CONVERSATIONAL MAXIMS
USED BY ENGLISH POSTGRADUATE STUDENTS
IN CLASSROOM DISCUSSION
A Thesis
Submitted to the English Applied Linguistics Study Program in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Magister Humaniora
By :
MEY HARNITA HUTABARAT Registration Number : 8136112053
ENGLISH APPLIED LINGUISTICS STUDY PROGRAM
POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL
iv ABSTRACT
MEY HARNITA HUTABARAT, Reg. No. 8136112053. Conversational Maxims Used By English Postgraduate Students in Classroom Discussion. English Applied Linguistics, Pascasarjana Program, State University of Medan, 2015.
v ABSTRAK
MEY HARNITA HUTABARAT, Reg. No. 8136112053. Prinsip Percakapan Yang Digunakan oleh Mahasiswa Pascasarjana Bahasa Inggris di dalam Diskusi Kelas. Linguistik Terapan Bahasa Inggris, Program Pascasarjana, Universitas Negeri Medan, 2015.
i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First of all,the writer like to thank to Jesus Christ for His blessing and great plan in her life, especially in completing this thesis. The writer realizes that nothing can be obtained this far without his help.
The writer would like to give special appreciation to her father for giving endless support, love and care that writer realizes that without his prayer, she cannot run the study process well. This thesis is especilly dedicated to him since the writer’s purpose to enter thos postgraduate school is grounded to reasons that
his happiness and prestigave is everything in her life.
ii
Applied Linguistics Program during the completion of the process in taking her master degree.
Her never ending thanks also for her fiance Afrizal Franky M Damanik for giving love and support that tha writer realizes that he is also great motivation in cimpleting the thesis.
Her great appreciation falls to her young sister Citra Angelia Hutabarat for giving her so much love an care when the writer feels week sick that she is always with her giving great encouragement. And also great appreciation falls to her big family especially to ban David Hutabarat, Kak ika nainggolan, Johannes hutabarat and Chritofer or Tito Hutabarat.
The writer also would like to extend her sincere thanks to her best friend Moses Meliala Sembiring who also takes Master degree in State University of Medan taking English Applied Linguistics yearly 2014. Without his help and encouragement, this thesis would not be like its presence. The writer also would like to thank to her partner in workplace; ka Diana,Bang Praja,rida,Dara,janter and bang Salmen for giving her support and care.
iii
Finally, the writer must admit that the content of this thesis is still far from being perfect, but she warmly welcomes any constructive idea and critics that will improve the quality of the thesis. She also hopes this theisis would be useful for those who read it,especially majoring in English.
Medan, September 2015 The Writer
vi
2.1 Conversational Implicature ... 8
2.2 Conversational Maxims ... 9
2.5Classroom Discussion ... 20
2.5.1 The Nature of ClassroomDiscussion ... 21
2.6 English Postgraduate Program in State University of Medan ... 23
2.7 Relevant Studies ... 24
2.8 Conceptual Framework ... 25
CHAPTER III METHOD OF RESEARCH ... 28
3.1 Research Design ... 28
vii
3.3. Technique of Data Collection ... 30
3.4. Technique of Data Analysis ... 31
3.5. Trustworthiness ... 33
CHAPTER IV DATA ANALYSIS, FINDNGS, AND DISCUSSIONS ... 36
4.1. Data Analysis ... 36
4.1.1. The Conversational Maxims Occurring in Postgraduate Students Classroom Discussion ... 36
4.1.1.1. Types of Conversational Maxims ... 37
4.1.1.2. The Way of Conversational Maxims Realized in Classroom Discussion ... 48
4.1.1.3. Reasons of Conversational Maxims Obedience and Violation... 50
4.2. Findings ... 53
4.3. Discussions ... 54
CHAPTER VCONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS ... 56
5.1. Conclusions ... 56
5.2. Suggestions ... 56
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Pages
Table 1. The Total and Percentage Maxim of Quantity Occurrences ...37
... Table 2. The Total and Percentage of Maxim Quantity Obedience ...38
Table 3. The Total and Percentage of Maxim Quantity Violation ...40
Table 4. The Total and Percentage Maxim of Quality Occurrences ...40
Table 5. The Total and Percentage of Maxim Quality Obedience ...41
Table 6. The Total and Percentage of Maxim Quality Obedience ...42
Table 7. The Total and Percentage Maxim of Relevance Occurrences ...43
Table 8. The Total and Percentage of Maxim Relevance Obedience ...44
Table 9. The Total and Percentage of Maxim Relevance Violation...45
Table 10. The Total and Percentage Maxim of Manner Occurrences ...46
