2013200546IGBab2001

CHAPTER 2

THEORET ICAL FRAMEWORK

This chapter is about the theories that are used for completing the research.

There are some theories that are related to the research. They are pragmatics,

cooperative principle, implicature, conversational implicature, and review of related

studies.

2.1. Pragmatics

Pragmatic is concerned with the stud y of meaning as communicated by a

speaker (or writer) and interpreted b y a listener (or reader). The meaning which is

investigated focused on the context. Yule (1996) states that “Pragmatics is the study

of relationships between linguistic forms and the users of those forms”. According to

Yule (1996), the area of pragmatics deals with speaker meaning and contex tual

meaning. Speaker meaning is more to do with the analysis of what people mean b y

their utterances than wh at the words or phrases in those utterances might mean by

themselves. On the other hand, contextual meaning is concerned with the

intepretation of what people mean in a particular

context and how the context

influences what is said. Pragmatics concentrates on the aspects of meaning that

cannot be predicted by linguistic knowledge alone and takes into account of

knowledge about physical and social world.

The focus of pragmatics analysis is in meanin g on the word or sentence.

According to Leech (1983, p.21) defines that Pragmatics is the stud y of how

utterance have meanings in situation. It shows that to intepret the meaning of

utterances that are said by the speakers, the listen ers have to look from the situational

context that accompanies the utterances. Grundy (2000, p.27) also states that

pragmatics is the study of langu age used in contextualized communication and the

usage principles associated with it. Thus, from the argumentation of the linguists, it

can be concluded that pragmatics is the study about how the context influences the

speaker in intepreting an utterance or meaning related to situation of pronouncement.

In the study of pragmatics the readers not only have the advantages but also

disadvantages. In his book ‘Pragmatic’

Yule (1996, p.4) explains that the advantages

of studying lan guage through pragmatics are the readers can talk about the people’s

intended meanin gs, their assumptions, their purposes or goals, and the kinds of action

(for example request) that they are performing when they are speak . The big

disadvantage is that all these very human concepts are extremely dif ficult to analyze

in a consistent and objectives way.

2.2. Cooperative Principle

The success of conversation depends on the various speakers approach to the

interaction. The way in which people try to make conversations work is called

Cooperative Principle. The Cooperative principle is a basic underlying assumption

we make when we speak to one another is that we are tryin g to cooperate with one

another to construct meanin gful conversations. Grice (1975) in Yule (1996),

suggested that conv ersation is based on a shared principle of cooperation, he said,

“Make you r conversational contribution what is required, at the stage at which it

occurs, b y the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are

engaged”. In other words we as the speak ers should contribute meaningful,

productive utterance to further the conversation. It then follows that, as listeners we

assume that our conversational partners are doing the same.

Here is an example of co operative prin ciple:

Tom : Are you going to Mark’s party tonight?

Annie : My parents are in town.

In the above example, a competent speaker of English would hav e little trouble

getting the meaning that by saying that “My parents ar e in town” Annie refuses the

invitation. Grice posits the cooper ative principle and its attendant four maxim as a

way of explaining this implications generating process. According to Grice there is a

general cooperative principle between speakers and hearers which controls or guides

the way they speak. Concerning with his Cooperative Principle, Grice divides

Cooperative principle into four basic conversational maxims. It is known that maxim

is one of his central ideas is that, when intepreting an utterance of a sentence, one

assumes that the speaker has complied with a number principle ensuring that

conversation is a cooperative activity. The four basic maxim are:

2.2.1. Maxim of Quantity

Grund y (2000, p.74) states that max im of quantity as one of the cooperative

principles is concerned in giving the information as it is required and is not givin g

the information more than it is required. Therefore, each participant’s contribution to

conversation should be just as informative as it requires, it should not be less

informative or more informative. And say as much as helpful but not more

informative or less informative. In a normal cir cumstance, the max im of quantity

provides that the speaker say just enough, that they do not supply less information or

more that is necessary.

Example:

A: Where is the hospital?

B: In the next of that store.

It can be seen that B information is informative and give enou gh contribution

toward A’s question about the exact location of hospital.

