AN ANALYSIS OF CONVERSATIONAL MAXIMS FLOUTED BY THE CHARACTERS OF CARRIE MOVIE (2013).

AN ANALYSIS OF CONVERSATIONAL MAXIMS FLOUTED BY THE CHARACTERS OF CARRIE _{MOVIE (2013)}

A THESIS

Submitted as Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Sarjana Degree of English Department Faculty of Letters and Humanities

State Islamic University of Sunan Ampel Surabaya

By

NAILUL ROHMA Reg. Number: A83211169

ENGLISH DEPARTMENT

FACULTY OF LETTERS AND HUMANITIES STATE ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY OF SUNAN AMPEL

SURABAYA 2016

ABSTRACT

Title : An Analysis of Conversational Maxims Flouted by the Characters of “Carrie” Movie (2013)

Key words: conversational maxims, flouting, Carrie movie.

This study concerns to the analysis of flouting the conversational maxims in the Carrie (2013) movie. The study focuses on all the characters of the movie, how the characters flout the four conversational maxims and which maxim that is mostly flouted. Hopefully, this study will be useful for the readers especially for students of English Department who wants to learn more about Grice’s conversational maxims. The method of the study is descriptive qualitative because this study is to describe the process of how the conversational maxims are being flouted. The data is taken from the script and the story of the movie which is divided into 70 scenes, the writer found only 12 scenes which contain flouted maxims. In analyzing the data, the writer uses Grice’s theory of conversational maxims. She puts the flouted maxims in the table in order to make it easier to identify the type of maxim and to find out the mostly flouted maxims. In the finding, the writer found out that all the maxims were being flouted. Besides, it was found out that the Maxim of Relation was flouted the most in the movie. The writer assumes that flouting the Maxim of Relation is the easiest way to dodge from a conversation which is unwanted or maybe a boring conversation. They may intend that they are not interested with the conversation or maybe they did not want to share anything to the hearer, so they say something irrelevant.

INTISARI

Judul : An Analysis of Conversational Maxims Flouted by the Characters of “Carrie” Movie (2013)

Kata kunci: conversational maxims, flouting, Carrie movie.

Penelitian ini fokus kepada analisa dimana conversational maxims pada film Carrie (2013) dilanggar aturannya. Penelitian ini terfokus pada semua karakter film Carrie (2013), bagaimana semua karakter tersebut melanggar aturan penggunaan conversational maxims dan maxim manakah yang lebih sering dilanggar aturannya. Penulis berharap penelitian ini bermanfaat bagi pembaca khususnya mahasiswa program studi sastra Inggris yang ingin mempelajari dan mengetahui lebih banyak tentang Grice’s conversational maxims. Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah kualitatif deskriptif, dimana penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mendeskripsikan bagaimana proses selama objek penelitian melanggar aturan penggunaan maxims. Data penelitian diambil dari skrip dan kemudian dibagi menjadi 70 scene, dan penulis hanya menemukan 12 scene sebagai data penelitian. Dalam menganalisa data penelitian, penulis menggunakan teori tentang conversational maxims dari Grice. In analyzing the data, the writer uses Grice’s theory of conversational maxims. Penulis menggunakan tabel untuk mempermudah dalam menunjukkan runtutan kejadian pelanggaran conversational maxims dan untuk mempermudah dalam menemukan maxim yang mana yang lebih sering dilanggar aturannya. Dengan adanya penelitian ini, penulis menemukan bahwa keempat maxim telah dilanggar aturannya. Penulis menemukan bahwa Maxim of Relation adalah yang paling sering dilanggar. Penulis beranggapan bahwa Maxim of Relation adalah jenis yang paling mudah untuk dilanggar ketika seseorang mungkin merasa bosan dalam percakapan dengan lawan bicaranya.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Inside Cover ... i

Declaration ... ii

Dedication ... iii

Motto ... iv

Thesis Advisor’s Approval ... v

Thesis Examiner’s Approval ... vi

Acknowledgements ... vii

Table of Contents ... ix

Abstract ... xi

Intisari ... xii

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background of the Study ... 1

1.2 Statements of the Problems ... 8

1.3 Objective of the Study ... 9

1.4 Significance of the Study ... 9

1.5 Scope and Limitation ... 9

1.5 Definition of Key Terms ... 10

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Theoretical Framework... 12

CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHOD

3.1 Research Design ... 27

3.2 Research Subject ... 28

3.3 Research Instrument ... 28

3.4 Technique of Data Collection ... 29

3.5 Technique of Data Analysis... 30

CHAPTER 4 FINDING 4.1 The Flouting of Conversational Maxims ... 32

4.2 The Occurence of the Flouting of the Maxims ... 50

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION... 58

BIBLIOGRAPHY... 61

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

This introduction chapter presents the background of study, statement of the problems, the objective of the study, significance of the study, scope and limitation of the study, and definition of key terms.

1.1Background of the Study

The most important aspect in human life which is used as their communication is language. Language is a system to transfer and to inform something through communication (Addler, Rodman, 1991:110). Human uses language to interact with other people around them. As a human, we are all relating to each other in a communication right from when we were born. We cannot live by ourselves. We should have to interact and communicate with other people around us. People usually use language to inform, to express their idea, and to build up their social relationship. So, language is the most important thing to human beings to maintain their life.

Language usage in communication needs two important mediums; those are linguistic medium and pragmatic medium. Linguistic medium is related to form of accuracy and language structure , while pragmatic medium is related to form of accuracy and structure of the context. Pragmatic is the study of relation between language and context that are gramaticalized in structure of language (Nadar, 2009). Pragmatics, as a topic in linguistics, is the

2

study of the use of context to make inferences about meaning (Fasold, 1990:119). Human is the only creature that uses words intentionally and habitually. They use words to tell someone about something, to express their intention and feelings, and above all, to communicate with others (Boulton, 1960:3). When we interact with other people, it means that we are communicating with them. A good communication is very important in establishing and maintaining good relation with other people. In a conversation could end with both good and/or bad resolution, an argument or even misunderstanding things. The most common form of communication between each people is conversation which has participants in it. The speaker and the hearer are supposed to give respond to each other in their turn and exchange and in order to requiring some information. By giving some requiring information, they can easily understand each other‟s utterances and so the conversation can going smoothly and there is no misunderstanding.

There are four agreements that every people should follow in order to make a good communication. It relates with the truth,the briefness, the relevance, and the clearness of what they say, and these agreements are called cooperative principle (Grice‟s theory of maxims, 1975 in Cook, 1989). The co-operative principle is stated in the following way: “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”. Supporting this principle are four maxims, often called the „Gricean maxims‟ (Grice, 1975:45, in Yule, 2006:129). Cooperative principle is a

3

suggested principle that we need in a conversation in order to achieve a good conversation so there is no misunderstanding. If they cannot fulfill the rule of using cooperative principle in a conversation, the miscommunication and misunderstanding also the conversational breaker will occur between the speaker and the hearer. We said it as a flouting of cooperative principle when the speaker does not fulfill the cooperative principle characteristic. For the example, when the speaker does not give the relevant answer to the hearer in a conversation. They may intend that they are not interested with the conversation or maybe they did not want to share anything to the hearer, so they say something irrelevant.

Grice suggested that people interpret indirectness by orienting to a set of broad shared conventions about what to expect from others in conversation (Johnstone, 2008:234). Therefore, to make a conversation goes smoothly, each participant should obey the cooperative principle, which has a significant function in conversation. Grice (1975) proposes that people should use Cooperative Principles if they want to make the communication successful. The cooperative principle reflects four maxims of conversation, they are: Maxim of Quality, Do not lie; do not make unsupported claims (Frumkin, Rodman, Hyams, 2007:205), is when the speaker is required to the truth and should only say what they believe to be true; Maxim of Quantity, say neither more nor less tha the discourse requires (Frumkin, Rodman, Hyams, 2007:205), is when the speaker should say the informative sentence to the hearer as it required without make it become less or more; Maxim of Relation,

4

be relevant (Frumkin, Rodman, Hyams, 2007:205), is when the speaker requires being relevant with the topic of conversation; and Maxim of Manner, be brief and orderly; avoid ambiguity and obscurity (Frumkin, Rodman, Hyams, 2007:205), is when the speaker should be clear in what they say, avoiding ambiguity and obscurity, and the speakers should be brief and orderly say. These principles can make the conversation work effectively and run smoothly.

In conversation we sometimes infer or conclude based not only on what was said, but also on assumption about what the speaker is trying to achieve (Frumkin, Rodman, Hyams, 2007:205). When people are “flouting” a maxim happens when he or she has to flout because he or she wants the hearer to know what are they intended to (Johnstone, 2008:235). However, sometimes people flout the maxims definitely for some certain reasons. For instance, people sometimes answer a question by giving unclear or ambiguos statement and sometimes answer with the irrelevant answer that is not related with the topic of conversation. In a conversation there may be one or more maxims which are being flouted by the speaker. Of course, the speaker who flouted a maxim in a conversation, they may have some reasons why they flouting those maxims of conversation which are important to do in a conversation. Therefore, the writer is interested in conducting a research to find out what is the maxims which appear in the conversations and the reasons behind the flouting maxims, how the characters of the object flouted the maxims inside the dialogue.

