

Cattherine: Yes! Your father send the news. Sirgius is the brave man of the day, the god of

the troop.

This is the first scene of Shaw’s play. Sirguis has won the war with its own charge by

defeating Serbs. Catherine brings the news of great victory to her daughter with her delight.

Moreover, there has been her father at battle too. Thus, she is asking about her father. How is

father? Catherine responds her not with one word “yes” but following by two further

statements. Thus, the character has failed to observe the maxim of quantity. It is because of

their happiness. Mother and daughter are in enthusiastic feelings. Thus, they do not know

how to make a co-operated conversation rather expressing their feelings and emotions about

the victory won by Raina’s intended fiancé (Serguis).

Dialogue 2

Raina: how was the battle?

Catherine: ‘you cant imagine how wonderful it was. A cavalry! Imagine that, he took the

charge his own responsibility……….you need not to keep him await for a year before you

will be engage to him. You must obey him when he comes, if you are from Bulgarain family.

Raina asking her mother about the battle happening with simple statement how was

the battle? Now, if we look to answer this question it must be relevant and actual requirement

to be responded not any extra information should be added. Here, the character has failed to

observe the maxim of the relation and quality as well. The reasons for not observing these

maxims are, much enthusiasm, love for war, heroic idols, social position, and the most

common reason is to find romantic feeling in war. A good conversation according Paul

Grice’s principle is relevant and precise as much required by the speaker.

Dialogue 3

Catherine: Have you seen anyone or heard anything?

Raina; I have heard the gunfire. It is impossible for soldiers to dare come in here.

Mother asks her if he hear or see anything and she does not tell her truth at the

moment. Here, the character fails to observe the maxim of relation. She must say yes or no

followed by a short statement in order to keep the co-operative principle for conversation. It

is because of the character romantic feeling toward cute fugitive that does not deserve

merciless death by Russian soldier in her presence. Thus, she was trapped by his enchanting

manner she had received before a while.

Dialogue 4

Officer: Would you mind taking aside to search the balcony?

Raina: Nonsense, as you can witness there is anyone on the balcony.

 We see that the character has failed to observe the maxim of relation. She does not

allow the officer to search for by saying Yes or any sort of confirmation response but reject

his request with the informal refusal that not to search for as there is no one. Another reason

for not observing the relation maxim is Social class distinction. Officer knew that he is

standing in Petkoff home and Raina consider herself from high class. Thus, she does not have

any fear of the soldiers.

Dialogue 5

The man (Serguis): I want to have some chocolates now.

Raina: Allow me. I apologize. I have remained these.

. The man says I carry chocolate instead of cartridges and I have finished them

earlier. He wish to have some of chocolate not to ask for Raina to give him some and further

she takes apology for not having enough chocolates. The character has failed to observe the

relation maxim in her conversation. She does not confirm whether he needs some chocolates

or not and how much quantity he need to remove his starvation but react with her own will.

The reason is that Raina inspired by the attitude of the man and feel pleasure with him. She

is curious to explore him and want give him extra help as much as she can. However, we can

see that Raina feels cool with him and even does not consider him as fugitive in her room.

Dialogue 6

Serguis: I shall be back soon. Stay here for five minutes.

Raina : I will go round and wait in full view of the library windows. Be sure draw

father’s attention to me. If you stay longer then I will come to fetch you.

. From the conversation it can be known that the character has floated the maxim of quantity.

She does not need to add more information in shape of threat in order to maintain co-
operative principle. However, she was really in good mood because she takes her cap before

leaving and show love to Serguis but her mood get changed when Serguis goes there to help

father. Thus, her entertainment interrupted which result in floating the co-operative principle.

Dialogue 7

Catherine: little beast ! what little beast?

Raina: To go and tell! Oh, if I had him here,I would cram him with chocolate cream

till he couldn’t ever speak.

