Nghiên cứu về vi phạm nguyên tắc hội thoại nhằm che giấu sự thật của các nhân vật thông qua một số tập phim “những bà nội trợ kiểu mỹ”

ABSTRACT This study aims to explore how American movie series characters violate Grice‟s conversational maxims by means of rhetorical strategies in their daily conversation for the purpo

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

BÙI THỊ THU TRANG

A STUDY ON THE VIOLATION OF CONVERSATIONAL MAXIMS

IN DECEPTION USED BY CHARACTERS IN SOME EPISODES OF

“DESPERATE HOUSEWIVES”

NGHIÊN CỨU VỀ VI PHẠM NGUYÊN TẮC HỘI THOẠI

NHẰM CHE GIẤU SỰ THẬT CỦA CÁC NHÂN VẬT THÔNG QUA MỘT SỐ TẬP PHIM “NHỮNG BÀ NỘI TRỢ KIỂU MỸ”

M.A Minor Thesis

Field: English linguistics Code: 60220201

HANOI - 2017

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

BÙI THỊ THU TRANG

A STUDY ON THE VIOLATION OF CONVERSATIONAL MAXIMS IN DECEPTION USED BY CHARACTERS IN SOME EPISODES OF

“DESPERATE HOUSEWIVES”

NGHIÊN CỨU VỀ VI PHẠM NGUYÊN TẮC HỘI THOẠI

NHẰM CHE GIẤU SỰ THẬT CỦA CÁC NHÂN VẬT THÔNG QUA MỘT SỐ TẬP PHIM “NHỮNG BÀ NỘI TRỢ KIỂU MỸ”

M.A Minor Thesis

Field: English linguistics Code: 60220201

Supervisor: Prof Nguyễn Hòa

HANOI - 2017

CANDIDATE’S STATEMENT -***** -

I, the undersigned, hereby certify my authority of the study project report entitled

A STUDY ON THE VIOLATION OF CONVERSATIONAL MAXIMS IN DECEPTION USED BY CHARACTERS IN SOME EPISODES OF

submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Master Degree at University of Languages and International Studies, Vietnam National University, Hanoi and that this thesis has not been submitted to any degree at any other universities or institutions Except where the reference is indicated, no other person‟s work has been used without due acknowledgement in the text of the thesis

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

On completing this study, I owe a profound indebtedness to many people for

their invaluable help during the conduct of my research

First of all, I would like to express my greatest gratitude to Prof Nguyen Hoa, my supervisor for his useful and critical comments and continual guidance

My appreciation is also offered to my lecturers and my friends of graduate studies for their valuable lessons and precious helps

Post-Finally, I would like to express my profound gratitude towards my parents and my husband for their continual encouragement and immeasurable support

ABSTRACT

This study aims to explore how American movie series characters violate Grice‟s conversational maxims by means of rhetorical strategies in their daily conversation for the purpose of deception Data were collected from 23 episodes of Season 6 of “Desperate Housewives”, a famous American movie series The writer employed a descriptive qualitative research together with content analysis in analysing and discussing utterances containing the violation of maxims under the light of Grice‟s theory of Cooperative Principle

The findings of this study indicated that for the purpose of deception, mostly for hiding the truth, all four conversational maxims were violated Besides, it could

be found that violations of these maxims lead to the usage of rhetorical strategies, in which the mostly used by the speaker are Understatement, Ellipsis, Repetition, Topic changed and Overstatement while Rhetorical question, Irony, Ambiguity and Metaphor are not employed much Hopefully, this study would contribute to a better understanding about the realization of conversational maxim violation by means of rhetorical strategies

CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY 27

LIST OF TABLES AND CHARTS

Table 5 Distribution of Rhetorical Strategies in Violation of

PART A: INTRODUCTION

1 Rationale

In a conversation, a speaker and a hearer are supposed to respond to each other in their turn and exchange with the needed information that benefits both of them (Crowley & Mitchell, 1994, p.140) The speaker and the hearer are said to have fulfilled the Cooperative Principle (CP) when they manage to achieve a successful conversation According to Grice (1975, p 45), the CP which consists of four maxims are the suggested principles for the speaker and the hearer to show their cooperation by giving appropriate contribution in their conversation Despite Grice's claims of ideal exchange, he suggests that there are cases when these rules may be violated Speakers who violate a maxim cause the hearer not to know the truth and only understand the surface meaning of the speaker‟s words

For some purposes, people tend to use deception In connection with the CP, deception occurs when people act like they are following the rules of the CP, while trying to secretly break them The violation of Grice‟s conversational maxims can perform different functions such as creating humour or telling lies This study draws

on a pragmatics approach in which deception is considered as one of the products of violating Grice‟s conversational maxims

