Conversational implicature and The Dumb Waiter
Task C - Our answer
When Ben tells Gus in turn 3 to 'Go and light it' he is being conversationally
efficient in his adherence to the maxim if quantity. His use of the pronoun
'it' is perfectly clear in context, and Gus should be able to interpret
Ben's conversational intent without difficulty. So when Gus asks, via
an echo question, for the reference of 'it' to be specified, it would
appear that he is being uncooperative and obstructive.
When Ben says 'light the kettle' in turn 5 he is using a common idiomatic
expression at the time (1960) the play was first performed (in this era
the use of electric kettles was not common in Britain and most people
heated the water to make tea on gas stoves). 'Light the kettle' is elliptical
('light [the gas under] the kettle') and Ben's understanding of this fact
is made clear a little later, in turns 13 and 15, when he refers to 'light
the kettle' as a 'figure of speech' and 'common usage'.
So when Gus says 'you mean the gas' in turn 6, he is flouting the maxim
of quantity by telling Ben something he clearly already knows. Effectively
he spells out what Grice calls a CONVENTIONAL IMPLICATURE. Gus's conversational
behaviour indicates that he is being obstructive and challenging (though
it is not at all clear why - Perhaps because he is not very bright? Perhaps
because he just wants to be awkward?).
When Ben says 'If I say go and light the kettle I mean go and light the
kettle' in turn 11 he flouts the maxim of quality, as it is clear that
if he says 'light the kettle' he does not mean 'light the kettle' but
'light [the gas under] the kettle', and this implicates that Ben wants
Gus to do as he is told (and so act in line with Ben's assumptions about
his status in relation to Gus).
However, when Gus asks 'How can you light a kettle?' in turn 12 he is
abiding over-demonstrably by the maxim of quality. You can't literally
light a kettle because it is made of material which is not combustible
under normal circumstances, but it is difficult to believe that Gus is
not aware of the conventional implicature which Ben used in turn 5 (this
is why what Gus says seems pedantic). Gus's pedantry opposes the characterisation
Ben has just produced, thus indicating his conversational challenge. It
is just about possible that Gus is not aware of the idiomatic expression
he is challenging, and so is not actually violating the Gricean maxims.
But this seems difficult to believe.
Ben flouts the maxim if quantity in turn 13, by repeating 'It's a figure
of speech!', implicating his exasperation at Gus's behaviour, but Gus
denies this in 14, violating the quality maxim. The fact that Ben then
breaks the quantity maxim in 15 by repeating the contentious expression
and his 'figure of speech' characterisation of it, if in different words,
reinforces his exasperation, and it is clear that at the author-audience
level, Pinter is implicating that the two assassins are completely, and
ludicrously, at odds with one another over this trivial issue of phrasing.
|
