flouting maxims in central intelligence movie...

FLOUTING MAXIMS IN CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE MOVIE SCRIPT

A Thesis

Submitted to Faculty of Adab and Humanities in Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Strata One (S1) Degree in English Letters Department

RIZKI MAULINAWATI

1113026000005

ENGLISH LETTERS DEPARTMENT

FACULTY OF ADAB AND HUMANITIES

STATE ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY SYARIF HIDAYATULLAH

JAKARTA

2018

i

ABSTRACT

Rizki Maulinawati. Flouting Maxims in Central Intelligence Movie Script. A

thesis: English Letters Department, Adab and Humanities Faculty, State Islamic

University (UIN) Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta, 2018.

This research aims to analyze the flouting maxims that contain in the

Central Intelligence movie. This research uses the qualitative method and the unit

of analysis is the Central Intelligence movie script. In more specific terms, the

research is aimed at identifying and documenting the rhetorical strategies that are

used by the characters and analyzing the implicature. The maxims are flouted

when the speaker using the utterances in the form of rhetorical strategies, such as

tautology, metaphor, hyperbole, irony, and rhetorical question. This research used

the cooperative principle and conversational implicature theory which was

initiated by Paul Grice and used the rhetorical strategies by Grundy. As the result,

this research shows that there are seventeen flouting maxims that performed by

the characters. Besides, it was found that only five of rhetorical strategies were

applied by characters such as six understatements (35,30%), five overstatements

(29,42%), two metaphors (11,76%), two rhetorical questions (11,76%), and two

ironies (11,76%).

Keywords: Flouting maxims, rhetorical strategies, cooperative principle,

conversational implicature.

iv

DECLARATION

I hereby declare that this submission is my own work and that, to the best

of my knowledge and belief, it contains no material previously published or

written by another person nor material which to a substantial extent has been

accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma of the university or other

institutes of higher learning, except where due acknowledgement has been made

in the text.

Jakarta, June 2018

Rizki Maulinawati

v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

In the name of Allah, the most gracious and the most merciful.

All praise belongs to Allah SWT, Lord of the worlds of all living beings.

The writer is really thankful and grateful for His guidance, blessing, health, and

opportunity that given to her. So, she is able to accomplish her thesis. Peace and

salutation always devoted to the greatest prophet Muhammad SAW, his family,

and his companions.

The writer would like to dedicate her highest gratitude to her beloved

parents, Daryono, Drs, and Nina Nursinah, Dra, for their unconditional love,

endless supports, and prayers, also her brothers Ahmad Rizal, Muhammad Malik,

and her sister Sitta Rizqoh, for their kindness and motivation. The writer also

would like to express her deepest gratitude to Muhammad Farkhan, M.Pd, as

advisor for his time, guidance, advice, and support to finish this thesis.

Furthermore, the writer would like to express her gratitude to the

following persons:

1. Prof. Dr. Syukron Kamil, M.A., the Dean of Adab and Humanities Faculty,

State Islamic University Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta.

2. Drs. Saefudin, M.Pd., the Head of English Letters Department.

3. Elve Oktafiyani, M.Hum., the Secretary of English Letters Department.

4. All the lecturers of English Letters Department, who have taught and

educated her during her studies at UIN Jakarta.

5. Rahasia Club; Wilda A, Siti Rahma W, Adila Oktania, and Yussie Septiany,

as the same Linguistic fighters. thank you for making her happy and

vi

comfortable during her studies. Also for Denisa Putri and Febrina

Wonosantoso, who always supporting and encouraging her, thank you so

much for being her best friends through it all.

6. CROWSA and Linguistics Class; thank you for the opportunity to share

knowledge with each other during her studies.

7. KKN CERITA 2016, thank you for giving her unforgettable moments

during do the programs in Desa Curug, Jasinga, Bogor.

8. Her friends, Dede, Minten, Ulil, PJ, Cici, Aenul, Pipit, Adinda, and Fani,

Desi, Tiya, Purin, Zaza, Nelfi, Ira, and Risma thank you for sharing and

supporting during her studies.

9. Her beloved friend, Mulyana, thank you so much for being with her in joys

and sorrows.

10. All people who helped the writer to finish her thesis that cannot be

mentioned one by one.

May Allah bless and keep them always. Hopefully, this thesis will give

benefit to the writer herself and all the people who read it.

Jakarta, June 2018

The writer

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................ i

APPROVEMENT ................................................................................................. ii

LEGALIZATION ................................................................................................ iii

DECLARATION .................................................................................................. iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .....................................................................................v

TABLE OF CONTENTS.................................................................................... vii

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................... ix

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION.........................................................................1

A. Background of Study ................................................................................... 1

B. Focus of the Study ........................................................................................ 5

C. Research Questions ...................................................................................... 5

D. Objectives of the Study ................................................................................ 5

E. The Significances of the Study .................................................................... 6

F. Research Methodology................................................................................. 6

1. The Method of Study ................................................................................ 6

2. The Unit of Analysis ................................................................................ 7

3. The Technique of Collecting Data and Data Analysis ............................. 7

4. The Instrument of the Study ..................................................................... 8

CHAPTER II THE THEORETICAL DESCRIPTION ...................................9

A. Previous Research ........................................................................................ 9

B. Movie Script ............................................................................................... 10

C. Cooperative Principle ................................................................................. 11

D. Implicature ................................................................................................. 14

viii

E. Flouting Maxims ........................................................................................ 16

1. Flouting Maxim of Quantity ................................................................... 16

2. Flouting Maxim of Quality ..................................................................... 17

3. Flouting Maxim of Relevance ................................................................ 18

4. Flouting Maxim of Manner .................................................................... 18

F. Rhetorical Strategies .................................................................................. 19

1. Tautology ................................................................................................ 19

2. Metaphor ................................................................................................ 21

3. Overstatement ......................................................................................... 22

4. Understatement ....................................................................................... 23

5. Rhetorical Question ................................................................................ 24

6. Irony ....................................................................................................... 25

CHAPTER III RESEARCH ANALYSIS ........................................................26

A. Data Description......................................................................................... 26

B. Data Analysis ............................................................................................. 30

CHAPTER IV CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION ...................................55

A. Conclusion ................................................................................................. 55

B. Suggestion .................................................................................................. 56

BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................57

Books ................................................................................................................. 57

Journals .............................................................................................................. 57

APPENDICES ......................................................................................................60

ix

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1 The List of Data Findings ................................................................... 26

Table 3.2 The Types of Flouting Maxims ............................................................ 29

Table 3.3 The Rhetorical Strategies ..................................................................... 30

1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

A. Background of Study

The function of maxims in the conversational principle is very

important to make the communication running well. As we know that

language has emerged and developed in human history as a form of

communication needs, people involved in the conversation intend to

convey their messages. The conversation can be said to be communicative

when they understand the language used and understand the meaning

contained in the conversation. According to Kourkouta and Papathanasiou

(65), communication can be defined as transactions and messages creation

that cannot be separated from the context. By communicating, we can

understand other people, the environment, and be able to describe the

purpose, feelings, and views of the world. Everyone is asked to

communicate well in order to avoid misunderstandings in communication.

In order to make a good conversation, Grice stated that both

speakers and hearers are generally cooperating with each other. This

means that they must adhere to the cooperative principle, so they should

be quite careful to use language in such a way that the purpose of their

communications must not fail. The cooperative principle is the

assumption that speakers in the conversation trying to be informative,

truthful, relevant and clear with each other when communicating (Crystal

2

73). The cooperative principle can be divided into four maxims, there are;

maxim of quantity, maxim of quality, maxim of relevant, and maxim of

manner, with these maxims, the speakers are expected to be able to adhere

to the cooperative principle. Those maxims look like rules that people

should follow to further the conversation efficiently.

However, in the reality, people sometimes are not adhering to the

maxims for some certain reasons. They may intentionally or

unintentionally fail to fulfill maxims because of their purposes of

interaction, for instance, they are incapable of speaking clearly, or because

they deliberately choose to lie. When a maxim is violated, the

communication does not go well. Grice stated (in Thomas 117) that

speaker blatantly fails to observe a maxim, not with any intention of

deceiving or misleading, but because the speaker wants to encourage the

listener to look for a meaning in the utterance. This additional meaning he

called ‘conversational implicature’.

The term implicature was coined by Paul Grice as a technical

term in pragmatics (in Thomas 116). Implicature for the speakers is

meaning one thing by saying something else. There are two types of

implicature; conventional implicature and conversational implicature.

Conventional impicatures are derived from the meaning of the words in

use, whereas conversational implicatures are derived from contextual clues

(Archer et all 49). Conversational implicatures occur because the

application of conversational maxims to ‘the saying of what is said’ and so

3

require the prior determination of ‘what is said’. Conversational

implicature based on the hearer’s assumption that the speaker is following

the conversational maxims or at least the cooperative principle, features of

the utterance context, and the same of background knowledge.

Furthermore, Grice stated (in Thomas 119) there are several ways

in which participant in talk exchange may fail to observe the maxims, he

listed five types of non-observance, they are flouting, violating, infringing,

opting out, and suspending maxims. As the flouting of maxims becomes

an interesting topic, the writer only focuses on flouting of maxims in the

Central Intelligence movie and takes the dialogue script as the unit

analysis in this study. Flouting maxims is one of the most common

violations in the conversation. People can flout the maxims for certain

reasons; it can be described in various media, one of them is a movie.

Movie is motion pictures that recorded by a camera which is to

tell a story to the viewer. According to Sutherland and Feltey (4), movies

involves social interaction. Besides, Basler (in Sutherland and Feltey 116)

stated that the medium of movie is capable of creating a convincing

version of reality to the viewer. This means that movie can reflect our

social life, like conversation used in a real life and can be described in

conversation in the movie. Besides, movie has a situation where theories

can be employed, such as an implicature that is highly context dependent.

The reason why the writer takes this movie because the movie has

action and comedy genre, as we know in most of comedies genre, one of

4

the characters are usually flouted the conversational maxims in order to

amuse the audience. Besides, the movie has won two awards and eight

nominations, one of them is the people’s choice awards, Kevin Hart as

favorite comedy actor who played as Calvin in this movie. Moreover, this

movie was performed by two famous actors namely Dwayne Johnson and

Kevin Hart who won kids' choice award the USA as BFFs (Best Friends

Forever), therefore this movie is interesting to discuss.

Flouting maxims means that speaker blatantly fails to observe a

maxim, as long as speaker provides enough indicators for the hearer to

realize it. On the other hand, the speaker deliberately violates the maxim to

generate an implicature to convey the meaning in an utterance. Besides,

Grice stated that flouting maxims is usually carried out by figures of

speech or rhetorical figures (Kukkonen 207), such as tautology, metaphor,

understatement, overstatement, rhetorical question, and irony, these types

are called rhetorical strategies (Grundy 76-77). Through the use of figures

of speech, the speaker can describe and express his or her feelings and

thoughts more clearly to the hearer. Therefore, whenever a maxim is

flouted there must be an implicature to intend their listener understand the

implication.

Furthermore, based on the reason above, the writer will analyzes

the flouting maxims, how the rhetorical strategies used to flout the maxims

and the implicature as a result of violations committed by the characters.

This research uses the qualitative method and the data from the Central

5

Intelligence movie script. Besides, this research aims to complete the

previous research in depth about the cooperative principle, therefore this

topic is still interesting to discuss.

B. Focus of the Study

Based on the background of study above, the research is limited by

focusing on the flouting maxims, the rhetorical strategies, and the

implicature which are contained in the Central Intelligence movie.

C. Research Questions

In this research, there are two questions that would be analyzed, as

follows:

1. What are the rhetorical strategies used to flout the maxims in Central

Intelligence movie script?

2. How is the conversational implicature generated in Central

Intelligence movie script?

D. Objectives of the Study

The aim of this research is to analyze the flouting maxims in

Central Intelligence movie script, specifically to:

1. To identify the rhetorical strategies used to flout the maxims in

Central Intelligence movie script.

2. To analyze the conversational implicature generated in Central

Intelligence movie script.

6

E. The Significances of the Study

Theoretically, the results of this research are expected to increase

knowledge for the reader to understand the theory of the cooperative

principle that focuses on flouting maxims usage and able to contribute for

the development of linguistic research. As for the writer, this research will

add and expand the knowledge in the study of linguistics.

Practically, this research can aid the readers in understanding more

about the cooperative of principle and the readers can apply the

cooperative principle in daily life. In order to avoid misunderstanding,

people must to communicate effectively in social interaction, that is, how

listeners and speakers must act cooperatively so that they can understand

each other when communicating.

F. Research Methodology

1. The Method of Study

The method used in this research is qualitative. According to

Farkhan (2), qualitative research is the study that relies on verbal and

other non-numerical data as the basis and problem solving are being

studied, such as content analysis, discourse analysis, and naturalistic

study, besides Mahsun stated (257) that qualitative analysis focused

on the appointment of meaning, description, purification, and

placement of data on each context. Furthermore, this research will

analyze, identify, and classify the kind of flouting maxims by applying

7

Grice’s conversational maxims theory and the rhetorical strategies by

Grundy.

2. The Unit of Analysis

The unit analysis that is researched by the writer is the script of

“Central Intelligence” movie released on June 10, 2016, and produced

by New Line Cinema, Ratpac-Dune Entertainment, Perfect World

Pictures, and Bluegrass Films. The script of this movie is obtained

from http://www.springfieldspringfield.co.uk/.

3. The Technique of Collecting Data and Data Analysis

According to Farkhan (53), data collection is the stage of the

research focusing on the various way to collect the data needed in the

research. Data collection used in this research is documentation.

According to Lincoln and Guba (in Frechtling and Westat 57), a

document is defined as "any written or recorded material", besides,

Bowen (27) stated that document analysis is a systematic procedure

for reviewing both printed and electronic. Therefore, this research

uses the movie script as the document or the written source. The

analysis of the data begins with watching the Central Intelligence

movie, reading the movie script carefully, identifying the utterances

that contain flouting maxims, rhetorical strategies, and the

implicature, compiling into the data card and concluding the data

which have been collected.

http://www.springfieldspringfield.co.uk/

8

4. The Instrument of the Study

The main instrument in this research is a human instrument or

the writer herself with the script of “Central Intelligence” movie as

supporting instruments. Then, she reads and studies the script

carefully and repeatedly to find the required data. Finally, she

analyzes and identifies the selected data by using Grice’s

conversational maxims theory and the rhetorical strategies by Grundy.

9

CHAPTER II

THE THEORETICAL DESCRIPTION

A. Previous Research

Related to flouting maxims, many studies have already done by

some researchers with the different point of view. For instance, a study

done by Reza Khazani and Rahil Darabi (2014), they conducted a study

about how and when the rules in Academic Correspondence are flouted

and give a report on the effect of gender and educational level on flouting

netiquette rules in Iranian academic correspondence. The findings

indicated that females consider netiquettes more than males and

participants with higher educational level flout the mentioned rules less

than the ones with lower educational degrees.

Similarly, the research was conducted by Karin Kukkonen (2013),

her research focus on ‘uncooperative narration’ in the fiction of Eliza

Haywood, which is based on rhetorical figures which flout the cooperative

principle, such as adynaton and prolepsis which are flouts the maxim of

quantity and maxim of manner. This study is based on the basis of Gricean

pragmatics and Tomasello’s work on communication and cooperation in

human evolution. The result showed that uncooperative narration makes

the readers to find the communicative purpose behind flouting figures like

adynaton and prolepsis with their own interpretations and also to

understanding the implicatures in the fiction of Eliza Haywood.

10

Differently, the research conducted by Azar Tajabadi, et al (2014),

this research focused on the use of Grice’s cooperative maxims and what

maxims are more frequently violated by Persian speakers engaged in oral

disputes in Iranian Dispute Settlement Council. The research findings

indicated that the maxim of quantity and relevance were more frequently

violated during the disputes. Meanwhile, Galia Hirsch and Shoshana

Blum-Kulka (2014), their research only focused on the detection of irony

in Israeli political news interviews exploring the viewer’s perception of the

interaction. This study views irony as a case of conversational implicature

triggered by a blatant flouting of the maxim of quality. The result

indicated that in most cases audiences do detect irony and attribute its

detection to the interviewees.

Although the related researches have been done, this research

focuses on the flouting maxims, the use of rhetorical strategies and the

implicature that generated in the movie. This research aims to complete

the previous research in depth about the cooperative principle, therefore

this topic is still interesting to discuss.

B. Movie Script

According to Van Rijsselbergen et al (161), movie script is a

document specification for the structural representation of screenplay

narratives for television and feature film drama production. A screenplay

or script is the basis of any drama production, and it was written by the

11

screenwriter. This document consists of events and dialogues about a

number of characters and also the directions for a film.

C. Cooperative Principle

Grice stated (in Liu 564) that speakers are taken to be cooperative,

choosing their utterances to convey particular meanings. He declared

"make your contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs,

by the accepted purpose of the talk exchange in which you are engaged".

Grice proposed the cooperative principle and conversational maxims as an

understanding of the conversation.

The maxims of cooperative principle are central to communicative

competence and attempt to make explicit some of the rational principles

observed by people when they talk (Skarakis-Doyle 333; Hadi 69).

According to Lazar (442), the cooperative of principle means that speakers

engaged in conversational exchanges comply with a general principle of

cooperation, following some basic rules of quantity, quality, relevance,

and manner. Grice pointed out that speakers and listeners rely on the four

maxims of conversation, he mentioned these maxims as follows (Archer et

al., 51):

1. Maxim of Quantity: Be informative. (1) Make your contribution as

informative as required (for the current purposes of the exchange).

(2) Do not make your contribution more informative than is required.

According to Cutting (23) the maxim of quantity means that

12

speakers should be as informative as is required, they should give

neither too little information nor too much.

For example:

(1) Billie : What time do you go to school?

Joe : I go to school at 7 am

In the example (1), we know that Joe’s answer provided the required

information without adding other information.

2. Maxim of Quality: Be truthful. Try to make your contribution one

that is true. (1) Do not say what you believe to be false. (2) Do not

say that for which you lack evidence. In this maxim, the speakers are

expected to be sincere, to be saying something that they believe

corresponds to reality. They are assumed not to say anything that

they believe to be false or anything for which they lack evidence.

Some speakers like to draw their hearers’ attention to the fact that

they are only saying what they believe to be true, and that they lack

adequate evidence (Cutting 24).

(2) Sarah : Why were you last night?

David : My car broke down

Example (2) shows that David gives the truthful information, he was

late because his car broke down.

13

3. Maxim of Relevance: Be relevant.

The maxim of relevance means that speakers are assumed to be

saying something that is relevant to what has been said before. Some

speakers like to indicate how their comment has relevance to the

conversation.

(3) Husband : How is the weather today?

Wife : It is rainy and cloudy

From the example (3), his wife gives the accurate information that is

relevant to husband’s question.

4. Maxim of Manner: Be perspicuous. (1) Avoid obscurity of

expression. (2) Avoid ambiguity. (3) Be brief (avoid unnecessary

prolixity). (4) Be orderly. The maxim of manner means that the

speakers have to avoid ambiguity or obscurity, besides the speakers

should be direct and straightforward.

(4) Laura : Where was the professor when class

ended?

David : he went to his office

The example (4) shows that David answer with orderly information

to the Sarah’s question.

According to Lazar (442), the cooperation is carried out on the

basis of the discursive laws or can be called as conversational maxims,

which have to be met for the communication to take place. This means that

conversational maxims are like rules that must be fulfilled. If the speakers

14

do not observe those maxims, it could lead to implicatures inferences

about their intended meaning. Therefore, to identify the implicatures in the

conversation, the listener should consider what the speaker said and what

he could have said. According to Grice (in Liu 564), the hearer is able to

hypothesize about the Speaker’s meaning, depends on the background or

contextual assumptions. Essentially, the cooperative of principle is a

principle that is applied in conversation to be more rational and

cooperative way in order to facilitate the interpretation of the message.

D. Implicature

It has been a common assumption that implicatures occur if there is

a violation in the conversational maxims (Dinges 54). According to

Antoniou & Katsos (6) implicatures are components of speaker meaning

that constitute an aspect of what is meant in a speaker’s utterance without

being part of what is said, besides, implicatures require an inferential

process that takes into account various linguistic and contextual data.

Grice distinguishes between two kinds of implicatures, such as

conventional implicature and conversational implicature. Conventional

implicature is derived directly from the meaning of the words in use.

Besides, Janssens & Schaeken (1) stated that implicatures are attached by

convention to particular lexical items or linguistic constructions. For

example, the word ‘but’ conveys an idea of contrast such that, when we

hear utterances akin to She’s a professor but she’s OK really, we’re likely

to infer that professors aren’t, normally, people (Archer et al., 49).

15

The second type of implicature is conversational implicature,

Tsojon & Jonah (43) stated that conversational implicature is subsumed to

mean an implication or suggestion deduced from the point of an utterance.

A conversational implicature uses the cooperative principle, which

determines the efficient use of conversation, for instance, if someone says

“look, the train!” while approaching a railway station, the implicature is

“we must hurry” and not to say “what a beautiful color it has”. This

cooperative principle allows the hearer to get implicatures, that is,

inferences that consist the implicit meaning contained in the speaker’s

utterance.

(5) Stands in front of his obviously immobilised car.

A : I am out of petrol.

B : There is a garage round the corner.

Implicature: The garage is open.

We can see that B gives an answer to solve A’s problem of finding

petrol for his car, and A assumes that B’s utterance is being cooperative, A

can conclude that garage is open and it sells fuel as far as B knows (Benz

et al., 2). The implicature can be calculated because the hearer assumes

that the speaker is observing the maxims. Therefore, the speaker believes

and implicates that the garage sells petrol.

16

E. Flouting Maxims

Flouting is one of the types of non-observance maxims (in Thomas

117). Flouting occurs when the speaker obviously fails to observe the

maxims in order to generate a conversational implicature (Cheng et al.,

39). This means the speaker is deliberately trying to give a special

meaning that is different from the literal meaning as long as the speaker or

the context provides enough indicators for the hearer to realize it. In

addition, flouting maxims is different from violating maxims, but both

terms mean that the person is not being cooperative. Violating maxims

takes place to cause misunderstanding the hearer whereas flouting maxims

takes place to convince the hearer to infer the hidden meaning behind the

utterances or called the implicature. There are four types of flouting

maxims, such as:

1. Flouting Maxim of Quantity

Flouting maxim of quantity occurs when the speaker

blatantly gives more or less information than the situation needs.

(6) A : Well, how do I look?

B : Your shoes are nice

From the example (6), A knows that B is not impressed with

the rest of what he is wearing, because B’s answer only explained the

‘shoes’ and did not explain anything else. In this case, B's answer

just gives a little information than A's needed (Cutting 25).

17

(7) A : Hi, do you have school tomorrow?

B : I have classes all day but I must go to the doctor

when I’m finished.

For example (7), we know that B have a class tomorrow but

B has flout the maxim of quantity because B gives too much

information rather than providing ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer.

2. Flouting Maxim of Quality

This maxim happens when the speaker blatantly saying

something untrue or lack evidence. The maxim of quality requires

the speaker to be truthful and do not give information that is false.

(8) Monica : Rose, how do you like this novel?

Rose : Oh, I like its red cover

For the example (8), Rose says something that is not true,

because in that situation the cover is clearly not red, but its blue, and

Rose’s answer is not expect that someone likes a novel. In this case,

Rose may be implicating that there is nothing about the novel that

she likes, not even the cover.

Flouting the first maxim of Quality, which leads to overt

untruthfulness, is related to four rhetorical figures such as irony,

metaphor, meiosis and hyperbole (Dynel 8). The speaker can flout

the maxim of quality by using metaphor, for example, if someone

18

says “My house is a refrigenerator in January”, the hearer can

understand that the house was very cold indeed, especially in

January (Cutting 26).

3. Flouting Maxim of Relevance

When someone starts talking, he/she should take into

account what has already been said, what he/she or the others have

said, otherwise we risk repeating or being incoherent (Lazar 445). If

the speakers flout maxim of relation, they expect that the hearers will

be able to imagine what the utterance did not say, and make the

connection between their utterance and preceding one(s) (Cutting

27).

(9) A : There’s somebody at the door

B : I’m in the bath

From the example (9), B expect A to understand that his

present location is relevant to her comment that there is someone at

the door, and B cannot go and see who it is because he is in the bath.

4. Flouting Maxim of Manner

The maxim of manner demands that one’s contribution

should be brief and orderly. By transgressing this maxim, people

make use of multiple types of obscure expressions (Lazar 445) those

who flout the maxim of manner, appearing to be obscure, are often

19

trying to exclude a third party or speak in an ambiguous way

(Cutting 27).

(10) A : What are your plans for this afternoon?

B : Well, I was going to take the D-O-G for a W-A-L-

K

We can see that B answers the question’s A by spelling the

words ‘dog’ and ‘walk’, this means that B flouts the maxim of

manner because he answers the question vaguely.

F. Rhetorical Strategies

Flouting maxims can be done with some strategies by speakers.

According to Grice, using of flouting maxims or exploitations can be

caused by the use of figures of speech in the conversation (Levinson 109),

besides, Griffiths (79) asserted that the use of figurative language in

communication is creative and fresh because the speaker can express his

feelings when communicating with others. Moreover, Grundy (76) stated

that flouting the maxims turns into a rhetorical strategy, he mentioned that

there are six types of rhetorical strategies that can cause flouting maxims,

such as:

1. Tautology

Tautology is an utterance that is recited or repeated in a

different way without making its meaning clear, according to

Sonnenhauser (16), tautology is one of the prime examples to show

20

the contribution of pragmatic principles to the interpretation of non-

informative utterances from a strictly logical and truth conditional

perspective. Furthermore, Kwon (44) assert that tautological

constructions are always truth-conditionally true, but without

categorization, they would be meaningless, because their structure

consists of a mere repetition of linguistics contents.

(11) Boys will be boys

From the example (11), the first 'boys' implies the semantically

notion of male person, sometimes it’s used for any age, the second

'boys' implies something like person who behaves in the way a boy

behaves. Tautology is used to break the maxims and convey some

hidden messages. The example (11) implicates that the speaker

intends to convey that ‘That’s the kind of unruly behavior you would

expect from boys’, this statement means that any negative behaviour

should be forgiven on the grouds that boys always do the wrong

things. There are another example of tautologies that are different

form from the previous one (Grundy 125).

(12) At the end of the day the church can only afford to pay the

number of people it can afford to pay

Unlike the example (11), the example (12) is not like an idiom.

However, this is indeed a tautology because there is a phrase that is

often used ‘afford to pay’. It flouts the maxim of quantity due to lack

21

of information provided and does not give the contribution that is

required. To comply with the maxim of quantity, the speaker

mention the exact number of people rather than using a tautology.

2. Metaphor

Metaphors have long been regarded as a function of

rhetorical devices that meet strategic goals in argumentative

exchanges (Oswald & Rihs 2). Metaphor is the way of describing

something with another thing which it may be considered to be

analogous, moreover, according to Lancor (2) metaphorical language

is necessary to articulate and conceived abstract ideas, he also said

that metaphors influence perspectives about the world. This mean

that when we conceptualize an experience or idea, we pick out the

most important parts, find a way to categorize those parts in terms of

what we already know about the world. To sum up, metaphorical

language is used to describe the relationship that implies between the

concept of a target and a more familiar concept.

Furthermore, Cutting (26) pointed out that a speaker can

flout the maxim of quality by using a metaphor, for instance, if the

speaker says as “My house is a refrigerator in January”, the hearer

would understand that the house was very cold in January, another

example like “Don’t such a wet blanket – we just want to have fun”

this means that someone was trying to reduce other people’s

enjoyment.

22

3. Overstatement

The term overstatement has been extensively discussed in

literary studies, related to figurative language and rhetoric.

Overstatement occurs when someone exaggerates the nature of

something or exceeds the requirement, or can be defined as an

exaggeration, that is, the speaker‘s saying more than is necessary.

(Muhammad 449). The term overstatement can also be referred to as

hyperbole, as pointed out by Al-Duleimi & Hammoodi (88),

hyperbole is an exaggeration that either magnifies or minimizes

some real state of affairs. It says more than what the speaker wants

the listener to understand.

Besides, hyperbole can be used to evoke a strong feeling, or

impressing, but not meant to be taken literally, for example, if

someone says “I will die if I do not pass this course”, the speaker

seemed to exaggerate about his/her feelings by using exaggeration.

(Muhammad 449).

(13) Maria : Hey, do you want a cupcake?

Daniel : OMG, I’m starving to death, maybe I could

eat a horse

In another example, we can see that example (13) is a hyperbolic

statement that a person uses in a non-literal manner, because a horse

is a giant animal, and it would be impossible for any human being to

23

eat an entire horse. Maria would be expected to know that Daniel

simply meant that he was very hungry and ‘a cupcake’ cannot

overcome his hunger.

4. Understatement

In general, the term understatement differs from the term

overstatement. According to Muhammad (449-450), the main thing

about understatement is saying less and more meaningful. The

speaker is trying to minimize the amount of his speech and present

the fact as less significant than it is.

(14) Billie : Hey, what do you think about Sarah?

Peter : Hmm, she’s not bad looking

The example (14), Peter flouts the maxim of manner in

which he spoke briefly and ambiguity, he uses understatement to

explain that Sarah is a pretty enough or perhaps she is an average

looking.

According to Neuhaus (126), the term understatement is

sometimes referred to as meiosis, but Grice does not use term

understatement, however, his term meiosis is often equated with the

notion of understatement. Besides, Neuhaus (132) stated that the

meaning of an understatement is implicated using a mitigated

utterance, but not every use of mitigation has this additional

implicature, this explains the indeterminate nature of this use of

24

figurative language. Furthermore, the use of an understatement

invites a particular misunderstanding: The hearer might think that the

speaker is only mitigating without implicating more.

5. Rhetorical Question

According to Oraby, S, et al (310) Rhetorical Questions are

a type of figurative language whose purpose is to achieve pragmatic

goals, such as composing arguments, persuasive, emphasizing

points, or being ironic. A rhetorical question is a form of the

question that does not require an answer the use of rhetorical

question is usually intended to influence and convince the audience

or the hearer (Munthe & Lestari 173). In addition, rhetorical question

indicates that the question is undeniable, and this rhetorical usage

makes the meaning clearer for the hearers.

(15) A : Who was that you were with last night?

B : Did you know you were wearing odd socks?

In the example (15), we can see that B does not answer

relevantly to the question’s A, therefore A is flouting the maxim of

releevance. On the conversation (15), A is likely to come to the

conclusion that B is irritated or embarrassed by the question and

wishes to change the subject (Thomas 118).

25

6. Irony

Irony is a figure of speech through which one wants to

convey the opposite of what one says (Dynel 4) or the opposite of its

literal meaning (Griffiths 81). Moreover, irony is used to express an

attitude to some world representations that are not presented as one

that is supported by the speaker (Carston 82). Therefore, to more

simply, irony is a contradiction between what is said and what is

meant or reverse the systematic inferences that usually arise from the

utterance. Furthemore, Adler et al,. (1-2) stated that contextual cues

play an important role in inferring irony, for instance, if a speaker

says, “What a fabulous chef Fred is,” we can conclude that Fred

cooks well (literal interpretation), but if we had just watched Fred

make a mess, we would instead consider him to be a terrible cook

(ironic interpretation), After the hearer understands the intent of the

speaker, the hearer has realised that there is an apparent violation of

the maxim of quality.

In addition, Neuhaus (125-126) pointed out that there is no

definitive difference between irony and “sarcasm”. The difference

between irony and sarcasm is a matter of intensity: The more

scornful, bitter and victim-oriented an ironic remark is, the more

likely it is described as sarcasm. Other than sarcasm, irony does not

require a victim. From this it follows that irony and sarcasm overlap

but that the notions are not to be equated.

26

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH ANALYSIS

A. Data Description

The main data of this research is originated from the script of

Central Intelligence movie, which was taken from Springfield movie scripts

https://www.springfieldspringfield.co.uk/movie_script.php?movie=central

-intelligence. Afterward, the writer identifies the movie’s script that

contains flouting maxims, then classifies those utterances into the types of

flouting maxims and the rhetorical strategies. As the result, the data

consists of 17 utterances that contain flouting maxims and will be

analyzed further, as shown in the table below:

Table 3.1 The list of data findings

NO

DATA

Flouting

Maxims

Rhetorical

Strategies

1 Trevor :

Look at him. Does anything

about that look normal to

you?

Quantity Rhetorical

Question

2 Steve :

Why are you all cranky-pants

this morning, huh? Oh. It’s

because Ethan got promoted

instead of you?

Relevance Metaphor

3 Steve :

Youngest senior associate in

the history of the firm.

Corner office, the whole deal.

Didn’t he used to be your

assistant?

Quantity Overstatement

https://www.springfieldspringfield.co.uk/movie_script.php?movie=central-intelligence


27

Who cares? Hey, you should

come to lunch with us. We’re

gonna be celebrating his pro-

mosh. It’ll probably be good

for you to kiss the ring a bit.

4 Calvin :

Oh.

Calvin :

Oh.

Quantity Understatement

5 Bob :

I didn’t do much really.

Quality Understatement

6

Bob :

I can’t believe I’m having a

sleepover at Calvin’s

Joyner’s house right now.

This is blowing my mind.

Relevance Overstatement

7 Calvin :

Okay. All right, let’s… you’re

not… time out. I ‘m pressing

the time out button. Okay?

You guys barged in my

house. I pay taxes. So you‘re

not gonna come here and

treat me like I’m the enemy,

okay? That’s the first thing.

Now, if you want to get into

facts… you wanna talk about

facts? This is Facebook’s

fault. Are you familiar with

Facebook?

Relevance Overstatement

8 Calvin :

Is it hot? Are you getting

hot? Because I’ m getting

hot. I’m not gonna take off

my jacket because that makes

me look guilty. And that’s

what you guys look for.

Hmm? Is this what a guilty

man would do? Look how

comfortable I am. I’m gonna

Quality Irony

28

lean up against this counter,

and I’m not gonna… I’m not

gonna look flustered at all.

I’m… bring it. What you

want to know? Hmm?

9 Bob :

I’m in big trouble. Oh, God!

I screwed up. I screwed up

big time.


10 Bob : God, you are good!

Bob:

Calvin Joyner, president of

the Drama Club for a reason,

folks! You’re like a snack-

size Denzel.

Relevance Irony

11 Bob :

A banana, force multiplier.

Manner Understatement

12 Bob :

CJ, I totally understand. But

right now, Agent Harris and

her taskforce has that place

surveilled up the yin –yang.

She’s got contract killers

looking for us. Your place

isn’t safe.


13 Bob :

I didn’t have any friends.

Quality Understatement

14 Bob :

Oh, no hard feelings at all,

Pam. Besides, everybody

makes mistakes.

