FACULTY OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES

BACHELOR OF ARTS (HONOURS) ENGLISH WITH EDUCATION

YEAR 2 SEMESTER 3

BJES2033: INTRODUCTION TO DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

COURSEWORK 2: WRITTEN ASSIGNMENT 1

PAIRED TASK

ASSIGNMENT COVER SHEET

SUBMITTED BY:

SATVIN RAJ A/L SUMENDRAN 20WJR00853

TAN YEAN TAT 20WJR06088

TUTOR NAME: MS. YAHMINI A/P MARAPPAN

INDEX NO.: W23001JREU
DATE OF SUBMISSION: 6TH APRIL 2022
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title Page number

1.0 Introduction………………………………………………………………………. 1-2

1.1 Literature Review………………………………………………………………… 1-2
2.0 Research Objectives……………………………………………………………… 3
2.1 Research Questions………………………………………………………………. 3
2.2 Research Methodology…………………………………………………………… 3-4
3.0 Research Results…………………………………………………………………. 5

3.1 Maxim of Quality………………………………………………………………… 5

3.1.2 Flouting the Maxim of Quality…………………………………………………. 5
3.1.3 Evidence of Flouting the Maxim of Quality…………………………………… 6-10

3.3 Maxim of Relevance……………………………………………………………… 11

3.3.1 Flouting the Maxim of Relevance……………………………………………… 11
3.3.2 Evidence of Flouting the Maxim of Relevance………………………………… 11-19

4.0 Maxim of Manner…………………………………………………………………. 20

4.1.1 Flouting the Maxim of Manner…………………………………………………. 20
4.1.2 Evidence of Flouting the Maxim of Manner……………………………………. 20-22

5.0 Maxim of Quantity………………………………………………………………… 22

5.1.1 Flouting the Maxim of Quantity………………………………………………… 22
5.1.2 Evidence of Flouting the Maxim of Quantity…………………………………… 22-23

6.0 Strategies to Resolve Maxim Floutings…………………………………………… 24

6.1 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………….. 24
References………………………………………………………………………………. -

1
TITLE: THE STUDY OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF GRICE’S MAXIMS OF SPEECH
AND MAXIM OBSERVATIONAL FAILURES MADE BY MULTI ETHNIC NETIZENS

1.0 INTRODUCTION
The English language has successfully attained the status of global lingua franca. In this
scenario, the English language has significantly developed its textuality of pragmatics especially
in terms of conversational analysis in the domains of Discourse Analysis (Temirova, 2021).
Interlocutors hailing from native and non-native descents would integrate their linguistic-verbal
skills in daily conversation regardless of their fluency. However, there are certain rules and
regulations in human speech (Hossain, 2021) . These rules are “Grice Maxims of Speech” where
interlocutors would often apply or disregard the maxims in communication. Human beings
would occasionally violate, or flout the maxims of speech committing haphazard errors in their
conversation (Hussain, 2021 pp.33). Henceforth, this research identifies the different types of
Grice’s Maxims of Speech, classifications of maxim floutings committed by multiple speakers
and strategies to resolve the floutings of Gricean Maxims amongst Interlocutors.

1.1 LITERATURE REVIEW

1.2 Flouting of the maxim of quantity among interviewers in Ellen Degeneres Talk Show

An occurrence of flouting the maxim of quantity has occurred during an interview

session between the American philanthropist, Ellen Degeneres and the British songwriter Adele
Laurie Blue.

1
 The conversation between Ellen Degeneres and Adele illustrates the flouting of the
maxim of quantity. Flouting is committed within the domains of cooperative principle (CA) as
evidenced by the response Adele gives to the questions at that particular moment. Ellen queried
on whether Adele visited Disneyland for a simple response. Nonetheless, Adele flouted the
maxim of quantity by providing more information than required as details on her father passing
away and Belle’s appearance was unnecessary.

