Grices Maxims in Waiting for Godot by Samuel
Grice’s Maxims in Waiting for Godot by Samuel Beckett * Presentation by Natalia Castellani, Veronica Orsini, My Stjarnkvist * Samuel Beckett, Waiting for Godot, Faber and Faber Ltd. , 2010, Bloomsbury House London
Introduction to the seminar This text offers countless examples of violations and exploitations of Grice’s Maxims. Each of them have a meaning and a purpose conveyed through the character’s dialogues, the stage directions and the protagonists’ actions.
The aim of this seminar To show linguistics permeates literature/theatre even if we are not aware of it. To identify Grice’s Maxims in the text. To interpret and understand both violations and exploitations. To analyse the Cooperative Principles Intentionality and Acceptability. Not to give any labels to Beckett’s text but to propose an interpretation through Grice’s Maxims.
Questions to be answered 1. Being a fragmented and illogical text, how does communication in Waiting for Godot work? 2. Are Grice’s cooperative principles identifiable and respected? 3. What’s the meaning of the ineffective correspondence between dialogues and actions?
A short introduction to the text II World War (shock) Linguistic problems (distrust in language) Linguistic failure absurdity of dialogue (Theatre of the Absurd) Psychological and linguistic fragmentation Ineffective and senseless exchange of ideas Lack of real actions, replaced by vain dialogues Actions do not correspond to the locutionary/illocutionary acts
The Theatre of the Absurd Beckett’s theatre has often been classified under the main genre of Theatre of the Absurd, but this definition is absolutely wrong. “Theatre of the Absurd” is indeed merely the title of an essay written by Esslin, a scholar and a critic who described the mood of the Modernist theatre. According to Esslin, there was a huge lack of logical sense in several aspects of theatrical language, plot, and characters’ perspectives. This label is nevertheless helpful to analyse the play. According to Esslin, the linguistic and communicative acts were not accomplished, and the only and the most important feeling brought on stage was the failure of all the common traditions that had characterized the XIX century well-made play. The purpose of this communicative and logical failure was to make evident and concrete the mental and moral human fragmentation caused by the I and the II World Wars through the very ineffective and vain speech acts and
Well-made play The critic Esslin defines a well-made play as a play composed of: ü a beginning ü a development ü a conclusion According to him characters speak correctly and they are coherent with their own linguistic dignity.
What about Beckett? In Waiting for Godot there is neither a plot nor a psychological coherence. His characters are static and the situation does not progress, it repeats itself. Beckett only shows the lack of sense in human acts and language, without a didactic useful purpose.
“Plot” summary The action is led by 4 characters: Vladimir and Estragon, the very protagonists, and Pozzo and Lucky, who appear twice on stage. Nothing is clear or specified, neither the setting nor the action time. The only props on stage are a bare tree on a country road and a rock. During their mostly senseless dialogues, Vladimir and Estragon make the audience aware that they are waiting for someone to come, that is a certain Godot, who can solve their problems. In Act I Pozzo and Lucky appear, Pozzo carries a whip which he uses to control Lucky tied by a rope around his neck. In the II Act, Pozzo is blind and Lucky is mute. Another character, a young boy, who arrives twice having been sent by Mr. Godot, tells Vladimir and Estragon that Mr. Godot will not be able to come today but perhaps tomorrow. Several times, both Estragon and Vladimir decide to depart for the night, but neither of them moves from his seat: they decide to leave but they never move.
Why two acts? The play is divided only in two Acts to represent the infinitum of the senseless and useless human life. One Act would have been too short because the action would have stopped and closed, showing in a certain way a point of arrival, a very end, and maybe it could have brought the audience somehow to a catharsis. Three Acts would have been too long and certainly boring because of the useless, prolonged repetition of vain and ineffectual actions on stage. Conversely, two Acts are enough to be repeated in a circular way: each day is the same as the other, each senseless dialogue is the same as the other ones, every useless action is identical to other actions, be it on stage or in real life.
