THE COOPERATIVE PRINCIPLE IN DEBATE.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ABSTRACT ……….. i

PREFACE ………. ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ……… iii

TABEL OF CONTENTS ……… v

LIST OF TABLES ………... vii

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

1.2 Limitation of the Study ……… 3

1.3 Statement of the Problem ……… 4

1.4 Aims of the Study ……….... 4

1.5 Significance of Study ……….. 4

1.6 Research Methodology………. 5

1.6.1 Research Design ………. 5

1.6.2 Data Source for the Study … ……… 5

1.6.3 Data Collection ……….. 6

1.7 Data Analysis ……….. 7

1.8 Clarification of Key Terms ………. 7

1.9 Organization of the Paper ……… 8

CHAPTER 2: THEORETICAL FOUNDATION 2.1 Cooperative Principle ……….. 9

2.1.1 Conversational Maxims ……… 10

2.2 Implicature ……….. 13

2.3 Violating a Maxim ……….. 14

2.3.1 Previous Research... 18

vi

2.5 Debate ………. 23

2.6 Concluding Remark ……… 26

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHOD 3.1 Research Objectives ………. 27

3.2 Research Design ……….. 28

3.2.1 Data Source for the Study ………... 28

3.2.2 Data Collection ………... 30

3.3 Data Analysis ………... 30

3.4 Concluding Remark ………... 35

CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS 4.1 Violation to Conversational Maxims in Each Talk Show……… 36

4.2 Violations to the Conversational Maxims in All Talk Shows …………. 103

4.3 Concluding Remark ………. 107

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 Conclusions ……….. 108

5.2 Recommendations ……… 110

BIBLIOGRAPHY ……… 111 APPENDIXES

Appendix 1 Transcripts of the Three Talk Shows…………... Appendix 2 Tables of the Analysis of the Three Talk Shows………

113 139 Official Letter of the Research Paper’s Title

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

This chapter encompasses the background of the study, limitation of the study, statement of the problem, aims of the study, significance of the study, research methodology, data analysis, clarification of key terms, and organization of the study.

1.1 Background

Communication is something inseparable from human’s life. It deals with almost all activities that people do. In communicating, people try to convey clear and true messages to their interlocutors. Nonetheless, to do so is not as easy as it seems. There is time when people cannot—or even find difficulties to—say the truth or speak straight forward; for instance, in a conversation between A and B (Davies: 2008)

A: Is there another pint of milk?

B: I’m going to the supermarket in five minutes.

In the above example, B does not say straightforwardly that there is no more milk. Instead, he implies that there is no more milk at the moment, but that some will be bought from the supermarket shortly.

In Grice’s Cooperative Principles, this phenomenon can be seen as a violation of communication (as cited from Paltridge: 2000).

Grice (1975) states that:

Make your conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of talk exchange in which you are engaged.

In reality, the abovementioned statement sometimes cannot be fulfilled. There is time when people do not give information such as is required or provide clear and true one.

In any field of communication, the abovementioned case often occurs, including in debates. The way people put forward their minds in this communicative situation is rather different from other conditions. The debate often involves tense situation due to aspiration of the debaters to win the debate and be considered to have best as well as strongest ideas by holding tight to their own opinions.

However, human is sociable. One has to maintain good social relationship with the others. Besides, questions in a debate require complete and detail answers. Sometimes, to give ones, one tends to beat around the bush. Thus, the debaters will tend to violate the conversational maxims that demand true, clear, brief, and relevant information while presenting their thoughts strongly.

There are numbers of studies that discuss the theory used in this study. Myers (2000) conducts a study on violation of Grice’s Cooperative Principles in billboard advertisements (as cited from Prayitno:2005). The similar study is also conducted by Prayitno (2005). The comparable studies

that focus on joke are investigated by Rachmawati (2006) and Firmansyah (2006).

The results of those studies show that the violation of maxims of quality and manner are the most frequent violations that occur in joke. While in advertisements, the maxim of quality becomes the most frequent violated maxim. A question arises from those results; what the most frequent violated maxim that occurs in debate is.

All abovementioned cases lead this study to investigate violation of Conversational Maxims and reasons of the violation in debate represented by three of Metro TV’s talk shows, they include:

1. “Televisi sebagai Guru Bangsa” in Padamu Negeri; 2. “Temasek Terancam Penalti” in Today’s Dialogue; and

3. “Menyelematkan Karya Budaya Bangsa melalui Hak atas Kekayaan Intelektual” in Save Our Heritage Round Table Dialogue.

1.2 Limitation of the Study

An interesting situation takes place among conversational maxims and debate. When the conversational maxims require true, clear, brief, and relevant information, the debate demands complete and detail one instead. Sometimes, to give complete and detail answers, one tends to beat around the bush. Thus, the debate often violates the maxims.

To study mentioned case, this study focuses on Grice’s Conversational Maxims and is limited to randomly selected three of Metro TV’s talk shows, they include:

1. “Televisi sebagai Guru Bangsa” in Padamu Negeri; 2. “Temasek Terancam Penalti” in Today’s Dialogue; and

3. “Menyelematkan Karya Budaya Bangsa melalui Hak atas Kekayaan Intelektual” in Save Our Heritage Round Table Dialogue.

1.3 Statement of the Problem

The formulation of the problem focused on this study is represented through the questions below:

1. What conversational maxims are violated? 2. How are they violated?

3. What is the most frequent violated conversational maxim that occurs and why?

1.4 Aims of the Study

Considering research questions above, the aims of the study are as follows: 1. to explore type of conversational maxims that are violated;

2. to study of how the violation occur;

3. to investigate the most frequent violated conversational maxim that occurs; and

4. to study reasons of occurrence of the most frequent violated maxim in debate.

1.5 Significance of the Study

By knowing maxims violations, debaters will be able to put forward their mind while still maintaining social relationship with their counterparts and

moderator will be able to judge if the debaters’ opinion is out of context or not; thus, he can keep the context or topic of the debate. Furthermore, this study is also expected to be able to provide data on one of pragmatic analyses that can be used in language learning.

1.6 Research Methodology

This section includes three analyses of the study related each other which hence classified to be research design, data source for the study, and data collection.

1.6.1 Research Design

The study is a qualitative study. Hoepfl (1997) states that qualitative research uses a naturalistic approach that seeks to understand phenomena in context-specific setting (as cited from Rachmawati: 2006).

The method of this study is carried out by using descriptive method. According to Gay (1987), descriptive method is a method of research that involves collecting data in order to test hypothesis or to answer questions concerning the current status of the subject of the study. The descriptive study determines and reports the way things are (as cited from Rachmawati: 2006).

1.6.2 Data Source for the Study

The subject of the study is randomly selected three of Metro TV’s talk shows, they include:

2. “Menyelematkan Karya Budaya Bangsa melalui Hak atas Kekayaan Intelektual” in Save Our Heritage Round Table Dialogue.; and

3. “Temasek Terancam Penalti” in Today’s Dialogue 1.6.3 Data Collection

To collect data of the study appropriate procedure and instruments are needed.

a. Instrument

There are several techniques in collecting data to conduct a study, namely observations, experiments, interviews, tape-recording, and questionnaires. This study uses observation and tape-recording as its instruments.

b. Procedure

Random sampling method is used in collecting data of the study. It starts from choosing the talk shows, recording, to transcribing the

debate. Subsequently, the violated conversational maxims in the transcription of each talk show is classified—based on the type of maxim. It is followed by rating the frequency of the violated maxims that occur in the talk shows and revealing the reason of the most frequent violated maxim occurrence in debate.

1.7 Data Analysis

In analyzing the collected data, this study applies Grice’s Cooperative Principle. It focuses on the violations to the conversational maxims that occur in debate, in this case the three selected talk shows.

1.8 Clarification of Key Terms

The following terms are the core key words dealing with the research:

1. Cooperative Principle : a principle proposed by Grice that speakers and hearers need to obey in communication to make an efficient and effective one.

2. Conversational Maxims : rules that speakers normally try to fulfill in observing the Cooperative Principle. These four maxims are expressed to speakers as a rule how they should contribute to a conversation. The maxims are the maxim of quality, of quantity, of relevance, and of manner.

3. Implicature : something implied, meant, or suggested different from what is said.

4. Violation a maxim : one of types of non-observance of maxims that happens when a speaker is liable to mislead the hearer.

5. Debate : A formal argument or discussion of a question, e.g. at a public meeting or in Parliament or Congress, with two or more opposing speakers, and often ending in a vote.

1.9 Organization of the Paper

This paper will be organized into five chapters: 1. Introduction.

It discusses background of the problem, limitation of the study, statement of the problem, aims of the study, significance of the study, clarification of key terms, and organization of the paper.

2. Theoretical Foundation

This chapter contains theoretical foundations, which serve as a basis for investigating the problem of the study.

3. Methodology

It explains the methodology of the study focusing on objectives of the study, data sources, data collection, and framework of data analysis. 4. Findings and Discussion

Result of the study is reported in this chapter 5. Conclusions and Recommendations

This chapter provides conclusions of the study and recommendations for further study.

CHAPTER II

THEORETICAL FOUNDATION

This chapter discusses the theories used as foundation of the research and the tools for analyzing the data. Particularly, this chapter explicates Grice’s Cooperative Principle, its maxims and previous research on Grice’s conversational maxims, and problems with Grice’s theory. Moreover, the explanations of implicature, non-observance of maxims, and debate are also provided in this chapter.

2.1 Cooperative Principle

Communication can be seen as a cooperative act. People cooperate with each other as they communicate just as they do in any other shared activity. This is what an English language philosopher, Grice (1975), believes. He points out that communication is a cooperative behavior. The basic assumption is that any discourse, whether written or spoken, is a joint effort. Both the speaker and the addressee have to follow certain rules in order to communicate effectively. This assumption is called Cooperative Principle (as cited from Paltridge: 2000):

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.

(Grice, 1975:45)

He also suggests that each participant’s contribution is governed by certain principles: do not provide more or less information than is required, speak the truth, be relevant, and be clear.

2.1.1 Conversational Maxims

In observing the Cooperative Principle, according to Grice (1975), speakers normally try to satisfy the four maxims. These maxims are expressed to speakers as a rule how they should contribute to a conversation.

Maxim of Quantity

The rule of this maxim is to give the right amount of information. It demands a speaker to give information as informative as required, not too much or even too little. According to Grice (1975), this maxim is followed by two maxims (as cited from Thomas, 1995: 63):

1. make your contribution as informative as is required (for the current purposes of the exchange);

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

A brief analog of this maxim runs as follow (as cited from Rachmawati: 2006):

If you are assisting me to mend me a car, I expect your contribution to be neither more or nor less than is required; if, for example, at a particular stage I need four screws, I expect you to hand me four, rather than two or six.

Maxim of Quality

This maxim requires true contribution. It deals with the quality of information that a speaker gives to his addressee. It is followed by two maxims (Grice: 1975):

1. do not say what you believe to be false;

2. do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence (as cited from Thomas, 1995: 63).

The following analog can explain this maxim more clearly (as cited from Rachmawati: 2006):

If, for example, at a particular stage I need sugar as ingredient in the cake, you are assisting me to make, I do not expect you to hand me a salt; if I need a spoon, I do not expect a trick spoon made of rubber.

(Grice, 1975:47) Or, according to Cruse (2004), this maxim

demands a speaker not to make unsupported statements. Maxim of Relevance

This maxim is followed by only one maxim, namely be relevant. According to Thomas (1995:70), this maxim requires the speaker to be relevant to the context and situation in which the utterance occurs.

An analog of this maxim runs as follow (as cited from Rachmawati: 2006):

Applied to cooking process, this maxim requires the contribution of the speaker to be appropriate to immediate needs at each stage of the transaction; if I am mixing ingredients for a cake, I do not expect to be

handed a good book, or even an oven cloth (though this might be an appropriate contribution at a later stage).

(Grice, 1975: 47) Maxim of Manner

As cited by Thomas (1995: 64), this maxim is a matter of being clear and orderly when conversing. The speaker describes things in order in which they occurred and avoids ambiguity and obscurity.

It falls into more detailed maxims (Grice: 1975): 1. avoid obscurity of expression;

2. avoid ambiguity;

3. be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity); 4. be orderly (as cited from Thomas, 1995: 64).

As stated above, people try to be cooperative in communicating. By obeying this principle, they will achieve an efficient and effective conversation. Below is an example of how the principle works in a conversation taken from Thomas (1995:64):

(1) Husband : Where are the key cars?

Wife : They are on the table in the hall.

The example above is a good example of how the principle works in a conversation. The wife provided information that is required by her husband. She answered clearly (Manner), provided truthful answer (Quality), gave the right amount of the

information (Quantity), and directly addressed her husband’s intention in asking the question (Relation). She said what she meant precisely.

2.2 Implicature

In verbal exchanges, people often say something differently from what they really mean. The speakers do no state directly what they mean but hint it at the words to be interpreted by the hearers.

In linguistics, such a phenomenon is called implicature. An implicature is something implied, meant, or suggested different from what is said Blakemore, in her book Understanding Utterances (1992) provides the following example (as cited from Paltridge, 2000: 43):

(2) A: What’s on television?

B: (After looking at the newspaper) Nothing.

In the example above, clearly, B does not mean ‘nothing at all’, but rather ‘nothing worth watching’. A will assume this and implicate the second speaker’s meaning.

Grice discusses two different types of implicature: conventional and conversational implicature. Thomas (1995:57) points out that in conventional implicature, no matter what the context is, the implication remains the same. Levinson (1983: 127) lists four examples of conventional implicature: but, ever, therefore, and yet (as cited from Thomas, 1995:57). Below is the example of conventional implicature taken from Grundy (1995:47):

The implicature in the stated example, depends on the word but, is that most people smart are boring. The implication of but shows the contrast what come before and after it (As cited from Dornerus: 2005).

Conversational implicature, on the other hand, is generated directly by the speaker depending on the context. This implicature may or may not be understood (Thomas, 1995:58). The dialogues below, taken from Cruse (2004:349), illustrate the explanation above:

(4) A: Have you cleared the table and washed the dishes? B: I’ve cleared the table.

(5) A: Am I in time for supper? B: I’ve cleared the table

In dialogue (4), B’s implication is that he has cleared the table but has not washed the dishes. While in dialogue (5), B’s implication is that A is late for dinner (Cruse, 2004:349).

2.3 Violating a Maxim

There are times when people fail to observe the conversational maxims. Thomas (2000: 64) states that incapability of speaking clearly and deliberate decision to lie are two examples of the reasons why people fail to observe a maxim.

Grice discusses that there are four ways of not observing a maxim. The first category is called flouting a maxim. It occurs when a speaker does not intend to mislead the hearer, but wish him to look for what is implied. To illustrate it further, Thomas (1995:71) provides the following example:

(6) This interaction occurred during a radio interview with an unnamed official from the United States Embassy in Port-au-Prince, Haiti:

Interviewer : Did the United States Government play any part of Duvalier’s departure? Did they, for example, actively encourage him to leave?

Official : I would not try to steer you away from that conclusion.

The official could simply have replied: ‘Yes’. Her actual response is extremely long-winded and complicated. Moreover, it is obviously no accident, nor through any inability to speak clearly, that she has failed to observe the maxim of Manner. There is, however, no reason to believe that the official is being deliberately unhelpful (she could, after all, have simply refused to answer at all, or said, ‘No comment’).

The second type of the non-observance of maxims is named violating a maxim. It happens when a speaker is liable to mislead the hearer. This type of non-observance will be further explained later.

The third one is infringing a maxim, which occurs when a speaker unintentionally fails to observe a maxim. This non-observance occurs from imperfect linguistic performance rather than from the desire of the speaker to generate an implicature. (Thomas,1995:74).

The last type of the non-observance of maxims is opting out a maxim. It happens when a speaker unwilling to cooperate in the way the maxim requires. To illustrate this, the following example—taken from BBC Radio 4 (1991) is presented:

(7) The Conservative M.P., Teddy Taylor, had been asked a question about talks he had had with Colonel Gadaffi:

‘Well, honestly, I can’t tell you a thing, because what was said to me was told me in confidence’ (As cited from Thomas, 1995:74).

