对于美剧《生活大爆炸》的合作原则 礼貌原则研究

Co-operative principle and Politeness Principle
analysis on American sitcom big bang theory
Abstract
This paper entitled “Co-operative principle analysis on american sitcom big bang theory” discusses the analysis with the reference to linguistic theories, especially theories of pragmatics involving the cooperative principle in the overwelmingly popular american sitcom big bang theory.
First, the survey of Grice’s cooperative principle in pragmatics is mentioned as the theory foundation of this paper,which includes four maxims within. The maxims of conversation are respectfully the maxim of quality, the maxim of quantity, the maxim of relevance and the maxim of manner. And Leech’s Politeness Principle.
Then, brief introduction of american sitcom is the next part. From the point of historical and contemprary view.
Finally, comes the analysis of big bang theory (season4,episode8 and episode 9) with the reference of the cooperative principle theory in pragmatics.
Literature view
Pragmatics
In 1962, John Austin(1962) published his book How To Do Things With Words in Oxford. In 1970, John Searle (1970) published Speech Acts.The titles of these two publications, in themselves, highlight this fact: word and action are the one. An important approach to the act of speech lies in questioning not only what is said, and the manner in which it is said explicitly, but also what is left unsaid or said ambiguously, irrelevantly, indirectly. The latter is sometimes as effective as or even more effective than what is said plainly and clearly. The speaker’s intention and the effects of his words are subtler if we differntiate between what is apparent, immediate and what is effective but implicit, reflecting the speaker’s deep and true intentions. That gives rise to new discipline that often involves the inference of the meaning between the line, behind the line and beyond
the line, resulting in a new subject:Pragmatics.
Pragmatics is a systematic way of language studying in context. It seeks to explain meaning that cannot be explained by semantics only. As a field of language study, pragmatics is fairly new, practical and involves many other disciplines. We can say the study of pragmatics covers things that semantics has overlooked. As a branch of knowlege belonging to linguistic science, its roots lies in the work of Amerian philosopher Paul Grice(1975) on Conversational Implicature and the Cooperative Principle, and on the work of Stephen Levinson, Penelope Brown and Geoff Leech on politeness. The theories of the Cooperative Principle and Politeness Principle have provided insights into interpersonal interactions.
Grice’s theory of implicature
Unlike many tother topics on pragmatics, implicature does not have an extended history. The key ideas were proposed by Grice in the William James lecture delivered at Harvard in 1967 and still only partially published (Grice, 1975, 1978). The proposals were relatively brief and only suggestive of how future work might proceed.
Before we review Grice’s suggestions it would be as well as to make clear that the other major theory associated with Grice, namely his theory of meaning-nn is not generally treated as having any connection with his theory of implicature (cf. Walker,1975). In fact there is a connection of an important kind. If, as we indicated, Grice’s theory o f meaning-nn is constructed as a theory of communication, it has the interesting consequence that it gives an account of how communication might be achieved in the absence of any conventional means for expressing the intended message.
A corollary is that it provides an account of how more can be communicated, in his rather strict sense of non-naturally meant, than what is actually said. Obviously we can, given an utterance, often drive a number of inferences from it; but not all those inferences may have be en communicative in Grice’s sense, i.e. intended to be recognized as having been intended. The kind of inferences that are called implicatures are always of this special intended kind, and the theory of implicatures sketches one way in which such inferences, of a non-conventional sort, can be conveyed while meeting the criterion of communicated
messages sketched in Grice’s theory of meaning-nn.
Grice’s second theory, in which he develops the concept of implicature, is essentially a theory about how people use language. Grice’s suggestion is that there is a set of over-arching assumptions guiding the conduct of convention. These arise, it seems, from basic rational considerations and may be formulated as guidelines for the efficient and effective use of language in conversation to further co-operative ends.
Cooperative Principle
Grice identifies as guidelines of this sort four basic maxims of conversation or general principles underlying the efficient co-operative use of language, which jointly express a general co-operative principle. These priciples are expressed as follows:
The co-operative principle
Make your contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged
The maxim of Quality
Try to make your contribution one that is true, specifically:
(1)do not say what you believe to be false
(2)do not say that for which yu lack adequate evidence
The maxim of Quantity
(1)make your contribution as informative as is required for the current purposes of the
exchange
(2)do not make your contibution more informative than is required
The maxim of Relevance
Make your contributions relevant
The maxim of Manner
Be perspicuous, and specifically:
(1)avoid obscurity
(2)avoid ambiguity
(3)be brief
(4)be orderly
In short, these maxims specify what participants have to do in order to converse in a mximally efficient, rational, co-operative way: they should speak sincerely, relevantly and clearly, while providing sufficient information.
