Conversation implicatures in harry potter and the deathly hallows part i and ii movie transcription : a discourse analysis with pragmatics as an approach
Pragmatics as an Approach
A ThesisSubmitted to Adab and Humanities Faculty in Partial Fulfilment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Strata One (S1)
M. SYAIFUL BAHRI 109026000137
ENGLISH LETTERS DEPARTMENT ADAB AND HUMANITY FACULTY
STATE ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY SYARIF HIDAYATULLAH JAKARTA
(2)
i
HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS PART I AND II MOVIE TRANSCRIPTION : A Discourse Analysis with Pragmatics as an Approach. A
Thesis: English Letters Department, Adab and Humanities Faculty, Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University Jakarta, Desember 2014.
The objectives of the study are to find out what are the maxim that violated and to find out how are the Implicatures generated in the dialogues. In this research, the writer uses qualitative case study. The writer concerns with Implicature study. These implicatures are used in the dialogues of Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows Part I and II film.
The collects the data of this research uses bibliography technique. Written sources are chosen which describe synchronic language used, and analyzing them based on the theories of Implicature which are proposed by Grice.
According to the result of research findings, all of them are Implicatures, because in all data was violated the maxim their utterances: the types of maxim that are violated are all Quantity ( 5 data ) by using of the Grice theory "Cooperative Principle".
(3)
(4)
(5)
iv
another person nor material which to a substantial extent has been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma of the university or other institute of higher learning, except where due acknowledgement has been made in text.
Jakarta, December 9rd 2014
(6)
v
All praises be to Allah SWT, the Lord of Universe, who amazingly guides
the writer in the process of making this Thesis. Peace and blessing be upon the prophet Muhammad SAW, his family, companions and adherents, who had
changed the world from the darkness into the lightness.
On this occasion, the writer would like to say his greatest and deepest
gratitude to his beloved mother: Umi Kulsum Kaepah, who has kept, taught,
advised and prayed for his success.
The writer also would like to give his greatest gratitude to Drs. Abdul
Hamid, M.Ed as his advisor for his time, guidance, suggestion, kindness, and
patience in correcting and helping him in finishing his thesis.
Furthermore, the writer would like to express his gratitudes to:
1. Prof. DR. Oman Faturrahman, M.Hum, the Dean of Letters and
Humanities Faculty, State Islamic University of Syarif Hidayatullah
Jakarta.
2. Drs. Saefudin, M.Pd, the Head of English Letters Department and Elve
Oktafiyani, M.Hum, the Secretary of English Letters Department.
3. All the lecturers of English Letters Department, who have dedicated to
educate and teach the writer as long as his study in State Islamic
(7)
vi
Rahmatullah Umar, M. Chairul Anam who always keep my spirit to be
graduated from Campus.
6. Student Executive Board of English Letters, “Always Be For
Brotherhood.”
7. All friends and relatives that are not mentioned one by one.
May Allah SWT always bless and protect them all. Finally, may this thesis
will be advantageous for the writer in particular and for the readers in general.
The writer realizes that the thesis is still far from being perfect. Therefore, the
writer would like to accept critics and suggestion to make it better.
Jakarta, December 9rd 2014
(8)
vii
APPROVEMENT ... ii
LEGALIZATION ... iii
DECLARATION ... iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ... v
TABLE OF CONTENTS ... vii
LIST OF TABLES ... ix
LIST OF FIGURES ... x
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ... 1
A. Background of Study ... 1
B. Focus of Study ... 3
C. Research Question ... 4
D. Objective of the Research ... 4
E. Significant of the Reasearch ... 4
F. Research Methodology ... 5
1. The Mehod of Research ... 5
2. The Technique of Data Collecting and Data Analysis . 5 3. Instrument of the Reaearch ... 6
4. Unit Analysis ... 6
CHAPTER II THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ... 7
A. Discorse Analysis ... 7
B. Pragmatics ... 8
C. Implicatures ... 10
1. Definition... ... 10
2. Types of Implicature ... 12
a. Coversational Implicature ... 13
1. Definition ... 13
2. Types of Conversational Implicature ... 15
(9)
viii
A. Data Description ... 24
B. Data Analysis ... 25
CHAPTER IV CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS ... 33
A. Conclusions ... 33
B. Suggestions ... 34
BIBLIOGRAPHY ... 35
(10)
ix
...
Table 2 : Corpus From Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows Part II ...
25
(11)
(12)
1
A. Background of Study
Language is an arbitrary sound symbol used by human being for
cooperation, communication and identification of himself.1 It means that language
is the tool to communicate as a necessity of a human. Human cannot express what
they feel and what they want in mind without language. By language, people
describe what is in their mind. And also by language, they transform the
information, or called as communication.
Humans are continually creating new expressions and novel utterances
by manipulating their linguistic resources to describe new objects and situations.
This property is described as productivity (or’creaticity’ or ‘open-endedness’) and
it is linked to the fact that the potential number of utterances in any human
language is infinite.2
And, today in many language researches with linguistic background like
phonology, morphology, syntax and so on, the most interested one in doing the
research is by studying the language as its function, comunicative function.
Because people use language to interact each other. It is called pragmatic: how the
the language is used in communication.3
1
Harimurti Kridalaksana, “Bahasa dan Linguistik” in Kushartanti, et al., Pesona Bahasa (Jakarta: PT. Gramedia Pustaka Utama, 2005), p.3.
2
George Yule, The Study of Language 3th Edition, (Cambridge University Press. 2006), p. 10.
3
(13)
Conversation analysis approach is included in pragmatics. Pragmatics is
a branch of linguistics which studies about language structure as a communication
tool between listener and speaker. It also studies the use of language in human
communication as determined by condition of society.4
The reasons that pragmatics is interested in this phenomenon is that we
seem to be dealing here with a regularity that cannot be captured in a simple
syntactic or semantic ‘rule’, but has be accounted for in other ways. As Bilmes
has expressed it, “In everyday talk, we often convey propositions that are not
explicit in our utterances but are merely implied by them. Sometimes we are able
to draw such inferences only by referring what has been explicity said to some
conversational principle. In certain of these cases, we are dealing with
‘conversational implicature’” (Bilmes 1986:27).5
The term ‘implicature’ goes back to the philosopher Paul Grice, as laid
down in his seminal article ‘Logic and Conversation’, which is the published
version of a part of his William James lectures held in 1967 at Harvard University.
In Grice’s approach, both ‘what is implicated’ and ‘what is said’ are part of
speaker meaning. ‘What is said’ is that part of meaning that is determined by
truth-conditional semantics, while ‘what is implicated’ is that part of meaning that
cannot be captured by truth conditions and therefore belongs to pragmatics.
Several types of implicature are distinguished.6
4
Jacob L. Mey, Pragmatics 2nd Edition ( Blackwell Publishing: United Kingdom, 2001), p. 6
5
Ibid, p. 45
6
J. Meibauer.(2006), ”Implicature” in J. L. Mey (ed) Concise Encyclopedia of Pragmatics 2nd Edition, University of Southern Denmark, Denmark, p. 365
(14)
There is discourse in communication. Discourse stretches of language
perceived to be meaningful, unified and purposive.7 Without discourse, there is no
social reality and without understanding discourse, people cannot understand our
reality, our experience, or us. And discourse brings the spoken language, the
written language and the context within which the language is used. Discourse
analysis involves the study of language in use.8
This research is only focused on Analysis Implicature in Harry Potter and
The Deathly Hallows. This movie is a famous movie directed by David Yates,
written by Steve Kloves based on the novel by J.K. Rowling in 2010. This movie
was the last episode from the novel of the adventures of a young wizard, Harry
Potter, the titular character, and his friends Ronald Weasley and Hermione
Granger, all of whom are students at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and
Wizardry. This Reasearch explain about what maxims are violated in the dialogue,
how the implicature generated and the meaning of implicature occur in the
diaoluge.
B. Focus of Study
In this study it focused on the discussion of the pragmatics of
conversational implicature. Examining conversational implicatures which contain
cooperative principles in the dialogue of the movie “Harry Potter and The Deadly
Hallows part I and II”.
7
David Nunan. 1993. Introducing Discourse Analysis. (London: Penguin English) p. 6
8
(15)
C. Research Question
In this thesis the research question is proposed questions as follows:
1. What are the maxim that violated in the dialogue of the film “Harry Potter
and the Deadly Hallows part I and II”?
2. How are the implicatures generated in the dialogue?
3. What is the meaning of the implicature that occur in the dialogue ?
D. Objective of the Research
The objectives this research are :
1. To know the types of implicature that used in the dialogs of the film Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows part II.
2. To know and to analyze the implicature in the dialogue how the characters
use implicature in their conversation.
3. To know the meaning from the implicature in their conversation.
E. Significant of the Research
This study is expected to provide additional knowledge about the
function of language in a conversation. Where language itself is a communicative
tool for people to interact. In this study is illustrated the use of language. In
conversational implicature this study is expected to give contribution for the
development of language study in relation to pragmatics study especially in the
(16)
F. Research Methodology
This research methodology includes some aspects of the research such as :
1. The Method of Research
This research uses qualitative case study method in conversation analysis
on Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows Part I and II. Qualitative case study can be defined as an intensive, holistic description and analysis of a single entity,
phenomenon or social unit.9 Case study is particularistic, descriptive and heuristic
and relies heavily on inductive reasoning in handling multiple data sources.10 This
method has purpose to find out how the mechanism of Implicature mostly occur.
2. The Technique of Data Collecting and Data Analysis
To collect data, this research uses bibliography technique. Biblioghraphy
technique means using written sources to get data. Written sources are chosen
which describe synchronic language used.11 The synchronic is a study which
formulates indications of language which is produced by speaker at the certain
time (past or present).12 Technique of data collecting follows some steps: First,
using the video Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows Part I and II as a secondary object. Second, using the transcription of conversation as a primary
object.
9
David Nunan. 1992. Research Methods in Language Learning. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). p.77
10
Ibid.
11
D. Edi Subroto. 1992. Pengantar Metoda Penelitian Linguistik Struktural. (Surakarta: Sebelas Maret University Press). p.42
12
(17)
3. Instrument of the Research
The instrument of this research is data card. data card is a card which is
used to put relevant data with data sources at the end of line13. After collecting
data, data is put in data card and choose some of data findings and analyze one by
one the conversations that occured on Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallow Part I and II using Implicature analysis according to Grice.
4. Unit Analysis
As a unit of Analysis, this research uses transcriptas a primary object and
video of Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallow Part I and II as a secondary object.
13
(18)
7
In this chapter, the writer describes some theories which are related to the
study. Theories are very important because they will be used as the basic
foundation in conducting the analysis of the research. These supporting theories
described as under.
A. Discourse Analysis
Discourse analysis is thus interested in ascertaining the constructive
effects of discourse through the structured and systematic study of texts (Hardy,
2001).14 Texts are not meaningful individually; it is only through their
interconnection with other texts, the different discourse on which they drae, and
the nature of their production, dissemination, and consumption that they are made
meaningful. Discourse analysis explores how texts are made meaningful through
these processes and also how they contribute to the constitution of social reality
by making meaning (Philips & Brown, 1993).15
Discourse Analysis rests on a powerful theory detailing and explaining
how the social world is undertood. The empirical materials of discourse consist of
sets of texts and the practices that surround their production, dissemination, and
reception. As a domain of study, discourse analysis concerns not only selected
14
Nelson Philips and Cynthia Hardy. Discourse Analysis Investigating Processes of Social Contruction.(United State of America: Sage Publicatios, 2002), p.4
15
(19)
texts but the history and context associated with these texts. How such texts can
be unpacked and understood as “reality constructors” id the point and purpose of
this volume. Both are worthly, timely, and well served.16 The connectiona
between language form and social and cultural patterns. People detect these
indexical meanings because speakers provide verbal and nonverbal, behavioural
‘cues’ that suggest a fit between utterances and contextual spaces in which they
become meaningful.17
B.Pragmatics
Pragmatics is the branch of the study of that language that deals with the
contribution of the context to the production, structure and interpretation of
utterance. According to Dascal, everybody agrees that context cannot be neglected
in the study of language that has to deal with the contribution of the context to the
production, structure and interpretation of utterance18.
According to F.X. Nadar, pragmatics is a branch of linguistics that study
language to have a communication in certain situation. F. X. Nadar said that
Morris (1938;), Crystal (1980: 178), also Yule gives four definitions about
pragmatics; first, pragmatic is the study of speaker meaning; second, pragmatic is
the study of contextual meaning; third, pragmatic is the study of how more gets
communicated than is said; forth, pragmatic is the study of the expression of
16
Ibid p.iv
17
Jan Blommaert. Discourse A Critical Introduction. (United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. 2005) p. 41
18
Marcelo Dascal, Possibilities and limitations of pragmatics (Amsterdam: John Benjamin B. V., 1981), p.1541.
(20)
relative distance.19
Yule gives four definitions about pragmatics; first, pragmatic is the study
of speaker meaning; second, pragmatic is the study of contextual meaning; third,
pragmatic is the study of how more gets communicated than is said; forth,
pragmatic is the study of the expression of relative distance.20
In other book, Yule said when we read or hear pieces of language, we
normally try to understand not only what the words mean, but what the writer or
speaker of those words intended to convey. The study of ‘intended speaker
meaning’ is called pragmatics.21
According to Levinson, pragmatics is the study of language usage22. Yan
defined pragmatics as the systematic study of meaning by virtue of, or dependent
on, the use of language. The central topics of inquiry of pragmatics include
implicature, presupposition, speech acts, and diexis23. However Soenjono
Dardjowidjojo and Unika Atma Jaya in their book Psikolinguistik Pengantar Pemahaman Bahasa Manusia said that pragmatics always looks other aspects in communication like word knowledge, relation between the speaker and the hearer
or the third speaker, and kinds of act utterance. So as a focus of pragmatic study is
how word uttered or said, not what the meaning of the words. Because of that
study of pragmatic is always tight with speaker, hearer, and context of utterance.24
According to Griffiths pragmatics is concerned with the use of these tools in
19
Loc Cit, p. 3
20
Ibid, p. 3
21
Yule, George, The Study of Language. (2006: Cambridge University Press). p. 127
22
Stepen C. Levinson, Pragmatics (Cambrige: University Press, 1983), p. 5.
23
Yan Huang , Pragmatics, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), pp. 3-4.
24
Soenjono Dardjowidjojo. Psikolinguistik, Pengantar Pemahaman Bahasa Manusia. (Jakarta: yayasan obor Indonesia) p. 26.
(21)
meaningful communication. Pragmatics is about the interaction of semantic
knowledge with our knowledge of the world, taking into account contexts of
use.25
The advantage of studying language via pragmatics is that one can talk
about people’s intended meaning, theirs assumptions their purposes or goals and
the kinds of actions (for example, requests) that they are performing when they
speak.26
C.Implicature 1. Definition
The term ‘implicature’ goes back to the philosopher Paul Grice, as laid
down in his seminal article ‘Logic and Conversation’, which is the published
version of a part of his William James lectures held in 1967 at Harvard University.
In Grice’s approach, both ‘what is implicated’ and ‘what is said’ are part of
speaker meaning. ‘What is said’ is that part of meaning that is determined by
truth-conditional semantics, while ‘what is implicated’ is that part of meaning that
cannot be captured by truth conditions and therefore belongs to pragmatics.
Several types of implicature are distinguished.27
The term of implicature is same with the term of implication in English
that means something hinted or suggested but not expressed.28
25
Patrick Griffiths. An Introduction to English Semantics and Pragmatics. (2006, Edinburgh University Press : Edinburgh) p. 1
26
George Yule. (1996). Op Cit. p. 4
27
J. Meibauer.(2006),Implicature in J. L. Mey (ed) Concise Encyclopedia of Pragmatic 2nd Edition, University of Southern Denmark, Denmark, p. 365
28
(22)
In Nadar’s book, Mey said that implicature comes from the verb “to
imply”, whereas the noun is “implication”.29 In order to understand what the speaker means, the listener must always do the interpretation the speaker’s
utterances. Nadar said that Leech stated that interpreting an utterance is ultimately
a matter of hearer task, or (to use a more dignified term) hypothesis formation.30
Kushartanti said that in the conversation a speaker has a particular
intention (means something) when uttering something. The intention in the
utterance is called implicature.31
Chaer said that implicature is the implicit meaning in the utterance
between speaker and hearer.32 The illustration how the implicature is described
with the conversation bellow:
A: Do you have money?
B: I’ve just bought a cell phone.
B is a speaker wants to give implicit meaning in his utterance that he
doesn’t have money. He wants A as hearer to understand the implicit meaning. A
can understand the implicit meaning because of his universal knowledge that the
activity of buying needs some money to spend.
Soenjono Dardjowidjojo said that there are three factors to help us to
understand the utterance. First, universal understanding; second, local
understanding; third, accidental understanding.33
29
Nadar, F.X., (2009) Pragmatik & Penelitian Pragmatik. Graha Ilmu,. Yogyakarta. p.60.
30
Ibid
31
Kushartanti, (2005), Op Cit, p. 106
32
Chaer, Abdul and Lioni Agustina, (1995) Sosiolinguistik: Pengenalan Awal, Rineka Cipta, Jakarta, p. 77
33
(23)
Universal understanding is general knowledge, like “the mountain is big
and the ant is small”. So, when we said that there was a big ant, we know that the
size of the big ant is 2 or 3 cm. Also when we said that there was a small
mountain, we know that based on our general knowledge.
Local understanding is like knowledge of local tradition, believe, and local
culture. For example in Islam there is a spiritual night in every week. It is
Thursday night, the special night for moslem. 34 When someone utters “Pray in
this night. Ask to Allah, because this is Thursday night.”, this utterance will be
understood because of his local knowledge.
Accidental understanding is the knowledge we got from history of
particular society or some communities or people’s experience, and only some
people that could understand. For example a man born before 1950s in Indonesia
would understand the utterance “Don’t get home in the middle of the night. Or
you will be like Sum Kuning” (jangan pulang malam-malam,nanti bisa kayak
Sum Kuning), because the story of Sum Kuning, (the girl that sold medical herbs
was raped by four authorities’ sons in Yogyakarta) happened in1950s.35
2. Types of Implicature
There are two types of implicature:
a. Conversational implicature.
b. Conventional implicature.
34
www.m.voa-islam.com
35
(24)
a. Conversational Implicature 1. Definition
Conversational implicatures come about by the exploitation (apparent
flouting) or observation of the cooperative principle (CP) and a set of maxims.36
Cooperative Principle
Make 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.
Maxim of Quantity
1. Make your contribution as informative as is required (for the current
purposes of exchange).
2. Do not make your contribution more informative than is required.
Maxim of Quality
Try to make your contribution one that is true.
1. Do not say what you believe to be false.
2. Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.
Maxim of Relevance
Be relevant.
Maxim of Manner
Be perspicuous.
1. Avoid obscurity of expression.
2. Avoid ambiguity.
36
(25)
3. Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity).
4. Be orderly.
The Gricean co-operative principle and its attendant maxim can be
simplified in Huang’s book:
Gries’s theory of conversational implicature (simplified) a. The co-operative principle
Be co-operative.
b. The maxim of conversation Quality: Be truthful
(i) Don’t say what is false (ii) Don’t say what lack evidence Quantity
(i) Don’t say less than is required. (ii) Don’t say more than is required Relation: Be relevant
Manner: Be perspicuous. (i) Avoid obscurity. (ii) Avoid ambiguity. (iii) Be brief.
(iv) Be orderly.37
Meibauer said that the basic idea of such a derivation is best illustrated
with a simple dialogue. Then Meibauer gives the illustration as bellow:
“Imagine that I ask my colleague Is Markus there? and she answers There is a pink Porsche behind the library building. Understood literally, such an answer does not make any sense. However, as I assume that my colleague is cooperative, and remembering that Markus drives a pink Porsche, I can figure out that Markus is in the library. In working out this information, I have made use of the assumption that my colleague’s answer has been relevant with regard to my question.”38
Yule said that the basic assumption in conversation is that, unless
37
Yan Huang. (2007). Op Cit. P. 25
38
(26)
otherwise indicated, the participants are adhering to the cooperative principles and
maxims. In example:
Charlene: I hope you brought the bread and the cheese.
Dexter: Ah, I brought the bread.
Dexter may appear to be violating the requirements of quantity maxim.
After hearing Dexter’s response, Charlene has to assume that Dexter is
cooperating and not totally unaware 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 quantity maxim. He must intend that she infer that what is not
mentioned was not brought. In this case, Dexter has conveyed more than he said
via a conversational implicature.39
2. Types of Conversational Implicature
Basically there are two types of conversational implicature:
a) Particularized Conversational Implicature (PCI); and
b) Generalized Conversational Implicature (GCI).40
Meibauer said that the most widely accepted type of implicature is the
conversational implicature. According to Grice, it comes in two ways, generalized
conversational implicature (GCI) and particularized conversational implicature
(PCI). Then Meibauer gives the following example from Levinson illustrates this
distinction:
Context, 1 Speaker A: What time is it?
39
George Yule. (1996). Op Cit. p. 40
40
(27)
Speaker B: Some of the guests are already leaving.
PCI: ‘It must be late.’
GCI: ‘Not all of the guests are already leaving.’
Context, 2 Speaker A: Where’s John?
Speaker B: Some of the guests are already leaving.
PCI: ‘Perhaps John has already left.’
GCI: ‘Not all of the guests are already leaving.’41
Meibauer also said that the implicature (‘. . . not all . . .’) triggered by
some arises in both contexts, they are relative context- independence and
context dependence. Relative context-independence is the most prominent property of GCIs. In addition, GCIs are normally, or even consistently, associated
with certain linguistic forms. For example, if someone utters Peter is meeting a
woman this evening it is, because of the indefinite article, standardly implicated
that the woman is not his wife, close relative, etc. (cf. Grice, 1989: 37; Hawkins,
1991). In contrast to GCIs, PCIs are highly context-dependent, and they are not
consistently associated with any linguistic form.42
Yule said that when no special knowledge is required in the context to
calculate the additional conveyed meaning, it’s called a generalized
conversational implicature. One common example in English involves any phrase
with indefinite article of the type ‘a/an X’, +> not speaker’s X.43
And then, Yule also said that a number of generalized conversational
implicatures are commonly communicated on the basis of a scale of values and
41
J. Meibauer. (2006) . Op Cit. p. 365
42
Ibid
43
(28)
are consequently known as scalar implicature.44
And about the particularized conversational implicature, Yule said that
however, most of the time, our conversations take place in very specific contexts
in which locally recognized inferences are assumed. Such inferences are required
to work out the conveyed meanings which result from particularized
conversational implicatures. And because they are by far the most common,
particularized implicatures are typically just called implicatures.45
3. Properties of Conversational Implicature
Ariel said that conversational implicature is cancellability,
non-detachability, and calculability.46 And Huang explains that conversational
implicature have six properties, such as; cancellability, non-detachability,
calculability, non-conventionality, reinforceability, and universality.47
By looking at the properties of implicature, it is annulled when they run
contrary to what immediate linguistic context of the utterance. Or in other words it
can be cancellable by negation of semantic entailment. And the conversational
implicature is non-detachability: any linguistic expression with the same semantic
contend to carry the same conversational implicature. And conversational
implicature also calculability, means that conversational implicature can
transparently be derived via the co-operative principles and its component
maxims. And non-conventionally, means that conversational implicature. Though
44
Ibid
45
Ibid, p. 42-43
46
Mira Ariel, (2008), Pragmatic and Grammar, Cambridge University Press New York, p.40-53.
47
(29)
dependent on saying of what is coded, are non coded in nature. In other words,
they rely on the saying of what is said but they are not part of what is said. They
are associated with speaker or utterance but not proposition or sentence. And
according to the principle of reinforceability, conversational implicatures can be
made explicit without producing too much of sense of redundancy. And finally,
conversational implicature is universality: it tends to be universal, being
motivated rather than arbitrary.48
Grundy said there are two distinct kinds of meaning, one of which,
Impicature, arises as a direct consequence of interactants accepting these
cooperative strategies. Thus what is conveyed in an utterance will typically
consist of what is said or entailed on the one hand and what is implied on the
other.
Said/entailed
Conveyed
Conversationally implicated49
Figures 1 : Two distinct kinds of meaning by Grundy
Grice (1975: 57-58) lists five features jointly necessary for an implicature
to be considered conversational rather than conventional:
1. It must not be part of the meaning of the expression to which it
attaches. That is it must not be given in the lexicon or specified as the
meaning-changing effect of some syntactic operation.
48
Ibid
49
(30)
2. It must be context-sensitive and cancellable in particular cases, either
by the context making it clear that it is inapplicable or by the addition
of a clause denying the implicature.
3. It must be “nondetachable” that is, it must not be possible to
substitute some other expression in the sentence that lacks the
implicature in question but which otherwise means much the same
thing.
4. The implicature must not be a truth condition of the sentence
involved.
5. It must be possible for there to be two or more implicatures such that
the voice of which is involved may prove indeterminate50.
In fact, whenever a maxim is flouted there must be an implicature to save
the utterance from simply appearing to be a faulty contribution to a
conversation.51 Every utterance, whether it abides by or flouts the maxims, has
both natural meaning (entailment) and ‘non-natural’ meaning (implicature).
Flouting a maxim is a particularly salient way of getting an addressee to draw an
inference and hence recover an implicature. Thus there is a trade-off between
abiding by maxims (the prototypical way of conducting a conversation) and
flouting maxims (the most salient way of conveying implicit meaning).52
50
Ibid. p. 40
51
Loc Cit. p. 76
52
(31)
b. Conventional Implicatures
1. Definition
Huang said that conventional implicature is a non-truth-conditional
inference which is not deductive in any general, natural way from the saying of
what is said, but arises solely because of conventional features attached to
particular lexical items and/or linguistic construction.53
Yule also said that the conventional implicatures are not based on the
cooperative principle or the maxims and they don’t have to occur in the
conversation.54
2. Properties of Conventional Implicatures
First of all, conventional implicatures are not derived from the
co-operative principle and its component maxims, but are attached by convention to
particular lexical item or linguistic constructions. They are therefore an arbitrary
part of meaning and must be learned ad hoc.55 Because this implicature comes
from the indirect illocution, so it must be learned ad hoc.
Second, conventional implicature are not calculable via any natural
procedure, but are rather given by convention, thus they must be stipulated.56
Third, conventional implicatures are not cancellable, that is, they can not
53
Ibid, p. 54
54
George Yule. (1996). Op Cit. p. 45
55
Yan Huang. (2007). Op Cit. P. 56
56
(32)
be defeated.57
Fourth, conversational implicatures are detachable, because they depend
on the particular linguistic item used.58
Fifth, conventional implicatures tend not to be universal.59
Then, it can be said that "Conventional Implicature" is an independent of
cooperative principle and it's maxim. Here is an example of Conventional
Implicature :
- Marry is poor but happy
The word "but" creates the implicature of a sense of context. Then the
sentence means : surprisingly Joe is happy inside of being poor.
Grice was well aware, however, that there are many occasions when
people fail to observe the maxims. There are five ways of failing to observe a
maxim: (1) Flouting a maxim, (2) Violating a maxim , (3) Infringing a maxim, (4)
Opting out of maxim, (5) Suspending a maxim60
Flouting a Maxim
Flouting a Maxim is the situations a speaker blatantly fails to observe a
maxim, not with any intention of deceiving or misleading, but because the speaker
57
Ibid.
58
Ibid.
59
Ibid.
60
(33)
wishes to prompt the hearer to look for a meaning which is different from, or in
addition to, the expressed meaning.61
Violating a Maxim
Many commentators incorectly use the term ‘violate’ for all forms of
non-observance of the maxims. But in his first published paper on conversational
cooperation (1975), Grice defines ‘violation’ very specifically as the
unostentatious non observance of a maxim. If a speaker violates a maxim s/he
‘will be liable to mislead’ (1975: 49).62
Infringing a Maxim
A speaker who, with no intention of generating an implicature and with
no intention of deceiving, fails to observe a maxim is said to ‘infringe’ the maxim.
In other words, the non-observance stems from imperfect linguistic performance
rather than from any desire on the part of the speakers to generate a conversational
implicature. 63
61
Ibid. p.65
62
Ibid. p.72
63
(34)
Opting Out of Maxim
A speaker opts out observasing a maxim by indicating unwillingness to
cooperate in the way the maxim requires. Examples of opting out occur frequently
in public life, when the speaker cannot, perhaps for legal or ethical reasons, reply
in the way normally expected. On the othe hand, the speaker whises to avoid
generating a false implicature or appearing uncooperative.64
Suspending a Maxim
Several writers have suggested that there are occasions when there is no
need to opt out of observasing the maxims because there are certain events in
which there is no expectation on the part of any participant that they will be
fulfilled (hence the non-fulfilment does not generate any implicatures).65
Suspensions of the maxims may be culture-specific or specific to particular
events. For example, in the acting community in Britain (but not among the
population at large) people refrain from uttering the name Shakespeare’s play
Macbeth because to do is supposed to bring bad luck. They refer to ‘The Scottish
Play’, thereby failing to observe the maxim of Quantity.
64
Ibid.
65
(35)
24
In this chapter, the compiled data and the selected one will be analyzed.
This research is using qualitative case study and for the data collecting is using
bibliography technique. Bibliography technique uses written sources to get the
data. The steps to collect data are :
1. Download the Video of “Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows Part I and
II “ at www.ganool.com
2. Download the dialogue transcription of “Harry Potter and The Deathly
Hallows Part I at
http://faceoffailure.tumblr.com/post/8566149667/scripts-of-the-harry-potter-movies and the transcription “Harry Potter and The
Deathly Hallows Part II” at
http://www.moviequotesandmore.com/harry-potter-and-the-deathly-hallows-part-2-quotes.html
3. Read the whole dialogue transcription and watch the video of “Harry
Potter and The Deathly Hallows Part I and II”.
4. Compile the dialogues into data card. So the data card contains number of
data, the classification of mechanisme of Implicature in conversation and
the dialogue text. There are found 5 corpus data. The details are shown in
this table.
(36)
Table 1.
Corpus from Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows Part I
No Dialogue
Types of Maxims which
violated
Types of
violations Implicature
1
FRED
How you feeling, Georgie? GEORGE Saint-like. FRED Come again? GEORGE
Saint-like I'm holy. Holey, Fred, get it? FRED
the whole wide world of ear-related humor at your disposal, you go for holey? That’s Pathetic.
GEORGE
Reckon I'm still better-looking than you.
Quantity Flouting George was
okay
2
HARRY
Yeah, There's only one problem of course...
RON
The sword was stolen. Yeah, I'm still here. But you two carry on. Don't let me spoil the fun.
HARRY
What's wrong?
RON
Wrong? Nothing’s wrong. Not according to you,
Quantity Flouting
Ron was not considered by
Harry and Hermione in the journey, so
(37)
anyway. HARRY
Look, if you’ve got something to say
3
HARRY
Look, Hermione, I've been thinking. I -- I want to go to Godric's Hollow. It's where I was born, it's where my parents died --
HERMIONE That’s exactly where he’ll expect you to go. Because it means something to you. HARRY
Yeah, But it means something to him too, Hermione. You-Know-Who almost died there. I mean, isn’t that exactly the type of place he'd be likely hide a Horcrux?
Quantity Flouting
Hermione was prohibit Harry to go to Godric
Hollows. Hermione did
not want to hurt Harry directly, so she
uses the utterance above to ban Harry and to commemorate
him
4
SCABIOR
What's your name?
HARRY
Dudely. Vernon Dudley.
SCABIOR
Check it. And you, my lovely what do they call you?
HERMIONE
Penelope Clearwater. Half-blood.
SNATCHER
There's no Vernon Dudley on `ere.
Quantity Flouting
Harry was lying and want
to protect himself and his
(38)
Table 2.
Corpus from Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows Part II
No
Dialogue Types of
Maxims which violated
Types of
violations Implicature
5
Bellatrix Lestrange:
The boy...is he dead?
Narcissa Malfoy: Is he alive? Draco, is he alive?
[Harry nods his head to confirm seeing this Narcissa turns to Voldemort and the others]
Narcissa Malfoy: Dead
Quantity Flouting
Narcissa want protect herself and her family
from Voldemort
B. Data Analysis
Then, the selected data can as follows:
Data 1.
FRED
How you feeling, Georgie?
GEORGE Saint-like.
FRED Come again?
(39)
GEORGE
Saint-like I'm holy. Holey, Fred, get it?
FRED
the whole wide world of ear-related humor at your disposal, you go for holey? That’s Pathetic.
GEORGE
Reckon I'm still better-looking than you.
This dialogue tells about George was have an accident in missions for
saving Harry Potter. He was attacked by the Death Eather in the mission of saving
Harry Potter.
From the dialogue above Fred was carry about his brother was attacked in
the mission, Fred said, “How you feeling, Goergie?. George answer, “saint-like I’m holy. Holey, Fred get it?”. From the answer was given by George that was implicature. Because the meaning of his answer is he was okay, but he gave the
answer with humor to look for a meaning which is different from the expressed
meaning. He is failing to observe a maxim of Quality and Flouting a maxim
because he was blatantly give his answer to get a different meaning.
Data 2.
HARRY
Yeah, There's only one problem of course...
RON
The sword was stolen. Yeah, I'm still here. But you two carry on. Don't let me spoil the fun.
HARRY What's wrong?
(40)
RON
Wrong? Nothing’s wrong. Not according to you, anyway.
HARRY
Look, if you’ve got something to say
This dialogue tells about Harry and Ron has a conversation in tent. They
make a tent in the jungle for shelter from subordinate voldemort who is looking
Harry Potter. Ron have some problem in the journey looking for Horcrux and to
destroy it.
From the dialogue above Ron was angry to Harry Potter. From Ron
answer, “Wrong? Nothing’s wrong. Not according to you, anyway.”. From the answer was given by Ron that was implicature. Because the meaning of his
answer is he was have a problem to Harry, but he gave the answer like there is no
problem in their journey. Ron was not considered by Harry and Hermione in the
journey, so he was angry and said like there is no problem to look for a meaning
which is different from the expressed meaning. He is failing to observe a maxim
of Quality and Flouting a maxim because he was blatantly give his answer to get a
different meaning.
Data 3.
HARRY
Look, Hermione, I've been thinking. I -- I want to go to Godric's Hollow. It's where I was born, it's where my parents died --
HERMIONE
That’s exactly where he’ll expect you to go. Because it means something to you.
(41)
HARRY
Yeah, But it means something to him too, Hermione. You-Know-Who almost died there. I mean, isn’t that exactly the type of place he'd be likely hide a Horcrux?
This dialogue tells about Harry and Hermione has a conversation in tent.
Hermione find a clue to find a Horcrux. Harry Potter was interested to find it. And
the place where they want to go to the place where his born “Godric Hollows”.