The violations for deception are well pictured in an American movie series on

television entitled “Desperate Housewives” The show followed the lives of a

group of women as seen through the eyes of a dead neighbour They worked through domestic struggles and family life, facing the secrets, crimes and mysteries

In their lives, they often deceive each other for different purposes

For all reasons above, in analysing the scripts of the “Desperate Housewives” from

episode 1 to episode 23 - the whole Season 6, this study aims to unpack the relationship between deception and the violation of Grice‟s conversational maxims and to discover what violation of maxims occurs for the purpose of deception and how the violation of conversational maxims is realized by rhetorical strategies

2 Objective of the Study

Based on the CP, it could be seen that people are naturally directed towards cooperation In other words, the CP describes best practices in a conversation in order to facilitate the process of conversation to be smoother for both the listener and the speaker It suggests that a communication can be a failure when maxims are broken Nevertheless, in reality, sometimes the purpose of the interlocutors is to fail the conversation, or to miscommunicate People could frequently disobey these maxims in order to achieve certain purposes In this case, whether the communication will always breakdown? Thus, this study is carried out specifically

to aims at investigating how the CP really plays out in a specific social context

3 Research Questions

In accordance with this aim, the research is conducted to find out answers to the following research questions:

1 What violation of conversational maxims occurs for the purpose of deception

in Desperate Housewives from Episode 1 to Episode 23, Season 6?

2 How is the violation of conversational maxims realized by rhetorical strategies of characters for the purpose of deception in Desperate Housewives from Episode 1 to Episode 23, Season 6?

4 About “Desperate Housewives”

For many purposes, many people tend to make deception and violate Grice‟s Conversational maxims (1975, p 45) when they communicate This is apparent in

an American movie series on television entitled “Desperate Housewives” It is an

interesting film since it combines elements of drama, comedy, mystery, thriller,

farce, soap opera and satire (Desperate Housewives, n.d.) “Desperate Housewives”

was aired for eight seasons on ABC, from October 3, 2004 to May 13, 2012 This film was well received by both viewers and critics It won multiple Primetime

Emmy, Golden Globe and Screen Actors Guild Awards and was rated amongst the top 10 most watched series

Set on Wisteria Lane, a street in the fictional town of Fairview in the fictional Eagle

State, “Desperate Housewives” follows the lives of a group of women as seen

through the eyes of their late friend and neighbour who committed suicide The

main characters are four attractive middle-aged women:

 Bree Van de Camp, the perfect housewife and mother who wants everything under control;

 Lynette Scavo, the mother of four children who had a bright career in the past;

 Susan Mayer, the single mother who always messes up and depends on her daughter for everything;

 Gabrielle Solis, an ex-model who dislikes the suburbs and misses the bustle life of the city

The women work through domestic struggles and family life, while facing the secrets, crimes and mysteries hidden behind the doors of their beautiful and seemingly perfect suburban neighborhood

5 Scope of the Study

In terms of non-observances of maxims of Grice‟s CP, since it is so broad, this study only focuses on the art of violating Grice‟s conversational maxims to create verbal deception

“Desperate Housewives” in the Season 6, from episode 1 to episode 23 This

season is chosen because a great deal of problems, conflicts and deception happening among the characters appear

Besides, in the scope of this study, body language, facial expression and

intonation of characters in “Desperate Housewives” which may have some effects

on generating deception will not be discussed This research only focuses on verbal utterances with linguistics hints

6 Design of the study

The study is designed with three chapters:

PART B: DEVELOPMENT

CHAPTER 1: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND & LITERATURE REVIEW

This study focuses on the violations of the conversational maxims based on Grice‟s theory of Cooperative Principle (1975) for the basis of analysis The first part of this chapter will provide a theoretical background for this study including the notion of Pragmatics, Grice‟s Theory of Cooperative Principle and Conversational Maxims The second part will shed a light on the definition of deception and the underlying reasons of deception The last part is some review of related studies in the similar topic

1.1 Theoretical Background

1.1.1 Pragmatics

Human interaction, especially conversation, has been the focus of many researchers However, conversation as one of the means of human communication is not always smooth and the goals to find out how humans manage to communicate has been existed for a long time This issue became one of the main goals of pragmatics Coming to this point, it is necessary to define what pragmatics is about According

to Aitchison (2003:104), pragmatics is the branch of linguistics which studies how speakers use language to achieve their goals and how hearers interpret the meaning the speaker wishes to convey In his idea, a conversation depends not only on the speaker, who is trying to deliver a message, but also on the hearer, who draws a conclusion from the implication of the utterance, depending on the context in which

it occurs In contrast to syntax and semantics, pragmatics focuses on human cooperation and knowledge instead of on linguistic meaning and structure only While semantics severally concentrates on the literal meaning of an expression, it does not consider the context in which it is expressed (Cutting, 2002) Maria (2015) stated that pragmatics is the study of the relation between the structure of a semiotic system and its usage in context Pragmatics is concerned with implicit meaning, with inference and the unsaid, and the way in which language structure trades on

this background of the presumed and the inferred (Thomas 1995:2-8) Sharing the same idea, Yule (1985) explained pragmatics as a branch of language that focuses

on how participants interpret what they mean Meaning in pragmatics has a central role in communication which occurs in social organization; therefore, pragmatics takes into consideration both the study of meaning and parts of linguistics which connect language with social, psychological and philosophical aspects of linguistics

According to Levinson (1983), one possible definition of pragmatics is "Pragmatics

is the study of deixis, implicature, presupposition, speech acts, and aspects of discourse structure" (p 27) Aitchison (1995) emphasizes that in a narrow sense, pragmatics investigates how listeners get the intended meaning of the speakers, whereas in a broader sense, it concerns with certain principles followed by interlocutors when communicating with each other

H Paul Grice, a British philosopher of language, made a direct contribution to pragmatics thorough his famous theory of implicature Grice (1975) proposes that conversation is based on a shared principle of cooperation, and his work on the Cooperative Principle (CP) led to the development of pragmatics as a distinct discipline within linguistics Since the major aim of communication in pragmatics is

to give and receive information, people try to adopt a cooperative behavior to convey their intentions and transfer their utterances implicitly In this regard, Grice (1975) points out that communication acts depend on the CP and interlocutors try to

be cooperative with each other in most of the conversational exchanges, and proposes some principles in order to account for the cooperative behavior of participants in their conversations

As for the purpose of this thesis, before coming to focus on the way in which deception is created with regard to Grice‟s CP, it is important to elaborate on these theories in order to understand how these principles work and how it is used to create deception in conversation

1.1.2 Grice’s Theory of Cooperative Principles

H Paul Grice, the British philosopher, undertook an investigation of how the way people behave in conversation in the 1960s In order to have a coherent conversation, he assumed that all of conversationalists must accept and understand the meaning of the conversation that is intended necessarily The main points of the

CP were formulated by Grice in the lectures at Harvard in 1967 and published in his essay "Logic and Conversation" (1975): "Make your conversational contribution such as it is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged" (p 45) Put more simply, the CP attempts to make explicit certain rational principles observed by people when they converse Grice claims that human beings communicate with each other

in a logical and rational way, and cooperation is embedded into people‟s conversations Furthermore he argues that this habit will never be lost because it has been learned during the childhood Here, the point is that audience listener understands the implication of a speaker‟s remarks by drawing on an assumption of cooperativeness, contextual information and background knowledge

In his William James Lectures at Harvard and Oxford Universities in 1967, Grice explicates the CP and he pays attention in order to limit the use of it for describing talk exchanges presenting the following features: "The participants have some common immediate aim, the contributions of the participants are dovetailed, mutually dependent; there is some sort of understanding that, other things being equal, the transactions should continue in appropriate style unless both parties are agreeable that it should terminate" (Grice, 1989: 31) Grice (1989, 29) considers that “Our talk exchanges … are characteristically, to some degree at least, cooperative efforts and each participant recognize in them … a common purpose or set of purposes, or at least a mutually accepted direction” According to Finegan (2007:287), people in most situations make efforts to understand their utterances, and be able to cooperate properly in conversation The reason is that, without cause

to expect otherwise, interlocutors normally trust that they and their conversational partners are accepting the same interpretive conventions

To sum up, the CP specifies what participants have to do in order to converse in a maximally efficient, natural, co-operative ways they should speak sincerely, relevantly and clearly, while providing sufficient information (Levinson, 1983: 102)

In an attempt to describe how the CP works, Grice formulated guidelines for the efficient and effective use of language in conversation These guidelines are known

as the four maxims of conversation: the Maxim of Quality, the Maxim of Quantity, the Maxim of Relevance and the Maxim of Manner (Grice, 1975, p 45)

1.1.3 Grice’s Theory of Conversational Maxims

In Grice‟s CP, each of four conversational maxims has different uses in giving contribution to success of communication Thanks to Grice‟s maxims, we can interpret and understand the underlying implication of an utterance (Thomas 1995:63)

1.1.3.1 The Fulfilment of Maxims

To make the conversation successful, the speakers should obey the four maxims which Grice argues when participants follow certain rules and patterns in their conversations, they are expected to make their utterances informative and relevant

"while providing sufficient information" (p.102), which could be understood as

"providing enough information" In other words, the participants should not make their contribution more or less informative, because the communication between the addressers and the addressors will be misunderstanding The following example shows that B fulfills the maxim of Quantity

A: What did you have for breakfast today?

1 Do not say what you believe to be false

2 Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence

This maxim describes what Levinson (1983) called to speak "sincerely" (p.102) In Grice‟s (1975) words: "try to make your contribution one that is true" (p 46) To put it in other words, the maxim of Quality requires the speaker to provide the right information which requires the information given is genuine and justified, for

example:

A: Where the director is?

