E. The Maxim’s Violations
From the data analysis above, it shows many violations. The writer finds there are about twelve violations and one violation that clash with
another maxim. With the result, from the group A there are; two violations of the maxim of quantity, four violations of the maxim of quality, three violations
of the maxim of relevance and three violations of the maxim of manner. Then from the group B one violation that clash with another maxim that is the
speaker violate the maxim of quantity in clash with maxim of manner. In short, the violations happen because the participant does not cooperate well
with the reason of some context inside.
F. Conclusion
From the research findings, the writer would like to take the conclusion for some results. First, the cooperative principle is a principle has been
contributed to make a clear information and appropriate information while they are making a conversation. Besides, this principle tells about how the
participants speaker and listener must contribute in making the communication as is required.
The disobedience of maxim conversation is influenced by the relationship of the speaker and listener make the information as informative as
is required. Speaker disobeys the maxim of conversation in some ways, first he quietly violates a maxim, he opts out from the cooperation, he flouts a
maxim and even it actually already violates the first maxim but then faced by a clash the other maxim. When he disobeys the maxim of conversation, then he
will create a side meaning in his remark called implicature. The implicature will rise at the time when one of the participants
disobeys the maxim it will turn onto the personal communication. There is the basic reason in which becomes the background of how the implicature raised.
The background itself called context. Context is able to tell knowledge where can explore and draw the background of the aspects like the mental, social
and cultural aspects which guide to the interpretation of the language. Hence, when the participants were being communicated they needed to explore more
not merely just seeing it as an utterance, but they also must obey the maxims of conversation in order to reach the main goal of sending the information as
18
informative as required.
G. REFERENCES
Cruse, D. Alan. Meaning in Language: An Introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press Inc. New York, 2000.
Farkhan, Muhammad. Penulisan Karya Ilmiah. Jakarta: Cella Jakarta, 2006. Gazdar, Gerald. Pragmatic: Implicature, Presupposition, and Logical Form.
London: Academic Press, Inc., 1979. Grice, H.P. “Logic and Conversation.” Syntax and Semantics. Vol. III: Speech
Acts, ed. Peter Cole and J. L. Morgan. New York: Academic Press, 1975.
Holloway, Immy. Basic Concepts for Qualitative Research. Oxford: Blackwell Science, 1997.
Horn, Laurence.R, and Gregory ward. The Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2006.
Kushartanti. Pesona Bahasa. Jakarta: PT. Gramedia Utama, 2005. Leech, Geoffrey. Prinsip-prinsip Pragmatik. Jakarta: Penerbit Universitas
Indonesia, 1993. Mathews, P. H “The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics”. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1997. Mey, Jacob L. Pragmatics: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell Publisher,
Ltd., 1993. Miller, Arthur. “The Last Yankee.” The Portable Arthur Miller, ed. Bigsby,
Christhoper. New York: Penguin Books, 1995. Nunan, David. Introducing Discourse Analysis. London: Penguin Book, 1993.
Pfister, Manfred. The theory and analysis of drama. Cambridge: The University of Cambridge, 1991.
Short, M.H. “Discourse Analysis and the Analysis of Drama.” Applied Linguistic Vol II. Oxford: Oxford University, 1981.
Wessels, Charlyn. Drama. New York: Oxford University, 1988. Yule, George. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996.
19
Website:
http:www.lifestreamcenter.netDrBLessonsDrama accessed on March 25,
2010. http:www.gradesaver.comauthorarthur-miller
accessed on 1
st
April 2010.