To encapsulate, the following studies in this Literature review have discovered flouting of
the maxim of quantity. To summarise, the past researchers have conducted an in-depth
examination within the scope of Gricean maxims, however there is still more research to be
done within the domains of discourse analysis.

2
2.0 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
This research shall encompass two different objectives as follows:
1. To identify the different types of Grice’s Maxim floutings and its characteristics among
the speakers in the chosen video.
2. To explore reasons and strategies on how to resolve Grice maxim floutings in the chosen
video.

2.1 RESEARCH QUESTIONS

This research will consists of two different questions as follows:
1. What are the different types of Grice’s maxim floutings and behavioural attitudes of
speakers in the chosen video?
2. What are the reasons and strategies to resolve the Grice’s maxim floutings among
speakers in the chosen video?

2.2 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

2.2.1 “Friends” video from Youtube
The American sitcom titled “Friends” was selected to provide instances of Grice’s
maxims and various instances of maxim observational failures in conversation among the
fictional characters. The total length of the video was 43 minutes however, this research only
seeks to analyse elements of Grice’s maxims present. Selection of this video sample has
discovered that female participants were more prone towards being emotional in conversation
compared to male participants during maxim observational failures.

2.2.2 Hemingway Desktop Software

The Hemingway software is also used in aiding the examination of words from the
sentences uttered by the participants. It helped the researchers to comprehend complex word
structures and slang that would enable the data to be presented in a grammatically accurate
manner.

3
2.2.3 Data extraction procedure
Findings of the different types of Grice maxims would be tabulated in the results section
to provide a clearer understanding to the reader. Besides that, the analysis of maxim
observational failures was achieved via observation, examining each dialogue line-by-line,
transcribing it in the results section as evidence. However, a strict guideline towards the rules of
maxims are adhered in the domains of discourse analysis (Paltridge, 2006).

3.0 RESEARCH RESULTS

The research methodology of this study birthed a tremendous amount of information
regarding the 4 types of maxim and further empirical evidence to further support the theories of
flouting maxims. The following set of dialogues have been extracted from the Youtube video
titled “Friends Best Moments from Season 2”. Narratives of dialogues have been provided to
ease the reader’s comprehension on perceiving the flouted maxims.

3.1 MAXIM OF QUALITY

In the field of Discourse Analysis, Cooperative Principle (CA) significantly upholds an
importance towards the four types of maxims which are the maxim of quality, maxim of manner,
maxim of quantity and the maxim of relevance. As mentioned by Schamberger, C., & Bülow,
(2021), the maxim of quality can be described as the ability of an individual to provide genuine
and justifiable details within a conversation. In further analysis, an adherence towards the maxim
of quality significantly contributes to a phenomenon of outstanding authenticity in a
conversation, while also creating genuine respect in behaviour towards the individual adhering to
it in the scope of quality.

3.1.2 FLOUTING THE MAXIM OF QUALITY

According to Hameed (2018), the success of a conversation entirely depends on the
ability of an individual to obey the rules of the maxims. In his further writings, maxims can
choose to be flouted either deliberately or unintentionally when an individual ceases to apply the
rules of the maxims in order to persuade their listeners to infer the hidden meanings and
definitions behind their utterances. The term flouting maxim of quality itself can be described as

4
openly disobeying the rules of being truthful in a speech where a speaker would choose to
adulterate the contents of his or her speech by creating false statements birthed from various
unsupported claims which lack truth validity.

3.2.3 EVIDENCES OF FLOUTING THE MAXIM OF QUALITY

The occurrences of flouting the maxim of quality is not only a phenomenon that can be
seen in real life, however, it can also be observed in the fields of entertainment industry as well.
It cannot be denied that the famous American Situational-Comedy drama titled “Friends”
strategically employed various scenarios of flouting the maxim of quality. Below here is
evidence of flouting the maxim of quality as seen by the dialogues.

