Contoh Analisis tentang implicature dengan menggunakan teorinya Grice
Features Of Conversation Refers To Grice’s
Theory
Written by
Fatihurrahman
Sunday, 01 May 2015
In this analysis, I am going to analize the
conversations between a buyer and a seller and
also between students of UIN Malang, they are initialized as AG and
FT. This analysis will focus on analyzing the features of conversational
implicature in their conversations which refers to Grice theory of conversational
implicature. In his theory, he says that “the conventional meaning of the words
used will determine what is implicated, besides helping to determine what is
said and make your conversational contribution such as is required, at the
stage at which it occurs, by the accepted
purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged (1975).”
According to Griece there are four
prinsiples of conversation, it is known as feature of conversational
implicature. These features are the following: (i) linguistic exchanges are
governed by the COOPERATIVE PRINCIPLE, the content of which is detailed in the
four MAXIMS OF CONVERSATION and their submaxims; (ii) when one of the
participants of the exchange seems not to follow the Cooperative Principle, his
or her partner(s) will nevertheless assume that, contrary to appearances, the
principle is observed at some deeper level. Yet, in this analysis, I will
merely focus on both features. It is conversational implicature (Cooperative
Principle) and Maxim. Here are the analysis
A. Context
In understanding an
utterence uttered by two persons or more when they are making conversation, in
which contain an implied meaning or known as implicature. It means that we have to look at the context or pragmatic
meaning rather than literal meaning of the sentences uttered. In case of
understanding implicature, the context will always determine the intended
messages whether it is conveyed implicitly or exlplicitly by interlocuters.
Therefore, in this study, I firstly analyze the context of the conversations
above and afterwards will be the analysis and the discussion.
In analyizing a context
in implicature, there are some parts that should be realized, because the
context here, there will be the context of time, place, person, setting and the
relationship of the partisipants.
In data 1 below,
the conversation is between a buyer and a seller. Athough, the buyer and the
seller have no blood relationship. Yet,
in their conversation, they seem have. The seller is an old lady while the
buyer is a young man.The seller was born and raised in Malang. Now she lives in
Malang, at east Joyosuko Street, number 45a. She is a seller of instant food in
a small stall. While the buyer here is one of the students of Brawijaya
University. Yet, I did not ask him what semester he was already in. He is also
one of the buyer who always eats at the seller’s stall in every morning.
Therefore, When they meet one another at the aeting place (warung ibu), they
talk like son and mother. There is no
gap between them. On one hand, they talk freely because they always meet one
another in every day. The conversation was on Monday morning of 1 juni 2015, at 8 o’clock. While the setting
of the conversation in data 1 was in the eating place (warung makan), which occured in
a bussy morning and the crouded of people who were enjoying eating.
In the data 2 below, the conversation is between two college students. They
are young boys. Both are the students of UIN Malang, sixth semester and in
chumming since 2012. In other to keep their identity, their name then will be
initilized as AG and FT. The conversation happened through cell phone. It happened
in the distances between both participants, because they use hand phone to
inform one another. The setting of this short sonversation occured at a highway,
when FT was on his way to campus. AG asks FT, whether FT will be at campus today
or not, by uttering “Kamu nggak masuk enggak kelas pak mudji hari ini?” Then, the FT’s
response is “Ban motorku kempes.” The conversation
occured on Wednesday morning 22 April, 2015.
In other to make this
analysis easier, the following of both conversatios are proposed as follows:
B. Data Presentation
Data 1:
Buyer : Bu, seperti biasa ya!
Seller : siap mas. Mas iki ada yang baru loh.
Buyer : enak nggak bu?
Seller : hahahaha@#$# menu barunya enak mas ,dijamin
puas. Mas mau coba
Buyer : Hari ini hari apa yah bu?
Data 2:
AG : Kamu masuk enggak kelasnya pak mudji hari
ini?
FT
: Ban motorku kempes bro.
C. Analysis
Data 1.
Buyer
: Bu, seperti biasa ya!
Seller : siap mas. Mas iki ada yang baru loh.
