Teh Violation Of Maxim Of Quantity In Stephenie Meyer's Eclipse

SKRIPSI

Submitted to fulfill one of the requirements of Sarjana Sastra Degree

SRI WAHYUNI KUSUMAWARDHANI NIM 63707011

ENGLISH DEPARTMENT FACULTY OF LETTERS

INDONESIA UNIVERSITY OF COMPUTER BANDUNG

viii ABSTRAK

Penelitian ini berjudul “The Violation of Maxim of Quantity in Stephenie Meyer’s Eclipse” disusun untuk menganalisis pelanggaran maksim kuantitas yang terjadi dalam novel Eclipse dan hal-hal yang berkaitan dengan pelanggran tersebut. Pelanggaran terjadi sebab penutur memberikan kontribusi yang kurang atau terlalu informatif dalam sebuah percakapan. Dalam skripsi ini akan dipaparkan pula konteks dominan yang mempengaruhi terjadinya suatu pelanggaran maksim kuantitas. Konteks tersebut meliputi konteks fisik, epistemik, linguistik dan sosial. Selain itu, tujuan dari penutur yang melanggar maksin kuantitas juga dianalsis dengan menggunakan teori tindak tutur. Dari analisis tidak tutur tersebut hasil pelanggaran maksim terhadap respon petutur juga dapat diketahui.

Dalam penelitian ini, penulis menggunakan metode deskriptif dalam mempresentasikan data dan analisis. Metode ini juga digunakan untuk mencapai hasil dari penelitian ini berdasarkan fakta yang ditemukan penulis yang ada dalam novel tersebut.

Hasil dari penelitian ini menunjukan bahwa terdapat konteks-konteks situasi yang dapat menjadi faktor penyebab terjadinya pelanggaran maksim kuantitas. Konteks tersebut adalah konteks pisik; topik yang sedang dibicarakan dan objek yang terlibat, konteks epistemik; latar belakang yang dimiliki penutur dan petutur, konteks lingustik; percakapan sebelumnya, dan konteks sosial; hubungan antar penutur dan petutur. Penutur yang melanggar maksim kuantitas cenderung ingin menyampaikan maksudnya secara tidak langsung, memiliki maksud tertentu dan memberikan saran pada petutur. Hasil dari pelanggaran maksim kuantitas dapat dikenali dengan respon petutur terhadap apa yang dikatakan penutur.

Kata Kunci: Pelanggaran, Maksim Kuantitas, Kurang Informatif, Terlalu Informatif

vii ABSTRACT

This research entitled “The Violation of Maxim of Quantity in Stephenie Meyer’s Eclipse” is provided to explain the analysis of violation of

maxim of quantity appearing in Meyer’s Eclipse novel and the things related to

the violation. The violation happens when the speaker gives whether less or more informative contribution in the conversation. The analysis is conducted to find out the dominant context that makes the violation, the purpose why the speaker violates the maxim of quantity, and the result occurring after the violating of maxim of quantity is conducted. The contexts involve in context of physic, epistemic, linguistics and social. Then, the purpose of the speaker violating the maxim of quantity and the result of the violation towards the hearer’s response can be achieved by analyzing the speech act.

To present the data and the analysis, the writer uses descriptive method. It is also used to reach the findings based on the fact that is found by the writer in the novel.

The results of the research show there are contexts of situations that can be the factor in violation of maxim of quantity. They are the context of physic; what the object and the speaker are talking about, context of epistemic; the background knowledge shared by speaker and hearer, context of linguistics; the previous utterance of the data, and context of social, the relationship between the speaker and hearer. The speaker often violates the maxim to suggest, mean and imply the message. The result of the violation can be recognized as how the hearer’s response on the speaker’s utterance.

ix

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This skripsi entitled “The Violation of Maxim of Quantity in Stephenie Meyer’s Eclipse” is finally finished to fulfill one of the requirements of Sarjana Sastra Degree. There are people who give a lot of encouragements in along the research is conducted. Due to that reason, with the respect, the writer will dedicate this Skripsi for them as follows:

1. Prof. Dr. Moh. Tadjuddin, M.A. as the Dean of Faculty of Letters of Unikom,

2. Retno Purwani Sari, S.S.,M.Hum. as the Head of English Department. Thank you for your encouragement you give. You always train the all students to be the better one,

3. Asih Prihandini, S.S., M. Hum., as the advisor I. Thank you for everything, thank you so much for spending time to revise my research, 4. M. Rayhan Bustam, S.S., as the advisor II. Thank you for your

suggestions and time to correct my research,

5. All lecturers in English Department of UNIKOM for giving the valueble experience. I am very grateful being the students of you all Furthermore, the write expects there is the benefit from this research for the readers who are interested in to delevop and complete this research.

Bandung, July 2011

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1. Background of the Study

Language has an important role in human social interaction as a main tool to communicate something. The language used may indicate the intention of someone through communicating a message. A speaker will produce some messages from language that encodes the message as its meaning; the message will be identified and composed by hearer. The communication may be successfully delivered when the hearer decodes the same message that the speaker encodes. It means the hearer has to recognize appropriately the speaker’s message. The phenomena existing in the conversation may be elaborated deeply in pragmatics; a term that comprehends why the speaker uses the language in particular ways and what the meaning actually beyond the utterance.

In the conversation, the speaker often means more than what he literally says. We need rules to govern the use of language since we cannot be expected to behave in reasonable ways without them. The philosopher H. P. Grice in Yule (1983:32) formulated a conversational implicature that one of the principles is Cooperative Principles. The principles are Maxim of Quality, Maxim of Quantity, Maxim of Relevance and Maxim of Manner.

McManis (1987:82) stated, we commonly receive inference from what speaker says according to the assumption that he is obeying the Cooperative Principles. This system of inference drawing is a kind of side effect of the maxims, maxims whose primary reason for being is regulate conversation.

It means that maxims can be the rules to know whether the speaker can be cooperative or not while he contributes the information in conversation.

A number of previous studies related to those maxims have been conducted by Trigia (2006), entitled “Analisis prinsip kerjasama dalam novel bloodline and the stars shine down karya sidney seldon”, Sitanggang (2007), entitled “Analisis Pelanggran Prinsip Kerjasama pada respon ujaran tag question dalam novel Marjorie Morningstar karya Herman Wouk”, and Susantie (2010) entitled “Analysis on the Violation of Maxim of Manner in Conversational Implicature appearing Stephenie Meyer’s Twilight.” However, the findings of these studies have not conducted specific aspect of violation in maxim of quantity. The first study was focused on the analysis of violation in cooperative principles and its implicature. The second was focused on the violation of cooperative principles in tag question cases, and the last one was focused on the violation of maxim of manner in conversational implicature.

To limit the research, the writer tries to describe the violation in maxim of quantity in the novel entitled “Eclipse” by Stephenie Meyer. Maxim of quantity is required to know whether the speaker gives the required contribution or not. Based on the above rules stated by Grice, the speaker may obey the maxim of quantity if he gives the appropriate contribution, not too much or too less. It becomes interesting to analyze the topic since in certain situation, the speaker whether conciously or unconciously, may violate the rule to reach a certain goal. As stated by Paltridge (2000:41) there are situations where we are required to violate one of these maxims, the writer tries to explain what contexts of situation

that influence the violation of maxim of quantity happen. The speaker can violate the maxim of quantity if giving more or less informative contribution to indicate something. The violation can occur in not only asking and answering situasion, but also in the common conversation such as making a statement. To complete the previous research, the writer will analyze the violation happening in declarative sentence in the conversational implicature.

2. Research Question

The research is intended to answer the questions as follows:

1. What is the dominant factor that makes the speaker violate of the maxim of quantity in Meyer’s Eclipse?

2. What are the speaker’s purposes in violating the maxim of quantity in Meyer’s Eclipse?

3. What are the results of the violation of maxim of quantity towards the hearer’s response?

3. Objectives

The objectives of the research are:

1. To find the dominant factor that makes the speaker violate the maxim of quantity in Meyer’s Eclipse.

2. To find the speaker’s purpose in violating the maxim of quantity in Meyer’s Eclipse.

3. To find the results of the violation of maxim of quantity towards the hearer’s response.

4. Significance to Knowledge

The research, a pragmatics study analyzing the violation of maxim of quantity in Meyer’s Eclipse, purposes to provide the specific knowledge about maxim of quantity in the conversation. Besides, the research may complete the previous related research. The writer hopes that those aspects can be useful for the readers who are interested in learning the cooperative principle of maxim of quantity.

