You are on page 1of 87

The Non-Observance Maxim of Conversation in the Arthur Millers the Last

Yankee (Based on Grices Cooperative Principle)

A thesis
Submitted to Letters and Humanities Faculty
in Partial Fulfillment of theRequirements
for the Strata One Degree (S1)

Aryanthi
105026000887

ENGLISH LETTERS DEPARTMENT


LETTERS AND HUMANITIES FACULTY
STATE ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY SYARIF HIDAYATULLAH
JAKARTA
2010
ABSTRACT

Aryanthi. The Non-Observance Maxim of Conversation in the Arthur


Millers the Last Yankee (Based on Grices Cooperative Principle). Thesis.
English Letters Department. Letters and Humanities Faculty. Syarif
Hidayahtullah State Islamic University, March 2010.
The research aims to know the disobediences of maxim of conversation in
the context of cooperative principle and how the participants who are the speaker
and the listener use in their conversation. The writer uses qualitative as the
method of the research in which she tries to describe the violations of maxims in
cooperative principle. The unit analysis of her research is the drama text of the
dialogue in the Last Yankees drama.
It is analyzed descriptively based on related theory of cooperative
principle by Grice. She uses herself as a main research instrument through
reading, identifying and classifying the data which are needed from the text
dialogue of the Last Yankee drama. The last Yankee is one of Arthur Millers
dramas and it tells about two marriage couples deal with their frightened of their
lives.
The writer puts the data description before she analyzes the data. Further,
she analyzes the disobedience of the maxim of conversation through the selected
data describes the context of situation behind the dialogue, the process of the
violation and interprets the implicature that appeared in the dialogue. At the latter
point, she concludes her analyses into some points that mentioned about how the
participants must obey the maxim of conversation in this study. The writer finds
there are about twelve violations and one violation that clash with another maxim.
With the result, from the group A there are; two violations of the maxim of
quantity, four violations of the maxim of quality, three violations of the maxim of
relevance and three violations of the maxim of manner. Then from the group B
one violation that clashes with another maxim that is the speaker violates the
maxim of quantity in clash with maxim of manner.

i
APPROVEMENT

The Non-Observance Maxim of Conversation in the Arthur Millers

The Last Yankee (Based on Grices Cooperative Principle)

A Thesis

Submitted to Letters and Humanities Faculty

In Partial fulfillment of the requirements

For the Degree of Strata One

Aryanthi

NIM. 105026000887

Approved by:

Dr. Frans Sayogie, M.Pd.


Supervisor

ENGLISH LETTERS DEPARTMENT


LETTERS AND HUMANITIES FACULTY
STATE ISLAMIC UNIVERITY SYARIF HIDAYAHTULLAH
JAKARTA
2010

ii
LEGALIZATION

The thesis entitled The Non-Observance Maxim of Conversation in the

Arthur Millers The Last Yankee (Based on Grices Cooperative Principle) has

been defended before the Letters and Humanities Facultys Examination

Committee on February 22nd, 2010. The thesis has already been accepted as a

partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Strata 1 (S1) in English

Letters Department.

Jakarta, 8th April, 2010.

Examination Committee

1. Dr. Muhammad Farkhan, M.Pd ___________________ ______


Chair Person
2. Drs. Asep Saefuddin, M.Pd ___________________ ______
Secretary
3. Dr. Frans Sayogie, M.Pd ___________________ ______
Advisor
4. Drs. Abdul Hamid, M.Ed ___________________ ______
Examiner I
5. Sholikatus Sadiyah, M.Pd ___________________ ______
Examiner II

iii
DECLARATION

I hereby declare that this submission is my own work and that, to the best of my
knowledge and belief, it contains no material which to substantial extent has been
accepted for the award of any other degree of diploma of the university or other
institute of higher learning, except where due acknowledgement has been made in
the text.

Jakarta, 24th March, 2010

(Materai 6000)

Aryanthi

iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

In the name of Allah, the most Gracious and the most Merciful.

Praise and gratitude is only for Him, the Lord of the Universe, who has

given His blessing and happiness by succeeding the writer in making her thesis.

And also may all the blessing and salutation be upon the most honorable prophet

and messenger Muhammad SAW, his families, his companions and his

congregations.

It is for sure that this work might be not completed without a great pray

and love of her beloved mother Hj. Sopiah, grandmother Ijah (alm.), and her sister

Nurul Aryani; may all the love and blessing be upon these inspiring women. Then

to her father H. Niman and her uncle Sutisna who have supported her financially

and morally also facilitated her with all the things she needed during in the study.

It also goes to all the lecturers who have helped her to the result of this

work, especially Dr. Frans Sayogie, M. Pd as her advisor and Hilmi Akmal,

M.Hum for guiding and suggesting her to make a good thesis, from the very

beginning until the end. Then, it also goes to Inayatul Chusna, M Hum who has

given her a suggestion about finding the best drama for her object of research.

The writer would also give so much thanks to the entire beloved persons

by mentioning one by one, but it is impossible to thank everyone who has

contributed his or her thought in this thesis. However, the writer wants to express

her gratitude to the following honorable persons:

1. Dr. Abdul Chaer, MA. The Dean of the Letters and Humanities Faculty.

Syarif Hidayahtullah State Islamic University Jakarta.

v
2. Dr. Muhammad Farhan, M.Pd. the Head of English Letters Department.

3. Dr. Asep Saefuddin, M.Pd. the Secretary of English Letters Department.

4. Her beloved friends Isti, Indra and Tini for all the support during the work

of her research.

5. Her beloved classmates, that is the students of class A 2005 for being her

classmates, who enrich her with so much experiences, love and support for

the past four year wonderful friendship. Not forgetting the B and C

class that are also colored her in experiencing the touchable friendship.

Her companions at PMII KOMFAKA especialy Wahyu Robihun and other

members. And also to her friends and little family; IofC (Initiatives of

Change) especially Ka Huda and Ka Wazeen, thanks for acknowledging

the writer about what is commitment about.

6. To all the staffs of some libraries such as Letters and Humanities Library,

State Islamic University of Syarif Hidayahtullah Jakarta library, Atma

Jaya library, Kajian Wilayah Amerika(KWA) library of the University of

Indonesia, and Letter Faculty of Indonesian University library.

May Allah SWT always bless and protect these entire wonderful kind

persons. In short, the writer realizes that this thesis still has much lackness and

might be far from being perfect. Therefore, the writer hopes any constructive and

supporting criticism, suggestion and advice for a better improvement.

Jakarta, 24th March, 2010

The writer

vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT .................................................................................................... i

APPROVEMENT ............................................................................................ ii

LEGALIZATION ............................................................................................ iii

DECLARATION ............................................................................................. iv

ACKNWOLEDGEMENT ............................................................................... v

TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................. vii

CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................... 1

A. Background of the Study ............................................................... 1

B. Focus of the Study ......................................................................... 7

C. Research Question.......................................................................... 7

D. Significance of the Study .............................................................. 8

E. Research Methodology .................................................................. 8

1. Objectives of the Study ............................................................ 8

2. Method of the Study................................................................. 8

3. Technique of Data Analysis ..................................................... 9

4. The Instrument of the Research ............................................... 9

5. Unit of Analysis ....................................................................... 10

CHAPTER II. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ........................................... 11

A. Pragmatics ...................................................................................... 11

B. Implicature ..................................................................................... 13

C. Cooperative Principle..................................................................... 16

vii
D. The Disobedience Maxim of Conversation ................................... 20

E. Context ........................................................................................... 22

F. Drama............................................................................................. 23

G. Dialogue ......................................................................................... 25

CHAPTER III. RESEARCH FINDINGS ........................................................ 28

A. Data Description............................................................................. 28

B. Data Analysis ................................................................................. 29

1. Group A.................................................................................... 29

1.1. Maxim of Quantitys violation.......................................... 29

1.2. Maxim of Qualitys violation............................................ 32

1.3. Maxim of Relevances violation ....................................... 37

1.4. Maxim of Manners violation ........................................... 41

2. Group B.................................................................................... 44

2.1. Maxim of Quantity in clash with maxim of manner ......... 44

C. The Maxims Violations ................................................................ 45

CHAPTER IV. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION................................... 47

1. Conclusion ..................................................................................... 47

2. Suggestion ...................................................................................... 48

REFERENCES................................................................................................. 49

APPENDICES ................................................................................................. 51

1 .1. Dramas Synopsis ........................................................................ 51

2 .1. The Last Yankee Dramas Dialogue ............................................. 53

viii
SYNOPSIS
The Non-Observance Maxim of Conversation in the Arthur Millers the
Last Yankee (Based on Grices Cooperative Principle)

A Thesis
Submitted to Letters and Humanities Faculty in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Strata One Degree (S1)

Aryanthi
105026000887

ENGLISH LETTERS DEPARTMENT


LETTERS AND HUMANITIES FACULTY
STATE ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY SYARIF
HIDAYATULLAH
JAKARTA
2010
ABSTRACT

Aryanthi. The Non-Observance Maxim of Conversation in the Arthur


Millers the Last Yankee (Based on Grices Cooperative Principle).
Thesis. English Letters Department. Letters and Humanities Faculty.
Syarif Hidayahtullah State Islamic University, March 2010.
The research aims to know the disobediences of maxim of
conversation in the context of cooperative principle and how the participants
who are the speaker and the listener use in their conversation. The writer uses
qualitative as the method of the research in which she tries to describe the
violations of maxims in cooperative principle. The unit analysis of her
research is the drama text of the dialogue in the Last Yankees drama.
It is analyzed descriptively based on related theory of cooperative
principle by Grice. She uses herself as a main research instrument through
reading, identifying and classifying the data which are needed from the text
dialogue of the Last Yankee drama. The Last Yankee is one of Arthur
Millers dramas and it tells about two marriage couples deal with their
frightening of life.
The writer puts the data description before she analyzes the data.
Further, she analyzes the disobedience of the maxim of conversation through
the selected data. She describes the context of situation behind the dialogue,
the process of the violation and interprets the implicature that appeared in the
dialogue. At the latter point, she concludes her analysis into some points that
mentioned about how the participants must obey the maxim of conversation in
this study. The writer finds that there are about twelve violations and one
violation that clash with another maxim. With the result, from the group A
there are; two violations of the maxim of quantity, four violations of the
maxim of quality, three violations of the maxim of relevance and three
violations of the maxim of manner. Then from the group B, there is one
violation that clashes with another maxim in which the speaker violates the
maxim of quantity in clash with maxim of manner. The totals of maxims
violations are thirteen. In short, the violations happen because the participant
does not cooperate well with the reason of some context inside.

1
A. Background of the Study
Speaker and listener must contribute to make their conversation to
reach the main goal. Making a conversation becomes successfully, people on
the position as a speaker must communicate directly their speech and
information which they need to communicate to the listener. On the other
hand, speaker sometimes does not realize that he does not give relevant
information in the conversation. Therefore, this is more than just about the
languages structure but come straight into the meaning that was not being
stated.

Pragmatics as a branch of linguistic study, deals with the meaning that


cannot capture by Semantics. 1 Although, semantics comes before the
pragmatics, but the analysis is different. While semantics in some cases can
solve the problem that deals with the meaning, semantics cannot solve the
meaning deeper. Yule, in his work, argued that Semantics deals with the
relationship between linguistics form and entities in the world or on how
words literally connect to things. 2 Semantics can not answer what the
speakers means by saying a word. Furthermore, the semantics analysis is
internally and focuses on the words meaning. The result of words meaning is
accurate and also does not need to see the connections between the words and
the speaker or the writer. Semantics concentrates to the meaning of the words
entirely. If semantics is about the meaning internally then it is different with
pragmatics.

Pragmatics is the study of those relations between language and


context. 3 It concerns with the meaning contextually. The meaning analysis is
through some theories that deal with language use. The word meaning analysis
does not only look at the literal meaning, but it also concerns with the situation
when and how the words was being spoken.

The word meaning becomes an important issue. This will come at how
the information, in a given period will not making a miss communication. In
order to give the information, pragmatics has one principle that solves the

1
Aitchison, Jean, Linguistics: an Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1995), p. 93
2
Yule, George, Pragmatics (Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1996), p. 4
3
Mey, Jacob L, Pragmatics: An Introduction (Oxford: Blackwell Publisher. 1993), p. 212

2
problem and requires obeying a principle. As a result, speaker and listener
have to fulfill some of the rules which bind between the speaker and listener
called cooperative principle.

