Post on 05-Feb-2021
27
“THE CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURE AND ITS MAXIMS IN OPRAH
WINFREY TALK SHOW IN METRO TV”
(A Pragmatic Study)
A thesis
Submitted to the Faculty of Cultural Science Hasanuddin University
in Partial Fulfillment to Obtain Sarjana Degree
in English Department
By
ARY AZHARI
F211 07 012
ENGLISH DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF CULTURAL SCIENCES
28
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First of all, the writer would like to express his grateful to the almighty Allah
SWT for his blessing, chance, and guidance to finish this undergraduate thesis.
Shalawat and Salam are always sent to my beloved prophet Rasulullah SAW for his
unparallel effort and sacrifices to show the right path and spread the light of salvation
to all mankind and universe.
In writing this thesis, the writer had realized that he has many difficulties to
finish it, but because of the advice of his consultants, examiners, and friends, those
problems can be solved. Besides, he has also big-hearted contributions, moral
support, and prayers from many individuals to whom he is grateful. For this reason,
he would like to express his deep and sincere thanks to the following persons because
of their helping, correction, suggestions, and encouragement, this thesis have been
completed.
In the first place, my deepest thanks go to my beloved parents Abd. Munsyi
Zain and Laila Ismail for their countless and endless effort to motivate, help,
encourage, and advice me until today. Moreover, distinguished thanks go to my
brother Adjat Sudrajat, who constantly help, encourage, and support me all the time.
May ALLAH SWT bless and reward them better.
29
My deep appreciation extends to Prof. Drs. H. Burhanuddin Arafah,
M.Hum, Ph.D as the Dean of Faculty of Cultural Sciences, Hasanuddin University.
Also, high appreciation is extended to Drs. Husain Hasyim, M.Hum as the Head of
English Department, Drs. Simon Sitoto, M.A as the Secretary of English
Department, and the staff of English Department (Pak Nahri, K’ Agus, and K’ Uga)
for their cooperation during his studies at English Department Faculty of Cultural
Science Hasanuddin University. Besides, special thanks also go to his lecturer and
Academic Advisor, Prof. Dr. Nurdin Yatim (Alm) who has guided the writer from
beginning to the end of his studies. And, a great thankfulness for our lecturer Abbas,
S.S.,M.Hum, because of his discreetness which given to us, this thesis can be done.
Their wisdom will always be a part of the writer‘s life.
It is an honor for me to have Prof. Dr. Hamzah Machmoed, M.A as his first
consultant and Dra. Marleiny Radjuni, M.Ed as his second consultant. Both of
them are very helpful in sharing their valuable ideas, advices, guidance, and patience
during the completion of this study. He also expresses his deep appreciation to Drs.
Abd. Madjid Djuraid, M.Hum and Karmila Mokoginta S.S.,M.Hum,M.A., as the
board of examiners who give many suggestions to improve the contents of the thesis.
Special thanks are due to his best friends that have shared their ideas,
suggestions, and motivations to the writer. Without their support, patience, and
guidance, this study would not have been completed. It is to them that I owe my
deepest gratitude. They are:
30
1. His seniors and juniors in Perisai FIB-UH: Incredible ‗05,
Anglophile ‘06, Grotesque ‘08, Redemption ‘09, and Wish-Key ‘10.
2. INDEPENDENT 07’: anca, safrin, anda, ary, arni, sari, ageng, hery,
andry, adin, upiq, ijad, iin, febri, awal, zera, yudi, ferdi, ethy, dayat,
icha, awal, fia, razak, etc.
3. English Department Debating Society (EDDS): K‘Ronald,
K‘uzumaki, K‘Fajar, K‘Indra, K‘Idham, K‘ Syahrul. My speaking
English has improved significantly from this debating club.
4. My local wisdom Community in FIB-UH : Dr. Basrah Gissing,
M.A.,Dr. Nunding Ram, M.A., my friends from IMSAD (Lhia, Anha,
Ethy, etc) and PSGBD Crew (Anto, Syamsul, etc).
Subsequently, the writer expresses his great thanks to her buddies ―La Ode
Febrianto (Sarmili) who has give the alternative way in choosing this title for my
thesis, Sitti Dzuriati as my best friend In English Department. Also, Yaya Mustafa
(niece) as my cute niece who always support the writer to finish this thesis.
Finally, I would like to thank everybody who is important to the successful
realization of this undergraduate thesis, as well as expressing my apology that I could
not mention personally one by one. Critics and suggestions are welcomed to make
this thesis beneficial to all element of Hasanuddin University.
By realizing the limitations and insufficiencies of this thesis, the writer really
hopes the advantageous advice, suggestions, and ideas for the improvement of it.
31
However, the writer hopes that this thesis can fulfill the conditions and criteria that
have been dealt and can be useful for readers.
May God bless us all, Amin.
Makassar, 18 August 2011
The Writer
32
TABLE OF CONTENT
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ..................................................................................... i
TABLE OF CONTENTS ....................................................................................... v
....................................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................................
ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................... ix
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ............................................................................ 1
1.1. Background ...................................................................................................... 1
1.2. Research Question ............................................................................................. 4
1.3. Rationale ............................................................................................................ 4
1.4. Practical of the study ......................................................................................... 4
CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW .............................................................. 6
2.1. Previous Studies ............................................................................................... 6
2.2. Related theories ................................................................................................. 7
2.2.1. Pragmatic Theory .................................................................................... 7
2.2.2. Area of interest in pragmatic .................................................................... 8
2.2.3. Implicature Theory .................................................................................. 8
33
2.2.4. Gricean Theory ...................................................................................... 10
2.2.5. Theoretical Difficulties ........................................................................... 12
2.2.6. Determinacy Problem ............................................................................. 14
2.2.7. Conflicting and Innaplicabel Principles .................................................. 15
2.2.8. Relevance Theory ................................................................................... 17
2.2.9. Speakers Implicature and Intention....................................................... 19
2.2.10. Sentence Implicature and Convention .................................................. 20
CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY ...................................................................... 24
3.1. Library Research .............................................................................................. 24
3.2. Field Research ................................................................................................... 24
3.2.1. Technique of Collecting Data ........................................................... 24
3.3. Location of research .......................................................................................... 24
3.4. Source of data .................................................................................................... 25
3.5. Method for analyzing data ................................................................................ 25
3.6. Population and sample ...................................................................................... 26
3.6.1. Population ........................................................................................... 26
3.6.2. Sample ................................................................................................ 26
CHAPTER IV PRESENTATION AND DATA ANALYSIS ........................... 27
4.1. Data Analysis ................................................................................................... .27
34
CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS ..................................... 49
5.1. Conclusions ....................................................................................................... 49
5.2. Suggestions ....................................................................................................... 50
BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................. 51
APPENDIX ............................................................................................................. 52
35
ABSTRAK
Ary Azhari. The Conversational Implicature and Its Maxims in “Oprah
Winfrey” Talk Show in Metro TV (A Pragmatic Study) (Dibimbing oleh Hamzah
Machmoed dan Marleiny Radjuni).
Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menguraikan makna ujaran-ujaran yang tersirat
di setiap pembicara pada acara talk show ―Oprah Winfrey‖ dan mengungkap dampak
dari penggunaan implikatur percakapan serta maksim-maksimnya. Sesuatu yang
sangat penting disini adalah memperhatikan konteks dari ujaran tersebut
disampaikan, serta dengan memperhatikan latar belakang pengetahuan orang yang
terlibat di dalamnya.
Metode yang digunakan dalam menganalisis data dalam skripsi ini adalah
metode deskriptif, yaitu menggambarkan dan menjelaskan makna dari setiap ujaran
(datum) yang disampaikan dengan memperhatikan konteksnya sebagai suatu
kesatuan, bukan menganalisis suatu kalimat tertentu secara terpisah tanpa disertai
latar belakang percakapan tersebut.
Dari hasil analisis yang dilakukan, diperoleh bahwa ujaran-ujaran yang di
sampaikan oleh penutur mempunyai makna yang lebih dari yang diucapkan. Makna
ini dapat dipahami apabila penutur dan pendengar memiliki latar belakang
pembicaraan dan makna konvensional dari kata yang digunakan. Dalam
menyampaikan atau merespon suatu ucapan, penutur tidak selalu mengindahkan
maksim-maksim percakapan, seperti yang diperkenalkan oleh Grice. Maksim
percakapan seringkali sengaja dilanggar oleh penutur untuk suatu maksud yang lain,
antara lain untuk mentaati prinsip-prinsip kesopanan. Disamping itu, kenyataan
menunjukkan bahwa tingkat sosial seseorang di dalam masyarakat ikut
mempengaruhi penutur dalam melanggaratau mentaati prinsip kerjasama dan prinsip
kesopanan.
36
ABSTRACT
Ary Azhari. The Conversational Implicature and Its Maxims in “Oprah
Winfrey” Talk Show in Metro TV (A Pragmatic Study) (Supervised by Hamzah
Machmoed and Marleiny Radjuni).
This research aimed to elaborate the implied meaning in the utterances of the
speakers in Talk Show ―Oprah Winfrey‖ and disclose the effect of using
Conversational Implicature and its maxims. Something very important here was the
context of the speech was delivered, and paid attention to the background knowledge
of people whom involved in it.
The method which used in analyzing the data in this thesis was descriptive
method, which described and explained the meaning of each utterance (datum) which
is delivered for attention in context as a whole, rather than analyzed a particular
sentence separately without a background conversation.
From the analysis conducted, the writer finds some utterances which is
implied by the speakers and has more than one meaning in speaking. The meaning
can be understood if the speakers and listeners have a background in speech and
conventional meanings of words which is used. In delivering or responding to an
utterance, speakers do not always neglect the conversational maxims, such it has been
introduced by Grice. Conversational maxims are often deliberately violated by
speakers for another purposes, namely to comply with the principles of politeness. In
addition, the fact shows that the social degree in community may influence the
speakers in violating or obeying the Cooperative Principles & Politeness Principles.
37
CHAPTER I
BACKGROUND
1.1 CONTEXT
English is an international language, which is used to communicate by
many people in different countries. Many scientists define the meaning of
language differently but generally it is stated that language as a mean of
communication. Wardaugh stated that, ―language is a system of arbitrary vocal
symbols by means of which a social group cooperates‖. In other words, the writer
considers that language is an oral system of communication by conversation.
Conversation means that people are talking with each other, as a form of
sociability, or it can be used to indicate any activities of interactive talk,
independent of its purpose. Talking about sociability, it means that we are talking
about society. At the basis of all conversational activity is society. Human social
life and work are what necessitate conversation in the first place and in its turn. It
is shaped by human life and work.
The philosopher Grice introduced the term conversational implicature.
According to Grice, Speech acts are guided and ensured by four factors, known
as the cooperative principle, which Grice calls maxim. Cooperative principle is a
kind of tacit agreement by speakers and listeners to cooperate in communication.
38
It focuses on a more micro-level, for example ―If I am in conflict with you, I still
may want to communicate my intentions with you, and assume you will work out
the implications of my utterances‖. It is at the underlying level of linguistic
communication that Grice identifies this cooperation between speakers and
listeners.
To know this study deeply, the writer will breakdown the theory of this
research under the title ―“The Conversational Implicature and its maxim in
“opera winfrey” talk show‖ as Pragmatic study. In this paper, the writer
discusses conversational implicature in Oprah Winfrey talk show, one of the
popular talk show round the world. The objectives of the study are to identify the
implicature utterances uttered by the characters (Guest, Host & Audience)in the
talk show, to describe the implied meaning uttered by the characters and to
describe the cooperative principles occur in the conversation of the Oprah
Winfrey talk show.
In this study, the writer applies qualitative research method. The data is
taken in written form and conversational implicature uttered by the characters in
the Talk show Oprah Winfrey. The source of data is from the Video entitled
Oprah winfrey talk show, and the supporting data is knowledge and
comprehension of the writer as the researcher and theories related with this study.
In method of collecting data, the writer uses ―recording technique‖ (teknik sadap)
as the basic technique, the first continuing technique is ―non participant
39
observing technique‖ (teknik simak bebas libat cakap), and continued by ―noting
technique‖ (teknik catat). Meanwhile, the writer uses contextual research in
analyzing data and uses the theory of conversational implicature generated by
four maxims. Those are maxim of quantity, maxim of quality, maxim of relation
and maxim of manner.
In this research, the writer tries to find conversational implicatures in The
talk show Oprah Winfrey related to the breaking of the maxims. They are
conversational implicatures that break maxim of quantity, maxim of quality,
maxim of relation and maxim of manner. The purpose of this research will be
focused on the analysis of utterance in Opera Winfrey talk show. In this case, the
writer tries to indicate maxims that are used by each speaker. During the talk
show, The characters (Guest, Host & Audience) does not adhere the maxims so
they break the rules of the maxim, such as in maxim of quantity, maxim of
quality, maxim of relation and maxim of manner.
In supporting this research, the writer finds some researches that uses
Pragmatic approach in their study. They are Zeth Tallu Lembang (2005). A
Study of Conversational Implicature in the Play of ―Burried Child‖ by Sam
Shepard and Zainurrahman (2002). Implicature in the English Conversation.
The last chapter will presents of the research methodology used in this
study. The existence of the research methodology has a goal of guiding the
40
research as in order to work systematically. The research methodology covers a
set of research activities conducted by researcher. From here the ways of research
will be known clearly.
1.2 RESEARCH QUESTIONS / STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
In this research, the writer takes some research questions in order to
analyze the data, namely:
a. What are the meanings implied in the utterances of speakers in ―Opera
Winfrey‖ talk show?
b. What is the effect in using Implicature in the characters conversation that
related to the Conversational Principles (Its maxims)?
1.3 RATIONALE
This study focuses on maxims of Co-operative Principles (Quantity,
Quality, Relation, and Manner) which is violated by the speakers in Opera
Winfrey talk show. In addition, this research will enhance our understanding of
41
the implied meaning in the utterance of the speakers and disclose the effect in
using Conversational Implicature and its maxims.
1.4 PRACTICAL OF THE STUDY
This research is hoped to increase our understanding of Conversational
Implicature in Opera Winfrey talk show. This research also can be advantageous
both to the reader and writer. Moreover, this research can be used as a reference
to increase students‘ interest in learning English language, especialy about
Pragmatic study. The results of this research is aimed to be guidance for students
who are interested in conducting further researches on Conversational
Implicature.
42
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 PREVIOUS STUDY
In completing this research, the writer consult with some studies on
Pragmatic. These previous studies are presented on the similar Approach (A
Pragmatic Study). Both of them are from English Department. The first is Zeth Tallu
Lembang (2005), A Study of Conversational Implicature in the Play of ―Burried
Child‖ by Sam Shepard. He analyses the aspect of conversational implicatures in the
43
dialogues of Sam Shepard‘s Play, ―Buried Child‖. He uses conversational principles
(maxim). He takes twenty samples from the population by using the random sampling
technique. The second is Zainurrahman (2002), Implicature in the English
Conversation. He analyses implicatures in English conversation. He takes two novels
(―A view on the Bridge‖ and ―All My Son‖) as his written data, and Two movies
shows (―Willy Wonka and Chocolate Factory‖ and ―Big Daddy‖) as his primary data.
He uses descriptive method and concentrate with context such as time, place, and
background of people‘s knowledge.
Some researchers above try to analyze about Conversational Implicatures in
different data. The first writer (ZethTallu Lembang) analyze it by taking some datum
in the Play (Drama) and the second writer (Zainurrahman) analyze it by taking datum
in the novels and Movie. In this research, the writerwill also use different data in
spoken discourse, which will from an English Talk Show, Oprah Winfrey. Besides,
the writer will use an approach , namely Pragmatic Study, because this approach
concern to describe how human use language to communicate and investigate the use
of language in context by a speaker (The relationship between speakerand the
utterance).
2.2 RELATED THEORIES
2.2.1 Pragmatic Theory
44
Pragmatics is a subfield of linguistics which studies the ways in which
context contributes to meaning. Pragmatics encompasses speech act theory,
conversational implicature, talk in interaction and other approaches to language
behavior in philosophy, sociology, and linguistics It studies how the transmission
of meaning depends not only on the linguistic knowledge (e.g. grammar, lexicon
etc.) of the speaker and listener, but also on the context of the utterance,
knowledge about the status of those involved, the inferred intent of the speaker,
and so on. In this respect, pragmatics explains how language users are able to
overcome apparent ambiguity, since meaning relies on the manner, place, time
etc. of an utterance.The ability to understand another speaker's intended meaning
is called pragmatic competence. An utterance describing pragmatic function is
described as metapragmatic. (Joan Cuttin 2002, Pragmatics and Discourse).
2.2.2 Area of Interest in Pragmatics
- The study of the speaker's meaning, not focusing on the phonetic or
grammatical form of an utterance, but instead on what the speaker's
intentions and beliefs are.
- The study of the meaning in context, and the influence that a given
context can have on the message. It requires knowledge of the
speaker's identities, and the place and time of the utterance.
45
- The study of implicatures, i.e. the things that are communicated even
though they are not explicitly expressed.
- The study of relative distance, both social and physical, between
speakers in order to understand what determines the choice of what is
said and what is not said.
- The study of what is not meant, as opposed to the intended meaning,
i.e. that which is unsaid and unintended, or unintentional.
2.2.3 Implicature Theory
P. Grice (1913–1988) was the first to systematically study cases in
which what a speaker means differs from what the sentence used by the speaker
means. Consider the following dialogue:
Alan: Are you going to Paul's party?
Barb: I have to work.
If this was a typical exchange, Barb meant that she is not going to Paul's
party. But the sentence she uttered does not mean that she is not going to Paul's
party. Hence Barb did not say that she is not going, she implied it. Grice
introduced the technical terms implicate and implicature for the case in which
what the speaker meant, implied, or suggested is distinct from what the speaker
46
said. Thus Barb ―implicated‖ that she is not going; that she is not going was her
―implicature.‖ Implicating is what Searle (1975: 265–6) called an indirect speech
act. Barb performed one speech act (meaning that she is not going) by
performing another (meaning that she has to work).
By ―saying,‖ Grice meant not the mere utterance of words. What Barb
said is what she stated, namely, that she has to work, something she could have
stated by saying different words. As Grice realized, ―say‖ is used more or less
strictly. Thus if Carl says ―The largest planet is a gas giant,‖ we will sometimes
count him as saying (and thus not implicating) that Jupiter is a gas giant. We will
follow Grice in using ―say‖ more narrowly, requiring that what a speaker says be
closely related to what the sentence uttered conventionally means. So we will
take Carl to have implicated that Jupiter is a gas giant by saying that the largest
planet is.
Our sample implicature is said to be conversational. The implicature is
not part of the conventional meaning of the sentence uttered, but depends on
features of the conversational context. In our example, a key feature was the
question Alan asked. Had he asked ―What are you going to do today?‖ Barb
could have implicated something completely different ―I am going to work‖ by
saying the same thing. Grice contrasted a conversational implicature with a
conventional implicature, by which he meant one that is part of the meaning of
the sentence used. (Geoffrey Leech 1983 Principles of Pragmatics).
47
2.2.4 Gricean Theory
In addition to identifying and classifying the phenomenon of
implicature, Grice developed a theory designed to explain and predict
conversational implicatures. He also sought to describe how such implicatures
are understood. Grice (1975: 26–30) postulated a general ―Cooperative
Principle,‖ and four ―maxims‖ specifying how to be cooperative. It is common
knowledge, he asserted, that people generally follow these rules for efficient
communication.
Cooperative Principle ccontributes what is required by the accepted
purpose of the conversation. They are:
a. Maxim of Quality. Make your contribution true; so do not
convey what you believe false or unjustified.
b. Maxim of Quantity. Be as informative as required.
c. Maxim of Relation. Be relevant.
d. Maxim of Manner. Be perspicuous; so avoid obscurity and
ambiguity, and strive for brevity and order.
Grice viewed these rules not as arbitrary conventions, but as instances of
more general rules governing rational, cooperative behavior. For example, if a
woman is helping a man build a house, she will hand him a hammer rather than a
48
tennis racket (relevance), more than one nail when several are needed (quantity),
straight nails rather than bent ones (quality), and she will do all this quickly and
efficiently (manner). (George Yule & Brown Gillian. 1983, Discourse Analysis).
Implicatures like that in the first dialogue are explained in terms of the
Maxim of Relation, and are therefore called ―relevance implicatures.‖ Barb
would have infringed the Maxim of Relation, it is claimed, unless her
contribution were relevant to the purpose of the conversation. If Barb is being
cooperative, then she is trying to answer Alan's question. Given that working is
incompatible with partying, Barb must have intended to communicate that she is
not going to the party.
Grice thought that some implicatures arise by flouting the maxims. This
happens when what a cooperative speaker says so patently violates the maxims
that the hearer must infer that the speaker is implying something different. Irony
and metaphor are thought to arise from flouting the Maxim of Quality. Thus
Candy might answer Alan ironically as follows:
Alan: Are you going to Paul's party?
Candy: I don't like parties.
If Alan knows full well that Candy is a party animal, he could reason that
if she meant what she said, she would be lying, thus violating the Maxim of
49
Quality. So she must have meant something else. If she meant that she does like
parties, then she would be in conformity with the Maxim. And via the Maxim of
Relation, she would have answered Alan's question. (Stephen Levinson 1983,
Pragmatics).
2.2.5 Theoretical Difficulties
While Grice viewed his ideas as tentative and exploratory, followers
have taken the theory to be well established. Indeed, it has served as a paradigm
for research in pragmatics. Gricean theory has been invoked repeatedly to defend
semantic claims made in all areas of philosophy. But many problems have
emerged (see Davis 1998).
A relatively minor objection is that the Calculability and Generative
Assumptions do not provide a foundation for Grice's Razor. This methodological
principle assumes that conversational implicatures can be derived from psycho-
social principles, meaning that they can be inferred from and explained by them.
The only psycho-social principles Grice formulates are the Cooperative Principle
and associated Maxims. But these are not what explain conversational
implicatures if the other parts of Grice's theory is correct. The Generative
Assumption says that what explains conversational implicatures is the
cooperative presumption, along with determinacy and mutual knowledge. The
Calculability Assumption similarly says that conversational implicatures can be
50
inferred from these three conditions. The cooperative presumption is not the
Cooperative Principle itself, however. The presumption is the belief or
assumption that the speaker is observing the Cooperative Principle. The fact that
a particular audience does or should presume something about a principle is not
itself a general principle, and is not explained by that principle. Similarly, the
fact that speakers generally contribute what the conversation requires does not
tell us that a particular belief is required, and so does not explain the determinacy
condition. The Generative Assumption would be falsified, in fact, if
―Cooperative Principle‖ replaced ―cooperative presumption.‖ For speakers
contribute what the conversation requires, and thus observe the Cooperative
Principle, by implicating things. (Anne Curzan & Adam Michael, How English
Works).
The Generative Assumption states that conversational implicatures exist
because of the fact that the cooperative presumption, determinacy, and mutual
knowledge conditions hold. The Calculability Assumption states that a speaker's
implicatures can be inferred from these conditions. A more serious objection is
that the satisfaction of these three conditions seems insufficient to infer what a
speaker implicates—that is, means, implies, or suggests. (Source from
wikipedia).
51
2.2.6 Determinacy Problem
Grice's determinacy condition states that S conversationally implicates
p only if S has to believe p if S's utterance is to be consistent with the
Cooperative Principle. Determinacy is a key premise in the working out schema.
It is hard to find contexts, though, in which the determinacy condition is
satisfied. There are normally many alternative ways for a speaker to be
cooperative, and contribute what is required by the purpose of the conversation.
Grice takes for granted, and so will we, that the conventional meanings of the
words used, along with the identity of any references, are held fixed. He assumes
too, although not explicitly, that the speaker means by the words what the words
mean conventionally, and thus is not misspeaking or using a code.
We noted above that Griceans account for irony in terms of flouting the
Maxim of Quality. Thus when the party animal Candy answered Alan in the
second dialogue by saying ―I don't like parties,‖ he could reason that if she meant
what she said, she would be lying, and thus violating the Maxim of Quality. So
she must have meant something different. If she meant that she loves parties,
then she would be in conformity with the Maxim. So that must be what she
meant. This reasoning, however, takes Barb's belief that she loves parties as
given, and infers what she must have meant to be cooperative. It was not the
Cooperative Principle that required her to believe that she loves parties. She
52
would have made a perfectly suitable contribution to the conversation if she had
meant and believed that she does not like parties.