5. Framework of the Theory

Cooperative principles are the concept of conversational implicature that refers to the inference of a hearer in comprehending what the speaker intends. It arises from hearer’s interpretation of the literal meaning of what speaker said the conversational principle and its maxims. Grice in Paltrigde (2000:39) stated some kinds of cooperative principle that must be assumed to be in conversation and some kinds of rules that can help us to get a certain interpretation of what the speaker says. If the rules are not obeyed appropriately, some indication to the contrary will be received.

In this research, the focus is one of coorperative principles, maxim of quantity. The explanation about the maxim can be known as follows;

1. Make your contribution as informative as is required

It means the contribution has to be revealed in an appropriate amount, not too much or too less. Paltridge (2000:41) stated, in the particular situations we are required to violate the maxim. It means there are the contexts that become the factor the violation of maxim of quantity happen while the conversation is conducted. Based on that fact, the writer uses the concept of context stated by McManis (1987:197) who divided the context into four subparts as follows;

1. Context of Physic: where the conversation takes place, what object are present, and what action is taking place.

2. Context of Epistemics: background knowledge shared by speaker and hearers.

3. Context of Linguistics: Utterance previous to the utterances under consideration.

4. Context of Social: The social relationship of the speaker and hearer.

Besides, to find out the speaker’s purpose violating the maxim of quantity, the writer uses the Grice’s theory in Yule (1983:31), “the term „implicature’ is used to account or what a speaker can imply, suggest, or mean, as distinct from what the speaker literally says.” To support analyzing the speaker’s purpose and the result of the violation, the writer also uses Austin’s theory about speech act as stated in Levinson (1983:236), there are three kinds of act occurring with any sentence or utterance, they are; locutionary act, illocutionary act, and perlocutionary act.

CHAPTER II

THEORETICAL REVIEW

2.1 Pragmatics

Pragmatics is one of linguistic branches elaborating the study in which the context contributes to the meaning. Besides, pragmatics can be a study how people understand a communicative act or speech act in a concrete speech situation or in a conversation. It means to achieve the meaning in the certain speech situation, the context has to be included and considered appropriately. As stated by Parret (1983:89), “pragmatic is the discipline which connects meaning and the signifying process with use in all kinds of context, with reasoning, and understanding.”

Basically, pragmatics and semantics have the similarity; they are concerned on how to deal with meaning. Richard in Trigia (2006:9) gave an opinion about the relation between Pragmatics and Semantics, “Pragmatics is sometimes contrasted with semantics, which deals with literal or sentence meaning: that is, meaning without references to users or purpose of communication.” Leech (1983:6), however, assumed the difference of them is that semantics traditionally deals with the meaning as a dyadic relation, whereas pragmatics deals with meaning as triadic relation. In other words, pragmatic is not only defined relative to the speaker and hearer but also to particular situations.

McManis (1988:197) also declared pragmatics cannot be separated from the context, “the study of the contribution of context to meaning... Pragmatics

concerns itself with how people use language within a context and why they use language in particular ways”. Besides, Brown and Yule (1983:26) also agree with the argument that pragmatics is very closed with the context, “..any analitic approach in linguistics which involves contextual consideration. Necessarily belongs to that area of language study called pragmatics.”

Furthermore, Murcia (2000:19) stated pragmatics is “...the study of relationship holding between linguistic forms and the human beings who use these forms”. It happens since human being is a part of linguistics, when somebody talked something to the others automatically; he was involved in linguistics term by his conversations.

To sum up, Pragmatics is a study exploring the relationship between people and meaning in communication by comprehending the contextual situation. It also explains the reason why people use language in particular ways by comprehending the contexts.

2.2 Context

Pragmatics is concerned with the meaning in relation to a speech situation that cannot be separated with the context. It means that context is relevant to the determination of what is said. The explanation of the context in the conversation can be helpful to find the goals of the speaker in utterance as stated by Leech (1983:13) “any background of knowledge assumed to be shared by speaker and hearer and which contributes to hearer’s interpretation of what speaker means by a given utterance”.

Besides, Djajasudarma (1994:29) argued “konteks dalam wacana dibentuk oleh berbagai unsur seperti situasi, penutur, petutur, waktu, tempat, adegan, topic, bentuk amanat, kode dan saluran.” It means whole aspects; situation, speaker, hearer, time, place, act, topic, message, code and genre, can be the features to understand the intention of the speaker in using language.

McManis (1988:197) defined the context into four parts:

1. Context of Physic: where the conversation takes place, what object are present, and what action is taking place.

For example, when a mother tells a bedtime story to her kids by reading the story book, mostly the situation takes place in the kids’ room a minutes before they are going to sleep in the night. The object is the telling of the story. In addition, the action is shown by the process of telling the story by the mother and the kids listen that story.

2. Context of Epistemic: background knowledge shared by speaker and hearers.

For example, the kids often feel lonely because their mother is a career woman who always go abroad every Monday till Friday. Their mother only reads the bedtime story in the weekend. That is the reason why the kids become happier in the weekend than in the weekdays.

3. Context of Linguistics: Utterance previous to the utterances under consideration.

For example, before telling about the bedtime story, the mother also asks about their activity they did in that day and shares the experience she got to the kids.

4. Context of Social: The social relationship of the speaker and hearer. For example, the relationship is between the mother and her kids.

2.3 Conversation

Coversation is an activity of social interaction that is influenced by social environment, as stated by Verschueren (1999:50) that conversation is interaction between two or more people as co-ordinate and collaborative social action. It is same as stated by Grice, conversation is a rational and cooperative activity when the participants can be cooperative between one and another.

Conversation is an activity of talking to somebody informally by giving a statement, opinion, idea, or everyday matters to reach certain goal. In other words, it can be a tool to exchange information between speaker and hearer by conducting oral interaction. However, in the conversation, there is not only to exchange the information, but also to express feelings to the others.

Besides, as stated by Richards in Trigia (2006:11) “conversation is seen as an activity which is directed to social goals (e.g. The establishment of roles, presentation of self) as well as the linguistics goals (communication meaning)”; conversation relates to linguistic field since there is a meaning beyond the communication in conversation. Sometimes the speaker does not deliver the meaning explicitly.

2.3.1 Conversational Implicature

In the conversation, the speaker may often mean to deliver the message implicitly in certain goals. He often expresses the meaning beyond the word used and it has to be understood by the hearer. Grice in Levinson (1983:101) stated that “....the concept of implicature, is essentially a theory about how people use the language.”

Implicature, according to Horn and Ward (2000:3), is a component of speaker meaning that constitutes an aspect of what is meant in a speaker’s utterance without being part of what is said. It means that when the speaker says something, the hearer may construct what the speaker says and then conclude what actually the speaker means. They also stated that (2000:6) conversational implicature derives from the share presumption that speaker and hearer are interacting rationally and cooperatively to reach a common goal.

The term of implicature can be used to know what exactly the purposes of the speaker using the language. As stated by Grice in Yule (1983:31), the purposes of the speaker can be known by analyzing the conversational implicature and the purposes are :

1. Imply

It means that the speaker expresses something indirectly by using inference.

For example :

X : I think I have to finish the assigment right now. Z : Ok. We’ll delay to go to Jakarta.

The possible inference of speaker X is that he doesn’t want to go to Jakarta by giving the statement that he has to finish the assigment in that time.

2. Suggest

It means that the speaker refers something or somebody for consideration.

For example :

A : My mother has to take a care in hospital.

B : I have a cousin who is a doctor in the bonafide hospital.

The possible inference is that B suggest A to take his mother to the hospital where B’s cousin works in.

3. Mean

It means that the speaker intends to do something. For example :

Y : I do not have a breakfast. Z : Let’s go.

The possible inference is that Z intends to invite Y to go to a place where they can have a meal.

The examples above are the conversational implicature where the speaker and hearer can be coorperative in inferring the message, although the messages are implicitly delivered.

2.3.1.1 Cooperative Principles

The message in a communication will be successfully delivered by speaker to hearer if they can build cooperation one and another. Even less, the speaker often means more than what he/she literally says and it is not easy to be comprehended by hearer. Grice argued some kinds of cooperative principles must be assumed to be in operation. Thus Grice (1983:32) stated the cooperative principles that have to be conducted appropriately, “Make your conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged.”

