Professional Documents
Culture Documents
A thesis
Submitted to Letters and Humanities Faculty
in Partial Fulfillment of theRequirements
for the Strata One Degree (S1)
Aryanthi
105026000887
i
APPROVEMENT
A Thesis
Aryanthi
NIM. 105026000887
Approved by:
ii
LEGALIZATION
Arthur Millers The Last Yankee (Based on Grices Cooperative Principle) has
Committee on February 22nd, 2010. The thesis has already been accepted as a
partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Strata 1 (S1) in English
Letters Department.
Examination Committee
iii
DECLARATION
I hereby declare that this submission is my own work and that, to the best of my
knowledge and belief, it contains no material which to substantial extent has been
accepted for the award of any other degree of diploma of the university or other
institute of higher learning, except where due acknowledgement has been made in
the text.
(Materai 6000)
Aryanthi
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
In the name of Allah, the most Gracious and the most Merciful.
Praise and gratitude is only for Him, the Lord of the Universe, who has
given His blessing and happiness by succeeding the writer in making her thesis.
And also may all the blessing and salutation be upon the most honorable prophet
and messenger Muhammad SAW, his families, his companions and his
congregations.
It is for sure that this work might be not completed without a great pray
and love of her beloved mother Hj. Sopiah, grandmother Ijah (alm.), and her sister
Nurul Aryani; may all the love and blessing be upon these inspiring women. Then
to her father H. Niman and her uncle Sutisna who have supported her financially
and morally also facilitated her with all the things she needed during in the study.
It also goes to all the lecturers who have helped her to the result of this
work, especially Dr. Frans Sayogie, M. Pd as her advisor and Hilmi Akmal,
M.Hum for guiding and suggesting her to make a good thesis, from the very
beginning until the end. Then, it also goes to Inayatul Chusna, M Hum who has
given her a suggestion about finding the best drama for her object of research.
The writer would also give so much thanks to the entire beloved persons
contributed his or her thought in this thesis. However, the writer wants to express
1. Dr. Abdul Chaer, MA. The Dean of the Letters and Humanities Faculty.
v
2. Dr. Muhammad Farhan, M.Pd. the Head of English Letters Department.
4. Her beloved friends Isti, Indra and Tini for all the support during the work
of her research.
5. Her beloved classmates, that is the students of class A 2005 for being her
classmates, who enrich her with so much experiences, love and support for
the past four year wonderful friendship. Not forgetting the B and C
class that are also colored her in experiencing the touchable friendship.
members. And also to her friends and little family; IofC (Initiatives of
6. To all the staffs of some libraries such as Letters and Humanities Library,
May Allah SWT always bless and protect these entire wonderful kind
persons. In short, the writer realizes that this thesis still has much lackness and
might be far from being perfect. Therefore, the writer hopes any constructive and
The writer
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT .................................................................................................... i
APPROVEMENT ............................................................................................ ii
DECLARATION ............................................................................................. iv
ACKNWOLEDGEMENT ............................................................................... v
C. Research Question.......................................................................... 7
A. Pragmatics ...................................................................................... 11
B. Implicature ..................................................................................... 13
C. Cooperative Principle..................................................................... 16
vii
D. The Disobedience Maxim of Conversation ................................... 20
E. Context ........................................................................................... 22
F. Drama............................................................................................. 23
G. Dialogue ......................................................................................... 25
A. Data Description............................................................................. 28
1. Group A.................................................................................... 29
2. Group B.................................................................................... 44
1. Conclusion ..................................................................................... 47
2. Suggestion ...................................................................................... 48
REFERENCES................................................................................................. 49
APPENDICES ................................................................................................. 51
viii
SYNOPSIS
The Non-Observance Maxim of Conversation in the Arthur Millers the
Last Yankee (Based on Grices Cooperative Principle)
A Thesis
Submitted to Letters and Humanities Faculty in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Strata One Degree (S1)
Aryanthi
105026000887
1
A. Background of the Study
Speaker and listener must contribute to make their conversation to
reach the main goal. Making a conversation becomes successfully, people on
the position as a speaker must communicate directly their speech and
information which they need to communicate to the listener. On the other
hand, speaker sometimes does not realize that he does not give relevant
information in the conversation. Therefore, this is more than just about the
languages structure but come straight into the meaning that was not being
stated.
The word meaning becomes an important issue. This will come at how
the information, in a given period will not making a miss communication. In
order to give the information, pragmatics has one principle that solves the
1
Aitchison, Jean, Linguistics: an Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1995), p. 93
2
Yule, George, Pragmatics (Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1996), p. 4
3
Mey, Jacob L, Pragmatics: An Introduction (Oxford: Blackwell Publisher. 1993), p. 212
2
problem and requires obeying a principle. As a result, speaker and listener
have to fulfill some of the rules which bind between the speaker and listener
called cooperative principle.
4
Grice, H.P. Logic and Conversation. Syntax and Semantics. Vol. III: Speech Acts, ed.
Peter Cole and J. L. Morgan (New York: Academic Press. 1975), p.45
5
Grice, H.P. (1975), loc. cit.
6
Kushartanti, Pesona Bahasa, (Jakarta: PT. Gramedia Utama. 2005), p. 105
7
Leech, Geoffrey, Prinsip-prinsip Pragmatik (Jakarta: Penerbit Universitas Indonesia. 1993),
p.10.
8
Short, M.H, in Applied Linguistic. Vol II: Discourse Analysis and the Analysis of Drama
(Oxford: Oxford University. 1981), p.189
3
conversation when A asking whether B enjoys the drama which they already
watched by saying Did you enjoy the play?, then B answers with Well, I
thought the ice creams they sold in the interval were good. 9 The conversation
implies that B indirectly stated that he cannot enjoy the drama play, even
though he didnt declare it directly but he succeeded in telling of the feeling
politely. In this part, the point that the listener got about the Bs answer was
an Implicature about how he didnt enjoy the drama. However, B was
disobeyed the cooperative principle.
9
Short, M.H. (1981), loc. cit.
10
Kushartanti (2005), loc. cit
11
Grice (1975), loc. cit.
4
literature works like Drama. In drama, there is one speaker and one listener or
even more than without any planning of the script writer, they disobey the
cooperative principle. Yet drama is a text but in the understanding text,
people must realize that it is an object that unites together with the language
and other aspect (and others like Sociolinguistics, literature). 12 Nowdays, there
are many literature text analyses, moreover especially about drama is not
merely just about performance and plot but also the analysis is through the
Linguistic Aspect using the linguistic Theories.
Hence, the writer chooses Grices theory about a set of rule of how
people contribute to make their communication reach the main goal; that is the
cooperative principle within the maxims of conversation. The writer also
12
Short, MH (1981), p. 183
13
Taken from http://www.gradesaver.com/author/arthur-miller/, accessed on 1st April 2010.
14
Ibid.
15
Ibid.
5
focuses to the disobedience of the maxims of conversation to gain and explore
more the dramas dialogue.
B. Research Methodology
16
Holloway, Immy, Basic Concepts for Qualitative Research. (Oxford: Blackwell Science.
1997), p. 5
6
and interpret the implicature that appears in the data analysis, re-read the data
to find the key words for the analyzing based on the research questions and
conclude the collecting data.
Furthermore, the unit of the analysis of the research is the text from the
dialogue of Arthur Millers drama; The Last Yankee.
C. Theoretical Framework
1. Pragmatics
17
Aitchison, Jean (1995), loc. cit.
7
a help. But she or he can state in a different way. At this part, the act of
request a help in which the speaker formulate the utterance called
illocutionary act.
