VIOLATION OF QUANTITY MAXIM AS AN OBSTACLE FOR DISCOURSE OF CONCORD


Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

The research subject of the paper is violations of a quantity maxim of the Cooperative Principle developed by Paul Grice which result in failure of discourse of concord formation. The Cooperative Principle means that communicative contribution of communicants should correspond to the shared purpose of conversation at each stage of communication. Discourse of concord is an open discourse process aimed at solving social interaction tasks for creating integrated intentional horizons and searching for the shared context of interpretation. Willingness of the speaking subject to collaborate with an addressee, intention to follow the Cooperative Principle impact the adequacy and correctness of interpretation of illocutionary intentions of the speaking subject and formation of discourse of concord. The research object is utterances of legal discourse practices. Research material is Russian and English texts of courtroom dialogues available at websites, manual records of court TV shows, literary works, and lawyer-client dialogues at online legal forums. The author argues that following the Cooperative Principle suggests that the speaking subject aims to transfer information, and the addressee aims to perceive it in an efficient way. In that case, discourse interaction is a cooperative activity of communicants who have a shared purpose, i.e. discourse of concord. Violations of a quantity maxim are due to the differences in intentional horizons, as communicants solve different tasks of social interaction. They contribute to discourse of differences which can evolve into a conflict if the communicants do not aim at achieving specific purposes.

About the authors

Olga Aleksandrovna Krapivkina

Irkutsk National Research Technical University, Irkutsk

Author for correspondence.
Email: koa1504@mail.ru

PhD (Philology), assistant professor of Chair of Foreign Languages

Russian Federation

References

  1. Grice H. Logic and Conversation. Syntax and Semantics, 1975, vol. 3, pp. 4–5.
  2. Anikin E.E. Strategy of comparison in advertising as violation of the Cooperative Principle. Politicheskaya lingvistika, 2006, no. 17, pp. 155–162.
  3. Keenan E.O. On the universality of conversational postulates. Language in Society, 1976, vol. 5, pp. 67–80.
  4. Kaufer D.S. Understanding ironic communication. Journal of Pragmatics, 1981, vol. 5, pp. 495–510.
  5. Hymes D. Models of the interaction of language and social life. Directions in sociolinguistics: the ethnography of communication. New York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston Publ., 1986, pp. 35–71.
  6. Blakar R.M. Language as a means of social power. Pragmalinguistics. The Hague-Paris, Mouton Publ., 1979, pp. 131–169.
  7. Lakoff R.T. Conversational Implicature. Handbook of Pragmatics. Amsterdam, John Benjamins Publ., 1995, pp. 1–24.
  8. Lakoff R.T. Talking power: the politics of language. New York, Cambridge Publ., 1990. 324 p.
  9. Kaplunenko A.M. Concept-Notion-Term: evolution of semiotic entities in discourse practices. Aziatsko-tikhookeanskiy region: dialog yazykov i kultur. Irkutsk, Irkutskiy gosudarstvennyy lingvisticheskiy universitet Publ., 2007, pp. 115–120.
  10. Kaplunenko A.M. From the concept to the term: semiotic evolution of the nomination federal / federalism. Vestnik Irkutskogo gosudarstvennogo lingvisticheskogo universiteta, 2012, no. 2s, pp. 16–21.
  11. Kaplunenko A.M. The course of discourse: nailing the Foucalt colors to the mast of discourse analysis. Vestnik Irkutskogo gosudarstvennogo lingvisticheskogo universiteta, 2013, no. 4, pp. 9–15.
  12. Krapivkina O.A. Concept vs. notion: phenomenologism vs. conventionalism. Vektor nauki Tolyattinskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 2016, no. 1, pp. 95–98.
  13. Krapivkina O.A. Analysis of discourses as forms of social interaction (A case-study of court shows). Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Filologiya, 2017, no. 46, pp. 21–30.
  14. Krapivkina O.A. Subekt v usloviyakh yuridicheskogo diskursa: lingvopragmaticheskiy analiz [The speaking subject in legal discourse: linguistic and pragmatic analysis]. Irkutsk, IrGTU Publ., 2015. 153 p.
  15. Burde P. Power of law: fundamentals of sociology of the legal field. Sotsialnoe prostranstvo: polya i praktiki. Sankt Petersburg, Aleteyya Publ., 2005. 576 p.
  16. Bourdieu P. Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge, Harvard University Press Publ., 1991. 312 p.
  17. Tanford A.J. The trial process: law, tactics and ethics. New York, LexisNexis Publ., 2009. 445 p.
  18. Safronova T.S. Specificity of suggestive influence in prosecutor’s opening statement (by the material of the English language). Filologicheskie nauki. Voprosy teorii i praktiki, 2017, no. 6-1, pp. 136–141.
  19. Petrenko V.F. Osnovy psikhosemantiki [Fundamentals of psychosemantics]. Moscow, MGU Publ., 1997. 480 p.
  20. Rezunenko M.F. Violation of maxims of the Cooperative Principle in courtroom discourse. Izvestiya Rossiyskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta im. A.I. Gertsena, 2007, vol. 15, no. 39, pp. 163–166.

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download

Copyright (c)



This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies