A pragmatic Analysis of Desire in the Nigerian Home Video

Abstract

The Nigerian home video industry, popularly referred to as, Nollywood, has become a household name both locally and internationally. Despite the setbacks it suffered, Nollywood has soared higher than most expected. It is on this premise that this study exposes the pragmatic undertone of the language use in Nollywood films to show its verisimilitude with normal day-to-day manner of communication. This study is based on the theory of Pragmatics as developed by J. L. Austin, John Searle and H. P. Grice. This theory is very relevant to this study as it exposes a lot that happens in normal communication - the unsaid but meant. Among the many tools of Pragmatics, Context, Presupposition, Implicature and the Cooperative Principle are employed in this research. It was found out that context plays a crucial role in deciphering meaning in Nollywood films; again, the language use of Nollywood films shows a lot of presuppositions and implicature and that the Cooperative Principle is well illustrated by the language use of Nollywood films.

Keywords: Nollywood, Pragmatics, Context, Presupposition, Implicature, Cooperative Principle

Introduction

Nollywood is the name that is used for the Nigerian movie industry. There are talks of its origin in the 90s while others would want to trace it back to the colonial days. Although, this paper is not meant to argue its origin, the researcher sides with Jonathan Clayton of the Times, as he speaks of the origin of Nollywood:

It all started by accident in 1992, when Kenneth Nnebue, a Nigerian trader based in Onitsha, was trying to sell a large stock of blank videocassettes he had bought from Taiwan. He decided that they would sell better with something recorded on them, so he shot a film called “Living in Bondage” about a man who achieves power and wealth by killing his wife in a ritualistic murder, only to repent later when she haunts him. The film sold more than 750,000 copies, and prompted legions of imitators.

Before Kenneth Nnebue introduced film in recorded form, there were films here and there shown on theatres and series shown on television like Cock Crow at Dawn, Mirror in the Sun and The New Masquerade. Nevertheless, 1992 saw the production of movies on VHS. Living in Bondage produced by Kenneth Nnebue was like a bomb. The production took Nigerians by storm.

Nollywood’s popularity and economic contribution to Nigeria

How popular is Nollywood? The answer is found in the words of Eric Oh of the United States International Trade Commission (USITC):

The Nigerian film industry, also known as “Nollywood,” produces about 50 movies per week, second only to India’s Bollywood and ahead of Hollywood. Although its revenues trail those of Bollywood or Hollywood at the global box office ($1.6 billion and $9.8 billion in 2012, respectively), officially, Nollywood still generates, on average, $600 million annually for the Nigerian economy, with most of these receipts coming from the African diaspora. It is estimated that over one million people are currently employed in the industry (excluding pirates), which makes it Nigeria’s largest employer after agriculture.

Adedun reports: “Nollywood videos are marketed outside Nigeria - in other parts of Africa, Britain, and the United States of America and in other parts of the world with people of African descent” (52). Quoting Obanya (7), he reports that Nollywood films are hawked in the Caribbean.

It must be accepted that the spread of the films is due to the spread of Nigerians. However, the simple truth is that non-Nigerians are also interested in Nigerian films and that is why they are writing something about them. As this report has it: “Nollywood has over the years spread like wild fire throughout the coast of Africa and Europe. Surprisingly, Nigerian films are loved in Germany” (Nigerian Movies and the Industry).

But how does Nollywood create meaning and messages? Here we will look the pragmatic aspect of the Desire, parts one and two.

Theoretical Framework

The researcher employs Pragmatics in the analysis of Desire parts one and two in order to find out the meanings and messages conveyed by Nollywood. The choice of Pragmatics is quite essential as films are situated in context. “Desire” revolves around Eunice who is described as a “she-devil” who stops at nothing until she gets her heart desire and Desmond who is a careless Christian that does not think before choosing to render help to strangers.

