RATIONALE
Human communication is a complex process that goes beyond mere information exchange, as it involves various social and psychological factors influencing the choice of effective communication strategies Directly expressing thoughts can often be inappropriate, risking the speaker's relationships or violating social norms Thus, speakers must artfully convey their intended meanings while considering factors such as the hearer's feelings, their own safety, and politeness For successful communication, listeners must also discern the speaker's intentions, which may not always be explicitly stated, often relying on implicature—a key concept explored by Grice (1975) that highlights the distinction between saying and meaning Implicature is prevalent in everyday conversations, literature, and various art forms, including talk shows, which reflect real-life dialogues and hold academic significance This research focuses on Jimmy Kimmel's talk shows, known for their engaging and humorous approach to weighted questions, providing insights into the lives of Hollywood stars, athletes, and public figures The informative nature of these conversations aligns with Grice's cooperative maxims, making them an ideal context for studying implicature within enjoyable and meaningful exchanges.
From these points of view, the researcher decided to carry out the study entitled “Particularized Implicatures in Jimmy Kimmel’s Talk Shows”.
AIM AND OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
This research is conducted with the aim to identify particularized implicatures employed by guests in Jimmy Kimmel‟s talk show
To achieve the aim of the study, the following objectives are intended:
- To identify and describe the types of particularized implicatures employed by guests in Jimmy Kimmel‟s talk shows
- To identify and describe the strategies of generating the particularized implicatures by guests in Jimmy Kimmel‟s talk shows
- To identify the purposes of using particularized implicatures by guests in Jimmy Kimmel‟s talk shows.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The research aims at answering the following questions:
1 What types of particularized implicatures are employed by guests in Jimmy Kimmel‟s talk shows?
2 What are the strategies of generating the particularized implicatures by guests in Jimmy Kimmel‟s talk shows?
3 What are the purposes of using particularized implicatures by guests in Jimmy Kimmel‟s talk shows?
SCOPE OF THE STUDY
The article focuses on Grice's Cooperative Principle and Implicature theory, specifically examining particularized conversational implicatures It explores the types and strategies for generating these implicatures, as well as the purposes they serve for guests on Jimmy Kimmel's talk shows.
This study utilizes transcriptions from interviews conducted by host Jimmy Kimmel with both male and female native English-speaking guests on the Jimmy Kimmel Talk Show, specifically from Seasons 15 to 17.
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
Implicature is a significant linguistic phenomenon that is relevant across various aspects of life, making its study beneficial for both theoretical and practical applications Although the concept was introduced in the early 1960s, there is still room for theoretical advancements This research aims to contribute to the understanding of Grice's Cooperative Principle and Particularized Conversational Implicature, providing valuable insights for future researchers Practically, the findings are intended to aid English language teachers and learners, particularly in Vietnam, by highlighting cultural differences that can lead to misunderstandings in implicature interpretation Additionally, a solid grasp of implicature and illocutionary acts is essential for English teachers, especially those instructing advanced students, as it enhances communication In the context of globalization and the widespread use of English, a comprehensive understanding of implicature is increasingly valuable.
ORGANIZATION OF THE THESIS
This study is divided into five chapters:
This chapter highlights the importance of studying implicature and explains the choice of Jimmy Kimmel's talk shows as data sources It outlines the aims, objectives, scope, and research questions that guide the study Additionally, the significance of the research is discussed, emphasizing its theoretical and practical contributions to the field of linguistics.
LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL
LITERATURE REVIEW
The study of implicature has been conducted by a numbers of researchers both in English and Vietnamese
In the realm of Vietnamese linguistics, there is a notable abundance of theses on implicature compared to their English counterparts Two significant studies that have greatly influenced my research are Đoàn Thị Tâm's M.A thesis from 2006, titled “Một số phương thức tạo hàm ngôn trong truyện cười tiếng Việt,” which identifies 33 methods for forming implicature, and Nguyễn Thị Tú Anh's 2012 work, “Hàm Ngôn Trong Truyện Ngắn Nguyễn Huy Thiệp,” which explores implicatures in short stories, analyzes their expressive value, and classifies the mechanisms and functions of implicature creation.
