CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURE IN SENTILAN SENTILUN TALK SHOW.
CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURE IN SENTILAN
SENTILUN TALK SHOW
A THESIS
Submitted as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirementsfor the Degree
of Sarjana Sastra
By:
LUSI LISNARIA MANALU
Registration Number 2113220025
ENGLISH AND LITERATURE DEPARTEMENT
FACULTY OF LANGUAGES AND ARTS
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
2015
ABSTRACT
Manalu, Lusi Lisnaria. 2113220025. Conversational Implicature in Sentilan
Sentilun Talk Show. A Thesis. Faculty of Languages and Arts. State
University of Medan. 2015.
Talk shows such as Sentilan Sentilun are quite popular in Indonesian television.
These talk show are quite interesting to study because they are not only involving
many participants, but also requiring the settings in which politeness and
implicature needed to be used to keep the communication flows smoothly. This
paper is a pragmatic study that aims at investigating conversational implicature
that hosts and the guests of Sentilan Sentilun talk show operate within their
utterances along with the possible implications that lie behind the implicature. The
data are analyzed based on cooperative principle by violating Gricean maxims,
that are specifically maxim of quality, quantity and relevance. Findings show that
there are 51 utterances containing conversational implicature. The findings show
that there are four types of violated maxims that potentially caused conversational
implicature. The dominant type is maxim of relation(56.87 %). The reason why it
becomes the dominant type is because the host and the guests wanted to create
humors in order to flutter someone or certain topics. The hosts and the guests
conveyed an implicit meaning when giving statement or opinion or information
and answering the question in their discussion based on the truth condition or
facts in the talk show.
Keywords : conversational implicature, types, maxim, humor, talk show, Sentilan
Sentilun
i
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Great thanks and praise to the Almighty Jesus Christ who has blessed and
given the ability to the researcher to complete her thesis as the partial fulfillment
of the requirements for degree of Sarjana Sastra at the English Department,
Faculty of Languages and Arts, State University of Medan.
This thesis would not have been possible without the guidance and the
help of several individuals who always contributed and extended their valuable
assistances in the preparation and completion of this thesis. The researcher’s
special appreciation goes to:
Prof. Dr. Syawal Gultom, M.Pd., the Rector of State University of Medan.
Dr. Isda Pramuniati, M.Hum., the Dean Faculty of Language and Arts,
State University of Medan.
Prof. Dr. Hj. Sumarsih, M.Pd., the Head of English and Literature
Department and as her Thesis Examiner, Dra. Meisuri, MA., the Secretary
of English Department, as her Thesis Examiner and as her Academic
Advisor, Nora Ronita, S.Pd., S.S., M.Hum.,the Head of
English
Education Program and Syamsul Bahri, S.S, M.Hum., the Head of English
Non-Educational Program, Faculty of Languages and Arts, State University
of Medan.
Drs. Lidiman Sahat Martua Sinaga, M.Hum, as her Thesis Supervisor,
for the advice, guidance, suggestions and for the time in process of
completing this thesis.
Drs. Muhammad Natsir, M.Hum as her Thesis Examiner.
Eis Sri Wahyuni, M.Pd., as the Administration Staff of English
Department for helping the writer in preparing all the fulfillment in
conducting this thesis.
Her Beloved parents,Loas Manalu and Herlyn Merita Siringo-ringo for
the patience, affection, prayer, financial support and taught the researcher
many worth things in facing the life. Thanks also given to her sisters and
ii
brother : Cindy Florencentia Manalu, Amd.Kom, Bripda Lamhot
Ridwan Manalu, Putri Evan Manalu and Martha Uli Manalu.
All her beloved friends in English Literature A and B 2011, especially for
her close friends in campus Eren Gultom, Bripda Henny Anggria, Ines
Butar Butar, Swari Fadhillah, Swarman Siahaan, Ucha Sinaga, Viatari
Dipa Pencawan and others that cannot be mentioned all. Thanks for their
support, kindness, great love and care to the researcher, also warm hearted
encouragement friendship in finishing this thesis.
The people who directly or indirectly contributed in this study, your
kindness means a lot to her.
Medan,
November 2015
The researcher,
Lusi Lisnaria Manalu
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pages
ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................
i
ACKNOWLEDGMENT .............................................................................