The word pragmatics can be traced to ancient Greece and Rome, where the terms “pragmaticus” and “pragmaticos” were found respectively. Today, the modern use of pragmatics can be credited to the American philosophical doctrine of pragmatism. This school of thought was held by philosophers and they discussed pragmatics in their philosophical study of language. Among the early proponents of pragmatics were J. L. Searle, J. L. Austin and H. P. Grice. However, it was Charles Morris that formally introduced pragmatics into linguistics. Morris considered pragmatics to be a subset of semiotics. He said that semiotics consists of a sign vehicle (that which acts as a sign), a designation (what the sign refers to), and an interpretant (the recipient of the effect of the sign). His claim that pragmatics is subsumed in semiotics is based on his assumption that pragmatics is one of the ways of studying signs. Pragmatics has been defined by various linguists depending on the school of thought they belong. Morris defines it as “the study of the relation of signs to interpreters”. This definition of his is propelled by his belief that pragmatics is listed under semiotics. In a way he is saying that it resides with the interpreters to assign meaning to the utterance heard. In his own parlance, Levinson defines pragmatics as “the study of those relations between language and context that is grammaticalised or encoded in the structure of a language”. Here again, context is identified to play a crucial role in deciphering meaning. To add more credence to the role of context is Mey, who believes that “pragmatics studies the use of language in human communication as determined by the condition of the society”.

One fundamental thing about the definitions above is that context plays an important role in understanding utterances and communication acts by others. Again, meaning is determined by the hearer and not the speaker. This idea is behind Yule’s definition that “pragmatics is concerned with the study of meaning as communicated by a speaker (or writer) and interpreted by a listener (or reader)” (127). It has been observed that communication gap has always been as a result of assigning wrong meanings to what is heard.

Pragmatics has been expanded by many linguists - among who are Grice that distinguished natural and non-natural meaning. He opined that pragmatics should study the more practical dimension of meaning, which he tagged “conversational meaning” and was later expanded in various ways (Levinson, 1983; Leech 1983). Again, Grice discovered the cooperative principle while leech introduced the politeness principle in 1983. Today, pragmatics incorporates Speech Acts, Implicature, Presupposition, Cooperative Principle, Politeness Principle, Context, Reference, Deixis, etc. The researcher employs implicature, presupposition, context and cooperative principle and so will limit his discussion to these four.

Context

For any conversation to be successful there must be shared background knowledge between the interlocutors. This background knowledge makes it easier for the interlocutors to understand each other without confusion. Others who may not have the same background as the interlocutors may be there and not comprehend the intent of the discussion. Again where the conversation took place may also contribute to the meaning of what is being said. It is important to note that context plays a crucial role in the assignment of meaning to any utterance.

Nevertheless, what is context? To provide the answer, Levinso n (23) was of the view that “the scope of context is not easy to define... one must consider the social and psychological world in which the language user operates at any given time. The definition of context is not easy to come by. A lot of things have to be taken into consideration for one to come up with a good definition. Levinson (23) posits that the social and psychological world have to be considered.

The perception that context plays a major role in recognising the import of what is not said but meant dates back to the work of Malinowski which has been expatiated by Firth and Halliday. Although Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL), as developed by Halliday, is explicitly interested in the relations between language and society, it defines context in terms of the relevant aspects of the social situation — a tradition that goes back to the definition of 'context of situation' by Firth and Malinowski.

Context as defined by dictionary.com is “the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, usually influencing its meaning or effect”. When one does not take into consideration the context in which a statement was made, one tends to misinterpret what was said. Simply put, one cannot divorce context from what is said. This is clearly seen from the words of Malinowski as quoted in Ogden and Richards (1946) that the situation in which words are uttered can never be passed over as irrelevant to the linguistic expression... Utterances and situation are bound up inextricably with each other. The context of situation is indispensable from the understanding of the word... in the reality of the spoken or written language; a word without linguistic contexts is a mere figment and stand for nothing itself.

Hymes (23) in his work carried out came up with the following contexts that surround utterances or discussion as shown below:

a. Setting/scene; the general circumstances in which the communication event takes place, the psychological setting of an event i.e. the cultural definition of an occasion.
b. Participants - the role - relationships between participants in a speech event.
c. Ends - The outcome of a speech act classifiable into (1) result - intended and/or not intended (2) goals- individual and, or general.
d. Act Sequence - form and content of the message of a text i.e. how it is said is part of what is said.
e. Key: the lone or manner in which a textual message is delivered.
f. Instrumentalities: the different channels of speech transmission like oral, written, telephone, E-mail
g. Norms: The conventions of social and speech behaviour which could be linguistic and non - linguistic; universal or culture - specific.
h. Genre: The linguistic form employed.