From the dialogue above Hermione did not agree with Harry. Hermione
thougth it was a trap for Harry. From Hermione answer, “That’s exactly where he’ll expect you to go. Because it means something to you”. From the answer was given by Hermione that was implicature. Because the meaning of her answer is
she was prohibit Harry to go to Godric Hollows. Hermione did not want to hurt
Harry directly, so she uses the utterance above to ban Harry and to commemorate
him. Hermione uses the utterance above to look for a meaning which is different
from the expressed meaning. He is failing to observe a maxim of Quality and
Flouting a maxim because she was blatantly give her answer to get a different
meaning.
Data 4.
SCABIOR
What's your name?
HARRY
Dudely. Vernon Dudley.
SCABIOR
Check it. And you, my lovely what do they call you?
HERMIONE
(42)
SNATCHER
There's no Vernon Dudley on here.
The last data from the script of “Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows
Pasrt I” is talking about Harry, Hermione and Ron was be persued by
subordinate voldemort in the jungle. They finally caught, and interrogerated by
them. Before that Hermoine use her spell to Harry’s face and him become ugly.
From the dialogue above Scabior asked to Harry but harry give a liar
answer. His answer is “Dudely. Vernon Dudley”. From that answer was
implicature, exactly because Harry want protect himself and his friend. He is
failing to observe a maxim of Quality and Flouting a maxim because he was
blatantly give her answer to get a different meaning.
Data 5.
[referring to the still body of Harry lying on the Forest ground]
Bellatrix Lestrange: The boy...is he dead?
[Narcissa walks over to Harry and sees that he's alive whispers to him]
Narcissa Malfoy: Is he alive? Draco, is he alive?
[Harry nods his head to confirm seeing this Narcissa turns to Voldemort and the others]
Narcissa Malfoy:Dead.
Just only one data in the script of “Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows
(43)
this battle Harry was lost from Voldemort. Harry fell and fainted on the earth and
Voldemort told Narcissa Malfoy to check the condition of Harry.
From the dialogue above Bellatrix asked to Narcissa about Harry
Conditions. Narcissa going to Harry and check him. When Narcissa check Harry,
Narcissa answer, “Dead”. From that answer was implicature, exactly because
Narcissa was lying. she want protect herself and her family from Voldemort. she
is failing to observe a maxim of Quality and Flouting a maxim because he was
(44)
33
CHAPTER IV
CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS A. Conclusions
After analyzing the data, the writer would like to conclude about The
Implicature that is existed in "Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows part I and II". The writer selects five data to be analyzed. From the five data, the writer finds that all of the data are Implicatures.
Based on Grice theory that there are two types of Implicature, Conversational
Implicature and Conventional Implicature. Conversational Implicature come
about by exploitation (apparent flouting) or observation of the cooperative
principle and a set of maxims. Conventional Implicature is a non-truth-conditional
inference which is not deductive in any general of conventional features attached
to particular lexical items and/or linguistic construction.
Grice was well aware, however, that there are many occasions when people
fail to observe the maxims. There are five ways of failing to observe a maxim: (1)
Flouting a maxim, (2) Violating a maxim , (3) Infringing a maxim, (4) Opting out
of maxim, (5) Suspending a maxim
Meanwhile from the analysis of the types of implicature, the writer finds how
to are the implicature implicature generated and the maxim that violated in the
dialogue of the Grice theory "Cooperative Principle". From five data that are
analyzed is all of them are Implicatures, because in all data are the situations a
speaker blatantly fails to observe a maxim, not with any intention of deceiving or
(45)
meaning which is different from, or in addition to, the expressed meaningin their
utterances. The types of maxim that are violated are all Quantity ( 5 data ).
B. Suggestions
In this study, the writer has some suggestions:
1. The readers or the students who want to understand about implicature
deeply, they should enrich about those subjects, especially through
studying further about the concepts of Implicature.
2. Through this study, the writer hopes that this paper can be useful for all
the students who want to do the similar research and it can be one of
references in studying Implicature.
3. Finally, the writer hopes that this study will be useful for future
improvement of studying the text implicitly or explicitly, especially for
the students of the faculty of Adab and Humanities, State Islamic
(46)
35
Ariel, Mira, (2008). Pragmatics and Grammar. Cambridge University Press New York
Blommaert, Jan. (2005). Discourse A Critical Introduction. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Chaer, Abdul and Lioni Agustina, (1995). Sosiolinguistik: Pengenalan Awal, Rineka Cipta, Jakarta
D. Edi Subroto. (1992). Pengantar Metoda Penelitian Linguistik Struktural. Surakarta: Sebelas Maret University Press.
Dardjowidjojo, Soenjono. (2002). Psikolinguistik, Pengantar Pemahaman Bahasa Manusia. Jakarta: yayasan obor Indonesia.
Dascal, Marcelo, (1981). Possibilities and limitations of pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamin B. V.
Griffiths, Patrick. (2006). An Introduction to English Semantics and Pragmatics. Edinburgh University Press : Edinburgh
Grundy, Peter. (2000). Doing Pragmatics 2nd Edition. Oxford University; New York.
Huang, Yan. (1996). Pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kridalaksana, Harimurti. (2005). “Bahasa dan Linguistik” in Kushartanti, et al.,
Pesona Bahasa. Jakarta: PT. Gramedia Pustaka Utama,
Leech, Geoffrey. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. United State of America: Longman.
Levinson, Stepen C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambrige: University Press.
Meibauer, J. (2006). ”Implicature” in J. L. Mey (ed) Concise Encyclopedia of Pragmatics 2nd Edition. University of Southern Denmark, Denmark.
Mey, Jacob L. (2001). Pragmatics 2nd Edition. Blackwell Publishing: United Kingdom.
(47)
Nelson Philips and Cynthia Hardy. (2002). Discourse Analysis Investigating Processes of Social Contruction. United State of America: Sage Publicatios. Nunan, David. (1992). Research Methods in Language Learning. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Nunan, David. (1993). Introducing Discourse Analysis. London: Penguin English Oxford Learner Dictionary. (2000). Oxford University Press.