It is clearly seen the floating of relation maxim in this conversation. She does not produce the

actual person’s name but telling her mother that she will paste him like chocolate cream if she

finds him now. We can see later she is not that much revengeful and she calls him “my

chocolate cream soldier” when she meets him for first time after. However, this attitude

reveals the hypocrisy of the character by not doing any harm to him when she meets him

after.

Conclusion

Many identities of Raina and Catherine are revealed after conducted this study. Such

as, they both are cunning, unfaithful, and lair. Raina does things with her own wish, she does

not care of anything. Thus, she is fearless, confident, and rebellious. Shaw had convey many

messages through Raina, like she is a symbol of romantic war, she finds happiness in Serguis

victory against Serbs. Furthermore, she is made a symbol of hypocrisy, she does not remain

constant on his words but swings according to the situation. Moreover, Catherine is also

making situation easier for her daughter. She presents herself as noble and loving wife but

she also proved to be something different from inside. Consequently, both characters have

similar gender and sane qualities as well.

 I have found many dialogues which contain floating of the co-operative principle.

Some of them highlighted in this study as analysis and the remaining are studied. Hence, after

the analysis I have found dialogues which neglect the co-operative principle and provide

evidences why they did so. Some reasons were has been explained above.

9. Pragmatic Analysis: Paul Grice’s Co-Operative Principle in Movies

Analysis

I choose The Boy movie to be analyzed in order to analyze the Grice‟s maxims in the

listeners‟ responses. The setting of The Boy movie creates the possibility of maxims

violation on the speakers‟ utterances. Therefore, it is intended to find out violations of

Grice‟s maxims by the speakers‟ disclosure and analyze the reasons of the violations.

Dialogue 1

Greta : What’s the truth?

Malcolm : One night, I came out here for a delivery. I didn’t know it at the time, but it was
Brahms‟ birthday or would have been. And Mrs. Heelshire, she was in the sitting room.
Opening presents with the doll. And Mr. Heelshire… He was in here. Drunk and mumbling to
himself that he couldn’t do it anymore. I told him I’d come back… But he said „no, no, come
on. “Have a drink with an old man.” So I do. Well, we get a couple of drinks in. We’re
chatting about the weather and so on and finally… I get the courage to ask him that exact
question. “What was Brahms, like?” God he just looks at me with this heartbroken look. It
made me sorry I even asked. And he said one word. “Odd,” he says. Odd. Which, I suppose is
all the answer we’ll ever get.
The scene took place in the billiard room. Malcolm and Greta were playing billiard. They

were joking about Greta‟s good skill at playing billiard. Then, Greta asked Malcolm about

the real Brahms because she was still curious about him. Due to Greta‟s compulsion,

Malcolm told her anything he knew about the real Brahms. In answering Greta‟s, question

Malcolm violated the Maxim of Quality because his response was too informative.

Meanwhile, Greta only needed a short answer to answer her question.

Maxim of Quantity enjoins speakers from contributing information more than is required

(Grice, 1975, p. 45). Malcolm‟s answer in Dialogue 2 illustrated a violation of Maxim of

Quantity. Malcolm gave too much information to Greta‟s question. Whereas, Greta only

needed a short answer from Malcolm since Malcolm had given Greta required information

about Brahms from two types of talks previously and Greta only needed the truth from it.

Thus, Malcolm only needed a short answer, namely, could be, Brahms is odd, according to

Mr. Heelshire Brahms is odd, or Mr. Heelshire told me that Brahms is odd. However, what

Greta received from Malcolm was a too informative answer containing the Heelshires‟

condition when they had Brahms‟ birthday party, the way Malcolm could get to close with

Mr. Heelshire, Malcolm‟s feeling when he asked to Mr. Heelshire about Brahms, and Mr.

Heelshire‟s expression when Malcolm asked him a question about Brahms. By providing

such too informative information, Greta construed that Malcolm did tell anything he knew

about Brahms. However, it was too much information. Greta did not need such an

unnecessary answer. Grice (1975) considers such an answer as wasting time (p. 46).

