more concerned in conversational analysis at first, the implicature is for describe the meanings.
15
The fourth research was done by Yao Xiaousu from Gent University, Belgium in 2009. Entitled: “Conversational Implicature Analysis of Humor in
American Situation Comedy “Friends””. It is focused in humor’s meaning. By identifying the implicature then match up with the culture and situation.
Yao’s uses politeness approach. Yet finally, it keeps on track that is in humor side. The difference between the Yao Xiaousu’s with this research going to
presented is in the scope of meaning, Yao’s concerns more in humor side. While in this paper focused in any general meaning purposes with discourse
approach.
16
The fifth research was done by Yuvike from Bina Nusantara University, Jakarta, Indonesia in 2008. Entitled: The Non-Observance of the
Conversational Maxims Theory Found in Dialogue of The Crucible by Arthur Miller. It is focused in classifying the types of maxim and its non-observance,
it also purposed to make stronger meaning in utterances consist of flouting maxims quality by metaphor and hyperbole approach because it is mostly
found. The difference between the Yuvike’s with this research that going to presented is the Yuvike’s is more concerned in semantically meaning, after the
Grice’s theory. It is analyzed the meaning in semantics side, using metaphor
15
Vho Thi Thanh Thao, Master Degree Thesis: “A Study of Conversational Implicatures in Titanic Film”, Danang: College of Foreign Language – Integrated Studies, University of
Danang, 2011.
16
Xiaousu, Yao, Dissertation: “Conversational Implicature Analysis of Humor in American Situation Comedy “Friends”, Ghent: Faculty of Arts and Philosophy – Ghent
University, 2009.
and hyperbole’s approach. Where in this paper is intended to analyzed the meaning by pragmatic’s approach.
17
Generally, after review the previous research, the difference of this research is mostly on corpus that mostly the another research used film’s
scripts. The references sources used, and the research questions that there are 3.
These literature reviews demonstrating the strong platform and the reason why for developing a research about Grice’s theory. The gaps have
been identified well, so may reinventing the wheel won’t happen. Observation has been done well, to make sure it will be a good project and especially for
academic purpose.
B. Concepts
1. Discourse Analysis
In linguistics, “discourse” refers to a unity of complete language that generally wider than a sentence by spoken or written. Discourse is a
compatible structure of sentence that connected one idea to the other one, one sentence to the others those are becomes a unity
18
. Discourse has contextual meaning, it is to identify, interpret meaning, such; interwords, intersentence,
17
Yuvike, Undergraduate Thesis: “The Non-Observance of the Conversational Maxims Theory Found in Dialogue of The Crucible by Arthur Miller”, Jakarta: Faculty Language and
Culture – Integrated Studies, Universitas bina Nusantara, 2008.
18
Eriyanto. “Analisis Wacana.” Yogyakarta: LKiS Yogyakart, 2001. p. 3
interparagraph those are must be coherent for understood by the readerlistener
19
. There are definitions of discourse that many linguistics books on the
subject now open with a survey of definitions. In their collection of classic papers in discourse analysis, for example, Jaworski and Coupland 1999: 1–3
include ten definitions from a wide range of sources. They all, however, fall into the three main categories noted above: 1 anything beyond the sentence,
2 language use, and 3 a broader range of social practice that includes nonlinguistic and nonspecific instances of language
20
. In Yule, 1996 Discourse analysis covers an extremely wide range of
activities from narrowly focused investigation of how words such as ‘oh’ or ‘well’ are used in casual talk, to the study of dominant ideology in a culture a
representative
21
. A discourse can be analyzed by using pragmatics as its tools because
of concerning in contextual meaning. Context is the part of meaning that can be explained by knowledge of the physical and social world, and the socio-
psychological factors influencing communication, as well the knowledge of the time and place in which the wordsare uttered or written
22
. Typically, there are three sorts of context to observe: 1 the situational context, that is what
speakers know about what they can see around them, 2 the background knowledge context, that is what the speaker and the hearer know eachother
19
Ibid. p 5
20
Deborah Schiffrin, Deborah Tannen, and Heidi E. Hamilton, “The Handbook of Discourse Analysis” Massachusetts: Blackwell Publisher, 2001 p.1
21
Ibid. p 5
22
Joan, Cutting, 2002. Op. cit p. 2
and the world, 3 the co-textual context, that is what they know about what they have been saying
23
. According to Baryadi, the relation of context in a discourse is divided into 1 the relation of discourse with the speaker, 2 the
relation of discourse with the topic of utterance, and 3 the relation discourse with the hearer. Context may appears outside text. In the relation of discourse
with the speaker as mentioned above, discourse can be analyzed with the Cooperative Principle that proposed by Paul. H. Grice
24
.
2. Pragmatics
Pragmatics is the study of contextual meaning. In linguistics, there are 2 field of study about meaning, there are semantics and pragmatics. Semantics
and pragmatics are two main areas of linguistics that concerned at the meaning of the utterance, spoken and written. In this paper is concerned in pragmatics
side, where pragmatics concentrates on those aspects of meaning that cannot predicted only based on linguistics’ rules, but also takes into account
knowledge about physical, social and everything in human’s life.
25
Pragmatics is a branch of linguistics that studies a language from the external factor as a unit of meaning by depends on the language used
26
. There are many linguists especially that concerned in pragmatics defined the
pragmatics differently. Yule 1993:3 classifies the meaning of pragmatics into kinds as follows: 1 Pragmatics is the study of speaker meaning, 2
Pragmatics is the study of contextual meaning, 3 Pragmatics is the study of
23
Ibid. p. 2
24
Prapto Baryadi, “Dasar-dasar Analisis Wacana”, Jakarta: Pustaka Gondho Sali , 2002. p. 40
25
Jean Stilwell Peccei, “Pragmatics”, London and NewYork: Routledge, 1999, p. 2.
26
Yan Huang, “Pragmatics”, New York: Oxford University Press Inc, 2007, p. 2.
