Analysis on the Violation of Maxim of Manner in Conversational Implicature Appearing in Stephenie Meyer’s Twilight

APPROVAL

ANALYSIS ON THE VIOLATION OF MAXIM OF MANNER IN CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURE

APPEARING IN STEPHENIE MEYER’S TWILIGHT (The Study of Pragmatics)

SKRIPSI

Novie Susantie 63706004

Bandung, July 2010 Approved by:

Acknowledged by Head of English Department,

Retno Purwani Sari, S.S., M.Hum NIP 4127.20.03.004

Advisor I,

Dr. Juanda NIP 4127.20.03.007

Advisor II,

M. Rayhan Bustam, S.S NIP 4127.20.03.021

1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

1.1Background to the Study

Language is a communication device to communicate with each other. Basically, language is not only an utterance but also a gesture. We can analyze an utterance and a gesture based on the assumptions that exist in the context or even beyond the context, so that we can analyze the meaning of that utterance or gesture – whether it is a literal meaning or a non literal one. This study is called pragmatics. According to Verschueren in Trigia (2006:8), pragmatics is the study of language use, or, to employ a statement more complicated phrasing, the study of linguistic phenomena from the point of view of their usage properties and processes. In pragmatics, we can also study conversation in which the intention of the conversational is whether or not hidden by the speaker because by one utterance many things can be implied. This one is called conversational implicature.

Grice in Brown and Yule (1983:31) mentioned that Implicature term is used to account for what the speaker can imply, suggest, or mean, as distinct from what the speaker literally says. Besides, Grice also argued that conversational implicatures are determined by the conversational meaning of the words used. It is an interesting analysis because as the dynamic humans who use dynamic language, it cannot be denied that we unconsciously often

2

make conversational implicature causing some violations of conversational principle for several reasons. For knowing the reason why someone makes conversational implicature, we have to know first the conversational principle that has been violated. There are several conversational principles, and one of them is co-operative principle. Grice in Levinson (1983:101) mentioned that there are several maxims of co-operative principle, such as: maxim of quality, maxim of quantity, maxim of relevance, and maxim of manner.

One of the maxims of co-operative principle is maxim of manner. According to Grice in Lian-Hee and Cheung (2009:3), maxim of manner is one of the co-operative principles that requires to be perspicuous including avoiding obscurity, avoiding ambiguity, being brief, and being orderly. Thus, maxim of manner is maxim that sets and explains how the conversation is delivered; whether it is briefly, ambiguously, obscurely, and orderly.

There are two sources to find out the data regarding the violation of maxim of manner; written text and oral text. Novel and short story are the examples of written text that can be used to find out the data in analyze maxim of manner, while oral text is directly spoken by the speaker. This type can be derived from radio and television.

In finding out the data regarding the violation of maxim of manner, the writer uses novel because the context and the phenomenon in the novel is more complicated and more interesting. Thus, the writer can find many data of maxim of manner in novel. Twilight novel by Stephenie Meyer is used as the source in finding the data regarding the violation of maxim of manner because

3

it is a modern novel using dynamic language that is influenced by the changing of the era. Beside that, since the story of the novel tells about the relationship between human and vampire, the writer feels curious how they can communicate well. Having read the novel, the writer finds many phenomena of conversational implicature that break the law of co-operative principle, especially violation of maxim of manner. Hence, the writer conducts the research regarding the violation of maxim of manner entitled ―Analysis on the Violation of Maxim of Manner in Conversational Implicature Appearing in Stephenie Meyer’s Twilight‖.

Actually, the research on co-operative principle has been conducted by several students. In previous class, class of 2002 exactly, there are two studies about violation of co-operative principle that had been conducted by students of English Department of UNIKOM. They are Reni Trigia (2006) and Meylina Sitanggang (2007). They studied about the violation of co-operative principle generally. They analyzed the whole violation of co-operative principle without mentioning the kinds of conversational implicature and the inference of the conversational implicature itself. They did not focus on analyzing maxim of manner. Thus, the writer would like to specify the research in order to complete each other so that this research can be more useful.

The writer would like to analyze deeper about the violation of maxim of manner in conversational implicature, such as analyzing the kinds of conversational implicature, kinds of violation of maxim of manner in

4

conversational implicature, and the inference of conversational implicature itself.

1.2 Research Questions

1. What kinds of violation of maxim of manner in conversational implicature are found in Twilight?

2. What is the inference of the violation of maxim of manner in conversational implicature in Twilight?

1.3Objectives

There are some objectives in this research, those are:

1. To find out the kinds of violation to the maxim of manner in conversational implicature that are found in Twilight

2. To find out the inferences of the violation of maxim of manner in conversational implicature in Twilight

1.4Significance to Knowledge

This research, entitled ―The Analysis of Maxim of Manner in Conversational Implicature Appearing in Stephenie Meyer’s Twilight‖, is the study of pragmatics that focuses on analyzing the violation of maxim of

5

manner in conversational implicature and the inferences of conversational implicature. This research is conducted in order to specify the existed research. Thus this research can provide the others with new insight of violation of co-operative principle in conversational implicature analysis.

1.5The Framework of Theories

The writer uses Grice’s theory as a grand theory in this research. Grice in Levinson (1983:126) divided the kinds of implicature into two - generalized conversational and particularized conversational. Generalized conversational implicature is a conversation that there is no particular context or special scenario being necessary, while particular conversational implicature is a conversation that requires such specific context. Furthermore, Grice in Levinson (1983:101) also mentioned the maxim of conversations (co-operative principle). There are several maxims of conversation (co-(co-operative principle), maxim of quality, maxim of quantity, maxim of relevance, and maxim of manner.

Besides Grice’s theory, the writer also uses Lewis’ theory as another theory regarding the features of context of situations to help in analyzing discourse. Lewis in Brown and Yule (1983:41) mentioned that there are several features of context of situation. They are possible word, time, place, speaker, audience, indicated object, previous object, and assignment.

6

To analyze the inferences of conversational implicature, the writer uses Stalnaker’s theory and Keenan’s theory about presupposition.

7 CHAPTER II

THEORITICAL REVIEW

This chapter describes and explains the theoretical review of the research. This theory regards the conversational implicature, maxim of manner, presupposition, and inference.

1.1 Pragmatics

Pragmatics is a study of language meaning that is influenced by either the internal factor or external factor. According to Verschueren in Trigia (2006:8), pragmatics is the study of language use, or, to employ a statement more complicated phrasing, the study of linguistic phenomena from the point of view of their usage properties and processes. Thus, pragmatics is the study of language usage. Oral and written texts are the example of the language usage. Oral is language produced realized the speech while written text is language produced realized the text. We can analyze the meaning of the oral text or written text based on the assumption that exists in the context or even beyond the context. Generally, both oral text and written text can be produced from statement and conversation.

8 1.2 Conversation

Interrelationship conversation is an activity that is conducted by two elements. They are speaker and hearer. Based on Richard and Schmidt in Trigia (2006:11), conversation is seen as an activity which is directed to social goals, (e.g the establishment of roles, presentation of self) as well as the linguistic goals (communication of meaning). Usually, conversation is conducted by two persons or more in order to reach the interrelationship between the speaker and the hearer about the topic of the conversation.

Generally, there are several maxims in the conversation. They are maxim of co-operative principle, maxim of politeness, and maxim of relevance. The aim of those maxims is to maintain the conversation so that the message of the conversation can be delivered well without giving the trouble to the speaker or the hearer in understanding the message of the conversation.

Actually, there is a conversation that can not be delivered well by the speaker so that it makes the hearer or reader get confused to catch the message of the conversation. Besides, there is also a conversation that can not be delivered well by the speaker, but the speaker or the hearer understands the message of the conversation. Those cases can be analyzed by looking the context of situation of the conversation. Saddock in Brown and Yule (1984:35) expressed the implications of taking context into account well.

There is, then, a serious methodological problem that confronts the advocate of linguistic pragmatics. Given some aspects of what a sentence conveys in a particular context, is that aspect part of what the sentence conveys in virtue of its meaning … or should it be ‘worked out’ on the basis of Gricean principles from the rest of the meaning of the sentence and relevant facts of the context of utterance?

