[MUSIC]

Quite a few functions that language performs in

order to allow us to achieve success in communication.

There are also a few instruments with which we can describe

how these goals are performed through creating linguistic forums.

For instance, if we talk about information exchange, the theory or

the model or the principle that explains how this information exchange

is performed by linguistic means is cooperative principle.

Herbert Grice, cooperative principle, we'll talk about in a few minutes.

If we talk about figurative language or the language that creates new meanings,

this is a conceptual metaphors theory that I already mentioned.

What does it mean?

Let me give an example of how culturally bound it is.

For instance, one in the same flower,

small flower that grows in early spring is called in English snowdrop.

In German, it's called schneeglockchen and in Russian,

it's called podsnezhnik, which basically means under the snow.

The one that comes at her from the snow or the one that is under the snow.

So, why is it important?

It's important for the translators to know how to translate it, but

why is it important?

The inner form, the inner shape of these symbols that describe one and

the same object, which is a small flower.

But it is important, because those cultural illusions,

those cultural concepts that are related to these words for

the inner form, they will allow us different types of utterances.

For instance, in Russia, they call those cars and those drivers who

drive these cars that come early in the spring to the streets of Moscow.

Podsnezhnik, the same word for the flower.

Why?

Because it's under the snow.

Because during the winter, these cars were standing, sometimes covered with snow.

And when the snow melted and spring came, now they get into the street.

And so it wouldn't be possible to call these cars to create

this metaphor and use it to designate this people,

and this situation with the word depicting the flower

if it would not built according to the rules that I described to you.

You cannot call it schneeglockchen or snowdrop, it won't make sense.

But if you call this flower a snowdrop, then you can talk about, I don't know,

in figurative language, maybe about tear drops that appeared on someone's face

when he saw a snowdrop, because that will make connection.

It won't make connection with schneeglockchen.

So, this seemingly main purpose of communication.

And here, I relay to the quotation that you see on the screen.

The seemingly main purpose communication,

which is maximally efficient information exchange, how Grice put it.

It's very often in contradiction with no less important social function

of communication to support our ties with other individuals.

So this second not less important aspect of communication,

the letter is usually described with through notion of face.

That was introduced by Erving Goffman in his book of 1967,

which he understood as an individuals publicly manifest self-esteem.

So here, we have a very, I would say, deep psychological

concept of self-esteem understood as a social face or phase,

which influences the way we communicate, which is with each other.

That will be another issue of linguistic aspect of communication,

which is culturally bound and which we would like looked at in some more detail.

So we name this aspect of communication interaction with the addressee,

understanding by that all these relational aspects that are connected

with the concept of social faith.

Linguistic models and theories that we will be talking

about are highlighted on this slide with purple.

So let's put it now in a table, so to say.

Interaction with the Addressee is counted in Linguistics with Speech Acts Theory,

with Pragmatic Control Principle, various aspects of it.

Managing or reflecting social status of participants is

covered by the face systems, politeness strategies and

indirectness of communication.

When we talk about inducing addressee to do things, again,

we are in the realm of politeness strategies.

Evaluations and modality are those aspects that allow

us to describe the language function of expressing attitudes.

Relations and modality allow us to label things and situations

by telling that are basically good or basically bad from our point of view.

And also, to express the degree to which they are known or

not very well known to us.

These are about words like probably, possible.

I'm absolutely sure, absolutely.

These words actually tell our part in the communication

how much we believe we know about the things and

then express effective aspects even more emotional,

and deeply related to our dark feelings.

Effective aspect of language.

We have nonverbal communication, again,

as a primary means of expressing feelings and emotions in communication.

Though, this purple, highlighted terms not always express certain fears or

models, they'll at least tell us what part of the scholarship,

what part of discipline or what instrument is used to explain it.

At some of them, we will look in more detail and

the first one is the cooperative principle by Herbert Grice,

which as I said covers the information and they'll exchange function of the language.

So, what is the cooperative principle?

Basically, it says, make your conversational contribution

such as is required at the stage at which it occurs by the accepted

purpose of the speech exchange in which you are engaged.

It says, be relevant.

Don't tell more than is needed.

Don't tell less than is needed.

Make your contribution

concise, clear.

Well, is it an advice in a manual on rhetoris?

Or is it a really principle governing our communication?

The cooperative principle and its four maxims as Herbert Grice put it in

his lectures that were later published in 1975, much later.

