CONVERSATIONAL MAXIMS OF AUTISM CHILDREN.

i

ABSTRACT

Limbong, Kristin Natalia. Registration Number: 8136112041. Conversational Maxims of Autism Children. Thesis: English Applied Linguistic Program, Postgraduate School, State University of Medan, 2017.

This research deals with the conversational maxim of the autistic children in SLB Yapsi Tebing Tinggi. The objectives of the research were to find out the types of conversational maxims used by the autism childrenand to describe the reasons of conversational maxims used by the autism children in the way they are. This research conducted by the qualitative research. The data were obtained by observing the autistic children and recording the utterances of the autistic children’ conversation. The data collected were analyzed by applying interactive models of Miles and Huberman. The location of the research was in SLB Yapsi Tebing Tinggi. The subject of the research were four autistic children. The result of the study are the observance maxim and non observance maxim occurred in autistic children’s conversation except suspending maxim. The observance maxims are (1) Quantity maxim, (2) Quality maxim, (3) Relevant maxim, (4) Manner maxim. The non- observance maxims are (1) Flouting maxim, (2) Violating maxim, (7) Infringing maxim, (8) Opting out maxim. The reasons of the autistic children’s conversation occurrences are the combination of (1) The theory of mind ability; (2) Executive function ability; (3) The linguistic deficit.

ABSTRAK

Limbong, Kristin Natalia. Registration Number: 8136112041. Conversational Maxims of Autism Children. Thesis: English Applied Linguistic Program, Postgraduate School, State University of Medan, 2017.

Kajian ini berkaitan dengan maksim percakapan anak autis di SLB Yapsi Tebing Tinggi. Tujuan dari kajian ini adalah untuk mengetahui jenis maksim percapakan yang digunakan oleh anak autis, dan alasan yang menyebabkan anak autis menggunakan maksim percakapan dengan cara mereka sendiri. Kajian ini menggunakan desain penelitian kualitatif. Data didapatkan dengan mengobservasi anak autis dan merekam percakapan anak autis. Data yang sudah dikumpulkan dianalisis dengan menggunakan model interaktif Miles dan Huberman. Lokasi penelitian dilakukan di SLB Yapsi Tebing Tinggi. Subjek dari kajian ini adalah empat orang anak autis. Hasil dari penelitian ini adalah anak autis dapat menghasilkan maksim observance dan maksim non- observance kecuali maksim suspending. Jenis- jenis maksim observance yang ditemui adalah (1) Kuantitas, (2) Kualitas, (3) Relevansi, (4) Cara. Jenis maksim non- observance adalah (1) Flouting, (2) Violating, (7) Infringing, (8) Opting out. Alasan anak autis menghasilkan maksim percakapan adalah kombinasi dari (1) teori pemikiran; (2) fungsi eksekutif; (3) defisit bahasa.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

In the name of Almighty, the most gracious and merciful, all praises for His mercy and guidance to bless the writer so this thesis entitled “Conversational Maxim of Autism Children” could be completed. Blessing and peace be upon our prophet Muhammad SAW who has brought human being to the better life.

This thesis is conducted to fulfill of the requirements for the degree of Magister Humaniora at the English Applied Linguistics Study Program, Postgraduate Schoold of State University of Medan. This thesis could not be completed without a great deal of help of many people. In accomplishing this thesis, the writer would like to extend her deepest gratitude for her beloved parents, Bapak (Sahat Limbong, S.Pd), and mamak (Arta Sitorus, S.Pd) for their endless love, prays, motivations, and financial support and her beloved sister (Silvia Nurhafiza) who had given great inspiration in accomplishing this thesis. She is nothing without all of you.

Her enormous gratitude and best appreciation are expressed to both of her advisers, Prof. Dr. Lince Sihombing, M. Pd and Dr. Didik Santoso, M. Pd who had spent precious time in giving suggestions, encouragement, guidance, advices until this thesis comes to its due time.

The writer’s appreciation also goes to all lecturers who have given her the valuable knowledge and science during her study at the English Applied Linguistics Study Program of Postgraduate School, State University of Medan. In particular, she addresses her gratitude also to Dr. Rahmad Husein, M.Pd, the Head of English Applied Linguistics Study Program, Dr. Anni Holila Pulungan, M.Hum, the secretary of English Applied Linguistics Study Program. The Administration staff (Farid), for his assistance in the administrative procedures.

She is also deeply grateful to all her sisters and her brothers and family. Furthermore, she would like to express her gratitude to her best friends (Willy Andika, Erikayani Sembiring, Yuswita, Sukma Angraini, Khaulah and Sumayyah), and LTBI Unimed Group and friends that can not mention for sharing ideas and developing friendship.

The writer realizes that this thesis is far from being perfect. Therefore, the writer expects some suggestions and critics for this thesis. At last, the writer hopes that this thesis will be useful for all.

Medan, January 18th, 2017 The Writer,

Kristin Natalia Limbong Reg. No. 8136112041

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract ... i

Acknowledgement ... iii

Table of contents ... v

List of Tables ... vii

List of Diagram ... viii

List of Appendices ... ix

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ... 1

1.1.The Background of the Study ... 1

1.2.The Problem of the Study ... 6

1.3.The Objectives of the Study ... 6

1.4.The Scope of the Study ... 6

1.5.The Significance of the Study ... 6

CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW ... 8

2.1. Conversational maxim ... 8

2.2. Types of Maxim ... 9

2.2.1. Observance of Maxim ... 11

2.2.2. Non- Observance of Maxim ... 14

2.3. Autism Children ... 17

2.3.1. Pragmatic Deficitss of Autism children ... 20

2.4. Reasons of Conversational Maxim ... 22

Occurrences 2.5. Relevant Studies ... 25

2.6. Conceptual Framework ... 27

CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ... 29

3.1. Research Design ... 29

3.2. Data and Sources of Data. ... 29

3.3. Instrument of Data Collection ... 30

3.4. Technique of Data Collection ... 30

3.6. Trustworthiness ... 32

CHAPTER IV DATA ANALYSIS, ... 34

RESEARCH FINDINGS, DISCUSSION 4.1 Data Analysis ... 34

4. 1.1 Data Collection... 34

4. 1.2 Data Condensation ... 34

4. 1.3 Data Display ... 37

4. 1.4 Drawing Conclusion / Verifying ... 38

4. 1.5 The conversational maxim occurrence of autistic children... 39

4.1.5.1 Observance Maxim ... 39

4. 1.5.2 Non Observance Maxim ... 47

4.1.6 The Reasons of The Autistic children’s Conversational Maxim Occurrences ... 55

4.2 Research Findings ... 72

4.3 Discussion ... 72

CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION ... 76

5.1 Conclusions ... 76

5.2 Suggestions ... 76

REFERENCES ... 78

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Page Table 4.1.2.3 The Conversational Maxims of Autism Children ... 36 Table 4.1.4 The Percentage of The Autism ... 38

Children’s Conversational Maxims

Table 4.1.5 List of Data Used for finding in 4.1.2.1 ... 54 Table 4.1.6 The Summary of Reasons for …….…….…….…….… 70 The Autistic Children’s Conversational Maxim Occurrences

LIST OF DIAGRAM

Page

Diagram 3.1 Miles and Huberman’s Interactive Models ... 31 Diagram 4.1.3 The Conversational Maxims of Autism Children ... 37

ix

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A Data I ... 81

Appendix B Data I... 112

B Data II... 124

CHAPTER I

1.1 The Background of the Study

The speakers and listeners always make efforts to contribute efficiently when they partake in conversation in order to achieve the purpose. In achieving the purpose, the conversation should have direction. Grice considered this by proposing conversational maxims to set the mechanism of conversation in order to make the speaker and listener understand each other based on which people interpret others’ utterances.

Conversational maxims are a set of rule in conversation between speaker and the listener as Chapman (2000:131) says that conversational maxims are the areas in which conversational partners cooperate. The speaker and the listener cooperate during conversation by delivering his/ her intention for speaker and interpreting the speaker’s intention for the listener so that the communication becomes effective. Therefore, understanding conversational maxims is fundamental for smooth communication, and conversational maxims which are shared in society may contribute to mutual understanding during conversation.

Sometimes the listener misunderstands what the speaker says. This can occur if the speaker does not say something directly what he/ she means. When the speaker does not say what he/ she means, it means he/ she implies the meaning. It can be understood if the listener can misunderstand the speaker’s utterance because sometimes what the speaker means is different with what speaker says.

2

Therefore Thomas (1995: 63) divided conversational maxims into two types, they are Observance maxims and Non-Observance maxims. Observance maxims are the speaker and listener observe or obey the maxims during conversation. Meanwhile, non-observance maxims are the speaker and listener disobey the maxims during conversation.

