AN ANALYSIS OF FLOUTING MAXIMS IN “FOREST GUMP” FILM BASED ON GRICE’S COOPERATIVE PRINCIPLES.
(A PRAGMATICS APPROACH)
THESIS
Submitted as a Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for Sarjana Sastra Degree in English Department
Faculty of Letters and Fine Arts Sebelas Maret University
By: Mulyani C03035049
ENGLISH DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF LETTERS AND FINE ARTS SEBELAS MARET UNIVERSITY
AN ANALYSIS OF FLOUTING MAXIMS IN “FOREST GUMP” FILM BASED ON GRICE’S COOPERATIVE PRINCIPLES.
(A PRAGMATICS APPROACH)
BY Mulyani C0305049
Approved to be examined before the Board of Examiners Faculty of Letters and Fine Arts
Sebelas Maret University
Thesis Consultant
Drs. Budi Waskita, M. Pd NIP. 19521108 198303 1001
Head of English Department
iii
AN ANALYSIS OF FLOUTING MAXIMS IN “FOREST GUMP” FILM BASED ON GRICE’S COOPERATIVE PRINCIPLES.
(A PRAGMATICS APPROACH) BY
MULYANI C0305049
Accepted and Approved by the Board of Examiners Faculty of Letters and Fine Arts
Sebelas Maret University On
March 3rd 2010 Board of Examiners
Position Name Signature
1. Chairman Dr. Djatmika, MA ………
NIP. 196707261993021001
2. Secretary Ida Kusuma Dewi, SS, MA ………
NIP. 197105251998022001
3. First Examiner Drs. S. Budi Waskito, M.PD ..………….
NIP. 195211081983031001
4. Second Examiner Drs. Sri Marmanto, M. Hum ....………… NIP.195009011986011001
Dean of Faculty of Letters and Fine Arts Sebelas Maret University Surakarta
PRONOUCEMENT Name : MULYANI
NIP : C 03035049
Stated whole heartedly that this thesis entitled An Analysis of Flouting Maxims in
“Forest Gump” Film Based on Grice’s Cooperative Principles (A Pragmatics
Approach) is made by the researcher. It is neither a plagiarism, nor made by
others. The things related to other people’s work are written in quotation and
included within the bibliography.
If it is then proved that the researcher cheats, the researcher is ready to
take the responsibility
Surakarta,
The researcher
v MOTTOS
Man proposes, God disposes. What does not kill you will strengthen you.
Verily, with every difficulty, there is a relief.
(Al insyira: 6)
I’m Proud to be me
DEDICATION
This precious work is dedicated to
vii
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Bismillahirrohmanirrohim.
Alhamdulillahi robbil ‘alamin All praise are just for Allah S.W.T, the Almighty and the All Merciful God for His blessing that I can complete this thesis
as one of the requirements for accomplish the Undergraduate Degree of Sarjana
Sastra.
This thesis would not be completed without help, guidance, and advice
from others. It is a big pleasure to acknowledge the generosity of the following
persons for their encouragement, support, and the most important, their guidance
and advice. Therefore, in this opportunity, I would like to express my fondest
gratitude to:
1. Allah subhanahu wa Ta’ala and his messenger, Rasullah sa, who never let me
down.
2. Drs. Sudarno, M.A, as the Dean of Letters and Fine Arts Faculty, for
approving my thesis.
3. Dr. Djatmika as the Head of English Department for the permission to write
this thesis.
4. Drs. Budi Waskito, M. pd as my thesis supervisor. Thank you very much for
your guidance, patience, concern and advise so that I can finish my thesis.
5. All the lecturers of English Department. Thank you very much for the
guidance and knowledge you have given to me.
6. My family, my beloved mom and dad thanks for everything you have given to
me, attention, pray, love, and care. Mom I always love you, hope Allah always
and my spoilness. My sister thanks you for the support and love. My little
nephew “Fera” thanks for the cheerful.
7. My dearest friend D’ KAMPRETS, lilies and Tomy “The Angels” (thanks for
your holly words to be realistic and patience, remember the days we fought
together to finish our thesis), Yogi “Nene” (thanks for supports, advices and
your patience to listen my story all night long), Nurin (thanks to joyful in the
new year and also the hot gossips you always share to me), Hesti (thanks for
checking my thesis, lets get crazy shopping again!), Nunik (thanks to your
delicious food and your support to get “him”), Fitria (thanks for your patience
to always be victim of my violence), Woro (thanks for your funny story and
the translation, you are my dictionary), Ima (thanks for your wise words which
give the enlightenment for my soul), Puspa (thanks for the advices for my
black hole), Dini “The Twinner” ( thanks for the spirits you gave to finish my
thesis), Kiki (thanks for to be my friens).
8. My PADANG family, antigue (thanks for the supports, understanding for this
7,5 years we had spent together, and sorry for my careless which always drops
everything in your room), Ipha ( thanks for the joyful and the “chick-chick”
style you infected in every single part of Padang’s), mbak Ipeh, Kristin, and
Dwi (thanks for the supports and the happy time that we had), Ratih (lets
finish your thesis soon), Deny (thanks for the supports and sorry for the torture
that I’ve done to you).
9. My old friends, Lilis and Angga thanks for your supports and advices.
10.All my friends in ED ’05, Sony (thanks to be the lovely chairman, Intan
ix
Sari, Fera, Eva, Naphis, Chemitz, Winda, Dian catur, Ratih wula, ratih dwi,
Anggi, vian, Hemi, Us, Ebsi, Ongko, Galih, Febri, Alwi, Udin, Lambang,
Adwin, Arin, Arum, Yuni, Elis, Ismi, Jotika, Astri, Fauzi, Kiki adi, Dida,
Leony, Maya, Wunendro as we go on we’ll remember all the times we had
together.
11.The last but not least “Yellow” thanks for always be my side and the support.
12.For everyone who I cannot mention, thank you for all support and help in
doing my thesis.
I believes that this thesis is far from being perfect, thus constructive
criticism and suggestion are open-handedly accepted. Hopefully this thesis will be
beneficial as it is purposively written. Thank you
Surakarta, February , 2010
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE……….
THESIS APPROVAL OF THE CONSULTANT………..