Pragmatics employs context as a tool to affect the meaning of what is being said and differentiates it from what is not said.

Presupposition

According to Fromkin, Rodman and Hyams (173), Presuppositions are “situation that must exist for utterances to come true”. Every utterance we make is based on the fact that there are other things that happened and those things prompt further utterances. The meaning of the word 'presupposes' from which presupposition is coined from is to 'assume beforehand’; ‘involve’, ‘imply'.

Presuppositions represent one of the most powerful tools of language patterns. They are in common, everyday use by all of us and are built into the structure of the English language; indeed, it is probably impossible to utter a sentence of any consequence without making some kind of assumption - and hence without the use of presupposition. Presupposition is the mechanism used implicitly to make assumption in day to day language whereas direct assertion is the means used to do so overtly (although all but the simplest assertions will themselves contain presuppositions). The difference between the two is that the latter is a type of communication that is accessible to direct, conscious processing while the former - the assumptions in which must normally be accepted for a given sentence or phrase to have meaning or sense - normally represents subconscious processing. The contents of any given presuppositional sentence will normally have to be assumed to be true 'a priori' in order for the sentence to be even understood as a meaningful 'language'.

Implicature

In everyday conversation, people sometimes tend to misunderstand each other. This confusion can be traced to implicature. For Fromkin, Rodman and Hyams, Implicature are deductions that are not made on the basis of the content expressed in the discourse. Rather, they are made in accordance with the conversational maxims, taking into account both the linguistic meaning of the utterance as well as the particular circumstances in which the utterance is made. (174)

Implicature is not expressed rather it is the intended meaning that the speaker has in mind when uttering his utterance. He expects the hearer to deduce the concealed meaning and act upon it. From the excerpt above the meaning decipherable is not expressed in the content. It has often been said that implicature is the kind of human exchange which computers will never be able to fathom. The computer might be able to decode the literal meaning of the sentences, but will never pick up the “relationship crisis” scenario which human beings more or less instantly do.

In their phraseology, Horn and Ward (3) define implicature as “the component of the speaker meaning that constitutes an aspect of what is meant in a speaker’s utterance without being part of what is said”. Implicature is another important idea in pragmatics. It is used to account for what a speaker can imply, suggest or mean that is distinct from what the speaker literally says. This is to mean that one is likely to imply more meaning that the hearer does not know. Implicature is better understood when consideration is given to the cooperative principle as developed by H. P. Grice.

Cooperative Principle

For interlocutors to be successful in their conversation, it is assumed that they follow a principle that guides the talk. This principle is couched in the four maxims of conversation as developed by H. P. Grice in 1975. The maxims are: maxim of quality, maxim of relevance, maxim of manner and maxim of quantity.

a. Maxim of quality: This maxim simply stipulates that contributions to conversations must be true. In a simple term, it is be truthful. Here speakers and writers are expected to say only what they know is true and must have evidence for what they say.

However, Finegan (289) identifies this maxim as the cause of lies:

It is good to reflect further on the maxim of quality. On the other hand, it is this maxim that constrains interlocutors to tell the truth and to have evidence for their statements. Ironically, however, it is this maxim that makes lying possible. Without the maxim of quality, speakers would have no reason to expect hearers to take their utterances as truth. It would be impossible to tell a lie. Lying requires that speakers are expected to be telling the truth.

This simply means that some interlocutors purposely go against this maxim because they expect their hearers to believe that they are saying the truth.

b. Maxim of relation: This maxim directs speakers to organise their talk in such a way that it would be relevant to the ongoing context or discussion. Anything short of this stops the conversation.
c. Maxim of manner: This maxim in a simple term says: be orderly and clear. It informs that speakers and writers should avoid ambiguity and obscurity in their talk contributions. Instead, they should organise their talk logically and coherently. In violation of this maxim, Finegan (289) provides this example: “A birthday cake should have icing; use unbleached flour and sugar in the cake; bake it for one hour; preheat the oven to 325 degrees; and beat in three fresh eggs”. This violates the maxim of manner because there is a procedure for baking that is known that has not been obeyed. It is not natural for one to bake with an oven before preheating it.
d. Maxim of quantity: Speakers are constrained by this maxim to give as much information as is necessary for their hearers to appreciate their utterance, but to give no more information. When a question is asked, the speaker expects the listener to respond according to what is asked.