Conversational maxim is not a challenge to the majority of normal people because they have intact pragmatic language skills. However for a significant number of people like Austim Spectrum Disorder (ASD) children, conversational maxim is difficult to be understood. Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) is known as developmental disorder characterized by atypical deficit in social, communicative and cognitive functioning.

American Psychiatric Association (1994) defines autism as a pervasive developmental disorder which is characterized by impairments in communication and social interaction and restricted, repetitive and stereotypic patterns of behavior, interests and activities, less frequent and varied speech acts, difficulty in making appropriate judgments about how much/little to say in conversational responses, problems in taking another’s perspective in conversation.

Autism children lack of the cognitive and linguistic skills which take the listener from a decoded utterance to what the utterance means in a particular context so that they have poor topic maintenance, preservation with language, failure to signal turn taking, etc.

SLB Yapsi Tebing Tinggi is an elementary school for children with special needs and children who need special attention such as autism children, low

3

functioning children, hyperactivity disorder children and learning disability children. This school educates these children to be independent in doing their activities and help them to develop their potential. The researcher chose SDLB Yapsi as the data because this school manages the class based on the children’s severe such as children with mentally retardation will be in a class, children with autism will be in a class so on. Furthermore autism children at this school are able to communicate with others.

The researcher observed autism children during learning activities in this school. The following is an example that researcher found at SDLB Yapsi Tebing Tinggi. An autism child did not obey conversational maxim. In Bahasa Indonesia lesson, the teacher asked Yoga about daily life as follows:

T: Y di mana kita buang sampah? Y: Bu buang sampah.

T: Y di mana kita buang sampah? Y: Buang sampah.

The example above shows Yoga disobeyed conversational maxim. When the teacher asked where he should throw the trash, he misunderstood by repeating his teacher’s words. Realizing he misunderstood with the question, the teacher repeated the question to make it clear. Nevertheless he still gave wrong answer by repeating his teacher’s words.

Furthermore, some previous studies about conversational maxim performance of autism children support the communication characteristic of autism children which are deficit in communication especially in identifying the conversational maxim. These previous studies found that autism children are not able to perform conversational maxim successfully.

4

Baron-Cohen et al (1996) tested three different groups of children, one of the group is autism children. They found that, autism children offered extra information that is known to the listener. Here examiner asked Jane about breakfast: Examiner: What did you have for breakfast?

Jane : A hard boiled egg cooked in hot water in a saucepan.

In this example, Jane answered overly precise to the question. She added extra information that was already known. She must not add “cooked in hot water in a saucepan”. It was enough to say “A hard boiled egg”.

Perkins (2007:231) tested an autism child by playing guessing game. Here he found that the child had difficult to draw the conclusion to the clue as follows:

Adult: this is something to help you travel, to go places on and it’s got wheels.

Child: car

Adult: and it’s got a seat to sit on, and it’s got a handlebar, and only one person can ride on it.

Child: wheelchair

Adult: and it’s got pedals. It’s got two wheels and pedals and a seat and a handlebar and one person can ride it.

Child: wheelchair

When the adult generally gave the first clue, the child could understand by answering car but because the child could not get enough with the clue, then the adult gave another clue. On the second clue, the child misunderstood that seat with handlebar and only one person ride on it was wheelchair. On the third clue, the adult gave specific clue but the child still could not answer it. Here the child was hard to draw conclusion of the clue given even the adult had give specific term.

5

Ghani (2010:90) did research about conversational skill of autism teenager. He found that Y (the autism teenager) always lost his focus in conversation as follows:

M: What did you have for breakfast? Y: wang (money)

M: What did you have for breakfast this morning? Y: I see……

M: No,not I see. Say “I had ……….. “ Y: I had………….

M: nasi lemak, chicken…. Y: nugget, egg

In this example, Ghani explained that Y knew “money” is not food; and he knew that M wanted to know what he had at the school canteen. M continued asking Y until he was able to tell what he had for breakfast. So, in order to obtain the truth from Y, the conversational partner had to ask him several times because he got distracted and always lost his focus in a conversation.

Based on these phenomena, the researcher is interested to investigate the conversational maxim of autism children in SLB Yapsi Tebing Tinggi. This research observed the occurrence of autistic children’s conversational maxim which is involved the observance and non- observance maxim.

