I want to jot down a few thoughts that have intrigued me for a long time,
but that I never pursued in a systematic fashion yet.
In 1975, the philosopher of language H.P.Grice published a seminal article
entitled "The Co-operative Principle" that created quite a stir on the
linguistic scene and generated a large number of linguistic publications
that built on Grice's postulates. The basic assumption is that any
discourse, whether written or spoken, is a joint effort. Both the speaker
and the addressee have to follow certain pragmatic, syntactic, and semantic
rules in order to communicate effectively. They have to co-operate. Grice's Co-operative Principle consists of several maxims that appear very simple, straightforward, and
common-sensical at first sight. What took me by surprise is that you can
actually observe these principles at work on a highly technical level in
language when you analyze spoken or written texts. You can find them in any
text of any genre in any language. If a speaker violates one or more of
these fundamental maxims, the communication breaks down. When you read on,
you will think that Grice's maxims are terribly idealistic, that few
speakers really follow them. On a broader, social level that is certainly
true. However, on a more basic, technical level, they work with surprising
accuracy. In a successful discourse, you can relate this success to their
observance. When misunderstandings (and real life human linguistic and
non-linguistic communication is full of misunderstandings) occur, you can
demonstrate that they are generally due to a violation of one or more of the
maxims. The degree to which these principles are obeyed and applied is a
criterion (not the only one) for the evaluation of the quality of a text. In
the equestrian world, they are a criterion for the rider's competence in the
saddle (as well as on the ground).
Riding is often quite rightfully referred to as communication, i.e. a type
of language that enables the rider to convey his wishes to the horse, and
vice versa, the horse communicates his feelings, attitudes, and opinions to
the rider.
In the next few paragraphs I will introduce a few of Grice's maxims and try
to relate them to riding. In linguistics it is commonplace to talk about
speaker/writers and of addressees. Speakers or writers are the authors of
statements or texts, who have to package information in a way that it can be
understood by another person, the addressee(s). The addressee, in turn, has
to "decode" the message, the information that the speaker/writer tries to
communicate verbally (and/or with body language). Since we are interested in
the communication between rider and horse, we can substitute rider and horse
for speaker and addressee.
An important aspect of spoken discourse ("repartee" in technical, linguistic
terms) is turn taking, i.e. each participant has to await his turn in the
conversation, while giving the other participant(s) a chance to make their
contribution. This is as important in riding as in inter-human discourse.
Too many riders flood their poor horses with an incessant emission of
orders, without ever giving the animal a chance to respond. This is as
disrespectful to the horse as it is counterproductive. It is disrespectful,
because if the rider does not allow the horse to take his turn in the
discourse and to respond to a request, it means that the rider is not
interested in the horse's contribution. However, the horse's feedback to the
rider's aids is of the utmost importance for good riding. Without it, we
would never know if what we are doing is right or wrong, good or bad, or if
we are going in the right direction. The horse's response to our aids gives us the
information we need in order to choose our next movement or transition, to
make the adjustments in our seat and aids that are necessary to improve both
our riding and our horse's performance. Without it, good riding is
absolutely impossible. It's as simple as that. Not allowing the horse to
contribute to the conversation is therefore unproductive for several
reasons. On the one hand, we will not have the crucial information we need
to improve, and on the other hand, the horse will feel unappreciated and
become frustrated with the entire riding process. He will tune us out and
begin to resent the rider very quickly. I.e. the rider loses the horse's
cooperation, which is synonymous with the end of success and progress. It is
the antithesis of good riding, whether it is classical dressage or any other
type of riding.
Quality: "Be Informative"
This maxim means that the speaker/writer has to include all the information
that the addressee requires to understand. If the speaker leaves out a
crucial piece of information, the addressee will not understand what the
speaker is trying to say. Applied to riding, this means that the rider has
to utilize the entire orchestra of his aids, the full range of nuances that
he is capable of in order to create as clear and complete as possible an
image in the horse's mind of what he is trying to accomplish at the moment.
Quantity: "Be Brief"
The meaning of this maxim is that the speaker/writer should avoid including
unnecessary, redundant information in his contribution. If the speaker
rambles on without saying anything new or informative, the addressee will
lose interest in the discourse very quickly and stop paying attention. In
the equestrian context, the rider has to avoid any and all unnecessary or
unharmonious movements and changes in muscle tone. As they are devoid of meaning, they
confuse the horse, and the rider loses his horse's attention. The horse
appears dull and lazy. In reality, the horse has come to the conclusion that
the rider's aids are meaningless chatter and therefore not worth paying any
attention to.
The two maxims "Be Informative" and "Be Brief" are in a natural state of
tension with each other. Maximum informativeness automatically includes a
certain amount of repetition and redundance. Maximum brevity entails leaving
out information that some addressees may find important while others would
consider it superfluous.
Erring on the side of informativeness means that
every addressee will be able to understand the message, but many of the more
intelligent or more knowledgeable ones will get bored with it, because the
discourse does not move fast enough. Boredom almost always leads to
inattentiveness.
Erring on the side of brevity, on the other hand, comes
with the price that some addressees will not understand the content of the
communication. Not understanding the discourse makes the addressee feel left
out. It leads to frustration, and frustration often leads to inattentiveness
as well. Every discourse is a balancing act between the two extremes. The
speaker has to ask himself: "How much information do I have to include so
that my addressee understands what I am trying to say? How little
information can I get away with, without losing my addressee?"
The tension between the two opposite demands can be subsumed under
linguistic economy.
It exists on many different levels, syntactic, phonetic, pragmatic, and
semantic. It is one of the driving forces behind linguistic change.