20
CURICULUM VITAE
PERSONAL INFORMATION
Name :
Aryanthi Date of Birth
: March 15
th
1987 Birth
Place :
Jakarta Gender
: Female
Nationality :
Indonesia Permanent Mailing Adress
: Cilodong. Kelurahan Kalibaru Kecamatan Cilodong Rt.0306 No.66 Depok
021-77824059 E-mail
: Arth_sevenyahoo.com
Cell-phone Number : 087880068520
Current Education Information
University : UIN Syarif Hidayahtullah Jakarta
FacultyMajor : Letters and Humanities FacultyEnglish
Department Current Semester
: Tenth Semester
Working Experiences
Year Working Place
From Until Main Activites and
Responsibilities Tka and Tpa
a Qur’anic Kindergarten and a
November 2005
December 2006
Teaching
21
Qur’anic Junior School
Refa Qualitama Multitradex Event
Organizer July
2006 Oktober
2006 Sales Marketing
Gemilang Study Club May
2007 now Teacher
SuperChamp English Course
June 2007
September 2008
Teaching English for Kids Boarding English Course
of Gemilang September
2008 July
2009 Adviser and English Tutor
TKaTPa Ikhlasul Machfudz
August 2009
Now Teaching English
Organizational Experiences
Year Name
From Until Position in Organization
PMII Pergerakan Mahasiswa Islam Indonesia
2005 2006 Member
PMII Pergerakan Mahasiswa Islam Indonesia
2006 2007 Leader of Gender Divison
KOPRI Korps Pergerakan Mahasiswa Islam Indonesia Putri PMII
2006 2007
Event Organizer Divison PMII Pergerakan Mahasiswa Islam
Indonesia 2007 2009
Leader of
Creativity Divison
IofC Initiatives of Change 2008 Now
Member SIGI Community a Community of
Movie Maker 2009 2009
Member
Achievements
No.
Kinds of Achievement
Event Organizer Name of Event
Year
1.
Second Winner of English
Female Dormitory of UIN
Anniversary 2006
22
Speech Competition
2.
Third Winner of English
Speech Competition
BEMJ PAI of Education Faculty
of UIN Anniversary 2007
3.
Second Winner of English
Debating Group Competition
BEMF of Education Faculty
Anniversary 2008
Conference and Workshop Experiences
Time and Place Status
Program Organizer
Jakarta, 28
th
September 2005 Participant The
entrepreneurship Seminary:
“Pendidikan yang memberdayakan;
Mempersiapkan Alumni UIN yang Mandiri
Berkemampuan Entrepreneurship”
IKALUIN Panitia Ikatan
Alumni Universitas
UIN Syarif Hidayahtullah
Jakarta Jakarta, 18
th
May 2006
Participant The Culture
and English Letter
Seminary: “Recognizing West
Multiculturalism Through Cultural Study”
Students Executive
Committee BEMF of
Letters and Humanities
Faculty Jakarta, 28
th
May 2010
Participant “Pelatihan Calon Guru
Privat bersama Drs. Bahroin Suryantara”
Bina Cinta Ilmu BCI
The Private Learning
Institution Jakarta, 11
th
January 2007 Participant
“Refleksi kritis Pengalaman Indonesia
Pasca Kemerdekaan” The Executive
Director PSIK Pusat Studi
Islam Dan Kenegaraan
of Paramadina
23
University Jakarta, 1
st
February 2007 Participant
”Potret Kerawanan Sosial DKI Jakarta,
Sebuah Evaluasi Krtis” P3M Pusat
Pengkajian dan
Pengabdian Masyarakat
in cooperate with Syariah
and Law Faculty
Jakarta, 16
th
April 2007 Participant “
Dinar Vs Dolar: Peluang Penerapan
Dinar Dalam Indutri Asuransi Syari’ah”
Students Executive
Committe of Syaria’ah
Ansurance Department in
cooperate with LSFLaw
Study Forum Jakarta, April
27th 2008 Participant Seminar Sehari
“Perempuan dan Media Massa: Objek atau
Subjek?” P2KM Pusat
Pengkajian Komunikasi
dan Media Bogor, 19th-21st
December 2008 Participant
The 4th Youth Camp “Discover Inner Power
and Share to the Others: A Better World Through
You and Me” Initiative of
Change IofC Indonesia
Jakarta, Bogor, Bandung,
Banten, February 23- April 23 2009
Committee The 4th International
Action for Life Team Visiting Program
Indonesia Initiatives of
Changes Indonesia
Bogor-Cisarua, March 20-22,
2009 Participant The
5
th
International Youth Camp 2009
“Be the change you want to
see in the world” Team of
International Action for Life
4 dan Initiatives of
Changes- Indonesia
Jakarta, 2
nd
-3
rd
Participant The
Appreciation and Departemen
24
25
April 2009 Movie Maker Workshop
for Students and Adult: “Maju Film Indonesia”
Kebudayaan dan Pariwisata
Indonesia in cooperate with
Senakki, Indeff
Foundation, Konsep Layar
Kreasi, PWI Jaya, PARSI
and Jaringan Worksop
Jakarta, 24
th
June 2010 Participant Pubic
Speaking Contest: “
ASEAN as one Community”
Direktorat Jendral
Kerjasama ASEAN,
Departemen Luar Negri
Republik Indonesia
Jakarta, 11
th
November 2009 Participant Workshop:
“Tips and Tricks for Applying the
International Post Graduate Scholarship”
Internatioanl Office of UIN
Sayrif Hidayatullah
Jakarta Jakarta, 21
st
September 2009 Participant Profesional
Development Seminary on Occuptioanl Health
and Safety Programme: “
How to be Healthy and Fashionable with Your
Notebook” Public Health
Major of UIN Sayrif
Hidayatullah Jakarta
Jakarta, 11th september 2010
Participant The National Seminary:
”Kupas Tuntas Kontroversi NAMRU:
Kedaulatan NKRI Dalam Ancaman?”
Student Executive
Committee BEM of UIN
Syarif Hidayatllah
Jakarta
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
1. Background of the Study
Speaker and listener must contribute to make their conversation to reach the main goal. Making the conversation becomes successfully, people on the
position as a ‘speaker’ must communicate directly their ‘speech’ and ‘information’ which they need to communicate to the listener. On the other hand,
speaker sometimes does not realize that he does not give relevant information in the conversation. Therefore, this is more than just about the language’s structure
but come straight into the meaning that was not being stated. Pragmatics as a branch of linguistic study, deals with the meaning that
cannot capture by Semantics.
1
Although semantics comes before the pragmatics, but the analysis is different. While semantics in some cases can solve the problem
that deals with the meaning, semantics cannot solve the meaning deeper. Yule, in his work, argued that semantics deals with the relationship between linguistics
forms and entities in the world or on how words literally connect to things.
2
Semantics cannot answer what the speaker’s mean by saying a word. Furthermore, semantics analysis is internally and focuses on the words meaning.
The result of word meaning is accurate and does not to see the connections
1
Aitchison, Jean, Linguistics: an Introduction Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1995, p. 93
2
Yule, George, Pragmatics Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1996, p. 4
1
between the word and the speaker or the writer. If semantics about the meaning internally, semantics is different from pragmatics that is to tell the words meaning
externally. Pragmatics is the study of those relations between language and context.
3
It concerns with the words meaning contextually. The meaning analysis is through some theories that deal with language use. And this analysis also does not only
look at the literal meaning, but it concerns to the situation when and how the words was being spoken.
The word meaning becomes an important issue. This will come at how the information, in a given period, will not make a miss communication. In order to
give the information, pragmatics has one principle that solves the problem and requires obeying a principle. As the result, speaker and listener have to fulfill
some of the rules which bind between the speaker and listener called cooperative principle.
The cooperative principle in the human daily activity hopes for the application when people communicate. At first, the cooperative principle was
stated by a philosopher name H.P. Grice, in some of his college at Harvard University on the year 1975.
4
He explained that the cooperative principle can support the participants speaker and listener to reach the main goal of the
conversation. In addition of his explanation, he gives a basic form of why people
3
Mey, Jacob L, Pragmatics: An Introduction Oxford: Blackwell Publisher. 1993, p. 212
4
Grice, H.P. “Logic and Conversation.” Syntax and Semantics. Vol. III: Speech Acts, ed. Peter Cole and J. L. Morgan New York: Academic Press. 1975, p.45
can communicate and named it as maxim. He mentioned that a speaker must give a contribution in each conversation in which appropriate with the listener need.
