ABSTRACT
Saya menyusun Tugas Akhir (TA) ini untuk memenuhi syarat untuk memperoleh gelar Sarjana di Program Studi Sastra Inggris, Universitas Kristen Maranatha. Tugas Akhir saya ini adalah penelitian munculnya konflik yang ditimbulkan dari ketidakpatuhan dalam berkomunikasi dengan mengikuti teori bidal dari H.P. Grice.
Saya menganalisis konflik dengan menggunakan teori Grice melalui film seri yang berjudul Parenthood, musim kedua, ketiga, dan keempat. Dalam film yang telah saya analisis, saya menemukan konflik yang ditimbulkan oleh karena pembicara menolak untuk bekerjasama dalam berkomunikasi. Beberapa dari mereka melakukan hal tersebut dengan tujuan tertentu, seperti ingin menyembunyikan kebenaran dari mitra tutur. Konflik banyak ditimbulkan karena penutur memberikan pernyataan yang cenderung memiliki dwimakna sehingga mitra tutur mereka menangkap makna yang salah.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER TWO: THE NON-OBSERVANCE OF THE GRICEANMAXIMS ...
CHAPTER THREE: THE OCCURRENCE OF CONFLICTS IN
PARENTHOOD TV SERIES, SEASONS 2-4 ...
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study
Humans are social beings and they socialize with other people starting from a small range, like in a family until a larger community like a society. Through communication, people can have an effective interaction to make friends and also express what they wish. Moreover, communication is an important way for people to express what they want to say and how they are able to socialize with other people. However, making a good communication is not always easy because sometimes people refuse to cooperate because of some reasons.
Deciding not to be cooperative, people who are involved in a conversation may cause a conflict with their listener. A conflict can happen between people in some different situations due to some particular reasons.
avoided.
I choose this topic because in our daily conversation people actually have to understand a message which is delivered by a speaker to a listener. Besides, I want to analyze the kind of non-observance of the Gricean maxim that tends to end with a quarrel between a speaker and a listener in different situations.
In fact, I want to analyze the implicature or the implied meaning of a speaker’s utterance in some utterances which tend to flout the Gricean maxim. Hence, when the listener does not get the meaning of the speaker’s utterance, misinterpretation will occur and the conversation may end with a conflict between them.
The topic of my thesis is The Occurrence of Conflicts due to the
Non-observance of the Gricean Maxims in Parenthood TV Series, Seasons 2-4. This
film is about four Braverman families. They are Adam, the oldest; Sarah, the second; Julia, the third; and Crosby, the youngest. All of them have to face different problems in different situations.
In the TV series, sometimes I find some dialogues among the characters and their own family which tend to cause quarrels because of the non-cooperativeness of a maxim. Through the characters’ utterances, I also find implicatures which are not stated directly by the speakers.
The topic of my thesis belongs to pragmatics, which is:
effects their use of language in social interaction, and the effects their use of language has on the other participants in an act of communication.” (Crystal 310).
To analyze the conflicts due to the non-observance of the Gricean maxims, I choose some theories from a philosopher, H.P. Grice. According to him, there are many kinds of the non-observance of maxims. Furthermore, we can also know how a conversation does not run well because a speaker fails to be cooperative. The significance of the study is to make people aware that a speaker sometimes does not say what they mean to a listener directly. Therefore, the viewers must be aware that they have to get the intended meaning through a speaker’s utterance. This study can help them to understand the situation, in which a speaker sometimes tries to mislead them on purpose.
The source of data consists of three seasons of Parenthood TV series. Season two consists of twenty-two episodes, season three eighteen episodes, and season four fifteen episodes. The non-observance of the maxims do not always occur in every episode but I find them only in some episodes. Yet, at least two until three samples of data can be found from each episode where the non-observance of maxims occur.
I choose this particular source because I think the conflict occurs when the characters have their own difficulty to perform their duty. For example, when parents want to solve a problem in their family, sometimes they have different opinions from their children.
1.2 Statement of the Problem
In my thesis, there are two problems to be analyzed:
1. Which Gricean maxims does the speaker fail to observe?
2. How does the conflict appear due to the non-observance of the Gricean maxims?
1.3 Purpose of the Study
According to the statement of the problem, the purposes of this study are:
1. To classify which maxims are flouted by a speaker.
2. To understand how a conflict appears due to the non-observance of maxims.
1.4 Methods of Research
1.5 Organization of the Thesis
CHAPTER TWO
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
2.1 Pragmatics
The theory that I am going to use for analyzing the data is Pragmatics. Pragmatics is one of sub-divisions of Linguistics. Pragmatics is “The study of the relationship between linguistic forms and the users of those forms” (Yule 4).