In general, the determinacy requirement is unsatisfied in the case of irony
and other figures of speech because the speaker could have been speaking
literally, believing what was said. There is also the possibility of using another
figure of speech. For example, Candy would have made a suitable contribution to
the conversation with Alan if she had been engaging in understatement instead of
irony, meaning and believing that she hates parties.(Paul Ten Have, Doing
conversation Analysis).
2.2.7 Conflicting and Inapplicable Principles
When the Gricean maxims conflict, there is no way to determine what
is required for conformity to the Cooperative Principle. In the case of irony, for
example, Manner clashes with Quality. When Candy says ―I don't like parties‖
we cannot interpret her as meaning what she said because on that interpretation
she would be violating the Maxim of Quality. But we cannot interpret Candy as
meaning the opposite of what she said, because on that interpretation, she would
be violating the Maxim of Manner. It is hardly perspicuous to use a sentence to
mean the opposite of what the sentence means. Indeed, it is hard to see how any
implicatures could be worked out on the basis of the maxims, because it would
always be more perspicuous to ―explicate‖ a proposition rather than implicate it.
53
We use irony and other figures, of course, in part because we have
conversational goals other than the efficient communication of information. We
observe not only the Cooperative Principle, but also the Principle of Style (Be
stylish, so be beautiful, distinctive, entertaining, and interesting).
A clear and simple prose style ―just the facts, please‖ can be boring,
tedious and dull. We liven up our writing with figures of speech and other
devices. In the process, we sacrifice perspicuity (violating Manner). We
sometimes ―embellish‖ a narration to make it more interesting (violating Quality)
and delete boring or ugly details even when they are important (violating
Quantity).
The Gricean maxims often clash with the Principle of Politeness (Be
polite, so be tactful, generous, praising, modest, agreeable, and sympathetic),
emphasized by Leech (Geoffrey Leech 1983, Principles of Pragmatics).
Speakers frequently withhold information that would be offensive or
disappointing to the hearer, violating the Maxim of Quantity. Speakers often
exaggerate in order to please or flatter, and utter ―white lies‖ in order to spare the
hearer's feelings, violating the Maxim of Quality. People pick ―safe topics‖ (e.g.,
the weather) to stress agreement and communicate an interest in maintaining
good relations but violating the Maxim of Relation. Euphemisms avoid
mentioning the unmentionable, but in the process violate Manner and Quantity.
54
Given the possibility of clashes among these principles, speakers often
conversationally implicate something even though they are presumed to be
observing the Principles of Style or Politeness rather than the Cooperative
Principle. In case the first dialogue, Alan may correctly presume that Barb is
simply making an excuse, or even trying to mislead him into thinking that she is
not going. Barb may realize that Alan will presume such a thing. That does not
stop her from meaning that she has to work and implicating that she will not be at
Paul's party.
2.2.8 Relevance Theory
The most influential alternative to Grice's theory is the ―Relevance‖
Theory developed by Sperber and Wilson.
We have proposed a definition of relevance and suggested what factors
might be involved in assessments of degrees of relevance. We have also argued
that all Grice's maxims can be replaced by a single principle of relevance that the
speaker tries to be as relevant as possible in the circumstances which, when
suitably elaborated, can handle the full range of data that Grice's maxims were
designed to explain. (Wilson & Sperber 1986: 381).
Wilson & Sperber (2004: 609) illustrate by imagining a speaker whose
choices are confined to the alternatives in these statements below:.
55
(a) We are serving chicken.
(b) We are serving meat.
We conclude that (a) would be maximally relevant. For it entails
everything (b) does and more, while being as easy to process.
While Grice's maxims enjoin the speaker to communicate efficiently, they
do not require maximization. Conversely, the Principle of Maximal Relevance
does not imply Grice's principles. Nothing guarantees that the contribution with
the greatest number of contextual effects per unit processing cost is: required by
the accepted purpose of the conversation; true or justified, and thus informative;
germane to the topic of the conversation (relevant in the ordinary sense); or
perspicuous and brief (lengthy formulations are permitted as long as they have
enough implications).
Relevance theorists have presented a wealth of valuable data, and pointed
out the inability of Gricean theory to account for it adequately. Their theory,
however, has similar deficiencies. The Principle of Maximal Relevance clashes
with the Principle of Politeness as badly as the Cooperative Principle does.
Imagine parents deciding what to say after listening to their daughter struggle
through her clarinet recital. ―Your performance was horrendous‖ seems at least
as easy to process as ―Your performance wasn't perfect.‖ And the former implies
more than the latter in any context. So ―Your performance was horrendous‖
56
would seem to have the greater ratio of contextual effects to processing cost in
any ordinary context. But considerations of their child's feelings, among other
things, will lead most parents to prefer the less efficient contribution. Nothing in
the Sperber and Wilson theory, furthermore, accounts for why a speaker would
say ―Some athletes smoke‖ and implicate ―Not all do‖ rather than vice versa.
This choice is a matter of style and emphasis rather than informativeness or
effort.
2.2.9 Speaker Implicature and Intention
We have reviewed a number of outstanding problems for theories that
seek to derive conversational implicatures from general conversational
principles. What alternatives are there for explaining conversational implicatures,
and describing how they are understood? That depends on whether we are
concerned with speaker implicature or sentence implicature.
For a speaker to implicate something, we said at the outset, is for the
speaker to mean (imply, suggest) something without saying it. It seems clear that
what a speaker means is determined by the speaker's intentions. For example,
When Steve utters ―Kathryn is a Russian teacher,‖ whether Steve means that
Kathryn is a teacher of Russian nationality or a teacher of the Russian language,
57
and whether he is speaking literally or ironically, depends entirely on what Steve
intends to convey. Which intentions determine speaker meaning is a matter of
debate. On Grice's (1957) view, to mean that p by e is to utter e with the intention
of producing the belief that p in one's audience. Thus whether Steve means that
Kathryn is a teacher of Russian or a teacher from Russia depends on which belief
he is trying to produce in his audience. Grice's definition seems to have many
counterexamples. Speakers who issue reminders are not trying to produce belief.
People talking to themselves, or answering a teacher's question, are not even
trying to produce activated or occurrent belief. People talking to babies or pets do
not expect their audience to recognize what they mean, and people talking to the
dead know that their audience cannot think or recognize anything. People
sometimes speak in a particular language despite the fact—and occasionally
because of the fact—that they know their audience does not understand it. The
assumption made by Grice and his followers that speaker meaning is the attempt
to communicate seems fundamentally mistaken. These problems can be avoided
by specifying different intentions. On my view (Davis 2003: Ch. 5), for example,
to mean that p is to directly express the belief that p. To express a belief or other
mental state is to do something with the intention of providing an indication that
one is in that state.[19] If Steve expressed the belief that Kathy is a teacher from
Russia, then he intended his utterance of the sentence ―Kathy is a Russian
teacher‖ to be an indication that he believes she is a teacher from Russia. He can
58
do this without trying to communicate with anyone. (Summary from book
―Doing Conversation Analysis by Paul Ten Have).
2.2.10 Sentence Implicature and Convention
What is it for a sentence to implicate something? For example, Why
does ―Some athletes smoke‖ implicate ―Not all athletes smoke‖ but not ―It is not
the case that at least 13% of all athletes smoke?‖ The answer to this question
seems clearly to be convention. Speakers conventionally use sentences of the
form ―Some S are P‖ to implicate ―Not all S are P,‖ but not to implicate ―Less
than 13% of all S are P.‖ All the signs of conventionality are present. There is a
regularity in usage and interpretation. English speakers commonly use sentences
of the form ―Some S are P‖ to implicate ―Not all S are P,‖ but they rarely if ever
use them to implicate ―Less than 13% of all S are P.‖ Speakers are commonly
understood accordingly.These regularities are socially useful, serving, among
other things, the purpose of communication. They seem to be as self-perpetuating
as other conventional practices. People use ―Some S are P‖ to implicate ―Not all
S are P,‖ and are so understood, in part because people have regularly done so in
the past. And finally, the regularities are arbitrary. Plenty of other practices could
have served the same purpose quite naturally, and would have perpetuated
themselves in the same way if only they had gotten started. It could have been
conventional for English speakers to use ―Some S are P‖ to implicate the denial
59
of any stronger sentence, such as ―At least 13% of S are P‖ or others listed above
in the athlete example. Implicature conventions are not as arbitrary as lexical
conventions, though. In all known cases, there is some antecedent relation
between what the sentence means and the implicature that makes it natural to use
one to convey the other. But there are always alternative implicatures that would
be natural too. Conventional regularities are seldom perfect. Thus even though it
is conventional to use ―bank‖ to mean ―river bank,‖ speakers more often use it to
mean something else. Thus the fact that people sometimes use ―Some S are P‖
without the usual implicature is compatible with it being conventional.
