Tahun 2021 VIOLATION OF MAXIMS IN GARFIELD‟S UTTERANCES IN GARFIELD COMIC STRIPS

This thesis focuses on types of maxims violated, how the maxims are violated, and the reasons of the violation of maxims that arise from conversations in Garfield comic strips in which Garfield engages due to Garfield’s utterances are used as the data to be analyzed, using Grice’s theory. This study uses descriptive qualitative method as the research method because the data are not numerical data in forms of utterances in comic strips. This study aims to answer problems which are what types of maxims are violated, how maxims are violated, and the reason of the violation of maxims. The objectives are to find out what maxims are violated in Garfield’s utterances, describe how the maxims are violated, and to find out the reason of why Garfield violates the maxims in Garfield comic strips. 15 comic strips that are divided into two regarding number of maxims violated—the violation of one single maxim and the violation of multiple maxims―as well as 8 reasons of the violation of maxims (to save the face, avoid doing what is asked, cheer up the hearer, convince the hearer, make a fool of the hearer, abuse verbally, avoid talking, satisfy the hearer) in Garfield comic strips are found to be the result of the analysis of this study.


INTRODUCTION
Humans are known as members of society due to interacting with one another. When the interaction is found in the form of communicating particularly by using language, another level is achieved in which humans are called as members of a speech community.
To communicate, language is used. In communicating with others, thoughts, and feelings had in mind are exchanged from one person to another. as readers or hearer might find themselves not realize the phenomenon especially while reading Garfield comic strips and that information is needed by the time speaking effectively is needed. In addition to that, research regarding violation of maxims has been numerously conducted by many researchers mostly in terms of speeches spoken by public figures either political or nonpolitical public figure such as interview, speech, etc. However, the written data especially on comic has not that many been analyzed.
Similar previous study that applied Grice can also be found in the target text. Grice"s four conversational maxims theory is used as the theory to analyze this study as well. However, translation analysis is involved as the study is focused on determining the process of translating source text into target text has effect on eliminating violation of maxims or not. Violation of maxims in the original text of the comic is not only the thing to analyze as violation of maxims in target text (text in Indonesian language) and explaining the process of how violation of maxims in source text can be found or not be found in target text regarding to the effect of translation process are needed to answer. Therefore, translation theory is included in her study.
The source of data between this study and her study are different due to Arthanti"s data is taken from Garfield "Hangs Out" comic book and her research Grace Sonia Simarmata, Umar Mono, Ely Hayati Nasution (2021) Violation of Maxims in Garfield"s Utterances in Garfield Comic Strips 67 | copyright@SIGEH ELT was done in 2013 meaning Garfield comic strips that were released on or before 2013 are the ones used. This study is showed to contribute in terms of giving more examples of violation of maxims occuring in Garfield comic book meaning the violation of maxims done by Garfield the cat itself can be found as well as providing insight into the personality of Garfield from his utterances.
Two problems of study in Pribadi (2018) article journal are found in which he conducts a research about violating maxims as the humorous sense in a movie: (1) what maxims are violated in the movie Deadpool and (2) how does the violation of maxim create the humorous sense in the movie Deadpool. Some characteristics of his research are found similar to this study: (1) using Grice"s four maxims of conversation, (2) descriptive qualitative approach as research design, and (3) documentation method for the technique of data collection.
Differences between his study and this study are found as follows: (1) the data was taken from a movie meanwhile the data in this study is taken from comic strips on website and (2) the method of collecting data. This study is showed to contribute in terms of giving a deep insight into other possibilities or examples of conversation that contain violation of maxims.

Violation of maxims done by Dodit Mulyanto in Stand-Up Comedy
Indonesia season 4, which is a televised Indonesian comedy show competition in which candidates perform comedy in live and in front of audience while standing up, are analyzed by Raharja and Rosyidha (2019). Raharja and Rosyidha"s study is aimed to get types of violation of maxims, the most dominant one, and the reason behind the most dominant. Three research problems are found as follows: (1) what maxims from cooperative principle are violated by Dodit Mulyanto, (2) what the most dominant maxim is violated, and (3) what is the reason behind the most dominant maxim violation. This study is showed to contribute in terms of giving insight about possible factors that can be the reasons underlying the act of violating maxims.
Some differences between their study and this study are found. Percentage of four violation maxims is involved in their study unlike in this study. Besides, the source of data and the steps of collecting data are found to be different. The Grace Sonia Simarmata, Umar Mono, Ely Hayati Nasution (2021) Violation of Maxims in Garfield"s Utterances in Garfield Comic Strips

