AN ANALYSIS OF MAXIM VIOLATION TO ACHIEVE POLITENESS IN TEACHERS UTTERANCES

e-Journal Nama Jurnal Universitas Pendidikan Ganesha Jurusan Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris (Volume x Tahun 2018)

AN ANALYSIS OF MAXIM VIOLATION TO ACHIEVE POLITENESS IN TEACHER’S UTTERANCES OF SMPN 3 SINGARAJA IN ACADEMIC YEAR OF 2017/2018 Putu. Cendhani Sari Suartana Dr. Dewa Putu Ramendra, S.Pd., M.Pd. Putu Adi Krisna Juniarta, S.Pd., M.Pd.

Jurusan Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris Universitas Pendidikan Ganesha Singaraja, Indonesia

e-mail: cendhanisuartana@gmail.com dewaramendra@yahoo.com adiputu108@gmail.com Abstract

One of the ideal purposes of communication is giving information, but sometimes information is delivered in certain condition to make another intention. The violation of such ideals then occurred based on one’s reason and can be observed by looking at the available context. Of all the reasons behind maxim violation, politeness is one of them. It is an essential part of communication which could maintain a good relationship between both speaker and hearer. Teacher is one of the essential parts in education sector. In teaching and learning process, teacher sometimes violate the maxim to imply a more encouraging yet polite responses.

In this study, the writer had combined two variables of pragmatics study which occurred in the ground of educational sector. In this study, the writer had combined two variables of pragmatics study which occurred in the ground of educational sector. The writer then tried to define the way on how Mrs. AS, one of the English teachers in SMPN 3 Singaraja violates the maxim and also its relation with politeness. Videos of teaching and learning process had been taken and transcribed to provide an authentic data. The result of the data shows that 229 utterances had violated maxim while achieving politeness at the same time. In conclusion, violating a maxim could be based on one simple yet noble reason: politeness.

Keywords: maxim violation, politeness, Cooperative Principle, teacher, utterance

INTRODUCTION According to Keyton (1991 as cited in Lunenberg, 2010:1), communication can be defined as the process of transmitting information and common understanding from one individual to another. Grice

(1975: 41-46) then formulated Cooperative Principle including: 1. Maxim of Quantity (Accurate) 2. Maxim of Quality (Truthful) 3. Maxim of Relation (Relevant) 4. Maxim of Manner (Clear)

e-Journal Nama Jurnal Universitas Pendidikan Ganesha Jurusan Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris (Volume x Tahun 2018) However, this is not always the case.

Pham (2010) found that the Cooperative Principle could be fulfilled mostly due to several circumstances; but still having violation in a smaller number or occurrence. It means that sometimes people violate this ideals to achieve other intention. Therefore Grice (1975:49) also stated that maxim violation is one of the phenomenon that could occurred during human conversation.

There are so many reasons of why someone would probably violate maxims in communicating; proving that maxim violation could possibly occur in any area of communication. More importantly, those who want to maintain a good relationship should consider a way to keep a positive feeling toward others. Not only by avoiding utterances which might hurt others but also to consider a way to increase the probability of making a stronger bond between self and other.

Of all the reasons behind violating maxim, politeness is one of the things that should be considered. It is important to keep a good relationship between both parties (speaker and hearer). People definitely use polite utterances to gain this purpose. Lestari (2013) also added that politeness creates good social relation and bring people more closely.

The act of being polite might be based on several reasons. Therefore, Leech (1983:35) proposed theory of politeness strategy which is named politeness principle. Politeness, according to Leech, involves: 1. Tact Maxim: minimize imposition to others, maximize cost to self 2. Approbation Maxim: maximize praise to others, minimize dispraise to others.

3. Generosity Maxim: maximize benefit for others, minimize benefit for others 4. Modesty Maxim: maximize dispraise to self, minimize praise to self 5. Agreement Maxim: maximize agreement to others, minimize disagreement to others.

6. Sympathy Maxim: maximize sympathy to others, minimize antipathy for others.

Teacher is considered as an actor in educational sector. In teaching and learning process, teacher often tries to consider several factors before making a decision. This act is resulted due to certain situation in which impose teacher to act wise and sometimes violate the maxim in his or her utterances to imply a more encouraging yet polite responses toward their communication with students.

Sometimes, literal and direct utterance would possibly cause hurt feelings and damage the relationship between students and teacher. Therefore, the needs of politeness strategies is needed in interacting with students in order to build a good relationship with them; even though this also means that teacher would possibly violate Cooperative Principle as a result.

From the previous observation, one school was found to achieve politeness by violating maxims of Cooperative Principle.

SMPN 3 Singaraja is a school in Buleleng Regency in Bali in which the one teacher implied these utterances to approach their students. It is located in Surapati Street number 140, Singaraja, Bali, Indonesia.

Research on maxim violation and research on politeness had been widely use. However research which combine these two pragmatics variables has never been conducted before; especially in educational ground. Therefore through this study, the writer would try to define the way on how this teacher violates the maxim and also its relation with politeness.

Literature Review In order to conduct a meaningful study, several studies had been collected to be used as references.

Pham (2010) proposed that Cooperative Principle could be fulfilled mostly due to several circumstances; but still having violation in a smaller number or occurrence. Pham argued that people are trying to give direct information as much as possible. However, due to some particular reasons, people consciously break the rules of ideal communication.

Having a more significance opinions about maxim violation, Kazemi and Ebrahimi (2016), Sobhani and Saghebi

e-Journal Nama Jurnal Universitas Pendidikan Ganesha Jurusan Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris (Volume x Tahun 2018) (2014), Nugraha (2013) and Arthanti (2013) given lots of discussion on how violation of maxim is uttered to convey implied meanings. There are reasons of why people have another intention in saying something. Sobhani and Saghebi (2014) also added that it was clear that the message people intend to convey is not wholly contained within the words they use, but it is also dependent on how hearers interpreting the message based on the context. It means that context is very crucial in defining someone’s pragmatic act.

Context could be taken from the available situation in which the violation is occurred.

In another case, an implied meaning is generated in order to express something which cannot be expressed directly, so implicature is uttered intentionally (Nugraha, 2013). Sometimes people find it hard to say something directly. In addition, to attract one’s attention, someone would break the rules of Cooperative Principle.

(Kazemi and Ebrahimi, 2016). Therefore, exaggeration would also violate maxim; especially quantity maxim.

As in Politeness Principle, the study from Altan (2015), Deng and Zhou (2013), Lestari (2013), Jie and Feifei (2016) as well as Mulyono (2016) has given broad understanding of how certain situation proves the existence of strategies used to imply politeness itself. In communicating ideas and information to the listener, a speaker must pay a serious attention to the setting of the conversation (Mulyono, 2016). It refers to the place where the dialogue begins to imply politeness. In another aspect, Altan (2015) especially uttered on how cultures and social status play an important role in causing this to occur. Usually a subordinate would talk politer to his superior; considering his social status it would be much wiser.

Hidayati, Zen, and Basthomi (2017), Shofi‘ah, Aimah, and Mulyadi (2017) as well as Sülü (2015) agree that several utterances used by teachers to imply politeness. Sülü (2015) then proved that politeness existed in that EFL classroom and it helped students to have positive feelings towards the lesson and motivated them to participate more in class. And in some cases, teachers do not always

impose on their students in asking them to do what the teachers want them to do.

(Hidayati, Zen, and Basthomi, 2017). In some way, scolding is avoided by educators who wanted to maintain a good relationship with his or her students. As long as the mistake is not above the line; they prefer to approach them in a more encouraging way. Therefore, instead of scolding students, educators usually use sarcasm; that way they would avoid direct confrontation.

These studies had contributed not only theoretical reference, but also inside perception about the occurrence of maxim violation as well as politeness strategies. It includes culture, social status, intention and the most important one of all: context. In terms of practical reference, these studies has contributed a direct guidance on how to analyze the utterances by looking at the available context. Various context can affect the whole meaning of one’s utterance; therefore the analysis should be precise and exact based on what happen at that very moment.

