Clyne’s Revision of Grice’s Maxims Essay

Grices Maxims provoke been criticised for beness overly Anglo-centric. Michael Clyne proposes rescripts to the four adages in his 1994 handwriting Inter heathen Communication at urinate. Do Clynes revisions of this model go far rich in customaryly accounting for inter pagan intercourse? Why or why non?Grices General Cooperative article of faith has been under continuous debate for the prehistoric three decades. It is mainly through the maxims that Grices paradigm has been challenged as highly ethnocentric, hitherto such readings may tend to build the maxims too literally rather than as reference points for spoken communication interchange (Allan as cited in Clyne, 1994, p. 11). There is or so organization in this, but as suggested by Mey (1994, p. 74), the principle and maxims atomic number 18 endlessly delimit relative to a particular finale. It is this idea of cultural values be converse that has ca designd the contention of Grices conjunctive principle and its subordinate maxims. M any linguists (Keenan, 1976 Wierzbicka, 1985 Clyne, 1994 Bowe & adenosine monophosphate Martin, 2007) bring in criticised Grices Maxims for being too ethnocentric claiming that its assumptions be based on Anglo-Saxon norms and acculturation.This Anglo-centric nature is problematic for intercultural communication as the maxims are inapplicable to many a(prenominal) cultural values systems namely European and S bulge exposeheast Asian cultures where accord, respect and prohibition play a key office staff (Clyne, 1994, p. 192). In an prove to d ampen recoil intercultural conversation, Clyne (1994) has proposed a set of rewrite maxims to manuf conducture Grices principles much(prenominal) universal. His revision of Grices model trus bothrthyly accounts for a wider innovation of contexts and cultures, however it displace non be said to universally account for intercultural conversation. As conversation is remarkable to its context and pa rticipants, in reality no single theory could universally body forth real life lingual communication engagement. Although lot of all backgrounds generally do attempt to facilitate successful communication (if it doesnt conflict with their purpose or cultural values), f accomplishmentors unique to each participant burn affect any given conversation. Thus, it substructure be said that trance individuals are conditioned by their culture and environment, talk over patterns go forth always be influenced by personality factors (Watts, 1991) and hard-nosed and intercultural competency.On the surface, Grices cooperative principle seems to provide precise difficulty for intercultural analysis its arcdegree of unbelief is certainly appropriate for discussions of cultural diversity. make a contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or delegation of the talk exchange in which you are engaged (Grice, 1975, p. 45) seems to allow f or the acceptance of diametric purposes and requirements in divergent contexts, and does non turn out the influence of norms associated with a variety of diverse speech communities. Although intercultural analysis was not Grices main concern, he has defined the hash out of his cooperative principle as design enterprises that allow a high degree of diversity in the motivations underlying rather meagre common objectives (1989 369). Grice himself makes no transparent claims of universality, development characteristically modest lyric to refer to a first estimation 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 reciprocally accepted direction (1989, p. 26). It should be pointed out however, that Grices maxims depict an idealised and change language riding habit, whereas reality is much more complex and mul ti-dimensional. In e veryday conversations, grievous the entire loyalty might be seen as impolite or strange in certain cultures. There to a fault tend to be intercultural differences that do not always follow a universal principle. Some cultures and languages (i.e. Chinese) often dictate that their speakers use indirect speech in conversation, which agent they are unable to follow Grices maxims of quantity and manner.In such cases, in that respect is a clash mingled with Grices maxims and the matter-of-factal rules of conversation, which are culturally sensitive. For pillow slip, when being offered a drink, a typical Chinese person would automatically say no the first time, while expecting the offer to be made at least deuce or three times more. This resembles a kind of phatic language communication say no, but not really importee no. In this sort of situation, if person doesnt adhere to the cultural norm choosing to follow Grices maxims instead, then they would kick t he bucket odd and out of place.The above illustration demonstrates that Grices maxims arent applicable in all contexts as they clash with certain cultural values systems. Many linguists (Clyne, 1994 Hymes, 1986 Loveday, 1983 Walsh, 2009) hurl picked up on this discrepancy between theory and data, claiming that the maxims are only relevant to the English speaking westbound world. In particular, Clyne (1994) has pointed out that they have limited relevance to cultures where content and knowledge are encumbrance values. For example, speakers of Malagasy, whose form of co-operation seems to consist in qualification their contributions as opaque, convoluted and non-perspicuous as accomplishable (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 numerate of prestige, thus Malagasy people tend to use indirect, evasive language. It is obvious then, that environm ental factors, genial interaction and cultural norms need to be considered when interpreting conversational implicature. This is reinforced by Hymes (1986), who notes that Grice was correct in assuming that any culture will have some sort of preference towards attesting