The cooperative principle in the human daily activity hopes the


application when people communicate. At first, the cooperative principle was
stated by a philosopher, H.P. Grice, in his college at Harvard University on the
year 1975. 4 He explained that the cooperative principle can support the
participants (speaker and listener) to reach the main goal of the conversation.
In addition of his explanation, he gives a basic form of why people can
communicate and names it as maxim. He mentioned and introduced the
theory of cooperative principle in his article called Logic and Conversation.
He mentioned that a speaker must give a contribution in each conversation in
which appropriate with the listener need. 5 Unfortunately, the information
delivery always seems unconstructive because of the appearance of the other
meaning from the real meaning in the conversation.

The speakers remark ever makes a meaning that cannot be reached by


the listener. Thus, it will cause raise another meaning or an additional meaning
called Implicature. 6 Afterwards another linguist Leech gives his point of view
about meaning. At this part he said that in each distance of meaning, the word
meaning must correlated with the fact that was watched. Besides the word
meaning can be concluded in the simplest one and must be generalized. 7
Moreover, when a conversation continues, mostly the speaker puts the topic or
another issue. If it happens then it will change the purposed of why the words
was being stated and make the information seems unrevealed by the listener.

The cooperative principle explains about the referential meaning while


the conversation happens. It focuses on the sentence which are being told and
to what people mean while the speech is being told. 8 For the example in this

4
Grice, H.P. Logic and Conversation. Syntax and Semantics. Vol. III: Speech Acts, ed.
Peter Cole and J. L. Morgan (New York: Academic Press. 1975), p.45
5
Grice, H.P. (1975), loc. cit.
6
Kushartanti, Pesona Bahasa, (Jakarta: PT. Gramedia Utama. 2005), p. 105
7
Leech, Geoffrey, Prinsip-prinsip Pragmatik (Jakarta: Penerbit Universitas Indonesia. 1993),
p.10.
8
Short, M.H, in Applied Linguistic. Vol II: Discourse Analysis and the Analysis of Drama
(Oxford: Oxford University. 1981), p.189

3
conversation when A asking whether B enjoys the drama which they already
watched by saying Did you enjoy the play?, then B answers with Well, I
thought the ice creams they sold in the interval were good. 9 The conversation
implies that B indirectly stated that he cannot enjoy the drama play, even
though he didnt declare it directly but he succeeded in telling of the feeling
politely. In this part, the point that the listener got about the Bs answer was
an Implicature about how he didnt enjoy the drama. However, B was
disobeyed the cooperative principle.

Grice, as quoted by Kushartanti, says the Cooperative Principle is


about how a speaker must obey the four maxims. Furthermore, the term of
maxim is a principle that is must be obeyed by the speaker and listener in
interacting. This is must be obeyed by the participants (the listener and
speaker) whether textually or interpersonally on the way to accelerate the
communication process. 10

In fulfilling the appropriate contribution, the speaker must obey the


four maxims such as: (1) Maxim of Quantity, (2) Maxim of Quality, (3)
Maxim of Relation, and (4) Maxim of Manner. 11 Grice hopes the four
maxims will be obeyed so that it can give a relevant contribution. But there is
a time when a speaker and a listener cannot follow the rules and showing non-
observance. One kind of the non-observance is maxims violation, and the
violation happens because of the raising of the side meaning or implicature in
which already talked by the writer before.

In particular case between A and B, it shows that there are maxim


violations on the first, second, and third maxim when B answers As question.
But however it still obeys the cooperative principle, because A still understand
and realize the impliacture that B cannot enjoy the drama play, it just because
of B didnt want to declare it directly and impolite to tell it.

The implicature exists because there is no intention from the speaker


and listener as the participants; break the cooperative principle. Mostly it
happened coincidently when people communicated, and it also can be seen in

9
Short, M.H. (1981), loc. cit.
10
Kushartanti (2005), loc. cit
11
Grice (1975), loc. cit.

4
literature works like Drama. In drama, there is one speaker and one listener or
even more than without any planning of the script writer, they disobey the
cooperative principle. Yet drama is a text but in the understanding text,
people must realize that it is an object that unites together with the language
and other aspect (and others like Sociolinguistics, literature). 12 Nowdays, there
are many literature text analyses, moreover especially about drama is not
merely just about performance and plot but also the analysis is through the
Linguistic Aspect using the linguistic Theories.

The concentration of the text analysis is still rarely being conducted by


the linguist. Even there is a text analysis in linguistics analysis but it is still in
the work of syntactical analysis. Almost the same as in linguistic, the drama
also get the same situation. The literature text analysis concentrates in the
stage and story analysis. Here, the writer tries to conduct a new way of
analysis about the literary works based on the linguistics point of view. The
writer decides a drama dialogues analysis and she finds the Arthur Millers
drama called The Last Yankee.

Arthur Miller was one of the leading American playwrights of the


twentieth century; 13 he won for many literary award and prizes in literature
works. One of his famous dramas is The Death of a Salesman, in which won a
Tony Award as well as a Pulitzer Prize. 14 All of his drama works are
interesting because they are about the drama of family. 15 It seems so
interesting to analyze, however, the writer does not want to analyze the drama
as literature text analysis. She tries to use the linguistics as a tool of analysis.
Further, the writer finds it interesting and makes her to analyze this drama on
the linguistics point of view.

Hence, the writer chooses Grices theory about a set of rule of how
people contribute to make their communication reach the main goal; that is the
cooperative principle within the maxims of conversation. The writer also

12
Short, MH (1981), p. 183
13
Taken from http://www.gradesaver.com/author/arthur-miller/, accessed on 1st April 2010.
14
Ibid.
15
Ibid.

5
focuses to the disobedience of the maxims of conversation to gain and explore
more the dramas dialogue.

Based on those reasons, the writer is interested in analyzing about The


Non-Observance Maxim of Conversation in Arthur Millers the Last Yankee
(Based on Grices Theory of Cooperative). It is hopes that can enrich the
students perception about the linguistic analysis and the text analysis which
focuses on drama as an object.

B. Research Methodology

Based on the research questions above, the writer has several


objectives. The first, the write wants to know the kinds of maxim were being
violated by the speaker and listener while the implicature appears in their
dialogue and shows the non-observance of the participants and to know how
the process and the causes of the maxims violation happen.
The method conducted in the research is qualitative method. Through
this method, the writer describes the violation of maxim of conversation
through Arthur Millers drama dialogue; The Last Yankee. Holloway said that
qualitative research is the context bound, 16 in which means that the writer must
able to involve and carefully focuses into the background of the data analysis.
According to this statement, the writer will describe and explore the data
analysis as it correlates with the object of analysis.

In this study the writer uses herself as a main research instrument


through reading, identifying, classifying and analyzing the data which are used
and needed from the dialogue or drama text. Furthermore, to get the aim of
the research, the writer conducts the descriptive data analysis technique
which is divided into some step such as write some notes of maxim of
conversations violation agencies offered by Grice, read the dialogue and find
the violations of the four maxims, sign up the violation of maxim agencies
accruing within the drama text, identify the context of situation covered the
dialogue, analyze the process of maxims violation in data analysis, recognize

16
Holloway, Immy, Basic Concepts for Qualitative Research. (Oxford: Blackwell Science.
1997), p. 5

6
and interpret the implicature that appears in the data analysis, re-read the data
to find the key words for the analyzing based on the research questions and
conclude the collecting data.

Furthermore, the unit of the analysis of the research is the text from the
dialogue of Arthur Millers drama; The Last Yankee.

C. Theoretical Framework

1. Pragmatics

Pragmatics concerns the various meaning aspects through the social


factor. The various meaning aspects tell how language can be less or more
acceptable depend on the rule of the standard language from one community.
Here, the rule is not something that state in literally but abstractly. At the
beginning of the developing linguistic study, semantics took a big part in the
analysis of meaning literally. In the developing of linguistic study, pragmatics
offers a study of meaning deeper. The developing of linguistic study brings
the conclusion that the pragmatics deal with the meaning deeper than
semantics.
Pragmatics and semantics deal with meaning, but there are some
aspects in which semantics can not solve. According to a short statement
purposed by Jean Aitchison, pragmatics is a branch of linguistic learning about
various meaning aspects and couldnt comprehend by the Semantics Theory. 17
This is because of pragmatics intends the analysis about how the listener
grasps meaning, and what was implied by the speaker. And it needs to see on
cooperation between the listener and the speaker. In short that semantic
analysis is closer to the literal meaning and the pragmatics analysis and the
pragmatics analysis is analyzing the meaning based on the speech situation.
The speech situations will refer to what imply in the speakers
utterance. Utterance is the term in pragmatics; this intertwines relation to
another word of statement. In pragmatics, the analysis is about how the
listener grasps meaning that implied in the speakers utterance. This is like
when someone requests a help, there is a way to say straight that he requesting

17
Aitchison, Jean (1995), loc. cit.

7
a help. But she or he can state in a different way. At this part, the act of
request a help in which the speaker formulate the utterance called
illocutionary act.
For instance the statement of can you give me a more explanation,
please? when the lecture tell about pragmatics theory. The question was
asked directly, but it can become to a different way when it was declared as I
havent any idea at all in theory. This simple statement is not only bound to
provide information for whomever the listener but also an expressing of
wanting a re-explaining and clear information from the lecturer without stated
directly. If the lecturer provides a more time to make clear about the
explaination of linguistic theory, it will reach a satisfactory to the speaker.
The satisfactory that is the result effect is known as perlocutionary effect. The
speaker often makes distinct about what is said and what is imply.
The Speaker and listener have to make a cooperative effort to make a
successful communication. When speakers utter the utterance, sometimes they
will implicate something in the way they exchange information. If the
speakers formulation in uttering can be understood by the listener, the speaker
is successful in delivering the information. But it will turn into a fail effort
when the listener cannot understand about what was being talked about. The
formulations utterance that what the speakers intent and imply called
implicature.

2. Implicature
There are argumentations about the definition of Implicature. The first
is Grices definition about implicature in his paper Logic and conversation,18
when he first introduced the term implicature in a term of a verb, implicate
then he turn into the related noun of implying called implicature. Speaker
implicates and the listener tries to arrive at the meaning of the implicature, if
the participants (the listener and speaker) can do it, they have making an active
communication. Horn also concludes about implicature that is as a component
of speaker meaning that constitutes an aspect of what is meant n a speakers

18
Grice, H.P (1975), op. cit. 44

8
utterance without being part of what is said. 19 The implicature explanation is
closer to what a speaker intends to state A without bring A in the utterance.
When a speaker makes an implicature, the communication can goes smoothly
or failed if the listener can not deduce what is being talked by the speaker
through A.
There are two kinds of implicature. Grice in his paper explains that the
first kind is a conventional implicature. The meaning in this implicature can
take by a literal meaning directly from the text. Second is the conversational
implicature. The conversational implicature is the additional meaning inside
an utterance. 20 It happens because of the speaker and listener exchange the
information that can not include the utterance. Some listener can connect to
what is implied. Further the participants incline do this because of the
participants (listener and speaker) have a set of purpose when they are uttering
something.

3. Cooperative Principle
Listener and speaker must try to make a stimulus response. Grice
comments on his previous article call Logic and Conversation that is about
communication in the conversation. He thinks while communicate happen;
the speaker must gives a relevant information on what it stated. The next
description of this mutuality effective communication resume in cooperative
principle. Yule concludes about cooperative principle as he cited from Grices
paper. He thinks that the cooperative principle is about making your
conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs,
by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are
engaged. 21 The cooperative principle specifies what does the speaker means
to cooperate which called conversational maxim.
The maxim of conversation is a set of principles advanced by Grice as
a part of his account of implicature. 22 In order to succeed in communication

19
Horn, Laurence R and Gregory ward. The Handbook of Pragmatics (Oxford: Blackwell
Publishing. 2006), p.3
20
Yule, George. (1996), op. cit.35.
21
Ibid. p. 37.
22
Mathews, P. H, The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics. (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1997) p. 219.

