Maryhill College, Inc.

Observable Online Conversational Flouting in the Gricean's Cooperative Maxim's:

The Case of BSED II English at Maryhill College "

A Thesis
Presented to the Faculty of
The College of Teacher Education
Maryhill College
Lucena City

In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Bachelor of Secondary Education
Major in English

Aurin, Charmaine
Domanais, Dan Jovy Kaye
Lupo, Ma. Louann Heart
Marquese, Stefany Aina
Eroles, Ryan

2022
 Maryhill College, Inc.
Table of Contents
Title Page
TITLE PAGE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT
CHAPTERS
I INTRODUCTION -
Theoretical Framework -
Research Questions -
Research Simulacrum -
II METHODOLOGY -
Research Design -
Research Instrument -
Data Collection -
Method/s of Analysis -
III RESULTS AND ANALYSIS OF DATA -
IV DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS -
Discussion
Conclusions
REFERENCES -
APPENDICES
 Maryhill College, Inc.
ABSTRACT

This study aims to describe how the BSED II English major students flout
conversational maxims in messages. In this study, the source is taken from messages
that are sent via a messenger app because nowadays most people do communication
with others using mobile phone. This study uses Grice’s theory of cooperative principle
is used especially the flouting of maxims (maxim of quantity, maxim of quality, maxim of
relevance, and maxim of manner). All kinds of those flouting that exist in messages are
analyzed, which are delivered by the respondents. This research uses qualitative
descriptive. The conversations produced by the respondents, when they were
conversing with each other that is flouted were analyzed and described. The data of the
research were data that is collected from the conversational messages, which contain
flouting performed by BSED II English Major students. The result of the research shows
that in maxim of quantity, they flout by adding more information and giving a little
information. In maxim of relevance, the participants flouted it by saying irrelevant
responses. In maxim of manner, moreover, the participants flouted it by saying
convoluted words which are extremely long-winded. The conversational maxim is mostly
flouted by the participants (sender and receiver) in the short massages is maxim of
quantity. It is flouted by adding more information. The result of the research shows that
in maxim of quantity, they flout by adding more information and giving a little information.
In maxim of quality, all of the participants flout it by saying what they believed false. In
maxim of relevance, the participants flouted it by saying irrelevant responses. In maxim
of manner, moreover, the participants flouted it by saying convoluted words which are
extremely long-winded. The conversational maxim is mostly flouted by the respondents
in the conversational massages is maxim of quantity. It is flouted by adding more
information.
 Maryhill College, Inc.
CHAPTER I
This chapter present the introduction, Theoretical Framework, Research Questions and
Research Simulacrum
INTRODUCTION
The rise in the use of the internet has led to many changes in our daily lives. In
particular, this rise has also led to the rise of online conversational flouting. In
communication, there is an exchange of ideas that are realized through experience or
known information that is shared in writing or even orally with the interlocutor. In oral
communication, the words exchanged must be meaningful and clear in order for the
conversation to be successful and flow smoothly. Conversations allow the exchange of
information between a speaker and a hearer. If one engages in a conversation, he or
she is expected to respond by giving the needed information in order to make the
conversation meaningful. When people pronounce or type words, they usually do not
realize that there are variations or mistakes that should not be used or said. The errors
can cause misunderstandings in the conversation and be the cause of misinformation for
those who are left out or even for the listeners.
This study aims to observe the online conversational flouting in the Gricean's
Cooperative Maxims. To be more specific, there are four maxims under this general
principle: the maxims of quantity, quality, relation, and manner. However, the
researchers thought carefully about including the maxim of quality because most people
today are not able to provide proper and credible information, nor can it be said to be
truthful if it is only read. The researchers have decided not to include the maxims of
quality because they may be biased or manipulated due to the lack of conversation that
is aligned with the maxims of quality. That’s why the researcher will focus on the three
maxims: quantity, relation, and manner.
The linguistic philosopher Paul Grice’s Cooperative Principles points that in
ordinary conversation both parties share a cooperative principle which serves to promote
comprehension and understanding. In other words, the participants seem to follow some
principles like the following: “Make your conversational contribution such as is required,
at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange
in which you are engaged” (Grice, 1989:26). Moreover, Grice said that cooperative
 Maryhill College, Inc.
principles can lead the speakers and hearers to uncooperative conversation and
misunderstanding about the message delivered (Grice: 1989).
Grice (1975:45) who proposed those maxims, said that people should obey those
maxims in order to have an effective communication without any miscommunication. In
fact, sometimes people deliberately flout and hedge the maxims but it does not lead to
miscommunication. Flouting a maxim is a particular silent way of getting an address to
draw inference and hence recovers an implicature (Grundy, 2000:78). There are all sorts
of reasons to flout of maxims. Sometimes one is faced with clash of maxims and
chooses simply to drop one, sometimes one is not in position to say what the maxim
requires, or is obliged to say something that the maxim forbids.
According to Cook (1989:31-32) there are meaning derives from deliberate
violations. It can be happened in many ways. Quality flout, when communication
degenerates into lying, or simply breaks down altogether. Quantity flout, when we say
more than we need to mark a sense of occasion or respect, and when we say less than
we need, perhaps to be rude or blunt. Relation flout, when communication turns into
signal embarrassment or a desire to change the subject. Manner flout, when the
information shared makes ambiguity, or it is violated either for humor.
Some students made the violation since every student had different background,
skill, ability and so on. The violation occurred in the opening, middle and the end of
learning process. The violations that done by the students such as responding the
teacher’s utterance indirectly, no respond at all to the teacher, and so on. A meaningful
and effective conversation can be created through the cooperative principle which can
avoid the misunderstanding and misinterpretation between teacher and students

