Gice's Conversational Rhetoric

by JLS
for the GC

--- NEXT TO LEVINSON, Schoolfield tackles Leech, who we were recently considering vis a vis his early interest in 'rhetoric'. Leech was writing about rhetoric back in 1967, before Grice was talking! (i.e. delivering the "implicature" theory in the 1975 reprint --. Leech would later pay tribute to Grice on this in his contribution to "Limitations of pragmatics", where he explicitly speaks of "conversational rhetoric". This is from Schoolfield then, at,

www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/.../1/Grice%20paper%20Final%20Draft.doc

"Geoffrey Leech is another"

-- very English -- he was born in Gloucestershire. Got his PhD in UCLA helping to grow a Griceian influence there and moved to Lancashire where the sky is so blue and the grass is so green...

"example of a Neo-Gricean. He presents a modified
version of Gricean theory as a means to better explain pragmatics in his Principles of Pragmatics."

"The theory presented by Leech, however, is unique from the other Neo-Griceans. Primarily, he separates himself by explicitly stating his acceptance of goal-oriented framework for pragmatics. The second difference between Leech and other many of the Neo-Griceans is his attempt to unite the Gricean Cooperative Principle with other principles he presents, namely his Politeness Principle and Irony Principle."

"In relation to his acceptance of a goal-oriented framework for pragmatics, there are many example to support this from his work. When referring to speech situations, he states, “I shall often find it useful to talk of a goal or function of an utterance, in preference to talking about its intended meaning, or [the speaker’s] intention in uttering it” (Leech 1983, 13). This position is reiterated when Leech writes, “The principles of pragmatics are fundamentally non-conventional, ie [sic] motivated in terms of conversational goals” (Leech 1983, 24)."

"The reason Leech thinks that pragmatics are non-conventional, is that Leech believes that a theory of motivation, with the additional principles he will add, will provide a general theory of pragmatics."

"The extra principles related to the Cooperative Principle that Leech adds are the Politeness Principle, and the Irony Principle. He formulates the Politeness Principle in a negative way, stating, “Minimize (other things being equal) the expression of impolite beliefs,” to which “there is a corresponding positive version (‘Maximize (other things being equal) the expression of polite beliefs’)” (Leech 1983, 81). This Politeness Principle has maxims of tact, generosity, approbation, modesty, agreement, and sympathy (Leech 1983, 132). The Politeness Principle is coupled with an Irony Principle that “is parasitic on the other two” (Leech 1983, 142). Leech explains in the following way."

"The [Cooperative Principle] and the [Politeness Principle] can be seen to be functional by direct reference to their role in promoting effective interpersonal communication; but the [Irony Principle]’s function can only be explained in terms of other principles. The [Irony Principle] is a ‘second-order principle’ which enables a speaker to be impolite while seeming polite; it does so by superficially breaking the [Cooperative Principle], but ultimately upholding it. (Leech 1983, 142)."

"Here, the complex relationship of these three principles is laid out. The Politeness Principle needed by Leech to explain the instances in which apparently cooperative communication seems to violate the Cooperative Principle, and the Irony Principle to explain how speakers can violate the Politeness Principle while being cooperative. It should be noted that Grice mentions both phenomenon; he suggested a politeness maxim in “Logic and Conversation,” and gives an explanation for irony in “Further Notes.”"

"The primary concern of this theory, however, is its insistence that, while pragmatics is goal-oriented, conversation as a whole is not goal-oriented, and conversational implicature is caused by a violation of maxims. These principles of politeness and irony seem quite adequate; however, his theory of conversation in general will not provide the explanatory power for conversations that are not cooperatively based."

--- Much of the same ground as Schoolfield is covered by Taylor/Cameron in "Analysing conversation" -- i.e. reviewing Gricean authors -- AND Chapman who, like Leech, is in Lancashire, in her "Grice": the man behind his work -- for Palgrave, 2006. The last chapter while containing some fully original quotes by Grice, is meant to provide a survey of the reserach he originated. In this respect, she parallels the approach by Schoolfield.

(When I was writing my PhD, I narrowed it down that eventually I felt I could not quote anyone BUT Grice! -- but I manage to mention only people of his Oxonian generation -- never Ryle! -- alla Austin, Strawson, Urmson, Warnock, -- and -- Thomson!). Griceanism galore!