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,
16
in which means that the writer must able to involve and carefully focuses into the background of the data analysis.
According to this statement, the writer will describe and explore the data analysis as it correlates with the object of analysis.
In this study the writer uses herself as a main research instrument through reading, identifying, classifying and analyzing the data which are used
and needed from the dialogue or drama text. Furthermore, to get the aim of the research, the writer conducts the descriptive data analysis’ technique
which is divided into some step such as write some notes of maxim of conversations violation agencies offered by Grice, read the dialogue and find
the violations of the four maxims, sign up the violation of maxim agencies accruing within the drama text, identify the context of situation covered the
dialogue, analyze the process of maxim’s violation in data analysis, recognize
16
Holloway, Immy, Basic Concepts for Qualitative Research. Oxford: Blackwell Science. 1997, p. 5
6
and interpret the implicature that appears in the data analysis, re-read the data to find the key words for the analyzing based on the research questions and
conclude the collecting data. Furthermore, the unit of the analysis of the research is the text from the
dialogue of Arthur 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 implied by the speaker. And it needs to see on
cooperation between the listener and the speaker. In short that semantic analysis is closer to the literal meaning and the pragmatics analysis and the
pragmatics analysis is analyzing the meaning based on the speech situation. The speech situations will refer to what imply in the 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
17
Aitchison, Jean 1995, loc. cit.
7
a help. But she or he can state in a different way. At this part, the act of request a help in which the speaker formulate the utterance called
illocutionary act. For instance the statement of “can you give me a more explanation,
please?” when the lecture tell about pragmatics theory. The question was asked directly, but it can become to a different way when it was declared as “I
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
18
Grice, H.P 1975, op. cit. 44
8
utterance without being part of what is said.
19
The implicature explanation is closer to what a speaker intends to state A without bring A in the utterance.
When a speaker makes an implicature, the communication can goes smoothly or failed if the listener can not deduce what is being talked by the speaker
through A. There are two kinds of implicature. Grice in his paper explains that the
first kind is a conventional implicature. The meaning in this implicature can take by a literal meaning directly from the text. Second is the conversational
implicature. The conversational implicature is the additional meaning inside an utterance.
20
It happens because of the speaker and listener exchange the information that can not include the utterance. Some listener can connect to
what is implied. Further the participants incline do this because of the participants listener and speaker have a set of purpose when they are uttering
something.
3. Cooperative Principle
Listener and speaker must try to make a stimulus response. Grice comments on his previous article call Logic and Conversation that is about
communication in the conversation. He thinks while communicate happen; the speaker must gives a relevant information on what it stated. The next
description of this mutuality effective communication resume in cooperative principle. Yule concludes about cooperative principle as he cited from 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
19
Horn, Laurence R and Gregory ward. The Handbook of Pragmatics Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. 2006, p.3
20
Yule, George. 1996, op. cit.35.
21
Ibid. p. 37.
22
Mathews, P. H, “The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics”. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997 p. 219.
9
the participants must fill the four maxims, with the result: 1.
Maxim of Quantity This maxim directly correlated more or less of the information
gave to speaker. This maxim forces the speaker in giving sufficient information to the listener.
23
The participants must contribute as is required and make the conversation to be connected. The speaker is
not less and over in giving the information. Therefore, Grice explains that the maxim forces the participants to:
a. Make their contribution as informative as is required.
b. To be not making their contribution more informative than is
required.
24
2. Maxim of Quality
The maxim forces the speaker in giving the relevant information. Both of the speaker and listener must make a satisfactory
in fulfillment the appropriate information. With the specific sub maxim:
a. Do not say what you believe to be false
b. Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.
3. Maxim of relevance
The maxim forces the participants to be relevant.
25
On the other words, the participants must give relevant information to each other.
4. Maxim of Manner
The maxim force to utter what have to say does not have to be formulated by the speaker. With the subsequent sub-maxim below:
a. Avoid obscurity of expression
b. Avoid ambiguity
c. Be brief avoid unnecessary prolixity
d. Be orderly.
26
4. The disobedience of the cooperative Principle
23
Kushartanti 1993, op. cit.107.
24
Grice, H.P 1975, op. cit. 46
25
Ibid.
26
Ibid.
10
Listener and speaker sometimes fail to follow the rules and sometimes they break the cooperative principle. At this stage, they fail to fulfill a maxim
in some ways: 1.
He may quietly and unostentatiously violate a maxim. If the speaker does it, it will make the listener have a wrong
idea or he will not pay attention to what he said. 2.
He may opt out from the operation both of the maxim and of the Cooperative Principle.
On this case, the speaker does not plan to cooperate in the way the maxim requires.
3. He may be faced by a clash another maxim.
The speaker is unable to fill one of the maxims and turns to violate the other maxim. Further, when a speaker gives a statement; he
may not contribute in completing the requirement of the first maxim. In short, he gets a clash with the second maxim.
4. He may flout a maxim.
Here, the speaker is able to fulfill the maxim and to do it without having any violation with another maxim. It actually fails to
contribute the maxim but it is being exploited.
5. Context
Listener must be able to interpret one remark to one another intention. He must care to what is being constructed inside the remark and the utterance
told by the speaker. He must also consider about the situation like the time when it was stated or how it was stated. The reason of participants
consideration is because of the language use is separate from the use of a context. Further, David states that context refers to the situation giving rise to
the discourse, and within which the discourse embedded.
27
It exists because when speaker is saying something they have a reason and some aspects that
forming the background of an utterance being stated. The contextual factors can influence each of utterance. If the listener
can concerns the contextual factors, it will be a start look to listener to know
27
Nunan, David, Introducing Discourse Analysis London: Penguin Books. 1993, p. 7
11
about the meaning of the 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
28
Wessels, Charlyn. Drama New York: Oxford University. 1988, p. 1
29
Pfister, Manfred, The theory and analysis of drama Cambridge: The University of Cambridge, 1991, p.6
12
catch from the plot or the characters. The text will bound into some particular situation that will create particular speech situation like the lack of information
making the player to disobey the cooperative principle.
D. Research Finding
At first, the writer writes the text of dialogue and explains the violation with the disobedience of maxim of conversation which is on the dialogue that
already divided into two groups. Then, she gives reason and further exploration in explaining it by using Herbert Grice theory of maxim. In
analyzing the data, the writer will describe context of situation, process of violation and implicature in each datum. Therefore, the data will be analyzed
as follows:
Group A. the violation of maxim because of violate, opt out and flout the maxim.
1. The maxim of 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, and first thing you
30
Miller, Arthur 1995, op.cit. p. 451.
13
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
31
Miller, Arthur 1995 op.cit. p. 456.
32
Gerald Gazdar 1979, op.cit. 45-46.
14
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
33
Ibid. p. 44.
34
Miller, Arthur 1995 op.cit. p. 463.
15
and have a way out of this problem.
b. Process of Violation
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
35
Ibid. p. 449.
16
giving idea that is not clear, therefore difficult to make a clear and exact conclusion. Leroy does not give clear about what contribution he is
making about. In short, this use of I guess always works in this way, it has become conventionalized, and no longer requires an inference procedure
for the implicature to be recovered.
c. Implicature
Here, Leroy implicates the service given is good even though the facility still was not complete.
Group B. In which there is a clash with another maxim 1.
Violate maxim of quantity in clash with maxim of manner Data I
Leroy: Well, I am too. 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.
36
Ibid. p. 452.
17
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