B: She is at her office as I just met her

In the example above, B provided the truth that B just met the director so the information corresponded to A‟s question is true and has adequate evidence

 Maxim of Relevance

The maxim of relation requires the speaker to make his contribution relevant (Grice,

1975, p 46) It means that the communication messages should be matched and related to what has gone before Below is example of maxim of Relevance

A: Where‟s my box of chocolates?

B: It‟s in your room

A: Where was Alfred yesterday?

B: Alfred went to the store and bought some whisky

1.1.3.2 Non-observance of Conversational Maxims

Any failing to observe a maxim may be referred to as “breaking a maxim” According to Grundy (1995:41), breaking a maxim “is the prototypical way of conveying implicit meaning” When a speaker breaks a maxim, the hearer looks for the implicature since s/he assumes the CP to be in operation Grice discussed five types of not observing a maxim consisting of flouting, violating, opting out,

infringing a maxim and suspending As this study focuses on the violations of conversational maxims, a detailed analysis about violation will be presented together with the brief introduction about the other four types

1.1.3.2.1 Violating

 Violating Maxim of Quality

The maxim of Quality is a matter of giving the right information The speaker says nothing that s/he knows to be false or for which s/he lacks sufficient evidence (Thomas 1995:67)

If a speaker violates maxim of Quality, s/he is not being sincere and giving the hearer the wrong information, for example:

A: How much did that new dress cost, darling?

B: (see the tag-50 pounds, but says…) Thirty-five pounds

(Cutting, 2002, p 40)

 Violating Maxim of Quantity

The first sub-maxim, which requires the speaker to provide the hearer with enough information, seems to be violated more often than the second sub-maxim of Quantity The characters tend to violate this maxim when they do not want to reveal certain information and try to use it as an escape from uncomfortable situations The following example is a conversation between two friends John and Mike:

John: Where have you been? I searched everywhere for you during the past three months!

Mike: I wasn‟t around So, what‟s the big deal?

John poses a question, which he needs to be answered by Mike What Mike says in return does not lack the truth, however is still insufficient Therefore, he violated Quantity maxim (Khosravizadeh & Sadehvandi, 2011:123)

 Violating Maxim of Relevance

The maxim of Relevance requires the speaker to be relevant to the context and

situation in which the utterance occurs For instance, a speaker should not say “I am

on the phone” when someone asks if s/he wants dinner Here the utterance meaning

is irrelevant and the speaker fails to observe the maxim (Thomas 1995:70)

 Violating Maxim of Manner

The maxim of Manner is a matter of being clear and orderly when conversing The speaker describes things in the order in which they occurred and avoids ambiguity

and obscurity (Thomas 1995:64)

In another situation, in answering the question: “How much did that new dress cost, darling?” the wife could also have violated the maxim of Manner by saying: “A tiny fraction of my salary, though probably a bigger fraction of the salary of the woman that sold it to me” (Cutting, 2002, p 40)

1.1.3.2.2 Flouting

When flouting a maxim, the speaker does not intend to mislead the hearer but wants the hearer to look for the conversational implicature, that is, the meaning of the utterance not directly stated in the words uttered Therefore, when the speaker intentionally fails to observe a maxim, the purpose may be to effectively communicate a message (Thomas 1995:65)

Since the concept of Flouting and Violating is sometimes hard to distinguish, it is necessary to differentiate these two types of maxim non-observance In contrast to flouting, when violating a maxim the speaker intends to mislead the hearer The speaker speaks the truth but implies what is false (Thomas 1995:72) Violation is defined as the "quiet" non-observance of a maxim According to Grice (1975: 49), a speaker who violates a maxim "will be liable to mislead" Violating a maxim prevents or discourages the hearer from seeking for implicatures and encourages taking utterances at face value Finch (2000:160) also explains that violations are different from flouting in which violating a maxim involves some elements of communication failure: providing too little or too much details being irrelevant or

too vague Concerning the process of flouting, Kempson (1977:70) states that the norms of conversation are deliberately broken in such a way that the speaker knows and intends that the hearer shall recognize that a maxim has been broken

Adapted from Marina (2013) and Levinson (1983), the table below makes a comparison between flouting maxims and violating maxims with some illustrations

Situation: Its finals week and you have 2

finals all due by Friday and you haven't started Your friend knows this and asks:

Friend: How's the work coming?

You: Oh, great I'm all over it

In answering, you assume they know this

The speaker is not honest and provides wrong information

Situation: You are chewing gum in class

and are about to get caught so you take it out and stick it to the desk

Teacher: Were you chewing gum in class? Student: No

Manner

Maxim

It involves the absence of clarity and transparency of communicative intentions

The speaker says everything excepting what the hearer desires to recognize

Flouting Violating

Relevance

Maxim

It occurs when the response is

obviously irrelevant to the topic (quick change of topic, overt failure

to address interlocutor‟s purpose in

asking a question)

The speaker endeavours to change the discussion subject or to deflect the hearer

E.g.:

Sarah: Did you enjoy the party last night? Anna: There was plenty of oriental food on the table, lots of flowers all over the place, people hanging around chatting with each other…

1.1.3.2.3 Opting out

When opting out of a maxim, the speaker is unwilling to cooperate and reveal more than s/he already has The speaker chooses not to observe the maxim and states an unwillingness to do so (Thomas 1995:74)

Context: A doctor who has complete confidentiality regarding his/her patients, is

asked by the police or the press to reveal something about the patient that s/he is

treating, he/she will reply: I am sorry but I can‟t tell you anything

1.1.3.2.4 Infringing a maxim

When the speaker infringes a maxim, s/he unintentionally deceives or fails to observe the maxim The speaker does this with no intention of generating an implicature (Thomas, 1995:74) Infringing occurs when the speaker does not know the culture or does not master the language well enough, as when s/he is incapable

of speaking clearly (Mooney 2004:910; Thomas 1995:74), for example:

Japanese customer: Do you have lice?

English seller: What??

The Japanese often pronounces "r" as "l" so he says "lice" instead of "rice", thus infringing the maxim and causing misunderstandings

1.1.3.2.5 Suspending

When one suspends a maxim, it is understood that what is said is not completely true or that there are things the speaker ought not to say, for example taboo words

It may be due to cultural differences that a speaker suspends a maxim or to the nature of certain events or situations (Thomas 1995:77)

Context: The speaker is the daughter of a murdered man and she is talking to an

officer of the Navajo Tribal police:

“Last time you were with that FBI man – asking about the one who got killed,” she said, respecting the Navajo taboo of not speaking name of the dead “You found out who killed that man?” (Thomas 1995:76)

In this case the woman is not observing the maxim of Quantity, since she is speaking in vague words about the man who got killed, despite the fact that she knows him very well

1.1.4 Violation of Conversational Maxims and Rhetorical Strategies

1.1.4.1 Characteristics of Conversational Maxims Violation

The CP is principles of cooperation in any utterance or conversation which have to

be obeyed and fulfilled by the speakers to achieve an effective communication However, in a real conversation, there is a tendency that the speaker does not follow the CP The reason is that the speaker has certain goals or certain reasons This research attempts to analyse the choice of a communication language in accordance with four conversational maxims The study of linguistic pragmatics has been specifically devoted to how people use and understand language in context, with many scholars seeking to explain speakers‟ particular choice of words in dialogs The purpose in this study is to set up the norms in communication in which the speakers violate the conversational maxims The norms are built upon Grice's

analogies which "are relevant to what he regards as a fundamental question about the CP and its attendant maxims" (Grice 47) Characteristics of maxim violation

were set up based on the CP suggested by Grice (1975, p 45)

Table 2:

Characteristics of Conversational Maxims Violation

Maxim Violating

Quantity

• If the speaker does circumlocution or not to the point

• If the speaker is uninformative

• If the speaker talks too short

• If the speaker talks too much

• If the speaker repeats certain words

• If the speaker denies something

• If the speaker distorts information

Relevance

• If the speaker makes the conversation unmatched with the topic

• If the speaker changes conversation topic abruptly

• If the speaker avoids talking about something

• If the speaker hides something or hides a fact

• If the speaker does the wrong causality

Manner

• If the speaker uses ambiguous language

• If the speaker exaggerates thing

• If the speaker uses slang in front of people who do not understand it

• If the speaker‟s voice is not loud enough

1.1.4.2 Rhetorical Strategies

Guinn and Marder (1987: 1) states that seeking agreement may be human nature To achieve agreement in communication, the speaker shall establish the common ground with the audience or the hearer In order to do this, the speaker uses words that the audience or the readers will understand This kind of words is called

rhetoric Thus, rhetoric is the verbal means of seeking agreement with others

Rhetorical strategy is a major strategy the speaker uses to bring the reader into

 Tautology:

According to Yule (1996: 35), tautology is an apparently meaningless expression in which one word is defined as itself In simple words, it is expressing the same thing,

an idea or saying two or more times

For instance: This is a short summary of

Its use sometimes is just a needless repetition Therefore, tautology is often confused with repetition While repetition is a literary device that repeats the same words or phrases a few times, tautology is the repetition not of words but of ideas Though there is no clear distinction between these two figures of speech, in this

thesis, if speaker uses the same words then it is regarded as repetition and if speaker uses words with similar meanings then it is tautology

 Metaphor:

Guinn and Marder (1987: 35) state that a metaphor is a figure of speech which makes an implicit, implied or hidden comparison between two things that are unrelated but share some common characteristics In other words, a resemblance of

two contradictory or different objects is made based on a single or some common characteristics

For example: He is the black sheep of the family

This is a metaphor because he is not a sheep and is not even black However, we can use this comparison to describe an association of a black sheep with that person

A black sheep is an unusual animal and typically stays away from the herd, and the person described shares similar characteristics

 Overstatement:

Overstatement or hyperbole is simply exaggeration, but exaggeration in the service

of truth (Perrine, 1973: 9) It is exaggerating or choosing a point on scale which is higher than the actual state of affair (Goody, 224) In short, it says more than what one really means

For example: “There are figuratively millions of people at the dance” instead of saying “The dance hall are very crowded.”

