A Study on Violation and Flouting of Conversational Maxims in the series “ How I Met Your Mother

Aims of the study This study is aimed at examining how the characters in HIMYM series violated and flouted the maxims for achieving the functions of that non- observance of Grice’s maxi

HA NOI PEDAGOGICAL UNIVERSITY 2 FOREIGN LANGUAGES FACULTY

“HOW I MET YOUR MOTHER”

(SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT

OF THE DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF ARTS IN ENGLISH)

HANOI, 2019

HA NOI PEDAGOGICAL UNIVERSITY 2 FOREIGN LANGUAGES FACULTY

= = == = =

LE THI PHUONG LINH

A STUDY ON VIOLATION AND FLOUTING OF CONVERSATIONAL MAXIMS IN THE SERIES

“HOW I MET YOUR MOTHER”

(SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT

OF THE DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF ARTS IN ENGLISH)

SUPERVISOR: NGUYEN THI THU THAO, M.A

HANOI, 2019

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

To accomplish this study, there was a great amount of contributions from my dear people around me

First and foremost, I would like to express my gratitude to all those who gave

me the priceless opportunity to fulfill the study I want to thank Foreign Languages Faculty of Hanoi Pedagogical University 2 for granting me permission to conduct the study Also, the teaching and guiding of lecturers in four years did provide me useful background knowledge of language and motivation to do this research

I want to give my special thank to my supervisor, Ms Nguyen Thi Thu Thao, whose support and advices did encourage me so much in all stages of doing this research Moreover, her helpful suggestions and straightly critic and careful comments played a vital role in completing of the study

Last but not least, I am so appreciated my best friends, Kien, Giang, Hien, Phuong, Thuy and Nhan We have been together for almost four years, so we always support each other to learn and discover new things day by day To make the decision of doing the research, I owe them many encouragements and sharing

Date submitted: 10th May, 2019

Student

Le Thi Phuong Linh

Date submitted: 10th May, 2019

Student

Le Thi Phuong Linh

ABSTRACT

This research aims to describe the types of maxims that are violated and flouted and explain the functions of the non-observation of the four maxims by the main characters in the sitcom “How I Met Your Mother” The violations of maxims occur when the speakers consciously manipulated the maxims so as to mislead the interlocutors While the flouting of maxims happens when individuals intentionally

do not observe the maxims since they want to derive the hidden meaning behind to the listeners, that is, the speakers employ implicature In obtaining the data, the researcher uses the non-participant observation to the utterances of main characters

in the season 2 of the series There are two results of this research The first result reveals that the participants mostly did the violation than flouting From the overall

of non-observations they have done, the quality maxim violation is in the highest rank and the maxim of relation is flouted most The second result is that the maxim violation has four functions namely representatives, declaratives, expressives, directives and the functions of maxim flouting are representatives, directives, expressives Based on the analysis, it showed that there is a connection between the most dominant violated/flouted maxim with the mostly used function in the characters’ utterances For further research, it is suggested that the study will be conducted in a larger scope of population

Keywords: Cooperative Principles, maxims, flouting, violation, functions,

How I Met Your Mother (abbreviated to HIMYM )

