Violation of the Cooperation Principle in the Discussions of Three

Indonesian Hindu Discussion Groups

Wayan Pageyasa

, I Made Sukada

Department of Language and Literature Education, Sembilanbelas November Kolaka University, Kolaka, Indonesia

Dinas Pendidikan, Kepemudaan dan Olahraga, Kendari, Indonesia

Keywords: Violation, The Cooperation Principle, Internet Discussion, Discussions, Hindu

Abstract: This study aims to obtain an in-depth understanding of Violation of the cooperation principle in internet

discussions in three Indonesian Hindu discussion groups. The paradigm of this research is qualitative. The

method used is pragmatic content analysis. Research data was in the form of dialogue quotations of three

Indonesian Hindu discussion groups in internet discussions containing Violation of the cooperation

principles. The results indicate that in general, the cooperation principles tend to be obeyed. This means that

those who were involved in internet discussions of the three Indonesian Hindu discussion groups were

generally categorized as being working together in the discussion.

1 INTRODUCTION

Language is the main media to build civilization.

Through language, humans are able to express their

thoughts and feelings so that they can be responded

to by other humans. Therefore, language will

continue to grow and develop dynamically along

with the development of the civilization of the user

community.

The use of language that adheres to the principle

has the potential to provide benefits in fostering

harmony and a spirit of peace in the midst of

religious and cultural pluralism. Through the

application of the Principle of Cooperation, language

users can spread coolness in the midst of community

turmoil due to differences in principles and beliefs in

life. However, it seems that the use of language as a

medium of communication to build a more civilized

and cultured life order so far it has not been optimal.

The spirit to work together and respect each other or

look after each other in language ethics seems to

have begun to be forgotten, so that not a few people

are so easy to mislead others who disagree and

believe. According to Harianto, et al. (2019) that

every science has meaning for life or is known in the

theory of meaningful learning. So the applying of

languange science, specially in the cooperation

principle meaningful to the people in they daylife.

That's what happens in the real world. In

cyberspace, technological advances in the field of

information and communication have had a major

influence on the patterns and styles of human

interaction. The distance and extent of

communication is not an obstacle. Communication

has penetrated the boundaries of space and time.

Humans nowadays are not enough to just

communicate socially in the real world, but they

have also penetrated far and away interacting

virtually through internet media. According to Drage

(2015) that recent technological advancements have

had a drastic impact on the way individuals

communicate.

Through the internet, an account holder can use

language for a variety of interests in accordance with

the ideology that he adopts. In other words, language

becomes the most important means for self-

actualization in discussions on the internet that is so

rife. There is an interesting thing, which is not

infrequently a discussion then turns into a heated

debate, and more interestingly, a heated debate

usually occurs when the topic raised concerns

religion or beliefs. This can be seen from the initial

observations in several discussion groups.

Internet language is inseparable from the cultural

context and social settings. This means that the use

of language on the internet also needs to pay

attention to the "principles of language" in

accordance with the interests of the expression of its

Pageyasa, W. and Sukada, I.

Violation of the Cooperation Principle in the Discussions of Three Indonesian Hindu Discussion Groups.

DOI: 10.5220/0009002304990505

In Proceedings of the International Conference on Education, Language and Society (ICELS 2019), pages 499-505

ISBN: 978-989-758-405-3

499

users so that messages conveyed to the public can

take place effectively and on target. According to

Schiffrin (1994), This also means that a social

language user cannot behave arbitrarily in language

without regard to his cultural context and social

setting. In line with this Eerdmans, Prevignano, &

Thibault (2002), the importance of understanding the

context has also been raised by Gumperz on the

topic of Context and Communication edited by

Eerdmans et al. Explanation Hartley (1999) that

considering social context is important in

communication. In connection with that Kramsch,

(1998) also discussed the need to consider two types

of contexts, namely the context of the situation and

cultural context. This is in line with what was stated

by Achmad (1994) that discourse as a language

recording is used both in social contexts and cultural

context. Understanding discourse requires an

understanding of the social and cultural context.

