Face Management, Common Ground and Intention in Nigerian Pidgin Health Talk

Alege Tosin Caroline

doi:doi:10.11648/j.cls.20180402.15

| Peer-Reviewed

Face Management, Common Ground and Intention in Nigerian Pidgin Health Talk

Alege Tosin Caroline

Published in Communication and Linguistics Studies (Volume 4, Issue 2)

Received: 14 June 2018 Accepted: 30 July 2018 Published: 24 August 2018

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

The cognitive and the interactional paradigm clash engendered the current study as it undertakes a reassessment of the cognitive and the socio-cultural paradigms to meaning explication through a re-examination of face management, common ground, and by extension, intention, in the success of the communicative venture. To accomplish this, it addresses itself to such objectives as: to establish the extent of the dependence of face management and overall success in communication on common ground of participants, it seeks to know whether communicative intention is ipsofacto or post facto (emergent), and whether implicature is derived conventionally or collaboratively rather than from inferences about speaker’s intention. The analysis applied the operational schema of face, intention and common ground postulated in the work to empirical data of the Nigerian pidgin radio discourse ‘The World of Herbs’ of the Edo State Broadcasting Corporation, to evolve valid conclusion on aspects of the inquiry. The findings indicate that common ground (items of information existing in memory or the physical environment) served as an invaluable resource in discourse in aspects of the shared pidgin code, mutual knowledge of topical issue, and access to comprehension through lucidity of expression characteristic of the radio discourse. As regards communicative intention, the analysis indicates that it may be perceived as both a priori and post facto in datum, while intention is recovered via implicature as product of intentionality and conventionality. Intentions are mostly displayed or co-jointly constructed (post facto), especially in cases of normative or moral accountability. Overall, implicature is demonstrated as not derived from inferences about speaker’s intention but through projective and retroactive inferencing. This leads us to the conclusion that the derivation of implicature in interaction is a matter of intentionality and conventionality, while common ground remains an adjustable, co-constructed construct in communication subject to participants’ assessment of the contextual factors involved.

Published in	Communication and Linguistics Studies (Volume 4, Issue 2)
DOI	10.11648/j.cls.20180402.15
Page(s)	54-64
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2018. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Cognitivism, Interactionalism, Face Management, Common Ground, Intention, Implicature, Inference

