An investigation into the flouting of conversational maxims employed by male and female guests in

THE UNIVERSITY OF DANANG

UNIVERSITY OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE STUDIES

TRẦN THỊ HUYỀN TRANG

AN INVESTIGATION INTO
THE FLOUTING OF CONVERSATIONAL MAXIMS
EMPLOYED BY MALE AND FEMALE GUESTS
IN THE AMERICAN TALK SHOW “THE ELLEN SHOW”

Major: ENGLISH LINGUISTICS
Code: 822.02.01

MASTER THESIS IN
LINGUISTICS AND CULTURAL STUDIES OF FOREIGN COUNTRIES

Da Nang, 2020


THE UNIVERSITY OF DANANG
UNIVERSITY OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE STUDIES

TRẦN THỊ HUYỀN TRANG

AN INVESTIGATION INTO
THE FLOUTING OF CONVERSATIONAL MAXIMS
EMPLOYED BY MALE AND FEMALE GUESTS
IN THE AMERICAN TALK SHOW “THE ELLEN SHOW”

Major: ENGLISH LINGUISTICS

Code: 822.02.01

MASTER THESIS IN
LINGUISTICS AND CULTURAL STUDIES OF FOREIGN COUNTRIES

SUPERVISOR: NGUYỄN THỊ QUỲNH HOA, Assoc. Prof. Dr.

Da Nang, 2020


i

STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP
Except where reference is made in the text of the thesis, this thesis contains
no material published elsewhere or extracted in whole, or in part from a thesis by
which I have qualified for or been awarded another degree or diploma.
No other person‟s work has been used without due acknowledgements in the
thesis.
The thesis has not been submitted for the award of any degree or diploma in
any other tertiary institution.

Da Nang, 2020
Author

Trần Thị Huyền Trang


ii

ABSTRACT

This research is carried out with the aim of investigating pragmatic features
of maxim flouting employed by male and female guests in the American talk show
“The Ellen Show”. Besides, the study discovers similarities and differences in
terms of conversational maxim flouting between two genders. The data for analysis
are 72 situations of maxim flouting for each gender in “The Ellen Show”.
In order to reach the goal, the study design was based on a combination of
quantitative and qualitative approaches. The methods applied in the research were
descriptive and comparative ones. The findings of this study reveal that although
both genders shared some similarities in the pragmatic features of maxim flouting,
each gender reflects its own tendency of language style in communication. With
regard to types of maxim flouting, all four types proposed by Grice (i.e. Quality,
Quantity, Relation and Manner) were identified in the samples of both genders.
Additionally, instances of Mixed Maxim Flouting have been discovered in both
genders. As far as rhetorical strategies are concerned, all six types of Grundy‟s
rhetorical

strategies

consisting

of

Tautology,

Metaphor,

Overstatement,

Understatement, Rhetorical Question and Irony were applied in conversational
maxim flouting situations of male and female guests. However, there are a number

of instances where no rhetorical strategies were used, especially the instances of
female. Besides, Mixed Rhetorical Strategies have been discovered, but only in the
instances of female guests. In terms of purposes of maxim flouting, 16 purposes
employed by male and female guests were identified: joking, teasing the hearer,
expressing one’s feeling, refusing a request, giving a clear explanation, saving
face, showing modesty, showing politeness, emphasizing a fact, hiding the truth,
maintaining self-esteem, maintaining relationship, satisfying the hearer, avoiding
hurting the hearer, convincing someone and arousing curiosity.
It is hoped that the results can contribute some useful knowledge to
pragmatic features of maxim flouting in daily conversation as well as teaching and
learning English to Vietnamese learners.


iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP ......................................................................... i
ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................. ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................ iii
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................ vi
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................. vii
Chapter One. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................1
1.1. RATIONALE .......................................................................................................1
1.2. AIM AND OBJECTIVES ....................................................................................4
1.2.1. Aim ...........................................................................................................4
1.2.2. Objectives .................................................................................................5
1.3. RESEARCH QUESTIONS ..................................................................................5
1.4. SCOPE OF THE STUDY ....................................................................................5
1.5. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY .....................................................................6
1.6. ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY ..................................................................6

Chapter

Two.

