LV CONVERSATIONAL STRATEGIES IN THE LIGHT OF THE COOPERATIVE PRINCIPLE

Purposes of the study This study aims at raising the awareness of conversational strategies in order to be cooperative in communication and providing learners of English with conversati

Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Rationale

A communicational event is not a brute fact, but a social act made possible

by shared principles and rules among the participants in the event Communication

is controlled not only by conventional grammatical rules but by pragmatic principles as well A conversation, as the most effective means of communication, proceeds under the control of conversational principles

In the process of communication, it is assumed that speakers and listeners involved in conversations are generally cooperating with each other For example,

listeners normally assume that a speaker who says “your dog” really has the dog

that is mentioned and isn’t trying to mislead the listeners This sense of cooperation

is one in which people having a conversation are not normally assumed to be trying

to confuse, trick, or withhold relevant information from each other

Consider the following example:

(1) There is a woman sitting on a park bench and a large dog lying on the ground in front of the bench A man comes along and sits down on the bench

Man: Does your dog bite?

Woman: No

The man reaches down to pet the dog The dog bites the man’s hand

Man: Ouch! Hey! You said your dog doesn’t bite

Woman: He doesn’t But that’s not my dog [30, 36]

The problem in this example is caused by the man’s assumption that his

question “Does your dog bite?” and the woman’s answer “No” both apply to the

dog in front of them From the man’s perspective, the woman’s answer provides less information than expected In other words, she might be expected to provide the

information stated in the last line Her reply may be indicating that she does not want to take part in any cooperative interaction with the stranger

Obviously, the assumption of mutual cooperation is the key point in securing contextually appropriate encoding and decoding of communicative intentions In most circumstances, the assumption of cooperation is so pervasive that it can be

stated as the cooperative principle of conversation and elaborated in its four maxims

In short, to be a competent interlocutor, one is required to approach basic conversational principles and acquire a variety of conversational strategies However, due to the lack of knowledge of linguistics and the influence of some non-linguistic factors, most Vietnamese learners of English fail to exploit the conversational strategies As a result, during the process of communication, the English used in conversations seems to be informative, rather than lively and natural

as expected

1.2 Justification of the study

An investigation into the conversational strategies in the light of the cooperative principle will be a contribution to the recognition of the valuable insights that the cooperative principle has given into the process of utterance interpretation Especially, the findings of the study are expected to be of paramount significance to Vietnamese teachers and learners of English Once knowing how the conversational strategies work and should be applied, learners will be able to communicate more cooperatively and thus, more effectively

1.3 Purposes of the study

This study aims at raising the awareness of conversational strategies in order

to be cooperative in communication and providing learners of English with conversational strategies compatible to their competence of English so as to remain the cooperation in daily conversations

1.4 Objectives

This study is intended to:

- set up a set of verbal conversational strategies in the light of the cooperative principle

- evaluate the significance of each strategy

- suggest conversational strategies applicable to learners of English of different levels

1.5 Research questions

To achieve the objectives mentioned above, the following research questions should be solved:

- What are the possible strategies to be cooperative in conversations?

- How do these strategies work in the light of the cooperative principle?

- How are these strategies applied in conversations made by speakers of English with different levels?

- How are speakers of English aware of the conversational cooperation?

1.7 Scope of the study

Daily conversations of several topics collected from authentic recordings and real-life as well as classroom interactions

1.8 Organization of the thesis

The thesis is presented in five chapters:

Chapter 1: Introduction

In this chapter, the researcher deals with general issues of the study such as the reason to choose this topic, justification, purposes, objectives, and scope of the study The audience will also find it easy to follow the study through research questions posed in this chapter

Chapter 2: Theoretical background

This chapter is an overview of previous related studies and theories employed as the basis for arguments and analysis of the data in the study This chapter covers such terms as conversation, conversational strategies, conversational cooperation, the cooperative principle, the politeness principle and the relevance theory

Chapter 3: Research design & data collection

This chapter demonstrates the setting, participants, and method of data collection as well as the process of data analysis in particular and the procedure of research in general

Chapter 4: Findings & discussions

The answers to the research questions will be presented in this chapter The first part of this chapter discusses how conversational strategies work in the light of the cooperative principle The next part notifies some violating cases to be avoided

in conversation Lastly, this chapter deals with the application of the strategies for being conversationally cooperative

Chapter 5: Conclusions & implications

This chapter is the summary of research questions, the procedure employed and the results obtained In the end, the implications of the findings and limitations

of the research will be pointed out This is also the suggestion for further research

on the issues to be investigated in the study

Chapter 2 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

2.1 Review of literature

Conversation has been one of the central topics of linguistic studies since the dawn of this science A large number of studies have been carried out to probe into the nature and phenomena of communication in general, and conversation in particular Among the research papers related to conversation, I have approached

the points of view and valuable findings of several ones as follows:

Nguyen Thi My Phuong (1999), with “A Study on Gambits in English Conversations”, deals with gambits – conversational strategy signals – functioning

from introducing a topic, structural turn-taking, to indicating a speaker’s readiness to receive some information, and so on Also in respect to conversational phases, Nguyen Cung Tram (2002), in an effort to develop an awareness of pragmatics amongst learners, explores strategies employed for conversational openings in English and Vietnamese The conversational openings are described and analyzed with different functions ranging from requesting to enquiring, expressive, informative

or phatic Types of speech act, different situations and people relationship are all taken into account Besides, factors such as age, gender, social status which influence the choice of conversational openings are once again touched upon in her research

Another research on verbal communication is done by Duong Thi Thu Trang (2001) whose focus is on common representations of misunderstanding as perceived in English and Vietnamese She also suggests a set of strategies which can be employed

to avoid misunderstanding in verbal communication In her research, the maxims of conversation, the theory of politeness and devices of forming conversational implicatures are used as part of the background for the analysis of the corpus