The table above depicts the evidence of flouting the maxim of quality as evidenced by the
dialogues uttered by the fictional character, Monica, to her best friend Rachel. In this manner,
Monica was not saying anything true due to her nervousness of being caught red handed
accompanied with the lack of truth validity to support her statement. It is clear to the listener that
Monica’s utterance, “You know what probably happened? Someone must have stolen my credit
card” is a mere distraction to deflect the inquiries made by her suspicious friend Rachel when
she discovered a strange receipt of purchase in her coat’s pocket. Furthermore, the reply that
Monica uttered clearly demonstrates the use of deflection to conceal the surface truth of her

5
speech, as when Rachel questioned her regarding the cost of her meal being oddly expensive
despite Monica telling her that she went alone. Apart from that, the flouting can be plainly
proved through Rachel’s sarcastic reply as she is aware of the truth despite Monica’s attempt to
adulterate her speech with a lie.

The phenomenon of flouting the maxim of quality can also be observed in the dialogues
above from the same fictional characters, Monica and Rachel. In the scenario above, Monica’s
response towards the questions bombarded by her best friend Rachel is hampered due to the
amount of guilt felt as she herself was aware of her decision to denounce her own friend. It
cannot be denied that Monica's response towards Rachel’s questions are filled with filler words
as an attempt to produce deceitful responses. Nonetheless, her answers are filled with hysterical
properties of anxiety as she herself changes her answer with whom she went out with due to
feelings of highly strung anxiousness invading her neurological path of speech. For instance,
Monica constantly changes her response three times for the same question, “Judy?”, “Julie?”
and “Jodie?”. As cited by, Jalili (2019), Interlocutors would often violate the maxim of quality
by lying or twisting their responses as to avoid punishment or to conceal the evade the loss of
trust in someone.

6
 Conversational Implicatures between interlocutors via Discourse observation and analysis
provides evidence that the phenomenon of flouting the maxim of quality does not only occur
between female speakers but also between male speakers as well. The table above displays the
conversation between two male friends named Chandler and Joey respectively. However, only
the second speaker Joey commits flouting the maxim of quality as evidenced by the phrase “I’m
having a ball!”. It is undeniably clear to the viewers of this show that both Chandler and Joey
were once roommates prior to the eviction of the latter due to the room owner’s intolerance
towards homosexual relationships in his premises. The flouting statement can also be
contemplated as a form of verbal sarcasm regarding the mediocre living conditions of Joey’s
current room. However, flouting the maxim of quality via sarcasm may only be occasionally
understood by the speaker depending on their age and implicature maturity. Henceforth,
interlocutors would also flout the maxim of quality not only to conceal the truth but to also
display verbal sarcasm.

7
 The maxim of quality is continually flouted by several new fictional characters.
Apparently, the observation above proves that individuals may exercise extreme measures to
suppress the truth that flouts the maxim of quality. In a deeper perspective, flouting the maxim of
quality can also be creatively executed depending on the situational context and physical
amnesties available at that time of flouting. For instance, the fictional character Ross flouts this
maxim by lying to Kathy on what he was actually doing as evidenced by the phrase, “I’m getting
ready for water skiing” when he was actually secretly hiding another individual called Dr. King
behind a closed door. Furthermore, Chandler’s utterance flouts the maxim of quality to a lesser
extent by faking a conversation with Dr. King by, “Dr. King, where are you going?” even when
the latter seems to not want to be within their presence anymore after Ross’s interruption to their
conversation. Nonetheless, the first sentence of flouting shows a suppression of truth on a greater
degree made by Ross compared to Chandler.

8
 The final evidence for flouting the maxim of quality can be observed between the same
roommates named Joey and Chandler. Analysis of Conversational Implicatures certifies
phenomenons that speakers would also conceal the truth to not only avoid punishment, creating
verbal sarcasm and to avoid guilt, but to also exhibit boasting behavioural traits by uttering
pompous words that are not necessarily true in nature. Chandler was attempting to make a
pompous boast by implying that he would go to any extent as to display his annoyance over
Joey’s behaviour, going as far as even attempting to contemplate an illicit relationship with
Joey’s ‘wife’ Karen (which implied that Joey is acting that he has a wife) as evidenced by the
statement made by Chandler, “You know what, I just did!” Nonetheless, his actions proved to be
a falsified statement as observed via his next statement, “Oh no it’s not me, it’s my character!
Chandy '' demonstrated that he had not initiated an illicit relationship with his colleague’s ‘wife’
but it is merely a desire of his to show how Joey’s behaviour of believing that his ‘acting’
character is real is annoying him.