According to the cooperative principles above, Grice also stated the other cooperative principles where in common conversation, the speakers and hearers share the cooperative principles. The speakers shape their utterances to be understood by hearers. The cooperative principles involve four maxims: quantity, quality, relation, and manner. Speakers give enough and not too informative contribution: quantity. They are genuine and sincere, speaking the truth or facts: quality. The utterances are relative to the context of the speech: relation. Speakers try to present the meaning clearly and concisely, in order to avoid the ambiguity: manner as stated follows.

Maxim of quality:

Do not say what you believe to be false

Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence. Maxim of quantity:

Make your contribution as informative as is required (for the current purposes of the exchange).

Do not make your contribution more informative than is required. Maxim of relevant:

Be relevant. Maxim of manner:

Be perspicuous.

Avoid obscurity of expression. Avoid ambiguity.

Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity). Be orderly.

2.3.1.1.1 Maxim of Quantity

Quantity is about amount. Maxim of quantity means that speakers should be as informative as is required, that they should give neither too little information nor too much. Grice stated the rule of maxim of quantity as follows:

1. Make your contribution as informative as is required

2. Do not make your contribution more informative than is required.

The following conversation is the example of the conversation that the speaker and hearer obey the maxim of quantity by giving the required contribution.

Gail : how far you can run without stopping? Kim : twenty-four miles.

Gail : I guess you can’t run a whole marathon without stopping Kim : Nonsense, I’ve done it a number of times.

2.3.1.1.2 Violating the Maxim of quantity

If the speaker does not obey the maxim it means he/she has violated the maxim. In some cases, the speaker violates the maxim intentionally to certain purposes. When speaker gives more or less informative contribution than it is required, it can be said as violating the maxim of quantity. When someone

violates the maxim of quantity, there is a message implied which is wrapped in being economical with the truth.

a. Giving Less Informative Contribution

Some speakers like to point to the fact that they know how much information the hearer requires or can be bothered with. The speaker giving less informative contribution risk the hearer cannot be able to identify what he is talking about because of making not enough information. The following conversation is the example when the speaker violates the maxim of quantity by giving less informative contribution.

Ann : My sister is very clever. She always gets best score in the class. John : I don’t think so.

In above conversation, Ann violates the maxim of quantity because she does not give the informative contribution. She only says her sister without mentioning the specific information about her. The impact is that there is the misunderstanding between them. Actually, she has two sisters in her family. The older sister is studying in the university; she is very clever and the other one is still studying in the same school as Ann and John; she is very lazy. Ann does not mention that the sister they are talking about is the older one. Whereas John thinks that the sister she means is the young one.

b. Giving More Informative Contribution

The speaker who gives more informative contribution than the hearer needs risk boring them. However, by violating the maxim of quantity, the given statement can be the stronger, or more informative, that can be made in the situation, as shown in the following example based on Cook in Paltridge (2000:41).

Judge : “What did you do on Friday?”

Witness : “I woke up in bed. I was in bed. I was wearing pajamas. After lying still for a view minutes, I threw back the duvet., got out of bed, walked to the door of the bedroom, opened the door, switched on the landing light, walked across the landing, opened the bathroom door, went into the bathroom, put the basin plug into the plughole, turned on the hot tap, ran some hot water into the washbasin, looked in the mirror.”

In this case, the witness has violated the maxim of quantity in order to be truthful for explaining the facts. It means that the violation of maxim of quantity can be resulted in order to make the message more clearly delivered.

The violation of maxim of quantity is not always impacted to occur a misunderstanding between speaker and hearer. Sometimes the speaker has to

violate the maxim of quantity in some case. As stated by Cook in Paltridge (2000:41), there is a situation where someone has to violate the maxim.

Besides, the speaker is possible to violate more than one maxim in the same time, as stated by Tupan and Natalia (2008:64) and Levinson (1983:102) as shown in the following example.

A : Where’s Bill?

B : There’s a yellow VW outside Sue’s house

B’s contribution fails to answer A’s quaestion and seems to violate the maxim of quantity because B gives more informative contribution than A’s required. In addition, B’s contribution violates the maxim of relevant because B’s answer is not relevant with A’s question. However, in this research, the writer just focus on analyzing the violation of maxim of quantity accouring in the common conversation as making a statement.

2.3.2 Speech Act

In the conversation, as explained in the previous, the speaker can mean more than what he literary says to indicate something. Speech act is an utterance which has both a literal meaning and a particular illocutionary force. Austin in Levinson (1983:236) argues that there are three basic acts occurring in any sentence or utterance.

1. Locutionary Act

It is the utterance of a sentence with determinate sense and reference. It means it refers to the literal meaning of the actual words. For instead, if the speaker says “I sell some beautiful dresses”, the locutionary act is that there is someone selling some beautiful dresses.

2. Illocutionary act

It is the making of a statement, offering, promissing in uttering a sentence. Illocutionary is an act performed in saying something. In other word, it can be said as the intention of someone in saying the utterance. For example, if the speaker says “I sell some beautiful dresses”, the illocutionary act is that there is someone offering some beautiful dress to other.

3. Perlocutionary Act

Performing an act by saying something. It is the bringing about effects on the audience by means of uttering the sentence, such effects being special to the circumstances of utterance. It means that it refers to the effect of the speaker intention. For example, if speaker says “I sell some beautiful dresses”, the perlocutionary act is that there is someone buying his dresses.

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH OBJECT AND METHOD

The object of this research and the method used to analyze the data will be described in this chapter.

3.1 Research Object

The object of this research is the violation of maxim of quantity in Stephenie Meyer’s novel entitled Eclipse. The novel is the third book of the Twilight Saga, published by Hachette Book Group in 2007.

In this novel, Bella (human) is forced to choose between her love for Edward (vampire) and her friendship with Jacob (werewolf). She knows that whatever she chooses, it has the potential to ignite the ageless struggle between vampire and werewolf. She exactly cannot be separated from one of them. Edward, with his warm characteristic, is a man who makes Bella fall in love. Whereas Jacob is her close friend who can understand what she wants to do as an ordinary woman.

3.2 Research Method

This research is focused on finding out the factors and purposes why the violation happens. It is also used to find out the result of the violation itself. The writer uses descriptive method, as stated by Ratna (2006:53) “metode deskriptif analitik dilakukan dengan cara mendeskripsikan fakta-fakta yang kemudian

disusul dengan analisis”. The method describes the facts in the data then analyzes those aspects to reach the objectives of the research.

3.2.1 Data collection

The data of this research are collected through several steps. First, the writer comprehensively reads the Eclipse novel to find out the data. Then the data which violates the maxim of quantity are coded. After that, the coded data are classified based on the kinds of maxim of quantity. After classifying, the data are analyzed with the relevant theory to reach the objective of the research.

3.2.2 Data Analysis

This research focused on the violation of maxim of quantity in Eclipse novel is analyzed to answer the research questions; what the factors that make the speaker violate the maxim of quantity, what the purposes of speaker violating the maxim of quantity and what the result of the violation itself.

The writer analyzes the contexts of situation based on McManis theory. In analysing the context, the writer uses a table as the instrument to divide the context of situation appearing in the data. Then, the violation of maxim of quantity will be described by Grice theory about cooperative principle. After knowing the context of the data and the violation that happens in the data, the writer uses the theory of speech act stated by Austin. It analyzes the locutionary, illocutionary and perlocutionary act in the utterance to know the purposes of the speaker violating the maxim of quantity and the result of the violation towards the

response of the hearer. The writer illustrates the steps towards analyzing the data such as the example below.

Data 1

(1)Mr. Greene : “Mr. Cullens, I expect you to ask your friend to refrain from trespassing again.”

(2) Edward : “He’s no friend of mine, Mr.Greene, but I’ll pass along the warning”

(3)Mr. Greene : “I see.

(4) If you’re worried about any trouble, I’d be happy to...“ (5) Edward : “There is nothing to worry about, Mr. Greene. There won’t be any trouble.”

Analysis :

First, analyzing the contexts based on McManis’s theory:

Context of Physic The data shows the conversation between Mr.Greene and Edward when they are in the school. A minutes before they are talking, Jacob comes to the school to meet Bella. Edward does not like when he wants to meet her. Finally they get to longer heads.

Context of Epistemic In the school, Edward has perfect grades and he has no spotless record .

your friend to refrain from trespassing again.”

Edward : “He’s no friend of mine, Mr.Greene, but I’ll pass along thewarning” Mr. Greene : “I see.”

