01:22:56,180 --> 01:22:58,220
- Cigarette?
- No, thanks.
By
Indah Fitriana
NIM. 0921081819
PBI 2009 R E
Lecturer:
Drs. H. Purnomo Sidik Kustiyono, M.Hum.
ENGLISH DEPARTMENT
SEKOLAH TINGGI KEGURUAN DAN ILMU PENDIDIKAN
PERSATUAN GURU REPUBLIK INDONESIA
(STKIP PGRI) PONOROGO
2013
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
A. Background of the Study
In communication, people interact to each other by using words of a language that can be understood by both parts. When they use the words, people should follow principles in order the communication to be successful. However, in some particular conversations, people may utter words that seem not related to the topic of conversation but still can be accepted by their partners. Those cases are certainly caused by several reasons.
This analysis is part of Pragmatics study. Pragmatics itself is a branch of linguistics that deals with the speaker meaning instead of the words meaning. It studies what people mean by using the words, not what the words mean. It explores something implied in the words base on particular context.
One matter to be discussed in Pragmatics is about Conversational Implicature. This matter is an interpretation after assumption of some basic cooperative principle. It deals with what implied in particular conversation, what the additional meaning being conveyed through the said words.
Base on the theory of Conversational Implicature, the writer would analyze several dialogues that are taken from a novel For Whom The Bell Tolls. The writer choose the novel as a material for this analysis because the novel has many intrigues things inside and also because it is one of best novels written by Ernest Hemmingway.
By conducting this analysis, the writer try to point out about Conversational Impicature in more detailed way so that readers who are still learning Pragmatics can get better understanding. In addition, this analysis is also can be used as references in studying Prgamatics.
B. Theory
In this analysis, the writer uses Yule’s Pragmatics (1996) as the main source about the theory of Conversational Implicature.
Implicature means additional conveyed meaning. So, Conversational Implicature can be defined as an additional meaning that happen in conversation. This additional meaning is implied in the words used by speakers in the conversation. It is listeners who assume that there is something more than just said in the conversation.
Conversational Implicature can be caused by several things, based on the context where and when the conversations done. In order to be able to interprete this implicature, some basic cooperative principle must first be assumed to be in operation.
In most cases, the assumption of coperation is very clear so that it can be stated as cooperative principle of conversation that can be detailed in four sub-principles, named maxims, as shown below:
A. The cooperative principle: make your contribution in conversation as required, at the stage it is occurred, not more not less by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged.
B. The maxims
· Maxim of Quantity
Say as required, not more not less.
· Maxim of Quality
Say what is true.
· Maxim of Relation
Be relevant.
· Maxim of Manner
- Do not say obscure things
- Do not say ambiguous one
- Be brief and orderly
Conversational Implicature
In interpreting Conversational Implicature, it is important to remember that it is speaker who convey meaning via implicatures and it is listeners who recognize those meanings via inference. The selected inferences are those which will preservd the assumption of cooperation.
C. Generalized Conversational Implicatures
A : b & c?
B : b (+> NOT c)
In this case, there is no special background knowledge of the context is required in to calculate the additional meaning. One common examples in English involves any phrase with an indefinite article of the type ‘a/an X’, such as ‘a book’ and ‘a pencil’ as in sentence ‘I saw a book on a table with a pencil next to it’. These phrases are typically interpreted according to the generalized conversational implicature that: an X +> not speaker’s X.
D. Scalar Implicatures
People always communicated certain information by choosing a word that expresses one value from a scale of values. This case will be very obvious when they express terms of quantity, as shown in scales below, where terms are listed from the highest to the lowest value.
a. <all, most, many, some, few>
b. <always, often, sometimes>
The basis of scalar implicature is that, when any form in a scale is asserted, the negative of all forms higher on the scale is implicated. The first scale in (a) has ‘all’, ‘most’, ‘many’, higher than ‘some’. So, for example someone says, ‘some of the listed books’, the speaker also creates other implicatures (for example, +> not most, +> not many).
E. Particularized Conversational Implicatures
This implicature is the opposite of generalized conversational implicature because in this case it is required special knowledge of a particular context to calculate the conveyed meaning.
This kind of implicature is the most common one since conversations are mostly taken in a very specific contexts. Therefore, particularized conversational implicatures are typically just called implicatures.
In calculating this implicature we will find several cases of conversation where the speakers appear to flout the maxim of manner or maxim of relevance.
Ex:
A : Do you eat rice?
B : Is the sun rises in the east?
In the example above, (B)’s answer seems not relevant because the answer is in form of question and not a bit related to the (A)’s question. However, A must assume that B is being cooperative so (A) considers that (B)’s ‘sun’ question and clearly that the answer is ‘Yes’. So, the answer is known, but the nature of (B)’s response also implicates that the answer to the question is ‘Obviously yes!’.
Properties of Conversational Implicatures
All of the implicatures above have been conditioned within conversation, with the inferences being made by listeners and attempt to maintain the assumption of cooperative interaction. Since these implicatures are part of what is communicated and not said, speakers can always deny that they intend to convey such meanings. So, the conversational implicature are deniable. They can be explicitly denied (or alternatively, reinforced) in different ways.
Because the conversational implicatures only can be calculated by the listeners via inferences, then, their defining properties can be calculated, cancelled and reinforced.
C. Method of Study
In this analysis, the writers uses library research method. First, the writers read the object that will be analyzed that is several dialogues taken from the novel ‘For Whom The Bell Tolls’ by Ernest Hemmingway. Then, based on theory that have been drawn above, the writer analyze whether there’s conversational implicatures in those dialogues.
CHAPTER II
DISCUSSION
In this chapter the writer will directly point out the interpretation of any implicatures in the dialogues taken from the novel For Whom The Bell Tolls by Ernest Hemmingway, then analyze it based on the theory that has been explained in the previous chapter.
Case 1
This dialogue is taken from page 9.
...
The old man pointed to the seal and the man with the carbine studied it, turning it in his fingers.
"What seal is that?"
"Have you never seen it?"
...
Note at the bold sentences. The first question is asked by the man with the carbine. In the scene, he asked the oldman (the one who pointed to the seal) and receive a question instead of answer. The oldman here seems to flout the maxim of manner by answering a question with a question.
In the local context of these men, the seal should be already known well. Therefore the oldman was kind of wonder when his comrade did not know about the seal. His wonder here is expressed by such question in responding the question that if the oldman follow the maxim of manner he would have said ‘it is ...’, expalining about the seal.
The old man’s response implicating that he did wonder that the other man did not know about the seal because in his expectation every man should know about the seal. In this case, it is as part of particularized conversational implicature.
Case 2
This conversation below is taken from page 12.
...
"Have you killed many civil guards?" Robert Jordan asked.
"Several," Pablo said. "But only these two without injury to the horses."
...
By saying ‘several’, Pablo creates an implicature (+> not all). Based on the definition of scalar implicature, it should follow that, in saying ‘several’, Pablo also creates other implicatures (for example, +> not most, +> not many).
Case 3
The following conversation is taken from page 23. It is a conversation between Robert Jordan and Pilar.
...
(Robert Jordan) "Have you sent for him?"
(Pilar) "He comes every night. He is a neighbor. Also a friend as well as a comrade."
...
In the conversation above, Pilar response to Robert’s question surficially does not appear to follow the maxim of relevance. (A simply relevant answer would be ‘Yes, I have’ or ‘Not yet’)
In order to make Pilar’s response relevant, Robert must draw on some assume knowledge that Pilar did not need to ‘send for him’ since ‘him’ is the one who always came every night to meet her (consequently +> Pilar will not need to send for ‘him’).
In addition, the use of several phrases (a neighbor, a friend, a comrade) in Pilar’s response above are typically interpreted according to general conversational implicature that: ‘him’ +> not Pilar’s neighbor/friend/comrade. The implicatures in Pilar response, that ‘him’ is not her ‘neighbor/friend/comrade’, are calculated on the principle that if Pilar is capable of being more specific (i.e. more informative, following maxim of quantity), then she would have said ‘my neighbor/my friend/my comrade.
Case 4
The sentence below is taken from page
...