Dialogue 2

Mr. Heelshire: Be good to him and he’ll good to you. Be bad to him…
Mrs. Heelshire: Oh, she’ll be good to him. Won’t you, Miss Evans?
Greta: Yes. I’ll treat him like my own.
Dialogue 2 took place at Heelshire‟s living room. Mr. and Mrs. Heelshire were going to go

out for holiday. Before they left, they gave some rules to be followed by Greta. The rules

were so important to Brahms because it was the only way to take care of Brahms. As a nanny,

Greta should take care of Brahms because it was her responsibility. So, when Mr. and Mrs.

Heelshire asked Greta to take care of Brahms, she said that she would treat him like her own

son. Nevertheless, she did not do like Mr. and Mrs. Heelshire asked to Greta and fulfilled her

responsibility as a nanny. She did not take care of Brahms liked her own son instead of

ignoring Brahms and the rules.

The response in Dialogue 3 illustrated that Greta did not abide by the Maxim of Quality

demanding her to be honest and true when providing her contributions. Greta‟s response

contradicted the experience she had done to Brahms after Mr. and Mrs. Heelshire left. In

order to please Mr. and Mrs. Heelshire‟s question and request, Greta lied to them by saying

that she would treat him like her own. She forced to lie because she did not want to

disappoint them and she could not refuse their request since she would be given salary every

week to take care of Brahms. Thus, the response showed that Greta failed giving a true

answer.

Dialogue 3
Malcolm : It was a fire. Brahms didn’t make it out. On his eighth birthday. Such a tragedy.
And the doll turned up not long after that. I know it must seem strange. I mean, it is bloody
strange. But, its harmless. A way to cope. I can’t imagine what it must be like to lose a child?
Greta: So, he died 20 years ago? He’d be about your age. They’ve lived like this for 20
years?

Dialogue 3 took place at Brahms‟ grave. Before Malcolm and Greta went there, Greta asked

Malcolm to tell her the story about the doll. Malcolm invited Greta to come with him to

Brahms‟ grave and he told the story about the doll. In the Brahms‟s grave, Malcolm started

telling Greta that Brahms was dead on his eighth birthday due to fire. Soon after that, Brahms

was replaced with a porcelain doll. Then, Malcolm asked Greta a question about the feeling

of losing a child, but Greta did not respond Malcolm‟s question. Conversely, she asked

several questions to Malcolm.

This conversation illustrated a violation of Maxim of Relevance. The reason was that Greta‟s

whole answer did not match Malcolm‟s question. The type of Malcolm‟s question was open

because it needed Greta‟s opinion or view to respond to his question. However, the question

required a relevant answer. Thus, the relevant answer supposed to be provided by Greta to

Malcolm‟s question could have been Yes, it must be painful to lose a child, Yes, it must be
hard to lose a child or Yes, all of parents in this world must feel so desperate to face the

reality of losing their child.

Conclusion

The first conclusion s that The Boy movie characters verbally violated all of Grice‟s maxims.

The Grice‟s maxims that were being violated were Maxim of Quantity, Quality, Relevance,

and Manner. The characters tended to violate the maxims in two types, namely single and

multiple maxim violation. The characters, in one situation, violated one maxim in one

utterance. Meanwhile, in other situation, the characters simultaneously violated two even

three maxims in one utterance. The characters violated the Maxim of Quantity, Quality,

Relevance, and Manner, when they provided insufficient, dishonest, irrelevant, and unclear

information. The characters that violated Grice‟s maxims were Greta and Malcolm. The

character who violated the maxims most was Greta.

7. Pragmatic Analysis: Speech Acts in Plays

Analysis

The play The Crucible written by Aurther Miller, has been chosen to be analysed and deals

with different speech acts. I have delimited it to two characters (Reverend Parris and John

Proctor) and up to one speech act (expressive) uttered by them at different occasion.