THESIS APPROVAL OF THE BOARD OF EXAMINERS………
xi
3. The reason why the characters flout the maxim…………...
3. Implicature……….……
4. The reason………...
CHAPTER V. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
A. Conclusion………..
B. Suggestion………..……….
Bibliography………...
Appendices……….
99
100
102
xiii Principle (A Pragmatics Approach). The topic is chosen since it is interesting to figure out what speaker really means in his or her utterance.
This research applies Pragmatics approach based on Grice’s theory. It consists of Cooperative Principles, their maxims and flouting maxims. In this research, the sources of data are the film entitled Forest Gump and the film script. In analyzing, the researcher applies a total sampling technique, where all 21 data are displayed in this research.
This thesis is aimed to describe how the flouting maxims and the cooperative Principle can help the addressee to understand reason the intended meaning (implicature) employed by the characters in the film.
The results of the data analysis show that there are three categories. The first category is flouting clash between maxims found in 21 data. The flouting clash between maxims is divided into 5 sub-categories. The first is the flouting maxims of Quality, Quantity and Manner which shows that the participants blatantly give more information than it is required with something which is untrue and also difficult to understand because it is unclear and long winded. The second is the flouting maxims of Quantity, Manner and Relevance which shows that the participants blatantly give more information which is long winded and not relevant to the question. The third is the flouting maxims of Quality and Quantity. It shows that the participants blatantly say something untrue by giving more information that it is not required. The fourth is the flouting maxims of Quantity and Manner. The overlap between the two maxims above shows that the participants blatantly give more information than it is required which may create ambiguous, convoluted perception. The fifth is the flouting maxim of quantity and relevance which shows that the participants blatantly give more or less information than it is required and not relevant to the question.
The second category is the flouting maxim of Quantity. It shows that the participants in the dialog blatantly give more information than it is required.
The third category is the flouting maxim of quality. It shows that the participants blatantly say something untrue and lack of adequate information.
The results also show that the data analysis reveals the use of an implicature in the dialogue between the characters in the film “Forest Gump” depends on the context of situation. The characters employ the flouting maxims in order to make the conversation run smoothly.
Keyword: Pragmatics, flouting maxims, Grice’s cooperative principle, xvi+ 99, 5 appendices
xv
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
A.
Research background
Communication is a part of the society. It happens because in the social
life we need to communicate to share our feeling, our needs and our willing. To
communicate with each other we need a means called language. Language will
help us to express what we feel, need and want. According to Wardhaugh (1992)
language is used by people to communicate each other expressing their feeling,
need and want.
Conversation is one of the ways people use to communicate each other
associated with language. Conversation involves at least two participants and it
also needs the place where it occurs and the time when it happens. When people
talk to someone they want to deliver some messages or purposes. In the
conversation the addressee should be able to understand what the speaker means.
Because of that, the addressee should know the context.
Almost every time we have to communicate with other people.
Automatically when we communicate, we are engaged a conversation. In a
conversation, we become one of the participants or we can only become the
audience of the conversation. We become the participants when we are involved
in the conversation and we become the audience when we listen, watch or read a
conversation through visual or printed media.
Film is one of media to communicate moral and social values to the
life can be reflected through film. Many films are raised from the reality. Film can
be said succeed if the messages of the film can be absorbed by the audience. To
make the film easy to understand, the dialogue of the film must be supported by
the body language and mimic face of its characters. Besides that, the context of
situation is also needed in understanding the film. The situation and cultural
background of the film can help the audiences understand the story and interpret
the messages of the film.
Besides, the language which is used by the characters also plays an
important role in understanding the film. The dialogue consists of explicit and
implicit utterances in delivering the messages. In order to understand the implicit
utterances, the audience should know the meaning of the utterances spoken by the
characters. The audience should interpret the information by themselves. The
implicit utterances may become the problem for the audience in understanding the
meaning and absorbing the messages of the story. Thomas (1995:56-58) asserts that there are times when people say exactly what they mean, but generally they
are not totally explicit. In some ways people manage to convey further than their
words using something quite different from the meaning of their words. The
different meaning is conveyed by means of implicature.
According to Thomas (1995: 58), implicature is to hint, suggest or convey
some meaning indirectly by means of language. Implicature is generated
intentionally by the speaker and may (or may not) be understood by the hearer.
Gazdar (1978) states that implicature is a proposition that is implied by the
xvii
To understand about implicature, Grice introduces his theory (Grice’s
Theory). Grice’s theory (1975:41-58) explains about how the hearer gets from
what is said to what is meant, from the level of expressed meaning to the level of
implied meaning. Grice also distinguishes two different sorts of implicature
namely conventional implicature and conversational implicature.
In order to explain the mechanism by which people interpret the
conversational implicature, Grice introduces four conversational maxims and
cooperative principle (CP). The conversational maxims are the maxim of quantity
(informatively), quality (sincerely, said the real and the truth), relation (relevantly)
and manner (orderly). The four conversational maxims help us establish what
implicature might be. The CP runs as follows:
Make your contribution such as required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged (Grice 1975).
However, there are many occasions when people fail to observe the
maxim. Grice (1975, cited in Thomas 1995, p.64-78) introduces five ways of
failing to observe the maxims namely flouting a maxim, violating a maxim,
infringing a maxim, opting out a maxim, suspending a maxim. Flouting maxim
itself has four types, they are: flouting maxim of quality, quantity, relation and
manner.
Forest Gump is chosen by the researcher to become the source of the data
since the film is one of comedy-drama films adapted from the novel written by
Winston Groom in 1986. It has a lot of messages about moral values which are
through implicit utterances. It makes the researcher interested to know further
about the language used in the Forest Gump film.
There are some flouting maxims that occur in the film Forest Gump. The
writer is going to analyze the implicatures that are generated through flouting
maxims in the film dialogues. The following examples of the flouting maxims in
the movie dialogue are included to make the background clearer.
FORREST Is this your house?
JENNY
Yeah, it's messy right now. I just got off work
The dialogue above occurs in Jenny’s apartment. Forest asks Jenny
whether the apartment is her own or not. Jenny blatantly gives more information
than the situation required by saying “yeah, it’s messy right now. I just got of
work”. It is obvious that Forest just asks about the owner of the house but Jenny
answers more than Forest required. Jenny gives more information by adding her
answer with “it’s messy right now. I just got off work”. This information actually
is not needed by Forest. She could simply have said “yes, it is”. Therefore, it
flouts the maxim of Quantity.
