Clyne’s Revision of Grice’s Maxims Essay

Grices Maxims require been criticised for being too Anglo-centric. Michael Clyne proposes edicts to the quartet maxims in his 1994 go for Inter pagan Communication at Work. Do Clynes revisions of this model go far enough in universally noneing for intercultural conversation? Why or why non?Grices General Cooperative article of belief has been under continuous debate for the past three decades. It is mainly through the maxims that Grices paradigm has been challenged as highly ethnocentric, however much(prenominal) readings may tend to take the maxims too literally rather than as implyence points for language interchange (Allan as cited in Clyne, 1994, p. 11). at that place is some agreement in this, hardly as suggested by Mey (1994, p. 74), the principle and maxims are al shipway defined relative to a particular tillage. It is this idea of cultural values vestigial communication that has caused the contention of Grices cooperative principle and its assistant maxims. Man y linguists (Keenan, 1976 Wierzbicka, 1985 Clyne, 1994 Bowe & Martin, 2007) have criticised Grices Maxims for being too ethnocentric claiming that its assumptions are based on Anglo-Saxon norms and goal.This Anglo-centric nature is problematic for intercultural communication as the maxims are inapplicable to many cultural values systems viz. European and S turn upheast Asian cultures where harmony, respect and restraint play a key role (Clyne, 1994, p. 192). In an attempt to better reflect intercultural conversation, Clyne (1994) has proposed a set of revised maxims to make Grices principles more universal. His revision of Grices model for certain accounts for a wider strain of contexts and cultures, however it can non be said to universally account for intercultural conversation. As conversation is unique to its context and instrumentalists, in reality no single theory could universally embody real life language use. Although people of all backgrounds generally do attempt to allay successful communication (if it doesnt conflict with their purpose or cultural values), factors unique to each participant can affect any given conversation. gum olibanum, it can be said that while individuals are learn by their culture and environment, preaching patterns allow incessantly be influenced by personality factors (Watts, 1991) and practical and intercultural competence.On the surface, Grices cooperative principle seems to provide littledifficulty for intercultural analysis its degree of uncertainty is for sure appropriate for discussions of cultural diversity. Making a 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 usageed (Grice, 1975, p. 45) seems to allow for the acceptance of different purposes and requirements in different contexts, and does not exclude the influence of norms associated with a variety of different speech communities. Although intercultural analysis was not Grices main concern, he has defined the discourse of his cooperative principle as concerted enterprises that allow a high degree of diversity in the motivations underlying quite meagre common objectives (1989 369). Grice himself makes no explicit claims of universality, development characteristically modest language to refer to a first approximation of a general principle (1989 26).He is extremely careful not to overstate the case for cooperation suggesting that each participant recognizes in them (talk exchanges), to some extent, a common purpose, or at least a usually accepted direction (1989, p. 26). It should be pointed out however, that Grices maxims depict an see and simplified language use, whereas reality is much more complex and multi-dimensional. In e realday conversations, telling the inherent truth might be seen as impolite or inappropriate in certain cultures. There as well as tend to be intercultural differences that do not always deliver the goo ds a universal principle. whatever cultures and languages (i.e. Chinese) often dictate that their speakers use indirect speech in conversation, which means they are unable to take note Grices maxims of quantity and manner.In such cases, there is a clash between Grices maxims and the pragmatic rules of conversation, which are culturally sensitive. For example, when being offered a drink, a typical Chinese person would automatically govern no the first time, while expecting the offer to be made at least both or three times more. This resembles a kind of phatic language communication saying no, but not actually meaning no. In this sort of situation, if someone doesnt adhere to the cultural norm choosing to follow Grices maxims instead, then they would sound odd and out of place.The above example demonstrates that Grices maxims arent pertinent in all contexts as they clash with certain cultural values systems. Many linguists(Clyne, 1994 Hymes, 1986 Loveday, 1983 Walsh, 