5

If one tells a lie in English, once breaks one of Grice‟s maxims (the maxim of quality, quantity, relation and manner) and it could also caused some consequences, but this does not mean that person fails to speak the English language (Leech, 1983:8-9). We should not say something not real to another person which cause misunderstanding and make that person confuse or maybe hurt or maybe there are some consequences. The consequence of flouting a maxim can be seen on the occurance of understanding or misunderstanding of the addresse through verbal and nonverbal clues refer to either written or spoken language. Nevertheless, nonverbal clues come from eyes expression, body language, touching and voice. Nonverbal clues are not written nor spoken language. For example, the communication which happens in a restaurant between the customer and the waiter. When the customer comes inside the restaurant, the waiter immediately offers the tea and coffee to the customer, but then the customer gives nonverbal clues by waving his/her hand which means he/she wants the other menu. The customer here does not speak, he/she only gives a signal to the waiter and automatically the waiter understand it. That is the example of nonverbal clues.

The writer is interested in analyzing the “Carrie” Movie. It is one of 2013 American supernatural horror movie which produced by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer and Screen Gems and it is the third movie adaption of Stephen King‟s 1974 novel under the same title, “Carrie” (en.wikipedia.org, retrieved in May, 2015). The first Carrie movie was produced in 1976 with the same title as the third, and the second adaptation was produced in the 2002,

6

and the third adaptation was produced in 2013, produced as a movie again like the first adaptation. The third movie also use the same title as the previous one. Those three movies actually have the same storylines but in each adaptations, the producers and directors changed its characters. They also subtracted and even added the story. So, the writer decided the third adaptation movie as her research object because it is the newest movie adaptation. Besides, here the writer tends to find if there maybe some commotions caused by flouting a maxim in a thriller movie such as Carrie movie, since she ever found two previous studies which tend to find humor caused by flouting the conversational maxims. It is also interesting to be analyzed because “Carrie” movie is the third adaption of the first published novel by Stephen King. The writer found out that all the characters in the “Carrie” movie have the same range of dialogue. That is why the writer tried to find the flouting maxims by all the characters on the “Carrie” movie. There are about thirteen casts in the “Carrie” movie: Carrie White, Margareth White, Sue Snell, Miss Desjardin, Chris Hargensen, Tommy Ross, Billy Nolan, and the other supporting casts.

Carrie is a 2013 American supernatural horror movie produced by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer and Screen Gems. It is the third movie adaptation of Stephen King‟s 1974 novel under the same title. The third adaptations of “Carrie” Movie tells about a young-beautiful-shy girl named Carrie White (played by Chloe Grace Moretz) who lives with her religious yet disturbed mother that almost of her life is depends on the holy bible. When Carrie

7

experiences her first menstrual period, Carrie naively thinks that she is bleeding to death and her mother, Margareth (played by Julianne Moore) hits her using a bible and locks Carrie in the “Prayer Closet” inside their house. Carrie‟s mother such have a special personality. When Carrie talked everything about her school life, for example from the movie is when Tommy Ross (played by Ansel Elgort) asked Carrie to go to the prom night with him, Margareth will always utters some prays based on the holy bible which is not relevant with what Carrie said. This movie ended up by a big accident when the Prom was held, caused by Chris Hargensen (played by Portia Doubleday) that make the school burns to the ground. Carrie walks away out of the prom venue with the blood pouring all over her body and gown. She is leaving trail of fire and destruction in her wake. At home, Margareth attacks Carrie, who attempts to flee but her mother tries to kill her using several sharp tools, such as knifes, scissors, needles, etc. At the end Carrie unconsciously using her supernatural power and kills her mother. She becomes hysterical and makes stones rain from the sky to crush the house down. The duration of “Carrie” Movie is about one hour, forty minutes and fifty six second.

The writer also finds some works which are also discussed about co-operative principles and flouting the Gricean Maxims. One of its thesis by Handayani in 2005 “The Flouting of Conversational Maxim in Javanese Short Story Pacarku Ngandheg”. She was trying to find out the most frequently flouted maxim and the reasons behind the flouting maxims. The writer also finds a thesis done by Susilo in 2011 “The Flouting of Conversational Maxims

8

by the Main Male Characters in Wedding Crashers Movie”. She stated that flouting of conversational maxims could cause some humorous conversations. Another thesis which is focus on flouting the conversational maxims could cause some humorous conversation is Agusliani‟s thesis (2012) “Flouting of Maxims Which Provokes Humor in The Big Bang Theory and Office Boy Shift 2 Movies Series”. She argues that in conversations there are some conditions that the participants have to flout the maxims.

Therefore, the writer focused on finding the flouted of four maxims (maxims of quality, maxims of quantity, maxims of relation and maxims of manner) spoken by all the characters of the “Carrie” movie and the reason behind the flouted maxims, on how the characters of the “Carrie” movie flouted the maxims inside their dialogue, and what is the maxim that mostly flouted by the characters of “Carrie” movie, in this case, using Grice‟s theory of conversational maxims.

1.2Statements of the Problems

Based on the background of this study, the problems that appear in this research are:

1. How are the maxims being flouted by the characters‟ conversations of “Carrie” movie?

2. What is the maxim that mostly flouted in the characters‟ conversations of “Carrie” movie?

9

1.3Objective of the Study

After looking at the statements of the problems above, the writer has the following research purposes:

1. To identify how the characters of “Carrie” movie flouted the conversational maxims.

2. To identify what maxim that mostly flouted in the characters‟ dialogue of “Carrie” movie.

1.4Significance of the Study

This research is expected to give some significances, they are:

1. To enlarge the reader‟s knowledge about Grice‟s theory of maxims and it contains.

2. To give the reader information about how to find and describe some kind of flouting maxims in a movie script.

3. To add more references for other researches that will going to discuss the same object in the future research.

4. To give the reader some benefits who have interest in Grice‟s theory of maxims.

1.5Scope and Limitation

In conducting the study, the writer used all the characters of “Carrie” Movie as her source of finding the data. The writer used all the characters‟ dialogue because they have same range of conversations. There is no one that

10

leading the conversation even the main character, Carrie White. The theory that use in this study is Grice‟s theory of maxims. In this study, the writer limits the discussion only on finding of flouting of four cooperative principles and the maxims (maxims of quality, maxims of quantity, maxims of relation and maxims of manner) and then analyze the language and utterances produced by all the characters of “Carrie” Movie on their dialogue with each other casts.

1.6Definition of Key Terms

1. Cooperative Principle and the Maxims

The cooperative principle or CP is the overarching principle which Grice suggested that people interpret indirectness by orienting to a set of broad shared conventions about what to expect from others in conversation, and four “maxims” describe the particular expectations that shape how efficient, co-operative meaning-making is achieved (Johnstone, 2008:234). Consist of:

 Be true (the maxim of quality)  Be brief (the maxim of quantity)  Be relevant (the maxim of relation)

11

2. Flouting a Maxim

People are flouting a maxim happens when he or she has to flout because he or she wants the hearer of the conversation to know what are they (the speaker) intended to (Khosravizade & Sadehvandi, 2011:123).

3. “Carrie” Movie (2013)

Carrie is a 2013 American supernatural horror movie which produced by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer and Screen Gems and it is the third movie adaption of Stephen King‟s 1974 novel under the same title, “Carrie”. The first Carrie movie was produced in 1976 with the same title as the third, and the second adaptation was produced in the 2002, and the third adaptation was produced in 2013, produced as a movie again like the first adaptation. The third movie also use the same title as the previous one (en.wikipedia.org/wiki).

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

This chapter consist of many important aspects in finishing this thesis. They are cooperative principle and the maxims (maxim of quantity, quality, relation and manner), the concept of flouting maxims, synopsis of “Carrie” movie and some previous studies which are similar to the research.

2.1THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

2.1.1 Cooperative Principle and the Maxims

An underlying assumption in most conversational exchanges seems to be that the participants are co-operating with each other. This principle, together with four maxims that we expect our conversational partners to obey, was first described by the philosopher Paul Grice (Yule, 2006:129). The philosopher Paul Grice (1975) has proposed that when people converse they tacitly subscribe to what he calls the cooperative principle although he has conversation in mind, one can, as we shall see later, apply the same principle to all kinds of communication, whether this takes the form of conversation or not. Grice suggests that the cooperative principle can be expressed in terms of four maxims that parties in an interaction will subscribe to, on condition that both of them also recognize the purpose for which they are communicating in the first place. (Widdowson, 2007:56).

