Pragmatic Analysis of Pride and Prejudice: LN003 Conversation Essay

This essay undertakes a pragmatic analysis of a conversation extract from Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice, focusing on the interaction between Elizabeth Bennet and Lady Catherine. It delves into the application of pragmatic principles, including politeness theory, face-threatening acts (both positive and negative), and Grice's cooperative principle with its four maxims. The analysis examines how politeness strategies, such as positive and negative politeness, are employed by the characters, with a particular emphasis on Elizabeth's use of these strategies compared to Lady Catherine's. The essay highlights instances of cooperation and resistance within the conversation, demonstrating how Elizabeth's responses often challenge Lady Catherine's assertions and attempts to control the dialogue. The study concludes by illustrating how the characters navigate the complexities of social dynamics through their conversational choices, revealing the interplay of power, politeness, and resistance in the text.

Running head: LN003
LN003 Pragmatics and Conversation
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author note

1LN003
Contents
Introduction......................................................................................................................................2
Pragmatic analysis of Pride and Prejudice.......................................................................................3
Politeness Theory.........................................................................................................................3
Negative and Positive face threatening acts............................................................................4
Politeness strategies.................................................................................................................6
Grice’s Cooperative Principle......................................................................................................7
Resistance in Elizabeth’s Speech.................................................................................................8
Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................8
References........................................................................................................................................9

2LN003
Pragmatic analysis of Austen's Pride and Prejudice: Cooperation, Resistance and (im)politeness.
Introduction.
In the field of linguistics and semiotics, pragmatics is the specific branch that deals with
analyzing how contextual language use contributes to the development and modification of
meaning in the text. Meanings are one of the core entailments of communication. As humans,
conveying meanings and ideas become a regular requirement for survival. However, as the
languages of the world has developed alongside different schools of thoughts and fields of
technology and science, it has been seen that the use of a particular linguistic form is not
restricted to a specific field, but rather crosses over to diverse domains that use the nuances of
languages to convey a meaning. The sentence ‘the glass is half empty’ is encoded with two
different meanings in two different context. If used in a philosophy seminar, it would mean
something different from what it would mean if used at a dinner event. Similarly, conversations,
being completely human driven, it is needless to assert that the meanings that humans want to
associate with a specific context drives the conversation in a particular desired way. In written
texts as well, the author’s use of certain pragmatic principles play a crucial role in determining
the flow of the conversation with respect to the context.
This essay looks at an extract from one of literature’s classic texts – Pride and Prejudice
by Jane Austen, and analyses the extract from a pragmatic perspective (Appendix). The concepts
that are being used in the analysis involve politeness and impoliteness theories and Grice’s
cooperation principles including the four maxims of conversation. The essay therefore aims to
establish the aspects of cooperation, resistance and politeness / impoliteness as presented by the
author in the text.

3LN003
Pragmatic analysis of Pride and Prejudice.
Human conversation is not only meaning driven, but also supported by the number of
conversational participants and the kinds of cognitive and contextual background they possess
with respect to the theme of the conversation. Pride and Prejudice is set in a background where
there are a lot of characters and each of them belong to a specific social strata. This, combined
with the time period in which the novel is set in, provides a rather intricate context for the
conversations that take place. The extract from the novel that is selected here is between the
characters Elizabeth and Lady Catherine. Elizabeth ranks lower in the social status than
Catherine, therefore, the conversation that takes place between them is rife with instances of
polite and impolite tones. While Elizabeth, who looks forward to getting engaged to Lady
Catherine’s nephew Darcy, has to maintain a certain decorum of politeness while talking to Lady
Catherine as expected of her, Catherine on the other hand, in her attempts to break the
engagement resorts to using strategies of impolite conversational means to dissuade her. There
are therefore three aspects that come into play when analyzing the extract from the selected
pragmatic perspective – cooperation, resistance and politeness / impoliteness.
Politeness Theory.
The politeness theory accounts for the politeness in conversation which people use as a
conversational strategy to assert positive social values to themselves (Kitamura 2000). In
sociological context, politeness theory states that the assertion of positive social image and
identity is associated directly with how the individual responds to face threatening acts (also
known as FTA) (Watts, Ide & Ehlich 2008). Penelope Brown and Stephen Levinson’s politeness
theory has become significant in the field of sociological studies as well as pragmatic analysis.
There are several key elements of politeness theory, primarily classified as negative face

