In addition, conventional implicature are not based on the cooperative principle or the maxims. They do not have to occur in conversation, and they do not
depend on special contexts for their interpretation. Yule 45.
Conventional implicature is always conveyed, regardless of context. According to Levinson 127, conventional implicature are non-truth conditional
inferences that are not derived from super ordinate pragmatic principles like the maxims, but are simply attached by convention to particular lexical item.
1. Conversational Implicature
Grice says that conversational implicature can be defined as “A different opposite, additional, etc pragmatic meaning of an utterance with respect to the
literal meaning expressed by utterance” L. Mey 371. Conversational implicature
is to be related to cooperative principle. Grice 45, states: “Make your contribution such as required; at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted
purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged”
The implicature which has been resulted by violating the cooperative principle is conversational implicature. To understand the meaning of
conversational implicature, sometimes we must relate it with situation or context where it’s happening Yule 31. In Levinson’s books the titled “pragmatics”.
Grice distinguish conversational implicature into two types, those are
Generalized conversational implicature and Particularized conversational implicature Levinson 126.
1.1 Generalized Conversational Implicature
Generalized conversational implicatures are implicature that are normally carried by saying that p. As an example of generalized conversational
implicature, Grice suggests the use of aan X, which carries the implicature that X
is only remotely related in a certain way to some person indicated by the
context. When someone says “John is meeting a woman this evening”, he
certainly means that is, conversationally implicates +“The woman John is meeting this evening is not his mother, his sister or his wife
”. According to his book Levinson 126 stated that Generalized Conversational
Implicature arise without any particular context and special scenario being necessary. Look at the example below:
A. Do you buy cheese and bread? B. I buy bread
By the example above, it means that speaker B does not buy cheese and it can be understood although the speaker B does not give information about that.
There is no special background of the implicature. Information or inference of generalized conversational implicature is
obtained by using word which expressed one value from scale of value. Hence, another way to Generalized Conversational Implicature is using scalar
implicature. 1.2 Particularized Conversational Implicature
Some assumed knowledge which is required in very specific context during conversation is called particularized conversational implicature. As an illustration,
consider an example where Lara‟s response does not appear on the surface to adhere to relevance. It is simply rel
evant answer would be „yes‟ or „no‟. Carol : Are you coming to the party tonight?
Lara : I’ve got an exam tomorrow. Taken from Yule 131
In order to make Lara‟s response relevant, Carol has to draw on some assumed knowledge that Lara will be spending that evening with his parents,
consequently he is not at party. Based on description above, the writer is capable sum up that the criterion of particularized conversational implicature is
conversational implicature that its meaning is out part of the utterance, so that hearer should need knowledge more to interpret what speaker mean. In other
word, particularized conversational implicature is the inferences of hearer which only can be work out or interpreted while drawing totally on the specific context
of the utterance. Particularized Conversational Implicature is one of the subclass of Grice’s
conversational implicature. However, most of the times of our conversations takes place in very specific context in which locally recognized inferences is assumed
Yule 42.
CHAPTER III
RESEARCH FINDINGS
A. Data Description
In collecting data, this research uses descriptive analysis technique. Then, there are the steps of Data Collecting as follows: a. The titled as a source
data is read thoroughly. b. The data which contains conversational implicature are given a mark. c. Identifying every conversation from the characters in the
movie which contains conversational implicature. d. The research uses conversational implicature by H.P Grice to analyze this study. e. Last steps,
concludes the result. By using the techniques, there are 17 data that the writer selected and
concluded based on the question above.
Table of conversational implicature
DATA NON-
OBSERVANCE MAXIM
CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURE
Data 1 Flouting
Manner Generalized
Data 2 Flouting
Manner Particularized
23
Data 3 Violating
Quantity Generalized
Data 4 Flouting
Relation Particularized
Data 5 Flouting
Relation Generalized
Data 6 Flouting
Manner Particularized
Data 7 Flouting
Manner Particularized
Data 8 Flouting
Relation Particularized
Data 9 Flouting
Manner Particularized
Data 10 Flouting
Manner Particularized
Data 11 Violating
Manner Generalized
Data 12 Violating
Manner Generalized
Data 13 Violating
Relation Generalized
Data 14 Flouting
Relation Particularized
Data 15 Violating
Manner Generalized
Data 16 Flouting
Manner Generalized
Data 17 Flouting
Manner Generalized
B.Data Analysis Data 1
Context: Zach and his brother Gray are at the airport, they are going to take a vacation. They parents Karen and Scoot are companying them to the airport and
give some advices before they left. Karen: Take care of your brother, answer your phone. Im serious. Its the green
button. When you see my name, push it, okay? And remember,
something chases you, run. Zach: Yeah, youre funny.
From the dialogue above shows that Zach did not observe the cooperative principle in the conversation. The utterance that Zach gives have no correlated to