ACT-I

Dialogue: 1

Parris; oh? Let her come…

 Here in this statement the expressive speech act is used by the character Parris. Here in

this statement the character Parris is showing the sympathy for Susanna Walcott who is

taking the permission to see Abigail. Parris is showing his sympathy and thus gives her the

permission to see Abigail.

Dialogue: 2

Parris; with anger: I saw it!

Expressive speech act is used by the character Parris in the above line. He expresses

his depressed thoughts for Abigail. There is a kind of regret ion or sorrow in his nature. Parris

expresses his aggression for Abigail and seeking some sort of information and he is saying in

angry mood that I cannot sacrifice my ministry for your cousin’s life.

Dialogue: 3

Parris; a wide opinion’s running …

In these lines the character Parris is showing his kindness and sympathy. He is in

conversation with John Proctor and is saying that the Devil is among us and Parris is creating

environment of courage and bravery for Proctor. Parris is taking the responsibility to prove

the devils wrong. Parris is consoling Proctor for not taking tension and he would cope with

devils.

Dialogue: 4

Parris; it is agreed…

Again in the above conversation Parris is showing his consent with deep sympathy in

conversation with Hale by using expressive speech act. Before the above Dialogues, Hale

says that we cannot ignore the superstition of devil as he is precise and the marks of his
presence are definite as stone. Here Parris is showing act of kindness and is agree with the

opinion of Hale.

ACT-2

Dialogue: 5

John Proctor; with a grin: …

Expressive speech act is used by the character John Proctor for showing his sympathy

with Elizabeth. Proctor uttered these words in reply to Elizabeth when he says that I will buy

George Jacob’s heifer. Elizabeth agreed with the intention of John Proctor for buying the

heifer. Proctor wants to make Elizabeth happy by using the expressive speech act in the form

of sympathy and positive intentions.

Dialogue: 6

Proctor; angering: I think I cannot keep it…

Here Elizabeth and Proctor have a conversation with each other. Elizabeth asks for

permission from Proctor to go to the Salem tonight. But in reply Proctor refused the

proposal and used expressive speech act in the form of sorry. Refusal deals with any activity

which cannot be obeyed. Here Proctor shows negative attitude towards Elizabeth by not

permitting her to go to Salem.

Dialogue: 7

Proctor; My wife will never die for me...

Expressive speech act is used in the stated line when John Proctor said that my wife

will never die. He is in the conversation with Mary Warren. Proctor uttered an expressive
speech act of sympathy for his wife. Proctor said to Mary Warren that you will tell the court

what you know. Proctor extremely loves his wife that is why he is too much worried about

his wife.

Dialogue: 8

Parris; all innocent and Christian people...

In act three, the character Parris is using expressive speech act by thanking the

government and the federal administration for facilitating and providing courts to the people

of Salem. The above conversation of Parris is with Danforth and Hathorne. As he is the

parish priest so he is pleased with the government policy for facilitating the people of urban

areas. In the reply to the Dialogues of Parris, Danforth is of the opinion that you will want to

know from each and every one of them, what discontents them with you.

Dialogue: 9

Proctor; evading: This woman never thought …

In this line expressive speech act shows the strange feelings of John Proctor when his

wife done an immoral act. As it is clear that Proctor loves his wife too much but here in the

above line sorrow of John Proctor can be easily seen. Although Danforth is realizing him that

you are mistaken. But John Proctor is not happy for her act of immorality.

ACT- 4

Dialogue: 10

Proctor; I have confessed myself…

At the end of the play John Proctor try to confess him. Expressive speech act is used

in the above line by Proctor. He is discussing his sins and is very clear about his punishment.
He is apologizing and seeks pardon from the God. He is in the conversation with Danforth.

He is not happy with his past life. He is ready for his punishment and understood his black

sins but he is hopeful for pardon.

Conclusion

The Crucible written by Aurther Miller has immense amount of speech acts but my concern

is to identify expressive speech acts uttered by the two main characters. I have come across

with number of speech acts in the very play evaluated almost ten expressive speech acts.

