An analysis Grice`s non-observance conversational maxims operating in shrek - USD Repository
THE ANALYSIS OF GRICE’S NON-OBSERVANCE CONVERSATIONAL MAXIMS OPERATING IN SHREK AN UNDERGRADUATE THESIS
Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Sarjana Sastra in English Letters
By
LANOKE INTAN PARADITA
Student Number: 044214098
ENGLISH LETTERS STUDY PROGRAMME DEPARTMNET OF ENGLISH LETTERS FACULTY OF LETTERS SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY YOGYAKARTA 2009
THE ANALYSIS OF GRICE’S NON-OBSERVANCE CONVERSATIONAL MAXIMS OPERATING IN SHREK AN UNDERGRADUATE THESIS
Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Sarjana Sastra in English Letters
By
LANOKE INTAN PARADITA
Student Number: 044214098
ENGLISH LETTERS STUDY PROGRAMME DEPARTMNET OF ENGLISH LETTERS FACULTY OF LETTERS SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY YOGYAKARTA 2009
No Rain. No Rainbow
For my siblings,
Lana and Mona
And my best friends,
Ningsih and Senny ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This thesis will never find its way without all His grace. I thank Allah SWT, my God Almighty. I realize this thesis will never reach its end, without great supports from countless gorgeous people. I thank Adventina Putranti, S.S., M. Hum very much, my wonderful advisor, for her valuable guides through out the writing process and my co-advisor, Harris Hermansyah S., S.S., M.Hum for his support. I also thank all lectures and staffs of Sanata Dharma University, especially those cheering up the Department of English Letters, for all the knowledge and experience shared.
My great gratitude for my parents for their never-ending challenges, my brother, Lana, hopefully he will run as fast as the wind soon. For my sister Mona, my Grandmother, my aunt Bude Rini, Tante Endang, and my uncle Pakde Sam for their support. I also send many thanks for my beautiful best friends Ningsih, Senny, and Ståle for their lifetime experiences. For Eling, Mas Topik, Aryk, Toni, Tuti, Wira, Ade, for the best friendship and the great change of my life. For all of my creative brilliant friends in Komunitas Gayam 16, Mbak Dita for her valuable sharing, Rosyi, Penceng, Icak, Dika, Yusda, Mas Hana, Mas Asep, Mas Djijit, Mas Djoko, Mas Rudit, Mbah Sapto, Simak Aciek, Mbak Beta, Mbak Sani, and Mbak Putri who give a never ending chance for me to grow.
I also thank Bank BCA very much for the fund helping me passing those many semesters. I also send my gratitude to Pak Edy who gives me the inspiration, Skaeys for all of the surprises, my Aikido-ka friends, String Movie Maniacs, EDS Sadhar, and Panggung Boneka for the precious experiences. My countless thanks Masashi Kishimoto-sensei, Akeboshi, and Bang Andrea Hirata for their wonderful and beautiful spirit, and for Robin S. Sharma for his wisdom.
I also thank Saoran for his unbelievable experiences and Sigit for those wakes up; they certainly did! And my honor for everyone who never stops fighting for their dreams!
Lanoke Intan Paradita
TABLE OF CONTENTS TITLE PAGE ……………………………………………………………….. APPROVAL PAGE ………………………………………………………… ACCEPTANCE PAGE …………………………………………………….. MOTTO PAGE …………………………………………………………….. DEDICATION PAGE …………………………………………………….... ACKNOWLEDGEMENT …………………………………………………. TABLE OF CONTENTS …………………………………………………... TABLE OF ABBREVIATION ……………………………………………. ABSTRACT ……………………………………………………………….... ABSTRAK …………………………………………………………………...
22
8
8
14
20
21
21
21
22
7
22
23
25
25
25
29
33
40
7
5
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION …………………………………………. A. Background of the study………………………………………... B. Problem Formulation…………………………………………… C. Objectives of the Study…………………………………………. D. Definition of Terms……………………………………………... CHAPTER II: THEORETICAL REVIEW ……………………………… A. Review of Related Studies………………………………………. B. Review of Related Theories……………………………………...
CHAPTER IV: ANALYSIS ……………………………………………….. A. The analysis of maxims violated……………………………........
1. Theory of local organization operating within a conversation………………………………………………….
2. Theory of Cooperative Principles by Grice…………………..
C.
Theoretical Framework…………………………………………..
CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY ............................................................. A. Object of the Study………………………………………………. B. Approach of the Study…………………………………………… C. Method of the Study……………………………………………... D. Research Procedure………………………………………………
1. Data collection………………………………………………… 2.
Data Analysis………………………………………………...
1. The violation of maxim of quantity………………............
4
2. The violation of maxim of quality………………………..
3. The violation of maxim of manner……………………….
4. Opting out………………………………………………...
5. The violation of maxim of quantity and maxim of manner………………………………………………........
6. The violation of maxim of Quality and maxim of Manner………………………………………………....... i ii iii iv v vi vii ix x xi
1
1
4
44
B.
47 The analysis of possible reason the participants to violate the maxims…………………………………………………………...
49 1. To control the other participants’ feeling by creating fear…….
50 2. To plead the other participants………………………………...
50 3. To repair what has been said by the participant……………….
51 4. To cover or keep the truth a secret…………………………….
52 5. To persuade someone doing something……………………….
54
56 CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION …………………………………………….
58 BIBLIOGRAPHY …………………………………………………………… xii
APPENDIX ……………………………………………………………….. xiii
TABLE OF ABBREVIATION
CF : to create fear or control the other participant’s feeling CT : to cover or keep the truth as a secret MMn : (the violation) of maxim of manner MQl : (the violation) of maxim of quality MQn : (the violation) of maxim of quantity Op : opt out of a maxim PDS : to persuade the other participants to do something PS : to plead the other participants TR : to repair what has been said
ABSTRACT LANOKE INTAN PARADITA. The Analysis of Grice’s Non-observance
Conversational Maxims Operating in Shrek
. Yogyakarta. Department of English Letters, Faculty of Letters, Sanata Dharma University, 2009
The study that is conducted in this thesis is aiming at the analysis of Grice’s Cooperative Principles which are constituted in a conversation. The analysis particularly discusses the non-observance of conversational maxims in the conversation, which are described in four different ways that are by flouting, violating, opting out, and infringing over maxim(s). This study however will focus on the violation and the opt out.
The object of the study is a comedy cartoon film entitled Shrek. This film is chosen to be the object since there is a close relationship between comedy or humor and the non-observance of the Cooperative Principles specifically the violation and opt out. Moreover, this film is regarded as the best cartoon film ever made.
In doing the analysis, the writer formulates two problem formulations as the frame for the whole analysis. The first problem formulation is how the participants in Shrek violate and opt out over maxim(s). The second problem formulation is what possible reasons which may prompt the participants to either violate or opt out of maxim(s).
The study is using an empirical study which data are taken from Shrek dialog which is transcribed into a film script. The data then are compared with the printed script which is collected from the internet. To do the analysis, the writer uses a pragmatic approach since the study involves how the participants use the language to attain their goals and how they interpret the utterances that are conveyed.
The analysis shows that there are thirteen violations and opts out. The violation of the maxim of manner becomes the maxim violated most, which occurs four times out of eleven violations in nine dialogs. Based on the analysis, there are five reasons as the main backgrounds which prompt the participants to fail in following or observing the maxims. The reasons are to create fear or control the other participants’ feeling, to plead the other participants, to repair what the participants has already said, to cover the truth or keep the truth as a secret, and to persuade the other participants to do something.
ABSTRAK LANOKE INTAN PARADITA. The Analysis of Grice’s Non-observance
Conversational Maxims Operating in Shrek
. Yogyakarta. Department of English Letters, Faculty of Letters, Sanata Dharma University, 2009
Penelitian yang dilakukan dalam penulisan skripsi ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis prinsip kerja sama yang dikemukakan oleh Grice yang terdapat dalam sebuah percakapan. Secara khusus, analisis dalam skripsi ini mendiskusikan tentang non-obsarvance dari prinsip kerja sama dalam percakapan yang digambarkan dalam empat cara yang berbeda, yaitu flouting, violating,
opting out, dan infringe. Akan tetapi, penelitian ini akan secara khusus membahas
violating dan opting out.Objek dalam penelitian ini adalah film kartun komedi yang berjudul
Shrek . Film ini dipilih sebagai objek penelitian karena adanya hubungan yang
dekat antara komedi atau humor dengan non-obervance pada prinsip kerja sama Grice, khususnya violating dan opting out. Terlebih lagi, film ini dianggap sebagai salah satu film paling sukses yang pernah dibuat.