9
the participants must fill the four maxims, with the result:
1. Maxim of Quantity
This maxim directly correlated more or less of the information
gave to speaker. This maxim forces the speaker in giving sufficient
information to the listener. 23 The participants must contribute as is
required and make the conversation to be connected. The speaker is
not less and over in giving the information. Therefore, Grice explains
that the maxim forces the participants to:
a. Make their contribution as informative as is required.
b. To be not making their contribution more informative than is
required. 24
2. Maxim of Quality
The maxim forces the speaker in giving the relevant
information. Both of the speaker and listener must make a satisfactory
in fulfillment the appropriate information. With the specific sub
maxim:
a. Do not say what you believe to be false
b. Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.
3. Maxim of relevance
The maxim forces the participants to be relevant. 25 On the other
words, the participants must give relevant information to each other.
4. Maxim of Manner
The maxim force to utter what have to say does not have to be
formulated by the speaker. With the subsequent sub-maxim below:
a. Avoid obscurity of expression
b. Avoid ambiguity
c. Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity)
d. Be orderly. 26

4. The disobedience of the cooperative Principle

23
Kushartanti (1993), op. cit.107.
24 Grice, H.P (1975), op. cit. 46
25
Ibid.
26
Ibid.

10
Listener and speaker sometimes fail to follow the rules and sometimes
they break the cooperative principle. At this stage, they fail to fulfill a maxim
in some ways:
1. He may quietly and unostentatiously violate a maxim.
If the speaker does it, it will make the listener have a wrong
idea or he will not pay attention to what he said.
2. He may opt out from the operation both of the maxim and of the
Cooperative Principle.
On this case, the speaker does not plan to cooperate in the way
the maxim requires.
3. He may be faced by a clash another maxim.
The speaker is unable to fill one of the maxims and turns to
violate the other maxim. Further, when a speaker gives a statement; he
may not contribute in completing the requirement of the first maxim.
In short, he gets a clash with the second maxim.
4. He may flout a maxim.
Here, the speaker is able to fulfill the maxim and to do it
without having any violation with another maxim. It actually fails to
contribute the maxim but it is being exploited.

5. Context
Listener must be able to interpret one remark to one another intention.
He must care to what is being constructed inside the remark and the utterance
told by the speaker. He must also consider about the situation like the time
when it was stated or how it was stated. The reason of participants
consideration is because of the language use is separate from the use of a
context. Further, David states that context refers to the situation giving rise to
the discourse, and within which the discourse embedded. 27 It exists because
when speaker is saying something they have a reason and some aspects that
forming the background of an utterance being stated.
The contextual factors can influence each of utterance. If the listener
can concerns the contextual factors, it will be a start look to listener to know

27
Nunan, David, Introducing Discourse Analysis (London: Penguin Books. 1993), p. 7

11
about the meaning of the speakers utterance.

6. Drama
Drama is a performance of play and dialogue. At first drama were
originated in the Greek verb dran means to do; to act or to accomplish. 28 The
performance shows the player, as the actress, do some actions in scenes where
the situational in text reflected. There are about seven types of drama, such as:
tragedy, comedy, problem playa, farce, comedy of manners, fantasy and
melodrama. Drama is about embedding the internal communication system in
the external system. It creates the play of some characters and provides the
correlation between the fictional world of the player (performances) and the
audiences (spectators). Here, the author usually must be able to raise the
emotion events through the utterances spoken by the players.

7. Dialogue
Dialogue is one of the results from the dramatic text. In drama, it is
the fundamental mode of presentation. This is because of the reduction of the
dramatic text into the speech and the characters with the action will create a
storys scenes. When the players act while the making of the utterances such
as an act forming a promise or a threat, then they do not only make dialogue as
the formal element but as the spoken language.
The receivers need to emphasize about an act through utterances. It is
because the dialogue in drama put some of performances aspects. J.L Austin
argued; as it recited by Manfred that there is something which is act the
moment of uttering being done by the person uttering. 29 In drama, there are
more to explore from the utterance in the dialogue because of the receiver
sometimes does not consider about the situation where the dialogue where
spoken by the players.
Dialogues will relate with the speech act in speech situation where it
was being uttered. And the making the dramatic speech is bound to the
particular situation. The particular situation that is not all the spectators can

28
Wessels, Charlyn. Drama (New York: Oxford University. 1988), p. 1
29
Pfister, Manfred, The theory and analysis of drama (Cambridge: The University of
Cambridge, 1991), p.6

12
catch from the plot or the characters. The text will bound into some particular
situation that will create particular speech situation like the lack of information
making the player to disobey the cooperative principle.

D. Research Finding
At first, the writer writes the text of dialogue and explains the violation
with the disobedience of maxim of conversation which is on the dialogue that
already divided into two groups. Then, she gives reason and further
exploration in explaining it by using Herbert Grice theory of maxim. In
analyzing the data, the writer will describe context of situation, process of
violation and implicature in each datum. Therefore, the data will be analyzed
as follows:

Group A. (the violation of maxim because of violate, opt out and flout the
maxim).
1. The maxim of quantitys violation
Datum I
Frick : Seven! - Ive been wondering if it was because she never had any.
Leroy: No, thats not it. You dont have any?
Frick: No. We kept putting it off, and then it got too late, and first thing
you know its just too late.
Leroy: For a while there I thought maybe she had too many children
Frick: Well I dont have any, so
Leroy: Yeah, I guess thats not either. 30
a. Context of situation
Frick and Leroy seek for the reasons why their wives got sick. Then
Leroy asks about the number of children that Frick has. It is also to notice
the reason Fricks wife got sick.
b. Process of violation:
There is no doubt that Frick flouts the maxim of quantity to avoid
making a contribution more informative than is required. Frick remark by
using expression repeating the statement it got too late, and first thing you

30
Miller, Arthur ( 1995), op.cit. p. 451.

13
know its just too late. An interpreting aspect of such expression make
one can derive as not as required. Even so it is actually interpreted as
telling more than what is said.
The answer gives such over informative to Leroy. It is confusing to
Leroy and liable to raise the topic and make Leroy be mislead. By making
Leroy mislead about the remark causing him thinking that there is a
particular point in accessing Fricks remark first thing you know its
just too late
c. Implicature
This expression keys to have a conversational implicature. Fricks
expression tells more than what is required by the listener. At this part,
Frick implies that children are not the reason of his wife got sick but it
actually becomes his sadness about having no children around.

2. The maxim of qualitys violation


Datum I
Frick: What was your father?
Leroy: Lawyer
Frick: Why didnt you?
Leroy: Just too dumb, I guess
Frick: Couldnt buckle down the books, huh?
Leroy: I guess not. 31
a. Context of Situation:
Frick interested in knowing how Leroys simplicity in his life.
Moreover, Frick becomes more curious to know then later he asks about
Leroys passion about his ideal.
b. Process of violation
Leroys remark of just too dumb, I guess violates the maxim of
quality, do not to say what you believe to be false. In this maxim of
quality in which is the Gricean maxim, Gazdar maintains that this maxim
is connected to the logic of belief. 32 Therefore the speaker needs to give an
answer that is logically based on what his belief and make it to be
31
Miller, Arthur (1995) op.cit. p. 456.
32
Gerald Gazdar (1979), op.cit. 45-46.

14
appropriate information. When it turns into Leroys remark I guess not
that is a negation of Fricks question could not buckle the book; Leroy is
actually have the ability to answer Fricks question clearly. Even so,
Leroy is liable to mislead Frick by stating I guess.
The words of I guess implicates about an unfinished answer.
Furthermore, It compares with the word well that purposed by R. Lakoff,
as cited in Gazdar, that the word well when it is in a remark; it will give a
signal of an incomplete answer. 33 Continuing, likewise statement with I
guess. At this point, the writer defined that I guess have the same
purposed, in Leroys remark the word I guess not just merely a short reply
but also an incomplete answer that is typically say what he believe to be
false in the context. Hence, Leroy violates the maxim of quality and in
order to be not cooperating with the listener.
c. Implicature
He implicates that he does not want to be a lawyer because of the job
looks only suit for his father so that he is not interested in being a lawyer.

3. The maxim of Relevances violation


1. Datum I
Patricia: . I-must-not-blame-Leroy-anymore. And its amazing. I lost
desire medication, I could feel it leaving me like a .. like a ghost. Slight
pause. . It is just that hes got really well-to-do relatives and he simply
will not accept anyones help. I mean you take the Jews, the Italians,
Irish-theyve got their Italian-American, Irish-American, Hispanic-
Americans-they stick together and help each other. But you ever hear of
Yankee-Americans? Not on your life. Raise his taxes, rob him blind, the
Yankeell just sit there all alone getting sadder and sadder. But Im not
going to think about it anymore.
Karen: You have a very beautiful chin. 34
a. Context of Situation
Patricia talks about her husband. She tells it to Karen in order to share

33
Ibid. p. 44.
34
Miller, Arthur (1995) op.cit. p. 463.

15
and have a way out of this problem.
b. Process of Violation
Karens remark actually responses Patricias remark, however, Karen
does not give a relevant response to Patricia. Since, there seems the
conversation jump into another topic then it violates the maxim of
relevant. While in the conversation, Karen allows herself in getting
another subject of conversation that is legitimately change.
c. Implicature
Karen implies that she does not have any idea about Patricias story
and she has another subject that also needs to share.

4. The maxim of Manners violation


Datum I
Frick: Gladamettu. Slightly pause. How do you find it here?
Leroy: I guess they do a good job
Frick: Surprisingly well kept for a state institution
Leroy: Oh-ya.
Frick: Awful lot of colored, though, aint there? 35
a. Context of Situation
Leroy and Frick comment about the medical hospital where their wife
was treated. Frick and Leroy have their own comment but each of them
still wants to get to know about another comment.
b. Process of Violation
At the most literal level of meaning I guess means Im not really sure;
giving an answer without being sure. People often think I guess as having
the secondary meaning I think. In other case, it counts as a pseudo-turn in
the interaction, by not advancing the conversation further through flouting
the maxim of manner to be avoids obscurity expression.
Leroy implies that he does not know much and he himself does not
sure about the quality of hospital service to the patient. His remark builds
Frick thought about the uncertainty of the fact of the service through
surprisingly and awful lot of colored. Leroys remark contributes in the

35 Ibid. p. 449.

16
giving idea that is not clear, therefore difficult to make a clear and exact
conclusion. Leroy does not give clear about what contribution he is
making about. In short, this use of I guess always works in this way, it has
become conventionalized, and no longer requires an inference procedure
for the implicature to be recovered.
c. Implicature
Here, Leroy implicates the service given is good even though the
facility still was not complete.

Group B. (In which there is a clash with another maxim)


1. Violate maxim of quantity in clash with maxim of manner
Data I
Leroy: Well, I am too. Theyre wonderful kids.
Frick: They still very young?
Leroy: Five to nineteen. But they all pitch in. everythings clean, house
runs like a ship. 36
a. Context of Situation
Leroy tells about his children. And he tries to make Frick amazed
about his children work.
b. Process of Violation
It is supposed that Leroy is opting out. His remark as he well know, he
is over informative than is required to meet Fricks need. This
infringement of the first maxim of quantity can be explained only by the
supposition that Leroy is aware to bring the obscurity of expression by
saying But they all pitch in. everythings clean, house runs like a ship
and does not have a brief statement. Hence, Leroys remark is flouted the
maxim of quantity but its violation is to be explained by the supposition of
the clash with another maxim that is the maxim of manner.
c. Implicature
Leroy implicates that he has children five to nineteen and they are
really diligent.

36
Ibid. p. 452.

17
E. The Maxims Violations
From the data analysis above, it shows many violations. The writer
finds there are about twelve violations and one violation that clash with
another maxim. With the result, from the group A there are; two violations of
the maxim of quantity, four violations of the maxim of quality, three violations
of the maxim of relevance and three violations of the maxim of manner. Then
from the group B one violation that clash with another maxim that is the
speaker violate the maxim of quantity in clash with maxim of manner. In
short, the violations happen because the participant does not cooperate well
with the reason of some context inside.

