CONVERSATIONAL MAXIMS USED BY ENGLISH POSTGRADUATE STUDENTS IN CLASSROOM DISCUSSION.
CONVERSATIONAL MAXIMS
USED BY ENGLISH POSTGRADUATE STUDENTS
IN CLASSROOM DISCUSSION
A Thesis
Submitted to the English Applied Linguistics Study Program in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Magister Humaniora
By :
MEY HARNITA HUTABARAT Registration Number : 8136112053
ENGLISH APPLIED LINGUISTICS STUDY PROGRAM
POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
2015
(2)
(3)
(4)
iv ABSTRACT
MEY HARNITA HUTABARAT, Reg. No. 8136112053. Conversational Maxims Used By English Postgraduate Students in Classroom Discussion. English Applied Linguistics, Pascasarjana Program, State University of Medan, 2015.
This study deals with conversational maxims used by English Postgraduate students in classroom discussion. The data were collected from English Postgraduate students class A yearly 2013. This study employs qualitative descriptive design with object participants to get understanding through this study. The instruments used in this study are recording and interview. The data of this study were students’ utterances which consist of maxims obedience and violation. The data from interview is used to examine the reason of maxim obedience and violation occurrences. The data were analyzed by using interactive model by Miles and Huberman. The finding shows that there are maxim obedience to maxim of quantity, maxim of quality, maxim of relevance, and maxim of manner (53,33%) and maxim violation (46,66%) happen in the classroom discussion , nevertheless maxim violation is not considered as fault in a kind of conversation. Maxim obedience are done for the reasons convincing the hearer (7,14%), satisfying the hearer (7,14%), clarifying and strengthening (85,71%), and maxim violation are done for the reasons hide the truth (3,12%), safe face (3,12%), satisfy the hearer (18,75%), cheer the hearer (12,5%), convincing the hearer (43,75%), and clarifying and strengthening (18,75%).
(5)
v ABSTRAK
MEY HARNITA HUTABARAT, Reg. No. 8136112053. Prinsip Percakapan Yang Digunakan oleh Mahasiswa Pascasarjana Bahasa Inggris di dalam Diskusi Kelas. Linguistik Terapan Bahasa Inggris, Program Pascasarjana, Universitas Negeri Medan, 2015.
Penelitian ini berkaitan dengan prinsip percakapan yang digunakan oleh mahasiswa pascasarjana bahasa inggris didalam diskusi kelas. Data dikumpulkan dari kelas A3 pascasarjana jurusan bahasa inggris stambuk 2013. Penelitian ini menggunakan model kualitatif deskriptif melibatkan objek partisipan untuk memperoleh pemahaman melalui penelitian ini. Alat yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini ada rekaman dan interview. Data yang berasal dari interview digunakan untuk meyakinkan alasan pematuhan dan pelanggaran terhadap prinsip percakapan. Data dianalisi dengan menggunakan model interaktif oleh Miles and Huberman. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa terdapat pematuhan terhadap prinsip percakapan maksim kuantitas, maxim kualitas, maksim relevansi, dan maksim cara (53, 33%) dan pelanggaran terhadap prinsip percakapan (46,66%), akan tetapi pelanggaran terhadap prinsip percakapan bukanlah bentuk kesalahan dalam percakapan. Pematuhan terhadap aturan percakapan dilakukan dengan alasan meyakinkan pendengar (7,14%), memuaskan pendengar (7,14%), mengklarifikasi dan memperkuat ide (85,71%), dan pelanggaran terhadap aturan percakapan dilakukan dengan alasan menyembunyikan kebenaran (3,12%), menyelamatkan wajah (3,12%), memuaskan pendengar (18,75%), menyenangkan pendengar (12,5%), meyakinkan pendengar (43,75%), dan mengklarifikasi serta memperkuat ide (18,75%).
(6)
i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First of all,the writer like to thank to Jesus Christ for His blessing and great plan in her life, especially in completing this thesis. The writer realizes that nothing can be obtained this far without his help.
The writer would like to give special appreciation to her father for giving endless support, love and care that writer realizes that without his prayer, she cannot run the study process well. This thesis is especilly dedicated to him since the writer’s purpose to enter thos postgraduate school is grounded to reasons that his happiness and prestigave is everything in her life.
