Frick: Seven- I’ve been wondering if it was because she never had any.
Leroy: No. That’s not it.- you don’t have any? Frick: No. we kept putting it off and then it got too late, and firt thing
you know … it’s just too late.
35
Frick answers Leroy’s question clearly and orderly. It can be seen in how Frick answers the question. He is not only just answering the question
but also in the way he is also making the statements in the dialogue not with obscurity expression, briefly and orderly through the utterance of ‘no’. Frick
focuses in the way how it being explained.
D. The disobedience of the cooperative Principle
Listener and speaker sometimes fail to follow the rules; it means that they break the cooperative principle. At this stage, they fail to fulfill a maxim in some
ways:
1. He may quietly and unostentatiously violate a maxim.
If the speaker does it, it will make the listener have a wrong idea. If the did not pay attention on what the speaker said, he may have a different
understanding. For example:
A: I am out of petrol
35
Miller, Arthur 1995, op.cit. 451. line 10-15
B: There is a garage round the corner.
36
On the conversation above B would be breaking the rule of maxim ‘be relevant’ if the listener does not pay an attention to what he said.
2.
He may opt out from the operation both of the maxim and of the Cooperative Principle
. On this case, the speaker can be said that he or she unwillingly to
cooperate in the way the maxim requires. For example:
I cannot say more; my lips are sealed.
37
The speaker, in the dialogue above, does not try to contribute in making an effective communication. This happens because of the speaker tries not to
follow the rule and disobeys one of the maxims that are the maxim of quality. The speaker does not have a good willing to cooperate in the way how and
what maxim of quality requires being not to say what it lack adequate evidence.
3. He may be faced by a clash another maxim.
The speaker is unable to fill one of the maxims and he turns to violate the other maxim. It can be said that when speaker giving a statement then he may
not contribute in the requirement fulfillment of the first maxim and somehow got a clash with the second maxim.
For example:
36
Grice, H.P 1975, op. cit. 51
37
Grice, H.P 1975, op. cit. 49
Women are women.
38
Here the speaker cannot be said such remarks are totally uninformative, infringe the first maxim of Quantity but this is because of the utterance above
give what is said lack of adequate evidence, it also clash with the maxim of quality.
4. He may flout a maxim.
Here, the speaker is able to completing the maxim and to do it without violating another maxim. It actually fails to contribute the maxim but it is
being exploited. For example:
Patricia: … I don’t know what …fall in love with the God. I think I have already.
39
It is because of the sophisticated of the poet and some internal evidence made the sentence flout the maxim of manner. On the dialogue the speaker
tries to say how she really gives her attention to God but because of the imperative mood and emotion. Later, she exploited the maxim of manner. The
statement of ‘in love with God’ caused an ambiguity, using the obscurity expression and it tends to exploit the maxim of manner.
E. Context