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

The study of how context affects meaning is done through the linguistic discipline
of pragmatics. According to Yule (1996, p. 3), pragmatics is the field of study that
focuses on the speaker's meaning. As a result, it has more to do with analyzing what
individuals intend when they speak than it does with determining what the words or
phrases used in those utterances might signify on their own. The study of pragmatics
focuses on how context affects what people say and what their intentions are in a given
 Maryhill College, Inc.
setting. This necessitates paying attention to how speakers align what they intend to
convey with what is said. This necessitates paying attention to how speakers align what
they intend to convey with what is said. This necessitates taking into account how
presenters organize their intended message in accordance with the audience, venue,
timing, and environment in which they communicate. As a result, pragmatics can be
summed up as the study of the meaning that speakers communicate through context.

Herbert Paul Grice developed the Cooperative Principle in his article Logic and
Conversation. Harvard University Press released the book for the first time in 1989.
Make your conversational contribution such as is required, at the point at which it occurs,
by the acknowledged purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are
engaged, according to Grice (1989, p. 26). According to Grice, the cooperative principle
requires that the speaker participate as is necessary given the circumstances of the
dialogue. It alludes to the efforts people make to make their speech flow. To have an
effective discussion, the speaker and the hearer must cooperate. To make the
cooperative concepts acceptable, Grice developed rules for conversing effectively and
successfully. Conversational maxims are a term used to describe these rules. Grice
categorized the 13 principles of conversational cooperation into four groups. Those are
maxims of quantity, maxims of quality, maxims of relation, and maxims of manner.