| copyright@SIGEH ELT
translated source text is attached to present both data in source text and target text.
In addition to the differences, checklist instrument is used meanwhile the same instrument is not used in this study instead of documentation technique in which transcript technique is applied alongside note-taking. Furthermore, qualitative method is used which is different from this study in which descriptive qualitative method is used. This study is showed to contribute in terms of giving more examples of the violation of maxims.
Non-observance of Grice"s maxims in a drama script was analyzed once by Triyatun (2013). Two research problems in the article can be concluded from the objectives of the study: (1) what types of non-observance maxims can be found in the Death of the Salesman Drama Script by Arthur Miller and (2) what is the intention behind non-observance maxims that occur? Differences between her research and this research are found as follows: (1) All non-observance maxims that occur are listed and analyzed meanwhile this study is only focused on violation of maxim. Different objectives of study in her study compared to this study are caused by difference scopes of study as not only violation of maxims can be found. (2) Triyatun"s data is taken from drama script meanwhile the data in this study is taken from comic strips. It is also found that the way of collecting data is different unlike in this study, comic strip images are provided. Her study and this study are similar in terms of both are descriptive qualitative research in which the research focuses on explaining the phenomenon that occurs. This study is showed to contribute in terms of giving more examples of violation of maxims.
Non-observances of Grice"s maxims in the creation of humor in a Chinese sitcom are analyzed by Xue (2017) as a dissertation submitted. The research is aimed to find out all types of non-observances of maxims considered as important key to create humor. The difference between the research and this ongoing research is found to be in the form of theory used. Grice"s Non-Observances of Cooperative Principle is used in the research as the theory of analysis meaning not only the theory of violating used but the theory of flouting, infringing, opting out, and suspending maxims are also used and, being so, the number of theory used is considered more in terms of number. Difference in the scope of study is caused Grace Sonia Simarmata, Umar Mono, Ely Hayati Nasution (2021) Violation of Maxims in Garfield"s Utterances in Garfield Comic Strips 69 | copyright@SIGEH ELT by difference in theory used between this research and the ongoing research. This study is showed to contribute in terms of a helpful reference to all types of nonobservances maxims.
Referring to the objectives and scope of the study, this study theoretically is expected to give contribution in pragmatic field, especially about violation of maxims in the way that those who are interested, whether for the sake of learning or teaching, can get linguistic knowledge about the phenomenon of the violation of maxims. Practically, this study is expected to give benefit in terms of being additional reference that can be used either by the students or readers in general who wants to conduct a research under the same topic. In addition to that, this study can be implemented in order to make an effective communication if given limited time to speak as the examples of the phenomenon of violation of maxims.

METHOD
Qualitative approach is used as this study is focused on descriptive forms in doing the analysis. The result of this study is expected to be in descriptive forms. For the research method, descriptive method is used. Descriptive method is found to suit the objective of study in which the data will be described and interpreted, the process of how maxims are violated and found in Garfield"s utterances will be explained, and explanation about the reasons behind violation of maxims done by Garfield are provided in words. In other words, descriptive qualitative method is used as the research method in this study due to reasons such as this study aims to provide information or meaning from the social phenomenon in descriptive forms in the way of describing the way violation of maxims occur and the reasons behind it.
The data are clauses, sentences, phrases, or words which are in the forms of utterances especially uttered by Garfield in Garfield comic strips as well as utterances which give indication to the violation of maxims. Clauses, sentences, phrases, or words from other characters will also be included. However, it is only to give a complete description of what is going on, accompanies Garfield"s utterances, and proves that Garfield"s utterances point out the act of violating of maxims. The data are taken from Garfield"s utterances in Garfield comic strips In analyzing the data, the writer use interactive model proposed by Miles, Huberman, and Saldana with three steps; data condensation, data display, and conclusion: drawing and verification (2014).

Garfield
: "What"s that got to do with anything?"

Violation of maxims: Quantity
Violation of maxim of quantity is illustrated in the above conversation. In the conversation, it can be showed that Jon"s wish is to get certain information regarding whether Garfield is really that hungry as it can be seen as Garfield keeps putting massive amount of food in his mouth. To get the answer "yes" or "no" is expected by Jon for catching Garfield in the act of massive eating. Jon"s question can be simply understood as yes or no question meaning the answer "yes" or "no" is the only thing required. The response given by Garfield can be regarded as not meeting the information that is required or needed by Jon. Jon is left out unsatisfied and Garfield can be seen not to the point or go straight answering Jon"s question.
The act of violating maxim of quantity done by Garfield in the above talk exchange can be measured from the type of response given, the circumstance and informative as the saying "this is carrot" is said to not have something to do with Jon"s question. The answer like "alright" as the example of obeying the request or "I do not want" as the example of refusing the request is required from that kind of question.
Participant in a conversation is required to contribute in the way of giving information that contains true sayings or things that is believed to be true according to them in order to fulfill maxim of quality. Violation of maxim of quality obviously can be seen from the above ongoing conversation judging from the way maxim of quality is not obeyed by Garfield. The fact is denied by Garfield while holding a donut and not the carrot, yet misleading the audience is chosen by Garfield by saying what is believed to be false in terms of lying.
Misleading audience on purpose and saying the opposite of things that already can be seen its evidence are considered as the act of breaking maxim of quality in terms of violation.

The violation of maxim of quality is done by Garfield in order to avoid
doing what is asked due to the request is not what is wanted. This could be seen when Jon told Garfield to stop eating donuts, the words of Garfield"s saying is corrected by Garfield himself.

Violation of maxim: Quality
From that conversation, maxim of quality is violated by Garfield. Judging from the context situation, Garfield"s contribution is understood as uncooperative contribution in terms of not saying something that is truthful. When Arlene says "Where have you been?" the only information is needed is what was Garfield doing. The answer given by Garfield can be measured and said to meet conversation maxims of quantity and relevant. It is proven in the way that observing only the maxim of quantity can already be fulfilled by one word "fishing" without Garfield feeling the needs to add more information. However, a true information is not reflected by the word "fishing" meaning Garfield does not really do fishing due to the fish meant for Garfield to catch is referred to the canned fish. Thus, the above ongoing conversation is considered as the act of Garfield not follow maxim of quality by saying something that is known to be false. In other word, Garfield"s utterance is known as a lie and misleading on purpose.
The violation of maxim of quality above is done because saving his face in front of his cat girlfriend is said to be what is wanted by Garfield. The thing is to look like hard working cat in getting food. In the end, to keep and present his lying with a smile on his face as well as let Arlene sees the true yet contradicted condition are wanted by Garfield .  The reason behind the violation above is believed due to cheer up the other participant. Garfield who is seen to say "you had me there for a moment" is said to be the way of cheering Jon up by pretending like Garfield is tricked.

Violation of maxim: Quantity
Maxim of quantity is violated in the above talk exchange. The contribution given by Garfield that comes in the form of responding saying "considering that it"s not on, yes" is considered in requirement in terms of the quantity or how much of the information. However, the contribution is said to be over of how much is needed and asked by Jon. The maxim of quantity is broken as it is considered a must to be cooperative in the way of giving not too little or too much information.
The clause "considering that it"s not on" is not asked by Jon. The word "yes" or "no" is actually the only answer needed.

| copyright@SIGEH ELT
By violating maxim, to satisfy the hearer which is Jon is wanted by Garfield. Talking too much information in the above conversation is concerned as the effort to convince Jon without doubt and to make Jon believe what he said as the word "yes" is considered not enough by Garfield to convince the other that causes maxim of quantity violated.

Violation of maxims: Quality
The violation of maxim of quality as what is illustrated in the above conversation is caused by the absence of truthfulness information as the way to contribute to follow cooperative principle. Garfield"s response saying "cat food" does not meet the truthfulness needed in a conversation. Something is known to be false by Garfield, but it is still given and kept being delivered by Garfield itself.

Grace Sonia Simarmata, Umar Mono, Ely Hayati Nasution (2021) Violation of Maxims in Garfield"s Utterances in Garfield Comic Strips
Logically, cat food is not consumed by dog. Therefore, Garfield"s response is considered a lie and misleading. No evidence is found to say that cat food is what someone should feed their dog with. In other words, the contribution is made as required in the state of giving the right amount information, relevant information, and in not ambiguous way, yet the contribution is considered not true causing the violation of maxim of quality.
The violation maxim of quality in the above example is done by Garfield in order to deceive someone (audience) as the saying itself is said to mislead anyone easily. Cat food is known to be food that is supposed to be given to cat and not dog in order to make a dog smarter.

Violation of maxims: Quality and Quantity
Violating maxim of quality is said to be the time or case when speaker does not contribute in a conversational talk exchange in the way of giving true Grace Sonia Simarmata, Umar Mono, Ely Hayati Nasution (2021) Violation of Maxims in Garfield"s Utterances in Garfield Comic Strips

| copyright@SIGEH ELT
contribution. The true contribution is measured from the sayings or responses that come in the form of true information to get the purpose of the talk exchange.
Giving untruthful contribution is considered to be the cause of breaking maxim of quality as the aim of the talk cannot be gained due to the participant is not trustworthy. In the stage of maxim of quantity, contribution can be said failed to fulfill conversational principle if excessive or less information is given. Being excessive in saying things can also be said as not going straight to the point of discussion and causing the act of not observing maxim of quantity like in the above example.
Garfield"s response "no" is considered already as is required if compared to Jon"s saying. However, the need to talk more is still appeared causing the maxim of quantity is broken by saying "that was my you"re so boring yawn".
Garfield is also found to violate maxim of quality in his saying by giving untrue information. The yawning is usually known as and triggered by sleepiness or fatigue. Choosing to add more in his saying by telling untruthfulness that the cause of his yawning is caused by seeing Jon who is just so boring there even though in fact, Jon does not do anything wrong at all or boring things. Jon is seen to only greet Garfield by asking rhetorical question "sleepy, huh?" In other words, Garfield"s participation cannot be said to meet the conversational contribution due to the contribution is not the truth or telling the true condition.
Violating maxim of quantity and quality by Garfield is done to abuse someone (Jon) verbally as the phrase "that was my "you"re so boring" yawn" is said to be one of verbal abuses. In other words, the maxim of quantity and quality are violated, so that the attacking Jon verbally can be done and the verbal abuse itself can be delivered.  Background : Garfield says that Jon is a fun guy and adds more to his saying that Garfield hates fun people after Jon asking him who is up for a sneezing contest.

Garfield
: "Jon is a fun Guy."

Jon
: "Who"s up for a sneezing contest?" Garfield : "I hate fun people."

Violation of maxims: Quantity and Relation
Maxim of quantity is violated by Garfield in the above conversation. The contribution given by Garfield cannot be said to meet the requirement of what should conversational contribution should be in terms of the quantity of the information. In other words, Garfield"s response is not counted to answer Jon"s question at all. The amount information that is needed by Jon is the answer "yes" or "no" regarding who is up for a sneezing contest that Jon is so passionate to join.
The saying can be measured its uncooperativeness due to contribution given less excessively. The effect of being not informative can be seen as the communication cannot run well and effectively proven by Jon being left unsatisfied and the answer left unanswered. Therefore, maxim of quantity is broken by Garfield"s uncooperativeness in terms of being not informative.

| copyright@SIGEH ELT
Instead of answering Jon"s question or contributing to fulfill maxim of relation, the response "I hate fun people" is said to be irrelevant to the topic discussion or in this case it is a question that is being asked by Jon. No correlation is found in the response "I hate fun people" with Jon"s question "who"s up for a sneezing contest?" The reason of the violating maxim of quantity and relation done by Garfield is seen as the way to avoid talking with someone. In the above conversation, Garfield obviously can be said avoiding Jon as the opposite direction is taken by Garfield after hearing other weirdness from Jon as well as the proper response is not given by Garfield.

| copyright@SIGEH ELT
Violation of maxim of quality is demonstrated in the above conversation in the sense that the response or saying from Garfield is not seen truthful compared to the saying itself. The message in the response "Okay" cannot be said to match the act of Garfield who still lies down and not move at all from his position. The evidence of untruthfulness is found right in front of the other"s eyes (Jon) meaning the true condition is not portrayed from the saying "okay". In addition to that, the mismatch between response given by Garfield and what Garfield actually does is realized by Jon as the saying is emphasized more by saying "it"s over there" in the hope of getting cooperativeness from Garfield. Garfield is also found to admit his act of not moving from the excuse Garfield makes about telling the sunset to move in order to see it easily from his lying down position. Giving not true contribution as is required in the conversational contribution is considered as the act of violation in terms of maxim of quality.
The violation done by Garfield in the above conversation is done due to the effort of satisfying the speaker (Jon). Jon cannot be satisfied by that untrue response provided by Garfield. The effort from Jon of not making the question remains unanswered is already done. However, the fact that the response that is received by Jon is not a true contribution and misleading cannot be changed. Background : Garfield invites Arlene to his house to look around the house and tells Arlene that Jon is some stray Garfield took in. In fact, the house belongs to Jon and Garfield is just the cat owned by Jon.

Violation of maxim: Quality
The violation of maxim of quality is demonstrated in the above conversation. The time Garfield giving his response "oh, just some stray I took in" to Arlene questioning Jon is said to be a lie. The real condition is found is that Jon is the owner of the house, but his saying is still delivered in that way causing maxim of quantity broken. The act of deceiving and giving false information is done on purpose by Garfield as the lie is delivered to Arlene quietly and without any implicature behind it. Garfield"s response is said only to meet the contribution in the terms of quantity (by giving the exact amount of what is needed), relation (by giving response that is not out of topic), and manner (by not giving ambiguous language). Maxim of quality is not observed well by Garfield while delivering his saying.
The violation of maxim of quality in the above conversation is done by Garfield in order to save his face in from of his cat girlfriend, Arlene, for being a cat which owns a house. The response is chosen to be delivered in that way, so that a good face can still be had in front of Arlene. Another reason of violating maxim of quantity done by Garfield by saying "just some stray I took in" is regarded as the effort to hide the truth. The true condition is said to be different or Garfield answers by saying his hope that it is not long enough for the pizza to get here.

Liz
: "As soon as the broccoli is done."

Jon
: "How long does it take for broccoli to cook?" Garfield : "Hopefully long enough for the pizza to get here."

Violation of maxims: Quantity and Manner
Multiple violations are done by Garfield as the maxims of quantity and manner are violated at the same time when the response is delivered. Maxim of quantity is violated by Garfield because uncooperativeness is found in the saying "hopefully long enough for the pizza to get here". The response is said failed to fulfill the information that is required and indicated in Jon"s question regarding how long for a broccoli to cook. The response is supposed to be in the right Background : Jon invites Garfield to do something and has been waiting long for Garfield to come. In fact, Garfield is still in his place and does not move even though Garfield has said "okay", "coming", "be right there" and "almost   boat' is not said to meet the reason of using as well as not informative at all and, being so, the maxim of quantity is broken.
The violation of maxim of quantity in the above conversion is done by Garfield on purpose to save his face from using a kiddie pool. Instead of referring it as a kiddie pool, the plastic pool thing is referred by Garfield as 'gravy boat' causing maxim of quantity is violated.

Violation of Maxim: Quantity
Maxim of quantity is violated by Garfield in the above conversation. The response 'are you going to finish those' is regarded to not answer the information needed by Jon. The answer 'yes' or 'no' is required to answer the question delivered by Jon and, being so, the need of information cannot be satisfied meanwhile Garfield is expected to participant in the conversational contribution by giving informative and right amount of information. The act of Garfield being not cooperative in the form of informative contribution is said to be the proof of failing to observe maxim of quantity.
The violation of maxim of quantity done by Garfield in the above information is done in order to get the purpose of the intention faster as the Grace Sonia Simarmata, Umar Mono, Ely Hayati Nasution (2021) Violation of Maxims in Garfield"s Utterances in Garfield Comic Strips

| copyright@SIGEH ELT
communication is moved on faster. Knowing whether Jon is going to finish the cat treats is considered more important to Garfield than providing answer that is so obvious.

CONCLUSION
After describing and analyzing the data, conclusion is drawn as all maxims from the four Grice"s conversational maxims, namely: maxim of quantity, maxim of quality, maxim of relation, and maxim of manner are not observed in terms of being violated on purpose. Fifteen comic strips are found to contain violation of maxims. Ten comic strips are said to present the violation of only one single maxim. Five comic strips are considered to demonstrate the violation of multiple maxims. Nine comic strips are found to illustrate the violation of maxim of quantity. Eight comic strips are found to illustrate the violation of maxim of quality. One comic strip is found to portray the violation of maxim of relation.
Two comic strips are found to have the indication of the violation of maxim of manner. Maxim of quantity is found to be on top as the most frequent maxim violated in the comic strips with the number of nine cases followed by maxim of quality with eight cases, maxim of manner with two cases, and maxim of relation with one case. The violated of maxim of manner is the most rarely found in the comic strips.
Some ways are found to be the reasons of the violation of the maxims in Garfield comic strips by Jim Davis from July -December 2019. They are regarded as the effort to save the face, avoid doing what is asked, cheer up the hearer, convince the hearer, deceive the hearer, abuse verbally, avoid talking, satisfy the hearer, hide the truth, express excitement, and get intention faster.