CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
A. Background
of study
In human
communication, much of what is expressed goes beyond simply conveying
information to others. One limitation of semantics is that dimensions of
meaning that are outside the content of the linguistic sign are also outside
the scope of description. Social and affective meaning are not covered by
semantics (which focuses on conventional/conceptual meaning only), but
virtually any real-life communicative situation contains signs which are used
to express something about the speakers and their social relationships.
Pragmatics is concerned with how people use language within a context, in
real-life situations. While semantics is concerned with words, phrases and
sentences, the unit of analysis in pragmatics is an utterance made in a
concrete communicative context.
We use language
for many purposes. We tell others what we know or think we know, we express our
feelings, ask questions, make requests, protest, criticize, insult, apologize,
promise, thank, say hello and goodbye. Language seems to have as many different
functions as there are occasions for using language, but for all the apparent
diversity the basic uses of language are rather limited. In this chapter we
recognize six different kinds of utterances, or speech acts, classified
according to their general purpose—though a single utterance may have
overlapping purposes. The description here will apply to written discourse, and
therefore to writer and reader, as much as to spoken discourse. Nevertheless,
we use the term speaker to include writer and the term addressee to include
reader as well as hearer.
In addition,
although one person may speak or write on behalf of several people and may have
a plurality of addressees, whether in writing or speaking, we use singular
terms ‘speaker’ and ‘addressee’ throughout.
Beside the
types of speech act, here we will explore how the levels of speech acts affect
the process of communication, since we realize that communication process
itself cannot be separated from the levels. How the level synchronize to convey
a message in communication.
B. Identification
of Study
A. What
is Speech Act?
B. What is Maxim?
C. What
is Error in Maxim?
C.
Objective Study
A. To understand about Speech Act
B. To understand about Maxim
C. To understand about Error in Maxim
CHAPTER II
THEORETICAL REVIEW
A.
Speech Acts Theories
Speech acts are verbal actions that accomplish
something: we greet, insult, compliment, plead, flirt, supply information, and
get work done. There are some kinds of speech act, those are:
·
Assertive
utterances
In the assertive function speakers
and writers use language to tellwhat they know or believe; assertive language
is concerned with facts.
·
Performative
utterances
Performative utterances are valid if
spoken by someone whose right to make them is accepted and in circumstances which
are accepted as appropriate.
·
Verdictive
utterances
Verdictives are speech acts in which
the speaker makes an assessment or judgement about the acts of another, usually
the addressee.
·
Expressive
utterances
Expressive utterances are thus
retrospective and speaker-involved. The most common expressive verbs (in this
sense of ‘expressive’) are: acknowledge, admit, confess, deny, apologize.
·
Directive
utterances
Directive utterances are those in
which the speaker tries to get theaddressee to perform some act or refrain from
performing an act.
·
Commisive
utterances
Speech acts that commit a speaker to
a course of action are called commissive
utterances. These include promises, pledges, threats and vows.[1]
B.
Conversational
maxim
In
daily life a person unconsciously communicates with others in many ways such as
language, gestures and expressions. In communication he/she is expected to give
or share information with others. In order to make a conversation understood by
the speaker and the hearer, there must be the general principle of language
use, which is called the cooperative principle.
The
are four features of discourse that are essentially connected with the
Cooperative Principle. Effective communication, in fact, depends on the
presence of all four features identified by Grice as Quantity, Quality, Relation and
Manner.[2]
These
features and the communication implicatures connected with them, are to serve a
maximally effective exchange of information. Observance of the maxims derived
from the Cooperation Principle could be considered as a kind of contractual
relationship which helps to bridge the divide between human beings so
characteristically called by Hobbes as „bellum omnium contra omnes.”[3]
Adherence
to the maxims reflects reasonability providing mutual profitability for the
parties who otherwise would not be able to give and receive information,
influencing and being influenced by others in the course of the communication.
A
conversational maxim is any of four rules which were proposed by Grice 1975, stating that a speaker is assumed to make a contribution
such as :
- Maxim
of quantity is adequately but not overly informative
·
Maxim of quality that the speaker does not believe to
be false and for which adequate evidence is had
·
Maxim of relevance says things are
relevant to the topic under discussion.
·
Maxim of manner is clear, avoid obscurity
of expression, avoid ambiguity, be brief and be orderly.[4]
As the maxims stand, there may be an overlap,
as regards the length of what one says, between the maxims of quantity and
manner; this overlap can be explained (partially if not entirely) by thinking
of the maxim of quantity (artificial though this approach may be) in terms of
units of information. In other words, if the listener needs, let us say, five
units of information from the speaker, but gets less, or more than the expected
number, then the speaker is breaking the maxim of quantity. However, if the
speaker gives the five required units of information, but is either too curt or
long-winded in conveying them to the listener, then the maxim of manner is
broken. The dividing line however, may be rather thin or unclear, and there are
times when we may say that both the maxims of quantity and quality are broken
by the same factors.
C.
Error in Maxim
Paradoxically enough, more often than not,
people fail to observe the maxims, be it deliberately or accidentally.
There are five major ways of failing to observe a maxim:
1. Flouting
2. Violating
3. Infringing
4. Opting
out
5. Suspending
CHAPTER
III
WRITING
METHOD
A.
Introduction
Introduction
Is the first chapter of papers that introduce the reader to be able to answer
the question of what is being investigated. For what and why the research was
conducted. Therefore, this introductory chapter basically contained: Background
of the study and Identifications of study.
B.
Theoretical
Review
The
theoretical review is a set of definitions, concepts which have been prepared
neatly and systematically about the variables in a study. The theoretical basis
will be a solifoundation in an'll do.
C.
Writing
Method
Writing
methods is the procedure on how a research would be conducted. .Writing methods is also a particular procedure for accomplishing
or approaching something, especially a systematic or established one.
D.
Discussion
A speechor piece of writing that gives
information, ideas, opinions, about something.
E.
Conclusion
Conclusion of the study is a brief statement of
the results of the analysis of the description and discussion of the results of
testing the hypothesis that has been done in the previous Chapter.
Conclusion contains answers to
questions on the part of the formulation all of the problem answers only
focused on the scope of the questions and answers amount is adjusted for the
formulation of the problem posed.
CHAPTER
IV
DISCUSSION
Error in Maxim
Paradoxically enough, more often than not, people fail to observe
the maxims, be it deliberately or accidentally.
There are five major ways of failing to observe a maxim:
1. Flouting
2. Violating
3. Infringing
4. Opting
out
5. Suspending
1.
Flouting of Maxim
“A S
blatantly fails to observe a maxim, not with any intention of deceiving or
misleading, but because the S wishes to prompt the H to look for a meaning
which is different from, or in addition to, the expressed meaning”[5]
Mey
(1996: 70) reinforces Thomas’s claim by providing a more concise yet
comprehensive definition of ‘flouting’, understood as a case of verbal
communication when “we can make a blatant show of breaking one of the maxims…
in order to lead the addressee to look for a covert, implied meaning”.
Flouting
of Maxim Example :
·
Flouts exploiting the Quality
Maxim: Such flouts occur when the Speaker says something which is and needs to
be perceived as blatantly untrue.
–
On Holiday, an ambulance picks up a
collapsed drunkard who collapsed on the sidewalk. Soon the drunkard vomits all
over the paramedic. The paramedic says:
‘Great, that’s really great! That’s made my Holiday!’
Inferencing
in the Gricean framework unfolds as follows:
1.
The paramedic expressed
pleasure at having somebody vomit over him
2.
There is no example in
recorded history of people being delighted at having somebody vomit over them.
3.
I have no reason to believe
that the paramedic is trying to deceive us.
4.
Unless the paramedic’s
utterance is entirely pointless, he must be trying to convey some other
proposition.
5.
The most obviously related
proposition is the exact opposite of the one he has expressed.
6.
The paramedic is extremely
annoyed at having the drunkard vomit over him.
·
Flouts exploiting the
Quantity Maxim: When a Speaker blatantly gives more or less information than
required, s/he may flout the Quantity Maxim and deliberately talk either too
much or too little in compliance with the goal of the ongoing conversation:
–
George Costanza’s message on
his answering machine: Believe it or not, George isn’t at home. Please leave a
message after the beep. I must be out or I’d pick up the phone. Where could I
be? Believe it or not, I’m not at home.
(George
provides redundant information – obviously, a person is either at home or they
are not – alongside with acknowledging the Hearer’s disbelief as to his not
being in)
·
Flouts exploiting the
Relation Maxim: As a rule, such flouts tend to occur when the response is
obviously irrelevant to the topic (abrupt change of topic, overt failure to
address interlocutor’s goal in asking a question):
–
Father to daughter at family
dinner: Any news about the SAT results?
–
Daughter: Ice-cream anyone?
(Daughter
is reluctant to discuss SAT issues either because she feels her family are too
intrusive or because she has no good news (her score is quite low). To postpone
discussing the topic, she switches the line of conversation to a ‘safe’ topic,
such as an offer to serve ice-cream)
·
Flouts exploiting the Manner
Maxim: In most cases, such flouts involve absence of clarity, brevity and
transparency of communicative intentions. In the example below:
–
Interviewer: Did the
Government promise teachers a raise and did not start any legal procedures
about it?
–
Spokesperson: I would not try
to steer you away from that conclusion.
(The
long-winded and convoluted response is not caused by the Speaker’s inability to
speak to the point because the Speaker faces a clash of goals: she would like
to cooperate during the interview but successful conversation
conflicts with another goal: sparing the government she is the spokesperson of
from acquiring an unfavourable public image.)
2.
Violation of the Maxim
Violation
is defined as the unostentatious or ‘quiet’ non-observance of a maxim. A
Speaker who violates a maxim ‘will be liable to mislead’ (Grice 1975: 49).
Violating a maxim is quite the opposite of flouting a maxim. Violating a maxim
rather prevents or at least discourages the Hearer from seeking for
implicatures and rather encourages their taking utterances at face value.
Examples:
–
Violation of the Quantity
Maxim:
Supervisor:
Did you read the articles and write up the review of literature?
Supervisee:
I certainly read the articles. Weren’t they captivating!
–
Violation of the Quality
Maxim
A: You
stained my dress with red wine, you klutz!
B:
Nobody will notice.
–
Violation of the Relation
Maxim
A: Did
you like my presentation?
B: The
attendance was impressive, wasn’t it?
–
Violation of the Manner Maxim
Pierce:
Major Frank Burns, M.D., manic-depressive. It’s an honourary title.
Trapper:
He’s also schizoid.
Pierce: He sleeps in two
bunks. (M.A.S.H.)
3.
Infringing
a maxim
Maxim infringement occurs when a Speaker fails
to observe the maxim, although s/he has no intention of generating an
implicature and no intention of deceiving. Generally infringing stems from
imperfect linguistic performance (in the case of a young child or a foreigner)
or from impaired linguistic performance brought about by nervousness,
drunkenness, excitement, disability.
4.
Opting
out of a maxim
A
Speaker opts out of observing a maxim whenever s/he indicates unwillingness to
cooperate in the way the maxim requires. This happens when a suspect exerts
their right to remain silent or when a witness chooses not to impart
information that may prove detrimental to the defendant. For example below :
Detective : Has the defendant ever told
you she hated her father and wanted him dead?
Shrink : Such information is
confidential and it would be unethical to share it with you.
5.
Suspending
a Maxim
Under
certain circumstances/as part of certain events there is no expectation on the
part of any participant that one or several maxims should be observed (and
non-fulfillment does not generate any implicatures). Such cases include:
· Suspending
the Quality Maxim in case of funeral orations and obituaries, when the
description of the deceased needs to be praiseworthy and exclude any
potentially unfavourable aspects of their life or personality.
· Poetry
suspends the Manner Maxim since it does not aim for conciseness, clarity and
lack of ambiguity.
· In the
case of speedy communication via telegrams, e-mails, notes, the Quantity Maxim
is suspended because such means are functional owing to their very brevity.
· Jokes
are not only conventionally untrue, ambiguously and seemingly incoherent, but
are expected to exploit ambiguity, polysemy and vagueness of meaning, which
entails, among other things, suspension of the Maxims of Quality, Quantity and
Manner.[6]
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION
Speech acts are verbal actions that
accomplish something: we greet, insult, compliment, plead, flirt, supply
information, and get work done. There are some kinds of
speech act, those are: assertive utterances,
performative utterances, verdictive utterances, expressive utterances, directive utterances, commisive utterances.
The are four features of discourse
that are essentially connected with the Cooperative Principle. Effective
communication, in fact, depends on the presence of all four features identified
by Grice as Quantity,
Quality, Relation and Manner. These features and the communication implicatures connected
with them, are to serve a maximally effective exchange of information.
Paradoxically enough, more often than not,
people fail to observe the maxims, be it deliberately or accidentally.
There are five major ways of
failing to observe a maxim:
1.
Flouting
2.
Violating
3.
Infringing
4.
Opting out
5.
Suspending
REFERENCE
Lanigan, Richard L. (1977). Speech Act Phenomenology.The Hague:
Martinus Nijhoff.
Leech, G. (1983/1995). Principle of Pragmatics. 9th edition.
London: Longman.
Levinson, S. (2000). Presumptive Meanings – The Theory of
Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Grice, H.P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In: P. Cole and J.L.
Morgan (eds.), Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Act. New York: Academic
Press.
Grice, H.P. (1975). Logic and
conversation. In A. Jaworski, & N. Coupland (Eds.), The discourse reader (pp. 76-87). New York: Routledge.
Crowley, D., & Mitchell,
D. (1994). Communication theory today.
Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Cutting, J. (2002).
Pragmatics and discourse: A resource book for students.Routledge: London and
New York.
Leech,
G. (1983/1995). Principle of Pragmatics. 9th edition. London: Longman.p.100
Levinson,
S. (2000). Presumptive Meanings – The Theory of Generalized Conversational
Implicature. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Thomas,
Jenny (1995). Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatic.
London:Longman.
Conversational
pragmatics.pdf
[3] Levinson, S.
(2000). Presumptive Meanings – The Theory
of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge: MIT Press.
[4]
Grice, H.P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In A. Jaworski, & N.
Coupland (Eds.), The discourse reader (pp.
76-87). New York: Routledge.
[5]
Thomas, Jenny (1995). Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatic. London:Longman. p. 65
[6]
Conversational pragmatics.pdf
Komentar
Posting Komentar