9

Besides context of situation, we can analyze conversation based on the features of context of situation. According to Lewis in Brown and Yule (1983:41), there are several features of context of situation, those are:

1. Possible-world is the word that express the possibility 2. Time tells about when the event happened

3. Place describes where the event happened

4. Speaker is person who becomes a subject in the event 5. Audience is person who hears or the participant of the event

6. Indicated object is like reference in the previous or the next utterance 7. Previous discourse is word or phrase that is mentioned before and

mentioned again with determine by using determiner

8. Assignment is the sequence activity and the command utterance that must be done in next activity

1.2.1 Conversational Implicature

According to Grice in Brown and Yule (1983:31), implicature is the term used to account for what the speaker can imply, suggest, or mean, as distinct from what the speaker literally says. Grice in Levinson (1983:126) also distinguished the kinds of conversational implicature on another dimension – generalized conversational and particularized conversational. Generalized conversational implicature is a conversation that there is no particular context

10

or special scenario being necessary, while particular conversational implicature is a conversation that requires such specific context.

1.2.1.1Co-operative Principle

Generally, conversational implicature appears when the

conversation is breaking the law of co-operative principle. Grice in Levinson (1983:101) stated:

Co-operative principle is used to make your contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged.

1. The maxim of quality

Try to make your contribution one that is true, specifically: i. Do not say what you believe to be false

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

2. The maxim of quantity

i. Make your contribution as informative as is required for the current purpose of the exchange

ii. Do not make your contribution more informative than is required

3. The maxim of relevance

Make your contributions relevant

4. The maxim of manner

Be perspicuous, and specifically: i. Avoid obscurity

ii. Avoid ambiguity

iii. Be brief iv. Be orderly

Since the topic of this research is the analysis of maxim of manner, the writer only focuses on the maxim of manner.

a. Maxim of Manner

According to Grice in Lian-Hee and Cheung (2009:3), maxim of manner is one of the co-operative principles that requires being

11

perspicuous including avoiding obscurity, avoiding ambiguity, being brief, and being orderly.

1) Obscurity

Obscurity is something that is hard to understand. Example:

A: Do you want to try it again? B: Girl can dream.

B’s contribution fails to answer A’s question. A asks B whether B wants to try it (something) again or not, but B answers girl can dream. It seems that B makes violation to the maxim of relevance because the answer of B is not relevance with A’s question.

However, we have to analyze another reference in the utterance a girl can dream. B’s answer is obscure because B did not explain the comprehensive utterance by only saying a girl can dream. The reader or hearer will get confused with B’s response because it is hard to understand. Based on that text, it is assumed that B has tried, at least once, to gain something, but B fails. B answered that a girl can dream; it can imply that a girl can keep dreaming to gain her pretension, so B will keep the pretension as B keep her/his dream as long as B can gain that.

12 2) Ambiguity

Ambiguity is utterance that consists of more than one meaning.

Example:

A: What does Jane ask to Mira?

B: Jane asks Mira to bring a photo of her.

B’s response is ambiguous. The reader will mix up with the phrase ‘a photo of her’ because the word her consists of two meanings. The reader confused whether her refers to Jane or Mira.

3) Brief

Brief is utterance that is delivered briefly or avoiding the prolixity.

Example:

A: Do you like fifties music? B: Yes, I like fifties music.

B’s contribution is brief answer. A asks whether B likes fifties music or not, so the need answer is yes or no. B does not need to explain how fifties music are.

4) Orderly

Orderly is utterance that is delivered orderly or arranged in order.

13 Example:

S1: Marry took a bath.

S2: Marry wore a beautiful dress.

A: What did Marry do this morning?

B: Marry took a bath and then wore a beautiful dress.

B’s response is an orderly answer. B says that Barry took a bath first and then wore a beautiful dress. It is an illogical statement if Marry wore a beautiful dress first and then took a bath, because usually we take a bath in undress condition. Thus the logical statement is the same as what B does; Marry took a bath and then wore a beautiful dress.

Another example:

A: How is your cousin like?

B: My cousin is really cute. He has slant-eyed, same as his father. His father has beautiful slant-eyed and white skin. Besides, my cousin also is a naughty boy.

Look at B’s utterance, there is disorder statement. A asks about how B’s cousin is. B answers by saying disorder one. First, B says physical appearance of his cousin. Second, B says about his cousin’s father. The last, B says about his cousin behavior.

14 1.2.2 Presupposition

Stalnaker in Brown and Yule (1983:29) argued that presupposition is what is taken by the speaker to be the common ground of the participants in the conversation. Besides that, Keenan in Brown and Yule (1983:29) describes that if A sentence S logically presupposes a sentence S’ just in case S logically implies S’ negation of S,~ S, also logically implies S’.

i.e

I want to do it again.

Presupposition : I have done already, at least once. (-) I don’t want to do it again

Presupposition : I have done already, at least once.

Hence, presupposition is an implicit assumption about the background belief relating to the utterance.

1.2.3 Inference

Inference is the conclusion of something. According to Levinson (1983:103-104),

Such inferences are, by definition, conversational implicature, where the term implicature is intended to contrast with terms like logical implication, entailment and logical consequence which are generally used to refer to inferences that derived solely from logical or semantic contents. For implicature are not semantic inferences, but rather inferences based on both the content of what has been said and some specific assumptions about the co-operative nature of ordinary verbal interaction.

15

Thus, the inference can be derived from the specific assumption taken from the presupposition of the utterances.

Example:

A: Do you like ice cream?

B: Ice cream is really delicious. Strawberry is more delicious than chocolate.

Presupposition: 1. B likes ice cream 2. Ice cream is delicious

3. Strawberry ice cream is delicious 4. Chocolate ice cream is delicious

5. Strawberry ice cream is more delicious than chocolate ice cream 6. B likes strawberry ice cream

7. B maybe likes chocolate ice cream

16 CHAPTER III

RESEARCH OBJECT AND METHOD

This chapter describes the object of this research and the method to analyze the phenomena or problems in this research.

3.1 Research Object

The object of this research is the violation maxim of manner taken from Twilight Novel by Stephenie Meyer. This novel was published in 2005 by Little, Brown and Company. It is a modern novel in which there are many phenomena about conversational implicature.

Twilight tells about the relationship between human (Bella, Jacob, Charlie, Jessica, Tyler, Billy) and vampires (Edward, Alice, Jasper, Rosalie, Emmett, Carlisle, Esme, James, Victoria, Laurent). The story is getting interesting when Edward falls in love with Bella. They have to keep struggling because their relationship faces many obstacles. Since Edward is a vampire, there is a part of him that thirsted for Bella’s blood. He has to be careful to be close to Bella without making her to be his victim. Besides, there are the other vampires who want Bella’s blood. In this condition, their love is tested. Edward tries hard to protect Bella from them.

17 3.2Research Method

This research focuses on the analysis of violation of maxim of manner in conversational implicature and the inference of conversational implicature appearing in Twilight. To describe and explain the analysis itself, the writer used qualitative method. Based on Cresswell (1994:1) in Research Design Qualitative and Quantitative Approach, qualitative method is defined as inquiry process of understanding a social human problem based on building a complex, holistic picture, that is formed with word, reporting detailed view of informants, and conducted in natural setting.

3.2.1Data Collection

To analyze the violation of maxim of manner in conversational implicature appearing in Twilight, the writer read Twilight novel comprehensively first in order to find out the data, and then coded these data. Having coded the data, the writer classified them based on the violation of maxim of manner. The writer used table as an instrument to present the classified data based on the violation of maxim of manner. The result of the classification based on the maxim of manner was reclassified based on the kinds of conversational implicature. Finally, the writer analyzed the data based on the relevant theory.

18 3.2.2 Data Analysis

In this research, the writer analyzed the violation to the maxim of manner in conversational implicature pragmatically. It means that the writer analyzed the data based on the assumption that exists in the context and even beyond the context.

In analyzing data, the writer described and explained the answer of the research questions; the kinds of violation of maxim of manner in conversational implicature and the inference of conversational implicature itself. First, the writer used Lewis’s theory about features of context of situations in finding out the elements of the conversation. Second, Grice’s theory about kinds of conversational implicature is used to find out the kinds of conversational implicature. Third, to find out the kinds of violation to the maxim of manner, the writer used Grice’s theory about the maxim of manner. Fourth, the writer used Saddock’s theory to analyzed context of situation to find out the inference of the conversation. Fifth, Stalnaker’s theory and Keenan’s theory about presupposition are used in analyzing the inference of conversational implicature. Finally, the writer concludes the possible inference based on context of situation and presupposition analysis.

Example: Data:

I rolled my eyes. "Vampires like baseball?"

19 (Meyer, p.347)

1st step: analyzing data based on Lewis’ theory

Utterance 1 : speaker: Bella, audience: Edward,

Utterance 2 : speaker: Edward, audience: Bella,

Place: in cafeteria, time: in lunch time. Bella is having lunch in cafeteria. She is accompanied by Edward. Suddenly, Alice and Jasper join with them. Alice tells Edward that Emmett wants to play baseball this afternoon. Jasper asks Edward whether he wants to play or not. Alice reminds Edward that he should bring Bella to the game.

(Utterance 1) "Vampires like baseball?" (Utterance 2) "It's the American pastime,"

2nd Step: analyzing the kinds of conversational implicature based on Grice’s theory

Based on Grice theory, this case is generalized conversational implicature because there is no particular context or special scenario being necessary. Actually, they are talking about the plan to play baseball. Bella is surprised that vampires like baseball.

20

In that case, there is a violation of maxim of manner. Edward makes an obscurity utterance by answering It's the American pastime; whereas Bella asked whether vampires like baseball or not. Edward didn’t explain what it means.

4th Step: analyzing the inference of the data based on context of situation Based on context of situations analysis, the writer can infer that vampires like baseball because vampires who do not play baseball are the vampires in American’s past time. Now vampires in America like to play baseball.

5th Step: analyzing the inference of the data based on presupposition theory According to presupposition theory (presupposition is an implicit assumption about the background belief relating to the utterance), by saying It's the American pastime, the writer can infer that:

a. In the past time, American vampires did not like to play baseball. b. Since America has changed, vampires like to play baseball. c. Edward, Alice, Jasper, and Emmett are American vampires. d. They like to play baseball.

6th Step: analyzing the possible inference based on context of situation and presupposition analysis

By looking at the appearing presupposition and the context of situations, since the question only asks whether vampires like baseball or not, the inference is Vampires like baseball.

21 CHAPTER IV

FINDING AND DISCUSSION

This chapter illustrates and explains analyzed data that were found in Twilight novel. The writer found thirty one (31) corpuses regarding violation of maxim of manner. These data are as illustrated below:

Maxim of Manner

Amount of Data

Total

Generalized Con. Imp. Particularized Con. Imp.

Obscurity 5 1 6

Ambiguity 2 2 4

Brief 15 4 19

Orderly 1 1 2

Table 4.1 Corpuses of Maxim of Manner

From the illustration, we can conclude that in Twilight novel, violation to the brief manner is the most appeared corpuses. However, in this research, the writer only took several representative data to be discussed because the data have similar indications to be analyzed.

22 4.1 Violation of Obscurity

The writer found seven (6) corpuses regarding violation of obscurity found in Twilight novel; five (5) data are generalized conversational implicature and one (1) data is particularized conversational implicature. However, the writer analyzed several representative data because the analyzed data have the similar phenomenon. Three (3) data are generalized conversational implicature and one (1) data is particularized conversational implicature.

4.1.1 Generalized Conversational Implicature Data 1:

Analysis:

Utterance 1 : Speaker: Bella, audience: Edward,

Utterance 2 : Speaker: Edward, audience: Bella,

Utterance 3 : Speaker: Bella, audience: Edward,

Utterance 4 : Speaker: Edward, audience: Bella,

Utterance 5 : Speaker: Bella, audience: Edward,

Utterance 6 : Speaker: Edward, audience: Bella,

Place: in Edward’s car, time: night. They are going home after Edward accompanies Bella to have a diner. They are talking about the theory of Edward. Bella assumes that Edward is not the same as her – human being. There is part of his ability showing that he is different from her – as human, such as Edward can read people’s mind, except Bella’s mind, and Edward can

23

move quickly. Thus, Edward asks Bella to give him some theories or facts that supports her assumption. Before saying her theory about Edward, Bella has already done some research in the internet about the cold one (vampire) and Jacob’s story about Cullens’ family.

(Utterance 1) "Don’t laugh – but how can you come out during the daytime?"

(Utterance 2) "Myth."

(Utterance 3) "Burned by the sun?" (Utterance 4) "Myth."

(Utterance 5) "Sleeping in coffins?" (Utterance 6) "Myth."

"I can’t sleep."

This data is generalized conversational implicature because it does not need particular context. Bella tells Edward about her theory regarding the true side of Edward because Bella argues that Edward is different from her. Her theory implies that Edward is a vampire. After hearing Jacob’s story about Cullens family and having done a research about vampire in the internet, she believes that Edward has the same indications with vampire.

Edward makes obscure answer by only saying Myth. He does not explain his contribution in the conversation. He only says myth to respond Bella’s

24

statements. Although in the last conversation he adds his response by saying I

can’t sleep, it does not explain his answer comprehensively.

Looking at the context of situation, Edward disagrees with what Bella said about him. Bella assumes that Edward is someone who can not come out during the daytime, someone who is burned by the sun, and someone who sleeps in coffins. Edward thinks that it is myth, but he does not answer whether it is true or not. However, Edward mentions that he can not sleep. It shows that Edward is not a human because sleeping is human’s habit. Although not all human sleep everyday, at least human can sleep. Maybe Edward is a vampire as Bella’s thought, but Edward does not like a vampire described in myth such as Bella’s assumption that vampire can not come at daytime, vampire can be burned by sun, and vampire sleeps in coffins.

Based on presupposition analysis, that conversation can be inferred: a. Bella assumes that Edward should stay in indoor place when daytime. b. Bella assumes that Edward can be burned by sun.

c. Bella assumes that Edward sleeps in coffins. d. Edward disagrees about Bella’s assumptions. e. Bella assumes that Edward is not a human. f. Bella assumes that Edward is vampire. g. Edward can come out at the daytime. h. Edward can not be burned by sun. i. Edward does not sleep in coffins. j. Edward can not sleep.

25

k. Edward could be a human.

l. Sleeping is one of human’s characteristics. m. Edward could be a vampire.

n. Vampire has characteristic as Bella said (can not come at daytime, burned by sun, sleep in coffins).

Hence, the inference that can be concluded from the conversation is that Edward is not a human but he is also not a kind of vampire as like Bella’s assumption.

Data 2: Analysis:

Utterance 1 : speaker: Edward, audience: Bella,

Utterance 2 : speaker: Bella, audience: Edward,

Place: in parking area of the school, time: in the afternoon. Bella has gotten out from Gym class. She is going to approach Edward who is waiting for her in his Volvo. Although he does not come to Gym class, Edward knows what she was doing and what happened to her by reading Mike’s mind. Edward asks Bella about condition of her head that was hit by her racket.

(Utterance 1) "How's your head?" (Utterance 2) "You're unbelievable!"

26

This case is generalized conversational implicature because it does not need particular context. Edward asks Bella about her head. He worries if her head gets serious injury. Actually, Edward has told Bella that he can read people’s mind, except Bella’s. Bella is very happy knowing that Edward can not read Bella’s mind because she can think anything freely.

Bella makes an obscurity by saying You're unbelievable because it is not the answer of Edward’s question. The proper answer could be my head is fine or my head still hurt. Bella’s answer has two meanings. First, Bella praises Edward ability in reading mind. She does not believe that Edward can read mind. Thus when Edward asks about condition of her head, her doubt is proven. She is very surprised. It could be the first time for Bella knowing person who can read mind’s people. Second, Bella is angry to Edward because he read Mike’s mind to know Bella’s mind and Bella’s condition. She feels Edward is spying her, and she does not like it.

Based on context of situation, it is mentioned that Bella says her contribution with stomping away in the general direction of the parking lot. It shows that actually Bella says the answer angrily. Basically, several people express their anger by using a gesture such as stomping. Hence, by looking at her gesture, Bella is angry to Edward.

Looking at presupposition analysis, the writer infers:

a. Bella may assume that reading people’s mind is unbelievable. b. Bella could be proud of Edward who can read people’s mind. c. Edward read Mike’s mind to know Bella’s condition.

27

d. By reading Mike’s mind, Edward knows that Bella’s head is hit by her racket.

e. Bella assumes Edward spies her. f. Bella does not like to be spied. g. Bella could be angry with him.

h. Bella expresses her angry by using an irony statement and gesture. i. She is stomping to express her angry.

j. Edward worries about Bella’s head. k. Bella’s head could be fine.

Therefore, the inference of the conversation is that Bella is getting angry to Edward because she feels that Edward spies her. Thus, she thinks Edward is unbelievable because she does not believe that Edward can do anything to gain his want.

Data 3: Analysis:

Utterance 1 : speaker: Edward, audience: Bella,

Utterance 2 : speaker: Bella, audience: Edward,

Place: in prom at the school, time: twilight. They are in the prom. At first, Bella does not know that she will be brought to the prom. She thinks that she will be changed by Edward to be a vampire just like Edward. Actually, Bella has already made a decision to change herself into vampire because she wants to be like Edward who can be alive forever. However, Edward disagrees about

28

her decision because Edward thinks that the better one is being a human. Edward makes a joke by saying that he would change her now. Bella believes in him, but suddenly Edward says that actually he would not grant Bella’s wish so easily.

(Utterance 1) "You can't really believe that I would give in so easily," (Utterance 2) "A girl can dream."

This conversation is generalized conversational implicature because it does not need special context. Bella is surprised when she knows that actually Edward brings her to prom. She wants to be changed to be a vampire, so that she believes in Edward when he says that she will be changed in prom. Unfortunately, it is just a joke. Edward can not change Bella to be a vampire so easily.

Bella makes an obscurity by saying A girl can dream. She does not extend her answer to explain the comprehensive utterance. Edward says that Bella can not really believe that he will change Bella so easily. By saying A girl can dream, Bella reminds Edward that usually girl could be a better dreamer than boy. It is seen when several girls dream about their future husband like in fairy tale such as a handsome, rich, and brave man like a prince. They will keep their dreaming and try to make their dream comes true.

According to context of situation, A girl can dream means that a girl can keep dreaming to gain her pretension, so she will keep her pretension as she

29

keeps her dream as long as she can gain that. Bella has a dream to be a vampire just like Edward, and since she is a girl, she will keep dreaming it until her dream comes true.

Looking at Edward’s statement mentioning that he will not grant Bella’s dream so easily, there is an assumption that actually Edward will give Bella’s dream in a hard one. Therefore, Bella still has a hope that her dream will come true. She only has to try hard to get her dream from Edward.

Based on that conversation, the writer can infer: a. Bella has a dream to be vampire.

b. Girl could be a better dreamer than boy. c. Edward will give Bella’s dream.

d. Bella has a hope that her dream will come true. e. Edward will not give Bella’s dream so easily. f. Bella has to try hard to get her dream.

g. Since Bella is a girl, she will keep dreaming and trying to get her dream. Thus, the inference is although Edward will not change Bella into vampire so easily, Bella will keep dreaming and trying hard to gain her dream.

4.1.2 Particularized Conversational Implicature Data 4:

Analysis:

30

Utterance 2 : speaker: Edward, audience: Tyler,

Place: in hospital. Tyler tries to apologize to Edward because he has almost rushed Bella by his car.

(Utterance 1) "Hey, Edward, I'm really sorry —" (Utterance 2) "No blood, no foul,"

This conversation is particularized conversational implicature because Edward’s contribution (utterance 2) needs specific context. In previous scenario, Tyler drives his car quickly and almost hits Bella. Tyler apologizes for making Bella in big trouble to Edward. He almost rushes Bella by his car, but fortunately there is Edward to help Bella. Edward runs quickly to save Bella. However, although she is safe from that accident, Bella needs to check her condition in hospital to make sure that she is fine. Besides Bella, Tyler is also brought to hospital to check his psychological.

Edward makes an obscurity by saying No blood, no foul because he does not explain the comprehensive utterance. Tyler tries to apologize to Edward but Edward responds an obscure answer. A guilty or sorry statement needs a response whether it is forgiven or not, such as It’s ok (accepting answer) and

I’m sorry but I couldn’t forgive you (rejecting answer).

Looking at context of situation, Edward can not give Tyler his apologies because he says that No blood, no foul. Blood means accident, while foul means carelessness. It means that if there is no carelessness so that there is no

31

accident. Since Tyler makes carelessness by making Bella gets an accident that can cause her to death, Edward can not forgive Tyler. He maybe will take vengeance to what Tyler has done.

Based on presupposition analysis, the writer assumes: a. Blood means accident, while foul means carelessness. b. If there is no carelessness there is no accident.

c. Tyler’s carelessness makes Bella get an accident.

d. Edward does not accept Tyler’s apologies because Tyler makes Bella face an accident.

e. Edward maybe will take a vengeance to what Tyler has done to Bella. Hence, the inference of the conversation is Edward does not accept Tyler’s apologies because of his carelessness causing an accident.

4.2Violation of Ambiguity

The writer found four (4) data regarding the violation of ambiguity. They are two (2) data of generalized conversational implicature and two (2) data of particularized conversational implicature.

32

4.2.1 Generalized Conversational Implicature Data 5:

Analysis:

Utterance 1 : speaker: Jessica, audience: Bella,

Utterance 2 : speaker: Bella, audience: Jessica

Place: in food corner or canteen, time: lunch time. Jessica asks whether Bella is hungry or not.

(Utterance 1) "Aren't you hungry?"

(Utterance 2) "Actually, I feel a little sick,"

This case is generalized conversational implicature because there is no particular context or special scenario being necessary. They are in a canteen for lunch. Jessica asks Bella whether Bella is hungry or not. Bella says that she felt a little sick.

In this Jessica’s question, there is a meaning to ask Bella whether Bella wants some food to be ordered or not. Thus, the simple needed answer is yes or no, but Bella makes an ambiguity by answering Actually, I feel a little sick. The utterance Actually, I feel a little sick, has two meanings. Bella does not want to order some food because she feels a little sick. Usually, some people do not want to eat when they are sick because it makes them lose their appetite. The other meaning is Bella wants to order some food because she feels a little sick. Sick people need a lot of nutrition to get well. Thus, since

33

one of the ways to get nutrition is by eating, Bella wants to eat to get some nutrition.

According to context of situation, it is mentioned that Bella follows one of her friends, Jessica who is taking food. When Jessica is taking food, Bella only looks down and looks her feet. She does nothing. Thus, the writer can imply that Bella does not take food to eat.

Based on the presupposition analysis, the writer can infer: a. Bella is sick.

b. Bella loses her appetite to eat.

c. Bella wants to eat to get nutrition because she feels a little sick so that she has to eat.

d. Since usually some people lose their appetite when they are sick, Bella does not want to eat.

e. Bella follows her friends to take food. f. Bella waits for her friends to get their food.

g. Bella does not take food because she only looks to her feet when she is following her friends.

Hence, the inference of this conversation according to context of situations analysis and presupposition analysis is that Bella loses her appetite to eat because she feels a little sick, so that she is not hungry.

34 Data 6:

Analysis:

Utterance 1 : speaker: Charlie, audience: Bella,

Utterance 2 : speaker: Bella, audience: Charlie,

Place: in dining room, time: when breakfast time. They are having a breakfast. Charlie, her father, makes sure about Bella’s planning to go to Seattle at the same day as spring dance’s time. He asks Bella whether there is a guy who asks her to go to spring dance or not. Charlie assumes that Bella will go to Seattle because there is no one who asks her to go to spring dance.

(Utterance 1) "Didn't anyone ask you?" (Utterance 2) "It's a girl's choice."

This case is generalized conversational implicature because it does not require special scenario. It’s a girl’s choice is not closely related to the speaker. However, there is an assumption that girl has a right to choose. In this conversation, Charlie, Bella’s father asks Bella why she will not go to spring dance. Her father worries if there is nobody asks her. Bella says that going to spring dance is a girl’s choice.

Actually, Bella makes an ambiguity by saying It's a girl's choice as her contribution of her father’s question. She does not mention what her statement means. Her father asks her whether there is nobody asks her or not, but Bella responds with an ambiguous statement. Properly, the simple answer that has to

35

be given to her father is yes or no. When her father asks her, Bella says that going to spring dance is girl’s choice. It means that a girl has a right to accept or reject because usually a girl is one who is asked by boy or man, so that she is the one who determines the answer – whether she accepts or rejects. Since Bella is a girl, maybe there is a guy who asks her to go to spring dance but she has a right to decide whether she will go or not. Thus, her statement has two meanings, she accepts guy’s offering and she rejects guy’s offering.

Looking at situation above, since Bella has decided to go to Seattle at the same day as spring day’s time, it means that Bella will not go to spring dance because at the time she will go to Seattle. Thus, she rejects someone who asks her to go to dance because she prefers going to Seattle to the dance.

Looking at presupposition analysis, the writer assumes: a. Bella will go to Seattle at the same day as spring dance’s time. b. Bella will not go to spring dance.

c. Charlie assumes that Bella’s decision to go to Seattle is because there is no one who asked her to go to the dance.

d. There could be a guy who asks Bella to go to the dance. e. Since Bella is a girl, she has a right to accept or reject.

f. Bella could reject someone who offers her to go to the dance.

