Flouting Maxim of Quality

44 utterances above, however, were exaggerated Levinson, 1983, p. 110. In terms of CP, those were hyperbolic, thus it flouted the maxim of quality Essay, 2013. 2 Using metaphor The following analysis preferably was the figure of speech metaphor which in the situation transpired to be a result of flouting maxim of quality as appeared in the following excerpt: S02E05QLFL3 In an apartment, Marshall expostulated in a form of question about why two male friends could not go to brunch. 1 Marshall: Girly? Breakfast isn’t girly. Lunch isn’t girly. What makes brunch girly? 2 Ted: I don’t know. There’s nothing girly about a horse. Nothing girly about a horn, but put them together and you get a unicorn. S02E04QLFL2 At the bar, knowing that Ted was meeting up kickboxing instructor, Robin as Ted’s girlfriend seemed not to freak out because she thought she didn’t have to listen Ted’s boring stuff. 1 Robin: It’s awesome. It’s win-win. Ted got to vent and I don’t have to hear it. Maybe after he’s done with the talkie-talk, he’ll come over and I’ll get the fun part. 2 Lily: What is wrong with you? God, I felt like I’m teaching love as a second language here. As appeared in the excerpt S02E05QLFL3, according to Robin, “Girly” was a fine word to describe although it seemed to be unreasoningly and irrationally. To bear out Marshall’s understanding, Ted metaphorically uttered “I don’t know. There’s nothing girly about a horse. Nothing girly about a horn, but put them together and you get a unicorn.” The use of qualifiers “I don’t know” was uttered by Ted as a dispreferred response upon Marshall’s perception of having brunch. It signaled that Ted was not sure. As was known, in the time, there was a wide-held social stigma that two males walking together was a lover. By exemplifying two male friends as a horse and a corn, and the unicorn as the effeminacy, he expected Marshall to grasp the inference. The same account occurred in the excerpt 45 S02E04QLFL2. In the situation, Robin who was supposed to get panic after hearing the bad news about his boyfriend behaving oppositely as if nothing occurred. From Lily’s view, Robin seemed to know less about how to be in a relationship. To express her emotion, Lily exaggerated that teaching Robin a love had the same obstacle with teaching a second language. Besides, in that situation, Lily implied that love had some similar characteristics of second language. In another word, Lily took the metaphor a second language to a love. However, those utterances were not intended to mislead the hearer. The speakers expected the hearers to infer the implied meaning Levinson, 1983, p. 110. With his metaphor to effeminate behavior of Marshall’s brunch invitation, Ted was trying to tell that Marshall and his male friend would look similar to a cute couple if they went to brunch. Ted did not assure pretty well, yet he felt uncertain. The fashion of Ted’s utterance to response Marshall’s inquiry, however, in terms of CP, constituted flouting maxim of quality Essay, 2013. 3 Delivering sarcastic tone Delivering sarcastic tone in the collected data was discovered to be the case of flouting maxim of quality, described as follows: S02E09QLFL4 1 Marshall: She’s pretty a private person. 2 Lily: Except when she’s talking about… visualization about Robin telling her friend’s marriage stuff 3 Ted: So you don’t think there’s any ‘friend’ from Canada? 4 Marshall: Oh, I’m sure there is. Just like I have a ‘friend’ who wet his bed till he was ten. Use your brain Ted. As appeared in the excerpt above, Marshall flouted maxim of quality by delivering sarcastic tone Essay, 2013. The occurrence of the account was expressed not apart from the situation which Ted was facing at the time. The privacy 46 issues about Robin’s past life in Canada brought out some presumptions from her friends. In the view of Ted’s perspective, it was abstruse situation. Some of friends casted their premature judgment about Robin’s past life which might be possible as the underlying reasons why she did not want to go to a mall. Marshall suggested Ted a hint that Robin was married at the mall. Ted with his incredulous feeling, then, clarified the possibility that Robin casted ‘friend’ to tell her past life in Canada. Subsequently, Marshall uttered 4 “Oh, I’m sure there is. Just like I have a ‘friend’ who wet his bed till he was ten. Use your brain Ted.” The dispreferred token “Oh, I’m sure there is.” in his utterance proceeded dispreffered turn of Marshall. In his utterance, Marshall expected Ted to draw the inference that ‘friend’ was Robin herself. The fashion of Marshall uttering the exchange was intended to deliver sarcastic tone which required to be inferred oppositely Levinson, 183, p. 110.

