INTRODUCTION
Statement of problem and research questions
Conversational implicature is a key linguistic feature commonly used in conversations to convey information politely and implicitly, aiming to preserve the public images of both speakers and listeners This approach allows speakers to deny implied messages if unexpected issues arise Research has explored the use of conversational implicature in various contexts, including political speeches, daily dialogues, and literary works, highlighting how ideas are subtly communicated to audiences Significant contributions to this field include "Conversational Implicatures in Indirect Replies" by Green & Carrberry, Levinson's "Pragmatics," and Grice's foundational work "Logic and Conversation," where the term was first introduced.
Walton (1992) highlights that the implicit nature of conversational implicature makes it a useful tool for conveying sensitive information He concludes that threats and warnings are often communicated through this form of implicature, as directly expressing violent content is often considered inappropriate in public settings.
Understanding implicit threats is crucial for self-protection and harm prevention, as these threats are not always stated clearly Despite this necessity, there has been a notable shortage of in-depth research focusing on conversational implicature in the context of threats, with only a few studies briefly addressing the topic.
2 passing along with other Face threatening acts, such as “The Place of Emotion in Argument” by Walton (1992) or “Introducing Sociolingustics” (Meyerhoff,
In light of previous research gaps identified in 2006, this study aims to explore the use of conversational implicature in effectively conveying threats.
The acclaimed TV series Game of Thrones, known for its intricate political conflicts among Nine Houses on a fictional continent, showcases exceptional dialogue writing, as noted by Ivory (2013) The series effectively employs conversational implicature, particularly in character interactions, as highlighted by Ramadhan (2017) This makes it a fitting subject for analysis Therefore, I will focus on the use of conversational implicature in the threats made by Tywin Lannister, the formidable leader of House Lannister.
The purpose of the study
The study was conducted in order to investigate the methods in which Tywin Lannister employed conversational implicature to make his threats The study aimed to answer the following questions:
1 Which maxim did Tywin Lannister infringe in order to make his threats?
2 How did Tywin Lannister infringe the maxim in order to make his threats?
Scope of research
This study examines the implied threats articulated by Tywin Lannister during the first four seasons of the TV series, which encompasses 40 episodes, as the character does not appear in subsequent seasons The analysis focuses on the conversational maxims that Tywin Lannister violated in his dialogues, highlighting the significance of his character's influence on the narrative.
Significance
This study aims to address the gap in understanding conversational implicature in threat utterances, enhancing awareness of how threats can be communicated indirectly By exploring these dynamics, it equips individuals to effectively use or navigate threats in everyday conversations Furthermore, the research serves as a valuable resource for linguistics education and may inspire future studies on related topics.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Implicature
The term "implicature," introduced by Herbert Paul Grice in 1975, refers to the act of conveying meaning indirectly Bach (1999) elaborated on this concept, describing implicature as an implied meaning not explicitly stated in an utterance Similarly, Davis (2005) defined implicature as a phenomenon where the speaker intends to communicate one idea while expressing another.
The three definitions of implicature, despite differing word choices, converge on the idea that meaning is suggested or implied by the speaker rather than explicitly stated According to Horn and Ward (2004) in "The Handbook of Pragmatics," the intended meaning extends beyond the spoken words, offering a richer context This concept of implicature contrasts with "explicature," a term introduced by Sperber and Wilson (1995), which refers to meanings that are directly communicated in an utterance.
Bach (2006) provided an example: when A said he had run out of eggs,
In the context of communication, B's statement, “There is a store at the end of the street,” serves as an utterance, while the implied message, “[You can buy more eggs there],” reflects the speaker's intended meaning The information that a store exists at the end of the street is classified as explicature, as it is directly conveyed Conversely, the suggestion to buy more eggs is not explicitly stated, categorizing it as implicature.
In another branch of linguistics, presupposition is a phenomenon that also involves an implicit assumption, as claimed by Karttunen, 1974; it is also
Implicature and presupposition are often confused, but they have distinct meanings According to Kadmon (2001), implicature refers to the meaning conveyed by a statement, while presupposition relies on the background knowledge surrounding that statement For example, in the phrase “John is being a night owl again,” the implicature suggests that John typically stays up late, whereas the presupposition is embedded in the word choice, indicating prior knowledge of John's habits.
“again”, containing the assumption from the speaker that John was a “night owl” in the past as well
In his influential 1975 lectures "Logic and Conversation," Grice introduced the concept of "implicature," categorizing it into two types: conversational implicature and conventional implicature This work is regarded as one of the most cited papers in philosophy and a significant contribution to both philosophy and linguistics (Bach, 2012; Igwedibia, 2017).
The categorization of implicature, primarily based on Grice's theory (1975), is widely accepted among researchers, although some, like Jary (2013), challenge it by introducing material and behavioral implicature Additionally, Culpeper (2011) proposes subgroups of politeness and impoliteness implicature This study focuses on conversational implicature and aligns with Grice's established framework.
Conversational implicature
Grice (1975) defines conversational implicature as the phenomenon where a speaker intends for their utterance to imply a specific message, expecting the listener to deduce that message He emphasizes the importance of adhering to the Cooperative Principle, which consists of principles designed to facilitate effective communication between speakers and listeners To interpret the implied meaning, the listener must consider various contextual factors shared with the speaker For example, Grice illustrates this concept with the phrase, “You are the cream in my coffee,” highlighting how meaning can extend beyond the literal interpretation.
Grice (1975) emphasized the importance of shared background knowledge between the speaker and the listener, particularly regarding their relationship and the context of the conversation This mutual understanding enables the listener to comprehend the speaker's message effectively, as demonstrated by the connection between the cream and the coffee in the example provided.
Grice did not provide a specific definition of conversational implicature in his works, prompting researchers to create their own interpretations based on his studies (Haugh, 2012) For example, Walker (1975) defined conversational implicature by emphasizing that a speaker adheres to the Cooperative Principle, intending for their message (p) to be understood as another message (q), with the expectation that the listener can deduce q from the context.
In a similar fashion, Levinson (1983) proceeded to give the following definition:
When S states p, it conversationally implies q under the assumption that S adheres to the cooperative principle To uphold this assumption, it is necessary to believe that S considers q to be true Furthermore, S assumes that both S and the addressee H are aware that H can deduce that, to maintain this assumption, q is essential.
Hirschberg (1985) critiques earlier definitions of conversational implicature for overlooking the necessity of shared background and contextual knowledge between speakers and listeners, a concept highlighted in Grice's "Logic and Conversation" (1975) Furthermore, Levinson's (1983) definition is deemed insufficiently clear due to the use of ambiguous terms like "it must be supposed" and "presumed," failing to distinguish conversational implicature from other linguistic phenomena.
For this reason, Hirschberg (1985) offered another definition:
A proposition q is considered a conversational implicature of utterance U by agent A in context C if three conditions are met: first, A believes that all discourse participants in C are aware that A is adhering to the cooperative principle Second, A believes that, in order to uphold this understanding, the hearer will assume that A believes in q Lastly, A believes that it is common knowledge among all discourse participants that to maintain the first condition, it must be assumed that A believes in q.
In the aforementioned expression, Hirschberg (1985) managed to identify three important factors of conversational implicature, all of which were emphasized by Grice (1975) First, the implicature is carried out in a
Effective communication relies on a shared understanding of specific contexts, known as context C, which is essential for conveying meaning Additionally, speakers adhere to the Cooperative Principle to facilitate clear interactions Consequently, listeners interpret the intended message based on their observations of these factors For my study, I will use Hirschberg's (1985) definition as a foundational reference.
2.2.2 The contrast between conversational implicature and conventional implicature
Conversational implicature and conventional implicature are two subcategories of implicature, as stated by Grice (1975) To illustrate a case of conventional implicature, Grice (1975) offered an utterance: “He is an
The statement "he is, therefore, brave" suggests that his bravery is attributed to his identity as an Englishman, highlighting a conventional implicature that remains consistent regardless of context According to Grice (1975), this implicature relies on the linguistic meaning of "therefore" rather than specific situational features Thus, understanding the implication does not necessitate background knowledge or contextual information, as the core message remains clear and coherent.
Grice (1975) illustrated conversational implicature through a scenario where A calls Mrs X an "old bag," and B replies with a seemingly unrelated comment about the weather B's response implies a refusal to engage with A's statement, highlighting that understanding implicature requires context rather than isolated analysis This demonstrates that conversational implicature relies on the interaction between speakers and their shared background, distinguishing it from conventional implicature (Grice, 1975).
Theoretical frameworks
2.3.1 The violating and flouting of maxim in The Cooperative Principle (The Gricean framework) (Grice, 1975)
The Cooperative Principle, introduced by Grice in 1975, outlines a set of conversational maxims that participants are expected to adhere to for effective communication This principle encompasses four key categories: Quantity, Quality, Relation, and Manner, each containing one or more specific maxims By following these guidelines, interlocutors aim to foster productive cooperation in conversations.
Grice (1975) presented the maxim of each category as followed:
QUALITY: Contribute only what you know to be true Do not say what you believe to be false Do not say things for which you lack evidence
QUANTITY: Make your contribution as informative as is required
Do not say more than is required
RELATION (Relevance): Make your contribution relevant
MANNER: (i) Avoid obscurity; (ii) avoid ambiguity; (iii) be brief; (iv) be orderly
Grice's (1975) maxims outline key principles for effective communication: the maxim of QUALITY requires speakers to convey what they genuinely believe to be true; the maxim of QUANTITY emphasizes providing an appropriate amount of information—neither too little nor too much; the maxim of RELATION ensures that responses are relevant to the conversation topic; and the maxim of MANNER dictates that statements should be clear, concrete, and logically structured.
The highest form of co-operation occurs in the condition that the speaker complies to all four categories of conversational principles
Grice (1975) offered an example: “A: Where does Ann live? B: She lives in France I visited her there last month” (Grice, 1975, p 50)
In the illustration, Speaker B adhered to the maxim of QUALITY by accurately reporting his beliefs and providing supporting evidence He maintained the maxim of QUANTITY by offering precisely the information that Speaker A needed The response was clear and straightforward, aligning with the maxim of MANNER Furthermore, B's remarks were directly relevant to A's statement, focusing on the topic of Ann's current residence.
In specific contexts, individuals may not adhere strictly to all conversational maxims while still aligning with the Cooperative Principle, as outlined by Grice (1975) Grice noted that when a speaker intentionally violates a maxim, it is often to generate a conversational implicature This infringement can occur through either a direct violation of the maxim or by flouting it, thereby inviting deeper interpretation from the listener.
Violating conversational maxims can lead to intentional misdirection and confusion for the audience, as noted by Grice (1975) An example provided by Khosravizadeh and Sadehvandi (2011) illustrates this concept effectively.
Teacher: Why didn’t you do your homework?
Student: May I go and get some water? I’m so thirsty (p 123)
In his response to the inquiry from the teacher, the student has intentionally violated the Maxim of RELATION, in order to distract the teacher and avoid answering the question
Khosravizadeh and Sadehvandi (2011) present a scenario illustrating a violation of conversational maxims: when asked if he enjoyed the party, B's lengthy and ambiguous response about the food, flowers, and people not only breaches the maxim of MANNER but also the maxim of QUANTITY This deliberate choice leads to potential misunderstandings, as B's answer could imply either disappointment or overwhelming excitement, suggesting he was unsure where to begin his description of the event.
Flouting a maxim differs from violating one, as it does not aim to confuse or distract the audience Instead, the speaker anticipates that listeners will infer the intended meaning behind their words, as noted by Levinson.
(1983) In his lectures “Logic and Conversation”, Grice (1975) presented different scenarios in which maxim of different categories were flouted to convey implied messages
In his 1975 work, Grice presented a scenario highlighting the violation of the maxim of quantity in communication A wrote a recommendation letter for Mr X, a candidate for a philosophy position, stating only that Mr X had an excellent command of English and regular attendance at tutorials This minimal information suggests a lack of qualifications necessary for the role, implying that Mr X may not be suitable for the job.
A case of flouting the maxim of QUALITY could be spotted in the following example, in which A has been betrayed by his closest friend X, and
12 both A and the audience know this A said: “X is a fine friend” (Grice, 1975 p
In a scenario where A appeared to mislead the audience, it became clear that the audience was already aware of the truth, rendering any deceit unnecessary A expressed a belief that both he and the audience recognized as false, using sarcasm to comment on the loyalty of his friend X.
In a dialogue analyzed by Grice (1975), the maxim of relevance was violated when A asked, “Will she go to the party?” and B responded with the rhetorical question, “Is the Pope Catholic?” This response, while seemingly irrelevant, implied that she would indeed attend the party, as the answer to B's question is universally known.
Grice (1975) illustrated the flouting of the maxim of MANNER through a conversation where A asked, “Where’s John?” and B replied, “There’s a pair of Volkswagen shoes outside Anne’s house.” Instead of simply stating, “I think he’s at Anne’s house,” B chose ambiguity by mentioning the shoes, using “a pair” rather than “John’s pair,” which suggested uncertainty about the ownership This flouting likely aimed to adhere to the maxim of QUALITY, avoiding unsubstantiated claims Ultimately, Grice concluded that B's response implied he believed John was at Anne’s house, but lacked sufficient evidence to confirm it.
The Gricean framework, which addresses the Violating and Flouting of Maxim in the Cooperative Principle, has faced criticism from neo-Gricean philosophers, including Horn (1984), Levinson (2000), and Huang.
(2014) They posed the argument that not all interlocutors try to be conversationally co-operative, and that the Gricean framework failed to
13 consider the “cancellability” of the implicature, in which the hearer could outright ignore the implication from the speaker and carry on the conversation
The Gricean framework, established in 1975, remains essential and unmatched, as noted by Carston (2005), Dynel (2013), and Haugh (2014) No alternative framework has emerged that operates independently of Gricean theory or effectively addresses the issues identified by neo-Gricean philosophers, according to Huang (2012) and Kedves (2013) Given that conversational implicature is fundamentally linked to The Cooperative Principle, it is logical to adopt Grice's concepts of Maxim Violating and Flouting as the central framework for my study.
2.3.2 Off-record Politeness Strategy (Brown & Levinson, 1987)
The Off-record Politeness strategy is directly linked to Face threatening acts, which can jeopardize an individual's self-image, or 'face,' as defined by Yule (1996) These acts can endanger either a person's negative face, relating to their autonomy and personal space, or their positive face, which reflects the desire for social approval and respect, as highlighted by Brown and Levinson (1987) and further elaborated by Kedves (2013).
Negative face-threatening acts, such as threats or orders, aim to undermine an individual's freedom of action by coercing them into specific behaviors, as noted by Kedves (2013) Conversely, expressions like complaints, criticism, or insults demonstrate a disregard for the hearer's positive face, indicating a lack of care and appreciation.
Threat
According to Goldin et al (2008), a threat is a coercive act aimed at manipulating another party into compliance against their will, often involving the implication of harm or disadvantage An example of this is the statement, “Give me your money or I will tell your mother what you did yesterday” (Goldin et al., 2008, p 179), which illustrates how one party can violate the free will of another to achieve a desired outcome.
Goldin et al (2008) and Ward and Berno (2011) identified two primary types of threats: physical and social Physical threats involve the potential for bodily harm, including injuries, torture, imprisonment, or even death These threats can be conveyed through non-verbal cues, such as brandishing a weapon, or through verbal and written communication, as illustrated by statements like “I am going to place a bomb in this school” or “Give me your money or I will beat you” (Gruenewald et al.).
Social threats, meanwhile, suggest harm or loss to the social image of a party, as stated by Goldin et al (2008) Kedves (2013) claimed that the loss
Social threats, such as blackmailing, can harm relationships and negatively impact an individual's self-esteem, resulting in feelings of shame, humiliation, or guilt According to Kedves (2013), these threats can manifest through both verbal and non-verbal communication, similar to physical threats.
According to Croucher (2013), a threat is perceived by an individual as a potential danger to their status, social position, morals, identity, or physical well-being For example, a top student, A, may see a newcomer, X, as a threat to his academic standing if he believes X is likely to outperform him This perception of threat can significantly impact A's sense of security and competition within the classroom, as noted by Campbell.
Kedves (2013) highlights a crucial distinction in threat perception, noting that Goldin et al (2008) analyze threats from the perspective of the individual posing the threat, while Croucher (2013) examines it from the viewpoint of the person being threatened For example, in the scenario involving A and newcomer X, A will only perceive X's rise to the top position as a threat if he personally feels threatened by it If A is indifferent to the top position, X's ascent would not be seen as a danger to him.
Goldin et al (2008) argue that an act is considered a threat if the performer intends to intimidate the other party, contrasting with Croucher's (2013) perspective For example, the statement “Give me your money or I will beat you” exemplifies a threat, as the speaker aims to coerce the listener, regardless of whether the listener feels impacted by the threat.
This study focuses on Tywin Lannister, the central figure who embodies the threats in the narrative, and examines the use of conversational implicature in his speeches By analyzing these cases from his perspective, I aim to uncover the underlying meanings and intentions behind his communication.
In my research, I have chosen to rely on the definition provided by Goldin et al (2008) while excluding the elements concerning non-verbal threats as outlined by Croucher (2013) My study focuses exclusively on verbal threats that utilize conversational implicature.
Existing research about conversational implicature in threats
The Gricean framework for conversational implicature is essential for understanding human communication, as noted by Dynel (2013) Numerous studies have explored conversational implicature through this framework, examining its application in daily conversations, films, classic literature, political speeches, and media Significant research contributions include works such as "Conversational implicatures in indirect replies" by Green & Carberry (1992), "What is said and what is meant" by Wanke (2007), and "Implicature during real-time conversation" by Sedivy, highlighting the usage and characteristics of conversational implicature across various contexts.
The use of conversational implicature in humor creation is a widely discussed topic in the field, highlighted in notable works such as "A Gricean Analysis of a Situation Comedy" by Taberski (1998), "There Is Method in the Humorous Speaker's Madness: Humor and Grice's Model" by Dynel (2008), and Hu's (2012) "An Analysis of Humor in The Big Bang Theory from Pragmatic Perspectives."
In regards to the usage of conversational implicature in Face threatening acts (FTAs), attempts have been made to analyze conversational implicature in FTAs, which include “Interlanguage pragmatics: Requests,
Research by Trosborg (1995) on complaints and apologies, along with Wen and Chen's (2017) analysis of self-mockery in conversational implicature, explores the functions and strategies of face-threatening acts (FTAs) within conversational contexts and the violations of conversational maxims For instance, self-mockery serves as a means to decline requests, conceal embarrassment, or launch a counterattack.
2017) Meanwhile, implied complaints are to express annoyance, show disapproval, and give warning signs, employed implicitly through strategies such as accusations, requests for repair, and blaming (Trosborg, 1995)
Despite being recognized by Brown & Levinson (1987) and Dynel (2014) as a fundamental application of conversational implicature, the use of conversational implicature in making threats has been largely overlooked Previous works, including Walton's "The Place of Emotion in Argument" (1992), Tsuda's "Indirectness in Discourse" (1993), and Meyerhoff's "Introducing Sociolinguistics" (2006), have only briefly touched on this topic alongside other face-threatening acts (FTAs) While these studies acknowledge that conversational implicature is often employed to convey implied threats, there has been insufficient exploration of this phenomenon.
Summary and conclusion
In this study, I focus on Grice's (1975) framework of the Violating and Flouting of Maxim within the Cooperative Principles to analyze conversational implicature Additionally, I incorporate Brown and Levinson's (1987) Off-record Politeness Strategy as a complementary aspect of the Cooperative Principles My analysis is limited to verbal acts of threats that utilize conversational implicature, intentionally excluding non-verbal threats from consideration.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Sampling
In this study, I utilize Total Population Sampling to examine the maxim infringements present in all implied threats made by Tywin Lannister in the TV series Game of Thrones.
Data collection
Data collection took place from December 14 to December 30, 2019, during which I watched the TV series to understand its settings, character backgrounds, motives, and personalities I focused particularly on the utterances of Tywin Lannister, noting instances where conversational maxims were infringed to convey threats These specific conversations were documented for further analysis.
Data analysis
In a study conducted from January 1 to February 26, 2020, the primary research question explored which maxim was violated by Tywin Lannister when he issued his threats This analysis aimed to pinpoint the specific maxim infringements present in his threatening behavior.
In my analysis, I utilized Grice's Cooperative Principles (1975) alongside the signals of maxim infringements outlined in Brown and Levinson's Off-record Politeness Strategies (1987) By recognizing these signals, I was able to identify which maxim Tywin violated Below is the comprehensive list of findings.
Maxim category Signals of Maxim Infringements in Threats
Metaphors Contradictions Irony Rhetorical question
Word choice: a, something, somewhere, someone, WH-word questions
Metaphors (The information) unnecessarily lengthy (The information) not logically ordered
Table 3.1 Recognitions of maxim infringements
Using IBM SPSS software, I generated a frequency distribution table to analyze all instances of maxim infringements This table allowed me to identify the maxim that is most frequently violated, as well as the one that is least infringed upon.
To address the question of how Tywin Lannister violated the maxim in his threats, I examined the context of the conversations, along with the characters' backgrounds and motives By employing a descriptive qualitative method, I analyzed the instances of maxim infringements and explored the underlying reasons for these actions.
The backgrounds of Tywin Lannister
Inspired by George R.R Martin's fantasy novel A Song of Ice and Fire, the TV series Game of Thrones unfolds on the fictional continent of Westeros, governed by nine Great Houses: Lannister, Stark, Targaryen, Tyrell, Martell, Greyjoy, Baratheon, Tully, and Arryn The continent's most powerful ruler, King Robert Baratheon of House Baratheon, presided over Westeros for seventeen years until his unexpected death.
Following the death of the King, his eldest son, Joffrey Baratheon, ascended to the Iron Throne as the next ruler This transition sparked fierce opposition from noble families of rival Great Houses, who sought to overthrow House Baratheon and claim the throne for themselves, resulting in a series of violent dynastic conflicts throughout the series.
Tywin Lannister, the Head of House Lannister and Hand of the King, is recognized as one of the most influential figures in Westeros His power is amplified by his daughter Cersei's marriage to King Robert Baratheon, making him the grandfather of the reigning King Joffrey Baratheon.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS
The flouting of maxims
4.1.1.The flouting of maxims of QUALITY
Upon arriving at the chaotic courtyard, Tywin asked, “What’s this?” This question was not an inquiry into the state of the courtyard, which he could see for himself, nor did he seek explanations for the disorder, as he and the guards knew they were responsible Instead, Tywin's question conveyed his dissatisfaction with the situation and hinted at potential consequences for the guards if the mess was not addressed His direct and concise wording eliminated any ambiguity, indicating that he was not trying to confuse anyone Therefore, it can be concluded that Tywin intentionally flouted the conversational maxim to make his displeasure and anger clear to the guards.
In case 3.5.c, the question, “Do you mean to tell me that none of you has any notion of where he is?” highlights the council's failure to locate his son, despite their extensive network of spies and informants This flouting of the maxim suggests that the council has not exerted sufficient effort in the search.
Tywin Lannister was notorious for imposing harsh penalties on individuals he considered inadequate in their roles, reflecting his intolerance for persistent lack of effort and dedication.
4.1.1.1.2 To challenge the opponent (2 cases)
Another application of rhetorical questions was spotted in case 3.1.a
In the context of Tywin's rhetorical question, "You want Casterly Rock?", it serves as an implied threat rather than an expression of disbelief, given his son's history of irrational requests Tywin's intention to caution his son about pursuing the castle is evident, as effective warnings require clarity, a concept supported by Progovac (1993) Consequently, Tywin's approach in this scenario can be seen as a violation of conversational maxims.
In case 4.10, when Cersei vowed to take revenge on Tywin, he responded with curiosity, asking, “And how will you do that?” This reaction indicated that Tywin felt no fear in response to his daughter's threat; instead, he seemed intrigued by her revenge plan According to Schegloff (1966), WH-questions often reflect the speaker's interest in the topic at hand, suggesting that Tywin's demeanor was intended for Cersei to notice, highlighting his confidence and challenge towards her intentions.
Tywin boldly disregarded the maxim, conveying to Cersei that he was unafraid of her revenge plan and that she would ultimately face the consequences for challenging his authority.
4.1.1.1.3 To expose the listener (1 case)
Tywin's interrogation of Arya revealed her lies about her origins when he asked, “You are a northerner, aren’t you?” This question was not meant to elicit an answer but to highlight her previous deceptions Both Tywin and Arya were aware of her dishonesty, allowing Arya to understand the intent behind his inquiry This interaction exemplifies the flouting of conversational maxims, showcasing the underlying tension and mutual understanding between the characters.
4.1.1.2 Metaphors to emphasize the nature of Tywin’s superiority (1 case)
In the context of the conflict between House Stark and House Lannister, Tywin Lannister's remark, “The wolf rushes into the lions’ jaws, so be it,” highlights the perceived inevitability of Stark's defeat The direwolf, symbolizing House Stark, embodies intelligence and loyalty, while the lion, representing House Lannister, signifies bravery and dominance This metaphor reflects the common belief that lions, as the kings of the jungle, possess unparalleled power, suggesting that House Stark is fated to fall to the might of House Lannister The audience's familiarity with these sigils and their meanings allows for a clear understanding of the implied threat, illustrating a case of flouting the maxim in communication.
4.1.1.3 Contradictions to give emphasize the inferiority of the listener (1 case)
The application of contradictions by Tywin was located in case 3.10.:
“Anyone who must say he is a king is no true king I would make you understand that soon.”
In Game of Thrones, the King symbolizes the ultimate authority, leading to fierce conflicts among the Great Houses vying for the Iron Throne Tywin Lannister emphasizes that a true King must command genuine fear and respect from his subjects, highlighting the complex nature of power in the realm.
In this scenario, King Joffrey failed to command fear or respect from those around him, resorting to shouting “I am the King!” to assert his authority Tywin cleverly highlighted Joffrey's lack of real influence, suggesting that despite his title, he would one day learn the extent of his powerlessness The belief that a king embodies ultimate power made the idea of stripping Joffrey of that power inherently threatening.
In a private family meeting, Tywin Lannister held the highest authority, even above the King, who was his grandson This setting allowed him to communicate directly and without the need for excessive diplomacy, unlike his approach with Orlena Tyrell Tywin aimed to convey a strong threat to the King, emphasizing his dominance and disregarding conventional politeness, which exemplified a clear violation of social norms.
4.1.2 The flouting of maxim of RELATION
4.1.2.1 Presuppositions to emphasize his control over the listeners (4 cases)
In case 1.10., the current topic of the conversation involved the physical strength of 20.000 soldiers from the Stark army, so at first glance, the response
Tywin's declaration, "They have my son," was a strategic attempt to intimidate the opposing army into continuing their fight for his son's safety By emphasizing the word "my," Tywin aimed to invoke the fear and respect associated with his status as one of the continent's most powerful figures, underlining the belief that no one would dare to harm a Lannister.
32 flout the maxim in this case, in order to emphasize the importance of his position regarding the matter, as stated by Helm (1990)
In case 3.5.a., Cersei's belief that her title as Queen warranted more respect was challenged by Tywin, who emphasized the word "my" to assert his dominance and highlight her subordinate position This dynamic illustrated the power imbalance between them, as Tywin's control over Cersei was evident, aligning with Helm's (1990) analysis of authority in communication In case 3.5.b., Tywin's reference to "my children" further reinforced his authority, reminding them of their obligation to comply with his demands regardless of the situation.
In the tense exchange between Tywin and his son Tyrion, Tywin's statement, “The next whore I catch in your bed I will hang,” reveals a presupposition of a previous incident involving a prostitute, highlighting Tyrion's past disobedience This remark underscores Tywin's awareness of Tyrion's secret actions, indicating that he is always monitoring his son's behavior Through this threat, Tywin aims to assert control over Tyrion, urging him to cease his defiance not just regarding prostitutes, but in all matters of their relationship.
4.1.2.2 Association clues to reduce the agressiveness and test the initial reactions of the listener (2 cases)
After they finished exchanging greeting lines, Tywin told Oberyn: “I heard you studied poisons at Citadel” (case 4.3.a) and “Your hatred for my family is rather well known.” (case 4.3.b)
Rather than a more direct approach, for instance, “We believed you are the culprit”, Tywin instead chose to use association clues “poisons”, “your
Tywin strategically introduces the topic of his family's hatred to gauge Oberyn's initial reactions, as outlined by Brown & Levinson (1987) By assessing these responses, Tywin can determine his subsequent approach in conveying a sense of threat.
The violating of maxims
4.2.1 The violating of maxims of QUALITY, using rhetorical questions to make the listener lower her guard (3 cases)
In Season 2, Episode 6 of *Game of Thrones*, Tywin Lannister interrogates Arya Stark about her origins, starting with the seemingly casual question, “Where are you from?” to which Arya falsely responds, “Maidenpool.” Tywin follows up with two rhetorical questions, “Who are the Lords of Maidenpool? Remind me,” and “What are their sigils?” aimed at subtly pressuring Arya to reveal her true identity His use of “Remind me” is a tactic to make the interrogation feel less formal, suggesting he has forgotten the information while he actually knows the answers Arya remains unaware of Tywin's true intentions until he asks, “You are a northerner, aren’t you?” This final question reveals Tywin's manipulation, as he flouts conversational maxims to distract Arya and expose her background.