In conclusion, the inference of the conversation above is although there is someone who asks her to go to the spring dance, since Bella is a girl, she has a right to reject or accept it.

36

4.2.2 Particularized Conversational Implicature Data 7:

Analysis:

Utterance 1 : speaker: Bella, audience: Edward,

Utterance 2 : speaker: Edward, audience: Bella,

Place: in classroom, time: It is when they are studying Biology. It is their first conversation although they met one week ago.

(Utterance 1) "H-how do you know my name?"

(Utterance 1) "Oh, I think everyone knows your name. The whole town's been waiting for you to arrive."

This case is particularized conversational implicature because Edward’s utterance requires such specific context. In the previous scenario, Bella is a new student of Edward’s school. Bella has already picked acquaintance with some students. They talk about Bella to the other students so that it makes her become popular. Basically, Bella asks how Edward knows her name. Edward responds her question as a silly question. He laughs softly, and then says that everyone knows her name because the whole town has been waiting for her arrival.

Edward makes an ambiguity to say Oh, I think everyone knows your name. The whole town's been waiting for you to arrive. He does not answer the correct answer; he does not explain how he knew Bella’s name. In his

37

contribution, actually, he has to explain how he knows Bella’s name. He does not explain the comprehensive answer by saying Oh, I think everyone knows your name. The whole town's been waiting for you to arrive. It seems that Bella is very famous so that people know her name and wait for her coming.

Edward’s contribution has two meanings. It implies that he is one of people who has been waiting for Bella’s coming. Thus, he has already known Bella’s name because he is waiting for her coming. Besides, Edward’s contribution implies that he may know Bella’s name from the other students. Since Bella is a new student of his school, the other students could know Bella because they have introduced each other. Bella becomes so popular because the other students may keep talking about her.

Based on context of situation analysis, it can be assumed that everyone knows Bella’s name, including Edward, so that he just laughs when Bella asks him how he knows her name because it is like a silly question.

According to presupposition analysis, the writer assumes that: a. Edward knows Bella’s name.

b. Everyone knows Bella’s name.

c. Edward may wait for her coming.

d. Edward may know Bella’s name from the other students. e. Bella is famous.

38

Thus, the inference of this conversation according to context of situations analysis and presupposition analysis is Edward knows Bella’s name because Bella is famous.

Data 8: Analysis:

Utterance 1 : speaker: Mike, audience: Bella and Edward,

Utterance 2 : speaker: Bella, audience: Mike and Edward,

Place: in the office (school clinic), time: the afternoon when the Biology class is begun. Bella is fainted when there is a blood test in Biology class. Mike and Edward take her to the clinic. After a while, although there is a little ringing in her ears, Bella decides to go out from the clinic because there is one patient entering the clinic. Bella smells blood from the patient so that she decides to go out because smelling blood makes her sick.

(Utterance 1) "You look better,"

(Utterance 2) "Just keep your hand in your pocket,"

This case is particularized conversational implicature because it requires such specific context. When Bella is in Biology class, although she does not do her blood test she is getting dizzy and fainted by seeing and smelling blood from other students. She is taken to the clinic by Mike, but on the way, Edward comes and forces Mike to get Bella for him so that Mike can go back

39

to class and he can take her. When there is another patient entering the clinic, Bella decides to go out from clinic because she smells blood. It makes her really sick. At the door, Bella meets Mike and he comments on her condition, but Bella responds with an ambiguous one.

Bella makes an ambiguity because Bella does not explain the comprehensive utterance by only saying just keeps your hand in your pocket. Properly, Bella has to respond to Mike’s statement at least by explaining the reason why Bella looks better, such as Oh yes, because I’m fine. However, Bella does not do that. She says just keeps your hand in your pocket as her response. It refers to command someone to shut up or to do nothing because if we keep our hand in our pocket, we can not do anything.

Looking at Bella’s contribution, saying just keeps your hand in your pocket, it has two meanings. First, Bella wants Mike does not need to worry about her because she is fine now. Second, Bella is still not fine but she does not want him to be worried.

According to context of situations analysis, the writer can imply that Mike worries about Bella’s health, but Bella looks so uncomfortable about it. She does not want to be worried and even to be touched. Bella wants Mike not to worry about her.

Based on the presupposition analysis, the writer can infer: a. Bella is sick and fainted by seeing and smelling blood. b. Mike assumes that Bella’s health is better than before. c. Bella commands Mike to do nothing or just keep silent.

40 d. Bella could be fine.

e. Bella decides to go out from clinic to avoid getting sicker by smelling blood from other patient.

f. Bella wants Mike not to worry about her.

g. Bella assumes that her health is not a big deal to be worried.

Hence, the inference of this conversation according to context of situations analysis and presupposition analysis is that Bella is still not fine but she does not want to be worried.

4.3Violation of Brief

There are nineteen (19) data regarding violation of brief; fifteen (15) of generalized conversational implicature and four (4) of particularized conversational implicature. In this paper, the writer only took five (5) data of generalized conversational implicature and two (2) data of particularized conversational implicature to be analyzed because the data analyzed have represented all data.

4.3.1Generalized Conversational Implicature Data 9:

Analysis:

41

Utterance 2 : speaker: Charlie, audience: Bella,

Utterance 3 : speaker: Bella, audience: Charlie,

Utterance 4 : speaker: Charlie, audience: Bella,

Utterance 5 : speaker: Charlie, audience: Bella,

Place: in Charlie’s car, time: in the morning. It is the first time for Bella to move to her father’s home forever. Charlie says that he found a good car for her. Bella is curious which car is. She asks her father where he found the car.

(Utterance 1) ―Where did you find it?‖

(Utterance 2) ―Do you remember Billy Black down at La Push?‖

(Utterance 3) ―No.‖

(Utterance 4) ―He used to go fishing with us during the summer,‖

(Utterance 5) ―He is in a wheelchair now,‖

―so he can’t drive anymore, and he offered to sell me his truck cheap.‖

This type is generalized conversational implicature because it does not require particular context. They are talking about a car that is found by Charlie as a gift for Bella. Bella wants to know where he found it. When Charlie is supposed to answer Bella’s question, he reminds Bella to Billy Black first. Charlie makes a violation to the brief manner. Bella asks Charlie where he

found a car but Charlie answers it in circumvent speech. Properly, the brief answer is I found it from Billy Black. However, he reminds Bella to Billy Black

42

first who used to go fishing with them during the summer. He also tells Bella that now Billy Black is in wheelchair. Charlie makes his speech around the bush.

Based on context of situation, Charlie found a car from Billy Black because he tells that Billy is in wheelchair and he sells his car to Charlie. Maybe Billy is his friend because Charlie tells that they have done fishing during the summer. So that is why Charlie reminds Bella to Billy first. He wants Bella to know that he found a car from person that Bella has known. Since Billy is Charlie’s friend, Billy sells his car cheaply.

According to presupposition analysis, Charlie’s speech implies: a. Bella had met Billy Black.

b. Since Bella does not remember Billy, Charlie tells that they had fishing during summer with Billy.

c. Billy is Charlie’s friend.

d. Billy does not in wheelchair before. e. Billy is in wheelchair now.

f. Billy is paralyzed now. g. Billy can not drive anymore. h. Billy offers his truck to Charlie. i. Billy had a truck.

j. The car found by Charlie is truck.

k. Since Charlie is Billy’s friend, he sells his truck cheaply.

43 Data 10:

Analysis:

Utterance 1 : speaker: Bella, audience: Jessica,

Utterance 2 : speaker: Jessica, audience: Bella,

Place: in cafeteria, time: lunch time. It is the first time for Bella attending her new schools. Bella asks Jessica about Cullen’s family. Since Bella has gotten a gawking expression from other student because she is new student in the school, she is curious to one of Cullens’ family who is staring at her with frustrated expression.

(Utterance 1) "Which one is the boy with the reddish brown hair?" (Utterance 2) "That's Edward. He's gorgeous, of course, but don't waste

your time. He doesn't date. Apparently none of the girls here are good-looking enough for him."

Based on Grice’s theory, this case is generalized conversational implicature because it does not need particular context. Bella wants to know a person who is staring at her in cafeteria. Since they are talking about Cullens’ family and one of them is staring at her, Bella asks Jessica the name of him.

When Bella asks Jessica about the boy with the reddish brown hair, Jessica does not answer briefly. Properly, Jessica only has to answer that’s Edward. She tells Bella about the personality of Edward. She tells that although in their

44

school there are good-looking girls, Edward does not think so. Because of that, Edward does not date anyone. Besides, she also tells that Edward is gorgeous.