Data Presentation and Analysis

Text 1

Eunice: Watch your steps, Mr.!

Desmond: I am sorry, madam.

Eunice: I am not a madam. I am a miss.

Desmond inadvertently hits Eunice while walking. The reaction of Eunice is a function of context. Desmond is not known to her. And so, they are strangers. The first conclusion in this part of the world is that Desmond has an ulterior motive. Her reaction is abrupt and quick. Her tone of voice is not friendly. All these are because Desmond is not known to her. If she knows him, he would react in a milder manner. This is context at work. We don't speak friendly to someone we don't know especially when the person makes this kind of mistake that many think can lead to some ugly ending. Again, Desmond's reply shows context at work. Desmond calls her madam - a term used to address a female that you don't know her name. if Desmond knows her, he will have called her by her name. in all, their talk exchange is affected by context. Again, Eunice quickly corrected him. Her anger is because of her marital status. That is context again at work. She wouldn't want any to address her as 'madam', because she is not married. It is wrongly believed that madam is used to address married people only. Though, Desmond wasn't wrong, she wanted everyone to know her marital status that she is single and searching. That's what some female folks do, especially the ones that are above the twenties.

Text 2

Ada: I didn’t see you in church yesterday. Though, I sighted Brother Desmond, I had no time to talk to him. What happened?

Juliet: It was the monthly monster. I mean those women that had children and reached menopause should just thank God.

Here, context affects language use. Juliet says that the monthly monster prevented her from attending service the other day. What could that mean? Here, she is referring to their monthly cycle. But while would she answer Ada's question that way. The simple reason is because the person she is talking to is a woman and would understand very well what she meant by monthly monster since she also experiences the same. Again, her reply is informal. This is context at work. We tend to speak informally and in a relaxed manner to someone that we are familiar with and we are friendly to.

Text 3

Secretary: Why not take a seat. Mr. Desmond will be with you in a moment.

Eunice: You said a minute two hours ago. I have an appointment with him.

Secretary: Then you wait.

Eunice: See; let me tell you something, sitting beside this typist desk does not make you my superior, okay. I have an appointment with Desmond and I want to see him now.

Why not take a seat.

This presupposes that there is a seat, yet she is still standing. It is quite strange that one would come into an office and decides to stand. Standing would signify that the visitor is not relaxed and it will be normal for the secretary to offer her a seat.

Mr. Desmond will be with you in a moment.

This presupposes that there is someone called Mr. Desmond; he is not yet in the office but will come later. Mr. Desmond is the name of the secretary’s boss. Because of the anxiety of Eunice, the visitor, the secretary tries placating her, telling her that her boss will be with her in a jiffy.

You said that two hours ago.

The above presupposes that that statement has been said before; since then two hours had past. One can see that Eunice is angry here. She does not want to hear anything again. She now concludes that the secretary is lying to her. In normal talk exchange, if one tells us that he will be with us in a second, we expect the person to come back quickly but when the person stays longer than expected, one becomes anxious and restive.

I have an appointment with him.

This presupposes that she did not come there without an appointment; he knew she would come. One can see the anxiety on Eunice. But, she gives herself away. If one has an appointment with a boss of a particular bank, one wouldn’t behave the way Eunice is behaving.

See, let me tell you something, sitting beside this typist desk does not make you my superior.

Actually, a secretary will always have a table and a chair. Eunice only considers her as a typist. So, there is a table with a desktop computer on it. The secretary sits on the chair to perform her duties. Eunice is already angry. She considers herself already a staff in the bank and above the secretary.

Text 4

Prophet: Heli! Jah Jehovah!, Saboth! Yes the message is coming, is clear, mimo! Eli! Holy! Who says your husband will marry another woman? No!

Eunice: He is not my husband. I want him to marry me.