Grice (1975) proposed that speech is based on common cooperative principles,

and his work on cooperative principles (CP) led to the development of pragmatics as a
distinct field within linguistics. It has been argued that the primary purpose of
communication in pragmatics is to give and receive information. Humans, therefore,
always seek cooperative behavior to communicate their concerns and intentions, and to
implicitly convey their utterances.
Grice (1975) argued that the process of generating and perceiving these
implications is based on the following principles:
"Contribute to the conversation at the stage in which it occurs, as required by the
accepted purpose or direction of the conversational exchange in which you are
engaged." Based on the assumption that there is a difference. This means that speakers
can create implied meanings and listeners can discern the intended meaning of speech.
 Maryhill College, Inc.
Furthermore, he argues that participants unconsciously follow certain rules and patterns
in conversation.
Under the general umbrella of the “cooperative principle,” Grice (1975)
distinguishes more specific maxims:
1. Quantity-Speaker’s contribution is as informative as required.
2. Quality-Speaker tells the truth or provides adequate evidence for his/her statement.
3. Relation-Speaker’s response is relevant to the topic of conversation.
4. Manner-Speaker speaks straightforwardly and clearly and avoids ambiguity and
obscurity.
These maxims identify a particular set of patterns in interaction and speakers are
expected to make their utterances informative, truthful, clear and relevant. Grandy
(1989) cited Grice’s argument that each step in a conversational exchange can be
analyzed in terms of whether it conforms to the maxims or not. There are four
possibilities: in the most straightforward case, all maxims are obeyed; in the most
devious case, a maxim is disobeyed but without the knowledge of the other participant.
However, the researchers thought carefully about including the maxim of quality
because most people today are not able to provide proper and credible information, nor
can it be said to be truthful if it is only read. The researchers have decided not to include
the maxims of quality because they may be biased or manipulated due to the lack of
conversation that is aligned with the maxims of quality. A different case is one where a
participant overtly opts.

Another case is when a maxim is flouted, that is, it is disobeyed not secretly but
by a clearly nonconforming performance. Even though the successful communication
can occur by means of obeying the maxims, there is still a problem when a speaker
does not follow the rules of maxims. It is called non-observance of the maxim that occurs
because of disobedience towards maxims while the failure to observe a maxim called
breaking maxim (Agustina and Ariyanti, 2016). Generally, a speaker has particular
purposes in braking maxim that he or she wants to achieve. For this reason, a speaker
needs to have extra knowledge and be aware of interpreting something. There are four
breaking maxims developed by Grice. They are flouting, violating, infringing, opting out,
and suspending (Thomas, 2013). From the four breaking maxims, Grice (as cited in
 Maryhill College, Inc.
Agustina and Ariyanti, 2016) states flouting and violating are the most frequently used
failure that occur in conversation every day.
According to Cutting (2002) flouting happens when a speaker fails in observing
the maxim but expecting a hearer to recognize the implied meaning. Meanwhile,
violating happens in order to deceive a hearer with letting the hearer only knows the
surface meaning of an utterance. They intentionally violate the maxims in order to
communicate extra or implied meaning. According to him, violation of any maxim creates
conversational implicatures; and it is the task of the hearer to infer the implied additional
meaning.
A purpose of an utterance will be involved in the communication process.
Several studies have analyzed some purposes of using flouting and violating toward
maxim of quality through context, such as Shofiyah (2015), Prativi (2012) and Tupan and
Natalia (2008). The purposes of using flouting the maxim of quality in utterance include
to strengthen opinion or to convince someone, this purpose is used to make a hearer
want to believe toward something that is said by speaker. Then, to express feeling such
as show anger or show love, it is used to show speaker to a hearer. There are also the
purposes to insult someone, to tease someone, and to keep feeling. Meanwhile,
violating towards maxim of quality has a purpose to keep secret which means the
speaker does not want everybody knows the truth. Then, there is also the purpose to
avoid embarrassment, which is used to save the image of a speaker.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Following Grice’s Cooperative Principle, this paper aims to explore how online
conversations flouted on Group chat using messenger adhere to the maxims forwarded
by Grice. Specifically, it aims to provide answers to the following questions:
1. What are the observable Gricean cooperative maxims?
1.1 Quantity
1.2 Relation
1.3 Manner
2. How do the BSED II English students flout or violate the online conversation?
3. What is the highest percentage of observable online conversational flouting in the
Gricean's Cooperative Maxims?
 Maryhill College, Inc.