9
3.3 MAXIM OF RELEVANCE
Maxim of Relevance can be defined as utterance made by a speaker which is relevant to
the context of the conversation. One must not draw an inference or any information that is
irrelevant to the topic of the conversation. (Spector, 2013). Furthermore, the feature of relevance
is essential as it prevents incoherent contribution in the interpretation of speech in the domains of
discourse analysis. Therefore, an utterance must be spoken in relation to the topic of discussion.

3.3.1 FLOUTING THE MAXIM OF RELEVANCE

This research has extracted an abundance of flouting from the maxim of relevance. As
mentioned by Ibrahim et al (2018), flouting of the maxim of relevance is achieved when an
interlocutor desires to utter an irrelevant utterance deliberately with hidden reasons to conceal a
certain detail only to a certain degree. In simpler terminology, a speaker flouts the properties of
relevance to suppress a certain portion of information indirectly.

3.3.2 EVIDENCE FOR FLOUTING THE MAXIM OF RELEVANCE

The American Situational-Comedy drama titled “Friends” strategically employed an
abundance of flouting the maxim of relevance due to its humorous nature. Below here is
evidence of flouting the maxim of relevance as seen by the dialogues.

10
 The maxim of relevance is flouted by the same characters, Monica and Rachel. Analysis
from the table proves that individuals may utter irrelevant phrases to avoid directly answering a
question to flout the maxim of relevance. For instance, the situational context above proves that
fictional character Rachel flouts this maxim by answering a question that lacks coherence to the
conversation as evidenced by the phrase, “Okay, Okay!” in a stifled manner when actually she
was inquiring about the guilty Monica in the first place. Furthermore, Monica herself lacks the
notion to provide a suitable response towards Rachel’s question “Did you go with her to
Bloomingdales?” to which she maintained a long silent pause to avoid answering the truth
directly. To encapsulate, the responses provided by both Monica and Rachel display a certain
discrepancy in relevance towards the first question posed by Rachel.

Observation from the table above depicts that Joey has uttered an irrelevant response to
avoid directly stating the reason on why he does not want to live alone, which subsequently
flouts the maxim of relevance. In a deeper perspective, the situational context above proves that
Joey might be regretting his decision to live alone in the first place itself, as to spend some
quality alone time for himself. Currently, he is facing a certain difficulty in living alone.
However, his response to Monica, lacks coherence to the question of his initial agreement to live

11
alone in the first place. For instance, Joey himself lacks opinions to provide a relevant response
towards Monica’s question as evidenced by his response, ”I figured it have like, time alone with
my thoughts but you know, turns out, I don’t have as many thoughts as you’d think!”. In this
scenario, Joey himself is unable to justify his reasons in a coherent way on why he is unable to
live alone To summarise, the conversation above proves that Joey is attempting to indirectly
conceal the true reason on why he has issues living alone to Monica subsequently flouting the
maxim of relevance.

Rules of conversational analysis clearly describes that interlocutors should not provide an
irrelevant or redundant response towards a question raised. The conversation above demonstrates
the redundancy of the fictional character Rachel, when she is being questioned by a new
character Phoebe on if she is aware of the choice of her decision in her life. As evidenced by the
phrase given by Rachel, “Ha hum.. Waitressing?” is a light-hearted response towards Phoebe as
she was currently serving food to the customers at the coffee shop. On normal terms, Phoebe’s
question“Okay so you know what you’re doing right?” would not be raised to ask on trivial
matters that involve subjective physical actions such as waitressing, however it involves higher
psychological aspects of the human mind such as relationships. To encapsulate, the reply given

12
by Rachel flouts the maxim of relevance as she did not address Phoebe's question seriously and
answered with a response not befitting the context of the question.

The phenomenon of flouting the maxim of relevance may occur on a bizarre scale should
the response of the interlocutor is influenced by his or her feelings of frustration, anger, sadness
or remorse in a conversation. A single response provided by the fictional character Monica
towards Ross manifests a strong dislike or disfavour towards Ross as he was not deemed
responsible for looking after his girlfriend, Phoebe who was also Monica’s companion. Monica
provided not only an irrelevant but a bizarre reply towards Ross’s question concerning Phoebe’s
recent upset mood swing as evidenced by the phrase, “ Oh! She’s just upset because she, uh.. just
buttered a spider into her toast this morning!” Under normal circumstances, human beings
living in the city would not attempt to consume poisonous arachnids such as spiders in their
mealtimes, where domestic food sources are largely abundant. To summarise, Monica’s attempt
to cover Phoebe's shock caused her to flout the maxim of relevance by hinting that Phoebe ate a
buttered eight-legged arachnid spider into her toast this morning to express that Ross should
dismiss Phoebe's utterance as being not related to him.

13
 The table above illustrates a casual conversation between a fictional Mother named Ellen
and her son Ross. Critical analysis on the utterance made by Ross plainly proves the
phenomenon of flouting the maxim of relevance. In this scenario, Ellen casually questions Ross
if Monica could or might be spending time with someone else. However, Ross is unable to
provide a relevant explanation as evidenced by his reply, “Mom, there are so many people in my
life, some of them are seeing people and some of them aren't. Is that crystal? From a critical
viewpoint, his response displayed significant levels of irrelevant information such as on the
amount of people he is seeing in his life and his redundant questioning on the object “is that
crystal”. Nonetheless, such types of response greatly bemused his Mother whilst creating
humour among the audiences. To encapsulate, Ross flouted the maxim of relevance as he did not
clearly mention whether Monica was being with another person.

14
 Flouting of the maxim of relevance does not only occur in conversations to display
sarcasm, feelings of sadness or remorse but an irrelevant response may also indicate an
unfavourable response at times given by the situational context. The table above displays the
conversation between Chandler and Phoebe concerning Chandler’s attempt to find out the
virginity and pregnancy status of his new possible girlfriend. However, her reply created an
extreme discontent to Chandler despite it flouted the maxim of relevance as her reply on what
her methods of birth control was, “My husband sleeps with his secretary”. Therefore it became
clear to both Chandler and Phoebe that although the woman he was attempting to create a
relationship with may appear to preserve her virginity, she was married to another man. Besides
that, her husband is currently having an extramarital sexual affair with his secretary. Nonetheless,
none of these responses provide a coherent relevance on what are the methods of that woman in
her birth control. To summarise, Chandler’s online girlfriend, deliberately flouted the maxim of
relevance as to indirectly avoid another intimate relationship hinting that she is currently
married.

15
 A conversational implicature is essential for a speaker to effectively comprehend the
intended meanings behind an utterance. Adherence to the maxim of relevance is crucial to avoid
a sentence being interpreted as irrelevant. From the perspective of the two fictional characters,
Ross and Rachel, he provided an irrelevant response towards the question raised in frustration by
Phoebe as evidenced by the phrase, “You, you know..I-I don’t have them or a-a problem with
that”. It became clear to the audience that this sentence created a sexual humour as it could be
misinterpreted as a sexual act by Phoebe’s phrase “blow”. However, Phoebe needed to rejustify
her actions, that desire was only to be left alone for the time being as she wanted to spend some
quality time with her other friends, due to Ross’s irrelevant reply of him having no problem with
a possible sexual act and obliges. To summarise, it can be concluded that both parties must make
their statements clear as to avoid flouting the maxim of relevance.

16
 The domains of discourse analysis places frequent stress towards not flouting the maxim
of relevance. In the conversation above, the fictional character Phoebe deliberately flouted the
maxim of relevance in frustration towards her own best friend Monica whom she caught her
cheating on having a sexual affair as evidenced by her dialogue,”Oh.. I don’t know? How about
the fact that the underwear out there on the telephone pole is yours from when you were having
sex with Fun Bobby out on the terrace?!” Although Phoebe’s response was to apprehend Monica
for being involved an a secret sexual affair, she herself flouted the maxim of relevance as her
reply was not coherent with Monica’s question “What have I not told you?” However, this
flouting may be debatable as Monica may choose to conceal the personal details of her sex life
even from her best friend. To summarise, Phoebe flouted the maxim of relevance as she openly
confronted a personal aspect of Monica’s life irrelevantly.

17
 The final example for flouting the maxim of relevance occurs in a conversation between
Monica and a random unnamed Janitor from the show “Friends”. The table above depicts that the
Janitor provides irrelevant information to Monica on the reason why his coworker may have
died. His response towards the coworker’s possible death was, “Uh, he must have been sweepin’.
They found a broom in his hand” and “I know, I was sweepin’ yesterday. Could have been me”.
In simple terms, the Janitor may choose to indirectly conceal the true reason on why his
coworker has died as a euphemistic approach to suppress the possibly violent nature of the
coworker’s death. Nonetheless, his responses were deemed to be irrelevant as it clearly flouted
the maxim of relevance.

18
4.0 MAXIM OF MANNER
The Maxim of Manner as cited by Hee & Cheung (2009), can be described as, a speech
being uttered in a perspicuous manner which requires interlocutors to avoid obscurity of
expression, and ambiguity in conversations. Besides that it also requires interlocutors to speak in
an orderly manner by not displaying unnecessary prolixity. In simple terms, the maxim of
manner requires one to be brief.

4.1.1 FLOUTING THE MAXIM OF MANNER

Grice’s principles describe that the maxim of manner is in relation to how a topic is being
uttered in a conversation. Nonetheless, it may also be flouted by interlocutors. In their further
writings, (Hee & Cheung 2009 pp.6) mentioned that this maxim may be flouted via disruption in
the order presentation of information, creation of vagueness and ambiguity, obscure choice of
words and also by the indecent behavioural attitudes and facial expressions of a speaker.

4.1.2 EVIDENCE OF FLOUTING THE MAXIM OF MANNER

In the American-Situational comedy “Friends” , there are undoubtedly instances where
the maxim of manner is flouted. The timing of such sentences are often used for comedic
purposes where the phrases used to exaggerate awkward situations. Below are some examples of
this happening.

19
 In the conversation between, Ross, one of the main cast of the show and Russ. The table
above depicts Russ providing unnecessary use of the filler word “uh” in his sentences.
Normally, the usage of filler words are used by the interlocutor as a way to keep the spoken
discourse going while still thinking about what is to be said. However, when Russ peppered his
response, “I’m uh..kinda uh..kind of uh.. You know uh..date type, thing of Rachel” with four
usages of the filler words ‘uh’, the flow of the conversation is disrupted. Russ’s anxious,
unstructured response to Ross’s question implied ‘who are you to Rachel?” This creates a highly
awkward scene . Due to the way Russ replied to this question in such a drawled out manner, he
failed to concisely state his relationship status with Rachel to Ross. Thus, he is unable to
properly convey his the information “I am Rachel’s boyfriend,” clearly and briefly which shows
a flouting of the Maxim of Manner.

Another example of the flouting of the maxim of manner is found in this example where
Chandler responds to Phoebe’s statement that one of her old clients died when she was
massaging them. Chandler’s of “Well, that’s a little more relaxed than you want them to get!” is
not only inappropriate to Phoebe's sombre tone but also ambiguous as the sentence can also
mean to denote somebody has accidentally caused somebody to fall asleep. Hence, the way
Chandler speaks implies that he does not empathise with Phoebe's plight as he is making a joke
about it. All in all, Chandler flouted the Maxim of Manner as although his sentence is clear the
context does not suit the situation at hand.

20
5.0 MAXIM OF QUANTITY
As mentioned by Hee & Cheung (2009) described in another document that the maxim of
quantity requires an interlocutor to make their utterance as informative as required depending on
the depth of the question raised for the purpose to maximise speech comprehension. Therefore, it
also requires the interlocutor to only make utterance informative as required by the level of
question raised. In simple terms, the maxim of quantity refers to the appropriate amount of
information presented in conversations.

5.1.1 FLOUTING THE MAXIM OF QUANTITY

As further examined in (Hee & Cheung 2009 pp. 3-4) the maxim of quantity may be
flouted should the interlocutors fail to provide an appropriate volume of information to the
question raised that leaves room for further doubt. However, it may also be flouted should the
interlocutor choose to provide excessive, unnecessary information to the question raised that
makes both the response redundant and the other interlocutor perplexed.

21
5.1.2 EVIDENCE OF FLOUTING THE MAXIM OF QUANTITY
Evidence of flouting of the Maxim of Quantity to establish comedic timing is also present
in the American sitcom “Friends”. Below are examples of the flouting of the Maxim of Quality.

In the conversation between Phoebe and Mr. Edelman, the Maxim of Quality is flouted
by Mr. Edelmen due to him providing irrelevant information to Phoebe's questions in a humorous
manner. His response to Phoebe's greeting is to reply in kind followed by a scathing but
humorous remark of “you did cut into my very busy day of sitting” which pokes fun at his old
age while making it unnecessarily hard for Phoebe to know how to respond to the phrase. He
also did the same when Phoebe politely asked him if he would prefer to sit on the chair. Mr.
Edelmen, once again replies to her question stating he would decline followed by another
similarly phrased remark of “I spent most of mid-morning trying to stand up” that also makes it
difficult for Phoebe to respond to his statement. This might have been done in order to tease
Phoebe since she seemed too tense during the conversation and he is trying to lighten up the
mood by making her laugh. Although Phoebe, being as serious as she is at the moment, fails to
reciprocate his efforts. Hence, Mr. Edelman deliberately flouted the Maxim of Quantity by
providing unnecessary supporting information to his replies to Phoebe's polite greetings.

22
6.0 STRATEGIES TO RESOLVE MAXIM FLOUTING
Human beings are in no doubt susceptible towards the act of lying, obscuring, being
irrelevant and in certain cases, providing unnecessary responses in a conversation. Humans tend
to flout maxims to save their reputation while trying to avoid hurting another individual’s
feelings and to hide their own misdeeds to prevent significant conflicts, (Comaford, 2022).
Maxim floutings can be resolved by avoiding justifying dishonest opinions by lying (Cherry,
2021). Furthermore, analyse facts before uttering a statement to be as relevant as possible.
Additionally, avoid providing under-information or excessive information by replying
appropriately to questions raised.

6.1 CONCLUSION
In conclusion, this research has extracted a total of 17 maxim floutings with 5 floutings
from the maxim of quality, 9 floutings from the maxim of relevance and 2 floutings each
respectively from the maxim of quantity and manner. Nonetheless, this research also witnesses
several limitations as it was conducted in a qualitative manner where narratives could only be
analysed from the researchers’ perspective. Besides that, it also lacks quantitative numerical
outputs. Thus, maxims pack a powerful impact in daily conversation and connect us as human
beings.

23
REFERENCES

Cherry, K. (2021). How to Stop Lying. Verywell Mind.

https://www.verywellmind.com/how-to-stop-lying-5190954.

Comaford, C. (2022). Why We Lie, And The Neuroscience Behind It. Forbes.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/christinecomaford/2020/10/17/why-we-lie-and-the-neuroscience-b
ehind-it/?sh=695ba2967d7c.

Hossain, M. (2021). The Application of Grice Maxims in Conversation: A Pragmatic

Study. Journal Of English Language Teaching And Applied Linguistics, 3(10), 32-40.
https://doi.org/10.32996/jeltal.2021.3.10.4

Hee, W., & Cheung, W. (2009). Maxim of Manner [Ebook] (pp. 1-6). Hong Kong Baptist
University.https://digital.lib.hkbu.edu.hk/linguisticglossary/PDF-HO/Maxim%20of%20Manner.p
df.

Hee, W., & Cheung, W. (2009). Maxim of Quantity [Ebook] (pp. 1-4). Hong Kong Baptist
University.https://digital.lib.hkbu.edu.hk/linguisticglossary/PDF-HO/Maxim%20of%20Quantity.
pdf.

Hameed, H. (2018). Using Speech Acts And Maxims In Selected Summary Leads In
News Web-version Of American Agencies :, A Pragmatic Study. 79 ,‫آداب الكوفة‬.
https://doi.org/10.36317/0826-010-035-023

Ibrahim, Z., Arifin, M., & Setyowati, R. (2018). The Flouting of Maxims in Se7en Movie
Script. Jurnal Ilmu Budaya, 2(1), 84-90.

Jalili, C. (2019). How to Tell If Someone Is Lying to You, According to Body Language
Experts. Time. https://time.com/5443204/signs-lying-body-language-experts/.

Paltridge, B. (2006). Discourse analysis (p. 134). Continuum

Spector, B., 2013. Maxims of Conversation. Linguistics.

 Schamberger, C., & Bülow, L. (2021). Grice and Kant on Maxims and Categories.
Philosophia. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-021-00398-4

Temirova, F. (2021). The concept of discourse analysis in linguistics Artistic discourse

and discourse analysis. International Journal Of Multidisciplinary Research And Analysis,
04(11). https://doi.org/10.47191/ijmra/v4-i11-37

World, C. (2021). Friends Best Moments From Season 2 [Video]. from

https://youtu.be/7rDeTPxIz-Q.

Zebua, E., Rukmini , D., & Salleh , M. (2017). The Violation and Flouting of Cooperative
Principles in the Ellen Degeneres Talk Show. Journal of Language and Literature , 12(1 ), 1–11.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.15294/lc.v12i1.11474
 BJES2033 INTRODUCTION TO
DISCOURSE ANALYSIS CW2
SESSION 2022
by SATVIN RAJ A/L SUMENDRAN

Submission date: 06-Apr-2022 08:30PM (UTC+0800)

Submission ID: 1803310267
File name: TURNITIN_DRAFT_FOR_DISCOURSE_ANALYSIS_CW2.pdf (891.19K)
Word count: 4684
Character count: 24502
1
 6

1
 1

1
5
4
3
2
7
3
1
BJES2033 INTRODUCTION TO DISCOURSE ANALYSIS CW2
SESSION 2022
ORIGINALITY REPORT

4 %
SIMILARITY INDEX
3%
INTERNET SOURCES
1%
PUBLICATIONS
%
STUDENT PAPERS

PRIMARY SOURCES

1
eprints.iain-surakarta.ac.id
Internet Source 1%
2
uncutfriendsepisodes.tripod.com
Internet Source 1%
3
theonewithallthesnark.blogspot.com
Internet Source 1%
4
blog.livedoor.jp
Internet Source 1%
5
play.howstuffworks.com
Internet Source 1%
6
Cauã Antunes Westmann, María-Eugenia
Guazzaroni, Rafael Silva-Rocha. "Engineering
<1 %
Complexity in Bacterial Regulatory Circuits for
Biotechnological Applications", mSystems,
2018
Publication

7
Fendy Aji Setiawan, Havika Haryani. "An
Analysis of Maxim Flouting in Pokémon:
<1 %
Detective Pikachu Movie", PROJECT
 (Professional Journal of English Education),
2020
Publication

Exclude quotes Off Exclude matches Off

Exclude bibliography Off