Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
i
A DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS OF MAXIMS OF COOPERATIVE
PRINCIPLE IN THE TEACHER-STUDENTS INTERACTION
IN ENGLISH TEACHING AND LEARNING PROCESS
IN SMK BATIK I SURAKARTA ACADEMIC
YEAR 2017/ 2018
THESIS
Submitted as A partial Requirements
For the degree of Undergraduate in English Language Education
By:
HANIFAH NUR FARIDA
SRN. 13.322.1.303
ENGLISH EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF ISLAMIC EDUCATION AND TEACHER TRAINING
STATE ISLAMIC INSTITUTE OF SURAKARTA
2018
ii
iii
iv
DEDICATION
1. Allah SWT and Prophet Muhammad SAW.
2. My parents (Mr. Agus Sugiyatno and Mrs. Anni Arti, S.Pd)
3. My brother (Taufiq Ramadhan)
4. My sister (Nada Nurul Khasanah)
5. Big families of Joyful Class 2013
6. Almamater IAIN Surakata
v
MOTTO
“Indeed with hardshipp will be easy.”
(Q.S. Al-Insyirah 6)
“Allah will exalt those who believe among you and those who were given
knowledge.”
(Q.S. Al-Mujadilah 58:11)
“The greatest glory in living lies not in never falling, but in rising every time
we fall”
(Nelson Mandela)
vi
vii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Alhamdulillah, all praises be to Allah, the single power, the Lord of
the universe, master of the day of judgment, God almighty, all blessings and
mercies so the researcher was able to finish this thesis entitled “A
Descriptive Analysis of Maxims of Cooperative Principle in the Teacher-
Students Interaction in Teaching Learning Process in SMK Batik 1
Surakarta Academic Year 2017/2018”. Peace be upon Prophet Muhammad
SAW, the great leader and good inspiration of world revolution.
The researcher is sure that this thesis would not be completed
without the helps, supports, and suggestions from several sides. Thus, the
researcher would like to express her deepest thanks to all of those who had
helped, supported, and suggested her during the process of writing this
thesis. This goes to:
1. Dr. H. Mudhofir, S.Ag.,M.Pd., the Rector of the State Islamic Institute of
Surakarta.
2. Dr. H. Giyoto, M.Hum., the Dean of Islamic Education and Teacher
Training Faculty in the State Islamic Institute of Surakarta.
3. Dr. Imroatus Solikhah, M.Pd., the Head of English Education Department in
the State Islamic Institute of Surakarta.
4. Kurniawan, M.Hum., as the consultant for his guidance, precious advices,
and motivation for the researcher, also help to revise the mistake during the
entire process of writing this thesis.
5. All the lecturers of English Education Program and Teacher Training
Faculty in the State Islamic Institute of Surakarta.
6. Drs.Yusuf the Headmaster of SMK Batik 1 Surakarta who had permitted to
carry out the research at SMK Batik 1 Surakarta.
7. Mr. Mukmin, S.Pd., M.Pd as an English teacher in the eleventh grade of
SMK Batik 1 Surakarta, thank you for help and support the researcher to
finish the thesis.
viii
8. Students in SMK Batik 1 Surakarta, especially in XI Secretary Program
class, thank you for your contribution.
9. My families (Mr. Agus Sugiyatno and Mrs. Anni Arti, S.Pd my parents),
(Taufiq Ramadhan, my brother), (Nada Nurul Khasanah, my sister), special
thank you to all of you who gave your prayer, support and spirit for the
researcher to finish this thesis.
10. My besties (Annisa, Herlina, Hesti, Anis, Syaifudin) who always help me
and accompany me. I will always remember you all, thanks for everlasting
motivation and spirit.
11. My crazy friend (Cnc, Datik, Ipan, Habol, Apgan, Dani, Ry) Who always
besides me and make me happy. I will always love you all and thanks for
motivation and suport.
12. Big families of Joyful class 2013 whose names cannot be mentioned one by
one, thank you for being my best friends in happiness and sadness.
13. Almamater IAIN Surakarta.
The researcher realizes that this thesis is still far from being perfect.
The researcher hopes that this thesis is useful for the researcher in particular
and the readers in general.
Surakarta, 25 May 2018
The Researcher
Hanifah Nur Farida
SRN. 13.322.1.303
ix
TABLE OF CONTENT
TITLE PAGE ............................................................................................ i
ADVISOR SHEET ......................................................................................... ii
RATIFICATION ................................................................................................ iii
DEDICATION ................................................................................................... iv
MOTTO ............................................................................................................. v
PRONOUNCEMENT ........................................................................................ vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ............................................................................. viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................... ix
ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................... xii
LIST OF APPENDICES ................................................................................ xiii
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
A. Background of the Study ........................................................................... 1
B. Limitation of the Study ............................................................................ 8
C. Problem Statement ................................................................................... 8
D. Objectives of the Study ............................................................................ 8
E. Benefit of the Study ................................................................................. 9
F. Definition of Terms .................................................................................. 11
CHAPTER II THEORITICAL REVIEW
A. Theoritical Description ............................................................................. 12
1. Teaching and Learning ....................................................................... 12
2. Teaching English as a Foreign Language .......................................... 15
B. Classroom Interaction ................................................................................ 16
C. The Notion of Pragmatics ......................................................................... 18
D. Speech Act ................................................................................................ 20
1. Austin‟s Speech Acts Classification ................................................... 21
a. Locutionary Acts ........................................................................ 22
b. Illocutionary Acts ....................................................................... 22
c. Perlocutionary Acts ..................................................................... 23
2. Searle‟s Speech Acts Classification .................................................... 24
a. Representatives ........................................................................... 24
b. Directives .................................................................................... 24
c. Commissives ................................................................................ 25
d. Expressive … ............................................................................... 25
x
e. Declarations ................................................................................ 26
3. Felicity Condition .............................................................................. 27
4. Context ............................................................................................... 28
E. Coorperative Principle .............................................................................. 31
1. Observance Maxims of Cooperative Principle .................................. 31
a. Maxims of Quantity .................................................................... 32
b. Maxims of Quality ..................................................................... 33
c. Maxims of Relation .................................................................... 34
d. Maxims of Manner ..................................................................... 35
2. Non Observance Maxims of Cooperative Principle .......................... 35
a. Flouting Maxims of Quantity ..................................................... 37
b. Flouting Maxims of Quality ...................................................... 38
c. Flouting Maxims of Relation ...................................................... 38
d. Flouting Maxims of Manner ....................................................... 38
F. Implicature ............................................................................................... 39
G. Review of Related of Research Study ...................................................... 40
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
A. Research Type and Design ....................................................................... 44
B. Location and and Time ............................................................................. 46
C. Subject of Informant of the Research ....................................................... 47
D. Source of Data .......................................................................................... 47
E. Techniques of Data Collection ................................................................ 48
F. Techniques of Data Analysis .................................................................... 50
G. The Trustworthiness of Data ..................................................................... 51
CHAPTER IV RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
A. Findings .................................................................................................... 53
B. Data Analysis ............................................................................................ 63
1. The Cooperative Principle of Maxim occur in the interaction
of teacher-students in English teaching and learning
process ............................................................................................... 64
2. The types of flouting maxims occur in the interaction of
teacher-students in English teaching and learning process ................ 69
3. The kinds of implicature occur in the interaction of teacher-
students in English teaching and learning process ............................. 75
4. The reason of speaker used flouting maxims in the interaction
of teacher-students in English teaching and learning
process ............................................................................................... 77
xi
C. Discussion ................................................................................................. 83
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
A. Conclusions .............................................................................................. 90
B. Suggertion ................................................................................................. 92
BIBLIOGRAPHY
APPENDICES
xii
ABSTRACT
Hanifah Nur Farida, 2013. A Descriptive Analysis of Maxims of Cooperative Principle in
the Teacher-Students Interaction in Teaching Learning Process in SMK Batik 1
Surakarta Academic Year 2017/2018 . Thesis. English Education Study Program, Islamic
Education and Teacher Training Faculty.
Advisor : Kurniawan, M.Hum.
Key-Words: Maxims, Cooperative Principles, Teacher-Students interaction
The background of this research is to describe the use of cooperative
principles applied in classroom context. Conversation not only depends on the speaker
who delivers information, but also to the listener who draws a conclusion or making
inference from the speaker‟s utterance. In order to make successful conversation, the
speaker and listener have to consider use of cooperative principles in their utterances.
The aim of this research was to describe the types of cooperative principles
that used in English teaching and learning process of SMK Batik I Surakarta. This
research employs descriptive qualitative research. The techniques of data collection
applied in this research are observation and documentation. The data analysis in this
research consists of data reduction, data display, and drawing conclusion of
verifications (Miles and Huberman, 1984: 21-23). The researcher used triangulations
as a trustworthiness of the data.
Based on the findings, the total utterances of observance on Gricean
Maxims produced by teachers and students were 51 utterances. In quantity
maxims, generally both of teacher and students gave a contribution as informative
as required in classroom interaction. The amount of information influenced the
success of teaching and learning process. Based on the data findings, maxim of
quantity which frequently occur in the English teaching and learning process.
There are 20 (39,3%) data of 51 observance on Gricean Maxims consider as
maxim of quantity. Then, maxim of quality also occurs during the English
teaching and learning process. There are 15 (29,5%) data of 51 observance on
Gricean Maxims consider as maxim of quality found in the interaction of teacher
and students. The rest are maxim of relation and maxim of manner. There are 7
(13,8%) data of 51 observance on Gricean Maxims included in this type, and
becomes the least type of maxim occur in the English teaching and learning
process. Moreover, maxim of manner occur at 9 (17,7%) data. Meanwhile, Based
on the finding of types flouting maxims, most of flouting is occurred in flouting
maxim of quality 18 (30%) and quantity 24 (40%). The highest reason for flouting the
maxims collaborative 35 data (58,33%), and the lowest is convivial which is 3 data
(5%)
To conclude, the uses of cooperative principles were found when the teachers
conveyed the material clearly, truly, relevantly, and orderly to the students.
xiii
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix 01. Data Tabulation ...............................................................
Appendix 02. Data Validation ................................................................
Appendix 04. Photographs ......................................................................
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
A. Background of the Study
In our daily communication, we exchange our idea realized by
feeling or information in form of written or spoken form with our
interlocutor. In spoken communication, utterances that we exchange should
be meaningful so that the communication can be successful and run
smoothly. Each utterance created by particular speaker can contain utterance
or speaker meaning and sentence meaning. Utterance meaning is what
speaker means or what speaker implies when he or she uses a string of
language. On the other hand, sentence meaning is what a sentence itself
means. It deals with literal or lexical meaning. Utterance meaning will be
the starting point when we want to talk about implicature. (Hurford, et.al,
2007)
Concerning on the statement above, the speaker‟s utterance needs to
be interpreted by people. It is so called as conversational implicature in
pragmatics area. Grice implies that conversational implicature can be
defined as “A different pragmatic meaning of an utterance with respect to
the literal meaning expressed by utterance” (Jacob L. Mey, 1998: 371).
Furthermore, it can be seen that in conversational implicature, the hearer
remarkably constructs the assumption that one of the conversational
maxims, relevance, informativeness, or clarity is not violated by the speaker.
1
2
Contextual factor needs to be taken into account when people want
to understand about Conversational implicature. Grice, (1975) as cited in
Bouton (1994), propose that in order to deduce conversational implicatures
precisely, the speaker and the hearer must share knowledge which include
the utterance from which the implicature is to be interpreted; the roles and
expectations of the participants in a conversation; the context of the
conversation; and the world around them connected to their interaction.
According to Jung (2002), the process involving inferring is based on a set
of rational and the Cooperative Principle, which all participants in the
conversation are expected to observe for successful communication. Lee
(2002) states that presuming that a speaker in a conversation is being
cooperative; an inferential process is then completed based on shared
cultural knowledge and presuppositions to enter at an interpretation of the
speaker‟s proposed meaning. In order to understand of more than what is
said, apart from knowledge of grammar and lexical meaning or semantics,
Taguchi (2005) points out that other contextual knowledge such as
schemata, cultural background, or knowledge of the world must be supplied,
as well. There has been an abundance of research on conversational
implicatures on various filed or subject. The present study tried to broaden
the area of the study particularly conversation principle on EFL area
especially in Indonesia EFL context. Conversational implicatures have
different types and some types may be particularly difficult or easy for EFL
students to understand (Boersma, 1994). This paper focuses on the
3
identifying different types of conversational implicatures especially flouting
maxim found in EFL classroom interaction.
In this globalization era, almost all of the learning institutions in
Indonesia teach English as foreign language (EFL) to their students. TEFL
is the teaching of English as a foreign language which can take place in any
country, English-speaking or non-English speaking like in Indonesia. It is
not surprising that EFL is also taught in the kindergarten students. People
believed that English is a language with great reach and influence so it is
taught all over the world under many different circumstances. The
motivation behind the move towards teaching EFL is first and foremost to
improve the local students‟ English language competence as mastery in the
language is an asset in seeking employment in the globalised economic
world. In addition, the vast amount of information is currently available in
English. Thus, it is hoped that the availability of English and more exposure
to the language in the classroom can contribute to the students‟ English
language competence, which is the key to access information in a variety of
fields and also to facilitate the acquisition of knowledge.
Since English has been regarding as a foreign language in Indonesia,
the English teaching and learning interaction is one element that should
exists in the teaching and learning process. In the teaching and learning
process, interaction not only talks about the communication between the
students and the teacher or one student with others, but also talks about the
communication between students and the whole elements in the class, such
4
as the material or textbook and also the environment. If the interaction in the
language teaching and learning process was created by the classroom‟s
participants; in this case the teacher and also the students, the goal of
language teaching and learning process could be reached. Interaction in
teaching and learning language plays a crucial role. It offers students
opportunities to orally produce, to engage in negotiation, and to receive
negative feedback. It is very important to create an interaction in language
teaching and learning class. Even though interaction in language teaching
and learning hold an important role, in Indonesia it is still common that in
the class, the teacher only focuses on the grammar or how the students can
write well and also how to answer the exam correctly. It seems that how to
speak is not really important. As the result, it is very difficult for the
students to speak up in the class by using English. Speak up in English is
something new for them. They feel shy to use it. When the teacher tries to
build an interaction with students using English, the class atmosphere will
change dramatically. It becomes one way communication. Teacher
dominates the class interaction and the students just keep silent. It can be
seen in the following utterances:
Situation : The teacher is asking one of student by using English before the
class begins. It happened after the second break
Teacher : “Why are you so late?”
Student : “Itu Mr….dari kamar mandi, Maaf Mr.”
(Taken from the preliminary observation on September 2017)
Based on the above utterances, it can be clearly see that the English
teacher has tried to communicate with the student by using English,
5
however, the student did not want to answer the teacher by using English. It
can be inferred that the student does not know how to answer the teacher
question in English or afraid and shy to speak in English with the teacher.
Interaction is a way for students to practice their English competence
and for teacher; it is a way to check and also to control students‟ English
competence. In SMK Batik I Surakarta, a vocational school in Surakarta
which has a bilingual class, the interaction does not happen in a good way.
The students have a good competence in English, but they are still afraid or
do not want to express their idea in the class using English. The English
teacher has a good competence in English and a good personal touch with
the students. Based on this fact, the researcher wanted to investigate the
classroom interaction between the students and the teacher in the English
teaching and learning context in SMK Batik I Surakarta.
Based on the observation done by the researcher during the academic
year 2017-2018, the students of SMK Batik I Surakarta had a high
motivation and interest in learning English. It is showed by their attitudes in
the classroom during the teaching and learning process. They were eager in
doing tasks, especially in the written form and they also have many
questions to the teacher related to the material. Even though they had high
motivation and interest in English, unfortunately they expressed it in the
mother tongue that is in Bahasa Indonesia. There are many factors that
influenced them. The first factor comes from the students‟ characteristics. It
is based on the students‟ environment or their social background. Most of
6
the students of SMK Batik I Surakarta are Javanese. They live in the
neighborhood which uses Javanese as their mother tongue. English is
something new for them and even for their neighborhood. According to
Putra, 2015, an English Instructor at Collaborative Research Center,
“Students are obligated to learn English starting from junior high school up
to senior high school which is estimated at 6 years of studying in normal
phase”. As a matter of fact, spending a large amount of time in English
lesson is not a guarantee to achieve this enhanced communication skill.
Schools concentrate English more on subject rather than on proficiency
level which shows a failure in language solely purpose. High score obtained
in semester report means that students are able to comprehend English
merely in theory.
Moreover, students do not used to use English in their daily life. It is
a quirk if they use English in the neighborhood or if they play to many
songs or movies in English. Even though they have a good competence in
English they did not use it or get familiar with it, so it is very difficult for
them to get used with it. The second factor comes from the teacher‟s side
that is the teacher talk. Teacher talk is a language which is used by a teacher
to communicate with students in the class. The English teacher of SMK
Batik I Surakarta has a high competence in English and communicative
competence, however, sometimes the teacher‟s talk does not stimulate
students to response it in the target language. In fact the teacher has a good
personal relation with the students in the classroom. The teacher gives them
7
joke and other things that make the students feel comfortable to study
English. In short, the students like the teacher very much. However, even
though they like the teacher very much, the teacher talk does not
empowering students‟ motivation to use English in the classroom or to
response to the teacher talk in the target language. The students usually
response to the teacher‟s talk by using their mother tongue, Javanese or with
the simplest response in English, such as “Yes” or “No”.
The third factor comes from the classroom‟s atmosphere.
Classroom‟s atmosphere here means the situation and condition in the class
during the teaching and learning process. It is very important to have a good
atmosphere in the class which supporting the students to improve their
competence. The good atmosphere here specifically talks about the
classmates. A support from the classmates is very important. However, in
fact the common thing that happens is that the classmates always give a bad
response after one of them says something in English. They yelled.
Sometimes the yelling made the class afraid of using English in their talk.
They are afraid of the yelling and they will feel shy if they speak in the
wrong way or if they make a mistakes.
According to the observation and analysis, the researcher decided to
conduct the research in flouting maxims occur during the interaction of
teacher-students in the English teaching and learning process. Therefore,
this research entitled “A Descriptive Analysis of Cooperative Principle of
8
Maxims in the Teacher-Students Interaction in English Teaching and
Learning Process in SMK Batik I Surakarta Academic Year 2017/ 2018”.
B. Limitation of the Study
Based on the background of the research, the researcher proposed
the limit of the research on the study of observed of cooperative principle of
maxims occurs in the teacher-students interaction in English teaching and
learning process, besides this research also analyze the non-observed of
cooperative principle which is focused on the floating maxim and the reason
for using it in the classroom interaction of teacher and students.
C. Problem Statement
Based on the limitation of the research, the problem statements of
this research are as follows:
1. What the types of cooperative principle of maxims occur in the
interaction of teacher-students in English teaching and learning process
of SMK Batik I Surakarta Academic Year 2017/ 2018?
2. What the types of flouting maxims occur and the reason for flouting the
maxims in the interaction of teacher-students in English teaching and
learning process of SMK Batik I Surakarta Academic Year 2017/ 2018?
9
D. Objective of The Study
Based on the problem statements, the research objectives are
arranged as follows:
1. To identify the types of cooperative principle of maxims occur in the
interaction of teacher-students in English teaching and learning process
of SMK Batik I Surakarta Academic Year 2017/ 2018.
2. To identify the types of flouting maxim occur and to find out the
reasons of speaker for using it in the interaction of teacher-students in
English teaching and learning process of SMK Batik I Surakarta
Academic Year 2017/ 2018.
E. Benefit of The Study
In order to clarify the benefit, the researcher would like to elaborate
as follows:
1. Theoretically
This research is hopefully could give more understanding of a study in
linguistics, especially the Conversational Maxim field. The teacher or
the reader can get further information and knowledge about the types of
flouting maxims in EFL and its implicatures. Moreover, these theories
can help the reader to identify the reasons of speaker to use flouting
maxims as well as determine the function of the flouting maxims in the
teaching and learning process.
10
2. Practically
a. For the researcher
Hopefully, this research can give more information and knowledge
about cooperative principle analysis, particularly flouting maxims
occurs in the interaction between teacher and students in English
teaching and learning process.
b. English Teacher
Hopefully, this research can give more information to the teacher
about the function of conversational maxims in English teaching
and learning process, either by the teacher or students.
Furthermore, the teacher can make the students understand about
the material and make a good interaction with them to find out
more about their competence and character by following the
conversational maxims.
c. For the Students
Hopefully, this research can help the students to identify the type of
flouting maxims in the interaction of teacher-students including the
reasons for using it. This research can also help the students to
increase the communicative competence in English.
11
F. The Definition of Terms
1. Teaching and Learning
The definition of teaching cannot be separated from the definition of
learning. The understanding towards the concepts of teaching and
learning may underlie the success of language teaching and learning
process. Brown (2000: 7) defines the concept of teaching. He explains
that teaching is guiding and facilitating learning encouraging the
learners to learn, and setting the condition for learning.
2. Classroom Interaction
Brown (2001: 165) states that interaction is the collaborative exchange
of thought, feelings, ideas between two or more people, resulting in a
reciprocal effect on each other.