6

1.2 The Problem 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 maxims are used by the autistic children? 2. Why are the conversational maxims used in the way they are?

1.3 The Objectives of the Study

In accordance with the problems of the study, the objectives of this research are:

1. To find out the types of conversational maxims used by the autism children. 2. To give the reasons of conversational maxims used by the autism children in

the way they are.

1.4 The Scope of the Study

The scope of this study is limited into conversational maxim in autism children. The data is limited to the Indonesian words that produced by autism children at SLB Yapsi Tebing Tinggi. The aspects of the study are the occurrences of observance and non-observance in maxims proposed by Grice.

1.5 The Significance of the Study

The findings of this study have two general significances, namely theoretical and practical significance.

1. Theoretically, this study enriches the theory of pragmatics especially in the conversational maxims.

7

2. Practically, the findings of this study could be used for further research and sort of guidelines for the teachers and parents who directly involve in this area, in order to be able to guide autism children to create good understanding in daily conversation.

76 CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

5.1 Conclusions

Based on the analysis, the conclusions were stated as the following:

1. The observance maxim and non observance maxim occur in autistic

children’s conversation except suspending maxim. The observance

maxims are (1) Quantity maxim, (2) Quality maxim, (3) Relevant maxim, (4) Manner maxim. The non- observance maxims are (1) Flouting maxim, (2) Violating maxim, (7) Infringing maxim, (8) Opting out maxim.

2. The reasons of the autistic children’s conversation occurrences are the combination of (1) The theory of mind deficit; (2) Executive function deficit; (3) The linguistic deficit.

5.2 Suggestions

In relation to the conclusions, suggestions are offered as the following:

1. Since the subjects of this study were limited to the autistic children, it is suggested that further research focuses on autistic teens or adults in order to have further data or finding which may support or weaken the findings of the present study.

2. Based on the place of the research, this study is focused on school environment which the communication was limited on the autistic children to the teacher and vice versa, it is suggested to the further researcher to do

77

research at home to get deeper findings of autistic children’s conversation with their member family.

3. The teacher and parents should keep teaching the autistic children how to have proper conversation because actually they can answer the conversational partner’s question but it is different from the way normal people do.

78

REFERENCES

Ahlsén, E. (1993). Conversational principles and aphasic communication.

Journal of Pragmatics, 19, 57–70.

Alberta Learning. (2003). Teaching students with autism spectrum disorder.

Retrieved from http://education.alberta.ca/media/511995/autism.pdf

American Psychological Association (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th Edition). Washington DC: APA.

Baron-Cohen, et al. 1996. Are Children with Autism Deaf to Gricean Maxims?.”

Cognitive Neuropsychiatry. Vol. 1: 55-71

Baron-Cohen, S., Leslie, A & Frith, U. 1985. Does the autistic child have a theory of mind? Cognition, 21, 37-46

Baron-Cohen. 1985. Autism and Asperger Syndrome (The Fact Series). UK:

Oxford University Press.

Belkadi, A. (2006). Language impairments in autism: evidence against

mind-blindness. SOAS Working Papers in Linguistics, 14, 3-13.

Bogdan, R. C., & Bigden, S.K. 2014. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook (3rd _{ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage}

Brasoveanu, A. 2006. Conversational Implicatures The Basics. New Jersey:

Rutgers University

Brown and Yule. 1983. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University.

Chapman, S. 2000. Philosophy for Linguistics. London: Routledge.

Cummings, L. 2009. Clinical Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University.

Denzin, N. K, & Lincoln,Y. S. 1994. Introduction: entering the field of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dirks, A. 2012. Critical Review: In Children with Nonverbal Autism Spectrum Disorder, does the Picture Exchange Communication System Facilitate Speech?.University of Western Ontario.

Eigsti, I., Bennetto, L., & Dadlani, M. B. (2006). Beyond pragmatics:

Morphosyntactic development in autism. Journal of Autism & Developmental

79

Ghani, C. A. A. 2010. Conversational Skills of An Autistic Teenager: A Pragmatic

Analysis. Unpublished Thesis. Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya

Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Chapman, S. 2000. Philosophy for

Linguistics. London: Routledge.

Grundy, Peter. 1995. Doing Pragmatics. In Saragih, L.N.D. 2014. Flouting

Maxims in Beautiful Creatures Script. Unpublished Thesis. Medan: State University of Medan.