4LN003
threatening acts, positive face threatening acts and refusals that threaten both the negative and
positive face. Furthermore, there are several key strategies associated with is as well, including
Bald On-Record, Positive Politeness and Negative Politeness as well as off record (indirect
politeness) (Armasu 2012). The following section analyses the text extract from Pride and
Prejudice from each of the elements and strategies highlighted by politeness strategy.
Negative and Positive face threatening acts.
As per Brown and Levinson’s assumption, there are two forms of face in politeness
theory, namely positive and negative (Feng, Chang & Holt 2011). They have defined positive
face as the constant need of an individual to uphold a particular positive identity of themselves in
the minds of the society, and negative face as the need for every individual to let his work go
unhindered and unimpeded by others in the society (Brown & Levinson 1987). Personality
therefore becomes a key element to consider when it comes to pragmatic analysis of a
conversation, given that a person’s conversational style is a key modulator of his / her
personality.
When it comes to face threatening acts, there are three types mainly – negative and
positive face - threatening acts, and refusals. A negative face - threatening act is one where the
communicator’s freedom of expression is obstructed and the other speaker does nothing to
prevent the obstruction. In pragmatic terms, it means that the conversation takes a rather impolite
turn where one speaker involved in the conversation is submitting to the will of the other speaker
(Brown & Stevenson 1987). Looking at the conversation between Elizabeth and Catherine, we
see that Catherine is the dominant one in the conversation, actively attempting to corner
Elizabeth into submission by resorting to impolite conversational tones. The first section of the
extract has the following lines:

5LN003
As soon as they entered the copse, Lady Catherine began in the following manner:
``You can be at no loss, Miss Bennet, to understand the reason of my journey hither.
Your own heart, your own conscience, must tell you why I come.''
This shows two very specific aspects of the conversation. Firstly, Lady Catherine is
attempting to exert the dominance that her own higher social status has given her with the use of
a tone that suggests that Elizabeth must already know the reason behind her arrival. Secondly,
this dominant tone and use of language suggests a reminder as well as a sublime threat, asserted
due to higher social status. Thus this line is dealing damage to the hearer, in this case Elizabeth.
In contrast, the following line states:
Elizabeth looked with unaffected astonishment.
``Indeed, you are mistaken, Madam. I have not been at all able to account for the honour
of seeing you here.''
Here it can be seen that the line itself is overtly, highly polite (Brown 2015). However,
looking at the face – threatening aspect of the conversation, it can be understood that, despite
Elizabeth’s attempts at respecting the difference of social status, she ends up challenging the
presumption of Lady Catherine, owing to which, this part of the conversation also deals damage
to the hearer (Brown & Stevenson 1987). Expression of disapproval by direct stating or implying
that the hearer is either wrong, misguided or irrational, is the key element of this aspect of
positive face – threatening act which is displayed in this segment of the conversation.

6LN003
Other aspects of negative face – threatening acts include Lady Catherine’s constant use of
threatening and suggestive tone. She resorts to asserting her power over Elizabeth by use of
phrases like ‘Miss Bennet, do you know who I am? I have not been accustomed to such language
as this’ and ‘Let me be rightly understood. This match, to which you have the presumption to
aspire, can never take place. No, never. Mr. Darcy is engaged to my daughter. Now what have
you to say?’. These tones, specific language use and especially in a context where personality
and identity plays vital roles, are delivered with the deliberate intent of damaging the hearer.
There are very few instances of damage done by the speaker to the speaker herself, given that
neither woman bows down to be the subordinate of the other (Dykstra 2009). Alternately, refusal
as a threatening act to both positive and negative faces (Johnson, Roloff & Riffee 2004) can be
observed in the conversation, especially in Elizabeth’s polite denials of Catherine’s stubborn
accusations. This not only had put Catherine in a complex situation in terms of assertion of
dominance, but also showed how refusals can be an element of threat to both positive and
negative face acts.
Politeness strategies.
There are two basic strategies that most conversations follow in terms of conveyance of
contextual meaning, namely positive and negative politeness (Brown & Levinson 1987). Positive
politeness works in order to reduce any aspect of threat to the hearer’s positive face, whereas
negative politeness does not directly reduce the harm on the positive face as much as it diverts
the flow in order to avoid any kind of imposition from the speaker. However both of these
strategies are used as primary politeness strategies in conversation, genuinely expressing
politeness and empathy. This can only be observed in the speech of Elizabeth and not in Lady