3. Cooperative Principle
Grice (2000: 74) propose the Cooperative Principle which states
“make your conversational contribution such is required, as the stage
at which it occurs by the accepted purpose or the direction of the talk
exchange which you are engaged”.
12
CHAPTER II
THEORETICAL REVIEW
This chapter provides information dealing with the literature review and
conceptual framework applied in this research. The first part is theoretical
description, consists of the notion of pragmatics, speech acts, cooperative
principle, conversational maxims and flouting maxims. In addition, review on
related research studies will be highlighted.
A. Teaching and Learning
Teaching and learning are inextricably bound together, and the other is
automatically involved when one of them is concerned. The pedagogical ideas
together with the methodologies of language teaching and learning have been
changing significantly.
1. Teaching and Learning Definition
Teaching is a process to give guidance to the students to reach their
goals. Teaching known as “Instruction”, means a process that makes
someone do learning. It is a media for learning process includes behavior
individual changes through pre-planned. Thus, teaching play role as the
process where the students grow up for being older.
Therefore, the following presents a discussion on the notion of
teaching and learning. Tomlinson (1998: 4) states that learning is normally
considered to be a conscious process which consists of the committing to
12
13
memory of information relevant to what is being learned. In addition,
Murray and Christison (2011: 140), state that learning is a process that
brings together cognitive, emotional, and environmental influences for the
purpose of making changes in one‟s knowledge, skills, values, and
worldviews. Learning also refers to a relatively permanent change in
behavior as a result of practice or experience.
Similarly, Brown (2000: 7) proposes that learning is acquisition or
getting information and skill which imply storage systems, memory, and
cognitive system. Based on the above definition, Brown (2000: 7) breaks
down the components of the definition of learning as follows.
1) Learning is acquisition or getting.
2) Learning is retention of information or skill.
3) Retention implies storage system, memory, and cognitive organization.
4) Learning involves active, conscious focus or and acting upon events
outside or inside the organism.
5) Learning is relatively permanent but subject to forgetting.
6) Learning involves some form of practice, perhaps reinforced practice.
7) Learning is a change in behavior.
In relation to English teaching learning, Harmer (1998: 24)
suggests that the natural language acquisition can be difficult to replicate
in the classroom, but there are elements which can help the students learn
effectively. The elements are engaged, study, and activate. “Engage” is
related to a teaching sequence where teachers try to arouse students‟
14
interest by involving their emotion. Meanwhile, the concept of “study”
focuses on the language and how the language is constructed. The last
element is “activate”. This term refers to the exercise and activities which
are designed to get the students using language as freely and
communicatively as they can.
In fact, teaching and learning are related to each other. Language
learning cannot be separated from language teaching. To learn is to know
something while to teach is to let learners know something. Brown (2000:
7) defines the concept of teaching. He explains that teaching is guiding and
facilitating learning encouraging the learners to learn, and setting the
condition for learning.
Supporting the above definition, Blum in Richard and Renandya
(2002: 21) processes that an effective teaching considers some crucial
aspects. It includes well-planned curriculum, efficient classroom activities,
focused instruction, and the like. With regard to the above aspects,
teaching is not only a matter of transferring knowledge. Many aspects are
involved in the process of teaching which determine in effectiveness of
teaching process. Those important aspects of teaching can be some
guidance to create an effective teaching in the English teaching and
learning process.
Based on the above explanation, the teaching and learning methods
have variously conflicted between acquisition and learning and between
15
behaviorism and cognition, and the methods of communicative teaching,
as the fundamentals of teaching English as foreign language.
2. Teaching English as a Foreign Language
By the end of the twentieth century, English was already well on
its way to becoming a genuine lingua franca, that is a language used
widely for communication between people who do not share the same first
(or even second) language (Harmer, 2007: 13). This rapid expansion of the
use of English as an international language led its position including in
Indonesia. In Indonesia, English might be categorized as a foreign
language. It denotes that the learners of the language are the foreigners
who study it for various purposes.
Supporting the above statement, Brown (2001: 118) states that
English increasingly used as a tool for interaction among non-native
speakers. He adds that most of English language teacher across the globe
are non-native English speaker. It means that their language is not
monolinguals, but bilingualism. Instead, English as a second language has
become a tool for international communication in transportation,
education, commerce, banking, tourism, technology, diplomacy, scientific
researcher in the world including in Indonesia.
In addition, Brown (2001: 3) states that English as a foreign
language always refers specifically to English taught in countries where
English is not a major language of commerce and education. They may be
obtainable through language clubs, special media, opportunity books, or
16
on occasional tourist, but efforts must be made to create such
opportunities.
Concerning the way in English teaching, Harmer (2001: 4) states
that a foreign language does not have an immediate social and
communication function within the community where it is learned. It is
mostly to communicate elsewhere. Furthermore, foreign languages are
those in which the students do not have a readiness for communication
beyond their classroom, they may be obtainable through language clubs,
special media, or books.
Based on the above statements, it is clear that teaching English in
Indonesia is regarded as teaching English as a foreign language. English is
spoken by Indonesian people neither informal nor in daily communication.
In the daily life, English is learned in a very limited environment such as
at school as one of the compulsory subjects.
Furthermore, in the process of Second Language Acquisition
(SLA), classroom interaction takes an important place. Teachers need to
apply appropriate classroom interaction to facilitate language learning in
reality since interaction is in the heart of communication in an era of
communicative language teaching.
B. Classroom Interaction
Classroom interaction is the internal process of learning that consists
of sequence of the external interaction between two participants: the teacher
17
on the one side and the learners on the other (Maalamah, 1991: 8). In line with
Maalamah, Brown (2001: 165) states that interaction is the collaborative
exchange of thought, feelings, ideas between two or more people, resulting in
a reciprocal effect on each other.
Another definition of classroom interaction is proposed by Tsui in
Carter and Nunan (2001: 120) . She states that the term classroom interaction
refers to the interaction between the teacher and learners, and among the
learners. Each of those components interacts one another during the teaching
and learning process.
In the teaching and learning process, the teacher and the student are not
the only participants in the classroom interaction (Maalamah, 1991: 13). They
also interact with the material, teaching aids, and other components that are
involved in the English teaching and learning process. Hence, it can be said
that classroom interaction is the sequencing process of exchanging
information, ideas among the participants in the classroom.
In conclusion, to reach a good quality of teaching and learning process,
the teacher should encourage the students to be actively participate in teaching
and learning process. The students must engage in asking question, answering
questions, giving opinion, and the like. Therefore, in this study, it can be
concluded that a good quality of teaching and learning of English can be seen
from how the teacher teaches and how the students actively involved in the
teaching and learning process.
18
As mentioned before, pragmatic knowledge and competence is
essential for successful communication since pragmatics “studies the use of
language in human communication as determined by the conditions of
society” (Mey, 1993:. 6). This means that language users use language on the
basis of their society and their access to the linguistic and communicative
means is controlled by society.
C. The Notion of Pragmatics
Language holds an important role in our lives. It serves as a means of
communication enables us to interact with other people in community. When
people hear a piece of language, he or she attempts to understand not only the
words structure, words choice and its meaning but also the intention of the
speaker. Understanding the speakers‟ intentions is a way to enhance a
communication. It is an essential point in the communication.
Pragmatics is one branch of linguistics which is talked about meaning
and the use of language in the communication. Leech (1983:1) says that
pragmatics is studying about how language is used in the communication. It
means that people are not only study about the grammatical rule and also the
meaning of words in the broadly sense or dictionary meaning but we also
combine those meaning with other factors in the communication or in the
narrow sense of the words. This idea is also supported by Griffiths (2006:1);
he states that pragmatics is concerned with the use of the toolkit (knowledge
encoded in the vocabulary of the language and in its patterns for building more
19
elaborate meanings, up to the level of sentence meanings) in the meaningful
communication.
Four boarder definitions of pragmatics are proposed by Yule (1996:3).
First, he says that pragmatics is the study of speaker meaning. It means that
what people mean in their utterance is more important than the meaning of the
words in the utterance itself. The single meaning of the words uses sometimes
different with the meaning of the whole utterance. In short, it can conclude
that the individual meaning of the words is just a part of the whole meaning of
the utterance.
Second, pragmatics is the study of contextual meaning. Context
influenced the utterance meaning in the pragmatics study (Bauer, 2007). The
role of context in the pragmatics study is very important. Context here means
any condition or circumstance boundary the communication. It includes the
person we talking to, the place, the time and in what condition. When the same
utterance said by a person in the different situation, the different meaning of
the utterance is the result if the utterance. Thus the contect in the pragmatics is
very important.
Third, pragmatics is the study of how more gets communicated than is
said. It deals with both the visible meaning and the invisible meaning while
the communication is enhanced. The visible meaning is the meaning which is
could see by the words choice. The invisible meaning is the intend meaning in
the utterance. In order to get the visible and invisible meaning, realizing the
content of communication is very important.
20
The last is that pragmatics is the study of the expression of relative
distance. The notion of distance is very close with the fact about the choice
between what are the said and the unsaid. Seeing the distance between the
speaker and the listener in the aspect of physical, social, and conceptual, the
speakers could determine how much need to be said.
Based on the definition above, it can be summarize that pragmatics is
the study of meaning which is used in the communication, and context in the
pragmatics holds an important role on pragmatics. The study of pragmatics is
not a single study. It has many sub-part of study. It covers the study of
politeness phenomena, reference and deixis, implicature, and speech acts.
(Cruse, 2006:136).
Pragmatics studies how language is used by real people in real
contexts, in spoken discourse and written contexts, and is highly influenced by
cultural and social contexts. In accordance to the definition of pragmatics,
speech act theory describes how language is used to accomplish things or
acts.
D. Speech Act
When people want to communicate with other, they will use language
as the device to express their idea. Language is a system which consists of
structure, morpheme, sounds and many rules to expressing idea (Richard and
Schmidt, 2002). Language that uses to express someone‟s intention called as
speech act. In the speech act, there is a power that might force people to do an
21
act or a response. For instance when there is a person who said “It is really hot
in here.” There are two possibilities actions to response the speech act. The
first action is that the hearer will add the statement by saying “Yes, it is very
hot.” And the second action is opening the door or window or turn on the fan
or the air condition. It is a fact that speech act has a power instead of the
meaning of its words and phrase.
Another clear definition is also shared by Akmajian (2001, cited in
Akhimien, 2006: 748). He says that “A speech act may be defined as an act
performed in uttering certain expressions”. So, there must be a speech
situation. A speaker, a hearer, and the utterances are included to the speech
situation. The common term of the apeech situation is the speaker produces
utterances toward the hearer. The utterances itself could be in the form of
statement, question, opinion, direction etc. As mention before, those
utterances have power to force the hearer to do something. Thus, when the
speaker says an utterance toward the hearer, the speaker force the hearer to do
something depends on the form of the utterances. The sum of those forms of
utterances is called as speech acts. This opinion is supported by Yule
(1996:45) who also defines that actions performed via utterances are generally
called speech act.
There are some experts who are defining the categories of speech act.
The detail of them will be discuses here.
22
1. Austin’s Speech Acts Classification
Austin (1962) in Meyer (2009) writes that when speaking (or
writing, for that matter), people performed various acts: locutionary acts,
illocutionary acts and perlocutionary acts.
a. Locutionary acts
Locutionary act is the first Austin‟s classification. It is
performing the act of saying something. Austin (1962) in Grundy
(2000) clearly states locutionary act is the utterance of a sentence with
determinate sense and reference. “Determinate sense” means there is
non-ambiguous meaning in the utterance. It is the literary meaning of
utterance. The pattern to explain locutionary act could be in the form
of: S (Speaker) says to H (Hearer) that X (X being certain words,
spoken with certain sense and reference). The example is:
A man said to me in the farm “Shoot” her!’
The utterance “Shoot her!” has meaning by “Shoot” shoot and
referring “her” to her.
b. Illocutionary acts
It is the next Austin‟s classification. In the illocutionary act, it
is very important to us to know about the illocutionary force.
Illocutionary force is a property of a sentence or utterance to reify what
are essential actions. Illocutionary force relates to the action under the
certain circumstance which is intended by the speaker. So,
illocutionary acts is performing an act in saying something. Akhimien
23
(2006) says that illocutionary acts is the performance of an act through
S‟s utterance. The pattern of illocutionary act is: in saying X, S asserts
that P. the example is: a man said to me in the farm „Shoot her!‟
The illocutionary act of this utterance is that the man ordering
me to shoot her. Because of the circumstance is in the farm, so it could
be conclude that “her” here means chicken or another domestic animal
in the farm.
c. Perlocutionary acts
This is the last of Austin‟s classification. It seems to involve
the effect of utterance act. Cutting (2002: 15) states that Perlocutionary
is what is done by uttering the words; it is the effect on the hearer, the
hearer‟s reaction. It is the action effect of illocutionary utterance that is
said by the speaker. The pattern of perlocutionary is by saying X, S
convinces H that P. The example is in the utterance “Shoot her!” the
possible perlocutionary act are the hearer maybe will shoot the her or
chicken and the hearer maybe just say “Ok” or “Yes”.
Instead of Austin (1962) classification of speech acts, Searle
proposed four processes involved in a speech act: the utterance acts
which has to do with the uttering of words and which is synonymous
with Austin‟s locutionary acts, the propositional acts which has to do
with the content of the utterance and involves referring and
predicating, the illocutionary acts which involves the action of
promising, questioning, commanding and stating, etc.
24
This is perfectly in sync with Austin‟s own illocutionary acts
and it is the most important concept in the speech act theory such that
it is what comes to the minds of many people when speech act is
mentioned. Lastly, Searle brings in Austin‟s perlocutionary acts which
are the effects of the illocutionary acts of the speakers on the hearers.
2. Searle’s Speech Acts Classification
Searle (1977) in Mey (2001) categories speech act into five types.
They are representatives, directives, commissives, expressive, and
declarations.
a. Representatives
The characteristics of representative carry out the values of
“True” or “False” and also the state of affair in the world. Meyer
(2009: 50) states that representative or assertive is an utterance that
reporting statements of fact verifiable of true or false. Statements of
fact, assertions, conclusions, and descriptions are example of the
utterance which is included in the representatives. The speaker in the
representative utterance wants to make the hearer believes about a fact
weather it is true or not based on the speaker‟s perspective.
The example:
- Water freezes at zero degrees centigrade.
- The earth is flat.
- It was a warm sunny day.
25
b. Directives
The important point of this speech act is that it is the attempt by
the speaker to get the hearer to do something. Yule (1996: 54) says that
directives are speech act that express what the speaker wants.
Command, orders, request and suggestions are some example of
directives. Their expressed psychological state is the desire or wish and
they also show a world to words direction of fit.
The example:
- Open the door, please.
- Could you pass me the sugar?
- Gimme a cup of coffee. Make it black.
c. Commissives
Commisisive are those kinds of speech act that used by the
speaker to commit themselves to some future action. The point of this
speech act is committing one to doing something. Akhimien (2006:
21), in his journal explain that commissive shows a world-to-words
direction of fit and intention to their felicity condition. Threats,
promises, refusals and pledges are the example of commissives.
The example:
- We will not go down.
- I‟ll be back in five minutes.
- I‟m going to meet you in airport.
26
d. Expressive
Expressive are utterances that expressing speaker‟s attitudes. It
contains speaker‟s psychological state. Yule (1996: 52) adds that it is
about the speaker‟s feeling and could be in the form of happy, sad,
pain, pleasure, like, dislike etc and it is about the speaker‟s experience.
Thanking, apologizing, regretting are some example of expressive.
The example:
- I‟m sorry!
- Congratulation!
- Oh, Yes, Great, mmmm, ssah!
e. Declarations
Declaration is an utterance that could be changes someone‟s
state or condition. Meyer (2009: 50) states that declarations are an
utterance bringing about the change in the state of affairs. In saying a
declaration utterance, the speaker has to have a special institutional
role, in a specific context, in order to perform a declaration
appropriately.
The example:
- Priest: I now pronounce you husband and wife.
- Referee: You‟re out!
- Jury Foreman: We find the defendant is guilty.
In correspond to the speech acts, felicity conditions is
necessary to the success of a speech act. In order to "do things with
27
words", certain things must be true of the context in which speech acts
are uttered. In other words, a sentence must not only be grammatical to
be correctly performed, it must also be felicitous (Austin, 1992).
3. Felicity Condition
In performing speech act, there are certain conditions that must be
fulfilled by the participants (the speaker and the listener), in order to make
the speech successfully conduct. The condition called as Felicity
Condition. Yule (1996) says “There are certain expected or appropriate
circumstances, technically known as felicity condition, for the
performance of speech act to be recognized as intended.”
According to Meyer (2006), felicity condition is series condition
that needs to be satisfied for conducting a successful speech. When the
felicity condition does not filled by the participant, the speech will be in
infelicity, the speech does not mean anything for the participant.
For instance, the utterance “I now pronounce you husband and
wife.” will have no effect or power toward people if this utterance does not
said by the priest. Searle (1969) shares four kinds of felicity condition.
They are:
a. Propositional condition: S [Speaker] expresses regret for a past act A
of S,
b. Preparatory condition: S believes that A was not in H‟s [Hearer‟s] best
interest,
28
c. Sincerity condition: Speaker regrets act A, and 4) Essential condition:
Counts as an apology for act A.
Furthermore, context is the circumstances surrounding a message.
The circumstances might include the setting, the value positions of the
people, and appropriateness of a message.
Richards and Rodgers (2001: 7-8) highlight two persons who
support the contextual and situational teaching. The Englishman T.
Prendergast (1806-1886), who is one of the first to emphasize on the oral
teaching, records the observation that utterances should be interpreted in
the contextual and situational cues, and the children could use memorized
phrases and “routines” in speaking.
A Frenchman, F. Gouin (1831-1896), one of the best know
reformers, refers to a new teaching approach – the so-called “series”
method, which consists of a description in L2 of related actions, such as “I
open the door”, “I open the widow”. The basic idea of this method is that
the learner is familiar with these actions from his prior personal
experience, which helps the learner understand and remember the
sentences.
4. Context
In the communication, context holds an important role. Without
context, the conversation will be very empty and meaningless. Cook
(1995) states that context is the knowledge of the world outside the
language which is used to interpret it. Context is used by the
29
communication participants to interpret the utterances in order to make it
clear enough (there is no ambiguous meaning and misinterpret).
Rich and Knight (1991: 242) state that context is one of the factors
that give an effect to people how they use the language. According to
Asher (1994: 731) context is one of those linguistic terms which are
constantly used in all kinds of context but never explained. It has the
relationship with meaning and they are important in pragmatics. Finnegan
et al. (1997: 345) state that the essential element in the interpretation of an
utterance is the context in which it is uttered. The context can influence
the speaker on how to use the language. Yule (1996: 21) states that context
simply means the physical environment in which a word is used. The
importance of taking of context into account is also well expressed by
Hymes (in Brown and Yule, 1983: 37) who views the role of the context
in interpretation as, on the one hand, limiting the range of possible
interpretation and, on the other hand, as supporting the intended
interpretation:
“The use of linguistic form identifies a range of meanings. A
context can support a range of the meanings. When a form is used
in a context, it eliminates the meaning possible to that context other
than those the form can signal: the context eliminates from
consideration the meanings possible to the form other than those
the context can support.”
In addition, Mey (1993: 31) remarks that context is the total society
setting in which the speech event takes place. In other words, context is
any condition that influences the speech.
30
In accordance to context, Philosopher Paul Grice (1975), who
proposed a theory of conversation which consists of a Cooperative
Principle (hereafter called CP) declares: “Make your conversational
contribution such as it is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the
accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are
engaged”. In other words, the CP attempts to make explicit certain rational
principles observed by people when they converse (Hadi, 2013). It is so
called because listeners and speakers generally speak cooperatively and
mutually accept one another to be understood in a particular way, unless
they have reasons for not doing so. The building blocks of CP are four
conversational maxims that arise from the pragmatics of natural language.
Pragmatics is the study of the context-dependent aspects of meaning which
are systematically abstracted away from the construction of logical form
(Horn & Ward, 2004).
Cooperative principle of speech states that speakers and listeners
must cooperate to both contribute to conversation by using purposeful
speech as well as listening with purpose of conversation in mind. In this
conversational relationship, there are guidelines for speech, known as
conversational maxims, including rules Grice (1975).
31
E. Cooperative Principle
The cooperative principle in this research is divided into two
categories, they are observance and non observance of maxims cooperative
principle.
1. Observance Maxims of Cooperative Principle
In observing the cooperative principle, speakers fulfill the maxims
as the way of being cooperative. As seen in the following example:
(2.1) Joko : Where is my hat?
Ulin : Your hat is on the table beside the bookshelf in the
living room.
In conversation (2.1), Ulin has fulfilled the maxims of cooperative
principle. She has answered as informative as is required (Quantity),
truthfully (Quality), clearly (Manner), and has directly addressed Joko‟s
goal in asking the question. She speaks precisely, no more and no less.
There is no implicature on her utterance. It means that there is no
distinction to be made between what Ulin says and what she means, there
is no additional conveyed meaning.
In the communication, cooperative is very important. Cooperative
or being cooperate is helping each other to gain something. Grice (1975)
(Cited in Cruse, 2000: 355) states that the cooperative principle like this,
make your conversational contribution such as it required, at the stage at
which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange
in which you are engaged. In line with Grice, Finnegan (2004) also says
that there is an unspoken pact that people will cooperate in communicating
32
with each other, and speakers rely on this cooperation to make
conversation efficient. So, people must cooperate in order to make the
communication work efficiently. Yule (1996: 37) adds that in most
circumstances, the assumption of cooperation is so persuasive that it can
be stated as a cooperative principle of conversation. These principles that
guide a conversation are not universal and they differ from area to area. A
certain topic of a conversation in one culture could very well be offending
in another place and culture. The cooperation in communication is divided
into four branches and is called maxims.
Grice (1975, cited in Mey, 1998:76, cited in Gadzar, 1979: 54)
shares the cooperative principle (also known as Grice maxim of
cooperative principle) to explain how conversation involves a certain level
of “cooperation” among communicants:
“Our talk exchanges do not normally consist of a succession of
disconnected remarks, and would not be rational if they did. They
are characteristically, to some degree at least, cooperative efforts;
and each participant recognizes in them, to some extent, a common
purpose or set of purposes, or at least a mutually accepted
direction.” (Meyer, 2006:55)
He proposes four principles for how a conversation should be
carried out in order to get the most out of the communication. Each branch
is called “A Maxim” or general principle (Finnegan, 2004:300). The four
maxims of cooperative principles are:
33
1. Maxim of quantity
“The maxim of quantity:
a. Make your contribution as informative as is required (for the
current purposes of the exchange)
b. Do not make your contribution more informative than is required.”
(Yule, 1996:37)
This maxim dealing with the sum of the information that is
given based on the needs from the participant. In the communication
the balancing of the providing information that is given is very
important. Take for instance a common question from a friend like
how are you? You could decide to answer like this:
“Taking into consideration that it is my 27th year on the planet
surface and that the stars are in a favorable position, my resent
medical checkup came out positive, my husband got a well
paid job, my cat is well and I have just been promoted sales
manager and I am soon expecting my second child. Taking all
this into consideration I have to say that I am feeling quite well
at the moment. Thanks for asking, and you?”
This answer provides too much information than it required
and this answer would be breaking the maxim of quantity. The
appropriate answer would be something similar to this. “I am fine, and
you?” This answer provides a sufficient amount of information to the
question ask and does not give away unnecessary information.
2. Maxim of quality
“The maxim of quality: try to make your contribution one that
is true.
34
a. Do not say what you believe to be false,
b. Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.” (Yule.
1996:37)
The concern of this maxim is in the truthfulness in an utterance.
The speaker should not talk about issues that he/she does not have
evidence for. Cruse (2000: 355) says that do not make unsupported
statements. As an example we could use a simple utterance like who
took the last coke in the table? If the person who is responding to
answer the question saw the person who took the last coke in the table;
he/she could say who it was. It was Andrea! So, the maxim of quality
is followed. But, if the person does not see the person and only could
make a guess about it was, based on the assumption. It was probably
Andrea. She is the last person in this room. Or if the person answers it
was Jenny (Telling a lie or untruth answer). This statement would be a
breach against the maxim of quality. Overall the untruth answer and
the unsure answer are breach the maxim of quality.
3. Maxim of relation
“The maxim of relation (later called relevance): Be relevant.”
(Yule. 1996: 37).
This means that the speaker just should say what is relevant to
the conversation and doing nothing else. For instance if there is a
question, have you seen my bike? This question should not be
answered with utterance like, the sun, at night or I have a new bike.
35
Those answers have nothing to do with the question asked and are
therefore not relevant. The possible answer for the question that is
relevant could be yes or if you know which bike is referring to, and no
if you do not know about it.
4. Maxim of manner
“The maxim of manner: Be perspicuous.
a. Avoid obscurity of expression.
b. Avoid ambiguity.
c. Be brief.
d. Be orderly.” (Yule. 1996: 37)
Point of this maxim is that be orderly and clear. One should try
to be as clear and orderly as possible when an utterance is being made
and ambiguity should be avoided. Orderly here means that an event
which is said should be told in the order it happened. The example of
the maxim of manner, a conversation between a postmaster and
shopper about the stamp:
Postmaster: Here's your five-cent stamp.
Shopper [with arms full of bundles]: Do I have to stick it on
myself?
Postmaster : Nope. On the envelope.
Here, we can see that the postmaster said something which is
so ambiguity toward the shopper. And he broke the maxim of manner.
2. Non Observance Maxims of Cooperative Principle
People don‟t always mean from what they say literally when they
build a conversation or just giving some utterance. Coulthard (1985: 31)
36
gives the important thing to realize the maxim that do not represent a
descriptive statement of how conversational contributions. According to
Thomas (1995) in Hanifah (2013: 138) when speaker implied something to
suggest or to deliver some meaning by means of language, so intentionally
the speaker generates an implicature. There are five ways people fail to
observe a maxim: Flouting a Maxims, Violating a Maxims, Opting out a
Maxim, Infringing a Maxims, and Suspending a Maxims. Flouting a
Maxims takes place when a speaker blatantly failed to observe a maxim
without any intention to misleading a hearer. Violating a Maxims is the
speaker may lie. The speaker will be able to misleading the hearer
intentionally. The speaker says the truth but implies what is untrue. Opting
out a Maxim is the speaker cannot reply in normal way that is expected,
may be the speaker get trouble in pronunciation. Infringing a Maxims is
the speaker cannot speak clearly or to the point because of informatively
impaired. The last is Suspending a Maxims, it occurs when there are
cultures–specific or particular event that force the speaker not to say
something directly, for instance, taboo words.
In this research, the non observance of maxims of cooperative
principle to be analyzed is the flouting maxim. Once one of the maxims is
violated by utterance generated by particular speaker, we need to assume
that the speaker violated maxim is cooperative in communication. It can be
said that viola- tion is a indication that something being said indirectly.
This is called flouting maxim. Grundy (2000: 78) suggests that flouting
37
maxims is a prominent way of getting an addressee to draw an inference,
for example:
A : Can I borrow your laptop?
B : Well, uh, I have so many assignment that need to be done.
From the example above, B‟s answer violated the maxim of
Quantity, B does not supply as much information as A desired (whether he
can borrow the laptop or not). According to Brown and Yule (1989: 32),
flouting of maxim made by speaker expresses an additional meaning
(contextual mean- ing) to his or her utterance. This occurrence is called
conversational implicature. A speaker who does not follow the
conversational max- ims can be categorized to be flouting the maxims and
consequently, conversational implicature is produced by the speaker. The
address- ee or hearer actually understands that the speaker has flouted the
maxims so the addressee tries to infer further meaning from this violation
of convention
a. Flouting Maxim of Quality
A: What is your name?
B: I‟m the queen of Sheba
Implicature: B doesn‟t want to tell his or her name
B‟s statement is flouting the maxim of quality because speaker
B gives information which is not match with the actual fact but B still
seems to be cooperative. B gives the untrue statement to B in order to
make A to introspect that his statement is not correct. B‟s utterance
suggests that A‟s is absurdly incorrect.
38
b. Flouting Maxim of Quantity
A flout of maxim of quantity takes place when a speaker de-
liberately provides insufficient information within the situation re-
quires. (Thomas, 1995)
A: How are we getting there?
B: we are getting there in Budi‟s car.
The statement above flouts the maxim of quantity since the
information does not give clear contribution and it is not informative
as required. The statement above suggests that B doesn‟t want to have
a travel with A.
c. Flouting Maxim of Relation
The maxim of relation is flouted by making response which is
very obvious irrelevant to the topic being discussed. (Thomas, 1995)
A: Where will you go? B: Out
Implicature: B giving inappropriate response
B‟s utterance implicates that B doesn‟t want to answer A‟s
question. B doesn‟t want to tell where exactly he or she want to go.
d. Flouting Maxim of Manner
A: I think the government needs to make a policy for expatriate.
Do you agree with me?
B: Well, I won‟t try to turn you away from your opinion
From the example above, it can be observed that the speaker B
has been unsuccessful to monitor the maxim of manner by giving
extremely long response for yes-no question posed by A. Actually, B
just need to reply “yes” or “no”.
39
Furthermore, in conversation, the utterances produced by either the
speaker or hearer has explicit and implicit meaning. Explicit meaning can
be understood both by predicting the semantic meaning of the words
within the conversation and by understanding the syntactic structure of the
language used in the conversation. In the other hand, to understand the
implicit meaning in a conversation, the rules of semantics and syntactic of
the language is insufficient. Therefore, the concept of implicature was
introduced. According to Brown and Yule (1983) implicature is used to
calculate what is suggested and meant by the speaker as a different thing
from what he actually said explicitly.
F. Implicature
The notion of implicature was first introduced by Herbert Paul
Grice (1967). He explains that implicature deals with something be- yond
what is said by particular speaker. Thomas (1995) adds that Grices‟s
theory is attempting at describing how a hearer obtains from what is said
to what is meant. How a hearer tries to understand particular utterance
form the level of expressed meaning to the level of implied meaning.
Gazdar (1979) defines Implicature is anything that is inferred from an
utterance but that is not a condition for the truth of utterance.
Levinson (1981: 98) adds the notion of implicature assures to
convey the breach between what is literally said and what is essentially
said. Furthermore, Levinson (1981) states that Implicatures are surmised
40
based on the assumption that the speaker observes or flouts some principle
of cooperation.
Grice divides implicature into conventional implicature and
nonconventional implicature (conversational implicature). Thomas (1995)
suggests that both of them have an additional of meaning away from the
semantic meaning had by particular utterance. Furthermore, he adds that
conversational and conventional implicature are different in the case of
context. In conversational implicature, what is implied is varied based on
the context of utterance. On the other hand, what is implied in
conventional implicature is just the same apart from the context.
G. Review of Related Research Study
There are some research studies relevant with the idea of
Cooperative Principle of Maxims, either in the teaching and learning
process or others. These previous studies give a view about the issues
discussed in the research. Here are some of the studies.
The first research study is Dwi Linawati (2013) entitled “A
Gricean Maxim Analysis of An English Teacher’s Talk in SMP N 1
Kalasan (A Case Study)”. This study is aimed at describing teacher‟s talk
practiced by the English teacher of grade VIIIB at SMP N 1 Kalasan
Sleman during the process of English teaching and learning. The data were
collected using audio visual media with the employment of the recording
technique of the teacher‟s talk during the process of English teaching and
41
learning. The data were then analyzed using a descriptive qualitative
approach. The analysis of the teacher‟s talk was categorized into their type
based on the influence and also the non-observance Gricean Maxim.
Meanwhile, the researcher used three instruments to gather data from the
participant: (1) Video Recording, (2) Taking Note, and (3) Interview. The
researcher undertook video recording, taking note and interview in the
same day. That are on Saturday, January 18th on 2013, on Tuesday,
January 22th on 2013, on Saturday, 2nd on 2013, and on Tuesday, 5th
February on 2013. The finding reveals 936 utterances in the form of two
types of teacher talk and 385 utterances in the form of the nonobservance
of Gricean Maxim. The 936 utterances in the type of teacher‟s talk divide
into two different type: the direct influence type (420 utterances) and the
indirect type of teacher talk (516 utterances). The research shows that the
teacher perfomed the two types of teacher talk (Direct and Indirect
teacher‟s talk) during the teaching and learning process and she also did
the non-observance of Gricean Maxim in her talk. Based on the analysis of
the teacher‟s talk, it is figured out that the teacher performed her talk in the
class using the forms of direct and indirect influences of teacher‟s talk.
Also, based on the students‟ needs, the teacher did the nonobservance
Gricean Maxim in her talk in the class. She did that in order to develop the
interaction in the teaching learning process.
The second research is Asri Dwi E.S. (2015) entitled “An Analysis
Of Flouting Maxim in EFL Classroom Interaction”. This study concerns
42
with the floating maxim occurred in EFL classroom interaction. It was
aimed at investigating how the conversational implicatures especially fl
outing maxim are being formed in teacher and students dialog during EFL
teaching and learning process. The present study used qualitative
approach. The data taken from teacher and students interaction in EFL
classroom are being transcribed and analyzed by categorizing utterances
based on the flouting of maxim theory proposed by H.P. Grice. Based on
the data analysis, it has been discovered that during the conversation, all
speakers happen to be successful in observing maxims. The proportion of
non-observance maxim is only 2%. Sorts of maxim that is flouted by
speaker are maxim of quantity, quality and manner. The flouting of maxim
is done by students because of their lack of linguistic and actional
competence.
Third is journal of Department of Linguistics, University of Illinois
by Uwe D. Reichel, Nina Porner¨, Dianne Nowack, Jennifer Cole (2015)
entitled “Analysis and classification of cooperative and competitive
dialogs”. In this journal, cooperative and competitive game dialogs are
comparatively examined with respect to temporal, basic text-based, and
dialog act characteristics. The condition-specific speaker strategies are
amongst others well reflected in distinct dialog act probability
distributions, which are discussed in the context of the Gricean
Cooperative Principle and of Relevance Theory. Based on the extracted
features, we trained Bayes classifiers and support vec-tor machines to
43
predict the dialog condition, that yielded accu-racies from 90 to 100%.
Taken together the simplicity of the condition classification task and its
probabilistic expressiveness for dialog acts suggests a two-stage
classification of condition and dialog acts.
The next previous related study is by Nazra Zahid Shaikh (2015)
entitled “Analyzing Pakistani Tertiary Classrooms Under Grice Principles
-Getting the Meaning Across!”. This paper has been concerned with the
way in which Grice‟s Cooperative Principles are represented in Pakistani
English Language Tertiary Classrooms, and the interpretations to which
they can lead. Research has been kept qualitative by opting questionnaire,
observation & interviews as tools for the study on tertiary level classrooms
to observe the „conversational cooperation‟ in the overall learning
experience.
Compared to the previous related research study, the research
conducted today has different objective and data. The present research will
investigate the flouting maxims in the interaction of teacher-students in the
English teaching and learning process at SMK Batik I Surakarta in terms
of type, implicature, and the reasons of the speakers for flouting the
maxims. Whereas the similarity of studies and this present research is the
field of study that is cooperative principle, particularly the maxims
principle.
44
CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This chapter deals with the research methodology of the research,
including research type and design, research setting and time, subject or
informant, data source, data collection technique, data analysis and data
trustworthiness.
A. Research Type and Design
Polit and Hungler (1999: 155) describe the research design as a
blueprint, or outline, for conducting the study in such a way that maximum
control will be exercised over factors that could interfere with the validity of
the research results. The research design is the researcher‟s overall plan for
obtaining answers to the research questions guiding the study. Burns and
Grove (2001: 223) state that designing a study helps researchers to plan and
implement the study in a way that will help them obtain the intended results,
thus increasing the chances of obtaining information that could be
associated with the real situation.
This research employed descriptive qualitative research. Descriptive
method is a method which is employed to collect and analyze data, and draw
conclusion of the analyzed data. As stated by Creswell (1994: 171)
“Descriptive method is collecting the qualitative data, analyzing them, and
writing result.” In addition, Moleong (1990: 3) states that qualitative
44
45
descriptive research is the research resulting the descriptive data in written
form, which has been observed by people.
This research also belongs to the qualitative research. As stated by
Berg (2001: 3), a qualitative research refers to meanings, ideas,
explanations, characteristics, and descriptions of objects. The detailed
explanation about certain phenomenon which wants to be analyzed can be
gained through qualitative method. This can be seen through the
characteristic and context of the phenomenon. Moreover, Crookes and
Davies (1998: 119) states that in qualitative research, phenomena are
investigated in detail, providing a considerable amount of rich data from a
relatively small number of people.
In view of the above, the researcher used a qualitative research
method to investigate the use of cooperative principle of maxims related to
the language usage at school, the students use Indonesian as the main
language and English as a study program. The analysis of this research
focused on to classify the types of cooperative principle of maxims in the
interaction of teacher-students in English teaching and learning process.
Besides, the researcher also described the types of flouting maxims, and the
reasons of speaker for using the flouting maxims in the interaction.
46
B. Research Location and Time
The setting of the research consists of location and time in which the
researcher conducts the research. The research setting will be explained
boardly as follow:
1. The Location of the Research
This research was conducted in one of private vocational high
school, SMK Batik I Surakarta. Here, the researcher found that
cooperative principle of maxims occurs in the interaction of teacher-
students during the teaching and learning process in the classroom. The
use of cooperative principle of maxim was done either by the teacher or
the students. Therefore, the researcher decided to conduct a research of
cooperative principle of maxims in the interaction of teacher and
students.
2. The Time of the Research
In conducting this research, the researcher needs to spend time
for doing pre-observation and interview, and also collecting the
necessary documents. The classroom observation and interview was
held in December to January 2018. This research was conducted by
following the school schedule of the English program.
C. Subject or Informant of the Research
The main subject of this research were the English teacher and
students of SMK Batik I Surakarta. Here, the teacher and students played
47
role as the speaker and provided reasons for using the flouting maxims
during the process of English learning and teaching.
The researcher included the students as the subject of this research
since in maintaining the communication during the English teaching and
learning process, the teacher conducts an interaction with the students. Thus,
by applying the students as the subjects of this research, the researcher will
be able to collect the data of the cooperative principle of maxims.
The researcher used the students of the eleventh grade as the subjects
of the research since the class was appropriate to use as the research subject.
The eleventh grade has already adapted themselves in the environment of
the school, and the students have enough time in participating in this
research.
D. Source of Data
The primary source of this research was the cooperative principle of
maxims produced by the students of the eleventh grade of SMK Batik I
Surakarta in the academic year of 2017/ 2018 during the process of English
teaching and learning. The data was in the forms of words, phrases, and
utterances uttered by the teacher and students during the lesson. This is in
line with Bogdan and Biklen (1982) who states that qualitative data are in
the forms of words or pictures rather than in utterances. Meanwhile, the
context was the context surrounding the utterances.
48
In addition, the data of this research also obtained from the
statements of the speaker for using the floating maxims, particularly the
teacher who conduct the classroom interaction. The reasons of the speaker
for using the floating maxims provided opportunity to analyze certain
function of the use of cooperative principles. This is due to that cooperative
principles signals motivational reasons in EFL teaching of cross cultural
contact, language teachers should promote students identity especially
related to language behavior, attitudes, and acknowledgment.
E. Techniques of Data Collection
The researcher used some techniques of data collection in this
research. The techniques are observation and documentation. Observation is
the technique of collecting data by seeing the phenomenon deeply and
giving the evidence of it. In addition, according to Sukmadinata (2011: 221-
222) Documentation is a technique of collecting data which are appropriate
with the research goals, by accumulating and analyzing document, both in
written and electronic forms.
In addition, McMillan and Schumacher (2010: 210) states that
observation is a way for the researcher to see and hear what is occurring
naturally in the research site. The observation will be conducted together
with the audio-video recording process. The data was recorded using a
handy-cam. Some procedures were then followed after conducting the
observation. The steps are as follows:
49
1. Listening to the recording and trying to understand the utterances
performed by the teacher and students. In this step, the researcher
replaying the audio recorded during the teaching and learning process
for several times.
2. Transcribing the data from the audio recorded into the written form by
writing the dialogues or utterances performed by the teacher and
students.
3. Listening to the recording again to check the accuracy of the data by
replaying the audio recorded;
4. Selecting the data from the recording which are in accordance with the
objectives of the study, the dialogues or utterances containing the
maxims of cooperative principle, then giving code, for example: Obs 1/
Datum (2), in this coding “Obs” refers to the schedule of observation,
and Datum (2) refers to the number of the data selected from the
recording.
5. Recording the data into the data sheets including the context of situation,
for example:
Obs 1/ Datum 2
Context of situation: in the classroom during the teaching and learning
process
T : utterance spoken by the teacher
S : utterance spoken by the student
6. Classifying the data in accordance to the theory of Cooperative Principle
of Maxims
50
7. Making a description on the cooperative principle of maxims from the
data obtained from the observation by describing the types of the maxim
in the dialogues.
F. Techniques of Data Analysis.
According to Miles and Huberman (1984: 21-23) The data analysis
consists of three streams of activity, they are data reduction, data display,
and drawing conclusion or verification. Then, the researcher adopted the
framework of techniques of data analysis developed by Miles and
Huberman with the description as below:
1. Data Reduction.
According to Miles and Huberman (1992: 16) data reduction can
be interpreted as the process of selection, simplification, and
transformation of the data to the field. The researcher draws the data
analysis in the data reduction by listening the audio recording of the
teacher and students‟ utterances in the classroom. Then, the researcher
determined parts of the utterances spoken by the teacher and students
and eliminated the unimportant data to focus on the data related to
cooperative principle of maxims. After the data related to Cooperative
Principles of Maxims was found, the next step was analyzing the types
of maxims in the dialogues. Besides, the researcher also analyzed the
types of flouting maxims occur in the dialogue and the reasons for using
it as part of the Cooperative Principle analysis.
51
2. Data Display
Data display according to Miles and Huberman (1994: 433)
“helps the researcher to see the patterns; the first text makes sense of the
display and suggests the analytic moves in the displayed data; a revised
or extended display points to new relationship and explanations, leading
to more differentiated and integrated text, and so on”.
In data display, the researcher displayed the data which were
obtained in the observation by presenting it in the form of table and
descriptions. The data which was displayed are the types of cooperative
principle of maxims occur in the teaching and learning process, and also
the reasons of the speaker for using the maxims. The researcher
identified and classified the types of cooperative principle of maxims,
then the researcher discussed the finding. The researcher was also
displayed the data observation related to the reasons for using the
maxims obtained from the teachers and students.
3. Data verification or classification.
This is the last step in the techniques of data analysis. At this
step, the researcher organizes the data classification or verification
according to the data display. The data of Cooperative Principle of
Maxims which have been inserted in the data display then classified into
the types of maxim.
52
The conclusions, then, were verified by revisiting the data as
many times as necessary. Verification was also enhanced by conducting
peer checking and consultation with the supervisors.
G. The Trustworthiness of Data
Patton (in Widiastuti, 2014) states that there are four kinds of
triangulations. They are source triangulation, investigator triangulation,
methodological triangulation, and theoretical triangulation. The source
triangulation means that the writer can triangulate some sources of the data
during the data was obtained. Meanwhile, investigator triangulation refers to
the writer way of triangulate the sources of data by checking the data to
some experts to reach the data validation. Moreover, methodological
triangulation refers to the writer‟s techniques in collecting the data to obtain
data validation. Then, theoritical triangulation refers to the triangulation
process on the use of some related theories by the researcher to validate the
data of this research.
This research applied methodological triangulation. To reach the
validation of the data, the researcher compared the data which were obtained
to the data observation and the data documentation. After making
observation in the classroom, then the researcher cross checking the data by
comparing the data observation to the data documentation.
In addition, the researcher also applied investigator triangulation, the
researcher checked the data obtained from the observation to some experts.
53
The researcher was at first classified the data of cooperative principle of
maxims obtained from the observation based on the researcher view. Then
the researcher consulted it to some experts of pragmatics study, or other
researcher who have conducted research on the related topic, cooperative
principle of maxims. The researcher carried out this process to get the data
validation
54
CHAPTER IV
RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter consists of data analysis and discussion of findings. It deals
with the description and interpretation of the Cooperative Principle which
consist of the observed and Non-observed of Cooperative Principle in the
teacher-students interaction in English teaching and learning process. In
addition, the Non-observed of Cooperative Principle of maxim flouting and its
implicature is also discussed in this research.
A. Findings
The findings of this research is presented in accordance of the
problems statement of the research, they are Cooperative Principle which is
divided into the observed and Non-observed. The Non-observed of
Cooperative Principle in this research covers the flouting of maxim and its
implicature. The data were analyzed to reveal the phenomenon of the
Cooperative Principle of Maxims employed in the English teaching and
learning process in the classroom. It also included the type of flouting
maxims employed by the teacher and students during the teaching and
learning process based on Grice Cooperative Principles. Moreover, it also
discussed the description of the implicature as well as the reason for the
speaker to employ the floating maxims.
From the three teaching and learning session, it had been analyzed
by transcribing and categorizing the utterances based on Grice‟s theory of
54
55
conversational implicature. Before presenting the analysis of the data, the
Cooperative Principle of Maxim in this research was classified into the
observance and the non-observance of maxim. The data was presented to
divide the observed or non-observed of cooperative principles employed by
the speaker. Observed Cooperative Principle means that speakers are able to
fulfill the maxims of Cooperative Principle so they are considered as being
cooperative in the conversation. On the other hand, non-observed
Cooperative Principle means that speakers fail in fulfilling the maxims of
Cooperative Principle. The following table will describe the distribution of
observance and non-observance maxim.
Table 4.1 Grice’s Cooperative Principle
No. Grice’s Cooperative Principle Frequency %
1. Observance of Maxim 51 45,09%
2. Non-Observance of Maxim 60 54,06%
Total 111 100%
Based on the above table, it can be seen that generally, all of the
speakers (teacher and students) are able to observe 4 maxims proposed by
Grice. The non-observance maxim is far more dominating rather than the
observance maxim, the proportion is about 54,06%. Non-observed
Cooperative Principle is a condition when speakers cannot fulfill the
maxims of Cooperative Principle when saying something. This finding also
indicated that in general, all of the speakers have generated any conversational
56
implicature or the proportion of conversational implicature is considered
high.
Conversational implicature is an implicature which includes context
in understanding the additional conveyed meaning of an utterance. The
meaning of an utterance in conversational implicature is indirectly stated in
the utterance. It can be seen in the following example:
Example 1/ Obs I/ Datum (2)
T : “Okey, students, today we will discuss about the homework.”
T : “Anton, open your book!”
S : “Yes, Mr.”
T : “Where is your book?”
S : “Teguh‟s book, Mr.”
In the above conversation, the student tried to convey an unstated
meaning, that he did not bring the book. As the listener, the teacher was
expected to understand the unstated meaning of Anton as the speaker. The
teacher should assume that Anton was aware and being cooperative. The
unstated meaning inferred from the conversation above belongs to
conversational implicature. Yule (1996: 42) puts this kind of implicature
into a more detailed type of implicature, which is a particularized
conversational implicature.
Moreover, the table above shows that the proportion of the
observance of maxim is less than the non-observance maxim, 45,09 %.
57
Table 4.2 Cooperative Principle of Maxim
No. Maxim Teacher Student Total
Frequency
%
1. Maxim of quantity 20 - 20 39,3%
2. Maxim of quality 15 - 15 29,5%
3. Maxim of relation 7 - 7 13,8%
4. Maxim of manner 9 - 9 17,7%
TOTAL 51 - 51 100%
The above table indicates that the total utterances of observance on
Gricean Maxims produced by teachers and students were 51 utterances.
In quantity maxims, generally both of teacher and students gave a
contribution as informative as required in classroom interaction. The
amount of information influenced the success of teaching and learning
process. The following was the example of the observance of quantity
maxim produced by teacher in classroom of English teaching and
learning process.
Example 2/ Obs II/ Datum (39)
T : “Okey, lets discuss Lutung Kasarung.” What were characteristics
of Purbasari, Bella?
S : “Princess.”
T : “What princess?”
S : “Princes of Pasundan.”
T : “Continue”
From the above example, teacher just gave the right amount of
information about the kinds of narrative text. The amount of teachers‟ talk
influenced students‟ learning and interaction in the classroom. Teachers
58
usually exert their control over student by talking. If teacher moderate
their control by obeying Grice‟s maxim of quantity and thus cut their
talk time, the students will be encouraged to contribute more to the
discourse. Therefore excessive teacher was avoided to give learners
more opportunities for producing comprehensible output. Getting
students to speak in classroom discussion is a vital part of a teachers‟
job. Students are the people who need the practice. Therefore, a good
teacher maximizes students‟ talk and minimizes teachers‟ talk.
Analyzing the data collected, the students also produced the high
percentages of observing maxim of quality. According to Grice (1975),
the maxims of quality enjoins speaker not to say anything they believe to
be false or lack adequate evidence. In other words speakers are expected
to be sincere and tell the truth. The observance of maxim of quality
which was done by student can be seen as the following example:
Example 3/ Obs II/ Datum (43)
T : ”And Bella, What Purbararang do to Purbasari?
S : ”Pours something in Purbasari‟s powder and practicing magic,
Mr.”
T : ”Well done.”
On the above conversation, the student has answered the question
truthfully (quality) that he did not do the exercise. The student has said
precisely what she meant that she did not know the answer and has
generated no implicature. In this case the student was observing the
maxim of quality by telling the truth. Actually teachers have a right to
control and organize the students in classroom activities during the
59
teaching and learning process. These functions were implemented by
teacher to make the process of teaching and learning run effectively and
properly.
Table 4.3 Flouting Maxim
No Flouting Maxim Teacher Students Frequency
1. Flouting maxim of quantity - 24 24
(40%)
2. Flouting maxim of quality - 18 18
(30%)
3. Flouting maxim of relation - 7 7
(11,7%)
4. Flouting maxim of manner - 11 11
(18,3%)
TOTAL - 60 60
(100%)
The above table indicates that majority of the speakers flout the
maxim of quality and quantity. It also indicates that the speakers fail to
provide adequate truthful information or evidence during the conversation.
Generally speaking, based on Grice‟s theory of Conversational
Implicature mainly on non-observance of the maxim case, an implicature is
generated simply in the case of flouting the maxim. In essence, a maxim
happens to be flouted when a speaker is unsuccessful to observe the maxim
60
deliberately and with no intention to delude or defraud the hearer. As what
has been mentioned before, Grice has proposed four sorts of flouting a maxim:
quality, quantity, relation and manner.
Example 4/ Obs I/ Datum (9)
T : Ok, Edy, what are you watching?
S : No Mr
The above example (1) is an example of flouting maxim of quantity
that had been discovered from the transcript. Basically, flout of maxim of
quantity is happened when a speaker presents either more or less information
than it is needed. In other word, this occurs intentionally and an implicature is
produced. Nonetheless, it can be noticed that the speaker (T) has asked the
speaker (S1) a particular question asking for an exacting strand of
information. That is, Teacher who is the speaker (T) has asked Edy who is the
speaker (S1) about what he was watching at that time, and the answer must be
specific like (video, TV, etc). Even though the teacher asked by using “WH”
question, Edy answered the teacher‟s question by saying „no‟ which is more
appropriate for answering yes-no question.
In this case it can be discovered that Edy had flouted maxim of
quantity since he gave less information that is required. Edy‟s utterance implies
that he didn‟t want his teacher knew what he did at that time because he
worried that his mobile phone being seized. Actually, during the teaching and
learning process he holds his mobile phone and sometimes, he looked at his
mobile phone to watch something.
Example 5/ Obs I/ Datum (2)
T : “Okey, students, today we will discuss about the homework.”
61
T : “Anton, open your book!”
S : “Yes, Mr.”
T : “Where is your book?”
S : “Teguh‟s book, Mir.”
It has been discussed before that Grice has proposed four principles or
sorts of flouting the maxim. In the examples 5, we have discussed and
exemplified how a maxim of quantity is flouted and an implicature has been
engendered. In this example, a new type of flouting the maxims happens to be
brought in and illustrated. It is the maxim of quality. Generaly, a maxim of
quality is flouted when a speaker supplies either fake information or
information which has lacks sufficient proof. Again, this happens deliberately
by the speaker in order to entail or imply an extra meaning and of course with
no intention to deceive the other speaker. Conversely, it can be seen here that
the speaker (T) has asked for a particular kind of information where Anton‟s
book is. Alternatively, the speaker (S2) provides information which explains
that the book he was bringing is Teguh‟s book. Hitherto, it cannot be argued
that he is attempting to deceive his Teacher or grant her with incorrect
information.
In its place, we can take for granted that he is being cooperative and
he has produced an effort to supply his Teacher sting of information that he
brought the book but the book he brought was actually not his own book. He
provided additional information which is not appropriate with Teacher‟s
questions.
Example 6/ Obs I/ Datum (3)
T : “Teguh‟s book? So, where is your book?”
S : “Ga bawa buku, Mr.”
62
In the previous paragraph, there had been introduced two types of
flouting the maxim: quality and quantity. In this paragraph, it will be discussed
the third short (principle) of flouting maxim, flouting the maxim of Manner.
Basically, a maxim of manner is flouted when a speaker is being unruly, vague,
unclear, hazy, or wordy in his or her respond to the other speaker during
conversation or speech act. Again, this occurrence takes place persistently and
the consequence is a spawned implicature or an extra meaning rather than the
literal or textual meaning. Example (6), demonstrates how the speaker (S) has
flouted the maxim of manner. Principally, the teacher was asking about the
where student (S) book is and his answer need to be as systematic and
apparent as possible. The student is also need to be brief in order to assist the
receiver (teacher) obtaining the accurate strand of information she has
solicited before. In the other hand, the speaker (Student) is not being
adequately systematic; he is supplying inadequate place which is inappropriate
for the context of discussion. Regardless of this occurrence, it cannot be
assumed that student was trying to deceive or even trick his Teacher. As an
alternative, it can be claimed that he is being cooperative and trying to imply
something else or extra meaning.
This extra meaning could be that he does not know how to say “ga bawa buku”
in English. The word “ga bawa buku” can be translated into “does not bring
book”.
Example 7/ Obs I/ Datum (6)
T : “Ok Maya, please write the first!”
(Student was writing on the white board)
T : “Don‟t forget to write the ? “
63
S : “Titik”
One more example about flouting the maxim of manner is example
number (7). It has been revealed above that the maxim of manner is flouted
when a speaker decides intentionally to be unclear, ambiguous, unruly or not
brief in his or her respond to the other speaker. Based on the example above,
the speaker (T) asked speaker (S) to complete her utterance by providing blank
filling. The teacher (T) expected that the student (S) would give the answer by
saying word punctuation or full stop. In this case, the student filed to observe
teacher‟s implicature. Instead of saying „punctuation‟ or „full stop”.
Dealing with the reason for maxim flouting, as Leech and Thomas
remark via Mey (2001: 78), people can flout or intentionally break one of
conversational maxims to lead the listener to find a hidden meaning. In his
book, Leech (1983: 104) explains some illocutionary functions of saying
something with some hidden meanings in order to act politely in front of the
others. These illocutionary functions becomes the reasons for maxim
flouting, they are competitive, convivial, collaborative, and conflictive.
Based on the observation of teacher and students utterances or
dialogue in the classroom during the English teaching and learning process,
obtained 60 data consider as flouting maxims. The reasons or purposes
found in flouting the maxim are in the form of competitive, convivial,
collaborative, and conflictive.
The summary of findings of purposes of speaker of each dialogue
flouts the conversational maxims found can be seen in the following table.
64
Table 4.4 Frequency of Occurrence of
Reason for maxim flouting
N
O
Conversational Maxim Total Percentage
1 Competitive 12 20,%
2 Convivial 3 5%
3 Collaborative 35 58,33%
4 Conflictive 10 16,7%
TOTAL 60 100%
Table 4.3 above shows that the highest reason for flouting the
conversational maxims is collaborative 35 data (58,33%). Leech (1983: 104)
explains that collaborative happens when an illocutionary goal is different
from the social goal. There are asserting, reporting, announcing, and
instructing that are included in this reason. Here the illocutionary goal and
the social goal work together for a purpose of giving understanding. This
reason closely related to the flouting of quantity maxim. This indicated that
the speaker in the English teaching and learning process mostly use
collaborative to flout the maxims.
In addition, the lowest reason for flouting the conversational maxims
is convivial which is 3 data (5%). This is a reason for maxim flouting where
an illocutionary goal coincides with the social goal as in offering, inviting,
greeting, thanking, and congratulation (Leech, 1993: 104). Here, there is no
disadvantaged side, both self and society are happy getting advantages from
an utterance.
65
B. Data Analysis
In this section, the researcher provides the analysis of the data which
consists of (1) the cooperative principles of maxim occur in the interaction
of teacher-students in English teaching and learning process, (2) the types of
flouting maxims occur in the interaction of teacher-students in English
teaching and learning process, and (3) the reasons of speaker used flouting
maxims in the interaction of teacher-students in English teaching and
learning process.
1. The Cooperative Principle of Maxim occur in the interaction of
teacher-students in English teaching and learning process
The success of conversation depends on the various speakers
approach to the interaction. The way in which people try to make
conversations work is called Cooperative Principle. The Cooperative
principle is an indispensable assumption made by speaker and hearer
when they speak to one another. In that particular conversation, we are
attempting to collaborate with one another to assemble evocative and
meaningful exchanges. Grice (1975) offers the Cooperative Principle which
states “make your conversational contribution such is required, as the stage
at which it occurs by the accepted purpose or the direction of the talk
exchange which you are engaged”.
It can be said that the speakers need to supply meaningful, fruitful
utterance to extend and maintain the conversation. Furthermore, listener
needs to assume that his or her conversational partner is doing the
66
equivalent principle. Dealing with his Cooperative Principle, Grice has
divided Cooperative principle into four basic conversational maxims.
Based on the data findings of the research, there are 51
cooperative principle of maxims found in the English teaching and
learning context. From four maxims proposed in the theory of Grice;
maxim of quantity, maxims of quality, maxims of relation and maxims
of manner, There are two dominant maxims obeyed in the teacher and
students interaction in English teaching and learning process, they are
maxim of quantity and maxim of quality. The analysis of the data is
described as follow:
a. Maxim of Quantity
In the maxim of quantity, a speaker is expected to provide
sufficient information, relatively adequate and give the information
effectively. Such information shall not exceed the actual information
needed by the hearer.
This maxim says that speaker has to make the contribution as
informative as required (for the current purpose of the exchange),
and do not make the contribution more informative than is required.
The following examples are the dialogues that obey maxim of
Quantity in English teaching and learning process.
Maxim of quantity as one of the cooperative principle is
chiefly concerned with providing information as it is needed and that
not giving the contribution more informative than it required.
67
Therefore, each participant‟s contribution to conversation should be
just as informative as it requires, it should not be less informative or
more informative. And say as much as helpful but not more
informative or less informative. Finnegan (2004: 93) defines that in
normal circumstance, speakers say just enough, that they supply no
less information and no more than is necessary for the purpose of the
communication.
Obs II/ Datum (53)
T : “So, what other fairy tale from Indonesia?” anyone
knows? Maybe
Salsabilla?”
S : “Hmmmmm, Tangkuban Perahu, Malin Kundang, apa lagi
ya, hmmmm,
Keong Mas, Beauty and the Beast dari mana?”
T : “Gak termasuk, is western.”
In the utterance above, the student is obeying the maxim of
quantity. The student, who obeys maxim of quantity, seemed to give
the contribution as informative as needed. When Mr (the teacher)
asked the student to explain the other fairy tale from Indonesia, the
student was being informative in which she mentioned several fairy
tale come from Indonesia. Since the student obeyed the maxim of
quantity, conversation between the student and Mr (the teacher)
succeed. He doesn‟t give any more information. By saying like that,
she has obeyed the maxim of quantity.
Example 2
Obs III/ Datum (83)
T : “OK, what‟s the last job? What was that? Tiyo, please,
answer!”
S : “The last job is collecting nectar, Mr.”
68
T : “Good”
The researcher stated that in the conversation above, the
student answered the question clearly and it made the Mr (the
teacher) compliment with him (the student). He has answered with
simple statement, without more explanation. When Mr (the teacher)
asked him about question in the task (about the last job of bee). Then
he (the student) said that the last job is collecting nectar. After
hearing his answered, Mr (the teacher) complimented him by saying
“good” and the teacher seems very happy with the answer. The
communication works well since the student obeys the maxim of
quantity. The informative contribution that was given by the student
was successfully delivered enough to Mr (the teacher).
b. Maxim of Quality
A speaker is expected to deliver something tangible and in
accordance with the actual facts in speaking.The maxim of quality
says that speaker has to try making the contribution one that is true,
do not say what you believe to be false, and do not say that for
which you lack evidence.
The Maxim of Quality suggests that the speaker need to in-
form the fact in a conversation in order to create cooperative
communication. Grice (1975: 44) states that when we are held on
conversation, the Maxim of Quality requires that we
1) Do not say what we consider to be fake.
69
2) Do not say something without having adequate and sufficient
evidence.
The following examples are the dialogues that obey maxim
of Quality from the English teaching and learning process in the
classroom.
Obs II/ Datum (28)
T : “Bella, what narrative text do you ever read?”
S : “Ya, Cuma Cinderrela, Malin Kundang, Keong Mas.”
The utterance of the student above was stated as obeying
maxim of quality. The maxim of quality is obeyed when the answer
is true. When Mr (the teacher) asked about the narrative text that the
student ever read, the student answered clearly that the narrative text
that she ever read are Cinderrela, Malin Kundang, and Keong Mas.
The researcher stated the student‟ contribution has been understood
by the teacher. The student realize that Cinderrela, Malin Kundang,
and Keong Mas are the narrative text she ever read. By saying like
that, the student has obeyed maxim of quality.
c. Maxim of Relevance
Maxims of relation recommend that the utterance must be
relevant to the topic being conversed. Finegan (2004) states that this
maxim expects speaker to deliver their utterance in such a way that is
applicable and relevant to particular context being discussed: Be
relevant at the time of the utterance. The maxim of relevance is
fulfilled when the speaker gives contribution that is relevant to the
70
topic of preceding utterance. Therefore, Grundy (2000: 74) says that
each participant‟s need to contribute relevant utterance related to the
subject of conversation, for example:
Obs III/ Datum 73
T : “OK, so these are cells in a bee hive. We have cells in our
body, skin cells hair cells, muscle cells, OK, any other
questions? (looking around the class) Does anyone have to
ask a question about word, about meaning, pronunciation?
S : “Gak, Mr, bisa.”
Here, the student‟ utterance fulfilled the maxim of relevance,
because the student‟s answer is relevant with the question. It indicates
that the student understand what was being said by the teacher.
d. Maxim of Manner
Maxim of manner requires speaker‟s utterance to be
understandable or comprehensible or not to be ambiguous, obscure,
or disorderly and unnecessary prolixity. Thus, each participant‟s
contribution needs to be plausibly direct, that is, it should not be
blurred, ambiguous or excessively wordy. For example:
Obs III/ Datum 65
T : OK. So guys, OK, the poem just goes down the lines. If
your side has a
line read it. If you don‟t have a line, just wait. We‟ll start
slowly, altogether, ready, “Being a bee...”(Teacher is leading
a lead of both groups with hands and taking a rhythm.)