F. Conclusion
From the research findings, the writer would like to take the conclusion
for some results. First, the cooperative principle is a principle has been
contributed to make a clear information and appropriate information while
they are making a conversation. Besides, this principle tells about how the
participants (speaker and listener) must contribute in making the
communication as is required.
The disobedience of maxim conversation is influenced by the
relationship of the speaker and listener make the information as informative as
is required. Speaker disobeys the maxim of conversation in some ways, first
he quietly violates a maxim, he opts out from the cooperation, he flouts a
maxim and even it actually already violates the first maxim but then faced by a
clash the other maxim. When he disobeys the maxim of conversation, then he
will create a side meaning in his remark called implicature.
The implicature will rise at the time when one of the participants
disobeys the maxim it will turn onto the personal communication. There is the
basic reason in which becomes the background of how the implicature raised.
The background itself called context. Context is able to tell knowledge where
can explore and draw the background of the aspects (like the mental, social
and cultural aspects) which guide to the interpretation of the language. Hence,
when the participants were being communicated they needed to explore more
not merely just seeing it as an utterance, but they also must obey the maxims
of conversation in order to reach the main goal of sending the information as

18
informative as required.

G. REFERENCES
Cruse, D. Alan. Meaning in Language: An Introduction to Semantics and
Pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press Inc. New York, 2000.
Farkhan, Muhammad. Penulisan Karya Ilmiah. Jakarta: Cella Jakarta, 2006.
Gazdar, Gerald. Pragmatic: Implicature, Presupposition, and Logical Form.
London: Academic Press, Inc., 1979.
Grice, H.P. Logic and Conversation. Syntax and Semantics. Vol. III: Speech
Acts, ed. Peter Cole and J. L. Morgan. New York: Academic Press,
1975.
Holloway, Immy. Basic Concepts for Qualitative Research. Oxford:
Blackwell Science, 1997.
Horn, Laurence.R, and Gregory ward. The Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford:
Blackwell Publishing, 2006.
Kushartanti. Pesona Bahasa. Jakarta: PT. Gramedia Utama, 2005.
Leech, Geoffrey. Prinsip-prinsip Pragmatik. Jakarta: Penerbit Universitas
Indonesia, 1993.
Mathews, P. H The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics. (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1997.
Mey, Jacob L. Pragmatics: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell Publisher,
Ltd., 1993.
Miller, Arthur. The Last Yankee. The Portable Arthur Miller, ed. Bigsby,
Christhoper. New York: Penguin Books, 1995.
Nunan, David. Introducing Discourse Analysis. London: Penguin Book, 1993.
Pfister, Manfred. The theory and analysis of drama. Cambridge: The
University of Cambridge, 1991.
Short, M.H. Discourse Analysis and the Analysis of Drama. Applied
Linguistic Vol II. Oxford: Oxford University, 1981.
Wessels, Charlyn. Drama. New York: Oxford University, 1988.

Yule, George. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996.

19
Website:
http://www.lifestreamcenter.net/DrB/Lessons/Drama accessed on March 25,
2010.
http://www.gradesaver.com/author/arthur-miller/ accessed on 1st April 2010.

20
CURICULUM VITAE

PERSONAL INFORMATION

Name : Aryanthi
Date of Birth : March 15th 1987
Birth Place : Jakarta
Gender : Female
Nationality : Indonesia
Permanent Mailing Adress : Cilodong. Kelurahan Kalibaru Kecamatan
Cilodong Rt.03/06 No.66 Depok
021-77824059
E-mail : Arth_seven@yahoo.com
Cell-phone Number : 087880068520

Current Education Information


University : UIN Syarif Hidayahtullah Jakarta
Faculty/Major : Letters and Humanities Faculty/English
Department
Current Semester : Tenth Semester

Working Experiences

Year Main Activites and


Working Place
From Until Responsibilities

Tka and Tpa


November December
(a Quranic Teaching
2005 2006
Kindergarten and a

21
Quranic Junior School)

Refa Qualitama
July Oktober
Multitradex Event Sales Marketing
2006 2006
Organizer
May
Gemilang Study Club now Teacher
2007
SuperChamp English June September
Teaching English for Kids
Course 2007 2008
Boarding English Course September July
Adviser and English Tutor
of Gemilang 2008 2009

TKa/TPa Ikhlasul August


Now Teaching English
Machfudz 2009

Organizational Experiences
Year
Name Position in Organization
From Until
PMII (Pergerakan Mahasiswa Islam 2005 2006
Member
Indonesia)
PMII (Pergerakan Mahasiswa Islam 2006 2007
Leader of Gender Divison
Indonesia)
KOPRI (Korps Pergerakan Mahasiswa
2006 2007 Event Organizer Divison
Islam Indonesia Putri PMII)
PMII (Pergerakan Mahasiswa Islam 2007 2009 Leader of Creativity
Indonesia) Divison
IofC (Initiatives of Change) 2008 Now Member
SIGI Community (a Community of 2009 2009
Member
Movie Maker)

Achievements
No. Kinds of
Event Organizer Name of Event Year
Achievement
Second Winner Female Dormitory
1. Anniversary 2006
of English of UIN

22
Speech
Competition
Third Winner
BEMJ PAI of
of English
2. Education Faculty Anniversary 2007
Speech
of UIN
Competition
Second Winner
of English BEMF of
3. Anniversary 2008
Debating Group Education Faculty
Competition

Conference and Workshop Experiences


Time and Place Status Program Organizer
th
Jakarta, 28 Participant The entrepreneurship IKALUIN
September 2005 Seminary: Pendidikan (Panitia Ikatan
yang memberdayakan; Alumni
Mempersiapkan Alumni Universitas
UIN yang Mandiri UIN) Syarif
Berkemampuan Hidayahtullah
Entrepreneurship Jakarta
Jakarta, 18th May Participant The Culture and Students
2006 English Letter Executive
Seminary: Committee
Recognizing West (BEMF) of
Multiculturalism Letters and
Through Cultural Study Humanities
Faculty
th
Jakarta, 28 May Participant Pelatihan Calon Guru Bina Cinta
2010 Privat bersama Drs. Ilmu (BCI)
Bahroin Suryantara The Private
Learning
Institution
Jakarta, 11th Participant Refleksi kritis The Executive
January 2007 Pengalaman Indonesia Director PSIK
Pasca Kemerdekaan (Pusat Studi
Islam Dan
Kenegaraan)
of Paramadina

23
University
st
Jakarta, 1 Participant Potret Kerawanan P3M (Pusat
February 2007 Sosial DKI Jakarta, Pengkajian
Sebuah Evaluasi Krtis dan
Pengabdian
Masyarakat)
in cooperate
with Syariah
and Law
Faculty
th
Jakarta, 16 Participant Dinar Vs Dolar: Students
April 2007 Peluang Penerapan Executive
Dinar Dalam Indutri Committe of
Asuransi Syariah Syariaah
Ansurance
Department in
cooperate with
LSF(Law
Study Forum)
Jakarta, April Participant Seminar Sehari P2KM (Pusat
27th 2008 Perempuan dan Media Pengkajian
Massa: Objek atau Komunikasi
Subjek? dan Media)
Bogor, 19th-21st Participant The 4th Youth Camp Initiative of
December 2008 Discover Inner Power Change (IofC)
and Share to the Others: Indonesia
A Better World Through
You and Me
Jakarta, Bogor, Committee The 4th International Initiatives of
Bandung, & Action for Life Team Changes
Banten, February Visiting Program Indonesia
23- April 23 2009 Indonesia
Bogor-Cisarua, Participant The 5th International Team of
March 20-22, Youth Camp 2009 Be International
2009 the change you want to Action for Life
see in the world 4 dan
Initiatives of
Changes-
Indonesia
nd rd
Jakarta, 2 -3 Participant The Appreciation and Departemen

24
April 2009 Movie Maker Workshop Kebudayaan
for Students and Adult: dan Pariwisata
Maju Film Indonesia Indonesia in
cooperate with
Senakki,
Indeff
Foundation,
Konsep Layar
Kreasi, PWI
Jaya, PARSI
and Jaringan
Worksop
Jakarta, 24th Participant Pubic Speaking Contest: Direktorat
June 2010 ASEAN as one Jendral
Community Kerjasama
ASEAN,
Departemen
Luar Negri
Republik
Indonesia
th
Jakarta, 11 Participant Workshop: Tips and Internatioanl
November 2009 Tricks for Applying the Office of UIN
International Post Sayrif
Graduate Scholarship Hidayatullah
Jakarta
st
Jakarta, 21 Participant Profesional Public Health
September 2009 Development Seminary Major of UIN
on Occuptioanl Health Sayrif
and Safety Programme: Hidayatullah
How to be Healthy and Jakarta
Fashionable with Your
Notebook
Jakarta, 11th Participant The National Seminary: Student
september 2010 Kupas Tuntas Executive
Kontroversi NAMRU: Committee
Kedaulatan NKRI Dalam (BEM) of UIN
Ancaman? Syarif
Hidayatllah
Jakarta

25
1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1. Background of the Study

Speaker and listener must contribute to make their conversation to reach

the main goal. Making the conversation becomes successfully, people on the

position as a speaker must communicate directly their speech and

information which they need to communicate to the listener. On the other hand,

speaker sometimes does not realize that he does not give relevant information in

the conversation. Therefore, this is more than just about the languages structure

but come straight into the meaning that was not being stated.

Pragmatics as a branch of linguistic study, deals with the meaning that

cannot capture by Semantics. 1 Although semantics comes before the pragmatics,

but the analysis is different. While semantics in some cases can solve the problem

that deals with the meaning, semantics cannot solve the meaning deeper. Yule, in

his work, argued that semantics deals with the relationship between linguistics

forms and entities in the world or on how words literally connect to things. 2

Semantics cannot answer what the speakers mean by saying a word.

Furthermore, semantics analysis is internally and focuses on the words meaning.

The result of word meaning is accurate and does not to see the connections

1
Aitchison, Jean, Linguistics: an Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1995), p. 93
2
Yule, George, Pragmatics (Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1996), p. 4

1
2

between the word and the speaker or the writer. If semantics about the meaning

internally, semantics is different from pragmatics that is to tell the words meaning

externally.

Pragmatics is the study of those relations between language and context. 3

It concerns with the words meaning contextually. The meaning analysis is through

some theories that deal with language use. And this analysis also does not only

look at the literal meaning, but it concerns to the situation when and how the

words was being spoken.

The word meaning becomes an important issue. This will come at how the

information, in a given period, will not make a miss communication. In order to

give the information, pragmatics has one principle that solves the problem and

requires obeying a principle. As the result, speaker and listener have to fulfill

some of the rules which bind between the speaker and listener called cooperative

principle.

The cooperative principle in the human daily activity hopes for the

application when people communicate. At first, the cooperative principle was

stated by a philosopher name H.P. Grice, in some of his college at Harvard

University on the year 1975. 4 He explained that the cooperative principle can

support the participants (speaker and listener) to reach the main goal of the

conversation. In addition of his explanation, he gives a basic form of why people

3
Mey, Jacob L, Pragmatics: An Introduction (Oxford: Blackwell Publisher. 1993), p. 212
4
Grice, H.P. Logic and Conversation. Syntax and Semantics. Vol. III: Speech Acts, ed. Peter
Cole and J. L. Morgan (New York: Academic Press. 1975), p.45
3

can communicate and named it as maxim. He mentioned that a speaker must give

a contribution in each conversation in which appropriate with the listener need. 5

Unfortunately, the information delivery seems unconstructive because of the

appearance of the other meaning from the real meaning in the conversation.

The speakers remark ever makes a meaning that cannot be reached by the

listener. Thus, it will cause raise another meaning or an additional meaning which

called Implicature. 6 Afterwards another Linguist names Leech gives his point of

view about meaning. At this part he said that each distance about meaning, the

word meaning must correlate with the fact that the situation was watched.

Besides the distance of meaning can be concluded with the simplest one and also

must easy to be generalized. 7 When a conversation continues, mostly the speaker

puts the topic or another issue so that change the aim of the conversation and

make the information seems unrevealed by the listener.

