an analysis of the violation of grice’s maxims on … · mengetahui hal yang sebenarnya dan hanya...
TRANSCRIPT
i
AN ANALYSIS OF THE VIOLATION OF GRICE’S MAXIMS
ON THE BOY MOVIE SCRIPT
TITLE PAGE
A SARJANA PENDIDIKAN THESIS
Presented as Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements
to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree
in English Language Education
By
Cynthianita Septifani Purnomo
Student Number: 131214072
ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM
DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION
FACULTY OF TEACHERS TRAINING AND EDUCATION
SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY
YOGYAKARTA
2017
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
ii
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
iii
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
iv
STATEMENT OF WORK’S ORIGINALITY
I honestly declare that this thesis, which I have written, does not contain the work
or parts of the work of other people, except those cited in the quotations and the
references, as a scientific paper should.
Yogyakarta, September 12, 2017
The Writer,
Cynthianita Septifani Purnomo
131214072
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
v
LEMBAR PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN
PUBLIKASI KARYA ILMIAH UNTUK KEPERLUAN AKADEMIS
PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN PUBLIKASI
Yang bertanda tangan di bawah ini, saya mahasiswa Universitas Sanata Dharma:
Nama : Cynthianita Septifani Purnomo
Nomor Mahasiswa : 131214072
Demi pengembangan ilmu pengetahuan, saya memberikan kepada
Perpustakaan Universitas Sanata Dharma karya ilmiah saya yang berjudul:
AN ANALYSIS OF THE VIOLATION OF GRICE’S MAXIMS
ON THE BOY MOVIE SCRIPT
beserta perangkat yang diperlukan (bila ada). Dengan demikian, saya memberikan
kepada Perpustakaan Universitas Sanata Dharma hak untuk menyimpan,
mengalihkan dalam bentuk lain, mengelolanya dalam bentuk pangkalan data,
mendistribusikan secara terbatas, dan mempublikasikannya di internet atau media
lain untuk kepentingan akademis tanpa perlu meminta ijin kepada saya atau
memberikan royalti kepada saya selama tetap mencantumkan nama saya sebagai
penulis.
Demikian pernyataan ini saya buat dengan sebenarnya.
Dibuat di Yogyakarta
Pada tanggal: 12 September 2017
Yang menyatakan,
Cynthianita Septifani Purnomo
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
vi
ABSTRACT
Purnomo, Cynthianita Septi. (2017). An Analysis of The Violation of Grice‟s
Maxims on The Boy Movie Script. Yogyakarta: English Language Education
Study Program, Sanata Dharma University.
The Grice‟s maxims are used in the conversation in order to make the
response in accordance with the utterances provided by the listeners and provide a
productive and meaningful conversation. The listeners tend not to fulfill the
Grice‟s maxims or to violate it in order to make the speakers do not know the
truth and only understand the surface meaning of the speakers‟ words. The
violations on Grice‟s maxims are commonly found in the daily conversation
including the conversation in the movie. The researcher uses The Boy movie to be
researched in order to analyze the Grice‟s maxims in the listeners‟ responses.
The setting of The Boy movie creates the possibility of maxims violation
on the speakers‟ utterances. Therefore, this research is intended to find out
violations of Grice‟s maxims by the speakers‟ disclosure and analyze the reasons
of the violations. Two research questions are formulated to achieve the objectives
in this research. The first research question is which Grice‟s maxims are violated
in The Boy movie. The second research question is what reasons for the characters
of The Boy movie to violate the Grice‟s maxims are.
The researcher conducted this qualitative research using discourse analysis
as the method. In order to gather the data, the researcher employed human and
document as the instruments. The human instrument in this research was the
researcher who gathered, identified, and analyzed the data. The document
instrument in this research was The Boy movie script.
The findings in this research for the first research question showed that
there were four types of Grice‟s maxims were violated by the characters of The
Boy movie namely, Maxim of Quantity, Quality, Relevance, and Manner.
Meanwhile, based on the findings for the second research question, it revealed
that there were seven reasons were used by The Boy‟s characters to violate Grice‟s
maxims. The seven reasons were used by the characters were saving face,
protracting the answer, avoiding the discussion, pleasing the interlocutors, being
polite, communicating self-interest, and misleading the counterparts.
Keywords: Grice‟s maxims, maxim violations, The Boy movie
.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
vii
ABSTRAK
Purnomo, Cynthianita Septifani. (2017). An Analysis of The Violation of Grice‟s
Maxims on The Boy Movie Script. Yogyakarta: Program Pendidikan Bahasa
Inggris, Universitas Sanata Dharma.
Maksim-maksim Grice digunakan dalam percakapan untuk membuat
respon yang sesuai dengan ucapan yang diberikan oleh pendengar dan
menyediakan percakapan yang produktif dan bermakna. Pendengar cenderung
tidak memenuhi persyaratan Grice atau untuk melanggarnya agar pembicara tidak
mengetahui hal yang sebenarnya dan hanya memahami makna dasar dari kata-
kata para pendengar. Pelanggaran dalam maksim-maksim Grice biasanya
ditemukan dalam percakapan sehari-hari termasuk percakapan dalam film.
Peneliti menggunakan film The Boy untuk diteliti agar dapat menganalisa
maksim-maksim Grice dalam respon-respon si pendengar.
Keadaan dari film The Boy menciptakan kemungkinan terjadinya
pelanggaran maksim Grice dalam ucapan pembicara. Oleh karena itu, penelitian
ini bertujuan untuk menemukan pelanggaran pada maksim-maksim Grice dalam
penyingkapan pembicara dan menganalisa tujuan dari melakukan pelanggran
terhadap maksim-maksim Grice. Dua pertanyaan penelitian dirumuskan agar
dapat mencapai tujuan-tujuan dalam penelitian ini. Pertanyaan penelitian yang
pertama adalah maksim-maksim Grice mana saja yang dilanggar dalam film The
Boy. Pertanyaan penelitian yang kedua adalah untuk alasan-alasan apa saja
karakter dalam film The Boy melanggar maksim-maksim Grice.
Peneliti melakukan penelitian kualitatif menggunakan discourse analisis
sebagai metode penelitiannya. Agar dapat mengumpulkan data, peneliti
menggunakan manusia dan dokumen sebagai instrumen-instrumen penelitian.
Instrumen manusia dalam penelitian ini adalah peneliti sendiri yang
mengumpulkan, mengidentifikasi, dan menaganlisis data. Instrumen dokumen
dalam penelitian ini adalah skrip film The Boy.
Hasil dari peneleitian ini untuk pertanyaan penelitian yang pertama
menunjukkan bahwa ada empat jenis maksim Grice yang dilanggar oleh karakter-
karakter dalam film The Boy yaitu Maksim Kuantitas, Maksim kualitas, Maksim
Relevan, dan Maksim Manner. Sementara itu, hasil dari pertanyaan penelitian
yang kedua menunjukkan bahwa ada tujuh alasan dari karakter-karakter film The
Boy melanggar maksim-maksim Grice. Tujuh alasan yang digunakan oleh
karakter-karakter The Boy untuk melanggar maksim-maksim Grice yaitu
menyelamatkan muka, memperlambat jawaban, menghindari diskusi,
menyenangkan lawan bicara, bersikap sopan, mengkomunikasikan kepentingan
pribadi, dan menyesatkan lawan bicara.
Kata Kunci: Grice‟s maxims, maxim violations, The Boy movie
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
viii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First of all, I would like to express my profoundest gratitude to my Jesus
Christ for always bringing light to my life. I am very thankful for everything He
gives to me in this life. I thank Him for sending me the talented and precious
people that will be mentioned below.
My profound gratitude is addressed to my beloved thesis advisor, Yuseva
Ariyani Iswandari S.Pd., M.Ed. for her patience, support, and encouragement in
guiding me to accomplish this thesis. My profound thanks also go to all of my
lecturers in the English Language Education Study Program of Sanata Dharma
University for the chance to learn English and life values together, especially to
Maria Vincentia Eka Mulatsih, S.S., M.A., for the help of validating data in my
thesis. My special thanks go to all students in batch 2013. I thank my family in
Small Class C and Thesis Class who always make my journey in the college life
more colorful.
My profoundest gratitude goes to my beloved parents, my father Tri Heri
Purnama and my mother Melani Jumiyati, and to my beloved two little brothers
Welza Hernanda Putra and Nova Ardian Purnama, for their irreplaceable care,
love, support, patience, motivation, and advice. I am grateful for having them in
my life because they are my greatest motivation so that I can finish my study.
Besides, they are always by my side in every tough time I get through and they
always cheer me up and understand me.
I thank my beloved proofreaders Maya, Mercy, Nindya, Martha, and
Restu, for the willingness, patience and guidance in revising my thesis so that I
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
ix
could revise and finish my thesis. I am grateful for having them in my life because
they voluntarily offer the help to revise my thesis. Without their helps, it is
impossible for me to finish this study and I appreciate all of their helps in
completing this study.
I also thank my best friends in Teman Tapi Mesra squad and Team
Rangers who always support, encourage, and motivate me in the college life. My
thankfulness also goes to my best friends Agung Try Hardoyo, Anna
Damayanti, Vitaloka Irmala Dewi, and Maria Rosari; I am grateful for having
such helpful and kind best friends. They are never getting tired of supporting and
motivating me in finishing this study. I thank them for always staying by my side
and the friends who I can talk to and shared story with so that it makes my life
more colorful.
Last but not least my gratefulness goes to all of the people whose names
cannot be mentioned one by one here. May God always bless us.
Cynthianita Septifani Purnomo
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
x
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
TITLE PAGE……………………………………………………...…..………...…i
APPROVAL PAGES .............................................................................................. ii
STATEMENT OF WORK‟S ORIGINALITY ...................................................... iv
PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN PUBLIKASI ........................................................ v
ABSTRACT…. ...................................................................................................... vi
ABSTRAK…… ....................................................................................................... vii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................. viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................ x
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................ xii
LIST OF APPENDICES ...................................................................................... xiii
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. 1
A. Research Background .................................................................................. 1
B. Research Questions ...................................................................................... 5
C. Research Significance ................................................................................. 5
D. Definition of Terms ..................................................................................... 6
CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED STUDY ................................................... 8
A. Theoretical Description .............................................................................. 8
1. Grice‟s Cooperative Principle .......................................................... 9
2. Maxim Violation ................................................................................ 11
3. Reasons of Violating Grice‟s maxims ......................................... 16
4. The Boy Movie .................................................................................... 28
B. Theoretical Framework ............................................................................. 30
CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY ....................................................................... 32
A. Research Method ........................................................................................ 32
B. Research Setting ......................................................................................... 33
C. Research Subject ......................................................................................... 34
D. Instrument and Data Gathering Technique ......................................... 35
E. Data Analysis Technique ......................................................................... 36
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
xi
Page
CHAPTER IV RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ........................... 39
A. Violations of Grice‟s Maxims in The Boy Movie ............................. 39
1. Single Maxim Violations ................................................................. 40
2. Multiple Maxims Violations ........................................................... 49
B.Reasons of Violating Grice‟s Maxims ................................................... 58
1. Saving Face .......................................................................................... 59
2. Protracting the Answer ..................................................................... 65
3. Avoiding the Discussion .................................................................. 61
4. Pleasing the Interlocutors ................................................................ 62
5. Communicating Self-interest .......................................................... 63
6. Being Polite ......................................................................................... 64
7. Misleading the Counterparts ........................................................... 65
CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................. 67
A. Conclusions .................................................................................................. 67
B. Implications .................................................................................................. 68
C. Recommendations ...................................................................................... 69
REFERENCES ...................................................................................................... 71
APPENDICES ...................................................................................................... 73
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
xii
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
4.1 Single Maxim Violation By The Characters In The Boy
Movie………………………………………………………….….40
4.2 Multiple Maxim Violations By The Characters In The Boy Movie ............... 49
4.3 The Reasons of Violating Grice‟s Maxims ………………………………….58
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
xiii
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendices Page
APPENDIX 1 The List Of Single Maxim Violation In The Boy Movie ..………74
APPENDIX 2 The List Of Multiple Maxim Violations In The Boy Movie …….78
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
In this chapter, the researcher presents some important aspects of the
research. Those aspects are the research background, research questions, research
significance, and definition of terms.
A. Research Background
People are social creatures in this world. This means people cannot live by
themselves and they should have relation and interactions with others to keep their
life continue. By using communication or conversation, people will construct a
good relation since they can share information with their society. In order to
achieve a good relation in a conversation, there should be cooperation between the
speaker and listener so that the communication can make sense (Yang, 2008, p.
64). Besides, Davies (2000, p. 6) states that a listener is expected to recognize the
content and intention of the utterance, so they can provide a particular response to
a speaker‟s speech act in order to be cooperative in conducting a conversation.
This means the response should be mutually dovetailed with the speaker‟s
utterance. In short, the speakers‟ utterances in a conversation demand responses
by the listeners. By doing so, the speakers and listeners successfully construct
good relation because they make the conversation productive and meaningful.
Based on the discussion above the speakers‟ utterances require responses
employed by the listeners. This means the listeners are supposed to provide their
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
2
responses accordingly. However, not all the utterances are responded accordingly.
This is known as maxim violations. Cutting (2000, p. 40) states that when a
listener does not fulfill or obey the maxims, a listener is said to “violate” them.
Violation is the condition in which the listeners do not purposefully fulfill certain
maxim. When the listeners do maxim violation, the conversation between the
speakers and the listeners can be unsuccessful since they will misunderstand each
other. The speakers who violate a maxim cause the listeners not to know the truth
and only understand the surface meaning of the speaker‟s words. As a result, their
conversations cannot go well and smoothly.
In order to make the responses to be in accordance with the utterances
provided by the speakers and provide a productive and meaningful conversation, a
speaker needs a conversational rule called maxim. An American famous linguist,
Grice (1975, p. 45) proposes Cooperative Principle (CP) which consists of four
maxims, namely Maxim of Quantity, Maxim of Quality, Maxim of Relevance,
and Maxim of Manner. Maxim of Quantity governs the speakers to provide a
contribution that is as informative as it is required. Maxim of Quality governs the
speakers to be honest and true when providing their glosses. Maxim of Relevance
governs the speakers to provide relevant contribution. Maxim of Manner governs
speakers to be clear, univocal, brief, and orderly when providing their glosses.