13

The co-operative principle is stated in the following way: “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”. Supporting this principle are four maxims, often called the „Gricean maxims‟ (Grice, 1975:45, in Yule, 2006:129). There are theories of “conversational implicature” associated with H. P. Grice (1975). Grice suggested that people interpret indirectness by orienting to a set of broad shared conversations about what to expect from others in conversation. The overarching principle is the cooperative principle (CP) and four maxims describe the particular expectations that shape how efficient, cooperative meaning-making is achieved. Grice‟s cooperative principle and the four maxims are maxims of quantity, maxims of quality, maxims of relation, and maxims of manner. (Johnstone, 2008:234). H. P. Grice (1975) defines implicature as a term to account for what a speaker can imply, suggest or mean as distinct from what the speaker literally says. Of much greatest interest to discourse analysis is the notion of conversation implicature, which is derived from a general principle of conversational plus a number of maxims, which the normally obeyed by the speakers. The general principles are called Cooperative Principle. In Grice‟s observation, the sender of a language obeys the four maxims: quantity, quality, relation and manner.

The cooperative principle makes the relation between the speaker and the hearer in a conversation become related well and the contribution

14

of conversational such as is required, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged. Conversation is a social activity, which always involves two or more participants. Conversation cannot emerge if one is talking to oneself and once the conversation has emerged, it needs some efforts from the participants to make it working good and running smoothly.

2.1.1.1The Maxim of Quantity

Maxim of Quantity means that the participants‟ contribution in a corversation is as informative as it is required (for the current purposes of the exchange). In this case, the participants should not contribute on saying something to the hearer more tha its required.

For example:

Obeying case of a maxim of quantity:

A: How did Harry fare in court the other day? B: Oh, he got fine.

(Levinson, 1983) If later transpirates that Harry got a live sentence too, then B would certainly be guilty of misleading A, for he has failed to provide all the information that might reasonably be required. Then here is the example of disobeying (flouting) case of a maxim of quantity:

15

B: Well, Julie was wearing one this morning.

(Leech, 1983, p. 93) By using indefinite article, B refuses to commit himself to whether the ring be sees in the same one that A loses. B, in this case is not being informative at all.

2.1.1.2The Maxim of Quality

Maxim of Quality indicates that participants should not say what they believe to be false. And of course they may not say that for which they lack adequate evidence.

For example:

Obeying case of a maxim of quality: A: Does your farm contain 400 acres? B: I do not know that it does.

(Levinson, 1983. P. 105) This example simply extends the scope of quality by viewing the truth as a special sub-case of sincerety applied to assertions. And here is the example of disobeying (flouting) case of a maxim of quality:

A: Teheran’s in Turkey isn’t it, teacher? B: And London’s in America I supposed.

16

B‟s utterance serves to suggest that A is absurdly incorrect or flouting the maxim of quality.

2.1.1.3The Maxim of Relation

Maxim of relation is used when the participants just the convey in a relevant information. The participant should not reply or saying something that does not relevant from the other participants‟ dialogue.

For example:

Obeying case of a maxim of relation: A: Where is my box of chocolate? B: It is in your room.

(Leech, 1983, p. 94) B‟s remark is relevant to A‟s question since B knows the answer and his answer relates to the question, not talking about something else that does not relevant with A‟s question. And here is the example of disobeying (flouting) case of a maxim of relation:

Johnny: Hay Sally, lets play marbles.

Mother: How is your homework getting along, John? (Levinson, 1983. P. 111)

17

Johnny‟s mother can remind him that he may not yet be free to play. She should be relevant, tell to Johnny to not going to play yet till his homework is getting done.

2.1.1.4The Maxim of Manner

Maxim of manner means that the participants have to be perspicuous and also they have to avoid obscurity of expression and also avoid the ambiguity when reacted to the other participants. The utterances of the participant produces are brief (Avoid unnecessary prolixity) and must be orderly.

For example:

Obeying case of a maxim of manner: Friend: Where was Alfred yesterday?

Mother: Alfred went to the store and bought some whisky.

(Levinson, 1983. p. 108) The mother‟s answer is obeying the maxim of manner. She is being orderly when she answered Alfred‟s friend question since she gives a clear explanation where alfred was. And here is the example of disobeying (flouting) case of a maxim of manner:

A: Lets get the kids something.

B: OK, but I veto I-C-E-C-R-E-A-M-S

18

B obviously breaks the maxim of manner (be perspicuous) by spelling out the word ice cream. B tells A that B would rather not say the word ice cream directly in front of the children, in case the kids will ask them (to A and B) to buy some ice cream, that is why B does not answer it perspicuously and spell it.

To summarize, Grice claimed that, in the default case, people expect one another to cooperate in conversation rather than contributing random utterances, and to say thing that are true, relevant to the ongoing conversation, clear and as concise as possible. When speakers do not follow one or more of these rules, then they are inviting hearers to figure out why. The elements of an utterance‟s meaning that are determined with reference to these principles are called “implicatures.” Even when someone is following the default rules, implicature is required. For example, if A says “I don‟t have anything to write with,” and B responds “I have a pen.” A should be able to assume, based on the CP (cooperative principle) and maxims, that B‟s contribution is relevant to what A has said. A might conclude, on this basis, that B is offering to lend A the pen. (Johnstone, 2008. P. 234-235).

2.1.2 The Concept of Flouting a Maxim

The flouting of maxims takes place when individual deliberately cease to apply the maxims to persuade their listeners to infer the hidden meaning behind the utterances; that is, the speakers employ implicature (S.

19

C. Levinson, 1983). If one tells a lie in English, once breaks one of Grice‟s maxims (the maxim of quality, quantity, relation and manner), but this does not mean that person fails to speak the English language (Leech, 1983:8-9). People conscious that they should follow those maxims of Cooperative Principle (CP) to make a good communication, but they may violate them. However, they violate the maxims sometimes because of some reasons.

The flouting of the conversational maxims can happen is some situations or occasions for some purposes. There are some occasions which do not represent the obeying of maxims. Firstly, when the speaker decides to quietly and simply flouting the maxim (flouting the maxim of quantity):

A: I’ve lost a diamond ring.

B: Well, Julie was wearing one this morning.

(Leech, 1983, p. 93) In this case, B thinks that Julie used the same ring as A‟s. He simply flouts the maxim of quantity, because he is not being informative at all. Secondly, when a speaker faces a clash between two maxims (flouting maxim of quantity and manner):

A: My neighbor who is woman gets pregnant.

20

In this case, everybody must know that the person who gets pregnant must be a woman. Actually, the word „woman‟ in A‟s utterance should be eliminated. Here, A gives explanation that has been clear, the clash appears when he tries to give informative information, but he is not brief to say. Lastly, when a speaker has chosen to flout a maxim that is he may conspicuous fail to fulfill the maxim (flouting the maxim of manner):

A: Lets get the kids something.

B: OK, but I veto I-C-E-C-R-E-A-M-S

(Levinson, 1983. p. 104) The flouting of maxim of manner here is on purpose. The parents do not want their children to ask to buy ice cream. By spelling each letter of ice cream, the children will not understand well so they do not want the food.

In the case of flouting (exploitation) of cooperative maxims, the speaker desires the greatest understanding in his/her recipient because it is expected that the interlocutor is able to uncover the hidden meaning behind the utterances. People may flout the maxim of quality so as to deliver implicitly a sarcastic tone in what they state. As in: teacher to a student who arrives late more than ten minutes to the class meeting:

Teacher: Wow! You are such a punctual fellow! Welcome to the class.

21

Student: Sorry sir! It won’t happen again.

It is obvious from what the teacher says that he is teasing the student and his purpose is, by no means, praising him. He exploits the maxim of quality (being truthful) to be sarcastic. Likewise, the student seems to notice the purpose behind the teacher‟s compliment and offers an apology in return. (Khosravizadeh and Sadehvandi, 2011)

Another example of flouting a maxim: A: What an amazing football player Edric is! This can be either a:

- Positive comment on Edric‟s ability in playing football (maxim of quality obeyed).

- Negative comment on Edric‟s ability through irony (maxim of quality disobeyed, clear to hearer, e.g. When said right after Edric cannot operate the ball well. (Khosravizadeh and Sadehvandi, 2011)

2.2RELATED STUDIES 2.2.1 “Carrie” Movie (2013)

Carrie is a 2013 American supernatural horror movie produced by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer and Screen Gems. It is the third movie adaptation of Stephen King‟s 1974 novel under the same title. The first Carrie movie

22

was produced in 1976 with the same title; the iconic classis 1976 movie version directed by Brian De Palma, starring Sissy Spacek in the lead role and Piper Laurie as a supporting actress, Carrie‟s look is slightly change on the screen. Unlike Stephen King‟s envision of Carrie, in the movie she is not fat or chunky. Sissy is very skinny with long strawberry-blonde hair. Also in this movie only Carrie get pig‟s blood dumped on her. Tommy Ross however, whos was enraged because of this, does get hit in the head and knockes unconscious, maybe even killed with the empty bucket, but by Carrie‟s swinging bucket above, instead of two buckets with one as hiw own. Carrie does not destroy the entire town in this movie, but while Carrie is slowly walking home and in a catatonic state. But the last scene of the movie, it shows the viewer that Sue is forever haunted by Carrie in her nightmares and probably will never be the same again.

The second adaptation was produced in the 2002 also using the same title with the previous one. In this second adaptation, is made for TV movie starring Angela Bettis in the lead role was not remake in a sense, but a far more faithful adaption of the novel. The theme of the school prom is kept “Spring Time in Venice” like Stephen King envisioned. Carrie was kept alive in this TV movie version because the movie was meant to have a Television series follow it, where Carrie helps other teenagers who are also have a telekinetic skill. The Television show pilot was never shot due to the TV movie having low ratings and the series was therefore eventually cancelled and never made.

23

The third adaptations of “Carrie” Movie tells about a young-beautiful-shy girl named Carrie White (played by Chloe G. Moretz) who lives with her religious yet disturbed mother that almost of her life is depends on the holy bible. When Carrie experiences her first menstrual period, Carrie naively thinks that she is bleeding to death and her mother, Margareth (played by Julianne Moore) hits her using a bible and locks Carrie in the “Prayer Closet” inside their house. This movie ended up by a big accident when the Prom was held, caused by Chris Hargensen (played by Portia Doubleday) that make the school burns to the ground. Carrie walks away out of the prom venue with the blood pouring all over her body and gown. She is leaving trail of fire and destruction in her wake. At home, Margaret attacks Carrie, who attempts to flee but her mother tries to kill her using several sharp tools, such as knifes, scissors, needles, etc. At the end Carrie unconsciously using her supernatural power and kills her mother. She becomes hysterical and makes stones rain from the sky to crush the house down. The duration of “Carrie” Movie is about one hour, forty minutes and fifty sixth seconds.

2.2.2 Previous Studies

1. The Flouting of Conversational Maxim in Javanese Short Story “Pacarku Ngandheg” by Veronica Erly Dwi Handayani (2005)

A thesis done by Veronica Erly Dwi Handayani in 2005, The Flouting of Conversational Maxim in Javanese Short Story “Pacarku Ngandheg”.

24

Handayani (2005) was trying to find out the most frequently flouted maxim and the reasons behind the flouting by two main characters in “Pacarku Ngandheg” to shows that maxims are important in a conversation. The study has shown one sample of how the cooperative principles are flouted in the conversations.

In analyzing data, Handayani used descriptive approach to describe the reasons of flouting the maxim and uses table to make an easier analysis of the most frequent flouted maxim. After all of the analysis, she found out that the maxim of relevance is the most frequently flouted in the story. The characters have some reasons why they tend to flout some maxims, but she realized that the flouting of maxim does not bother and bring to an end of the conversation. For her, it makes a variation in the conversation, so the conversation will going smoothly and not boring. However, the characters try to ignore it, and just continue the conversation. They want to make some variations in their conversation, so the conversation will not be boring as the writer said.

2. The Flouting of Conversational Maxims by the Main Male Characters in Wedding Crashers Movie by Silvia Indra Dewi Susilo (2011)

The second thesis done by Silvia Indra Dewi Susilo in 2011, under the title: The Flouting of Conversational Maxims by the Main Male Characters in Wedding Crashers Movie. in this study, the writer found that Susilo had purposes to find out about the flouting of conversational maxims included in the humorous conversations of the male main characters (Jeremy and John)

25

in the “Wedding Crashers” movie, and she also aim to find out which maxim is mostly flouted. In analyzing the data, Susilo used Grice‟s theory of conversational maxims. Susilo used qualitative approach to describe the flouting of conversational maxims by the male main characters in the “Wedding Crashers” movie.

From the analysis and findings, Susilo concluded that in conversations there are some conditions that the participants have to flout the maxims. Of course they have reasons on doing this, for instance, the speaker flouts the Maxim of Quality when he or she lies about something in order to hide something from the other person. Moreover, if the participants on the conversation flout the maxims, it does not mean that they fail to communicate with others or they have miscommunication.the fact is the conversation can still run well in the movie.

3. Flouting of Maxims Which Provokes Humor in The Big Bang Theory and

Office Boy Shift 2 Movies Series by Eka Agusliani (2012)

The third thesis done by Eka Agusliani in 2012, Flouting of Maxims Which Provokes Humor in The Big Bang Theory and Office Boy Shift 2 Movies Series. In this research, Agusliani observed the differences and/or the similarities between the maxims flouted by the characters in “Big Bang Theory” and those flouted by the characters in “Office Boy” which provoke humor. The data were from the dialogue lines flouted by the characters in those two movie series. The main theories used were from Grice‟s (1989).

26

Furthermore, Agusliani conducted this research in qualitative approach supported by quantitative data.

The writer gets some benefits from the previous studies, such as the research design that the other researchers used and there are many of previous studies found by the writer that has the same analysis with the writer‟s object of the research so it will make and help the writer do her thesis well.

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

In this chapter, the following subtopics are going to be discussed: (1) research design (2) research subject (3) research instrument (4) technique of data collection and (5) technique of data analysis.

3.1Research Design

In this study, the writer used the descriptive qualitative approach use data as a part of this study to know how language works. The writer applied the qualitative research in this study because it was focused on the data which was taken from a movie. Denzin and Lincoln, in their book The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (2005), say that qualitative research belongs to a situated activity that locates the observer in the world. It consist of a set of interpretive, material practices that makes the world visible. These practices transform the world. They turn the world into a series of representations, including field notes, interviews, conversations, photographs, recordings and memos to the self. At this level, qualitative research involves an interpretive, naturalistic approach to the world. This means that qualitative researchers study things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of, or to interpret, phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them.

28

Qualitative method approached use data as a part of this study to get a conclusion. The use of descriptive qualitative research design in this study is intends to find some new evidences and attempts to find out the pragmatics phenomena that found in the “Carrie” movie. It can be said that descriptive qualitative research design takes from the patterning of talk-in-interaction from the object. This study focused on all the characters of “Carrie” Movie dialogues which are contain of flouting conversational maxims based on the Grice’s theory of maxims.

3.2Research Subject

The subject of this study focused on all the characters’ dialogues of “Carrie” movie. The writer found out that all the characters of “Carrie” movie have the same range of dialogue that is why the researcher decided to use all the characters’ dialogue. There is no one that leading the conversation even the main character, Carrie White. The writer focused on all the characters’ utterances that include in flouting Grice’s conversatioanl maxims (maxim of quantity, quality, relation and manner).

3.3Research Instrument

This study used descriptive qualitative research design which had person as the instrument. Therefore, in this research, the exact instrument to acquire and analyze the data collection is the writer herself, some notes, personal computer and some previous studies that talked about flouting of

29

Grice’s conversational maxims. In other words, the writer watched and understood the movie, selected, analyzed and took some utterances which included in flouting of Grice’s maxims (maxim of quantity, quality, relation and manner) and also took notes which connect with the theory that used in this research.

3.4Technique of Data Collection

The data of this research are those utterances that include in flouting of Grice’s conversational maxims spoken by all the characters of “Carrie” movie. The writer started to collecting the data right after she found the appropriate character to be the object of this research. In collecting the data, the writer did several steps such as:

1. The writer watched the movie for many times while understanding which character that appropriate to be analyzed.

2. The writer determined all the characters of “Carrie” movie as the object of her study, the researcher re-watched the movie to match and transcribe all of the dialogues from the original movie with the original script of “Carrie” Movie taken from internet www.springfieldspringfield.co.uk.

3. The writer determined and took note on which utterance that include in flouting of Grice’s conversational maxims. She has divided the movie into 70 scenes, and 12 scenes have divided as the data of her research.

30

4. The writer made such a narrative or a point which was the chronology of each scenes of the movie to make the data analysis easier.

3.5Technique of Data Analysis

After collected the data, the writer started to analyze them using the following steps. Firstly, the writer categorized dialogues spoken by all the characters of “Carrie” movie which contain flouting maxims to be analyzed into 12 scenes. Then the writer identified each scenes one by one to get the second research problem answered, on what the maxim that the mostly flouted in the movie. The analysis was carried out using the following table below. Lastly, the writer made conclusion as the result of analysis and findings.

Table 3.1 Types of Occurence of the Flouted Maxims

Conversation

Flouted Maxim

Quality Quantity Relation Manner Scene 5

Scene 7 Scene 11 Scene 18 Scene 22 Scene 28 Scene 31 Scene 35

31

Scene 36 Scene 48 Scene 54 Scene 67

CHAPTER IV FINDING

The focus of the study are all the characters in the movie “Carrie” Movie, what maxims are flouted and which maxim is flouted the most. The main purpose of this chapter is to answer the statement of the problems which are presented in the chapter I. In this chapter, the data collected from the script that has been divided into some scenes by the writer. She divided the movie into 70 scenes, but not all scenes can be the data. The scenes which were being the data must be correlated to the research questions. The writer made a description for each scene of the data to make it easier to be understood.