Ø DOCTOR
How do those feel? His legs are strong, Mrs. Gump. As strong as I've ever seen.
But his back is as crooked as a politician.
The dialogue occurs in the doctor’s office. The doctor gives explanation
xix
back is as crooked as a politician. The doctor’s utterance is lack of adequate evidence since Forest’s back is as crooked as the politician. The doctor exactly
knows that Forest’s backbone is crooked but it is not crocked like a politician.
But there is a problem in Forest’s backbone. Therefore the doctor flouts the
maxim of Quality. Besides that the dialogue also flouts the maxim of quantity.
The doctor gives more information than the situation required by saying “How do those feel? His legs are strong, Mrs. Gump. As strong as I've ever seen. But his back is as crooked as a politician”. Thereby, the doctor’s utterance generates an implicature that the doctor wants to explain carefully of Forest’s back condition in
order not to make his mother gets worried or shock. Actually the doctor can
simply say “Forest’s backbone is crooked”
From the examples above, it can be seen that there are different flouting
maxims found in the film dialogue. Those flouting maxims have their own
implicature related to the context of each dialogue, where the dialogues occur,
when the dialogues happen and the reason why people flout a maxim. Based on
the phenomenon, the researcher is interested in analyzing the flouting maxims
generated by the speakers and the cooperative principles that occur in the dialogue
B.
Problem Statement
From the research background above, the researcher proposes some
problems as follow:
1. What kinds of the flouting maxims are employed by the characters in
“Forest Gump” film?
2. How the cooperative principles employed by the characters in the
“Forest Gump” film help the addressee to understand the intended
meaning in the dialogue?
3. Why are the flouting maxims employed by the characters in “Forest
Gump” film?
C.
Research limitation
The research focuses on the analysis of flouting maxims in Forest Gump
film based on Grice’s Cooperative principle covering the maxim of quality,
quantity, relation and manner, since they are found in the dialogues of the film.
D.
Research Objectives
The purpose of the research is to find out the answers of the problem
statements. Therefore the research’s objectives are:
1. To explain the various kinds of the flouting maxims are employed by
the characters in the “Forest Gump” film
2. To describe how the cooperative principles which are employed by the
characters help the addressee to understand the intended meaning in
xxi
3. To explain the reasons of the characters in the film entitled “Forest
Gump” employed the flouting maxims.
E.
Research benefits
Every research must have benefits to the researchers themselves and other people.
This research tries to contribute the benefits as follows:
a. For the students who want to learn about flouting maxims, it is
hoped that having read the result of the research, the students will
be more understand the flouting maxims and maxims in the film.
b. For other researchers, the result of the research is hoped to be a
stimulant for other researchers, so that they will lead to conduct
more comprehensive research in such topic.
F.
Research methodology
This research is a descriptive qualitative research. In this research, the data
which are used by the researcher are words, sentences and dialogues which are
found in the “Forest Gump” film. A qualitative research is a type of research
which does not conclude any calculations/ enumerations (Moleong, 2001:6). It is also called descriptive because it takes some steps such as collecting data, making
an analysis and drawing the conclusion (Moleong, 2001:6).
This research uses purposive sampling technique to obtain the data needed
since the whole data collected are the utterances categorized as flouting maxims.
The population of this research is all dialogues in “Forest Gump” film. Further
G.
Thesis organization
This thesis is organized by some chapters and items as follow:
CHAPTER 1 covers Introduction consisting of research Background,
Problem statement, research limitation, research objective, research benefits,
research methodology, and thesis organization.
CHAPTER II covers Literature Review consisting Definition of
Pragmatics, Conversational Implicature, The Cooperative Principle, The Four
Conversational Maxims, The Flouting Maxim, Context, Theory of film, review of
other related studies, and synopsis of the film.
CHAPTER III covers Research Methodology consisting of type of the
study and research method, Data source, Sample and Sampling Technique,
Instrument of the research, Technique of Collecting Data, Data Coding and
Technique of Analyzing Data
CHAPTER IV covers Data Analysis consist of the analysis and discussion
xxiii
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
A. Pragmatic
1.
Definition of PragmaticThere are several definitions of pragmatics. Richard in Kuncoro Rahardi
(2002:5) defines that pragmatics is the study of the use of language in
communication, particularly in the relationship between sentences and the
contexts and situations in which they are used. Leech (1983:10) also states that
pragmatics is the study of the relation between language and context that is the
basic to an account of language understanding. Both linguists define pragmatics as
a study that involves meaning and context. But Levinson emphasizes more on the
ability of a speaker to create any form of utterances in any context or situation,
while Leech emphasizes on the language understanding.
Yule (1996: 3) states the four areas that pragmatics is concerned as
follows:
a. Pragmatics is the study of meaning
Pragmatics is concerned with the study of meaning as communicated by a
speaker (or writer) and interpreted by a listener (or reader). It analyzes more in
what people mean by their utterances than in what the words or phrases in those
utterances might mean by themselves.
b. Pragmatics is the study of contextual meaning
This type of study necessarily involves the interpretation of what
It requires the consideration of how the speakers organize what they want to say
in accordance with who they’re talking to, where, when, and under what
circumstances.
c. Pragmatics is the study of how we recognize what is meant even when it is not
actually said
This approach also necessarily explores how listeners can make
influences about what is said in order to arrive at an interpretation of the
speaker’s intended meaning. This type of study explores how a great deal of
what is unsaid is recognized as part of what is communicated. We might say
that it is the investigation of invisible meaning.
d. Pragmatics is the study of the expression of relative distance
This perspective raises the question of what determines the choice
between the said and the unsaid. The basic is tied to the notion of distance.
Closeness, whether it is physical, social, or conceptual, implies shared
experience. On the assumption of how close or distant the listener is, speakers
determine how much needs to be said.
Thus, we can make a conclusion that pragmatics is appealing because it’s
about how people make sense of each other linguistically, but it can be a
frustrating area of study because it requires us to make sense of people what they
have in mind.
While Thomas (1995: 21-23) stated the definitions of pragmatics as follows:
a. Pragmatics as speaker meaning.
The speaker meaning tends to be favored by writers who take a
xxv
producer of the message, but at the same time obscures the fact that the process
of interpreting what we hear involves moving between several levels of speaker
meaning, namely utterance meaning and force.
b. Pragmatics as utterance interpretation.
This term tends to be favored by those who take broadly cognitive
approach, but at the cost of focusing too much on the receiver of the message
which in practice means largely ignoring the social constrains on utterance
production. It focuses almost exclusively on the process of interpretation from
the point of view of the hearer.
c. Pragmatics as meaning interaction.
This reflects the view that meaning is not something that is inherent
the words alone, nor is it produced by the speaker alone, nor by the hearer
alone. Making meaning is a dynamic process involving the negotiation of
meaning between a speaker and a hearer, the context of utterance (physical,
social, and linguistic) and the meaning potential of an utterance.
It can be concluded that pragmatics is the study of meaning from the
utterance spoken by a speaker or a writer and interpreted by a hearer or a reader,
and it involves the context as a consideration of how the speaker or the writer
organizes what he wants to say.
2. The Scope of Pragmatics
There are some topics discussed in pragmatics. Levinson (1997: 27)
states that pragmatics is the study of deixis, implicature, presupposition, speech
explained more in the next item. The other topics, however, will be explained
briefly.
a. Deixis
Deixis is a technical term (from Greek) for one of the most basic things
we do with utterances. Deixis means ‘pointing’ via language (Yule, 1996:9).
Deixis is clearly a form of referring that is tied to the speaker’s context. Therefore,
the deixis of utterance is meaningful if the context of the utterance is accurately
known.
b. Implicature
It is a proposition based on the interpretation of the language use and its
context of communication in a bound that the participants can interpret what the
implication of a message or utterance in a different way from what the speaker
literally means.
c. Presupposition
According to Yule (1996:25) presupposition is something the speaker
assumes to be the case prior to making an utterance. Presupposition of a statement
will remain constant even when that statement is negated.
For example, two statements ‘John’s car is not red’ and ‘John has a car’
have similar assumption that John has a car and the color is not red.
d. Speech Act
Speech act carries some actions in an utterance. Austin in Yule
(1996:49) states that in uttering a sentence, one might be said to be performing
xxvii
1) Locutionary act, it is the basic fact of utterance because it produces a
meaningful linguistic expression.
2) Illocutionary act, it is performed via communicative force of an utterance
in order to make a statement, an offer, an explanation or other
communicative purposes.
3) Perlocutionary act, it is done to have an effect from the utterance.
e. Discourse Structure
It relates with the organization of conversation. Every conversation can
be analyzed through conversation analysis because it has structures. For example
turn taking is done when someone respects other people in taking their turns in
speaking and adjacency pairs is a fundamental unit of conversational organization,
that manage the kind of paired utterances of which question should be replied by
answer, greeting by greeting, or offer by acceptance.
Those five aspects have the relation with the context because without
appreciating the context of utterance, the messages of a speech cannot be
interpreted accurately.
B. Implicature
A philosopher, H.P. Grice, outlines an approach to what he terms as
implicature. The word of implicature is derived from the verb to imply, which
means to fold something into something else (Mey, 1993:99). According to Yule
implicature is an additional conveyed meaning. Meanwhile, Gazdar also states
that ‘an implicature is a proposition that is implied by the utterances of a sentence
(Gazdar, 1979:38). In Thomas (1995:57) Grice divides implicature into
conventional implicature and conversational implicature.
From the definitions above, it can be concluded that implicature is hidden
meaning conveyed in an utterance in certain of context of situation. In this
research, conversational implicature will be the main concern for the researcher.
C. Conventional implicature
Thomas (1995:57) states that in the case of conventional implicature, the
same implicature is always conveyed, regardless of context.
While Yule (1996:45) states that conventional implicature is not based on
the cooperative principle or the maxims of Grice. It does not have to occur in a
conversation, and they do not depend on special context for their interpretation.
This kind of implicature is unobserved in this research. On the other hand, in this
subchapter the researcher purely focuses on the conversational implicature, which
is related to the research.
Conventional implicature is associated with specific words and result in
additional conveyed meanings when several words are used. For example is the
word “but”.
Mary suggested black, but I choose white.
(From Yule, 1996, 45)
The utterance associates that the expectation between Mary and I is
xxix
D. Conversational implicature
Mey (1993:99) states that a conversational implicature is something which
is implied in conversation, that is, something which is left implicit in actual
language use.
While Leech (1983:40) assumes that conversational implicature is the
directness of which is motivated in politeness rather than to what is actually said.
Yule (1996:40) also states that conversational implicature is an additional
unstated meaning that has to be assumed in order to maintain the cooperative
principle. It is implicature derived from a general principle of conversation plus a
number of maxims, which the speaker will normally obey. Conversational
implicature is divided into:
a) Generalized conversational implicature
It is implicature that arises without any particular context or
special scenario being necessary, for instance:
Charlene: I hope you brought the bread and the cheese. Dexter : Ah. I brought the bread.
(Yule: 1996:41)
From the conversation above, it is seen that there is no need of a
particular context to interpret other additional meaning.
b) Particularized conversational implicature
It is an implicature that arises become some special factors
sentence used, In short, it is an implicature that needs a specific
context. We can see the following example:
Ricky: Hey, coming to the wild party tonight?
Tom : My parents are visiting.
(Yule: 1996: 43)
From the conversation above, it is seen that Tom was not strictly
answered Ricky’s question. However he delivers the response which
indirectly completes the speaker’s goal. Based on Tom’s utterance, it
implicates that he will not attend the party since he has to welcome or
spend his evening with his parents.
Thus, we can make a conclusion that conversational implicature is how the
speaker’s utterance is interpreted by the hearer. An utterance which is spoken by
the speaker sometimes has a hidden meaning which implies something behind the
utterance. In this case, a speaker intends to convey a certain meaning through his
utterances based on a certain background knowledge and context of situation. So
that the hearer must assume the speaker means to convey more than is being said.
E. The cooperative principles
In order to explain the mechanism by which people interpret
conversational implicature in logic and conversation, Grice introduced four
conversational maxims and the cooperative principle (Thomas 1995: 61-63). The
xxxi
‘Make your conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged.’
In this principle, Grice tells the speakers how they ought to behave. He
suggests that in conversation interaction people work on the assumption that a
certain set of rules is in operation, unless they receive indications to the contrary.
When the speaker has conversation, he should obey the regularity or the principle
in order not to make the conversation misleads. But there will be time when the
hearer has wrong assumption or misinterpretation in understanding the speaker’s
mean because of mistakes and misunderstandings. Thomas (1995: 62) says that
Grice is not (as some commentators have erroneously assumed) suggesting that
people are always good and kind or cooperative in any everyday sense of that
word. On the whole, people observe certain regularities in interaction and their
aim is to explain one particular set of regularities. Therefore, it governs the
generation and interpretation of conversational implicature.
Example:
The speaker has accidentally locked herself out of her house. It is winter, the middle of the night and she is stark naked:
A: Do you want a coat?
B: No, I really want to stand out here in the freezing cold with no clothes on.
On the face of it, B’s reply is untrue and uncooperative, but in fact this is
the sort of sarcastic reply we encounter every day and we have no problem at all
in interpreting. According to Grice, if A assumes that, in spite of appearances, B
to his question, he will look for an alternative interpretation. Grice argues that
without the assumption that the speaker is operating according to the CP, there is
no mechanism to prompt someone to seek for another level of interpretation. The
observation that the speaker has said something which is manifestly untrue
combined with the assumption that the CP is in operation sets in motion the search
for an implicature (Thomas 1995: 63).
F. The conversational maxim
Grice’s theory (1975) develops the concept of implicature. The basic
notion of his concept is how people use language. Grice in Thomas (1995: 63-64)
proposes four basic maxims of conversation as a guideline. They are maxim of
quality (sincerely, said the real and the truth), maxim of quantity (informatively),
maxim of relation (relevantly) and manner (orderly) which are formulated as
follows:
The Maxims
1. Quantity
1) Make your contribution as informative as is required
2) Do not make your contribution more informative than is required
The maxim relates to the amount of information given by the
participants. They have to give sufficient information, no more and no less then
what is required since the speaker gives insufficient information will cause
failure in conducting conversation.
2. Quality
xxxiii
2) Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence
There are two important keywords in the above explanation; true that
can be connected with the participant’s belief and adequate evidence as proves
that the contribution is true.
3. Relation:
1) Be relevant
It means that each of the participants must say something that is
relevant to the subject of the conversation. The participants of the
conversation will find difficulties in understanding the topic if it has no
relevance and the utterances will appear quite unconnected.
4. Manner
1) Avoid obscurity of expression
2) Avoid ambiguity
3) Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity)
4) Be orderly
Consider the following example:
FORREST: Ma'am, what'd they do with Lieutenant Dan? NURSE : They sent him home.
In the dialogue above, the Nurse answers Forest’s question clearly
(manner), truthfully (quality), gives just the right amount of information
(quality) and directly addresses Forest’s goal in asking the question
G. The flouting maxim
Grice in Thomas (1995: 65-71) explains that a flout occurs when a speaker
blatantly fails to observe a maxim at the level of what is said, with the deliberate
intention generating an implicature. According to Grice, there are four kinds of
the flouting maxims that are generated as follow:
1.The flouting maxim of quality
Flouts which exploit the maxim of Quality occur when the speaker says
something which is blatantly untrue or for which he or she lacks adequate
evidence.
Example:
The speaker was Lady Lucinda Lambton and she was talking about John
Patten, who at the time was the Secretary of State for Education.
“I lived in the same house as the man for three years and he’s the man I hate
most in all the world. In all my greasy past, he is the biggest grease
spot”.
It is patiently false that John Patten is a grease spot. Lucinda Lambton
does not appear to be trying to make us believe that John Patten is a grease
spot. So, in this instance the speaker is unable to simultaneously to observe
the maxim of Quality. (Thomas, 1995: 67)
2.The flouting maxim of quantity
A flout of the maxim of Quantity occurs when a speaker blatantly gives
more or less information that the situation requires.
xxxv
The speaker is Rupert Allason (author, M. P. and expert on British
intelligent services). He is discussing the identity of the so-called “Fifth
Man”.
Interviewer: So, who is the Fifth Man?
Rupet Allason: It was Graham Mitchell or Roger Hollis and I don’t believe it was Roger Hollis.
In this example, Rupert Allason blatantly gives more information than
the situation requires. He could simply say “The Fifth Man was graham
Mitchell” (Thomas, 1995: 65).
3.The flouting maxim of relation
The maxim of Relation is exploited by making a response or
observation which is very obviously irrelevant to the topic in hand (by
abruptly changing the subject or by overtly failing to address the other
person’s goal in asking a question); (Thomas, 1995: 70).
Example:
Forrest gets up and runs toward the car. He tries to look in the window
as he steps over to the driver's side door. He opens the door and begins to
punch the boy inside. Jenny jumps out of the car and runs over to Forrest.
JENNY : Forrest, why'd you do that?
FORREST: I brought you some chocolates. I’m sorry. I'll go back to my college now.
(Taken from “Forest Gump”) Forest’s utterance is not relevant toward Jenny’s question. There is no
changes the topic of the conversation by replying irrelevance answer in
order not to make Jenny angry with him. He also generates an implicature
that he feels sorry for hitting Bill. Thereby, he fails to observe the maxim of
Relation.
4.The flouting maxim of manner
The maxim of Manner is exploited by making a response which is
unclear so that the hearer can not catch what the speaker means.
The following is an example of flouting of the maxim of Manner:
This interaction occurred during a radio interview with unnamed official
from the United States Embassy in Port-au-Prince, Haity.
Interviewer: Did the United States Government play any part in Duvalier’s departure? Did they, for example, actively encourage him to leave?
Official : I would not try to steer you away from that conclusion. Actually, the official could simply have replied: ‘yes or no’. Her actual
response is extremely long winded and convoluted and it is obviously no
accident, nor through any inability to speak clearly, that she has failed to
observe the maxim of manner. She gives a confusing answer so that the
interviewer gets difficulties in understanding the official’s mean. However,
there is no reason to believe that the official is being deliberately unhelpful
(she could have simply refused to answer at all, or said, “No comment”.
xxxvii H. Context
Context plays an important role in understanding the meaning of utterance.
The term of context was firstly introduced by Brownislaw Malinowsky in 1923.
Malinowski in Halliday and Hasan (1985:5) points out that there are two notions
of context, context of situation and context of culture. Both have an essential role
in the interpretation of meaning. Context of situation is the situation in which the
utterance event occurs in the environment of the text. Context of culture is the
cultural background or historical setting behind the participants.
In order to understand the meaning of any utterance, someone should
know and understand the cultural background of the language, such as the
participants who are involved in the speech, the time, social condition, etc
(Halliday and Hasan, 1985: 6).
The importance of context in language can be seen from the opinion of
Levinson who says, “Pragmatics is the study of the ability of language user to pair
sentences with the context in which they would be appropriate (1983: 24)
Further, Leech (1983: 13) states that context deals with the relevant aspect
of the physical or social setting of an utterance. Context is a background
knowledge, which is showed by the speaker and the hearer in understanding their
utterances.
Mey (1993: 38) says that context is a dynamic, not a static concept: it is to
be understood as the surroundings, in the widest sense, that enable the participants
to interact in the communication process, and that make the linguistic expressions
According to Yan Huang (2007:13) context may in a broader sense be
defined as referring to any relevant features of the dynamic setting or environment
in which a linguistic unit is systematically used.
Based on the explanations above, it can be concluded that context is
important in interpreting the meaning of an utterance in a conversation. The hearer
can fail in interpreting the meaning of speaker’s utterance if the hearer does not
understand the context in the conversation.
I. Synopsis of the Film
Forrest Gump is a 1994 comedy-drama film based on the 1986 novel of
the same name by Winston Groom. The film tells about a man and his life journey
which is influenced by popular culture and first-hand historic events of the 20th
century while being largely unaware of their significance, due to his low
intelligence. The major character in this film, Forest Gump who has low IQ, has
great experience in his life. He experiences many historical events and meets
important people in America from the late 1950's through the 1970's including a
meeting with Elvis Presley, JFK, Lyndon Johnson, and Richard Nixon.
The film begins with a white feather falling to the feet of Forrest Gump.
He sits beside a black woman at a bus stop in Savannah, Georgia. Forrest picks up
the feather and puts it in the book Curious George. Then, he tells the story of his
life to a woman sits next to him. The listeners at the bus stop change regularly
throughout his narration. Each of them shows a different reaction to his narration
xxxix
In his first day to school, he meets a girl named Jenny Curran and then
Forest falling in love with this girl. All Forest’s life is related to Jenny. Although
he has low IQ, his life has much luckiness. In college, he gets football scholarship,
joins with All-America, and meets President John F. Kennedy. After graduating,
he enters the United States Army, awarded the Medal of Honor by President
Lyndon Johnson and successes in his business. But in his love story, Forest is not
much lucky. He is left by Jenny, a girl who he loves. Besides, he also loses his
best friend (Buba) in the Vietnam War.
But one day, Jenny sends him a letter to come to her house. There, he
finds that he has a young son. At that time Jenny also says to Forest that she
suffers a virus. Forest accepts Jenny’s condition and they decides to go back to
Greenbow, Alabama. Jenny and Forrest finally marry but Jenny dies not long after
their marriage. In the end of the film, Forest lives together with his son happily.
J. Reviews of Other Related Studies
The researcher includes some related studies based on Grice’s maxims and
Cooperative Principles. A previous research based on cooperative principles was
done by Tety Ratna Artanti (2006), in her thesis entitled “An Analysis of the Flouting Maxims in Princess Diaries 2: ROYAL ENGAGEMENT film based on Grice’s Cooperative Principle (A Pragmatics Study)”.
This study used Pragmatics approach based on Grice theory of
implicature covering of cooperative principle and its maxims, namely maxim of
The result of the study shows that there are flouting maxims in “Princess Diaries 2: Royal Engagement” film. Grice’s Cooperative Principle is not perfectly fulfilled by the characters in their dialog. The results also shows that
based on the analysis of flouting a maxim, there are 3 flouting maxims employed
by the characters, namely flouting maxim of Quality, Quantity and Manner.
Furthermore, the research shows that there are found two phenomena. The first is
that the most of flouted maxims in the data have low information content and high
affective content. It shows that the characters tend to express the affective (the
implicatures of their utterances) rather than the information of their utterances
(what is actually said by the characters). The second, the researcher also finds
overlapping incidence, which there are two or more maxims flouted in one
utterance.
Another similar research was done by Sarah Fajrin Amalia (2008), in her
thesis entitled the analysis of implicatures based on Grice’s flouting maxim in the film entitled “GUESS WHO” (a Pragmatic approach). This research applies pragmatic approach based on Grice’s theory. It consists of Cooperative Principles,
their maxims and flouting maxim.
The results of the data analysis shows that the maxim/s flouted in the
conversation may contain hidden meaning which has certain intention. The hidden
meaning is related to the context, so it is called particularized conversational
implicature. The use of implicature in the utterance is to make the hearer able to
catch the speaker’s intention through the employment of flouting maxim/s since
xli
the real meaning which is different from, or in addition to, the expressed meaning
CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
A. Type of Research and Research Method
In this research, the researcher applies the descriptive qualitative method.
It is called descriptive, since the researcher merely collects the data, makes an
analysis them and draws the conclusions from the analysis (Moleong, 2001: 6). A qualitative research is a type of research which does not include any
calculations/ enumerations (Moleong, 2001:6). According to Winarno Surachmad (2004: 147), descriptive research is a research method that uses technique of
collecting data, classifying the data, analyzing and interpreting them, and then
drawing the conclusion.
B. Data and Source of Data
The source of data refers to the subject from which all the data of a
research are obtained (Arikunto, 2002:107). The data may appear in the form of
discourse, sentence, clause, phrase, word or even morpheme (Subroto, 1992:7).
The data in this research are dialogues uttered by the characters which generate
flouting maxims in ‘Forest Gump’ film based on the Grice Cooperative Principle.
There are some reasons for taking this film as a data source. Firstly, this
comedy drama film has a lot of messages about moral values. This film also wins
xliii
and the best visual effect. Secondly, in the film dialogues, we can find a lot of
flouting maxims that are applied in various situations.
C. Sampling and Sampling Technique
Sample is a part of population that will be investigated (Arikunto, 2002:
109). He also defines that population is all subject of the research (ibid: 108).
Furthermore, sample should be collected by using a specific technique of
sampling. According to Sutrisno Hadi (1986:75) sampling technique is a
technique of choosing samples of data. Furthermore, he also says that qualitative
research is not aimed at generalizing the population but it is aimed at describing
specific things found in data.
Based on the definitions and explanations above, this research employs total
sampling technique. Surakhmad states that total sampling is a technique where the
whole data becomes the sample (2004:100). Thus, the researcher takes all dialogs
containing flouting maxims employed by the characters of the film “Forest
Gump” found in the data as the sample of the research.
D. Equipments of The Research
Lincoln and Guba in Sutopo (2006:36) state that in qualitative research,
the most important equipment is the researcher himself, since human being are
considered to have the ability of reaching and deciding the meaning of various
interactions. However in conducting the research, the researcher needs some
supporting equipments such as VCD of the film and a set of computer to play the
E. Technique of Collecting Data
The data of the research are collected by doing the following steps:
1. Replaying the VCD of ‘Forest Gump’ film by using a set of computer for a
couple of times.
2. Finding the transcript of the movie from the internet.
(http://www.script-o-rama.com)
3. Describing the data by transcribing the dialogues containing the flouting
maxims from the film into the form of dialogues list in order to match
them with the transcript of the film.
4. Identifying the flouting maxims in the dialogues by giving marks to each
flouting maxim.
5. Classifying the data of flouting maxims based on Grice’s Cooperative
Principle.
6. Coding the flouting maxims in the dialogues by giving numbers to each
flouting maxim.
F. Data Coding
In this research, the researcher gives some codes in the data to make the
analysis of each datum easier. The data coding was based on the number of
datum, the speaker that flouts the maxim, and the number of disc where dialogues
occur.
The example of data coding in the research is as follows:
Data 09/FG/ 1/FQR
xlv It can be:
- FG: Forest Gump
- JC: Jenny Curran
- MG: Mrs. Gump
- EP: Elvis Presley
- DR: Doctor
- BD: Bus driver
- LD: Lieutenant Dan
- FC: football coach
- BB: Bubba
- PK: President Kennedy
1: refers to the number of disc where dialogue occur
It can be:
- 1: disc number 1 (the first disc)
- 2: disc number 2 (the second disc)
FMQt: refers to type of flouting maxims: Flouting Maxim of Quantity
It can be:
- FMQl: Flouting maxim of Quality
- FCM: Flouting Class between Maxims (there is more than one maxim
flouted)
G. Technique of Analyzing Data The technique of collecting data is carried out as follows:
2. Describing the context of situation in the dialogues of the film
3. Describing how the Cooperative Principle is employed by the characters in the
dialogues of the film “Forest Gump” based on Grice’s theory.
4. Analyzing the kinds of the flouting maxims employed by the characters in the
dialogues of the film.
xlvii CHAPTER IV DATA ANALYSIS
A.
Introduction
This chapter is the important part of the research as it contains the data
analysis of the research which is conducted based on the theory presented in
Chapter II in order to answer the problem statements in Chapter I by using the
research procedure in Chapter III.
The purpose of this research is to reveal the phenomenon of the flouting
maxims employed in the film entitled “Forest Gump”. It covers description of the kinds of flouting maxims employed by the characters in the film entitled “Forest
Gump” based on Grice Cooperative Principle. It also covers description of how
the characters employ Cooperative Principles and description of the reasons why
the characters employ the flouting maxims.
In achieving the goal, the researcher arranges the analysis as follows:
1. Data description.
It shows the dialogs between the participants containing the flouting maxims.
2. Context of situation
It describes the setting of place, time, participant’s background and the
happening situation when the flouting maxim is created.
3. Data Interpretation
It contains the description how the Cooperative Principle employed in the
film, and the analysis of the kinds of the flouting maxim employed by the
B.
Analysis
1. Kinds of the flouting maxims are employed by the characters in “Forest
Gump” film
1.1 Flouting class between maxims
Flouting class between maxims shows that the speaker not only flouts
one maxim but also flouts more than one maxim in a dialogue. There are five
sub-categories of flouting clash between maxims based on overlapping of the
maxim flouted.
a) Flouting maxims of Quality, Quantity and Manner
Flouting maxims of Quality, Quantity and Manner shows that the
participants blatantly give less information than it is required with
something which is untrue and also difficult to be understood because it is
unclear and long winded. There is only one datum found in this research.
Datum 18/MG/ 2/FCM 1. Data description
MG: well, I happened to believe you make your own destiny. You have to do the best with what God gave you.
FG: What's my destiny, Momma?
MG: You're gonna have to figure that out for yourself. Life is a box of chocolates, Forrest. You never know what you're gonna get.
2. Context of situation
The dialogue is between Forest Gump and Mrs. Gump. It
occurs in the Mrs. Gump bedroom. At that time Mrs. Gump explains
about her dying condition. She explains that it is a destiny from God.
She says to Forest that Forest has his own destiny which he should do
xlix
In the dialogue above, Mrs. Gump gives an answer toward
Forest’s question. His utterance is blatantly untrue and lack of adequate
evidence since life is not a box of chocolates. Mrs. Gump exactly
knows that life is not simple and small like a box of chocolates. She
explains to Forest by using the utterance in order to make Forest easy to
understand that no one knows the destiny. She wants to show Forest
about the destiny by comparing life and a box of chocolates.
Although Mrs. Gump answers Forest’s question, she blatantly
gives less information than Forest needs. Mrs. Gump utterance “You're
gonna have to figure that out for yourself. Life is a box of chocolates,
Forrest. You never know what you're gonna get” does not give adequate
information which Forest needs. Forest wants to know about his
destiny but his mother does not give his definite destiny.
Maxim of relation obeys in the dialogue. Mrs. gump’s
utterances are relevant toward Forest’s question. Forest’s question,
“What's my destiny, Momma?” is also answered relevantly by Mrs.
Gump through her utterance “You're gonna have to figure that out for
yourself. Life is a box of chocolates, Forrest. You never know what
you're gonna get”. It means that Mrs. Gump has addressed Forest in
asking the question.
Mrs. Gump has answered Forest’s question through her
utterance but it is long winded and convoluted. It can be seen from her
utterance“You're gonna have to figure that out for yourself. Life is a
box of chocolates, Forrest. You never know what you're gonna get”.
Mrs. Gump’s utterance is unclear and confusing so that Forest gets
difficulties in catching the meaning. Thus, it can be concluded as a
b) Flouting maxims of quantity, manner and relevance
Flouting maxims of Quantity, Manner and Relevance shows that the
participants blatantly give less information which is long winded and not
relevant to the question. There are 2 data find in this research.
Datum 10/FG/ 1/FCM
1. Data description
JC: Have you ever been with a girl, Forrest?
FG: I sit next to them in my home economics class all the time.
2. Context of situation
The dialogue occurs in the Jenny’s boarding house room. It
happens between Forest and Jenny. At that time, Forest and Jenny catch
the rain and their clothes are wet so they change their clothes in Jenny’s
room. Forest looks at Jenny’s breast when she opens her clothes.
Looking at Forest’s expression, Jenny asks Forest whether he has ever
been with a girl or not.
3. Data interpretation
The conversation between Forest and Jenny in the dialogue
above obeys the maxim of quality. What is said by Forest to Jenny is
true that he really sits next to a girl in the economic class. He gives the
evidence through his utterance “I sit next to them in my home
economics class all the time.” It was the evidence that what is said by
Forest is true.
Although Forest gives the information that he really sits next
to a girl in the economic class all the time, he blatantly gives less
information than Jenny needs. His utterance, “I sit next to them in my
li
It does not fulfill the information that Jenny requires. Forest’s utterance
can be analyzed as a flouting maxim of quantity.
The dialogue is also flouted the maxim of relation. Forest’s
utterance “I sit next to them in my home economics class all the time.”
is not relevant toward Jenny’s question. There is no connection between
Jenny’s question and Forest’s answer. Jenny asks Forest whether he
ever has a girlfriend or not. Forest overtly fails to address the Jenny’s
goal in asking a question by replying irrelevance answer with saying
that he really sits next to a girl in the economic class all the time.
Forest has answered Jenny’s question through his utterance “I
sit next to them in my home economics class all the time.”, but his
answer is long winded and convoluted. He says those answer because
he likes Jenny. He wants to show to Jenny that she is the only one girl
who Forest loves. Actually, Forest can simply reply yes or no. Thus, it
can be concluded as a flouting maxim of manner.
Datum 11/FG/ 1/FCM
1. Data description
PK: Congratulations. How does it feel to be an All-American? FP: It's an honor, Sir
(Another player steps up to the President and shakes the President's hand.)
PK: Congratulations. How does it feel to be an All-American? SP: Very good, Sir.
The dialogue occurs at the White House. President Kennedy
meets with the Collegiate All-American Football Team at the White
House. After winning the match Forest and his team are invited to white
house. At President Kennedy shakes hand with the All-American
football players. He asks them about their feeling to be the members of
All American Football Team. The same question is also asked to Forest
as the member of the team. At that time, Forest stomach feels unwell
because he drinks a lot of Dr. Pepper.
3. Data interpretation
The dialogue above has obeyed maxim of quality. What is
said by Forest to President Kennedy is true that he has to go pee. He
gives the evidence through his utterance “I gotta pee”. He really has to
go pee because before he shakes hand with the President, he drinks
fifteen bottle of Dr. Pepper.
Although Forest has answered President Kennedy’s question,
he blatantly gives less of information than the President requires
through his utterance “I gotta pee”. His utterance does not answer The
President question.
Maxim of relation is also flouted by the character. Forest’s
utterance “I gotta pee” is not relevant toward President Kennedy’s
question. There is no connection between President Kennedy’s question
and Forest’s answer. President Kennedy asks Forest about his feeling
becomes the part of All American Football Team after winning the
match. Forest overtly fails to address the President Kennedy’s goal in
asking a question about his feeling to be All American by replying
liii
The dialogue between the participants flouts a maxim of
manner. Forest’s utterance is unclear. He gives a confusing answer so
that President Kennedy gets difficulties in understanding Forest’s
means.
c) Flouting maxims of quality and quantity
Flouting maxims of Quality and Quantity shows that the participants
blatantly say something untrue by giving more or less information that it is
not required. There are 5 data find in this research.
Datum 01/DR/1/FCM
1. Data Description
(Forrest has been fitted with orthopedic shoes and metal leg braces.)
DR: All right, Forrest, you can open your eyes now. Let's take a little walk around.
(The doctor sets Forrest down on its feet. Forrest walks around stiffly. Forrest's mother, MRS. GUMP, watches him as he clanks around the room awkwardly.)
MG: How’s his condition?
DR: How do those feel? His legs are strong, Mrs. Gump. As strong as I've ever seen. But his back is as crooked as a politician.
2. Context of situation
The dialogue occurs at the doctor’s office. It happens between
Mrs. Gump and the doctor. At that time the doctor examines Forest’s
backbone. Forest legs wear orthopedic shoes and metal leg braces. After
fitting it, the doctor asks Forest to take a little walk while he examines
his back. Suddenly Forest falls on the floor. Knowing that incident,
Mrs. Gump asks Forest’s condition to the doctor.
In the dialogue above, the doctor answers Mr. Gump’s
question that the problem is not in the forest’s leg but in his backbone.
It can be seen through his utterances, “His legs are strong, Mrs. Gump.
As strong as I've ever seen. But his back is as crooked as a politician”
but he says something that is blatantly untrue and lack of adequate
evidence since Forest’s back is not as crooked as the politician. The
doctor exactly knows that Forest’s backbone is crooked but it is not
crocked like a politician. Actually, the doctor can simply say “Forest’s
backbone is crooked”. It can be analyzed as a flouting maxim of quality.
Although the doctor has answered Mrs. Gump question, he
blatantly gives more information than required through his utterances,
“…His legs are strong, Mrs. Gump. As strong as I've ever seen.But his
back is as crooked as a politician”. Thus, it can be concluded as a
flouting maxim of quantity.
Maxims of relation is obeyed in this dialogue. Mrs. Gump’s
question, “How’s his condition?” is answered by the doctor relevantly,
“…His legs are strong, Mrs. Gump”. It shows that the doctor has
addressed Mrs. Gump’s goal in asking the question.
The dialogue between the participants also fulfills the maxim
of manner. The doctor gives the contribution to Mrs. Gump’s question
clearly. He also answers her question orderly and his utterances are not
ambiguous. Both understand each other’s expression.