Context of Social Mr. Greene is Edward’s teacher. Since Edward is a good student, the relationship between Edward and Mr. Greene is quite good.

Second, analyzing maxim based on Grice’s theory:

There is the violation of maxim of quantity in utterance 4. Mr. Greene violates the maxim of quantity because he gives less informative contribution by not explaining what thing actually that makes him happy.

Third, analyzing speech act based on Austin’s theory:

The utterance 4 has the locutionary act; Mr.Greene knows well about Edward’s condition, Illocutionary act; Mr. Greene will help Edward if there is a trouble with Edward, perlocutionary act; Edward makes sure Mr.Greene if he is in a good condition.

Fourth, analyzing the purpose and the result of the speaker violating the maxim based on speech act analysis:

The purpose of Mr.Greene violates the maxim of quantity is to mean giving his hand if Edward has a problem in the school. In addition, the result of the violation that Edward can catch what he means although he does not explain his purpose clearly.

Conclusion:

According to the analysis of those aspects, the violation of maxim of quantity occurs in this data since the speaker, Mr. Greeny, gives less informative contribution in the conversation. Besides, there are the contexts of physic; the conversation takes places in the school, epistemic; Edward has the perfect grades and spotless record, linguistics; they are talking about the incident when Jacob quarrels with Edward, social; Mr. Greene and Edward has a good relationship since Edward is a good student, as the factors which influence the violation appears. However, the dominant factor that makes Mr. Greene violates the maxim is the conteet of social, since they are close as the teacher and his student who has a good track record when he studies. He violates the maxim of quantity to means that he will help Edward if he faces something wrong in the school. The full utterance that has to be conducted by Mr. Greene is “I’d be happy to help you.” In this case, Although violates the maxim of quantity, Edward can understand what Mr. Greene means.

CHAPTER IV

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS

In this chapter, the result of the research will be explained. The focus is on the violation of maxim of quantity occurring in the conversation where the speaker is in the common conversation such as making a statement. The data will be classified into three categories; the violation of maxim of quantity by giving less informative contribution, by giving more informative contribution and by giving both contribution. Then the classified data will be analyzed by relevant theory to reach the objective of this research.

4.1 Giving Less Informative Contribution Data 1

(1) Charlie : “...oh, yeah, you’ve got somemail. It’s by the stove.” ... (2) Bella : “Er, thanks. That was quick. I guess I missed the deadline

on that one, too. It’s open.” (3) Charlie : “I was curious.”

(4) Bella : “I’m shocked, Sheriff. That’s a federal crime.” (5) Charlie : “Oh, just read it.”

“Congratulation. Your first acceptance.” (6) Bella : “Thanks, Dad.”

(7) Charlie : “We should talk about tuition. (8) I’ve got some money saved up.”

(9) Bella : “Hey, hey, none of that. I’m not touching your retirement, Dad. I’ve got my college fund.”

(10) Charlie : “Some of these places are pretty pricey, Bells. I want to help. You don’t have to go all the way to Alaska just because it’s cheaper.”

(page:15)

Analysis:

The following table explains the contexts appearing in that data.

Context of Physic The above data shows the conversation between Charlie and Bella when they are talking about the first Bella’s acceptance in their home. The first acceptance comes from The University of Alaska. Context of Epistemic Bella is a senior high school student in the last

grade who will continue the study to the university. Charlie and Bella live in Forks. To add this context, there is also known that Alaska University is so far away, but the college fee is cheaper than that in Forks, the place they live now (p:16).

Context of Linguistics Charlie : “Congratulations,” “Your first acceptance.” Bella : “Thanks, Dad.”

Context of Social Bella is the only Charlie’s daughter. As single parent, he has the responsibility in caring Bella, Charlie want Bella to study in Forks since he can directly protect Bella. However, Bella does not want it.

According to the data and analysis of the contexts above, there is the violation of maxim of quantity that is shown in the utterance 4. In that utterance, Charlie gives less informative contribution since the situation shows that they are talking about University of Alaska, however, he does not mention that he saved up his money to defray Bella’s study in University in Forks, that is why he saved up money.

By comprehending the contexts, the utterance 8 has locutionary, illocutionary and perlocutionary act. The locutionary act is that Charlie saved money up. Illocutionary act is that he disagree if Bella study in Alaska University, he prefers Bella to study in Forks although the college fee is more expensive than that in Alaska. It is because he wants to protect Bella directly as the single parent. Perlocutionary act is that Bella does not want to make him worry about her college fee in Alaska University as shown in utterance 9. She thinks that she has enough money to study in Alaska without asking money from Charlie.

In other words, by violating the maxim of quantity, Charlie has the goal to reach a certain purpose, as shown in the analysis of speech act above. He indirectly implies that he disagrees if Bella studies in the University of Alaska. He

wants Bella to study in Forks, the place where they are living on, although he has to get his money saved up.

Furthermore, the violation of maxim of quantity stated by Charlie has the effect to Bella as the hearer. The effect is that there is misunderstanding between Charlie and Bella. The misunderstanding occurs since she has a hunch that Charlie will save up his money to pay her study in Alaska, whereas he only wants Bella to stay in Forks, although the cost is more expensive than study in Alaska.

To sum up, there is the violation of maxim of quantity in this data since Charlie in utterance 4 gives less informative contribution by not giving specific information about the purpose he save up the money to. Besides, there are the contexts of physic, epistemic, linguistics and social in that data. The context of physic; the topic they are talking about is Bella’s first acceptance, epistemic; there is the different background knowledge between Bella and Charlie, linguistic; Charlie does not mention the University where Bella is accepted, and social; Charlie wants to protect Bella directly. However, the dominant factor that makes Charlie violate the maxim is context of social since the context shows why he disagree if Bella studies in Alaska, he just wants to keep Bella safe by protecting her directly. He violates the maxim to imply that he prefers Bella to study in Forks than study in Alaska. In this case, the violation of maxim of quantity effect to Bella’s response as the hearer. Bella cannot catch what he means, so the misunderstanding happens between them. To avoid the misunderstanding, he should mention his reason that he saved up his money to defray Bella’s study in Forks.

Data 2

(1)Edward : “Bella’s no longer grounded?” (2) Charlie : “Conditionally. What’s it to you?” (3) Edward : “It’s just good to know.

(4) Alice has been itching for a shopping partner,

(5) and I’m sure Bella would love to see some city lights.” (6) Charlie : “No!”

(7) Bella : “Dad! What’s the problem?”

(8) Charlie : “I don’t want you goingto Seattle right now.” (9) Bella : “Huh?”

(10) Charlie : “I told you about that story in the paper ─ there’s some kind of gang on a killing spree in Seattle and I want you to steer clear, okay?”

(11) Bella : “Dad, ther’s a better chance that I’ll get stuck by lightning that the one day I’m in Seattle ─”

(12) Edward : “No, that’s fine, Charlie. I didn’t mean Seattle. I was thinking Portland, actually. I wouldn’t have Bella in Seattle, either. Of course not.”

(13) Charlie : “Fine.” (page:21)

Analysis:

The following table explains the contexts appearing in that data.

Context of Physic The data shows the conversation between Charlie and Edward where they are in Charlie’s house when they are talking about Bella’s punishment. In that time, Edward asks Charlie to allow Bella to hang out with Alice.

Context of Epistemic Charlie’s family lives in Forks where it is near from Seattle, a small city where there are many people are killed mysteriously. As a sheriff, Charlie is very worry if Bella goes to outside of Forks.

Context of Linguistics Edward : “Bella’s no longer grounded?” Charlie : “Conditionally,What’s it to you?”

Edward : “It’s just good to know. Alice has been itching for a shopping partner...”

Context of Social Charlie is Bella’s father. As the single parent, he is very overprotective in caring Bella. However, Bella does not like it anymore. Even more, after no longer grounded, she thinks that she has a right to go to the some places that makes her happy without Charlie’s prohibition at all, including shopping with Alice in the night. As her boy friend, Edward always knows what Bella loves in that situation,

although Charlie actually does not like Edward so much.

According to the data and analysis of the contexts above, there is the violation of maxim of quantity that is shown in Edward’s utterance 5. He violates the maxim of quantity because he gives less informative contribution in that utterance by not giving the specific statement what the city he exactly means.

