FLOUTING MAXIMS IN CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE MOVIE...
Transcript of 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.
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
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.
Quantity Overstatement
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.
Quantity Overstatement
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?
1) Rhetorical Strategies in Datum 2
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.
2) Implicature in Datum 2
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.
2) Implicature in Datum 3
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?
1) Rhetorical Strategies in Datum 4
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.
2) Implicature in Datum 4
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.
1) Rhetorical Strategies in Datum 5
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.
2) Implicature in Datum 5
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.
1) Rhetorical Strategies in Datum 6
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
2) Implicature in Datum 6
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?
1) Rhetorical Strategies in Datum 7
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.
2) Implicature in Datum 7
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?
1) Rhetorical Strategies in Datum 8
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.
2) Implicature in Datum 8
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.
1) Rhetorical Strategies in Datum 9
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.
2) Implicature in Datum 9
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.
1) Rhetorical Strategies in Datum 10
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.
2) Implicature in Datum 10
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.
1) Rhetorical Strategies in Datum 11
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.
2) Implicature in Datum 11
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
1) Rhetorical Strategies in Datum 12
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.
2) Implicature in Datum 12
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.
1) Rhetorical Strategies in Datum 13
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.
2) Implicature in Datum 13
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.
1) Rhetorical Strategies in Datum 14
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.
2) Implicature in Datum 14
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.
1) Rhetorical Strategies in Datum 15
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.
2) Implicature in Datum 15
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?
1) Rhetorical Strategies in Datum 16
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.
2) Implicature in Datum 16
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
1) Rhetorical Strategies in Datum 17
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.
2) Implicature in Datum 17
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