This thesis, in its present could not have been writtem about the assistance and imputs from those who dersve a special appreciation. The writer would like to axpress her appreciation. First, Prof,Dr. Lince Sihombing, M.Pd for her encouragement thesis,valuable inputs in the process of writing and comments in the cintents and style of eriting that have helped to shape this thesis. The writer realizes that there are still many more to be mastered.second,Dr. Anni Holila pulungan,M.Hum,for being aadviser,all at once as best friend who gives good advices,supports,love and care.the writer is very thnkful fir her presence in the process starts from discussing process,thesis seminar proposal till the green table. The writer would also like to say many thanks to head of English Applied Linguistics of State University of Medan,Prof,Dr.Busmin Gurning,M.Pd and Dr.Sri Minda Murni,M.S as the secretary of the English Applied Linguistics for Letting all the process in completing her master degree study administratively.Her appreciation falls also to bang Farid helping the wruter administratively in English
(7)
ii
Applied Linguistics Program during the completion of the process in taking her master degree.
Her never ending thanks also for her fiance Afrizal Franky M Damanik for giving love and support that tha writer realizes that he is also great motivation in cimpleting the thesis.
Her great appreciation falls to her young sister Citra Angelia Hutabarat for giving her so much love an care when the writer feels week sick that she is always with her giving great encouragement. And also great appreciation falls to her big family especially to ban David Hutabarat, Kak ika nainggolan, Johannes hutabarat and Chritofer or Tito Hutabarat.
The writer also would like to extend her sincere thanks to her best friend Moses Meliala Sembiring who also takes Master degree in State University of Medan taking English Applied Linguistics yearly 2014. Without his help and encouragement, this thesis would not be like its presence. The writer also would like to thank to her partner in workplace; ka Diana,Bang Praja,rida,Dara,janter and bang Salmen for giving her support and care.
The writer also gives appreciation to edak Miranda and Kartika for always being best friend every times she needs for making her comfortable when she thinks to give up,thank you for being in my side up and down,hopefully we can succeed together in workplace and our family. The writer would like to give thanks to her partner and best friend in completing the process to get her Master degree dtep bt step together,gawe lin,Kresna and Noya.
(8)
iii
Finally, the writer must admit that the content of this thesis is still far from being perfect, but she warmly welcomes any constructive idea and critics that will improve the quality of the thesis. She also hopes this theisis would be useful for those who read it,especially majoring in English.
Medan, September 2015 The Writer
(9)
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pages
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT……… i
ABSTRACT ... iv
ABSTRAK ... v
TABLE OF CONTENTS ... vi
LIST OF TABLES ... viii
LIST OF APPENDICES ... ix
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ... 1
1.1. The Background of the Study ... 1
1.2. The Problems of the Study ... 6
1.3. The Objectives of the Study ... 6
1.4. The Scope of the Study ... 7
1.5. The Significance of the Study... 7
CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE ... 8
2.1 Conversational Implicature ... 8
2.2 Conversational Maxims ... 9
2.2.1 Maxim of Quantity ... 11
2.2.2 Maxim of Quality ... 12
2.2.3 Maxim of Relevance ... 13
2.2.4 Maxim of Manner ... 15
2.3 Reasons of Maxims Obedience ... 17
2.4 Reasons of Maxims Violence... 17
2.5Classroom Discussion ... 20
2.5.1 The Nature of ClassroomDiscussion ... 21
2.6 English Postgraduate Program in State University of Medan ... 23
2.7 Relevant Studies ... 24
2.8 Conceptual Framework ... 25
CHAPTER III METHOD OF RESEARCH ... 28
3.1 Research Design ... 28
(10)
vii
3.3. Technique of Data Collection ... 30
3.4. Technique of Data Analysis ... 31
3.5. Trustworthiness ... 33
CHAPTER IV DATA ANALYSIS, FINDNGS, AND DISCUSSIONS ... 36
4.1. Data Analysis ... 36
4.1.1. The Conversational Maxims Occurring in Postgraduate Students Classroom Discussion ... 36
4.1.1.1. Types of Conversational Maxims ... 37
4.1.1.2. The Way of Conversational Maxims Realized in Classroom Discussion ... 48
4.1.1.3. Reasons of Conversational Maxims Obedience and Violation... 50
4.2. Findings ... 53
4.3. Discussions ... 54
CHAPTER VCONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS ... 56
5.1. Conclusions ... 56
5.2. Suggestions ... 56
(11)
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Pages
Table 1. The Total and Percentage Maxim of Quantity Occurrences ...37
... Table 2. The Total and Percentage of Maxim Quantity Obedience ...38
Table 3. The Total and Percentage of Maxim Quantity Violation ...40
Table 4. The Total and Percentage Maxim of Quality Occurrences ...40
Table 5. The Total and Percentage of Maxim Quality Obedience ...41
Table 6. The Total and Percentage of Maxim Quality Obedience ...42
Table 7. The Total and Percentage Maxim of Relevance Occurrences ...43
Table 8. The Total and Percentage of Maxim Relevance Obedience ...44
Table 9. The Total and Percentage of Maxim Relevance Violation...45
Table 10. The Total and Percentage Maxim of Manner Occurrences ...46
Table 11. The Total and Percentage of Maxim Manner Obedience ...47
Table 12. The Total and Percentage of Maxim Manner Violation ...48
Table 13. The Percentage of Maxims Violation Reasons Based on Natalie’s (2008) Markers ...51
Table 14. The Percentage of Maxim Violation outer part Natalie’s (2008) Markers ...52
Table 15. Maxims Obedience Reasons ...52
(12)
ix
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix 1. Conversation Transcription ...62
Appendix 2. Maxim Obedience ...75
Appendix 3. Maxim Violation ...88
(13)
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Pages
Table 1. The Total and Percentage Maxim of Quantity Occurrences ...37
Table 2. The Total and Percentage of Maxim Quantity Obedience ...38
Table 3. The Total and Percentage of Maxim Quantity Violation ...40
Table 4. The Total and Percentage Maxim of Quality Occurrences ...40
Table 5. The Total and Percentage of Maxim Quality Obedience ...41
Table 6. The Total and Percentage of Maxim Quality Obedience ...42
Table 7. The Total and Percentage Maxim of Relevance Occurrences ...43
Table 8. The Total and Percentage of Maxim Relevance Obedience ...44
Table 9. The Total and Percentage of Maxim Relevance Violation...45
Table 10. The Total and Percentage Maxim of Manner Occurrences ...46
Table 11. The Total and Percentage of Maxim Manner Obedience ...47
Table 12. The Total and Percentage of Maxim Manner Violation ...48
Table 13. The Percentage of Maxims Violation Reasons Based on Natalie’s (2008) Markers ...51
Table 14. The Percentage of Maxim Violation outer part Natalie’s (2008) Markers ...52
Table 15. Maxims Obedience Reasons ...52
(14)
viii
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix 1. Conversation Transcription ...62
Appendix 2. Maxim Obedience ...75
Appendix 3. Maxim Violation ...88
(15)
1
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1.1.The Background of the study
The major aim of communication is exchanging information in the condition of being informative. Communication involves speaker/s and hearer/s
regarding exchanging information. When a speaker exchangesinformation, he/she
should consider the amount of information, the truth, the relevancy and the manner. As the purpose of exchanging the information can be benefit both of them, the participants of a conversation are supposed to utter that can be understood so that their conversation becomes smooth.
Pragmatics as a mean in explaining language, it can explain the process in a particular context where a conversation happens. As a discipline within language science, Pragmatics as linguistics disciple roots lie in the work of Grice that falls out into Cooperative Principle or the four maxims that take roles to determine whether a conversation is successful or not.
There are rules or patterns in a conversation that should be followed by participants which are based on Grice falls out into Cooperative Principle where speaker/s and hearer/s are supposed to respond to each other in their turn and exchange with the needed information that benefits both of them. By giving the required information, they can understand each other’s utterances and their conversations become smooth.
(16)
2
Cooperative Principle is the basis of successful conversation where participants are cooperative each other by giving information not too much or too little, by saying truth and avoiding the act of lying, by being relevant to topic of conversation and also by talking in good manner; brief, clear, and orderly. Listeners and speakers must speak cooperatively and mutually accept one another to be understood in a particular way. The cooperative principle describes how effective communication in conversation is achieved in common social situations.
Cooperation in Cooperative Principle can be understood as an essential factor when speaker/s and hearer/s are interacting. It is an expectation that the listener has toward the speaker. The speaker is supposed to convey true statements and say nothing more than required. When people talk each other, they try to converse smoothly and successfully.
However, the rules can be obeyed and violated. The violation term comes from the situation that speaker/s do not fulfill the Cooperative Principle and they are considered as they give information too much or too little, give false information, talk far from the topic, and talk in bad manner; not clear, not brief and not orderly. When the speakers do maxim violation, the conversation between the speakers and the hearers can be unsuccessful since they will misunderstand each other. Speakers who violate a maxim cause the hearer not to know the truth and only understand the surface meaning of the speaker’s words.
A classroom discussion is a set of conversation which consists of some people from different social background and taking place in academic activity as a
(17)
3
purposeful process. In here, people exchange the ideas, thoughts and feelings through oral communication.
A classroom discussion consists of two to five or more groups of people which try to discuss a topic and give solution to the problem. One group may consist of people from different background as the set of social aspects such as ethnicity, religion, status, gender, academic success, popularity and age. In a group discussion, each member of the group will try to make the discussion be successful so that they build a close relationship among the member along with the discussion.
Classroom discussion occurs in academic activity, State University of Medan is as an institution which can hold this. State University of Medan is originally established in 1956. State University of Medan provides programs ranging from undergraduate diplomas to postgraduate. Applied Linguistics (English language) as one of three programs offered beside Education Technology and Education Administration. Post-graduate program is intended to educate people who have finished their first or bachelor’s degree. Most of the students come from professionals who have had job before entering the program. Students come from various ethnicity, ages and academic background where they take their first or bachelor’s degree.
Violation seems to be a tradition in fact and this happens also in classroom discussion that is supposed to follow the Cooperative Principle. Violation in classroom discussion happens when speaker/s do not give information adequately;
(18)
4
not too much or too little, do not give true statement, talk far from topic and talk in bad manner; not brief, not clear and not orderly.
Here is an example of violation to Cooperative Principle which occurs in a classroom discussion of Postgraduate students majorly English in State University of Medan yearly 2014:
1 A: “Thank you for the chance, I would like to question about the
research methodology. In your research, what is the methodology is used and why do you choose that one as your research methodoly? If it is qualitative, why, and if it quantitative, why? Because you just mention about the definition of qualitative design but you do not mention the reason why you use it, thank you.”
5 B: “Ok thank you. Yeah, this research is trying to see utterances, just
like sentences, or words or phrases, we use also accounting in the last step to find out the percentage, but is, but it is not quantitative but use qualitative.
10 A: “So, you have already explained about it but I can still not accept
your reason why do you use qualitative.
B: “Oh I see, yeah. Hmm..because we want to describe the problem,
the problem into explain on how it is, I mean how something happens in social.
A: I still confuse because I think quantitative is also describe, what do
you think?”
(Conversation recording is taken from A2 Class English Applied Linguistics Program yearly 2014 of Postgraduate program in State University of Medan: June 22, 2015. 03.00 PM.)
From the example above, it can be explained that there are violation occurrences, namely violation to maxim of quantity and manner. The violation of maxim quantity happens since the speaker breaks the rules to be informative by being to the point. The sentences from line 5 to 7 are as the evidence of being not to the point. The use of certain words when people are going to deliver information is also a violation to maxim quantity since the rules of maxim quantity is people should deliver their information by speaking not too much and
(19)
5
not too short. In asserting ideas, speaker is supposed to speak not too much or too little by considering about logic ideas. Logic ideas is the way of speaking as simple as possible and also put main idea or topic in the first of utterances, since if speaker put main idea or topic of speaking in the end of utterances, the hearer tends to lose with the main information and causes confrontation also from the hearer. This is in line with Yule (1996) theories that speakers do obedience to maxims for the reason of avoiding confrontation, getting other’s trust and avoiding a deep evaluation.
The violation of maxim manner arises from the conversation can be explained from the markers that are proposed by Natalie in 2008. Grice (1975) mentions two rules of maxim of manner; they are being briefly and being orderly”. In this case, the speaker in answering question is briefly enough but she doesn’t speak orderly since speak in orderly means that when we speak which contains more than one ideas, it is better to mention the focus or the most important idea in the beginning of our utterances and followed by explanations. The way of speaker in the example is explaining about qualitative design followed by quantitative and goes back in explaining about qualitative. The violation to maxim of manner will really occur when hearer cannot get their purpose or intention as they wish.
Therefore, based on the phenomena mention above, this study tries to find out the occurrences of conversational maxims whether the discussion participants obey or violate them during the classroom discussion.
(20)
6
1.2.The Problems of the Study
Based on the explanation given in the background, the problems of the study are formulated in the following questions:
1. What types of conversational maxim occur in English Post-graduate
students’ classroom discussions of State University of Medan?
2. How the conversational maxims occur in English Post-graduate students’
classroom discussions of State University of Medan?
3. Why do the conversational maxims occur in English Post-graduate
students’ classroom discussions of State University of Medan the way they are?
1.3.The Objectives of the Study
The objectives of study can be described as follows:
1. To find out the types of conversational maxims which occur in English Post-Graduate students’ classroom discussion of State University of Medan
2. To find out the way of conversational maxims occur in English Post-graduate students’ classroom discussion of State University of Medan 3. To find out the reason of obedience and violations of conversational
maxims by students in English Post-Graduate students’ classroom discussion of State University of Medan.
(21)
7
1.4.The Scope of the Study
As stated in the previous explanation that conversational maxims can occur also in classroom discussion. This study attempts to investigate the conversational maxims in English Post-Graduate students’ classroom discussion in State University of Medan. The aspects to be observed are the occurrences of obedience and violence in conversational maxims.
1.5.The Significance of the Study
The findings of this study have two general significances, theoretical and practical significances.
Theoretically, the results of this study are useful for :
1. The enrichment of linguistics knowledge in the field of pragmatics
especially in conversational maxims.
2. Development studies on cooperative principle about logic conversational
implicature which is known as conversational maxims. Practically, the results of this study are useful for :
1. As a reference for the university students who are interested in studying
pragmatics and interested in conducting any further studies in conversational maxims.
2. For speakers and listeners in daily conversation. By obeying
conversational maxims, they have an effective cooperation in communication. Then, they can create good understanding in daily communication.
(22)
56
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS 1.1Conclusions
After analyzing and drawing all the conversational maxims classroom discussion of postgraduate students taking English Applied Linguistics yearly 2013 class A3, the researcher draws conclusion as follows:
1. The conversational maxims of Cooperative Principle which occur are
maxim of quantity, maxim of quality, maxim of relevance and maxim of manner.
2. The occurrences of conversational maxims are realized in the way: students provide information straightly to the point, convey ideas correspond to reality, convey ideas in line with question’s main idea, and answer question briefly.
3. There are some reasons of obedience and violation to conversational
maxims, they are; clarifying and strengthening, safe face, convincing the hearer, cheer the hearer, satisfying the hearer and the last is hide the truth
1.2Suggestions
Having seen the result of the study, the researcher would like to offer suggestions as follows:
1. It is advisable to lecturers that conversational maxims of Cooperative
Principle are taught in the early of meeting class of postgraduate students in the reason to provide them adding information of rules in
(23)
57
building conversation successfully, so that classroom discussion will run smoothly and successfully.
2. It is expected for all students that obedience and violation in
conversational maxims will not be a barrier to conversation since hearers are still able to catch the meaning of utterances which are uttered by speakers. It is expected that this research adds new perspective to all students about conversational maxims of Cooperative Principle and leads to better understanding of the theory Cooperative Principle.
3. It is suggested to other researchers and postgraduate students who are
taking English Applied Linguistics and being interested in conducting research in the field of pragmatics to find out more new results to Cooperative Principle study in order to add more theoretical findings in it.
(24)
58
REFERENCES
Alduais,A.M.S.(2012).Conversational Implicature (Flouting the
Maxims):Applying Conversational Maxims on Examples Taken from Non-Standard Arabic Language,Yemeni Dialect, an idiolect Spoken at IBB City. Journal of Sociological Research. Vol.3 No.2
Al-Hamadi, H.M.,& Muhammed, B.J. (2009). Pragmatics: Grice’s Conversational Maxims Violations In The Responses of Some Western Politicians.
Journal of the College of Arts. University of Basrah. Vol.20.pp 1-23
Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown,P and Levinson,S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language
Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Taylor, S., and Bodgan, J.C. (1984). Introduction to Qualitative Research
Methods. (Second edition of Bodgan and Taylor. Wiley Advantage
Publication
Christoffersen, D. (2005).The shameless liar’s guide. Sourcebook
Cole, P and Morgan, J.L. (2000). Syntax and Semantics, Volume 3 (pp.41-58). New York: Academic Press
Crowley, D & Mitchell, D. (1994). Communication Theory Today. Stanford: Stanford University Press
Cruse,D.A. (2000).Meaning Language: an Introduction to Semantic and
Pragmatics. New York: Oxford University
Cutting, J.(2002). Pragmatics and Discourse. A research book for students. Rotledge: London and New York
Dardjowidjojo, S. (2000). Echa Kisah Pemerolehan Bahasa Anak Indonesia. Jakarta. Grasindo
Davies,B. (2000).Grice’s Cooperative Principle: Getting The Meaning Across.
Leeds Working Papers In Linguistics. 8. pp. 1-26
Davies,B.L. (2008).Grice’s Cooperative Principle: Meaning and Rationality.
Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 2308-2331
(25)
59
Denzim,N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (1994).Introduction: Entering the Field of
Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Eliashop,N. (1987).Politeness Power and Women’s Language:Rethinking Study in Language and Gender. Berkeley Journal of Sociolog.Vol.32.pp 79-103 Engle, S., & Ochoa, A. (1988). Education for Democratic citizenship: Decision
making in the social studies. New York: Teachers College Press
Grice, H.P. (1975). Logic and Conversation. In P.Cole, & J. Morgan (Eds), Syntax
and Semantics 3;Speech Acts (pp 4-5). New York: Academic Press
Grice, H.P. (1981)."Presupposition and Conversational Implicature", in P. Cole (ed.), Radical Pragmatics, Academic Press, New York, pp. 183–198. Reprinted as ch.17 of Grice 1989, 269–282
Gunarwan, Asim. (2004). “Pragmatik, Kebudayaan, dan Pengajaran Bahasa”
dalam Seminar Nasional Semantik III.Surakarta: Program Pascasarjana UNS
Jenny Cook-Gumperz. (2008). Studying language, culture and society: Sociolinguistics or Linguistic Anthroplogy. Journal of Sociolinguistics.12 (4): 532-545
Ladegaard,H.J. (2004).Politeness in Young Children’s Speech: context, peer group Ifluence and Pragmatic Competence.Journal of Pragmatics.Vol 36.pp. 2003-2022
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London, New York: Longman Group Ltd
Levinson, Stephen C. (1983). Pragmatics. Victoria: Cambridge University Press Levinson, S.C. (1985). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Lincoln Y & Guba EG. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Sage Pubilcation. Newbury
Park, CA
Lubis, I. S. (2012). Conversational Implicatures of Indonesia Lawyers Club Program On TV One. Unpublished Thesis. Medan: State University of Medan Marrying, P.(2000). Qualitative Content Analysis. Forum: Qualitative Social
Research
Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M.(1994). Qualitative Data Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
(26)
60
Murachver,A.H.T.Gender and Conversational Style As Predictors of Conversational Behaviour. Journal of Language and Sosial Psychology. Vol.18 No.2, 153-174
Natalie,H. (2008).The Multiple Violations of Conversational Maxims in Lying
Done By The Characters in Some Episodes of Desperate
Housewives.Volume 10. pp. 1-16
Noviati, D. (2010). The Types of Conversational Implicature as the Violation of Cooperative Principle in the Talkshow Bukan Empat Mata in Trans TV. Unpublished Thesis. Surakarta: Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta.
Parker, W.C. (1996). Curriculum for democracy. In R. Soder (ed). Democracy, education and schooling, (pp.182-210). San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass
Patton, M.Q. (1987). How to use Qualitative Methods in Evaluation. California: Sage Publications, Inc.
Purwo, Bambang Kaswanti. (1994). Pertemuan Linguistik Lembaga Bahasa Atma
Jaya: Ketujuh. PELBA 7. Yogyakarta. Penerbit Kanisius
Rahardi, Kunjana. (2012). Pragmatik Kesantunan Imperatif Bahasa Indonesia. Jakarta: Erlangga
Surya, Mohammad. (2004). Psikologi Pembelajaran dan Pengajaran.
Yogyakarta: Pustaka Bani Quraisy
Thomas, Jenny (1995) Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. Longman.