4.2.2 The violating of maxims of QUALITY, using rhetorical questions to sugarcoat the threat (1 case)
The last case could be found in case 3.6 Tywin asked Orlena: “So shall
Tywin's threatening demeanor towards Orlena is contrasted by his use of polite phrasing, asking, "Shall I or do you ?" This choice of words suggests an illusion of freedom, despite Orlena's lack of real options in the situation According to Schegloff, such questions can create a facade of choice, highlighting the power dynamics at play.
(1996) This could be explained by the fact that Tywin did not wish to ruin his entire relationship with her, since House Tyrell and House Lannister had to
In the face of dynastic battles, he sought to unify for survival, softening his threats and presenting himself as a friendly ally This attempt to sugarcoat his intentions can be viewed as a violation of communication maxims, as noted by Thomas (1995).
CONCLUSION – IMPLICATIONS - LIMITATIONS
Conclusion and implications
Tywin Lannister's implied threats were strategically designed to have immediate effects while preserving the dignity of his listeners Most of his interactions involved flouting the Cooperative Principle, particularly through violations of conversational maxims Notably, in his exchange with Arya Stark, Tywin initially breached the maxim to distract her and lower her defenses Conversely, during his conversation with Orlena Tyrell, he also violated the maxim but did so to soften his threats, presenting them as friendly negotiations to maintain a positive relationship.
The Maxim of Quality was the most frequently violated, with 10 cases, predominantly using rhetorical questions to convey anger and challenge opponents Following closely, the Maxim of Relation had 7 infringements, where presuppositions highlighted Tywin's dominance and association clues softened aggressive tactics, allowing for a strategic buildup before a direct confrontation The Maxim of Quantity ranked third, featuring overstatements to amplify threats and understatements to mitigate the harshness of the delivery Lastly, the Maxim of Manner had the fewest violations, with only 3 instances, including ambiguous language to evoke fear and a lengthy response to project Tywin's superiority over his counterpart.
Infringements often occur in conjunction with one another, amplifying their impact For example, Tywin Lannister strategically employed overstatements and rhetorical questions during a council meeting, while also using associative clues and understatements in his dialogue with Oberyn Martell Furthermore, he delivered extensive overstatements in response to his son's inquiry about Casterly Rock, showcasing the interconnectedness of these rhetorical strategies.
Limitations
The study's focus on a single individual limits its ability to draw broad conclusions about how conversational implicature is used to make threats, as there may be diverse methods employed by others beyond Tywin Lannister's approach To explore this phenomenon more comprehensively, future research should involve a larger sample size and a wider range of participants.
Bach, K (1999) The myth of conventional implicature Linguistics & Philosophy 22 (pp 327-366)
Bach, K (2006) Review of Christopher Potts, The logic of Conventional Implicatures Journal of Linguistics 42 (2), 490–495
Bach, K (2012) Saying, meaning and implicating In K Allan & K Jaszczolt (eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics Cambridge University
Brown, P., & Levinson, S (1987) Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Campbell, D.T (1965) Ethnocentric and Other Altruistic Motives
Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press
Carston, R (2005) A note on pragmatic principles of least effort UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, Vol 17 (pp 271–278)
Colebrook, C (2004) Irony London and New York: Routledge
Colston, H L & O’Brien, J (2000) Contrast and pragmatics in figurative language: Anything understatement can do, irony can do better
Croucher, S.M (2013) Integrated threat theory and acceptance of immigrant assimilation: an analysis of Muslim immigration in Western Europe Communication Monographs, 80, 46-62
Culpeper, J (2011) Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence
Davis, W (2005) Implicature In E N Zalta (ed.), The Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy Retrieved from
43 http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2005/entries/implicature/ (Original work published 2005)
Dynel, M (2008) There is Method in The Humorous Speaker’s Madness: Humour and Grice’s Model Lodz Papars in Pragmatics Special Issue on Humour 4(1), 159-185
Dynel, M (2013) Being cooperatively impolite: Grice’s model in the context of (im)politeness theories In I Kecskes & J.R Trillo (Eds) Research
Trends in Intercultural Pragmatics Mouton Series of Pragmatics (pp 55-83)
Dynel, M (2014) A survey of Intercultural Pragmatics and its outlook on the Gricean theory of communication International Review of Pragmatics
Fowler, H W (1983) A dictionary of modern English usage Oxford
Goldin, P R., Manber, T., Hakimi, S., Canli, T & Gross, J J (2009) Neural bases of social anxiety disorder: emotional reactivity and cognitive regulation during social and physical threat Arch Gen Psychiatry 66, (pp
Green, M S (1995) Quantity, volubility, and some varieties of discourse Linguistics and Philosophy, 18(1), (pp 83–112)
Green, N & Carberry, S (1992) Conversational Implicature in Indirect Replies Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics Newark, Delaware
Grice, H P (1975) Logic and Conversation In P Cole, & J L Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol 3, Speech Acts (pp 41-58) New
Gruenewald, T L., Kemeny, M E., Aziz, N., & Fahey, J L (2004) Acute threat to the social self: shame, social self-esteem, and cortisol activity
Guerzoni, E (2003) Why even ask? On the pragmatics of questions and the semantics of answers Cambridge, Mass
Haugh, M (2012) The Intuitive Basis of Implicature Pragmatics Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) Pragmatics, Vol 12, (pp 117–134)
