Pragmatic Analysis of the British TV Series Sherlock

ZHANG+Yi-ran

【Abstract】Most often， in communication， one delivers messages clearly and smoothly. However， there occur the occasions when this direct communication intentionally fails in order to generate an implicature for the hearers to digest. This case also extends to literary， film or TV works. The creators use clever languages to produce suspense or arouse curiosity. As classic theories in pragmatics， Cooperative Principle， Relevance Theory and later Levinsons Theory play significant roles in explaining why such phenomena appear in communication. This paper aims to figure out whether they explain the existences of non-observant scenarios in conversations by carrying out a case study on the lines from one most welcomed British TV series， Sherlock.

【Key words】Cooperative Principle； Relevance theory； Levinsons Theory

【摘 要】在理想會話中，說話人希望將信息清楚明了地傳達給對方。然而，在實際對話中，人們時常故意模糊話語。而此中含意（implicture），需聽者揣摩。這種語言上的技巧經(jīng)常被文學及影視作品借用，以此來制造懸念或喚起人們的好奇心。作為語用學中的經(jīng)典理論，合作原理，關聯(lián)理論以及萊文森理論為研究話語交流做出了巨大貢獻。本文借助上述三種理論，從語用角度分析一部廣受好評的英劇《神探夏洛克》。

【關鍵詞】合作原理；關聯(lián)理論；萊文森理論

1 Introduction

In pragmatics， Grice explained why naturally occurring data breaching the Cooperative Principle. This paper presented with an aim to explore whether the Principle still explain perfectly with the advent of modern theories： Relevance Theory and the more recent the prevailing Levinsons Theory. The first part of this paper covers the past literature review concerning the concept of implicature and the Cooperative Principles by Grice （1975）， the Relevance Theory （Sperber & Wilson， 1986） and Neo-Gricean theories advocated mainly by Horn （1984） and Levinson （2000）. Next， a detailed analysis is presented to demonstrate how the data， extracted from the TV Series Sherlock（2010） generate implicatures by not observing the maxims with supplement explanations via Relevance Theory and the Levinsons Theory， which Grices maxims could not cope with.

2 Literature Review

The first part of the literature review covers a brief introduction of Grice s Cooperative Principles， the derived four maxims， the ways of non-observant of the maxims and the concept of implicature. Next comes the Relevance Theory， which is on the other spectrum. The final part presents Neo-Gricean theories which are considered to be revised version of Grices theory.

2.1 The Cooperative Principles

Grice is considered to the founding father of conversational implicatures （1975）. As he put it ‘“A meant something by X” is roughly equivalent to “A uttered X with the intention of inducing a belief by means of the recognition of this intention” The “meaning” here， is a non-natural meaning which can be interpreted as “l(fā)iteral meaning plus implicature”. This is further spelled out by the Cooperative Principle. The latter is considered being the underlying principle that determines the way in which language is used with maximum effect to achieve rational interaction in communication. This overriding dictum is further supported by the four subdivided maxims quoted from Thomas （1995， p. 63-64）：

a）Maxim of Quantity： 1） Make you contribution as informative as is required for the current purpose of the exchange； 2） Do not make your contribution more informative than is required.

b）Maxim of Quality： 1） Do not say what you believe to be false； 2） Do not say that for which you lack evidence.

c）Maxim of Relation： Be relevant.

d）Maxim of Manner： 1） Avoid obscurity of expression； 2） Avoid ambiguity； 3） Be brief； 4） Be orderly.

Grice suggests that the speaker is best cooperative when his utterance is true and relevant and provide appropriate amount of information in an explicit manner. When one of the presented maxims is not confirmed， we do not assume that the speaker is not cooperative； in fact he is generating a conversational implicature via flouting the maxim. Moreover， we do not assume that this blatantly unfulfilling is nonsense. On the contrary， it is consider that an appropriate meaning is there to be inferred. In other words， when a maxim is flouted， the hearer is prompt to look for the implicature（Thomas， 1995， p. 65）.

Grice （1975） also mentions that there are two implicatures： one is Generalised implicature which requires little background knowledge to work out， the other is Particularized implicature which does require special background information to be understood by the hearer.

