LINGUISTIC FOR ELT

NON-OBSERVANCE MAXIMS

By Group 9

M. Abdul Latif :2130104041

Rahmad :2130104051

Lecturer

Dr. Rita Erlinda, M.Pd.

ENGLISH TEACHING DEPARTMENT

FACULTY OF TARBIYAH AND TEACHING TRAINING

STATE ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY OF MAHMUD YUNUS

BATUSANGKAR

2024
 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

A. Background of The Paper

The cooperative principle and its associated maxims proposed by Grice (1975)
have long been foundational in the study of pragmatics and communicative competence.
However, recent research in the field of English Language Teaching (ELT) suggests
that speakers often deviate from these maxims in various linguistic contexts. This paper
investigates the phenomenon of non-observance of maxims in ELT settings, exploring
its implications for language teaching and learning. Drawing upon empirical studies and
theoretical frameworks, it examines the reasons behind the violation of maxims, the role
of culture and context, and the pedagogical strategies that can help learners navigate
pragmatic challenges. By shedding light on this aspect of language use, the paper aims
to enhance educators' understanding of pragmatic competence and contribute to the
development of effective communicative teaching methodologies.
By employing Grice’s (1975) theory of Cooperative Principle, the findings show
that the defendant flouts the maxims of quality, quantity, relation, and manner. It is also
found that the defendant only violates the maxim of quality. This present study also
discovers that the reason to why the defendant flouts the maxims is generally to build a
public image that she is innocent. Furthermore, the defendant violates the maxim of
quality because of the intention to get a lesser sentence in the court. The findings suggest
that the defendant of the court tends to flout and violate the maxims in giving her
testimony to yield hidden additional meanings and intentions in her utterances as well
as to mislead her audiences.

2
 CHAPTER II
DISCUSSION

A. Definition/Concepts of Non-observance maxims

Non-observance of maxims refers to situations in which a speaker (or

communicator) fails to adhere to the principles of cooperation or "maxims" proposed
by Grice (1975) in pragmatics theory. Conversation has a set of rules that can help
people communicate effectively. These rules operate as a guidance for the speakers
and hearers or their interlocutors to follow the rules or to be cooperative (Grice, 1975).
One of the sets of rules is the conversational maxims which were proposed by Paul
Grice (1975). Grice's cooperative principle comprises four maxims: Maxim of
Quantity, Maxim of Quality, Maxim of Relation, Maxim of Manner.
Non-observance of maxims occurs when a speaker violates one or more of these
maxims, which can lead to misunderstanding, confusion, or misinterpretation in
communication. This may happen for various reasons, including unintentionality,
ignorance of communicative norms, or intent to deceive or conceal information. In the
context of language teaching, understanding non-observance of maxims is important
as it helps teachers and learners comprehend how pragmatic norms operate in various
communicative situations, as well as how to bridge the gap between linguistic
conventions and understanding of diverse cultural contexts.
Non-observance of maxims refers to the violation or deviation from the
cooperative principles proposed by Grice in conversational implicature theory. These
principles include the maxims of Quantity, Quality, Relation, and Manner, which guide
speakers to communicate effectively and efficiently. When a speaker fails to follow
these maxims, communication may become ambiguous, misleading, or less
informative, leading to potential breakdowns in understanding or misinterpretation
among interlocutors.

3
B. Types of non-observance maxims
As stated by Grice (1975), there are five main types of non-observance maxims,
they are: flouting, violating, infringing, opting-out, and suspending.

1. Flouting of Maxim

a. Maxim of Quality

The Maxim of Quality, as proposed by Grice in his cooperative

principle, pertains to the principle of honesty and truthfulness in
communication. It suggests that speakers should provide information that is
truthful and supported by evidence. In essence, the Maxim of Quality requires
speakers to avoid saying things they believe to be false or for which they lack
evidence.

Example:

➢ Otto: ”I’m not unfriendly!”

➢ Marisol: “No, you are right. Your every word is like a warm cuddle,
really.”

Otto, who keeps refuting the fact that he is an unfriendly person, forces
Marisol to agree to what Otto says while presenting information that is
completely contrary to the actual condition. This utterance is included in the
flouting of quality maxim because it contains irony.

➢ Alex (to the clerk, squinting): ”She’s the assistant manager? How old is
she?”

➢ Alex (to Taylor): “Shouldn’t you be in gym class?”

➢ Taylor: “... Sorry — What?”

Alex was sarcastic about the assistant manager’s younger appearance

and he thought she was inappropriate for the position. This utterance is included
in the flouting of quality maxim because it contains information that is different
from the actual condition.

b. Maxim of Quantity

The Maxim of Quantity underscores the importance of striking a balance

4
 between providing enough information to convey one's message effectively and
avoiding unnecessary verbosity or ambiguity in communication. For example:

➢ Marisol: “Are you always this unfriendly?”

➢ Otto: “I am not unfriendly!”

➢ Marisol: “No? I’d say you are a little unfriendly.”

➢ Otto: “I am not!”

➢ Marisol: “No, you are right. Your every word is like a warm cuddle,
really.”

In this excerpt, despite the sweetness of her words, Marisol flouts the
maxim with her sarcastic utterance. Her saying that Otto is unfriendly and her
saying that Otto’s word is like a warm cuddle are clearly contradictory.
However, she is merely being sarcastic because Otto insists that he is not
unfriendly despite his sharp words.

➢ Otto: (Grumpily:) “What?”

➢ Marisol: “My father used to smile like that.”

➢ Otto: “I’m not smiling.”

➢ Marisol: “Exactly.”

In this excerpt, Marisol is once again being sarcastic with her utterance.
She said that her father used to smile like that when, in fact, Otto was not
smiling, which implies that Otto rarely smiles just like her father.

c. Maxim of Relation

Maxim of Relation emphasizes the importance of maintaining relevance

and staying focused on the topic of conversation, thereby facilitating clear and
meaningful communication among participants. For example:

➢ Jordy: “What is this?”

➢ Boss: “It’s a... well, retirement cake, I guess - call it what you like.”

➢ Jordy: ““Have Fun?” Doing what?”

➢ Boss: “With the rest of your life. We wanted to, you know…”

5
 ➢ Jordy: “Celebrate?”

➢ Boss: “Yes — well, no — give you a nice sendoff.”

➢ Jordy: “What’s nice about it?”

➢ Boss: “Come on, Otto. You’re the one who decided to leave - and you did
get a nice severance package.”

In this dialogue, Jordy appears to doubt or dismiss the importance or

positivity of his retirement celebration. His statements show dissatisfaction and
a lack of recognition of the employer’s efforts to provide a retirement
celebration that is perceived as positive.

➢ Anita: “Oh — Otto, good. I hate to bother you, but our heat doesn’t seem
to be working. Could you take a look?”

➢ Justin: “Try bleeding the radiators.”

➢ Anita: “How exactly would I do that?”

➢ Justin: “By bleeding the radiators.”

Justin deliberately gave an answer that seemed unhelpful and more like a
form of humor or satire. His answer, “By bleeding the radiators,” provides no
clear explanation or any assistance to Anita, and this can be considered flouting
the maxim of relationship as Justin deliberately ignores the expected relevance
of Anita’s question.

d. Maxim of Manner

Maxim of Manner underscores the importance of clarity, coherence,

and conciseness in communication, aiming to facilitate mutual understanding
and effective exchange of information among participants. For example:

➢ Rara: “Try bleeding the radiators.“

➢ Citra: “How exactly would I do that?”

➢ Rara: “By bleeding the radiators.”

Rara’s response, “By bleeding the radiators,” is a repetition of the

previous suggestion without providing additional details or guidance. This
could be perceived as unhelpful and ambiguous. Further information on how to
6
 bleed the radiators should be provided in response to Citra’s question, but Rara
only points out what he had said rather than providing Anita with specific
instructions. Rara’s intentional unclear reaction to Citra’s confusion indicates
that he clearly flouted the maxim of manners.

➢ Annie: “Did you and Sonya ever think about having children?”

➢ Rafael: “It’s two o’clock.”

The response from Rafael, “It’s two o’clock,” can be seen as a form of
flouting the Maxim of Manner. Rafael seems to be uncomfortable about
Annie’s question about whether he and Sonya ever thought about having
children, therefore instead of answering the question, he provides an unrelated
statement about the time. This can be interpreted as an attempt to avoid the
question.

e. Maxim of Relevance

According to Grice (1975), flouting maxim of relevance occurs when

the speaker is giving unrelated respond to the topic that is being discussed. The
speaker might expect the hearer to understand the meaning that is not stated in
the utterance. Kroeger (2018:144), also stated that when the utterance of the
speaker contains some information that would not be expected to come during
that situation, the speaker can be said to flout the maxim of relevance. Here are
two data examples of flouting maxim of relevance found in Knives Out movie:

➢ Blanc: “I still think this a bad idea, but the family is assembled.”