Prophet: Yes, you are right. Saboth! Jehovah Raphael. He is going to marry you and you will be his only wife. Yes.

Eunice: He is married already.

Prophet: Yes eh, stop helping the spirit. I know; I know; I know. He is going to send that one away and marry only you

Eunice: Amen!

Yes! The message is coming.

Eunice, in a bid to make Desmond marry her, goes to a prophet for prayers. This is because she believes that the prophet can make prayers that will make Desmond marry her and abandon his wife. Along the line, the prophet says the above. The above shows that the prophet accepts to pray for her and declares that the message is on the way. It presupposes that there is a message. The message is on the way.

Who says your husband will marry another woman?

The presupposition is that Eunice is married. Her husband will not succeed in marrying another woman. Here, we can understand that the prophet is actually lying to Eunice about a message. Calling Desmond, Eunice’s husband shows that he didn’t see anything but as most false prophet would do, he wants the money that Eunice will pay her.

He is not my husband. I want him to marry me.

Eunice quickly corrects the prophet. This presupposes that Eunice is not married. She is interested in the man. The man does not want to marry her.

Yes, eh, stop helping the spirit.

The above presupposes that she has been helping the spirit. Again, the spirit cannot decipher the problem at hand. The prophet shows that he’s angry that he hasn’t guessed at the situation of things.

Text 5

Titi: Who dey there? I dey come oh! “Ekaaro”. Good morning.

Mrs. Daniels: I presume that man that is married to my daughter is at home.

Titi: Yes. Oga dey. He dey house. Welcome ma.

Mrs. Daniels: Alright, you go tell him I am waiting in the sitting room

Titi: Yes ma.

Mrs. Daniels: Okay.

Titi: Okay ma. Ah! Ah! Man marry, marry mad mother-in-law. Even peacock no waka like that.

I presume that man that is married to my daughter is at home.

This implies a sour relationship between Desmond who is married to her daughter and Mrs. Daniels. Referring to him as that man means that he is of no value to him. We do know very well that sons-in- law are highly appreciated in the Nigerian context and taken as part of the family. However, she has shown that he is not accepted into their family. Again, that statement implies that it was a mistake that he got married to her daughter in the first place and so cannot be regarded as a son-in-law.

Yes. oga dey. He dey house.

However, the response from Titi shows that she is not happy with her. To her, her “oga” - a Yoruba word used for master, though, has found its way into the Nigerian pidgin - is not that man. That is why she continues to repeat it. In the other way, Titi could not understand why she would refer to her master as that man. This could be what is implied by the repetitions and in a way reminding her that he is not that man but her able master and the boss of this house.

Mrs. Daniel’ s refusal to respond to the friendly gesture of Titi implies that they are not of the same class. Mrs. Daniel is too full of herself and so people like Desmond should not even come near not to talk of Titi, a common housemaid.

Ah! Man marry, marry mad mother-in-law.

It is only a mad woman that would behave like that. Mrs. Daniel has only succeeded in making herself a mad woman and so could be excused.

However, Titi proceeds to cancel the implicature by appearing direct in her next response, though Mrs. Daniel has gone to the sitting room. Yet, she introduced another implicature by saying even peacock no waka like this implying that she is prouder than even peacock that most people thought is the proudest animal.

TEXT 6

Titi: Ah! Ah! Wetin Oga come put for pocket? Ah! Ah! Rain coat! Wetin Oga come dey take this kind thing do for office now. Me I think say born twice people no dey play away game. But Oga Desmond, e no possible say that kind angel man fit chase skirt.

Ah! Ah! Wetin Oga come put for pocket?

The implicature is that it is unusual for her boss to forget or put things in his pocket. By extension, her boss must be up to something funny.

Ah! Ah! Rain coat!

The excerpt above implies that the last thing to be seen in her boss’ pocket should be a rain coat. Rain coat is a euphemism for condom. The exclamation from Titi shows that she never expected her boos to have such a thing in his possession. Though, some used it for family planning, but she understood clearly that her boss wouldn’t put it in his pocket if it is for family planning.

Wetin Oga come dey take this kind thing do for office now?