10 Pragmatic Analysis: Politeness Strategies in Movies

Analysis

Brown and Levinson’s politeness strategy has been employed to describe the kinds of

positive politeness strategies. It is used to describe how the characters in the film entitled “In

Good Company” deliver those strategies to minimize or redress the FTAs. Then, in order to

describe the factors influencing the characters to deliver each of positive politeness strategy,

it has been analyzed it by considering factors that influence the use of positive politeness

strategy based on Brown and Levinson.

Dialogue 1

Carter : Mark. Mark, you’re taking me with you. Tell me you are taking me with you.
Mark : Carter, I’m gonna take that place and whip its fat ass into shape. And... Carter :
And?
Mark : I want you to come run ad sales at Sports America
Carter : I knew it. I knew it.
The magazine's a cash cow.
It’s the cornerstone.
The conversation takes place at Globe Com company. The participants are Carter and Mark.

Globe Com company is a big international company. It has many affiliated firms. A
billionaire media magnate, Teddy K, is the owner of this company. Mark and Carter are

employees of Globe Com Company. Mark is the marketing manager of Globe Com Company

and Carter is the assistant of the marketing manager.

The conversation above shows that Mark employs positive politeness strategy. When Mark

informs Carter that he will run the new branch of Globe Com Company, Sport America

magazine, Carter is interested. Because the Sport America magazine is one of the best

magazines in America, it becomes more interesting for Carter to be able to work there. Carter

asks directly to Mark to invite him. He highly expects that Mark will take him to Sport

America. Mark and Carter have cooperated for a long time in Globe Com Company. They are

good partners. Their relationship is close enough because they have known each other well.

Carter looks full of enthusiasm when he expresses his wants. It makes Mark understand with

what Carter wants. As a result, Mark invites Carter to join in Sport America magazine and

gives him a position as the ad sales manager.

Dialogue 2

Alex : Couldn't sleep.

Dan : Can't sleep? What, were you worried about something?
[sighing]
Cause, uh, you know if--if--if you are worried about something you can always talk to me
about anything.

The conversation takes place in Alex’s room. The participants are Dan and Alex. Dan is 51

years old. He is a good husband and father in his family. He works as the head of ad sales in

Sport America magazine. Alex is Dan’s daughter. She is 18 years old and studies at SUNY.

The conversation above shows that Dan employs positive politeness strategy 1, namely

notice, and attend to the hearer’s need. Dan offers some help by saying, “Can't sleep? What,
were you worried about something? [sighing]Cause, uh, you know if--if--if you are worried

about something you can always talk to me about anything”. It indicates that Dan notices

Alex’s conditions. He knows that his daughter cannot sleep moreover the time shows 3 a.m.

As a father, Dan, knows that his daughter is facing a problem. It can be seen from her face

since she looks sad. Besides, she cannot go to sleep soon. Dan offers Alex some helps. He

says that he can help her by listening to her problems. He also reminds her to fulfill their

promise that they will be honest to each other.

Dialogue 3

Alex : I’m kind of tired. Dan : Hmm. Okay.

Alex : We still gonna hit tomorrow? Dan : Yeah, sure.
Alex : All right. I’ll see you then.

The conversation still takes place in Alex’s room. Dan was still waiting for Alex if she

wanted to tell the problem. Dan looked at her pale face. She behaved as if she was okay. She

had not already to tell him the truth yet. She knew that her father had just come back from his

office so that he must be tired. She just said that she was tired. Her answer made Dan

disappointed. It could be seen from his face. Dan thought that his daughter did not trust him

anymore. Alex tried to save Dan’s positive face by saying “ We still gonna hit tomorrow? …

All right. I’ll see you then”

The conversation above shows that Alex employs positive politeness strategy 6, namely

avoid disagreement, pseudo agreement. Alex actually does not want to tell the problem to her

father because it is not the appropriate time to do it. She does not want to burden her father

who has just come back from the office. However, Dan highly expects that she will tell him.

