Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 57






Praise be to My Lord Jesus Christ, the Almighty God who has given the
writer guidance and blessing in finishinPg this undergraduate thesis entitled The
Use of Implicature in Pride and Prejudice Movie.
First of all, my sincere gratitude goes to Dra. Nasmilah,M.Hum,Ph.D as
the Head of Study Program of English for approving this proposal. Then the
writers sincere gratitude also goes to Drs. Agustinus Ruruk lilak, M.A as the
supervisor and Karmila Mokoginta,SS,M.Hum,M,Arts as the co-supervisor who
have patiently guided the writer in writing the process of writing through the
constructive comments. And also I would like to offer t hanks to all the
lecturers in English Department for their invaluable teaching.
I would like to say my deepest t hank to my greatest parents; Drs.
Petrus Mana, M.Si and Dra. Fronsina Samperompon M.Pd, and my two lovely
sisters, Dily and Trisna. They always support and encourage the writer with their
best wishes. Big thanks also for PKKs member Dita, Uci, Umi, Ika, Harmila for
their love, help, and support. Special thanks to all my friends in SMGT Jemaat
Sudiang, was always willing to cheer the writer up. I also thank Bala Londong
Allo who always gives his is love and helps the writer to finish this writing.

Finally, I would like to thank all friends that who have directly or
indirectly, helped the writer in completing this thesis. The writer does appreciate
any opinion, and suggestion for the improvement of this writing.

Makassar, April 2014

Citra Angelia Lestari Mana


1.1 Background of The Study

Language is not only a means of communicating information, but means
of establishing and maintaining relationships with other people.Language consists
of spoken and written language. Spoken language is sometimes called oral
language. Oral language is language produced in its spontaneous form, as opposed
to written language. Written language refers to communication in its written form
specifically skilss contributing to and including reading and writing.
We use language for our own purposes, to manipulate or influence or
define the situation as we wish, and to convey nuances of meaning and personal
intention. This can be achieved through various means, and conversation as a
spoken language was, is and will probably remain the first and foremost thereof.
In using language, either in spoken or written form, there are two kinds of
meaning, speaker meaning and sentence meaning. According to Hurford (1983)
Speaker meaning is what a speaker means when he uses a piece of language
while sentence meaning (or word meaning) is what a sentence means, what it
counts as the equivalent of in the language concerned. Speaker meaning can be a
study that uses pragmatics theory. According to Yule (1985) Pragmatics is
concerned with the study of meaning as communicated by a speaker (or writer)
and interpreted by listener (or reader). When we read or hear pieces of language,
we normally try to understand not only what the words mean, but also what the

writer or the speaker of those words intends to convey. The writer uses pragmatics
theory because there are many aspects of intended meaning, but the writer
concentrates to analyse conversational implicature only.
From Grice (1995) implicature is implicit meaning. In the other words
what is said is not necessary what is meant. It is also explained that implicature
is divided into two parts; conventional implicature and conversational implicature.
In conversational implicature, the implicature is derived form the original
utterance. Conversational implicature can be found in conversation in movies,
advertisements, music lyrics, and novel. In this research, the researcher tries to
find the implicature meaning in movie utterance. The writer is interested in using
the film utter as media to be analyzed because she has done a preliminary research
and she has obtained a clear image of the contexts in the movie conversations.
The interpretation of the conversational implicature in movie utterances
can be conducted by using Grices theory of conversational implicature in
pragmatics. Grice formalizes his observation that when we talk, we try to be
cooperative and he elevates this notion in what he called The Cooperative
Principle. Within this principle, he suggests four maxims, namely maxim of
quantity, maxim of quality, maxim of relation and maxim of manner. In daily
communication, we are expected to obey the maxims to make good
communication. However, according to levinson (1983), people flout maxims and
deliberately to persuade their listeners to infer the hidden meaning behind the
utterances. Politeness can be regarded as an instance that causes flouting of the

Gricean maxims, when for instance in favour of appearing polite and less direct
utterances are not formulated as clearly and informative as possible, Brons (2011).
Flouting of maxims to create implications can be a powerful and creative
way to get across a point. Flouting maxims becomes an interesting topic to be
discussed in interpreting a movies utterance. People indeed always flout maxims
in daily conversations whether they realize it or not. In some sentences that are
flouted, people can understand the meaning without doing any research, but in
some sentences the hearer cannot understand the meaning behind the sentences.
So it is necessary to undertake a research to get the point of what people talk
about in scope of flouting maxim. We can learn and know about the hidden
meaning in the utterance , so we can get the point from what the speakers in of the
movie want to say to the audiences and the hearers. Therefore, the writer conducts
this study to analyze implicature used in the utterances of Pride and Prejudice

1.2 Problems of The Study

Based on the background above, the researcher formulates the problems of
study as follows :
1. What types of maxims are flouted in the utterances inPride and Prejudice
2. What are the implied meanings of the flouted maxims found in the
utterances inPride and Prejudice movie?

1.3 Objectives of The Study

Based on the problem of the study, the researcher formulates the
objectives of the study as follows:
1. To find out the type of flouted maxims found in the utterances of Pride
and Prejudice movie
2. To find out the implied meanings of flouted maxims found in the
utterances of Pride and Prejudice movie.

1.4 Significance of The Study

This research is expected to give a contribution in developing of
similar studies in the future about implicature. Additionaly, this research is
proposed to give a clearer explanation about the study of implicature in Pride
and Prejudice movie. Thus hopefully, this research will be helpful for the
readers, especially for students of English Department in learning pragmaticimplicature.



Previous Study
There are some studies that have investigated conversational implicature

which I believe that those studies have close relationship with the study I make,
as below:

Maya Herlina Devintha Herawati (2008), analyzes the aspect of

conversational implicatures in the dialogue of movie The Kings Speech.
She uses cooperative principle that contains four maxims such as maxim
of quality, maxim of quantity, maxim of relevance and maxim of manner.
She elaborates the method of screen writer in adapting the original concept
into screen play that related to each datum.


In Himmahs (2010) study, the researcher focuses on analyzing the

flouting and hedging maxims found in opinion column of The Jakarta Post
by using theory of cooperative principle proposed by Grice. Himmah
limits the discussion on analyzing flouting and hedging maxims found in
opinion column of The Jakarta Post Sundays Edition published in April
2010 to get the up-to-date of data.
These studies above have analyzed the conversational implicatures in

different data. Therefore, the writer develops and makes a different research by
doing research about flouting of implicature that is Cooperative Principle.


Literary Review
2.2.1 Pragmatics
Pragmatics is concerned with meaning in the context of language use.

Context itself usually conceived as an extensive andmultidimensional concept,

which includes social, cognitive, cultural, linguistic, physical, and other nonlinguistic context (Prutting 1982, Milosky 1992, Klippi 1995, Sperber & Wilson
1995, Mercer 2000). Therefore, context can be said toencompass all the
information that the hearer utilises when interpreting language expressions. For
example, the hearers knowledge and beliefs of what the communication partner
knows helps in interpretation of his/her utterances.
When interpreting contextual factors, there is a need to make connections
between information and to link information together. Basically, when we
communicate through language, we often mean more than we say; there is often
a gap between speakermeaning and sentence meaning and this is the case :
Lily: I want a holiday somewhere rich in history and culture.
Jack: Have you ever visited Greece?
[meaning that Greece is rich in history and culture]

The advantage of studying language via pragmatics is that one can talk
about peoples intended meanings, their assumptions, their purposes or goals, and
the kinds of action (for example, requests) that they are performing when they
speak while the bigdisadvantage is that all of these are very human concepts that
are extremely difficult to analyze in a consistent and objective way (Yule, 1996).
From Levinson (1983) pragmatic inferred meaning

is usually

closely associated with context-dependence and with maxims or principles which

are geared to the recovery of the speakers intended meaning.


while Levinson agrees that this is the right way to view the processes of
full interpretation of an utterance token, he takes a quite different stance on
the pragmatics of utterance-type meaning, which is a matter of preferred or
default (or presumptive) interpretations,which are carried by the structure of
utterances,given the structure of the language, and not by virtue of the particular
contexts of utterances.

2.2.2 Implicature
In Grices approach, both what is implicated and what is said are part
of speaker meaning. What is said is part of meaning that is determined by truthconditional semantics, while what is implicated is part of meaning that cannot
be captured by truth conditions and therefore belongs to pragmatics (Grice : 1989)
The most widely accepted type of implicature is the conversational
implicature (Mey 2006). Conversational implicatures as social, cognitively
complex meanings that discourse participants create jointly in interaction. A
conversational implicature being a content that is conveyed by an utterance but
that is not part of its literal, semantic content and thus largely independent of the
conventional meanings of the words used in the utterance : conversational
implicatures are determined by features of the context of utterance broadly
construed rather than by the conventional meaning of words used in the
Yule (1996) tells that for many linguists the notion of implicature is

one of the central concepts of pragmatics. Implicature is something that must be

more than just what

the words




an additional


Implicature are primary examples of more being communicated than is said, but
in order for them to be interpreted, some basic cooperative principle must first
be assumed to be in operation. Cooperation is only the starting point for making
sense of what is said. For example. In the middle of their lunch hours, one
woman asks another how she likes the hamburger she is eating, and receives the
answer is hamburger is hamburger. When a listener hears the expression in the
example, she first has to assume that the speaker is being cooperative and intends
to communicate something.
Grundy (2002) suggests that understanding pragmatic meaning involves
identifying a context that will make sense of an utterance. In various different
ways this holds good for deixis, speech act, and what we are going to explore in
this research, implicature. Implicature context help us to determine what is
conveyed implicitly but not explicitly stated by the speakers.
Levinson (1983) states the notion conversational implicature is one of the
single most important ideas in pragmatics (we shall often refer to the notion
simply as implicature as a shorthand). An important contribution made by the
notion of implicature is that it provides some explicit account of how it is possible
to mean (in some general sense) more than what is actually said.
In addition, there is a relationship between implicature and speech act
theory in semantics. Speech act is divided into three: locutionary, illocutionary,
perlocutionary (Austin:1962). Locutionary is the production of a meaningful

linguistic expression. The illocutionary act refers to the fact that when we say
something, we usually say it with some purpose in mind. In other words, an
illocutionary act refers to the type of function the speaker intends to fulfill, or the
action the speaker intends to accomplish in the course of producing an utterance.
Lastly, perlocutionary act is the bringing about of consequences or effects

the audience through the uttering of a linguistic expression, such

consequences or effects being special to the circumstances of utterance. From this

explanation, illocutionary act is a part of pragmatics especially implicature (Grice


Cooperative Principle

Conversation is a social activity which always involves two or

more participants. Conversation will not happen if one is talking to oneself. In
addition, speakers sometimes do not say directly what they really mean, and this
can create certain problems for the speaker in understanding the speakers
In order to solve the problem of how we understand speakers to mean
things that they do not actually say, we need first to draw a distinction between
what the linguistic philosopher Paul Grice called the natural and non


of utterances (Grice 1957).Non-Natural meaning (often

abbreviated to meansnn) is meaning that involves a speaker, someone who makes

an utterance. He uses a wide sense of the word speaker, which includes but is not
limited to linguistic utterances. Natural Meaning on the other hand is just the way

things are, for example if there is snow on the ground it means that it is cold
outside.In this research that is about natural meaning, specially the conversational
Natural meaning is only sometimes associated with the sentence from
original utterances. Grice (1975) argued that speakers intend to be cooperative
when they talk. One way of being cooperative is for a speaker to give as much
information as is expected. He deliberately choses this word of his own coinage to
cover any meaning that is implied, i.e. conveyed indirectly or through hints,
and understood implicitly without ever being explicitly stated. Grice formalized
his observation that when we talk, we try to be cooperative by elevating this
notion into called as The Cooperative Principle. The cooperative principle
makes our conversational contribution such as what is required (Grice 1975).
Within this principle, he suggests four maxims as follows:

1. Maxim of Quantity

Make a contribution as informative as is required.


Do not make your contribution more informative

than is required.
Example: A: Do you have the time?
B. Yes, it is 9.30
Given the purpose of the conversation, the man contributes
only as much information as is required.


2. Maxim of Quality
Try to make your contribution one that is true

Do not say what you believe to be false


Do not say that for which you lack adequate

Example: A: Do you know where the Big Ben
Clock Tower is?
B: Its in London.

B does not contribute what he believes to be false or true.

3.Maxim of Relation
a. Be relevant
Example: A: How do you like your steak cooked?
B: Medium rare, please.
B contributes what is relevant for the purpose of the

4. Maxim of Manner

Avoid obscurity of expression


Avoid ambiguity


Be brief


Be orderly


Example: Anna went to the shop and bought jeans

This utterance fullfils the fourth maxim of manner be orderly, because Anna
says the utterance as appropriate in the maxim, anna go to the shop and she want
to buy jeans and then she buy it.
Paul Grice as cited in Mey (2006) posited a general set of rules
contributors to ordinary conversation were generally expected to follow. He
named it the Cooperative Principle (CP) and formulated it as follows: Make
yourconversational 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. (Grice, 1989: 26).Grice says that there is an accepted way of speaking
which we all accept as standard behaviour. When we produce, or hear, an
utterance, we assume that it will generally be true, have the right amount of
information, be relevant, and will be couched in understandable terms.


Flouting of Maxims

According to Grices (1975) theory, a cooperative speaker can

intentionally disobey a maxim, as long as s/he or the context provides enough
indicators for the hearer to notice it. This is called outing a maxim, and it is used
to indirectly convey information (e.g., using sarcasm or irony). Whenever a
maxim is flouted there must be an implicature to save the utterance from simply
appearing to be a faulty contribution to a conversation.
Example: A: Can I have Johns number?
B: yes.


Despite her positive answer, we find Bs behavior weird, becauseB gives Less
information than is required, Bs did not give a real answer for the question from
A. It is like there is something not good between A and B . In a case such as this,
one might infer that Liz does not have the number with her and will supply it
later. Liz may be implicating that
Your love rival is near, Ill tell you later OR
I really dont want to give it to you because John doesnt like
you; he likes me
Unlike the violation of maxims which takes place to cause misunderstanding
on the part of the listener, the flouting of maxims takes place when individuals
deliberately cease to apply the maxims to persuade their listeners to infer the
hidden meaning behind the utterances; that is, the speakers employ implicature
(Levinson, 1983). In the case of flouting (exploitation) of cooperative maxims, 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. People may flout the maxim of quality so as to deliver implicitly a
sarcastic tone in what they state.


1. Flouting of Maxim of Quantity

The maxim of Quantity is flouted when the writer obviously gives more or
less information than the situation requires. Anisoara Pop (2010) says that the
strong requirement of the quantity maxim rule is that to say no less than
necessary. There is a style that can be help to indicate flouting maxim of quantity,
that is tautology. To clarify the definition, the followings are examples of
tautology and flouting maxim of quantity.
Example of tautology: War is war> there is nothing one can do about it.






amount to


fundamentally uninformative. There is no situation where a speaker wants to tell

someone that something is identical with itself. Thus, it seems this utterance has
flouted the first maxim of quantity.

Where is Susan?


In the science lab or library

Bs answer violates the maxim of quantity, the implication that there are two
options: either Susan is in the library or in the science lab. However, B gave such
an answer because he does not know exactly where Susan is.


2. Flouting of Maxim of Quality

As quoted from Anisoara Pop journal (2010), maxim of quality tends to
outweigh all the other cooperative maxims (Leech 1983: 82), and in Grices
(1982) theory, it is flouted in cases of metaphoric expression. The amount of
information the speaker gives is limited by his wish to avoid telling an untruth.
Grice claims, ironies arise and are successfully decoded. If there was no
underlying assumption of co- operation, recipients of ironies ought simply to be
nonplussed; no inferences could be drawn (Levinson, 1983, p.109).
The styles of flouting maxim of quality are methaphor, irony and
rhetorical question. Note that Grice (1989: 34) as cited in Mey (2009) states that
maxim of quality is used to derive the implicatures in the cases of irony,
methaphor, and rhetorical question. The definition of irony in this case is seen as
saying something to mean the opposite of what is said. Second, for Carston (2002)
as cited in Mey (2009), metaphors are cases of ad hoc concept construction. Ad
hocconcepts are those concepts that are constructed pragmatically by a hearer in
the process of utterance comprehension. For example, Mary is a bulldozer. It
means Mary has a big body or we can call as fat. In that example, Marys body is
compared withsomething which is big. So, we can conclude that a methaphor is
comparing one thing to another thing to make an implicit meaning. The last is the
rhetorical question, which Maibauer (1986) as cited Mey (2009) analyzes them as
indirect speech acts, i.e., interrogative sentence types associated with assertive
force and polar propositional content. From that three types of flouting maxims
we can conclude that the flouting maxim of quality occurs when the speaker says


something which is untrue.

The example Flouting of Maxim of Quality:

Late on Christmas Eve 1993 an ambulance is sent to pick up a man who has
collapsed in Newcastle city centre. The man is drunk and vomits all over the
ambulanceman who goes to help him. The ambulanceman says:
Great, thats really great! Thats made my Christmas!
In the ambulanceman example, an implicature is generated by the
speakers saying something which is patently false. From the utterance,
the ambulanceman is saying something which is untrue. By using that,
the ambulanceman implied that he is extremely annoyed at having the
drunken vomit over him.

3. Flouting of Maxim of Relation

Levinson (1983) says that exploitations of this maxim are, as Grice notes,
a little harder to find, only because it is hard to construct responses that must be
interpreted as irrelevant. Flouting maxim of relation occurs when a speaker
orhearer gives a response which is very obviously irrelevant to the topic in hand
(Grice 1975 as cited in Thomas 1995).

The example Flouting of Maxim of Relation:

Andre: I do think Mrs. Jenkins is an old windbag, dont you?
John: huh, lovely weather for March, isnt it?!


From that example, it can be perceived that John blatantly refuses to give any
response to Andres remark. Thereby, John sends implicature that Andre should
not be discuss the topic further since John is not interested in gossiping. It is
obvious that John flouts the maxims of relation since he is suddenly evading
Andres remark by saying Huh, lovely weather for March, isnt it?!which is
totally irrelevant.

4. Flouting of Maxim of Manner

According to Grice (1975, cited in Thomas, 1995, p. 70) flouting a
maxim of manner occurs when a speaker or a hearer gives an ambiguous
response. It means that the message of the conversation has more than one
meaning. In addition, the speaker does not state the information clearly. The
following example, is an nteraction that occurred during a radio interview with an
un-named official from the United States Embassy in Port-au-Prince, Haiti:
Interviewer: Did the United States Government play any part in Duvaliers
departure? Did they, for example, actively encourage him to leave?
Official: I would not try to steer you away from that conclusion.
The official could simply have replied: Yes. Her actual response is
extremely long-winded and convoluted and it is obviously no accident, nor
through any inability to speak clearly, that she has failed to observe the maxim of
manner. There is, however, no reason to believe that the official is being
deliberately unhelpful (she could, after all, have simply refused to answer at all, or
said: No comment).


The example Flouting of Maxim of Manner

Mom: okay, go to bed and wash your hands.
The kind of maxim flouted here is maxim of manner because the speaker gives
wrong order, it should be washing hands first and after that going to bed. It is
insensible that we go to bed first and after that we wash our hands.

2.2.5 Context
One of the central points of language research is in language and context.
The focus on context, as both a constraining factor and a product of discourse, has
led to increasingly fine-grained approaches to speech, since it is primarily in the
formation of spoken or written utterances that language and context are
articulated. Context for Gricean approaches to conversation focuses on inference
and belief ascription under the assumption that speech is a cooperative
engagement, subject to the maxims of quality, quantity,relation,andmanner (Mey,
Grundy (2000, p. 72) states that understanding pragmatics meaning
involves indentifying a context that will make sense of an utterance. Context, in
which utterances occur, helps the hearer to determine the meaning of what is said.
Moreover, he adds that in the case of implicature, context helps the hearer to
determine what a speaker conveys implicitly. For example, when a man is
mowing grass with a lawnmower and a woman says to him There are flowers
growing in the middle of the grass so remember to be careful, the man should
know that the intended meaning of the woman is that he must not mow down


theflowers with the lawn mower. This meaning is possible to understand by

combining world knowledge (women usually like flowers and if you driveacross
flowers with a lawn mower, they will be mowed down) with physical and verbal
context (there are flowers in the middle of the grass and remember to be
Pragmatics seeks to characterize the features of the speech context
which helps determining which proposition is expressed by a given sentence
(Stalnaker) as cited by Horn and Ward (1972). The meaning of a sentence
can be regarded as a function from a context (including time, place, and possible
world) into a proposition, where a proposition is a function from a possible world
into a truth value. Pragmatic is an aspects of meaning involve the interaction
between an expressions context of utterance and the interpretation of elements
within that expression.



3.1 Research Design

This research used qualitative approach because the writer answered the
research problems based on data or source of data. According to Ary (2002),
qualitative research focuses in understanding social phenomena from the
perspective of the human participants in the study. They are collected in natural
settings, and the research aimed at generating theory rather than testing theory.
In this study the writer also used document or content analysis.
Document analysis focused on analyzing and interpreting recorded material
within its own context. The materials are film script, the film, textbooks,
reports, and so on. In this case, the writer analyzed the utterances the object of
material. This kind of research type is used to analyze this study because it can
describe the Pride and Prejudice film observed.

3.2 Data Sources

The data source is from Pride and Prejudice film. The data used are
utterances, conversation and context in film. The writer took data in selected

3.3 Data Collection


The instrument of this study was the movie and script of the movie and
also the writer because this study is qualitative approach and she took an
important role in this research. The writer collected and analyzed data. Then,
writer analyzed the utterances in the film and film script to find out the answer to
research question using her knowledge.
To collect the data, the writer has three steps. First is documentation; she
documents some utterances in Pride and Prejudice film and which by Jane Austen.
The writer took some utterances in selected scene which is containing flouting
maxims randomly for the limitation of the data. Second is watching; the writer
watch then analyzed the film utterances to understand the whole content of the
utterances in Pride and Prejudice. Third is selecting; the writer selected the
uttrerances containing flouting maxims in the utterances in Pride and Prejudice
film. She chose the film because the film contain some utterances that flout the
conversational maxim.

3.4 Data Analysis

The writer analyzed the data by classifiying the utterances according to
the types of maxim that are flouted. The classification of the flouitng maxim was
based on the criteria of the maxim. They are flouting maxim of quality, flouitng
maxim of quantity, flouting maxim of relevance, flouting maxim of manner. Then,
she analyzed the implied meaning based on the utterances in the film. There were
several steps to analyze the data in this research based on Miles and Huberman
(1994) :



The first step is analyzing the data; the researcher organized the data
by categorizing based on the topic of the study. After organizing the
data, the writer classified the data that have been organized based on
the type of flouting



in Non Sequitur

comic strip

and Huberman (1994) called this step as data

reduction which refers to the process of selecting, focusing,

simplifying, abstracting, and transforming the data that appear in
written up field notes or transcription.
2. The second step is analyzing the data containing flouting maxims
which are discovered during the initial process of data reduction. The
data which were not included in the flouting maxims became
unselected data and fixed to the appendix. These steps are called as
data display, which can be an extended piece of text or diagram. Data

is a collection of information that permits conclusion


3. The third step is drawing conclusion, in this step the writer

considered what the data are meant based on the analysis.



In this chapter the writer presents the analysis of the flouting of

implicature which all data are collected from an English movie Pride and
Prejudice. The writer pays attention to data as her objects or sources to be
analyzed. The purpose of conversation in which the writer tries to find out
becomes the basic of criteria of choosing datum.
In the process of analyzing, the writer focuses on the flouting of
Cooperative Principle. Cooperative Principlethat formulated by Grice is contains
four maxims (maxim of quality; maxim of quantity; maxim of relation and maxim
manner). The writer describes the context for her datum in order to identify what
factors caused the flouted of implicatures are happened.

4.1 Synopsis of Pride and Prejudice Movie

Mrs. Bennet has five daughters and a big problem: none of them are
married, there isn't much fortune to go around, andthanks to a quirk of English
property lawthey'll all be kicked out of their house when Mr. Bennet dies. Enter
Mr. Bingley, a rich, single man who moves into their neighborhood and takes a
liking to the eldest Miss Bennet, Jane.
But don't save the date quite yet: Mr. Bingley might be easygoing and
pleasant, but his sisters are catty snobs and his controlling friend Mr. Darcy isn't
about to let Mr. Bingley marry beneath him. When they all meet up at a local ball,


Mr. Darcy lets everyone around him know just how dumb and boring he finds the
whole thingincluding our new BFF and protagonist, the second Bennet
daughter, Elizabeth.
It's clear to everyone that Mr. Bingley is falling in love with Jane, but
Jane keeps her feelings on the down low, against the advice of Lizzy's good friend
Charlotte Lucas. And, surprising no one, Mr. Darcy finds himself strangely
attracted to Lizzy. The two get even more opportunities to snip at each other when
Lizzy goes to Mr. Bingley's house to nurse her sister, who's gotten sick on a wet
horseback ride over for dinner.
And now it's time to meet Bachelor #3: Mr. Collins. As Mr. Bennet's
closest male relative, Mr. Collins will inherit the estate after Mr. Bennet's death.
Mr. Collins has decided that the nice thing to do is to marry one of the Bennet
girls in order to preserve their home. Unfortunately, he's a complete fool and
Lizzy hates him on sight. Also unfortunately, he sets his sights on her.
As for the two youngest Bennet sisters, the militia has arrived in town
and they're ready to throw themselves at any military officers who wander their
waylike Mr. Wickham, who rapidly befriends Elizabeth and tells her a sob story
about how Mr. Darcy totally ruined his life, which Elizabeth is happy to believe.
Oh, and Mr. Collins's boss, Lady Catherine de Bourgh, just so happens to be Mr.
Darcy's aunt. Small world!
Not too long after this, all the Bennet girls (including middle sister Mary,
who's too wrapped up in books to notice boys) head to a ball at Netherfield (a.k.a.
Mr. Bingley's mansion). It's kind of awful. Darcy, of all people, asks Elizabeth to


dance, and Lizzy's entire family is unbearably embarrassinglike her mom

loudly announcing that they all expect Bingley to marry Jane.
But it gets worse when Mr. Collins proposes the next morning. Elizabeth refuses,
obviously, but hold your pity: Charlotte Lucas shows up to "help out," by which
we mean "get Collins to propose to her instead." It works, which is good news for
the 27-year-old Charlotte, who's too poor and plain to expect anything better; but
bad news for Elizabeth, who can't believe that her friend would actually marry the
guyeven when Charlotte explains that she's really out of options, here.
And then more bad news arrives: Jane gets a letter from Miss Bingley
basically breaking up with her on her brother's behalf. Jane is super bummed, and
she goes to stay with her aunt and uncle in London to get over it (and just maybe
see Bingley, who's off to the big city). Elizabeth travels too: she's off to visit the
newly married Charlotte, who seems to be holding up well. One problem: Mr.
Darcy is on his way to visit his aunt, who's also, you might remember, Mr.
Collins's boss.
Darcy almost acts like he's glad to see Lizzy, and even comes to visit her
at Charlotte's house, but Lizzy is not having it: she learns from Mr. Darcy's friend
that Bingley was going to propose to Jane until Darcy intervened. And that's
exactly the moment Darcy chooses to propose. Can you guess how it goes?
Not well. During the proposal, mixed in with Darcy's "I love you" are some "I am
so superior to you" comments, which, not surprisingly, don't go over so well.
Elizabeth has some choice things to say to him, and the next day he hands her a
letter with the full story about Wickham (he's a liar, a gambler, and he tried to


elope with Darcy's underage sister) and Jane (Darcy was convinced Jane was just
a gold-digger). Cue emotional transformation.
When Lizzy gets him, she finds that Lydia, the youngest of the Bennet
girls, has been invited to follow the officers to their next station in Brighton.
Elizabeth thinks this is a Very Bad Idea, but Mr. Bennet overrules her. Big
mistake, as we'll find out soon.
But first, it's time for Elizabeth to accompany her aunt and uncle on a trip to
Derbyshire, which, incidentally, is where Mr. Darcy lives. Uh-oh! Oh, but he's out
of town. Phew. They visit his estate (Pemberley) as touristsyou can do that kind
of thing in Englandand Lizzy is impressed. Darcy's housekeeper also has
nothing but compliments for her master. Weird, right? It gets weirder when they
run into Darcy who's home early, and he's actually polite and friendly.
Before we can start practicing our wedding toasts, disaster strikes:
Elizabeth learns that Lydia has run off with Wickham. This scandal could ruin the
family, so Elizabeth's uncle and father try to track the renegade couple down.
Elizabeth's uncle saves the day and brings the two young 'uns back as a properly
married (and unapologetic) couple. When Lydia lets slip that Darcy was at her
wedding, Elizabeth realizes that there's more to the story and writes to her aunt for
more information.
Here's the full story: Darcy saved the Bennet family's honor. He tracked
down the couple and paid off Wickham's massive debts in exchange for Wickham
marrying Lydia. Why would he possibly do that? Well, we have some ideasbut
we don't get to find out right away. First, Bingley comes back and finally proposes


to Jane. And then, Lady Catherine visits Longbourn to strong-arm Elizabeth into
rejecting any proposal from Darcy, which obviously doesn't work.
When Lizzy and Darcy finally get some alone time on a walk, we get the
moment we've all been waiting for: they clear up all their past misunderstandings,
agree to get married, and then make out in the rain. And they all live happily ever
after. More or less.

4.2 Data Description

To answer the two research problems, the writer watches Pride and
Prejudice movie and also reads the whole texts found in Pride and Prejudice
script. Then, the writer displays the utterances which performed flouting
maxims based on Grices theory. Next, the writer analyses each utterance in
order to make the research findings report clear and specific.

4.3 Result of Analysis

In this part the writer describes the answers to the problems of the study.
After describing the entire utterances categorized to flouts Grices conversational
maxims, the writer classified the flouting maxim of each utterance.


4.4 Data Presentation and Analysis

Scene 1 Mr and Mrs. Bennets House-Longbourn

(conversation between Mr and Mrs Bennet)
Mrs. Bennet : My dear Mr Bennet, have you heard?
Netherfield Park is let at last. Do you not want to know
who has taken it?
Mr. Bennet

: As you wish to tell me, my dear, I doubt I have any choice

in the matter.

Mrs. Bennet : Mrs. Long says that Netherfield is taken by a young man
of large fortune from the north of England; he came down
on Monday to see the place, and was so much delighted
with it that he is to take possession before Michaelmas
Mr. Bennet

: is he married or single?

Mrs. Bennet : oh! Single my dear, to be sure!. What a fine thing for
our girls!
Mr. Bennet

: How so? How can it affect them?

Mrs. Bennet : My dear Mr. Bennet, how can you be so tiresome! You
must know that I am thinking of hismarrying one of them.
The Analysis :
Mrs. Bennet feels so happy when she knows that there is a new comer in
their village who is very rich called Mr. Bingley. Actually Mr. Bennet is
not really interested in that issue. When Mrs. Bennet tells Mr. Bennet
about the man with an endless description, Mr. Bennet just wants to know


the man marital status, then Mrs. Bennet tells her husband with more
information than what Mr. Bennet requires. It is implied that Mrs. Bennet
also wants to tell her husband that if the man is still a single, she hopes
that the man can marry one of their daughters. So it means that
conversation is a case of Flouting of Maxim Quantity because Mrs.
Bennet gives more information that Mr. Bennet wants to hear

Scene 5 Mr. Bingleys House in Dining Room-Netherfiled

(Conversation between Mr. Darcy and Ms. Elizabeth)

: Lady Bathurst is redecorating her ballroom in the

French style. A little unpatriotic, don't you think?


: Miss Lizzie Bennet.

Ms. Caroline

: Good Lord, Miss Bennet. Have you walked here?

Ms. Elizabeth

: I did. Im sorry, how is my sister?

Mr. Darcy

: She is upstairs.

Ms. Elizabeth

: Thank you.

Ms. Caroline

: Goodness, did you see her petticoat? Six inches

deep in mud! And her hair, so blowsy and untidy!

Mr. Darcy

: I think her concern for her sister does her credit.

Ms. Caroline

: Oh yes, it's shocking to have a bad cold. I dislike

excessively being ill myself.

The Analysis

When Elizabeth hears that her sister Jane gets sick In Bingleys home, she


comes to see her sisters condition. When she arrives in Bingleys home
she meets Ms. Caroline Bingley and Mr. Darcy who were having their
breakfast. So Elizabeth firstly wants to know her sisters condition by
saying How is my sister?, but Mr. Darcy does not give clear answer by
saying she is upstairs that means that he tells Ms. Elizabeth to go
upstairs. Mr. Darcy implies that if Ms. Elizabeth wants to know her
sisters condition it would be better if she immediately meets her sister in
the bedroom upstairs. By saying that Mr. Darcy makes a Flouting of
Maxim of Relation in this conversation because Mr. Darcy does not give
a relevant answer for Ms. Elizabeth question. Actually it is not the
answer that Ms. Elizabeth wants to hear.

Scene 28 In a building at Parlor-Hunsford

(Conversation between Mr. Darcy and Ms. Elizabeth)
Mr. Darcy

: Miss Elizabeth.I have struggled in vain and can bear it no

longer.These past months have been a torment. I came to
Rosings only to see you. I have fought againstjudgement,
my family's expectation, the inferiority of your birth, my
rank.I will put them aside and ask you to end my agony.

Ms. Elizabeth : I dont understand

Mrs. Darcy

: I love you. Most ardently.Please do me the honour of

accepting my hand.

Ms. Elizabeth : Sir, I appreciate the struggle you have been through,and I


am very sorry to have caused you pain. It was

unconsciously done.
Mr. Darcy

: Is this your reply?

Ms. Elizabeth : Yes, Sir.

Mr. Darcy

: Are you laughing at me?

Ms. Elizabeth : no
Mr. Darcy

: Are you rejecting me?

Ms. Elizabeth : Im sure that the feelings which, as you have told me,
have hindered your regard, will help you in
overcoming it.
The Analysis :
Mr. Darcy falls in love with Ms. Elizabeth and tries to tell her about his
feeling. He wants to make sure if Ms. Elizabeth rejects him or not and he
says are you rejecting me?. Then Ms. Elizabeth gives a long answer by
saying Im sure that the feelings which, as you have told me, have
hindered your regard, will help you in overcoming it. It is implied
that actually Ms.Elizabeth wants to refuse Mr. Darcys love. Then it
means that Ms. Elizabeth does a Flouting of Maxim Quantity. This is a
Flouting of Maxim of Quantity because Ms. Elizabeth gives a long
answer to Mr. Darcys question, while actually she should answer his
question with yes or no answer


Scene 2 Dance Party in Assembly Room - Meryton

(Conversation Between Mr. Bingley and Mr. Darcy)
Mr. Bingley : I've never seen so many pretty girls.
Mr. Darcy

: You were dancing with the only handsome girl.

Mr. Bingley : oh, she is the most beautiful creature I ever beheld, but
her sister Lizzie (Elizabeth) is very agreaable
Mr. Darcy

: perfectly tolerable, I dare say, but not handsome

enough to tempt me. Return to your partner and enjoy
her smiles. You're wasting your time with me.

The Analysis :
Mr. Bingley has already danced with Ms. Jane. He is amazed with
Ms.Janes beauty. And then he tells his friend, Mr. Darcy that Jane also has
a beautiful sister, named Elizabeth. Mr. Darcy agrees but he is not sure
about Elizabeths beauty that can make him like Elizabeth by saying
perfectly tolerable, I dare say, but not handsome enough to tempt me.
It is implied that Mr. Darcy actually does not like Ms. Elizabeth. So, this
conversations Flouting of Maxim of Manner and Quality. He Flouts
maxim of Manner because Mr. Darcy gives unnecessary explaination to
Mr. Bingley. Mr. Darcy also flouts maxim of Quality because he actually
not really sure if he does not like Ms. Elizabeth.


Scene 15 Dance Party in Bingleys House

(Conversation between Mr. Darcy and Ms. Elizabeth)
Mr. Darcy

: May I have the next dance, Miss Elizabeth?


: You may.

Ms. Elizabeth ask Ms. Charlotte after she receive Mr Darcys

invitation to dance

: Did I agree to dance with Mr. Darcy?

Ms. Charlotte

: I dare say you will find him amiable.

Ms. Elizabeth

: It would be most inconvenient since I've sworn to

loathe him for all eternity.

Ms Elizabeth having a conversation with Mr. Darcy in the dance floor

Ms. Elizabeth

: I love this dance.

Mr. Darcy

: Indeed. Most invigorating.

Ms. Elizabeth

: It is your turn to say something, Mr Darcy.I talked

about the dance. Now you ought to remark on the
size of the room or the number of couples.

Mr. Darcy

: I'm perfectly happy to oblige. What would you like

most to hear?

Ms. Elizabeth

: That reply will do for present.Perhaps by and by I

may observe that private balls are much pleasanter
than public ones. For now, we may remain silent.

Mr. Darcy

: Do you talk as a rule while dancing?

Ms. Elizabeth

: No. No, I prefer to be unsociable and taciturn.


Makes it all so much more enjoyable, don't you

Mr. Darcy

: Tell me, do you and your sisters very often walk to


Ms. Elizabeth

: Yes, we often walk to Meryton.It's a great

opportunity to meet new people.When you met
us, we'd just had the pleasure of forming a new

Mr. Darcy

: Mr Wickham's blessed with such happy manners,

he's sure of making friends. Whether he's capable
of retaining them is less so.

Ms. Elizabeth

: He's been so unfortunate as to lose your friendship.

That is irreversible?

Mr. Darcy

: It is. Why do you ask such a question?

Ms. Elizabeth

: to make out your character, Mr Darcy.

Mr. Darcy

: and what have you discovered?

Ms. Elizabeth

: Very Little.

Mr. Darcy

: I hope to afford you more clarity in the future.

The First Analysis in part 15 :

When they begin to dance Ms. Elizabeth tries to make a conversation but
Mr. Darcy is a silent person so he talks as needed. So when Ms. Elizabeth
keep talking and gives some questions to Mr. Darcy, Mr Darcy asks her
Do you talk as a rule while dancing?. He wants to know if Ms.


Elizabeth have a rule to talk when she is dancing. Then Ms. Elizabeth
replies : No. No, I prefer to be unsociable and taciturn.Makes it all so
much more enjoyable, don't you

think?. It is implied that Ms.

Elizabeth wants to tell Mr. Darcy if she actually has her own rules by
saying more in her answer. From Ms. Elizabeths answer actually she
has already give more information that Mr. Darcy wants to know. That is
why she is Flouting of Maxim of Quantity.
The Second Analysis in part 15 :
Before this conversation Elizabeth have hears from Mr. Wickhem about
Mr. Darcy and Mr. Wickhem was in a good relationship and it is not
anymore. From Mr.Wickhems story It is because Mr. Darcy bad attitude
that jelaous to Mr. Wickhem because his father love more to Mr. Wickhem
and give much inheritance for Mr Wickhem, so it is makes Mr. Darcy
feels jealous to Mr. Wickhem and that is why they are not in a good
relationship. So, it is why Ms. Elizabeth asks Mr. Darcy to clarify the story
about him that she heard from Mr. Wickhem. But Mr. Darcy does not give
an answer that Ms. Elisabeth wants to hear. It is makes Mr. Darcy feels
annoying with Mrs.Elizabeth. then he wants to know what Ms. Elizabeth
gets from her observation about him by saying What have you
discovered?. Then Ms. Elizabeth not give clearly describtion answer for
Mr. Darcy to know by saying very little. Then it is implied that Ms.
Elizabeth actually confuse because she did not know much about Mr .
Darcys characters. In this conversation Ms. Elizabeth Flouting of


Maxim of Quality because she is not cooperative by give convincing

answer to Mr. Darcy. She actually does not really know who Mr. Darcy
is. That is why she gives the answer that herself was not sure.

Scene 3 in Mr and Mrs. Bennets House-Longbourn.

(Conversation Between Mr. Bennet, Mrs. Bennet, and Ms. Elizabeth.)
Mrs. Bennet

:He danced with Miss Lucas.

Mr. Bennet

: We were all there, dear.

Mrs. Bennet

: It is a shame she's notmore handsome.There's a

Spinsterin the making and no mistake. The fourth
with a Miss King of little standing,and the fifth
again with Jane.

Mr. Bennet

: If he had any compassion, he would've sprained

his ankle

Mrs. Bennet

: The way you carry on,you'd think our girls look

forwardto a grand inheritance.

Mrs. Bennet

: As you well know, Mr Bennet, when you die,

which may in fact be very soon.

Mr. Bennet

: As soon as I can manage it

Mrs. Bennet

: our girls will be left without a roof over their

head nor a penny to their name.

Ms. Elizabeth

: oh mother, please! Its ten in the morning.


The Analysis

This conversation happens on breakfast time. Mrs. Bennet starts to tell

them about her worries if her five daughter can not married with a rich
man that can give her daughter suitable life specially when her husband
died someday. Mr. Bennet understands what his wifes worries. Then Ms
Elizabeth saying that oh mother, please! Its ten in the morning, which
actually irrelevant with the topic that her parents discuss. It means that
Elizabeth wants her parents to stop discusing that topic. So that Ms.
Elizabeth flouting of maxim of relation in that conversation because she
does not give the relevant statement. She is out of the topic that her
parents discuss.

Scene 32 in Mr and Mrs. Bennets House-Longbourn

(Conversation Between Mr. and Mrs. Gardiner, Mary and Elizabeth)
Mrs. Gardiner

: Lizzie, you're welcome to accompany us.Come to

the Peak District with us, Lizzie, and get some
fresh air.


: oh, the glories of nature! What are men, compared

to rocks and mountains?

Ms. Elizabeth

: believe me, men are either eaten up with arrogance

or stupidity. And if they are amiable they are so
easily led that they have no minds of their own


The Analysis

Mr and Mrs Gardiner is uncle and aunt of Elizabeth. They are in

Elizabeths home and they will leaving soon. They ask Elizabeth to go
along with them when their leave, so that Elizabeth will get some fresh air
for herself after many problems she had. Then Mary starts speak about
natures beauty. Then she becomes not relevant in her next utterance by
saying that beauty of nature can not be compare with man. Also after hears
Marys statement Elizabeth agrees with Mary, with give a banter about
man. So it means Mary and Elizabeth makes a Flouting of Maxim of
Relation because what they say it is not relevant with their Uncle and
aunt talk about, to invite Elizabeth accompany their journey. Both of
them give them statement that actually out of the topic.

Scene 14 In the Lake

(Conversation between Ms. Elizabeth and Mr. Wickham)
Ms. Jane

: Look, Mr. Bingley

Ms. Kitty

: Mr. Bingley!

Mr. Bingley

: I was just on my way to your house.

Ms. Lydia

: How do you like my ribbons for your ball?

Mr. Bingley

: Very beautiful.

Ms. Lydia

: She is. Look, she's blooming.

Ms. Jane

: oh, Lydia

Ms. Lydia

: Be sure to invite Mr Wickham. He is a credit


to his profession.
Ms. Jane

: You can't invite people to other people's balls.

Mr. Bingley

: Of course, you must come, Mr Wickham. If you'll

excuse me, ladies, enjoy the day.

Then suddenly Mr. Darcy who came with Mr. Bingley leaving them
beacuse he looks Mr. Wickhem there with Bennet sisters. After that
Elizabeth having a conversation with Mr. Wickham.
Ms. Elizabeth

: Do you plan to go to the Netherfield ball,

Mr Wickham?

Mr. Wickham

: Perhaps. How long has Mr Darcy been a guest


Ms. Elizabeth

: About a month.Forgive me, but are you acquainted

with him, with Mr Darcy?

Mr. Wickham

: Indeed, I've been connected with his family since

infancy. You may well be surprised, given our cold
greeting this afternoon.

Ms. Elizabeth

: I hope your plans in favour of Meryton will not





relations with


Mr. Wickham

: It is not for me to be driven away. If he wishes

to avoid seeing me, he must go, not I.

Ms. Elizabeth

: I must ask, what is the manner of your disapproval

of Mr Darcy?


Mr. Wickham

: My father managed his estate.We grew up

together, Darcy and I.His father treated me like a
second son,loved me like a son.We were both
with him the day he died.With his last breath,
his father bequeathed me the rectory in his estate.
He knew I had my heart set on joining the Church.
But Darcy ignored his wishes and gave the living
to another man.

Ms. Elizabeth

: but why?

Mr. Wickham

: Jealousy.

The Analysis

Bennets sisters just arrived from town with them new acquaintance Mr.
Wickham. Then they see Mr. Bingley and Mr. Dacry stop by to talk with
Them, but there is something wrong with Mr.Darcy and Mr.Wickham.
They just look each very cold each other. After that Mr. Wickham tells
Ms. Elizabeth story about Mr. Wickham and Mr. Darcy. So, after heard
all his story Ms. Elizabeth says I hope your plans in favour of
Meryton will not be affected. by your relationship the gentleman, to
Mr.Wickham for make sure that he is still go to the dance party tonight
after she heard bad story about their relationship. Then Mr. Wickham
answer it by saying It is not for me to be driven away. If he wishes to
avoid seeing me, he must go, not I. That conversation is a case of
Flouting Maxim of Manner because Mr. Wickham not cooperative by


give wordy answers for that Ms. Elizabeth wants to hear for him.

Scene 22 Lady Catherines House

(Conversation between Ms. Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy)
Mr and Mrs Collins invite Ms. Elizabeth to go to Lady Catherines
house. This is her first time Elizabeth come to Lady Catherines house.
Mr. Collins

: Your Ladyship. Miss de Bourgh.

Lady Catherine

: So, you are Elizabeth Bennet?

Ms. Elizabeth

: I am, your Ladyship.

Lady Catherine

: This is my daughter.

Mrs. Collins

: It's kind of you to ask us to dine

While they speak to Lady Catherine suddenly Mr. Darcy appeared.

Then it is supprised Ms. Elizabeth.
Ms. Elizabeth

: Mr Darcy. What are you doing here?

Mr. Collins

: Mr Darcy, I had no idea we had the honour.

Mr. Darcy

: Miss Elizabeth, I'm a guest here.

Lady Catherine

: You know my nephew?

Ms. Elizabeth

: yes maam I had the pleasure of meeting your

nephew in Hertfordshire.

The Analysis

when Mr. Darcy comes to the room Ms. Elizabeth suprises then she asks
Mr. Darcy , Mr Darcy. What are you doing here?. She wondering why
there is Mr. Darcy here. But Mr Darcy answer her Miss Elizabeth, I'm a


guest here, which actually not answer Ms. Elizabeths question because
he does not give clearly and more information that Ms. Elizabeth required.
It means that Mr. Darcy does a Flouting of Maxim of Manner in this
conversation because as we can see Mr. Darcy gives an obscurity of
expression answer.

Scene 12 In Elizabeth and Janes Bedroom

(Conversation Between Elizabeth and Jane)
Elizabeth and Jane are both in the same bed under the covers. They
are too excited to sleep. Jane puts on an extra pair of socks to keep
herself warm.

: Mr. Bingley is just what a young man ought to be;

sensible, good humoured


: Also handsome, conveniently rich


: You know perfectly well I do not believe marriage should

be driven by thoughts of money.


: I agree entirely, only the deepest love will persuade me

into matrimony, which is why I will end up an old maid.


: Do you really believe he liked me, Lizzie?


: Jane, he danced with you most of the night and stared

at you for the rest of it. But I give you leave to like
him. You have liked many a stupider person.

The Analysis :


Elizabeth and Jane feels excited when they talk about the dancy party.
Jane begins the conversation by saying Mr Bingleys characters, Elizabeth
also add some. Jane also wants to make sure herself if Mr. Bingley like her
or not so Jane asks Elizabeths opinion. Actually Elizabeth does not give
the answer that Jane wants. Elizabeth is not give Yes or no answer but
she gives more information about how Mr. Bingley stares at Jane in the
dance party. This conversation implied that Elizabeth gives more
convincing opinions. So, Elizabeth makes a flouting of maxim of
Quantity because actually Elizabeth should give yes or no answer but
she gives more than that, she give more information that requires.

Scene 4 In Mr and Mrs Bennets House (Dining Room)

(Conversation Between Mrs. Bennet, Jane and Elizabeth)
Betsy the maid, enters the room and interrupts Mrs. Bennets

: A letter addressed to Miss Bennet (Jane), maam. From

Netherfield Hall.

Mrs. Bennet : Praise the Lord! We are saved. Maka haste, Jane, make
haste. O happy day!

: It is form Caroline. She has invited me to dine with her.

Her brother will be dining out.

Mrs. Bennet : Dining out?


: Can I take the carriage?


Mrs. Bennet : Out where? Let me see that.

The Analysis :
Mrs. Bennet feels happy when she heard that Jane gets the letter from
Netherfield which is Mr. Bingley House. Jane reads that letter and find if
the letter written by Mr. Bingleys sister, Caroline. Caroline wants to invite
Jane dinning out with her and Mr. Bingley. Janes house is too far from
Mr. Bingleys house, so she asks her mother if she can takes the carriage to
bring her to Netherfield but her mother does not give the answer that Jane
wants. Whereas Mrs. Bennet gives Jane another question which is not the
relevant answer. Then it is implied if Mrs. Bennet wants to read the letter
too, so she knows what is the letter content. So that, the conversation
Flouting of Maxim of Relation because Mrs. Bennet does not give the
answer that she should give. Instead, she is out of the conversation. It
means actually Mrs. Bennet does not answer the question.

Scene 8 In Mr. Bingleys House ( Drawing Room)

(Conversation Between Caroline, Darcy and Elizabeth)
Caroline, Darcy and Elizabeth meet in drawing room. They do them
activity in that room. Caroline sits, Elizabeth reads a book and Darcy write
a letter.

: You write uncommonly fast, Mr Darcy.

Mr. Darcy

: You are mistaken. I write rather slowly.


: Miss Bennet, let us take a turn about the room


Darcy meets Elizabeths eye, briefly. Then Caroline turns to Darcy.


: Mr Darcy, will you join us?


: you can only have two motives, Caroline, and I would

interfere with either.

The Analysis :
Elizabeth is in Bingleys House at Netherfield. That day, Elizabeth,
Caroline and Darcy come together in the drawing room. Caroline opens
the conversation by talk to Darcy. Elizabeth just sits and read her book.
Caroline feels bored so she invites Elizabeth to walk around that rooms
.then Caroline links her arm and they start walking up and down. Caroline
also invites Darcy to join them, then she asks, Mr. Darcy, will you join
us? but Mr. Darcy does not give the require answer and says you can
only have two motives, Caroline, and I would interfere with either. Mr.
Darcy implies that he does not want to bother them by join them, so
actually Mr. Darcy can simply says no. From the conversation it can be
concluded this conversation is a case of Flouting Maxim of Quantity
because from Mr. Darcy statements seems like he gives long answer
which actually he can simply answer yes or no

4.5 Summary of The Data Analysis Flouting Maxims

4.5.1 Flouting of Maxim of Quality
The conversation that flouts maxim of quality can be found in
Scene 2. In scene 2 there is a conversation between Mr. Bingley and Mr. Darcy in


which Mr. Darcy flouts the maxim of quality. We can see in his utterance that he
not cooperative by saying a statement that is not too convincing.

4.5.2 Flouting of Maxim of Quantity

The conversations that flout maxim of quantity can be found in
scene 1, scene 28, scene 15, scene 12, scene 8. The speakers in these scenes flout
maxim of quantity by giving information more than what listeners want to hear.
They give a long answer instead of simply answer. So it means the speakers break
the principle maxim of quantity which says make your contribution as
informative as required.

4.5.3 Flouting of Maxim of Relation

The conversations that flout maxim of relation can be found in
scene 5, scene 3, scene 32, scene 4. The speakers in some scene here, try to say
something but the statement that they say out of the topic or not relevant with the
topic that they have discussed with the listener. They do not give the answer that
the listener needs by break the maxim of relation principle which say be relevant.

4.5.4 Flouting Maxim of Manner

The conversation that flout maxim of Manner can be found in
scene 2, scene 15, scene 14, scene 22. Same with the cases of flouting maxims, in
this conversation also being uncooperative. The speaker give an answer, statement
or opinion that the listener does not need to hear. The speaker give a wordy


answer that finally just make the listener confuse by give an unnecessary prolixity


5.1 Conclusion
Based on the findings of this study, some conclusions can be made as
1. In the Pride and Prejudice movie some maxim of conversation are
flouted by the speakers, they are (1) maxim of quantity (give more or
less information than it is required by the hearers), (2) maxim of
quality (untrue statement), (3) maxim of relevance (irrelevant
responses), and (4) maxim of manner (obscured and ambiguity
2. The speakers flout the maxims of cooperative principle because they
want to express their feelings to the hearers, and also to ensure that
their wishes and intention can be understood by the hearer because
they think that their wishes are very important. Besides that, the
speakers also violate the maxims of cooperative principle because they
assume that the hearer already understands what they mean. Also, the
speakers give too little information in order to hide something. Not
only that, the speakers do not say the truth because they want to hide
what their actual mean and make their utterance looks more polite. In
addition, people may flout the maxim to deliver implicitly a sarcastic
tone in what they state
5.2 Suggestion


The writer would like to give some suggestions for readers (students) who
will do the same topic, i.e. flouting of maxim, as mentioned below:
1. To study linguistic aspect of a certain movie, the writer suggests the
students to understand clearly how to analyze the movie from the
linguistic side, especially conversational implicature.
2. It would be better if the researchers can learn more about interpersonal
meaning and the context of each utterance to identify the meaning of
utterances uttered by the speaker. Those who want to analyze the flouting
of implicatures, can use cooperative principle and politeness principle in
observing the effect of it and the reasons why the speakers violate the
maxims, because normally conversational implicatures arise when the
speakers violate the maxims of these of principle.


Grice, H.P. (1975). Logic and conversation In Cole, P. & Morgan, J.
(eds.) Syntax and Semantics, Volume 3. New York: Academic Press

Grice, H.P. (1981). Presupposition and conversational implicature. In Cole, P.

(ed.) Radical Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press.

Grice, H.P. (1989a). Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, Mass:Harvard

University Press.

Grundy, Peter. 2000. Doing Pragmatics (2nd


edition). New York: Oxford

Herawati, Maya Herlina Devintha. 2008. A Thesis: The aspect of conversational

implicatures in The Kings Speech. Hasanudddin University

Himmah, Annisah Faiqotul. 2010. Flouting and Hedging Maxims Found in

Opinion Column of The Jakarta Post Sundays Edition. Unpublish thesis.
Malang. UIN

Hurford, James. R, Brendan Heasley, Michael B. Smith. 2007.

Coursebook. Cambridge University Press.

Semantic : A

Horn, L.R., & Ward, Gregory. 2004. Pragmatics (2nd edition). Yale University
and Northwestern University.

Hornby, AS. 1974. Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary of Current English.

New York: Oxford University Press.

Levinson, S.C.1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mey, Jacob L. 2006. Pragmatics An Introduction. Blackwell Publishing


Pop, Anisoara. (2010). Implicatures derived through maxim flouting in print

advertising: A contrastive empirical approach. Journal of Toronto Working
Papers in Linguistics (TWPL), Volume 3.

Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatic. New

York: Longman.

Yule, George. (Eds). 1996. Pragmatics. London: Oxford University Press