The studies on factors affecting verbal communication and conversational cooperation have also been approached during the procedure of this study Firstly, it

is in the position of Pham Dang Binh (2000) where gaps in communication between interlocutors are traced to the differences in linguistic knowledge, interaction skills, and cultural knowledge Nguyen Hoa (2000) takes a further step into studying the

influence of culture on verbal communication through the cultural value system He finds it essential to bring cultural values of the target language into the teaching of language Nguyen Trong Do (1999) mentions the social roles and relations of interlocutors as an environment for interlocutors to perform verbal communication

Regarding the cooperative principle, since H P Grice (1975) systematically introduced his theory, there have been many studies on the issue Most of them focus on the interpretation of Grice’s ideas or the mechanism of creating and interpreting implicature For instance, Davis (2005) studies a variety of problems related to implicature A part of his study is devoted to examining the cooperative principle He also recognizes Grice the one who developed the most influential theory to explain and predict conversational implicatures, and to describe how implicatures are understood However, what Davis suggests in his study is purely theoretical and we hardly find anything to do with language teaching and learning

The most closely related study the researcher has approached is “A study on verbal responses to questions in English and Vietnamese conversation” by Nguyen

Thi Chau Ha (2002) In her study, she investigates different ways of responding to questions in English and Vietnamese The response types, in her findings, include direct and indirect replies, ignorance, evasion, refusal, challenge to speaker’s right, and other special types such as misunderstanding and non-understanding, ‘greeting

or polite’ responses (in Vietnamese only) She also examines social factors that hinder the process of question responding behaviour The theoretical background for her study includes pragmatic principles constraining conversational interaction such as the cooperative principle and politeness principle, and many other theories

on conversation or interaction

As far as we are concerned, the cooperative principle is always the first principle to be mentioned in pragmatics Yet, at the time of this study, the researcher hardly finds previous studies employing this principle as the basis for the investigation to be made For that reason, this study is an attempt to deal with conversational strategies, in terms of utterance’s content or meaning, mainly in the

light of the cooperative principle Also, a part of this study will be devoted to notifying some cases of non-observance of conversational maxims as the violation

to be avoided in conversation Furthermore, with an intention to apply the findings

of the study in language teaching and learning, the corpus comes from coursebooks for communicative English courses as well as conversations around academic environment, not from literary works or previous researches Last but not least, the study takes into consideration the application of conversational strategies and the cooperative principle of English speakers at different levels

term conversation for their own purposes of study

Basically, conversation (or rather talk-exchanges in general) is defined as structured sequences of expressions made by more than one single speaker [1, 415] Here, conversation refers to an interactional activity displaying features which can

be analyzed as the specific achievements of speakers and hearers

In terms of social nature, conversation is an intrinsically social phenomenon, and a characterization of the amount of conversation that takes place between members

of a speech community must take into consideration the amount and quality of referential, social, and affective meaning that linguistic form entails [2, 749]

Another definition of conversation that covers most essential properties of conversation and is commonly used in research papers is the one stated by Crystal (1987) He states that conversation is a highly structured activity, in which people tacitly operate with a set of basic conventions

Although the structure of conversation has not been exhaustively described, and conversation is still the subject of a large number of studies, some major properties of conversation have been pointed out and become the basis for

arguments in researches on this subject First, any reasonable number of people can participate, and there are principles that govern how and when people can take a turn Second, there are principles make certain aspects of the conversation socially obligatory, such as saying hello and goodbye Third, there are principles making contributions to conversations relevant to each other, such as answering questions

or justifying refusals

2.2.1.2 Conversational strategies

Conversational strategies are the ways in which speakers make use of interactional structure in order to gain their conversational goals They are ways that enable interlocutors to involve themselves into a successful conversation which is

no more than a mutually satisfying linguistic exchange The interlocutors need to feel they are contributing something to it and are getting something out of it

There are some general strategies for interlocutors as shown in Figure 2.1

acquiring an opportunity to speak

Strategies

Figure 2.1 General conversational strategies (extracted and modified from [3])

making their roles clear

developing a mutual tolerance, allowing speaker’s unclarity and listener’s inattention

recognizing their communicative weaknesses through the use of rephrasing and clarification, or strength through flouting, or implicature

having a sense of when to speak or stay silent; when to proffer information or hold it back

Besides the general strategies, there are some others dealing with the pragmatic aspects of utterances in conversations; among them are the strategies mentioned in the inferential approach

According to the theory of communication to be presented in inferential approach, linguistic communication is successful when the hearer, upon hearing an expression, recognizes the speaker’s communicative intention

Linguistic communication is possible because the speaker S and the hearer H share a system of inferential strategies leading from the utterances of expression E

The basic idea is quite simple: linguistic communication is a kind of problem solving [1, 399] The speaker faces the problem of getting the hearer to recognize certain communicative intentions; so the speaker must choose an expression that will facilitate such recognition, given the context of utterance

Utterance of expression

Direct Strategy

What S is communicating directly

Literal Nonliteral Strategy Strategy

What S is communicating literally What S is communicating nonliterally

Indirect Strategy

What S is also communicating indirectly

Figure2.2 The system of inferential strategies [1, 401]

From the hearer’s point of view, the problem is to successfully recognize the speaker’s communicative intent on the basis of the words the speaker utters This system can be characterized in the Figures 2.2 above

In the point of view of inferential strategies, the process of communication

may be promoted by means of literal and direct communication While the direct

strategy can enable the hearer (H) to infer from what H hears the speaker (S) utter to what S is directly communicating, the other, namely the literal strategy, will enable the hearer to infer from what the speaker would be directly communicating, if speaking literally, to what the speaker is literally (and directly) communicating

Still, as the conversation goes on, speakers in the process tend to mean something other than what their words mean At times what one means to communicate is not compatible with what their expression literally means, then they are characterized as speaking nonliterally Here are some typical examples of utterances that are sometimes uttered nonliterally

Overstatement/Exaggeration:

(2) A pig wouldn’t eat this food (A person, given a choice, wouldn’t eat it)

[1, 406]

Irony, Sarcasm: the opposite of what is said

(3) Boy, this food is terrific! (terrible) [1, 407] (4) That argument is a real winner (loser) [1, 407]

