CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
A. Background
Speakers use language to communicate and exchange their thoughts, ideas,
feelings, knowledge and assumption. In the communication, they use words or
sentences to send their messages, and expect the hearers to understand what they
intend to mean. It is important for the speakers to understand that language use can
determine the success of communication. The easiest way to do this is to utter a
sentence which means literally like what they say.
However, Speakers sometimes use sentences which are not related to what the
exact meaning. What they literally say might have another meaning. It means that
sometimes a speaker does not always use a clear word or sentence in conveying their
purpose. The hearer sometimes gives response to the speaker’s question by using a
sentence that implies something. This phenomenon is a part of study in pragmatics
that is implicature.
Beside the implicature, in conversation, speakers sometimes use sentences
that violate cooperative principle so that the hearers does not understand what the
speakers mean. We can find such the cases not only in people’s oral interaction, but
also in textual interaction. Textual interaction can be seen in literary works, such as
drama.
1
Drama as a literary work and reflection of our life could be very important to
be researched, because it contains the value in a society. One of the functions of
drama is a conversation. Drama as a conversation can be analyzed in many ways.
One of the ways is the cooperative principle maxims.
The characterization in a play comes from the author’s point of view. The
author describes the characterization of each character in their utterances. The author
has predicted how the characters in the play utter their thought based on their
characterizations. So, the writer things that the flouting of cooperative principle in
the play has relation to the characterization.
The flouting of cooperative principle is important to be analyzed, to makes the
speakers and hearers understand about the rules of communication. The hearers
often violate the maxim because they do not understand the real meaning of the
speaker’s utterance. Thus, it needs a detailed explanation.
Having these reasons, the writer wants to present The Flouting of Cooperative
Principle in Drama “The Glass Menagerie”
B.
Identification of Problem
According to the topic above, the writer find some points to observe.
1. In conversations a speaker sometimes uses an utterance but his intention is
contrast to what he literally means.
2. Non native speakers focus on the literal meaning when they talk about
something and sometimes fail to interpret the implied meaning in utterance.
2
3. Conversation has four maxims; there are rules that have to be fulfilled in a
good conversation. The speakers usually flout the principles.
C. Scope of Problem
Based on the various problems above, the writer thinks that it is interesting to
discuss the flouting of cooperative principles in the drama “The Glass Menagerie”.
The research focuses on the flouting of four maxims; they are maxim of quality,
maxim of quantity, maxim of relevance, and maxim of manner.
D. Research Questions
This study tries to find out:
1.
What kinds of maxims of cooperative principles are flouted in drama “the
Glass Menagerie”?
2.
Who is the character violates the maxims of cooperative principle
dominantly?
3.
What is the relationship between characterization and flouting of cooperative
principles in the play?
E. Objective of the Study
1. To disclose the kinds of maxims of cooperative principle flouted in drama
“The Glass Menagerie”.
2. To describe the character violates the maxim of cooperative principle
dominantly.
3
3. To elaborate the relationship between the characterization and the flouting of
cooperative principle in the play.
F. Significance of the Study
1.
The finding of the research will give useful information to the speakers or
hearers about their problems and difficulties in understanding the flouting of
cooperative principle in their utterances.
2.
It will give the readers more knowledge in studying the maxim of
cooperative principle.
3.
It is hoped that this research can give a contribution to other researchers to
do the some related researches with deeper and better techniques.
4
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
A. Previous Studies
The writer finds at least three students who had written pragmatics
especially in terms of Grice’s maxims of cooperative principles:
1. Winarto (2001) analyses politeness principles in English humor text. She
focuses on the characteristics of humor in general and the maxims that
contribute in the text.
2. Syam (2006) analyses cooperative principles in conversations of a radio
program. She focuses on the conversations and violation of cooperative
principles.
3. Pabiri (2007) analyses the flouting of cooperative principles. She focuses
on flouting maxims of cooperative principles, and also kinds of figurative
language in the mobile phone advertisements.
Different from the previous writings, this study will be focus on
Tennessee William’s play “The glass Menagerie”. Its aims to describe the
flouting of cooperative principle, the writer also elaborate the relationship
between the characterization and the flouting of cooperative principle in the
play.
5
B. Theoretical Background
1. Pragmatics
The first thing which is necessary to consider before coming into the
discussion of pragmatics is the definition of pragmatics in general. According to
Levinson (1983) pragmatics is the study of language usage. It is a part of linguistic
study which learns how language as a code relating to its context helps the hearer in
interpreting what the speaker implies. According to Leech (1983), people cannot
really understand the nature of the language itself unless they understand pragmatics.
One of the linguistics purposes of pragmatics is the study of meaning in relation to
speech situation. Based on this purposes, speaker can choose the language for social
interaction and understand the effect of their choice. Besides that, pragmatics is
important because in communication speaker and hearer attempt to solve problem.
Speaker’s problem is how to achieve his goal in communicating something. In
contrast, the hearer tries to understand what the speaker‘s goals in his speech. Besides
the general meaning, there are some definitions suggested by different experts:
Levinson (1983:9) says that:
“Pragmatics is the study of those relation between language and
context that are grammaticalized, or encoded in the structure of a
language. In another way, it can be said that pragmatics is the study
of those aspects or the relationship between language and context
that are relevant to the writing of grammar”.
6
Another expert, Gasdar (in Levinson, 1983:12) says that “Pragmatics has as its topic
those aspects of the meaning of utterance with cannot be accounted for big straight
forward references of the truth condition of the sentence uttered”.
Beside the definitions of pragmatics above, Leech (1993: 13-14) describes the
aspect of speech situation as follows:
1. Addresser, the speaker or writer who provides the utterance.
2. Addressee, the hearer or reader who is the recipient of the utterance.
3. Topic, it is what is being talk about.
4. Setting, in term of place and time where the event and in term also of
posture, gesture and expressions.
