CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND

English is an international language, which is

used to communicate by many people in different

countries. Many scientists define the meaning of

language differently but generally it is stated that

language as a mean of communication. Wardaugh stated

that, “language is a system of arbitrary vocal

symbols by means of which a social group

cooperates”. In other words, the writer considers

that language is an oral system of communication by

conversation. Conversation means that people are

talking with each other, as a form of sociability,

or it can be used to indicate any activities of

interactive talk, independent of its purpose.

Talking about sociability, it means that we are

1

talking about society. At the basis of all

conversational activity is society. Human social

life and work are what necessitate conversation in

the first place and in its turn. It is shaped by

human life and work.

The philosopher Grice introduced the term

conversational implicature. According to Grice,

Speech acts are guided and ensured by four factors,

known as the Cooperative Principle, which Grice

calls maxim. Cooperative Principle is a kind of

tacit agreement by speakers and listeners to

cooperate in communication.

In the extent of this study, the writer will

breakdown the theory of this research under the

title “The Conversational Implicature and its maxim between

two main characters (Andrew and Margaret) in “The Proposal”

movie” as Pragmatic study. In this paper, the writer

discusses conversational implicature in The Proposal,

one of American movie in 2009.

2

The Proposal movie is one of American movie in

2009, the story is about the scandalous life of an

editor book, Margaret (Sandra Bullock), a Canadian,

which is going to be deported due to her expired

visa. Andrew (Ryan Reynolds), her assistant, is a

humble rich American man. She then forces him to

marry her to avoid being deported so that she can

live longer and threaten him if he doesn’t want,

then he will be fired and not promoted to be an

editor. This movie is a mix of comedy, drama and

romance genres.

The reason for choosing this movie for the

purpose of analysis was its comedy genre. From the

author’s perspective before doing the next research,

as it is common in most comedies, one person is

favorably and expectedly to have the most loquacious

character, the participant of conversation will

break at least one cooperative of principle, either

maxim of quantity, maxim of quality, maxim of

3

relation or maxim of manner, to get their purpose

understood. Then, there is a great chance to break

the maxims, that he/she repeatedly either violates

or floats the conversational maxims. Thus, it is

worthwhile to take a close look at conversational

exchanges in this type of movies.

This research is an extended research, which

the previous researches are done by other writers

with the same theory, Cooperative Principle,

introduced by Paul Grice, a pragmatic study and has

been used in the different object.

1.2 SCOPE OF PROBLEM

In this research, the writer narrows the

problem of violation and flouting the maxims only

between two main characters (Andrew and Margaret) in

movie The Proposal. The writer will collect and

analyze the utterances, which break maxim of

quantity, maxim of quality, maxim of relation and

4

maxim of manner. Besides, both of them have the most

loquacious part and the most violation and flouting

maxims. By narrowing the problem, the writer could

be more focus on analyzing the utterances.

1.3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS / STATEMENT OF THE

PROBLEM

In this research, the writer takes some

research questions in order to analyze the data,

namely:

a. What are the meanings implied in the utterances

between the two main characters of “The Proposal”

movie?

b. What are the reasons of breaking the Cooperative

Principle between the two characters?

1.4 OBJECTIVE OF THE RESEARCH

5

The objectives of the study are to find out the

implied meaning uttered between the two main

characters (Andrew and Margaret) in the movie and to

discover the reasons of breaking the Cooperative

Principle between the two characters.

1.5 SIGNIFICANCE

Two significances that the writer expected in

this study, those are theoretical and practical.

Theoretically, this study is expected to increase

our understanding of Conversational Implicature by

giving some instances from the utterances in The

Proposal movie and is aimed to be guidance for

students who are interested in conducting further

researches on Conversational Implicature. Meanwhile,

practically this study can be used as a reference to

increase students’ interest in learning English

language, especialy about Pragmatic study.

1.6 DEFINITION OF TERMS

6

In this research, there are three definitions

of terms to make a scope for this study.

1. Violation of maxims is one from two ways of

breaking the Cooperative Principle. It

intentionally used by the speaker to cause

misunderstanding or to achieve some other

purposes.

2. Flouting the maxims is the second way of

breaking the Cooperative Principle. However,

this is unintentionally done, the speaker

desires the greatest understanding in

his/her recipient because it is expected

that the interlocutor is able to uncover the

hidden meaning behind the utterances.

7

CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 PREVIOUS STUDY

8

In supporting this research, the writer finds

some researches that uses Pragmatic approach in

their study. They are Zeth Tallu Lembang (2005). A

Study of Conversational Implicature in the Play of

“Burried Child” by Sam Shepard, Zainurrahman (2002).

Implicature in the English Conversation, Ary Azhari

(2011). The Conversational Implicature and Its

Maxims in “Oprah Winfrey” Talk Show in Metro TV and

Fitri Syarli (2010). The Violation of Maxims of

Cooperative Principle in “Gossip Girl” TV Series.

In completing this research, the writer consult

with some studies on Pragmatic. These previous

studies are presented on the similar Approach (A

Pragmatic Study). They are from English Department.

The first is Zeth Tallu Lembang (2005), A Study of

Conversational Implicature in the Play of “Burried

Child” by Sam Shepard. He analyses the aspect of

conversational implicatures in the dialogues of Sam

Shepard’s Play, “Buried Child”. He uses

9

conversational principles (maxim). He takes twenty

samples from the population by using the random

sampling technique. The second is Zainurrahman

(2002), Implicature in the English Conversation. He

analyses implicatures in English conversation. He

takes two novels (“A view on the Bridge” and “All My

Son”) as his written data, and Two movies shows

(“Willy Wonka and Chocolate Factory” and “Big

Daddy”) as his primary data. He uses descriptive

method and concentrate with context such as time,

place, and background of people’s knowledge. The

third is Ary Azhari (2011), The Conversational

Implicature and Its Maxims in “Oprah Winfrey” Talk

Show in Metro TV. His purpose of the study is to

elaborate the implied meaning in the utterances of

the speakers in Talk Show “Oprah Winfrey” and

disclose the effect of using Conversational

Implicature and its maxims. He uses descriptive

method as his methodology of analyzing data, which

10

described and explained the meaning of each

utterance (datum) according to the context and

background of conversation. The fourth is Fitri

Syarli (2010), The Violation of Maxims of

Cooperative Principle in “Gossip Girl” TV Series.

The aim of her study is to elaborate the violation

of maxims of cooperative principle by the main

characters, to find out which is the most violated

maxims in the utterance and to discover the reasons

of the violation of maxims.

Some researchers above try to analyze about

Conversational Implicatures in different data. The

first writer (ZethTallu Lembang) analyze it by

taking some datum in the Play (Drama), the second

writer (Zainurrahman) analyze it by taking datum in

the novels and Movie, the third writer (Ary Azhari)

analyze it by taking some datum from English Talk

Show and the fourth writer (Fitri Syarli) analyze it

by taking datum in American TV Series. In this

11

research, the writer will also use different data in

spoken discourse, which will from American movie,

The Proposal. Besides, the writer will use an

approach, namely Pragmatic Study, because this

approach concern to describe how human use language

to communicate and investigate the use of language

in context by a speaker (The relationship between

speaker and the utterance).

2.2 THEORITICAL FRAMEWORK

2.2.1 Gricean Theory

To identifying and classifying the phenomenon

of implicature, Grice developed a theory designed to

explain and predict conversational implicatures. He

also sought to describe how such implicatures are

understood. Grice (1975: 26–30) postulated a general

“Cooperative Principle,” and four “maxims”

specifying how to be cooperative. It is common

12

knowledge, he asserted, that people generally follow

these rules for efficient communication.

Cooperative Principle ccontributes what is

required by the accepted purpose of the

conversation. They are:

a. Maxim of Quality. Make your

contribution true; so do not convey

what you believe false or unjustified.

b. Maxim of Quantity. Be as informative as

required.

c. Maxim of Relation. Be relevant.

d. Maxim of Manner. Be perspicuous; so

avoid obscurity and ambiguity, and

strive for brevity and order.

Grice viewed these rules not as arbitrary

conventions, but as instances of more general rules

governing rational, cooperative behavior. For

example, if a woman is helping a man build a house,

13

she will hand him a hammer rather than a tennis

racket (relevance), more than one nail when several

are needed (quantity), straight nails rather than

bent ones (quality), and she will do all this

quickly and efficiently (manner). (George Yule &

Brown Gillian. 1983, Discourse Analysis).

2.2.2 Pragmatic Theory

Pragmatics is a subfield of linguistics which

studies the ways in which context contributes to

meaning. Pragmatics encompasses speech act theory,

conversational implicature, talk in interaction and

other approaches to language behavior in philosophy,

sociology, and linguistics. It studies how the

transmission of meaning depends not only on the

linguistic knowledge (e.g. grammar, lexicon etc.) of

the speaker and listener, but also on the context of

the utterance, knowledge about the status of those

involved, the inferred intent of the speaker, and so

on. In this respect, pragmatics explains how

14

language users are able to overcome apparent

ambiguity, since meaning relies on the manner,

place, time etc. of an utterance. The ability to

understand another speaker's intended meaning is

called pragmatic competence. An utterance describing

pragmatic function is described as metapragmatic.

(Joan Cuttin 2002, Pragmatics and Discourse).

2.2.3 Violation and Flouting the Maxims

Theory

Violation, according to Grice (1975), takes

place when speakers intentionally refrain to apply

certain maxims in their conversation to cause

misunderstanding on their participants’ part or to

achieve some other purposes. The following are

examples of violation in the four aforementioned

maxims:

Mother: Did you study all day long?

Son who has been playing all day long:

Yes, I‘ve been studying till know!

15

In this exchange, the boy is not truthful and

violates the maxim of quality. He is lies to avoid

unpleasant consequences such as; punishment or to be

forced to study for the rest of the day.

Unlike the violation of maxims, which takes

place to cause misunderstanding on the part of the

listener, the flouting of maxims takes place when

individuals deliberately cease to apply the maxims

to persuade their listeners to infer the hidden

meaning behind the utterances; that is, the speakers

employ implicature (S. C. Levinson, 1983). In the

case of flouting (exploitation) of cooperative

maxims, the speaker desires the greatest

understanding in his/her recipient because it is

expected that the interlocutor is able to uncover

the hidden meaning behind the utterances. People may

flout the maxim of quality so as to deliver

implicitly a sarcastic tone in what they state. As

in:

16

Teacher to a student who arrives late more than

ten minutes to the class meeting:

• Wow! You’re such a punctual fellow! Welcome

to the class.

• Student: Sorry sir! It won’t happen again.

It is obvious from what the teacher says that

he is teasing the student and his purpose is, by no

means, praising him. He exploits the maxim of

quality (being truthful) to be sarcastic. Likewise,

the student seems to notice the purpose behind the

teacher’s compliment and offers an apology in

return.

2.3 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

This research has a framework to describe how

the theory works on the topic. To identifying and

classifying the phenomenon of implicature, Grice

developed a theory designed to explain and predict

conversational implicatures. He also sought to

describe how such implicatures are understood. Grice

17

(1975: 26–30) postulated a general “Cooperative

Principle,” and four “maxims” specifying how to be

cooperative, maxim of quantity, maxim of quality,

maxim of relation and maxim of manner.

In movie The Proposal, the writer finds some

conversations especially between the two main

characters, which violated or flouted the maxims.

The writer will explain the strategy of analyzing

datum to know the violation or flouting the maxims,

as follows :

18

The utterances

Cooperative principle

~ Maxim of quantity ~ Maximof relation

~ Maxim of quality ~ Maxim of

Violation ofmaxims

Flouting ofmaxims

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

3.1 RESEARCH METHOD

In this study, the writer applies descriptive-

qualitative research method. The data is taken in

19

The reason of breakingthe cooperative

principle

written form and conversational implicature uttered

between two characters in The Proposal movie. The

source of data is from the movie entitled The

Proposal and the supporting data is knowledge and

comprehension of the writer as the researcher and

theories related with this study.

In method of collecting data, the writer uses

“recording technique” (teknik sadap) as the basic

technique, the first continuing technique is “non

participant observing technique” (teknik simak bebas

libat cakap), and continued by “noting technique”

(teknik catat). Meanwhile, the writer uses

contextual research in analyzing data and uses the

theory of conversational implicature generated by

four maxims. Those are maxim of quantity, maxim of

quality, maxim of relation and maxim of manner.

3.2 INSTRUMENT

20

In this study, the writer uses books, pen and

personal computer from collecting data, identifying

data until analyzing data.

3.2.1 LIBRARY RESEARCH

In this research, the writer tries to collect

some references about Implicature theory and its

conversational principles (maxims) in Pragmatic

subject by reading some books, journals and

articles.

3.2.2 SOURCE OF DATA

The source of data in this study consist of two

types of data; primary source and secondary source.

a. The primary source of data in this research

is movie “The Proposal” 2009 by Anne Fletcher

b. The secondary source of data is obtained

from the other connected data that support

this research.

21

The data is collected naturally by observing

the conversation of the movie to find out the

implication and the maxim in the conversation and to

discover the reasons of breaking the Cooperative

Principle.

3.3 POPULATION AND SAMPLE

3.3.1 Population

In this research, the population is taken from

the full movie of The Proposal. The main problem in

using implicatures in the conversation related to

the topic.

3.3.2 Sample

The writer took 21 of conversation units from

the full movie of The Proposal between two main

characters (Andrew and Margaret) which contains of

some utterances as instances of this research.

22

3.4 TECHNIQUE OF COLLECTING DATA

In this research, the writer uses “Note-Taking”

as a technique by observing the conversation from

the full movie of The Proposal to finds out the

implication and the maxim in the conversation and to

discover the reasons of breaking the Cooperative

Principle. The writer plays role as an observer.

3.5 TECHNIQUE OF ANALYZING DATA

In this research, the writer used the

descriptive method in order to interpret the meaning

implied in the conversation. There are some steps in

analyzing and identifying the data, as follows :

a. Watch and Listen the movie of The Proposal.

b. Identify the utterances which used between

two main characters.

c. Make some notes of the identified data

related to the implicature theory.

d. Analyze the maxims in the conversation.

23

3.5.1 Example

a. Violation of maxims

Margaret : On to another question. Let me see, let me see. Oh,

here's one. Whose place do we stay at, yours or mine? That's easy.

Mine.

Andrew : And why wouldn't we stay at mine?

Margaret : Because I live at Central Park West. And you probably

live at some squalid little studio apartment with stacks of yellowed

Penguin Classics. (quality, she utters that she doesn’t have enough

evidence for)

The story is that Andrew and Margaret have to

know the answers about the life of each other, so

Margaret finds one question about where place they

will stay at, and Margaret answers at her place.

Andrew asks her why not at his place and Margaret says

that she lives at a good place while Andrew not.

Margaret here infringing maxims of quality by saying

24

the thing she doesn’t have evidence for. She said that

Andrew lives at a small place than hers, but she

doesn’t know that Andrew has a big wide house.

b. Flouting of maxims

Andrew : Morning. Miss Tate's office. Hey, Bob. Actually, we're

headed to your office right now. Yeah. Why are we headed to Bob's

office?

Margaret : (winking)

Andrew : return her winking

As we see the conversation above, the story is

that Andrew gets phone from Bob and Margaret gives

Andrew a code which means that they’re headed to Bob’s

office. So, Andrew asks her why they’re headed to

Bob’s office and finds no answer from Margaret but her

winking. By this scene, we can see Margaret disobeys

maxims of quantity and maxims of manner at the same

time. She infringing maxims of quantity by giving less

informative answer for Andrew and her winking to

Andrew is ambiguity that makes her disobeys maxims of

25

manner. Likewise, Andrew seems to notice the purpose

of Margaret’s winking, then return her by winking as

well.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

26

Ary Azhari. 2011. The Conversational Implicature and Its Maxims inOprah Winfrey Talk Show in Metro TV. Unpublished Thesis. Makassar: Hasanuddin University.

Fitri Syarli. 2010. The Violation of Maxims of CooperativePrinciple in Gossip Girl TV Series. Unpublished Thesis. Padang:Andalas University.

The Proposal Movie

Parvaneh Khosravizadeh and Nikan Sadehvandi. 2011.Some Instances of Violation and Flouting of the Maxim of Quantity by theMain Characters (Barry & Tim) in Dinner for Schmucks. Languages andLinguistics, Sharif University of Technology

Ramiro Nieto Alvaro. 2011. The Role of ConversationalMaxims, Implicature and Presupposition in the Creationof Humor: An Analysis of Woody Allen’s Anything Else

https://sites.google.com/a/sheffield.ac.uk/all-about

linguistics/branches/pragmatics/example-research-

conversational-implicature-and-maxims

27

APPENDIX

(Datum 1)

Margaret : Did you call... What's her name? The one with the ugly hands.

Andrew : Janet.

Margaret : Yes, Janet.

Andrew : Yes. I did. I told her that if she doesn't get her manuscript in on

time you won't give her a release date. Your immigration lawyer called. He

said it's imperative...

Margaret : Cancel the call, push the meeting to tomorrow, keep the lawyer

on the sheets. Get a hold of PR, have them start drafting a press release.

Frank is doing Oprah.

Andrew : Wow. Nicely done.

Margaret : If I want your praise, I will ask for it.

(Datum 2)

Margaret : So, you drink unsweetened cinnamon light soy lattes?

Andrew : I do. It's like Christmas in a cup.

Margaret : Is that a coincidence?

Andrew : Incredibly, it is. I mean I wouldn't possibly drink the same coffee

that you drink just in case yours spilled. That would be pathetic.

28

(Datum 3)

Andrew : Morning. Miss Tate's office. Hey, Bob. Actually, we're headed to

your office right now. Yeah. Why are we headed to Bob's office?

Margaret : (winking)

Andrew : return her winking

(Datum 4)

Andrew : Can I say something?

Margaret : No.

Andrew : I've read thousands of manuscripts, this is the only one I've given

you. There's an incredible novel in there. The kind of novel you used to

publish.

(Datum 5)

Margaret : I need you this weekend to help review his files and his

manuscript.

Andrew : This weekend?

Margaret : You have a problem with that?

Andrew : No. I... just my grandmother's 90th birthday, so I was gonna go

home and...

It's fine. I'll cancel it. You're saving me from a weekend of misery, so it's...

Good talk, yeah. (pragmatic)

29

(Datum 6)

Margaret : Was that your family?

Andrew : Yes.

Margaret : They tell you to quit?

Andrew : Every single day.

(Datum 7)

Andrew : Margaret.

Margaret : Yes?

Andrew : I'm not gonna marry you.

Margaret : Sure you are. Because if you don't, your dreams of touching

the lives of millions with the written word are dead. Bob is gonna fire you

the second I'm gone. Guaranteed. That means you're out on the street

looking for a job. That means the time that we spent together, the lattes,

the cancelled dates, the midnight Tampax runs, were all for nothing and

all your dreams of being an editor are gone. Don't worry, after the

required allotment of time, we'll get a divorce and you'll be done with me.

But until then, like it or not, your wagon is hitched to mine. OK? Phone.

(Datum 8)

Margaret : OK... so, what's gonna happen is we will go up there. We'll

pretend we're boyfriend and girlfriend, tell your parents we're engaged.

Use the miles for the tickets. I guess I will pop for you to fly first class. But

make sure you use the miles. If we don't get the miles, we're not doing it.

Please confirm the vegan meal. 'Cause last time they actually gave it to a

30

vegan, and they forced me to eat this clammy, warm, creamy salad thing,

which was... Hey, I'm... Why aren't you taking notes?

Andrew : I'm sorry, were you not in that room?

Margaret : What? What? The thing you said about being promoted?

Genius! Genius. He completely fell for it.

Andrew : I was serious. I'm looking at a $250,000 fine and five years in jail.

That changes things.

Margaret : Promote you to editor? No, no way.

Andrew : Then I quit, and you're screwed. Bye-bye, Margaret.

(Datum 9)

Margaret : Will you marry me?

Andrew : No. Say it like you mean it.

Margaret : Andrew?

Andrew : Yes, Margaret?

Margaret : Sweet Andrew?

Andrew : I'm listening.

Margaret : Would you please, with cherries on top, marry me?

Andrew : OK. I don't appreciate the sarcasm, but I'll do it.

(Datum 10)

Margaret : you know all the answers to these questions about me?

Andrew : Scary, isn't it?

Margaret : A little bit. What am I allergic to?

Andrew : Pine nuts. And the full spectrum of human emotion.

Margaret : Oh, that's... that was funny.

31

(Datum 11)

Margaret : On to another question. Let me see, let me see. Oh, here's one.

Whose place do we stay at, yours or mine? That's easy. Mine.

Andrew : And why wouldn't we stay at mine?

Margaret : Because I live at Central Park West. And you probably live at

some squalid little studio apartment with stacks of yellowed Penguin

Classics. (quality, she utters that she doesn’t have enough evidence for)

(Datum 12)

Andrew : Just gonna give you a little hand here.

Margaret : Hand off ass! Off ass!

Andrew : There you go. You're there. Congratulations. I'm a hundred years

old now.

(Datum 13)

Margaret : That is your home? Who are you people? -Why did you tell me

you were poor?

Andrew : I never said I was poor.

Margaret : But you never told me you were rich.

Andrew : I'm not rich. My parents are rich.

(Datum 14)

32

Margaret : Why didn't you tell me you were some kind of Alaskan

Kennedy?

Andrew : How could I? We were in the middle of talking about you for the

last three years.

(Datum 15)

Margaret : So, you haven't been home in a while.

Andrew : I haven't had a lot of vacation time the last three years.

(Datum 16)

Andrew : Those are the pyjamas you decided to bring to Alaska.

Margaret : Yes, because I was supposed to be in a hotel alone. Remember?

Andrew : Can we just go to sleep?

(Datum 17)

Andrew : What the hell are you doing?

Margaret : Oh, my God. Your grandmother was completely right. The

eagle came and tried to take the dog. But then I saved him. Then it came

back, and it took my phone.

Andrew : Are you drunk?

Margaret : What? No! I'm serious. He's got my phone, and Frank's calling

me on it.

33

(Datum 18)

Margaret : So, what's the deal with you and your father?

Andrew : I'm sorry. That question is not in the binder.

Margaret : Oh, really? Well, I thought you were the one that said -we

needed to learn all this...

Andrew : Not about that, I didn't.

Margaret : But if the guy asks...

Andrew : Not about that, Margaret. Good night.

(Datum 19)

Andrew : Are you wearing makeup?

Margaret : What? No. Of course not.

(Datum 20)

Andrew : What's wrong?

Margaret : Nothing! Just stop talking, please!

Andrew : Would you mind telling me what's happening now? Margaret.

Margaret!

Margaret : I forgot, OK?

Andrew : You forgot what?

Margaret : I forgot what it was like to have a family! I've been on my own

since I was and I forgot what it felt like to have people love you and make

you breakfast and say, "Hey! We'd love to come down for the holidays."

And I say, "Well, why don't we come up and see you instead?" And give you

34

necklaces! And you have all that here, and you have Gertrude, and I'm just

screwing it up!

(Datum 21)

Margaret : Why are, why are you panting?

Andrew : Because I've been running.

Margaret : Really. From Alaska?

Andrew : I need to talk to you.

35