https://ojs.unud.ac.id/index.php/linguistika/

DOI: https://doi.org/10.24843/ling.2021.v28.i01.p8

LINGUISTIKA, MARET 2021

p-ISSN: 0854-9613 e-ISSN: 2656-6419

Vol. 28 No.1

The Violation of Cooperative Principle

In the Kindaichi Shonen No Jikenbo 20’th Anniversary Series Comic Vol.1

Made Diah Padmawati

Denpasar-Indonesia e-mail: [email protected]

I G.A.G. Sosiowati Denpasar-Indonesia e-mail: [email protected]

Abstract--The purpose of this research was to determine the violation types of cooperative principle in the utterance between characters in the dialogue of Kindaichi Shonen No Jikenzbo 20th Series Comic Vol.1. This research used descriptive qualitative method. The data of this research are in the form of utterances between characters in the dialogue of Kindaichi Shonen No Jikenbo 20th Series Comic Vol.1. The method used to collect the data is observation method which refers to the tapping and note-taking techniques. The method used to analyze the data is pragmatic analysis method with heuristic technique. The result showed that there were four violation types of cooperative principle including: maxim of quantity, maxim of quality, maxim of relevance or relation and maxim of manner in the Kindaichi Shonen No Jikenbo 20th Series Comic Vol.1. The most frequently flouted maxim in the utterance between characters in the dialogue of Kindaichi Shonen No Jikenbo 20th Series Comic Vol.1 was maxim of quality. This indicates that the characters in the Kindaichi Shonen No Jikenbo 20th Series Comic Vol.1 often say something that is still doubtful. On the other hand, related to the three violations of maxims, it was found that the same number of violations occurred between maxim of quality, maxim of relation and maxim of manner.

Keywords: cooperative principle, violation, comic

Abstrak –Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui jenis maksim prinsip kerjasama yang dilanggar pada pada tuturan antar tokoh dalam dialog komik Kindaichi Shonen No Jikenbo 20th Series Vol.1. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode deskriptif kualitatif. Data pada penelitian ini adalah tuturan antar tokoh dalam dialog komik Kindaichi Shonen No Jikenbo 20th Series Vol.1. Metode pengumpulan data yang digunakan adalah metode simak dengan teknik sadap dan catat. Metode analisis data yang digunakan adalah metode analisis pragmatis dengan teknik heuristik. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa dalam komik Kindaichi Shonen No Jikenbo 20th Series Vol.1 terdapat empat jenis pelanggaran terhadap prinsip kerjasama, yaitu pelanggaran maksim kuantitas, pelanggaran maksim kualitas, pelanggaran maksim relevansi dan pelanggaran maksim cara atau tindakan. Dalam penelitian ini, pelanggaran terhadap maksim kualitas merupakan suatu pelanggaran yang paling sering ditemukan pada dialog antar tokoh dalam Kindaichi Shonen No Jikenbo 20th Series Vol.1 ini. Hal tersebut menandakan bahwa para tokoh dalam komik Kindaichi Shonen No Jikenbo 20th Series Vol.1 sering mengatakan sesuatu yang belum jelas akan kebenarannya. Sebaliknya, terkait dengan ketiga pelanggaran maksimnya, ditemukan jumlah pelanggaran yang sama antara maksim kualitas, relevansi, dan juga maksim tindakan/cara

Kata Kunci: prinsip kerja sama, pelanggaran, komik

Vol. 28 No.1

  • 1.    Introduction

In a reasonable speech, speaker and hearer will always try to convey their speech in order to make it always relevant to the context of the speech, clear, easy to understand, brief or concise thus, the speech focuses on the issue being discussed. The most important thing related to the successful management of social interaction through language is the strategies that take into account the status of the speaker and hearer (interlocutor). Therefore, in order to make the utterance expressible and acceptable to the interlocutor, speaker in general should considering carefully the various pragmatic factors involved in a communication process. (Wijana, 2004:54).

In this regard, to make the conversation run smoothly, speaker should pay attention to the principles applied in communication. As a social being, communication is absolutely necessary for a human being to be able to continue their life. A communication in a conversation can be said to run smoothly if there is no misinterpretation by the hearer (interlocutor). Keith Allan (in Rahardi, 2005:52) says that speaking is the social dimension of activities. Social activities can run smoothly if all of the speech participants are actively involved in that process. If there are one or more parties who are not actively involved in the speech activities, certainly the speech will not run smoothly.

Grice in (Thomas, 1995: 62) suggests a principle known as the cooperative principle and four maxims that support this principle. In general, the cooperative principle emphasizes on the contribution efforts that exist between speaker and hearer in ongoing conversation. Grice said that “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 you are engaged or be helpful.” (1996: 159). Contribution in conversation as the key of cooperative principle. The contribution that exists keeps the conversation going and the communication process becomes successful. If either speaker or hearer does not cooperate enough,

the conversation is threatened to fail. Therefore, speakers always try to keep their speech relevant to the context, clear, easy to understand, brief, concese, and straight forward. The four maxims are: quantity, quality, relation and manner maxims. Maxim of quantity requires the speaker be as informative as possible and not excessive in providing the information required by the hearer. Maxim of quality requires the speaker to tell the truth. Maxim of relation requires the speaker to provide an information relevant to the topic of conversation. Maxim of manner requires the speaker to speak clearly in providing the information in order to avoid ambiguity.

In the phenomenon of language, often in a conversation, a speaker considered violates the cooperative principle if the speaker provides information that is unclear, confusing, dubious, or even provides information that is not requested by the interlocutor. In daily life, we often see a conversation that ends in chaos, for example in a debate. We often see a debate that ends in chaos because the conversation is no longer based on the cooperative principle. The speakers are no longer see the situation and condition of their partner, and vice versa, thus it ignites emotions and there is a conflict. The violation of cooperative principle is not without purpose. There are certain reasons that motivate someone not to obey the cooperative principle in a conversation.

From the above phenomena, it is interesting to examine the violation of cooperative principle, considering that the cooperative principle as a factor that can determine the success of a conversation, but in practice, it is often violated. In this regard, we often encounter violations of the cooperative principle and the conversational implicature in our daily lives, for example in a comic. In a comic, there is a conversation between two or more people, and the dialogue of the characters is part of the process of language use. This research used utterances in Japanese comics as the data. The data of this research are the utterances in the Kindaichi Shonen No Jikenbo 20th Series Comic Vol.1. This comic tells about the

Vol. 28 No.1

story of Hajime and Miyuki who were invited by their junior high school classmate, Mayu Midorikawa, to visit Hitokui Village, a village in the interior of a mountain that presents a view of "the ancient city of Showa". However, behind that nostalgic scene, lurks a threatening crime. On their first night there, the suspension bridge as the only bridge connecting the village was burned. The burning of the bridge is only the beginning of the serial murder case in the Hitokui Laboratory which is said to be a place of "man predators". They were also involved in three serial suicides. Based on the synopsis above, this comic story genre is a detective which describes the story of the unfolding of a crime, after observing this series the writer found that there are many utterances whose meanings are ambiguous, or the intent to be conveyed is different from the utterance that was said. Therefore, the tendency for the emergence of language phenomenon related to the violation of cooperative principle in utterances between the characters in this comic is quite high.

The example of violation of cooperative principle found in the Kindaichi Shonen No Jikenbo 20th Series Comic Vol.1. is described as follows:

IiCfc : ‰nmRfc'9^ LTfrbg 立つんじゃん。

Hajime : “Kalau cuma beli itu aneh kan” (Hajime bergumam sendiri) If I just buy that, it's weird, right? (Hajime muttered to himself)

W⅛ : liL⅛⅛^' ΠroT⅛

の？

Miyuki : “Hajime, sedang membeli apa?” Hajime, what are you buying?

⅛L^ : ^oo^Φ⅛!! ^T^

なとこに？

Hajime : “Mi.. Miyuki kenapa ada di sini?” Mi.. Miyuki, why are you here?

みゆき : はぶらし忘れちゃって買いにき たの。はじめちゃんは？

Miyuki : “Aku lupa sikat gigi, makanya ke

sini buat beli. Kalau Hajime?” I forgot to brush my teeth, so I'm here to buy a toothbrush. What about Hajime?

はじめ : あ！！ああ俺もこれを買おうと 思ってさ～～。い。。入れ歯洗 浄剤？いやこれね入れ歯じゃな くても使えんだよね～～旅のお 供にピッタリ！？

Hajime : “Ah!! Aah aku ingin beli ini.. larutan pencuci gigi palsu. Bukan ..ini bisa dipakai selain buat gigi palsu kok…sesuai buat teman perjalanan kan?.. (sambil gugup).” Ah!! I want to buy this... denture cleaning solution. No... it's not just for denture... it's suitable for traveling, right? (while nervous).

The dialogue above is the dialogue between Hajime and Miyuki. Miyuki is Hajime's classmate in junior high school. During the conversation, Hajime and Miyuki would visit their junior high school classmate named Mayu. They promised to meet at the station. But before that, Hajime stopped at the supermarket to buy something, it is a contraceptive. Because Hajime did not want other people to see him buying that thing, he was sneaking around thus, it would not be noticed by others. But suddenly he met Miyuki. The utterance expressed by Hajime is Ah!! Aah aku ingin beli ini…larutan pencuci gigi palsu (Ah!! I want to buy this... denture cleaning solution) and it is not in accordance with the fact that Hajime actually wanted to buy something he did not want other people to know, that is a contraceptive. Hajime's lie is violating maxim of quality by not fulfilling what was required in maxim of quality, in which speaker had to speak based on the facts, whereas Hajime did the opposite, he lied by saying that he bought a denture washing solution. Apart from violating maxim of quality, Hajime's next statement Bukan..ini bisa dipakai selain buat gigi palsu kok…sesuai buat teman perjalanan kan?.. (sambil gugup) (No... it's not just for denture... it's

Vol. 28 No.1

suitable for traveling, right? (while nervous) is not in accordance with the maxim of quantity, in which in communication, speaker should speak according to the level of information required, not too little (lack of information) or too long (too much information). Hajime's statement had violated maxim of quantity because Miyuki only asked what Hajime was buying and Hajime gave more information than she required. In order to fulfill maxim of quality, Hajime should have answered Miyuki's question by explaining the items he bought and in fulfilling maxim of quantity, Hajime should not have conveyed excessive information that was not requied by the interlocutor.

Research on the violation of cooperative principle has been examined by Rustono (1998) in his dissertation entitled “Implikatur Percakapan sebagai Penunjang Pengungkapan Humor di dalam Wacana Humor Verbal Lisan Berbahasa Indonesia”. This study aims at explaining the conversational implicature that occurs as a result of violating the cooperative and humility function principles in humorous discourse. Based on the data analysis, it was found that violation of Grice’s cooperative principle (1975) occurred in the maxims of quantity, quality, relation, and maxims of manner. The violation of cooperative principle is the cause of the emergence of conversational implicature as a support for humor disclosure. The violation of politeness principle occurs in 6 maxims, they are: tact maxim, generosity maxim, approbation maxim, modesty maxim, agreement maxim, and sympathy maxim. Rustono's study uses Verbal Oral Humor Discourse in Indonesian, and focuses on violation of cooperative principle as a cause for the emergence of conversational implicature in dialogue as a support for humor. Meanwhile, in this study, it is only limited to the forms of maxims violation in cooperative principle in the utterance between the characters and it is not related to supporting humor as in Rustono's research.

Second, research on the violation of cooperative principle has also been carried out by Mussallimah (2010), in her thesis entitled “Analisis

Penyimpangan Maksim dalam Wacana Humor Opera Van Java Pada Media Televisi” is stated that in the humorous discourse of Opera Van Java, there is a violation from pragmatic aspect as a means of expressing the humorous aspect. The violation of pragmatic aspect can be seen from cooperative and politeness principles. The result showed that violation of cooperative principle were violations from maxim of quantity, maxim of quality, maxim of relation, and maxim of manner. Similar to Rustono's study, Mussallimah's study also examines the violation of cooperative principle as a means of supporting humor, whereas this research is a study that examines violation of cooperative principle in its four maxims only and is not related to humor.

Another research was conducted by Rahayu (2014) in the journal of Brawijaya University Vol.6 No.5 and she wrote an article entitled “Pelanggaran Maksim Kerja Sama Grice dalam Komik Humor Prancis Les Bondes Tome 1”. The article written by Rahayu analyzes the cooperative principle which is obeyed and violated by the speaker in French humor comic entitled “Les Blondes Tome 1”. The result shows that the humorous French comic story entitled "Les Blondes Tome 1" contains violation of maxim of quantity, maxim of quality, maxim of relation, and maxim of manner. The violation maxim of relation occurred the most. The violation maxim of manner raised through the ambiguity of meaning, play of meaning and actions that are not relevant to the context. The similarity between this study and Rahayu's study is that both examine the forms of violation of cooperative principle in the utterance between characters in a comic. The difference is that Rahayu's study uses comic in French, meanwhile this study uses Japanese comic.

Research on the cooperative principle has also been conducted by Firmansyah (2011) which examines violation of cooperative principle on his research entitled “Penyimpangan Prinsip Kerja Sama dan Prinsip Kesopanan dalam Wacana Humor Verbal Tulis pada Buku Mang Kunteng”. The result of his research is a description of the

Vol. 28 No.1

violation of cooperative and politeness principles in each humor group in Mang Kunteng's book. Research conducted by Firmansyah examines violation of cooperative and politeness principles, meanwhile, this research only limits the violation of cooperative principle without including the politeness principle in it.

Based on several previous studies, there is a difference in this study in which this study uses data source from the Japanese detective comic series. It is different from previous research which focuses on film and humorous discourse. Therefore, violation of cooperative principle is an interesting topic be analyzed. This topic is one of language phenomenon. The cooperaative principle should be obeyed in a conversation, however, disobedient of cooperative principle is also often occurs. One form of disobedient is the violation cooperaative principle. Research on this topic can also increase the understanding of cooperaative principle, thus, violation of cooperaative principle can be avoided.

  • 2.    Research Method

This study uses a qualitative approach. According to Litoselliti (2010:52) qualitative research in linguistics is related to the structure, patterns, and how the language is. This study also uses a descriptive method because the goal to be achieved in relation to the topic of this research is to describe or provide an overview of the violation forms of cooperative principle in Kindaichi Shonen No Jikenbo 20th Series Comic Vol.1. The data of this research are in the form of utterances between characters in the dialogue of Kindaichi Shonen No Jikenbo 20th Series Comic Vol.1.

The method used to collect the data is observation method. The observation method is done by listening to the language use of the object to be examined (Sudaryanto, 1993). In practice, observation method has basic technique that is tangible with tapping technique, in which the researcher tapping the language use. The tapping technique then followed by note-taking technique (Sudaryanto, 1998:2-7). After tapping the language

use, this note-taking technique is carried out by recording the data which is relevant to the research as well as the context that covers the data and the translation from Japanese to Indonesian. The researcher also observed to this Kindaichi Shonen No Jikenbo 20th Series Comic Vol.1 in depth to see the context of the situation when the utterance was uttered and to confirm the translation results that have been obtained. After the data were collected, the next step is analyzing the data. The method used in this step is the pragmatic analysis method proposed by L`eech (1983:40-44). This pragmatic analysis method is supported with heuristic analysis technique. This technique is used to identify the pragmatic power of a speech by formulating a hypothesis and then testing it based on the available data. If the hypothesis is not tested, a new hypothesis is created. All of these processes are repeated until a solution to the problem is reached, that is in the form of a proven hypothesis (which does not contradict the existing evidence). The collected data will then be classified in advance to make it easier for the researcher to carry out the data analysis process. After the classification is considered complete, step of analyzing the data is then carried out. Data analysis means breaking down or sorting out the elements that make up the lingual unit (Edi Subroto, 1992:55). This study used pragmatic analysis method proposed by Leech (1983: 40-44). This pragmatic analysis method is supported by heuristic analysis technique. This technique is used to identify the pragmatic power of a speech by formulating a hypothesis and then testing it based on the available data. If the hypothesis is not tested, a new hypothesis is created. All of these processes are repeated until a solution to the problem is reached, that is in the form of a proven hypothesis (which does not contradict the existing evidence).

  • 3.    Result and Discussion

    • 3.1    Result

The result showed that there were four violation types of the cooperative principle, they

Vol. 28 No.1

are: maxim of quantity, maxim of quality, maxim of relation and maxim of manner in the Kindaichi Shonen No Jikenbo 20th Series Comic Vol.1. Violation of quantity maxim occurs when the speaker gives more or less information than what the hearer requires. Violation of maxim quality occurs when the speaker says something which is not in accordance with the facts and evidence. Violation of maxim relation when the speaker gives a response which is very irrelevant to the topic being discussed. Violation of maxim manner occurs when a speaker provides unclear and ambiguous information that can lead to obscurity.

Maxim of quality is the most frequently flouted in the utterance between characters in the dialogue of Kindaichi Shonen No Jikenbo 20th Series Comic Vol.1. This indicates that the characters in the Kindaichi Shonen No Jikenbo 20th Series Comic Vol.1 often say something that is still doubtful. On the other hand, related to the three violations of maxims, it was found that the same number of violations occurred between maxim of quality, maxim of relation and maxim of manner.

  • 3.2 . Discussion

Based on the data that has been collected through tapping technique followed by note-taking technique, and after pragmatically analyzed with heuristic technique, it was found that the utterance between characters contain violation of cooperative principle.     The following are

descriptions of the maxims were found in the utterance between characters in the dialogue of Kindaichi Shonen No Jikenbo 20th Series Comic Vol.1

Violation of Quantity Maxim

Data 1

美雪  : はじめちゃんならもう解い

ちゃったんでしょう？

Miyuki  :“Kindaichi...    Pasti sudah

berhasil memecahkannya ya ?” “Kindaichi… You must have solved it, right?

金田一 : ん～まぁだいたい…ってと こ？コレの答え合わせも繭 に聞いときたくってよ！

Kindaichi : “Yah sebagian besar sih, tapi aku tetap harus menanyakan jawabannya pada Mayu” “ Well mostly, but I still have to ask Mayu the answer”

(Kindaichi Shonen No Jikenbo 20th Series comic Vol.1, page 16)

Maxim of quantity wants the speaker to gives information as required, not too much or too less. If the speaker provides much or less information, then it can be considered that the speaker has violated quantity maxim. In the utterances of characters in Kindaichi Shonen No Jikenbo 20th Series Comic Vol.1 were found that there are utterances had violated maxim of quantity. The dialogue above is the conversation between Kindaichi and Miyuki on the train. They were on their way to visit Hitokui village and met Mayu. Mayu is their friend during junior high school. Mayu was working in a laboratory in Hitokui village. Miyuki asked whether Kindaichi had succeeded to solve the problem given by Mayu. Kindaichi, Miyuki, and Mayu were all friends when they were in junior high school.

In data (1), Kindaichi is Miyuki’s interlocutor. Kindaichi has violated the quantity maxim by contributing excessive or more information. This information is excessive because Miyuki only asked whether Kindaichi succeeded or not to solve the problem given by Mayu, while Kindaichi gave an exaggerated answer by saying that he answered most of the questions successfully, but Kindaichi still had to ask Mayu again. Kindaichi should have answered that he succeeded or did not answer the problem given by Mayu. Kindaichi's exaggerated answer is considered violating maxim of quantity. The sentence in bold was violated maxim of quantity, because with the first sentence Yah sebagian besar

Vol. 28 No.1

sih (Well mostly) actually, Kindaichi had already answered Miyuki's question without having to add the second sentence Tapi aku tetap harus menanyakan jawabannya dengan Mayu (But I still have to ask Mayu the answer). Therefore, data (1) is classified contain violation of quantity maxim because Kindaichi gave an exaggerated answer beyond Miyuki's question.

Data 2

金田一 : こんな店マジでやってるの …？

Kindaichi : “Toko seperti ini, beneran masih dijalankan kan?”

“The shop like this is still running, right?”

繭   : そうね…休みが多いけど一

応やってるわ

Mayu    : “hhmm meski sering ditutup,

setidaknya masih berjalan.” hhmm even though it's often closed, at least it’s still running.

(Kindaichi Shonen No Jikenbo 20th Series comic Vol.1, page 16)

The context occured in the dialogue above is the conversation between Kindaichi and Mayu. Kindaichi and Miyuki arrived at Hitokui Village and met Mayu. Mayu drove them to see the center of the Village. Hitokui Village is a very ancient village. The buildings and the village atmosphere are similar to ancient times or known as showa zama in Japan. In the example of utterance in data (2), Mayu as Kindaichi’s interlocutor. Mayu has violated maxim of quantity by contributing excessive information. This information is excessive because Kindaichi only asked the truth whether the old shop in the village was still running or not, while Mayu gives an exaggerated answer by saying that the shop was often closed and not operated. Mayu added information that even though the shop was often closed, the shop

was still running. Mayu should have clearly answered Kindaichi's question by providing sufficient information that the shop was indeed still running. By providing more information about the condition of the shop was often closed actually makes the information provided less effective because Mayu added information that Kindaichi did not ask. Mayu's exaggerated answer is considered violating maxim of quantity. The sentence in bold violating maxim of quantity because with the last sentence masih berjalan (still running), Mayu actually has answered Kindaichi's question without adding the previous sentence hhmm meski sering ditutup (hhmm even though it's often closed). Thus, the data (2) is classified contain violation of quantity maxim.

Violation of Quality Maxim

Data 3

美雪 : ねー！なんて書いてあるのそ れ！

Miyuki :“Hei! Apa sih yang tertulis disitu?” Hey! What's written on it?

金田一：ん～“金田一君ってホントイケ メンステキ☆”って

Kindaichi:“Hm.. Kindaichi keren dan hebat” Hm... Kindaichi is awesome and great…

美雪 : ププッなにそれ！ありえなー い！

Miyuki : “Apaan tuh! Bohong Ahhhhh”

What is that! You're lying Ahhhhh

(Kindaichi Shonen No Jikenbo 20th Series Comic Vol.1, Page 16)

Maxim of quality requires the speaker to tell the truth, the utterance must be based on adequate evidence. In the conversation between characters in the Kindaichi Shonen No Jikenbo 20th Series comic Vol.1 there have been many violations of this maxim. The speaker in the characters'

Vol. 28 No.1

conversations often say things that are illogical, absurd, and untrue. The violation form of quality maxim is shown in the following dialogue. Violation of manner maxim was found in the utterance of the characters in the Kindaichi Shonen No Jikenbo 20th Series Comic Vol.1, as shown in the dialogue above.

The above dialogue is a conversation between Kindaichi and Miyuki on the train. They were on their way to visit Hitokui village and met Mayu. Mayu is their friend during junior high school. Mayu was working in a laboratory in Hitokui village. On the way, on the train Miyuki asked if Kindaichi had succeeded to solve the problem given by Mayu during the junior high school farewell. Kindaichi replied that he managed to solve most of it. While looking back at the question paper given by Mayu, he told Miyuki that he would ask Mayu the answer to that question later when she got to Hitokui village. Miyuki was curious to know what the question was written on the paper. In the example conversation in data (2) above, Kindaichi as Miyuki's interlocutor. Kindaichi has violated maxim of quality by providing dubious information. The information is incorrect because when Miyuki asked what was written on the paper given by Mayu, Kindaichi lied by saying that what was written there was Mayu writing that Kindaichi was cool and great. Kindaichi's questionable answer is considered violating maxim of quantity. Miyuki reacted by saying Apaan tuh! Bohong Ahhhhh (What is that! You're lying Ahhhhh) after hearing Kindaichi's answer, it strengthens that the information provided by Kindaichi did not match with what was written on the paper. Miyuki knew that Mayu is a smart kid, and he believes that there is an important message to be conveyed to Kindaichi through the question given by Mayu. It is impossible for Mayu to write the words Kindaichi said to her. Based on the result of the analysis above, it can be concluded that Kindaichi's answer, whose truth is not believed, is considered contain violation of quality maxim.

Data 4

中神  : まあ乗ってください。ボロ

いうえに狭い車ですけど、 よろしければ荷台にでも

Nakagami : “Silahkan naik, meski mobil ini sudah usang dan sempit. Kalau tidak keberatan,     silahkan

duduk di belakang.” “Please come up, even though this car is worn and narrow. If you don't mind, please sit at the back.”

金田一 : ほ…本当に荷台ですか Kindaichi : “Benar...benar. Di bak terbuka di belakang?”

“Truly.. In the open tub in the back?”

繭    : ごめんね２人とも．．今２

人のりのこれしかなくて．． 他のは出払っちゃってる の．．

Mayu      : “Maaf ya. Hanya ini yang bisa

kami     gunakan     untuk

mengangkut kalian, yang lain juga sudah berusaha...” “Sorry. This is the only thing we can use to transport you, the others have also tried...”

金田一 : いやあこーゆーものなかな かオツな感じでいーじゃ ん？

Kindaichi : “Hmm Mayu, gak apa kok, yang kayak ini juga. Rasanya seru kan??!”

“Hmm Mayu, it doesn't matter like this either. It feels so fun, right ??!”

(Kindaichi Shonen No Jikenbo 20th Series comic Vol.1, Page 24)

Vol. 28 No.1

The context occured in the dialogue above is the conversation between Nakagami, Kindaichi and Mayu when they were going to take Kindaichi and Miyuki to the laboratory they were staying at. At that time, Mayu also accompanied them. In the example of the data conversation (4) above, Kindaichi as Mayu's interlocutor. The car used to take Kindaichi is an old car where the passenger seat is an open pickup in the back. Initially, Kindaichi was very surprised because he did not think that Mayu would actually drive him in a car that he thought was not suitable for carrying passengers. Seeing Kindaichi's reaction, Mayu apologized to Kindaichi because she could only drive Kindaichi in a car like that. Kindaichi replied to Mayu's statement by giving words that violated cooperative principle. Kindaichi said, Hmm Mayu, gak apa kok, yang kayak ini juga. Rasanya seru kan (Hmm Mayu, it doesn't matter like this either. It feels so fun, right) has violated maxim of quality by providing unsure information. The information is not true because Kindaichi lied by saying that he had no problem riding a car like that and he thought it was very exciting or fun, even though Kindaichi was actually surprised to be driven in a car like that because the car was more suitable for carrying goods than for passengers. Kindaichi's comment, whose truth is not believed, is considered contain violation of quality maxim.

Data 5

麻木根 : 何しに来たの～君たち ひょ っとして「宝探し」？

Makine : “Kalian mau apa datang ke sini? Jangan-jangan untuk ‘berburu harta’??” “What are you doing here? Perhaps ‘hunting for treasure’??

金田一 : 宝？

Kindaichi : “Harta??”

“Treasure?? “

鰐部  : よせよマッキ～どー見ても

高校生じゃん


Wanibe

: “Biarkan saja Makki.. dilihat

麻木根

bagaimanapun mereka murid SMP..”

“Just let it be Makki... no matter how they are still junior high school students...”

: “ ジョーダンだよ鰐部～！

Makine

:“Aku  cuma  bercanda  kok

小鷹

Wanibe..”

“I'm just kidding, Wanibe..”

: 金田一君七瀬さんどうぞこ

Kodaka

ちらです

:“Kindaichi, Miyuki.. silahkan ke

金田一

arah sini ...”

“Kindaichi, Miyuki... this way please..”

: あの小鷹さん・・でしたっ

Kindaichi

け？

: “Anuu, maaf Kodaka..”

小鷹

“Um, sorry Kodaka..” : はいなんでしょう

Kodaka

: “Iya, ada apa?”

金田一

“Yes, what is up?”

: 一って聞きたいんですけど


ー・・「宝探し」ってなん のことですか？


Kindaichi: “Ada yang ingin kutanyakan.

‘Berburu      harta      itu...’

makasudnya apa?” “I have something to ask. ‘Hunting for treasure...’ what does it mean?”

小鷹  : ――さあ私からはなんと

も・・

Kodaka : “Entahlah, aku tidak tau apa-

apa...” “I don’t know, I have no idea…”


(Kindaichi Shonen No Jikenbo 20th Series Comic Vol.1, page 30-31)


Vol. 28 No.1

The context in the above dialogue occurred when Kodaka escorted Kindaichi and Miyuki to their room and it was already night. Kodaka is Mayu's colleague who lives and works in the laboratory. Due to the laboratory administrator, Mr. Hajime, was busy, thus Kodaka escorted Kindaichi and Mayu to his room. While heading to the room, they met the two tourists who were staying there, they are: Tsukasa Makine and Eisuke Wanibe. They had time to greet each other, the two tourists asked Kindaichi and Mayu's purpose in coming to the Hitokui laboratory. Actually, Makine and Wanibe are former researchers who used to work in the laboratory. However, they finished their research there due to the death tragedy several years ago. Because there is actually a research that is being targeted by several researchers which, if it is successfully solved, will certainly be a field of money for those who succeed to solve it. Makine and Wanibe were coming back to Hitokui's laboratory hunting for treasure. It's just that they came as tourists thus their destination is not too visible to others. Therefore, for both of them, every tourist in there is definitely suspected of having the same goal as them. Makine asks Kindaichi whether Kindaichi's purpose is to hunt for treasure, unfortunately, Kindaichi did not understand the meaning of Makine's question. When he wanted to ask Makine, Wanibe immediately interrupted that it seemed like Kindaichi and Miyuki were only junior high school students. At that moment, Kodaka directed Kindichi and Miyuki to immediately go to the room. Kindaichi also asked Kodaka again the meaning of Makine's question to him. In example (5), Kodaka as the interlocutor of Kindaichi. Kodaka has violated the quality maxim by providing information that was not believed to be true. The information is incorrect because when Kindaichi asked what was meant by Makine's treasure hunt, Kodaka lied by saying that he did not know anything about this when in fact Kodaka understood "hunting for treasure" meant by Makine. Kodaka is also a researcher in the lab, of course he understands everything that has

happened in the Hitokui Lab. Kodaka should have explained the treasure hunt meant by the Makine. Kodaka's answer, whose truth is not believed, is considered contain violation of quantity maxim. Sentence in bold violating maxim of quality.

Data 6

^Φ≡  : ⅛⅛^ ! ⅛^^^^□b

Kodaka : “Hei ada apa ini ??” “Hei, what is this??”

⅛≡-  : Φ≡^

Kindaichi : “Kodaka!”

“Kodaka!”

Φ≡   : ^Λ?^^? ‰⅛⅛^

所地震が起きたかと…

Kodaka : “Ku kira ada gempa lokal.. Eh pencuri ??”

“I thought there was a local earthquake... Uh... a thief??”

⅛≡-  : E^⅛≡? ^0Ξ^o

Λ^? ⅛

Kindaichi : “Gempa lokal apa maksudnya itu?” “What does the local earthquake mean?”

Φ≡   : ^⅛ Ξ0W^⅛r⅛^^

^^^^ ≡¾⅛^tt^o

こう起きるんですよ

Kodaka : “Bukan, maksudku bukan di

gedung lab. Tapi di gedung asrama memang sering terjadi”

“No, I don't mean in the laboratory building. But it often happens in dormitory building “

(Kindaichi Shonen No Jikenbo 20th Series comic Vol.1, Page 116)

The context in the dialogue above occurred when Kodaka came to see the laboratory room 2, Mayu's messy office. He heard a loud noise in the

Vol. 28 No.1

room where Mayu worked, thus, he was curious and came to see her. Apparently, Mayu's office looks very messy, the books fall off a shelf. This is similar to what happened after an earthquake. Seeing the situation, Kodaka thought that there had been a local earthquake or maybe a thief had tried to enter Mayu's office. Kodaka’s utterance in bold in data (6) above contains the violation of quality maxim. In the conversation (6), Kindaichi is Kodaka’s interlocutor. In the context of the conversation above, Kindaichi asked what the meaning of ‘gempa lokal’ or local earthquake as Kodaka said. However, Kodaka did not immediately answer Kindaichi's question clearly. Kodaka utterances that say Bukan, maksudku bukan di gedung lab. Tapi di gedung asrama memang sering terjadi (No, I don't mean in the laboratory building. But it often happens in dormitory building) considered contain violation of quality maxim because it provides information that cannot be justified. Kodaka said something that didn't really happen and he believed was wrong. As we know, if it is based on reality, ‘gempa lokal’ or local earthquake as Kodaka said, it is a phenomenon that is difficult to accept by common sense. This is reinforced by the reaction of Kindaichi who asked Kodaka, what was the meaning of ‘gempa lokal’ or local earthquake because he himself did not understand what was meant behind the ‘gempa lokal’ or local earthquake as Kodaka said. In order to fulfill the cooperative principle, Kodaka should answer the meaning of ‘gempa lokal’ or local earthquake which he said for example by saying Oh gempa lokal itu maksudnya ... (Oh local earthquake means...). However, because Kodaka contributed to provide the information which he believed was wrong, it can be concluded that the utterance contain violation of the first sub-maxim of quality maxim, it is said something wrong.

Violation of Relation Maxim

Data 7

中神   : 鰐部さん、行こうよ！

Nakagami : “Wanibe, ayo ikut!”

Wanibe, come on!

鰐部  : とてもじゃねーけど 今は

そんな気分じゃねえな

Wanibe : “Aku sedang tidak mood untuk itu.” I'm not in the mood for that.

中神   : どうしたんです 鰐部さ

ん？ 元気ないっスね

Nakagami : “Kenapa Wanibe? Kau sedang tidak bersemangat ya?!” “What's wrong Wanibe? You're not excited, right?!”

鰐部  : ここに来たらいろいろ思い

出しちまった・・・俺はあ の人に・・

Wanibe : “Begitu datang ke sini, aku jadi teringat       macam-macam

terhadap orang itu, aku telah...”      ( ia berhenti

bergumam sambil memasang wajah takut)

As soon as I came here, I was reminded all kinds of things about that person, I have...