When the
hearer (seller) listens to the utterence uttered by the buyer, such as in data
1, “bu seperti biasa”, the seller actually firtly tries to
interprate that the speaker is doing the Cooperation
Prinsiple with the hearer and B intends to give some information which
carries deep meaning than what is said by uttering the utterence. The sentence
uttered, “bu seperti biasa”, has an
implied meaning which is meant the utterence
involves a presuposition, which is actually not the part of the
utterence or it is not explicitly said. Even B does not ask to S direclty, yet
the utterence of B is well understood by S. It is indicated by the response of S, “siap mas. Mas
iki ada yang baru loh.” Besides
responding, S also informs B that there is a new menu available. Yet, it will
be analized later on. In this case, the cooperative prinsiple
which is proposed by Grice is well done. Because both interlocuter are doing
communication without misundestanding.
Buyer : enak nggak
bu?
Seller :
hahahaha@#$# dijamin puas mas.
While responding by uttering, “siap mas.” S also gives an information to B by uttering, “Mas iki ada yang baru loh.” Even S does
not say that there is a newst menu available now. B has already undestood.
Therefore, B immediately respons, “enak
nggak bu?”
Buyer :
hahahaha@#$# menu barunya enak mas dijamin puas. Mas mau coba
Seller : Hari ini
hari apa ya bu?
In
the utterences above, Buyer thinks that the newst menu is not his taste. But,
he does not want to hurt S by saying or uttering the utterence, “that is not my taste”, so that B tries
to change the topic by uttering “Hari
ini hari apa yah bu?” In this communication B breaks the rule of Maxim
Relation. It is also known as a floutting in Maxim.
Data 2:
AG : Kamu masuk enggak kelasnya pak mudji hari
ini?
FT
: Ban motorku kempes.
In the short
conversation above, AG asks FT by
uttering “Kamu masuk enggak kelasnya pak
mudji hari ini? AG just want to know whether FT will be at campus today or
not. Then, FT’s responce is “Ban motorku
kempes.” it has an intended message.
The meaning is not explicitly said in the conversation. FT just say that “Ban motorku kempes.” on the other
hands, the implied meaning of FT’s utterence more that just the words are said
explicitly. In case of understanding the conversation above, the interlocutor
should reaslize about the pragmatic meaning, because it is arrenged and interpreted
through context. In line with Yule’s ideas (1996: 3), she mentions four
definitions of pragmatic, namely (1) the
meaning of speakers; (2) the meaning of the
contex of interlocuters; (3) the meaning of what is said, what is
communicated by the speakers; and (4)
bidang yang mengkaji bentuk ekspresi menurut jarak sosial yang membatasi
partisipan yang terlibat dalam percakapan tertentu.
D. Discussion
After
finding the data and analyzing it by using Grice’s theory of feature in conversation.
In this analysis I focused on analyzing the implicature which is related to the
theory of implicature. What I have explained in the previous, there are four
features of conversation. Yet, In
the conversations above, based on Grice’s
Theory of Conversational Implicatures (abridged). It is about
The Cooperative Principle and The
Maxims of Conversation consist of Quality (try to make your contribution one
that is true), Quantity (make your contribution as informative and no more so
than is required), Relation (be relevant), Manner (be perspicuous).
In
short conversations above, I found implicatures and maxims. The implicature
which is found in this investigation is
conversational implicature and Maxim relation. While the other features of implicature
are not found. It is because in both conversations above, the interlocutors
tend to use maxim relation than the others. Likewise, conventional implicature.
In addition, interlocuter sometimes does floutting in their conversation, so
that they are breaking the rules of Cooperative Principles and maxims.
From
the discussion conducted, it may be cocluded that the use of conversational
implicature and Maxim of relation are dominant when people do communication,
they tend to use both two features of conversation which refers to Griece’s
(1975) theory, there are actually four prinsiples of conversation, it is known
as feature of conversational implicature. The use of conversational implicature
include Maxim, it needs a big deal with the interlocuters. On one hand, there
is no conversational implicature and/or
Maxim without any approval.
E. Reference
Grice,
H. Paul. (1975) Logic and Conversation, in P. Cole and J.L. Morgan eds, Syntax
and Semantics, vol. 3. New York: Academic Press.
Yule,
G. 1996. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2 comments: