AN ANALYSIS OF FLOUTING MAXIMS IN “FOREST GUMP” FILM
BASED ON GRICE’S COOPERATIVE PRINCIPLES.
(A PRAGMATICS APPROACH)
THESIS Submitted as a Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for Sarjana Sastra Degree in English Department Faculty of Letters and Fine Arts Sebelas Maret University
By: Mulyani C03035049
ENGLISH DEPARTMENT FACULTY OF LETTERS AND FINE ARTS SEBELAS MARET UNIVERSITY 2010 AN ANALYSIS OF FLOUTING MAXIMS IN “FOREST GUMP” FILM
BASED ON GRICE’S COOPERATIVE PRINCIPLES.
(A PRAGMATICS APPROACH)
BY
Mulyani C0305049
Approved to be examined before the Board of Examiners
Faculty of Letters and Fine Arts
Sebelas Maret University
Thesis Consultant
Drs. Budi Waskita, M. Pd NIP. 19521108 198303 1001
Head of English Department
Dr. Djatmika, MA NIP. 196707261993021001
ii AN ANALYSIS OF FLOUTING MAXIMS IN “FOREST GUMP” FILM
BASED ON GRICE’S COOPERATIVE PRINCIPLES.
(A PRAGMATICS APPROACH)
BY
MULYANI C0305049
Accepted and Approved by the Board of Examiners
Faculty of Letters and Fine Arts
Sebelas Maret University
On
March 3rd 2010
Board of Examiners Position Name Signature 1. Chairman Dr. Djatmika, MA …………… NIP. 196707261993021001 2. Secretary Ida Kusuma Dewi, SS, MA …………… NIP. 197105251998022001 3. First Examiner Drs. S. Budi Waskito, M.PD ..…………. NIP. 195211081983031001 4. Second Examiner Drs. Sri Marmanto, M. Hum ....………… NIP.195009011986011001
Dean of Faculty of Letters and Fine Arts Sebelas Maret University Surakarta
Drs. Sudarno, MA NIP. 195303141985061001
iii PRONOUCEMENT
Name : MULYANI
NIP : C 03035049
Stated whole heartedly that this thesis entitled An Analysis of Flouting Maxims in
“Forest Gump” Film Based on Grice’s Cooperative Principles (A Pragmatics
Approach) is made by the researcher. It is neither a plagiarism, nor made by others. The things related to other people’s work are written in quotation and included within the bibliography.
If it is then proved that the researcher cheats, the researcher is ready to take the responsibility
Surakarta,
The researcher
MULYANI
iv MOTTOS
Man proposes, God disposes.
What does not kill you will strengthen you.
Verily, with every difficulty, there is a relief.
(Al insyira: 6)
I’m Proud to be me
By. The researcher
v DEDICATION
This precious work is dedicated to
My beloved Mom and Dad
My beloved sister and my friends
vi ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Bismillahirrohmanirrohim.
Alhamdulillahi robbil ‘alamin All praise are just for Allah S.W.T, the
Almighty and the All Merciful God for His blessing that I can complete this thesis as one of the requirements for accomplish the Undergraduate Degree of Sarjana
Sastra.
This thesis would not be completed without help, guidance, and advice from others. It is a big pleasure to acknowledge the generosity of the following persons for their encouragement, support, and the most important, their guidance and advice. Therefore, in this opportunity, I would like to express my fondest gratitude to:
1. Allah subhanahu wa Ta’ala and his messenger, Rasullah sa, who never let me
down.
2. Drs. Sudarno, M.A, as the Dean of Letters and Fine Arts Faculty, for
approving my thesis.
3. Dr. Djatmika as the Head of English Department for the permission to write
this thesis.
4. Drs. Budi Waskito, M. pd as my thesis supervisor. Thank you very much for
your guidance, patience, concern and advise so that I can finish my thesis.
5. All the lecturers of English Department. Thank you very much for the
guidance and knowledge you have given to me.
6. My family, my beloved mom and dad thanks for everything you have given to
me, attention, pray, love, and care. Mom I always love you, hope Allah always
love you in heaven. Dad thanks you for your patience to me, to my stubborn
vii and my spoilness. My sister thanks you for the support and love. My little
nephew “Fera” thanks for the cheerful.
7. My dearest friend D’ KAMPRETS, lilies and Tomy “The Angels” (thanks for
your holly words to be realistic and patience, remember the days we fought
together to finish our thesis), Yogi “Nene” (thanks for supports, advices and
your patience to listen my story all night long), Nurin (thanks to joyful in the
new year and also the hot gossips you always share to me), Hesti (thanks for
checking my thesis, lets get crazy shopping again!), Nunik (thanks to your
delicious food and your support to get “him”), Fitria (thanks for your patience
to always be victim of my violence), Woro (thanks for your funny story and
the translation, you are my dictionary), Ima (thanks for your wise words which
give the enlightenment for my soul), Puspa (thanks for the advices for my
black hole), Dini “The Twinner” ( thanks for the spirits you gave to finish my
thesis), Kiki (thanks for to be my friens).
8. My PADANG family, antigue (thanks for the supports, understanding for this
7,5 years we had spent together, and sorry for my careless which always drops
everything in your room), Ipha ( thanks for the joyful and the “chick-chick”
style you infected in every single part of Padang’s), mbak Ipeh, Kristin, and
Dwi (thanks for the supports and the happy time that we had), Ratih (lets
finish your thesis soon), Deny (thanks for the supports and sorry for the torture
that I’ve done to you).
9. My old friends, Lilis and Angga thanks for your supports and advices.
10. All my friends in ED ’05, Sony (thanks to be the lovely chairman, Intan
(thanks for checking my grammar error, Arif (thanks for repairing my laptop),
viii Sari, Fera, Eva, Naphis, Chemitz, Winda, Dian catur, Ratih wula, ratih dwi,
Anggi, vian, Hemi, Us, Ebsi, Ongko, Galih, Febri, Alwi, Udin, Lambang,
Adwin, Arin, Arum, Yuni, Elis, Ismi, Jotika, Astri, Fauzi, Kiki adi, Dida,
Leony, Maya, Wunendro as we go on we’ll remember all the times we had
together.
11. The last but not least “Yellow” thanks for always be my side and the support.
12. For everyone who I cannot mention, thank you for all support and help in
doing my thesis.
I believes that this thesis is far from being perfect, thus constructive criticism and suggestion are open-handedly accepted. Hopefully this thesis will be beneficial as it is purposively written. Thank you
Surakarta, February , 2010
Mulyani
ix TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE………………………………………………………………………. i
THESIS APPROVAL OF THE CONSULTANT………………………….. ii
THESIS APPROVAL OF THE BOARD OF EXAMINERS……………… iii
PRONOUNCEMENT………………………………………………………. iv
MOTTOS…………………………………………………………………… v
DEDICATION……………………………………………………………… vi
ACKNOWLEDGMENT………………………………………………….. vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS…………………………………………………… x
ABSTRACT.………………………………...……………………………… xi
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
A. Background………………………………………………………… 1
B. Problem Statement…………………………………………………. 6
C. Research Limitation ………………………………………….. 6
D. Research Objectives ………………………………………………. 6
E. Benefits of the Study………………………………………………. 7
F. Research Methodology……………………………………………... 7
G. Thesis organization…………………………………………………. 8
CHAPTER II: LITERARY REVIEW
A. Pragmatics………………………………………………………… 9
B. Implicature………………………………………………………… 13
C. Conventional implicature…………………………………………… 14
D. Conversational implicature…………………………………………. 15
x E. The cooperative principle…………………………………………... 16
F. The conversational maxim………………………………………….. 18
G. The flouting maxim…………………………………………………. 20
H. Context…………………………………...………………………… 23
I. Synopsis of the Film………………………………………………... 24
J. Review of Related Study…………………………………………… 25
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
A. The Type of the Research………………………………………….. 27
B. The data and the Source of Data…………………………………… 27
C. Sample and Sampling Technique…………………………………. 28
D. Equipments of the research…………………………………………. 28
E. The Technique of Collecting Data…………………………………. 29
F. Data coding………………………………………………………… 29
G. Technique of Analyzing Data……………………………………… 31
CHAPTER IV DATA ANALYSIS
A. Introduction………………………………………………………… 32
B. Analysis
1. Kinds of flouting maxims………………………..………..... 33
71 2. Implicature……………………………………...... 83 3. The reason why the characters flout the maxim………….....
C. Discussion…...……………………………………………………… 95
1. The Cooperative Principle...…………………..…………… 95
2. The flouting maxims……………………………………….. 97
xi 3. Implicature…………………………………………….…… 99
4. The reason…………………………………………………... 100
CHAPTER V. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
A. Conclusion………………………………………………………….. 102
B. Suggestion………………………………..…………………………. 104
Bibliography………………………………………………………………...
Appendices………………………………………………………………….
xii ABSTRACT
Mulyani. 2009. C0305049. An Analysis of Flouting Maxims in “Forest Gump” Film Based on Grice’s Cooperative Principle (A Pragmatics Approach). Thesis: English Department Faculty of Letters and Fine Arts Sebelas Maret University.
This is a qualitative descriptive research entitled An Analysis of Flouting Maxims in “Forest Gump” Film Based on Grice’s Cooperative Principle (A Pragmatics Approach). The topic is chosen since it is interesting to figure out what speaker really means in his or her utterance. This research applies Pragmatics approach based on Grice’s theory. It consists of Cooperative Principles, their maxims and flouting maxims. In this research, the sources of data are the film entitled Forest Gump and the film script. In analyzing, the researcher applies a total sampling technique, where all 21 data are displayed in this research. This thesis is aimed to describe how the flouting maxims and the cooperative Principle can help the addressee to understand reason the intended meaning (implicature) employed by the characters in the film. The results of the data analysis show that there are three categories. The first category is flouting clash between maxims found in 21 data. The flouting clash between maxims is divided into 5 sub-categories. The first is the flouting maxims of Quality, Quantity and Manner which shows that the participants blatantly give more information than it is required with something which is untrue and also difficult to understand because it is unclear and long winded. The second is the flouting maxims of Quantity, Manner and Relevance which shows that the participants blatantly give more information which is long winded and not relevant to the question. The third is the flouting maxims of Quality and Quantity. It shows that the participants blatantly say something untrue by giving more information that it is not required. The fourth is the flouting maxims of Quantity and Manner. The overlap between the two maxims above shows that the participants blatantly give more information than it is required which may create ambiguous, convoluted perception. The fifth is the flouting maxim of quantity and relevance which shows that the participants blatantly give more or less information than it is required and not relevant to the question. The second category is the flouting maxim of Quantity. It shows that the participants in the dialog blatantly give more information than it is required. The third category is the flouting maxim of quality. It shows that the participants blatantly say something untrue and lack of adequate information. The results of the data analysis show that the maxim/s flouted in the conversation may contain hidden meaning (implicature) which has certain intention. The implicature in this film are used when the speaker cannot say directly, with certain consideration related to the context of situation. The implicature shows the speaker’s feeling and intended meaning. The implicature helps the hearer to catch the speaker’s intention. By creating implicature, the speaker actually wishes to make the hearer look for the real meaning (intended meaning).
xiii The results also show that the data analysis reveals the use of an implicature in the dialogue between the characters in the film “Forest Gump” depends on the context of situation. The characters employ the flouting maxims in order to make the conversation run smoothly.
Keyword: Pragmatics, flouting maxims, Grice’s cooperative principle, xvi+ 99, 5 appendices Bibliography: 18 (1979 - 2009)
xiv CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
A. Research background
Communication is a part of the society. It happens because in the social life we need to communicate to share our feeling, our needs and our willing. To communicate with each other we need a means called language. Language will help us to express what we feel, need and want. According to Wardhaugh (1992) language is used by people to communicate each other expressing their feeling, need and want.
Conversation is one of the ways people use to communicate each other associated with language. Conversation involves at least two participants and it also needs the place where it occurs and the time when it happens. When people talk to someone they want to deliver some messages or purposes. In the conversation the addressee should be able to understand what the speaker means.
Because of that, the addressee should know the context.
Almost every time we have to communicate with other people.
Automatically when we communicate, we are engaged a conversation. In a conversation, we become one of the participants or we can only become the audience of the conversation. We become the participants when we are involved in the conversation and we become the audience when we listen, watch or read a conversation through visual or printed media.
Film is one of media to communicate moral and social values to the society through the situation and the dialogue which occur in the film. People’s
xv life can be reflected through film. Many films are raised from the reality. Film can be said succeed if the messages of the film can be absorbed by the audience. To make the film easy to understand, the dialogue of the film must be supported by the body language and mimic face of its characters. Besides that, the context of situation is also needed in understanding the film. The situation and cultural background of the film can help the audiences understand the story and interpret the messages of the film.
Besides, the language which is used by the characters also plays an important role in understanding the film. The dialogue consists of explicit and implicit utterances in delivering the messages. In order to understand the implicit utterances, the audience should know the meaning of the utterances spoken by the characters. The audience should interpret the information by themselves. The implicit utterances may become the problem for the audience in understanding the meaning and absorbing the messages of the story. Thomas (1995:56-58) asserts that there are times when people say exactly what they mean, but generally they are not totally explicit. In some ways people manage to convey further than their words using something quite different from the meaning of their words. The different meaning is conveyed by means of implicature.
According to Thomas (1995: 58), implicature is to hint, suggest or convey some meaning indirectly by means of language. Implicature is generated intentionally by the speaker and may (or may not) be understood by the hearer.
Gazdar (1978) states that implicature is a proposition that is implied by the utterance of a sentence in a context, even though that proposition is not a part of entailment of what actually said.
xvi To understand about implicature, Grice introduces his theory (Grice’s
Theory). Grice’s theory (1975:41-58) explains about how the hearer gets from what is said to what is meant, from the level of expressed meaning to the level of implied meaning. Grice also distinguishes two different sorts of implicature namely conventional implicature and conversational implicature.
In order to explain the mechanism by which people interpret the conversational implicature, Grice introduces four conversational maxims and cooperative principle (CP). The conversational maxims are the maxim of quantity
(informatively), quality (sincerely, said the real and the truth), relation (relevantly) and manner (orderly). The four conversational maxims help us establish what implicature might be. The CP runs as follows:
Make your contribution such as required, at the stage at which it occurs,
by the accepted or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged
(Grice 1975).
However, there are many occasions when people fail to observe the maxim. Grice (1975, cited in Thomas 1995, p.64-78) introduces five ways of failing to observe the maxims namely flouting a maxim, violating a maxim, infringing a maxim, opting out a maxim, suspending a maxim. Flouting maxim itself has four types, they are: flouting maxim of quality, quantity, relation and manner.
Forest Gump is chosen by the researcher to become the source of the data since the film is one of comedy-drama films adapted from the novel written by
Winston Groom in 1986. It has a lot of messages about moral values which are conveyed implicitly. The script writer tries to deliver the messages of the film
xvii through implicit utterances. It makes the researcher interested to know further about the language used in the Forest Gump film.
There are some flouting maxims that occur in the film Forest Gump. The writer is going to analyze the implicatures that are generated through flouting maxims in the film dialogues. The following examples of the flouting maxims in the movie dialogue are included to make the background clearer.
FORREST
Is this your house?
JENNY
Yeah, it's messy right now. I just got off work
The dialogue above occurs in Jenny’s apartment. Forest asks Jenny whether the apartment is her own or not. Jenny blatantly gives more information than the situation required by saying “yeah, it’s messy right now. I just got of work”. It is obvious that Forest just asks about the owner of the house but Jenny answers more than Forest required. Jenny gives more information by adding her answer with “it’s messy right now. I just got off work”. This information actually is not needed by Forest. She could simply have said “yes, it is”. Therefore, it flouts the maxim of Quantity.
Ø DOCTOR
How do those feel? His legs are strong, Mrs. Gump. As strong as I've ever seen.
But his back is as crooked as a politician.
The dialogue occurs in the doctor’s office. The doctor gives explanation about the condition of Forest’s legs and backbone. It is patently false that Forest’s
xviii back is as crooked as a politician. The doctor’s utterance is lack of adequate evidence since Forest’s back is as crooked as the politician. The doctor exactly knows that Forest’s backbone is crooked but it is not crocked like a politician.
But there is a problem in Forest’s backbone. Therefore the doctor flouts the maxim of Quality. Besides that the dialogue also flouts the maxim of quantity.
The doctor gives more information than the situation required by saying “How do those feel? His legs are strong, Mrs. Gump. As strong as I've ever seen. But his back is as crooked as a politician”. Thereby, the doctor’s utterance generates an implicature that the doctor wants to explain carefully of Forest’s back condition in order not to make his mother gets worried or shock. Actually the doctor can simply say “Forest’s backbone is crooked”
From the examples above, it can be seen that there are different flouting maxims found in the film dialogue. Those flouting maxims have their own implicature related to the context of each dialogue, where the dialogues occur, when the dialogues happen and the reason why people flout a maxim. Based on the phenomenon, the researcher is interested in analyzing the flouting maxims generated by the speakers and the cooperative principles that occur in the dialogue of film entitled “Forest Gump”. Therefore, the title of this research is AN
ANALYSIS OF FLOUTING MAXIMS IN “FOREST GUMP” FILM
BASED ON GRICE’S COOPERATIVE PRINCIPLES (A Pragmatics
Study).
xix B. Problem Statement
From the research background above, the researcher proposes some problems as follow:
1. What kinds of the flouting maxims are employed by the characters in
“Forest Gump” film?
2. How the cooperative principles employed by the characters in the
“Forest Gump” film help the addressee to understand the intended
meaning in the dialogue?
3. Why are the flouting maxims employed by the characters in “Forest
Gump” film?
C. Research limitation
The research focuses on the analysis of flouting maxims in Forest Gump film based on Grice’s Cooperative principle covering the maxim of quality, quantity, relation and manner, since they are found in the dialogues of the film.
D. Research Objectives
The purpose of the research is to find out the answers of the problem statements. Therefore the research’s objectives are:
1. To explain the various kinds of the flouting maxims are employed by
the characters in the “Forest Gump” film
2. To describe how the cooperative principles which are employed by the
characters help the addressee to understand the intended meaning in
the dialogue of “Forest Gump” film.
xx 3. To explain the reasons of the characters in the film entitled “Forest
Gump” employed the flouting maxims.
E. Research benefits
Every research must have benefits to the researchers themselves and other people.
This research tries to contribute the benefits as follows:
a. For the students who want to learn about flouting maxims, it is
hoped that having read the result of the research, the students will
be more understand the flouting maxims and maxims in the film.
b. For other researchers, the result of the research is hoped to be a
stimulant for other researchers, so that they will lead to conduct
more comprehensive research in such topic.
F. Research methodology
This research is a descriptive qualitative research. In this research, the data which are used by the researcher are words, sentences and dialogues which are found in the “Forest Gump” film. A qualitative research is a type of research which does not conclude any calculations/ enumerations (Moleong, 2001:6). It is also called descriptive because it takes some steps such as collecting data, making an analysis and drawing the conclusion (Moleong, 2001:6).
This research uses purposive sampling technique to obtain the data needed since the whole data collected are the utterances categorized as flouting maxims.
The population of this research is all dialogues in “Forest Gump” film. Further explanation of research methodology will be clarified in chapter III.
xxi G. Thesis organization
This thesis is organized by some chapters and items as follow:
CHAPTER 1 covers Introduction consisting of research Background,
Problem statement, research limitation, research objective, research benefits, research methodology, and thesis organization.
CHAPTER II covers Literature Review consisting Definition of
Pragmatics, Conversational Implicature, The Cooperative Principle, The Four
Conversational Maxims, The Flouting Maxim, Context, Theory of film, review of other related studies, and synopsis of the film.
CHAPTER III covers Research Methodology consisting of type of the study and research method, Data source, Sample and Sampling Technique,
Instrument of the research, Technique of Collecting Data, Data Coding and
Technique of Analyzing Data
CHAPTER IV covers Data Analysis consist of the analysis and discussion
CHAPTER V covers Conclusion and Suggestion
xxii CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
A. Pragmatic
1. Definition of Pragmatic
There are several definitions of pragmatics. Richard in Kuncoro Rahardi
(2002:5) defines that pragmatics is the study of the use of language in communication, particularly in the relationship between sentences and the contexts and situations in which they are used. Leech (1983:10) also states that pragmatics is the study of the relation between language and context that is the basic to an account of language understanding. Both linguists define pragmatics as a study that involves meaning and context. But Levinson emphasizes more on the ability of a speaker to create any form of utterances in any context or situation, while Leech emphasizes on the language understanding.
Yule (1996: 3) states the four areas that pragmatics is concerned as follows:
a. Pragmatics is the study of meaning
Pragmatics is concerned with the study of meaning as communicated by a
speaker (or writer) and interpreted by a listener (or reader). It analyzes more in
what people mean by their utterances than in what the words or phrases in those
utterances might mean by themselves. b. Pragmatics is the study of contextual meaning
This type of study necessarily involves the interpretation of what
people mean in a particular context and how the context influences what is said.
xxiii It requires the consideration of how the speakers organize what they want to say
in accordance with who they’re talking to, where, when, and under what
circumstances. c. Pragmatics is the study of how we recognize what is meant even when it is not
actually said
This approach also necessarily explores how listeners can make
influences about what is said in order to arrive at an interpretation of the
speaker’s intended meaning. This type of study explores how a great deal of
what is unsaid is recognized as part of what is communicated. We might say
that it is the investigation of invisible meaning. d. Pragmatics is the study of the expression of relative distance
This perspective raises the question of what determines the choice
between the said and the unsaid. The basic is tied to the notion of distance.
Closeness, whether it is physical, social, or conceptual, implies shared
experience. On the assumption of how close or distant the listener is, speakers
determine how much needs to be said.
Thus, we can make a conclusion that pragmatics is appealing because it’s about how people make sense of each other linguistically, but it can be a frustrating area of study because it requires us to make sense of people what they have in mind.
While Thomas (1995: 21-23) stated the definitions of pragmatics as follows: a. Pragmatics as speaker meaning.
The speaker meaning tends to be favored by writers who take a
broadly social view of the discipline; it puts the focus of attention firmly on the
xxiv producer of the message, but at the same time obscures the fact that the process
of interpreting what we hear involves moving between several levels of speaker
meaning, namely utterance meaning and force. b. Pragmatics as utterance interpretation.
This term tends to be favored by those who take broadly cognitive
approach, but at the cost of focusing too much on the receiver of the message
which in practice means largely ignoring the social constrains on utterance
production. It focuses almost exclusively on the process of interpretation from
the point of view of the hearer. c. Pragmatics as meaning interaction.
This reflects the view that meaning is not something that is inherent
the words alone, nor is it produced by the speaker alone, nor by the hearer
alone. Making meaning is a dynamic process involving the negotiation of
meaning between a speaker and a hearer, the context of utterance (physical,
social, and linguistic) and the meaning potential of an utterance.
It can be concluded that pragmatics is the study of meaning from the utterance spoken by a speaker or a writer and interpreted by a hearer or a reader, and it involves the context as a consideration of how the speaker or the writer organizes what he wants to say.
2. The Scope of Pragmatics
There are some topics discussed in pragmatics. Levinson (1997: 27) states that pragmatics is the study of deixis, implicature, presupposition, speech act and aspect of discourse structure. In this research, implicature will be
xxv explained more in the next item. The other topics, however, will be explained briefly. a. Deixis
Deixis is a technical term (from Greek) for one of the most basic things we do with utterances. Deixis means ‘pointing’ via language (Yule, 1996:9).
Deixis is clearly a form of referring that is tied to the speaker’s context. Therefore, the deixis of utterance is meaningful if the context of the utterance is accurately known. b. Implicature
It is a proposition based on the interpretation of the language use and its context of communication in a bound that the participants can interpret what the implication of a message or utterance in a different way from what the speaker literally means. c. Presupposition
According to Yule (1996:25) presupposition is something the speaker assumes to be the case prior to making an utterance. Presupposition of a statement will remain constant even when that statement is negated.
For example, two statements ‘John’s car is not red’ and ‘John has a car’ have similar assumption that John has a car and the color is not red. d. Speech Act
Speech act carries some actions in an utterance. Austin in Yule
(1996:49) states that in uttering a sentence, one might be said to be performing action. There are three basic acts, namely:
xxvi 1) Locutionary act, it is the basic fact of utterance because it produces a
meaningful linguistic expression.
2) Illocutionary act, it is performed via communicative force of an utterance
in order to make a statement, an offer, an explanation or other
communicative purposes.
3) Perlocutionary act, it is done to have an effect from the utterance. e. Discourse Structure
It relates with the organization of conversation. Every conversation can be analyzed through conversation analysis because it has structures. For example turn taking is done when someone respects other people in taking their turns in speaking and adjacency pairs is a fundamental unit of conversational organization, that manage the kind of paired utterances of which question should be replied by answer, greeting by greeting, or offer by acceptance.
Those five aspects have the relation with the context because without appreciating the context of utterance, the messages of a speech cannot be interpreted accurately.
B. Implicature
A philosopher, H.P. Grice, outlines an approach to what he terms as implicature. The word of implicature is derived from the verb to imply, which means to fold something into something else (Mey, 1993:99). According to Yule implicature is an additional conveyed meaning. Meanwhile, Gazdar also states that ‘an implicature is a proposition that is implied by the utterances of a sentence in a context even though that proposition is not a part or not an entailment’
xxvii (Gazdar, 1979:38). In Thomas (1995:57) Grice divides implicature into conventional implicature and conversational implicature.
From the definitions above, it can be concluded that implicature is hidden meaning conveyed in an utterance in certain of context of situation. In this research, conversational implicature will be the main concern for the researcher.
C. Conventional implicature
Thomas (1995:57) states that in the case of conventional implicature, the same implicature is always conveyed, regardless of context.
While Yule (1996:45) states that conventional implicature is not based on the cooperative principle or the maxims of Grice. It does not have to occur in a conversation, and they do not depend on special context for their interpretation.
This kind of implicature is unobserved in this research. On the other hand, in this subchapter the researcher purely focuses on the conversational implicature, which is related to the research.
Conventional implicature is associated with specific words and result in additional conveyed meanings when several words are used. For example is the word “but”.
Mary suggested black, but I choose white.
(From Yule, 1996, 45)
The utterance associates that the expectation between Mary and I is
different.
xxviii D. Conversational implicature
Mey (1993:99) states that a conversational implicature is something which is implied in conversation, that is, something which is left implicit in actual language use.
While Leech (1983:40) assumes that conversational implicature is the directness of which is motivated in politeness rather than to what is actually said.
Yule (1996:40) also states that conversational implicature is an additional unstated meaning that has to be assumed in order to maintain the cooperative principle. It is implicature derived from a general principle of conversation plus a number of maxims, which the speaker will normally obey. Conversational implicature is divided into:
a) Generalized conversational implicature
It is implicature that arises without any particular context or
special scenario being necessary, for instance:
Charlene: I hope you brought the bread and the cheese.
Dexter : Ah. I brought the bread.
(Yule: 1996:41)
From the conversation above, it is seen that there is no need of a
particular context to interpret other additional meaning.
b) Particularized conversational implicature
It is an implicature that arises become some special factors
inherent in the context of utterance and is not normally carried by the
xxix sentence used, In short, it is an implicature that needs a specific
context. We can see the following example:
Ricky: Hey, coming to the wild party tonight?
Tom : My parents are visiting.
(Yule: 1996: 43)
From the conversation above, it is seen that Tom was not strictly
answered Ricky’s question. However he delivers the response which
indirectly completes the speaker’s goal. Based on Tom’s utterance, it
implicates that he will not attend the party since he has to welcome or
spend his evening with his parents.
Thus, we can make a conclusion that conversational implicature is how the speaker’s utterance is interpreted by the hearer. An utterance which is spoken by the speaker sometimes has a hidden meaning which implies something behind the utterance. In this case, a speaker intends to convey a certain meaning through his utterances based on a certain background knowledge and context of situation. So that the hearer must assume the speaker means to convey more than is being said.
E. The cooperative principles
In order to explain the mechanism by which people interpret conversational implicature in logic and conversation, Grice introduced four conversational maxims and the cooperative principle (Thomas 1995: 61-63). The cooperative principle runs as follows:
xxx ‘Make your conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at it
occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you
are engaged.’
In this principle, Grice tells the speakers how they ought to behave. He suggests that in conversation interaction people work on the assumption that a certain set of rules is in operation, unless they receive indications to the contrary.
When the speaker has conversation, he should obey the regularity or the principle in order not to make the conversation misleads. But there will be time when the hearer has wrong assumption or misinterpretation in understanding the speaker’s mean because of mistakes and misunderstandings. Thomas (1995: 62) says that
Grice is not (as some commentators have erroneously assumed) suggesting that people are always good and kind or cooperative in any everyday sense of that word. On the whole, people observe certain regularities in interaction and their aim is to explain one particular set of regularities. Therefore, it governs the generation and interpretation of conversational implicature.
Example:
The speaker has accidentally locked herself out of her house. It is winter, the
middle of the night and she is stark naked:
A: Do you want a coat?
B: No, I really want to stand out here in the freezing cold with no clothes on.
On the face of it, B’s reply is untrue and uncooperative, but in fact this is the sort of sarcastic reply we encounter every day and we have no problem at all in interpreting. According to Grice, if A assumes that, in spite of appearances, B is observing the Cooperative Principle and she has made an appropriate response
xxxi to his question, he will look for an alternative interpretation. Grice argues that without the assumption that the speaker is operating according to the CP, there is no mechanism to prompt someone to seek for another level of interpretation. The observation that the speaker has said something which is manifestly untrue combined with the assumption that the CP is in operation sets in motion the search for an implicature (Thomas 1995: 63).
F. The conversational maxim
Grice’s theory (1975) develops the concept of implicature. The basic notion of his concept is how people use language. Grice in Thomas (1995: 63-64) proposes four basic maxims of conversation as a guideline. They are maxim of quality (sincerely, said the real and the truth), maxim of quantity (informatively), maxim of relation (relevantly) and manner (orderly) which are formulated as follows:
The Maxims
1. Quantity
1) Make your contribution as informative as is required
2) Do not make your contribution more informative than is required
The maxim relates to the amount of information given by the
participants. They have to give sufficient information, no more and no less then
what is required since the speaker gives insufficient information will cause
failure in conducting conversation.
2. Quality
1) Do not say what you believe to be false
xxxii 2) Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence
There are two important keywords in the above explanation; true that can be connected with the participant’s belief and adequate evidence as proves that the contribution is true.
3. Relation:
1) Be relevant
It means that each of the participants must say something that is relevant to the subject of the conversation. The participants of the conversation will find difficulties in understanding the topic if it has no relevance and the utterances will appear quite unconnected.
4. Manner
1) Avoid obscurity of expression
2) Avoid ambiguity
3) Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity)
4) Be orderly
Consider the following example:
FORREST: Ma'am, what'd they do with Lieutenant Dan?
NURSE : They sent him home.
In the dialogue above, the Nurse answers Forest’s question clearly
(manner), truthfully (quality), gives just the right amount of information
(quality) and directly addresses Forest’s goal in asking the question
(relation).
xxxiii G. The flouting maxim
Grice in Thomas (1995: 65-71) explains that a flout occurs when a speaker blatantly fails to observe a maxim at the level of what is said, with the deliberate intention generating an implicature. According to Grice, there are four kinds of the flouting maxims that are generated as follow:
1.The flouting maxim of quality
Flouts which exploit the maxim of Quality occur when the speaker says
something which is blatantly untrue or for which he or she lacks adequate
evidence.
Example:
The speaker was Lady Lucinda Lambton and she was talking about John
Patten, who at the time was the Secretary of State for Education.
“I lived in the same house as the man for three years and he’s the man I hate
most in all the world. In all my greasy past, he is the biggest grease
spot”.
It is patiently false that John Patten is a grease spot. Lucinda Lambton
does not appear to be trying to make us believe that John Patten is a grease
spot. So, in this instance the speaker is unable to simultaneously to observe
the maxim of Quality. (Thomas, 1995: 67)
2.The flouting maxim of quantity
A flout of the maxim of Quantity occurs when a speaker blatantly gives
more or less information that the situation requires.
Example:
xxxiv The speaker is Rupert Allason (author, M. P. and expert on British
intelligent services). He is discussing the identity of the so-called “Fifth
Man”.
Interviewer: So, who is the Fifth Man?
Rupet Allason: It was Graham Mitchell or Roger Hollis and I don’t
believe it was Roger Hollis.
In this example, Rupert Allason blatantly gives more information than
the situation requires. He could simply say “The Fifth Man was graham
Mitchell” (Thomas, 1995: 65).
3.The flouting maxim of relation
The maxim of Relation is exploited by making a response or
observation which is very obviously irrelevant to the topic in hand (by
abruptly changing the subject or by overtly failing to address the other
person’s goal in asking a question); (Thomas, 1995: 70).
Example:
Forrest gets up and runs toward the car. He tries to look in the window
as he steps over to the driver's side door. He opens the door and begins to
punch the boy inside. Jenny jumps out of the car and runs over to Forrest.
JENNY : Forrest, why'd you do that?
FORREST: I brought you some chocolates. I’m sorry. I'll go back to my
college now.
(Taken from “Forest Gump”)
Forest’s utterance is not relevant toward Jenny’s question. There is no
connection between Jenny’s question and Forest’s answer. Forest abruptly
xxxv changes the topic of the conversation by replying irrelevance answer in
order not to make Jenny angry with him. He also generates an implicature
that he feels sorry for hitting Bill. Thereby, he fails to observe the maxim of
Relation.
4.The flouting maxim of manner
The maxim of Manner is exploited by making a response which is
unclear so that the hearer can not catch what the speaker means.
The following is an example of flouting of the maxim of Manner:
This interaction occurred during a radio interview with unnamed official
from the United States Embassy in Port-au-Prince, Haity.
Interviewer: Did the United States Government play any part in
Duvalier’s departure? Did they, for example, actively encourage
him to leave?
Official : I would not try to steer you away from that conclusion.
Actually, the official could simply have replied: ‘yes or no’. Her actual
response is extremely long winded and convoluted and it is obviously no
accident, nor through any inability to speak clearly, that she has failed to
observe the maxim of manner. She gives a confusing answer so that the
interviewer gets difficulties in understanding the official’s mean. However,
there is no reason to believe that the official is being deliberately unhelpful
(she could have simply refused to answer at all, or said, “No comment”.
Therefore, she fails to observe the maxim of Manner (Thomas, 1995: 71).
xxxvi H. Context
Context plays an important role in understanding the meaning of utterance.
The term of context was firstly introduced by Brownislaw Malinowsky in 1923.
Malinowski in Halliday and Hasan (1985:5) points out that there are two notions of context, context of situation and context of culture. Both have an essential role in the interpretation of meaning. Context of situation is the situation in which the utterance event occurs in the environment of the text. Context of culture is the cultural background or historical setting behind the participants.
In order to understand the meaning of any utterance, someone should know and understand the cultural background of the language, such as the participants who are involved in the speech, the time, social condition, etc
(Halliday and Hasan, 1985: 6).
The importance of context in language can be seen from the opinion of
Levinson who says, “Pragmatics is the study of the ability of language user to pair sentences with the context in which they would be appropriate (1983: 24)
Further, Leech (1983: 13) states that context deals with the relevant aspect of the physical or social setting of an utterance. Context is a background knowledge, which is showed by the speaker and the hearer in understanding their utterances.
Mey (1993: 38) says that context is a dynamic, not a static concept: it is to be understood as the surroundings, in the widest sense, that enable the participants to interact in the communication process, and that make the linguistic expressions of their interaction intelligible.
xxxvii According to Yan Huang (2007:13) context may in a broader sense be defined as referring to any relevant features of the dynamic setting or environment in which a linguistic unit is systematically used.
Based on the explanations above, it can be concluded that context is important in interpreting the meaning of an utterance in a conversation. The hearer can fail in interpreting the meaning of speaker’s utterance if the hearer does not understand the context in the conversation.
I. Synopsis of the Film
Forrest Gump is a 1994 comedy-drama film based on the 1986 novel of the same name by Winston Groom. The film tells about a man and his life journey which is influenced by popular culture and first-hand historic events of the 20th century while being largely unaware of their significance, due to his low intelligence. The major character in this film, Forest Gump who has low IQ, has great experience in his life. He experiences many historical events and meets important people in America from the late 1950's through the 1970's including a meeting with Elvis Presley, JFK, Lyndon Johnson, and Richard Nixon.
The film begins with a white feather falling to the feet of Forrest Gump.
He sits beside a black woman at a bus stop in Savannah, Georgia. Forrest picks up the feather and puts it in the book Curious George. Then, he tells the story of his life to a woman sits next to him. The listeners at the bus stop change regularly throughout his narration. Each of them shows a different reaction to his narration ranging from disbelief and indifference to rapt veneration.
xxxviii In his first day to school, he meets a girl named Jenny Curran and then
Forest falling in love with this girl. All Forest’s life is related to Jenny. Although he has low IQ, his life has much luckiness. In college, he gets football scholarship, joins with All-America, and meets President John F. Kennedy. After graduating, he enters the United States Army, awarded the Medal of Honor by President
Lyndon Johnson and successes in his business. But in his love story, Forest is not much lucky. He is left by Jenny, a girl who he loves. Besides, he also loses his best friend (Buba) in the Vietnam War.
But one day, Jenny sends him a letter to come to her house. There, he finds that he has a young son. At that time Jenny also says to Forest that she suffers a virus. Forest accepts Jenny’s condition and they decides to go back to
Greenbow, Alabama. Jenny and Forrest finally marry but Jenny dies not long after their marriage. In the end of the film, Forest lives together with his son happily.
J. Reviews of Other Related Studies
The researcher includes some related studies based on Grice’s maxims and
Cooperative Principles. A previous research based on cooperative principles was done by Tety Ratna Artanti (2006), in her thesis entitled “An Analysis of the
Flouting Maxims in Princess Diaries 2: ROYAL ENGAGEMENT film based on
Grice’s Cooperative Principle (A Pragmatics Study)”.
This study used Pragmatics approach based on Grice theory of implicature covering of cooperative principle and its maxims, namely maxim of quality, quantity, relevance and manner.
xxxix The result of the study shows that there are flouting maxims in “Princess
Diaries 2: Royal Engagement” film. Grice’s Cooperative Principle is not perfectly fulfilled by the characters in their dialog. The results also shows that based on the analysis of flouting a maxim, there are 3 flouting maxims employed by the characters, namely flouting maxim of Quality, Quantity and Manner.
Furthermore, the research shows that there are found two phenomena. The first is that the most of flouted maxims in the data have low information content and high affective content. It shows that the characters tend to express the affective (the implicatures of their utterances) rather than the information of their utterances
(what is actually said by the characters). The second, the researcher also finds overlapping incidence, which there are two or more maxims flouted in one utterance.
Another similar research was done by Sarah Fajrin Amalia (2008), in her thesis entitled the analysis of implicatures based on Grice’s flouting maxim in the film entitled “GUESS WHO” (a Pragmatic approach). This research applies pragmatic approach based on Grice’s theory. It consists of Cooperative Principles, their maxims and flouting maxim.
The results of the data analysis shows that the maxim/s flouted in the conversation may contain hidden meaning which has certain intention. The hidden meaning is related to the context, so it is called particularized conversational implicature. The use of implicature in the utterance is to make the hearer able to catch the speaker’s intention through the employment of flouting maxim/s since by creating implicature, the speaker actually wishes to make the hearer to look for
xl the real meaning which is different from, or in addition to, the expressed meaning not with any intention of deceiving or misleading.
xli CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
A. Type of Research and Research Method
In this research, the researcher applies the descriptive qualitative method.
It is called descriptive, since the researcher merely collects the data, makes an analysis them and draws the conclusions from the analysis (Moleong, 2001: 6).
A qualitative research is a type of research which does not include any calculations/ enumerations (Moleong, 2001:6). According to Winarno Surachmad
(2004: 147), descriptive research is a research method that uses technique of collecting data, classifying the data, analyzing and interpreting them, and then drawing the conclusion.
B. Data and Source of Data
The source of data refers to the subject from which all the data of a research are obtained (Arikunto, 2002:107). The data may appear in the form of discourse, sentence, clause, phrase, word or even morpheme (Subroto, 1992:7).
The data in this research are dialogues uttered by the characters which generate flouting maxims in ‘Forest Gump’ film based on the Grice Cooperative Principle.
There are some reasons for taking this film as a data source. Firstly, this comedy drama film has a lot of messages about moral values. This film also wins many Oscar nominations, such as the best actor, the best picture, the best director
xlii and the best visual effect. Secondly, in the film dialogues, we can find a lot of flouting maxims that are applied in various situations.
C. Sampling and Sampling Technique
Sample is a part of population that will be investigated (Arikunto, 2002:
109). He also defines that population is all subject of the research (ibid: 108).
Furthermore, sample should be collected by using a specific technique of sampling. According to Sutrisno Hadi (1986:75) sampling technique is a technique of choosing samples of data. Furthermore, he also says that qualitative research is not aimed at generalizing the population but it is aimed at describing specific things found in data.
Based on the definitions and explanations above, this research employs total sampling technique. Surakhmad states that total sampling is a technique where the whole data becomes the sample (2004:100). Thus, the researcher takes all dialogs containing flouting maxims employed by the characters of the film “Forest
Gump” found in the data as the sample of the research.
D. Equipments of The Research
Lincoln and Guba in Sutopo (2006:36) state that in qualitative research, the most important equipment is the researcher himself, since human being are considered to have the ability of reaching and deciding the meaning of various interactions. However in conducting the research, the researcher needs some supporting equipments such as VCD of the film and a set of computer to play the
VCD of the film.
xliii E. Technique of Collecting Data
The data of the research are collected by doing the following steps:
1. Replaying the VCD of ‘Forest Gump’ film by using a set of computer for a
couple of times.
2. Finding the transcript of the movie from the internet.
(http://www.script-o-rama.com)
3. Describing the data by transcribing the dialogues containing the flouting
maxims from the film into the form of dialogues list in order to match
them with the transcript of the film.
4. Identifying the flouting maxims in the dialogues by giving marks to each
flouting maxim.
5. Classifying the data of flouting maxims based on Grice’s Cooperative
Principle.
6. Coding the flouting maxims in the dialogues by giving numbers to each
flouting maxim.
F. Data Coding
In this research, the researcher gives some codes in the data to make the analysis of each datum easier. The data coding was based on the number of datum, the speaker that flouts the maxim, and the number of disc where dialogues occur.
The example of data coding in the research is as follows:
Data 09/FG/ 1/FQR
Data 09: refers to the number of datum
FG : refers to the speaker that flout the maxims
xliv It can be:
- FG: Forest Gump
- JC: Jenny Curran
- MG: Mrs. Gump
- EP: Elvis Presley
- DR: Doctor
- BD: Bus driver
- LD: Lieutenant Dan
- FC: football coach
- BB: Bubba
- PK: President Kennedy
1: refers to the number of disc where dialogue occur
It can be:
- 1: disc number 1 (the first disc)
- 2: disc number 2 (the second disc)
FMQt: refers to type of flouting maxims: Flouting Maxim of Quantity
It can be:
- FMQl: Flouting maxim of Quality
- FCM: Flouting Class between Maxims (there is more than one maxim
flouted)
G. Technique of Analyzing Data
The technique of collecting data is carried out as follows:
1. Describing the data in the form of dialogues which contains the flouting maxims.
xlv 2. Describing the context of situation in the dialogues of the film
3. Describing how the Cooperative Principle is employed by the characters in the
dialogues of the film “Forest Gump” based on Grice’s theory.
4. Analyzing the kinds of the flouting maxims employed by the characters in the
dialogues of the film.
5. Drawing conclusion from the analysis of the data.
xlvi CHAPTER IV
DATA ANALYSIS
A. Introduction
This chapter is the important part of the research as it contains the data analysis of the research which is conducted based on the theory presented in
Chapter II in order to answer the problem statements in Chapter I by using the research procedure in Chapter III.
The purpose of this research is to reveal the phenomenon of the flouting maxims employed in the film entitled “Forest Gump”. It covers description of the kinds of flouting maxims employed by the characters in the film entitled “Forest
Gump” based on Grice Cooperative Principle. It also covers description of how the characters employ Cooperative Principles and description of the reasons why the characters employ the flouting maxims.
In achieving the goal, the researcher arranges the analysis as follows:
1. Data description.
It shows the dialogs between the participants containing the flouting maxims.
2. Context of situation
It describes the setting of place, time, participant’s background and the
happening situation when the flouting maxim is created.
3. Data Interpretation
It contains the description how the Cooperative Principle employed in the
film, and the analysis of the kinds of the flouting maxim employed by the
characters.
xlvii B. Analysis
1. Kinds of the flouting maxims are employed by the characters in “Forest
Gump” film
1.1 Flouting class between maxims
Flouting class between maxims shows that the speaker not only flouts
one maxim but also flouts more than one maxim in a dialogue. There are five
sub-categories of flouting clash between maxims based on overlapping of the
maxim flouted.
a) Flouting maxims of Quality, Quantity and Manner
Flouting maxims of Quality, Quantity and Manner shows that the
participants blatantly give less information than it is required with
something which is untrue and also difficult to be understood because it is
unclear and long winded. There is only one datum found in this research.
Datum 18/MG/ 2/FCM
1. Data description
MG: well, I happened to believe you make your own destiny. You have to do the best with what God gave you. FG: What's my destiny, Momma? MG: You're gonna have to figure that out for yourself. Life is a box of chocolates, Forrest. You never know what you're gonna get. 2. Context of situation
The dialogue is between Forest Gump and Mrs. Gump. It
occurs in the Mrs. Gump bedroom. At that time Mrs. Gump explains
about her dying condition. She explains that it is a destiny from God.
She says to Forest that Forest has his own destiny which he should do
the best for his destiny. Then, Forest asks her mother about his destiny.
3. Data interpretation
xlviii In the dialogue above, Mrs. Gump gives an answer toward
Forest’s question. His utterance is blatantly untrue and lack of adequate evidence since life is not a box of chocolates. Mrs. Gump exactly knows that life is not simple and small like a box of chocolates. She explains to Forest by using the utterance in order to make Forest easy to understand that no one knows the destiny. She wants to show Forest about the destiny by comparing life and a box of chocolates.
Although Mrs. Gump answers Forest’s question, she blatantly gives less information than Forest needs. Mrs. Gump utterance “You're gonna have to figure that out for yourself. Life is a box of chocolates,
Forrest. You never know what you're gonna get” does not give adequate information which Forest needs. Forest wants to know about his destiny but his mother does not give his definite destiny.
Maxim of relation obeys in the dialogue. Mrs. gump’s utterances are relevant toward Forest’s question. Forest’s question,
“What's my destiny, Momma?” is also answered relevantly by Mrs.
Gump through her utterance “You're gonna have to figure that out for yourself. Life is a box of chocolates, Forrest. You never know what you're gonna get”. It means that Mrs. Gump has addressed Forest in asking the question.
Mrs. Gump has answered Forest’s question through her utterance but it is long winded and convoluted. It can be seen from her utterance“You're gonna have to figure that out for yourself. Life is a box of chocolates, Forrest. You never know what you're gonna get”.
Mrs. Gump’s utterance is unclear and confusing so that Forest gets difficulties in catching the meaning. Thus, it can be concluded as a flouting maxim of manner.
xlix b) Flouting maxims of quantity, manner and relevance
Flouting maxims of Quantity, Manner and Relevance shows that the
participants blatantly give less information which is long winded and not
relevant to the question. There are 2 data find in this research.
Datum 10/FG/ 1/FCM
1. Data description
JC: Have you ever been with a girl, Forrest? FG: I sit next to them in my home economics class all the time. 2. Context of situation
The dialogue occurs in the Jenny’s boarding house room. It
happens between Forest and Jenny. At that time, Forest and Jenny catch
the rain and their clothes are wet so they change their clothes in Jenny’s
room. Forest looks at Jenny’s breast when she opens her clothes.
Looking at Forest’s expression, Jenny asks Forest whether he has ever
been with a girl or not.
3. Data interpretation
The conversation between Forest and Jenny in the dialogue
above obeys the maxim of quality. What is said by Forest to Jenny is
true that he really sits next to a girl in the economic class. He gives the
evidence through his utterance “I sit next to them in my home
economics class all the time.” It was the evidence that what is said by
Forest is true.
Although Forest gives the information that he really sits next
to a girl in the economic class all the time, he blatantly gives less
information than Jenny needs. His utterance, “I sit next to them in my
home economics class all the time.” does not answer Jenny’s question.
l It does not fulfill the information that Jenny requires. Forest’s utterance
can be analyzed as a flouting maxim of quantity.
The dialogue is also flouted the maxim of relation. Forest’s
utterance “I sit next to them in my home economics class all the time.”
is not relevant toward Jenny’s question. There is no connection between
Jenny’s question and Forest’s answer. Jenny asks Forest whether he
ever has a girlfriend or not. Forest overtly fails to address the Jenny’s
goal in asking a question by replying irrelevance answer with saying
that he really sits next to a girl in the economic class all the time.
Forest has answered Jenny’s question through his utterance “I
sit next to them in my home economics class all the time.”, but his
answer is long winded and convoluted. He says those answer because
he likes Jenny. He wants to show to Jenny that she is the only one girl
who Forest loves. Actually, Forest can simply reply yes or no. Thus, it
can be concluded as a flouting maxim of manner.
Datum 11/FG/ 1/FCM
1. Data description
PK: Congratulations. How does it feel to be an All-American? FP: It's an honor, Sir (Another player steps up to the President and shakes the President's hand.) PK: Congratulations. How does it feel to be an All-American? SP: Very good, Sir. PK: Congratulations. How does it feel to be an All-American? TP: Very good, (The player walks away. Forrest steps up to the President. The President shakes his hand.) PK:Congratulations. How do you feel? FG: I gotta pee. (President Kennedy turns and smiles.) PK: I believe he said he had to go pee 2. Context of situation
li The dialogue occurs at the White House. President Kennedy
meets with the Collegiate All-American Football Team at the White
House. After winning the match Forest and his team are invited to white
house. At President Kennedy shakes hand with the All-American
football players. He asks them about their feeling to be the members of
All American Football Team. The same question is also asked to Forest
as the member of the team. At that time, Forest stomach feels unwell
because he drinks a lot of Dr. Pepper.
3. Data interpretation
The dialogue above has obeyed maxim of quality. What is
said by Forest to President Kennedy is true that he has to go pee. He
gives the evidence through his utterance “I gotta pee”. He really has to
go pee because before he shakes hand with the President, he drinks
fifteen bottle of Dr. Pepper.
Although Forest has answered President Kennedy’s question,
he blatantly gives less of information than the President requires
through his utterance “I gotta pee”. His utterance does not answer The
President question.