Metaphor, Metonymy: some relation of salient similarity or association

(5) The White House said so (the president or staff) [1, 407]

(6) She’s a ball of fire (She’s got a lot of energy) [1, 407]

(7) Kim is a block of ice (Kim is cold and unresponsive) [1, 407]

As with literal and direct communication, in order to account for a common

type of talk-exchange, it is necessary to take into consideration the non-literal - direct communication strategy

Also there are cases when one is not only performing some direct form of communication, but also speaking indirectly, that is to say, one means something more than what one means directly

In practice, indirect acts can be performed by means of either literal or literal indirect acts For instance:

In example (8), it is true that there is a door and the speaker wants the hearer

to notice it, that is, to notice the way out Here, the expression is used to request someone to leave This is a case of an indirect act being performed by means of

literal indirect acts – the speaker really does mean what is said, but also means

more

(9) I’m sure the cat likes having its tail pulled (used to request someone to

In this case, the speaker does not really mean that the cat likes having its tail pulled Instead, he is being sarcastic – meaning nonliterally, that the cat does not like having its tail pulled, and wants the hearer to conclude that he should stop it

We can now supplement the existing direct strategies with strategies for

indirect communication: the indirect-literal strategy and indirect-nonliteral

strategy

These strategies are considered “the real building blocks” of the inferential approach - a theory of language use and communication Therefore, communicative competence will be definitely comprised by the mastery of these conversational strategies

2.2.1.3 Conversational cooperation

Cooperation in conversations is stated as the general assumption on the part

of hearers that speakers will not violate conversational procedures [2, 761] Upon this notion, there have been different interpretations, among which are the linguistic goal-sharing view and social goal-sharing view

For the social goal-sharers, conversational cooperation means: “tell your interlocutor everything he/she wants to know” [2, 761] On the other hand, for

linguistic goal-sharers, conversational cooperation is concerned with the relationship between what is said and what is implied In other words, it involves using language in such a way that your interlocutor can understand what you are saying and implying [2, 761] With this linguistic approach, the circumstance in which a speaker fails to tell his questioner exactly what his questioner wants to know can be considered conversationally cooperative, as long as he was understood

by his questioner to have implied something in his utterance

In fact, it is strongly agreed that when we communicate, even without realizing it, we and the people we are talking to, will be conversationally cooperative - we will cooperate to achieve mutual conversational ends This conversational cooperation even works when we are not being cooperative socially

So, we can be arguing with one another angrily and yet we will still cooperate quite

a lot conversationally to achieve the argument [40, 1]

2.2.1.4 Conversational principles

Finch (2000) defines conversational principles as the baseline assumptions which speakers and hearers conventionally hold about cooperation, relevance, orderliness, truthfulness, and so on

Different from rules (in grammar), principles have the following features:

• Principles are more or less: principles can apply in varying degrees, in other words, they can be observed to different degrees

• Principles can co-occur: we can invoke two or more principles simultaneously

• Principles are regulative: principles show how people make choices from within the grammatical system in order to achieve their goals, and behave appropriately

• Principles are probabilistic: with principles, we cannot say with absolute certainty what something means or what effect an utterance will have, the best we can do is to state with more or less certainty what is probably the case

• Principles are motivated: in case people find that they are more likely to achieve their aims if they speak politely, clearly and to the point, they will do so On the other hand, if they find that their goals are best served by being rude, ambiguous, then they will be just that [23, 107-112]

With the features mentioned above, it can be said that principles are issues in consideration of pragmatics, and pragmatics is constrained by principles

2.2.2 The cooperative principle in conversations

2.2.2.1 The cooperative principle and conversational maxims

In communication, there are times when people say exactly what they mean, but generally, they are not totally explicit On the other occasions, they manage to convey far more than what their words mean, or something quite different from the meanings of their words How do we know, on a given occasion, what a speaker means? H P Grice, with his work on the Cooperative Principle, attempted to explain how, by means of shared rules or conventions, a hearer gets from what it is

said to what it is meant, from the level of expressed meaning to the level of implied meaning

The cooperative principle can be stated simply as be as helpful to the hearer

as you can The fact that the speakers are assumed to follow this principle is used by

hearers in making inferences from the utterances they hear In fact, Grice introduced this principle in order to explain the mechanisms by which people interpret conversational implicature The Cooperative Principle runs as follows:

“Make your 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.” [30, 37; extracted from Grice (1975)]

Grice argued that in order that communication could take place in natural language, speakers enter into an unspoken agreement over ways of interpreting what is said This principle, with its associated maxims of quantity, quality, relation, and manner, has been enormously influential in pragmatic studies

The four maxims of quantity, quality, relation, and manner are formulated as follows:

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

Quality: Do not say what you believe to be false

Do not say what for which you lack adequate evidence

Manner: Avoid obscurity of expression

It is important to recognize these maxims as unstated assumptions we have in conversations We assume that people are normally going to provide an appropriate amount of information, and that they are telling the truth, being relevant, and trying

to be as clear as they can

Since Grice stated the principle, there have been different interpretations of his work Some can be justified in terms of what Grice wrote, since what in everyday terms would be seen as “highly uncooperative” behaviours, such as arguing, lying, hurling abuse, may yet be perfectly cooperative according Grice’s term [2, 760]

The most extreme view, a complete misinterpretation of what Grice was concerned to do, says that the maxims of quantity, quality, relation, and manner must at all times be observed at the level of what is said [2, 760]

Actually, Grice states unequivocally that the ostentatious nonobservance of a maxim at the level of what is in no way contravenes the cooperative principle On the contrary, it is the mechanism required in order to generate an implicature

Such maxims are not laws to be obeyed, but reference points for language interchange [4, 310] In other words, what Grice was actually doing was suggesting

that in conversational interaction, people work on the assumption that a certain set

of rules is in operation In short, even though the cooperative principle has been subject to a number of revisions, it remains a key idea in contemporary linguistics

2.2.2.2 Observance and non-observance of the maxims

a Observance of the maxims

The least interesting case is when a speaker observes all the maxims as shown the following examples:

(10)

A: Where are the car keys?

