Clyne’s Revision of Grice’s Maxims Essay

Grices axioms have been criticised for being too Anglo-centric. Michael Clyne proposes revisions to the four maxims in his 1994 book Inter pagan Communication at Work. Do Clynes revisions of this model go far enough in universally accounting for inter cultural conversation? wherefore or why non?Grices General Cooperative prescript has been under continuous debate for the past three decades. It is of importly through the maxims that Grices paradigm has been challenged as risquely ethnocentric, as yet much(prenominal) readings whitethorn tend to take the maxims too literally rather than as extension points for linguistic dialogue interchange (Allan as cited in Clyne, 1994, p. 11). There is some in verbaliseect in this, save as suggested by Mey (1994, p. 74), the article of faith and maxims argon incessantly defined relative to a particular polish. It is this idea of cultural determine be intercourse that has caused the contention of Grices cooperative principle and its subordinate maxims. M each linguists (Keenan, 1976 Wierzbicka, 1985 Clyne, 1994 Bowe & Martin, 2007) have criticised Grices Maxims for being too ethnocentric claiming that its assumptions ar based on Anglo-Saxon norms and stopping point.This Anglo-centric nature is problematic for intercultural communication as the maxims argon inapplicable to many cultural values systems videlicet European and S popheast Asian cultures where uniformity, respect and restraint play a cardinal role (Clyne, 1994, p. 192). In an examine 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 certainly accounts for a wider variety of contexts and cultures, however it cannot be give tongue to to universally account for intercultural conversation. As conversation is unique to its context and participants, in sureity no single opening could universally embody real life language use. A lthough people of all backgrounds generally do contr operation to facilitate successful communication (if it doesnt conflict with their purpose or cultural values), factors unique to each participant can affect any given conversation. Thus, it can be said that turn individuals are garnered by their culture and environment, discourse patterns pull up stakes always be influenced by somebodyality factors (Watts, 1991) and pragmatic and intercultural competence.On the surface, Grices cooperative principle seems to contribute littledifficulty for intercultural synopsis its degree of uncertainty is certainly give up for discussions of cultural diversity. Making a contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or heraldic bearing of the talk exchange in which you are engaged (Grice, 1975, p. 45) seems to allow for the word meaning of distinguishable purposes and requirements in several(predicate) contexts, and does not exclude the in fluence 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 conjunct enterprises that allow a high degree of diversity in the motivations underlying quite meagre rough-cut objectives (1989 369). Grice himself makes no explicit claims of universality, using characteristically modest language to refer to a first approximation of a general principle (1989 26).He is extremely careful not to inflate the case for cooperation suggesting that each participant recognizes in them (talk exchanges), to some extent, a common purpose, or at least a mutually accepted snap (1989, p. 26). It should be pointed out however, that Grices maxims depict an idealised and simplified language use, whereas reality is much more complex and multi-dimensional. In everyday conversations, cogent the entire fairness might be seen as impolite or inappropriate in certain cul tures. There also tend to be intercultural differences that do not always follow a universal principle. around cultures and languages (i.e. Chinese) often dictate that their speakers use indirect speech in conversation, which bureau they are unable to follow Grices maxims of quantity and manner.In such cases, there is a clash surrounded by Grices maxims and the pragmatic rules of conversation, which are culturally sensitive. For manakin, when being strained a drink, a typical Chinese person would automatically say no the first time, while expecting the offer to be made at least two or three propagation more. This resembles a kind of phatic language communication saying no, but not really meaning no. In this sort of concomitant, if someone doesnt adhere to the cultural norm choosing to follow Grices maxims instead, then they would give way odd and out of place.The preceding(prenominal) example demonstrates that Grices maxims arent applicable in all contexts as they clash w ith 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 Western 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 form of co-operation seems to consist in making their contributions as opaque, elusive and non-perspicuous as achievable (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 measurement of prestige, thus Malagasy people tend to use indirect, evasive language. It is obvious then, that environmental factors, social interaction and cultural norms need to be considered when interpreting informal implicature. This is reinforced by Hymes (1986), who notes tha t Grice was correct in assuming that any culture will have some sort of orientation towards telling 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 same 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 hearer whitethorn not call for 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 collectivism has enforced harmony as a central cultural value in the Vietnamese people. Because of this emphasis on harmonious relations, Vietnamese frequently utilise ambiguous communication behaviours in order to avoid 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 competen ce that are problematic in intercultural conversation. Furthermore, it is possible to have achieved a very high level of linguistic proficiency, while having a relatively low level of socio-pragmatic proficiency. This can result in speakers using a language, which for some reason is deemed inappropriate, incomprehensible or veritable(a) offensive (Thomas, 1984). This will be demonstrated by the following exampleAn Australian manager has been reassigned to the Athens office of his organization and is assigned a Greek secretary. On a daily basis, he assigns depart to her by using conventional indirect requests such as Could you type this letter? One day, she complains to a colleague, I wish he would just tell me what to do instead of asking me. After all, hes the impress and Im here to do what he wants.In the above example, we have a mixture of assumptions closely the rights and obligations of two parties in a relationship characterized by asymmetrical distribution of power, and t he way this power will be exercised and acknowledged. The Australian emboss attends to the face wants of his secretary by attempting to play down the power distance between the two. This is done by the use of address 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 absolutely central to Western notions of ingenuity.An Australian secretary would presumptively 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 lend oneself 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 termination through the motions of offering options or showing respect for the addressees feel ings. The offer may be a facade, the options nonviable, and the respect a sham. It is the fact that an lying-in was made to 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 save negotiated a shared set of norms. The secretary acknowledges and accepts the power difference between herself and her boss. She is dependent 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 misuse the expectations of his Greek subordinate. Each party is defining and acting within the situation differently.Despite this, their encounters are not entirely unsuccessful 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 neither party is completely interculturally competent. That is communication 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 image 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 cultu ral and pragmatic considerations are vital to successful intercultural communication. Moreover, linguistic competency 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 remember that in any intercultural conversation, its pers ons not cultures that are in contact.ReferencesAgar, M. (1994). The intercultural frame. In International daybook 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. Cole & 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 Scope 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 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 discourse organizing processes. In Journal of Pragmatics, 7, 169-90.Mey, J. (1994). Pragmatics. An Introduction. 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). importee 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). Different cultures, different languages, different speech acts. In Journal of Pragmatics 9.145-78.