Ahidjo U.

Embugushiki

LWATI: A Journal of Contemporary Research, 11(2), 139-149, 2014

ISSN: 1813-2227

Politeness Principle as a Pragma-Stylistic Device in

Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie’s Purple Hibiscus

Ahidjo U. Embugushiki
Department of English, University of Jos, Nigeria
E-Mail Address: ahidjoembugushiki @ gmail.com
Telephone: 08065375482

ABSTRACT

This study investigates into how politeness principle is employed in the regulation of
discourse in literary texts. It also evaluates the applicability of the politeness principle,
which is a pragmatic principle designed to regulate spoken discourse, to literary
discourse. Excerpts from Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie’s Purple Hibiscus were
collated, presented and analyzed based on the politeness maxims postulated by Leech
(1983) and, Brown and Levinson (1987). This study reveals that politeness strategies
could be used as a stylistic device for the regulation of discourse among characters in
a discourse and, between a narrator and his reader. They enable a participant in a
discourse to exploit language to achieve communicative goals, and when used
appropriately they ease tension and promote comity and understanding. This study
also reveals that politeness is culturally bound, as it varies from one culture to another.
It also shows that politeness could be deduced from the linguistic and paralinguistic
attributes of the text. It is obvious from the analysis of the excerpts that politeness
principle is applicable to literary discourse.

INTRODUCTION

Politeness theories were developed to account for face-to-face interaction,

not literary discourse. However, the relevance of such theories to dialogue
between characters in fiction is obvious; its relevance to the communicative
flow between narrator and reader is less clear, but this study shall show that
politeness does have a role in literary discourse. The politeness principle (PP)
grew out of the weaknesses of the cooperative principles (CP). The politeness
principle is generally considered a good complement to the CP. It is thus said
to rescue the CP. For Leech (1983), PP has a higher regulative value than CP;

139
Politeness Principle as a Pragma-Stylistic in Adichie’s Purple Hibiscus

being polite allows communication to be smooth and to continue in such a

way that better cordiality is assured. However, he contends that both PP and
CP have relative-overriding tendencies i.e sometimes CP overrides PP, and
vice-versa. Leech observes that politeness is manifested not only in the
content of conversation, but also in the way conversation is managed and
structured by its participants. For example, conversational behaviour such as
speaking at the wrong time (interrupting) or being silent at the wrong time
has impolite implications (139).
Leech identified six different maxims of politeness which tend to go in
pairs as follows:
i. Tact Maxim (in impositives and commissives)
(a) Minimize cost to other [(b) Maximize benefit to other]
ii. Generosity Maxim (in impositives and Commissives)
(a) Minimize benefit to self [(b) Maximize cost to self]
iii. Approbation Maxim (in expressives and assertives)
(a) Minimize dispraise of other [(b) maximize praise of other]
iv. Modesty Maxim (in expressive and assertives)
(a) Minimize praise of self [(b) Maximize dispraise of self]
v. Agreement Maxim (in assertives)
(a) Minimize disagreement between self and other [(b) Maximize
agreement between self and other]
vi. Sympathy Maxim (in assertives)
(a) Minimize antipathy between self and other [(b) Maximize sympathy
between self and other ] (132).
Leech observes in relation to these maxims thus:

Politeness concerns a relationship between two participants whom

we may call self and other. In conversation, self will normally be
identified with s, and other will typically be identified with h;…
The label other may therefore apply not only to addressees, but to
people designated by third-person pronouns. (131).

These maxims are also important to our pragmatic stylistic analysis of

Adichie’s Purple Hibiscus. However, for the purpose of our study, ‘self’ is
used to refer to the writer or a character taking turn in a dialogue while
‘other’ is used to refer to a reader or a character who is the hearer. Other
scholars who have explored the politeness principles are Brown and
Levinson (1987). At the heart of Brown and Levinson’s theory of politeness
lies Goffman’s (1967) sociological notion of face. They are of the opinion
that in order to enter into social relationships, we have to acknowledge and
show an awareness of the face, the public self-image, the sense of self, of the
people we address. Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory holds that people
are motivated by their need to maintain their face. Simply put, face is “the
public self-image that every member wants to claim for himself” (Brown and
Levinson, 1987:61). Stated in another way, face means roughly an