The cooperative principle explains about the referential meaning while the

conversation happens. It focuses on the sentence which are being told and to what

people mean, while the speech is being told. 8 For the example when A asks

whether B enjoys the drama which they already watched or not. Then A asks by

saying Did you enjoy the play? then B answers Well, I thought the ice creams

5
Grice, H.P. (1975), loc. cit.
6
Kushartanti, Pesona Bahasa, (Jakarta: PT. Gramedia Utama. 2005), p. 105
7
Leech, Geoffrey, Prinsip-prinsip Pragmatik (Jakarta: Penerbit Universitas Indonesia. 1993),
p.10.
8
Short, M.H, in Applied Linguistic. Vol II: Discourse Analysis and the Analysis of Drama
(Oxford: Oxford University. 1981), p.189
4

they sold in the interval were good. 9 Indirectly the conversation implies that B

could not enjoy the drama play and even though B didnt declare it directly, he

succeeded in telling his feeling politely. Here, the point that the listener got about

Bs answer was an Implicature of how he didnt enjoy the drama. However, B

disobeys the cooperative principle and shows the non-observance of maxim of

conversation.

Grice, as quoted by Kushartanti, says the Cooperative Principle is about

how a speaker must obey the four maxims. Furthermore, the term of maxim is a

principle must be obeyed by the speaker and listener in interacting, This must be

obeyed by the participants (speaker and listener) whether textually or

interpersonally on the way to accelerate the communication process.10

In fulfilling the appropriate contribution, the speaker must obey the four

maxims such as: (1) Maxim of Quantity, (2) Maxim of Quality, (3) Maxim of

Relation, and (4) Maxim of Manner. 11 Grice hopes the four maxims will be

obeyed so that it can give a relevant contribution. But there is a time when a

speaker and a listener cannot follow the rules and showing non-observance. The

non-observance because of the participants disobeys the cooperative principle.

Maxims violation shows the non-observance. The violation happens and causes

the side meaning or implicature that already talked by the writer before.

9
Short, M.H. (1981), loc. cit.
10
Kushartanti (2005), loc. cit
11
Grice (1975), loc. cit.
5

In particular cases between A and B, it shows that there are maxim

violations on the first, second, and third maxim. A still understand and realizes

the implicature of B the ice cream they sold in the interval were goodmeans that

he cannot enjoy the drama play. This was because of B didnt want to declare it

directly and feels impolite to tell it

The implicature exists because there is no intention from the speaker and

listener as the participant; break the cooperative principle. Mostly, it happens

coincidently when people were communicating and it also can be seen in literature

works like Drama. In drama, there is one speaker and one listener (known as

characters) acts as the scenes written in the dialogue. At this part and without any

planning from the Script Writer, there is one act that can be disobeying the

cooperative principle. Yet drama is a text but in the understanding text, people

must realize that it is an object uniting together with the language and other aspect

(like Sociolinguistics, literature). 12 In addition, this statement explains that

dramas analysis is not merely just about performance and plot. There are many

aspects can be analyzed besides the literature aspects like the dramas analysis

through the Linguistic Aspect using the linguistic Theories.

The concentration of the text analysis is still rarely being conducted by the

linguist. Even there is a text analysis in linguistics but it is still in the work of

syntactical analysis. Earlier the conducted linguistic analysis was seeing the

analysis in one aspect. This situation is the same as in linguistic, the drama also

12
Short, MH (1981), p. 183
6

get the same situation. The literature text analysis like dramas analysis

concentrates in the stage and story analysis. Later the way of conducting analysis

of linguistic and literature was changing; both of the linguistic and literature.

Here, the writer tries to conduct a new way analysis about the literary works based

on the linguistic and literature works could meet together. Here, the writer tries to

conduct a new way of analysis about the literary works based on the linguistics

point of view. The writer decides a pragmatics analysis uses the dramas

dialogue as an object of analysis. She finds the Arthur Millers drama called The

Last Yankee.

Arthur Miller was one of the leading American playwrights of the

twentieth century; 13 he won for many literary award and prizes in literature works.

One of his famous dramas is The Death of a Salesman, in which won a Tony

Award as well as a Pulitzer Prize. 14 All of his drama work is interesting because

they are about the drama of family. 15 It seems so interesting to analyze, however,

the writer does not want to analyze the drama as literary text analysis. She uses

the linguistics as a tool of analysis. Further, the writer finds that the Last Yankees

story is interesting and makes her to analyze this drama on the linguistics point of

view.

Hence, the writer chooses Grices theory about a set of rule of how people

contributing their communication reaching the main goal; that is the cooperative

13
Taken from http://www.gradesaver.com/author/arthur-miller/, accessed on 1st April 2010.
14
Ibid.
15
Ibid.
7

principle within the maxims of conversation. The writer also focuses at the

disobedience of the maxims of conversation to gain and explore about the non-

observance of participants (characters) in the dramas dialogue.

Based on those reasons, the writer is interested in analyzing about The

Non-Observance Maxim of Conversation in Arthur Millers the Last Yankee

(Based on Grices Theory of Cooperative). It is hopefully can enrich our

perception about the linguistics analysis and the text analysis which focuses on

drama as an object.

2. Focus of the Study

To limit the research, the writer will focus on the violations of the maxims

which Grice already purposed in Cooperative of Principle and how the

disobedience of maxim in drama happens.

3. Research Questions

Based on the focus of study, the writer will cover the questions below:

1. What kinds of maxim in Cooperative Principle are not obeyed by the

participants while the implicature appears in their dialogue in which shows the

non-observance of the participants?

2. How does the process of the maxims violations happen?


8

4. Significance of Study

The writer hopes by doing the analysis, it will create a smarter reader and

contribute the wide perspective in analyzing the language use and the literature. It

is hoped to become an additional reference of how to analyze the Literature text or

non literature text and acknowledging about the analysis text.

5. Research Methodology

1. Objectives of the study

Based on the research questions above, the writer has several objectives

below:

1. To know the kinds of maxim was not obeyed by the speaker and listener while

the implicature appears in their dialogue in which can shows the non-observance

of the participants.

2. To know how the process and the causes of the maxims violations happen.

2. Method of the study

The method conducted in the research is qualitative method. Through this

method, the writer describes the violation of maxim of conversation through

Arthur Millers drama dialogue; The Last Yankee. Holloway said that qualitative

research is the context bound, 16 in which means that the writer must be able to

involve and carefully focuses into the background of the data analyses.

16
Holloway, Immy, Basic Concepts for Qualitative Research. (Oxford: Blackwell Science. 1997),
p. 5
9

According this statement, the writer will describe and explore the data analyses as

it correlates with the object of analysis.

3. Technique of data analysis

To get the aim of the research, the writer conducts the descriptive data

analysis technique which is divided into the following steps:

1. To write some notes of maxim of conversations violation agencies offered by

Grice.

2. To read the dialogue and find the violations of the four maxims.

3. To give the order number of dialogue within the drama text.

4. To sign up the violation of maxim agencies accruing within the drama text.

5. To identify the context of situation covered the dialogue.

6. To analyze the violation process of maxims in data analyses.

7. To recognize and interpreting the implicature appears in the data analyses.

8. To re-read the data.

9. To find the key words for the analyzing based on the research questions.

10. To conclude the collecting data.

4. The Instrument of the Research

In this study the writer uses herself as a main research instrument through

reading, identifying, classifying and analyzing the data which are used and needed
10

from the dialogue or drama text. Then, the writer observes and signs the

possibility of the violation of maxims occurrence within dialogue or drama text.

5. Unit of Analysis

The unit of the analysis is the text from the dialogue of Arthur Millers

drama; The Last Yankee.


11

CHAPTER II

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

A. Pragmatics

Pragmatics sees human language as in the activity in its various aspects.

In contrast with the structuralism like syntactician that purpose the concept of

human language is the grammar of language consists of several components such

as the phonological one, syntactics one, and semantics one. The various aspects

mean that human language does not only about the grammar with several

components, but more to the function of language in the social activity.

The pragmatics has a contrast perspective in seeing the various aspects of

human language. This is as what Jacobs statement in his book Pragmatics. He

said that pragmatics perspective is about why certain language use more or less

acceptable connecting to the social factors, in contrast to other and perhaps

abstractly equivalent, but pragmatically different. 17 This statement has clear

enough to tell that its perspective does not only include the structural point of

view. But this is more about why language use acceptable in one community and

can be less acceptable by another.

Pragmatics concerns the various meaning aspect through the social factor.

The various meaning aspects tell how language can be less or more acceptable

depend on the rule of the standard language from one community. Here, the rule

17
L. Mey, Jacob (1993), op. cit. 8.

11
12

is not something that stated literally but abstractly. At the beginning of the

developing linguistic study, semantics took a big part in the analysis of meaning

literally. In the developing of linguistic study, pragmatics offers a study of

meaning deeper. The developing of linguistic study brings to the conclusion that

pragmatics deal with the meaning deeper than semantics.

Pragmatics and semantics deal with meaning, but there are some aspects

that semantics can not solve. According to a short statement purposed by Jean

Aitchison, pragmatics is a branch of linguistic which learns about various

meaning aspects and couldnt comprehend by the semantics theory. 18 This is

because of pragmatics intends the analysis about how the listener grasps meaning,

and what was implied by the speaker. And it needs the cooperation between the

listener and the speaker. In short that semantics analysis is closer to the literal

meaning analysis and the pragmatics analysis is analyzing the meaning based on

the speech situation.

The speech situations will refer to what was implying in the speakers

utterance. Utterance is a term in pragmatics; this intertwines relation to another

word of statement. In pragmatics, the analysis is about how the listener grasps

meaning that implied in the speakers utterance. This is like when someone

requests a help, there is a way to say straight that he requesting a help. But he or

she can state in a different way. At this part, the act of request a help in which the

speaker formulate the utterance called illocutionary act.

For instance statement of can you give me a more explanation, please?

18
Aitchison, Jean (1995), loc. cit.
13

when the lecture tells about pragmatics theory. The question is asked directly, but

it can become a different way when it is declared as I havent any idea at all in

theory. This simple statement is not only bound to provide information for

whoever the listener but also an expressing of wanting a re-explaining and clear

information from the lecturer without stated directly. If the lecturer provides a

more time to make clear the explanation of linguistic theory, it will reach a

satisfactory to the speaker. The satisfactory that is the result effect is known as

perlocutionary effect. The speaker often makes distinct about what is said and

what is imply.

The speaker and listener have to make a cooperative effort to make a

successful communication. When speaker utters something, he will implicate

something in the way of exchanging the information. If the speakers formulation

in uttering can be understood by the listener, the speaker is success in delivering

the information. But it will turn into a fail effort when the listener cannot

understand about what was being talked about. The formulations utterance that

what the speakers intentio and imply called implicature.

B. Implicature

There are argumentations about the definition of Implicature. The first is

according to Grices definition about implicature in his paper Logic and

conversation, 19 when he first introduced the term implicature in a term of a verb,

19
Grice, H.P (1975), op. cit. 44
14

implicate. Then he turns into the related noun of implying called implicature and

use this term in the analyzing of meaning. Speaker implicates and the listener

tries to arrive at the meaning of the implicature. If they can do it, they have

making an active communication.

As it always being argued about the basic definition of implicature, Horn

also concludes about implicature as a component of meaning that constitutes an

aspect of what is meant in a speakers utterance without being part of what is

said. 20 It is closer to what a speaker intends to state A without brings it in the

utterance. The communication can goes smoothly or fail when the speaker makes

an implicature. If the listener can not deduce what is being talked by the speaker

through A, it means that they fail. By putting an intention in a form of an

implicature, the speaker tries to exploit the message without appearing it in the

utterance. But the cooperative efforts will success, if the speaker and listener can

reveal the implicature in their conversational.

There are two kinds of implicature. Grice in his paper explains that the

first kind is a conventional implicature. The meaning in this implicature can take

from the literal meaning in the text directly. When a speaker utters or states

something, his partner (the listener) can know the meaning as it appears on the

utterance. The meaning concludes in the statement like in the dialogue below, the

dialogue taken from the Last Yankee drama where Leroy describing his wife to

his friend:

20
Horn, Laurence R and Gregory ward. The Handbook of Pragmatics (Oxford: Blackwell
Publishing. 2006), p.3
15

Leroy: Mine was never very optimistic. Shes Swedish. 21

By implicating that she is a Swedish, Leroy realizes that he has committed

to the consequence of what he has said. The case that she never be very

optimistic is because the consequence of she is the Swedish, but if the dialogue

exchange like mine was never very optimistic and she is Indonesian. Sure the

utterance does not implicate that she never be very optimistic because of she is a

Swedish. But because of it is the consequence of she is being a person that has no

optimism still on her. The conventional implicature does not always appear the

directly in the text and has no dependent on the context.

Second is the conversational implicature. The conversational implicature

is the additional meaning inside an utterance.22 It happens because the speaker

and listener talk exchange. They can not include the utterance that somehow

connect and it is usually because the participants have a set of purpose when they

uttering something.

The conversational implicature exists because of the conversation does not

give a contribution to the requirement of the topic of issue. There is no suitable

exchange and a cooperative effort. Grice worked in formulating a general rule

term about how the listener and speaker must contribute in making their

communication success. Afterwards his formulation called the cooperative

principle and argued that the conversational implicature appears because of both

21
Miller, Arthur. The Last Yankee. The Portable Arthur Miller, ed. Bigsby, Christhoper (New
York: Penguin Books, 1995), p. 452, line 28
22
Yule, George. (1996), op. cit.35
16

of the speaker and listener disobeys the cooperative principle.

C. Cooperative Principle

Listener and speaker must try to make a stimulus response. Grice

comments on his previous article call Logic and Conversation was about

communication in the conversation. He thinks when communicate happen; the

speaker must gives a relevance information on what it stated. 23 Speaker and

listener have to make a good cooperative effort such as when the speaker need to

put appropriate information and both must contribute to do it as it required. The

next description of this mutuality effective communication resumes in cooperative

principle. Yule concludes about cooperative principle as he cited from Grices

paper, that the cooperative principle is about making your conversational

contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted

purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged. 24

Grice purpose both speaker and listener have to fill the principle in which

called cooperative principle. The cooperative principle specifies what the speaker

means to cooperate called conversational maxim. Further, maxim of conversation

is a set of principles advanced by Grice as a part of his account of implicature. 25

Each of four maxims has the sub-maxim that explain about the super maxim of

maxim of quantity, quality, relevance and manner.

23
Grice, H.P (1975), op. cit. 45
24
Yule, George. Op. cit. 37
25
Mathews, P. H, The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics. (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1997) p. 219
17

When an implicature of stating British Prime minister is a great man, 26 the

listener will provide with some accounts of some reference that is if it failed be

revealed by the speaker, he disobey the maxim. The maxims govern the rational

communicative activity. In order to succeed in communication they must fill the

four maxims, with the result:

1. Maxim of Quantity

This maxim directly correlated more or less of the information gave to

speaker. This maxim forces the speaker in giving sufficient information to the

listener. 27 The participants must contribute as is required and make the

conversation to be connected. The speaker is not less and over in giving the

information. On the application, it showed the examples below:

M: What did you have for lunch today?

D: Baked beans and toast. 28


In the dialogue above, D gives the answer as informative as possible and

connects to what M asked about. Here, the D does not give an over

information about what he has for lunch. It means that D has contributed as it

required. Therefore, Grice explains this maxim forces the participants to:

a) Make their contribution as informative as is required.

b) To be not making their contribution more informative than is

required. 29

26
Grice, H.P (1975), op. cit. 44
27
Kushartanti (1993), op. cit.107
28
Cruse, D. Alan, Meaning in Language: An Introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics (New
York: Oxford University Press Inc., New York, 2000), p. 356
29 Grice, H.P (1975), op. cit. 46
18

2. Maxim of Quality

The maxim forces the speaker in giving the correct information. Both

speaker and listener must make a satisfactory in fulfill the appropriate

information. With the specific sub maxim:

1. Do not say what you believe to be false

2. Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.

Both the speaker and listener must make a satisfactory in completing

the appropriate information. Like in the example below:

Frick: Oh you have children

Leroy: Yes. Seven. 30

In the dialogue, Frick expects the contribution of Leroy in his

utterance, and Leroy renders the truth information. It means that Leroy

succeed in giving the contribution that is to be truth and not genuine.

3. Maxim of relevance

The maxim asks the speaker to try and to see that the information was

given has the relevance and the coherence to the situation during the

conversation. Here, whether the speaker and listener must focus on the giving

the relevant information even though in some different ways.

Examples:

A: Wheres my box of chocolates?

B: Its in your room. 31

30
Miller, Arthur (1995), op. cit. p. 451
31
Leech (1993), op. cit. p.144
19

The utterance from B can be smoothly understood by A. It is because B

can fill and contribute in making an appropriate immediate need of As

question. By the utterance of B, it means that B focuses in giving the

relevance information.

Based on this example, the maxim forces the participants to be relevant. 32

On the other words, it can be said that the participants must give relevant

information to each other.

4. Maxim of Manner

Based on maxim of manner, it asks the listener to give a direct statement. 33

These also include avoiding the ambiguity and obscurity of expression. The

maxim forces to utter what have to say without any formulation by the

speaker. With the subsequent sub-maxim below:

1. Avoid obscurity of expression

2. Avoid ambiguity

3. Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity)

4. Be orderly. 34

The maxim focuses in how the utterance was said and was not about

exploring what is said. As in the example of the dialogue in the Last Yankee

drama, when Frick and Leroy ask about how many children they have;

Frick: Oh you have children

Leroy: Yes. Seven.

32
Grice, H.P (1975), op. cit. 46
33
Aitchison, Jean (1995), op. cit. p.46
34
Grice, H.P (1975), loc. cit.
20

Frick: Seven!- Ive been wondering if it was because she never had

any.

Leroy: No. Thats not it.- you dont have any?

Frick: No. we kept putting it off and then it got too late, and firt thing

you know its just too late. 35

Frick answers Leroys question clearly and orderly. It can be seen in

how Frick answers the question. He is not only just answering the question

but also in the way he is also making the statements in the dialogue not with

obscurity expression, briefly and orderly through the utterance of no. Frick

focuses in the way how it being explained.

D. The disobedience of the cooperative Principle

Listener and speaker sometimes fail to follow the rules; it means that they

break the cooperative principle. At this stage, they fail to fulfill a maxim in some

ways:

1. He may quietly and unostentatiously violate a maxim.

If the speaker does it, it will make the listener have a wrong idea. If

the did not pay attention on what the speaker said, he may have a different

understanding.

For example:

A: I am out of petrol

35
Miller, Arthur (1995), op.cit. 451. line 10-15
21

B: There is a garage round the corner. 36

On the conversation above B would be breaking the rule of maxim

be relevant if the listener does not pay an attention to what he said.

2. He may opt out from the operation both of the maxim and of the

Cooperative Principle.

On this case, the speaker can be said that he or she unwillingly to

cooperate in the way the maxim requires.

For example:

I cannot say more; my lips are sealed. 37


The speaker, in the dialogue above, does not try to contribute in making an

effective communication. This happens because of the speaker tries not to

follow the rule and disobeys one of the maxims that are the maxim of quality.

The speaker does not have a good willing to cooperate in the way how and

what maxim of quality requires being not to say what it lack adequate

evidence.

3. He may be faced by a clash another maxim.

The speaker is unable to fill one of the maxims and he turns to violate the

other maxim. It can be said that when speaker giving a statement then he may

not contribute in the requirement fulfillment of the first maxim and somehow

got a clash with the second maxim.

For example:

36
Grice, H.P (1975), op. cit. 51
37Grice, H.P (1975), op. cit. 49
22

Women are women. 38

Here the speaker cannot be said such remarks are totally uninformative,
infringe the first maxim of Quantity but this is because of the utterance above
give what is said lack of adequate evidence, it also clash with the maxim of
quality.
4. He may flout a maxim.

Here, the speaker is able to completing the maxim and to do it without

violating another maxim. It actually fails to contribute the maxim but it is

being exploited.

For example:

Patricia: I dont know what fall in love with the God. I think I have

already. 39

It is because of the sophisticated of the poet and some internal evidence

made the sentence flout the maxim of manner. On the dialogue the speaker

tries to say how she really gives her attention to God but because of the

imperative mood and emotion. Later, she exploited the maxim of manner. The

statement of in love with God caused an ambiguity, using the obscurity

expression and it tends to exploit the maxim of manner.

E. Context

Listener is able to interpret one remark to one another intention. He must

care to what is constructed inside the remark and the utterance said by the

38
Grice, H. P (1975), op. cit. 52
39
Miller, Arthur (1995), op. cit. 462.
23

speaker. He must also consider about the situation like the time when it was

stated or how it was stated. The reason of participants consideration is because

of the language use cannot separate from the use of context. Further, David states

that context refers to the situation giving rise to the discourse, and within which

the discourse embedded. 40 It exists because when a speaker says something in

which they have a reason and some aspects that form the background of an

utterance being stated.

The contextual factors can influence each of utterance. If the listener

concerns the contextual factors, it will be a start look to listener to know about the

meaning of the utterance.

F. Drama

Drama is a performance of play and dialogue. At first drama were

originated in the Greek verb dran means to do; to act or to accomplish. 41 The

performance shows the player known as the actress, do some actions in scenes

where the situational in text reflected. There are about seven types of drama, such

as:

1. Tragedy.

This type of drama brings the tragedy involving the ruin of the

40
Nunan, David, Introducing Discourse Analysis (London: Penguin Books. 1993), p. 7
41
Wessels, Charlyn. Drama (New York: Oxford University. 1988), p. 1
24

leading character. 42 In this drama, the major character deals a bad luck,

facing the strong and some noble person. The modern tragedy is no more

about the strong and the noble person, but more into about the weak of the

mental and the mean inside. 43

2. Comedy.

This is a drama in which the leading characters overcome the

difficulties which temporarily beset them. 44 The issue in this drama shows

very highly and full of comedy.

3. Problem Play.

It is a drama where the social criticism, economics or even political

problem put in the means of drama 45 and they also can put the issue in the

dialogues, setting and etc.

4. Farce.

The drama conjoins the ridiculous or hilarious complications

without regard from human values. 46 In addition, there is no the human

values in this type of drama.

5. Comedy of manners.

At this drama, it shows the comedy which carefully portrays

fashionable life. 47 The drama sometimes bring the life of people living in

42 Taken from http://www.lifestreamcenter.net/DrB/Lessons/Drama.htm accessed on 25 March


2010
43 Ibid.
44
Ibid.
45
Ibid
46
Ibid.
47
Ibid.
25

the glamour situations

6. Fantasy.

A play that is sometimes by the willingness of the author, the

drama gives a free reign to his fantasy, and allowing things to happen

without regard to the reality. 48 The play shows audience about the fantasy

things and sometimes brings the comic spirit.

7. Melodrama.

This drama is almost the same as farce, but inside the act; it shows

the melodrama that puts no attention at human value, but the objective is to

give a thrill instead of laugh. 49 Besides, the drama also never put any

literary value because the audience sees the performance only as a good

entertainment.

Drama is about embedding the internal communication system in the

external system. It creates the play of some characters and provides the

correlation between the fictional world of the player (performances) and the

audiences (spectators). Here, the author usually must be able to raise the emotion

events through the utterances that were spoken by the players.

G. Dialogue

Dialogue is one of the results from the dramatic text. In drama, it is the

fundamental mode of presentation. It is because the reduction of the dramatic text

48 Ibid.
49 Ibid.
26

into the speech and the characters must appropriate the utterances with the action

so that will create a storys scenes. It is when the players act while the making of

the utterances such as an act forming a promise or a threat, they do not only make

dialogue as the formal element but as the spoken language.

The receivers need to emphasize about an act through utterances. It is

because of the dialogue in drama put some of performances aspects. J.L Austin

argued; as it recited by Manfred that there is something which is act the moment

of uttering being done by the person uttering. 50 In drama, there are more to

explore from the utterance in the dialogue because sometimes the receiver does

not consider about the situation where the dialogue were spoken by the players.