Untuk melakukan analisis, penulis memformulasikan dua rumusan masalah sebagai kerangka untuk keseluruhan analisis. Rumusan pertama adalah bagaimana para pelaku tindak tutur dalam film Shrek melakukan violation dan
opt out . Rumusan masalah yang kedua adalah alasan apa yang mungkin dimiliki
oleh para pelaku tindak tutur sehingga mereka melakukan violation dan opt out terhadap maksim-maksim dalam prinsip kerja sama..
Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian empiris. Dara yang digunakan didapat dari percakapan Shrek yang diterjemahkan ke dalam naskah film. Data ini kemudian dibandingkan dengan naskah tertulis yang didapat dari penelusuran internet. Dalam melakukan analisis, penulis menggunakan pendekatan pragmatik karena penelitian ini berkaitan dengan bagaimana para pelaku tindak tutur menggunakan bahasa untuk mencapai tujuan-tujuan mereka dan bagaimana mereka menginterpretasi kalimat-kalimat yang diutarakan.
Analisis menunjukkan bahwa terdapat sebelas violations dan opts out di dalam dialog. Violation terhadap maksim pelaksanaan (maxim of manner) merupakan pelanggaran yang sering dilakukan oleh pelaku tindak tutur, yaitu empat pelanggaran dari sebelas pelanggaran dalam sembilan percakapan. Berdasarkan hasil analisis, terdapat lima alasan utama bagi para pelaku tindak tutur untuk tidak patuh terhadap maksim-maksim. Alasan tersebut adalah untuk memberi rasa takut atau mengendalikan perasaan mitra tutur, untuk merayu mitra tutur, untuk memperbaki hal-hal telah dikatakan, untuk menutupi kebenaran atau menyimpannya sebagai rahasia, dan untuk membujuk mitra tutur untuk melakukan sesuatu,
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION A. Background of the study In human daily activities, people always make interaction with others. They use various media to exchange information and convey meaning. One
common way is by having conversation with others. In fact, many researches on language recognize that individuals, social groups, and speech communities produce different amounts of conversation (Asher, 1994: 747).
The participants of a conversation frequently mean much more than their words actually say (Thomas 1995 in Dornerus, 2005:1). Therefore the listeners should interpret in order to understand what the speaker intends to say. When the hearers try to understand the implied meaning, they are trying to find the implicature of the utterances uttered by the speaker that is ‘the implication of the utterance not directly stated in the words but hinted at for the hearer to interpret’ (Dornerus, 2005: 4). Based on the context the participants are communicating, Grice defines two kinds of implicature that are conventional and conversational implicature (Dorenus 2005 and Kalliömaki 2005). The conventional implicature has the same implication no matter what the context is, while conversational implicature is generated directly by the speaker depending on the context (Thomas in Dornerus 2005: 4).
Grice believes that there is a set of assumption guiding the participants to conduct the conversation. The assumptions may be regarded as the guidelines for the participants in order to have an efficient and effective use of language. These guidelines are constituted in four basic maxims that are the maxim of quality, quantity, relevance, and manner (Kalliömaki, 2005:22). These maxims generate a general term called as Cooperative Principle. The principle is:
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 (in Mooney, 2003:1).
The participants generally will not generate any implicature if they are following or successfully observe the principle, because there will be no difference upon what is said and what is implied (Kalliömaki, 2005: 24). However, in some occasion the participants intentionally make a distinction from what they say to what they mean. This case of non-observance of the maxims are in fact is a frequent use within a conversation. Grice describes four ways of non-observance that are flouting a maxim, violating a maxim, opting out of observing a maxim, and infringing a maxim (Asher 1994 and Kalliömaki 2005).
This non-observance of the maxims is somehow an interesting phenomenon during a talk exchange since the speakers are free in making a purposely remark which can lead to various implicature to the listeners and because of one or some reasons, it will cause them to either flout, violate, opt out, or merely infringe a maxim. What makes it more interesting is the fact that in giving the remark, the speaker usually has some signs which can be seen through conversation analysis point of view, e.g. the preference sequence remark.
The object to study in this thesis is a conversation of a comedy cartoon film entitled Shrek which is transcribed into a film script. A comedy film is chosen based on the fact that there is a close relationship between the violations of the maxim in Grice’s cooperative principles with humor (Attardo, 1994: 271) since Grice himself has used a humorous example (Attardo, 1994: 205). Moreover, this film is a box office film which is considered as one of the most successful cartoon film ever made.
The example of the conversation which participant (Gingerbread Man) violates the maxim of manner is seen below:
Turn Participants Dialogs 128 Farquaad That's enough. He's ready to talk.
129 Farquaad (he picks up the Gingerbread Man's legs
and plays with them ) Run, run, run, as
fast as you can. You can't catch me. I'm the gingerbread man. 130 Gingerbread Man You are a monster 131 Farquaad I'm not the monster here. You are. You and the rest of that fairy tale trash, poisoning my perfect world. now, tell me! Where are the others?
132 Gingerbread Man Eat me! ( He spits milk into Farquaad's
eye.)
) The dialog above is the example of conversation showing the non- observance of conversational maxim, namely opt out, that is a way to show an unwillingness to cooperate (Dornerus, 2005:7). In the conversation, Gingerbread Man is clearly seen to be uncooperative with Farquaad by giving him a remark which is intended to drop the conversation out and give no further implicature. Gingerbread Man’s preference to be uncooperative can be seen through his turn (131): ‘Eat me!’ which shows his unwillingness to tell Farquaad about where his friends are hiding. This remark is seen as his unwillingness to cooperate since this remark is a kind of remark blocking any further turn within a conversation and at the same time shows a dispreferred second turn from Gingerbread Man.
As a matter of fact, like the example above, there will be many occasions when the participants fail to observe the maxims, especially the flouting of a maxim since there are lots of conversation in which participants convey implicit meaning and expect the listeners to understand it. However, this study will focus on the non-observance categories of violating and opting out of the maxim. Therefore, the conversations used in the analysis will only cover the conversations in which the participants are regarded as intentionally violating and opting out of the conversational maxim.
B. Problem formulation
The problems are formulated as follow: 1. How are the maxim(s) violated and opted out in Shrek’s conversation? 2. Why the participants in Shrek’s conversation violate and opt out of the maxim?
C. Objective of the study
In general, this study aims to analyze the non-observance of Grice’s conversational maxims, particularly participants’ violating and opting out of maxims. It will discuss how the participants in the film fail to observe the maxims and thus they are either violating or opt the maxims outs. Moreover, the discussion is going to see what possible reasons may prompt the participants so that they prefer to violate or opt out of a maxim.
D. Definition of terms For perceiving a clear understanding upon the discussion, it is better to know the meaning of terms used throughout the discussion:
1. Conversation
Conversation is discourse mutually constructed and negotiated in time between speakers; it is usually informal and unplanned (Cutting, 2002: 28).
2. Conversation analysis
Cutting (2002: 24) explains that conversational analysis is an approach to looking at the structure of discourse (in this case is film script), which studies the way that what speakers say dictates the type of answer expected, and that speakers take turns when they interact.
3. Cooperative principles
Cooperative Principle according to Grice is to ‘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’ (in Mooney, 2003:1).
4. Conversational maxims
The maxims are the sub-principles of the cooperative principle. According to Grice’s theory the conversational maxims try to explain how a listener might get from the level of expressed meaning to the level of implied meaning (Asher, 1994: 754). Grice proposed four maxims, that are maxim of quality, maxim of quantity, maxim of relation, and maxim of manner. Usually the maxims are regarded as unstated assumption in conversation (Yule, 1996: 37).
5. Violating maxims
Violation is the unostentatious non-observance of a maxim (Asher, 1994: 756). A speaker is violating a maxim when they know that the listener will
not
know the truth and will only understand the surface meaning of the words. They intentionally generate a misleading implicature (Cutting, 2002: 40), that what is inferred is not mentioned (Yule, 1996: 40).
6. Opting out of the maxims
A speaker opts out of observing a maxim by indicating unwillingness to cooperate in the way that the maxim requires (Asher, 1994: 757). He or she cannot reply in the way expected, for example is their unwillingness to cooperate for legal or ethical reason (Cutting, 2002: 41). The speakers opt out in order not to give false implicature which lead them violate the maxims.
7. Non-observance conversational maxim
Non-observance is defined as either blatant or unostentatious failing to observe the maxims i.e. corresponding to ‘flouting’ or ‘violating’ of maxims according to Grice (Brumark, 2004: 13). Non-observance is ways that the participants use to make a distinction between what is said and what is meant which then generate implicature (Kalliömaki, 2005: 24)
CHAPTER II THEORETICAL REVIEW A. Review on Related Studies Since conversation analysis is not a new study, there has been many
studies and research concerning this subject in relation with many fields of study. Related to linguistics, conversation analysis is broadly developed and also used for understanding conversation of doctor-patient, lecturer-student, and buyer-seller.
In Literate Journal on Literature, Language, and Cultural Studies (2007), Eko Prasetyo Humanika writes “Conversational Analysis” addressing the nature of conversation between a teacher and a student which is full of denials and implicit meanings. Using an empirical study, he focuses his analysis in the formal aspect of a conversation which uses six basic principles of conversation that are speech acts, Grice’s maxim or principle of cooperative behaviour, adjacency pairs, turn taking, repair, and overall organization, as the tools for doing the analysis.
Humanika uses a conversation in an examination which is taken from
Speaking Naturally, Communication Skills in American English-book and cassette as his object. The conversation is between Mr. Sorensen as the
teacher and Richard Jackson as the student. In general, the conversation describes how Richard tries to deny Mr. Sorensen accusation that he is cheating during the examination. Therefore, there are many denials and implicit meanings intentionally uttered by both speakers.
Humanika uses the six basic principles of conversation to analyze the denials and implicit meanings. He studies the conversation by analyzing each sentence and observes what basic principle(s) is applied. He finds that all of the basic principles are applied within the conversation. At the end of his analysis, he states that the conversation is dominated by denials and implicit meanings.
Related to Humanika studies, the analysis to do in this paper will also discuss the formal aspects of the conversation. However, the discussion will be narrowed to Grice’s cooperative principles, particularly how the principles are violated and opted out of the conversation. Moreover, the discussion will also cover the possible reasons for the participants to do the violation and opt out in the conversation.
B. Review on Related Theories
There are two main theories to use throughout the analysis. The first theory will concern the local organization within a conversation. The second theory is Grice’s cooperative principles. These two theories will be used jointly to discuss the first and the second question stated in the problem formulation.
1. Theory of local organization operating within a conversation
It is first better to know what can make a conversation conversation. Based on Cook (1989) which is cited in Cutting (2002: 28), a conversation is a discourse mutually constructed and negotiated in time between speakers; it is usually informal and unplanned. A talk may be classed as a conversation when: a.
It is not primarily necessitated by a practical task b. Any unequal power of participants is partially suspended c. The number of the participants is small d. Turns are quite short e. Talk is primarily for the participants not for an outside audience (Thomas in Cutting, 2002: 28)
For example, a doctor-patient, a TV quiz show, and teacher-student exchange are not conversation because they do not have all properties listed above. There is an unequal power balance in doctor-patient exchange since the doctor takes control of the event and is necessitated by a practical task of diagnosing and prescribing. The unequal power also occurs in the exchange of teacher-student in a class. While the TV quiz show is certainly for outside audience.
In a conversation, there is always local management organization operating within every conversation. The local management is a set of convention which control the turns, that is getting turns, keeping them, or giving them away (Yule, 1996: 72), The local management is governed by some basic principles that are turn taking, adjacency pairs, and sequences. (a)
Turn taking Turn taking is a basic finding which characterizes conversation at where one participant, A, talks, stops; another, B, starts, talks, stops; and it will be obtained as A-B-A-B-A-B distribution talk across two participants (Levinson, 1983:296). Every time the participant has the right to speak, they are called as having the floor and can attempt to get the floor. ‘Any possible change-of-turn point’ (Yule, 1996: 72) or ‘a point in a conversation where a change of turn is possible’ (Cutting, 2002: 29) is called a Transition Relevance Place (TRP).
In having the conversation, sometimes the participants try to speak at the same time, which is called overlap (Yule, 1996: 72), as the reverse of overlap, sometimes there is an absence of vocalization between the participants which is called as silence (Humanika, 2007: 73). If one speaker actually turns over the floor to another and the other does not speak, which produce a silence, intending to carry meaning, the silence is called as an attributable silence (Cutting, 2002: 29).
(b) Adjacency pairs
There is always pattern in a conversation which apparently happens automatically. The pattern is likely to be question-answer, offer-accept, blame-deny, apology-minimization, etc. This pattern is called as adjacency pairs at where the participants are having the turn taking system and thus operating the first and second part of the conversation.
Schegloff and Sacks as in Levinson (1983: 303), characterizes adjacency pairs as two utterances that are: (i) adjacent (ii) produced by different speake rs (iii) art ordered as first part and second p (iv) typed, so that a particular first part requires a particular second (or range of second parts) – e.g. offers require acceptances or rejections, greetings require greetings, and so on, and there is a rule governing the use of adjacency pairs, namely:
‘having produced a first part of some pair, current speaker must stop speaking, and next speaker must produce at that point a second part to the same pair.’ (Levinson, 1983: 303-304) (i) Preference structure
Whenever the first part creating an expectation of a particular second part, the structure is called as preference structure, that each part has a preferred and a dispreferred response. A dispreferred response usually tends to be refusal or disagreement (Cutting, 2002: 30). Some linguists have generalized the characteristics of dispreferred seconds in which turns typically exhibit at least a substantial number of the following features: (a) delays: (i) by pause before delivery, (ii) by the use of a preface,
(iii) by displacement over a number of turns via use of repair
initiators or insertion sequences
(b) prefaces: (i) the use of markers of announcers of dispreferreds like Uh and Well, (ii) the production of token agreements before disagreements, (iii) the use of appreciations if relevant (for offers, invitation, suggestions, advice), (iv) the use of apologies if relevant (for requests, invitations, etc), (v) the use of qualifiers (e.g. I don’t know for sure, but..), (vi) hesitation in various forms, including self editing
(c) accounts: carefully formulated explanations for why the (dispreferred) act is being done
(d) declination component: of a form suited to the nature of the first part of the pair, but characteristically indirect or mitigated (Levinson, 1983: 334)
Since there is a structural characterization of preferred and dispreferred turns, the content and the sequential position can be related to the tendency to produce them in a preferred or dispreferred format. There is a consistent match between format and content found across a number of adjacency pair seconds which is described in the following table: Table 1. Correlation of content and format in adjacency pair seconds FIRST PART
Request Offer/ Assessment Question Blame SECOND PART
invite
Preferred: acceptance acceptance agreement Expected denial Dispreferred: refusal refusal disagreement unexpected admission answer answer or non-answer(Levinson, 1983: 336) Based on the table, therefore, when a speaker makes a request, as the first part of a whole sequence of conversation, a listener can give two possible responses upon the request. This response is the second part of the sequence in which the listener can give the response either in a preferred structure, that is by accepting the request, or dispreferred structure, that is by refusing the request. These pairs can be repeated in the sequence. (c)
Sequences Having the conversation, the participants are constructing certain sequences. The sequences can be pre-sequences, insertion sequences, and opening and closing sequences (Cutting, 2002: 31). (i)
Pre-sequences The term pre-sequence refers both to a certain kind of turn and a certain kind of sequence containing that type of turn
(Levinson, 1983: 345). There are some kinds of pre-sequence, such as pre-invitations (I’ve got two tickets for the rugby match..’), pre- request (‘Are you busy tonight?’), and pre-announcements (‘You’ll never guess!’) (Cutting, 2004: 31). (ii) Insertion sequence
Often in a talk exchange, the first part does not immediately receive the second parts. There sometimes other sequences are embedded between the first and second part of the talk exchange. This insertion is called the insertion sequence. For example of insertion sequence is A Do you want some of those cakes? (Turn 1) B Do they look good? (Turn 2) A Er—no (Turn 3) B No (Turn 4)
The first part (Turn 1) is actually responded in Turn 4, which within its sequence, Turn 2 and Turn 3 are embedded within the conversation. (iii) ce
Opening and closing sequen There is in fact typical opening sequence structure within a conversation. Levinson (1983: 309) explains that openings are constructed largely from adjacency pairs: thus there are typically paired Hellos as an exchange of greetings, self-identifications with paired recognitions, and an exchange of How are yous each with their paired responses. The sequences run typically as first part- second part which is called as summon for the first part and answer for the second part, which exchange establishes an open channel for talk.
While there is usually a typical structure for opening sequence, the conversation also establish a general schema for the closing sequence, which in Levinson’s Pragmatics (1983: 317), might be represented as: (a) a closing down of some topic, typically a closing implicative topic; where closing implicative topics include the making of arrangements, the first topic is monotopical calls, the giving of regards to the other family members, etc
(b) one or more pairs of passing turns with pre-closing items, like Okay, All right, So, etc
(c) if appropriate, a typing of the call as e.g. a favour requested and done (hence Thank you), or as a checking up on recipient’s state of health (Well I just wanted to know how you were), etc., followed by further exchange of pre-closing items
(d) a final exchange of terminal elements: Bye, Rights, Cheers, etc.
2. Theory of Cooperative Principles by Grice
It is assumed that in exchanging information via conversation the participants are following certain principles. This is often called as cooperation between the participants. The cooperation involves the assumption that the participants do not try to confuse, trick, or withhold relevant information from each other (Yule, 1996: 35) and often refer as following or able to observe the principles operating within the conversation. There are four conversational maxims which Grice proposes as what is formulated below:
Quantity : Make your contribution as informative as is required (for
the current purposes of the exchange) Do not make your contribution more informative than is required
Quality Try to make your contribution one that is true
Do not say what you believe to be false Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence
Relation Be relevant Manner Avoid obscurity of expression
Avoid ambiguity Be perspicuous Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity) Be orderly
(Yule, 1996: 37) As noted by Asher (1994: 756), Grice himself is aware that there are many occasions on which speakers fail to observe the maxims. The failure of observing the maxims is described into four ways of non- observance conversational maxims that are violating, flouting, opting out, and infringing a maxim. The maxims are violated when the speakers purposely give no sufficient, insincere, irrelevant or ambiguous information which are delivered in unordered manner. Whenever the speakers violate the maxim they know that the listeners will not know the truth. They are sometimes regarded as deceiving because indeed they are liable to mislead the implicature (Cutting, 2002:40). The maxims are flouted when the speakers are expecting that the listeners will understand the implied meanings. In flouting a maxim, the speakers are not trying to mislead the listeners, instead they are assuming that the listeners know that their words should not be taken as a face value and that they can infer the implicit meaning (Cutting, 2002: 37). Different with violating and flouting, opting out over a maxim shows the speakers unwillingness to cooperate, since they usually drop themselves out of the conversation because they do not want the listeners to infer any implicit meanings or observe any maxims are operating (Asher, 1994: 797).
Since the focus in this study is the failure of observing the maxim by violating and opting out, the flouting and infringing are not discussed any further. (a)
Violating the maxim Based on Thomas (1995) that is quoted by Cutting (2002:
40), a speaker is violating a maxim when they know that the listener will not know the truth and only understand the surface meaning of the words. They intentionally generate a misleading implicature. A maxim violation is unostentatiously, quietly deceiving. The speaker deliberately supplies insufficient information, says something that is insincere, irrelevant or ambiguous.
(i) Violation of quantity maxim The speakers violate the quantity maxim when they do not give the listener enough information to know what is being talked about, because they do not want the listener to know the truth. For example: A Does your dog bite? B No. A (Bends down to stroke it and gets bitten) Ow! You said your dog doesn’t bite! B That isn’t my dog
B knew that A was talking about the dog in front of B and not B’s dog at ho me, yet B intentionally did not give A enough information, for reasons best known to B her/himself (Cutting, 2002:40).
(ii) Violation of quality maxim If the speaker is intentionally being not sincere and giving wrong information, he or she is violating the maxim of quality. For example is in the case of Sir Maurice Bowra below: ‘When Sir Maurice Bowra was Warden of Wedham College, Oxford, he was interviewing a young man for a place at the college. He eventually came to the conclusion that the young man would not do. Helpfully, however, he let him down gently by advising the young man, ‘I think you would be happier in a larger—or a smaller—college’
If Sir Maurice Bowra, in the example above, knew that the young man did not realize that he had failed the interview because of his performance, and that if he knew that the young man would believe that it was the size of the college that it was the size of the college that was wrong to him, then he could be said to be telling a lie, because he violating the maxim of quality (Cutting, 2002:40).
(iii) Violation of relevance maxim A speaker is violating the maxim of relevance if the speaker says something in order to distract the listener. The distraction is by intentionally giving a misleading implicature, so that the speaker can change the topic and keep the truth covered. For example: Husband How much did that new dress cost, darling? Wife I know, let’s go tonight. Now, where would you like to go? (Cutting, 2002:40)
The wife intends not to tell the husband about the price of the dress, thus she intentionally remarks with the utterances which are made in order to distract her husband and directly change the topic. (iv) Violation of manner maxim
Within a conversation, if a speaker says the utterance in obscure or vague reference and avoids giving a brief and orderly answer, he/ she could be regarded as violating the maxim of manner. The violation is intended in the hope that what is said could be taken as an answer and the matter could be dropped because the listener do not know the truth. Example:
X What would the other people say? Y Ah well I don’t know. I wouldn’t like to repeat it because I don’t really believe half of what they are saying. They just get a fixed thing into their mind.
In the above sheltered home example, the old lady answer the interviewer’s question in a way that could be said to be violating the maxim of manner, in that she says everything expect what the interviewer wants to know. Her ‘half of what they are saying’ is an obscure reference to the other people’s opinion, and ‘a fixed thing’ contains a general noun containing vague reference.
She may be using these expressions to avoid giving a brief and orderly answer, for the moment (Cutting, 2002:41).
(b) Opting out
A speaker opting out a maxim indicates an unwillingness to cooperate. They cannot reply in the way expected, sometimes for legal or ethical reasons (Cutting, 2002: 41). Alternatively, the speaker may wish to avoid generating a false implicature or appearing to be uncooperative.
Asher (1994: 797) added that, ‘When a speaker explicitly opts out of observing a maxim, she or he could be seen to provide privileged access into the way in which speaker normally attend to the maxims, which in turn offers prima facie evidence for Grice’s contention that there exists on the part of interactants a strong expectation that, cateris paribus and unless indication is given on the contrary, the cooperative principles and the maxims will be observed’ (Asher, 1994: 797) Therefore, the speaker may wish to opt out of a maxim and drop the topic in order to make the listener not to have a false implicature, Moreover, by opting out a maxim the speaker may also seem to avoid in having conversation unless the listener will be able to recognize the maxim operating in the speaker’s utterance. (c)
Flouting a maxim A speaker is flouting a maxim when they appear to fail in observing the maxims but is not intending to deceive or misleading, but because the speaker ‘wishes to prompt the listener to look for a meaning which is different from, or in addition to, the expressed meaning’ (Asher, 1994: 754). (d)
Infringing A speaker infringes the maxim when he or she fails to observe the maxim because of their imperfect linguistic performance, such as having an imperfect command of the language (a child or a foreigner learner), having impaired in their performance (nervousness, drunkenness, excitement), having a cognitive impairment, or simply incapable of speaking clearly (Cutting, 2002: 41).
When a speaker is infringing a maxim, he or she does not have any intention to generate implicature, deceive, or mislead the listener (Asher, 1994: 757).
C. Theoretical Framework
The theory of local organization operating within the conversation will be used to help in finding the indication of participants’ violation and their opt out of the maxim and accordingly find out how the maxims are violated and opted out. Meanwhile, Grice’s cooperative principle will be used to identify what maxims that are violated and opted out. These two theories will be used jointly and interdependently in one categorized conversation. These theories will also be used to find the possible reasons of participants in doing the violation and opting out.