This present study is different from those empirical reviews used, which is to combine three variables into one: Maxim Violation to Achieve Politeness in Teachers’ Utterances. The data had been collected carefully to maintain the properness and met the objectives of this study.

METHODS The writer used a qualitative method which means the writer would like to collect a qualitative data and interprets it qualitatively. To support this research, the writer would like to record teacher’s utterances in class in the form of video which had been transcribed into written form. The data then would be analyzed by the theory of violation of maxims based on Grice’s Cooperative Principle and the utterances of polite intention would be analyzed using Leech’s Politeness Principle descriptively. After that, the data would be categorized into several classifications to provide a detailed explanation toward each utterance.

e-Journal Nama Jurnal Universitas Pendidikan Ganesha Jurusan Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris (Volume x Tahun 2018) FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION The data is collected from 5 meetings in 2 weeks which is in 2nd, 3rd, 7th and 8th of May, 2018. The overall data is observing 229 utterances that violate Cooperative Principle to achieve politeness. To be easier in understanding the data, three classifications has been provided in the form of tables: In the category of maxim violation, the findings conveyed that teacher conducted 245 violation of Cooperative Principle to achieve politeness. Due to 16 double violation, the number accumulated from 229 into 245. Teacher is observed to violate two maxims at once in her conversation with students; however the analysis is done by analyzing each violation separately. As it shows in the table above, the frequency of maxim of quantity violation is 122 (50%), maxim of quality violation is 11 (4%), maxim of relation violation 20 (8%) and maxim of manner violation is 93 (38%).

Table 2. Politeness Strategies used in Teacher’s Utterances

In categorization of teacher’s utterances, there are 240 utterances in total due to 11 double categorizations.

Teacher is observed to use two kinds of utterances at once in her conversation with students; however the analysis is done by analyzing each kind separately.

Here teacher is observed to use statement in the amount of 25%, question in 36%, answer in 3%, feedback in 15%, encouragement in 3% and another* in 16%. Here the column ‘another’ is added to include other categorizations that may occur to enrich the data. ‘Another’

categorization found in teacher’s utterances includes instruction, suggestion, single word, phrase, reminder and explanation that previously found in the data.

Table 1. Maxim Violation in Teacher’s Utterances

In terms of the strategies to achieve politeness by violating maxims, teacher generates 231 strategies in total due to the occurrence of 2 double politeness.

Teacher is observed to promote two maxims at once in her conversation with students; however the analysis is done by analyzing each politeness strategy separately. Here, teacher is shown to use the strategy of tact maxim in the percentage of 25%, generosity maxim in 34%, approbation maxim in 21%, modesty maxim in 1%, agreement maxim in 6% and sympathy maxim in 13%.

Table 3. Categorization of Teacher’s Utterances

There are several utterances which used by teacher to achieve politeness by violating maxims: May 8th 2018 (No. 152) Teacher : But if I ask another student: do you like pizza? No, I don’t.

So, what do you mean by don’t?

Student B : Do not.

Teacher : Yes, ‘don’t’ consist of two words.

Student B : Do not.

Teacher : Yes, do and not. Okay, good. So remember the structure: no, I don’t.

Or: no, I do not. Therefore, the word

e-Journal Nama Jurnal Universitas Pendidikan Ganesha Jurusan Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris (Volume x Tahun 2018) ‘not’ here (pointing at the whiteboard), if we abbreviate it, then it will become ‘don’t’. Understand?

The explanation of teacher considered as too much as she repeat again and again about the same material. But this kind of utterance does maximize students benefit in understanding the material.

Repetition is known for benefiting students in learning and teaching (Baleghizadeh and Derakhshesh, 2012). Therefore, by uttering this explanation teacher also achieve generosity maxim. Another reason in performing violation of quantity is that teacher is trying to be aware of her surroundings; whether there are students who might not hear Student B’s answer; she even put benefits for those who want to take a note. This is causing teacher to repeat herself and violate the briefness principle of maxim of quantity.

May 8th 2018 (No. 204) Teacher : I’m afraid that it will take a long time.

Why don’t you read generally first?

There must be some words that you already know. Try to find the other words’ meaning from that. Oh, this is the meaning, like that. I am sure that you’re not completely blank.

In this particular utterance, teacher stated that she is sure of the capability of the students; even though personally she didn’t know for sure that every student is not blank. Teacher proved to be dishonest in her own words. However, teacher gave this kind of encouragement to make students’ self-esteem increase and become confidence. This kind of encouragement is considered as an inside compliment; as in having faith in students’ capability. Therefore, teacher promoted the strategy of approbation maxim by maximizing praise to students.

May 8th 2018 (No. 215) Teacher : But I do not like the number of things about them. Some are not discipline.

They litter. So, our classroom is often messy and dirty. Okay, let me remind you about the western name. Don’t be so proud to make a nickname in English if you only use it to show off yourself. For example, call me Messy. It turns out, it means…?

Students : Dirty.

From the above dialogue, it is obvious that teacher violated maxim of relation. It is not quite relevant to the previous topic; in which teacher is discussing about the text and she suddenly brings this matter up. Such additional yet practical information is slipped to give a break and make students escape such hectic materials. But by doing this, she is meant to remind students of not using English name if they are not sure about the meaning; which in this case teacher considered about students benefit as a priority.

May 2nd 2018 (No. 14) Teacher : Okay. So if you want to make a paragraph, sure there is one thing that you shouldn’t left behind, that is…?

Main?

Student C : Main idea.

Usually teacher gave an excessive information if violating maxim of quantity; but in this dialogue, teacher did the opposite. Simply, this one word cannot convey complete meaning, hence it violates maxim of quantity. But this violation lead students to the answer that is required for their further learning.

Even though the violation is minor, but it is still can be included in breaking the rules of accurate meaning in maxim of quantity principle.

Jie and Feifei (2016) stated that in many cases, unnecessary misunderstanding results from misstructured words; meaning that this kinf of utterance had a possibility in confusing people. But again, this violation is made to lead students unconsciously; the intention is to practice students’ critical thinking.

Therefore it has a reason behind this violation.

May, 8th 2018 (No. 175) Teacher : Okay, you have any question?

Student B, F: (mumbling) Teacher : Maybe some of you still confuse about this?

Student B : (raising his hand) Teacher : (gesturing permission) Student B : The example of subject one and subject two.

e-Journal Nama Jurnal Universitas Pendidikan Ganesha Jurusan Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris (Volume x Tahun 2018) This question is not necessary to be uttered due to its excessive amount of the same meaning question that previously has been already stated by teacher; proving the occurrence of violation of quantity maxim. But in this case, teacher is aware of her surrounding and put the benefits for those students (generosity maxim) who might hesitate to respond at first, and she assumes that they will be ready to give their thoughts if being asked at the second time. In other case, teacher often use fragmental question to lead students to the correct answer. But she violated quantity maxim as in uttering such incomplete meaning.

May, 8th 2018 (No. 141) Teacher : No? How come? Okay. Now… please open your book page 3. Can you find it?

Students : Yes. Teacher : Okay for this, we will not say good morning, but we’ll say good..?

Both complete question and fragmental question are uttered to draw response toward the other parties.

Therefore, this fragmental question is considered to have the same purpose as a complete question. This portion of question is actually very effective in leading students to respond their teacher.

The use of such utterance proves the occurrence of tact maxim as in unconsciously minimizing imposition to students. But this utterance is considered lack in meaning because of the fragmental structure, this then categorized as violation maxim of quantity.

May, 8th 2018 (No. 153) Teacher : But when I ask to you, maybe to Puspa: does Adit like pizza? So if Puspa know and answer by…?

Students and Teacher: Yes, he does; or no, he doesn’t.

This way, students would be unconsciously guided to the material that previously taught by teacher. Even though such utterance violated maxim of quantity as in giving incomplete meaning as a whole sentence, but it definitely generated the strategy of tact maxim. It is to direct

student in a more unconscious way of learning.