RESEARCH SIMULACRUM

Observable Online Conversational Flouting in the Gricean's Cooperative

Maxim's: The Case of BSED II English at Maryhill College

-The relativity of 1) access Messenger and scroll

Observable Online on the group chat
Conversational conversations;
Flouting in the
2) Once the conversations have
Gricean's Cooperative
been seen, the researchers will
Maxim's
take a picture, or so-called
- Origin of the context "screenshot," of the
of Online conversation that is violate of
flouted.
Conversational
Flouting 3) The researcher will begin to
identify the flouted
conversation by categorizing
the selected raw data into the
maxim's flouting types.

.4) The researcher will analyze

the result by getting the
percentage of the flouting in
the conversation
 Maryhill College, Inc.
CHAPTER II

METHODOLOGY
This chapter presents research design, research Instrument, data collection and
Method/s of Analysis

RESEARCH DESIGN
This study used a qualitative research method to analyze the statements found in
a group chat moderated by BSED II English students using Messenger. The qualitative
research method allows the researcher to stay close to the empirical world. By observing
the students who talk daily in the group chat about life, studies, stories, love life, and
even the document they are working on, the qualitative researcher gets first-hand
knowledge of social life that is not filtered (Taylor, 2016). In this study, conversations can
be observed that are realistic for each student. They don't realize that their conversation
can also be turned into a study to know the different type of maxims and also check the
flouting words that they presented or messaged to their fellow students using messenger
app.

RESPONDENTS OF THE STUDY

This study used a non-probability sampling wherein the respondents are chosen
based on their course, year level and school. According on methodology series module
5(2016), a non-probability sampling is based on researcher’s choice, population that
accessible and available. The setting of this research is conducted within the premises
of Maryhill College, Lucena City. This study included eighteen (18) respondents who
were Bachelor of Secondary Education Major in English 2nd year. students.

RESEARCH INSTRUMENT
The instrument of this research is group chat using the Messenger; this is what
the researcher found. It is not hidden from everyone's knowledge that the Messenger is
one of the most popular and frequently used to communicate with family, friends,
classmates, teachers, and even in communication internationally. More people utilize
that app because the message or information process is fast, and it is also the best tool
 Maryhill College, Inc.
to scrutinize the various maxims and flouting in the conversation that student’s message
in response to their classmates.

DATA COLLECTION
The study focuses on conversations that are posted as messages by messenger
users, this occurs naturally because conversations are natural but shared from the
perspective of the person who posted them. There is a slight twist to the data that this
paper focuses on because it is already written as Messenger shares. However, this data
comes from situations that exist without the intervention of researchers. Hence, in the
gathering of data, the researcher had to do the following: 1) Access Messenger and
scroll on the group chat conversations; the researcher had to visit the group chat of
BSED II English students to see the conversations posted from September 1, 2022, until
the end of the month of October 2022, which is the collection of data. 2) Once the
conversations have been seen, the researchers will take a picture, or so-called
"screenshot," of the conversation that is violate of flouted. 3) The researcher will begin to
identify the flouted conversation by categorizing the selected raw data into the maxim's
flouting types. 4) The researcher will analyze the result by getting the percentage of the
flouting in the conversation.

Method/s of Analysis
The researcher will use the method of descriptive qualitative analysis. The main
goal of this research is to observe the online conversational flouting in the Gricean' s
Cooperative Maxims using the group chat of BSED II English students. After the
conversations were screenshotted and made part of the data, the exchanges were then
analyzed to see whether the conversational messages, violated any of the Gricean
maxims of Conversation; quantity, relation, and manner. Hence, all messages were
explored, noting the criteria set by Grice (1975) as seen below.
MAXIM VIOLATING THE MAXIMS
QUANTITY • If the message is circumlocutionary or not to the point,
• If the message is uninformative
• If the message is too short
• If the message is too much 
 Maryhill College, Inc.
• If the message repeats certain words
RELATION • If the message makes the conversation unmatched with the topic
• If the message changes the conversation topic abruptly
• If the message avoids talking about something
• If the message hides something or hides a fact
• If the message has the wrong causality
MANNER • If the message is using ambiguous language
• If the message exaggerates things
• if the message is in slang and the student does not understand it
• If the message is not relevant enough to the topic that they discuss