Tupan, A.H. & Natalia, H. (2008). The Multiple Violations of Conversational Maxims in Lying Done by the Characters in Some Episodes of Desperate
Housewives. Vol 10. 63-78
Usman, Moh. Uzer. (2005). Menjadi Guru Profesional. Bandung: PT Remaja Rosda Karya
Weikel, B.G. & Mangram, J. (1994). Discussions of text in social studies: All quite on the western front. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the College and University Faculty Assembly of the National Council for the Social Studies, Phoenix, AZ
Wray, Alison, Kate Trott and Aileen Bloomer. (1998). Projects in Linguistics: A
(27)
61
Yamazaki, Tatsuroh. (2010). Conversational Implicature In Stand-up Comedies 3.Volume 26.pp. 1-20
Yule. George. (1996). Pragmatics. Hawaii: Oxford University Press
Zulfa,A. (2013).The Flouting of Grice’s Conversational Maxims By The Main Character in the Dictator Movie. pp.1-30
www.google.com. (2005). Animated and narrated glossary of terms used in Linguistics. Retrieved May 10, 2015, from http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/library
www.google.com. (2005). Murmor, Andrei (What does the law say?): Semantics
and Pragmatics in Statutory Language. Retrieved May July 4, 2015, from <http://
(1)
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS 1.1Conclusions
After analyzing and drawing all the conversational maxims classroom discussion of postgraduate students taking English Applied Linguistics yearly 2013 class A3, the researcher draws conclusion as follows:
1. The conversational maxims of Cooperative Principle which occur are maxim of quantity, maxim of quality, maxim of relevance and maxim of manner.
2. The occurrences of conversational maxims are realized in the way: students provide information straightly to the point, convey ideas correspond to reality, convey ideas in line with question’s main idea, and answer question briefly.
3. There are some reasons of obedience and violation to conversational maxims, they are; clarifying and strengthening, safe face, convincing the hearer, cheer the hearer, satisfying the hearer and the last is hide the truth
1.2Suggestions
Having seen the result of the study, the researcher would like to offer suggestions as follows:
1. It is advisable to lecturers that conversational maxims of Cooperative Principle are taught in the early of meeting class of postgraduate students in the reason to provide them adding information of rules in
(2)
building conversation successfully, so that classroom discussion will run smoothly and successfully.
2. It is expected for all students that obedience and violation in conversational maxims will not be a barrier to conversation since hearers are still able to catch the meaning of utterances which are uttered by speakers. It is expected that this research adds new perspective to all students about conversational maxims of Cooperative Principle and leads to better understanding of the theory Cooperative Principle.
3. It is suggested to other researchers and postgraduate students who are taking English Applied Linguistics and being interested in conducting research in the field of pragmatics to find out more new results to Cooperative Principle study in order to add more theoretical findings in it.
(3)
REFERENCES
Alduais,A.M.S.(2012).Conversational Implicature (Flouting the
Maxims):Applying Conversational Maxims on Examples Taken from Non-Standard Arabic Language,Yemeni Dialect, an idiolect Spoken at IBB City. Journal of Sociological Research. Vol.3 No.2
Al-Hamadi, H.M.,& Muhammed, B.J. (2009). Pragmatics: Grice’s Conversational Maxims Violations In The Responses of Some Western Politicians. Journal of the College of Arts. University of Basrah. Vol.20.pp 1-23 Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown,P and Levinson,S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Taylor, S., and Bodgan, J.C. (1984). Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods. (Second edition of Bodgan and Taylor. Wiley Advantage Publication
Christoffersen, D. (2005).The shameless liar’s guide. Sourcebook
Cole, P and Morgan, J.L. (2000). Syntax and Semantics, Volume 3 (pp.41-58). New York: Academic Press
Crowley, D & Mitchell, D. (1994). Communication Theory Today. Stanford: Stanford University Press
Cruse,D.A. (2000).Meaning Language: an Introduction to Semantic and Pragmatics. New York: Oxford University
Cutting, J.(2002). Pragmatics and Discourse. A research book for students. Rotledge: London and New York
Dardjowidjojo, S. (2000). Echa Kisah Pemerolehan Bahasa Anak Indonesia. Jakarta. Grasindo
Davies,B. (2000).Grice’s Cooperative Principle: Getting The Meaning Across. Leeds Working Papers In Linguistics. 8. pp. 1-26