By comprehending the context, in the utterance 5, there are locutionary act; Edward really knows what Bella loves. Illocutionary act is that Bella will enjoy to go to Portland city with Alice, it is shown by his statement that Bella will enjoy if she can be Alice’s shopping partner, even more she is no longer grounded. and perlocutionary act; Charlie does not allow Bella to go to Seattle city since there are so many people killed in Seattle so Charlie is very worried if Bella goes to there.

Based on that analysis, Edward violates the maxim of quantity to mean that he invites Bella to hang out to Portland with Alice because she is no longer grounded. As her boyfriend, Edward is impossible to invite Bella to Seattle since it is a city where many people are killed mysteriously.

In addition, the violation of maxim of quantity affects to Charlie’s response as the hearer. Charlie cannot understand what Edward means, as shown in the perlocutionary act above when Charlie directly claims that Edward will invites Bella to go to Seattle, but in the fact, he will invite bella to go to Partland. Charlie is very worried about Bella, especially if she wants to go to the some

places in the night. He also worried if the bad things happen to Bella, such as the mysterious embellishment in Seattle city.

Based on the analysis of those aspects above, there is the violation of maxim of quantity in the data since Edward gives less informative contribution in the utterance 5 because he does not mention the place he means by saying some city lights. Besides, there are the contexts of physic, epistemic, linguistics and social which influence the violation happens. The context of the physic; Charlie states that Bella is no longer grounded, epistemic; there is the different background knowledge between Charlie and Edward, linguistic; Charlie dislikes when Edward asks about Bella’s grounded since Charlie thinks that it is nothing to be known by Edward, Social; As her boyfried, he always wants to make Bella happy especially she is no longer grounded. However the dominant factor that makes Edward violates the maxim is the context of social since Bella and Edward have the inimate relation when they can understand what they want, but Edward and Charlie is not, Charlie always has the negative thinking about Edward since he dislikes him anymore. Edward violates the maxim of quantity because he means to invite Bella to hang out with Alice spontaneously. Then, the result of the violation of maxim of quantity causes misunderstanding between Edward as the speaker and Charlie as the hearer. To avoid the misunderstanding, Edward should mention the city, in this case Portland, so Charlie as the hearer can catch what exactly he means.

Data 3

(1) Bella : “I love him. Not because he’s beautiful or because he’s rich! I’d much rather he weren’t either one. It would even out the gap between us just a little bit─because he’d still be the most loving and unselfish and brilliant and the decent person I’ve ever met. Of course I love him. How hard is that to understand?”

(2) Jacob : “It’s impossible to understand.”

(3) Bella :“Please enlighten me, then, Jacob. What is a valid reason for someone to love someone else? Since apparently I’m doing it wrong.”

(4) Jacob :“I think the best place to start would be to look within your own species. That usually works.”

(5) Bella :“Well, that just suck! I guess I’m stuck with mike Newton after all.”

(6) Jacob :“I’m human.”

(7) Bella :“You’re not as human as Mike.” (page:110)

Analysis:

The following table explains the contexts appearing in that data.

Context of Physic The data shows the conversation between Bella and Jacob where they are in the ocean around Jacob’s

house. Jacob wants to know why Bella loves Edward very much and prefers to choose having the special relationship with Edward. Mike Newton is Bella’s friend. He is a human who loves Bella too.

Context of Epistemic Jacob is a warewolf. Edward is a vampire. They compete to get Bella’s love. Jacob always makes Bella sure that he is the best mate for her, but he always stated that Edward is the best one.

Context of Linguistics Bella :“I love him. Not because he’s beautiful or because he’s rich! I’d much rather he weren’t either one. It would even out the gap between us just a little bit─because he’d still be the most loving and unselfish and brilliant and the decent person I’ve ever met. Of course I love him. How hard is that to understand?”

Jacob :“It’s impossible to understand.”

Bella :“Please enlighten me, then, Jacob. What is a valid reason for someone to love someone else? Since apparently I’m doing it wrong.”

look within your own species. That usually works.”

Bella :“Well, that just suck! I guess I’m stuck with mike Newton after all.”

Context of Social In the previous time, when Edward decided to go with certain reason, Bella is very close with Jacob. He can make Bella did not feel lonely. However, after Edward comes back, she prefer to continue the relationship with Edward.

Based on the data and analysis of the contexts above, there is the violation of maxim of quantity in the utterance 6 stated by Jacob. He violates the maxim since he does not explain what exactly he means by saying “I’m human.”

By comprehending the contexts, the utterance 6 has the locutionary act; Jacob claims that he is a human, illocutionary act; Jacob assumes Bella totally has to choose him as her boyfriend since he is a man. It happens because he thinks Bella ever loves him when she is left by Edward in the previous time although it is for a while. He said that he is a man since he wants to show that he has the same right as Edward to be the one who Bella loves. Perlocutionary act is that Bella claims Jacob is not fully a man as shown in utterance 7.

Based on the analysis of speech act above, the purpose of Jacob violating the maxim is to imply that he wants to be Bella’s boyfriend. He wants Bella to choose a man as her boyfriend since she is a man too. He claims that he is a man

to indicate that he can be the one who she loves although in the fact he is not a man, but he is a warewolf. The communication between them is successfully conducted although Jacob violates the maxim sine they have the same backgrond knowledge about who they are actually. It is indicated by Bella’s response in utterance 7.

Based on the data and the analysis above, the violation of maxim of quantity is shown clearly when, in utterance 6. It is because Jacob has given less informative contribution by not giving the specifict statement about what he implies in utterance 6. Besides, there are the contexts that influence the violation happens; they are context of physic, epistemic, linguistic and social. The context of physic; Jacob wants to know why Bella prefers to be Edward’s girl friend, epistemic; although Jacob is a warewolf, he has the same right as the other to love Bella, linguistics; Bella states her reasonable opions why she loves Edward so much but Jacob does not respect about that, social; Jacob thinks that Bella ever loves him in the previous time so he thinks there is an oppurtunity to be Bella’s boy friend. However, the dominant context that makes Jacob violates the maxim is the context of linguistics since Jacob thinks that Bella’s reason in why she loves Edward is not quite enough, so he claims that he is the best one for her. In addition, the utterance 6 may be informative if he says “I’m also human who can be the one loved you.” Although he has violated the maxim, Bella can understand what he implies. In addition, he also violates the maxim of quality since he gives untruth information. In this novel, Jacob is described as a werewolf, not as human.

Data 4

(1) Edward : “Congratulations. (2) What a coincidence.” (3) Charlie : “Fine.

(4) I’m going to go to watch the game, Bella. (5) Nine-thirty.”

(6) Bella : “Er, Dad? Remember the very recent discussion about the freedom?”

(7) Charlie : “Right. Okay, ten-thirty....”

Analysis:

The following table explains the contexts appearing in that data

Context of Physic The data shows the conversation between Bella, Edward and Charlie when they are in Charlie’s house. Edward and Bella are talking about the University where they are accepted to Charlie. Bella presents the envelope that indicated she is accepted in the University of Alaska. Charlie worries if Bella and Edward meet in the night, regardless the meeting takes places in the home. Context of Epistemic In the previous time, Bella has made a fault, she

has violated the rule stated by Charlie. Charlie does not want Bella to ride a motorcycle; however, she

does not obey that warning (p:7). As a punishment to make Bella aware about that, Charlie makes a rule that she only could meet Edward until 09.30 pm

Context of Linguistics Edward :“Congratulations.What a coincidence.”

Charlie : “Fine. I’m going to go to watch the game, Bella.”

Context of Social Bella is Charlies’s daughter and Edward is Bella’s boyfriend. Charlie wants Bella to always aboy his rule since he is very over protective abou Bella’s safe. However, Bella thinks that there is no need to worry about that since she has a right to get the freedom.

According to the data and analysis of the context above, there is the violation of maxim of quantity shown in utterance 5. Charlie violates the maxim of quantity since giving less informative contribution by not describing what he means by saying nine-thirty.

By comprehending the contexts, the utterance 5 has the locutionary; Charlie gives the information to Bella about the time. Illocutionary act is that Charlie wants Bella to obey the rule as shown in epistemic context that Bella only has the time untill 9.30 pm to meet with Edward. Perlocutionary act is that Bella

wants Charlie to consider his decision about the rule since he thinks that she has a right to be free. The purpose of Charlie violating the maxim of quantity is to imply his decision where Bella has to obey the rule. The rule is Bella can meet Edward until 9.30 pm. He makes the rule to protect Bella’s activity in the night. He wants to make sure that in the night Bella keeps safe in the home.

