An Analysis Of Conversational Implicature In A Bbc One Television Series: Sherlock – A Study In Pink

(1)

AN ANALYSIS OF CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURE IN A BBC ONE TELEVISION SERIES: SHERLOCK – A STUDY IN PINK

A THESIS BY

WINDA AYUANDA REG. NO: 130721010

DEPARTEMENT OF ENGLISH FACULTY OF CULTURAL STUDIES UNIVERSITY OF SUMATERA UTARA MEDAN 2015

(2)

AN ANALYSIS OF CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURE IN A BBC ONE TELEVISION SERIES: SHERLOCK – A STUDY IN PINK

A THESIS

BY: WINDA AYUANDA REG. NO. : 130721010

SUPERVISOR CO-SUPERVISOR

Dr. Masdiana Lubis, M.Hum Rahmadsyah Rangkuti M.A, Ph.D NIP. 19570626198303 2 001 NIP. 19750209200812 1 002

Submitted to Faculty of Cultural Studies University of Sumatera Utara Medan in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Sarjana Sastra from Department of English.

DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH

FACULTY OF CULTURAL STUDIES UNIVERSITY OF SUMATERA UTARA MEDAN 2015

(3)

Approved by the Department of English Faculty of Cultural Studies, University of Sumatera Utara (USU) as a Thesis for the Sarjana Sastra Examination.

Head, Secretary,

Dr. Muhizar Muchtar M. S. Rahmadsyah Rangkuti M.A, Ph.D NIP. 19541117198003 1 002 NIP. 19750209200812 1 002

(4)

Accepted by the Board of Examiners in partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree of Sarjana Sastra from the Department of English, Faculty of Cultural Studies University of Sumatera Utara.

The examination is held in the faculty of Cultural Studies University of Sumatera Utara on Friday, 23rd October 2015

The Dean of Faculty of Cultural Studies University of Sumatera Utara

Dr. Syahron Lubis M.A NIP. 195110113197603 1 001

Board of Examiners Signature

1. Dr. Muhizar Muchtar M. S. ………

2. Rahmadsyah Rangkuti M.A, Ph.D ………

3. Dr. Masdiana Lubis, M.Hum. ………

(5)

i AUTHOR’S DECLARATION

I, WINDA AYUANDA DECLARE THAT I AM THE SOLE AUTHOR OF THIS THESIS EXCEPT WHERE REFERENCE IS MADE IN THE TEXT OF THIS THESIS. THIS THESIS CONTAINS NO MATERIAL PUBLISHED ELSEWHERE OF EXTRECTED IN WHOLE OR IN PART FROM A THESIS BY WHICH I HAVE QUALIFIED FOR OR AWARDED ANOTHER DEGREE. NO OTHER PERSON’S WORK HAS BEEN USED WITHOUT DUE TO ACKNOLEDGEMENTS IN THE MAIN TEXT OF THIS THESIS. THIS THESIS HAS NOT BEEN SUBMITTED FOR THE AWARD OF ANOTHER DEGREE IN ANY TERTIARY EDUCATION.

Signed : ………

(6)

ii COPYRIGHT DECLARATION

NAME : WINDA AYUANDA

TITLE OF THESIS : AN ANALYSIS OF CONVERSATIONAL

IMPLICATURE IN A BBC ONE TELEVISION SERIES: SHERLOCK – A STUDY IN PINK

QUALIFICATION : S-1/ SARJANA SASTRA STUDY PROGRAM : ENGLISH

I AM WILLING THAT MY THESIS SHOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR REPRODUCTION AT THE DISCRETION OF THE LIBRARIAN DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH, FACULTY OF CULTURAL STUDIES, UNIVERSITY OF SUMATERA UTARA ON THE UNDERSTANDING THAT USERS ARE MADE AWARE OF THEIR OBLIGATION UNDER LAW OF THE REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA.

Signed : ………

(7)

iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Bismillahirrahmaanirrahiim.

First of all, I would like to thank and praise to the Almighty God, Allah SWT for blessing and giving me health, strength and ease to accomplish this thesis. Shalawat and Salam for the Prophet Muhammad SAW who has brought us from the darkness to the brightness.

In this occasion, I would like to express sincere gratitude toward my supervisor, Dr. Masdiana Lubis, M.Hum, and co-supervisor, Rahmadsyah Rangkuti M.A, Ph.D, for their professional help and guidance at this thesis. They had assisted me by offering valuable suggestion, advices and encouragement to me to accomplish this thesis.

My gratitude also goes to the Dean of Faculty of Cultural Studies Dr. Syahron Lubis, and the Head of English Departement Dr. Muhizar Muchtar M.S. I also wishes to express my thanks to all the lectures of the English Department for their helping and valuable knowledge during my study at this department.

My special thanks also present to my lovely family, they are my grandmother and grandfather, both of my parents (Sugito and Lili Masgianti), and both of my siblings (Welda Saputri and Sakina Syela Andita), thank you very much for all your motivation, prayer, and help. You all will always be my ‘home’. Then to my other family members, Kaa Chan, Atika, Tria, Ivana, Rumy, Anggie and the all of 2013 Extension Class classmates, thank you for the cooperation and colourful days you all made.

(8)

iv Last but not least I say my thanks to many other people that have contributed valuable help and support. Though their names do not appear in this acknowledgement, they shall always be remembered in my heart. Finally, I hope that this thesis will be worthwhile contribution for the readers. Thank you.

Medan, 23rd October 2015 The Writer,

Winda Ayuanda Reg. No. 130721010

(9)

v ABSTRAK

Skripsi yang berjudul ‘An Analysis of Conversational Implicature in a BBC One Television Series: Sherlock – A Study in Pink’ berisi analisis tentang implikatur percakapan. Skripsi ini membahas tentang tipe-tipe implikatur percakapan and implikasi-implikasi pembicara dari seri telivisi yang berjudul Sherlock – A Study in Pink. Teori yang digunakan dalam skripsi ini adalah teori implikatur Grice. Grice membagi implikatur percakapan menjadi dua, yaitu implikatur percakapan umum dan implikatur percakapan khusus. Metode yang digunakan adalah metode kualitatif deskriptif. Dari hasil penelitian, ditemukan ada 11 implikatur percakapan umum dan 26 implikatur percakapan khusus. Dari implikatur yang ditemukan, ada 5 eksploitasi maksim quantity, 15 eksploitasi maksim quality, 15 eksploitasi maksim manner, dan 2 pelanggaran maksim quantity. Pembicara menggunakan implikatur ketika mereka berbicara, namun pendengar dapat mengerti, hal itu menunjukkan bahwa implikatur cukup efektif digunakan dalam berkomunikasi.

Kata Kunci: Implikatur Percakapan, Implikatur, Implikatur Percakapan Umum, Implikatur Percakapan Khusus.

(10)

vi ABSTRACT

Thesis entitled ‘An Analysis of Conversational Implicature in a BBC One Television Series: Sherlock – A Study in Pink’ contains analysis of conversational implicature. This thesis discusses about the types of conversational implicature and the speakers’ implications from a television series Sherlock – A Study in Pink. The theory used in this thesis is Grice’s implicature theory. Grice divides conversational implicature into two types, those are generalized conversational implicature and particularized conversational implicature. The research method is descriptive qualitative method. As the result of the research, it was found that there are 11 generalized conversational implicatures and 26 particularized conversational implicatures. From the implicatures which have been found, there are 5 exploitations of quantity maxim, 15 exploitations of quality maxim, 15 exploitations of manner maxim, and 2 violations of quantity maxim. The speakers use implicatures when they speak, yet the hearers can understand, it shows that implicature is effective enough to be used in communication.

Keywords: Conversational Implicature, Implicature, Generalized Conversational Implicature, Particularized Conversational Implicature.

(11)

vii

AUTHOR’S DECLARATION ... i

COPYRIGHT DECLARATION ... ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ... iii

ABSTRAK ... v

ABSTRACT ... vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS ... vii

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ... 1

1.1Background of the Study ... 1

1.2Problem of the Study ... 5

1.3Objective of the Study ... 5

1.4Scope of the Study ... 5

1.5Significance of the Study ... 6

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ... 7

2.1Pragmatics ... 7

2.2Implicature ... 8

2.2.1 Conversational Implicature ... 9

2.2.1.1 Generalized Conversational Implicature ... 12

2.2.1.2 Particularized Conversational Implicature ... 13

2.2.2 Conventional Implicature ... 14

2.3Related Studies ... 14

CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY ... 17

3.1Research Method ... 17

3.2Data and Data Source ... 17

3.3Data Collecting Method ... 18

(12)

viii

CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS AND FINDING ... 20

4.1 Types and Implication of Conversational Implicature .... 20

4.1.1 Generalized Conversational Implicature ... 20

4.1.2 Particularized Conversational Implicature ... 27

CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS ... 45

REFERENCE ... 47 APPENDICES

(13)

v ABSTRAK

Kata Kunci: Implikatur Percakapan, Implikatur, Implikatur Percakapan Umum, Implikatur Percakapan Khusus.

(14)

vi ABSTRACT

Keywords: Conversational Implicature, Implicature, Generalized Conversational Implicature, Particularized Conversational Implicature.

(15)

1 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1.1Background of the Study

Dialogue, according to Oxford 7th edition, is a conversation in a book, play or film. While the conversation itself is an informal talk involving a small group of people or only two. The oral dialogue is a dialogue which is produced by spoken language such as in a play or a film. Meanwhile the written dialogue is a dialogue which is produce by written language such as dialogues in a novel and in a script of a play or a film. When people do a conversation, the missed communication between them is often happened. One of the participants of the conversation also does not say what actually his mean is, even unrelated with previous utterance. With the experience or knowledge, the participants will draw an assumption in their mind, thus the speaker meaning or what the speaker means should be different with linguistics meaning or what the speaker literally says. If there is an utterance which conveys meaning beyond its literally meaning, it is called implicature.

Herbert Paul Grice began to develop his theory of implicature in his article The Causal Theory of Perception in 1961, and it was most fully explored in his 1967 William James Lectures on Logic and Conversation. Grice (1989:24) introduces as terms of art, the verb implicate and the related nouns implicature (cf. implying) and implicatum (cf. what is implied), he noted the point of this maneuver is to avoid having, on each occasion, to choose between this or that member of the family of verbs for which implicate is to do general duty. He added that an intuitive

(16)

2 understanding of the meaning of say in such context is associated with an ability to recognize particular verbs as members of the family with which implicate. Grice divides implicature into two categories: conversational and conventional. Conversational implicature is the utterances which the speakers convey that are above and beyond the literal meaning of the words that they speak. Meanwhile conventional implicature is generated by meanings of words used, it tries to make a point about a contrast, could be seen from the words but, yet, or even in the utterance.

The conversational implicature is subdivided into two types, those are generalized conversational implicature and particularized conversational implicature. Generalized means it does not depend that much on the context, hence no special knowledge is required in the context to calculate the additional conveyed meaning. The generalized conversational implicature can be seen in the following example:

Donovan : You know what I think, don't you? (234) Sherlock : Always, Sally. I even know you didn't make it home

last night. (235)

The implicature in the dialogue above is included in generalized conversational implicature because Sherlock uses scalar implicature, mentioned by the word ‘always’ which is included in scale of frequency. Scalar implicature is a basis of a scale of value, in this term, one word is chosen in order to express one value. He implicates ‘not sometimes’ and ‘not often’. The participant fails to fulfil the maxim of quality. Sherlock says ‘Always Sally’ to insinuate Donovan, because they are always having quarrel when they meet. He deliberately ceases to apply the maxims to persuade his hearer to infer the hidden meaning behind the utterance, thus he flouts the maxim of quality.

(17)

3 Particularized implicature depends strongly on the context to implicate, because most of time the conversations take place in very specific contexts in which locally recognized inferences is assumed. The example of particularized can be seen bellow:

John : Are you still at Barts, then?

Mike : Teaching now, yeah. Bright young things like we used to be. God, I hate them. What about you, just staying in town till you get yourself sorted?

The implicature in dialogue above is included in particularized conversational implicature. When Mike answers ‘teaching now, yeah’ he implicates that +> yes, I am still at Barts and I am teaching there. In this dialogue John has to draw on some assumed knowledge, in order to make Mike’s response relevant. Since Barts is a medical school so that when Mike says ‘teaching now’ it means Mike is still at Barts and he is a teacher at Barts. In this dialogue, the participant fails to fulfil the maxim of manner. Mike tells the truth about what he is doing, yet he does not answer directly to the question ‘are you still at Barts, then?’, hence he flouts the maxim of manner.

This Sherlock TV series has exquisite dialogues which come from the brilliant characters, such as the detective, soldier, sergeant, minister and even the murderer. It was written by Steven Moffat, a screenwriter and television producer. He won and also was nominated in many awards. He was nominated as Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Writing for a Miniseries, Movie or a Dramatic Special with his work Sherlock – A Study in Pink. He also won eighteen awards since 1991 until 2014, beside sixteen award nominations.

(18)

4 Sherlock is a British crime drama television (TV) series which held on BBC One, adapted from Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s works which told about a detective named Sherlock Holmes. Sherlock – A Study in Pink is the first title from three other titles of the first season series. It was already broadcasted on 25 July 2010. Stared by Benedict Cumberbatch as Sherlock Holmes and Martin Freeman as Doctor John H. Watson. It is based on the first Sherlock Holmes novel entitled A Study in Scarlet.

The writer chooses this series because many people adore this series. It has bright dialogues which reflect the characters. Many awards and nominations received by Sherlock, and also the series have been sold to over 200 territories. Since this movie is included into crime drama, it means a drama that involves element of crime and investigations. It can focus on the police forces and law enforcement agencies, how they investigate crime with forensic scientists. The main character who is the detective produces many implicatures, which may make it difficult to understand the series. Sherlock – A Study in Pink is the first episode based on the first work of Sherlock Holmes novel written by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. The writer thinks every first work has a big influence to the next works, so that this episode has a special value to be analyzed, beside it has many implicatures. This British TV series could show the daily life in London which reflected by the implicatures within their conversations. Investigate the implicature means investigate the things a speaker means but not say. Hence it is significant to be analyzed.

(19)

5 1.2Problem of the Study

Based on the background of the study above, the writer finds some problems that appear in the study. It arises some questions, such as:

a. What types of conversational implicature are found in BBC One TV series Sherlock – A Study in Pink?

b. What do the speakers implicate in each implicature found in BBC One TV series Sherlock – A Study in Pink?

1.3Objective of the Study

Related to the problems of the study above, the study is aimed to:

a. To identify the types of conversational implicature found in BBC One TV series Sherlock – A Study in Pink.

b. To explain the speakers’ implications in each implicature found in BBC One TV series Sherlock – A Study in Pink.

1.4Scope of the Study

To avoid an overlapping and misleading discussion, the analysis is limited on analyzing the conversational implicature. Conversational implicature is one of the two branches of implicature which looks at the relation between what people say and what they actually mean in a conversation. There are two types of conversational implicature: generalized conversational implicature and particularized conversational implicature. Beside to avoid an excessive discussion, the writer limits the scope from

(20)

6 conventional implicature is because conventional implicature is independent of the cooperative principle. The cooperative principle which is elaborated in four maxims, those are quantity, quality, relation and manner is also analyzed.

1.5Significance of the Study

Through doing the analysis, the writer wishes this thesis can be useful information. Therefore, the significances of my thesis are stated as follow:

1. To enrich knowledge about conversational implicature. 2. To guide readers in studying conversational implicature.

3. To be a reference for the next researcher in analyzing the conversational implicature.

(21)

7 CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

2.1Pragmatics

Leech defined the term of pragmatics, that pragmatics is the study of how utterances have meanings in situations. Studying pragmatics must be from grammar. He stated that:

This means studying the use of language as distinct from, but complementary to, the language itself seen as a formal system. Or more briefly still: grammar (in its broadest sense) must be seperated from pragmatics. To argue this, it is not sufficient to define pragmatics negatively, as that aspect of linguistic study which cannot be accommodated in linguistics proper. Rather one must develope theories and methods of description which are peculiar to pragmatics itself, and show that these have to be different from those which are appropriate to grammar. The domain of pragmatics can then be defined so as to delimit it from grammar, and at the same time to show how the two fields combine within an integrated framework for studying language. (Leech, 1983:x)

According to Yule, Pragmatics is the study of speaker meaning. Yule (1996:3) says that pragmatics is concerned with the study of meaning as communicated by a speaker (or writer) and interpreted by a listener (or reader). He added pragmatics has more to do with the analysis of what people mean by their utterances than what the words or phrases in those utterances might mean by themselves.

(22)

8 2.2 Implicature

Implicature is a technical term in the pragmatics subfield of linguistics, coined by H. P. Grice, which refers to what is suggested in an utterance, even though neither expressed nor strictly implied by the utterance.

Yule (1996:36) states that something must be more than just what the words mean. It is an additional conveyed meaning, called implicature. Implicatures are primary examples of more being communicated than is said. For example: A hamburger is a hamburger. The sentence is called tautology, but if the sentence is used in a conversation, clearly the speaker intends to communicate more than is said, means there must be implicature.

Grice gives an illustration as a purpose to introduce the verb implicate and the related nouns implicature (cf. implying) and implicatum (cf. what is implied):

Suppose that A and B are talking about a mutual friend, C, who is now working in a bank. A asks how C is getting on his job, and B replies, Oh quite well, I think; he likes his colleagues, and he hasn’t been to prison yet. At this ponit, A might well inquire what B was implying, what he was suggesting, or even what he meant by saying that C had not been to prison. The answer might be any one of such things as that C is the sort of person likely to yield to the temptation provided by his occupation, that C’s colleagues are really very unpleasant and teacherous people, and so forth. It might, of course, be quite unnecessary for A to make such an inquiry of B, the answer to it being, in the context, clear in advance. It is clear that whatever B implied, suggested, meant in this example, is distinct from what B said, which was simply that C had not been to prison yet. I wish to introduce, as terms of art, the verb implicate and the related nouns implicature (cf. implying) and implicatum (cf. what is implied). The point of this maneuver is to avoid having, on each occasion, to choose between this or that member of the family of verbs for which implicate is to do general duty. (Grice, 1989:25)

Grice divides implicature into two types, those are conversational implicature and conventional implicature.