b. Flouting Maxim of Quantity

This category chanced when the speaker blatantly gave more or less information than was required in the situation, the speaker usually flouted this maxim as the speaker provided insufficient words in the conversation. In other words, the speaker gave incomplete words when the speaker was speaking Leech, 1983, p. 140. The utterance at the level of face value was non informative, but it was informative at the level of what was implicated. Its implicature was implied when the speaker or the writer conveyed messages that were less informative or the information which was too much and unnecessary. 47 There were nineteen 19 excerpts in which the flouting located at this maxim. Two sub maxims of quantity were discovered to be flouted. Firstly, maxim of quantity was flouted by contributing less informative information. 1 Providing less information S02E09QNFL6 In Ted’s room, Robin and Ted was having a chat before they slept. 1 Robin: And who gets trapped under a fake boulder at the mall? 2 Ted: Not me in Ohio when I was nine, that’s for sure. In the excerpt S02E09QNFL6, the conversation occurred when Robin and Ted were going to sleep in Ted’s bed. In the middle of their talk, Robin changed the topic which Ted allowed the transition. As apparent in the excerpt above, Robin questioned Ted about who got trapped under a fake boulder at the mall “Fake boulder”. Ted’s response to Robin’s inquiry was subsequently defensive. Robin’s question might be a trap for Ted to answer, yet she expected her partner to take the question as a genuine question. By the false presupposition, Ted had the exchange boundaries. Rather than answering “I don’t know”, he followed Robin’s inquiry with “Not me in Ohio when I was nine, that’s for sure.” Through his utterance, Ted expected Robin to grasp the additional meaning beyond than his utterance. At the time when he was nine, he knew somebody got trapped under a fake boulder at the mall in Ohio, but he got no idea who exactly the person was. He also emphasized that he was not the person who carelessly got trapped. Ted’s utterance from the level of what he uttered was non informative, but it was informative at the level of what Ted tried to imply Leech, 1983, p. 140. Ted’s utterances, in terms of CP, however, constituted flouting of the maxim of quantity. 48 2 Giving other information Furthermore, the situation in which the speaker gave other information than required resulted to flout maxim of quantity. S02E07QNFL7 Robin found out that her favorite look of Ted was unfortunately made-up and aimed to appealed people. 1 Robin: I love that look, I think I slept with you because of that look. -- And it’s fake? 2 Ted: Oh, and you biting your lower lip, shyly looking away and thrusting your chest out is natural? The excerpt above illustrated Ted flouted maxim of quantity. In the exchange of Robin’s inquiry, Ted did not give the information exactly as was required. However, he did not evade current topic or to make new topic. He aimed to place Robin at the same situation and position so that Robin could infer what he tried to imply. Ted’s utterance was not informative at the level of face value but it was informative at the level of what Ted implied Leech, 1983, p. 140. 3 Giving more information In addition, the maxim of quantity in this research was resulted from the situation in which the speaker gave more information than it was required Leech, 1983, p. 140. The following excerpt would suffice to explain how the maxim of quality was flouted by the character. S02E22QNFL16 Ted and Robin were in a confusion whether or not to tell Marshall due to the fact that Lily moved on. 1 Robin: He’s just starting to get better, going out with Barney. I mean, how do you think he’s going to feel when he hears Lily’s moved on? 2 Ted: She’s moved on? 3 Robin: It happens. I’ve fallen out of love faster than that before, sometimes, boom, with no warning whatsoever. One day we’re in love, the next day, he’s dead to me. -- But we’re great, honey. In the conversation above Robin failed to observe the maxim of quantity. The conversation occurred when Robin and Ted were talking about the fact that