4.1 The Flouting of Conversational Maxims

Carrie is a movie on which the writer found out some disobeyed maxims by all the characters. In this movie, the writer found all the maxims (Maxim of Quality, Quantity, Relation and Manner) were being flouted. Here are the data: Data 1

Scene 5 (minutes 04.54 – 06.38)

Participants: Carrie, Sue, Miss Desjardin, Chris and Girls classmate. Setting: In the school‟s swimming pool

33

Context: Carrie and all of her girls classmate were on a gym class. They were going to play volleyball inside the swimming pool. Carrie seems know nothing to what to do here. And when the ball went in front of her, Miss Desjardin, the gym teacher, asked Carrie to serve the ball but all girls were laughing over Carrie. They knew that Carrie would not be able to serve the ball.

(BLOWS WHISTLE)

[Miss Desjardin] Let's go, ladies! In the water! Caps on, please! Chris and Sue, let's go!

(GIRL GRUNTS) (WHISTLE BLOWING)

[Miss Desjardin] I want you to keep it in the air three times. All right? (INDISTINCT CHATTER)

[Chris] We are graduating, Ms. Desjardin. Yeah, Sue! (ALL CHEERING)

[Miss Desjardin] Get that. Don't be afraid of the ball, ladies. All right, here we go.

(WHISTLE BLOWING)

[Miss Derjardin] All right, Carrie White. Let's get Carrie into the game. You can't stand on the sidelines all the time. Come on.

[Girls Classmate] Whoo! Carrie's serve.

[Chris] Yeah, Carrie White! Do it, Carrie! Yeah, yeah. Throw it. Do it. Serve it.

[Sue] - Oh. Ow. (GASPS) (BOTH GASP)

(ALL LAUGHING)

[Chris] What the hell? (LAUGHS SARCASTICALLY) [Sue] It's so funny, Chris.

[Chris] Are you okay?

[Sue] Yeah.

(LAUGHING)

[Chris] Oh, my God. (CHUCKLES)

[Chris] You eat shit. (ALL LAUGHING)

In this scene, the writer found three maxims were being flouted. The first one said by Chris. Chris flouted the Maxim of Relation. It shows when Miss

34

on the gym class and it was the time to train the students‟ skill but Chris‟ answer is not relevant with what already said by Miss Desjardin. The writer thought that Chris should answer with „Yes, Miss‟, it should be the relevant answer. The second maxim which being flouted is Maxim of Quantity. Still with the same conversation between Miss Desjardin and Chris, Chris is being not informative at all. The writer thought that without Chris‟ answer, Miss Desjardin already knew that they are graduating.

The third maxim which being flouted in this scene is Maxim of Quality. It shows when Chris laughed over Sue who got a smash by Carrie‟s serve. When Sue said „It‟s so funny, Chris‟, the writer knew that it is not funny at all. Sue was saying something that she believe to be false towards Chris.

Data 2

Scene 7 (minutes 08.11 – 10.06)

Participants: Carrie, Sue, Miss Desjardin, Girls classmate Setting: Women bathing place at school

Context: After the gym class ended, all the girls were going to take a bath and change their clothes. In this scene, Carrie seems unusual to being naked and take a bath together with other girls. She slowly puts her towel down and starts showering herself, but then something weird happens down there, it is Carrie‟s

35

first period. After realizing that there are blood all over her hand, Carrie begins to screams unconditionally asking for the others help.

[Carrie] (SOBBING) Help me! [Chris] God, just plug it up!

[Carrie] Help!

[Girls Classmate] (CHANTING) Plug it up! [Carrie] I'm sorry. No!

(CHANTING CONTINUES)

[Carrie] No!

[Girls Classmate] Plug it up! (SCREAMING)

(WHIMPERING)

(CHANTING CONTINUES) (WHIMPERING)

[Miss Desjardin] Girls, come on! Move! Ladies. Oh, my God. Okay. All right.

[Carrie] Help me.

[Miss Desjardin] Okay, honey, stand up. Let's get you cleaned up. [Carrie] Help me, help me.

[Miss Desjardin] Oh, Carrie, come on. Stand up. Come on, can you stand up?

[Carrie] It hurts! It hurts! It hurts! Something's not right. Something's not right.

[Miss Desjardin] Okay, okay. What are you talking about?

[Sue] Ms. Desjardin, I don't think she knows it's her period.

[Carrie] No!

[Miss Desjardin] All right, Sue. Get out of here! You're not helping.

In this scene, the writer found that Carrie flouted both Maxim of Relation and Manner. Carrie flouted the maxim of relation shows when she said something irrelevant. Miss Desjardin asks her to stand up and go clean up herself but Carrie keeps saying that she needs help and something is weird on her, which is not relevant. Actually Miss Desjardin knows that it is normally happen when a girl is on her period. The writer also found that Carrie flouted the maxim of manner in this scene, it shows when Carrie keeps saying something unecessary prolixity

36

which is should be avoided. Even she says that she needs help hundred times, Miss Desjardin and the other girls already knew about it.

Data 3

Scene 11 (minutes 13.11 – 14.18)

Participants: Carrie and her mother, Margareth Setting: On their way back to home

Context: After the bloody incident at the bathing place, Mr. Morton, the headmaster, called Carrie‟s mother, Margareth, to pick up Carrie because she still shocked by the bloody incident. On their way back to home, Carrie is saying her apology to her mother about the embarrassing incident. Carrie knows that her mother is getting disappointed because of it.

[Carrie] I'm sorry you had to come to school today, Mom. (BRAKES SQUEAK)

(ENGINE RATTLES)

[Margareth] Let's go inside, little girl. You need to come inside with me.

[Carrie] Mama, why didn't you tell me? I was so scared, Mama. I thought I was going to die. Mama, they laughed at me and they threw things at me.

[Margareth] We'll talk about this inside, Carrie.

[Carrie] No. I want to talk about it right here. I don't want to go inside with you.

(DOOR CREAKS OPEN)

In this conversation, the writer found that Carrie flouted the Maxim of Relation. It shows when her mother, Margareth, asked her to go inside their house

37

and talk about the incident inside, Carrie answered with something irrelevant. She answered with asking why her mother did not tell her anything about menstrual period happens to every girl which is not relevant when Margareth invited her to go inside their house.

Data 4

Scene 18 (minutes 24.48 – 25.10)

Participants: Carrie and her mother, Margareth Setting: Inside the car, arriving at school

Context: The day after bloody incident, Margareth felt so worry about Carrie. She accompanied Carrie to go to the school and she said she would pick up Carrie right after school ends.

(SCHOOL BELL RINGING)

[Carrie] I'll be okay, Mama.

[Margareth] I'm going to leave work early today and pick you up after school.

In this scene, Margareth flouted the Maxim of Relation. The writer found „I'm going to leave work early today and pick you up after school‟ dialogue seemed like Margareth was ignoring Carrie and being irrelevant with what Carrie said. Margareth kept feeling worry towards Carrie although Carrie said she would be okay at school.

38

Data 5

Scene 22 (minutes 29.03 – 30.49)

Participants: Carrie, Tommy Ross, Mr. Ulmann, Students

Context: When the literature class began, Mr. Ulmann, the literature teacher, asked the students to come in front of the class to read their favourite poem, and it was Carrie‟s turn. Carrie went in front of the class with a poem read by herself while the other student kept laughing over her poem, even Mr. Ulmann thought that Carrie‟s poem is disturbing.

[Mr. Ulmann] All right, who's next? Uh, Carrie. Favorite poem. Did you bring one?

(CHUCKLING)

[Carrie] Yeah.

[Mr. Ulmann] Why don't you come to the front of the class and share it with us all?

(GIRLS CHUCKLING)

[Carrie] "This unfrequented place to find some ease" "Ease to the body some, none to the mind"

"Times past,

and what once I was and what am now" "O wherefore was my birth

from Heaven foretold"

"Twice by an Angel, who at last in sight" "Of both my Parents all in flames... " "... ascended. "

[Mr. Ulmann] (SIGHS) Okay, uh, that was, uh...disturbing. (ALL CHUCKLE)

[Mr. Ulmann] That is the most you've said in class all year. Is there anything else you'd like to share or are you done scaring us for the day?

[Tommy] Asshole.

(ALL GASP)

[Mr. Ulmann] Excuse me, Mr. Ross. Did you say something?

[Tommy] I said, "Awesome." I just thought what Carrie read was awesome. Didn't you, Mr. Ulmann?

39

In this scene, the writer found out that Tommy Ross flouted the Maxim of Quality. He was saying something that he believes to be false. Actually Tommy said something rude towards Mr. Ulmann‟s bad attitude as a teacher which is not appreciate what Carrie did at all, but after Mr. Ulmann asked Tommy what did he say, Tommy was disobeying the characteristic of Maxim of Quality by said „Awesome‟.

Data 6

Scene 28 (minutes 38.23 – 39.42) Participants: Tommy Ross and Sue Setting: At the school yard

Context: Sue realized that she was going too bad to Carrie White for the bloody incident at the bathing place. After she knew that Carrie is adoring Tommy Ross because of the literature class event, she had a thought that sending Tommy to the prom with Carrie, and of course without her, is a good idea as her apology towards Carrie. She told Tommy about she was feeling sorry towards Carrie and also told him about her plan that she does not want to go to the prom.

(INDISTINCT CHATTER)

[Tommy] Got it. Hey. How are you doing? [Sue] (CHUCKLES) Good.

[Tommy] Good?

[Sue] Yeah.

[Tommy] What's up?

40

[Tommy] (LAUGHS) Good one, babe. Come on. Are you serious? [Sue] I'm just trying to fix what I did.

[Tommy] (STAMMERING) Yeah. I get that, but this is... Sue, it's nuts.

[Sue] Okay, so it's nuts. But after what we did to her, I have to do something. I have to do something that counts.

[Tommy] Uh... (CHUCKLING) What even makes you think that she would say yes to me?

[Sue] She'd say yes.

[Tommy] We've barely even spoken.

[Sue] I saw how she looked at you in class when you rescued her. What girl doesn't want to go to prom? What girl doesn't want one magical night? Maybe I can give that up for her.

[Tommy] No. Babe, I want you to have that magic night. I don't want to go to prom with Carrie White. I want to go to prom with you.

[Sue] I can't go.

In this conversation between Sue and her boyfriend, Tommy Ross, the writer found that Tommy Ross flouted the Maxim of Quality. He said something which he knew that he believes to be false. Actually Tommy ignored to go to the prom with Carrie White but the writer found that Tommy said „Good one, babe‟. He disobeyed the characteristic of Maxim of Quality.

Data 7

Scene 31 (minutes 41.46 – 43.41) Participants: Carrie and Miss Desjardin Setting: Women bathing place at school

Context: Like finally, Tommy Ross granted Sue‟s wish, he asked Carrie to go to the prom along with him. He was looking for Carrie at the library and then straightly told to Carrie about the prom. After hearing that, Carrie had so many

41

questions inside her head „isn‟t Tommy Ross with Sue Snell and why did he invite me to go to the prom together‟. Carrie met Miss Desjardin at the bathing place and told her that she was invited by Tommy.

(SCHOOL BELL RINGING) (WHIMPERING)

[Miss Desjardin] Did one of the girls try something again? [Carrie] I got invited to prom.

[Miss Desjardin] Really? (GASPS) That's great news. With who? [Carrie] It's Tommy Ross.

[Miss Desjardin] Wow. Tommy Ross? He is pretty dreamy, huh? (CHUCKLES)

[Carrie] Yeah. I know who he goes around with. They're just going to trick me again. Right?

[Miss Desjardin] Maybe he really meant it.

[Carrie] No.

[Miss Desjardin] Yes, of course he did.

[Carrie] Why? Why would he want to go with me?

[Miss Desjardin] Come here. Do you know what I see? I see a beautiful young woman. Maybe wear a little make-up. Pinch your cheeks a little bit, put some color in there. Curl your hair. Stand up straight. There you go.

In this scene, Carrie flouted the Maxim of Relation. It shows when Miss Desjardin saw Carrie sit alone in the bathing place and she asked to Carrie „Did one of the girls try something again?‟, but actually Carrie‟s respond was not relevant. It was may be Miss Desjardin worried that Carrie‟s being hurt by the girls classmate like they did in the bloody incident, Miss Desjardin just want to make sure if Carrie is not being annoyed again but Carrie answered that she invited to the prom by Tommy Ross.

42

Data 8

Scene 35 (minutes 47.24 – 51.01)

Participants: Carrie and her mother, Margareth Settings: At Carrie‟s home

Context: After accepting Tommy‟s invitation to the prom, the next day Carrie went to the drapery to buy some fabric and she would conjure it into a beautiful dress which she wear for the prom. When Carrie arrived at home, her mother was waiting her in front of it and pulled her to come inside home. Then, Carrie told her mother that someone invited her to the prom and she will be going.

(THUNDER RUMBLING)

[Margareth] Where have you been? I was worried sick. Come on. Come inside.

[Carrie] I'm sorry I'm late, Mama.

[Margareth] Just get inside. Your supper's cold. I'm going to have to heat it up. I didn't know... You're immodest. I didn't know where you were. I didn't know.

[Carrie] No, Mama. I took a bus to Main Street and I bought cloth for a dress.

[Margareth] You are not to go anywhere but to school and back. You know that.

[Carrie] Mama, before you say anything else, I've been asked to prom.

(CLATTERING)

[Carrie] Mama, I've been asked to prom. [Margareth] Oh, God, why?

[Carrie] It's next Saturday and he's a very nice boy. And he'll come and meet you before and he promised to have me home by 10:30.

[Margareth] No, no, no.

[Carrie] I already accepted. I know this scares you. It scares me, too. The other kids, they think I'm weird. But I don't want to be. I have to try to be a whole person.

[Margareth] Before it's too late. He'll hurt you.

[Carrie] No, Mama. No, Mama, there are bad people, but not Tommy. He's good. You'll like him. He's a very nice boy.

43

[Margareth] Boys, boys. After the blood, comes the boys sniffing, slobbering like dogs.

[Carrie] Stop it, Mama.

In this conversation, there are three maxims are being flouted, they are Maxim of Relation, Quantity and also Manner. The first one shows when Margareth asked where did Carrie from, but Carrie answered with something irrelevant. Margareth asked „where‟, but Carrie answered asking for apology of being late. Here, Carrie flouted the Maxim of Relation, she was not being relevant to her mother‟s question.

The second is, still from the „I'm sorry I'm late, Mama‟ dialogue, Carrie also flouted the Maxim of Quantity. Carrie was not being informative at all. Margareth hope that Carrie would answer where did she go, but the fact, Carrie was asking for apology. Although at the end she said that she was going to the drapery. The third maxim which is being flouted in this scene is Maxim of Manner. It shows when Margareth said „Boys, boys. After the blood, comes the boys sniffing, slobbering like dogs‟, she kept saying something ambiguous and unecessary which made Carrie confuse.

Data 9

Scene 36 (minutes 51.02 – 53.09)

Participants: Chris, Billy, Kenny and Jackie (Billy‟s friends) Setting: At the pigpen

44

Context: For taking the revenge to Carrie White, Billy, Chris‟ boyfriend, brought Chris to a pigpen and ask Chris to kill one of the pig and get its blood. They had a plan to take the revenge for Carrie when the prom begin. They want to showering Carrie White with the pig‟s blood.

(MUSIC PLAYING ON STEREO)

[Chris] What are we doing? What does this have to do with Carrie White?

[Billy] Baby, you said you wanted us to do something about her. (BOTH LAUGHING)

(SNORTING) (LAUGHING)

[Billy] It's a piggy! (INDISTINCT CHATTER) [Billy] Here, piggy, piggy. [Kenny] Here, piggy, piggy. [Jackie] It smells like shit in here.

[Billy] Chris, pick one. Pick one that looks like her. Pig's blood for a pig. (CHUCKLES)

(BOYS IMITATING PIGS GRUNTING) [Chris] That one.

[Billy] Go on.

[Billy] One quick swing, all right?

[Jackie] I got this. Don't worry, little piggy, Uncle Jack is going to bash your head right in. You're not going to feel one...

[Billy] Shut up! Do it already. Jesus. (PIG SNORTING)

(WHIMPERS) (PANTING)

[Jackie] I can't.

[Chris] God, you guys are such goddamn pussies. [Billy] Shut up!

[Jackie] I'm sorry, Billy. (GRUNTS)

(PIG SQUEALS) (WHISTLES)

[Billy] Come on, you got this. All right, it's just one quick slice and... [Jackie] Oh, my God.

(GROANS) (PANTS)

[Billy] Good job, baby. (ALL LAUGHING)

45

In this scene, Billy flouted the Maxim of Manner. He was avoid to be brief and also said something ambiguous to Chris which made Chris confused why suddenly Billy brought her to the pigpen. Although at the end Chris realized that it was for her revenge to Carrie, but at first Billy flouted the Maxim of Manner.

Data 10

Scene 48 (minutes 56.34 – 1.00.16)

Participants: Carrie, Margareth and Tommy Ross Setting: At Carrie‟s home, about to go to the prom

Context: Although Margareth told Carrie to not go to the prom, Carrie was still on her desire to go, she was even accepting Tommy‟s invitation to come together. On the day of prom, when Carrie was about to go, her mother keeps on saying that Tommy is not a good boy and they would be something bad happened to Carrie. After arguing for awhile between Carrie and her mother, finally Tommy came over Carrie house and Carrie decided to go to the prom and locked her mother inside the closet using her telekinetic power.