 Understatement or Litotes:

It is a rhetorical figure common in ordinary speech which depends on understatement for its effects (Wales, 2001: 239) In other words, it is saying less than one means

For example: If a person is very intelligent, someone else might say, “He‟s not dumb.” This is understatement because the person is far from dumb One could also say, “He‟s not unintelligent,” a double negative

 Rhetorical question:

It is a question or series of questions whose answer is readily understood and inferred by the audience This figure is usually made by turning a generally accepted statement into a question so the meaning of the statement will be considered more fully (Letteri, 2002:201) Some common examples of rhetorical

questions from daily life are “Who knows?”, “Did you hear me?”, “Ok?”, “Why not?”

 Irony:

It is a statement whose real meaning is completely opposed to its professed or surface meaning (Perrine, 1973: 612) Moreover, there are three kinds of irony They are verbal irony, dramatic irony, and irony of situation This study discusses the verbal irony, rather than the other two types Verbal irony is the use of words to mean something different from what a person actually says

For example: When in response to a foolish idea, we say, “what a great idea!” it is a verbal irony

For instance, it is ambiguous to say “I rode a black horse in red pyjamas,”

because it may lead us to think the horse was wearing red pyjamas

1.1.5 Discussion on Grice’s Theory

Grice believes that the conversational maxims help participants to produce inferences beyond the surface meaning of an utterance Bowe and Martin (2006) state that if interlocutors are engaged in a cooperative conversation, these maxims will show the norms that listeners can expect speakers to have followed

In terms of advancement of Grice‟s theory, Jia (2008) argues that “Cooperation is

essential for a conversation to take place In order to make a conversation successful and smooth, the speakers on both sides should hold a cooperative attitude” (p 88) According to Davies (2008), when the semantic content of utterances does not follow the Gricean maxims while the speaker is engaged in

CP, the audience should go beyond the surface to understand the implied meaning

of the utterance

In contrast, some researchers have disputed its universality by arguing that cooperative conversation, as with most social behaviour, is culturally determined, and therefore cannot be universally applied due to intercultural differences (see Taillard, 2004; Sarangi & Slembrouck, 1992) Sarangi & Slembrouck (1992) suggested that Grice‟s framework should be extended to include societal factors such as the social position of the communicators Leech (1983) criticized the CP being neither practical nor applicable for “real language use” Ladegaard (2009) also offers a critical discussion of Gricean cooperation He analyses examples of student-teacher dialogues which show that non-cooperation and non-accommodation may be employed as the preferred discourse strategy, and that the aim of communication may be to miscommunicate rather than to communicate successfully

However, as Hadi (2013) states, Grice‟s CP has played a historically important role

in pragmatics because this theory separated pragmatics from linguistics She argues that although Grice‟s work faces major limitations, it is still at the centre of the disciplines of pragmatics and the important role it plays in this field cannot be denied She suggests “we should be careful interpreting what is meant by

“cooperation” in Grice‟s CP His notion is different from the everyday notion of cooperation Some authors make this difference clear to readers To have a fair understanding of the Grice‟ CP, it would be better to study it in isolation” (p 71)

1.2 Violation of Conversational Maxims and Deception

Ideally in a communication, under the CP, the speaker should fulfill the requirements of the message being informative, clear, and relevant to achieve successful conversation However, in a real conversation, there is a tendency that the speaker violates conversational maxims for different purposes This study aims

to explore how American movie series characters violate Grice‟s conversational maxims by means of rhetorical strategies in their daily conversation for the purpose

of deception

1.2.1 Definition of Deception

In Merriam-Webster dictionary, deception is defined as the act of deceiving; the fact

or condition of being deceived Other dictionaries define deception with the act of lying, misleading with false appearance or statement, and to assert false ideas According to DePaulo & DePaulo (1989), in social psychology, deception has been defined as a communicator‟s deliberate attempt to foster in others a belief or understanding which the communicator considers to be untrue Masip (2004), based on Gerald Miller‟s (1983; Miller & Stiff, 1993) notion of “deceptive communication”, provides a sufficient definition of deception in which “deception can be understood as the deliberate attempt, whether successful or not, to conceal, fabricate, and/or manipulate in any other way factual and/or emotional information,

by verbal and/or nonverbal means, in order to create or maintain in another or in others a belief that the communicator himself or herself considers false” This paper will be based on this notion for analysis of deception used by characters of