For instance the statement of can you give me a more explanation,
please? when the lecture tell about pragmatics theory. The question was
asked directly, but it can become to a different way when it was declared as I
havent any idea at all in theory. This simple statement is not only bound to
provide information for whomever the listener but also an expressing of
wanting a re-explaining and clear information from the lecturer without stated
directly. If the lecturer provides a more time to make clear about the
explaination of linguistic theory, it will reach a satisfactory to the speaker.
The satisfactory that is the result effect is known as perlocutionary effect. The
speaker often makes distinct about what is said and what is imply.
The Speaker and listener have to make a cooperative effort to make a
successful communication. When speakers utter the utterance, sometimes they
will implicate something in the way they exchange information. If the
speakers formulation in uttering can be understood by the listener, the speaker
is successful in delivering the information. But it will turn into a fail effort
when the listener cannot understand about what was being talked about. The
formulations utterance that what the speakers intent and imply called
implicature.
2. Implicature
There are argumentations about the definition of Implicature. The first
is Grices definition about implicature in his paper Logic and conversation,18
when he first introduced the term implicature in a term of a verb, implicate
then he turn into the related noun of implying called implicature. Speaker
implicates and the listener tries to arrive at the meaning of the implicature, if
the participants (the listener and speaker) can do it, they have making an active
communication. Horn also concludes about implicature that is as a component
of speaker meaning that constitutes an aspect of what is meant n a speakers
18
Grice, H.P (1975), op. cit. 44
8
utterance without being part of what is said. 19 The implicature explanation is
closer to what a speaker intends to state A without bring A in the utterance.
When a speaker makes an implicature, the communication can goes smoothly
or failed if the listener can not deduce what is being talked by the speaker
through A.
There are two kinds of implicature. Grice in his paper explains that the
first kind is a conventional implicature. The meaning in this implicature can
take by a literal meaning directly from the text. Second is the conversational
implicature. The conversational implicature is the additional meaning inside
an utterance. 20 It happens because of the speaker and listener exchange the
information that can not include the utterance. Some listener can connect to
what is implied. Further the participants incline do this because of the
participants (listener and speaker) have a set of purpose when they are uttering
something.
3. Cooperative Principle
Listener and speaker must try to make a stimulus response. Grice
comments on his previous article call Logic and Conversation that is about
communication in the conversation. He thinks while communicate happen;
the speaker must gives a relevant information on what it stated. The next
description of this mutuality effective communication resume in cooperative
principle. Yule concludes about cooperative principle as he cited from Grices
paper. He thinks that the cooperative principle is about making your
conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs,
by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are
engaged. 21 The cooperative principle specifies what does the speaker means
to cooperate which called conversational maxim.
The maxim of conversation is a set of principles advanced by Grice as
a part of his account of implicature. 22 In order to succeed in communication
19
Horn, Laurence R and Gregory ward. The Handbook of Pragmatics (Oxford: Blackwell
Publishing. 2006), p.3
20
Yule, George. (1996), op. cit.35.
21
Ibid. p. 37.
22
Mathews, P. H, The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics. (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1997) p. 219.
9
the participants must fill the four maxims, with the result:
1. Maxim of Quantity
This maxim directly correlated more or less of the information
gave to speaker. This maxim forces the speaker in giving sufficient
information to the listener. 23 The participants must contribute as is
required and make the conversation to be connected. The speaker is
not less and over in giving the information. Therefore, Grice explains
that the maxim forces the participants to:
a. Make their contribution as informative as is required.
b. To be not making their contribution more informative than is
required. 24
2. Maxim of Quality
The maxim forces the speaker in giving the relevant
information. Both of the speaker and listener must make a satisfactory
in fulfillment the appropriate information. With the specific sub
maxim:
a. Do not say what you believe to be false
b. Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.
3. Maxim of relevance
The maxim forces the participants to be relevant. 25 On the other
words, the participants must give relevant information to each other.
4. Maxim of Manner
The maxim force to utter what have to say does not have to be
formulated by the speaker. With the subsequent sub-maxim below:
a. Avoid obscurity of expression
b. Avoid ambiguity
c. Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity)
d. Be orderly. 26
23
Kushartanti (1993), op. cit.107.
24 Grice, H.P (1975), op. cit. 46
25
Ibid.
26
Ibid.
10
Listener and speaker sometimes fail to follow the rules and sometimes
they break the cooperative principle. At this stage, they fail to fulfill a maxim
in some ways:
1. He may quietly and unostentatiously violate a maxim.
If the speaker does it, it will make the listener have a wrong
idea or he will not pay attention to what he said.
2. He may opt out from the operation both of the maxim and of the
Cooperative Principle.
On this case, the speaker does not plan to cooperate in the way
the maxim requires.
3. He may be faced by a clash another maxim.
The speaker is unable to fill one of the maxims and turns to
violate the other maxim. Further, when a speaker gives a statement; he
may not contribute in completing the requirement of the first maxim.
In short, he gets a clash with the second maxim.
4. He may flout a maxim.
Here, the speaker is able to fulfill the maxim and to do it
without having any violation with another maxim. It actually fails to
contribute the maxim but it is being exploited.
5. Context
Listener must be able to interpret one remark to one another intention.
He must care to what is being constructed inside the remark and the utterance
told by the speaker. He must also consider about the situation like the time
when it was stated or how it was stated. The reason of participants
consideration is because of the language use is separate from the use of a
context. Further, David states that context refers to the situation giving rise to
the discourse, and within which the discourse embedded. 27 It exists because
when speaker is saying something they have a reason and some aspects that
forming the background of an utterance being stated.
The contextual factors can influence each of utterance. If the listener
can concerns the contextual factors, it will be a start look to listener to know
27
Nunan, David, Introducing Discourse Analysis (London: Penguin Books. 1993), p. 7
11
about the meaning of the speakers utterance.
6. Drama
Drama is a performance of play and dialogue. At first drama were
originated in the Greek verb dran means to do; to act or to accomplish. 28 The
performance shows the player, as the actress, do some actions in scenes where
the situational in text reflected. There are about seven types of drama, such as:
tragedy, comedy, problem playa, farce, comedy of manners, fantasy and
melodrama. Drama is about embedding the internal communication system in
the external system. It creates the play of some characters and provides the
correlation between the fictional world of the player (performances) and the
audiences (spectators). Here, the author usually must be able to raise the
emotion events through the utterances spoken by the players.
7. Dialogue
Dialogue is one of the results from the dramatic text. In drama, it is
the fundamental mode of presentation. This is because of the reduction of the
dramatic text into the speech and the characters with the action will create a
storys scenes. When the players act while the making of the utterances such
as an act forming a promise or a threat, then they do not only make dialogue as
the formal element but as the spoken language.
The receivers need to emphasize about an act through utterances. It is
because the dialogue in drama put some of performances aspects. J.L Austin
argued; as it recited by Manfred that there is something which is act the
moment of uttering being done by the person uttering. 29 In drama, there are
more to explore from the utterance in the dialogue because of the receiver
sometimes does not consider about the situation where the dialogue where
spoken by the players.
Dialogues will relate with the speech act in speech situation where it
was being uttered. And the making the dramatic speech is bound to the
particular situation. The particular situation that is not all the spectators can
28
Wessels, Charlyn. Drama (New York: Oxford University. 1988), p. 1
29
Pfister, Manfred, The theory and analysis of drama (Cambridge: The University of
Cambridge, 1991), p.6
12
catch from the plot or the characters. The text will bound into some particular
situation that will create particular speech situation like the lack of information
making the player to disobey the cooperative principle.
D. Research Finding
At first, the writer writes the text of dialogue and explains the violation
with the disobedience of maxim of conversation which is on the dialogue that
already divided into two groups. Then, she gives reason and further
exploration in explaining it by using Herbert Grice theory of maxim. In
analyzing the data, the writer will describe context of situation, process of
violation and implicature in each datum. Therefore, the data will be analyzed
as follows:
Group A. (the violation of maxim because of violate, opt out and flout the
maxim).