2009) have picked up on this discrepancy between theory and data, claiming that the maxims are only relevant to the English speaking westward world. In particular, Clyne (1994) has pointed out that they have limited relevance to cultures where content and knowledge are core values. For example, speakers of Malagasy, whose build of co-operation seems to consist in making their contributions as opaque, convoluted and non-perspicuous as possible (Keenan as cited in Mey, 1994, p. 74) could be seen as flouting the Maxim of Quantity.This is because information, especially new information gives the holder a certain amount of prestige, indeed Malagasy people tend to use indirect, evasive language. It is obvious then, that environmental factors, social interaction and cultural norms drive to be considered when interpreting conversational implicature. This is reinforced by Hymes (1986), who notes that Grice was correct in assuming that any culture ordain have some sort of orientation towards telli ng the truth (quality), being informative (quantity), staying on topic (relation), and being clear (manner), but that this orientation and how it is articulated cannot be assumed to be the equal in all cultures. It is necessary then to recognize that each language and/or culture will have its own settings for each of the maxims (Bowe & Martin, 2007).In an attempt to reduce the cultural bias of Grices maxims, Clyne (1994) has proposed revisions to the four maxims (quantity, quality, relation, manner) by considering different cultural norms and expectations. An example of this is the modification of the maxim of quality so that it reads do not say what you believe to be in opposition to your cultural norms of truth, harmony, charity, and/or respect. This revision accounts for situations in which the meeter may not want to respond truthfully in order to preserve face or harmony (Lakoff, 1973). This cultural value of harmony is especially prevalent in Chinese and Vietnamese cultures. Nguyen (1991) claims that communalism and socialism has enforced harmony as a central cultural value in the Vietnamese people. Because of this strain on harmonious relations, Vietnamese frequently utilise ambiguous communication behaviours in order to bar conflict. Although this language use could flout one or more of Grices maxims, by introducing cultural parameters such as truth, harmony and face, Clynes (1994) revisions can better account forintercultural conversation.Clynes (1994) revised maxims for intercultural analysis certainly have more regard for the communicative patterns of non-English cultures however, they dont altogether meet the needs of intercultural communication. In intercultural communication a high level of pragmatic competence is central to an interlocutors performance. As Thomas (1984) points out, it is usually the differences in pragmatic competence that are problematic in intercultural conversation. Furthermore, it is possible to have achieved a very hig h level of linguistic proficiency, while having a relatively low level of socio-pragmatic proficiency. This can guide in speakers using a language, which for some reason is deemed inappropriate, incomprehensible or even offensive (Thomas, 1984). This will be demonstrated by the following exampleAn Australian manager has been reassigned to the Athens office of his judicature and is assigned a Hellenic secretary. On a daily basis, he assigns work to her by using conventional indirect requests such as Could you type this letter? One day, she complains to a colleague, I compliments he would just tell me what to do instead of asking me. After all, hes the stomp and Im here to do what he wants.In the above example, we have a compartmentalisation of assumptions about the rights and obligations of two parties in a relationship characterized by asymmetrical distribution of great power, and the way this power will be exercised and acknowledged. The Australian boss attends to the face wants of his secretary by attempting to minimize the power hold between the two. This is done by the use of politeness strategies that seemingly give the subordinate the option not to perform a requested act Could you type this letter? Thomas (1995, p. 161) observes that allowing options (or giving the appearance of allowing options) is abruptly central to Western notions of politeness.An Australian secretary would presumably know that a direct, on-record refusal of this request would be face threatening to her boss as well as threatening to her own job. She could potentially employ indirect refusal strategies (i.e. hints), which would avoid on record refusal andsustain the appearance of harmony. As Green (cited in Thomas, 1995, p. 147) points out the speaker is really only going through the motions of offering options or showing respect for the addressees feelings. The offer may be a facade, the options nonviable, and the respect a sham. It is the fact that an effort was made t o go through the motions at all that makes the act an act of politeness.It is clear that in this example the two parties have not yet negotiated a shared set of norms. The secretary acknowledges and accepts the power difference between herself and her boss. She is leechlike on him for work, and she accepts that he has the right to tell her to carry out various secretarial duties. To her, the Australian boss seems insincere when he requests her to do something for him, because as far as she is concerned, the power relationship admits no options. That is she does not interpret the deference that her boss displays towards her as an act of politeness. There are obviously socio-pragmatic differences between the two parties. The Australian boss has carried his socio-pragmatic norms into the Greek setting, where they violate the expectations of his Greek subordinate. Each company is defining and acting indoors the situation differently.Despite this, their encounters are not entirely unsu ccessful the boss makes requests for work that the secretary completes. However, the Greek secretary feels dissatisfied with her bosss politeness strategies. It can be said that uncomplete party is completely interculturally competent. That is communicating in a culturally competent way requires interlocutors to learn about the ways culture influences communicative utterances of individuals concerned. After all, if the secretary constantly doubts the sincerity of her boss, the relationship is threatened. And if the boss is unaware of the effects of this, he may experience a rude awakening in the near future.Based on what has been discussed, it can be concluded that Grices maxims cannot be taken as absolute rules this would be neither right nor practicable. Language is not as clear-cut as mathematical formulas it frequently integrates with culture and society. Thus cultural and pragmatic considerations are vital to successful intercultural communication. Moreover, linguistic compet ency may not always cause a breakdown incommunication very often when language form and cultural norm clash, culture supersedes language form. Clynes (1994) revisions of the conversational maxims better reflect cultural variation, however they do not universally account for intercultural communication.The examples aforementioned demonstrate that factors such as pragmatic and intercultural competence also play a key role. Intercultural communication then becomes something that is negotiated at local level by participants, involving mutual adaptation. Difficulties may arise, of course, in the process of negotiation through limitations in the socio-pragmatic and strategic competence of some or all participants. After all, there are individual differences in these competencies, and as Agar (1994) points out, we have to immortalize that in any intercultural conversation, its persons not cultures that are in contact.ReferencesAgar, M. (1994). The intercultural frame. In International da ybook of Intercultural Relations 18/2221-237.Bowe, H. J. & Martin, K. (2007). Communication across cultures Mutual understanding in a global world. Cambridge Cambridge University Press.Clyne, M. (1994). Inter-cultural Communication at Work Cultural Values in Discourse. Cambridge Cambridge University PressGrice, H. P. (1975). Logic and Conversation. In P. lettuce & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics 3 Speech Acts. New York Academic Press.Grice, P. (1989). Studies in the Way of Words. London Harvard University Press.Hymes, D. H. (1986). Discourse image without depth. In International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 57, 49-89.Keenan, E. O. (1976). On the universality of conversational implicatures.Language in Society 5.67-80.Lakoff, R. (1973). The system of logic of politeness, or minding your ps and qs. In Papers from the Ninth Regional Meeting of the Chicago linguistic Society. 292-305.Loveday, L. (1983). Rhetoric patterns in conflict The sociocultural relativity of dis course organizing processes. In Journal of Pragmatics, 7, 169-90.Mey, J. (1994). Pragmatics. An display. Oxford Blackwell.Thomas, J. (1984) Cross-cultural discourse as unequal encounter Toward a pragmatic analysis. In Applied Linguistics, 5(2), 226-235. Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in Interaction. An Introduction to Pragmatics. Harlow /Munich Longman. Walsh, M. (2009). Some neo-Gricean maxims for aboriginal Australia. Retrieved from http//www.aiatsis.gov.au/research/docs/alw/Walsh09.pdf (accessed 22/10/2013) Watts, R. J. (1991). Power in family discourse. Berlin Mouton. Wierzbicka, A. (1991). Cross-Cultural Pragmatics. Berlin Mouton de GruyterWierzbicka, A. (1985). diametric cultures, different languages, different speech acts. In Journal of Pragmatics 9.145-78.