In addition, Regarding to the those analysis of speech act, the message delivered by Charlie in the violation of maxim of quantity can be received by Bella as the hearer. It is shown by the perlocutionary act above. She makes Charlie reconsider his decision.

To sum up those analyses, there is the violation of maxim of quantity in that data since Charlie gives less informative contribution in the utterance 5, he does not mention his mean by saying nine-thirty. That utterance may become informative if he says “You have a time till nine-thirty to talk with him.”Besides, there are the contexts of physic, epistemic, linguistics and social as the factors which influence the violation appears. The context of physic is that Charlie worries if Bella meets Edward in the night through the meeting takes in the home, epistemic; Charlie has a rule which Bella can meet Edward in the night untill 09.30, linguistics; Bella and Edward talk about Bella’s acceptance and they are very close in that talking, social; Charlie wants Bella to obey the rule he makes to protect Bella although she does not like it so much. However, the dominant factor that makes Charlie violates the maxim is context of physic since the conversation takes in the night when Charlie has the rule about the time to protect Bella. He violates the maxim of quantity to imply the rule that he stated. Besides, that

utterance also violates the maxim of relevance since the topic of the data is about the University acceptance of Bella and Edward. The violation of maxim of quantity occurring in this case does not make Bella cannot catch the implied message. It means, although he violates the maxim, Bella can understand what he means.

Data 5

(1) Charlie : “Billy’s worried about Jacob. Jake’s having a hard time now.. He’s depressed. And then you were always so happy after spending the day with Jake.”

(2) Bella : “I’m happy now. Okay, okay. Balance.” (3) Charlie : “And jacob,”

(4) Bella : “I’ll try.”

(5) Charlie : “Good. Find that balance, Bella.” (page:15)

Analysis:

The following table explains the contexts appearing in that data

Context of Physic The data shows the conversation between Charlie and Bella when they are having a dinner in their house. Charlie informs about Jacob’s recent condition to Bella.

feels alone since Edward go away. However, after Edward comes back, the relationship between Bella and Jacob is not good. In other side, Charlie prefers Bella to have the relationship with Jocob than Edward. Jacob loves Bella so much, although, in the fact, she loves Edward. Charlie just want Bella to keep in touch with her friends, especially Jacob. Context of Linguistics Charlie : “Billy’s worried about Jacob.

Jake’s having a hard time right now.. He’s depressed. And then you were always so happy after spending the day with Jake.” Bella : “I’m happy now. Okay, okay. Balance.” Context of Social Bella is Charlie’s daughter. Bella loves Edward

very much, but Charlie does not like it. Charlie wants Bella to care to Jacob as the previous time when Edward left her alone, but Bella can not. However, as a good daughter she always tries to do what Charlie wants.

According to the data and analysis of the contexts above, there are the violations of maxim of quantity conducted by Bella in utterance 4. In those utterances, she does not give the specifict explanation about what she will try.

The locutionary act of utterance 4 is that Bella will do something. Illocutionary act is that bella will try to care to Jacob after Charlie makes her know about Jacob’s recently condition he indectly wants Bella to care to Jacob. Besides Charlie wants Bella to be balance in keeping in touch with her friends, especially with Jacob, after Edward comes back. Although in the previous time Bella is very close with Jacob, but after Edward comes their relationship is not as close as when Edward went. Perlocutionary act is that Charlie is happy when Bella says that she will try to care to Jacob as shown in utterance 5.

Based on the analysis above, the purpose of Charlie violating the maxim of quantity in the utterance 3 is to means showing his desire that he wants Bella to care to Jacob. He wants Bella to keep the communication with Jacob. In this case, although Bella violates the maxim of quantity in the conversation, however they can deliver the message successfully. It is shown in the analysis of perlocutionary above.

To sum up those analyses, there is the violation of maxim of quantity in that data since Bella give less informative contribution in the utterance 4 by not giving the specific statment what the thing will try. The utterance may become informative when it may be “I will try to keep in touch with Jacob.” She violates the maxim of quantity to mean that she will do waht Charlie want. Besides, there are the contexts of physic; they are talking about Jacob’s condition, epistemic; after Edward comes back, Bella is difficult to care to Jacob but she will try to begin to care to Jacob as Charlie’s request indirectly, linguistics; Charlie explains about Jacob condition and social; Bella will try do what Charlie want since

Charlie is her father, as the factors which influence the violation appears. However, the dominant factor that makes Bella violates the maxim is the context of social since Charlie want Bella to keep in touch with Jacob and as the daughter she tries to do what her father want. The communication between them is successfully conducted, although both violate do not give the specifict statements.

Data 6

(1)Edward : “Let’s go,” (2) Bella : “But Charlie.”

(3) Edward : “Emmett. Emmett and Jasper are on their way,” (page:201)

Analysis:

The following table explains the contexts appearing in that data

Context of Physic The data shows the conversation between Bella and Edward when they are in Bella’s house. Edward asks Bella to go as soon as possible.

Context of Epistemic In that situation, Bella is trapping by someone who is mysterious. Edward is very worry about that, so he asks her to go soon. He knows that it is better to Bella if she is not in home.

Context of Linguistics Edward : “Let’s go.”

Bella safe everytime, evern more when the bad situation is faced by Bella (p: 200). In other side, Bella has to make sure that Charlie is in a safe situation.

Regarding to the data and analysis of the contexts above, there is the violation of maxim of quantity in utterance 2 conducted by Bella. In that utterance, Bella does not give the informative contribution while having the conversation with Edward.

In utterance 2, there are the locutionary act; Bella says “and Charlie”, illocutionary act; Bella worries if something wrong happens to Charlie when she has to leave from the home because of someone trapping her, the perlocutionary act; Edward makes sure that Charlie will be fine by saying that Emmet and Jasper will protect Charlie when they have to go as soon as possible. Based on these analysis of speech act, the purpose of Bella violating the maxim of quantity is to mean that she want to show her worried about Charlie if she has to go from the house without Charlie. Although Bella gives less informative contribution, but Edward can understand what she means. It is shown in the perlocutionary act that shows Edward’s way to make Bella is not worried.

Summing up those analyses, there is the violation of maxim of quantity in this data since in the utterance 2 Bella gives less informative contribution. Besides, there are the contexts of physic; Edward suddenly asks Bella to go because she is in bad situation, epistemic; there is someone trapping Bella,

linguistics; Edward makes Bella go from the house and social; Bella wants to make sure that Charlie in a safe condition, as the factors which influence the violation appears. However, the dominant factor that makes Bella violates the maxim is context of physic since the situation force her to go as soon as possible. Bella violates the maxim to mean to show her worried to Charlie. The full contribution may be “how about Charlie, Edward?”. Although Bella violates the maxim, but Edward as the hearer can catch what exacly she means.

4.2 Giving More Informative Contribution Data 7

(1) Angela : “Have you sent your announcements, yet?”

(2) Bella : “No. There’s no point, really. Renee knows when I’m graduating. Who else is there?”

(3) Angela : “How about you, Alice?” (4) Alice : “All done.”

(5) Angela : “Lucky you.

(6) My mother has a thousand cousins and she

expects me to hand-address one to everybody. I’m going to get carpal tunnel. I can’t put it off any longer and I’m just dreading it.”

(7) Bella : “I’ll help you,” I volunteered. “If you don’t mind my awful handwriting.”

Analysis:

The following table explains the contexts appearing in that data

Context of Physic The data shows the conversation between Angela, Bella, and Alice where they are in the school. They are talking about the announcement of graduation. Bella and Alice have done their announcement, however Angela have not.

Context of Epistemic Angela, Bella and Alice are the third grade students in Senior High School. As the usual, in their schools, the graduation is special where the students have to make the announcement to all family.

Context of Linguistics Angela : “Have you sent your announcements, yet?”

Bella : “No,There’s no point, really. Renee knows when I’m graduating. Who else is there?”

Angela : “How about you, Alice?” Alice : “All done.”

Angela : “Lucky you.”

Context of Social Angela and Alice are Bella’s schoolmates. Bella always help everyone around her, especially her friends in the school.

