Indirectness in Cameron ' s Speech in the Defeated Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant : A Pragmatics Study Assist

This study investigates indirectness in David Cameron‟s speech about ISIS by using Brown and Levinson‟s theory of indirectness as well as Grice‟s theory of Politeness. “Indirectness is a common occurrence. People attempt to express their meanings without articulating them explicitly or move around the subjects under debate in this phenomenon. People have a desire to take advantage of indirectness while talking with people since it allows them to acquire a variety of practical benefits. When it comes to politics, politicians use indirectness extensively in a variety of situations, particularly during interviews with politicians. Because of the crucial function of indirectness in political interviews, they have become a space where a pragmatic inquiry can be conducted. Politicians could reach their objectives in political interviews without even being clear, definite, precise, or sincere.”


Aim of the Study
The aim of the study is to figure out how Cameron accomplishes indirectness in his speech. Determining whether or not he violates the four Grecian maxims in his speech, as well as the purpose of these violations.

Hypotheses
It is hypothesized that the Politicians used various strategies of indirectness during their speech, and violate Grice maxims frequently. They use indirectness not only for the purpose of politeness."

Introduction
According to Supturo (2015: 1), indirectness is considered as an important aspect of pragmatics. It represents as one of the more practical options that people use in their interactions. One of the important features of the conversational style, according to Tannen (2006: 361), is indirectness. It relates to the speakers" capacity to convey their thoughts without saying them exactly, according to her. She thinks that speakers are unable to explain all of their meanings via the terms they use.
Different meanings should not be stated in the same way. Receivers must "read between the lines" and evaluate prior talks as well as "expectations about what will be said" in an attempt to comprehend such meanings. They should also be aware of the "culturally accepted upon meanings connected with specific idioms." As a result, there must be an "imbalance between the stated and implicit meaning" in order for indirectness to occur (Thomas, 1995: 119).
Politicians avoid making outright pronouncements about candidates and instead choose to engage indirectly, especially when the subject of the discourse is sensitive. In general, major politicians speak in vague and indirect manners to secure and further their own careers, as well as to achieve both political and interactional benefit over their political rivals. Indirectness is driven by political interests and necessities, as well as personal face savings (Obeng, 1997: 49). Indirectness Haugh (2015: 21) states that this does occur in the subject of pragmatics, as Östman and Verschueren (2018: 119) the as "the relationship between sentence meaning and speaker"s meaning". Grice"s Cooperative Principle, Brown & Levinson"s face and politeness theory are both tied to indirectness. Individuals achieve indirectness by blatantly breaking Grice"s maxims, and they sometimes use indirectness for politeness.
Indirectness has a purpose. It is one of the most effective communication abilities that individuals use for certain goals. When a person speaks or acts in an indirect manner, there is no doubt that he or she is pursuing a variety of goals and objectives (Zhang, 2009: 102). The most important benefit of people using indirectness, according to Achibe, is politeness (2003: 7). Consider the following example: "A: Can you lend me some money?" "B: It's sunny today, isn't it?" In this case, politeness is achieved through indirectness. To put it another way, B employs deception to deny A"s request for a loan. If B refuses A openly, A"s face may be threatened. As a result, B violates the relevance maxim because his/her response is unrelated to A"s demand (Chen, 2010: 149). One of the proponents of the relationship between politeness and indirectness is Searle (2012: 36, 46). He claims that the main reason for indirectness is courtesy. He goes on to say that phrases like "can you" convey politeness in requests because speakers don"t aim to know whether or not their listeners are capable. However, when such expressions are employed, listeners are given the opportunity to reject them. Indirectness, according to Haugh (2015: 16, 18), "is not limited to being "polite" through any way." He goes on to note that one of the reasons indirectness isn"t always regarded as polite is that it can have a variety of interpersonal consequences, one of which is politeness.
According to Tannen (2006:361), indirectness can result in misunderstandings. When interlocutors are unfamiliar with assumptions of indirectness, misunderstandings occur. Nonverbal indirectness, which occurs when listeners do not comprehend the intended meaning behind the speakers" use of nonverbal tactics such as signals, can also cause miscommunication, according to Tannen (2011:60-61). Furthermore, when listeners are unable to understand what speakers are saying due to their indirectness, they are more likely to seek for clarification. People are "challenged" and "uncomfortable" by these types of questions.