“Desperate Housewives”

1.2.2 Reasons of Deception

People deceive other for different reasons It might be to survive; to accomplish a

goal for self or others; to protect own‟s image, or other's; to avoiding negative repercussions; to establish a relationship or to maintain a relationship Cook (1989:31-32) stated that there are five purposes that can be achieved by violated

maxims, namely: to show respect to the hearer, to create hyperbole and irony, to

change a topic, to keep secret and to create humour

Based on Christoffersen‟s study (2005), the following list of reasons of deception is used in the analysis to interpret the data The examples below are taken from the study of Tupan and Natalia (2008)

1 Hiding the truth

Example: John covers his real age to his sister‟s friend whom he met at the party by

telling her that they have the same age

A: I am twenty years old, and how old are you?

B: Exactly the same

2 Saving face

Example: Ann covers herself for being shoplifter in front of people

A: What is in your bag? I think our bracelet is in it

B: I – I do not know what you are talking about I do not have any bracelet That alarm must be wrong

3 Feeling jealous about something

Example: Cindy lies to Jane that she does not know Jim, the new student Cindy

actually likes him

A: I know you talked to Jim, this morning He is awesome What do you think about him?

B: I don‟t know what you are talking about

4 Satisfying the hearer

Example: A conversation between a mother and her son

A: Mom, how was I born?

B: Uhm… because God loves you so He sends you to me as a gift

5 Cheering the hearer

Example: A wife asks her husband whether she looks OK with the purple blouse or

not Her husband who hates purple, cheers his wife by giving an answer that is expected by his wife

A: Honey, does this colour look nice?

B: Of course sweetheart, you look gorgeous

6 Avoiding to hurt the hearer

Example: A mother of a three year old boy wants to protect his son by telling that his

father has gone overseas rather than saying that he died

A: Mummy, where is Daddy?

B: Daddy has gone overseas because he wants to buy some toys for you

7 Building one’s belief

Example: A asks her boyfriend whether he still remembers his ex-girlfriend or not

Her boyfriend lies to her and makes her believe completely

A: I wonder if you are still in love with your ex

B: Of course not darling, you know you are the one in my heart

(Fact: he is still in love with his ex.)

A: But how come you still keep her photo in your wallet?

B: That is not her; she is my cousin who looks like her

(Fact: that is his ex‟s photo.)

8 Convincing the hearer

Example: A part time clerk asks his friend to take his shift, but his friend refuses by

creating a good reason

A: Can you take my shift tonight?

B: I wish I could, but I have to take my daughter to the dentist

In each situation, depending on the purpose of the speaker, deception is made When people deceive, they violate Grice‟s conversational maxims

understanding non-cooperative attitudes of the speakers and the violation of maxims

in real Iranian psychological consulting session After analysing their language by means of conversational implicature and the occurrences of the violation of the CP,

it is concluded that the recognition of conversational implicature is essential for the understanding of the non-cooperative attitudes of the speakers Moreover, the message people intend to convey is not wholly contained within the words they use, but it is also dependent on how hearers interpreted the message taking into account context and implicated meaning Finally, there were instances when the purpose was to intentionally miscommunicate within this sophisticated social context

In the context of films, there are some studies about the violation of Grice‟s

conversational maxims In the study “Some Instances of Violation and Flouting of the Maxim of Quantity by the Main Characters (Barry & Tim) in Dinner for Schmucks”, Khosravizadeh and Sadehvandi (2011) focused on analysing the extent

to which the maxim of Quantity is either violated or flouted by the two main

characters, in a movie entitled “Dinner for Schmucks” and finding if there was any

occasion in which one party opts out of the conversation The findings of this study indicated that in five occasions the characters violated the maxim of Quantity Based on the findings of the study, it could be concluded that although the CP described the best practices in communication in order to facilitate the process of conversation, people could frequently disobey these maxims in order to achieve certain purposes

Chairunnisa & Natsir (2010) in the study on “The violating maxims of main characters in the Hangover movie‟s script” coped with the types of maxims violation in The Hangover movie‟s script used by the main characters The

objectives of study were to describe the violation of maxim, to describe the dominant type of maxim violation and to elaborate the reason for the maxim violation It came to a conclusion that the violation of maxims are caused by some factors such as the using of hyperbole words, unrelated response with the topic and

obscurity expressions The maxim which is dominantly violated is maxim of Quality

Concerning the conversational implicature and the violation of conversational

maxims, the study “Analysis of conversational implicature in “Pariah” movie episode of Smallville serial movie” by Listiani (2011) showed that there were

fourteen conversational implicatures They violated the Grice‟s maxims, mostly, Quality maxim and the lowest percentage violating the maxim was on Quantity maxim

