CONVERSATIONAL MAXIM VIOLATIONS IN SATU INDONESIA TALK SHOW PROGRAM ON NET TV.

CONVERSATIONAL MAXIM VIOLATIONS IN SATU INDONESIA TALK SHOW PROGRAM ON NET TV

A Thesis

Submitted to the English Applied Linguistics Study Program in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Magister Humaniora

BY:

DEWI SUHARTINI SINAGA REGISTRATION NUMBER: 8136111013

ENGLISH APPLIED LINGUISTICS STUDY PROGRAM

POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL

STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN

MEDAN

ABSTRACT

Sinaga, Dewi Suhartini. Conversational Maxim Violations in Satu Indonesia Talk Show. A Thesis. English Applied Linguistics Study Program. Post Graduate School. State University of Medan. 2016.

This study was aimed at examining the violations of conversational maxim in Satu Indonesia talk show. The objectives of this study were to examine the types of conversational maxim violations occurred in the talk show, to examine the realization of conversational maxim violations, and to elaborate the reasons of those types of conversational maxim violations occurred the ways they were. This study was conducted by descriptive qualitative method. The source of data was Satu Indonesia talk show. There were 44 episodes of Satu Indonesia talk show in 2014 which were consisted of 14 politics, 15 economics, and 15 socials. Then, the utterances of host and guests in 3 episodes of politics (Net- Anismatta, Net- Marzuki Ali, Net-Ganjar), 3 episodes of economics (Net- Ciputra, Net- Hatta Rajasa, and Net- Gita Wiriawan), and 3 episodes of social (Net- Tririsma, Net- Ridwan Kamil, and Net- Ignatius Jonan) were the data of this study. The technique of data collection was documentary technique and the instrument of data collection was recorder. The technique of data analysis was interactive model by Miles and Huberman (2014). The findings showed that all conversational maxim violations (quality maxim violation, quantity maxim violation, manner maxim violation, and relevance maxim violation) occurred in Satu Indonesia talk show with different proportion. The violations were mostly found in the topic of politics than in the topics of economics and the topics of social. Quality maxim was dominantly violated in topic of politics and quantity maxim violation was dominantly violated in the topic of economics and social. Realizations of conversational maxim violations were realized through understatement, overstatement, contradiction, sarcasm, metaphor, associative clues, presupposition, personification, synecdoche, and analogy. Reasons for conversational maxim violations were to hide the truth, to save face, to feel jealous, to build one’s belief, to convince the hearer, to launch an attack, to highlight attention, and to avoid conflict.

ABSTRAK

Sinaga, Dewi Suhartini. Pelanggaran Bidal Percakapan dalam Acara Satu Indonesia di Net TV. Tesis. Program Studi Linguistik Terapan Bahasa Inggris. Sekolah Pasca Sarjana. Universitas Negeri Medan. 2016.

Penelitian ini ditujukan untuk mengetahui pelanggaran bidal percakapan dalam topik yang berbeda pada acara Satu Indonesia di Net TV. Tujuan penelitian ini adalah untuk menemukan jenis-jenis pelanggaran bidal percakapan yang terjadi dalam talk show, menemukan bentuk realisasi pelanggaran bidal percakapan, dan menemukan alasan pelanggaran bidal percakapan itu terjadi dengan cara seperti itu. Penelitian ini dilaksanakan dengan metode kualitatif. Sumber data adalah acara Satu Indonesia. Ada 44 episod dari Satu Indonesia sepanjang tahun 2014 yang terdiri dari 14 topik politik, 15 topik ekonomi, dan 15 topik sosial. Kemudian, ujaran-ujaran dalam percakapan antara pemandu acara dan tamu dalam 3 episod topic politik (Net- Anismatta, Net- Marzuki Ali, Net-Ganjar), 3 episod topic ekonomi (Net- Ciputra, Net- Hatta Rajasa, and Net- Gita Wiriawan), and 3 episod topic sosial (Net- Tririsma, Net- Ridwan Kamil, and Net- Ignatius Jonan) menjadi data dalam penelitian ini. Teknik pengambilan data adalah teknik dokumenter dan instrument pengambilan data adalah perekam. Teknik analisis data adalah model interaktif oleh Miles dan Huberman (2014). Penemuan penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa keempat tipe pelanggaran bidal percakapan terjadi dalam talk show tersebut dengan proporsi yang berbeda. Pelanggaran bidal percakapan dalam topik politik lebih banyak ditemukan daripada topik ekonomi dan sosial. Pelanggaran bidal percakapan kualitas paling banyak ditemukan dalam topik politik dan pelanggaran bidal percakapan kuantitas dalam topik ekonomi dan sosial. Bentuk realisasi lain yang ditemukan adalah pemberian minim informasi, pemberian terlalu banyak informasi, kontradiksi, sarkasme, metafora, prasangka, personifikasi, sinekdoke, dan analogi. Alasan-alasan pelanggaran bidal percakapan adalah untuk menyembunyikan kebenaran, menyelamatkan muka, merasa iri terhadap sesuatu, membangun rasa percaya seseorang, meyakinkan pendengar , mengancam orang lain, menarik perhatian pendengar dan menghindari konflik.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The greatest thanks are given to The Almighty God, my savior Jesus Christ for the entire great things He has done to the writer life in completing this thesis. In the completion of this thesis, the writer wishes to acknowledge her deepest gratitude for all generous guidance and assistence which has been given to her by a lot of people.

The highest appreciation goes to her first adviser Prof. Dr. Sumarsih, M. Pd. and her second adviser and Dr. I. Wayan Dirgayasa T, M .Hum for all of their guidance through the completion of this thesis.

Her gratefulness also goes to the Head of English Applied Linguistics Study Program, Dr.Rahmad Husein, M.Ed., and to Prof. Dr. H. Abdul Muin Sibuea, M.Pd, the Director of Postgraduate School at State University of Medan. who have assisted her in the requirement of administration process during the study in the Post Graduate Program of State University of Medan.

The writer’s great thanks also goes to her reviewers or examiners, Prof. Dr. Busmin Gurning, M.Pd., Prof. Amrin Saragih, M.A., Ph.D., and Dr. Siti Aisah Ginting, M.Pd. for their suggestions, criticisms, opinions, and improvements to this thesis. The writer also would like to express her thanks for all lectures who teach her during the academic years of LTBI.

Her deepest gratitude and incredible appreciations are presented to her beloved parents, Alm Drs. Kosben Sinaga and Salonta Sitorus, her beloved brother, Tito Sardita Sinaga S. Kom, and also her beloved sisters, Mustika Sari Sinaga, SE, and Lusiana Tifany Sinaga for their sincere prayers, love, and support during her academic years in completing her study.

Then, her gratitude goes to her friends as well (Adinda, Decy, Eka Rejeki, Eka Surya, and Vista), and all friends in LTBI A2 XXIII who had given encouragement in writing this thesis. Her thank also dedicated to Bang Farid for his kindness at helping administration of LTBI.

Finally, may this thesis be useful for everyone who needs it, and the construction criticism are expected from the readers.

Medan, January 2016 The writer,

Dewi Suhartini Sinaga Reg.Num.8136111013

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Pages

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ... i

ABSTRACT ... iii

ABSTRAK ... iv

TABLE OF CONTENT ... v

LIST OF TABLES ... viii

LIST OF FIGURES………ix

LIST OF APPENDICES ... x

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ... 1

1.1. The Background of the Study ... 1

1.2. The Problems of the Study ... 5

1.3. The Objectives of the Study ... 5

1.4. The Scope of the Study ... 6

1.5. The Significances of the Study ... 6

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE ... 8

2.1 Theoretical framework... 8

2.1.1. Conversation ... 8

2.1.2. Conversation Analysis ... 12

2.1.3. Conversational Implicature ... 14

2.1.4. Conversational Maxim Violations …………..17

2.1.4.1 Maxim of Quantity ... 18

2.1.4.2 Maxim of Quality ... 20

2.1.4.3 Maxim of Relevance ... 21

2.1.4.4 Maxim of Manner ... 22

2.1.5.Realizations of Conversational Maxim Violation ... 24 2.1.6 Reason for Conversational Maxim Violation 28 2.1.7. The Differences of Conversation in talk Show

and Natural Conversation ……… 31

2.1.8 Talk Show ... 33

2.1.9 Satu Indonesia Talk Show Program on Net TV ... 35

2.2. Relevant Studies ... 36

2.3. Conceptual Framework ... 38

CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHOD ... 42

3.1 Research Method ... 42

3.2 Data and Source of Data ... 43

3.3 Technique and Instrument of Data Collection ... 43

3.4 Trustworthiness of the Study ... 43

3.6 Techniques of Data Analysis ... 46

CHAPTER IV DATA ANALYSIS, FINDINGS, AND DICUSSIONS 49 4.1 Data Analysis ... 49

4.1.1 Types of Conversational maxim violations Occurred in Satu Indonesia Talk Show ... 50

4.1.1.1 Quality Maxim Violation Occurred in Satu Indonesia Talk Show ... 51

4.1.1.2. Quantity Maxim Violation Occurred in Satu Indonesia Talk Show ... 53

4.1.1.3 Manner Maxim Violation Occurred in Satu Indonesia Talk Show ... 56

4.1.1.4 Relevance Maxim Violation Occurred in Satu Indonesia Talk Show ... 58

4.1.2 Realization of Conversational maxim violations Occurred in Satu Indonesia Talk Show ... 60

4.1.2.1 Realization of Quality Maxim Violations ... 61

4.1.2.2 Realization of Quantity Maxim Violations ... 63

4.1.2.3 Realization of Manner Maxim

Violations ... 66

4.1.2.4 Realization of Relevance Maxim Violations ... 68

4.1.3 The Reason of Conversational maxim violations in Satu Indonesia Talk Show ... 73

4.1.3.1 To Hide the Truth ... 74

4.1.3.2 To Save Face ... 76

4.1.3.3 To Feel Jealous ... 77

4.1.3.4 To Build One’s Belief ... 77

4.1.3.5 To Convince the Hearer ... 78

4.2 Findings ... 81

4.3. Discussions ... 82

CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS……….85

5.1 Conclusions ... 85

5.2 Suggestions ... 86

LIST OF TABLES

Pages Table 2.1 Techniques for Establishing Trustworthiness ... 44 Table 4.1 The Percentage of types of Conversational Maxim Violations

in Satu Indonesia Talk Show ... 50 Table 4.2 The Realizations of Conversational Maxim Violations

in Satu Indonesia Talk Show ………...60 Table 4.3 The Reasons of Conversational Maxim Violations

in Satu Indonesia Talk Show ………73

LIST OF FIGURE

Pages Figure 2.1 Conceptual Framework of the Study ... 41

LIST OF APPENDICES

Pages

Appendix 1: The Transcription of Satu Indonesia Talk Show ... 90 Appendix 2 : Matrix Form of Data Analysis ... 145

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

1.1The Background of the Study

Conversation is one pivotal part of human communication that is used to deliver information between speaker and listener and allowed them to synchronize a wide range of action with others. It means that conversation allows us to share information, express opinions, create and support social relationship, and persuade others. For example, in workplace settings, conversation is used by employees to make plans, exchange ideas, make decisions, and evaluate products. In school settings, conversation is used for sharing, exposure to new information, and stimulating creativity work (Rocci, 2008).

Conversation may also be mediated such as when electronic technology is used for speech or text (Brennan, 2010). It means that conversation is not only happened naturally but also can be mediated through some electronic technology as media of communication such as television, radio, and etc. The greatest medium that is widely used as the medium of communication and can be found almost in all society is television.

Net TV is one of the latest private television stations which also broadcast various programs such as news, sports, music, talk show, and etc. It broadcasts

some talk show programs such as Ini Talk Show, Sarah Sechan, Tonight Show,

Satu Indonesia, etc.

Satu Indonesia is a talk show program which is aired on Sundays at11.30 p.m.

The talk show is chosen to be the source of data in this study due to some reasons. First, the talk show is familiar and always discusses hot issues related to politics, economics, and social. It is proved by winning Asian TV Awards. Second, the guests who are invited in talk show are famous and professional in their field such as politicians, practitioners, and academicians. Last, talk show is mostly viewed by society in Indonesia.

In talk show, conversation also incorporates topic nomination, turn taking, negotiation of meaning, etc (Markee & Kasper, 2004). In negotiation of meaning, speaker and listener try to construct meaningful conversation. To be meaningful, conversation is guided by a spirit of cooperation as what the language philosopher H.P. Grice has termed as conversational maxims which consist of maxim of quantity, quality, relevant, and manner. These conversational maxims are the principles for speaker and listener to show their cooperation by giving appropriate contribution in their conversation. When appropriate contributions are given in the conversation, obedience of conversational maxim is occurred.

However, people do not always obey Grice maxims in their conversation. The disobediences of Grice maxims are known as violations which is the condition where the speakers do not purposefully fulfill certain maxims (Tupan & Natalia, 2008). The speaker and listener violated the maxim of quantity where they are not

informative as required, violate the maxim of quality where they are not truthful, violated maxim of relevance where they are become irrelevance, and violated maxim of manner where they are become umbiguous. Violations of conversational maxims contain implicature. Violations of conversational maxims in politics, economics, and social topics can be seen in the examples below.

MA : Yang namanya pengabdian sebagai menteri ternyata ada umurnya juga pak. Kalo kita lihat misalnya pak GW. Beliau memilih mundur sebagai menteri dan fokus ikut konvensi demokrat. Bapak termasuk yang pro atau yang kontra?

‘What we call devotion as minister also has limit. We can see Mr. GW for example. He chooses to resign as minister and focus to participate in the convention of demokrat. You are in pro or contra?’

HR : Orang mempunyai pilihan –pilihan sebagaimana saya juga memiliki

pilihan. Barangkali untuk pak gita itu yang terbaik. Beda-beda mbak

dan bukan berarti dalam perbedaan itu ada yang salah ada yang benar. Ini soal prinsip.

‘People have choices as I also have choice. Perhaps for Mr. Gita, that is the best. It is different and it does not mean in the diference that is wrong or right. This is a matter of principle’

(episode:Net-HR)

In answering the question from the host (MA), the guest (HR) violate maxim of quality as HR conveys information with lack of evidence by using word “barangkali” which is similar to “perhaps” or “ possibly” in English. It can be seen that HR does not surely conveys whether he supports or refuses GW resign from minister as one of the choices is not chosen by the guest. Quality maxim violation is found in politic topics.

M :Tapi ada batas nggak pak Ci kira-kira? Habis kalo misalnya kita orang

Jakarta. Ya ampun pak dari Jakarta timur, utara, barat, pusat, semuanya itu penuh mall. Ada nggak sih batasan dimana ini udah cukup? kalo nggak overload.

‘But, is there any limit Mr. Ci? For example, for Jakarta people start from east, north, west, and central Jakarta are full of mall. Is there any limit when this is enough? If it is not, it will be overload.’

C :Prinsipnya market ekonomi. Market yg menentukan. Anda sekarang

berbelanja, anda kan mencari yang terbaik. Anda kan nggak bisa dipaksa. Harus ada keseimbanganlah. Dengan jalan keseimbangan itu kita bertumbuh bersama. Seperti begini, orang Indonesia berteriak perumahan rakyat tidak ada. Hanya bangunan mewah. Nah tugas perumahan rakyat itu tugas siapa?

‘The principle is market. It depends on market. You are now shopping, you will find the best. You cannot be forced. There must be balance. With this balance, we grow together. For example, Indonesian people shouts for having no public housing. Only Luxury residence. Who is responsible for public housing?’

(episode: Net-Ciputra)

In answering the question from the host (MA), the guest (C) violates maxim of relevance as he conveys information unmatched with the questions being asked. It can be seen as C talks about public residence when he is asked about overload supermarket building. Relevance maxims violation is found in economy topic.

MA :Ibu juga adalah salah satu orang yang nggak mau kota Surabaya

dibanjiri papan reklame sampai ada orang yang nggak senang sama ibu. Mungkin mereka dirugikan sampai akhirnya mereka mengatakan kita makzulkan aja ini si TR. Tanggapan ibu tentang papan reklame dan pemakzulan ini?

‘You are one of those who do not want Surabaya full of billboard that make some people dislike you. Perhaps, they felt disadvantage and they say we will depose TR. What is your response for this impeachment?’

TR :Sebetulnya saya melihat selama ini ada cost yang diterima seseorang.

Itu dari reklame, gitu kan. Saya kepingin cost yang diterima seseorang itu di kembalikan ke pemerintah kota dengan demikian saya bisa bangun. Gitu maksud saya.kemudian kedua masalah wajah kota, kalo itu disusun rapi, reklame itu bisa jadi indah sebetulnya. Kalo kita bisa kompromi untuk menata kota,saya yakin itu bisa menjadi sesuatu yang indah.

‘Actually, I see there has been cost accepted by someone. It is from billboard, isn’t it? I want cost accepted by someone is returned to the government. Then, I can build. That’s what I mean. Second problem is the face of the city. If it is arranged tidily, billboard can be beautiful actually. If we can compromise to organize the city, I’m sure that it could be something beautiful’

(episode:Net- TR)

In answering the question from the host (MA), the guest (TR) violate maxim of manner as it is unclear who is “ seseorang” (someone who accept the cost). Violation of manner maxim is found in social topics. Those phenomena above have shown that conversational maxim violations potentially occurred in Satu Indonesia talk show.

In regarding to the explanations above, this study is aimed at describing the occurrence of conversational maxim violations in Satu Indonesia Talk Show on Net TV.

1.2 The Problems of the Study

In line with the background of the study, the problems of the study are formulated as the following.

(1) What types of conversational maxim violations occur in Satu

Indonesia Talk Show Program on Net TV?

(2) How are the conversational maxim violations realized in Satu

(3) Why are the conversational maxim violations realized in the way they are?

1.3 The Objectives of the Study

The overall objectives of the study can be described as the following. (1) To find out the types of conversational maxim violations occurred in

Satu Indonesia Talk Show Program on Net TV.

(2) To find out realization of conversational maxim violations in Satu

Indonesia Talk Show Program on Net TV.

(3) To find out the reasons for realization of conversational maxim violations in Satu Indonesia Talk show Program on Net TV.

1.4 The Scope of the Study

With reference to previous explanation, conversational maxims not only take place in daily conversation but also in the talk show on television. This study attempts to investigate the conversational maxim violations in Satu Indonesia talk show on Net TV which shown the conversation between host and guest. The aspects will be observed are the occurrences of conversational maxim violations

in Satu Indonesia talk show on Net TV with conversational maxims proposed by

Grice (1975).

The findings of the study are expected to be useful and relevant theoretically and practically. Theoretically, the results of this study are useful for

(1) the enrichment of linguistic knowledge in the field of pragmatics especially in conversational maxims, and

(2) to widen horizon in the theory of pragmatics especially in conversational maxims.

Practically, the results of this study are useful for

(1) as a reference for other researchers who are interested in conducting researches or any further studies in pragmatics area especially conversational maxims,

(2) speaker and listener in understanding implied meaning behind conversational maxim violations in order to be successful in exchanging information, building harmonious communication, and creating good relationship in daily communication, and

(3) television talk shows to be selective in broadcasting programs contained conversational maxims violations when discussing various topics as talk shows are the most popular and influential forms of television programming for society.

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

5.1 Conclusions

After analyzing the conversational maxim violations in Satu Indonesia talk show, the conclusions can be drawn as the following:

1. All conversational maxim violations occurred in Satu Indonesia talk show. They are quality maxim violation, quantity maxim violation, manner maxim violation, and relevance maxim violation.

2. Conversational maxim violations were realized in form of contradiction, sarcasm, metaphor, rhetorical question, overstatement, understatement, vagueness, overgeneralization, associative clues, and presupposition, synecdoche, analogy, and personification.

3. The reasons for conversational maxim violations were to hide the truth, to save face, to feel jealous, to build one’s belief, and to convince the hearer, to launch an attack, to highlight attention, and to avoid conflict. 5.2 Suggestions

Having seen the result of the study, the researcher would like to offer the suggestions as the following:

1. It is suggested to other researchers who are taking pragmatics or conducting research to find out more reason and realization of conversational maxim violations in other context.

2. It is advisable for speaker and listener in understanding implicature conveying behind conversational maxim violations to build harmonious communication

3. It is suggested politicians and practician to pay attention at the rules of conversational maxim as they share information not only for academies but also for common society.

REFERENCES

Brennan, S. E. 2010. Conversation and Dialogue. New York: Sage.

Bogdan, R. C. & Biklen, S. K. 1992. Qualitative Research for Education. Boston: Allyn and Bacon

Christoffersen, D. 2005. The Shameless Liar’s Guide. New York: Academic Press.

Cruse, D. A. 2000. Meaning Language: An Introduction to Semantic and Pragmatics. New York: Oxford University.

Denzin, N. K. & Lincon Y.S. 1994. Introduction: Entering the Field of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Grice, H. P. 1975. Logic and Conversation. New York: Academic Press.

Griffiths, P. 2006. An Introduction to English Semantics and Pragmatics. Edinburg: Edinburg University Press.

Hutchby, I. 2006. Media Talk: Conversational Analysis and the Study of

Broadcasting. Reviewed by Pentti Haddington, pp 185. Glasgow. Open

University Press.

Leech, G. 1980. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.

Levinson, S.1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lincon, Y & Guba. 1975. Naturalistic Inquiry. New York: Sage.