140
Ahidjo U. Embugushiki

individual’s self-esteem. Fairclough sees politeness as “…part of concern

from Participants for each other’s ‘face’ (wish to be liked, wish not to be
imposed upon) and respect for status” (118). Brown and Levinson identify
two aspects to this self-image: Positive face and Negative face. Positive face
refers to our need to be accepted and liked by others and our need to feel that
our social group shares common goals. Positive face also refers to the need to
be appreciated by others, and to maintain a positive self-image. Positive
politeness orients to preserving the positive face of others. When one uses
positive politeness, one tends to choose the speech strategies that emphasize
one’s solidarity with the addressee. These strategies include claiming
‘common ground’ with the addressee, conveying that the speaker and the
addressee are co-operators, and satisfying the addressee’s wants (Brown and
Levinson, 1987:101-29). On the other hand, negative face refers to our right
to independence of action and our need not to be imposed on by others.
Negative politeness orients to preserving the negative face of other people.
When one employs negative politeness, one tends to opt for the speech
strategies that emphasize one’s deference to the addressee. Face is considered
to be a universal notion in any human society. As rational agents,
conversational participants will ideally try to preserve both their own face
and their interlocutors’ face in a verbal interaction. It is worth the effort to
reiterate that everyone wants his face wants to be met. When such happens,
the individual is said to get his face saved; when the converse occurs, his is
said to be threatened. These events have been described as Face Saving Acts
(FSA) and Face Threatening Acts (FTAs) respectively.
Face threatening acts are illocutionary acts that are liable to damage or
threaten the hearer’s or reader’s negative face. This happens, sometimes,
when the hearer is insulted or when what the hearer holds dear is given
disapproval or when an imposition is placed on the hearer’s freedom.
Sometimes, the illocutionary act may be potential to cause damage to the
speaker’s own positive face, negative face or both. Acts that threaten positive
face include expressions of disapproval, accusations, criticism, disagreements,
and insults; those that threaten negative face include advice, orders, requests,
suggestions, warnings; those that threaten both positive and negative face
include complaints, interruptions, and threats. Furthermore, a second
distinction can be made between acts that primarily threaten the speaker’s
face and those that primarily threaten the addressee’s face. The speaker can
threaten his or her own face by performing, for example, the acts of accepting
compliments, expressing thanks, and making confessions. On the other hand,
acts such as advice, reminding, and strong expression of emotions threaten
primarily the addressee’s face wants (Brown and Levinson, 1987:67-8).
Brown and Levinson (74) posited three independent and culturally
sensitive social variables according to which the strength or weightiness of
FTA can be measured. First, there is the social distance (D) between the
speaker and the addressee. Second is the relative power (P) of the addressee
over the speaker. Finally, the third variable is the absolute ranking (R) of
141
 Politeness Principle as a Pragma-Stylistic in Adichie’s Purple Hibiscus

imposition in a particular culture. The strength of an FTA is measured by

adding together the three variables D, P and R, on the basis of which the
amount of face work needed or the degree of politeness required can be
worked out.
However, it is possible to reduce the damage that the speaker’s act may
cause to the hearer’s face through the adoption of certain strategies. The
strategies are:
i. Performing the FTA on record without redressive action
ii. Performing the FTA on the record using positive politeness
iii. Performing the FTA on record using negative politeness
iv. Performing the FTA using off record politeness and not performing
the FTA (Thomas 1995) .