So his four maxims of quantity, quality, relevance and

manner are best demonstrated when in the cases when they are violated.

It's like when things happen in a normal way, we don't really see them happening.

But when something is getting wrong, then we immediately feel it.

Let me give you first, examples of violation of this principle,

because language and human communication is not mathematics.

If we take the maximum quantity that says that you have to

say enough, then algebraic equations will not help.

For instance, imagine if you ask me about my family whether I have children and

I tell you, I have two daughters.

And later on, you find out that actually I have three daughters.

I do have three daughters, then you'll tell me, why did you lie?

But well, did I lie to you?

Mathematically, I didn't lie.

I told you, I have two daughters., but I do have two daughters.

I have two daughters and one more, but I didn't lie to say, but

I have two daughters.

I do indeed have them, but this is something that doesn't work in language.

It works in math, because three includes two, but it doesn't work in language.

And you, of course, can tell me that I was lying to you.

So you are right, because I was violating

this quantitative maximum that was formulated by Grice.

Also, an example can be given about the quality maxim.

Imagine you're driving your car, you run out of gas.

You stop at the road turn and you see a person coming out of the corner and

you ask him, is there a gas station over the corner?

And he says, yes.

So you take a bucket and you go, and you turn, and go along the road, and

you go ten miles, and then you find a gas station.

I'm sure you'll be extremely angry and frustrated with the conversation you had.

But in a way, the person told you the truth, this person.

There is a gas station around the corner.

It's just that around the corner and then you have to walk a little bit more.

So that was definitely violating the quality maxim of our communication or

you may say, it wasn't a relevant message.

As for the manner maxim, how do we understand things like,

well, boys will be always boys or [FOREIGN].

At the war, as at the war.

Or I don't know, holiday is a holiday.

In a way, again, from the point of algebra, these are very stupid utterances.

They actually says that A is A or B is B.

How do we make sense out of these utterances?

Why we actually use them?

How we understand them?

Why do we need these kind of utterances?

Well, exactly because these utterances violate the manner maxim.

In a way they are vague, they don't create any meaning,

which tells us immediately that we need to look for meaning in some other way.

And basically, the cooperative principle is about

the very basic feature of human communication.

Remember, it is unavoidable.

We always classify any interaction between people as an instance and

demand to communicate, and that's how we see it.

If something is being pronounced,

if someone is engaging into communication with us,

it means that there must be some meaning behind it and we have to reconstruct it.

And if we cannot reconstruct it directly based on the quantity,

quality, relevance and manner principals, then we have to look for

meaning behind them and it means that the relevance of what is going on

in communication depends on contextualization.

We need to find context that will satisfy our need for construction meaning.

So when interacting, we perceive signals and we want to make sense of them.

That's what is behind the cooperative principle.

And to make sense of the means, we need to find context where these utterances or

these signals will make sense.

So this idea of contextualization and looking for meaning,

which is not expressed explicitly in the utterance, in the signal that it get.

Let Herbert Grice to discovering,

describing the concept of conversational implicatures,

which means conclusions that we make through conversation.

If we look at the conversation like, how is Charles?

And the answer, quite well.

I think, he likes his colleagues and he hasn't been to prison yet.

The example taken from Herbert Price.

This is exactly about implicatures.

What have you to imply, what conclusion you

make about the attitude of the B participant

in this conversation about Charles.

Well, that's something what we call implicature.

It's not a logical implication, of course.

It sounds like in logic one B is a mathematical

conclusion made out of the statement A.

The listener has to cooperate, that's the main difference.

You have to cooperate, you have to try to get the meaning from what is

being said and from everything that you know from the context,

cultural, personal, universal that you have for

getting the meaning out of this utterance.

Another example and there could be many of them.

For instance, a person says, I'm traveling to Russia.

And then she hears, do you know what bears like for breakfast?

What inferences can we make about this?

Well, we'll get the typical stereotype that are there

are many bears in Russia walking the streets of Moscow, of course.

And you have to beware of them and that was a funny way to put it.

Do we know what bears like for breakfast?

So, this is also this humor that we have

in all languages in many aspects of communication.

It is based on a violating, but

in a special intended way of conversational maxims of

cooperative principle in using conversational implicatures.

[MUSIC]

3.8. Linguistic Instruments of Human Interaction: The Cooperative Principle

Understanding Russians: Contexts of Intercultural Communication

Meet the Instructors