The study Humor Strategies in the American Sitcom “Friends”: An Empirical Study with Reference to Grice‟s “Cooperative Principle” by Yu-wen Wu & Yong

Chen (2010) aimed to explore how American sitcom characters violate Grice‟s CP

as humour strategies in their daily conversation to create humour Its findings indicated that among all humour strategies resulting from the violation of the CP, the strategies of 1) irony, 2) responding irrelevant statements, and 3) making an excuse were the top three humour strategies most frequently used

Sharing a similar topic with this study, “The Multiple Violations of Conversational Maxims in Lying Done by the Characters in Some Episodes of Desperate Housewives” by Tupan and Natalia (2008) revealed that violating all maxims was

meant to eliminate the interlocutor‟s chance to respond, violating three maxims was

to cover the truth and violating two maxims was to create another lie in the future Regarding the relation of conversational maxim violations and rhetorical strategies,

Hartanto (2013) in the study “Rhetorical Strategies in flouting Grice‟s Maxims as Found in “Pygmalion” found that the three main characters in a play entitled

“Pygmalion” flout the maxims of conversation by means of rhetorical strategies which involve tautology, metaphor, overstatement, understatement, rhetorical questions, and irony Meanwhile, they flout Grice‟s maxims as expressed in their utterances The maxims flouted are in the maxim of Quantity, the maxim of Quality,

and the maxim of Manner

In spite of the fact that there have been many studies on violation of conversational maxims for different purposes, very few studies on how violations are used for the purpose of deception and how these violations are realized by rhetorical strategies Therefore, the researcher hopes that this research could provide an in-depth analysis

of violation in this specific aspect

CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY

2.1 Research Hypothesis

There might exist the relationship between the violation of conversational maxims and the verbal deception The violation might be acknowledged by some rhetorical strategies of interlocutors, which can be recognized through conversation of

characters in the film “Desperate Housewives”

2.2 Data Source

The data of this study are the utterances taken from Episode 1 to Episode 23 of

Season 6 of the American movie series “Desperate Housewives” As mentioned in

the Introduction part, the movie is story about the lives of female friends in one suburban neighborhood in which secrets and truths unfold through after the mysterious suicide of a neighbor The main characters are four middle-aged women: Bree, Lynette, Susan and Gabrielle Solis Among 8 seasons, the Season 6 is chosen because a variety of deceptions happens between main characters The main mystery of this season is surrounding new neighbor Angie Bolen and her family Lynette tries to maintain her career while coping with her unplanned pregnancy Bree deals with marital difficulties and a new love interest, and Gabrielle struggles with her parenting skills and in her relationship with Ana, the niece of her husband Carlos

2.3 Research Approach

This study is descriptive and qualitative since it involves “an interpretive approach

to the world This means that qualitative researchers study things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of or interpret phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them” (Denzin and Lincoln, 2005) This study is aimed to describe the rhetorical strategies in violating conversational maxims used by

characters in “Desperate Housewives”

Adapted from Brown and Levinson (1978:220-233), the following guidelines are

used as makers to recognize the violation of each Grice‟s maxim by rhetorical strategies:

No figure of speech is used but the irrelevant situations may lead

to changing the subject suddenly Therefore, in this thesis, “Topic changed” is considered as a rhetorical strategy for recognition of violation of Relevance

Manner - Ambiguity

- Ellipsis

On the basis of the data sources, the study is categorized into a content analysis “the technique used to make replicable and valid inferences by interpreting and coding textual material By systematically evaluating texts, qualitative data can be converted into quantitative data” (Duriau, Reger, & Pfarrer, 2007) In this study, the

writer analyses the content of the main characters‟ utterances in “Desperate Housewives”

2.4 Data Collection Method

The technique of collecting data employed the documentation technique First of all, the film as well as its transcription was searched in the Internet Then, the film was

watched for several times to match the utterances in the transcription into the movie The data was collected by identifying the conversations containing deception, classifying the violations of maxims and finding the reasons and rhetorical strategies used in each violation

2.5 Data Analysis Technique

The data analysis was conducted as following steps:

 Identifying utterances which contains deception

 Defining deception is created by using the violation of what conversational maxims

 Classifying the data taken into each kind of maxim violation: maxim of Quantity, maxim of Quality, maxim of Relevance and maxim of Manner

 Identifying what purpose in violating conversational maxims

 Identifying what rhetorical strategies are used in the violation of conversational maxims

 Classifying rhetorical strategies into each kind of maxim

After collecting conversations that contained violation of maxims based on theory suggested by Grice (1975), the researcher could classify the violation of maxims into each type of maxims and of reasons then count and percentage the violations During this process, the author also concentrated on bringing to light rhetorical strategies that speakers exploited in violating conversational maxims