(23)

9 2.2.1 Conversational Implicature

Conversational implicature is the utterances which the speakers convey that are above and beyond the literal meaning of the words that they speak. It is generated by general rules of conversation, as applied to a particular conversational circumstance. It requires speakers to reason not only in terms of their language but also their understanding of the context and each other's goals and intentions. Grice describes the notion of conversational implicature as follows:

I am now in a position to characterize the notion of conversational implicature. A man who, by (in, when) saying (or making as if to say) that p has implicated that q, may be said to have conversationally implicated that q, provided that (1) he is to be presumed to be observing the conversational maxims, or at least the cooperative principle; (2) the supposition that he is aware that, or thinks that, q is required in order to make his saying or making as if to say p (or doing so in those terms) consistent with this presumption; and (3) the speaker thinks (and would expect the hearer to think that the speaker thinks) that it is within the competence of the hearer to work out, or grasp intuitively, that the supposition mentioned in (2) is required. (Grice, 1989:30-31)

Look at the example from Yule (1996:40)

(a) Charlene : I hope you bring the bread and the cheese. Dexter : Ah, I brought the bread.

After hearing Dexter’s response, Charlene has to assume that Dexter is cooperating and not totally unware of the quantity maxim. But he didn’t mention the cheese. If he had brought the cheese, he would say so, because he would be adhering to the quantity maxim. He must intend that she infers that what is not mentioned was not brought. In this case, Dexter has conveyed more than he said via a conversational implicature.

(24)

10 Within conversational implicature, there is a term called cooperative principle. At each stage, some possible conversational moves would be excluded as conversationally unsuitable. Grice (1989:26) says “Make your conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by it accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged. One might label this the Cooperative Principle.” The cooperative principle elaborated in four maxims, those are quantity, quality, relation and manner.

a. The Maxim of Quantity

- Make your contribution as informative as is required (for the current

purposes of the exchange).

- Do not make your contribution more informative than is required. b. The Maxim of Quality

- Do not say what you believe to be false.

- Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence. c. The Maxim of Relation

- Be relevant. d. The Maxim of Manner

- Avoid obscurity of expression.

- Avoid ambiguity.

- Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity).

(25)

11 But these maxims are not always followed, the participant in a talk exchange may fail to fulfil a maxim in various ways:

a. Quietly and unostentatiously violating a maxim

He may quietly and unostentatiously violate a maxim; if so, in some cases he will be liable to mislead.

b. Opting out

He may opt out from the operation both of the maxim and of the cooperative principle; he may say, indicate, or allow it to become plain that he is unwilling to cooperate in the way the maxim requires. He may say, fo example, I cannot say more; my lips are sealed.

c. Being faced with a clash

He may be faced by a clash: he may be unable, for example, to fulfil the first maxim of quantity (Be as informative as is required) without violating the second maxim of quality (Have adequate evidence for what you say)

d. Flouting a maxim

He may flout a maxim; that is, he may blatantly fail to fulfil it. on the assumption that the speaker is able to fulfil the maxim and to do so without violating another maxim (because of a clash), is not opting out, and is not, in view of the blatancy of his performance, trying to mislead, the hearer is faced with a minor problem: How can his saying what he did say be reconciled with the supposition that he is observing the overall Cooperative Principle? This situation is one that characteristically gives rise to a conversational implicature; and when a conversational implicature is generated in this way, I shall say that a maxim is being exploited.

(26)

12 Conversational implicature could be divided into two categories, those are generalized conversational implicature and particularized conversational implicature.

2.2.1.1Generalized Conversational Implicature

Generalized conversational implicature appears when no special knowledge is required in context to calculate the additional conveyed meaning. The generalized conversational implicature can be seen as the following example:

Dobby: Did you invite Bella and Cathy? Merry: I invited Bella.

The dialogue above is a kind of generalized conversational implicature because no special background knowledge of the context of utterance is required in order to make the necessary inference. One common example in English involves any phrase with an indefinite article ‘a/an X’, such as ‘a garden’. It is typically interpreted according to the generalized conversational implicature that: an X +> not speaker’s X.

Beside ‘a/an X’, a number of other generalized conversational implicatures are commonly communicated on the basis of scale of values and are consequently known as scalar implicature, such as all, most, many, some, or few, as the following example:

X: I get some of this jewellery in Hong Kong – um actually I think I got most of it there.

(27)

13 From the example above, the speaker initially implicates ‘+> not most’ by saying ‘some’, but then she corrects herself by actually asserting ‘most’. That final assertion is still likely to be interpreted, however, with a scalar implicature (+> not all).

The scales bellow shows the list of terms from the highest to the lowest.

a. Scale of quantity: all, most, some

b. Scale of frequency: sometimes, often, always c. Scale of coldness: cool, cold, freezing

d. Scale of likelihood: possibly, probably, certainly

2.2.1.2Particularized Conversational Implicature

Particularized conversational implicature strongly depends on context. Context is so important in order to infer right implicature. Most of the time, the conversations take place in very specific context in which locally recognized inferences is assumed. Some inferences are required to work out the conveyed meanings which result from particularized conversational implicature. The particularized conversational implicature can be seen in the following example:

Rick : Hey, coming to the wild party tonight? Tom : My parents are visiting.

In order to make Tom’s response relevant, Rick has to draw on some assumed knowledge that one college student in this setting expects another to have. Tom will be spending that evening with his parents, and time spent with parents is quiet (consequently +> Tom is not at the party).

(28)

14 2.2.2 Conventional Implicature

A conventional implicature is generated by meanings of words used. Conventional implicature is independent of the cooperative principle and its four maxims. According to Yule, conventional implicatures do not have to occur in conversation, and they do not depend on special context for their interpretation. They are associated with specific words and result in additional conveyed meanings when those words are used. The specific words are; and, but, even, and yet. The examples are:

Yesterday, Mary was happy and ready to work. (a) She put on her clothes and left. (b)

In (a) sentence the word ‘and’ is a convention of addition, while in (b) sentence the word and is a convention of sequence.

2.4 Related Study

Putri (2011) the student of Andalas University, Padang. The title of the thesis is An Analysis of Implicature as Found in Transcript of Interview between Barack Obama and Hisyam Melhem from Al-Arabia TV. This thesis discusses about implications which appear in an interview between Barack Obama and Hisyam Melhem. The data are respons of Obama in answering the questions. The writer uses the theory of cooperative principle which developed by Grice. There are 11

(29)

15 violations of maxim from 21 data. From this thesis I learned about cooperative principle theory which can help to answer the problem of the study in this thesis.

Fadilah (2012) the student of University of Sumatera Utara, Medan. The title of the thesis is An Analysis of Implicature in ‘The Neverending Story’ A Film By Michael Ende. This study tries to analyze the implicature in The Neverending Story film. The writer uses Grice’s theory in analyzing the implicature. There are 20 implicature which are found in the movie. There are 16 particularized conversational implicature and 4 generalized conversational implicature in scene I, III, IV, V, VI, and VII. From this thesis I learned about the problem of the study which can be found in conversational implicature. In the chapter of analysis and finding, the cooperative principle was not explained. Hence, I try to analyze each conversational implicature included the cooperative principle which is elaborated in four maxims in my thesis.

Siregar (2006) the student of University of Negeri Medan, Medan. The title of the thesis is Conversational Implicature Generated by the Exploitation of Conversational Maxim in Newsweeks’ Interview. The writer finds the most exploited maxim is maxim of quality with percentage 47.2% from the total number of 36 exploitations. There are two reasons why interviewees exploit the maxim, those are to express the politeness and to show the ability to express their language aesthetic. From this thesis I learned about the theory which can be applied in analyzing the conversational implicature.

The researches above express that implicature is a tool of communication which is interesting to be analyzed. Although the speaker adds other meaning inside his utterance, the hearer could understand. Still, there is also missed meaning

(30)

16 sometime. The researches give contributions to this study (An Analysis of Conversational Implicature of a BBC One Television Series: Sherlock – A Study in Pink) those are book references about implicature and research design to analyze the implicature.

(31)

17 CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

3.1 Research Method

The analysis in this study uses descriptive method. Sudaryanto (1993:62) said that descriptive method is a research which is only executed based on the fact. Its qualitative research links with the research data which are not the numeral but the words and phrase. Related to that, descriptive method is the way to find out the accurate facts by having the right interpretation, and solving the problem accurately.

3.2 Data and Data Source

In this study, the data are the utterances which consist conversational implicatures, and the data source is the dialogues in the script of Sherlock – A Study in Pink TV Series written by Steve Moffat which are uttered by Sherlock, John, Mike, Mycroft, Molly, Donovan, Anderson, and the Killer. The writer searches the transcription of Sherlock – A Study in Pink TV Series which lasts for 87 minutes is taken from a website which provides subtitles of movies, that is subscene.com.

Sherlock – A Study in Pink tells about a serial killer which is arranged by a taxi driver. The story begins with three people died by the same way, that was drunk a poison. In one morning, John Watson met Sherlock to talk about sharing the flat. Then they met again a day after in 221B Baker Street in the central of London, the address of the flat. In that day, there was already the fourth suicide and Sherlock was called to solve this case, he asked John to come with him to the crime scene. The victim was a woman who wore a pink outfit. By his skill of deduction, Sherlock

(32)

18 finally could catch the murderer who was a cab driver. The writer chooses the series because the main character who is the detective produces many implicatures, which may make it difficult to understand the series. Beside many people in over two hundred territories watch the series.