Since Cooperative Principle and the theories of maxims deal with the way
people conduct conversation in daily life, it is undeniable that a conversation or
dialogue also occurs in the arts including movies. Graham (2005) states that a
movie is a form of symbolic expressions of human being since it has the ability to
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
3
record people and the events around them and it becomes its best value (p, 117).
This means that it can represent people‟s daily conversations because it resembles
the real world of human. On the other hand, Kotti, Ververidis, Evangelopoulos,
Panagakis, and Kotropoulos (2008) describe “dialogue scenes in a movie are set
of consecutive shots containing human conversations” (p. 1). They underline that
the conversations include significant interactions between the persons.
Grounded on the aforementioned explanation, the researcher chose The
Boy movie to be researched because it is a worth watching film since it combines
elements of mystery, horror, conflict, thriller, action, and drama. The Boy is a
horror-mystery-thriller movie which is directed by William Brent Bell. This
movie contains human daily conversation and depicts the circumstances of the
peculiar life of rich Heelshire family as opposed to Greta‟s normal life as a nanny.
The violations occur within that circumstances as mentioned above. The setting
creates the possibility of maxims violation on the speakers‟ utterances. The
mystery or the truth behind the peculiar life of Heelshire family who live with a
porcelain doll triggers the characters of The Boy movie to mislead their
counterparts, to be polite, to save face, protract the answers, please the
interlocutors, avoid the discussion, and communicate self-interests by providing
long-winded, dishonest, irrelevant, and unclear utterances. When providing such
utterances, the characters violate the Maxim Quantity, Quality, Relevance, and
Manner respectively. Therefore, The Boy horror-mystery-thriller movie indeed
can be analyzed to find out the types of violating maxims and the reasons of
violating maxims in the conversation.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
4
In fact, those violations on Grice‟s maxims can take place in all societies
including Indonesian society; they can often be seen in play at University of
Sanata Dharma class or community. The students of Sanata Dharma University
often fail to obey the maxims, for instances, by telling a white lie in a
conversation. Instead of saying “I am sorry, I have not understood yet,” students
prefer saying, “Yes, Sir/Miss,” or saying nothing or nodding their heads to the
teacher‟s question, “Understand?” or “Do you understand?” or “Is it clear?”
In this research, the researcher observes and examines maxim violations on
the listeners‟ response to the speakers‟ speeches which are found in The Boy
movie based on Grice‟s Cooperative Principle, namely Maxim of Quantity,
Quality, Relevance, and Manner. This research also attempts to identify the types
of the maxims which are violated by the speakers in the movie‟s dialogue and
examine for what reasons to the speakers violate the maxims. In this sense, the
researcher aims to find out the violations on Grice‟s maxims and to analyze the
reasons underlying the maxims violations. The researcher believes that by
acquiring a complete knowledge of Grice‟s maxims and the maxims violations,
English language learners and readers will be able to construct a good relation
with others and provide a productive and meaningful conversation. This research
will give further and profound data about maxims violations which are found in
The Boy movie and the characters‟ reasons violate the maxims found in the
conversations.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
5
B. Research Questions
There are two research questions which are going to be answered in the
research. They are elaborated more as follows:
1. Which Grice‟s maxims are violated in The Boy movie?
2. What are the reasons for The Boy‟s characters movie violate Grice‟s
maxims?
C. Research Significance
After implementing the research, the researcher expects that this research
will give significance for:
1. The English Language Education Study Program Teachers and
Students (ELESP)
This research will provide an alternative medium of source in teaching and
learning on Grice‟s Cooperative Principle for the teachers and students. In fact,
students can learn much from the characters in the movie on how to construct a
good relation or productive and meaningful conversation by providing
informative, honest, relevant, and clear information. Grice‟s Cooperative Principle
also can help students develop their information to be as informative as required,
mutually dovetailed, and clear. Thus, teachers and students can employ Grice‟s
Cooperative Principle in the classroom during the teaching and learning process of
all classes.
2. Future Researchers
For the future researchers who are going to conduct research in the same
field, in this case is the violation in Grice‟s Cooperative Principle, this research
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
6
will provide more information about the violation in Grice‟s Cooperative
Principle. Besides, the future researchers can refer to this study as their references
if they want to conduct profound research on linguistics fields.
3. Readers
This research will give insights to the readers when they happen to have
violating maxims in their daily communication. By reading this research, the
readers will be able to identify what types of violating maxims found in the
conversation on The Boy movie and the reasons of violating maxims. Besides, this
research can be useful for the readers if they would like to study more on the
violation in Grice‟s Cooperative Principle as well.
D. Definition of Terms
In order to perceive a clear understanding upon the discussion, it is better
to know the meaning of terms used throughout the discussion. Some important
terms together with their definitions are elaborated as follows.
1. Grice’s Cooperative Principle
Davies (2000) asserts that Grice‟s Cooperative Principle is the rules for
people enable to engage or to carry out a meaningful conversation (p. 2). The
rules of Grice‟s Cooperative Principle are the conversational maxims. Grice
(1975) proposes four maxims, namely Maxim of Quantity, Quality, Relevance,
and Manner. The maxims govern how people ordinarily react in conversation: be
brief, be true, be relevant, and be clear (Grice, 1975, p. 45). In this research,
Grice‟s Cooperative Principe refers to the rules of conversational maxims that
must be obeyed by the speakers when conducting communication.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
7
2. Maxim Violation
Basically, people are not always truthful and cooperative in a conversation.
Each conversation may contain the reasons of the speakers. These reasons can be
good or bad for the speakers and the listeners. In this case, it is regarded as
violating the maxims, when the participants are being uncooperative in doing the
conversation. Zor (2006) argues that people tend to violate the maxims during the
exchange of conversation quietly and unostentatiously when they fail to observe
the maxims intentionally (as cited in Al-Qaderi, 2015, pp. 80-81). In this research,
maxim violation refers to the speakers who fail to observe the maxims during the
exchange of conversation.
3. The Boy movie
Based on IMDb, The Boy or The Inhabitant is one of the finest late horror
movies in United States since it has different plots although it uses the porcelain
doll likes other horror movies, such as Annabelle, The Conjuring, and Chucky.
Dolls and poltergeists have been overdone in the past decades, but a movie likes
The Boy has never been done before because in the end of the movie, the doll is
controlled by a human not an evil spirit. The Boy first aired on January 22nd
, 2016,
and it was directed by William Brent Bell. The 97-minute horror movie is in the
nonlinear narrative or a storytelling technique where in events were portrayed out
of the chronological order. The genre of this horror movie is horror-mystery-
thriller. The Boy is well-known for its twist story in the ending of the story.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
8
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
In this chapter, the researcher presents the review of related literature used
in this study to help the researcher answer the two research questions stated in the
previous chapter. There are some theories of Grice‟s Cooperative Principle,
maxim violation, the reasons of violating Grice‟s maxims presented in the
theoretical descriptions section. This chapter is divided into two subtopics, namely
the theoretical description and theoretical framework. The theoretical description
presents the theories of this research. Meanwhile, the theoretical framework
explains the organized theories to accomplish this study.
A. Theoretical Description
In this theoretical description, the researcher presents some theories which
are directly relevant to the matter in this study. In this chapter, the researcher
presents the related studies, theories of Grice‟s Cooperative Principle, Maxim
Violation, The reasons of violating maxims (Saving face, Being polite,
Misleading the counterparts, Pleasing the interlocutors, Avoiding the discussion,
Protracting the answer, and Communicating self-interest) and The Boy movie. The
Grice‟s Cooperative Principle and Maxim Violation theories are used to answer
the first question of the research. Meanwhile, the reasons of violating maxims
(Saving face, Being polite, Misleading the counterparts, Pleasing the interlocutors,
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
9
Avoiding the discussion, Protracting the answer, and Communicating self-
interest) are used to answer the second research question in this research.
1. Grice’s Cooperative Principle
In the linguistics field, even more specifically in the area of pragmatics, an
important concept was introduced: maxims of conversation. It is unwritten rules
that govern people to make an appropriate conversation. The Cooperative
Principle (CP) was first formulated by Herbert Paul Grice (1975) which refers to
the assumption of a basic conversation which is made when the speaker speaks to
one another that is trying to be cooperative when doing a conversation in order to
construct meaningful conversations. It is explained by Terkourafi (2005) that
Grice‟s Theory of Cooperative Principle was proposed to depict how effective
communication is achieved in common situations (p. 1). An effective conversation
can happen when the speakers and the listeners can understand each other in a
conversation. They can share what they intend to share smoothly. Then, they can
accept each other‟s meaning despite the status, whether they are close friends,
parents, teachers, sellers and buyers, etc. The speakers behave in a particular way
to lead the listeners to understand the speakers‟ utterances so that the listeners are
able to give the appropriate response to the speakers‟ utterances. The concept of
cooperative activity leads the listeners to assume that all speakers are always
cooperative.
Here, Grice (1975) proposes some rules that should be obeyed in doing a
conversation (p. 45). These rules are formulated in a principle of cooperating
called Cooperative Principle (CP). CP has four sub-principles called maxims;
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
10
Maxim of Quantity, Quality, Manner, and Relevance. According to Bach (2006)
those maxims are used to explain the relation between utterances and what is
understood from them (p. 5). Bach (2006) also claims that the participants as a
listener assume that a speaker is being cooperative by speaking truthfully,
informatively, relevantly, and appropriately (p. 6). Here, the four sub-CP are
elaborated as follows.
a. Maxim of Quantity
Grice (1975) states that Maxim of Quantity governs the speakers to
provide their contributions as informative as are required and more informative
than are required (p. 45). It is explained by Brown and Yule (1983) that Maxim of
Quantity means that the speakers should be as informative as they are required,
that they should give neither too little information nor too much (p. 32). The
meaning of this maxim is that the speakers should avoid the unnecessary,
redundant information in the contribution.
b. Maxim of Quality
Grice (1975) postulates two sub-maxims based on the category of quality:
“Do not say what you believe to be false,” and “Do not say that for which you
lack adequate evidence” (p. 46). This maxim tries to make your contribution one
that is true or it requires that the statements are used in conversations have some
factual basis. It means that the statement will provide reliable information
(O‟Grady, 2005). In this sense, when giving information, the speakers should be
honest. In other words, the speaker should not lie in his or her talk.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
11
c. Maxim of Relevance
In this category Grice (1975) only places a single sub-maxim, namely “be
relevant” (p. 46). Maxim of Relevance, also called Maxim of Relation, it deals
with the relevance of information provided by speakers. In a conversation, the
speakers and the listeners should make their exchanges clearly dovetailed
mutually.
d. Maxim of Manner
This maxim means to be perspicuous and specifically a) avoid obscurity,
b) avoid ambiguity, c) be brief, d) be orderly (Grice, 1975, p. 46). Maxim of
manner means that the participants have to be perspicuous and they also have to
avoid obscurity of expression and the ambiguity when they react to the other
participants (Levinson, 1983, p. 108). In this sense, the speakers must not use
utterances that they know their listeners do not understand.
2. Maxim Violation
Grice (1975) aims to posit the Cooperative Principle and Conversational
Maxims to be rational tool to speakers “to have an interest, given suitable
circumstances, in participation in talk exchanges that will be profitable only on the
assumption that they are conducted in general accordance with the Cooperative
Principle and the maxims” (p. 49). However, Grice (1975) really knows that the
speakers still tend to break the rational tool. Grice notices that the violations of his
maxims take place when the speakers intentionally refrain from applying the
maxims in their conversations. The speakers violate this principle in two ways,
namely quietly and unostentatiously.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
12
Grice (1975) underlines that the speakers who violate a maxim will be
liable to mislead (p. 49). This means that the participants do not observe the
maxim intentionally or they tend to tell a lie for some reasons. Christoffersen
(2005) states that one of the aims of the speakers tend to tell a lie is they believe
that a lie is the natural tool to survive and to avoid them from that may put them in
an inappropriate condition (as cited in Tupan & Natalia, 2008, p. 64). Therefore,
the speakers who violate a maxim cause the listeners not to know the truth
because they only understand the surface meaning of the speakers‟ glosses. The
violations of maxims are clearly shown in the examples as follows.
a. Violation of the Quantity Maxim
Maxim of Quantity requires the speakers to provide sufficient and
supporting information. Moreover, the speakers should not make a contribution
more informative than what is required. If the speakers violate the maxim of
quantity, they do not give enough information to the listener to know what is
being talked about, because they do not want the listener to know the full picture.
The speakers are not implying anything, they are “being economical with the
truth”. This phenomenon can be clearly illustrated in Dialogue A.
Dialogue A
Context: A (a guest) wants to be nicer and friendlier; he smiles to B (a
receptionist) and says hello politely. A dog comes and stands beside him. Then A
asks B.
A : Does your dog bite?
B : No
A : (bends down to stroke it and gets bitten) Ouch! You said your dog
does not bite!
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
13
B : That is not my dog.
(Cutting, 2000, p. 40).
B‟s answer to A‟s question in Dialogue A depicts violation of the Quantity
Maxim. B violates the maxim by saying No. No is not the right amount of
information. It is too little information in such a situation. The situation demands
B to provide a short but really informative explanation. A really informative
explanation needed by A from B is, for example It is not my dog so I do not know
whether the dog likes to bite or not or It should be better if you do not touch the
dog since it is not my pet. However, B intentionally does not provide such an
informative contribution, although B knows that A is talking about the dog which
is beside B and it is not B‟s pet. Conversely, B is supposed to give the informative
contribution in order to let A ponder on the real reason for A.
b. Violation of the Quality Maxim
Maxim of Quality deals with the genuineness sincerity of the speakers
when providing the information. Thus, it requires the speakers to refrain from
saying what they believe to be false. Maxim of quality also interdicts the speakers
to say things that lack of adequate evidence. Conversely, if the speakers violate
this maxim, they are not being sincere and they give the wrong information to the
listener. Besides, when providing information, the speakers may tell a lie or fail to
back up their statements with enough evidence as seen in the Dialogue B.
Dialogue B
Context: A wife bought a new dress which cost 50 pounds. When her husband
asked about the new dress‟s price, she told the wrong information. She lied to her
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
14
husband because she did not want her husband to get angry toward the expensive
dress since her husband got low salary from his job.
Husband : How much did that new dress cost, darling?
Wife : (see the tag-50 pounds, but says…) Thirty-five pounds
(Cutting, 2000, p. 40)
In this exchange, the wife said to her husband something she knew it was
false. She knew that the price of new dress was fifty pounds; she knew that her
husband had low salary from his job, and she knew that her husband would get
angry if he knew the truth about the price of the new dress. Based on her
experience, she should say “The new dress costs fifty pounds”, she was untruthful.
