The non-observance maxim of conversation in the Arthur Miller's the Last Yankee (based on Grice's Cooperative Principle)

(1)

The Non-Observance Maxim of Conversation in the Arthur Miller’s the Last Yankee (Based on Grice’s 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

(2)

ABSTRACT

Aryanthi. The Non-Observance Maxim of Conversation in the Arthur Miller’s the Last Yankee (Based on Grice’s 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 Yankee’s 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 Miller’s 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.

(3)

APPROVEMENT

The Non-Observance Maxim of Conversation in the Arthur Miller’s The Last Yankee (Based on Grice’s 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

(4)

LEGALIZATION

The thesis entitled “The Non-Observance Maxim of Conversation in the Arthur Miller’s The Last Yankee (Based on Grice’s Cooperative Principle)” has been defended before the Letters and Humanities Faculty’s 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 Sa’diyah, M.Pd ___________________ ______ Examiner II

(5)

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)

(6)

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.

(7)

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

(8)

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

(9)

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 Quantity’s violation... 29

1.2. Maxim of Quality’s violation... 32

1.3. Maxim of Relevance’s violation ... 37

1.4. Maxim of Manner’s violation ... 41

2. Group B... 44

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

C. The Maxim’s Violations ... 45

CHAPTER IV. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION... 47

1. Conclusion ... 47

2. Suggestion ... 48

REFERENCES... 49

APPENDICES ... 51

1.1. Drama’s Synopsis ... 51

(10)

SYNOPSIS

The Non-Observance Maxim of Conversation in the Arthur Miller’s the Last Yankee (Based on Grice’s 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

(11)

ABSTRACT

Aryanthi. The Non-Observance Maxim of Conversation in the Arthur Miller’s the Last Yankee (Based on Grice’s Cooperative Principle). Thesis. English Letters Department. Letters and Humanities Faculty. Syarif Hidayahtullah State Islamic University, March 2010.

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 Miller’s 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 maxim’s violations are thirteen. In short, the violations happen because the participant does not cooperate well with the reason of some context inside.

(12)

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 language’s 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 speaker’s 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

Aitchison, Jean, Linguistics: an Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1995), p. 93 2

Yule, George, Pragmatics (Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1996), p. 4 3

(13)

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 speaker’s 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

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

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.

Short, M.H, in Applied Linguistic. Vol II: Discourse Analysis and the Analysis of Drama (Oxford: Oxford University. 1981), p.189

(14)

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 didn’t declare it directly but he succeeded in telling of the feeling politely. In this part, the point that the listener got about the B’s answer was an Implicature about how he didn’t 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 maxim’s 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 A’s 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 didn’t 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

Short, M.H. (1981), loc. cit. 10

Kushartanti (2005), loc. cit 11

(15)

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).12Nowdays, 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 dialogue’s analysis and she finds the Arthur Miller’s 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 Grice’s 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

Short, MH (1981), p. 183 13

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

Ibid. 15

(16)

focuses to the disobedience of the maxims of conversation to gain and explore more the drama’s dialogue.

Based on those reasons, the writer is interested in analyzing about The Non-Observance Maxim of Conversation in Arthur Miller’s the Last Yankee (Based on Grice’s Theory of Cooperative). It is hopes that can enrich the student’s 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 maxim’s 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 Miller’s drama dialogue; The Last Yankee. Holloway said that qualitative research is the context bound,16in 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 maxim’s violation in data analysis, recognize

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

(17)

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 Miller’s 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 couldn’t comprehend by the Semantics Theory.17 This is because of pragmatics intends the analysis about how the listener grasps meaning, and what was impliedby 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 speaker’s 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 speaker’s utterance. This is like when someone requests a help, there is a way to say straight that he requesting

(18)

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 haven’t 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 speaker’s 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 formulation’s utterance that what the speaker’s intent and imply called implicature.

2. Implicature

There are argumentations about the definition of Implicature. The first is Grice’s 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 speaker’s

(19)

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 Grice’s 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

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

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.

(20)

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

Kushartanti (1993), op. cit.107.

Grice, H.P (1975), op. cit. 46 25

Ibid. 26

(21)

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

(22)

about the meaning of the speaker’s 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 story’s 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

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

(23)

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 quantity’s violation Datum I

Frick : Seven! - I’ve been wondering if it was because she never had any. Leroy: No, that’s not it. – You don’t have any?

Frick: No. We kept putting it off, and then it got too late, and first thing you know … it’s just too late.