1. The maxim of quantitys violation
Datum I
Frick : Seven! - Ive been wondering if it was because she never had any.
Leroy: No, thats not it. You dont have any?
Frick: No. We kept putting it off, and then it got too late, and first thing
you know its just too late.
Leroy: For a while there I thought maybe she had too many children
Frick: Well I dont have any, so
Leroy: Yeah, I guess thats not either. 30
a. Context of situation
Frick and Leroy seek for the reasons why their wives got sick. Then
Leroy asks about the number of children that Frick has. It is also to notice
the reason Fricks wife got sick.
b. Process of violation:
There is no doubt that Frick flouts the maxim of quantity to avoid
making a contribution more informative than is required. Frick remark by
using expression repeating the statement it got too late, and first thing you
30
Miller, Arthur ( 1995), op.cit. p. 451.
13
know its just too late. An interpreting aspect of such expression make
one can derive as not as required. Even so it is actually interpreted as
telling more than what is said.
The answer gives such over informative to Leroy. It is confusing to
Leroy and liable to raise the topic and make Leroy be mislead. By making
Leroy mislead about the remark causing him thinking that there is a
particular point in accessing Fricks remark first thing you know its
just too late
c. Implicature
This expression keys to have a conversational implicature. Fricks
expression tells more than what is required by the listener. At this part,
Frick implies that children are not the reason of his wife got sick but it
actually becomes his sadness about having no children around.
14
appropriate information. When it turns into Leroys remark I guess not
that is a negation of Fricks question could not buckle the book; Leroy is
actually have the ability to answer Fricks question clearly. Even so,
Leroy is liable to mislead Frick by stating I guess.
The words of I guess implicates about an unfinished answer.
Furthermore, It compares with the word well that purposed by R. Lakoff,
as cited in Gazdar, that the word well when it is in a remark; it will give a
signal of an incomplete answer. 33 Continuing, likewise statement with I
guess. At this point, the writer defined that I guess have the same
purposed, in Leroys remark the word I guess not just merely a short reply
but also an incomplete answer that is typically say what he believe to be
false in the context. Hence, Leroy violates the maxim of quality and in
order to be not cooperating with the listener.
c. Implicature
He implicates that he does not want to be a lawyer because of the job
looks only suit for his father so that he is not interested in being a lawyer.
33
Ibid. p. 44.
34
Miller, Arthur (1995) op.cit. p. 463.
15
and have a way out of this problem.
b. Process of Violation
Karens remark actually responses Patricias remark, however, Karen
does not give a relevant response to Patricia. Since, there seems the
conversation jump into another topic then it violates the maxim of
relevant. While in the conversation, Karen allows herself in getting
another subject of conversation that is legitimately change.
c. Implicature
Karen implies that she does not have any idea about Patricias story
and she has another subject that also needs to share.
35 Ibid. p. 449.
16
giving idea that is not clear, therefore difficult to make a clear and exact
conclusion. Leroy does not give clear about what contribution he is
making about. In short, this use of I guess always works in this way, it has
become conventionalized, and no longer requires an inference procedure
for the implicature to be recovered.
c. Implicature
Here, Leroy implicates the service given is good even though the
facility still was not complete.
36
Ibid. p. 452.
17
E. The Maxims Violations
From the data analysis above, it shows many violations. The writer
finds there are about twelve violations and one violation that clash with
another maxim. With the result, from the group A there are; two violations of
the maxim of quantity, four violations of the maxim of quality, three violations
of the maxim of relevance and three violations of the maxim of manner. Then
from the group B one violation that clash with another maxim that is the
speaker violate the maxim of quantity in clash with maxim of manner. In
short, the violations happen because the participant does not cooperate well
with the reason of some context inside.
F. Conclusion
From the research findings, the writer would like to take the conclusion
for some results. First, the cooperative principle is a principle has been
contributed to make a clear information and appropriate information while
they are making a conversation. Besides, this principle tells about how the
participants (speaker and listener) must contribute in making the
communication as is required.
The disobedience of maxim conversation is influenced by the
relationship of the speaker and listener make the information as informative as
is required. Speaker disobeys the maxim of conversation in some ways, first
he quietly violates a maxim, he opts out from the cooperation, he flouts a
maxim and even it actually already violates the first maxim but then faced by a
clash the other maxim. When he disobeys the maxim of conversation, then he
will create a side meaning in his remark called implicature.
The implicature will rise at the time when one of the participants
disobeys the maxim it will turn onto the personal communication. There is the
basic reason in which becomes the background of how the implicature raised.
The background itself called context. Context is able to tell knowledge where
can explore and draw the background of the aspects (like the mental, social
and cultural aspects) which guide to the interpretation of the language. Hence,
when the participants were being communicated they needed to explore more
not merely just seeing it as an utterance, but they also must obey the maxims
of conversation in order to reach the main goal of sending the information as
18
informative as required.
G. REFERENCES
Cruse, D. Alan. Meaning in Language: An Introduction to Semantics and
Pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press Inc. New York, 2000.
Farkhan, Muhammad. Penulisan Karya Ilmiah. Jakarta: Cella Jakarta, 2006.
Gazdar, Gerald. Pragmatic: Implicature, Presupposition, and Logical Form.
London: Academic Press, Inc., 1979.
Grice, H.P. Logic and Conversation. Syntax and Semantics. Vol. III: Speech
Acts, ed. Peter Cole and J. L. Morgan. New York: Academic Press,
1975.
Holloway, Immy. Basic Concepts for Qualitative Research. Oxford:
Blackwell Science, 1997.
Horn, Laurence.R, and Gregory ward. The Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford:
Blackwell Publishing, 2006.
Kushartanti. Pesona Bahasa. Jakarta: PT. Gramedia Utama, 2005.
Leech, Geoffrey. Prinsip-prinsip Pragmatik. Jakarta: Penerbit Universitas
Indonesia, 1993.
Mathews, P. H The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics. (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1997.
Mey, Jacob L. Pragmatics: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell Publisher,
Ltd., 1993.
Miller, Arthur. The Last Yankee. The Portable Arthur Miller, ed. Bigsby,
Christhoper. New York: Penguin Books, 1995.
Nunan, David. Introducing Discourse Analysis. London: Penguin Book, 1993.
Pfister, Manfred. The theory and analysis of drama. Cambridge: The
University of Cambridge, 1991.
Short, M.H. Discourse Analysis and the Analysis of Drama. Applied
Linguistic Vol II. Oxford: Oxford University, 1981.
Wessels, Charlyn. Drama. New York: Oxford University, 1988.
19
Website:
http://www.lifestreamcenter.net/DrB/Lessons/Drama accessed on March 25,
2010.
http://www.gradesaver.com/author/arthur-miller/ accessed on 1st April 2010.
