22

maxim since she has no expectation to fulfill the maxim because she is making a

poem.

5) Maxim Flouting

Maxim flouting is intentionally breaking the maxims in order to convey

hidden meanings and lead the listener to find out the implied meaning from the

maxim flouting. This form of non-observance of maxims is explained further in

the next review.

3. Maxim Flouting

Maxim flouting belongs to the forms of non-observed Cooperative Principle

(Grice, 1975: 49). It is non-observing the maxims of Cooperative Principle by

intentionally breaking the maxims to convey hidden meanings. Flouting the

maxims is different from violating the maxims in terms of the purposes. The

speakers do maxim flouting to lead implied meanings to the listeners. They have

no intention to generate a misleading implicature in the conversation. On the other

hand, maxim violation is intentionally to mislead the listeners’ understanding

about something.

Thomas (1995: 65) in his definition explains that maxim flouting means

intentionally failing to follow the maxims of Cooperative Principle without any

intention to deceive or make a misunderstanding. The only reason is that the

speaker wishes the listener to understand the meaning of the speaker, either the

literal expressed meaning or the hidden meaning. Here, a speaker may convey

different meanings from the literal meaning of the utterance. Then, the speaker
 23

assumes that the listener will be able to infer the implicit meanings of the speaker.

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. Types of Maxim Flouting

The types of maxim flouting 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 maxim flouting; they are quantity maxim

flouting, quality maxim flouting, relevance maxim flouting, and manner maxim

flouting. Below is the explanation of those types of maxim flouting.

1) Quantity Maxim Flouting

Quantity maxim flouting means that the speakers of a conversation fail to

fulfill the maxim of quantity in the Cooperative Principle. It includes whether the

speakers are not as informative as is required or more informative than is required.

Speakers become less informative or more informative when they flout maxim of

quantity. The previous 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)

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

 24

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.

Leech (1983: 92) provides another example of flouting of maxim of

quantity:

Andy : In the end, we got through the back door.

Bob : Was the door locked?

In this conversation, Bob is flouting the maxim of quantity by giving less

information than is required. The door in Bob’s statement is actually the same as

the back door in Andy’s statement. Here, Andy is expected to understand that

actually the two different terms are similar in meaning.

To flout maxim of quantity, a speaker may also be more informative. An

example of being more informative in quantity maxim flouting is in the following

dialog:

Rick : Who is the lecturer?

Tom : Mr. Budi, the best lecturer. You have joined his class
several times.

In this conversation, the required information is just the name of the

lecturer, but then Tom gives too much information. He makes his contribution

more informative than is required. By giving too much information, Tom intends

to suggest ‘no need to worry’ to Rick. Since Tom predicts that Rick will be

wavering hearing the name of the lecturer, he tries to prevent it by flouting maxim

of quantity.

2) Quality Maxim Flouting

When a speaker flouts a maxim of quality, the speaker simply says

something that does not represent what he or she actually thinks. The speaker fails
 25

to fulfill the maxim of quality; a maxim that requires the speaker to make a

contribution that is true, that is not saying what is believed to be false and not

saying that for which the speaker lacks of adequate evidence.

An example of quality maxim flouting that breaks the maxim requiring a

speaker to say what he believes to be true is in the following dialog.

Ellie : Ough. Winter has come.

Sam : Right. My house is a refrigerator right now.

Here, Ellie and Sam talks about the weather. By saying my house is a

refrigerator, Sam has been flouting maxim of quality. It is because he says

something that is not true. Sam believes that his house is not a refrigerator. Saying

thing that he believes to be false flout maxim of quality. In terms of conveying

hidden message, Sam tries to express his agreement and inform Ellie that his

house is very cold as a refrigerator by saying that expression.

Furthermore, another example of quality maxim flouting is also provided as

below. It is an example that breaks the maxim requiring a speaker to say thing that

has adequate evidence.

Student : Teheran’s in Turkey isn’t it, teacher?

Teacher : And London’s in Armenian I suppose.

In this conversation, the teacher flouts maxim of quality by saying thing that

lacks adequate evidence. It makes his contribution one that is not true. Besides,

the teacher believes that what he says is false. London is not in Armenian. Here,

irony is used to flout the maxim. The teacher suggests that the student is

absolutely incorrect.
 26

3) Relevance Maxim Flouting

Relevance maxim flouting means that the speakers of a conversation fail to

be relevant in communicating. Speakers are usually being irrelevant in flouting

maxim of relevance. However, being irrelevant does not purely mean that the

speakers do not want to be relevant. Sometimes, speakers are being irrelevant

because they want to hide something or to say something to others indirectly.

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.

Another example of relevance maxim flouting is in the following exchange:

Annie : Betty, the phone is ringing.

Betty : I’m in the bath.
Cutting (2008: 38)

In this exchange, Betty has flouted maxim of relevance by being irrelevant.

Betty states an answer with a different topic. Here, Annie is expected to be able to

receive Betty’s unstated message. Since Betty is in the bath, Annie is expected to

answer the phone.

4) Manner Maxim Flouting

To be clear in saying things is what all speakers try to do. However, in some

occasion, ambiguity indeed happens whether the speaker intends to make it or not.
 27

Then, maxim of manner is not fulfilled as the result. An example of manner

maxim flouting is presented in the following dialog:

Daughter : Where are you going, Dad?

Daddy : To the m-a-r-k-e-t.

In this conversation, a father answers his daughter’s question ambiguously.

Instead of saying ‘market’ directly, he spells the word ‘market’ by its letters.

Here, the father has flouted maxim of manner since he does not avoid obscurity of

expression. Related to the meaning and the reason for the father saying that,

context is an important aspect to observe. In this case, the father is trying to keep a

secret from his littlest daughter so his littlest daughter does not demand to go

along with him. This unstated meaning makes the father flouts maxim of manner,

not violate it.

A further example of manner maxim flouting is in the following

conversation. The speaker is flouting the maxim by being ambiguous.

Ahmad : Science class?

Joe : Yes. The lecturer came in and the students left.

When Joe explains his class, he uses an ambiguous sentence. Here, Joe has

flouted maxim of manner. His sentence can be meant that the students left after

the lecturer comes because principally they do not join the class or that the

students purposely left after the lecturer comes because they do not want to join

the class (actually they should be in the class). Here, Joe’s utterance is ambiguous.

It has two meanings inside that can make the listener confused.
 28

b. Strategies of Maxim Flouting

Maxim flouting can be done in many various ways. Some strategies can be

applied by a speaker to do it. When a speaker states things and expects the others

to get his implicit meaning, strategies play an important role in it. It may

determine whether the others will be able to get the implicit meaning or not.

Grice (in Levinson, 1983: 109) states that the use of maxim flouting causes

many of the traditional ‘figures of speech’. Here, figures of speech are the effects

of maxim flouting. However, on the other hand, Grundy has a different opinion

about it. In his book, Grundy (2000:76) states that rhetorical strategies which

include figures of speech may be considered flouting the maxims of Cooperative

Principle. Here, rhetorical strategies are the means of maxim flouting, not the

effects. To answer the second objective of this research, this theory of rhetorical

strategies is used.

According to Grundy (2000:76-77), rhetorical strategies include tautology,

metaphor, overstatement, understatement, rhetorical question, and irony. For

further explanation, rhetorical strategies as the strategies of maxim flouting in

detail are as follows.

1) Tautology

Tautology is the first rhetorical strategy considered flouting the maxims of

Cooperative Principle. According to Grundy (2000:127), tautology is an

expression used frequently to express a complex meaning in an easier way. It is

conventionally idiom. Because of the frequency of use, the meaning of an

expression becomes more idiomatic but easier to understand. Levinson (1983:

 29

110) states that in principle, simple and obvious tautologies have no

communicative import. However, in terms of pragmatics, they may have a great

deal to convey a message in a communicative event.

An example of tautology is ‘Boys will be boys.’ Here, ‘boys’ is used

frequently and because of it, a difficult explanation about male person, child or

adult, who will behave similarly, becomes easier to express. Besides, another

example is in the expression of ‘Enough is enough.’ To express the feeling of the

speaker who has been exhausted being patient, this expression is effective to be

used. The repetition of enough indicates that the expression is tautology. Alike the

first example, the general form of tautology can be seen in this example.

As a strategy of maxim flouting, tautology is intentionally used to break the

maxims and convey some hidden messages. The example below shows tautology

that flouts maxim of Quantity:

At the end of the day the church can only afford to pay the number of
people it can afford to pay.
Grundy (2013: 125)

This tautology is different from the previous examples. It is unlike an idiom.

However, it is indeed a tautology since there are expressions that are used

frequently, afford to pay. Here, the tautology flouts maxim of quantity since it

lacks information. It does not give a contribution that is required so it is not as

informative as is required. To observe maxim of quantity, the speaker should

mention an exact number of the people, instead of using the tautology.

In Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics (1996: 1179),

tautology is described as the term for true proposition. It is a complex expression

 30

that is always true. In the previous example, no matter how the tautology lacks

information, the idea that the church pays the people is true. Since it is a

tautology, the idea should be a fact.

2) Overstatement

Overstatement is the second strategy of maxim flouting. It is the opposite of

understatement. According to Leech (1983: 145), overstatement is similar to

hyperbole. That is a case where a speaker describes something stronger than the

actual state of affairs. It is a kind of figure of speech. As the term ‘hyper’ means

over or above, hyperbole is making something above the reality.

An example of maxim flouting by using overstatement is provided in the

following quotation:

Remember that as a teenager you are at the last stage in your life when
you will be happy to hear that the phone is for you.
Cutting (2008: 37)

In the statement above, there is an overstatement of assuming that adults are

never happy to hear that the phone is for them. That a teenager is the last stage is

also an overstatement indicating a maxim flouting. The maxim that is flouted here

is maxim of quality. The speaker says something that lacks adequate evidence so

his/her contribution is not one that is true. This is flouting maxim of quality.

Besides, overstatement may be described as stating more than what is

necessary in a conversation. Another example of maxim flouting using

overstatement as the strategy is as in ‘I try to call a hundred times, but there was

never any answer.’ Here, a hundred times indicates the overstatement. It is

actually unnecessary in the conversation.

 31

Other expressions of maxim flouting are such as I could eat a horse, I am

starving to death, and I am dying of hunger. Instead of saying I am hungry; some

speakers choose to flout maxim of quality by exaggerating the fact. Exaggerating

is a form of overstatement. In some cases, overstatement is justified for polite

beliefs (Leech, 1983: 146). It is used in praising others such as ‘That was a

delicious meal!’.

3) Understatement

Understatement is the opposite of overstatement (Leech, 1983: 145). If

overstatement describes something stronger than the actual state of affairs, on the

other hand, understatement or litotes describes something weaker than the actual

state of affairs. Understatement has a different exaggeration from hyperbole. It is

a figure of speech that makes something understated or less important, while in

fact, it is incredible.

In some cases, understatement is used in criticism. I wasn’t over impressed

by her speech is an example of litotes to criticize things. Here, the fact is that the

speaker is impressed by the speech. However, the speaker has a high expectation

before, so when the speech is done, he is not over impressed since his expectation

is higher than the fact. Understatement is used to express his/her disappointment

about it. Another example of understatement in criticism is in ‘That wasn’t such a

bad meal that you cooked.’ Here, the negative statement is the one indicating

understatement.

Moreover, instead of negative statement, understatement also includes

euphemism, stating an unpleasant subject by using inoffensive expression (Leech,

 32

1983: 147). That is when a speaker avoids an unpleasant word by saying another

softer diction of word. For example, instead of saying workers are dismissed, a

speaker says that the workers are made redundant. Here, made redundant is the

euphemism. It understates the degree to which things are bad. In addition, to

understate a degree in euphemism, some adverbials of degree are usually used,

such as a bit, a little, and rather. Then, therefore, it can be concluded that litotes

or understatement is a way of underplaying disfavored aspects of meaning (Leech,

1983: 148).

An example of understatement that flouts the maxims of Cooperative

Principle is provided below.

Jean : What do you think of Cindy?

Laila : She is not a bad-looking girl.

Here, Leila uses a negative statement to flout maxim of manner. She flouts

the maxim that requires her to be brief. Using understatement, Leila actually tries

to say that Cindy is rather a good-looking girl.

Lastly, understatement is when a speaker becomes less informative in a

conversation than is required.

Wendy : What do you think of Harry?

Jack : Nothing wrong.

The context is that Harry displays anger to Jack. Jack and Harry talk in the

room, so Wendy does not know what happens. After they talk, Jack leaves the

room and Wendy asks a thing. In the dialog above, Jack gives too little

information to Wendy. His statement understates the actual state that Harry is

angry. Nothing wrong expresses Jack’s dislike to Harry’s behavior. He uses

 33

understatement to express it. Here, Jack’s statement flouts maxim of manner. The

understatement leads his statement to break the maxim which requires him to

avoid obscurity.

4) Metaphor

The next strategy of maxim flouting is by using a metaphor. Metaphor in the

interaction theory (Levinson, 1983: 148) is the use of an expression in which

there is a relationship between ‘metaphorical’ expression and ‘literal’ expression.

The relationship is a relation where one can change the meaning of the other.

‘Metaphorical’ expression can change the meaning of ‘literal’ expression or vice

versa. In essence, metaphor describes a person or object in a literary way by

referring to something that is considered to have similar characteristics to the

person or object that is trying to describe.

Saying a metaphor my house is a refrigerator in January, the ‘metaphorical’

expression is refrigerator and the ‘literal’ expression is house. Here, refrigerator

can change the meaning of house. House is not merely a place here, but it is a

very cold place since it is considered to have similar characteristics to a

refrigerator.

Metaphor usually flouts maxim of quality. It is for the used expression that

is lack of evidence and believed to be false. By saying the metaphor my house is a

refrigerator in January, the speaker has been flouting maxim of quality. The

house of the speaker is not in a shape of refrigerator. It is for sure believed to be

false by the speaker.

 34

Another example of maxim flouting using metaphor as its strategy is in the

following dialog.

Andy : What kind of mood did you find the boss in?
Ben : The lion roared.
(Levinson, 1983: 153)

Here, relevance maxim flouting happens. Ben is considered to break the

maxim of relevance which requires him to be relevant. The metaphor the lion

roared indicates that Ben is irrelevant in the conversation. He changes the subject

of conversation from boss to lion. Although Ben conveys an implicit meaning

behind it, he has failed in fulfilling the maxim of relevance. One of the

interpretations that may be understood by the listener is that the boss is in a bad

mood, he is angry like a lion that roars.

5) Rhetorical Question

Rhetorical question is a rhetorical strategy in which a question is used to

make a statement, not to get an answer. It has an obvious answer that can be used

to deliver a statement. Rhetorical question is used to force the interpretation of the

questions to the listener. The use of this rhetorical question to flout the maxims of

Cooperative Principle is provided in the following dialog.

Bert : Do vegetarians eat hamburgers?

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

Here, Ernie’s statement is an example of rhetorical question. It has no

intention of asking and seeking an answer. On the other hand, it is intended to

make a statement and give answer to Bert’s question. Using rhetorical question,
 35

Ernie tries to say that the answer of Bert’s question is ‘no,’ just like the answer of

his own question that chickens have no lips.

Moreover, another example of rhetorical question used as the strategy of

maxim flouting is in the question Was Mussolini going to be moderate?. When

the speaker believes that Mussolini was definitely not going to be moderate, he

has flouted maxim of quality by stating this rhetorical question. It breaks the

maxim which requires him to say what he believes to be true.

6) Irony

The next strategy used to flout the maxims of Cooperative Principle is irony.

Irony relies on three classifications; they are irony itself, banter, and sarcasm. In

general, irony is a figure of speech which suggests a different meaning than is

said. Leech (1983: 144) in his book compares irony and banter as a pair. He states

that irony is an apparently friendly way of being offensive. On the other hand,

banter is described as an offensive way of being friendly. It is said that irony and

banter are opposite of each other. However, in the use of irony and banter, they

are usually being a pair that is intended to be used together. Banter is described as

mock-irony.

An example of irony is an expression of a teacher perceiving his student

who comes late to the class by saying, “Well, it is too early, good morning.”

Here, the teacher says something positive but actually intends to say the negative

one. The teacher uses irony to tease his student and convey an opposite meaning

with his real utterance. The teacher does quality maxim flouting by saying what is

not true.
 36

On the contrary, banter states something negative but intends to convey a

positive one. Banter is usually indicating intimacy or friendship so stating

something negative is not a problem. According to Leech (1983: 144), there are

two principles of expressing banter in the conversation: first, saying something

obviously untrue, and second, saying something obviously impolite to the listener.

This is done to show the solidarity of speakers and listeners. Alike irony, banter is

considered as being unserious. An example of banter used for maxim flouting is in

the following conversation:

Ali : I’m beginning to realize why em why jobs in language schools

run out so sharply in the autumn and in the spring. It’s all
these damn MSc students and their wives. Heh.heh
Bob : heh.heh.heh.heh.
Ali : Now I know why I was never wanted after October.
Bob : Yeah that’s right.
(Cutting, 2008: 37)

Here, Ali pretends to be angry to Bob after knowing that Bon’s wife gets a

job of teaching English as a Foreign Language, the same job as Ali’s. Ali is

actually not angry, but because of the close relationship of Ali and Bob, Ali

pretends to be. Ali flouts maxim of quality by using a banter. He is saying

something that is not true, disobeying the principle of quality maxim, i.e. that a

speaker should make a contribution that is true.

Finally, the last classification of irony as the strategy of maxim flouting is

sarcasm. Sarcasm is a form of irony that is not friendly (Cutting, 2008: 38). By

using this, speakers usually intend to hurt another.

Anne : How about your meal?

Willy : Yum, this is a lovely undercooked egg you’ve given me
here, as usual.
 37

Here, Willy intends to hurt Anne and flouts maxim of quality. The egg is

not lovely for Willy actually.

c. Reasons for Maxim Flouting

By flouting the maxims of Cooperative Principle, speakers intend to deliver

an unstated meaning to the listeners. As Leech and Thomas remark in Mey (2001:

78), people can flout or intentionally break one of conversational maxims to lead

the listener to find a hidden meaning. Here, maxim flouting gently leads the

listener or reader to assume more than one conversational implicature in an

exchange.

Mey (2001: 79) states that flouting the maxims can be due to many reasons.

There is no certain limitation of the reasons for maxim flouting. It depends on the

situation. Speakers are able to flout a maxim in the same situation for different

reasons. Nevertheless, speakers are able to flout two different maxims for the

same reason.

In his book, Leech (1983: 104) explains some illocutionary functions of

politeness. Those are the functions of saying something with some hidden

meanings in order to act politely in front of the others. Those functions are

somehow related to the reasons people flout the maxims of Cooperative

Principles. Politeness is a small part of maxim flouting since sometimes people

are just being polite even they are being exaggerating or being irrelevant. As a

result, the reasons for maxim flouting will be similar to the illocutionary functions

of politeness. The reasons that may lead people to flout the maxims of

Cooperative Principle are:

 38

1) Competitive

This reason relates to the illocutionary goal that competes with the social

goal as in ordering, asking, demanding, and begging (Leech, 1983: 104). Goal is

the intended meaning. Here, illocutionary goal is a self centered goal, a goal

which concerns more on each person’s self and does not care about the others. On

the other hand, its opposite, social goal means a goal that aims to bring advantage

to others. In this type of reason, there is a competition between the illocutionary

goal and the social goal. An example of competitive reason is in the following

dialog:

Annie : Betty, the phone is ringing.

Betty : I’m in the bath.
Cutting (2008: 38)

In the example above, there is a competition between the illocutionary goal

of Betty and her social goal. Her social goal is helping Annie to answer the phone,

while her illocutionary goal is finishing her own activity. Here, Betty understands

the condition, i.e. that Annie asks her to answer the phone. Then, she intentionally

flouts maxim of relevance because she refuses to answer the phone by saying

“I’m in the bath”. In the dialog, a competitive reason leads Betty to flout maxim

of relevance. Her illocutionary goal finally is over her social goal.

2) Convivial

This is a reason for maxim flouting where an illocutionary goal coincides

with the social goal as in offering, inviting, greeting, thanking, and congratulating

(Leech, 1983: 104). Here, there is no disadvantaged side; both self and society are

happily getting advantages from an utterance.

 39

Samira : I can’t imagine for sure. Perfect score for your grammar.
Julie : It’s also you in charge.

In the conversation above, the social goal is that Julie receives the

compliment and the illocutionary goal is that Julie responds the compliment with

thanking. Here, there is no competition, but a perfect goal meeting. Julie flouts

maxim of relevance to thank Samira for her help in teaching grammar to Julie.

Julie does not concern on the compliment, but more about her own need to thank.

Since both sides aim to gain satisfaction in the talk, the reason for maxim flouting

is a convivial reason.

3) Collaborative

Leech (1983: 104) explains that collaborative happens when an

illocutionary goal is indifferent to the social goal. There are asserting, reporting,

announcing, and instructing that are included in this reason. Here, the

illocutionary goal and the social goal work together for a purpose of giving

understanding. This reason is closely related to the flouting of quantity maxim. An

example of maxim flouting with a collaborative reason is provided below:

Charlene : I hope you brought the bread and the cheese.

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

In the example above, the reason for Dexter to flout the maxim of quantity

is that he wants to tell Charlene that he does not bring any cheese. His

illocutionary goal is reporting what he has done. In this case, the context supports

Dexter’s response, so Charlene understands the intended meaning of Dexter.

 40

4) Conflictive

The last reason is conflictive reason. It is a reason where the illocutionary

goal of a conversation conflicts with the social goal (Leech, 1983: 104). They are

including threatening, accusing, cursing, reprimanding, and others. Here, the

illocutionary goal and the social goal are very different. Then, the society is

disadvantaged, while someone dominates the advantage of an utterance.

Anne : How about your meal?

Willy : Yum, this is a lovely undercooked egg you’ve given me
here, as usual.

Here, Willy intends to hurt Anne and flouts maxim of quality. The social

goal is complimenting Anne or giving advice for her lack. On the other hand, the

illocutionary goal is stating what she feels without caring about the others’

feeling. In the dialog above, the word ‘lovely’ becomes the conflictive words. The

meal is not lovely, and then Willy wants to reprimand Anne. Willy states the

contrary, so in this case, the reason for the maxim flouting is conflictive.

4. 12 Years a Slave Movie

12 Years a Slave is a 2013 historical drama movie about slavery. It is an

adaptation of the memoir of Solomon Northup, a black freeman who is kidnapped

and forced to be a slave. It is a story of Solomon Northup playing his role as a

slave for 12 years, from 1841 to 1853, until he was able to contact his friend.

This movie is based on a true story. It is directed by Steve McQueen and the

adapted screenplay is written by John Ridley. It is starring Chiwetel Ejiofor as

Solomon Northup, the main character. Solomon Northup is a New York State-