Theory: The Logic of Conversation

Theory: Logic of Conversation

 

Grice's Logic of Conversation states that there will always be a relevance for the second part of the adjacency pair. This is linked to one of Grice's Maximums: 'The Maximum of Relevance'. He saw that there were four Maximums: Relevance, Quality, Quantity and Manner.

He had many insights about 'The Logic of Conversation' which has explained the reasons behind why we use the language we do in conversation. He said that communication is a cooperative activity. When two people communicate, it's in their best interests to make the communication to go as smoothly as possible to achieve their aims. The speakers behave in  a predictable way.

However, sometimes there is a broken adjacency pair which is called a non-sequitur. This means that a piece of speech doesn't relate to what has just been said.

Example:

Lily: "This bottle's half empty!"

Jack: "Gosh-is that the time already?"

 

This adjacency pair doesn't initially seem like the pair are relevant at all. 'Lily' talks about the bottle then Jack 'randomly' says about the time. After you examine it you then see that it could be linked. For example after she made that comment he realises that he wants to go home.

Intro, Overview and 2 PEE Paragraphs

Language and Power

Plan:

 

Paragraph One:

 

·         Mr N gives very short and simple answers when asked questions.

·         Short answers because of low power that he holds

·         Barrister holds high power and so Mr N may feel he isn’t allowed to speak.

·         Barrister makes him feel like defendant.

·         And so because of that use Brown and Levinson’s Politeness Strategy, explain what ‘face’ they both use.

Paragraph Two:

·         Use Wareing’s Types of Power.

·         Barrister holds political power.

·         Expressions

·         Mr N, uses fillers due to the knowledge of the Barrister holding instrumental power.

·         Uses fillers and so looks guilty-doesn’t let the Barrister finish at end

 

Overview:

Because the Barrister holds instrumental power in this Unequal Encounter, Mr N knows not to challenge it and doesn’t.  So because of this Mr N uses negative ‘face’ to make him feel sorry for him. He uses fillers a lot which could suggest that in this case the Barrister makes him feel guilty and nervous. But at one point it looks like he might have tried to take power possibly.  However after it he continues to use short answers. The Barrister also holds political power (Wareing’s Types of Power) and so overall hold the most power.

 

PEE:

Mr Neil answers with short and simple answers when he is asked question by the Barrister, throughout the whole conversation. This could suggest that he holds low power in the adjacency pairs. What is quite clear is that the Barrister holds high power; this could then possibly make Mr Neil feel powerless. And perhaps maybe like he isn’t allowed to speak that much or at all. It is almost like Mr Neil is the defendant of the crime and not the witness. The Barrister uses the low frequency word “according” which is like he is suggesting to the court that he’s not telling the truth. It again makes him seem like he’s the guilty one and not the defendant, who the Barrister is representing. The Barrister put’s pressure on Mr Neil so starts to feel guilty himself. Because of this, it seems like Mr Neil slightly uses negative face (Brown and Levinson’s Politeness Strategy) to defend himself. He uses it to make the Barrister feel sorry for him which then causes the Barrister to feel more powerful.

 

Wareing’s Types of Power suggests that there are three types of power: political, personal and social. Due to the Barrister’s job, it is clear that he holds political power. That alone is enough to make someone feel nervous when they know that they are about to be faced with him. What I think adds to the power is the use of expressions from the Barrister. “Two and two together” and “shopped you to the police” are quite useful when trying to make someone feel guilty. The word “shopped” comes from the lexical field of legal and is also a slang word. Using slang suggests that the Barrister knows he holds power and so can speak informally towards the court, but more towards the witness as he holds that instrumental power. He doesn’t really need to worry about his job being effected by how he speaks so much as he’s obviously doing  a good job and know sit. However, it might not just be the position of power that affects his formality of language use; it could also be his idiolect. From the influences around him it could be in his nature to use expressions and slang words. So the Barrister holds instrumental power and political power and the witness, Mr Neil, knows this. This knowledge then affects Mr Neil in the way that he responds to the questions that he’s asked: he ends up using fillers throughout the conversation. When he talks about a situation with Mr Peterson’s gate, he has to admit that he “bumped it slightly” which he then carried on with “with er the rear of my car.” The “er” suggests that he is guilty which the Barrister then uses to make him look like the guilty one compared to the defendant.