Markee, N. & Kasper, G. 2004. Classroom Talks: An Introduction. The Modern Language Journal. 88, 491-500.

Marrying, P. 2000. Qualitative Content Analysis. Forum : Qualitative Social Research

Miles M. B, & Huberman, A. M. 2014. Qualitative Data Analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Pangaro, P & Dubberly, H. 2008. Effective Conversation Design. America: IGI Global

Patton, M. Q.2002. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. Thousand oaks, CA: Sage.

Rahardi, K. 2005. Pragmatik. Jakarta: Erlangga.

Rocci, L. 2008. Handbook of Conversation Design for Instructional Application. America: IGI Global

Vallet, F. 2011. High-level TV Talk Show Structuring Centered on Speakers’ Intervension. New York: CRC Press.

Yule, G. 1996. Pragmatics. New York : Oxford University Press.

Tolson, A.2006. Media Talk: Spoken Discourse on TV and Radio. Edinburg: Edinburg University Press.

Hamadi, H .2009. Pragmatics: Grice’s Conversational Maxims Violation in The Responses of Some Western Politicians. Journal of College and Arts. . Retrieved on February 8th_{, 2015 at}

http://www.iasj.net/iasj?func=fulltext&aId=53089

Mazeland, H. 2006. Conversational Analysis. Netherland: Elsevier. Retrieved on March 28th, 2015 at

http://www.let.rug.nl/mazeland/ELL06maz.pdf

Mittel, J. 2003. Television Talk Shows and Cultural Hierarchies. Journal of Popular Film and Television. Retrieved on February 18th, 2015 at

https://justtv.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/talk-shows.pdf

Quaqlio, P.2009. Television Dialogue: The Sitcom Friends VS. Natural

Conversation. Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Retrieved on March 22th_{, 2015 at}

https://benjamins.com/#catalog/books/scl.36

Seedhouse, P. 2005. Conversational Analysis and Language Learning. Language Teaching. 38 (4), 165-187. Retrieved on February 18th_{, 2015 at}

http://www.novitasroyal.org/Vol_5_1/sert_seedhouse.pdf

Soqging, L. 2008. A Performative Perspective of Flouting and Politeness in Politic Interview. Journal of Theoretical Linguistics. 5 (2). Retrieved on May 8th_{, 2015 at}

http://www.skase.sk/Volumes/JTL12/pdf_doc/3.pdf

Talib, I. 2007. Grice’s Cooperative Principles. Journal of College and Arts. 50. Retrieved on February 18th_{, 2015 at}

Tekourafi, M. 2007. Socialising Grice: On Interlocutor’s Reason for Cooperating in Conversation. Retrieved on February May 22th_{, 2015 at}

http://faculty.las.illinois.edu/mt217/Terkourafi_COPiL_submission.pdf

Tennant, T. 2000. Talk Isn’t Cheap: A Brief History of the TV Talkshow. Retrieved on March 24th, 2015 at

http://www.iasj.net/iasj?func=fulltext&aId=53089

Tupan, A. H & Natalia, H. 2008. The Multiple Violations of Conversational Maxims in Lying Done by the Characters in Some Episodes of Desperate Housewives. 10, 63-78. Retrieved on February 18th_{, 2015 at} http://kata.petra.ac.id/index.php/ing/article/viewFile/16760/16741

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

5.1 Conclusions

After analyzing the conversational maxim violations in Satu Indonesia talk show, the conclusions can be drawn as the following:

1. All conversational maxim violations occurred in Satu Indonesia talk show. They are quality maxim violation, quantity maxim violation, manner maxim violation, and relevance maxim violation.

2. Conversational maxim violations were realized in form of contradiction, sarcasm, metaphor, rhetorical question, overstatement, understatement, vagueness, overgeneralization, associative clues, and presupposition, synecdoche, analogy, and personification.

3. The reasons for conversational maxim violations were to hide the truth, to save face, to feel jealous, to build one’s belief, and to convince the hearer, to launch an attack, to highlight attention, and to avoid conflict. 5.2 Suggestions

Having seen the result of the study, the researcher would like to offer the suggestions as the following:

1. It is suggested to other researchers who are taking pragmatics or conducting research to find out more reason and realization of conversational maxim violations in other context.

2. It is advisable for speaker and listener in understanding implicature conveying behind conversational maxim violations to build harmonious communication

3. It is suggested politicians and practician to pay attention at the rules of conversational maxim as they share information not only for academies but also for common society.

REFERENCES

Brennan, S. E. 2010. Conversation and Dialogue. New York: Sage.

Bogdan, R. C. & Biklen, S. K. 1992. Qualitative Research for Education. Boston: Allyn and Bacon

Christoffersen, D. 2005. The Shameless Liar’s Guide. New York: Academic Press.

Cruse, D. A. 2000. Meaning Language: An Introduction to Semantic and Pragmatics. New York: Oxford University.

Denzin, N. K. & Lincon Y.S. 1994. Introduction: Entering the Field of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Grice, H. P. 1975. Logic and Conversation. New York: Academic Press.

Griffiths, P. 2006. An Introduction to English Semantics and Pragmatics. Edinburg: Edinburg University Press.

Hutchby, I. 2006. Media Talk: Conversational Analysis and the Study of Broadcasting. Reviewed by Pentti Haddington, pp 185. Glasgow. Open University Press.

Leech, G. 1980. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.

Levinson, S.1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lincon, Y & Guba. 1975. Naturalistic Inquiry. New York: Sage.

Markee, N. & Kasper, G. 2004. Classroom Talks: An Introduction. The Modern Language Journal. 88, 491-500.

Marrying, P. 2000. Qualitative Content Analysis. Forum : Qualitative Social Research

Miles M. B, & Huberman, A. M. 2014. Qualitative Data Analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Pangaro, P & Dubberly, H. 2008. Effective Conversation Design. America: IGI Global

Patton, M. Q.2002. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. Thousand oaks, CA: Sage.

Rahardi, K. 2005. Pragmatik. Jakarta: Erlangga.

Rocci, L. 2008. Handbook of Conversation Design for Instructional Application. America: IGI Global

Vallet, F. 2011. High-level TV Talk Show Structuring Centered on Speakers’ Intervension. New York: CRC Press.

Yule, G. 1996. Pragmatics. New York : Oxford University Press.

Tolson, A.2006. Media Talk: Spoken Discourse on TV and Radio. Edinburg: Edinburg University Press.

Hamadi, H .2009. Pragmatics: Grice’s Conversational Maxims Violation in The

Responses of Some Western Politicians. Journal of College and Arts. . Retrieved on February 8th_{, 2015 at}

http://www.iasj.net/iasj?func=fulltext&aId=53089

Mazeland, H. 2006. Conversational Analysis. Netherland: Elsevier. Retrieved on March 28th, 2015 at

http://www.let.rug.nl/mazeland/ELL06maz.pdf

Mittel, J. 2003. Television Talk Shows and Cultural Hierarchies. Journal of Popular Film and Television. Retrieved on February 18th, 2015 at

https://justtv.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/talk-shows.pdf

Quaqlio, P.2009. Television Dialogue: The Sitcom Friends VS. Natural

Conversation. Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing Company. Retrieved on March 22th_{, 2015 at}

https://benjamins.com/#catalog/books/scl.36

Seedhouse, P. 2005. Conversational Analysis and Language Learning. Language Teaching. 38 (4), 165-187. Retrieved on February 18th_{, 2015 at}

http://www.novitasroyal.org/Vol_5_1/sert_seedhouse.pdf

Soqging, L. 2008. A Performative Perspective of Flouting and Politeness in Politic Interview. Journal of Theoretical Linguistics. 5 (2). Retrieved on May 8th_{, 2015 at}

http://www.skase.sk/Volumes/JTL12/pdf_doc/3.pdf

Talib, I. 2007. Grice’s Cooperative Principles. Journal of College and Arts. 50. Retrieved on February 18th_{, 2015 at}

Tekourafi, M. 2007. Socialising Grice: On Interlocutor’s Reason for Cooperating in Conversation. Retrieved on February May 22th_{, 2015 at}

http://faculty.las.illinois.edu/mt217/Terkourafi_COPiL_submission.pdf Tennant, T. 2000. Talk Isn’t Cheap: A Brief History of the TV Talkshow.

Retrieved on March 24th, 2015 at

http://www.iasj.net/iasj?func=fulltext&aId=53089

Tupan, A. H & Natalia, H. 2008. The Multiple Violations of Conversational Maxims in Lying Done by the Characters in Some Episodes of Desperate Housewives. 10, 63-78. Retrieved on February 18th_{, 2015 at} http://kata.petra.ac.id/index.php/ing/article/viewFile/16760/16741