2.2 Relevance Theory

Another theory this study employs， developed based on the Gricean theory， is Relevance Theory proposed by Wilson & Sperber （1986）. Although Relevance Theorists abide by Grices Relevance Maxim， they cast doubt on the rest of the maxims and even the invention of the Cooperative Principle and the maxims （Cutting， 2008）. They argue that， the communication proceeds not because the speaker persistently to obey the maxims but what they seek for relevance is a basic common ground knowledge they both share. The most significant type of cognitive effect is a contextual implicature which is acknowledged as new information. The other forms of cognitive effects are confirming， strengthening or contradicting， weakening an existing assumption. When this cognitive process applied in the communicative aspect， an utterance or an act of inferential communication is “optimal relevant when on the one hand， achieves the greatest contextual effects and on the other hand， achieves for putting in the minimised efforts. Relevance Theory is considered an improvement compared to the Cooperative Principle because it values more the natural and flexible characters of language （Cutting， 2008， p. 41）.

2.3 Neo-Gricean Pragmatics

The last theory this study touches on is the Neo-Gricean pragmatics advocated by Horn（1984） and Levinson （2000）. Largely based on the Grices Cooperative Principle， Horn （1984） reduces the maxims to two： the Quality remained and Quantity， Relation and Manner merged into two principles： the Q[uantity] Principle： Make the information contributable； say as much as and as one can. The R[ation] Principle： make the contribution necessary； say no more than one must. In other words， the reductionist theory involves with maximising the R Principle and minimising the Q Principles. Levinsons theory （2000）， another Neo-Gricean theory， is comprised of three categories： （Q） Quantity， （I） Information and （M） Manner. Huang （2007， p. 41， 46， 50） simplified Levinsons theories as follows：

The Q-principle：

Speaker： do not say less than is required （bearing the I-principle in mind）.

Addressee： what is not said is not the case.

The I-principle：

Speaker： do not say more than is required（ bearing the I-principle in mind）

Addressee： what is generally said is stereotypically and specifically exemplified.

The M-principle：

Speaker： do not use a marked expression without reason.

Addressee： what is said in a mark way is not unmarked.

Because Levinsons theory， based on the Grices Cooperative Principle and revised Horns theory， makes the conversational implicature analysis easier to carry on， this analysis mainly carries out comparisons between Levinsons theory with Griceans theory.

3 The Analysis

3.1 Introduction of Sherlock （2010）

This is a qualitative study with the data extracted from a British TV series， Sherlock （2010）. Sherlock， the long being acclaimed London based “consulting detective” formed by Scottish fictionist and physician Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. He is famous for his strong logical deduction and forensic skills to solve extreme difficult cases. The Sherlock in the new series （2010） succeeds all the characteristics the original has： an arrogant and genius consulting detective who has been holding a desire to be proved as the cleverest among both the criminals and polices. Dr. John Watson， another main character， is an army doctor retired from warfare. He is considered to compromise everything that Sherlock has even his arrogant character. However， they do share one thing in common -- the wit. It is wit that binds them together and it is wit that makes the Doctor proved understand practically every utterance Sherlock puts. The new series was well received by the audience with the view rating ranking in several countries including China. It is believed that the wit embedded in language plays crucial part in wining the audience. Therefore， examples are extracted to see whether Grices theory can explain how and why such wits are achieved by not observing the principles. The indeterminate ones are further analysed with the Relevance Theory and Neo-Gricean theories， in particular Levinsons system to find the best possible explanations.

3.2 Case study

In Grices Cooperative Principle， the speaker is expected to contribute the true information as much and as accurate as he could with the shared conversation purpose in mind （Grice， 1975）. He then points out that several sub-maxims should be proposed with the goal to generate results from the Cooperative Principle as stated in the literature review. What comes along with the Cooperative Principle is the implicature. In daily conversation， there are numerous occasions when one does not obey one or more maxims which are considered， on large scale， to yield implicatures.

According to Grice （1975）， there are five ways of not observing the maxims and two of which are focus here. They are：

Flouting a maxim-one blatantly breaches a maxim carrying an implicature

Violating a maxim-one covertly breaches a maxim with a misleading or deceiving purpose

In the following part， several non-observant phenomena with examples in Sherlock are shown and explanations why such non-observance occur follow.

