Flouting the maxims in scripted speech An analysis of flouting the maxims of conversation in the television series Firefly Brott mot maximer i manusförfattade samtal En analys av brott mot konversationsmaximerna i TV-serien Firefly Peter Szczepanski Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences Department of Language, Literature and Intercultural Studies English III: Degree project in Linguistics 15 hp Supervisor: Elisabeth Gustawsson Examiner: Solveig Granath Autumn 2014 Title: Flouting the maxims in scripted speech: An analysis of flouting the maxims of conversation in the television series Firefly Titel på Svenska: Brott mot maximer i manusförfattade samtal: En analys av brott mot konversationsmaximerna i TV-serien Firefly Author: Peter Szczepanski Pages: 40 Abstract: Although conversations in television shows are supposed to mimic and represent everyday natural speech, they are written for a specific purpose. The aim of this paper is to find out what maxims are flouted the most in the television series Firefly and analyse what the effects of these flouts are. Presented here is an analysis of how scripted conversation in the aforementioned television show is constructed. By applying Grice's cooperative principle and his theories on flouting and implicatures, certain patterns emerge that show recurring uses of flouts for specific effects. The results are based on a study of three episodes of the television series Firefly. The results show that the maxim of quality is flouted the most and that the distribution of flouts between characters is somewhat uneven. This suggests that the use of flouts has to do with the personalities of the different characters. Keywords: conversational maxims, cooperative principle, H.P. Grice, flouting, implicature Sammanfattning: Konversationer i TV-serier ska efterlikna och representera vardligt naturligt tal, men de är ändå skrivna med ett specifikt syfte. Syftet med detta arbete är att ta reda på vilka maximer som bryts mest i TV-serien Firefly och analysera vad effekterna av dessa brott är. I uppsatsen presenteras en analys av hur manusförfattade konversationer i den tidigare nämnda TV-serien är konstruerade. Genom användning av Grices samarbetsprincip och hans teorier kring maximbrott och implikaturer framträder vissa mönster som visar upprepad användning av maximbrott för specifika syften. Resultaten är baserade på en studie av tre avsnitt ur serien Firefly. Dessa resultat visar att kvalitetsmaximet bryts mest och att fördelningen av brott är något ojämn mellan karaktärerna. Detta visar att brott mot maximerna har att göra med personligheterna hos de olika karaktärerna. Nyckelord: konversationsmaximer, samarbetsprincipen, H.P. Grice, maximbrott, implikatur Contents 1. Introduction and aims.......................................................................................................................1 2. Background.......................................................................................................................................2 2.1 Pragmatics...................................................................................................................................2 2.2 H.P. Grice.....................................................................................................................................5 2.2.1 The Co-operation Principle...................................................................................................6 2.2.2 The Conversational Maxims..................................................................................................7 2.2.3 Implicatures...........................................................................................................................8 2.2.4 Flouting and other non-observances....................................................................................10 3. Method............................................................................................................................................12 3.1 Material......................................................................................................................................13 3.1.1 Characters............................................................................................................................14 3.2 Categorization............................................................................................................................16 3.2.1 Problems of categorization..................................................................................................18 4. Analysis and results........................................................................................................................19 4.1 Quantitative results....................................................................................................................20 4.2 Characters' use of flouts.............................................................................................................21 4.2.1 Malcolm...............................................................................................................................22 4.2.2 Zoey.....................................................................................................................................25 4.2.3 Wash....................................................................................................................................26 4.2.4 Inara.....................................................................................................................................28 4.2.5 Jayne....................................................................................................................................29 4.2.6 Kaylee..................................................................................................................................31 4.2.7 Simon...................................................................................................................................32 4.2.8 River....................................................................................................................................33 4.2.9 Shepherd..............................................................................................................................34 4.3 Discussion of results..................................................................................................................34 5. Summary and conclusion...............................................................................................................37 1. Introduction and aims Entertainment is something that all people crave from time to time. Everyday life can get a little dull without some sort of amusement. From the early 20th century, the film industry has grown to be a multi-billion dollar industry and one of the largest entertainment industries today. Furthermore, in the last couple of decades, it seems that TV-series have risen in popularity as the main story-telling medium. There are of course many different factors responsible for this popularity trend, but one reason may be that a television series has the space needed to tell a story in more depth and detail when compared to a big screen film. Moreover, a television series can also create characters with interesting background stories and give them more space for character development. It is an intriguing thought that characters seen on film and TV are created through speech. What these characters say and how they react to each other’s lines is what brings the characters to life. Of course there are other important aspects such as facial expressions, posture and even their clothes. Each of these factors plays an important role, but it can easily be argued that no factor plays a more important role than what they actually say. The scripted speech seen on TV is supposed to mimic and represent everyday speech in, for the most part, everyday situations. Therefore, how ordinary speech is conducted and the rules governing it is of great interest to screenwriters. Speech is the most basic and common way of human communication. However, in any conversation there are guidelines and norms for how a conversation should be conducted in order for the interlocutors to understand each other. Most of these guidelines or norms are followed unconsciously and are not something that we usually need to keep in mind. They are, however, important, because they give us the tools we need to successfully analyse speech. In 1967, Paul Grice presented his theory of what he called the co-operation principle (Levinson 1983:102). By taking part in a conversation, the person doing so is indicating a willingness to co- operate and abide by the rules that follow (Cruse 2000:355). Grice's co-operation principle states that each conversationalist “should speak sincerely, relevantly and clearly, while providing sufficient information” (Levinson 1983:104). However, the co-operation principle is not a prescription for how to conduct successful conversations but should instead be seen as a description. It does not have to be followed and should be seen as a guideline rather than a rule (Cruse 2000:357). Furthermore, the co-operation principle can be broken down into four maxims. Grice made a distinction between two general levels of meaning in language. What is actually being said is one level of meaning while what is meant is another (Börjesson 2014:100). This distinction is very important, since it constitutes the foundation for what Grice called implicatures. When