The implicature here is that she knows that people who go about with such things do unholy things outside their matrimonial home. This implies that her boss does unholy things in the office. He does not use the “rain coat” at home with his wife. He cannot use it with his wife because he will not try to hide or prevent anything like pregnancy or sexually transmitted disease from being contracted. However, he does such things at the office and hides it from his wife at home.

Me I think say born twice people no dey play away game.

The implicature is that those who go by the tag “born again” are hypocrites. They do a lot of evil behind doors and later parade themselves as saints. They are like whitewashed graves that appear to be beautiful outwardly but are full of dead men’s bones that are decayed and putrefied.

But Oga Desmond, e no possible say that kind angel man fit chase skirt.

Desmond has been a good person at home. He has shown that he cared for his family, takes his worship of God seriously. And so it is impossible that he should be chasing “skirt”. Skirt here is a euphemism for women. Here, Titi is as surprised as anyone in her shoes will be.

Text 7

Juliet: Are you the other woman?

Janet: Other woman? Oh! You mean the one dating your so-called born again husband?

Juliet: Get out from my house! Get out from my house, you stranger! Look! What gave you the nerve to come to my house and disturb?

Janet: Hey madam, take it easy. I think you should save your anger for my friend Eunice and definitely not me.

Juliet: Sister Eunice

Janet: (laughs) sister Eunice (laughs) oh my God. Sorry, sorry, but who told you she’s anyone’s sister

Juliet: I met her before.

Janet: And she told you that she is Sister Eunice. Anyway, she lives in a house that was bought by your husband, drives a flashy car and is currently pregnant with his child.

Are you the other woman?

Here, the implicature is that Juliet knows there is another woman and has been wanting to meet here. We can see her anger, ready to burst and that is why she asked her to leave her house immediately. In real life, no one wants to hear that her husband has another woman he is going out with. Some would even go to the extent of fighting.

... Oh! You mean the one dating your so-called born again husband.

The implicature created by the above expression is that for a long time, Juliet has not been in the know. Her husband only pretends to be a born-again while he goes about doing all sorts of evil which includes promiscuity. The implicature created helped Juliet to realise that all the days the husband came in late or stayed outside overnight, he was busy sleeping around with another woman.

Get out from my house! Get out from my house, you stranger!

Look! What gave you the nerve to come to my house and disturb?

Here, Juliet accepts that her husband can do anything he likes outside, but not inside her house. The implicature created her is that she cannot cohabit with her. She should do anything she wanted to do with her husband but not inside her house. This is shown by calling stranger.

Hey madam, take it easy. I think you should save your anger for my friend Eunice and definitely not me.

I think it is not time to get angry could be another of saying what Janet meant above. However, when you will be in the right to get angry you will then know that I am not the she-devil. The she devil is enjoying herself somewhere. That this is the implicature created here is seen by Janet taking to Juliet to the house that Desmond bought for her.

Sister Eunice!

This sounded like a movie to Juliet. How could it be true that the Eunice she met in her husband’s office happened to be the other woman? With her surprise she created an implicature which is: I do not know that I have met the devil behind my predicament and allowed her to go. (Laughs) Sister Eunice (laughs) oh my God. Sorry, sorry, but who told you she's anyone's sister

In normal everyday conversation, we tend to laugh at someone who is fooled but behaves as if he was wise. The laughter is an implicature. It is meant to inform Juliet that she has been fooled. This can be seen in her laughing the second time. In a way, Eunice is a she-devil not a sister as she supposed. However, Janet proceeds to cancel the implicature created. By her next statement, she made Juliet to know that what she meant by her laughing was that Eunice cannot be someone to trust. She is actually the one responsible for your marital woes. However, Eunice was just behaving like other members in your church who parade themselves before others as holy but are devil incarnate. Again, she made her to understand that that Christianity is proved by action and not just words or by appearance.

... Anyway, she lives in a house that was bought by your husband, drives a flashy car and is currently pregnant with his child.

The implicature created here is that Janet is trying to buttress her assertion. That Desmond is not a true man of God and that Eunice is not what you take her to be.

Cooperative principle

TEXT 8

Ada: I overheard some women talking in the church and insinuating that she and Pastor Oliver are too close for comfort.