(EXHALES)

[Carrie] Will you pin it on me, Mama?

[Margareth] Red. I might have known it would be red. [Carrie] It's pink.

[Margareth] I can see your dirty pillows.

[Carrie] Everyone will. Breasts, Mama. Breasts. You have them and every woman has them.

[Margareth] Take off that dress, Carrie. [Carrie] No.

46

[Margareth] Take it off and we'll burn it together and pray for forgiveness. [Carrie] Mama, it's modest.

[Margareth] Call that boy and tell him you're not going. You just tell him you're sick. I don't want you to get hurt.

[Carrie] Or you could just be happy for me. Mama, stop hurting yourself. You know it's not going to make me stay.

(HORN HONKING)

[Margareth] He's not coming. It's a trick. Same as always. [Carrie] He's going to come.

[Margareth] They're going to laugh at you. They're all going to laugh at you. [Carrie] Mama, stop it. I'm nervous enough as it is.

(CAR DOOR OPENS)

[Tommy] Thank you, sir.

[Carrie] You see, Mama? You see, it's all going to be okay.

In this scene, Margareth flouted two maxims. As it shows in the first dialogue of 48th scene, Margareth flouted the Maxim of Relation. Actually Carrie wanted her mother‟s help to pin the floral accessory on her dress but Margareth answered with something which was not relate at all with Carrie‟s hope. And also, in the same dialogue, Margareth flouted the Maxim of Manner. She keeps telling something ambiguous „Red. I might have known it would be red‟ which means there would be something bad happened to Carrie at the prom, something which have relation with blood because she said „Red‟.

Data 11

Scene 54 (minutes 1.04.03 – 1.07.04) Participants: Carrie White and Tommy Ross

47

Context: At the prom event, Carrie and Tommy enjoyed it so much although, at the first, it felt so hard for Carrie to come to such modest event like the prom. In the middle of enjoying the prom while sitting, Tommy asked Carrie to go dancing together when the slow song played. Honestly, Carrie was still asking to herself why did Tommy Ross invite her to go together when he had Sue Snell as his girlfriend.

(SLOW MUSIC PLAYING) [Tommy] It's a slow song. [Carrie] No.

[Tommy] Yeah. Come on.

[Carrie] No, Tommy. I've never danced before. [Tommy] It's okay.

[Carrie] No, I can't. I can't do it.

[Tommy] You can't go to prom and not have at least one dance. [Carrie] I can't.

[Tommy] Carrie White, will you have this dance with me? Come on. Come on.

(MUSIC CONTINUES PLAYING)

[Tommy] It's so easy. Take this hand in my hand. Like this, see? You're going to put this hand on my shoulder. And I put my hand on your hip. Then we sway. See, it's easy. You've got nothing to worry about. And you're good, you're a good learner. And then, if you want to get fancy with it, we can do the Dancing With The Stars. Yeah.

[Carrie] No.

[Tommy] Yeah. Ready? Look. (BOTH CHUCKLING)

[Tommy] To the first one. This is fun, right? (BOTH CHUCKLING)

[Carrie] Tommy, why am I here? [Tommy] Because I invited you. [Carrie] But why?

[Tommy] Carrie, we're here. We're at prom. I'm having such a great time with you.

[Carrie] You are?

[Tommy] (CHUCKLING) Yeah. And I hope that you're having a good time with me.

[Carrie] Yeah.

[Tommy] So, what do you say we dance a little longer, and then we see which poor fool they crown King and Queen, and then we go to the Cavalier?

48

(BOTH CHUCKLE)

[Tommy] And I'll have you home by 10:30. How does that sound to you? [Carrie] Yeah.

[Tommy] Yeah?

[Carrie] Maybe 11:00. [Tommy] Whatever you want. (CARRIE CHUCKLES)

[Carrie] Eleven.

In this conversation, the writer found that Tommy Ross flouted the Maxim of Relation. He was being disobeyed the rule of its maxim. When Carrie asked why did Tommy invite her to the prom, it should be Tommy answer with the clear reason, but here, Tommy seemed like he distracted Carrie‟s question with something good eventhough he knew that it was not relevant to the question.

Data 12

Scene 67 (minutes 1.25.19 – 1.33.36)

Participants: Carrie, Margareth and Sue Snell Setting: At Carrie house

Context: As her mother said and estimated, there would be something bad happened to Carrie at the prom. It was because Chris and Billy‟s revenge to Carrie, poured the pig‟s blood all over Carrie‟s body when she had her crown together with Tommy Ross as the Queen and King of the year. Carrie was mad crazily seeing Tommy died right beside her, she burned the school down and killed everyone who treated Carrie badly at school, and also she killed Chris and her boyfriend, Billy, who made the chaos happened. Carrie realised that her

49

mother was right, she was coming home and asking apology towards her mother but suddenly her mother stabbed her back using knife. They were arguing and Margareth still trying to kill Carrie but Carrie beat her back using her telekinetic power, at the end she killed her own mother. Sue Snell‟s coming to help Carrie, but Carrie refused it and decided to die together with her mother.

[Carrie] Mama!

(SHRIEKS) (GROANS)

[Carrie] Mama, please. No, Mama. Mama, please. [Margareth] This isn't your fault, Carrie. It's mine. [Carrie] Mommy, this isn't right.

[Margareth] You know the devil never dies. He keeps coming back. You've got to keep killin' him.

[Carrie] No, Mama.

[Margareth] Over and over again.

[Carrie] Mama, please. Mama! No! No, Mama. (SCREAMS) Mama, stop it!

(SCREAMS) (YELLING) (PANTING)

[Margareth] Carrie. [Carrie] I'm sorry. [Margareth] Carrie! (BOTH SCREAM)

(GRUNTING) (GROANING) (GASPING) (BOTH GRUNT)

[Carrie] Okay. It's okay. (SHUSHING) It's okay. No one's going to hurt you. No one's going to hurt you. (SOBBING)

(DOOR CREAKING)

[Sue] Carrie? Let me help you, Carrie. [Carrie] Why couldn't you leave me alone? [Sue] I'm sorry. (CHOKING)

[Carrie] Look what you turned me into. [Sue] Don't hurt me, Carrie.

[Carrie] Why not? I've been hurt my whole life.

[Sue] (CHOKING)

[Carrie] I killed my mom. I want her back. I'm scared. (RUMBLING)

50

[Sue] We've got to get out of here! Give me your hand. Give me your hand. Come on!

[Carrie] It's a girl.

[Sue] What?

[Carrie] You don't know? [Sue] Oh, my God. [Carrie] Get out! Get out!

In this conversation, the writer found out that the one who flouted the Maxim of Relation and Manner was Carrie. Carrie flouted the Maxim of Relation when Sue offered her hand to help Carrie but Carrie‟s respond is not relevant at all. She said „It‟s a girl‟ while Sue Snell offered a help to her. Then, Carrie flouted the Maxim of Manner when she said something unecessary prolixity which made Sue confused and wondered what happened to her. Carrie said „It‟s a girl‟ so sudden, although at the end, Sue knew the reason why did Carrie say it was a girl while pointed into Sue‟s tummy. The reason is Carrie knew that Sue Snell was pregnant, it is a girl baby inside her tummy, that is why Carrie did not want to hurt Sue.

4.2 The Occurence of the Flouting of the Maxims

The table below shows the types, number and total of the flouting of the maxims that the writer has found and also the writer got the total of each maxims which are being flouted and knew which maxim that are flouted the most after identified the data. It presents the flouting of maxims from “Carrie” movie as the result of the analysis.

51

Table 4.1 Types of Occurence of the Flouted Maxims Conversation

Flouted Maxim

Quality Quantity Relation Manner

Scene 5 √ √ √

Scene 7 √ √

Scene 11 √

Scene 18 √

Scene 22 √

Scene 28 √

Scene 31 √

Scene 35 √ √ √

Scene 36 √

Scene 48 √ √

Scene 54 √

Scene 67 √ √

Total 3 2 9 5

From the table above, in each scene, the writer found that the flouting of the Maxim of Relation occured the most often, that is nine (9) times. The writer found that the cause of Maxim of Relation being flouted are caused by some irrelevant responses said by the characters. The characters flouted the Maxim of Relation to avoid the first speaker‟s dialogue. Those characters of “Carrie” movie sometimes both conscious and unconsciously disobey the characteristic of Maxim

52

of Relation. The writer found that the characters flouted the maxim consciously was to avoided their interlocutors, such as found in the eighth data, Carrie was coming home late then her mother asked where did she go, but actually Carrie asked back to her mother with asking apology and did not answer her mother question. As we know, the Maxim of Relation requires being relevant to the topic of the conversation. The topic here was Carrie‟s mother asked where did Carrie go, Carrie should answer that she was going to the drapery to buy cloth material for the prom event, to obeying the characteristic of Maxim of Relation, but the fact Carrie disobeyed it by asked back to her mother and being irrelevant. The another proof about flouting Maxim of Relation consciously found in the scene 54 of the data. The context of this scene is when Carrie was in the prom with Tommy Ross, she was still doubting why Tommy could invite her to the prom while he has Sue Snell as his girlfriend. Carrie asked why to Tommy, but here, consciously, Tommy being irrelevant with the topic. Tommy did not answer what the reason why he invited Carrie to the prom, he consciously distracted the conversation by made sure of Carrie that he invited her by herself and he was happy to be at the prom together with Carrie.