Based on that opinions about the importance of

understanding the context, it can be concluded that

language users who do not heed the context in their

communication are language users who fail to

communicate.

In discussions in internet discussion groups,

language is the most important medium for

expressing thoughts and feelings. In other words,

discussion on the internet will never go well without

adequate language support. The dynamics of

language on the internet is largely determined by the

enthusiasm of its users in expression and

communication.

In proper communication, especially discussions

in internet discussion groups, a person conveys his

thoughts and feelings in writing with the hope that

the reader (discussion partner) can understand what

is being conveyed. The person always tries to keep

the language relevant to the context, clear and easy

to understand, compact, concise and always focused

on the problem so as not to spend time discussing

friends. For example, people will use the language

form, "Answer briefly!" And "Can you answer it

briefly to be effective?" For different situations and

needs. In an emergency, people will tend to use the

first form, while people who ask for help from their

discussion partners in situations that are not so

urgent, they will tend to use the second form.

The deviation in the use of language mean that

there are certain implications to be achieved. If the

implication is not there, then the person concerned

does not carry out cooperation or is not cooperative.

So in summary it can be rationalized that there are

pragmatic principles that must be carried out by the

communication participants so that the

communication process runs smoothly. One of them

is the Principle of Cooperation. By adhering to this

principle, communication is expected to take place

properly. Based on this description, the use of

language on the internet, especially in discussion

groups, is worthy of research. This study examines

Violations of the Principle of Cooperation in three

Indonesian Hindu discussion groups. These groups

are Bhakti Manawa Wedanta, the Nusantara

Nusantara Network Discussion Forum, and

Cakrawayu.

The reason for choosing the Violation of the

Principle of Cooperation is because this principle

cannot be separated in the fact of language use.

Then, the reason for doing research in only those

three discussion groups is because among dozens of

Indonesian Hindu discussion groups, only those

three groups were large and popular. The three

groups are managed by a foundation, so that their

vision and mission can be trusted. Each group has

more than 5,000 members.

At the next, the consideration of doing research

in Hindu-based groups is because there are several

Hindu cultural value systems that turned out to be

relevant to the Principles of Cooperation. According

to Prabhupada (1986), in Hindu culture, there is

ahimsa or non-violence. This means that it does not

hurt or harm others. The speech such as lies, slander,

or gossip can hurt another people. Further, in

Hinduism, there is also the teaching of tattvam asi

which means me and you are servants of God

(Krishna, 2008). So, thes teaches about equality as a

servant of God, because both are servants of God,

then it is fitting to cooperate with each other,

including in communicating.

In Indonesian Hindu culture, there is Tri Hita

Karana which means three causes of happiness. The

three causes in it referred the implementation in

three harmonies, namely: (1) harmony of the

relationship between humans and God, (2) harmony

of relations between humans and fellow human

beings, and (3) harmony of relations between

humans and nature (their environment). According

to Jaman (2007), if it refers to harmony points (2), it

can be understood that harmony requires

communication that is also harmony. In other words,

harmony communication is communication that

obeys the principle of cooperation.

Furthermore, the Hindu cultural value system

also teaches aprajalpa, namely refraining from

wanting or encouraging too much talking which is

not useful. According to Prabhupada (2007), this is

in line with the Principle of Cooperation, especially

the maxim of quantity and quality, then there is also

ICELS 2019 - International Conference on Education, Language, and Society

500

Tri Rich Parisudha which means three things that

must be guarded and sanctified, namely: thoughts,

language, and actions. According to Suhardana

(2006), a person is said to have an awake and holy

language if he does not lie / slander, and does not

say unnecessary words in the form of gossip.

Another consideration is that there is a general

assumption that Balinese with a majority of

Indonesian Hindus have a subtle, friendly character,

like to work together in communication. At least,

that impression is captured and expressed by people

who have traveled to Bali. However, based on

preliminary studies (Research Result, 2013) in

several Hindu Indonesian discussion groups, a

discrepancy was observed between these common

assumptions and the reality of language use,

particularly in discussions. In the preliminary study,

there have been many observations (Research

Result, 2013) on the use of language that do not care

about the principles of cooperation. There are so

many comments (Research Result, 2013) that are not

in accordance with the facts, irrelevant to the topic

under discussion, and the meaning is difficult to

understand. The arguments, considerations, and

preliminary studies that have been presented before

become the basis for conducting a methodological

study.