3.3 Flouting the maxims

Quality

Example 1

[When Sherlock and Dr. Watson were brought to the Buckingham Palace， they guessed who could probably have them there.]

a） Dr. Watson： Here to see the Queen？

b） Sherlock： Oh， apparently， yes.

c） Mycroft： Just once， can you two behave like grown-ups？

In example 1， Dr. Watson made a most reasonable deduction when in the highest land of a country， one is expected to see the highest person， and in Buckingham Palace， it would be the Queen. Sherlock answered “Oh， apparently， yes.” when they both saw Mycroft， Sherlocks brother， walked in and burst into laughter. In this case， Sherlock flouted the maxim of Quality in which he gave wrong information not to mislead but on the contrary， to humiliate his brother. Apparently， his brother cannot be a queen who by the nature should be a female sex. Besides， what the word “queen” embedded is someone who is flamboyant and acting like a girl. The implicature generated by flouting the maxim of Quality is well received by the three persons at the scene which lead to the dramatic laughter of Sherlock and Dr. Watson and the rebuttal by Mycroft in 1c）. Mycrofts argument is again a flouting of the maxim of Quality. True to the fact that Dr. Watson and his younger brother are grown-ups but by overlooking the fact and also the cooperative principle that it requires right information to communicate， he gave the opposite answer. By uttering this， Mycroft intended to insult Sherlock and Dr. Watson by the implicature： What they just did was childish， and they should behave maturely as adults.

Quantity

Example 2

[Sherlock and Dr. Watson were forced to go to some place they had no idea of and finally they were there which turned out to the Buckingham Palace. As a consultant detective， Sherlock insisted on his brother Mycroft to tell him straight who his client was and thats when Harry， the employee of the direct client came in.]

a） Sherlock： And my client is...？

b） Harry： Illustrious， in the extreme. And remaining， I have to inform you， entirely anonymous.

Harrys answer breaches the maxim of Quantity. When Sherlock asked who his client was， he expected an answer that contributes appropriate amount of information in a direct manner like “the client is whom.” However， out of expectation， Harry chose not to give a proper answer. Together with the qualifiers， “illustrious”， “in the extreme” and “anonymous”， the speaker aimed to imply that the client was too celebrated to be informed by the name. Although this answer did give Sherlock an opportunity to generate such implicature； he chose to ignore it， which gave rise to the following conversation.

Example 3

a） Sherlock： Who is my client？

b） Mycroft： Take a look at where youre standing， and make a deduction.

c） Mycroft： You are to be engaged by the highest in the land.

Sherlock insisted to know who exactly his client was by asking a direct question in 3a）， a much stronger request than 2a）. This time， Sherlock still did not get a satisfactory answer from Mycroft. What Mycroft said in 3b） can be viewed as a flout of the maxim of Relation because there is no direct association between “who ones client is” and “ones deduction”. 3c） is another case of flouting of the maxim of Quantity. “The highest in the land” is more or less equivalent to the one who was “illustrious in the extreme”. Still who the client was is concealed. This one can also be deemed as the speakers unwillingness to reveal the identity of the person talked about. The curious audience might suspect that the client was not really a significant matter or the one was too famous to be known in such occasion. In such a word puzzle， it successfully arouses suspense and the audiences curiosity.

Relation

Example 4

[Dr. Watson is typing another blog titled “Sherlock Holmes Baffled”.]

a） Sherlock： No， no， no， dont mention the unsolved ones.

b） Dr. Watson： People want to know youre human.

When Sherlock says in the example 4a） “Dont mention the unsolved case.” in fact he wants Dr. Watson to stop putting the unsolved case online. According to Speech Act Theory （Austin， 1962）， Sherlock utters 4a） （locution） with an expectation that Dr Watson would follow his request （illocution）. However， instead of doing what Sherlock demanded， the Doctor says 4b） in the way that flouts the maxim of Relation： What John informed is not relevant. Under such circumstance， Sherlock cleverly received the implicature that by unostentatiously bleaching the Maxim Dr. Watson implicates that his public image was almighty that there was no case would set him back， but by reading Dr. Watsons blog the public could get that the opinions previously held were wrong.