Besides flouted the Maxim of Relation consciously, the writer found that Margareth, Carrie‟s mother, is the one who flouted Maxim of Relation unconsciously the most often. As we know, the speaker should make their contribution relevant to the ongoing conversation if the speaker want to have a good and the conversation can going smoothly. The writer assumed that the reason behind Margarteh disobeyed the characteristic of Maxim of Relation is

53

because Margareth had ambiguous thought of her own life. The writer found out in the movie that Margareth did believe Carrie was a cancer caused by a sin her husband gave it to her. Margareth almost all the days, in the movie, said something based from her holy bible, but Carrie thought that something which said by her mother is not include in the bible, it made Carrie confused and became ambiguous at the end. As the writer found in the scene 48, when Carrie offered an accessory to her mother and asked her mother to pin it on her dress, precisely Margareth said something ambiguous which is not relevant with Carrie‟s offering. She said something which she beliefs on herself which made other people confused and wondered why, she flouted the Maxim of Relation which had no relation with the topic brought up by Carrie White.

The writer also found the occurence of characters that flouted the other maxims. The Maxim of Quality flouted three times in the movie as found by the writer. The flouting of the Maxim of Quality happens when the characters are being untruthful and saying something, which lacks adequate evidence or not based on facts. The characters could flout the Maxim of Quality by saying dishonest thing (lying), denying his/her own words or being sarcastic with his/her utterances. As the writer found in the first data, Sue got a smash by Carrie‟s serve when the gym class took place, Chris laughed over her sarcastically, but here the flouting maxim is not about Chris‟ laugh. Sue was the one who flouted the Maxim of Quality, after Chris laughed, Sue said „It‟s so funny, Chris‟, the writer knew that for Sue, it is not funny at all. Sue was saying something that she believe to be false towards Chris and it was disobeying the characteristic of Maxim of Quality.

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION

After a long discussion doing this research, finally the writer comes with

the conclusion of the study in this fifth chapter. This study has shown sample of

how the cooperative are flouted in the conversation of the characters of “Carrie” movie chosen by the writer. The cooperative principles suggest four maxims to

make the conversation go smoothly and not causing any consequences. They are

maxim of quantity, maxim of quality, maxim of relation and maxim of manner.

They relate with the clarity of what the speaker says through the conversation, the

truth, the relevance topic and also the briefness and avoid ambiguity. In daily

conversation sometime we face some obstacles and misunderstanding when we

are talking with our partner. It happens caused by the participants of the

conversation do not obey the principle, here, it called flouting the maxim.

In the Carrie movie, the writer wanted to find out the flouting of four

conversational maxims by all the characters of this movie because the writer

found some dialogues which include in the flouting characteristic when she

watched the movie. The writer wanted to find how the maxims are being flouted

and also she wanted to find which maxim is mostly flouted. The writer used Grice’s theory of maxim as her basic theory in doing this research. In her

investigation, the writer collected the data Carrie movie’s script, taken from the

59

well to find and analyze the flouting of maxims from the chosen dialogue.

Actually, the writer became the human instrument herself to solve the research

problems. She collected and analyzed the dialogues by all the characters of Carrie

movie which contained flouting the maxims to find the answers of the research

problems by using her knowledge related to the study.

In the Carrie movie, the writer found all the maxims were being flouted

here. The characters of Carrie movie flouted the maxims somehow because they

want the other participants to get misunderstanding or may be just want to distract

the topic of conversation, the flouting of the maxim also happens when the

characters are being untruthful and saying something which lacks adequate

evidence or not based on facts. They also flouted the maxims by saying ambiguous thing, as said by Carrie’s mother, Margareth, she often said something that did not relate with the other participants’ topic. She sometimes did not obey the rule of maxim of manner which is not being brief and saying something

ambiguous to the other participants based on her own point of view.

In the movie of Carrie, All maxims were being flouted and the writer

found the mostly flouted maxim goes to maxim of relation that is nine (9) times.

The writer assumes that flouting the Maxim of Relation is the easiest way to

dodge from a conversation which is unwanted or maybe a boring conversation.

They may intend that they are not interested with the conversation or maybe they

did not want to share anything to the hearer, so they say something irrelevant. The

60

However, sometimes people flout the maxims definitely for some certain

reasons. For instance, people sometimes answer a question by giving unclear or

ambiguos statement and sometimes answer with the irrelevant answer that is not

related with the topic of conversation. In a conversation there may be one or more

maxims which are being flouted by the speaker. As it found from the data

analysis: in the first flouted dialogue of the first data, there are two maxims which

are being flouted, Maxim of Relation and Maxim of Quantity. The writer also

found on the another data, in the second data, Maxim of relation and Manner were

being flouted together in a conversation. Moreover, the writer assumes that if the

participants on the conversation flout the maxims, it does not mean that they fail

to communicate with the others, the conversation can still run well without any

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Addler, R. B. & Rodman, G. (1991). Understanding Human Communication.

Fourth Worth: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publisher.

Agusliani, Eka. (2012). Thesis: Flouting of Maxims Which Provokes Humor in

The Big Bang Theory and Office Boy Shift 2 Movies Series. Surabaya: Petra Christian University.

Alduais, Ahmed Mohammed Saleh. (2012). Journal of Sociological Research:

Conversational Implicature (Flouting the Maxims): Applying Conversational Maxims on Examples Taken from Non-Standard Arabic Language, Yemeni Dialect, an Idiolect Spoken at IBB City. Saudi Arabia: King Saud University.

Al Qur’an dan Terjemahnya. Jakarta: Departemen Agama Republik Indonesia.

Bloomfield, Leonard. (1914). Introduction to the Study of Language. New York, Henry Holt and Company.

Burns, Anne., & Coffin, Caroline. (2001). Analysing English in A Global Context. Routledge.

Boulton, Marjorie. (1959). The Anatomy of Language. Routledge and Kegan Paul. Cook, G. (1989). Discourse. London: Oxford University Press.

Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (2005). The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Fasold, Ralph. W. (1990). The Sociolinguistics of Language. Blackwell Publisher Ltd.

Frumkin, V. Rodman, R. Hyams, N. (2007). An Introduction to Language: Eighth Edition. Thomson Wadsworth.

Glenson, H. A. (1961). An Introduction to Descriptive Linguistic: Revised

Edition. Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Handayani, Veronica Erly Dwi. (2005). Thesis: The Flouting of Conversational

Maxim in Javanese Short Story “Pacarku Ngandheg”. Surabaya: Petra

Khosravizade, Parvaneh., Sadehvandi, Nikan. (2011). Journal: Some Instances of Violation and Flouting of the Maxim of Quantity by the Main Characters (Barry & Tim) in Dinner for Schmucks. IACSIT Press, Singapore.

Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman. Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press.

Litosseliti, Lia. (2010). Research Method in Linguistics. New York: Continuum

International Publishing Group.

Michalko, James. (2010). Research Libraries, Risk and Systemic Change. San

Mateo: OCLC Research.

Nadar, F. X. (2009). Pragmatik dan Penelitian Pragmatik. Yogyakarta: Graha

Ilmu.

Nanda, S., Sukyadi, D., Sudarsono, M. I. (2012). Indonesian Journal of Applied

Linguistics: Conversational Implicature of the Presenters in Take Me Out Indonesia. Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia.

Pop, Anisoara. (2010). Journal: Implicatures Derived Through Maxim Flouting in Print Advertising: A Contrastive Empirical Approach. Dimitrie Cantemir University of Targu-Mures, Romania.

Susilo, Silvia Indra Dewi. (2011). Thesis: The Flouting of Conversational Maxims by the Main Male Characters in Wedding Crashers Movie. Surabaya: Petra Christian University.

Verhaar, J. W. M. (1989). Pengantar Linguistik: Jilid 1. Gadjah Mada University Press.

Widdowson, H. G. (1995). Principle and Practice: In Applied Linguistics. Oxford University Press.

Widdowson, H.G. (1978). Teaching Language as Communication. New York:

Oxford University Press.

Wijana, I Dewa Putu. (1996). Dasar-Dasar Pragmatik. Yogyakarta: Andi.

www.springfieldspringfield.co.uk/movie_script.php?movie=carrie. Retrieved in May, 2015).

Yule, G. (1996). The Study of Language: Second Edition. Cambridge University

Press.

Yule, G. (2006). The Study of Language: Third Edition. Cambridge University