Many important implicature conventions associate implicatures with
sentences of any form. The most familiar examples are the figures of speech. It is
conventional to use a sentence to mean the opposite (irony), or something
stronger (litotes), or something similar (metaphor). There is also a convention
whereby a sentence is used to implicate requested information by making a
statement closely related to it by implication, which gives rise to relevance
implicatures like the first dialogue. Since these conventions do not attach
implicatures to particular sentence forms, they do not give rise to sentence
implicatures. (Jacob Mey 1993, Pragmatics).
It is possible that conversational implicature conventions arose in much
the same way idioms do. ―Kicked the bucket‖ started life as a metaphor, and thus
an implicature. Some speakers used it as a metaphor to implicate that someone
60
died. The metaphor caught on and became conventional. Although it has not to
my knowledge been historically attested, it is plausible that the use of ―Some S
are P‖ (or its translation in some earlier language) to implicate ―Not all S are P‖
similarly started life as a nonce implicature that caught on and spread. The
difference is that with idioms, the metaphor ―died,‖ and what previously was
implied came to be meant directly, creating a non-compositional meaning for the
expression. Consequently, idiomatic meanings have been ―detached,‖ whereas
conventional implicatures are ―non-detachable.‖ The study of the origin of
implicature conventions falls in the domain of historical linguistics.
The claim that conversational principles generate sentence implicatures is
problematic, as we have seen. If they did, conversational implicature conventions
would not exist because the regularities would be non-arbitrary. But
conversational principles do specify common interests that conversational
implicature conventions serve: communication of information, politeness, style,
and efficiency. Since conventional practices sustain themselves by serving
socially useful purposes, the fact that speakers strive to be cooperative, polite,
stylish, and efficient sustains implicature conventions. We also noted earlier that
conversational principles can serve as generalizations used in the process of
inferring implicatures, and we can add that flouting a principle often serves as a
signal that an implicature convention is in play. (Frank Praker 1994, Linguistics
for non Linguists).
61
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
3.1 LIBRARY RESEARCH
In this research, the writer tries to collect some references about
Implicature theory and its conversational principles (maxims) in Pragmatic
subject by reading some books.
3.2 FIELD RESEARCH
62
3.2.1 Technique of Collecting Data
In this research, the writer uses ―Note-Taking‖ as a technique by
observing the conversation during the Talk Show (recorded video) to finds out
the implication and the maxim in the conversation. The writer plays role as an
observer.
3.3 LOCATION OF RESEARCH
The location of this research is in the home of writer where he collect
some data as references by watching and recorded the video (Opera Winfrey) to
finds out the implication and the maxim in the conversation.
3.4 SOURCE OF DATA
In this research, the writer tries to collect some references about
Implicature and its Maxim in Pragmatic Subject by reading some books and the
data is collected naturally by observing the conversation during the talk show
(recorded video) to find out the implication and the maxim in the conversation.
3.5 METHOD FOR ANALYZING DATA
63
In this research, the writer used the descriptive method in order to
interpret the meaning implied in the conversation. There are some steps in
analyzing and identifying the data, namely:
a. Watch and Listen the video (Opera Winfrey) talk show.
b. Identify the utterances which used by the speakers.
c. Make some notes of the identified data related to the implicature
theory.
d. Analyze the maxims in the conversation.
3.6 POPULATION AND SAMPLE
3.6.1 Population
In this research, the population is taken from one episode of Opera
Winfrey talk show. The main problem in using implicatures in the
conversation related to the topic.
64
3.6.2 Sample
The writer took 21 of conversation units for two episode and speakers
(Charice and Lady Gaga) in this talk show which contains of some
utterances as sample of this research.
65
CHAPTER IV
4.1. PRESENTATION & DATA ANALYSIS
In this chapter, the writer presents the data then analyses it one by one.
The data were taken from Opera Winfrey for two episode and two speakers
(Charice and Lady Gaga). The writer follows the step which has been arranged in
the methodology chapter 3. The writer start as follows:
(Datum 1)
Charice : “Do you think that I’ve got a chance to find one?”
Larry : “One? I’m counting on you to find all five!”
Charice : “One is enough for me”.
This text describes a conversation between Charice (Guest Speaker) and
Larry (Host Speaker). Charice is asking for Larry‘s opinion whether there is a
chance for her to find a golden ticket to be the winner of lottery. Here, Larry is
obeying three maxims at the same time. Those are maxim of relation, quality,
and manner. She obeys maxim of manner and relation because her utterance is
quite clear in responding Charice question and easy to be understood and seems
relevant to the question. She follows maxim of quality because she has made true
66
contribution, by convinced her (Charice) that there is a big chance for Charice,
which support her to keep on searching it.
Larry, nevertheless, has performed the violation maxim of quantity,
because the information that she gives too informative to the question as
required, by saying ―I‘m counting on you to find all five‖ which implies that
Larry does not want Charice to find the golden ticket, unless, she herself believes
that it is impossible for Charice to find five tickets, because based on the story
background that, some of those tickets were sent out of the town.
(Datum 2)
Larry : “Look at this. (Show the mini laptop). You are in the Building Center
Club with Valerie Lee, a public figure from japan, right?”
Charice : “ Oh, sure. But I want to ask you, my body is much better than her?”
Larry : “Without question”.
Charice : “Thank you”.
The conversation occurs when Larry shows her mini laptop to Charice
about her (Charice) activities in the Gymansium Building Center Club. Charice
and Valerie Lee are members of the club. They have been joining the club since
last two months. Charice asks for Larry‘s comment about her body.
67
In this case, Larry‘s utterance violates maxim of quantity and manner.
She disobeys maxim of quantity because she does not make contribution as
informative as it required, when she does not judge which one of those body is
much better than the others. She considered flout maxim of manner because her
utterance is unclear. It does not indicate the answer that Charice‘s body is better
or worse if it is compared to the others instead.
Unless, Charice does not receive the appropriate response as required, but
she still express her desire by saying “Thank you” to Larry, which indicates that
she appreciates whatever comment from Larry, in order to make her feel good. It
describes that Charice is obeying Politeness Principles.
(Datum 3)
Larry : “How’d you get that job, can you tell up?”
Charice : “Remember the rumor about me on Glee that came out about two
month ago?”
Larry : “Ummm....yeah.”
Charice : “Then that really made the rounds on twitter and in the news
worldwide, so, for me, that’s the best rumor to have come out about
me. So, that time, we finally decided to give it a try but never
expected to be in it.”
68
This text describes a conversation between Charice (Guest Speaker)
and Larry (Host Speaker). Larry is asking Charice how She get her job as a
famous singer. Then, Charice responds Larry‘s question with a question to
remind Larry about her rumor on Glee (a musical comedy-drama television series
that airs on Fox in the United States) and gives a rambling answer.
Here, Charice violates three maxims at once. Those are maxim of
quantity, relation and manner. She breaks maxim of quantity because she does
not make contribution as informative as is required by Larry when Larry asked
her about her experience in getting her job. Then, she infringes maxim of relation
because she gives an aswer unrelevant with Larry‘s question. And, She follows
maxim of manner because she gives unclear information by uttering excessive
wordiness (rambling).
(Datum 4)
Larry : “But, what did you sing at your audition?”
Charice : “I am not sure if I can say that.”
Based on the part of conversation above, Larry asks her whether
Charice‘s song when she attended the audition in Philippine. It can be seen
clearly that Charice violates maxim of quality in responding Larry‘s question
69
because she lacks adequate evidence about her songs at the time. Perhaps, she
forget all of her songs which she sang. So, she feels affraid if what she believes
to be false.
(Datum 5)
Larry :“Since you begin your career as a singer in Thailand, How is your
relationship with your parents?”
Charice : “Owww,,,,the crucial one.”
