1 THE FLOUTING AND HEDGING OF COOPERATIVE PRINCIPLES BY THE AUSTRALIAN WITNESS IN JESSICA’S MURDER TRIAL

(1)

1 THE FLOUTING AND HEDGING OF COOPERATIVE PRINCIPLES BY

THE AUSTRALIAN WITNESS IN JESSICA’S MURDER TRIAL

(A DISCOURSE ANALYSIS APPROACH)

A Thesis

Submitted to the Faculty of Cultural Sciences Hasanuddin University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain a Graduate Degree in English

Department

by

KUMARA TUNGGA DEWA F21113 516

English Department Faculty of Cultural Sciences

Hasanuddin University MAKASSAR

2017

(2)

2 THE FLOUTING AND HEDGING OF COOPERATIVE PRINCIPLES BY

THE AUSTRALIAN WITNESS IN JESSICA’S MURDER TRIAL

(A DISCOURSE ANALYSIS APPROACH)

A Thesis

Submitted to the Faculty of Cultural Sciences Hasanuddin University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain a Graduate Degree in English

Department

by

KUMARA TUNGGA DEWA F21113 516

English Department Faculty of Cultural Sciences

Hasanuddin University MAKASSAR

2017

(3)

3

(4)

4

(5)

5

(6)

6

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Bismillahirrahmanirahim.

All praise be for Allah Subhanahu wata’ala, The Magnificent and The Merciful, Who blesses and guides me to finish my thesis. Shalawat and salam are also delivered to Prophet Muhammad Sallallahu walaihi wassalam who has brought Islam as the Rahmatan Lil Alamin.

Finishing this thesis needs support, assistance, and contribution from many people. Therefore, he would like to express his deepest gratitude to those who have provided him with moral and material support. His gratitude goes to my first consultant Dra. Nasmilah, M.Hum,. Ph.D. and second consultant Abidin Pammu, M.A., Ph.D., TESOL for their encouragement and constructive comment. An endless thanks to his parents Drs. Pausie Ridwan & Nurwahidah S.Pd., M.Pd, may the almighty Allah Subahanahu wa ta’ala protect them as they protected me whan he was a kid. Also for his beloved sisters, Tamara Tungga Dewi and Sri Rezqi Buana Tungga, his lovely Grandmothers Hj Pisa and Hj. Hawaini, thank for loves, prays, and support in every single thing. His academic supervisor, Drs, Alwy Rahman, Dip. TEFL for his advice and care. For all lecturers and his colleagues in English Depertment, thanks for all the support and help. He also thank to all parties that he cannot mention one by one who have provided assistance.

The writer realizes that this thesis is still far from perfect. Therefore, the writer is openly encouraged to any criticisism and suggestion either in writing or orally for improvements in the next research. Finally, the writer hopes that this research can be useful for Indonesian education in general and for all of us in particular.

(7)

7 Makassar, June 11, 2017

The writer

(8)

8

ABSTRAK

KUMARA TUNGGA DEWA The Flouting and Hedging of Cooperative Principle Maxims of The Australian Expert Witness in Jessica Murder Trial

(A Pragmatics Study).

Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah mengidentifkasi dan menjelaskan jenis-jenis prinsip kerjasama yang dilanggar dan dibatasi oleh saksi dari Australia dalam sidang Jessica. Beng Beng Ong adalah seorang ahli patologi yang diundang dalam sebuah sidang pembunuhan. Selama persidangan, dia harus menjawab setiap pertanyaan sesuai dengan keahliannya, kebenaran, dan kenyataan. Kondisi ini membuat penulis mengidentifikasi kemungkinan pelanggaran dan pembatasan maksim kerjasama dalam ucapannya.

Penelitian ini menggunakan pendekatan deskriptif kualitatif dan kuantitatif.

Data yang digunakan adalah 39 dialog yang mengandung pelanggaran dan pembatasan maksim. Data tersebut bersumber dari video dan skrip video. Data dikumpulkan dengan mengunduh video kemudian mentranskrip/mencatat ujaran- ujaran. Data tersebut kemudian diproses dalam prosedur kerja yaitu 1) Identifikasi 2) Klasifikasi 3) Deskripsi dan 4) Elaborasi.

Peneletian ini menghasilkan dua poin. Pertama, dari 22 pelanggaran maksim, pelanggaran maksim kuantitas (13 kali) adalah yang paling sering dilakukan oleh saksi, karena situasi atau konteks persidangan membuat saksi cenderung memberikan informasi lebih dari yang seharusnya. Sedangkan pelanggaran maxim sikap (tidak ada) tidak pernah dilakukan oleh sasksi. Itu dikarenakan perannya sebagai saksi ahli, jadi dia tidak ingin memberikan kesaksian/pendapat yang ambigu dan tidak jelas. Kedua, dari 17 total pelanggaran maksim, pembatasan maksim kualitas terjadi paling banyak dengan 9 kali. Sedangkan hanya sekali terjadi pemabatasan maksim sikap sebagai yang paling sedikit.

(11)

11

ABSTRACT

KUMARA TUNGGA DEWA The Flouting and Hedging of Cooperative Principle Maxims of The Australian Expert Witness in Jessica Murder Trial

(A Pragmatics Study).

The objectives of this study were to identify and describe the types of maxims of Cooperative Principle that are flouted and/or hedged by the Australian witness in the Jessica Murder Trial. Beng Beng Ong was an Australian forensic pathologist who was invited to the Jessica Murder Trial. During the trial, he had to answer every questions relevant to his expertise, the truth, and reality. This condition led the writer to identify the possibility of flouting and hedging the maxims of Cooperative Principles in his utterances.

This study used a mixture of descriptive qualitative approaches. The data were 39 dialogues which contain the flouting and hedging maxims taken from the trial video and its script. These were collected through downloading the video, and transcribing/taking note. The data then were analized by several work procedures which are 1) Identification 2) Description and 3) Elaboration.

The study reveals two important findings. First of all, from 22 occurances of flouting maxims, the flouting of maxim quantity (13 occurences) is mostly used by the Australian Witness because the court situation requires the witness to provide more information than the judges needs. While the flouting of maxim manner (0 occurences) is rarely used by the Australian witness. It is because of his role as an expert witness, so he does not like to give unclear or ambiguous testimony/statements to the court. Secondly, with 17 total occurences maxim hedging, the hedging of maxim quality is the highest with 9 occurences. While there is only 1 occurence of the hedging of maxim manner as the rarest.

(12)

12

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

A. Background of Research

Language is a system of arbitrary vocal symbols used in social group.

People have used the languages a tools to interact one anotherand identify their self. The language is used to communicate and to express all of the thoughts in mind. Moreover, language also can indicate the identity of personality, group, or community.

In a communication process, there must be some actors to carry out the communcation. Some people act as a speaker, who deliver the message or information. On the other hand, some people have a role as information receiver or a hearer.

Communication allows them to interact with each other and understand what others are trying to convey. Depending on the situation and context, the language could be differently understood. Thus, it will bring some misunderstanding and misinterpretation between the speaker and hearer.

Therefore, the rule or principle is needed to make the communication more effective and efficient.

In order to attain an effective and efficient communication, Grice has proposed the conversational maxims theory to stabilize the rule of conversations. Both speaker and hearer are expected to cooperate each other

(13)

13 in conducting of each maxims. Those maxims are Maxim of Quality, Quantity, Relevance, and Manner.

People sometimes disobey the following maxims. The infraction of coversational maxims called as flouting and hedging. In several case, most people flout the maxims because they are not attach the proof or fact in their informations. However, the possibility of the flouting maxim is because the speaker assumes that the hearer can understand the implied meaning of his intentions.

Therefore, Brown and Levinson has declared the hedging theory which is coorelated to Grice’s maxims which are Hedging of maxim quality, quantity, relevance, and manner. Hedging maxims are usually used by the speakers to give the infromation more properly in the level of accuracy. Hedging maxims are the speaker tries to give a signal to the hearer that the speaker not really sure about his/her utterances. For example “I think ...” or “I may be mistaken,

…” used when the speaker give the limited or even wrong information. In simple words, hedges are words or phrase which carry the speaker’s uncertainty.

Expert witnesses play a large and crucial role in the trial. Currently, the majority of civil and criminal cases often involve the expert witness. According to the judge's assessment, someone who is an expert in particular field can be asked for the testimony regarding particular issues. Before the trial, they were asked to swear that everything they say should be suitable with his expertise, the truth, and reality.

(14)

14 Jessica Kumala Wongso was accused of killing his friend, I Wayan Mirna Salihin, by adding toxic sodium cyanide into the Vietnamesse Ice coffee in Cafe Oliver in the early January 2016. On 5 September 2016, Beng Beng Ong, a forensic pathologist from Queensland University of Australia, was invited by the Jessica’s Legal Advisor, Mr. Otto, to order the testimony which relevant to his expertise.

Most of flouting and hedging maxims are occured in the informal situation.

For example, in the talkshow, daily conversations and chatting. Accordingly, the writer conducts the research about the Flouting and Hedging of Cooperative principles by The Australian Expert Witness in Jessica’s Murder Trial, which will reveal that the flouting and hedging maxims not only happen in informal situation, but also occure in very important situation particularly in the court.

There are several reasons why the writer choose the title. First of all, the writer have found some maxims that is flouted by some witnesses in the jessica’s muder trial. Therefore, he tried to study it more deep and comprehensive thorough this thesis which entitled ”The Flouting and Hedging of Cooperative principles by The Australian Expert Witness in Jessica’s Murder Trial”

B. Scope of Problem

In this reserch, the writer restricts the problem to the Beng Beng Ong’s testimony as the object. The writer divides the problem into three parts, which are the flouting and hedging of conversational maxims. The first one, this

(15)

15 research intends on recognizing the flouting of conversational maxims that might be exist in the court. Secondly, this research focuses to analyze the hedges, which are related to Grice’s maxims in the court. Lastly, this research also intends to describe why the Australian witness flouts and hegdes the cooperative principle maxim.

C. Research Questions

Based on the explanation above, the writer formulates some questions as follows:

1. What kind of maxims are flouted by the Australian Expert Witness in Jessica’s Murder Trial?

2. How are the maxims hedged by the Australian Expert Witness in Jessica’s Murder Trial?

D. Objectives of the Research

In this research, the writer intends to achieve some objectives :

1. To describe the kinds of maxims are flouted by Australian Expert Witness in Jessica’s Murder Trial.

2. To elaborate how the maxims are hedged by of the Australian Expert Witness in Jessica’s Murder Trial

(16)

16 E. Significance of the Research

With reference to the research questions and the objectives, the findings of this research are expected to have both theoretical & practical contribution on the area of Pragmatics or Discourse Analysis, particularly on analyzing the flouting and hedging of coversational maxim and the rethorical strategies as the form of flouting maxim in the spoken language.

1. Theoritically, this research will enrich the pragmatics research especially in the flouring and hedging of coversational maxim and the rethorical strategies as the form of flouting maxim in the spoken language.

2. Practically, this research is expected to give contribution to the following parties:

a. The reader of this research ; This research can also be used as a matrix to make make the flouting and hedging of conversational maxims become more understandable.

b. The students of English Department majoring in Linguistics ; this research is expected to give some contribution to the field of pragmatics study. Moreover, this research also can develop their communicative skill in using Cooperative Principles.

c. Other researchers ; this research is intended that the findings and the discussion in this research can be used as a reference for further study, especially for the relevant type of research.

(17)

17 CHAPTER II

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

A. Previous Study

There are a lot of researches about the Cooperative principles. At this point, the writer only shows three of them. First of all, The journal of “Flouting and Hedging Maxims in BBC Podcast The English We Speak Taken From BBC Learning English” by Praisya Jovani in 2013, this study uncovers how flouting maxim and hedging maxim are used by the speakers in BBC Podcast The English We Speak from BBC Learning English. The result of analysis can be seen as follows: First, there are 37 utterances containing flouting maxims, which maxim of quantity takes the dominance as shown in 17 utterances. The speakers used the rhetorical strategies, such as irony, metaphor, tautology, overstatement and understatement to communicate the implied meaning.

Second, 120 utterances of hedging maxims are found. Most speakers express uncertainty and inexactitude regarding the truth or their utterances so that hedges are used to avoid breaking the maxim also to minimize the imposition that may occur. As a result, 74 utterances are said to hedge the maxim of quality. Praisya Jovani (2013) states “These findings suggest that flouting maxim is used when the speaker blatantly exploits the utterances based on a listener’s assumption. Besides, hedges are used to show that the speaker is still cooperative engaging in conversation, and as a way to opt out of conversational maxims”.

(18)

18 Secondly, Sarah Rosalina Burhan in her study “Flouting Maxims In The Main Characters of UP! Animated Movie” , the study is designed to find out what the maxims flouted by the main characters on the animated movie UP! and to find out the intended meanings of the utterances being flouted by the main characters on the animated movie UP!. This study not only to know what the maxims are flouted but also to know why people do flouting maxims in their communication. The results of this study find that there are 47 dialogues containing thr flouting maxims in UP! Animated movie. That consists of four kinds flouting maxims, namely flouting maxim of quality, flouting maxim of quantity, flouting maxim of manner, and flouting maxim of relevant. Sarah states that “The purposes of flouting the maxims were to make the main characters are comfortable in the conversation, to avoid other questions, to show pleasure or anger, and to show their knowledge on something in this movie”.

Finally, Nastiti Rokhmania in her journal “Descriptive Analysis on Flouting and Hedging of Conversational Maxims in the “Post Grad”

Movie”, this research is focused on analyzing flouting and hedging of cooperative principles used by the main characters in Post Grad movie.

Cooperative principle is categorized into four categories; Maxim of Quality, Maxim of Quantity, Maxim of Relevance, and Maxim of Manner. The maxims are flouted when the speaker breaks some maxims when using the utterances in the form of rhetorical strategies, such as tautology, metaphor, hyperbole, irony, and rhetorical question. On the other hand, Cooperative principles are also hedged when the information is not totally accurate or unclearly stated but seems informative, well-founded, and relevant.

(19)

19 All of the researches above studied about the Flouting and Hedging of Cooperative principles. Altough the researches have the same topic, but they studied them in different objects which were movies, and TV Show. Therefore, in order to achieve the gap of research, the writer chose the Australian testimony as the object of research.

B. Theoretical Framework

This part consists of the definition of pragmatics, Cooperative Principles, Flouting maxims, Hedging Maxims.

1. Pragmatics

Pragmatics is the study that relates the language and its users, namely speakers and hearers (Yule, 1996). Yule states that pragmatics is the study in language that connects the communicated meaning by the speaker.

Hence, the hearer need to uncover the intended meaning behind the speaker’s utterances which depends on the context. Thus, by studying pragmatics, people can use language better since the speaker and the hearer need to uncover each others utterances and look at the implicit meaning behind those utterances.

In pragmatics, people can understand more deeply how language can be used to communicate with other people and deliver their message well.

Analyzing language using pragmatics can make the hearer know the meaning behind the speaker’s utterances. It means that the utterance spoken

(20)

20 by speaker can have more possible meanings besides its denotative meaning. The connotative meaning can be best explained through pragmatics that the hearer can infer the best possible meaning of the speaker’s utterance.

The use of pragmatics can be both practically and theoretically explained. Its usage can be characterized in various ways depending on how to view linguistics and how to place pragmatics within it. Mey (2001) divides the use of pragmatics into two different characteristics. They are abstract and practical characteristics. An abstract characterization places pragmatics either as ‘component’ linguistics or as ‘perspective’ filling the components and giving them a pragmatic ‘accent’. A practical characterization seems to solve problems linked to linguistics function like the problems in ethnomethodology.

2. Cooperative Principles

In communication, there must be a kind of rule applied to make a successful conversation. This rule will help both the speaker and the hearer in delivering their messages and conveying the meaning of their messages.

This rule, called as Cooperative Principles (Grice, 1975). Cooperative Principles (CP) will be explained in its four sub-principles, called maxims.

These maxims will complete each other in a conversation and explain how the speaker and the hearer should do the conversation in order to make both

(21)

21 of them understand each other. The Cooperative Principles (CP) and four maxims are clearly explained in the below.

The first maxim is maxim of quantity. it says to be more informative.

The speaker cannot give either more or less information in his/her utterances. In this maxim, the speaker has to give the exact or precise information. The speaker also has to decide what he/she wants to emphasize. By doing that, the speaker will be able to decide whether the information he/she gives to the hearer is too much or too little. The example of maxim of quantity is:

A : How many children Nigel has ? B : Nigel has fourteen children.

The example above B gives an answer that makes the hearer knows Nigel only has fourteen children, not more.

The second maxim is maxim of quality. This maxim concerns with the speaker being truthful. In a conversation, the hearer will think that the speaker is being truthful in his/her utterances and the speaker does not tell anything that he/she is sure it is wrong. By this condition, the speaker also knows that the hearer expects him/her to say the truth. Thus, he/she will not say what he/she thinks that it is false. Thus, the example below :

A: What is the Capital City of Indonesia?

B: I believe it's Bogor, or maybe Jakarta, Indonesia has wide territory.

(22)

22 B flouts the maxim of quality since he gives insincere answer for A's question. The implicature of this flouting maxim would be that B doesn't know exactly about Capital City of Indonesia.

The third maxim is maxim of relation. The speaker’s question is need to be relate to the hearer’s answer. When a speaker says something that has no relation with the utterance uttered before, it is said that the speaker does not observe maxim of relation. In order to be said to observe the maxim of relation, some of the speakers will point out that his/her utterance is relevant to the previous utterance. The example of maxim of relation is:

A : There’s somebody at the door.

B : I am in the bath.

By this answer “I am in the bath‟, B expects A to understand that his present location is relevant to her comment that there is someone at the door, and that he cannot go to see who it is because he is in the bath.

The last maxim is maxim of manner. In this maxim, the speaker cannot make a confusing utterance. A speaker is believed to observe maxim of manner when he/she makes an utterance step by step and clear. He/she will have to make an utterance in such a good arrangement so that the hearer will not feel confuse. The example of maxim of manner is “They washed and went to bed”. By this utterance, we could see a good arrangement of utterance.

(23)

23 3. Flouting of Cooperative principles

The kind of situation called as flouting maxim, when a speaker does not appear to observe maxims of Cooperative Principles. When using a maxim flouting, a speaker wants the hearer to look at the connotative meaning of the utterance and understand what he/she wants to say behind it. Grundy (2000: 76) states that when a speaker is employing maxim flouting, the hearer will still think that he/she is following the maxims of Cooperative Principles. Thus, the hearer has to look for the connotative meaning of the utterance said by the speaker. The hearer will also know that there is a hidden reason for the speaker to employ maxim flouting.

a. Flouting of Maxim Quantity

The speaker who flouts the maxim of quantity appears to inform more or lesser details than the hearer actually needs to know. The example below will give an explanation about how the speaker flouts the maxim of quantity.

A: Well, how do I look?

B: Your shoes are nice . . .

(Cutting, 2002) In the above example, it is clear that B does not mean that A’s sweatshirt and jeans look nice, but he/she knows that A will know what B means. It is because A asks about his/her whole appearance, but B

(24)

24 only tells him/her about the shoes he/she is wearing which is an answer that is related to it.

b. Flouting of Maxim Quality

When a speaker flouts the maxim of quality, he/she does not say what he/she really wants to say. The speaker intends something behind his/her utterance that the hearer will have to convey. The example of maxim flouting of quality is given by Cutting (2002) as “Don‟t be such a wet blanket - we just want to have fun.” The speaker uses metaphor in his/her utterance. The metaphor in this utterance functions as a medium to express his/her feeling towards the hearer who wants to disturb their enjoyment at that time instead of telling the hearer his/her true felling.

In using maxim flouting of quality, the speaker does not want to express what he/she really feels towards the hearer, but he/she uses another word to imply it.

c. Flouting of Maxim Relevance

Different from the concept of maxim flouting of quality which uses another expression in telling his/her feeling, a speaker flouts the maxim of relevance expresses what he/thinks by using words that does not have any relation to the previous utterance. This kind of maxim flouting lets the hearer to imply something that relates the speaker‟s utterance to the

(25)

25 utterance uttered before. The example of this phenomenon can be seen in the section below:

A : They’re wet and dirty.

B : Like your mam.

The above conversation occurs in the changing room, A refers to socks and gets an answer “Like your mam” from his/her friend. From his/her utterance, B wants A to think rapidly of what he says and to draw a conclusion that shows the relevance of the two ideas. Thus, it can be implied that B‟s utterance is a kind of simple play of words that is relevant to be called as a joke.

d. Flouting of Maxim Manner

The speaker who flouts the maxim of manner says something that is not clear enough for the hearer or utters an expression which has some possible meanings. Thus, when using maxim flouting of manner, the speaker is often confusing the hearer about the meaning carried by the speaker‟s utterances. This kind of maxim flouting is often used by the speaker to avoid other people to know about what kind of topic being talking about. The example of maxim flouting of manner can be seen in the example below.

A : Where are you off to?

B : I was thinking of going out to get some of that funny white stuff for somebody.

(26)

26 A : OK, but don‟t be long – dinner‟s nearly ready.

The conversation takes place in a kitchen near living room when a husband (B) is talking to his wife (A) to buy ice-cream for their daughter. The kitchen and the living room is quite close enough to let their daughter knows what they are talking about. To avoid the over- excitement of their daughter of getting her favorite ice-cream, the husband uses words that will not be noticeable to their

4. Hedging of Cooperative principles

Besides maxim flouting of Cooperative Principles, there is alsocondition where a speaker tries to follow maxims by asserting an additional note called hedge. in academic speech, hedging is most appropriately described as either (a) a lack of competence commitment to the truth value of an accompanying proposition, or (b) a desire not to express that commitment categorically.

a. Hedging of Maxim Quantity

As for maxim hedging of quantity, the speaker tries to tell the hearer that the amount of the information conveyed in his/her utterance is limited.

This kind of situation can be seen in the example below.

- I won‟t bore you with all the details, but it was an exciting trip.

(Yule, 1996: 38) In the example above, the speaker wants to assure the hearer that the story about his/her trip was an exciting one and he/she will tell the hearer

(27)

27 about it without boring them. The other examples, such as : roughly, more or less, approximately, give or take a few, or so, I should think, I can’t tell you more than that it’s…, to some extent, all in all, in short, basically, so to speak, etc. the assertion of personal opinion show that the information tried to be conveyed is limited.

b. Hedging of Maxim Quality

By using hedges, the speaker shows the hearer that she does not have complete information about the topic being discussed about as in the example below.

- I may be mistaken, but I thought I saw a wedding ring on her finger.

(Yule, 1996: 38) By using hedge in his/her utterance, the speaker‟s utterance will be understood as maxim hedging of quality. This utterance shows that the speaker is not sure whether the information about the girl they are talking about is married or not. But he/she wants to assure the hearer that at some points, he/she has seen her wearing a wedding ring on her finger.

Brown and Levinson (1990) state that quality hedges may suggest that the speaker is not taking full responsibilities for the truth of his utterances.

For instance, I think…, I believe…, or I assume…. Or alternatively they may stress speaker’s commitment to the truth of his utterances; in other words, they reflect the commitment of the writer to the quality of the proposition contained in the subsequent part of the statements and do not

(28)

28 contribute truth value to the statements as a whole. Such as, I absolutely (deny/ promise/believe) that…, others take the opposite view and say…, The issue says…, It is quite right what people say…, Some people believe that…, So you can imagine even…, In this case..., etc. Or they may disclaim the assumption that the point of S’s assertion is to inform H, such as, As you know…, As it well known…, As you and I both know…, etc.

c. Hedging of Maxim Relevance

In maxim hedging of relevance, the speaker tries to connect and relate his/her utterance to be fit to be said. Some expressions are used in maxim hedging of relation like “by the way…, oh I know…, anyway…, this may not be relevant/ appropriate/ timely but…, I might mention at this point…, while I remember…, etc. These kind of expression used in the middle of a conversation and by using maxim hedging of relation, the speaker will not be considered as saying something irrelevant. Maxim hedging of relation is also used to point that the speaker wants to stop talking about the present topic being talked about and move to other topics.

d. Hedging of Maxim Manner

In using maxim hedging of manner, the speaker realizes that his/her utterances may be unclear to the conversation, so he/she adds some expressions to make the hearer aware about it. This kind of maxim hedging also functions as an awareness that the speaker does not want to

(29)

29 give a confusing utterance to the hearer. Maxim hedging of manner can be seen in the example below.

It was dead funny – if you see what I mean.

(Grundy, 2000: 79) The speaker realizes that he/she has made an unintended pun, so he/she adds “if you see what I mean” to make the hearer aware about the obscurity of his/her utterance.

(30)

30

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY OF RESEARCH

A. Library Research

The purpose of this method is to find more information, in the form of theoretical issues that may support the writing. That is why the writer find any reverence related to research from books, journals, and many more.

The writer used qualitative research method. To elaborate the flouting and hedging of cooperative principles in Jessica’s muder trial, the writer need the data from the script. Furthermore, the utterances analyzed descriptively to explain in detail phenomena based on the theory of flouting and hedging of cooperative principles.

B. Field Research

The writer take the data from the video and script of conversation in the court. The duration about 05:11:49 minutes and the video downloaded from https://www.youtobe.com.

Beside library research, the writer used field research to support the data collection process. The writer used the following techniques :

1. Method of Collecting Data a. Downloading the video

The writer found and downloaded the video of The Australian Expert Witness in Jessica Murder Trial form the internet (www.youtube.com).

(31)

31 b. Transcribing / Note Taking

After downloading the video, The writer watched the video and transcribed it into the the text in order to make it easier. Therefore, the video and the transcript become the primary data.

2. Method of Analyzing Data

In this part, the writer used a descriptive qualitative method and pragmatic approach. This study could be classified as qualitative approach since the data were in form of words or sentences. The analyzing data was the process of systematically searching and arranging the data which have collected. The writer analyzed the data in accordance with the problems and the objectives of the study. The writer used work procedures in analyzing the data as follows:

1. Transcribing the utterances of the movie into written language. The writer watched and listened carefully the utterances which presented by beng beng ong, legal adviser, and all public prosecutor the in the court. This helped the writer to identify the utterances which flouted and hedged the cooperative principles.

2. Identifying the utterances which used by the characters. The writer observed the appropriate data and identified the utterances which had the case of flouting of cooperative principle. The writer separated between the utterances that flouted the cooperative principles and the other utterances that did not flout and hedge them.

(32)

32 3. Classifying the flouting of cooperative principles which were presented in the movie. The utterances that flouted and hedged the cooperative principles were grouped according to the kinds of maxims that were being flouted and hedged.

4. Describing the characters flouted and hegded maxims in the utterances by using the theory of cooperative principles. The data would be deeply analyzed using the descriptive qualitative method.

5. Elaborating the beng beng ong’s utterances based on the flouted and hedged maxims in the movie.

C. Population and Samples 1. Population

The population of this research was taken from the whole utterances of Jessica’s court trial on Monday, 5 september 2016. There were 326 utterances occured by the all the speakers. They were Public prosecutors, Jessica’s Legal Adviser, and an expert witness Beng Beng Ong. It was divided into two type of utterances, which are 163 utterances of the Legal Adviser and Public Prosecutor and 163 utterances of Beng Beng Ong.

(33)

33 2. Samples

The writer selected the samples by using a purposive sampling technique. Purposive sampling is a sampling technique with a certain consideration of the data. The consideration of this research was the writer took utterances containing the flouting and hedging of cooperative principle from Jessica’s court trial to be analyzed based on the purpose of this

(34)

34

CHAPTER IV

DISCUSSIONS AND FINDINGS

This chapter is divided into two sections, findings and discussion. The first section explains the deeper explanation of the research findings to make it clearer and presents the findings table which contain of flouting and hedging maxims of the object. In the second section, the findings table were presented containing the flouting and hedging maxims of the object. The tables are provided in quantitative data. Furthermore, there are also the descriptions of the table.

A. Discussion

This section is devided into two sub-sections. First of all, the writer provided the deeper explanation about the phenomenon of flouting and hedging of Cooperative principles made by the Australian expert witness in Jessica’s Murder Trial, in this case Dr. Beng Beng Ong. And then, the writer categorized the ways of flouting and hedging maxims on some criteria that given by Cutting (2002) and Grundy (2007) as the writer explained in the second Chapter.

1. The Types of Maxim of Cooperative Principles which are flouted by Beng Beng Ong In Jessica’s Murder Trial.

Maxim flouting is a way of the speaker that does not observe the maxims of Cooperative Principles, yet, the speaker expects the hearer to understand

(35)

35 and convey the message behind it. The discussion below will show how the speaker flouts a maxim

a. Flouting Maxim of Quality

The speaker who flouts the maxim of quantity appears to inform more or lesser details than the hearer actually needs to know. The discussion of each datums bellow elaborates the flouting of this maxim.

Datum 1

Legal Adviser : What if there is no autopsy being perform, in this case only samples are taken from the body, in this case can the pathologist also has authority or competence to determine the cause of death ?

Witness : The pathologist have to consider carefully, because it is only base toxicology result and nothing else.

The Jessica’s Legal Adviser questions about the authority of pathologist in determining the cause of death to the Witness, while there are not a post-mortem examination and only several samples can be obtained. The witness does not dirrectly approving the current legal Adviser’s question in properly words, but he keeps it through the sentence “The pathologist have to consider carefully”.

In this datum the Witness flouts the maxim quality with the sentence

“The pathologist have to consider carefully, because it is only base

(36)

36 toxicology result and nothing else”. The witness barely does not answer the question properly. By flouting the quality maxim, the witness wants the legal Adviser to imply his answer as the aggrement about what he has questioned before.

Datum 2

Public Prosecutor 1 : If a person drink baverage which contains cyanide, so far after you read journals, literatures, and other scientific textbooks, what would a person feel out tongue after ingesting cyanide ?

Witness : There is actually nothing much on the taste on how the person feel about the taste of cyanide, but I presume that the taste would be unpleasant.

The conversation above describes about the discussion of the cyanide’s taste based on the journals, literatures, and other scientific textbooks.

The clause “I presume” explain that the witness obviously flouts the quality maxim. He says unprovable/untruthful thing, and it is only coming from his assumption.

(37)

37 Datum 3

Public Prosecutor 2 : If a person ingest a toxin and who has the authority to say the content of the toxin left in the body, is it the authority of pathologist or the authority of toxicologist ?

Witness : The pathology perform the post-mortem example the organs and take appropriate specimens for toxicology, and when the toxicology result come back he will look at the toxicology the case entirely take into account the findings of the internal organs, just to correction, take into account the external findings, which is internal organs, and toxicology result, and base on all these then he will give a cause of death. we usually do not like to give a cause of death just based on one result.

The second public prosecutor has a very clear question, he asks about the authority of Toxicologist and Pathologist, who is really compatible to report the content of toxin left in the body. So the answer should be very simple ‘Toxicologist’ or ‘Pathologist’.

However, the witness flout the quality maxims to make the public prosecutor imply his answer through his explanation about the work distribution of Pathologist and Toxicologist.

(38)

38 Datum 4

Public Prosecutor 2 : So who has the right to determine or say that the contain of Cyanide lesft in the body, is this amount different, with the cyanide being ingested, is it the pathologist or the toxicologist

?

Witness : I think, the question is very abstract, but all I can say that the pathologist is the one who examine the body, and he gives the collected specimens for the toxicologist to test. So the toxicologist apart for examine the specimens, do not even come close to the body. so I think that the toxicologist would not be the one that will measure the volume of the gastric containing during the time of autopsy, yes, they will measure the volume when ti is to the lab but not during the autopsy.

Again in this conversation, the second public preosecutor questions about whose right to determine the contain of cyanide left in the body, pathologist or toxicologist.

The witness thinks that the question is quite abstract, so the clause/sentence ‘but all I can say’ is a sign of the quality of his next explanation about the work distribution of pathologist and toxicologist.

There are might be the hidden answer for the public prosecutor perplexity.

(39)

39 Datum 5

Public Prosecutor 2 : The aroma to the smell of Cyanide you mention that the smell is like bitter almond ?

Witness : Yes it is typically like bitter almond.

Public Prosecutor 3 : That means that the Cyanide has not been mix with other ingredients or other materials, if the cyanide mix with coffee, do you know what smell would come out ?

Witness : I do not think that I will smell Cyanide mix with coffee.

In this conversation, the third public prosecutor and the witness discuss about the specific smell of cyanide. the witness reconfirms that the smell of cyanide basically similiar to bitter almond. Then Public prosecutor asks about what if it mixed with cofee, how the cyanide’s smell is.

The witness flouts the quality maxim by answering it in slightly sarcastic way, “I do not think that I will smell Cyanide mix with coffee”.

The implicature of this flouting maxim would be that the witness doesn't know exactly about the smell of the coffee mixed with cyanide.

Datum 6

Public prosecutor 3 : What I mean is that if Natrium Cyanide is put into coffee will the aroma smell like bitter almond ?

(40)

40 Witness : I am not an expert in mixing Cyanide and coffee. I do not

think I should answer this.

The coversation above describes the situation about advanced question of the third public prosecuter, after he do not satisfy about the witness’ answer, which is shown at the datum 5.

However, the witness answers it with an unexpected answer “I am not an expert in mixing cyanide and coffee”. He prefer to use the sarcastic answer, rather than dirrectly says that he do not know any specific smell when the cyanide mix with coffee. Therefore, he is indicated flouts the maxim quality.

Datum 7

Public Prosecutor 3 : You said earlier about symptoms before death, in this case what data that you get ?

Witness : It is based on a description from literature, including books and journal.

Public Prosecutor 3 : For this case, you get the data from what documents ?

Witness : I have the data of the autopsy report, visum entrebentum, toxicology report, and some toxicology statement, and medical notes, and also from the video.

In this conversation, the third public prosecutor asks for what and where the witness obtains the data. Then he says that it is from

(41)

41 literarture, journal, and textbooks. But it is not what the public prosecutor asking for. After that, the public prosecutor asks the same question and gets the answer they need. The public prosecutor actually asks for the data that had been examine by the witness, such as autopsy report, medical notes, video, visum entrebentum, toxicology report, and some toxicology statement.

Because of the misiterpretation about ‘data’, the witness flouts the maxim of quality by saying untrutful answer.

b. Flouting Maxim of Quantity

When a speaker flouts the maxim of quality, he/she does not say what he/she really wants to say. The speaker intends something behind his/her utterance. The datums bellow is described comprehensively about the flouting of Quantity Maxim.

Datum 8

Legal Adviser : You are going to take an oath according to your religion.

Witness : I can take an oath according to religion or through affirmation.

This datum shows the flouting of maxim quantity. In this part, the public prosecutor wants to confirm to the witness that he will take an oath accroding to his current religion. But then, the witness confirms

(42)

42 that he can do it according to religion, and expands his answer by saying

“or through affirmation”.

Based on his utterances “through affirmation”, it is indicated to the flouting of maxim quantity. he says more, than it has to be.

Datum 9

Legal Adviser : What about your assignment in bali ? who assign you to go to Bali ?

Witness : It was through the Australian Federal Police because of the bombing disaster in Bali.

Legal Adviser : what examination that you perform in Bali ? Witness : I perform post-mortem examination on the victims.

Legal Adviser : was that, did you do that in the knowledge of the Indonesian police of Indonesia, Indonesia national police ?

Witness : Yes, and I think that I was given a certificate of appreciation.

In this situation, the Legal Adviser asks about the witness’

experiences being the forensic pathologist. The witness used to become a volunteer in Bali bombing disaster through the Australian Federal Police. The Legal Adviser asks him that does he do it under the Indoensian Police’s supervision. The witness agrees and adds more information that he receives a a certificate of appreciation.

(43)

43 If we take a look to his answer, by adding clause “and I think that I was given a certificate of appreciation”, he absolutely flouts the maxim of quantity which is give more informastion than the Legal Adviser expected.

Datum 10

Legal Adviser : let me confirm with you first here we are not talking about death but about collapse, is it true ? base on your experience what is the difference in terms of the time elapse when somebody inhale cyanide and when somebody ingest cyanide, before they collapse ? Witness : Yes. Generally, inhalation will be faster than the ingestion.

It is also dependent to the consentration of the poison. So the higher doses effects faster, and lower doses the effects will be slower.

In this conversation, the Legal Adviser gives 2 questions. Fisrt of all, he asks for confirmation that they are discussing about the collapse not the death. the witness approves it. The last, he asks about the difference time between inhaling cyanide and ingesting cyanide. the witness answers it infromatively.

The witness adds the additional information about the influence of the cyanide consentartion level. Therefore, the witness flouts the maxim

(44)

44 of quantity because he explains more additional information which is not expected.

Datum 11

Legal Adviser : So the amount is very little, could the cyanide be detected with this very little amount ?

Witness : The first thing that I am not a toxicologist, but I know that the sensitive instruments they can analize on very little amount, but the important thing in here that is the toxicology result by the toxicologist, so I assume that the result is valid.

In my center, if I sent a sampel and they cannot analize it I would get result back as insufficient for analisys.

In this conversation, the Legal Adviser asks the witness about the how the very litle amount of the cyanide can be found at the victims body. The witness answers it clearly, even if he is not a toxicologist.

However, there is still the unexpected additional information.

As you can see the underlined words “In my center, if I sent a sampel and they cannot analize it I would get result back as insufficient for analisys.”, it is the overbalance information that is no need to be convey. In conclution, it is the flouting of maxim quantity.

(45)

45 Datum 12

Legal Adviser : While the result for BB4 are negative ?

Witness : Yes and because it is negative, it means that it is very, we can rule out she died from cyanide poisoning.

This conversation describes that the Legal Adviser asks for the negativity of BB4 (barang bukti 4) result. Then, the witness confirmation is yes. The witness confirmation should be enough, but there are any unexpected additional information. The underlined words is the overstatement that no need to be. He is just trying to asserting his conclution about the cyanide is not the cause of death, but it is extremly flout the maxim of quantity.

Datum 13

Legal Adviser : You mean how much when you say a large content of stomach, how much, could you mention it ?

Witness : I expect to be about 100-1000 and this has been illustrated in the two cases report.

This datum describes about their discussion about the level cyanide contained in the stomach. When the Legal Adviser asks about the specific number, he answers it obviously. However, the witness flouts the maxim quantity by saying excess information that is not needed at all.

(46)

46 Datum 14

Public Prosecutor 1 : Are you saying that if external examination is enough, adequate, then autopsy is not necessary

?

Witness : If you mean internal examination, then yes. that will depend on Indonesia jurisdiction or the countries or other state that orders the autopsy.

The conversation in this datum describes that the public prosecutor asks for the necessary of autopsy if the external examination is already done. His answer should be enough when he says ”If you mean internal examination, then yes”. Nonetheless, he enhances his answer by saying unappropriate answer. He says that it also depends on Indonesian Jurisdiction. The writer indicates it as a flouting maxim of quantity, because his additional information is a must and does not to be mentioned.

Datum 15

Public Prosecutor 1 : Is there an International regulation applicable worldwide concerning in order to establish the cause of death ?

Witness : There is no international convension or regulation on death investigation system. In general, regarding autopsy we do have scientific meetings among the pathologist, discussing about cases and other scientific matters.

(47)

47 In this conversation, the public prosecutor asks about the existance of an international regulation in order to esatablish the cause of death.

Unluckly, there is no any international convension or regulation on death investigation system. It should have answered the question overall. But then the witness gives more information regarding the scientific meetings among the pathologist. nevertheless, it has included as the flouting maxim of quantity because he informs more deatails than it has to be.

Datum 16

Public Prosecutor 1 : He would like to know if no embalming is performed how long does take for the organs to deteriorate, so he would like the comparison if embalming perform and not performed ? Another question is which part of the body will be the first to deteriorate if no embalming is conducted and if embalming is conducted and if emabalming is conducted ?

Witness : Again there are many factors that beside on the speed of decomposition, for example environment temperature or the person is ill with already infection, and then decomposition process will be faster. So it is very difficult to give a fix period. If the body has been embalmed and again it depends

(48)

48 how effective is the embalming process, the process of decomposition will be very much retarded. If you want to give a specific time period, it is not possible to give a specific period. It is also the same with organs. In general, it is intestines that deteriorate first. But sometimes it can be some other organs.

In this datum, the witness seems flout the maxim quantity. As you can see at his part, the underlined words is the repition. He says twice that it is difficult or possible to give a specific period for the organs decomposition before and after embalming. In this case, he says something excessive.

Datum 17

Public Prosecutor 1 : Do you have certificates showing your expertise on Cyanide ?

Witness : I do not have certificate, and I am not aware if there is such a certificate.

In this conversation, The first public prosecutor wants to know that there are any certificates showing the witness’ exprtise on cyanide.

unfortunately, the witness do not have a certificate. The witness also adds a bit sarcastic information that there is any kind of certificate like that. It means, the witness flouts the maxim quantity because he says more, than it has to be.

(49)

49 Datum 18

Public Prosecutor 3 : In which part of the body that the discoloration will appear ? and how long with it take until the discoloration can be seen or become visible ? Witness : The discoloration typically seen in the area of Hypostasis,

and is due to gravitasional blood, so in a person is lying face up, the blood will collect at the back, so this red discoloration will be most distinct at the area of Hypostasis.

The situation is the third public prosecutor asks 2 questions to the witness. the first one is about where is the discoloration will appear and the last one is how long it will take until the discoloration can be seen.

The witness only answers the first one and does not for the second one.

In this case, the witness flouts the maxim quantity because he does not convey all the approriate answer.

Datum 19

Public Prosecutor 3 : If autopsy cannot be done, is the taking of samples from the bail, urine, liver, and stomach, can be a way to ascertain the cause of death ? Witness : Yes. But the better sample for specific for cyanide poisnoning

is actually blood.

In this conversation, the public prosecutor asks that the samples form the bail, urine, liver, and stomach, can be a way to ascertain the

(50)

50 cause of death. The witness approves it. The writer thinks that the additional information is indicated as a exaggration, because it is not the answer that the public prosecutor wants. In conclution, he flouts the maxim of quantity by saying information that is not needed.

Datum 20

Public Prosecutor 3 : The question is whether the volume mentioned here, that 0.1 ml is the ideal volume in order to conduct the analysis ?

Witness : The analysis was perform by the toxicologist, and I am not the toxicologist.

In this datum, the public prosecutor asks a question about the ideal volume to conduct the analysis. based on the witness’ answer, that question is only can be answered by the toxicologist, because it is the role of toxicologist. The problem is that the witness says “I am not the toxicologist”. It is obviously the flouting maxim of quantity, because it is the overstatement. He has not to mention something unimportant.

c. Maxim of Relevance

Different from the concept of maxim flouting of quality which uses another expression in telling his/her feeling, a speaker flouts the maxim of relevance expresses what he/thinks by using words that does not have

(51)

51 any relation to the previous utterance. The elaboration of datums bellow shows the analysis of flouting Maxim of Relevance.

Datum 21

Public Prosecutor 1 : With what visa did you came to Indonesia ? Witness : I came with a visitor visa

Public Prosecutor 1 : Visitor visa, what kind of visit?

Witness : There is no form to fill.

In this datum, the public prosecutor is really corious about the witness legality, so he wants to know about what kind of visa that the witness has. The public prosecutor finds the incongruity that the witnes comes with tourist/visitor visa. He thinks that the witness should come to indonesia with the works visa. When the public prosecutor asks that what kind of visitation, the witness replies it with unrelevance answer

“There is no form to fill”. As we know, it is abviously a flouting maxim of relevance.

Datum 22

Public Prosecutor 2 : Earlier legal adviser asked you question, you said that whether this is because the cyanide, and your answer was ‘no’, so I want to ask what is your real answer, are you in doubt, doubtful is the answer or ‘no’ is your real answer ?

(52)

52 Witness : I am not really sure the question, but this is what I have to say. If there a corrotion then of course that should be a cause of corrotion. But if there is not then there are may not be corrotion. If there is a corrotion I noted like what you say that cyanide was only detected in the stomach, the toxicology did not report that there is any other poison or corrotion in his report and that is because from I read it, he did not attempt to look for anything else in the typical toxicology report like what I get in Australia. the report were say ex-material is detected no other drugs or alcohol detected. I do not see this statement in the report. So take it that the toxicologist has not perform any further test.

At the beginning, the witness’ conclution after the samples’

examination is that the cyanide is not the cause of death. When the second public prosecutor asking further, he is doubtful that it is beacuse of the cyanide. Then, It makes the public prosecutor confused, because the witness’ conclution was make up by the doubtfulness. So he asks the optional question between ‘doubt’ or ‘no’. Unfortunately, the witness also confused toward the question, so he says “I am not really sure the question” as a sign of his confusion, and adds “but this is what I have to say” as a mark of his next explanation that might be could answer the second public prosecutor perplexity. However, the answer is not really related at all to the public prosecutor’s question.

(53)

53 d. Maxim of Manner

The speaker who flouts the maxim of manner says something that is not clear enough for the hearer or utters an expression which has some possible meanings. So the utterancaes may brings the ambiguity.

Unfortuanately, the writer does not find any flouting of Manner Maxim.

2. The Types of Maxim of Cooperative Principles which are hedged by Beng Beng Ong In Jessica’s Murder Trial.

When a speaker uses maxim hedging, a speaker is conscious of maxims of Cooperative Principles but the speaker is not really observing it. Hedge is an expression used in utterance to mark that the speaker is trying to observe the maxims.

a. Hedging Maxim of Quality

Using maxim hedging of quality means that the speaker is not sure whether the information that he/she has is true or not. Thus, he/she adds an additional phrase to aware the hearer that he/she will not take any responsibilities of the information. Thus, the hearer cannot take it as truthful information. There are several elaboration of datums below.

(54)

54 Datum 23

Legal Adviser : was that, did you do that in the knowledge of the Indonesianal police of Indonesia, Indonesia national police ?

Witness : Yes, and I think that I was given a certificate of appreciation.

In this situation, the Legal Adviser asks about the witness’

experiences being the forensic pathologist. The witness used to become a volunteer in Bali bombing disaster through the Australian Federal Police. The Legal Adviser asks him that does he do it under the Indoensian Police’s supervision. This utterance shows that the witness is not sure whether the information about the certificate is really appropriate. But he wants to assure the legal adviser that he receive the certifcate as the legimitacy of his participation in that event.

Datum 24

Legal Adviser : before you go on to autopsy examination, I would like to ask you, during the examination here did you find any traces of cyanide in the liver ?

Witness : I think the toxicology report, there was no cyanide detected.

In this datum, the legal adviser asks that does the witness find any traces of cyanide in the liver. The witness uses the hedging of maxim quality, “I think” in order to emphasize that the examination’s result does not come from his examination, but the toxicology report.

(55)

55 Datum 25

Legal Adviser : So the amount is very little, could the cyanide be detected with this very little amount ?

Witness : first thing that I am not a toxicologist, but I know that the sensitive instruments they can analize on very little amount, but the important thing in here that is the toxicology result by the toxicologist, so I assume that the result is valid. In my center, if I sent a sampel and they cannot analize it I would get result back as insufficient for analisys.

In the conversation above, the legal adviser wants to know that in very little amount could be cyanide detected. In the witness’ utterances, he asserts the quality hedge “I assume” to show to the legal adviser that the report/result is valid.

Datum 26

Legal Adviser : How much cyanide could be left in the stomach ? Witness : I think it is very difficult to estimate because we do not know

what really happen to the person, but assuming that the stomach contains a bit of fluid, when you diluted 298 mg over cyanide, the consentration still very high. For example, if there is 100 ml of fluid in the stomach, the consentration will be

(56)

56 about 2000, so even is some of cyanide has been used up, there were still be a high consentration left behind.

In this datum, the Legal Adviser’s question is about the amount of cyanide that could be left in the stomach. The witness inserts the quality hedges “I think” as an additional phrase to aware the legal adviser that the witness does not take any responsibilities of the information.

Datum 27

Legal Adviser : You said earlier in your presentation that one of the symptoms of cyanide poisoning is bright-red discoloration, could you please explain or elaborate more on that ?

Witness : The reason why the person look bright red is because of the way of cyanide works, the cyanide will inhibit an enzyme known as Cythochrome C430, to put in simple terms, it was stop the body from using oxygen. the blood on the body will contain oxygen. As we know, oxygenited-blood is bright red in color, the blood that where oxygen has been taken away will be more dark or dusky red. Because there is a lot of oxigenited-blood in the person who died from cyanide toxicity, they will reveal.

In the conversation above, the Legal Adviser wants the witness to elaborate one of the cyanide poisoning symptom which is the victim’s

(57)

57 body discoloration. In the witness’ explanation, he uses the quality hedge “As we know” to assert the quality of his utterance.

Datum 28

Public Prosecutor 1 : Could you please explain how long it will take since ingestion of the cyanide into the body orally until the internal organs are not able to take oxygen ?

Witness : I think that to measure that we only can look at the clinical presentation and it stated in literature it usually takes about more than 5 minutes to even a new hours, and I think that the reason why there is range of time it is because it could be due to different doses and the health of person. In general, if the doses higher, clinical manifestation will be faster. If the person has health problem then the manifestation will be faster in these group of people. So I cannot give a specific time.

In datum above, the public prosecutor asks for the explanation about the time estimation of the internal organs inability to take the oxygen.

In the witness’ explanation, he says twice the quality hedge “I think”.

It is indicated that the witness is not taking full responsibilities for the truth of his utterances.