6 posts from April 2008

Peter is dumb. That's all I need to say to set up this FG quote.

Lois: It's geat they picked your theme, but isn't it a little esoteric?
Peter: Esoteric?
(Zoom in to the guys in Peter's brain)
Guy1: Could it mean sexy?
Guy2: I think it's a science term.
Guy3: Fellas, fellas! Esoteric means delicious!
(back to the real world)
Peter: Lois, "Who's the Boss" is not a food.
Brian: Swing and a miss.

This is Peter's attempt at figuring out the meaning of an unknown word by using context clues. Cruse writes a bit on this subject on pg. 41 of our textbook:
    "...an example of a contextual approach to meaning, because relative normality is a concept which applies only to combinations of elements; that is to say, it implies that meaning is to be studied by observing the interactions between elements and other elements, in larger constructions such as sentences...the normality profile of a linguistic item, that is to say its pattern of normality and abnormality across the full range of possible contexts, gives in some sense a picture of its meaning..."

Neither Peter nor his brain committee are good at judging the normality of  unknown words  or using context clues. But I guess I'm not either b/c I have no idea what esoteric means.

Here is an example of flouting the maxim of quantity. Diane, the reporter on the Quahog news network is introducing her co-worker who is doing a story in the field.

Diane: And now to Asian reporter Trisha Takanawa, who filed this report... all by herself!

The maxim of quantity is flouted by the addition "all by herself!" The tone is also important but we won't discuss it here. The last bit of Diane's statement is completely unnecessary in the introduction of Trisha Takanawa but she adds it to express something about the intelligence and professional ability of her co-worker. She deviated from the preferred (most efficient) utterance in order to encode more information in what she was saying.

Here is an example of violating the maxim of quantity. Lois had been trying to get Peter to go to the doctor and now she is inquiring about the scheduled visit.

Lois: Hi honey. How was your physical?
Peter: Good. Good. Good...yeah, yeah. Too good, in matter of fact. You know what the doctor said? Doctor said I was too healthy. You know? In too good of shape. Don't even know how. Too good of shape.
Lois: You didn't go to your physical, did you?
Peter: No. Ahm, I did not.

She knows he's full of it b/c he tried to give more details than she asked for. He did this not to enrich his communication but to lie. So he also violated the maxim of quality. If the listener is not meant to catch the flouting then it becomes a violation.

Family Guy example. All of my posts will be regarding FG and the analysis of funny quotes from the show. Anyway...

Lois: Brian, you're not wearing the sweater I made you.
Brian: Well, y'know, it's a little warm in here ...
Lois: Don we now our gay apparel!
Brian: It doesn't get much gayer than this.

Brian's response is not the preferred response so Brian must use more language to explain himself. He would've said more but Lois cut him off. Also "Well, y’know" is letting Lois know that he is about to flout the maxim of politeness  and relevance. He isn’t giving her the preferred response but he is making up for it by paying the penance (having to come up with an excuse). It should also be noted that "Brian, you're not wearing the sweater I made you" is a speech act. She is trying to get Brian to go put it on.

This excerpt is taken from Family Guy. The two characters talking are the reporters on the local news show. Tom says the first part of a well-known adjacency pair and when Diane responds with the normal answer he takes the opportunity to make fun of her. I suspect her answer was the expected one even though he acted as if it weren't. He's such an ass...

Tom Tucker: A bit of breaking news. A local family is forced out of their home by ghosts. Who are they gonna call?
Diane Simmons (sighs): Ghostbusters, Tom.
Tom Tucker: No, Diane. Their insurance company. That's just stupid what you said.”

Here is a very lengthy example of violating the maxim of relevance in a Family Guy episode. Peter goes in for a check up or something and while the doctor is telling Peter and Lois the results the doctor keeps bringing up irrelevant facts. Lois assumes he is telling them that Peter is ill. She is expecting the doctor to follow the rules of communication by staying on topic and not only that but by talking about what the listener (Lois and Peter) is interested in. Enjoy!
 

Doctor: My goodness, you'll be dead within a month.
Peter: What?
Doctor (revealing comic he was reading): Oh, Hagar the Horrible, if you keep up that lifestyle of pillaging and eating giant turkey legs, you'll be dead within a month. Now, onto you.
Peter: So, what do you think? Pretty healthy, eh?
Doctor: Well, Mr. Griffin, let's take a look at your physical results. Argh! There's a spider in here. Now, here we go. Mr Griffin, you're going to expire in a month.
Peter/Lois: Argh!
Doctor: This is your driver's licence, isn't it? Now, unfortunately, I'm afraid you're going to die...
Peter: Argh!
Doctor: ...when you watch these Dean Martin Celebrity Roasts.
Lois: Will you just tell us how Peter's health is?!
Doctor: Ah, Mr. Griffin, I'm not quite sure how to say this. Kim Bassinger? Bass singer? Bassinger? But now, onto the cancer.
Lois: Oh my goodness!
Doctor: You are a Cancer, right? You were born in July? Now onto these test results. My, they're much worse than I thought.
Peter/Lois: Oh!
Doctor: My son got a D minus on his history test. Now Mr Griffin, that liver's got to come out.
Lois: What?!
Doctor: It's been in the microwave for three minutes, it'll get dry. Now-
Lois: Please, please, we can't take any more schtick.. Please just tell us, is Peter healthy?
Doctor: Oh, yeah, he's fine, he's just really fat.

This doesn't have anything to do with our recent classes but I thought it was very intersting...Earlier today I was watching some clips on youtube about women's rights in Islamic countries. I came across this one and almost laughed not becasue it was funny but because it showed beautifully how semantics really plays a role in debate.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbOUbexeG40&feature=related

The part that begins at 1:05 is where it gets interesting. He is describing the rule that a husband and wife must submit to one another whenever they are requested to do so. He then begins talking about how the west doesn't feel the same and so rape is possible in the western societies but does not happen in their society. The same act is being commited but because in the west we call it rape it is rape. Therefore his real argument seems to be that if a society doesn't call it rape then it isn't rape. So the next time you want to do something illegal give the act you are about to commit a new name and you won't be commiting the act. Genious.