Upload
amarcaem
View
126
Download
6
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
CHAPTER I
BACKGROUND
1.1. Context
Language is the important one in our life. We can communicate with other people
easily because language. That’s why language has given the important contribution in our
social life. In our social life, we need to communicate with others, and to communicate, we
talk each other. So, when we talk each other, we make conversation.
By conversation, people can share their opinions, feelings, and information. In
conversation, mutual cooperation will appear for each individual of man. Therefore, we
must take note of politeness, speech acts, and conversational implicature as theories which
are related to the speaker or user in conversation.
When the speaker makes social relation with the hearer by showing good manner
and respect, we called it politeness theory. The linguist Robin Lakoff (1973 in Cook
1989:33) has formulated maxims of politeness as follows:
Don’t Impose (the speaker can’t enforce his will to the hearer)
Give Options(let the hearer to have some choices or alternatives)
Make your receiver feel good
Politeness theory will make and keep our social communication run well.
Speech act theory is an approach which tries to formulate how such knowledge is
brought into play (Guy Cook 1989:35). Speech act is when the speaker says something, his
words considered as an action. Speech act theory provides us with a means of probing
beneath the surface of discourse and establishing the function of what is being said.
Conversational Implicature theory is the theory when the proposition or the
statement of the speaker just in his thought and not appear in his words. Implicature is a
concept of utterance meaning as opposed to sentence meaning, and it is related to the
method by which speakers work out the indirect illocutions of utterances (Hurford
1983:278). According to Grice (1975), “There are two types of conversational implicature,
generalized and particularized implicature.
- A Generalized Implicature is a conversational implicature that is inferable
without reference to a special context.
- A Particularized Implicature is a conversational implicature that is derivable
only in a specific context”.
In this research, the writer chooses to concern on one of these kinds of theory that
related to the speaker in conversation, i.e. conversational implicature theory. As one of the
regional languages used by the biggest ethnic in Sulawesi Island, Buginese language
attracts the writer to learn more about it, particularly about the unique and odd language or
words in Lise’ region in Sidrap, that language known as Pau-paunna Tolise’. The writer
interests to learn about Conversational Implicature in Pau-paunna Tolise’.
In Buginese language, pau-paunna means words in communication, Tolise’
means people who live or stay in Lise’ region. to means ‘people’, Lise’ is the name of one
of regions in Sidrap. So, Pau-paunna Tolise’ means the words of people who live in Lise’.
Tolise’ always talk with their own way; they talk based on what is in their thought or based
on their own understanding. Pau-paunna Tolise’ is based on logic, even very logical until
cause the oddity. In pragmatic, we recognize this case as conversational implicature where
it is about the matter of what is implicated in Pau-paunna Tolise’ when they talk or make
conversation with other people outside their region.
The oddity of Tolise’ words have been chosen as a focus from the previous study
by Suardi Umar (1990) in his thesis “Aspek Semantik Pau-paunna Tolise’e”. He was
interested in semantic aspect and concern to the larger field than the writer’s study.
Another person who have chose the similar field is Muhammad Rosadi (2001) in
his thesis “Implikatur Percakapan dalam Larry king live weekend di CNN”. He has the
same focus with the writer’s research but in different object.
This research has particular concerns that what is stated may not have meaning as
same as what we mean and understand because of the habit or the culture. Pau-paunna
Tolise’ contains implicatures, the writer is interested in conducting a study in implicature as
found in Pau-paunna Tolise’.
1.2. Research Questions
The research questions for this study are:
a. What are the examples of Pau-paunna Tolise’ ?
b. What types of implicatures are identified from each the examples of Pau-paunna
Tolise’?
c. What types of implicatures are produced the most frequently from all examples?
1.3. Rationale
The importance of this research due to understanding for other people outside
Lise’ region of the way Tolise’ make conversation that contains implicatures that have to
being their habit or culture so that successful communication will be achieved.
1.4. Significance
The result of this research is expected to:
a. Raise the understanding and the awareness of predicting the conveyed meaning when
communicating with Tolise’ people.
b. Add knowledge about conversational implicature that still exist around us in fact.
c. Give the useful inputs to those who are interested in doing similar research.
CHAPTER II
THEORY
2.1. Communication
Language has held the role in communication. When we communicate, we use
language and hope that our partner understand and get the point of what we mean. As
Muhammad Rosadi (2001) said, “When we used language, we have done three points: 1)
we say something (locution); 2) we show how we expect the listener to understand what we
have said (illocution); 3) we have to confirm the effects to the hearer as the result
(perlocution)”.
In communication, language is the main medium. With language, our
communication closely tied in with others in our social life. Language is the arbitrer sound
symbol, used by the social groups to cooperates, communicates, and identified their self
(Kentjono 1982:2).
Beside language that we used as verbal communication, non-verbal
communication also used in communicates. For instance, our face, eyes, and our body can
show what we represent while speaking. Maybe we just smile when someone ask question
or nodding to indicate agreement or due to dozing. It is related to Richards and Schmidt
(1983:4) definition. They said, “Communication as the exchange and deliberation of
information between two individuals through the use of verbal and non-verbal symbols,
spoken and written, visual modes, and production and comprehension processes”.
When we communicate, we involve many aspects until our communication
deliberate. As Jakobson and Hymes (in Cook 1989:25) said that there e elements of
communication:
The addresser: the person who originates the message. This is usually the same as the
person who is sending the message, but not always, as in the case of messengers,
spokespeople, and town criers.
The addressee: the person whom the message is addressed. This is usually the person
who receives the message, but not necessarily so, as in the case of intercepted letters,
bugged telephone calls, and eavesdropping.
The channel: the medium through which the message travels: sound waves, marks on
paper, telephone wires, word processor screens.
The message form: the particular grammatical and lexical choices of the message.
The topic: the information carried in the message.
The code: the language or dialect, for example, Swedish Yorkshire English, Semaphore,
British Sign Language, Japanese.
The settings: the social or physical context.
From all explanations above, we know that communication is one of the language
functions to carrying information. But, it is just one of seven language functions as
Jakobson and Hymes (in Cook 1989:25-26):
1. The emotive function:
Communicating the inner states and emotions of the addresser (‘Oh no!’,
‘Fantastic!’, ‘Ugh!’, and swear words used as exclamations).
2. The directive function:
Seeking to affect the behavior of the addressee (‘Please help me!’, ‘Shut up!’,
‘I’m warning you!’).
3. The phatic function:
Opening the channel or checking that it is working, either for social reasons
(‘Hello’, ‘Lovely weather’, ‘Do you come here often?’) or for practical ones (‘Can you
hear me?’, ‘Are you still there?’, ‘Can you see the blackboard from the back of the room?’,
‘Can you read my writing?’).
4. The poetic function:
In which the particular form chosen is the essence of the message. (The
advertising slogan BEANZ MEANZ HEINZ would lose its point if it were paraphrased as ‘If
you are buying beans, you will naturally buy Heinz’).
5. The referential function: Carrying information.
6. The metalinguistic function:
Focusing attention upon the code itself, to clarify it or renegotiate it (‘What does
this word here mean?’, ‘This bone is known as the “femur”’, ‘ “Will” and”Shall” ’ mean
the same thing nowadays’).
7. The contextual function:
Creating a particular kind of communication (‘Right, let’s start the lecture’, ‘It’s
just a game’).
As a conclusion, communication cannot be separated from the role of language,
and it is also need all its elements in order to achieve the certain purpose such as giving
information and to appear conversation among social groups.
2.2. Conversation
A conversation is a dialogue, not a monologue (Truman Capote in Quoteland.com
2001). Thus, conversation must involves at least two people and cooperate each other. That
was Paul Grice (1975) said as co-operative principle and it has four maxims which the
sender have to obey:
The Maxim of Quality (be true) – tell the hearer the true or the exact information
The Maxim of Quantity (be brief) – tell the hearer just what he needs, no more no less
The Maxim of Relevance (be relevant) – keep to the topic of the conversation
The Maxim of Manner (be clear) – speak in a way that the hearer will understand
If someone asks question or need information from us, certainly we have to give
them the definite answer and information so that our conversation will co-operative. Look
at the instance below:
Policeman: “Is your father or mother at home?”
The boy (who knows that his mother is at home): “Either my father’s gone out
fishing or at office”
Actually the boy has given the information or the answer for the policeman, but it
is not specific, so it is unhelpful and less informative, whereas the boy actually knows that
his mother is at home. In this case, the boy do not use or obey the Maxim of Quality.
Besides that, we also must pay attention to the brief information when we make
conversation. The conversation will co-operative if we just give the information what the
hearer needs to know, don’t exaggerate and don’t lessen.
Tourist in Makassar: “Where is the position of Pantai Losari?”
Makassarnese person: “Pantai Losari located in Jl.Penghibur and not far from
there, also be located Fort Rotterdam which is very exciting to visit”.
The instance above does not obey the Maxim of Quantity. It has more information
than what is tourist needs to know. Therefore, we must concern to the question what the
hearer wants in order that we can present the exact information and do not turn to the other
topic. Look the example below:
Traffic warden to motorist: “Is this your motorcycle?”
Motorist (looking at the black clouds): “I think it’s going to rain”.
The conversation above is irrelevant, the motorist do not keep the topic of the
conversation, so it is unhelpful information since the motorist does not follow the rule of
Maxim of Relevance. It makes the conversation do not clear and make the traffic warden
do not understand with the answer that given to him. Another example which is does not
clear can be seen below:
Bill: “I know you don’t steal her gold, do you?”
Jack: “Well, I don’t not steal”.
The answer of Jack is not clear. Actually he can simply answer if he means he
steal as clear as possible: “I steal”. Jack’s answer convey information that more complex
or subtle and it makes Bill as the hearer difficult to understand.
The conclusion is that the maxim of co-operative principle related each other. The
co-operative conversation will come out when all maxims obeyed.
2.3. Implicature
An implicature is something meant, implied, or suggested distinct from what is
said (Stanford University, 2005). There are three types of general conversational
implicature as Paul Grice (1975) identified:
1. The speaker deliberately flouts a conversational maxim to convey an additional
meaning not expressed literally. For instance, a speaker responds to the question "How
did you like the guest speaker?" with the following utterance: “Well, I’m sure he was
speaking English”.
If the speaker is assumed to be following the co-operative principle, in spite of flouting
the Maxim of Quantity, then the utterance must have an additional non-literal meaning,
such as: "The content of the speaker’s speech was confusing."
2. The speaker’s desire to fulfill two conflicting maxims results in his or her flouting one
maxim to invoke the other. For instance, a speaker responds to the question "Where is
John?" with the following utterance: “He’s either in the cafeteria or in his office”.
In this case, the Maxim of Quantity and the Maxim of Quality are in conflict. A co-
operative speaker does not want to be ambiguous but also does not want to give false
information by giving a specific answer in spite of his uncertainty. By flouting the
Maxim of Quantity, the speaker invokes the Maxim of Quality, leading to the
implicature that the speaker does not have the evidence to give a certain answer to
where John is.
3. The speaker invokes a maxim as a basis for interpreting the utterance. In the following
exchange: “Do you know where I can get some gas?”
“There’s a gas station around the corner”.
The second speaker invokes the Maxim of Relevance, resulting in the implicature that
“The gas station is open and one can probably get gas there”.
Conversational implicature is the important concept in pragmatic because of four
things:
First, implicature concept enables the explanation of linguistic facts which do not
reached by linguistic theory.
Second, implicature concept gives the explanation about meaning and what is
stated external is different. For instance, the question about time can responded by states
the event which is usually happen in certain time.
A: “What time you back from the school?”
B: “After Ashar”.
The answer about the exact time not stated indeed, but A has known and
understands that after Ashar is about 15.30.
Third, implicature concept can simplify the semantic description structure and
contain. For example: “Maybe he will come tonight or maybe he comes yet tonight”
The sentence above can shorten by just saying: “Maybe he will come tonight”
This second sentence contains similar meaning with the first sentence.
Fourth, implicature concept can exactly explain some language facts (Levinson
1983:97).
Metaphysics research of Stanford University (2005) wrote, “Implicatures can be
part of sentence meaning or dependent on conversational context, and can be conventional
or unconventional”.
Definition above in harmony with Grice (1975) who has made a distinction
between what is said by a speaker of a verbal utterance and what is implicated. What is
implicated might be either conventional (that is, largely generated by the standing meaning
of certain linguistic expressions, such as ‘but’ and ‘moreover’) or conversational (that is,
dependent on the assumptions that the speaker is obeying the rules of conversation to the
best of their ability).
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
Wuradji in Pengantar Penelitian (1994:1) said:
“Penelitian atau riset adalah suatu kegiatan atau proses seistematis untuk
memecahkan masalah dengan dukungan data sebagai landasan dalam mengambil
kesimpulan”.
(Research is an activity or systematic process to solve the problem with data
supports as the foundation in making conclusion).
Therefore, to support this research, the writer uses some methods and techniques
which are appropriate with the study that the writer wants to learn.
Some methods and techniques are as follows:
3.1. Library Research
Library research is the way of secondary data. The writer collects theories and
definitions which are related to the research topic from the library or search on internet. In
this research, the writer used some techniques such as reading, make a note, make a brief,
paraphrase, etc.
3.2. Field Research
Field research is the way of collecting the primary data. The writer straight
entered into a region to collect data from the research object. The writer used technique
such as record. The writer records the conversations, inspects and examines it, and then
identifies the implicature in those conversations.
3.3 Method for Analyzing Data
The writer used descriptive method in analyzing the data. The writer explains
founded data completely. Besides that, the writer also uses the pragmatic approach to
analyze the data.
3.4. Population and Samples
3.4.1. Population
Population in this research is the words or the conversation between Tolise’ and
people outside Lise’ region (non-Tolise’) which is contains implicatures.
3.4.2. Samples
The samples in this research is Tolise’ and non-Tolise’ when they make
conversation. There are ten conversations by ten couples for analyzed.