Violation of maxims
In a word, the principle requires the convrsation to be precisely informative, truthful, relevant and explicit. It is interesting and important to note that while conversation participantts nearly always observe the CP, they do not always observe these maxims strictly. Assuming that the Cooperative Principle is at work in most conversation, we can see how hearers will try to find meaning in utterances that seem meaningless or irrelevant. We may also, sometimes, find it useful deliberately to infringe or disregard one maxim or some maxims under the Cooperative Principle –as what we do when we receive an unwelcome call from a telephone salesperson. Suppose “A"is the salesperson and “B” is one of us picking up the ringing phone.
A: Hello! We have something special for our old customer like you. Please comes as soon as possible to witness its fantastic effect on your skin!
B: Oh, sorry! I’am afraid that I have to time this weekend. I’am doing some extra work now. Thank you anyway.
As a matter of fact, B is at home, sitting in front of the TV and enjoying a film through DVD. B is not speaking the truth, so the maxim of quality under the Cooperative Principle is violated. Very often, we communicate particular non-literal meannings by appearing to “violate” or “flout”one or soem of these maxims. There must be some
reason for these.
Politeness Principle
The Cooperative Priciple account for the relationship between the literal meaning and actual meaning, explaining how the “Conversational Implicature”is produced and understood, but it does not explain why people violate the conversational maxims so as to express themselves in a vague or an indirect wya. And Leech’s Politeness Principle is proposed as the complementary to Grice’s Cooperative Principle.
In the book Principle s of Pragmatics published in 1983, Leech (1983) defines politeness as forms of behavior that establish and maintain comity and he proposes what he terms “The Politeness Principle” as a way of expaining how politeness operates in conversational exchanges, indicating the ability of participants in a social interaction to engage in interaction in an asmosphere of relative harmony. Leech’s maxims of Politeness Priciple are:
1.TACT MAXIM
(a)Minimize cost to other [（b）Maximize benefit to other]
2.GENEROSITY MAXIM
(a)Miminize benefit ot self [（b）Maximize cost to self]
3.APPROBATION MAXIM
(a)Minimize dispraise of other [（b）Maximize praise of other]
4.MODESTY MAXIM
(a)Minimize praise of self [（b）Maximize praise of other]
5.AGREEMENT MAXIM
(a)Minimize disagreement between self and other
(b)Maximize agreement between self and other]
6.SYMPATHY MAXIM
(a)Minimize antipathy between self and other
(b)Maximize sympathy between self and other]
Leech (1983) points out that it is not that all of the maxims and sub-maxims are
equally important. Rather, of the twinned maxims 1-4, 1 appears to be a more powerful constraint on conversational behavior than 2, and 3 than 4. This reflects a more general law that politeness is focused more strongly on other than on self. Moreover, it is obvious that within each maxim, sub-maxim (b) seems to be less important than sub-maxim(a), which illustrates the more general law that negative politeness or avoidance of discord is a more weighty consideration than positive politeness or seeking concord.
Introduction of American sitcom
What is sitcom?
A situation comedy, often shortened to sitcom, is a genre of comedy that features recurring characters in a common environment such as a home or workplace, accompanied with jokes as part of the dialogue. Such programs originated in radio, but today, sitcoms are found almost exclusively on television as one of its dominant narrative forms.A situation comedy may be recorded before a studio audience. Some also feature a laugh track.
History of sitcom
Comedies from past civilizations, such as those of Aristophanes in ancient Greece, Terence and Plautus in ancient Rome, Śudraka in ancient India, and numerous examples including Shakespeare, Molière, the Commedia dell'arte and the Punch and Judy shows from post-Renaissance Europe, are the ancestors of the modern sitcom. Some of the characters, pratfalls, routines and situations as preserved in eyewitness accounts and in the texts of the plays themselves, are remarkably similar to those in earlier modern sitcoms such as I Love Lucy and The Honeymooners. The first television sitcom is said to be Pinwright's Progress, ten episodes being broadcast on the BBC between 1946 – 1947. In the U.S., director and producer William Asher, has been credited with being the "man who invented the sitcom,"[3] having directed over two dozen of the leading sitcoms, including I Love Lucy, during the 1950s through the 1970s.
Big bang theory
The Big Bang Theory is an American sitcom created by Chuck Lorre and Bill Prady, both of whom serve as executive producers on the show, along with Lee Aronsohn, who is also one of the head writers. It premiered on CBS on September 24, 2007.