Table 11. The Total and Percentage of Maxim Manner Obedience ...47
Table 12. The Total and Percentage of Maxim Manner Violation ...48
Table 13. The Percentage of Maxims Violation Reasons Based on Natalie’s (2008) Markers ...51
Table 14. The Percentage of Maxim Violation outer part Natalie’s (2008) Markers ...52
Table 15. Maxims Obedience Reasons ...52
ix
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix 1. Conversation Transcription ...62
Appendix 2. Maxim Obedience ...75
Appendix 3. Maxim Violation ...88
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Pages
Table 1. The Total and Percentage Maxim of Quantity Occurrences ...37
Table 2. The Total and Percentage of Maxim Quantity Obedience ...38
Table 3. The Total and Percentage of Maxim Quantity Violation ...40
Table 4. The Total and Percentage Maxim of Quality Occurrences ...40
Table 5. The Total and Percentage of Maxim Quality Obedience ...41
Table 6. The Total and Percentage of Maxim Quality Obedience ...42
Table 7. The Total and Percentage Maxim of Relevance Occurrences ...43
Table 8. The Total and Percentage of Maxim Relevance Obedience ...44
Table 9. The Total and Percentage of Maxim Relevance Violation...45
Table 10. The Total and Percentage Maxim of Manner Occurrences ...46
Table 11. The Total and Percentage of Maxim Manner Obedience ...47
Table 12. The Total and Percentage of Maxim Manner Violation ...48
Table 13. The Percentage of Maxims Violation Reasons Based on Natalie’s (2008) Markers ...51
Table 14. The Percentage of Maxim Violation outer part Natalie’s (2008) Markers ...52
Table 15. Maxims Obedience Reasons ...52
viii
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix 1. Conversation Transcription ...62
Appendix 2. Maxim Obedience ...75
Appendix 3. Maxim Violation ...88
1
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1.1.The Background of the study
The major aim of communication is exchanging information in the
condition of being informative. Communication involves speaker/s and hearer/s
regarding exchanging information. When a speaker exchangesinformation, he/she
should consider the amount of information, the truth, the relevancy and the
manner. As the purpose of exchanging the information can be benefit both of
them, the participants of a conversation are supposed to utter that can be
understood so that their conversation becomes smooth.
Pragmatics as a mean in explaining language, it can explain the process in
a particular context where a conversation happens. As a discipline within
language science, Pragmatics as linguistics disciple roots lie in the work of Grice
that falls out into Cooperative Principle or the four maxims that take roles to
determine whether a conversation is successful or not.
There are rules or patterns in a conversation that should be followed by
participants which are based on Grice falls out into Cooperative Principle where
speaker/s and hearer/s are supposed to respond to each other in their turn and
exchange with the needed information that benefits both of them. By giving the
required information, they can understand each other’s utterances and their
conversations become smooth.
2
Cooperative Principle is the basis of successful conversation where
participants are cooperative each other by giving information not too much or too
little, by saying truth and avoiding the act of lying, by being relevant to topic of
conversation and also by talking in good manner; brief, clear, and orderly.
Listeners and speakers must speak cooperatively and mutually accept one another
to be understood in a particular way. The cooperative principle describes how
effective communication in conversation is achieved in common social situations.
Cooperation in Cooperative Principle can be understood as an essential
factor when speaker/s and hearer/s are interacting. It is an expectation that the
listener has toward the speaker. The speaker is supposed to convey true statements
and say nothing more than required. When people talk each other, they try to
converse smoothly and successfully.
However, the rules can be obeyed and violated. The violation term comes
from the situation that speaker/s do not fulfill the Cooperative Principle and they
are considered as they give information too much or too little, give false
information, talk far from the topic, and talk in bad manner; not clear, not brief
and not orderly. When the speakers do maxim violation, the conversation between
the speakers and the hearers can be unsuccessful since they will misunderstand
each other. Speakers who violate a maxim cause the hearer not to know the truth
and only understand the surface meaning of the speaker’s words.
A classroom discussion is a set of conversation which consists of some
3
purposeful process. In here, people exchange the ideas, thoughts and feelings
through oral communication.
A classroom discussion consists of two to five or more groups of people
which try to discuss a topic and give solution to the problem. One group may
consist of people from different background as the set of social aspects such as
ethnicity, religion, status, gender, academic success, popularity and age. In a
group discussion, each member of the group will try to make the discussion be
successful so that they build a close relationship among the member along with
the discussion.
Classroom discussion occurs in academic activity, State University of
Medan is as an institution which can hold this. State University of Medan is
originally established in 1956. State University of Medan provides programs
ranging from undergraduate diplomas to postgraduate. Applied Linguistics
(English language) as one of three programs offered beside Education Technology
and Education Administration. Post-graduate program is intended to educate
people who have finished their first or bachelor’s degree. Most of the students
come from professionals who have had job before entering the program. Students
come from various ethnicity, ages and academic background where they take their
first or bachelor’s degree.
Violation seems to be a tradition in fact and this happens also in classroom
discussion that is supposed to follow the Cooperative Principle. Violation in
4
not too much or too little, do not give true statement, talk far from topic and talk
in bad manner; not brief, not clear and not orderly.
Here is an example of violation to Cooperative Principle which occurs in
a classroom discussion of Postgraduate students majorly English in State
University of Medan yearly 2014:
1 A: “Thank you for the chance, I would like to question about the
research methodology. In your research, what is the methodology is used and why do you choose that one as your research methodoly? If it is qualitative, why, and if it quantitative, why? Because you just mention about the definition of qualitative design but you do not mention the reason why you use it, thank you.”
5 B: “Ok thank you. Yeah, this research is trying to see utterances, just
like sentences, or words or phrases, we use also accounting in the last step to find out the percentage, but is, but it is not quantitative but use qualitative.
10 A: “So, you have already explained about it but I can still not accept
your reason why do you use qualitative.
B: “Oh I see, yeah. Hmm..because we want to describe the problem,
the problem into explain on how it is, I mean how something happens in social.
A: I still confuse because I think quantitative is also describe, what do
you think?”
(Conversation recording is taken from A2 Class English Applied Linguistics Program yearly 2014 of Postgraduate program in State University of Medan: June 22, 2015. 03.00 PM.)
From the example above, it can be explained that there are violation
occurrences, namely violation to maxim of quantity and manner. The violation of
maxim quantity happens since the speaker breaks the rules to be informative by
being to the point. The sentences from line 5 to 7 are as the evidence of being not
to the point. The use of certain words when people are going to deliver
information is also a violation to maxim quantity since the rules of maxim
5
not too short. In asserting ideas, speaker is supposed to speak not too much or too
little by considering about logic ideas. Logic ideas is the way of speaking as
simple as possible and also put main idea or topic in the first of utterances, since if
speaker put main idea or topic of speaking in the end of utterances, the hearer
tends to lose with the main information and causes confrontation also from the
hearer. This is in line with Yule (1996) theories that speakers do obedience to
maxims for the reason of avoiding confrontation, getting other’s trust and
avoiding a deep evaluation.
The violation of maxim manner arises from the conversation can be
explained from the markers that are proposed by Natalie in 2008. Grice (1975)
mentions two rules of maxim of manner; they are being briefly and being
orderly”. In this case, the speaker in answering question is briefly enough but she
doesn’t speak orderly since speak in orderly means that when we speak which
contains more than one ideas, it is better to mention the focus or the most
important idea in the beginning of our utterances and followed by explanations.
The way of speaker in the example is explaining about qualitative design followed
by quantitative and goes back in explaining about qualitative. The violation to
maxim of manner will really occur when hearer cannot get their purpose or
intention as they wish.
Therefore, based on the phenomena mention above, this study tries to find
out the occurrences of conversational maxims whether the discussion participants
6
1.2.The Problems of the Study
Based on the explanation given in the background, the problems of the
study are formulated in the following questions:
1. What types of conversational maxim occur in English Post-graduate
students’ classroom discussions of State University of Medan?
2. How the conversational maxims occur in English Post-graduate students’
classroom discussions of State University of Medan?
3. Why do the conversational maxims occur in English Post-graduate
students’ classroom discussions of State University of Medan the way they
are?
