57 from Styrofoam. When Ted showed Druthers the result, rather than appreciating it,
Druthers seemed to depreciate it. As the exchange, Ted said insincere utterance “Inspiring as always, sir.” Structurally, the conversation happened to have a
question-answer sequence at first. Druthers drew the supposition that somebody must have stolen the baseball. For current purpose exchange, Ted was supposed to
concern it, otherwise he rather spelled out dispreffered with the prefaces “well” and the initial hesitation “umm” to delay his disregarding sentence. Subsequently, it was
followed by Druthers’ insensitive response upon Ted’s project. In view of the fact that Druthers was the manager, Ted confronted him with a compliment. The
compliment, however, was not sent from the bottom of the hurt but the lip. Ted expected the utterance to be taken at its surface value. Ted made up the compliment
to satisfy Druthers by deluding Druthers a false compliment. The turn taken by Ted resulted an utterance which in terms of CP constituted the violation maxim of
quality Tupan and Natalia, 2008, p. 64. 3
Providing less assured information As was transpired, the speaker from the following excerpt was known to
violate maxim of quality. It showed that maxim of quality was done by simply concealing the truth to safe face which in terms of CP, the speaker violated the first
sub maxim of quality.
S02E09QLVL8
Marshall got three slaps. One because he lied and two for being prematurely slapped. 1
Barney: Oh, my God. Are you gonna cry?
2
Marshall: No. – You’re gonna cry.
From the above excerpt, the conversation structurally occurred shortly after Marshall got three slaps from Barney since he failed the gamble. The adjacency pair
58 of the conversation was question-answer sequence. The turns were well distributed
without silence or overlap chanced between the speakers. Barney’s inquiry was reasonable since he saw Marshall suffering the pain. Inappropriately, Barney
received what he did not expect in return. Marshall refused to be cooperative by uttering the dispreffered token as the exchange of Barney’s inquiry. In terms of CP,
Marshall violated maxim of quality Tupan and Natalia, 2008, p. 64-66. 4
Providing less evidences Furthermore, violating maxim of quality could done by uttering the
information which was lacking of adequate evidences. The following excerpt discovered to be the violation the second sub maxim of quality.
S02E22QLVL24
1
Ted: Hey, kiddo.
2
Barney: You are going to miss out on a lot of awesome stuff. You’ll be at home with kid while I am out awesome-ing all over the place. And you’re going to get fat.
The excerpt above showed the humorous conversation occurred between the speakers, Ted and Barney. Ted came close to Barney and opened the conversation
with summon. Structurally, Barney strayed from the summon-answer sequence offered by Ted. His disappointment utterance twisted Ted’s expectation of response
from Barney. In his exchange to Ted’s summon, Barney uttered “You are going to miss out on a lot of awesome stuff. You’ll be at home with kid while I am out
awesome-ing all over the place. And you’re going to get fat.” Through his utterances, Barney intended to continue the previous topic which was discussed in
the earlier time. In this situation, Barney held a premature supposition that Robin became pregnant, impregnated by Ted. In his utterance, Barney casted a premature
guesstimate about how Ted’s life was going to be with a family without adequate
59 proves Tupan and Natalia, 2008, p. 64. Accordingly, Barney was considered to
violate maxim of quality.
b. Violating Maxim of Quantity
The maxim of quality was violated when the speaker deliberately provided insufficient information so that the hearer will not fully understand the situation.
Likewise, the speaker deliberately conveyed more information which the hearer unnecessarily needed to know. The research discovered ten 10 cases in the point
of violation maxim of quality. 1
Providing only part of required information The following excerpt would suffice to describe how the speaker
deliberately violated maxim of quantity by giving less information than it was required with the intention to make the hearer not fully understood the actual
situation.
S02E08QNVL3
Atlantic City, all down at casino. 1
Barney: Ah, A.C. always decline, never hitting bottom. It’s good to be back, old friend. 2
Ted: you been here before? 3
Barney: Oh, uh, once or twice. 4
Chinese Guy: Barney speak with Chinese accent
5
Barney: Good to see you. -- Three times, maybe.
The excerpt above displayed the conversation which constituted the violation maxim of quantity. Structurally, the conversation was initiated by
Barney’s remark about the casino he used to visit in Atlantic City. The followed-up move was the sequence of question-answer between the first and the second
speaker. Ted’s question “you been here before?” was to be taken as genuine question. However, in return, Ted received an unsatisfying answer from Barney.
Barney’s exchange was initiated with dispreferred tokens “Oh,” as the preface and
60 “uh,” as the hesitation delay before he uttered the point “once or twice.” Anchored
from the given situation and Barney’s remark, there were two possibilities which could be traced down, he either rightly forgot the frequency or diminished the
frequency. In a sudden, a Chinese guy initiated a possible turn and called out “Barney” while approaching Barney and Ted. The summons of a Chinese guy
opened a new channel for a talk which called for Barney’s response. In Barney’s point, he was obliged to respond to summon and repair his previous utterance on
the third turn in the exchange of Ted’s inquiry. After responding his Chinese old friend’s summon, he straightly selected Ted as the specific hearer for current
purpose of exchange. He repaired his utterance into “Three times, maybe” which would not suffice. He intended to cover the frequency so that Ted did not fully
understand about Barney’s past life in Atlantic City. In the terms of CP, Barney violated maxim of quantity because he gave insufficient information as was
required with the intention to mislead Khosravizadeh Sadehvandi, 2011, p. 123
.
Furthermore, the following excerpt illustrated the violation of the same sub maxim as appeared in the following conversation:
S02E08QNVL4 In a Courthouse, Ted asked Robin to have sexual intercourse in a public place.
1 Ted: Psssstttt..
2 Robin: What?
3 Ted: pervy look
4 Robin: Here?
5 Ted: yeah. Got a little time to kill.
6 Robin: Oh, my God, it’s the T-shirt, isn’t it?
7
Ted: No. --- A little.
The conversation occurred when Lily and Marshall were eloping in Atlantic City convoyed by their best friends. At that time, they were in a long queue
in a courthouse to ask for a marriage license. Structurally, the conversation occurred
61 to have summon-answer sequence. Ted summoned Robin to chat in a private. The
interesting point from Ted’s request on his third turn was that its nonverbal request which was effortlessly understandable for Robin to grasp. Through his nonverbal
expression, Ted was asking for a sex to kill the time. On the sixth turn, Robin opened a new question-answer sequence, it was the initiation sequence before
summon was answered. Ted’s answer to Robin’s inquiry was not as informative as was expected. Through his utterance on the seventh turn, Ted covered the truth by
misrepresenting the false information so that Robin believed that it was not because of T-shirt’s picture. However, his utterance did not suffice, the word “No” and “A
little” carried each on different meaning. In the terms of CP, Ted’s utterance
constituted the violation sub maxim of quantity. 2
Providing more information Besides providing more information, the research discovered that
intentionally giving more information than it was required could violate maxim of quantity as transpired in the following excerpts:
S02E16QNVL7
In the Mc’Laren, bar, Both Ted and Robin agreed that they should be honest each other about exes’ things.
1
Ted: See that girl over there? Three years ago, I totally made out with her.
2 Robin: I don’t wanna hear that
.
The violation maxim of quantity could be done by giving the information
which the hearer unnecessarily heard as appeared in the excerpt above. The conversation between Ted and Robin occurred in Mac’Laren Bar. Ted on initiated
turn was considered uncooperative because he informed the unnecessary information for Robin Khosravizadeh Sadehvandi, 2011, p. 123. Ted blatantly
