1

ANALYSIS OF COOPERATIVE PRINCIPLES IN CLASSROOM

INTERACTION

Annisaa’ Nur Kamila

Abstract

Trying to understand the meaning of the speaker’s words in the context of

communication can be included in Pragmatic scope. This study investigated on how

often students and teachers violate the maxim of cooperative principles in the

classroom interaction and the reason why students and teacher violate those maxims.

The purpose of this study is to know how far students and the teacher violate the

maxim of cooperative principles and to what extent they violate those maxims. This

study is based on the Grice theory about cooperative principles (1989). For this study,

the data was taken by recording the whole conversation in a class and analyzing

which conversation violates the maxim of cooperative principles. After analyzing the

data, the next step is identifying and classifying the data into four types of maxim

violations. The result of this study showed that in the classroom interaction, violations

happen to only two maxims of cooperative principles. What happens the most in the

violation in classroom interaction is violation maxim of relevance. After violation

maxim of quantity, violation maxim of quality comes up. Violation of maxim of

quantity and maxim of manner did not occur in this study. The reasons for violating

maxims are different for each violation. Reasons for violating the maxim of relevance

and quality is to liven up the situation in classroom and to make a joke.

Key words: Cooperative Principles, Classroom Interaction, Maxim of Cooperative

Principles.

INTRODUCTION

When we read, or hear a language, we usually try to understand the meaning

of the words and what the speaker or writer intends to say in the context of

communication. It means that both the speaker and the listener must be able to deliver

their intended message clearly, so that both parties can understand each other. The

study on intended speaker’s meaning in context is called pragmatics (Yule, 2006).

Central to the context of communication is the interaction between the

speakers and hearers. Based on Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, the word

2

“interaction”, which comes from the root word “interact”, means “~ (with sb/sth) (of

people) act together or co-operatively, esp so as to communicate with each other.”

For the word “interaction” itself, the meaning is “~ (among between sb/sth); ~ (with

sb/sth) interacting; co-operation.” From this meaning, we can conclude that anything

which has an action and reaction can be considered as an interaction.

In terms of communication, generally can be recognized by the speaker’s

utterances. It includes ‘requesting’, ‘commanding’, ‘questioning’, and ‘informing’.

When we want to understand the speaker’s utterance, usually we look at the function

of those requesting, commanding, questioning and informing (Yule, 2006). In the

classroom, there are many types of interaction between “students and teacher” or

“students and students”. This interaction can be a conversation, discussion,

explanation, or question – answer session.

Interaction can happen when both the speaker and the listener hold a

cooperative principle in doing conversations. Grice’s theory (1989) on cooperative

principles provides how to have a cooperative conversation by designating

conversational maxims, which will be discuss in the next section. A violation of a

maxim may lead to an uncooperative conversation. However, this violation of maxim

is often done deliberately with a specific reason or purpose.

In a classroom interaction, sometimes found that some misunderstanding

happened between the teacher and students or among students. Grice said that

violation of cooperative principles can lead speakers and hearers into uncooperative

conversation and misunderstanding about the message delivered (Grice, 1898). By

looking at that theory, an investigation about violation of maxim cooperative

3

principles in the classroom interaction should be done to know how often teacher and

students violate the maxims. The reason why should find this is because in a

classroom interaction, it is important to deliver the message clearly in order to transfer

the knowledge.

There are some previous studies for this field. However, almost all of them are

on the conversations of films and talk shows. One of these studies, which was done

by Dornerus (2005), addressed the violations of maxims in in Desperate Housewives

and That 70’s Show”. In this study, Dornerus compared and contrasted how maxims

are violated in drama and comedy situations. The result of this study was the violation

of maxim of relevance was the one that most frequently appeared in these two

dramas, with percentage 31,8% for That 70’s Show and 36,8% for Desperate

Housewives. Following this were violations of the maxims of manner, quantity, and

then quality. She said that the violation of relevance was most often done because the

characters avoid the other characters that would embarrass them or put them in

unpleasant situations. The other reason was they do not want to be straight out when

they talk to other characters.

A study by Tupan and Natalia in Indonesia (2008), identified the characters in

Desperate Housewives, who violated maxims more than one maxim. The finding

showed that almost all the characters violate Cooperative maxims. The characters

combine those maxims to tell lie. They were lying to other characters in order to save

face, hiding the truth, satisfying the hearer, etc. Tupan and Natalia said in their

conclusion that when people do multiple violations, people have reasons for doing

violation deliberately.

4

Another study was also done in Indonesia; this study was about a pragmatic

analysis in one of talk shows in Indonesia. This study analyzed the implicature that

appear in this conversation script pragmatically. The result showed that the violation

maxim of relevance appeared most frequently. The next most occurring violations

were those of quantity, manner, and quality. The percentage for each violation were

80,95% for relevance violation, 76,19% for violations of quantity, 47,61% for

manner, and 9,52% violations of quality. Sukrianto (2011) said in their paper that

although people sometimes abandoned maxims, they were not really abandoned the

maxims, they leads that violation into implicatures.

There were some similarities when we look at those studies above, although

they had different context. The first similarity is the result of each studies show that

the violation of the maxim of relevance appeared most frequently. Secondly, they

argued that when people violate Cooperative Principles, there are some reasons

behind it. The last is the methodology that they used. They used the same

methodology; they used transcription, classification data and the result of analyzing

data.

Based on the previous study that has been explained, in this study, the topic

that will be raised is the application of Cooperative Principles in classroom

interaction. The main question is how do students and teacher interact in the

classroom in the light of the Cooperative Principles. This study aims to investigate

what kind of violations the students and teacher do in the classroom and what

meanings they intend to achieve in their implicatures by doing the violations. An

implicature is what speaker mean in his conversation implicitly (Murtisari, 2011).

5

Implicature is not stated clearly in a conversation. By doing this implicature, speaker

has meaning but he does not want it stated clearly. The speaker wants the hearer to

know the meaning of his utterances or his conversation without make it state clearly.

The hearer has to catch the meaning correctly.

The most important thing in this study is how the students and teacher do

cooperative principles in the classroom interaction. In order to find out about this, this

study will see in several cases; the most violated maxims happened in the classroom

interaction, the way students and teacher violate the maxims, and the purpose of doing

the violations. The purpose of this study is to know how far students and teacher

violate the maxim of cooperative principles and to what extent they violate those

maxims. Uncooperative conversation can make some misunderstanding in a class. In

order to avoid this misunderstanding, the finding of this study can make students

aware about the cooperativeness conversation in a classroom interaction and know

how to create a cooperative conversation during the teaching and learning activities in

a classroom.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

The theory foundation that underlies this research is Grice’s theory about

Cooperative Principles.

“Make your contribution such as required, at the stage at which it

occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in

which you are engaged”

Grice (1989:26)

In the Cooperative Principle, there is a special term, Implicature. Implicature

comes before the Grice’s Maxims. Implicature is the capacity of interlocutors to make

6

sense of the utterances they exchange in spite of some missing elements, is that such

elements are often implicated and such implicatures are made possible by cooperation

between speaker and listener (Grice, 1989).

The concept of “implicature”, based on the Grice’s theory, implies that the

hearer of the message is able to hypothesise about the speaker’s meaning, based on

the meaning of the sentence uttered, on background or contextual assumptions and on

general communicative principles which speakers are expected to understand. What is

implied by the speaker should be able to be understood by the hearers.

Based on Cooperative Principles by Grice (1989), there are four maxims that

make conversation work:

1. Maxim of Quality

“Try to make your contribution one that is true.”

Do not say what you believe to be false

Do not say for which you lack adequate

2. Maxim of Quantity

“Maxim of quantity related to the quantity of information to be provided.”

Make your contribution as informative as is required (for the current

purposes for the exchange)

Do not make your contribution more informative that is required

3. Maxim of Relevance

Be relevant

4. Maxim of Manner

“… as relating not to what is said, but rather, to how what is to be said..”

7

Avoid obscurity of expression

Avoid ambiguity

Be brief

Be orderly

What has been explained about cooperative principles are the “rules” in order

to create a flow conversation. Grice also said that there is a violation of maxims.

Violation is defined as the unpretentious or “quiet” non-observance of a maxim. A

speaker who violates a maxim “will be liable to mislead” (Grice 1989:30).