the truth (quality), being informative (quantity), staying on field of study (relation), and being clear (manner), but that this orientation and how it is articulated postnot be assumed to be the same in all cultures. It is incumbent then to recognize that each language and/or culture will have its deliver settings for each of the maxims (Bowe & Martin, 2007).In an attempt to reduce the cultural separatrix 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, symmetry, charity, and/or respect. This revision accounts for situations in which the hearer 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 collectivism has enforced harmony as a central cultural value in the Vietnamese people. Because of this tension on harmonious relations, Vietnamese ofttimes utilise ambiguous communication behaviours in order to rescind 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 for intercultural conversation.Clynes (1994) revised maxims for intercultural analysis certainly have more regard for the communicatory patterns of non-English cultures however, they dont altogether meet the needs of intercultural communicat ion. In intercultural communication a high direct of pragmatic competence is central to an interlocutors performance. As Thomas (1984) points out, it is commonly the differences in pragmatic competence that are problematic in intercultural conversation. Furthermore, it is possible to have achieved a very high aim of linguistic proficiency, while having a relatively low level of socio-pragmatic proficiency. This can result in speakers victimisation a language, which for some reason is deemed inappropriate, cryptic or even offensive (Thomas, 1984). This will be demonstrated by the side by side(p) exampleAn Australian manager has been reassigned to the capital of Greece office of his organization and is assigned a Greek depository. On a day-after-day basis, he assigns seduce 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 enquire me. later on all, hes the ships company pommel and Im here to do what he wants.In the above example, we have a mixture of assumptions about the rights and obligations of two parties in a relationship characterized by asymmetrical distribution of origin, and the way this power will be exercised and acknowledged. The Australian chief attends to the face wants of his secretary by attempting to slander the power distance between the two. This is make by the use of politeness strategies that ostensibly 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 tolerant the visual aspect of allowing options) is absolutely central to Western notions of politeness.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 employ indirect refusal strategies (i.e. hints), which would avoid on record refusal and sustain the appearance of harmony. As Green (cited in Thomas, 1995, p. 147) points out the speaker is really only passing 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 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 nevertheless negotiated a shared set of norms. The secretary acknowledges and accepts the power difference between herself and her boss. She is hooked 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 toward s her as an act of politeness. There are on the face of it 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. distributively 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 incomplete party is completely interculturally competent. That is communicating in a culturally competent way requires interlocutors to notice about the ways culture influences communicative utterances of individuals concerned. After all, if the secretary constantly doubts the seriousness of her boss, the relationship is threatened. And if the boss is unaware of the personal effects of this, he may experience a rude awakenin g in the heartfelt 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 oft integrates with culture and society. Thus cultural and pragmatic considerations are vital to successful intercultural communication. Moreover, linguistic competency may not always cause a breakdown in communication 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 aforesaid(prenominal) 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 uncouth adaptation. Difficulties may arise, o f course, in the process of duologue 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 have in mind that in any intercultural conversation, its persons not cultures that are in contact.ReferencesAgar, M. (1994). The intercultural frame. In supranational Journal of Intercultural Relations 18/2221-237.Bowe, H. J. & Martin, K. (2007). Communication crossways cultures Mutual understanding in a global world. Cambridge Cambridge University implore.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. youthful York Academic Press.Grice, P. (1989). Studies in the Way of Words. capital of the United Kingdom 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 skirmish of the Chicago Linguistic Society. 292-305.Loveday, L. (1983). Rhetoric patterns in conflict The sociocultural relativity of preaching organizing processes. In Journal of Pragmatics, 7, 169-90.Mey, J. (1994). Pragmatics. An Introduction. Oxford Blackwell.Thomas, J. (1984) Cross-cultural dialogue as unequal encounter Toward a pragmatic analysis. In Applied Linguistics, 5(2), 226-235. Thomas, J. (1995). nub in Interaction. An Introduction to Pragmatics. Harlow /Munich Longman. Walsh, M. (2009). Some neo-Gricean maxims for primeval Australia. Retrieved from http//www.aiatsis.gov.au/research/docs/alw/Walsh09.pdf (accessed 22/10/2013) Watts, R. J. (1991). military force in family discourse. Berlin Mouton. Wierzbicka, A. (1991). Cross-Cultural Pragmatics. Berlin Mouton de GruyterWierzbicka, A. (1985). unlike cultures, different languages, different speech acts. In Journal of Pragmatics 9.145-78.