5
Unfortunately, the information delivery seems unconstructive because of the appearance of the other meaning from the real meaning in the conversation.
The speaker’s remark ever makes a meaning that cannot be reached by the listener. Thus, it will cause raise another meaning or an additional meaning which
called Implicature.
6
Afterwards another Linguist names Leech gives his point of view about meaning. At this part he said that each distance about meaning, the
word meaning must correlate with the fact that the situation was watched. Besides the distance of meaning can be concluded with the simplest one and also
must easy to be generalized.
7
When a conversation continues, mostly the speaker puts the topic or another issue so that change the aim of the conversation and
make the information seems unrevealed by the listener. The cooperative principle explains about the referential meaning while the
conversation happens. It focuses on the sentence which are being told and to what people mean, while the speech is being told.
8
For the example when A asks whether B enjoys the drama which they already watched or not. Then A asks by
saying “Did you enjoy the play?” then B answers “Well, I thought the ice creams
5
Grice, H.P. 1975, loc. cit.
6
Kushartanti, Pesona Bahasa, Jakarta: PT. Gramedia Utama. 2005, p. 105
7
Leech, Geoffrey, Prinsip-prinsip Pragmatik Jakarta: Penerbit Universitas Indonesia. 1993, p.10.
8
Short, M.H, in Applied Linguistic. Vol II: Discourse Analysis and the Analysis of Drama Oxford: Oxford University. 1981, p.189
they sold in the interval were good”.
9
Indirectly the conversation implies that B could not enjoy the drama play and even though B didn’t declare it directly, he
succeeded in telling his feeling politely. Here, the point that the listener got about B’s answer was an Implicature of how he didn’t enjoy the drama. However, B
disobeys the cooperative principle and shows the non-observance of maxim of conversation.
Grice, as quoted by Kushartanti, says the Cooperative Principle is about how a speaker must obey the four maxims. Furthermore, the term of maxim is a
principle must be obeyed by the speaker and listener in interacting, This must be obeyed by the participants speaker and listener whether textually or
interpersonally on the way to accelerate the communication process.
10
In fulfilling the appropriate contribution, the speaker must obey the four maxims such as: 1 Maxim of Quantity, 2 Maxim of Quality, 3 Maxim of
Relation, and 4 Maxim of Manner.
11
Grice hopes the four maxims will be obeyed so that it can give a relevant contribution. But there is a time when a
speaker and a listener cannot follow the rules and showing non-observance. The non-observance because of the participants disobeys the cooperative principle.
Maxim’s violation shows the non-observance. The violation happens and causes the side meaning or implicature that already talked by the writer before.
9
Short, M.H. 1981, loc. cit.
10
Kushartanti 2005, loc. cit
11
Grice 1975, loc. cit.
In particular cases between A and B, it shows that there are maxim violations on the first, second, and third maxim. A still understand and realizes
the implicature of B ‘the ice cream they sold in the interval were good’means that he cannot enjoy the drama play. This was because of B didn’t want to declare it
directly and feels impolite to tell it The
implicature exists because there is no intention from the speaker and
listener as the participant; break the cooperative principle. Mostly, it happens coincidently when people were communicating and it also can be seen in literature
works like Drama. In drama, there is one speaker and one listener known as characters acts as the scenes written in the dialogue. At this part and without any
planning from the Script Writer, there is one act that can be disobeying the cooperative principle. Yet drama is a text but in the understanding text, people
must realize that it is an object uniting together with the language and other aspect like Sociolinguistics, literature.
12
In addition, this statement explains that drama’s analysis is not merely just about performance and plot. There are many
aspects can be analyzed besides the literature aspects like the drama’s analysis through the Linguistic Aspect using the linguistic Theories.
