The Flouting of Grice’s Conversational Maxims in Pirates of the Caribbean 1-5

This research is aimed to investigate maxim floutings uttered by the pirate characters in Pirates of the Caribbean movie series. The goals of this research are to identify and classify the maxim flouting within the movie series, to describe how the pirate characters flout the Grice’s maxim, and also to discover the purpose of the maxim flouting itself. Qualitative and quantitative methods are used to analyze the data. The result shows that there are 39 cases of maxim flouting with 4 cases (10.3%) of flouting the maxim of Quantity, 13 cases (33.3%) of flouting the maxim of Quality, 16 cases (41.0%) of flouting the maxim of Relation, and 6 cases (15.4%) of flouting the maxim of Manner. The pirates tend to give too much information, simply say something which does not represent what they think by using: metaphor, irony, sarcasm, and hyperbole, give irrelevant answers, and also give ambiguous answers. There are several purposes of maxim flouting found in this movie series. They are: insulting, giving warning, challenging other characters, boasting about oneself, telling about facts, informing plans, convincing, expressing seriousness, demanding respect, expressing insincerity, expressing love, expressing disappointment, giving advice, expressing happiness, creating fear, creating humor, and avoiding making others sad.

Based on Cutting (2002), violating happens when the speaker knows that the hearer will not know the truth and he will only understand the surface meaning of what the speaker is saying (p. 38). He also explains that opting out is a condition when "the speaker indicates an unwillingness to cooperate, although they do not want to appear uncooperative" (p. 40). Infringing, however, is a condition when the speaker does not observe the maxims because of his imperfect linguistics performance. Meanwhile maxim flouting happens when the speaker does not follow the principle but he expects the hearer to understand the implied meaning (p. 36).
In this research, the author chooses to analyze maxim floutings in this movie series because it will be very interesting to discover which maxims the pirates flout and how they go about it. In addition, there are many pirate characters do such acts, so that this provides abundant data to be analyzed in this linguistics research.
Moreover, the pirates are portrayed as a group of people who are less-educated than the other noble characters in this movie series. It may affect their personality as well as their style in using the language. Most of them are alcoholic, rude, vindictive, and silly as well. Sometimes, they tend to be mean by being ironical and sarcastic towards the other characters especially to their friends. In some other occasions, it is possible that they flout those four types of maxim due to their long, challenging adventure which gives them many opportunities to do so. Therefore, the author is also interested to analyze the purposes of maxim floutings.
There have been many studies that discuss maxim flouting as well, one of them is the research conducted by Maisoun Abu-Joudeh and Jameleh Fanoun (2018). It is entitled "Flouting the Gricean Maxims in Satire". They are interested in analyzing two different satires: Muatin Hasb Alttalab (Anonymous, 1992) and Al'an fahumtukum (Anonymous, 2012). The study revealed that both plays' characters flouted Gricean maxims in order to poke fun and laughter as well as criticize the government. Sixty-six talk exchanges were analyzed. It was found that the most frequently flouted maxims in both plays are maxim of quality (in Muatin Hasb Alttalab) and maxim of relation (in Al'an fahumtukum).
Another research is conducted by Amer Ayasreh and Razlina Razali (2018). It is entitled "The Flouting of Grice's Conversational Maxim: Examples from Bashar Al-Assad's Interview during the Arab Spring." The research focuses on Syria's president interview relating to the Arab Spring. The finding shows that the main reason for the president to flout all the four maxims was to convey meaning in his favor. The president, Bashar Al-Assad, wanted to show that he was not against his people. He also meant to send a message to the world that there was nothing to be worried about this movement and the state of the country. This present research discusses the flouting of Grice's maxims found in the pirate characters' utterances in a movie series entitled Pirates of the Caribbean 1-5. This research also analyzes the purposes of maxim floutings found in this movie series. Thus, it can be said that this research is different from the researches mentioned above.

Context
The theory of context used in this research is proposed by Cutting (2002). Cutting argues that there are three kinds of context; situational context, background knowledge context, and co-textual context.

Situational Context
Based on Cutting (2002), situational context is defined as what speakers know about what they see around him (p. 5). She also states that the situational context is the immediate physical co-presence, the situation where the interaction is taking place at the moment of speaking (p. 5).
Background Knowledge Context Cutting (2002) states that this context is about what the speakers know about each other and the world. It can be cultural (general knowledge that most people have in their minds, about areas of life) (pp. 4-5). It may make the humor of each country different from one to another. The other type of background knowledge context is interpersonal context. Cutting (2002) states that interpersonal context is a private knowledge about the history of the speakers' themselves (p.5). It is acquired and shared among the participants through previous verbal interactions or joint activities and experiences which conclude personal knowledge about the speaker and the hearer themselves (Cutting, 2002, p. 6).

Co-textual Context
Cutting states that co-textual context covers what the speakers know about what they have been saying (p. 4). It is the context of the text itself.

Cooperative Principle
Cooperative Principle is a theory proposed by Paul H. Grice (1975). Through this principle, Grice (1975) states that the participants of a conversation should make their contribution as is required (p. 45). There are 4 (four) kinds of maxims that should be fulfilled by the speakers.

1)
Make their contribution as informative as is required (for the current purposes of exchange).

2)
Do not make their contribution more informative than is required (Grice, 1975, p. 43).

Quality Maxim
This maxim requires the speaker to:

1)
Not saying what they believe to be false.

Relation Maxim
This maxim requires the speaker to say something relevant towards what has been said before (Grice,p.46). Furthermore, Cutting (2002) also says that some speakers will indicate how their comment has relevance to the conversation (p. 25).

Manner Maxim
In short, maxim of manner requires the speaker to:

4)
Be orderly. (Grice, 1975, p. 46) Non-observance of Maxims There are at least 4 (four) ways that people can do to break these conversational maxims. They are: Flouting Paul Grice (1975) explains that one will be said flouting the maxims; "…he may BLATANTLY fail to fulfill it. (p. 49)" In this case, the speaker is deliberately not obeying the Cooperative Principle.

Flouting of Quantity Maxim
A speaker is said to flout the maxim of quantity if she or he gives too much or too little information to the hearer.
Here is an example: (1) A: "How does my soup taste?" B: "The broccoli is well-cooked." Based on the situation above, B seems to flout maxim of quantity. It happens because B gives too little information related to his opinion about the soup. Here, instead of giving his/her opinion on the soup as a whole, he/she only talks about the broccoli.

Flouting of Quality Maxim
There are several ways to flout the maxim of quality, they are:

Hyperbole
It is used when the speaker wants to exaggerate of what he/she is saying. For example: "His voice is like a thunder shaking the ground." In this case, the hearer is expected to understand that the speaker tells him about someone whose voice is very loud.

Irony
The second way to flout this maxim is by using irony. Irony is defined by Cutting (2002) as "an apparently friendly way to of being offensive (mock-politeness) (p. 37)" By being ironical the speaker says a positive sentiment and implies a negative one. Example: If there is a student comes down to breakfast one morning and says, 'if only you knew how much I love being woken up at 4 a.m. by a fire alarm' (Cutting, 2002, p. 37). It shows that she is being ironic and she expects that her friend understands the opposite meaning of what is being said.

Banter
Banter is said to be the pair of an irony. It can be defined as an offensive way of being friendly (mock-impoliteness) (Cutting, 2002, p.37). Cutting (2002) states that banter sounds like a mild aggression (p.37). Banter also can be used as an expression of friendship or intimacy. It also can be a tease and a flirtatious comment. For example: "You are nasty, mean, and stingy. How can you only give me one kiss?" (Cutting, 2002, p.37).

Metaphor
Based on Cambridge Online Dictionary, metaphor is "an expression, often found in literature that describes a person or object by referring to something that is considered to have similar characteristics to that person or object." Cutting (2002) gives the example of metaphor, "My house is a refrigerator in January" (p.37). It implies that the house is very cold in January. It happens because the use of refrigerator to describe the low temperature of the house.

Sarcasm
Sarcasm can be defined as an irony which is not friendly. Because of it, sarcasm is aimed to hurt the hearer's feeling.

Flouting of Relation Maxim
Flouting the relation maxim happens if the speaker deliberately gives irrelevant response towards the topic that is being discussed. The following is an example.
(2) Jim: "Can you tell me how to do this task? I don't get it." Nick: "Just stare at your gadget for hours then." Nick is asked by Jim to explain him the way to finish his task but Nick replies that Jim should stare at his gadget instead. In this case, even though Nick does not seem to cooperate in replying Jim's request, Jim still understands that Nick finds him not paying attention to Nick explanation before and what he did is playing with his gadget. Jim can assume that Nick wants to criticize him to pay more attention to him while he is explaining the material.

Flouting of Manner Maxim
Flouting manner maxim is usually uttered by the speaker to avoid the inclusion of the other participants in the conversation. A likely example is as follows.
(3) A: "I think we should hold a B-I-R-T-H-D-A-Y P-A-R-T-Y for our little queen here." B: "Yes, dear. I think we should." A and B seem to hide a secret by spelling birthday party instead of saying it straightforwardly. It happens because they don't want to make their child realized that they will make a surprise for her.

Violating
Violation happens when the speaker is unostentatious or 'quiet' non-observance of a maxim. In this case, the participant will be liable to mislead (Grice, 1975, p.49). Cutting, through his book Pragmatics and Discourse: A Recourse Book for Students, says that the speaker will violate the maxims if the hearer will NOT know the truth and will only understand the surface meaning of the words (p. 38).

Opting out
Someone is said to be opting out a maxim if he is unwillingly to cooperate in the way the maxim requires (Grice, 1975, p. 49). Sometimes, it is used for legal or ethical reasons (Cutting, 2002, p. 40). An example is when a crime suspect refuses to answer certain questions asked by a police officer during an interrogation.

Infringing
Infringing happens when the speaker has imperfect knowledge or performances of a language. It can happen because several factors, such as: - The speaker has an imperfect command of their language. It may happen to a child or a foreign learner.
-The speaker's performance is impaired. It may occur when the speaker is drunk, nervous, excited, etc.
-The speaker is incapable of speaking clearly. (Thomas, 1995 as cited in Cutting, 2002, pp. 39-40) This research is employing the quantitative and qualitative methods. The object of the research is the pirate characters' utterances in Pirates of the Caribbean movie series.
The data were taken from the pirates' utterances which flout Grice's conversational maxims. In order to get more understanding of the characters' utterances, the subtitle is downloaded from https://yts-subs.com/movie-imdb. The data are classified based on Grice's theory of Cooperative Principle. In analyzing the data, the author included the analysis of possible purposes of maxim flouting under of each dialogue. It is analyzed by employing the theory of context proposed by Cutting (2002). In drawing the conclusion, the evidences were collected from: the contexts (situational, background knowledge, and co-textual context), the character's dialogue including the speakers' way in saying something and the hearers' responses, and also the description of the speakers' and the hearers' facial expression and gestures.  In this example, Mr. Gibbs does flout the maxim of quantity by giving too much information needed by William. Mr. Gibbs is trying to explain the reason why Jack is afraid sailing in the ocean. It is because the Kraken may kill him and drag his beloved Black Pearl off to the bottom of the sea. As Mr. Gibbs says, the Kraken is '…a fearsome creature with giant tentacles that'll suction your face clean off and drag an entire ship down to the crushing darkness…' The way Mr. Gibbs portrays the Kraken and its power is able to make the hearer feels scared. Therefore, it is possible for Mr. Gibbs to flout the maxim of quantity in order to create the feeling of fear towards the hearer.

Giving Advice
(2) [00:49:30.888 -00:50:13.131] PotC 1 Context: In the middle of their journey in saving Elizabeth, William seems to get failed in accepting his destiny as a child of a pirate. In this scene, he tries to kill Jack by using a sword. Actually, they have fought at the first time they met. However, Jack cheated on him by throwing the dirt over his face and pointing out a gun towards him. It should be a sword fighting so that using a gun is not allowed.
William: (1) "You ignored the rules of engagement. In a fair fight, I'd kill you." Jack Sparrow: (2) "That's not much incentive for me to fight fair, is it? (3) As long as you're just hanging there (on the sail), pay attention. The only rules that matter are these: What a man can do and what a man can't do. (4) You can accept your father was a pirate and a good man, or you can't. (5) Pirate is in your blood, so you'll have to square with that someday. (6) Me, for example, I can let you drown, but I can't bring this ship into Tortuga all by me onesies, savvy?" In the example above, it is clear that Jack is flouting the maxim of quantity because he gives more information than required. Jack can only say "that's not much incentive for me to fight fair, is it?" to answer William's utterance and to describe that he does not really care with fair play. However, he adds it with the sentence (3) until (6). It happens because Jack needs to makes his arguments clear so that he should give several of supporting ideas. Moreover, he wants William to understand about his way of thinking in accepting and dealing with reality that he is somehow very close with the pirates' life even though he tries so hard to reject it.
Based on the fact, it is true that William's father is a pirate named Bill Turner or Bootstrap Bill. However, it seems that William is failed to accept that he has a pirate's blood in his body. Jack, who thinks it is important to give William an understanding and advice, then says many things about his way of thinking as a person and a pirate as well through sentence (3)  Jack Sparrow: (2) "I knew him.
(3) Probably one of the few who knew him as William Turner. (4) Everyone else just called him "Bootstrap"." The example above shows that Jack flouts the maxim of quantity by saying too much information.
He gives more explanation about Bill Turner, William's father, in order to make William understand more about his father. It can be seen in the sentence (2) in which Jack states that he knows William's father. Moreover, in the sentence (3) and (4) he also gives further explanation about the nickname of William's father. Jack says it in order to tell William a fact about his father. The presence of given information flouts the maxim of quantity principle. Therefore, Jack's utterances meet the condition as flouting the maxim of quantity.

Flouting of Quality Maxim
According to Cutting (2002), there are several ways for someone to flout the maxim. First, the speaker may give an expression which does not represent what they think. However, it is not aimed to deceive the hearer. Moreover, the speaker also may use hyperbole, metaphor, irony, banter, and sarcasm. In this research, it was found that the pirates blatantly flout the quality maxim as a device to insult other characters, inform plans, express love, and express happiness. Context: After Black Beard is killed, Jack leaves Angelica on a deserted island. Angelica tries to seduce Jack so that she will never be left on that island.
Angelica: (1) "Admit it, Jack. You still love me." Jack Sparrow: (2) "If you had a sister and a dog, I'd choose the dog." From the conversation above, flouting the maxim of quality is committed by Jack. It happens because he uses sarcasm in giving a response towards Angelica's utterance. During this movie, Angelica is said to be Jack's ex-lover. However, Jack is kind of disappointed towards her for being a stubborn woman. Moreover, Angelica almost killed him in the Fountain while trying to save her father's life. In the end, Jack leaves her on a deserted island.
Angela tries to seduce Jack in sentence (1), but Jack feels nothing about her. He then says in that he would choose a dog than Angelica's sister. He does not even mention Angelica herself as the comparison. By saying this utterance towards her, Jack wants to say that Angelica is wrong because the fact is he does not love her. Mr. Gibbs: (1) "What be our heading, Captain?" Jack Sparrow: (2) "We shall follow the stars, Master Gibbs." Mr. Gibbs: (3) "Aye, aye, Captain!" From the excerpt above, it is found that Jack is flouting the maxim of quality. It happens because Jack says something that is untrue. However, it does not mean that he is lying. He feels so happy because he can kill one of his enemies. Moreover, he is also able to get his beloved Pearl back.
Jack's reaction on the sentence (2) describes how ready he is for the next journey. He says that he and the crew should follow the stars. The stars here are related to their destiny because in this movie, somehow the pirates tend to use the stars as a device to decide their new headings. They may have no headings yet but the stars will lead them to choose one.
Expressing Love Context: Barbossa, Jack, Henry, Carina, and the rest of the Black Pearl crew are able to find the Trident and break the curse. In this scene, Jack, Henry, and Carina are at the bottom of the Poseidon's Tomb (the sea). By breaking the curse, it means that Capitan Salazar and his crew may get alive again. Moreover, the Tomb will be closed again. The Black Pearl crew, under the command of Barbossa, then put down the anchor of the ship so that Jack, Henry, and Carina may climb it up to the ship. Unfortunately, Carina almost falls from the anchor but then she is caught by Barbossa. At that moment, Carina sees a tattoo of the constellation Carina stars in Barbossa's arm and she then realizes that Barbossa is her biological father who left her many years ago.
Carina: (1) "Who am I to you?" Barbossa: (2) "Treasure." From the example above it can be seen that Barbossa does flout the maxim of quality. It happens because he is using metaphor to describe who Carina is to Barbossa. It can be seen that in the sentence (2), Barbossa confirms Carina as her beloved daughter. He portrays her as treasure. It is a common thing for pirates to love their treasure so much. Therefore, it can be said that Barbossa's reason in flouting the quality maxim is to express his love towards his daughter. Context: In this scene, Elizabeth is trying to find William. As we know, people at that time believe it is bad luck to sail with a woman. Therefore, she has to disguise to be a boy so that she can escape from the Port Royal and join a voyage with a group of sailormen. Now, Elizabeth meets Jack at Tortuga when he is trying to get more crew to pay his debt off towards Davy Jones. Based on the conversation above, it can be seen that Jack flouts the maxim of quality. It happens because the speaker may give untruth statement in responding the hearer's utterance. However, it is not aimed to deceive the hearer. In this case, Jack wants the hearer to know the implied meaning behind what has been said by saying the sentence (2) that he does not love human, but the sea. It may mean that Jack just rejected the boy's feeling towards him. Moreover, it seems that Elizabeth does understand what Jack wants to say. It is possible that Jack flouts the maxim of quality in order to avoid in making the boy sad as Jack rejects him. Context: Pintel and Regetti are Barbosa's ex crew who are still alive. After their captain was dead, they were jailed. While escaping from the jail, they also let a dog follow them. The dog gets off the canoe and swims to the shore as it sees the Black Pearl which is being anchored in an island.
Regetti : (1) "What's got into him (dog)?" Pinte: (2) "Must have seen a catfish." Smiling From the dialogue above, flouting quality maxim happens because Pintel is saying something that is believed to be false. However, the speaker does not intend to mislead the hearer. Through this term, there is no relationship found between the dog and the catfish both as an animal and as a person. However, Pintel does not intend to deceive Regetti. He wants Regetti to understand the meaning implied behind what he is saying. The word 'Catfish' is chosen probably because in reality the dog tends to chase a cat. Meanwhile in fact, it sees the Black Pearl on the shore. Feeling familiar with the ship, the dog then tries to approach it.
Regetti also understands what is implied behind what Pintel is saying. Therefore, they decide to go to the shore as well.

Flouting of Relation Maxim
Maxim of relation is considered to be flouted if the speaker says something irrelevant towards what has been said before. The speaker expects the hearers will be able to imagine what the speaker does not say and make the connection between their utterance and the preceding one(s) (Cutting, 2002, p. 37). In this research, it was found that the pirates may blatantly use flouting of quality maxim as a device to give warning, challenge other characters, tell about facts, boast about himself, convince, express seriousness, express insincerity, and express disappointment.
Giving Warning Context: Elizabeth has already made a deal with Lord Beckett. She has promised to help him in getting Jack's compass as long as she will get the Letter of Marque shielded by Lord Beckett himself. The Letters of Marque itself is a document which gives full pardon towards a person who does something against the law of the Crown. In this scene, Jack is trying to get the Letters of Marque from Elizabeth.
Elizabeth: (1) "Jack, the letters (Letter of Marque), give them back." Jack Sparrow: (2) "No. Persuade me." Elizabeth: Trying to kill Jack using her sword (3) "You do know Will taught me how to handle a sword." From the excerpt above, it can be seen that Elizabeth is flouting the maxim of relation by giving an irrelevant answer towards Jack. Based on the conversation, Elizabeth implies that Jack should never tease her because she knows how to use a sword in a fight. Thus, it is possible for Elizabeth to give a warning to Jack that he should give the letters back or he could possibly die.
Challenging Other Characters Context: Barbossa does not know that Jack has stolen a piece of Aztec Gold before fighting with him. Therefore, just like what has happened towards Barbossa and his crew, Jack is now an immortal person. While they are doing the swordfighting, Barbossa asks Jack what his plan is since they are unable to kill each other. However, this sword-fighting is a part of Jack's plan. Actually he is also waiting for the right time to kill Barbossa. Barbossa : (1) "What now, Jack Sparrow? (2) Are we to be two immortals, locked in an epic battle until the Judgment Day?" Jack Sparrow: (3) "Or you could surrender." In the conversation above, it can be seen that Jack is flouting the maxim of relation. It is because there is lack of relevance in Jack's utterance in answering Barbossa's question. However, Jack's aim is not to change the topic anyway.
Based on the context of this scene, the conversation happens when Jack and Barbossa are fighting. It can be seen that both Barbossa and Jack do not want to lose. Barbossa, as the hearer, is expressing that he wants to know why Jack is fighting him is since he knows both of them are immortal. However, Jack already flouts the maxim of relation. It probably implies that Jack wants to challenge Barbossa to keep fighting with him. It is considered to be a beneficial opportunity for him because he can waste the time and kill Barbossa at the right time.
Boasting about Oneself (11) [00:46:06.351 -00:46:18.528] PotC 1 Context: In this movie, Jack is portrayed as a smart and well-known pirate in the Caribbean. It seems that everyone in this movie has known about his story and his ability to run away from the punishment. In this scene, William wants Jack to help him in saving Elizabeth from Barbossa. Jack agrees to help him. However, they need a big ship to go to Isla de Muerta. Jack then has an idea to steal one of the ships owned by the Royal Navy, the Interceptor. The first thing that Jack needs to do is to attract the Navy's attention by trying to steal another ship named the Dauntless. It seems that this plan is going to work since it is able to attract Gillette and the other soldiers of the Royal Port.
Gillette : (1) "This ship cannot be crewed by two men." (2) "You'll never make it out of the bay." Jack Sparrow: (3) "Son... I'm Captain Jack Sparrow. Savvy?" From the example above, it can be seen that Jack flouts the maxim of relation. It is because Jack has said something irrelevant towards what has been said by the hearer.
Based on the context, it can be seen that Jack already knowsthat his plan is going to work as usual. In this case, he also feels that he has a chance to go away like what he always does. Therefore, it may imply that Jack wants to boast himself in front of Gillette that he will be able to get what he want, in this case is the Interceptor and being free from the punishment. Context: Jack promised to Lord Beckett that he will lead him and his crew to the Shipwreck Cove, the place in which the Brethren Court is held. However, Jack has never been in the British's side. Therefore, he gives his compass to William and pushes him off from the ship. It happens because Lord Beckett does not want the pirates to know it is Jack who leads him to the Shipwreck Cove. Right now, William has Jack's compass. William tells Beckett and Davy Jones that Calypso is still alive and Jack with all of the pirate lords are in the Shipwreck Cove.
William: (1) "Jack has sailed the Black Pearl to Shipwreck Cove." Lord Beckett: (2) "And with you no longer aboard her, how do you propose to lead us there?" William: Showing Jack's compass (3) "What is it you want most?" Based on the conversation above, it can be seen that William does flout the maxim of relation by saying something irrelevant. Both the speaker and the hearer understand with what is being talked about. Even though William does not say straightforwardly that he knows the way to the Shipwreck Cove by using Jack's Compass, Lord Beckett has already understood that this compass may lead everyone who holds it to the place he wants the most. Therefore, it seems that William has able to convince Lord Beckett that he is able to lead him and his crew to the Shipwreck Cove.
Expressing Seriousness Context: Carina is trying to explain that the map has not been found yet because they have to wait until night so that they can see the stars which show the direction to the Trident. She needs to calculate to know which the correct way is to lead them to the Trident. However, Henry helps to explain to Barbossa that he does not have to understand Carina and her findings, he just needs to believe her. Realizing that he does not find anything at all, Barbossa then tries to believe what Carina says. Barbossa: (1) "Release 'em!" Mullroy: (2) "Sir, you wouldn't allow... a woman to steer your ship?" Barbossa: (3) "She will follow her star, or we'll all die together." It is found in the conversation above that Barbossa flouts the maxim of relation by giving an irrelevant answer towards the Mullroy's question. Based on the conversation above, it can be seen that Mullroy is not very sure with Barbossa's decision in letting a woman to steer the ship. It is believed among the pirates that a woman should never be in a voyage let alone steering a ship or there will be something bad happen to them. However, Barbossa's statement in sentence (3) describes that he is being serious in letting Carina to steer the ship. It happens because Capitan Salazar and his crew are catching them up soon. Therefore, it is important for him to find the Trident as soon as possible.
Demanding Respect Context: Jack is arrested by George Augustus, the King of Great Britain and Ireland. It happens because Jack has a map which is able to lead the owner to the Fountain of Youth. The Spanish has known this place and King George feels that he will never accept the Spanish, as his rival, to get eternal life. Therefore, he wants to get this map so that the British can get the Fountain and be eternal as well.
Guard: (1) "You are Jack Sparrow?" Jack Sparrow: (2) "There should be a "Captain" in there somewhere." It can be seen from the excerpt above that Jack flouts the maxim of relation by giving an irrelevant answer towards the guard's question. In sentence (1), the guard is trying to make sure whether or not he is Jack Sparrow. However, in sentence (2), Jack says that there should be the word 'captain' in his name instead of only Jack Sparrow.
Based on this fact, Jack is really known as Captain Jack Sparrow. It happens because actually he has the Black Pearl as his ship, and he is its captain. However, as a good citizen of British Kingdom, the guard should decline any form of piracy. Since Jack is a pirate, the guard declines to respect him by not calling him as Captain Jack Sparrow. Therefore, in sentence (2) Jack commits to flout the maxim of relation possibly to show that he wants to be respected as a captain by the guard.
Expressing Insincerity (15) [00:32:08.559 -00:32:16.962] PotC 4 Context: After being trapped and arrested by Angelica, now Jack has to work under Angelica and Black Beard's command. It means that he is not a captain anymore but only a common crew of Queen Anne's Revenge ship who does the crew chores such as cleaning the ship. It seems that Jack cannot easily accept his destiny. He has to obey his captain's rule and somehow it annoys him.
Jack Sparrow: (1) "Five days underway, at least." Scrum: (2) "Aye, you can tell that by the smell of the sea?" Jack Sparrow: (3) "Smell of the crew." Based on the conversation, Jack flouts the maxim of relation by saying something irrelevant in responding the hearer. In sentence (1), Jack says that it may be their fifth days in the sea. Scrum then accepts it and asks him a question which probably means whether Jack has just realized that they have been sailing for at least five days by saying 'you can tell that by smell of the sea?' Jack, however, answer it with 'smell of the crew' instead of accepting or refusing it by saying yes or no.
Based on the fact, it is known that Jack is always calling himself as a captain. However, in this movie Jack has to lose his Pearl. It happens because in the previous movie, it was stolen by Barbossa. Moreover, now he also has to face his destiny by being a crew of the Queen Anne's Revenge. It annoys him because he has to be a crew not a captain. Therefore, he tries to show his insincerity as a crew by flouting the maxim of relation. He probably feels that he is not enjoying this voyage so that he is not able to smell the sea but only smell of the crew instead. Context: Elizabeth helps Jack's crew to escape from the brig. She expects that they will help her to get the Pearl and save William and Jack. However, at the end Jack, William, and Elizabeth are being left by the crew since they think that it is better to take any opportunity to escape from the gallows rather than waiting for them. Moreover, they are following the pirates' Code which says that it is right for them to leave Jack behind if something bad happens to him. Elizabeth: (1) "I'm sorry, Jack." Jack Sparrow: (2) "They've done what's right by them. Can't expect more than that." Based on the conversation and the context above, it can be seen that Jack flouts the maxim of relation by giving an irrelevant answer towards Elizabeth. Elizabeth feels sorry because her plan does not work as what she has expected. She thought Jack's crew will help her to save him but they leave them instead. In utterance (2), Jack gives a response to Elizabeth's statement. It seems that he does not reply it straight-forwardly. However, Elizabeth understands that it is a common thing for the pirates to betray everyone even their own friends. As a pirate, Jack somehow has known that he may be betrayed by his crew. Moreover, there is the Pirates' Code which permits for the pirates to leave the other pirates if it is necessary. However, he probably seems disappointed by his crew. He somehow expects that his crew will wait for him until he can get out of the island. What happens here, however, is below his expectation. It is described when he said 'can't expect more than that'. Therefore, in responding Elizabeth's utterance he then flouts the maxim of relation as a device to express his disappointment towards his crew by leaving him alone. Jack wants Elizabeth as the hearer to understand his feeling even without saying it blatantly.

Flouting of Manner Maxim
A person is said to flout the manner maxim if he appears to be obscure and often trying to exclude a third party (Cutting, 2002, p. 38). He/she also says something that is ambiguous and not being brief. Based on the research, the flouting of manner maxim can be a device to tell about facts, inform plans, creating fear, and create the sense of humor. The following is an example of how flouting of manner maxim is used to create a humor in the movie. Context: Carina is a smart woman. She tells the pirates that she is an astronomer and a horologist. However, it seems that the pirates are failed to understand what she is saying. They think by being a horologist it means that she is a prostitute woman.
Carina: (1) "No. No, I'm a horologist." Scrum: (2) "So was my mom. But she didn't crow about it as loud as you." Carina: (3) "Are you saying your mother was academically inclined?" Jack Sparrow: Make a gesture horizontal line with his hand (4) "More like, horizontally reclined." All pirates: Nod and smirk.
It can be seen that Jack has flouted the maxim of manner by giving an ambiguous and obscure information. As it can be seen that Carina is trying to explain that she is a horologist towards the pirates. In sentence (2), it seems that Scrum misunderstands with what has been said by her. Scrum and all of the pirates in this ship think that a horologist is written as 'whoreologist'. There is no term as 'whoreologist' in the dictionary. However, the way it is spoken is the same with horologist. Carina then asks whether Scrum's mother was academically inclined. Jack then answers it that Scrum's mother is likely to be horizontally reclined. It happens because he wants Carina to understand that what is being referred here is the word 'whorelogist' which possibly a pun means a prostitute.
Based on the conversation above, it is clear that the rest of the crew understand about the topic which has been discussed. They are nodding their head and also smirking after Jack saying that Scrum's mother is 'horizontally reclined' instead of academically inclined. It may be considered as their reaction that they agree and understand about what has been said by Jack. Even though in this scene the pirates are not quiet understanding what Carina says, but they accept Jack's utterance as a joke. Therefore, it is possible for Jack to flout the maxim of manner to create the sense of humor among the crew.
As what has been discussed above, this research is aimed to analyze maxim floutings uttered by pirate characters in Pirates of the Caribbean movie series. The classification is based on the Cooperative Principle proposed by Paul H. Grice in 1975. Based on the analysis it is found that there are 39 conversations which flout the Griceean maxim: 4 conversations (10.3%) flout the maxim of quantity, 13 conversations (33.3%) flout the maxim of quality, 16 conversations (41.0%) flout the maxim of relation, and 6 conversation (15.4%) flout the maxim of manner. Related with the findings above, the pirates tend flout the maxim of quantity by giving too much information towards the hearer. The maxim of quality is flouted by using metaphor, sarcasm, irony, and hyperbole. In flouting this maxim, the pirates of the movie also say something which does not represent what they think. The pirates also tend to give irrelevant responses which make them considered to flout the maxim of relation. The maxim of manner itself is flouted by being ambiguous.
As what has been discussed above, maxim floutings happen because there are several possible reasons. Mostly, the maxim of quantity is flouted in order to make the feeling of fear. The pirates tend to flout the maxim of quality in order to insult other characters by using irony and sarcasm. Of the 13 floutings of Quality Maxim, six of which are done to insult the hearers. Three of them are done to express happiness, and the rest are done to serve four different purposes. Flouting relation maxim is most frequently used to convince the hearer. The maxim of manner, however, is flouted to tell the hearer about the next plan. There are also another possible reason of maxim flouting found in this research. They are: to give warning, to give advice, to challenge other characters, to boast about oneself, to tell about facts, to create humor, to express: love, seriousness, insincerity, disappointment, happiness, to avoid making someone sad, and to tell someone that he wants to be respected.
The context theory which has been proposed by Cutting (2002) also gives an important role in analyzing the possible reasons of maxim flouting itself. It happens because the context may give a clear description what happens in the scene including the background/history of each characters themselves.
This research is only limited on the investigation of maxim floutings uttered by the pirate characters of a movie series. Moreover, this research also discusses about the purposes of the maxim floutings. By observing this research's findings, investigating the maxim flouting and its purposes from other media is recommended. It may be taken from any form of unscripted sources such as daily conversation or a debate. It is important because it can help people to know the realization of maxim floutings as well as its possible purposes.