VIDEO
Beckett’s language Beckett destroys and fragments the language, doing so he renders perceptible the “nothing” laying under the appearance of reality: ACT II, PAGE 91 Vladimir: Well? Shall we go? Estragon: Yes, let’s go. [They do not move. ]
Stage directions In Waiting for Godot stage directions are crucial to demonstrate how the speech acts do not correspond to the consequential action. ACT I, PAGE 8 ACT I, PAGE 39 Estragon: I’m going. [He does not move. ] Pozzo: Think, pig! [Pause. Lucky begins to dance. ] How stage directions are related to Intentionality and Acceptability?
The function of stage directions Stage directions do not correspond to dialogues because of the lack of both psychological and linguistic coherence between Intentionality and Acceptability. Neither Intentionality nor Acceptability are accomplished by the characters’ speech acts in order to show the failure of communication, and consequentially of theatrical common traditions that characterised the XIX century wellmade plays. In the first example the dialogue might be interpreted as between the actor and the audience. Therefore, cooperative principles involve the audience in terms of Acceptability, and the actor/author in terms of
Body Language In theatre an important role is played by body language which corresponds to stage directions and actors’ performances.
Intentionality and Acceptability A language configuration must be intended to be a text and accepted as such in order to be utilized in communicative interaction. Intentionality concerns the text producer´s attitude that a set of occurrences should constitute a cohesive and coherent text instrumental in fulfilling the producer´s intentions, e. g. to distribute knowledge or to attain a goal. (De Beaugrande. Dressler, 1981) Acceptability concerns the text receivers’ attitude in communication. She or he must accept a language configuration as a cohesive and coherent text capable of utilization. (De Beaugrande-
The Theory of Speech Acts (Searl and Austin) A speech act is an act that a speaker performs when making an utterance. Performative language means “to say something is to do something”. The three aspects of a speech act: ACT II, P. 91 Estragon: Yes, let’s go. [They do not move] • locution: the basic act of utterance producing a meaningful linguistic expression • illocution: the function/communicative force of the utterance (intention) not accepted • perlocution: the intended effect of the action here not accomplished
Grice’s Cooperative Principles “Make your conversational contribution such as is required, at the state at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged. ” (Grice, 1975). The cooperative principles are divided into 4 maxims: • Maxim of Quality – Truth Do not say what you believe to be false, or that for which you lack adequate evidence. • Maxim of Quantity – Information Make your contribution as informative as (but not more informative than) is required. • Maxim of Relation – Relevance Be relevant. • Maxim of Manner – Clarity Be perspicuous/avoid obscurity of expression and ambiguity/be brief/be orderly.
Violation and Flouting/Exploitation Violation: is defined by Grice (1975) as the unostentatious or “quiet” non-observance of a maxim. A speaker who violates a maxim, in some cases, “will be liable to mislead”. Flouting/Exploitation: the speaker flouts a maxim in order to exploit and give rise to a conversational implicature (Grice, 1975). The speaker expects the listener to be aware of her or his intentions (cooperative principles are accomplished). Conversational implicature: i. e. the knowledge conveyed when people “imply, suggest, mean, etc. ” something distinct from what they say (Grice, 1975).
Identify Violation/Exploitation of Grice’s Maxims ACT I, PAGE 51 Estragon: Do you remember the day I threw myself into the Rhone? Vladimir: We were grape harvesting. Estragon: You fished me out. Vladimir: That's all dead and buried. Estragon: My clothes dried in the sun. Vladimir: There's no good harking back on that. Come on.
Estragon’s locutionary act: E: Do you remember the day I threw myself into the Rhone? In spite of the identifiable VIOLATION/EXPLOITATION OF QUANTITY in Vladimir’s answer, the locutionary act (question) is accepted because somehow he does answer. VIOLATION: he does not say “yes” or “no”. He means he remembers and expects E. to understand through conversational implicature (EXPLOITATION): V: We were grape harvesting An interpretation of this EXPLOITATION can be that V. flouts the maxim in order to avoid remembering his/their past. The intention of V. has not been accepted/understood by E. who continues. He seems to be having a conversation with himself that seems positive to E. who keeps not getting his fellow’s intentions and tries again: E: You fished me out
V: That's all dead and buried VIOLATION/EXPLOITATION OF RELATION. The sentence ignores the previous one said by Estragon and does not reply to the question. It seems in a way that Vladimir wants to drop the conversation (negative past). Estragon is lost in his thoughts and seems to be talking with himself. E: My clothes dried in the sun Now Vladimir is more explicit and makes clear he doesn’t want to recall earlier times through his memories. V: There's no good harking back on that. Come on.
