e-Journal of Linguistics


Available online at https://ojs.unud.ac.id/index.php/eol/index

Vol. 14, No. 2, July 2020, pages: 307-314

Print ISSN: 2541-5514 Online ISSN: 2442-7586

https://doi.org/10.24843/e-jl.2020.v14.i02.p14

The Multiple Violatings of Maxim in Indonesian Lawak Klub (ILK) by The Main Speakers in One Episode of Cara Cepat Menjadi Kaya

1Samsudin, M.Pd

Institut Ilmu Sosial dan Ilmu Budaya Samawa Rea, Sumbawa Besar, [email protected] 2Sukarismanti, M.Pd

Institut Ilmu Sosial dan Ilmu Budaya Samawa Rea, Sumbawa Besar, [email protected]

Article info

Received Date: Jun 22, 2020

Accepted Date: Jun 22, 2020

Published Date: 31 July 2020


Keywords:*

Multiple Violatings of Maxim, Indonesia Lawak Club (ILK), and The Main Speaker,


Abstract*

The study deals with the types of maxim violation in Indonesian Lawak Klub (ILK) done by the main speakers. The objectives of study were to describe the violation of maxim, to describe the dominant type of maxim violating and the reason of violating maxim. The data were the dialogue of main speakers in Indonesian Lawak Club (ILK). This research was conducted using descriptive qualitative and focused on one episode of cara cepat menjadi kaya. The findings showed that there are 70 violating of maxim of quantity, 71 violating of maxim of quality, 144 vioalating of maxim of relevance, and 27 violating of maxim of manner. The reasons of the dominant violating of maxim of relevance are to widen discussion related to the topic and make interactive and atractive discussion.

  • 1.    Introduction

Conversation is exchange the information between speaker and hearer. In conversation, it contains reciprocal act or turn-taking and negotiating meaning. In order to get the aim of convesation the speaker should use the utterance which contains the complete meaning so that the hearer can get the meaning of that utterance. So, in convesation, cooperative principle is the important enough to get the aim of convesation, because the cooperative principle is as guidance to control the converation between speaker and hearer to make a effective or good converstaion when they exchange the information or turn-taking. According to Grice (1975) that “the cooperative principle : 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”, George Yule (2000, p. 37). However, in conversation, it often occur violating of maxim or avoid the cooperative principle by hiding the truth, telling the fact which has not proof. In such convesation the listener is sometimes difficult enough to get the meaning of speaker utterance or to understand the exact information from the speaker. According to Grice there are four conversation of maxims: maxim of quantity, maxim of quality, maxim of relation, and

maxim of manner. In daily life, the people often break the rule cooperative principle by shifting the issus fo example or make a ambiguity utterance, with no exception in a converation in Indonesian Lawac Club (ILK). The main speakers involved in IlK consciously or unconsciously often violate of maxim by telling the untrue fact, shifting the topic.

The research questions was formulated as follows; what types of maxims are violated in Indonesia Lawak Club’s script?, and which maxim is dominantly violated in the Indonesian Lawak Club’s script?

Cooperative Principle

Cooperative principle is the main factor that should be considered to deliver the message or the information because to deliver the message or information successfully and efficiently it needs cooperative between the speaker and the hearer, unless the hearer can not get the meaning of the message or information. In delivering message the speaker sometimes say more than what he/she say in leterary. It means that the message contains the implicit meaning and asked the hearer to infer the explicit meaning itself. To undertand the implicit meaning is not easy for the hearer. Therefore, Grice (1975 in Nanda) proposed the theory and offered to use theory of Cooperative Principle to avoid misunderstanding and misinterpretation between the speaker and the hearer. So, to get the aim of communication succesfully and efficiently the speaker and the hearer should hold the cooperative principle as a guidance, like Grice (1975) stated that “the cooperative principle : 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”, George Yule (2000, p. 37).

Maxim

Maxim is the one of the cooperative principle field in pragmatic analysis. Maxim is the concept which guides speaker and hearer to constribute in communication. Grice identifies as guidance of this sort four basic maxim of conversation or general principles underlying the effieicent cooperative use of language, which jointly express a general co-operative principle. These principles are expressed as follows:

The maxim of Quality

Try to make your contribution one that is true, especially:

  • (i) . do not say what you believe to be false

  • (ii) . do not say that for which you lack adeuate evidence

The Maxim of Quality

  • (i)    Make your contribution as informative as is required for the current purposes of the exchage.

  • (ii)    do not make your contribution more infomative than is required

The Maxim of Relevance

  • (i)    make your contribution relevant

The maxim of Manner

  • (i)    avoid obscurity

  • (ii)    avoid ambiguity

  • (iii)    be brief

(iv) be orderly

Violating of Maxim

In conversation, the people do not always cooperate bacause In each conversation always contains the purposes, and violating of Maxim also contains the purposes, whether to get humor, give untrue information or somthing else. According to Peccei (1999 in Nanda), violations are ‘quiet’ in the sense that it is obvious at the time of the utterance that the speaker has deliberately lied, supplied insufficient information, or been ambiguous, irrelevant or hard to understand.(AnnekeH,et al,2008:63).

Indoneisan Lawak Club (ILK)

Indonesian Lawak Club ( ILK) is a comedy program broadcast by Trans7. The concept of this program is to unite the comedian in Indonesia and join in a discussion forum to discuss a hot issue. In this forum the People normally discuss a problem and trying to provide a solution with an entertaining version.

Methodology

This research was a descriptive qualitative in which the data were the dialogue of comedian taken from one episode of a comedy entitled Cara Cepat Menjadi kaya. They were choosen because they had a great deal of problems and lies that happened among the characters. There are 7 charatcers in this dialogue, namely Denny Chandra, Komeng, Cak Lontong, Riko, Jarwo, Oki, Cici Pandang and last is Maman Suherman, clerk ,who would conclude the discussion.

The data were transcripted from dialogues of main speakers in ILK, then identifying conversation contained violating of maxim based on the theory which is suggested by Grice (1975), classifying the violating of maxim into each type of maxims, counting and percentaging the violating of maxims, and finding the most dominant types that are violated by the main character. Marker of violation were set up based on Cooperative Principle suggested by Grice (1975, p. 37).

Result and Discussion

The findings described the violation of maxim in cooperative principle occured in comedy “Indonesian Lawak Club (ILK)”. Based on the analysis result of the conversation that All of the main speakers in Indonesian Lawak Club (ILK) violated all maxims.

Table 1. The Percentage Overview of Violated Maxim in Indonesia Lawak Club (ILK)

No.    Violation of Frequently Percentage

maxim of

1.

Quantity

70

22,4

2.

Quality

71

22,7

3.

Relation

144

46,1

4.

Manner

27

8,6

Total

312

100 %

From table above, it shows that the main speakers in Indonesian Lawak Club (ILK) violated all the types of maxims. They dominantly violated maxin of Relation (144 utterance, 46,1 % ), because the main speakers made a constribution which do not relate to the topic of discussion. They gave irrelevant comment to the topic of discussion by aiming to humor the atmosphere. Then, it is followed by violationg of maxim of quality (71 utterance, 22,7%), Quantity (70 utterance, 22,4%), and manner (27 utterance, 8,6%).

From the description above that the main speakers violated maxim dominantly because they tended to make a humor of discussion and wanted to widen the discussion. In violating maxim of quality, they tend to give untrue information. The purpose of speakers who told untrue infomation is to pursue the other speakers to give a solution of the problem related to the topic of discussion. Violating maxim of quantity aimed to give a more explanation or description of the topic so that the other can understand the problem or something being discussed. In additional, the speaker sometimes violated maxim intentionally to make a atmosphere of discussion more attractive. And the last, in violating maxim of manner, the speakers made other speakers confused of the utterance being uttered and made other speakers always gave questions.

Based on the description on the table above, writer would like to describe some examples of dialogue taken from the original script of Indonesian Lawak Club (ILK) to understand in depth about the violating of maxims done by the main speakers. The examples of violating maxim as follows;.

  • Example 1

Context       : The context of this conversation is in which Cici Pandang introduced herself to

other speakers or audiences that she come from group of Ikatan Manusia Elegan dan Mahal Asal Irit dari Ongkos which is abbreviated “Imelda markos”. Then, Deni continued Cici Pandang’s statement by saying as follow:

Deni          : One of the popular thing from Imelda Markos is that she has many collection of

shoes, it is about 1 thausand.

Komeng       : That is right, sir. Same with my neighbour, he has also many shoes

Deni            : Oh !! ya !!

Cici Pandang  : who ?

Deni            : is he collector ?

Komeng      : the keeper of mosque.

Cici Pandang : it is different, Mr. Komeng

Deni            : that is different place

Komeng told untrue information to the other speakers and he believed that the infomation is false.

Fact : Komeng actually had not neighbor having many of shoes, but the person who is explained by Komeng was the mosque keeper.

Speaker

Violating of Maxim

Utterances          QN QL RL MN

Komeng

That is right, sir. Same   √  √

with my neighbour, she has also many shoes.

Komeng

the keeper of mosque.            √

In this case, Komeng lied to other speakers by saying “That is right, sir. Same with my neighbour, she has also many shoes”. This utterance contained untrue infomation in which Komeng actually has not sufficient evidences and deceived the other one. By this utterance Komeng actually knew that this information was untrue, but maybe he wanted to humor the audiences by giving information that he believed that that is untrue. However, in this case Komeng violated maxim of quality. Then, in the same utterance Komeng responsed Deni’s statament by giving more infomative than requered. It means that this utterance contained more information than require and it violated maxim of quantity.

Then, in this next utterance that Komeng violated maxim of relevance by saying “the keeper of mosque.”, this utterance was the answer from the question “who?” coming from Cici Pandang. But Komeng gave answer that has no relation to the discussion.

Example 2

Context

Cak lontong Cici pandang Cak Lonto

Cici pandang Deni

Cak Lontong


: Imelda Marjos is abbreviated of Cicic Pandang’s group name. Then, Deni responds by saying that Imelda Markos has many collection of shoes. Then, Cak Lontong continues to describe identity of Imelda Markos by saying as follows :

: But the interesting fact from Imelda Markos is that she collects the left one

: are you sure ?

: yes.

: you are lie

: Impossible, what dose she collect the left one for?

: Those are the left side because the right ones are beside them

Deni : That means a couple of shoes

Cak Lontong lied to other spekares by giving infomation having no enough evidence Fact : The shoe was a couple in which the one side was the left and the another was the right

Speaker

Violating of Maxim

Utterances        QN QL RL MN

Cak Lontong

but the interesting       √

fact from Imelda Marko is that she collects the left one

The conversation above shows that Cak Lontong lied or told untrue infomation by saying “but the interesting fact from Imelda Markos is that she collects the left one”. In this case that Cak Lontong lied to other speakers by making humor for audiences. However he violated the maxim of quality because he gave untrue infomartion.

Example 4

Context

:Cak Lontong explains about the cases of Labora Sitorus who did corruption. He explained as follows :

Cak Lontong

:Maybe his wife doesn’t know. I think those cases are strange. Here, this is Labora, altough in the past he has slogan Orak Labora.

Komeng

Riko

Cak Lontong

Riko

Cak Lontong

:This is song for Labora, This is Labora....Labora

: That is the song, man

: Labora Sitorus. The present issue he had been excuted.

: Not yet, he would be moved.

: Means that he was in prison, before finishing his punishment, suddently he had been out of prison. Thus, he had been excuted and taken into prison again.

Oki

Deni

Oki

Cak Lontong

: Means that the fat body is better than the fat bill.

: yes.

: Thanks to God for people who have the fat body

: I mean like this.

Deni        : What do you mean?

Cak Lontong : is that not enough explicit (by bowing his head)

Deni         : Yes. What do you mean? you said that I mean like this

Cak Lontong : I mean like this.

Cak Lontong gave an infomation having no sufficient evidences by saying that Labora has been executed

Fact : Labora has not been executed and he has just been moved.

Speaker          Utterances

Violating of

Maxim

QN QL RL MN

Cak Lontong     Here,   this   is   Labora,

although in the past he has slogan Orak Labora

√

Komeng          This is a song for Labora.

This                       is

Labora Labora..Labora

√

Cak Lontong     Labora Sitorus. The present

issue he had been excuted.

√

Oki               Means that the fat body is

better than the fat bill.

√

Cak Lontong     I mean like this.

√

the conversation above shows that there are some speakers violated of maxims, namely the first is Cak Lontong, in which he said more infomative than required by saying “Here, this is Labora, although in the past he has slogan Orak Labora”. He should explain Labora’s case. However, he makes contribution more informative than required. Thus, In this case Cak Lontong violated maxim of quantity. Beside that Cak Lontong violated two other maxims, namely maxim of quality and maxim of manner, in which he also said “Labora Sitorus. The present issue he had been excuted”. in this case, he gave an inforamation having no sufficient evidence. Based on Riko’s statement that Labora had not been executed, but he had just been moved. Then, he also said something that makes other speakers or audiences confused of his utterance, in which he said “I mean like this”. Therefore, this utterance makes other speakers asked about the meaning of his utterance. Because of his utterance, Deni asked :I mean like this”. However, he answered “is that not enough explicit (by bowing his head)”. Thus, in this case he also violated maxim of manner.

The second is Komeng, from the conversation above that Komeng violates maxim of relevancy by saying “This is a song for Labora “This is Labora Labora..Labora”. He violated this maxim because he changed the topic of conversation and wanted to humor the audiences. The third is Oki, in which Oki violated maxim of relevancy by saying “Means that the fat body is better than the fat bill”. Oki’s utterance does not relate to the topic discussion so that it could be concluded that Oki violated maxim of relevancy.

  • 4.    Conclusion

From the analysis above, it could be concluded as follows : Firstly, there are four types of maxims which are viloated by the main speakers in Indoneisan Lawak Club (ILK) i.e. maxim of quality, quantity, relation, and manner in responding the question given by the other speakers. Violating of quantity were caused because of they wanted to give more explanation or more

information so that can be undestood. And violating maxim of quality caused because of they always gave untrue infomation and lack evidence to support the utterances. Then, violating maxim of relation caused they wanted to widen the description or explanation relaed to the topic and sometimes they wanted to humor, make interactive, attractive discussion. And the last, violating maxim of manner because of they intentionally made other speaker confused. Secondly, the maxim which is sominantly violated in Indonesian Lawak Club (ILK) is maxim of relation (144 utterance, 46,1%), quality (71 utterance, 22,7%), and quantity (70 utterance, 22,4%), and manner (27 utterance, 8,6%). And thirdly, the context of the violating of maxim occur is when the main speaker widen discussion related to the topic and make interactive, atractive discussion.

  • 5.    Novelty

The result of the research is aimed to enrich the readers’ insight about the multiple violating of maxim especially in Indonesian Lawak Klub (ILK). Furthemore, this reaseach enlarges the scope of pragmatic analysis. Then, the statement of novelty of the research is proven by some researchers who conducted the relevant research about maxim violating in comidia, such as the research was conducted by Ulliyadi in 2019 entitle Maxim of Cooperative Principle Violation by Dodit Mulyanto in Stand-up Comedy Indonesia Season 4. Then, the research also was conducted by Novebry entitle an analysis of maxim violation in situational comedy the big bang theory season 11. And the other relevant research was conducted by Br Sembiring in 2014. Therefore, the element of the research novelty is the object of study in which the researcher analyze the all dialogue in one episode of cara cepat menjadi kaya in Indonesian Lawak Klub (ILK)

References

Br Sembiring Mariati., Ani Holila Pulunaan. Violation Maxims In Awas Ada Sule Situation Comedy. Journal of Linguistif of FBS UNIMED. Vol 3, No 4 (2014). doi:

https://doi.org/10.24114/jalu.v3i4.1814

Chairunnisa Nanda and Muhammad Natsir. the Violating Maxims Of Main Characters in The Hangover Movie’s Script. State University of Medan

Grice, H.P. 1975. Logic and Conversation. New York: Academic Press.

Novebry Andras., Rusdi Noor Rosa. An Analysis Of Maxim Violation In Situational Comedy The Big Bang Theory Season 11. E-Journal English Language and Literature. Vol8, No 1 (2019

Thomas,Jenny.1995.Meaningin Interaction:An introduction topragmatics.Harlow: Pearson Education.

Ulliyadhi Ahmad Satria Raharja., Alfin Rosyidha. Maxim Of Cooperative Principle Violation By Dodit Mulyanto In Stand-Up Comedy Indonesia Season 4. Journal Of Pragmatic Research. Vol 1, No 1 (2019).

Yule, G. 1996. Pragmatics.Oxford New York: Oxford University Pres

Biography of Authors


Samsudin, S.Pd.,M.Pd was born in Lido on Mei 18th, 1990. He is a lecturer in Institut Ilmu Sosial dan Ilmu Budaya Samawa rea Sumbawa Besar, Department of Historical Science, NTB, Indonesia Ph. +6285238190725. He graduated his bachelor degree in the Faculty of Teachership and Educayional Science, “45” University of Makassar in 2013. He finished his master degree in the postgraduate program, magister program, English Education studies, Semarang State University in 2016.


Sukarismanti, S.Pd.,M.Pd was born in Dompu on July 15th, 1994. He is a lecturer in Institut Ilmu Sosial dan Ilmu Budaya Samawa rea Sumbawa Besar, Department of Indonesia Literature, NTB, Indonesia Ph. +6282339975913. He graduated his bachelor degree in the Faculty of Teachership and Educayional Science, Mataram University in 2013. He finished his master degree in the postgraduate program, magister program, Indonesia Education studies, Mataram University in 2016.