The Analysis of The Non-Observance of Gricean Maxims of The Contestants' Utterances in 'The Aprentice' (Season I).
ABSTRACT
Dalam penulisan tugas akhir ini, saya menganalisis bidal, yang merupakan semacam panduan dalam bertutur. Saya mengambil data dari sebuah serial realita televisi yang berjudul The Apprentice. Dalam acara televisi tersebut, saya mendapati bahwa demi memenangkan kontes untuk menjadi direktur dari salah satu perusahaan milik Donald Trump, para peserta kontes acapkali melakukan pelanggaran terhadap suatu bidal tertentu baik disengaja maupun tidak. Saya menganalisis pelanggaran yang terjadi terhadap fitur-fitur panduan dalam bertutur Herbert Paul Grice. Secara lebih spesifik, suatu bidal dapat dilanggar karena penutur ingin menyampaikan suatu implikatur, atau untuk memperdayai seseorang sehingga memiliki pola pikir yang berbeda.
Tugas akhir ini bertujuan untuk memberikan informasi bahwa dalam berkomunikasi, terkadang seorang penutur mempunyai maksud dan tujuan tertentu yang harus diinterpretasikan oleh mitra tutur. Hal ini terjadi karena seorang penutur tidak selalu menyampaikan apa yang ingin disampaikan secara langsung dalam suatu situasi tutur.
Salah satu temuan yang saya peroleh dalam penelitian mengenai bidal dalam The Apprentice adalah pelanggaran yang di dalamnya seorang penutur menolak untuk mengikuti panduan dalam bertutur. Tanpa memiliki maksud memperdayai mitra tutur, seorang penutur berharap mitra tuturnya dapat menafsirkan sendiri makna yang tersirat
(2)
dalam tuturan. Namun mitra tutur dapat menciptakan pengertian berbeda apabila mitra tutur tersebut tidak menanggapi implikatur yang diberikan oleh seorang penutur. Seorang penutur memiliki motif tertentu saat melanggar suatu bidal.
(3)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ... ………... i
TABLE OF CONTENTS ... iii
ABSTRACT ... iv
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION Background of the Study ... 1
Statement of the Problems ... . 3
Purpose of the Study ... 4
Method of Research ... 4
Organization of the Thesis ... 5
CHAPTER TWO: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ... 6
CHAPTER THREE: ANALYSIS OF THE NON-OBSERVANCE OF GRICEAN MAXIMS IN THE CONTESTANTS’ UTTERANCES IN THE APPRENTICE (SEASON 1)... 12
CHAPTER FOUR: CONCLUSION ... 25
BIBLIOGRAPHY ... 30
(4)
APPENDICES
NO DATA TYPE OF
MAXIM
NON-OBSERVANCE 1. Donald Trump : Alright Kwame, if you
had to choose somebody that did really a bad job, who do you think you’d choose?
Kwame : I don’t think there’s someone who necessarily led us down the wrong path. I think yes, we should have talked to the president. Maxims of Manner Maxim of Quantity
Flouting a maxim
2. Donald Trump : Sam, do you think Jason was good or terrible? Sam : I don’t think Jason was good. I don’t think he was terrible. Are those the only two options?
Maxim of Manner Maxim of Quantity
Flouting a maxim
3. Sam : I’m asking you give me a name ---
Jason : Sam, can I *** finish? I’m telling you. I’m not gonna answer you. No matter what you say to me. I’m not gonna
answer.
Opting out of a maxim
(5)
4. Donald Trump : Sam, didn’t you sleep through the most of this?
Sam : No, I didn’t sleep.
Jason : He was curled up on the side of the floor. He constantly complaining-
Donald Trump : In a fetal position? Jason : In a fetal position.
Sam : This is good. (All laughing). This is great. Now Nick’s laughing which I love when he laughs.
Donald Trump : Don’t Nick. Don’t say anything. You’re not gonna be chosen. Don’t blow it. Sit there. Be good. You look a like West Point . Cadet. If you say something, who knows? But these two are fighting for their life. Ok. Go ahead.
Sam : I don’t think I’m fighting for my life here, Mr. Trump. Donald Trump : You should be fighting for your life Sam. In many respects, you’ve been a disaster.
Maxim of Quality
Violating a maxim
5.
Kwame : What was your phone call? Omarosa : I’m not gonna have that conversation.
Troy : Tell me what the phone call was about.
Omarosa : It really was not a big deal.
Maxim of Manner
Maxim of Quality
Flouting a maxim
Violating a maxim
(6)
6. The women : Not tomorrow. Do not go to the Planet Hollywood tomorrow.
The man : Why? What’s up? The women : Only tonight. ‘Cause tomorrow it’s closed. The man : Oh it is.
The women : Yeah.
Maxim of Quality
Violating a maxim
7. Donald Trump : Who would you choose? Who did the worst job? Come on, Bill. You have to make a decision. Who would you choose? You have to do it, Bill.
Bill : I… I… I…
George : You’re an executive. You gotta make some decisions which are very painful. Bill : But I don’t have to live with the people when I leave here. Donald Trump : Sometimes you do have to live with the situation. Who would you fire of the two, Bill?
Bill : (pause) My own problem with Ereka was that many of my ideas were dismissed.
Maxim of Quantity Maxim of
Relation
Flouting a maxim
Opting out of a maxim Infringes
(7)
8. Donald Trump : Heidi, how come you keep shaking your head?
Heidi : I’m not shaking my head. I’m not.
Donald Trump : It looks to me like you’re disagreeing with
what he’s saying. Heidi : I’m not disagreeing.
I’m really not. I do agree.
Maxim of Quality
Violating a maxim
9. Donald Trump : It was clear, but he duped you.
Katrina : Nobody has ever duped me. Donald Trump : You’ve never, ever been duped?
Katrina : Nope.
Donald Trump : I have.
Katrina : I’m not gonna give him credit for it.
Donald Trump : I’ve been duped. I’ve been duped many times. Everyone’s duped. You’ve been duped also. Tammy : I think we got duped, to be honest.
Maxim of Quality
Violating a maxim
10. George : ... Nick you looked like you were dying out on the street and said, “ What am I doing here?”
Nick : I disagree with that 100%. I was happy. I was upbeat. I brought a significant amount of traffic in that day. Especially for the younger crow—mid 20s, Late 20s—.
...
Troy : I would have to absolutely say Nick. I didn’t feel the smile and
Maxim of Quality
Violating a maxim
(8)
the enthusiasm off of Nick. I think Nick does wonderful but he was dissapointing yesterday.
...
Bowie: ... i would like to have say Nick. Nick was doing great early on, and then he lost it—he lost
(9)
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study
In human life, communication is essential for interacting with others. It refers to the process of the production and exchange of information through the symbolic behavior of other persons. By communication, the process of sharing ideas, feeling, thoughts, or information between individuals can be carried out (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/communication).
In order to make the communication successful, the speaker has to make a contribution which can be understood by the hearer. In fact, people do not always say
what they mean directly. “Sometimes they mean more than what they actually say and
sometimes they mean something different from what they actually say” (Thomas 56).
The implication would not always be the same as the speaker's literal meaning. Implication may lead the hearer to have a number of perceptions in mind. In this situation, the assumption and interpretation of the hearer become the key to having the same understanding in conversation.
In pragmatics, there are rules of speaking to follow during a conversation, called maxims. Being cooperative is suggested in a conversation in order to make successful communication. According to Thomas’ Meaning in Interaction: an Introduction to Pragmatics, the Cooperative Principle, introduced by Herbert Paul
(10)
Grice, identifies four sub-principles of maxims which people implicitly obey for effective communication. These are maxims of Quantity, Quality, Relation and Manner. If the speaker and hearer are aware of the rules of speaking, they will seriously consider applying the Cooperative Principle (Thomas 63-64).
People sometimes speak without fulfilling the maxims. They do not say something directly because they have certain reasons. For example, a little boy is lying about his mother’s broken window in order to avoid punishment from his parents. Here, the little boy violates the maxim of quality, which requires him to say something that is not true. This situation has already proven that there is a reason why the child violates a maxim in his conversation.
Based on Grice’s theory and the factual condition above, I decide take the
topic for my thesis entitled Analysis of the Non-observance of Gricean Maxims in the Contestants’ Utterances in The Apprentice (season 1). The reason why I choose this topic is that I am interested in analyzing the relationship between what speakers say and what their words mean for the hearer. In this thesis, I want to explore how implicature is generated and interpreted in conversation.
The significance of my topic is to give some further information for readers in general and especially for English Department students about the use of the non-observance of Gricean maxims by the contestants’ utterances in a reality show, The Apprentice. Hopefully, they will learn about the non-observance of Gricean maxims and be able to know the probable motives when the maxims are flouted. I hope this study can inspire the readers to do further study in this field.
The linguistic scope of my thesis is Pragmatics. I choose this linguistic scope because in examining my data, it necessarily inquires about how the hearer can make
(11)
of study belongs to the speakers’ meaning dealing with utterances. We might say that it is the exploration of implied meaning. In analyzing the data, I use Paul Grice’s theory of Conversational Maxims as my basic theory to analyze the conversation.
The source of my data is a reality show series entitled The Apprentice. This is one of the famous reality shows which represent the workplace in real life. Because this reality show is recorded without script and scenario, the contestants must produce spontaneous utterances, which I can analyze based on the theory I apply. The Apprentice is a show in which 16 contestants compete with each other to win a
position as the president of one of Donald Trump’s companies. They are divided into
two teams, named Versacorp and Protégé. Every week they are given a task and
judged by Donald Trump’s executives, named George and Carolyn. For every task,
they must elect a project manager who will be responsible for the team’s success or failure. At the end of the task, the team that loses will meet Donald Trump in the boardroom, where one of the contestants will be fired. In this reality show, it can be seen that some contestants tend to speak without fulfilling the maxims and misunderstanding may occur when the non-observance of Gricean maxims arises.
(739 words)
1.2 Statement of the Problem
From the topic of my thesis I would like to analyze the problems which follow:
1. What type(s) of the non-observance of Gricean Maxims are implied in the
contestants’ utterance in The Apprentice?
(12)
3. What are the strategies behind the contestants’ non-observance of Gricean Maxims in The Apprentice?
1.3 Purpose of the study
Following the Statement of the Problem, the purposes of the study are:
1. To know what types of the non-observance of Gricean maxims is implied in the
contestants’ utterance in The Apprentice.
2. To know what the implicatures are in the contestants’ utterance in The Apprentice. 3. To know the strategies behind the contestants’ non-observance of Gricean maxims
in The Apprentice.
1.4 Method of Research
The method of research that I use in gathering data has the following steps: First, I watched the reality show The Apprentice season 1, and selected the data which are relevant to my analysis. Then I analyzed the data based on the theory of Herbert Paul Grice named The Non-Observance of Gricean Maxims. Finally, I made a conclusion based on my findings and comment on the analysis.
1.5 Organization of the Thesis
This thesis consists of four chapters. Chapter One is the Introduction, which includes Background of the Study, Statement of the Problem, Purpose of the Study, Method of Research, and Organization of the Thesis. Chapter Two is the Theoretical Framework, which is concerned with the linguistic theory and the approach used in writing this thesis. It contains the theory of Pragmatics related to the data that I analyze. Chapter Three contains the research findings and the analysis. In Chapter
(13)
Four, I draw some conclusions based on the previous chapter. This thesis is completed with the Bibliography and Appendix, which contains the utterances of my data.
(14)
CHAPTER FOUR
CONCLUSION
Having analyzed the data of my thesis, I would like to make some concluding points. In conversations, people do not always follow the rules of conversation. They do not always simply and straightforwardly state what they mean. Sometimes even when they say something they apparently mean, they are trying to imply something else. They want the hearer to interpret the implied meaning behind their utterances. However, there will be times that the speaker and the hearer have different assumption so that misunderstanding occur. That is the reason why the hearer has to be aware of what the speaker means in accordance with a particular context and utterance.
In relation to my research, I analyze the non-observance of Gricean maxims which are sometimes done by the contestants in the reality show The Apprentice. I found that the contestants refuse to obey the maxims for certain reasons. For example: Omarosa, as the contestant, misleads the team by saying that there is nothing to be worried about. In fact, there is a big problem because she does not do the job well. Considering that her big mistake will have the consequence of losing the game, she hides something that she knows.
(15)
Based on the data that I have analyzed, there are four types of the non-observance of maxims which the contestants fail to observe, namely, flouting, violating, infringing, and opting out of a maxim. There is no suspending a maxim that I found in my data. Suspending a maxim is not found because no taboo words are used. This happens because The Apprentice is a reality show which represents the workplace in real life so it uses formal conversation.
The type of the non-observance of maxims which mostly appear in my analysis is violating the maxim. This happens when the contestant is unwilling to cooperate to answer the question clearly by not saying the truth in order to save his or her life. In my analysis, violating a maxim is done by Omarosa when she is trying to cover her mistakes. In this situation, Omarosa does not do the job well. Owing to the fact that she does not want to be blamed on by other contestants, she really means to give misleading information to the hearer. From this, I conclude that someone would do anything to keep his or her life safe. For the reason not to be punished or fired, he or she tends to violate the maxims by absolutely giving wrong information or hiding information.
I found flouting the maxim in my analysis. This happens when the contestant has a strategy not to cooperate by answering the question clearly. Instead, he or she conveys something directly. For example, Sam is being asked
by Donald Trump to describe Jason’s performance as the team leader. However,
he gives an ambiguous answer by asking the same question back to Donald Trump. He could simply have said that Jason was a good or terrible leader. Yet,
he refuses to give a plain answer. Donald Trump even judges Sam’s statement as
(16)
who intentionally flouts the maxims may cause such as misunderstanding, if the hearer does not give a response to the implication. The hearer may have a different interpretation if someone actually has other information to reveal.
I also find an example of opting out of the maxim, as we can see in data number 3. In my data, Jason, as the team leader, choose to be uncooperative in answering Sam’s question. As he has some important information which could hurt other people, he does not reply with an informative and brief answer. By replying in this way, he opts out of the maxim. From this, I conclude that sometimes people want to say something directly, but the situation is not proper to convey the information. Whether it is because of an ethical reason or because it might hurt other people, someone is inclined to opt out of the maxim by refusing to answer the question directly as his or her strategy.
Infringing a maxim once arises in the contestants’ utterances. This
happens when Bill is in the condition of being under pressure, so he cannot answer the question clearly. From this, I conclude that in some circumstances, especially in the condition of nervousness, someone could infringe a maxim because he or she cannot answer the question clearly.
In my analysis, I also found that the contestants fail to observe the four of the conversational maxims. The four maxims are maxims of Quantity, Quality, Relation, and Manner. The conversational maxim which is mostly observed in my analysis is the maxim of Manner. It arises when the contestant is unwilling to give direst and brief answer. Sometimes he or she says ambiguous things that will make the hearer have another interpretation. For example, in data number 2, Sam gives uninformative information and his reply does not answer the question. It
(17)
makes Donald Trump, as the hearer, have another interpretation which think that
it is Sam’s strategy not to be fired.
The maxim of Manner sometimes appears to follow the maxim of Relation. This happens when the contestant does not want to give information that he or she has; otherwise, if the contestant does not want to talk in detail about the topic, he or she diverts to an irrelevant topic. From this, I conclude that someone changes the topic of conversation or adds some statements which are not requires in order to make the other person aware that he or she does not want to talk about the topic.
The implicature that the contestant implies by their utterances are various. For example, in my data analysis number 1, Kwame is being asked by Donald Trump about the person who really does a bad job. He does not straightforwardly judge Jason as the person who is responsible for losing the game; on the contrary, he gives a long-winded answer. From this, I conclude that sometimes someone is reluctant to say something explicitly. This may happen because of one or some reasons. Consequently, even when someone say something what he or she really means, he or she is trying to imply something else and wants the hearer to interpret the meaning behind his or her utterance.
The contestants fail to observe the maxims because they have some reasons behind their utterances. For example, Kwame is protecting Jason so as not to make Jason disqualified in this game, Omarosa wants to cover her mistakes, Sam defends his life, and Heidi want to keep her life safe. They make some justification to keep themselves stay in the game. However in my analysis, I conclude that every contestants has their own strategy to keep stay in the game.
(18)
Because of their only motive is to win the game, they try to make such an effort in order not to be fired by Donald Trump.
In analyzing the non-observance of Gricean Maxims in the contestants’ utterances in The Apprentice reality show, I come to the conclusion that people do not always say something directly. They have some reason not to say something in a simple and straightforward way; besides, they even mean to say something that is not true. This happens because of their effort to keep in the game. Consequently, they would do anything to make them stay in the game. The contetstants make either right or wrong justifications in order to cover their mistakes, to defend, to save their life, and most importantly, to win the competition. Therefore, the uses of the non-observance of Gricean maxims in the
contestants’ utterances in The Apprentice makes the reality show interesting to watch.
Further research could also be done in order to generalize these findings so that some contribution, both practical and theoretical ones, can be proposed. This study could be elaborated in other research. Because my research is from season 1, I would like to pose rhetorical questions for further research as the end of my conclusions, such as whether the analysis would be different in the non-observance of Gricean maxims in the contestants’ utterance in The Apprentice season 2? Or would the analysis be more significant if we apply the theory of Politeness or Speech Act?
(19)
BIBLIOGRAPHY
References:
Coulthard, M. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis. London: Longman, 1987. Levinson, S. C. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983. Thomas, Jenny. Meaning in Interaction: an Introduction to Pragmatics. London: Longman, 1995.
Yule, George. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996.
Internet Website:
Merriam-Webster.com. 2009. Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 30 May 2009 <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/communication>.
(1)
25 Maranatha Christian University
CHAPTER FOUR
CONCLUSION
Having analyzed the data of my thesis, I would like to make some concluding points. In conversations, people do not always follow the rules of conversation. They do not always simply and straightforwardly state what they mean. Sometimes even when they say something they apparently mean, they are trying to imply something else. They want the hearer to interpret the implied meaning behind their utterances. However, there will be times that the speaker and the hearer have different assumption so that misunderstanding occur. That is the reason why the hearer has to be aware of what the speaker means in accordance with a particular context and utterance.
In relation to my research, I analyze the non-observance of Gricean maxims which are sometimes done by the contestants in the reality show The Apprentice. I found that the contestants refuse to obey the maxims for certain reasons. For example: Omarosa, as the contestant, misleads the team by saying that there is nothing to be worried about. In fact, there is a big problem because she does not do the job well. Considering that her big mistake will have the consequence of losing the game, she hides something that she knows.
(2)
26 Maranatha Christian University Based on the data that I have analyzed, there are four types of the non-observance of maxims which the contestants fail to observe, namely, flouting, violating, infringing, and opting out of a maxim. There is no suspending a maxim that I found in my data. Suspending a maxim is not found because no taboo words are used. This happens because The Apprentice is a reality show which represents the workplace in real life so it uses formal conversation.
The type of the non-observance of maxims which mostly appear in my analysis is violating the maxim. This happens when the contestant is unwilling to cooperate to answer the question clearly by not saying the truth in order to save his or her life. In my analysis, violating a maxim is done by Omarosa when she is trying to cover her mistakes. In this situation, Omarosa does not do the job well. Owing to the fact that she does not want to be blamed on by other contestants, she really means to give misleading information to the hearer. From this, I conclude that someone would do anything to keep his or her life safe. For the reason not to be punished or fired, he or she tends to violate the maxims by absolutely giving wrong information or hiding information.
I found flouting the maxim in my analysis. This happens when the contestant has a strategy not to cooperate by answering the question clearly. Instead, he or she conveys something directly. For example, Sam is being asked
by Donald Trump to describe Jason’s performance as the team leader. However,
he gives an ambiguous answer by asking the same question back to Donald Trump. He could simply have said that Jason was a good or terrible leader. Yet,
he refuses to give a plain answer. Donald Trump even judges Sam’s statement as
(3)
27 Maranatha Christian University who intentionally flouts the maxims may cause such as misunderstanding, if the hearer does not give a response to the implication. The hearer may have a different interpretation if someone actually has other information to reveal.
I also find an example of opting out of the maxim, as we can see in data number 3. In my data, Jason, as the team leader, choose to be uncooperative in answering Sam’s question. As he has some important information which could hurt other people, he does not reply with an informative and brief answer. By replying in this way, he opts out of the maxim. From this, I conclude that sometimes people want to say something directly, but the situation is not proper to convey the information. Whether it is because of an ethical reason or because it might hurt other people, someone is inclined to opt out of the maxim by refusing to answer the question directly as his or her strategy.
Infringing a maxim once arises in the contestants’ utterances. This
happens when Bill is in the condition of being under pressure, so he cannot answer the question clearly. From this, I conclude that in some circumstances, especially in the condition of nervousness, someone could infringe a maxim because he or she cannot answer the question clearly.
In my analysis, I also found that the contestants fail to observe the four of the conversational maxims. The four maxims are maxims of Quantity, Quality, Relation, and Manner. The conversational maxim which is mostly observed in my analysis is the maxim of Manner. It arises when the contestant is unwilling to give direst and brief answer. Sometimes he or she says ambiguous things that will make the hearer have another interpretation. For example, in data number 2, Sam gives uninformative information and his reply does not answer the question. It
(4)
28 Maranatha Christian University makes Donald Trump, as the hearer, have another interpretation which think that
it is Sam’s strategy not to be fired.
The maxim of Manner sometimes appears to follow the maxim of Relation. This happens when the contestant does not want to give information that he or she has; otherwise, if the contestant does not want to talk in detail about the topic, he or she diverts to an irrelevant topic. From this, I conclude that someone changes the topic of conversation or adds some statements which are not requires in order to make the other person aware that he or she does not want to talk about the topic.
The implicature that the contestant implies by their utterances are various. For example, in my data analysis number 1, Kwame is being asked by Donald Trump about the person who really does a bad job. He does not straightforwardly judge Jason as the person who is responsible for losing the game; on the contrary, he gives a long-winded answer. From this, I conclude that sometimes someone is reluctant to say something explicitly. This may happen because of one or some reasons. Consequently, even when someone say something what he or she really means, he or she is trying to imply something else and wants the hearer to interpret the meaning behind his or her utterance.
The contestants fail to observe the maxims because they have some reasons behind their utterances. For example, Kwame is protecting Jason so as not to make Jason disqualified in this game, Omarosa wants to cover her mistakes, Sam defends his life, and Heidi want to keep her life safe. They make some justification to keep themselves stay in the game. However in my analysis, I conclude that every contestants has their own strategy to keep stay in the game.
(5)
29 Maranatha Christian University Because of their only motive is to win the game, they try to make such an effort in order not to be fired by Donald Trump.
In analyzing the non-observance of Gricean Maxims in the contestants’ utterances in The Apprentice reality show, I come to the conclusion that people do not always say something directly. They have some reason not to say something in a simple and straightforward way; besides, they even mean to say something that is not true. This happens because of their effort to keep in the game. Consequently, they would do anything to make them stay in the game. The contetstants make either right or wrong justifications in order to cover their mistakes, to defend, to save their life, and most importantly, to win the competition. Therefore, the uses of the non-observance of Gricean maxims in the
contestants’ utterances in The Apprentice makes the reality show interesting to watch.
Further research could also be done in order to generalize these findings so that some contribution, both practical and theoretical ones, can be proposed. This study could be elaborated in other research. Because my research is from season 1, I would like to pose rhetorical questions for further research as the end of my conclusions, such as whether the analysis would be different in the non-observance of Gricean maxims in the contestants’ utterance in The Apprentice season 2? Or would the analysis be more significant if we apply the theory of Politeness or Speech Act?
(6)
40 Maranatha Christian University
BIBLIOGRAPHY
References:
Coulthard, M. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis. London: Longman, 1987. Levinson, S. C. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983. Thomas, Jenny. Meaning in Interaction: an Introduction to Pragmatics. London: Longman, 1995.
Yule, George. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996.
Internet Website:
Merriam-Webster.com. 2009. Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 30 May 2009 <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/communication>.