Maxim of relation is also flouted by the character. Forest’s
utterance “I gotta pee” is not relevant toward President Kennedy’s
question. There is no connection between President Kennedy’s question
and Forest’s answer. President Kennedy asks Forest about his feeling
becomes the part of All American Football Team after winning the
match. Forest overtly fails to address the President Kennedy’s goal in
asking a question about his feeling to be All American by replying
irrelevance answer.
lii The dialogue between the participants flouts a maxim of
manner. Forest’s utterance is unclear. He gives a confusing answer so
that President Kennedy gets difficulties in understanding Forest’s
means.
c) Flouting maxims of quality and quantity
Flouting maxims of Quality and Quantity shows that the participants
blatantly say something untrue by giving more or less information that it is
not required. There are 5 data find in this research.
Datum 01/DR/1/FCM
1. Data Description
(Forrest has been fitted with orthopedic shoes and metal leg braces.) DR: All right, Forrest, you can open your eyes now. Let's take a little walk around. (The doctor sets Forrest down on its feet. Forrest walks around stiffly. Forrest's mother, MRS. GUMP, watches him as he clanks around the room awkwardly.) MG: How’s his condition? DR: How do those feel? His legs are strong, Mrs. Gump. As strong as I've ever seen. But his back is as crooked as a politician. 2. Context of situation
The dialogue occurs at the doctor’s office. It happens between
Mrs. Gump and the doctor. At that time the doctor examines Forest’s
backbone. Forest legs wear orthopedic shoes and metal leg braces. After
fitting it, the doctor asks Forest to take a little walk while he examines
his back. Suddenly Forest falls on the floor. Knowing that incident,
Mrs. Gump asks Forest’s condition to the doctor.
3. Data interpretation
liii In the dialogue above, the doctor answers Mr. Gump’s
question that the problem is not in the forest’s leg but in his backbone.
It can be seen through his utterances, “His legs are strong, Mrs. Gump.
As strong as I've ever seen. But his back is as crooked as a politician”
but he says something that is blatantly untrue and lack of adequate
evidence since Forest’s back is not as crooked as the politician. The
doctor exactly knows that Forest’s backbone is crooked but it is not
crocked like a politician. Actually, the doctor can simply say “Forest’s
backbone is crooked”. It can be analyzed as a flouting maxim of quality.
Although the doctor has answered Mrs. Gump question, he
blatantly gives more information than required through his utterances,
“…His legs are strong, Mrs. Gump. As strong as I've ever seen. But his
back is as crooked as a politician”. Thus, it can be concluded as a
flouting maxim of quantity.
Maxims of relation is obeyed in this dialogue. Mrs. Gump’s
question, “How’s his condition?” is answered by the doctor relevantly,
“…His legs are strong, Mrs. Gump”. It shows that the doctor has
addressed Mrs. Gump’s goal in asking the question.
The dialogue between the participants also fulfills the maxim
of manner. The doctor gives the contribution to Mrs. Gump’s question
clearly. He also answers her question orderly and his utterances are not
ambiguous. Both understand each other’s expression.
Datum 03/EP 1/FCM
1. Data description
liv EP: (sings)"Well, you ain't never caught a rabbit, and you ain't no friend of mine." (Forrest's legs rock back and forth to the guitar.) MG: Forrest! I told you not to bother this nice young man. EP: Oh, no, that's all right, ma'am. I was just showin' him a thing or two on the guitar here. 2. Context of situation
The dialogue occurs in the Elvis Presley bedroom. At that
time Mrs. Gump is looking for Forest to have a supper. She looks for
Forest in his room but she cannot find him. She hears someone singing
from another room in front of Forest’s room. There, she gets Forest
singing and dancing oddly with Elvis. Hence, she asks Forest not to
bother Elvis.
3. Data interpretation
In the dialogue above, Elvis Presley gives a response toward
Mrs. Gump’s utterance, he says something that is blatantly untrue or
false through his utterances, “…I was just showin' him a thing or two on
the guitar here”. Elvis does not appear to be trying to make us believe
that he just shows Forest one or two on his guitar because he played the
guitar almost all night long. Thus, it can be concluded as a flouting
maxim of quality.
Although Elvis has answered Mrs. Gump’s question, he
blatantly gives more information than required through his utterances, “.
I was just showin' him a thing or two on the guitar here”. Elvis employs
the utterance “I was just showin' him a thing or two on the guitar here”
in order to support his previous utterance” Oh, no, that's all right,
ma'am”. Actually he can simply use “that's all right, ma'am”. It can be
analyzed as a flouting maxim of quantity.
Maxims of relation is obeyed in this dialogue. Elvis Presley’s
response is relevant to Mrs. Gump utterance, “Forrest! I told you not to
lv bother this nice young man”. It is responded by Elvis relevantly through
his utterance, “Oh, no, that's all right, ma'am. I was just showin' him a
thing or two on the guitar here”.
Maxim of manner is also fulfilled by the characters. Elvis
gives contribution to the Mrs. Gump’s statement clearly through his
utterance “Oh, no, that's all right, ma'am. I was just showin' him a thing
or two on the guitar here”. Their conversation is arranged orderly and
briefly. Their utterance can be understood by each other. There is no
ambiguity in the statements expressed by the two interlocutors.
Datum 05/FG/1/FCM
1. Data description
JC:What's wrong with your legs? FG: Um, nothing at all, thank you. My legs are just fine and dandy. JC: Then why do you have those shoes on? FG: My momma said my back's crooked like a question mark. These are going to make me as straight as an arrow. They’re my magic shoes. 2. Context of situation
The dialogue is between Forest and Jenny Curran. The
dialogue occurs in the bus school. At that time Jenny looks Forest wears
unusual shoes and then she asks Forest what happen with his legs but
Forest says that his legs are find. Because of the curiosity about those
shoes, Jenny asks Forest the reason why he wears that kind of shoes.
3. Data interpretation
In the dialogue above, Forest has answered Jenny’s question,
“Then why do you have those shoes on?”, but he says something that is
blatantly untrue since his back is not crooked like a question mark.
Forest’s utterance is lack of adequate evidence since his back is not
crooked like a question mark. Forest exactly knows that his backbone is
lvi crooked but it is not crocked like a question mark. But there is a
problem in his backbone.It can be analyzed as a flouting maxim of
quality.
Although Forest has answered Jenny’s question, he blatantly
gives more information than Jenny need by saying, “My momma said
my back's crooked like a question mark. These are going to make me as
straight as an arrow. They’re my magic shoes”. The additional
information in this utterance supports his intended meaning. Therefore,
besides flouting the maxim of quality, Forest’s utterance can also be
analyzed as a flouting maxim of quantity.
Forest’s answer in the dialogue above is relevant to Jenny’s
question. Jenny’s question, “Then why do you have those shoes on?” is
answered relevantly by Forest through his utterance, “My momma said
my back crooked like a question mark. These are going to make me as
straight as an arrow. They’re my magic shoes”. In that utterance, Forest
explains to Jenny his reason to wear the shoes. He says that the shoes
will make his back straight. It shows that he has addressed Jenny’s goal
in asking the question. Thus, the dialogue fulfills a maxim of relation.
The dialogue between the participants obeys a maxim of
manner. Forest’s answer gives the contribution to Jenny’s question
clearly. Forest’s answer is long but it gives the complete information to
Jenny. Their utterances can be understood by each other.
Datum 08/FG/1/FCM
1. Data description
JC: Forrest! Forrest! Forrest, stop it!Stop it! BL: Jesus! JC: What are you doing? FG: He was hurtin' you.
lvii 2. Context of situation
The dialogue is between Forest Gump and Jenny Currant,
which occurs in the parking area in front of Jenny’s boarding house. At
that time Forest sees Jenny with a boy and hears her screaming. Forrest
gets up and runs toward the car. He tries to have looked in the window
as he steps over to the driver's side door. He opens the door and begins
to punch the boy. Jenny jumps out of the car and runs over to Forrest.
She asks Forest what he is doing to Billy.
3. Data interpretation
In the dialogue above, Forest answers Jenny’s question. He
gives a reason that Billy is hurting Jenny, through his utterance “He was
hurtin' you”. Forest’s answer is blatantly untrue which lacks adequate
evidence. Actually both, Jenny and Billy are kissing inside the car.
Thus, it can be analyzed as a flouting maxim of quality.
The maxim of quantity is also flouted by the character in this
dialogue. Although Forest has answered Jenny’s question, he blatantly
gives less of information. Forest’s utterance “He was hurtin' you” does
not answer Jenny’s question. It does not give information that Jenny
needs.
Maxim of relation is obeyed in the dialogue. Forest Gump’s
utterance “He was hurtin' you.” is still relevant with the topic in hand
which is asked by Jenny. He gives the reason why he punches Billy.
The dialogue between the participants also obeys maxim of
manner. Forest’s utterance “He was hurtin' you.” gives contribution to
Jenny’s question clearly and briefly. Their utterances can be understood
by each other. There is no ambiguity in the statement expressed by the
two interlocutors.
lviii Datum 12/FG/1/FCM
1. Data description
JC: You remember that time we prayed, Forrest? We prayed for God to turn me into a bird so I could fly far, far away? FG: Yes, I do. JC: You think I can fly off this bridge? FG: What do you mean, Jenny? JC: Nothing
2. Context of situation
The dialogue is between Forest Gump and Jenny Currant
which occurs in the bridge outside the night club. Forest follows Jenny
to go out of the night club. Jenny says to Forest that he cannot always
rescue Jenny all the time. Jenny looks over the bridge and asks Forest
his about their past time when they pray to God to change them to
become bird. Suddenly, she asks Forest if she can fly from the bridge.
3. Data interpretation
In the dialogue above, Forest Gump gives an answer to
Jenny’s question. Forest asks back Jenny the meaning of Jenny’s
utterance. Forest’s utterance “What do you mean, Jenny?” is blatantly
untrue since he knows the meaning of Jenny’s answer. Actually Forest
knows that Jenny cannot fly from the bridge. But he still asks the
question.
Although Forest gives response to Jenny’s answer, he
blatantly gives less information than what Jenny requires. His response
which uses a question form does not answer Jenny’s question. It does
not fulfill the information which Jenny requires.
Forest’s response is relevant toward the topic of the
conversation. Although Forest answers Jenny’s question in the form of
lix question word but it is relevant toward the topic in hand. His utterance
“what do you mean Jenny?” is directly addressed to Jenny. He asks
Jenny about her seriousness to fly from the bridge. There is a
connection between Jenny’s question and Forest’s answer. Thus, the
dialogue fulfills a maxim of relation.
The dialogue between the participants also obeys maxim of
manner. Forest’s utterance “what do you mean Jenny?” gives
contribution to Jenny’s utterance clearly and briefly. He asks Jenny the
seriousness of his utterance by asking the meaning of Jenny’s previous
question. Although Forest response Jenny using question form, Jenny
can catch what Forest means. Both Jenny and Forest use clear statement
so that their utterances can be understood by each other. There is no
ambiguity in the statement expressed by the two interlocutors. d) Flouting maxims of quantity and manner
Flouting maxims of quantity and manner shows that the participants
blatantly give more or less information than it is required which may create
ambiguous, convoluted perception. There are 2 data find in this research.
Datum 04/FG/1/FCM
1. Data description
BD: Are you comin' along? FG: Momma said not to be taking rides from strangers. BD: This is the bus to school! FG: I'm Forrest Gump BD: I'm Dorothy Harris. FG:Well, now we ain't strangers anymore. (The bus driver smiles as Forrest steps up into the bus.)
2. Context of situation
The dialogue is between the bus driver and Forest Gump
which occurs in the bus stop in front of forest’s house. At that time
lx forest is waiting for the school bus with his mother. While Mrs. Gump
prepares Forest first day of school, the bus is coming. The bus driver
opens the door and asks Forest if he coming along or not.
3. Data interpretation
The conversation between Forest and the bus driver has
obeyed the maxim of quality. What Forest said is true that his mother
forbids him not to be taking rides from stranger. He gives the evidence
through his utterance “Momma said not to be taking rides from
strangers”.
Although Forest has answered the bus driver’s question, his
mother forbids him to go along with a stranger. He blatantly gives less
information than the bus driver requires through his utterance “Momma
said not to be taking rides from strangers”. Thereby, his utterance
generates an implicature that he refuses to go with the bus driver. He
says the utterance in order to make the bus driver understand his
utterance. They need to know each other before he takes a ride with her.
That is why in the next utterance, Forest introduces himself in order not
to make them become stranger anymore. Therefore, it can be concluded
as a flouting maxim of quantity.
The dialogue above also obeys the maxim of relation. The bus
driver’s question “Are you comin' along?” is answered relevantly by
Forest through his utterance “Momma said not to be taking rides from
strangers”. Forest’s answer is directly addressed to the bus driver.
Forest has answered the bus driver’s question through his
utterance “Momma said not to be taking rides from strangers”, but his
answer is long winded and convoluted. Forest can simply reply “no”.
Both of them do not know each other so they need to know each other
lxi before he takes a ride with her. That is why in the next utterance Forest
introduces himself in order not to make them become stranger anymore.
Thus, it can be concluded as a flouting maxim of manner.
Datum 17/MG/2/FCM
1. Data description
FG: What's the matter, Momma? MG: I'm dyin', Forrest. Come on in, sit down over here FG: Why are you dyin', Momma? MG: It's my time. It's just my time. Oh, now, don't you be afraid, sweetheart. Death is just a part of life. It's something we're all destined to do. I didn't know it, but I was destined to be your momma. I did the best I could. FG: You did good, Momma.
2. Context of situation
The dialogue is between Forest Gump and Mrs. Gump which
occurs in Mrs. Gump’s bedroom. Forest gets a letter from his mom that
he must go home. After getting home, he sees his mom lying on the bed
and the doctor standing next to her. Mrs. Gump says to Forest that she
is dying. Hearing his mother dying, Forest asks the reason why she is
dying.
3. Data interpretation
The dialogue above obeys a maxim of quality. What is said by
Mrs. Gump is true that it is her time to die because she gets cancer. She
gives the evidence through her utterance “It's my time. It's just my
time”. Her next utterance can also be a proof that the time is her destiny
to die because death is a part of life.
Maxim of quantity is flouted by the character. Mrs. Gump’s
answer “It's my time. It's just my time. Oh, now, don't you be afraid,
sweetheart. Death is just a part of life. It's something we're all destined
lxii to do. I didn't know it, but I was destined to be your momma. I did the
best I could” blatantly gives more information than Forest needs.
Actually Mrs. Gump can simply say “it is my time”. Her next utterance
“it’s just my time” tries to convince Forest that it is her time to die. That
time is her destiny from God to die. The utterance “Oh, now, don't you
be afraid, sweetheart. Death is just a part of life. It's something we're
all destined to do. I didn't know it, but I was destined to be your
momma. I did the best I could” giving more information by adding
information about death and destiny. She says that utterance in order
not to make Forest sad and receive her death sincerely.
Maxim of relation is fulfilled by the character. Mrs. Gump’s
answer is relevant toward Forest’s question. Mrs. Gump’s answer “It's
my time. It's just my time. Oh, now, don't you be afraid, sweetheart.
Death is just a part of life…………” is directly addressed to Forest.
Mrs. Gump’s utterance answers Forest’s goal in asking the question.
Forest asks the reason why Mrs. Gump dying and Mrs. Gump answers
relevantly that the reason why she is dying because of destiny.
The dialogue between the characters flouts a maxim of
manner. Mrs. Gump is long winded and convoluted. It can be seen from
her utterance “It's my time. It's just my time. Oh, now, don't you be
afraid, sweetheart. Death is just a part of life………….”. She gives a
confusing answer so that Forest gets difficulties in understanding Mrs.
Gump’s mean. She can simply answer that she has serious sickness
which is cancer. Therefore, she fails to observe a maxim of manner. e) Flouting maxims of quantity and relevance
lxiii Flouting maxims of quantity and relevance shows that the participants blatantly give more or less information than it is required and not relevant to the question. There are 3 data find in this research.
Datum 02/Mg/1/FCM
1. Data description
PL: Your boy's... different, Mrs. Gump. Now, his I.Q. is seventy-five. MG: Well, we're all different, Mr. Hancock. 2. Context of situation
The dialogue is between the Principal and Mrs. Gump which
occurs in the Principal’s office of elementary school. At that time Mrs.
Gump wants to register his son, Forest, in the elementary school. But
because of Forest’s intelligent (IQ) is under the normal, the Principal
rejects to admit Forest as the student in his elementary school.
3. Data interpretation
The dialogue between the Principal and Mrs. Gump obeys
maxim of quality. What is said by Mrs. Gump is true that all people are
different. Mrs. Gump gives the evidence through her utterance “Well,
we're all different, Mr. Hancock.”
Although Mrs. Gump gives the response to the principal’s
utterance, she blatantly gives more information than the Principal needs
through her utterance “Well, we're all different, Mr. Hancock”. She says
the utterance in order to avoid the agreement that her son is different.
She wants her son to be treated the same as the other children.
Therefore it can be concluded as a flouting maxim of quantity.
Maxim of relation is also flouted by the character in this
dialogue. Mrs. Gump’s utterance “well, we're all different, Mr.