Based on context of situation, Jessica wants to tell Bella that boy with the reddish brown hair is Edward. Since Bella is a new student in her school, Jessica thinks that she has to warn Bella not to waste her time to think more about Edward, because as she mentioned, Edward does not date.

Looking at presupposition analysis, the writer can infer: a. Bella is new student.

b. Other students gawk to Bella.

c. There is boy with the reddish brown hair staring at Bella in frustrated expression.

d. Boy with the reddish brown hair is Edward. e. Edward is gorgeous.

f. Edward does not date.

g. Although there are good-looking girls in the school, Edward is not interested in dating them.

h. Worshiping Edward is wasting time since Edward is not interested in dating.

45 Data 11:

Analysis:

Utterance 1 : speaker: Bella, audience: Edward,

Utterance 2 : speaker: Edward, audience: Bella,

Utterance 3 : speaker: Bella, audience: Edward,

Place: in Edward’s car, time: afternoon. Bella is getting pale when she enters Gym class. Edward asks Gym teacher to permit Bella for missing the class since Bella is sick. After getting permission from the teacher, Edward carries Bella home. Edward plays classic music in his car. He is surprised when Bella know the music.

(Utterance 1) "Clair de Lune?" (Utterance 2) "You know Debussy?" (Utterance 3) "Not well,"

"My mother plays a lot of classical music around the house — I only know my favorites."

This case is generalized conversational implicature because it does not need special context. They are talking about the classic music. Edward does not guess that Bella know the music which is played is Clair de Lune. Actually, Bella is also surprised that she still knows it.

Bella does not answer Edward’s question briefly. Actually saying Not well is enough for answering Edward’s question regarding whether Bella knows

46

Debussy or not. Bella adds another utterance to sustain her answer by saying My mother plays a lot of classical music around the house — I only know my favorites.

Looking at context of situation, although Bella does not know well about Debussy, she still remember it because her mother plays a lot of classical music, and one of them is Debussy.

Based on presupposition analysis, it can be inferred: a. Debussy is classic music.

b. Bella’s mother may like classical music. c. She plays a lot of classical music. d. One of them is Debussy.

e. Debussy is Bella’s favorite.

f. Bella knows Debussy, but not well.

The inference that can be concluded is Bella knows Debussy, but not well.

Data 12: Analysis:

Utterance 1 : speaker: Jessica, audience: Bella,

Utterance 2 : speaker: Bella, audience: Jessica,

Utterance 3 : speaker: Jessica, audience: Bella,

Utterance 4 : speaker: Bella, audience: Jessica,

Place: in class, time: in the morning. Jessica wants to know what happened last night between Bella and Edward because before Bella comes to her

47

school, Edward does not have an affair with anyone. That is why Jessica is curious about Edward who suddenly comes with Bella this morning.

(Utterance 1) "Was it like a date — did you tell him to meet you there?" (Utterance 2) "No — I was very surprised to see him there."

(Utterance 3) "But he picked you up for school today?"

(Utterance 4) "Yes — that was a surprise, too. He noticed I didn't have a jacket last night,"

The conversation between Bella and Jessica is generalized conversational implicature because it does not need particular context. Jessica is curious about Bella and Edward. She wants to know whether they do a date.

Bella answers Jessica’s questions clearly. She explains her answer to make Jessica clear that actually there is nothing special happened to Bella and Edward. She does not answer briefly. She makes a violation to the brief manner. It may cause that Jessica will ask more and more if she just answers yes or no, although the proper answer is yes or no.

Based on context of situation, Bella does not have a date with Edward. She meets Edward in chance.

According to presupposition analysis, the writer infers that: a. Bella was in somewhere last night.

b. Edward met Bella in that place last night.

48 d. Bella met Edward in chance.

e. Edward came to Bella’s home this morning.

f. Edward has picked Bella up to school this morning. g. Edward and Bella go to school together.

h. Bella and Edward do not have a date.

Hence, the inference of the conversation is Bella and Edward do not have a date. They meet in chance.

Data 13: Analysis:

Utterance 1 : speaker: Edward, audience: Bella,

Utterance 2 : speaker: Bella, audience: Edward,

Utterance 3 : speaker: Edward, audience: Bella,

Place: in the kitchen of Bella’s home, time: in the morning. Bella is having breakfast. Although Edward is not having breakfast same as Bella, he is accompanying her in the kitchen. Bella asks Edward about the agenda for today. Edward wants to bring Bella to his home and introduce her to his family. Since Bella has known that Cullens are vampire, she is afraid if his family will be angry with her because actually Cullens are vampire is a secret.

(Utterance 1) "Don't worry." "I'll protect you."

49

I'm afraid they won't… like me. Won't they be, well, surprised that you would bring someone… likeme… home to meet them? Do they know that I know about them?" (Utterance 3) "Oh, they already know everything. They'd taken bets

yesterday, you know"

"on whether I'd bring you back, though why anyone would bet against Alice, I can't imagine. At any rate, we don't have secrets in the family. It's not really feasible, what with my mind reading and Alice seeing the future and all that."

This conversation is generalized conversational implicature because it does not need particular context. Bella is afraid that her coming will bring a trouble. Since all Cullens are vampires, she is afraid if they will be surprised that there is a human visiting vampire’s home. Besides, she is afraid if they are angry with her about knowing their secret as vampire.

Bella mentions her utterance with around the bush speech, Edward does either. Edward says that since Edward will protect her from vampire, she has not to worry about his family. Bella does not deliver her speech briefly. She says that she is afraid if his family will not like her, and then she also says that she is afraid if they may be surprised with her coming. Besides, she also says that she is afraid if they may know that Bella knows their secret – they are vampire. The point is Bella is afraid if Cullens do not like her.

50

Edward also violates to the brief. When Bella asks him whether his family knows that Bella knows about their secret as vampire, Edward says his answer in long speech. He says that they have already known that Bella has known about them. Besides, they will be not surprised about her coming because Alice has gotten a vision about her coming. In their family, there is no secret. Edward may cancel to bring Bella to his home if Bella is still afraid, although he has to against Alice’s vision.

Based on context of situation, Bella is afraid if Cullens do not like her coming. She is also afraid if they will be angry with her about knowing their secret. However, Edward makes Bella sure that actually they have already known about Bella’s coming and they have known that Bella has known about them.

According to presupposition analysis, it can be inferred:

a. Edward knows that Bella worries about coming to vampire’s home, so that Edward will protect her.

b. Bella is not afraid about getting attack from vampire. c. Bella is afraid if Cullens do not like her.

d. Bella is afraid that her coming will be surprised them.

e. Bella worries whether they knows that Bella has known about them. f. Alice can get a vision about the future.

g. Alice has get a vision about Bella’s coming. h. Alice tells her family about Bella’s coming.

51

j. Cullens have also known that Bella has known about them because in their family there is no secret.

k. Edward may cancel his plan to bring Bella to his home. l. Edward may against Alice’s vision.

The inference of the conversation is Bella not to worry about Cullens because they have already known about Bella’s coming and they have also known that Bella has known about them.

4.3.2Particularized Conversational Implicature Data 14:

Analysis:

Utterance 1 : speaker: Bella, audience: Edward,

Utterance 2 : speaker: Edward, audience: Bella,

Utterance 3 : speaker: Bella, audience: Edward,

Utterance 4 : speaker: Edward, audience: Bella,

Utterance 5 : speaker: Edward, audience: Bella,

Place: in parking area at school, time: in the morning. Bella has gotten off from her car. She would like to go to class but suddenly Edward comes and bothers her with stupid question.

52

(Utterance 2) "I was wondering if, a week from Saturday — you know, the day of the spring dance —"

(Utterance 3) "Are you trying to be funny?"

(Utterance 4) "Will you please allow me to finish?"

(Utterance 5) "I heard you say you were going to Seattle that day, and I was wondering if you wanted a ride."

This case is particularized conversational implicature because it needs special context. In previous situation, Bella is asked out to the dance by three persons (Eric, Mike, and Tyler). She rejects them because she will go to Seattle on that day. Now, Edward is also talking about spring dance. Bella thinks that maybe Edward will ask her to go to the dance with him. However, Edward does not ask Bella to go to the dance. Edward offers a ride to Bella to go to Seattle.