However, Thomas (1995:72) points out that the need for the fifth category of non-observance of maxims, suspending a maxim, has been suggested by several writers. It occurs because there are certain events in which there is no expectation on the part of any participant that the maxims will be fulfilled (therefore the non-fulfillment does not generate any implicature). Suspending a maxim may be culture-specific or specific to particular events (Thomas, 1995:76). Below is an example of suspension of a maxim—taken from Hillerman (1990):

(8) The speaker in this example and the next is the daughter of a murdered man. She is talking to Officer Jim Chee of the Navajo Tribal Police:

‘Last time you were with the FBI man—asking about the one who got killed,’ she said, respecting the Navajo taboo of not speaking the name of the dead. ‘You find out who killed that man?’ (As cited from Thomas, 1995:76).

In the example above, the speaker fails on three occasions to observe the maxim of Quantity. On the first occasion, she refers vaguely to ‘the FBI man’, thereby generating the (true) implicature that she does not know his name. Then she refers in a similarly vague fashion to ‘the one who got killed’ and ‘that man’. Normally this would generate exactly the same implicature (that she does not know the name of the man). However, among the Navajo, this implicature would not be generated in the case of a person who had died a violent or premature death, because to mention his or her name in these circumstances is taboo. In this case, the non-observance of the maxim of

Quantity generates no implicatures because all the participants know that it is suspended. (Thomas, 1995:76).

Since this research focuses on the violation to the conversational maxims, this section will be emphasizing its discussion more on the violation to the maxims. In a conversation, as stated above, when a speaker is liable to mislead the hearer, it means that he violates a maxim (Grice: 1975). Here is the example taken from Thomas (1995:73-74):

(9) An English athlete, Diane Modahl, the defending Commonwealth Games 800 metres champion, pulled out her opening race and returned to England. Caroline Searle, press officer for the England team, said:

‘She has a family bereavement; her grandmother has died.’

The next day it was announced that Ms. Modahl had been sent home following a positive test for drugs. What Ms. Searle had said was true, but the implicature (that the reason for Modahl’s returning home was bereavement) was false.

This type of non-observance regularly occurs in certain activity types such as trials, parliamentary speeches and arguments (Thomas, 1995:74). To make it more clearly, Cook (1989) provides another example:

(10) The situation happens when two friends are talking over a cup of coffee: A: What did you do on Friday?

B: Nothing special. I went to work.

It was an appropriate response given by B to the question asked by A. However, if someone were asked the same question as a witness in a court of law, a more appropriate reply might be ‘I woke up at seven forty. I made some toast and a cup of tea. I listened to the news. And I left for work about eight

thirty.’ Here, in order to be truthful, the speaker can no longer be so brief (as cited from Paltridge, 2000: 41). If, however, the witness were to say:

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

(Cook,1989:69) The witness’s reply would be even more truthful, but—this time— violating the maxim of quantity. He replies more than what is needed. A speaker may say more than what is required to indicate a sense of occasion, such as with a farewell speech, or with the effect of being blunt, or rude (as cited from Paltridge, 2000: 41).

2.3.1 Previous Research

There are numbers of researches on Grice’s conversational maxims. Myers (2000) conducts a study on violation of Grice’s Cooperative Principles in billboard advertisements (as cited from Prayitno: 2005). The similar study is also conducted by Prayitno (2005). The comparable studies that focus on joke are investigated by Rachmawati (2006) and Firmansyah (2006).

The results of those studies show that the violation of maxims of quality and manner are the most frequent violations that occur in joke. While in advertisements, the maxim of quality becomes the most frequent violated maxim.

Another interesting research on the same theory is a research conducted by Dornerus (2005). She conducts a comparative study of

how scriptwriters break maxims in Desperate Housewives and That 70’s Show.

She suggests that maxims are important for scriptwriters in order to evoke feelings and reactions of their audience. In the shows that she chooses to examine, maxims are broken in almost every interaction. It is necessary for scriptwriters to have the characters break maxims in order to create and develop humorous and dramatic situations in verbal interaction.

She finds that the maxim of relevance is the maxim that is most frequently flouted to create the different comical situations. The maxim of manner and quantity is also commonly flouted mainly to create humorous situations. The reason is that the characters in That 70’s Show are often portrayed as slow and weird, not cruel or deceitful.

On the other hand, the maxims of quantity and quality are more often broken in Desperate Housewives, a dramatic context, in order to make the characters look shifty and unreliable. Since in drama shows, there are more frauds, infidelity, and mystery, the characters have more desire to mislead their interlocutors than the characters in comedies do. In That 70’s Show, humor is created when the interlocutor understands the speaker’s implicature and takes offence or does not, and thus appears stupid. In Desperate Housewives, drama is created when the speaker intends to mislead the interlocutor and appear as deceitful or

when the interlocutor understands the implication of the speaker’s utterance and gets offended by it.

Although there are numbers of comparable studies using the same theory, a research on Grice’s conversational maxim in debate has not been found.

2.4 Problems with Grice’s Theory

As cited from Thomas (1995:87), there are a number of problems related to Grice’s theory:

To begin with, sometimes an utterance regularly has a range of possible interpretations. Thus, it is occasionally difficult to figure out when the speaker intentionally fails to observe a maxim and consequently that an implicature is intended. In other words, it is hard to know whether a speaker says what he really means or not.

Thomas (1995:89) provides the examples below related to the first problem with Grice’s theory:

(1) This note was sent by the head of a University department to all members of her department:

To all staff:

The Window cleaners will be in the building during the weekend 28th/29th November.

Please clear your windowsills and any valuables away.

It is rather difficult to figure out whether the sender was intentionally implying that window cleaners are dishonest, or whether this is simply an unfortunate inference which some readers might draw. Within Grice’s theory,

it is difficult to explain in cases like the example above which implicature are intended.

Secondly, there is difficulty in differentiating types of non-observance of maxims, for instance, a violation from infringement. Grice does not explain how an interlocutor is supposed to differentiate between, for instance, a violation and an infringement to generate any implicature.

An example below is taken from Thomas (1995: 90):

(2) Bluey, a married woman, has become friendly with James and has indicated that she would like to start asexual relationship with him. James doesn’t want to become more deeply involved with Bluey, but neither does she want to hurt her feelings.

‘You can’t refuse just to come and have a drink with me,’ Bluey said to James.

‘I don’t want to refuse,’ James said.

The utterance ‘I don’t want to refuse’ can be interpreted in several ways. If James did not really want to refuse, it means that he really wanted to come. Otherwise, he said so because he did not want to disappoint her by refusing straightforwardly her invitation to come.

The third problem occurs due to different nature of maxims. Thomas (1995:91) states that not all Grice’s maxims are of the same order. The operation of the maxim of quality is the most straightforward. It is generally yes/no—someone is either telling the truth or not.

Nevertheless, the maxims of quantity and of manner can be observed to a greater or less degree. It is rarely possible precisely the right amount of information or to speak with perfect clarity. Examples below are taken from Thomas (1995:91):

(3) The final night of the budget debate featured at its beginning and the end the first public performance of the new Lawson/Tebbit axis, the most principled alliance of its kind since the Aesthetically Handicapped Sisters put the squeeze on poor Cinderella.

(4) I once arrived at a Lancaster hospital for a meeting I was scheduled to attend, and the chairman said to me:

It’s really very kind of you to come.

Example (3) was so complicated that the maxim of manner was clearly violated, whereas in example (4), it is hard to determine whether the maxim of manner was being flouted or not. The utterance in that example seemed effusive for a meeting which actually had been organized for ‘I’ to attend. It also cannot be concluded whether the chairman was being sarcastic or not to the invited person.

The next problem is that the maxims may overlap. It is not easy to determine which maxim is being invoked. Particularly, the maxims of quantity and of manner seem to overlap, as in the following example (Thomas, 1995: 92):

(5) A: What did you have to eat?

B: Something masquerading as chicken chasseur.

In the example above, B seemed to give more information that was required. He could just have said: chicken chasseur. On the other hand, the word masquerading appeared to flout the maxim of manner—since B was not being brief in answering the question.

In addition, the maxims overlap may also occur between the maxim of quantity and of relevance, as in the example below (Thomas 1995: 92)

(6) Polonius: What do you read, My Lord? Hamlet : Words, words, words.

In the dialogue above, Hamlet gave less information than was required by Polonius; thus, he violated the maxim of quantity. Moreover, he also violated the maxim of relevance as he failed to fulfill Polonius’s goal.

From the two examples, it can be seen that the requirement of the CP in making the contribution such as is required is probably different for the speaker and hearer. An ‘enough’ information for the speaker may not be ‘enough’ for the hearer and vice versa.

The second thing that can be concluded from this fourth problem with Grice’s theory is that the maxim of relevance seems to be in operation in every talk exchange.

The last problem is calculability. Grice did not provide a stable general principle on the basis of conventional meaning together with contextual information. On the other hand, the principle is needed to figure out the intended meaning made by a speaker since it presents a clear step to decide of how to figure out or to interpret the utterance; whether comparison from the information given by the speaker, the exact opposite, or an unrelated implicature need to be looked for.

2.5 Debate

Since this study focuses on conversational maxims in debate, it is obvious that debate should be clarified further. In Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (1995), debate is defined as:

a. A formal argument or discussion of a question, e.g. at a public meeting or in Parliament or Congress, with two or more opposing speakers, and often ending in a vote;

b. argument or discussion in general.

In addition, debate is “a formal method of interactive and position representational argument. Debate is a broader form of argument than logical argument, since it includes persuasion which appeals to the emotional responses of an audience, and rules enabling people to discuss and decide on differences, within a framework defining how they will interact” (Bluedorn: 2008).

From the definitions above, it can be concluded that debate is a discussion involving two or more speakers who have different views on the discussed topic.

In accordance with Bluedorn (2008) and Rowe (2008), Debate is divided into four types; they include:

1. Parliamentary Debate. This debate goes on in colleges and universities. This debate happens between two people on each side where the resolution changes every round and pre-prepared evidence is not allowed.

2. Lincoln-Douglas Debate (also called value debate) is modeled after the namesake for the activity. In an Illinois election of the mid-1800s, Abe Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas debated the slavery issue before audiences in different towns around the state. In this

type of debate, two contestants will debate topics centered on moral issues or propositions of value or preference. It occurs between one person on each side where there is only one resolution each year and pre-prepared evidence is required.

3. Cross Examination Debate (also called policy debate or team debate). In this type of debate, two team of two debaters advocate or oppose a plan derived from a resolution that usually calls for a change in policy by a government. Team normally alternate, and compete in rounds as either "affirmative" or "negative". In most forms of the activity, there is a fixed topic for an entire year or another set period. In comparison to parliamentary debate, policy debate relies more on researched evidence and tends to have a larger sphere of what is considered legitimate argument, including counter plans, critical theory, and debate about the theoretical standards of the activity itself.

4. Academic Debate. This is a debate of a purely academic nature. This kind of debate occurs in schools, colleges, and universities. The purpose is to learn how to debate, argue, and do research. It will not influence a decision at all. There is no voting involved in this debate. The function of this kind of debate is to teach students how to debate.

Bluedorn (2008) states that all forms of debate, whether consciously or not, make certain assumptions about argumentation theory. The core concept

of argumentation theory is the notion of advocacy. In most cases, at least one side in a debate needs to maintain the truth of some proposition. A debate could also potentially be between two or more competing propositions or actions. Alternatively, debate could also be a purely exercise of charisma and emotion with no assumption of fixed advocacy, but it would possibly lose much of its consistency.

2.5 Concluding Remark

This chapter explained the theory used in this research, namely, Cooperative Principle along with its maxims stated by Grice. This section also discussed theory of implicature that clarifies how people get the intended meaning from what is said. In addition, the non-observance of maxims explaining how people fail to observe the conversational maxims, the previous researches on the conversational maxims, problem with Grice’s theory, and theory of debate were inserted to complete the research. The methodology of the research will be presented in the next chapter.

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter describes the research methodology. It includes the objectives and procedure of the research, data sources, and techniques of collecting and analyzing data.

3.1 Research Objectives

In debates, people tend not to respond to the discussed topics briefly and clearly. They are likely to talk more than is required and irrelevantly. They also tend to beat around the bush in responding to questions given. As a result, The Grice’s Cooperative Principle is often violated.

As regards the aforementioned case, this research is concerned with the Grice’s Cooperative Principle. It is mainly conducted to investigate the occurrence of violations to Grice’s Cooperative Principle in debates. Furthermore, this study is developed to explore the answers to the following questions:

1. What conversational maxims are violated? 2. How are they violated?

3. What is the most frequent violated conversational maxim that occurs and why?

3.2 Research Design

The study applies a qualitative descriptive approach. This approach emphasizes more on words rather than the numbers or counting features. Since the focus of the study is utterance analysis, it is appropriate to apply the abovementioned approach as the methodology of this study.

3.2.1 Data Source for the Study

Three Metro TV’s talk shows become the sources of the study, they included:

1. “Televisi sebagai Guru Bangsa” in Padamu Negeri;

2. “Menyelematkan Karya Budaya Bangsa melalui Hak atas Kekayaan Intelektual” in Save Our Heritage Round Table Dialogue; and

3. “Temasek Terancam Penalti” in Today’s Dialogue. Profiles of each talk show are presented below:

Padamu Negeri

“Padamu Negeri” is a talk show that invites numerous participants and uses electronic voting system to involve all of them to the discussion. Hosted by DG, this show is broadcasted every Thursday at 20.05.

Broadcasted in November 22, 2007, “Televisi sebagai Guru Bangsa” was randomly chosen as one of the show’s topics to be examined in this study. It invited AA; the Minister of Communication and informatic; MR; KomTeve and ATVSI; students of Faculty of

Communication of University of Indonesia, National University, Al Azhar University Jakarta, dan Permadida Mulya University; and YPMA KIDIA and Koalisi Hari Tanpa TV as participants.

Save Our Heritage Round Table Dialogue

“Save Our Heritage Round Table Dialogue” was a talk show showed in December 20, 2007 at 20.05, hosted by FL, and chosen randomly

The participants of the show were AM, President’s spokesperson; AL, Southeast Asian observer; HM, a member of Committee 1 of the House of Representatives; and AR, Director of Hak Cipta and Desain Industri and Directorate General of HaKI Departemen Hukum dan HAM (Law Department and Human Rights).

It was also participated by culture community, Reog Ponorogo community, and students of Faculty of Economy of Trisakti and of Post-Graduate of University of Indonesia. The topic discussed was “Menyelematkan Karya Budaya Bangsa melalui Hak atas Kekayaan Intelektual.”

Today’s Dialogue

“Today’s Dialogue” discusses many current issues in various topics. This show holds tense debate involving pro and contra sides of a discussed topic. It is broadcasted from Monday to Wednesday at 22.05 and hosted by MH.

Broadcasted on Monday, November 12, 2007, “Temasek Terkena Penalti” was the randomly chosen topic of the show to be analyzed in this study. It invited NA, an economic expert and MI, the Head of KPPU as the participants.

3.2.2 Data Collection

Procedure of the research began with data collection by applying random sampling method. Recording the talk shows—namely Today’s Dialogue, Padamu Negeri, and Save Our Heritage Round Table Dialogue—became the first step in collecting the data. The recording contained advertisements, introduction of topics and debaters, musical performance, and discussion about the topics.

The second step taken to collect the data was transcribing the dialogue. It included the introduction of the topics as well as debaters and the discussion itself.

As words, phrases, utterances, and discourse became the focus of the analysis, close reading was taken to pick up all dialogues where violations to Grice’s Cooperative Principle were assumed to occur.

3.3 Data Analysis

The data were analyzed in order to answer the research questions. It began with close reading on the utterances and observing the dialogues or utterances where the violations to Grice’s Cooperative Principle were assumed to occur.

Subsequently, they were analyzed by applying theory of Grice’s Cooperative Principle.

The data were analyzed based on their talk show. In other words, the three talk shows were analyzed one by one. Subsequently the conclusion of each talk show was drawn.

Number of lines in each analyzed utterance of the three talk shows was attached to make it easier to find the violation of the conversational maxims that occurs in the utterance. Moreover, green highlight mark was used to differentiate the violated chunk of an utterance with inviolate one—in the same line. Blue highlight mark was used to mark different type of violated maxim in the same utterance. Here are samples of the analysis—taken from Save Our Heritage Round Table Dialogue:

1. FL : Jadi sampai berapa tahun kalau tidak diurus, Pak? (So up to how many years if no one takes care of it, Sir?) AR : Tidak ada jangka waktu. Selama itu dipelihara. Oleh sebab itu

kita wajib memeliharanya.

(There is no time limitation. As long as it’s taken care of. That’s why we have to take care of it.)

AR, in the dialogue above, answered FL’s question more than what was needed. He mentioned that there was no time limit in the problem discussed—which was the only answer required; nevertheless, he made a suggestion that Indonesia had to maintain its culture—which was actually not being asked. It can be found in lines (3) to (4) or (5) to 6).

1

2. FL : Misal saya mendaftarkan peuyeum gitu bayar tidak? (If I register peuyeum, should I pay or not?)

AM : Peuyeum itu bukan punya Anda.

Tapi kalau Anda desain sebuah baju, baju itu mau Anda daftarkan ke situ. Harus bayar dong! Anda kan mendapatkan keuntungan ekonomi dari situ.

(Peuyeum is not yours.

But if you designed a cloth, and you want to register it, you need to pay! You get economic advantages from it, right?)

AM stated vaguely whether FL had to pay her inventory or not. He just mentioned that Peuyeum did not belong to FL. It can be found in line (3) or (7).

He also added unrequired information to FL and other participants that if FL designed a cloth, and she wanted to list it, then she had to pay. Lines (4) to (6) or (8) to (9) show the violation.

The next step taken was drawing the violation through a table to explore the most frequent violations to Grice’s CP in each and all talk shows. The violated dialogues or utterances were entered to the table and classified based on the types of maxims, namely maxim of quality (QUAL), maxim of quantity (QUANT), maxim of relation (REL), and maxim of manner (MAN).

The violated utterances were highlighted in order to differentiate them from inviolate ones in the same line. In addition, the tick (√) sign is used to code the type of maxim being violated. The sample of the table is presented below:

1

Table 3.1

Table of Sample of Violations to Cooperative Principle No. Speaker Sample of Expression Violations to Maxim

QUAL QUANT REL MAN

1.

FL

Jadi sampai berapa tahun kalau tidak diurus, Pak?

(So up to how many years if no one takes care of it, Sir?)

AL

Tidak ada jangka waktu. Selama itu dipelihara. Oleh sebab itu kita wajib

memeliharanya. (There is no time limitation. As long as it’s taken care of. That’s why we have to take care of it.)

√

2.

FL

Misal saya mendaftarkan peuyeum gitu bayar tidak? (If I register peuyeum, should I pay or not?)

AM

Peuyeum itu bukan punya Anda.

(Peuyeum is not yours).

√

Tapi kalau Anda desain sebuah baju, baju itu mau Anda daftarkan ke situ. Harus bayar dong! Anda kan mendapatkan keuntungan ekonomi dari situ.

(But if you designed a cloth, and you want to register it, you need to pay! You get economic advantages from it, right?)

The table above will be presented in the appendix. The next step taken was transfer the result of the table above to the table below to make it easier to see the frequency of each maxim occurrence in each and all talk shows:

Table 3.2

Sample Table of the Sum of Violations to the Conversational Maxims

The table above shows the sum of the violations to the Conversational Maxims. In addition, the table below shows the percentage of the violations:

Table 3.3

Sample Table of the percentage of the Violations to the Conversational Maxims

No. Talk Shows

Violation to Maxim (%)

Quality Quantity Relevance Manner

1 Padamu Negeri 2

Save Our Heritage Round Table

Dialogue 3 Today's Dialogue

% Violation to Each Maxim in All

Talk Shows

No. Talk Shows

Violation to Maxim ∑ Violation

to All Maxims per

Talk Show

Quality Quantity Relevance Manner

1 Padamu Negeri 2

Save Our Heritage Round Table

Dialogue 3 Today's Dialogue

∑ Violation to Each Maxim in All

After analyzing the whole data, consolidated conclusion is drawn to reveal the answers to the research questions of the study.

3.4 Concluding Remark

This chapter discussed the formulation of the problem, data source, research procedure, and framework of data analysis. The data were obtained from three Metro TV’s talk shows—namely, “Televisi sebagai Guru Bangsa” in Padamu Negeri, “Menyelematkan Karya Budaya Bangsa melalui Hak atas Kekayaan Intelektual” in Save Our Heritage Round Table Dialogue, and “Temasek Terancam Penalti” in Today’s Dialogue. The framework of data analysis is used to obtain findings where full discussion will be presented in the next chapter.

CHAPTER IV

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS

This chapter presents the research findings and discusses them afterward within the following framework of the study:

1. the violations to conversational maxims in the talk shows; 2. the occurrence of the violations;

3. the frequency of the violations; and

4. the reasons of the occurrence of the most frequent violated maxim in the talk shows.

4.1 Violation to Conversational Maxims in Each Talk Show

The findings and discussion are presented in forms of utterance analyses per talk show. Following the presentation of findings, full discussion on each respective relevant data will be presented. Number of lines in each analyzed utterance of the three talk shows is attached to make it easier to find the violation of the conversational maxims that occurrs in the utterance. Moreover, green highlight mark is used to differentiate the violated chunk of an utterance with inviolate one—in the same line. Blue highlight mark is used to mark different type of violated maxim in the same utterance. Subsequently, the result of the analyses is transferred into summary tables to observe the most violated maxim easier in the talk shows. The talk shows include:

a. “Padamu Negeri” ;

b. “Save Our Heritage Round Table Dialogue”; and c. “Today’s Dialogue”.

a. Padamu Negeri

Padamu Negeri is a talk show using electronic voting system to involve all of the participants to the discussion. Hosted by DG this show is broadcasted every Thursday at 20.00 on Metro TV.

Broadcasted in November 22, 2007, “Televisi sebagai Guru Bangsa” was randomly chosen as one of the show’s topics to be examined in this study. The depiction of violation to conversational maxims analysis in Padamu Negeri is presented below:

1. DG : Kurang variatif itu apakah jenisnya atau isinya, bu? (Less various, is it the kind or the content, Ma’am?) IK : Ya, isinya. Bahwa ada kecenderungan misalnya

tayangan TV yang satu itu menguntungkan misalnya

yang mistis atau kekerasan cenderung diikuti oleh

TV-TV lain. Juga kurang variatif…ehm…proporsionalnya itu kurang. Dimana nuansa hiburannya itu lebih menonjol dari nuansa

edukatifnya. Kecuali Metro TV dan TVRI.

(The content, of course. That there is a tendency that, for example, a particular TV show is advantageous, let’s say mystical or violence shows, and will be mimicked by the other TV stations. It’s also less various in terms of… emm… the proportion. Where the nuance of entertainment is more prominent than that of education. Except Metro TV and TVRI.).

1

5

10

The question from DG above requires ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer. However, after answering ‘yes’, IK—a representative of Group B, the Children Development Foundation and the Coalition of No-Television Day—added an explanation of her answer about the tendency of television programs. She also explained how television programs could not be considered varied. It was more informative than was required. It can be seen in highlighted lines (3) to (9), or in (10) to (17).

2. DG : Baik terima kasih. Itulah barangkali yang dinginkan

ibu-ibu adalah yang variatif dan juga mendidik bagi

anak-anaknya. Silakan kelompok C dulu! Nama Anda

dan opini Anda?

(Alright, thank you. That’s perhaps what the women want is various as well as educating programs for their children. Please, Group C, first! Please mention you name and opinion!).

CT : Saya CT. Menurut kami, tontonan televisi emang variatif soalnya dilihat dari informasi ada. Di TV khan ada misalnya informasi tentang kesehatan. Khan udah ada di TV.

(I’m CT. In our opinion, TV shows are indeed various, because we see it from the information given. On the television there is information, for example, of health. It’s there on the television).

DG gave information much more than was required. In the situation above, he gave a chance to group C to put forward their opinion. Nonetheless, he did not do that directly. He thanked the representative of group B for delivering her opinion first, and then he made a conclusion from what the representative of group B said. It can be seen in highlighted lines (1) to (3), or in (5) to (7).

1

5

10

The same case also occurred as CT—a representative of Group C, coalition of five universities—answered the question given by DG. CT gave a respond to the question more than was required. The question needed ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer. However, after answering ‘yes’, she added information that actualy was not required. It can be seen in highlighted lines (10) to (12) or (14) to (26).

3. DG : Informasi kejahatan tentang misalnya orang yang perutnya disobek- sobek, perlu ga itu?

(Crime information about, for example, someone’s stomach being ripped, is it needed?)

CT : Oh, kalau itu khan untuk informasi supaya orang lebih warning terhadap sekitarnya.

(Oh, well, that kind of information is intended to make people more warning [aware] of their surrounding.)

In the dialogue above, CT unclearly answered the question given. She did not mention clearly whether the kind of news should be informed or not. She only mentioned that the kind of news functioned as an information to make people more aware of their surroundings. Lines (5) to (6) or (7) to (9) show the violation.

4. DG : Kejahatan kesadisan itu perlu ga ditampilkan seperti itu? dengan kamera yang jelas misalnya?

(It means that should the sadistic crime be shown like that? With a close-up clear camera perspective, for example?)

CT : Tapi khan di televisi itu udah ada batasan-batasannya. Jadi informasi udah ada, edukasi untuk anak-anak juga khan terkadang ada di televisi.

(But, the television has its own boundaries. So the information is there, education for children is also, sometimes, there).

1

5

1

5

CT mentioned that there were limits to broadcast a show and there was educational program for children in television instead of mentioning clearly whether the kind of news was needed to be informed or not. It can be viewed in lines (6) to (8) or (9) to (11).

5. DG : Ya, pemirsa kembali lagi dalam survey interaktif

padamu negeri. Tadi, kedua kelompok sudah

memberikan argumentasinya. Sekarang tinggal dari

kelompok A. Silakan! Singkat saja.

(Well, viewers, [we’re] back again in the interactive survey Padamu Negeri. Previously, two groups have presented their argumentations. Now, it left only opinion of Group A, please! Make it brief.)

AL : saya AL dari RCTI. Menurut kami program televisi sudah variatif dan informatif. Kalau misalnya kita lihat TV dari sisi variatif, sebenernya kategori program itu terdiri dari beberapa macam. Yang pertama entertain. Entertain juga ada genrenya masing-masing. Kemudian kita bicara masalah series, sports, news. Dan hampir setiap program ini, kategori ini, hampir di setiap TV itu ada. Mungkin satu TV kategorinya terbesar katakanlah di series, kemudian yang lain seperti metro TV ini…

(I’m AL from RCTI. We think that television programs have been various and informative. If we see television programs from the ‘various’ side, actually the category of the programs consists of several kinds. The first is entertainment, and this entertainment has its own separate genres. Then we talk about series, sports, news. And almost in every programs, category, and television, they exist. Perhaps a television has biggest category of series, and the other like Metro TV…)

1

5

10

15

20

DG gave a chance to group A to present their ideas. Nonetheless, before he did so, he welcomed all the participants and viewers back to the show. He did not state his utterance briefly. Highlighted lines (1) to (3) or (5) to (7) show the violation.

Still in the context above, AL—a representative from the Association of Indonesia Private Televisions and the Community of Indonesia Televisions or Group A—gave much more information than was required to the participants. He only needed to answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’. However, after answering ‘yes’, he added more information about the television programs categories in terms of variation. It can be viewed in highlighted lines (10) to (18) or (20) to (28).

6. DG : Trend atau memang ga ada ide lain? (Is it trend, or because there’s no idea?)

AL : Itu trend. Katakanlah kemaren kita booming dengan

reality show. Semua masuk dengan reality show, Jadi itu artinya adalah kita bergeraknya adalah kalau di

industri TV adalah memaksimalkan penonton di

masing-masing station TV.

(That’s trend. Let’s say yesterday we’re booming with reality shows. Every one comes in with reality show. So it means that our movement, in the TV Station, is to optimize each station’s viewers.)

AL was supposed to say whether the discussed issue was a trend or not. He actually said that it was. Nevertheless, he added information about the trend of television programs. That information was not asked. Highlighted lines (3) to (7) or (8) to (11) show the violation.

1

5

7. DG : Baik, terima kasih. Jadi Pak menteri, Kalau jawaban

dari teman-teman dari RCTI atau asosiasi televisi

swasta itu adalah sudah merasa variatif, tapi ibu sebagai penonton variatif dalam artian keberagaman akomodir kebutuhan masyarakat. Misalnya begini

satu TV menayangkan yang mati pake belatung,

semuanya pake belatung gitu loh, ini bagaimana

bapak melihat? Apakah sudah variatif dan informatif?

(Alright, thank you. So, Mr. Minister, the answer from the RCTI or ATVSI, fellows stated that they have been various, while that Ma’am as spectator stated that various is in terms of the variety to accommodate people’s needs. For example, a TV station shows a man dead with maggots, the other stations follow suit to show a dead man with maggots, how do you see this?have they been various and informative?)

Minister : variatif atau informatif itu saya kira nomor yang

kedua.

justru yang paling penting itu substansinya. Meskipun variatif, tapi kalau substance, content dari apa yang disampaikan itu tidak tepat, tidak memiliki unsur-unsur edukasi, tidak ada gunanya.

(Various or informative is the second in my opinion;

the most important is the substance. Although it’s various, but if its content or substance is not appropriate, have no educational elements, it’s useless).

The point of this situation was to ask the Minister for his opinion. However, DG did not do that straightforwardly. Before he did that, he thanked the representative of group A for answering the question and concluded all the answered given by the representatives of each group. In other words, the violation occured as DG did not avoid the prolixity in his utterance. It can be viewed in highlighted lines (1) to (7) or (10) to (17).

5 1

10

15

25 20

Still in the context above, the Minister of Communication and Informatics answered vaguely whether television programs in Indonesia had been variatif or informative or not. He stated that being various and informative was less important than the substance of the programs. It can be seen in highlighted lines (19) to (20) or (25). Moreover, he also added some unrequired information about the substance of the program. It can be viewed in highlighted lines (21) to (24) or (26) to (29).

8. DG : Ok, saya pindah ke sini dulu pak menteri. Silakan

AA! Apa pendapat Anda?

(Alright, I’ll move here, for the moment, Mr. Minister. I have to interfere. AA, please!What’s your opinion?)

AA : Ya, hanya khan begini. Kalau semuanya sama, samalah, tapi yang dimaksud keberagaman tadi, ini kok suasananya begini semua, kenapa ga ikut-ikutan bikin padamu negeri? versi lain khan ada padamu bangsa, padamu apa khan bisa. Nah, ini mungkin pertanyaannya.

(Well, it’s just like this. If all are the same, so be it, but what is meant by the ‘various’ previously is that why the atmosphere are all the same, why not follow suit to create Padamu Negeri? There are other versions of it, right, Padamu Bangsa, Padamu whatsoever, you can do it, right? Perhaps this is the question.)

In the dialogue above, DG did not say what he meant briefly. The point of DG’s statement was to ask AA. However, before he gave a chance to AA to talk, he told the minister that he would be asking AA. Highlighted lines (1) to (2) or (3) to (4) show the violation.

1

5

10

Still in this dialogue, AA—a journalist, man of letters, and television practition—stated his argument unclearly. He did not say his opinion clearly—whether he thought that the television programs had been varied or not. Lines (6) to (11) or (12) to (18) show where the violation occurs.

9. DG : Baik mas MR, apa Anda melihat apakah sudah cukup apa yang diinginkan oleh masyarakat? Lalu tindakannya seperti apa kalau misalnya ternyata cukup merugikan masyarakat?

(Alright Mas MR, from KPI did you see whether it’s sufficient or not of what people wants? And what kind of action [to take] if it is quite harming the society, perhaps here?)

MR : Tentunya tugas kami disini khan harus fair dengan masyarakat…

(Of course our duty here is to be fair with the society…)

In the situation above, MR—a member of central KPI (Indonesia Brodcasting Commission)—answered the questions vaguely. He did not mention what actually needed to answer the questions was. He did not mention whether existing television programs had made audience satisfied. He neither answered what his organization action to solve the discussed problem. He only mentioned that his organization had to be fair to the public. It can be viewed from his utterance in lines (9) to (10) or (11) to (12).

He answered that way possibly due to an interruption made by another participant. The interruption itself can be viewed from the next dialogue—in the next number.

1

5

10. AA : Sama yang punya TV berani ga KPI?

(With the TV owner, does KPI dare or not?) MR : ya, tentunya harus ada keberanian.

(Of course that courage must exist)

MR unclearly stated whether his organization had any courage to warn the owners of Indonesian television stations. He stated that his organization should be brave in reproving them. Line (3) or (4) shows where the violation occurs.

11. AA : Harusnya? Ama orang televisi ada yang berani ga? (It should be…? Is there anybody dares [to deal] with the television people?)

MR : Tapi yang jelas saya setuju dengan kelompok B dimana saya menganggap kurang variatif. Karena kalau dilihat dari segmen tingkat layaknya, karena semua kelompok dewasa yang menjadi konsumsi…isi siaran itu yang menjadi concern ya.

(Anyway, certainly, I agree with group B where I think it’s less various. Because if we see the segment of its appropriateness, because the entire adult group who become consumers…the content is the concern…)

In the situation above, MR answered the question given by AA irrelevantly. The question was about the braveness of KPI in admonishing television stations in Indonesia. However, MR answered the question by saying that he agreed with group B’s opinion and he also gave his reason of agreeing with them. Lines (4) to (8) or (9) to (13) show the violation.

1

5

12. DG : …apakah industri televisi di Indonesia ini sudah berlangsung secara sehat? ataukah tidak sehat?...Saya akan memberikan kesempatan pada kelompok B dulu! Silakan, mas!

(…has television industry in Indonesia go fairly? Or unfairly?...I will give the first chance to answer the question to group B first. Go ahead, Mas!)

IB : Saya kira persaingan industri televisi di Indonesia tidak perlu dikatakan ada persaingan.

Tetapi justru hanya dikuasai segelintir orang dalam konglomerasi media yang sangat menggurita.

(I think the competition of television industry in Indonesia can’t be said there’s any competition.

It’s just controlled by a few people in the media conglomeration that has vast network.)

IB—a representative of Group B—answered the question unclearly. He did not mention whether competition between Indonesia television stations had been going on well. He stated that there was no competition in Indonesian television world. It can be seen in highlighted lines (8) to (9) or (12) to (13). Still in the context above, MI added unrequired information that there were some people controling the television stations. Highlighted lines (10) to (11) or (14) to (15) show where the violation occurs.

13. DG : Jadi sesungguhnya tidak ada persaingan di sana? (So, there’s no competition, there?)

IB : Saya kira demikian. (I think so…)

In the dialogue above, IB stated unclearly if there was any competition in Indonesian television stations. He answered that he guessed that there was no competition in it. Line (3) or (4) shows the violation.

1

5

10

15

14. DG : Baik, terima kasih. Silakan kelompok A! Menurut Anda, apakah sudah sehat persaingan industri televisi Indonesia?

(Alright, thank you. Go ahead group A! Do you think Indonesian telvision industry has been going on fairly?

GL : Terima kasih, nama saya GL. Sebenarnya untuk mengukur persaingan sehat atau ga itu cuma ada

indikator. Indikator pertama itu pricing policy.

Bagaimana kebijakan harga di dalam suatu industri. sampai hari ini tidak ada suatu kelompokpun, kalau mau dibilang kelompok, yang mengendalikan harga. Indikator kedua adalah penguasaan pasar. Sampai

detik ini tidak ada yang menguasai lebih dari 35%

audience share maupun advertising market share.

Yang ketiga adalah, akses entrydaril …akses orang masuk ke dalam industri…

(Thank you, I’m GL. Actually to measure the fair or unfair competition, there are only indicators. The first indicator is the pricing policy. How the pricing policy in an industry is. Up to this moment, there’s no single group, if you may say so, that control the price. The second indicator is the market share. Up to now, there’s no one controlling more than 35% audience share or advertising market share. The third

is entrydaril access...access for people to get into the

industry…)

In the utterance above, GL—a representative of Group A—did not mention clearly whether the competition had been going on well. He only mentioned that there were three indicators to measure the competition. The information stated by him was actually uneeded. Highlighted lines (7) to (18) or (19) to (28) show where the violation occurs.

1

5

10

15

25 20

15. DG : Terima kasih. Bagaimana kelompok C? Menurut Anda, apakah sudah sehat persaingannya?

(Thank you. What do you think, group C? Has it been going on fairly?)

AF : Assalamualaikum, saya AF, mewakili kelompok C.

Dari kelompok C disini balance ya. 45-45. hanya 5

yang menjawab lain-lain. Artinya di sini ada dua

pendapat yang sama kuat gitu.. Pendapat saya

pribadi sudah berlangsung sehat, wajar-wajar saja.

Mungkin ada..teknisnya mungkin membuat suatu

jargon-jargon misalnya RCTI oke, SCTV ngetop, itu

sah-sah saja.

(Assalamualaikum, I’m AF, for Group C. [The answer] from group C is balanced, right, 45-45, only 5 that answer others. It means that there are two opinions that are equally strong. My personal opinion, [it] has been fair, natural. Perhaps there’s…the technical practice perhaps by making jargons like RCTI oke, SCTV ngetop, it is fine.)

Here, AF—a representative of Group C—said more information about the balance answer that his group had, which was actually not required to mention before answering the question. Moreover, he added unrequired information about the technical practice in Indonesian television stations competition. It can be viewed in highlighted lines (5) to (8) and (10) to (12) or (13) to (16) and (17) to (19).

16. DG : …Apakah sudah bisa dikatakan sehat dalam bersaing? Silakan Pak Menteri!

(… Can we say that the competition has been going on well? Go ahead Mr. Minister!)

Minister : Yang menarik bukan urusan persaingan sehat tidak

sehat, tapi justru apakah yang disajikan TV itu bisa

menyehatkan masyarakat. Meskipun persaingannya sehat, tapi kalau masyarakat menjadi tidak sehat,

manfaatnya nda ada.

1

5 1

5

10

Kriteria sehat itu saya merumuskan, apa yang disajikan oleh TV itu ada edukasinya, yang kedua ada pemberdayaan—empowering, yang ketiga itu mampu mencerahkan masyarakat, dan yang keempat tentu itu semua dikemas dalam membangun nasional.

(What’s interesting is not the matter of fair or unfair competition, instead, whether or not what the TV presents can make the society healthier. Although the competition is fair, but if it makes the society ill, there will be no advantages.

That health or fairness criteria were formulated by me, what the television presents must contain education; secondly, it must contain empowering; the third, it must be able to enlighten people; and the fourth, all of it must be framed for national development).

The Minister did not give a clear answer about the competition happening, whether it was fair or unfair. He chose to focus on what television stations gave to the public. He emphasized whether the television programs were good for people to watch or not. The violation can be viewed in highlighted lines (5) to (9) or (15) to (19).

He also gave unwanted information about criteria of a good television program. The violation occurs in highlighted lines (10) to (14) or (20) to (25).

17. DG : …Apakah Anda yakin dengan keakuratan hasil rating satu tayangan televisi di Indonesia?... Silakan sekarang saya jadi tertarik untuk kelompok A dulu. Silakan!

(Do you believe at the accuracy of rating of Indonesia television programs? …Now, I am attracted to the Group A, go ahead!)

MK : Saya MK dari Komteve sebuah lembaga independent

yang mengkaji dan mengkritisi kebijakan dari industri televisi maupun pemerintah. Bicara rating

bisa tujuh hari tujuh malam ga selesai. Tapi ini

1

5

10 10

15

20

adalah buah dari metode statistik. Sebagai industri kita bisa berdebat mengenai statistic. Tapi pastinya, pastinya di situ ada unsur jumlah responden sendiri, pergerakan responden, maupun selera yang tidak bisa terwakili.

(I’m MK from Komteve, an independent institution that reviewing and criticizing the policies of the television industry or the government.

If we talk about the rating, it may take forever to finish it.

But it is the result of statistical method. As the industry we can argue about the statistic. But one thing for sure, there must be the element of the number of respondents themselves, the respondents movement, and unrepresented desire).

MK—a representative of Group A—stated his opinion unclearly about the accuracy of rating of Indonesian television program. Instead of discussing the accuracy, he chose to state that it took forever to discuss rating. It can be seen in line (10) or (20) to (21).

Furthermore, he introduced his department to all participants, which had already been done by the host at the beginning of the show. Besides, Moko also talked about a method as a result of the television programs rating and elements in it, which were not asked to be explored here. It can be viewed in lines (8) to (10) and (12) to (16), or in (17) to (19) and (22) to (26).

18. DG : Terima kasih. Bagaimana pendapat Anda kelompok B? Apakah Anda yakin dengan keakuratannya? (Thank you. What do you think group B? Are you sure about the accuracy?)

SN : Nama saya SN. Ada tiga isu tadi yang disebutkan itu ada isu metodologis, kemudian kedua masalah audit, audit eksternal tidak ada untuk hasil rating, jadi pak menteri ini menjadi catatan untuk pak menteri

1

5 15

20

25

hendaknya. Harus ada audit eksternal. Dan yang ketiga adalah bagaimana kita bisa mempercayai sebuah hasil dari satu lembaga rating. Saya ingin mendorong, pada kesempatan ini, rekan-rekan untuk melakukan rating. Dan kalau perlu mari kita tuntut lembaga rating yang bertanggung jawab.

(My name is SN. There were three issues mentioned; methodology issues, auditory issues, there is no external audit for the rating result, so Mr. Minister, it should be a note for you. There must be the external audit. And the third is how we can believe in a result of a rating institution. I want to urge you, at this occasion, to do the rating. And if we have to, let us demand for a responsible rating institution).

Here, SN—a representative of Group B—added information about three issues in rating. She also suggested the minister to note that there was no external audit in rating. Besides, she convinced the other participants to rate television programs and sued the rating department. All the additional information she added were actually not needed to inform, in this case. She did not state her answer about the accuracy of the rating clearly. Those violations can be seen in highlighted lines (5) to (14) or (15) to (22).

19. DG : Pemirsa dua kelompok tadi sudah memberikan

argumennya. Sekarang saya ke AA. AA silakan! Apa

pendapat Anda?

(Viewers, the two groups have given their arguments. Now, I move to AA. AA, go ahead! What do you think about it?)

AA : Sebenernya soal rating itu yakin ga yakin, itu dipakai

gitu lho.

Masalahnya bagaimana menafsirkan rating ini.

(Actually about the rating is between believe and doubts, because it is being used.

The problem is how to interpret the rating).

1

5 10

15

20

Here, DG’s point is to give a chance to AA to talk. However, he informed to the audience first that two groups had put forward their minds. The information actually not needed. Highlighted lines (1) to (2) or (4) show where the violation occurs.

Here, AA gave unclear answer to all the people involved in the discussion. He stated that accuracy of rating was about certainty. It can be seen in lines (7) to (8) or (10) to (11).

He also gave unrequired information as he told the participants and viewers that the real problem was how to interpret the rating, which was actually not required in the context. Line (9) or (12) shows where the violation occurred.

20. DG : Baik, Pak Menteri, bagaimana pendapat Anda? (Okay, Mr. Minister, what do you think?)

Minister : Itulah resikonya jika hanya ada satu lembaga rating. Keakuratan ratingnya bisa dipertanyakan.

Karena itu, harus ada lembaga rating yang lain, paling tidak untuk ngecek mana yang kira-kira paling credible. Dari situ sebenernya kredibilitas dari hasil rating itu bisa kita pakai sebagai ukuran,

Tolong, rating itu hanya sebagai bagian

pertimbangan saja, tapi bukan on off.

(That is the consequences of only having one rating institution. The accuracy is questionable.

That is why there must be another rating institution, at least to check which rating is the most credible. Actually, the credibility of the rating can be used as a measurement, please note that the rating as just a part of the consideration, but not on off).

1

5

10

108

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter provides conclusions of the study entitled “The Cooperative Principle in Debate”. Recommendations for further study dealing with the issue will be proposed further.

5.1 Conclusions

From this study, it can be observed that three of four maxims were violated in the three examined talk shows. They were the maxims of quantity, relevance, and manner, which was the most frequent violated maxim. They were violated as the speakers failed to observe the rules of each maxim. They gave redundant, vague, and verbose information about the topic discussed. They also changed the topic of the questions raised and focused more on the previous question rather than to the discussed one.

The speakers were likely to violate the maxims of quantity and manner by giving redundant, vague, and verbose responses to the questions raised as they defended their opinion from others. In other words, they delivered their best thought by providing much more detail—that sometimes turned into verbose and redundant—answers because they made sure everyone that their opinion was the true one.

In addition, the maxim of relevance was violated as the speakers provided irrelevant replies to the questions raised. The irrelevant answers

109

emerged since the speakers were likely to change the questions discussed. It might be due to the fact that the speakers did not know the exact answers to the questions raised. By doing so, they could hide their weaknesses in delivering their thoughts. Besides, the irrelevant responses also emerged as the speakers chose to discuss previous question instead of the question discussed.

Finally, it can be concluded that the aspiration of the speakers to win the debates they are involved in, tension felt by them in conducting the debates, prior knowledge of the speakers on the topics discussed, and cultural background of the speakers also determine the answers given by them.

A speaker will be liable to talk disorderly, vaguely, and verbosely when he feels nervous in answering the questions raised in debates. He will also defend his opinion to win the debate although, occasionally, his opinion is irrelevant with the topic discussed.

As stated above, prior knowledge on the topic discussed of the speakers also determines the way they answer the questions raised. For instance, when a speaker cannot answer a question, he will be likely to give less informative or irrelevant information. Nevertheless, when a speaker provided a redundant answer, he might master the problem discussed and be willing to give much more information than is required.

Moreover, cultural background plays a role in the way the speakers deliver their opinions. For instance, Indonesians are likely to speak cyclically.

110

Therefore, in the talk shows, it can be seen that the speakers were more liable to respond vaguely and verbosely to the questions raised.

On the other hand, adequate evidence provided by the speakers in their opinion caused the absence of the violation to the maxim of quality in the three talk shows.

5.2 Recommendations

Several recommendations are proposed for further studies on the same theory applied in this study. Examining the other types of non-observance of the conversational maxims that occur in debates is the first suggestion for further studies. It can be done to differentiate more easily types of non-observance of the maxims (for example violation from infringement).

And the second one is analyzing the observance of the conversational maxims to figure out most observed maxim in debate to yield more comprehensive findings.

111

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bluedorn, Harvey. 2008. What is Debate. Available at: <http://www.what_is_debate.php.htm> Accessed on January 27, 2008 Cruse, Alan. 2004. Meaning in Language: An Introduction to Semantics and

Pragmatics. 2nd edition. Oxford: OUP.

Davies, Bethan. 2008. Grice’s Cooperative Principle: Getting the Meaning

Across. Leeds: Leeds University. Available at:

<www.leeds.ac.uk/linguistics/WPL/WP2000/Davies.pdf> Accessed on January 15, 2008.

Debate. 1995. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. Oxford: OUP

Dornerus, Emma. 2005. Breaking Maxims in Conversation: A Comparative Study

of How Scriptwriters Break Maxims in “Desperate Housewives” and

“That 70’s Show”. Available at: <www.kau.se/urn_nbn_se_kau_diva-19-1__fulltext.pdf> Accessed on February 1, 2007.

Firmansyah, Arif. 2006. The Manipulation of Cooperative Principles in Jomblo:

Sebuah Komedi Cinta. An unpublished paper.

Paltridge, B. 2000. Making Sense of Discourse Analysis. Gold Coast: Gerd Stabler.

Prayitno, Hadi. 2005. The Exploitations of Grice’s Cooperative Principle (CP)

Maxims in Printed Cellular Operator Advertisements. An unpublished

112 Rachmawati, D.2006. An analysis of the Violations of Cooperative Principle in

the First TPI Comedian Competiton (Audisi Pelawak TPI). An

unpublished paper.

Rowe, Katy. 2008. Debate. Available at:

<http://www.42explore.com/debate.htm> Accessed on January 27, 2008. Thomas, Jenny.1995. Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics.

Harlow: Pearson Education. www.metrotvnews.com

PAGE OF APPROVAL

THE COOPERATIVE PRINCIPLE IN DEBATE

BY ANUR NISYA

032940

Approved By:

Main Supervisor,

Prof. Dr. E. Aminudin Aziz, M.A. NIP. 131993862

Co-Supervisor,

Fazri Nur Yusuf, S.Pd., M.Pd. NIP. 132304677

Head of English Education Department Faculty of Language and Art Education

Indonesian University of Education

Drs. Wachyu Sundayana, M.A. NIP. 131568827