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS.............................................................................
iv
LIST OF APPENDICES .............................................................................
vi
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION................................................................
1
A. The Background of Study ..............................................................
1
B. The Problem of Study ....................................................................
3
C. The Objective of Study ..................................................................
4
D. The Scope of Study .......................................................................
4
E. The Significance of Study .............................................................
5
CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE ...........................................
6
A. Theoritical Framework ..................................................................
6
1. Pragmatics................................................................................
6
2. Implicature ...............................................................................
7
a. Conventional Implicature ..................................................
8
b. Conversational Implicature ................................................
8
1) Generalized Conversational Implicature .....................
9
2) Particularized Conversational Implicature ..................
9
3. Cooperative Principles .............................................................
10
a. Maxim ..............................................................................
11
b. Types of Maxim ...............................................................
11
1) Maxim of Quantity ......................................................
12
2) Maxim of Quality ........................................................
12
3) Maxim of Relation .......................................................
13
4) Maxim of Manner ........................................................
13
c. Maxim Violation................................................................
13
1) Violating Maxim of Quantity ......................................
14
2) Violating Maxim of Quality ........................................
14
iv
3) Violating Maxim of Relation .......................................
15
4) Violating Maxim of Manner ........................................
15
d. The purpose of Violated Maxim........................................
15
1) To Show Respect .........................................................
16
2) To Create Hyperbole and Irony ...................................
16
3) To Change Topic .........................................................
17
4) To Keep Secret ............................................................
17
5) To Create Humors .......................................................
18
4. Television Program ..................................................................
19
5. Talk Show ................................................................................
20
6. Metro Tv ..................................................................................
20
a. Programs on Metro Tv .......................................................
22
b. Sentilan Sentilun ................................................................
22
B. Conceptual Framework..................................................................
23
CHAPTER III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ....................................
25
A. Research Design ...................................................................................
25
B. The Source of Data ........................................................................
25
C. The Technique for Collecting Data ...............................................
25
D. The Technique for Analyzing Data ...............................................
26
CHAPTER IV. DATA AND DATA ANALYSIS ......................................
27
A. Data ................................................................................................
27
B. Data Analysis .................................................................................
27
C. Research Findings..........................................................................
39
D. Discussion ......................................................................................
40
CHAPTER V. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS..........................
42
A. Conclusions ...................................................................................
42
B. Suggestions ....................................................................................
42
REFERENCES .............................................................................................
44
APPENDIX A ...............................................................................................
45
APPENDIX B ...............................................................................................
53
v
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDICES Pages
APPENDIX A……………………………………………………………….
APPENDIX B……………………………………………………………….
vi
45
53
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
A. The Background of Study
There are many ways in expressing our purpose in communication.
Most people use spoken or written language by using clear words
so that the listener or the reader can understand the exact meaning. On the
contrary, some people uses unclear words or utterances for a certain purpose, so it
is hard to be understood the meaning indeed because of the implied meaning of
the utterances. In this case, the language action that must be noticed are the
structure and the conversational circumstance, because both things can help to
understand the meaning of utterances, whether for the readers or the speakers. A
good language structure and an involvement situation where the language is used,
will be very helpful to make a communicative conversation.
A phenomena where the meaning of the language is hardly understood is
caused by the using of connotative and the meaning of the language is influenced
by the contextual usage. The context that is not involved when the language used
connotatively not dennotatively, will make it difficult in understanding the
meaning of a language. This usually occur in a conversation. In this case, besides
the meaning, other thing that must be noticed is the image of the speech, so that
the meaning or the effect of the speech can be achieved. One of the branch of
pragmatics is implicature, that is implied meaning of the language. Implicature is
considered as important to study more because nowadays is found so many
programs, especially in TV, that is used an implied language, whether in talk
1
2
show program, comedy, or program with a concept to motivate audience.
In a conversation (dialogue), frequently happened that the speaker doesn't deliver
the meaning directly. Something that wants to deliver, precisely implied, spoken
indirectly, or the language that is spoken is totally different with the meaning. In
this case, besides the meaning, other thing that must be noticed is the image of the
speech, so that the meaning or the effect of the speech can be achieved. But the
language usage contains of implicature can complicate the audience if the
audience doesn't have much knowledge to understand the meaning. By only
involving the situation will not be enough to the ordinary audience to catch the
meaning of the language contain of implicature. Here is the role of pragmatics
needed to understand the meaning of a speech. Pragmatics is not only seeing
language from the form but also the contextual circumstance. One of the branch of
pragmatics is implicature, that is implied meaning of the language.
