Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 24

1.

Background of the Study


Language is a means of communication. It is used to express our thought, wishes,
command, and to tell truth and lies. It can also be used to express and formulate ideas about
something. Moreover, people use language to communicate with each other to build relation
and share feeling. In order for people to achieve this intimate level of communication they need
to communicate through conversation. Furthermore, face to face conversation is the most
universal conversation which is engaged in all human cultures; in additions conversation may
also be mediated such as when electronic technology is used for speech and text.
When people converse with each other, they want their conversation to run smoothly.
In order for the conversation to run smoothly there must be a mutual intelligibility between the
participant. It means that both participants in communication need to understand each other in
which they expect a suitable response from one another; if they do not give a suitable response
to the previous utterance, it might lead to confusion and misunderstanding. However, there’s
time when people say something without actually meaning it by saying something else, or
nothing at all. People can mean something without saying it, they can get their intended
meaning by merely implicating it.
This phenomenon is really interesting to observe because of the fact that most people
understand what is being implied by the speaker even though the speaker do not explicitly tell
what they really mean. Furthermore, this kind of phenomenon happen in our everyday life. For
example, when a student is late to class the teacher will ask what time is it, and the student will
reply with the reason why he/she comes late and not with the actual time. This shows how
people said something but implying something else, in the case of the teacher, he/she is not
asking about the time but why the student comes late? Why does he/she not come on time, thus
by saying what time is it he/she means to say “this is already over my class time, why are you
late?”. That is why the student answer with the reason why he/she is late. Isn’t interesting to
see how the student actually understand what is implied by the teacher? And give a suitable
answer to the question? This kind of phenomenon is called implicature.
Implicature occurred in our conversation because we intend it to happen consciously or
unconsciously. Implicature can occur in conversation when we do not follow the rule of
conversation. The rule of conversation is a set of rules which suggest on how to make
conversation successful. The rule of conversation is called cooperative principle in which in it
we have sub-rules which is known as maxim. Thus, implicature happen when we exploit this
maxim of conversation by blatantly not following the rule. This kind of exploitation is known
as flouting, and this kind of exploitation is really interesting because people usually exploit the
maxim to make a joke using sarcasm irony, etc which richen the conversation flow.
Ngomongin novel Thus, from this background the paper will focused on the flouting
maxim that occurred in the movie/novel as the most interesting implicature seems to arise when
a maxim is ostentatiously flouted or exploited

2. Problems of the Study


Speaker sometimes do not say what they actually say, but they say different thing or do
not say anything at all. By doing this they are consciously or unconsciously want the hearer to
get what they want to say. However, to understand about the implied meaning the hearer must
know the contextual situation and situational context to decipher the intended meaning of the
speaker.
Moreover, when the speaker consciously or unconsciously trying to get what they
actually mean to the hearer, they must blatantly exploit the maxim of conversation which is
proposed by Grice. Thus, in this paper the writer will ask three questions concerning this
situation.
1. What kind of the flouting maxim occurred in Tom Harris’s novel The Silence of the Lamb?
2. What is the implicit meaning of flouting maxims which are produced by the character in
Tom Harris’s novel The Silence of the Lamb?
3. Why flouting maxim occur in Tom Harris’s novel entitled The Silence of the lamb?

3. Aims of the Study


The objective of a scientific paper is to improve our knowledge and also give answer
to the subject matter after being observed, in this paper the subject matter is the flouting maxim
that occur between the character in Silence of the Lamb, also the implicit meaning and the
reason why flouting maxim occur in there. Based on this the aims of this writing are:
1. To find out and analyze the types of flouting maxim in Tom Harris ‘s novel entitled
The Silence of the Lamb.
2. To figure out the implicit meaning in the flouting maxim in Tom Harris ‘s novel
entitled The Silence of the Lamb.
3. To figure out the reason why flouting maxim occur in Tom Harris ‘s novel entitled
The Silence of the Lamb.

4. Scope of Discussion
The focus of this writing is to answer the problem in this paper. Thus, there are
limitation in this paper. The theory that chiefly used is the conversational Maxim and flouting
maxim proposed by Paul Grice. Jelasin tentang apa itu conversational maxim and flouting
Moreover, this paper also going to use the theory from Leech about meaning to support the
analysis. The focus on this paper is to explain the flouting maxim that occur in Tom Harris’s
novel entitled The Silence Lamb also the implicate meaning and the reason why it happens.

Minimal 1 atau 2 baris opening paragraph


Ini adalah limitation yang akan dibahas.
Contoh jika membahas implicature, limit the theoretical framework apa yang mau
dipakai/discuss, then flouting maxim in conversational implicature, jelaskan ini apa
5. Research method: Qualitative
5.1 Data Source
Ada primary ada secondary, jelaskan data yang kamu pakai apa, dari siapa
The data that are going to be used in this paper is a primary data taken from the literary
work from Tom Harris which is a novel entitled The Silence of the Lamb which is adapted
into a thriller horror movie, and one of the most famous work from him.
5.2 Method and Technique of Collecting Data
Apa saja yang harus ditulis:
1. What method are you going to use? Ex: interview, observation
Documentation
2. Data apa yang ingin kamu kumpulkan? Untuk menjawab pertanyaan yang mana?
Data Primary to answer
Ex: saya menggunakan metode ini untuk mengumpulkan data berbentuk catatan (atau
apalah jelaskan secara detail) untuk menjawab pertanyaan yang mana
3. Siapa yang anda observasi? Harus ada informant
4. How are you going to observe? Interview?
Contoh: interview dengan question list, observasi dengan checklist and technique
recording
5.3 Method and Technique of Analysing Data (Baca Cresswell)
Contoh conten Analisis, domain analisis.
5.4 Presenting dengan data qualitative, data qualitative dengan deskripsi. Data
quantitative dengan statistic.
6. Review of Literature, Concepts, and Theoretical Framework