Larry : “The Crucial? What do you mean?”
Charice : “Both of my parents have been separated . I think, that issue is done
for me and I think it is not necessary to open it up again.”
Larry : “Ohhh,,,Sorry to hear that.”
The conversation above occurs while Larry asks Charice about her
relationship with her family, especially both of her parents since she became a
famous singer. As can be seen from the conversation above, Charice violates two
maxims at the same time, namely maxim of relation and quantity. She breaks
down maxim of relation when responding Larry‘s question about her relationship
with her parents and she gives irrelevant answer. She thinks that her relationship
is one of the crucial thing and makes her shock about it. Then, she infringes
70
maxim of quantity because she does not give contribution as informative as
required. In other word, she gives less information in responding Larry‘s
question. She does not want to talk about her parents divorced. It can be marked
from her statement ―“Both of my parents have been separated . I think, that issue
is done for me and I think it is not necessary to open it up again.”
Actually, Larry also violates one maxim, but not in Cooperative
Principle. She breaks down maxim of sympathy in Politeness Principle. The
sympathy maxim states to minimize antipathy between self and other and
maximize sympathy between self and other. This includes a small group of
speech acts such as congratulation, commiseration, and expressing condolences
all of which is in accordance with Brown and Levinson's positive politeness
strategy of attending to the hearer's interests, wants, and needs (Brown, P. and
Levinson, S. 1987 Politeness Principles). It can be marked from her statement
―Ohhh,,,Sorry to hear that.”
(Datum 6)
Larry : “And I think what a lot of people may not know that your mother is
really your best friend, isn’t she?”
Charice : “She’s like an all in one for me.”
Larry : “oww. ok, then.”
71
From the conversation above, Larry asks Charice in order to make a
sure that her mother is everything and may lots of people do not know about the
relationship with her mother. According to the part of conversation above, it is
clear that Charice infringes maxim of relation and manner. She violates maxim of
relation because she is not being relevant to responding Larry‘s question about
whether Charice‘s mother like best friend for her. But in here, Charice gives
irrelevant answer. It can be marked from her statement ―She’s like an all in one
for me.”
Then, Charice breaks down maxim of manner because her answer still
unclear. In other word, she gives obscurity answer. She does not explain more
why her mother like an all in one for her. It can be marked from her statement
―“She’s like an all in one for me.”
(Datum 7)
Larry : “Well, but look at this (show the mini laptop and open the twitter)
Elyu Bartolata asks, “what’s your greatest fear? Ohh,,that’s good.”
Charice : “Oh, actually, an audience has been asked about it before.”
Larry : “Ohh,,yeah,,sorry, dear. Let’s move to another publishing.”
72
This conversation occurs when Larry shows her mini laptop to Charice
and open the fans page on social network (Twitter). Elyu Bartolata (one of fans
on twitter) ask a question to Charice about her fear in facing her career as a
famous singer. Here, Charice breaks down maxim of relation. Charice violates
this maxim because she does not gives her relevant answer in responding Elyu
Bartolata‘s question (an audience on twitter). She said that Elyu‘s question has
been asked by the audience on the stage. Therefore, she thinks it cannot be
opened up its question again.
(Datum 8)
Larry : “Now (show the mini laptop and twitter page) @Michelle Graft asks,
“do you plan to finish your school?”
Charice : “Well, I’m still in online school right now.”
Larry : “Online school? because of your busy schedules?”
Charice : “Yeah,,,I think so...hahahaha (laughing).”
This text describes Charice‘s expression in responding Michelle‘s
question (someone/audience on twitter) asking that Charice‘s plan in finishing
her school, while Larry shows her mini laptop to her.
73
As can be seen from the part of conversation above, Charice breaks
two maxims at once, namely maxims of relation and quality. She violates maxim
of relation while Larry shows Michelle‘s question on her mini laptop, asking
about her planning to finish her education, but Charice responds him that she still
study on the web or online school in internet. It means that, she gives unrelevant
answer in responding Michelle question.
Then, she violates maxim of quality she conveys what she believe to
be false or unjustified while responds Larry‘s question about online school and
she gives answer doubtfully. It can be marked with her statement (I think so).
(Datum 9)
Jayrox :“what three lesson you’ve learned so far that you could import to the
youth?”
Charice : “Oh, it’s so difficult...ok, let me say. First, I truly realized that you
just have to really work hard before you get your goal. And, don’t
rush everything because I realized that when I rush into something,
the more its slow down. That’s all,,,hahahaha” (laughing).
From the conversation above, it can be seen clearly that Charice
infringes maxim of quantity because she does not gives information as required
by an audience. It can be marked while Jay (an audience on studio) asks her three
74
motivations in gaining her goal. But, she just answered two of three which
requested by Jay.
(Datum 10)
Larry : “look at this (show the mini laptop and twitter page) @Arrow_ray
315 asks,“how much is Charice’s talent fee and net worth?”
Charice : “Well, I’ve no comment on that. That’s my privacy with my
manager.”
Larry : “Ohh,,,ok then.”
Again, this conversation occurs when Larry shows her mini laptop and
open the fans page on social network (Twitter) to Charice. Here, Arrow (a fan
from Twitter) asked Charice about her salary that given by her manager.
From the conversation above, it is clearly to be stated that Charice
violates maxim of quantity and manner. She breaks down maxim of quantity and
manner because she does not gives her contribution true and unclear information
about her talent fee or salary from her manager as asked by Arrow. He thinks it is
better if she could keep it as her privacy and did not tell to anyone.
75
(Datum 11)
Larry : “You have a good manager. And, I think, he has a beautiful house,
right?”
Charice : “hahaha (laughing) We’ve just really hung out at his office. But, I’ve
seen her house.”
In this conversation, Larry wants to know a little bit about Charice‘s
manager living, especially his beautiful house. Larry thinks that Charice always
visit her manager and has saw his house. Here, Charice responds Larry‘s
question with her laughing. Perhaps, she thinks that Larry‘s question is so funny.
But, Charice violates two maxims at once, namely maxim of relation and
manner.
Charice breaks down maxim of relation because she responds Larry in
giving an irrelevant answer or unrelated to the question by saying that she has
hung out at his office. Also, she infringes maxim of manner because she gives
unclear or obscurity information about her manager house, in responding Larry.
She said that she has seen her manager residence, but he does not tell and expalin
to anyone (Larry and audiences) about it looks like.
76
(Datum 12)
Nick : “ “if you could choose a celebrity boyfriend, who would it be and
why?”
Charice : “hahaha (laughing) I don’t know how old......he must be 20 years
old. But, I think, it’s so hard to choose.”
Larry : “So, that’s so complicated for you, hahaha (laughing)”.
Here, Nick (an audience at Studio) from Canada asked Charice about
her favorite boyfriend characterisitcs and reason suppose to like. But, Charice
just answer in rambling. She violates two maxims at the same time, namely
maxim of quantity and quality. She breaks maxim of quantity because she does
not gives information as required for audience. It can be marked from Nick‘s
quotation who asked her idol boyfriend and characteristics. But, Charice does not
gives clear information about her idol men to be her boyfriend and reason why
she choose him. She just gives a little bit of characteristic in age.
Also, she breaks maxims of quality because she conveys what she
believe to be false or unjustified. It can be marked from her answer in responding
Nick‘s question ( I don’t know how old......he must be 20 years old. But, I think,
it’s so hard to choose). She gives an answer long and trivial and doubtfully.
Therefore, Larry responds and says that it is so complicated for her to choose and
give any reasons.
77
(Datum 13)
Larry : “Umm,,well, what’s your favorite singer?”
Charice : “Lady gaga.”
Larry : “So what song of lady gaga do you like?”
Charice : “I forgot the tittle now, Poker face maybe...I think it’s just dance.”
This conversation occurs when Larry asks Charice about her favorite
singer and songs. Here, Charice violates maxim only one, namely maxim of
quality. She breaks this maxim because she conveys what she believe to be false
or unjustified. It can be marked from her statement in responding Larry‘s
question (I forgot the tittle now, Poker face maybe...I think it’s just dance) and
she gives rambling answer.
(Datum 14)
Larry : “I heard that you have a nice trip with your mother two months
ago?”
Charice : “The ocean is always rough, but we like good sailor.”
Larry : “No trouble getting there?”
Charice : “No, the man brought us there was a very nice man.”
78
This conversation is performed when Larry asked Charice about her
trip while visiting her relatives with her mother. Charice has just arrived from her
voyage two months ago.
From the dialogue, it shows that Charice obeys maxim of quality and
relation. She is considered obey maxim of quality because she tells a true
contribution by drawing the real situation when she were on voyage with her
mother. It can be seen from her statement ―the ocean is always rough‖. It implies
that they had a hard condition in the sea. Here, whatever response given by
Charice is relevant to Larry‘s question, in this case, she also obeys maxim of
relation.
Eventhough, Charice obeys maxim of quality and relation, she has
violated maxim of quantity, because when Larry asked her whether they have a
nice trip, Charice tells her that the ocean is always rough, they could overcome
that dangerous situation because Charice think that She and her mother like a
good sailor. From the Cooperative Principle, it is too informative than is
required. In other words, Charice flouts maxim of quantity to obey maxim of
quality.
79
(Datum 15)
Larry : “well Charice, where did you get that dress?”
Charice : “I’m taking it right off before I ruin it.in the Chom market”.
(Standing and Swinging arround) “I’m the......
Larry : “ummm,,,but how much it costs?”
Charice : “It’s American Style, hahahaha(Laughing)”
In the daily conversation, we often find the principles are disobeyed,
the participants who get involve in the talk exchange do not always talk briefly,
truly, relevant, or clearly.
This datum shows us, that the conversation is strongly fail. Both Host
(Larry) and Guest speaker (Charice) break maxims. Larry by her utterance,
“where did you get that dress?, clearly wants to know where Charice get the
dress exactly. But Charice responses in an irrelevant answer by telling that she is
taking bafore she ruins the dress in Chom market (One of traditional Market in
Phillipine). In this case, Charice breaks maxim of relation.
It is also can be seen the violation maxim of the Cooperative
Principles between these two participants, where Charice answers Larry‘s
question by saying “It’s American Style” when Larry is asking her how much the
dress costs. It is clear that the answer from Charice is irrelevant. Suppose she has
80
mentioned a kind of the price $ 50 or more as an example, so she would not be
accused flout this maxim.
From the explanation above, it seems that both Larry and Charice by
their utterance have broke Grice‘s Cooperative Principles. That is why, the
conversation is strongly fail.
Datum 17-21 are taken from the conversation between Larry and Lady
Gaga (Speaker) for the next session.
(Datum 17)
Larry : “Chicken and waffles, I came in the kitchen this morning and there
was fried chicken everywhere, you were eating. Have you been
eating fried chicken already this morning?”
Lady Gaga: “Yes, but it was so, you know I always have trying weeks so my
physical schedule, and sometimes when i wake up in the morning,
oh, gosh, I need to find my soul, and he just gave me some soul this
morning. I got soul for Oprah today.”
This convesation is performed when Larry asks Lady Gaga (second
speaker on Oprah) about her breakfast which had been prepared by Chef on the
Oprah Studio when she came in the morning. As can be seen from this
81
conversation, both of host and Speaker (Larry and Lady Gaga) violates maxims
of Grice. Here, Larry says that she came into the kitchen and found fried chicken
which had been prepared for Lady Gaga as breakfast. She knows, the breakfast
have been eaten by Lady Gaga. But, Larry asks again to Lady Gaga whether she
had eating her breakfast already in the morning. It is clearly that Larry violates
maxim of quality because she does not convey what she believe to be false or
unjustified.
Then, the speaker herself (Lady Gaga) also violates a maxim of Grice,
namely maxim of manner in responding Larry‘s question about her breakfast in
the morning. She expresses in more words than are necessary to convey meaning.
It means that her answer is too wordy.
(Datum 18)
Larry : “Where you going all dress up?”
Lady Gaga: “I just got it. You like it?”
Larry : “Yeah, it’s nice. And, your hair. Where did you cut it?”
Lady Gaga: “You like it? I fixed it different. hahahaha”. (Laughing)
82
Here, Larry asks Lady Gaga where she will going after she has all
dress up. Lady Gaga does not answer the question directly, but she gives the
information that she has just got her dress that she herself likes very much.
On the next utterance, Larry is asking her where she had her hair cut.
According to Larry, that Lady Gaga has a nice hairstyle, but it looks so strange to
her (Larry), different from the others as well. By her utterance, Larry expects the
answer that Lady Gaga would has mentioned a name of place like ―saloon‖ or
something else like that.
Actually, in responding this question, Lady Gaga breaks maxim of
relation, because she does not mention a name of a place that deals with cutting
or styling hair. In addition, it is irrelevant to the question is being asked. Unless,
she replies the question by saying “you like it? I fixed it different”. It assumes
that she has indicated something else than what she actually said. That is, she
does not like being asked such question, or she will not tell Larry where her hair
has been cutted, in other word, it is her privacy. Suppose she answers it directly,
like “I don’t want to tell you where I cut my hair!”. It probably offends Larry‘s
feeling, on the other hand Lady Gaga does not like it happens.
As a matter of fact, it seems that Lady Gaga avoids maxim of relation
in order to observe Politeness Principles. In this case, She tries to make the
receiver feels good, without offending at all.
83
(Datum 19)
Larry : “So everyone’s going to look like you, right?”
Lady Gaga: “Oh sure. I’m going to be a good personal, like emmm,,,screwing
Machine”. (Smiling)
From this conversation, Lady Gaga gives a figure of speech to answer
Larry‘s question. Larry, in her utterance is asking Lady Gaga to convince herself
that everyone‘s going to look like her. Lady Gaga answers it by the utterance
“Oh sure”, states that it is definitely sure, and she is uttering the utterance “I’m
going to be a good personal, like emmm,,,screwing Machine”, to support her
acknowledge with a statement that she is going to be a good personal like
screwing machine.
In this case, Lady Gaga observes the maxim of quantity the sub-
maxim ‗make your contribution as informative than is required for the current
purposes of the exchange‘. However, since she is in fact a human being that
lacked the definitional properties of a personal screwing machine, she merely
implicates something beyond her sentence. In this case, she is uttering something
imposible for her to be and she knows that very well. Therefore, in assumption
that she observes the maxim of quantity, but stating an imposibility, she has a
sarcastic meaning in this utterance.
84
(Datum 20)
Lady gaga: “I feel bored with my days. It’s always so depressing, always the
same. I never seem to get any further. always the same activities.
reading the papers in the morning, meet with my fans club, my
concert in everywhere. A few more hours, and another week gone.
Too many busy schedules everyday. do you know that?
Larry : “ What’s that?”
Lady Gaga: “ Umm,,It’s just my privacy.” (smiling)
Larry : “well, okay.”
As can be seen from the conversation above, Lady Gaga feels bored
with all of her activities everyday. All things she does everyday are just the same
for her and she thinks that it is wasting time. She utters the utterances because
she has many busy schedules everyday. By this utterance, it seems that Lady
Gaga suggests people to minimalize a litte bit their activities at the moment and
relax. Then, she is asking because she wonder whether Larry feels the same
thing or not.
In the utterances, Lady Gaga disobeys some maxims of Grice‘s
Cooperative Principles. Larry wants Lady Gaga to explain what she is talking
about because she does not understand her properly, but Lady Gaga does not
reply it appropriately. Thus, Lady Gaga violates maxim of quantity because she
85
does not give information that is required. Besides, She also infringes maxim of
manner because her answer is not clear.
However, Lady Gaga observes maxim of quality by telling everything
that her believes is true. She feels boring with all of her activities everyday.
(Datum 21)
Larry : “Where’s your destination for the next concert?”
Lady Gaga: “Oh yeah, I have a show in singapore next week. Unfortunately, I
feel so tired at the time due to my busy schedules. But, I must be
ready, then. hahahaha.” (laughing).
Form this conversation, Larry tells Lady Gaga that about her planning
to held a concert for the next destination. By this utterance, Larry actually wants
to remind her about her concert.
From Lady Gaga‘s respond, it is clear that she infringes maxim of
manner, because her answer is too wordy while Larry asks her about the location
of her to held a concert. Instead, she says something about her condition at the
moment.
86
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1 CONCLUSION
Having analyzed the whole data by applying the Cooperative Principles, the
writer now sums up the conclusion as follows :
1. The meanings implied by each speaker in Oprah Winfrey are various. This is
because speakers have different utterances in responding another participant‘s
utterances. It is because each speaker may violate maxims in their
conversation. Mostly, speakers in Oprah Winfrey have possibility to infringe
two or more maxims at the same time. If speakers violate maxim of quantity,
it means that they gives too or less informative as it required. If speakers
break maxim of quality, it means that they makes something what they
believes to be false or unjustified. And, if speakers infringe maxim of relation,
it means that they gives irrelevant meaning to respond another participants
utterances. Last, if speakers violate maxim of manner, it means that they gives
unclear information. In this case, the setting of the utterance, and the
background knowledge of the participant who engaged in the conversation,
has the main role in determining the meaning of an utterance. Because the
87
relationship between two sentences in the conversation sometimes is known
clearly.
2. Mostly, the effect in using Implicature in the characters conversation that
related to the Cooperative Principles are disobeyed, than the politeness
principles one, where the speaker infringes the maxim in order to convey
some other intention indirectly and politely. Also, the effect itself can make
some responds in a different way, depends on maxims which uttered by
speakers. In other word, the responds which given by speakers sometimes
misunderstanding or make them curious if the information which given is less
(maxim of quantity). Sometimes, the addressee break one maxim to avoid
another maxim, or observe other maxims from the other principle (politeness
principles) in order to make the receiver feels good, without offending at all. It
means that, these intended meaning could be formed in order to make teasing,
telling the truth, boasting the interluctor, or reject someone‘s offer without
offending him.
5.2 SUGGESTIONS
1. The writer suggests those who wants to study the linguistic aspects of certain
talk show, movie, novels, or plays should understand clearly how to analyze
all of them from the linguistic side, especially conversational implicatures.
88
2. It would be better if the researcher learnt more about interpersonal meaning to
identify what were the meaning of utterances which uttered by the speakers.
3. For those who want to analyze the Conversational Implicature, can use
Cooperative Principles and Politeness Principles in observing the effect of it
because normally the purpose of the use of Implicature which occurs in each
conversation to make an utterance polite.
89
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adam Michael, Anne Curzan. Unknown year. How English Works (A Linguistic
Introduction. Ohio University: United States.
Brown, Gillian and George Yule. 1983. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Cook, Guy. 1989. Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Coulthatrd, Malcom. 1985. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis. London:Longman
Inc.
Cutting, Joan. 2002. Pragmatics and Discourse. London: Routledge.
Iskandar. 2009. Metodologi Penelitian Kualitatif. Jakarta: Gaung Persada Press.
Leech Geoffrey N. 1983. Principles of pragmatics. London and New York: Longman.
Lembang, Zeth Tallu. 2005. A Study of Conversational Implicature in he Play of
Buried Child by Sam Shepard. Unpublished Thesis. Makassar: Hasanuddin
University.
Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cmbridge University Press.
Lyons, John. 1997. Semantics-Volume 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mey, Jacob L. 1993. Pragmatics (An introduction). Oxford UK and Cambridge
USA: BLACKWELL.
Opera Winfrey.
Wehmeier, Sally. 2000. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Zainurrahman. 2002. Implicature in the English Conversation. Unpublished Thesis.
Makassar: Hasanuddin University.
90
91
(Datum 1)
Charice : “Do you think that I’ve got a chance to find one?”
Larry : “One? I’m counting on you to find all five!”
Charice : “One is enough for me”.
(Datum 2)
Larry : “Look at this. (Show the mini laptop). You are in the Building Center
Club with Valerie Lee, a public figure from japan, right?”
Charice : “ Oh, sure. But I want to ask you, my body is much better than her?”
Larry : “Without question”.
Charice : “Thank you”.
(Datum 3)
Larry : “How’d you get that job, can you tell up?”
Charice : “Remember the rumor about me on Glee that came out about two
month ago?”
Larry : “Ummm....yeah.”
Charice : “Then that really made the rounds on twitter and in the news
worldwide, so, for me, that’s the best rumor to have come out about
me. So, that time, we finally decided to give it a try but never
expected to be in it.”
92
(Datum 4)
Larry : “But, what did you sing at your audition?”
Charice : “I am not sure if I can say that.”
(Datum 5)
Larry :“Since you begin your career as a singer in Thailand, How is your
relationship with your parents?”
Charice : “Owww,,,,the crucial one.”
Larry : “The Crucial? What do you mean?”
Charice : “Both of my parents have been separated . I think, that issue is done
for me and I think it is not necessary to open it up again.”
Larry : “Ohhh,,,Sorry to hear that.”
(Datum 6)
Larry : “And I think what a lot of people may not know that your mother is
really your best friend, isn’t she?”
Charice : “She’s like an all in one for me.”
Larry : “oww. ok, then.”
93
(Datum 7)
Larry : “Well, but look at this (show the mini laptop and open the twitter)
Elyu Bartolata asks, “what’s your greatest fear? Ohh,,that’s good.”
Charice : “Oh, actually, an audience has been asked about it before.”
Larry : “Ohh,,yeah,,sorry, dear. Let’s move to another publishing.”
(Datum 8)
Larry : “Now (show the mini laptop and twitter page) @Michelle Graft asks,
“do you plan to finish your school?”
Charice : “Well, I’m still in online school right now.”
Larry : “Online school? because of your busy schedules?”
Charice : “Yeah,,,I think so...hahahaha (laughing).”
(Datum 9)
Jayrox :“what three lesson you’ve learned so far that you could import to the
youth?”
Charice : “Oh, it’s so difficult...ok, let me say. First, I truly realized that you
just have to really work hard before you get your goal. And, don’t rush
everything because I realized that when I rush into something, the
more its slow down. That’s all,,,hahahaha” (laughing).
94
(Datum 10)
Larry : “look at this (show the mini laptop and twitter page) @Arrow_ray
315 asks,“how much is Charice’s talent fee and net worth?”
Charice : “Well, I’ve no comment on that. That’s my privacy with my
manager.”
Larry : “Ohh,,,ok then.”
(Datum 11)
Larry : “You have a good manager. And, I think, he has a beautiful house,
right?”
Charice : “hahaha (laughing) We’ve just really hung out at his office. But, I’ve
seen her house.”
(Datum 12)
Nick : “ “if you could choose a celebrity boyfriend, who would it be and
why?”
Charice : “hahaha (laughing) I don’t know how old......he must be 20 years
old. But, I think, it’s so hard to choose.”
Larry : “So, that’s so complicated for you, hahaha (laughing)”.
95
(Datum 13)
Larry : “Umm,,well, what’s your favorite singer?”
Charice : “Lady gaga.”
Larry : “So what song of lady gaga do you like?”
Charice : “I forgot the tittle now, Poker face maybe...I think it’s just dance.”
(Datum 14)
Larry : “I heard that you have a nice trip with your mother two months
ago?”
Charice : “The ocean is always rough, but we like good sailor.”
Larry : “No trouble getting there?”
Charice : “No, the man brought us there was a very nice man.”
(Datum 15)
Larry : “well Charice, where did you get that dress?”
Charice : “I’m taking it right off before I ruin it.in the Chom market”.
(Standing and Swinging arround) “I’m the......
Larry : “ummm,,,but how much it costs?”
Charice : “It’s American Style, hahahaha(Laughing)”
96
(Datum 17)
Larry : “Chicken and waffles, I came in the kitchen this morning and there
was fried chicken everywhere, you were eating. Have you been eating
fried chicken already this morning?”
Lady Gaga: “Yes, but it was so, you know I always have trying weeks so my
physical schedule, and sometimes when i wake up in the morning,
oh, gosh, I need to find my soul, and he just gave me some soul this morning. I
got soul for Oprah today.”
(Datum 18)
Larry : “Where you going all dress up?”
Lady Gaga: “I just got it. You like it?”
Larry : “Yeah, it’s nice. And, your hair. Where did you cut it?”
Lady Gaga: “You like it? I fixed it different. hahahaha”. (Laughing)
(Datum 19)
Larry : “So everyone’s going to look like you, right?”
Lady Gaga: “Oh sure. I’m going to be a good personal, like emmm,,,screwing
Machine”. (Smiling)
97
(Datum 20)
Lady gaga: “I feel bored with my days. It’s always so depressing, always the
same. I never seem to get any further. always the same activities.
reading the papers in the morning, meet