That's why implicature is very interesting to study, then a certain language
form in a conversation can be understood. Implicature is considered interesting to
study because many conversation which the speaker doesn't apply cooperative
principle, so that the understanding of an implicative language can be difficult.
There are some researchers that had taken conversational implicature as their
study. They are Nanda, Sukyadi, Sudarsono (2012) analyzed conversational
implicature of the presenters in Take Me Out Indoensia, they found that the
presenters mostly used general conversational implicature than particularized
implicature.Yamazaki in his study about conversational implicature in Stand-up
Comediesanalyzed the pragmatics effects of conversational implicature in
3
Japanese-style
stand-up
comedies
and
Pakpahan
(2012
)
in
her
studyaboutconversational implicature in Smart FM’s Radio Talk Showsanalyzed
the two types of conversational implicature and she found that general
conversational implicature was the most dominant type. Following the previous
studies the writer wants to analyze conversational in Televison program especially
in talk show.
This study of implicature is expected to be useful for the audiences who
enjoy the TV program to make them easier in understanding the program contains
of implicature language. Sentilan sentilun talk show is full of implicature
conversation.The utterances in sentilan sentilun is very interesting.They contain
argument and question to make the respondent in this show response the
argument. The characters of this show alternately argue their opinion (using
implicature language) to create deep explanation and argument of the speech.
When it relates to the context, the speech of the characters is more likely to
criticize social matter. These things that make this show interest to be watched.
Based on the background of problems above, this research done by purposes to
explain the implicature form and violation of cooperative principle in sentilan
sentilun show, and elaborated the purpose of the violation of cooperative principle
itself.
B. The Problem of Study
The problems of the study could be stated as the following :
4
1. What types of maxim violation did potentially cause conversational
implicature in Sentilan Sentilun talk show?
2. Which type of
maxim violation did dominantly cause conversational
implicature in Sentilan Sentilun talk show?
3. Why is the dominant type of maxim violation that potentially cause
conversational implicatures used as the way it is?
C. The Objective of Study
In the relation to the problems of the study, the objectives of study were :
1. To find out the types of maxim violation potentially caused conversational
implicature in Sentilan Sentilun talk show
2. To find out the maxim violation dominantly caused conversational
implicature in Sentilan Sentilun talkshow.
3. To give the reasons of the dominant type of violation that caused
conversational implicatures in Sentilan Sentilun talk show.
D. The Scope of Study
In this research, the writer focused on the conversational principles as
found in the utterances of the speakers in Sentilan Sentilun talk show based on
Grice’s theory(maxim of relation, maxim of quantity, maxim of quality and
maxim of manner) and analyzed the purpose in using implicatures in the speakers
conversation that related to the maxims. The data were taken from two episodes of
5
Sentilan Sentilun talkshow. The data were “Upaya Penggembosan Anti Korupsi”
(February, 6th 2015) and “Gonjang Ganjing Dana Siluman” (March, 6th 2015).
E. The Significance of study
The findings of this study are expected to be useful theoretically and
practically.
Theoretically, the finding of the research is expected to be one of the
sources in pragmatics study in analyzing the conversational implicature used by
people in their communication.
Practically, This research is expected to increase our understanding of
Conversational Implicature. This research also can be advantageous both to the
reader and writer. Moreover, it can be used as a reference to increase students’
interest in learning English language, especially about Pragmatics study. It is
aimed to be guidance for students who are interested in conducting further
researches on Conversational Implicature.
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
A. Conclusions
After analyzing and drawing all the conversational implicatures on
Sentilan Sentilun talk show, the researcher draw the conclusion as follows :
1. There were four types of maxim violation that caused conversational
implicature on Sentilan Sentilun talk show. They were the violation of
maxim quantity, quality, relation and manner.
2. Among all the utterances during the talk show presented, the dominant type
of maxim violation found on the program was the maxim of relation.
3. The reason of the dominant type occurred on Sentilan Sentilun talk show
was creating humor in order to flutter someone or certain topics.
B. Suggestions
Having seen the results of the study, the researcher would like to offer the
suggestions as follows :
1. It is advisable for readers to understand the cooperative principle with
its maxims, especially the four types of maxim violation which
potentially caused conversational implicature on Sentilan Sentilun talk
show in order to avoid misunderstanding among the participants and to
get the speakers’s intention through his utterances on the conversation.
2. It is suggested
to other researchers and the students of Applied
Linguistics, who are taking pragmatics to start analysing and
42
43
conducting futher research in order to get other reasons of the
dominant type of maxim violation which cause conversational
implicature from other topics.
44
REFERENCES
Chapman,Siobhan.2000.Philosophy for Linguistic:An Introduction.London &
New York: Routledge.
Cook, Guy.1989. Discourse.Oxford:Oxford University Press
Creswell,John W.2007.Qualitative Inquiry Research Design:Choosing Among
Five Approches.California: Sage Publications.
Cutting, Joan. 2002. Pragmatics and Discourse. London: Routledge.
Hutchby,Ian.2006.Media Talk:Conversation Analysis
Broadcasting.Glasglow:Open University Press.
and
The
Study
of
Levinson, Steven.C.1983.Pragmatics.Cambridge:University Press.
Pakpahan, Irma,B. 2012. An Analysis of Conversational Implicature in Smart
FM’S Radio Talk Show.Medan: UniversitasNegeri Medan.
Sheila Nanda, DidiSukyadi and Sudarsono MI. 2012.Conversational Implicature
of the Presenter’s in Take Me Out Indonesia. Indonesian Journal of Applied
Linguistics.Vol. No.2( Hal 2-19)
Tatsuroh, Yamazaki. Conversational Implicature in Stand Up Comedy. Japan.
Thomas,Jenny.1995.Meaning
in
Interaction:An
Pragmatics.Harlow:Pearson Education.
Introduction
to
Timberg,Bernard.2002.Television Talk: A History of the Tv Talk Show.USA: The
University of Texas Press.
Yule,George.1996.Pragmatics.New York:Oxford University Press.
http://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentilan_Sentilun
http://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daftar_acara_Metro_TV
SENTILUN TALK SHOW
A THESIS
Submitted as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirementsfor the Degree
of Sarjana Sastra
By:
LUSI LISNARIA MANALU
Registration Number 2113220025
ENGLISH AND LITERATURE DEPARTEMENT
FACULTY OF LANGUAGES AND ARTS
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
2015
ABSTRACT
Manalu, Lusi Lisnaria. 2113220025. Conversational Implicature in Sentilan
Sentilun Talk Show. A Thesis. Faculty of Languages and Arts. State
University of Medan. 2015.
Talk shows such as Sentilan Sentilun are quite popular in Indonesian television.
These talk show are quite interesting to study because they are not only involving
many participants, but also requiring the settings in which politeness and
implicature needed to be used to keep the communication flows smoothly. This
paper is a pragmatic study that aims at investigating conversational implicature
that hosts and the guests of Sentilan Sentilun talk show operate within their
utterances along with the possible implications that lie behind the implicature. The
data are analyzed based on cooperative principle by violating Gricean maxims,
that are specifically maxim of quality, quantity and relevance. Findings show that
there are 51 utterances containing conversational implicature. The findings show
that there are four types of violated maxims that potentially caused conversational
implicature. The dominant type is maxim of relation(56.87 %). The reason why it
becomes the dominant type is because the host and the guests wanted to create
humors in order to flutter someone or certain topics. The hosts and the guests
conveyed an implicit meaning when giving statement or opinion or information
and answering the question in their discussion based on the truth condition or
facts in the talk show.
Keywords : conversational implicature, types, maxim, humor, talk show, Sentilan
Sentilun
i
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Great thanks and praise to the Almighty Jesus Christ who has blessed and
given the ability to the researcher to complete her thesis as the partial fulfillment
of the requirements for degree of Sarjana Sastra at the English Department,
Faculty of Languages and Arts, State University of Medan.
This thesis would not have been possible without the guidance and the
help of several individuals who always contributed and extended their valuable
assistances in the preparation and completion of this thesis. The researcher’s
special appreciation goes to:
Prof. Dr. Syawal Gultom, M.Pd., the Rector of State University of Medan.