Brown and Levinson’s politeness strategies correspond to some extent to

Leech’s politeness maxims. The tact maxim focuses on the hearer, and says
‘minimise cost to other’ and ‘maximise benefit to other’. The first part of this
maxim fits in with Brown and Levinson’s negative politeness strategy of
minimizing the imposition, and the second part reflects the positive
politeness strategy of attending to the hearer’s interests, wants and needs. The
maxim of generosity is the flip-side of the tact maxim since it focuses on the
speaker, and it says ‘minimise benefit to self’ and ‘maximise cost to self’.
The maxim of approbation says ‘minimise dispraise of other’ and ‘maximise
praise of other’. The first part of the maxim is somewhat similar to the
politeness strategy of avoiding disagreement. The second part fits in with the
positive politeness strategy of making other people feel good by showing
solidarity. The modesty maxim is possibly a more complex maxim than the
others, since the maxim of quality can sometimes be violated in observing it.
The maxim of agreement, ‘minimise disagreement between self and other’
and ‘maximise agreement between self and other’, is in line with Brown and
Levinson’s positive politeness strategies of ‘seek agreement’ and ‘avoid
disagreement’, the sympathy maxim – ‘minimise antipathy between self and
other’ and ‘maximise sympathy between self and other’ includes polite
speech acts as congratulate, commiserate and express condolences. This
group of speech acts is taken care of in Brown and Levinson’s positive
politeness strategy of attending to the hearer’s interests, wants and needs.
Having considered the general theories of politeness, which were developed
to account for conversational interactions, this research turns to the issue of
the extent to which they may be applicable to literary discourse.
Black observes that politeness needs to be considered on different levels
of narrative organisation. On the level of character-to-character interaction,
the normal conventions of politeness apply. The situation is slightly different
and more complex, on the higher level of author/narrator and reader. Here the
interaction is essentially one way: our recourse if we do not like something is
to stop reading (74).

142
Ahidjo U. Embugushiki

There is an impoliteness in being invited to read a book. It is an imposition,

which threatens our negative face. It makes demands upon time and… It may
seek to overturn our schemata, to change our minds about things we may
hold dear. It may expose us to uncomfortable views of the world, show us the
perspectives of people with whom we profoundly disgrace (Black 74).
So far as the linguistic organization of a text is concerned, certain figures of
speech can constitute an FTA. Leech (1983) argues that irony is used to
convey an offensive remark without (on the surface level at least) violating
his politeness principles. In other words, it appears to attend to the hearer’s
positive face, while conveying a negative face comment. Black encapsulates
this view thus:

In the context of politeness, it is worth nothing that irony is

potentially face threatening in a number of ways: it requires extra
processing effort, and if readers miss it and it is subsequently
drawn to their attention, embarrassment and a sense of exclusion
are the likely consequence” (76).

Analysis of Some Excerpts From Purple Hibiscus

This section analyzes the text Purple Hibiscus using the Politeness Principles.
Excerpts from the texts are identified, presented and analyzed below as
follows:
Excerpt [1] ‘Papa himself would have a blank face when I looked at him, the
kind of expression he had in the photo when they did the big story on him
after Amnesty World gave him a human rights award (5).
In the excerpt above, Kambili tries to describe Papa’s reaction to the praises
showered on him by Father Benedict. It could be deduced from the excerpt
above that politeness could be inferred from the paralinguistic features of the
hearer. The way an individual reacts to praise will help us to draw a
conclusion as to whether an individual is polite or impolite. The modesty
maxim stipulates that an individual should minimize praise of self and
maximize dispraise of self. Notwithstanding the praises showered on Brother
Eugene by Father Benedict, the former still maintained a poker face. This is
in a bid to minimize praise of self.
Excerpt [2] “Jaja, you did not go to Communion” Papa said quietly, almost
a question.
“The wafer gives me bad breath.”
“And the priest keeps touching my mouth and it nauseates me,” Jaja said.
“It is the body of our Lord…You cannot stop receiving the body of our Lord.
It is death, you know that” (Papa)
“Then I will die…Then I will die, Papa” (Jaja) (6-7)
The excerpt above took place between Eugene Achike, a devoted and
fanatical Catholic, and his son, Jaja. Achike who was not pleased with his
son, asked him why he did not partake in the communion. The response by