Based on the data and analysis of the contexts above, there is the violation of maxim of quantity that is conducted by Angela in utterance 6. She violates the maxim of quantity since giving the more informative contribution in that conversation. Actually, Angela asks to the others about the announcement they have to make, however, in fact she tells her experiences deeper than the other tell. By comprehending the contexts, in the utterance 6, there are locutionary act; telling her experience, illocutionary act; wanting to get help from the other, perlocutionary act; Bella will help her. By analyzing those speech acts, the purpose of Angela violates the maxim of quantity can be known. She implies to ask help from the other. She is not able to create all of the announcements requested by her mother by herself. The violation of maxim of quantity stated by Angela has the effect to Bella’s response, as shown in the perlocutionary act. Bella can catch what she means, although she violates the maxim of quantity.

Based on those analyses above, in that data, there is the violation of maxim of quantity because Angela as the speaker gives more informative contribution in that conversation. Whereas, by saying “lucky you” in utterance 5, it is enough to show that she does not yet making the announcement. She violates the maxim to imply that she needs the help from the other to finish her announcements. Besides, there are the contexts of physic; Alice and Bella have finished the announcement but Angela have not, epistemic; as the graduated student, they have to make the announcement to all the family, linguistics; Alice and Bella share that they have finished the announcement and social; Bella always

gives her hands to her friends, in this case Bella will help Alice in finishing the announcement, as the factors which influence the violation appears. However, the dominant factor that makes the Angela violates the maxim is the context of physic since she thinks that she is the only one who have not finished the announcement, so she tells her experience deeper than the other to show that she wants the other;s help to finish it. The violation makes her statement become stronger, so Bella as the hearer can understand what she means.

Data 8

(1) Mike : “But it’s the only time that Tyler can go. You said after the graduation.”

(2) Mrs. Newton : “You’re just going to have to wait.

(3) Oh, good morning, Bella. You’re early. I was going to call. (4) I don’t thinkwe’re expecting a ton of business today. (5) Mike and I can probably handle things.

(6) I’m sorry you got up and drove up . . .” (7) Bella : “Okay.”

Analysis:

The following table explains the contexts appearing in that data.

Context of Physic The data shows the conversation between Mike, Mrs. Newton and Bella where they are in Mrs. Newton’s shop. Bella just arrives in the shop, and she will do her job but Mrs. Newton talks about Thyler and Bella’s resignation.

Context of Epistemic In previous time Bella tells to Mrs. Newton that she want to resign in this summer, the time when they are in the busiest season. In effect, Mrs. Newton started to train Katie Marshall to take her place. Context of Linguistics Mike : “But it’s the only time that Tyler can

go. You said after the graduation.” Mrs. Newton : “You’re just going to have to wait. Oh, good morning, Bella. You’re early”

Bella : “Light traffic,” Mrs. Newton : “Well,er . . “

Context of Social Mike is Mrs. Newton’s son. Mrs. Newton is the owner where Bella works in. Tyler is the new employee who will replace Bella’s position.

Based on the data and context above, there is the violation of maxim of quantity that is stated by Mrs. Newton in the utterance 4 and 5. She violates the maxim of quantity because she gives more informative contribution. Actually by saying I’m sorry you got up and drove up, it is enough to show that Bella have to get up.

In the utterance 4 and 5, there are locutionary act; Mrs. Newton and Mike can handle the things, illocutionary act; Bella has to get up as soon as possible, perlocutionary act: Bella gets up. The purpose of Mrs.Newton violates the maxim of quantity, based on those speech act, is to mean to make the statement stronger. By giving the more informative contribution it can make the statement emphasize to show that Mrs.Newton want Bella to resign at that time no at the summer as Bella told.

The result of the violation conducted by Mrs. Newton makes Bella more realize that what exactly Mrs. Newton wants in that time. It means that the violation of maxim of quantity by giving more informative contribution make the statement most informative that is made in that situation.

Regarding to those analyses above, there is the violation of maxim of quantity in that data since Mrs. Newton as the speaker gives more informative contribution to mean emphasizing that she wants Bella to get up soon. Besides, there are the contexts of physic; Bella comes to work when Mrs. Newton has a new employeer to replace Bella’s position, epistemic; Bella will resign after she graduate from her school, linguistics; Mrs. Newton want bella to stop her work and social; as the owner, Mrs. Newton can make a decicision she wants, including

decition to get Bella up, as the factors which influence the violation appears. However, the dominant factor that makes Mrs. Newton violates the maxim is the context of social since she has the power to make the decision as the owner of the shop where Bella works in. The result of the violation makes the message delivered by her can be received well by Bella. Bella becomes more understand what she means.

Data 9

(1) Ben : “I’ll see you latter. Miss you already. By Ang! Love you. ” (2) Angela : “Thank you for doing this, Bella.

(3) “from the buttom of my heart. Not only are you saving my hands from permanent injury, you also just spared me two long hours of plot-less, badly dubbed martial arts film”.

(4) Bella : “Happy to be of service”. (page:133)

Analysis:

The following table explains the contexts appearing in that data

Context of Physic The data shows the conversation between Angela and Bella when they are in Angela’s house. Bella just finished helping Angela to make the graduate announcement when Ben invites Angela to watch

movie.

Context of Epistemic Angela cannot finish her many announcements by hand made by her. Angela does not like the movie in which Ben invites to watch

Context of Linguistics Ben : “I’ll see you latter. Miss you already. By Ang! Love you. ”

Angela : “Thank you for doing this, Bella.

Context of Social Angela is Bella’s schoolmate. Thay are very close. Ben is Angela’s boy friend who loves the certain film that is not liked by Angela.

Regarding to the context above, in the data, there are the context of physic, epistemic, and social. In addition, there is the violation of maxim of quantity in Angela’s utterance 3. She violates the maxim of quantity since she gives more informative contribution in the utterance by giving the stonger statement that actually Bella’s required.

The utterance 3 has the locutionary act; Angela makes the statement that Bella really helped her to finish the announcement and to avoid from Ben’s invitation, illocutionary act; Angela wants to thank very well to Bella since she sucessfully helps Angela to finish the announcement and to avoid from Ben’s invitation, and perlocutionary act; Bella is happy to help her friend, Angela. In other words, the purpose of Angela violates the maxim in utterance 3 is to mean emphasizing that she thanks to Bella very well. By giving more informative

contribution, Bella can know clearly that Angela is very appreciated her help. So the result of violating of maxim of quantity in that data shows that the hearer can more understand what the speaker means, although the contribution is more informative than it is required.

Regarding to those analyses above, there is the violation of maxim of quantity in that data and the speaker violates the maxim is to mean showing that the speaker is very thankful for the hearer’s help. Besides, there are the contexts of physic; Bella helps in finishing Angela’s announcement, epistemic; Angela cannot finish the announcement by herself, linguistics; Angela indirectly want Bella to help her and social; as her close friend, Bella helps Angela, as the factors which influence the violation appears. However, the dominant factor that makes Angela violates the maxim is context of social since they are close friend so Angela want to show her thankfullness to Bella. Finally, the effect of the violation makes the statement stronger, although it is enough by saying utterance 2 to show Angela’s expression.

Data 10 Analysis:

(1) Bella : “I need to see Jacob.” (2) Edward : “No.”

(3) Bella : “It’s truly not dangerous at all.

(4) I used to spend all day in La Push with the whole lot of them, and nothing ever happened.” ....

(5) Edward : “Werewolves are unstable. Sometimes, the people near them get hurt. Sometimes they get killed.”

(page:29)

Analysis:

The following table explains the contexts appearing in that data

Context of Physic The data shows the conversation between Bella and Edward when they are in Bella’s house. Bella wants to see Jacob but Edward does not like it. Context of Epistemic In the past time, for some reasons, Edward left

Bella for many times. In that condition, Bella was very stressful since she could not separate with Edward. That condition was used by Jacob,a werewolve and Bella’s close friend, to make the special relationship with her. However, after Edward came back, he relized that he did not like their relationship, although it was just friendship. After that, Edward often feels jelous when Bella talks about Jacob and the things related to him. La Push is a city when Jacob live on.

Context of Linguistics Bella : “I need to see Jacob.” Edward : “No.”

jeleous when Bella talks about Jacob. For that reason, Bella tries to make Edward understand about Jacob.

Based on the data above, there are the contexts involving in that conversation. The conxts are context of physic, epistemic, linguistics and social. In addition, there is the violation of maxim of quantity stated by Bella in utterance 4. She gives more informative contributions in that utterance since she gives the reason that going to La Push is no need to worry more informative.