20
CURICULUM VITAE
PERSONAL INFORMATION
Name : Aryanthi
Date of Birth : March 15th 1987
Birth Place : Jakarta
Gender : Female
Nationality : Indonesia
Permanent Mailing Adress : Cilodong. Kelurahan Kalibaru Kecamatan
Cilodong Rt.03/06 No.66 Depok
021-77824059
E-mail : Arth_seven@yahoo.com
Cell-phone Number : 087880068520
Working Experiences
21
Quranic Junior School)
Refa Qualitama
July Oktober
Multitradex Event Sales Marketing
2006 2006
Organizer
May
Gemilang Study Club now Teacher
2007
SuperChamp English June September
Teaching English for Kids
Course 2007 2008
Boarding English Course September July
Adviser and English Tutor
of Gemilang 2008 2009
Organizational Experiences
Year
Name Position in Organization
From Until
PMII (Pergerakan Mahasiswa Islam 2005 2006
Member
Indonesia)
PMII (Pergerakan Mahasiswa Islam 2006 2007
Leader of Gender Divison
Indonesia)
KOPRI (Korps Pergerakan Mahasiswa
2006 2007 Event Organizer Divison
Islam Indonesia Putri PMII)
PMII (Pergerakan Mahasiswa Islam 2007 2009 Leader of Creativity
Indonesia) Divison
IofC (Initiatives of Change) 2008 Now Member
SIGI Community (a Community of 2009 2009
Member
Movie Maker)
Achievements
No. Kinds of
Event Organizer Name of Event Year
Achievement
Second Winner Female Dormitory
1. Anniversary 2006
of English of UIN
22
Speech
Competition
Third Winner
BEMJ PAI of
of English
2. Education Faculty Anniversary 2007
Speech
of UIN
Competition
Second Winner
of English BEMF of
3. Anniversary 2008
Debating Group Education Faculty
Competition
23
University
st
Jakarta, 1 Participant Potret Kerawanan P3M (Pusat
February 2007 Sosial DKI Jakarta, Pengkajian
Sebuah Evaluasi Krtis dan
Pengabdian
Masyarakat)
in cooperate
with Syariah
and Law
Faculty
th
Jakarta, 16 Participant Dinar Vs Dolar: Students
April 2007 Peluang Penerapan Executive
Dinar Dalam Indutri Committe of
Asuransi Syariah Syariaah
Ansurance
Department in
cooperate with
LSF(Law
Study Forum)
Jakarta, April Participant Seminar Sehari P2KM (Pusat
27th 2008 Perempuan dan Media Pengkajian
Massa: Objek atau Komunikasi
Subjek? dan Media)
Bogor, 19th-21st Participant The 4th Youth Camp Initiative of
December 2008 Discover Inner Power Change (IofC)
and Share to the Others: Indonesia
A Better World Through
You and Me
Jakarta, Bogor, Committee The 4th International Initiatives of
Bandung, & Action for Life Team Changes
Banten, February Visiting Program Indonesia
23- April 23 2009 Indonesia
Bogor-Cisarua, Participant The 5th International Team of
March 20-22, Youth Camp 2009 Be International
2009 the change you want to Action for Life
see in the world 4 dan
Initiatives of
Changes-
Indonesia
nd rd
Jakarta, 2 -3 Participant The Appreciation and Departemen
24
April 2009 Movie Maker Workshop Kebudayaan
for Students and Adult: dan Pariwisata
Maju Film Indonesia Indonesia in
cooperate with
Senakki,
Indeff
Foundation,
Konsep Layar
Kreasi, PWI
Jaya, PARSI
and Jaringan
Worksop
Jakarta, 24th Participant Pubic Speaking Contest: Direktorat
June 2010 ASEAN as one Jendral
Community Kerjasama
ASEAN,
Departemen
Luar Negri
Republik
Indonesia
th
Jakarta, 11 Participant Workshop: Tips and Internatioanl
November 2009 Tricks for Applying the Office of UIN
International Post Sayrif
Graduate Scholarship Hidayatullah
Jakarta
st
Jakarta, 21 Participant Profesional Public Health
September 2009 Development Seminary Major of UIN
on Occuptioanl Health Sayrif
and Safety Programme: Hidayatullah
How to be Healthy and Jakarta
Fashionable with Your
Notebook
Jakarta, 11th Participant The National Seminary: Student
september 2010 Kupas Tuntas Executive
Kontroversi NAMRU: Committee
Kedaulatan NKRI Dalam (BEM) of UIN
Ancaman? Syarif
Hidayatllah
Jakarta
25
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
the main goal. Making the conversation becomes successfully, people on the
information which they need to communicate to the listener. On the other hand,
speaker sometimes does not realize that he does not give relevant information in
the conversation. Therefore, this is more than just about the languages structure
but come straight into the meaning that was not being stated.
but the analysis is different. While semantics in some cases can solve the problem
that deals with the meaning, semantics cannot solve the meaning deeper. Yule, in
his work, argued that semantics deals with the relationship between linguistics
forms and entities in the world or on how words literally connect to things. 2
The result of word meaning is accurate and does not to see the connections
1
Aitchison, Jean, Linguistics: an Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1995), p. 93
2
Yule, George, Pragmatics (Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1996), p. 4
1
2
between the word and the speaker or the writer. If semantics about the meaning
internally, semantics is different from pragmatics that is to tell the words meaning
externally.
It concerns with the words meaning contextually. The meaning analysis is through
some theories that deal with language use. And this analysis also does not only
look at the literal meaning, but it concerns to the situation when and how the
The word meaning becomes an important issue. This will come at how the
give the information, pragmatics has one principle that solves the problem and
requires obeying a principle. As the result, speaker and listener have to fulfill
some of the rules which bind between the speaker and listener called cooperative
principle.
The cooperative principle in the human daily activity hopes for the
University on the year 1975. 4 He explained that the cooperative principle can
support the participants (speaker and listener) to reach the main goal of the
3
Mey, Jacob L, Pragmatics: An Introduction (Oxford: Blackwell Publisher. 1993), p. 212
4
Grice, H.P. Logic and Conversation. Syntax and Semantics. Vol. III: Speech Acts, ed. Peter
Cole and J. L. Morgan (New York: Academic Press. 1975), p.45
3
can communicate and named it as maxim. He mentioned that a speaker must give
appearance of the other meaning from the real meaning in the conversation.
The speakers remark ever makes a meaning that cannot be reached by the
listener. Thus, it will cause raise another meaning or an additional meaning which
called Implicature. 6 Afterwards another Linguist names Leech gives his point of
view about meaning. At this part he said that each distance about meaning, the
word meaning must correlate with the fact that the situation was watched.
Besides the distance of meaning can be concluded with the simplest one and also
puts the topic or another issue so that change the aim of the conversation and
The cooperative principle explains about the referential meaning while the
conversation happens. It focuses on the sentence which are being told and to what
people mean, while the speech is being told. 8 For the example when A asks
whether B enjoys the drama which they already watched or not. Then A asks by
saying Did you enjoy the play? then B answers Well, I thought the ice creams
5
Grice, H.P. (1975), loc. cit.
6
Kushartanti, Pesona Bahasa, (Jakarta: PT. Gramedia Utama. 2005), p. 105
7
Leech, Geoffrey, Prinsip-prinsip Pragmatik (Jakarta: Penerbit Universitas Indonesia. 1993),
p.10.
8
Short, M.H, in Applied Linguistic. Vol II: Discourse Analysis and the Analysis of Drama
(Oxford: Oxford University. 1981), p.189
4
they sold in the interval were good. 9 Indirectly the conversation implies that B
could not enjoy the drama play and even though B didnt declare it directly, he
succeeded in telling his feeling politely. Here, the point that the listener got about
conversation.
how a speaker must obey the four maxims. Furthermore, the term of maxim is a
principle must be obeyed by the speaker and listener in interacting, This must be
In fulfilling the appropriate contribution, the speaker must obey the four
maxims such as: (1) Maxim of Quantity, (2) Maxim of Quality, (3) Maxim of
Relation, and (4) Maxim of Manner. 11 Grice hopes the four maxims will be
obeyed so that it can give a relevant contribution. But there is a time when a
speaker and a listener cannot follow the rules and showing non-observance. The
Maxims violation shows the non-observance. The violation happens and causes
the side meaning or implicature that already talked by the writer before.
9
Short, M.H. (1981), loc. cit.
10
Kushartanti (2005), loc. cit
11
Grice (1975), loc. cit.