(Students is reading the poem. Teacher is reading it with
them. Dava, do you know about the poem?”
S : “Bee?”
The student‟s answer is following maxim of manner, the
student can answer the question from his teacher about the movie
clearly.
71
2. The types of flouting maxims occur in the interaction of teacher-
students in English teaching and learning process
Maxim flouting is intentionally breaking the maxims in order to
convey hidden meanings and lead the listener to find out the implied
meaning from the maxim flouting. This form of non-observance of
maxims is explained further in the next review.
Maxim flouting belongs to the forms of non-observed
Cooperative Principle (Grice, 1975: 49). It is non-observing the maxims
of Cooperative Principle by intentionally breaking the maxims to convey
hidden meanings. Flouting the maxims is different from violating the
maxims in terms of the purposes. The speakers do maxim flouting to
lead implied meanings to the listeners. They have no intention to
generate a misleading implicature in the conversation. On the other
hand, maxim violation is intentionally to mislead the listeners‟
understanding about something.
Thomas (1995: 65) in his definition explains that maxim flouting
means intentionally failing to follow the maxims of Cooperative
Principle without any intention to deceive or make a misunderstanding.
The only reason is that the speaker wishes the listener to understand the
meaning of the speaker, either the literal expressed meaning or the
hidden meaning. Here, a speaker may convey different meanings from
the literal meaning of the utterance. Then, the speaker assumes that the
listener will be able to infer the implicit meanings of the speaker. For
72
some reasons, Yule (1996: 43) includes the implicit meaning of maxim
flouting drawn by the listener in a conversation in the particularized
conversational implicature as has been explained above.
Based on the finding, most of flouting is occurred in flouting
maxim of quality and quantity. In the flouting maxim of quality,
according to Grice‟s, When a speaker flouts a maxim of quality, the
speaker simply says something that does not represent what he or she
actually thinks. The speaker fails to fulfill the maxim of quality; a
maxim that requires the speaker to make a contribution that is true, that
is not saying what is believed to be false and not saying that for which
the speaker lacks of adequate evidence.
Meanwhile, Quantity maxim flouting means that the speakers of
a conversation fail to fulfill the maxim of quantity in the Cooperative
Principle. It includes whether the speakers are not as informative as is
required or more informative than is required. Speakers become less
informative or more informative when they flout maxim of quantity.
The analysis of the data is described as follow:
a. The Flouting of Quantity Maxim: Flouting maxim of quantity occurs
when the speakers provide information which is irregular or unclear
to the listener. Quantity maxim flouting means that the speakers of a
conversation fail to fulfill the maxim of quantity in the Cooperative
Principle. It includes whether the speakers are not as informative as
is required or more informative than is required. Speakers become
73
less informative or more informative when they flout maxim of
quantity.
The maxim states:
1) Make your contribution as informative as is required
2) Do not make your contribution more informative than is required
The case is as follows:
Obs II/ Datum (42)
T :”How about you Edy, What Purbararang do to Purbasari?
S :”black magic.”
The utterances above consider flouts the maxim of quantity since the
information does not give clear contribution and it is not informative
as required. The students‟ answer does not clearly answer the entire
teacher‟s question which means that the students are confuse or do
not know the answer.
b. The Flouting of Quality maxim: Flouting maxim of quality may
occur when a speaker tries to gives information tend not true or a lie
about something to the listener. In addition, the speaker fails to
fulfill the maxim of quality; a maxim that requires the speaker to
make a contribution that is true, that is not saying what is believed to
be false and not saying that for which the speaker lacks of adequate
evidence.
The maxim states:
1) Do not say what you believe to be false
2) Do not say that no which you lack adequate evidence
74
The case is as follows:
Obs III/ Datum (85)
T : “Could you find food in the mountains? Greens, vegetables,
...[not
transcribed] nuts,...Could you do that? Bella?
S : “Yes, Mr, we can find food in the mountain, banana.”
In this conversation, the student flouts maxim of quality by saying
thing that lacks adequate evidence. It makes the student contribution
one that is not true, of course it is blatantly false for in fact there are
so many other cank now there are bananas in the mountain.
c. The Flouting of Relevance/Relation Maxim: Flouting maxim of
relation may occur when a speaker give answers that do not mesh
with the previous conversation or try to change the subject that is
going on in a conversation. Relevance maxim flouting means that
the speakers of a conversation fail to be relevant in communicating.
Speakers are usually being irrelevant in flouting maxim of relevance.
However, being irrelevant does not purely mean that the speakers do
not want to be relevant. Sometimes, speakers are being irrelevant
because they want to hide somethin g or to say something to others
indirectly.
The maxim states:
Make your contribution relevant
The case is as follows:
Obs II/ Datum (49)
T : “Nugroho, what are you doing?”
S : “No, Mr”
75
In this conversation, the student is being irrelevant. As expected, the
student should provide an answer for “WH” question which required
explanation. However, since the answer has been obvious, the
student flouts maxim of relevance to emphasize his answer of „no.‟
Here, by being irrelevant, the student flouts maxim of relevance and
successful in conveying his unstated meaning.
d. The Flouting of Manner Maxim: To be clear in saying things is
what all speakers try to do. However, in some occasion, ambiguity
indeed happens whether the speaker intends to make it or not. Then,
maxim of manner is not fulfilled as the result.
The maxim states:
1. Avoid obscurity, ambiguity
2. Be brief, orderly
The case is as follows:
Obs III/ Datum (79)
T : A drone guarding a hive? Do you agree with him? Do you agree?
This
bee‟s guarding a hive? Erwan?”
S : “Yes, pokoke manut wae, Mr”
Obs III/ Datum (80)
T : “What do drones do? What do drones do? On the tape they talked
about
jobs. What did he, what did she say drones do? Nugroho, what drone
do? (Teacher is playing the tape again.)
S : “Gak jelas, Mr, apa ya Mr.”
The above conversations demonstrate how the speaker (S) has flouted
the maxim of manner. Principally, the teacher was asking about the
student‟s agreement (S) and his answer need to be as systematic and
76
apparent as possible. The student is also need to be brief in order to
assist the receiver (teacher) obtaining the accurate strand of
information she has solicited before. In the other hand, the speaker
(Student) is not being adequately systematic; he is supplying
inadequate place which is inappropriate for the context of discussion.
Regardless of this occurrence, it cannot be assumed that student was
trying to deceive or even trick his Teacher. As an alternative, it can be
claimed that he is being cooperative and trying to imply something else
or extra meaning. This extra meaning could be that he does not know
how to answer “setuju” in English. The word “setuju” can be
translated into “agree”. Instead of answering agree to the teacher, the
student prefer to answer “Yes, pokoke manut wae, Mr” which then
resulted in the flouting maxim of manner. The second conversation
also implies the same condition as the first conversation, in which
the student provides ambiguous sentence. Here, the student has
flouted the maxim of manner. His sentence can be meant that the
student does not understand the question or that the student
purposely acts not to listen carefully to the recording played by the
teacher (actually he should listen to the tape). Here, the student‟s
utterance is ambiguous. It has two meanings inside that can make the
listener confused.
77
3. The reasons of speaker used flouting maxims in the interaction of
teacher-students in English teaching and learning process
Dealing with the reason for maxim flouting, as Leech and
Thomas remark via Mey (2001: 78), people can flout or intentionally
break one of conversational maxims to lead the listener to find a hidden
meaning. In his book, Leech (1983: 104) explains some illocutionary
functions of saying something with some hidden meanings in order to
act politely in front of the others. These illocutionary functions becomes
the reasons for maxim flouting, they are competitive, convivial,
collaborative, and conflictive.
The analysis on the reason for maxim flouting is as follows:
a. Competitive
Below is the example of maxim flouting which has reason
of competitive found in the interaction of teacher and students in the
classroom:
Obs II/ Datum (88)
T : “Tiyo, can you cook?”
S : “Pasti bisa, Mr, I can cook”
Obs III/ Datum (89)
T : “Bella, can you cook?”
S : “Of course, Mr, aku bisa masak soup lho.”
This reason relates to the illocutionary goal that competes
with the social goal as in ordering, asking, demanding, and begging
(Leech, 1983: 104). Goal is the intended meaning. Here,
illocutionary goal is a self-centered goal, a goal which concerns
78
more on each person‟s self and does not care about the others. In
these types of reason there is a competition between the illocutionary
goal and the social goal.
In the example above, there is a competition between
illocutionary goal of Tiyo and Bella (the student) and their social
goal. Their social goal is to show that they can cook, while their
illocutionary goal is finishing their own answer to the teacher. Here
Mr (the teacher) understands the condition that Tiyo and Bella want
to tell to the teacher about their ability to cook. Then, she
intentionally flout maxim of relevance because she refuses to give
comment about the students‟ answer on how they can cook. In the
dialog, a competitive reason leads Mr (the teacher) to flouts maxim
of relevance. Her illocutionary goal finally is over her social goal.
b. Convivial
Below is the example of maxim flouting which has reason
of convivial found in the interaction of teacher and students in the
classroom:
Obs II/ Datum (31)
T : “How about Bella?”
S : “hmmmm, pakai past tense, Mr.”
T : “Yes, you are right, past tense.”
Obs II/ Datum (32)
T : “Then, anyone knows the generic structure of narrative text?”
Hasan?”
S : “Structure ya, Mr, kayaknya opening, closing
T : “Wrong”
Obs II/ Datum (33)
T : “Maybe, Nugroho knows the generic structure?”
79
S : “Wait, Mr, tak baca dulu”
Obs II/ Datum (34)
T : “Maulana, do you know the generic structure of narrative text?”
S : “I know orientation, trus ada resolution gitu, ya, Mr?
T : “Yes, good, continue.”
This is a reason for maxim flouting where an illocutionary
goal coincides with the social goal as in offering, inviting, greeting,
thanking, and congratulation (Leech, 193: 104). Here, there is no
disadvantaged side; both self and society are happy getting
advantages from an utterance.
In the example above, the social goal is that the students
receive the compliment and the illocutionary goal is that the teacher
responds to the students answer by giving compliment such as
“good, very well, etc”. Here, there is no competition, but a perfect
goal meeting. Since both side aim to gain satisfaction in the talk, the
reason for maxim flouting is convivial reason.
c. Collaborative
Below is the example of maxim flouting which has reason of
collaborative found in the interaction of teacher and students in the
classroom:
Obs III/ Datum (102)
T : “You need to mark each word. Is this singular, is this just one or
is it plural? Now usually in English you put an “S” or “es” but these
words are different. They‟ve come from Latin and they have Latin
plural rules. So tell me which words are singular and which words
are plural and then add some more words that are like these with
Latin endings or any other. That‟s the homework, see you next
week. You don‟t need textbooks next week. Guys, do you
understand the homework?”
S : “Mr, please repeat!, shout one of students
80
Obs III/ Datum (103)
T : “Guys, do you understand the homework for next week?”
S : All students “Yes, Mr.”
Obs III/ Datum (104)
T : “Nugroho, do you know the homework?”
S : “Plural and singular, Mr
T : “Okey”
Leech (1983: 104) explains that collaborative happens when
an illocutionary goal is is different from the social goal. There are
asserting, reporting, announcing, and instructing that are included in
this reason. Here the illocutionary goal and the social goal work
together for a purpose of giving instruction. This reason closely
related to the flouting of quantity maxim.
In the example above, the reason for the students to flout the
maxim of quantity is that they want to tell the teacher that they do
not understand what the teacher‟s implied in the homework. Their
illocutionary goal is reporting that they need the teacher to repeat the
instruction of the homework. In this case, the contexts support the
students‟ response, so the teacher understands the intended meaning
of the students.
d. Conflictive
Below is the example of maxim flouting which has reason of
conflictive found in the interaction of teacher and students during the
teaching and learning process:
Obs III/ Datum (68)
T : “Do you know any? (waiting for a while) Tell me some -ize
verbs.
81
(Teacher is moving to the front of the class and writing down the
words with -ize to make sure the words which has been picked
up.) So, unionize, patronize, what‟s another words that I have?
Any with -ize or -yze? Bella, can you mention!”
S : “unionize, patronize.”
Obs III/ Datum (69)
T : “Tiyo, You know the words like this, categorize, put things into
categories, categorize. Analyze,form an analysis of ... you know the
words like this, -ize, -yze? What else?
S : “Memorize, Mr”
Obs III/ Datum (70)
T : “Memorize , OK. (Teacher is writing “memorize” on the paper.)
Put into your memory, memorize. Any more? Teguh, or other can do
maybe?”
S : Teguh “hmmmm, itu, Mr, formalize.”
T : Formalize, yeah! (nodding) (writing down “formalize” on the
paper) formalize, make formal. OK, any other questions about any
words? Is there any word you don‟t understand?
Conflictive is a reason where the illocutionary goal of a
conversation conflicts with the social goal (Leech, 1983:104). They
are including threatening, accusing, cursing, reprimanding. Here, the
illocutionary goal and the social goal are very different.
Then the society is disvantages, while some one dominates
the advantage of an utterance. In the above example, the students
intend to convince Mr (the teacher) that they can explain about the
pronunciation of some words, and then flout the maxim of manner.
The social goal is accusing for their answer. On the other hand, the
illocutionary goal is stating what they know about the pronunciation
of some words told by the teacher. In the conversation above, the
word „hmmmm, itu, Mr, formalize‟ becomes the conflictive words.
There is no evidence about the answer „formalize‟ stated by the
82
student if it is in accordance with the teacher‟s explanation. Whereas
the student states the contrary, he insist that formalize is belong to
words with -ize or -yze so in this case, the reason for the maxim
flouting is conflictive.
The summary of data analysis of the Cooperative Principle of
Maxims found in the English teaching and learning process with its
flouting and implicatures can be seen in the following table.
Table 4.5 The Summary of Data Analysis of The Cooperative
Principle of Maxims
No Classification Data Number Teacher Students Number
Maxim
1. Quantity
Students :
001 002 003 004 005
006 007 009 010 011
012 013 015 016 017
019 020 021 022 024
Teacher :
023 039 040 041 043
045 061 062 063 064
065 066 067 068 069
071 072 073 074 075
077 079 080 081
20
(18%)
24
(21,62%)
44
(39,63%)
2. Quality Teacher :
035 036 037 038 042
044 046 047 048 049
035 036 037 038 042
Students :
082 084 085 086 087
088 090 092 093 094
095 096
098 099 100 101 102
104
15
(13,51%)
18
(16,21%)
33
(29,72%)
3. Relation Teacher :
050 051 052 053 055
066 067
Students :
105 106 014 018 054
7
(6,30%)
7
(6,30%)
14
(12,61%)
83
056 057
4. Manner Teacher :
055 056 057 058 059
060
061 062 063
Students :
111 112 113 008 014
018 023 039 040 041
045
9
(8,10%)
11
(9,90%)
20
(18,01%)
TOTAL 51 60 111
(45,94%) (54,05%) (100%)
Table 4.6 The Summary of Data Analysis of The Reason for
Flouting Maxim
No Classification Data Number Teacher Students Number
1. Competitive Student :
074 076 078 083 089
Teacher :
097 111 116 123 126
130 133
7
(11,67%)
5
(8,3%)
12
(20%)
2. Convival Student :
023
Teacher :
039 040
2
(3,33%)
1
(1,67%)
3
(5%)
3. Collaborative Student :
041 043 045 061 062
063 064 065 066 067
Teacher :
071 072 073 074 075
077 079 080 081 082
084 085 086 087 088
090 092 093 008 014
018 023 083 068 069
25
(41,67%)
10
(16,67%)
35
(58,33%)
4. Conflictive Student :
014 018 054 056
057 058 059 060
Teacher :
107 108
2
(3,33%)
8
(13,33%)
10
(16,67%)
Total 36 24 60
60% 40% 100%
84
C. Discussion
EFL classroom is a social context in its own right, it is the capital
importance to understand the nature of classroom discourse focusing on
Grice‟s cooperative principles by recognizing the important relationship
between language use and pedagogical purpose (Nunan, 1991). The goal
oriented activities in which teacher and students are engaged are shaped
by and for the work progress of the lesson.
Teachers and students adjust their use of language according to
the task in which they are involved. Grice‟s maxims are not rules to
follow blindly but they do provide the reflective teacher with a useful
means of critically examining his or her own interactive behavior since
the object was not really achieved. The students did not understand the
instructions because the teacher did not find the appropriate words that
can simplify the subject matter and thus convey the message
successfully. In terms of quality, the teacher tends to generalize by
giving vague explanations.
After obtaining the data, the researcher needs to discuss the findings
in order to clarify the answer of research problems. The problem which is
proposed in this research is the types of cooperative principles occur in the
classroom interaction of English. Grice (1975) theory was used to analyze
the types of observance, non-observance and implicatures produced in
the classroom of English teaching and learning process. The analysis
showed that both teachers and students observe all of the Gricean
85
maxims in certain part of classroom teaching activities. Most of the
teachers and students in this research have formulated an efficient and
effective use of language in conversation. The total utterances of
observance on Gricean Maxims produced by teachers and students were
51 utterances. In quantity maxims, generally both of teacher and
students gave a contribution as informative as required in classroom
interaction. The amount of information influenced the success of
teaching and learning process. Based on the data findings, maxim of
quantity which is frequently occur in the English teaching and learning
process.
There are 20 (39,3%) data of 51 observance on Gricean Maxims
consider as maxim of quantity. Then, maxim of quality also occurs
during the English teaching and learning process. There are 15 (29,5%)
data of 51 observance on Gricean Maxims consider as maxim of quality
found in the interaction of teacher and students. The rest are maxim of
relation and maxim of manner. There are 7 (13,8%) data of 51
observance on Gricean Maxims included in this type, and becomes the
least type of maxim occur in the English teaching and learning process.
Moreover, maxim of manner occur at 9 (17,7%) data.
Regardless to the above findings, The teacher were able to used
maxim of quality to conveyed true information to the students, the teacher
had used maxim of manner in shared the ideas to students, the teacher had
used maxim of relevance in conveyed the relevance information to the
86
students, and also the teacher were able to used maxim of quantity when
giving the sufficient contribution to the students.
Levinson (1983: 102) these maxims specify what participants have
to do in order to converse in a maximally efficient, rational, co-operative
way: they should speak sincerely, relevantly and clearly, while providing
sufficient information. It means that a cooperative principle is a rule that has
a function to make an effective and cooperative conversation. It can be done
by the communicants who involved in topic conversation by using clearly
language, related to the topic which is being discuss, and also can giving the
enough information to the listener.
In addition, Yule (1996, p. 37) states that “It is important to
recognize these maxims as unstated assumptions we have in conversations.
We assume that people are normally going to provide an appropriate amount
of information; we assume that they are telling the truth, being relevant, and
trying to be as clear as they can”. It means that, cooperative principles ask
the communicants should enable say statement which has true thing to the
listener, providing the information just what the listener‟s required or need,
relevant with the context, and also has clear meaning when communicate.
Generally used of Cooperative Principles had done aware by the
teachers in classroom. It can be seen that, the teachers were able to deliver
the lessons as clearly, briefly, and orderly. Besides that, there are also some
utterances that failed in used cooperative principles. It happened because the
teacher‟s effort in ignore this maxim intentionally because the teachers
87
faced on holding their language clearly without using maxim of quantity and
keep used this maxim by giving the sufficient information to the students.
So that, the teacher chose to violate maxim of quantity in their utterances in
order to produce utterance clearly and mostly the teachers used repetition on
her utterances, it had done by them in order to make students more
understanding about the material.
Moreover, the conversational implicature (flouting maxim) occur in
the dialogue of a teacher and her students during EFL teaching and learning
process is also discussed in this research. Based on the implicature point of
view proposed by Grice, there are two shorts of implicature those are
conventional implicature and conversational implicature. In the present
research, the flouting maxim is the vocal point. It is because the utterances in
dialogue of a teacher and her students during EFL teaching and learning
process are analyzed by maxims of conversation which means they depend on
the recognizing the cooperative principle especially flouting maxim.
It was discovered that there are 60 conversational implicature (flouting
maxim) in the dialogue of a teacher and her students during EFL teaching
and learning process. It can be claimed that the way to produce
conversational implicature in the dialogue is violating or flouting maxim of
quality, maxim of quantity, maxim of relevance and maxim of manner.
Flouting maxim of quantity happens when speaker intentionally provide
more or less information than the situation requires. Flouting maxim of quality
occurs when speaker contribute is untrue or fake information. Flouting
88
maxim of relevance happens when the speaker‟s input is not relevant for
the context being discussed. Flouting maxim of manner occurs when
speaker‟s input is not translucent and it may be incomprehensible, ambiguous
and not reasonable direct.
In present study, It can be found that the Student (S) often flout the
maxim of quantity, quality, and manner. The reason why speaker (S) flouts
the maxim of quantity is that the speaker doesn‟t have sufficient linguistic
competence on order to give proper response toward teacher utterance based
on Speaker (T) or teacher‟s utterance. One of the most important in getting
social link is communication. Communication is the main point in order to
get anything that someone want to say. Communication is an exchange of
information or repeated speech between speaker and listener. It is not easy
to begin a conversation with someone new for someone, even when
someone has to begin a conversation with person who has already he/she
known but separated for a long time. The distinction in speaking between
the people with the same level with the speaker or different level also one
point of creating a good conversation. Same like when speaker is talking
with friend, what speaker do is just believe about anything about the
speech. According to Audi (132), typically not inferential. Certainly when
trusted friends speak to us on matters we have no reason to think are
beyond their competence, we normally “just believe” what they tell us. In
order to create a good conversation or communication someone has to
know about what kind of conversation that he/she wants to create.