2 METHOD

This study aims to obtain an in-depth understanding

of the Violations of the Principle of Cooperation in

internet discussions in three Hindu Indonesia is

discussion groups, the Bhakti Manawa Wedanta

Group, the Cakrawayu Group, and the Hindu

Nusantara Network Discussion Forum Group. The

study began on March 15, 2011 until March 5, 2013.

According to Graddol (2000) the language reserach

was collected in many years, like english

development in range 20 years. There are two

settings expressed in this study, namely social

background and cultural background.

The paradigm of this research is qualitative

because the research is natural and the research data

were in the form of descriptions of the facts of

language use. This is in line with what was stated by

Bogdan & Biklen (1982) that the characteristics of

qualitative research are naturalistic, descriptive data,

dealing with processes, inductive and caring for

meaning.

In accordance with the objectives of the study,

the method chosen was the Pragmatic Content

Analysis Method and the inductive reasoning.

Meaning, the data obtained were analyzed then

grouped into predetermined categories. The aspects

of text interpretation following the research

questions were entered into the categories.

Categories can be revised and verified along with

the process of analysis (Krippendorff, 2004).

The categorization model used as the basis is the

Mayring’s model (2011) which is described as

follows.

Figure 1: Categorization Model by Philipp Mayring

According to Emzir (2010), the main idea of this

procedure is to formulate a criterion from the

definition, derived from theoretical background and

research questions, which determine aspects of the

textual material that have been taken into account.

Following this criterion, the material is carried out

through categories are temporary and step by step

reduced. In a feedback loop, this category is revised,

finally reduced to the main categories and checked

for reliability.

The data of this study were excerpts of dialogue

in internet discussions containing Violations of the

Principle of Cooperation. The data source of this

research were the written record of dialogue in

internet discussions in three Indonesian Hindu

discussion groups. The researcher acted as an

instrument for collecting data. The involvement of

the researcher as an instrument was a determining

factor in order to obtain reliable data. In this case,

researchers used tools such as netbooks, internet

devices and printers. Netbooks and internet devices

were used to open websites, printers are used to print

documents (discussion results).

Violation of the Cooperation Principle in the Discussions of Three Indonesian Hindu Discussion Groups

501

The steps of data analysis applied three steps

(Miles & Huberman, 1994), namely (1) data

reduction, (2) data presentation, and (3) drawing

conclusions and verification. The analysis technique

used is pragmatic content analysis. According to

Leech (1983), pragmatic analysis methods with

analytical techniques such as this are aimed at

identifying the pragmatic power of discourse.

To check the validity of the data regarding the

realization of the pragmatic principle, this study

used qualitative validity (Sugiyono, 2010),

consisting of (1) data credibility, (2) transferability,

(3) auditability (dependability), and (4)

confirmability (can be confirmed).

3 RESULT AND DISCUSSION

3.1 Result

A speech is said to infringe the Cooperation

Principle if it does not fit the criteria outlined by

Grice. In other words, the Violation of the

Cooperation Principle is the fact of speech which is

the opposite of adhering to the following criteria.

Table 1: The criteria of cooperation principle

Maxim

Speech

Quantity

Prolix

Quality

Not true, not according to facts

Relevance

Not relevant to the topic discussed

Method

Not clear, indirect, and not

coherent

3.1.1 Violation Of Maxim Quantity

Violation of the quantity maxim occurs if the

contribution made by participants in communication

is excessive (wordy), or it is very lacking. From

table 1 above it can be seen that 108 Violations of

this maxim were identified. To clarify the Violation

of this quantity maxim, here is an example of the

analysis.

First the example is too long, the context of the

picture of the injured person is very severe. Victims

of the Lampung riots. His arm almost broke. His

face was also full of gaping incision wounds.