Alex knows that her father is disappointed with her. In order to avoid her father becoming

disappointed, she avoids disagreement with his father by pseudo-agreement “All right. I’ll see

you then”. The word ‘then’ uses as a conclusory marker. It indicates that Alex is drawing
conclusion to a line of reasoning carried out cooperatively with Dan. It is used in pointing a

fake to prior agreement, that Alex will tell her problem to Dan. The explanation above

indicates that Dan’s positive face has been fulfilled.

Dialogue 4

Dan : Are--are you saying I’m fired?

Colon : No, no, not yet. I mean not yet, Dan
I’m... I can't predict the future. Um, the thing is, Dan, you're not the head of ad sales anymore. Carter
Duryea is.

The conversation takes place in the office, exactly in the Dan’s office. The participants are

Dan and Colon. Dan is the head of ad sales of Sport America magazine. Enrique Colon is

Dan’s partner in ad sales division. He is a little tricky. He wants to replace Dan’s position.

Actually, he had known about the company that has been sold to Globe Com Company and

Dan will be fired. Colon was in Dan’s office. Colon and Dan were talking about their

business. Dan was sitting on his desk. Colon was standing near the window and looking

outside. He said vaguely that Dan would be fired. Dan heard it.

The conversation above shows that Colon employs positive politeness strategy 6, namely

avoid disagreement by hedging opinions. Colon says something vaguely when he is standing

close the window and seeing outside. He does not realize that Dan pay attention to him. Dan

asks Colon what he has said. Colon is shocked. He prefers saying ‘no’ than to ‘yes’. Then,

continues with ‘not yet’. Colon wants to claim a common opinion to avoid disagreement with

Dan.

The explanation above shows that Colon wants to say ‘yes’ because as the matter of fact Dan

will be fired. In order to safe Dan’s positive face, Colon responds to Dan’s question by

hedging his opinion. Colon shows vague opinion so that it is not obvious that he disagrees

with Dan.
Colon employs this strategy because he is influenced by some factors. The first is payoff.

Colon wants to minimize the FTA. By hedging his opinion, Dan’s positive face is saved. He

could minimize the threat by assuring Dan that he considers himself to be ‘of the same kind’,

that he likes his wants. Thus, it can minimize the tension between them. The second is the

circumstances. The social distance between participants is not close. Although they have

cooperated for a long time their relationship is not too good. In order to keep the relationship,

Colon responds to Dan in a polite way by hedging his opinions although he disagrees with

Dan. The power rating between them is different. Dan is the head of ad sales while Colon is

Dan’s subordinate, thus Colon responds to Dan in a polite way. The size of imposition is

great enough because at the time Dan is angry at Colon.

From the explanations above, it can be concluded that the speaker, Colon, has applied the

positive politeness strategy, namely the strategy 6, avoid disagreement, hedging opinions. In

this case Colon, does want to be seen that he disagrees with Dan. He pretends to agree with

him by hedging his opinion. Thus, the hearer’s positive wants has been fulfilled and satisfied.

Conclusion

Based on the data analysis above, the employment of positive politeness strategy by the

characters in the dialogs of the film entitled “In Good Company” has been fulfilled. The

film’s background is the daily life in a company and family. In the company people not only

has their own position such as, superior (boss), subordinate, partner, client etc, but they also

must face people with different characters too. For example, Carter as the boss gives

command to Dan, his second hand. He uses strategy 4 in order to minimize their distance.

Thus, it can lead to intimacy.

Based on the analysis of the factors influencing the use of the positive politeness in the film

entitled “In Good Company”. It is discovered that there are two factors, namely payoff and

circumstances. The first is payoff. By employing positive politeness strategy the speaker can
get any advantages. The speaker can minimize the FTA by assuring the hearer that the

speaker considers himself to be the same kind, that he likes the hearer and wants to fulfil the

hearer wants. Another possible payoff is that the speaker can avoid or minimize the debt

implications of FTA such as request and offer. It is found in the entire of the data