The Non-observance of Maxims that Trigger Implicature in Cruella Movie (2021)
on
e-Journal of Linguistics
Available online at https://ojs.unud.ac.id/index.php/eol/index
Vol. 16, No. 2, July 2022, pages: 264--272
Print ISSN: 2541-5514 Online ISSN: 2442-7586 https://doi.org/10.24843/e-jl.2022.v16.i02.p12
The Non-observance of Maxims
that Trigger Implicature in Cruella Movie (2021)
Zakia Rachmah1, Widya2, Evi Jovita Putri3 Universitas Nasional, Jakarta Selatan, Indonesia1,2,3, 1 [email protected], 2[email protected] 3[email protected]
Article info
Received Date: 4 Februari 2022
Accepted Date: 11 Februari 2022
Published Date: 31 July 2022
Keywords: *
Non-observance of maxim, conversational implicature, particularized implicature, generalized implicature, flouting, violating, opting out, suspending.
Abstract*
This research determines types of non-observance of maxim in influencing the implicatures arose and analyze the implicatures in characters' utterances. This is library research in which the data are collected from a movie script and presented in a qualitative descriptive approach. The subject of this study is the Cruella movie that was released in 2021. The data are obtained by watching, screenshotting the scenes, reading the script and highlighting the utterances. In executing the data, firstly is identifying the data, secondly explaining the context, thirdly examining the non-adherence to the maxim in those utterances, finally analyzing the implicatures based on the context. The main theory used is from Grice in (Yule, 1996) and (Thomas, 2013). Based on the theories used, it was found 4 types of non-observance of maxim: flouting (26), violating (7), suspending (4) and opting out (1). Flouting is the way frequently used by the speaker because the characters had other meanings and or additional meaning to be conveyed in delivering the message indirectly. The maxim frequently not adhered is maxim of quality. Hence, it is found conversational implicature: generalized (8) and particularized (30). According to the implicature, there are some negative values that related to issue of the movie, they are theft, lying, rude sarcasm, killing and sabotage.
expression and ambiguity. These maxims, however, are frequently disobeyed, whether purposefully or unintentionally.
Failure to adhere to or follow the maxim does not imply that the speaker's intended message is not conveyed. It, on the other hand, is communicated and capable of responding to the essential information. The intended message communicated despite not observing the maxims is usually called as implicature. (Yule, 1996) states that an additional transmitted meaning, implicature, is something more than what the words mean. This happens unconsciously all the time in our daily conversation. At some point, misleading in receiving the reference of implicature also occurs when the listener has no previous or special knowledge to infer the intended meaning, eventually misunderstanding appears as a language phenomenon. As cited in (Levinson, 1983) Grice states that the kind of inferences that are called implicatures are always of this special intended kind. (Yule, 1996) states that implicature is something more than what the words mean as additional conveyed meaning. (Levinson, 1983) also states that a second important contribution made by the notion of implicature is to provide some explicit account of how it is possible to mean more than what is actually 'said'.
Some scholars have looked at this problem using the same theory as Grice, namely the cooperative principle and the flouting maxim. In the movie The Interview, (Butar & Natsir, 2016) identified and classified conversational implicature. Then (Igwedibia, 2017) found violations of maxims in Audre Lorde's poems and interpreted the implicature. She discovered a violation of the maxim in the form of figurative language. A thesis by (Firoos, 2020) found out flouting maxim and implicature in WhatsApp as a social media platform. In contrast with other studies before, Firoos did larger classification of implicature. Similar with this topic, (Samosir & Ambalegin, 2022) analyzed cooperative principles only that they found four types of maxim in character’ utterances in Paper Towns movie.
