[Type a quote from

the document or 1
the summary of an
interesting point.
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

In this chapter, the researcher presents the background of the research, problem

of the research, objectives of the research, and significances of the research.

I.1 Background of the Research

Language is at the heart of human life. Many of our important activities are

inconceivable without language. We can not relating to family, making friends,

learning, falling in love, forming a relationship, being a parent, holding-or rejecting-

a religious faith, having political ideas, or taking political action, without using

words. So, there are important activities which do seem to exist without language

(Cook, 2003:2).
Language functions to transfer information (transactional) and to establish

social relationship (interactional). When the communication between participants

happens orally, it is called conversation. Conversation involves at least a speaker and

a hearer. In order to have smooth conversation, the speaker and the hearer have to be

cooperative and have to give contributions that are needed in the conversation. The

success of a conversation depends on the various speakers' approach to the

interaction. The way in which people try to make conversations work is called the

cooperative principle (conceived originally by the philosopher H. P. Grice, 1975).

Cooperative principle is assumed to be a basic concept in pragmatics (Kustini,

2012:91).
Grice (1975:173), in Yule (1996:37) states that people have a successful

conversation if they fulfill the cooperative principle that is elaborated in four sub-

principles or maxims. The four maxims are maxim of quantity, quality, relevance,

1
 2

and manner. Those maxims make a conversation going smoothly and effectively to

achieve its aims.

Understanding cooperative principle is not far from understanding

conversation that is not fulfilling maxim. That is flouting maxim that becomes an

interesting topic related to cooperative principle. Flouting a maxim is signals to the

hearer that the speaker is not following the cooperative principle. By flouting

maxims, people to be uncooperative, but actually, they aware of cooperative

principle. Behind the utterances in which flouting maxim occurs, there are some

hidden meanings that is tried to be conveyed by the speaker. Everyone indeed has the

possibility to flout the maxim of cooperative principle. Then, it can be assumed that

whether the conversation is in the real life or even in a movie or in a novel that the

script is made by people, maxim flouting can happen.

Furthermore, the phenomenon of flouting maxim also occurs in the

entertainment industry, like movie. A movie is a form of symbolic expressions of

human being. It can be the most suitable media for understanding human’s

conversation since it resembles the real world of human. It is inspired by human,

made by human, and played by human. In its best value, a movie or film has the

ability to record people and the events around them (Graham, 2005:117). It differs

from a novel which only provides narrations and conversations without performing it

in reality.
In the movie, most of utterances of the characters make the audiences think

for a moment to understand what the meaning of the spoken, it is because the

characters’ utterances sometimes has a meaning or purpose that is different from

what is spoken. Many of the characters in the movie deliberately flouted the
 3

cooperative principle. So that, for more enjoying the movie, we have to know what is

exactly meant by the characters in the movie.

In this research, the researcher interested in using movies entitled “Hotel

Transylvania 2”, which released on September, 25th 2015. The researcher chooses

“Hotel Transylvania 2” movie as an object of research because it is a 3D computer

animated fantasy-comedy which contains various elements of surprise, conflict, and

humor. Beside that, language used by the characters contains many flouting maxim.
In communication people tent to speak what is in their mind, they never think

about the rules. So, the writer interested in flouting maxim as the result of the natural

conversation based on the context and also wants to apply this theory toward the

“Hotel Transylvania 2” movie.

From the statement above the researcher interested in conducting a research

entitles “An Analysis of Flouting Maxim of Hotel Transylvania 2 movie”.

 4

I.2 Problem of the Research

1.2.1 Limitation of the Problem
In this research, the researcher focused on analyzing the floating maxim

found in Hotel Transylvania 2 movie. There are 4 types of floating maxim:

floating maxim of quality, floating maxim of quantity, flouting maxim of

relation, and floating maxim of manner.

1.2.2 Formulation of the Research
Based on the background above, the formulation of the research is:

“What are the floating maxim found in Hotel Transylvania 2 movie?”

I.3 Objective of the Research
In this research the objective of the research is as follow: “to know the

floating maxim in Hotel Transylvania 2 movie.”

I.4 Significances of the Research
1. Theoretically
The result of the research is expected to be beneficial and can contribute

to pragmatics study, especially related to cooperative principle and floating

maxim.
2. Practically
The result of this research are useful for teachers/lectures, students

researcher and other researchers.

a. For lecturers, it can be used as references in teaching the flouting maxim.

They can play more attention toward the flouting maxim to make people

will have a successful conversation. Therefore, it will be advantages for the

references to construct a guideline for teaching about the cooperative

principle.
b. For students, it can be used the references in learning and comprehending

about the topic of flouting maxim.

c. For researcher, the result of this research can be used as a contribution

adding her knowledge, understand how to analyze flouting maxim and can

contribute to the development of pragmatics study.

 5

d. For other researchers, it can be used as a reference related to flouting

maxims to conduct more comprehensive research in such topic.

 [Type a quote from
6
the document or
the summary of an
interesting point.
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter presents the reviews of the theories that are relevant to the topic of

the study and related pevious study. It discusses the concept of pragmatics, concept of

cooperative principle, theory observance of maxim, non-observance of maxim, and types

of floating maxim. Beside that, related previous study discusses the similarities and the

differencies of other thesis.

2.1 Concept of Pragmatics

Pragmatics can be defined as the study of language use, or to employ a

somewhat more complicated phrasing, the study of linguistic phenomena from the

point of view of their usage, properties and processes (Verschueren, 1999:14). The

pragmatic theorists have different opinions to define pragmatics. Some pragmatic

theorists see it as the study of language use in general, some as the study of

communication, others as an approach to the study of language via language’s

communicative function. Although there are so many definition of pragmatics but

pragmatic theorists have same purpose. So, there are several definitions of

pragmatics.
Pragmatics as the study of the way human use their language in

communcation, bases itself on a study of those premises and determines how they

affect and effectualize, human language use (Mey, 2001:6). According to Fromkin

(2009:207) pragmatics is concerned with our understanding of laguage in context .

Two kinds of contexts are relevant. The first is linguistic context-the discourse that

precedes the phrase or sentence to be interpreted; the second is situational context-

virtually everything nonlinguistic in the environment of the speaker.

6
 7

Furthermore, according to Thomas (1995:1), citied in Andresen (2013:2)

pragmatics is about can summed up in two phrases: meaning in use and meaning in

context. There are two different scholarly camps that divide up the field of

pragmatics depending on whether the focus is on speaker meaning or utterance

interpretation. The term speaker meaning is often used by scholars who study

social factors in the field, i.e the focus is on the producers of the utterances and the

different levels of meaning in their utterances. The second term, utterance

interpretation, is often used among scholars who study the cognitive processes

by which the receivers of the utterances interpret the meaning of the utterances.
In addition, pragmatics is the study of language in use (taking into account

elements which are not covered by grammar and semantics), it is understandable that

stylistic has become increasingly interested in using the insights it can offer (Black,

2006:2). According to Crystal (185:240), citied in Schauer (2009:6) states

that,”Pragmatics is the study of language from the point of view of users, especially

of the choices they make, the constraints they encounter in using language in social

interaction and the effects their use of language has on other participants in the act of

communication.”
Furthermore, pragmatics studies how utterances communicate meaning in

context. The study of meaning commonly known as semantics, but in semantics type

of meaning is intrinsic to a linguistic expression containing it, and it cannot be

separated from that expression. And there is a second kind of meaning, one which is

not intrinsic to the linguistic expression carrying it, but which rather results from the

interaction of the linguistic expression with the context in which is it used. And to

the study of this kind of meaning is pragmatics (Trask, 2007:226).

 8

Moreover, pragmatics is to do with how language is used in context and the

relationship between language use and language form. It deals with various aspects

of non-literal meaning, aspects of meaning which are not taken into account by the

code/conduit model of communication (Flowerdew, 2013:79).

According to Yule (2006:112) pragmatics is the study of ‘invisible’ meaning,

or how we recognize what is meant even when it isn’t actually said or written. In

order for that to happen, speakers (or writers) must be able to depend on a lot of

shared assumptions and expectations when they try to communicate. The

investigation of those assumptions and expectations provides us with some insights

into how more is always being communicated than is said. Brown and Yule

(1983:26) said that any analytic approach in linguistics which involves contextual

considerations, necessarily belongs to that area of language study called pragmatics.

Rowe (2006:166), citied in Fatmawati (2015:7) states pragmatics as “the

study of the effect of context in meaning.” It studies the practical use of language to

obtain certain purposes. Then, the meaning of a speaker can be interpreted more

accurately by understanding the context.

Meanwhile, Levinson (1989:9) said that pragmatics is the study of language

from a functional perspective, that is, that it attempts to explain facets of linguistic

structure by reference to nonlinguistic pressures and causes. In addition, Leech

(1983:6) states that pragmatics concerns with meaning as a triadic relation. It means

that meaning in pragmatics is relative to the language user.

Moreover, Yule (1996:3) states that pragmatics clearly concerns with the

analysis of what people mean by their utterance not only recognizing the meaning of

words in an utterance, but recognizes the words or phrases in the utterance

mean by themselves. It studies how meanings of utterances depend not only on

 9

general linguistic knowledge like grammar and lexicon but also depend on the

context. Pragmatics refers to the social language skills we use in our daily

interactions with others. They include what we say, how we say it, our body

language and whether it is appropriate to the given situation.

Meanwhile, as a branch of philosophy of language, pragmatics is concerned

with studying the relation of signs to interpreters (users of language) as opposed to

semiotics which is concerned only with the study of signs or syntax that deals with

the study of the formal relation of signs to one another or semantics which is the

study of the relation of signs to the objects to which the signs apply (Al-Qaderi,

2015:54).
In addition, Kreidler (1998:19) states that the main focus of pragmatics is

a person’s ability to get meanings from specific situations, to recognize what a

speaker is referring to, to relate new information to what has gone before, to interpret

what is being said from background knowledge about the speaker and the topic, and

to infer information that the speaker takes for granted and does not bother to say.
Pragmatics, as a vast field of study, provides us with insights on how to make

communication among speakers efficient. One of the ways by which speakers can

have efficient and non-problematic conversation is cooperation among them. As far

as cooperation is concerned. Grice has suggested the Cooperative Maxims Principles

according to which, conversations can be analyzed (Jorvi, 2015:1).

From the definitions of pragmatics above, it can be concluded that

pragmatics is a branch of linguistics which is study about aspects of meaning and the

use of language in social context and the ways in which people understand meanings

through language.
2.2 Concept of Cooperative Principles
 10

Grice’s cooperative principle (often abbreviated to CP), is the claim that in

conversation participants try to make their contributions suitable to the shared

purpose of the ‘talk exchange’ that they are engaged in: that is, they cooperate with

each other in the strong sense that they have a shared goal beyond understanding and

being understood. The cooperative principle plays a key role in Grice’s theory of

conversation, underwriting both the conversational maxims and the derivation of

implicatures. On Grice’s conception, the conversational maxims are principles that it

is reasonable or rational to comply with in the pursuit of cooperation in

communication (Allot, 2010:51).

Besides, cooperative principle is the basic principle in pragmatics in which

people are demanded to make their conversation as cooperative as possible, in line

with the purpose of the conversation (Yule, 1996:37). According to Zhou (2009:42),

citied in Al-Qaderi (2015:55) explains the importance of cooperative principle by

stating that cooperative principle is considered one of the prime principles that guide

people's communication.
Essentially, this principle holds that people in a conversation normally

cooperate with one another, and, crucially, that they assume that the others are

cooperating. Note that this term is not used in an ideological sense: participants in

arguments, deliberate deception, lying, fiction, hypothesizing and making errors are

still ‘cooperating’ in the pragmatic sense (Trask, 2007:226).

A basic underlying assumption we make when we speak to one another is

that we are trying to cooperate with one another to construct meaningful

conversations. This assumption is known as the cooperative principle. As stated in

Grice’s “Logic and Conversation” (1975:47), citied in Mey (2001:72),”Make your

 11

contribution such as required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose

or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged.”

The fact that Grice expressed the cooperative principle in the imperative

mood has led some casual reader of his work to believe that Grice was telling

speakers how they ought to behave. What he was actually doing was suggesting that

in conversational interaction people work on the assumption that a certain set of

rules is in operation, unless they receive indications to the contrary. Grice proposed

four maxims, the maxims of quantity, quality, relation and manner (Hu, 2012:1186).
Levinson (1985:101) states, “The Gricean cooperative principle is

constructed as a theory of communication, it has the interesting consequence that it

gives an account of how communication might be achieved in the absence of any

conventional means for expressing the intended message. A corollary is that it

provides an account of how more can be communicated, in his rather strict sense of

non-naturally meant, than what is actually said.”

In most circumstances, the assumption of cooperation is so pervasive that can

be stated as cooperative principle of conversation and elaborated in four sub-

principles, called maxims (Brown & Yule, 1983:36). This principle results from the

common assumption about communication as a cooperative effort. It provides more

detailed principles of conversational cooperation. Those maxims are maxim of

quantity, maxim of quality, maxim of relevance or relation, and maxim of manner

(Grice, 1975:45), in Yule (1996:37).

Gricean cooperative principle suggests that when people tend to be involved

in a conversation, they can be assumed to cooperate with one another in order to

understand each other. The cooperative principle and the maxims of conversation
 12

were defined by Grice as the principles that people abide by for successful

communication (Al-Qaderi, 2015:54).

An underlying assumption in most conversational exchanges seems to be that

the participants are co-operating with each other. This principle, together with four

maxims that we expect our conversational partners to obey. Supporting this principle

are four maxims, often called the ‘Gricean maxims’ (Yule, 2006:129). The maxims

were intended to explain how speakers can mean more than they say, or even

something different from it, and how hearers can work out what was meant beyond

what the speaker’s words mean (Allot, 2010:46).

Grice (1975:45), citied in Black (2006:23) mentions that the maxims are (1)

maxim of quality (try to make your contribution one that is true), (2) maxim of

quantity (say as much as is required), (3) maxim of relation (be relevant), and (4)

maxim of manner (be brief and avoid ambiguity). Grice hopes the four maxims will

be obeyed so that it can give a relevant contribution. But there is a time when a

speaker and a listener cannot follow the rules and showing non-observance.

2.2.1 Observance of Maxims

In doing conversation, the speaker and the hearer must be cooperative

and obey the rules to achieve the purpose of conversation. Conversation is

governed by certain rules and principles, and that hearers understand speakers

on the assumption that they are either conforming with these rules, or that if

they are not they have a good reason. Specifically, Grice proposed a

cooperative principle (CP) and several conversational maxims. The idea is that
 13

a rational speaker will try to be helpful and therefore she will generally aim to

meet certain standards, described by the maxims.

It means that, Grice (1975:45) devided cooperative principle into four

subprinciples called maxims; maxim of quantity, quality, relevance, and

manner. The followings are the types and examples of observance of maxims

(Allot, 2010:9). They are as follow:

2.2.1.1 Maxim of Quality

The first cooperative principle is the maxim of quality. The

maxim of quality requires the speakers to be sincere and honest, saying

the truth. This maxim leads the speakers to avoid saying what they

believe to be false and for which they lack adequate evidence. Honesty

and truth are the essence of this maxim (Yule, 1996:37).

For example:
Andi’s mom expect a truthful answer from his son, after she

noticed Andi’s bad mark.

Mom: Did you study last night?
Andi: I did not study last night.

In linguistic term, the maxim truthfulness refers to the

importance of making only statements we believe to be true. The

reason is that if we get caught making false statements we lose our

credibility, which is the important social assets a person can hold.

2.2.1.2 Maxim of Quantity
The second cooperative principle is the maxim of quantity. The

main point of this maxim is the amount of information given by

speakers to the addressee. The maxim of quantity can be used to

account for the fact. This maxim says that speaker has to make the
 14

contribution as informative as required (for the current purpose of the

exchange), and do not make the contribution more informative than is

required (Yule, 1996:37). The examples of maxims of quantity can be

seen as follows:
Siti : How do I get to Yogyakarta State University?
Nabila : Go straight ahead, turn right at the intersection,
then turn left at the T-junction, and in front of the
bus station turn right.

In the example above, Nabila gives the information of directing

as is required. Nabila does not give too much information and too little

information related to the way to Yogyakarta State University.

Although actually Nabila can give more information than the above

answer, Nabila does not do that because of the observed maxim of

quantity.
2.2.1.3 Maxim of Relation
The third cooperative principle is the maxim of relation. This

maxim is concerned with the relevancy of contribution made by

speakers in communication exchange. In maxim of relation, Grice

(1975:45), as cited in Yule (1996:37) stated that “be relevant”. They

should give the related answer to the question. For example:

A : Where’s my box of chocolates?
B : It’s in your room.

The example is interpreted as relevant to the present action. A

is asking about ‘where’, and B answer about the place that is ‘your

room’. So, B’s answer matches A’s question.

2.2.1.4 Maxim of Manner
 15

The last cooperative principle is the maxim of manner. The

maxim of manner says that avoids obscurity of expression, avoid

ambiguity, be brief, and be orderly (Yule, 1996:37).

For example:
A : Where was Alfred yesterday?
B : Alfred went to the store and bought some whisky.

The example above has already obeyed the maxim of manner.

B can give explanation orderly since he/she gives a clear explanation

where Alfred was. The theory of maxims can give benefit for the

speakers and the addressees who are obeying the instruction of

cooperative principle. Then, if they follow these maxims, the

communication becomes smooth and successful.

2.2.2 Non-observance of Maxims
In the conversation, sometimes they fail to obey the rules and non-

observe the Cooperative Principle. On the other hand, non-observed

Cooperative Principle means that speakers fail in fulfilling the maxims of

Cooperative Principle. There are five ways of failing to observe the maxims

(Thomas 1995:64), citied in Andresen (2013:4). They are opting out, violating,

infringing, suspending, and flouting,.

2.2.2.1 Opting Out
According to Thomas (1995:75), citied in Mukaro (2013:164)

defines opting out as a situation when a speaker “chooses not to

observe a maxim and states an unwillingness to do so.” In opting out a

maxim, the speaker is unwilling to cooperate with the requirement of

the maxims and it often takes place in public life. Opting out a maxim
 16

occurs when the speaker cannot reply in normal way that is expected

because of legal or ethnical reasons.

The example of opting out the maxims is when a police officer

refuses to release the name of an accident victim until the relatives

have been informed.

Man : Who is he?
Police : ‘I am sorry I can’t give you that information’.

2.2.2.2 Violating
According to Thomas (1995:73), citied in Chaipreukkul

(2013:230) states that,”When violating a maxim, the speaker intends to

mislead hearers; there is no obvious clue in the utterance.” It means

that a speaker who violates the maxims actually knows that the hearer

does not know the truth and he/she will only understand the

superficial meaning of the words. He/she intentionally generate a

misleading implicature by providing insufficient information,

saying something that is insincere, irrelevant, or ambiguous so that the

hearer wrongly assumes that the speaker is cooperating. In line with

Thomas, Black (2006:24) says that maxim violation is a quiet act

that has an intention to mislead the meaning. An example of maxim

violation is as follow.
A: Does your dog bite?
B: No.
A: Ow! You said your dog doesn’t bite!
B: That isn’t my dog.

This dialogue happens in Peter Sellers film in which B is Pink

Panther. He asks A, as a receptionist, who completely knows that B

 17

was asking about the dog in front of her, not her own dog at home. Yet,

in this dialogue, she intentionally gave him wrong information.

2.2.2.3 Infringing
A participant who is infringing a maxim in a conversation has

no intention to use an implicature, nor does he have the intention to

deceive the recipient of the conversation. Instead, infringement occurs

when someone is learning a language. The speaker may be a child or

an adult learner (Andresen, 2013:5).

An example of infringing the maxims is shown bellow.
A: Could you please bring me those screws?
B: I’m busy fiding the tlabs.

The dialogue above happens when two aircraft technicians are

maintaining a plane. B is hanging over, so that when A ask for

some screws, the B cannot speak clearly to answer A’s question.

2.2.2.4 Suspending
In certain circumstances, it is not necessary to observe the

maxims due to cultural-specification. When one suspends a maxim, it

is understood that what is uttered is not completely true or that there

are things the speaker ought not to say such as taboo words. “...they

told him he could not be cured,” Bistie’s daughter said in a shaky

voice. She cleared her throat, whipped the back of her hand across her

eyes. “That man was strong,” she continued (Thomas, 1995:77). In

this excerpt, the speaker suspends the maxim of quantity when

mentioning a name of a dead person which is a taboo word in her

culture. On the surface, ‘that man’ would generate an implicature that

 18

the speaker does not know the name of the mentioned person

(Chaipreukkul, 2013:232).
According to Thomas (1995:76), citied in Triatun (2013:7)

states that,”Suspending a maxim is a case in which the speaker needs

not opt out of observing the maxim because there is no expectation for

the maxim to be observed.”

2.2.2.5 Flouting
Black (2006:25) explains that a speaker who flouts maxims is

aware of the cooperative principles and the maxims. In other words, it

is not only about the maxims that are broken down but that the speaker

chooses an indirect way to achieve the cooperation of the

communication.
In line with Black, Cruse (2006:64) states that a speaker

deliberately against one or more maxims and he/she can be said to be

obeying the cooperative principles since he/she breaks the rules for

some good communicative reasons. Flouting a maxim also signals to

the hearer that the speaker is not following the cooperative principle.
According to Grice’s theory in Thomas (1995:65), citied in

Artanti (2012:13) a flout occurs when a speaker blatantly fails to

observe a maxim at the level of what is said, with the deliberate

intention of generating an implicature. For some reasons, Yule

(1996:43) includes the implicit meaning of maxim flouting drawn by

the listener in a conversation in the particularized conversational

implicature as has been explained above.

A flout is when someone deliberately and ostentatiously

contravenes a maxim. When a speaker is assumed by a hearer to be

 19

observing a maxim, then this is a case of standard implicature, as we

have seen. If the speaker is assumed not to be observing the maxims,

on the other hand, then this is on another level and is classed as a flout

(Flowedew, 2013:97).
- Types of Flouting Maxim
The types of flouting maxim are divided into the same

number of the maxims of cooperative principle. It is Grice’s

theory that is used as the basic notion. Therefore, there are four

types of flouting maxim; they are flouting maxim of quality,

flouting maxim of quantity, flouting maxim of relevance, and

flouting maxim of manner (Yuvike, 2009:118). They are as

follow:
1. Flouting maxim of quality
According to Cutting (2002:37), citied in Hidayati

(2015:16), a speaker who flouts the maxim of quality

commonly says something that obviously does not represent

what he/she thinks. Besides, according to Thomas

(1995:67), citied in Andresen (2010:7), the maxim of quality

is flouted when a speaker deliberately says something that is

untrue or for which the speaker has inadequate evidence. An

implicature is generated when the speaker deliberately says

something that is false. The speaker is not trying to deceive

the recipient in any way, which leads the listener to look for

another set of meanings of the utterance.

 20

Furthermore, the examples of maxim flouting of

quality is using irony, metaphor, meiosis (understatement),

and hyperbole. In such cases, speakers are not being truthful

in the literal sense of the term. This being obvious to

hearers, they infer further meaning, according to the context

(Flowerdew, 2013:98).
A speaker seems to flout the maxim of quality when

he/she exaggerates his/her statement like ‘I could eat a

horse’. The speaker uses hyperbole to flout the maxim of

quality. Cruse (2006:80) defines hyperbole as a figure of

speech involving deliberate exaggeration for rhetorical

effect, to increase impact or to attract attention. The speaker

expects the hearer to infer an implication that he/she is very

hungry that he/she can even eat a horse.

The example of floating maxim of quality is the

using of irony. According to Cruse (2006:90) Ironi is a

species of figurative language, in which the intended

meaning of an expression is usually some kind of opposite

of the literal meaning, as, for instance, when someone

says,”I’m really proud that you love other girl behind me”.

Actually, she is not proud of her boyfriend because he has

relationship with other girl. Through irony she wants to

emphasize her disappointment to him. The literal meaning of

an ironic expression typically echoes the words or assumed

 21

opinions of someone else and is intended to mock or

ridicule.
The using of methapor is also example of flouting

maxim of quality. Methapor is a variety of figurative use of

language. What distinguishes a metaphorical use of an

expression is the relationship between its figurative meaning

and its literal meaning. Metaphor involves a relation of

resemblance or analogy, although this is not explicitly stated

(Cruse, 2006:106). Below is one example of metaphor:

“The class was a market”.
The metaphor in the sentence above compares the

market with the speaker’s class. Market is so noisy,

therefore, the speaker means that his/her room is really noisy

like a market.

2. Flouting maxim of quantity

According to Thomas (1995:69), citied in Kustini

(2012:93) states that a flout of the maxim of quantity occurs

when a speaker blatantly gives more or less information that

the situation requires. The conversation between Charlene

and Dexter can be an example of this kind of maxim

flouting:

Charlene : I hope you brought the bread and the

cheese.
Dexter : Ah, I brought the bread.
Yule (1996:40)
 22

In this conversation, Dexter tries to say that what is

not mentioned is not brought. He intentionally gives too

little information to respond to Charlene’s utterance so

Charlene as the hearer of Dexter is expected to understand

the unstated meaning of ‘Ah, I brought the bread.’ By saying

that utterance, Dexter has flouted maxim of quantity because

he does not give the required information.

The other examples is as follow:

Amy : Do you like writing?

Benn : Yes I like but I can’t writing English well,
so I think I must study more.

In the example above Amy aks Benn whether he

likes writing, instead of say, “Yes I like writing.” but Benn

gives too much information more than needed.

The last example of flouting maxim of quantity is

below:

Marry : How are you girl?

Jane : Emm….. so many assignments are waiting
for me. Washing the clothes, sweep the
floor, pick my mother up, visit my
grandma, cooking for dinner, and do my
homework.
Jane : Oh, it is vey busy day.

The conversation above contains flouting maxim of

quantity. It can be seen from the conversation that Siska fails

in fulfilling the maxims of cooperative principle whether it

is intentionally or not. When Marry asks about Jane’s

 23

condition, Jane gives more information than is required.

Instead of saying ‘I’m not so good’ or ‘I’m tired’, Jane

answers the question by giving a long explanation.

3. Flouting maxim of relation

Cutting (2002:39) says that the speaker who flouts

the maxim of relation expects the hearers to be able to

imagine what the utterance did not say and make the

connection between his/her utterance and the preceding one

(Hidayati, 2015:16). Furthermore, according to Thomas

(1995:70), citied in Andresen (2010:8), the maxim of

relation is flouted when a speaker is giving a response or

making an observation that is deliberately not relevant to the

topic that is being discussed.

The example of maxim of relation flouting is

presented in the following dialogue.

Bert : Do vegetarians eat hamburgers?

Ernie : Do chickens have lips?
Yule (1996:44)

In this conversation, Ernie is being irrelevant. As

expected, Ernie should provide a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer.

However, since the answer has been obvious, Ernie flouts

maxim of relevance to emphasize her answer of ‘no.’ Here,

by being irrelevant, Ernie flouts maxim of relevance and

successful in conveying her unstated meaning.

 24

Other example is shown below:

A: When will you get married?

B: I’m still studying.

In the conversation above, B comment seems

irrelevant to the A question, in which A asks about when B

get married, but B answer shows flouting maxim of relation.

Besides, much humour is based on flouting the

relevance maxim:

Army Officer : Name?

Neddy Seagoon : Neddy Seagoon
Army Officer : Rank?
Neddy Seagoon : Private
Army Officer : Sex?
Neddy Seagoon : Yes, please
Flowerdew (2013:98) citied in Andresen (2013:8)

In this case the response to the utterance “Sex?”

creates an implicature, were Seagoon deliberately

misunderstands the question and thinks of sexual relations

rather than gender. In this case flouting of the maxim of

relation is used to create comic effect, which is something

that comedians or comedies make use. A prerequisite for the

comic effect in conversation above is the ambiguity of the

word sex.

4. Flouting maxim of Manner

According to Thomas (1995:71), citied in Andresen

(2013:9) states that,”maxim of manner is flouted when a

 25

speaker deliberately fails to observe the maxim by not being

brief, using obscure language, not being orderly or using

ambiguity. This creates an implicature which makes the

participants look for an additional set of meanings. An

example here would be when a speaker is intentionally

ambiguous.

Parents often do this to avoid their children

understanding what they are saying. Thus one parent might

say to another: ‘Let’s go to that place we talked about

yesterday’ to avoid actually naming the place (Flowerdew,

2013:99).

An example of maxim of manner flouting is clearly

shown in the following dialogue between a husband and

wife .
 26

Wife : Where are you off to?

Husband : I was thinking of going out to get some of
that funny white stuff for somebody.
Wife : OK, but don’t be long, dinner’s nearly
ready.
Cutting (2002) citied in Hidayati (2015:17)

In this case, the husband, says something in an

ambiguous way by mentioning ‘that funny white stuff’ to

replace ‘ice cream’ and mentioning ‘somebody’ to replace

‘his daughter’. It is done to make his little daughter does not

become excited and want to eat the ice cream before the

dinner if he/she know that the funny white stuff is an ice

cream.

The other examples are shown below:

(Spoken while Mike and Ann’s sister is standing

nearby).

Mike : What are your plans for this afternoon?

Ann : I’m going to go to M-A-R-K-E-T.

Ann doesn’t utter the word market around her sister,

because her sister will get too excited if she hears them.

Another example that flouts the maxim of manner is

when a speaker is intentionally ambiguous. Flowerdew

(2013:99) provides the example “Go to work on an egg”

which means either that ‘an egg should be eaten before

work’ or that the hearer ‘should start eating an egg’. This

 27

works since it is possible in both the metaphorical and in the

literal sense of the sentence.

2.3 Related Previous Study

The researcher includes some related studies based on Grice‘s maxims and

cooperative principles. A previous research based on cooperative principles was done

by Tety Ratna Artanti (2006), in her thesis entitled “An Analysis of the Flouting

Maxims in Princess Diaries 2: Royal Engagement film based on Grice‘s Cooperative

Principle (A Pragmatics Study)”. This study uses pragmatics approach based on

Grice theory of implicature covering of cooperative principle and its maxims,

namely maxim of quality, quantity, relevance, and manner. It is the similarity

between this research with the researcher’s research. The other similarity is the

object which using a movie.

The result of the study shows that there are flouting maxims in Princess

Diaries 2: Royal Engagement film. Based on the analysis of flouting maxim, there

are 3 flouting maxims employed by the characters, namely flouting maxim of

quality, quantity, and manner.

The first is that the most of flouted maxims in the data have low information

content and high affective content. It shows that the characters tend to express the

affective (the implicatures of their utterances) rather than the information of their

utterances (what is actually said by the characters). The second, the researcher also

finds overlapping incidences which there are two or more maxims flouted in one

utterance.
 28

The differencies between this research with the researcher’s research are in

this research discuss how the cooperative principle employed by the characters

and kinds of the flouting maxims are employed by the characters in “Princess

Diaries 2: Royal Engagement” film but in the researcher’s research only focused on

types of floating maxim found in the movie.

Beside that in this research only found 3 flouting maxim employed by the

characters, they are floating maxim of quality, floating maxim of quantity and

floating maxim of manner, but in researcher’s research there were found 4 types of

floating maxim, they are floating maxim of quality, floating maxim of quantity,

floating maxim of relation and floating maxim of manner. Moreover, the film in this

research used romantic comedy film, but in the researcher’s research used a 3D

computer animated fantasy-comedy.

Another similar research was done by Siti Nur Khasanah Fatmawati (2016)

entitled “A Pragmatic Analysis of Maxim Flouting Performed by Solomon Northup

in 12 Years of Slave Movie”. This research applies pragmatics as approach based on

Grice‘s theory. It consists of cooperative principles and the flouting of maxims. The

similarities between this research and the researcher’s research are using pargmatics

as approach based on Grice’s theory and the object of the research which using a

movie.

In her research, she focused on what strategies and the reasons why the

characters use flouting maxims in that film. The result of the study shows that

Solomon Northup performs four types of maxim flouting; quantity, quality,

relevance, and manner maxim flouting. Then, in terms of strategy, Solomon Northup
 29

applies five strategies of maxim flouting in the movie; tautology, overstatement,

understatement, metaphor, and irony. One strategy from rhetorical strategies that is

not used by Solomon Northup is rhetorical question which allows a speaker to make

a statement through question. Lastly, dealing with the reasons for maxim flouting,

there are four reasons that lead Solomon Northup to flout the maxims; competitive,

collaborative, convivial, and conflictive reason.

The differencies between this research and the researcher’s research are in

Fatmawati’s thesis analyzed types, strategies, and reasons of using flouting maxim in

the movie, but in the researcher’s research only focused on analyzed types of floating

maxim found in the movie and the film in this research used period drama film, but

in the researcher’s research used a 3D computer animated fantasy-comedy.

The last researcher was done by Lut Husaini Widi Hidayati (2015) entitled

“A Pragmatic Analysis of Maxim Flouting Done By The Main Characters In The

Devil Wears Prada”. In this research presents three objectives, they are: the types of

maxim flouting, the strategies that are used to flout the maxim, and the

functions of maxim flouting performed by the main characters in the movie. To

describe the four types of maxim flouting, she uses cooperative principles theory

proposed by Grice and she uses Cutting’s theory of strategies of maxim flouting to

identify the strategies of maxim flouting. Meanwhile, to identify the function of

maxim flouting, she used Austin’s theory of perlocutionary effects.

The types of maxim flouting performed by the main characters in The

Devil Wears Prada, it can be concluded that Miranda and Andrea as the main

characters in the movie flout all types of maxim. There are four types of maxim
 30

flouting. They are maxim of quantity, maxim of quality, maxim of manner, and

maxim of relation flouting.

The strategies of maxim flouting performed by the main characters in The

Devil Wears Prada, it can be concluded that all the strategies to flout the maxim are

done by the main characters in the movie. They are giving too little information,

giving too much information, using hyperbole, metaphor, irony, and banter, being

obscure, and being irrelevant.

The functions of maxim flouting performed by the main characters in The

Devil Wears Prada, it can be concluded that only nine functions appear in the

movie. They are convincing, surprising, boring, frightening, causing, insulting,

alarming, getting the hearer to do something, and getting the hearer to realize

something.

This research have some differencies with the researcher’s research. In this

research presents three objectives, they are: the types of maxim flouting, the

strategies that are used to flout the maxim, and the functions of maxim flouting

performed by the main characters in the movie. Meanwhile, in the researcher’s

research only presents one objective, the types of maxim flouting performed by all

the characters in the movie. In Hidayati’s thesis using Cutting’s theory of strategies

of maxim flouting to identify the strategies of maxim flouting. Furthermore, she

also identify the function of maxim flouting using Austin’s theory of perlocutionary

effects. Moreover, the film in this research used comedy-drama film, but in the

researcher’s research used a 3D computer animated fantasy-comedy. And the using

 31

of movie and cooperative principles theory proposed by Grice are the similarity

between her research with the researcher’s research.

 [Type a quote from the document
or the summary of an 32interesting
point. You can position the text
box anywhere in the document.
CHAPTER III Use the Text Box Tools tab to
change the formatting of the pull
METHODOLOGY OF RESEARCH
quote text box.]

3.1 Method of Research

Method of research in this study is descriptive research. Ibrahim (2009:65)

stated that descriptive research is a research which controls and interprets about

condition and phenomena such as relation, point of view, attitudes, process, and

influences of condition which happen. The main point of descriptive method is to

describe situation while the research is done to examine the reason of certain

phenomenon.
This research employed a descriptive method because it described and

analyzed the phenomena of the study in narrative description. Hence, it was not

simply analyzing and describing the data but also interpreting the data to get a rich

and more in-depth understanding of flouting maxim in Hotel Transylvania 2 movie.

3.2 Source of the Data
3.2.1 Data
Data in this research devided into primary source and secondary

source.
a. Primary data source is the play of Hotel Transylvania 2 movie (2015)

directed by Genndy Tartakovsky, produced by Sony Pictures

Animation.
b. The secondary data source consists of other data related to the research

such as some books of pragmatics theory, journal of flouting maxim,

article, movie script, internet and other relevant information.

3.2.2 Source of Data
Main source of data in this research is Hotel Transylvania 2 movie.

The researcher used other pragmatics theory related to the movie to increase
33
 33

and add to the theory of floating maxim. It helps the researcher to find out

the floating maxim of Hotel Transylvania 2 movie.

3.3 Object of the Research
The object of this research is Hotel Transylvania 2 movie, a 3D computer

animated fantasy-comedy by Genndy Tartakovsky, produced by Sony ivtures

Animation. It is the second instalment in the Hotel Transylvania. The choosing of

this object because it is famous movie, many people watch this. Hotel Transylvania 2

contains various elements of surprise, conflict, humor, and the language used by the

characters contains many flouting maxim. It makes us to think for a while what is the

meaning of the characters’ utterances.

3.4 Technique for Collecting Data
According to Sugiyono (2013:231) data collection techniques are the most

strategic step in the research, because the main goal of the research is to get the data.

So in this research, the researcher used documentation as collecting data techniques.

The descriptive data was gotten from words, sentences, or picture in every action of

Hotel Transylvania 2 movie. Beside that, the researcher use other relevant

information, such as: internet, movie script, ebook, journal, and books of pragmatics

theory. So, it will help the researcher found out the floating maxim of Hotel

Transylvania 2 movie.
3.5 Technique for Analysis Data
In data analysis, the researcher tried to analyze the movie in order to

know the flouting maxim which flouted by the characters in Hotel Transylvania 2

movie. The technique of data analysis in this study were as follow:

1. The researcher look for the original compact disk (CD) of Hotel Transylvania 2

movie.
2. Watching and understanding the movie.
3. The researcher looked for the script.
 34

4. The researcher watched the movie again and read the transcript of the dialogue

to check whether what was spoken is the same as what was written.
5. The researcher selected and classified the utterances performing maxim flouting

in the movie.
6. The researcher put all the data into a data sheet.