 |
[email protected] |
 |
3275638434 |
 |
 |
| Paper Publishing WeChat |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
HUANG Li-hua
Full-Text PDF
XML 19 Views
DOI:10.17265/2159-5836/2025.10.007
Guangzhou College of Technology and Business, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510800, China
This paper argues that the dialogues of Emily Grierson in William Faulkner’s “A Rose for Emily” systematically and profoundly violate H.P. Grice’s Cooperative Principle and its component maxims: Quantity, Quality, Relation, and Manner, which is not merely a manifestation of her personal eccentricity but also a powerful linguistic act of resistance. Through her non-cooperative speeches, Emily asserts her autonomy, defies the probing and judgmental gaze of her community, and maintains the integrity of her isolated world. Ultimately, she symbolizes the Old South’s desperate, tragic, and often grotesque struggle against the inevitable forces of change and modernization.
Grice’s cooperative principle, conversation analysis, “A Rose for Emily”, non-cooperation, symbolism
Journal of Literature and Art Studies, October 2025, Vol. 15, No. 10, 786-789
Baldick, C. (2001). The concise Oxford dictionary of literary terms. New York: Oxford University Press.
Faulkner, W. (1942). A rose for Emily and other stories. New York: Random House.
Grice, H. P. (1991). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press.
Hellström,
G (1950). Award ceremony speech, December 10, 1950.
Huang, L. H. (2023). A narratological study of William Faulkner’s “A Rose for Emily”. Journal of Literature and Art Studies, 13(9), 650-655.
Lanser, S. S. (1992). Fictions of authority: Women writers and narrative voice. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.