Thus, the wife violated the maxim of quality. She purposely lied to her husband in
order to avoid an unpleasant condition or a bad consequence, such as anger or a
punishment.
c. Violation of the Relevance Maxim
Maxim of Relevance deals with the relevance of information provided.
Thus, the speakers should make their statements as relevant as possible. The
information that they contribute should clearly relate to the purpose of the
exchange. However, if the speakers violate the maxim of relevance, it creates a
peculiar effect. This means that the listeners do not respond in a relevant way. In
addition, the speakers can choose to deliberately make the information irrelevant
in order to mislead the listeners or to cause misunderstanding on the listeners‟
part. The violation of Relevance Maxim is illustrated in Dialogue C.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
15
Dialogue C
Context: A and B have been doing the exam paper in their school. A is curious
whether B has already finished the exam paper or not, so A asked B about the
exam paper.
A : Have you finished that exam paper yet?
B : It‟s been raining a lot lately, hasn‟t it?
(O‟Grady, 2005, p. 233)
As shown in Dialogue G, actually A wants to know whether B has already
finished the exam paper or not, but B responds in an irrelevant way by asking A
about the weather. Thus, it is clear that B‟s answer violates the Maxim of
Relevance. A‟s question has been in regard to B‟s exam paper. B‟s answer does
not contribute to A‟s goal, rather B‟s purpose, is to distract A‟s attention from the
topic under a discussion and to cause A to misunderstand the conversation.
Moreover, B‟s response gives an implicature that B does not want to talk about
the exam paper since he has not finished it yet.
d. Violation of the Manner Maxim
Maxim of Manner is related to the way speakers provide information.
When speaking, the speakers should provide precise information. Nevertheless, if
the speakers violate the maxim of manner in their utterances, they want to give the
listeners the ambiguous and obscurity information (O‟Grady, 2005, p. 234). This
means that the speakers can violate the maxim by providing wordy utterances
with multiple ways of interpretation.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
16
Dialogue D
Context: A (husband) is not the only one who earns money, but the economy
condition is bad. He sees B (wife) wears an unusual dress. The husband asks the
wife.
A : How much did that new dress cost, darling?
B : A tiny fraction of my salary, though probably a bigger fraction
of the salary of the woman that sold it to me.
(Cutting, 2000, p. 40)
B‟s response in Dialogue D violates the Maxim of Manner: “Be
perspicuous,” “Avoid obscure expression,” and “Be brief”. B‟s answer “A tiny
fraction of my salary of the woman that sold it to me” is obscure and prolix to A.
It is quite hard for A to understand such an unclear response. Thus, B‟s answer
implies that B wants to hide clear information on the price of the dress. B
purposely violates the Maxim of Manner in order to keep it secret from A, who
wants B to be economical. Besides, B wants to avoid the discussion about the
dress by employing such a long gloss.
3. Reasons of Violating the Maxims
In order to answer the second research question which deals with the
reasons of The Boy‟s characters do maxim violation, the researcher uses Goffman
(2008), Leech (1983), and Brown and Levinson (1987), Khosravizadeh and
Sadehvandi (2008), and Donerus (2005) because the theories are suitable to the
circumstances of the story‟s plot which make the characters want to violate the
maxims. According to Goffman (2008) says that the speakers do not abide by
Grice‟s maxims in order to save face (p. 17). In addition, Leech (1983), and
Brown and Levinson (1987) the speakers tend to violate the maxims in order to
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
17
show politeness (p. 62). Khosravizadeh and Sadehvandi (2011) add one more,
even two reasons for violating the maxims; the first is the speakers tend to violate
the maxims with intention “to cause misunderstandings on their participants‟ part
and or to achieve some other reasons, for example to protract answer, please
interlocutors, and avoid discussion” (p. 122). Dornerus (2005) says that the
speakers tend to violate Grice‟s maxims in order to communicate their self-
interest (p. 16). In addition, there are seven reasons of The Boy‟s characters do
maxims violation based on the theories are used by the researcher to answer the
second research question. Therefore, the reasons are elaborated as follows.
a. Saving Face
In particular situations or conditions, the speakers tend to say things in a
wordy way, dishonesty, and ambiguously, especially in face-to-face talk. Goffman
(2008) postulates that the speakers tend to “employ circumlocutions and
deceptions, facing his replies with careful ambiguity so that the others‟ face is
preserved” (p. 17). He defines face as an individual‟s “image of self-delineated in
terms of social attributes─ albeit an image that others may share as when a person
makes a good showing for his profession or religion by making a good showing
for himself” (Goffman, 2008, p. 5). In this sense, face refers to a speaker‟s self-
esteem or sense of personal identity. When facing their interlocutors, speakers try
to save face, namely their personal self-esteems and others‟ personal self-esteems.
The illustration of face saving is presented in Dialogue E.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
18
Dialogue E
Context: The twins, A and B are taking care of each other very well and have
never hurt each other. One day Fred, A‟s close friend is in need of a car to drop
his parents at the airport. A‟s car is still in a garage. Thus, A lends Fred B‟s car
while B is still away. A tells B about the car immediately after B gets home.
A : Fred has just borrowed your car.
B : Well I like THAT!
(Leech, 1983, p. 83)
Hearing the information from A, B gets upset. Thus, B‟s gloss gives rise to
implicature that he does not want Fred to borrow his car. Nevertheless, in order
not to hurt A, B does not want to show his anger obviously to A. Thus, instead of
saying I don‟t like that, B responds Well, I like THAT! B‟s gloss, although it is
sarcastic sounds more polite. In point of fact, B uses the guise of sarcasm to tell a
lie to A for the sake of saving face of his and A‟s. B does not want people
surrounding them to know his anger.
b. Being Polite
Leech (1983) states that a Politeness Principle is coexisting with Grice‟s
Cooperative Principle since it is the one of other solutions to solve the problem.
Leech (1983) describes six sub-politeness maxims embodied in his Politeness
Principle (p. 132). The example of each maxim is quoted from pages 133, 135,
136, and 138. The maxims tend to go in pairs described as follows.
1) Tact Maxim
Tact Maxim (in impositives and commisives) deals with other centered.
This means in order to achieve politeness, the speakers have to imply benefit to
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
19
others rather than to imply less cost to others. For example, (1) Peel the potatoes
(cost to others = impolite) and (2) Have another sandwich (benefit to others =
polite).
2) Generosity Maxim
Generosity Maxim (in impositives and commissive) deals with self-
centered. In order for being polite in the conversation, the speakers have to imply
less benefit to self and imply cost to self. For example, (1) You can lend me your
car (benefit to self = impolite) and (2) I can lend you my car (cost to self = polite)
3) Approbation Maxim
Approbation Maxim (in expressive and assertive) deals with the flattery
maxim or being insincere when expressing a proposition, such as stating,
suggesting, boasting, complaining, claiming, reporting, or congratulating others.
In achieving this maxim in order to be polite, the speakers have to avoid saying
unpleasant things about other.
Example: A: Her performance was outstanding!
B: Yes, wasn‟t it?
(Leech, 1983, p. 135)
4) Modesty Maxim
Modesty Maxim (in expressive and assertive) deals with avoidance of
saying unpleasant things about self. Here, the speakers govern to minimize praise
of self and to maximize dispraise of self in order to be polite.
Example: A: You were so kind to us.
B: Yes, I was, wasn‟t I?
(Leech, 1983, p. 136)
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
20
5) Agreement
Agreement Maxim (in assertive) enjoins speakers to minimize
disagreement self and others, and maximize agreement between self and others in
order to be polite.
Example: A: A referendum will satisfy everybody
B: Yes, definitely
(Leech, 1983, p. 136)
6) Sympathy Maxim
Sympathy Maxim (in assertive) enjoins speakers to maximize sympathy
between self and others rather than minimize antipathy between self and others;
therefore, they can achieve the politeness maxim.
Example: A: I‟m terribly sorry to hear that your cat died
B: Thank you
(Leech, 1983, p. 138)
In Grice‟s conversational maxims, Leech (1983) explains the reasons
people violate the CP in conversations. The reasons are described as follows.
The Cooperative Principle and the Politeness Principle are often in conflict
with each other. A speaker might, for example, be in conflict between
wanting to ask for a favor straight straightforwardly and not wanting to
impose. One element has to be scarified and the Politeness Principle gives
reasons for the Cooperative Principle to be violated (as cited in Grebe,
2009, p. 5).
Based on this point, Leech (1983) would like to say that in order to have a
cooperative and meaningful conversation, politeness must be upheld while Grice‟s
Cooperative Principle must be violated. Leech (1983) asserts that people feel
justified in telling „white lies‟ in particular circumstances (p. 82). Needless to say,
not all violations of the maxim of quality are blameworthy since it is perfectly
acceptable in many cultures (Cutting, 2000, p. 40). For example, when a child of
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
21
five asks her mother about his father, „Father‟s gone on a little holiday because he
needs a rest‟, rather than „Father‟s gone away to decide whether he wants a
divorce or not.‟ This means a lie that protects is a lie with good intentions, what it
calls a white lie. On the other hand, Grebe (2009) says that one of the main
reasons for violations of Grice‟s maxims lies within the concept of politeness:
“Since, roughly speaking, the more indirect an utterance is being articulated, the
more polite it will be considered” (p. 3).
Dialogue F
Context: A has finished reading a book where the writer has organized his ideas
very well. For this reason, A feels satisfied with the book. A informs B about the
satisfaction he has gained from the book. Since B has also read the same book, A
hopes B will have the same feeling and judgment.
A : The book is tremendously well written.
B : Yes, well written as a whole, but there are some rather
boring patches, don‟t you think?
(Leech, 1983, p. 138)
In Dialogue F, it can be depicted that B‟s response violates the maxim of
Manner. According to Grice (1975) the Maxim of Manner should have certain
response such as be perspicuous, be brief, be clear, be confident, and be
informative (p. 46). B‟s response contributes an unnecessary statement. The gloss
becomes obscure and not perspicuous. It is because, after saying “Yes, well written
as a whole”, B states his disagreement saying “but there are some rather boring
patches, don‟t you think?”
Actually, B is in conflict between wanting to give an honest judgment of
the book and not wanting to offend A. B utters his response for the purpose of
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
22
avoiding a direct and open confrontation with A. Instead of directly by saying his
disagreement, B is supposed to respond “No, it is not well written at all. In fact,
there are some rather boring patches, don‟t you think?”
In order to describe politeness in the broad sense, Brown and Levinson
(1987) introduce the notion of “face” (p. 45). Both of them define face as:
Something that emotionally can be showed and be lost maintained. It must
be constantly attended to in interaction. In general people cooperate in
maintaining face in interaction, such cooperation being based on the
mutual vulnerability of face. We have to acknowledge and show an
awareness of the face, the public self-image, the sense of self, of the
people that we address. It is a universal characteristic across cultures that
speakers should respect each other‟s‟ expectations regarding self-image,
take account of their feelings, and avoid face threatening acts (FTAs).
Brown and Levinson (1987) also have an assumption that every individual
has two types, namely face as wants and rationality. In this case, face as wants
means personal and social desires to be saved. Both of them claim that “every
member of a community knows every other member‟s desire and which in general
it is in the interests of every member to partially satisfy” (Brown & Levinson,
1987, p. 62). Meanwhile, rationality is an “application of a specific mode of
seasoning which guarantees references from ends or goals to means that will
satisfy those ends” (Brown & Levinson, 1987, p. 64).
Based on the face definition, Brown and Levinson also develop two sub-
theories, namely positive face and negative face (Brown & Levinson, 1987, p. 62).
Positive face is “the need to be accepted and liked by others, treated as a member
of the group, and to know one‟s wants are shared by others.” This means that
everybody has a personal basic desire for being approved by the community
because of their personality. Meanwhile, negative face is “the need to be
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
23
independent, have freedom of action, and not be imposed on by others.” This
means everybody in the community has desires not to be imposed upon as a part
of their social approval need.
c. Misleading the Counterparts
Khosravizadrh and Sadehvandi (2011) argue that in order to detect
counterparts‟ intention before the next move, the speakers tend to mislead the
listeners by giving false evidence or information. Added by Grice (1975)
Misleading their counterparts were one of thereasons of the maxims violations in
daily exchanges. In this sense means that the speakers give wrong information to
the listeners and it makes the listeners believe it or take it for granted.
Dialogue G
Context: Tom Canty was sleeping under a concrete bench then was caught by
three of the palace body guards. The Captain of the body guards fiercely rebuked
and beat him. By coincidence, the Prince came over. He hit and rebuked the
Captain to stop beating Tom Canty. The Captain knelt in front of the Prince
asking him for an apology. After rebuking the Captain, the Prince came over to
Tom Canty and asked him whether he felt hurt.
The Prince : (Fiercely looking at the body guard) Keep quiet! (Coming
closer to Tom Canty) Are you hurt, boy?
Tom Canty : (With closed mouth and sharp eyes looking at the Prince,
he cannot say anything).
The Prince : Are you hurt, boy?
Tom Canty : (After sometime) No, sir Your Highness, sir.
(Khosravizadeh & Sadehvandi, 2011)
Tom Canty intentionally misled the Prince that he did not feel hurt by
violating Maxim of Quality. He wanted to mislead the Prince into belief that he
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
24
did not feel hurt. As a matter of fact, he was just beaten fiercely by the Captain.
He just did not want to make an honest contribution by saying No, sir Your
Highness, sir, when answering the Prince‟s inquiries
d. Protracting the Answer
According to Khoravizadeh and Sadehvandi (2011) protracting the answer
occurs when the speakers employ verbose or short informative contribution. It is
also stated by Brown and Yule (1983) protract answer is when people give more
information than the hearer needs risk boring them (p. 32).
Dialogue H
Context: The event took place at a traditional market. It was a noon time, after the
prince finished his lunch. On the Prince‟s demand, Miles Hendon, the Prince‟s
savior, left the Prince to shop for new clothes to wear in the evening. Miles
Hendon left the Prince alone. When returning home, Miles Hendon found the
Prince gone. Since the Prince was under his care, Miles Hendon straight away left
the house to search for the prince in the traditional market nearby. In one corner of
the market there was a bumbling old man, called Ruffler, sweeping rubbish. He
was the first man from whom Miles Hendon gained information about the prince.