Leroy: For a while there I thought maybe she had too many children … Frick: Well I don’t have any, so …

Leroy: Yeah, I guess that’s 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 Frick’s 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, andfirst thing you

(24)

know … it’s 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 Frick’s remark ‘first thing you know … it’s just too late’

c. Implicature

This expression keys to have a conversational implicature. Frick’s 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 quality’s violation Datum I

Frick: What was your father? Leroy: Lawyer

Frick: Why didn’t you? Leroy: Just too dumb, I guess

Frick: Couldn’t buckle down the books, huh? Leroy: I guess not.31

a. Context of Situation:

Frick interested in knowing how Leroy’s simplicity in his life. Moreover, Frick becomes more curious to know then later he asks about Leroy’s passion about his ideal.

b. Process of violation

Leroy’s 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

Miller, Arthur (1995) op.cit. p. 456. 32

(25)

appropriate information. When it turns into Leroy’s remark ‘I guess not’ that is a negation of Frick’s question ‘could not buckle the book’; Leroy is actually have the ability to answer Frick’s 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 Leroy’s 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 Relevance’s violation 1. Datum I

Patricia: …. I-must-not-blame-Leroy-anymore. And it’s amazing. I lost desire medication, I could feel it leaving me like a .. like a ghost. Slight pause. …. It is just that he’s got really well-to-do relatives and he simply will not accept anyone’s help. I mean you take the Jews, the Italians, Irish-they’ve 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 Yankee’ll just sit there all alone getting sadder and sadder. – But I’m 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

Ibid. p. 44. 34

(26)

and have a way out of this problem. b. Process of Violation

Karen’s remark actually responses Patricia’s 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 Patricia’s story and she has another subject that also needs to share.

4. The maxim of Manner’s 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, ain’t 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 I’m 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. Leroy’s remark contributes in the

(27)

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. They’re wonderful kids. Frick: They still very young?

Leroy: Five to nineteen. But they all pitch in. everything’s 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 Frick’s 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. everything’s clean, house runs like a ship’ and does not have a brief statement. Hence, Leroy’s 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.

(28)

E. The Maxim’s 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

(29)

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.

(30)

Website:

http://www.lifestreamcenter.net/DrB/Lessons/Drama accessed on March 25,

2010.

(31)

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 Working Place

From Until

Main Activites and Responsibilities Tka and Tpa

(a Qur’anic Kindergarten and a

November 2005

December

(32)

Qur’anic Junior School) Refa Qualitama Multitradex Event Organizer July 2006 Oktober

2006 Sales Marketing

Gemilang Study Club May

2007 now Teacher

SuperChamp English Course

June 2007

September

2008 Teaching English for Kids

Boarding English Course of Gemilang

September 2008

July

2009 Adviser and English Tutor

TKa/TPa Ikhlasul Machfudz

August

2009 Now Teaching English

Organizational Experiences

Year Name

From Until

Position in Organization PMII (Pergerakan Mahasiswa Islam

Indonesia)

2005 2006

Member PMII (Pergerakan Mahasiswa Islam

Indonesia)

2006 2007

Leader of Gender Divison KOPRI (Korps Pergerakan Mahasiswa

Islam Indonesia Putri PMII) 2006 2007 Event Organizer Divison

PMII (Pergerakan Mahasiswa Islam Indonesia)

2007 2009 Leader of Creativity

Divison

IofC (Initiatives of Change) 2008 Now Member

SIGI Community (a Community of Movie Maker)

2009 2009

Member

Achievements

No. Kinds of

Achievement Event Organizer Name of Event Year

1. Second Winner

of English

Female Dormitory

(33)

Speech Competition 2. Third Winner of English Speech Competition

BEMJ PAI of Education Faculty of UIN Anniversary 2007 3. Second Winner of English Debating Group Competition BEMF of

Education Faculty Anniversary 2008

Conference and Workshop Experiences

Time and Place Status Program Organizer

Jakarta, 28th September 2005

Participant The entrepreneurship

Seminary: “Pendidikan yang memberdayakan; Mempersiapkan Alumni UIN yang Mandiri Berkemampuan Entrepreneurship” IKALUIN (Panitia Ikatan Alumni Universitas UIN) Syarif Hidayahtullah Jakarta Jakarta, 18th May

2006

Participant The Culture and

English Letter Seminary:

“Recognizing West Multiculturalism

Through Cultural Study”

Students Executive Committee (BEMF) of Letters and Humanities Faculty Jakarta, 28th May

2010

Participant “Pelatihan Calon Guru

Privat bersama Drs. Bahroin Suryantara” Bina Cinta Ilmu (BCI) The Private Learning Institution Jakarta, 11th

January 2007

Participant “Refleksi kritis

Pengalaman Indonesia Pasca Kemerdekaan” The Executive Director PSIK (Pusat Studi Islam Dan Kenegaraan) of Paramadina

(34)

University Jakarta, 1st

February 2007

Participant ”Potret Kerawanan

Sosial DKI Jakarta, Sebuah Evaluasi Krtis”

P3M (Pusat Pengkajian dan Pengabdian Masyarakat) in cooperate with Syariah and Law Faculty Jakarta, 16th

April 2007

Participant “Dinar Vs Dolar:

Peluang Penerapan Dinar Dalam Indutri Asuransi Syari’ah” Students Executive Committe of Syaria’ah Ansurance Department in cooperate with LSF(Law Study Forum) Jakarta, April 27th 2008

Participant Seminar Sehari

“Perempuan dan Media Massa: Objek atau Subjek?”

P2KM (Pusat Pengkajian Komunikasi dan Media) Bogor, 19th-21st

December 2008

Participant The 4th Youth Camp

“Discover Inner Power and Share to the Others: A Better World Through You and Me”

Initiative of Change (IofC) Indonesia Jakarta, Bogor, Bandung, & Banten, February 23- April 23 2009

Committee The 4th International

Action for Life Team Visiting Program Indonesia Initiatives of Changes Indonesia Bogor-Cisarua, March 20-22, 2009

Participant The 5th International

Youth Camp 2009 “Be the change you want to see in the world”

Team of International

Action for Life

4 dan Initiatives of

Changes-Indonesia

(35)

April 2009 Movie Maker Workshop for Students and Adult: “Maju Film Indonesia”

Kebudayaan dan Pariwisata Indonesia in cooperate with Senakki, Indeff Foundation, Konsep Layar Kreasi, PWI Jaya, PARSI and Jaringan Worksop Jakarta, 24th

June 2010

Participant Pubic Speaking Contest:

“ASEAN as one Community” Direktorat Jendral Kerjasama ASEAN, Departemen Luar Negri Republik Indonesia Jakarta, 11th

November 2009

Participant Workshop: “Tips and

Tricks for Applying the International Post Graduate Scholarship”

Internatioanl Office of UIN Sayrif Hidayatullah Jakarta Jakarta, 21st

September 2009

Participant Profesional Development Seminary on Occuptioanl Health and Safety Programme: “How to be Healthy and Fashionable with Your Notebook”

Public Health Major of UIN Sayrif Hidayatullah Jakarta

Jakarta, 11th september 2010

Participant The National Seminary:

”Kupas Tuntas Kontroversi NAMRU: Kedaulatan NKRI Dalam Ancaman?”

Student Executive Committee (BEM) of UIN Syarif

Hidayatllah Jakarta

(36)

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 language’s 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 speaker’s 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

Aitchison, Jean, Linguistics: an Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1995), p. 93 2

(37)

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

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

(38)

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 speaker’s 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

Grice, H.P. (1975), loc. cit.

Kushartanti,Pesona Bahasa, (Jakarta: PT. Gramedia Utama. 2005), p. 105 7

Leech, Geoffrey, Prinsip-prinsip Pragmatik (Jakarta: Penerbit Universitas Indonesia. 1993), p.10.

Short, M.H, in Applied Linguistic. Vol II: Discourse Analysis and the Analysis of Drama (Oxford: Oxford University. 1981), p.189

(39)

they sold in the interval were good”.9 Indirectly the conversation implies that B could not enjoy the drama play and even though B didn’t declare it directly, he succeeded in telling his feeling politely. Here, the point that the listener got about B’s answer was an Implicature of how he didn’t 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 howa 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. Maxim’s violation shows the non-observance. The violation happens and causes the side meaning or implicature that already talked by the writer before.

Short, M.H. (1981), loc. cit.

Kushartanti (2005), loc. cit 11

(40)

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 good’means that he cannot enjoy the drama play. This was because of B didn’t 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 drama’s analysis is not merely just about performance and plot. There are many aspects can be analyzed besides the literature aspects like the drama’s analysis through theLinguistic 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

(41)

get the same situation. The literature text analysis like drama’s 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 drama’s dialogue as an object of analysis. She finds the Arthur Miller’s 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 Yankee’s story is interesting and makes her to analyze this drama on the linguistics’ point of view.

Hence, the writer chooses Grice’s theory about a set of rule of how people contributing their communication reaching the main goal; that is the cooperative

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

Ibid.

(42)

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 drama’s dialogue.

Based on those reasons, the writer is interested in analyzing about The Non-Observance Maxim of Conversation in Arthur Miller’s the Last Yankee (Based on Grice’s 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?

(43)

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 textand 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 maxim’s 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 Miller’s 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.

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

(44)

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

(45)

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 Miller’s drama; The Last Yankee.

(46)

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 Jacob’s 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

(47)

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 couldn’t 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 speaker’s 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 speaker’s 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 illocutionaryact.

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

(48)

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 haven’t 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 formulation’s utterance that what the speaker’s intentio and imply called implicature.

B. Implicature

There are argumentations about the definition of Implicature. The first is according to Grice’s definition about implicature in his paper Logic and conversation,19 when he first introduced the term ‘implicature’ in a term of a verb,

(49)

‘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 speaker’s 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:

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

(50)

Leroy: Mine was never very optimistic. She’s 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

Miller, Arthur. “The Last Yankee.” The Portable Arthur Miller, ed. Bigsby, Christhoper (New York: Penguin Books, 1995), p. 452, line 28

(51)

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 Grice’s 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.