(he stopped muttering while putting on a scared face)

中神   : え？

Nakagami : “ehhh ??” ...dan terdiam ehhh ??... and silent

(Kindaichi Shonen No Jikenbo 20th Series comic Vol.1, page 62)

In cooperative communication, the speaker and hearer are required to always be relevant to the topic of conversation. Contributions given must be appropriate and related to the topic being discussed. However, sometimes there are utterances that do not fit the topic of conversation or violate the relation maxim. The violation of relation maxim was found in the utterance of the characters in the Kindaichi Shonen No Jikenbo

Vol. 28 No.1

20th Series comic Vol.1, as can be seen in data (7) above.

The context occurred in the dialogue above is the conversation between Nakagami and Wanibe. Mayu invited all of her friends and tourists to stay in the laboratory for karaoke together. Nakagami, the representative of the laboratory management, also joined together, before he went to the karaoke room, he met Wanibe. He also invited Wanibe to karaoke together. In example (7) above, Wanibe is the interlocutor of Nakagami. Wanibe gave an answer that was irrelevant to what Nakagami asked. Nakagami invited Wanibe to join him for karaoke. Wanibe refused Nakagami's invitation by saying that he had no intention of karaoke. Nakagami also asked Wanibe why he wasn't excited at that time. However, Wanibe gave an answer that was irrelevant to Nakagami's question. Wanibe’s utterance Begitu datang ke sini, aku jadi teringat macam-macam terhadap orang itu, aku telah... (As soon as I came here, I was reminded all kinds of things about that person, I have...) gave the impression that it was irrelevant to Nakagami's question. Nakagami just asked if he was not excited at the time so he was not in the mood to join karaoke together. Wanibe's answer seemed irrelevant to the question because he said that he thought of someone when he first arrived at this inn. Meanwhile, Nakagami himself did not understand who Wanibe was referring to. This was reinforced by the reaction of Nakagami who was silent after hearing Wanibe's answer. He was silent because Wanibe's answer was irrelevant to what he was asking. In order to fulfills the relation maxim, Wanibe should answer that it is true that he is excited or not at that time and emphasizes the reason why he doesn't want to join karaoke instead of giving answer out of the conversation topic. Wanibe utterance aku jadi teringat macam-macam terhadap orang itu (I was reminded all kinds of things about that person) further confirmed that there was another topic he wanted to discuss out of the conversation topic between himself and Nakagami at that time. By providing information

that was not relevant to what was being asked, Wanibe's answer was considered contain violation of relation maxim.

Data 8

美雪   : なんか携帯通じないと不便

ねぇ・・？

Miyuki    : “Rasanya tidak praktis, kalau

ponsel tidak bisa dipakai di sini yaaa..?”

It feels not practical, if the cellphone can't be used here, huh ..?

繭    : そお？あたしはもう慣れた

わよ 美雪！

Mayu     : “Masa??? Aku sudah terbiasa

lho, Miyuki!”

“Really??? I'm used to it, Miyuki!

(Kindaichi Shonen No Jikenbo 20th Series comic Vol.1, page 62)

The context occured in the dialogue above is the conversation between Miyuki and Mayu. Mayu invites Miyuki, Kindaichi, and the other tourists for karaoke. Hajima as the laboratory representative made a karaoke room in the lab, because he thought there was no entertainment in the laboratory. Tanise, one of the tourists at the place also came to the karaoke room because she heard Kindaichi's voice singing. While joking, Tanise also commented on the old black telephone in the room. Eventhough it is old, the telephone can still be used but must use an external line. In the example data (8) above, Mayu is Miyuki's interlocutor. Mayu gave an answer that was irrelevant to what Miyuki was asking. Seeing the condition of the worn black telephone, according to Miyuki, it was really impractical if you had to communicate using a telephone that could only use external lines. Miyuki asked Mayu if the cellphone couldn't be used in the Hitokui village, while Mayu

Vol. 28 No.1

gave an answer that she was used to communicating using the black phone and had no problem at all even though it seemed impractical to Miyuki. Mayu's answer, which was irrelevant to what Miyuki was asking, was considered contain violation of relation maxim. The sentence in bold indicates violation of relation maxim.

Violation of Manner Maxim

Data 9

金田一 : ほ・・本当にいるんだ・・ 観光客！

Kindaichi :“Dengan seksama melihat kedua wisatawan tersebut, “benar-benar ada wisatawan ya..di desa seperti ini?.”

“Looking at the two tourists carefully, “are there really tourists in a village like this?” 繭    : こんな村だからこそよ・・

金田一君

Mayu     : “Justru karena desa seperti ini

Kindaichi.!” ...

“Precisely because of the village like this Kindaichi.!”

(Kindaichi Shonen No Jikenbo 20th Series comic Vol.1, page 26)

Maxim of manner requires the speaker to speak directly, not obscure, not ambiguous, not exaggerated, and coherent. Thus, this maxim requires the speaker to avoid ambiguous expressions, avoid words with multiple meanings, speak briefly (straight to the point), and speak regularly. However, the fact is that the violation of maxim of manner still often occurs due to ambiguous and unclear way of speaking. The violation of manner maxim was found in the utterance between the characters in the Kindaichi Shonen No Jikenbo 20th Series comic Vol.1, as can be seen in the example (9) above.

The context occurred in the dialogue above is the conversation between Kindaichi and Mayu on the way to the inn. They met other tourists who were touring the village. While driving, Nakagami greeted the tourists. In example (9), Mayu is Kindaichi’s interlocutor. Mayu has violated maxim of manner by contributing unclear, vague, and incomplete information. For Kindaichi, Hitokui Village is an old, ancient, and most isolated village. Hitokui Village is a 'nostalgic' Showa village and is connected to the outside world by only one suspension bridge. Therefore, seeing a number of tourists walking around the village made Kindaichi surprised, it was impossible for tourists to come and stay at a place like this. Even if it weren't for Mayu's invitation to come to this village, it seems like he wouldn't be interested in coming and staying overnight. That is why Kindaichi asked Mayu if it was true that some of the people they saw were tourists in Hitokui Village. However, Mayu answered Kindaichi's question with low clarity by saying Justru karena desa seperti ini Kindaichi! (Precisely because of the village like this Kindaichi.!). Mayu's answer seemed unclear and ambiguous. In this case, the context of Mayu's answer is also out of the information asked by Kindaichi. Supposedly, if Mayu's information fulfilled maxim of manner, Mayu should have answered clearly and consistently that it was true that the people they saw were tourists in Hitokui Village even though Hitokui Village was old and ancient. Due to Mayu gave an ambiguous answer and was not in accordance with what was required, thus, data (9) was classified as violation of manner maxim.

Data 10

中神   : さー着きましたよー ここが

仁久井村未来エネルギー開 発研究所・・またの名を人 食い研究所 昔は色々あって よく人が死んだんでそう言

Vol. 28 No.1

われてるんですよ～ハハハ ハ

Nakagami :“Selamat Datang.    Inilah

laboratorium     pengembang

energi masa depan, Desa Hitokui.   Namanya   adalah

‘Laboratorium      Pemangsa

Manusia’. Dinamai begitu karena dulu banyak manusia yang meninggal di sini lho. Ha ha ha ha ....”

“Welcome. This is the laboratory for future energy development, Hitokui Village. Its name is 'Human Predator Laboratory'. It was named so because many people died here. Ha ha ha ha

....

金田一 : 笑えね～

Kindaichi : “Entah kenapa ...aa..aaku tidak bisa ikut tertawa”

Somehow ... I... I can't laugh too

(Kindaichi Shonen No Jikenbo 20th Series comic Vol.1, page 27-29)

The context occured in the dialogue above is the conversation between Nakagami and Kindaichi when they all arrived at the laboratory where they were staying. Nakagami is one of the assistants Mayu trusted to help accompany Kindaichi and Miyuki while they were in Hitokui village. It was already late in the evening, Nakagami began explaining about the laboratory where Kindaichi and Miyuki were staying at. In the example (10) above, Nakagami said Dinamai begitu karena dulu banyak manusia yang meninggal di sini lho. Ha ha ha ha .... (It was named so because many people

died here. Ha ha ha ha....) This utterance has violated maxim of manner by contributing information that is indirect, uncluttered, obscure, and exaggerated. Nakagami's speech was not clear,

thus, it was ambiguous. If Nakagami's information fulfills maxim of manner, Nakagami should provide clear information about the truth of humans who have died in the laboratory with a good speech delivery. Because he delivered it with laughter at the end of his utterance, it made his utterance ambiguous and not in accordance with what was needed. Nakagami's laughing reaction after giving the information that many humans had died in the laboratory made the information seem negative. Kindaichi didn't feel like laughing too after hearing this information. Indirectly, Kindaichi already experienced confusion caused by Nakagami's utterance. He was confused if the laboratory really had taken many casualties, why did Nakagami laugh when he said that, isn't it something serious and unnatural to be used as a joke. Kindaichi's reaction confirmed that the information conveyed was excessive, making the information vague and unclear.

  • 4.    Conclusion

Based on the result and discussion, it can be concluded that, in the Kindaichi Shonen No Jikenbo 20th Series comic Vol.1 there were four violation types of the cooperative principle, they are: 1) violation of quantity maxim, 2) violation of quality maxim, 3) violation of relation maxim and 4) violation of manner maxim. The quality maxim is the most frequently flouted in the utterance between characters in the dialogue of Kindaichi Shonen No Jikenbo 20th Series Comic Vol.1. This indicates that the characters in the Kindaichi Shonen No Jikenbo 20th Series Comic Vol.1 often say something that is still doubtful. On the other hand, related to the three violations of maxims, it was found that the same number of violations occurred between maxims of quality, maxim of relation and maxim of manner. This also indicates that in communicating, most of the characters in the Kindaichi Shonen No Jikenbo 20th Series comic Vol.1 do not always try to make their utterances relevant to context, clear, concise and easy to understand.

Vol. 28 No.1

References

Firmansyah,Anand. 2011. “Penyimpangan Prinsip Kerja Sama dan Prinsip Kesopanan dalam Wacana Humor Verbal Tulis Pada Buku Mangkunteng.” Skripsi. Jogyakarta: Fakultas Bahasa dan Seni, Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta.

Grice, H.P. 1975. “Logic and Conversation”. Reprinted from Cole et al. 2004. Syntax and Semantic 3: Speech Arts. With permission from Elsevier

Leech, Geoffrey. 1993. Prinsip-prinsip Pragmatik. (M.D.D. Oka, Penerj). Jakarta: Universitas Indonesia. Volume: IV No. I. Universitas Sumatera Utara.

Littoseliti, L., 2010. Research Methods in Linguistics. London: Continuum International Publishing Group.

Mussalimah. 2010. “Firmansyah,Anand. 2011. “Penyimpangan Prinsip Kerja Sama dan Prinsip Kesopanan Dalam Wacana Humor Verbal Tulis Pada Buku Mangkunteng.” Tesis. Jogyakarta: Program Pasca Sarjana, Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta

Rahardi,R.Kunjana.2005.Pragmatik Kesantunan Imperatif Bahasa Indonesia.Jakarta: Erlangga.

Rahayu, Nita Puji. 2014.”Pelanggaran Maksim Kerja Sama Grice Dalam Komik Humor Prancis Les Blondes

Tome 1”. Jurnal Ilmiah Mahasiswa FIB,

(online),Vol.6,No.5,http://jimbastrafib.studentjournal.ub.ac.id/index.php/jimbastrafib/article/view/639, diakses tanggal 10 Agustus 2015.

Sudaryanto. 1998. Metode Linguistik Bagian Kedua: Metode dan Aneka Tektik Pengumpulan Data. Yogyakarta: Gadjah Mada University Press.

Wijana, I. Dewa Putu. 1996. Dasar-dasar Pragmatik. Yogyakarta : Andi Offset.

96