B: They’re on the table in the hall [41]

(11)

A: Where are the children?

B: They’re either in the garden or in the playroom, I’m not sure which

[2, 754]

In each example, B has answered clearly (Manner), truthfully (Quality), has given just the right amount of information (Quantity), and has directly addressed A’s goal in asking the question (Relation) A has said precisely what he meant, no

more and no less, and has generated no implicature In other words, there is no distinction to be made between what he said and what he meant, or there is no additional level of meaning

The maxims are assumed in normal interaction, so in practice, speakers rarely mention them However, there are certain kinds of expressions speakers use

to mark that they may be in danger or not fully adhering to the maxims These kinds

of expressions are called hedges

The important of the maxim of quality for cooperative interaction in English

may be best measured by the number of expressions we use to indicate that what we’re saying may not be totally accurate Let us have a look at these examples which involve a rumor involving a couple known to the speakers:

(12) As far as I know, they’re married

(13) I may be mistaken, but I thought I saw a wedding ring on her finger (14) I’m not sure if this is right, but I heard it was a secret ceremony in

Hawaii

(15) He couldn’t live without her, I guess [30, 38]

Hedges can also be used to show that the speaker is conscious of the quantity

maxim

The following examples are related to an account of the speaker’s vacation:

(16) As you probably know, I am terrified of bugs

(17) So, to cut a long story short, we grabbed our stuff and ran

(18) I won’t bore you with all the details, but it was an exciting trip [30, 38] Markers tied to the expectation of relevance (from the maxim of relation) can be found in speakers’ talk when they say things like “by the way”, “well”,

“anyway”, or the following expressions:

At an office meeting

(19) I don’t know if this is important, but some of the files are missing

(20) This may sound like a dumb question, but whose hand-writing is this?

(21) Not to change the subject, but is this related to the budget? [30, 39]

The awareness of expectation of manner may also lead speakers to produce

hedges Let us take the statements during an account of a crash as examples

(22) This may be a bit confused, but I remember being in a car

(23) I’m not sure if this makes sense, but the car had no lights

(24) I don’t know if this is clear at all, but I think the other car was reversing

[30, 39]

The examples concerning hedges as shown above are good indications that the speakers are not only aware of the maxims, but they want to show that they are trying to observe them Perhaps such forms also communicate the speakers’ concern that their listeners judge them to be cooperative conversational partners

b Non-observance of the maxims

There are occasions when people fail to observe the maxims People may fail

to observe a maxim because of being incapable of speaking clearly, or because they deliberately choose to lie According to Grice (1975; quoted in [23, 64]), there are five ways of failing to observe a maxim as illustrated in the Figure 2.3 below:

Non-observance of a maxim

Flouting

a maxim Violating a maxim Infringinga maxim Opting out a maxim Suspendinga maxim

Figure 2.3 Non-observance of the maxims

The most important category, the one which generates an implicature, is flouting and therefore, it will be given the most consideration In terms of flouting a maxim, the non-observance occurs when a speaker blatantly fails to observe a maxim at the level of what it is said, with the deliberate intention of generating an implicature

- Flouts necessitated by a clash between maxims:

A speaker flouts the maxim of quantity by giving either more or less information than the situation demands

(25) A asks B, who is standing next to a clock, if he can tell the time

A: What time is it?

B: Well, according to this clock, it’s a quarter to four [2, 754]

Instead of simply saying “It’s a quarter to four”, B clearly gives A more

information than A requires The failure to observe the maxim of quantity can be explained that B also wishes to observe the maxim of quality In this case, the speaker faces a clash of maxim, i.e he finds himself unable simultaneously to observe the maxims of quality and quantity, failing to give the right amount of information, and prompts his interlocutor to draw an inference, or implicature: he is not sure that he has given the exact time because he may know that the clock there

is often inaccurate

- Flouts which exploit a maxim

Flouts which exploit the maxim of quality occur when the speaker says

something which is blatantly untrue or for which she or he lacks adequate evidence

(26) B is on a long train journey and wants to read her book A is a fellow passenger who wants to talk to her

A: What do you do?

A flout of the maxim of quantity occurs when a speaker blatantly gives more

or less information than the situation requires

(27)

A: How are we getting there?

B: Well, Mary and I are getting there in Dave’s car [23, 69]

B blatantly gives less information than A needs, thereby generating the implicature that, while she and her friend have a lift arranged, A will not be traveling with them

The maxim of relation (i.e being relevant) is exploited by making a response

which is very obviously irrelevant to the topic in hand, for example, by abruptly changing the subject, or by overtly failing to address the other person’s goal in asking a question

(28)

A: Who was that you were with last night?

In this case, A is likely to come to the conclusion that B is irritated or embarrassed by the question and wishes to change the subject

The following example illustrates a flout of the maxim of manner

(29) This interaction occurs during a radio interview with an unnamed official from the United States Embassy in Portau-Prince, Haiti:

Interviewer: Did the United State Government play any part in Duvalier’s departure? Did they, for example, actively encourage him to leave?

Official: I would not try to steer you away from that conclusion [23, 71] The official can simply reply: “Yes” or “No comment” This extremely long

response helps avoiding putting on record the fact that her government has intervened in the affairs of another country

As far as violating a maxim is concerned, in his first published paper on

conversational cooperation, Grice defines ‘violation’ very specifically as the

unostentatious non-observance of a maxim If a speaker violates a maxim, he or she

‘will be liable to mislead’ [2, 756, extracted from Grice (1975)]

The following example is an interaction between a headmaster and a pupil This schoolgirl and her friend played truant from school What is at issue now is whether they went to a boy’s house

(30)

Headmaster: You know that I know where you went, don’t you?