Hancock” is not relevant toward the principal’s question. Mrs. Gump’s
lxiv response is irrelevant to the principal’s question. The principal’s
statement is just about the intelligent ability of Forest (IQ), but the
response of Mrs. Gump is about all people qualification. Mrs. Gump
does not address the principal goal in saying the statement. She wants
her son to be treated the same as the other children. Thus, it can be
concluded as a flouting maxim of relation.
The dialogue between the characters has fulfilled the maxim
of manner. Mrs. Gump gives the contribution to the Principal’s
statement clearly through her utterance “well, we're all different, Mr.
Hancock”. Their utterance can be understood by each other. There is no
ambiguity in the statement expressed by the two interlocutors.
Datum 06/FG/1/FCM
1. Data description
FG: Jenny, why didn't you come to school today? JC: Hsh! Daddy's takin' a nap 2. Context of situation
The dialogue is between Forest Gump and Jenny Currant
which occurs in the Jenny’s house. Forest comes to Jenny’s house and
asks her the reason why she does not come to school today. At that
time, after drinking, Jenny’s father is taking a nap. If he drinks he
always abuses Jenny.
3. Data interpretation
The conversation between Forest and Jenny in the dialogue
above obeys maxim of quality. What is said by Jenny is true that at that
time, her father is taking a nap. She gives the evidence through her
utterance “Hsh! Daddy's takin' a nap”.
lxv Maxim of quantity is flouted by the character in the dialogue.
Jenny’s answer is lack of adequate information. Jenny’s utterance “Hsh!
Daddy's takin' a nap” does not answer Forest’s question. The word
“hsh!” shows that forest should speak slowly. She worries if Forest
speaks loudly he will wake up her father. If he is drinking he always
abuses Jenny, moreover if she disturbs his rest.
The dialogue also flouted the maxim of relation. Jenny’s
utterance “Hsh! Daddy's takin' a nap” is not relevant toward Forest’s
question. There is no relation between Forest‘s question and Jenny’s
answer. Jenny abruptly changes the topic of the conversation by
replying irrelevance answer that her father is taking nap. Therefore, it
can be concluded as a flouting maxim of relation.
The dialogue between the participants obeys the maxim of
manner. Jenny’s utterance gives response to Forest’s question clearly.
Their utterance can be understood by each other. There is no ambiguity
in the statement expressed by two interlocutors.
Datum 09/FG/1/FCM
1. Data description
JC: Forrest, why'd you do that? ( Forrest holds out the box of chocolates.) FG: I brought you some chocolates. I'm sorry. I'll go back to my college now. 2. Context of situation
The dialogue is between Jenny Currant and Forest Gump,
which occurs in the parking area in front of Jenny’s boarding house. At
that time, after punching Billy, the boy who kisses Jenny, Forest walks
away from Jenny, but Jenny steps forward to Forest and asks Forest the
reason why he punches Billy.
lxvi 3. Data interpretation
The conversation between Forest and Jenny in the dialogue
above obeys the maxim of quality. What is said by Forest to Jenny is
true that he really brings chocolate for Jenny and he also really feels
sorry. He gives the evidences through his utterance “….I brought you
some chocolates. I'm sorry. I'll go back to my college now” and gesture
from the film (Forrest holds out the box of chocolates.) It was the
evidence that what is said by Forest is true.
Although Forest gives the information that he really feels
sorry and brings chocolate for Jenny, he blatantly gives less information
than Jenny’s needs. His utterance, ““….I brought you some chocolates.
I'm sorry. I'll go back to my college now” does not answer Jenny’s
question. It does not fulfill the information that Jenny requires. Forest’s
utterance can be analyzed as a flouting maxim of quantity.
The dialogue is also flouting the maxim of relation. Forest’s
utterance” brought you some chocolates. I'm sorry. I'll go back to my
college now” is not relevant toward Jenny’s question. There is no
connection between Jenny’s question and Forest’s answer. Forest
abruptly changes the topic of the conversation by replying irrelevance
answer by saying that he brings the chocolate for Jenny. Therefore, he
fails to observe maxim of Relation.
The maxim of manner is fulfilled by the characters in the
dialogue. The conversation is arranged orderly and briefly. Their
utterances can be understood by each other.
1.2 Flouting maxims of quantity
lxvii Flouting maxims of quantity shows that the participant in these dialogues blatantly gives more or less information than it is required. There are 7 data find in this research.
Datum 07/HSC/1/FMQt
1. Data description
FC: Who in the hell is that? HSC: That. There is Forrest Gump. Coach. Just a local idiot. 2. Context of situation
The dialogue is between the football coach and high school
coach, which occur in the football field. At that time, there is a football
match. During the match, Forest runs fast in the middle of football
field. Looking that incident, the Football coach asks the high school
coach the man who running in the middle of the field.
3. Data interpretation
The conversation between football coach and high school
coach in the dialogue above obeys a maxim of quality. High school
coach’s utterance “That. There is Forrest Gump. Coach. Just a local
idiot” is the evidence that the man running in the middle of the field is
Forest Gump. His next utterance, “Just a local idiot”, gives more proof
to convince the football coach that the high school coach knows Forest
well. It is the evidences that what is said by High School Coach is true.
Although High School Coach gives the information that the
man running in the middle of the football field is Forest Gump, he
blatantly gives more information than Football Coach require through
his utterance, “That. There is Forrest Gump. Coach. Just a local idiot”.
The high school coach is better just to say” There is Forrest Gump.
Coach”. He gives more information in order to make the football coach
lxviii focus in the match. Thus, it can be analyzed as a flouting maxim of
quantity.
Maxim of relation is also obeyed in the dialogue. All of high
school coach’s utterances are relevant to football coach’s question.
Football coach’s question, “Who in the hell is that?” is also answered
relevantly by high school coach through his utterance “That. There is
Forrest Gump. Coach. Just a local idiot”. It shows that high school
coach has addressed football coach in asking the question.
Maxim of manner is also fulfilled by the characters. The
conversation is arranged orderly. High school coach’s utterance gives
contribution to football coach’s question clearly. There is no ambiguity
in the statement expressed by the two interlocutors. It proofs that their
utterances can be understood by each other.
Datum 14/FG/1/FMQt
1. Data description
FG: That's all I have to say about that. TM: It was a bullet, wasn't it? FG: A bullet? TM: That jumped up and bit you. FG: Oh, yes sir. Bit me directly in the buttocks. They said it was a million dollar wound, but the Army must keep that money, 'cause I still ain't seen a nickel of that million dollars. The only good thing about being wounded in the buttocks is ice cream. They gave me all the ice cream I could eat. And guess what. A good friend of mine was in the bed right next door. 2. Context of situation
The dialogue is between Forest Gump and the Man who sits
next to him. The dialogue occurs in the bus stop. At that time Forest is
telling the story about his life. After the woman leaving, Forest
continues his life story to the man sitting next to him. Forest tells the
lxix story that he is shot in Vietnam War. A man sitting next to Forest asks
him whether it is bullet which hit Forest’s buttock.
3. Data interpretation
The dialogue above obeys the maxim of quality. What is said
by Forest is true that it is really a bullet that hit his buttock. He gives the
evidence through his utterance “Oh, yes sir”. The utterance also gives
additional information that he really gets a shoot. His next utterance
“Bit me directly in the buttocks. They said it was a million dollar
wound, but the Army must keep that money, ………” can be the proof of
his previous utterance. It is the evidence that what is said by Jenny is
true
Although Forest gives information that it is really a bullet that
hit his buttock, he flouts a maxim of quantity. Forest’s answer, “Oh,
yes sir. Bit me directly in the buttocks. They said it was a million dollar
wound, but the Army must keep that money, 'cause I still ain't seen a
nickel of that million dollars.………………”, blatantly gives more
information than the Man needs.. The Man asks Forest whether it is true
that it is bullet which hit Forest’s buttock. But Forest gives more answer
by giving more detail explanation about the bullet. Actually Forest can
simply say “yes” Forest’s additional information in his answer “Bit me
directly in the buttocks. They said it was a million dollar wound, but the
Army must keep that money, 'cause I still ain't seen a nickel of that
million dollars. …………….” supports his previous utterance “Oh, yes
sir”. He gives more information in order to strengthen his previous
lxx statement. Therefore, it can be concluded as a flouting maxim of
quantity.
Forest’s utterances are relevant to the Man’s question. Man’s
question, “It was a bullet, wasn't it?” is also answered relevantly by
Forest through his utterance “Oh, yes sir. Bit me directly in the
buttocks.……………”. It means that Forest has addressed Man’s goal
in asking the question. Thus, the dialogue above obeys a maxim of
relation.
The dialogue between the characters fulfills maxim of
manner. Forest gives the contribution to the Man’s question clearly
through her utterance “Oh, yes sir. Bit me directly in the buttocks.
………………”. Their utterance can be understood by each other.
There is no ambiguity in the statement expressed by the two
interlocutors.
Datum 15/FG/2/FMqt
1. Data description
LD: what the hell’s in Bayou La Batre? FG: Shrimpin’ boat LD: shrimpin’ boat? Who gives a shit about Shrimpin’ boat? FG: I gotta buy me one of them shrimpin' boats as soon as I have some money.I made me a promise to Bubba in Vietnam, that as soon as the war was over, we'd go in partners. He'd be the captain of the shrimpin' boat and I'd be his first mate. But now that he's dead, that means that I gotta be the captain. LD: a shrimp boat captain? FG: yes sir, a promise is a promise Lieutenant Dan. 2. Context of situation
The dialogue is between Forest Gump and Lieutenant Dan. It
occurs in the Times Square at the New Year Eve party. At that time,
they talk about Bayou La Batre. Forest tells that there is a shrimp boat
lxxi in Bayou La Batre. Feeling weird, Lieutenant Dan asks Forest who will
care about shrimp boat.
3. Data interpretation
The dialogue between Forest Gump and the Man obeys
maxim of quality. What is said by Forest is true that he will buy shrimp
boat after getting money because he had promised to Bubba. He gives
the evidence through his utterance “I gotta buy me one of them
shrimpin' boats as soon as I have some money. I made me a promise to
Bubba in Vietnam, that as soon as the war was over, we'd go in
partners……”.
Although Forest answers Lieutenant Dan’s question, “
shrimpin’ boat? Who gives a shit about Shrimpin’ boat?”, he blatantly
gives more information than Lieutenant Dan needs by saying “I gotta
buy me one of them shrimpin' boats as soon as I have some money.I
made me a promise to Bubba in Vietnam, that as soon as the war was
over, we'd go in partners. He'd be the captain of the shrimpin' boat and
I'd be his first mate. But now that he's dead, that means that I gotta be
the captain”. Lieutenant Dan’s just asks Forest who will care about
shrimp boat. But Forest gives more information by explaining the
reason why he will buy shrimp boat. His additional information aims to
explain the reason he buys the shrimp boat. Thus, it can be concluded as
a flouting maxim of quantity.
Maxims of relation is obeyed in this dialogue. Forest’s answer
is relevant to Lieutenant Dan’s question, “ shrimpin’ boat? Who gives a
shit about Shrimpin’ boat?”. It is answered by Forest relevantly through
his utterance, “I gotta buy me one of them shrimpin' boats as soon as I
have some money…..”. Forest Gump’s utterance answers Lieutenant
lxxii Dan’s goal in asking the question. Lieutenant Dan asks Forest who will
care about the shrimp boat and Forest answers the question relevantly
that he is the one that cares about shrimp boat and he will buy the
shrimp boat.
Maxim of manner is also fulfilled by the characters. Forest
gives contribution to Lieutenant Dan’s question clearly through his
utterance “I gotta buy me one of them shrimpin' boats as soon as I have
some money…..”.. Their conversation is arranged orderly and briefly.
Their utterance can be understood by each other. There is no ambiguity
in the statements expressed by the two interlocutors.
Datum 16/FG/2/FMQt
1. Data description
TM: hold on there, boy. Are you telling me you’re the owner of the Bubba-Gump Shrimp Corporation? FG: yes, sir. We’ve got more money than Davy Crocket. 2. Context of situation
The dialogue is between Forest Gump and the man sitting next
to him. It occurs in the bus stop. At that time Forest tells the story of his
life. He says that he is the owner of the Bubba-Gump Corporation. The
Man sitting on the bench listens to Forest’s story. He gives a response
toward Forest’s story by asking Forest in mocking tone whether true
that Forest is the owner of the Bubba-Gump Shrimp Corporation.
3. Data interpretation
The dialogue above obeys the maxim of quality. Forest Gump
utterance is true that he is the owner of the Bubba-Gump Shrimp
Corporation. He gives the evidence through his utterance “yes, sir”. His
additional information supports his previous statement as a proof that he
lxxiii knows the company well so that the Man will believe in Forest’s
statement.
Although Forest answers the Man’s question, “hold on there,
boy. Are you telling me you’re the owner of the Bubba-Gump Shrimp
Corporation?”, he blatantly gives more information than the Man needs
by saying,” yes, sir. We’ve got more money than Davy Crocket”.
Actually, Forest simply can say “yes sir. He says that his corporation is
richer than Davy Crocket because it can support his previous utterance
in order to make the Man believe in him.
Maxims of relation is obeyed in this dialogue. Forest’s answer
is relevant to the Man’s question, “hold on there, boy. Are you telling
me you’re the owner of the Bubba-Gump Shrimp Corporation?”. It is
answered by Forest relevantly through his utterance,” yes, sir. We’ve
got more money than Davy Crocket”. Forest Gump’s utterance answers
the Man’s goal in asking the question. The Man asks Forest whether the
Bubba-Gump Shrimp Corporation is his own and Forest answers the
question relevantly through his utterance “yes sir”.
Maxim of manner is also fulfilled by the characters. Forest
gives contribution to the Man’s question clearly through his utterance,”
yes, sir. We’ve got more money than Davy Crocket”. Their
conversation is arranged orderly and briefly. Their utterance can be
understood by each other. There is no ambiguity in the statements
expressed by the two interlocutors.
Datum 19/JC/2/FMQt
1. Data description
FG: Is this your house?
lxxiv JC: Yeah, it's messy right now. I just got off work. 2. Context of situation
The dialogue is between Forest Gump and Jenny Currant
which occurs in the Jenny’s apartment. Forest comes to Jenny
apartment after he gets letter from Jenny. Jenny open the door when she
hears the door knocked. She feels surprised because she finds Forest in
the front of her door. Forest comes into the house while looking around
the apartment. He asks jenny whether the apartment is her own.
3. Data interpretation
The dialogue above obeys the maxim of quality. What is said
by Jenny is true whether it is really her house. She gives the evidence
through her utterance “Yeah, it's messy right now. I just got off work”.
She gives additional information through her next utterance that she just
go home so that her house is messy. She says the utterance in order to
proof that the house is her own. She really knows the condition of the
house. It is the evidence that what is said by Jenny is true.
Although Jenny gives information that the house is her own,
she flouts a maxim of quantity. Jenny’s answer “Yeah, it's messy right
now. I just got off work” blatantly gives more information than Forest
needs. Actually Jenny can simply say “yeah”. Forest just wants to know
whether the house is her own. But Jenny gives additional information
by describing her house condition and explaining the reason why the
house can be like that.
Maxim of relation is obeyed in the dialogue. Jenny’s
utterances are relevant toward Forest’s question. Forest’s question, “Is
this your house?” is also answered relevantly by Jenny through her
lxxv utterance "Yeah, ………….”. It means that Jenny has addressed
Forest’s goal in asking the question.
The dialogue between the characters fulfills a maxim of
manner. Jenny gives the contribution to Forest’s question clearly
through her utterance “Yeah, it's messy right now. I just got off work”.
Their utterance can be understood by each other. There is no ambiguity
in the statement expressed by the two interlocutors.
Datum 20/JC/2/FMQt
1. Data description
JC: Isn't he beautiful? FG: He's the most beautiful thing I've ever seen. But... is, is he smart, or is he...? JC: He's very smart. He's one of the smartest in his class. 2. Context of situation
The dialogue is between Forest Gump and Jenny Currant. It
occurs in Jenny’s apartment. At that time, Forest looks around Jenny’s
apartment. Jenny’s friend, Linn Marie, comes with a boy. Jenny
introduces the boy as her son to Forest. She also says to Forest that the
boy is his son too. Being confused and afraid that the Boy will be idiot
like him, he asks Jenny whether Forest Jr is smart.
3. Data interpretation
The dialogue above obeys a maxim of quality. What is said by
Jenny is true that Forest Jr. is smart. She gives the evidence trough her
utterance “He's very smart. He's one of the smartest in his class”. The
utterance gives additional information that Forest Jr. is one of the
smartest in his class in order to proof that Forest is smart, not like what
Forest thinks. It is the evidence that what is said by Jenny is true.
lxxvi Although Jenny gives information that Forest Jr. is smart, she
flouts a maxim of quantity. Jenny’s answer “He's very smart. He's one
of the smartest in his class”, blatantly gives more information than
Forest needs. Actually Jenny can simply say “yes, He's very smart”.
Forest just needs an answer whether Forest Jr. is smart but Jenny gives
more information by explaining the level of Forest Jr.’s intelligent. His
additional utterance “He's one of the smartest in his class” supports his
previous utterance “He's very smart”. She says the utterance in order to
make Forest believe and not worry with his son. Forest thinks that his
son will be born idiot or stupid like him
Maxim of relation obeys in the dialogue. Jenny’s utterances
are relevant to Forest’s question. Forest’s question, “…….is, is he
smart, or is he...?” is also answered relevantly by Jenny through her
utterance "He's very smart. ……….”. It means that Jenny has addressed
Forest’s goal in asking the question.
The dialogue between the characters fulfills maxim of
manner. Jenny gives the contribution to Forest’s question clearly
through her utterance “He's very smart. He's one of the smartest in his
class”. Their utterance can be understood by each other. There is no
ambiguity in the statement expressed by the two interlocutors.
Datum 21/LD/2/FMQt
1. Data description
FG: Lieutenant Dan? Lieutenant Dan! LD: Hello, Forrest. (Jenny walks over to Forrest and Lt. Dan.) FG: You got new legs. New legs! LD: Yeah, I got new legs. Custom-made titanium alloy. It's what they use on the space shuttle. (Lt. Dan lifts his pant leg to display his metal leg.)
lxxvii FG: Magic legs. 2. Context of situation
The dialogue is between Forest and Lieutenant Dan. It occurs
in the Gump’s house at Forest’s wedding. Lieutenant Dan and his fiancé
walk across the wedding lawn. Forest feels surprised when Lt. Dan uses
a new cane. Lt. Dan usually uses wheel chair to help him walk. He yells
Lieutenant Dan by saying “You got new legs. New legs!”
3. Data interpretation
The dialogue above obeys maxim of quality. What is said by
Lieutenant Dan to Forest is true that he has new legs (cane) which is
made from high quality material. He gives the evidence through his
utterance “Yeah, I got new legs. Custom-made titanium alloy. It's what
they use on the space shuttle”.
Although Lieutenant Dan gives information that he has new
cane (new legs), he blatantly gives more information than Forest
requires through his utterance, “Yeah, I got new legs. Custom-made
titanium alloy. It's what they use on the space shuttle”. He can simply
say “Yeah, I got new legs”. Actually Forest just gives a comment about
the new legs but Lieutenant Dan gives more explanation about his new
legs material. He wants to show off his new legs (artificial legs) to
Forest. Thus, it can be analyzed as a flouting maxim of quantity.
All of Lieutenant Dan responses are relevant to Forest’s
statement. Forest’s statement, “You got new legs. New legs!” is
responded relevantly by Lieutenant Dan through his utterance “Yeah, I
got new legs. Custom-made titanium alloy. It's what they use on the
space shuttle”. It shows that Lieutenant Dan has addressed Forest’s
lxxviii goal through his response. Thus, maxim of relation is obeyed in the
dialogue.
Maxim of manner is also fulfilled by the characters. The
conversation is arranged orderly. Lieutenant Dan’s utterance gives
contribution to Forest’s statement clearly. There is no ambiguity in the
statement expressed by the two interlocutors. It proofs that their
utterances can be understood by each other.
1.3 Flouting maxims of quality
Flouting maxims of quality shows that the participants blatantly say
something untrue and lack of adequate information. Um findThere is only 1
datum in this research.
Datum 13/BB/1/FMQl
1. Data description
BB:Forest… FG:Bubba… (Bubba looks up as he lies on the ground.) BB: I'm okay. FG: Oh, Bubba, no... BB: Naw, I'm gonna be all right.
2. Context of situation
The dialogue is between Forest Gump and Bubba. It occurs in
the jungle at the Vietnam War. At that time, Forest’s platoon is attacked
by Vietnam’s soldiers. Many American’s soldiers are injured, included
lieutenant Dan and Bubba. Forest tries to find Bubba in the middle of
the jungle but he cannot find him. After rescuing many others American
soldiers he finally finds bubba. Unfortunately, he finds Bubba lying on
the ground with a wound in his chest. Bubba covers his wound with a
lxxix palm frond. Forest removes the frond to look at the wound. Bubba’s
chest has been blown open.
3. Data interpretation
Bubba’s statement “Naw, I'm gonna be all right” is blatantly
untrue since he does not say the truth. Bubba’s utterance is lack of
adequate evidence since his chest is wounded by a bullet. Bubba already
knows that he is not allright. Therefore, Bubba flouts a maxim of
quality.
In this dialogue, maxim of quantity is fulfilled by the
character. Forest needs to know Bubba’s condition. Bubba’s utterance
“Naw, I'm gonna be all right” gives the adequate response toward
Forest’s statement. Although Bubba’s statement does not give his real
condition, he gives information to Forest. It means that Bubba has given
the adequate information toward Forest’s needs.
Maxim of relation is also obeyed in this dialogue. Bubba’s
response “Naw, I'm gonna be all right” is relevant to Forest’s utterance
“oh, Bubba, no….”. Bubba’s utterance directly address to Forest. He
gives a response toward Forest’s statement. It shows that Bubba has
addressed Forest’s goal through his response.
The dialogue between the participants also obeys maxim of
manner. Bubba’s utterance “Naw, I'm gonna be all right” gives
contribution to Forest’s utterance clearly and briefly. Their utterances
can be understood by each other. There is no ambiguity in the statement
expressed by the two interlocutors.
2. Implicature which are employed by the characters
lxxx The implicature of the utterance is related to the maxim flouted by the speaker. From the 21 data analyzed, it is found that all the implicatures are
Particularized Conversational Implicatures. They contain particular context that effects the speaker really means.
Here are the implicatures the data analysis:
a. Convincing someone
The speakers have intended meaning to convincing someone. The
speaker tries to ensure the hearer by flouting the maxims. The
example of the data showing is follow:
Datum 01/DR/1/FCM (Forrest has been fitted with orthopedic shoes and metal leg braces.) DR: All right, Forrest, you can open your eyes now. Let's take a little walk around. (The doctor sets Forrest down on its feet. Forrest walks around stiffly. Forrest's mother, MRS. GUMP, watches him as he clanks around the room awkwardly.) MG: How’s his condition? DR: How do those feel? His legs are strong, Mrs. Gump. As strong as I've ever seen. But his back is as crooked as a politician.
In this dialogue, the doctor generates an implicature that he
wants to ensure Mrs. Gump by explaining carefully about Forest’s
back condition. It can be seen that the doctor explains that Forest’s
legs are good but the problem is in Forest’s backbone. Thus, Forest’s
legs are wore the orthopedic shoes by the doctor in order to make
Forest’s back straight.
Datum 03/EP/1/FCM
lxxxi EP: (sings)"Well, you ain't never caught a rabbit, and you ain't no friend of mine." (Forrest's legs rock back and forth to the guitar.) MG: Forrest! I told you not to bother this nice young man. EP: Oh, no, that's all right, ma'am. I was just showin' him a thing or two on the guitar here.
In this dialogue, Elvis generates an implicature that he wants to ensure Mrs. Gump that Forest does not bother him. On the contrary, he feels glad to be in his room with Forest and plays the guitar. He shows his feeling by minimizing his utterance that he just plays one or two the guitar. Actually he plays the guitar all night long.
Datum 05/FG/1/FCM
JC:What's wrong with your legs? FG: Um, nothing at all, thank you. My legs are just fine and dandy. JC: Then why do you have those shoes on? FG: My momma said my back's crooked like a question mark. These are going to make me as straight as an arrow. They’re my magic shoes.
In this dialogue, Forest generates an implicature that he tries to ensure Jenny that his legs are fine. He tries to convince Jenny by explaining to Jenny about his backbone and the use of the shoes.
Forest exactly knows that his backbone is crooked but it is not crocked like a question mark. It can be seen from the way he exaggerates the situation by saying that his backbone is like question mark and the shoes can make it straight like an arrow. Forest exactly knows that his backbone is crooked but it is not crocked like a question mark.
Datum 14/FG/1/FMQt
FG: That's all I have to say about that.
lxxxii TM: It was a bullet, wasn't it? FG: A bullet? TM: That jumped up and bit you. FG: Oh, yes sir. Bit me directly in the buttocks. They said it was a million dollar wound, but the Army must keep that money, 'cause I still ain't seen a nickel of that million dollars. The only good thing about being wounded in the buttocks is ice cream. They gave me all the ice cream I could eat. And guess what. A good friend of mine was in the bed right next door.
In this dialogue, Forest generates an implicature that he wants to ensure the man that he really joins in the Vietnam War and his buttock gets a shoot. The way he says the utterance shows that he really tries to convince the man about what he said. He says the utterance spirit full and gives lengthy explanation about the wound as his effort to convince the Man.
Datum 16/FG/2/FMQt
TM: hold on there, boy. Are you telling me you’re the owner of the Bubba-Gump Shrimp Corporation? FG: yes, sir. We’ve got more money than Davy Crocket.
In this dialogue, Forest generates an implicature that he tries to ensure the man that the Bubba-Gump Shrimp Corporation is his own.
He also adds information that his corporation is richer than Davy crocket as his effort to ensure the Man and also as the evidence that the corporation is his own.
Datum 17/MG/2/FCM
FG: What's the matter, Momma? MG: I'm dyin', Forrest. Come on in, sit down over here FG: Why are you dyin', Momma? MG: It's my time. It's just my time. Oh, now, don't you be afraid, sweetheart. Death is just a part of life. It's something we're all
lxxxiii destined to do. I didn't know it, but I was destined to be your momma. I did the best I could. FG: You did good, Momma.
In this dialogue, Mrs. Gump generates an implicature that she
wants to convince Forest that it is her time to die. That time is her
destiny from God to die. She also wants to makes Forest’s feeling calm
down. It can be seen from Mrs. Gump lengthy explanation about death
and destiny to Forest. Her next utterance “it’s just my time” tries to
convince Forest that it is her time to die. That time is her destiny from
God to die. The utterance “Oh, now, don't you be afraid, sweetheart.
Death is just a part of life. It's something we're all destined to do. I
didn't know it, but I was destined to be your momma. I did the best I
could” implicates that she wants to calm down Forest’s feeling by
giving explanation about death and destiny. She says that utterance in
order not to make Forest sad and receive her death sincerely.
Datum 20/JC/2/FMQt
JC: Isn't he beautiful? FG: He's the most beautiful thing I've ever seen. But... is, is he smart, or is he...? JC: He's very smart. He's one of the smartest in his class.
In this dialogue, Jenny generates an implicature that she wants
to convince Forest that Forest Jr. is smart. She informs Forest that
Forest Jr. is one of the smartest in his class in order to make her
utterance more convincing. It is done by Jenny because Forest worries
that his son will be idiot like him. b. Express feeling and condition
lxxxiv The speakers have intended meaning to express their feeling and condition. The speaker generates an implicature by flouting the maxims related o the context of situation. The example of the data showing is follow:
Datum 02/Mg/1/FCM
PL: Your boy's... different, Mrs. Gump. Now, his I.Q. is seventy-five. MG: Well, we're all different, Mr. Hancock.
In this dialogue, Mrs. Gump generates an implicature that she feels dislike and angry with the Principal (Mr. Hancock). She shows her feeling by using high tone in uttering the utterance. It can be seen from the way she generalizes the situation by saying that everybody is different including Forest. Actually, the Principal means is Forest intelligent ability but Mrs. Gump generalizes as all human body. She wants to shows that she is angry because the Principal (Mr. Hancock) underestimates her son by rejecting Forest to study in his elementary school.
Datum 07/HSC/1/FMQt
FC: Who in the hell is that? HSC: That. There is Forrest Gump. Coach. Just a local idiot.
In this dialogue, high school coach generates an implicature that
Forest is not an important person to be notice. His next utterance “just a local idiot”, implicates that they do not need to notice him because
Forest is well known as an idiot. Through his utterance the high school coach tries to make the football coach ignore Forest. He wants
lxxxv to say to the football coach that it is more important to pay attention with the match rather than
Datum 08/FG/1/FCM
JC: Forrest! Forrest! Forrest, stop it!Stop it! BL: Jesus! JC: What are you doing? FG: He was hurtin' you.
In this dialogue, Forest generates an implicature that he really cares for Jenny. He wants to explain the reason why he punches Billy.
Actually Jenny does not ask Forest the reason but she asks Forest what he is doing to Billy. He punches Billy to show his cares for
Jenny that he will not let anybody to hurt Jenny.
Datum 11/FG/1/FCM
PK: Congratulations. How does it feel to be an All-American? FP: It's an honor, Sir (Another player steps up to the President and shakes the President's hand.) PK: Congratulations. How does it feel to be an All-American? SP: Very good, Sir. PK: Congratulations. How does it feel to be an All-American? TP: Very good, (The player walks away. Forrest steps up to the President. The President shakes his hand.) PK:Congratulations. How do you feel? FG: I gotta pee. (President Kennedy turns and smiles.) PK: I believe he said he had to go pee
In this dialogue, Forest generates an implicature that he wants to show his uncomfortable feeling. At that time, his stomach is unwell and he should go to bathroom soon. At that party, Forest drinks a lot
lxxxvi of Dr. Pepper so when he meets and shakes the president’s hand he feels that he should go to pee.
Datum 15/FG/2/FMQt
LD: what the hell’s in Bayou La Batre? FG: Shrimpin’ boat LD: shrimpin’ boat? Who gives a shit about Shrimpin’ boat? FG: I gotta buy me one of them shrimpin' boats as soon as I have some money.I made me a promise to Bubba in Vietnam, that as soon as the war was over, we'd go in partners. He'd be the captain of the shrimpin' boat and I'd be his first mate. But now that he's dead, that means that I gotta be the captain. LD: a shrimp boat captain? FG: yes sir, a promise is a promise Lieutenant Dan.
In this dialogue, Forest generates an implicature that he tries to shows his willing to fulfill his promise to Bubba to buy a shrimp boat.
He says his plan to Lieutenant Dan to show the seriousness of his willing to buy shrimp boat. He wants to show to Lieutenant Dan that he is a man who coincides with his promise.
Datum 21/LD/2/FMQt
FG: Lieutenant Dan? Lieutenant Dan! LD: Hello, Forrest. (Jenny walks over to Forrest and Lt. Dan.) FG: You got new legs. New legs! LD: Yeah, I got new legs. Custom-made titanium alloy. It's what they use on the space shuttle. (Lt. Dan lifts his pant leg to display his metal leg.) FG: Magic legs.
In this dialogue, Lieutenant Dan gives an implicature that he feels proud and happy with his new legs. Lieutenant Dan wants to show to Forest his new legs (artificial legs) which is made from high quality material. He feels proud with the legs because only few people
lxxxvii will get that material. He also looks very happy. It can be seen from
the way he says the utterance with laughing expression. He feels
happy not only because he gets new legs but also happy for Forest’s
wedding. c. Showing refusal
The speakers have intended meaning to show their refusal. The
speaker generates an implicature by flouting the maxims related o the
context of situation. The example of the data showing is follow:
Datum 04/FG/1/FCM
BD: Are you comin' along? FG: Momma said not to be taking rides from strangers. BD: This is the bus to school! FG: I'm Forrest Gump BD: I'm Dorothy Harris. FG:Well, now we ain't strangers anymore. (The bus driver smiles as Forrest steps up into the bus.)
In this dialogue, Forest generates an implicature that he refuses
to go with the bus driver. He will go with the bus driver if they know
each other. What he said about his mother forbids him to go along
with stranger shows that he refuses the driver’s offer because his
mother’s message. Before the bus school coming, his mother says to
Forest that he must not go with the stranger. d. Clarifying something
The speakers have intended meaning to clarifying something.
The speaker generates an implicature by giving explanation through
lxxxviii flouting the maxims related o the context of situation. The example of
the data showing is follow:
Datum 10/FG/1/FCM
JC: Have you ever been with a girl, Forrest? FG: I sit next to them in my home economics class all the time.
In this dialogue, Forest generates an implicature that he is never
has a special girlfriend before. It can be seen from Forest utterance
that he gives an irrelevance answer by saying that he always sits next
with girls in economic class. He says those answer because he likes
Jenny. He wants to show to Jenny that she is the only one girl who
Forest loves. Actually Jenny asks forest about a special girlfriend not
only a common girlfriend. Through Forest’s answer, it can be seen
that Forest never has a girlfriend.
e. Asking forgiveness
The speakers have intended meaning to ask forgiveness. The
speaker generates an implicature by giving explanation through
flouting the maxims related o the context of situation. The example of
the data showing is follow:
Datum 09/FG/1/FCM
JC: Forrest, why'd you do that? ( Forrest holds out the box of chocolates.) FG: I brought you some chocolates. I'm sorry. I'll go back to my college now.
lxxxix In this dialogue, Forest generates an implicature that he really
feels sorry about punching Billy. . The utterance “I'm sorry. I'll go
back to my college now” shows that he really feels sorry about his
action. He also says that he wants to go back to his college in order to
show his feeling that he will not bother Jenny anymore. He also says
that he brings chocolate for Jenny as the reason why he comes to
Jenny’s apartment.
Datum 19/JC/2/FMQt
FG: Is this your house? JC: Yeah, it's messy right now. I just got off work.