5
violations on the first, second, and third maxim. A still understand and realizes
the implicature of B the ice cream they sold in the interval were goodmeans that
he cannot enjoy the drama play. This was because of B didnt want to declare it
The implicature exists because there is no intention from the speaker and
coincidently when people were communicating and it also can be seen in literature
works like Drama. In drama, there is one speaker and one listener (known as
characters) acts as the scenes written in the dialogue. At this part and without any
planning from the Script Writer, there is one act that can be disobeying the
cooperative principle. Yet drama is a text but in the understanding text, people
must realize that it is an object uniting together with the language and other aspect
dramas analysis is not merely just about performance and plot. There are many
aspects can be analyzed besides the literature aspects like the dramas analysis
The concentration of the text analysis is still rarely being conducted by the
linguist. Even there is a text analysis in linguistics but it is still in the work of
syntactical analysis. Earlier the conducted linguistic analysis was seeing the
analysis in one aspect. This situation is the same as in linguistic, the drama also
12
Short, MH (1981), p. 183
6
get the same situation. The literature text analysis like dramas analysis
concentrates in the stage and story analysis. Later the way of conducting analysis
of linguistic and literature was changing; both of the linguistic and literature.
Here, the writer tries to conduct a new way analysis about the literary works based
on the linguistic and literature works could meet together. Here, the writer tries to
conduct a new way of analysis about the literary works based on the linguistics
point of view. The writer decides a pragmatics analysis uses the dramas
dialogue as an object of analysis. She finds the Arthur Millers drama called The
Last Yankee.
twentieth century; 13 he won for many literary award and prizes in literature works.
One of his famous dramas is The Death of a Salesman, in which won a Tony
Award as well as a Pulitzer Prize. 14 All of his drama work is interesting because
they are about the drama of family. 15 It seems so interesting to analyze, however,
the writer does not want to analyze the drama as literary text analysis. She uses
the linguistics as a tool of analysis. Further, the writer finds that the Last Yankees
story is interesting and makes her to analyze this drama on the linguistics point of
view.
Hence, the writer chooses Grices theory about a set of rule of how people
contributing their communication reaching the main goal; that is the cooperative
13
Taken from http://www.gradesaver.com/author/arthur-miller/, accessed on 1st April 2010.
14
Ibid.
15
Ibid.
7
principle within the maxims of conversation. The writer also focuses at the
disobedience of the maxims of conversation to gain and explore about the non-
perception about the linguistics analysis and the text analysis which focuses on
drama as an object.
To limit the research, the writer will focus on the violations of the maxims
3. Research Questions
Based on the focus of study, the writer will cover the questions below:
participants while the implicature appears in their dialogue in which shows the
4. Significance of Study
The writer hopes by doing the analysis, it will create a smarter reader and
contribute the wide perspective in analyzing the language use and the literature. It
5. Research Methodology
Based on the research questions above, the writer has several objectives
below:
1. To know the kinds of maxim was not obeyed by the speaker and listener while
the implicature appears in their dialogue in which can shows the non-observance
of the participants.
2. To know how the process and the causes of the maxims violations happen.
Arthur Millers drama dialogue; The Last Yankee. Holloway said that qualitative
research is the context bound, 16 in which means that the writer must be able to
involve and carefully focuses into the background of the data analyses.
16
Holloway, Immy, Basic Concepts for Qualitative Research. (Oxford: Blackwell Science. 1997),
p. 5
9
According this statement, the writer will describe and explore the data analyses as
To get the aim of the research, the writer conducts the descriptive data
Grice.
2. To read the dialogue and find the violations of the four maxims.
4. To sign up the violation of maxim agencies accruing within the drama text.
9. To find the key words for the analyzing based on the research questions.
In this study the writer uses herself as a main research instrument through
reading, identifying, classifying and analyzing the data which are used and needed
10
from the dialogue or drama text. Then, the writer observes and signs the
5. Unit of Analysis
The unit of the analysis is the text from the dialogue of Arthur Millers
CHAPTER II
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
A. Pragmatics
In contrast with the structuralism like syntactician that purpose the concept of
as the phonological one, syntactics one, and semantics one. The various aspects
mean that human language does not only about the grammar with several
said that pragmatics perspective is about why certain language use more or less
enough to tell that its perspective does not only include the structural point of
view. But this is more about why language use acceptable in one community and
Pragmatics concerns the various meaning aspect through the social factor.
The various meaning aspects tell how language can be less or more acceptable
depend on the rule of the standard language from one community. Here, the rule
17
L. Mey, Jacob (1993), op. cit. 8.
11
12
is not something that stated literally but abstractly. At the beginning of the
developing linguistic study, semantics took a big part in the analysis of meaning
meaning deeper. The developing of linguistic study brings to the conclusion that
Pragmatics and semantics deal with meaning, but there are some aspects
that semantics can not solve. According to a short statement purposed by Jean
because of pragmatics intends the analysis about how the listener grasps meaning,
and what was implied by the speaker. And it needs the cooperation between the
listener and the speaker. In short that semantics analysis is closer to the literal
meaning analysis and the pragmatics analysis is analyzing the meaning based on
The speech situations will refer to what was implying in the speakers
word of statement. In pragmatics, the analysis is about how the listener grasps
meaning that implied in the speakers utterance. This is like when someone
requests a help, there is a way to say straight that he requesting a help. But he or
she can state in a different way. At this part, the act of request a help in which the
18
Aitchison, Jean (1995), loc. cit.
13
when the lecture tells about pragmatics theory. The question is asked directly, but
it can become a different way when it is declared as I havent any idea at all in
theory. This simple statement is not only bound to provide information for
whoever the listener but also an expressing of wanting a re-explaining and clear
information from the lecturer without stated directly. If the lecturer provides a
more time to make clear the explanation of linguistic theory, it will reach a
satisfactory to the speaker. The satisfactory that is the result effect is known as
perlocutionary effect. The speaker often makes distinct about what is said and
what is imply.
the information. But it will turn into a fail effort when the listener cannot
understand about what was being talked about. The formulations utterance that
B. Implicature
19
Grice, H.P (1975), op. cit. 44
14
implicate. Then he turns into the related noun of implying called implicature and
use this term in the analyzing of meaning. Speaker implicates and the listener
tries to arrive at the meaning of the implicature. If they can do it, they have
utterance. The communication can goes smoothly or fail when the speaker makes
an implicature. If the listener can not deduce what is being talked by the speaker
implicature, the speaker tries to exploit the message without appearing it in the
utterance. But the cooperative efforts will success, if the speaker and listener can
There are two kinds of implicature. Grice in his paper explains that the
first kind is a conventional implicature. The meaning in this implicature can take
from the literal meaning in the text directly. When a speaker utters or states
something, his partner (the listener) can know the meaning as it appears on the
utterance. The meaning concludes in the statement like in the dialogue below, the
dialogue taken from the Last Yankee drama where Leroy describing his wife to
his friend:
20
Horn, Laurence R and Gregory ward. The Handbook of Pragmatics (Oxford: Blackwell
Publishing. 2006), p.3
15
to the consequence of what he has said. The case that she never be very
optimistic is because the consequence of she is the Swedish, but if the dialogue
exchange like mine was never very optimistic and she is Indonesian. Sure the
utterance does not implicate that she never be very optimistic because of she is a
Swedish. But because of it is the consequence of she is being a person that has no
optimism still on her. The conventional implicature does not always appear the
and listener talk exchange. They can not include the utterance that somehow
connect and it is usually because the participants have a set of purpose when they
uttering something.