Main cast of Big bang theory
∙Johnny Galecki as Leonard Hofstadter, Ph.D. – Leonard is an experimental physicist with an IQ of 173 who received his Ph.D. when he was 24 years old. He shares an apartment with colleague and friend Sheldon Cooper. The writers
immediately implied a potential romance between him and neighbor Penny, and
their sexual tension is a frequently explored drama. The original protagonist,
Leonard's role was downplayed in favor of Sheldon. Leonard is increasingly seen
as assisting Sheldon with social skills.
∙Jim Parsons as Sheldon Cooper, Ph.D. – Originally from East Texas, he was a child prodigy who began college at the age of 11 (after completing the fifth grade), started graduate studies at 14, and earned his first Ph.D. at 16. A theoretical
physicist focusing on string theory, he possesses a master's degree, two PhDs, and an IQ of 187. He exhibits a strict adherence to routine; a lack of understanding of
irony, sarcasm, and humor; he is also uninterested in many of the romantic hijinks between Leonard, Howard, and Raj. These characteristics are the main sources of his humor and the basis of a number of episodes. Sheldon shares an apartment
with Leonard Hofstadter, across the hall from Penny, and relies on both for advice in social situations.
∙Kaley Cuoco as Penny – She is the attractive blonde, "born and raised in Omaha, Nebraska", who lives across the hall from Sheldon and Leonard. She hopes for a
career in acting, and has been to casting calls and auditions but has not been
successful thus far. To pay the bills, she is a waitress at The Cheesecake Factory.
To date, her last name has not been revealed. During the fourth season, Kaley
Cuoco broke her leg in a horse-riding accident. When she returned, after missing
two episodes, she was shown working as a bartender at the Cheesecake Factory,
instead of in her normal employment as a waitress. Her cast was concealed, and no mention of the unseen broken leg was made.
∙Simon Helberg as Howard Wolowitz, M.Eng. – He works as an aerospace engineer. He is Jewish, and lives with his mother, his father left when he was 11 and has to date never learned why. Unlike Sheldon, Leonard, and Raj, Howard lacks a Ph.D. He defends this by pointing out that he has a master's degree in
Engineering from MIT and the apparatus he designs are built and launched into space, unlike the purely abstract work of his friends. He provides outrageous
pick-up lines and fancies himself a lady's man with suitably unimpressed
reactions from Penny; however, he has shown limited success with other women.
He is a polyglot.
∙Kunal Nayyar as Rajesh Koothrappali, Ph.D. – Rajesh, who originally comes from New Delhi, India, works as a particle astrophysicist at Caltech. He is very shy around women and is physically unable to talk to them unless he drinks
alcohol (or thinks he has been drinking alcohol). However, he has had much
better luck with women than his overly confident best friend Howard. His parents, Dr. and Mrs. V.M. Koothrappali, are seen via webcam. In the third season, he works for Sheldon because his research has run into a dead-end and he does not want to return to India.
∙Sara Gilbert as Leslie Winkle, Ph.D. (recurring seasons 1 & 3, starring season 2) –Leslie is an experimental physicist who has casual sex with both Howard and
Leonard during the show's airing. She does not get along well with Sheldon and frequently mocks him. Gilbert was promoted to main cast during the second
season, but demoted again once the writers realized they could not produce
quality material for her for every episode.
∙Mayim Bialik as Amy Farrah Fowler (guest season 3, recurring and starring season 4), a woman Raj and Howard meet on an online dating site using a faux account for Sheldon. She is essentially a female duplicate of Sheldon and she and
Sheldon become friends although - as Sheldon claims - she is a girl and is his
friend, but she is not his "girlfriend".
Melissa Rauch as Bernadette (recurring season 3, starring season 4), a waitress and co-worker of Penny paying her way through graduate school microbiology
studies. Bernadette is introduced to Howard by Penny. At first she and Howard do not get along, as they appear to have nothing in common. When they find out that they both have overbearing mothers, they feel a connection.
Analysis on the lines with the references of Cooperative Principle and Politeness Priciple
Study subject
All the lines are from the season4, episode8 and episode9.
Here is a scene. From S4E8 (season 4, episode 8)
ok, help me out here. How does an archeology professor get that good with a whip? (hearing the music of the movie on TV)
(laugh track)
（夺宝奇兵）
eat, pray, love.(laugh track)
eat, pray, run away from a Giant Boulder(美食，祈祷和骑着捷安特变速自行车出走), I’ll read it.（laugh track）
Raj is murmuring in Howard’s ears.
t care if eat, pray, love changed your life, i am not reading it. (saying to Raj)
She also designed the iconic red and bl ack jacket in Michael Jackson’s Thriller video, which I’ve never viewed in its entirety, as I find zombies dancing in choreographed synchronicity implausible. (laugh track) And also, it’s really scary. (laugh track)
track)
on the big screen at the Colonial.
hing it now. Why would I want to see it again on Friday?
of previously unseen footage.