Davies,B.L. (2008).Grice’s Cooperative Principle: Meaning and Rationality. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 2308-2331
(4)
Denzim,N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (1994).Introduction: Entering the Field of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Eliashop,N. (1987).Politeness Power and Women’s Language:Rethinking Study in Language and Gender. Berkeley Journal of Sociolog.Vol.32.pp 79-103 Engle, S., & Ochoa, A. (1988). Education for Democratic citizenship: Decision
making in the social studies. New York: Teachers College Press
Grice, H.P. (1975). Logic and Conversation. In P.Cole, & J. Morgan (Eds), Syntax and Semantics 3;Speech Acts (pp 4-5). New York: Academic Press
Grice, H.P. (1981)."Presupposition and Conversational Implicature", in P. Cole (ed.), Radical Pragmatics, Academic Press, New York, pp. 183–198. Reprinted as ch.17 of Grice 1989, 269–282
Gunarwan, Asim. (2004). “Pragmatik, Kebudayaan, dan Pengajaran Bahasa” dalam Seminar Nasional Semantik III.Surakarta: Program Pascasarjana UNS Jenny Cook-Gumperz. (2008). Studying language, culture and society:
Sociolinguistics or Linguistic Anthroplogy. Journal of Sociolinguistics.12 (4): 532-545
Ladegaard,H.J. (2004).Politeness in Young Children’s Speech: context, peer group Ifluence and Pragmatic Competence.Journal of Pragmatics.Vol 36.pp. 2003-2022
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London, New York: Longman Group Ltd
Levinson, Stephen C. (1983). Pragmatics. Victoria: Cambridge University Press Levinson, S.C. (1985). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Lincoln Y & Guba EG. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Sage Pubilcation. Newbury
Park, CA
Lubis, I. S. (2012). Conversational Implicatures of Indonesia Lawyers Club Program On TV One. Unpublished Thesis. Medan: State University of Medan Marrying, P.(2000). Qualitative Content Analysis. Forum: Qualitative Social
Research
Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M.(1994). Qualitative Data Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
(5)
Murachver,A.H.T.Gender and Conversational Style As Predictors of Conversational Behaviour. Journal of Language and Sosial Psychology. Vol.18 No.2, 153-174
Natalie,H. (2008).The Multiple Violations of Conversational Maxims in Lying
Done By The Characters in Some Episodes of Desperate
Housewives.Volume 10. pp. 1-16
Noviati, D. (2010). The Types of Conversational Implicature as the Violation of Cooperative Principle in the Talkshow Bukan Empat Mata in Trans TV. Unpublished Thesis. Surakarta: Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta.
Parker, W.C. (1996). Curriculum for democracy. In R. Soder (ed). Democracy, education and schooling, (pp.182-210). San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass
Patton, M.Q. (1987). How to use Qualitative Methods in Evaluation. California: Sage Publications, Inc.
Purwo, Bambang Kaswanti. (1994). Pertemuan Linguistik Lembaga Bahasa Atma Jaya: Ketujuh. PELBA 7. Yogyakarta. Penerbit Kanisius
Rahardi, Kunjana. (2012). Pragmatik Kesantunan Imperatif Bahasa Indonesia. Jakarta: Erlangga
Surya, Mohammad. (2004). Psikologi Pembelajaran dan Pengajaran. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Bani Quraisy
Thomas, Jenny (1995) Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. Longman.
Tupan, A.H. & Natalia, H. (2008). The Multiple Violations of Conversational Maxims in Lying Done by the Characters in Some Episodes of Desperate Housewives. Vol 10. 63-78
Usman, Moh. Uzer. (2005). Menjadi Guru Profesional. Bandung: PT Remaja Rosda Karya
Weikel, B.G. & Mangram, J. (1994). Discussions of text in social studies: All quite on the western front. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the College and University Faculty Assembly of the National Council for the Social Studies, Phoenix, AZ
Wray, Alison, Kate Trott and Aileen Bloomer. (1998). Projects in Linguistics: A Practical Guide to Researching Language. London: Arnold
(6)
Yamazaki, Tatsuroh. (2010). Conversational Implicature In Stand-up Comedies 3.Volume 26.pp. 1-20
Yule. George. (1996). Pragmatics. Hawaii: Oxford University Press
Zulfa,A. (2013).The Flouting of Grice’s Conversational Maxims By The Main Character in the Dictator Movie. pp.1-30
www.google.com. (2005). Animated and narrated glossary of terms used in Linguistics. Retrieved May 10, 2015, from http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/library
www.google.com. (2005). Murmor, Andrei (What does the law say?): Semantics
and Pragmatics in Statutory Language. Retrieved May July 4, 2015, from <http:// www.giuri.unige.it/intro/dipist/filo/testi/analisi_2008/09marmor.pdf>