2.2.2. Maxim of Quality

Added by Grund y (2000, p.74), maxim of quality can be defined as truthfu l as

required. That means the speaker should inform the truth and they are not allowed to

say what they think false and give the statement that run short of proof. Here speaker

write are expected to say only what they believe to be true and to have evidence for

what they say. However, the speaker must aware of this expression, that the hearers

expect them to honor the maxim of quality. the Maxim of Quality requires that you

1. Do not say what you believe to be false.

2. Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.

For example

A : Where is Eiffel tower located?

B : In Paris

Here, Smith gives th e correct answer which shows about the true f act

2.2.3. Maxim of Relation

Maxim of relation or max im of relevance means the utterance must be relevant

with the topic that being discussed. Cutting (2002, p.35) states that speakers are

expected to give information about something that is relevant to what has been said

before. Furthermore, Grundy (2000, p.74) states that maxim of relevance is fulfilled

when the speaker give information that is relevant to the topic proceeding. Therefore,

each of the speaker or hearer must be relevant to the topic of conversation.

Example:

A : How about your score Jane?

B : Not too bad

Here, Jane’s utterance fulfilled the maxim of relevance, because her answer is

relevant with the question.

2.2.4. Maxim of Manner

Maxim of manner obligates speak er’s utterance to be perspicuous which is not

to be ambiguous, obscure, or disorderly and unnecessar y prolix ity. Therefore, each

participant s contribution should be reasonably direct, that is, it should not be

vague, ambiguous or excessive wordy. Ex plained by Cutting (2002, p.35), maxim of

manner is when the speakers put information briefly and orderly, the sp eaker must

avoid the obscure and ambiguous information from the hearer. Therefore, each

participant must give the information directly and reasonably, and it should not be

vague, ambiguous or excessive. This maxim is related to the form of speech we use.

Speaker should not to use the words they know but the listeners do not understand or

say things. They speak er also should not state something in a long drawn out way if

they could say it in a simple manner. For example:

A : What did you think of that drama?

B : I really like of the action of each player. They can play their role as good as

possible.

The answer of B is categorized as maxim of manner, he can answer the

question from his partner about the drama clearly. From the explanation mentioned

above, We can conclude that although it is ver y difficult to obey and use all of the

cooperative principles and its maxims in uttering or writing the sentences, but it is

essential to follow the cooperative principle in order communication run more

effectively.

2.3. Implicature

Implicature is something that is intended is more than what is said. It is caused

in communication, the speaker tries to cooperative and the speaker also intends to

communicate something with the listener. Thus, implicature correlates with

cooperative principle by Paul Grice theory. Yule (1996, p.35) states that implicature

can be considered as an additional conveyed meaning. The notion of implicature can

be defined as a new way of describing meanin g. Grice’s main contribution to the

theory of meaning was his original, non-conventional way of treating meaning in

conversation, non-n atural meaning. Grundy (2000, p.97) states the contr ibution of

notion of implicature is that it provides some ex plicit account of how it is possible to

mean (in some general sense) more than what is actually ‘said’ ( more than what is

literally expressed b y the conventional sense of linguistic expression uttered). Yule

(1996, p.36) also adds that implicature is a primary example of more being

communicated than is said but in order for them to be interpreted, some basic

cooperative principle must first be assumed to be in operation.

In pragmatics there are two types of implicature; they ar e conversational

implicature and conventional implicature. Grice says that conv ersational implicature

can be defined as “A different (opposite, additional, etc) pragmatic meaning of an

utterance with respect to the literal meaning expressed by utterance” (Mey, 1998

p.371). Conversational implicature is to be related to cooper ative prin ciple. On the

other hand, according to Grice conventional implicature is determined by the

conventional meaning of the words used. Besides, that is not so much based on

cooperative principle o r that is not dependent on particular context for their

intepretation.

2.3.1. Conversational Implicature

This study only focuses on the conversational implicature. It is known that

conversation is a way of using lan guage socially together with other person.

Conversation is done with the aim not to strictly follow the rule, but instead to fulfill

humans’ social needs. Conversational implicature is one of the foundation of current

linguistics pragmatics which deals with indirectness and then allows cooperative

principle and maxims being applied in exploring implicature. Grice (1975, p.26)

states Conversational Implicature is triggered by “certain general features of

discourse” rather than b y the conventional meaning of a specific word. According to

Paltridge (2000) “Conversational implicature refers to to the inference of a listener

makes about sp eakers intended meaning that ar ise from their intepretation of the

literal meaning of what is said” (p.43) in Sheila Nanda (2012).

Grice’s term of conversational implicature wh ich provides some explicit

account of how it is possible to mean (in some general meaning) more than it is

actually said (i. e. more than what is literary expressed b y the conventional sense of

linguistic expression uttered (Levinson, 1983 p.97). Conversational implicature is

implied varies acco rding to the contex t of utterance. Furthermore, Jacob L. Mey in

“An Introduction of Pragmatics” said that conversational implicature is dependent on

the contex t of a particular language use (1983, p.1 03).

In Yule (1996, p.40-42), Grice divides conversational implicature into two

kinds. They are generalized conversational implicature and particularized

conversational implicature.

2.3.1.1. Generalized Implicature

Grice as quoted by Levinson (1992, p.126) in journal of linguistic,

distinguished conversational implicature into generalized and particularized

implicature. He asserts that generalized conversational implicature is implicature that

arise without any particular context or special scenario being necessary. “When no

special knowledge is required in the contex t to calculate the additional conveyed

meaning, it is called a generalized conversational implicatures” (Yule, 199 6 p.41).

Grice (1975) states that this type of implicature is characterized by, “the

application of a certain form of words in an utterance (in the absence of special

circumstances) would normally carry such implicature”. Grice (1975) also adds that

generalized implicature is a conversational implicature that is inferable without

reference to a special context, for example:

John walked into a house yesterday and saw a tortoise.

This expression implies that the house is not John’s house

In generalized conversational implicature, a speaker can use the maxim of

quantity to invite the inference that no more can be said, as in:

Charlene : I hope you brought the bread and the cheese.

Dexter

: Ah, I brought the bread.

B y the illustration above, it means that Dex ter does not buy cheese and it can

be understood that the utterance is informative as required for the speaker. A number

of other generalized conversational implicature are commonly communicated on the

basis of a scale of values and are consequ ently kno wn as scalar implicatures.

2.3.1.1.1. Scalar Implicature

Certain information is always communicated by choosing a word which

expresses one value from the scale of valu es. Among the other maxim, the one that

has most attracted the semanticists’

attention is the max im of Quantity. It is from

discussion on this maxim that the scalar implicature has arisen. Horn (2007) and

Gazdar (1979) have contributed to show that we can find in the lexicon of a language

items which can be arr anged in scales. Here are some examples of such scales:

(all, most, many, some, few); (and, or); (excelent, good); (hot, warm); (always, often,

sometimes); (know, believe); (certain, probably, p ossible).

When producing an utterance, a speaker selects the word from the scale

which is the most informative and truthful (quantity and quality) in the

circumstances, as the following ex ample:

I am studying linguistics and I’ve completed some of the required courses.

By choosing “some” in the example above, the speaker creates an implicature

(+> not all). Given the definition of scalar implicature, it should follow that, in

saying “some of the required courses”, the speaker also creates other implicatures

(for example, +> not most, +> not many). So, it can be concluded Generalized

Implicature are inferred on the basis inferential heuristics which are derived from

(some of) Grice's Maxims. Grice (1975) defines heuristics act as guides to speakers

on how to formulate their utterances and hearers on how to process the utterance.

2.3.2. Particularized Implicature

A particularized conversational implicature is one which

depends on particular

features of the context. “Particularized conversational implicature is an implicature

where some assumed knowledge is required in very specific contexts during a

conversation”

(Yule, 1996 p.42). The following axample of this conversational

implicature as in.

A: What on earth has happened to the roast beef?

B: The dog is looking very happy.

In th e above example, A will likely derive the implicature "the dog ate the roast

beef " from B’s statement. This is due to A’s belief that B is observing the

conversational max im of relation or relevance in the specific context of A’s question.

In short the implicature that rely much on the special context, it is can be

classified into particularized conversational implicatures (Cummings, 1999 p.19).

For example:

A: “I’m so sorry for making you wait in a long time”

B: “That’s fine, it just like waiting for one year”

In this context of situation shows that the speaker A requests an apologizing

since making B waiting for him in a long time. But in particular context, the hearer B

is getting angry even he says “that’s fine” and he extremely bored as he says “it just

like waiting for one year”. Because there are b asically most common, the

particularized conversational implicature are typically just called implicature.

In summar y, a conversational implicature is an implicature that is drawn in

accordance with pragmatic principles such as the cooperative principle rather than

being inferred from the meaning of a lexical item or a sentence structure.

2.4. Review of Related Studies

There are three related previous studies that are concerning in conversational

implicature. The first study is “Implicature Analysis on the Funniest Joke in the

World article in the Reader’s Digest” b y Wulandari (2007), the second is

“Conversational Implicature of the Pr esenter Take Me Out Indonesia” by Sheila

Nanda (2012), the third is Lestari (2013) with “ The Analysis of Conversational

Implicature on the Movie Script “Despicable Me”.

The first previous study is from Wulandari (2010), with her stud y “Implicature

Analysis on the Funniest Joke in the World article in the Reader’s Digest” focuses on

analyzing jokes usin g theor y of implicature and

cooperative principles proposed b y

Grice. This study aims to identify kinds of implicatures as it is found in “The

Funniest Joke in the World” article in the “Reader’s Digest”, and discover how the

implicatures are used in “The Funniest Joke in The World” articlein the “Reader’s

Digest”. This research applies descriptive qualitative method and Grice’s theory of

implicature to analyze the data. The data were selected from “The Funniest Joke in

the World” article in the “Reader’s Digest” published in September 2009. This study

shows several findings: (1) the implicatures used in “the Funniest Joke in the World”

article in the “Reader’s Digest” could be catego rized into conventional implicature

and conversational implicature. Conversational implicature was divided into

generalized conversational implicature and particularized conversational implicature.

(2) Conventional implicature was used when the writer of the joke used conventional

utterance to express the meaning behind utterance. She finds 58 utterances which

consist of 34 utterances containing generalized implicature and 24 utterances

containing p articularized implicature.

The second is from Sheila Nanda (2012) conducted “Conversational

Implicature of the Presenter Take Me Out Indonesia”. This paper is a pragmatics

study that aims at investigating conversational implicature that the p resenters of

Take Me Out Indonesia operate within their utterances along with the possible

implications that lie behind the implicature. The episode XXII of the show was

chosen purposively as the sample. Qualitative method was employed in processing

the transcription of the 204 recorded implicature data. The intended features were

identified, classified, calculated and then separately analyzed based on

conversational implicature theory proposed b y Grice (1975). She found that The

generalized conversational implicature in the participants’ expressions occur more

often than particularized conversational implicature. The comparison of the

occurr ence is 59.8% generalized implicature an d 40.2%.particularized implicature.

Beside that, This study also concludes various types of implicature were used in

informal game show conversation to make interaction flows smoothly.

The last previous study is from Lestari, 2013 with her study The Analysis of

Conversational Implicature on The Movie Script of “Despicable me”. This study is

made to analyze the use of conversational implicature on the movie script

“Despicable Me”. The purposes of doing this research are to explain the types and

the context of situation of each utterance contains conversational implicature used in

“Despicable Me” movie script. The technique of collecting the data that is applied by

the writer is documentation method. This is a qualitative study that focuses on the

conversational implicature based on cooperative principles on the movie script. The

writer analyses four cooperative principles which are maxim of quality, maxim of

quantity, maxim of manner and maxim of relation in the movie script. The max im of

quality and maxim of manner are the most violated on the movie “Despicable Me”

conversations.

This study conducts some theories that are being applied by on those previous

studies above. They are theory of Cooperative Principle that is proposed by Grice

(1975) and Grice’s theory of conversational implicature. The differences between

this study and previous studies are located in the object that is being observed, Sheila

uses comedy stripes in article as her object of research then Wulandari uses

presenter’s utterances in TV shows as her object of research and Lestari just uses

movie script “Despicable Me” as her object. This stud y uses movie as an object of

the research. The data of this stud y are the utterances in the dialogues of Silver

Linings Playbook movie. It also gives the explanation types of conversational

implicature and determine the implied meaning from the utterances that produced b y

the characters in the movie and the impact of the use of it.