143
Politeness Principle as a Pragma-Stylistic in Adichie’s Purple Hibiscus

Jaja sounded impolite as it threatened the face of Achike who would not
tolerate any act that is repugnant to the Catholic faith. To start with,
describing the ‘host’ as wafers is unacceptable to Achike, as he has always
insisted they ‘call it the host because “host” came close to capturing the
essence, the sacredness, of Christ’s body. “Wafer” was too secular…’ (6).
Worse still, Jaja states that the Wafer gives him ‘bad breath”. In addition,
Jaja describes the action of the priest who Achike revered highly as
‘nauseating’. He made his father to understand that he would rather die than
partake in the communion. It could be deduced from the responses of Jaja
that he had resolved to be uncooperative. A close look also reveals that the
responses of Jaja uphold the maxim of quality which stipulates that a speaker
should make his contribution one that is true. However, in trying to uphold
the maxim of quality by saying the truth, Jaja contravenes the politeness
principle. The agreement maxim stipulates that one should minimize
disagreement between self and other, and maximize agreement between self
and other. A close look at the responses of Jaja would reveal a deliberate
attempt to maximize disagreement between himself and his father, who had
been dictatorial. This act of revolt took place after the transformation in
Jaja’s orientation made possible by his visit to Aunty Ifeoma’s house in
Nsukka. Prior to this visit, Achike determined everything they do. One could
conclude therefore, that the decision to respond to Achike in such a manner
was a deliberate attempt to liberate himself from his father’s religious and
draconian shackles.
Excerpt [3] “Jaja, have you not shared a drink with us, gbo? Have you no
words in your mouth?”
“Have you nothing to say, gbo, Jaja?” Papa asked…
“Mba, there are no words in my mouth”, Jaja replied.
“What?’….
Jaja pushed his chair back. “Thank you, Lord. Thank you, Papa. Thank you,
Mama.”
“Jaja!” Papa said. (13-14).
The above excerpt also took place between Jaja and his father, Eugene. Papa
had served cashew juice produced in his factory. As usual, he expected
compliments from the members of his family. Unfortunately, Kambili and
her mother passed some compliments with the exception of Jaja who was
silent and that infuriated Eugene. Jaja may have remained silent in a bid to
uphold the maxim of quality which requires a speaker to make a contribution
that is true. Rather than taking the hypocritical posture adopted by Kambili
and her mother which is fallacious, he decided to keep silent to save his
father’s face. Unfortunately, his father took his act of silence as rudeness and
impolite. It is important to note that silence has both polite and impolite
implications. In the first part of this excerpt, even though Jaja considered his
act of silence as a deliberate attempt to be polite, Eugene considered Jaja’s
act of silence as rude and impolite. Unfortunately, the responses of Jaja after
being pressured became unpalatable to his father. On the literal level, the
144
Ahidjo U. Embugushiki

response “Mba, there are no words in my mouth” may be categorized as a

polite response, but when situated in the context of the utterance, it is
sarcastic and impolite. Another seemingly polite but sarcastic and impolite
utterance is the statement “Thank you, Lord. Thank you, Papa. Thank you,
Mama”. On the surface, it may be perceived as an appreciation. But when
analyzed in the context of the utterance, it amounts to an impolite utterance.
It contravenes the agreement maxim which provides that a speaker
maximizes agreement between self and other, and, to a great extent,
minimize disagreement between self and other. It is clear from our discussion
thus far that context is an essential element in evaluating the politeness
potential of an utterance. Interpreting the politeness potential of an utterance
without recourse to the linguistic and non linguistic context of utterance will
to this extent be impoverished.
Excerpt [4] “Sister Beatrice, what is it? Why have you done this? Are we not
content with the anara…we are offered in other sisters’ homes? You
shouldn’t have, really” (22).
This statement was uttered by members of Our Lady of the Miraculous
Medal prayer group when they visited Mama and were offered food. Even
though the utterance violates the maxim of quality, it upholds the politeness
principle. In Igbo socio-cultural arrangement, it will amount to an aberration
for one to accept such an offer without such polite remarks. As a matter of
fact, the parties to the interaction are conscious of the fact that it is just a
formality. This act of politeness is in consonance with the tact maxim, which
stipulates that an individual should minimize cost to other and maximize
benefit to other. Thus, the women uphold the tact maxim by minimizing cost
and maximizing benefit to Mama.
Excerpt [5] “The Standard would never write this nonsense… The Standard
editorial is well done…Ade is easily the best out there” Papa said (25).
In the excerpt above, Papa compares The Standard and Ade Coker which are
his newspaper and editor respectively with other newspapers and eulogizes
them. This act is impolite as it contravenes the politeness principle. It is
contrary to the modesty maxim and approbation maxim. The modesty maxim
stipulates that an individual should minimize praise of self and maximize
dispraise of self. On the other hand, the approbation maxim stipulates that an
individual should minimize dispraise of other and maximize praise of other.
In the first instance, Papa’s act is contrary to the modesty maxim in the sense
that instead of minimizing the praise of self and maximizing the dispraise of
self to enhance the modesty maxim, Papa praises his newspaper and editor.
Papa’s remark also contravenes the approbation maxim in the sense that
instead of minimizing dispraise of other and maximizing praise of other,
Papa did not only maximize praise of his company and editor, he condemns
other newspapers thus “Change of Guard. What a headline. They are all
afraid. Writing about how corrupt the civilian government was, as if they
think the military will not be corrupt. This country is going down, way down”
(26). Thus, making his comment immodest and, by extension, impolite.
145
Politeness Principle as a Pragma-Stylistic in Adichie’s Purple Hibiscus

Papa’s behaviour is not different from what is obtainable in human life. Man
by his very nature is very selfish and would prefer to minimize dispraise to
self and maximize praise to self.
Excerpt [6] “Ogbunambala!” Papa said. “wait for me, I am praying with my
family. I want to give you a little something for the children. You will also
share my tea and bread with me”
“ Hei! Omelora! Thank sir. I have not drank milk this year”. (Ogbunambala
said) (60).
The excerpt above can best be analyzed in two parts. The first part consists of
Papa’s offer to Ogbunambala, while the second part of the speech event
consists of Ogbunambala’s acceptance. Papa’s offer is in consonance with
the politeness principle. It agrees with the generosity maxim which provides
thus: minimize benefit to self; maximize cost to self. By offering to give a
‘little something for the children’ and share his tea and bread with
Ogbunambala, Papa has minimized benefit to himself and maximized cost to
himself, thus upholding the politeness principle. The acceptance by
Ogbunambala presents a different situation. His act violates the politeness
principle. It violates the tact maxim which stipulates that an individual should
minimize cost to other and maximize benefit to other. Thus, instead of
minimizing cost and maximizing benefit to Papa by rejecting the offer, he
accepts the offer, thereby maximizing cost and minimizing benefit to Papa.
At another level, Ogbunambala’s response upholds the modesty maxim. His
response that “I have not drank milk this year” upholds the modesty maxim
in the sense that it minimizes the praise of self and maximizes the dispraise
of self. It is important to note that in violating the tact maxim and upholding
the modesty maxim, Ogbunambala upholds the maxim of quality which
stipulates that one should make his contribution one that is true. This is
unlike the response in Excerpt [4]. This statement was uttered by members of
Our Lady of the Miraculous Medal prayer group when they visited Mama
and were offered food. Even though the utterance violates the maxim of
quality, it upholds the politeness principle. In Igbo socio-cultural
arrangement, it will amount to an aberration for one to accept such an offer
without such polite remarks. As a matter of fact, the parties to the interaction
are conscious of the fact that it is just a formality. This act of politeness is in
consonance with the tact maxim, which stipulates that an individual should
minimize cost to other and maximize benefit to other. Thus, the women
uphold the tact maxim by minimizing cost and maximizing benefit to Mama.
Excerpt [7] “Does Eugene think we are starving? Even a bag of rice?...Gas
cylinders? Oh, nwunye m should not have bothered herself so much”. Then
Aunty Ifeoma did a little dance… (113).
The utterance above transpired between Aunty Ifeoma and Eugene’s driver,
when he brought some items including a bag of rice and gas cylinders to her.
Her utterance violates the maxim of quality to uphold the politeness principle.
Aunty Ifeoma’s utterance violates the maxim of quality because she is aware
that she is making a contribution which is not true. In Igbo socio-cultural
146
Ahidjo U. Embugushiki