Consciously or unconsciously, it is also a driving force behind our
personal evolution as riders. We all strive to become more effective with
our seat and aids - and effectiveness is nothing other than finding the
perfect balance between informativeness and brevity, as well as lightness,
in our aids. The rider always has to ask himself questions like: "How little
leg can I get away with, before the horse loses impulsion? How light can my
rein contact be, before the cycle of energy is interrupted and the horse
falls apart? How small can my aid be for the next movement or transition?"
"Be Relevant"
Relevance is an extremely important principle in linguistics, and entire
books have been written just on the role of relevance in language. In the
context of H.P.Grice's Co-operative principle, the demand for relevance
simply means that the speaker/writer should only include information in his
communication that is relevant to the discourse topic. On our
Classicaldressage discussion list we had numerous examples in the past where
people posted things that were not relevant in the narrower sense of the
word to the training of a dressage horse in the classical tradition. It is
interesting to observe that the perceptions of what is relevant and what is
irrelevant diverges among people. This shows that relevance is a matter of
degree, not something absolute. In linguistics that is quite typical. Hardly
anything is set in stone, almost everything is a matter of degree or
statistical frequency. The same thing applies to riding as well. Based on
the circumstances of the individual situation, the specific application of
the general principles can vary significantly.
Relevance in riding may not be as immediately obvious as the preceding two
maxims. Different experts can probably come up with different definitions.
For me personally, relevance in riding has to do with choosing the right
priorities in the training of the horse and rider. At any given moment there are
innumerable things that are less than perfect and that need to be corrected.
However, in real life, we can only focus on very few things at a time (some
people can hardly focus on one thing at a time). The educated, thinking
rider has to select which problem is the most pressing one right now. That
means that other problems will have to remain unaddressed for the time
being. This is one of the finer, more artistic points in riding. Sometimes,
ringside critics may see that a rider or teacher is not addressing an
obvious problem, and they assume that he or she is not educated enough to
notice it. What usually does not occur to them is that perhaps the person is
fully aware of the mistake, but chooses to put it on the backburner until
other, more urgent issues are resolved. In other words, the rider and
teacher must have a prioritized list of issues in his head that will all be
handled in due time. The top priority item is worked on first. As it
improves, its urgency status is reduced and the next item on the list takes
precedence, etc. This way, the rider and teacher cycles through the list in
a serial fashion.
Relevance applies to all aspects of horsemanship. When working on a certain
issue, the rider has to make sure that the exercises he selects are relevant
to the topic he is working on. While all movements are relevant to some
aspects of improving the horse's gait, they are often not relevant to all
aspects. Therefore, the rider must choose exercises that help to improve the
aspects of the gait that he is currently focussing on. Sometimes you can
observe riders who seem to ride movements, patterns, and transitions
completely randomly, with absolutely no coherence among them. There seems to
be no unifying theme to their work, and not surprisingly their training
never goes anywhere. A thinking rider, by contrast, can always give a reason
for why he is riding a particular exercise.
In a lesson, the teacher has to ask himself: "Do I address the student's
torso first, or the legs, or the hands? What is the most important thing? Do I
address the horse's issues at this point or do I focus entirely on the
rider? What is the biggest obstacle for horse and rider right now?"
It also applies to the execution of movements. Especially when we introduce
a horse to a new movement, we will usually not get the finished product the first
time around. So we have to evaluate the execution. What was good, what was bad?
How central, how basic, how relevant are the mistakes? Which ones do we try
to improve first? Sometimes we have to sacrifice one element temporarily for
another, more primary, more basic element. This is a decision that has to be
made on a very individual basis, and in some cases the horse's particular
set of strengths and weaknesses can make it necessary to choose an unusual
path. Maintaining the spirit of classical horsemanship is more important
here than following the letters of a training manual. As yet inexperienced
riders often struggle with this choice. They either want to fix everything
at once, or they choose the wrong item out of a misunderstanding of its
relevance.
"Be Truthful"
The applicability of truthfulness to riding may not be immediately obvious.
In linguistic terms the maxim of truthfulness refers to the importance of
only making statements we believe to be true. The reason is that if we get
caught making false statements we lose our credibility, which is one of the
most important social assets a person can have. Obviously, in real life this
maxim is often violated in order to deceive the addressee. In less serious
contexts, it can be violated in an obvious manner when the speaker tells a
joke or teases the addressee.
Truthfulness, credibility are just as important in riding as they are in the
social interactions with other human beings. What I mean by this is that the
rider's aids must be unambiguous. The rider has to mean what he says. This
is especially relevant for timid, fearful riders. They ask their horse to do
something, e.g. to perform a transition into the trot or canter, yet their
entire being tells the horse: "Stop! Don't move!" They go limp in their
waist, tip their shoulders forward, grip with their fists, so that they are
killing all the energy that their leg is asking for at the same time.
Depending on the personality of the horse, this can set them up for serious
accidents.
Manner: "Be Polite"
Truthfulness and politeness are of philosophical and moral rather than
grammatical significance in linguistics. The demand for politeness simply
means that we should treat other people as we would like to be treated -
verbally and otherwise. In an equestrian context, we could substitute "Be
Polite" with "Be Kind". As riders we should always strive to achieve our
goals with as much kindness and consideration for the horse as possible -
without pampering the horse on the other hand. In situations that warrant a
reprimand, we should always maintain the attitude towards the horse that:
"I'm your friend, but you can't be rude to me." Everything we do should be
guided by genuine affection for the individual horse we are riding, not just
by the idea of loving the species equus. Continuing this train of thought,
kindness also implies that we will not exploit a horse to gain personal fame
or fortune, that we will not ask anything of the horse that he is unable to
fulfill without incurring physical or psychological damage. In other words,
the well-being of the horse has to outweigh any other consideration.
