OCR A Level English Literature and Language, Jeremy Paxman and Dizee Rascal Interview

Grice's Maxims

Amos' response partially demonstrates higher adherence to Grice's maxims. She provides structured, evidence-based analysis, ‘Ithink there is a language in America which is much more about dreaming’, and maintains clarity throughout.

Rascal's apparent flouting of the manner maxim, ‘It is what it is’, ‘Politicians are gonna say what they say’, could be seen as deliberately authentic communication that serves his persona andcconnects with his audience.

His ambiguity might be strategic rather than poor communication.

Accommodation Theory & Idiolect. Rascal’s

This appears to be Rascal's natural idiolect rather than deliberate downward divergence.

His consistent use of multicultural London English features, ‘innit’, ‘yeah man’, throughout suggests this is his authentic speech variety, not a strategic accommodation choice.

If it were divergence, we'd expect more marked shifts or code-switching, which don't occur.

Politeness Theory

Paxman shows politeness to Amos through:

● Using her full name respectfully;

● Asking complex, intellectually engaging questions that acknowledge her expertise;

● Not interrupting her responses;

● Framing questions that allow her to demonstrate political knowledge and authority.

Gender Language Theory & Sociolect

Amos' Recievd Pronounciation usage probably stems from her social experiences rather than gender-based overcorrection.

As a professional politician and member of the House of Lords, her formal register reflects her educational background, career requirements, and social class.

Her hedging, ‘I think’, ‘Having said that’, could reflect political training in diplomatic language rather than gendered linguistic insecurity, as these are standard features of Phonologypolitical discourse designed to avoid commitment to a point.

Phonology

Rascal's speech appears less fluent due to:

● Fillers: ‘know what’, ‘you know what I mean’, ‘man’ - natural conversational markers;

● Hesitations: Pauses while formulating thoughts in a formal setting;

● Repetitions: ‘immediate, immediate symbol’ - emphasis rather than disfluency His apparent lack of fluency may actually reflect authentic, spontaneous speech rather than the rehearsed political language of Amos or Paxman's practiced interviewing style.

Lexis and Semantics

● ‘Embrace’ and ‘unity’: Suggest Rascal views Obama as genuinely inclusive and bridging divides - positive, hopeful language;

● ‘Innit’ and dialectal phrases: Creates authentic, relatable persona; maintains connection to his community and youth audience;

● Other sociolect examples: ‘yeah man’, ‘gonna’, ‘know what I mean’ - multicultural London English;

● Paxman's language to Amos: Uses sophisticated political vocabulary,’social dynamic’, ‘American dream’, ‘founded on betterment’, elevates the discourse and acknowledges her expertise.

Grammar

Rascal uses:

● Incomplete sentences: "Yeah. In time." - conversational fragments.

● Loose syntax: "Everything just takes time man if you believe you can achieve, innit?" - stream-of-consciousness style This creates an informal register contrasting with Amos's complex, subordinated clauses and Paxman's structured questions. It reflects natural speech patterns rather than formal political discourse.

Discourse

All participants engage with Obama's campaign themes:

● Hope and change: Rascal's optimism, Amos's "aspirational" language;

● Unity: Rascal's "symbol of unity", Amos discussing encouragement Rascal's language fits the inspirational discourse but maintains authenticity within the formal setting, potentially making the message more accessible.

Other Things to note:

Pragmatics Young people/people of colour: May interpret Rascal's contributions as authentic representation, seeing his success in maintaining his identity in elite spaces as empowering

Older/white audiences: May focus on his apparent lack of political sophistication, potentially reinforcing stereotypes about informal speech and political capability The interview highlights how linguistic prejudice can affect perception of speaker credibility and intelligence.