The concentration of the text analysis is still rarely being conducted by the linguist. Even there is a text analysis in linguistics but it is still in the work of
syntactical analysis. Earlier the conducted linguistic analysis was seeing the analysis in one aspect. This situation is the same as in linguistic, the drama also
12
Short, MH 1981, p. 183
get the same situation. The literature text analysis like drama’s analysis concentrates in the stage and story analysis. Later the way of conducting analysis
of linguistic and literature was changing; both of the linguistic and literature. Here, the writer tries to conduct a new way analysis about the literary works based
on the linguistic and literature works could meet together. Here, the writer tries to conduct a new way of analysis about the literary works based on the linguistics
point of view. The writer decides a pragmatics’ analysis uses the drama’s dialogue as an object of analysis. She finds the Arthur Miller’s drama called ‘The
Last Yankee.’ Arthur Miller was one of the leading American playwrights of the
twentieth century;
13
he won for many literary award and prizes in literature works. One of his famous dramas is The Death of a Salesman, in which won a Tony
Award as well as a Pulitzer Prize.
14
All of his drama work is interesting because they are about the drama of family.
15
It seems so interesting to analyze, however, the writer does not want to analyze the drama as literary text analysis. She uses
the linguistics as a tool of analysis. Further, the writer finds that the Last Yankee’s story is interesting and makes her to analyze this drama on the linguistics’ point of
view. Hence, the writer chooses Grice’s theory about a set of rule of how people
contributing their communication reaching the main goal; that is the cooperative
13
Taken from http:www.gradesaver.comauthorarthur-miller
, accessed on 1
st
April 2010.
14
Ibid.
15
Ibid.
principle within the maxims of conversation. The writer also focuses at the disobedience of the maxims of conversation to gain and explore about the non-
observance of participants characters in the drama’s dialogue. Based on those reasons, the writer is interested in analyzing about The
Non-Observance Maxim of Conversation in Arthur Miller’s the Last Yankee Based on Grice’s Theory of Cooperative. It is hopefully can enrich our
perception about the linguistics’ analysis and the text analysis which focuses on drama as an object.
2. Focus of the Study
To limit the research, the writer will focus on the violations of the maxims which Grice already purposed in Cooperative of Principle and how the
disobedience of maxim in drama happens.
3. Research Questions
Based on the focus of study, the writer will cover the questions below: 1.
What kinds of maxim in Cooperative Principle are not obeyed by the participants while the implicature appears in their dialogue in which shows the
non-observance of the participants? 2.
How does the process of the maxim’s violations happen?
4. Significance of Study
The writer hopes by doing the analysis, it will create a smarter reader and contribute the wide perspective in analyzing the language use and the literature. It
is hoped to become an additional reference of how to analyze the Literature text or non literature text and acknowledging about the analysis text.
5. Research Methodology 1. Objectives of the study
Based on the research questions above, the writer has several objectives below:
1. To know the kinds of maxim was not obeyed by the speaker and listener while
the implicature appears in their dialogue in which can shows the non-observance of the participants.
2. To know how the process and the causes of the maxim’s violations happen.
2. Method of the study
The method conducted in the research is qualitative method. Through this method, the writer describes the violation of maxim of conversation through
Arthur Miller’s drama dialogue; The Last Yankee. Holloway said that qualitative research is the context bound,
16
in which means that the writer must be able to involve and carefully focuses into the background of the data analyses.
16
Holloway, Immy, Basic Concepts for Qualitative Research. Oxford: Blackwell Science. 1997, p. 5
According this statement, the writer will describe and explore the data analyses as it correlates with the object of analysis.
3. Technique of data analysis
To get the aim of the research, the writer conducts the descriptive data analysis technique which is divided into the following steps:
1. To write some notes of maxim of conversations violation agencies offered by
Grice. 2.
To read the dialogue and find the violations of the four maxims. 3.
To give the order number of dialogue within the drama text. 4.