LITERATURE

REVIEW

ANG

THEORETICAL

BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................8
2.1. LITERATURE REVIEW.....................................................................................8
2.2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND .....................................................................9
2.2.1. Pragmatics ................................................................................................9
2.2.2. Conversational Implicature ....................................................................10
2.2.3. Cooperative Principle .............................................................................11
2.2.4. Flouting of Conversational Maxims .......................................................13
2.2.5. Strategies of Maxim Flouting .................................................................17
2.2.6. Language and Gender .............................................................................19
2.2.7. Talk show and Description of the Ellen Show .......................................20
2.3. SUMMARY .......................................................................................................23


iv

Chapter Three. METHODOLOGY ......................................................................25
3.1. RESEARCH DESIGN .......................................................................................25
3.2. RESEARCH METHODS...................................................................................25

3.3. . DATA COLLECTION.....................................................................................25
3.4. . DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLES .......................................................................26
3.5. DATA ANALYSIS ............................................................................................27
3.6. PROCEDURE ....................................................................................................28
3.7. RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY .....................................................................28
Chapter Four. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ..................................................30
4.1. PRAGMATIC FEATURES OF MAXIM FLOUTING EMPLOYED BY
MALE GUESTS IN “THE ELLEN SHOW” ............................................................30
4.1.1. Types of Maxim Flouting Employed by Male Guests ...........................30
4.1.2. Rhetorical Strategies for Maxim Flouting Employed by Male Guests ..32
4.1.3. Purposes of Maxim Flouting Employed by Male Guests ......................35
4.2. PRAGMATIC FEATURES OF MAXIM FLOUTING EMPLOYED BY
FEMALE GUESTS IN “THE ELLEN SHOW” .......................................................40
4.2.1. Types of Maxim Flouting Employed by Female Guests........................40
4.2.2. Rhetorical strategies for Maxim Flouting Employed by Female Guests
...................................................................................................................................42
4.2.3. Purposes of Maxim Flouting Employed by Female Guests ...................46
4.3. SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MALE AND FEMALE
GUESTS IN TERMS OF CONVERSATIONAL MAXIM FLOUTING IN “THE
ELLEN SHOW” ........................................................................................................51
4.3.1. Types of Maxim Flouting .......................................................................51
4.3.2. Rhetorical strategies ...............................................................................52
4.3.3. Purposes of Maxim Flouting ..................................................................54
Chapter Five. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS ....................................57
5.1. . CONCLUSIONS ..............................................................................................57
5.2. IMPLICATIONS................................................................................................59


v

5.3. LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY .....................................................................60
5.4. SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCHES ..........................................60
REFERENCES
SOURCES OF DATA
APPENDIX
QUYẾT ĐỊNH GIAO ĐỀ TÀI LUẬN VĂN (bản sao)


vi

LIST OF TABLES
Number of

Names of Tables

Tables
3.1.
4.1.

4.2.

4.3.

4.4.

4.5.

4.6.

Data coding

Types of maxim flouting employed by male guests in
“The Ellen Show”
Rhetorical strategies of maxim flouting employed by
male guests in “The Ellen Show”
Purposes of maxim flouting employed by male guests
in “The Ellen Show”
Types of maxim flouting employed by female guests
in “The Ellen Show”
Rhetorical strategies of maxim flouting employed by
female guests in “The Ellen Show”
Purposes of maxim flouting employed by female
guests in “The Ellen Show”

Page
27
32

35

36

42

46

47


vii

LIST OF FIGURES
Number of

Names of Figures

Figures
2.1.
2.2.
4.1.

Instances

of

flouting

maxims

Page
where

speaker

intentionally fails to observe one or more maxims
Analytical construct
Types of maxim flouting employed by male and
female guests in “The Ellen Show”(in percentage)

16
24

52

Rhetorical strategies for maxim flouting employed by
4.2.

male and female guests in “The Ellen Show” (in

53

percentage)
4.3.

Purposes of maxim flouting employed by male and
female guests in “The Ellen Show” (in percentage)

54


1

Chapter One
INTRODUCTION

1.1. RATIONALE
It is generally known that entertainment is regarded as an indispensable part
in our daily life. Among entertainment programmes, TV show is one of the most
popular sources of relaxation. Besides, TV show in English is of great benefit to
English language learners since it provides them with natural English conversations
so that they can enrich the target language. Nevertheless, learning a language as a
foreign language is not an easy process since it requires more than knowing

linguistic features and four skills of listening, speaking, reading and writing. If the
learners do not have basic knowledge of pragmatics, which refers to the relationship
between language in use and the context in which it is used, they can hardly
understand situations in TV shows.
Among central aspects of Pragmatics, conversational implicature is one of
the single most important idea, as pointed out by Levinson [1]. It is assumed that in
conversation a speaker may often mean to deliver his message implicitly for
specific purposes. Implicature is employed by interlocutors by various means,
flouting Grice’s maxims (including quality, quantity, relation and manner) is one
common way used by speakers to imply something. There have been some
researches in line with the flouting of conversational maxims in films or sitcoms so
far, which reveal types of maxims flouted or reasons for flouting maxims.
However, the issue of flouting maxims in interviews of TV shows where
conversations between hosts and guests run naturally, not based on scripts, have not
received much investigation yet. In this study, the researcher chose interviews in
The Ellen Show, a popular TV show for people all around the world, especially for
English language learners, to analyse the flouting of Grice‟s maxim with the
intention to help English language learners who are keen on watching the show to
enhance their language as well as pragmatic competence. An additional factor


2

which is also investigated in the research is the issue of distinguishing situations
where male and female guests flout one or more maxims in interviews of The Ellen
Show. Two interesting examples of flouting maxims in The Ellen Show which
motivate me to conduct the research are described as follows.
The first instance is taken from the interview entitled “Adam Levine Addresses
Super Bowl Performance Rumors”, which was released on November 18th, 2018.
The guest of the show is Adam Levine, an American popular singer and song

writer. In this context, he is asked about the rumor of his performance in Super
Bowl, the National Football League championship game.
Ellen: Hey, let‟s talk about this rumor of you possibly performing at halftime
for the Super Bowl.
Adam Levin (hesitate a few seconds): What the hell are you talking about?
Ellen: Yeah
Adam: It’s a rumor. I can neither confirm nor deny the truth of this rumor.
It’s definitely a rumor. And the rumor is…the rumor is that everyone seems to be
discussing.
(Laughter)
Ellen: Right. So you can‟t say anything because nothing has really been
announced…so whether it‟s true or not.
Adam: It’s the Super Bowl. It’s a great event. And there’s going to be a band
performing or an artist of some kind performing…
Ellen: Ah
Adam:…at half time.
Ellen (laugh): Ah ha
Adam (smile): Yeah.
(“Adam Levine Addresses Super Bowl Performance Rumors”, in The Ellen
Show Season 16)
In this conversation, Adam intentionally flouts the maxim of quantity for the
purpose of not revealing the truth. The information he provides is just the facts that


3

everyone knows, and the hearers, Ellen and the audiences, gets nothing from his
answer. Ellen in this context seems to get Adam‟s implicature through flouting
maxim of quantity, so she has to accept the truth that he can‟t say anything because
nothing has really been announced.

The next example is utterances uttered by Judge Judy, who is best known as a
no-nonsense courtroom presence on the TV show Judge Judy, in the video named
“Judge Judy Sets the Record Straight on Skin Care Scam” on November 9th, 2018.
In the context in which Ellen wants to know Judge Judy‟s birthday, Judy flouts the
maxim of quantity and quality through the response “Do you want me…?” In this
case, she flouts the maxim of quality because the fact that she surely knows
everyone wants to know the truth but still asks this question. In addition, the
quantity maxim is also flouted because her question in return is redundant. After
that, when Ellen asks her how to have so much energy at that age, she continues
flouting maxim of quantity and relation by giving excessive information, much of
which seems not related to Ellen‟s question.
Ellen: When was your birthday?
Judy: Do you want me to tell the truth, or you want me to tell lie? My
birthday was October 21. I was 76.
Ellen: Wow. Now what do you attribute that you have so much energy at that
age?
Judy: You have two choices as you get older. I mean…Did you ever think
that you would be 60?
Ellen: No, 60 to me, feels like, I can‟t believe it.
Judy: You know, at 60 my grandmother had breasts that start at her neck
and they stop at her knees.
(Laughter)
Judy: I remember that. That was the look.
I think that, you know, who told me that an age is just a number the first
time – Florence Henderson. I remember having dinner with Flo when she turned