Furthermore, the utterance 4 has the locutionary act; the condition of La Push is well when Bella go to there, the illocutionary act; Bella wants Edward to allow her to visit Jacob in La Push by giving the explanation that La Push is fine so and perlocutionary act; Edward worries if Bella visit Jacob in La Push. Based on the analysis of those speech acts, the purpose of Bella violates the maxim of quantity is to suggest Edward to allow her visiting Jacob. She makes the information stronger by giving the more informative contribution. It is conducted by bella to make sure that La Push is the safe place, although it is the werewolve’s place. In addition, the violation gained by Bella makes Edward as the hearer know what exacly Bella wants from him. It means the message is successfully delivered altought she violates the maxim of quantity.

Summing up those analysis, there is the violation of maxim of quantity in that data by givine more informative contribution in utterance 4. Bella violates the maxim is to suggest Edward to allow her to go to La Push. By giving more

informative contribution, Bella can make sure that there are no worried to go to La Push. Besides, there are the contexts of physic; Bella want to meet Jacob, epistemic; Edward often feels jelous when Bella talks about Jacob, even more when Bella wants to meet him, linguistics; Bella gives the reason that she will be fine in La Push and social; as her girlfriend, Bella tries to make Edward understand what she wants, as the factors which influence the violation appears. However, the dominant factor that makes Bella violate the maxim is context of epistemic since the background knowledge they have about Jacob makes Bella has to be careful in understanding Edward’s feeling when she wants to meet Jacob. Finally, the effect of the violation makes the statement stronger, although it is enough by saying utterance 3 to explain the La Push’s condition.

Data 11

(1) Charlie : “Are you excited?” he ask me. (2) Bella : “Not really,” I admitted.

(3) Charlie : “Bella, this is a big deal. You’re graduating from high school. It’s the real world for you now. College. Living on your own . . .

(4) You’re not my little girl anymore.” (5) Bella : “Dad, Please don’t get all weepy on me.” (page:352)

Analysis:

The following table explains the contexts appearing in that data

Context of Physic The data shows the conversation between Charlie and Bella where they are in Bella’s school attending graduation ceremony.

Context of Epistemic Bella has graduated from senior high school. She will continues her study to the college.

Context of Linguistics Charlie : “Are you excited?” he ask me. Bella : “Not really,” I admitted.

Charlie : “Bella, this is a big deal. You’re graduating from high school. It’s the real world for you now. College. Living on your own . . . Context of Social Charlie is Bella’s father, he is a single parent. He

prouds of her since she has graduated from senior high school.

According to the contexts above, in the data, there are the context of physic, epistemic and social. Beside, there is the violation of maxim of quantity in utterance 4. He gives more informative contribution than required by Bella in that situation. Without saying that utterance, Bella knows that she has graduated from senior high school, it means that she is not a little girl anymore.

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

In this chapter, the focus is on the result of this research regarding to the analysis and findings in the previous chapter. Besides, the suggestions related to the topic of the research is also included in this chapter

5.1 Conclusion

After analyzing the data in the previous chapter, the writer found that the violation of maxim of quantity happens since there are the contexts of situation that influence the violation happen. The contexts are physic, epistemic, linguistics and social. All of them complete one and each other since in every situation the contexts are found. However, in every data, they are the dominant context which becomes the factor thay makes the speaker violates the maxim. The Context of physic can be a dominant factor when the object they are talking and the place takes place influence the speaker violates the maxim. Context of epistemic can be the dominant factor when the background knowledge shared by the speaker and hearer influences the violation occurs. The context of linguistics can become the dominant factor when the previous utterance influences the violation conducted by the speaker. The context of social can be the dominant factor when the intimate relationship between the speaker and the hearer influence the speaker violates the maxim.

68

Furthermore, the speaker who violates the maxim of quantity has a certain goal in violating the maxim. He can mean to show his decision, expression and opinion; imply to deliver something indirectly; and suggest to do or ask something to the hearer. In addition, the result of the violation effects to the hearer’s response, the speaker can whether understand or not what the speaker utters.

Besides, the writer found that the violation of maxim of quantity usually is conducted by the speaker (the first person), however there is the case when the hearer (the second person) also violates the maxim. For instead, when the speaker gives the statement that violates the maxim, the hearer responds the speaker’s statement by violating the maxim

5.2Suggestion

For the next students who are interested in analyzing cooperative principle, the data have to be classified in appropriate way, since there is possible to occur more than one maxim in the same data. To complete the research, the next researcher may analyze the topic about multiple violation of maxim in the conversational implicature.

69

REFERENCES

Brown G and George Yule. 1983. Discourse Analysis. London: Cambrigde University Press.

Djadjasudarma, T Fatimah. 1993. Metode Linguistik. Bandung: PT. Eresco Horn, Laurence R.and Ward Gregory. 2006. The Handbook of Pragmatics.

Australia: Blackwell Publishing

Leech, G. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. New York: Longman Inc. Levinson, C.S. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press.

McManis, Carolyn, Deborah Stollenwerk, Zhang Zheng-sheng (ed). 1988. Language Files. USA: The Ohio state University.

Murcia, Marianne. 2000. Discourse and Context in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Paltridge, B. 2000. Making Sense of Discourse Analysis. Australia: University of South Australia.

Ratna, Nyoman Kutha. 2006. Toeri, metode, dan Teknik Penelitian sastra. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.

Sitanggang, Meylina. 2007. “Analisis Pelanggran Prinsip Kerjasama pada respon ujaran tag question dalam novel Marjorie Morningstar karya

Herman Wouk.” Bandung: Indonesia Computer University.

Susantie, Novie. 2010. “Analysis on the Violation of Maxim of Manner in Conversational Implicature appearing Stephenie Meyer’s Twilight.” Bandung: Indonesia Computer University.

Trigia, Reni. 2006. “Analisis prinsip kerjasama dalam novel bloodline and the

stars shine down karya sidney seldom.” Bandung: Indonesia Computer

University.

Tupan, A.H and Helene Natalia.2008. “The Multiple Violations of Conversational Maxims in Lying Done by the Characters in Some Episodes of Desperate Housewives”. 11 May 2011.

<www.petra.ac.id/~puslit/journals/dir.php?DepartmentID=ING> Verschueren, J. 1999. Understanding Pragmatics. London: Arnold. Yule, George. 1996. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

91

Curriculum Vitae

A. Personal Identity

1. Name : Sri Wahyuni Kusumawardhani

2. Place and Date of Birth : Bandung, 23 June 1989 3. Student Number : 63707011

4. Major : English Department

5. Sex : Female

6. Nationality : Indonesia

7. Religion : Islam

8. Phone Number : (022) 2531715 9. Mobile Number : 085659236712

10.Address : Jl. Gagak No. 265a/144F RT01/04 Bandung 40123

11.E-mail : ranger_chie@yahoo.com

12.Weight : 46 kg

13.Height : 163 cm

14.Marital Status : Single 15.Parents

1. Father : Wahyu Suharno Occupation : Teacher

Address : Jl. Gagak No. 265a/144F RT01/04 Bandung 40123

2. Mother : Kustini, BA. (Almh) Occupation : Civil Servant (PNS)

Address : Jl. Gagak No. 265a/144F RT01/04 Bandung 40123

B. Formal Education

No Year Institution

1. 1994 -1995 TK Nurul Iman Bandung 2. 1995 - 2001 SDN Sukaluyu I Bandung

3. 2001 - 2004 SMPN 19 Bandung

4. 2004 - 2007 SMAN 23 Bandung

5. 2007 - present UNIKOM Bandung

C. Informal Education

No Year Institution / Training Events

1. 2000-2002 Lembaga Pengembangan Bahasa (LPB) Pusdai Bandung (Certified);

2. 2009 Copywriting Seminar I English Departement UNIKOM (Certified);

3. 2009 English Leadership Internal Training of Education Edlish Department UNIKOM (Certified);

4. 2010 Copy Writing Seminar II English Department UNIKOM (Certified);

5. 2010 Translating and Interpreting Workshop (certified) English Department UNIKOM.

93

6. 2011 Trend Cyberpreneurship Seminar (Certified);

7. 2011 Feminist Seminar, English department UNIKOM (Certified).

D. Experiences

No. Year Organization

1. 2002 The treasurer of OSIS (Internal Student Organization) of 19 Junior High School in 2002

2. 2005-2006 The member of Paskibraka Kota Bandung in 2005-2006

3. 2007-2008 The member of English Major Organization in 2007-2008 period

4. 2008-2009 The treasurer of English Major Organization in 2008-2009 period

Bandung, July 2011