Miles Hendon : Did you see an urchin slide out of here?
Ruffler : He left, but sliding wasn‟t the way he done it. He said
to me, “Out of my way, fellow,” and stalked.
(Khosravizadeh & Sadehvandi, 2011)
In this sense, the answer was supposed to be short like Yes, I did or Yes, I
did or he left, but not sliding. Actually Ruffler could give sufficient information to
answer Miles Hendon‟s questions, but Ruffler thought that his short or insufficient
contribution might satisfy him. Therefore, he violated Maxim of Quantity in order
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
25
to achieve this purpose by providing such too informative information and
unnecessary answer, Khosravizadeh and Sadehvandi consider such an answer as
wasting time.
e. Avoiding the Discussion
Khosravizadeh and Sadehvandi (2011) states that avoiding discussion
occurs when the speakers may encounter an unpleasant situation or topic. This
means that when the speakers do not want to talk about an unpleasant topic, they
tend to violate the Maxim of Relevance by responding to that topic irrelevantly.
Dialogue I
Context: Dialogue I took place in the King‟s bedroom. Realizing that his death
was at hand, the King summoned Prince Edward. The King planned to abdicate
his kingship for the Prince. However, the Prince seemed to object it. In order to
assure the Prince, the King gave him a prolix advice. at the end of the verbose
advice, the King wondered if the Prince could understand all the things he had just
said.
King : You‟re like your mother.
Prince : What was my mother like?
King : A dull woman. She‟d have bored you.
Prince : No, she wouldn‟t. I‟d have loved her. Where is she?
King : Got another biscuit.
(Khosravizadeh & Sadehvandi, 2011)
The King purposefully violated the Maxim of Relevance because he
wanted to achieve this purpose. When talking about the Prince‟s mother, the King
noticed that the prince had already been hurt. The King immediately changed the
topic from eating a biscuit to talking about the Prince‟s mother, Lady Jane
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
26
Seymour since the King wanted to avoid giving an answer to the Prince‟s critical
questions and to avoid an unpleasant discussion.
f. Pleasing the Interlocutors
According to Khoravizadeh and Sadehvandi (2011) pleasing the
interlocutors deals with giving the insincere contribution in order to please the
speakers. Added by Brown and Levinson (1987) pleasing interlocutor refers to
negative face threatening acts. It is threatened when an individual does not avoid
or intend to avoid the obstruction of their interlocutors‟ freedom of action. In
other words, it is an act that shows that the speaker is succumbing to the power of
the listener.
Dialogue J
Context: Dialogue J took place at Fr. Andrew‟s office. Tom Canty had a very
special relationship with Fr. Andrew. Fr. Andrew knew very well that Tom Canty
often rebuked and beaten by his fiendish father, especially when he came home in
the evening without money in his hands. One day, the cruel father got very angry,
beat and flung Tom Canty onto the pond of mud then ruthlessly left him there.
Soon after that, Tom Canty came over to Fr. Andrew‟s house. He still looked
gloomy with some traces of tears running down his cheeks, blisters on his arms,
and mud on all over his body and shabby clothes.
Fr. Andrew : Thomas, have you been crying?
Tom Canty : No, Sir. It‟s sweat. You see, I‟ve been running.
Fr. Andrew : Someday I am going to discuss you with your father.
Tom Canty : Oh…Hem…No, I wouldn‟t, sir. You see, he doesn‟t
like to see anyone on account of he feels so badly about
me having to beg. Please, don‟t.
(Khosravizadeh & Sadehvandi, 2011)
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
27
Based on his own experience just prevailing on him only few minutes
before Fr. Andrew asked him, Tom Canty should only answer Yes, I‟ve been
crying, Tom Canty thought that Fr. Andrew would keep asking him for
information connected with the trouble he had just encountered as he was not
satisfied, Tom Canty deliberately violated the Maxim of Quality by providing a
false and long answer. Moreover, when answering Fr. Andrew‟s plan to visit his
father to discuss recent happening on himself, Tom Canty refused the offer by
saying No, Sir. My father wouldn‟t beat me. He takes care of me, He loves me.
The utterance Wouldn‟t beat, takes care of me and loves me satisfied Fr. Andrew.
Fr. Andrew‟s satisfaction was proved by his apology, by saying I apologize.
g. Communicating Self-interest
Dornerus (2005) says that violating maxims in order to communicate self-
interest is one of the goals to be reached by speakers in their conversations (p. 16).
Here, the speakers rather talk about their interest with the listeners than talk about
a topic which is being talked by the listeners.
Dialogue K
Context: Dialogue K took place in the Prince‟s bedroom. Since after the King
died, the Earl of Hertford came over to Tom Canty in the Prince‟s bedroom.
Thinking that Tom Canty was the real Prince, the Eral of Hertford urgently had
Tom Canty designate him as the Lord High Protector in a short and simple
ceremony.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
28
Tom Canty : Can I go home now, please?
Earl of Herford : Permit me, Your Majesty. Repeat after me, and
when you have finished strike my shoulder with
your sword.
(Khosravizadeh & Sadehvandi, 2011)
After the King passed away, the Earl of Hertford went to meet Tom Canty
in the Prince‟s office. Once hearing Tom Canty‟s request, Can I go home now
please? The Earl of Hertford ignored it. He actually well understood the request
and knew the proper answer, namely No, you cannot. However, the Earl of
Hertford did not answer him. He then properly knelt before Tom Canty and
implored him repeat after him as he read out the ceremony rite: “Let it be known
to all my subjects, and throughout my realm, that I hereby designate the Earl of
Hertford as my Lord High Protector to director with adult advice my untried
judgment.” The ceremony was done.
Supporting Khosravizadeh and Sadehvandi (2011), Donerus (2005) says
that one of the reasons of violation of maxims is to communicate the speakers‟
interests (p. 16). Thus, the purpose the Earl of Hefford violated the Relevance
Maxim was that he wanted to communicate his own interests by ignoring Tom
Canty‟s inquiry.
4. The Boy Movie
Director William Brent Bell (The Devil Inside) generally succeeds in
creating an eerie atmosphere, filling the screen with extended close-ups of
sinister-looking toys, mounted animal heads and various architectural details of
the house's nooks and crannies. He also shamelessly indulges in familiar horror
movie tropes, from the discreetly filmed, PG-13 shower scene to the horrific
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
29
moments that turn out to be nightmares to the jump scares featuring sudden loud
noises.
The story concerns on Greta (Lauren Cohan), a young American woman,
who takes a job as a nanny to an eight-year-old boy in a rambling mansion in the
remote British countryside. Having taken the unlikely assignment to escape
romantic troubles, Greta is more than a little surprised to discover that her new
charge, Brahms, is actually a porcelain doll.
He is the stand-in for the son of the dotty elderly couple the Heelshires
(Jim Norton, Diana Hardcastle), whose real son was tragically killed in a fire
twenty years earlier. Departing for their first holiday in decades, they leave Greta
with a lengthy list of instructions for Brahms' care, including never covering his
face and kissing him before he goes to bed.
Although she is initially putting off by the situation's craziness, Greta soon
settles into the massive home whose windows are sealed shut and which seems
forever shrouded in the darkness. In between handling such unappealing
assignments as emptying the outdoor rat traps, she periodically enjoys the
company of Malcolm (Rupert Evans), the charming grocery deliveryman who
shamelessly flirts with her.
Brahms seems to have a life of his own. He is mysteriously throwing off
the blanket covering him, shifting positions and even moving from room to room.
At first, Greta thinks it is merely her imagination, but when Brahms thoughtfully
leaves a peanut butter and jelly sandwich in front of her door, she becomes a
believer. She even manages to persuade the skeptical Malcolm that the doll is
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
30
possessed by the spirit of the dead boy. At the first time, it goes smoothly, with
Greta cooing over Brahms and lovingly tucking him in at night. However, the
unexpected arrival of her former boyfriend Cole (Ben Robson), who intends to
bring her back home with him, makes Brahms angry because he does not want to
let Greta go. Suddenly, the atmosphere of that event becomes so scarier for Greta.
B. Theoretical Framework
Maxim violation is a part of pragmatics concept involving an act of
disobeying the rules of being cooperative in a conversation. Violating a maxim
prevents or discourages the listener from seeking for implicature and encourages
their utterances at face value (Grice, 1975). This research focuses on maxim
violation uttered by the characters in The Boy movie.
In this theoretical framework, the researcher is going to present the
theories are used by the researcher to answer two research questions in this study.
As stated in Chapter 1, the researcher has two research questions. First, the types
of violations on the Grice‟s maxims which are found in The Boy movie
conversations Second, the reasons of The Boy‟s characters violate the maxims.
An awareness of the Cooperative Principle theory provides readers a
thorough understanding of the first research question, namely which Grice‟s
maxims are violated by the listeners on the responses to their speakers‟ utterances
in The Boy movie by having knowledge of the Cooperative Principle, readers
would be aware of Grice‟s conversational maxims, namely Maxims of Quantity,
Quality, Relevance, and Manner and how the maxims are violated by the
characters in The Boy movie.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
31
In order to answer the second research question in this study, the
researcher relates Leech (1983), Goffman (2008), and Brown and Levinson‟s
(1987) theories as mentioned above by interpreting the reasons of violating the
maxims found in the conversation of The Boy movie. Theory of Being Polite is
coined by Leech (1983) and Brown and Levinson (1987), theory of Face Saving is
coined by Goffman (2008), and theory of Misleading the Counterparts,
Protracting the Answer, Pleasing the Interlocutors, Avoiding the Discussion and
Communicating Self-interests are coined by Khosravizadeh and Sadehvandi
(2011), and Donerus (2005) that enable to explain the reasons of The Boy‟s
characters do maxims violation. In conclusion, those theories from Grice (1975)
and Leech (1983), Goffman (2008), Brown and Levinson (1987), Khosravizadeh
and Sadehvandi (2011), and Donerus (2005) which are mentioned above enable
the researcher to answer both research questions.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
32
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
In this chapter, the researcher gives a description about the research
methodology. This chapter is divided into some parts, namely the research
method, research setting, research subjects, instruments, data gathering technique,
and data analysis technique.
A. Research Method
In conducting this research, the researcher applied descriptive qualitative
research. Ary, Jacob, and Razavieh (2010) state that descriptive qualitative
research is designed to “obtain information concerning the current status of
phenomena” (p. 381). The phenomena in this research were the utterances
exchanged between the interactants in The Boy movie. Moreover, the
understanding of phenomena was discovered by using the qualitative method.
Frankel and Wallen (2009) explain that qualitative research approach deals with
actual words or actions of the people for a media to gain data by the researcher (p.
423). This means qualitative research allows the researcher to have the profound
and systematic description of language phenomena by analyzing the cases found
in printed documents, films, TV programs, arts music, videotapes, and transcripts
of conversation (Frankel & Wallen, 2009, p. 423). Therefore, the method assisted
the researcher to answer the two research questions by providing a narrative
description of the responses to the speakers‟ utterances. Thus, the researcher
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
33
descriptively presented the violations of Grice‟s maxims and the reasons for the
violations made by the characters in The Boy movie. The method helped the
researcher to identify which maxims were violated and for what reasons the
maxims were violated by the characters in The Boy movie.
Among the types of qualitative research technique, this research belonged
to discourse analysis. Discourse analysis is used to analyze language above,
beyond a mere the accumulation of sounds, morphemes, words, clause, and
sentence (Norman, 2003). Specially, this method focuses on a power, domination
and construction, and reproduction of power in texts and conversation, language
in social contexts, and interactions (Cohen, Manion, and Morrison, 2011). The
concern about this research was elaboration of the use language, the language
users, and the meaning of the utterances. Thus, the nature of this research was
pragmatic analysis. Based on the nature of this research, the researcher elaborated
the utterances used in the conversation between the characters as the language
users in The Boy movie and analyzed the meaning in its contexts. The basic aim of
this research was to systematically describe data as phenomena in the form of
utterances in the dialogue between the characters in The Boy movie.
B. Research Setting
In this research, the researcher identified the kinds of violating maxims and
analyzed the reasons of violating the maxims in the conversation of The Boy
movie. The data in this research were taken from The Boy movie released in the
United States on January 22nd
, 2016. The setting of this movie was in countryside
of London or rural settings. According to Grant (2007) horror movies often use
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
34
isolated and rural settings, and old dark houses with mysterious basements for
psychological (p. 14). This meant that the settings of The Boy movie would affect
the audiences‟ psychologically, such as fear, tense, and curiosity when watching
the movie.
C. Research Subject
The subject of this research was The Boy movie released on January 22nd
,
2016. The researcher used the movie as the subject in this research since this
research focused on the conversations which were done by the characters of The
Boy movie and this movie could represent people‟s daily life and it was different
from others‟ horror movies. This movie had the elements of mystery, horror,
conflict, thriller, action, and drama so that the researcher assumed if this movie
could represent people‟s daily life.
On the other hand, using a porcelain doll in the movies was a common
thing in the horror movies in order to make the movies scarier, such as Annabelle
(2014), Chucky (1988), and Jigsaw (2004). However, the researcher saw a
difference in this movie. This movie also used a porcelain doll and people who
had not watched it; they might think that it would be like other horror movies in
which the dolls were possessed by the evil spirit, supernatural, or ghosts.
Conversely, when this movie was about to end, it was revealed that the one who
controlled the doll was not the evil spirit, supernatural, or ghosts but it was a
psychopath man, namely the real Brahms who was still alive. Thus, this movie
had twisted plot that led the researcher to think if the movie was different from
others‟ horror movie. As seen from the explanation about the reasons why the
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
35
researcher chose this movie, this movie could be the subject of this research in
order to find the types of violating maxims and the reasons why the characters in
The Boy movie violated the maxims.
D. Instrument and Data Gathering Technique
In a qualitative research, the researcher would be the primary instrument
for the data collection and analysis. Lincoln and Guba (1985) firstly introduce the
concept of human as the instrument to the scientist, as compiled by Ary et. al
(2010), because qualitative research studies human experiences and situations so
that the researchers need an instrument flexible enough to capture the complexity
of the human experience (p. 424). Meanwhile, Leedy and Omrod (2005) also
mention about a human instrument that, “qualitative researchers believe that the
researcher‟s ability to interpret and make sense of what he or she sees is critical
for understanding any social phenomenon” (p. 133). This makes the researchers
more capable of capturing the complexity of human experiences and situations.