Manner Understatement

15 Calvin :

Okay, listen, listen. I’ve been

a fool. All right? I thought

that my life was a failure. I

thought that it wasn’t special.

But it is special. It’s special

because I have you in it. You

are my world. You are what

Relevance Metaphor

29

makes me special! You’re

everything to me, Mags. I

love you.

16 Bob :

Remember you? How could I

forget you?

Quantity Rhetorical

Question

17 Bob :

Well, I sleep in it most nights,

but it’s clean now, totally

good, yeah!

Quantity Understatement

Based on table 3.1, we can find out how often the speaker flouts

the flouting maxims by using the rhetorical strategies. For more details, it

will be explained in the two tables below.

Table 3.2 The types of flouting maxims

No The Types of Flouting Maxims Frequency Percentage

1 Flouting maxim of quantity 7 41,17%

2 Flouting maxim of relevance 5 29,42%

3 Flouting maxim of quality 3 17,65%

4 Flouting maxim of manner 2 11,76%

Total 17 100%

As shown in table 3.2, the most frequently used is the flouting

maxim of quantity because it flouted 7 times, whereas the flouting maxim

of manner only flouted 2 times. The result reveals that the maxim of

quantity gains a high percentage because it gains 41,17%. Besides, the use

of rhetorical strategies can be seen in table 3.3.

30

Table 3.3 The rhetorical strategies

No The Rhetorical Strategies Frequency Percentage

1 Understatement 6 35,30%

2 Overstatement 5 29,42%

3 Metaphor 2 11,76%

4 Rhetorical question 2 11,76%

5 Irony 2 11,76%

6 Tautology 0 0%

Total 17 100%

As shown in table 3.3, the rhetorical strategies that are most often

used is an understatement because it is used 6 times, while the metaphor,

rhetorical question, and irony are only found 2 times. In addition,

tautology was not found because the speakers did not use it to flout the

maxim. The results show that the understatement gets a high percentage

because of the acquisition of 35,30%.

B. Data Analysis

In total, there are 17 data that will be analyzed in this research. The

writer analyzed the data thoroughly using Grice’s theory of flouting

maxims, conversational implicature and Grundy’s theory of rhetorical

strategies.

DATUM 1

Trevor : Man, I told you Robbie Weirdhict showers here during

first period.

Man : Why doesn’t he just shower at home like a normal person?

31

Trevor : Look at him. Does anything about that look normal to

you?

1) Rhetorical Strategies in Datum 1

In datum (1), the man who is Trevor’s friend asked him about

Robbie Weirdicht by saying “Why doesn’t he just shower at home like a

normal person?”, but Trevor replied with a question by saying “Look at

him. Does anything about that look normal to you?”. On the conversation

above, Trevor flouts the maxim of quantity because he does not provide as

much information as needed by the hearer, he gives very little information

in order to answer his friend’s question. Furthermore, Trevor uses a

rhetorical question of strategy to flout the maxim of quantity in order to

make the hearer understands the meaning of the answer. He uses a

rhetorical question because he wants to draw something important about

Robbie Weirdhict, therefore, he said “Look at him. Does anything about

that look normal to you?” which means he wants the hearer to see Robbie

and think about what he was saying.

2) Implicature in Datum 1

In datum (1), Trevor has flouted the maxim of quantity and has

generated the implicature, he creates an implied meaning to the hearer in

his utterance. Because, the context of the situation occur when Trevor

Olson and his friends saw Robbie Weirdicht who was a fat boy, was

showering and dancing in the boy's locker room when there is a national

32

award event for high school students, they looked at him and felt strange

because they think he was dorky to shower in that place. Therefore, Trevor

answered his friend's question by saying “Look at him. Does anything

about that look normal to you?” the meaning of his utterance indicated

that Robbie Weirdhict is not a normal person because he thinks that a

normal person does not shower in the boy’s locker room.

DATUM 2

Steve : It’s called dating, grandma. Look it up. Why are you all

cranky-pants this morning, huh? Oh. It’s because Ethan got

promoted instead of you?

Calvin : Ethan got promoted?


In datum (2), Steve responded to Calvin by flouting the maxims of

relevance, he said “Why are you all cranky-pants this morning, huh? Oh.

It’s because Ethan got promoted instead of you?” which means he wants

to give a response that is deliberately not relevant to the topic that is being

discussed or he wants to avoid talking and give another topic to end the

conversation. Therefore, Calvin replied by saying "Ethan got promoted?"

which means that Calvin's attention was distracted by another topic. In that

utterance, Steve uses metaphor strategy by saying “Why are you all

cranky-pants”, he draws a comparison between the pants and cranky,

33

when Calvin gets irritated and angry with him. Metaphorical pants mean

that someone who is wearing tight pants will make him or her with a

feeling of crankiness, or has a bad-tempered or someone who is irritable,

and it depends on the tightness of the pants.


In datum (2), Steve has flouted the maxim of relevance and created

an implicature behind his utterance. The context of the situation occur

when Calvin was dissatisfied with his career as a forensic accountant. At

that time, Steve bothered him with his joke by sending a dirty picture to

his phone that made him so angry, then Steve asked him by saying “Why

are you all cranky-pants this morning, huh? Oh. It’s because Ethan got

promoted instead of you?”. In this case, Steve flouts the maxim of

relevance through the metaphor which has an implication that Steve

thought Calvin would be angry with him, so he changed the topic by

asking about Ethan who is getting the promotion.

DATUM 3

Steve : Why are you all cranky-pants this morning, huh? Oh. It’s

because Ethan got promoted instead of you?

Calvin : Ethan got promoted?

Steve : Youngest senior associate in the history of the firm.

Corner office, the whole deal. Didn’t he used to be your

34

assistant? Who cares? Hey, you should come to lunch with

us. We’re gonna be celebrating his pro-mosh. It’ll probably

be good for you to kiss the ring a bit.

1) Rhetorical strategies in Datum 3

In datum (3), Calvin asked Steve about the promotion that has been

given to Ethan, but Steve replied by giving too much information rather

than saying “Yes or No”. As we know, the Maxim of Quantity relates to

the amount of information provided in conversations, Therefore, Steve

flouts the maxim of quantity. Besides, Steve also seems to change the topic

of conversation because he replied by saying “Who cares?” and “Hey, you

should come to lunch with us. We’re gonna be celebrating his pro-mosh.

It’ll probably be good for you to kiss the ring a bit” which mean his

answer appears not to be relevant to Calvin’s question at first sight.

Therefore, Steve uses an overstatement of strategy to flout the maxims of

quantity in order to describe something more serious or important. So, he

says much more than necessary and expects the hearer will understand

more about the topic.


In datum (3), the context of the situation occurs when Calvin did

not know if his former assistant, Ethan, just got promoted above him and

he never thought that Ethan got promoted instead of him. Therefore, his

co-worker, Steve, knew that Calvin was frustrated. On the conversation,

Steve has flouted the maxim of quantity and has generated the implicature.

35

He said “Youngest senior associate in the history of the firm. Corner

office, the whole deal. Didn’t he used to be your assistant?” implies that

someone who got the promoted was Ethan. Besides, he also replied by

saying “Who cares?” and “Hey, you should come to lunch with us. We’re

gonna be celebrating his pro-mosh. It’ll probably be good for you to kiss

the ring a bit” which means that he does not want Calvin to worried about

it and told him to show his respect to his partner for his success. He

indirectly answered Calvin’s question with a suggestion, perhaps to avoid

hurting Calvin’s feelings and showing that Calvin was not disappointed to

hear that news.

DATUM 4

Maggie : Oh, how about… This is dress that I’m thinking about

wearing.

Calvin : Oh.

Maggie : Honey, I want every single girl to be jealous tomorrow

night.

Calvin : Oh.

Maggie : what?


In datum (4), Calvin has flouted the maxim of quantity because he

gives less information than the situation demands, whereas Maggie is

36

expecting more information from him about the dress. He probably should

have answered, “Oh, I think the dress is nice for you” or “The dress is

suits you” rather than just saying “Oh” in order to avoid any

misunderstanding in the conversation. In that case, Calvin uses an

understatement of strategy, because he wants to make the situation seem

less important, therefore, he only says “oh” and impacts the hearer not by

providing her with all necessary information.


In datum (4), the context of the situation occurred when Maggie,

Calvin’s wife, knew that Calvin was very upset because he missed out the

promotion, so she tried to change the subject of conversation. Therefore,

she showed the picture of a dress to wear to the reunion. But, Calvin did

not provide enough information to the hearer, so he flouts the maxim of

quantity. As a result, the meaning of his utterance implies that he is only

hinting about his feelings which means that he is not interested in that sort

of thing, or he does not want to go to the reunion, or he really does not

care about it because he is very upset about not getting a promotion, so he

could have said “Oh, I don’t care”, but he could not.

DATUM 5

Calvin : Dude, you used to be Fat Robbie. Look at you! This is like

a total transformation. You like Hercules or somebody.

What did you do? Come on, give it to me.

37

Bob : I didn’t do much really.


In datum (5), Calvin asked Bob about his total transformation and

wanted to know how he could be like that. But Bob just replied by saying

“I didn’t do much really” which means he says something untrue or for

which he lacks adequate evidence, thus he flouts the maxim of quality

because he gives insincere answer for Calvin’s question. At the same time,

Bob uses an understatement of strategy to flouts the maxim of quality, he

said “I didn’t do much really” when he does a lot of things to get a

muscular body. Understatement is used because maybe he wants to make a

situation seem less important or deliberately reducing the severity of a

situation, when an intense response is expected by the hearer.


In datum (5), the context of the situation occurred when Calvin

received a friend request on Facebook from a man named Bob Stone, who

revealed that he is Robbie Wierdicht and requested that they met in a bar.

Later that night, Calvin went to the bar and looked for his friend. He was

shocked by how much Robbie Wierdicht had changed, he had transformed

into a muscular and confident man. In that case, Bob flouts the maxim of

quality because he did not tell the truth and not supported by evidence. He

creates the implicature behind his utterance, he said “I didn’t do much

really” which implies he haa done many things to get his muscular body.

38

Besides, the meaning of his utterance may indicate that it is not something

special or something important, maybe he wants to act modest and he

thinks that the exercises are not as good as others think.

DATUM 6

Calvin : You need anything else?

Bob : I can’t believe I’m having a sleepover at Calvin’s

Joyner’s house right now. This is blowing my mind.


In datum (6), Calvin asked Bob if he needs anything else, but Bob

replied by saying “I can’t believe I’m having a sleepover at Calvin’s

Joyner’s house right now. This is blowing my mind”. Hence, Bob flouts

the maxim of relevance because he has blatantly refused to make what he

said relevant to Calvin’s question. Furthermore, Bob uses an

overstatement of strategy to flouts the maxim of relevance. He said “I

can’t believe I’m having a sleepover at Calvin’s Joyner house right now.”

and he also stressed by saying “This is blowing my mind.” which at the

time Bob just only stayed overnight at Calvin’s house. Calvin thinks that it

was an ordinary thing, but not with Bob, he thinks that it was an

extraordinary thing because he can stay at his best friend’s house.

39


In datum (5), the context of the situation occurred when they spent

the night in the bar and their old high school for a stroll down. After that,

Bob drove Calvin home. Before they part ways, Bob mentioned needing

Calvin's help regarding something in Calvin's line of work. So, Bob

entered Calvin's house to use the computer, and then he also asked to stay

the night at Calvin’s house. He never thought that he would stay the night

at his friend’s house. Therefore, he was so excited that he flouted the

maxim of relevance. The meaning of the utterance “I can’t believe I’m

having a sleepover at Calvin’s Joyner’s house right now. This is blowing

my mind” indicates that Bob does not need anything else, besides he also

wants to express his deep emotion that he is very excited because he never

imagined that he would stay the night at Calvin’s house.