Hubberman, M. &Miles, M.B. 1984. Qualitative Data analysis : A Source book of

New Methods. Beverly Hills : Sage.

Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lincoln, Y. S, & Guba, E. G. 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Loukusa S, Leinonen E, Jussila K, Mattila ML, Ryder N, Ebeling H, Moilanen I.

2007. Answering contextually demanding questions: Pragmatic errors

produced by children with Asperger syndrome or high-functioning autism. Journal of Communication Disorders 40(5):357-381.

Lucas, E. V. (1980). Semantic and Pragmatic Language Disorders. Assessment

and Remediation. London: An Aspen.

McNeill, D. 1992. Hand and Mind: What Gestures Reveal About Thought.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Mukaro, Laston. et al. 2013. Violation of Conversational Maxims in Shona. JCLC,

2, 161-168.

Pamungkas, Mayu. 2014. A Grice’s Cooperative Principle Analysis Of A Person

With Autistic Spectrum Disorder (A Case Study Of A 20 Year-Old Male With Asd In Slbc Sumbersari Bandung). Unpublished Thesis: Indonesia University of Education

Perkins, M. 2007. Pragmatic Impairment. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Philofsky, A., & Hepburn, S. Pragmatic Language Profiles of School-Age

Children With Autism Spectrum Disorders and Williams Syndrome. American Journal of Speech Language Pathology. Vol. 16. N.p.: American Speech-Language Hearing Association, 2007. 368-80.

Sethupathy, I. (2007). A case study of communication deficits of an autistic boy.

MA Thesis. Universiti Malaya.

80

Tager-Flusberg, H., Paul, R., & Lord, C. (2005). Language and Communication in

Autism. New York: Wiley&Sons.

Thomas, J. 1995. Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics.

Longman.

Traxler, Matthew J. 2011. Introduction to Psycholinguistics: Understanding

Language Science.United Kingdom: Wiley-Blackwell

Tupan, anneke H. and Helen Natalia. 2008. The Multiple Violations of

Conversational Maxims in Lying Done by the Characters in Some Episodes of Desperate Housewives. A Biannual Publication on the Study of Language and Literature, Vol.10 (1), pp.63DOAJ

Wallace, Charlsey. 2011. Pragmatic Language Development in Young Children

with ASD. The Ohio State University.

Wing, L, Gould, J, Yeates, S.R., & Brierley, L.M. (1977). Symbolic play in severely mentally retarded and in autistic children. Journal of Child Psychology and psychiatry, 18, 167 178.

2. Practically, the findings of this study could be used for further research and sort of guidelines for the teachers and parents who directly involve in this area, in order to be able to guide autism children to create good understanding in daily conversation.

76 CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

5.1 Conclusions

Based on the analysis, the conclusions were stated as the following:

1. The observance maxim and non observance maxim occur in autistic children’s conversation except suspending maxim. The observance maxims are (1) Quantity maxim, (2) Quality maxim, (3) Relevant maxim, (4) Manner maxim. The non- observance maxims are (1) Flouting maxim, (2) Violating maxim, (7) Infringing maxim, (8) Opting out maxim.

2. The reasons of the autistic children’s conversation occurrences are the combination of (1) The theory of mind deficit; (2) Executive function deficit; (3) The linguistic deficit.

5.2 Suggestions

In relation to the conclusions, suggestions are offered as the following:

1. Since the subjects of this study were limited to the autistic children, it is suggested that further research focuses on autistic teens or adults in order to have further data or finding which may support or weaken the findings of the present study.

2. Based on the place of the research, this study is focused on school environment which the communication was limited on the autistic children to the teacher and vice versa, it is suggested to the further researcher to do

research at home to get deeper findings of autistic children’s conversation with their member family.

3. The teacher and parents should keep teaching the autistic children how to have proper conversation because actually they can answer the conversational partner’s question but it is different from the way normal people do.

78

REFERENCES

Ahlsén, E. (1993). Conversational principles and aphasic communication. Journal of Pragmatics, 19, 57–70.

Alberta Learning. (2003). Teaching students with autism spectrum disorder. Retrieved from http://education.alberta.ca/media/511995/autism.pdf

American Psychological Association (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th Edition). Washington DC: APA.