The researcher can interact with people in the setting when observing their
activities, reading their documents and written records, and recording all
information in the field notes and journals.
In this research, the researcher gathered the data in the form of utterances
produced by the character of The Boy movie by watching the movie and reading
the script. The researcher also searched for more information from books,
journals, and internet regarding the theories. In analyzing the data and drawing
conclusions, the researcher used her own perspectives and understanding of
Grice‟s maxims. After that, the researcher related the personal conclusion with the
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
36
linguists‟ understandings of phenomena and human complexity in dialogues. By
doing so, the researcher hoped to avoid a purely personal interpretation.
The supporting instrument for this research was documents. Document or
artifact is the tool to gain an understanding of the phenomena under study,
including audio and video recording, photographs, games, artworks, or other items
that provide insights related to the context or participants (Ary, Jacobs, &
Razavieh, 2010, p. 431). The document of this research was The Boy movie script
in order to collect some utterances from the script.
The utterances produced by the characters written in the script were used
to solve the two research questions: (1) which Grice‟s maxims are violated in The
Boy movie? The results of this question were used as the basis for the second
question: (2) what are the reasons for The Boy‟s characters violate the Grice‟s
maxims? The researcher only selected certain utterances in the movie which were
produced by the characters who were dealing with violations of Grice‟s maxims.
E. Data Analysis Technique
A number of steps were taken by the researcher in conducting this
research. Based on the content of this research, the researcher took six steps. They
are elaborated as follows.
1. Collecting Data
The source of the data was The Boy movie. The movie was chosen because
the researcher noted that the movie had possibilities for violations of Grice‟s
maxims in conversations among the characters. This is connected with the nature
of pragmatics study which focuses on utterances produced and context (Levinson,
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
37
1983, p. 9). As a pragmatics inquiry, the types of data taken here were interactive
exchanges uttered by the characters in The Boy movie. After watching the movie
and reading the script, the researcher transcribed it containing violations of
Grice‟s maxims. The violations happened when the characters could not obey or
fulfill the maxims by providing insufficient, dishonest, irrelevant, and unclear
contributions in the conversation. Thus, the data were collected by transcribing the
script of the movie.
2. Analyzing the Script
After transcribing the script, the researcher analyzed the script and
completed the information based on the characters‟ utterances related to the
research topic. The researcher scrutinized every conversation employed by the
characters in the movie to answer the two research questions, namely which
maxims are violated in The Boy movie and why the characters of The Boy movie
violated the Grice‟s maxims.
3. Identifying the characters’ utterances according to Grice’s maxims
The researcher scrutinized characters‟ responses to identify which
responses violated Grice‟s conversational maxims and which did not. The maxims
employed were Quantity, Quality, Relevance, and Manner. In this view, the
researcher obtained a clear picture of the violations were made by the characters
when responding to their interlocutors‟ speeches. The researcher found that on the
one hand, one response violated each of the maxims separately. On the other
hand, the same response violated the maxims simultaneously, two even three
maxims.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
38
4. Identifying the characters’ reasons for violating the maxims
After finishing the identification of the characters‟ utterances violating
Grice‟s maxims, the researcher then identified each utterance to find out the
reasons for violations. The researcher employed 5 theories based on the linguists.
They were Cooperative Principle posited by Grice (1975), saving face by
Goffman (2008), being polite by Leech (1983) and Brown and Levinson (1987),
protracting the answer, misleading the counterparts, pleasing the interlocutors, and
avoiding the discussion by Khosarvizadeh and Sadehvandi (2011), and
communicating self-interests by Donerus (2005).
5. Data Verification
According to Creswell and Miller (2000) validity is one of the strengths of
qualitative research and it is based on determining whether the findings are
accurate from the standpoint of the researcher or the readers of an account (p.
201). Thus, the researcher conducted data validation with the lecturer who was
expert in this field in order to make sure whether or not the findings were
accurate.
6. Writing up the Report
After going through all of the aforementioned steps, the researcher
concluded with the written report on the research in the form of paper. The gained
research results were expounded and connected with theories related to the topic.
Therefore, the researcher could answer the aforementioned two research
questions.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
39
CHAPTER IV
RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
This part consists of two sections, namely research results and discussion.
The first section discusses the types of Grice‟s maxim violation in The Boy movie
and the second section discusses the reasons of the violations. The elaboration of
both sections is an attempt to respectively address the two research questions
mentioned in the first chapter, namely (1) what kinds of violating maxims found
in the conversation on The Boy movie and (2) what are the reasons of The Boy‟s
characters violate the Grice‟s maxims.
A. Violations of Grice’s Maxims in The Boy Movie
The researcher used Grice‟s theory of Cooperative Principle to answer the
first research question. The researcher discovered that when responding to their
counterparts, all of the characters tended to intentionally violate the maxims in
two types, namely single maxim and multiple maxims. Khosravizadeh and
Sadehvandi (2011) a single violation takes place when speakers violate only one
maxim, while multiple violations take place when speakers violate more than one
maxim simultaneously (p. 123). Therefore, the researcher divided this part into
two sections, namely violations of a single maxim and violations of multiple
maxims.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
40
1. Single Maxim Violations
In this section, the researcher analyzed the types of each Grice‟s maxim
violation found in The Boy movie. In order to categorize the types of maxim
violations, the researcher presents Table 4.1 to show the maxims that were being
violated individually by the characters in 15 dialogues. Each dialogue contained
one violation. The table also shows the figure of the violation.
Table 4.1 Single Maxim Violation by the Characters in The Boy Movie
Table 4.1 shows that all of the Maxims were individually violated by the 4
characters. The types of the maxims which were violated by the characters were
Maxim of Quantity, Quality, Relevance, and Manner. The maxim of Quantity was
violated 3 times. Maxim of Quality was violated 3 times. Maxim of Relevance
was violated 7 times. Maxim of Manner was violated 2 times. The characters who
involved in the dialogues were Greta, Malcolm, Mr. and Mrs. Heelshire, Cole,
Sandy, and Cab driver. Yet, not all of the characters involved violated. The
maxims were Greta, Malcolm, Cab driver, and Mrs. Heelshire.
Each of the characters had his or her particular reasons for violating the
maxims. Greta violated the maxims in order to save face, to protract answer, to
Maxim
Character
Number of
dialogue Greta Malcolm
Mrs.
Heelshire
Cab Driver
Quantity 1 2 - - 3 dialogues
Quality 2 1 - - 3 dialogues
Relevance 3 2 1 1 7 dialogues Manner 1 1 - - 2 dialogues
Total 15 dialogues
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
41
please the interlocutor, to be polite, to communicate self-interest, to mislead and
to avoid the discussion. Moreover, Malcolm violated the maxims purposely to
communicate self-interest, protract the answer, avoid discussion, and please the
interlocutor. Meanwhile, Cab driver and Mrs. Heelshire just broke Maxim of
Relevance in order to avoid discussion and to save face.
a. Violation of Maxim of Quantity in The Boy Movie
Maxim of Quantity requires the speakers to provide sufficient information
as is required (Grice, 1975, p. 45). This means that the maxim governs the amount
of information which must be provided by speakers in the conversation. However,
in this case the speakers cannot always abide by the maxim. It can be clearly seen
in Dialogue 1 taken from The Boy movie.
Dialogue 1
Context: Dialogue 1 took place in the billiard room. Malcolm and Greta were
playing billiard. They were joking about Greta‟s good skill at playing billiard.
Then, Greta asked Malcolm about the real Brahms because she was still curious
about him. Due to Greta‟s compulsion, Malcolm told her anything he knew about
the real Brahms. In answering Greta‟s, question Malcolm violated the Maxim of
Quality because his response was too informative. Meanwhile, Greta only needed
a short answer to answer her question. .
Greta : What‟s the truth?
Malcolm : One night, I came out here for a delivery. I didn‟t know it
at the time, but it was Brahms‟ birthday or would have
been. And Mrs. Heelshire, she was in the sitting room.
Opening presents with the doll. And Mr. Heelshire… He
was in here. Drunk and mumbling to himself that he
couldn‟t do it anymore. I told him I‟d come back… But he
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
42
said „no, no, come on. “Have a drink with an old man.” So
I do. Well, we get a couple of drinks in. We‟re chatting
about the weather and so on and finally… I get the courage
to ask him that exact question. “What was Brahms, like?”
God he just looks at me with this heartbroken look. It made
me sorry I even asked. And he said one word. “Odd,” he
says. Odd. Which, I suppose is all the answer we‟ll ever get.
Maxim of Quantity enjoins speakers from contributing information more
than is required (Grice, 1975, p. 45). Malcolm‟s answer in Dialogue 2 illustrated a
violation of Maxim of Quantity. Malcolm gave too much information to Greta‟s
question. Whereas, Greta only needed a short answer from Malcolm since
Malcolm had given Greta required information about Brahms from two types of
talks previously and Greta only needed the truth from it. Thus, Malcolm only
needed a short answer, namely, could be, Brahms is odd, according to Mr.
Heelshire Brahms is odd, or Mr. Heelshire told me that Brahms is odd. However,
what Greta received from Malcolm was a too informative answer containing the
Heelshires‟ condition when they had Brahms‟ birthday party, the way Malcolm
could get to close with Mr. Heelshire, Malcolm‟s feeling when he asked to Mr.
Heelshire about Brahms, and Mr. Heelshire‟s expression when Malcolm asked
him a question about Brahms. By providing such too informative information,
Greta construed that Malcolm did tell anything he knew about Brahms. However,
it was too much information. Greta did not need such an unnecessary answer.
Grice (1975) considers such an answer as wasting time (p. 46).
Malcolm‟s wordy description gave rise to implicature that he very well
understood Greta‟s question by explaining where he got the truth answer about
Brahms. Malcolm knew that the question, What is the truth demanded him to
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
43
answer, for example Brahms is odd, According to Mr. Heelshire Brahms is odd,
or Mr. Heelshire told me that Brahms is odd. Nonetheless, Malcolm did not do so,
but conversely explained in detail the Heelshire‟s condition when they had
Brahms‟ birthday party, the way Malcolm asked the question, and Mr. Heelshire‟s
expression when giving the answer. Malcolm did so in order to protract the
answer that was urgently needed by Greta (Khosravizadeh & Sadehvandi, 2011, p.
123).
Malcolm might think that providing the short answer Brahms is odd,
according to Mr. Heelshire Brahms is odd, or Mr. Heelshire told me that Brahms
is odd would not satisfy Greta. Thus, Malcolm provided the detailed explanation
of the Heelshire‟s condition when they had Brahms‟ birthday party, the way
Malcolm asked the question, and Mr. Heelshire‟s expression when giving the
answer in order to satisfy Greta‟s curiosity about Brahms (Khosravizadeh &
Sadehvandi, 2011, p. 123). This was the other implicature which could be drawn.
b. Violation of Maxim of Quality in The Boy Movie
Maxim of quality enjoins speakers to provide true information (Grice,
2004, p. 46). Thus, the speakers must be honest with their utterances when
providing information. In order to provide correct and reliable information,
speakers have to back up their contribution with clear evidence or they would be
stamped liars.
Dialogue 2
Context: Dialogue 2 took place at Heelshire‟s living room. Mr. and Mrs.
Heelshire were going to go out for holiday. Before they left, they gave some rules
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
44
to be followed by Greta. The rules were so important to Brahms because it was
the only way to take care of Brahms. As a nanny, Greta should take care of
Brahms because it was her responsibility. So, when Mr. and Mrs. Heelshire asked
Greta to take care of Brahms, she said that she would treat him like her own son.
Nevertheless, she did not do like Mr. and Mrs. Heelshire asked to Greta and
fulfilled her responsibility as a nanny. She did not take care of Brahms liked her
own son instead of ignoring Brahms and the rules.
Mr. Heelshire : Be good to him and he‟ll good to you. Be bad to
him…
Mrs. Heelshire : Oh, she‟ll be good to him. Won‟t you, Miss
Evans?
Greta : Yes. I‟ll treat him like my own.
The response in Dialogue 3 illustrated that Greta did not abide by the
Maxim of Quality demanding her to be honest and true when providing her
contributions. Greta‟s response contradicted the experience she had done to
Brahms after Mr. and Mrs. Heelshire left. In order to please Mr. and Mrs.
Heelshire‟s question and request, Greta lied to them by saying that she would treat
him like her own. She forced to lie because she did not want to disappoint them
and she could not refuse their request since she would be given salary every week
to take care of Brahms. Thus, the response showed that Greta failed giving a true
answer.
The evidence of Greta lied to Mr. and Mrs. Heelshire could be drawn here
by providing Greta‟s activity. Greta kept ignoring Brahms and his rules. She
thought that she did not need to take care of him and follow his rules since he was
a doll. The doll was covered with a blanket since it made her afraid whenever she
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
45
looked at it. Based on these facts, Greta indeed did not do as if she was supposed
to do.
Greta‟s answer in this respect also gave rise to implicature that, in front of
Mr. and Mrs. Heelshire, she wanted to be polite by showing her image as
someone who was responsible towards her job and was trustworthy. By
employing a dishonest answer, she tried to please Mr. and Mrs. Heelshire
(Khosravizadeh & Sadehvandi, 2011, p. 123). She tried to make herself look
good. In doing so, Mr. and Mrs. Heelshire trusted her that nothing wrong would
happen to Brahms and took it for granted that she would treat him like her own.
c. Violation of Maxim of Relevance in The Boy Movie
Grice (1975) posits one maxim, namely “be relevant” (p.46). This maxim
governs speakers to produce a mutually dovetailed conversation. However, it is
not every time speakers abide by the maxim as seen in Dialogue 3 taken from The
Boy movie.
Dialogue 3
Context: Dialogue 3 took place at Brahms‟ grave. Before Malcolm and Greta went
there, Greta asked Malcolm to tell her the story about the doll. Malcolm invited
Greta to come with him to Brahms‟ grave and he told the story about the doll. In
the Brahms‟s grave, Malcolm started telling Greta that Brahms was dead on his
eighth birthday due to fire. Soon after that, Brahms was replaced with a porcelain
doll. Then, Malcolm asked Greta a question about the feeling of losing a child, but
Greta did not respond Malcolm‟s question. Conversely, she asked several
questions to Malcolm.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
46
Malcolm : It was a fire. Brahms didn‟t make it out. On his eighth
birthday. Such a tragedy. And the doll turned up not long
after that. I know it must seem strange. I mean, it is bloody
strange. But, it‟s harmless. A way to cope. I can‟t imagine
what it must be like to lose a child?