Political Language and Indirectness
Language is the essential means of interaction and one of the aspects of individuals" daily life which can"t be separated. Since language is such a powerful tool, it is an important issue to investigate (Justova, 2006: 6). In politics, political terminology is extremely important. Plato and Aristotle both highlighted the importance of language in politics (Chilton and Schaffner, 2002: 1). Political language is now studied in a variety of academic domains including different fields in linguistics. Particularly, as Martin J. Ball states: "An increasing number of studies pertaining to the pragmatics of political discourse" (2009: 18). Chilton (2004: 6) satas that Politicians also employ language to achieve their goals. It is the most important device that politicians use. It is more frequently employed than physical coercion. It plays such an important part in politics that political engagement would not occur without using language. The difference between this device and the first is that it does not require the use of physical force (Jones and Peccei, 2004: 37-38). Politicians employ rhetoric to attain their objectives. The ability to persuade others is referred to as rhetoric (Wardy, 2005: 1). Rhetoric is one of the most important tools employed by politicians in the arena of politics, according to Obeng (2002: 8). according to Jones and Peccei (2004: 39), Politicians have built a reputation for themselves through their mastery of rhetoric, in which they attempt to persuade their audience of the legitimacy of their beliefs by the careful use of eloquent and convincing words. Obeng (1997: 58, 80) acknowledges that indirectness plays a significant role in political discourse. One of the most important aspects of any political discourse analysis is verbal indirection. He argues that politicians favor indirectness, obscurity, vagueness, and obliqueness in their communication because of the deceptive and/or dangerous nature of politics, and particularly the power of the spoken word. Politicians use indirectness in a variety of settings, such as presidential addresses, debates, and press conferences. Indirectness, on the other hand, is frequently used in political interviews. An evidence of a difference of political interviews is that interviewees do not provide clear or accurate responses to the interviewers" questions (Furco and Abuczki, 2014: 46).

Strategies of Indirectness in Political Language
There are many different strategies by which indirectness could be accomplished such as;