Desmond: What? Juliet and Pastor Oliver?

Ada: Yes.

Desmond: This is absurd! Listen Ada, I don’t welcome gossips about my wife from anyone, nobody for that matter. Do you understand me? Now good day.

Ada: I mean no harm.

Desmond: Look Ada! I said good day alright. And hey, for your own good, Juliet must not hear this.

I overheard some women talking in church and insinuating that she and Pastor Oliver are too close for comfort

This is a fall out with the maxim of quality that stipulates that talk contribution should be only on what one knows to be true and has evidence for. She only said that she overheard, so she does not have any evidence for what she told Desmond and it cannot be proved to be true.

Listen Ada! I don't welcome gossips about my wife from anyone for that matter

Ada never expected to hear this as a response from Desmond. For the discussion to continue the way Ada wanted it, Desmond’s response was irrelevant. And so fails to heed the maxim of relevance. However, Desmond only tried to save his marriage and such a disregard for the tone and direction of the conversation is called for.

In a bid to save face, Ada retorts: I mean no harm - which connotes a lot of implicature. Nevertheless, this is another fall out from the maxim of quantity and relevance. It fails the maxim of quantity in the sense that no response from her is needed considering the fact that Desmond is vehement in his refusal to listen to her destructive criticism about his wife. In this case, silence is needed and not any talk contribution. More so, the maxim of relevance is not also adhered to because once the information has gone beyond the expected quantity that is needed, then any addition becomes irrelevant.

Text 9

Desmond: I am glad you did. So I have to move on.

Eunice: Come on, Desmond. Stay some more okay. Don’t spoil a perfect day.

Desmond: Look, am sorry. I have to be going.

Eunice: Desmond, I know am not pretty, but I can give you ...

Desmond was not truly born again. His body was not the temple of the Holy Spirit. True, action speaks louder than words. Desmond was only pretending to be born again. What he told Eunice was not his true nature. He was actually lying and so he failed the maxim of quality.

Again, the situation did not call for all those explanations. If he truly meant what he said, he would have left the house, but he remained because he had a clandestine motive. The above expression failed the maxims of quantity and relevance.

Text 10

Desmond: Stop this! Stop this! You don’t want me to get forceful! Stop this! What is wrong with you?

Eunice: Why are you behaving like a baby?

Why all these stop this! Stop this! Eunice never expected Desmond to remain and just say stop this! She expected that Desmond would either concede to her request or advances or just walk away. However, Desmond remained there saying stop this! Stop this! Imagine asking Eunice in her emotional state what is wrong with her. Desmond’s response did not adhere to the maxims of relevance and quantity.

Findings and Conclusion

Summary of findings

The researcher at this juncture presents the summary of his findings. The essence of this research is to decipher the role of pragmatics in the language use of a Nollywood film. The findings will be delimited to the pragmatic tools used in the analyses.

Context

As Fromkin, Rodman and Hyams (575) would put it, context can be “linguistic or situational”. Linguistic context refers to “what has been said hitherto that interlocutors depend upon to assign meaning to utterances” (584) while situational context refers to “knowledge of who is speaking, who is listening, what objects are being discussed, and the general facts about the world we live in, used to aid the interpretation of meaning” (593). The researcher reaches his conclusion based on the two types of context as explained above.

Context plays a crucial role in assigning meaning to the conversations in Desire. For example, in text 2, Juliet could say “monster” for menopause because of who she was talking to. She would not say that if she was talking to an older person. Again, Ada could come to gossip with Juliet because they were friends.

Context also betrays the choice of words and actions. In text 1, Eunice could bark on Desmond to watch his steps because she did not know him. However, that was never said again when they became friends. Why would Eunice allow the prophet to whip her all over in text 4? She understood his position and could not help the situation.

Presupposition

The use of presupposition in the Nollywood film examined prevents the interlocutors from making lengthy explanations. For example, in text 3, Juliet only needed to say that Titi had ‘overcooked the yam again.’ That was what Titi needed in order to be reminded that she had overcooked yams before. Juliet didn’t need to start reminding her of how many times she overcooked yam before.