In her 2012 M.A Thesis titled "A Study of Conversational Implicatures in the Film Titanic," Võ Thị Thanh Thảo aimed to identify the types of implicatures present in the film and explore their production and effects The research revealed that particularized implicatures were more prevalent than generalized ones, with a distribution of 68.4% to 31.6%, respectively Additionally, the study found that expressing feelings was the primary reason for producing implicatures, accounting for 27.2%, while saving time was the least common reason, representing only 2.3%.
In her 2017 study, Natalia explored the application of conversational maxims within the school counseling context, focusing on their types, realizations, and the reasons for their occurrence Utilizing a qualitative design, the research analyzed ten recorded student utterances during counseling sessions The findings revealed that all types of conversational maxims were present, with students generally fulfilling these maxims rather than violating them.
In her 2014 study, Kamila explored the application of Cooperative Principles in classroom interactions, focusing on the frequency and reasons behind violations of these maxims by both students and teachers The findings revealed that only two types of maxims were commonly violated: the maxim of relevance and the maxim of quality The motivations for these violations varied, with participants often aiming to enhance the classroom atmosphere and engage in humor.
The Mata Najwa talk show on Metro TV was analyzed to explore conversational maxims The study aimed to identify the types of maxims present, examine differences across three discussion topics, and understand the reasons behind adherence to or violation of these maxims Findings revealed that all conversational maxims were evident across various topics and guests, with the nature of the topic influencing the maxims utilized Notably, there was no correlation between the guests' cultural and linguistic backgrounds and their use of conversational maxims, as all guests exhibited similar violations of the maxim of quantity while demonstrating consistent adherence to the maxim of manner.
Tupan and Natalia (2008) conducted a study examining the violations of conversational maxims in the context of lying among characters in "Desperate Housewives," utilizing a descriptive qualitative method grounded in Gricean implicature Their findings indicated that complete violations of all maxims aimed to prevent any response from interlocutors, while violating three maxims served to obscure the truth and violating two maxims was intended to facilitate future deception This research contributes to the understanding of the characteristics and motivations behind conversational maxim violations, although it does not elaborate on how these violations of Grice's maxims—quantity, quality, relevance, and manner—are manifested.
In their study, Sagheby and Sobhani (2014) emphasized the importance of recognizing conversational implicature to understand non-cooperative attitudes and the violation of cooperative principles in Iranian psychological consultations Their findings revealed instances of all types of maxim violations Similarly, Fatmawati (2014) conducted a pragmatic analysis of maxim flouting in the film "12 Years a Slave," identifying four types of maxim flouting employed by Solomon Northup, along with the strategies and reasons behind these violations Furthermore, Hartini (2016) explored the violation of the politeness principle in Indonesia's presidential candidates' debates, aiming to describe the types of maxim violations, their linguistic realizations, and the motivations behind them Utilizing Leech's politeness theory, the qualitative research analyzed utterances from the debates, revealing that participants often sought to gain advantages from the audience through strategic questioning.
A study by Fitriyah (2013) aimed to explore conversational maxims, instances of flouting these maxims, and the underlying meanings in conversations from the novel "The Land of Five Towers." Utilizing a qualitative research design, the study identified a total of 8 maxims of quality, 7 maxims of quantity, 8 maxims of relation, and 21 maxims of manner Additionally, it found 4 instances of flouting maxims of quantity, 3 of relation, and 6 of manner The results indicated that each conversation conveyed specific meanings when the speaker flouted these maxims.
Shuqin Hu's study, titled “An Analysis of Maxim Violation in Situational Comedy ‘The Big Bang Theory,’” examines the violation of Grice’s four maxims—quality, quantity, relation, and manner—in the sitcom The research identifies multiple violations and explores the characters' motivations behind these breaches, drawing on insights from Tupan and Natalia (2008) and Christoffersen (2005) This analysis aims to enhance readers' understanding of Season 11 of “The Big Bang Theory” and contribute to the field of Pragmatics by providing a reference for future research on conversational maxims and cooperative principles as outlined by Grice in 1975.
A recent study by Al Kayed (2019) investigated the violations of Grice's maxims in Jordanian jokes, focusing on the implied meanings behind these violations and the factors influencing their interpretation The research analyzed six jokes sourced from WhatsApp and Facebook, categorizing the data based on the type of maxim violated Findings revealed that Jordanians intentionally violate these maxims to elicit laughter and convey social and economic messages.
A study by Abdillah (2016) explored the phenomenon of maxim flouting in non-formal debate shows aired on Indonesian TV channels This research focused on the four types of maxim flouting: Quantity, Quality, Manner, and Relevance, providing insights into their occurrence within these televised debates.
This analysis examines the flouting of conversational maxims in the debates aired on TV One and Metro TV's Forum Indonesia, utilizing Grice's cooperative principle theory The study identifies four maxims that were commonly violated, particularly the maxim of manner, where panelists provided lengthy, unclear, and wordy responses to questions This tendency to be vague and repetitive was influenced by the panelists' need to address complex details and leading questions related to their political affiliations and the perspectives of the TV channels involved Previous studies offer valuable insights that enhance the understanding of conversational maxims, contributing to a broader analysis, including Michelle Obama's remarks at the United State of Women Summit.
In conclusion, this thesis aims to investigate the strategies for generating particularized conversational implicatures and the purposes behind their use by guests on Jimmy Kimmel's talk shows, as these aspects have not yet been thoroughly explored.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
This section outlines the key theories utilized in this research, including pragmatics, particularized conversational implicature, and the cooperative principle It also addresses the violation of Gricean maxims, along with verbal deception strategies and the purposes behind using implicature.
Pragmatics is the study of intended meaning in communication, focusing on how guests convey their messages and how listeners interpret them It emphasizes the importance of context in understanding speech, as the intention behind words can vary even when the phrasing remains the same As a branch of linguistics, pragmatics examines the relationship between language and context, highlighting how language users connect sentences to their relevant contexts This field of study assesses meaning that is context-dependent, allowing for a deeper understanding of the speaker's intentions and the nuances of communication.
Pragmatics focuses on the intended meaning behind what people say rather than the literal interpretation of words or phrases (Yule, 1996) For example, an interrogative English sentence may seem like a straightforward question about someone's name, but it often serves as a greeting that invites a reciprocal response, such as "My name is Intan, and you?" Context can further alter its meaning Levinson (1983) emphasizes that pragmatics examines the relationship between language and context that is encoded within a language's structure.
Speakers and writers function as social actors who not only aim to achieve their objectives but also prioritize their interpersonal relationships with others involved in the communication process (Leech, 1983: 8).
The concept of implicature, although utilized by people globally for centuries, was formally established by Grice in the 1960s through his Theory of Implicature Grice, who introduced the term "implicature," aimed to elucidate and predict conversational implicatures, detailing their emergence and comprehension According to Levinson (1983), Grice's theory fundamentally explores how language is employed, offering a clear understanding of how speakers can convey meanings beyond literal expressions Central to this theory are the Cooperative Principle and its associated maxims, which Grice proposed as guidelines for effective communication He argued that it is widely recognized that individuals generally adhere to these principles, enabling more nuanced and implied meanings in conversation.
Though Grice's Cooperative Principle has played a historically important role in pragmatics, the interpretation of his theory is problematic There still seems to be a misinterpretation between everyday notion of
"cooperation”, and Grice's technical term Many authors have criticized Grice's theory due to misunderstanding about the misleading term
Ladegaard (2008) highlights the ambiguity and inconsistency in Grice's definition of "cooperation," leading researchers to adapt the term for their own purposes, which undermines the reliability of the theory Davies (2007) notes that this inconsistency arises from the conflict between Grice's technical and general meanings of the term, causing confusion among linguists While some, like Green (1989), argue that Grice's Cooperative Principle and its maxims are universal traits of human communication, others, such as Sarangi and Slembrouck (1992), challenge this view, suggesting that Grice's framework should consider societal factors and the social positions of communicators Consequently, many scholars question the universality and practicality of Grice's theory, asserting that it is overly focused on cooperation and fails to address scenarios where non-cooperative strategies are preferred or where miscommunication occurs.
Neo-Gricean theories have evolved Grice's original principles, with Sperber and Wilson's Relevance Theory (1986) proposing a focus on communicative efficiency through a single principle of relevance This principle suggests that speakers aim to be as relevant as possible in their communication, effectively addressing the insights Grice's maxims intended to cover Similarly, Horn (2004) introduced the Q and R principles, replacing Grice's maxims of Quantity, Relevance, and Manner However, these principle-based theories face challenges such as overgeneralization, lack of determinacy, potential clashes, and the reality that speakers often pursue multiple goals in their communication.
Despite criticisms of Grice's Theory, its significance remains undeniable Most critiques focus on the application and interpretation of cooperative principles and maxims rather than the theory itself While some researchers propose alternative principles, these new ideas still draw upon the foundational concepts established by Grice.
Considering both viewpoints, one might question whether communication can be successful if the listener's interpretation is entirely independent of the speaker's intended implicature When we view all implicit meanings in the speaker's utterance and the meanings inferred by the listener as implicature, the complexity of effective communication becomes evident.
Implicature refers to the additional meaning conveyed in conversation beyond the literal interpretation of words According to Grice (1975), there are two main types of implicature: conversational implicature, which arises from the context of the dialogue, and conventional implicature, which is tied to the conventional meanings of expressions used.
According to him, a conventional implicature is derived from the literal meaning of the words uttered to determine what is implied
Conversational implicature, a key concept in pragmatics introduced by Paul Grice, refers to the implied meaning in conversation that goes beyond the literal interpretation of words This phenomenon highlights that language use often involves implicit meanings that cannot be fully understood through syntactic or semantic rules alone According to Li (2016), implicature signifies what is suggested in dialogue, while Griffiths (2006) emphasizes that it relies on the norms of language use, such as the expectation of truthfulness in communication Levinson (2008) points out that speakers may not express all intended information directly, creating a gap that implicature helps bridge Grice (as cited in Grundy) defines conversational implicature as meanings that are implied, hinted at, or understood without being explicitly stated Bublitz and Norrick (2011) further assert that this type of implicature involves inferred meanings that arise from a speaker's utterance, ultimately derived from the cooperative principle and conversational maxims established by Grice.
Particularized Conversational Implicature refers to implicatures that require specific contexts for comprehension According to Levinson (1983), these implicatures arise from the maxim of relevance, meaning that utterances are only pertinent to the specific topic being discussed Grundy (1995) emphasizes that understanding particularized implicatures involves considering the utterance in its contextual setting, as they fluctuate with varying contexts Consequently, the researcher identifies particular conversational implicatures by analyzing the maxim of relevance within the appropriate context.
Bert: Do you like ice cream?
Ernie: Is the pope catholic?
(Example is taken from Yule, 1996: 43)
Erni‟s response does not provide a yes or no answer Bert must assume that Erni is being cooperative, so he considers Erni‟s question and clearly the answer is “Yes”
The cooperative principle, introduced by Paul Grice in his 1975 paper "Logic and Conversation," outlines essential rules for effective communication in conversations Grice emphasizes that participants must contribute appropriately to the dialogue, aligning with the accepted purpose of the exchange to prevent misunderstandings This principle is categorized into four maxims: quantity, quality, relation, and manner, each with specific guidelines to enhance clarity and cooperation in communication.
The maxims of quantity, as outlined by Grice (1975), emphasize the importance of providing an appropriate amount of information in conversations One key principle is to ensure that your contributions are as informative as necessary for the context.
(ii) Do not make your contribution more informative than is required
The maxim of quantity emphasizes the importance of providing an appropriate amount of information during conversations It suggests that speakers should offer enough detail to ensure listeners can understand the message, as failing to do so may be perceived as a lack of cooperation However, speakers must also avoid overwhelming listeners with excessive information Striking the right balance is essential, as providing too little or too much information violates Grice's cooperative principle, which aims for effective communication (Finch, 1997; Rahardi, 2005).
An example of the success in observing the Gricean maxims of quantity is as follows:
Speaker: Well, to cut a long story short, she didn’t get home till two
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
RESEARCH METHODS
This study employs a qualitative descriptive research method, as defined by Bogdan and Biklen (1992), which emphasizes the importance of descriptive analysis Creswell (1994) highlights that qualitative research starts with broadly formulated questions and seeks to derive insights from data patterns Following this approach, the research questions are presented at the outset, leading to data analysis and discussion of findings Bungin (2007) notes that descriptive qualitative research is guided by theory prior to data collection, while Hanafiah (2016) asserts that this method aims to uncover real problems through preliminary exploration of the study object The goal of this study is to analyze and describe conversational aspects in two interviews conducted by Jimmy Kimmel, focusing on the identification and quantification of particularized conversational implicatures The findings will detail the percentage of these implicatures, the strategies employed to generate them, and their intended purposes.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
This research analyzes the dialogues between host Jimmy Kimmel and his guests, George W Bush and Michelle Obama, during episodes of Jimmy Kimmel's talk show The primary data consists of two video recordings featuring the interactions and utterances of the speakers.
3.2.2 Data collection instrument and techniques of data collection
There are some steps in collecting the data:
1 Downloading the data interviews between Jimmy Kimmel and George
W Bush or Michelle Obama from the website https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ir1hhpkwbo&t83s and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AktU2gettoU
2 Listening and transcribing the data interviews into written texts
3 Reading the utterances of the data carefully and select the conversational implicatures
4 Finding the implicit meanings in the utterances
The analysis of the data aims to provide an understanding of the phenomenon In this research, the following techniques were applied:
1 Identifying: To start the analyzing, we categorized the raw data that had been downloaded Then based on the theoretical background, we classified the data and labeled them according to different criteria
Gender ma: male fe: female
Types of maxim violating quan: quantity qual: quality re: relation man: manner
Verbal deception strategies fa: fabrication de: denial half: half-truth abs: abstraction over: overstatement under: understatement aug: augmentation equi: equivocation ob: obfuscation
E.g ma/01/qual/half, fe/02/quan/over
3 Interpreting: After coding the data, we interpreted them to answer the formulation of the problem Data sheet was needed in this step
4 Discussing: In this step we highlighted how our research reflects, differs from and extends current knowledge of the area of implicature by interpreting our findings and outlining what they mean At the end of the discussion we discussed all of the results that we found and provided an explanation for our findings
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
TYPES OF PARTICULARIZED IMPLICATURES EMPLOYED BY
BY GUESTS IN JIMMY KIMMEL’S TALK SHOWS
4.1.1 The types of particularized conversational implicature used by guests in Jimmy Kimmel talk show
The researcher conducted an analysis of the utterances made by George Bush and Michelle Obama during their appearances on Jimmy Kimmel's talk show, focusing on various data points throughout the episodes The study categorized the types of particularized implicature used by both guests and calculated the percentages of Gricean maxims violations, which occur when a speaker intentionally disobeys conversational maxims to create misleading implicature Such violations suggest that the speaker is aware the listener may not grasp the underlying truth, leading to a reliance on the expressed meaning These violations fall into four categories: quantity, quality, manner, and relevance maxims, each contributing to the generation of conversational implicature.
Research indicates that there are a total of 70 violations of the cooperative principle, reflecting instances of conversational implicature The percentage of Gricean maxim violations in the utterances of George W Bush and Michelle Obama during their appearances on Jimmy Kimmel's talk show is illustrated in Figure 4.1 This chart offers a comprehensive overview of the specific types of implicature that arise from the violations of Gricean maxims in the dialogues of these two guests.
Figure 4.1 The types of particularized implicature used in Jimmy Kimmel talk show
The analysis of George W Bush and Michelle Obama's utterances reveals a significant prevalence of Gricean maxims violations, particularly in the maxim of quantity, which accounts for 53% of the violations observed Following this, the maxim of relevance constitutes 31%, while the quality maxim represents 10% The least frequent is the manner maxim, with only 6% of violations This data highlights the prominent tendency to violate the quantity maxim in their speech.
4.1.2 Violation of the Gricean Maxims of Quantity
The Maxim of Quantity addresses the amount of information conveyed in communication, with violations occurring when too much or too little information is provided Analysis of these violations in videos reveals that the Maxim of Quantity is the most frequently breached compared to other conversational maxims Notable examples of such violations can be observed in the interactions of guests George W Bush and Michelle Obama.
(Data #10) JK And there‟s a photograph of you You lived in
Compton, in the heart of L.A For real, that‟s not a joke When was this?
GB Yeah, my dad was selling oil field supplies We also lived in Bakersfield
In a talk show hosted by JK, he requested a childhood portrait of GB and inquired about his age in the photo GB's response included excessive details, such as his father's occupation selling oil field supplies and their residence in Bakersfield, which exemplifies a violation of the maxim of quantity His elaboration serves as particularized conversational implicature, aiming to capture the audience's attention and foster a positive image of his early life, thus breaching the expectation of concise communication.