Manner

Example 5

a） Sherlock： Do people actually read your blog？

b） Dr. Watson： Where do you think our clients come from？

c） Sherlock： I have a website.

d） Dr. Watson： In which you enumerate 240 different types of tobacco ash.

e） Dr. Watson： Nobodys reading your website.

Example 5 is a case when flouting the maxim of Manner comes. When Sherlock asked the way in 5a）， in fact he wanted Dr. Watson to provide an accurate answer： “yes” or “no”. However， instead of giving an explicit answer， the doctor asked back in 5b）. It was Sherlock himself， in the detectives mind， who attracted clients to the consultancy out of either admiration or need after reading his own website Science of Deduction. The replies given by Dr. Watson in 5d） and e） failed Sherlocks expectation indirectly and then directly and produced a comic effect.

3.4 Violating the maxims

Quality

Example 6

[Dr. Watson is on a crime scene in place of Sherlock when they were talking about Sherlocks constantly talking habit.]

a） Dr. Watson： Do you just carry on talking when Im away？

b） Sherlock： I dont know， how often are you away？

Sherlocks utterance is a violation of the maxim of Quality. Under rare circumstances do people totally be oblivion of the environment especially one holds a desire to be informative. Here Sherlocks utterance “I dont know” in 6b） is therefore considered to be deceiving. Probably， he was trying to indicate that he did not know the doctor was away because he did not require a response when he kept talking or he just did not pay any attention to his partner. This latter implicature is more or less proved by Sherlocks supplement “how often are you away？”. This utterance yet could not possibly be explained by the Cooperative Principles because it obeys all the maxims but still generates implicatures either as he did not expect to communicate with the other speaker for most of the times he simply informed him whatever came across his mind or actually Sherlock knew his partner was not so often away which made Dr. Watsons initial utterance a violation of the maxim of Quality.

Example 7

[The two came to Irenes in searching of the compromising photos the client from the Buckingham Palace required. When asked， Irene deliberately turned the topic away to another case Sherlock was working on.]

a） Sherlock： I know the victim was a sportsman， recently returned from foreign travel

b） Sherlock： and that the photographs Im looking for are in this room.

c） Irene： OK， but how？

d） Sherlock： So they are in this room. Thank you.

The utterance in 7a） by Sherlock shows his marvellous talent. He comes to Irenes for the compromising photos she was taken with one of the Royal members. However， he was told that he would not be given the photos and then asked about one of the cases Sherlock was investigating. Sherlock explains his investigation together with a seemingly irrelevant sentence 7b）. Under this circumstance， Sherlock blatantly breaches the maxim of Relevance but this is not even the trigger of an implicature yet. In fact， this utterance is not true. Sherlock did not know the exact location of the photos. By uttering “I know that the photographs Im looking for are in this room” he holds a 50 to 50 chance that the photos might be in this room. Through this abruptly changing of topic he would expect a confirmed answer. In this way， Sherlock violated the maxim of Quality by saying something he lacked evidence with a purpose to mislead and this misleading function was further justified by his utterance in 7d）. In this case， breaching of two maxims collides with flouting the maxim of Relation.

Quantity

Example 8

[Dr. Watson keeps typing.]

a） Sherlock： What are you typing？

b） Dr. Watson： Blog.

c） Sherlock： About？

d） Dr. Watson： Us.

e） Sherlock： You mean me.

The dialogues in example 8 are a case when the speaker secretly hid certain information from the hearer. From 8a） to 8d）， each time when Sherlock tried to ask a question on the typing thing， Dr. Watson intentionally gave unsatisfactory reply. What Dr. Watson provided， was in fact the true information relevant to Sherlocks question and not in an ambiguous way， which is an observance of the maxims of Quality， Relation as well as Manner. What Dr. Watson failed to observe is the maxim of Quantity. In other words， in his utterances both in 8b） and 8d） he did not give sufficient information for the hearer. However， the shared background knowledge， Sherlock did know Dr. Watson owned a blog keeping tracks of every case they worked on， makes the seemingly misleading conversation could continue.

Relation

Example 9

[Sherlock and Irene were fighting against the broken-in Americans and then Sherlock looked at the opened safe.]

a） Sherlock： Do you mind？

b） Irene： Not at all.

Sherlock asked if Irene minded that he took whats inside the safe out. However， Irene misunderstood that the man was asking about the feelings of him observing her measurement early on which later proved to be the code to the safe. Irenes answer was misleading to the Americans and even the viewers but highly relevant to the question. In this case， there is no implicature although Sherlocks asking does violate the maxim of Manner if in full it would be “Do you mind if I…”. Nonetheless， he avoided some of the information in order to get what he perceived to be the satisfactory answer.

Manner

Example 10

[Harry and Mycroft were describing the case to Sherlock in Buckingham Palace.]

a） Harry： My employer has a problem.

b） Mycroft： A matter has come to light of an extremely delicate and potentially criminal nature， and in this hour of need， dear brother， your name has arisen.

In example 10， Harry vaguely referred the case as a “problem”. And without more detailed information， one cannot deduce how severe the problem was. This utterance violates the maxim of Manner in which he failed to give accurate answer. Mycroft， thereupon supplemented by uttering 10b）. If Harrys misleadingness was unintentional， Mycrofts one was deliberate. First， Mycrofts talk was so deceiving that he used such ambiguous words like “extremely” and “potentially”. One can hardly define the degree of “extreme” and “potential”， which may confuse a detective. For one thing， one may be concerned whether it was a crime and for another the matter was really severe （which in fact might not be）. Mycroft used this ambiguous or even misleading utterance to lure his brother to take the case for his well understanding of Sherlocks curious character.

The above discussed how Cooperative Principle and its subdivided four maxims cope with the data in the TV series Sherlock （2010）. It can be seen that， Grice theory can explain most the problems that occur yet there are unsolved ones such as the reasons for generating particular implicatures and the obscured boundaries of each maxim. Next comes a brief discussion about the Relevance Theory and the Neo-Gricean theories with a perspective to witness whether they are in supportive to the Cooperative Principle.

3.5 Relevance Theory

What Relevance Theory contributes to the daily conservation is that it pays more attention to the ambiguity and the flexibility which are the very nature of language. It does not provide fixed maxims for speakers to follow but the reasons why people behave in that way. Wilson and Sperber （1986） argue that communication is possible not because the interlocutors seek to obey certain maxim but based on a particular relevance， a common feature of human cognition. They also point out that an utterance is optimally relevant if and only of that on the one hand， it is relevant enough to worth an audiences attention and on the other hand， it achieves the most adequate contextual effects. In this way， the four maxims proposed by Grice can be replaced by one： the principle of Relevance. Relevance Theory can explain some phenomenon easier what Grices theory almost fails to. The following example is served as an evidence.

Example 11

a） Inspector： Dr Watson？

b） Dr. Watson： Yeah.

c） Inspector： Its for you.

d） Dr. Watson： OK， thanks.

e） Inspector： No， sir， the helicopter.

This conversation took place when Dr. Watson was on a crime scene for Sherlock when suddenly they lost contact through Internet. At the same time， an inspector came to Dr. Watson with a phone call still on. A humorous effect， if examined via the Relevance Theory， was caused by the contrast between the largest relevance and the optimal relevance. The largest relevance is the effect based on the greatest contextual effects and the smallest processing efforts. However， the optimal relevance is the one that is compatible with communicators abilities and preferences together with the audiences minimum processing efforts. In the example 11， the utterance by the Inspector “its for you.” meant “a helicopter is for you”. Dr. Watson misunderstood that the phone call in process was for him. The doctor had such reaction because he saw the Inspector was engaged by a call， the most influential context， so he spared his least efforts to work out “ it” in “ its for you.” meant the phone. He then was proved wrong by the Inspectors utterance： “no， sir. The helicopter.” with the approaching sound of a helicopter. Following the doctors deduction process from the largest relevance to the optimal relevance， as soon as the optimal relevance is revealed， the viewers immediately sense the humour. This example can also be interpreted as a violation of Manner maxim as the Inspector gave misleading information by uttering ambiguously it in 10c）. If examined in cognitive deduction， the reference of it here is obvious because our mind tends to combine what is saying with what is doing， especially when the utterance involves an act. Therefore， in this case， the humorous effect best be analysed using the Relevance Theory.

3.6 The Levinsons System

One contribution Levinsons System makes is that it pays equivalent attention to both Particularized implicatures as well as Generalized implicatures compared to Grices mainly focus on the Particularized ones. In Levinsons three principles， the first two Q-principle and I-principle which restrict each other and can be examined through the semantic aspect while the Manner-principle which is more or less similar to Grices Manner maxim and Wilson & Sperbers Relevance Theory relies on cognitive aspect as well as the contextual effect. As a supplement to the Grices theory， this paper only touches its application to generate a Generalized implicature which do not need background.

Here is one example also from the TV series talked.

Example 12

a） Sherlock： I was in the middle of a case， Mycroft.

b） Mycroft： What， the hiker and the backfire？ I glanced at the police report.

c） Mycroft： A bit obvious， surely？

d） Sherlock： Transparent.

This case accords with the Q-principle. In dialogues， Sherlock and Mycroft were talking about “the hiker and the backfire” case. Mycroft intended to let Sherlock to attend to the case he was about to mention by putting forward that he had already known the fact and Sherlock confirmed his idea by uttering “transparent”. “Transparent” is semantically stronger than “obvious”. Here， Mycroft opted for the semantically weaker “obvious” casting doubt that Mycroft might lack confidence to say the case was exactly what he thought to be because he gave out a hint that he merely glanced at the police report. What Sherlock did thereafter was to back up his implicature by using what Mycroft did not entailed， the semantically stronger “transparent”.

4 Conclusion

The aim of this study is to show whether the Cooperative Principles and the four maxims proposed by Grice are key roles to generate implicatures by using the non-observant data from the series， Sherlock. From what has been discussed above， the conclusion can be drawn that Grices theory does work out most of the implicatures and give most of satisfactory explanations. However it functions， the Grices theory gives too much focus on the hearers and makes the flexible conversations rigid by preparing the principle speaker should obey. In addition， sometimes， it is difficult to distinguish which maxim speakers breach. The problems are revised by the Relevance Theory in which both cognition and context-based activity are considered. This makes the explanation of why speakers generate implicatures clearer and more convincible. The main contribution Levinsons Theory makes to the Grices Cooperative Principle is the supplement of the generalized implicatures which makes Grices theory more applicable in various fields. To sum up， the Gricean Cooperative principles are still most feasible in analysing the implicatutres in daily conversations with Relevence Theory as well as the Neo-Griceans pragmatics serve as supplementary roles. It should also be pointed out that it is not an exhaustive comparison on the three theories. On the one hand， it is a detailed case study with the data exacted mainly from one TV series， and the corpus should be further expanded. On the other hand， it focuses on the non-observant phenomena of the maxims of the Cooperative Principles， the rest， for instance， the Levinsons Theory， this paper only mentioned two principles. Researchers may continue to explore other aspects of Levinsons Theory.

【References】

[1]Austin， J. L.. How to do things with words. Cambridge[J]. MA： Harvard University Press，1962.

[2]Grice， H.P.. Logic and conversation. In P. Cole（Ed.）Syntax and Semantics 3： Speech Acts[J]. New York： Academic Press，1975：41-58.

[3]Cutting， J.. Pragmatics and Discourse： A resource book for students. 2nd edution. London & New York： Routledge，2008.

[4]Horn， R.. Towards a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference： Q-based and R-based implicature. In D. Schiffrin（ed.）， Meaning， form， and the use in context： linguistic applications[J]. Washington， DC： Georgetown University Press，1984：11-42.

[5]Huang， Y.. Pragmatics[J]. Oxford： Oxford University Press，2007.

[6]Levinson，C.. Presumptive meanings： the theory of generalized conversational implicature[J]. Cambridge， MA： MIT Press，2000.

[7]Sperber，D.，&Wilson，D.. Relevance： communication and cognition[J]. Oxford： Blackwell，1986.

[8]Thomas，J..Meaning in interaction： an introduction to Pragmatics[J]. London： Longman，1995.

[責任編輯：王偉平]