Baron-Cohen, et al. 1996. Are Children with Autism Deaf to Gricean Maxims?.” Cognitive Neuropsychiatry. Vol. 1: 55-71

Baron-Cohen, S., Leslie, A & Frith, U. 1985. Does the autistic child have a theory of mind? Cognition, 21, 37-46

Baron-Cohen. 1985. Autism and Asperger Syndrome (The Fact Series). UK: Oxford University Press.

Belkadi, A. (2006). Language impairments in autism: evidence against mind-blindness. SOAS Working Papers in Linguistics, 14, 3-13.

Bogdan, R. C., & Bigden, S.K. 2014. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook (3rd _{ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage}

Brasoveanu, A. 2006. Conversational Implicatures The Basics. New Jersey: Rutgers University

Brown and Yule. 1983. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University. Chapman, S. 2000. Philosophy for Linguistics. London: Routledge.

Cummings, L. 2009. Clinical Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University. Denzin, N. K, & Lincoln,Y. S. 1994. Introduction: entering the field of qualitative

research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dirks, A. 2012. Critical Review: In Children with Nonverbal Autism Spectrum Disorder, does the Picture Exchange Communication System Facilitate Speech?.University of Western Ontario.

Eigsti, I., Bennetto, L., & Dadlani, M. B. (2006). Beyond pragmatics: Morphosyntactic development in autism. Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders, 37(6), 1007-1023.

Ghani, C. A. A. 2010. Conversational Skills of An Autistic Teenager: A Pragmatic Analysis. Unpublished Thesis. Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya

Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Chapman, S. 2000. Philosophy for Linguistics. London: Routledge.

Grundy, Peter. 1995. Doing Pragmatics. In Saragih, L.N.D. 2014. Flouting Maxims in Beautiful Creatures Script. Unpublished Thesis. Medan: State University of Medan.

Hubberman, M. &Miles, M.B. 1984. Qualitative Data analysis : A Source book of New Methods. Beverly Hills : Sage.

Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lincoln, Y. S, & Guba, E. G. 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA:

Sage.

Loukusa S, Leinonen E, Jussila K, Mattila ML, Ryder N, Ebeling H, Moilanen I. 2007. Answering contextually demanding questions: Pragmatic errors produced by children with Asperger syndrome or high-functioning autism. Journal of Communication Disorders 40(5):357-381.

Lucas, E. V. (1980). Semantic and Pragmatic Language Disorders. Assessment and Remediation. London: An Aspen.

McNeill, D. 1992. Hand and Mind: What Gestures Reveal About Thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Mukaro, Laston. et al. 2013. Violation of Conversational Maxims in Shona. JCLC, 2, 161-168.

Pamungkas, Mayu. 2014. A Grice’s Cooperative Principle Analysis Of A Person With Autistic Spectrum Disorder (A Case Study Of A 20 Year-Old Male With Asd In Slbc Sumbersari Bandung). Unpublished Thesis: Indonesia University of Education

Perkins, M. 2007. Pragmatic Impairment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Philofsky, A., & Hepburn, S. Pragmatic Language Profiles of School-Age Children With Autism Spectrum Disorders and Williams Syndrome. American Journal of Speech Language Pathology. Vol. 16. N.p.: American Speech-Language Hearing Association, 2007. 368-80.

Sethupathy, I. (2007). A case study of communication deficits of an autistic boy. MA Thesis. Universiti Malaya.

Sinaga, M. (2013). The Non-Compliance with the Principle of Cooperation and the Political Implication: A Pragmatic Review. Asian Social Science, 9, 12.

Tager-Flusberg, H., Paul, R., & Lord, C. (2005). Language and Communication in Autism. New York: Wiley&Sons.

Thomas, J. 1995. Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. Longman.

Traxler, Matthew J. 2011. Introduction to Psycholinguistics: Understanding

Language Science.United Kingdom: Wiley-Blackwell

Tupan, anneke H. and Helen Natalia. 2008. The Multiple Violations of Conversational Maxims in Lying Done by the Characters in Some Episodes of Desperate Housewives. A Biannual Publication on the Study of Language and Literature, Vol.10 (1), pp.63DOAJ

Wallace, Charlsey. 2011. Pragmatic Language Development in Young Children with ASD. The Ohio State University.

Wing, L, Gould, J, Yeates, S.R., & Brierley, L.M. (1977). Symbolic play in severely mentally retarded and in autistic children. Journal of Child Psychology and psychiatry, 18, 167 178.