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


1

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


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.

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
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
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)


LIST OF TABLES
Number of
Tables
3.1.

Names of Tables
Data coding

Page
27

Types of maxim flouting employed by male guests in
4.1.

“The Ellen Show”

32

Rhetorical strategies of maxim flouting employed by
4.2.

male guests in “The Ellen Show”

35

Purposes of maxim flouting employed by male guests
4.3.

in “The Ellen Show”

36

Types of maxim flouting employed by female guests
4.4.

in “The Ellen Show”

42

Rhetorical strategies of maxim flouting employed by
4.5.

female guests in “The Ellen Show”

46

Purposes of maxim flouting employed by female
4.6.

guests in “The Ellen Show”

47


LIST OF FIGURES
Number of

Names of Figures

Figures
2.1.
2.2.

Instances of flouting maxims where speaker
intentionally fails to observe one or more maxims
Analytical construct

Page
16
24

Types of maxim flouting employed by male and
4.1.

female guests in “The Ellen Show”(in percentage)

52

Rhetorical strategies for maxim flouting employed by
4.2.

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

53

percentage)
Purposes of maxim flouting employed by male and
4.3.

female guests in “The Ellen Show” (in percentage)

54


1


2
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
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.


3

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.
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


4
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.
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”.


5
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.


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 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,
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 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
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 Rprinciple 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 submaxim 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
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
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.
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 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:


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

2.2.5. Strategies of Maxim Flouting
It is assumed that when flouting conversational maxims, the speaker must apply
strategies to convey the implicature to the hearer. Grundy [10] suggested six rhetorical
strategies which include figures of speech as means of maxim flouting: tautology,
metaphor, overstatement, understatement, rhetorical question, and irony. These
rhetorical devices are classified as strategies of maxim flouting because their
definitions and usages themselves show their potential to flout maxims. For further
explanation, the definition of six rhetorical devices are provided below to prove their
capacity as strategies for maxim flouting.

2.2.5.1. Tautology
Tautology is the repetitive use of phrases or words that have similar meaning.
According to Grundy [10, p.127], tautology is an expression used frequently to express
a complex meaning in an easier way. Levinson [1, p.110] stated that in principle,
tautologies have no communicative import; however, in terms of pragmatics, they may
have a great deal to convey a message in a communicative event. The following


sentence is an example of tautology employed to flout the maxim of quantity for a

specific purpose.
At the end of the day the church can only afford to pay the number of people it
can afford to pay.
Grundy [10, p.125]
In this instance, in stead of mentioning the exact number of people the church can
afford to pay, the speaker uses the rhetorical strategy “tautology” to flout the quantity
maxim so that the hearer can discover the implicature of the utterance in this particular
context.

2.1.5.2. Metaphor
In The interaction theory, Levinson [1, p.148] defined metaphor as the use of an
expression in which there is a relationship between „metaphorical’ expression and
literal’ expression in which „metaphorical’ expression can change the meaning of
literal’ expression or vice versa. In other words, metaphor describes a person or object
in a literary way by referring to something that is considered to have similar
characteristics to the person or object that is trying to describe.
For instance, the sentence using metaphor “My love is a red rose.” is considered
to flout the maxim of quality because the expression provides the information lacking
adequate evidence. By using the metaphor, the interlocutor wants the other to get the
implicature that his love for her is like a red rose, passionate and romantic.
Another example of maxim flouting using metaphor as its strategy is in the
following dialogue.
Andy : What kind of mood did you find the boss in?
Ben : The lion roared.
Levinson, [1, p.153]
Ben is considered to flout the maxim of relation because his response seems
irrelevant to Andy’s question. In this context, Ben uses the metaphor the lion roared to
convey the implicit meaning to the hearer, so Andy can guess the boss is in a bad mood,
he is angry like a lion roaring.

2.2.5.3. Overstatement
According to Leech [11, p.145], overstatement is similar to hyperbole, in which a


speaker describes something stronger than the actual state of affairs.
For example, the statement “I’m starving. I can eat a horse right now. ” is
considered as overstatement. It is impossible for a person to eat up a horse at one time,
so in this context, the speaker flouts the maxim of quality by exaggerating the fact to
emphasize that he is very hungry at that moment.

2.2.5.4 Understatement
Understatement is the opposite of overstatement [11, p.145]. While overstatement
describes something stronger than the actual state of affairs, understatement or litotes
describes something weaker than the actual state of affairs.
Understatement is frequently used in criticism. For example, “I wasn’t
overimpressed by her speech.” This is a case of an uninformative denial, a typical
device of understatement [11, p.146]. Therefore, the speaker in the situation uses
understatement strategy to flout the maxim of quantity with the aim of politeness.

2.2.5.5. Rhetorical question
Rhetorical question is a rhetorical strategy in which a question is asked just for
effect, or to lay emphasis on some point being discussed, when no real answer is
expected. The use of this rhetorical question to flout the maxims of Cooperative
Principle is illustrated in the following dialogue.
Bert: Do vegetarians eat hamburgers?
Ernie: Do chickens have lips?
Yule [5, p.4]
In this dialogue, Ernie’s statement is an example of rhetorical question because it
has no intention of asking and seeking an answer. By asking a rhetorical question, she
flouts the maxim of relation to imply that the answer is obviously No.

2.2.5.6. Irony
Grice [12, p.34] suggested that in irony, it is perfectly obvious to the speaker (A)
and his audience (B) that what A has said or has made as if to say is something (s)he
does not believe. While using irony, A believes that B can get the implicature behind
his/her utterance.
For example, when a boy says to his friend “You’ve been a great help!” who has
just caused a disaster, it is obvious that he says something positive but actually intends