SCOPE AND LIMITATION OF THE STUDY

The observable online conversational flouting of 2 nd year English Major students
in the Gricean's Cooperative Maxim's was investigated in this research. The purpose of
this research was to analyze the conversational flouting in the Maxims of conversation.
We study and observe the types and reasons of the flouting maxim in conversation used
by 2nd year English Major students at Maryhill College. The researcher used Gricean‘s
cooperative principle (1989). The researcher limited the analysis of the flouting maxim by
only focusing on sentences and phrases use in the conversation via messenger app.

ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
During conducting the study, different ethical consideration is considered. The
first and the foremost important ethical consideration which is followed in this study is the
respect towards the study participants. It is because participants in the study form a
foundation for different ethical principles. On the basis of this ethical consideration, it is
the right of the participants to be treated as human beings who have the right to be
respected in a significant manner. Generally, participants are not merely a way of
collecting required information. Another ethical consideration followed in the study is free
will to participate in the study and informed consent. Apart of this, complete freedom is
assigned to them regarding their participation in the study process (E. Smythe, 2000).
Furthermore, another important and significant ethical consideration adopted in the
research is privacy, confidentiality, and anonymity. These guided the study in the
 Maryhill College, Inc.
accomplishment of its objective. The confidentiality and privacy are focused more by the
respondent. It is because these are the foremost and prior consideration for the
researcher. Before data collection in the field, the researcher will seek permission from
the respondent because the data that will be collected is from them. The researcher will
ensure that all respondents voluntarily participate in the study and the information
collected will be kept confidentially.
 Maryhill College, Inc.
CHAPTER III
RESULTS AND ANALYSIS OF DATA

This part focuses on a deeper explanation of the data obtained. In this research,
the researcher focused on discussing the results of the data analysis related to types of
flouting maxims and reasons for committing the flouting maxims by BSED 2 nd year
English Major students of Maryhill College using Gricean cooperative principles (1989).

Data analysis is described as follows:

1. Data reduction
Data reduction was the first step used to select the relevant data so that the
researcher could easily focus on the primary concerns. The researcher then reviewed
the data that has been collected by underlining the sentences and trying to match the
respondents conversation and their floutings. If it was found that the data did not match
the criteria, then the data was separated from the core data. This was a process for the
reduction and transformation of raw data.

2. Data identification
The researcher began to identify this research by categorizing the selected raw
data into the maxim's flouting types. The table below shows the researcher's classifying
raw data for analysis.

Table 1. Raw Data of Flouting Maxims

DATE TYPES OF MAXIMS CONVERSATION

 Maryhill College, Inc.

The coding systems will be as below:

 Date: The date of the data taken.

 Types of Maxims: The type of maxim that the students flout.

 Conversation: The research data.

3. Data interpretation
The researcher began to analyze the research data by compiling the
respondent's conversation messages above and writing down the analysis below.
Afterwards, the researcher systematically arranged it to get the percentage of the
flouting in the conversation. The researcher made a little interpretation in arranging of
how the respondents flout the maxim of conversation based on Gricean‘s (1989)
cooperative principles so that the reason was more structured without changing the
contents in it.

4. Conclusion
At the end of the analysis, the researcher concluded on the maxim's flouting types
and how the BSED II English Major students flouted the maxim.