1.3.The Objectives of the Study
The objectives of study can be described as follows:
1. To find out the types of conversational maxims which occur in English
Post-Graduate students’ classroom discussion of State University of
Medan
2. To find out the way of conversational maxims occur in English
Post-graduate students’ classroom discussion of State University of Medan
3. To find out the reason of obedience and violations of conversational
maxims by students in English Post-Graduate students’ classroom
7
1.4.The Scope of the Study
As stated in the previous explanation that conversational maxims can
occur also in classroom discussion. This study attempts to investigate the
conversational maxims in English Post-Graduate students’ classroom discussion
in State University of Medan. The aspects to be observed are the occurrences of
obedience and violence in conversational maxims.
1.5.The Significance of the Study
The findings of this study have two general significances, theoretical and
practical significances.
Theoretically, the results of this study are useful for :
1. The enrichment of linguistics knowledge in the field of pragmatics
especially in conversational maxims.
2. Development studies on cooperative principle about logic conversational
implicature which is known as conversational maxims.
Practically, the results of this study are useful for :
1. As a reference for the university students who are interested in studying
pragmatics and interested in conducting any further studies in
conversational maxims.
2. For speakers and listeners in daily conversation. By obeying
conversational maxims, they have an effective cooperation in
communication. Then, they can create good understanding in daily
56
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS 1.1Conclusions
After analyzing and drawing all the conversational maxims classroom
discussion of postgraduate students taking English Applied Linguistics yearly
2013 class A3, the researcher draws conclusion as follows:
1. The conversational maxims of Cooperative Principle which occur are
maxim of quantity, maxim of quality, maxim of relevance and maxim
of manner.
2. The occurrences of conversational maxims are realized in the way:
students provide information straightly to the point, convey ideas
correspond to reality, convey ideas in line with question’s main idea,
and answer question briefly.
3. There are some reasons of obedience and violation to conversational
maxims, they are; clarifying and strengthening, safe face, convincing
the hearer, cheer the hearer, satisfying the hearer and the last is hide
the truth
1.2Suggestions
Having seen the result of the study, the researcher would like to offer
suggestions as follows:
1. It is advisable to lecturers that conversational maxims of Cooperative
Principle are taught in the early of meeting class of postgraduate
students in the reason to provide them adding information of rules in
57
building conversation successfully, so that classroom discussion will
run smoothly and successfully.
2. It is expected for all students that obedience and violation in
conversational maxims will not be a barrier to conversation since
hearers are still able to catch the meaning of utterances which are
uttered by speakers. It is expected that this research adds new
perspective to all students about conversational maxims of Cooperative
Principle and leads to better understanding of the theory Cooperative
Principle.
3. It is suggested to other researchers and postgraduate students who are
taking English Applied Linguistics and being interested in conducting
research in the field of pragmatics to find out more new results to
Cooperative Principle study in order to add more theoretical findings
58
REFERENCES
Alduais,A.M.S.(2012).Conversational Implicature (Flouting the
Maxims):Applying Conversational Maxims on Examples Taken from Non-Standard Arabic Language,Yemeni Dialect, an idiolect Spoken at IBB City. Journal of Sociological Research. Vol.3 No.2
Al-Hamadi, H.M.,& Muhammed, B.J. (2009). Pragmatics: Grice’s Conversational Maxims Violations In The Responses of Some Western Politicians.
Journal of the College of Arts. University of Basrah. Vol.20.pp 1-23
Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown,P and Levinson,S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language
Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Taylor, S., and Bodgan, J.C. (1984). Introduction to Qualitative Research
Methods. (Second edition of Bodgan and Taylor. Wiley Advantage
Publication
Christoffersen, D. (2005).The shameless liar’s guide. Sourcebook
Cole, P and Morgan, J.L. (2000). Syntax and Semantics, Volume 3 (pp.41-58). New York: Academic Press
Crowley, D & Mitchell, D. (1994). Communication Theory Today. Stanford: Stanford University Press
Cruse,D.A. (2000).Meaning Language: an Introduction to Semantic and
Pragmatics. New York: Oxford University
Cutting, J.(2002). Pragmatics and Discourse. A research book for students. Rotledge: London and New York
Dardjowidjojo, S. (2000). Echa Kisah Pemerolehan Bahasa Anak Indonesia. Jakarta. Grasindo
Davies,B. (2000).Grice’s Cooperative Principle: Getting The Meaning Across.
Leeds Working Papers In Linguistics. 8. pp. 1-26
Davies,B.L. (2008).Grice’s Cooperative Principle: Meaning and Rationality.
Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 2308-2331
59
Denzim,N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (1994).Introduction: Entering the Field of
Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Eliashop,N. (1987).Politeness Power and Women’s Language:Rethinking Study in Language and Gender. Berkeley Journal of Sociolog.Vol.32.pp 79-103
Engle, S., & Ochoa, A. (1988). Education for Democratic citizenship: Decision
making in the social studies. New York: Teachers College Press
Grice, H.P. (1975). Logic and Conversation. In P.Cole, & J. Morgan (Eds), Syntax
and Semantics 3;Speech Acts (pp 4-5). New York: Academic Press
Grice, H.P. (1981)."Presupposition and Conversational Implicature", in P. Cole (ed.), Radical Pragmatics, Academic Press, New York, pp. 183–198. Reprinted as ch.17 of Grice 1989, 269–282
Gunarwan, Asim. (2004). “Pragmatik, Kebudayaan, dan Pengajaran Bahasa”
dalam Seminar Nasional Semantik III.Surakarta: Program Pascasarjana UNS
Jenny Cook-Gumperz. (2008). Studying language, culture and society: Sociolinguistics or Linguistic Anthroplogy. Journal of Sociolinguistics.12 (4): 532-545
Ladegaard,H.J. (2004).Politeness in Young Children’s Speech: context, peer group Ifluence and Pragmatic Competence.Journal of Pragmatics.Vol 36.pp. 2003-2022
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London, New York: Longman Group Ltd
Levinson, Stephen C. (1983). Pragmatics. Victoria: Cambridge University Press
Levinson, S.C. (1985). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Lincoln Y & Guba EG. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Sage Pubilcation. Newbury Park, CA
Lubis, I. S. (2012). Conversational Implicatures of Indonesia Lawyers Club Program On TV One. Unpublished Thesis. Medan: State University of Medan
Marrying, P.(2000). Qualitative Content Analysis. Forum: Qualitative Social Research
60
Murachver,A.H.T.Gender and Conversational Style As Predictors of Conversational Behaviour. Journal of Language and Sosial Psychology. Vol.18 No.2, 153-174
Natalie,H. (2008).The Multiple Violations of Conversational Maxims in Lying
Done By The Characters in Some Episodes of Desperate
Housewives.Volume 10. pp. 1-16
Noviati, D. (2010). The Types of Conversational Implicature as the Violation of Cooperative Principle in the Talkshow Bukan Empat Mata in Trans TV. Unpublished Thesis. Surakarta: Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta.
Parker, W.C. (1996). Curriculum for democracy. In R. Soder (ed). Democracy, education and schooling, (pp.182-210). San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass
Patton, M.Q. (1987). How to use Qualitative Methods in Evaluation. California: Sage Publications, Inc.
Purwo, Bambang Kaswanti. (1994). Pertemuan Linguistik Lembaga Bahasa Atma
Jaya: Ketujuh. PELBA 7. Yogyakarta. Penerbit Kanisius
Rahardi, Kunjana. (2012). Pragmatik Kesantunan Imperatif Bahasa Indonesia. Jakarta: Erlangga
Surya, Mohammad. (2004). Psikologi Pembelajaran dan Pengajaran.
Yogyakarta: Pustaka Bani Quraisy quite on the western front. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the College and University Faculty Assembly of the National Council for the Social Studies, Phoenix, AZ
Wray, Alison, Kate Trott and Aileen Bloomer. (1998). Projects in Linguistics: A
61
Yamazaki, Tatsuroh. (2010). Conversational Implicature In Stand-up Comedies 3.Volume 26.pp. 1-20
Yule. George. (1996). Pragmatics. Hawaii: Oxford University Press
Zulfa,A. (2013).The Flouting of Grice’s Conversational Maxims By The Main Character in the Dictator Movie. pp.1-30
www.google.com. (2005). Animated and narrated glossary of terms used in Linguistics. Retrieved May 10, 2015, from http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/library
www.google.com. (2005). Murmor, Andrei (What does the law say?): Semantics
and Pragmatics in Statutory Language. Retrieved May July 4, 2015, from <http://