Dr. Isda Pramuniati, M.Hum., the Dean Faculty of Language and Arts,
State University of Medan.
Prof. Dr. Hj. Sumarsih, M.Pd., the Head of English and Literature
Department and as her Thesis Examiner, Dra. Meisuri, MA., the Secretary
of English Department, as her Thesis Examiner and as her Academic
Advisor, Nora Ronita, S.Pd., S.S., M.Hum.,the Head of
English
Education Program and Syamsul Bahri, S.S, M.Hum., the Head of English
Non-Educational Program, Faculty of Languages and Arts, State University
of Medan.
Drs. Lidiman Sahat Martua Sinaga, M.Hum, as her Thesis Supervisor,
for the advice, guidance, suggestions and for the time in process of
completing this thesis.
Drs. Muhammad Natsir, M.Hum as her Thesis Examiner.
Eis Sri Wahyuni, M.Pd., as the Administration Staff of English
Department for helping the writer in preparing all the fulfillment in
conducting this thesis.
Her Beloved parents,Loas Manalu and Herlyn Merita Siringo-ringo for
the patience, affection, prayer, financial support and taught the researcher
many worth things in facing the life. Thanks also given to her sisters and
ii
brother : Cindy Florencentia Manalu, Amd.Kom, Bripda Lamhot
Ridwan Manalu, Putri Evan Manalu and Martha Uli Manalu.
All her beloved friends in English Literature A and B 2011, especially for
her close friends in campus Eren Gultom, Bripda Henny Anggria, Ines
Butar Butar, Swari Fadhillah, Swarman Siahaan, Ucha Sinaga, Viatari
Dipa Pencawan and others that cannot be mentioned all. Thanks for their
support, kindness, great love and care to the researcher, also warm hearted
encouragement friendship in finishing this thesis.
The people who directly or indirectly contributed in this study, your
kindness means a lot to her.
Medan,
November 2015
The researcher,
Lusi Lisnaria Manalu
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pages
ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................
i
ACKNOWLEDGMENT .............................................................................
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS.............................................................................
iv
LIST OF APPENDICES .............................................................................
vi
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION................................................................
1
A. The Background of Study ..............................................................
1
B. The Problem of Study ....................................................................
3
C. The Objective of Study ..................................................................
4
D. The Scope of Study .......................................................................
4
E. The Significance of Study .............................................................
5
CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE ...........................................
6
A. Theoritical Framework ..................................................................
6
1. Pragmatics................................................................................
6
2. Implicature ...............................................................................
7
a. Conventional Implicature ..................................................
8
b. Conversational Implicature ................................................
8
1) Generalized Conversational Implicature .....................
9
2) Particularized Conversational Implicature ..................
9
3. Cooperative Principles .............................................................
10
a. Maxim ..............................................................................
11
b. Types of Maxim ...............................................................
11
1) Maxim of Quantity ......................................................
12
2) Maxim of Quality ........................................................
12
3) Maxim of Relation .......................................................
13
4) Maxim of Manner ........................................................
13
c. Maxim Violation................................................................
13
1) Violating Maxim of Quantity ......................................
14
2) Violating Maxim of Quality ........................................
14
iv
3) Violating Maxim of Relation .......................................
15
4) Violating Maxim of Manner ........................................
15
d. The purpose of Violated Maxim........................................
15
1) To Show Respect .........................................................
16
2) To Create Hyperbole and Irony ...................................
16
3) To Change Topic .........................................................
17
4) To Keep Secret ............................................................
17
5) To Create Humors .......................................................
18
4. Television Program ..................................................................
19
5. Talk Show ................................................................................
20
6. Metro Tv ..................................................................................
20
a. Programs on Metro Tv .......................................................
22
b. Sentilan Sentilun ................................................................
22
B. Conceptual Framework..................................................................
23
CHAPTER III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ....................................
25
A. Research Design ...................................................................................
25
B. The Source of Data ........................................................................
25
C. The Technique for Collecting Data ...............................................
25
D. The Technique for Analyzing Data ...............................................
26
CHAPTER IV. DATA AND DATA ANALYSIS ......................................