The types of flouting in the conversation maxims used by the English department
students are; flouting the maxim of quantity, flouting the maxim of relation and flouting
the maxim of manner. The frequency of flouting the maxim of quantity 32 times, flouting
the maxim of relation 13 times, and flouting the maxim of manner 5 times. Within this
result, the researcher found that flouting the maxim of quantity was the most frequently
used by the students. The most frequently flouted maxim used by the English
department student was the maxim of quantity.

Table 4.1. A Total Frequency and Percentage of Types of Flouting Maxims

 Maryhill College, Inc.

Sept.1 – Oct. 30, 2022

No. Type of Flouting Maxims Frequency %
1 Flouting Maxim of Quantity 32 76%
2 Flouting Maxim of Relation 13 18%
3 Flouting Maxim of Manner 5 6%
Total: 50 100%

The table above is the result of the researcher's analysis. It shows that most of
the students are flouting maxims of quantity. The flouting maxim of quantity is more
dominant than the others, with a percentage of 71% or 32 times. Then, the second is
flouting maxims of relation with a percentage of 14% or 13 times and the most
infrequently used is flouting the maxim of manner with a percentage of 4% or only 5
times.
 Maryhill College, Inc.
CHAPTER IV
DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

DISCUSSION
This part focuses on a deeper explanation of the findings from the data obtained.
This part focuses on a deeper explanation of the findings from the data obtained. In this
research, the researcher focused on discussing the results of the data analysis related to
types of flouting maxims and how do the BSED II English students flout or violate the
online conversation using Gricean cooperative principles (1989).
The researcher has answered the first question about the types of flouting maxims
used by the BSED II English Major students at Maryhill College. Those types used by
the English Major students are; flouting the maxim of quantity, flouting the maxim of
relation, and flouting the maxim of manner. The frequency of flouting the maxim of
quantity 32 times, flouting the maxim of relation 13 times, and flouting the maxim of
manner 5 times. Within this result, the researcher found that flouting the maxim of
quantity was the most frequently used by the students.
The most frequently flouted maxim used by the BSED II English Major students
was the maxim of quantity. According to Cutting (2002), flouting the maxim of quantity
occurs when a speaker seems to provide too little or too much 60 information than
required. The researcher found that flouting the maxim of quantity had the highest
percentage with a value of 76% or 32 data of online conversational messages.
The students' second most frequently flouted maxim was the maxim of relation.
Thomas (1995) stated that flouting the maxim of the relation is exploited by giving a
response or observation that is unrelated to the topic. The researcher found that flouting
the maxim of relation had the second-highest percentage with a value of 18% or 13 data
of online conversational messages.
The most infrequently flouted maxim used by the English Major students was the
maxim of manner. Cutting (2002) mentioned that flouting the maxim of manner occurs
when the speaker makes ambiguous responses and they unable to be clear and orderly
in conversation. The researcher found that flouting the maxim of quantity had the lowest
percentage with a value of 6% or 5 data of online conversational messages.
 Maryhill College, Inc.
The present research results seem to echo what has been previously found by
Wahyudi et al. (2020), who analyzed flouting maxims in the classroom interaction and
found that the most dominant maxim flouted by the teacher and students is the maxim of
quantity with 31 occurrences. Their research also found the maxim of relation was the
second most frequently flouted while maxims the 61 quality and manners got the least
frequently flouted by students. Similarly, the researcher also found that flouting the
maxim of quantity was the most frequently used by the students, with a total data of 50.