7LN003
Catherine’s. The following sentence is an example from the extract that highlight Elizabeth’s
language use as a politeness strategy:
‘I wonder you took the trouble of coming so far. What could your ladyship propose by
it?’
Here, despite the subtle hint of disapproval that the context provides, the statement shows
Elizabeth’s primary response to Catherine following positive politeness as a strategy (Brown &
Levinson 1987).
Grice’s Cooperative Principle.
In conversation between humans as social beings, each speaker attempts to be
cooperative, given that each speaker has the understanding that each conversational utterance is a
possible infringement upon the personal rights, choices, wishes as well as autonomy (Grice
1975). It is therefore a face – threatening act and therefore requires each speaker to ensure that
their conversation follows a tone and context that does not harm the personal right and
autonomy, and the one way that it can be ensured is through cooperation. Groice had highlighted
four maxims in this regard which need to be followed on order to be cooperative. Maxim of
quality states that the speaker must speak the truth, maxim of quantity states that the speaker
should not say more than what is required, maxim of relation states that the topic of the
conversation should be relevant and the maxim of manner states that any form of ambiguity or
obscurity in the conversation should be avoided (Hadi 2013). While both Elizabeth follows most
of the maxims properly thereby displaying cooperation in her speech, Catherine tends to violate
certain maxims. In the fifth paragraph from the extract, Catherine’s monologue is a direct
violation of maxim of quantity, showing her non cooperative attitude. In contrast, Elizabeth’s

8LN003
sharp and short responses are to the point of every question that Catherine asks, thereby showing
her approach to the conversation being cooperative in nature.
Resistance in Elizabeth’s Speech.
One final aspect of this pragmatic analysis is that of resistance that is very clearly
depicted by Austen in Elizabeth’s speech. Responses to Catherine provided by Elizabeth mostly
hint towards a contradiction to the preceding statement made by Catherine. One vital example is
the following line:
Catherine: And can you likewise declare, that there is no foundation for it?''
Elizabeth: I do not pretend to possess equal frankness with your ladyship. You may ask
questions which I shall not choose to answer.
Here Elizabeth shows clear resistance (Jenkins & Dragojevic 2013) to both Catherine’s
assertion of social dominance as well as her attempts to conversationally subdue Elizabeth and
dissuade her from getting engaged with her nephew.
Conclusion.
Human conversations are contextually driven and requires the speakers to be engaged in
a truthful, cooperative conversation regarding the topic or the issue. However, human cognition
and associated emotions come into play when the speakers are engaged in the conversation and
so do social aspects like status, personality and identity. The extract of conversation between
Elizabeth and Catherine shows how the aspects of pragmatic understanding of their statements

9LN003
point towards the conversation being either polite or impolite, cooperative or non cooperative as
well as display aspects of resistance. While Catherine, through her higher status, depicts a mostly
impolite picture, Elizabeth knows to be cooperative and resistant at the same time, while
maintaining politeness in the conversation.
References.
Armasu, V.D., 2012. Modern Approaches to Politeness Theory. A Cultural Context. Lingua.
Language and Culture, 11(1), pp.9-19.
Brown, P., 2015. Politeness and language. In The International Encyclopedia of the Social and
Behavioural Sciences (IESBS),(2nd ed.) (pp. 326-330). Elsevier.
Brown, P., and Levinson, S.C., 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage (Vol. 4).
Cambridge university press.
Dykstra, L.D., 2009. Culturally speaking: culture, communication, and politeness theory 2nd ed.
edited by SPENCER–OATEY, HELEN. The Modern Language Journal, 93(4), pp.646-648.
Feng, H., Chang, H.C. and Holt, R., 2011. Examining Chinese gift-giving behavior from the
politeness theory perspective. Asian Journal of Communication, 21(3), pp.301-317.
Grice, H.P., 1975. " Logic and conversation" In Cole, P., and Morgan, J.(Eds.). Syntax &
Semantics, 3.
Hadi, A., 2013. A critical appraisal of Grice’s Cooperative Principle. Open journal of modern
linguistics, 3(01), p.69.

10LN003
Jenkins, M. and Dragojevic, M., 2013. Explaining the process of resistance to persuasion: A
politeness theory-based approach. Communication Research, 40(4), pp.559-590.
Johnson, D.I., Roloff, M.E. and Riffee, M.A., 2004. Politeness theory and refusals of requests:
Face threat as a function of expressed obstacles. Communication Studies, 55(2), pp.227-238.
Kitamura, N., 2000. Adapting Brown and Levinson’s ‘politeness’ theory to the analysis of casual
conversation. In Proceedings of ALS2k, the 2000 Conference of the Australian Linguistic
Society (pp. 1-8).
Watts, R.J., Ide, S. and Ehlich, K. eds., 2008. Politeness in language: Studies in its history,
theory and practice. Walter de Gruyter.