The Occurance of Conflicts Due to the Non-Observance of Gricean maxims in Damages Series Season 1 and 2.

iii

Maranatha Christian University

ABSTRACT

Di dalam skripsi ini, saya akan mengkaji mengenai pelanggaran bidal dalam serial drama Damages musim 1 dan 2. Damages berkisah tentang seorang pengacara senior bernama Patty yang akan melakukan segala hal untuk memenangkan kasus di pengadilan, baik itu hal positif maupun hal negatif. Sementara itu, seorang lulusan hukum, Ellen, sedang mencari pekerjaan. Patty lalu memperkerjakan Ellen karena ia tahu bahwa Ellen memegang kunci penting untuk memenangkan kasus yang sedang didalaminya. Pelanggaran bidal tersebut berujung pada munculnya konflik di antara para karakter dalam serial tersebut.

Penelitian saya ini termasuk dalam penelitian pragmatik, dan bidal merupakan salah satu kajian di dalamnya. Pragmatik ialah ilmu yang mempelajari tentang maksud dari ucapan seseorang. Pelanggaran bidal ditemukan oleh Paul Grice, yang intinya menyatakan adanya prinsip kerjasama di dalam bertutur kata yang acap kali dilanggar. Pelanggaran bidal itu sendiri terdiri atas flouting a maxim, violating a maxim, opting out of a maxim dan infringing a maxim.

Salah satu temuan yang saya temukan dalam penelitian saya ialah bahwa pelanggaran bidal yang paling sering terjadi ialah opting out of a maxim, karena penutur tidak bekerja sama dalam suatu situasi tutur yang mudah memicu konflik.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ... i

TABLE OF CONTENTS ... ii

ABSTRACT ... iii

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

Statement of the Problems ... 4

Purpose of the Study ... 4

Method of Research ... 4

Organization of the Thesis ... 5

CHAPTER TWO: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ... 6

CHAPTER THREE: THE OCCURRENCE OF CONFLICTS DUE TO THE NON-OBSERVANCE OFGRICEAN MAXIMS IN DAMAGES SERIES SEASONS 1 AND 2 ... 15

CHAPTER FOUR: CONCLUSION ... 44

BIBLIOGRAPHY ... 48

1

Maranatha Christian University

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Study

Aside from food and clothes, communication is one of the most important things that humans need. In order to communicate with others, humans use language. Whether it is spoken (verbal) or written (non verbal), sometimes a person is unable to express his/her feeling through words well. Sometimes in a conversation, he faces some difficulties to choose the appropriate words to express his/her feelings, which frequently leads to a misunderstanding or even a conflict.

In linguistics, there is a field of study called pragmatics. Pragmatics is the study about learning commnunicative meaning in sentences (Thomas 2). Implicature is implied meaning within an utterance (Thomas 56). Therefore, we need to be aware of the implicature of utterances.With pragmatics, we can study and reveal the true meaning of an utterance. Pragmatics is important: by studying pragmatics, we can avoid false interpretations.

In this thesis, I would like to acknowledge the characters’ utterances in an American TV series. I am going to use a drama television series, Damages, as my source of data. The reason why I chose Damages series seasons 1 and 2 as my data source is that I find the characters in the series often fail to observe maxims, which frequently leads to conflicts.

Basically, this story revolves around a famous lawyer and her freshly-graduated employee. The boss is famous for winning difficult cases, as a result of her dishonesty. She hired a freshly-graduated woman because she knows this woman has a secret key to her winning cases.

There are more than ten characters in this series, but I would like to focus on the main character, as she holds the most role in the stories in this series. The character whose utterances I am going to observe is the protagonist called Ellen. She is a freshly-graduated and wants to be a lawyer. She is accepted at Hewes’ law firm. She is a naive person; at first she really believes Patty is a respectable woman. But as time goes by, she changes into a strong woman, because she wants to crush Patty. This character is important in my research because she often fails to observe maxims which sometimes lead to conflicts.

The other important role is Patty Hewes. She is a powerful and famous lawyer. However, she is not an honest lawyer, because she will do anything to earn a large amount of money by winning cases, including criminal acts. She is fox-like and also a sneaky woman. This character often violates maxims because she will try all within her might to win the cases.

The non-observance theory of Gricean maxims is the theory I use to observe the characters’ utterances. The theory is applied whenever the maxims are

3

Maranatha Christian University not observed or when a speaker has tendencies to deceive or mislead ; and when a speaker is in certain circumstances, events, or culture when he performs the imperfect linguistic performance.

The topic of my thesis is “The Occurrence of Conflicts due to the Non-observance of Gricean Maxims In Damages Series Seasons 1 and 2.” In the area of Linguistics, the non-observance of Gricean maxims belongs to Pragmatics. Pragmatics is the branch of linguistics dealing with language in use and the contexts in which it is used, including such matters as deixis, the turn taking in conversation, text organization, presupposition, and implicature (“Pragmatics”).

The person who made the Gricean maxims is Paul Grice. There are four maxims he introduced in order to understand the Conversational Implicature. They are: Maxim of Quantity, Maxim of Quality, Maxim of Relation and Maxim of Manner. According to him, there are five categories about how people sometimes fail to observe the maxims. They are flouting a maxim, violating a maxim, infringing a maxim, opting out of a maxim and suspending a maxim.

This study is done to show how the non-observance of the Gricean maxims may lead to conflicts, which is seen in Damages series seasons 1 and 2, as one of many examples of how the non-observance of the Gricean maxims occurs around us in our daily life. By doing this thesis, I would like to make the readers notice how sometimes what a person says might be different from his/her real intention. Sometimes it is hard to utter our true feelings and we find difficulty in choosing the right words, which might cause some misunderstanding or even conflicts. By writing this thesis, I would also like the readers to know more about the non-observance of the Gricean maxims. Besides this, they can learn how to

avoid giving ambiguous utterances and choose more appropriate words to utter their feelings.

(764 words)

1.2 Statement of the Problem

The problems that I am going to analyze are :

1. What types of non-observance of Gricean maxims are found in Damages

series seasons 1 and 2?

2. Which maxims are not observed?

3. How does the non-observance of Gricean maxims lead to conflict?

1.3 Purpose of the Study

The study is done :

1. To know what types of non-observance of Gricean maxims are found in

Damages series seasons 1 and 2.

2. To find out the maxim which are not observed in the conversation. 3. To know how the non-observance of Gricean maxims leads to conflict.

1.4 Methods of Research

In researching my thesis, I watched Damages series seasons 1 and 2 and then I sorted out the utterances which fail to observe the Gricean maxims. Then, I analyzed the non-observance of maxims which occur in Damages series seasons 1

5

Maranatha Christian University and 2. Finally, after my data analysis was finished, I made a conclusion based on the analysis I made.

1.5 Organization of the Thesis

This thesis consists of four chapters. The first chapter is Introduction, the second chapter is Theoretical Framework. The third chapter is Discussion, and the last chapter is Conclusion. After the four chapters, there is Bibliography which is the list of sources I used in making this thesis.

CHAPTER FOUR

CONCLUSION

This chapter concludes the whole analysis which was conducted in the previous chapter. After gathering data and analyzing the data, it is found that the main characters of Damages series seasons 1 and 2 break the cooperative principles of maxims by mostly opting out of a maxim. From all data collected, there are sixteen cases of opting out of maxim, four cases of flouting the maxim of manner, four cases of flouting the maxim of relation, three cases of flouting the maxim of quantity and three cases of violating a maxim.

The most dominant non-observance case is opting out of a maxim. Refusal to give the information the hearers require and also wanting the hearers to stop talking about certain topics are the main reasons why the chosen characters opt out of a maxim. The chosen main characters opt out of a maxim because they do not want to cooperate with the hearer’s utterances, for example, in data 26, which is “Cut the shit.” In this data, the speaker, who is Claire Maddox, refuses to cooperate with Walter Kendrick’s utterance which talks about carpentry. Claire does not want to talk about carpentry, but she wants to know where the

45

Maranatha Christian University the board is, so she opts out of a maxim .

Meanwhile, there are eight data showing flouting the maxim of relation. Refusal to cooperate in the way that is required in the situation is the main reason why the chosen main characters flout the maxim of relation. They also flout the maxim of relation because they disagree about something, for example, in data 2, which is “Don’t be stupid. Everyone’s hiding something.” In this utterance, Patty flouts the maxim of relation because she wants to show a disagreement with Ellen’s statement which says that she does not believe that Katie is lying.

It is also found that some of the chosen main characters flout the maxim of quantity. Reassurance that the speakers can solve the problems is basically the main reason the chosen main characters flout the maxim of quantity. There are six cases of flouting the maxim of quantity found in this thesis. An example is in data 17, which is, “I told you I would handle it.” Ellen does not give the information which Katie asks for, because she wants to reassure Katie that everything is okay. On the other hand, Ellen’s reassuring act does not make Katie calm but brings conflict between them both.

The next dominant non-observance is violating a maxim. Attempting to hide the truth and also wanting to mislead the hearers are basically the reasons the chosen main characters violate a maxim. I find there are four cases of violating a maxim. An example can be seen in data 9, which is “Gregory worked for me. That’s all.” In this data, Ray violates a maxim. Moore wants to know if Ray was the one who gave Frobisher’s stock to Gregory Malina. He lies about not giving Gregory some of Frobisher’s stock. In this case, Ray violates a maxim because he wants to hide the truth from Moore.

Aside from violating a maxim, I find there are two data showing flouting the maxim of manner. Emphasizing certain things and also wanting the hearers to be aware of something are the main reasons the chosen main characters flout the maxim of manner. This can be seen in data 16, which is, “Is there anything else you understand?” In this data, Daniel Purchell flouts the maxim of manner. The implicature of his utterance is that Patty is stupid.

Related to this research, it is found that there are no cases of flouting the maxim of quality, infringing or suspending a maxim. A speaker flouts the maxim of quality when the speaker tells a lie, while the hearer already knows about the truth. In this thesis, the chosen main characters tend to choose to violate a maxim rather than flouting the maxim of quality. Since the data are taken from two series about a powerful yet sly lawyer, the characters often lie to hide something.

Infringing a maxim usually occurs when a speaker fails to observe a maxim, without any intention to deceive the hearer. There is no case of infringing a maxim in this thesis because the characters are all adult and they are also come from an English-speaking country with good language skill.

Suspending a maxim occurs when a speaker replaces some words which are considered to be taboo. In this series, the chosen main characters never use any taboo. Apart from this, they tend to utter their thoughts without using any special words.

The occurrence of non-observance of Gricean maxims often leads a speaker and a hearer to a misunderstanding. This misunderstanding often brings them to a conflict. To sum up, I found the non-observance of Gricean maxims are important in Damages series seasons 1 and 2: by analyzing the maxims, I could

47

Maranatha Christian University find the real intention from the implicature made by the characters, who in this case are mostly lawyers.

As the writer of this thesis, I am aware that my thesis is far from excellence and perfection. With this thesis, I also found that it is important not to fail to observe the Gricean maxims in conversations. By observing these maxims, we can make a cooperative conversation and we can also avoid misunderstandings between the speakers and the hearers. I hope this thesis may be beneficial for everyone who is going to make a research about the result of non-observance of Gricean maxims. For those who are going to conduct research in the same field as mine, I suggest that they choose their data source from drama television with a few seasons so that they can find more data for their research. I also suggest that they analyze the conflict in each data, because it is easier to recognize conflict rather than humour.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Texts

Damages Seasons 1-2. Tood A. Kessler. 2007. FX, 2007. DVD.

Printed and Online References

Grice, Paul. Logic and Conversation. Berkeley: University of California, 2004. Print.

IMDb – Movies, TV and Celebrities. Amazon Company, n.d. Web. 16 May 2014. Levinson, Stephen. Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized

Conversational Implicature. MIT Press, 2000. Print.

Mooney, Anabelle. Co-operation, Violation and Making Sense. Journal of Pragmatics vol. 36, pp. 899-920, 2004. Print.

“Pragmatics.” Oxford Online Dictionary. Oxford Dictionary Online. Web. 10 Feb 2014.

Thomas, Jenny. Meaning in Interaction: an Introduction to Pragmatics. Longman, 1995. Print.

and 2. Finally, after my data analysis was finished, I made a conclusion based on the analysis I made.

1.5 Organization of the Thesis

This thesis consists of four chapters. The first chapter is Introduction, the second chapter is Theoretical Framework. The third chapter is Discussion, and the last chapter is Conclusion. After the four chapters, there is Bibliography which is the list of sources I used in making this thesis.

CHAPTER FOUR

CONCLUSION

This chapter concludes the whole analysis which was conducted in the previous chapter. After gathering data and analyzing the data, it is found that the main characters of Damages series seasons 1 and 2 break the cooperative principles of maxims by mostly opting out of a maxim. From all data collected, there are sixteen cases of opting out of maxim, four cases of flouting the maxim of manner, four cases of flouting the maxim of relation, three cases of flouting the maxim of quantity and three cases of violating a maxim.

The most dominant non-observance case is opting out of a maxim. Refusal to give the information the hearers require and also wanting the hearers to stop talking about certain topics are the main reasons why the chosen characters opt out of a maxim. The chosen main characters opt out of a maxim because they do not want to cooperate with the hearer’s utterances, for example, in data 26, which is “Cut the shit.” In this data, the speaker, who is Claire Maddox, refuses to cooperate with Walter Kendrick’s utterance which talks about carpentry. Claire does not want to talk about carpentry, but she wants to know where the

the board is, so she opts out of a maxim .

Meanwhile, there are eight data showing flouting the maxim of relation. Refusal to cooperate in the way that is required in the situation is the main reason why the chosen main characters flout the maxim of relation. They also flout the maxim of relation because they disagree about something, for example, in data 2, which is “Don’t be stupid. Everyone’s hiding something.” In this utterance, Patty flouts the maxim of relation because she wants to show a disagreement with Ellen’s statement which says that she does not believe that Katie is lying.

It is also found that some of the chosen main characters flout the maxim of quantity. Reassurance that the speakers can solve the problems is basically the main reason the chosen main characters flout the maxim of quantity. There are six cases of flouting the maxim of quantity found in this thesis. An example is in data 17, which is, “I told you I would handle it.” Ellen does not give the information which Katie asks for, because she wants to reassure Katie that everything is okay. On the other hand, Ellen’s reassuring act does not make Katie calm but brings conflict between them both.

The next dominant non-observance is violating a maxim. Attempting to hide the truth and also wanting to mislead the hearers are basically the reasons the chosen main characters violate a maxim. I find there are four cases of violating a maxim. An example can be seen in data 9, which is “Gregory worked for me. That’s all.” In this data, Ray violates a maxim. Moore wants to know if Ray was the one who gave Frobisher’s stock to Gregory Malina. He lies about not giving Gregory some of Frobisher’s stock. In this case, Ray violates a maxim because he wants to hide the truth from Moore.

Aside from violating a maxim, I find there are two data showing flouting the maxim of manner. Emphasizing certain things and also wanting the hearers to be aware of something are the main reasons the chosen main characters flout the maxim of manner. This can be seen in data 16, which is, “Is there anything else you understand?” In this data, Daniel Purchell flouts the maxim of manner. The implicature of his utterance is that Patty is stupid.

Related to this research, it is found that there are no cases of flouting the maxim of quality, infringing or suspending a maxim. A speaker flouts the maxim of quality when the speaker tells a lie, while the hearer already knows about the truth. In this thesis, the chosen main characters tend to choose to violate a maxim rather than flouting the maxim of quality. Since the data are taken from two series about a powerful yet sly lawyer, the characters often lie to hide something.

Infringing a maxim usually occurs when a speaker fails to observe a maxim, without any intention to deceive the hearer. There is no case of infringing a maxim in this thesis because the characters are all adult and they are also come from an English-speaking country with good language skill.

Suspending a maxim occurs when a speaker replaces some words which are considered to be taboo. In this series, the chosen main characters never use any taboo. Apart from this, they tend to utter their thoughts without using any special words.

The occurrence of non-observance of Gricean maxims often leads a speaker and a hearer to a misunderstanding. This misunderstanding often brings them to a conflict. To sum up, I found the non-observance of Gricean maxims are important in Damages series seasons 1 and 2: by analyzing the maxims, I could

find the real intention from the implicature made by the characters, who in this case are mostly lawyers.

As the writer of this thesis, I am aware that my thesis is far from excellence and perfection. With this thesis, I also found that it is important not to fail to observe the Gricean maxims in conversations. By observing these maxims, we can make a cooperative conversation and we can also avoid misunderstandings between the speakers and the hearers. I hope this thesis may be beneficial for everyone who is going to make a research about the result of non-observance of Gricean maxims. For those who are going to conduct research in the same field as mine, I suggest that they choose their data source from drama television with a few seasons so that they can find more data for their research. I also suggest that they analyze the conflict in each data, because it is easier to recognize conflict rather than humour.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Texts

Damages Seasons 1-2. Tood A. Kessler. 2007. FX, 2007. DVD.

Printed and Online References

Grice, Paul. Logic and Conversation. Berkeley: University of California, 2004. Print.

IMDb – Movies, TV and Celebrities. Amazon Company, n.d. Web. 16 May 2014. Levinson, Stephen. Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized

Conversational Implicature. MIT Press, 2000. Print.

Mooney, Anabelle. Co-operation, Violation and Making Sense. Journal of Pragmatics vol. 36, pp. 899-920, 2004. Print.

“Pragmatics.” Oxford Online Dictionary. Oxford Dictionary Online. Web. 10 Feb 2014.

Thomas, Jenny. Meaning in Interaction: an Introduction to Pragmatics. Longman, 1995. Print.