Even though Grice (1989) presents the cooperative principles in a

communication, in a certain situation with a certain condition, people tend to violate it

deliberately. When people violate these cooperatives principles, they seemed to have

their own reason for doing it. There are many reasons why people tend to violate

maxims. Christoffersen (2005) in Tupan and Natalia’s thesis (2008) said that when

people violate maxim of quality, there are some reasons for it. They may hide the

truth from the hearer, save face, feel jealous about something, satisfy the hearer, cheer

the hearer, avoid to hurt the hearer, build one’s belief, or convince the hearer.

Violating can happen to the four maxims; violation of the maxim of quality,

violation of the maxim of quantity, violation of the maxim of relevance, and violation

of the maxim of manner.

The first is Violation of the Maxim of Quality. Based on the explanation about that

maxim, a speaker violates this maxim because the speaker does not tell the truth. For

example:

8

Anna had a bad score in her last exam. She got 20 points out of

100 points. At home, her mother asked her about her score.

Mom : How is your mark for this last exam, Anna?

Anna : Well, not really bad, Mom.

From the excerpt above, we can say that Anna violates maxim of quality, because

Anna does not say the truth of her point in her last exam. Instead of said “I got 20

points, Mom”, she says, “not really bad”. In this example, a possibility reason why

Anna violates maxim is she is afraid that her Mom will be angry to her because her

bad mark on her last exam.

The second type of violation is violation in maxim of quantity. Grice has

explained that violation in maxim quantity may happen if the speaker gives

information more or less than the listener expects. For further understanding, we can

look at the example below:

A and B accidentally met in a store. They talked about where are their

destinations next.

A: Where are you going after this?

B: Well, I will go to the market and buy some fruits using my dad’s

new car.

From the example above, B violates maxim of quantity. B told more information than

A expected. The information that A wants “I will go to the market and buy some

fruits”. However, B adds some unwanted information “using my dad’s new car”. B

gives A information more than required. Moreover, from that example, the possibility

implicature behind B’s talk is B wanted A know that B dad’s car was new.

9

The next violation type is violation of the maxim of relevance. In this violation,

the second speaker does not give a relevant answer toward the first speaker. An

example of violating this maxim is Mr. John and Mrs. John have to present their

assignment today.

Mr. John : Have you done your assignment today?

Mrs. John : I have to drive back to Los Angeles and I did

not sleep.

Mrs. John violates maxim of relevance, because when Mr. John asks her whether she

has done her assignment, she does not answer it with yes or no. In here, Mr. John

expects that Mrs. John will answer with yes or no, because Mr. John asks her with yes

or no question. Rather says with yes or no, Mrs. John answers it in irrelevance way.

She says, “I have to drive back to Los Angeles and I did not take sleep.” The

irrelevance of Mrs. John’s answer may because she has not done her assignment for

today and she is afraid that Mr. John will angry with her. Another possibility

implicature for this case is Mrs. John already done her assignment, but she does not

have time to check it give it to Mr. John. In addition, Mrs. John is tired of her long

journey and she may want Mr. John know that she is tired.

The last type is violation in maxim of manner. In this violation, more inclined

to how the utterances said or how the word said.

Jenny walked out with her dog want to see a vet. In a way, she met

with her friend, Diana.

Diana : Where are you going with your dog?

Jenny : We are going to V-E-T (spelled the word VET).

10

Jenny violates maxim of manner when she talks to Diana. In here, Jenny spells the

word vet become V-E-T. Jenny does not speak the word VET bluntly. Implicature for

this transcript is Jenny’s dog will be afraid if Jenny says “VET” briefly. Jenny’s dog

will become wilder, because the dog is afraid with vet. In order to make her dog stay

calm, she uses “V-E-T” instead of saying “VET” clearly.

Based on the examples of violating of maxims that have been explained, we

can say in other words that speakers make choices not only in WHAT they say, but

also in HOW they say it. They perform what they say in particular time, place, and

manner at the right moment, for the right duration, originating from and directed to

the right locations, at the right amplitude, with the right gestures (Clark, 2004).

In my study, the conversation is taken from classroom interaction. The term

“classroom interaction” refers to the interaction between teacher and learners in the

classrooms (Kalantari, 2009). From the theory above, it is very important to see

cooperative principles in the classroom interaction. The reason is it should be clear

about what happen in the class, what is being talked about, and what the main topic in

this classroom is. A classroom is where the knowledge is transferred from the lecture

to the students. If there is an ambiguity in the explanation, questions, or information

the transfer of knowledge may fail.

THE STUDY

Context of the Study

The context of the study is a tutorial class of Faculty of Information

Technology (Fakultas Teknologi Infomasi-FTI), Salatiga. The reason for choosing

this tutorial class was that in classroom interactions between student and students

11

or students and teacher occurred. By using the class that had many interactions in

it, there was a potential occurrence maxim violation. Besides that, the language

that is used in classrooms is Bahasa Indonesia, so it can reduce the bias when

researcher get the data, because when the language is in English, there is a

possibility of bias because of the second language use.

Participants

Participants for this study were students and teacher from FTI. The reason for

choosing FTI’s students and teacher was because in FTI, students and teachers are

required to use Bahasa Indonesia for conversation in a classroom that is suitable

for this research. By using Bahasa Indonesia as the medium of communication,

there will be no bias in analysing the data.

The teacher for this class was one of the students in FTI because this class was

a tutorial class. The teacher was a senior student of 2010 (fourth year student) that

taught students Statistical Product and Service Solutions (SPSS) in 2013 class.

The number of students in the classroom was 40 students. These students were

angkatan 2013 who were studying SPSS.

Method of Research

This study was a descriptive research, which used the qualitative data.

Qualitative methodology is a research procedure which contains a descriptive data

from written or oral data (Brikci, 2007). Because of this study was about

pragmatics that has a connection with utterances or oral data, therefore, the data

collected were in words, utterances, sentences, and transcription.

12

Instrument and Data Collection

In collecting the data, observation and recording methods were used in this

study. The researcher only became the outside observer; the researcher did not

take part in the conversation that happens in the teaching and learning situation in

the classroom interaction. The second method of collecting the data was using

recording. Recording the conversation and transcribe the recording was the second

method to collect the data. All conversation that occurred in the classroom was

recorded.

Because of this study was about interaction and utterances that happens in a

classroom, recording the classroom interaction was used to analyse and classify

the data. To support the analyzing and classifying data, transcription was also

used. The detailed transcription of taped interaction was the approach that deals

with the conversation or interaction that had been recorded (Crystal, 2008).

Data Analysis

The data was recorded, transcribed, classified, and analyzed descriptively. The

First step was the conversation was recorded, then transcribed. Second step was

the transcription to identify the violations in maxim of cooperative principles.

After the identification, the data were classified based on the violations, whether

violation in maxim of quality, quantity, relevance, or manner. After finding out

the most occurring violation, the next analysis was describing how the students

violate the maxim and the possible purposes and consequences for classroom

interactions.

13

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS

Three times classroom observations were done in two weeks. Nine violations

were found and those violations only happened in maxim of quality and maxim of

relevance with different frequency. Table 1 is a table of frequency violation of

cooperative principles happened during classroom observations.

Table 1. Frequency Violation of Cooperative Principles in Classroom Interaction

Type of Violation Number Percentage

Violation Maxim of Quality 2 22.2%

Violation Maxim of

Quantity

0 0%

Violation Maxim of

Relevance

7 77.8%

Violation Maxim of

Manner

0 0%

Total 9 100.0%

Many violations that happened during the classroom interaction is violation

maxim of relevance, with the percentage 77.8% and happened for seven times.

Violation maxim of quality happened twice, with percentage 22.2%. 0% for violation

of maxim of quantity and maxim of manner. These two violations of maxims shall be

discussed in details.

14

Violation of the Maxim of Relevance

Violation of the maxim of relevance in classroom interaction has 7 utterances

among 9 utterances, more than 50% from the data taken. The reason why this maxim

happened many times is that the speakers wanted to liven up the atmosphere in the

classroom.

Excerpt 1

In a classroom, teaching and learning situation. Teacher was

explaining about Statistical Product and Service Solutions (SPSS). In

a classroom, teacher used projector and every student had one

computer.

Teacher : Nanti kalian di rumah instal SPSS ya, SPSS nya yang

versi 16. Lebih dari itu boleh sih. Tapi jangan yang 20 ya. Nanti kan

tampilannya seperti ini (mengacu ke tampilan yang ada di proyektor,

SPSS program). SPSS itu ada 2 tampilan, yang pertama view,

tampilan datanya. yang satu tampilan output. Statistika tentang apa?

(After this class, you have to install SPSS program, SPSS version

16th

. If you want the latest version, it’s okay. But, don’t install the

20th

version. Oke, the view will be like this. SPSS has two type of

views, the first view is the data view and the other one is output view.

What is statistic about?)

Student 1: Tau (I know)

Teacher : apa? (What?)

Student 2: ya itu statistika mbak. (students laughed) (It is about

statistics, mbak)

15

Teacher :eii, statistika tentang apa hayo? (Eiii, what is statistics

about?)

Student 1: perhitungan mbak (calculation, Mbak)

In an excerpt above, that conversation violates maxim of relevance. When the

teacher asked about “what is statistics?” to the students, one of the students in

that classroom answered with “It is about statistic, Mbak.” The student’s

answer was not relevant toward the question, because it was not the answer to

the question. The appropriate answer for that question was shown by student

2, who answered with “calculations, Mbak.”

From the excerpt above, student 1 violated maxim of relevance,

because his answer was not the answer that was expected. When student 1

answered it, the answer was a repetition of the question. When we looked at

the teacher’s respond toward student 1’s answer, it was not the answer. There

was a reason why student 1 violated the maxim of relevance in this condition.

The respond from the classmates after he violated that maxim was laughter.

There is the evidence that the reason for violated this maxim is to liven up the

atmosphere in that classroom.

Excerpt 2

In a classroom, in a teaching learning situation. Teacher was

explaining about SPSS. There was a question – answer session

during teaching learning situation.

16

Teacher : Ini kenapa kalian belajar SPSS, tau gak gunanya

buat apa? (This is why you learn about SPPS, do you know the

purpose of learn this thing?)

Student 1 : Biar lulus lah, Mbak. (To be graduate from this

course, Mbak)

Other students : (laughed)

Teacher : Ngawur. Ini gunanya untuk skripsi kalian. Nanti

kalian skripsi kalian akan butuh yang namanya SPSS. (It is not like

that. The purpose of learn this SPSS is because you need this in

doing you essay).

In that excerpt, student answered the teacher’s question, but the answer was not

something that teacher’s wanted. However, the student’s answer was logical, it was

true that they have to take SPSS course to be graduate from that course, because that

course is a must for them. Although it was logical, the answer was not the expected

one. The way student answer the teacher’s question was violating maxim of

relevance, because student’s answer was not relevant with the question. The relevant

answer toward the question was when the teacher said, “the purpose of learn this

SPSS is because you need this in doing you essay.” Actually, that kind of answer that

expected by the teacher, but the student did not answer it in that way.

The implicature of the student’s answer was to make a joke during teaching –

learning situation. In order to answer the question with a correct answer, the student

answered it with irrelevant answer. In a reality, student knew the answer for that type

of question, but to liven up the atmosphere in that classroom, student made a joke

17

with that answer. After student answered with that answer, teacher responded it with

“it is not like that.” It was clear enough to show that the answer was to liven up the

classroom atmosphere.

Violation of the Maxim of Quality

This violation happened twice among nine occurrences during three times

observation. The percentage is 22.2%. Based on what happened in the observation,

this violation happened because students wanted to liven up the classroom, avoiding

boredom in the classroom. In this point, the implicature of the students is to make a

joke. It is clear that they were making joke with violated maxim of quality. From this

phenomenon, violating maxim of quality can give an implicature to make a joke.

Because of this observation based on the class interaction, there is only a plenty of

violation in this maxim.

Excerpt 3

Teacher was explaining about how SPSS works. Teacher was

explaining with projector in front of the class.

Teacher : SPSS ini tentang perhitungan matematika ya. Nah,

karena ini perhitungan matematika ini, makanya nanti kalian

ditampilan datanya ini, dimasukin datanya terus diproses. nah

diproses nanti, nanti keluarnya di output ini. jadi dikotak yang

berbeda. Nah, kalau kalian pake java, itukan langsung keluar

tampilannya, tampilan yang kalian buat. tapi kalau di SPSS itu

cuman output datanya, hasil datanya itu ditampilin, jadi bukan

seperti yang di java ya. misal nih, 1 + 1 hasilnya berapa? (So, SPSS

is about calculating. Because this is about calculating, later on, in

this data view, you can add the data and then you can process it.

After the processing the data, the output will be like this. In a

18

different column. If you use Java, the view will be like this, but if

you use SPSS, the view only the output view. The result of the data

will be shown, it is different with the Java. For example, 1 + 1,

how’s the result? )

Student : 3 mbak (student laughed)(three, Mbak)

Teacher : Hey, mosok 1 + 1 = 3? (Really? Is it true that 1 +

1 = 3? )

Student : 2 mbak 2. (Two, Mbak, 2)

Teacher : jadi 1 + 1 itu masukin di sini, nanti keluarnya 2 itu

di sini. (So, 1 + 1 you can input that in here, the output 2, will be

here.)

Excerpt 4

Teaching and learning situation. Teacher was explaining about

SPSS using projector and every student got one computer for each.

Teacher : Di kelas dosen sudah ngapain aja? (In the colleage

teacher’s class, what you have been learnt?)

Student 1 : Ngitung IPK, Mbak! (class laughed)(We learnt

how to count GPA, Mbak!)

Teacher : Mosok ngitung IPK? Serius ah. (Is that true that

you were counting GPA? Seriously?)

Student 2 : Belum sampai SPSS kok, Mbak. Masih

perkenalan. (Have not touch SPSS, Mbak. We just introduced with

the course).

19

In those two excerpts above, those two excerpts was violating maxim of quality. All

students violated that maxim. In the first excerpt, student said that 1+1 equals to

three. We all knew that 1 + 1 equals to two, not three. It was clear that student

violated maxim of quality in answered the question given by the teacher. The second

excerpt, excerpt 4, student 1 did violate maxim of quality. Student 1 answered with

“We learnt how to count GPA”, although in the reality they did not do that thing. In

reality, they did not count GPA, but they just introduced with the course. The proof

for this evidence is when student 2 answer teacher’s question with, “Have not touch

SPSS, Mbak. We just introduced with the course.”

From the excerpt 3 and 4, there are two reason why student violated maxim of

quality. For the excerpt 3, the implicature that we can see is to make a joke during

teaching and learning situation. The proof for it is when student laughed after heard

that answer. For excerpt 4, the implicature for violating that maxim is to liven up the

teacher, because if student 1 did not give answer, the class will be boring. Cheering

up the classroom during teaching and learning activity is needed to create a good

atmosphere to study (Gregory and Chapman, 2007).

The finding why students violate maxim of quality is different with

Christofersen (2005) in Tupan and Natalia (2008), Christofersen said that in the real

life people tend to lie because they want to hide the truth, save face, feel jealous about

something, satisfied the hearer, cheer the hearer, avoid to hurt the hearer, build one’s

belief, and convince the hearer. In this study, students violate maxim of quality

because they want to liven up the atmosphere in the classroom.

20

CONCLUSION

From the analysis above, it can be concluded that violation of maxim that

mostly happened in the classroom interaction is violation toward maxim of relevance

with 7 occurrences or 77.8%. After violation of maxim of relevance, violation of

maxim of quality came up with twice occurrences, with 22.2%.

The ways speakers violate the maxim are different from others. When

speakers violate maxim of relevance, speakers give irrelevant answer or statement

from previous question or statement. Student answers the teacher’s question with

something irrelevant and the answer has no connection with the question. In violation

of maxim of quality, speakers tell a lie to the hearers, but the hearers understand and

know that it is a lie.

From those phenomenons that happened during observation, there are some

reasons for the violating maxims. The reason that can be seen clearly, when the

speaker violates maxim of relevance is to make a joke during classroom activity and

to liven up the situation in the classroom, in order not to make the classroom become

boring. In contrary, the reasons from Christofersen (2005) in Tupan and Natalia

(2008) did not appear in this study. He said eight reasons why people violate maxims,

hide the truth, save face, feel jealous about something, satisfied the hearer, cheer the

hearer, avoid to hurt the hearer, build one’s belief, and convince the hearer. In this

study, especially Indonesia context, the reason why people tend to violate maxim is to

liven up the atmosphere in the classroom.

This study is limited to only looking at violation maxim of cooperative

principles, without looking at flouting and opting maxim of cooperative principles.

21

Besides that, the time limit for the investigation is one of the limitations for this

research. In further study, it is better to have more time to investigate in order to get

the richer data. For further study, it is suggested to investigate also in those areas to

see how far students and the teacher break the rules for cooperative principles in the

classroom interaction. Further research is suggested to investigate how far students

and teachers can apply cooperative principles in the classroom interaction to make the

teaching – learning activity goes smoothly.

22

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First, I would like say thank to God Almighty for his grace to let me finish this

study. This study would have been impossible without the support, help and

suggestion of my supervisor, friends, colleagues and family. I would like to sincerely

thank to my second reader for this study who helped me to achieve this study.

I would like to express my deep gratitude to my great supervisor, Christian

Rudianto, M.Appling, thank you for the advice, support, and encouragement to finish

this study. Thanks also go to Dr. Elisabet Titik Murtisari, MTransStud for her advice

and care to make this study possible to be done.

I wish to express my heartfelt thank to my family that always taking care of

me during the process of this study. Thanks to all friends that always support me

every time I needed their help.

23

REFERENCES

Al-Hamadi, H. M., & Muhammed, B. J.(2009).Pragmatics: Grice’s Conversational

Maxims Violation In The Responses of Some Western Politicians.Journals of

the College of Arts, No. (50).University of Basrah

Bazeley, P., & Jackson, K. (2013). Qualitative Data Analysis. Retrieved from

http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/43454_10.pdf.

Brikci, N.(2007) . A Guide to Using Qualitative Research Methodology. London:

London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine

Clark, H.H.(2004). Pragmatics of Language Performances. Oxford: Blackwell

Crystal, D.(2008). A Dictionary of Linguistic and Phonetics 6th

Edition. Blackwell

Publishing Ltd.

Dornerus, E.(2005). Breaking maxims in conversation: A comparative study of how

scriptwriters break maxims in Desperate Housewives and That 70’s

Show.Karlstads University

Grice, H.P.(1989).Studies in the Way of Words. London: Harvard University Press

Gregory, G. H., & Chapman, C.(2007).Differentiated Instructional Strategies: One

Size doesn’t Fit All (2nd

ed).Thousand Oaks, CA

Jues, Laura A.(1995).Verbal Irony and the Maxims of Grice’s Cooperative

Principles.Published bachelor dissertation. Universidad Computense de

Madrid.

Kalantari, R.(2009).Techniques for Classroom Interaction. International Journal of

Language Studies (IJLS), Vol 3 (4) pp. 425 – 434

Khosravizadeh, P&Sadehvandi, N.(2011). Some Instances of Violation and Flouting

of the Maxim of Quantity by the Main Characters (Barry & Tim) in Dinner for

Schmucks.2011 International Conference on Languages, Literature and

Linguistic, IPEDR, Vol 26 (2011).IACSIT Press, Singapore

24

Murtisari, Elisabet T. (2011). The Uses of Relevance Theory for the Study of

Explicitation and Implicitation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Monash

University, Melbourne.

Sukrianto, M.(2011). A Pragmatic Analysis of The Conversational Implicatures in

Today’s Dialogue on Metro TV “Thoughts on The Reshuffle” Based on

Grice’s Cooperative Principle and Its Maxims.Published post graduate

program. Indonesia University of Education.

Tupan, A.H&Natalia, Helen.(2008). The Multiple Violations of Conversational

Maxims in Lying Done by the Characters in Some Episodes of Desperate

Housewives.English Department, Faculty of Letters, Petra Christian

University.http://www.petra.ac.id/~puslit/journals/dir.php?DepartmentID=IN

G

Yule, G.(2006).The Study of Language. Third Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge

University