3.3 Data Collecting Method

The data are collected by applying observation method. According to Mahsun (2005:92) observation method is the way to collect data by scrutinizing the using of the speaker’s language. The method has basic technique that is tapping technique.

The data are taken from the video and the script of Sherlock: A Study in Pink written by Steven Moffat. In collecting data, writer makes the transcription after watching the series several times. In order to get the correct utterances, writer browses the internet to get the script and compare it with the real sound of the characters’ utterances, then writes down the final data which will be analyzed.

3.4 Data Analysis Method

In accomplishing the study, the writer uses content analysis method. Krippendorff (2003:18) says that contents analysis is a research technique for making replicable and valid inferences from texts (or other meaningful matter) to the contexts of their use. The procedures of content analysis are unitizing, sampling, recording, reducing, inferring, and narrating to answer the research questions. In this study, the video and audio data of Sherlock – A Study in Pink TV series are used as the major data. The writer uses Grice’s theory of conversational implicature to analyze the data. The steps of this method are watching the series several times and

(33)

19 record all the dialogues of characters to make transcription from spoken language to written language. After the data are collected, the writer chooses some scenes which contain dialogues. The dialogues are chosen to be analyzed based on the need of the research and those that related to the problem of study. To answer the first question the data will be classified into their categories, whether they are generalized conversational implicature or particularized conversational implicature based on Grice’s theory. The writer also explains the speakers’ implications (something that is implied) to answer the second question. The last step of data analysis is conclusion. The conclusion was done after the data transcriptions were analyzed.

(34)

20 CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS AND FINDING

In the script of Sherlock – A Study in Pink, there are 935 utterances. From the utterances, there are only 37 implicatures (11 generalized conversational implicatures and 26 particularized conversational implicatures). Meanwhile the other utterances are not included in implicature because they have no additional conveyed meanings. The types of conversational implicature and the explanation of each implication found in Sherlock – A Study in Pink are discussed below.

4.1 Types and Implication of Conversational Implicature

4.1.1 Generalized Conversational Implicature

The dialogues bellow contain implicatures which is included in generalized conversational implicature. Yule (1996:40) states that generalized conversational implicature appears when no special background knowledge of the context of utterance is required in order to make the necessary inferences. The implicatures will be typed in bold, which come from characters such as Sherlock, John, Mike, Lestrade, Donovan, Cab Driver, Mycroft, and Mrs. Hudson.

1. John : We don't know a thing about each other. I don't know where we're meeting. I don't even know your name.

Sherlock : I know you're an Army doctor and you've been invalided home from Afghanistan. You've got a brother worried about you, but you won't go to him for help because you don't approve of him, possibly because he's an alcoholic, (...) The name's Sherlock Holmes, and the address is 221B Baker Street. Afternoon. [goes out]

(35)

21 John : [looks at Mike]

Mike : Ya. He's always like that.(110)

In the dialogue above, the implicature is included in generalized conversational implicature, because no special background knowledge is required in the context to calculate the additional conveyed meaning. Beside, Mike as the participant also uses scalar implicature, mentioned by the word ‘always’ which is included in scale of frequency.

By using ‘always’ in his utterance ‘He's always like that’ Mike implicates ‘not sometimes’ and ‘not often’. The participant fails to fulfil the maxim of quality. Mike response is ‘Ya. He is always like that’. He says it to insinuate Sherlock, because he does not always with Sherlock, but every time he sees Sherlock meets someone, Sherlock always analyzes someone by his or her appearance. He deliberately ceases to apply the maxims to persuade his hearer to infer the hidden meaning behind the utterance. From the explanation, it can be concluded that he flouts the maxim of quality.

2. Donovan : Hello, freak!

Sherlock : I'm here to see Detective Inspector Lestrade. Donovan : Why?

Sherlock : I was invited. Donovan : Why?

Sherlock : I think he wants me to take a look. Donovan : You know what I think, don't you?

Sherlock : Always, Sally. I even know you didn't make it home last night. (232) The implicature in the dialogue above is included in generalized conversational implicature, because no special background knowledge is required in the context to calculate the additional conveyed meaning. Beside, Sherlock as the

(36)

22 participant also uses scalar implicature, mentioned by the word ‘always’ which is included in scale of frequency.

By using ‘always’ in his utterance ‘Always Sally’ Sherlock implicates ‘not sometimes’ and ‘not often’. The participant fails to fulfil the maxim of quality. Sherlock says ‘Always Sally’ to tease Donovan, because they are always having quarrel when they meet. He deliberately ceases to apply the maxims to persuade his hearer to infer the hidden meaning behind the utterance, thus he flouts the maxim of quality.

3. John : She could have checked into a hotel, left it there.

Sherlock : No, she never got to the hotel. Look at her hair. She colour

coordinates her lipstick and shoes. She'd never have left any hotel with her hair still looking... Oh... Oh!

John : Sherlock? Lestrade : What is it, what?

Sherlock : Serial killers, always hard. You have to wait for them to make a mistake.(329)

Lestrade : We can't just wait!

The implicature in the dialogue above is included in generalized conversational implicature because there is no special knowledge is required in the context to calculate the additional conveyed meaning. Beside, Sherlock as the participant also uses scalar implicature, mentioned by the word ‘always’ which is included in scale of frequency.

By choosing ‘always’ in his utterance ‘Serial killers, always hard.’ Sherlock implicates ‘not often’ and ‘not sometimes’. In the dialogue, the participant fails to fulfil the maxim of manner. Sherlock’s response is difficult to be understood. He does not make his contribution orderly, but he also expects his hearer to notice. He deliberately ceases to apply the maxims to persuade his hearer to infer the hidden meaning behind the utterance. Hence he flouts the maxim of manner.

(37)

23 4. John : Who are you?

Mycroft : An interested party.

John : Interested in Sherlock? Why? I'm guessing you're not friends. Mycroft : You've met him. How many friends do you imagine he has? I am

the closest thing to a friend that Sherlock Holmes is capable of having.

John : And what's that? Mycroft : An enemy. John : An enemy?

Mycroft : In his mind, certainly. If you were to ask him, he'd probably say his arch-enemy. He does love to be dramatic. (392)

The implicature in the dialogue above is included in generalized conversational implicature because it requires no special background knowledge to make an inference. Beside, Mycroft as the participant also uses scalar implicature, mentioned by the word ‘certainly’ and ‘probably’ which is included in scale of likelihood.

By saying ‘certainly’ in his utterance ‘In his mind, certainly. If you were to ask him, he'd probably say his arch-enemy.’ Mycroft implicates ‘not possibly’. The participant fails to fulfil the maxim of manner. Mycroft does not try to be brief in his statement. Probably because he is not the real enemy of Sherlock, but he also does not want to tell John that he is Sherlock’s brother in fact. He deliberately ceases to apply the maxims to persuade his hearer to infer the hidden meaning behind the utterance. From the explanation, it can be conclude that he flouts the maxim of manner.

5. Mrs Hudson: Sherlock, what have you done? Sherlock : Mrs Hudson?

(38)

24 The implicature is included in generalized conversational implicature because no special background knowledge is required in the context to calculate the additional conveyed meaning.

Mrs Hudson implicates that something happened upstairs, and Sherlock must check it in her utterance ‘Upstairs’. In the dialogue, the participant fails to fulfil the maxim of quantity. Mrs Hudson’s response is still insufficient to the question. This can be due to the fact that Mrs Hudson cannot make more explanation to Sherlock, because she is frightened in the situation. Mrs Hudson does not say as much as it is necessary to make her contribution cooperative, but she also expects her hearer to notice. She deliberately ceases to apply the maxims to persuade her hearer to infer the hidden meaning behind the utterance. Thus she flouts the maxim of quantity.

6. Sherlock : Where are we?

Cab Driver : You know every street in London. You know exactly where we are.

Sherlock : Roland-Kerr Further Education College. Why here?

Cab Driver : It's open. Cleaners are in. One thing about being a cabbie you always know a nice quiet spot for a murder. I'm surprised more

of us don't branch out. (760)

The implicature in the dialogue above is included in generalized conversational implicature because it requires no special background knowledge to make an inference. Beside, the Cab Driver as the participant also uses scalar implicature, mentioned by the word ‘always’ which is included in scale of frequency.

By saying ‘always’ in his utterance ‘One thing about being a cabbie you

always know a nice quiet spot for a murder.’ The Cab Driver implicates ‘not

(39)

25 maxim of quantity. He obviously gives more information than is required. He deliberately talks too much in compliance with the goal of the ongoing conversation. But he also expects his hearer to notice. He ceases to apply the maxims to persuade his hearer to infer the hidden meaning behind the utterance. Thus he flouts the maxim of quantity.

7. Sherlock : Ah... three years ago. Is that when they told you? Cab Driver : Told me what?

Sherlock : That you're a dead man walking. Cab Driver : So are you.

Sherlock : You don't have long, though. Am I right?

Cab Driver : Aneurism. Right in 'ere. Any breath could be my last.

Sherlock : And because you're dying, you've just murdered four people.

Cab Driver : I've outlived four people. That's the most fun you can have with an aneurism. (809)

The implicature in the dialogue above is included in generalized conversational implicature because it requires no special background knowledge to make an inference. Beside, the Cab Driver as the participant also uses scalar implicature mentioned by the word ‘most’ which is included in scale of quantity.