Therefore, I conclude that pragmatics is the study of the intended meaning through a speaker’s utterance interpreted by a hearer. According to Jenny Thomas, Pragmatics is a meaning of interaction which means that:
This reflects the view that meaning is not something which is inherent in the words alone, nor is it produced by the speaker alone, nor by the hearer alone. Making meaning is a dynamic process, involving the negotiation of meaning between a speaker and a hearer, the context of utterance
2.2 Cooperative Principle
In general, people tend to refuse to be coopertive in speaking, they cannot give a clear utterance or can be known as the implied meaning (implicature) in their utterance. In order to make a conversation run smoothly, people who are involved in the conversation have to know about cooperative principle. When people are cooperative, they can avoid having a conflict with their listener, or else the conflict itself will rarely occur.
According to Grice, cooperative principle could make the conversation run smoothly, “Make your contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of talk exchange in which you are engaged.” (Thomas 56)
2.3 Implicature
Generally, implicature can happen because people give such an unclear utterance to their listener. As a result, people can misunderstand the utterance. Specifically, implicature is the meaning of what they want to deliver to a listener which is not stated directly. (Thomas 57)
2.3.1 Conventional Implicature
Conventional implicature is different from conversational implicature.
From the example above, the statement carries an implicature. It means that after stating that she is clever, actually the statement can be fallen into another expectation that she has the opposite meaning which states that she is lazy. The word but carries the meaning of the opposition apart from the context. (Yule 148)
2.3.2 Conversational Implicature
Conversational implicature is associated with the cooperative principle and four conversational maxims which are proposed by Grice. According to him, the cooperative principle and four conversational maxims are needed to make a conversation run smoothly. According to Thomas, the cooperative principle must, “Make your contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of talk exchange in which you are engaged.” (58) For example:
Carol: Are you coming to the party tonight? Lara: I’ve got an exam tomorrow. (Yule 149)
Therefore, Lara’s utterance carries an implicature explaining that tonight’s activities are not just about a simple utterance but also about tomorrow’s activities. In order to describe the conversational implicature involved in Lara’s statement, we have to know some background knowledge; for example, about exams, studying and partying that must be shared by people who are involved in a conversation. (Yule 149)
Referring to the previous explanation, there are four types of flouting a maxim which are explained in detail by Grice, namely the maxim of quantity, maxim of quality, maxim of relation, and maxim of manner.
2.3.2.1 Maxim of Quantity
According to Grice, the maxim of quantity would run smoothly by obeying the rule which says, “Make your contribution as informative as is required (for the current purpose of the exchange). And do not make your contribution more informative than is required” (Yule 64). Grice also says, “A speaker flouts the maxim of quantity by blatantly giving either more or less information than the situation demands” (Thomas 69).
For example:
A: How are we getting there?
B: Well we’re getting there in Dave’s car. (Thomas 69)
implicature. The implicature is that she actually does not want to go with A. (Thomas 69)
2.3.2.2 Maxim of Quality
According to Grice, the maxim of quality would run smoothly by obeying the rule which says, “Try to make a correct information. Do not say what you believe to be false. And do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence” (Yule 64). Grice also says, “Flouting the maxim of quality occurs when the speaker says something which is blatantly untrue and for which he or she lacks adequate evidence. By flouting the quality maxim, again the speaker wishes or even forces the hearer to look for another plausible interpretation” (Thomas 67). For example:
over him. (Thomas 67)
From the example above, the utterance flouts the maxim of quality. It flouts the maxim of quality because it gives information which is blatantly untrue or false. It means that the ambulance man does not actually want to express his pleasure after someone vomits over him. The utterance carries an implicature. The implicature is actually the ambulance man wants to express his opposite feeling after the stranger vomits over him. (Thomas 67)
2.3.2.3 Maxim of Relation
According to Grice, the maxim of relation would run smoothly by obeying the rule which says that we should be relevant. Grice also explains, “A speaker flouts the maxim of relation by making a response obviously irrelevant to the
flouts the maxim of relation by making a response obviously irrelevant to the topic in hand. This can be done by suddenly changing the subject or by overtly failing to address the other person’s goal in asking a question” (Thomas 70). For example:
I finished working on my face. I grabbed my bag and a coat. I told Mother
I was going out… She asked me where I was going. I repeated myself, ‘Out.’
(Thomas 70)
From the example above, Olivia flouts the maxim of relation. She flouts the maxim of relation because she fails to achieve her mother’s goal in asking the question. She does not give a certain answer toward her mother’s question. Therefore, her mother knows that Olivia is going out, but she wants know to where actually Olivia is going. (Thomas 70)
2.3.2.4 Maxim of Manner
According to Grice, the maxim of manner would run smoothly if people obey the rule like, “Be clever. Avoid obscurity of expression. Avoid ambiguity. Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity). And be orderly” (Yule 64). Grice also says, “A speaker flouts the maxim of manner when a speaker makes a long-winded response. The speaker actually can just give a simple response” (Thomas 71).
For example:
This interaction occurred during a radio interview with an unnamed
official from the United States Embassy in Port-au-Prince Haiti:
departure? Did they, for example, actively encourage him to leave?
Official: I would not try to steer you away from that conclusion. (Thomas
71)
From the example above, the official flouts the maxim of manner since she
actually can simply say “yes”. However, from the situation above, it seems that she makes a long-winded response toward the interviewer’s utterance. She does not say something directly. She does that because she wants to make the interviewer look for the implied meaning toward the interviewer’s utterance. (Thomas 71)
Besides, Grice, proposes types of non-observances of the conversational maxims. They are violating a maxim, infringing a maxim, opting out of a maxim and suspending a maxim. According to Grice, they are formulated as follows:
2.3.2.5 Violating a Maxim
This type of non-observance happens when a speaker gives such an answer which has an implied meaning. According to Grice, this happens when a speaker is inclined to mislead (Thomas 72). In other words, the speaker wants to lead the hearer to have another understanding to believe in what actually happens.
For example:
Alice has been refusing to make love to her husband, Martin. At first, he
attributes her refusal to post-natal depression, but then he starts to think she may be having an affair.
Alice: No, there isn’t another man. (Thomas 72)
From the example above, Alice violates a maxim. She violates a maxim because she seems to want to mislead Martin to have another thought about what he has already asked before. She does that because she wants to keep the truth that she actually has an affair with a woman not a man. (Thomas 72)
2.3.2.6 Infringing a Maxim
Infringing a maxim happens when the speaker actually gives an unusual
response, because they have an imperfect linguistic performance experienced by a foreign learner or a young child. According to Grice, in the case, a maxim is infringed “ ... because of the speaker’s impairment in some ways such as nervousness, drunkenness or excitement” (Thomas 74).
2.3.2.7 Opting out of a Maxim
According to Grice, a speaker opts out of observing a maxim by indicating unwillingness to cooperate in the way the maxim requires. The example of opting out frequently happens in public life. It happens when a speaker cannot reply normally because of legal or ethical reasons. According to Thomas, a speaker might also opt out of a maxim because the requested information might hurt “a third party” or “put them in danger”. (Thomas 74)
For example:
Ruth Rendell, a famous crime novelist, was being interviewed by an equally famous psychiatrist, Prof Anthony Clare. Clare asked Rendell about her husband.
AC: You married him twice. You’ve been interviewed many times, but I’ve never seen a satisfactory explanation for that very interesting about her husband.
RR: Well (pause) I don’t think I can give you one. That is not to say that I don’t know it but I do know it but I cannot give it. I don’t think that to give it would be a very good idea, particularly for my husband.
2. When a situation might put them in danger.
Caller: … um I lived in uh a country where people sometimes need to flee that country.
Ross: Uh, where was that?
74)
2.3.2.8 Suspending a Maxim
A maxim can usually be suspended when the suspension is allowed to happen by the circumstances, events and also the culture. According to Grice, in the case “there is no need to opt out of a maxim because the participants involved understand the need to have suspension” (Thomas 76).
For example:
of Shakespeare’s play Macbeth because to do so is supposed to bring bad luck. Therefore, they refer to it as The Scottish Play. (Thomas 76)
2.4 Conflict
Generally, people who are involved in a conversation can have a conflict,
because sometimes their interlocutor refuses to be cooperative in speaking. Conflict can happen in some different situations and it can be caused by some particular reasons.
According to Perrine, conflict is, “A clash of actions, ideas, desires, or wills. In others it is multiple, various and subtle. A person may be in conflict with other persons, with society or nature, and with himself, all at the same time, and sometimes he may be involved in conflict without being aware of it” (44).
CHAPTER THREE
THE OCCURRENCE OF CONFLICTS
DUE TO THE NON-OBSERVANCE
OF THE GRICEAN MAXIMS
IN PARENTHOOD TV SERIES, SEASONS 2-4
According to the title of my thesis analysis, I want to discuss some speech events which tend to end with a quarrel between a speaker and a listener because the non-observance of Gricean maxims are flouted by some speakers. The first speech event is between Joel and Julia.
Speech event 1
Julia: Okay, listen, I know we said there needs to be more room for you, especially if we are going to have a second child, but I need to understand – you know, is this what that looks like? Because – because I do not know if we can manage it. I do not know how that works. How can we manage this?
Joel: Yes, yeah, okay. Let us discuss this. We just need to discuss. Yeah, let us talk about this. (stop for a minute) You do not want me to work ever. Julia: 1) Oh, give me some credit, Joel. I moved mountains --
Joel: 2) I moved mountains for you for years, Julia, and this is one week I am asking from you!
Julia: I am not trying to be ungrateful. I am just trying to face reality here. Joel: Okay, what reality is that?? Just spit it out.
Julia: The reality is that you are working all hours of the night. 3) I am working mad hours.
Joel: Yes. (with a cold tone)
Julia: 4) There is no one watching our child. Joel: Do not get so dramatic.
Julia: I mean – there is plenty of people to take care of our kid. We got a family to take – what am I just supposed to leave a deposition ....
Joel: What are you getting at??
Julia: 5) I am billing $600 an hour for, so you grout some guy’s bathroom?? Joel: No, you are right. I mean. If it is, um -- if it is about whose time is worth
more, you win. (Joel says it in a cold tone. Then, he leaves Julia) Julia: No, that is not – Come on...
Analysis:
The first speech event is taken from season two; episode seven, entitled
Seven Names (CD). The conversation is between Julia and her husband, Joel. In
They are having a conversation in their house. In this speech event, they are talking about how they should manage their time to look after their child, Sydney. At first, Julia wants to tell Joel that she needs him to look after Sydney. In addition, Joel gives his opinion about managing the time to do it. While they were discussing it, Joel is in a hurry to leave house because he has to meet his partner at work.
In the middle of their conversation, they suddenly argue and blame each other. That is the beginning of a conflict between them. Julia, as Sydney’s mother, does not tell the truth that she does not like her husband to work as a contractor. She does not want Joel to do his work because she only wants Joel to stay at home to look after their child when she works.
Julia works as a lawyer. Although Julia takes her job very seriously, she is also very involved with her family and in raising Sydney. Julia’s job as a lawyer usually makes her busy with her clients. That is why, she wants Joel to be a good father by looking after Sydney at home.
Julia does not like it when Joel has to work as a contractor because it means that Joel will not be able to look after Sydney well at home. Nobody will able to do it. Moreover, she feels upset when Joel calls her in the middle of her meeting with her clients. Joel always calls her to take care of Sydney after she is back from school. Joel does that because he wants to focus on his work as a contractor. This reason becomes the essential part which triggers a conflict in the end.
another plausible interpretation. Actually, her utterance means that she has done her best in life and she wants her husband to be aware of it. The implicature is Julia does not want Joel to take the job as a contractor in Berkeley.
Referring to Julia’s utterance, it triggers the conflict between them. As a response, Joel says, “I moved mountains for you for years, Julia, and this is one week I am asking from you!” Joel has flouted the maxim of quality. He
does it because he wants to make Julia look for another plausible interpretation. Actually, he wants Julia think that however he needs to take the job as a contractor in order to avoid family finance cannot be maintained by Julia because Julia seems to have a problem in her work. The implicature is Joel must take the job as a contractor to help in balancing family finance.
The conflict still continues between them, because Joel shows his anger to Julia, by saying, “Okay, what reality is that?? Just spit it out.” As a response, Julia says, “I am working mad hours.” Julia has flouted the maxim of manner. She does it because she does not state what she actually wants to say directly. Her utterance implies that she has done her best in the family. The implicature is Joel must focus only on Sydney.
Then, in saying, “There is no one watching our child.” Julia has flouted the maxim of quality and manner. She flouts the maxim of quality because she
says something which is totally false. She does it because she wants Sydney to be looked after well by Joel at home. The implicature is Joel does not look after Sydney well at home.
because she does not say directly that Joel must look after Sydney. The implicature is it is better for Joel to stay at home with Sydney. Thus, the conflict is the clash of ideas between them. On the one hand, Julia wants Joel to give his time for Sydney because she thinks Sydney is not looked after by anyone when Julia works; on the other hand, Joel does not share her opinion.
The conflict reaches its climax as can be seen when Julia says, “what am I just supposed to leave a deposition ....” Julia’s utterance serves as a consequence of having neverending conflicts with Joel. She seems to be annoyed because their argument has not ended yet.
Joel also gets annoyed by giving a response, “What are you getting at??” Julia is really upset. That is why, she replies, “I am billing $600 an hour for, so you grout some guy’s bathroom??” Julia has flouted the maxim of relation.
She does it because she wants Joel think for another plausible interpretation. Actually, she wants to emphasize her previous statements that she has done really well for her family. The implicature is what Joel has done for family cannot be compared with Julia’s.
The conflict ends when Joel says, “No, you are right. I mean. If it is, um -- if it is about whose time is worth more, you win.” in a cold tone while leaving Julia.
Speech event 2
Camille: Yeah, do not play dumb with me. You know exactly what I am talking about. What did you say to my art teacher??
Zeek: I told him to stay away from my wife. Camille: And I told you nothing was going on. Zeek: Yeah, well... I wanted to tell him myself. Camille: 7) It was so humiliating.
Zeek: It is humiliating for you? What do you think it is for me? It is humiliating for me, Camille! You ask me, and you ask me and ask me to share my feelings with you, and when I do. I tell you how I am feeling! This situation makes me feel like crap! And you say, “so what?” So I went to your little Portuguese pound cake, and I told him to stay away from what is mine.
Camille: What is yours?
Zeek: 8) You know what I mean.
Camille: 9) Yeah, I know what you mean. I know exactly what you mean! Zeek: (throws away some stuff).
Camille: All this time in therapy! Talk about change? You have not changed. You do not change. You have not changed a bit.
Zeek: Really?
Camille: Yeah, really. (leaves Zeek)
Analysis:
The second speech event is taken from season two; episode nine, entitled
husband, Zeek. Zeek and Camille are the father and mother of Adam, Sarah, Julia, and Crosby. In this speech event, Zeek and Camille have a conversation at a garage. The conversation is about Camille’s art teacher and her relationship with the teacher. Actually, Camille does not have an affair with her art teacher at all like what Zeek thinks.
Camille and her art teacher, Matthew, are only friends and they usually get together only to discuss Camille’s progress in drawing something beautifully and in a good perspective as he has taught her. Yet, Zeek thinks differently because he is convinced that Matthew has an affair with Camille. Zeek does not want Matthew to be together with Camille. Then, Zeek decides to go to the course to meet Matthew and tell him to stay away from Camille.
As a result, Matthew makes a distance with Camille and it makes Camille confused. Then, Camille asks for a clear explanation from Matthew why he acts differently to her in class, so he tells her the truth. Consequently, Camille feels disappointed with Zeek because she thinks that Zeek does not trust her at all like what Zeek has said.
At first, Camille just asks Zeek to tell her something that he has said to her teacher; yet, Zeek pretends not to know the answer, in which he tries to mislead Camille. A conflict occurs between them because Camille actually has known the truth what Zeek has said to her art teacher; as a consequence, it makes her get angry with him.
She just wants to ask about the truth directly from Zeek. As a result, she gets really angry with him because he does not tell the truth to her although she has already known from Matthew.
A conflict occurs when Camille says, “It was so humiliating.” Camille has flouted the maxim of manner. She does it because she gives an unclear
utterance to Zeek. The statement is unclear because she does not tell Zeek directly that she is disappointed with him because Zeek does not trust her at all. Therefore, Zeek also gets angry when Camille says it to him. Camille does that because she wants to show that she does not really like what Zeek has done to Matthew. The implicature is Zeek does not trust Camille at all. In fact, Zeek’s act is very childish.
The conflict becomes worse when Zeek says, “You know what I mean.” Zeek has flouted the maxim of manner. He does it because he gives an unclear response to Camille. Zeek’s utterance is unclear because he does not state directly that Camille must stop continuing her art class. He does that because he does not want Camille to get closer to Matthew, although she actually does not have any kind of intimate relationship with him. The implicature is Camille must make a distance with Matthew no matter what she has to do. Thus, the conflict is the clash of ideas between them. Zeek thinks that Camille has an affair with her art teacher; while, she actually does not have an affair at all.
Their conflict reaches its climax when Camille gives a response, “Yeah, I know what you mean. I know exactly what you mean!” Camille has flouted
Zeek means to her. She says it because she seems to be annoyed by Zeek’s utterance. The implicature is Camille does know how to face Zeek anymore.
As a result, Zeek also gets angry by throwing away some stuff near him. Camille still shows her dislike to her husband by saying, “All this time in therapy! Talk about change? You have not changed. You do not change. You have not changed a bit.” Finally, the conflict resolves when Camille leaves Zeek alone.
Speech event 3
Teacher: The kids were eating lunch. I mean everything was fine, uh, until I heard the shouting. And as I get closer, Max pushed Jabbar on the ground.
Christina: How did this whole thing start? I do not get what happened. Teacher: Max told us that Jabbar was supposed to eat with him.
Jasmine: I am sorry. I am a little confused, because I thought that we figured out the lunch issue. (Jasmine talks to Crosby)
Christina: The lunch issue?
Jasmine: You said that you talked to your brother? (Jasmine still asks it politely) Crosby: 10) I said I was going to and I did not end up having time to, so -- Adam: What is -- What is this about?? I do not know what is going on here (He
looks confused) What the hell is going on, Crosby?
Jasmine: Max told Jabbar that they had to eat lunch together every day. Christina: I thought that they wanted to eat together.
Christina: What?
Jasmine: So what do you mean, you did not have a chance to talk to Adam?? That is what we agreed, that that was the best way to handle this!
Crosby: 11) I spoke to Jabbar, we had a conversation, and I thought the whole lunch thing would blow over, and it did not. I am sorry.
Jasmine: What did you say to Jabbar??
Crosby: 12) It is not relevant. It does not matter, clearly. Jasmine: Yes, it is relevant!
Jabbar: He said that I had to be nice to Max because there is something wrong with him. (Then, Christina and Adam look so surprised after hearing it) Crosby: No, no, no, no, that is not what I said.
Christina: Max, nothing is wrong with you.
Crosby: I said that we are family and we need to stick together and I said Max has some problems.
Adam: Who does not have problems? You should have listened to her! (Adam point at Jasmine)
Jasmine: And come and talked to me!
Adam: What the hell is matter with you?? (Adam leaves Max and Jabbar’s school by getting angry with Crosby and still shouts at him)
Analysis:
The third speech event is taken from season three; episode four, entitled
Clear Skies From Here on Out (CD). The conversation is between Max and
and Crosby’s son while Max is Adam and Christina’s son. They have a conversation at school. Max and Jabbar’s teacher informs that Jabbar and Max have a fight during lunch time at school. Then, both Max and Jabbar’s parents try to discuss it together; yet, it ends with a conflict.
Max and Jabbar have a fight because Jabbar feels upset as he must spend his lunch time only with Max. He also wants to spend his time with his friend, Jensen, but Max does not give a permission to Jabbar to hang out with Jensen because he wants Jabbar to be his only friend. Jabbar is not allowed to leave Max alone during lunch time even though Jabbar has finished his meal. As a result, Jabbar gets bored and angry.
Then, he leaves Max alone after finishing his meal. Max does not accept it easily, he also gets angry and try to urge Jabbar to stay with him. Yet, Jabbar tries to avoid Max by pushing him away which ends in a fight.
The conflict actually starts when Jasmine misunderstands Crosby. She thinks that Crosby has talked to his brother, Adam, that their son does not want to spend his time only with Max during lunch time. The cause of the conflict is because Crosby does not tell what has happened to Adam. He does not do it because he does not want to make Adam sad to hear that Jabbar does not want to be with Max anymore when having lunch. As a parent of Jabbar and a brother of Adam, Crosby must discuss his son’s problem with Max at school together with Adam to avoid misunderstanding between them.
In saying, “I said I was going to and I did not end up having time to, so – ” Crosby actually has flouted the maxim of manner. Crosby does it because he
Jabbar and Max, because he does not want to make Adam misunderstand the situation that has happened between their children. The implicature is Crosby has not told Adam yet.
After hearing Crosby’s utterance, Adam looks confused because he does not know what actually has happened. Adam and Christina think that Jabbar wants to have his lunch together with Max every day. Yet, Jasmine tells them that it is not the case. In fact, Jabbar does not want to do it every day.
Because of Christina’s confusion, Jasmine asks Crosby to explain what actually he means by saying, “I said I was going to and I did not end up having time to,
tell Adam about Jabbar’s problem with Max at school during lunch time.
As a response, Crosby says, “I spoke to Jabbar, we had a conversation, and I thought the whole lunch thing would blow over, and it did not. I am
sorry.” Crosby has also flouted the maxim manner. Crosby does that because
he makes a long-winded response to Christina. The implicature is Crosby did not ask Jabbar to leave Max.
Crosby is right that he talks with Jabbar about his disagreement to spend his time with Max, but he does not want to tell the truth that he has had a conversation with Jabbar about Max’s problem, because he thinks it will hurt Adam’s and Christina’s feeling.
Then, in saying, “It is not relevant. It does not matter, clearly.” Crosby has still flouted the maxim of manner. Crosby keeps doing it because he does
problem. Unfortunately, Jabbar tells the truth about what Crosby has said to him by saying, “He said that I had to be nice to Max because there is something wrong with him.” The implicature is Crosby has said nothing to Jabbar about Max.
Thus, the conflict is the clash of ideas between them. On the one hand, Crosby thinks that Jabbar’s problem with Max is better to be kept without Adam’s knowledge; on the other hand, Jasmine does not think so because it can cause misunderstandings. Besides, Adam and Christina think that Crosby wants to make Jabbar leave Max alone during lunch time, because Max has a problem with his ability in communicating at school. Actually, Crosby thinks that he does not tell the truth because he does not want to hurt their feeling.
After hearing it, Adam and Christina get upset, especially Adam who shows his anger all the way back home to Crosby by saying, “What the hell is matter with you??” The conflict reaches its climax when Adam says that Crosby does not understand what he actually says to him by shouting out to Crosby when he wants to leave the school by car.
Speech event 4
Joel: Mc Shane and Kyle, by some miracle or act of God, are -- are both free and are starting Tuesday.
Julia: (Julia nods her head) That is great.
Joel: It is really great. Thank you for your enthusiasm.
Joel: Victor is our prior -- wait. I am sorry. I am sorry, what – is that what this is about??
Julia: We have so much going on in building this relationship, 14) and it is fragile, and you are bailing on us.
Joel: Wait. I am bailing on the family?? Julia: That is what I feel like!
Joel: Is what what you feel like?? Julia: Yes!
Joel: Jule, one of us has to make money!
Julia: 15) And I think you should get your priorities straight. That is what I am saying.
Joel: Are you kidding me?? Wait. I am sorry. (Joel raises his voice) Julia: I am not kidding you at all! I feel like this is --
Joel: I do not understand. (Joel says it in a cold tone because he is still angry until the end. Then, he leaves Julia alone)
Analysis:
The fourth speech event is taken from season four; episode four, entitled
You Can’t Always Bet What You Want (CD). The conversation is between Joel
Julia and Joel have a conversation in their bedroom. The conversation is about Joel, who wants to take a job as a contractor of a huge building in West Berkeley. However, Julia does not want Joel to take the job because she thinks that both of them must make a priority for Victor. A conflict occurs because Julia wants Joel to focus on Victor as their adopted child, but she does not tell it explicitly to him. Actually, Joel has promised Victor to take him wherever he wants to go. Moreover, they had confirmed the date to go out together. Yet, in the end Joel decides to take the job in Berkeley.
Julia thinks that Victor is a new family member whom she really loves. That is why, Julia wants to make him as a priority in their family. It means that whatever Victor or Sydney wants to get must be fulfilled. On the other hand, Joel wants to take the job because their family needs money after Julia has lost her job. Yet, Julia gets angry because Joel does not discuss it with her before he takes the job. Julia has lost her job because she wants to be a better mother for Victor. Therefore, her job cannot be handled well. Julia has made a big mistake, so she decides to quit from her job.
In saying, “Honestly, I just cannot believe that you said yes the same day that we agreed Victor is our priority.” Julia has flouted the maxim of
manner. Julia does that because she makes an unclear utterance to Joel. Actually,
Julia wants to make Joel aware because he forgets about the plan which they have arranged for Victor.
must go to West Berkeley to do his job as a contractor. Moreover, Julia and Joel have discussed that they will have a transitional period with Victor.
That is why, Julia and Joel decide to make Victor a priority. The implicature is Joel should have prioritized Victor over the job. As a consequence, Joel gives his response by saying, “Victor is our prior -- wait. I am sorry. I am sorry, what – is that what this is about??” Joel seems to deny that he has planned it for Victor. It is the reason for the conflict to occur.
Then, in saying, “and it is fragile, and you are bailing on us.” Julia has also flouted the maxim of manner. Julia does it because she does not say what
she wants to say clearly. She still gives an unclear response to Joel. She thinks that Joel does not care about his family anymore. It means that the problem of Victor as a priority in the family is the most important thing to discuss. Julia does that because she wants to make Joel spend his time with Victor. The implicature is family should come first.
Joel gets angry by saying, “Wait. I am bailing on the family??” Joel actually does not mean not to care about his family anymore, especially Victor. Joel thinks that he needs to take the job in Berkeley because his family needs money after Julia has lost her job as a lawyer. Joel’s decision to take the job is a good reason to maintain their family finance; yet, he has made a mistake because he does not discuss it first with Julia. That is why, Julia gets angry by saying, “That is what I feel like!”
The conflict reaches its climax when Julia says, “And I think you should get your priorities straight. That is what I am saying.” Julia has flouted the
the end. Actually, she does not mean that Joel must get a priority in the family in the first place. She does that because she wants Joel to focus on Victor than the job which. The implicature is Victor should prioritize himself over Joel.
Thus, the conflict is the clash of ideas between them. On the one hand, Julia thinks that Joel does not care anymore about his family; while, actually he does. As a result, Joel’s anger explodes after hearing Julia’s utterance.
Joel’s anger explodes because he thinks that she is so ridiculous at that time. Therefore, Joel gives a response, “Are you kidding me?? Wait. I am sorry.” Joel says it by raising his voice. The conflict ends when Joel gives his last response
Julia.
CHAPTER FOUR
CONCLUSION
In this chapter, I would like to explain the result of my analysis of non-observance of Gricean maxims which has been flouted and caused a conflict in the end. According to my analysis based on Parenthood TV Series, Seasons 2-4 as the source of my data, a type of Gricean maxims which is mostly found is flouting the maxim of manner. It is mostly found in the data because the speakers give an unclear utterance as a response to their listeners. Thus, the speakers refuse to be cooperative in speaking with their listeners, and that is why a conflict occurs between them.
speech events. For example, in the fourth speech event, Julia is the person who always causes a conflict with Joel by giving an unclear response to him. Julia does it because Julia wants to make Joel focus on Victor, their adopted child. Unfortunately, Joel cannot make it because he has to take a job as a contractor in Berkeley. Moreover, Joel does not discuss his decision to take the job with Julia first.
Another type of Gricean maxims that mostly occurs is flouting the maxim of quality. This type of Gricean maxims occurs mostly in the data because the speakers wants to make the listener look for another plausible interpretation. It means that the listener is supposed to understand the purpose from the speaker’s utterance in order to be able to avoid some misunderstanding happen.
Based on the analysis in Chapter Three, I notice that the type of Gricean maxims (flouting the maxim of quality) occurs four times in two different speech events. For example, a speaker who flouts the maxim of quality is Julia. The conflict can be seen when she has a conversation with Joel.
I also notice that flouting the maxim of quality is the second type of Gricean maxims that occurs in the data. Flouting the maxim of quality occurs four times. It occurs because the speakers say something that is totally false. They sometimes want to emphasize their disagreement about something by saying the opposite. They do it because they want to make their listeners aware of what actually they want them to know.
problematic because Joel also takes a job as a contractor in the end. Julia does it because she wants Sydney to get much attention at home from Joel when she works.
Other types of Gricean maxims that have been found in the data are opting flouting the maxim of relation and violating a maxim. Both of flouting the maxim of relation and violating a maxim occurs once.
Considering the analysis in Chapter Three, I do not find the other types of the non-observance of the Gricean maxims such as: flouting the maxim of quantity, infringing a maxim, opting out of a maxim, and suspending a maxim that can be analyzed. There is not a situation when a speaker or listener flouts the maxim of quantity. Neither of them give any responses which become more or less informative than what are required.
There is not a situation when neither the speaker nor the listener are able to communicate well because both of them are able to do it without having some imperfect conditions, such as when they are nervous, drunk, and excited. There is not a situation when a speaker indicates unwillingness to cooperate. Then, there is not a situation when neither of the speakers suspend while they are having a conversation.
According to the topic of my thesis, The Occurrence of Conflicts due to
the Non-observance of the Gricean Maxims in Parenthood TV Series, Seasons
ways. They show something unclear because they want to make the listeners become aware of the purpose in saying it without first telling them.
Based on the analysis in Chapter Three, flouting the maxim of manner triggers the conflicts because the speakers only want to avoid making a situation become worse. Thus, they choose not to state what they want to say. They hope their listeners can understand their hidden purpose by themselves. Unfortunately, the result is far from their initial expectation because of misunderstandings.
According to the analysis of the non-observance of Gricean maxims in Parenthood TV Series, I conclude there are some benefits to study it. Thus, how to analyze the topic of my thesis, The Occurrence of Conflicts due to the
Non-observance of the Gricean Maxims in Parenthood TV Series, Seasons 2-4, I use
the theory of pragmatics which is related to the rule of being cooperative. As a consequence, when people refuse to be cooperative in speaking, a conflict can happen between them.
In addition to Pragmatics, I use another theory of maxims proposed by H.P. Grice. Grice explains if a speaker sometimes refuses to state what they want to their listener directly, there will be a hidden meaning in the utterance. It means that the speaker’s utterance has an intended meaning. That is why, their listener can misunderstand the utterance because they do not notice it during the conversation. Sometimes, the speakers try to hide the truth on purpose; as a result, a conflict occurs.
our listeners when they have a problem. It means that we must be attentive while they are talking. In this way, we can help them to solve their problem. A conflict will not happen if we show respect to our listeners. Besides, we can learn how to appreciate other people in our life to keep a harmonious relationship with them.
In my opinion, as a researcher, I conclude that the non-observance of maxims can trigger a conflict if I connect it with the title of my thesis. For example, a member in the family thinks that as a family, they can understand one another’s feeling because they have been living together for many years. The family members hope that without being told of what actually has happened, they will understand the situation that are facing. As a result, the relatives can help him or her to solve their problem.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Primary Texts
Carpenter, Bridget. “Parenthood” Clear Skies From Here on Out 4 October. 2011. CD-ROM. NBC Universal Television Home Entertainment Production. February. 2012
Carpenter, Bridget. “Parenthood.” Put Yourself Out There 16 November. 2010. CD-ROM. NBC Universal Television Home Entertainment Production. April. 2011
Carpenter, Bridget. “Parenthood.” You Can’t Always Get What You Want 27 November. 2012. CD-ROM. NBC Universal Television Home Entertainment Production. January. 2013
Guggenheim, Eric. “Parenthood.” Seven Names 26 October. 2010. CD-ROM. NBC Universal Television Home Entertainment Production. April. 2011
References
Crystal, David. An Encyclopedic Dictionary of Language and Languages. England: Penguin Books, 1994. Print
Jovanovich, Inc, 1959. Print.
Thomas, Jenny. Meaning in Interaction: an Introduction to Pragmatics. London and New York: Longman Group Limited, 1995. Web. 18 February. 2015. Yule, George. The Study of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