Dialogues will relation with the speech act in speech situation where it was

being utterance. And this make the dramatic speech is bound to the particular

situation. The particular situation that is not all the spectators can catch from the

plot or the characters. The scenes bind to the dramatic speech in its particular

speech situation like in the utterance from a dialogue:

Women are women 51

The text above will bound into some particular situation that will create

particular speech situation. This is like the lack of information and making the

player to disobey the cooperative principle. This latter point tells that in the

dramas dialog also shows how implicature will influence the communication. It

50
Pfister, Manfred, The theory and analysis of drama (Cambridge: The University of Cambridge,
1991), p.6
51 Grice, H. P (1975), op. cit. 52
27

influences the conversation to go smoothly or even on the contrary. It gives the

rise from the utterance when the character in the drama talking about women.

There is a scale that includes (women women), with women being a stronger

condemnation than the character remark becomes women is a Gods creature that

must be saved by the men.


28

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH FINDINGS

A. Data Description

The concept is used to know the disobedience of the maxim. Data analysis

is collected from the text of dramas dialogue of The Last Yankee. The data in

which shows the disobedience of the maxims divided into two groups, that is

Group A and Group B. In Group A, there is the violation in which that only one

kind of super-maxim that is being violated. Then, Group B is containing the

violation of maxim in which that its violation explains by the supposition of a

clash with another maxim. The writer divide the data into two groups because of

she defines that on Grices paper Logic and Conversation that the speaker can be

said fail to fulfill a maxim. And one of them is because of the participant faced a

clash. So that the writer is interested to differentiate the way of speaker inability

to fulfill a maxim because of faced a clash. The data that the writer has collected

can be presented as follows:

Characters (all in early nineties):

Leroy Hamilton is a Yankee. He works as a carpenter and he is Patricias

husband who must visit and look in on his wife in a state medical hospital.

John Frick is a businessman of a wood supplier company and Karens husband.

He does not have any children. He must visit and always give a big support to his

wife in the same state medical hospital where Leroys wife being treated.

Patricia Hamilton is a Swedish, depressive frightened wife and a patient of a state

28
29

mental hospital. She is struggle for her searching of Gods love.

Karen Frick is a depressive and frightened wife and a patient of a state mental

hospital. Her frightened was because of she afraid of the coming of her mom, it

happened because she has a bad memory with her mom in the past.

B. Data analysis

At first, the writer writes the text of dialogue, explains the violation and

the disobedience of maxim of conversation which is on the dialogue and already

divided into two groups. Then, she gives reason and further exploration in

explaining it by using Herbert Grice theory of maxim of conversation. In

analyzing the data, the writer will describe context of situation, process of

violation and implicature in each datum. Therefore, the data will be analyzed as

follows:

Group A. (the violation of maxim because of violate, opt out and flout the

maxim).

1. The maxim of quantitys violation

1. Datum I

Frick : Seven! - Ive been wondering if it was because she never had any.

Leroy: No, thats not it. You dont have any?

Frick: No. We kept putting it off, and then it got too late, and first thing you

know its just too late.

Leroy: For a while there I thought maybe she had too many children

Frick: Well I dont have any, so


30

Leroy: Yeah, I guess thats not either. 52

a. Context of situation

Frick and Leroy seek for the reasons of why their wives got sick. Then

Leroy asks about the number of children that Frick has. It is also to notice the

reason Fricks wife got sick.

b. Process of violation:

There is no doubt that Frick flouts the maxim of quantity to avoid making

a contribution more informative than is required. Frick remark by using

expression repeating the statement it got too late, and first thing you know

its just too late. An interpreting aspect of such expression make one can

derive as not as required. Even so it is actually interpreted as telling more

than what is said.

The answer gives such over informative to Leroy. It is confusing to

Leroy, liable to raise the topic, and make Leroy be misled. By making Leroy

mislead about the remark causing him thinking that there is a particular point

in accessing Fricks remark first thing you know its just too late.

c. Implicature

This expression is the key to see whether the dialogue have a

conversational implicature or not. Fricks expression tells more than what is

required by the listener. At this part, Frick implies that children are not the

52
Miller, Arthur (1995), op. cit. p. 451.
31

reason of his wife got sick but it actually becomes her sadness of emptiness in

having no children around.

2. Datum II

Frick: Oh. Mine certainly was. Whatever deal I was, couldnt wait till I got

him to talk about it. Real estate, stock market, always interested. All of

sudden, no interest whatsoever. Might as well be talking to that wall over

there.- Your wife have brothers and sisters?

Leroy: Quite a few, ya.

Frick: Really. I even thought maybe its that she was an only child, and if she

had brothers and sisters to talk to

Leroy: Oh no-at least I dont think so. It could be even worse.

Frick: They dont help, huh? 53

a. Context of situation

Leroy still engages to answer Fricks question. Frick wants to know why

Leroys wife got sick and got medical treatment. Then, the question turns into

asking about brother and sister of Leroys wife.

b. Process of Violation

By his remark quite a view, ya, there is no reason to suppose that Leroy

is opting out and it is the maxim of quantity. Leroys remark is less

informative than is required to meet Fricks need about getting the information

of the family of Leroys wife. The information does not satisfy Frick.

53 Ibid. pp. 452-453.


32

This maxim of quantity operates the information yielding as its value the

level informativeness required. 54 Therefore, the speaker must give the answer

as required by the listener so that raise the satisfaction to the listener. It is

similarly to what Leroys contribution in giving the right value information at

his remark to Fricks question; nevertheless, Leroys answer does not give

required information. As the result of the implicature of quite a few, it

brings Frick into wondering and confusing about what happen to the brother

and sister of Leroys wife. And affecting Frick continues asking to get the

answer.

c. Implicature

It is because of Leroy does not work cooperatively in the conversation so

that make Leroys statement rise into the key notion of implicature. By this

remark implicates that Leroy does not like to talk about his wifes brothers

and sisters for some reasons that he does not want to share.

2. The maxim of qualitys violation

1. Datum I

Frick: What was your father?

Leroy: Lawyer

Frick: Why didnt you?

Leroy: Just too dumb, I guess

54
Gerald Gazdar, Pragmatic: Implicature, Presupposition, and Logical Form (London: Academic
Press, Inc., 1979) p. 49.
33

Frick: Couldnt buckle down the books, huh?

Leroy: I guess not. 55

a. Context of Situation:

Frick interested in knowing how Leroys simplicity in his life. Moreover,

Frick becomes more curious to know and he asks about Leroys passion about

his ideal later.

b. Process of violation

Leroys remark of just too dumb, I guess violates the maxim of quality,

do not to say what you believe to be false. In this maxim of quality that is the

Gricean maxim, Gazdar maintains that this maxim is connected to the logic of

belief. 56 Therefore the speaker needs to give an answer that is logically based

on what his belief and make it to be appropriate information. When it turns

into Leroys remark I guess not that is a negation of Fricks question could

not buckle the book; Leroy is actually have the ability to answer Fricks

question clearly. Even so, Leroy is liable to mislead Frick by stating I guess.

The words of I guess implicates about an unfinished answer.

Furthermore, It is compare with the word of well that purposed by R. Lakoff,

as cited in Gazdar, that the word of well when it is in a remark; it will give a

signal of an incomplete answer. 57 In short, this is almost the same as the

statement of I guess. At this point, the writer defined that I guess have the

55 Miller, Arthur (1995) op.cit. p. 456.


56
Gerald Gazdar (1979), op.cit. 45-46.
57
Ibid. p. 44.
34

same purposed. In Leroys remark the word of I guess does not just merely a

short reply but also an incomplete answer that is typically say what he believe

to be false in the context. Hence, Leroy violates the maxim of quality and in

order to be not cooperating with the listener.

c. Implicature

He implicates that he does not want to be lawyer because of the job looks

only suit for his father so that he is not interested in being a lawyer.

2. Datum II

Frick: You realize the importance of Alexander Hamilton, dont you?

Leroy: I know about him, more or less.

Frick: More or less! He was one of the most important Founding Fathers. 58

a. Context of Situation

When Frick knows that Leroy family members most of them are important

people, then Frick becomes more enthusiasts to know about Leroys family

members. However, unfortunately, Leroy does not like to talk about his

brother because of it will push him to tell more about the history of Leroys

family member.

b. Process of violation

At the most closest meaning of more or less is that he tries to be say

what actually he has known to Frick (as the hearer). Leroys remark is opting

58 Miller, Arthur (1995) op.cit. 457


35

out, that is the maxim of second maxim of quality by stating what he believes

to be false. Actually, as his brother, it is impossible that Leroy does not know

about Alexander Hamilton, but it is because of he does not like to talk about

his familys background then Leroy opts out from the operation both of the

maxim and the cooperative principle. At the remark of more or less Leroy

blatantly does not want to be cooperative in Fricks expectation.

c. Implicature

At the remark of more or less implicates that he knows about his brother,

however he does not seems interesting to talk about him in being a success

public figure.

3. Datum III

Karen: He seems very nice.

Patricia: . It is just that hes got really well-to-do relatives and he simply

will not accept anyones help. I mean you take the Jews, the Italians, Irish-

theyve got their Italian-American, Irish-American, Hispanic-Americans-they

stick together and help each other. But you ever hear of Yankee-Americans?

Not on your life. Raise his taxes; rob him blind, the Yankeell just sit there all

alone getting sadder and sadder. But Im not going to think about it

anymore. 59

a. Context of Situation:

Patricia draws Karens attention to talk about her husband; Leroy. It is

59
Ibid. p.463.
36

because Karen does not know about her husband so Patricia tells more to

Karen about her husband.

b. Process of Violation

Patricias remark sadder and sadder flout the maxim of quality do not

say what you believe to be false. At this point, Patricias remark turns into

hyperbole expression. This is exactly obvious that Patricia liable to raise the

side issue. Then by this remark, Patricia implicates that her husband failure

and sadness is because of he never tries to stick together with another Yankee.

As Grice said that it is possible to opt out and a cancelable of obeys a

cooperative principle because of the addition of clause that states or implies in

the statement. 60 Therefore, the writer argues that Patricia flouts the maxim of

quality is because she puts a hyperbole expression that brings a feature of

feature in her remark.

c. Implicature

The implicature in her remark implicates how she really hates her husband

attitude of being introvert.

4. Datum IV

Leroy: Boy, youre a real roller coaster. We were doing great there for a

minute, what got us off on this?

Patricia: I cant be peace when I know you are full of denial, and thats saying

60
Grice, H.P. (1975), log.cit. p.57.
37

it straight. 61

a. Context of situation

Leroy looks for his wife medication. At once, Patricia looks better then he

finds her changing her mood.

b. Process of Violation

Leroys remark of youre a real roller coaster is a metahapore

expression. This expression is characteristically involving categorical falsity

in which he flouts the first maxim of quality. Since, Leroy strictly brings to

the hearer some feature of feature in respect the hearer resembles the remarks

of youre a real roller coaster.

c. Implicature

Leroys remarks implicates that you (to his wife) are easily to change your

mind in a minute.

3. The maxim of Relevances violation

1. Datum I

Patricia: . I-must-not-blame-Leroy-anymore. And its amazing. I lost

desire medication, I could feel it leaving me like a .. like a ghost. Slight pause.

. It is just that hes got really well-to-do relatives and he simply will not

accept anyones help. I mean you take the Jews, the Italians, Irish-theyve got

their Italian-American, Irish-American, Hispanic-Americans-they stick

61
Miller, Arthur (1995), p. 474.
38

together and help each other. But you ever hear of Yankee-Americans? Not

on your life. Raise his taxes, rob him blind, the Yankeell just sit there all

alone getting sadder and sadder. But Im not going to think about it

anymore.

Karen: You have a very beautiful chin. 62

a. Context of Situation

Patricia talks about her husband. She tells it to Karen in order to share the

problem and have a way out for the problem.

b. Process of Violation

Karens remark actually responses Patricias remark, however, Karen does

not give a relevant response to Patricia. Since, there seems the conversation

jump into another topic then it violates the maxim of relevant. While in the

conversation, Karen allows herself for the subject of conversation that is

legitimately change.

c. Implicature

Karen implies that she has no idea about Patricias story and she has

another subject that she also needs to share.

2. Datum II

Patricia: Men with half his ability riding around in big expensive cars and now

for the second for the second Easter Sunday in a row his rear end collapsed.

Karen: I think my license must have expired.