Speech: Kama Sultra”Panes basange Pak Yan”

Wayan Kertanegara “Nak mule begitu caranya untuk

memperoleh kedamaian” Wina Arya “smoga smua

bisa mengendalikan diri, mulat sarire ngajak umat

sane magenah ring lingkungan kita, yen panes

basang Kama Sultra, Bu Raka Agung ane bengkung

sinduk lawan, kanggwang nah mejugjag gen de

nganti ngadu fisik....nak Bu Raka sube tue, newate

ragane genjang nyen. Translation: (That is the way

to get the peace of Wina Arya, hopefully all can

control themselves, introspection with the people

who live in our environment. If Kama Sultra is

angry, just fight Mrs. Raka Agung who is stiff. But

remember enough just to argue not just fight

physically, Mrs. Raka is old, he will die soon).

(Code TP6-KdL-NP6)

In the speech pair, Wayan Kertanegara's

comments were excessive. The comment made by

Kama Sultra which in the previous comment said:

Blood was paid for blood ... and in this conversation

admitted that he was emotional seeing what

happened to the victim, responded by Wayan

Kertanegara in Balinese which meant something like

this: Kama Sulra, if angry, just fight Mrs. Raka

Agung is ignorant and stiff. Let's just fight the

language, don't let the physical fight. Mrs. Raka is

old. Later she will die quickly. It should be given a

brief suggestion, for example: be patient, control

your emotions. Revenge does not solve the problem

(Code TP6-KdL-NP6). Conclusion: the comment

Infringe the quantity maxim.

Second, the example is too short, the context of

the photo of Hare Krsna Srila Prabhupada. The

speech of Jus Narayana, he went to Pura Rawang

Mangun, but never to Bali. Why didn't he stop by in

Bali? Sugiharta's input, scared ...

I putu Sugiharta's answer in the TP13-SP-NP8

conversation was very lacking. He only answered

Jus Narayana's question with a simple sentence: Fear

... This is certainly not clear. Who's afraid? Why be

scared? Conclusion: That comment can be said to

Infringe the quantity maxim because of the lack of

contributions of Sugiharta's.

3.1.2 Violation of Maxim of Quality

If a statement of truth cannot be ascertained, is not in

accordance with the facts, then the speech is said to

Infringe the quality maxim. From an analysis of 459

conversation pairs, 240 were found to Infringe this

maxim. To clarify the Violations of the quality

maxims, the following is an example of the analysis.

Context Cultural differences between Balinese

Hinduism or Hindu Nusantara and Hindu Vaishnava

(Hare Krishna) often lead to debate. Wyat Gniten,

one of the Balinese Hindus questioned the Hare

Krishna culture. The Exam: Pekak Dusun,

Caitanaya itu Tuhan apa jelema yasoda? (Caitanya

is God or human Yasoda)? Hi hi hi hi hi. Gst Alit

Swastika, Jeleme yang dituhankan (human is

ICELS 2019 - International Conference on Education, Language, and Society

502

deified), patuh jak (same as) Prabupada. Mekejang

bukune paling benehe (all books are the most

correct) alias paling Tuhan 100%, ato 100% Tuhan

paling xi xi xi (most God 100%, or 100% God most

xi xi xi). (code TP5-BHK-NP11)

Gst Alit Swastika's comment about Krsna's

infallibility is incorrect. He assumed that Krsna was

a deified human. But the Bhagavad Gita which is the

essence of the Vedas clearly reveals who Krsna

really is. The conclusion he made on Prabhupada's

book is also wrong. Prabhupada never said that only

his God was authentic, whereas God who was

worshiped by others was fake. So, Gst Alit Swastika

has commented that is not in accordance with the

truth. Conclusion: these comments infringe the

maxims of quality.

3.1.3 Violation of Maxim of Relevance

If the comment or response given is not relevant to

the problem or topic discussed, then it is called

violating the maxim of relevance. Of the 459

comments or responses analyzed, 111 Infringed. To

clarify the maxim of Violation of relevance, the

following example of the analysis is presented.

Context Discussing one topic in the Book of

Bhagavad Gita.ayan Kertanegara reminded about the

law of karmaphala. Examination: Gede Widiarta,

Missing with Mrs. Raka? Ragane (He) is still at

CPB. Wyat Gniten, selamat mendekati Rest in Peace

(Congratulations on approaching Rest in Peace) ...

character

In conversation partner number 10, Wyat Gniten

issued a comment that was unrelated to the topic

discussed. The topic discussed was karmaphala but

he commented: congratulations approaching rest in

peace character. So, his comments Infringe the

maxim of relevance. Conclusion: Wyat Gniten's

comments Infringe the maxim of relevance.

3.1.4 Violation of Maxim of Manner

If the speech in the discussion are not direct, vague,

taxa, and not coherent, then the commentary is said

to Infringe the maxim of the way. Out of 459

conversation pairs, 187 Infringed this maxim. To

clarify the Violations of the maxims in this way, the

following example is presented in the analysis.

Context Cultural differences between Balinese

Hinduism or Hindu Nusantara and Hindu Vaishnava

(Hare Krishna) often lead to debate. Wyat Gniten,

one of the Balinese Hindus questioned the Hare

Krishna culture. The speech of: Pekak Dusun,

Caitanya itu Tuhan apa jelema Yasoda? Hi hi hi hi

hi. Gst Alit Swastika, Jeleme yg dituhankan, patuh

jak Prabupada. Mekejang bukune paling benehe

(Manusia dituhankan, sama dengan Prabhupada.

Semua bukunya paling benar) alias paling tuhan

100%, ato 100% tuhan paling xi xi xi (Caitanya is

God or human Yasoda Hi hi hi hi hi (code TP5-

BHK-NP11). Gst Alit Swastika, human is deified,

same as Prabupada all books are the most correct

alias most God 100%, or 100% God most xi xi xi).

In the pair conversation number 11, Gst Alit

Swastika's comment was unclear. The utterance

means the following: Humans are deified, just like

Prabhupada. All of his books are the most correct

alias 100% god, or 100% god most. In fact, in the

discussion of that topic, there was no discourse that

deified humans. Likewise about his evaluation of

Prabhupada's books, he was wrong. Prabhupada

never said that his book was the most correct. Lastly,

what can't be understood is 100% God at most.

Conclusion: the comment Infringe the maxim

method.

3.2 Discussion

Violations of the cooperation principles in internet

discussions in three Indonesian Hindu discussion

groups, it can be seen the realization of the

cooperation principles in internet discussions in

three Indonesian Hindu discussion groups. In

general, the cooperation principles tend to be

obeyed. Of the total of 1836 analyzed, 1190 obeyed.

The remaining 646 Infringed. This means that

speakers involved in internet discussions in the three

Indonesian Hindu discussion groups are generally

categorized as "working together" in

communication. According to Cooper in Nystrand

(1982) that to facilitate understanding of the

Principles of Cooperation then give an overview of

quantity, qualitiy, relations, and manner.

The realization of the cooperation principlesis

detailed as follows. First, the realization of quantity

maxim. Of the 459 conversation pairs analyzed, 351

obeyed the maxims of quantity and 108 Infringed.

This shows the quantity maxims tended to be

obeyed. Speakers in this context do not like to beat

around the bush. According to Leech (1983) that the

quantity maxim requires each participant to provide

as much or as much information as is needed by the

interlocutor. According to Mey (1993), there are two

things that must be considered by the speech

participants regarding this maxim, namely (1) the

contribution of information must be as informative

as needed, (2) the contribution of information should

not exceed what is needed or otherwise.

Violation of the Cooperation Principle in the Discussions of Three Indonesian Hindu Discussion Groups

503

If it is related to the value system in Indonesian

Hindu culture, then a value system about saving in

language, namely aprajalpa in general has been

realized by the discussion participants. The tendency

of Violations that occur in 2 discussion topics occurs

because discussion participants experience

disappointment, protest, or ignited emotions.

According to Beaugrande & Dressler (1981) there

are six standards of textuality, saving language

included in the standard of informativeity.

Second, the realization of quality maxims. A

total of 219 adheres to quality maxims and 240

Infringe. This shows that quality maxims tend to be

Infringed. Speakers in this context can generally be

said to be of inferior quality. Speakers tend to say

those that do not contain the truth. According to

Leech (1983), this quality maxims require every

conversation participants tell the truth. In other

words, the contribution of conversation participants

should be based on adequate evidence.

If it is related to the value system in Indonesian

Hindu culture, this finding shows that the teaching

of aprajalpa has not been practiced, which is the

teaching about refraining from encouraging

excessive speech. In other words, most of the

discussion participants did prajalpa. In addition, the

results of this study also showed that the behavior of

the majority of discussion participants was not in

accordance with Tri Rich Parisudha, especially

regarding sacred words. The emergence of

utterances that contain these untruths other than

because the speaker does not know the truth, also

because of the motivation to suppress or discredit

certain parties. According to Mey (1993) states two

things that need to be considered regarding this

maxim, namely (1) do not say something that is

believed not true, (2) do not say something that is

not convincing proof of truth.

Third, the realization of relevance maxim. A

total of 384 adhere to the maxim of relevance and

111 to Infringe. This shows that the maxim of

relevance tends to be obeyed. It can be said that the

utterances in internet discussions in the three Hindu

Indonesian discussion groups in general are still

related to the topic or theme of the discussion.

According to Leech (1983) the maxim of relevance

requires that each conversation participant make a

relevant contribution to the problem being discussed.

According to Sukariasih, et al. (2019) the relevance

of a thought can be obtained by inquiry.

As for the tendency of maxim violation that

occurs on 4 discussion topics because the offender

wants to be funny even if it fails, in addition, it is

also caused by a lack of understanding of the

essence of what was discussed. Furthermore, it is

also caused by the desire to patronize. According to

Mey (1993), one thing that must be considered by

the speaker, namely, try to have words relevant.

Fourth, the realization of the maxim of manner.

A total of 272 obeyed the maxim of the way and 187

Infringed. This shows that maxim tends to be

obeyed. This can be interpreted as saying that in the

internet discussion in the three Indonesian Hindu

discussion groups generally meet the requirements

of clarity and ruffle. According to Noveck &

Sperber (2004) that the essence of the maxim maxim

is "be perspicuous".

The tendency of Violations that occur in 10

discussion topics is caused by language skill factors.

(If someone is not skilled in language, most likely

Infringe this maxim). The Violation is not

intentional or not intended. According to

Beaugrande & Dressler (1981), the maxim of the

method requires that each participant of the

conversation speak directly, not blurred, and not

taxa, and coherent.

4 CONCLUSIONS

Conclusions of the realization of the cooperation

principles in internet discussions in three Indonesian

Hindu discussion groups. In general, the cooperation

principles tend to be obeyed in kind.

First, the realization of quantity maxims tends to

be obeyed. Speakers in this context don't like to beat

around the bush.

Second, the realization of maxims of quality

tends to be infringed. Speech in this context can

generally be said to be of poor quality. Speakers

tend to say that does not contain the truth

Third, the realization of maxim of relevance

tends to be obeyed. It can be said that the utterances

in internet discussions in the three Indonesian Hindu

discussion groups in general are still related to the

topic or theme of the discussion.

Fourth, the realization of the maxim of manner

tends to be obeyed. This can be interpreted as saying

that in the internet discussion in the three Indonesian

Hindu discussion groups generally meet the

requirements of clarity and ruffle.

REFERENCES

Achmad H.P., 1994. Gaya Berpikir, Latar Belakang

Pendidikan, dan Kemampuan Menulis Mahasiswa

IKIP Jakarta dalam Tiga Aspek Wacana:

ICELS 2019 - International Conference on Education, Language, and Society

504

Keterpaduan, Keruntutan, dan Kelengkapan. Jakarta,

h.75.

Beaugrande, R.A.d., & Dressler,W.U., 1981. Introduction to Text

Linguistics. Longman. London, New York.

Bogdan, R.C.,& Biklen, S.K., 1982. Qualitative Research

for Education: An Introduction to Theory and

Methods. Allyn and Bacon Inc.Bacon.

Drage, E., 2015. The Effect of Technology on Face-to-

Face Communication. The Elon Journal of

Undergraduate Research in Communications 6(1), 13-

19.

Eerdmans, S.L., Prevignano, C.R., & Thibault, P.J., 2002.

Language and Interaction: Discussion with John J.

Gumperz. John Benjamins Publishing

Company.Amsterdam, Philadelpia.

Emzir, 2010. Metodologi Penelitian Kualitatif: Analisis

Data-Model Bogdan & Biklen-Model Miles &

Huberman-Model Strauss & Corbin-Model Spradley-

Analisis Isi Model Philipp Mayring-Program

Komputer Nvivo. Rajawali Pers.Jakarta.

Graddol, D., 2000. The Future of English? A guide to

forecasting the popularity of the English language in

the 21st century. The English Company (UK) Ltd.

UK.

Harianto, E., Nursalam, L. O., Ikhsan, F. A., Zakaria, Z.,

Damhuri, D., & Sejati, A. E., 2019. The Compatibility

of Outdoor Study Application of Environmental

Subject Using Psychological Theories of Intelligence

and Meaningful Learning in Senior High School.

Geosfera Indonesia, 4(2), 201.

https://doi.org/10.19184/geosi.v4i2.9903.

Hartley, P., 1999. Interpersonal Communication.

Routledge. London, New York.

Jaman, G.I., 2007. Tri Hita Karana dalam Konsep Hindu.

Pustaka Bali Pos.Denpasar.

Kramsch, C., 1998.Language and Culture. Oxford

University Press.Great Clarendon Street.

Krippendorff, K., 2004. Content Analysis: An

Introducition to Its Methodology. Sage Publication,

London.

Krishna, A., 2008. Tri Hita Karana: Ancient Balinese

Wisdom for Neo Humans. Anand Krishna Global Co-

Operation. Surabaya.

Leech, G., 1983. Principles of Pragmatics.

Longman.London.

Mayring, P., 2011. Qualitative content analysis. Forum

Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative

Social Research, 1(2), Art. 20. Retrieved from

http://www.qualitative-

research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1089/2385.

Mey, J.L., 1993. Pragmatics an Introduction. Blackwell,

Cambridge.

Miles, M.B. & Huberman, A.M., 1994. Analisis Data

Kualitatif: Buku Sumber tentang Metode-Metode

Baru.Translate by Tjetjep Rohendi Rohidi. Universitas

Indonesia Press.Jakarta.

Noveck, I.A., & Sperber, D., 2004. Experimental

Pragmatics. Palgrave Macmillan. Hampshire,

England.

Nystrand, M., 1982. What Writers Know: The Language,

Process, and Stucture of Written Discourse. Academic

Press.New York, London, Toronto, Sydney, San

Francisco.

Prabhupada, S.S.A.C.B.S., 1986. Bhagavad-Gita As It

Is.The Bhaktivedanta Book Trust. Juhu, Mumbai.

Prabhupada, S.S.A.C.B.S., 2007. Pedoman Etika dan Pola

Hidup Vaishnava. Sampradaya Kesadaran Krishna

Indonesia. Denpasar.

Schiffrin, D., 1994. Approaches to Discourse. 238 Main

Street Cambridge. Massachusettts.

Sugiyono, 2010. Memahami Penelitian Kualitatif.

Alfabeta.Bandung.

Suhardana, K.M., 2006. Pengantar Etika dan Moralitas

Hindu: Bahan Kajian untuk Memperbaiki Tingkah

Laku. Paramita.Surabaya.

Sukariasih, L., Saputra, I. G. P. E., Ikhsan, F. A., Sejati, A.

E., & Nisa, K., 2019. Improving The Learning

Outcomes of Knowledge and Inquiry Skill Domain on

Third Grade Students of Smp Negeri 14 Kendari

through The Guided Inquiry Learning Model Assisted

by Science Kit. Geosfera Indonesia, 4(2), 175.

https://doi.org/10.19184/geosi.v4i2.10097

Violation of the Cooperation Principle in the Discussions of Three Indonesian Hindu Discussion Groups

505