DATUM 7

Pamela Harris : Oh, so you went out drinking with your non-friend?

Calvin : Okay. All right, let’s… you’re not… time out. I ‘m

pressing the time out button. Okay? You guys barged in my

house. I pay taxes. So you‘re not gonna come here and

treat me like I’m the enemy, okay? That’s the first thing.

Now, if you want to get into facts… you wanna talk about

40

facts? This is Facebook’s fault. Are you familiar with

Facebook?


In datum (7), Harris inquired about Bob's relationship with Calvin,

but Calvin replied with long-windedness. He answered Harris’s question

irrelevantly. Hence, he flouts the maxim of relevance, because he did not

answer what Harris asked, he blatantly giving more information than

situation demands. Calvin instead changed the subject by saying he paid

taxes and blamed the Facebook for this incident. He flouts the maxim of

relevance because he wants to avoid talking about Bob, so he changed the

topic of conversation. Therefore, Calvin uses an overstatement of startegy

to flouts the maxim of relevance, he uses an overstatement of strategy

because he reveals something too strong or too exaggerated.


In datum (7), the context of the situation occurred in the morning

when a group of CIA agents led by Pamela Harris came to Calvin’s house

looking for Bob. Calvin said that he was on the couch, and the agents head

in. But, Bob is nowhere to be found. Harris explains to Calvin that Bob is

wanted for murder and conspiracy to commit treason. After hearing

Harris’s explanation, Calvin was startled, he did not believe that Bob

would be like that. As the result, Calvin flouts the maxim of relevance to

avoid harris's question. Therefore, Calvin’s answer implies that he does

not know about Bob’s problem and has no relationship with him. Besides,

41

he also said “… time out. I ‘m pressing the time out button” whereas there

is no “the time out button”, this utterance indicates that he does not want

to be interrogated anymore, maybe he wants to say “Okay, please stop, do

not ask me such a thing again”.

DATUM 8

Pamela Harris : Are you nervous, Mr. Joyner?

Calvin : Is it hot? Are you getting hot? Because I’ m getting hot.

I’m not gonna take off my jacket because that makes me

look guilty. And that’s what you guys look for. Hmm? Is

this what a guilty man would do? Look how comfortable I

am. I’m gonna lean up against this counter, and I’m not

gonna… I’m not gonna look flustered at all. I’m… bring it.

What you want to know? Hmm?


In datum (8), Harris asked if Calvin feels very uneasy, but Calvin

does not answer Harris's question honestly, he replies that he was getting

hot. Hence, Calvin flouts the maxim of quality, because he wants to cover

something or hide something, in other words, he does not convey

something with actual facts. In addition, Calvin used the strategy of irony,

for he said “Look how comfortable I am”, in order to convince the hearer

that he feels good, when in fact he was very uncomfortable and he was

42

disturbed by the arrival of CIA agents who suddenly came to his house

and said that Bob was a traitor and murderer.


In datum (8), the context of the situation occurred when Harris tried

to ask about the relationship between Bob and Calvin, but Calvin replied

that he did not know about him. In fact, Calvin knew Bob, but he was

afraid that he would be involved in the trouble, so he lied to Harris.

Therefore, Calvin flouts the maxim of quality and result the irony.

Besides, he also asked Harris by saying “Is it hot? Are you getting hot?

Because I'm getting hot”, in that utterance it can be seen that only Calvin

feels hot while Harris does not. It can lead to implicature which means

Calvin is very anxious and panicky to know that he was involved in the

trouble.

DATUM 9

Calvin : Well, hey, well, yeah, yeah, wasup? Whats up Bobby-o?

Are you quite well?

Bob : I’m in big trouble. Oh, God! I screwed up. I screwed up

big time.


In datum (9), Calvin asked if Bob is okay, but Bob replies that he is

in big trouble, in that conversation shows that Bob flouts the maxim of

43

quantity because he did not provide enough information in order to answer

Calvin’s question. Furthermore, Bob uses an overstatement of strategy

because he speaks in exaggeration. He said it many times in order to

convince Calvin that he was in trouble and to stress something in order to

make the intended meaning more clear for the hearer.


In datum (9), the context of the situation occurred when the agents

of CIA decided to follow into Calvin’s office in order to trap Bob. Then

when they arrived at Calvin's office, suddenly the phone rang and Calvin

picked up the phone, and it was Bob calling. In the conversation above

Bob answered by giving a little information, therefore he flouted the

maxim of quantity. The implicature that produced in the utterance “I’m in

big trouble. Oh, God! I screwed up. I screwed up big time” means that

Bob wants to inform Calvin that he is not alright and he became confused,

maybe because the Agents of CIA chase after him and hoped if Calvin

would help him.

DATUM 10

Calvin : Bob, I don’t know what it is that you’re into but what I do

know is that I am really, really 100% out! Do you

understand that?

Bob : God, you are good!

44

Calvin : What?

Bob : Calvin Joyner, president of the Drama Club for a reason,

folks! You’re like a snack-size Denzel.


In datum (10), Bob’s answer is not relevant to Calvin’s question,

he instead changes the topic of conversation by saying “God, you are

good!” and also he steers the conversation in a new topic by saying

“Calvin Joyner, president of the Drama Club for a reason, folks! You're

like a snack-size Denzel”, therefore, in those utterances it can be said that

Bob flouts the maxim of relevance. Furthermore, Bob uses a strategy of

irony to flouts the maxim of relevance, because he said “God, you are

good!” whereas in that situation Calvin is not making a joke and he did

not do anything, besides, he also says “Calvin Joyner, president of the

Drama Club for a reason, folks! You're like a snack-size Denzel” whereas

Calvin did not play the drama.


In datum (10), the context of the situation occurred when Bob is in

Calvin's office, Bob asks whether Calvin will join or not, then Calvin

replied that he did not want to go or did not want to get involved, but Bob

said that Calvin had already been deeper into the case so he had to come

along. But Calvin insisted that he did not want to get involved so he said

“I am really, really 100% out! Do you understand that?” Which means

that he really does not want to go into that issue any further. In addtion,

45

the meaning of Bob’s utterances is “Oh, please do not say like that, Jet!”.

The reason why his answer irrelevant with Calvin’s question is because

Bob wants to avoid the conversation being discussed or to end the

conversation which implies that he wants Calvin to join him, so he

answers Calvin’s question irrelevantly.

DATUM 11

Calvin : Are you kidding me? I’m not helping you. You attacked

somebody with a banana.

Bob : A banana, force multiplier.


In datum (11), Bob responded to Calvin by flouting the maxims of

manner, because, he just responded by saying “A banana, force

multiplier”. Bob flouts the maxim of manner because his response are

ambiguous and obscure. He ambiguously said “A banana, force

multiplier” because we do not know which aspects of the force multiplier

that Bob meant in his utterance. Besides, Bob uses an understatement of

strategy to flouts the maxim of manner because his answer is too brief and

he intentionally wants to make a situation seem less important than it

really is.


In datum (11), the context of the situation occurred when the

agents of CIA run up and start shooting at Bob, but he effortlessly hits

46

back and incapacitates most of the agents. Besides, there’s a kitchen fight,

when the agent of CIA who tried to fight Bob with a butcher knife, but

Bob managed to defeat the man by using a banana as his weapon. After

that, Bob and Calvin escape from the agents of CIA by using the uber car.

Bob explains that he is trying to stop a villain known as Black Badger

from selling the codes but requires Calvin's expertise to find the

coordinates of the deal's location. He believes someone with the code

name "Black Badger" is seeking out the satellite codes for a sinister

purpose, and he needs Calvin's help because he's the only person Bob

trusts. But Calvin does not want to help Bob, and he said that Bob attacked

somebody with a banana. After hearing Calvin's statement, Bob flouts the

maxim of relevance by saying “A banana, force multiplier”, because he

wants to create an implicature in his utterance that a banana is a principle

in warfare of using additional factors to increase the power which means

using a banana in a dangerous situation is better than just using bare hands.

DATUM 12

Calvin : Okay, Bob, please… I’m begging you, man. Can you just

let me go home?

Bob : CJ, I totally understand. But right now, Agent Harris and

her taskforce has that place surveilled up the yin –yang.

She’s got contract killers looking for us. Your place isn’t

safe.

47


In datum (12), Bob responds by saying “CJ, I totally understand.

But right now, Agent Harris and her taskforce has that place surveilled up

the yin –yang. She’s got contract killers looking for us. Your place isn’t

safe”, hence, he flouts the maxim of quantity because he gives more

information than is needed, because too much information can distract the

hearer. Besides, Bob uses an overstatement of strategy to flouts the maxim

of quantity because he was trying to explain how the situations were going

on at the time.


In datum (12), the context of the situation occurred when Bob and

Calvin escaped from agents of CIA using the uber car. Then they made a

stop for a while in a safe place, after that, Bob remove the GPS from the

car while Calvin is thinking about how he got out of this problem. Bob

explained how he has been set up, since his partner Phil was trapped in an

elevator and was left to be blown up, and Bob was accused for the

incident. But Calvin said he wanted to go home because he did not want to

be involved in a dangerous situation. He explains how the agents of CIA

were dangerous for Calvin’s safety if he went home. Moreover, in his

utterance, it can be generates the implicature which means that Calvin is

not allowed to go home.

48

DATUM 13

Pamela : Aw, what’s the matter Bob? Are you upset that your

friend turned you in?

Bob : I didn’t have any friends.


In datum (13), Bob just responds by saying “I didn’t have any

friends”, in that case, Bob flouts the maxim of quality because he

deliberately says something that is untrue to emphasize something that he

was very disappointed because Calvin had betrayed him. Furthermore,

Bob uses an understatement of strategy to flouts the maxim of quality by

saying “I didn’t have any friends” which means the answer was addressed

to Calvin, with the intent of insinuating him.


In datum (13), the context of the situation occurred when Bob and

Calvin finished asking Trevor for help and then they left his office.

Suddenly, Harris called Calvin and threatened to arrest Maggie if he failed

to help them arrest Bob. Calvin was forced to betray Bob, then he met Bob

outside. Bob says that Calvin is always his only friend. But, unfortunately,

the agents of CIA came and arrested Bob, at the same time Harris give the

question by saying “Aw, what’s the matter Bob? Are you upset that your

friend turned you in?”, but Bob flouted the maxim of quality to answer

Harris's question, he said that he had no friends. In fact, Calvin is the only

49

friend he has. Therefore, the implicature of Bob’s response is “Yes, I am

very mad at him”.

DATUM 14

Pamela Harris : I’m really sorry about your hand. I hope you know that

wasn’t personal.

Bob : Oh, no hard feelings at all, Pam. Besides, everybody

makes mistakes.


In datum (14), Bob flouts the maxim of manner, because he

understands that Harris does not mean that, so he answers by saying “Oh,

no hard feelings at all, Pam. Besides, everybody makes mistakes”. He

flouts the maxim of manner because his response is not brief, ambiguous

and obscure. In addition, Bob uses an understatement of strategy because

he make something seem less than really is, which means he made to seem

less important in his utterance.


In datum (14), The context of the situation occurred when Bob and

Calvin have successfully secured the satellite codes and handed it to

Harris. Therefore, Bob’s name is clear from any charges. After that, Harris

apologizes to Bob for what she did that made one of his fingers was

breaking. Bob flouts the maxim of manner and generated the implicature.

his utterance containing many perceptions such as “Oh, no hard feelings at

50

all, Pam”, which means that Bob will not be angry or vengeful about the

incident and another utterance like, “..Besides, everybody makes

mistakes”, which means to tell someone not to worry about something that

they have done wrong while another perception that Pamela made a very

big mistake for accusing and torturing Bob until one of his fingers had

broken. The implicature appears in his utterance means that he tries to say

“Oh, that’s okay Pam, just forget it”.

DATUM 15

Maggie : What the hell is going on?

Calvin : Okay, listen, listen. I’ve been a fool. All right? I thought

that my life was a failure. I thought that it wasn’t special.

But it is special. It’s special because I have you in it. You

are my world. You are what makes me special! You’re

everything to me, Mags. I love you.

Maggie : I love you.


In datum (15), Calvin has flouted the maxim of relevance because

his answer is completely unrelated on what Maggie asked by talking

another topic. In his utterance, he blatantly refused to make what he says

relevant to Maggie’s question. Furthermore, Calvin uses a metaphor to

flout the maxim of relevance, at the same time he also make an

overstatemet because he wants to evoke strong feelings or strong

51

impression. An overstatement can be attained using a metaphor, in the

conversation, he said “you are my world” which means that Maggie is

someone who is everything to him, someone who means a lot to him.


In datum (15), the context of the situation occurred after Bob and

Calvin arrived in front of their school and met with Maggie (Calvin’s

wife). Then, she asked Calvin what really happened because she saw

Calvin had just dropped out from the chopper. But, Calvin's answer seems

not to be relevant to Maggie's question, he implicated that Maggie’s

question is not important because the most important thing is how he can

reconcile with Maggie. The meaning of his utterance indicates that he

wants to shows that he has a better life by having a beautiful wife even

though he has a job that he does not like it, so the implicature in his

utterance is “My life is perfect because I have you”.

DATUM 16

Darla : I can’t believe you remember me.

Bob : Remember you? How could I forget you?


In datum (16), Bob gives his response to Darla through by flouting

maxim of quantity by saying “Remember you? How could I forget you?”,

he flouts the maxim of quantity because his answer seemed less

informative with that statement. Furthermore, he uses a rhetorical question

52

of strategy to flouts the maxim of quantity because it's a question that

expect no answer, but for the effect that he wants to convey or he wants

emphasize a point or wants the hearer to find out the meaning in his

utterance. In his utterance, Bob wants to stress something in order to make

the intended meaning more clear for the hearer, therefore, Darla can

understands what Bob implies in his answer.


In datum (16), the context of the situation occurred after Bob was

announced as the king of homecoming. Then he stands on the stage to

deliver a speech, after that, he is approached by Darla McGuckian who is

the girl that he liked in the high school. Darla was amazed to see Bob had

turned into a muscular guy and she never thought that Bob is still

remember her. Bob replies by saying “Remember you? How could I forget

you” , which means that he will never forget her. The implicature that

generated in his utterance is Bob wants to say that he always remember

Darla because he loves her, besides, he has already told her the answer

indirectly - that he missed her.

DATUM 17

Calvin : Oh, my God, Dude. Where’d you got this from?

Bob : Well, I sleep in it most nights, but it’s clean now, totally

good, yeah!

53


In datum (17), Calvin asked Bob where he got the jacket. But, Bob

replies by saying “Well, I sleep in it most nights, but it’s clean now, totally

good, yeah!” , he tells the truth, yet he flouts the maxim of quantity

because the information is insufficient for Calvin. Flouting the maxim of

quantity may result an understatement, in that case, Bob uses an

understatement of strategy through the maxim of quantity. He uses an

understatement in order to make the situation seem less important about

the jacket by saying “Well, I sleep in it most nights, but it’s clean now,

totally good, yeah! , whereas the fact is he wants to avoid Calvin’s

question.


In datum (17), Bob has flouted the maxim of quantity and created

an implicature behind his utterance. Implicature is depends on the context.

The context of the situation in datum (17) occurred after a few months

later, Maggie is pregnant her first kid and Calvin has joined the CIA.

Then, when Calvin will leave for work on his first day, Bob has been

waiting for him to pick him up to work. Before they leave, Bob gives

Calvin back the jacket that he gave him twenty years ago. Calvin is very

happy to get his jacket back, so he asks Bob where he got it. Bob replies

by saying “Well, I sleep in it most nights, but it’s clean now, totally good,

yeah!”, his utterance implies that Bob keeps Calvin’s jacket since Calvin

gave him after the senior assembly prank, it means that Bob has kept it for

54

twenty years. He keeps the jacket because Calvin is the only guy in high

school who was ever nice to him. Besides, Bob said “Totally good, yeah!”

, which means the jacket is still very good although he has been kept the

jacket for many years.

55

CHAPTER IV

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

A. Conclusion

Based on the first question in the first chapter, the writer identifies

the rhetorical strategies that caused the flouting maxims. As we know,

flouting maxims can be done by using rhetorical strategies such as

tautology, metaphor, overstatement, understatement, rhetorical question,

and irony. The speakers use them spontaneously in the conversation as

they seek to convince the hearers. On the data analysis, the writer only

found six understatements (35,30%), five overstatements (29,42%), two

metaphors (11,76%), two rhetorical questions (11,76%), and two ironies

(11,76%) through the dialogue in the movie. On the contrary, the writer

did not found the tautology in the movie. As the results, understatement is

the most widely used to flouts the maxims because it gets 35,30%.

Besides, related to the first question, the maxims are flouted when

the speaker using the utterances in the form of rhetorical strategies. The

writer found seventeen of flouting maxims in the data and divided into

seven flouting maxim of quantity (41,17%), five flouting maxim of

relevance (29,42%), three flouting maxim of quality (17,65%), and two

flouting maxim of manner (11,76%). As shown in the research findings,

the maxim of quantity is the most frequently flouted because there is some

conversation that giving more or less information. Moreover, the maxim of

relevance also commonly flouted to make the situations more dramatic in

56

the movie. Meanwhile, there are only three maxim of quality and two

maxim of manner found in the movie, because of that, the conversation

can be unreliable and ambiguous.

Finally, the second question is about how the conversational

implicature generated in the movie. As stated by Grice, people fail to

observe the maxims because they are incapable of speaking clearly.

Flouting maxims means that speaker blatantly fails to observe maxims

because the speaker wishes prompt the hearer to look for a meaning, that

is, the speaker employs implicature. Implicature means to imply one thing

by saying something, therefore the implicature depends on the context.

Based on the research findings, the implicatures are used by the speaker to

make the hearer understands the intent of the speaker. Besides, using

rhetorical strategies are also generate implicatures in everyday

conversation.

B. Suggestion

This is pragmatic study of the cooperative principle and Grice’s

maxims. The writer hopes this research can provide benefits for students to

understand about the flouting maxims, rhetorical strategies and the

implicatures. Besides, the writer suggests to find another object of the

analysis except the movie and try to analyze by using another theory such

as conversational analysis, politeness strategy, speech act and etc in order

to make the further research more complete.

57

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Archer, Dawn, Anne Wichmann, and Karin Aijmer. Pragmatics: An advanced

resource book for students. Routledge, 2013.

Cutting, Joan. Pragmatics. A Resource Book for Students, 3rd Edition. New York:

Routledge, 2015.

Farkhan, Muhammad. Proposal Pnenelitian Bahasa dan Sastra. Jakarta: Anak

Negeri Printing, 2007.

Griffiths, Patrick. Introduction to English semantics and pragmatics. Edinburgh

University Press, 2006.

Grundy, Peter. Doing Pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc.,

2000.

Grundy, Peter. Doing pragmatics. Routledge, 2013.

Levinson, Stephen C. "Pragmatics. Cambridge textbooks in

linguistics." Cambridge/New York (1983).

M.S, Mahsun. Metode Penelitian Bahasa. Jakarta: PT Raja Grafindo Persada,

2005

Sutherland, Jean-Anne, and Kathryn Feltey, eds. Cinematic sociology: Social life

in film. Sage, 2010.

Thomas, J. ‘Conversational Maxims’, In J. R. Mesthrie (Eds.), Concise

encyclopedia of sociolinguistics (pp. 116-121). New York: Elsevier,

1995.

Journals

Adler, Rachel M., Jared M. Novick, and Yi Ting Huang. "The time course of

verbal irony comprehension and context integration." Pre-proceedings

of Trends in Experimental Pragmatics (2016): 1-9.

Al-Duleimi, Abbas Deygan Darweesh, and Waleed Ridha Hammoodi. "A

Pragmatic Study of Strategic Maneuvering in Selected Political

Interviews." Open Journal of Modern Linguistics 5.01 (2015): 79.

Benz, Anton, Katja Jasinskaja, and Fabienne Salfner. "Implicature and discourse

structure: An introduction." (2013): 1-12.

58

Bowen, Glenn A. "Document analysis as a qualitative research

method." Qualitative research journal 9.2 (2009): 27-40.

Carston, Robyn, and Catherine Wearing. "Hyperbolic language and its relation to

metaphor and irony." Journal of Pragmatics 79 (2015): 79-92.

Cheng, Le, Winnie Cheng, and Jian Li. "Jury instructions in Hong Kong: a

Gricean perspective." International Journal of Speech, Language & the

Law 22.1 (2015).

Dinges, Alexander. "Innocent implicatures." Journal of Pragmatics 87 (2015): 54-

63.

Dynel, Marta. "But seriously: On conversational humour and (un)

truthfulness." Lingua 197 (2017): 1-20.

Dynel, Marta. "The irony of irony: Irony based on truthfulness." Corpus

Pragmatics 1.1 (2017): 3-36.

Hadi, Atefeh. "A critical appraisal of Grice’s cooperative principle." Open journal

of modern linguistics 3.01 (2013): 69-72.

Hirsch, Galia, and Shoshana Blum-Kulka. "Identifying irony in news

interviews." Journal of Pragmatics 70 (2014): 31-51.

Janssens, Leen, and Walter Schaeken. "‘But’Implicatures: A Study of the Effect

of Working Memory and Argument Characteristics." Frontiers in

psychology 7 (2016): 1-13.

Khazani, Reza, and Rahil Darabi. “Flouting the Netiquette Rules in the Academic

Correspondence in Iran”. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98

(2014): 898-907.

Kourkouta, Lambrini, and Ioanna V. Papathanasiou. "Communication in nursing

practice." Materia socio-medica 26.1 (2014): 65.

Kukkonen, Karin. "Flouting figures: Uncooperative narration in the fiction of

Eliza Haywood." Language and Literature 22.3 (2013): 205-218.

Kwon, Iksoo. "Categorization and its embodiment: Korean tautological

constructions in mental spaces theory." Language Sciences 45 (2014):

44-55.

Lancor, Rachael. "An analysis of metaphors used by students to describe energy

in an interdisciplinary general science course." International Journal of

Science Education 37.5-6 (2015): 876-902.

59

Lazăr, Adriana. "Teaching Absurd Literature–A Pragmatic Approach to Ionesco's

Transgressive Dramatic Discourse: The Conversational

Maxims." Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 76 (2013): 441-

445.

Liu, Lulu. "Application of Cooperative Principle and Politeness Principle in class

question-answer process." Theory and Practice in Language Studies 7.7

(2017): 563-569.

Muhammad, Kavee Shakir. "A Pragmatic Analysis of Overstatement And

Understatement in English Literary Letters." Journal of Humanity

Sciences 21.1 (2017): 456-448.

Munthe, Apryanti Madah, and Ria Lestari. "The Impression of Rhetorical Devices

in Wendy’s Taglines." Journal of Language and Literature 16.2 (2016):

165-177.

Neuhaus, Laura. "On the relation of irony, understatement, and

litotes." Pragmatics & Cognition 23.1 (2016): 117-149.

Oswald, Steve, and Alain Rihs. "Metaphor as argument: rhetorical and epistemic

advantages of extended metaphors." Argumentation 28.2 (2014): 133-

159.

Oraby, Shereen, et al. "Are you serious?: Rhetorical Questions and Sarcasm in

Social Media Dialog." arXiv preprint arXiv:1709.05305 (2017).

