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