Brown and Levinson's theory and Grice's theory of Politeness
Numerous articles and books have been written about it, and many scholars have suggested many models and ideas. Here, two pragmatic theories are used; bothe Brown and Levinson"s proposal for face and politeness is the first (1987). The second principle is Grice"s Cooperative Principle (1975). The connection between these theories and indirectness is what prompted to the adoption as analysis models. Indirectness is achieved by deviating from Gricean maxims and implicatures. It"s occasionally used to save face. The study of politeness has gotten a lot of consideration in the last five decades. Brown andLevinson"s (1978/ 1987) is the most important (Abdul-Majeed, 2009: 509). Both of Brown and Levinson"s politeness theory offers a breadth of knowledge about human conduct that no other theory has hitherto supplied, according to the authors (Locher and Watts, 2005: 9).
Face, according to Goffman (2005: 5), is "the positive social value a person effectively claims for himself by the line others assume he has taken during a particular contact. Face is a representation of oneself that is defined by socially acceptable characteristics". Brown and Levinson"s (1978Levinson"s ( /1987 theory of politeness relies heavily on the face. They used Goffman"s face perception as a basis (1967 [2005]). It is defined by them as "Every member"s public self-image that he want to claim. They say the face is "emotionally invested," that it can be lost, preserved, or increased, and that it "must be constantly paid attention to in speech." " (Brown and Levinson, 1987: 61).
Brown and Levinson distinguish positive and negative face expressions. Every "competent adult member"s wish for his or her behaviors to be unconstrained by others" has a negative face, whilst positive face belongs to every individual"s desire for his or her aims to be acceptable to at least some others (1987: 62). When a person gets requests from others to undertake particular tasks, for example, his or her negative face is threatened, because such requests restrict his or her free will. While his/her positive face is threatened while other dispute with him/her because dispute indicates that others do not approve of him/her (Bull, 2012: 84).
Negative face-threatening acts are those that restrict interactants" flexibility of activity. There are certain instances where hearers" negative faces are threatened by negative face-threatening acts: When they pressurize them to perform or refrain from performing specific acts, such as orders, requests, suggestions, advice, reminders, threats, warnings and dares, and when they force them to accept or reject positive future acts directed at them by speakers, like offers and promises. Face-threatening acts, like expressing gratitude, making excuses, accepting offers, and making hesitant promises and offers, all threaten the speaker"s negative face. While Positive facethreatening acts demonstrate that individuals are unconcerned with other people"s wants and emotions, or that they do not concern about other people"s desires. The following are some of the activities that put the listener"s positive face in threat: acts that reflect that the speaker does not value the hearer"s positive face, Acts that threaten the hearer"s positive face include "expressing disapproval, criticism, disdain or derision, praises and reprimands, accusations, and insults," as well as acts that suggest the speaker is careless with the hearer"s positive face, such as gestures of violence (Brown and Levinson, 1987: 65-67). Grice (2008: 3) summarizes his idea of the Cooperative Principle as "make your conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged". In an attempt to influence cooperation, Grice has recommended the following four conversational maxims. People want to follow them around while they"re dealing with others, he explains. According to Grice, such maxims help interlocutors cooperate when chatting. The four Grice maxims are depicted in the diagram below: Individuals do not always follow conversational maxims. The terms "violation," "opt out," "clash," and "flout" are all used to describe instances in which the maxims are not followed (Grice, 2008: 3-4). Individuals disregard conversational norms in order to gain different benefits, such as demonstrating their politeness (Finegan, 2008: 289). As a consequence, the four conversational maxims operate for both observation and non-observation scenarios (Darighgoftar, 2012: 269).
In the first question, Marr asks a straightforward question. It has an interrogative form and a questioning function. He asks Cameron if he thinks sending PAF to Syria without a second House of Commons vote is possible. Cameron is well aware of the repercussions that a definitive answer might have. He may suffer difficulties, dangers, or be punished and condemned if he responds with a yes or no. Furthermore, any precise response may result in threats. As a result, he uses circumlocution to avoid all of these bad implications. By avoiding the subject of Marr"s question, Cameron accomplishes circumlocution.
Then in the second question that Marr recognizes Cameron"s use of circumlocution to avoid replying the question, so he asks the same question again. Cameron, moreover, refuses to give a definitive answer. He uses deception this time. He achieves deflection by asserting, "I suppose I"ve answered," that he has already responded to the inquiry. Because he is untrustworthy, Grice does not follow the quality maxim of Grice"s maxims.
"With respect," he says, "you haven"t." He claims to have addressed the question, but Marr thinks he hasn"t because Cameron doesn"t respond. He also violates the relevance rule by responding in a way that is unrelated to the question.
In the third question, Cameron employs name-calling by referring to ISIL in Syria and Iraq as "extremists." Because he is enigmatic, he disregards the rule of manners. He claims that ISIL espouses radical governmental or sacred "religious" views and promotes unlawful, violent, or other extreme actions. ISIL engages in a variety of terrorist operations, including murder stealing, shelling, and even rapping. He employs this tactic in order to discredit ISIL. He intends to raise people"s unfavourable emotions toward these groups, causing them to reject them. In addition to calling people names, Cameron uses a metaphor when he says "build an Iraq." In the fourth question, the topic of Scottish devolution is introduced by Marr. If his party wins the election, Cameron offers devolution to Scotland. He also says that "English votes for English laws" will be granted to British citizens. Cameron, on the other hand, hedges his promise. Using the modal adverb "properly," he obtains this hedge. He can reduce his promise by using this hedge. It allows him to defend himself and his party, as well as the Conservative Party, if he fails to keep his pledge and the public begins to blame him. As a result of his use of He is breaking the quality maxim by using this hedging, which states that people should be certain of what they say. With the fifth question, Marr is curious about Cameron"s thoughts on the English Parliament. Cameron"s opinion is conveyed in a deceptive manner. He accomplishes this through insinuation. When Cameron says, "Look, I think the last thing this country wants is another expensive parliament building with another expensive group of politicians with salaries and expenses and all the rest of it, that is not what we intend to propose". He is innuendoing. Members of the English parliament are the targets of this innuendo. Innuendo is used by making conclusions and not naming specific people. Due to his vagueness, Cameron does not follow the maxim of manners. Cameron, on the other hand, is a team player. The innuendoes are assumed to be English parliamentarians by the audience, Marr, and members of the English Parliament. They are also aware that members are expensive to the government. Cameron has promised to change the inefficient and costly parliament if he wins the general election in 2015. Cameron"s inference is that members of the English Parliament are being openly criticized. Cameron mocks the existing British legislature. It"s an "expensive parliament," he declares. He keeps making promises to the British public in the hopes of persuading them to vote for his political party. Hedging approaches include the epistemic verb "think" and the modal adjective "possible." If his party wins and the legislature remains unchanged, he and his party will be safe from any constituent attacks. To put it another way, this hedge keeps Cameron and the Conservative Party in the public spotlight.. Cameron"s hedging violates the quality principle since he is unsure of what he is saying. To be polite, indirectness is used.
Finally, Cameron has stated that his government has decided to use "money from welfare cuts to boost the number of apprenticeships." Marr asks Cameron if this choice will cause about half of British young families with children to become impoverished. Because this is a face-threatening issue, Cameron employs evasion to avoid confronting it. He is aware that discussing this subject could result in threats to his personal face. The technique by which Marr evades the question is a stumbling block. Marr"s query is "inaccurate," he says. He claims that the determination is not "about those with children," as Marr claims, but "about single people aged 18 to 21 who at the moment you can leave home". He defies both the manner and the relevance maxims.