Flouting Grice’s Conversational Maxims: A Case Study of the 2022 Kenyan Deputy Presidential Debate

Abstract

Political debates are important ventures that have been carried out globally. They show how well candidates can think on their feet, manage stress effectively and what facts they have at their fingertips. Significantly, debates thrust candidates to public examination, prompting them to explain their agenda, defend themselves against the criticism of opponents and explain why they should be elected. Presidential debates have become the norm the world over and many countries in Africa have given such debates prominence especially during political campaigns. With the advent of technology, televised debates have been embraced and media houses in conjunction with other organizations have been in the forefront in organizing such debates in order to give the public a chance to evaluate the preparedness of their candidates for the tasks they are yet to undertake if elected in the positions they are vying for. Television allows attachment between a presidential candidate and the public and it furnishes voters with more factors with which to evaluate candidates. In Kenya, these broadcast debates have become a fundamental part of egalitarian exchange, shaping how citizens judge dependability, management style and preparedness to rule. This study sought to investigate instances in which Grice’s conversational maxims were flouted by two Kenyan deputy presidential candidates during a televised debate that took place in the run up to the 2022 general elections. The study was guided by Grice’s (1975) Cooperative Principle. A qualitative descriptive design was used and excerpts from the debate were purposively selected for analysis. The study revealed that both candidates flouted Grice’s conversational maxims.