Talk is a verbal interaction between people and is thus, according to Gardner
(2008), "co-constructed by listeners and speakers" (p. 263); consequently,
it needs the cooperation of at least two people. Thus, the unnatural or
unconventional conversational behaviour of one of the speakers might interfere
with the conversation itself, resulting in a frustration on the part of the other
participant(s). This is what is used as a comic element in a contemporary
sitcom, namely The Big Bang Theory. This
essay is going to analyse a conversation - transcription provided in the Appendix
- that perfectly represents the frustration repeatedly generated by the producers
between the two characters in question, Penny (frustrated) and Sheldon
(frustrating), using the following methods: the violation of the maxim of
Manner for co-operative communication; the use of an odd mixture of elements of
both institutional and everyday talk; and the linguistic, but only linguistic validity
of the command in the conversation. The aim of the essay is to prove that the lack
of traditional behaviour in everyday conversation results either in frustration
or amusement, depending on the position one takes.
Firstly, the part of the
conversation produced by Sheldon violates the Gricean Cooperative Principle
necessary for cooperative talk. Out of the four maxims of the Cooperative
Principle (Quantity, Quality, Relation, Manner) only one needs to be taken into
consideration, namely Manner. This is the only maxim which relates to how something is said, instead of the
content, and is the most useful for this analysis. The maxim of Manner states
that in order to fulfil the cooperative principle, the speaker has to "avoid
obscurity of expression, avoid ambiguity, be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity),
be orderly" (Grice, 1975, p. 46). The main problem with the utterances of
Sheldon is obscurity and prolixity. His speech is sometimes difficult to
understand or follow, mainly because it is larded with thoughts that are expressed
in a difficult way in terms of vocabulary and that contain redundant words or
half-sentences as well, resulting in the other problem, prolixity. For
instance, the following sentences could have been expressed without any kind of
scientific vocabulary and with fewer words, as well:
You say that now, but
consider the following scenario. You're sitting in your apartment, it's late,
you're alone. Your hypothalamus is swimming in a soup of oestrogen and
progesterone and suddenly even Leonard seems like a viable sexual candidate. Or
a, uh, "hookup", as it's referred to by today's urban youth. (Sheldon)
Besides, this
quoted section could have been merged with the following request, which again
contains some redundant formal words: "Now, should that happen, I would
ask you to find some way to suppress your libido" (Sheldon).
This observation, that is the
presence of redundant formal words, leads to the second method which causes the
frustration in this conversation. It is the existence of elements of
institutional talk, which are in this case obviously misused, because the
conversation in question is an everyday one.
According to Gardner (2008), institutional talk is "the means by
which practical tasks and activities are performed in pursuit of organizational
goals" (p. 277) or institutional goals, characterised by a particular
choice of vocabulary and grammatical forms. Obviously, the institutional
setting will require a more formal way of speaking, including "the
specialist vocabulary of a specialist field" (Gardner, 2008, p. 278),
which Sheldon perfectly applies in this conversation, including the following
examples: rather formal grammatical forms such as "I’m given to understand
that..." or "Now, should that happen, I would ask you to...";
and the use of words or phrases such as "sharing in the triumph", "it’s
more palatable to preface it with" or "viable sexual candidate".
The problem is, however, that this is an everyday conversation, which is no
place for such institutional elements; consequently, when Sheldon is trying to
achieve his "institutional goal" (that is for Penny to "suppress
her libido") by means of institutional talk, it causes noticeable
frustration in the listener who is trying to participate in an everyday
conversation.
On the other hand, Sheldon attempts
to make the conversation more comfortable for Penny by using colloquial
linguistic forms (e.g. "What is shaking?", "S’up?", "Peace
out!") or non-verbal signs (e.g. after "Peace out!", he beats
his chest with his fist and then shows a peace sign with his fingers).
Nevertheless, this forced use of everyday talk elements, mixed up with the
elements of institutional talk (that is, the natural way of speaking for
Sheldon) only makes Penny feel more ill at ease in the situation.
Lastly, this mentioned "institutional
goal", which Sheldon is trying to achieve, can be interpreted as a request
for action, that is a command. Interestingly, in this respect, he does not
misuse any elements of speech, but he forms his speech completely obeying
Labov’s rules of forming a valid command, which is the following:
If A requests B to perform
an action X at a time T, A’s utterance will be heard as a valid command only of
the following conditions hold: B believes that A believes that 1) X should be
done for a purpose Y. 2) B has the ability to do X. 3) B has the obligation to
do X. 4) A has the right to tell B to do X. (Burton, 1981, p. 71).
In this
case, all the conditions hold, because Penny (B) is certain about Sheldon (A) believing
all the following things: the event of Penny "suppressing her libido"
(X) should be done for Sheldon to be happy (Y), Penny has both the ability and
the obligation to do so, and also, that Sheldon has the right to tell her what
to do in this situation. It means, that when Sheldon says "Now, should
that happen, I would ask you to find some way to suppress your libido", it
can be interpreted, linguistically, as a valid command, that is in this case
Sheldon obeys all the rules given; however, this orderly behaviour also results
in irritation, because although Sheldon believes that he has the right to tell
Penny what to do, it is not the case (the reply, "I could think about you",
makes it clear, when Penny is not showing co-operation but is making a joke and
an offence – which is by the way, misinterpreted by Sheldon as a plausible idea
for the method of reaching the set goal, that is, as co-operation).
In conclusion, the inappropriate
command of Sheldon with its prolixity and misused conversational elements, results
in a rather frustrating situation for Penny and an amusing one for the
audience. Apparently, improper or unconventional conversational behaviour is
fairly comical, at least as long as one is not the "victim" of it.
references
Burton, D.
(1981). Analysing spoken discourse. In M. Coulthard & M. Montgomery (Eds.),
Studies in discourse analysis (pp.
61-81). London, UK: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.
Grice, H.P.
(1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, Vol 3. (pp.
41-58). New York: Academic Press.
Gardner, R.
(2008) Conversation Analysis. In A. Davies & C. Elder (Eds.), The handbook of applied linguistics (pp.
262-281). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
doi: 10.1002/9780470757000.ch10
Molaro, S. (Writer), & Cendrowski, M. (Director).
(2009). The white asparagus triangulation [Television series episode]. In C.
Lorre & B. Prady (Producer), The big bang theory. Burbank, CA:
Warner Bros. Studios.
Appendix
Transcription of the conversation between Penny and
Sheldon, from The Big Bang Theory; Season 2, Episode 9; 00:00-02:45)
Sheldon Penny, hello.
Penny Hey, Sheldon.
Sheldon What is shaking?
Penny I'm sorry?
Sheldon It's
colloquial, a conversation opener. So, do you find the weather satisfying? Are you currently sharing in the triumph
of some local sports team?
Penny What's wrong with you?
You’re freaking me out.
Sheldon I'm striking up a casual
conversation with you...S'up?
Penny Please don't do that.
Sheldon All
right, but I'm given to understand that when you have something awkward to discuss with someone, it's more palatable
to preface it with banal chit chat.
Penny So, this wasn't the awkward part?
Sheldon No.
Penny Oh, all right...S'up?
Sheldon Oh, good, I used that right. Anyway,
you're aware that Leonard has entered into a new romantic relationship which
includes a sexual component?
Penny Okay, feeling the awkward now.
Sheldon Her name is dr. Stephanie Barnett and she
is a highly distinguished surgical resident at Freemont Memorial.
Penny Yeah, Leonard told me.
Sheldon Good. What he may have left out is how
important this relationship is to me.
Penny To you?
Sheldon Yes, see, of the handful of women
Leonard’s been involved with, she's the only one I have ever found tolerable.
Penny Well, what about me?
Sheldon The statement stands for itself.
Penny Well, aren't you sweet?
Sheldon Anyway, should you have any interaction
with her, it would be most helpful that she not see you as a sexual rival.
Penny Yeah, I think she's pretty safe.
Sheldon You say that now, but consider the
following scenario. You're sitting in your apartment, it's late, you're alone. Your
hypothalamus is swimming in a soup of oestrogen and progesterone and suddenly
even Leonard seems like a viable sexual candidate. Or a, uh, "hookup",
as it's referred to by today's urban youth.
Penny Really?
Sheldon Yes. Now, should that happen, I would ask
you to find some way to suppress your libido.
Penny I could think about you.
Sheldon Fine, whatever works.
Penny Always nice talking to you, Sheldon.
Sheldon Uh, peace out! (Beating his chest with his fist and then showing a peace
sign with his fingers)
No comments:
Post a Comment