27
A. Data ................................................................................................
27
B. Data Analysis .................................................................................
27
C. Research Findings..........................................................................
39
D. Discussion ......................................................................................
40
CHAPTER V. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS..........................
42
A. Conclusions ...................................................................................
42
B. Suggestions ....................................................................................
42
REFERENCES .............................................................................................
44
APPENDIX A ...............................................................................................
45
APPENDIX B ...............................................................................................
53
v
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDICES Pages
APPENDIX A……………………………………………………………….
APPENDIX B……………………………………………………………….
vi
45
53
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
A. The Background of Study
There are many ways in expressing our purpose in communication.
Most people use spoken or written language by using clear words
so that the listener or the reader can understand the exact meaning. On the
contrary, some people uses unclear words or utterances for a certain purpose, so it
is hard to be understood the meaning indeed because of the implied meaning of
the utterances. In this case, the language action that must be noticed are the
structure and the conversational circumstance, because both things can help to
understand the meaning of utterances, whether for the readers or the speakers. A
good language structure and an involvement situation where the language is used,
will be very helpful to make a communicative conversation.
A phenomena where the meaning of the language is hardly understood is
caused by the using of connotative and the meaning of the language is influenced
by the contextual usage. The context that is not involved when the language used
connotatively not dennotatively, will make it difficult in understanding the
meaning of a language. This usually occur in a conversation. In this case, besides
the meaning, other thing that must be noticed is the image of the speech, so that
the meaning or the effect of the speech can be achieved. One of the branch of
pragmatics is implicature, that is implied meaning of the language. Implicature is
considered as important to study more because nowadays is found so many
programs, especially in TV, that is used an implied language, whether in talk
1
2
show program, comedy, or program with a concept to motivate audience.
In a conversation (dialogue), frequently happened that the speaker doesn't deliver
the meaning directly. Something that wants to deliver, precisely implied, spoken
indirectly, or the language that is spoken is totally different with the meaning. In
this case, besides the meaning, other thing that must be noticed is the image of the
speech, so that the meaning or the effect of the speech can be achieved. But the
language usage contains of implicature can complicate the audience if the
audience doesn't have much knowledge to understand the meaning. By only
involving the situation will not be enough to the ordinary audience to catch the
meaning of the language contain of implicature. Here is the role of pragmatics
needed to understand the meaning of a speech. Pragmatics is not only seeing
language from the form but also the contextual circumstance. One of the branch of
pragmatics is implicature, that is implied meaning of the language.
That's why implicature is very interesting to study, then a certain language
form in a conversation can be understood. Implicature is considered interesting to
study because many conversation which the speaker doesn't apply cooperative
principle, so that the understanding of an implicative language can be difficult.
There are some researchers that had taken conversational implicature as their
study. They are Nanda, Sukyadi, Sudarsono (2012) analyzed conversational
implicature of the presenters in Take Me Out Indoensia, they found that the
presenters mostly used general conversational implicature than particularized
implicature.Yamazaki in his study about conversational implicature in Stand-up
Comediesanalyzed the pragmatics effects of conversational implicature in
3
Japanese-style
stand-up
comedies
and
Pakpahan
(2012
)
in
her
studyaboutconversational implicature in Smart FM’s Radio Talk Showsanalyzed
the two types of conversational implicature and she found that general
conversational implicature was the most dominant type. Following the previous
studies the writer wants to analyze conversational in Televison program especially
in talk show.
This study of implicature is expected to be useful for the audiences who
enjoy the TV program to make them easier in understanding the program contains
of implicature language. Sentilan sentilun talk show is full of implicature
conversation.The utterances in sentilan sentilun is very interesting.They contain
argument and question to make the respondent in this show response the
argument. The characters of this show alternately argue their opinion (using
implicature language) to create deep explanation and argument of the speech.
When it relates to the context, the speech of the characters is more likely to
criticize social matter. These things that make this show interest to be watched.
Based on the background of problems above, this research done by purposes to
explain the implicature form and violation of cooperative principle in sentilan
sentilun show, and elaborated the purpose of the violation of cooperative principle
itself.
B. The Problem of Study
The problems of the study could be stated as the following :
4
1. What types of maxim violation did potentially cause conversational
implicature in Sentilan Sentilun talk show?
2. Which type of
maxim violation did dominantly cause conversational
implicature in Sentilan Sentilun talk show?