Haugh, M (2014) Im/Politeness Implicatures Language Arts & Disciplines De Gruyter Mouton
Heim, I (1990) Presupposition Projection In R van der Sandt (Ed.),
Presupposition, Lexical Meaning and Discourse Processes University of
Hirschberg, J B (1985) A Theory of Scalar Implicature Ph.D thesis, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Penn
Horn, L (1984) Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q- based and R-based implicature In D Schiffrin (Ed.), Meaning, Form and Use in Context (GURT '84), (pp 11-42) Washington: Georgetown University
Horn, L (2010) Implicature Revisited: Problems and Prospects in Neo-Gricean Pragmatics Yale University
Horn, L R., & Ward, G L (2004) The handbook of pragmatics
Horwitz, A V., & Wakefield, J C (2012) All we have to fear: Psychiatry's transformation of natural anxieties into mental disorders Oxford University Press
Hu, S (2012) An Analysis of Humor in The Big Bang Theory from Pragmatic Perspective Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(6), 1185-
Huang, Y (2012) Relevance and neo-Gricean pragmatic principles In
H J Schmid (Ed.), Cognitive Pragmatics (pp 26-46) Mouton de Gruyter
Huang, Y (2014) Pragmatics Oxford Textbooks in Linguistics
Igwedibia, A (2017) Grice’s Conversational Implicature: A Pragmatics Analysis of Selected Poems of Audre Lorde International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 7(1), 120
Ivory, J (2013) Fantasy Genre, Violence and Aggression In In M S Eastin (Eds) Encyclopedia of Media Violence: One-Volume Set, (pp 153-
Jary, M (2013) Two types of implicatures: Material and behavioural
Kadmon, N (2001) Formal Pragmatics: Semantics, Pragmatics, Presupposition and Focus Oxford: Blackwell
Karttunen, L (1974) Presuppositions and linguistic context
Kedves, A (2013) Face Threatening Acts and Politeness Strategies in Summer School Application Calls Jezikoslovlje, Vol 14 No 2-3 (pp 431-
444) Retrieved from hrcak.srce.hr/file/165528 (Original work published
Khosravizadeh, P & Sadehvandi, N (2011) International Conference on Languages, Literature and Linguistics IPEDR, Vol.26 IACSIT Press,
Kovacevic, V., Spetic, M & Pleslic M (2018) Language as a social phenomenon in a global context: Implications for teaching practice New Trends and Issues Proceedings on Humanities and Social Sciences, Issue 3, (pp 173-
Kristiani & Eragiliati, E (2012) Main Characters’ Particularized Conversational Implicature in the Duchess Movie State University of Malang
Levinson, S, C (2000) Presumptive Meanings: The theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature Cambridge, MA and London: MIT
Levinson, S C (1983) Pragmatics Cambridge: Cambridge University
Levinson, S C (1987) Pragmatics and the grammar of anaphora
Markee, N (2000) Conversation Analysis Taylor & Francis Inc Meyerhoff, M (2006) Introducing Sociolinguistics Taylor & Francis
Norrick, N (2004) Hyperbole, extreme case formulations Journal of Pragmatics 36, (pp 1727-1739)
Potts, C (1996) Presupposition and Implicature In S Lappin & C Fox (Eds.), The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books (Original work published 1996)
Progovac, L (1993) Negativity polarity: Entailment and Binding
Ramadhan, P (2017) Presupposition on TV series “Game of Thrones” season 1 Diponegoro University
Rohde, H (2006) Rhetorical Questions as Redundant Interrogatives, San Diego Linguistics Papers 2, (pp 134-168) University of California, San Diego
Romadhona, I (2016) An Analysis of Conversational Implicature on Monster University Movie State Islamic University Syarif Hidayatullah
Rose, S., Spinks, N., & Canhoto, A I (2014) Management research - applying the principles London: Routledge
Schaller, G B., & Keane, R (1972) The Serengeti lion: A study of predator-prey relations University of Chicago Press
Schegloff, E A (1996) Turn organization: One direction for inquiry into grammar and interaction In Ochs, E., Schegloff, E A, & Thompson, S
A (Ed.), Interaction and grammar, (pp 52–133) Cambridge University Press
Sedivy, J (2007) Implicatures in real-time conversation: a view from language processing research Philos Compass 2, 475–496
Sperber, D & Wilson, D (1995) Relevance: Communication and Cognition Wiley-Blackwell
Taberski, D J (1998) A Gricean analysis of a situation comedy
Thomas, J (1995) Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics London/New York: Longman
Trosborg, A (1995) Interlanguage pragmatics Requests, complaints and apologies Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
Tsuda, S (1993) Indirectness in discourse: What does it do in conversation Intercultural Communication Studies, 3, 63–74
Verschueren, J (1999) Understanding Pragmatics London: Oxford
Walker, R (1975) Conversational Implicature In S Blackburn (ed.),
Meaning, Reference and Necessity Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
Walton, D N (1992) The Place of Emotion in Argument Penn State
Wọnke, M (2007) What is Said and What is Meant: Conversational Implicatures in Natural Conversations, Research Settings, Media, and Advertising In K Fiedler (Ed.), Frontiers of social psychology Social communication (p 223–255) Psychology Press
Wen, M & Chen, Y (2017) An Analysis of Self-mockery in Conversational Implicature Advances in Engineer research, 113 Atlantis Press
Whittock, T (1992) The role of metaphor in dance British Journal of Aesthetics, 32, 242–249
Yule, G (1996) Pragmatics Oxford: Oxford University Press
Season 1/Episode 8 1.8 An unnamed character warned Tywin about the armies of House Stark: “The Northmen, they have already crossed the neck”
Tywin: “The wolf rushes into the lion’s jaws, so be it.”
1.10 Tywin’s soldiers: “We can’t continue this battle, my Lord Robb Stark has 20.000 men that gained thousands of consecutive victories”
Tywin: “They Have My Son.”
Tywin’s soldiers: “They do, my Lord.”
In Season 2, Episode 3, Tywin Lannister learns about the defeat of his armies against House Stark, leading to a tense silence in the meeting He expresses his frustration, stating, "This is already our third loss Intolerable."
Tywin grabbed a soldier’s shirt and said: “They have 20.000 men I judged you might be good for something more than brutalizing peasants”
Season 2/Episode 4 2.4 The guards in Harrenhal had not tidied the courtyard to welcome Tywin, for they did not know he would return sooner than expected
When Tywin saw the mess on the courtyard, he asked: “What’s this?”
The guards responded “We… weren’t expecting
2.6.a Tywin was asking Arya about her backgrounds and family The first question was: “Girl, where are you from?”
2.6.b The second question was: “Who are the Lords of
2.6.c The third question was: “What are their sigils?”
2.6.d As Arya failed to answer previous questions,
Tywin asked “You are a northerner, aren’t you?”
Season 2/Episode 6 2.6.e Tywin Lannister believed (mistakenly) that the assassin sent to kill him belonged to Brotherhood, a group of misfits that rebelled against House Lannister
An unnamed character: “My Lord, please calm down.”
Tywin: “I will let you know what it means to choose the wrong side”
3.1.a Tyrion, a son that Tywin hated, asked his father to give him Casterly Rock, a valuable castle of their house
Tywin: “What do you want?”
Tyrion: “I want what is mine by right The day my older brother put on the white cloak, he gave up his claim to Casterly Rock I am your son and
Tywin: “You want Casterly Rock?”
3.1.b Tywin and his son Tyrion continued to discuss whether Tyrion could inherit Casterly Rock Tyrion: “It is mine, by right.”
Tywin expresses his disdain for the way his name and family colors are used, stating that while laws grant the right to bear his name, he feels humiliated by it He laments being forced to witness someone unworthy flaunting the proud lion sigil of his ancestors Despite this, Tywin asserts that neither divine nor human authority will ever persuade him to allow Casterly Rock to degrade into a brothel.
3.1.c After listening to Tywin’s response in 3.1.b.,
Tyrion stood up and walked out of the chamber Tywin called him back and said: “The next whore I catch in your bed I will hang”
3.5.a Tywin forced his daughter Cersei to marry Loras
Tyrell, who was much younger than her
Tywin: “You will marry Loras Tyrell and you will have his children.”
Cersei: “I am a Queen, not some broodmare.” Tywin: “You are MY daughter!”
3.5.b The situation continued from 3.5.a., Tywin told both his daughter and son to marry people that they didn’t love
Tywin: “You are my children, and you will do what I say That’s all, MY children.”
3.5.c Tywin’s son, Jaime, was missing
Tywin asked the council: “Do you know anything about my son?”
Tywin continued: “20.000 unwashed northerners have known about his escape for weeks Collectively, you control more spies and informants than the rest of the world combined
Do you mean to tell me that none of you has any notion of where he is?”
3.6 Orlena Tyrell, Head of House Tyrell, refused to marry her grandson Loras to Cersei, the daughter of Tywin Tywin told her that if the match between the two did not take place, he would choose Loras to be the Kingsguard Kingsguard was supposedly an honorable position for any noble man; however, taking the position meant one had to vow not to marry or bear children for the rest of his life
Orlena: “This wedding is impossible”
Orlena: “My grandson is the pride of Highgarden, the most desirable bachelor in all Seven Kingdoms Your daughter is…”
Tywin: “Rich The most beautiful woman in all
Seven Kingdoms, and the mother of the King.” Orlena: “Old.”
Orlena: “Old I’m something of an expert on the subject Cersei cannot give Loras children.”
Tywin questions whether uncertainty brings comfort, then asserts his power by stating that if Loras is not married to Cersei, he will appoint him to the Kingsguard, emphasizing the high stakes involved in the decision.
Orlena: “You would have your grandson (The King) protected by someone who disgusts you?”
Tywin expressed his desire to ensure his grandson's safety by appointing a dedicated and skilled warrior for protection He sought consent for naming Loras to the Kingsguard, emphasizing the importance of serious commitment to his vows.
Tywin took his pen out to prepare to write the order Orlena snatched the paper and teared it into half
3.10 In the family meeting, there were Tywin
Lannister, his children Tyrion and Cersei, and Cersei’s son Joffrey (The King)
Joffrey: “I’m going to serve it (the head of Sansa’s dead father) to Sansa.”
Tyrion: “No! She is no longer yours to torment.” Joffrey: “Everyone is mine to torment
Remember that you little monster.”
Tyrion: “Oh, a monster? Perhaps you should speak to me more softly then Monsters are dangerous and just know Kings are dying like flies.”
Joffrey: “I could have your tongue out for saying that.”
Cersei (to Joffrey): “Let him make his threats, hmm? He’s just a little bitter man.”
Joffrey: “I am The King! I will kill you”
Tywin: “Anyone who must say he is a king is no true king I would make you understand that soon.”
4.2 The marriage between Margaery (Orlena’s granddaughter) and Joffrey (Tywin’s son) was about to happen
Tywin: “It was a little bit too much (the money that Orlena spent on the wedding), wouldn’t you say?”
Orlena: “But it feels proportionate.”
Tywin: “All people who spend their money on this sort of nonsense will not have it for long” 4.3.a After they finished exchanging greeting lines,
“I heard you studied poisons at Citadel”
4.3.b Tywin told Oberyn “I heard you studied poisons at Citadels” (4.3.a.) and “Your hatred for my family is rather well known.” (4.3.b)
4.6 People were discussing the news they heard about Daenerys, Mother of Dragons She was rumored to attack the King’s Landing with her dragons
An unnamed character that supported Daenerys:
“The dragons would destroy everything in a matter of seconds.”
Tywin Lannister: “Dragons haven’t won a single war in 300 years Armies win them all the time.”
4.7 Tywin killed Robb Stark and his family in a wedding Robb Stark was called the King of the North, so his death made Northmen angry Tyrion, a son that Tywin hated, warned Tywin about the fury of Northmen
Tywin: “Do you disapprove? (of my method of killing the Starks)
Tyrion: “I’m all for cheating, this is war But to slaughter them in a wedding…”
Tywin: “Explain to me why it is more noble to kill 10.000 men in a battle than a dozen at a dinner?”