Greta : So, he died 20 years ago? He‟d be about your
age. They‟ve lived like this for 20 years?
This conversation illustrated a violation of Maxim of Relevance. The
reason was that Greta‟s whole answer did not match Malcolm‟s question. The
type of Malcolm‟s question was open because it needed Greta‟s opinion or view
to respond to his question. However, the question required a relevant answer.
Thus, the relevant answer supposed to be provided by Greta to Malcolm‟s
question could have been Yes, it must be painful to lose a child, Yes, it must be
hard to lose a child or Yes, all of parents in this world must feel so desperate to
face the reality of losing their child.
Greta‟s answer implied that she attempted to change the topic by talking
about her interest in the form of questions. The reason of doing so was Greta had
ever experienced of losing her child because of her ex-boyfriend. Greta did not
dare to answer Malcolm‟s question relevantly because she did not want to show
her true feeling of losing a child and she did not want Malcolm to know Greta‟s
experience of losing her child.
Supporting Khosravizadeh and Sadehvandi (2011), Dornerus (2005) says
that one of the reasons of violation of maxims is to communicate the speakers‟
interests (p. 16). Thus, Greta‟s purpose when violated the Maxim of Relevance
was that she wanted to communicate her own interest by ignoring Malcolm‟s
inquiry and avoiding the discussion. Greta‟s interests were the duration of
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
47
Brahms‟ death and the Heelshires who had lived without their child for 20 years.
In the movie, it was clearly seen that there was a long pause when Greta started to
answer Malcolm‟s question. This meant that Greta tried to avoid the discussion by
changing the topic based on her interests.
d. Violation of Maxim of Manner in The Boy Movie
Grice (1975) underlines that speakers in their conversations “have to avoid
obscurity of expression, avoid ambiguity, avoid unnecessary prolixity (be brief),
and be orderly” (p. 46). This means when giving information, speakers must avoid
obscurity, unnecessary redundancy, and ambiguousness. However, as a matter of
fact, speakers cannot always undertake the requirements. It is obviously seen in
Dialogue 4 taken from The Boy movie.
Dialogue 4
Context: Dialogue 4 took place in the kitchen. When Greta and Malcolm have
introduced themselves to each other, Greta was curious about the Heelshires
family, so she asked Malcolm about it. Malcolm was the closest person in the
Heelshires family because he often delivered the grocery every week to them.
Therefore, Greta asked Malcolm about the Heelshires‟ personalities. Malcolm said
that the Heelshires were nice and very generous as good people as you would ever
hope to meet. After hearing Malcolm‟s answer, Greta asked Malcolm the second
question. The second question was related to what was Brahms like. Malcolm
answered Greta‟s question unclearly because he knew the truth that Greta had not
known yet and it was about Brahms which was a doll.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
48
Greta : And the son? Brahms?
Malcolm : Brahms. Oh he‟s, um…uh… I‟m not quite sure how to
explain.
Malcolm‟s response depicted a violation of Maxim of Manner because he
stated an obscure and ambiguous response. Greta only wanted to know what
Brahms was like. Thus, Malcolm was supposed to answer Brahms was a doll and
the real Brahms was dead. Since Malcolm knew the truth about Brahms, he could
just tell Greta, but it was not Malcolm‟s right to tell Greta the truth so he did not
tell her. In this sense, Malcolm was in the conflict with himself about telling her
the truth or not. Nonetheless, Malcolm‟s response ended up with evoking the
obscure and ambiguous answer.
Moreover, when saying Oh, he‟s, um…uh…, Malcolm made his gloss
became more obscure and when saying I‟m not quite sure how to explain made his
gloss become ambiguous. On the other hand, Malcolm deliberately contributed
such an obscure and an ambiguous utterance in order to avoid Greta getting more
confused if she knew about Brahms. If Malcolm had said that Brahms was a doll
and the real Brahms was dead, he then should provide the argument in order to
convince Greta, for example the reason why Brahms was replaced by a doll and
how Brahms could be dead. Furthermore, in order to save face, Malcolm
deliberately did not say that Brahms was a doll, instead of protracting the answer
by adding some obscure glosses. Thus, he violated the Maxim of Manner (Grice,
1975, p. 46).
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
49
2. Multiple Maxims Violations
There were some multiple maxims violations in The Boy movie‟s scenes.
The characters simultaneously violated two and sometimes three maxims. Those
who violated the maxims were Malcolm and Greta.
Table 4.2: Multiple Maxim violations by the Characters in The Boy Movie
Table 4.2 shows multiple maxims violations. The multiple maxims
violated were Maxim of Quantity and Quality, Quantity and Manner, Quality and
Manner, Relevance and Manner, and Quality, Relevance and Quantity. The
violation occurred in 6 dialogues respectively. The characters involved in the
dialogues were Greta, Malcolm, Greta‟s friend Sandy, Mr. Heelshire and Mrs.
Heelshire. Meanwhile, the characters who violated the maxims were only Greta
and Malcolm.
Each of the characters had his or her particular reasons for violating the
maxims. Greta violated the maxims in order to save face and misleading
counterparts. Malcolm violated the maxims in order to protract the answer, save
face, and communicate self-interest.
Maxim
Character Number of
dialogue Greta Malcolm
Quantity and Manner 2 - 2 dialogues
Quality and Manner 2 - 2 dialogues
Relevance and Manner - 1 1 dialogue
Quality, Quantity, and Manner 1 - 1 dialogue
Total 6 dialogues
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
50
a. Violations of Maxims of Quantity and Manner
Dialogue 5 illustrates the violation of Maxim of Quantity and Manner. The
characters who violated both of the maxims in the movie were Greta and
Malcolm. Malcolm failed to provide a sufficient contribution and to avoid the
obscure answer to the conversation.
Dialogue 5
Context: Dialogue 5 took place at Brahms‟ grave. Malcolm told Greta about the
reason why Brahms died and the doll showed up not long after his death. After
that topic, Malcolm invited Greta to go out. He thought that it would be good for
Greta to refresh her mind because of the weird things in the Heelshire‟s house.
Malcolm attempted to ask Greta to go out with him, but Greta rejected it because
she just got out of a thing. However, Malcolm did not give up easily; he tried to
assure Greta that it was not a thing. In responding to Greta‟s question, Malcolm
intentionally violated the Maxims of Quantity and Manner.
Malcolm : You‟re probably going mad in this house, aren‟t you? It
might be good to get out. I could show you the world-
famous local nightlife. I mean, I know technically you‟re
not supposed to leave Brahms, but I won‟t tell if you won‟t.
Greta : I just got out of a thing.
Malcolm : No. Uh this is not a thing. You know, I… I assure you of
that. This is, uh, a professional courtesy seeing as we‟re
employed by the same people. You know, it‟s a duty is what
it is. I will take no pleasure in it whatsoever. I promise.
Yeah?
Greta : Okay. Yeah.
Maxim of Quantity insists that when speaking, interlocutors have to be
brief or provide a sufficient contribution as it is required and not less or more
informative than is required. Meanwhile, the Maxim of Manner demanded the
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
51
interlocutors not to provide unnecessary redundancy (Grice, 1975, p. 45-46). It
was obviously seen in Dialogue 5 that Malcolm, in his response to Greta‟s gloss,
failed to observe the Maxims of Quantity and Manner. Malcolm intentionally
violated those maxims in order to protract answer and be polite.
Malcolm‟s additional gloss violated the Maxim of Quantity: “Make your
contribution as informative as is required for the current purpose for the exchange.
“Do not make your contribution more informative than is required” (Grice, 1975,
p. 45). This additional gloss was outside the required amount of information. The
gloss was too informative. The required amount of contribution that should have
been provided by Malcolm was No, this is not a thing. It is a professional
courtesy since we‟re employed by the same people. This answer was sufficient and
informative enough for Greta.
Furthermore, when saying the additional gloss, No, uh. This is, uh, a
professional courtesy seeing as we‟re employed by the same people you know,
Malcolm‟s response depicted a violation of Maxim of Manner because he stated
an obscure, disorder, and wordy response. Malcolm‟s gloss implied that he tried
to find the reason why it was not a thing and he really attempted to assure Greta
by that. Nonetheless, Malcolm‟s response ended up evoking the obscure,
disorderly, and wordy answer.
The aforementioned gloss contained the feeling of confusion in order to
find the logic reason to assure Greta. Thus, when his invitation got rejected, he got
confused to assure Greta to go out with him. Moreover, when Greta rejected
Malcolm‟s invitation, Malcolm made his gloss obscure No, uh. This isn‟t a thing
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
52
you know because he did not know what actually he wanted to say. On the other
hand, when saying This is, uh, a professional courtesy seeing as we‟re employed
by the same people you know, it‟s a duty is what it is, Malcolm made his gloss
disorderly and wordy. The reason was because Malcolm was trying to find and
connect the answer so that the answer could be reasonable. However, Malcolm‟s
answer was too long and the way he delivered the answer was disorganized. If
Malcolm provided the proper answer to respond Greta‟s gloss, it would have
been, This is a professional courtesy duty because we are employed by the same
people or This is a professional courtesy duty for employees who work with the
same people.
b. Violation of Maxims of Quality and Manner
Dialogue 6 illustrates the violation of Maxim of Quality and Manner. The
character who simultaneously violated both of the maxims in the movie was
Greta. She failed to be honest and to provide a clear and brief contribution to the
conversation.
Dialogue 6
Context: Dialogue 6 occurred through telephone. Sandy asked Greta about
Malcolm‟s invitation to go out. Greta denied that she did not go out for a date, but
Sandy did not believe in Greta‟s denial. So, she triggered Greta to tell the truth by
asking Greta whether she wore her coral dress or not. Sandy knew Greta‟s habit
when she was on a date she would wear her coral dress. However, Greta did not
tell the truth since Sandy was not in the United Kingdom and they communicated
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
53
through telephone, so Sandy did not see what Greta wore for her date. Thus, Greta
violated maxims of Quality and Quantity to save face in her answer.
Sandy : Yeah, okay. Are you going to wear your coral dress?
Greta : (After looking at the mirror with her coral dress) I don‟t
know. I‟ll figure it out.
Maxim of Quality insists that when speaking, interlocutors have to be
honest and provide a true contribution. Meanwhile, the Maxim of Manner
demanded the interlocutors not to provide unnecessary redundancy (Grice, 1975,
pp. 45-46). Sandy‟s question denoted her curiosity that Greta must have been
chosen her coral dress for her date. Meanwhile, Greta‟s answer to Sandy‟s
question pointedly showed that she simultaneously violated the Maxim of Quality
I don‟t know. I‟ll figure it out, Greta violated the Maxim of Quality: “Do not say
what you believe to be false.” She intentionally did not provide the true
information which had fallen upon Sandy. The truth was that she chose the coral
dress for her to wear in her date with Malcolm.
In order to make Sandy confused, Greta deliberately provided her gloss
with obscure and ambiguous information about not knowing the dress that she
was going to choose. This meant Greta violated the Maxim of Manner: “be brief,
be clear, be orderly, and be perspicuous.” She failed to give a clear and brief
answer to Sandy‟s question. If Greta gave a clear and brief answer, she would
have answered the question to be, Yes, I am going to wear it or No, I am not going
to wear it. However, Greta did not dare to say so because she did not want Sandy
to know Greta‟s feeling towards Malcolm by telling the truth that she was going
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
54
on a date. Thus, she gave a contradictory answer to the real fact. Greta knew and
believed that this answer was incorrect and she intentionally told a lie to Sandy.
c. Violation of Maxims of Relevance and Manner
Dialogue 7 illustrates the violation of Maxims of Relevance and Manner.
Malcolm was the character who simultaneously violated both of the maxims in the
movie. He failed to provide a clear and relevant contribution.
Dialogue 7
Context: Dialogue 7 took place in the dining room. In the dining room, Cole
demanded Greta to leave Heelshires‟ house and to go back in the United States
America forcefully. However, Greta did not want to leave Brahms alone. She
insisted to live in the Heelshires‟ home. When they were talking about that matter,
Malcolm came in the dining room. He looked at a man who was talking with
Greta. Greta and Cole realized that Malcolm came in and he was looking at them,
spontaneously Greta introduced Malcolm to Cole. Then, Malcolm and Cole
greeted to each other. After greeting, Cole asked Malcolm a question about
whether Malcolm who made the doll stuff, but Malcolm provided irrelevant and
obscure responses to Cole‟s question.
Malcolm : Hey, nice to meet you.
Cole : Nice to meet you, man (Clear throat). So, what do you
make of all this doll stuff?
Malcolm : Uh, you know, I try not to get involved in other people‟s
business.
In Malcolm‟s contribution, he started with an obscure statement Uh, you
know. It was not clear what he wanted to say as a response to Cole. Moreover, his
additional statements after saying I try not to get involved in other people‟s
business was wordy and relevant. In truth, in the beginning of the contribution,
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
55
Malcolm upheld the Maxims of Relevance and Manner by saying Uh, you know, I
try not to get involved in other people‟s business. Cole‟s question only needed
short response which was the most proper answer, clear, brief, univocal, orderly,
mutually dovetailed, relevant, and understandable.
The aforementioned gloss implied the feeling of Malcolm‟s
disappointments towards Cole‟s bad attitude and his discomfort with Cole‟s
presence. Since Malcolm knew that Cole had ever hurt Greta and made her to live
in the suffering of losing her child, it made Malcolm disappointed on what Cole
had done to Greta. On the other hand, Malcolm was worried about Malcolm‟s
presence in the Heelshires‟ house because he thought that Cole might hurt Greta
again. Therefore, Malcolm deliberately answered Cole‟s question in a wordy way
and irrelevantly in order to communicate his self-interest. His interest was he
wanted to tell Cole not to disturb Greta. In Malcolm‟s response Uh, you know, I
try not to get involved in other people‟s business it could be decoded into this
statement If I were you, I would not try to get involved in other people‟s business.
This meant that Cole should not get involved in Greta‟s life again or not to disturb
Greta with her new life.
Moreover, it was obviously wordy and relevant answer from Malcolm
because Cole asked a short question and Malcolm was supposed to answer it
briefly, relevantly, and understandably, namely Yes or No. Thus, the proper
answer that was supposed to be provided by Malcolm to Cole‟s question could
have been Yes, I did, No, I did not, Yes, of course I did, or No, of course I did not.
