1
Some Cases of Flouted Maxims by Some Characters’ Communication Style in
Eat Pray Love
Miftachudin
mievt4@gmail.com
Abstract
The way of communication can affect the rational and cooperative
communication. The speaker and the hearer (interlocutors) in talk
exchange may disobey the maxims of quantity, quality, manner, and
relevant. The result is the cooperative principles flouted in
communication. Such as in Eat Pray Love, involves three countries
which have different communication style found some flouted maxims.
They are; flouted maxims of quantity, quality, manner, and relevant.
The communication style affects the way of speaking in each country.
For instance, the interlocutors’ response is redundant, unclear, and out
of the point in communication.
A. Introduction
Communication can be described as an activity in which, for the most part,
two or more people take turns at speaking (Yule, 2010:128). This kind of activity
involves a particular speaker and hearer. Meanwhile, Communication is a process
that involves an exchange of information, thoughts, ideas, questions are asked and
answered, news and emotions. Thus, communication is important to keep the
personal relationship. To keep the personal relationship, communication must have
consideration to be successful in talk exchange; for instance, proper communication
between two people must be effectively so particularly the purpose of
communication achieved.
Cooperative principle describes how the effective communication in
conversation is achieved in common social situation. This means, the two people in
conversation should have cooperation in delivering information, thoughts, ideas,
mailto:mievt4@gmail.com
2
questions are asked and answered, etc. otherwise, lacking cooperation in
communication may have counterproductive, having an effect which is opposite to
the one which is intended or wanted. According to Grice in May, he considered
communication to be both rational and cooperative; he also claimed that the
inferential intention-recognition is governed by a cooperative principle and maxims
of quality, quantity, relation, and manner (2009:106).
There are some affectations of the culture in communication that happen in
this movie. The cultures are like Bali in Indonesia, India, and Italy. Besides, this
movie also has an attractive conversation in each country. Some of the conversations
between the main character and supported characters fail to have the principle
maxims. The failure in conversation can be found in term of flouting conversations
between the main character and the supported characters that occur in each country.
Some flouting maxims in the dialogues are to make the way of the story more
attractive and interesting. This means, the principle maxims are flouted. The flouted
maxims appear in this movie because there are some differences in the way of
communication which is influenced by the existence of cultural variations in
communication. Therefore, Eat Pray Love is acceptable movie to be analyzed in the
form of flouted maxims.
B. Cooperative principle
A basic underlying assumption we make when we speak to one another is that
we are trying to cooperate with one another to construct meaningful conversations.
For having successful communication, according to the philosopher H. P. Grice we
must assume that both people in a conversation are cooperating; this assumption is
known as the Cooperative Principle. As stated by H. P. Grice in Yule: make your
3
conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the
accepted purposes or direction of talk exchange in which you are engaged (Yule,
1996:37).
Grice in (Mey, 1993:65) states cooperative principle consists of four sub
principle, or maxims. They are:
1. The maxim of quantity:
a. Make your contribution as informative as is required.
b. Do not make your contribution more informative than required.
For instance:
X : John put on his raincoat, picked up his umbrella from the table near the
door, turned off the lights, put out the cat, got ready for his ten-minute
walk to the bus-stop
Y : John went out.
The utterance in X contributes more informative than is required. The
content is too long. Therefore, to get the same concept the sentence in Y is
commonly used.
2. The maxim of quality:
a. Do not say what you believe to be false.
b. Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.
The example can be seen in the following conversation:
X : How many maxims are in Grice cooperative principle?
Y : 4 maxims
X : What are they?
Y : Maxims of Quantity, Quality, Relation, and Manner.
The conversation above explains that X responses is true that there 4
maxims in Grice cooperative principle. It can be proved by reading the Grice book.
Truthful and evidence are needed to fulfill this cooperative principle
4
3. The maxims of relation:
a. Make your contribution relevant.
The example of relevance can be seen in the conversation below:
A: There is somebody at the door
B: I’m in the bath. (Joan Cutting , 2002:36)
Based on the example above, the speakers should give relevance contribution in
conversation. The relevance of B response with A response is not the utterance
meaning. But the relevant is in the utterance implication. So in this case as long as
the utterance is still related to what is being talked about is the relevance of the
conversation.
4. The maxim of manner:
Be perspicuous, and specifically:
a. Avoid obscurity.
b. Avoid ambiguity.
c. Be brief.
d. Be orderly (this means that if time relations are not explicitly expressed,
events should be related in the order in which they occur).
The example of manner can be observed in the conversation below:
A: Let’s stop and get something to eat.
B: Okey, but not M-C-D-O-N-A-L-D-S.
The conversation above, the speaker B is aware in spelling Mc. Donals. The speaker
may have strong opinion to not eat in Mc. Donals. To make it clear the speaker try to
spell it clearly.
5
C. Flouting maxims
According to Grice (1989:30), there are four kinds of the flouting maxims
that are generated as follow:
1. The flouting maxim of quality
Flouts which exploit the maxim of Quality occur when the speaker says
something which is blatantly untrue or for which he or she lacks adequate evidence.
Study the following example in the conversation below:
Ann : Jim, do you know where the Beg Ben Clock tower is?
Jim : It’s in Hong Kong
The talk exchange above describes that Jim does not contribute what he
believes to be false and to be unsubstantiated. This means, Jim’s response is not
really truthful because he may not be able to give the proof to Ann.
2. The flouting maxim of quantity
A flout of the maxim of Quantity occurs when a speaker blatantly gives more
or less information that the situation requires. The example is in the conversation
below:
A: What can you tell me about Catherine’s ability to concentrate on a task?
B: Catherine is a butterfly flitting from flower to flower.
The conversation in above gives understanding that the talk exchange is not
fulfilled the quantity maxim. In the conversation B tells more than expected and B
invites a metaphorical interpretation. So the participant is confused because the
answer is confusing.
3. The flouting maxim of relation
6
Thomas (1995:70) states the maxim of Relation is exploited by
making a response or observation which is very obviously irrelevant to the
topic in hand “by abruptly changing the subject or by overtly failing to
address the other person’s goal in asking a question”. Study the following
conversation:
A: What on earth has happened to the roast beef?
B: The dog is looking very happy.
The conversation in above can be seen that the talk exchange is not fulfilled
the maxim of relevance. B’s response is not connected or irrelevance with the
question uttered. A simply want to know the answer dealing with the discussion but
B’s answer moves or runs of the track.
4. The flouting maxim of manner
The maxim of Manner is exploited by making obscurity expression, a
response which is unclear; this maxim is prolixity, using too many words, therefore
boring and difficult to read or listen to. So that the hearer cannot catch what the
speaker means. The example is like in the conversation below:
A: What are you baking?
B: Be I are tea aitch dee ay wye see ay kay ee.
A: I hear you went to the opera last night; how was the lead singer?
B: The singer produced a series of sounds corresponding closely to the score of
an aria from '"Rigoletto."
Both conversations in above are not fulfilled the maxim of manner. The talk
exchange that conversation blatantly tells obscurity answer that makes the participant
does not understand the meaning at all. Besides, the talk exchange has prolixity in
flouting the maxim of manner.
7
D. Language, Culture and Communication
Language and culture are inseparable in the way of communication. It is how
people from differing cultural backgrounds communicate, in similar and different
ways among themselves, and how they endeavor to communication cross cultures.
People coming from different countries may not find comfort in communicating or
coordinating easily with one another. When people from different countries come
together, their way of thinking varies. Some might be shy to communicate, while
others open for communication. Owing to the difference in their cultural
backgrounds, there is a difference in their upbringing, due to which there is a
difference in their views and beliefs. Even the communication etiquette differs across
the different countries, thus making it difficult for starting communication.
Singer (in Martin, 2010:87) defines culture is as a pattern of learned, group-
related perception including both verbal and nonverbal language attitudes, values,
belief system, disbelief systems, and behavior. Language and culture are like aspects
of communication which is interrelated each other. The aspects of communication
are verbal language and nonverbal language. Verbal communication includes sounds,
words, language and speaking. Language is said to have originated from sounds and
gestures. Non-verbal communication involves physical ways of communication, like,
tone of the voice, touch, smell and body motion. Creative and aesthetic non-verbal
communication includes singing, music, dancing and sculpturing. Symbols and sign
language are also included in non-verbal communication.
Every country has habits and distinct cultural elements that make it unique.
For instance, the cross cultural communication is in the movie Eat Pray Love which
involves Balinese culture, India culture, and Italian culture. The cultural
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture
8
communication or the way of speaking of Indonesian (Balinese) is commonly
indirect or indirect communicators. This means they do not always say what they
mean. It is up to the listener to read between the lines or pay attention to gestures and
body language to get the real message.
Generally speaking Indonesians’ speak quietly and with a subdued tone. Loud
people would come across as slightly aggressive. In Indonesia most of people spend
time through communication to build a strong relationship. Dealing with someone
face-to-face is the only effective way of cooperation in speaking.
The communication style in India will be good if there is certain distance
between you and the person to whom you are speaking. Most Indians make direct
eye contact during conversation; however, a woman from traditional or rural
background may speak to you from behind the veil of her sari. It is not acceptable to
touch someone during conversation unless you know the person well. For example,
an older person could take offence if you touch him or her because you are not a
Hindu or, if you are a man, a woman would feel very uncomfortable and think you
are making a pass at her.
Italian culture also has differences in the way of communication. Italians are
quite famous for being effusive talkers that use hand gestures to underline most
statements. As a rule, Italians tend to communicate a great deal. By communication
we mean either speech or gesture, but in Italy one does not preclude the other; to the
contrary, they complement each other. In the workplace and in daily life, Italians
augment verbal communication by pronounced gesturing and frequent facial
expressions in order to add liveliness to speech. While they speak to someone to
9
explain or argue a point, Italians have a tendency to brush against or touch the other
person (e.g., on the shoulder or the arm). In this way, the latter feels more
comfortable and may better pay attention to the contents of the conversation.
Although in some respects men use physical contact more frequently than
women, the fact remains that it is a dramatic gesture, but a positive one. In addition
to hand gestures, Southern Italians also have another widespread custom: speaking
loudly. Someone unfamiliar with Italians in conversation may see a Southerner
speaking and mistakenly assume they are yelling or angry while, in truth, they are
just speaking in their regular tone of voice.
Dealing with this discussion, philosophically Kaplan (1966:11) points out
those cultural differences in the nature of rhetoric can affect the way of
communication because rhetoric is mode of thinking or a mode of finding all
available means for the achievement of a designated end. In his finding, Kaplan
presents some languages that written by foreign students in the form of paragraph are
not dominantly linear in its development. Some of their paragraphs seem out of focus
in the topic. Their papers are out of focus because they are employing arhetoric and a
sequence of thought which violate the native reader expectation. Besides, they have
lack organization or lack cohesion in combining the sentences in paragraph. Kaplan
(1966:21) has drawn the pattern of languages in the following figure:
Figure 1. The pattern of languages
10
The figure 1 describes the English paragraph tends to follow a direct line of
development. The Oriental paragraph tends to develop thought in a more circular
pattern. Romance languages and Russian tend to prize digressions, while Semitic
paragraphs often value parallel lines in development.
In line with the pattern of language in the figure 1, can be elaborated in the
following description:
English explains that the English communication is direct, linear, and doesn’t
digress or run off the track/topic. Meanwhile, the English language is also
straight to the point and has an emphasis on organization and conciseness.
Semitic such as Arabic or Hebrew thoughts is expressed in a series of parallel
ideas, both positive and negative and coordination is valued over subordination.
Oriental is like languages of Asia describes that the communication is indirect
and there is circumlocution expression. A topic is not addressed head on, but is
viewed from various perspectives, working around and around the point. Asian
use it because of various reasons e.g. 'loss of face', politeness and other reasons.
Kaplan (1966:7) states that the development of the paragraph is turning and
turning in a widening gyre.
Romance such as French, Italian, Romanian and Spanish describes that the
Romance communication often digresses because in Romance communication
often detours aren't odd and are deliberate. These detours are evidence of class,
not of poor language faculty. It is fine to introduce extraneous material, which
adds to the richness of the communication.
11
Russian is almost same with Romance languages, Russian communication is
often digressive. The digression may include a series of parallel ideas. It is
often circuitous and discursive. But it's often not easy to connect these ideas.
E. Thematic synopsis of Eat Pray Love
Eat Pray Love is American drama in 2010 based on the novel Eat, Pray, Love
by Elizabeth Gilbert. The location of this movie involves New York, Napoli (Italia),
Pataudi (India), and Bali (Indonesia).
The section on Italy is mouthwatering - savoring a simple Italian meal with
wine and tiramisu for dessert on her first day in Rome, roaming around the streets
with frequent cappuccino and gelato refreshment breaks, and joining an Italian
language class for no practical reason but simply to roll the sounds over her tongue
and revel in the texture of the mellifluous language.
These four months are spent in a Guru’s ashram, a spiritual hermitage near
Mumbai India. Having grown up in a non-religious family, she approaches the road
to spiritual enlightenment with a fair degree of skepticism. In Bali, Elizabeth
interacts with a few local Balinese and her impetuous involvement in their personal
lives is quirky and amusing. The book then meanders into Elizabeth’s romantic
dalliance with a Brazilian and ends with her finding true love.
F. Findings
The findings indicate there are some flouted maxims influenced by the
interlocutors’ communication style in each country. The below excerpt from the
movie is an example of flouted maxims between Elizabeth and other supported
characters.
http://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Gilbert
http://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York
http://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoli
http://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italia
http://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pataudi
http://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/India
http://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bali
http://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesia
12
1. In Bali (Indonesia), The flouted maxims can be seen in the conversation between
Elizabeth and Ketut
Liz : …. I want to discuss my relationship.
Ketut : You are a world traveler….
Ketut : you will live a long time, have many friends, many experiences.
You will have two marriages. One long, one short.
Liz : Am I in the long one or the short one?
Ketut : Also, you will lose all your money. I think in next six to ten
months. Don’t worry, you will get it all back again….
Ketut : You will come back to Bali and live here for three or four months
and teach me English…..
From the conversation above, it can be described that almost all maxims
are not fulfilled. Liz in the conversation wants to know about her relationship. She
needs to have simple and clear answer from Ketut but he forecasts through her palm
up with long answer. Ketut does not answer clearly but redundant, even he tells her
something embittering. Thus, the conversation cannot fulfill the maxims of
quantity. Beside the Ketut prediction cannot be proved yet so it doesn’t fulfill the
maxims of quality. In this case, less cooperative in conversation is because of
cultural difference. Ketut is a Balinese who has a circumlocution or indirect
expression of saying something, because of various reasons e.g. 'loss of face',
politeness and other reasons. On the other hand, Elizabeth is an American whose
language is straight to the point and has an emphasis on organization and
conciseness. So simply she does not straggle or move the track of the conversation.
On another case when Elizabeth back to Bali again, There are many flouted
maxims in her conversation with Ketut. The selection is like below:
Liz : ….(take something in a bag) You gave me this….oke
Ketut : (remembering) You you I remember you
Liz : Ohh good
Ketut : You a girl from New York. You come back. You Liz you you you
13
Liz : Me me me
Ketut : so long ago we meet. Last time you had much too worry, too much
sorrow, last time you look like sad old woman, now you’re pretty.
Both speakers in the above conversation are flouting the maxims of quantity.
Both of them communicate redundantly by uttering “you” and “me’ many times.
2. In Napoli (Italia), The flouted maxims can be seen in the conversation below:
Liz : ….Luca, what time did you put the turkey in?
Luca : (all innocence) it’s still defrosting.
The conversation above Luca gives short answer to the Eliz’s question.
Meanwhile, the answer is not expected by Eliz. So the Luca’s answer is flouted
maxim of quality because the maxim of quality is not fulfilled. On the other hand,
Luca implies that the turkey is not ready yet to be served. The next is also one of the
flouted maxim in the conversation between Ruffina and Sofi
Ruffina : How’s she going to find another husband on the other side of the
world?
Sofi : If a man said I’m going to travel for a year, meet wonderful people,
have great adventures and search for meaning…..
Ruffina : (interrupting) But she’s not a man.
In the above exchange, the sofi’s response is going off the point of
conversation. Sofi makes assumption by giving allusion sentence. But Sofi’s
response is redundant. The statement is more than needed to response the Ruffina’s
statement. A good reason is that Sofi probably is being little bit annoyed with
Ruffina, so she gives a little bit annoying protest to the question. Therefore, Sofi
flouts the maxim of quantity.
3. In Mumbay (India), the flouted maxims can be seen in the following
conversation between Elizabeth and Corella:
14
Liz : (shaking hand) Hi, nice to meet you?
Corella : (just laughing but no “ I AM IN SILENCE”)
Liz : Where’d you get that button?
Swami Shivananda : They sell them at the bookstore.
Liz : I need to get one. That is exactly what I need.
I’ve always been little Miss Chatty Kathy according to my sixth
grade teacher, and it’s time to change it up. I don’t want to waste the
greatest spiritual opportunity……………..See? I’m rambling now….
Elizabet goes to India to have spiritual enlightenment with a fair degree of
skepticism. She wants to learn how to be closer to the God. In India, she meets with
Corella, a silent girl. When having conversation with her, she doesn’t say anything.
Because she believes that silence is a wonderful spiritual practice but actually she
can speak. In conversation Corella’s response is not sufficient to have effective
communication. Meanwhile, Liz also gives more response than is required by Swani.
Liz’s response is redundant. Therefore both responses flout the maxim of quantity.
G. Conclusion
The description above reveals that some cases in communication are not
always smoothly communicated. The interlocutor in talk exchange may disobey the
maxims of principle such as flout the maxims of quantity, quality, manner, and
relevant. These flouting maxims affected by some communication styles of each
country in Eat Pay Love. Such as in Indonesia the communication style is indirect, in
Italy the communication style usually digress or out of the point, and in India has
direct eye contact during conversation.
15
REFERENCES
Bara, Bruno, G. 2010. Cognitive pragmatics: the mental processes of
communication. USA. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Cruse, A. 2006. A Glossary of Semantics and Pragmatics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press Ltd.
Cutting, Joan. 2002. Pragmatics and Discourse: A Resource Book for Students. New
York: Routledge.
Grice, P.H. 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press.
Griffiths, Patrick. 2006. An Introduction to English Semantics and Pragmatics.
Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Kaplan, Robert B. Cultural Thought Patterns in Inter-cultural Education. Language
Learning 16 (1966): 1-20.
L. Mey, Jacob. 1993. Pragmatics an Introduction. Cambridge: Blackwell Inc.
L. Mey, Jacob. 2009. Concise Encyclopedia of Pragmatics (2nd Ed.). Denmark:
Elsevier Ltd.
Leech, Geoffrey. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.
Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. London: Cambridge University Press.
Malmkjær, Kirsten. 1991. The Linguistics Encyclopedia. New York: Routledge
Mayes, P. 2003. Language, Social Structure, and Culture. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins Publishing Company.
Ronowicz, E. and Yallop, C. 1999. English: One Language, Different Cultures.
London: Cassell.
Thomas, Jenny. 1995. Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics.
Harlow: Longman.
Wardhaugh, R. 2006. An Introduction to Sociolinguistics (5
th
Ed.). UK: Blackwell.
Yule, George. 1996. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Yule, George. 2010. The Study of Language (4
th
Ed.). New York: Cambridge
University Press.