The present research revealed that the students mostly flouted the maxim of quantity to
give less information than required, which made the interlocutor unsatisfied with the
answer.
However, the present research's findings and Wahyudi et al. contradict Dwi's
(2015), in which flouting maxims of quality is the most dominant used by students when
speaking to their teachers. She looked at how often students in an EFL classroom
flouted certain rules, and her analysis revealed that the quality rule, which was flouted
three times, was the most frequently. She just did observation for one day, unlike Dwi
(2015), therefore she only collected six data for her research. As a result, the flouting
maxim did not emerge as frequently as the researcher did. In the meanwhile, to gather
further data, Wahyudi et al. (2020) and the authors of the current study repeated
interviews and observations. By making this observation, the researcher was able to
gather enough information to analyze the reasons for flouting the maxim in
communication with the best possible outcome.
With regards to the second question about the reasons for flouting maxims used
by the BSED II English Major students of Maryhill College, the researcher found that
giving the floor to others, giving detailed information, lack of interest in the conversation,
lack of knowledge related to the subject, lack of understanding of instruction, avoidance,
and being fun are among the reasons for flouting the maxims.
Conversational implicature is a subtype of non-conversational implicature
proposed by Grice. In conversational implicature, the speaker must work with the listener
to recognize each other. This is designed to start a successful conversation from the
beginning. Grice (1989) proposed the "Cooperative Principle" as a general principle to
describe what participants are expected to observe, "Make your conversational
 Maryhill College, Inc.
contribution what is required at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or
direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged."
This principle contains four maxims: a maxim of quantity, a maxim of quality, a
maxim of relation, and a maxim of manner. When having a conversation, the speakers
do not always fulfill and ultimately break the maxim. Breaking the maxim is also known
as a non-observance. There are five non-observances of the maxim: flouting, violating,
infringing, opting out, and suspending. The non-observances that are most frequently
found in daily life are flouting and violation., declining, and suspending. Flouting occurs
when speakers leave the audience to infer a concealed meaning from what they say, but
the listener continues to assume that they are operating under a cooperative principle.
Wahyudi et al. (2020) stated that not all student responses answered the
teacher's question, and teacher-student interaction may not be smooth. They identified
four negative effects of disobeying maxims occurring in classroom activities. Jumping on
the teacher's information, the student misunderstands the lesson, loud and noisy
classroom situations, and ignores the teacher. This current study found similar results
regarding the harmful effects of ignoring maxims. Researchers revealed that not all
students answered teachers' questions adequately, so teachers felt neglected when they
ignored students' maxims. In summary, the study found that ignoring quantity was the
most commonly used language among her BSED II English major students at Mary Hill
College.
This study focused on the flouting maxims used by the BSED II English Major
students at Maryhill College. This research contributes to the development of flouting
maxims in natural speech, especially in online classes. Other than that, the researchers
hope that this research can improve students' awareness of the importance of the
contribution between speaker and hearer in a conversation. The use of this research can
also help researchers get a lot of data considering that they can add, support, or
disagree with thestudy. The researcher hopes this research will help further researchers
employ flouting maxims in the real example of natural teacher-student interactions.

CONCLUSION
This research focuses on the types and the reasons for flouting maxims used
BSED II English Major students at Maryhill College. The data is collected from the
 Maryhill College, Inc.
conversational messages via messenger app use by the BSED II English Major
students. A total of 50 data containing 3 types of flouting of maxims are found. The
flouting maxims are flouting the maxim of quantity, flouting the maxim of relation, and
flouting the maxim of manner. Based on the research findings, the flouting maxim of
quantity is the most frequently used by students with a percentage of 76% or 32 data of
online conversational messages. Then, the second is flouting maxims of relation with
18% or 13 data of online conversational messages. The most infrequently used is
flouting the maxim of manner with a percentage of 6% or only 5 data of online
conversational messages. After analyzing the types of flouting maxims, the researcher
analyzes how students flouted maxims. As a result, the researcher found the three main
reasons how students flout the maxim were lack of interest in the ongoing discussion,
lack of knowledge about the topic of conversation, and avoidance.
The researchers hope that this study can explain the types and reasons of
further researchers who are interested in analyzing maxims. Understanding the
neglected maxims is important to understanding the theory in the first place. Readers
are expected to better understand the neglected maxims before analyzing them.
Researchers suggest that people doing similar research topics use different research
methods to get new results. The study doesn't yet cover all the reasons why students
should participate, but the researchers hope that future researchers will be able to
develop and implement all of them. The researchers also hope that the study will serve
as a reference for other researchers in the field of pragmatics. Ultimately, the
researchers hope the study can be applied to everyday life so that conversations are
free of misunderstandings.
 Maryhill College, Inc.
REFERENCES
Adawiyah, R. (2016). Flouting maxim used by the main character in 'Focus'
movie. English Language and Letters Department Faculty of Humanities,
The State Islamic University Maulana Malik Ibrahim of Malang
Black, E. (2006). Pragmatic stylistics: Edinburgh textbooks in applied linguistics.
Edinburgh University Press.
Bogdan, R., Biklen, S. K., & Jha, A. K. (1998). Qualitative research for
education: an introduction to theories and methods. Uttar Pradesh: Pearson
India Education Services.
Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Cook, G. (1989). Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry et research design: choosing among
five approaches. Los Angeles; London; New Delhi; Singapore; Washington
DC: SAGE.
Cutting, J. (2002). Pragmatics and discourse: a resource book for students.
London: Routledge.
Detrianto, B. (2018). Humorous Effects on Flouting Conversational Maxims
Found in Indonesian Drama Comedy: A Study of Humor in Language.
PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences, 4(2), 1262-1276.
Dwi E.S., A. (2015). An analysis of flouting maxim in efl classroom interaction.
Vision: Journal for Language and Foreign Language Learning, 4(2), 243.
doi:10.21580/vjv4i21592
Esterani F, Dwi Rukmini, Mursid Saleh. (2017). The Violation and Flouting of
Cooperative Principles in the Ellen Degeneres Talk Show. Language Circle:
Journal of Language and Literature, 12(1), 103— 113.
Faridah. (2016). Flouting conversational maxim used by the main character in Lie
to Me movie. English Language and Letters Department Faculty of
Humanities, The State Islamic University Maulana Malik Ibrahim of
Malang
Fitri, E., & Qodriani, L. U. (2019). A study on flouting maxims in Divergent
novel. TEKNOSASTIK, 14(1), 32. doi:10.33365/ts.v14i1.84
 Maryhill College, Inc.
Finegan, E. (2008). Language: its structure and use. Boston, MA: Thomson
Wadsworth.
Griffiths, P. (2006). An introduction to English semantics and pragmatics.
Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Hutapea, S. (2017). An analysis of flouting maxim in Oprah Winfrey Show.
Department of English Faculty of Cultural Studies, University of Sumatera
Utara, Medan
69
Khayati, I., Mujiyanto, J., & Warsono (2019). The Realization of Grice‘s maxims
in english teacher‘s interaction with male and female students. Unnes
English Education Journal, EEJ 9 (3) 2019 391 - 398
Khosravizadeh, P., & Sadehvandi, N. (2011). International Conference on
Languages, Literature and Linguistics IPEDR. Vol 26. IACSIT Press.
Singapore.
Kitzinger, J. (1995). Qualitative research; introducing focus groups. British
Medical Journal 311, 299–302.
Kreidler, C. W. (2002). Introducing English semantics. London: Routledge Taylor
& Francis Group.
Levinson, S. C. (2008). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Manurung, L. (2019). Flouting maxims in Hitam Putih talk show. Suar Betang,
14(2). doi:10.26499/surbet.v14i2.126
Mey, J. (2001). Pragmatics: an introduction. Malden, Mass: Blackwell.
Paul, G. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ.
Press.
Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in Interaction: an introduction to pragmatics. New
York: Routledge.
Wahyudi, A., Yusuf, S., & Lestari, Z. W. (2020). Maxim‘s flouting: An analysis
of classroom interaction. Journal of English Education and Teaching, 4(2),
219-231. doi:10.33369/jeet.4.2.219-231
Yule, G. (1996). The study of language. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge
University Press.
Maryhill College, Inc.
APPENDICES