➢ Marta: “I know where the tox report is.”

The conversation between Benoit Blanc and the main character, Marta
Cabrera, which took place in the Thrombey’s house just before Marta’s
announcement regarding Harlan’s inheritance. At that time, Blanc tried to tell
Marta that all members of the Thrombey family are already gathered so that
Marta can start her announcement. However, Marta’s response to that statement
from Blanc can be categorized as flouting maxim of relevance considering her
response was irrelevant to the topic. By looking at the context of the
conversation, Blanc was talking about the Thrombey family, yet, Marta out of
nowhere responded by saying information regarding the toxicology report,

7
 which is unrelated to the topic.

If Marta intended to obey the maxim, then she would be giving a

response about her intention regarding the announcement, instead, she told
Blanc about the tox report because she just remembered some hints that given
by Fran, the housekeeper. Hence Marta’s response in this conversation belongs
to the flouting maxim of relevance. From Marta’s utterance, it can be assumed
that she meant there might be a light path to the case because she knew where
the tox report was, and it was vital in solving the Harlan’s death case.

2. Violating of Maxims

a. Violating Maxim of Quality

As stated by Grice (1975:49), violating maxim of quality occurs when

the speaker is liable to deceive by providing incorrect information or
something that is untrue. Tupan and Natalia (2008:55) added that a speaker
can be said to violate the maxim of quality when they are not being sincere
and intended to give the hearer the wrong information so that the hearer will
only understand the surface meaning of their utterance. The explanation of
the selected example of the data can be seen as follow:

➢ Blanc: “Did he ask you to drive when he saw me coming?”

➢ Marta: “Yes.”

The conversation between Benoit Blanc and Marta Cabrera, which

took place in an alley after the car chase between the detectives with Marta
and Ransom. The car chase happened after Blanc saw Marta’s car near the
medical examiner’s office, who just got burned. After the car chase ended
in an alley, the detectives then immediately arrested Ransom, which made
Marta confused since she thought she was the one who caused Harlan’s
death. Blanc, who intended to know what happened between Marta and
Ransom, then asked the question above. However, Marta’s response to that
question belongs to the violating maxim of quality since it consists of
information that was not true, and she did that because she did not want
Blanc to know about the reality.

8
 The truth was Ransom never told Marta to drive after Blanc spotted
their existence near the medical examiner’s office. It was Marta’s intention
because she was in a panic after seeing Blanc stared at her car. If Marta
intended to obey the maxim, then she should have told Blanc that it was her
intention to get away from the detectives. Instead, she chose to not being
sincere and said something that was not the fact. Marta did that because she
did not want Blanc to know that she was involved in Harlan’s death case
even though she was responsible for that.

➢ Ransom: “Fran’s alive?”

➢ Blanc: “Oh yes. Fran, who will confirm this fairy story or something
close to it. And will send you, Hugh, to jail.”

➢ Marta: “Yes. Thank you doctor, that’s great news, we’ll be there soon.
(Hang up the phone) She’s okay. She’s ready to talk.”

This conversation is between Ransom Drysdale, Detective Benoit

Blanc, and Marta Cabrera, which happened at the end of the movie when
they have found out that it was Ransom who sabotaged Harlan’s death. At
that time, Fran the housekeeper was the witness of the crime that Ransom
committed, however, she was hospitalized after Ransom injecting morphine
into her body. In the middle of the conversation, Marta got a call from the
hospital, which gave an update about Fran’s condition, then she told the
news to everyone in that room. However, Marta can be said to violate the
maxim of quality when she said, “She’s okay. She’s ready to talk.” because
it was the opposite news of what the hospital told her.

In other words, Marta told something untrue and intended to deceive

the hearer, and she did that to trick Ransom into admitting every detail of
the crime that he did. Luckily for her, it works, since in the end, Ransom
finally got arrested. By looking at the context of the conversation, if Marta
intended to observe the maxim, then she could have told the right news to
the hearers, which is the fact that Fran has died. Instead, she preferred to
violate the maxim of quality by providing some false information to the
hearers that in the same room with her at that moment.

b. Violating Maxim of Quantity

9
 ➢ Otto: “What the hell kind of computer can’t do simple math?”

➢ Hardware clerk: “Yeah... I’m sorry. I think they sell rope by the foot
over at the Home Depot if you want.”

➢ Otto: “I don’t want to go to the goddamn Home Depot! Where’s your

manager?”

In this excerpt, Otto was asking the clerk about the computer because
apparently the computer is not mathing. However, despite the apology, the
clerk was violating the maxim by saying that Home Depot sells rope by the
foot and therefore Otto should go there if he wants, which clearly is not the
point.

➢ John: “Why the hell is it in your pocket?”

➢ Tommy: “I’m the driver.”

➢ Marry: “We’re renting here. 206.”

This excerpt happened when Jonh met Marry and Tommy for the first
time. Jonh was asking why Tommy put the parking permit in his pocket,
and Tommy’s answer was insufficient because he did not actually answer
Jonh’s question. Not only that, Marry also added some information, which
was unnecessary because it is nowhere near Jonh’s question.

c. Violating Maxim of Relevance

According to Grice (1975:49), violating maxim of relevance occurs

when the speaker gives an irrelevant response to the topic that is discussed
because he/she intended to deceive the hearer. Thomas (1995) added that
when a speaker violates the maxim of relevance, it means he/she had an
intention to mislead the hearer by saying something that is unrelated to the
topic of discussion. The data example is explained below:

➢ Blanc: “Did he plan to fire Walter?”

➢ Marta: “Can I just wait inside? I feel like I shouldn’t be here.”

The participants of the conversation above are Detective Benoit

Blanc and Marta Cabrera. It happened just before the detectives collecting
Marta’s testimony. Back then, Blanc was trying to reconnect every story
10
 that the family said during the investigation because he realized that some
were lying to him. Hence, he wanted to know about Marta’s insight into the
family. However, Marta’s answer to the question asked by Blanc belongs
to the violating maxim of relevance because her response was not relevant
to the topic. Blanc was asking about Harlan’s plan regarding Walter,
instead, Marta answered by asking whether she could stay inside or not,
which is obviously irrelevant to the question.

Marta gave such response because she wanted to deceive Blanc so

he would not suspicious towards her because she was actually involved in
Harlan’s death. If Blanc found out that she was actually involved, then she
might get arrested considering all of the evidence could make Marta looks
guilty. Moreover, if Marta gets arrested then the authorities might find out
that her mother came to the USA undocumented, which will end up in her
mother get deported. Hence, Marta was trying so hard to make herself as
innocent as she could. In this situation, by looking at the context of the
conversation, the maxim demands Marta to tell Blanc about her knowledge
about Walter, but she chose not to do it, hence her utterance can be
considered as violating maxim of relevance.

d. Violating Maxim of Manner

➢ Marisol: “Pollo mole - it’s a Mexican dish. I was born in El Salvador,

that’s where my father was from, but my mother was Mexican - she
went down to El Salvador to run an agriculture program. So that’s how
they met, and that’s where I was born. But I grew up in Mexico.”

➢ Otto: “What about you?”

➢ Tommy: “I’m an I.T. consultant.”

➢ Marisol (To Tommy:) “Dile de dónde eres (Tell him where you’re
from).”

➢ Tommy: “Oh. Anaheim.”

Otto asked Tommy a question that could be a bit unclear to Tommy.

Before Otto asked, Marisol mentioned that she grew up in Mexico. So, it
seemed like Tommy should say where he’s from. But instead, Tommy

11
 thought Otto was asking about his job, so he said he’s an I.T. consultant.
This suggests that he interpreted the question as referring to his profession
rather than his place of origin. Marisol had to step in and say, “Tell him
where you’re from.” This helps clear up the confusion. It shows how
important it is to ask questions in a way that avoids confusion and makes
sure everyone understands. Because Tommy was confused by Otto’s
question and Tommy’s response did not align with Otto’s question, both
Otto and Tommy violated the maxim of manner in this conversation.

3. Opting out Maxims

“Opting out of maxims often occurs in people's lives for several reasons.
such as law or ethics” (Thomas, 2013). Opting out of maxims happened when
speakers deliberately do not want to cooperate, try to avoid giving unreasonably
unexpected answers or contributions so as not to fulfill the required maxim, but
try to appear cooperative. Here some example of opting out maxims in Quora
Q&A Social Media.

a. Opting out of the maxim quantity

Opting out of the maxim quantity occurs when the speaker

deliberately does not avoid giving answers or contributions that are not
expected, not informative, lacking or excessive in an unreasonable manner
so as not to fulfill the requested maxims, but tries to give a response.

➢ If answered indicates unwillingness to answer the question directly.

➢ If the answering contribution is not informative in such a way as to

decline in a subtle way.

➢ If the respondent clearly refuses or does not provide any information at

all.

Queen: “Maybe because it can make us more aware of the issues around
us, because they say that if not us, then who will be the future of the nation.
But in fact, there are actually many campuses who forbid it hehehe”.

The second sentence from Queen is opting out of maxim quantity because
it adds unnecessary and not needed information without providing details
of what is meant, campus prohibiting it cannot be related to the context of
12
 information from the previous answer Queen and Queen adds the
expression hehehe which is an ambiguous expression between Queen tries
to make a joke or satire.

b. Opting out of maxim quality

Opting out of the maxim quality occurs when the speaker

deliberately avoids giving an answer that can be proven true, denying by
stating what is believed in an unreasonable or abnormal way so as not to
fulfill the required maxim but trying to give a response.

➢ If the answerer lies or states something they believe.

➢ If denying something.

➢ If the answerer makes a simplification or generalization of claims,

subjectivity that is not accompanied by supporting evidence that can
support its validity.

Jack: ("Which lecturer or campus he he he. In PTN, it has been

explained by other answers that contain the word Tri Dharma. Before I
answer this, I have upvote-in one answer that explains about Tri
Dharma Ospek of my previous campus (public) was >90% about
cultivating Tri Dharma, one of which - but not the only one - is how to
do a good and right 'action' who forbids it if PTK. Some PTS prohibit
some don't, cause its private so the policy is just like the one who owns
it.") Jack's second sentence is a form of opting out of maxim quality,
Jack in the sentence explains that assuming the answer asked by the
questioner has already been answered by another respondent, Jack does
not try to answer the questioner's question in this sentence, Jack believes
that the questioner or reader already understands the answer from the
other questioners.

c. Opting out of maxim relevance

Opting out of maxim relevance refuses to cooperate by

providing information that is not related to what is requested, but still
tries to be cooperative in an abnormal way.

➢ The answerer avoids direct answers by providing irrelevant

13
 information.

A: (In PTN, it has been explained by other answers that contain the
word Tri Dharma. Before I answer this, I have upvote-in one answer
that explains about Tri Dharma).

A's third sentence tells that before he answered the questioner's question
A do upvote which is an activity of supporting or appreciating the
answers of Quora users who explain about Tri Dharma, and it ended
with a smile emoticon which is a form of expression of satisfaction or
happiness, A's third sentence is categorized as Opting out the maxim of
relevance because there is no relationship about the activity told by A
with the questioner's question, the questioner never asked about the
contribution that A explained in his sentence.

d. Opting out of maxim manner

Opting out of the maxim manner is when the speech partner tries
to avoid the answer or contribution requested by providing ambiguity,
unclearness of expression, irregularity, and vagueness of meaning, but
the speech partner tries to be cooperative.

➢ The answerer gives the impression of ambiguity, obscurity of

expression, and disorganization with the aim of avoiding the
question.

Rara: (I don’t know, why ask me?)

Rara's sentence blatantly does not want to participate in contributing

anything to the questioner's question, Rara's sentence states that he does
not know the topic that the questioner wants to ask, then Rara asks the
questioner and the reader the answer why the questioner asked him.
Rara's way of avoiding direct answers with ambiguous and unclear
answers is categorized as opting out of the maxim manner.
4. Infringing Maxims

The infringement maxims that happened in this comic strip is blatantly

wiriten by the author to attract the intention from the reader. There are some
examples of Infringing maxims.

14
a. Infringement of Quality Maxim
Infringement maxim of Quality that caused by cognitive impairement
invoked by Captain Haddock:

➢ Captain: W-w-w-what happened? I ate one of those things. it was just

like swallowing a volcano in full blast!
➢ Tintin: It was a red pimento, captain.... Pepper!......

From the dialogue between Captain Haddock and Tintin, it can be

seen that Captain Haddock was shocked and he was over reacted to show his
feeling. Based on the cooperative principle theory, captain Haddock has
failed in generating implicature, because he has a temporary cognitive
impairment caused by shock conditional made Captain Haddock unable to
speak well. From the dialogue above, the researcher found that in addition to
the context of the dialogue happened, some marks that showed Captain
Haddock infringing a maxim of quality was shown by language style spoken
by Captain Haddock in the form of the letters w-w-w- and the way he spoke
that was too dramatical.

b. Infringement of Quantity Maxim

➢ Tintin: someone forced to sail in this ville tub and.......

➢ Captain: ville tub? .... I.... d-d-d-do you know I’m Captain Haddock!
And I can have you-y-y-you claped in irons!

From the dialogue between Captain Haddock and Tintin, it can be

seen that Captain Haddock does not answer Tintin’s question correctly.
Captain Haddcok failed in generating implicature, because he has temporary
cognitive impairment caused he was under liquor. From the dialogue above,
there was a mark that indicated the appearence of infringement maxim of
quantity from the used of triplet letters and captain Haddock gave the
information more than needed.

15
c. Infringement of Manner Maxim

➢ Tintin: But... no it’s impossible!

➢ Captain: What?... what is so impossible?
➢ Tintin: That the treasure can be here!
➢ Captain: W-w-w-what? Why?

From the dialogue between Captain Haddock and Tintin, it can be

seen that Tintin failed in generating implicature because he was shock caused
he was saw unexpected thing. There was a marked that indicated the
infringement maxim of manner, the used of triplet letter and the way how
Captain Haddock countered Mr. Tintin’s statement that indicated there was
an error in maxim of manner. Therefore from that conversation it can be said
that Tintin failed in generating implicature based on theory of cooperative
principle.

d. Infringement of Relevance Maxim

➢ Tintin: ssh!.... not a sound!

➢ Captain: who-who....who are you?

From the dialogue between Tintin and Captain Haddock, it can be

seen that Captain Haddock failed in generating implicature, because he was
under liquor caused by whisky. There was a mark that has been indicated
Captain Haddock failed the infringemet maxim of relevance that used of
stumbeled word and triplet words. It can be seen that Captain Haddock failed
the maxim of relevance because he did not speak based on what Tintin say.
Captain Hadock utterance did not appropriate with the rules of infringement
maxim of relevance.

16
 CHAPTER III

CONCLUSION

A. CONCLUSION
Non-observance of maxims refers to the violation or deviation from the cooperative
principles proposed by Grice in conversational implicature theory. These principles
include the maxims of Quantity, Quality, Relation, and Manner, which guide speakers
to communicate effectively and efficiently. When a speaker fails to follow these
maxims, communication may become ambiguous, misleading, or less informative,
leading to potential breakdowns in understanding or misinterpretation among
interlocutors.
This paper has discussed the definition and concepts non-observance of maxims,
followed by examples with analysis to illustrate their use in various contexts. We then
explored the five different types of indirect speech acts: Maxim of Quantity, Maxim of
Quality, Maxim of Relation, Maxim of Manner. Each section provided detailed
explanations, characteristics, and examples to enhance understanding and use in the
ELT classroom.
By recognizing non-observance of maxims effectively, learners can develop their
pragmatic competence and achieve their communicative goals in a more subtle and
socially appropriate manner. This understanding fosters a more positive and efficient
learning environment for both teachers and students.

B. SUGGESTION

In writing this paper, there are still many shortcomings and it is far from
perfect, for this reason we accept suggestions and constructive criticism for the
perfection of this paper.

17
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Brennan, E. S. 2010. Conversation and Dialogue. Encyclopedia of the Mind. SAGE

Publications.
Grice, H. P. 1975. Logic and Conversation in Peter Cole and Jerry Morgan. Syntax and
Semantics, Vol. 3: Speech Act. N.Y.: Academic Pres.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. New York: Academic Press.
Manurung, L.W. (2019). Flouting maxims in Hitam Putih talk show. Suar Betang, 14(2),
151-166. Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press.
Prasojo, R., Nababan, M. R., & Djatmika. (2017). Maxim infringement of captain haddock
in the adventure of tintin. Proceeding of 2nd International Conference of Arts
Language Culture.
Searle, J. R. (1975). Indirect speech acts. Cambridge University Press.
Yuvike and Winiharti, M. 2009. The Non-Observance of The Conversational Maxims: An
Analysis of The Dialogues in Arthur Miller’s The Crucible. Jurnal LINGUA
CULTURA Vol.3 No.2: 116-127..

18
19