Not only that, pragmatics is about the meant but unsaid. There are a lot of “meant” but “unsaid” in the conversations in “Desire”. To some extent it serves as co-text in a sense. It prevents unnecessary questions as the hearer understood what he heard and also what is presupposed. The language use of Nollywood films is sated with presuppositions.

Implicature

The language use in Desire is rich with a lot of implicatures. The use of implicature has a lot to do with the meaning and messages of Nollywood films. Taking Desire parts one and two as a case study, the use of implicature shows politeness on the part of the speakers. For example, Juliet told Titi, her maid, in text 3 that she has overcooked the yam again. The implicature in this statement is very deep. With that she made her to understand that she had been told not overcook yams again, however, she is adamant which could be construed to mean an affront to Juliet. Instead of telling her directly that it appears that she is challenging her authority, she employed implicature to convey the message.

Again, implicature is also used in line with context to convey meaning. Juliet blamed it on the monthly monster for her missing church service in text 4. Ada understood her because she is a female. That will not be understood by someone who has not seen her cycle before nor will it be understood by just any male counterpart. Implicature in the above is used as a tool to shroud meaning so that any who does not belong to a particular class does not get the message.

It is also observed that the language use in Nollywood films is full of implicatures and cancellation of implicatures. This is seen in text 2 where Titi created an implicature but later canceled it. Again, in text 4, Juliet created another one but did not leave it like that. She immediately canceled it. Lastly in text 7, Janet canceled the one she created. The cancelation of implicature is an aid into construing what the interlocutors mean. This is seen in text 7 when Janet created one by laughing; however, she canceled it by the next things she said. If she had not done that Juliet would be left in a world of her own.

The Cooperative Principle

Every interlocutor must adhere to a kind of principle for talk exchanges to flow. This principle is couched in the maxims of conversation, which are maxims of quality, quantity, manner and relevance. The conversations in Desire show a high level of adherence to the cooperative principle. However, there are deviations from one or two of the maxims in every text analysed. The deviations are meant to create implicature which gives the language a special treat.

In all, the maxim of relevance is trampled upon nine times, while that of quality is missed five times, followed by quantity two times. These show that there are many irrelevant things said. There are also a lot of lies told and more than the needed information is given. However, it also shows that the talk exchange is arranged in such a way that the first things are said first while the last things are said last. This is why the maxim of manner has no deviations.

Conclusion

Nollywood creates meaning through the use of presupposition and implicature. Context contributes a lot to meaning in Nollywood movies. Though, the cooperative principle is not adhered to in most cases, the deviations were deliberate and that made the talk exchange to continue. In their talk exchanges, Nollywood has shown some verisimilitude. We don’t seem to play along a conversation if what is said or asked doesn’t sound good to us.

Works Cited Adedun, Emmanuel. “The Sociolinguistics of a Nollywood Movie”. Journal of Global Analysis 1(2) 2010.

Clayton, Jonathan. “Nollywood Success Puts Nigeria’s Film Industry in Regional Spotlight". The Times. 3rd April, 2010.

Erick Oh. Nigeria’s Film Industry: Nollywood Looks to Expand Globally. United States International Trade Commission (USITC) Executive Briefings on Trade, October 2014

Finegan, Edward. Language: Its Structure and Use. 5th ed. USA: Thomas Higher Education, 2008.

Fromkin, V., Rodman, R. & Hyams, N. An Introduction to Language. United States; Wadsworth Cenage Learning, 2011.

Hymes D. “On Communicative Competence”. Eds. Pride J. B. & Holmes J. Sociolinguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin 1972.

Leech, G. N. Principles of Pragmatics. London/New York: Longman, 1983.

Levinson S. C. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.

Malinoski, Bronislaw. The Problem of Meaning in Primitive Languages in Ogden, C. K. and Richards, I. A. The Meaning of Meaning: A Study of the Influence of Language upon Thought and of the Science of Symbolism. 8th Edition, New York: Harcourt, Brace and World Inc., 296- 336. 1946.

Mey, Jacob. Context and (dis)ambiguity: a pragmatic view. Journal of Pragmatics, 2003.

Morris Charles “Foundations of the Theory of Signs”. International Encyclopedia of Unified Science. 1(21) Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983.

[...]