6.1 Review of Literature


This part of study concern with the review of two undergraduate theses and one
international or national journal which is related to the topic of this paper. Moreover, these
materials are needed to develop a deeper understanding about the related topic, which as a
result will further our comprehension and give a vivid understanding about the topic. The first
undergraduate thesis that will be reviewed is Flouting Maxims in The Movie How to Train Your
Dragon 2 written by Evitayani (2016), The second thesis is Flouting of Grice’s Maxim’s in The
Age of Adaline Movie written by Lestari (2017), and the national journal that will be reviewed
is An Analysis of Flouting Maxim in EFL Classroom Interaction written by Asri (2015).
The first undergraduate thesis is Flouting Maxims in The Movie How to Train Your
Dragon 2 composed by Evitayani (2016). The data used in the thesis were taken from an
animation movie entitled How to Train Your Dragon 2, which is a sequel to the previous movie
with the same title. The research method used in this thesis are divided into methods and
techniques of collecting data, method and techniques of analyzing data, and method and
techniques of presenting data. For the method and technique of collecting data, the thesis used
documentation method and the techniques of watching, listening, reading, taking notes, as well
as recording. Moreover, qualitative research method and descriptive analyzed are the method
that applied in analyzing process. For the techniques of analyzing data the author conducted
some steps which are (i) classifying the utterance found in the movie based on the occurrence
of conversational maxims; especially the utterance that disobey the maxim of conversation, (ii)
analyzing the corpus data using Grice’s theory of flouting maxim which is supported with
theory about flouting maxim from Levinson. Furthermore, the method and technique of
presenting data were presented in narrative way which means it is described using words
descriptively.
In this thesis, the author explains about types of the maxims that are flouted in the movie
and the reason for the occurrence of flouting maxim. The author stated that in the data all of
the flouting maxim can be found namely flouting of maxim of quality, maxim of quantity,
maxim of relevance, and maxim of manner. Moreover, a particular case where two maxims are
flouted were found in the data. The maxims that clashed with each other according to the data
were maxim of quality and maxim of quantity. Furthermore, she stated that the most flouted
maxim is the maxim of quantity because one of the main characters in the movie tend to give
a long explanation which is unnecessary, and explained something which is way out of the
topic. The second most flouted maxim is the maxim of relevance because some characters in
the movie choose do not have much time to talk about the topic of interest or they do not want
to talk about it. In addition, she also stated the least flouted maxim is the maxim of manner as
it is only occurred when there were some words which is hard to understand occur in characters
utterance. Furthermore, the author used the theory from Paul Grice about maxim of
conversation and flouting maxim, as well as the theory from Levinson to support her analysis.
The theory used by the author is also used in this paper, however besides these theory about
maxims of conversation and flouting maxim from Grice and Levinson, theory of meaning from
Leech and additional theory from Paul Grice’s about conversation implicature are also used to
support this paper.
The second undergraduate thesis is Flouting of Grice’s Maxims in The Age of Adaline
Movie written by Lestari (2017). The data used in this thesis were taken from the utterance
between the character in the movie entitled The Age of Adaline. This movie is a 2015 American
movie, which is a fantasy movie about a woman that stops aging at the age of 29 after an
accident befall her. The format of the research method used in this thesis are the same as
previous thesis, however the method and technique of presenting data were left out. The
method for collecting data in this thesis were documentation method with note taking as the
technique. In addition, the author lists the steps to collecting data namely watching the movie,
find the transcription of the utterance, and listing down the utterance which related to flouting
maxim. Moreover, the method of analyzing data used in this thesis were descriptive qualitative
method, along with descriptive analyzing. The process of the analyzing the data were started
with (i) identifying the utterance in conversation that can be classified as flouting maxim, (ii)
describing the context of situation in the movie where the utterance take place, (iii) analyzing
the reason why the data is considered as flouting maxim, (iv) lastly, analyzing the implicit
meaning of flouting maxim.
In this thesis the author explained about the types of maxim being flouted in the
utterance between the character, as well as finding out the implicit meaning of the flouting
maxim which were produced by the character in the movie. The finding of this study showed
that all conversational maxims had been flouted in the data. Moreover, the most flouted maxim
where quantity maxim, and maxim of manner were the least flouted maxims. She also stated
that there were some reasons that encourage the speaker to flout the maxim which resulted in
an implicit meaning namely: (i) the speakers try to explain about something by giving too much
information in hope that the hearer will understand the topic better, (ii) the speakers want to
expect something which means that they act and say more words to show something, (iii) the
speakers want to convince the addressee, (iv) the speakers want to hide or cover something, (v)
the speakers want to avoid certain subject which is embarrassing to them or to just end the
conversation by consciously maneuvering the topic present into a new topic. Furthermore, the
author used the theory from Paul Grice about maxim of conversation and flouting maxim, as
well as the theory about conversational implicature. The theory used by the author is also used
in this paper, however besides these theory about maxims of conversation, flouting maxim and
conversational implicature from Grice theory of meaning from Leech and additional theory
from Levinson about meaning are used to support this paper.
Apart from the aforementioned undergraduate thesis above, in this section national
journal is reviewed as well. The national journal is Vision, in which the particular journal
related to the topic was written by Asri (2015) entitled An Analysis of Flouting Maxim in EFL
Classroom Interaction, taken from
http://journal.walisongo.ac.id/index.php/vision/article/download/1592/1170. The focused of
the journal were on the occurrence of flouting maxim in conversation between the teacher and
the students. The data used in this journal were taken from the utterance in dialogue of a teacher
and her student during EFL teaching and learning program. This study was conducted in 2013.
This journal used qualitative approach, and content analysis as the research design. The primary
instrument used in collecting the data were the writer himself along with document analysis.
Moreover, the author listed some ways in which the data were collected such as: (i) using
observation method, (ii) recording), (iii) transcribing the utterances, (iv) sorting the utterances
where the flouting occurred, (v) enlisting this utterance based on the type of maxim being
flouted, and (vi) arranging the obtainable data systematically. Furthermore, the data analysis
process is as follows: (i) data reduction, (ii) data display, (iii) data analysis), (iv) conclusion
drawing. In the findings the author stated that there were six flouting maxim that can be found
in the dialogue between the teacher and student during the learning process. Out of 357 data
from the utterance only 2 percent of data considered as flouting maxim, thus the author claimed
that the student often flouted the maxim of quantity, quality, and manner, in addition he added
that the reason why the speaker flouts the maxim of quantity is because the speaker doesn’t
have sufficient linguistic competence in order to give proper response toward teacher
utterances based on speaker or the teacher utterance. As a matter of fact, the theory used in this
journal were the theory from Grice about conversational maxim, conversational implicature,
and flouting maxim which is the same theory with the previous thesis. Speaking of the theory
used here, this paper also used the same theory with some additional theory about meaning
which supported the analysis in this paper.
These two undergraduate theses and one national journal have a close relation with this
paper since they all analyzed the maxim which appeared in the conversation using Grice’s
theory about maxim. However, this paper is quite different with the aforementioned paper as
this analysis is more detailed in terms of beside determining the maxims which is floated, this
paper also will analyze the reason for such occurrence, and why such occurrence happened
from the perspective of situational context and the meaning implied by the speaker.