5. Channel, how participants maintain contact between them (by speech,
writing, singing).
6. Code, what language or dialect or style of language is being used.
7. Message from; it can be love-letter, sonnet, fairy-tale, chat, debate,
sermon, etc.
8. Event, such as church service, etc.
Based on the definitions above, the writer can say that pragmatics is a part of
linguistics that focuses on the study of language usage. In linguistics, language and
context has an important connection to make the communication easy to understand.
7
Besides that, speech situation is also a significant thing that, the hearer or speaker
must understand to be successful in communication.
From the writer herself, the definition of pragmatics is how the people use
good language, follows the rules of language, understand the utterances, and be
responsible for what they say.
2. Context
According to Cook (1989: 10) context is knowledge of word outside of the
language which people use to interpret. Context is very important to determine
meaning of utterance. If context does not exist, people find difficulties to generate
meaning a text. Actually, a text always occurs in two contexts. There are the context
of culture and context of situation. When the people think of the differences in forms
of address, in ceremonies, in politeness and in significant activities between one
culture and another, they are get some idea of the importance of context of culture in
shaping meaning. The context of culture is sometimes described as the sum of all the
meanings it is possible to mean in that particular culture (Butt, 2001: 3).
Within the context of culture, people use language in many more specific
contexts of situations. This is a useful term to cover the things going on in the word
outside the text that make the text what it is. These are the grammatical patterns that
people use consciously or subconsciously to construct text of different varieties and
that their audience uses to classify and interpret. Context of situation relates some
8
categories; those are verbal and non verbal action of participants, relevant direction or
goal and the effect of the verbal action (Butt, 2001: 3)
3.
Conversation
Conversation is a type of discourse. It is spoken dialogic discourse.
Conversation is made up of a combination of two Latin roots, ‘con’ and ‘verse’.
‘Con’ means with together and ‘verse’ means to turn about in given direction. The
term conversation is widely used for the less formal talk (Cook 1989: 51).
Conversations, like other types of text, have a beginning, middle, and an end,
and this is not only true in the purely sequential sense. Although it can occasionally
be difficult to point the precise moment of separation in particular cases, each phase
has certain characteristic features.
According to cook (1989: 51), the term of conversation has some
characteristics as follow:
1. It is not primarily necessitated by a practical task.
2. Any unequal power of participants is partially suspended.
3. The number of participant is small.
4. Turns are quite short.
5. Talk is primarily for the participants and not for an outside
audience.
Prior to or the beginning of a conversation, participants often frame the event.
That is, they make clear to each other the intended nature of the conversation to be.
9
Another definition of conversation comes from Dobson (1997) who defies
conversation as an informal interchange of thought and information by spoken
words. She gives some elements of conversation as follows:
1.
Question s and answers
Questions and answers are Major elements in natural conversation
which become the backbone of directed conversation session. For
example:
Passenger : Do you have a cigarette?
Stewardess : No we don’t. they don’t provide that service anymore.
2.
Comments
Comments are the additional ingredient in all conversation, either in
form of simple remark (‘it looks like it’s going to rain”) or in the
form of rejoinders (yes, alright).
3. Exclamation
Exclamation is a reaction of participants in a conversation to
unexpected circumstances
from linguistic
or non linguistic
environment.
Furthermore Miller (in Yulianti, 2004) says that ideally, conversation
involves each participant being arrested in what the other has to say, each participants
being a patient and empathetic listener, and each participant following Grice maxims.
In the real world, however, these conditions are often present, for example, one
10
conversational participant may attempt to monopolize resource. Participants who feel
slighted may react withdrawing, resisting and or rebelling, for example, by being
ironic.
Violations of reciprocity are source of dissatisfaction within groups, and are a
major cause of group disintegration. Regardless of the nature of a conversation,
participants must feel comfortable with each other on the social, personal, and feeling
levels for these are any chance for information to be imparted successfully. That is
one need to feel good about the speaker to be able to want to take in any of what he or
she has to say.
Miller (in Yulianti, 2004) says that a conversation may end when:
1.
An external barrier is reached (for example, people run out of time).
2. One or both participants have received enough good.
3.
One or both partners have exhausted their supply.
4.
One or both partners are reluctant to give further.
4. Grice’s Theory about Implicature
The idea of implicature was published by Grice in the William James lecture,
and deliberated in Harvard in 1976. To explore the Grice’s theory of implicature,
Levinson (1989) describes two basic concepts of implicature.
11
1. Theory of meaning
Grice in Levinson (1983: 100) explains the theory of meaning by saying that,
this theory talks about the ways on how people communicate each other. The
meaning provides stricter sense of non naturally meant than what actually said.
Thus, an utterance often derives a number of inferences that may have been
communicative in Grice’s theory.
2. Theory of how people use language
Another basic concept of implicature that Grice (in Levinson 1983: 101)
formulated essentially is about how people use language. This theory describes that,
people interpret the language on the assumption that the sender is obeying four
maxims. People assume that the speakers are intending to be true (maxim of quality),
to be brief (maxim of quantity), to be relevant (maxim of relevant), and to be clear
(maxim of manner). The guidelines of those four basic maxims are expressed as
follows:
a.
The cooperative principles
The cooperative principles are one of the influential accounts of implicature.
In the conversational implicature Grice in Levinson (1983: 101) explains about a
cooperative principle by saying that: “make your contribution such as required, at
the stage at which it accrues, by the accepted purpose or direction of talk exchanges
in which you are engaged”.
The purpose of the principle is to understand that conversation rules must be obey.
12
b.
Four basic maxims, according to Grice (in Levinson, 1983 : 101) are as
follows:
1) Maxim of quality : Be truthful
a) Do not say what you believe to be false
b) Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.
2)
Maxim of Quantity : Be informative
a) Make your contribution as informative as is required (for the current
purpose of exchange).
b) Don’t make your contribution more informative than is required.
3)
Maxim of relation
a) Be relevant (make your contributions relevant)
4) Maxim of manner : Be perspicuous
a) Avoid obscurity /of expression
b) Avoid ambiguity
c) Be brief (avoid unnecessary proximity)
d) Be orderly
According to Grice (in Levinson, 1983: 102) “these maxims specify
participants to do in order to converse in maximally efficient, rational, cooperative
way: they should speak sincerely, relevantly, and clearly while providing sufficient
information”.
13
4. The flouting of Cooperative Principles
Maxims is a rule that people must fulfill in a good conversation, but in
communication the speaker utterances usually do not always follow the rules. There
might be flouting of cooperative principles. According to Cruse (2000: 360) the
other ways in which implicature arise are through deliberate flouting of maxims in
circumstance in which:
a. It is obvious to the hearer that the maxims are being flouted.
b. It is obvious to the hearer that the speaker intends to hearer to be aware that
the maxims are being flouted.
c. There are no signs that the speaker is opting out of the cooperative principle.
1) The maxim of Quantity
According to Guy (1989: 30) this maxim implies that a speaker should give
neither too little information or too much. People who give too little information risk
their hearer not being able to identify what they are talking about because they are not
explicit enough. Those who give more information than the hearer needs risk boring
them.
Then according to Palmer (1981: 174) the maxim of quantity can be flouted
if the speakers do no tell the truth or the information is lack of evidence, and the
meaning is not literally true.
14
For examples:
a) The mushroom omelette wants his coffee with
b) It will cost the earth, but the hell!
This maxim can be flouted just for an effect, so their must likely context use,
none the sentence above are likely to be literally true, but equally none of them is
likely to mislead a hearer. In each case, some additional interpretive process will be a
metonymic one, and the understood message will be that the person who ordered a
mushroom omelette wants his coffee served with the omelette, rather that afterwards.
In the second, the implicature are not to so obvious, but hyperbole of this this kind
can implicate a relaxed, informal relationship whit interlocutors.
2.
The maxim of Quality
The second maxim is the maxim of quality, which says that speakers are
expected to be sincere in saying something that they believe corresponds to the
reality. This maxim can be flouted if the speakers do no tell the truth or the
information is lack of evidence, and something in the meaning is not literally true
(Guy, 1989 : 30).
For example: boys will be boys
At the first side is not giving information, and the second we can interpret the
first boys in a subtly different way from the second boys. The first includes all boys,
event those we thought had been interested and could be relied on for good behavior.
15
The second is predictive and present certain stereotypic properties of boys as being
innate and avoidable. That is also violated in directions, certainly proximity if we say
too much and terseness if we are too brief. We often say more than we need, perhaps
to make a sense of occasion, or respect and we often say less than we need, perhaps to
be rude, blunt, or forthright.
3. Maxim of relevance
According to Guy (1989: 31), the next is maxim of relevance which says that
the speakers are assumed to something that is relevant to what has been said before.
This maxim is a little harder to find because it is hard to construct responses that must
be interpreted as irrelevant.
For example:
a)
I say, did you hear about Mary’s
b)
Yes, well it rained nearly the whole time we were there.
This is an obviously irrelevant comment, assume that A and B are having a
conversation about a colleague, Mary. Mary approaches them, seen by B but not by
A, the implicature is:
Watch out? Here comes Mary!
5. The Maxim of Manner
According to Guy (1989: 31), maxim of manner governs about clarity (avoid
obscurity). Clarity means the quality of expressing ideas or thought in a clear way.
16
This maxim violates either for humor, as in the case of puns, and double engenders,
where rival meanings are deliberately tolerated, or in the order to establish solidarity
between speakers or exclude an over hearer from the conversation. One example of
the exploitation of this maxim will be suffice here. Suppose we find in a review of a
musical performance something like (a) where we might have expected (b):
a) Miss Singer produced a series of sounds corresponding closely to
the score of an aria from Rigoletto.
b) Miss Singer sang an aria from Rigoletto.
By the fragrant avoidance of the simple (b) favour of the prolix (a)
and the consequent violation of the sub maxim ‘be brief”, the
reviewer implicates that there was in fact some considerable
difference between Miss Singer’s performances and those to which
the term singing is usually applied.
17
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
In completing this writing to be a scientific work, the writer uses certain
method. The methods show how the data are collected and analyzed.
A. Library Research
This is the part in where the writer reads several books to find some facts and
information that are relevant to the research. The writer learns the theories that are
related to the topic, particularly the important theories involving the flouting of
cooperative principles. The writer also tries to find any references or writings that can
support her analysis.
B. Field Research
1. Method for Collecting Data
For collecting the data, the writer took scrutinized method. This method was
done by reading the drama ‘The Glass menagerie”. After that, the writer took
some utterances that were indicated had the violation of cooperative principle by
note taking. Then, the writer checking which utterances violated the maxim of
cooperative principle. At the same time she high lightened them.
18
2. Method for analyzing Data
In analyzing data, the writer used descriptive method and pragmatic
approach to analyze and expose the data. Descriptive method describes the
object which is observed by using words. This method allows the writer to come
to the deeper analysis and interpretation to answers the problem occur. When
analyzing data, the writer did some steps as follows:
1.
The writer read the drama carefully to get the data needed.
2.
The writer identified the utterances, and then she determines the
kinds of maxims that violated the cooperative principle of each
utterance.
3.
After identified, the writer analyzes the data based on the kinds of
maxim of cooperative principle.
4.
The last, the writer describes it in narration, so it can be a scientific
analysis.
C. Population and Sample
1. The Population
The population of this research included all utterances in Tennessee
Williams play “The Glass menagerie”. The selection of this population is
19
based on the utterances that violated the maxim of quantity, maxim of quality,
maxim of relevant, and maxim of manner.
2. The Samples
From all utterances in the drama, the writer chooses 25 utterances as the
data in her analyses later. The writer chooses 25 utterances because from these
utterances the writer could find the type of utterances that violated the maxim
of cooperative principle. In choosing the samples, the writer used the random
sampling technique. Random sampling technique meant that the data were
chosen according to the topic in this thesis directly though particular
consideration.
20
CHAPTER 4
PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS DATA
In this chapter, the writer analyses the flouting of cooperative principle from
the dialogue of Tennessee William’s play “The Glass Menagerie”. The data which
going to be analyzed are taken from several dialogues in the play.
A. Synopsis of “The Glass Menagerie”
The story revolves in an apartment on alley in St. Louis. The play takes place
right the end Second World War the Wingfield apartment is in a congested apartment
neighborhood. The Winfield family consist of three members; they are Amanda (the
Mother), Laura and Tom. They live in narrow apartment. It takes a bad influence for
them especially; Tom and Laura forced to live in father absence. It is also shocking
change for them.
The other side, Amanda at home, she always reiterate he sweet memory in the
past. She aspires if her memory comes back again in her family, especially for her
daughter. She hopes what event in her past life can be happen in Laura life that can be
the center of the gentleman callers’ attention like her. Amanda has a heavy
responsibility to look after her children. She has to protective to her son, Tom and she
has to give much attention to her daughter, Laura. She has expectation for her both
children’s future. She wishes success and happiness for Laura because she knows that
21
Laura condition. Therefore, she sends Laura to typing school at Rubicam’s Business
College (typing Writer), just for sake of their bright future. Laura however failed in
her study that makes Amanda disappointed. Laura spent her full time in the bedroom
with glass menagerie. Amanda is boring to see her condition, so, she has planning to
look for the gentleman caller for Laura. Although Amanda known that her daughter’s
condition who has been suffering of an illness as a crippled girl. Amanda is very
optimistic will be find a young man, who can take care of Laura. Amanda believes,
all girls desire to get marry. She hopes Laura must be soon married. While, his
mother overprotects Tom, Amanda, so he has not enjoyed with his life that get
ultimatum for his mother but he does not care his mother’s instruction. In addition, he
does not like to say at home because his mother’s nagging at home. Tom wants to be
freedom and enjoyable his life with his other activities like smoking and going to the
movies which has pleasure adventure in the movie which greatly affects of him.
Furthermore, Amanda asks Tom to invite his friends to come dinner in her
home. Tom agrees to invite his friend Jim O’Connor because he knows that Laura has
ever felt sympathy to Jim in high school. By Tom, it is not difficult because he really
understands with her sister condition and he so much loves her sister. Moreover, he
wants Laura can be happy with Jim’s presence in her life. He hopes her sister can
smile in greeting Jim, to overcome her gloomy days. Therefore, Tom Invites Jim to
dinner by a certain reason, he knows that Laura has ever sympathy to Jim in high
school. Jim agrees to come to dinner. Otherwise, when Tom and Jim come, Laura
22
gets trouble to open the door. For the second time Laura meet Jim again, after they
have separated by the time. Since they have finished their high school, they never
meet them anymore. It is surprisingly, when Laura knows that someone who invite by
Tom, he is Jim. Suddenly she feels stomachache and refuse to come to dinner with
them together. After dinner, Tom helps his mother to wash dishes. While, Jim and
Laura are discussing about their future, activities, and their hobbies. So Laura begins
interested in Jim presence. However, she was so disappointed when Jim said that he
would get married with his girl friend. At the same time, Amanda is also disappointed
and she is very angry toward Tom. At the end, Tom ought to leave his mother and her
sister.
B. The analysis of the flouting of cooperative principle In “The Glass
menagerie” play
1. Maxim of Quantity
According to the dialogues below, the writer explains some utterances
that violate the maxim of quantity.
23
Datum 1
Amanda : Inside where?
Laura :
I went in the art museum and the bird houses at the zoo. I
visited the penguins every day! Sometimes I did without
lunch and went to the movies. Lately I’ve been spending most
of my afternoons in the jewel box, that big glass house where
they raise the topical flowers.
This conversation happens at Amanda’s House. Amanda appears on the fire
escape steps. She purses her lips, opens her eyes wide, rolls them upward and shakes
her head. In the other side, Laura is seated in the delicate ivory chair at the small claw
foot table. She is washing and polishing her collection of glass. Amanda open the
conversations, she talks to Laura that she went to the typing instructor and she finds
the information that Laura dropped out of the school after only a few days attendance.
Amanda wants to know why this problem is happen, so she asks the question to
Laura. Laura answers her mother’s question which gives more contributions so that
she violates the maxim of quantity. Her mother asks “inside where”? It means her
mother just want to know the place that she has gone but Laura gives a long answer,
she explains everything that she has done when she is going out.
24
Datum 2
Laura : All this time at the movie?
Tom : There was a very long program. There was a Garbo picture and a
Mickey Mouse and a travelogue and a newsreel and preview of
coming attractions. And there was an organ solo and a collection
for the milk fund simultaneously which ended in a terrible fight
between a fat lady and an usher!
Tom goes to the movie at the night. It makes Laura afraid about her brother
because Amanda angry if she knows that Tom does not back at home until midnight.
When Tom comes at the home Laura asks the question for Tom. Tom violates the
maxim of quantity by giving more informative utterance than Laura requires. Laura
asks him “all this time in the movie”? Then he explained more contribution that
Laura wants to know. He explains all kinds that he has watched in the movie such as
Mickey Mouse and travelogue, organ solo, newsreel and another program, whereas
Laura’s questions is simple. She just wants to clarify that for a long time Tom is in
the movie. Actually Tom can answer the question by saying “yes” or “no”. According
to the writer, Tom mentions of the entire programs that he has seen in the movie to
make her sister believe him. Tom also wants to make Laura sure that all of programs
in the movie are interesting and he enjoy it.
25
Datum 3
Laura : Did you have to stay through everything?
Tom :
Of course! And, oh, I forgot! There was a big stage show! The
headliner on this stage show was Malvolio the Magician.
He performed wonderful tricks, many of them, such as
pouring water back and forth between pitches.
Laura awakes in the midnight and observes that Tom’s bad room is empty.
After that, she is seeing her brother in front of the room. Laura knows that Tom is
back from the movie recently, so that she asks Tom if he did stay through everything.
The argument from Tom is too wide, if he just says “of course” actually is clear for
Laura. The other explanation is unrequited. It shows that Tom violates the maxims of
quantity. Tom violates this maxim to makes her sister does not afraid if something
happened to his self. He gives more explanations about the programs in the movie
that he has seen. He enjoys movie and all of is ok.
Datum 4
Amanda : Laura, Laura were you in love with that boy?
Laura : I don’t know Mother. All I know is I couldn’t sit at the table if it
was Jim.
26
Laura utterance violates maxims of quantity. She says the additional utterance
which is not required. When she says “I don’t know Mother”, is enough regarding to
Amanda’s utterance. The additional utterance “all I know is I couldn’t sit at the table
if it was Jim”, this information does not required by the hearer. Without the last
utterance, Amanda gets the clear information. Laura violates the maxim because in
the context she knows the man that wants to introduce to her is Jim. Laura knew Jim
in high school. She liked Jim but a girl names Emily Meisenbach says to Laura that
Jim and Emily are engaged. Since the time Laura tries to forget Jim. It is the reason
why Laura shocks when she know that the man is Jim.
Datum 5
Amanda : You didn’t neglect to pay it by any chance?
Tom : Why, I …
Maxim of quantity suggests being informative. The people must give the
contribution as informative as is required. Based on the dialogue above, Tom’s
utterance violates the maxim of quantity. He utter “why, I “while Amanda asks “You
didn’t neglect to pay it by any chance? Tom answers is not informative. He just says
“why I” without continuing his utterance so that Amanda does not get the clear
reason. This situation takes place in the dining room when Jim and Tom’s family are
dinner and suddenly the light turn off. This problem usually happens to give the sign
27
for the people if the bill light does not pay. Several days ago Amanda has required
Tom to pay it, so that when the light turn off she asks Tom for make sure if Tom has
done it or not.
Datum 6
Jim : what have you done since high school? I said what have you
done
since high school Laura?
Laura : Nothing much.
The maxim of quantity implies that a speaker should give neither too little
information or too much. According to the dialogue above, Laura utterance is too
little. She just says “nothing much” without give the explanation about her activity
after finished in high school, while based on Jim’s utterance he need the reason from
Laura. Laura does not give the explanation to Jim because she is a shy girl and lack of
confidence. She thinks it does not important for Tom to know about her activity. For
a long time Laura just stay at home, helps her mother in the kitchen, playing the
victrola and she has a hobby to collecting the little animals made out of glass calls the
glass menagerie.
28
Datum 7
Amanda: why did he call you such a name as that?
Laura : when I had that attack of pleurosis he asked me what was the matter
when I came back. I said pleurosis, he thought that I said Blue
roses! So that’s what he always called me after that. Whenever he
saw me he’d holler, “hello, Blue Roses!” I didn’t care for the girl
that he went out with. Emily Meisenbach. Emily was the best
dressed girl Soldan. She never stuck me, though, as being
sincere…It says in the personal section they’re engaged. That’s six
years ago! They must be married by now.
The dialogue above talks about the man that Laura has known in the high
school. Laura speaks to Amanda if that man always calls her “Blue Roses” Amanda
wants to know why it happens. Laura gives a very long explanation about that, it
causes her utterance in the dialogue violates the maxim of quantity. The first
explanation from Laura is matches with her mother question but she adds her
utterance which is not required. She also explains about the girl that has engaged with
the man while Amanda just wants to know the reason about Blue roses but Laura.
29
4.2.2 Maxim of Quality
According to the dialogues below, the writer explains some utterances
that violate the maxim of quality.
Datum 8
Amanda : Tom, he doesn’t drink?
Tom : why do you ask me that?
Tom utterances “why do you ask me that”?, violates the maxim of quality
because does not give the truth contribution to his mother required. Amanda asks
Tom about Jim personalities. Jim is a gentleman caller that wants to introduce to
Laura. Amanda wants to know Jim like drink or not because she hopes her daughter
gets a good man who can take care of her and free from alcohol. Amanda does not get
a clear reason from Tom. In the context, Tom and Jim are friends, they work in the
warehouse so that it is impossible if Tom does not know Jim drink or not. According
to the writer, tom does not the right information to her mother because he must keep
his friends privacy. It is not good to talks about a bad or good thing someone to
another people.
Datum 9
Amanda : You’ll have to go to the door because I can’t!
30
Laura : I can’t either!
Amanda : why?
Laura : I’m sick
Laura utterance violates the maxim of quality. This maxim suggests the
utterance gives the true contribution, but according to the italic utterance above,
Laura tells a lie. She utters “I’m sick” but in fact she does not fine. According to the
context, Tom and the gentleman caller has come at home. Tom does not open the
window because he has forgotten his key, so that Amanda requires Laura to open the
door. Laura does not agree with her mother’s require because he know that the man
that has comes with tom is Jim. She has known Jim before because they have the
same class in the high school several years ago. She refuse to meets Jim because it is
make she remember the hurt memory in the past. This case makes Laura tells a lie to
Amanda.
Datum 10
Amanda : Sound to me like a fairly responsible job, the sort of a job you
would be in if you just had more get up. What his salary? Have
you any idea?
Tom : I would judge it to be approximately eighty five dollars a mouth.
31
Tom violates the maxim of quality by saying “I would judge it to be
approximately eighty five dollars a mouth”. He gives the information about Jim’s
salary without explains the clear reason about where is he takes the information about
the salary itself. In the utterance he also says the word “approximately” it means that
he does not sure with his explanation, while this maxim suggest for do not say
something which lack adequate evidence. Tom and Jim are friends and also work in
the same place, so that it is impossible if Tom does not know about Jim salary. Tom
replies his mother’s question just by comparing his position in the warehouse with
Jim. Jim has the high position than Tom so that he presumes that Jim’s salary is about
eighty five dollar. In this utterance Tom does not give the appropriate contribution,
that is why he violates the maxim of quality.
Datum 11
Amanda : and how about you coaxing the sister to drink a little wine? I
think it would be good for her! Can you carry both at once?
Jim : Of course. I’m superman.
Jim replies Amanda’s question by saying sure.” I’m superman.” If he just
says “sure”, it is correct to Amanda’s question, but he also says “I’m superman”. This
utterance makes his contribution violates the maxim of quality. He tells a lie to his
interlocutor’s question that he is a superman. The people know that superman is a
32
hero while Jim is only a worker in the warehouse, he does not call superman. Jim
makes this violates because he wants to show that he is a good boy. He has done
many things such as become a good worker in the office, makes Laura feel comfort
by giving her drink and talks much about the future, beside that he also makes
Amanda sympathy with all his capability.
Datum 12
Jim : How do that work out?
Laura : Well, not very well I had to drop out, it gave me indigestion.
The dialogue above talks about Jim and Laura activity when they are finished
from the high school. Jim explains that he is interesting to become a public speaking,
he wants develops his voice. Laura also gives the information about her activity. She
has collected the glass which is name “the glass menagerie”. It is the little animals
made out of a glass. Jim thinks Laura’s hobby is the unique one so that, he asks Laura
the way that she does her activity. She utters “well, not very well I had to drop out, it
gave me indigestion.” This utterance violates the maxim of quality. Laura lacks of
adequate evidence that support her arguments. For the first answer she says “well”,
but the other answers she says “not very well”. The beginning explanation is
contradict to another so that, the interlocutor does not catch Laura’s utterance.
33
Laura does the violation because she tries to explain that she is interesting to
her glass collection. Every day her routine just take care her collections. She aware
that she does not a smart job like the other girls around her, but the glass collection is
very special in her life although some people think that her activity does not support
her future to be better.
4.2.3 Maxim of Relevance
From the dialogue above the writer finds the utterance that violates the maxim
of relevance.
Datum 13
Tom : Her not speaking, is that such a tragedy?
Laura : Please, please!
Laura violates the maxim of quantity because she replies Tom’s question by
giving the unrelevant answer. Tom asks, is that such tragedy if he does not speak to
his mother and Laura answers that question by saying “please, please”. It seems that
Laura pleads for Tom to apologize to their mother, but her answer is not relevant. She
must have added her utterance by giving the clear reasons why Tom must apologize
his mother. This part of the play, she talks about the situation in the Wingfield house
which is not conducive. Tom and her mother Amanda do not speak each other since
34
they have a difficult problem. Laura wants the situation at home to become normal,
so that she tries to persuade Tom to apologize her mother.
Datum 14
Jim : I judge you to be an old fashioned type of girl. Well, I think that’s a
pretty good type to be. Hope you don’t think I’m being too personal.
Do you?
Laura : I believe I will take a piece of gum if you don’t mind. Mr.
O’connor, have you kept up with your singing?
In the dialogue above, Laura violates the maxim of quantity. She gives too
much information to Jim. She utters “I believe I will take a piece of gum if you don’t
mind . Mr. O’connor, have you kept up with your singing”? If Laura answers Jim’s
question by uttering “don’t mind” or “no problem” it has been enough. Laura also
adds her utterance bay saying “Mr. O’connor, have you kept up with your singing”?
This utterance is no need because it does not has a connection with the thing that Jim
wants to know. Laura makes the violation because in this situation she feels
uncomfortable to meets Jim. Shy is a shy girl and lack of confidence to talks with
Jim. In contrast for Jim, he enjoys the moment and tries to open the conversation by
asking Laura’s personality.
35
Datum 15
Laura :
(faintly) why did you do that, mother? Why are you?
Amanda : why? Why? How old are you, Laura?
Amanda violates this maxim because she does not give a relevant answer to
Laura’s question. In the dialogue above, Laura asks her mother by saying “why did
you do that, mother?” it means that Laura wants to know something from her
mother’s reasons. In fact, Amanda does not give the appropriate answers to Laura.
She replays Laura by saying “why? Why? How old are you Laura?” this answer is
irrelevant with Laura’s question. According to the writer, Amanda violates this
maxim because she is angry with what Laura has done in the Rubicam’s business
college. She does not believe that her daughter has dropped out from the college
because Laura never tells her. Everyday Laura goes out and back in the afternoon.
Amanda thinks Laura is a diligent student in her college but after the typing instructor
tells her about Laura has happened, she knows the fact that Laura has dropped out
from the business college.
36
Datum 16
Amanda : you did all this to deceive me, just for deception? Why?
Laura : Mother, when you’re disappointed you get that awful
suffering look on your face, like the picture of Jesus’ mother in the
museum!
Laura violates the maxim of relevant by giving the irrelevant response to her
mother’s question. She changes the topic of conversation by giving the comment to
her mother’s expression with saying “Mother, when you’re disappointed you get that
awful suffering look on your face, like the picture of Jesus’ mother in the museum”!
This utterance is contrast with Amanda’s question because she wants to know why
Laura makes the deception to her. Here, the writer interprets that Laura knows that
she has made a fault to her mother but she does not give the reason why she makes
the deception. Finally, she moves the topic of conversation and tries to make the
situation became relax with making a joke to her mother.
Datum 17
Amanda : But Tom you go to the movie entirely too much!
Tom : I like a lot of adventure.
37
Tom violates this maxim when her mother says “But, Tom you go to the
movie entirely too much! And then Tom replies “I like a lot of adventure”. Tom’s
utterance is irrelevant with her mother means. Based on Amanda’s utterance, she
hopes that Tom curtails his time to goes to the movie and take a rest at home in the
night because in early morning he must goes to work in the warehouse. According to
the writer, Tom violates the maxim of relevance because goes to the movie every
night not as an adventure categories. Every night he just goes to the same place,
watching films and it does not give a good impact for his self, while adventure is
visiting some places such as climbing the mountain, explore the forest, or subjugate
the defiance in the world so that the people have the difference experiences.
Datum 18
Jim : How about your mother?
Tom : I’m like my father. The bastard son of a bastard! See how he grins!
And he’s been absent going on sixteen years.
There is a violation of maxim relevance in the utterance above. When Tom
utters “I’m like my father”. The bastard son of a bastard! See how he grins! And he’s
been absent going on sixteen years”. The utterance is irrelevant with Jim’s question,
because he asks about Tom’s mother but Tom explains about his father. In this
situation Jim and Tom talks about their job. Jim invites Tom move on from the
warehouse to the public speaking. Jim thinks that warehouse is not their type. Tom
38
agrees with Jim’s idea. Jim wants to know the opinions of Tom’s mother if they have
to resign from the warehouse. Tom does not give the comment about his mother
because he knows that her mother does not agree with the idea. Amanda always
complains if her son wants to do something, it causes Tom ignore Jim’s question.
Tom says that “I’m like my father. The bastard son of a bastard! See how he grins!
And he’s been absent going on sixteen years”. The utterance above has the implicit
meaning. Tom not really likes his father. The fact is, his father gone about sixteen
years ago because he does not enjoy his life as another young man. Tom becomes a
breadwinner in his family. He works in the warehouse although he does not like the
job.
Datum 19
Amanda : what is the matter with you?
Laura : Please, you answer it, please!
Laura replies violates maxim of relevance. She utters “please, you answer it,
please”! This utterance is irrelevant with her mother’s question. Amanda wants to
know what happen with her daughter because her action is suddenly changing. Laura
should explain why she does the silly thing, but in fact she gives the irrelevant
utterance. Based on the writer, Laura violates this maxim because she does not agree
with her mother required to open the door. She knows that someone who comes at
39
home is Jim. Laura does not meet him causes she replies her mother’s utterances by
saying “please, you answer it, please”!
Datum 20
Jim : Still I’m awfully sorry that I was the cause.
Laura : I’ll just imagine he had an operation. The horn was removed
to make himself less freakish. Now he will feel more at home with the
other horses, the one that don’t have horns.
Laura’s utterance is violates the maxim of relevance. Jim say sorry to Laura
because he breaks Laura’s glass collection. Laura can forgive Jim by saying “no
problem” if she feels ok for this tragedy, but in fact she gives the irrelevant argument.
Actually in this situation Laura is so sad for that incident. The glass that was broken
is her favorite one because it is different with another glasses, it has a horn on the
forehead. Laura violates this maxim because she aware that Tom is the guest in her
house, she does not makes Tom feel guilty. Amanda utters “I’ll just imagine he had
an operation. The horn was removed to make himself less freakish. Now he will feel
more at home with the other horses, the one that don’t have horns.” According to this
utterance, Laura tries to make Tom sure that this incident does not make her
disappointed.
40
Datum 21
Amanda : Laura, that is your brother and Mr. O’connor! Will you let
them in, darling?
Laura : Mother you go to the door!
The violation from this maxim is that when Laura says “Mother you go to the
door” while Amanda asks her “will you let them in, darling?” in this case Laura
contribution is not relevant with Amanda utterance. Laura should gives the relevant
answer by saying “yes” or “no” if she does not agree with Amanda utterance. In this
situation Laura refuses her mother’s request because she does not ready to meet with
Mr. O’connor. She has a painful experience with him when they are in high school.
2.3.4 Maxim of Manner
According to the dialogues below, the writer explains some utterances that
violate the maxim of manner.
Datum 22
Amanda : character’s what to look for in a man?
Tom : That’s what I’ve always said mother .
41
Maxims of manner suggest being clear. According to the dialogue, Tom
gives obscure idea when he utters “That’s I’ve always said mother”. He does not
reply his mother’s question by a clear answer. According to the context, since
Amanda opened the conversation with Tom, he never says about the “man” that
Amanda has asked. He just said that he was invited the man that was introduced to
Laura but he does not talk about who is the man exactly. Knowing that Tom has
invited the man, Amanda wants to know his characters. In fact, Tom gives unclear
answer causes Amanda doe not find the right answer.
Tom gives the obscure idea because his mother is very enthusiastic to know
about the “man” and hopes more things to him. Tom wants Amanda does not so
surprised about the man, he afraid the man does not care with Laura, and makes his
mother disappointed.
Datum 23
Jim : Gives you an idea of what the future will be in America. Even
more wonderful than the present time is? Your brother tells me you’re
shy. Is that right Laura?
Laura : I don’t know
Maxim of manner suggests us to be orderly. In Jim’s utterance, he asks two
questions in which these questions are different. He does not convey his question in
the right order. He should have asked the condition of America in the future, and then
42
he asks Laura at the same time but in the wrong order because the topic is different.
The result of disorder is that Laura replies with the unclear reason. She utters “I don’t
know”. Amanda’s utterance makes Jim confused, he does not understand which his
questions that Laura replies. Properly Laura should add her answers to makes sure
that she answers the first or the second question. In this case Tom and Laura do the
violation. Tom gives the disorder questions and Laura replies with the obscurity
answer.
Datum 24
Amanda : How old are you Laura?
Laura : Mother, you know my age.
Based on the context, Laura is Amanda’s daughter, it means that Amanda
knows more things about Laura included her ages, but in the dialogue Amanda asks
about Laura’s age. Amanda’s utterance has the implicit meaning. She does not really
want to know her daughter’s age but she wants makes Laura aware that she is adult
now. She can understand bad and good things, but her characteristic just like a child.
Laura answers her mother question by violating the maxim of manner. She
does not give the accurate utterance. Actually she must say that now she is 23 years
old. She violates this maxim because she does not understand the real meaning of
Amanda’s question. In this situation, Amanda was annoyed to Laura because her
43
daughter has dropped out from her business college but she does not inform this
reality to her mother.
Datum 25
Amanda : you work at night, too?
Jim : No, ma’am, not work but Betty.
According to the dialogue above, Jim’s utterance violates the maxim of
manner. He replies Amanda’s question with the unclear ideas. When he just says
“No, ma’am, not work” it is clear to answer Amanda’s question, but Jim continue his
utterance by saying “but Betty” this utterance does not clear to Amanda. Actually,
Jim should give more explanation about Betty to makes her reason complete. Based
on the context, Amanda gives Jim the question as the dialogue above because Jim has
gone from Amanda’s home while his stay there only a several minutes. Amanda
wants to know where Jim is wants to go.
Jim does not explain about Betty because he has the sign that Laura care with
him, but Jim has a steady. If he talks more that Betty is his sweet heart, it makes
Laura disappointed.
C. The Relationship between The characterization and the flouting of
Cooperative Principle.
The flouting of cooperative principle has a relationship in showing
characterization of the characters in the play “The Glass Menagerie”. The flouting of
44
maxim of quantity indicates the speaker is a talkative person. The speaker always
gives additional information in which the information is not required by the hearer, or
the information has been mentioned previously. The flouting of maxim quality
however indicates that the speaker is a forgetful and also dishonest. In this case the
speaker usually gives hesitant contribution. Flouting of maxim relevance is indeed
shows that the speaker is a long winded person and has bad tempered character.
Moreover he or she usually ignore the information which is required by the hearers
and give the unrequited information or move to another topic in a conversation. The
final is flouting of maxim of manner which describes that the speaker is a kind of a
hesitant person. The speaker violates this maxim with convey their idea in the
disorderly utterance.
45
BAB V
CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
A. Conclusions
After analyzing data which are taken from Tennessee William’s drama “The
Glass Menagerie”, the writer takes conclusion as follows:
1. The maxims which are violated in the play are maxim of quantity, maxim of
quality, maxim of relevance, and maxim of manner.
2. The character which is dominantly violated the cooperative principle is Laura.
It can be seen from the numbers of maxims violated below:
a) There are 14 violations by Laura (4 violations of maxim of quantity, 2
violations of maxim of quality, 6 violations of maxim of relevance and
2 violations of maxim of manner).
b) There are 8 violations by Tom (3 violations of maxim of quantity, 2
violations of maxim of quality, 2 violations of maxim of relevance and
1 violation of maxim of manner).
c) There are 2 violations by Jim (1 violation of maxim of quality and 1
violation of maxim of manner)
d) There is 1 violation by Amanda (1 violation of maxim of relevance).
46
According to the number of the violations above, the writer concludes
that Laura dominantly violates the cooperative principle than the other
characters. This case comes from Laura personality: she is a shy girl, lack of
confidence, homebody, panicky, coward, and also lack of associate. This
characteristics causes Laura does not make a good conversation with her
interlocutor so that some time she does the violated in the cooperative
principle.
3. The flouting of cooperative principle has a relationship in showing the
characterization each of the character in the play “the Glass menagerie”.
a) Flouting the maxim of quantity indicates that the speaker is a talkative
person.
b) Flouting the maxim of quality indicates that speaker is dishonest and
untrustworthy person.
c) Flouting the maxim of relevance indicates that the speaker is a longwinded person.
d) Flouting of maxim of manner indicates that the speaker is a kind of a
hesitant person.
47
B. Suggestions
The writer suggests the readers, especially the student of English
Department to choose the flouting of cooperative principle as the object of
research, because there are many interesting aspects which can be analyze.
Some people do not know how important and crucial to learn violation of
cooperative principle because people usually often do it.
48
BILBIOGRAPHY
Butt, David. 2001. Using functional grammar An Explorer’s Guide. Sydney:
Macquarie University
Cook, Guy. 1989. Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Coulthard, Malcolm. 1985. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis. New York:
Academic press.
Cruse, Alan. Meaning in Language.2000. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dewi, Novita. 2000. In Search of Meaning a Selected articles on language and
literature. Yogyakarta: Sanatha Dharma University Press.
Haryadi, Idham. 2009. The Cooperative and The politeness principles in “the Zoo
Story” Written By Edward Albee. Unhas: Skripsi.
Huford, James. Heasley, Brendan. 1983. Semantic: a Coursebook. Cambridge:
Cambridge University press.
Kempson, Ruth M.1977. Semantic Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Leech, Geoffery.1983. Principle of Pragmatics . Longman : New York.
Levinson, Stephen C.1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University.
Lightbown, Pasty. Spada, Nina. 1993. How Language and Learned. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Pabiri, lestari. 2007. The flouting Of cooperative Principle in MobilePhone
Advertisement. Unhas: Skripsi.
Palmer, F.R. 1981. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
49
Syam, Haslinda. 2006. The Use of Cooperative Principle in Conversation Radio
Program English lecture. Unhas: Skripsi.
Ulman, Stephen. 1962. Semantics an introduction The Science of meaning. Oxford:
Basil Blackwell.
Williams, Tennesse.1945. The Glass Menagerie. New York: Random House.
Winarto, fenny. 2001. Politeness Principle in English Humor Text. Unhas: Skripsi.
50