89
The flouting maxims is the most interesting and intriguing case
comparing to other cases such as observing, violating, or opting out of
them. It is because the flouting of the maxims always brings about the
happening of conversational implicature which allows a speaker to convey
meaning beyond what is literally expressed. As Grundy says (2000: 39)
that whenever a maxim is flouted there must be an implicature to save the
utterances from simply appearing to be a faulty contribution to
conversation. Thus, in this flouting of the maxim cases, what a speaker
literally says is not what he/she intends to convey. The listener has to work
out what the speaker intends to convey.
After the research, the researcher took a conclusion that in EFL, the
flouting maxims cannot be avoided. The result of the research shows that
flouting maxims occur in the interaction of teacher and students during the
teaching and learning process as in daily conversation where many
flouting maxims may occur during the conversation, however the Grice
theory about flouting maxims can be judged wrong or correct, because the
language always grows, so back to the main purpose of the language, as
the tool of communication, even if speaker can‟t say it correctly but as
long as the listener understand that will be fine.
90
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
This chapter presents the conclusions from the findings and the
discussion in the previous chapter. This chapter also offers some
suggestions for furthers studies on the same issues about Grice‟s theory of
Cooperative Principle.
A. Conclusions
The data analysis and the result of the research findings reveal
following conclusions as follows:
1. The present research tried to employ one of the outstanding theories in
the field of Semantics and Pragmatics namely Grice‟s theory
Conversational Implicature. The focal point of the present study was to
analyze the applicability of Grice‟s of cooperative principle of Maxims
which is divided into the observance and the non-observance of maxim.
All of the speakers (teacher and students) are able to observe 4 maxims
proposed by Grice. The total utterances of observance on Gricean
Maxims produced by teacher and students were 51 utterances. In
quantity maxims, generally both of teacher and students gave a
contribution as informative as required in classroom interaction. The
non-observance maxim is far more dominating rather than the
observance maxim, the propotion is about 54,06%. The non-observance
90
91
maxim in this research covering the flouting maxim of quality, quantity,
relation and manner on EFL classroom interaction context.
There are 60 data (50,06%) found that considered as flouting maxims.
Most of the flouting maxims are in the form of quantity, 24 (40%) and
quality, 18 (30%).
2. Based on the implicature point of view proposed by Grice, there are two
shorts of implicature those are conventional implicature and
conversational implicature. In this research, the implicature found in the
interaction of teacher and students during the English teaching and
learning process considered as the conversational implicature
3. In the present research, flouting maxim is the vocal point. It is because the
utterances in dialogue of a teacher and her students during EFL teaching
and learning process were analyzed by maxims of conversation which
means they depend on the recognizing the cooperative principle
especially flouting maxim. It was discovered that there are 60
conversational implicature (flouting maxim) in the dialogue of a teacher
and her students during EFL teaching and learning process. It can be
claimed that the way to produce conversational implicature in the
dialogue is violating or flouting maxim of quality, maxim of quantity,
maxim of relevance and maxim of manner. Flouting maxim of quantity
happens when speaker intentionally provide more or less information
than the situation requires. Flouting maxim of quality occurs when
speaker contribute is untrue or fake information. Flouting maxim of
92
relevance happens when the speaker‟s input is not relevant for the
context being discussed. Flouting maxim of manner occurs when
speaker‟s input is not translucent and it may be incomprehensible,
ambiguous and not reasonable direct. In present study, It can be found
that the Student (S) often flout the maxim of quantity, quality, and
manner. The reason why speaker (S) flouts the maxim of quantity is that
the speaker doesn‟t have sufficient linguistic competence on order to
give proper response toward teacher utterance based on Speaker (T) or
teacher‟s utterance
B. Suggestion
1. For Further Researchers
It is also valuable to recommend the further research to
conduct the similar topic of research (classroom conversational
maxims) with bases on various subjects‟ aspect namely: gender, age
and school environment. The further researcher also may conduct a
research deeply on flouting or violating the maxims such as the
creation of humors in the language teaching context to build the
teacher-students relationship and enhance the students‟ participation
in the classroom.
2. For Teachers
EFL teachers should exploit Grice‟s maxims to create a
communicative atmosphere in their English classroom basing their
93
teaching style on cooperation. In linguistics terms, classroom
interaction should offer students the opportunities to negotiate
meaning and therefore facilitates the communicative competence
development. The teachers need to develop a close rapport with
his/her students and create a supportive atmosphere to encourage
learner‟s participation. The teacher and students should establish
trustful relationship. To be facilitators, teachers need empathy,
acceptance and congruence because students looks upon teachers as
parents, hearers and responsible.
It is advisable for the EFL teachers to be flexible in their
teaching method, and know when to intervene in students‟ conflict.
They need to know how to set up classroom structure so that
students can be responsible of their learning.
3. For Students
Students should be able to identify the type of flouting maxims
in the interaction of teacher-students including the reasons for using it.
This research can help the students to increase the communicative
competence in English.
94
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Akhimien. 2006. The Speech Act Theory. Vol. 3: 748-756.
Asker, David A. And Myers, John G. 1994. Advertising Management, New
Delhi: Prentice Hall of India.
Austin, J. L. 1992. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford University Press.
Berg. Bruce.L. 2001. Qualitative Research Methods For The Social
Sciences. USA: A Pearson Education Company
Blommaert J.,. 2005. Discourse, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bogdan, RC & Biklen, SK. 1982). Qualitative research for education; An
introduction to theory and methods, Boston: Allyn and Bacon
Burns, N. and Grove, S. 2001. The practice of nursing research: conduct,
critique and utilization (4th ed). W.B.Saunders: Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, USA.
Cutting, Joan. 2002. Pragmatics and Discourse. London: Routledge.
Cook, V.,. 1995. SLABIB, Second Language Acquisition
Bibliography, Essex University.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/vivian.c/SLA/SLABIB/index.htm.
Coulthard M.,. 1985. An introduction to discourse analysis. London:
Longman.
Creswell, JW. (1994). Research Design; Qualitative, Quantitative and
Mixed Methods Approaches, Fourth Edition, USA: SAGE
Publication.
95
Cruse, D.A. 2000. Meaning in Language: An Introduction to Semantic and
Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Crystal D. 1991. A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics (3rd
edition).
Oxford: Blackwell.
Finegan, Edward. 1997. Language, Its Structure and Use, Harcourt Brac
Javoniwnien.
Grundy P., .2000. Doing pragmatics. London: Arnold.
Grice, Paul H. 1975. Logic and Conversation. Syntax and Semantic
Speech Act. 3rd
ed New York: Academic Press.
Grice, Paul H. 1975. Studies in the Way of Words. Harvard: Harvard
University Press.
Grice, Paul. 1981. Presupposition and Conversational Implicature.
Avalaible at web.stanford.edu/…/potts-blackwellsemantics.pdf
[Accessed 25/12/2017].
Hamidi, Hadi. 2013. A closer Look At Some Reasons Behind code-
Switching: A Case of Iranian EFL Classroom on: ELT Voicer-India.
International Electronic Journal for the Teacher of English. 2,5 89-
102.
Horn, Laurence R. and Ward, Gregory (eds) (2004). “The Handbook of
Pragmatics”. Oxford, Blackwell.
Listyorini, Hanifah. (2013). The Correlation between the Vocabulary
Mastery and Translation Ability of the Eleventh Semester Students
96
of SMA 1 Mejobo in Academic Year 2012/2013.Unpublished
Skripsi.Kudus: Muria Kudus University.
Leech, Geoffrey N. 1969. A Linguistic Guide to English Poetry. .
London: Longman Group Limited.
Levinson S.C.,. 1983. Pragmatics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McCarthy, M., Matthiessen, C. & Slade, D. (2002) “Discourse analysis”. In
N. Schmitt (ed.) An Introduction to Applied Linguistics. London:
Arnold.
Meyer, Charles F. 2009. Introducing English Linguistics. UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Moelong, J. 1999. Pengantar Metode Kualitatif. Jakarta: Obor Nasional.
Paltridge B.,. 2006. Discourse analysis: an introduction, New York
Continuum.
Portner P., .2006. Meaning in Fassold R.W. and Connor-Linton J. (eds) An
Introduction to Language and linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Polite, D.F. and Hungler, B.P. 1999. "Nursing Research-principles and
Methods", Philadelphia: J.B Lippincott Co; 4th edition.
Radford A., Atkinson M., Britain D., Clahsen H. and Spencer A.,. 1999.
Linguistics: an introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Rich, E. And K. Knight. 1991. Artificial Intelligence 2nd Edition. McGraw-
Hill: New York.
97
Richards, Jack C. 2001. Curriculum Development in Language Teaching.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sacks H., Schegloff E.A., and Jefferson G.,. 1974. A simplest systematic for
the organisation of turn-taking for conversation, in Language
December 1974.
Schiffrin D.,. 2006. Discourse in Fassold R.W. and Connor-Linton J. (eds)
An Introduction to Language and linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Sukmadinata, N.S. 2011. Metode Penelitian Pendidikan. Bandung: Remaja
Rosadakarya.
Thomas J. 1995. Meaning in interaction: an introduction to pragmatics,
London: Longman.
Woods N.,. 2006. Describing discourse: a practical guide to discourse
analysis. London: Arnold.
Schmidt N (ed) Introduction to applied linguistics. London: Arnold
Mey, Jacob L. 1993. Pragmatics: An Introduction.. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers.
Searle, J.R. 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of
Languange. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1969.
Stafford, Roy. 2015. TV Sitcoms and Gender (Notes to supports
Pictureville Event February 2004). Media Education Magazine.
Page 1-5. 10 January 2015.
<http://www.mediaculture-online.de>
98
Grice, Paul. 1975. Logic and Conversation. Avalaible at
www.ucl.ac.uk/ls/studypacks/Grice- Logic.pdf [Accessed at
10/12/2018]
Grice, Paul. 1981. Presupposition and Conversational Implicature.
Avalaible at web.stanford.edu/…/potts-blackwellsemantics.pdf
[Accessed 25/12/2018]
Thomas, Jenny. Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics.
Yule, George. 1996. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Yule, George. 2010. The Study of Language: Study Guide. 4th
ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zou, Haixia. 2012. A Study of Verbal Humor in Cross Talk Based
on Adaptation- Relevance Model. Hunan Normal
University.
99
APPENDIX 1 DATA TABULATION
100
Appendix A. The Data Sheet of Cooperative Principle
Type of Cooperative Principle
QN : Quantity
QL : Quality
RL : Relevance
MN : Manner
No Date Code Data
Types of Cooperative
Principle
Context of Situation
QN QL RL MN
1 Decemb
er,20
2017
Obs I/ Datum
(1)
T : “Why are you late”
S : “Kencing, mr..”
T : “Okey, sit!”
Obs I/ Datum
(2)
T : “Okey, students, today we will discuss about the
homework.”
T : “Anton, open your book!”
S : “Yes, Mr.”
T : “Where is your book?”
S : “Teguh‟s book, Mr..”
Obs I/ Datum
(3)
T : “Teguh‟s book? So,where is your book?”
S : “Ga bawa buku, Mr.”
Obs I/ Datum
(4)
T : What are the differences between phrase and
clause?
S : Mr… Clause?
Obs I/ Datum
(5)
T : Can anybody think about an animal story that you
know?
101
No Date Code Data
Types of Cooperative
Principle
Context of Situation
QN QL RL MN
S : Mr Fox, vacation of Mr Fox
T : Is that the story that people do remember?
Obs I/ Datum
(6)
T: What are paragraph be called in the narrative?
S : Sequence
T : Of?
S : Events
Obs I/
Datum (7)
T : “Ok Maya, please write the first!” (Student was
writing on the whiteboard)
T : “Don‟t forget to write the? “
S : “Titik”
Obs I/ Datum
(8)
T : “Are you a caring person?”
S : “Sometimes”
Obs I/ Datum
(9)
T : What is the function of “comma” in sentence?
S : To make sentences more shorter
Obs I/
Datum (10)
T : ” Ok,Edy ,what are you watching?”
S : “No Mr..”
T : “Turn of your handphone!”
Obs I/ Datum
(11)
T : “Dava, can you do the example number 2?”
S : “What, Mr?”
Obs I/
Datum (12)
T : “Dava, please bring your work here, let me check!”
S : “Yes, Mr”
Obs I/ Datum
(13)
T : “Bella, can you make the example of noun phrase!”
S : “Belum bisa, Mr.”
Obs I/ Datum T : “Who can make the example of noun phrase?”
102
No Date Code Data
Types of Cooperative
Principle
Context of Situation
QN QL RL MN
(14)
S : One of students said “Abdul pasti bisa, Mr..”
Obs I/ Datum
(15)
T : “Then, for next week, everybody must make ten
example of noun phrase and noun clause.”
S : “One of students said “Banya ksekali, Mr, belum
paham.”
Obs I/ Datum
(16)
T : “You can take a look on your book about noun phrase
and noun clause!”
S : “Okey, Mr.”
Obs I/ Datum
(17)
T : “Now, Rafa, can you read the example of noun phrase
on your book?”
S : “Yes, Mr, I will. What page, Mr?”
T : “You can read on page 24.”
Obs I/ Datum
(18)
T : “Now, let‟s discuss the example read by Rafa.”
Anyone can make another sentence using noun
phrase?” Maybe Dilla?”
S : “Okey, Mr, saya bisa membuat contoh noun
phrasenya.”
Obs I/ Datum
(19)
T : “Dilla, how about noun clause?”
S : “No.”
T : “Find it in your book!”
Obs I/ Datum
20
T : “Okey, everybody, this is the end of our lesson today,
make sure to not forget the home work, I will give
reward for the best.”
S : “Okey, Mr.”
103
No Date Code Data
Types of Cooperative
Principle
Context of Situation
QN QL RL MN
Decemb
er 28,
2017
Obs II/
Datum (21)
T : “Teguh, what is the function of narrative text?”
S : “Menghibur, Mr.”
Obs II/
Datum (22)
T : “Sandy, do you know the kinds of narrative text?”
S : “I don‟t know”
Obs II/
Datum (23)
T : “Okey, Sandy, do you know the story of Malin
Kundang?”
S : “MalinKundang, I know, Mr.”
Obs II/
Datum (24)
T : “What kinds of narrative text is Malin Kundang,
Sandy?”
S : “Haduw, Mr, I am forget.”
Obs II/
Datum (25)
T : “Anyone can mention the kinds of narrative text?”
Maybe Deva?”
S : “legenda mungkin, Mr bener ga?”
Obs II/
Datum (26)
T : “Tiyo, maybe can help Deva?”
S : “Nothing”.
Obs II/
Datum (27)
T : “Narrative can be in the form of legend, myth, fables,
fairy tales, or tales, the most popular is fairy tales
such as Cinderella, Snow White, and so on.” Teguh,
what fairy tales do you know?”
S : “Peri gigi, Mr.”
T : “Serious, please!” Guys
Obs II/
Datum (28)
T : “What fairy tales, Teguh?”
S : “Oya, Mr, Cinderella, Sailormoon juga fairy tales
104
No Date Code Data
Types of Cooperative
Principle
Context of Situation
QN QL RL MN
bukan, Mr?”
T : “No, Sailormoon is cartoon.”
Obs II/
Datum (29)
T : “Bella, what narrative text do you ever read?”
S : “Ya, Cuma Cinderrela, Malin Kundang, Keong Mas.”
.
Obs II/
Datum (30)
T : “How about you Tiyo?”
S : “Aku pernah baca tentang dongeng Tangkuban
Perahu, Mr.”
Obs II/
Datum (31)
T : “Tiyo, what is the tenses in narrative text?”
S : “I don‟t know”
.
Obs II/
Datum (32)
T : “How about Bella?”
S : “hmmmm, pakai past tense, Mr.”
T : “Yes, you are right, past tense.”
Obs II/
Datum (33)
T : “Then, anyone knows the generic structure of
narrative text?” Hasan?”
S : “Structure ya, Mr, kayaknya opening, closing
T : “Wrong”
Obs II/
Datum (34)
T : “Maybe, Nugroho knows the generic structure?”
S : “Wait, Mr, tak baca dulu”
Obs II/
Datum (35)
T : “Maulana, do you know the generic structure of
narrative text?”
S : “I know orientation, trusada resolution gitu, ya, Mr?
T : “Yes, good, continue.”
105
No Date Code Data
Types of Cooperative
Principle
Context of Situation
QN QL RL MN
Obs II/
Datum (36)
T : “Okey, let read one of narrative text in your book.
Edy, what is the title of narrative text in your book?
S : “Lutung Kasarung”
Obs II/
Datum (37)
T : “Keisya, what is Lutung Kasarung about?”
S : “Monyet.”
Obs II/
Datum (38)
T : “Maulana, please read paragraph one of Lutung
Kasarung!”
S : “Yes, Mr.”
Obs II/
Datum (39)
T : “So, what is Lutung Kasarung about?”
S : “About monkey, Mr.”
T : “Continue!”
Obs II/
Datum (40)
T : “Okey, lets discuss Lutung Kasarung.” What were
characteristics of Purbasari, Bella?
S : “Princess.”
T : “What princess?”
S : “Princes of Pasundan.”
T : “Continue”
Obs II/
Datum (41)
T : “Tiyo, Why was Purbararang jealous with Purbasari?
S : “She will become a queen, maybe.”
T : “Yes.”
Obs II/
Datum (42)
T : “What did she do to chase Purbasari? Maulana?”
S : “Sebentar, Mr, belum ketemu jawabnya.
Obs II/ T :”How about you Edy, What Purbararang do to
106
No Date Code Data
Types of Cooperative
Principle
Context of Situation
QN QL RL MN
Datum (43)
Purbasari?
S :”black magic.”
Obs II/
Datum (44)
T :”And Bella, What Purbararang do to Purbasari?
S :” pour something in Purbasari‟s powder and practicing
magic, Mr.”
T :”Well done.”
Obs II/
Datum (45)
T :”Salsabilla, How could Purbasari‟ beauty come back?
S :” soaked all her body and face in the lake some
minutes.”
T :”Good”
Obs II/
Datum (46)
T :”Okey, please guys, observe the generic structure of
Lutung Kasarung!.”
S : All students “Okey, Mr.”
.
Obs II/
Datum (47)
T : “Edy, what is the generic structure of paragraph one?”
S : “Orientation.”
Obs II/
Datum (48)
T : “Can you read paragraph one?”
S : “Okey, Mr.”
Obs II/
Datum (49)
T : “Then, where you can find the resolution, Keisya?”
S : “In the last paragraph, Mr.
Obs II/
Datum (50)
T : “Nugroho, what are you doing?”
S : “No, Mr”
107
No Date Code Data
Types of Cooperative
Principle
Context of Situation
QN QL RL MN
Obs II/
Datum (51)
T : “Lets review, what is the function of narrative text,
Nugroho?”
S : “Apa, Mr?”
T : “Pay attention, please!”
Obs II/
Datum (51)
T : “Edy, narrative text is to….”
S : “Has function to entertain, Mr.
Obs II/
Datum (52)
T : “Do you feel happy when reading Lutung Kasarung?”
S : “Confuse.” Ga mudeng ceritanya, Mr.”
Obs II/
Datum (53)
T : “So, what other fairy tale from Indonesia?” anyone
knows? Maybe Salsabilla?”
S : “Hmmmmm, Tangkuban Perahu, Malin Kundang,
apalagiya, hmmmm, Keong Mas, Beauty and the
Beast darimana?”
T : “Gak termasuk, is western.”
Obs II/
Datum (54)
T : “How about fairy tale from western, Edy?”
S : “Ya, Snow white, Pinocchio, Peterpan, gitulah, Mr.”
Obs II/
Datum (55)
T : “Okey, good answer, please do some exercise on your
book about narrative text, then submit!”
S : “Okey, Mr.”
Obs II/
Datum (56)
T : “Please, open page 34 to 36, do you understand,
guys?”
S : “Yes, Mr, all students.
108
No Date Code Data
Types of Cooperative
Principle
Context of Situation
QN QL RL MN
Obs II/
Datum (57)
T :“Do you guys all, understand how to make narrative
text?”
S : “Yes, Mr” all students
Obs II/
Datum (58)
T : “Can you make narrative text?”
S : “All students “aaaaahh, susah, Mr.”
Obs II/
Datum (59)
T :”Okey, in the next meeting, bring example of narrative
text free, one student one story.!”
S :”Okey, Mr.”
January
8, 2018
Obs III/
Datum (60)
T : “Any homework?”
S : All students said “Yes, Mr, about noun phrase and
noun clause.”
.
Obs III/
Datum (61)
T : “Okey, then submit your homework!” then we will
discuss about past activities today by using past tense.”
Bella, what did you do this weekend?”
S : “Nothing, Mr, only stay at home.”
Obs III/
Datum (62)
T : “What did you do at home, Bella?”
S : “Watch TV, Mr.”
Obs III/
Datum (63)
T : “Then, what is the formula of Past Tense” anyone can
tell?
S : “Tiyo said “ in the book, Mr rumusnya.”
Obs III/
Datum (64)
T : “Okey Tiyo, can you read the formula in your book.”
S : “Yes, Mr, ready
109
No Date Code Data
Types of Cooperative
Principle
Context of Situation
QN QL RL MN
Obs III/
Datum (65)
T : OK. So guys, OK, the poem just goes down the lines.
If your side has a line read it. If you don‟t have a line,
just wait. We‟ll start slowly, altogether, ready, “Being
a bee...”(Teacher is leading a lead of both groups with
hands and taking a rhythm.) (Students is reading the
poem. Teacher is reading it with them. Dava, do you
know about the poem?”
S : “Bee?”
Obs III/
Datum (66)
T : “Are you sick, Dava?”
S : “Hungry, Mr, hehehe”
Obs III/
Datum (67)
T : “Tell me some words that end with ize, Dava!”
S : “Socialize?”
Obs III/
Datum (68)
T : “Do you know any? (waiting for a while) Tell me
some -ize verbs.
(Teacher is moving to the front of the class and
writing down the words with -ize to make sure the
words which has been picked up.) So, unionize,
patronize, what‟s another words that I have? Any
with -ize or -yze? Bella, can you mention!”
S : “unionize, patronize.”
Obs III/ T : “Tiyo, You know the words like this, categorize, put
110
No Date Code Data
Types of Cooperative
Principle
Context of Situation
QN QL RL MN
Datum (69)
things into categories, categorize. Analyze,form an
analysis of ... you know the words like this, -ize, -
yze? What else?
S : “Memorize, Mr”
Obs III/
Datum (70)
T : “Memorize , OK. (Teacher is writing “memorize” on
the paper.) Put into your memory, memorize.
Anymore? Teguh, or other can do maybe?”
S : Teguh “hmmmm, itu, Mr , formalize.”
T : Formalize, yeah! (nodding) (writing down “formalize”
on the paper) formalize, make formal. OK, any other
questions about any words? Is there any word you
don‟t understand?
Obs III/
Datum (71)
T : “Okey, return to the poem, OK, in the poem, we have
the word, “larva.” And then we have the word,
“grubs” very near that. Then these have same meaning.
Larva is singular and grubs is plural, but they have
same meaning. OK, you know that „cause you study
biology. You know that insects go through several
stages in their lives. When insects are hatched out of
eggs, they don‟t look like adult insects, they look kind
of like worms. No matter what they are: ants, bees,
grasshoppers,.... They always look like worms then
they first hatch. (talking to students with gesture)
Then They go through another stage, change, and
another change,....OK this first stage is called “larva.”
111
No Date Code Data
Types of Cooperative
Principle
Context of Situation
QN QL RL MN
It‟s a larva stage, larva or grubs. OK, the scientific
name is “larva”, the common name is “grub.” They
are the same. That‟s first stage after coming out from
the egg, it looks like a worm.(shaping a worm with
fingers)
S : All “Yes, Mr”
Obs III/
Datum (72)
T : “OK, any other words? Any other words that you
don‟t understand?”
S : “Understand, Mr” don‟t worry”
Obs III/
Datum (73)
T : “OK, so these are cells in a bee hive. We have cells in
our body, skin cells hair cells, muscle cells, OK, any
other questions? (looking around the class) Does
anyone have to ask a question about word, about
meaning, pronunciation?
S : “Gak, Mr, bisa.”
Obs III/
Datum (74)
T : “OK, then please turn your papers over, look at part A
(pointing),“Life in the hive.” We are going to listen to
the tape about bees. But before we listen, please
answer the questions in part 1, how much you know
about bees. OK, just take two minutes, very quickly
answer these questions, mark them true or false. If
you‟re not sure,
S : All students “ready”
Obs III/
Datum (75)
T : OK, very quickly answer all the questions, mark them
true or false. If you don‟t know, make a guess. Answer
112
No Date Code Data
Types of Cooperative
Principle
Context of Situation
QN QL RL MN
every question (Teacher is once again circulating the
class and making sure that all the student understand
the directions.)
T : OK, now we‟re going to listen to the tape. And I‟ll
ask you to Listen first time, don‟t worry about these
questions (pointing part 1), look at part 2, we are
going to do this part first. Up here the top of the page,
we have three kinds of bees, three kinds of bees.
S : Bella “Bees terus” bees, bees”
Obs III/
Datum (76)
T : “Salsabilla, what do you know about the kinds of
bees?”
S : “Yes, worker, queen and drown.”
Obs III/
Datum (77)
T : “Edy, What is this bee doing?(pointing a picture)
S : “dancing.”
Obs III/
Datum (78)
T : “Guarding, OK. This is a picture of bee guarding the
hive, keeping strange bees away. Now you said
drones do this. Who agrees? (raising a hand) This is
the drone, guarding a hive.Who agrees?(raising a
hand)
S : Bella (raising hand) “I agree, Mr”
Obs III/
Datum (79)
T : A drone guarding a hive? Do you agree with him? Do
you agree? This bee‟s guarding a hive? Erwan?”
S : “Yes, pokoke manut wae, Mr”
Obs III/ T : “What do drones do? What do drones do? On the tape
113
No Date Code Data
Types of Cooperative
Principle
Context of Situation
QN QL RL MN
Datum (80) they talked About jobs. What did he, what did she say
drones do? Nugroho, what drone do? (Teacher is
playing the tape again.)
S : “Gak jelas, Sir, apaya Mr.”
Obs III/
Datum (81)
T : “(the introduction of unit number) Listen carefully.
What do workers do? What do drones do? (“The
queen has only one function and that’s to lay eggs.”,
teacher stopped the tape.) OK, what do queens do?
What‟s her function? What‟s her job to do? Gimana
Nug?”
S : “lay eggs”
Obs III/
Datum (82)
T : OK, so this is picture a), guards. But guards are not
drones. Guards are ..., Keisha, what is guard?”
S : “workers”
Obs III/
Datum (83)
T : “OK, what‟s the last job? What was that? Tiyo, please,
answer!”
S : “The last job is collecting nectar, Mr.”
T : “Good”
Obs III/
Datum (84)
T : “OK, so a forager is someone who has to find food. If
you join the army, one of the things that they train
you to do is, ...(students have become noisy and
teacher claps hands) listen, one of the things that they
train you to do is to find your own food, to survive in
the wilderness. And they take you by helicopters and
drop you off in the mountains somewhere and say,
114
No Date Code Data
Types of Cooperative
Principle
Context of Situation
QN QL RL MN
“Come back in three days.” You have no food. You
just have a knife and maybe a cooking pot. But you
have no food. So you have to find food in the
mountains. Could you do that? Could you find food
in the mountains for three days? What could you eat?
Edy and Bella
S : Edy “No, Mr, go to mountain aja gak pernah, Mam.
Bella, survival, Mr, maybe eat grass, heheehe
Obs III/
Datum (85)
T : “Could you find food in the mountains? Greens,
vegetables, ...[not transcribed] nuts,...Could you do
that? Bella?
S : “Yes, Sir, we can find food in the mountain, banana.”
Obs III/
Datum (86)
T : OK, this is called “foraging”, going out into wild place
and finding food for yourself, finding nuts, taking nuts,
picking nuts off trees, killing rabbits, whatever. Now
sometimes people who live in cities have to forage
(gesture), homeless people, go through garbage cans,
looking for food to eat. This is also foraging even if
it‟s not in a wilderness. They provide their own food,
not by going to restaurants, grocery stores finding food
somewhere else, even in the garbage (nodding). This is
also “forager.” Not many Indonesian Man can cook,
Nugroho, can you cook?
S : “Yes, Mr, sure, cook water, cook noodle, cook nasi
goreng….”
115
No Date Code Data
Types of Cooperative
Principle
Context of Situation
QN QL RL MN
Obs III/
Datum (87)
T : “Salsabilla, can you cook?”
S : “Same sama Nugroho, Mr.”
Obs II/
Datum (88)
T : “Tiyo, can you cook?”
S : “Pasti bisa, Mr, I can cook”
Obs III/
Datum (89)
T : “Bella, can you cook?”
S : “Of course, Sir, aku bias masak soup lho.”
Obs III/
Datum (90)
T : “Yes, good! OK. Ah, but not many men can. And so
when men are left home by themselves, their wives
are gone, their children are gone,...they have to feed
themselves. They have no money to eat out in a
restaurant, they have to feed themselves and they go
into kitchen for the first time to find food. Where is
it? They don‟t know where it is. They„ve never been
there. They open the refrigerator, ha! Is there
anything to eat? They find some food, “Uh, there‟s
beer!” Tiyo, what food can you cook?”
S : “I can cook sausages, Mr, fried sausage, fried rice,
soup too.”
T : “Really, good boy”
Obs III/
Datum (100)
T : “Hey, Nugroho, what are you doing?”
S : “No”
Obs III/
Datum (101)
T : OK, sit down. So homework, sit down, sit down. The
homework is the back of the page, by the poem
(pointing) in this square you see all these words, you
need to mark each word, is it singular or plural. Now
116
No Date Code Data
Types of Cooperative
Principle
Context of Situation
QN QL RL MN
you know these words, what does singular mean?
Singular, or just single, only one. When we say
“chair”, we mean only one. Plural means,...(Students
has become noisy.) Guys!(shouting) Listen! Plural
means more than one, we say chairs we mean 2, 3 or
ten million. Nugroho, what is plural?”
S : “Banyak itu plural, ahahaha”
Obs III/
Datum (102)
T : “You need to mark each word. Is this singular, is this
just one or is it plural? Now usually in English you
put an “S” or “es” but these words are different.
They‟ve come from Latin and they have Latin plural
rules. So tell me which words are singular and which
words are plural and then add some more words that
are like these with Latin endings or any other. That‟s
the homework, see you next week. You don‟t need
textbooks next week. Guys, do you understand the
homework?”
S : “Mr, please repeat!, shout one of students
Obs III/
Datum (103)
T : “Guys, do you understand the homework for next
week?”
S : All students “Yes, Mr.”
Obs III/
Datum (104)
T : “Nugroho, do you know the homework?”
S : “Plural and singular, Mr
T : “Okey”
Obs III/ T : “Back to past tense, anyone has holiday story?”
117
No Date Code Data
Types of Cooperative
Principle
Context of Situation
QN QL RL MN
Datum (105) Maulana?”
S : “I went to mountain last holiday, Mr.
Obs III/
Datum (106)
T : “Which mountain, Maulana?”
S : “Lawu mountain, Mr.”
Obs III/
Datum (107)
T : “What did you do in Lawu mountain, and how did
you go there?”
S : “Picnic, Mr, with family by car.?
Obs III/
Datum (108)
T : “Okey, guys, another homework is making your
holiday story in one piece of paper then submit next
week, understand?”
S : All students “Yes, Mr”
Obs III/
Datum (109)
T : “What do you use to tell about holiday story?”
Maulana?”
S : “Use apa, Mr?
Obs II/
Datum (110)
T : “Tenses to use in past activity.”
S : “Use past tense, Mr.”
Obs II/
Datum (111)
T : “Okey students, we meet again next week, and don‟t
forget to bring your homework!”
S : “All students “Okey, Mr.”
118
APPENDIX 2 DATA VALIDATION
119
Appendix A. The Data Sheet of Cooperative Principle
Type of Cooperative Principle
QN : Quantity
QL : Quality
RL : Relevance
MN : Manner
No Date Code Data
Types of Cooperative
Principle
Context of Situation
QN QL RL MN
1 Decemb
er,20
2017
Obs I/ Datum
(1)
T : “Why are you late”
S : “Kencing, mr..”
T : “Okey, sit!”
√ In the classroom, the
teacher was asking
one of student for
coming late to the
classroom.
Obs I/ Datum
(2)
T : “Okey, students, today we will discuss about the
homework.”
T : “Anton, open your book!”
S : “Yes, Mr.”
T : “Where is your book?”
S : “Teguh‟s book, Mr..”
√ The situation
happened in the
classroom, the teacher
was asking students
about their homewrok.
Obs I/ Datum
(3)
T : “Teguh‟s book? So,where is your book?”
S : “Ga bawa buku, Mr.”
√ Teacher was asking
one of student about
his book.
Obs I/ Datum
(4)
T : What are the differences between phrase and
clause?
√ Teacher was asking
the students about the
120
No Date Code Data
Types of Cooperative
Principle
Context of Situation
QN QL RL MN
S : Mr… Clause? different of phrase and
clause.
Obs I/ Datum
(5)
T : Can anybody think about an animal story that you
know?
S : Mr Fox, vacation of Mr Fox
T : Is that the story that people do remember?
√ Teacher was asking to
the students about
some animal story that
they know.
Obs I/ Datum
(6)
T: What are paragraph be called in the narrative?
S : Sequence
T : Of?
S : Events
√ Teacher was asking
students of what
paragraph called in the
narrative text.
Obs I/
Datum (7)
T : “Ok Maya, please write the first!” (Student was
writing on the whiteboard)
T : “Don‟t forget to write the? “
S : “Titik”
√ Teacher was asking
one of student, Maya
to write some words
on the whiteboard.
Obs I/ Datum
(8)
T : “Are you a caring person?”
S : “Sometimes”
√ Teacher was asking
one of student that he
is a caring person.
Obs I/ Datum
(9)
T : What is the function of “comma” in sentence?
S : To make sentences more shorter
√ Teacher was asking to
students about the
function of comma.
Obs I/
Datum (10)
T : ” Ok,Edy ,what are you watching?”
S : “No Mr..”
T : “Turn of your handphone!”
√ Teacher was asking
one of students, Edy
on what he watch.
Obs I/ Datum
(11)
T : “Dava, can you do the example number 2?”
S : “What, Mr?”
√ Teacher was asking
one of student, Dava
121
No Date Code Data
Types of Cooperative
Principle
Context of Situation
QN QL RL MN
to do example number
2 in the task.
Obs I/
Datum (12)
T : “Dava, please bring your work here, let me check!”
S : “Yes, Mr”
√ Teacher was asking
one of student, Dava
to bring his work and
check it.
Obs I/ Datum
(13)
T : “Bella, can you make the example of noun phrase!”
S : “Belum bisa, Mr.”
√ Teacher was asking
one of student, Bella
to make examples of
noun phrase.
Obs I/ Datum
(14)
T : “Who can make the example of noun phrase?”
S : One of students said “Abdul pasti bisa, Mr..”
√ Teacher was asking
students to make
example of noun
pharse, then one of
student told that
Abdul might be able
to make it.
Obs I/ Datum
(15)
T : “Then, for next week, everybody must make ten
example of noun phrase and noun clause.”
S : “One of students said “Banya ksekali, Mr, belum
paham.”
√ Teacher was
remaining students for
making ten example
of noun phrase and
noun clause for the
next following
meeting.
Obs I/ Datum T : “You can take a look on your book about noun phrase √ Teacher was asking
122
No Date Code Data
Types of Cooperative
Principle
Context of Situation
QN QL RL MN
(16)
and noun clause!”
S : “Okey, Mr.”
the students to take a
look on their book
about noun phrase and
noun clause.
Obs I/ Datum
(17)
T : “Now, Rafa, can you read the example of noun phrase
on your book?”
S : “Yes, Mr, I will. What page, Mr?”
T : “You can read on page 24.”
√ Teacher was asking
one of student, Rafa to
read the example of
noun phrase on his
book.
Obs I/ Datum
(18)
T : “Now, let‟s discuss the example read by Rafa.”
Anyone can make another sentence using noun
phrase?” Maybe Dilla?”
S : “Okey, Mr, saya bisa membuat contoh noun
phrasenya.”
√ Teacher was inviting
students to discuss
about the example of
noun phrase read by
Rafa then asking other
students to make
another example of
noun phrase then
pointing Dilla to make
it.
Obs I/ Datum
(19)
T : “Dilla, how about noun clause?”
S : “No.”
T : “Find it in your book!”
√ Teacher was asking
Dilla, one of student
about noun clause and
since she did not
know, teacher asked
her to find it it in the
123
No Date Code Data
Types of Cooperative
Principle
Context of Situation
QN QL RL MN
book.
Obs I/ Datum
20
T : “Okey, everybody, this is the end of our lesson today,
make sure to not forget the home work, I will give
reward for the best.”
S : “Okey, Mr.”
√ Teacher was closing
the class session and
remaining students
about the homework
for the following
meeting.
Decemb
er 28,
2017
Obs II/
Datum (21)
T : “Teguh, what is the function of narrative text?”
S : “Menghibur, Mr.”
√ Teacher was asking
Teguh about the
function of narrative
text.
Obs II/
Datum (22)
T : “Sandy, do you know the kinds of narrative text?”
S : “I don‟t know”
√ Teacher was asking
Sandy about the kinds
of narrative text.
Obs II/
Datum (23)
T : “Okey, Sandy, do you know the story of Malin
Kundang?”
S : “MalinKundang, I know, Mr.”
√ Teacher was asking
Sandy about the
stodry of Malin
Kundang.
Obs II/
Datum (24)
T : “What kinds of narrative text is Malin Kundang,
Sandy?”
S : “Haduw, Mr, I am forget.”
√ Teacher was asking
Sandy about to what
kind of text is Malin
Kundang.
Obs II/
Datum (25)
T : “Anyone can mention the kinds of narrative text?”
Maybe Deva?”
S : “legenda mungkin, Mr bener ga?”
√ Teacher was inviting
students who can
mention the kinds of
124
No Date Code Data
Types of Cooperative
Principle
Context of Situation
QN QL RL MN
narrative text and
pointing Deva.
Obs II/
Datum (26)
T : “Tiyo, maybe can help Deva?”
S : “Nothing”.
√ Teacher was asking
Tiyo whether he can
help Deva.
Obs II/
Datum (27)
T : “Narrative can be in the form of legend, myth, fables,
fairy tales, or tales, the most popular is fairy tales
such as Cinderella, Snow White, and so on.” Teguh,
what fairy tales do you know?”
S : “Peri gigi, Mr.”
T : “Serious, please!” Guys
√ Teacher was explain
about the kinds of
narrative text then
asking Teguh, one of
student about fairy
tales that he know.
Obs II/
Datum (28)
T : “What fairy tales, Teguh?”
S : “Oya, Mr, Cinderella, Sailormoon juga fairy tales
bukan, Mr?”
T : “No, Sailormoon is cartoon.”
√ Teacher was asking
Teguh about fairy
tales that he know.
Obs II/
Datum (29)
T : “Bella, what narrative text do you ever read?”
S : “Ya, Cuma Cinderrela, Malin Kundang, Keong Mas.”
√ Teacher was asking
Bella about narrative
text that she ever read.
Obs II/
Datum (30)
T : “How about you Tiyo?”
S : “Aku pernah baca tentang dongeng Tangkuban
Perahu, Mr.”
√ Teacher was asking
Tiyo about narrative
text that he ever read.
Obs II/
Datum (31)
T : “Tiyo, what is the tenses in narrative text?”
S : “I don‟t know”
√ Teacher was asking to
Tiyo about the tenses
used in narrative text.
Obs II/ T : “How about Bella?” √ Teacher was asking
125
No Date Code Data
Types of Cooperative
Principle
Context of Situation
QN QL RL MN
Datum (32)
S : “hmmmm, pakai past tense, Mr.”
T : “Yes, you are right, past tense.”
Bella about the tenses
used in narrative text.
Obs II/
Datum (33)
T : “Then, anyone knows the generic structure of
narrative text?” Hasan?”
S : “Structure ya, Mr, kayaknya opening, closing
T : “Wrong”
√ Teacher was asking
other students who
know about the
generic structure of
narrative text, then
pointing Hasan.
Obs II/
Datum (34)
T : “Maybe, Nugroho knows the generic structure?”
S : “Wait, Mr, tak baca dulu”
√ Teacher was asking
Nugroho whether he
know about the
generic structure of
narrative text.
Obs II/
Datum (35)
T : “Maulana, do you know the generic structure of
narrative text?”
S : “I know orientation, trusada resolution gitu, ya, Mr?
T : “Yes, good, continue.”
√ Teacher was asking
Maulana about the
generic structure of
narrative text.
Obs II/
Datum (36)
T : “Okey, let read one of narrative text in your book.
Edy, what is the title of narrative text in your book?
S : “Lutung Kasarung”
√ Teacher was inviting
students to read one of
narrative text in the
book, then asking Edy
about the title of the
narrative text
available in the book.
Obs II/ T : “Keisya, what is Lutung Kasarung about?” √ Teacher was asking to
126
No Date Code Data
Types of Cooperative
Principle
Context of Situation
QN QL RL MN
Datum (37)
S : “Monyet.” Keisya about the story
of Lutung Kasarung.
Obs II/
Datum (38)
T : “Maulana, please read paragraph one of Lutung
Kasarung!”
S : “Yes, Mr.”
√ Teacher was ordering
Maulana to read the
paragraph one of the
story of Lutung
Kasarung.
Obs II/
Datum (39)
T : “So, what is Lutung Kasarung about?”
S : “About monkey, Mr.”
T : “Continue!”
√ Teacher was asking
the student about the
story of Lutung
Kasarung.
