126
analysing
and interpreting conversation, and may reveal purposes of which (either
as speaker or listener) we were not previously aware. Although presupposed to be
adhered to by the participants, the maxims are often deliberately broken. Very
often, we communicate particular non-literal meanings by appearing to "violate" or
"flout" these maxims.
If we VIOLATE the maxims, it means that we
break them surreptitiously, or
covertly, so that other people do not know. If we violate the maxim of quality, we
lie. If we violate the maxim of quantity by not giving enough information, if
someone finds out we can be accused of 'being economical with the truth', another
deceit.
As with laws, some maxim violations can be more heinous than others.
Lying in a court of law is disapproved, but 'white lies', small lies to keep the social
peace, are often thought as acceptable.
If we FLOUT a maxim, we break it in a flagrant (and often foregrounded)
way, so that it is obvious to all concerned that it has been broken. If this happens,
then it is clear that the speaker is intending the hearer
to infer some extra meaning
over and above what is said. Maxims can be flouted, e.g., in phatic or small talk
(
quantity
), ´white lies´ (
quality
), humour, irony, teasing, banter, puns (
manne
r),
topic shift, seemingly irrelevant remarks whose relevance is implied and may only
be disclosed by inference (
relation
). Some
tropes
(figures of speech)
are built on
the breach of CP:
hyperbole
(exaggeration:
to wait an eternity
),
litotes
(understatement, esp. that in which an affirmative is expressed by the negative of
its contrary:
not bad at all
),
tautology
(repetition:
War is war, and there will be
losers
),
paraphrase, euphemism, metaphor
and esp.
irony
(conveys a meaning that
is the opposite of its literal meaning:
How nice! s
aid after someone´s
I failed
another exam
).
It should be
made very clear here that
Достарыңызбен бөлісу: