AN ANALYSIS OF THE VIOLATION OF GRICE’S MAXIMS ON … · mengetahui hal yang sebenarnya dan hanya memahami makna dasar dari kata-kata para pendengar. Pelanggaran dalam maksim-maksim

i

AN ANALYSIS OF THE VIOLATION OF GRICE’S MAXIMS

ON THE BOY MOVIE SCRIPT

TITLE PAGE

A SARJANA PENDIDIKAN THESIS

Presented as Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements

to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree

in English Language Education

By

Cynthianita Septifani Purnomo

Student Number: 131214072

ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM

DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION

FACULTY OF TEACHERS TRAINING AND EDUCATION

SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY

YOGYAKARTA

2017

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

ii


iii


iv

STATEMENT OF WORK’S ORIGINALITY

I honestly declare that this thesis, which I have written, does not contain the work

or parts of the work of other people, except those cited in the quotations and the

references, as a scientific paper should.

Yogyakarta, September 12, 2017

The Writer,


131214072


v

LEMBAR PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN

PUBLIKASI KARYA ILMIAH UNTUK KEPERLUAN AKADEMIS

PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN PUBLIKASI

Yang bertanda tangan di bawah ini, saya mahasiswa Universitas Sanata Dharma:

Nama : Cynthianita Septifani Purnomo

Nomor Mahasiswa : 131214072

Demi pengembangan ilmu pengetahuan, saya memberikan kepada

Perpustakaan Universitas Sanata Dharma karya ilmiah saya yang berjudul:

AN ANALYSIS OF THE VIOLATION OF GRICE’S MAXIMS

ON THE BOY MOVIE SCRIPT

beserta perangkat yang diperlukan (bila ada). Dengan demikian, saya memberikan

kepada Perpustakaan Universitas Sanata Dharma hak untuk menyimpan,

mengalihkan dalam bentuk lain, mengelolanya dalam bentuk pangkalan data,

mendistribusikan secara terbatas, dan mempublikasikannya di internet atau media

lain untuk kepentingan akademis tanpa perlu meminta ijin kepada saya atau

memberikan royalti kepada saya selama tetap mencantumkan nama saya sebagai

penulis.

Demikian pernyataan ini saya buat dengan sebenarnya.

Dibuat di Yogyakarta

Pada tanggal: 12 September 2017

Yang menyatakan,



vi

ABSTRACT

Purnomo, Cynthianita Septi. (2017). An Analysis of The Violation of Grice‟s

Maxims on The Boy Movie Script. Yogyakarta: English Language Education

Study Program, Sanata Dharma University.

The Grice‟s maxims are used in the conversation in order to make the

response in accordance with the utterances provided by the listeners and provide a

productive and meaningful conversation. The listeners tend not to fulfill the

Grice‟s maxims or to violate it in order to make the speakers do not know the

truth and only understand the surface meaning of the speakers‟ words. The

violations on Grice‟s maxims are commonly found in the daily conversation

including the conversation in the movie. The researcher uses The Boy movie to be

researched in order to analyze the Grice‟s maxims in the listeners‟ responses.

The setting of The Boy movie creates the possibility of maxims violation

on the speakers‟ utterances. Therefore, this research is intended to find out

violations of Grice‟s maxims by the speakers‟ disclosure and analyze the reasons

of the violations. Two research questions are formulated to achieve the objectives

in this research. The first research question is which Grice‟s maxims are violated

in The Boy movie. The second research question is what reasons for the characters

of The Boy movie to violate the Grice‟s maxims are.

The researcher conducted this qualitative research using discourse analysis

as the method. In order to gather the data, the researcher employed human and

document as the instruments. The human instrument in this research was the

researcher who gathered, identified, and analyzed the data. The document

instrument in this research was The Boy movie script.

The findings in this research for the first research question showed that

there were four types of Grice‟s maxims were violated by the characters of The

Boy movie namely, Maxim of Quantity, Quality, Relevance, and Manner.

Meanwhile, based on the findings for the second research question, it revealed

that there were seven reasons were used by The Boy‟s characters to violate Grice‟s

maxims. The seven reasons were used by the characters were saving face,

protracting the answer, avoiding the discussion, pleasing the interlocutors, being

polite, communicating self-interest, and misleading the counterparts.

Keywords: Grice‟s maxims, maxim violations, The Boy movie

.


vii

ABSTRAK

Purnomo, Cynthianita Septifani. (2017). An Analysis of The Violation of Grice‟s

Maxims on The Boy Movie Script. Yogyakarta: Program Pendidikan Bahasa

Inggris, Universitas Sanata Dharma.

Maksim-maksim Grice digunakan dalam percakapan untuk membuat

respon yang sesuai dengan ucapan yang diberikan oleh pendengar dan

menyediakan percakapan yang produktif dan bermakna. Pendengar cenderung

tidak memenuhi persyaratan Grice atau untuk melanggarnya agar pembicara tidak

mengetahui hal yang sebenarnya dan hanya memahami makna dasar dari kata-

kata para pendengar. Pelanggaran dalam maksim-maksim Grice biasanya

ditemukan dalam percakapan sehari-hari termasuk percakapan dalam film.

Peneliti menggunakan film The Boy untuk diteliti agar dapat menganalisa

maksim-maksim Grice dalam respon-respon si pendengar.

Keadaan dari film The Boy menciptakan kemungkinan terjadinya

pelanggaran maksim Grice dalam ucapan pembicara. Oleh karena itu, penelitian

ini bertujuan untuk menemukan pelanggaran pada maksim-maksim Grice dalam

penyingkapan pembicara dan menganalisa tujuan dari melakukan pelanggran

terhadap maksim-maksim Grice. Dua pertanyaan penelitian dirumuskan agar

dapat mencapai tujuan-tujuan dalam penelitian ini. Pertanyaan penelitian yang

pertama adalah maksim-maksim Grice mana saja yang dilanggar dalam film The

Boy. Pertanyaan penelitian yang kedua adalah untuk alasan-alasan apa saja

karakter dalam film The Boy melanggar maksim-maksim Grice.

Peneliti melakukan penelitian kualitatif menggunakan discourse analisis

sebagai metode penelitiannya. Agar dapat mengumpulkan data, peneliti

menggunakan manusia dan dokumen sebagai instrumen-instrumen penelitian.

Instrumen manusia dalam penelitian ini adalah peneliti sendiri yang

mengumpulkan, mengidentifikasi, dan menaganlisis data. Instrumen dokumen

dalam penelitian ini adalah skrip film The Boy.

Hasil dari peneleitian ini untuk pertanyaan penelitian yang pertama

menunjukkan bahwa ada empat jenis maksim Grice yang dilanggar oleh karakter-

karakter dalam film The Boy yaitu Maksim Kuantitas, Maksim kualitas, Maksim

Relevan, dan Maksim Manner. Sementara itu, hasil dari pertanyaan penelitian

yang kedua menunjukkan bahwa ada tujuh alasan dari karakter-karakter film The

Boy melanggar maksim-maksim Grice. Tujuh alasan yang digunakan oleh

karakter-karakter The Boy untuk melanggar maksim-maksim Grice yaitu

menyelamatkan muka, memperlambat jawaban, menghindari diskusi,

menyenangkan lawan bicara, bersikap sopan, mengkomunikasikan kepentingan

pribadi, dan menyesatkan lawan bicara.

Kata Kunci: Grice‟s maxims, maxim violations, The Boy movie


viii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First of all, I would like to express my profoundest gratitude to my Jesus

Christ for always bringing light to my life. I am very thankful for everything He

gives to me in this life. I thank Him for sending me the talented and precious

people that will be mentioned below.

My profound gratitude is addressed to my beloved thesis advisor, Yuseva

Ariyani Iswandari S.Pd., M.Ed. for her patience, support, and encouragement in

guiding me to accomplish this thesis. My profound thanks also go to all of my

lecturers in the English Language Education Study Program of Sanata Dharma

University for the chance to learn English and life values together, especially to

Maria Vincentia Eka Mulatsih, S.S., M.A., for the help of validating data in my

thesis. My special thanks go to all students in batch 2013. I thank my family in

Small Class C and Thesis Class who always make my journey in the college life

more colorful.

My profoundest gratitude goes to my beloved parents, my father Tri Heri

Purnama and my mother Melani Jumiyati, and to my beloved two little brothers

Welza Hernanda Putra and Nova Ardian Purnama, for their irreplaceable care,

love, support, patience, motivation, and advice. I am grateful for having them in

my life because they are my greatest motivation so that I can finish my study.

Besides, they are always by my side in every tough time I get through and they

always cheer me up and understand me.

I thank my beloved proofreaders Maya, Mercy, Nindya, Martha, and

Restu, for the willingness, patience and guidance in revising my thesis so that I


ix

could revise and finish my thesis. I am grateful for having them in my life because

they voluntarily offer the help to revise my thesis. Without their helps, it is

impossible for me to finish this study and I appreciate all of their helps in

completing this study.

I also thank my best friends in Teman Tapi Mesra squad and Team

Rangers who always support, encourage, and motivate me in the college life. My

thankfulness also goes to my best friends Agung Try Hardoyo, Anna

Damayanti, Vitaloka Irmala Dewi, and Maria Rosari; I am grateful for having

such helpful and kind best friends. They are never getting tired of supporting and

motivating me in finishing this study. I thank them for always staying by my side

and the friends who I can talk to and shared story with so that it makes my life

more colorful.

Last but not least my gratefulness goes to all of the people whose names

cannot be mentioned one by one here. May God always bless us.



x

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

TITLE PAGE……………………………………………………...…..………...…i

APPROVAL PAGES .............................................................................................. ii

STATEMENT OF WORK‟S ORIGINALITY ...................................................... iv

PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN PUBLIKASI ........................................................ v

ABSTRACT…. ...................................................................................................... vi

ABSTRAK…… ....................................................................................................... vii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................. viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................ x

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................ xii

LIST OF APPENDICES ...................................................................................... xiii

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. 1

A. Research Background .................................................................................. 1

B. Research Questions ...................................................................................... 5

C. Research Significance ................................................................................. 5

D. Definition of Terms ..................................................................................... 6

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED STUDY ................................................... 8

A. Theoretical Description .............................................................................. 8

1. Grice‟s Cooperative Principle .......................................................... 9

2. Maxim Violation ................................................................................ 11

3. Reasons of Violating Grice‟s maxims ......................................... 16

4. The Boy Movie .................................................................................... 28

B. Theoretical Framework ............................................................................. 30

CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY ....................................................................... 32

A. Research Method ........................................................................................ 32

B. Research Setting ......................................................................................... 33

C. Research Subject ......................................................................................... 34

D. Instrument and Data Gathering Technique ......................................... 35

E. Data Analysis Technique ......................................................................... 36


xi

Page

CHAPTER IV RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ........................... 39

A. Violations of Grice‟s Maxims in The Boy Movie ............................. 39

1. Single Maxim Violations ................................................................. 40

2. Multiple Maxims Violations ........................................................... 49

B.Reasons of Violating Grice‟s Maxims ................................................... 58

1. Saving Face .......................................................................................... 59

2. Protracting the Answer ..................................................................... 65

3. Avoiding the Discussion .................................................................. 61

4. Pleasing the Interlocutors ................................................................ 62

5. Communicating Self-interest .......................................................... 63

6. Being Polite ......................................................................................... 64

7. Misleading the Counterparts ........................................................... 65

CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND

RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................. 67

A. Conclusions .................................................................................................. 67

B. Implications .................................................................................................. 68

C. Recommendations ...................................................................................... 69

REFERENCES ...................................................................................................... 71

APPENDICES ...................................................................................................... 73


xii

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

4.1 Single Maxim Violation By The Characters In The Boy

Movie………………………………………………………….….40

4.2 Multiple Maxim Violations By The Characters In The Boy Movie ............... 49

4.3 The Reasons of Violating Grice‟s Maxims ………………………………….58


xiii

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendices Page

APPENDIX 1 The List Of Single Maxim Violation In The Boy Movie ..………74

APPENDIX 2 The List Of Multiple Maxim Violations In The Boy Movie …….78


1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

In this chapter, the researcher presents some important aspects of the

research. Those aspects are the research background, research questions, research

significance, and definition of terms.

A. Research Background

People are social creatures in this world. This means people cannot live by

themselves and they should have relation and interactions with others to keep their

life continue. By using communication or conversation, people will construct a

good relation since they can share information with their society. In order to

achieve a good relation in a conversation, there should be cooperation between the

speaker and listener so that the communication can make sense (Yang, 2008, p.

64). Besides, Davies (2000, p. 6) states that a listener is expected to recognize the

content and intention of the utterance, so they can provide a particular response to

a speaker‟s speech act in order to be cooperative in conducting a conversation.

This means the response should be mutually dovetailed with the speaker‟s

utterance. In short, the speakers‟ utterances in a conversation demand responses

by the listeners. By doing so, the speakers and listeners successfully construct

good relation because they make the conversation productive and meaningful.

Based on the discussion above the speakers‟ utterances require responses

employed by the listeners. This means the listeners are supposed to provide their


2

responses accordingly. However, not all the utterances are responded accordingly.

This is known as maxim violations. Cutting (2000, p. 40) states that when a

listener does not fulfill or obey the maxims, a listener is said to “violate” them.

Violation is the condition in which the listeners do not purposefully fulfill certain

maxim. When the listeners do maxim violation, the conversation between the

speakers and the listeners can be unsuccessful since they will misunderstand each

other. The speakers who violate a maxim cause the listeners not to know the truth

and only understand the surface meaning of the speaker‟s words. As a result, their

conversations cannot go well and smoothly.

In order to make the responses to be in accordance with the utterances

provided by the speakers and provide a productive and meaningful conversation, a

speaker needs a conversational rule called maxim. An American famous linguist,

Grice (1975, p. 45) proposes Cooperative Principle (CP) which consists of four

maxims, namely Maxim of Quantity, Maxim of Quality, Maxim of Relevance,

and Maxim of Manner. Maxim of Quantity governs the speakers to provide a

contribution that is as informative as it is required. Maxim of Quality governs the

speakers to be honest and true when providing their glosses. Maxim of Relevance

governs the speakers to provide relevant contribution. Maxim of Manner governs

speakers to be clear, univocal, brief, and orderly when providing their glosses.

Since Cooperative Principle and the theories of maxims deal with the way

people conduct conversation in daily life, it is undeniable that a conversation or

dialogue also occurs in the arts including movies. Graham (2005) states that a

movie is a form of symbolic expressions of human being since it has the ability to


3

record people and the events around them and it becomes its best value (p, 117).

This means that it can represent people‟s daily conversations because it resembles

the real world of human. On the other hand, Kotti, Ververidis, Evangelopoulos,

Panagakis, and Kotropoulos (2008) describe “dialogue scenes in a movie are set

of consecutive shots containing human conversations” (p. 1). They underline that

the conversations include significant interactions between the persons.

Grounded on the aforementioned explanation, the researcher chose The

Boy movie to be researched because it is a worth watching film since it combines

elements of mystery, horror, conflict, thriller, action, and drama. The Boy is a

horror-mystery-thriller movie which is directed by William Brent Bell. This

movie contains human daily conversation and depicts the circumstances of the

peculiar life of rich Heelshire family as opposed to Greta‟s normal life as a nanny.

The violations occur within that circumstances as mentioned above. The setting

creates the possibility of maxims violation on the speakers‟ utterances. The

mystery or the truth behind the peculiar life of Heelshire family who live with a

porcelain doll triggers the characters of The Boy movie to mislead their

counterparts, to be polite, to save face, protract the answers, please the

interlocutors, avoid the discussion, and communicate self-interests by providing

long-winded, dishonest, irrelevant, and unclear utterances. When providing such

utterances, the characters violate the Maxim Quantity, Quality, Relevance, and

Manner respectively. Therefore, The Boy horror-mystery-thriller movie indeed

can be analyzed to find out the types of violating maxims and the reasons of

violating maxims in the conversation.


4

In fact, those violations on Grice‟s maxims can take place in all societies

including Indonesian society; they can often be seen in play at University of

Sanata Dharma class or community. The students of Sanata Dharma University

often fail to obey the maxims, for instances, by telling a white lie in a

conversation. Instead of saying “I am sorry, I have not understood yet,” students

prefer saying, “Yes, Sir/Miss,” or saying nothing or nodding their heads to the

teacher‟s question, “Understand?” or “Do you understand?” or “Is it clear?”

In this research, the researcher observes and examines maxim violations on

the listeners‟ response to the speakers‟ speeches which are found in The Boy

movie based on Grice‟s Cooperative Principle, namely Maxim of Quantity,

Quality, Relevance, and Manner. This research also attempts to identify the types

of the maxims which are violated by the speakers in the movie‟s dialogue and

examine for what reasons to the speakers violate the maxims. In this sense, the

researcher aims to find out the violations on Grice‟s maxims and to analyze the

reasons underlying the maxims violations. The researcher believes that by

acquiring a complete knowledge of Grice‟s maxims and the maxims violations,

English language learners and readers will be able to construct a good relation

with others and provide a productive and meaningful conversation. This research

will give further and profound data about maxims violations which are found in

The Boy movie and the characters‟ reasons violate the maxims found in the

conversations.


5

B. Research Questions

There are two research questions which are going to be answered in the

research. They are elaborated more as follows:

1. Which Grice‟s maxims are violated in The Boy movie?

2. What are the reasons for The Boy‟s characters movie violate Grice‟s

maxims?

C. Research Significance

After implementing the research, the researcher expects that this research

will give significance for:

1. The English Language Education Study Program Teachers and

Students (ELESP)

This research will provide an alternative medium of source in teaching and

learning on Grice‟s Cooperative Principle for the teachers and students. In fact,

students can learn much from the characters in the movie on how to construct a

good relation or productive and meaningful conversation by providing

informative, honest, relevant, and clear information. Grice‟s Cooperative Principle

also can help students develop their information to be as informative as required,

mutually dovetailed, and clear. Thus, teachers and students can employ Grice‟s

Cooperative Principle in the classroom during the teaching and learning process of

all classes.

2. Future Researchers

For the future researchers who are going to conduct research in the same

field, in this case is the violation in Grice‟s Cooperative Principle, this research


6

will provide more information about the violation in Grice‟s Cooperative

Principle. Besides, the future researchers can refer to this study as their references

if they want to conduct profound research on linguistics fields.

3. Readers

This research will give insights to the readers when they happen to have

violating maxims in their daily communication. By reading this research, the

readers will be able to identify what types of violating maxims found in the

conversation on The Boy movie and the reasons of violating maxims. Besides, this

research can be useful for the readers if they would like to study more on the

violation in Grice‟s Cooperative Principle as well.

D. Definition of Terms

In order to perceive a clear understanding upon the discussion, it is better

to know the meaning of terms used throughout the discussion. Some important

terms together with their definitions are elaborated as follows.

1. Grice’s Cooperative Principle

Davies (2000) asserts that Grice‟s Cooperative Principle is the rules for

people enable to engage or to carry out a meaningful conversation (p. 2). The

rules of Grice‟s Cooperative Principle are the conversational maxims. Grice

(1975) proposes four maxims, namely Maxim of Quantity, Quality, Relevance,

and Manner. The maxims govern how people ordinarily react in conversation: be

brief, be true, be relevant, and be clear (Grice, 1975, p. 45). In this research,

Grice‟s Cooperative Principe refers to the rules of conversational maxims that

must be obeyed by the speakers when conducting communication.


7

2. Maxim Violation

Basically, people are not always truthful and cooperative in a conversation.

Each conversation may contain the reasons of the speakers. These reasons can be

good or bad for the speakers and the listeners. In this case, it is regarded as

violating the maxims, when the participants are being uncooperative in doing the

conversation. Zor (2006) argues that people tend to violate the maxims during the

exchange of conversation quietly and unostentatiously when they fail to observe

the maxims intentionally (as cited in Al-Qaderi, 2015, pp. 80-81). In this research,

maxim violation refers to the speakers who fail to observe the maxims during the

exchange of conversation.

3. The Boy movie

Based on IMDb, The Boy or The Inhabitant is one of the finest late horror

movies in United States since it has different plots although it uses the porcelain

doll likes other horror movies, such as Annabelle, The Conjuring, and Chucky.

Dolls and poltergeists have been overdone in the past decades, but a movie likes

The Boy has never been done before because in the end of the movie, the doll is

controlled by a human not an evil spirit. The Boy first aired on January 22nd

, 2016,

and it was directed by William Brent Bell. The 97-minute horror movie is in the

nonlinear narrative or a storytelling technique where in events were portrayed out

of the chronological order. The genre of this horror movie is horror-mystery-

thriller. The Boy is well-known for its twist story in the ending of the story.


8

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

In this chapter, the researcher presents the review of related literature used

in this study to help the researcher answer the two research questions stated in the

previous chapter. There are some theories of Grice‟s Cooperative Principle,

maxim violation, the reasons of violating Grice‟s maxims presented in the

theoretical descriptions section. This chapter is divided into two subtopics, namely

the theoretical description and theoretical framework. The theoretical description

presents the theories of this research. Meanwhile, the theoretical framework

explains the organized theories to accomplish this study.

A. Theoretical Description

In this theoretical description, the researcher presents some theories which

are directly relevant to the matter in this study. In this chapter, the researcher

presents the related studies, theories of Grice‟s Cooperative Principle, Maxim

Violation, The reasons of violating maxims (Saving face, Being polite,

Misleading the counterparts, Pleasing the interlocutors, Avoiding the discussion,

Protracting the answer, and Communicating self-interest) and The Boy movie. The

Grice‟s Cooperative Principle and Maxim Violation theories are used to answer

the first question of the research. Meanwhile, the reasons of violating maxims

(Saving face, Being polite, Misleading the counterparts, Pleasing the interlocutors,


9

Avoiding the discussion, Protracting the answer, and Communicating self-

interest) are used to answer the second research question in this research.

1. Grice’s Cooperative Principle

In the linguistics field, even more specifically in the area of pragmatics, an

important concept was introduced: maxims of conversation. It is unwritten rules

that govern people to make an appropriate conversation. The Cooperative

Principle (CP) was first formulated by Herbert Paul Grice (1975) which refers to

the assumption of a basic conversation which is made when the speaker speaks to

one another that is trying to be cooperative when doing a conversation in order to

construct meaningful conversations. It is explained by Terkourafi (2005) that

Grice‟s Theory of Cooperative Principle was proposed to depict how effective

communication is achieved in common situations (p. 1). An effective conversation

can happen when the speakers and the listeners can understand each other in a

conversation. They can share what they intend to share smoothly. Then, they can

accept each other‟s meaning despite the status, whether they are close friends,

parents, teachers, sellers and buyers, etc. The speakers behave in a particular way

to lead the listeners to understand the speakers‟ utterances so that the listeners are

able to give the appropriate response to the speakers‟ utterances. The concept of

cooperative activity leads the listeners to assume that all speakers are always

cooperative.

Here, Grice (1975) proposes some rules that should be obeyed in doing a

conversation (p. 45). These rules are formulated in a principle of cooperating

called Cooperative Principle (CP). CP has four sub-principles called maxims;


10

Maxim of Quantity, Quality, Manner, and Relevance. According to Bach (2006)

those maxims are used to explain the relation between utterances and what is

understood from them (p. 5). Bach (2006) also claims that the participants as a

listener assume that a speaker is being cooperative by speaking truthfully,

informatively, relevantly, and appropriately (p. 6). Here, the four sub-CP are

elaborated as follows.

a. Maxim of Quantity

Grice (1975) states that Maxim of Quantity governs the speakers to

provide their contributions as informative as are required and more informative

than are required (p. 45). It is explained by Brown and Yule (1983) that Maxim of

Quantity means that the speakers should be as informative as they are required,

that they should give neither too little information nor too much (p. 32). The

meaning of this maxim is that the speakers should avoid the unnecessary,

redundant information in the contribution.

b. Maxim of Quality

Grice (1975) postulates two sub-maxims based on the category of quality:

“Do not say what you believe to be false,” and “Do not say that for which you

lack adequate evidence” (p. 46). This maxim tries to make your contribution one

that is true or it requires that the statements are used in conversations have some

factual basis. It means that the statement will provide reliable information

(O‟Grady, 2005). In this sense, when giving information, the speakers should be

honest. In other words, the speaker should not lie in his or her talk.


11

c. Maxim of Relevance

In this category Grice (1975) only places a single sub-maxim, namely “be

relevant” (p. 46). Maxim of Relevance, also called Maxim of Relation, it deals

with the relevance of information provided by speakers. In a conversation, the

speakers and the listeners should make their exchanges clearly dovetailed

mutually.

d. Maxim of Manner

This maxim means to be perspicuous and specifically a) avoid obscurity,

b) avoid ambiguity, c) be brief, d) be orderly (Grice, 1975, p. 46). Maxim of

manner means that the participants have to be perspicuous and they also have to

avoid obscurity of expression and the ambiguity when they react to the other

participants (Levinson, 1983, p. 108). In this sense, the speakers must not use

utterances that they know their listeners do not understand.

2. Maxim Violation

Grice (1975) aims to posit the Cooperative Principle and Conversational

Maxims to be rational tool to speakers “to have an interest, given suitable

circumstances, in participation in talk exchanges that will be profitable only on the

assumption that they are conducted in general accordance with the Cooperative

Principle and the maxims” (p. 49). However, Grice (1975) really knows that the

speakers still tend to break the rational tool. Grice notices that the violations of his

maxims take place when the speakers intentionally refrain from applying the

maxims in their conversations. The speakers violate this principle in two ways,

namely quietly and unostentatiously.


12

Grice (1975) underlines that the speakers who violate a maxim will be

liable to mislead (p. 49). This means that the participants do not observe the

maxim intentionally or they tend to tell a lie for some reasons. Christoffersen

(2005) states that one of the aims of the speakers tend to tell a lie is they believe

that a lie is the natural tool to survive and to avoid them from that may put them in

an inappropriate condition (as cited in Tupan & Natalia, 2008, p. 64). Therefore,

the speakers who violate a maxim cause the listeners not to know the truth

because they only understand the surface meaning of the speakers‟ glosses. The

violations of maxims are clearly shown in the examples as follows.

a. Violation of the Quantity Maxim

Maxim of Quantity requires the speakers to provide sufficient and

supporting information. Moreover, the speakers should not make a contribution

more informative than what is required. If the speakers violate the maxim of

quantity, they do not give enough information to the listener to know what is

being talked about, because they do not want the listener to know the full picture.

The speakers are not implying anything, they are “being economical with the

truth”. This phenomenon can be clearly illustrated in Dialogue A.

Dialogue A

Context: A (a guest) wants to be nicer and friendlier; he smiles to B (a

receptionist) and says hello politely. A dog comes and stands beside him. Then A

asks B.

A : Does your dog bite?

B : No

A : (bends down to stroke it and gets bitten) Ouch! You said your dog

does not bite!


13

B : That is not my dog.

(Cutting, 2000, p. 40).

B‟s answer to A‟s question in Dialogue A depicts violation of the Quantity

Maxim. B violates the maxim by saying No. No is not the right amount of

information. It is too little information in such a situation. The situation demands

B to provide a short but really informative explanation. A really informative

explanation needed by A from B is, for example It is not my dog so I do not know

whether the dog likes to bite or not or It should be better if you do not touch the

dog since it is not my pet. However, B intentionally does not provide such an

informative contribution, although B knows that A is talking about the dog which

is beside B and it is not B‟s pet. Conversely, B is supposed to give the informative

contribution in order to let A ponder on the real reason for A.

b. Violation of the Quality Maxim

Maxim of Quality deals with the genuineness sincerity of the speakers

when providing the information. Thus, it requires the speakers to refrain from

saying what they believe to be false. Maxim of quality also interdicts the speakers

to say things that lack of adequate evidence. Conversely, if the speakers violate

this maxim, they are not being sincere and they give the wrong information to the

listener. Besides, when providing information, the speakers may tell a lie or fail to

back up their statements with enough evidence as seen in the Dialogue B.

Dialogue B

Context: A wife bought a new dress which cost 50 pounds. When her husband

asked about the new dress‟s price, she told the wrong information. She lied to her


14

husband because she did not want her husband to get angry toward the expensive

dress since her husband got low salary from his job.

Husband : How much did that new dress cost, darling?

Wife : (see the tag-50 pounds, but says…) Thirty-five pounds

(Cutting, 2000, p. 40)

In this exchange, the wife said to her husband something she knew it was

false. She knew that the price of new dress was fifty pounds; she knew that her

husband had low salary from his job, and she knew that her husband would get

angry if he knew the truth about the price of the new dress. Based on her

experience, she should say “The new dress costs fifty pounds”, she was untruthful.

Thus, the wife violated the maxim of quality. She purposely lied to her husband in

order to avoid an unpleasant condition or a bad consequence, such as anger or a

punishment.

c. Violation of the Relevance Maxim

Maxim of Relevance deals with the relevance of information provided.

Thus, the speakers should make their statements as relevant as possible. The

information that they contribute should clearly relate to the purpose of the

exchange. However, if the speakers violate the maxim of relevance, it creates a

peculiar effect. This means that the listeners do not respond in a relevant way. In

addition, the speakers can choose to deliberately make the information irrelevant

in order to mislead the listeners or to cause misunderstanding on the listeners‟

part. The violation of Relevance Maxim is illustrated in Dialogue C.


15

Dialogue C

Context: A and B have been doing the exam paper in their school. A is curious

whether B has already finished the exam paper or not, so A asked B about the

exam paper.

A : Have you finished that exam paper yet?

B : It‟s been raining a lot lately, hasn‟t it?

(O‟Grady, 2005, p. 233)

As shown in Dialogue G, actually A wants to know whether B has already

finished the exam paper or not, but B responds in an irrelevant way by asking A

about the weather. Thus, it is clear that B‟s answer violates the Maxim of

Relevance. A‟s question has been in regard to B‟s exam paper. B‟s answer does

not contribute to A‟s goal, rather B‟s purpose, is to distract A‟s attention from the

topic under a discussion and to cause A to misunderstand the conversation.

Moreover, B‟s response gives an implicature that B does not want to talk about

the exam paper since he has not finished it yet.

d. Violation of the Manner Maxim

Maxim of Manner is related to the way speakers provide information.

When speaking, the speakers should provide precise information. Nevertheless, if

the speakers violate the maxim of manner in their utterances, they want to give the

listeners the ambiguous and obscurity information (O‟Grady, 2005, p. 234). This

means that the speakers can violate the maxim by providing wordy utterances

with multiple ways of interpretation.


16

Dialogue D

Context: A (husband) is not the only one who earns money, but the economy

condition is bad. He sees B (wife) wears an unusual dress. The husband asks the

wife.

A : How much did that new dress cost, darling?

B : A tiny fraction of my salary, though probably a bigger fraction

of the salary of the woman that sold it to me.

(Cutting, 2000, p. 40)

B‟s response in Dialogue D violates the Maxim of Manner: “Be

perspicuous,” “Avoid obscure expression,” and “Be brief”. B‟s answer “A tiny

fraction of my salary of the woman that sold it to me” is obscure and prolix to A.

It is quite hard for A to understand such an unclear response. Thus, B‟s answer

implies that B wants to hide clear information on the price of the dress. B

purposely violates the Maxim of Manner in order to keep it secret from A, who

wants B to be economical. Besides, B wants to avoid the discussion about the

dress by employing such a long gloss.

3. Reasons of Violating the Maxims

In order to answer the second research question which deals with the

reasons of The Boy‟s characters do maxim violation, the researcher uses Goffman

(2008), Leech (1983), and Brown and Levinson (1987), Khosravizadeh and

Sadehvandi (2008), and Donerus (2005) because the theories are suitable to the

circumstances of the story‟s plot which make the characters want to violate the

maxims. According to Goffman (2008) says that the speakers do not abide by

Grice‟s maxims in order to save face (p. 17). In addition, Leech (1983), and

Brown and Levinson (1987) the speakers tend to violate the maxims in order to


17

show politeness (p. 62). Khosravizadeh and Sadehvandi (2011) add one more,

even two reasons for violating the maxims; the first is the speakers tend to violate

the maxims with intention “to cause misunderstandings on their participants‟ part

and or to achieve some other reasons, for example to protract answer, please

interlocutors, and avoid discussion” (p. 122). Dornerus (2005) says that the

speakers tend to violate Grice‟s maxims in order to communicate their self-

interest (p. 16). In addition, there are seven reasons of The Boy‟s characters do

maxims violation based on the theories are used by the researcher to answer the

second research question. Therefore, the reasons are elaborated as follows.

a. Saving Face

In particular situations or conditions, the speakers tend to say things in a

wordy way, dishonesty, and ambiguously, especially in face-to-face talk. Goffman

(2008) postulates that the speakers tend to “employ circumlocutions and

deceptions, facing his replies with careful ambiguity so that the others‟ face is

preserved” (p. 17). He defines face as an individual‟s “image of self-delineated in

terms of social attributes─ albeit an image that others may share as when a person

makes a good showing for his profession or religion by making a good showing

for himself” (Goffman, 2008, p. 5). In this sense, face refers to a speaker‟s self-

esteem or sense of personal identity. When facing their interlocutors, speakers try

to save face, namely their personal self-esteems and others‟ personal self-esteems.

The illustration of face saving is presented in Dialogue E.


18

Dialogue E

Context: The twins, A and B are taking care of each other very well and have

never hurt each other. One day Fred, A‟s close friend is in need of a car to drop

his parents at the airport. A‟s car is still in a garage. Thus, A lends Fred B‟s car

while B is still away. A tells B about the car immediately after B gets home.

A : Fred has just borrowed your car.

B : Well I like THAT!

(Leech, 1983, p. 83)

Hearing the information from A, B gets upset. Thus, B‟s gloss gives rise to

implicature that he does not want Fred to borrow his car. Nevertheless, in order

not to hurt A, B does not want to show his anger obviously to A. Thus, instead of

saying I don‟t like that, B responds Well, I like THAT! B‟s gloss, although it is

sarcastic sounds more polite. In point of fact, B uses the guise of sarcasm to tell a

lie to A for the sake of saving face of his and A‟s. B does not want people

surrounding them to know his anger.

b. Being Polite

Leech (1983) states that a Politeness Principle is coexisting with Grice‟s

Cooperative Principle since it is the one of other solutions to solve the problem.

Leech (1983) describes six sub-politeness maxims embodied in his Politeness

Principle (p. 132). The example of each maxim is quoted from pages 133, 135,

136, and 138. The maxims tend to go in pairs described as follows.

1) Tact Maxim

Tact Maxim (in impositives and commisives) deals with other centered.

This means in order to achieve politeness, the speakers have to imply benefit to


19

others rather than to imply less cost to others. For example, (1) Peel the potatoes

(cost to others = impolite) and (2) Have another sandwich (benefit to others =

polite).

2) Generosity Maxim

Generosity Maxim (in impositives and commissive) deals with self-

centered. In order for being polite in the conversation, the speakers have to imply

less benefit to self and imply cost to self. For example, (1) You can lend me your

car (benefit to self = impolite) and (2) I can lend you my car (cost to self = polite)

3) Approbation Maxim

Approbation Maxim (in expressive and assertive) deals with the flattery

maxim or being insincere when expressing a proposition, such as stating,

suggesting, boasting, complaining, claiming, reporting, or congratulating others.

In achieving this maxim in order to be polite, the speakers have to avoid saying

unpleasant things about other.

Example: A: Her performance was outstanding!

B: Yes, wasn‟t it?

(Leech, 1983, p. 135)

4) Modesty Maxim

Modesty Maxim (in expressive and assertive) deals with avoidance of

saying unpleasant things about self. Here, the speakers govern to minimize praise

of self and to maximize dispraise of self in order to be polite.

Example: A: You were so kind to us.

B: Yes, I was, wasn‟t I?

(Leech, 1983, p. 136)


20

5) Agreement

Agreement Maxim (in assertive) enjoins speakers to minimize

disagreement self and others, and maximize agreement between self and others in

order to be polite.

Example: A: A referendum will satisfy everybody

B: Yes, definitely

(Leech, 1983, p. 136)

6) Sympathy Maxim

Sympathy Maxim (in assertive) enjoins speakers to maximize sympathy

between self and others rather than minimize antipathy between self and others;

therefore, they can achieve the politeness maxim.

Example: A: I‟m terribly sorry to hear that your cat died

B: Thank you

(Leech, 1983, p. 138)

In Grice‟s conversational maxims, Leech (1983) explains the reasons

people violate the CP in conversations. The reasons are described as follows.

The Cooperative Principle and the Politeness Principle are often in conflict

with each other. A speaker might, for example, be in conflict between

wanting to ask for a favor straight straightforwardly and not wanting to

impose. One element has to be scarified and the Politeness Principle gives

reasons for the Cooperative Principle to be violated (as cited in Grebe,

2009, p. 5).

Based on this point, Leech (1983) would like to say that in order to have a

cooperative and meaningful conversation, politeness must be upheld while Grice‟s

Cooperative Principle must be violated. Leech (1983) asserts that people feel

justified in telling „white lies‟ in particular circumstances (p. 82). Needless to say,

not all violations of the maxim of quality are blameworthy since it is perfectly

acceptable in many cultures (Cutting, 2000, p. 40). For example, when a child of


21

five asks her mother about his father, „Father‟s gone on a little holiday because he

needs a rest‟, rather than „Father‟s gone away to decide whether he wants a

divorce or not.‟ This means a lie that protects is a lie with good intentions, what it

calls a white lie. On the other hand, Grebe (2009) says that one of the main

reasons for violations of Grice‟s maxims lies within the concept of politeness:

“Since, roughly speaking, the more indirect an utterance is being articulated, the

more polite it will be considered” (p. 3).

Dialogue F

Context: A has finished reading a book where the writer has organized his ideas

very well. For this reason, A feels satisfied with the book. A informs B about the

satisfaction he has gained from the book. Since B has also read the same book, A

hopes B will have the same feeling and judgment.

A : The book is tremendously well written.

B : Yes, well written as a whole, but there are some rather

boring patches, don‟t you think?

(Leech, 1983, p. 138)

In Dialogue F, it can be depicted that B‟s response violates the maxim of

Manner. According to Grice (1975) the Maxim of Manner should have certain

response such as be perspicuous, be brief, be clear, be confident, and be

informative (p. 46). B‟s response contributes an unnecessary statement. The gloss

becomes obscure and not perspicuous. It is because, after saying “Yes, well written

as a whole”, B states his disagreement saying “but there are some rather boring

patches, don‟t you think?”

Actually, B is in conflict between wanting to give an honest judgment of

the book and not wanting to offend A. B utters his response for the purpose of


22

avoiding a direct and open confrontation with A. Instead of directly by saying his

disagreement, B is supposed to respond “No, it is not well written at all. In fact,

there are some rather boring patches, don‟t you think?”

In order to describe politeness in the broad sense, Brown and Levinson

(1987) introduce the notion of “face” (p. 45). Both of them define face as:

Something that emotionally can be showed and be lost maintained. It must

be constantly attended to in interaction. In general people cooperate in

maintaining face in interaction, such cooperation being based on the

mutual vulnerability of face. We have to acknowledge and show an

awareness of the face, the public self-image, the sense of self, of the

people that we address. It is a universal characteristic across cultures that

speakers should respect each other‟s‟ expectations regarding self-image,

take account of their feelings, and avoid face threatening acts (FTAs).

Brown and Levinson (1987) also have an assumption that every individual

has two types, namely face as wants and rationality. In this case, face as wants

means personal and social desires to be saved. Both of them claim that “every

member of a community knows every other member‟s desire and which in general

it is in the interests of every member to partially satisfy” (Brown & Levinson,

1987, p. 62). Meanwhile, rationality is an “application of a specific mode of

seasoning which guarantees references from ends or goals to means that will

satisfy those ends” (Brown & Levinson, 1987, p. 64).

Based on the face definition, Brown and Levinson also develop two sub-

theories, namely positive face and negative face (Brown & Levinson, 1987, p. 62).

Positive face is “the need to be accepted and liked by others, treated as a member

of the group, and to know one‟s wants are shared by others.” This means that

everybody has a personal basic desire for being approved by the community

because of their personality. Meanwhile, negative face is “the need to be


23

independent, have freedom of action, and not be imposed on by others.” This

means everybody in the community has desires not to be imposed upon as a part

of their social approval need.

c. Misleading the Counterparts

Khosravizadrh and Sadehvandi (2011) argue that in order to detect

counterparts‟ intention before the next move, the speakers tend to mislead the

listeners by giving false evidence or information. Added by Grice (1975)

Misleading their counterparts were one of thereasons of the maxims violations in

daily exchanges. In this sense means that the speakers give wrong information to

the listeners and it makes the listeners believe it or take it for granted.

Dialogue G

Context: Tom Canty was sleeping under a concrete bench then was caught by

three of the palace body guards. The Captain of the body guards fiercely rebuked

and beat him. By coincidence, the Prince came over. He hit and rebuked the

Captain to stop beating Tom Canty. The Captain knelt in front of the Prince

asking him for an apology. After rebuking the Captain, the Prince came over to

Tom Canty and asked him whether he felt hurt.

The Prince : (Fiercely looking at the body guard) Keep quiet! (Coming

closer to Tom Canty) Are you hurt, boy?

Tom Canty : (With closed mouth and sharp eyes looking at the Prince,

he cannot say anything).

The Prince : Are you hurt, boy?

Tom Canty : (After sometime) No, sir Your Highness, sir.

(Khosravizadeh & Sadehvandi, 2011)

Tom Canty intentionally misled the Prince that he did not feel hurt by

violating Maxim of Quality. He wanted to mislead the Prince into belief that he


24

did not feel hurt. As a matter of fact, he was just beaten fiercely by the Captain.

He just did not want to make an honest contribution by saying No, sir Your

Highness, sir, when answering the Prince‟s inquiries

d. Protracting the Answer

According to Khoravizadeh and Sadehvandi (2011) protracting the answer

occurs when the speakers employ verbose or short informative contribution. It is

also stated by Brown and Yule (1983) protract answer is when people give more

information than the hearer needs risk boring them (p. 32).

Dialogue H

Context: The event took place at a traditional market. It was a noon time, after the

prince finished his lunch. On the Prince‟s demand, Miles Hendon, the Prince‟s

savior, left the Prince to shop for new clothes to wear in the evening. Miles

Hendon left the Prince alone. When returning home, Miles Hendon found the

Prince gone. Since the Prince was under his care, Miles Hendon straight away left

the house to search for the prince in the traditional market nearby. In one corner of

the market there was a bumbling old man, called Ruffler, sweeping rubbish. He

was the first man from whom Miles Hendon gained information about the prince.

Miles Hendon : Did you see an urchin slide out of here?

Ruffler : He left, but sliding wasn‟t the way he done it. He said

to me, “Out of my way, fellow,” and stalked.


In this sense, the answer was supposed to be short like Yes, I did or Yes, I

did or he left, but not sliding. Actually Ruffler could give sufficient information to

answer Miles Hendon‟s questions, but Ruffler thought that his short or insufficient

contribution might satisfy him. Therefore, he violated Maxim of Quantity in order


25

to achieve this purpose by providing such too informative information and

unnecessary answer, Khosravizadeh and Sadehvandi consider such an answer as

wasting time.

e. Avoiding the Discussion

Khosravizadeh and Sadehvandi (2011) states that avoiding discussion

occurs when the speakers may encounter an unpleasant situation or topic. This

means that when the speakers do not want to talk about an unpleasant topic, they

tend to violate the Maxim of Relevance by responding to that topic irrelevantly.

Dialogue I

Context: Dialogue I took place in the King‟s bedroom. Realizing that his death

was at hand, the King summoned Prince Edward. The King planned to abdicate

his kingship for the Prince. However, the Prince seemed to object it. In order to

assure the Prince, the King gave him a prolix advice. at the end of the verbose

advice, the King wondered if the Prince could understand all the things he had just

said.

King : You‟re like your mother.

Prince : What was my mother like?

King : A dull woman. She‟d have bored you.

Prince : No, she wouldn‟t. I‟d have loved her. Where is she?

King : Got another biscuit.


The King purposefully violated the Maxim of Relevance because he

wanted to achieve this purpose. When talking about the Prince‟s mother, the King

noticed that the prince had already been hurt. The King immediately changed the

topic from eating a biscuit to talking about the Prince‟s mother, Lady Jane


26

Seymour since the King wanted to avoid giving an answer to the Prince‟s critical

questions and to avoid an unpleasant discussion.

f. Pleasing the Interlocutors

According to Khoravizadeh and Sadehvandi (2011) pleasing the

interlocutors deals with giving the insincere contribution in order to please the

speakers. Added by Brown and Levinson (1987) pleasing interlocutor refers to

negative face threatening acts. It is threatened when an individual does not avoid

or intend to avoid the obstruction of their interlocutors‟ freedom of action. In

other words, it is an act that shows that the speaker is succumbing to the power of

the listener.

Dialogue J

Context: Dialogue J took place at Fr. Andrew‟s office. Tom Canty had a very

special relationship with Fr. Andrew. Fr. Andrew knew very well that Tom Canty

often rebuked and beaten by his fiendish father, especially when he came home in

the evening without money in his hands. One day, the cruel father got very angry,

beat and flung Tom Canty onto the pond of mud then ruthlessly left him there.

Soon after that, Tom Canty came over to Fr. Andrew‟s house. He still looked

gloomy with some traces of tears running down his cheeks, blisters on his arms,

and mud on all over his body and shabby clothes.

Fr. Andrew : Thomas, have you been crying?

Tom Canty : No, Sir. It‟s sweat. You see, I‟ve been running.

Fr. Andrew : Someday I am going to discuss you with your father.

Tom Canty : Oh…Hem…No, I wouldn‟t, sir. You see, he doesn‟t

like to see anyone on account of he feels so badly about

me having to beg. Please, don‟t.



27

Based on his own experience just prevailing on him only few minutes

before Fr. Andrew asked him, Tom Canty should only answer Yes, I‟ve been

crying, Tom Canty thought that Fr. Andrew would keep asking him for

information connected with the trouble he had just encountered as he was not

satisfied, Tom Canty deliberately violated the Maxim of Quality by providing a

false and long answer. Moreover, when answering Fr. Andrew‟s plan to visit his

father to discuss recent happening on himself, Tom Canty refused the offer by

saying No, Sir. My father wouldn‟t beat me. He takes care of me, He loves me.

The utterance Wouldn‟t beat, takes care of me and loves me satisfied Fr. Andrew.

Fr. Andrew‟s satisfaction was proved by his apology, by saying I apologize.

g. Communicating Self-interest

Dornerus (2005) says that violating maxims in order to communicate self-

interest is one of the goals to be reached by speakers in their conversations (p. 16).

Here, the speakers rather talk about their interest with the listeners than talk about

a topic which is being talked by the listeners.

Dialogue K

Context: Dialogue K took place in the Prince‟s bedroom. Since after the King

died, the Earl of Hertford came over to Tom Canty in the Prince‟s bedroom.

Thinking that Tom Canty was the real Prince, the Eral of Hertford urgently had

Tom Canty designate him as the Lord High Protector in a short and simple

ceremony.


28

Tom Canty : Can I go home now, please?

Earl of Herford : Permit me, Your Majesty. Repeat after me, and

when you have finished strike my shoulder with

your sword.


After the King passed away, the Earl of Hertford went to meet Tom Canty

in the Prince‟s office. Once hearing Tom Canty‟s request, Can I go home now

please? The Earl of Hertford ignored it. He actually well understood the request

and knew the proper answer, namely No, you cannot. However, the Earl of

Hertford did not answer him. He then properly knelt before Tom Canty and

implored him repeat after him as he read out the ceremony rite: “Let it be known

to all my subjects, and throughout my realm, that I hereby designate the Earl of

Hertford as my Lord High Protector to director with adult advice my untried

judgment.” The ceremony was done.

Supporting Khosravizadeh and Sadehvandi (2011), Donerus (2005) says

that one of the reasons of violation of maxims is to communicate the speakers‟

interests (p. 16). Thus, the purpose the Earl of Hefford violated the Relevance

Maxim was that he wanted to communicate his own interests by ignoring Tom

Canty‟s inquiry.

4. The Boy Movie

Director William Brent Bell (The Devil Inside) generally succeeds in

creating an eerie atmosphere, filling the screen with extended close-ups of

sinister-looking toys, mounted animal heads and various architectural details of

the house's nooks and crannies. He also shamelessly indulges in familiar horror

movie tropes, from the discreetly filmed, PG-13 shower scene to the horrific


29

moments that turn out to be nightmares to the jump scares featuring sudden loud

noises.

The story concerns on Greta (Lauren Cohan), a young American woman,

who takes a job as a nanny to an eight-year-old boy in a rambling mansion in the

remote British countryside. Having taken the unlikely assignment to escape

romantic troubles, Greta is more than a little surprised to discover that her new

charge, Brahms, is actually a porcelain doll.

He is the stand-in for the son of the dotty elderly couple the Heelshires

(Jim Norton, Diana Hardcastle), whose real son was tragically killed in a fire

twenty years earlier. Departing for their first holiday in decades, they leave Greta

with a lengthy list of instructions for Brahms' care, including never covering his

face and kissing him before he goes to bed.

Although she is initially putting off by the situation's craziness, Greta soon

settles into the massive home whose windows are sealed shut and which seems

forever shrouded in the darkness. In between handling such unappealing

assignments as emptying the outdoor rat traps, she periodically enjoys the

company of Malcolm (Rupert Evans), the charming grocery deliveryman who

shamelessly flirts with her.

Brahms seems to have a life of his own. He is mysteriously throwing off

the blanket covering him, shifting positions and even moving from room to room.

At first, Greta thinks it is merely her imagination, but when Brahms thoughtfully

leaves a peanut butter and jelly sandwich in front of her door, she becomes a

believer. She even manages to persuade the skeptical Malcolm that the doll is


30

possessed by the spirit of the dead boy. At the first time, it goes smoothly, with

Greta cooing over Brahms and lovingly tucking him in at night. However, the

unexpected arrival of her former boyfriend Cole (Ben Robson), who intends to

bring her back home with him, makes Brahms angry because he does not want to

let Greta go. Suddenly, the atmosphere of that event becomes so scarier for Greta.

B. Theoretical Framework

Maxim violation is a part of pragmatics concept involving an act of

disobeying the rules of being cooperative in a conversation. Violating a maxim

prevents or discourages the listener from seeking for implicature and encourages

their utterances at face value (Grice, 1975). This research focuses on maxim

violation uttered by the characters in The Boy movie.

In this theoretical framework, the researcher is going to present the

theories are used by the researcher to answer two research questions in this study.

As stated in Chapter 1, the researcher has two research questions. First, the types

of violations on the Grice‟s maxims which are found in The Boy movie

conversations Second, the reasons of The Boy‟s characters violate the maxims.

An awareness of the Cooperative Principle theory provides readers a

thorough understanding of the first research question, namely which Grice‟s

maxims are violated by the listeners on the responses to their speakers‟ utterances

in The Boy movie by having knowledge of the Cooperative Principle, readers

would be aware of Grice‟s conversational maxims, namely Maxims of Quantity,

Quality, Relevance, and Manner and how the maxims are violated by the

characters in The Boy movie.


31

In order to answer the second research question in this study, the

researcher relates Leech (1983), Goffman (2008), and Brown and Levinson‟s

(1987) theories as mentioned above by interpreting the reasons of violating the

maxims found in the conversation of The Boy movie. Theory of Being Polite is

coined by Leech (1983) and Brown and Levinson (1987), theory of Face Saving is

coined by Goffman (2008), and theory of Misleading the Counterparts,

Protracting the Answer, Pleasing the Interlocutors, Avoiding the Discussion and

Communicating Self-interests are coined by Khosravizadeh and Sadehvandi

(2011), and Donerus (2005) that enable to explain the reasons of The Boy‟s

characters do maxims violation. In conclusion, those theories from Grice (1975)

and Leech (1983), Goffman (2008), Brown and Levinson (1987), Khosravizadeh

and Sadehvandi (2011), and Donerus (2005) which are mentioned above enable

the researcher to answer both research questions.


32

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

In this chapter, the researcher gives a description about the research

methodology. This chapter is divided into some parts, namely the research

method, research setting, research subjects, instruments, data gathering technique,

and data analysis technique.

A. Research Method

In conducting this research, the researcher applied descriptive qualitative

research. Ary, Jacob, and Razavieh (2010) state that descriptive qualitative

research is designed to “obtain information concerning the current status of

phenomena” (p. 381). The phenomena in this research were the utterances

exchanged between the interactants in The Boy movie. Moreover, the

understanding of phenomena was discovered by using the qualitative method.

Frankel and Wallen (2009) explain that qualitative research approach deals with

actual words or actions of the people for a media to gain data by the researcher (p.

423). This means qualitative research allows the researcher to have the profound

and systematic description of language phenomena by analyzing the cases found

in printed documents, films, TV programs, arts music, videotapes, and transcripts

of conversation (Frankel & Wallen, 2009, p. 423). Therefore, the method assisted

the researcher to answer the two research questions by providing a narrative

description of the responses to the speakers‟ utterances. Thus, the researcher


33

descriptively presented the violations of Grice‟s maxims and the reasons for the

violations made by the characters in The Boy movie. The method helped the

researcher to identify which maxims were violated and for what reasons the

maxims were violated by the characters in The Boy movie.

Among the types of qualitative research technique, this research belonged

to discourse analysis. Discourse analysis is used to analyze language above,

beyond a mere the accumulation of sounds, morphemes, words, clause, and

sentence (Norman, 2003). Specially, this method focuses on a power, domination

and construction, and reproduction of power in texts and conversation, language

in social contexts, and interactions (Cohen, Manion, and Morrison, 2011). The

concern about this research was elaboration of the use language, the language

users, and the meaning of the utterances. Thus, the nature of this research was

pragmatic analysis. Based on the nature of this research, the researcher elaborated

the utterances used in the conversation between the characters as the language

users in The Boy movie and analyzed the meaning in its contexts. The basic aim of

this research was to systematically describe data as phenomena in the form of

utterances in the dialogue between the characters in The Boy movie.

B. Research Setting

In this research, the researcher identified the kinds of violating maxims and

analyzed the reasons of violating the maxims in the conversation of The Boy

movie. The data in this research were taken from The Boy movie released in the

United States on January 22nd

, 2016. The setting of this movie was in countryside

of London or rural settings. According to Grant (2007) horror movies often use


34

isolated and rural settings, and old dark houses with mysterious basements for

psychological (p. 14). This meant that the settings of The Boy movie would affect

the audiences‟ psychologically, such as fear, tense, and curiosity when watching

the movie.

C. Research Subject

The subject of this research was The Boy movie released on January 22nd

,

2016. The researcher used the movie as the subject in this research since this

research focused on the conversations which were done by the characters of The

Boy movie and this movie could represent people‟s daily life and it was different

from others‟ horror movies. This movie had the elements of mystery, horror,

conflict, thriller, action, and drama so that the researcher assumed if this movie

could represent people‟s daily life.

On the other hand, using a porcelain doll in the movies was a common

thing in the horror movies in order to make the movies scarier, such as Annabelle

(2014), Chucky (1988), and Jigsaw (2004). However, the researcher saw a

difference in this movie. This movie also used a porcelain doll and people who

had not watched it; they might think that it would be like other horror movies in

which the dolls were possessed by the evil spirit, supernatural, or ghosts.

Conversely, when this movie was about to end, it was revealed that the one who

controlled the doll was not the evil spirit, supernatural, or ghosts but it was a

psychopath man, namely the real Brahms who was still alive. Thus, this movie

had twisted plot that led the researcher to think if the movie was different from

others‟ horror movie. As seen from the explanation about the reasons why the


35

researcher chose this movie, this movie could be the subject of this research in

order to find the types of violating maxims and the reasons why the characters in

The Boy movie violated the maxims.

D. Instrument and Data Gathering Technique

In a qualitative research, the researcher would be the primary instrument

for the data collection and analysis. Lincoln and Guba (1985) firstly introduce the

concept of human as the instrument to the scientist, as compiled by Ary et. al

(2010), because qualitative research studies human experiences and situations so

that the researchers need an instrument flexible enough to capture the complexity

of the human experience (p. 424). Meanwhile, Leedy and Omrod (2005) also

mention about a human instrument that, “qualitative researchers believe that the

researcher‟s ability to interpret and make sense of what he or she sees is critical

for understanding any social phenomenon” (p. 133). This makes the researchers

more capable of capturing the complexity of human experiences and situations.

The researcher can interact with people in the setting when observing their

activities, reading their documents and written records, and recording all

information in the field notes and journals.

In this research, the researcher gathered the data in the form of utterances

produced by the character of The Boy movie by watching the movie and reading

the script. The researcher also searched for more information from books,

journals, and internet regarding the theories. In analyzing the data and drawing

conclusions, the researcher used her own perspectives and understanding of

Grice‟s maxims. After that, the researcher related the personal conclusion with the


36

linguists‟ understandings of phenomena and human complexity in dialogues. By

doing so, the researcher hoped to avoid a purely personal interpretation.

The supporting instrument for this research was documents. Document or

artifact is the tool to gain an understanding of the phenomena under study,

including audio and video recording, photographs, games, artworks, or other items

that provide insights related to the context or participants (Ary, Jacobs, &

Razavieh, 2010, p. 431). The document of this research was The Boy movie script

in order to collect some utterances from the script.

The utterances produced by the characters written in the script were used

to solve the two research questions: (1) which Grice‟s maxims are violated in The

Boy movie? The results of this question were used as the basis for the second

question: (2) what are the reasons for The Boy‟s characters violate the Grice‟s

maxims? The researcher only selected certain utterances in the movie which were

produced by the characters who were dealing with violations of Grice‟s maxims.

E. Data Analysis Technique

A number of steps were taken by the researcher in conducting this

research. Based on the content of this research, the researcher took six steps. They

are elaborated as follows.

1. Collecting Data

The source of the data was The Boy movie. The movie was chosen because

the researcher noted that the movie had possibilities for violations of Grice‟s

maxims in conversations among the characters. This is connected with the nature

of pragmatics study which focuses on utterances produced and context (Levinson,


37

1983, p. 9). As a pragmatics inquiry, the types of data taken here were interactive

exchanges uttered by the characters in The Boy movie. After watching the movie

and reading the script, the researcher transcribed it containing violations of

Grice‟s maxims. The violations happened when the characters could not obey or

fulfill the maxims by providing insufficient, dishonest, irrelevant, and unclear

contributions in the conversation. Thus, the data were collected by transcribing the

script of the movie.

2. Analyzing the Script

After transcribing the script, the researcher analyzed the script and

completed the information based on the characters‟ utterances related to the

research topic. The researcher scrutinized every conversation employed by the

characters in the movie to answer the two research questions, namely which

maxims are violated in The Boy movie and why the characters of The Boy movie

violated the Grice‟s maxims.

3. Identifying the characters’ utterances according to Grice’s maxims

The researcher scrutinized characters‟ responses to identify which

responses violated Grice‟s conversational maxims and which did not. The maxims

employed were Quantity, Quality, Relevance, and Manner. In this view, the

researcher obtained a clear picture of the violations were made by the characters

when responding to their interlocutors‟ speeches. The researcher found that on the

one hand, one response violated each of the maxims separately. On the other

hand, the same response violated the maxims simultaneously, two even three

maxims.


38

4. Identifying the characters’ reasons for violating the maxims

After finishing the identification of the characters‟ utterances violating

Grice‟s maxims, the researcher then identified each utterance to find out the

reasons for violations. The researcher employed 5 theories based on the linguists.

They were Cooperative Principle posited by Grice (1975), saving face by

Goffman (2008), being polite by Leech (1983) and Brown and Levinson (1987),

protracting the answer, misleading the counterparts, pleasing the interlocutors, and

avoiding the discussion by Khosarvizadeh and Sadehvandi (2011), and

communicating self-interests by Donerus (2005).

5. Data Verification

According to Creswell and Miller (2000) validity is one of the strengths of

qualitative research and it is based on determining whether the findings are

accurate from the standpoint of the researcher or the readers of an account (p.

201). Thus, the researcher conducted data validation with the lecturer who was

expert in this field in order to make sure whether or not the findings were

accurate.

6. Writing up the Report

After going through all of the aforementioned steps, the researcher

concluded with the written report on the research in the form of paper. The gained

research results were expounded and connected with theories related to the topic.

Therefore, the researcher could answer the aforementioned two research

questions.


39

CHAPTER IV

RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

This part consists of two sections, namely research results and discussion.

The first section discusses the types of Grice‟s maxim violation in The Boy movie

and the second section discusses the reasons of the violations. The elaboration of

both sections is an attempt to respectively address the two research questions

mentioned in the first chapter, namely (1) what kinds of violating maxims found

in the conversation on The Boy movie and (2) what are the reasons of The Boy‟s

characters violate the Grice‟s maxims.

A. Violations of Grice’s Maxims in The Boy Movie

The researcher used Grice‟s theory of Cooperative Principle to answer the

first research question. The researcher discovered that when responding to their

counterparts, all of the characters tended to intentionally violate the maxims in

two types, namely single maxim and multiple maxims. Khosravizadeh and

Sadehvandi (2011) a single violation takes place when speakers violate only one

maxim, while multiple violations take place when speakers violate more than one

maxim simultaneously (p. 123). Therefore, the researcher divided this part into

two sections, namely violations of a single maxim and violations of multiple

maxims.


40

1. Single Maxim Violations

In this section, the researcher analyzed the types of each Grice‟s maxim

violation found in The Boy movie. In order to categorize the types of maxim

violations, the researcher presents Table 4.1 to show the maxims that were being

violated individually by the characters in 15 dialogues. Each dialogue contained

one violation. The table also shows the figure of the violation.

Table 4.1 Single Maxim Violation by the Characters in The Boy Movie

Table 4.1 shows that all of the Maxims were individually violated by the 4

characters. The types of the maxims which were violated by the characters were

Maxim of Quantity, Quality, Relevance, and Manner. The maxim of Quantity was

violated 3 times. Maxim of Quality was violated 3 times. Maxim of Relevance

was violated 7 times. Maxim of Manner was violated 2 times. The characters who

involved in the dialogues were Greta, Malcolm, Mr. and Mrs. Heelshire, Cole,

Sandy, and Cab driver. Yet, not all of the characters involved violated. The

maxims were Greta, Malcolm, Cab driver, and Mrs. Heelshire.

Each of the characters had his or her particular reasons for violating the

maxims. Greta violated the maxims in order to save face, to protract answer, to

Maxim

Character

Number of

dialogue Greta Malcolm

Mrs.

Heelshire

Cab Driver

Quantity 1 2 - - 3 dialogues

Quality 2 1 - - 3 dialogues

Relevance 3 2 1 1 7 dialogues Manner 1 1 - - 2 dialogues

Total 15 dialogues


41

please the interlocutor, to be polite, to communicate self-interest, to mislead and

to avoid the discussion. Moreover, Malcolm violated the maxims purposely to

communicate self-interest, protract the answer, avoid discussion, and please the

interlocutor. Meanwhile, Cab driver and Mrs. Heelshire just broke Maxim of

Relevance in order to avoid discussion and to save face.

a. Violation of Maxim of Quantity in The Boy Movie

Maxim of Quantity requires the speakers to provide sufficient information

as is required (Grice, 1975, p. 45). This means that the maxim governs the amount

of information which must be provided by speakers in the conversation. However,

in this case the speakers cannot always abide by the maxim. It can be clearly seen

in Dialogue 1 taken from The Boy movie.

Dialogue 1

Context: Dialogue 1 took place in the billiard room. Malcolm and Greta were

playing billiard. They were joking about Greta‟s good skill at playing billiard.

Then, Greta asked Malcolm about the real Brahms because she was still curious

about him. Due to Greta‟s compulsion, Malcolm told her anything he knew about

the real Brahms. In answering Greta‟s, question Malcolm violated the Maxim of

Quality because his response was too informative. Meanwhile, Greta only needed

a short answer to answer her question. .

Greta : What‟s the truth?

Malcolm : One night, I came out here for a delivery. I didn‟t know it

at the time, but it was Brahms‟ birthday or would have

been. And Mrs. Heelshire, she was in the sitting room.

Opening presents with the doll. And Mr. Heelshire… He

was in here. Drunk and mumbling to himself that he

couldn‟t do it anymore. I told him I‟d come back… But he


42

said „no, no, come on. “Have a drink with an old man.” So

I do. Well, we get a couple of drinks in. We‟re chatting

about the weather and so on and finally… I get the courage

to ask him that exact question. “What was Brahms, like?”

God he just looks at me with this heartbroken look. It made

me sorry I even asked. And he said one word. “Odd,” he

says. Odd. Which, I suppose is all the answer we‟ll ever get.

Maxim of Quantity enjoins speakers from contributing information more

than is required (Grice, 1975, p. 45). Malcolm‟s answer in Dialogue 2 illustrated a

violation of Maxim of Quantity. Malcolm gave too much information to Greta‟s

question. Whereas, Greta only needed a short answer from Malcolm since

Malcolm had given Greta required information about Brahms from two types of

talks previously and Greta only needed the truth from it. Thus, Malcolm only

needed a short answer, namely, could be, Brahms is odd, according to Mr.

Heelshire Brahms is odd, or Mr. Heelshire told me that Brahms is odd. However,

what Greta received from Malcolm was a too informative answer containing the

Heelshires‟ condition when they had Brahms‟ birthday party, the way Malcolm

could get to close with Mr. Heelshire, Malcolm‟s feeling when he asked to Mr.

Heelshire about Brahms, and Mr. Heelshire‟s expression when Malcolm asked

him a question about Brahms. By providing such too informative information,

Greta construed that Malcolm did tell anything he knew about Brahms. However,

it was too much information. Greta did not need such an unnecessary answer.

Grice (1975) considers such an answer as wasting time (p. 46).

Malcolm‟s wordy description gave rise to implicature that he very well

understood Greta‟s question by explaining where he got the truth answer about

Brahms. Malcolm knew that the question, What is the truth demanded him to


43

answer, for example Brahms is odd, According to Mr. Heelshire Brahms is odd,

or Mr. Heelshire told me that Brahms is odd. Nonetheless, Malcolm did not do so,

but conversely explained in detail the Heelshire‟s condition when they had

Brahms‟ birthday party, the way Malcolm asked the question, and Mr. Heelshire‟s

expression when giving the answer. Malcolm did so in order to protract the

answer that was urgently needed by Greta (Khosravizadeh & Sadehvandi, 2011, p.

123).

Malcolm might think that providing the short answer Brahms is odd,

according to Mr. Heelshire Brahms is odd, or Mr. Heelshire told me that Brahms

is odd would not satisfy Greta. Thus, Malcolm provided the detailed explanation

of the Heelshire‟s condition when they had Brahms‟ birthday party, the way

Malcolm asked the question, and Mr. Heelshire‟s expression when giving the

answer in order to satisfy Greta‟s curiosity about Brahms (Khosravizadeh &

Sadehvandi, 2011, p. 123). This was the other implicature which could be drawn.

b. Violation of Maxim of Quality in The Boy Movie

Maxim of quality enjoins speakers to provide true information (Grice,

2004, p. 46). Thus, the speakers must be honest with their utterances when

providing information. In order to provide correct and reliable information,

speakers have to back up their contribution with clear evidence or they would be

stamped liars.

Dialogue 2

Context: Dialogue 2 took place at Heelshire‟s living room. Mr. and Mrs.

Heelshire were going to go out for holiday. Before they left, they gave some rules


44

to be followed by Greta. The rules were so important to Brahms because it was

the only way to take care of Brahms. As a nanny, Greta should take care of

Brahms because it was her responsibility. So, when Mr. and Mrs. Heelshire asked

Greta to take care of Brahms, she said that she would treat him like her own son.

Nevertheless, she did not do like Mr. and Mrs. Heelshire asked to Greta and

fulfilled her responsibility as a nanny. She did not take care of Brahms liked her

own son instead of ignoring Brahms and the rules.

Mr. Heelshire : Be good to him and he‟ll good to you. Be bad to

him…

Mrs. Heelshire : Oh, she‟ll be good to him. Won‟t you, Miss

Evans?

Greta : Yes. I‟ll treat him like my own.

The response in Dialogue 3 illustrated that Greta did not abide by the

Maxim of Quality demanding her to be honest and true when providing her

contributions. Greta‟s response contradicted the experience she had done to

Brahms after Mr. and Mrs. Heelshire left. In order to please Mr. and Mrs.

Heelshire‟s question and request, Greta lied to them by saying that she would treat

him like her own. She forced to lie because she did not want to disappoint them

and she could not refuse their request since she would be given salary every week

to take care of Brahms. Thus, the response showed that Greta failed giving a true

answer.

The evidence of Greta lied to Mr. and Mrs. Heelshire could be drawn here

by providing Greta‟s activity. Greta kept ignoring Brahms and his rules. She

thought that she did not need to take care of him and follow his rules since he was

a doll. The doll was covered with a blanket since it made her afraid whenever she


45

looked at it. Based on these facts, Greta indeed did not do as if she was supposed

to do.

Greta‟s answer in this respect also gave rise to implicature that, in front of

Mr. and Mrs. Heelshire, she wanted to be polite by showing her image as

someone who was responsible towards her job and was trustworthy. By

employing a dishonest answer, she tried to please Mr. and Mrs. Heelshire

(Khosravizadeh & Sadehvandi, 2011, p. 123). She tried to make herself look

good. In doing so, Mr. and Mrs. Heelshire trusted her that nothing wrong would

happen to Brahms and took it for granted that she would treat him like her own.

c. Violation of Maxim of Relevance in The Boy Movie

Grice (1975) posits one maxim, namely “be relevant” (p.46). This maxim

governs speakers to produce a mutually dovetailed conversation. However, it is

not every time speakers abide by the maxim as seen in Dialogue 3 taken from The

Boy movie.

Dialogue 3

Context: Dialogue 3 took place at Brahms‟ grave. Before Malcolm and Greta went

there, Greta asked Malcolm to tell her the story about the doll. Malcolm invited

Greta to come with him to Brahms‟ grave and he told the story about the doll. In

the Brahms‟s grave, Malcolm started telling Greta that Brahms was dead on his

eighth birthday due to fire. Soon after that, Brahms was replaced with a porcelain

doll. Then, Malcolm asked Greta a question about the feeling of losing a child, but

Greta did not respond Malcolm‟s question. Conversely, she asked several

questions to Malcolm.


46

Malcolm : It was a fire. Brahms didn‟t make it out. On his eighth

birthday. Such a tragedy. And the doll turned up not long

after that. I know it must seem strange. I mean, it is bloody

strange. But, it‟s harmless. A way to cope. I can‟t imagine

what it must be like to lose a child?

Greta : So, he died 20 years ago? He‟d be about your

age. They‟ve lived like this for 20 years?

This conversation illustrated a violation of Maxim of Relevance. The

reason was that Greta‟s whole answer did not match Malcolm‟s question. The

type of Malcolm‟s question was open because it needed Greta‟s opinion or view

to respond to his question. However, the question required a relevant answer.

Thus, the relevant answer supposed to be provided by Greta to Malcolm‟s

question could have been Yes, it must be painful to lose a child, Yes, it must be

hard to lose a child or Yes, all of parents in this world must feel so desperate to

face the reality of losing their child.

Greta‟s answer implied that she attempted to change the topic by talking

about her interest in the form of questions. The reason of doing so was Greta had

ever experienced of losing her child because of her ex-boyfriend. Greta did not

dare to answer Malcolm‟s question relevantly because she did not want to show

her true feeling of losing a child and she did not want Malcolm to know Greta‟s

experience of losing her child.

Supporting Khosravizadeh and Sadehvandi (2011), Dornerus (2005) says

that one of the reasons of violation of maxims is to communicate the speakers‟

interests (p. 16). Thus, Greta‟s purpose when violated the Maxim of Relevance

was that she wanted to communicate her own interest by ignoring Malcolm‟s

inquiry and avoiding the discussion. Greta‟s interests were the duration of


47

Brahms‟ death and the Heelshires who had lived without their child for 20 years.

In the movie, it was clearly seen that there was a long pause when Greta started to

answer Malcolm‟s question. This meant that Greta tried to avoid the discussion by

changing the topic based on her interests.

d. Violation of Maxim of Manner in The Boy Movie

Grice (1975) underlines that speakers in their conversations “have to avoid

obscurity of expression, avoid ambiguity, avoid unnecessary prolixity (be brief),

and be orderly” (p. 46). This means when giving information, speakers must avoid

obscurity, unnecessary redundancy, and ambiguousness. However, as a matter of

fact, speakers cannot always undertake the requirements. It is obviously seen in

Dialogue 4 taken from The Boy movie.

Dialogue 4

Context: Dialogue 4 took place in the kitchen. When Greta and Malcolm have

introduced themselves to each other, Greta was curious about the Heelshires

family, so she asked Malcolm about it. Malcolm was the closest person in the

Heelshires family because he often delivered the grocery every week to them.

Therefore, Greta asked Malcolm about the Heelshires‟ personalities. Malcolm said

that the Heelshires were nice and very generous as good people as you would ever

hope to meet. After hearing Malcolm‟s answer, Greta asked Malcolm the second

question. The second question was related to what was Brahms like. Malcolm

answered Greta‟s question unclearly because he knew the truth that Greta had not

known yet and it was about Brahms which was a doll.


48

Greta : And the son? Brahms?

Malcolm : Brahms. Oh he‟s, um…uh… I‟m not quite sure how to

explain.

Malcolm‟s response depicted a violation of Maxim of Manner because he

stated an obscure and ambiguous response. Greta only wanted to know what

Brahms was like. Thus, Malcolm was supposed to answer Brahms was a doll and

the real Brahms was dead. Since Malcolm knew the truth about Brahms, he could

just tell Greta, but it was not Malcolm‟s right to tell Greta the truth so he did not

tell her. In this sense, Malcolm was in the conflict with himself about telling her

the truth or not. Nonetheless, Malcolm‟s response ended up with evoking the

obscure and ambiguous answer.

Moreover, when saying Oh, he‟s, um…uh…, Malcolm made his gloss

became more obscure and when saying I‟m not quite sure how to explain made his

gloss become ambiguous. On the other hand, Malcolm deliberately contributed

such an obscure and an ambiguous utterance in order to avoid Greta getting more

confused if she knew about Brahms. If Malcolm had said that Brahms was a doll

and the real Brahms was dead, he then should provide the argument in order to

convince Greta, for example the reason why Brahms was replaced by a doll and

how Brahms could be dead. Furthermore, in order to save face, Malcolm

deliberately did not say that Brahms was a doll, instead of protracting the answer

by adding some obscure glosses. Thus, he violated the Maxim of Manner (Grice,

1975, p. 46).


49

2. Multiple Maxims Violations

There were some multiple maxims violations in The Boy movie‟s scenes.

The characters simultaneously violated two and sometimes three maxims. Those

who violated the maxims were Malcolm and Greta.

Table 4.2: Multiple Maxim violations by the Characters in The Boy Movie

Table 4.2 shows multiple maxims violations. The multiple maxims

violated were Maxim of Quantity and Quality, Quantity and Manner, Quality and

Manner, Relevance and Manner, and Quality, Relevance and Quantity. The

violation occurred in 6 dialogues respectively. The characters involved in the

dialogues were Greta, Malcolm, Greta‟s friend Sandy, Mr. Heelshire and Mrs.

Heelshire. Meanwhile, the characters who violated the maxims were only Greta

and Malcolm.

Each of the characters had his or her particular reasons for violating the

maxims. Greta violated the maxims in order to save face and misleading

counterparts. Malcolm violated the maxims in order to protract the answer, save

face, and communicate self-interest.

Maxim

Character Number of

dialogue Greta Malcolm

Quantity and Manner 2 - 2 dialogues

Quality and Manner 2 - 2 dialogues

Relevance and Manner - 1 1 dialogue

Quality, Quantity, and Manner 1 - 1 dialogue

Total 6 dialogues


50

a. Violations of Maxims of Quantity and Manner

Dialogue 5 illustrates the violation of Maxim of Quantity and Manner. The

characters who violated both of the maxims in the movie were Greta and

Malcolm. Malcolm failed to provide a sufficient contribution and to avoid the

obscure answer to the conversation.

Dialogue 5

Context: Dialogue 5 took place at Brahms‟ grave. Malcolm told Greta about the

reason why Brahms died and the doll showed up not long after his death. After

that topic, Malcolm invited Greta to go out. He thought that it would be good for

Greta to refresh her mind because of the weird things in the Heelshire‟s house.

Malcolm attempted to ask Greta to go out with him, but Greta rejected it because

she just got out of a thing. However, Malcolm did not give up easily; he tried to

assure Greta that it was not a thing. In responding to Greta‟s question, Malcolm

intentionally violated the Maxims of Quantity and Manner.

Malcolm : You‟re probably going mad in this house, aren‟t you? It

might be good to get out. I could show you the world-

famous local nightlife. I mean, I know technically you‟re

not supposed to leave Brahms, but I won‟t tell if you won‟t.

Greta : I just got out of a thing.

Malcolm : No. Uh this is not a thing. You know, I… I assure you of

that. This is, uh, a professional courtesy seeing as we‟re

employed by the same people. You know, it‟s a duty is what

it is. I will take no pleasure in it whatsoever. I promise.

Yeah?

Greta : Okay. Yeah.

Maxim of Quantity insists that when speaking, interlocutors have to be

brief or provide a sufficient contribution as it is required and not less or more

informative than is required. Meanwhile, the Maxim of Manner demanded the


51

interlocutors not to provide unnecessary redundancy (Grice, 1975, p. 45-46). It

was obviously seen in Dialogue 5 that Malcolm, in his response to Greta‟s gloss,

failed to observe the Maxims of Quantity and Manner. Malcolm intentionally

violated those maxims in order to protract answer and be polite.

Malcolm‟s additional gloss violated the Maxim of Quantity: “Make your

contribution as informative as is required for the current purpose for the exchange.

“Do not make your contribution more informative than is required” (Grice, 1975,

p. 45). This additional gloss was outside the required amount of information. The

gloss was too informative. The required amount of contribution that should have

been provided by Malcolm was No, this is not a thing. It is a professional

courtesy since we‟re employed by the same people. This answer was sufficient and

informative enough for Greta.

Furthermore, when saying the additional gloss, No, uh. This is, uh, a

professional courtesy seeing as we‟re employed by the same people you know,

Malcolm‟s response depicted a violation of Maxim of Manner because he stated

an obscure, disorder, and wordy response. Malcolm‟s gloss implied that he tried

to find the reason why it was not a thing and he really attempted to assure Greta

by that. Nonetheless, Malcolm‟s response ended up evoking the obscure,

disorderly, and wordy answer.

The aforementioned gloss contained the feeling of confusion in order to

find the logic reason to assure Greta. Thus, when his invitation got rejected, he got

confused to assure Greta to go out with him. Moreover, when Greta rejected

Malcolm‟s invitation, Malcolm made his gloss obscure No, uh. This isn‟t a thing


52

you know because he did not know what actually he wanted to say. On the other

hand, when saying This is, uh, a professional courtesy seeing as we‟re employed

by the same people you know, it‟s a duty is what it is, Malcolm made his gloss

disorderly and wordy. The reason was because Malcolm was trying to find and

connect the answer so that the answer could be reasonable. However, Malcolm‟s

answer was too long and the way he delivered the answer was disorganized. If

Malcolm provided the proper answer to respond Greta‟s gloss, it would have

been, This is a professional courtesy duty because we are employed by the same

people or This is a professional courtesy duty for employees who work with the

same people.

b. Violation of Maxims of Quality and Manner

Dialogue 6 illustrates the violation of Maxim of Quality and Manner. The

character who simultaneously violated both of the maxims in the movie was

Greta. She failed to be honest and to provide a clear and brief contribution to the

conversation.

Dialogue 6

Context: Dialogue 6 occurred through telephone. Sandy asked Greta about

Malcolm‟s invitation to go out. Greta denied that she did not go out for a date, but

Sandy did not believe in Greta‟s denial. So, she triggered Greta to tell the truth by

asking Greta whether she wore her coral dress or not. Sandy knew Greta‟s habit

when she was on a date she would wear her coral dress. However, Greta did not

tell the truth since Sandy was not in the United Kingdom and they communicated


53

through telephone, so Sandy did not see what Greta wore for her date. Thus, Greta

violated maxims of Quality and Quantity to save face in her answer.

Sandy : Yeah, okay. Are you going to wear your coral dress?

Greta : (After looking at the mirror with her coral dress) I don‟t

know. I‟ll figure it out.

Maxim of Quality insists that when speaking, interlocutors have to be

honest and provide a true contribution. Meanwhile, the Maxim of Manner

demanded the interlocutors not to provide unnecessary redundancy (Grice, 1975,

pp. 45-46). Sandy‟s question denoted her curiosity that Greta must have been

chosen her coral dress for her date. Meanwhile, Greta‟s answer to Sandy‟s

question pointedly showed that she simultaneously violated the Maxim of Quality

I don‟t know. I‟ll figure it out, Greta violated the Maxim of Quality: “Do not say

what you believe to be false.” She intentionally did not provide the true

information which had fallen upon Sandy. The truth was that she chose the coral

dress for her to wear in her date with Malcolm.

In order to make Sandy confused, Greta deliberately provided her gloss

with obscure and ambiguous information about not knowing the dress that she

was going to choose. This meant Greta violated the Maxim of Manner: “be brief,

be clear, be orderly, and be perspicuous.” She failed to give a clear and brief

answer to Sandy‟s question. If Greta gave a clear and brief answer, she would

have answered the question to be, Yes, I am going to wear it or No, I am not going

to wear it. However, Greta did not dare to say so because she did not want Sandy

to know Greta‟s feeling towards Malcolm by telling the truth that she was going


54

on a date. Thus, she gave a contradictory answer to the real fact. Greta knew and

believed that this answer was incorrect and she intentionally told a lie to Sandy.

c. Violation of Maxims of Relevance and Manner

Dialogue 7 illustrates the violation of Maxims of Relevance and Manner.

Malcolm was the character who simultaneously violated both of the maxims in the

movie. He failed to provide a clear and relevant contribution.

Dialogue 7

Context: Dialogue 7 took place in the dining room. In the dining room, Cole

demanded Greta to leave Heelshires‟ house and to go back in the United States

America forcefully. However, Greta did not want to leave Brahms alone. She

insisted to live in the Heelshires‟ home. When they were talking about that matter,

Malcolm came in the dining room. He looked at a man who was talking with

Greta. Greta and Cole realized that Malcolm came in and he was looking at them,

spontaneously Greta introduced Malcolm to Cole. Then, Malcolm and Cole

greeted to each other. After greeting, Cole asked Malcolm a question about

whether Malcolm who made the doll stuff, but Malcolm provided irrelevant and

obscure responses to Cole‟s question.

Malcolm : Hey, nice to meet you.

Cole : Nice to meet you, man (Clear throat). So, what do you

make of all this doll stuff?

Malcolm : Uh, you know, I try not to get involved in other people‟s

business.

In Malcolm‟s contribution, he started with an obscure statement Uh, you

know. It was not clear what he wanted to say as a response to Cole. Moreover, his

additional statements after saying I try not to get involved in other people‟s

business was wordy and relevant. In truth, in the beginning of the contribution,


55

Malcolm upheld the Maxims of Relevance and Manner by saying Uh, you know, I

try not to get involved in other people‟s business. Cole‟s question only needed

short response which was the most proper answer, clear, brief, univocal, orderly,

mutually dovetailed, relevant, and understandable.

The aforementioned gloss implied the feeling of Malcolm‟s

disappointments towards Cole‟s bad attitude and his discomfort with Cole‟s

presence. Since Malcolm knew that Cole had ever hurt Greta and made her to live

in the suffering of losing her child, it made Malcolm disappointed on what Cole

had done to Greta. On the other hand, Malcolm was worried about Malcolm‟s

presence in the Heelshires‟ house because he thought that Cole might hurt Greta

again. Therefore, Malcolm deliberately answered Cole‟s question in a wordy way

and irrelevantly in order to communicate his self-interest. His interest was he

wanted to tell Cole not to disturb Greta. In Malcolm‟s response Uh, you know, I

try not to get involved in other people‟s business it could be decoded into this

statement If I were you, I would not try to get involved in other people‟s business.

This meant that Cole should not get involved in Greta‟s life again or not to disturb

Greta with her new life.

Moreover, it was obviously wordy and relevant answer from Malcolm

because Cole asked a short question and Malcolm was supposed to answer it

briefly, relevantly, and understandably, namely Yes or No. Thus, the proper

answer that was supposed to be provided by Malcolm to Cole‟s question could

have been Yes, I did, No, I did not, Yes, of course I did, or No, of course I did not.

Nevertheless, Malcolm did not say so because of his disappointment and


56

discomfort feelings. He chose to avoid the discussion and to communicate his

self-interest. Supporting Khosravizadeh and Sadehvandi (2011), Dornerus (2005)

says that one of the reasons of violation of maxims is to communicate the

speakers‟ interests (p, 16). Thus, Malcolm‟s purpose when violated the Maxim of

Manner was that he wanted to communicate his own interest by ignoring Cole‟s

inquiry and avoiding the discussion.

d. Violation of Maxims of Quality, Quantity, and Manner

Dialogue 8 depicted the violation of three maxims. They are Maxims of

Quality, Quantity, and Manner. The character in the dialogue which violated those

maxims was Greta.

Dialogue 8

Context: Dialogue 8 took place in the kitchen. After Malcolm and Cole greeted to

each other, Greta asked Cole to give her a minute to talk to about the grocery

delivery. When they were talking to each other, Cole was looking at them and

Greta just realized it, so she cut off the conversation. She was worried that Cole

got jealous with her relationship with Malcolm. Soon after the conversation with

Malcolm, Cole asked Greta a question whether he should worry about Malcolm or

not. When answering Cole‟s question, Greta intentionally violated the Maxims of

Quality, Quantity, and Manner.

Cole : Should I be worried?

Greta : About Malcolm? Mmm… No.

The speakers should not say what they believe to be false and for which

they lack sufficient evidence or they violate the Maxim of Quality. Meanwhile,

the speakers should not contribute information which is more informative than is


57

required or violate the Maxim of Quantity. The speakers also should not provide

unnecessary redundancy or they violate the Maxim of Manner (Grice, 1975, pp.

45-46). Nevertheless, Dialogue 8 pointedly showed that Greta, in her response to

Cole‟s question, only upheld Maxim of Relevance: she failed to observe the

maxims of Quality, Quantity, and Manner. Greta intentionally violated the

Maxims of Quality, Quantity, and Manner in order to mislead the counterpart

(Grice, 1975, p. 49).

By saying Mmm… No, Greta showed that she was actually in a state of

confusion; she did not know what the exact contribution to convey. While trying

to mislead Cole, she got herself into a conflict about how to hide the truth about

her relationship with Malcolm. The utterance Mmm… No, was confusing Cole as

it was not productive (Crowley & Mitchell, 1994, p. 140). By saying so, Greta

violated Maxim of Manner.

Moreover, Greta‟s gloss implied that she violated the Maxim of Quantity

because her contribution was too little information. If Greta wanted to convince

Cole that she did not have any special relationship with Malcolm and to avoid

from Cole being suspicious she should give the required answer, for example No,

I do not have any feelings for him, No, I am not that close with him, or No, he is

just a friend of mine. Greta violated the Maxim of Quality because she failed to

provide the genuineness sincerity contribution. It was obviously seen in the movie

that Greta and Malcolm had a special relationship because they had done kissing

and they had tried to make love. This meant that they got interested in each other

or they might be in love. However, when Cole asked the question, Greta did not


58

give him a genuine contribution. Greta violated the Maxim of Manner because she

failed to avoid unnecessary gloss.

B. Reasons of Violating Grice’s Maxims

Based on the findings of the second research question, it was found that

there were seven reasons for The Boy‟s characters violate Grice‟s maxims namely,

saving face, protracting answer, avoiding the discussion, pleasing the

interlocutors, being polite, communicating self-interest, and misleading the

counterparts. Therefore, in order to answer the second research question, the

researcher employed five theories namely, saving face by Goffman (2008), being

polite by Leech (1983), and Brown and Levinson (1987), protracting the answer,

pleasing the interlocutors, avoiding the discussion, and misleading by

Khosravizadeh and Sadehvandi (2011), and communicating self-interest by

Donerus (2005). Each theory provided the reasons for the characters of The Boy

violated Grice‟s maxims.

Table 4.3: The Reasons of Violating Grice’s Maxims

NO The Reasons of Violating Maxims Number of dialogue

1. Save Face 11 dialogues

2. Protracting the answer 5 dialogues

3. Avoiding the discussion 5 dialogues

4. Pleasing the interlocutors 4 dialogues

5. Communicating self-interest 4 dialogues

6. Being polite 3 dialogues

7. Misleading the Counterparts 1 dialogue


59

Table 4.3 showed the reasons of violating maxims which were done by the

characters of The Boy movie was listed orderly from the most frequent to least

using the reason of violating Grice‟s maxims. In the Cooperative Principle, Grice

(1975) underlines that the speakers who violate a maxim will be liable to mislead

their counterparts in the conversation (p. 49). In this research, the researcher had

discovered seven reasons that were employed by the characters in The Boy movie;

all of which violated Grice‟s maxims. Thus, the reasons are elaborated in detailed

as follows.

1. Saving Face

Goffman, (2008) claims that by applying exaggeration (quantity),

deception (quality), circumlocutions (manner), or irrelevance (relevance) in face–

to-face talk, speakers violate Grice‟s maxims in order to preserve their self-esteem

or dignity (p. 17). The characters in The Boy movie violated Grice‟s maxims in

order to save their own faces and others‟ (Brown & Levinson, 1987, p. 16).

Saving face was the most frequent reason that the characters of The Boy used to

violate Grice‟s maxims. Saving face was used 11 times by the characters of The

Boy in the 21 dialogues. In order to get profound understanding towards the

reason of the characters used saving face to violate Grice‟s maxims, the researcher

presented a dialogue to be elaborated, namely dialogue 9.

Dialogue 9

Mr. Heelshire : Be good to him and he‟ll good to you. Be bad to

him…

Mrs. Heelshire : Oh, she‟ll be good to him. Won‟t you, Miss

Evans?



60

Greta‟s response contradicted the experience she had done to Brahms after

Mr. and Mrs. Heelshire left. In order to please Mr. and Mrs. Heelshire‟s question

and request, Greta lied to them by saying that she would treat him like her own.

She forced to lie because she did not want to disappoint them and she could not

refuse their request since she would be given salary every week to take care of

Brahms. Thus, the response showed that Greta failed giving a true answer.

Aside from pleasing the Heelshires, in Dialogue 2 Greta violated Maxim of

Quality in order to save face of her own self-esteem as a responsible nanny and a

good girl (Brown & Levinson, 1987, p. 61). Greta did not want to disappoint the

Heelshires because she would be given salary to take care of Brahms and as a

nanny it was Greta‟s responsibility to take care of it. However, she did not do like

she said previously to the Heelshires. She did not take care of Brahms because she

thought that Brahms was only a doll and it did not need any care.

2. Protracting the Answer

Protracting the answer in the conversation is one of the goals to be reached

by speakers (Khosravizadeh & Sadehvandi, 2011, p. 123). Protracting the answer

was used 5 times by the characters of The Boy to violate Grice‟s maxims.

Therefore, the researcher presented Dialogue 10 to be elaborated in order to get

profound understanding towards why the characters used protracting the answer to

violate Grice‟s maxims.

Dialogue 10

Greta : What‟s the truth?


at the time, but it was Brahms‟ birthday or would have



61











In Dialogue 10 Malcolm provided a long answer for Greta‟s question,

What is the truth? Instead of saying Brahms is odd, According to Mr. Heelshire

Brahms is odd, or Mr. Heelshire told me that Brahms is odd, he chose to provide a

verbose answer. By providing such a long answer, Malcolm wanted to tell Greta

that he was honest with his answer that he only knew if Brahms was odd.

Therefore, the too informative contribution and the long unnecessary answer from

Dialogue 10 showed that Malcolm wanted to protract the answer on Greta by

knowing the detailed information about where he could get the information about

Brahms.

3. Avoiding the discussion

In the conversation, speakers may encounter an unpleasant situation. It was

obviously seen in Dialogue 11. It was when Malcolm asked Greta‟s opinion about

the feeling of losing a child.

Dialogue 11

Malcolm : It was a fire. Brahms didn‟t make it out. On his eighth





Greta : So, he died 20 years ago? He‟d be about your

age. They‟ve lived like this for 20 years?


62

In order to avoid getting into an unpleasant situation or discussing the

things that happened to her, Greta decided to give an irrelevant or unclear answer.

She avoided the discussion because it was too painful for her to feel the feeling

her child since she had ever experienced losing her own child. On the other hand,

Greta was a kind of girl who could not tell about her all experiences to somebody

she had just met. Thus, she did not want Malcolm to know about her past,

especially her experience of losing her own child.

4. Pleasing the Interlocutors

Pleasing interlocutors is another reason of violating maxims proposed by

Khosravizadeh and Sadehvandi (2011). Providing only a short answer or saying

honestly about the particular condition would not please the characters of this

movie. Here, the researcher elaborated Dialogue 12 in order to know why the

characters used this reason to violate the maxims.

Dialogue 12



In Dialogue 8, Greta‟s gloss implied that she violated the Maxim of

Quantity because her contribution was too little information. If Greta wanted to

convince Cole that she did not have any special relationship with Malcolm and to

avoid from Cole being suspicious she should give the required answer, for

example No, I do not have any feelings for him, No, I am not that close with him,

or No, he is just a friend of mine. Therefore, when answering Cole‟s question,

Greta did not say it honestly about her special relationship with Malcolm. She did

not dare to say the truth because she knew Cole‟s reactions if he knew that. He


63

would get jealous and after that he would hurt Greta or Malcolm. In order to avoid

bad consequences to happen, Greta should give a dishonest answer to please Cole.

5. Communicating self-interest

Supporting by Khosravizadeh and Sadehvandi (2011), Donerus (2005)

says that Communicate self-interest is another aim to be achieved by the speakers

in violating the maxims when conducting a conversation (p. 16). The Dialogue 13

was elaborated as follows in order to know why the characters used this reason to

violate the maxims.

Dialogue 13

Malcolm : Hey, nice to meet you.




business.

In Dialogue 13 Malcolm violated the Maxims of Relevance and Manner.

He provided an irrelevant and unclear answer to Cole‟s question. Malcolm‟s gloss

implied the feeling of Malcolm‟s disappointments towards Cole‟s bad attitude and

his discomfort with Cole‟s presence. Since Malcolm knew that Cole had ever hurt

Greta and made her to live in the suffering of losing her child, it made Malcolm

disappointed on what Cole had done to Greta. On the other hand, Malcolm was

worried about Malcolm‟s presence in the Heelshires‟ house because he thought

that Cole might hurt Greta again. Therefore, Malcolm deliberately answered

Cole‟s question in a wordy way and irrelevantly in order to communicate his self-

interest. His interest was he wanted to tell Cole not to disturb Greta. In Malcolm‟s

response Uh, you know, I try not to get involved in other people‟s business it


64

could be decoded into this statement If I were you, I would not try to get involved

in other people‟s business. This meant that Cole should not get involved in

Greta‟s life again or not to disturb Greta with her new life.

In this sense, why he did so was because he wanted to show his

disappointment and discomfort feelings towards Cole‟s presence. His presence

could disturb Greta‟s life; therefore, he wanted to imply that he should stop

disturbing Greta‟s life or getting involved in Greta‟s business.

6. Being Polite

Leech (1983) claims that in a particular situation, speakers may violate

Grice‟s maxims by changing an unpleasant topic of a conversation or adding

additional unnecessary glosses or even saying agreement in order to be polite (p.

81-82). Being polite was used by characters to violate the maxims 3 times. Here

the Dialogue 14 was presented as follows.

Dialogue 14

Greta : And the son? Brahms?

Malcolm : Brahms. Oh he‟s, um…uh… I‟m not quite sure how to

explain.

As seen in Dialogue 14, starting his verbose gloss by saying, Brahms. Oh,

he‟s um… uh… I‟m not quite sure how to explain, Malcolm wanted to uphold

Politeness Principle (Leech, 1983, p. 131). Mirrored from Maxim of Politeness

especially Approbation Maxim, Malcolm tried not to tell Greta about Brahms

which was a doll because he did not have a right to tell so. If Malcolm had said

that Brahms was a doll and the real Brahms was dead, he then should provide the

argument in order to convince Greta, for example the reason why Brahms was


65

replaced by a doll and how Brahms could be dead. Therefore, he tried to minimize

dispraise on what Brahms looked like.

7. Misleading Counterparts

Misleading counterparts was one of the reasons of the maxims violations in

daily exchanges (Grice, 1975, p. 49). Misleading in this case means that the

speaker gives wrong information to hearer and makes the hearer believe it or take

it for granted. Grice discovers that the speakers conduct it in some ways, namely

intentionally, and clearly or unclearly. Misleading the counterparts was used once

by the character of The Boy movie in the Dialogue 15.

Dialogue 15



Misleading in speech acts among the interactants in this movie was clearly

seen in Dialogue 15. Greta, in her dialogue, intentionally misled Cole by violating

Maxim of Quality, Quantity, and Manner. She was not honest; she did not make a

sufficient and clear contribution by saying About Malcolm? Mmm… No, when

answering Cole‟s question.

In Dialogue 15, Greta tried to mislead Cole by saying dishonestly about

her relationship with Malcolm. However, Greta was not supposed to add obscure

gloss like Mmm… No to her answer because it would make her gloss obscure. On

the other hand, Greta should add more glosses in order to convince Cole that she

had no special relationship with Malcolm or she should only answer Yes or No to

his question without adding unnecessary gloss, namely Mmm… Nonetheless, Cole

nodded to Greta‟s answer indicated that he agreed to Greta that he should not


66

worry about Malcolm. This meant that Greta successfully misled Cole about her

relationship with Malcolm.


67

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This part consists of conclusions, implications, and suggestions.

Conclusions deal with the summary of the research. Implications deal with the

involvement of the research education. In the suggestions part, the researcher

proposes some points for the English learners in general and English learners in

the English Language Education Study Program (ELESP) of Sanata Dharma

University in particular. The suggestions are also addressed to future researchers.

They may use the research as a reference when conducting research in the same

field.

A. Conclusions

After analyzing the data as presented in Chapter IV Analysis, the

researcher came to the conclusion part. There were two research questions needed

to be answered through this research as formulated in Chapter I. The first research

question aimed to find out the types of violation maxims were found in The Boy

movie. The second research question was devoted to find out what reasons of The

Boy movie characters violated the Grice‟s maxims.

Grounded on the research, the researcher came up with two conclusions.

The first conclusion was that The Boy movie characters verbally violated all of

Grice‟s maxims. The Grice‟s maxims that were being violated were Maxim of

Quantity, Quality, Relevance, and Manner. The researcher found that the


68

characters tended to violate the maxims in two types, namely single and multiple

maxim violation. The characters, in one situation, violated one maxim in one

utterance. Meanwhile, in other situation, the characters simultaneously violated

two even three maxims in one utterance. The characters violated the Maxim of

Quantity, Quality, Relevance, and Manner, when they provided insufficient,

dishonest, irrelevant, and unclear information. The characters that violated Grice‟s

maxims were Greta and Malcolm. The character who violated the maxims most

was Greta. In 21 dialogues, she violated the maxims 10 times. The most Grice‟s

maxim that was violated was Maxim of Relevance; 8 times out of 24.

The second conclusion was that the characters tended to intentionally

violate the maxims in order to achieve particular reasons. By employing particular

ways, they violated the maxims in order to save face, protract the answer, avoid

the discussion, please the interlocutors, communicate self-interest, being polite,

and mislead the counterparts.

B. Implications

Grice‟s Cooperative Principle with four conversational maxims is

unfamiliar to language users, including English learners in the English Language

Education Study Program (ELESP) of Sanata Dharma University. Nonetheless,

the English learners always get involved in the dialogue or conversation all the

time. Based on the viewpoint of the four maxims, the English learners tend to

break the rules constantly in order to achieve their certain reasons. According to

teaching and learning context, Grice‟s maxims should be considered as an


69

alternative medium of source for the English learners to develop a meaningful and

productive conversation in the classroom.

In the classroom, teachers may make Grice‟s Cooperative Principle with

the four conversational maxims as a useful subject to teach the students. By doing

so, the teachers have a good opportunity to teach the students to construct a good

relation or a productive and meaningful conversation by providing sufficient,

honest, relevant, and clear information. This research helps the readers to find

useful information related to violations of Grice‟s maxims in the daily

conversation. After reading this research, the English learners will know

profoundly about four of Grice‟s maxims, which maxims are violated, how and

why the maxims are violated. By having profound knowledge of violations of

Grice‟s maxims, they will be aware of their utterances in the conversation,

especially when responding to their interlocutors.

C. Recommendations

Based on the results of this research, the researcher would like to propose

several suggestions. The suggestions are addressed to English learners in general

and the English learners in the English Language Education Study Program

(ELESP) of Sanata Dharma University in particular. The suggestions are also

intended for future researchers.

1. English Learners

English learners in this respect are the English learners in general and the

English learners in the English Language Education Study Program (ELESP) of

Sanata Dharma University in particular. By researching the violations of Grice‟s


70

maxims on the listeners‟ response to the speakers‟ utterances in The Boy movie,

the English learners can enrich their understanding on Grice‟s maxims. They will

also find that the speakers in the conversation tend to violate the Grice‟s

conversational maxims in order to achieve various reasons. Therefore, the

researcher encourages the English learners to learn from this research to have a

profound understanding on Grice‟s conversational maxims and pay attention to

the conversational maxims that are used in the daily conversation.

2. Future Researchers

By doing research of the maxims violations on Grice‟s conversational

maxims in The Boy movie, the future researchers who are conducting research on

a similar issue will have a better understanding of how to scrutinize the

Cooperative Principle further. Based on this point, the researcher may suggest for

the further researchers to use Grice‟s Cooperative Principle as their basis for the

theory. They may decide to compare and choose different theories concerning

violations. This will help them to further examine the violations of Grice‟s

maxims.


71

REFERENCES

Al-Qaderi, I.A.U. (2015). A pragmatic analysis violating the maxims to the

yeremi dialects (7). Retrieved on November 7, 2016, from

http://www.macrothink.org/ijl

Ary, D., Jacobs, L.C., & Razavieh, A. (2010). Introduction to research in

education (8th

ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Thomson Learning.

Bach, K. (2006). The top 10 misconceptions about implicature. Drawing the

boundaries of Meaning: Neo-Grice studies in pragmatics and semantics in

honor of Laurence R. Horn, 21-30.

Brown. P. & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language

usage (3rd

ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Brown, G. & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research method in education (7th

ed.). Routledge: London.

Creswell, J. W. & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative

inquiry. Theory into Practice, 39, 124-130.

Cutting, J. (2000). Pragmatics and discourse: A resource book for students.

Routledge: London.

Davies, B. (2000). Grice‟s cooperative principle. In D. Nelson, P. Foolks (Eds.),

Getting the meaning across. 1-26. London: University of Leeds.

Dornerus, E. (2005). Breaking maxims in conversation a comparative study of

how scriptwriters break maxims in desperate housewives and that 70‟s

show. Retrieved on October 10th

, 2012.

Fraenkel, J. R. & Wallen, N. E. (2009). How to design and evaluate research in

education (7th

ed.). New York: McGraw Hill Companies, Inc.

Goffman, E. (2008). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. Far Hill,

NJ: Pantheon Books.

Graham, G. (2005). Philosophy of the arts: An introduction to aesthetic (3rd

ed.).

Routledge: London.

Grant, B. K. (2007). Film genre: From iconography to ideology. London:

Langham Street.

Grebe, N. (2009). Politeness: A theoretical review of Brown and Levinson‟s

politeness theory. München: University of Greifswald.



72

Grice, H. P. (1975). „Logic and conversation‟ In Cole, P. & Morgan, J. (ed.)

Syntax and Semantics, (3). New York: Academic Press.

Khosravizadeh, P. & Sadehvandi, N. (2011). Some instances of violation and

flouting of the maxim of quantity by the main character (Barry & Tim) in

Dinner for Schmucks. International Conference on Languages, Literature

and Linguistics, 26, 122-127.

Kotti, M., Ververidis, D., Evangelopoulus, G., Panagakis, I., & Kotropoulus, C.

(2008). Audio assisted movie dialogue detection. Senior member, IEEE,

Petros Maragos fellow member, IEEE, Joannis Pitas fellow member, IEEE

18, 1618-1627. Retrieved on June 20, 2017, from


Leech, G. N. (1983). Principle of pragmatics. London: University of Lancaster.

Leedy, P. D. & Omrod, J.E. (2005). Practical research: Planning and design.

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc.

Levinson, S.C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mey, J. L. (2009). Concise encyclopedia of pragmatics. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Norman, F. (2003). Analyzing discourse: textual analysis for social research.

Routledge: London.

O‟Grady, W.D., Dobrovolsky, M., & Katamba, F. (2005). Contemporary

linguistics: An introduction (5th

ed.). Boston: Bedford, St.Martin‟s.

Terkourafi, M. (2005). Socialising Grice: On interlocutors‟ reasons for co-

operating in conversation. Cambridge Occasional Papers in Linguistics

(COPIL), 2, 235-247.

Tupan, H.A. & Natalia, H. (2008). The multiple violations of conversational

maxims in lying done by the characters in some episodes of Desperate

Houswives. English Department, Faculty of Letters, Petra Christian

University. 10, 63-78.

Yang, C. (2008). Language use in context: A course in pragmatics. Beijing:

University of International Business and Economics Press.



73

APPENDICES


74

Appendix 1: The list of Single Maxim Violation in The Boy movie.

A. Quantity 1. Greta : What are you doing here?

Malcolm : You didn‟t pick up your phone. So, I thought maybe

I‟d make the delivery a little early this week.

Purpose : Protract answer.

2. Greta : What‟s the truth?


at the time, but it was Brahms; birthday or would have












Purpose : Please interlocutors and Protract answer

2. Malcolm : You‟re not worried about Brahms, are you? I mean, he

doesn‟t mind. Do you? You old sod. Of course not, I‟ve


75

been hoping she‟ll get out. I need a little privacy. I think I‟ll

watch TV, have a nice bath. A little Brahms‟ time. Hey,

yeah. High five. (Talking to Brahms while teasing Greta)

Greta : Maybe another time.

Purpose : Please interlocutor and to be polite.

B. Quality

1. Mr. Heelshire : Be good to him and he‟ll good to you. Be bad to him…

Mrs. Heelshire : Oh she‟ll be good to him. Won‟t you, Miss Evans?


Purpose : Save face and Please interlocutors, and be Polite

2. Sandy : Are you going on a date?

Greta : It‟s not a date. I won‟t call it a date anyway. It‟s more of

professional courtesy.

Sandy : How is that not a date?

Greta : (Looking at mirror with some dresses and drinking a glass

of wine) Well, we work for the same people, don‟t we?

Purpose : Save face

3. Greta : So, tell me about Brahms.

Malcolm : I told you about all I know.

Purpose : Avoid discussion.

C. Relevance

1. Mr. Heelshire : Be good to him and he‟ll be good to you. Be bad to him…


76

Mrs. Heelshire : (Cut off the conversation). Oh she‟ll be good to him.

Won‟t you, Miss Evans?


Mrs. Heelshire : (Whisper in Greta‟s right ear) I‟m so sorry.

Purpose : Save face and Avoid discussion.

2. Malcolm : It was a fire. Brahms didn‟t make it out. On his eighth





Greta : So, he died 20 years ago? He‟d be about your age.

They‟ve lived like this for 20 years?

Purpose : Save face, Communicate self-interest, and Avoid

discussion

3. Greta : It‟s like something out a storybook, isn‟t it?

Cab driver : Oh, the Heelshires have already taken care of that. And I

put your things inside.

Purpose : Avoid discussion.

4. Malcolm : Um… I see a dark past. On the run from someone, are we?

(Chuckles). That‟s what it looks like.

Greta : I‟ll throw it away.

Purpose : Avoid discussion and Save face

5. Greta : But I have to ask you.


77

Malcolm : Yes, I am single. Believe it or not, (Sigh). What‟s the

story with the doll?

Purpose : Protract answer and Communicate self-interest

6. Greta : There was someone in here. I know it. My clothes.

Malcolm : You know, I used to sleepwalk, when I was a boy.

Purpose : Please interlocutors

7. Malcolm : Are you okay?

Greta : I needed someone else to see it. So I would know.

Purpose : Avoid discussion

D. Manner

1. Greta : And the son? Brahms?

Malcolm : Brahms. Oh he‟s um… Uh… I‟m not quite sure how to

explain.

Purpose : Save face, Protract answer, and Avoid discussion.

2. Malcolm : Greta, it‟s a Malcolm.

Greta : Hey. Uh… It‟s the weirdest thing. When I first got here,

Mrs. Heelshire said that Brahms took my shoes. And that he

was playful. And I thought she was joking.

Purpose : Communicate self-interest


78

Appendix 2: The list of Multiple Maxim Violations in The Boy movie

A. Quantity and Manner

1. Malcolm : You‟re probably going mad in this house, aren‟t you? It

might be good to get out. I could show you the world-

famous local nightlife. I mean, I know technically you‟re

not supposed to leave Brahms, but I won‟t tell if you won‟t.

Greta : I just got out of a thing.

Malcolm : No. Uh this is not a thing. You know, I… I assure you of

that. This is, uh, a professional courtesy seeing as we‟re

employed by the same people. You know, it‟s a duty is what

it is. I will take no pleasure in it whatsoever. I promise.

Yeah?

Greta : Okay. Yeah.

Purpose : Protract answer and be polite

2. Sandy : Oh, and let me guess. You‟re drinking a nice glass of red

wine.

Greta : (After drinking a glass of red wine) Maybe.

Purpose : Save face

B. Quality and Manner

1. Sandy : Yeah, okay. Are you going to wear your coral dress?

Greta : (After looking at the mirror with her coral dress) I don‟t

know. I‟ll figure it out.

Purpose : Save face.


79

2. Greta : What do you read?

Malcolm : Me?

Greta : (Looking at Greta who was chewing a gum)

Uh… Chewing gum.

Purpose : Save face

C. Relevance and Manner

1. Malcolm : Hey, nice to meet you.




business.

Purpose : Save face and Communicate self-interest

D. Quality, Quantity, and Manner

1. Cole : Should I be worried?


Purpose : Save face


Documents

AN ANALYSIS OF THE VIOLATION OF GRICE’S MAXIMS ON … · mengetahui hal yang sebenarnya dan hanya memahami makna dasar dari kata-kata para pendengar. Pelanggaran dalam maksim-maksim