By saying ‘most’ in his utterance ‘That’s the most fun you can have with an aneurism’ the Cab Driver implicates ‘not all’, ‘not many’, ‘not some’, and ‘not few’. The Cab Driver fails to fulfil one maxim, which is maxim of manner. The Cab Driver flouts the maxim of manner, because his response is obscure. He does not answer whether the reason of murdering people is because he is dying or not. He only says that murdering people is fun. He also expects his hearer to notice. He deliberately ceases to apply the maxims to persuade his hearer to infer the hidden meaning behind the utterance. Hence he flouts the maxim of manner.

8. Sherlock : What are you doing here?

(40)

26 Sherlock : Yes, I've been hearing about your "concern".

Mycroft : Always so aggressive. Did it never occur to you that you and I belong on the same side? (891)

Sherlock : Oddly enough... no.

By using ‘always’ in his utterance ‘Always so aggressive.’ Mycroft implicates ‘not often’ and ‘not sometimes’. In the dialogue, the participant fails to fulfil the maxim of quality. Mycroft says the truth but he does not need to say it in his contribution in the dialogue. He wants to tease Sherlock, because he knows that Sherlock is enthusiastic in having quarrel with him. He deliberately ceases to apply the maxims to persuade his hearer to infer the hidden meaning behind the utterance. Hence he flouts the maxim of quality.

9. John : So, when you say you're concerned about him, you actually are concerned?

Mycroft : Yes, of course.

John : It actually is a childish feud?

Mycroft : He's always been so resentful. You can imagine the Christmas dinners. (909)

By using ‘always’ in his utterance ‘He's always been so resentful’ Mycroft implicates ‘not sometimes’ and ‘not often’. Mycroft fails to fulfil one maxim, which is maxim of manner. Mycroft does not try to avoid obscurity of expression, by

(41)

27 answer indirectly to the question, but he also expects his hearer to notice. He deliberately ceases to apply the maxims to persuade his hearer to infer the hidden meaning behind the utterance. Thus he flouts the maxim of manner.

10.John : [walks to Sherlock] So, dim sum.

Sherlock : Mmm. I can always predict the fortune cookies. (917) John : No, you can't.

Sherlock : Almost can. You did get shot, though.

By using ‘always’ in his utterance ‘I can always predict the fortune cookies.’ Sherlock implicates ‘not often’ and ‘not sometimes’. The participant fails to fulfil the maxim of manner. By saying I can always predict the fortune cookies, Sherlock fails to fulfil the maxim of manner. John offers dim sum for dinner to Sherlock, but what he receives from Sherlock is a statement about his skill in predicts the fortune cookies. Sherlock does not try to avoid obscurity of expression, by answer indirectly to the question. He deliberately ceases to apply the maxims to persuade his hearer to infer the hidden meaning behind the utterance, thus he flouts the maxim of manner.

4.1.2 Particularized Conversational Implicature

The dialogues bellow contain implicatures which is included in generalized conversational implicature. Yule (1996:42) stated that particularized conversational implicature takes place in very specific contexts in which locally recognized

(42)

28 inferences are assumed. The implicatures will be typed in bold, which come from characters such as Sherlock, John, Mike, Lestrade, Donovan, Cab Driver, Mycroft, and Mrs. Hudson.

1. John : Are you still at Barts, then?

Mike : Teaching now, yeah. Bright young things like we used to be.

God, I hate them. What about you? Just staying in town till you get yourself sorted? (55)

John : I can't afford London on an Army pension. (56)

Mike : You couldn't bear to be anywhere else. That's not the John Watson I know.

John : Yeah, I'm not the John Watson... Mike : Couldn't Harry help?

John : Yeah, like that's going to happen. (60) Mike : I don't know, get a flat share or something? John : Come on, who'd want me for a flatmate? (62) Mike : [Laugh]

John : What?

Mike : You're the second person to say that to me today.

There are four particularized conversational implicatures in the dialogue above. Those are ‘Teaching now, yeah.’, ‘I can't afford London on an Army pension.’, ‘Yeah, like that's going to happen.’, and ‘Come on, who'd want me for a flatmate?’. The implicatures are included in particularized conversational implicature because the special background knowledge of the context is required in order to make an inference.

In Mike’s utterance ‘Teaching now, yeah.’, he implicates that he is still at Barts and he is teaching there. In the dialogue John as the hearer has to draw on some assumed knowledge, since Barts is a medical school so that when Mike says ‘teaching now’ it means Mike is still at Barts and he is a teacher at Barts. The participant fails to fulfil the maxim of manner. Mike tells the truth about what he is doing, yet he does not answer directly to the question ‘are you still at Barts, then?’. He deliberately ceases to apply the maxims to persuade his hearer to infer the hidden

(43)

29 meaning behind the utterance. Hence he flouts the maxim of manner.

In John’s utterance ‘I can't afford London on an Army pension.’, John actually implicates that he cannot stay in town because he has less money to stay in London. Mike as the hearer has to draw on some assumed knowledge that the money of an army pension is not much. In the dialogue, the participant fails to fulfil the maxim of manner. John tells the truth that he cannot afford London on an Army pension. He deliberately ceases to apply the maxims to persuade his hearer to infer the hidden meaning behind the utterance. He flouts the maxim of manner because he also does not give a direct answer to the question.

In John’s utterance ‘Yeah, like that's going to happen.’, he implicates that his sibling is never going to help him. In the dialogue Mike as the hearer has to draw on some assumed knowledge that when John says ‘Yeah, like that's going to happen’ with the sarcastic tone, it means the opposite which is that is not going to happen. The participant fails to fulfil the maxim of quality. John responds Mike’s question with a statement ‘Yeah, like that's going to happen’. He says it with the sarcastic tone, it can be seen by his facial expression and chuckle. He knows that it is impossible for Harry to help him. He deliberately ceases to apply the maxims to persuade his hearer to infer the hidden meaning behind the utterance. From the explanation, it can be conclude that he flouts the maxim of quality.

In John’s utterance ‘Come on, who'd want me for a flatmate?’, he implicates that there is no one who wants to share a flat with him. Again, John responds Mike’s question with sarcastic tone, it can be seen by his facial expression and smirk. In the dialogue Mike has to draw on some assumed knowledge that when John says ‘Come on, who'd want me for a flatmate?’ it means he is pessimistic that there is someone who wants to share a flat with him. Beside, his therapist thinks he has post-traumatic

(44)

30 stress disorder. The participant fails to fulfil the maxim of quality. John responds Mike’s question with sarcastic tone, it can be seen from his facial expression. He says it because he is pessimistic that there is someone who wants to share a flat with him. He deliberately ceases to apply the maxims to persuade his hearer to infer the hidden meaning behind the utterance. From the explanation, it can be conclude that he flouts the maxim of quality.

2. Molly : Listen, I was wondering. Maybe later, when you're finished... Sherlock : You're wearing lipstick. You weren't wearing lipstick before. Molly : I, er... I refreshed it a bit.

Sherlock : Sorry, you were saying?

Molly : I was wondering if you'd like to have coffee. (75) Sherlock : Black, two sugars, please. I'll be upstairs.

Molly : Okay.

The implicature in the dialogue above is included in particularized conversational implicature because the special background knowledge of the context is required in order to make an inference.

In Molly’s utterance ‘I was wondering if you'd like to have coffee.’, she implicates that she wants to ask Sherlock to have coffee with her, not giving a cup of coffee to Sherlock, but having coffee together in a cafe or somewhere. The participant fails to fulfil the maxim of manner, because Molly does not try to avoid ambiguity. She should say directly what it is in her mind, yet she is nervous about facing Sherlock. She also expects Sherlock to notice. She deliberately ceases to apply the maxims to persuade her hearer to infer the hidden meaning behind the utterance. Hence she flouts the maxim of manner.

3. Sherlock : Mike, can I borrow your phone? There's no signal on mine. Mike : And what's wrong with the landline?

(45)

31 Mike : Sorry, it's in my coat. (83)

There are two particularized conversational implicatures in the dialogue above, those are ‘I prefer to text.’ and ‘Sorry it’s in my coat.’. The implicatures are included in particularized conversational implicature because the special background knowledge of the context is required in order to make an inference.

In Sherlock’s utterance ‘I prefer to text.’, he actually implicates that the landline is not the point because he does not want to use it, he wants to use a phone to sand a text. In the dialogue, Mike as the hearer has to draw on some assumed knowledge that only a phone which can sand a text, not a landline. Even though there is a landline, Sherlock still needs a phone. The participant fails to fulfil the maxim of quantity. Sherlock’s response is still insufficient to the question ‘what’s wrong with the landline?’. This can be due to the fact that Sherlock wants to say what he wants directly. Sherlock does not say as much as it is necessary to make his contribution cooperative, but he also expects his hearer to notice. He deliberately ceases to apply the maxims to persuade his hearer to infer the hidden meaning behind the utterance, hence he flouts the maxim of quantity.

In Mike’s utterance ‘Sorry it’s in my coat.’, he implicates that he cannot lend Sherlock his phone because he does not bring it, he left it in his coat. In the dialogue, Sherlock has to draw on some assumed knowledge that Mike does not wear his coat, it means he left his coat somewhere and he cannot lend him his phone. The participant fails to fulfil the maxim of manner. There is the absence of clarity in Mike’s response ‘Sorry, it’s in my coat’. Mike does not try to avoid obscurity of expression, by answer indirectly to the question. He deliberately ceases to apply the maxims to persuade his hearer to infer the hidden meaning behind the utterance, thus he flouts the maxim of manner.

(46)

32 4. Sherlock : Where?

Lestrade : Brixton, Lauriston Gardens.

Sherlock : What's new about this one? You wouldn't have come to me if there wasn’t something different.

Lestrade : You know how they never leave notes? Sherlock : Yeah.

Lestrade : This one did. Will you come? Sherlock : Who's on forensics?

Lestrade : Anderson.

Sherlock : He doesn't work well with me. Lestrade : Well, he won't be your assistant. Sherlock : I need an assistant.

Lestrade : Will you come?

Sherlock : Not in a police car, I'll be right behind. Lestrade : Thank you. [goes out]

Sherlock : [after Lestrade gone] Brilliant! Yes! Four serial suicides and

now a note. Oh, it's Christmas. Mrs Hudson, I'll be late. Might need some food. (157)

Mrs Hudson : I'm your landlady, dear, not your housekeeper. (158)

There are two particularized conversational implicatures in the dialogue above, those are ‘Oh, it’s Christmas.’ and ‘I'm your landlady, dear, not your

housekeeper.’. The implicatures are included in particularized conversational

implicature because the special background knowledge of the context is required in order to make an inference.

In Sherlock’s utterance ‘Oh, it’s Christmas.’ , he implicates that he is really happy because he has got the job. John and Mrs. Hudson has to draw on some assumed knowledge that Christmas is a happy moment, thus they know that the meaning of Sherlock’s utterance is ‘I am happy’ not ‘it’s Christmas’ because the Christmas does not come yet. In the dialogue, the participant fails to fulfil the maxim of quality. Sherlock uses metaphor by saying ‘Oh, it’s Christmas.’ but he also expects his hearer to notice. He deliberately ceases to apply the maxims to persuade his hearer to infer the hidden meaning behind the utterance. Thus he flouts the maxim of quality.

(47)

33 In Mrs Hudson’s utterance ‘I'm your landlady, dear, not your housekeeper.’, she implicates that Sherlock cannot ask her to make some food, because she is not Sherlock’s housekeeper. Sherlock has to draw on some assumed knowledge that one of the job descriptions of a housekeeper is making food, while Mrs Hudson is a landlady. In the dialogue, the participant fails to fulfil the maxim of quality. Mrs Hudson responds Sherlock’s request with a statement ‘I’m your landlady, dear, not your housekeeper.’ She says the truth but it is not suitable to respond the request. The probability is she wants to deliver a sarcastic tone, to insinuate that Sherlock should not give an order to a landlady. She deliberately ceases to apply the maxims to persuade her hearer to infer the hidden meaning behind the utterance. From the explanation, it can be conclude that she flouts the maxim of quality.

5. Lestrade : Who's this?

Sherlock : He's with me. (252) Lestrade : But who is he? Sherlock : I said he's with me.

The implicature in the dialogue above is included in particularized conversational implicature because the special background knowledge of the context is required in order to make an inference.

In Sherlock’s utterance ‘He is with me.’ He implicates that the man who comes with him to the crime scene is his responsibility, and Lestrade does not need to know who he is. The participant fails to fulfil the maxim of quantity. Sherlock says the truth yet is still insufficient to the question ‘who is this?’. Sherlock does not say as much as it is necessary to make his contribution cooperative. The hearer would assume that there is nothing more to know, thus he violates the maxim of quantity.

(48)

34 6. John : What am I doing here?

Sherlock : Helping me make a point.

John : I'm supposed to help you pay the rent. Sherlock : This is more fun.

John : Fun? There's a woman lying dead. (288)

Sherlock : Perfectly sound analysis, but I was hoping you'd go deeper.

The implicature in the dialogue above is included in particularized conversational implicature because the special background knowledge of the context is required in order to make an inference.

In John’s utterance ‘There's a woman lying dead.’, he implicates that they are in a serious situation and this is not fun. In the dialogue, the participant fails to fulfil the maxim of quality. John responds Sherlock’s request with a statement ‘There’s a woman lying dead.’ He says the truth but he does not need to say that because everybody knows that there is a woman lying dead. The probability is he wants insinuate that Sherlock should not say ‘this is more fun’ in that situation. He deliberately ceases to apply the maxims to persuade his hearer to infer the hidden meaning behind the utterance. From the explanation, it can be conclude that he flouts the maxim of quality.

7. Sherlock : Serial killers, always hard. You have to wait for them to make a mistake.

Lestrade : We can't just wait!

Sherlock : Oh, we're done waiting. Look at her, really look! Houston, we

have a mistake. Get on to Cardiff. Find out who Jennifer Wilson's family and friends were. Find Rachel!

Lestrade : Of course, yeah... but what mistake? Sherlock : Pink! (333)

The implicature in the dialogue above is included in particularized conversational implicature because the special background knowledge of the context is required in order to make an inference.

(49)

35 In Sherlock’s utterance ‘Pink!’, he implicates that the mistake is the suitcase of the woman is pink, thus it is easy to find the suitcase because of the bright colour. In the dialogue Lestrade has to draw on some assumed knowledge that what does pink mean is the colour of the suitcase. The participant fails to fulfil the maxim of quantity. Sherlock’s response is still insufficient to the question ‘but what mistake?’. This can be due to the fact that Sherlock has no time to make an explanation or a complete answer to Lestrade’s question. Sherlock does not say as much as it is necessary to make his contribution cooperative. He leaves his hearer unsatisfied, thus he violates the maxim of quantity.

8. John : Well...? You asked me to come, I'm assuming it's important. (448)

Sherlock : Oh, yeah, of course. Can I borrow your phone? John : My phone?

Sherlock : Always a chance that my number will be recognised. It's on the website.

John : Mrs Hudson's got a phone. (452)

Sherlock : She's downstairs. I shouted, but she didn't hear. John : I was the other side of London. (454)

Sherlock : There was no hurry.

There are three particularized conversational implicatures in the dialogues above, those are ‘You asked me to come, I'm assuming it's important.’, ‘Mrs Hudson's got a phone.’, and ‘I was the other side of London.’. The implicatures are included in particularized conversational implicature because the special background knowledge of the context is required in order to make an inference.

In John’s utterance ‘You asked me to come, I'm assuming it's important.’ He implicates that he wants to know why Sherlock asks him to come. In the dialogue Sherlock as the hearer has to draw on some assumed knowledge that when John says it John must think that Sherlock needs something from John. The participant fails to fulfil the maxim of manner. John’s statement is difficult to be understood. He makes

(50)

36 his contribution obscure. He should say directly what he wants to say like ‘why do you want me to come?’, but he also expects his hearer to notice. He deliberately ceases to apply the maxims to persuade his hearer to infer the hidden meaning behind the utterance, thus he flouts the maxim of manner.

In John’s utterance ‘Mrs Hudson's got a phone.’, he implicates that why Sherlock does not borrow Mrs Hudson’s phone, since Mrs Hudson also has a phone. In the dialogue, the participant fails to fulfil the maxim of quality. John responds Sherlock’s request with a statement which sounds like an offer, whereas he should answer by positive response (acceptance) or negative response (rejection), instead he says ‘Mrs Hudson got a phone’. He says the truth but he does not need to say it in his contribution in the dialogue, moreover to respond the request. The probability is he wants to deliver a sarcastic tone, it can be seen by his piqued face. He says it to insinuate that Sherlock should borrow a phone with someone who is closer to him like Mrs Hudson. He deliberately ceases to apply the maxims to persuade his hearer to infer the hidden meaning behind the utterance. From the explanation, it can be conclude that he flouts the maxim of quality.

In John’s utterance ‘I was the other side of London.’, he implicates that he was in a place which is far away from the flat, and Sherlock can borrow a phone from someone who was near. In the dialogue Sherlock has to draw on some assumed knowledge that the other side of London means far away from their flat and it is not efficient to borrow a phone from someone who is far. The participant fails to fulfil the maxim of quality. The case is similar to the previous number. By saying ‘I was the other side of London’ John delivers the sarcastic tone, it can be seen by his piqued face. He says it to insinuate that Sherlock should borrow a phone with someone who is closer to him. He says the truth but he does not need to say it in his

(51)

37 contribution in the dialogue. He deliberately ceases to apply the maxims to persuade his hearer to infer the hidden meaning behind the utterance, thus he flouts the maxim of quality.

9. John : Have you talked to the police?

Sherlock : Four people are dead, there isn't time. John : So why are you talking to me?

Sherlock : Mrs Hudson took my skull. (515) John : So I'm basically filling in for your skull? Sherlock : Relax, you're doing fine. Well?

John : Well, what?

Sherlock : Well... you could just sit there and... watch telly. (519) John : You want me to come with you?

Sherlock : I like company when I go out and I think better when I talk aloud. The skull just attracts attention, so... Problem? (521)

There are three particularized conversational implicatures in the dialogue above, those are ‘Mrs Hudson took my skull.’, ‘Well... you could just sit there and... watch telly.’, and ‘I like company when I go out and I think better when I talk aloud.’ The implicatures are included in particularized conversational implicature because the special background knowledge of the context is required in order to make an inference.

In Sherlock’s utterance ‘Mrs Hudson took my skull.’, he implicates that he lost his friend, so that he needs to talk with someone. In the dialogue, John as the hearer has to draw on some assumed knowledge that my skull means a friend of Sherlock. The participant fails to fulfil the maxim of manner. Sherlock’s response is difficult to be understood. He makes his contribution obscure. He should answer directly that he need someone to talk, because his friend – the skull – was lost, but he also expects his hearer to notice. He deliberately ceases to apply the maxims to persuade his hearer to infer the hidden meaning behind the utterance, hence he flouts the maxim of manner.

(52)

38 In Sherlock’s utterance ‘Well... you could just sit there and... watch telly.’, he implicates that he wants to ask that whether John wants to join him or not. In the dialogue, John as the hearer has to draw on some assumed knowledge that Sherlock is asking to accompany him. The participant fails to fulfil the maxim of quality. Sherlock insinuates John, in order to ask him to go by saying ‘Well... you could just sit there and... watch telly.’ but he also expects his hearer to notice. He deliberately ceases to apply the maxims to persuade his hearer to infer the hidden meaning behind the utterance. Thus he flouts the maxim of quality.

In Sherlock’s utterance ‘I like company when I go out and I think better when I talk aloud.’, he implicates that he wants John to come with him. In the dialogue, John has to draw on some assumed knowledge that when Sherlock says ‘I like company when I go out and I think better when I talk aloud.’ it means he wants someone to come with him. The participant fails to fulfil the maxim of quality. Sherlock insinuate John, in order to ask him to accompany him, but he also expects his hearer to notice. He deliberately ceases to apply the maxims to persuade his hearer to infer the hidden meaning behind the utterance. Thus he flouts the maxim of quality.

10.Sherlock : This is Angelo. Three years ago, I proved to Lestrade, at the time of a particularly vicious triple murder, that Angelo was in a different part of town, house-breaking.

Angelo : He cleared my name.

Sherlock : I cleared it a bit. Anything happening opposite? Angelo : Nothing. But for this man, I'd have gone to prison. Sherlock : You did go to prison.

Angelo : I'll get a candle for the table. It's more romantic. John : I'm not his date! (551)

The implicature in the dialogue above is included in particularized conversational implicature because the special background knowledge of the context

(53)

39 is required in order to make an inference.

In John’s utterance ‘I'm not his date!’, he implicates that he does not need a candle and romantic situation. In the dialogue, Angelo as the hearer has to draw on some assumed knowledge that John is not Sherlock’s date, they does not have relationship, so they do not need the romantic situation. The participant fails to fulfil the maxim of quality. John responds Angelo’s offer with an irrelevant statement, whereas he should answer by positive response (acceptance) or negative response (rejection), instead he says ‘I’m not his date!’. He says the truth but he does not need to say it in his contribution in the dialogue. The probability is he wants to deliver a sarcastic tone, it can be seen by his piqued face and high voice. He says it to make Angelo realize that he does not want to have a candle. He deliberately ceases to apply the maxims to persuade his hearer to infer the hidden meaning behind the utterance. From the explanation, it can be conclude that he flouts the maxim of quality.

11.Mrs Hudson : Sherlock, what have you done? Sherlock : Mrs Hudson? (617)

Mrs Hudson : Upstairs.

The implicature in the dialogue above is included in particularized conversational implicature because the special background knowledge of the context is required in order to make an inference.

In Sherlock’s utterance ‘Mrs Hudson?’, he implicates that he wants to ask what happened here (Mrs Hudson)? Because Sherlock has no clue to answer Mrs Hudson’s question ‘Sherlock, what have you done?’, thus he calls her name to get the clarification. In the dialogue, the participant fails to fulfil the maxim of manner. Sherlock flouts the maxim of manner, because his response is obscure. He does not

(54)

40 answer Mrs Hudson’s question. He only mention Mrs Hudson’s name. He also expects his hearer to notice. He deliberately ceases to apply the maxims to persuade his hearer to infer the hidden meaning behind the utterance. Hence he flouts the maxim of manner.

12.Sherlock : What are you doing?

Lestrade : I knew you'd find the case, I'm not stupid. (620) Sherlock : You can't just break into my flat.

The implicature in the dialogue above is included in particularized conversational implicature because the special background knowledge of the context is required in order to make an inference.

In Lestrade’s utterance ‘I knew you'd find the case, I'm not stupid.’, he implicates that he wants to take the victim’s suitcase. In the dialogue, Sherlock has to draw on some assumed knowledge that by saying ‘I knew you'd find the case, I'm not stupid.’ it means Lestrade is searching the suitcase, because it is an evidence and it is not Sherlock’s responsibility to keep it. The participant fails to fulfil the maxim of quantity. Lestrade’s answer is still insufficient to the question ‘what are you doing here?’. Lestrade does not say as much as it is necessary to make his contribution cooperative, but he also expects his hearer to notice. He deliberately ceases to apply the maxims to persuade his hearer to infer the hidden meaning behind the utterance. Hence he flouts the maxim of quantity.

13.Sherlock : What do you call this, then? Lestrade : It's a drugs bust.

John : Seriously? This guy a junkie? Have you met him? Sherlock : John...

John : I pretty sure, you could search this flat all day, you wouldn't find anything you could call recreational.

Sherlock : John, you probably want to shut up now. John : But come on... No... (629)

(1)

76 *

Cab Driver : You ready yet, Mr Holmes? Ready to play? (792)

Sherlock : Play what? It's a 50:50 chance. (793)

Cab Driver : You're not playing the numbers you're playing me. Did I just give you the good pill or the bad pill? Is it a bluff or a double bluff? Or a

triple bluff? (794)

Sherlock : It's still just chance. (795)

Cab Driver : Four people, in a row? It's not chance. (796)

Sherlock : Luck. (797)

Cab Driver : It's genius! I know how people think. I know how people think I think. I can see it all like a map inside my head. Everyone's so stupid, even you. Or maybe God just loves me. (798) Sherlock : Either way, you're wasted as a cabbie. (799) [John arrives in Roland-Kerr Further Education College]

Sherlock : So...you risked your life four times just to kill strangers why? (800)

Cab Driver : Time to play. (801)

Sherlock : Oh, I am playing. This is my turn. There's shaving foam behind your left ear. Nobody's pointed it out to you. Traces of where it's happened before, so obviously you live on your own - there's no-one to tell you. But there's a photograph of children. The children's mother's been cut out. If she'd died, she'd still be there. The photograph's old, but the frame's new. You think of your children, but you don't get to see them. Estranged father. She took the kids, but you still love them, and it still hurts. Ah, but there's more. Your clothes. Recently laundered, but everything you're wearing is at least... three years old? Keeping up appearances, but not planning ahead. And here you are on a kamikaze murder spree. What's that about? Ah... three years ago. Is that when they told you? (802)

Cab Driver : Told me what? (803)

Sherlock : That you're a dead man walking. (804)

Cab Driver : So are you. (805)

Sherlock : You don't have long, though. Am I right? (806) Cab Driver : Aneurism. Right in 'ere. Any breath could be my last. (807) Sherlock : And because you're dying, you've just murdered four people. (808) Cab Driver : I've outlived four people. That's the most fun you can have with

an aneurism. (809)

Sherlock : No... No, there's something else. You didn't just kill four people because you're bitter. Bitterness is a paralytic. Love is a much more vicious motivator. Somehow, this is about your children. (810)

Cab Driver : Oh... You are good, in't ya? (811)

Sherock : But how? (812)

Cab Driver : When I die, they won't get much, my kids. Not a lot of money in

driving cabs. (813)

Sherlock : Or serial killing. (814)

Cab Driver : You'd be surprised. (815)

(2)

Cab Driver : I have a sponsor. (817)

Sherlock : You have a what? (818)

Cab Driver : For every life I take, money goes to my kids. The more I kill... the better off they'll be. You see? It's nicer than you think. (819)

Sherlock : Who'd sponsor a serial killer? (820)

Cab Driver : Who'd be a fan of Sherlock Holmes? You're not the only one to enjoy a good murder. There's others out there just like you, except you're just a man. And they're so much more than that. (821) Sherlock : What do you mean... more than a man? An organisation... what?

(822) Cab Driver : There's a name that no-one says. And I'm not going to say it either.

Now, enough chatter. Time to choose. (823) *

[in the College’s corridor]

John : Sherlock! (824)

[in the class]

Sherlock : What if I don't choose either? I could just walk out of here. (825) Cab Driver : [points out a handgun to Sherlock] You can take a 50:50 chance, or

I can shoot you in the head. Funnily enough, no-one's ever gone for

that option. (826)

Sherlock : I'll have the gun, please. (827)

Cab Driver : Are you sure? (828)

Sherlock : Definitely. The gun. (829)

Cab Driver : You don't want to phone a friend (830)

Sherlock : The gun. (831)

Cab Driver : [switches a fake handgun which is actually a lighter]

Sherlock : I know a real gun when I see one. (832)

Cab Driver : None of the others did. (833)

Sherlock : Clearly. Well, this has been very interesting. I look forward to the

court case. (834)

Cab Driver : Just before you go, did you figure it out? Which one's the good

bottle? (835)

Sherlock : Course. Child's play. (836)

Cab Driver : Well, which one, then? Which one would you have picked? Just so I know whether I could have beaten you. Come on! Play the game.

(837) Sherlock : [takes one botle]

Cab Driver : Oh! Interesting. So what do you think? Shall we? Really... what do you think? Can you beat me? Are you clever enough... to bet your

life? (838)

(3)

78 *

Cab Driver : I bet you get bored, don't you? I know you do. A man like you. So clever. But what's the point of being clever if you can't prove it? Still the addict. But this... this is what you're really addicted to. You'll do anything... ...anything at all, to stop being bored. You're not bored now, are ya? Isn't it good? (840) [the Cab Driver gets shot]

Sherlock : Was I right? I was, wasn't I? Did I get it right? Okay... tell me this. Your sponsor. Who was it? The one who told you about me, my

fan. I want a name. (841)

Cab Driver : No... (842)

Sherlock : You're dying, but there's still time to hurt you. Give me... a name. A

name! Now! The name! (843)

Cab Driver : Moriarty! (844)

[outside the College building]

Sherlock : Why have I got this blanket? They keep putting this blanket on me. (845)

Lestrade : Yeah, it's for shock. (846)

Sherlock : I'm not in shock. (847)

Lestrade : Yeah, but some of the guys want to take photographs. (848)

Sherlock : So, the shooter, no sign? (849)

Lestrade : Cleared off before we got here. But a guy like that would have had enemies, I suppose. One of them could have been following him,

but... we've got nothing to go on. (850)

Sherlock : Oh, I wouldn't say that. (851)

Lestrade : Okay. Give me. (852)

Sherlock : The bullet they just dug out of the wall's from a handgun. A kill shot over that distance, from that kind of a weapon, that's a crack shot. But not just a marksman, a fighter. His hands couldn't have shaken at all, so clearly he's acclimatised to violence. He didn't fire until I was in immediate danger, though, so strong moral principle. You're looking for a man probably with a history of military service and... [looks at John from far] nerves of steel... Actually, do

you know what? Ignore me. (853)

Lestrade : Sorry? (854)

Sherlock : Ignore all of that. It's just the, er... the shock talking. (855)

Lestrade : Where are you going? (856)

Sherlock : I just need to... talk about the... the rent. (857)

Lestrade : I've still got questions. (858)

Sherlock : Oh, what now?! I'm in shock look, I've got a blanket. (859)

Lestrade : Sherlock! (860)

Sherlock : And... I just caught you a serial killer... more or less. (861) Lestrade : Okay. We'll pull you in tomorrow. Off you go. (862)

(4)

79 *

[Sherlock comes to John]

John : Erm... Sergeant Donovan's... just been explaining... everything. Two pills... Dreadful business, isn't it? Dreadful. (863)

Sherlock : Good shot. (864)

John : Yes. Yes, must have been. Through that window. (865) Sherlock : Well, you'd know. Need to get the powder burns out of your

fingers. I don't suppose you'd serve time for this, but let's avoid the

court case. Are you all right? (866)

John : Yes, of course I'm all right. (867)

Sherlock : Well, you have just killed a man. (868)

John : Yes, I... That's true, isn't it? But he wasn't a very nice man. (869) Sherlock : No. No, he wasn't, really, was he? (870)

John : Frankly, a bloody awful cabbie. (871)

Sherlock : That's true, he was a bad cabbie. You should have seen the route he

took us to get here. (872)

[both laugh]

John : Stop it! We can't giggle, it's a crime scene. Stop it. (873)

Sherlock : You're the one who shot him. (874)

John : Keep your voice down! Sorry, it's just, erm... nerves, I think. (875)

Sherlock : Sorry. (876)

John : You were going to take that damn pill, weren't you? (877) Sherlock : Course I wasn't. Biding my time. Knew you'd turn up. (878) John : No, you didn't. That's how you get your kicks, isn't it? You risk

your life to prove you're clever. (879)

Sherlock : Why would I do that? (880)

John : Because you're an idiot. (881)

Sherlock : Dinner? (882)

John : Starving. (883)

Sherlock : End of Baker Street, there's a good Chinese. Stays open till two. You can tell a good Chinese by the bottom third of the door handle.

(884) [Mycroft gets off the car]

John : [glances at Mycroft] Sherlock... that's him, that's the man I was

talking to you about. (885)

Sherlock : I know exactly who that is. (886)

Mycroft : So... another case cracked. How very public-spirited. Though that's never really your motivation, is it? (887)

Sherlock : What are you doing here? (888)

Mycroft : As ever, I'm concerned about you. (889)

Sherlock : Yes, I've been hearing about your "concern". (890) Mycroft : Always so aggressive. Did it never occur to you that you and I

belong on the same side? (891)

Sherlock : Oddly enough... no. (892)

(5)

80 feud between us is simply childish. People will suffer. And you

know how it always upset Mummy. (893)

Sherlock : I upset her? Me? It wasn't me that upset her, Mycroft. (894)

John : No. No, wait... Mummy? Who's Mummy? (895)

Sherlock : Mother. Our mother. This is my brother, Mycroft. Putting on

weight again? (896)

Mycroft : Losing it, in fact. (897)

John : He's your brother? (898)

Sherlock : Course he's my brother. (899)

John : So he's not... (900)

Sherlock : Not what? (901)

John : I don't know... criminal mastermind? (902)

Sherlock : Close enough. (903)

Mycroft : For goodness' sake, I occupy a minor position in the British

Government. (904)

Sherlock : He is the British Government, when he's not too busy being the British Secret Service or the CIA on a freelance basis. Good evening, Mycroft. Try not to start a war before I get home, you

know what it does for the traffic. (905)

John : So, when you say you're concerned about him, you actually are

concerned? (906)

Mycroft : Yes, of course. (907)

John : It actually is a childish feud? (908)

Mycroft : He's always been so resentful. You can imagine the Christmas

dinners. (909)

John : Yeah... No... God, no. I'd better, erm... Hello again. (910)

Woman 4 : Hello. (911)

John : We met earlier on this evening. (912)

Woman 4 : Oh! (913)

John : Okay. Good night. (914)

Mycroft : Good night, Dr Watson. (915)

John : [walks to Sherlock] So, dim sum. (916)

Sherlock : Mmm! I can always predict the fortune cookies. (917)

John : No, you can't. (918)

Sherlock : Almost can. You did get shot, though. (919)

John : Sorry? (920)

Sherlock : In Afghanistan. There was an actual wound. (921)

John : Oh. Yeah, shoulder. (922)

Sherlock : Shoulder! I thought so. (923)

John : No, you didn't. (924)

Sherlock : The left one. (925)

John : Lucky guess. (926)

Sherlock : I never guess. (927)

John : Yes, you do. What are you so happy about? (928)

Sherlock : Moriarty. (929)

(6)

Sherlock : I've absolutely no idea. (931)

Woman 4 : Sir, shall we go? (932)

Mycroft : Interesting, that soldier fellow. He could be the making of my brother... or make him worse than ever. Either way, we'd better upgrade their surveillance status. Grade three active. (933)

Woman 4 : Sorry, sir, whose status? (934)

An Analysis Of Conversational Implicature In A Bbc One Television Series: Sherlock – A Study In Pink

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Parts

Dokumen yang terkait

Subordination In “A Study In Scartlet” By Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

An Analysis Of Conversational Implicature

Analysis on the Violation of Maxim of Manner in Conversational Implicature Appearing in Stephenie MeyerÃ¢ÂÂs Twilight

An analysis of conversational implicature in jurassic world (2015) movie

AN ANALYSIS OF CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURE IN THE INTERVIEW MOVIE.

AN ANALYSIS OF CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURE IN SMART FMS RADIO TALK SHOW.

An Analysis Of Conversational Implicature In A Bbc One Television Series: Sherlock – A Study In Pink

An Analysis Of Conversational Implicature In A Bbc One Television Series: Sherlock – A Study In Pink

An Analysis Of Conversational Implicature In A Bbc One Television Series: Sherlock – A Study In Pink

An Analysis Of Conversational Implicature In A Bbc One Television Series: Sherlock – A Study In Pink

Dukungan

Links

An Analysis Of Conversational Implicature In A Bbc One Television Series: Sherlock – A Study In Pink

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Parts

Dokumen yang terkait

Subordination In “A Study In Scartlet” By Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

An Analysis Of Conversational Implicature

Analysis on the Violation of Maxim of Manner in Conversational Implicature Appearing in Stephenie MeyerÃ¢ÂÂs Twilight

An analysis of conversational implicature in jurassic world (2015) movie

AN ANALYSIS OF CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURE IN THE INTERVIEW MOVIE.

AN ANALYSIS OF CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURE IN SMART FMS RADIO TALK SHOW.

An Analysis Of Conversational Implicature In A Bbc One Television Series: Sherlock – A Study In Pink

An Analysis Of Conversational Implicature In A Bbc One Television Series: Sherlock – A Study In Pink

An Analysis Of Conversational Implicature In A Bbc One Television Series: Sherlock – A Study In Pink

An Analysis Of Conversational Implicature In A Bbc One Television Series: Sherlock – A Study In Pink

Dokumen yang Anda mencari sudah siap untuk unduhkan

Analysis on the Violation of Maxim of Manner in Conversational Implicature Appearing in Stephenie MeyerÃ¢ÂÂs Twilight