6.2 Concept
The concepts that are used in this proposal are proposed by experts in linguistic,
pragmatic, and philosophy. The concepts are divided into seven concepts which are related to
this topic in order to help the process in understanding this topic; they are concept of
conversation, concept of implicature, concept of conversational implicature, concept of
cooperative principles, concept of Maxims, concepts of Flouting Maxims, and concept of
context of situation.

6.2.1 Concept of Conversation


Conversation is a major activity in social life (Allen and Guy, 1978: 11). Conversation
is not only seen as a product between speakers and speakers who seek to exchange information
or convey messages from one another. At the same time, the activity of speakers and speakers
is seen as a process of adjustment and collaboration. The process of adjustment and
collaboration is done by speakers and speakers so that communication can take place regularly
and meaningfully. Therefore, the speech that occurs in a conversation will be conveyed with
procedures, methods, and resources tied to the context in which the conversation is taking place
(Hutchby and Woofit, 1998: 1). The context in conversation is defined as a background
knowledge shared by speakers and speakers and that helps speakers interpret the meaning of
speech and the interplay of behavior between speakers and speakers.

6.2.2 Concept of Implicature


Implicature according to Yule (1996:35-36) is something that must be more than just
what the words mean, it is an additional conveyed meaning. He further explained that
implicature are primary examples of more being communicated than is said, but in order for
them to be interpreted some basic cooperative principle must first be assumed to be in
operation. Beside Yule, Marmaridou (2000:223) defined implicature as a product of our
conceptual mechanism that appears to account for this possibility. She added that even though
there are different types of implicature, however the term of implicature mainly associated with
a particular type, namely conversational implicature, as this was introduced by the philosopher
H.P. Grice. Moreover, Allan (2012:55) explained implicature in Grice’s view as one can mean
something either by saying it or by saying (or “making as if to say”) something else. What one
implicates by saying something generally not implied by what one says. That is why Grice used
the verb “implicate” rather than “imply” and the neologism “implicature” rather than
“implication”. Furthermore, Grundy (2000:73) defined implicature as any meaning which is
conveyed indirectly or through hints, and understood implicitly without ever being explicitly
stated.

6.2.3 Concept of Conversational Implicature


According to Huang (2011:407) conversational implicature is any meaning implied or
expressed by, and inferred or understood from, the utterance of a sentence which is meant
without being part of what is strictly said. He further said that this definition is derived via
Grice’s (1975, 1989) cooperative principle, and its attendant maxims of conversation. Another
definition of conversational implicature by Griffiths (2006:134) is an interference that depend
on the existence of norms for the use of language, such as the widespread agreement that
communicators should aim to tell the truth.

6.2.4 Concept of Cooperative Principles


The concept of cooperative principle was proposed by Grice (1975: 45), he formulated
a rough general principle which participants will be expected (ceteris paribus) to observe,
namely: “ Make your conversational contribution such as is required, at the sage at which it
occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged” It
can be assumed from this that it is assumed that both the speaker and the listener should be
cooperative while conversing in order to have a successful conversation and it can be done by
following the conversational maxims. Moreover, Levinson (1983:101) explained cooperation
principle as a theory about how people use language. He further explained that Grice suggestion
which is cooperative principle is a set of over-arching assumptions guiding the conduct of
conversation. On the other hand, Leech (1983:80) suggest that politeness principle (PP) is
important along with CP cooperative principle (CP) because in some context when CP in a
weak position where it is apparent that exception to it cannot be satisfactorily explained. PP
then become the complement and rescue CP from serious trouble. Furthermore, Yule (1996:36)
defined CP as a general idea that people involved in conversation will cooperate with each
other and give expected amount of information which is provided in conversation, this
cooperation between both the speaker and listeners is what he means by CP.

6.2.5 Concept of Maxims


Under the assumption that some general principle (CP) is acceptable, Grice (1975:45-
46) distinguished four categories under one another of which will fall into more specific maxim
and sub maxim which in general will yield results in accordance with CP. He borrowed the
names from Kant and called these categories as Quantity, Quality, Relation, and Manner.
First, the maxim of Quantity, related to the quantity of information to be provided. It
means that the speaker tries to be informative yet do not give unneeded information. Secondly,
the maxim of Quality, related to the quality of information to be provided. It means that the
speaker tries to be truthful, and do not give false information, especially one without evidence.
The speaker also tries to give evidence to support their claim. Thirdly, the maxim of Relation
is where the speaker tries to be relevant and appropriate within the context. The speaker tries
to not speak about irrelevant matter. Lastly, the maxim of Manner, related to not what is said
but rather to how what is said to be said. It means that the speaker tries to give a clear
information, and avoid ambiguity.

6.2.6 Concept of Flouting Maxim


According to Grice (1975:49) flouting means that the speaker is blatantly fail to fulfil
the maxim. On the assumption that the speaker is able to fulfil the maxim and to do so without
violating another maxim (because of clash), is not opting out, and is not in view of the blatancy
of his performance, trying to mislead, the hearer is faced with a minor problem. He considered
this as a maxim being exploited. Beside him, Levinson (1983:109) explained that flouting is a
kind of implicature that come about by overtly and blatantly not following some maxim, in
order to exploit it for communicative purpose. Flouting maxims according to Grundy
(2000:760-777) usually can be found in tautology, irony, metaphor, understatement,
overstatement, and rhetorical question.

6.2.7 Context of Situation


In the 1980s, Halliday developed a framework for describing what he termed the
context of situation, the social context of a text which allowed for meaning to be exchanged.
1. The field of discourse is the general sense of what a text is about and refers to 'what is
happening, to the nature of the social action that is taking place'. This
aspect is comparable to Bakhtin's sphere of communication.
2. The tenor of discourse is concerned with the participants, their relationship, their roles and
relative status.
3. The mode of discourse focuses on what the language is being ask to do - its function - the
way it is organized, the medium (print, spoken, and so on) and also 'the rhetorical mode, what
is being achieved by the text in terms of such categories as persuasive, expository, didactic,
and the like' (Halliday and Hasan 1985: 12).
Halliday's context of situation denoted only the immediate environment for a textual
event. Moreover, these elements then interact with each other and limit the choice of form
(Zhang in Prativi 2012:13). Based on this definition it can be said that meaning is determined
by the context. Every utterance should be understood accordingly based on the situation.
According to Baker (cited in Prativi, 2012:13) context of situation is closely related to
various texts. Certain situational context asks for certain text and in return certain text creates
certain context. In the process of communication, the meaning system is largely determined by
the three aspects of situational context: ideational meanings by field, interpersonal meaning by
tenor and textual meaning by mode
Based on the explanation above, it can be concluded that context of situation is
important in interpreting the implicature of speaker’s utterance if the hearer does not
understand the context in the conversation.

6.3 Theoretical Framework


In this part, the discussion deals with the theoretical aspects that have relevance to the
topic of study. The theory that will be mainly used is the theory proposed by Grice (1975) and
this theory will be used to solve the problems which are going to be proposed in this proposal.
Furthermore, to get better understanding and clear description, the theory of flouting the maxim
which is proposed by Levinson (1983) also will be used to explain about Grice’s flouting
maxim. Beside the theory from Grice and Levinson, there are also theory about conversational
implicature proposed by Grice and theory from Leech about meaning in semantic which will
support the analysis in this paper.

6.3.1 Grice’s Maxim


Cooperative principle is a very important thing when conversing as we often
communicate verbal message which somehow, we unconsciously convey, or with a certain
awareness. Other times, we are aware of how we actually formulate a phrase, with a specific
goal in mind. Regardless of the motive or awareness, Grice developed the principles of
conversation which is later called as Cooperative Principles of conversation. Below are the four
types of cooperative principle proposed by H.P. Grice (1975):
1) Maxim of Quantity
The category of Quantity relates to the quantity of information to be provided, and under it fall
the following maxims:
 Make your contribution as informative as is required (for the current purposes
of the exchange).
 Do not make your contribution more informative than is required. (The second
maxim is disputable; it might be said that to be over-informative is not a
transgression of the CP but merely a waste of time. However, it might be
answered that such over-informativeness may be confusing in that it is liable to
raise side issues; and there may also be an indirect effect, in that the hearers
may be misled as a result of thinking that there is some particular point in the
provision of the excess of information. However, this may be, there is perhaps
a different reason for doubt about the admission of this second maxim, namely,
that its effect will be secured by a later maxim, which concern relevance.)
This maxim means that when a speaker asks something, the listener should answer it as
informative as possible or answer it sufficiently. For example, when girl going to go out and
her father asked her “where are you going to?”, then the girl should answer with “I am going
to the mall”. The girl in this example does not give any more explanation about her ‘hangout’
except if her father asked again. Another example for this is an analogy, which if you are
assisting me to finish a puzzle, I expect you to give me neither more or less than is required. If
for example I asked for 4 pieces of the puzzle you should give me 4 puzzle pieces and neither
2 or 6 pieces.

2. Maxim of Quality (make your contribution true)


 Do not say what you believe to be false.
 Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.
It means that when the speaker asks something the listener should answer it honestly
and provide evidence if needed. For example, when the lecturer enters the classroom and he or
she starts to fill in the attendance list by calling the student’s name one by one, the student will
respond it by raising their hand honestly. Furthermore, Grice expect that the contribution
should be genuine and not spurious. In maxim of quality, the speakers are expected to give the
evidences. Some speakers like to get hearer’s attention by saying what they believe to be
through, even though they lack of evidence. Maxim of quality has function to make sure that
every speaker gives the truth information or contribution to their hearers.

3. Maxim of Relation
 Be relevant
It means that when the speakers ask something, the listener should answer it stick to the
point and relevance to the context. For example, when a mother is cooking a cake, she does not
expect her son to come and give her a good book or even an oven cloth (though this might be
appropriate contribution at later stage.)

4. Maxim of Manner (be perspicuous)


 Avoid obscurity of expression
 Avoid ambiguity
 Be brief
 Be orderly
It means that when the speaker asks something the listener should answer it as clear as possible
and not ambiguous. For example, a woman asks her friend in restaurant.
A: What do you like to eat?
B: I would love to eat fried rice. (the answer should not be like “I would love to eat some rice,
eggs, sauce, fried with oil). This maxim has function to avoid misunderstand or
miscommunication between speaker and hearer.

6.3.2 Flouting the Maxim


Although Grice said that the maxims are important, he realized that in some condition
people have to do the deliberate violation or flouting as he calls them. If they flout their
conversation, it does not mean that the communication will not be successful. In addition, the
flouting of the conversational maxims can be many things, and there is no way of prescribing
a particular violation as useful or detrimental. Then, the participant will understand the
implication of the speakers whether they know the situation or occasion. It means that the
speakers have the same thinking to imply what the speaker said based on the situation. Based
on Grice’s maxims, there are several criteria of flouting the maxims as distinguishing
guidelines by Levinson (1983:109-112)
A. The Flouting Maxim of Quantity
The speakers flout this maxim if they give more or less information than it is required
by the situation. It means that the speaker does not explain to the point. They usually give
uninformative information. It also means that they give less information or too much
information. The examples will explain about the flouting of maxim of quantity.
I. A: I’ve lost a diamond.
B: Well Julie was wearing one this morning. (Leech, 1983:93)
B’s answer does not fulfill the maxim of quantity. By using indefinite article, B reuses
to commit himself to whether the ring he sees is the same one that A lost. B is not being
informative as required in this conversation.
II. A: We’ll all miss Bill and Agatha, wont we?
B: Well, we’ll all miss Bill. (Leech, 1983:80)
Obviously, B’s answer is categorized as the flouting of maxim of quantity. A tells B
that both of them will miss Billy and Agatha. Yet, B flouts that he/she will miss Bill only.
That’s mean that B gives uninformative by giving too little contribution.

B. The Flouting of Maxim of Quality


Firstly, the speaker flouts maxim of quality if she/he lies or says and denied something
that is believed to be false. Therefore, it means that he/she misrepresent his/her information in
order to make the addressee understand. The examples below will explain this flouting.
I. A: Teheran’s in Turkey isn’t teacher?
B: And London is in Armenia I suppose. (Levinson, 1983:110)
In the conversation, B has flouted maxim quality. B answers the statement about
London that is Armenia. Actually, this answer is false because London is in England, therefore,
B gives false statement.

C. The Flouting of Maxim of Relation


First off all, the speakers flout this maxim if they make the conversation unmatched.
Usually, the participants do the wrong causality. Besides, they want to avoid the topic; they
will change the topic or avoid talking about it. This flouting usually used to hide something. It
means that the participants keep secrete or something in order that nobody knows about it. Two
examples below do not fulfill the maxim of relevance.
I. A: I do think Mrs. Jenkis is an old windbag, don’t you?
B: Huh, lovely weather for March, isn’t? (Levinson, 1983:111)
The conversation between A and B have already made the conversation unmatched. B
might implicate on the appropriate circumstance. Therefore, B gives respond to speaker A
uninformative; therefore, B has flouted the maxim of relation.
II. A: Where’s my box of chocolates?
B: I’ve got a train to catch. (Leech, 1983:94)
The conversation above is showed that B has flouted in maxim of relation, when A asks
B about ‘where’, actually B should answer the question about the place. However, B has
changed the topic of conversation. A asks B about A’s Box of chocolates, but B answer A’s
question about his/her train schedule which he/she going to get on. Therefore, B’s utterance is
unmatched.

D. The Flouting Maxim of Manner


The speaker flouts the maxim of manner when he/she uses ambiguous language.
Besides, their utterance is to long winded or too short, obscure, etc.
I. A: Let’s get the kids something.
B: Ok, but I veto I-C-E-C-R-E-A-M-S (Levinson, 1983:104)
B’s answer obviously breaks the maxim of manner (be perspicuous) by spelling out the
word ice cream, and tells A that B does not say the word ice cream in front of the children
before they ask their parents to buy some.
In addition, according to Leech, in the same utterance it can have more than one flouting
of maxims as long as the speakers gives the right reasons. Besides, people usually have
different interpretation about their communication so that their utterance can be contained by
two or more (Leech, 1983: ...). For example:
A: Where’s my box of chocolate?
B: The children were in your room this morning. (Leech, 1983)
This example has two kinds of flouting those are maxim of relevance and quantity. It
contains of the flouting of maxim relevance because B does not give the causality answer. It
means B should answer some places where B has put the chocolates. In addition, B’s answer
is also flouting the maxim of quantity. B does not explain to the point that the children were in
A’s room this morning. If B follows the maxim of quantity, B should answer to the point.
Therefore, based on Grice, flouting of conversational maxims can make the listeners
misunderstand the message conveyed by the addressor. Yet, it does not mean that the
communication will be breakdown as long as the addressor gives a strong reason.
6.3.3 Meaning in Semantic
Semantic is the study of meaning. According to Leech (1981) it was also central to the
study of communication. Though the ‘meaning’ or the information one wants to communicate
can be conveyed through a number of means like gesture, picture, signals, etc. language was
the main tool of communication of the human beings. Semantics as a branch of linguistics was
mainly concerned with how the ‘meaning’ was conveyed by the linguistics system consisting
of different unit structures like sentence, phrases, words, morphemes etc. semantics as a study
of meaning, which relates language to the various aspects of non-linguistics reality, was also
of interest to various disciplines such as philosophy, anthropology, psychology,
communication theory etc. Leech divided meaning into seven different types in which he gave
a primary importance to logical meaning or what he refers as conceptual meaning.

A. Conceptual Meaning
Conceptual meaning sometimes called ‘denotative’ meaning or ‘cognitive’ meaning is
widely assumed to be the central factor in linguistic communication. Leech (1981:10) said that
this meaning is the most important element of every act of linguistic communication as it can
be shown that it is integral to the essential functioning of language. The main reason why Leech
said so because conceptual meaning has a complex and sophisticated organization of a kind
which may be compared with, and cross-related to similar organization on the syntactic and
phonological levels of language. There are three kinds of principles according to Leech which
seems to be the basic of all linguistic pattern, they are principle of contractiveness, principle of
structure, and principle of linguistic organization.
Contrastive features underlie the classification of sounds in phonology, for example in
any label we apply to a sound defines it positively by what features is possesses, and also by
implication negatively which is the features it does not possess. Thus, the phonetic symbol /b/
may be explicated as representing a bundle of contrastive features + bilabial, + voice, + stop, -
nasal; the assumption for this is the distinction sounds or phonemes of a language are
identifiable in terms of binary, or largely binary, contrasts. In a similar way, the conceptual
meaning of a language can be studied in terms of contrastive features, so that the meaning of
word ‘woman’ could be specified as + HUMAN, - MALE, + ADULT, as distinct from ‘boy’
which could be defined as + HUMAN, + MALE, - ADULT.
The structure principle is the principle by which larger linguistic units are built out of
smaller units, or by which we are able to analyze a sentence syntactically into its constituent
parts, moving from its immediate constituents through a hierarchy of sub division to its ultimate
constituents or smallest syntactic elements. This aspect of the organization of language is often
given visual display in a tree-diagram.
The principle of linguistic organization is any given piece of language structured
simultaneously on more than one level. At least there are three levels which is necessary for a
full account of the linguistic competence they are phonological representation, syntactic
representation, and a semantic representation. Furthermore, the stages by which one level of
representation can be derived from one another. The aim of conceptual semantics is to provide
for any given interpretation of a sentence a configuration of abstract symbols which is it
‘semantic representation’ and which shows exactly what we need to know if we are to
distinguished the meaning from all other possible sentence meanings in language and to match
that meaning with the right syntactical and phonological expression.

From this picture it can be seen that the ability to match levels operated in one direction
(A-B-C) occurred when we are decoding (listening to a sentence and interpreting it), and the
opposite direction (C-B-A) when we are encoding (composing and speaking a sentence). Thus,
from this account it will be clear that conceptual meaning is an inextricable and essential part
of what language is, such that one can scarcely define language without referring to it, and a
‘language’ which communicated solely by means of expletive words like Oh! AH! Oho! Alas!
And Tally ho! Would not be language at all.

B. Connotative Meaning
Connotative meaning is the communicative value an expression has by virtue of what
it refers to, over, and above its purely conceptual context. However, most of the time he notion
of “reference” overlaps with conceptual meaning. For example, if the word woman is defined
conceptually by three features (+ HUMAN, - MALE, + ADULT), then the three properties
‘human’, ‘adult’, and ‘male’ must provide a criterion of the correct use of that word. These
contrastive features, translated into ‘real word’ terms become attributes of the referent of
woman to possess. They include not only physical characteristic such as having a womb, but
also psychological and social properties such as maternal instinct, and may extend to features
which are merely typical rather than invariable accompanied the womanhood features (capable
of speech, experienced in cookery, skirt or dress wearing).
Furthermore, connotative meaning can also embrace the ‘putative properties’ or
common properties of the referent due to the viewpoint adopted by an individual or a group of
people or a whole society. In the past woman has been burdened with such attributes namely
frail, prone to tears, cowardly, emotional, irrational, and inconstant. Moreover, the dominant
male has been pleased to impose on the woman, with more becoming qualities such as gentle,
compassionate, sensitive, and hard-working. From this it can be seen that connotation are
changed from age to age and society to society. The evidence for it that in the past ‘non-trouser
wearing’ was the connotative for woman. Not only connotative vary through age to age and
society to society but also to some extent vary from individual to individual within the same
speech community.
In addition, connotative meaning is not specific to language, but is shared by other
communicative systems such as visual art and music. It is also relatively stable which means it
vary considerably according to culture, historical period, and the experience of the individual.
This means that connotative meaning is indeterminate and open ended in a sense in which
conceptual meaning is not, it is open ended in the same way as our knowledge and belief about
the universe are open ended because it is not static and changed throughout the age and society.
Thus, to sum it up when we are talking about connotation we are talking about the ‘real world’
experience one associates with an expression when one uses or hear it.

C. Social Meaning
Social meaning is a piece of language that convey about the social circumstances of its
use. In part, we decode the social meaning of a text through our recognition of different
dimensions and levels of style within the same language. We recognize some words or
pronunciations as being dialectal, i.e. telling us something about the geographical or social
origin of the speaker; other features of language tell us something about of the social
relationship between the speaker and hearer.
Crystal and Davy cited in Leech (1981:14) recognized the following dimension of
socio-stylistic variation (Leech added examples of the categories of usage which would help
people to distinguish each dimension)
Variation according to:
Dialect (The language of a geographical region or of a social class)
Time (The language of eighteenth century, etc.)
Province (Language of law, science, advertising, etc.
Status (Polite, colloquial, slang, etc.)
Modality (Language of memoranda, lectures, joke, etc.)
Singularity: (The styles of Dickens, Hemingway, etc.)
This list indicates something of the range of style differentiation possible within a single
language. It is not surprising, perhaps that we rarely find words which have both the same
conceptual meaning and the same stylistic meaning. This observation led people to declare that
‘true synonyms do not exist’. Moreover, the style dimension of ‘status’ is particularly important
in distinguishing synonymous expression. For example:
(1) They chucked a stone at the cops, and then did a bunk with the loot.
(2) After casting a stone at the police, they absconded with the money.
From this example, we can see that sentence (1) could be said by two criminals that talked
about the afterwards of the crime, whereas sentence (2) might be said by the chief inspector in
making his official report. Both describe the same thing, yet the status whom utter the sentence
make the meaning differ as in their common ground of conceptual meaning is evident in the
difficulty anyone would have in assenting to the truth of one of these sentences and denying
the truth of the other. In more local sense, social meaning can include what has been called the
illocutionary force of an utterance, for example whether it is to be interpreted as a request, and
assertion, an apology, a threat, etc. The function of utterance perform in this respect may only
be indirectly related to its conceptual meaning. The sentence I haven’t got a knife has the form
and meaning of an assertion, and yet in social reality if said to the waiter in a restaurant it can
readily take on the force of request such as ‘please bring me a knife’.

D. Affective Meaning
Affective meaning is the sort of meaning which is often explicitly conveyed through
the conceptual or connotative content of the words used. Someone who is addressed “You are
a vicious tyrant and a villainous reprobate, and I hate you for it!” is left in little doubt as to the
feelings of the speaker towards him. But there are less direct ways of disclosing our attitude
than this; for example, by scaling our remarks according to politeness. With the object of
getting people to be quiet, we might say either:
(1) I am terribly sorry to interrupt, but I wonder if you would be so kind as to lower
your voices a little.
(2) Will you belt up.
Factors such as intonation and voice timbre (tone of voice) are also important here. The
impression of politeness in (1) can be reversed by a tone of biting sarcasm; and sentence (2)
can be turned into a playful remark between intimates if delivered with the intonation of a mild
request.
Affective meaning is largely a parasitic category in the sense that to express our
emotions we rely upon the mediation of other categories of meaning (conceptual, connotative,
or stylistic). Emotional expression through style comes about when we adopt an impolite tone
to express displeasure (as in sentence 2), or when we adopt a casual tone to express friendliness.
On the other hand, there are elements of language (mainly interjections such as like, Aha! and
Yippee!) whose main function is to express emotion and attitudes without the mediation of any
other kind of semantic function.

E. Reflected Meaning
Reflected meaning is the meaning which arises in cases of multiple conceptual
meaning, when one sense of a word forms part of our response to another sense. On hearing a
church service, the synonymous expression of The Comforter and The Holy Ghost, both
referring to the Third Person of the Trinity, however these terms conditioned with everyday
non-religious meanings of comforts and ghost. Thus, one sense of a word seems to rub off on
another sense in this way only when it has dominant suggestive power either through relative
frequency and familiarity or through strength of its associations. Only in poetry, which invites
a heightened sensitivity to language in all respects do we find reflected meaning operating in
less obvious favorable circumstances.
The case where reflected meaning intrudes through the sheer strength of emotive
suggestion is most strikingly illustrated by words which have a taboo meaning since their
popularization in senses connected with the physiology of sex, it has become increasingly
difficult to use terms like intercourse, ejaculation, and erection in ‘innocent’ senses without
conjuring up sexual associations.
F. Collocative Meaning
Collocative meaning consists of the associations a word acquires on account of the
meanings of words which tend to occur in its environment. Pretty and handsome share common
ground in the meaning ‘good-looking’; but may be distinguished by the range of nouns with
which they are likely to co-occur or to use the linguist terms collocate.

This, range may overlap each other: handsome woman and pretty woman are both
acceptable, although they suggest a different kind of attractiveness because of the collocative
associations of the two adjectives. Further examples are quasi-synonymous verbs such as
wander and stroll (cows may wonder, but may not stroll) or tremble and quiver (one trembles
with fear, but quiver with excitement). To sum it up, it can be said that collocative meaning is
simply an idiosyncratic of individual words.

G. Thematic Meaning
Thematic meaning is what is communicated by the way in which a speaker or writer
organized the message, in terms of ordering, focus, and emphasis. It is often felt, for example,
that an active sentence such as (1) has a different meaning from its passive equivalent (2)
although in conceptional content they seem to be the same
(1) Mrs. Bessie Smith donated the first prize
(2) The first prize was donated by Mrs. Bessie Smith.
It can be seen clearly that both sentences have different communicative values in that
they suggest different contexts. The active sentence seems to answer an implicit question
“What did Mrs. Bessie Smith donate?”, while the passive sentence seems to answer an implicit
question “Who donated the first prize”. The sentence (1) that contrast with sentence (2) suggest
that we know who Mrs. Bessie Smith is. The same truth condition however, apply to each it
would be impossible to find a situation which (1) was an accurate report while (2) was not or
vice versa.
5.3.4 Conversational Implicature
The theory of conversational implicature is proposed by Paul Grice (1975). Jenny
(2013:66) defined conversational implicature as the additional meaning which arise only in
particular context of utterance. Sadock (1978:283) cited in Moeschler give a schema of Grice’s
theory as shown below:

From this scheme it can be seen that Grice divided conversational implicature into two
types: generalized conversational implicature and particularized implicature.
A. Generalized Conversational Implicature
According to Yule (1996:40-41) generalized conversational implicature occurred when
no special background knowledge is required in the context to calculate the additional
conveyed meaning. Moreover, Zhang (2011: 409) defined generalized conversational
implicature as implicature which arise without requiring any particular contextual condition.
For instance:
A: I hope you brought the bread and cheese
B: Ah, I brought the bread. (Yule, 1996:40)
It can be seen from the example above we do not need any particular knowledge to interpret
the additional meaning from that conversation. It can be seen clearly that B for some reason
only brought the bread and thus this shows that B only buy the brought and forgot about the
cheese.
B. Particularized Conversational Implicature
According to Yule (1996:42) particularized conversational implicature occurred when
the conversation takes place in very specific context in which locally recognized inferences are
assumed. It is also the most common implicature that occur in conversation. Moreover, Zhang
(2011:409) also give a definition of particularized conversational maxim as implicature that
arise in particular contextual conditions and require this condition to find out the conveyed
meaning behind the utterance. For instance:
A: Hey, coming to the wild party tonight?
B: My parents are visiting (Yule, 1996:43)
In order to make B’s response relevant, A has to draw on some assumed knowledge that one
college student in this setting expect another to have. B will spend the evening with his parents,
and time spend with parents is quiet, thus B’s are not going to the party.
Furthermore, Zhang (2011:408-409) put the characterized of conversational
implicatures which are proposed by Grice and modified by Leech and Zhang. The
characterization properties are:
1. Defeasibility: Conversational implicatures can simply vanish in certain linguistic or non-
linguistic context. This happened because conversational implicature are cancelled if they are
inconsistent with (i) semantic entailment, (ii) background or ontological assumption, (iii)
context, or (iv) priority conversational implicatures.
2. Nondetachability: Any linguistic expression with the same semantic content tends to carry
the same conversational implicature. A principled exception is those conversation implicatures
that arise via the maxim of Manner. This is because the conversational implicature are attached
to the semantic content, rather than the linguistic form, of what is said. Therefore, they cannot
be detached from an utterance simply by replacing the relevant linguistic expression with their
synonyms.
3. Calculability: Conversational implicatures can transparently be derived via the cooperative
principle and its component maxims.
4. Non-conventionality: Conversational implicatures, though dependent on the saying of what
is coded, are non-coded in nature. In other words, they rely on the saying of what is said but
they are not part of what is said.
5. Reinforceability: Conversational implicatures can be made explicit without producing too
much of a sense of redundancy. This is because conversational implicatures are not part of the
conventional import of utterance.
6. Universality: Conversational implicatures tend to be universal, because they are motivated
rather than arbitrary. For example, if a language has ‘all’ and ‘some’ the use of semantically
weaker ‘some’ will universally carry the conversational implicature ‘not all’
7. Indeterminacy: Some conversational implicatures may be indeterminate. They can be taken
as conveying an open-ended range of implicatures relating to matters in hand.

7. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Grundy, P. (2000). Doing Pragmatics. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Cruse, D. A. (2000). Meaning in Language: An Introduction to Semantics & Pragmatics.
Oxford University Press, New York.
Levinson, S. (1983). Pragmatics. University Press, Cambridge.
Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. Longman, New York.
Marmaridou, S. (2000). Pragmatic Meaning and Cognition. John Benjamin Publishing
Company, Amsterdam.
Verschueren, J & Otsman. (eds.). (2009). Key Notions for Pragmatics. John Benjamins
Publishing Company, Amsterdam.
Moeschler, J. (2005). Conversational and Conventional Implicatures [Internet]. Available
from: <
https://www.academia.edu/10016856/Conversational_and_conventional_implicatures> [15
November 2018].
Huang, Y. (2011). Types of Inference: Entailment, Presupposition, and Implicature. In:
(Bublitz, W & Neal R. Norrick). (eds.) Foundations of Pragmatics. De Gruyter Mouton,
Berlin.
Griffiths, P. (2006). An Introduction to English Semantics & Pragmatics. Edinburgh University
Press, Edinburgh.
Bach, K. (2012). Saying, Meaning, and Implicating. In: (Allan, K, & Jaszczolt, KM). (eds.)
The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Prativi, I. (2012). An Analysis of Implicature: Flouting Maxims in The Novel Entitled Uncle
Tom’s Cabin Written by Harriet Beecher Stowe. (thesis). Sebelas Maret University, Surakarta.
Evitayani, N. (2016). Flouting Maxims in The Movie “How to Train Your Dragon 2”. (thesis).
Udayana University, Denpasar.
Lestari, G. (2017). Flouting of Grice’s Maxims in “The Age of Adaline” Movie. (thesis).
Udayana University, Denpasar.
Brennan, S.E. (2010). Conversation and Dialogue [Internet]. Available from: <
http://www.psychology.sunysb.edu/sbrennan-/papers/ency_2010.pdf> [21 November 2018].
Leech, G. (1981). Semantics: The Study of Meaning Second Edition. Penguin Books,
Middlesex.
Thomas, J. (2013). Meaning in Interaction. Routledge, New York.
Allen, D.E, & Guy, R.F. (1978). Conversation Analysis: The Sociology of Talk. Mouton, The
Hague.
Hutchby, I, & Woofitt, R. (1998). Conversation Analysis: Principles, Practices, and
Applications. Polity Press, Cambridge.
Locke, T. (2004). Critical Discourse Analysis. Cromwell Press, Trowbridge Wiltshire.
Asri, S. 2015. An Analysis of Flouting Maxim in EFL Classroom Interaction. Journal Vision.
Volume 4 number 2, pg. 243-258.