Schoolgirl: We were in the woods [2, 756]

In fact, they had first been to the boy’s house for a while before This unostentatious violation of the maxim of quantity generates the misleading implicature that they went to the woods and nowhere else

A case of infringing a maxim occurs when a speaker who, with no intention

of generating an implicature, and with no intention of deceiving, fails to observe a maxim In other words, the non-observance stems from imperfect linguistic performance, rather than any desire on the part of the speakers to generate a conversation implicature [23, 74]

As another case of non-observance of a maxim, a speaker opts out of

observing a maxim by indicating unwillingness to cooperation in the way the maxim requires Maybe he cannot, for legal or ethical reasons, reply in the way normally expected On the other hand, he wishes to avoid generating a false implicature or appearing uncooperative Another reason frequently given for ‘opting out’ is that giving the requested information might hurt a third party or put them

in danger

Lastly, there are occasions when there is no need to opt out of observing the maxims because there are certain events in which there is no expectation on the part

of any participant the maxims will be fulfilled In other words, the non-observance

of a maxim generates no implicatures This is a case of suspending a maxim

Suspensions of the maxims may be culture-specific or specific to particular events, for examples, courts of law, committees of inquiry, funeral orations, poetry, telegrams, some international phone calls, or jokes [23, 78]

In conclusion, Grice first put forward his ideas concerning the cooperative principle and conversational maxims in 1975, and his work continues in the early

1990s to serve as “the basis for much (probably most) work in pragmatics” [2, 757]

2.3 Related Theories

After Grice introduced the cooperative principle, his theory has been refined

in two main ways: first, by the addition of the politeness principle, and second, by the relevance theory

2.3.1 The politeness principle

The politeness principle was suggested by G Leech (1983) as a way of explaining why people feel the need to be indirect in conveying what they mean The politeness principle enjoins people to be tactful and polite unless there is a specific reason not to be One of the things it does in relation with the cooperative principle is to account for so-called ‘white lies’ These ostensibly break the maxim

of quality but are felt by most people to be different from other lies in that they are

intended to be cooperative rather than to mislead [12, 161]

In the study of linguistic politeness, the most relevant concept is ‘face’ Your face, in pragmatics, is your public self-image Politeness is showing awareness of

another person’s face If you say something that represents a threat to another

person’s self-image, that is called a face-threatening act Whenever you say something that lessens the possible threat to another’s face, it’s called a face-saving act [29, 134]

On the basis of these calculations, speakers determine to carry out the following strategies:

(a) Forego trading face and perform the act without apology or mitigation: Baldly-on record

(b) Choose a positive politeness strategy of making the partner feel good and feel that his values are shared

(c) Choose a negative politeness strategy of hedging, apologizing, offering options or asserting a desire to avoid interfering with the partner’s freedom of action

(d) Perform an implicature or off-record, giving the partner opinion and not acknowledging [23, 168-175]

2.3.2 The relevance theory

This refinement for the cooperative principle is said to be radical in nature [12, 161] Some linguists follow the lead of D Sperber & D Wilson (1986) in

arguing that all the maxims of the cooperative principle can be incorporated within the injunction to be relevant, since not telling the truth, being insufficiently informative, and presenting information in a haphazard way, are neglecting the demands of relevance The authors also claim that the relevance theory enables the interpretations for all phenomena in communication

However, Nguyen Duc Dan (1998) deals with this theory in both positive and negative aspects He recognizes the relevance but also claims that the theory itself is too wide, too vague, and therefore, fails to count for real-life interactions In fact, the theory of relevance has never reached the perspectives as expected when it was first mentioned

Chapter 3 RESEARCH DESIGN & DATA COLLECTION

3.1 Data collection

3.1.1 Settings and participants

Data supporting the research are mainly collected in the classrooms and work place of two English schools in Danang city: SITC English School and CCE - Danang University These are two schools specialized in teaching foreign languages with a variety of courses: General English, Conversational English courses, and training courses for international English certificates such as TOEFL, IELTS, TOEIC, BEC, and so on The data are collected in different settings: in classrooms, meetings or informal exchanges in staffroom or elsewhere

The participants of the research include:

• Learners of English of SITC English School and CCE - Danang University Learners range from Beginner to Upper-intermediate levels in both General English classes and Conversational English Classes The number of learners of beginner and pre-intermediate levels is 119 from the schools, which makes up 44% of the participants The number of intermediate and upper-intermediate levels is 123 (45%) Then, the total number of learners participating in the survey is 240

• Staff and teachers of SITC English school and CCE - Danang University (both local and foreign ones), in which the number of local staff/teachers is 20 and that of foreign teachers is 10 This group makes up 11% of the total The nationalities of foreign teachers range from British, American, Australian, and Vietnamese-American who use English as mother tongue The study deals with the participation of native speakers in terms of their language proficiency and also treats them as teachers of English Regarding cultural aspect, the study once mentions the cultural aspect as one factor affecting the conversational cooperation, therefore, it doesn’t pay much attention to the participation of native speakers as a basis for the analysis of cultural aspect

In summary, the distribution of participants in the survey can be illustrated in Chart 3.1 as follows:

Beginner & intermediate 44%

Pre-Advanced 11%

Intermediate &

intermediate 45%

Upper-Chart 3.1 Distribution of participants

3.1.2 Methods of data collection

Data supporting the research are collected in two ways:

- Primary data: Recording of conversations made by:

• Learners of English

• Teachers (both local and foreign) and Learners of English

• Staff of these schools - between native speakers or between native speakers and Vietnamese speakers of English

+ Open-ended questions to probe into the depth of the issues

The issues related to conversational strategies and cooperation, to some extent, are not familiar to learners; and the language used in the questionnaire is

rather challenging to some learners, especially, learners of beginner level Therefore, the researcher has to put some effort in explaining so that the participants may understand the issues in investigation

• Follow-up: Semi-structured interviews (In case the information from the informants is unclear enough or there is a need for further information to be elicited)

Regarding the corpus employed in the study’s analysis, the researcher has collected approximately 1300 conversation examples from different sources as shown in Chart 3.2 In details, the number of conversations from materials for English courses is 760 (58%), from questionnaires is 450 (34%), and there are only

90 conversations (8%) recorded from class and real-life situations

Materials for English courses 58%

Questionnaires 34%

Class & real-life conversations 8%

Chart 3.2 Distribution of corpus

3.2 Data analysis: the data collected are put into this process:

• Categorizing:

- categorizing data collected in terms of conversational strategies There is a fact that some samples for analysis may employ several strategies simultaneously Therefore, it is predicted that the total frequency of strategies presented in the findings of the study is not exactly 100% as expected in common demonstrations

- categorizing factors contributing to the cooperation in conversations as well

as the use of conversational strategies

• Systematizing & generalizing:

- building up a set of conversational strategies in order to remain the cooperation in conversations

- finding violating cases that should be avoided in conversations

- drawing a conclusion on the use of conversational strategies by interlocutors of different characteristics

- Analyze data

- Write up the thesis

CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS & DISCUSSIONS

4.1 Conversational strategies in the light of the cooperative principle

Section 4.1 deals with a set of possible strategies for being conversationally cooperative These strategies will be examined in the light of the cooperative principle to check whether they are observance or non-observance cases of the maxims Besides, the frequency of the examples employing each strategy will be analyzed to find out the significance of the strategies in the practice of talk-exchanges

4.1.1 Literal - direct communication strategy

The strategy for literal - direct communication is shown in certain shared beliefs about the nature, stage, and direction of the talk-exchange Firstly, the speakers’ contribution to the talk exchange should be relevant at that point Secondly, it is expected that they believe what they say, want what they ask for, intend to do what they commit themselves to, and so on Moreover, they should say what is true, and have adequate evidence for what they say They are also concerned about quantity of information offered, neither too much not too little Last but not least, conversations themselves have social nature; therefore, it is necessary that they speak clearly, politely, and ethically

If speakers take into consideration all these assumptions upon talking part in conversations, according to the arguments Grice introduced in his theory, they have fully observed the conversational maxims of the cooperative principle

In communication, unless there are special reasons for engaging in conversation, the natural tendency is to cooperate with each other so that the speakers can preserve the flow of information exchange

The literal – direct communication strategy is commonly taken into practice Let us consider the following samples:

(31) Two detectives are following criminals

A Listen What is that?

B It’s a car Is it their car? [25]

(32)

A Excuse me, can you tell me the way to the Grand Hotel?

B Go along this street Go across the bridge and go straight on to the end

It’s on the right at the end of the street You can’t miss it [25] (33) Between an old lady and the pilot on an airplane

A Who are you?

(34)

A Where’s the bike?

(35)

A Have you decided on a car yet?

(36)

A I’m going to play squash

B Oh, really? I’d like to play squash But I haven’t got a racket

(37)

A Oh, look at those earrings, Maria They’re perfect for you

(38)

A How often do you walk to work or school?

B I don’t usually walk to work I usually go by bike [8, 9]

(39)

A Excuse me Do you need any help?

B Yes, I do I’ve been walking around in circles I can’t seem to find the

(40)

A How often do you clean your teeth?

B Twice a day Once in the morning, and once at night [11, 12] (41)

A Do you spend more than you earn?

B No, but I don’t save anything, either [10, 20]

In above cases, all speakers have given literal and direct replies In other

words, they have answered clearly (Manner), truthfully (Quality), given just the

right amount of information (Quantity) and directly addressed the questioners’ goal

(Relevance/Relation) They have precisely said what they meant, no more and no

less, and have generated no implicature No matter how long or short the replies are,

we cannot find any distinction between what they say and what they mean or any

additional level of meaning

Even though observing the maxims is the least interesting case in interaction,

we cannot deny the fact that it makes up the largest scale in daily conversations,

which is approximately 29.8% of the conversation samples collected This figure

once again confirms the satisfaction for the need of information as one of the most

important functions of communication

4.1.2 Literal – indirect communication strategy

When we speak, we really do mean what is said (literally) but also mean

more (indirectly) This indirect communication strategy does not aim at misleading

the hearers It is just for some reasons, or in certain circumstances, speakers have to

let hearers, within their shared beliefs, infer the intentions from the truth offered

Therefore, this strategy does no harm to the cooperation in conversation

In the light of the cooperative principle, this strategy can be found in

non-observance cases of the maxims

Let us consider the following example:

(42) Two detectives are following criminals

A Is it their car?

This case can be explained as a flout necessitated by a clash between

maxims The interlocutors are in an urgent situation and their talk-exchanges should

be as brief as possible They have to choose to observe either the maxim of manner

or the maxim of relation In this situation, B has to be in favor of flouting the maxim

of relation, that is, he did not say directly “yes/no” However, within their shared

assumptions, A can infer from B’s reply that it is exactly the car they are waiting for

Similarly, the following example of literal-indirect strategy can be seen as a

flout of the maxim of relation (relevance):

(43)

A Where does your brother live?

On the surface, B’s reply can be seen as irrelevant However, with the shared

belief between A and B, that is, B’s parents live in Warsaw, A will come to the

conclusion that B’s brother lives in Warsaw, too It can be said that B has flouted a

maxim but remained the cooperation and worked out the conversation successfully

Another example can be suggested as a common use of this strategy for

being conversationally cooperative:

(44)

A Do you spend more than you earn?

B Oh, I have to borrow from my parents, and also from a student loan

The reply can be as simple as “yes/no” However, B doesn’t want to admit

his situation by saying ‘yes” Instead, he takes advantage of his language

competence to express his idea in a long and confusing utterance However, what he

says is true and we also get fully what he means beyond his reply

Example (45) is also a case of flouting the maxim of manner:

On the plane, after tasting the food, A feels terrible

A Oh, now I wish they’d come back with the drink cart again [16, 24]

Instead of simply saying “I need some water”, A has said in a much more complicated way Obviously, A has flouted the maxim of manner However, the

key point is that his implicature can be recognized by B which is shown through B’s

reply: “Here, have yourself some of mine”

From the samples collected, it is remarkable that the cases in which interlocutors employ the literal-indirect communication strategy contribute 15.7% This figure shows the fact that, in reality, people do not always speak directly Put another way, speaking indirectly can be another way of maintaining the conversational cooperation, as long as interlocutors give sufficient and truthful information

4.1.3 Non-literal - direct communication strategy

Upon taking part in conversations, interlocutors are expected to make sure of the quality of information offered Yet at times what they mean to communicate is not compatible with what their expression literally means, despite the fact that they seem to aim at the question’s goal Obviously, this is the non-observance of the

maxim of quality of the cooperative principle

The following examples may help demonstrate how cooperative interlocutors are upon employing the non-literal - direct communication strategy

(46)

A Have you got any rooms for tonight?

A No

B Then we haven’t got any rooms for tonight Sorry [10]

In this example, B has clearly told a lie, or his expression is blatantly false Upon B’s reply, A will come to the interpretation that B has rooms for tonight, as

long as A can afford them In short, this flout of the maxim of quality has created an

implicature adopted by the hearer

The following example is the typical utterance that exploits the maxim of

quality by means of a figure of speech

(47) In an advertisement of the TV remote control locator:

A Thank the TV remote control locator

B What a great idea! I’m always losing my remote control [17] The use of overstatement is clearly shown in this case It’s impossible for

someone to “always” lose something The hearers can simply understand that B

often loses his remote control This standardized non-literal communication strategy

is commonly used in advertising with such expressions as “This is the best/the greatest/the most impressive…”, “I’ve never thought to have it someday.”, or “I’m always…”

Let us observe the following example as another case of non-observance of the maxims:

(48) A is taking a cat which he found in his house to the police

A What’s the cat name?

B The cat’s name? I don’t know [16, 5]

In fact, A has seen the cat’s name on the tag around its neck but she wants to get rid of the cat as soon as possible Therefore, instead of wasting time giving

information of the cat, she says “I don’t know” to mislead police officer In a word,

it is a case of violating a maxim

In summary, in different contexts, the non-literal - direct strategy can be

recognized as a flout or a misleading violation of the maxim As the matter of fact,

it is not easy to exploit the examples of non-literal - direct strategy because various cues and contextual communication information should be used to figure out what the speaker means

In the process conducting the research, due to certain constraints and limited ability the contexts and the settings in which conversations take place are not yet

explored, making it hard to say if the result obtained on this strategy can be as satisfying as expected However, the frequency of 1.4% of the samples collected employing the non-literal – direct strategy partially conveys the interpretation of the term conversational cooperation by Grice Surely, the cooperation can be even

found in the so-called ‘uncooperative’ behaviors such as lying or hurling abuse

4.1.4 Non-literal – indirect communication strategy

In spite of not being expected to occur so widely in conversations, the literal – indirect communication strategy is here and there employed In case speakers intend to mean something more than what they say and also different from what they say, there is no doubt that they fail to observe maxims of the cooperative principle The purposes of non-observance of the maxims may vary in specific situations

non-As mentioned in 4.1.3, various cues and contextual information should be taken into consideration when an example of non-literal communication strategy is examined For non-literal – indirect communication strategy, it’s much more difficult not only to pick out the relevant examples from the source of data but also

to figure out their implied meanings

(49) At a restaurant

A Excuse me We’d like a table for two, please

B Well, I don’t know We are very busy at lunchtime [25]

In fact, there is not any other guest inside but the waiter (B) seems to be

exhausted Obviously, B has been liable to mislead A by violating the maxim of quality Furthermore, with the indirect reply instead of saying if there is any table

available, he wants to conclude that he is unwilling to welcome the guests

Another example can be found in practice when someone has to deal with legal issues:

(50) John (B) was stopped by a policeman for overspeeding

A May I see you driving license, please?

B I didn’t do anything wrong, officer [41]

Firstly, John doesn’t want to confess his wrong doing even though he may know for sure what he has done is serious That is also a common response of many people Secondly, he tries to cancel showing the driving license because it is not available right then In practice, this strategy makes sense in some cases Unfortunately, it is no use employing this strategy in case one is stopped by a policeman

Concerning the source of examples quoted for the research, it can be unsurprising that the non-literal – indirect communication strategy proves to be the scarcest one used The figure drawn from the research is just less than 1% This figure once again confirms the fact that unless getting stuck in specific situations, interlocutors hardly tend to mislead or let their partners infer confusedly from their utterances

4.1.5 Using hedges

In practice, speakers rarely mention if and how the maxims are assumed in normal interaction However, they are constantly aware of using certain kinds of expressions to make sure that there is an attempt to show their conversational cooperation

These kinds of expressions, namely hedges, may be used to indicate that what we are saying may not be totally accurate and that we are really conscious of

the maxim of quality

(51)

A What’s his name?

B I’m not sure I think it’s Henry [7, 56]

“I think” is one of most common hedges used in conversations There are also a variety of expressions, as simple as “I hear”, “I hope”, “I bet”, “maybe”,

“probably”… or more long-winded, used as hedges as in the following examples:

(52)

A It’s not a very nice day, is it?

(53)

A How long does it take?

B About 15 minutes For me, it isn’t very far [8]

(54)

A Do you know where the hottest place in the United States is?

B You know, I’m not sure if I’ve heard this before, but I think it’s in Death

(55)

A Where do you think the wettest place is?

B Ok, I’m going to take a guess here: California [16, 15] (56)

A What do you miss the most from India?

B To tell you the truth, after you’re here for a while, you don’t miss any

thing very much [21]

In the same token, hedges can also be used to show the expectation of the

maxims of quantity as can be seen in examples (57-59):

(57) Two people are talking about an unusual restaurant

A I don’t think Twins restaurant is real How could you find so many identical twins to be waiters, waitresses, and cooks? It says “All 80 people who work there are twins”

B Well, as you know, New York is very big city [8, 29]

(58)

A What should I do with him?

B I won’t waste time on what he’s done, just forget him [41]

(59)

A I can’t support his plan

B Me, neither Not mentioning all the details, just the budget proposal made

me shocked [41]

Just as various hedges for the quantity maxim collected above, we can find a

large number of ways to express the awareness of observing the other maxims

(60)

A Do you take credit cards?

B Oh, actually, you can pay be cheque or by cash if you’ve got it [10, 122]

(61)

A Is anything the matter?

B It’s Caroline, she’s left me

A Oh, that’s terrible Look, I tell you what, I’ll make us some coffee, and

then we’ll get in the car and go for a drive [10, 128]

(62)

A Hello, Ace photography

B Oh, hello I wonder if you could help me I don’t know if you do this I

need a passport photograph [11, 115] (63)

A Now, why do you want to leave your present job and come here?

B Well, as I said, the hotel where I am now is a very small hotel [8, 77] (64) At an estate agent’s

A Is it a new building?

B Well, just the same as other building in the area, it is about 50 years old

[21, 99]

(65)

A What do you miss the most from India?

B The quality of life The quality of life is much nicer back home, frankly

Surprisingly, examples of this type make up around 15% of the corpus In

fact, even very simple examples contain hedges This may well indicate that

speakers generally want to show their positive attitude in remaining the cooperation and they expect their listeners to recognize their attempt to be cooperative conversational partners

4.1.6 Politeness strategies

The social nature of conversation makes interlocutors involved in each interaction aware of not only the demand to exchange information but also the necessity to be tactful and polite In certain cases, the necessity of being polite is so essential that speakers have to put aside the observance of the maxims Hopefully, the non-observance of the maxims for the sake of politeness is mainly recognized

by people involved in the talk-exchanged as a way to show their conversational cooperation

From the examples collected, politeness strategies are found with a frequency of 8.1% The following examples are some of the utterances employing politeness strategies that we may find familiar in our daily interaction

The most common realization of politeness strategies can be found in replies

expressions as “that’s all right”, “never mind”, and so on

Upon making such replies, speakers have flouted the maxim of quality, but

on the other hand, they have made a face-saving act, that is, to say some thing that

lessens the possible threat to another’s face

(67)

A Excuse me Could we see the menu, please?

B Yes, of course Just a moment [8, 30]

In this example, A has to say “Excuse me” before making a request This

expression, in fact, does not contribute to the meaning conveyed in the request In

the light of the cooperative principle, it sure is a flout of maxim of manner

However, it is used with a clear intention of being polite, since the speaker is going

to make a face-threatening act, that is, to make a request or to impose something on the hearer

(68)

A Do you think you could lend me $20?

B Um, well, I’m not sure [10, 122]

The issue of money is often a sensitive one Therefore, both A and B try to

be tactful in this conversation While A chooses to flout the maxim of manner by giving an indirect order, B has to flout the maxim of quality because he has some

money but he knows for sure that he won’t lend A any money

(69) A, a Japanese, has offered B a kind of ice cream in Japan

A Was it good?

B It was different, anyway [16, 27]

In order to be polite, B has to flout the maxim of relevance In other words,

B fails to give relevant information, e.g “good/bad” If he did so, he would hurt A

or at least, couldn’t reach A’s expectation that the ice cream is good

(70) B is visiting A’s house for the first time

A Well, it’s very hot in here, isn’t it?

B has answered directly, briefly and truthfully The matter is that, he finds it untactful to say it is really hot for this is the first time he has been to A’s house In brief, the strategy of politeness is employed here, which leads to the non-observance

of quantity maxim

4.1.7 Developing a mutual tolerance by allowing speaker’s unclarity and listener’s inattention

Among the strategies that enable interlocutors to engage themselves in a successful conversation, developing a mutual tolerance is an exception It does not aim at contributing information to the conversation However, without this strategy,

a conversation may come to an end due to speaker’s unclarity or listener’s inattention

With no intention of contributing information to the conversation, it can be said that there is nothing to do with maxims of quality or quantity, nor maxim of manner This strategy should be considered as an attempt to preserve the flow of talk-exchanges, so that the above maxims can be observed

This time, the maxim of relevance appears to be the only possible explanation for this strategy Speakers have to exploit relevance maxim, that is, to

say some thing not directly relevant to the expectation of their partners but relevant

to the situation on the whole, to merge themselves or to draw their partners into a successful interaction

The following example shows the attempt in developing a mutual tolerance

by allowing speaker’s unclarity

(71)

A I like learning English but I don’t like French

B Are you learning French?

A No

B How do you know that you don’t like learning French?

A I used to learn it [41]

If the conversation ends at A’s reply “no”, the talk-exchange becomes

nonsense since A’s reply itself is contrary to his first utterance Therefore, B, with his active role in the conversation, shows his tolerance by asking for the

clarification from A Then A’s reply “no” turns out just a case of non-observance of quantity maxim, not a nonsense reply as it first seems to be

Similar use of this strategy can be found in talk-exchanges as follows:

(72)

A Two tickets for Star Wars, please

B Both adults?

A No, one adult and one child [8, 62]

In practice, there are various ways to express an attempt in developing

mutual tolerance Some of them are commonly-used expressions such as “What?”,

“Like what?”, “Pardon?”, “What do you mean?” In other cases, the whole utterance

or just a few key words are repeated or a suggested clarification is used to show that speakers find their partners’ utterances unclear enough in linguistic term

(73)

A Who is she?

B The woman with blond hair? [25]

(74) A conversation between air control and a pilot

A I’m going to attempt to get you down

B Going down, are we?

(75)

A How many subjects do you take for your diploma?

B Well, that depends on what types of diploma you’re doing There are really two types with compulsory subjects, and in both cases students have

some choice; so in addition there are what’s called “electives”

A “Electives” means you can choose the subject…?

B Exactly, exactly [10,126]

In order to show the tolerance to hearers’ inattention, speakers tend to use

some expressions in conversation such as “Are you listening to me?”, “Got that?”,

“As I said”, and so forth

In example (76), both speakers have to show their mutual tolerance