Based on Grice's Cooperative Principle
The Non-Observance Maxim of Conversation in the Arthur Miller’s the Last Yankee (Based on Grice’s Cooperative Principle)
A thesis Submitted to Letters and Humanities Faculty in Partial Fulfillment of theRequirements for the Strata One Degree (S1)
Aryanthi 105026000887
ENGLISH LETTERS DEPARTMENT LETTERS AND HUMANITIES FACULTY STATE ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY “SYARIF HIDAYATULLAH” JAKARTA 2010 ABSTRACT
Aryanthi. The Non-Observance Maxim of Conversation in the Arthur Miller’s the Last Yankee (Based on Grice’s Cooperative Principle). Thesis. English Letters Department. Letters and Humanities Faculty. Syarif Hidayahtullah State Islamic University, March 2010. The research aims to know the disobediences of maxim of conversation in the context of cooperative principle and how the participants who are the speaker and the listener use in their conversation. The writer uses qualitative as the method of the research in which she tries to describe the violations of maxims in cooperative principle. The unit analysis of her research is the drama text of the dialogue in the Last Yankee’s drama. It is analyzed descriptively based on related theory of cooperative principle by Grice. She uses herself as a main research instrument through reading, identifying and classifying the data which are needed from the text dialogue of the Last Yankee drama. The last Yankee is one of Arthur Miller’s dramas and it tells about two marriage couples deal with their frightened of their lives. The writer puts the data description before she analyzes the data. Further, she analyzes the disobedience of the maxim of conversation through the selected data describes the context of situation behind the dialogue, the process of the violation and interprets the implicature that appeared in the dialogue. At the latter point, she concludes her analyses into some points that mentioned about how the participants must obey the maxim of conversation in this study. The writer finds there are about twelve violations and one violation that clash with another maxim. With the result, from the group A there are; two violations of the maxim of quantity, four violations of the maxim of quality, three violations of the maxim of relevance and three violations of the maxim of manner. Then from the group B one violation that clashes with another maxim that is the speaker violates the maxim of quantity in clash with maxim of manner.
i APPROVEMENT
The Non-Observance Maxim of Conversation in the Arthur Miller’s
The Last Yankee (Based on Grice’s Cooperative Principle)
A Thesis
Submitted to Letters and Humanities Faculty
In Partial fulfillment of the requirements
For the Degree of Strata One
Aryanthi
NIM. 105026000887
Approved by:
Dr. Frans Sayogie, M.Pd. Supervisor
ENGLISH LETTERS DEPARTMENT LETTERS AND HUMANITIES FACULTY STATE ISLAMIC UNIVERITY “SYARIF HIDAYAHTULLAH” JAKARTA 2010
ii
LEGALIZATION
The thesis entitled “The Non-Observance Maxim of Conversation in the
Arthur Miller’s The Last Yankee (Based on Grice’s Cooperative Principle)” has been defended before the Letters and Humanities Faculty’s Examination
Committee on February 22nd, 2010. The thesis has already been accepted as a partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Strata 1 (S1) in English
Letters Department.
Jakarta, 8th April, 2010.
Examination Committee
1. Dr. Muhammad Farkhan, M.Pd ______Chair Person 2. Drs. Asep Saefuddin, M.Pd ______Secretary 3. Dr. Frans Sayogie, M.Pd ______Advisor 4. Drs. Abdul Hamid, M.Ed ______Examiner I 5. Sholikatus Sa’diyah, M.Pd ______Examiner II
iii DECLARATION
I hereby declare that this submission is my own work and that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, it contains no material which to substantial extent has been accepted for the award of any other degree of diploma of the university or other institute of higher learning, except where due acknowledgement has been made in the text.
Jakarta, 24th March, 2010
(Materai 6000)
Aryanthi
iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
In the name of Allah, the most Gracious and the most Merciful.
Praise and gratitude is only for Him, the Lord of the Universe, who has given His blessing and happiness by succeeding the writer in making her thesis.
And also may all the blessing and salutation be upon the most honorable prophet and messenger Muhammad SAW, his families, his companions and his congregations.
It is for sure that this work might be not completed without a great pray and love of her beloved mother Hj. Sopiah, grandmother Ijah (alm.), and her sister
Nurul Aryani; may all the love and blessing be upon these inspiring women. Then to her father H. Niman and her uncle Sutisna who have supported her financially and morally also facilitated her with all the things she needed during in the study.
It also goes to all the lecturers who have helped her to the result of this work, especially Dr. Frans Sayogie, M. Pd as her advisor and Hilmi Akmal,
M.Hum for guiding and suggesting her to make a good thesis, from the very beginning until the end. Then, it also goes to Inayatul Chusna, M Hum who has given her a suggestion about finding the best drama for her object of research.
The writer would also give so much thanks to the entire beloved persons by mentioning one by one, but it is impossible to thank everyone who has contributed his or her thought in this thesis. However, the writer wants to express her gratitude to the following honorable persons:
1. Dr. Abdul Chaer, MA. The Dean of the Letters and Humanities Faculty.
Syarif Hidayahtullah State Islamic University Jakarta.
v 2. Dr. Muhammad Farhan, M.Pd. the Head of English Letters Department.
3. Dr. Asep Saefuddin, M.Pd. the Secretary of English Letters Department.
4. Her beloved friends Isti, Indra and Tini for all the support during the work
of her research.
5. Her beloved classmates, that is the students of class A 2005 for being her
classmates, who enrich her with so much experiences, love and support for
the past four – year – wonderful friendship. Not forgetting the B and C
class that are also colored her in experiencing the touchable friendship.
Her companions at PMII KOMFAKA especialy Wahyu Robihun and other
members. And also to her friends and little family; IofC (Initiatives of
Change) especially Ka Huda and Ka Wazeen, thanks for acknowledging
the writer about what is commitment about.
6. To all the staffs of some libraries such as Letters and Humanities Library,
State Islamic University of Syarif Hidayahtullah Jakarta library, Atma
Jaya library, Kajian Wilayah Amerika(KWA) library of the University of
Indonesia, and Letter Faculty of Indonesian University library.
May Allah SWT always bless and protect these entire wonderful kind persons. In short, the writer realizes that this thesis still has much lackness and might be far from being perfect. Therefore, the writer hopes any constructive and supporting criticism, suggestion and advice for a better improvement.
Jakarta, 24th March, 2010
The writer
vi TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ...... i
APPROVEMENT ...... ii
LEGALIZATION ...... iii
DECLARATION ...... iv
ACKNWOLEDGEMENT ...... v
TABLE OF CONTENTS...... vii
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION...... 1
A. Background of the Study ...... 1
B. Focus of the Study ...... 7
C. Research Question...... 7
D. Significance of the Study ...... 8
E. Research Methodology ...... 8
1. Objectives of the Study ...... 8
2. Method of the Study...... 8
3. Technique of Data Analysis...... 9
4. The Instrument of the Research ...... 9
5. Unit of Analysis ...... 10
CHAPTER II. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ...... 11
A. Pragmatics...... 11
B. Implicature ...... 13
C. Cooperative Principle...... 16
vii D. The Disobedience Maxim of Conversation ...... 20
E. Context ...... 22
F. Drama...... 23
G. Dialogue ...... 25
CHAPTER III. RESEARCH FINDINGS...... 28
A. Data Description...... 28
B. Data Analysis ...... 29
1. Group A...... 29
1.1. Maxim of Quantity’s violation...... 29
1.2. Maxim of Quality’s violation...... 32
1.3. Maxim of Relevance’s violation ...... 37
1.4. Maxim of Manner’s violation ...... 41
2. Group B...... 44
2.1. Maxim of Quantity in clash with maxim of manner...... 44
C. The Maxim’s Violations ...... 45
CHAPTER IV. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION...... 47
1. Conclusion ...... 47
2. Suggestion...... 48
REFERENCES...... 49
APPENDICES ...... 51
1 .1. Drama’s Synopsis ...... 51
2 .1. The Last Yankee Drama’s Dialogue...... 53
viii SYNOPSIS The Non-Observance Maxim of Conversation in the Arthur Miller’s the Last Yankee (Based on Grice’s Cooperative Principle)
A Thesis Submitted to Letters and Humanities Faculty in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Strata One Degree (S1)
Aryanthi 105026000887
ENGLISH LETTERS DEPARTMENT LETTERS AND HUMANITIES FACULTY STATE ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY “SYARIF HIDAYATULLAH” JAKARTA 2010 ABSTRACT
Aryanthi. The Non-Observance Maxim of Conversation in the Arthur Miller’s the Last Yankee (Based on Grice’s Cooperative Principle). Thesis. English Letters Department. Letters and Humanities Faculty. Syarif Hidayahtullah State Islamic University, March 2010. The research aims to know the disobediences of maxim of conversation in the context of cooperative principle and how the participants who are the speaker and the listener use in their conversation. The writer uses qualitative as the method of the research in which she tries to describe the violations of maxims in cooperative principle. The unit analysis of her research is the drama text of the dialogue in the Last Yankee’s drama. It is analyzed descriptively based on related theory of cooperative principle by Grice. She uses herself as a main research instrument through reading, identifying and classifying the data which are needed from the text dialogue of the Last Yankee drama. The Last Yankee is one of Arthur Miller’s dramas and it tells about two marriage couples deal with their frightening of life. The writer puts the data description before she analyzes the data. Further, she analyzes the disobedience of the maxim of conversation through the selected data. She describes the context of situation behind the dialogue, the process of the violation and interprets the implicature that appeared in the dialogue. At the latter point, she concludes her analysis into some points that mentioned about how the participants must obey the maxim of conversation in this study. The writer finds that there are about twelve violations and one violation that clash with another maxim. With the result, from the group A there are; two violations of the maxim of quantity, four violations of the maxim of quality, three violations of the maxim of relevance and three violations of the maxim of manner. Then from the group B, there is one violation that clashes with another maxim in which the speaker violates the maxim of quantity in clash with maxim of manner. The totals of maxim’s violations are thirteen. In short, the violations happen because the participant does not cooperate well with the reason of some context inside.
1 A. Background of the Study Speaker and listener must contribute to make their conversation to reach the main goal. Making a conversation becomes successfully, people on the position as a ‘speaker’ must communicate directly their ‘speech’ and ‘information’ which they need to communicate to the listener. On the other hand, speaker sometimes does not realize that he does not give relevant information in the conversation. Therefore, this is more than just about the language’s structure but come straight into the meaning that was not being stated.
Pragmatics as a branch of linguistic study, deals with the meaning that cannot capture by Semantics.1 Although, semantics comes before the pragmatics, but the analysis is different. While semantics in some cases can solve the problem that deals with the meaning, semantics cannot solve the meaning deeper. Yule, in his work, argued that Semantics deals with the relationship between linguistics form and entities in the world or on how words literally connect to things.2 Semantics can not answer what the speaker’s means by saying a word. Furthermore, the semantics analysis is internally and focuses on the words meaning. The result of words meaning is accurate and also does not need to see the connections between the words and the speaker or the writer. Semantics concentrates to the meaning of the words entirely. If semantics is about the meaning internally then it is different with pragmatics.
Pragmatics is the study of those relations between language and context.3 It concerns with the meaning contextually. The meaning analysis is through some theories that deal with language use. The word meaning analysis does not only look at the literal meaning, but it also concerns with the situation when and how the words was being spoken.
The word meaning becomes an important issue. This will come at how the information, in a given period will not making a miss communication. In order to give the information, pragmatics has one principle that solves the
1 Aitchison, Jean, Linguistics: an Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1995), p. 93 2 Yule, George, Pragmatics (Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1996), p. 4 3 Mey, Jacob L, Pragmatics: An Introduction (Oxford: Blackwell Publisher. 1993), p. 212
2 problem and requires obeying a principle. As a result, speaker and listener have to fulfill some of the rules which bind between the speaker and listener called cooperative principle.
The cooperative principle in the human daily activity hopes the application when people communicate. At first, the cooperative principle was stated by a philosopher, H.P. Grice, in his college at Harvard University on the year 1975.4 He explained that the cooperative principle can support the participants (speaker and listener) to reach the main goal of the conversation. In addition of his explanation, he gives a basic form of why people can communicate and names it as maxim. He mentioned and introduced the theory of cooperative principle in his article called Logic and Conversation. He mentioned that a speaker must give a contribution in each conversation in which appropriate with the listener need.5 Unfortunately, the information delivery always seems unconstructive because of the appearance of the other meaning from the real meaning in the conversation.
The speaker’s remark ever makes a meaning that cannot be reached by the listener. Thus, it will cause raise another meaning or an additional meaning called Implicature.6 Afterwards another linguist Leech gives his point of view about meaning. At this part he said that in each distance of meaning, the word meaning must correlated with the fact that was watched. Besides the word meaning can be concluded in the simplest one and must be generalized.7 Moreover, when a conversation continues, mostly the speaker puts the topic or another issue. If it happens then it will change the purposed of why the words was being stated and make the information seems unrevealed by the listener.
The cooperative principle explains about the referential meaning while the conversation happens. It focuses on the sentence which are being told and to what people mean while the speech is being told.8 For the example in this
4 Grice, H.P. “Logic and Conversation.” Syntax and Semantics. Vol. III: Speech Acts, ed. Peter Cole and J. L. Morgan (New York: Academic Press. 1975), p.45 5 Grice, H.P. (1975), loc. cit. 6 Kushartanti, Pesona Bahasa, (Jakarta: PT. Gramedia Utama. 2005), p. 105 7 Leech, Geoffrey, Prinsip-prinsip Pragmatik (Jakarta: Penerbit Universitas Indonesia. 1993), p.10. 8 Short, M.H, in Applied Linguistic. Vol II: Discourse Analysis and the Analysis of Drama (Oxford: Oxford University. 1981), p.189
3 conversation when A asking whether B enjoys the drama which they already watched by saying “Did you enjoy the play?”, then B answers with “Well, I thought the ice creams they sold in the interval were good”.9 The conversation implies that B indirectly stated that he cannot enjoy the drama play, even though he didn’t declare it directly but he succeeded in telling of the feeling politely. In this part, the point that the listener got about the B’s answer was an Implicature about how he didn’t enjoy the drama. However, B was disobeyed the cooperative principle.
Grice, as quoted by Kushartanti, says the Cooperative Principle is about how a speaker must obey the four maxims. Furthermore, the term of maxim is a principle that is must be obeyed by the speaker and listener in interacting. This is must be obeyed by the participants (the listener and speaker) whether textually or interpersonally on the way to accelerate the communication process.10
In fulfilling the appropriate contribution, the speaker must obey the four maxims such as: (1) Maxim of Quantity, (2) Maxim of Quality, (3) Maxim of Relation, and (4) Maxim of Manner.11 Grice hopes the four maxims will be obeyed so that it can give a relevant contribution. But there is a time when a speaker and a listener cannot follow the rules and showing non- observance. One kind of the non-observance is maxim’s violation, and the violation happens because of the raising of the side meaning or implicature in which already talked by the writer before.
In particular case between A and B, it shows that there are maxim violations on the first, second, and third maxim when B answers A’s question. But however it still obeys the cooperative principle, because A still understand and realize the impliacture that B cannot enjoy the drama play, it just because of B didn’t want to declare it directly and impolite to tell it.
The implicature exists because there is no intention from the speaker and listener as the participants; break the cooperative principle. Mostly it happened coincidently when people communicated, and it also can be seen in
9 Short, M.H. (1981), loc. cit. 10 Kushartanti (2005), loc. cit 11 Grice (1975), loc. cit.
4 literature works like Drama. In drama, there is one speaker and one listener or even more than without any planning of the script writer, they disobey the cooperative principle. Yet drama is a text but in the understanding text, people must realize that it is an object that unites together with the language and other aspect (and others like Sociolinguistics, literature).12 Nowdays, there are many literature text analyses, moreover especially about drama is not merely just about performance and plot but also the analysis is through the Linguistic Aspect using the linguistic Theories.
The concentration of the text analysis is still rarely being conducted by the linguist. Even there is a text analysis in linguistics’ analysis but it is still in the work of syntactical analysis. Almost the same as in linguistic, the drama also get the same situation. The literature text analysis concentrates in the stage and story analysis. Here, the writer tries to conduct a new way of analysis about the literary works based on the linguistics point of view. The writer decides a drama dialogue’s analysis and she finds the Arthur Miller’s drama called ‘The Last Yankee.’
Arthur Miller was one of the leading American playwrights of the twentieth century;13 he won for many literary award and prizes in literature works. One of his famous dramas is The Death of a Salesman, in which won a Tony Award as well as a Pulitzer Prize.14 All of his drama works are interesting because they are about the drama of family.15 It seems so interesting to analyze, however, the writer does not want to analyze the drama as literature text analysis. She tries to use the linguistics as a tool of analysis. Further, the writer finds it interesting and makes her to analyze this drama on the linguistics’ point of view.
Hence, the writer chooses Grice’s theory about a set of rule of how people contribute to make their communication reach the main goal; that is the cooperative principle within the maxims of conversation. The writer also
12 Short, MH (1981), p. 183 13 Taken from http://www.gradesaver.com/author/arthur-miller/, accessed on 1st April 2010. 14Ibid. 15Ibid.
5 focuses to the disobedience of the maxims of conversation to gain and explore more the drama’s dialogue.
Based on those reasons, the writer is interested in analyzing about The Non-Observance Maxim of Conversation in Arthur Miller’s the Last Yankee (Based on Grice’s Theory of Cooperative). It is hopes that can enrich the student’s perception about the linguistic analysis and the text analysis which focuses on drama as an object.
B. Research Methodology
Based on the research questions above, the writer has several objectives. The first, the write wants to know the kinds of maxim were being violated by the speaker and listener while the implicature appears in their dialogue and shows the non-observance of the participants and to know how the process and the causes of the maxim’s violation happen. The method conducted in the research is qualitative method. Through this method, the writer describes the violation of maxim of conversation through Arthur Miller’s drama dialogue; The Last Yankee. Holloway said that qualitative research is the context bound,16in which means that the writer must able to involve and carefully focuses into the background of the data analysis. According to this statement, the writer will describe and explore the data analysis as it correlates with the object of analysis.
In this study the writer uses herself as a main research instrument through reading, identifying, classifying and analyzing the data which are used and needed from the dialogue or drama text. Furthermore, to get the aim of the research, the writer conducts the descriptive data analysis’ technique which is divided into some step such as write some notes of maxim of conversations violation agencies offered by Grice, read the dialogue and find the violations of the four maxims, sign up the violation of maxim agencies accruing within the drama text, identify the context of situation covered the dialogue, analyze the process of maxim’s violation in data analysis, recognize
16 Holloway, Immy, Basic Concepts for Qualitative Research. (Oxford: Blackwell Science. 1997), p. 5
6 and interpret the implicature that appears in the data analysis, re-read the data to find the key words for the analyzing based on the research questions and conclude the collecting data.
Furthermore, the unit of the analysis of the research is the text from the dialogue of Arthur Miller’s drama; The Last Yankee.
C. Theoretical Framework
1. Pragmatics
Pragmatics concerns the various meaning aspects through the social factor. The various meaning aspects tell how language can be less or more acceptable depend on the rule of the standard language from one community. Here, the rule is not something that state in literally but abstractly. At the beginning of the developing linguistic study, semantics took a big part in the analysis of meaning literally. In the developing of linguistic study, pragmatics offers a study of meaning deeper. The developing of linguistic study brings the conclusion that the pragmatics deal with the meaning deeper than semantics. Pragmatics and semantics deal with meaning, but there are some aspects in which semantics can not solve. According to a short statement purposed by Jean Aitchison, pragmatics is a branch of linguistic learning about various meaning aspects and couldn’t comprehend by the Semantics Theory.17 This is because of pragmatics intends the analysis about how the listener grasps meaning, and what was implied by the speaker. And it needs to see on cooperation between the listener and the speaker. In short that semantic analysis is closer to the literal meaning and the pragmatics analysis and the pragmatics analysis is analyzing the meaning based on the speech situation. The speech situations will refer to what imply in the speaker’s utterance. Utterance is the term in pragmatics; this intertwines relation to another word of statement. In pragmatics, the analysis is about how the listener grasps meaning that implied in the speaker’s utterance. This is like when someone requests a help, there is a way to say straight that he requesting
17Aitchison, Jean (1995), loc. cit.
7 a help. But she or he can state in a different way. At this part, the act of request a help in which the speaker formulate the utterance called illocutionary act. For instance the statement of “can you give me a more explanation, please?” when the lecture tell about pragmatics theory. The question was asked directly, but it can become to a different way when it was declared as “I haven’t any idea at all in theory”. This simple statement is not only bound to provide information for whomever the listener but also an expressing of wanting a re-explaining and clear information from the lecturer without stated directly. If the lecturer provides a more time to make clear about the explaination of linguistic theory, it will reach a satisfactory to the speaker. The satisfactory that is the result effect is known as perlocutionary effect. The speaker often makes distinct about what is said and what is imply. The Speaker and listener have to make a cooperative effort to make a successful communication. When speakers utter the utterance, sometimes they will implicate something in the way they exchange information. If the speaker’s formulation in uttering can be understood by the listener, the speaker is successful in delivering the information. But it will turn into a fail effort when the listener cannot understand about what was being talked about. The formulation’s utterance that what the speaker’s intent and imply called implicature.
2. Implicature There are argumentations about the definition of Implicature. The first is Grice’s definition about implicature in his paper Logic and conversation,18 when he first introduced the term implicature in a term of a verb, implicate then he turn into the related noun of implying called implicature. Speaker implicates and the listener tries to arrive at the meaning of the implicature, if the participants (the listener and speaker) can do it, they have making an active communication. Horn also concludes about implicature that is as a component of speaker meaning that constitutes an aspect of what is meant n a speaker’s
18 Grice, H.P (1975), op. cit. 44
8 utterance without being part of what is said.19 The implicature explanation is closer to what a speaker intends to state A without bring A in the utterance. When a speaker makes an implicature, the communication can goes smoothly or failed if the listener can not deduce what is being talked by the speaker through A. There are two kinds of implicature. Grice in his paper explains that the first kind is a conventional implicature. The meaning in this implicature can take by a literal meaning directly from the text. Second is the conversational implicature. The conversational implicature is the additional meaning inside an utterance.20 It happens because of the speaker and listener exchange the information that can not include the utterance. Some listener can connect to what is implied. Further the participants incline do this because of the participants (listener and speaker) have a set of purpose when they are uttering something.
3. Cooperative Principle Listener and speaker must try to make a stimulus response. Grice comments on his previous article call Logic and Conversation that is about communication in the conversation. He thinks while communicate happen; the speaker must gives a relevant information on what it stated. The next description of this mutuality effective communication resume in cooperative principle. Yule concludes about cooperative principle as he cited from Grice’s paper. He thinks that the cooperative principle is about making 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.21 The cooperative principle specifies what does the speaker means to cooperate which called conversational maxim. The maxim of conversation is a set of principles advanced by Grice as a part of his account of implicature.22 In order to succeed in communication
19 Horn, Laurence R and Gregory ward. The Handbook of Pragmatics (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. 2006), p.3 20Yule, George. (1996), op. cit.35. 21 Ibid. p. 37. 22 Mathews, P. H, “The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics”. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997) p. 219.