References

[1]	Adegbija, E. E. (1989). A comparative study of politeness phenomenon in English Language in Nigeria. ITL Review of Applied Linguistic Vol. 76, 43-62.
[2]	Friedrich, U. & Hans-jorg S. (2013). An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. 2^nd Ed. London: Routledge.
[3]	Rundquist, S. (1992). In directness: A gender study of flouting Grice’s maxims. Journal of pragmatics. 18(5) 431-49
[4]	Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in interaction: An introduction to Pragmatics. England: Longman.
[5]	Brown, P. & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in language Usage. Cambridge: University Press.
[6]	Arundale, R. B. (1999). An alternative model and Ideology of Communication for an alternative to politeness theory. Pragmatics9:119-153. International Pragmatics Association.
[7]	Davis, W.(2007). How normative is implicature. Journal of Pragmatics. 39:1655-1672.
[8]	Arundale R. B. (2005). Pragmatics, conversational implicative, and conversation in K. Fitch and R. Sanders (Eds) Handbook of Language and Social Interaction. Mahwah, N. J.
[9]	Leech, G.& Short, M. H. (1981). Style in fiction. London and New York: Longman.
[10]	Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[11]	Cooper, D. E.(1973). Philosophy and the nature of language. London: Longman.
[12]	Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and Conversation. In Cole and Morgan (Eds), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3 Speect acts, New York: Academic Press.
[13]	Bach, K. &Harnish, R. M. (1979). Linguistic communication and speech acts. Massachusetts and London: MIT Press Cambridge.
[14]	Babatunde, S. T. (1997). Axes to the roots: A lexico-semantic analysis of TundeOlusunle’s Fingermarks. In R. A. Lawal (Ed) Stylitics in theory and practice. Ilorin: Paragon Books.
[15]	Brown, P. & Levinson, S. C. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In Goody, E. N. Questions and Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[16]	Arundale R. B. (2006) Face as relational and interactional: acommunication framework for research on face, facework and politeness. Journal of Politeness Research 2:193-216.
[17]	Haugh M. C. (2014). Intention in pragmatics. Introduction to special issue of intercultural pragmatics.
[18]	Arundale R. B. (2017) Individually and socially-based understandings in researching professional discourse. Journal of Modern Languages [S.I.], V. 23, n.1, p.n.1, p.1-12.
[19]	Assimakopoulo, S. (2008). Intention, common ground and the availability of semantic Content: A relevance theoretical approach. In I. Kecskes and J. Mey (Eds) intention, common ground and Egocentric Speaker-hearer (pp. 105-126). New York: Mouton de Gruyter
[20]	Bilmes, J. (1986). Discourse and behaviour. New York: Plenum Press.
[21]	Clark, H. H. (1996). Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[22]	Bar, P. & B. Keysan (2005). Making sense of how we make sense. The Paradox of egocentrism in Language use. In H. Colston and A. Katz (Eds) Figurative language comprehension: Social and cultural influences.21-41 Hilsdale, NJ: Eribaum.
[23]	Colston, H. L. (2005). On Sociocultural and nonliteral: A synopsis and a prophesy. In H. L. Colson and A. Katz (Eds) Figurative Language comprehension. 1-20 Hillsdale, N. J.: Erlbaum.
[24]	Fodor, J. A. (1998). Concepts. Where cognitive science went wrong. New York: oxford University Press.
[25]	Colston, H. L. (2008). A new look at common ground: memory, egocentrism and joint meaning in I, Kecskes and J. Mey (Eds)Intention, common ground and the egocentric speaker-hearer. (151-188) New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
[26]	Kecskes, I, &Mey J. (2008)Introduction. In I kecskes and J Mey (Eds)Intention, common ground and the egocentric speaker-hearer (pp. 1-3). New York: Moutonde Gruyter.
[27]	Babawarun, T. C. (2014). Face management and Intention in Nigerian pidgin radio discourse (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Ilorin, Ilorin.
[28]	Duranti, A. (2006). The social onthology of intentions. Discourse Studies. 8:31-40
[29]	Sperber, D.& Wilson D. (2005). Pragmatics. In F Jackson and M Smith (Eds) The Oxford Handbook of Contemporary Philosophy. Oxford university Press.
[30]	Cappelen, H &Lepore, E. (2005)Insensitive semantics. A defense of semantic minimalism and speech act. Pluralism. Malden: Black Well.
[31]	Carston, R. (2002) Thoughts and utterances. Oxford: Blackwell.
[32]	Arundale R. B (2012) On understandings of communication: A response to Wedgewood. Intercultural pragmatics. 9,137-159.
[33]	Schegloff, E (1996). Confirming allusions: Towards an empirical account of account of action. American Journal of Sociology 102:161-216.
[34]	Arundale R. B.& Good D (2002). Boundaries and sequences in studying conversation. In A. Fetzer & C Merekord (Elds) rethinking sequentiality. Linguisticsmeets conversationalInteraction. Amsterdan: John Benjamins 121-150.
[35]	Duranti, A. (2000). Intentionality. In Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 9 (1-2): 134-136. American Anthropological Association.
[36]	Haugh, M. C. (2008). The place of intention in the interactional achievement of implicature in I. Kecskes and J. Mey (Eds) Intention, common ground and the egocentric speaker-hearer(pp. 45-86) New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Alege Tosin Caroline. (2018). Face Management, Common Ground and Intention in Nigerian Pidgin Health Talk. Communication and Linguistics Studies, 4(2), 54-64. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.cls.20180402.15

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Alege Tosin Caroline. Face Management, Common Ground and Intention in Nigerian Pidgin Health Talk. Commun. Linguist. Stud. 2018, 4(2), 54-64. doi: 10.11648/j.cls.20180402.15

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Alege Tosin Caroline. Face Management, Common Ground and Intention in Nigerian Pidgin Health Talk. Commun Linguist Stud. 2018;4(2):54-64. doi: 10.11648/j.cls.20180402.15

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.cls.20180402.15,
  author = {Alege Tosin Caroline},
  title = {Face Management, Common Ground and Intention in Nigerian Pidgin Health Talk},
  journal = {Communication and Linguistics Studies},
  volume = {4},
  number = {2},
  pages = {54-64},
  doi = {10.11648/j.cls.20180402.15},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.cls.20180402.15},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.cls.20180402.15},
  abstract = {The cognitive and the interactional paradigm clash engendered the current study as it undertakes a reassessment of the cognitive and the socio-cultural paradigms to meaning explication through a re-examination of face management, common ground, and by extension, intention, in the success of the communicative venture. To accomplish this, it addresses itself to such objectives as: to establish the extent of the dependence of face management and overall success in communication on common ground of participants, it seeks to know whether communicative intention is ipsofacto or post facto (emergent), and whether implicature is derived conventionally or collaboratively rather than from inferences about speaker’s intention. The analysis applied the operational schema of face, intention and common ground postulated in the work to empirical data of the Nigerian pidgin radio discourse ‘The World of Herbs’ of the Edo State Broadcasting Corporation, to evolve valid conclusion on aspects of the inquiry. The findings indicate that common ground (items of information existing in memory or the physical environment) served as an invaluable resource in discourse in aspects of the shared pidgin code, mutual knowledge of topical issue, and access to comprehension through lucidity of expression characteristic of the radio discourse. As regards communicative intention, the analysis indicates that it may be perceived as both a priori and post facto in datum, while intention is recovered via implicature as product of intentionality and conventionality. Intentions are mostly displayed or co-jointly constructed (post facto), especially in cases of normative or moral accountability. Overall, implicature is demonstrated as not derived from inferences about speaker’s intention but through projective and retroactive inferencing. This leads us to the conclusion that the derivation of implicature in interaction is a matter of intentionality and conventionality, while common ground remains an adjustable, co-constructed construct in communication subject to participants’ assessment of the contextual factors involved.},
 year = {2018}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Face Management, Common Ground and Intention in Nigerian Pidgin Health Talk
AU  - Alege Tosin Caroline
Y1  - 2018/08/24
PY  - 2018
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.cls.20180402.15
DO  - 10.11648/j.cls.20180402.15
T2  - Communication and Linguistics Studies
JF  - Communication and Linguistics Studies
JO  - Communication and Linguistics Studies
SP  - 54
EP  - 64
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2380-2529
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.cls.20180402.15
AB  - The cognitive and the interactional paradigm clash engendered the current study as it undertakes a reassessment of the cognitive and the socio-cultural paradigms to meaning explication through a re-examination of face management, common ground, and by extension, intention, in the success of the communicative venture. To accomplish this, it addresses itself to such objectives as: to establish the extent of the dependence of face management and overall success in communication on common ground of participants, it seeks to know whether communicative intention is ipsofacto or post facto (emergent), and whether implicature is derived conventionally or collaboratively rather than from inferences about speaker’s intention. The analysis applied the operational schema of face, intention and common ground postulated in the work to empirical data of the Nigerian pidgin radio discourse ‘The World of Herbs’ of the Edo State Broadcasting Corporation, to evolve valid conclusion on aspects of the inquiry. The findings indicate that common ground (items of information existing in memory or the physical environment) served as an invaluable resource in discourse in aspects of the shared pidgin code, mutual knowledge of topical issue, and access to comprehension through lucidity of expression characteristic of the radio discourse. As regards communicative intention, the analysis indicates that it may be perceived as both a priori and post facto in datum, while intention is recovered via implicature as product of intentionality and conventionality. Intentions are mostly displayed or co-jointly constructed (post facto), especially in cases of normative or moral accountability. Overall, implicature is demonstrated as not derived from inferences about speaker’s intention but through projective and retroactive inferencing. This leads us to the conclusion that the derivation of implicature in interaction is a matter of intentionality and conventionality, while common ground remains an adjustable, co-constructed construct in communication subject to participants’ assessment of the contextual factors involved.
VL  - 4
IS  - 2
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Alege Tosin Caroline

Department of English and Literary Studies, Kogi State University, Anyigba, Nigeria

Download PDF

Sections

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Alege Tosin Caroline. (2018). Face Management, Common Ground and Intention in Nigerian Pidgin Health Talk. Communication and Linguistics Studies, 4(2), 54-64. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.cls.20180402.15

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Alege Tosin Caroline. Face Management, Common Ground and Intention in Nigerian Pidgin Health Talk. Commun. Linguist. Stud. 2018, 4(2), 54-64. doi: 10.11648/j.cls.20180402.15

