A Pragmatic Study of Impoliteness Implicatures and the Conversational Maxims in Selected English Political Interviews

Abstract

This study is conducted to investigate the interference of employing impoliteness strategies and breaking Grice’s maxims in political interviews of Bernie Sandars and Alexander Boris Johnson. The study aims to determine the influence power on types and number of employing impoliteness strategies in relation to violating Grice’s maxims and the reason behind employing specific impoliteness strategies by politicians and presenters. The study hypothesizes that 1) power influences the types and number of employing impoliteness strategies and violating Grice’s maxims, 2) politicians employ certain impoliteness strategies more than presenters do for specific political purposes, and 3) such employment is tightly connected with the violation of particular maxims. The selected data is analyzed under an eclectic model based on Culpeper’s (1996) and Grice’s (1979) theories. The results of the study show that power significantly influences the use of impoliteness strategies and adheres to conversational maxims by politicians. Politicians have exhibited a greater tendency to employ impoliteness strategies than presenters in both sets of interviews. Politicians show a greater tendency to use the negative impoliteness strategy than presenters do. This strategy is recognized as one that requires a significant degree of power to be effectively implemented. The reason behind employing specific impoliteness strategies and floating particular conversational maxims by politicians more than presenters is to carry out political goals.