3. Why is the dominant type of maxim violation that potentially cause
conversational implicatures used as the way it is?
C. The Objective of Study
In the relation to the problems of the study, the objectives of study were :
1. To find out the types of maxim violation potentially caused conversational
implicature in Sentilan Sentilun talk show
2. To find out the maxim violation dominantly caused conversational
implicature in Sentilan Sentilun talkshow.
3. To give the reasons of the dominant type of violation that caused
conversational implicatures in Sentilan Sentilun talk show.
D. The Scope of Study
In this research, the writer focused on the conversational principles as
found in the utterances of the speakers in Sentilan Sentilun talk show based on
Grice’s theory(maxim of relation, maxim of quantity, maxim of quality and
maxim of manner) and analyzed the purpose in using implicatures in the speakers
conversation that related to the maxims. The data were taken from two episodes of
5
Sentilan Sentilun talkshow. The data were “Upaya Penggembosan Anti Korupsi”
(February, 6th 2015) and “Gonjang Ganjing Dana Siluman” (March, 6th 2015).
E. The Significance of study
The findings of this study are expected to be useful theoretically and
practically.
Theoretically, the finding of the research is expected to be one of the
sources in pragmatics study in analyzing the conversational implicature used by
people in their communication.
Practically, This research is expected to increase our understanding of
Conversational Implicature. This research also can be advantageous both to the
reader and writer. Moreover, it can be used as a reference to increase students’
interest in learning English language, especially about Pragmatics study. It is
aimed to be guidance for students who are interested in conducting further
researches on Conversational Implicature.
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
A. Conclusions
After analyzing and drawing all the conversational implicatures on
Sentilan Sentilun talk show, the researcher draw the conclusion as follows :
1. There were four types of maxim violation that caused conversational
implicature on Sentilan Sentilun talk show. They were the violation of
maxim quantity, quality, relation and manner.
2. Among all the utterances during the talk show presented, the dominant type
of maxim violation found on the program was the maxim of relation.
3. The reason of the dominant type occurred on Sentilan Sentilun talk show
was creating humor in order to flutter someone or certain topics.
B. Suggestions
Having seen the results of the study, the researcher would like to offer the
suggestions as follows :
1. It is advisable for readers to understand the cooperative principle with
its maxims, especially the four types of maxim violation which
potentially caused conversational implicature on Sentilan Sentilun talk
show in order to avoid misunderstanding among the participants and to
get the speakers’s intention through his utterances on the conversation.
2. It is suggested
to other researchers and the students of Applied
Linguistics, who are taking pragmatics to start analysing and
42
43
conducting futher research in order to get other reasons of the
dominant type of maxim violation which cause conversational
implicature from other topics.
44
REFERENCES
Chapman,Siobhan.2000.Philosophy for Linguistic:An Introduction.London &
New York: Routledge.
Cook, Guy.1989. Discourse.Oxford:Oxford University Press
Creswell,John W.2007.Qualitative Inquiry Research Design:Choosing Among
Five Approches.California: Sage Publications.
Cutting, Joan. 2002. Pragmatics and Discourse. London: Routledge.
Hutchby,Ian.2006.Media Talk:Conversation Analysis
Broadcasting.Glasglow:Open University Press.
and
The
Study
of
Levinson, Steven.C.1983.Pragmatics.Cambridge:University Press.
Pakpahan, Irma,B. 2012. An Analysis of Conversational Implicature in Smart
FM’S Radio Talk Show.Medan: UniversitasNegeri Medan.
Sheila Nanda, DidiSukyadi and Sudarsono MI. 2012.Conversational Implicature
of the Presenter’s in Take Me Out Indonesia. Indonesian Journal of Applied
Linguistics.Vol. No.2( Hal 2-19)
Tatsuroh, Yamazaki. Conversational Implicature in Stand Up Comedy. Japan.
Thomas,Jenny.1995.Meaning
in
Interaction:An
Pragmatics.Harlow:Pearson Education.
Introduction
to
Timberg,Bernard.2002.Television Talk: A History of the Tv Talk Show.USA: The
University of Texas Press.
Yule,George.1996.Pragmatics.New York:Oxford University Press.
http://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentilan_Sentilun
http://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daftar_acara_Metro_TV