9 the participants must fill the four maxims, with the result: 1. Maxim of Quantity This maxim directly correlated more or less of the information gave to speaker. This maxim forces the speaker in giving sufficient information to the listener.23 The participants must contribute as is required and make the conversation to be connected. The speaker is not less and over in giving the information. Therefore, Grice explains that the maxim forces the participants to: a. Make their contribution as informative as is required. b. To be not making their contribution more informative than is required.24 2. Maxim of Quality The maxim forces the speaker in giving the relevant information. Both of the speaker and listener must make a satisfactory in fulfillment the appropriate information. With the specific sub maxim: a. Do not say what you believe to be false b. Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence. 3. Maxim of relevance The maxim forces the participants to be relevant.25 On the other words, the participants must give relevant information to each other. 4. Maxim of Manner The maxim force to utter what have to say does not have to be formulated by the speaker. With the subsequent sub-maxim below: a. Avoid obscurity of expression b. Avoid ambiguity c. Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity) d. Be orderly.26
4. The disobedience of the cooperative Principle
23 Kushartanti (1993), op. cit.107. 24 Grice, H.P (1975), op. cit. 46 25 Ibid. 26 Ibid.
10 Listener and speaker sometimes fail to follow the rules and sometimes they break the cooperative principle. At this stage, they fail to fulfill a maxim in some ways: 1. He may quietly and unostentatiously violate a maxim. If the speaker does it, it will make the listener have a wrong idea or he will not pay attention to what he said. 2. He may opt out from the operation both of the maxim and of the Cooperative Principle. On this case, the speaker does not plan to cooperate in the way the maxim requires. 3. He may be faced by a clash another maxim. The speaker is unable to fill one of the maxims and turns to violate the other maxim. Further, when a speaker gives a statement; he may not contribute in completing the requirement of the first maxim. In short, he gets a clash with the second maxim. 4. He may flout a maxim. Here, the speaker is able to fulfill the maxim and to do it without having any violation with another maxim. It actually fails to contribute the maxim but it is being exploited.
5. Context Listener must be able to interpret one remark to one another intention. He must care to what is being constructed inside the remark and the utterance told by the speaker. He must also consider about the situation like the time when it was stated or how it was stated. The reason of participants consideration is because of the language use is separate from the use of a context. Further, David states that context refers to the situation giving rise to the discourse, and within which the discourse embedded.27 It exists because when speaker is saying something they have a reason and some aspects that forming the background of an utterance being stated. The contextual factors can influence each of utterance. If the listener can concerns the contextual factors, it will be a start look to listener to know
27 Nunan, David, Introducing Discourse Analysis (London: Penguin Books. 1993), p. 7
11 about the meaning of the speaker’s utterance.
6. Drama Drama is a performance of play and dialogue. At first drama were originated in the Greek verb dran means to do; to act or to accomplish.28 The performance shows the player, as the actress, do some actions in scenes where the situational in text reflected. There are about seven types of drama, such as: tragedy, comedy, problem playa, farce, comedy of manners, fantasy and melodrama. Drama is about embedding the internal communication system in the external system. It creates the play of some characters and provides the correlation between the fictional world of the player (performances) and the audiences (spectators). Here, the author usually must be able to raise the emotion events through the utterances spoken by the players.
7. Dialogue Dialogue is one of the results from the dramatic text. In drama, it is the fundamental mode of presentation. This is because of the reduction of the dramatic text into the speech and the characters with the action will create a story’s scenes. When the players act while the making of the utterances such as an act forming a promise or a threat, then they do not only make dialogue as the formal element but as the spoken language. The receivers need to emphasize about an act through utterances. It is because the dialogue in drama put some of performances aspects. J.L Austin argued; as it recited by Manfred that there is something which is act the moment of uttering being done by the person uttering.29 In drama, there are more to explore from the utterance in the dialogue because of the receiver sometimes does not consider about the situation where the dialogue where spoken by the players. Dialogues will relate with the speech act in speech situation where it was being uttered. And the making the dramatic speech is bound to the particular situation. The particular situation that is not all the spectators can
28 Wessels, Charlyn. Drama (New York: Oxford University. 1988), p. 1 29 Pfister, Manfred, The theory and analysis of drama (Cambridge: The University of Cambridge, 1991), p.6
12 catch from the plot or the characters. The text will bound into some particular situation that will create particular speech situation like the lack of information making the player to disobey the cooperative principle.
D. Research Finding At first, the writer writes the text of dialogue and explains the violation with the disobedience of maxim of conversation which is on the dialogue that already divided into two groups. Then, she gives reason and further exploration in explaining it by using Herbert Grice theory of maxim. In analyzing the data, the writer will describe context of situation, process of violation and implicature in each datum. Therefore, the data will be analyzed as follows:
Group A. (the violation of maxim because of violate, opt out and flout the maxim). 1. The maxim of quantity’s violation Datum I Frick : Seven! - I’ve been wondering if it was because she never had any. Leroy: No, that’s not it. – You don’t have any? Frick: No. We kept putting it off, and then it got too late, and first thing you know … it’s just too late. Leroy: For a while there I thought maybe she had too many children … Frick: Well I don’t have any, so … Leroy: Yeah, I guess that’s not either.30 a. Context of situation Frick and Leroy seek for the reasons why their wives got sick. Then Leroy asks about the number of children that Frick has. It is also to notice the reason Frick’s wife got sick. b. Process of violation: There is no doubt that Frick flouts the maxim of quantity to ‘avoid making a contribution more informative than is required’. Frick remark by using expression repeating the statement ‘it got too late, and first thing you
30 Miller, Arthur ( 1995), op.cit. p. 451.
13 know … it’s just too late’. An interpreting aspect of such expression make one can derive ‘as not as required’. Even so it is actually interpreted as telling more than what is said. The answer gives such over informative to Leroy. It is confusing to Leroy and liable to raise the topic and make Leroy be mislead. By making Leroy mislead about the remark causing him thinking that there is a particular point in accessing Frick’s remark ‘first thing you know … it’s just too late’ c. Implicature This expression keys to have a conversational implicature. Frick’s expression tells more than what is required by the listener. At this part, Frick implies that children are not the reason of his wife got sick but it actually becomes his sadness about having no children around.
2. The maxim of quality’s violation Datum I Frick: What was your father? Leroy: Lawyer Frick: Why didn’t you? Leroy: Just too dumb, I guess Frick: Couldn’t buckle down the books, huh? Leroy: I guess not.31 a. Context of Situation: Frick interested in knowing how Leroy’s simplicity in his life. Moreover, Frick becomes more curious to know then later he asks about Leroy’s passion about his ideal. b. Process of violation Leroy’s remark of ‘just too dumb, I guess’ violates the maxim of quality, ‘do not to say what you believe to be false’. In this maxim of quality in which is the Gricean maxim, Gazdar maintains that this maxim is connected to the logic of belief.32 Therefore the speaker needs to give an answer that is logically based on what his belief and make it to be
31Miller, Arthur (1995) op.cit. p. 456. 32Gerald Gazdar (1979), op.cit. 45-46.
14 appropriate information. When it turns into Leroy’s remark ‘I guess not’ that is a negation of Frick’s question ‘could not buckle the book’; Leroy is actually have the ability to answer Frick’s question clearly. Even so, Leroy is liable to mislead Frick by stating ‘I guess’. The words of ‘I guess’ implicates about an unfinished answer. Furthermore, It compares with the word well that purposed by R. Lakoff, as cited in Gazdar, that the word well when it is in a remark; it will give a signal of an incomplete answer.33 Continuing, likewise statement with I guess. At this point, the writer defined that I guess have the same purposed, in Leroy’s remark the word I guess not just merely a short reply but also an incomplete answer that is typically ‘say what he believe to be false’ in the context. Hence, Leroy violates the maxim of quality and in order to be not cooperating with the listener. c. Implicature He implicates that he does not want to be a lawyer because of the job looks only suit for his father so that he is not interested in being a lawyer.
3. The maxim of Relevance’s violation 1. Datum I Patricia: …. I-must-not-blame-Leroy-anymore. And it’s amazing. I lost desire medication, I could feel it leaving me like a .. like a ghost. Slight pause. …. It is just that he’s got really well-to-do relatives and he simply will not accept anyone’s help. I mean you take the Jews, the Italians, Irish-they’ve got their Italian-American, Irish-American, Hispanic- Americans-they stick together and help each other. But you ever hear of Yankee-Americans? Not on your life. Raise his taxes, rob him blind, the Yankee’ll just sit there all alone getting sadder and sadder. – But I’m not going to think about it anymore. Karen: You have a very beautiful chin.34 a. Context of Situation Patricia talks about her husband. She tells it to Karen in order to share
33Ibid. p. 44. 34Miller, Arthur (1995) op.cit. p. 463.
15 and have a way out of this problem. b. Process of Violation Karen’s remark actually responses Patricia’s remark, however, Karen does not give a relevant response to Patricia. Since, there seems the conversation jump into another topic then it violates the maxim of relevant. While in the conversation, Karen allows herself in getting another subject of conversation that is legitimately change. c. Implicature Karen implies that she does not have any idea about Patricia’s story and she has another subject that also needs to share.
4. The maxim of Manner’s violation Datum I Frick: Gladamettu. Slightly pause. How do you find it here? Leroy: I guess they do a good job Frick: Surprisingly well kept for a state institution Leroy: Oh-ya. Frick: Awful lot of colored, though, ain’t there?35 a. Context of Situation Leroy and Frick comment about the medical hospital where their wife was treated. Frick and Leroy have their own comment but each of them still wants to get to know about another comment. b. Process of Violation At the most literal level of meaning I guess means I’m not really sure; giving an answer without being sure. People often think I guess as having the secondary meaning I think. In other case, it counts as a pseudo-turn in the interaction, by not advancing the conversation further through flouting the maxim of manner to be ‘avoids obscurity expression’. Leroy implies that he does not know much and he himself does not sure about the quality of hospital service to the patient. His remark builds Frick thought about the uncertainty of the fact of the service through surprisingly and awful lot of colored. Leroy’s remark contributes in the
35 Ibid. p. 449.
16 giving idea that is not clear, therefore difficult to make a clear and exact conclusion. Leroy does not give clear about what contribution he is making about. In short, this use of I guess always works in this way, it has become conventionalized, and no longer requires an inference procedure for the implicature to be recovered. c. Implicature Here, Leroy implicates the service given is good even though the facility still was not complete.
Group B. (In which there is a clash with another maxim) 1. Violate maxim of quantity in clash with maxim of manner Data I Leroy: Well, I am too. They’re wonderful kids. Frick: They still very young? Leroy: Five to nineteen. But they all pitch in. everything’s clean, house runs like a ship.36 a. Context of Situation Leroy tells about his children. And he tries to make Frick amazed about his children work. b. Process of Violation It is supposed that Leroy is opting out. His remark as he well know, he is over informative than is required to meet Frick’s need. This infringement of the first maxim of quantity can be explained only by the supposition that Leroy is aware to bring the obscurity of expression by saying ‘But they all pitch in. everything’s clean, house runs like a ship’ and does not have a brief statement. Hence, Leroy’s remark is flouted the maxim of quantity but its violation is to be explained by the supposition of the clash with another maxim that is the maxim of manner. c. Implicature Leroy implicates that he has children five to nineteen and they are really diligent.
36 Ibid. p. 452.
17 E. The Maxim’s Violations From the data analysis above, it shows many violations. The writer finds there are about twelve violations and one violation that clash with another maxim. With the result, from the group A there are; two violations of the maxim of quantity, four violations of the maxim of quality, three violations of the maxim of relevance and three violations of the maxim of manner. Then from the group B one violation that clash with another maxim that is the speaker violate the maxim of quantity in clash with maxim of manner. In short, the violations happen because the participant does not cooperate well with the reason of some context inside.
F. Conclusion From the research findings, the writer would like to take the conclusion for some results. First, the cooperative principle is a principle has been contributed to make a clear information and appropriate information while they are making a conversation. Besides, this principle tells about how the participants (speaker and listener) must contribute in making the communication as is required. The disobedience of maxim conversation is influenced by the relationship of the speaker and listener make the information as informative as is required. Speaker disobeys the maxim of conversation in some ways, first he quietly violates a maxim, he opts out from the cooperation, he flouts a maxim and even it actually already violates the first maxim but then faced by a clash the other maxim. When he disobeys the maxim of conversation, then he will create a side meaning in his remark called implicature. The implicature will rise at the time when one of the participants disobeys the maxim it will turn onto the personal communication. There is the basic reason in which becomes the background of how the implicature raised. The background itself called context. Context is able to tell knowledge where can explore and draw the background of the aspects (like the mental, social and cultural aspects) which guide to the interpretation of the language. Hence, when the participants were being communicated they needed to explore more not merely just seeing it as an utterance, but they also must obey the maxims of conversation in order to reach the main goal of sending the information as
18 informative as required.
G. REFERENCES Cruse, D. Alan. Meaning in Language: An Introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press Inc. New York, 2000. Farkhan, Muhammad. Penulisan Karya Ilmiah. Jakarta: Cella Jakarta, 2006. Gazdar, Gerald. Pragmatic: Implicature, Presupposition, and Logical Form. London: Academic Press, Inc., 1979. Grice, H.P. “Logic and Conversation.” Syntax and Semantics. Vol. III: Speech Acts, ed. Peter Cole and J. L. Morgan. New York: Academic Press, 1975. Holloway, Immy. Basic Concepts for Qualitative Research. Oxford: Blackwell Science, 1997. Horn, Laurence.R, and Gregory ward. The Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2006. Kushartanti. Pesona Bahasa. Jakarta: PT. Gramedia Utama, 2005. Leech, Geoffrey. Prinsip-prinsip Pragmatik. Jakarta: Penerbit Universitas Indonesia, 1993. Mathews, P. H “The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics”. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997. Mey, Jacob L. Pragmatics: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell Publisher, Ltd., 1993. Miller, Arthur. “The Last Yankee.” The Portable Arthur Miller, ed. Bigsby, Christhoper. New York: Penguin Books, 1995. Nunan, David. Introducing Discourse Analysis. London: Penguin Book, 1993. Pfister, Manfred. The theory and analysis of drama. Cambridge: The University of Cambridge, 1991. Short, M.H. “Discourse Analysis and the Analysis of Drama.” Applied Linguistic Vol II. Oxford: Oxford University, 1981. Wessels, Charlyn. Drama. New York: Oxford University, 1988.
Yule, George. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996.
19 Website: http://www.lifestreamcenter.net/DrB/Lessons/Drama accessed on March 25, 2010. http://www.gradesaver.com/author/arthur-miller/ accessed on 1st April 2010.
20
CURICULUM VITAE
PERSONAL INFORMATION
Name : Aryanthi Date of Birth : March 15th 1987 Birth Place : Jakarta Gender : Female Nationality : Indonesia Permanent Mailing Adress : Cilodong. Kelurahan Kalibaru Kecamatan Cilodong Rt.03/06 No.66 Depok 021-77824059 E-mail : [email protected] Cell-phone Number : 087880068520
Current Education Information University : UIN Syarif Hidayahtullah Jakarta Faculty/Major : Letters and Humanities Faculty/English Department Current Semester : Tenth Semester
Working Experiences
Year Main Activites and Working Place From Until Responsibilities
Tka and Tpa November December (a Qur’anic Teaching 2005 2006 Kindergarten and a
21 Qur’anic Junior School)
Refa Qualitama July Oktober Multitradex Event Sales Marketing 2006 2006 Organizer May Gemilang Study Club now Teacher 2007 SuperChamp English June September Teaching English for Kids Course 2007 2008 Boarding English Course September July Adviser and English Tutor of Gemilang 2008 2009
TKa/TPa Ikhlasul August Now Teaching English Machfudz 2009
Organizational Experiences
Year Name Position in Organization From Until PMII (Pergerakan Mahasiswa Islam 2005 2006 Member Indonesia) PMII (Pergerakan Mahasiswa Islam 2006 2007 Leader of Gender Divison Indonesia) KOPRI (Korps Pergerakan Mahasiswa 2006 2007 Event Organizer Divison Islam Indonesia Putri PMII) PMII (Pergerakan Mahasiswa Islam 2007 2009 Leader of Creativity Indonesia) Divison IofC (Initiatives of Change) 2008 Now Member SIGI Community (a Community of 2009 2009 Member Movie Maker)
Achievements No. Kinds of Event Organizer Name of Event Year Achievement Second Winner Female Dormitory 1. Anniversary 2006 of English of UIN
22 Speech Competition Third Winner BEMJ PAI of of English 2. Education Faculty Anniversary 2007 Speech of UIN Competition Second Winner of English BEMF of 3. Anniversary 2008 Debating Group Education Faculty Competition
Conference and Workshop Experiences Time and Place Status Program Organizer Jakarta, 28th Participant The entrepreneurship IKALUIN September 2005 Seminary: “Pendidikan (Panitia Ikatan yang memberdayakan; Alumni Mempersiapkan Alumni Universitas UIN yang Mandiri UIN) Syarif Berkemampuan Hidayahtullah Entrepreneurship” Jakarta Jakarta, 18th May Participant The Culture and Students 2006 English Letter Executive Seminary: Committee “Recognizing West (BEMF) of Multiculturalism Letters and Through Cultural Study” Humanities Faculty Jakarta, 28th May Participant “Pelatihan Calon Guru Bina Cinta 2010 Privat bersama Drs. Ilmu (BCI) Bahroin Suryantara” The Private Learning Institution Jakarta, 11th Participant “Refleksi kritis The Executive January 2007 Pengalaman Indonesia Director PSIK Pasca Kemerdekaan” (Pusat Studi Islam Dan Kenegaraan) of Paramadina
23 University Jakarta, 1st Participant ”Potret Kerawanan P3M (Pusat February 2007 Sosial DKI Jakarta, Pengkajian Sebuah Evaluasi Krtis” dan Pengabdian Masyarakat) in cooperate with Syariah and Law Faculty Jakarta, 16th Participant “Dinar Vs Dolar: Students April 2007 Peluang Penerapan Executive Dinar Dalam Indutri Committe of Asuransi Syari’ah” Syaria’ah Ansurance Department in cooperate with LSF(Law Study Forum) Jakarta, April Participant Seminar Sehari P2KM (Pusat 27th 2008 “Perempuan dan Media Pengkajian Massa: Objek atau Komunikasi Subjek?” dan Media) Bogor, 19th-21st Participant The 4th Youth Camp Initiative of December 2008 “Discover Inner Power Change (IofC) and Share to the Others: Indonesia A Better World Through You and Me” Jakarta, Bogor, Committee The 4th International Initiatives of Bandung, & Action for Life Team Changes Banten, February Visiting Program Indonesia 23- April 23 2009 Indonesia Bogor-Cisarua, Participant The 5th International Team of March 20-22, Youth Camp 2009 “Be International 2009 the change you want to Action for Life see in the world” 4 dan Initiatives of Changes- Indonesia Jakarta, 2nd -3rd Participant The Appreciation and Departemen
24 April 2009 Movie Maker Workshop Kebudayaan for Students and Adult: dan Pariwisata “Maju Film Indonesia” Indonesia in cooperate with Senakki, Indeff Foundation, Konsep Layar Kreasi, PWI Jaya, PARSI and Jaringan Worksop Jakarta, 24th Participant Pubic Speaking Contest: Direktorat June 2010 “ASEAN as one Jendral Community” Kerjasama ASEAN, Departemen Luar Negri Republik Indonesia Jakarta, 11th Participant Workshop: “Tips and Internatioanl November 2009 Tricks for Applying the Office of UIN International Post Sayrif Graduate Scholarship” Hidayatullah Jakarta Jakarta, 21st Participant Profesional Public Health September 2009 Development Seminary Major of UIN on Occuptioanl Health Sayrif and Safety Programme: Hidayatullah “How to be Healthy and Jakarta Fashionable with Your Notebook” Jakarta, 11th Participant The National Seminary: Student september 2010 ”Kupas Tuntas Executive Kontroversi NAMRU: Committee Kedaulatan NKRI Dalam (BEM) of UIN Ancaman?” Syarif Hidayatllah Jakarta
25 1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1. Background of the Study
Speaker and listener must contribute to make their conversation to reach the main goal. Making the conversation becomes successfully, people on the position as a ‘speaker’ must communicate directly their ‘speech’ and
‘information’ which they need to communicate to the listener. On the other hand, speaker sometimes does not realize that he does not give relevant information in the conversation. Therefore, this is more than just about the language’s structure but come straight into the meaning that was not being stated.
Pragmatics as a branch of linguistic study, deals with the meaning that cannot capture by Semantics.1 Although semantics comes before the pragmatics, but the analysis is different. While semantics in some cases can solve the problem that deals with the meaning, semantics cannot solve the meaning deeper. Yule, in his work, argued that semantics deals with the relationship between linguistics forms and entities in the world or on how words literally connect to things.2
Semantics cannot answer what the speaker’s mean by saying a word.
Furthermore, semantics analysis is internally and focuses on the words meaning.
The result of word meaning is accurate and does not to see the connections
1 Aitchison, Jean, Linguistics: an Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1995), p. 93 2 Yule, George, Pragmatics (Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1996), p. 4
1 2
between the word and the speaker or the writer. If semantics about the meaning internally, semantics is different from pragmatics that is to tell the words meaning externally.
Pragmatics is the study of those relations between language and context.3
It concerns with the words meaning contextually. The meaning analysis is through some theories that deal with language use. And this analysis also does not only look at the literal meaning, but it concerns to the situation when and how the words was being spoken.
The word meaning becomes an important issue. This will come at how the information, in a given period, will not make a miss communication. In order to give the information, pragmatics has one principle that solves the problem and requires obeying a principle. As the result, speaker and listener have to fulfill some of the rules which bind between the speaker and listener called cooperative principle.
The cooperative principle in the human daily activity hopes for the application when people communicate. At first, the cooperative principle was stated by a philosopher name H.P. Grice, in some of his college at Harvard
University on the year 1975.4 He explained that the cooperative principle can support the participants (speaker and listener) to reach the main goal of the conversation. In addition of his explanation, he gives a basic form of why people
3 Mey, Jacob L, Pragmatics: An Introduction (Oxford: Blackwell Publisher. 1993), p. 212 4 Grice, H.P. “Logic and Conversation.” Syntax and Semantics. Vol. III: Speech Acts, ed. Peter Cole and J. L. Morgan (New York: Academic Press. 1975), p.45
3
can communicate and named it as maxim. He mentioned that a speaker must give a contribution in each conversation in which appropriate with the listener need.5
Unfortunately, the information delivery seems unconstructive because of the appearance of the other meaning from the real meaning in the conversation.
The speaker’s remark ever makes a meaning that cannot be reached by the listener. Thus, it will cause raise another meaning or an additional meaning which called Implicature.6 Afterwards another Linguist names Leech gives his point of view about meaning. At this part he said that each distance about meaning, the word meaning must correlate with the fact that the situation was watched.
Besides the distance of meaning can be concluded with the simplest one and also must easy to be generalized.7 When a conversation continues, mostly the speaker puts the topic or another issue so that change the aim of the conversation and make the information seems unrevealed by the listener.
The cooperative principle explains about the referential meaning while the conversation happens. It focuses on the sentence which are being told and to what people mean, while the speech is being told.8 For the example when A asks whether B enjoys the drama which they already watched or not. Then A asks by saying “Did you enjoy the play?” then B answers “Well, I thought the ice creams
5 Grice, H.P. (1975), loc. cit. 6 Kushartanti, Pesona Bahasa, (Jakarta: PT. Gramedia Utama. 2005), p. 105 7 Leech, Geoffrey, Prinsip-prinsip Pragmatik (Jakarta: Penerbit Universitas Indonesia. 1993), p.10. 8 Short, M.H, in Applied Linguistic. Vol II: Discourse Analysis and the Analysis of Drama (Oxford: Oxford University. 1981), p.189
4
they sold in the interval were good”.9 Indirectly the conversation implies that B could not enjoy the drama play and even though B didn’t declare it directly, he succeeded in telling his feeling politely. Here, the point that the listener got about
B’s answer was an Implicature of how he didn’t enjoy the drama. However, B disobeys the cooperative principle and shows the non-observance of maxim of conversation.
Grice, as quoted by Kushartanti, says the Cooperative Principle is about how a speaker must obey the four maxims. Furthermore, the term of maxim is a principle must be obeyed by the speaker and listener in interacting, This must be obeyed by the participants (speaker and listener) whether textually or interpersonally on the way to accelerate the communication process.10
In fulfilling the appropriate contribution, the speaker must obey the four maxims such as: (1) Maxim of Quantity, (2) Maxim of Quality, (3) Maxim of
Relation, and (4) Maxim of Manner.11 Grice hopes the four maxims will be obeyed so that it can give a relevant contribution. But there is a time when a speaker and a listener cannot follow the rules and showing non-observance. The non-observance because of the participants disobeys the cooperative principle.
Maxim’s violation shows the non-observance. The violation happens and causes the side meaning or implicature that already talked by the writer before.
9 Short, M.H. (1981), loc. cit. 10 Kushartanti (2005), loc. cit 11 Grice (1975), loc. cit.
5
In particular cases between A and B, it shows that there are maxim violations on the first, second, and third maxim. A still understand and realizes the implicature of B ‘the ice cream they sold in the interval were good’means that he cannot enjoy the drama play. This was because of B didn’t want to declare it directly and feels impolite to tell it
The implicature exists because there is no intention from the speaker and listener as the participant; break the cooperative principle. Mostly, it happens coincidently when people were communicating and it also can be seen in literature works like Drama. In drama, there is one speaker and one listener (known as characters) acts as the scenes written in the dialogue. At this part and without any planning from the Script Writer, there is one act that can be disobeying the cooperative principle. Yet drama is a text but in the understanding text, people must realize that it is an object uniting together with the language and other aspect
(like Sociolinguistics, literature).12 In addition, this statement explains that drama’s analysis is not merely just about performance and plot. There are many aspects can be analyzed besides the literature aspects like the drama’s analysis through the Linguistic Aspect using the linguistic Theories.
The concentration of the text analysis is still rarely being conducted by the linguist. Even there is a text analysis in linguistics but it is still in the work of syntactical analysis. Earlier the conducted linguistic analysis was seeing the analysis in one aspect. This situation is the same as in linguistic, the drama also
12 Short, MH (1981), p. 183
6
get the same situation. The literature text analysis like drama’s analysis concentrates in the stage and story analysis. Later the way of conducting analysis of linguistic and literature was changing; both of the linguistic and literature.
Here, the writer tries to conduct a new way analysis about the literary works based on the linguistic and literature works could meet together. Here, the writer tries to conduct a new way of analysis about the literary works based on the linguistics point of view. The writer decides a pragmatics’ analysis uses the drama’s dialogue as an object of analysis. She finds the Arthur Miller’s drama called ‘The
Last Yankee.’
Arthur Miller was one of the leading American playwrights of the twentieth century;13 he won for many literary award and prizes in literature works.
One of his famous dramas is The Death of a Salesman, in which won a Tony
Award as well as a Pulitzer Prize.14 All of his drama work is interesting because they are about the drama of family.15 It seems so interesting to analyze, however, the writer does not want to analyze the drama as literary text analysis. She uses the linguistics as a tool of analysis. Further, the writer finds that the Last Yankee’s story is interesting and makes her to analyze this drama on the linguistics’ point of view.
Hence, the writer chooses Grice’s theory about a set of rule of how people contributing their communication reaching the main goal; that is the cooperative
13 Taken from http://www.gradesaver.com/author/arthur-miller/, accessed on 1st April 2010. 14Ibid. 15Ibid.
7
principle within the maxims of conversation. The writer also focuses at the disobedience of the maxims of conversation to gain and explore about the non- observance of participants (characters) in the drama’s dialogue.
Based on those reasons, the writer is interested in analyzing about The
Non-Observance Maxim of Conversation in Arthur Miller’s the Last Yankee
(Based on Grice’s Theory of Cooperative). It is hopefully can enrich our perception about the linguistics’ analysis and the text analysis which focuses on drama as an object.
2. Focus of the Study
To limit the research, the writer will focus on the violations of the maxims which Grice already purposed in Cooperative of Principle and how the disobedience of maxim in drama happens.
3. Research Questions
Based on the focus of study, the writer will cover the questions below:
1. What kinds of maxim in Cooperative Principle are not obeyed by the participants while the implicature appears in their dialogue in which shows the non-observance of the participants?
2. How does the process of the maxim’s violations happen?
8
4. Significance of Study
The writer hopes by doing the analysis, it will create a smarter reader and contribute the wide perspective in analyzing the language use and the literature. It is hoped to become an additional reference of how to analyze the Literature text or non literature text and acknowledging about the analysis text.
5. Research Methodology
1. Objectives of the study
Based on the research questions above, the writer has several objectives below:
1. To know the kinds of maxim was not obeyed by the speaker and listener while the implicature appears in their dialogue in which can shows the non-observance of the participants.
2. To know how the process and the causes of the maxim’s violations happen.
2. Method of the study
The method conducted in the research is qualitative method. Through this method, the writer describes the violation of maxim of conversation through
Arthur Miller’s drama dialogue; The Last Yankee. Holloway said that qualitative research is the context bound,16 in which means that the writer must be able to involve and carefully focuses into the background of the data analyses.
16 Holloway, Immy, Basic Concepts for Qualitative Research. (Oxford: Blackwell Science. 1997), p. 5
9
According this statement, the writer will describe and explore the data analyses as it correlates with the object of analysis.
3. Technique of data analysis
To get the aim of the research, the writer conducts the descriptive data analysis technique which is divided into the following steps:
1. To write some notes of maxim of conversations violation agencies offered by
Grice.
2. To read the dialogue and find the violations of the four maxims.
3. To give the order number of dialogue within the drama text.
4. To sign up the violation of maxim agencies accruing within the drama text.
5. To identify the context of situation covered the dialogue.
6. To analyze the violation process of maxims in data analyses.
7. To recognize and interpreting the implicature appears in the data analyses.
8. To re-read the data.
9. To find the key words for the analyzing based on the research questions.
10. To conclude the collecting data.
4. The Instrument of the Research
In this study the writer uses herself as a main research instrument through reading, identifying, classifying and analyzing the data which are used and needed
10
from the dialogue or drama text. Then, the writer observes and signs the possibility of the violation of maxims occurrence within dialogue or drama text.
5. Unit of Analysis
The unit of the analysis is the text from the dialogue of Arthur Miller’s drama; The Last Yankee.
11
CHAPTER II
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
A. Pragmatics
Pragmatics sees human language as in the activity in its various aspects.
In contrast with the structuralism like syntactician that purpose the concept of human language is the grammar of language consists of several components such as the phonological one, syntactics one, and semantics one. The various aspects mean that human language does not only about the grammar with several components, but more to the function of language in the social activity.
The pragmatics has a contrast perspective in seeing the various aspects of human language. This is as what Jacob’s statement in his book Pragmatics. He said that pragmatics perspective is about why certain language use more or less acceptable connecting to the social factors, in contrast to other and perhaps abstractly equivalent, but pragmatically different.17 This statement has clear enough to tell that its perspective does not only include the structural point of view. But this is more about why language use acceptable in one community and can be less acceptable by another.
Pragmatics concerns the various meaning aspect through the social factor.
The various meaning aspects tell how language can be less or more acceptable depend on the rule of the standard language from one community. Here, the rule
17 L. Mey, Jacob (1993), op. cit. 8.
11 12
is not something that stated literally but abstractly. At the beginning of the developing linguistic study, semantics took a big part in the analysis of meaning literally. In the developing of linguistic study, pragmatics offers a study of meaning deeper. The developing of linguistic study brings to the conclusion that pragmatics deal with the meaning deeper than semantics.
Pragmatics and semantics deal with meaning, but there are some aspects that semantics can not solve. According to a short statement purposed by Jean
Aitchison, pragmatics is a branch of linguistic which learns about various meaning aspects and couldn’t comprehend by the semantics theory.18 This is because of pragmatics intends the analysis about how the listener grasps meaning, and what was implied by the speaker. And it needs the cooperation between the listener and the speaker. In short that semantics analysis is closer to the literal meaning analysis and the pragmatics analysis is analyzing the meaning based on the speech situation.
The speech situations will refer to what was implying in the speaker’s utterance. Utterance is a term in pragmatics; this intertwines relation to another word of statement. In pragmatics, the analysis is about how the listener grasps meaning that implied in the speaker’s utterance. This is like when someone requests a help, there is a way to say straight that he requesting a help. But he or she can state in a different way. At this part, the act of request a help in which the speaker formulate the utterance called illocutionary act.
For instance statement of “can you give me a more explanation, please?”
18Aitchison, Jean (1995), loc. cit.
13
when the lecture tells about pragmatics theory. The question is asked directly, but it can become a different way when it is declared as “I haven’t any idea at all in theory.” This simple statement is not only bound to provide information for whoever the listener but also an expressing of wanting a re-explaining and clear information from the lecturer without stated directly. If the lecturer provides a more time to make clear the explanation of linguistic theory, it will reach a satisfactory to the speaker. The satisfactory that is the result effect is known as perlocutionary effect. The speaker often makes distinct about what is said and what is imply.
The speaker and listener have to make a cooperative effort to make a successful communication. When speaker utters something, he will implicate something in the way of exchanging the information. If the speakers’ formulation in uttering can be understood by the listener, the speaker is success in delivering the information. But it will turn into a fail effort when the listener cannot understand about what was being talked about. The formulation’s utterance that what the speaker’s intentio and imply called implicature.
B. Implicature
There are argumentations about the definition of Implicature. The first is according to Grice’s definition about implicature in his paper Logic and conversation,19 when he first introduced the term ‘implicature’ in a term of a verb,
19 Grice, H.P (1975), op. cit. 44
14
‘implicate.’ Then he turns into the related noun of implying called implicature and use this term in the analyzing of meaning. Speaker implicates and the listener tries to arrive at the meaning of the implicature. If they can do it, they have making an active communication.
As it always being argued about the basic definition of implicature, Horn also concludes about implicature as a component of meaning that constitutes an aspect of what is meant in a speaker’s utterance without being part of what is said.20 It is closer to what a speaker intends to state A without brings it in the utterance. The communication can goes smoothly or fail when the speaker makes an implicature. If the listener can not deduce what is being talked by the speaker through A, it means that they fail. By putting an intention in a form of an implicature, the speaker tries to exploit the message without appearing it in the utterance. But the cooperative efforts will success, if the speaker and listener can reveal the implicature in their conversational.
There are two kinds of implicature. Grice in his paper explains that the first kind is a conventional implicature. The meaning in this implicature can take from the literal meaning in the text directly. When a speaker utters or states something, his partner (the listener) can know the meaning as it appears on the utterance. The meaning concludes in the statement like in the dialogue below, the dialogue taken from the Last Yankee drama where Leroy describing his wife to his friend:
20 Horn, Laurence R and Gregory ward. The Handbook of Pragmatics (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. 2006), p.3
15
Leroy: Mine was never very optimistic. She’s Swedish.21
By implicating that she is a Swedish, Leroy realizes that he has committed to the consequence of what he has said. The case that she never be very optimistic is because the consequence of she is the Swedish, but if the dialogue exchange like “mine was never very optimistic and she is Indonesian”. Sure the utterance does not implicate that ‘she never be very optimistic’ because of she is a
Swedish. But because of it is the consequence of she is being a person that has no optimism still on her. The conventional implicature does not always appear the directly in the text and has no dependent on the context.
Second is the conversational implicature. The conversational implicature is the additional meaning inside an utterance.22 It happens because the speaker and listener talk exchange. They can not include the utterance that somehow connect and it is usually because the participants have a set of purpose when they uttering something.
The conversational implicature exists because of the conversation does not give a contribution to the requirement of the topic of issue. There is no suitable exchange and a cooperative effort. Grice worked in formulating a general rule term about how the listener and speaker must contribute in making their communication success. Afterwards his formulation called the cooperative principle and argued that the conversational implicature appears because of both
21 Miller, Arthur. “The Last Yankee.” The Portable Arthur Miller, ed. Bigsby, Christhoper (New York: Penguin Books, 1995), p. 452, line 28 22Yule, George. (1996), op. cit.35
16
of the speaker and listener disobeys the cooperative principle.
C. Cooperative Principle
Listener and speaker must try to make a stimulus response. Grice comments on his previous article call Logic and Conversation was about communication in the conversation. He thinks when communicate happen; the speaker must gives a relevance information on what it stated.23 Speaker and listener have to make a good cooperative effort such as when the speaker need to put appropriate information and both must contribute to do it as it required. The next description of this mutuality effective communication resumes in cooperative principle. Yule concludes about cooperative principle as he cited from Grice’s paper, that the cooperative principle is about making 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.24
Grice purpose both speaker and listener have to fill the principle in which called cooperative principle. The cooperative principle specifies what the speaker means to cooperate called conversational maxim. Further, maxim of conversation is a set of principles advanced by Grice as a part of his account of implicature.25
Each of four maxims has the sub-maxim that explain about the super maxim of maxim of quantity, quality, relevance and manner.
23Grice, H.P (1975), op. cit. 45 24Yule, George. Op. cit. 37 25 Mathews, P. H, “The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics”. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997) p. 219
17
When an implicature of stating British Prime minister is a great man,26 the listener will provide with some accounts of some reference that is if it failed be revealed by the speaker, he disobey the maxim. The maxims govern the rational communicative activity. In order to succeed in communication they must fill the four maxims, with the result:
1. Maxim of Quantity
This maxim directly correlated more or less of the information gave to
speaker. This maxim forces the speaker in giving sufficient information to the
listener.27 The participants must contribute as is required and make the
conversation to be connected. The speaker is not less and over in giving the
information. On the application, it showed the examples below:
M: What did you have for lunch today?
D: Baked beans and toast.28 In the dialogue above, D gives the answer as informative as possible and
connects to what M asked about. Here, the D does not give an over
information about what he has for lunch. It means that D has contributed as it
required. Therefore, Grice explains this maxim forces the participants to:
a) Make their contribution as informative as is required.
b) To be not making their contribution more informative than is
required.29
26Grice, H.P (1975), op. cit. 44 27 Kushartanti (1993), op. cit.107 28 Cruse, D. Alan, Meaning in Language: An Introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics (New York: Oxford University Press Inc., New York, 2000), p. 356 29 Grice, H.P (1975), op. cit. 46
18
2. Maxim of Quality
The maxim forces the speaker in giving the correct information. Both
speaker and listener must make a satisfactory in fulfill the appropriate
information. With the specific sub maxim:
1. Do not say what you believe to be false
2. Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.
Both the speaker and listener must make a satisfactory in completing
the appropriate information. Like in the example below:
Frick: Oh you have children
Leroy: Yes. Seven.30
In the dialogue, Frick expects the contribution of Leroy in his
utterance, and Leroy renders the truth information. It means that Leroy
succeed in giving the contribution that is to be truth and not genuine.
3. Maxim of relevance
The maxim asks the speaker to try and to see that the information was
given has the relevance and the coherence to the situation during the
conversation. Here, whether the speaker and listener must focus on the giving
the relevant information even though in some different ways.
Examples:
A: Where’s my box of chocolates?
B: It’s in your room.31
30 Miller, Arthur (1995), op. cit. p. 451 31 Leech (1993), op. cit. p.144
19
The utterance from B can be smoothly understood by A. It is because B
can fill and contribute in making an appropriate immediate need of A’s
question. By the utterance of B, it means that B focuses in giving the
relevance information.
Based on this example, the maxim forces the participants to be relevant.32
On the other words, it can be said that the participants must give relevant
information to each other.
4. Maxim of Manner
Based on maxim of manner, it asks the listener to give a direct statement.33
These also include avoiding the ambiguity and obscurity of expression. The
maxim forces to utter what have to say without any formulation by the
speaker. With the subsequent sub-maxim below:
1. Avoid obscurity of expression
2. Avoid ambiguity
3. Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity)
4. Be orderly.34
The maxim focuses in how the utterance was said and was not about
exploring what is said. As in the example of the dialogue in the Last Yankee
drama, when Frick and Leroy ask about how many children they have;
Frick: Oh you have children
Leroy: Yes. Seven.
32 Grice, H.P (1975), op. cit. 46 33 Aitchison, Jean (1995), op. cit. p.46 34 Grice, H.P (1975), loc. cit.
20
Frick: Seven!- I’ve been wondering if it was because she never had
any.
Leroy: No. That’s not it.- you don’t have any?
Frick: No. we kept putting it off and then it got too late, and firt thing
you know … it’s just too late.35
Frick answers Leroy’s question clearly and orderly. It can be seen in
how Frick answers the question. He is not only just answering the question
but also in the way he is also making the statements in the dialogue not with
obscurity expression, briefly and orderly through the utterance of ‘no’. Frick
focuses in the way how it being explained.
D. The disobedience of the cooperative Principle
Listener and speaker sometimes fail to follow the rules; it means that they break the cooperative principle. At this stage, they fail to fulfill a maxim in some ways:
1. He may quietly and unostentatiously violate a maxim.
If the speaker does it, it will make the listener have a wrong idea. If
the did not pay attention on what the speaker said, he may have a different
understanding.
For example:
A: I am out of petrol
35 Miller, Arthur (1995), op.cit. 451. line 10-15
21
B: There is a garage round the corner.36
On the conversation above B would be breaking the rule of maxim
‘be relevant’ if the listener does not pay an attention to what he said.
2. He may opt out from the operation both of the maxim and of the
Cooperative Principle.
On this case, the speaker can be said that he or she unwillingly to
cooperate in the way the maxim requires.
For example:
I cannot say more; my lips are sealed.37 The speaker, in the dialogue above, does not try to contribute in making an
effective communication. This happens because of the speaker tries not to
follow the rule and disobeys one of the maxims that are the maxim of quality.
The speaker does not have a good willing to cooperate in the way how and
what maxim of quality requires being not to say what it lack adequate
evidence.
3. He may be faced by a clash another maxim.
The speaker is unable to fill one of the maxims and he turns to violate the
other maxim. It can be said that when speaker giving a statement then he may
not contribute in the requirement fulfillment of the first maxim and somehow
got a clash with the second maxim.
For example:
36 Grice, H.P (1975), op. cit. 51 37Grice, H.P (1975), op. cit. 49
22
Women are women.38
Here the speaker cannot be said such remarks are totally uninformative, infringe the first maxim of Quantity but this is because of the utterance above give what is said lack of adequate evidence, it also clash with the maxim of quality. 4. He may flout a maxim.
Here, the speaker is able to completing the maxim and to do it without
violating another maxim. It actually fails to contribute the maxim but it is
being exploited.
For example:
Patricia: … I don’t know what …fall in love with the God. I think I have
already.39
It is because of the sophisticated of the poet and some internal evidence
made the sentence flout the maxim of manner. On the dialogue the speaker
tries to say how she really gives her attention to God but because of the
imperative mood and emotion. Later, she exploited the maxim of manner. The
statement of ‘in love with God’ caused an ambiguity, using the obscurity
expression and it tends to exploit the maxim of manner.
E. Context
Listener is able to interpret one remark to one another intention. He must care to what is constructed inside the remark and the utterance said by the
38 Grice, H. P (1975), op. cit. 52 39 Miller, Arthur (1995), op. cit. 462.
23
speaker. He must also consider about the situation like the time when it was stated or how it was stated. The reason of participant’s consideration is because of the language use cannot separate from the use of context. Further, David states that context refers to the situation giving rise to the discourse, and within which the discourse embedded.40 It exists because when a speaker says something in which they have a reason and some aspects that form the background of an utterance being stated.
The contextual factors can influence each of utterance. If the listener concerns the contextual factors, it will be a start look to listener to know about the meaning of the utterance.
F. Drama
Drama is a performance of play and dialogue. At first drama were originated in the Greek verb dran means to do; to act or to accomplish.41 The performance shows the player known as the actress, do some actions in scenes where the situational in text reflected. There are about seven types of drama, such as:
1. Tragedy.
This type of drama brings the tragedy involving the ruin of the
40 Nunan, David, Introducing Discourse Analysis (London: Penguin Books. 1993), p. 7 41 Wessels, Charlyn. Drama (New York: Oxford University. 1988), p. 1
24
leading character.42 In this drama, the major character deals a bad luck,
facing the strong and some noble person. The modern tragedy is no more
about the strong and the noble person, but more into about the weak of the
mental and the mean inside.43
2. Comedy.
This is a drama in which the leading characters overcome the
difficulties which temporarily beset them.44 The issue in this drama shows
very highly and full of comedy.
3. Problem Play.
It is a drama where the social criticism, economics or even political
problem put in the means of drama45 and they also can put the issue in the
dialogues, setting and etc.
4. Farce.
The drama conjoins the ridiculous or hilarious complications
without regard from human values.46 In addition, there is no the human
values in this type of drama.
5. Comedy of manners.
At this drama, it shows the comedy which carefully portrays
fashionable life.47 The drama sometimes bring the life of people living in
42 Taken from http://www.lifestreamcenter.net/DrB/Lessons/Drama.htm accessed on 25 March 2010 43 Ibid. 44 Ibid. 45 Ibid 46 Ibid. 47 Ibid.
25
the glamour situations
6. Fantasy.
A play that is sometimes by the willingness of the author, the
drama gives a free reign to his fantasy, and allowing things to happen
without regard to the reality.48 The play shows audience about the fantasy
things and sometimes brings the comic spirit.
7. Melodrama.
This drama is almost the same as farce, but inside the act; it shows
the melodrama that puts no attention at human value, but the objective is to
give a thrill instead of laugh.49 Besides, the drama also never put any
literary value because the audience sees the performance only as a good
entertainment.
Drama is about embedding the internal communication system in the external system. It creates the play of some characters and provides the correlation between the fictional world of the player (performances) and the audiences (spectators). Here, the author usually must be able to raise the emotion events through the utterances that were spoken by the players.
G. Dialogue
Dialogue is one of the results from the dramatic text. In drama, it is the fundamental mode of presentation. It is because the reduction of the dramatic text
48 Ibid. 49 Ibid.
26
into the speech and the characters must appropriate the utterances with the action so that will create a story’s scenes. It is when the players act while the making of the utterances such as an act forming a promise or a threat, they do not only make dialogue as the formal element but as the spoken language.
The receivers need to emphasize about an act through utterances. It is because of the dialogue in drama put some of performances aspects. J.L Austin argued; as it recited by Manfred that there is something which is act the moment of uttering being done by the person uttering.50 In drama, there are more to explore from the utterance in the dialogue because sometimes the receiver does not consider about the situation where the dialogue were spoken by the players.
Dialogues will relation with the speech act in speech situation where it was being utterance. And this make the dramatic speech is bound to the particular situation. The particular situation that is not all the spectators can catch from the plot or the characters. The scenes bind to the dramatic speech in its particular speech situation like in the utterance from a dialogue:
Women are women51
The text above will bound into some particular situation that will create particular speech situation. This is like the lack of information and making the player to disobey the cooperative principle. This latter point tells that in the drama’s dialog also shows how implicature will influence the communication. It
50 Pfister, Manfred, The theory and analysis of drama (Cambridge: The University of Cambridge, 1991), p.6 51 Grice, H. P (1975), op. cit. 52
27
influences the conversation to go smoothly or even on the contrary. It gives the rise from the utterance when the character in the drama talking about women.
There is a scale that includes (women ↔ women), with women being a stronger condemnation than the character remark becomes women is a God’s creature that must be saved by the men.
28
CHAPTER III
RESEARCH FINDINGS
A. Data Description
The concept is used to know the disobedience of the maxim. Data analysis is collected from the text of drama’s dialogue of The Last Yankee. The data in which shows the disobedience of the maxims divided into two groups, that is
Group A and Group B. In Group A, there is the violation in which that only one kind of super-maxim that is being violated. Then, Group B is containing the violation of maxim in which that its violation explains by the supposition of a clash with another maxim. The writer divide the data into two groups because of she defines that on Grice’s paper Logic and Conversation that the speaker can be said fail to fulfill a maxim. And one of them is because of the participant faced a clash. So that the writer is interested to differentiate the way of speaker inability to fulfill a maxim because of faced a clash. The data that the writer has collected can be presented as follows:
Characters (all in early nineties):
Leroy Hamilton is a Yankee. He works as a carpenter and he is Patricia’s husband who must visit and look in on his wife in a state medical hospital.
John Frick is a businessman of a wood supplier company and Karen’s husband.
He does not have any children. He must visit and always give a big support to his wife in the same state medical hospital where Leroy’s wife being treated.
Patricia Hamilton is a Swedish, depressive frightened wife and a patient of a state
28 29
mental hospital. She is struggle for her searching of God’s love.
Karen Frick is a depressive and frightened wife and a patient of a state mental hospital. Her frightened was because of she afraid of the coming of her mom, it happened because she has a bad memory with her mom in the past.
B. Data analysis
At first, the writer writes the text of dialogue, explains the violation and the disobedience of maxim of conversation which is on the dialogue and already divided into two groups. Then, she gives reason and further exploration in explaining it by using Herbert Grice theory of maxim of conversation. In analyzing the data, the writer will describe context of situation, process of violation and implicature in each datum. Therefore, the data will be analyzed as follows:
Group A. (the violation of maxim because of violate, opt out and flout the maxim).
1. The maxim of quantity’s violation
1. Datum I
Frick : Seven! - I’ve been wondering if it was because she never had any.
Leroy: No, that’s not it. – You don’t have any?
Frick: No. We kept putting it off, and then it got too late, and first thing you
know … it’s just too late.
Leroy: For a while there I thought maybe she had too many children …
Frick: Well I don’t have any, so …
30
Leroy: Yeah, I guess that’s not either.52
a. Context of situation
Frick and Leroy seek for the reasons of why their wives got sick. Then
Leroy asks about the number of children that Frick has. It is also to notice the
reason Frick’s wife got sick.
b. Process of violation:
There is no doubt that Frick flouts the maxim of quantity to ‘avoid making
a contribution more informative than is required.’ Frick remark by using
expression repeating the statement ‘it got too late, and ‘first thing you know …
it’s just too late’. An interpreting aspect of such expression make one can
derive ‘as not as required’. Even so it is actually interpreted as telling more
than what is said.
The answer gives such over informative to Leroy. It is confusing to
Leroy, liable to raise the topic, and make Leroy be misled. By making Leroy
mislead about the remark causing him thinking that there is a particular point
in accessing Frick’s remark ‘first thing you know … it’s just too late’.
c. Implicature
This expression is the key to see whether the dialogue have a
conversational implicature or not. Frick’s expression tells more than what is
required by the listener. At this part, Frick implies that children are not the
52 Miller, Arthur (1995), op. cit. p. 451.
31
reason of his wife got sick but it actually becomes her sadness of emptiness in
having no children around.
2. Datum II
Frick: Oh. Mine certainly was. Whatever deal I was, couldn’t wait till I got
him to talk about it. Real estate, stock market, always interested. All of
sudden, no interest whatsoever. Might as well be talking to that wall over
there.- Your wife have brothers and sisters?
Leroy: Quite a few, ya.
Frick: Really. I even thought maybe it’s that she was an only child, and if she
had brothers and sisters to talk to …
Leroy: Oh no-at least I don’t think so. It could be even worse.
Frick: They don’t help, huh?53
a. Context of situation
Leroy still engages to answer Frick’s question. Frick wants to know why
Leroy’s wife got sick and got medical treatment. Then, the question turns into
asking about brother and sister of Leroy’s wife.
b. Process of Violation
By his remark ‘quite a view, ya’, there is no reason to suppose that Leroy
is opting out and it is the maxim of quantity. Leroy’s remark is less
informative than is required to meet Frick’s need about getting the information
of the family of Leroy’s wife. The information does not satisfy Frick.
53 Ibid. pp. 452-453.
32
This maxim of quantity operates the information yielding as its value the
level informativeness required.54 Therefore, the speaker must give the answer
as required by the listener so that raise the satisfaction to the listener. It is
similarly to what Leroy’s contribution in giving the right value information at
his remark to Frick’s question; nevertheless, Leroy’s answer does not give
required information. As the result of the implicature of ‘quite a few’, it
brings Frick into wondering and confusing about what happen to the brother
and sister of Leroy’s wife. And affecting Frick continues asking to get the
answer.
c. Implicature
It is because of Leroy does not work cooperatively in the conversation so
that make Leroy’s statement rise into the key notion of implicature. By this
remark implicates that Leroy does not like to talk about his wife’s brothers
and sisters for some reasons that he does not want to share.
2. The maxim of quality’s violation
1. Datum I
Frick: What was your father?
Leroy: Lawyer
Frick: Why didn’t you?
Leroy: Just too dumb, I guess
54 Gerald Gazdar, Pragmatic: Implicature, Presupposition, and Logical Form (London: Academic Press, Inc., 1979) p. 49.
33
Frick: Couldn’t buckle down the books, huh?
Leroy: I guess not.55
a. Context of Situation:
Frick interested in knowing how Leroy’s simplicity in his life. Moreover,
Frick becomes more curious to know and he asks about Leroy’s passion about
his ideal later.
b. Process of violation
Leroy’s remark of ‘just too dumb, I guess’ violates the maxim of quality,
‘do not to say what you believe to be false.’ In this maxim of quality that is the
Gricean maxim, Gazdar maintains that this maxim is connected to the logic of
belief.56 Therefore the speaker needs to give an answer that is logically based
on what his belief and make it to be appropriate information. When it turns
into Leroy’s remark ‘I guess not’ that is a negation of Frick’s question ‘could
not buckle the book’; Leroy is actually have the ability to answer Frick’s
question clearly. Even so, Leroy is liable to mislead Frick by stating ‘I guess’.
The words of ‘I guess’ implicates about an unfinished answer.
Furthermore, It is compare with the word of well that purposed by R. Lakoff,
as cited in Gazdar, that the word of well when it is in a remark; it will give a
signal of an incomplete answer.57 In short, this is almost the same as the
statement of I guess. At this point, the writer defined that I guess have the
55 Miller, Arthur (1995) op.cit. p. 456. 56Gerald Gazdar (1979), op.cit. 45-46. 57Ibid. p. 44.
34
same purposed. In Leroy’s remark the word of I guess does not just merely a
short reply but also an incomplete answer that is typically ‘say what he believe
to be false’ in the context. Hence, Leroy violates the maxim of quality and in
order to be not cooperating with the listener.
c. Implicature
He implicates that he does not want to be lawyer because of the job looks
only suit for his father so that he is not interested in being a lawyer.
2. Datum II
Frick: You realize the importance of Alexander Hamilton, don’t you?
Leroy: I know about him, more or less.
Frick: More or less! He was one of the most important Founding Fathers.58
a. Context of Situation
When Frick knows that Leroy family members most of them are important
people, then Frick becomes more enthusiasts to know about Leroy’s family
members. However, unfortunately, Leroy does not like to talk about his
brother because of it will push him to tell more about the history of Leroy’s
family member.
b. Process of violation
At the most closest meaning of ‘more or less’ is that he tries to be say
what actually he has known to Frick (as the hearer). Leroy’s remark is opting
58 Miller, Arthur (1995) op.cit. 457
35
out, that is the maxim of second maxim of quality by stating what he believes
to be false. Actually, as his brother, it is impossible that Leroy does not know
about Alexander Hamilton, but it is because of he does not like to talk about
his family’s background then Leroy opts out from the operation both of the
maxim and the cooperative principle. At the remark of ‘more or less’ Leroy
blatantly does not want to be cooperative in Frick’s expectation.
c. Implicature
At the remark of ‘more or less’ implicates that he knows about his brother,
however he does not seems interesting to talk about him in being a success
public figure.
3. Datum III
Karen: He seems very nice.
Patricia: …. It is just that he’s got really well-to-do relatives and he simply
will not accept anyone’s help. I mean you take the Jews, the Italians, Irish-
they’ve got their Italian-American, Irish-American, Hispanic-Americans-they
stick together and help each other. But you ever hear of Yankee-Americans?
Not on your life. Raise his taxes; rob him blind, the Yankee’ll just sit there all
alone getting sadder and sadder. – But I’m not going to think about it
anymore.59
a. Context of Situation:
Patricia draws Karen’s attention to talk about her husband; Leroy. It is
59 Ibid. p.463.
36
because Karen does not know about her husband so Patricia tells more to
Karen about her husband.
b. Process of Violation
Patricia’s remark ‘sadder and sadder’ flout the maxim of quality ‘do not
say what you believe to be false.’ At this point, Patricia’s remark turns into
hyperbole expression. This is exactly obvious that Patricia liable to raise the
side issue. Then by this remark, Patricia implicates that her husband failure
and sadness is because of he never tries to stick together with another Yankee.
As Grice said that it is possible to opt out and a cancelable of obeys a
cooperative principle because of the addition of clause that states or implies in
the statement.60 Therefore, the writer argues that Patricia flouts the maxim of
quality is because she puts a hyperbole expression that brings a feature of
feature in her remark.
c. Implicature
The implicature in her remark implicates how she really hates her husband
attitude of being introvert.
4. Datum IV
Leroy: Boy, you’re a real roller coaster. We were doing great there for a
minute, what got us off on this?
Patricia: I can’t be peace when I know you are full of denial, and that’s saying
60 Grice, H.P. (1975), log.cit. p.57.
37
it straight.61
a. Context of situation
Leroy looks for his wife medication. At once, Patricia looks better then he
finds her changing her mood.
b. Process of Violation
Leroy’s remark of ‘you’re a real roller coaster’ is a metahapore
expression. This expression is characteristically involving categorical falsity
in which he flouts the first maxim of quality. Since, Leroy strictly brings to
the hearer some feature of feature in respect the hearer resembles the remarks
of ‘you’re a real roller coaster’.
c. Implicature
Leroy’s remarks implicates that you (to his wife) are easily to change your
mind in a minute.
3. The maxim of Relevance’s violation
1. Datum I
Patricia: …. I-must-not-blame-Leroy-anymore. And it’s amazing. I lost
desire medication, I could feel it leaving me like a .. like a ghost. Slight pause.
…. It is just that he’s got really well-to-do relatives and he simply will not
accept anyone’s help. I mean you take the Jews, the Italians, Irish-they’ve got
their Italian-American, Irish-American, Hispanic-Americans-they stick
61 Miller, Arthur (1995), p. 474.
38
together and help each other. But you ever hear of Yankee-Americans? Not
on your life. Raise his taxes, rob him blind, the Yankee’ll just sit there all
alone getting sadder and sadder. – But I’m not going to think about it
anymore.
Karen: You have a very beautiful chin.62
a. Context of Situation
Patricia talks about her husband. She tells it to Karen in order to share the
problem and have a way out for the problem.
b. Process of Violation
Karen’s remark actually responses Patricia’s remark, however, Karen does
not give a relevant response to Patricia. Since, there seems the conversation
jump into another topic then it violates the maxim of relevant. While in the
conversation, Karen allows herself for the subject of conversation that is
legitimately change.
c. Implicature
Karen implies that she has no idea about Patricia’s story and she has
another subject that she also needs to share.
2. Datum II
Patricia: Men with half his ability riding around in big expensive cars and now
for the second for the second Easter Sunday in a row his rear end collapsed.
Karen: I think my license must have expired.
62 Miller, Arthur (1995), op. cit. 463.
39
Patricia: surge a deep anger; I refuse to ride around in nine-year-old
Chevrolet which was bought secondhand in the first place!
Karen: They say there are only three keys for all the General Motors cars.
You supposed that’s possible?63
a. Context of Situation
This happens in the middle of conversation where Patricia talks about her
husband. Then, Karen seems still tries to purpose another topic.
b. Process of Violation
There is no reason to suppose that Karen flouts the maxim. Karen’s
remark gives a shift in the course of talk exchange then changes the subject of
the conversation. This infringement of the third maxim of quality can be
explained only by the supposition that Karen does not give a relevant
contribution of Patricia’s need. At this point of view, Patricia’s response to
Karen’s remarks causes her (Patricia) to hide her angry and disturb the main
goal process of their conversation.
c. Implicature
Karen’s remark implicates that she does not interested in Patricia’s topic
and she wants to bring her own topic while responding Patricia’s remark.
3. Datum III
Leroy: … Okay. Goes to a window.-It looks like rain outside, but we can walk
63 Ibid.
40
around if you like. They’ve got a beautiful tulip bed down there; the colors
really shine in this gray light. Reds and purple and whites and a gray. Never
saw a tulip be that kind of gray.
Patricia: How’s Amelia’s leg? Are you getting her to change her bandage? 64
a. Context of Situation
Leroy looks for her wife in the middle of her medication. He feels happy
to see his wife who is getting better. Then, Leroy asks his wife to walk around
out side the hospital building.
b. Process of Violation
Patricia infringes the maxim of relevance ‘be relevant’; she thinks as well
she knows, she allows and brings the shift in the course of talk exchange. She
tries to questioning about Amelia’s leg that is no connection about Leroy’s
offer in her remark. And she tries to put the shift in the middle because of she
does not have any idea to refuse it smoothly. So that she gives irrelevant
information in her remarks.
c. Implicature
At this part, she implicates that the idea to walk around out side the
hospital is not interested her much.
64 Ibid. p. 470.
41
4. The maxim of Manner’s violation
1. Datum I
Frick: Gladamettu. Slightly pause. How do you find it here?
Leroy: I guess they do a good job
Frick: Surprisingly well kept for a state institution
Leroy: Oh-ya.
Frick: Awful lot of colored, though, ain’t there?65
a. Context of Situation
Leroy and Frick comment about the medical hospital where their wives
being treated. Frick and Leroy have their own comment but each of them still
want to know about each of them comment.
b. Process of Violation
At the most literal level of meaning I guess means I’m not really sure; that
is an answer without being sure. People often think I guess as having the
secondary meaning I think. In other case it counts this as a pseudo-turn in the
interaction which, by not advancing the conversation further, through flouting
the maxim of manner to be ‘avoids obscurity expression’.
Leroy implies that he does not know much and he himself does not sure
about the quality of hospital service to the patient. His remarks build Frick’s
thought about the uncertainty of the fact of the service through surprisingly
and awful lot of colored. Leroy’s remark contributes in the giving the idea
65 Ibid. p. 449.
42
that is not clear, therefore Frick is difficult to make clear and exact conclusion.
Leroy does not give clear about what contribution he is making about. In
short, the use of I guess always works in this way, it has became
conventionalized, and no longer requires an inference procedure for the
implicature to be recovered.
c. Implicature
Here, Leroy implicates the service given is good even though the facility
still was not complete.
2. Datum II
Frick: I just can’t figure it out. There’s no bills; we’re very well fixed; she’s
got a beautiful home …There’s really not a trouble in the world. Although,
God knows, maybe that’s the trouble …
Leroy: Oh no, I got plenty of bills and it did not help mine. I don’t think it’s
how many bills you have.
Frick: What do you think it is, then?
Leroy: Don’t ask me, I don’t know.66
a. Context of situation
Both Frick and Leroy look for the biggest trouble in their marriage life.
And Frick tries to know the trouble that causes his wife become sick.
b. Process of Violation
66 Ibid. p. 451.
43
Frick’s remark interprets the third maxim of manner ‘be brief’ was
violated. Frick’s remark selected the rigmarole remark in place the concise of
his intention of saying something. So, Frick implies that this is because of he
and his wife live in a very good condition then it makes his wife can not able
to find what value of life is. Focusing on Frick’s remark, it is obvious to say
that he does not brief and using too many words, therefore causing his remark
does not suit with Leroy’s response.
c. Implicature
Frick’s remark of ‘There’s really not a trouble in the world. Although,
God knows, maybe that’s the trouble’ implicates his biggest trouble in his
marriage because of whenever they have problem they never thinking it as a
big trouble and he never searches for the idea why the trouble could be
happen.
3. Datum III
Patricia: … It’s like inside me I’m almost continually talking to the Lord. Not
in words exactly … just-you know-communicating with Him. Or trying to.
Deeply excited, but suppressing it. I don’t know what …fall in love with the
God. I think I have already.
Karen: You’re really beautiful.
Patricia: Oh no, dear, I’m a torn-off rag of my old self … 67
67 Ibid. pp. 461-463.
44
a. Context of situation
Patricia shares her feeling about her spiritual activity to Karen. Both of
them still continue their conversation, even though they does not reach the
main goal.
b. Context of Situation
It is because of the sophisticated of the poet and some internal evidence
has bee made by the sentence. Further, it flouts the maxim of manner. On the
dialogue the speaker tries to say how she really gives her attention to God but
because of the imperative mood and emotion, she exploited the maxim of
manner. The statement of ‘in love with God’ causes an ambiguity, uses the
obscurity expression and it tends to exploit the maxim of manner. In short,
this statement shows an ambiguity.
c. Implicature
This remark implies about her feeling to God. And it shows how she feels
in getting closer to God spiritually.
Group B. (In which there is a clash with another maxim)
1. Violate maxim of quantity in clash with maxim of manner
1. Data I
Leroy: Well, I am too. They’re wonderful kids.
Frick: They still very young?
Leroy: Five to nineteen. But they all pitch in. everything’s clean, house runs
45
like a ship.68
a. Context of Situation
Leroy tells about his children. And he tries to make Frick amazed about
his children work.
b. Process of Violation
It is supposed that Leroy is opting out. His remark as he know well, he is
over informative than it’s required to meet Frick’s need. This infringement of
the first maxim of quantity can be explained only by the supposition that
Leroy is aware to bring the obscurity of expression by saying ‘But they all
pitch in. everything’s clean, house runs like a ship.’ And this statement also
does not have a brief statement. Hence, Leroy’s remark flouts the maxim of
quantity. But the violation was explained by the supposition of the clash with
another maxim that is the maxim of manner.
c. Implicature
Leroy implicates that he has children five to nineteen that is really diligent.
C. The Maxim’s Violations
The data analysis shows many violations. The writer finds there are about twelve violations and one violation that clash with another maxim. With the result, from the group A there are; two violations of the maxim of quantity, four violations of the maxim of quality, three violations of the maxim of relevance and three violations of the maxim of manner. Then from the group B is one violation
68 Ibid. p. 452.
46
that clash with another maxim and at this part the speaker violates the maxim of quantity in clash with maxim of manner. In short, the violations happen because the participant does not cooperate well with the reason of some context inside.
47
CHAPTER IV
CONLUSION AND SUGGESTION
1. Conclusion
From the research findings, the writer would like to take the conclusion of some results. First, the cooperative principle is a principle has been contributed to make a clear information and appropriate information while they are making a conversation. Besides, this principle tells about how the participants (speaker and listener) must contribute in making the communication as is required.
The disobedience of maxim conversation is influenced by the relationship of the speaker and listener make the information as informative as is required.
Speaker disobeys the maxim of conversation in some ways, first he quietly violates a maxim, he opts out from the cooperation, he flouts a maxim and even it actually already violates the first maxim but then faced by a clash the other maxim. When he disobeys the maxim of conversation, he will create a side meaning in his remark called implicature.
The implicature will rise at the time when one of the participants disobeys the maxim and it will turn to the personal communication. There is the basic reason which becomes the background of how the implicature raised. The background itself called context. Context is able to tell knowledge where it can explore and draw the background of the aspects (like the mental, social and cultural aspects) which guide to the interpretation of the language. Hence, when the participants communicate, they need to explore more and does not merely just
47 48
seeing it as an utterance. In conclusion, they also must obey the maxims of conversation, in order to reach the main goal of sending the information as informative as required.
2. Suggestions
For the students who are interested in studying cooperative principle, they can use the first paper of Grice's theory of cooperative principle title Logic and cooperative; or for the new publishing book by Jacob L. Mey, Yule, etc. They can use it to enrich their study about cooperative principle.
If the students want to make a further research of cooperative principle, they can take the text record of an English radio correspondence as the analysis.
Moreover, the student can also relate the analysis to the social culture background.
Finally, the writer hopes that the analysis will be useful to sharpen students’ understanding of cooperative principle. As the consequence students’ interest of the cooperative principle, they must be able to apply it in their daily conversation. Furthermore, as it applies the cooperative principle, students must maintain it in social’s interaction.
49
REFERENCES
Cruse, D. Alan. Meaning in Language: An Introduction to Semantics and
Pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press Inc., New York., 2000.
Farkhan, Muhammad. Penulisan Karya Ilmiah. Jakarta: Cella Jakarta. 2006.
Gazdar, Gerald. Pragmatic: Implicature, Presupposition, and Logical Form.
London: Academic Press, Inc., 1979.
Grice, H.P. “Logic and Conversation.” Syntax and Semantics. Vol. III: Speech
Acts, ed. Peter Cole and J. L. Morgan. New York: Academic Press, 1975.
Holloway, Immy. Basic Concepts for Qualitative Research. Oxford: Blackwell
Science, 1997.
Horn, Laurence.R, and Gregory ward. The Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford:
Blackwell Publishing, 2006.
Kushartanti. Pesona Bahasa. Jakarta: PT. Gramedia Utama, 2005.
Leech, Geoffrey. Prinsip-prinsip Pragmatik. Jakarta: Penerbit Universitas
Indonesia, 1993.
Mathews, P. H “The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics”. (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1997.
Mey, Jacob L. Pragmatics: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell Publisher, Ltd.,
1993.
Miller, Arthur. “The Last Yankee.” The Portable Arthur Miller, ed. Bigsby,
Christhoper. New York: Penguin Books, 1995.
Nunan, David. Introducing Discourse Analysis. London: Penguin Book, 1993.
49 50
Pfister, Manfred. The theory and analysis of drama. Cambridge: The University
of Cambridge, 1991.
Short, M.H. “Discourse Analysis and the Analysis of Drama.” Applied Linguistic
Vol II. Oxford: Oxford University, 1981.
Wessels, Charlyn. Drama. New York: Oxford University, 1988.
Yule, George. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996.
Website:
http://www.lifestreamcenter.net/DrB/Lessons/Drama accessed on March 25,
2010. http://www.gradesaver.com/author/arthur-miller/ accessed on 1st April 2010
51
Appendix.1
DRAMA’S SYNOPSIS
The Last Yankee is a drama of two couples. The first couple is Leroy and
Patricia. Leroy is a husband who must visit his wife, Patricia who got a mental treatment, in one of state medical hospital. He meets Frick a businessman who also must visit his wife names Karen. Both of them while they are waiting for
‘the visitor day’ in the waiting room, they involves in a discussion about their family background and their marriage life. Leroy who is very close from other, finally he shares the story with Frick. Later, this is because of Frick asks many question about Leroy’s family background that make them continuing the discussion in the talking of their marriage.
The play also shows how the wives of Frick and Leroy handle their frightening to life during the state medical hospital. Both of them are becomes closer, since they were treated in the hospital. Patricia finds that she becomes more religious during the treatment in the hospital. Patricia tries to give Karen a way out to handle her own frightened and reveal her uncomfortable memories with her mom in the past. They get each of their story’s life when they were waiting for their husband to visit for ‘the visitor hour.’
The play ends with the resolution where the two couples meet. They continue the discussion and they find that they have the same interest to Banjo.
At that time, they get an idea to reveal their problem by playing banjo. Finally,
51 52
they reveal their problems like the uncomfortable moments of their family in the past and their frightening to life. They want to give the trustiness and attention to their couple. Basically, the drama is about the two couples that facing their own marriage life, their frightening to life and their past memories.