Implicature is a very common phenomenon to occur in the area of maxim of manner violation. Here is one of the examples to convey implicature: May, 7th 2018 (No. 113) Student G : (raising his hand) Ma’am, can I ask about something?

Teacher : Yes, Angga?

Student G : Why the answer is not A? Teacher : Why do you think the answer is A?

In this case, teacher tries to minimize dispraise as she doesn’t want to tell directly that option A is wrong. But by doing this, she also violates maxim of manner as in having implicit meaning in such question. This then proves that sometimes an implicature is generated in order to express something which cannot be expressed directly, so they generate an implicature intentionally (Nugraha, 2013).

May, 2th 2018 (No. 30) Teacher : Okay, now you can also discuss it with the person next to you. If you still confuse, I permit you to discuss it with your partner. But don’t move around, okay?

From this suggestion, the teacher implied a generosity maxim of putting students’ benefit first so they could easily work on their task. Teacher said this after looking at students’ confusion in working alone. But by doing this, the teacher also violate maxim of manner as she failed to determine whether students can only discuss or they can also copy another’s answer entirely. This usually become an issue later on in evaluating students’ performance.

May, 7th 2018 (No. 135) Teacher : Next number?

Students :…

Teacher : Okay, do you have any difficult words in the text for number 6 until 9?

Students : No. Teacher : Okay, I guess you’re ready then.

Similar to the previous example, here teacher violates both maxim of manner and maxim of quantity. Teacher violated

e-Journal Nama Jurnal Universitas Pendidikan Ganesha Jurusan Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris (Volume x Tahun 2018) maxim of manner as she has a hidden meaning in saying this; if students did not have any difficult words to ask, then they should be ready to answer. Having no difficult words means to be easier in working on that task; that is what the teacher thought at the moment.

“Dictionary is very important. So if they have difficult words to ask, they should consult their dictionary. If they know the words, it should be easier in answering the questions” Mrs. AS.

She was saying this in the form of sarcasm which clearly belongs to the area of maxim of manner violation. In addition, teacher also violated maxim of quantity as she failed to complete her words in which she wanted to imply that they are ready ‘to answer the questions’. She failed include such meaningful clause to convey what students were ready for; which in this case makes her utterance becomes incomplete.

May, 7th 2018 (No. 109) Teacher : (entering the class) Okay, where are we just now?

Students : Number 3.

To build the situation, here she just got back from teacher’s room. In this case, teacher wanted to continue the lesson, but she violated maxim of manner as her utterance might be confused ‘in what place are they just now’. But as she says this, she also promotes tact maxim in which lead them to continue the lesson straight away by asking this type of question.

Sobhani and Saghebi (2014) stated that context is an applicable media to reveal one’s reason.

By observing the previous dialogue, it proves that context itself is very important.

May 2nd 2018 (No. 12) Teacher : ‘Her’ refers to?

Student C: ‘Her’ refers to ‘she’.

Teacher : Yes, but she refers to … the English teacher.

In this example, the teacher uttered this feedback toward Student C’s answer because she intended to politely lead Student C answer to the correct answer.

This then proves the existence of agreement maxim. Teacher maximized

her agreement even though Student C’s answer is not quite correct. It can be observed by looking at the utterance itself: at first, she was agreeing to him, but later she put ‘but’ in her utterance. It means that Student C’s answer is actually no correct.

She then violated maxim of quality since what she’s saying was not quite true. If Student C’s answer is not correct then she should avoid using the word ‘yes’.

In many cultures, it is acceptable to violate the maxim of quality if there is an intention based upon certain situation (Arthanti, 2013). Hence, teacher was using this kind of utterance to make students believe in themselves so that they can complete their task with less hesitation; making this act sensible to be used.

The combination between two violations occurred which is a rare case in terms of pragmatics study, more importantly it also promotes two strategies of politeness at once.

May, 2nd 2018 (No. 8) Teacher : How about the others? …

Student E : (raising his hand) Teacher : Okay, Rudi.

Student E : Because you are a good teacher.

Teacher : Good Rudi. But, can you give any reason?

Grammatically, teacher’s feedback violates the maxim of quantity as it contains more than what response should be given; the judgement of students’ answer. The word ‘good’ is actually not enough to judge students’ answer. It also contains ambiguity. She then proved to violate the maxim of manner as in confusing the meaning of ‘good’ as for correct or ‘good’ as good try.

The later question also emphasize that teacher’s response still doubting Student E answer; proving the occurrence of her attempt in minimizing disagreement to avoid confrontation. Student E’ answer was not completely correct, therefore teacher performed agreement strategy of politeness to complement him and ask him later about his own answer. After all, people like others who have the same or similar opinions, they usually don’t like others who against them (Deng and Zhou, 2013). Teacher also promoted approbation

e-Journal Nama Jurnal Universitas Pendidikan Ganesha Jurusan Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris (Volume x Tahun 2018) maxim by stating that the feedback followed by related question is given as to compliment him for his attempt.

May, 3rd 2018 (No. 46) Students C: Sydney is a beautiful city in Australia. It has many things to offer, from foods to shopping malls. The most fa, famoos mall…

Teacher : Famous mall…

This phrase is resulted after the teacher noticed that Student C was having a hard time pronouncing the words, therefore leading him into the correct pronunciation. In this case, teacher violate the maxim of quantity as the phrase is stating an incomplete utterance of how to correctly pronounce ‘famous’, but at the same time achieving politeness as in minimizing the dispraise toward mispronunciation.

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION Based on the findings and discussion in the previous chapter, there are several statements that could be drawn. The first one is that teacher had violated four maxims in terms of Cooperative Principle proposed by Grice (1975). The most violation occurred is maxim of quantity violation as in providing additional information to students. Sometimes the teacher herself avoided to obey the briefness in her utterances in order to lead students to find the correct answer.

Despite all the violation that occurred, it achieved politeness in certain way; because the reason toward those violations is no other than politeness itself.

In terms of the Politeness Principle proposed by Leech (1983) that is used, generosity placed first as in focusing on students benefit. Teacher sometimes maximize the benefits for student as in giving clues in her statement; therefore students would be easier in understanding something.

There are several kinds of utterances used by teacher to imply this phenomenon of violating maxim to achieve politeness.

The kind of utterance which mostly used is question. In this case, some of them are formed as fragmental question. This

fragmental question usually violate maxim of quantity by not following the principle of conveying complete meaning. But at the same time, it achieves politeness as in prioritizing students’ benefit (generosity maxim) and leading students as well (tact maxim). From this study, it is proven that violating a maxim is actually based on one simple yet noble ground: politeness.

First, for the sake of the readers, it is necessary to have the basic knowledge about Cooperative Principle as well as the Politeness Principle. It should be known that this research is discussing violation of maxims proposed by Grice (1975) while at the same time achieved politeness principle proposed by Leech (1983).

Therefore, this study is combining both pragmatics phenomena to become one unity which cannot be separated from each other.

For the other researchers, similar study is suggested as in finding the phenomena of maxim violation to achieve politeness; even if it is in a different subject. Teacher is known to have the ideal behaviour, therefore politeness study is strongly shown. To combine it with maxim violation of Cooperative Principle is just one of the ways to analyze pragmatics real use in daily life. Due to this reason, other combined study about pragmatics is strongly recommended to not only convey a real implementation but to broader the understanding of reasons in using pragmatic utterances. Other issue is the subject that is being observed is only one single person which might limit the variety of the data. Later study then would probably consider the variation of the data by adding more subjects to be analyzed SPECIAL THANKS Highest gratitude for Ida Sang Hyang Widhi Wasa for His blessing throughout the process of life. The honorable Mr. Ramendra as well as Mr. Adi Krisna who had given lot of insight knowledge and motivation, for their passion and patience throughout the process of completing this research; dearest parents, Mr. Suartana and Mrs. Sri Wahyuni Putri, who had given everlasting and sincere support; dearest Michael and David, inspiring

e-Journal Nama Jurnal Universitas Pendidikan Ganesha Jurusan Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris (Volume x Tahun 2018) younger brothers who had given motivation and support; Mrs. AS for being very kind and humble; SMPN 3 Singaraja who had welcomed and supported this research; Candra who had given such caring companion, and for those associates who cannot be mentioned one by one: thank you, and hopefully this research would be meaningful in the future.

REFERENCES Altan, A. 2015. Politeness Strategies Used

By L2 Turkish Speakers in Making Requests. International Journal of Language Academy Vol. 3 (4): 270294.

Arthanti, N. 2013. Violation of Grice’s Maxims in the Garfield “Hangs Out” Comic: Comparison Between Source Text (St) And Target Text (Tt).

Semarang: Dian Nuswantoro University.

Asian Contexts, Sciences, 164–174.

KnE

Social

Jie and Feifei. 2016. The Application of Politeness Principle in the Analysis of Drama: Take Teahouse. CrossCultural Communication Journal Vol. 12 (5): 35-38.

Kazemi and Ebrahimi. 2016. The Study of Grice Principle Application in Commercial Advertisements of Hamshahri and Jame Jam Newspapers. International Journal on Studies in English Language and Literature (IJSELL) Vol. 4 (9): 1-10.

Leech, G. N. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics - 9th Edition in 2014.

Oxford University Press.

Lestari, Puji. 2013. A Pragmatic Analysis of Leech’s Maxim Found in the Princess and the Frog Movie Script.

Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta.

Baleghizadeh, S. and Derakhshesh, A. 2012. The Effect of Task Repetition and Noticing On EFL Learners’ Oral Output. International Journal of Instruction, 5(1): 141-152.

Lunenburg, Fred C. 2010. Communication: The Process, Barriers, and Improving Effectiveness.

Communication Schooling Journal Vol.1 (1): 1-11.

Creswell, J. 2013. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches.

SAGE Publications, Inc.

Miles and Huberman. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis 2nd Edition. California: SAGE.

Deng and Zhou. 2013. A Corpus Study of Politeness Principle in Desperate Housewife. Theory and Practice in Language Studies Vol. 3 (11): 19691974.

Fatmawati, S. N. K. 2015. A Pragmatic Analysis of Maxim Flouting Performed by Solomon NorthupIn 12 Years a Slave Movie. Yogyakarta: Yogyakarta State University.

Grice, H. P. 1975. Logic and Conversation – 2004th Edition. New York: Academic Press.

Hidayati, Zen, and Basthomi. 2017.

Indonesian Teachers’ Directives in English Language Classrooms. The 4th International Conference on Language, Society and Culture in

Mulyono, E. 2016. Politeness Principle Analysis in Cartoon Movie Entitled Stand By Me Doraemon.

Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta.

Nugraha, R. A. 2013. Maxim Violation in Real Steel Movie: A Pragmatics Approach.

Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta.

Pham, D. 2010. The Cooperative Principle in Vietnamese Language Culture.

Journal of Linguistics and Language Teaching Vol. 1 (2): 197-219.

Rugg, D. 2010. An Introduction to Triangulation. UNAIDS Monitoring and Evaluation Fundamentals.

Sampsel, A. 2013. Finding the Effects of Think-Pair-Share on Student

e-Journal Nama Jurnal Universitas Pendidikan Ganesha Jurusan Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris (Volume x Tahun 2018) Confidence and Participation.

Bowling Green State University.

Sobhani and Saghebi. 2014. The Violation of Cooperative Principles and Four Maxims in Iranian Psychological Consultation. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, No.(4): 91-99.

Shofi‘ah, E.A., Aimah, S., and Mulyadi, D. 2017. The Politeness Principles of Teachers and Students in English as a Foreign Language Classroom Interaction. English Language and Literature International Conference (ELLiC).

Sülü, A. (2015). Teacher’s politeness in EFL class. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET), 2(4). 216-221.