VIDEO
Identify Violation/Exploitation of Grice’s Maxims ACT I, PP. 28, 29 VLADIMIR: You want to get rid of him? POZZO: He wants to cod me, but he won't. VLADIMIR: You want to get rid of him? POZZO: He imagines that when I see how well he carries I'll be tempted to keep him on in that capacity. ESTRAGON: You've had enough of him? POZZO: In reality he carries like a pig. It's not his job. VLADIMIR: You want to get rid of him? POZZO: He imagines that when I see him indefatigable I'll regret my decision. […] VLADIMIR: You want to get rid of him? POZZO: Remark that I might just as well have been in his shoes and he in mine. […] VLADIMIR: You waagerrim? POZZO: I beg your pardon? VLADIMIR: You want to get rid of him? POZZO: I do. […]
Both Vladimir and Estragon’s locutionary acts (“You want to get rid of him? ” and “You've had enough of him? ”) are not accepted by the receiver (Pozzo). Pozzo doesn’t answer: Eventually, he does answer with “I do”. POZZO: He wants to cod me, but he won't. /He imagines that when I see how well he carries I'll be tempted to keep him on in that capacity. /In reality he carries like a pig. It's not his job. /etc. VIOLATION of QUANTITY: Pozzo’s discourse is NOT informative. VIOLATION of MANNER: Pozzo is ambiguous and unclear. All his discourse is obscure. Doing so, he makes it impossible to understand his thoughts. Moreover, it takes a lot of time until Pozzo finally replies coherently to Vladimir and Estragon’s questions. VIOLATION of RELATION: Pozzo’s answers are not relevant with the questions.
Violation of quality There are not many examples because there are no lies in the play, mainly a satirical approach can be identified. ACT I, PP. 35 POZZO: How did you find me? [Vladimir and Estragon look at him blankly. ] Good? Fair? Middling? Poor? Positively bad? VLADIMIR: [First to understand] Oh, very good, very good. POZZO: [to Estragon] And you, sir? ESTRAGON: Oh, tray bong, tray bong.
VIDEO
How does the following dialogue differ from the previous ones? ACT I, PP. 47 ESTRAGON: How long have you been here? THE BOY: A good while, sir. VLADIMIR: You were afraid of the whip. THE BOY: Yes, sir. VLADIMIR: The roars. THE BOY: Yes, sir. VLADIMIR: The two big men. THE BOY: Yes, sir. VLADIMIR: Do you know them? THE BOY: No, sir.
It is one of the very few examples of dialogue that has a sense. The boy demonstrates cooperation, replying to the questions in a clear and meaningful way. He respects all of Grice’s Maxims. Why? It is subject to interpretations and literary critics.
Back to our questions 1. Being a fragmented and illogical text, how does communication in Waiting for Godot work? 2. Are Grice’s cooperative principles identifiable and respected? 3. What’s the meaning of the ineffective correspondence between dialogues and actions?
1. Being a fragmented and illogical text, how does communication in Waiting for Godot work? Communication in Waiting for Godot doesn’t follow logical or psychological coherence. Dialogue ends in itself because words don’t lead to a conclusion Communication doesn’t have a meaningful function. Coherence is accomplished only by repetitions of specific words and utterances, which sometimes function as a refrain.
2. Are Grice’s cooperative principles identifiable and respected? Most of the time, neither Intentionality nor Acceptability are respected. Gricean maxims are violated or exploited even if they are identifiable throughout the play. His characters’ perlocutionary acts are not accomplished. Several times they don’t do what they say. Neither the meaning of their words is understandable illocutionary acts are not grasped. All this has a purpose: Beckett wants to show the huge lack of comprehension among humans.
3. What’s the meaning of the ineffective correspondence between dialogues and actions? After the II World War, the shock was so deep that through his theatre Beckett broke up with all precedent language conventions. He wanted to show human communication was by then so vain that people weren’t able to understand themselves anymore. Language and gestures had lost their own meaning as useful and purposeful means of communication.
Questions ?
Thank you!
- Slides: 35