4

70. And we had dinner. And she had a couple of cocktails, which she was prone

to do and then got into her car to drive home. I said Flora, are you sure you don’t
want to get into a cab? “Oh, no I’m fine.” I said, you know 70 is 70. She said,
Jugdy, 70 is the new 50. And it’s just a number. And I remembered that…
(“Judge Judy Sets the Record Straight on Skin Care Scam”, in The Ellen
Show Season 16)
Based on the context that everyone in the studio is filled with admiration for
the energy of Mrs Judy, a woman in her seventies, we can suppose that the purpose
of flouting the maxims of quantity and quality at the beginning is to emphasize how
old she is despite her look and her energy. Later, Judy employs the flouting of
quantity and relation maxims to provide clearer explanation about the fact that age
is just a number in response of Ellen‟s question.
As far as I am concerned, I used to feel confused when watching situations
where maxims are flouted like those previous instances because my limited
knowledge of Pragmatics prevented me from getting actual intention of the
speakers. However, since I approached Pragmatics and especially Conversational
Implicature, I become greatly interested in the situations where speakers flout
conversational maxims for specific purposes. Hence, in the hope of finding out how
conversational maxims flouted by male and female guests in a fascinating show,
The Ellen Show, the study entitled “An Investigation into the Flouting of
Conversational Maxims Employed by Male and Female Guests in the
American Talk Show “The Ellen Show” is carried out.

1.2. AIM AND OBJECTIVES
1.2.1. Aim
This study is aimed to:
- Investigate pragmatic features of flouting maxims employed by male and
female guests in the American talk show “The Ellen Show” in terms of types of
maxims, rhetorical strategies and purposes of maxim flouting.
- Analyze the similarities and differences between male and female guests in

5

terms of conversational maxims flouting in “The Ellen Show”.
- Provide Vietnamese learners of English with some helpful information about
cases of maxim flouting in natural conversations.

1.2.2. Objectives
To achieve the aim of the study, the following objectives are intended to:
 Identify and describe types of conversational maxims flouting, purposes and
strategies which are employed by male guests in “The Ellen Show”.
 Identify and describe types of conversational maxims flouted, purposes and
strategies which are employed by female guests in “The Ellen Show”.
 Compare and contrast pragmatic features of maxim flouting employed by
male and female guests in “The Ellen Show”.
 Suggest some implications for teaching and learning English in Vietnam.

1.3. RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The research aims at answering the following questions:
1. What are pragmatic features of flouting maxims employed by male guests
in The Ellen Show in terms of types of maxims, strategies and purposes?
2. What are pragmatic features of flouting maxims employed by female guests
in The Ellen Show in terms of types of maxims, strategies and purposes?
3. What are similarities and differences between male and female guests in
terms of conversational maxim flouting in The Ellen Show?

1.4. SCOPE OF THE STUDY
In the field of Pragmatics, there are various problems that can be raised from
Grice‟s Cooperative Principle covering the maxim of quality, quantity, relation and
manner. However, this research is limited on pragmatic features of the Flouting of

conversational maxims employed by male and female guests in The Ellen Show, an
American talk show in terms of types of maxims flouted, strategies and
implicatures. Contrast analysis is also made to discover the similarities and
differences in terms of conversational maxim flouting between male guests and
female guests in The Ellen Show.


6

The study focuses on analyzing the transcriptions of the interviews between
the host, Ellen Degeneres, and native English speaking male and female guests in
The Ellen Show (Season 15 to Season 17), which is taped from September, 2017 to
December, 2019 at Stage 1 on the nearby Warner Bros, California. The
transcriptions which serve as data in the thesis are taken from The Ellen Show
channel in Youtube.

1.5. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
In accordance with the objectives of the research, this research is expected to
make contributions both theoretically and practically. Theoretically, the research
findings are anticipated providing additional reference for the next researchers who
want to conduct research on Grice‟s Cooperative Principle and Implicature,
especially on gender analysis of flouting conversational maxims. In terms of
practical use, the results of this study are expected to be useful for both English
language teachers and learners. For the teachers of English, the research are
supposed to give input to their lecture of Pragmatics, or more specifically,
Cooperative Principle and Implicature. The teachers can use situations of flouting
maxims employed by male and female guests in the research as intriguing examples
for their lectures. Some suggestions are also available for the teachers to enhance
English language learner‟s pragmatic competence. For English language learners,
the study hopefully helps them to have a deeper understanding of implicatures

which are used frequently in real life English and know how to construct a
productive, meaningful and natural conversation in English.

1.6. ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY
The thesis consists of five chapters as follows:
Chapter 1: Introduction
This chapter introduces the rationale, the aims and objectives, the research
questions, the scope of the study, the significance of the study as well as the
organization of the study.


7

Chapter 2: Literature Review and Theoretical Background
This chapter reviews previous studies on maxim flouting, provides the
theoretical background and the key notions of important issues related to maxim
flouting and TV show.
Chapter 3: Methodology
This chapter is about the methods and procedures of the study. It presents the
research design, the research methods, the description of samples, the data
collection, the data analysis, the procedure, and the reliability and validity of the
research.
Chapter 4: Findings and Discussion
This chapter is concerned with pragmatic features of flouting maxims
employed by male and female guests in the American talk show “The Ellen Show”
in terms of types of maxims, strategies and purposes. It also shows the similarities
and differences between male and female guests in terms of conversational maxims
flouting in “The Ellen Show”.
Chapter 5: Conclusions and Implications
This chapter gives summaries of the research findings, presents the

conclusions drawn from the study as well as the implications for teaching and
learning, points out the limitations of the study and puts forward some suggestions
for further research related to the study.


8

Chapter Two
LITERATURE REVIEW ANG THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
2.1. LITERATURE REVIEW
Until now, there have been some studies applied Pragmatics approach based
on Grice‟s maxims and Cooperative Principles. Among those, three related studies
are selected as the guidance for this research paper.
The first study entitled “An analysis of flouting maxims in “Forest Gump”
film based on Grice‟s cooperative principles” is a qualitative descriptive research
conducted by Mulyani [2]. The purpose of this research is to describe how the
flouting maxims and the cooperative Principle can help the addressee to understand
implicature employed by the characters in the film. From the 21 data analyzed, three
categories can be found: flouting clash between maxims (13 data), flouting maxim
of Quantity (7 data) and flouting maxim of Quality (1 data). The results of the data
analysis show that the maxim/s flouted in the conversation contain hidden meaning
(i.e. implicature) which has certain intention related to the context of situation. The
reason why characters flout maxims consists of: convincing someone, showing
disagreement politely, maintaining relationship, asking for forgiveness, expressing
feeling and condition, giving clear explanation, maintaining self esteem and asking
for consideration. Implicature created by the speaker who wishes to make the hearer
look for the real meaning actually helps the hearer to catch the speaker‟s intention.
The results also reveals that the characters employ the flouting maxims in order to
make the conversation run smoothly.
Another similar research is the thesis named “Flouting maxim analysis on

dialogue of characters in Pitch Perfect movie”, which was carried out by Sekarayu
Nuringtyas [3]. By using Chrisstoffersen and Tupan&Natalia‟s theory, the
researcher is able to describe the reason of characters to flout the maxim which are
comprised of: hiding the truth, saving face, feeling jealous, satisfying the hearer,
cheering the hearer, avoiding hurting the hearer, building one‟s believe, convincing
the hearer. Furthermore, more new reasons why the characters in the film flout


9

maxim/s are found out in the study. They are mocking the hearer and teasing the
hearer.
The final research connected with this study is the thesis “Generating
conversational implicature strategies on the video of Ellen Show” conducted by
Mufidah [4]. The researcher uses explorative qualitative method to investigate the
types of conversational implicature and the strategies of generating conversational
implicature employed by interlocutors in conversation. The data are collected by
getting the conversations in the interview between the host, Ellen Degeneres, and
her guests, Adam Levine (a singer), Mila (a 3-year-old girl) and Emily (Mila‟s
Mom) in the video of The Ellen Show on 16 of October 2015. The results of this
research show that in the conversations of the interview chosen, two types of
conversational implicature are generated, they are quality and quantity. Moreover, it
can be concluded that there are two strategies applied to the conversational
implicature, they are (1) observance of cooperative principle maxim and (2)
violation of cooperative principle maxim.
In conclusion to this section, the previous studies aiming at analyzing nonobservance of conversational maxims are quite stimulating and practical in the field
of Pragmatics, which provides instances in films or TV shows where interlocutors
in conversation flout one or more maxims for the purpose of implicatures.
Nevertheless, the distinction between male and female speakers in terms of flouting
the maxims has not received much attention yet. For this reason, my research that

analyzes flouting conversational maxims employed by male and female guests in
The Ellen Show will hopefully find out some interesting results.

2.2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
2.2.1. Pragmatics
There are several definitions of pragmatics. According to Yule [5, p.3], there
are four areas that pragmatics is mainly concerned with. First, pragmatics is the
study of speaker meaning. Second, pragmatics is the study of contextual meaning.
Third, pragmatics is the study of how more gets communicated than is said. Fourth,


10

pragmatics is the study of expression of relative distance. The fact that speakers
determine how much needs to be said depends on how close or distant the listener
is. Generally, Yule [5, p.4] defined pragmatics as “the study of the relationships
between linguistic forms and the users of those forms”. Furthermore, Yule [5, p.4]
showed the appeal of pragmatics through the process of discovering how people
make sense of each other linguistically. However, it can be a frustrating area of
study because it requires us to make sense of people and what they have in mind,
which appears to easily cause confusion.
Another definition of pragmatics by Fetzer in [6] is that “Pragmatics is
frequently conceptualized as the science of language use, the study of contextdependent meaning and the study of speaker-intended meaning, presupposing the
existence of language, language user and context on the one hand, and contextindependent meaning on the other.” According to him, definitions tend not to
concentrate on the questions of what pragmatics is and what it does, but rather on
what it is not and what it does not do.
To sum up, pragmatics is the branch of linguistic dealing with the
relationship between language in use and the context in which it is used.
Specifically, pragmatics studies the meaning of utterances in relation to the
contexts which involves how a speaker produces an utterance to deliver his or her

intention and how the listener interprets it.

2.2.2. Conversational Implicature
Levinson [1, p.97] stated that the notion of conversational implicature is
one of the single most important ideas in pragmatics. The basic assumption in
conversation is that a speaker may often mean to deliver his message implicitly in
certain goals. He often expresses the meaning beyond the word used and it has to be
understood by the hearer. Indeed, philosopher Grice introduced the concept of
implicature, which is essentially a theory about how people use the language. Grice
[7] pointed out that an utterance can imply a proposition (i.e. a statement) that is not
part of the utterance and that does not follow as a necessary consequence of the


11

utterance. The concept implicature is used to deal with examples in communication
where what a speaker means goes beyond the meaning literally expressed by a
particular utterance.
For instance, in a situation where a little girl named Anna is sitting next to her
friend, John, who is eating an ice-cream, she asks something like, "What flavour is
it?”. Her friend might respond by offering her a bite of his ice-cream. By offering
some of his ice-cream to her, John has shown that he thinks Anna was implying that
she would like to taste it. Actually, she didn‟t say anything to show that she wanted
to taste this ice-cream, and thus Anna could deny that she implied that, either quite
directly as in "Oh, I didn't mean I wanted to have a bite", or more indirectly as in
"Oh, I‟m just curious but I am not thirsty now.”. However, unless Anna makes some
kind of denial, then the fact that she wanted to taste her friend‟s ice-cream has been
implied. There are three main points about this example of implicature that need to
be considered. First, the implicature raised by John that Anna wanted to have a bite
of his ice-cream is not part of Anna‟s utterance. Second, the implicature does not

follow as a necessary consequence of Anna‟s utterance. Third, it is possible for an
utterance to raise more than one implicature, or to raise different implicatures if
uttered in different contexts. For example, the same question “What flavour is it?”
was asked by John‟s mother when she saw him eating an ice-cream doesn‟t have the
same implicature like in the previous situation. In this context, John didn‟t offer his
mother a bite because he knows his mother doesn‟t like ice-creams. We might say
that his mother‟s utterance raises the implicature that “She wants to find out what is
his son‟s favorite flavour.” Hence, it can be concluded that implicatures are heavily
dependent upon the context of an utterance, including participants of this context.

2.2.3. Cooperative Principle
It is believed that when people involve in a conversation, they will cooperate
with each other to make their conversations run smoothly. Grice [7] proposed that
in common social situations, both speakers and hearers share a set of cooperative
principles to achieve effective conversational communication. The cooperative


12

principle is defined as follows, “make your conversation contribution such as is
required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the
talk exchange in which you are engaged” [7, p.45].
In his Logic and Conversation, Grice [7] analyzed cooperation as consisting of
four conversational maxims: Quantity, Quality, Relation and Manner.
Maxim of Quantity. This maxim relates to the quantity of information to be
provided. To follow this maxim, each participant‟s contribution should be as
informative as is required (for the current purposes of the exchange) and it should
not be less informative or more informative than is required.
Maxim of Quality. This maxim requires each participant to be genuine and
sincere and give truthful contribution. They should neither say what they believe to

be false nor say that for which they lack adequate evidence.
Maxim of Relation. This maxim states that each participant‟s contribution
should be relevant to the subject of the conversation.
Maxim of Manner. This maxim requires each participant to present meaning
clearly and concisely. Their contribution should avoid obscurity and ambiguity.
The validity of Gricean maxims has been questioned in later research.
According to Huang.Y. [9], Laurence Horn and Stephen Levinson developed the
neo-Gricean theory, in which Q (Q for Quantity) and R (R for Relation) principle
are developed. The Q-principle suggests that a person should say as much as they
can, and the R-principle asserts that a speaker should not say more than they must.
The Q-principle comes from the first sub-maxim of the Gricean maxim of quantity,
i.e. that a person should be as informative as possible while the R-principle refers to
the second sub-maxim of quantity, i.e. not to be more informative than required, and
involves the maxim of relation and the maxim of manner as well. In this study, we
hold the theory of Gricean maxims instead of Neo Gricean theory since Grice's
maxims are divided into more specific categories and this makes it easier to define
and analyze situations in the research in a more specific way.
The four conversational maxims of cooperative principle above that are stated
by Grice are not a scientific law but a norm to maintain the conversational goal. The


13

conversational goal will be less function when one of those sub-maxims is not
fulfilled maximally. Levinson [1, p.102] supposed that these maxims specify what
participants have to do in order to converse in a maximally efficient, rational,
cooperative way: they should speak sincerely, relevantly, and clearly, while
providing sufficient information.
However, in view of the nature of communication, an immediate objection
arises. As Levinson [1, p.102] suggested, the view of four conversational maxims

may describe a philosopher's paradise, but no one actually speaks like that the
whole time. He illustrated an instance as follow:
A: Where‟s Bill?
B: There‟s a yellow VW outside Sue‟s house.
If B's contribution is taken literally, it appears to fail to answer A's question,
and thus seems to violate at least the maxims of Quantity and Relation. Therefore,
to preserve the assumption of cooperation in this context, inferences (i.e., the
implicature) must arise. The participant A might consider possible connection
between the location of Bill and the location of a yellow VW, and thus arrive at the
implicature (which B effectively conveys) that, if the yellow VW belongs to Bill, he
may be in Sue's house.

2.2.4. Flouting of Conversational Maxims
In Levinson‟s example above, we might say that B failed to observe the
maxim of Quantity and Relation. In fact, Grice pointed out that the maxims are not
always observed by interlocutors. In conversation, when interlocutors fails to
observe those maxims, this means that what the speaker says and what he means
must be distinguished. In other words, conversational implicature, as mentioned
above, arises as the result of non-observance of the maxims and it plays a vital
role for interlocutors to get the intended meaning of their partner‟s utterance.
Grice [7] clarified five ways of non-observance of conversational maxims:
flouting, violation, infringing, opting out, and suspending. Flouting a maxim takes
place when a speaker blatantly fails to observe a maxim without any intention to
mislead a hearer; whereas, in violating a maxim, the speaker intends to mislead the


14

hearer. In opting out a maxim, the speaker shows his/ her unwillingness to
cooperate in the way the maxim requires. Infringing a maxim usually takes place

when a speaker has an imperfect linguistic performance, cognitive impairment, or
when a speaker cannot speak clearly or to the point because of informatively
impaired. Meanwhile, suspending a maxim occurs when there are culture-specific
or particular events that force the speaker not to say something directly, for
instance, taboo words.
Among instances of non-observance of maxims, it seems that maxim flouting
particularly attracts the attention of linguistics such as Grice, Thomas, Grundy, etc.
since it is likely to occur more frequently in daily conversations. Hence, in the
scope of this article, the issue that is totally focused on is flouting conversational
maxims.
Flouting one maxim or more occurs when a participant in a conversation does
deliberately fail to obey one or more of conversational maxims. By choosing to
ignore the maxims, interlocutors try to imply something behind the literal meaning
of the utterance, i.e. conversational implicature. Thomas [8, p.65] supported Grice‟s
view that the conversational implicature that is added when flouting is not intended
to deceive the recipient of the conversation, but the purpose is to make the recipient
look for other meaning. In other words, the speaker desires the greatest
understanding in his/ her recipient because it is expected that the interlocutor is able
to uncover the hidden meaning behind the utterances. Furthermore, Grundy [10,
p.78] pointed out that flouting maxim is a particularly silent way of getting an
addressee to draw inference and hence recover an implicature.

2.2.4.1. Flouting of the Quantity Maxim
Flouting the maxim of quantity occurs when a participant in conversation
intentionally provides insufficient or excessive information within the situation
requires. Consider the following conversation between a mom and her daughter as
an example:
Mom

: Have you cleaned the floor and washed the dishes?

Daughter: I have just cleaned the floor.


15

It is obvious from the example that the information in the girl‟s response is
insufficient. Her mother asks her if she has finished cleaning the floor and washing
the dishes but the daughter just mentions that she has cleaned the floor. In this
context, the mother can raise the implicature that her daughter hasn‟t washed the
dishes. Perhaps she is afraid that her mother will complain, so she flouts the maxim
of quantity on purpose by just pointing out what she has done.

2.2.4.2. Flouting of the Quality Maxim
Flouting the maxim of quality arises when an interlocutor‟s contribution is
patently untrue, or lacks adequate evidence. However, it is important to bear in
mind that the speaker does not try to mislead the listener in any way; in other words,
the speaker wants by his or her untrue words to implicate another possible meaning.
See the example below:
Professor to a student who arrives late half an hour to the class: Wow! You‟re
such a punctual fellow! Welcome to the class.
Student: Sorry sir but I had a flat tire on the way to school.
The professor in this situation tries to tease his student by intentionally
flouting the maxim of quality, and his purpose is, by no means, praising him.
Meanwhile, the student seems to notice the implicature behind the teacher‟s
compliment, so she offers an apology and excuse in return.

2.2.4.3. Flouting of the Relation Maxim
The maxim of relation is flouted when a participant is giving a response in
such a way that makes the conversation unmatched and irrelevant to the topic that is

being discussed. Look at the following exchange:
Wife: Darling, do I look attractive in this evening dress?
Husband (look at the clock): Oh, it‟s time to go.
The husband in this context may flout the maxim of relation to avoid hurting
his wife‟s feelings. He is afraid that telling the truth will drive his wife mad, so he
tries to evade this topic by rushing his wife to go.

2.2.4.4. Flouting of the Manner Maxim
The maxim of manner is flouted when a speaker intentionally fails to observe


16

the maxim by not being brief, not being orderly, using obscure language, or using
ambiguity. Moreover, if the addressor uses slang or his voice is not loud enough, he
or she will flouts this maxim according to Levinson, [1, p.104]. The following
situation is an instance of flouting the maxim of manner.
Wife: Where are you off to? Dinner‟s nearly ready.
Husband (notices that his little daughter is around): Oh, I‟m about to go out
to get some funny white stuffs for somebody.
It is clear that the husband deliberately flouts the maxim of manner by
speaking in an ambiguous way, using some funny white stuffs and somebody instead
of saying obviously some ice-creams and Anna, his daughter‟s name. We might get
the implicature that he is afraid that his little girl will become too excited when
hearing her favorite stuff, ice-cream and ask for the ice-cream before meal, so he
tries to make his utterances as ambiguous as possible.
The flouting of conversational maxims are summarized in model by the
researcher as follows:
Untrue
contribution

Insufficient
information
Excessive
Information

Quality

Quantity

Lack of
adequate
evidence

Flouting
conversational
maxims
Relation

Manner

Irrelevant
response

Disorder
contribution

Ambiguous
response

Figure 2.1. Instances of flouting maxims where speaker intentionally fails to
observe one or more maxims