；Exactly. They say it finally solves the submarine controversy.
；Did... Leonard? I’am not expert, but i believe what we just heard from Penny was sarcasm.
Penny is pointing her nose, implying that Sheldon is right. (laugh track)
be together.
no, we wouldn’t. (laugh track)
Raj is murmuring in Howard’s ears.
(high pitchlaugh track)
Penny and leonard are eye contacting , Penny is shaking her head implying Leonard not say anything. Leonard has a face showing he is kind of confused or his compromisement.
Analysis
1. In sentence two, Howard did obey the maxim of relevance but violate the maxim of quality of Cooprative Principle. It’s common in daily conversation, es pecially when sense of humor comes out.Sometimes a speaker has to flout a maxim in order to observe another.
2. In sentences three ane four, Leonard and Penny both kind of flout the maxims of approbation of Politeness Principle, just dispraising each other and showing each other’s unacceptableness on hobbies.
3. In sentence five, Leonard just obeied the maxim of relevance and maxim of generosity, which creates a huge humor.
4. In sentence eight, Sheldon observes the maxim of relevance, but flouts the maxim of quantity and manner. To some extend, it is just the most effective utterance to audiance when we see him by his personality. As he is a child prodigy, less skillful in social interaction and geeky.
5. In sentence nine and ten, Leonard violates the maxim of sympathy of Politeness Pricipel. So does Sheldon. With this sarcasm, definitely will bring laughter.
6. In sentences 14, 15, 16, Penny is using irony or antiphrase, meaning that 21 seconds are two short to go again to see. Leonard doesn’t notice that but Sheldon does which he kind of never did before or usually did.
7. In sentence 19, the cool thing could be a pun, on one hand, Leonard means the movie thing, which is the previously unseen footage will be on the next Friday. On the other hand, according the context of they (Penny and Leonard) have been broken up, Raj and Howard consider and imply that something sexual.
8. In sentence 21, in view of the illustration above, analysis seven, not imply anymore but inference.
Another scene from S4E9 (season 4, episode 9)
Penny’s farther comes to see his daughter considering that Penny and Leonard are still together, actually not. So Penny and Leonard just decieve him by acting like a couple. And th e other day, Penny and Leonard are talking at the door of Leonard and Sheldon’s apartment. When Sheldon comes over and show them the up-date roommate agreement, concerning they have been together again.
together, and if I can figure out a way to do so and sound sincere, I will. (laught
track) In the meantime, I’d like to go over some proposed changes to the
roommate agreement specifically to address Penny’s annoying pers onal habits.
I have a list. (laught track) FYI, overuse of the phrase “oh, my god” is number
12. (laught track)
I’ll have no track with plots. (laught track)
Penny and Leonard are looking each other , Penny says in a low voice which Sheldon
cann’t hear.
annoying habits shall we discuss?
Agreement. As such, he bears responsibility for all your infractions and must pay all fines. (laught track)
an escrow account. (laught track) sign here. (laught track) (Sheldon sending Leonard a pen)
Analysis
1.In sentence one, although Sheldon is saying that he is kind of happy for them getting
back together, his arrangement to roommate agreement thing just not like what he said. It is an example of observation of Tact Maxim and violation of Generosity
Maxim in Politeness Principle.
2.In sentence two, Sheldon is flouting Generosity Maxim and Approbation Maxim.
3.In sentence six, actually it is a sarcasm, with the form of palying words. Penny says
track, afoot as truck and feet. She is just pretending that she does not understand what Sheldon saying about the plot and track thing.
Conclusion
As language we use in our daily life is to conduct interpersonal communication and social interaction, most of the time it may be not the meaning we tend to consider at the first place. Usually we just ovserve the pragmatic principles, like Grice’s Co-operative Principle and Leech’s Politeness Principle, but at times we don’t. And both that just generate laugher and humor.
References
[1] Stephen C. Levinson, Pragmatics, Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,
Cambrideg University Press, 101.
[2] Li qing, On Co-operative Principle& Politeness Principle in Diplomatic Language Strategy, 2005
[3] /wiki/Sitcom
[4] /wiki/The_Big_Bang_Theory。