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Alege Tosin Caroline. Face Management, Common Ground and Intention in Nigerian Pidgin Health Talk. Commun Linguist Stud. 2018;4(2):54-64. doi: 10.11648/j.cls.20180402.15

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.cls.20180402.15,
  author = {Alege Tosin Caroline},
  title = {Face Management, Common Ground and Intention in Nigerian Pidgin Health Talk},
  journal = {Communication and Linguistics Studies},
  volume = {4},
  number = {2},
  pages = {54-64},
  doi = {10.11648/j.cls.20180402.15},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.cls.20180402.15},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.cls.20180402.15},
  abstract = {The cognitive and the interactional paradigm clash engendered the current study as it undertakes a reassessment of the cognitive and the socio-cultural paradigms to meaning explication through a re-examination of face management, common ground, and by extension, intention, in the success of the communicative venture. To accomplish this, it addresses itself to such objectives as: to establish the extent of the dependence of face management and overall success in communication on common ground of participants, it seeks to know whether communicative intention is ipsofacto or post facto (emergent), and whether implicature is derived conventionally or collaboratively rather than from inferences about speaker’s intention. The analysis applied the operational schema of face, intention and common ground postulated in the work to empirical data of the Nigerian pidgin radio discourse ‘The World of Herbs’ of the Edo State Broadcasting Corporation, to evolve valid conclusion on aspects of the inquiry. The findings indicate that common ground (items of information existing in memory or the physical environment) served as an invaluable resource in discourse in aspects of the shared pidgin code, mutual knowledge of topical issue, and access to comprehension through lucidity of expression characteristic of the radio discourse. As regards communicative intention, the analysis indicates that it may be perceived as both a priori and post facto in datum, while intention is recovered via implicature as product of intentionality and conventionality. Intentions are mostly displayed or co-jointly constructed (post facto), especially in cases of normative or moral accountability. Overall, implicature is demonstrated as not derived from inferences about speaker’s intention but through projective and retroactive inferencing. This leads us to the conclusion that the derivation of implicature in interaction is a matter of intentionality and conventionality, while common ground remains an adjustable, co-constructed construct in communication subject to participants’ assessment of the contextual factors involved.},
 year = {2018}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Face Management, Common Ground and Intention in Nigerian Pidgin Health Talk
AU  - Alege Tosin Caroline
Y1  - 2018/08/24
PY  - 2018
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.cls.20180402.15
DO  - 10.11648/j.cls.20180402.15
T2  - Communication and Linguistics Studies
JF  - Communication and Linguistics Studies
JO  - Communication and Linguistics Studies
SP  - 54
EP  - 64
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2380-2529
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.cls.20180402.15
AB  - The cognitive and the interactional paradigm clash engendered the current study as it undertakes a reassessment of the cognitive and the socio-cultural paradigms to meaning explication through a re-examination of face management, common ground, and by extension, intention, in the success of the communicative venture. To accomplish this, it addresses itself to such objectives as: to establish the extent of the dependence of face management and overall success in communication on common ground of participants, it seeks to know whether communicative intention is ipsofacto or post facto (emergent), and whether implicature is derived conventionally or collaboratively rather than from inferences about speaker’s intention. The analysis applied the operational schema of face, intention and common ground postulated in the work to empirical data of the Nigerian pidgin radio discourse ‘The World of Herbs’ of the Edo State Broadcasting Corporation, to evolve valid conclusion on aspects of the inquiry. The findings indicate that common ground (items of information existing in memory or the physical environment) served as an invaluable resource in discourse in aspects of the shared pidgin code, mutual knowledge of topical issue, and access to comprehension through lucidity of expression characteristic of the radio discourse. As regards communicative intention, the analysis indicates that it may be perceived as both a priori and post facto in datum, while intention is recovered via implicature as product of intentionality and conventionality. Intentions are mostly displayed or co-jointly constructed (post facto), especially in cases of normative or moral accountability. Overall, implicature is demonstrated as not derived from inferences about speaker’s intention but through projective and retroactive inferencing. This leads us to the conclusion that the derivation of implicature in interaction is a matter of intentionality and conventionality, while common ground remains an adjustable, co-constructed construct in communication subject to participants’ assessment of the contextual factors involved.
VL  - 4
IS  - 2
ER  -

Copy | Download