Nevertheless, Malcolm did not say so because of his disappointment and
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
56
discomfort feelings. He chose to avoid the discussion and to communicate his
self-interest. Supporting Khosravizadeh and Sadehvandi (2011), Dornerus (2005)
says that one of the reasons of violation of maxims is to communicate the
speakers‟ interests (p, 16). Thus, Malcolm‟s purpose when violated the Maxim of
Manner was that he wanted to communicate his own interest by ignoring Cole‟s
inquiry and avoiding the discussion.
d. Violation of Maxims of Quality, Quantity, and Manner
Dialogue 8 depicted the violation of three maxims. They are Maxims of
Quality, Quantity, and Manner. The character in the dialogue which violated those
maxims was Greta.
Dialogue 8
Context: Dialogue 8 took place in the kitchen. After Malcolm and Cole greeted to
each other, Greta asked Cole to give her a minute to talk to about the grocery
delivery. When they were talking to each other, Cole was looking at them and
Greta just realized it, so she cut off the conversation. She was worried that Cole
got jealous with her relationship with Malcolm. Soon after the conversation with
Malcolm, Cole asked Greta a question whether he should worry about Malcolm or
not. When answering Cole‟s question, Greta intentionally violated the Maxims of
Quality, Quantity, and Manner.
Cole : Should I be worried?
Greta : About Malcolm? Mmm… No.
The speakers should not say what they believe to be false and for which
they lack sufficient evidence or they violate the Maxim of Quality. Meanwhile,
the speakers should not contribute information which is more informative than is
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
57
required or violate the Maxim of Quantity. The speakers also should not provide
unnecessary redundancy or they violate the Maxim of Manner (Grice, 1975, pp.
45-46). Nevertheless, Dialogue 8 pointedly showed that Greta, in her response to
Cole‟s question, only upheld Maxim of Relevance: she failed to observe the
maxims of Quality, Quantity, and Manner. Greta intentionally violated the
Maxims of Quality, Quantity, and Manner in order to mislead the counterpart
(Grice, 1975, p. 49).
By saying Mmm… No, Greta showed that she was actually in a state of
confusion; she did not know what the exact contribution to convey. While trying
to mislead Cole, she got herself into a conflict about how to hide the truth about
her relationship with Malcolm. The utterance Mmm… No, was confusing Cole as
it was not productive (Crowley & Mitchell, 1994, p. 140). By saying so, Greta
violated Maxim of Manner.
Moreover, Greta‟s gloss implied that she violated the Maxim of Quantity
because her contribution was too little information. If Greta wanted to convince
Cole that she did not have any special relationship with Malcolm and to avoid
from Cole being suspicious she should give the required answer, for example No,
I do not have any feelings for him, No, I am not that close with him, or No, he is
just a friend of mine. Greta violated the Maxim of Quality because she failed to
provide the genuineness sincerity contribution. It was obviously seen in the movie
that Greta and Malcolm had a special relationship because they had done kissing
and they had tried to make love. This meant that they got interested in each other
or they might be in love. However, when Cole asked the question, Greta did not
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
58
give him a genuine contribution. Greta violated the Maxim of Manner because she
failed to avoid unnecessary gloss.
B. Reasons of Violating Grice’s Maxims
Based on the findings of the second research question, it was found that
there were seven reasons for The Boy‟s characters violate Grice‟s maxims namely,
saving face, protracting answer, avoiding the discussion, pleasing the
interlocutors, being polite, communicating self-interest, and misleading the
counterparts. Therefore, in order to answer the second research question, the
researcher employed five theories namely, saving face by Goffman (2008), being
polite by Leech (1983), and Brown and Levinson (1987), protracting the answer,
pleasing the interlocutors, avoiding the discussion, and misleading by
Khosravizadeh and Sadehvandi (2011), and communicating self-interest by
Donerus (2005). Each theory provided the reasons for the characters of The Boy
violated Grice‟s maxims.
Table 4.3: The Reasons of Violating Grice’s Maxims
NO The Reasons of Violating Maxims Number of dialogue
1. Save Face 11 dialogues
2. Protracting the answer 5 dialogues
3. Avoiding the discussion 5 dialogues
4. Pleasing the interlocutors 4 dialogues
5. Communicating self-interest 4 dialogues
6. Being polite 3 dialogues
7. Misleading the Counterparts 1 dialogue
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
59
Table 4.3 showed the reasons of violating maxims which were done by the
characters of The Boy movie was listed orderly from the most frequent to least
using the reason of violating Grice‟s maxims. In the Cooperative Principle, Grice
(1975) underlines that the speakers who violate a maxim will be liable to mislead
their counterparts in the conversation (p. 49). In this research, the researcher had
discovered seven reasons that were employed by the characters in The Boy movie;
all of which violated Grice‟s maxims. Thus, the reasons are elaborated in detailed
as follows.
1. Saving Face
Goffman, (2008) claims that by applying exaggeration (quantity),
deception (quality), circumlocutions (manner), or irrelevance (relevance) in face–
to-face talk, speakers violate Grice‟s maxims in order to preserve their self-esteem
or dignity (p. 17). The characters in The Boy movie violated Grice‟s maxims in
order to save their own faces and others‟ (Brown & Levinson, 1987, p. 16).
Saving face was the most frequent reason that the characters of The Boy used to
violate Grice‟s maxims. Saving face was used 11 times by the characters of The
Boy in the 21 dialogues. In order to get profound understanding towards the
reason of the characters used saving face to violate Grice‟s maxims, the researcher
presented a dialogue to be elaborated, namely dialogue 9.
Dialogue 9
Mr. Heelshire : Be good to him and he‟ll good to you. Be bad to
him…
Mrs. Heelshire : Oh, she‟ll be good to him. Won‟t you, Miss
Evans?
Greta : Yes. I‟ll treat him like my own.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
60
Greta‟s response contradicted the experience she had done to Brahms after
Mr. and Mrs. Heelshire left. In order to please Mr. and Mrs. Heelshire‟s question
and request, Greta lied to them by saying that she would treat him like her own.
She forced to lie because she did not want to disappoint them and she could not
refuse their request since she would be given salary every week to take care of
Brahms. Thus, the response showed that Greta failed giving a true answer.
Aside from pleasing the Heelshires, in Dialogue 2 Greta violated Maxim of
Quality in order to save face of her own self-esteem as a responsible nanny and a
good girl (Brown & Levinson, 1987, p. 61). Greta did not want to disappoint the
Heelshires because she would be given salary to take care of Brahms and as a
nanny it was Greta‟s responsibility to take care of it. However, she did not do like
she said previously to the Heelshires. She did not take care of Brahms because she
thought that Brahms was only a doll and it did not need any care.
2. Protracting the Answer
Protracting the answer in the conversation is one of the goals to be reached
by speakers (Khosravizadeh & Sadehvandi, 2011, p. 123). Protracting the answer
was used 5 times by the characters of The Boy to violate Grice‟s maxims.
Therefore, the researcher presented Dialogue 10 to be elaborated in order to get
profound understanding towards why the characters used protracting the answer to
violate Grice‟s maxims.
Dialogue 10
Greta : What‟s the truth?
Malcolm : One night, I came out here for a delivery. I didn‟t know it
at the time, but it was Brahms‟ birthday or would have
been. And Mrs. Heelshire, she was in the sitting room.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
61
Opening presents with the doll. And Mr. Heelshire… He
was in here. Drunk and mumbling to himself that he
couldn‟t do it anymore. I told him I‟d come back… But he
said „no, no, come on. “Have a drink with an old man.” So
I do. Well, we get a couple of drinks in. We‟re chatting
about the weather and so on and finally… I get the courage
to ask him that exact question. “What was Brahms, like?”
God he just looks at me with this heartbroken look. It made
me sorry I even asked. And he said one word. “Odd,” he
says. Odd. Which, I suppose is all the answer we‟ll ever get.
In Dialogue 10 Malcolm provided a long answer for Greta‟s question,
What is the truth? Instead of saying Brahms is odd, According to Mr. Heelshire
Brahms is odd, or Mr. Heelshire told me that Brahms is odd, he chose to provide a
verbose answer. By providing such a long answer, Malcolm wanted to tell Greta
that he was honest with his answer that he only knew if Brahms was odd.
Therefore, the too informative contribution and the long unnecessary answer from
Dialogue 10 showed that Malcolm wanted to protract the answer on Greta by
knowing the detailed information about where he could get the information about
Brahms.
3. Avoiding the discussion
In the conversation, speakers may encounter an unpleasant situation. It was
obviously seen in Dialogue 11. It was when Malcolm asked Greta‟s opinion about
the feeling of losing a child.
Dialogue 11
Malcolm : It was a fire. Brahms didn‟t make it out. On his eighth
birthday. Such a tragedy. And the doll turned up not long
after that. I know it must seem strange. I mean, it is bloody
strange. But, it‟s harmless. A way to cope. I can‟t imagine
what it must be like to lose a child?
Greta : So, he died 20 years ago? He‟d be about your
age. They‟ve lived like this for 20 years?
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
62
In order to avoid getting into an unpleasant situation or discussing the
things that happened to her, Greta decided to give an irrelevant or unclear answer.
She avoided the discussion because it was too painful for her to feel the feeling
her child since she had ever experienced losing her own child. On the other hand,
Greta was a kind of girl who could not tell about her all experiences to somebody
she had just met. Thus, she did not want Malcolm to know about her past,
especially her experience of losing her own child.
4. Pleasing the Interlocutors
Pleasing interlocutors is another reason of violating maxims proposed by
Khosravizadeh and Sadehvandi (2011). Providing only a short answer or saying
honestly about the particular condition would not please the characters of this
movie. Here, the researcher elaborated Dialogue 12 in order to know why the
characters used this reason to violate the maxims.
Dialogue 12
Cole : Should I be worried?
Greta : About Malcolm? Mmm… No.
In Dialogue 8, Greta‟s gloss implied that she violated the Maxim of
Quantity because her contribution was too little information. If Greta wanted to
convince Cole that she did not have any special relationship with Malcolm and to
avoid from Cole being suspicious she should give the required answer, for
example No, I do not have any feelings for him, No, I am not that close with him,
or No, he is just a friend of mine. Therefore, when answering Cole‟s question,
Greta did not say it honestly about her special relationship with Malcolm. She did
not dare to say the truth because she knew Cole‟s reactions if he knew that. He
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
63
would get jealous and after that he would hurt Greta or Malcolm. In order to avoid
bad consequences to happen, Greta should give a dishonest answer to please Cole.
5. Communicating self-interest
Supporting by Khosravizadeh and Sadehvandi (2011), Donerus (2005)
says that Communicate self-interest is another aim to be achieved by the speakers
in violating the maxims when conducting a conversation (p. 16). The Dialogue 13
was elaborated as follows in order to know why the characters used this reason to
violate the maxims.
Dialogue 13
Malcolm : Hey, nice to meet you.
Cole : Nice to meet you, man (Clear throat). So, what do you
make of all this doll stuff?
Malcolm : Uh, you know, I try not to get involved in other people‟s
business.
In Dialogue 13 Malcolm violated the Maxims of Relevance and Manner.
He provided an irrelevant and unclear answer to Cole‟s question. Malcolm‟s gloss
implied the feeling of Malcolm‟s disappointments towards Cole‟s bad attitude and
his discomfort with Cole‟s presence. Since Malcolm knew that Cole had ever hurt
Greta and made her to live in the suffering of losing her child, it made Malcolm
disappointed on what Cole had done to Greta. On the other hand, Malcolm was
worried about Malcolm‟s presence in the Heelshires‟ house because he thought
that Cole might hurt Greta again. Therefore, Malcolm deliberately answered
Cole‟s question in a wordy way and irrelevantly in order to communicate his self-
interest. His interest was he wanted to tell Cole not to disturb Greta. In Malcolm‟s
response Uh, you know, I try not to get involved in other people‟s business it
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
64
could be decoded into this statement If I were you, I would not try to get involved
in other people‟s business. This meant that Cole should not get involved in
Greta‟s life again or not to disturb Greta with her new life.
In this sense, why he did so was because he wanted to show his
disappointment and discomfort feelings towards Cole‟s presence. His presence
could disturb Greta‟s life; therefore, he wanted to imply that he should stop
disturbing Greta‟s life or getting involved in Greta‟s business.
6. Being Polite
Leech (1983) claims that in a particular situation, speakers may violate
Grice‟s maxims by changing an unpleasant topic of a conversation or adding
additional unnecessary glosses or even saying agreement in order to be polite (p.
81-82). Being polite was used by characters to violate the maxims 3 times. Here
the Dialogue 14 was presented as follows.
Dialogue 14
Greta : And the son? Brahms?
Malcolm : Brahms. Oh he‟s, um…uh… I‟m not quite sure how to
explain.
As seen in Dialogue 14, starting his verbose gloss by saying, Brahms. Oh,
he‟s um… uh… I‟m not quite sure how to explain, Malcolm wanted to uphold
Politeness Principle (Leech, 1983, p. 131). Mirrored from Maxim of Politeness
especially Approbation Maxim, Malcolm tried not to tell Greta about Brahms
which was a doll because he did not have a right to tell so. If Malcolm had said
that Brahms was a doll and the real Brahms was dead, he then should provide the
argument in order to convince Greta, for example the reason why Brahms was
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
65
replaced by a doll and how Brahms could be dead. Therefore, he tried to minimize
dispraise on what Brahms looked like.
7. Misleading Counterparts
Misleading counterparts was one of the reasons of the maxims violations in
daily exchanges (Grice, 1975, p. 49). Misleading in this case means that the
speaker gives wrong information to hearer and makes the hearer believe it or take
it for granted. Grice discovers that the speakers conduct it in some ways, namely
intentionally, and clearly or unclearly. Misleading the counterparts was used once
by the character of The Boy movie in the Dialogue 15.
Dialogue 15
Cole : Should I be worried?
Greta : About Malcolm? Mmm… No.
Misleading in speech acts among the interactants in this movie was clearly
seen in Dialogue 15. Greta, in her dialogue, intentionally misled Cole by violating
Maxim of Quality, Quantity, and Manner. She was not honest; she did not make a
sufficient and clear contribution by saying About Malcolm? Mmm… No, when
answering Cole‟s question.
