ask for payment. She does not expect the answer like that. She wants to ask for her customer payment only because it is her job. The anger of the collector can be
seen from her retorting answer “Not as long as your name comes up on my computer screen” This answer has assertive function since it means to assert the
customer to pay his debt soon. She will not stop asking someone to fulfill his debt. That utterance violates maxim of quantity since she gives contribution more
informative than it is required. Actually the customer asks her not to call him in a day only. However, she gives long answer. She should answer yes or no to the
question “Are you free for date?” The utterance which violates maxim of quantity causes conversational
implicature. The inference of the violation above can be concluded that she asks the customer assertly to pay his debt soon in the bank. She asks him to be
responsible to his debt. That is why she keeps calling him everyday. The meaning of the customer question is the customer feels so bored and annoyed to have call
from her everyday. In the customer opinion, the collector does not have any job or any date with a man besides asking him to pay his debt. However, in the collector
opinion, the customer question is a date invitation. Therefore she is angry with him. Then she asserts the customer that she will never stop calling him until his
name comes up on her computer screen. In another word, she will not have free time with him until he fulfils his obligation to the bank.
3. Data 3
After I had a minor car accident, two friends organized a night out to cheer me up. Manage to put the matter out of my head and really
enjoyed myself. On the way home I happily got into a taxi and gave directions. “I know that address,” said the taxi driver. “Didn’t you
crash into my wife last week?”
The writer had a car accident last week. His friends want to cheer him up. His friend then invites him to go out in one night. After the writer and his friends
spend the night out, the writer wants to go home by a taxi. He then stops a taxi. After he has got into a taxi, he gives his address to the taxi driver. Beyond of his
expectation, the driver knows his address well. The driver even accused him of crashing into his wife last week.
From data 3, it can be seen that the taxi driver knows the writer address well. He even accused the writer of crashing into his wife in the accident last
week. The taxi driver believes that the person who has sitting in his taxi at the moment is the person who crashed into his wife last week. It can be seen from his
utterance “I know that address. Didn’t you crash into my wife last week?” The taxi driver utterance has assertive function which means to assert that the taxi
driver gets angry and knows well the address which is meant by the writer. That utterance violates maxim of quantity since she gives contribution more
informative than it is required. Actually the writer just asks the address. The taxi driver should answer the question from the writer informatively as required.
The utterance which violates maxim of quantity causes conversational implicature. The inference of the violation above can be concluded that the taxi
driver warns the man to be responsible with the accident that happens to the driver’s wife. The taxi driver knows well the address of the man who crashed his
wife a week ago. That is why the taxi driver accuses the passenger directly when his passenger mentions his address.
4. Data 4
A husband returning from a four-day hunting trip complains that he had lost his wedding ring.
“How did that happen?” asks the wife. “It’s your fault,” he replies, “I’ve been telling you that all of my
pockets have holes.”
A husband has been returning from four-day hunting. When he meets his wife, he complains that his wedding ring has gone. Then his wife asks him to tell
about that happening. The husband does not answer his wife question. He blames his wife for the lost of his wedding ring. He says that he loses his wedding ring
because his wife does not respond about the pocket that has holes. From data 4, it can be seen that the husband feels angry with his wife. He
is angry with his wife for her careless. His wife does not sew the pocket of his clothes. There are so many holes in his pocket. So he loses his wedding ring when
he goes hunting. The anger expression of the husband can be seen from his utterance “It’s your fault.” That utterance has assertive function since it means to
assert that he is angry to his wife. That utterance violates maxim of quantity because he gives contribution more informative than it is required. His wife just
asks him “How did that happen?” It is caused because she wants to know the happening of the lost of her husband wedding ring and wants to ask her husband
to explain it. The husband, however, gives long answer “It’s your fault. I’ve been telling you that all of my pockets have holes.”
The utterance which violates maxim of quantity causes conversational implicature. The inference of the violation above can be concluded that he really
gets mad knowing his wife does not respond his utterance. That utterance is an anger expression of his wife. He thinks that his wife is a careless person so she
does not sew all of holes of his pocket. Therefore it makes him lose his wedding ring. If only his wife respond his utterance, he will not lose his wedding ring.
5. Data 5