arrangement, it will amount to an aberration for one to accept such an offer

without such polite remarks. As a matter of fact, the parties to the interaction
are conscious of the fact that it is just a formality. This act of politeness is in
consonance with the tact maxim, which stipulates that an individual should
minimize cost to other and maximize benefit to other. Thus, Aunty Ifeoma
upholds the tact maxim by minimizing cost and maximizing benefit to Papa.
Excerpt [8] “I love you” (Kambili)
“You are almost sixteen, Kambili. You are beautiful. You will find more love
than you will need in a lifetime,” (Father Amadi)
The excerpt above transpired between Kambili and Father Amadi. To start
with, Kambili’s utterance amounts to an abominable act when situated within
the Igbo sociocultural context. It is an aberration for a woman to make such
passes at a man. Thus, the act is impolite and repugnant to Igbo conventional
practice. In addition, making such an offer to a Catholic priest amounts to a
face threatening act, which is impolite. This is because it threatens the
sanctity of priesthood, which provides that a priest is not allowed under the
Catholic institutional framework to enter into any sexual relationship with a
woman. From Kambili’s thoughts and reflections, it is clear it is not the
agape love that she is interested in. This utterance is impolite because it
violates the tact maxim which stipulates that an individual should minimize
cost to other and maximize benefit to other. Considering the shared
knowledge among the interlocutors that a priest cannot indulge in such an act,
one considers Kambili’s offer one that maximizes cost to the priest. The
priest response may appear to have violated the maxim of relevance. But a
close look at Father Amadi’s response points to the contrary. A denotative
interpretation of that response indicates that the response is relevant. Father
Amadi’s act of deviousness is deliberate to uphold the maxim of politeness. It
would have been impolite if Father Amadi had given a blunt response. Also,
a blunt response of turning down the request of Kambili would have resulted
to a face threatening act. The priest’s response saved the face of Kambili.
Father Amadi’s response upholds the tact maxim. In his response, he has
minimized cost to Kambili and maximized benefit to her. This explains why
the relationship did not turn sour after the response. At another level, Father
Amadi’s response constitutes an off-record communicative act. This off-
record communicative act also constitutes a flouting of the maxim of quantity.
Father Amadi’s act of not saying openly what he meant implies that he is not
appearing to make his contribution as informative as possible. Indirectness
enables speakers to address particular people but be polite by giving them
options and retreating behind the literal meaning of words.
Excerpt [9] “Are you sure they’re not abnormal, mom? Kambili just behaved
like an atulu when my friends came.”
“She behaves funny. Even Jaja is strange. Something is not right with them.”
(Amaka) (141)
In the excerpt above, Amaka describes Kambili, her cousin, as abnormal and
also compares her to a sheep. This utterance violates the politeness
147
Politeness Principle as a Pragma-Stylistic in Adichie’s Purple Hibiscus

principles. It violates the approbation maxim which encourages the speaker

to minimize dispraise of other and maximize praise of other. The
impoliteness implicit in the utterance could be deduced from the word
“atulu”. Atulu which means sheep in Igbo language is a word used to refer to
an individual who exhibits foolish traits. By comparing Kambili to a sheep,
Amaka undermines Kambili’s intellectual prowess. Thus, Amaka’s utterance
is impolite to Kambili since instead of minimizing dispraise and maximizing
praise to her, Amaka chose to maximize dispraise by condemning her activity.
Amaka’s act amounts to a face threatening act as it threatens Kambili’s face.

CONCLUSION

This study investigates into how the politeness principle could be employed
as a stylistic device in a literary text. This is premised on the fact that the
politeness principle is a pragmatic principle originally formulated to cater for
face-to-face spoken discourse. This study reveals that the politeness principle
could be use as a stylistic device for the regulation of discourse among
characters in a discourse and, between a narrator and his reader. This study
also reveals that politeness is culturally bound, as it varies from one culture
to another. This study also shows that politeness could be deduced from the
linguistic and paralinguistic attributes of the text. It is obvious from the
analysis of the excerpts that politeness principle is applicable to literary
discourse.

REFERENCES

Adichie, Chimamanda Ngozi (2006). Purple Hibiscus. Lagos: Farafina.

Black, Elizabeth (2006). Pragmatic Stylistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press.
Brown, Penelope and Levinson, Stephen (1987). Politeness: Some Universals
in Language Usage, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cook, G (1994). Discourse and Literature, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cutting, Joan (2002). Pragmatics and Discourse: A Resource Book for
Students. London: Routledge.
Fairclough, Norman (1989). Language and Power, New York: Longman.
Garfinkel, Harold (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs,
N.J: Prentice-Hall.
Huang, Yan (2007). Pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press.
Leech, Geoffrey (1983) Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.

148
Ahidjo U. Embugushiki

Levinson, Steven (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.
Onukaogu, Allwell Abalogu and Ezechi Onyerionwu (2010). Chimamanda
Ngozi Adichie: The Aesthetics of Commitment and Narrative.
Ibadan: Kraft Books Limited.
Thomas, Jenny (1995). Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to
Pragmatics. New York: Longman.

149