The second and third example are between George W Bush and Jimmy Kimmel
(Data #21) JK Where did you take her?
GB I took her to a dinner with my dad had a dinner for Frank Borman, who was an astronaut friend of his from Houston So I took her to dinner
In a recent speech, JK reminisced about GB's first date with President Nixon's daughter in 1969, highlighting the significance of their meeting location He revealed that he took her to a dinner organized by his father, providing a glimpse into their memorable evening together.
Frank Borman, an astronaut and friend from Houston, was mentioned during a dinner conversation, which led to an excessive response from GB His detailed answer violated the maxim of quantity by offering more information than necessary, suggesting that there were more than just two people at dinner This response triggered vivid memories for GB, prompting him to share additional details not directly requested by JK's question.
(Data #36) JK Do you have much free time at all when you‟re president?
GB If you make it It depends I exercised every day
So I tell the schedulers, I want an hour every day But you have set priorities and live by them But not much free time
In a conversation, JK inquired about GB's free time as president, to which GB responded, "I exercise every day So I tell the schedulers, I want an hour every day But you have set priorities and live by them But not much free time." This response highlighted GB's busy schedule, revealing that while he implied he could find some time for relaxation, his focus remained on prioritizing his responsibilities GB's answer exemplified a violation of the quantity maxim, as he provided more information than necessary, indicating the constraints on his free time.
(Data #52) JK Now that you‟re out of office, you can do anything you want, right?
GB True But I‟m not telling you
(Data #53) JK Are you not telling me that you looked at them?
GB I‟m not telling you anything
In the dialogue between JK and GB, JK sought confirmation regarding his actions outside the office, yet GB chose to withhold information, responding with the terse phrase, “I’m not telling you nothing.” This response exemplifies a violation of the quantity maxim, as GB provided minimal information Furthermore, his utterance reflects a particularized conversational implicature, indicating not only a rejection of JK's inquiry but also an intention to conceal information.
4.1.3 Violation of the Gricean Maxims of Quality
The Maxim of Quality emphasizes the importance of truthfulness in communication, urging speakers to avoid false statements and to provide sufficient evidence for their claims In an analysis of the videos, 10% of the instances showed violations of this maxim The following examples demonstrate how guests in the videos provided false information, highlighting the submaxim's breach.
Another process of violating quality maxim from GB’s utterances could be seen:
(Data #33) JK Is that something that you enjoy television in general?
In this speech, JK as the host in the talk show wanted to ascertain whether GB enjoyed the programs on television In answering JK's questions,
GB contributed in the form of uncertain information by saying “Not really”
In response to JK's question, GB breached the quality maxim by providing uncertain information, failing to assert the correctness of his response His statements reflected ambivalence, as he occasionally found watching television enjoyable and at other times did not This inconsistency exemplifies a particularized conversational implicature that undermines the quality maxim in communication.
The process of violating quality maxim found in GB’s utterance: Data Code Speaker Utterances
In our latest discussion with President Bush, we delve into his book, "Portraits of Courage," which highlights the stories of veterans he has painted and written about A key question arises regarding whether he accessed secret files or UFO documents during his time in office.
GB expressed uncertainty about his statement, using the word "maybe" to indicate a lack of strong evidence This ambiguity prompted JK to infer the underlying meaning of GB's remarks Consequently, GB's utterance exemplified particularized conversational implicature, highlighting the nuances of communication in uncertain contexts.
4.1.4 Violation of the Gricean Maxims of Relevance
The maxim of relevance dictates that a cooperative speaker should only provide information pertinent to the context of the conversation In this study, it was found that guests frequently violated this maxim by either changing the topic or introducing unrelated content, resulting in 22 instances (31%) of relevance violations The following examples illustrate these breaches of the relevance maxim.
(Data #1) JK How are you? Thank you for coming I was just told moments ago that you requested a little meeting with Guillermo before the show
In the opening of the Jimmy Kimmel talk show, host Jimmy Kimmel welcomed guest George W Bush During the interaction, Bush responded in Spanish, saying “Donde Esta Guillermo,” which was irrelevant to Kimmel’s questions posed in English This response demonstrated a violation of the maxim of relevance, as Bush's comment did not align with the topic of discussion.
Another process of violation of relevance maxim could be seen: Data Code Speaker Utterances
(Data #42) JK Do you know who won the academy award for best picture?
GB Pass the envelope, please (laughter and applause)
VERBAL DECEPTION STRATEGIES OF GENERATING THE
This section explores the verbal deception strategies employed by George W Bush and Michelle Obama during their appearances on Jimmy Kimmel's talk shows, focusing on their violations of the Gricean maxims The analysis identifies nine distinct strategies of verbal deception, including fabrication, overstatement, understatement, denial, half-truth, augmentation, equivocation, obfuscation, and abstraction.
The table below outlines various verbal deception strategies that violate Gricean maxims, offering a comprehensive overview of the findings from guests' utterances during conversations on the Jimmy Kimmel talk show.
Table 4.1 Verbal deception strategies of generating the particularized implicatures by guests in Jimmy Kimmel’s talk shows
No Verbal deception strategies Frequency Percentage
No Verbal deception strategies Frequency Percentage
In Jimmy Kimmel's talk shows, the predominant verbal deception strategy observed in guests' utterances is augmentation, with a total of 40 instances identified Additionally, there are 17 half-truths, 1 overstatement, 1 equivocation, and 2 obfuscations Notably, the analysis revealed no occurrences of fabrication, abstraction, understatement, or denial in the violations of Gricean maxims.
Overstatement occurs when a speaker exaggerates a specific aspect of a proposition to mislead the listener This analysis draws on a conversation from Jimmy Kimmel's talk show to illustrate this concept.
(Data #66) JK Did you have someone get the supplies for you?
JK Have you been to the supplies store?
GB Yeah, I really really enjoy going
In this situation, JK and GB were talking about the supplies JK asked
GB expressed his feelings about visiting the supplies store, claiming, “I really really enjoy going.” His enthusiastic statement reflects an exaggeration of his actual enjoyment, highlighting the use of overstatement in this conversation.
Half-truths are statements that disclose some truth while deliberately omitting other crucial information, creating a deceptive narrative This analysis draws on insights from a conversation featured on Jimmy Kimmel's talk show.
(Data #33) JK Is that something that you enjoy television in general?
In the latest discussion with President Bush, we delve into his book, "Portraits of Courage," which highlights the stories of veterans he painted and wrote about A pertinent question arises regarding his time in office: did he ever explore the secret files or UFO documents? This inquiry sparks curiosity about the government's transparency on such significant topics.
In the discussed scenario, George W Bush demonstrates a failure to adhere to the maxim of quantity by providing uncertain responses such as "Not really" and "Maybe" to the host's question These phrases reflect a partial truth, indicating a violation of Grice's maxims of quantity Consequently, it can be inferred that Bush employs half-truths in his communication, undermining the expectation of complete information.
(Data #) JK Yeah We need you back in the old house
Michelle Obama did not adhere to the Gricean maxim of quantity when she responded with “Not really” to the host's question, indicating a lack of certainty This phrase suggests an incomplete truth, highlighting her violation of the principle by providing insufficient information.
From the expression in the guest‟s utterance, it was concluded that Michelle Obama uses half-truth to violate the maxim of quantity
Augmentation involves the speaker introducing unnecessary information that misleads the audience, violating the quantity maxim by providing excessive and irrelevant details This practice distracts from the core truth, leading to confusion among listeners Analyzing a conversation from Jimmy Kimmel's talk show illustrates this concept effectively.
(Data #60) JK How is unemployment going? Are you embracing it?
Life has been quite uneventful lately, especially with a teenager at home who often makes us feel inadequate Balancing the challenges of parenting and daily routines can sometimes feel monotonous, highlighting the complexities of family dynamics.
In this context, Michelle Obama introduces unnecessary information that diverts the host's attention from the core truth Her statements suggest that she employs augmentation, thereby breaching the maxim of quantity.
(Data # 61) JK Besides your husband and daughters, with which celebrity do you text most often?
MO Oh you know, there's, I'm not going to tell you, because then, you know, it's like you don't text and tell
In a recent conversation, the host inquired about the celebrity with whom Michelle Obama frequently texts Rather than providing a straightforward answer, she diverted the discussion with extraneous details, illustrating how augmentation can be employed to violate the maxim of relevance.
(Data # 62) JK Your mom moved in, lived there the whole eight years with you
MO Reluctantly, but she stayed She tried to get out It's like, nope, lock the doors
She considered leaving when her daughters reached middle school and she no longer needed to take them to school daily However, I advised her that it wasn't the right time yet, so we allowed her to return home for the summer.
During an interview, Michelle Obama was questioned about the year her mother moved out of their home However, she included extraneous details that diverted the host's attention from the main topic This response indicates that Michelle Obama employed augmentation, thereby breaching the maxim of relevance in conversation.
PURPOSES OF USING PARTICULARIZED IMPLICATURES BY
The interlocutors intentionally violate conversational maxims for specific purposes Analyzing the data reveals the underlying reasons for these violations, which are influenced by the context of their conversations.
In our exploration of particularized implicatures, we encountered numerous challenges despite our thorough preparation The purposes behind these implicatures often proved difficult to differentiate, frequently overlapping or lacking clarity Additionally, these purposes could vary based on individual perspectives, further complicating our understanding.
The study revealed a notable absence of jealousy among participants It also discovered that violations of conversational maxims can occur through the use of humor and topic shifts Consequently, it can be concluded that varying contexts lead to different motivations behind the violation of conversational maxims.
Table 4.2 Purposes of using particularized implicatures by guests in Jimmy Kimmel’s talk shows
No Theory Christoffersen (2005) Research Finding
6 Avoiding to hurt the hearer 0
The table demonstrates that speakers intentionally violate conversational maxims to achieve specific goals, such as concealing the truth, persuading the listener, injecting humor, and shifting topics This behavior highlights a tendency among certain speakers to prefer lighthearted and humorous exchanges over serious discussions.
(Data #52) JK Now that you‟re out of office, you can do anything you want, right?
GB True But I‟m not telling you
(Data #53) JK Are you not telling me that you looked at them?
GB I‟m not telling you anything
From the Data #52 and Data #53 above, GB did not give any informative contribution He provided less information by providing very simple answer –
“I’m not telling you nothing” In this situation, he actually understood the question but avoided giving the real information in response to the question
GB used particularized conversational implicature to reject and hide the truth relating to the question He also wanted to make the audiences laugh
(Data #33) JK Is that something that you enjoy television in general?
In this article, we revisit President Bush's book, "Portraits of Courage," which highlights the stories of veterans he painted and wrote about A key question arises regarding his time in office: did he ever access the secret files and UFO documents? This inquiry invites a broader discussion on transparency and the government's handling of such sensitive information.
From the Data #33 and Data #48 above, GB did not give any informative contribution He provided less information by saying very simple answer –
In response to the question, he replied with "Not really" or "Maybe," indicating that he understood the inquiry but chose to withhold the truth His intention was to reject the question and conceal the real information behind his evasive answers.
(Data #66) JK Did you have someone get the supplies for you?
JK Have you been to the supplies store?
GB Yeah, I really really enjoy going
In this situation, JK and GB were talking about the supplies JK asked
GB expressed his feelings about visiting the supplies store, claiming, "I really really enjoy going." His exaggerated statement was intended to emphasize his enthusiasm for the experience, suggesting a strong preference for shopping at the store.
(Data #63) JK The book is number one on amazon
That's got to be an exciting thing for you
The host expressed excitement over Michelle Obama's book ranking first on Amazon, remarking, "That's crazy," which was interpreted as a humorous conversational implicature that elicited laughter from the audience.
(Data #73) JK Do you ever paint nudes?
GB None of your business (laughter and applause)
In this conversation, the guest injected humor by saying “None of your business” which make the audience laugh and applause
(Data #52) JK If you wanted to get someone in your husband's administration fired, how would you
MO why - why do you ask?
During a conversation with Jimmy Kimmel, Michelle Obama skillfully redirected the discussion by responding to his question with, “Why - why do you ask?” This response exemplifies a specific conversational implicature, indicating her intention to change the subject rather than directly answer the inquiry.
(Data 70) JK Is she honest with you, if there‟s something she thinks is not good?
GB Well, she started off with her body language, making it pretty obvious she didn‟t vote for me
In this conversation, GB did not give the answer unswervingly to the answer The way he replied was concluded as a particularized conversational implicature to change the subject.