In contrast to the work of the previous researchers, this study would like to go deeper into the various methods for failing to observe the maxims. Because it can be used to explain why or why not the speaker follows the maxim, both purposefully and unintentionally. Grice classifies non-observance of maxims into five as (Thomas, 2013) elaborates ;1) flouting a maxim; speaker blatantly fails to observe a maxim, not with any intention of deceiving or misleading, but because the speaker wishes to prompt the hearer to look for a meaning, 2) violating a maxim; is very specifically as the ostentatious non observance of a maxim. 3) Infringing a maxim; the speaker has an imperfect command of the language (a young child or a foreign learner). 4) Opting out of a maxim; is an unwillingness to cooperate in the way the maxim requires. 5) Suspending a maxim; the speaker reduces information because of certain events in which there is no expectation on the part of any participants that they will be fulfilled. The implicatures that arise are influenced by the non-observance of maxim. According to Grice in (Yule, 1996) Implicature divided into 2; conventional and conversational. In this study the writer would like to find out the conversational implicature that is used in the Cruella movie (2021) by using Grice as the main theory. He classifies conversational implicature into generalized and particularized.
The movie script of Cruella (2021) is the source of data in this research. The data are in the form of sentences, phrases and words. This movie was chosen because of the controversy in which people said that the PG-13 rating for this movie is not appropriate, as Gabriel Ponniah said "The Dalmatians are, admittedly, quite fearsome in this sequence, a disturbing visual for kids who loved the spotted canines of the original film. The story is mostly crime-oriented, and Emma Stone gives an at-times intense performance as the titular madwoman. There are a few direct references to alcohol throughout. These all contribute to the film's darker tone as a more mature prequel that expands the fanciful universe of the original IP." (Ponniah, 2021). This has been discussed in other articles as well. Therefore, the
writer would like to investigate if the intended message as implicature in actors/ess' dialogue in Cruella movie (2021) reflects the bad values that can set a bad example for children as viewers or it is possibly lead the children in wrong interpreted, in other words, children cannot afford to digest the meaning of the bad values in implicature. So, the research problem in this study is "What types of non-observance of maxim in influencing the implicatures arose and how the implicatures are used?".
In conducting this study, the writer uses a qualitative approach as Locke, Spirduso, & Silverman in (Creswell, 2009) state that "The intent of qualitative research is to understand a particular social situation, event, role, group or interaction". This approach is in accordance with the purpose of this study to investigate the non-observance of maxims and implicatures that arise in interaction, specifically the conversations in Cruella movie script from Scraps from the Loft, which is analyzed and presented in a descriptive form. The data form are sentences, phrases and words. In order to analyze the research problem, the non-observance of maxims and implicatures theory proposed by Grice in (Yule, 1996) and (Thomas, 2013) are applied to this study. The data were gathered by watching the movie then screen capturing the scenes failing to adhere to a maxim and reading the script then highlighting the data. Then the collected data were sorted for the specific one which contains implicature which need specific context to interpret. In analyzing the collected data, firstly the writer identifies the utterances containing non-observance of maxim using Grice classification in (Thomas, 2013) which are flouting, violating, infringing, opting out, suspending. Then explain the context of the utterances. So, it helps in examining the non-adherence to the maxim in those utterances. Last, analyze the implicatures based on the context.
According to the data collected, it was found that speakers were failing to observe the maxim in various ways. In this movie, the types covered flouting, violating, opting out, and suspending, while the types of maxims were quality, quantity, relation and manner. By these things occurred, the implicature arose and some of them consisted of negative values. Each classification is presented below.
Table 1
Flouting
No Datum |
Utterance |
Types of implicature |
Frequency |
Mother: Hey. What do you say to Cruella when she tries to get the better of you? | |||
1 |
Estella: Thank you for coming, but you may go now. Mother: Good. Now say goodbye to her. Estella: Goodbye, Cruella |
particularized |
1 |
2 |
Baroness: I think you’re… something. Estella: ( silent and smiling ) |
particularized |
2 |
Baroness: Cruella… Cruella.. What sort of a name is | |||
3 |
that anyway? Okay. A proper competitor. I’ll just have to destroy her as we have so many before. |
particularized |
1 |
Estella: Can I get you some cucumber? Thinly sliced. | |||
4 |
Baroness: Go. And get your dried-up, desiccated little brain working. |
generalized |
7 |
Baroness: Well, I seem to have found my new | |||
5 |
signature piece… How do you like it? Estella: (Silent ) Cruella: Darling, if I’m going to need to repeat myself a lot, this isn’t going to work out. |
particularized |
7 1 |
6 |
Jasper: Why you still talking like that? Grift’s over. Cruella: The necklace went in one end, yes? It’s going to come out the other. That’s how it works. Estella: Ah, excuse me, sir. I had a thought about the front window… |
particularized | |
7 |
Boss: I gave you your job description. Don’t go outside the boundaries of your engagement. Please. |
generalized |
7 |
Table 1 shows how speakers fail to observe maxims by flouting, since they were not giving required information directly but in this case the hearers had acknowledged what speakers message delivered either by the context or common ground they had. According to Grice (Thomas, 2013) explained "a speaker blatantly fails to observe a maxim, not with any intention of deceiving or misleading, but because the speaker wishes to prompt the hearer to look for a meaning which is different from, or in addition to, the expressed meaning". As in datum 1 contextually, before started the first day of school, Estella said goodbye to Cruella who actually did not exist in other entity but it was Estella’s different character who rebel and stubborn, then it is classified as flouting a maxim of manner that could be raise ambiguity. So, it was reasonable why her mom asked to leave that character for her school and Estella understood what she meant. similar with datum 2 which Baroness’ utterance was unclear but Estella was able to infer and interpreted as a compliment after she showed her design and Estella knew that Baroness was arrogant personality that was why she was not saying “you are talented” but “something”, if she did know Baroness character it raises an ambiguity so it classified as flouting maxim of manner.
Differ from datum 2 which was a compliment form, in datum 3 to 5 consisted a negative value which were killing, insulting and stealing. in datum 3, Baroness face looked quite angry because Corella’s name was written as the headline of all newspapers as new designer also as her competitor, then she said to her servant ‘destroy her’ that he already knew what it meant implied the bad value in competing in their work as fashion designer which is probably to kill, cheat or sabotage Cruella. and in datum 4, Estella knew Baroness who liked resting time with cucumber sliced in her eyes, so after she exploded her emotion to her employee, she offered that and accepted by ‘go’ but she also insulted her as stupid by ‘get your dried-up, desiccated little brain working. However, answering ‘yes’ either for offer or question frequently found in other 6 data that implied willingness and acceptance. while in datum 5, contextually Baroness and Estella were in office after Estella was caught sketching a design at Baroness alley then she took it. Hence Baroness was lying about her utterance ‘I seem to have found my new signature piece’ then Estella responded by silently and staring with sharp eyes implied she was angry and did not like what Baroness did while stealing her own design.
Based on datum 7, Estella was trying to share her opinion about the front window where she worked for an apparel store. But her boss flouted a maxim of relation since he responded to the irrelevant topic, he deliberately doesn't want to cooperate because he already knows for sure that Estella already understands her job description and limitations of her duties. His response implied that he did not care about what Estella thought by abruptly
changing the subject which was her responsibility in that job. The writer found 7 similar data had intention for rejecting and ignoring by using flouting a maxim.
Table 2
Violating
No Datum |
Utterance |
Types of implicature |
Frequency |
8 |
Estella: Your necklace Baroness: Family heirloom. Funny story, actually. An employee once stole it. Estella: No, she did not. (HESITATES) Sorry. Slight tone delivery problem. I meant… “No. She did not.” Did she work for you? Baroness: Mmm. Once. Years before |
Particularized |
2 |
9 |
Baroness: Thank you all for coming… What a great tribute to our dear friend who shall never return |
Particularized |
4 |
10 |
Baroness: (Push Estella on the cliff) … Everyone: (shocked voice) Baroness: (turn around) Did you see? She jumped. She tried to drag me with her! |
Particularized |
1 |
Table 2 illustrates how speakers fail to adhere to a maxim by violating. In datum 8, contextually Baroness was telling her necklace story that Estella thought it was hers that was lost when she was child then it reminded her of Baroness' face. She knew the story that Baroness told was her mother who was accused of stealing it. Estella's response of "No, she did not" raised ambiguity because Baroness did not know for what reason she said that. but then she acts as if she was just misspeaking by saying “I meant… No. She did not. Did she work for you?” to manipulate Baroness that she had nothing to do with her. The writer found another that is similar to datum 8. while in datum 9 Baroness uttered condolences for Cruella’s death to the guests that she knew Cruella did not die but the guests did not. All the guests wearing Cruella's looks that black and white hair as her characteristic that was not her dress code so Cruellla was sabotaging her gathering. This is a sign that Cruella returned since Baroness tried to burn her. In Baroness' previous events Cruella always comes without any invitation and makes trouble for her with Cruella's distraction of her gowns and looks and as center of attention for the media so Baroness already acknowledged that. In datum 10 Baroness stated ‘She jumped. She tried to drag me with her!’ after she pushed Estella on the cliff that was watched by all her guests. Hence she violated a maxim to defend herself in that she tried to convince everyone as witnesses to believe that Estella jumped and was not pushed by her. However, datum 8 to 10 were violating a maxim of quality since what the speakers uttered were untrue information and they had intention to violate the maxim.
-
Table 3
Opting Out
No Types of
Utterance Frequency
Datum implicature
Baroness: Who are you? You look vaguely familiar.
According to datum 11 in table 3, Contextually it was classified as opting out since Cruella was uncooperative and irrelevant in giving information required while in another role of her actual self. In other words, she was disguising as Cruella dressing absolutely in contrast with Estella herself and Estella worked for Baroness that is why Baroness recognized her but she deliberately did not corporate to tell Baroness who she was since it would thwart his disguise. Hence it is classified as opting out of the maxim of manners. It created an implicature that Cruella did not want to answer Baroness' question to keep her identity. To understand the implicature by opting out of a maxim of relation the speaker had personal knowledge why she did not tell who she is.
Table 4
Suspending
No Datum |
Utterance |
Types of implicature |
Frequency |
12 |
Estella: This is the nicest birthday in… In a while. Horace: Not for Judy. Estella: Who’s Judy? Jasper: It doesn’t matter. Horace: It is no big deal. She just… Estella: Oh, Judy. Horace: …might be hungry |
Particularized |
1 |
13 |
Estella: It’s mine. So I’m taking it back. Jasper: Taking it, as in… Estella: Stealing it. Jasper: Yeah. Horace: Ladies and gentlemen, I give you… the angle. |
Particularized |
2 |
14 |
Cruella: Jasper! We’re in a kill-or-be-killed situation here. Jasper: Yeah, and she’s a homicidal maniac, and you’re not. Cruella: (SCOFFS) Well, we don’t know that yet. I’m still young. Jasper : It’s funny. |
Particularized |
1 |
Table 4 shows how speakers suspend a maxim, according to (I Wayan et al., 2020) suspending a maxim occurs when speakers deliberately do not utter the required information because it is such a taboo thing. As in datum 12 Estella, Jasper and Horace are a thief gang and when Estella birthdays both of them give a birthday cake says “happy birthday Judy” Estella knows what they did to Judy’s cake that steals it, they just don't tell her. Then it is classified as suspending maxim of quality since the information required is not fulfilled
clearly. similar with datum 13 that Horace suspends a maxim manner since he uses “the angle” which refers to a necklace that Estella wants to steal it. In other words “angle” is good or a target to steal. While in datum 14 Jasper and Cruella are referring to someone (Baroness) who was trying to kill her by burning their place and she with Jasper are talking about revenge plans for tomorrow. Jasper calls Baroness as “homicidal maniac” which means murder, hence it classifies as suspending because he uses rarely used word for taboo thing or bad things.
This study is not only to find out and classify the non-observance of maxim and implicature but also to use these as tools to analyze negative values delivered in the language since the movie as subject of this study was controversially released, with some audiences claiming that PG-13 is inappropriate for this movie. According to (Motion Picture Association of America & National Association of Theatre Owners, 2020), a movie is categorized as PG-13 if it does not contain strong language, extreme violence and sexual content. Indeed, it was not, but the writer found implicatures interpreted the negative values such insulting, stealing and murder attempt as in table 4’s suspending classification. According to (Thomas, 2013) suspending occurs when the speaker deliberately does not utter the required information because it is such a taboo thing.
Based on the discussion above, the types of non-observance of maxim are: flouting (26), violating (7), suspending (4) and opting out (1). Flouting is the most frequent type in failing to follow the maxim because the characters as speakers had other meaning and or additional meaning to be conveyed without any intention to manipulate or deceive the hearer. In other words, delivering the message indirectly. The most maxim flouted was maxim of quality since the datum showed how the speaker gave untrue the information required, and this was used for rejecting and avoiding the required information. By those non observance of maxims, it was found conversational implicatures which are generalized (8) and particularized implicatures (30). The number of particularized conversational implicatures arose as a result of the characters' personal knowledge of each other and the situational context required to interpret the speaker's meaning.
In addition to the research findings presented above, this study uncovers one possible explanation why this Cruella film has been criticized as improper for underage audiences. Many phrases and situations depict negative principles such as theft, lying, rude sarcasm, killing, and sabotage, which are unsuitable for underage audiences. The existence of conversational implicatures that lead to these negative values is revealed by data 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14. However we have to acknowledge PG-13 rating rules for a movie. As (Motion Picture Association of America & National Association of Theatre Owners, 2020), It is said that if a movie does not show strong language, extreme violence, and sexual content it would be fine for children but under parental supervision. In summary, this study proves that some utterances contain negative values but are not conveyed explicitly.
References
Butar, I. S. P. U. B., & Natsir, M. (2016). AN ANALYSIS OF CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURE IN * Ines Seri Pinta Uli Butar Butar ** Muhammad Natsir. LINGUISTICA, 5, 1–13. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.24114/jalu.v5i2.6429
Creswell, J. W. (2009). RESEARCH DESIGN Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. In S. Connelly (Ed.), SAGE (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.2307/1523157
Firoos, M. R. (2020). The Usage of Implicature on Conversation through Social Media “WhatsApp.” Universitas Nasional.
I Wayan, B., Nengah Nita, L., & Nengah, R. (2020). Prinsip Kerjasama Maksim Dan Implikatur Pada Seri Filem “Eiffel I’M in Love.” KULTURISTIK: Jurnal Bahasa Dan Budaya, 4(2), 44–50. https://doi.org/10.22225/kulturistik.4.2.1888
Igwedibia, A. (2017). Grice’s Conversational Implicature: A Pragmatics Analysis of Selected Poems of Audre Lorde. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 7(1), 120. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.7n.1p.120
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatic (1st ed.). Press Syndicate of the University of Cambrige. https://uogbooks.files.wordpress.com
Motion Picture Association of America, I., & National Association of Theatre Owners, I. (2020). Classification and Rating Rules. National Association of Theatre Owners, Inc. http://filmratings.com/downloads/rating_rules.pdf
Ponniah, G. (2021). Is Cruella Suitable For Children_ _ Screen Rant. Screenrant.Com. https://screenrant.com/cruella-movie-suitable-children-age-rating/
Thomas, J. (2013). MEANING IN INTERACTION, AN INTRODUCTION TO PRAGMATICS (1st ed.). Routledge. https://www.pdfdrive.com/meaning-in-interaction-an-
introduction-to-pragmatics-e186528721.html
Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics (1st ed.). Oxford University Press. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OcszHnYO7VkWmOwfx7gaRnmKTNCA337f/view? usp=drivesdk
Samosir, G., & Ambalegin. (2022). The Cooperative Principle from Character Utterance in Paper Towns Movie (2015). 16(1), 145–155. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.24843/e-jl.2022.v16.i01.p15
Biography of Authors
Zakia Rachmah was born in Bogor on September 27th, 2000. She is an undergraduate student in Universitas Nasional in the Faculty of Letter majoring English Language and Literature. +628979838577 Email: [email protected] | ||
Widya was born in Bukit Tinggi on May 31th 1983. She graduated from Universitas Indonesia for postgraduate of linguistics. She is a lecturer in English Department of Universitas Nasional, she focuses in Linguistics courses. +6281363420038 Email: [email protected] | ||
⅜L | ||
Evi Jovita Putri was born in Padang on July 27th 1990. She graduated from Universitas Gadjah Mada for Master’s Linguistics of Faculty of Humanities in 2015. She is a lecturer in English Department of Universitas Nasional, she focuses in Linguistics courses. +6285274042432 Email: [email protected] |
Discussion and feedback