2.3.2 The Flouting Maxim Of Quality
2.3.1.2 The Flouting Maxim of Quality
Firstly, the speaker flouts Maxim of Quality if she/he lies or says and denies something that is believed to be false. Therefore, it means that he/she misrepresents his/her information in order to make addressee understand. The examples below will explain this flouting.
I. A: Teheran’s in Turkey isn’t it, teacher? B: And London’s in Armenia I Suppose.
(Levinson, 1983, p. 110)
In the conversation, B has flouted maxim of quality. B answers the statement about London that is in Armenia. Actually, this answer is false because London is in England. Therefore, B gives false statement.
II. Queen Victoria was made of iron
(Cook, 1992, p. 31)
The example above, is flouting the maxim of Quality. It gives a metaphor …show more content…
Usually, the participants do the wrong causality. Beside, they want to avoid the topic; they will change the topic or avoid talking about something. This flouting is usually used to hide something. It means that the participants keep secrete or something in order that no body knows about it. Two examples below do not fulfill the maxim of relevance.
I. A: I do think Mrs. Jenkis is an old windbag, don’t …show more content…
Grundy (1995) in his book, Doing Pragmatics, stated that whenever a maxim is flouted there must be an implicature to save the utterance from simply appearing to be a flountly contribution to a conversation. It is a particularly salient way of getting an addressee to draw inference. Thus, there is a trade-off between abiding by maxims, the prototypical way of conducting a conversation and flouting maxims, the prototypical way of conveying implicit meaning (1995: 39).
In Conversational Implicature, Grice (1975) introduced the term particularized implicature and generalized implicature. In particularized implicature, the speaker says different meaning from what he actually says and this implicature depends on a specific or particular context. There are several examples about particularized implicature in which Grice 1975: 32) divides into three groups.
In the first group, the example is in which no maxim is flouted, or at least in which it is not clear that any maxim is flouted.
A: Smith doesn't seem to have a girlfriend these days.
B: He has been paying a lot of visits to New York lately
From this example, B says something that is different from what he literally says, or in other words B implicates that Smith has or may have a girlfriend in New
Firstly, the speaker flouts Maxim of Quality if she/he lies or says and denies something that is believed to be false. Therefore, it means that he/she misrepresents his/her information in order to make addressee understand. The examples below will explain this flouting.
I. A: Teheran’s in Turkey isn’t it, teacher? B: And London’s in Armenia I Suppose.
(Levinson, 1983, p. 110)
In the conversation, B has flouted maxim of quality. B answers the statement about London that is in Armenia. Actually, this answer is false because London is in England. Therefore, B gives false statement.
II. Queen Victoria was made of iron
(Cook, 1992, p. 31)
The example above, is flouting the maxim of Quality. It gives a metaphor …show more content…
Usually, the participants do the wrong causality. Beside, they want to avoid the topic; they will change the topic or avoid talking about something. This flouting is usually used to hide something. It means that the participants keep secrete or something in order that no body knows about it. Two examples below do not fulfill the maxim of relevance.
I. A: I do think Mrs. Jenkis is an old windbag, don’t …show more content…
Grundy (1995) in his book, Doing Pragmatics, stated that whenever a maxim is flouted there must be an implicature to save the utterance from simply appearing to be a flountly contribution to a conversation. It is a particularly salient way of getting an addressee to draw inference. Thus, there is a trade-off between abiding by maxims, the prototypical way of conducting a conversation and flouting maxims, the prototypical way of conveying implicit meaning (1995: 39).
In Conversational Implicature, Grice (1975) introduced the term particularized implicature and generalized implicature. In particularized implicature, the speaker says different meaning from what he actually says and this implicature depends on a specific or particular context. There are several examples about particularized implicature in which Grice 1975: 32) divides into three groups.
In the first group, the example is in which no maxim is flouted, or at least in which it is not clear that any maxim is flouted.
A: Smith doesn't seem to have a girlfriend these days.
B: He has been paying a lot of visits to New York lately
From this example, B says something that is different from what he literally says, or in other words B implicates that Smith has or may have a girlfriend in New