Edward makes a violation to the brief manner by telling his question with around the bush speech. Edward makes an introduction before mentioning his exact question. It makes Bella think that Edward tries to be funny by asking her to go to the dance. Thus, she has to announce that she will go to Seattle on the same day as the dance time that it means Bella will not go to the dance. Nevertheless, Edward does not mean to ask Bella to the dance. The exact question is actually Edward offers a ride to Bella to Seattle. Edwards makes an around the bush speech. He does not deliver his question briefly. Properly, Edward starts to the main question, such as do you want a ride to Seattle?

53

Based on context of situation, Edward will not ask Bella to go to the dance, but he wants to offer a ride to Bella to Seattle. Maybe Edward worries if Bella will get tired. In his utterance, I heard you say you were going to Seattle that day, and I was wondering if you wanted a ride, he could offer himself to drive for her. Those reactions are unexpected because she thinks that Edward is the same as the other boys who will ask her to go to the dance. Besides, she does not expect that Edward knows her plan to go to Seattle because actually she does not tell him. Therefore, going to Seattle with Edward is unpredictable.

According to presupposition analysis, it implies:

a. Bella assumes that Edward will ask her to go to the dance. b. Edward could ask Bella to go to the dance.

c. Edward knows Bella’s plan going to Seattle.

d. Bella does not tell Edward about her plan going to Seattle. e. Edward may know Bella’s plan from Mike, Eric, or Tyler. f. Edward does not ask Bella to go to the dance.

g. Edward offers a ride to Bella.

h. Bella may need a ride to go to Seattle.

i. Maybe Bella does not need a ride to go to Seattle. j. Edward may want to go to Seattle.

k. Edward may want to go to Seattle with Bella. l. Edward offers himself to drive for her. m. Maybe Bella will drive by herself before.

54

Therefore, the inference of the conversation is Edward want to offer a ride to Bella because Edward may go to Seattle too.

Data 15: Analysis:

Utterance 1 : speaker: Edward, audience: Bella,

Utterance 2 : speaker: Bella, audience: Edward,

Place: in Bella’s bedroom, time: in the night. Edward tells about his true feeling to Bella. Bella is the only one girl that he wants to be with. Bella is his first love. He does not believe that he can find someone who has very attractive in all way. Since Edward is vampire, there is part of him that really thirst for her blood because Bella’s scent really drives Edward going crazy. At the first time they met, Edward could not control himself if he was around her. Thus, Edward must be really careful to be close to Bella.

(Utterance 1) "Do you remember the day that Mike asked you to the dance?"

(Utterance 2) "The day you started talking to me again."

This conversation is particularized conversational implicature because it needs special context. The day you started talking to me again needs previous discourse. Edward reminds Bella about time when Mike asks her to the dance. Bella remembers it and reminds Edward that when Mike asks her to the dance,

55

it is the first time for them to start talking again. They have fought and then Edward decides to end their friendship since actually Edward is dangerous for Bella.

Bella does not deliver her answer briefly. Properly, when Edward asks Bella Do you remember the day that Mike asked you to the dance?; Bella has to answer Yes,I do or No, I don’t.

Looking at the context of situation, Bella remembers the day that Mike asks her to the dance because that day is the day that Edward starts to talk to her again. By saying The day you started talking to me again, Bella wants to remind Edward that the first time they start talking again is the same as Mike asks Bella to the dance.

Based on presupposition analysis, the writer infers: a. Mike asks Bella to the dance.

b. Bella and Edward have fought and then Edward decides to not talk to each other anymore.

c. They starts talking again.

d. Bella remembers the day that Edward starts to talk to her again.

e. The day that Mike asks Bella is the day that Edward starts to talk to Bella again.

f. Bella remembers the day that Mike asks Bella to the dance.

Hence, the inference that can be concluded is since Bella remembers the day that Edward starts to talk to Bella again, Bella remembers the day that

56

Mike asks Bella to the dance, because the day that Mike asks Bella to the dance is the same as the day that Edward starts to talk to Bella again.

4.4Violation of Orderly

The writer found two (2) data of violation to the orderly. They are one (1) data of generalized conversational implicature and one (1) data particularized conversational implicature.

4.4.1Generalized Conversational Implicature Data 16:

Analysis:

Utterance 1 : speaker: Mike, audience: Bella,

Utterance 2 : speaker: Bella, audience: Mike,

Place: in cafeteria, time: in the morning. Bella absents from Gym class. She is daydreaming in cafeteria since her homework that has to be submitted tomorrow has been done. After a while, Mike comes and asks her what she did yesterday. She answers that she did homework yesterday. Mike is surprised because he does not work on the homework. He thinks that tonight he will do the homework. Suddenly, he asks Bella to go out with him tonight and thinks that he will cancel to do the homework. Bella rejects his offer because going out tonight is not the best idea.

57 (Utterance 1) "Why?"

(Utterance 2) "I think… and if you ever repeat what I'm saying right now I will cheerfully beat you to death,"

"but I think that would hurt Jessica's feelings."

This conversation is generalized conversational implicature because it does not require particular context. Mike asks her why she rejects his offers.

When Mike asks her about the reason why she rejects his offers, Bella does not answer orderly. In the first, Bella wants to answer her reason by saying I think….but suddenly she changes her topic and says that she will beat him to death cheerfully. Besides, she also talks about another topic, Jessica’s feeling. She is inconsistent about her speech. Properly, she only has to say the reason why she rejects him.

Based on context of situation, Bella does not want to go out with Mike tonight she thinks that he has to work on the homework tonight. However, she is frustrated what Mike actually thinks. He prefers going out to doing homework easily. Thus, she will be glad to beat him to death. However, if she beats Mike it will hurt Jessica’s feeling.

According to presupposition analysis, the writer infers:

a. Bella thinks that Mike has to work on the homework tonight than go out

with her.

58

c. Bella will beat Mike to death if he keeps asking her. d. Beating Mike to death makes Jessica’s feeling hurt. e. Jessica may care about Mike.

The inference is Bella thinks that Mike has to work on the homework tonight.

4.4.2Particularized Conversational Implicature Data 17:

Analysis:

Utterance 1 : speaker: Bella, audience: Edward,

Utterance 2 : speaker: Edward, audience: Bella,

Utterance 3 : speaker: Bella, audience: Edward,

Place: in Edward’s car, time: in the night. Edward is getting mad to the men who disturb Bella. He wants to kill them soon if he keeps thinking about the accident. He asks Bella to distract him. Bella thinks fast and then says that actually she will run over Tyler tomorrow. Edward has been distracted. He asks Bella the reason why she wants to run over Tyler.

(Utterance 1) "Um."

"I'm going to run over Tyler Crowley tomorrow before school?"

(Utterance 2) "Why?"

(Utterance 3) "He's telling everyone that he's taking me to prom — either he's insane or he's still trying to make up for almost killing

59

me last… well, you remember it, and he thinks prom is somehow the correct way to do this. So I figure if I

endanger his life, then we're even, and he can't keep trying to make amends. I don't need enemies and maybe Lauren would back off if he left me alone. I might have to total his Sentra, though. If he doesn't have a ride he can't take anyone to prom…"

This conversation is particularized conversational implicature because it requires particular context. In previous discourse Tyler is guilty since he has born the brunt to Bella. He talks to everyone that he will bring Bella to prom. He thinks that bring her to prom can lessen his guilty. However, Bella does not think so. She is getting angry with Tyler.

Bella does not deliver his answer orderly about the reason why she wants to run over Tyler. Bella jumps from one topic to another. She tells Edward that Tyler tells everyone that he will bring Bella to prom. She thinks that he is still guilty. She reminds Edward to the accident that makes Bella get a big trouble caused by Tyler. That is why Bella wants to run over Tyler so that he is not able to bring anyone. She also tells about Lauren who abandons Bella because she is jealous with Bella. Properly, she has to deliver her utterance orderly by only saying the reason why she wants to run over Tyler.

Based on context of situation, Bella is quite confused since Bella is asked to distract Edward suddenly, she has to think fast. The point of her speech is

60

that she is getting angry with Tyler because he keeps talking to everyone that he will bring Bella to prom. That is why she wants to run over Tyler.

Looking at presupposition analysis, it can be concluded that:

a. Bella wants to run over Tyler because she is getting angry with him. b. She is angry with Tyler because he keeps talking to everyone that he will

bring her to prom.

c. Tyler is still guilty to Bella about the accident.

d. Tyler thinks that bringing Bella to prom can decrease his guilty. e. Tyler thinks that bringing Bella to prom is correct way.

f. Bella does not think that bringing her to prom is correct way. g. If Bella run over Tyler, he will not able to bring anyone to prom. h. Lauren is jealous with Bella because Tyler will bring her to prom. i. Lauren may hope Tyler will bring her to prom.

j. Lauren may love Tyler.

k. Lauren makes Bella become her enemy.

The inference of the conversation is Bella is getting angry with Tyler because he keeps talking to everyone that he will bring her to prom.

61 CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

This chapter illustrates conclusions and suggestions regarding the result of discussion of the research. The conclusions and suggestions are as follows:

5.1 Conclusions

Based on discussion that is described in Chapter IV, it can be concluded that actually, intentionally or unintentionally people make violation of manner for some reasons. They violate the obscure manner, ambiguous manner, and brief manner in their conversational implicature. However, in those conversations, actually, speaker wants to deliver such particular meaning or message implied in. The meaning or message of the conversational implicature can be analyzed by looking at context of situation or presupposition.

In this research, the writer found thirty one (31) corpuses regarding the violation of maxim of manner. There are six (6) corpuses of obscurity, four (4) corpuses of ambiguity, nineteen (19) corpuses of brief violation, and two (2) corpuses of orderly. Nevertheless, the writer only took seventeen (17) corpuses to be analyzed because the rest of the corpuses show the same indications. They are four (4) represented data of obscurity, four (4) represented data of ambiguity, seven (7) represented data of brief, and two (2) data of orderly.

62

Four (4) represented data of obscurity are three (3) data of generalized conversational implicature and one (1) datum of particularized conversational implicature. Those data show that speaker’s contribution makes an obscure utterance by saying an utterance that is hard to be understood by the audience. However, in this violation, there are several presuppositions that can be concluded into a possible inference.

Besides, there are four (4) generalized conversational implicature data of ambiguity that show an ambiguous utterance. There are two (2) data of generalized conversational implicature and two (2) data of particularized conversational implicature. Speaker’s response has two meanings, so that’s why the audience feels confused what the true meaning is. To get a true meaning, the writer looks at context of situation and presupposition.

There are seven (7) represented data of brief violation. They are four (4) data of generalized conversational implicature and three (3) data of particularized conversational implicature. These data show that speaker’s contribution makes the audience get mixed up by saying the around the bush utterance. The speaker hides a true inference in their long speech. However, nothing is impossible to get a true inference in long speech. The writer attempts to get a true inference by analyzing context of situation and presupposition.

The last, there are two (2) represented data of orderly. They are one (1) datum of generalized conversational implicature and one (1) datum of particularized conversational implicature. They show that the speaker’s contribution is disorder utterance. S/he does not deliver his/her speech orderly.

63

Usually, they can change the main topic of their speech easily and then they come back again to the main topic. Same as the other violation of maxim of manner, the writer attempts to get true inference through context of situation analysis and presupposition analysis.

Therefore, it can be concluded that to get a possible inference in conversational implicature that is included violation to the maxim of manner, the audience has to look at context of situation or presupposition.

5.2 Suggestions

There are several suggestions regarding analysis on the violation of maxim of manner in conversational implicature. First, in conducting conversation, the speaker should concern about the topic of the conversation and audience. This is important because in this part, the message or meaning of the utterance in the conversation can be delivered well without mixing up the audience. Second, to know the message or meaning in the utterance, we have to learn about the context of situation first. It can help us to find out what the true meaning is, that is implied in that utterance. Third, besides learning the context of situation, we can analyze the meaning of the utterance by using presupposition. It is an analysis on the possible meaning in the utterance. Fourth, every person has their own language and style to conduct the conversation but we have to remember that everyone is different but it is not difficult to understand because we can analyze it. Thus, we can know why one uses this way. The last one, since this research only focuses on

64

the analysis of maxim of manner pragmatically, the writer expects for the next researchers to develop this research regarding the analysis of maxim of manner in discourse analysis or semantic analysis. Besides, the next researcher can analyze the reason of making violation to the maxim of manner.

x CONTENTS

ABSTRACT vii

ABSTRAK viii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ix

CONTENTS x

LIST OF TABLES xiii

LIST OF TERMS xiv

LIST OF APPENDIXES xv

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1

1.1Background 1

1.2Research Question 4

1.3Objectives 4

1.4Significant to Knowledge 4

1.5The Framework of Theories 5

CHAPTER II THEORITICAL REVIEW 7

2.1 Pragmatics 7

2.2 Conversations 8

2.2.1 Conversational Implicature 9

2.2.1.1 Co-operative Principle 10

a Maxim of Manner 10

xi

2) Ambiguity 12

3) Brief 12

4) Orderly 12

2.2.2 Presupposition 14

2.2.3 Inference 14

CHAPTER III RESEARCH OBJECT AND METHOD 16

3.1 Research Object 16

3.2 Research Method 17

3.2.1 Data Collection 17

3.2.2 Data Analysis 18

CHAPTER IV FINDING AND DISCUSSION 21

4.1 Violation of Obscurity 22

4.1.1 Generalized Conversational Implicature 22

4.1.2 Particularized Conversational Implicature 29

4.2 Violation of Ambiguity 31

4.2.1 Generalized Conversational Implicature 32

4.2.2 Particularized Conversational Implicature 36

4.3 Violation of Brief 40

4.3.1 Generalized Conversational Implicature 40

4.3.2 Particularized Conversational Implicature 51

4.4 Violation of Orderly 56

xii

4.4.2 Particularized Conversational Implicature 58

CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS 61

5.1 Conclusions 61

5.2 Suggestions 63

REFERENCES 65

APPENDIXES 66

92

B. Formal Education

No Years Institution

1. 1994 – 2000 SDN Tegaltangkolo II 2. 2000 – 2003 SLTP Negeri 2 Tanjungsiang 3. 2003 – 2006 SMA Negeri 3 Subang 4. 2006 – 2010 English Department

Indonesia University of Computer

C. Informal Education

No Years Institution

1. 2006 Lembaga Pendidikan BEC - Indonesia (Certified)

2. 2008 – Now Homey Korean Language Club (Uncertified) 3. 2007 Seminar on Copywriting I (Certified)

4. 2008 Seminar Senam dan Tari serta Cara Membaca Cepat untuk Anak Usia Dini (Certified) 5. 2009 Seminar on Copywriting II (Certified)

6. 2010 National Technology Information Seminar (Certified)

7. 2010 Seminar on Copywriting III (Certified)

8. 2010 Seminar on Translating and Interpreting (Certified)

93

D. Experiences

No Years Organizational Background 1. 2000 – 2002 Member of OSIS SLTPN 2 Tanjungsiang 2. 2000 – 2003 Member of Pramuka SLTPN 2 Tanjungsiang 3. 2001 – 2003 Editor of Mading SLTPN 2 Tanjungsiang 4. 2003 Member of Mading SMAN 3 Subang 5. 2005 – 2006 Member of Pramuka SMAN 3 Subang

6. 2005 – 2006 Member of English Major Organization of UNIKOM

7. 2007 – 2008 Teacher in SDN Tegaltangkolo II

Bandung, July 2010

xv

LIST OF APPENDIXES

1. Appendix 1 : Analyzed Data 68

2. Appendix 2 : All Corpuses 75

3. Appendix 3 : Obscurity Corpuses 82

4. Appendix 4 : Ambiguity Corpuses 84

5. Appendix 5 : Brief Corpuses 85

xiii

LIST OF TABLES

xiv

LIST OF TERMS

1. Con : Conversational 2. Imp : Implicature

GRADUATE PROGRAM

INDONESIA UNIVERSITY OF COMPUTER BANDUNG

REVISION APPROVAL SKRIPSI (S1)

NAME : NOVIE SUSANTIE

STUDENT NUMBER : 63706004

DEPARTMENT : ENGLISH DEPARTMENT

DATE OF EXAMINATION :

TITLE OF THE SKRIPSI : ANALYSIS ON THE VIOLATION OF MAXIM OF MANNER IN

CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURE APPEARING IN STEPHENIE

MEYER’S TWILIGHT

(The Study of Pragmatics)

THE SKRIPSI HAS BEEN REVISED, APPROVED BY THE EXAMINERS AND ADVISORS, AND IS ALLOWED TO BE COPIED.

NO EXAMINERS SIGNATURE

1. Dr. Juanda

2. Asih Prihandini, S.S., M. Hum. 3. Tatan Tawami, S.S

Bandung, Acknowledged by: Advisor I Dr. Juanda NIP 4127.20.03.007 Advisor II

M. Rayhan Bustam, S.S. NIP 4127.20.03.021