Skarakis-Doyle, Elizabeth, et al. "Preschoolers’ Sensitivity to the Maxims of the

Cooperative Principle: Scaffolds and Developmental

Trends." Discourse Processes 51.4 (2014): 333-356.

Sonnenhauser, Barbara. "Tautologies at the interfaces: Wer kann, der

kann." Journal of Pragmatics 117 (2017): 16-28.

Tajabadi, Azar, Hamidreza Dowlatabadi, and Ehsan Mehri. "Grice's Cooperative

Maxims in Oral Arguments: The Case of Dispute Settlement Councils

in Iran." Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 98 (2014): 1859-

1865.

Tsojon, Ishaya Yusuf, and Pam Keziah Jonah. "An Analysis of the Pragmatic

Implicatures of Selected Advert Billboards around Jos Metropolis in

Terms of Grice (1975) Maxims of Cooperative Principle." International

Journal of English Language Teaching3.1 (2016): 42.

Van Rijsselbergen, Dieter, et al. "Movie script markup language." Proceedings of

the 9th ACM symposium on Document engineering. ACM, (2009).

60

APPENDICES

TWENTY YEARS AGO

IN THE BOYS LOCKER ROOM

Man (ON RADIO): And now,

it's time for a breakdown.

(MUSIC CONTINUES PLAYING)

(BOB SINGING “MY LOVIN” By

EN VOGUE)

Bob: Mmm, mmm, mmm, yeah...

Trevor: Man, I told you

Robbie Wheirdicht showers

here during first period.

Man 1: Why doesn't he just

shower at home like a normal

person?

Trevor: Look at him. Does

anything about that look

normal to you?

Man 2: You know, he's

actually

a pretty good dancer.

(BOB CONTINUES SINGING)

Man 2: I mean, fuck that guy

is different!

Trevor: Let's wreck him.

Hey, Weird D*ck!

(ALL LAUGH)

**********

PRESENT DAY

(INDISTINCT CHATTER)

(PHONE RINGING)

Steve: Yo. Check it.

Calvin: Oh, come on, man.

I don't want to see that.

Steve: Oh, no, no, it's my

d*ck.

Calvin: I know what it is. I

don't want to see it.

Steve: (LAUGHS)Hilarious.

No, I'm working on this new

sexting app. It's kind of

like Instagram, right? But,

instead of filters, it just

makes your junk look huge.

Like, three to six inches

bigger. It's called "Junk

Mail." Clever, right?

Calvin: No, and here's

why...

Steve: Sorry, hang on, one

second.

I'm just gonna...

Calvin: What are you doing?

(CAMERA SHUTTER CLICKING)

Steve: Okay, and send.

Sorry, you were saying

something boring.

Calvin: You just sent a d*ck

pic.

Steve: It's called dating,

grandma. Look it up.

Why are you all cranky-pants

this morning, huh?

Oh. It's because Ethan got

promoted instead of you?

Calvin: Ethan got promoted?

Steve: (SIGHS) Youngest

senior associate in the

history of the firm. Corner

office, the whole deal.

Didn't he used to be your

assistant? Who cares? Hey,

you should come to lunch

61

with us. We're gonna be

celebrating his pro-mosh!

It'll probably be good for

you to kiss the ring a bit.

Calvin: "Kiss the ring a

bit"?

Steve: Hey, you play your

chessboard however you like,

okay?

Me, lunch today? I'm gonna

French kiss that thing.

Aah...

Calvin: I can't. I'm taking

my wife to lunch today,

so...

Steve: All right. Bummer for

you.

(SINGING)

(GRUNTS) Right?

Calvin: Can you just get out

of my face?

Steve: #Blessed.

All: (LAUGHTER)

**********

(MUSIC PLAYING OVER

SPEAKERS)

(INDISTICNT CHATTER)

Steve: To a guy I not only

consider my coworker,

but my personal friend.

Steve: To Ethan!

ALL : Cheers!(ALL CHEARING)

Maggie: Do you wanna move

tables? I know this kind of

sucks.

Calvin: No, no. It doesn't

suck. Hey, if I wanted to

get one of those ice teas

but I want most of it to be

bourbon... What is that

called?

Maggie: Okay. How about we

change the topic to

something a little more fun?

Calvin: Anything else,

please.

Maggie: Oh, how about...

This is the dress that I'm

thinking about wearing.

Calvin: Oh!

Maggie: Honey, I want every

single girl to be jealous

tomorrow night.

Calvin: Oh.

Maggie: What?

Calvin: I just... I just

don't want to go.

Maggie: Calvin, it's our 20-

year

high school reunion. I'm not

gonna go without you. We

agreed we were going. I

RSVP'd for us.

Calvin: I just changed my

mind. That's all.

Maggie: Okay. I see.

You're disappointed about

the promotion. I get it.

**********

(SIREN BLARING IN DISTANCE)

MAN 3: For real man,

seriously?

MAN 4: Yeah. Watch it, punk.

Calvin: Excuse you, too.

(INDISTINCT CONVERSATIONS)

(ROCK MUSIC PLAYING)

Bob: My man!

62

Calvin: Back the fuck up!

Bob: Whoa!

Calvin: Back up, man!

Fine. I'll give you these

fists. I'll fist your ass.

Bob: Calvin. It's me, Bob.

Calvin: What? Sorry, do I

know you?

Bob: Do you know... Robbie

Wheirdicht from high school!

Calvin: Are you kidding?

What? Wait, you're Robbie

Wheirdicht?

Bob: Yeah!

Calvin: God, man, look at

you! You've lost, like, 200

pounds!

I see you gained it back in

muscle. Oh, my God! You look

great!

Bob: No, you look great!

Calvin: Stop it.

Bob: No, you haven't changed

since high school, dude!

No, you're just sexy as dick

right now.

Calvin: You don't look

somebody in the eyes and say

that.

Bob: Hey, let's get

hammered.

Calvin: I got an early day

at work, so I'll probably...

Bob: No, come on, I'm

buying!

Calvin: Oh, shit.

Mmm. I'm sorry, man. I am

blown away right now. Dude,

you used to be Fat Robbie.

Look at you!

This is like a total

transformation. You look

like Hercules or somebody.

What did you do? Come on,

give it to me.

Bob: I didn't do much,

really.

Calvin: Stop it.

Bob: All right. I just did

one thing.

Calvin: Come on, I need to

know.

**********

Calvin: God! Hey! What the

hell was that on that site?

That didn't have anything to

do with payroll.

Bob: I don't know. I've

never seen that before. That

was crazy. Let's figure it

out tomorrow when we're

bright-eyed and bushy-

tailed. What do you say, CJ?

I am beat.

-Hey, do you mind if I crash

here?

Calvin: Um... No.

Let me go grab some

blankets.

Bob: Hey, thanks for the

jammies, Jet.

Calvin: Okay, well, you can

keep those. Those are...

Those are officially yours.

Bob: Yeah. All right.

Calvin: Oh. You gonna sleep

with your fanny pack.

63

Bob: Golden Jet! Yeah, it's

my baby.

Calvin: You need anything

else? You're okay?

Bob: I can't believe I'm

having a sleepover at Calvin

Joyner's house right now.

This is blowing my mind!

Calvin: Okay.

Uh, good night, Bob.

Bob: Good night, Jet.

(FABRIC TEARING)

**********

(IN THE MORNING AT CALVIN’S

HOUSE)

Bob: (SNORING)

(ON TV): Woman: Me?

Man: Yeah, you.

Bob: (SNORING)

Calvin: What the fuck?

(KNOCKING ON DOOR)

Calvin: One second. Hold on.

Uh, may I help you?

Pamela Harris: Mr. Joyner,

my name is Pamela Harris,

I'm with the Central

Intelligence Agency. Have

you had any contact with

this man?

Calvin: Uh, yeah, he's on

my...

He's on my couch, sleeping.

Agent Stan: Target's in the

house.

Calvin: What's going on?

Hey!

Excuse me. Excuse me!

Agent Harris: (INTO COMM)

Target's fled.

Pamela Harris: Shit.

Agent Stan: Target's on the

move.

Calvin: Excuse me! What...

Hello, hey! Excuse me!

- ...and voice chatter in

the vicinity.

Calvin: Hello! Excuse me!

Pamela Harris: If he's in

the wind again, it's gonna

be your ass. Go now.

Calvin: Hello!

Pamela Harris: Alert

Langley, asset uncontained.

Calvin: Excuse me!

Pamela Harris: Can I help

you?

Calvin: Hello! It's my

house. Is something going

on?

Pamela Harris: Well, Mr.

Joyner, your sleepover

buddy, Robert Wheirdicht,

AKA Bob Stone, AKA Bob

Golden, AKA Bob Jet, is

wanted for murder and

treason and is presently in

possession of highly

classified state secrets

which he intends to sell to

our enemies.

Calvin: What?

Pamela Harris: And if he

succeeds, it's gonna spark a

chain reaction of

geopolitical events that

most of our predictive

models place somewhere

64

between World War III and

outright Armageddon. So,

yeah, I guess you could say

something is going on.

Oh, you mind?

Calvin: Creamer's in the

fridge.

Pamela Harris: What? I don't

need it. What I do need is

information.

I need you to tell me

everything and anything

about your contact with

Agent Stone.

Calvin: Agent Stone?

Pamela Harris: Bob, your

friend Bob. Come on. Stay

with me, please.

Calvin: Okay, I think

there's a misunderstanding.

No. No, he is not my friend.

Pamela Harris: Then why did

he list you as his emergency

contact in all his personnel

forms?

Calvin: I'm sorry... He

what?

Pamela Harris: Bob Stone has

no siblings, or parents, or

family of any kind. You are

the only person he listed in

his personal references.

Calvin: Oh... That's crazy,

all right? I barely even

know the guy.

Pamela Harris: Then why was

he sleeping on your couch?

Calvin: Because we went out

and had drinks last night.

Pamela Harris: Oh, so you

went out drinking with your

non-friend?

Calvin: Okay. All right,

let's... You're not... Time

out. I'm pressing the time

out button.

Okay? You guys barged in my

house.

I pay my taxes. So you're

not gonna come here and

treat me like I'm the enemy,

okay?

That's the first thing. Now,

if you want to get into

facts...

You wanna talk about facts?

This is Facebook's fault.

Are you familiar with

Facebook?

Pamela Harris: We surveil

it.

Calvin: He sent me a friend

request. That's how this

whole thing started.

Pamela Harris: And you

accepted?

Calvin: Don't do that. Don't

do that to me. You give me a

second. Okay?

Don't fire back like that.

First of all, fuck Mark

Zuckerberg, all right? Now,

I accepted because it was

Facebook.

And it's rude when you don't

accept it and I don't know

if the person on the other

end can see me not accept

it. That's why I accepted.

Pamela Harris: Are you

nervous,Mr. Joyner?

Calvin: Is it hot?

Are you getting hot?

Because I'm getting hot.

I'm not gonna take off my

jacket because that makes me

look guilty.

And that's what you guys

look for. Hmm? Is this what

a guilty man would do? Look

65

how comfortable I am. I'm

gonna lean up against this

counter, and I'm not gonna

sweat.

I'm not gonna... I'm not

gonna look flustered at all.

I'm... Bring it.

What you want to know? Hmm?

Pamela Harris: Mr. Joyner.

Calvin: Yeah.

Pamela Harris: Bob Stone is

a dangerous psychotic.

You're lucky to be alive.

Calvin: Okay, listen to me.

Agent Harris, I don't know

this man. He's just a little

weird kid that I knew in

high school. He used to put

Rice Krispies Treats in my

locker. Sometimes I ate 'em,

sometimes I didn't. I wasn't

in carbs back then 'cause I

didn't want that weight

going to my hips. As a man,

you don't want big hips,

especially in high school.

Bottom line, I have no

allegiance to this man. Zero

ties, okay?

All ties are cut. I cut

them, so this is me and you.

So don't put me and him... I

ain't in this shit, okay?

Pamela Harris: All right,

Mr. Joyner. Prove it.

Calvin: Yeah, well, I need a

second. You gotta step

outside. I gotta take a

shit. This is a lot. I got

to go. Just give me a

second, man!

Pamela Harris: I'll be

waiting.

Calvin: Jesus Christ!

**********

(IN THE CALVIN’S OFFICE)

(PHONE RINGING)

Calvin: Calvin Joyner,

Accounting. Hello? Calvin

Joyner, Accounting.

Bob: Calvin?

Calvin: (MOUTHING) It's Bob!

It's Bob!

Pamela Harris: (MOUTHING)

Act natural.

Bob: Calvin. Is that you?

Are you there?

Calvin:Well, hey. Well,

yeah. Yeah, wassup? What up,

Bobby-o? Are you quite well?

Bob: I'm in big trouble. Oh,

God! I screwed up. I screwed

up big time. We gotta talk.

Can you meet me?

Calvin: Sure. Yeah. Where?

Where do you want me to meet

you?

Bob: I'm in the stairwell of

your building, two flights

down.

Calvin: Stairwell?

Bob: Hurry!

**********

Calvin: Fine, take it, take

it.

You can have it. Okay,

that... Listen to me.

Listen. Stop. Stop!

I need to know what is

happening, right now.

Bob: Okay, okay. You know

what?

66

Moving too fast. Bottom

line, are you in or you out?

Calvin: What are you... In

or out of what?

Bob: Mmm-mmm. No time for

questions, just action. In

or out?

Calvin: Okay, then I'm out.

Bob: I'm sorry, Jet.

Actually, you're already in.

Calvin: Then why would you

ask me?

Bob: Because I thought you

would go, "I'm in, Bob!" And

we would've had a really

cool moment, but you kinda

ruined the whole thing.

Calvin: I ruined... Okay,

okay, okay. Listen to me

right now.

Bob, I don't know what it is

that you're into but what I

do know is that I am really,

really 100% out!

Do you understand that?

Bob: God, you are good!

Calvin: What?

Bob: Calvin Joyner,

president of the Drama Club

for a reason, folks! You're

like a snack-size Denzel.

Calvin: Okay. Stop it, stop

it, stop it. This is not a

game. I'm being serious

right now. I'm out!

Bob: Okay. Okay. I can't say

I'm not disappointed, Jet,

but if you're out, you're

out.

Calvin: Thank you! I'm out!

**********

(ON THE STREET DRIVING THE

CAR)

Bob: All right, here's the

dilly-o, Jet. About three

weeks ago,

an enemy of the state

codenamed "The Black Badger"

stole the encryption keys to

the entire US spy satellite

program which he's gonna

sell to a buyer from that

auction site on your

computer last night.

Calvin: Bob...

Bob: If we lose control of

our satellites, we're

completely vulnerable to any

terrorist attacks. That's

why I had to go back to your

office and get you, Jet. I

need your super sweet

accounting skills to help me

figure out the last piece of

this puzzle which is the

transaction number from the

winning bid.

That'll tell us where the

deal is going down. That

way, we can get The Black

Badger. I can't do it

without you, Jet.

Calvin: Are you kidding me?

I'm not helping you. You

attacked somebody with a

banana.

Bob: A banana, force

multiplier.

Calvin: What?

**********

Calvin: You know what's

funny? Harris told me. She

told me everything, man. She

told me that you stole the

codes.

67

Bob: Let me tell you

something about Harris. You

can't trust her.

She's already trying to

frame me for my partner's

murder!

Calvin: You killed your

partner?

Bob: No. I would never do

that.

The Black Badger killed my

partner. Let me explain to

you something, dude. This is

what happened. After The

Black Badger

stole the satellite

encryption codes, my partner

Phil and I tracked him to a

penthouse in Kiev.

Bob: Hey, Phil.

Phil: Yeah.

Bob: I'll see you on the

other side. See you on the

other side.

Phil: All right.

God, I love that guy.

Bob: He knew we were coming,

so he set a trap.

Phil: Hey, Bob! Bob!

Bob: No!

Phil was my partner, my

teammate and I couldn't save

him.

Bob: No!

Bob: It was awful, Cal. It

was a setup, right from the

get-go.

Calvin: Damn, man.

Bob: The Black Badger was

never there. I should've

been the one on that

elevator, not Phil.

Calvin: God.

Okay. Bob, please... I'm

begging you, man. Can you

just let me go home?

Bob: CJ, I totally

understand.

But right now, Agent Harris

and her taskforce has that

place surveilled up the yin-

yang. She's got contract

killers looking for us. Your

place isn't safe.

Calvin: Oh, my God. Maggie.

Maggie! What the hell am I

supposed to do about Maggie?

**********

Pamela Harris: Mr. Joyner.

Guess who we're about to

arrest for conspiracy to

commit treason. That's

right. Your lovely wife. So,

here's what you're going to

do. You're going to tell us

exactly where you and Bob

are. Then you're going to go

outside and you're going to

keep Bob on site until we

arrive. And if he leaves,

you lose. Is that clear?

Bob: Oh, hey. I don't know

what happened in there, and

I just froze up. I locked

up. I'm sorry.

Calvin: Look, Bob, I...

Bob: No, I gotta tell you

something, CJ, listen.

You're the only one who's

ever been nice to me, the

only one who's never laughed

at me. And you're the only

one in this whole world that

I trust. And I know you have

a lot of friends, but I

don't. You're my only

68

friend, Calvin. And I will

never let you down again, I

promise.

Calvin: I'm sorry, man.

Bob: Sorry for what?

Calvin: I told Harris where

we are. They were going to

hurt Maggie. I had to. I

didn't have a choice. I'm

sorry.

Agents: Freeze, Bob! Hands

on your head! Do it now!

Pamela Harris: I know you

know how this goes, so I'll

spare you the dramatics.

I'll ask you just once.

Where are the satellite

encryption codes?

Aw. What's the matter, Bob?

Are you upset that your

friend turned you in?

Bob: I don't have any

friends.

**********

Pamela Harris: Bob!

One more thing. Thanks for

securing the satellite

codes. You really saved my

ass. Your country thanks

you.

Bob: Just doing my job.

Pamelah Harris: I'm really

sorry about your hand. I

hope you know that wasn't

personal.

Bob: Oh, no hard feelings at

all, Pam. Besides, everybody

makes mistakes.

Calvin, here, thought you

were The Black Badger.

Calvin: I don't... No, I

don't think...

Bob: When we were in the

plane,

you said, "Hey, Harris is

the Black..."

calvin: I think you

should... Maybe I...

Pamela Haris: Mr. Joyner, it

was a pleasure working with

you. If you ever want a

career change, you give me a

call.

**********

Maggie: Calvin! I got your

text

and came right over. Where

the hell have you been? Why

did you get out of a

helicopter?

Bob: Hey, uh, Maggie.

Maggie: Uh, hi!

Babe, why is Dr. Dan with

you?

Calvin: Well... Uh...

That's not Dr. Dan.

Bob: Allow me to properly

introduce myself. My name is

Bob Stone, the artist

formerly known as Robbie

Wheirdicht. I work for the

CIA. I roped your husband

into helping me track down a

traitor, who was gonna sell

military state secrets to a

terrorist. We did all that,

we stopped them, we saved

the free world, and here we

are.

Maggie: What the hell is

going on?

Calvin: Okay, listen,

listen.

I've been a fool. All right?

I thought that my life was a

69

failure. I thought that it

wasn't special. But it is

special. It's special

because I have you in it.

You are my world. You are

what makes me special!

You're everything to me,

Mags.

I love you.

Maggie: I love you.

Bob: Okay.

Here come the waterworks. I

promised myself I wouldn't

do this.

Calvin: Come on, come on.

Maggie: Okay.

**********

Bob: Hi, everybody! Most of

you knew me back in high

school as Robbie Wheirdicht.

ALL: That's Robbie

Wheirdicht?

- No way!

Bob: I wore prescription

pants every day. Twenty

years ago, in this gym, I

stood in front of you all

naked and embarrassed. Some

of you might remember that

day. A lot of you probably

even laughed.

But that's okay. Tonight's

gonna be different because

my best friend is here with

me. And he taught me what it

means to be the hero of your

own story. Would you hold

this for me, please?

Being the hero of your own

story isn't about stopping

bad guys or climbing

mountains.

It's about overcoming

bullies in your life,

whatever or whomever they

may be. It's about putting

it all out there for

everyone to see.

And it's realizing that, in

life, the most important

thing that you can be is

yourself. So, Central High,

Class of 1996, this is me,

Robbie Wheirdicht.

Calvin: Oh, my God! Bob just

went commando!

MAN: Yes! Yes!

Calvin: Way to go, Bob!

Be you!

MEN: Robbie! Robbie! Robbie!

Robbie! Robbie! Robbie!

Calvin: Hey, man! Dude, this

is amazing! I'm so happy for

you!

Bob: Thank you, Jet! I feel

so free! Come here.

Calvin: No, no, no. Your

junk is out.

Bob: Oh. Sorry, Jet.

Darla: Excuse me. Hi,

Robbie. You probably don't

remember me.

Bob: Darla.

Maggie: Is that Darla

McGuckian?

Calvin: Yeah.

Maggie: Wow! She looks

great!

Didn't she used to have a

lazy eye?

Calvin: Two of them.

Maggie: Wow.

Darla: I can't believe you

remember me.

70

Bob: Remember you? How could

I forget you?

Darla: You still have the

same sweet smile, the same

sweet face. But your hair's

changed. You used to wear it

curlier. I like it though.

You haven't changed at all.

Bob: Oh, I don't know.

You're still as beautiful as

ever.

ALL: Oh.

**********

Calvin: Good going, Bob!

Come on, Bob!

Bob: All right.

Maggie: Good luck!

Calvin: Love you.

Maggie: I love you.

Calvin: I love you, too,

little Golden Jet!

Maggie: Mmm...

Calvin: Okay. Uh...

How long do you think he's

been there?

Maggie: Hmm, probably since

last night.

Calvin: All right, babe,

I'll see you later.

Maggie: Have fun with your

friend!

Calvin: Who, me?

Bob: Yes, you.

Wow, Jet!

You look amazing!

Calvin: Do you think?

Bob: Oh, what? Yes!

Calvin: I just didn't know

the kind of look to go for

on my first day at the

agency.

Bob: You look like a black

Will Smith, or something.

Calvin: Okay, I'm not sure

if that's racist or not, but

I'll take it as a

compliment.

Bob: All right, cool. Yeah,

come on!

Calvin: Okay.

Bob: All right. Don't be

nervous. You are gonna do

great. They're gonna love

you!

Oh, Jet, Jet, Jet! Um,

before we go, man, uh... I

got a surprise for you.

Calvin: Okay. What's the

surprise?

Bob: Well, you gotta close

your eyes first.

Calvin: Eyes are closed.

Bob: No peeking. Open your

eyes.

Calvin: Is that my... Is

that my jacket?

Bob: Yes!

Calvin: Bob, is that my

jacket?

Bob: Yes!

Calvin: No, wait a minute.

Bob: Yes!

71

Calvin: Oh, my God!

Dude, where'd you get this

from?

Bob: Well, I sleep in it

most nights, but it's clean

now, totally good. Yeah!

Calvin: Man! You are the

man! Yes!

Bob: Family hug! What?

Calvin: Ooh. Okay.

Bob: All right, let's go!

Calvin: Okay.

Read more:

https://www.springfieldsprin

gfield.co.uk/movie_script.ph

p?movie=central-intelligence




flouting maxims in central intelligence movie...

Documents