Violation of relation maxim

sleeping. Michael avoided giving a brief explanation to make his action not be considered as a cruel action to an animal. He was afraid if Nancy would see him as an animal hater. In fact, he was just afraid of rodents. In this case, Michael violated the maxim of manner by not being brief in replying to Nancy’s question. Datum PPC014 gives another explanation about the violation of the manner maxim. 4:43 Alan Cowan : Is that a good living? Michael Longstreet : You know, its not like we had any banner years or anything. It was tough starting out. But long as Im out there every morning, with my catalog and my sample case, its a living. Although the cast iron roasting pans do pick up around the holidays PPC014 Alan and Michael were talking about their professions. Michael said that he sold some house and kitchen equipments. In respond to Mi chael’s statement, Alan asked Michael whether his job was a good one or not. Then, Michael did not answer Alan’s question by saying yes or not. Michael chose to tell him more about his profession. Therefore, he violated the maxim of manner. He did not give a brief and clear answer as his respond to Alan’s question. Another example can be seen in the below section. 4:44 Nancy Cowan : Alan, do something Penelope Longstreet : “Alan, do something” Nancy Cowan : She broke my make-up mirror And my perfume Why dont you stand up for me? Alan Cowan : Let’s go. PPC069 Penelope was angry to Nancy. Sh e grabbed Nancy’s handbag and threw it against the door. Therefore, all contents of the bag spilled out. Nancy wanted her husband, Alan, to stand up for her. In order to keep his positive face, she made the activity seemed reasonable to him. She gave him the reason why he should stand up for her. She said that Penelope broke her make-up mirror and perfume. Thus, Alan could see what she expected from him. She employed the strategy of giving or asking for reason. However, she violated the maxim of manner. The question “Why don’t you stand up for me?” did not really mean that she asked her husband to explain about his reason why he did not stand up for her. In fact, it was a suggestion for her husband to help her out. 84

CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

This chapter is the last chapter of this research. After the researcher explored the discussions of the research findings which focus on the explanations of positive politeness strategies and maxim violating used in Carnage movie, then some conclusions and suggestions for some parties are made below.

A. Conclusions

Based on the research findings and discussions, the result of this research shows two important points as follows. 1. Related to the application of positive politeness strategies in Carnage movie, the findings show that all the positive politeness strategies can be found in the characters’ utterances, except the strategy of asserting reciprocal exchange or tit for tat. The researcher found out that there are 67 data on the dialogue of the movie which contain positive politeness strategies. In this research, the percentage of noticing, attending to H herhis interests, wants, needs, goods, etc. strategy is 16.42. It means that it happens 11 times and is noted as the highest rank. Meanwhile, the strategies of asserting or presupposing knowledge of and concerning for hearer’s wants; and giving or asking for reasons are in the lowest rank. Both of them only occur once and have the smallest percentage that is 1.49.