term about how the listener and speaker must contribute in making their
principle and argued that the conversational implicature appears because of both
21
Miller, Arthur. The Last Yankee. The Portable Arthur Miller, ed. Bigsby, Christhoper (New
York: Penguin Books, 1995), p. 452, line 28
22
Yule, George. (1996), op. cit.35
16
C. Cooperative Principle
comments on his previous article call Logic and Conversation was about
listener have to make a good cooperative effort such as when the speaker need to
Grice purpose both speaker and listener have to fill the principle in which
called cooperative principle. The cooperative principle specifies what the speaker
Each of four maxims has the sub-maxim that explain about the super maxim of
23
Grice, H.P (1975), op. cit. 45
24
Yule, George. Op. cit. 37
25
Mathews, P. H, The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics. (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1997) p. 219
17
listener will provide with some accounts of some reference that is if it failed be
revealed by the speaker, he disobey the maxim. The maxims govern the rational
1. Maxim of Quantity
speaker. This maxim forces the speaker in giving sufficient information to the
conversation to be connected. The speaker is not less and over in giving the
connects to what M asked about. Here, the D does not give an over
information about what he has for lunch. It means that D has contributed as it
required. Therefore, Grice explains this maxim forces the participants to:
required. 29
26
Grice, H.P (1975), op. cit. 44
27
Kushartanti (1993), op. cit.107
28
Cruse, D. Alan, Meaning in Language: An Introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics (New
York: Oxford University Press Inc., New York, 2000), p. 356
29 Grice, H.P (1975), op. cit. 46
18
2. Maxim of Quality
The maxim forces the speaker in giving the correct information. Both
utterance, and Leroy renders the truth information. It means that Leroy
3. Maxim of relevance
The maxim asks the speaker to try and to see that the information was
given has the relevance and the coherence to the situation during the
conversation. Here, whether the speaker and listener must focus on the giving
Examples:
30
Miller, Arthur (1995), op. cit. p. 451
31
Leech (1993), op. cit. p.144
19
relevance information.
On the other words, it can be said that the participants must give relevant
4. Maxim of Manner
These also include avoiding the ambiguity and obscurity of expression. The
maxim forces to utter what have to say without any formulation by the
2. Avoid ambiguity
4. Be orderly. 34
The maxim focuses in how the utterance was said and was not about
exploring what is said. As in the example of the dialogue in the Last Yankee
drama, when Frick and Leroy ask about how many children they have;
32
Grice, H.P (1975), op. cit. 46
33
Aitchison, Jean (1995), op. cit. p.46
34
Grice, H.P (1975), loc. cit.
20
Frick: Seven!- Ive been wondering if it was because she never had
any.
Frick: No. we kept putting it off and then it got too late, and firt thing
how Frick answers the question. He is not only just answering the question
but also in the way he is also making the statements in the dialogue not with
obscurity expression, briefly and orderly through the utterance of no. Frick
Listener and speaker sometimes fail to follow the rules; it means that they
break the cooperative principle. At this stage, they fail to fulfill a maxim in some
ways:
If the speaker does it, it will make the listener have a wrong idea. If
the did not pay attention on what the speaker said, he may have a different
understanding.
For example:
A: I am out of petrol
35
Miller, Arthur (1995), op.cit. 451. line 10-15
21
2. He may opt out from the operation both of the maxim and of the
Cooperative Principle.
For example:
follow the rule and disobeys one of the maxims that are the maxim of quality.
The speaker does not have a good willing to cooperate in the way how and
what maxim of quality requires being not to say what it lack adequate
evidence.
The speaker is unable to fill one of the maxims and he turns to violate the
other maxim. It can be said that when speaker giving a statement then he may
not contribute in the requirement fulfillment of the first maxim and somehow
For example:
36
Grice, H.P (1975), op. cit. 51
37Grice, H.P (1975), op. cit. 49
22
Here the speaker cannot be said such remarks are totally uninformative,
infringe the first maxim of Quantity but this is because of the utterance above
give what is said lack of adequate evidence, it also clash with the maxim of
quality.
4. He may flout a maxim.
being exploited.
For example:
Patricia: I dont know what fall in love with the God. I think I have
already. 39
made the sentence flout the maxim of manner. On the dialogue the speaker
tries to say how she really gives her attention to God but because of the
imperative mood and emotion. Later, she exploited the maxim of manner. The
E. Context
care to what is constructed inside the remark and the utterance said by the
38
Grice, H. P (1975), op. cit. 52
39
Miller, Arthur (1995), op. cit. 462.
23
speaker. He must also consider about the situation like the time when it was
of the language use cannot separate from the use of context. Further, David states
that context refers to the situation giving rise to the discourse, and within which
which they have a reason and some aspects that form the background of an
concerns the contextual factors, it will be a start look to listener to know about the
F. Drama
originated in the Greek verb dran means to do; to act or to accomplish. 41 The
performance shows the player known as the actress, do some actions in scenes
where the situational in text reflected. There are about seven types of drama, such
as:
1. Tragedy.
This type of drama brings the tragedy involving the ruin of the
40
Nunan, David, Introducing Discourse Analysis (London: Penguin Books. 1993), p. 7
41
Wessels, Charlyn. Drama (New York: Oxford University. 1988), p. 1
24
leading character. 42 In this drama, the major character deals a bad luck,
facing the strong and some noble person. The modern tragedy is no more
about the strong and the noble person, but more into about the weak of the
2. Comedy.
difficulties which temporarily beset them. 44 The issue in this drama shows
3. Problem Play.
problem put in the means of drama 45 and they also can put the issue in the
4. Farce.
5. Comedy of manners.
fashionable life. 47 The drama sometimes bring the life of people living in
6. Fantasy.
drama gives a free reign to his fantasy, and allowing things to happen
without regard to the reality. 48 The play shows audience about the fantasy
7. Melodrama.
This drama is almost the same as farce, but inside the act; it shows
the melodrama that puts no attention at human value, but the objective is to
give a thrill instead of laugh. 49 Besides, the drama also never put any
literary value because the audience sees the performance only as a good
entertainment.
external system. It creates the play of some characters and provides the
correlation between the fictional world of the player (performances) and the
audiences (spectators). Here, the author usually must be able to raise the emotion
G. Dialogue
Dialogue is one of the results from the dramatic text. In drama, it is the
48 Ibid.
49 Ibid.
26
into the speech and the characters must appropriate the utterances with the action
so that will create a storys scenes. It is when the players act while the making of
the utterances such as an act forming a promise or a threat, they do not only make
because of the dialogue in drama put some of performances aspects. J.L Austin
argued; as it recited by Manfred that there is something which is act the moment
of uttering being done by the person uttering. 50 In drama, there are more to
explore from the utterance in the dialogue because sometimes the receiver does
not consider about the situation where the dialogue were spoken by the players.
Dialogues will relation with the speech act in speech situation where it was
being utterance. And this make the dramatic speech is bound to the particular
situation. The particular situation that is not all the spectators can catch from the
plot or the characters. The scenes bind to the dramatic speech in its particular
The text above will bound into some particular situation that will create
particular speech situation. This is like the lack of information and making the
player to disobey the cooperative principle. This latter point tells that in the
dramas dialog also shows how implicature will influence the communication. It
50
Pfister, Manfred, The theory and analysis of drama (Cambridge: The University of Cambridge,
1991), p.6
51 Grice, H. P (1975), op. cit. 52
27
rise from the utterance when the character in the drama talking about women.
There is a scale that includes (women women), with women being a stronger
condemnation than the character remark becomes women is a Gods creature that
CHAPTER III
RESEARCH FINDINGS
A. Data Description
The concept is used to know the disobedience of the maxim. Data analysis
is collected from the text of dramas dialogue of The Last Yankee. The data in
which shows the disobedience of the maxims divided into two groups, that is
Group A and Group B. In Group A, there is the violation in which that only one
clash with another maxim. The writer divide the data into two groups because of
she defines that on Grices paper Logic and Conversation that the speaker can be
said fail to fulfill a maxim. And one of them is because of the participant faced a
clash. So that the writer is interested to differentiate the way of speaker inability
to fulfill a maxim because of faced a clash. The data that the writer has collected
husband who must visit and look in on his wife in a state medical hospital.
He does not have any children. He must visit and always give a big support to his
wife in the same state medical hospital where Leroys wife being treated.
28
29
Karen Frick is a depressive and frightened wife and a patient of a state mental
hospital. Her frightened was because of she afraid of the coming of her mom, it
happened because she has a bad memory with her mom in the past.
B. Data analysis
At first, the writer writes the text of dialogue, explains the violation and
divided into two groups. Then, she gives reason and further exploration in
analyzing the data, the writer will describe context of situation, process of
violation and implicature in each datum. Therefore, the data will be analyzed as
follows:
Group A. (the violation of maxim because of violate, opt out and flout the
maxim).
1. Datum I
Frick : Seven! - Ive been wondering if it was because she never had any.
Frick: No. We kept putting it off, and then it got too late, and first thing you
Leroy: For a while there I thought maybe she had too many children
a. Context of situation
Frick and Leroy seek for the reasons of why their wives got sick. Then
Leroy asks about the number of children that Frick has. It is also to notice the
b. Process of violation:
There is no doubt that Frick flouts the maxim of quantity to avoid making
expression repeating the statement it got too late, and first thing you know
its just too late. An interpreting aspect of such expression make one can
Leroy, liable to raise the topic, and make Leroy be misled. By making Leroy
mislead about the remark causing him thinking that there is a particular point
in accessing Fricks remark first thing you know its just too late.
c. Implicature
required by the listener. At this part, Frick implies that children are not the
52
Miller, Arthur (1995), op. cit. p. 451.
31
reason of his wife got sick but it actually becomes her sadness of emptiness in
2. Datum II
Frick: Oh. Mine certainly was. Whatever deal I was, couldnt wait till I got
him to talk about it. Real estate, stock market, always interested. All of
Frick: Really. I even thought maybe its that she was an only child, and if she
a. Context of situation
Leroy still engages to answer Fricks question. Frick wants to know why
Leroys wife got sick and got medical treatment. Then, the question turns into
b. Process of Violation
By his remark quite a view, ya, there is no reason to suppose that Leroy
informative than is required to meet Fricks need about getting the information
of the family of Leroys wife. The information does not satisfy Frick.
This maxim of quantity operates the information yielding as its value the
level informativeness required. 54 Therefore, the speaker must give the answer
his remark to Fricks question; nevertheless, Leroys answer does not give
brings Frick into wondering and confusing about what happen to the brother
and sister of Leroys wife. And affecting Frick continues asking to get the
answer.
c. Implicature
that make Leroys statement rise into the key notion of implicature. By this
remark implicates that Leroy does not like to talk about his wifes brothers
and sisters for some reasons that he does not want to share.
1. Datum I
Leroy: Lawyer
54
Gerald Gazdar, Pragmatic: Implicature, Presupposition, and Logical Form (London: Academic
Press, Inc., 1979) p. 49.
33
a. Context of Situation:
Frick becomes more curious to know and he asks about Leroys passion about
b. Process of violation
Leroys remark of just too dumb, I guess violates the maxim of quality,
do not to say what you believe to be false. In this maxim of quality that is the
Gricean maxim, Gazdar maintains that this maxim is connected to the logic of
belief. 56 Therefore the speaker needs to give an answer that is logically based
into Leroys remark I guess not that is a negation of Fricks question could
not buckle the book; Leroy is actually have the ability to answer Fricks
question clearly. Even so, Leroy is liable to mislead Frick by stating I guess.
as cited in Gazdar, that the word of well when it is in a remark; it will give a
statement of I guess. At this point, the writer defined that I guess have the
same purposed. In Leroys remark the word of I guess does not just merely a
short reply but also an incomplete answer that is typically say what he believe
to be false in the context. Hence, Leroy violates the maxim of quality and in
c. Implicature
He implicates that he does not want to be lawyer because of the job looks
only suit for his father so that he is not interested in being a lawyer.
2. Datum II
Frick: More or less! He was one of the most important Founding Fathers. 58
a. Context of Situation
When Frick knows that Leroy family members most of them are important
people, then Frick becomes more enthusiasts to know about Leroys family
members. However, unfortunately, Leroy does not like to talk about his
brother because of it will push him to tell more about the history of Leroys
family member.
b. Process of violation
what actually he has known to Frick (as the hearer). Leroys remark is opting
out, that is the maxim of second maxim of quality by stating what he believes
to be false. Actually, as his brother, it is impossible that Leroy does not know
about Alexander Hamilton, but it is because of he does not like to talk about
his familys background then Leroy opts out from the operation both of the
maxim and the cooperative principle. At the remark of more or less Leroy
c. Implicature
At the remark of more or less implicates that he knows about his brother,
however he does not seems interesting to talk about him in being a success
public figure.
3. Datum III
Patricia: . It is just that hes got really well-to-do relatives and he simply
will not accept anyones help. I mean you take the Jews, the Italians, Irish-
stick together and help each other. But you ever hear of Yankee-Americans?
Not on your life. Raise his taxes; rob him blind, the Yankeell just sit there all
alone getting sadder and sadder. But Im not going to think about it
anymore. 59
a. Context of Situation:
59
Ibid. p.463.
36
because Karen does not know about her husband so Patricia tells more to
b. Process of Violation
Patricias remark sadder and sadder flout the maxim of quality do not
say what you believe to be false. At this point, Patricias remark turns into
hyperbole expression. This is exactly obvious that Patricia liable to raise the
side issue. Then by this remark, Patricia implicates that her husband failure
and sadness is because of he never tries to stick together with another Yankee.
the statement. 60 Therefore, the writer argues that Patricia flouts the maxim of
c. Implicature
The implicature in her remark implicates how she really hates her husband
4. Datum IV
Leroy: Boy, youre a real roller coaster. We were doing great there for a
Patricia: I cant be peace when I know you are full of denial, and thats saying
60
Grice, H.P. (1975), log.cit. p.57.
37
it straight. 61
a. Context of situation
Leroy looks for his wife medication. At once, Patricia looks better then he
b. Process of Violation
in which he flouts the first maxim of quality. Since, Leroy strictly brings to
the hearer some feature of feature in respect the hearer resembles the remarks
c. Implicature
Leroys remarks implicates that you (to his wife) are easily to change your
mind in a minute.
1. Datum I
desire medication, I could feel it leaving me like a .. like a ghost. Slight pause.
. It is just that hes got really well-to-do relatives and he simply will not
accept anyones help. I mean you take the Jews, the Italians, Irish-theyve got
61
Miller, Arthur (1995), p. 474.
38
together and help each other. But you ever hear of Yankee-Americans? Not
on your life. Raise his taxes, rob him blind, the Yankeell just sit there all
alone getting sadder and sadder. But Im not going to think about it
anymore.
a. Context of Situation
Patricia talks about her husband. She tells it to Karen in order to share the
b. Process of Violation
not give a relevant response to Patricia. Since, there seems the conversation
jump into another topic then it violates the maxim of relevant. While in the
legitimately change.
c. Implicature
Karen implies that she has no idea about Patricias story and she has
2. Datum II
Patricia: Men with half his ability riding around in big expensive cars and now
for the second for the second Easter Sunday in a row his rear end collapsed.
62
Miller, Arthur (1995), op. cit. 463.