To sign up the violation of maxim agencies accruing within the drama text. 5.
To identify the context of situation covered the dialogue. 6.
To analyze the violation process of maxims in data analyses. 7.
To recognize and interpreting the implicature appears in the data analyses. 8.
To re-read the data. 9.
To find the key words for the analyzing based on the research questions. 10.
To conclude the collecting data.
4. The Instrument of the Research
In this study the writer uses herself as a main research instrument through reading, identifying, classifying and analyzing the data which are used and needed
from the dialogue or drama text. Then, the writer observes and signs the possibility of the violation of maxims occurrence within dialogue or drama text.
5. Unit of Analysis
The unit of the analysis is the text from the dialogue of Arthur Miller’s drama; The Last Yankee.
CHAPTER II THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
A. Pragmatics
Pragmatics sees human language as in the activity in its various aspects. In contrast with the structuralism like syntactician that purpose the concept of
human language is the grammar of language consists of several components such as the phonological one, syntactics one, and semantics one. The various aspects
mean that human language does not only about the grammar with several components, but more to the function of language in the social activity.
The pragmatics has a contrast perspective in seeing the various aspects of human language. This is as what Jacob’s statement in his book Pragmatics. He
said that pragmatics perspective is about why certain language use more or less acceptable connecting to the social factors, in contrast to other and perhaps
abstractly equivalent, but pragmatically different.
17
This statement has clear enough to tell that its perspective does not only include the structural point of
view. But this is more about why language use acceptable in one community and can be less acceptable by another.
Pragmatics concerns the various meaning aspect through the social factor. The various meaning aspects tell how language can be less or more acceptable
depend on the rule of the standard language from one community. Here, the rule
17
L. Mey, Jacob 1993, op. cit. 8.
11
is not something that stated literally but abstractly. At the beginning of the developing linguistic study, semantics took a big part in the analysis of meaning
literally. In the developing of linguistic study, pragmatics offers a study of meaning deeper. The developing of linguistic study brings to the conclusion that
pragmatics deal with the meaning deeper than semantics. Pragmatics and semantics deal with meaning, but there are some aspects
that semantics can not solve. According to a short statement purposed by Jean Aitchison, pragmatics is a branch of linguistic which learns about various
meaning aspects and couldn’t comprehend by the semantics theory.
18
This is because of pragmatics intends the analysis about how the listener grasps meaning,
and what was implied by the speaker. And it needs the cooperation between the listener and the speaker. In short that semantics analysis is closer to the literal
meaning analysis and the pragmatics analysis is analyzing the meaning based on the speech situation.
The speech situations will refer to what was implying in the speaker’s utterance. Utterance is a term in pragmatics; this intertwines relation to another
word of statement. In pragmatics, the analysis is about how the listener grasps meaning that implied in the speaker’s utterance. This is like when someone
requests a help, there is a way to say straight that he requesting a help. But he or she can state in a different way. At this part, the act of request a help in which the
speaker formulate the utterance called illocutionary act. For instance statement of “can you give me a more explanation, please?”
18
Aitchison, Jean 1995, loc. cit.
when the lecture tells about pragmatics theory. The question is asked directly, but it can become a different way when it is declared as “I haven’t any idea at all in
theory.” This simple statement is not only bound to provide information for whoever the listener but also an expressing of wanting a re-explaining and clear
information from the lecturer without stated directly. If the lecturer provides a more time to make clear the explanation of linguistic theory, it will reach a
satisfactory to the speaker. The satisfactory that is the result effect is known as perlocutionary
effect. The speaker often makes distinct about what is said and what is imply.
The speaker and listener have to make a cooperative effort to make a successful communication. When speaker utters something, he will implicate
something in the way of exchanging the information. If the speakers’ formulation in uttering can be understood by the listener, the speaker is success in delivering
the information. But it will turn into a fail effort when the listener cannot understand about what was being talked about. The formulation’s utterance that
what the speaker’s intentio and imply called implicature.
B. Implicature
Kategori