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES

Figure 1 The percentage of each violated maxim 16

Figure 2 The percentage of each flouted maxim 18

Table 1: The frequency of maxim violation 15

Table 2: The frequency of maxim flouting 17

Table 3 The functions of maxim violation 19

Table 4 The functions of maxim flouting 20

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1 1

INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Background of the study 1

1.2 Significances of the study 3

1.3 Aims of the study 3

1.4 Research questions 3

1.5 Scope of the study 3

1.6 Organization of the study 4

1.7 The sitcom “How I Met Your Mother” 4

1.7.1 Population 4

1.7.2 Main Characters 4

1.7.3 A summary of season 2 6

CHAPTER 2 7

LITERATURE REVIEW 7

2.1 Theoretical background 7

2.1.1 Conversational implicature 7

2.1.2 Grice’s theory of implicature 7

2.1.3 Observance and Non-observance of Grice’s maxims 8

2.1.4 The violation of Grice’s maxims 9

2.1.5 The flouting of Grice’s maxims 9

2.1.6 Speech acts 10

2.1.6.1 Declarations 11

2.1.6.2 Representatives 11

2.1.6.3 Expressives 11

2.1.6.5 Commissives 12

2.2 A review of related studies 12

CHAPTER 3 13

METHODOLOGY 13

3.1 The source of data 13

3.2 Data collection methods and procedures 13

3.3 Data analysis methods and procedures 13

CHAPTER 4 15

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 15

4.1 Findings 15

4.1.1 Research Question 1: Which conversational maxims are violated/flouted by the main characters? 15

4.1.1.1 Which conversational maxims are violated by the main characters? 15

4.1.1.2 Which conversational maxims are flouted by the main characters? 16

4.1.2 Research Question 2: What are the functions of maxim(s) violation/flouting conveyed by the main characters? 18

4.1.2.1 What are the functions of maxim violation? 18

4.1.2.2 What are the functions of maxim flouting? 19

4.2 Discussion 21

4.2.1 The types of maxim violation in the season 2 of HIMYM series 21

4.2.1.1 The violation of quality maxim 21

4.2.1.2 The violation of manner maxim 22

4.2.1.3 The violation of multi-maxim 23

4.2.2 The types of maxim flouting in the season 2 of HIMYM series 24

4.2.2.1 The flouting of quantity maxim 24

4.2.2.2 The flouting of quality maxim 24

4.2.2.3 The flouting of relation maxim 25

4.2.2.4 The flouting of manner maxim 26

4.3 The functions of maxim violation and flouting in the HIMYM series 27

4.3.1 Representatives 27

4.3.2 Expressives 29

4.3.3 Directives 30

4.3.4 Declarations 31

CHAPTER 5 34

CONCLUSIONS 34

5.1 Conclusions 34

5.2 Limitations of the study 35

5.3 Recommendations 35

5.3.1 To students 35

5.3.2 To English language teachers 35

5.3.3 To researchers 36

REFERENCE 37

APPENDIX 38

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background of the study

In the past few decades, English has become the most commonly used language in the globalized world where people of different cultures use it to interact and communicate with each other Communication in society happens chiefly by means of language However, the users of language, as social beings, communicate and use language on society’s premises; society controls their access to the linguistic and communicative means (Mey, 2005) To conduct a good conversation, both interlocutors should be active in the interaction In other words, the speaker and listener have cooperative behaviors while they are communicating with each other

Pragmatics studies the use of language in human communication as determined by the conditions of society Pragmatics is a field of knowledge that makes people know how to appropriately achieve the mutual comprehension, and politely face the challenges, which are caused by the miscommunication and misunderstanding in international situations (Kasper, 1997) In fact, people coming from different places attempt to accomplish the appropriateness in English as a foreign language Thus, in order to make an efficient and effective conversation with others from different areas, they (including both native and non-active English speakers) should be taught with pragmatics

Also, Crystal (1997) emphasizes the close relation between pragmatics competence and English proficiency in his study:” Pragmatics is the study of language form and 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” It can

be said that pragmatics is a socio-cultural context study in intercultural communication, which is contributed not only from the speakers in saying utterances but also from the hearers in understanding the utterances from their opinions Also the contributions of interlocutors, contexts of utterances such as physical, social, linguistic contexts and the meaning of potential utterances are taken into account in producing meaning In this case, the study will only focus on researching the meaning of potential utterances in conversations

In the pragmatic field, it looks beyond the literal meaning of an utterance and

considers how meaning is constructed as well as focusing on implied meanings Something which is more than the words mean is called an implicature which means the additional conveyed meaning of utterances (Yule, 1996) It is necessary

to note that when communicating with each other, speakers communicate meaning via implicatures and listeners recognize those communicated meanings via inferences It is selected inferences which will preserve the assumption of cooperation Implicatures occuring in conversations and depending on the certain context for their interpretation are usually called conversational implicatures As implicatures are primary examples of more being communicated than is said, so to obtain a satisfactory account of implicature, communicators should appeal to cooperative principle in pragmatics

The philosopher Grice (1975) suggested some rules to have cooperative behaviors while communicating, interlocutors should follow the Cooperative Principle which explains how people can be informative, truthful, relevant and clear

in the conversation The Cooperative Principle comprises four maxims namely quality, quantity, relation, manner It means that both the speaker and listener are expected to follow the cooperative principle to keep smooth and effective communications’ process

However, in the real context, not all people tend to observe the maxims to create more effects of meaning in their utterances In other words, the speakers sometimes deliberately break the Grice’s theory to refer their intentions to the hearers for implying certain reasons As a social creature, people always communicate and interact with each other in the form of conversations to express the idea or convey the emotion depending on the physical environment Therefore,

to deeply understand the way participants fail to observe the Grice’s theory, researchers ought to put each conversation in its context

With some non-native English learners, it seems hard for them to collect the sources of authentic materials However, nowadays, the trend of film industry is to make the artworks become more closer with daily lives Every situation or event is cleverly mentioned in each scene, so movies are alike lively pictures of every person’s life in diverse situations The sitcom “HIMYM” is considered as an outstanding example The situations happening around the main characters might be

so familiar, but with the unique storytelling, it did bring audiences not only

eccentric laugh but also meaningful lessons to lives The main characters in the HIMYM series do not always observe the Grice’s maxims In communicating with others, the main characters do interaction which is not in accordance with maxims

in different situations If learners study about pragmatics’ theory, by analyzing social interactions in the series, they will feel more interested Moreover, it will be one of the additional references in the field of pragmatic and discourse studies, which helps to affect the perception of language learners especially in this case is English learners’

1.2 Significances of the study

The study is significantly conducted with functions Theoretically, it is expected to provide deeper knowledge as an additional reference for learning in the pragmatic field, especially the Grice’s theory about the observance and non-observance of Cooperative Principle and Speech Acts In additon, this study is employed to help the teachers to guide their students on Grice’s cooperative principles through authentic materials and help other researchers in doing similar projects

1.3 Aims of the study

This study is aimed at examining how the characters in HIMYM series violated and flouted the maxims for achieving the functions of that non- observance

of Grice’s maxims

1.4 Research questions

The aims in this study are to investigate the non-cooperative interactions by the violation and flouting maxims of the main characters and the functions of the

non-observance of them In specific, it is aimed at identifying two main questions:

Q1.Which conversational maxims are violated/flouted by the main characters? Q2.What are the functions of the maxim of violation/flouting conveyed by the main characters ?

1.5 Scope of the study

The study concerns with a small unit of pragmatics, namely the Cooperative Principle The writer only focuses on the main characters’ conversation which contains the violated and flouted maxims In the study, the writer uses Grice’s theory of conversational maxims to analyze the conversation Additionally, the

writer wants to figure out the functions of maxim non-observance when the main characters violated and flouted the maxims The limitation is in terms of utterances conveyed by the character in the season 2 of the HIMYM series which contains the violation and flouting of maxims and it is used as the data of this study

1.6 Organization of the study

The writer organizes the study in following order The first chapter is the introduction Chapter two is review of related literature in which the write describes his background knowledge related to the study Next, chapter three is methodology including methods to collect and analyse the data for answering research questions Chapter four is final results and detailed discussions about the research subjects Finally, chapter five, conclusion, summaries all of the study from the beginning up to ending

1.7 The sitcom “How I Met Your Mother”

1.7.1 Population

How I Met Your Mother (abbreviated to HIMYM) is an American situation

comedy that originally aired on CBS from September 19, 2005 to March 31, 2014 The series is set around the main character, Ted Mosby, and his group of best friend including the long-lasting couple Lily and Marshall, Robin and Barney in New York City’s Manhattan The sitcom simply starts with the scene in which Ted is recounting to his son and daughter the events that had him meet their mother in the year of 2030 Famous for its unique plot, eccentric humor, and incorporation of

dramatic elements, HIMYM has become the legendary American series which have

gained a cult following over the years The sitcom was won 10 Emmy Awards out

of 30 nominations In 2010, Alyson Hannigan won the People's Choice Award for Favorite TV Comedy Actress In 2012, seven years after its premiere, the series won the People's Choice Award for Favorite Network TV Comedy, and Neil Patrick Harris won the award for Favorite TV Comedy Actor

With its reputation through years, the study of this series in terms of language theory may become easier both for the research conductors and language learners

1.7.2 Main Characters

The series concerns the adventures of Ted Mosby (played by Josh Radnor) narrating the story of how he met the mother of his children The story is in 2005

with Ted Mosby who is living and working as an architect in New York City Together with him, his gang of best friends, including the long-lasting couple Marshall Eriksen (Jason Segel) and Lily Aldrin (Alyson Hannigan), womanizing-playboy Barney Stinson (Neil Patrick Harris), and the news reporter Robin Scherbatsky (Cobie Smulders) are main parts who contribute to the remarkable success of the sitcom

Ted Mosby is a good guy who is an ideal husband of every woman From

the beginning of the series, Ted is on a quest for happiness and “the one” who he will marry and live with forever On the way of finding his true love, he is in relationship with many women, one of them is Robin, who reveals a lot of personalities he wishes in his future wife Despite the failure of finding “the one” after many times, he still does not give up Besides, he also acts immaturely when playing trick with Barney and Marshall

Marshall Eriksen is the best buddy of Ted Mosby, they are roommates from

the first year at university, Wesleyan University, and remain living with each other when moving to New York City Marshall has a beautiful love story with his girlfriend since his freshman year, Lily They get married in season 2 and have kids

in season 7 He indulges in the paranormal phenomenon, and mythical creatures, particularly Sasquatch His dream is to become an environmental lawyer, which conflicts with his immediate demands for money, such as for his wedding and to raise his children

Robin Scherbatsky is a TV reporter who emigrated from Canada to take a

job in a news station She additionally met Ted at MacLaren's She is a strong girl with some man-like hobbies such as often drinking scotch, smoking cigars, loving the gun Moreovers, she really loves career and has strong rejection to the traditional women’s roles such as marrying and having kids

Barney Stinson is also a Ted's friend, often jealous of Marshall for having

known Ted since college and the fact of Marshall is Ted's first best friend He is really a womanizing playboy who always uses his money and outrageous strategies

to seduce women with no intention of engaging in a long relationship However, he

is a kind-hearted and generous person to his friends He also makes the gang laugh

so much because of his jokes

Lily Aldrin is Marshall’s wife She works as a kindergarten teacher, and an

aspiring artist Though she is terrible at keeping secrets and can be manipulative at times, Lily is so sweet and sincere Lily Aldrin’s best girlfriend is Robin

1.7.3 A summary of season 2

The summer of 2006 is both wonderful and awful Ted finally gets together with Robin, but Lily breaks up with Marshall just before the wedding comes for chasing her real dream in San Francisco Because of Lily’s fallout, Marshall seems

to be another person who always stays at home, cry and remember his fiance After enduring numerous emotional breakdowns, the gang decide to step in his problem, Barney tries to get Marshall back to the dating game After a time, Marshall becomes Barney’s new ‘wingman’ as Ted is now in a serious relationship with Robin Marshal also follows Barney’s advice to impress women, but mostly fails Later, Lily, after finally realizing she is not meant to be an artist, returns to New York They remain separated since Marshall starts to date another girl, described by the gang as having 'crazy eyes' The date with the girl does not end well and eventually Lily and Marshall become reunited, and their engagement happily resumes

The second story is Robin’s aversion to mall which piques the gang’s interest

as to what secret she is hiding Marshall suspects she is married, and Barney suspects she has performed in adult films They bet on it, appointing Lily as "Slap Bet Commissioner” Lily oversees the search for the truth, as they discover that Robin was a teenage pop star named "Robin Sparkles", and Marshall eventually earns the right to slap Barney five times whenever he wishes

The third one is the truth about Barney’s father From his childhood, Barney and his gay African American half-brother always was told that their father was

Bob Barker, the famous MC of the show The Price Is Right Thus, Barney comes to

that show to meet his father He becomes a contestant, wins all the prizes, and gives

to Lily and Marshall as the early wedding gifts

In the season finale, Ted and Robin have decided to break up with each other due to their conflicting views on marriage and children They planned to tell anyone after the party so as to avoid taking attention away from Lily and Marshall's wedding, but Barney by accident knows that secret The season ends when Barney

is excited about being an unfettered single man with Ted again

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Theoretical background

2.1.1 Conversational implicature

The notion of implicature is one of single most important ideas in pragmatics (Levison, 1983) There are two main kinds of implicature, conversational and conventional implicature To concentrate in the objective of language researching in conversations, this study will often refer to conversational implicature A conversational implicature is something which is implied in conversation, that is, something which is left implicit in actual language use (Mey, 2005) In everyday talk, the speakers convey propositions that are not explicit in our utterances but are merely implied by them Sometimes, the speakers are able to draw such inferences only by referring what has been explicitly said to some conversational implicature (Blimes, 1986) Having said that, conversational implicatures are primary examples

of more being communicated than is said, so in order to be interpreted, there are some basic cooperative principle which are put forward in operation

2.1.2 Grice’s theory of implicature

The philosopher Grice proposed that cooperation has itself been elevated to the status of an independent principle Grice developed the concept of implicature

in his theory with a view to formulate some basic considerations as guidelines for the efficient and effective use of language in conversation Grice identified the guidelines including four pragmatic sub principles, or maxims of conversation, which jointly express a general Cooperative Principle The Cooperative Principles is expressed as follows:

The maxim of quantity:

1 Make your contribution as informative as required;

2 Do not make your contribution more informative than required

The maxim of quality:

1 Do not say what you believe to be false

2 Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence

The maxim of relation

Make your contribution relevant

The maxim of manner

2.1.3 Observance and Non-observance of Grice’s maxims

Daily communication is very complicated, people seem to draw inferences in the words to convey their own ideas Thus, there are at least two distinct ways that the inferences come about, which depending on the relation the speakers take to have towards the maxims If the speaker observes the maxims in a direct way, he will answer to the listener by some straightforward inferences based on the assumption that the speaker is following the maxims Another way is when the speaker deliberately does not observe a maxim which inferences are generated Grice distinguished five types by which the speaker fails to observe a maxim: violating, flouting, infringing, opting out, and suspending In this study, the writer will only focus on analyzing two kinds of them, violating and flouting the maxims

in the conversations of the main characters in HIMYM series

It is important to recognize these maxims as unstated assumptions in conversations When communicating, people assume that their interlocutors are normally going to provide an appropriate amount of information which is true, clear and relevant because these principles are assumed in normal interaction, this study will not mention to them However, in reality, some circumstances where speakers may not follow the expectations of cooperative principle In other words, the participants are not going to adhere to the maxims For example, consider the following exchange:

A: (to passerby) I’ve just run out of petrol

B: Oh, there’s a garage just around the corner

Here B’s utterance may be taken to implicate that A may obtain petrol there because B understand A’s utterance, which is the need of finding somewhere to refill gas B may appear to be flouting the requirements of the relation maxim

2.1.4 The violation of Grice’s maxims

When people “blatantly fail to observe one or several maxims” (Thomas, 1996), we speak of “ flouting” a maxim, either semantically or pragmatically

The first happens when the speakers use a word in a sense that is contrary to what is commonly accepted, and they know that their interlocutors are not aware of this This case is called the violation of maxims (Grice, 1975) The violation of maxim is the condition in which the speakers do not purposefully fulfill the maxims It can be said that speakers violate a maxim when they know that the listener will not know the truth or will only understand the surface meaning of the words

Take below story as an examples:

A: Does your dog bite?

B: No

A: Ow! You said your dog doesn’t bite!

B: That isn’t my dog (Cutting, 2002)

This dialogue happens in Peter Seller’s film in which B is Pink Panther He asks A, as a receptionist, who completely knows that B was asking about the dog in front of her, not her own dog at home Yet, in this dialogue, she intentionally gives him wrong information

2.1.5 The flouting of Grice’s maxims

The second is flouting a maxim, when the speakers do not observe the maxims and they must consider the effects people want to obtain by their linguistic behaviors It can be said that flouting maxims is a particularly silent way of getting

an addressee to draw inference and hence recover an implicature (Grundy, 2000) Leech and Thomas’s (1988) says that: “we can make a blatant show of breaking one

of the maxims… in order to lead the addressee to look for a covert, implied meaning” (p 15-16), thus nudging the listener to the assumption of one or more

conversational implicatures Take Mey’s (2005) story “Dostoyevski and the rubber ball” (p 73) as an example:

When Sara was about six years old, her parents stayed for a couple of days at some friend’s house These people were lovers of books, and their whole living room was filled with them: there were bookshelves all around and all way up to the ceiling While Sara was playing, somehow her little bouncing ball managed to get itself lost behind a row of books on one of the lower shelves; but since she hadn’t seen it disappear, she didn’t know where to look for it Meanwhile, the owner of the books, who was reading his newspaper in

an armchair nearby, had observed the ball’s wayward course So, when Sara asked him if

he had seen her ball, he replied: “ Why don’t you look behind Volume 6 of Dostoyevski’s Collected Works?”

Why is such an answer a non-cooperative one?

In this situation, the adult interlocutor flouts two kinds of Gricean maxims, which may have been motivated by a desire to impress the girl’s parents, or something else when he introduces a six-year-old girl to Dostoyevski First of all, it flouts the maxim of manner by offering information in a way that is “ not perspicuous” Although the intention of the adult is pointing the position of the bounce which is behind Volume 6 of Dostoyevski’s Collected Works, the name

“Dostoyevski” does not mean anything to a six-year-old girl Furthermore, the answer appears not to adhere to the maxim of quantity by containing too little information, because what is answered is not enough to assist the girl in finding her lost toy

2.1.6 Speech acts

In communication, the speakers use utterances to convey their meaning to listeners, which means they are taking an action through words to achieve some certain functions That action is called speech act Actions performed via utterances are generally call speech acts (Yule, 1996) Each utterance includes some particular functional uses of language and in pragmatics, it is commonly called as speech act (Mey, 2005)

One general classification system lists five types of general functions performed by speech acts: declarations, representatives, expressives, directives, and commissives (Searle, 1979) The classification helps to determine the function of the utterances that are uttered by the speakers towards the listeners since there is always a purpose behind utterances

2.1.6.1 Declarations

Declarations are those kinds of speech acts that change the world via their utterances The speakers has to have a special institutional role, in a specific context, in order to perform a declaration appropriately (Yule, 1996) For example, when a priest says ‘I now pronounce you husband and wife’, the priest has the privilege to pronounce marriage and when this utterance is performed, the man and woman is then changed from singles into a married couple from that moment on, the declaration function occurs since he performs a declaration about marrying a person Another example is when the Jury Foreman announces “We find the defendant guilty” In this case, the declaration function happens because the Jury Foreman declares something to the listeners

2.1.6.2 Representatives

Using a representative, or is commonly called as an assertive, the speaker makes words fits the world (of belief) Representatives are those kinds of speech acts that state what speaker believes to be the case or not (Yule, 1996) The speakers represent the world as they believe it is namely statements of fact, assertions, conclusions, and descriptions For examples, when a speaker says “ The earth is flat”, the representative function happens the speaker’s utterance asserts the fact

of the earth Another example is when someone says “It was a warm sunny day”,

he or she states the description of weather today, so there is the representative function in here

2.1.6.3 Expressives

In using of expressive function, the speaker makes words fit the world (of feeling) Expressives are those kinds speech acts that state what the speaker feels (Yule, 1996) In other words, the expressive function is used to express the attitudes and emotions of the speakers towards the proposition namely joy, pain, likes, dislikes, joy, sorrow For examples, someone says “Congratulations, my baby!”, they use the expressive function to convey his or her feeling of pleasure to the listeners Another example happens when a speaker says ‘I’m really sorry about that’ since he or she expresses his sorrow to the listener

2.1.6.4 Directives

In using of the directive function, the speaker tries to makes the world fit the words (via the hearer) Directives are those kinds of speech acts that the speakers

use to have someone else do something (Yule, 1996) It means that the directive function is used to express what the speakers want such as commands, orders, requests, suggestions For instance, the monitor says “Stand up”, he or she employs the directive function because of his or her command to their listeners Another example of the directive function is when someone says “Could you lend me a pen, please?” since he or she gives a polite order to the listener

2.1.6.5 Commissives

In using of the commissive function, the speaker undertakes to make the world fit the words (via the speaker) Commissives are those kinds of speech acts that speakers use to commit themselves to some future action (Yule, 1996) For example, when the boy says to the girl “I will always love you”, the commissive function is operated because the boy makes a promise to his girlfriend Another example of the commissive function occurs when someone says “I will hit you”

since he or she threats his or her listener

2.2 A review of related studies

Some studies have been investigated by several researchers that focus on violating and flouting of cooperative principles Nadia (2017) conducted research in Journal Language and Literature by analyzing humorous situations created by violations and floutings of conversational maxims in some episodes of series

“HIMYM” She found out the number of kinds of maxim is violated or flouted and investigated how humorous situations are formed when the main characters violate and flout the maxims Another study is about finding the flouting maxims of humorous lying in “HIMYM” by Safaudin and Lisetyo Arianti They only concentrated in looking for the flouting of maxim behind the lying and its humor effects However, they do not deeply look for the functions in communication when the characters say something ambiguous, irrelevant, even something they believe to

be false, when they violate the Cooperative Principle unconsciously, or intentionally, and what conversational implications are generated by these violations Therefore, this current study is to find the violation and flouting of the maxims and identify the functions of maxim violation and flouting made by the characters in the series of “HIMYM” As a result, how the characters’ utterances deliberately employ these pragmatic strategies in order to gain the desired effects may be identified

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY 3.1 The source of data

The data that the researcher analyzed are in the form of utterances conveyed by the characters in the HIMYM series which indicate the conversational maxim violation and flouting The sources of data is the script of the series It is not difficult to find

the sources since HIMYM series is very famous around the world

3.2 Data collection methods and procedures

The study used non-participant observation method since the data used are obtained from the transcribed conversations set in How I Met Your Mother series Non-participant observation is a research technique whereby the researcher watches the subjects of his or her study, with their knowledge, but without taking an active part in the situation under scrutiny Non-participant observation is often used in tangent with other data collection methods, and can offer a more "nuanced and dynamic" appreciation of situations that cannot be as easily captured through other methods (Liu & Maitlis, 2010)

The procedure of collecting data for the research comprised the following major steps

1 The writer watched the whole season 2 of the HIMYM series several times on Netflix to understand the plot and the personalities of characters

2 The writer noted down the English transcript of movie which were available on Netflix’s services and checked the accuracy of English transcripts

3 The writer sorted out the utterances of the characters that contained violated and flouted maxims as the objective of this study

4 The writer arranged the data obtained into the data sheet systematically

3.3 Data analysis methods and procedures

The process of conversational analysis consisted of two levels of linguistic description

- Descriptive analysis: Descriptive analysis is the first level of quantitative analysis method It helps researchers summarize the data and measures and find basic patterns In other words, descriptive analysis is used to describe the basic features of the data in the study Descriptive analysis of data is necessary as it helps to determine the normality of the distribution (Best & Kahn, 2003)

- Pragmatic analysis: It aimed at analyzing the functions of violating and flouting the Grice’s maxims

There were main steps in the procedure of analyzing the data:

1 The writer collected the utterances conveyed by the characters in the series

2 The writer selected utterances that contain the maxim violation and flouting and omitted the utterances which do not contain the violation and flouting of maxims

3 The writer categorized the utterances into the smaller groups of each type of violated flouted maxim

4 Then, the writer identified the purposes of the maxim violation and flouting

5 Finally, the writer deducted the conclusion It means that the writer gathered the results of analysis which are the types and the purposes of maxim violation and flouting conveyed by the characters in the movie

CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 4.1 Findings

4.1.1 Research Question 1: Which conversational maxims are violated/flouted

by the main characters?

4.1.1.1 Which conversational maxims are violated by the main characters?

There are a total of 30 conversations in which conversational maxims were violated in 22 episodes of the whole season 2 The table shows how frequently the main c haracters violate the maxims

Violation

frequency

Character

Quantity maxim

Quality maxim

Relationmaxim

Mannermaxim

Multi– maxim

The final findings from Table 1 indicate that the main characters mostly violate two kinds of maxim which are quality and manner, whereas, they do not violate the other two maxims in their conversation It can be said that people do not always break the Grice’s cooperative principle However, in some situations they violate the maxims because of some certain reasons

As can be seen in Table 1, the number of the violation among all characters

is nearly the same Robin is the one who broke the rules most with 7 times, while Lily and her husband, Marshall violate 5 times It can be assumed that all five characters usually are trying to mislead the listeners because of some inside reasons

The percentage of each violated maxim is shown in the below pie chart

It is remarkable that much more the maxim of quality are violated than that

of manner, the proportion of quality maxim makes up to 94% The special point is there has a case of violating multi-maxim It may be concluded that the main characters do not often tell the truth to hide their deeper thoughts and emotions, and they do successfully because the listeners only understand the outside meanings as said in words

4.1.1.2 Which conversational maxims are flouted by the main characters?

There are totally 21 conversations where conversational maxims were flouted in the 22 episodes The details are shown in this table

Flouting frequency

Character

Quantity maxim

Quality maxim

Relation maxim

Manner Maxim

Table 2: The frequency of maxim flouting

Fewer maxims are flouted than violated in this season 2 It has 21 conversations including 4 kinds of maxim which were flouted by both male and female characters It proves that implications between the speakers and listeners are common acts in daily communication

From the above table, Both Barney and Robin abide the conversational rules most frequently (7 times in total) and flout all four maxims of communication: quantity maxim, quality maxim, relation maxim, manner maxim

The percentage of each kind of maxim that was flouted is illustrated in the below pie chart

As can be seen from Figure 2, the highest number of flouted maxim is relation, which accounts for nearly half of the conversations (38.1%), while the quantity maxim only generates 14,9% There is about 28.6% quality maxim that is

flouted in this season

In short, there are some highlights answering the question 1 Firstly, while only two maxims of quality and manner are violated, all of four maxims are flouted

by all five main characters in this season 2 Secondly, most characters but Robin violate only one kind of maxim, whereas, all of main characters flout four maxims

of conversation Additionally, there is a special case in which multi-maxims were violated Finally, the frequency of maxim violation is markedly different from that

of maxim flouting It can be seen that the quality maxim was violated most, while a large number of relation maxim was flouted in this season

4.1.2 Research Question 2: What are the functions of maxim(s) violation/flouting conveyed by the main characters?

Mostly in reality people do not just produce well-formed utterances with no purpose, they form an utterance with some kind of function in mind It means that

an utterance consists of some different functions and people use it in order to perform action via utterances

4.1.2.1 What are the functions of maxim violation?

Maxim violation conveyed by the characters in the HIMYM series has the different functions in their utterances The findings of functions of maxim violation found in the series are presented in the table

No Functions of

maxim violation

Character(s) Frequency Percentage

1 Representatives Barney, Marshall,

Ted, Robin, Lily

4 Expressives Barney, Marshall,

Ted, Robin, Lily

Table 3 The functions of maxim violation

As can be seen in Table 3, there are four functions of maxim violation in this season 2 namely representatives, expressives, directives, and declaratives The most dominant function of the maxim violation is representatives which occurs 20 times out of 30 data (66.7%) In this season 2, all of five main characters violate the maxim of conversation which has the function of representatives

The second one of maxim violation is the function of expressives which happen 8 times out of 30 data (26,7%) The characters who violate the maxim of conversation which has the function of expressives are also five main characters: Barney, Marshall, Ted, Robin, Lily

Both the function of directives and declarations are used one time as the functions of maxim violation by Ted and Barney respectively in the dialogue The least one is commissives they cannot be found in this season

4.1.2.2 What are the functions of maxim flouting?

There are three functions of maxim flouting found in the HIMYM series They are representatives, directives and expressives Table 4 shows the characters

who flout the maxim, the frequency of functions of maxim flouting, and the percentage of functions of maxim flouting found in this season 2

No Functions of

maxim flouting

Character(s) Frequency Percentage

1 Representatives Barney, Marshall, Ted,

Table 4 The functions of maxim flouting

The first function of maxim flouting is expressives which occur 12

times out of 21 data (57.1 %), which is the highest number among all of the functions of maxim flouting found in the series It can be said that all five main characters deliberately flout the maxims to give their explanation or the truth to the listeners

Representatives are the second kinds of function of maxim flouting used in this season, with 7 times out of 21 data (33.4%) Also, all of five main characters flout the conversational maxims which have the function of expressive

With the function of directive, Barney flouts the conversational maxims 2 times (9,5%) out of total

Meanwhile, both commissives and declarations are not used as the functions

of maxim flouting in this season 2

In brief, the most dominant function of maxim violation is representatives which the character gives the truth or fact in his utterance The function of expressive is also used as the function of maxim flouting because the character wants to express his feeling or statement of pleasure, pain, likes, joy or sorrow There is one time the function of declaration is used as the function of maxim violation when the character has a special institutional role in order to perform a

declaration appropriately

4.2 Discussion

Based on the aims of this research, there are two parts of discussion concerning the maxim violation and flouting in the season 2 of the HIMYM series Those are the types and functions of maxim flouting found in the movie The first aim of this study is to find types of maxim violation and flouting

4.2.1 The types of maxim violation in the season 2 of HIMYM series

In social life, maxim violation phenomena happen frequently since people have some certain reasons while communicating The violation of maxim happens when the speakers do not intentionally observe the maxims It can be said that speakers violate a maxim when they know that the listener will not know the truth

or will only understand the surface meaning of the words The HIMYM series is the example of this phenomenon since it is the reflection of real life In this season 2, there are two main kinds of maxim which are violated namely the quality maxim, the manner maxim, and one special case, that is, the multi-maxim violation (the quantity and the quality maxim) The most dominant maxim violation found in this movie is the maxim of quality

4.2.1.1 The violation of quality maxim

The quality maxim violation happens when the speakers do not give a true fact in their utterances and they deliberately mislead their listeners This type of maxim is violated 28 times by all of five main characters Here is a situation that Barney and Lily do not observe the maxim

Example 1

Lily and Barney play roles as the wife and the husband One strange morning, the wife comes back home and suddenly sees the husband is being with the strange woman in their house

Barney: Can you pass the Arts and Leisure?

The girl: Here you are

Barney: Can you pass the Arts and Leisure? (with a louder voice)

Lily appears in the door

The conversation is a scene from episode 5: “ World’s greatest couple” Barney asks Lily to pretend to be his wife for cheating on the girl who he slept with last night The reason is he wants to chase the girl away his apartment politely Thus, in the morning while the girl and Barney are talking to each other, he deliberately repeats his ask to the girl with higher voice as a signal for Lily to come

in and begin the play In this situation, Barney violates the maxim of quality since

he does not say straight words to make the girl leave, he tells a lie that he already has a wife to mislead the girl As a result, she leaves without a word

4.2.1.2 The violation of manner maxim

When engaged in the conversation, the maxim of manner requires you to be perspicuous (Grice, 1975) The manner maxim is related to something is being said

in the conversation, so when the speakers violate this type of maxim, they deliberately say ambiguous things that make the listeners fail to understand their true meanings Here is an example of this type

Example 2

At the meeting among Ted, his best friends and Ted’s parents in the restaurant named San Marino, Ted’s mom just asks Robin a normal question:

Mrs Mosby: (looking the waitress) Isn’t she sweet?

Robin: Well, if she’s so sweet, maybe she should have Ted’s babies

Mrs Mosby: Excuse me?

Robin: Nothing!

The conversation is a scene from episode 3:” Brunch” Although Robin does not plan to have kids with Ted, she still feels uncomfortable when Ted’s mother wants other girls to have Ted’s babies Therefore, when Mrs Mosby compliments the waitress, Robin violates the manner maxim in her answer to hide her angry instead of saying ‘No”

4.2.1.3 The violation of multi-maxim

More amazingly, the character deliberately exploits two maxims in one single conversation This is called multi-maxim violation In this season 2, only Robin do not observe both the quantity and quality maxim in one context because she wants to protect her lying perfectly

Example 3

The following conversation is an extract from episode 9 Robin’s aversion to malls piques Ted’s interest as to what secret she was hiding Robin really does not want to tell the reason why she does not like the malls, but Ted insists on hearing the truth Therefore, she deliberately makes up the marriage story to test Ted’s trustworthiness It is clear that Robin does not observe the quality maxim in this scene to conceal a benefit from Ted Continuing to tell the perfect lie, Robin adds more details for her marriage story, which causes the violation of quantity maxim in this conversation

Ted: I think I might need a little bit more information about your wedding, like what month did you get married?

Robin: June We had a June wedding

Ted: Ah, Canada in June That’s a dream

Ted: Sit-down or buffet? It’s weird that you don’t remember

Robin: No, I just did not know how to answer because we did butlered hors

d'oeuvres in the atrium, but the actual dinner was a buffet in the food court featuring a filet mignon or a roasted potato - crusted salmon with a lobster scallion beurre blanc

Ted: Band or DJ

Robin: A string quartet played at the ceremony, but for the actual

reception, we had a seven-piece band We paid extra for the sax cause I just love that smooth alto sound

This time, Robin violates not only the quality maxim but also the quantity one Her lie is too informative as if the marriage had happened in Canada In other word, since Robin does not think that Ted already know the truth, so she keeps on breaking multi maxims to lie to Ted