39
Karen: They say there are only three keys for all the General Motors cars.
a. Context of Situation
This happens in the middle of conversation where Patricia talks about her
b. Process of Violation
remark gives a shift in the course of talk exchange then changes the subject of
explained only by the supposition that Karen does not give a relevant
Karens remarks causes her (Patricia) to hide her angry and disturb the main
c. Implicature
Karens remark implicates that she does not interested in Patricias topic
and she wants to bring her own topic while responding Patricias remark.
3. Datum III
Leroy: Okay. Goes to a window.-It looks like rain outside, but we can walk
63
Ibid.
40
around if you like. Theyve got a beautiful tulip bed down there; the colors
really shine in this gray light. Reds and purple and whites and a gray. Never
Patricia: Hows Amelias leg? Are you getting her to change her bandage? 64
a. Context of Situation
Leroy looks for her wife in the middle of her medication. He feels happy
to see his wife who is getting better. Then, Leroy asks his wife to walk around
b. Process of Violation
she knows, she allows and brings the shift in the course of talk exchange. She
offer in her remark. And she tries to put the shift in the middle because of she
does not have any idea to refuse it smoothly. So that she gives irrelevant
c. Implicature
At this part, she implicates that the idea to walk around out side the
64
Ibid. p. 470.
41
1. Datum I
Leroy: Oh-ya.
a. Context of Situation
Leroy and Frick comment about the medical hospital where their wives
being treated. Frick and Leroy have their own comment but each of them still
b. Process of Violation
At the most literal level of meaning I guess means Im not really sure; that
is an answer without being sure. People often think I guess as having the
Leroy implies that he does not know much and he himself does not sure
about the quality of hospital service to the patient. His remarks build Fricks
thought about the uncertainty of the fact of the service through surprisingly
and awful lot of colored. Leroys remark contributes in the giving the idea
65 Ibid. p. 449.
42
that is not clear, therefore Frick is difficult to make clear and exact conclusion.
Leroy does not give clear about what contribution he is making about. In
short, the use of I guess always works in this way, it has became
implicature to be recovered.
c. Implicature
Here, Leroy implicates the service given is good even though the facility
2. Datum II
Frick: I just cant figure it out. Theres no bills; were very well fixed; shes
got a beautiful home Theres really not a trouble in the world. Although,
Leroy: Oh no, I got plenty of bills and it did not help mine. I dont think its
a. Context of situation
Both Frick and Leroy look for the biggest trouble in their marriage life.
And Frick tries to know the trouble that causes his wife become sick.
b. Process of Violation
66
Ibid. p. 451.
43
violated. Fricks remark selected the rigmarole remark in place the concise of
his intention of saying something. So, Frick implies that this is because of he
and his wife live in a very good condition then it makes his wife can not able
to find what value of life is. Focusing on Fricks remark, it is obvious to say
that he does not brief and using too many words, therefore causing his remark
c. Implicature
God knows, maybe thats the trouble implicates his biggest trouble in his
big trouble and he never searches for the idea why the trouble could be
happen.
3. Datum III
Patricia: Its like inside me Im almost continually talking to the Lord. Not
Deeply excited, but suppressing it. I dont know what fall in love with the
67
Ibid. pp. 461-463.
44
a. Context of situation
Patricia shares her feeling about her spiritual activity to Karen. Both of
them still continue their conversation, even though they does not reach the
main goal.
b. Context of Situation
has bee made by the sentence. Further, it flouts the maxim of manner. On the
dialogue the speaker tries to say how she really gives her attention to God but
because of the imperative mood and emotion, she exploited the maxim of
manner. The statement of in love with God causes an ambiguity, uses the
c. Implicature
This remark implies about her feeling to God. And it shows how she feels
1. Data I
Leroy: Five to nineteen. But they all pitch in. everythings clean, house runs
45
like a ship. 68
a. Context of Situation
Leroy tells about his children. And he tries to make Frick amazed about
b. Process of Violation
over informative than its required to meet Fricks need. This infringement of
the first maxim of quantity can be explained only by the supposition that
Leroy is aware to bring the obscurity of expression by saying But they all
pitch in. everythings clean, house runs like a ship. And this statement also
does not have a brief statement. Hence, Leroys remark flouts the maxim of
quantity. But the violation was explained by the supposition of the clash with
c. Implicature
Leroy implicates that he has children five to nineteen that is really diligent.
The data analysis shows many violations. The writer finds there are about
twelve violations and one violation that clash with another maxim. With the
result, from the group A there are; two violations of the maxim of quantity, four
violations of the maxim of quality, three violations of the maxim of relevance and
three violations of the maxim of manner. Then from the group B is one violation
68
Ibid. p. 452.
46
that clash with another maxim and at this part the speaker violates the maxim of
quantity in clash with maxim of manner. In short, the violations happen because
the participant does not cooperate well with the reason of some context inside.
47
CHAPTER IV
1. Conclusion
From the research findings, the writer would like to take the conclusion of
some results. First, the cooperative principle is a principle has been contributed to
make a clear information and appropriate information while they are making a
conversation. Besides, this principle tells about how the participants (speaker and
violates a maxim, he opts out from the cooperation, he flouts a maxim and even it
actually already violates the first maxim but then faced by a clash the other
The implicature will rise at the time when one of the participants disobeys
the maxim and it will turn to the personal communication. There is the basic
reason which becomes the background of how the implicature raised. The
background itself called context. Context is able to tell knowledge where it can
explore and draw the background of the aspects (like the mental, social and
cultural aspects) which guide to the interpretation of the language. Hence, when
the participants communicate, they need to explore more and does not merely just
47
48
informative as required.
2. Suggestions
For the students who are interested in studying cooperative principle, they
can use the first paper of Grice's theory of cooperative principle title Logic and
cooperative; or for the new publishing book by Jacob L. Mey, Yule, etc. They
they can take the text record of an English radio correspondence as the analysis.
Moreover, the student can also relate the analysis to the social culture background.
Finally, the writer hopes that the analysis will be useful to sharpen
interest of the cooperative principle, they must be able to apply it in their daily
REFERENCES
Pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press Inc., New York., 2000.
Grice, H.P. Logic and Conversation. Syntax and Semantics. Vol. III: Speech
Acts, ed. Peter Cole and J. L. Morgan. New York: Academic Press, 1975.
Science, 1997.
Indonesia, 1993.
1993.
Miller, Arthur. The Last Yankee. The Portable Arthur Miller, ed. Bigsby,
49
50
Pfister, Manfred. The theory and analysis of drama. Cambridge: The University
of Cambridge, 1991.
Short, M.H. Discourse Analysis and the Analysis of Drama. Applied Linguistic
Website:
2010.
Appendix.1
DRAMAS SYNOPSIS
The Last Yankee is a drama of two couples. The first couple is Leroy and
Patricia. Leroy is a husband who must visit his wife, Patricia who got a mental
also must visit his wife names Karen. Both of them while they are waiting for
the visitor day in the waiting room, they involves in a discussion about their
family background and their marriage life. Leroy who is very close from other,
finally he shares the story with Frick. Later, this is because of Frick asks many
question about Leroys family background that make them continuing the
The play also shows how the wives of Frick and Leroy handle their
frightening to life during the state medical hospital. Both of them are becomes
closer, since they were treated in the hospital. Patricia finds that she becomes
more religious during the treatment in the hospital. Patricia tries to give Karen a
way out to handle her own frightened and reveal her uncomfortable memories
with her mom in the past. They get each of their storys life when they were
The play ends with the resolution where the two couples meet. They
continue the discussion and they find that they have the same interest to Banjo.
At that time, they get an idea to reveal their problem by playing banjo. Finally,
51
52
they reveal their problems like the uncomfortable moments of their family in the
past and their frightening to life. They want to give the trustiness and attention to
their couple. Basically, the drama is about the two couples that facing their own