62
Miller, Arthur (1995), op. cit. 463.
39

Patricia: surge a deep anger; I refuse to ride around in nine-year-old

Chevrolet which was bought secondhand in the first place!

Karen: They say there are only three keys for all the General Motors cars.

You supposed thats possible? 63

a. Context of Situation

This happens in the middle of conversation where Patricia talks about her

husband. Then, Karen seems still tries to purpose another topic.

b. Process of Violation

There is no reason to suppose that Karen flouts the maxim. Karens

remark gives a shift in the course of talk exchange then changes the subject of

the conversation. This infringement of the third maxim of quality can be

explained only by the supposition that Karen does not give a relevant

contribution of Patricias need. At this point of view, Patricias response to

Karens remarks causes her (Patricia) to hide her angry and disturb the main

goal process of their conversation.

c. Implicature

Karens remark implicates that she does not interested in Patricias topic

and she wants to bring her own topic while responding Patricias remark.

3. Datum III

Leroy: Okay. Goes to a window.-It looks like rain outside, but we can walk

63
Ibid.
40

around if you like. Theyve got a beautiful tulip bed down there; the colors

really shine in this gray light. Reds and purple and whites and a gray. Never

saw a tulip be that kind of gray.

Patricia: Hows Amelias leg? Are you getting her to change her bandage? 64

a. Context of Situation

Leroy looks for her wife in the middle of her medication. He feels happy

to see his wife who is getting better. Then, Leroy asks his wife to walk around

out side the hospital building.

b. Process of Violation

Patricia infringes the maxim of relevance be relevant; she thinks as well

she knows, she allows and brings the shift in the course of talk exchange. She

tries to questioning about Amelias leg that is no connection about Leroys

offer in her remark. And she tries to put the shift in the middle because of she

does not have any idea to refuse it smoothly. So that she gives irrelevant

information in her remarks.

c. Implicature

At this part, she implicates that the idea to walk around out side the

hospital is not interested her much.

64
Ibid. p. 470.
41

4. The maxim of Manners violation

1. Datum I

Frick: Gladamettu. Slightly pause. How do you find it here?

Leroy: I guess they do a good job

Frick: Surprisingly well kept for a state institution

Leroy: Oh-ya.

Frick: Awful lot of colored, though, aint there? 65

a. Context of Situation

Leroy and Frick comment about the medical hospital where their wives

being treated. Frick and Leroy have their own comment but each of them still

want to know about each of them comment.

b. Process of Violation

At the most literal level of meaning I guess means Im not really sure; that

is an answer without being sure. People often think I guess as having the

secondary meaning I think. In other case it counts this as a pseudo-turn in the

interaction which, by not advancing the conversation further, through flouting

the maxim of manner to be avoids obscurity expression.

Leroy implies that he does not know much and he himself does not sure

about the quality of hospital service to the patient. His remarks build Fricks

thought about the uncertainty of the fact of the service through surprisingly

and awful lot of colored. Leroys remark contributes in the giving the idea

65 Ibid. p. 449.
42

that is not clear, therefore Frick is difficult to make clear and exact conclusion.

Leroy does not give clear about what contribution he is making about. In

short, the use of I guess always works in this way, it has became

conventionalized, and no longer requires an inference procedure for the

implicature to be recovered.

c. Implicature

Here, Leroy implicates the service given is good even though the facility

still was not complete.

2. Datum II

Frick: I just cant figure it out. Theres no bills; were very well fixed; shes

got a beautiful home Theres really not a trouble in the world. Although,

God knows, maybe thats the trouble

Leroy: Oh no, I got plenty of bills and it did not help mine. I dont think its

how many bills you have.

Frick: What do you think it is, then?

Leroy: Dont ask me, I dont know. 66

a. Context of situation

Both Frick and Leroy look for the biggest trouble in their marriage life.

And Frick tries to know the trouble that causes his wife become sick.

b. Process of Violation

66
Ibid. p. 451.
43

Fricks remark interprets the third maxim of manner be brief was

violated. Fricks remark selected the rigmarole remark in place the concise of

his intention of saying something. So, Frick implies that this is because of he

and his wife live in a very good condition then it makes his wife can not able

to find what value of life is. Focusing on Fricks remark, it is obvious to say

that he does not brief and using too many words, therefore causing his remark

does not suit with Leroys response.

c. Implicature

Fricks remark of Theres really not a trouble in the world. Although,

God knows, maybe thats the trouble implicates his biggest trouble in his

marriage because of whenever they have problem they never thinking it as a

big trouble and he never searches for the idea why the trouble could be

happen.

3. Datum III

Patricia: Its like inside me Im almost continually talking to the Lord. Not

in words exactly just-you know-communicating with Him. Or trying to.

Deeply excited, but suppressing it. I dont know what fall in love with the

God. I think I have already.

Karen: Youre really beautiful.

Patricia: Oh no, dear, Im a torn-off rag of my old self 67

67
Ibid. pp. 461-463.
44

a. Context of situation

Patricia shares her feeling about her spiritual activity to Karen. Both of

them still continue their conversation, even though they does not reach the

main goal.

b. Context of Situation

It is because of the sophisticated of the poet and some internal evidence

has bee made by the sentence. Further, it flouts the maxim of manner. On the

dialogue the speaker tries to say how she really gives her attention to God but

because of the imperative mood and emotion, she exploited the maxim of

manner. The statement of in love with God causes an ambiguity, uses the

obscurity expression and it tends to exploit the maxim of manner. In short,

this statement shows an ambiguity.

c. Implicature

This remark implies about her feeling to God. And it shows how she feels

in getting closer to God spiritually.

Group B. (In which there is a clash with another maxim)

1. Violate maxim of quantity in clash with maxim of manner

1. Data I

Leroy: Well, I am too. Theyre wonderful kids.

Frick: They still very young?

Leroy: Five to nineteen. But they all pitch in. everythings clean, house runs
45

like a ship. 68

a. Context of Situation

Leroy tells about his children. And he tries to make Frick amazed about

his children work.

b. Process of Violation

It is supposed that Leroy is opting out. His remark as he know well, he is

over informative than its required to meet Fricks need. This infringement of

the first maxim of quantity can be explained only by the supposition that

Leroy is aware to bring the obscurity of expression by saying But they all

pitch in. everythings clean, house runs like a ship. And this statement also

does not have a brief statement. Hence, Leroys remark flouts the maxim of

quantity. But the violation was explained by the supposition of the clash with

another maxim that is the maxim of manner.

c. Implicature

Leroy implicates that he has children five to nineteen that is really diligent.

C. The Maxims Violations

The data analysis shows many violations. The writer finds there are about

twelve violations and one violation that clash with another maxim. With the

result, from the group A there are; two violations of the maxim of quantity, four

violations of the maxim of quality, three violations of the maxim of relevance and

three violations of the maxim of manner. Then from the group B is one violation

68
Ibid. p. 452.
46

that clash with another maxim and at this part the speaker violates the maxim of

quantity in clash with maxim of manner. In short, the violations happen because

the participant does not cooperate well with the reason of some context inside.
47

CHAPTER IV

CONLUSION AND SUGGESTION

1. Conclusion

From the research findings, the writer would like to take the conclusion of

some results. First, the cooperative principle is a principle has been contributed to

make a clear information and appropriate information while they are making a

conversation. Besides, this principle tells about how the participants (speaker and

listener) must contribute in making the communication as is required.

The disobedience of maxim conversation is influenced by the relationship

of the speaker and listener make the information as informative as is required.

Speaker disobeys the maxim of conversation in some ways, first he quietly

violates a maxim, he opts out from the cooperation, he flouts a maxim and even it

actually already violates the first maxim but then faced by a clash the other

maxim. When he disobeys the maxim of conversation, he will create a side

meaning in his remark called implicature.

The implicature will rise at the time when one of the participants disobeys

the maxim and it will turn to the personal communication. There is the basic

reason which becomes the background of how the implicature raised. The

background itself called context. Context is able to tell knowledge where it can

explore and draw the background of the aspects (like the mental, social and

cultural aspects) which guide to the interpretation of the language. Hence, when

the participants communicate, they need to explore more and does not merely just

47
48

seeing it as an utterance. In conclusion, they also must obey the maxims of

conversation, in order to reach the main goal of sending the information as

informative as required.

2. Suggestions

For the students who are interested in studying cooperative principle, they

can use the first paper of Grice's theory of cooperative principle title Logic and

cooperative; or for the new publishing book by Jacob L. Mey, Yule, etc. They

can use it to enrich their study about cooperative principle.

If the students want to make a further research of cooperative principle,

they can take the text record of an English radio correspondence as the analysis.

Moreover, the student can also relate the analysis to the social culture background.

Finally, the writer hopes that the analysis will be useful to sharpen

students understanding of cooperative principle. As the consequence students

interest of the cooperative principle, they must be able to apply it in their daily

conversation. Furthermore, as it applies the cooperative principle, students must

maintain it in socials interaction.


49

REFERENCES

Cruse, D. Alan. Meaning in Language: An Introduction to Semantics and

Pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press Inc., New York., 2000.

Farkhan, Muhammad. Penulisan Karya Ilmiah. Jakarta: Cella Jakarta. 2006.

Gazdar, Gerald. Pragmatic: Implicature, Presupposition, and Logical Form.

London: Academic Press, Inc., 1979.

Grice, H.P. Logic and Conversation. Syntax and Semantics. Vol. III: Speech

Acts, ed. Peter Cole and J. L. Morgan. New York: Academic Press, 1975.

Holloway, Immy. Basic Concepts for Qualitative Research. Oxford: Blackwell

Science, 1997.

Horn, Laurence.R, and Gregory ward. The Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford:

Blackwell Publishing, 2006.

Kushartanti. Pesona Bahasa. Jakarta: PT. Gramedia Utama, 2005.

Leech, Geoffrey. Prinsip-prinsip Pragmatik. Jakarta: Penerbit Universitas

Indonesia, 1993.

Mathews, P. H The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics. (Oxford: Oxford

University Press, 1997.

Mey, Jacob L. Pragmatics: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell Publisher, Ltd.,

1993.

Miller, Arthur. The Last Yankee. The Portable Arthur Miller, ed. Bigsby,

Christhoper. New York: Penguin Books, 1995.

Nunan, David. Introducing Discourse Analysis. London: Penguin Book, 1993.

49
50

Pfister, Manfred. The theory and analysis of drama. Cambridge: The University

of Cambridge, 1991.

Short, M.H. Discourse Analysis and the Analysis of Drama. Applied Linguistic

Vol II. Oxford: Oxford University, 1981.

Wessels, Charlyn. Drama. New York: Oxford University, 1988.

Yule, George. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996.

Website:

http://www.lifestreamcenter.net/DrB/Lessons/Drama accessed on March 25,

2010.

http://www.gradesaver.com/author/arthur-miller/ accessed on 1st April 2010


51

Appendix.1

DRAMAS SYNOPSIS

The Last Yankee is a drama of two couples. The first couple is Leroy and

Patricia. Leroy is a husband who must visit his wife, Patricia who got a mental

treatment, in one of state medical hospital. He meets Frick a businessman who

also must visit his wife names Karen. Both of them while they are waiting for

the visitor day in the waiting room, they involves in a discussion about their

family background and their marriage life. Leroy who is very close from other,

finally he shares the story with Frick. Later, this is because of Frick asks many

question about Leroys family background that make them continuing the

discussion in the talking of their marriage.

The play also shows how the wives of Frick and Leroy handle their

frightening to life during the state medical hospital. Both of them are becomes

closer, since they were treated in the hospital. Patricia finds that she becomes

more religious during the treatment in the hospital. Patricia tries to give Karen a

way out to handle her own frightened and reveal her uncomfortable memories

with her mom in the past. They get each of their storys life when they were

waiting for their husband to visit for the visitor hour.

The play ends with the resolution where the two couples meet. They

continue the discussion and they find that they have the same interest to Banjo.

At that time, they get an idea to reveal their problem by playing banjo. Finally,

51
52

they reveal their problems like the uncomfortable moments of their family in the

past and their frightening to life. They want to give the trustiness and attention to

their couple. Basically, the drama is about the two couples that facing their own

marriage life, their frightening to life and their past memories.