a help. But she or he can state in a different way. At this part, the act of request a help in which the speaker formulate the utterance called
illocutionary act. For instance the statement of “can you give me a more explanation,
please?” when the lecture tell about pragmatics theory. The question was asked directly, but it can become to a different way when it was declared as “I
haven’t any idea at all in theory”. This simple statement is not only bound to provide information for whomever the listener but also an expressing of
wanting a re-explaining and clear information from the lecturer without stated directly. If the lecturer provides a more time to make clear about the
explaination of linguistic theory, it will reach a satisfactory to the speaker. The satisfactory that is the result effect is known as perlocutionary effect. The
speaker often makes distinct about what is said and what is imply. The Speaker and listener have to make a cooperative effort to make a
successful communication. When speakers utter the utterance, sometimes they will implicate something in the way they exchange information. If the
speaker’s formulation in uttering can be understood by the listener, the speaker is successful in delivering the information. But it will turn into a fail effort
when the listener cannot understand about what was being talked about. The formulation’s utterance that what the speaker’s intent and imply called
implicature.
2. Implicature
There are argumentations about the definition of Implicature. The first is Grice’s definition about implicature in his paper Logic and conversation,
18
when he first introduced the term implicature in a term of a verb, implicate then he turn into the related noun of implying called implicature. Speaker
implicates and the listener tries to arrive at the meaning of the implicature, if the participants the listener and speaker can do it, they have making an active
communication. Horn also concludes about implicature that is as a component of speaker meaning that constitutes an aspect of what is meant n a speaker’s
18
Grice, H.P 1975, op. cit. 44
8
utterance without being part of what is said.
19
The implicature explanation is closer to what a speaker intends to state A without bring A in the utterance.
When a speaker makes an implicature, the communication can goes smoothly or failed if the listener can not deduce what is being talked by the speaker
through A. There are two kinds of implicature. Grice in his paper explains that the
first kind is a conventional implicature. The meaning in this implicature can take by a literal meaning directly from the text. Second is the conversational
implicature. The conversational implicature is the additional meaning inside an utterance.
20
It happens because of the speaker and listener exchange the information that can not include the utterance. Some listener can connect to
what is implied. Further the participants incline do this because of the participants listener and speaker have a set of purpose when they are uttering
something.
3. Cooperative Principle
Listener and speaker must try to make a stimulus response. Grice comments on his previous article call Logic and Conversation that is about
communication in the conversation. He thinks while communicate happen; the speaker must gives a relevant information on what it stated. The next
description of this mutuality effective communication resume in cooperative principle. Yule concludes about cooperative principle as he cited from Grice’s
paper. He thinks that the cooperative principle is about making your conversational 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.
21
The cooperative principle specifies what does the speaker means to cooperate which called conversational maxim.
The maxim of conversation is a set of principles advanced by Grice as a part of his account of implicature.
22
In order to succeed in communication
19
Horn, Laurence R and Gregory ward. The Handbook of Pragmatics Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. 2006, p.3
20
Yule, George. 1996, op. cit.35.
21
Ibid. p. 37.
22
Mathews, P. H, “The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics”. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997 p. 219.
9
the participants must fill the four maxims, with the result: 1.
Maxim of Quantity This maxim directly correlated more or less of the information
gave to speaker. This maxim forces the speaker in giving sufficient information to the listener.
23
The participants must contribute as is required and make the conversation to be connected. The speaker is
not less and over in giving the information. Therefore, Grice explains that the maxim forces the participants to:
a. Make their contribution as informative as is required.
b. To be not making their contribution more informative than is
required.
24
2. Maxim of Quality
The maxim forces the speaker in giving the relevant information. Both of the speaker and listener must make a satisfactory
in fulfillment the appropriate information. With the specific sub maxim:
a. Do not say what you believe to be false
b. Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.
3. Maxim of relevance
The maxim forces the participants to be relevant.
25
On the other words, the participants must give relevant information to each other.
4. Maxim of Manner
The maxim force to utter what have to say does not have to be formulated by the speaker. With the subsequent sub-maxim below:
a. Avoid obscurity of expression
b. Avoid ambiguity
c. Be brief avoid unnecessary prolixity
d. Be orderly.
26
4. The disobedience of the cooperative Principle