In this dialogue, Jenny generates an implicature that she feels
sorry because her house is messy when Forest comes. She asks Forest
to understand her condition that she is busy with her work so no time
to arrange her house. It can be seen from her additional information
that she just comes from her work. She tries to inform Forest about
her present condition. Besides that, she is also a single mother who
should take care for her son. f. Looking for certainty
The speakers have intended meaning to look for certainty. The
speaker generates an implicature by flouting the maxims related o the
context of situation. The example of the data showing is follow:
Datum 12/FG/1/FCM
JC: You remember that time we prayed, Forrest? We prayed for God to turn me into a bird so I could fly far, far away? FG: Yes, I do. JC: You think I can fly off this bridge?
xc FG: What do you mean, Jenny? JC: Nothing
In this dialogue, Forest generates an implicature that he
questions the seriousness of Jenny’s utterance. He asks jenny the
meaning of her utterance because Jenny looks like she has serious
problems. At that time, Forest sees that Jenny stands near the bridge
with the position ready to jump. Therefore, Forest asks back Jenny to
ask the seriousness of her utterance. He scares if Jenny jumps from
the bridge. g. Hiding feeling and condition
The speakers have intended meaning to ask forgiveness. The
speaker generates an implicature by giving explanation through
flouting the maxims related o the context of situation. The example of
the data showing is follow:
Datum 13/BB/1/FMQl
BB:Forest… FG:Bubba… (Bubba looks up as he lies on the ground.) BB: I'm okay. FG: Oh, Bubba, no... BB: Naw, I'm gonna be all right.
In this dialogue, Bubba generates an implicture that he wants to
hide his feeling and his condition. Bubba hides his wound in his chest
because he wants to show to Forest that he is strong so that there will
xci not anything can hurt him. Bubba tries to make his situation as a
common situation by saying that he is in good condition in order to
hide his real feeling.
Datum 18/MG/2/FCM
MG: well, I happened to believe you make your own destiny. You have to do the best with what God gave you. FG: What's my destiny, Momma? MG: You're gonna have to figure that out for yourself. Life is a box of chocolates, Forrest. You never know what you're gonna get.
In this dialogue, Mrs. Gump generates an implicature that she
does not know Forest destiny. It can be seen from the way she
answers the question by comparing life and chocolate. She also asks
Forest to figure it out by himself. She wants to explain to Forest
carefully that she does not know his destiny and no one will know the
destiny. By comparing chocolates and life, Mrs. Gump wants to say
that nobody knows what kind of chocolates they will get. The same
rule also happens in life. There is no one will know their destiny.
3. Reason why the characters use the flouting maxims
The researcher found that the most flouted maxims in the data have low
information content and high affective content. It shows that the characters prefer
to express the affective (the implicatures of their utterances) rather than the
information of their utterances (their utterances/ what is actually said by the
characters).
The data analysis reveals the use of an implicature in the dialogue between
the characters in the film “Forest Gump” depend on the context of situation.
a. Convincing someone
xcii The speakers have a reason in generating their implicature by flouting the maxims. The reason why the speaker flouts the maxims is convincing someone. The speakers try to make their hearer believe in him/her through the maxims flouted related to the context of situation.
The example of the data showing is follow:
Datum 01/DR/1/FCM
(Forrest has been fitted with orthopedic shoes and metal leg braces.) DR: All right, Forrest, you can open your eyes now. Let's take a little walk around. (The doctor sets Forrest down on its feet. Forrest walks around stiffly. Forrest's mother, MRS. GUMP, watches him as he clanks around the room awkwardly.) MG: How’s his condition? DR: How do those feel? His legs are strong, Mrs. Gump. As strong as I've ever seen. But his back is as crooked as a politician.
In this dialogue, the doctor says the utterance in order to make
Mrs. Gump believe that Forest’s legs are good but the problem is in his backbone. The doctor exactly knows that Forest’s backbone is crooked but it is not crocked like a politician. By the utterance he also wants to make Mrs. Gump not worry or shock with Forest’s condition. He explains carefully about Forest’s backbone condition by giving a joke to Mrs. Gump. He compares Forest’s backbone with a politician. It can be seen that the doctor creates casual (informal) situation in order to make Mrs. Gump not worry or shock in receiving the news.
Datum 07/HSC/1/FMQt
FC: Who in the hell is that? HSC: That. There is Forrest Gump. Coach. Just a local idiot.
xciii In this dialogue, the high school coach uses the utterance in order to make the football coach focus in the match. Through his utterance, the high school coach tries to make the football coach ignore Forest. He wants to say to the football coach that it is more important to pay attention to the match rather than to Forest. It can be seen from the additional information his utterance. He says that Forest is local idiot as the picture of what kind of person Forest is.
Datum 14/FG/1/FMQt
FG: That's all I have to say about that. TM: It was a bullet, wasn't it? FG: A bullet? TM: That jumped up and bit you. FG: Oh, yes sir. Bit me directly in the buttocks. They said it was a million dollar wound, but the Army must keep that money, 'cause I still ain't seen a nickel of that million dollars. The only good thing about being wounded in the buttocks is ice cream. They gave me all the ice cream I could eat. And guess what. A good friend of mine was in the bed right next door.
He says the utterance in order to make the Man believe with him. He gives the man lengthy and detail information about his wound in order to strengthen his statement. He also says the utterance spirit full.
Datum 16/FG/2/FMQt
TM: hold on there, boy. Are you telling me you’re the owner of the Bubba-Gump Shrimp Corporation? FG: yes, sir. We’ve got more money than Davy Crocket.
In this dialogue, Forest says that his corporation is richer than
Davy Crocket because it can support his previous utterance in order to
xciv make the Man believe in him. The Man is hesitate Forest’s story that
Forest is the owner of the Bubba-Gump Shrimp Corporation when he asks the question to Forest. It makes Bubba has an effort to make the man believe in him by giving more information that his corporation is richer than Davy Crocket.
Datum 17/MG/2/FCM
FG: What's the matter, Momma? MG: I'm dyin', Forrest. Come on in, sit down over here FG: Why are you dyin', Momma? MG: It's my time. It's just my time. Oh, now, don't you be afraid, sweetheart. Death is just a part of life. It's something we're all destined to do. I didn't know it, but I was destined to be your momma. I did the best I could. FG: You did good, Momma.
In this dialogue, Mrs. Gump says the utterance in order not to make Forest sad and can receive her death sincerely. Through the lengthy explanation about death and destiny, Mrs. Gump aims to make Forest understand her dying condition and can receive her death. She also wants to calm down Forest’s feeling by creating positive expression when she explains her condition. Hence, Mrs.
Gump will not make Forest sad when she dies.
Datum 20/JC/2/FMQt
JC: Isn't he beautiful? FG: He's the most beautiful thing I've ever seen. But... is, is he smart, or is he...? JC: He's very smart. He's one of the smartest in his class.
xcv She says the utterance in order to make Forest believe and not
worry with his son. Forest thinks that his son will be born idiot or
stupid like him. It can be seen from Jenny’s utterance that gives more
information than Forest needs. She gives additional information by
saying that Forest Jr. is one of the smartest in his class. Through the
utterance, Jenny hopes that Forest will believe and not worry with
Forest Jr. condition. b. Avoid agreement and politeness
The reason why the speaker flouts the maxims is avoiding
agreement and politeness. The speakers try to avoid or shows his/her
disagree expression and also their politeness through the maxims
flouted related to the context of situation. The example of the data
showing is follow:
Datum 02/Mg/1/FCM
PL: Your boy's... different, Mrs. Gump. Now, his I.Q. is seventy-five. MG: Well, we're all different, Mr. Hancock.
In this dialogue, Mrs. Gump says the utterance in order to avoid
the agreement that her son is different. She wants her son to be treated
the same as the other children. The Principal says to Mrs. Gump that
Forest is different with the others. Therefore, Mrs. Gump tries to
avoid the agreement that Forest is different. It can be seen from the
way she generalizes the situation by saying that everybody is different
including Forest. Actually, the Principal means is Forest intelligent
ability but Mrs. Gump generalizes as all human body.
xcvi Datum 03/EP/1/FCM
EP: (sings)"Well, you ain't never caught a rabbit, and you ain't no friend of mine." (Forrest's legs rock back and forth to the guitar.) MG: Forrest! I told you not to bother this nice young man. EP: Oh, no, that's all right, ma'am. I was just showin' him a thing or two on the guitar here.
In this dialogue, Elvis Presley employs the utterance in order to
be polite and respect Mrs. Gump as the owner of the house. He wants
to show Mrs. Gump that Forest does not bother him. He also wants to
show his respect by minimizing his utterance that he just plays one or
two on his guitar. Actually, he plays the guitar all night long with
Forest. c. Maintaining relationship
The reason why the speaker flouts the maxims is maintaining
relationship. The speakers try to maintain the relationship to the
hearer through the maxims flouted related to the context of situation.
The speaker tries to keep the hearer feeling. The example of the data
showing is follow:
Datum 05/FG/1/FCM
JC:What's wrong with your legs? FG: Um, nothing at all, thank you. My legs are just fine and dandy. JC: Then why do you have those shoes on? FG: My momma said my back's crooked like a question mark. These are going to make me as straight as an arrow. They’re my magic shoes.
xcvii In this dialogue, Forest says the utterance in order not to make
Jenny worry or pity to him. He shows his feeling by exaggerating the
situation saying that his backbone is like question mark and the shoes
can make it straight like an arrow. He also says that the shoes are his
magic shoes. From the utterance he aims not to make Jenny feels pity
with him. He does not want Jenny mocking him like others because
Jenny is the only one that cares with Forest.
Datum 13/BB/1/FMQl
BB:Forest… FG:Bubba… (Bubba looks up as he lies on the ground.) BB: I'm okay. FG: Oh, Bubba, no... BB: Naw, I'm gonna be all right.
In this dialogue, Mrs. Gump says the utterance in order not to
make Forest worry and sad. Bubba get a shoot in his chest. He knows
that his wound is in serious condition. Bubba tries to hide his wound
because if Forest knows he will worry. He does not want Forest worry
moreover sad because Forest is his best Friend he ever had. Therefore,
he says that he is ok in order not to make Forest worry and sad. d. Asking forgiveness
The reason why the speaker flouts the maxims is asking
forgiveness. The speakers try to ask forgiveness to the hearer through
the maxims flouted related to the context of situation. The example of
the data showing is follow:
Datum 09/FG/1/FCM
JC: Forrest, why'd you do that?
xcviii ( Forrest holds out the box of chocolates.) FG: I brought you some chocolates. I'm sorry. I'll go back to my college now.
In this dialogue, Forest says the utterance in order to ask Jenny
forgiveness and not to make Jenny angry with him. It can be seen
from his utterance “I’m sorry”. In order not to make Jenny angry,
Forest answers Jenny’s question irrelevantly by saying that he brought
some chocolates for her in order not to make Jenny angry. Through
the utterance, he also wants to seduce Jenny. He comes to Jenny
boarding house because he has good intention to give a gift for her.
By saying the utterance, Forest hopes Jenny will understand and not
angry with him so that she will forgive him. e. Express feeling and condition
The reason why the speaker flouts the maxims is expressing
feeling and condition. The speakers try to express their feeling and
condition to the hearer through the maxims flouted related to the
context of situation. The example of the data showing is follow:
Datum 08/FG/1/FCM
JC: Forrest! Forrest! Forrest, stop it!Stop it! BL: Jesus! JC: What are you doing? FG: He was hurtin' you.
In this dialogue, Forest says the utterance in order to make
Jenny not angry with him. Although Jenny does not ask the reason
xcix why he punches Billy, Forest explains the reason. Through the explanation, Forest tries to make Jenny understands with his condition so that she will not angry with him. At that time Forest hears Jenny yells that she is hurt. Therefore, he punches Billy in order to protect
Jenny.
Datum 11/FG/1/FCM
PK: Congratulations. How does it feel to be an All-American? FP: It's an honor, Sir (Another player steps up to the President and shakes the President's hand.) PK: Congratulations. How does it feel to be an All-American? SP: Very good, Sir. PK: Congratulations. How does it feel to be an All-American? TP: Very good, (The player walks away. Forrest steps up to the President. The President shakes his hand.) PK:Congratulations. How do you feel? FG: I gotta pee. (President Kennedy turns and smiles.) PK: I believe he said he had to go pee
In this dialogue, Forest says the utterance in order to make the president know his condition and let him to go to bathroom. At that time, his stomach is unwell and he should go to bathroom soon. By saying the truth about his uncomfortable feeling and condition, he hopes the president will understand and let him go to bathroom.
Datum 21/LD/2/FMQt
FG: Lieutenant Dan? Lieutenant Dan! LD: Hello, Forrest. (Jenny walks over to Forrest and Lt. Dan.) FG: You got new legs. New legs! LD: Yeah, I got new legs. Custom-made titanium alloy. It's what they use on the space shuttle. (Lt. Dan lifts his pant leg to display his metal leg.) FG: Magic legs.
c
He says that utterance in order to show off his new legs
(artificial legs) to Forest. After his legs are amputated, Lieutenant Dan
uses wheel chair to help him walk. Therefore, when Lieutenant Dan
has new (artificial legs), he wants to show off to Forest. He feels
proud with his new artificial legs. It can be seen from Lieutenant
Dan’s utterance that he gives more information than Forest needs. She
gives additional information by saying his new legs is made from
titanium alloy and the material is usually used on space shuttle. He
also wants to say to Forest that his artificial legs are special which is
made from high quality material. It also can be seen from Lieutenant
Dan’s gesture that he lifts his pant leg to display his metal legs. f. Giving clear explanation
The reason why the speaker flouts the maxims is giving clear
explanation. The speakers try to giving to the hearer by giving more
information through the maxims flouted related to the context of
situation. The example of the data showing is follow:
Datum 04/FG/1/FCM
BD: Are you comin' along? FG: Momma said not to be taking rides from strangers. BD: This is the bus to school! FG: I'm Forrest Gump BD: I'm Dorothy Harris. FG:Well, now we ain't strangers anymore. (The bus driver smiles as Forrest steps up into the bus.)
In this dialogue, Forest says the utterance in order to make the
bus driver understand his utterance. He says that his mother forbid
ci him to go along with stranger. Therefore, in this utterance, he shows
that they need to know each other before he takes a ride with her. That
is why in the next utterance, Forest introduces himself in order not to
make them become stranger anymore.
Datum 18/MG/2/FCM
MG: well, I happened to believe you make your own destiny. You have to do the best with what God gave you. FG: What's my destiny, Momma? MG: You're gonna have to figure that out for yourself. Life is a box of chocolates, Forrest. You never know what you're gonna get.
She uses the utterance in order to make Forest easy to
understand that no one knows the destiny. Looking in Forest’s ability
in receiving information, Mrs. Gump tries to explain to Forest by
comparing life and chocolate. She uses the utterance in order to make
Forest easy to understand her answer. By comparing chocolates and
life, Mrs. Gump wants to say that nobody knows what kind of
chocolates they will get. The same rule also happens in life. There is
no one will know their destiny. The utterance is aimed to make Forest
easy to understand her explanation.
g. Maintaining self esteem
The reason why the speaker flouts the maxims is maintaining
self esteem. The speaker flouts the maxims because keep their self
esteem in order to make the hearer respect to him/her. The speakers
try to maintain self esteem to the hearer through the maxims flouted
cii related to the context of situation. The example of the data showing is follow:
Datum 19/JC/2/FMQt
FG: Is this your house? JC: Yeah, it's messy right now. I just got off work.
She says the utterance in order to make Forest understand with her condition. At that time, Jenny already comes home. She sees that her house is messy. She does not want looks bad in Forest’s eyes so that she asks Forest’s understanding by asking forgiveness for the messy condition and giving explanation about those condition.
Datum 10/FG/1/FCM
JC: Have you ever been with a girl, Forrest? FG: I sit next to them in my home economics class all the time.
In this dialogue, in this dialogue, Forest says the utterance in order to create a good image. He wants to show to Jenny that he is an innocent and loyal. He wants to say to jenny that she is the only one girl he loves. It can be seen from his utterance that he always sits next with girls in economic class. In this utterance, Forest generalizes the girl here as a general girl not a special girl.
Datum 15/FG/2/FMQt
LD: what the hell’s in Bayou La Batre? FG: Shrimpin’ boat LD: shrimpin’ boat? Who gives a shit about Shrimpin’ boat? FG: I gotta buy me one of them shrimpin' boats as soon as I have some money.I made me a promise to Bubba in Vietnam, that as soon as the war was over, we'd go in partners. He'd be the
ciii captain of the shrimpin' boat and I'd be his first mate. But now that he's dead, that means that I gotta be the captain. LD: a shrimp boat captain? FG: yes sir, a promise is a promise Lieutenant Dan.
In this dialogue, Forest generates an implicature that he tries to
show his willing to fulfill his promise to Bubba to buy a shrimp boat.
He says his plan to Lieutenant Dan to show the seriousness of his
willing to buy shrimp boat. He wants to show to Lieutenant Dan that
he is a man who coincides with his promise. h. Ask for reconsideration
The reason why the speaker flouts the maxims is asking for
reconsideration. The speakers try to ask for reconsideration to the
through the maxims flouted related to the context of situation. The
example of the data showing is follow
Datum 12/FG/1/FCM
JC: You remember that time we prayed, Forrest? We prayed for God to turn me into a bird so I could fly far, far away? FG: Yes, I do. JC: You think I can fly off this bridge? FG: What do you mean, Jenny? JC: Nothing
In this dialogue, Forest uses the utterance in order to make
Jenny think again about what she says before. Forest feels worry if
Jenny really wants to jump from the bridge. At that time Jenny looks
that she wants to jump from the bridge. Forest sees that Jenny looks
really sad and confused so that he worries if Jenny really jumps from
civ that bridge. Therefore, he asks back Jenny what meaning of her
question in order to make Jenny think again about what she said.
C. Discussion
In the discussion, the results of the data analysis will be discussed
comprehensively to find out the whole results of analysis. The discussions will be
about the employment of the flouting maxims, and other cases related with the
analysis of the flouting maxim itself. This will include the employment of the
Cooperative Principle (CP) that covers the maxim of Quality, Quantity, Relation
and Manner, the Flouting Maxims, the implicature of 21 data which have been
previously analyzed in the data analysis and the reason why the characters use such
flouting maxims.
1. The Cooperative Principles
Based on the data analysis above, there are 14 dialogues which fulfill the
maxim of Quality. They can be found in the data 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17,
19, 20 and 21. The fulfillment of the maxim of Quality in these dialogues is
oriented to the Cooperative Principle. Hence, the characters try to make the
contribution based on the truth and the evidences or the proofs from the real
condition. This is done in order to indicate that the statement is true. For example
in data 2, what is said by Forest to Jenny is true that he really brings chocolate for
Jenny and he also really feels sorry. He gives the evidences through his utterance
“….I brought you some chocolates. I'm sorry. I'll go back to my college now” and
gesture from the film (Forrest holds out the box of chocolates.) It was the evidence
that what is said by Forest is true.
cv Meanwhile, the dialogues which fulfill the maxim of Quantity is only one datum namely datum 13. It shows that the fulfillment of the maxim of Quantity for the cooperative interaction in the dialogue is done based on the idea that the character gives the right amount of information. The fulfillment of the maxim in the datum 13 is proved by the adequate response of Bubba which is informative enough as required by Forest. Bubba’s utterances, “Naw, I'm gonna be all right” gives the adequate response toward Forest’s statement. Although Bubba’s statement does not give his real condition, he gives information to Forest. It means that Bubba has given the adequate information toward Forest’s needs.
Regarding the data analysis above, there are 16 dialogues that fulfill the maxim of Relation. They are data 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19,
20 and 21. The fulfillment of the maxim of Relation by the characters is due to a reason that the second person’s utterance is relevant to the first person’s utterance.
It means that the second person has directly addressed the first person’s goal in asking a question. For example in data 16, Forest’s answer is relevant to the Man’s question, “hold on there, boy. Are you telling me you’re the owner of the Bubba-
Gump Shrimp Corporation?”. It is answered by Forest relevantly through his utterance,” yes, sir. We’ve got more money than Davy Crocket”. Forest Gump’s utterance answers the Man’s goal in asking the question. The Man asks Forest whether the Bubba-Gump Shrimp Corporation is his own and Forest answers the question relevantly through his utterance “yes sir”.
In the analysis of the maxim of Manner, the researcher found 16 dialogues namely data 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20 and 21.. The fulfillment of the maxim of Manner by the characters can be seen from their utterances which are expressed by the two interlocutors that are having adequate response. The second person’s utterance can be understood by the first person. For example in datum 7, the football coach asks the high school coach the man who running in the middle of
cvi the field and the high school coach answer, “That. There is Forrest Gump. Coach.
Just a local idiot”. The high school coach’s answer is short and brief, and also
informative.
2. Flouting maxims
Based on the data analysis in the previous subchapter, it can be seen that
there are times when the characters do not observe the Cooperative Principle by
flouting the maxims. It occurs when a character intentionally fails to observe a
maxim at the level of what is said, with the deliberate intention of generating an
implicature. The four conversational maxims deals with the maxims flouted by the
participants in the film “Forest Gump”. Based on the data analysis above, there are
3 categories i.e. flouting clash between maxims, flouting maxim of quality and
flouting maxim of Quantity.
The first category is flouting clash between maxims found in 21data. The
flouting clash between maxims is divided into 5 sub-categories. The first is the
flouting maxims of Quality, Quantity and Manner in data 18, which shows that the
participants blatantly give less information than it is required with something
which is untrue and also difficult to be understood because it is unclear and long
winded. The second is the flouting maxims of Quantity, Manner and Relevance in
data 10 and 11, which shows that the participants blatantly give less information
which is long winded and not relevant to the question. The third is the flouting
maxims of Quality and Quantity in data 1, 3, 5, 8 and 12. These show that the
participants blatantly say something untrue by giving more or less information that
it is not required. The fourth is the flouting maxims of Quantity and Manner in data
4 and 17. The overlap between the two maxims shows that the participants
blatantly give more or less information than it is required which may create
ambiguous, convoluted perception. And the fifth is the flouting maxim of quantity
cvii and relevance. The overlap between the two maxims shows that the participants
blatantly give more or less information than it is required and not relevant to the
question.
The second category is the flouting maxim of Quantity found in 7 data: 7,
14, 15, 16, 19, 20 and 21. It shows that the participant in these dialogues blatantly
gives more or less information than it is required.
The third category is the flouting maxim of quality which is found in data
13. By this, the participants blatantly say something untrue and lack of adequate
information. It shows that the characters in the movie succeed in observing the
maxim of quality.
3. Implicature
Based on the analysis above, it can be concluded that the Conversational
Maxims have not been generally fulfilled by the characters in the dialogue. The
participants of the conversation in the dialogues obviously giving more/ less
adequate information and evidence, being irrelevant, and uttering long-winded and
obscure sentences.
Although the conversational maxims are not completely fulfilled by the
speakers in the dialogues of the film, the participants of the conversations have
observed certain regularities in interaction. The addressees of the conversations
have no problem at all in interpreting the speakers’ utterances. In here, the
addressees assume that when the speakers said their utterances, in spite of
appearances the speakers must be observing the Cooperative Principle and have
made appropriate responses to their question. That is why the addressees will look
for another level of interpretations (the implicature) which help helped them to
capture the intended meaning of those implicatures. The implicature of the
utterance is related to the maxim flouted by the speaker.
cviii From the 21 data analyzed, it is found that all the implicatures are
Particularized Conversational Implicatures. They contain particular context that
effects the speaker really means. Context of situation plays an important role in
generating the implicature of the dialogues. There are 7 implicatures found in the
21 data in the film “Forest Gump”. There are convincing someone 7 data, express
feeling and condition 6 data, showing refusal 1 data, clarifying something 1 data,
asking forgiveness 2 data, looking for certainty 1 data and hiding feeling and
condition 2 data.
4. Reason
Based on the analysis above, it can be seen that the reason why the
characters flouts the maxims is depend on the context of situation. The participants
of the conversation in the dialogues obviously giving more/ less adequate
information and evidence, being irrelevant, and uttering long-winded and obscure
sentences.
Context of situation influence the using of flouting maxims. For example
in datum 1, the speaker flouts the maxims because he wants convince his hearer. In
this dialogue, the doctor (the speaker) chooses to flout the maxims of quality and
quantity by blatantly give more and untrue and lack of adequate information in
order to make Mrs. Gump believe that Forest’s legs are good but the problem is in
his backbone. The doctor exactly knows that Forest’s backbone is crooked but it is
not crocked like a politician. By the utterance he also wants to make Mrs. Gump
not worry or shock with Forest’s condition. He explains carefully about Forest’s
backbone condition by giving a joke to Mrs. Gump. He compares Forest’s
backbone with a politician. It can be seen that the doctor creates casual (informal)
situation in order to make Mrs. Gump not worry or shock in receiving the news.
Another reason are convincing someone found in data 1, 7, 16, 17, 20, avoid
cix agreement and politeness found in data 2 and 3, maintaining relationship found in data 5 and 13, asking forgiveness found in data 9, express feeling and condition found in data 8, 11 and 21, giving clear explanation found in data 4 and 14, maintaining self esteem found in data 19, 10 and 15, ask for reconsideration found in data 12.
cx CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
A. Conclusion
The conclusion contains the results and the findings of the research in chapter IV. There are conclusions that can be drawn from the analysis of implicatures in the film entitled “Forest Gump”
1. From the 21 data analyzed, there are 3 categories found: flouting clash
between maxims 13 data, flouting maxim of Quantity 7 data and flouting
maxim of quality 1 data.
The first category is flouting clash between maxims which is divided into 5
sub-categories. The first is the flouting maxims of Quality, Quantity and
Manner in datum 18. The second is the flouting maxims of Quantity, Manner
and Relevance in data 10 and 11. The third is the flouting maxims of Quality
and Quantity in data 1, 3, 5, 8 and 12. The fourth is the flouting maxims of
Quantity and Manner in data 4 and 17. The fifth is the flouting maxim of
quantity and relevance in data 2, 6 and 9. The second category is the flouting
maxim of Quantity found in 6 data: 3, 8, 10, and 21. The third category is the
flouting maxim of quality which is found in datum 13.
2. a. From 21 data analyzed, there are 14 dialogues which fulfill the maxim of
Quality; the maxim of Quantity is only one datum. There are 16 dialogues
that fulfill the maxim of Relation and the maxim of Manner found 16
dialogues. Based on the analysis, it can be concluded that the conversational
maxims have not been generally fulfilled by the characters in the dialogue.
cxi Although the conversational maxims are not completely fulfilled by the
speakers in the dialogue of the film, the participants of the conversation
have observed certain regularities in interaction. The addresses of the
conversation have no problem at all interpreting the speakers’ utterances.
b. From all data analyzed, it is found that the conversation contain
Particularized conversational Implicatures, in which needs particular
context. An implicature of what or what the speaker intends to say can be
known by analyzing the maxim/s flouted in the utterance within context.
The implicature in this film are used when the speaker cannot say directly,
with certain consideration related to the context of situation. The implicature
shows the speaker’s feeling and intended meaning.
3. The reason why the characters flout the maxims is depend on the context of
situation. Context of situation play an important role in the employing of
flouting maxim by the characters in the film “Forest Gump”. The data analysis
also reveals that the use of an implicature in the dialogue between the
characters in the film “Forest Gump” depend on the context of situation which
shows the reason why the character flout a maxim. When the speaker in the
film cannot say directly the truth or sincerely because of any consideration
related to the context of situation they choose to flout the maxim of quality.
When the speaker cannot say the sufficient information directly because of
any consideration they choose to flout the maxims of quantity. When the
speaker cannot say the relevance answer or information in order to shows their
intended meaning indirectly, they choose to flout the maxim of relevance.
When the speaker cannot say clearly the information to the information to the
cxii hearer because of any consideration related to the context of situation, they
choose to flout the maxim of manner.
B. Suggestion
There are several suggestions dealing with the conclusion of the analysis of flouting maxims.
1. There are only three categories of flouting maxims that the researcher found in
the film. Therefore the finding of this research needs to be enriched since
implicature is related to the maxim/s flouted. The researcher hopes there will
be further research conducted by other researchers.
2. The subject of the research also needs to be developed, most of the researchers
use books, films, advertisements. Hopefully there will be further research on
implicatures conducted by the students of the English Department from the
field which gives the real description of implicatures in daily conversation.
3. Dealing with the kinds of flouting maxim found in this research hopefully the
readers will have deeper understanding about the relationship between the four
maxims and be able to dig the hidden meaning behind the maxim/s flouted.
cxi ii CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
C. Conclusion
The conclusion contains the results and the findings of the research in chapter IV. There are conclusions that can be drawn from the analysis of implicatures in the film entitled “Forest Gump”
1. From the 21 data analyzed, there are 3 categories found: flouting clash
between maxims 13 data, flouting maxim of Quantity 7 data and flouting
maxim of quality 1 data.
The first category is flouting clash between maxims which is divided into 5
sub-categories. The first is the flouting maxims of Quality, Quantity and
Manner in datum 18. The second is the flouting maxims of Quantity, Manner
and Relevance in data 10 and 11. The third is the flouting maxims of Quality
and Quantity in data 1, 3, 5, 8 and 12. The fourth is the flouting maxims of
Quantity and Manner in data 4 and 17. The fifth is the flouting maxim of
quantity and relevance in data 2, 6 and 9. The second category is the flouting
maxim of Quantity found in 6 data: 3, 8, 10, and 21. The third category is the
flouting maxim of quality which is found in datum 13.
2. a. From 21 data analyzed, there are 14 dialogues which fulfill the maxim of
Quality; the maxim of Quantity is only one datum. There are 16 dialogues
that fulfill the maxim of Relation and the maxim of Manner found 16
dialogues. Based on the analysis, it can be concluded that the conversational
maxims have not been generally fulfilled by the characters in the dialogue.
cxiv Although the conversational maxims are not completely fulfilled by the
speakers in the dialogue of the film, the participants of the conversation
have observed certain regularities in interaction. The addresses of the
conversation have no problem at all interpreting the speakers’ utterances.
b. From all data analyzed, it is found that the conversation contain
Particularized conversational Implicatures, in which needs particular
context. An implicature of what or what the speaker intends to say can be
known by analyzing the maxim/s flouted in the utterance within context.
The implicature in this film are used when the speaker cannot say directly,
with certain consideration related to the context of situation. The implicature
shows the speaker’s feeling and intended meaning.
3. The reason why the characters flout the maxims is depend on the context of
situation. Context of situation play an important role in the employing of
flouting maxim by the characters in the film “Forest Gump”. The data analysis
also reveals that the use of an implicature in the dialogue between the
characters in the film “Forest Gump” depend on the context of situation which
shows the reason why the character flout a maxim. When the speaker in the
film cannot say directly the truth or sincerely because of any consideration
related to the context of situation they choose to flout the maxim of quality.
When the speaker cannot say the sufficient information directly because of
any consideration they choose to flout the maxims of quantity. When the
speaker cannot say the relevance answer or information in order to shows their
intended meaning indirectly, they choose to flout the maxim of relevance.
When the speaker cannot say clearly the information to the information to the
cxv hearer because of any consideration related to the context of situation, they
choose to flout the maxim of manner.
D. Suggestion
There are several suggestions dealing with the conclusion of the analysis of flouting maxims.
4. There are only three categories of flouting maxims that the researcher found in
the film. Therefore the finding of this research needs to be enriched since
implicature is related to the maxim/s flouted. The researcher hopes there will
be further research conducted by other researchers.
5. The subject of the research also needs to be developed, most of the researchers
use books, films, advertisements. Hopefully there will be further research on
implicatures conducted by the students of the English Department from the
field which gives the real description of implicatures in daily conversation.
6. Dealing with the kinds of flouting maxim found in this research hopefully the
readers will have deeper understanding about the relationship between the four
maxims and be able to dig the hidden meaning behind the maxim/s flouted.
cxvi BIBLIOGRAPHY
Arikunto, Suharsimi. 2002. Prosedur Penelitian: Suatu Pendekatan Praktek. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.
Gazdar, Gerald. 1979. Pragmatics, Implicature, Pressupposition and Logical Form. London: Academic Press Inc.
Halliday, M.A.K & Hassan, R. 1985. Language Context, and Text: Aspect of Language in Social Semiotic Perspective. London: Oxford University Press.
Leech G N. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.
Levinson, Stephen C. 1997. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mey, L Jacob. 1993. Pragmatics: An Introduction. UK: Blackwell Oxford.
Moleong, Lexy J. 2001. Metodologi Penelitian Kualitatif. Bandung: Remadja Karya CV.
Rahardi, R. Kunjana. 2002. Pragmatik. Jakarta: Erlangga.
Subroto, E. D. 1992. Pengantar Metoda Penelitian Linguistik Struktural. Surakarta: Sebelas Maret University Press.
Surachmad. 2004. Pengantar Penelitian Ilmiah: Dasar, Metode, Teknik. Bandung: Tarsito.
Sutopo, Heribertus. 2002. Metodologi Penelitian Kualitatif dasar teori dan terapannya dalam penelitian. Surakarta: Sebelas Maret University Press.
Sutrisno, Hadi. 1984. Metodologi Research: Untuk Penulisan Paper, Skripsi, Thesis dan Disertasi. Yogyakarta: YPFPS UGM.
Tety Ratna Artanti. 2006. An Analysis of the Flouting Maxims in Princess Diaries 2: ROYAL ENGAGEMENT film based on Grice’s Cooperative Principle (A Pragmatics Study).
Thomas J. 1996. Meaning in Interaction: an Introduction to Pragmatics. London: Longman.
cxvii
Huang, Yan.2007. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Yule, George. 1996. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/g/guess-who-script-transcript.html, retrieved March 3rd, 2009. http://www.imdb.com, retrieved March 3rd, 2009. http: // en.wikipedia.org/wiki/cooperative-principle, retrieved, May 12th, 2009.
cxviii