Violation of The Gricean Maxims in 'Ally McBeal'.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS………. i

TABLE OF CONTENTS……….. ii

ABSTRACT………...……… iii

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

1.2 Statement of the Problem…….……….. 3

1.3 Purpose of the Study……….. 4

1.4 Method of Research….……….. 4

1.5 Organisation of the Thesis…...……….. 4

CHAPTER TWO:THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK……… 6

CHAPTER THREE: VIOLATION OF THE GRICEAN MAXIMS IN ALLY MCBEAL……… 14

CHAPTER FOUR: CONCLUSION……..……….. 40

BIBLIOGRAPHY……….. 44

APPENDIX: Table of Data..……….. 45

iii MARANATHA CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY

ABSTRACT

Dalam skripsi ini, saya menganalisis pelanggaran terhadap teori Bidal Grice. Teori Bidal Grice yang dikemukakan oleh Paul Grice ini adalah aturan-aturan yang harus dipenuhi agar komunikasi dapat berjalan dengan lancar. Dalam serial Ally McBeal dapat ditemukan banyak pelanggaran terhadap Bidal Grice yang dilakukan oleh seseorang dengan maksud menipu dalam percakapan di persidangan.

Dalam persidangan, setiap orang memiliki peran tersendiri: sebagai saksi, terdakwa, orang yang mengajukan tuntutan, hakim, juri, pengacara, atau sebagai jaksa penuntut. Peran-peran inilah yang membuat mereka melanggar maxim demi kepentingan mereka sendiri. Misalnya, seorang terdakwa yang sedang diperiksa oleh jaksa penuntut, akan berkelit sebisa mungkin atau bahkan berbohong untuk menutupi kesalahannya. Dengan demikian, ia telah melanggar maxim dengan maksud untuk menipu atau melencengkan makna sebenarnya.

Setelah menganalisa, saya menemukan bahwa keadilan dan kebenaran yang dicari dalam ruang sidang hanyalah semata-mata keberhasilan dari seseorang dalam menjalankan perannya di ruang sidang tersebut.

APPENDIX

Table of data

No Data

Types of Maxim Violated

Ally : If the customers let you know that

they don’t like black anchor, what will you do? 1

Cooker’s

employer : I am not a bigot

Manner

Ally

: So, you agree to the fact that the customers like ‘talking breasts’ more than a competent anchor?

2

Cooker’s

employer : A little.

Manner

Elaine : She’s not the problem.

Poop : So, you have no hostility towards her? 3

Elaine : I am uncomfortable with the male’s behavior.

Quantity

Judge : So, you said Ally has a nervous breakdown? 4

Elaine : I said things to make people think that I am a wordsmith.

Quantity and Manner

Flint : So, you have not any intent to cause this woman to break up with that man?

Senator Foote : Love rarely involves specific intent.

5

Flint : Oh… so poetic!

Quantity

John Cage

: Mr. Wilson, have you ever been swept up by a song? And when you saw a beautiful woman, you asked her to dance with you and she agreed?

Mr. Wilson : I don’t go dancing very often.

6

John Cage : I suppose you have not then. But this happens all the time.

MARANATHA CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY

Harold Lane : You’ve been wanting to perform a pig liver transplant, haven’t you?

7

dr. Butters : I perform the transplant as indicated by the patient’s condition.

Quantity

Billy Thomas

: So the employees you have promoted is the same with the women you had sex with, and you said that’s just a coincidence?

8

Mr. Tyler : I didn’t say that.

Quality

Tyler’s lawyer : You said that he shouldn’t date women working for him?

9

Eva Curray : I never said that.

Quality

Ally

: You were hinting that you want to be surprised by him that is why you did not lock your door, am I correct?

10

Ms. Boner : He did not have the right to sneak in.

Relation

Ally : You’d gone out on three dates, you must like him? 11

Ms. Boner : A little. Quantity

Billy : Was any of these innuendo directed at you or the other women?

12

Mrs. Stone

: Not exactly but she asked the single women if they’d like to be fixed up that she knows some fun guys.

Manner and Quantity

Renee : You said the way she dresses puts out a sexual signal. Am I putting out a sexual signal right now? 13

Mrs. Stone : A little.

Quantity

Renee : So I’m putting a little sexual signal. If I work in your office, I’d be guilty of sexual harassment? 14

Mrs. Stone : If you were also constantly dropping remarks about your libido and how much you like sex.

Quantity

Opposing council

: They think you slept your way to be editor-in-chief. Is that a fair assessment?

15

Mrs. Jones : It’s what they think but it’s not a fair conclusion.

Relation

Billy : Was she given a chance? 16

Publisher : She was chief editor for one issue.

Relation

Billy : You call her a whore? 17

Witness : Maybe I insinuated it. Manner

Billy : You all decided to start calling in sick? 18

Witness

: Every reporter in the magazine dedicated him or herself to its reputation, she obliterated it. So we decided to safeguard the pedigree of the magazine.

Manner

District

Attorney : Is it true that you call yourself the office slut? 19

Elaine : I do that in fun.

Quantity

John : You think Ally is the true love in Billy’s life? 20

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1Background of the Study

In order to have good conversations, and avoid ambiguity, misunderstanding, untruthfulness, prolixity, and unnecessary information in our conversational contribution, people have to conform to the Gricean Maxims. In actual conversations, however, people tend to fail in conforming to the Gricean Maxims whether or not they have knowledge of it. The causes of the failure might vary. It could be because of the intention to mislead, the intention to make the hearer get the implicature, or simply because the speaker cannot speak the particular language well.

The phenomenon happens not only in daily conversations but also in a court of law. The major cause of the failure to observe the maxims in the court of law is the speaker’s intention to mislead or deceive. According to Grice, when the speaker fails to observe the maxim with an intention to deceive or mislead, he or she is violating the maxim. Ideally, all conversations in a courtroom are made to reveal truth and to uphold justice. Therefore, all conversations in a court of law should conform to the Gricean Maxims in order to prevent misunderstanding or untruthfulness or prolixity, and thus the MARANATHA CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY

truth is revealed. However, this is not what happens in courtrooms. People in a court of law are apt to defend their own interest in many ways, including by violating the Gricean Maxims. This is influenced by each person’s role as a judge, a lawyer, a defendant, a witness, or a prosecutor.

Seeing that people in a court of law often violate the Gricean Maxims, I find that the need to reveal how they violate the maxim and what their underlying intention behind it is is so great. In order to fulfil this need to reveal the violation of the Gricean Maxims in a court of law, I write a thesis on violation of the Gricean Maxims in Ally McBeal. This thesis is written in order to contribute something different and useful to the society. Besides, I never find any other thesis with a similar topic.

The source of data of this research is Ally McBeal television series, which show the career and the personal life of a young lawyer named Ally McBeal. In every episode, we can see Ally McBeal’s trials, cases, and also conversations. Ally McBeal series are not based on true story, but the trials are the prototypes of the real trials. This particular source of data is chosen because from this television series we can get a lot of examples of the violation of the Gricean Maxims in the trials. This is in accordance with Grice’s theory which says that the violation of the maxims often occurs in trials, parliamentary speeches, and arguments. The data are taken only from the court session scenes because the main discussion of this thesis is the violations of the Gricean Maxims done by the people of different roles in court.

One’s role in a court of law leads to his or her intention in violating the Gricean Maxims. Revealing one’s intention of violating the Gricean Maxims in a court of law will open our eyes that actually the idea of seeking justice and truth in the court of law is just a matter of one’s success in performing one’s role in the courtroom. This is the significance of the topic of this thesis.

The area of Linguistics of this thesis is Pragmatics and the specific theory used in the analysis is the theory of the Gricean Maxims by Paul Grice. The theory of the Gricean Maxims is used in this thesis because the purpose of writing this thesis cannot be separated from this theory. In fact, the discussion is about one of the non-observances of the Gricean Maxims, which is the violation of the maxims, whereby the speaker fails to observe the maxims in order to deceive or mislead. Besides the theory of the Gricean Maxims, another theory used in this thesis is the theory of Cooperative Principle, as the basis of the theory of the Gricean Maxims. In the analysis, the theory of Conversational Implicature is also used, because the implicature generated by the hearer due to the violation of the Gricean Maxims is also discussed. This is important because it will show the reader that the speakers’ meaning could be different from what they have said and they may be intentionally misleading or deceiving.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

In this analysis, I state the following problems:

1. Which of the Gricean Maxims are violated in Ally McBeal?

2. What are the implicatures generated by the hearer due to the violations of the Gricean Maxims?

3. What is the speaker’s intention of stating an utterance that violates the Gricean Maxims?

1.3 Purpose of the Study

The following statements are the purpose of my analysis:

1. To find out which of the Gricean Maxims are violated in Ally McBeal. 2. To find out the implicatures generated by the hearer due to the violations

of Gricean Maxims.

3. To find out the speaker’s intention of stating an utterance that violates the Gricean Maxims.

1.4 Method of Research

First of all, I watch the Ally McBeal series, and then I collect all the violations of the Gricean Maxims I could find in those films. After that, I analyse the utterances found in those films which violate the Gricean Maxims. Finally, I conclude the analysis.

1.5 Organisation of the Thesis

This thesis consists of four chapters. The first chapter is Introduction. This chapter consists of Background of the Study, Statement of the Problem, Purpose of the Study, Method of Research, and Organisation of the Thesis. The second chapter includes the theoretical framework used in the analysis.

The third chapter is the analysis of the data, and the fourth chapter is the conclusion of the analysis. At the end of this thesis, I attach the bibliography consisting of the references of the theories used in this thesis.

CHAPTER 4

CONCLUSION

Having analysed the data in chapter three, I have found four violations of

the maxim of manner, three violations of the maxim of quality, three violations

of the maxim of relation, and eight violations of the maxim of quantity. These facts show that the most often violated maxim is the maxim of quantity. It means that most people in the court of law tend to hide parts of the truth with the intention to deceive or mislead the hearer for their own benefit. In my opinion, the maxim of quantity is most often violated in the court of law because hiding parts of the truth or adding unnecessary information are the easiest ways to mislead the hearer and get the sympathy of the jury and the judge.

The truth that is partially hidden may be something different from the whole truth. The speaker usually tells parts of the truth that do not endanger his or her position and hide the parts of the truth that may put him or her at a disadvantage. Similarly, the unnecessary information given by the speaker may be something different from the whole truth as well. The speaker may tell the truth which is disadvantageous to him or her, but at the same time he or she also adds some more information that can save his or her position or attack his or her

opponent. In doing so, the speaker is misleading the hearers and is trying to impose their opinion on the hearers.

In the analysis, two maxims are least violated. They are the maxim of

quality and the maxim of relation. In my opinion, the maxim of quality is least

violated because the speaker does not tend to lie. The speaker does not tend to lie because the hearers can detect a lie easily, as the jury always pay attention carefully and the lawyers will also be very careful in preventing the speaker from telling lies. The maxim of relation is also least violated because it is more difficult to deceive someone by giving an irrelevant answer. It is easier to deceive someone by violating the other maxims. In a court of law, the speaker has to think instantly in answering the questions, so they will tend to find the easiest way to mislead the hearer.

There are two data in the analysis that violate both the maxim of

quantity and the maxim of manner. In my opinion, the reason why it is the

combination of the maxim of quantity and the maxim of manner is that the violation of the maxim of quantity, in which one is giving too much information, makes the utterance longer and not brief. Therefore, it violates the maxim of manner. In my opinion, the maxim of quantity and the maxim of manner are very closely related to each other. It is shown by the relationship between them. The more unnecessary information added in a sentence, the less brief the sentence will be. In other words as the speaker violates the maxim of quantity, he or she also violates the maxim of manner.

The underlying intentions of the violations vary, related to the speaker’s role in the court of law. As a defendant, the speaker usually violates the maxim in MARANATHA CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY

order to save himself or herself, by trying to make the jury or the judge sympathetic towards the speaker. As a plaintiff, the speaker usually violates the maxim in order to attack the defendant or merely to defend himself against the Defense Attorney’s attacking questions. The ways could vary, from attacking the defendant’s good image to just emphasising the defendant’s faults. As a witness supporting the defendant, the speaker usually violates the maxim in order to give advantage to the defendant. And as a witness supporting the plaintiff, the speaker violates the maxim in order to give advantage to the side he or she is supporting. He can attack the opponent or merely defend his own side.

Normally, the defendant or the witness supporting the defendant does not violate the maxim in order to attack their opponent, because their role in the court of law makes them subject to the District Attorney’s or the Prosecutor’s attack. On the other hand, the plaintiff and the witness supporting the plaintiff may violate the maxim in order to attack the opponent because their roles in the court of law make them the ones who are able to attack the opponent. At the same time, the plaintiff and the witness supporting the plaintiff can also violate the maxim in order to defend themselves because quite often the Defense Attorney can turn the situation around and attack them.

After observing the court sessions in Ally McBeal series, I can conclude that in this series seeking justice in the courtroom is merely a matter of someone’s success in performing his or her role in the courtroom. The vows made before someone gives their testimonies are not an assurance that he or she will tell the truth. If a defendant succeeds in defending him or herself by misleading or deceiving the hearer, he or she could win although he or she is actually guilty.

Similarly, the plaintiff could win the case although the defendant is not guilty, if the plaintiff could do his or her job well in attacking the defendant by misleading or deceiving the hearers. This, of course, is greatly influenced by the skills of the lawyers. In order to seek the truth and uphold justice, the jury in the courtroom as the hearers, must be able to read the situation very carefully and detect the misleading or deceiving statements, so that they are able to know whether or not the defendant is guilty.

As my analysis only deals with one type of failure in observing a maxim, which is the violation of the maxim, I would like to make a suggestion that anyone who is interested in writing a thesis with a topic similar to mine analyse the other types of failure found in court sessions. The theory has stated that the type of failure in observing a maxim that is most often found in court sessions is the violation of the maxim. It will be worthwhile trying to prove that the type of failure in observing a maxim in a court of law is not necessarily the violation of the maxim, but it could also be the other types of failure.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Sources:

Kelley, David. “One Hundred Tears Away.” Ally McBeal. ---, “Forbidden Fruits.” Ally McBeal.

---, “Theme of Life.” Ally McBeal.

---, “Happy Birthday, Baby.” Ally McBeal. ---, “Burried Pleasure.” Ally McBeal. ---, “Changes.” Ally McBeal.

---, “Blue Christmas.” Ally McBeal. ---, “Over The Rainbow.” Ally McBeal. ---, “Pursuit of Loneliness.” Ally McBeal.

References:

Thomas, Jenny. 1995. Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. London and New York: Longman Group Ltd.

The third chapter is the analysis of the data, and the fourth chapter is the conclusion of the analysis. At the end of this thesis, I attach the bibliography consisting of the references of the theories used in this thesis.

CHAPTER 4

CONCLUSION

Having analysed the data in chapter three, I have found four violations of

the maxim of manner, three violations of the maxim of quality, three violations

of the maxim of relation, and eight violations of the maxim of quantity. These facts show that the most often violated maxim is the maxim of quantity. It means that most people in the court of law tend to hide parts of the truth with the intention to deceive or mislead the hearer for their own benefit. In my opinion, the maxim of quantity is most often violated in the court of law because hiding parts of the truth or adding unnecessary information are the easiest ways to mislead the hearer and get the sympathy of the jury and the judge.

The truth that is partially hidden may be something different from the whole truth. The speaker usually tells parts of the truth that do not endanger his or her position and hide the parts of the truth that may put him or her at a disadvantage. Similarly, the unnecessary information given by the speaker may be something different from the whole truth as well. The speaker may tell the truth which is disadvantageous to him or her, but at the same time he or she also adds some more information that can save his or her position or attack his or her

opponent. In doing so, the speaker is misleading the hearers and is trying to impose their opinion on the hearers.

In the analysis, two maxims are least violated. They are the maxim of

quality and the maxim of relation. In my opinion, the maxim of quality is least

violated because the speaker does not tend to lie. The speaker does not tend to lie because the hearers can detect a lie easily, as the jury always pay attention carefully and the lawyers will also be very careful in preventing the speaker from telling lies. The maxim of relation is also least violated because it is more difficult to deceive someone by giving an irrelevant answer. It is easier to deceive someone by violating the other maxims. In a court of law, the speaker has to think instantly in answering the questions, so they will tend to find the easiest way to mislead the hearer.

There are two data in the analysis that violate both the maxim of

quantity and the maxim of manner. In my opinion, the reason why it is the

combination of the maxim of quantity and the maxim of manner is that the violation of the maxim of quantity, in which one is giving too much information, makes the utterance longer and not brief. Therefore, it violates the maxim of manner. In my opinion, the maxim of quantity and the maxim of manner are very closely related to each other. It is shown by the relationship between them. The more unnecessary information added in a sentence, the less brief the sentence will be. In other words as the speaker violates the maxim of quantity, he or she also violates the maxim of manner.

The underlying intentions of the violations vary, related to the speaker’s role in the court of law. As a defendant, the speaker usually violates the maxim in

order to save himself or herself, by trying to make the jury or the judge sympathetic towards the speaker. As a plaintiff, the speaker usually violates the maxim in order to attack the defendant or merely to defend himself against the Defense Attorney’s attacking questions. The ways could vary, from attacking the defendant’s good image to just emphasising the defendant’s faults. As a witness supporting the defendant, the speaker usually violates the maxim in order to give advantage to the defendant. And as a witness supporting the plaintiff, the speaker violates the maxim in order to give advantage to the side he or she is supporting. He can attack the opponent or merely defend his own side.

Normally, the defendant or the witness supporting the defendant does not violate the maxim in order to attack their opponent, because their role in the court of law makes them subject to the District Attorney’s or the Prosecutor’s attack. On the other hand, the plaintiff and the witness supporting the plaintiff may violate the maxim in order to attack the opponent because their roles in the court of law make them the ones who are able to attack the opponent. At the same time, the plaintiff and the witness supporting the plaintiff can also violate the maxim in order to defend themselves because quite often the Defense Attorney can turn the situation around and attack them.

After observing the court sessions in Ally McBeal series, I can conclude that in this series seeking justice in the courtroom is merely a matter of someone’s success in performing his or her role in the courtroom. The vows made before someone gives their testimonies are not an assurance that he or she will tell the truth. If a defendant succeeds in defending him or herself by misleading or deceiving the hearer, he or she could win although he or she is actually guilty.

Similarly, the plaintiff could win the case although the defendant is not guilty, if the plaintiff could do his or her job well in attacking the defendant by misleading or deceiving the hearers. This, of course, is greatly influenced by the skills of the lawyers. In order to seek the truth and uphold justice, the jury in the courtroom as the hearers, must be able to read the situation very carefully and detect the misleading or deceiving statements, so that they are able to know whether or not the defendant is guilty.

As my analysis only deals with one type of failure in observing a maxim, which is the violation of the maxim, I would like to make a suggestion that anyone who is interested in writing a thesis with a topic similar to mine analyse the other types of failure found in court sessions. The theory has stated that the type of failure in observing a maxim that is most often found in court sessions is the violation of the maxim. It will be worthwhile trying to prove that the type of failure in observing a maxim in a court of law is not necessarily the violation of the maxim, but it could also be the other types of failure.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Sources:

Kelley, David. “One Hundred Tears Away.” Ally McBeal. ---, “Forbidden Fruits.” Ally McBeal.

---, “Theme of Life.” Ally McBeal.

---, “Happy Birthday, Baby.” Ally McBeal. ---, “Burried Pleasure.” Ally McBeal. ---, “Changes.” Ally McBeal.

---, “Blue Christmas.” Ally McBeal. ---, “Over The Rainbow.” Ally McBeal. ---, “Pursuit of Loneliness.” Ally McBeal.

References:

Thomas, Jenny. 1995. Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. London and New York: Longman Group Ltd.