In Dialogue 15, Greta tried to mislead Cole by saying dishonestly about
her relationship with Malcolm. However, Greta was not supposed to add obscure
gloss like Mmm… No to her answer because it would make her gloss obscure. On
the other hand, Greta should add more glosses in order to convince Cole that she
had no special relationship with Malcolm or she should only answer Yes or No to
his question without adding unnecessary gloss, namely Mmm… Nonetheless, Cole
nodded to Greta‟s answer indicated that he agreed to Greta that he should not
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
66
worry about Malcolm. This meant that Greta successfully misled Cole about her
relationship with Malcolm.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
67
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This part consists of conclusions, implications, and suggestions.
Conclusions deal with the summary of the research. Implications deal with the
involvement of the research education. In the suggestions part, the researcher
proposes some points for the English learners in general and English learners in
the English Language Education Study Program (ELESP) of Sanata Dharma
University in particular. The suggestions are also addressed to future researchers.
They may use the research as a reference when conducting research in the same
field.
A. Conclusions
After analyzing the data as presented in Chapter IV Analysis, the
researcher came to the conclusion part. There were two research questions needed
to be answered through this research as formulated in Chapter I. The first research
question aimed to find out the types of violation maxims were found in The Boy
movie. The second research question was devoted to find out what reasons of The
Boy movie characters violated the Grice‟s maxims.
Grounded on the research, the researcher came up with two conclusions.
The first conclusion was that The Boy movie characters verbally violated all of
Grice‟s maxims. The Grice‟s maxims that were being violated were Maxim of
Quantity, Quality, Relevance, and Manner. The researcher found that the
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
68
characters tended to violate the maxims in two types, namely single and multiple
maxim violation. The characters, in one situation, violated one maxim in one
utterance. Meanwhile, in other situation, the characters simultaneously violated
two even three maxims in one utterance. The characters violated the Maxim of
Quantity, Quality, Relevance, and Manner, when they provided insufficient,
dishonest, irrelevant, and unclear information. The characters that violated Grice‟s
maxims were Greta and Malcolm. The character who violated the maxims most
was Greta. In 21 dialogues, she violated the maxims 10 times. The most Grice‟s
maxim that was violated was Maxim of Relevance; 8 times out of 24.
The second conclusion was that the characters tended to intentionally
violate the maxims in order to achieve particular reasons. By employing particular
ways, they violated the maxims in order to save face, protract the answer, avoid
the discussion, please the interlocutors, communicate self-interest, being polite,
and mislead the counterparts.
B. Implications
Grice‟s Cooperative Principle with four conversational maxims is
unfamiliar to language users, including English learners in the English Language
Education Study Program (ELESP) of Sanata Dharma University. Nonetheless,
the English learners always get involved in the dialogue or conversation all the
time. Based on the viewpoint of the four maxims, the English learners tend to
break the rules constantly in order to achieve their certain reasons. According to
teaching and learning context, Grice‟s maxims should be considered as an
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
69
alternative medium of source for the English learners to develop a meaningful and
productive conversation in the classroom.
In the classroom, teachers may make Grice‟s Cooperative Principle with
the four conversational maxims as a useful subject to teach the students. By doing
so, the teachers have a good opportunity to teach the students to construct a good
relation or a productive and meaningful conversation by providing sufficient,
honest, relevant, and clear information. This research helps the readers to find
useful information related to violations of Grice‟s maxims in the daily
conversation. After reading this research, the English learners will know
profoundly about four of Grice‟s maxims, which maxims are violated, how and
why the maxims are violated. By having profound knowledge of violations of
Grice‟s maxims, they will be aware of their utterances in the conversation,
especially when responding to their interlocutors.
C. Recommendations
Based on the results of this research, the researcher would like to propose
several suggestions. The suggestions are addressed to English learners in general
and the English learners in the English Language Education Study Program
(ELESP) of Sanata Dharma University in particular. The suggestions are also
intended for future researchers.
1. English Learners
English learners in this respect are the English learners in general and the
English learners in the English Language Education Study Program (ELESP) of
Sanata Dharma University in particular. By researching the violations of Grice‟s
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
70
maxims on the listeners‟ response to the speakers‟ utterances in The Boy movie,
the English learners can enrich their understanding on Grice‟s maxims. They will
also find that the speakers in the conversation tend to violate the Grice‟s
conversational maxims in order to achieve various reasons. Therefore, the
researcher encourages the English learners to learn from this research to have a
profound understanding on Grice‟s conversational maxims and pay attention to
the conversational maxims that are used in the daily conversation.
2. Future Researchers
By doing research of the maxims violations on Grice‟s conversational
maxims in The Boy movie, the future researchers who are conducting research on
a similar issue will have a better understanding of how to scrutinize the
Cooperative Principle further. Based on this point, the researcher may suggest for
the further researchers to use Grice‟s Cooperative Principle as their basis for the
theory. They may decide to compare and choose different theories concerning
violations. This will help them to further examine the violations of Grice‟s
maxims.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
71
REFERENCES
Al-Qaderi, I.A.U. (2015). A pragmatic analysis violating the maxims to the
yeremi dialects (7). Retrieved on November 7, 2016, from
http://www.macrothink.org/ijl
Ary, D., Jacobs, L.C., & Razavieh, A. (2010). Introduction to research in
education (8th
ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Thomson Learning.
Bach, K. (2006). The top 10 misconceptions about implicature. Drawing the
boundaries of Meaning: Neo-Grice studies in pragmatics and semantics in
honor of Laurence R. Horn, 21-30.
Brown. P. & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language
usage (3rd
ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, G. & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research method in education (7th
ed.). Routledge: London.
Creswell, J. W. & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative
inquiry. Theory into Practice, 39, 124-130.
Cutting, J. (2000). Pragmatics and discourse: A resource book for students.
Routledge: London.
Davies, B. (2000). Grice‟s cooperative principle. In D. Nelson, P. Foolks (Eds.),
Getting the meaning across. 1-26. London: University of Leeds.
Dornerus, E. (2005). Breaking maxims in conversation a comparative study of
how scriptwriters break maxims in desperate housewives and that 70‟s
show. Retrieved on October 10th
, 2012.
Fraenkel, J. R. & Wallen, N. E. (2009). How to design and evaluate research in
education (7th
ed.). New York: McGraw Hill Companies, Inc.
Goffman, E. (2008). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. Far Hill,
NJ: Pantheon Books.
Graham, G. (2005). Philosophy of the arts: An introduction to aesthetic (3rd
ed.).
Routledge: London.
Grant, B. K. (2007). Film genre: From iconography to ideology. London:
Langham Street.
Grebe, N. (2009). Politeness: A theoretical review of Brown and Levinson‟s
politeness theory. München: University of Greifswald.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
72
Grice, H. P. (1975). „Logic and conversation‟ In Cole, P. & Morgan, J. (ed.)
Syntax and Semantics, (3). New York: Academic Press.
Khosravizadeh, P. & Sadehvandi, N. (2011). Some instances of violation and
flouting of the maxim of quantity by the main character (Barry & Tim) in
Dinner for Schmucks. International Conference on Languages, Literature
and Linguistics, 26, 122-127.
Kotti, M., Ververidis, D., Evangelopoulus, G., Panagakis, I., & Kotropoulus, C.
(2008). Audio assisted movie dialogue detection. Senior member, IEEE,
Petros Maragos fellow member, IEEE, Joannis Pitas fellow member, IEEE
18, 1618-1627. Retrieved on June 20, 2017, from
http://www.macrothink.org/ijl
Leech, G. N. (1983). Principle of pragmatics. London: University of Lancaster.
Leedy, P. D. & Omrod, J.E. (2005). Practical research: Planning and design.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc.
Levinson, S.C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mey, J. L. (2009). Concise encyclopedia of pragmatics. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Norman, F. (2003). Analyzing discourse: textual analysis for social research.
Routledge: London.
O‟Grady, W.D., Dobrovolsky, M., & Katamba, F. (2005). Contemporary
linguistics: An introduction (5th
ed.). Boston: Bedford, St.Martin‟s.
Terkourafi, M. (2005). Socialising Grice: On interlocutors‟ reasons for co-
operating in conversation. Cambridge Occasional Papers in Linguistics
(COPIL), 2, 235-247.
Tupan, H.A. & Natalia, H. (2008). The multiple violations of conversational
maxims in lying done by the characters in some episodes of Desperate
Houswives. English Department, Faculty of Letters, Petra Christian
University. 10, 63-78.
Yang, C. (2008). Language use in context: A course in pragmatics. Beijing:
University of International Business and Economics Press.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
73
APPENDICES
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
74
Appendix 1: The list of Single Maxim Violation in The Boy movie.
A. Quantity 1. Greta : What are you doing here?
Malcolm : You didn‟t pick up your phone. So, I thought maybe
I‟d make the delivery a little early this week.
Purpose : Protract answer.
2. Greta : What‟s the truth?
Malcolm : One night, I came out here for a delivery. I didn‟t know it
at the time, but it was Brahms; birthday or would have
been. And Mrs. Heelshire, she was in the sitting room.
Opening presents with the doll. And Mr. Heelshire… He
was in here. Drunk and mumbling to himself that he
couldn‟t do it anymore. I told him I‟d come back… But he
said „no, no, come on. “Have a drink with an old man.” So
I do. Well, we get a couple of drinks in. We‟re chatting
about the weather and so on and finally… I get the courage
to ask him that exact question. “What was Brahms, like?”
God he just looks at me with this heartbroken look. It made
me sorry I even asked. And he said one word. “Odd,” he
says. Odd. Which, I suppose is all the answer we‟ll ever get.
Purpose : Please interlocutors and Protract answer
2. Malcolm : You‟re not worried about Brahms, are you? I mean, he
doesn‟t mind. Do you? You old sod. Of course not, I‟ve
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
75
been hoping she‟ll get out. I need a little privacy. I think I‟ll
watch TV, have a nice bath. A little Brahms‟ time. Hey,
yeah. High five. (Talking to Brahms while teasing Greta)
Greta : Maybe another time.
Purpose : Please interlocutor and to be polite.
B. Quality
1. Mr. Heelshire : Be good to him and he‟ll good to you. Be bad to him…
Mrs. Heelshire : Oh she‟ll be good to him. Won‟t you, Miss Evans?
Greta : Yes. I‟ll treat him like my own.
Purpose : Save face and Please interlocutors, and be Polite
2. Sandy : Are you going on a date?
Greta : It‟s not a date. I won‟t call it a date anyway. It‟s more of
professional courtesy.
Sandy : How is that not a date?
Greta : (Looking at mirror with some dresses and drinking a glass
of wine) Well, we work for the same people, don‟t we?
Purpose : Save face
3. Greta : So, tell me about Brahms.
Malcolm : I told you about all I know.
Purpose : Avoid discussion.
C. Relevance
1. Mr. Heelshire : Be good to him and he‟ll be good to you. Be bad to him…
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
76
Mrs. Heelshire : (Cut off the conversation). Oh she‟ll be good to him.
Won‟t you, Miss Evans?
Greta : Yes. I‟ll treat him like my own.
Mrs. Heelshire : (Whisper in Greta‟s right ear) I‟m so sorry.
Purpose : Save face and Avoid discussion.
2. Malcolm : It was a fire. Brahms didn‟t make it out. On his eighth
birthday. Such a tragedy. And the doll turned up not long
after that. I know it must seem strange. I mean, it is bloody
strange. But, it‟s harmless. A way to cope. I can‟t imagine
what it must be like to lose a child?
Greta : So, he died 20 years ago? He‟d be about your age.
They‟ve lived like this for 20 years?
Purpose : Save face, Communicate self-interest, and Avoid
discussion
3. Greta : It‟s like something out a storybook, isn‟t it?
Cab driver : Oh, the Heelshires have already taken care of that. And I
put your things inside.
Purpose : Avoid discussion.
4. Malcolm : Um… I see a dark past. On the run from someone, are we?
(Chuckles). That‟s what it looks like.
Greta : I‟ll throw it away.
Purpose : Avoid discussion and Save face
5. Greta : But I have to ask you.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
77
Malcolm : Yes, I am single. Believe it or not, (Sigh). What‟s the
story with the doll?
Purpose : Protract answer and Communicate self-interest
6. Greta : There was someone in here. I know it. My clothes.
Malcolm : You know, I used to sleepwalk, when I was a boy.
Purpose : Please interlocutors
7. Malcolm : Are you okay?
Greta : I needed someone else to see it. So I would know.
Purpose : Avoid discussion
D. Manner
1. Greta : And the son? Brahms?
Malcolm : Brahms. Oh he‟s um… Uh… I‟m not quite sure how to
explain.
Purpose : Save face, Protract answer, and Avoid discussion.
2. Malcolm : Greta, it‟s a Malcolm.
Greta : Hey. Uh… It‟s the weirdest thing. When I first got here,
Mrs. Heelshire said that Brahms took my shoes. And that he
was playful. And I thought she was joking.
Purpose : Communicate self-interest
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
78
Appendix 2: The list of Multiple Maxim Violations in The Boy movie
A. Quantity and Manner
1. Malcolm : You‟re probably going mad in this house, aren‟t you? It
might be good to get out. I could show you the world-
famous local nightlife. I mean, I know technically you‟re
not supposed to leave Brahms, but I won‟t tell if you won‟t.
Greta : I just got out of a thing.
Malcolm : No. Uh this is not a thing. You know, I… I assure you of
that. This is, uh, a professional courtesy seeing as we‟re
employed by the same people. You know, it‟s a duty is what
it is. I will take no pleasure in it whatsoever. I promise.
Yeah?
Greta : Okay. Yeah.
Purpose : Protract answer and be polite
2. Sandy : Oh, and let me guess. You‟re drinking a nice glass of red
wine.
Greta : (After drinking a glass of red wine) Maybe.
Purpose : Save face
B. Quality and Manner
1. Sandy : Yeah, okay. Are you going to wear your coral dress?
Greta : (After looking at the mirror with her coral dress) I don‟t
know. I‟ll figure it out.
Purpose : Save face.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
79
2. Greta : What do you read?
Malcolm : Me?
Greta : (Looking at Greta who was chewing a gum)
Uh… Chewing gum.
Purpose : Save face
C. Relevance and Manner
1. Malcolm : Hey, nice to meet you.
Cole : Nice to meet you, man (Clear throat). So, what do you
make of all this doll stuff?
Malcolm : Uh, you know, I try not to get involved in other people‟s
business.
Purpose : Save face and Communicate self-interest
D. Quality, Quantity, and Manner
1. Cole : Should I be worried?
Greta : About Malcolm? Mmm… No.
Purpose : Save face
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI