Violations of Grice`s Maxims in The Prince and the Pauper Movie

Antonius Waget

Abstract


Proper responses must be provided interlocutors to make onversationproductive and meaningful. However, interlocutors do not always provide properresponses because they do not even know conversation rules. Grice coins 4 maximsas general rules to govern daily conversation. The maxims are Quantity, Quality,Relevance, and Manner. Conversation occurs in the real daily interaction also in artsincluding movies. The Prince and the Pauper movie is one of the media for humandaily conversation. Some parts of the movie contains violations of Grice`s maxims bythe characters. Based on this background, the writer intends to explore violations ofGrices maxims in the movie and analyze the purposes of the violations. To achievethese objectives, the writer formulates two research problems: (1) Which of Grice`smaxims are violated by the addressees in The Prince and the Pauper movie? (2) Forwhat purposes do the addressees violate the maxims? The base of this research is amovie script as document. Thus, the writer uses document analysis as the methodof this research. Grounded on the analysis, the writer finds that the characters, especially Prince, Tom Canty, King, and the Earl of Hertford in the movie dialoguesviolate the four of Grice`s maxims. When failing to provide sufficient information,telling lie to their addressers, providing irrelevant glosses, and failing to be true,brief, univocal, and orderly, they respectively violate maxims of Quantity, Quality,Relevance, and Manner. Moreover, the writer finds that the characters violate themaxims in order to mislead the counterparts, be polite, save face, avoid discussion,and communicate self-interest.

Keywords


Grice`s maxims, maxim violations, The Prince and the Pauper movie

Full Text:

PDF

References


Brown, P. & Levinson, S. C. (1987).Politeness:Some universals in language usage (3rd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dornerus, E. (2005). Breaking maxims in conversation a comparative study of how scriptwriters break maxims. In Desperate housewives and that 70s show. Retrieved on October 10th, 2012, fromhttp://www.kau.

divaportal.orgsmash-getdiva.pdf.

Goffman, E. (2008). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. Far Hill, NJ: Pantheon Books.

Grice, H. P. (2004). Logic and conversation. Berkeley: University of California.

Leech, G. N. (1992). Principles of pragmatics. London: University of Lancaster.

Mayer, T. F. (1989).Thomas Starkey and the commonwealth: Humanist politics and religion in the reign of Henry VIII. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Saeed, J. I. (2003). Semantics (Second ed.). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Sandra, D., Ostman, J.O., Verschueren, J. (Eds.) (2009). Cognition and pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Skinner, B. F. (1948). Verbal behavior. New York: Appleton Century Crofts Inc.

Yule, G. (1996).The study of language (4thed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.24071/llt.v18i1.245

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2016 Antonius Waget



Indexed and abstracted in:

    

 

LLT Journal Sinta 2 Certificate (S2 = Level 2)

We would like to inform you that LLT Journal: A Journal on Language and Language Teaching has been nationally accredited Sinta 2 by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Research and Technology of the Republic of Indonesia based on the decree  No. Surat Keputusan 158/E/KPT/2021. Validity for 5 years: Vol 23 No 1, 2020 till Vol 27 No 2, 2024

  

 

This work is licensed under CC BY-SA.

Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License

 

Free counters!


 LLT Journal: A Journal on Language and Language Teaching, DOI: https://doi.org/10.24071/llt, e-ISSN 2579-9533 and p-ISSN 1410-7201is published twice a year, namely in April and October by the English Language Education Study Programme of Teacher Training and Education Faculty of Sanata Dharma University, Yogyakarta, Indonesia.