Obs II/
Datum (40)
T : “Okey, lets discuss Lutung Kasarung.” What were
characteristics of Purbasari, Bella?
S : “Princess.”
T : “What princess?”
S : “Princes of Pasundan.”
T : “Continue”
√ Teacher was asking
the students to discuss
together the story of
Lutung Kasarung,
then asking Bella
about the character of
Purbasari in the story.
Obs II/
Datum (41)
T : “Tiyo, Why was Purbararang jealous with Purbasari?
S : “She will become a queen, maybe.”
T : “Yes.”
√ Teacher was asking
Tiyo about the reason
of Purbararang jelous
with Purbasari.
Obs II/
Datum (42)
T : “What did she do to chase Purbasari? Maulana?”
S : “Sebentar, Mr, belum ketemu jawabnya.
√ Teacher was asking
Maulana about the
action of Purbararang
127
No Date Code Data
Types of Cooperative
Principle
Context of Situation
QN QL RL MN
to chase Purbasari.
Obs II/
Datum (43)
T :”How about you Edy, What Purbararang do to
Purbasari?
S :”black magic.”
√ Teacher was asking
Edy about the action
of Purbararang to
Purbasari in the story
of Lutung Kasarung.
Obs II/
Datum (44)
T :”And Bella, What Purbararang do to Purbasari?
S :” pour something in Purbasari‟s powder and practicing
magic, Mr.”
T :”Well done.”
√ Teacher was also
asking Bella about the
action of Purbararang
to Purbasari.
Obs II/
Datum (45)
T :”Salsabilla, How could Purbasari‟ beauty come back?
S :” soaked all her body and face in the lake some
minutes.”
T :”Good”
√ Teacher was asking
Salsabilla on how the
beauty of Purbasari
could come back.
Obs II/
Datum (46)
T :”Okey, please guys, observe the generic structure of
Lutung Kasarung!.”
S : All students “Okey, Mr.”
√ Teacher was ordering
students to observe the
generic structure of
Lutung Kasarung.
Obs II/
Datum (47)
T : “Edy, what is the generic structure of paragraph one?”
S : “Orientation.”
√ Teacher was asking
Edy about the generic
structure of paragraph
one in the text.
Obs II/ T : “Can you read paragraph one?” √ Teacher was asking
128
No Date Code Data
Types of Cooperative
Principle
Context of Situation
QN QL RL MN
Datum (48)
S : “Okey, Mr.” Edy to read the
paragraph one of
Lutung Kasarung.
Obs II/
Datum (49)
T : “Then, where you can find the resolution, Keisya?”
S : “In the last paragraph, Mr.
√ Teacher was asking
Keisya about the part
that belong to
resolution in the text.
Obs II/
Datum (50)
T : “Nugroho, what are you doing?”
S : “No, Mr”
√ Teacher was asking
Nugroho on what he
was doing.
Obs II/
Datum (51)
T : “Lets review, what is the function of narrative text,
Nugroho?”
S : “Apa, Mr?”
T : “Pay attention, please!”
√ Teacher was inviting
students to review the
narrative text.
Obs II/
Datum (51)
T : “Edy, narrative text is to….”
S : “Has function to entertain, Mr.
√ Teacher was asking
Edy about the function
of narrative text.
Obs II/
Datum (52)
T : “Do you feel happy when reading Lutung Kasarung?”
S : “Confuse.” Ga mudeng ceritanya, Mr.”
√ Teacher was asking
Edy whether he feel
happy when reading
the story of Lutung
Kasarung.
Obs II/
Datum (53)
T : “So, what other fairy tale from Indonesia?” anyone
knows? Maybe Salsabilla?”
S : “Hmmmmm, Tangkuban Perahu, Malin Kundang,
√ Teacher was asking
students about other
fairy tale come from
129
No Date Code Data
Types of Cooperative
Principle
Context of Situation
QN QL RL MN
apalagiya, hmmmm, Keong Mas, Beauty and the
Beast darimana?”
T : “Gak termasuk, is western.”
Indonesia, then
pointing Salsabilla.
Obs II/
Datum (54)
T : “How about fairy tale from western, Edy?”
S : “Ya, Snow white, Pinocchio, Peterpan, gitulah, Mr.”
√ Teacher was asking
Edy about fairy tale
come from western.
Obs II/
Datum (55)
T : “Okey, good answer, please do some exercise on your
book about narrative text, then submit!”
S : “Okey, Mr.”
√ Teacher was asking
students to do some
exercise of narrative
text in their book then
submit it.
Obs II/
Datum (56)
T : “Please, open page 34 to 36, do you understand,
guys?”
S : “Yes, Mr, all students.
√ Teacher was asking
students to open the
book on page 34 to
36.
Obs II/
Datum (57)
T :“Do you guys all, understand how to make narrative
text?”
S : “Yes, Mr” all students
√ Teacher was asking
students whether they
understand the way to
make narrative text.
Obs II/
Datum (58)
T : “Can you make narrative text?”
S : “All students “aaaaahh, susah, Mr.”
√ Teacher was asking
students to make
narrative text.
Obs II/
Datum (59)
T :”Okey, in the next meeting, bring example of narrative
text free, one student one story.!”
S :”Okey, Mr.”
√ Teacher was ordering
students to bring
example of narrative
130
No Date Code Data
Types of Cooperative
Principle
Context of Situation
QN QL RL MN
text free for the next
meeting.
January
8, 2018
Obs III/
Datum (60)
T : “Any homework?”
S : All students said “Yes, Mr, about noun phrase and
noun clause.”
√ Teacher was asking
students for the
homework.
Obs III/
Datum (61)
T : “Okey, then submit your homework!” then we will
discuss about past activities today by using past tense.”
Bella, what did you do this weekend?”
S : “Nothing, Mr, only stay at home.”
√ Teacher was ordering
students to submit
their homeework then
inviting them to pay
attention on past
activities with past
tense.
Obs III/
Datum (62)
T : “What did you do at home, Bella?”
S : “Watch TV, Mr.”
√ Teacher was asking
Bella on what did she
do at home.
Obs III/
Datum (63)
T : “Then, what is the formula of Past Tense” anyone can
tell?
S : “Tiyo said “ in the book, Mr rumusnya.”
√ Teacher was asking
students about the
formula of past tent
and inviting students
that can tell for it.
Obs III/
Datum (64)
T : “Okey Tiyo, can you read the formula in your book.”
S : “Yes, Mr, ready
√ Teacher was ordering
Tiyo to read the
formula of past tense
in his book.
Obs III/ T : OK. So guys, OK, the poem just goes down the lines. √ Teacher was leading a
131
No Date Code Data
Types of Cooperative
Principle
Context of Situation
QN QL RL MN
Datum (65)
If your side has a line read it. If you don‟t have a line,
just wait. We‟ll start slowly, altogether, ready, “Being
a bee...”(Teacher is leading a lead of both groups with
hands and taking a rhythm.) (Students is reading the
poem. Teacher is reading it with them. Dava, do you
know about the poem?”
S : “Bee?”
lead of both groups
with hands and taking
a rhythm) (Students
was reading the poem.
Teacher was reading it
with them.
Obs III/
Datum (66)
T : “Are you sick, Dava?”
S : “Hungry, Mr, hehehe”
√ Teacher was asking
Dava if he is sick.
Obs III/
Datum (67)
T : “Tell me some words that end with ize, Dava!”
S : “Socialize?”
√ Teacher was asking
Dava to tell some
words end with ize.
Obs III/
Datum (68)
T : “Do you know any? (waiting for a while) Tell me
some -ize verbs.
(Teacher is moving to the front of the class and
writing down the words with -ize to make sure the
words which has been picked up.) So, unionize,
patronize, what‟s another words that I have? Any
with -ize or -yze? Bella, can you mention!”
S : “unionize, patronize.”
√ Teacher was moving
to the front of the
class and writing
down the words with -
ize to make sure the
words which has been
picked up, then
inviting Bella to
mention them.
Obs III/
Datum (69)
T : “Tiyo, You know the words like this, categorize, put
things into categories, categorize. Analyze,form an
√ Teacher was asking
Tiyo whether he
132
No Date Code Data
Types of Cooperative
Principle
Context of Situation
QN QL RL MN
analysis of ... you know the words like this, -ize, -
yze? What else?
S : “Memorize, Mr”
knows some words
like this, categorize,
put things into
categories, categorize.
Analyze,form an
analysis of ... you
know the words like
this, -ize, -yze
Obs III/
Datum (70)
T : “Memorize , OK. (Teacher is writing “memorize” on
the paper.) Put into your memory, memorize.
Anymore? Teguh, or other can do maybe?”
S : Teguh “hmmmm, itu, Mr , formalize.”
T : Formalize, yeah! (nodding) (writing down “formalize”
on the paper) formalize, make formal. OK, any other
questions about any words? Is there any word you
don‟t understand?
√ Teacher was writing
“memorize” on the
paper, then inviting
Teguh and other
students to find the
example.
Obs III/
Datum (71)
T : “Okey, return to the poem, OK, in the poem, we have
the word, “larva.” And then we have the word,
“grubs” very near that. Then these have same meaning.
Larva is singular and grubs is plural, but they have
same meaning. OK, you know that „cause you study
biology. You know that insects go through several
stages in their lives. When insects are hatched out of
eggs, they don‟t look like adult insects, they look kind
of like worms. No matter what they are: ants, bees,
√ Teacher was inviting
students to discuss
again about the poem
“Bee”, the explaining
it to them. Then
students paying
attention to the teacher
carefuly.
133
No Date Code Data
Types of Cooperative
Principle
Context of Situation
QN QL RL MN
grasshoppers,.... They always look like worms then
they first hatch. (talking to students with gesture)
Then They go through another stage, change, and
another change,....OK this first stage is called “larva.”
It‟s a larva stage, larva or grubs. OK, the scientific
name is “larva”, the common name is “grub.” They
are the same. That‟s first stage after coming out from
the egg, it looks like a worm.(shaping a worm with
fingers)
S : All “Yes, Mr”
Obs III/
Datum (72)
T : “OK, any other words? Any other words that you
don‟t understand?”
S : “Understand, Mr” don‟t worry”
√ Teacher was asking
students whether they
do not understand on
some words.
Obs III/
Datum (73)
T : “OK, so these are cells in a bee hive. We have cells in
our body, skin cells hair cells, muscle cells, OK, any
other questions? (looking around the class) Does
anyone have to ask a question about word, about
meaning, pronunciation?
S : “Gak, Mr, bisa.”
√ Teacher was
explaining about cells
in bee hive while
looking around the
class then inviting
students to ask some
questions.
Obs III/
Datum (74)
T : “OK, then please turn your papers over, look at part A
(pointing),“Life in the hive.” We are going to listen to
the tape about bees. But before we listen, please
answer the questions in part 1, how much you know
√ Teacher was ordering
students to turn their
paper over then telling
them that they were
134
No Date Code Data
Types of Cooperative
Principle
Context of Situation
QN QL RL MN
about bees. OK, just take two minutes, very quickly
answer these questions, mark them true or false. If
you‟re not sure,
S : All students “ready”
going to listen to the t
ape about bees.
Obs III/
Datum (75)
T : OK, very quickly answer all the questions, mark them
true or false. If you don‟t know, make a guess. Answer
every question (Teacher is once again circulating the
class and making sure that all the student understand
the directions.)
T : OK, now we‟re going to listen to the tape. And I‟ll
ask you to Listen first time, don‟t worry about these
questions (pointing part 1), look at part 2, we are
going to do this part first. Up here the top of the page,
we have three kinds of bees, three kinds of bees.
S : Bella “Bees terus” bees, bees”
√ Teacher was once
again circulating the
class and making sure
that all the student
understand the
directions. Then
teacher was remaining
students that they
were going to listen to
the tape about Bees.
Obs III/
Datum (76)
T : “Salsabilla, what do you know about the kinds of
bees?”
S : “Yes, worker, queen and drown.”
√ Teacher was asking
Salsabilla about the
kinds of bee that she
knows.
Obs III/
Datum (77)
T : “Edy, What is this bee doing?(pointing a picture)
S : “dancing.”
√ Teacher was asking
Edy about the bees
that the teacher
showed on picture
doing.
Obs III/ T : “Guarding, OK. This is a picture of bee guarding the √ Teacher was showing
135
No Date Code Data
Types of Cooperative
Principle
Context of Situation
QN QL RL MN
Datum (78)
hive, keeping strange bees away. Now you said
drones do this. Who agrees? (raising a hand) This is
the drone, guarding a hive.Who agrees?(raising a
hand)
S : Bella (raising hand) “I agree, Mr”
to the students the
picture of bee
guarding the hive,
then asking them if
they agree that drone
bee do the same.
Obs III/
Datum (79)
T : A drone guarding a hive? Do you agree with him? Do
you agree? This bee‟s guarding a hive? Erwan?”
S : “Yes, pokoke manut wae, Mr”
√ Teacher was
convincing the
students whether they
agree that drone bee
guarding the hive then
pointing Erwan.
Obs III/
Datum (80)
T : “What do drones do? What do drones do? On the tape
they talked About jobs. What did he, what did she say
drones do? Nugroho, what drone do? (Teacher is
playing the tape again.)
S : “Gak jelas, Sir, apaya Mr.”
√ Teacher was asking
about the jobs of
drone bee then playing
the tape again.
Obs III/
Datum (81)
T : “(the introduction of unit number) Listen carefully.
What do workers do? What do drones do? (“The
queen has only one function and that’s to lay eggs.”,
teacher stopped the tape.) OK, what do queens do?
What‟s her function? What‟s her job to do? Gimana
Nug?”
S : “lay eggs”
√ Teacher was ordering
students to listen
carefuly then asking
the jobs of worker
bee, drone bee, and
also explaining about
the job of queen bee.
Tecaher pointing
136
No Date Code Data
Types of Cooperative
Principle
Context of Situation
QN QL RL MN
Nugroho to answer the
job of queen bee.
Obs III/
Datum (82)
T : OK, so this is picture a), guards. But guards are not
drones. Guards are ..., Keisha, what is guard?”
S : “workers”
√ Teacher was asking
Keisya about the jobs
of guard bee.
Obs III/
Datum (83)
T : “OK, what‟s the last job? What was that? Tiyo, please,
answer!”
S : “The last job is collecting nectar, Mr.”
T : “Good”
Teacher was asking
Tiyo about the last
jobs of worker bee.
Obs III/
Datum (84)
T : “OK, so a forager is someone who has to find food. If
you join the army, one of the things that they train
you to do is, ...(students have become noisy and
teacher claps hands) listen, one of the things that they
train you to do is to find your own food, to survive in
the wilderness. And they take you by helicopters and
drop you off in the mountains somewhere and say,
“Come back in three days.” You have no food. You
just have a knife and maybe a cooking pot. But you
have no food. So you have to find food in the
mountains. Could you do that? Could you find food
in the mountains for three days? What could you eat?
Edy and Bella
S : Edy “No, Mr, go to mountain aja gak pernah, Mam.
Bella, survival, Mr, maybe eat grass, heheehe
√ Teacher was
explaining about
forager, students have
become noisy and
teacher claps hands,
and ordered students
to listen carefuly.
Then teacher asking
Edy and Bella whether
they can do the same
as the forager do.
Obs III/ T : “Could you find food in the mountains? Greens, √ Teacher was asking
137
No Date Code Data
Types of Cooperative
Principle
Context of Situation
QN QL RL MN
Datum (85) vegetables, ...[not transcribed] nuts,...Could you do
that? Bella?
S : “Yes, Sir, we can find food in the mountain, banana.”
Bella whether she can
find food in the
mountain.
Obs III/
Datum (86)
T : OK, this is called “foraging”, going out into wild place
and finding food for yourself, finding nuts, taking nuts,
picking nuts off trees, killing rabbits, whatever. Now
sometimes people who live in cities have to forage
(gesture), homeless people, go through garbage cans,
looking for food to eat. This is also foraging even if
it‟s not in a wilderness. They provide their own food,
not by going to restaurants, grocery stores finding food
somewhere else, even in the garbage (nodding). This is
also “forager.” Not many Indonesian Man can cook,
Nugroho, can you cook?
S : “Yes, Mr, sure, cook water, cook noodle, cook nasi
goreng….”
√ Teacher was
explaining again about
foraging, then asking
Nugroho whether he
can cook something.
Obs III/
Datum (87)
T : “Salsabilla, can you cook?”
S : “Same sama Nugroho, Mr.”
√ Teacher was asking
Salsabilla whether she
can cook.
Obs II/
Datum (88)
T : “Tiyo, can you cook?”
S : “Pasti bisa, Mr, I can cook”
√ Teacher was asking
Tiyo whether she can
cook.
Obs III/
Datum (89)
T : “Bella, can you cook?”
S : “Of course, Sir, aku bias masak soup lho.”
√ Teacher was asking
Bella whether she can
cook.
138
No Date Code Data
Types of Cooperative
Principle
Context of Situation
QN QL RL MN
Obs III/
Datum (90)
T : “Yes, good! OK. Ah, but not many men can. And so
when men are left home by themselves, their wives
are gone, their children are gone,...they have to feed
themselves. They have no money to eat out in a
restaurant, they have to feed themselves and they go
into kitchen for the first time to find food. Where is
it? They don‟t know where it is. They„ve never been
there. They open the refrigerator, ha! Is there
anything to eat? They find some food, “Uh, there‟s
beer!” Tiyo, what food can you cook?”
S : “I can cook sausages, Mr, fried sausage, fried rice,
soup too.”
T : “Really, good boy”
√ Teacher was
explaining the
difficulties of men if
they cannot cook, then
asking Tiyo whether
he can cook.
Obs III/
Datum (100)
T : “Hey, Nugroho, what are you doing?”
S : “No”
√ Teacher was asking
Nughroho of what he
was doing.
Obs III/
Datum (101)
T : OK, sit down. So homework, sit down, sit down. The
homework is the back of the page, by the poem
(pointing) in this square you see all these words, you
need to mark each word, is it singular or plural. Now
you know these words, what does singular mean?
Singular, or just single, only one. When we say
“chair”, we mean only one. Plural means,...(Students
has become noisy.) Guys!(shouting) Listen! Plural
means more than one, we say chairs we mean 2, 3 or
√ Teacher was
explaining about
plural things, then
asking Nugroo about
the plural things.
139
No Date Code Data
Types of Cooperative
Principle
Context of Situation
QN QL RL MN
ten million. Nugroho, what is plural?”
S : “Banyak itu plural, ahahaha”
Obs III/
Datum (102)
T : “You need to mark each word. Is this singular, is this
just one or is it plural? Now usually in English you
put an “S” or “es” but these words are different.
They‟ve come from Latin and they have Latin plural
rules. So tell me which words are singular and which
words are plural and then add some more words that
are like these with Latin endings or any other. That‟s
the homework, see you next week. You don‟t need
textbooks next week. Guys, do you understand the
homework?”
S : “Mr, please repeat!, shout one of students
√ Teacher was
explaining about the
homework of plural
things, then asking the
students whetehr they
understand his
explanation.
Obs III/
Datum (103)
T : “Guys, do you understand the homework for next
week?”
S : All students “Yes, Mr.”
√ Teacher was asking to
the students for one
more time that they
understand his
expalanation about the
homewrok.
Obs III/
Datum (104)
T : “Nugroho, do you know the homework?”
S : “Plural and singular, Mr
T : “Okey”
√ Teacher was asking
Nugroho that he
understand the
homework.
Obs III/
Datum (105)
T : “Back to past tense, anyone has holiday story?”
Maulana?”
√ Teacher was asking
students if they have
140
No Date Code Data
Types of Cooperative
Principle
Context of Situation
QN QL RL MN
S : “I went to mountain last holiday, Mr. holiday story, then
pointing to Maulana.
Obs III/
Datum (106)
T : “Which mountain, Maulana?”
S : “Lawu mountain, Mr.”
√ Teacher was asking
Maulana about the
mountain he visited on
holiday.
Obs III/
Datum (107)
T : “What did you do in Lawu mountain, and how did
you go there?”
S : “Picnic, Mr, with family by car.?
√ Teacher was asking
Maulana about his
activities in Lawu
Mountain.
Obs III/
Datum (108)
T : “Okey, guys, another homework is making your
holiday story in one piece of paper then submit next
week, understand?”
S : All students “Yes, Mr”
√ Teacher was ordering
students to make
holiday story in a
piece of paper to be
submitted in the
following week
meeting.
Obs III/
Datum (109)
T : “What do you use to tell about holiday story?”
Maulana?”
S : “Use apa, Mr?
√ Teacher was asking
Maulana baout
thetenses used in
holiday story.
Obs II/
Datum (110)
T : “Tenses to use in past activity.”
S : “Use past tense, Mr.”
√ Teacher was asking
for one more time
about tenses used in
past activities.
141
No Date Code Data
Types of Cooperative
Principle
Context of Situation
QN QL RL MN
Obs II/
Datum (111)
T : “Okey students, we meet again next week, and don‟t
forget to bring your homework!”
S : “All students “Okey, Mr.”
√ Teacher was
remaining students to
not forget about the
homework, the closing
the class session.
142
APPENDIX 3 PHOTOGRAPH
143
A. Teacher try to explain and deliveried the material to students
144