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

(52)

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

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

(53)

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: Where’s my box of chocolates? B: It’s in your room.31

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

(1)

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

(2)

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 social’s interaction.

(3)

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.

(4)

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.

(5)

Appendix.1

DRAMA’S 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 Leroy’s 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 story’s 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,

(6)

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.

The non-observance maxim of conversation in the Arthur Miller's the Last Yankee (based on Grice's Cooperative Principle)

ENGLISH LETTERS DEPARTMENT

LETTERS AND HUMANITIES FACULTY

STATE ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY “SYARIF HIDAYATULLAH”

JAKARTA

SYNOPSIS

ENGLISH LETTERS DEPARTMENT

LETTERS AND HUMANITIES FACULTY

STATE ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY “SYARIF

HIDAYATULLAH”

JAKARTA

CURICULUM VITAE

PERSONAL INFORMATION

Current Education Information

Working Experiences

Organizational Experiences

Achievements

Conference and Workshop Experiences

Parts

Dokumen yang terkait

THE CAUSES AND EFFECTS OF VIOLATION IN SHAKESPEARE'S KING LEAR: EVIDENCES FOR GRICE'S COOPERATIVE PRINCIPLE AND LEECH'S POLITENESS PRINCIPLE

A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY ON THE USE OF THE MAXIM IN COOPERATIVE PRINCIPLE TO COMPREHEND NASREDDIN HODJA STORY

The Non Observance Of Maxim In Yes Man Movie

NON-OBSERVANCE OF GRICE’S MAXIMS FOUND IN THE DEATH OF A Non-Observance Of Grice’s Maxims Found In The Death Of A Salesman Drama Script By Arthur Miller: A Pragmatic Study.

THE COOPERATIVE PRINCIPLE IN DEBATE.

Analysis of Non-Observance of The Gricean Maxim in Jokes of 'Comedy Central Website' That Leads To The Occurrence of Humour.

Non-Observance of Gricean Maxims in The Dialogues of 'The Nanny' TV Series.

Analysis of The Non-Observance of The Gricean Maxims in 'That '70s Show'.

The Analysis of Verbal Humor Based on the Violation of Cooperative Principle and Politeness Principle in Sitcom How I Met Your Mother (Season 1-4).

THE NON OBSERVANCE MAXIMS IN THE CONVERSATION OF STEP UP ALL IN MOVIE (A Pragmatics Approach) - UNS Institutional Repository

Dukungan

Links

The non-observance maxim of conversation in the Arthur Miller's the Last Yankee (based on Grice's Cooperative Principle)

ENGLISH LETTERS DEPARTMENT

LETTERS AND HUMANITIES FACULTY

STATE ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY “SYARIF HIDAYATULLAH”

JAKARTA

SYNOPSIS

ENGLISH LETTERS DEPARTMENT

LETTERS AND HUMANITIES FACULTY

STATE ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY “SYARIF

HIDAYATULLAH”

JAKARTA

CURICULUM VITAE

PERSONAL INFORMATION

Current Education Information

Working Experiences

Organizational Experiences

Achievements

Conference and Workshop Experiences

Parts

Dokumen yang terkait

THE CAUSES AND EFFECTS OF VIOLATION IN SHAKESPEARE'S KING LEAR: EVIDENCES FOR GRICE'S COOPERATIVE PRINCIPLE AND LEECH'S POLITENESS PRINCIPLE

A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY ON THE USE OF THE MAXIM IN COOPERATIVE PRINCIPLE TO COMPREHEND NASREDDIN HODJA STORY

The Non Observance Of Maxim In Yes Man Movie

NON-OBSERVANCE OF GRICE’S MAXIMS FOUND IN THE DEATH OF A Non-Observance Of Grice’s Maxims Found In The Death Of A Salesman Drama Script By Arthur Miller: A Pragmatic Study.

THE COOPERATIVE PRINCIPLE IN DEBATE.

Analysis of Non-Observance of The Gricean Maxim in Jokes of 'Comedy Central Website' That Leads To The Occurrence of Humour.

Non-Observance of Gricean Maxims in The Dialogues of 'The Nanny' TV Series.

Analysis of The Non-Observance of The Gricean Maxims in 'That '70s Show'.

The Analysis of Verbal Humor Based on the Violation of Cooperative Principle and Politeness Principle in Sitcom How I Met Your Mother (Season 1-4).

THE NON OBSERVANCE MAXIMS IN THE CONVERSATION OF STEP UP ALL IN MOVIE (A Pragmatics Approach) - UNS Institutional Repository

Dokumen yang Anda mencari sudah siap untuk unduhkan