Roekhan and Martutik. (1991). Kebahasaan I (LinguistikUmum). Malang: YA3 Malang.
Thomas, Jenny. (2003). An Introduction to Pragmatics. Routledge: New York. Yule, George, (2006). The Study of Language 3th Edition. Cambridge : University
Press.
Websites :
(48)
37
SCRIMGEOUR : These are dark times, there is no denying. Our world has perhaps faced no greater threat than it does today. But I say this to our citizenry: we, ever your servants, continue to defend your liberty and repel the forces that would seek to take it from you. Your Ministry remains strong...
MRS. GRANGER : Hermione. Your tea is ready, dear. HERMIONE : Coming, Mum.
VERNON : Come on, Dudley, Hurry up
DUDLEY : I still don’t understand why we have to leave VERNON : Because, unh it’s not safe for us here anymore RON’S MOTHER : Ron tell your father supper’s nearly ready MR. GRANGER : Is this in australia. Looks wonderful, doesn’t it? HERMIONE : Obliviate
(49)
VOLDEMORT : Severus. I was beginning to worry you'd lost your way. Come. we've saved you a seat. You bring news, I trust?
SEVERUS : It Will happen Saturday next, at nightfall
YAXLEY : I’ve heard differently, my lord Dawlish, the auror has let slip that the Potter Boy will not be moved untill the 30th of this month the day before he turns 17
SEVERUS : This is a false trai. The Auror Office no longer plays any part in the protection of Harry Potter. Those closest to him bilieve we have infiltrated the ministry.
SQUAT MAN : Well, they got that right, haven’t they? VOLDEMORT : What you say, Pius?
THICKNESSE : One hears many things, my lord. Whether the truth is among them is not clear.
VOLDEMORT : Heh, Spoken like a true politician. You will, I think, prove most useful, Pius. Where will he be taken? The boy?
SNAPE : To a safehouse. Likely the home of someone in the Order. I'm told it’s been given every manner of protection possible. Once there, it will be impractical to attack him.
BELLATRIX : Ahem. My lord, I'd like to volunteer myself for this task. I want to kill the boy.
VOLDEMORT : Wormtail! Have I not spoken to you about keeping our guest quiet?
WORMTAIL : Yes, my lord. Right away, my lord.
VOLDEMORT : As inspiring as I find your bloodlust, Bellatrix, I must be the one to kill Harry Potter. But I face an unfortunate complication. That my wand and Potter’s share the same core They are, in some ways, twins. We can wound but not fatally harm one another. if I am to kill him... I must do it with another's wand. Come, Surely one of you would like the honor? Mm? What about... you, Lucius?
LUCIUS : My Lord?
VOLDEMORT : “My Lord?” I require your wand. Do I detect elm? LUCIUS : Yes, my lord.
VOLDEMORT : And the core?
LUCIUS : Dragon -- dragon heartstring.
VOLDEMORT : Dragon Heartstring. Mm. To those of you who do not know, we are joined tonight by Miss Charity Burbage who until recently taught at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. Her specialty was Muggle studies. It is Miss Burbage's belief that Muggles are not so different from us. She would, given her
(50)
way, have us mate with them. To her, the mixture of magical and Muggle blood is not an abomination but something to be encouraged.
CHARITY : Severus, please. We're friends... VOLDEMORT : Avada Kedavra! Nagini... Dinner. HAGRID : Hello Harry.
HARRY : All right. Now HAGRID : You’re looking fit
MAD EYE : Yeah, he’s absolutely gorgeous What say we get undercover before someone murders him.
HARRY : Evening. I thought you were looking after the Prime Minister, Kingsley.
SHACKLEBOLT : You're more important. BILL : Hello, Harry. Bill Weasley.
HARRY : Oh. Pleasure to meet you
FRED : He was never always this handsome. GEORGE : Dead ugly.
BILL : (smiling; to Harry) True enough. Owe it all to a werewolf by name of Greyback. Hope to repay the favor one day.
FLEUR : (a kiss to the cheek) You are still beautiful to me, William. LUPIN : Just remember, Fleur,Bill takes his steaks on the raw side now. TONKS : My husband, the joker. By the way, wait until you hear the news! Remus and I are
MAD-EYE : All right, We’ll have time for a cozy catch-up later! We've got to get the hell out of here and soon! Potter, you're underage, which means you've still got the Trace on you.
HARRY : What’s the Trace?
MAD-EYE : If You sneeze and the Ministry will know who wipes your nose. we have to use those means of transport the Trace can't detect: brooms, thestrals and the like. We go in pairs. That way if anyone's out there waiting for us -- and I reckon there will be -- they won't know which Harry Potter is the real one. HARRY : The real one...?
MAD-EYE : I believe you're familiar with this particular brew. HARRY : No! Absolutely not!
HERMIONE : (a sigh) I told you he'd take it well.
HARRY : No. If you think I'm going to let people risk their lives for me, I -- RON : Never done that before, have we?
(51)
HARRY : No. No. This is different. I mean Taking that. Becoming me -- no. FRED : Well, none of us really fancy it, mate.
GEORGE : Yeah, imagine if something went wrong and we were ended up as a scrawny, specky gits forever.
MAD-EYE : Everyone here is of age, Potter, and they've all agreed to take the risk.
MUNDUNGUS : Technically, I've been coerced. (turning to Harry and extending his hand) Mundungus Fletcher, Mr. Potter. I've always been a huge admirer. MAD-EYE : Nip it, Mundungus! All right, Granger, as discussed.
HARRY : Blimey, Hermione!
MAD-EYE : Straight in here, if you please. For those of you who haven't taken Potion before, fair warning. It tastes like goblin piss.
FRED : Have a lot of experience with that, do you, Mad-Eye? Just trying to defuse the tension.
FRED/GEORGE : Wow -- we're identical! MAD-EYE : Not yet you aren't.
GEORGE : Haven’t got anything a bit more sporting, Have you? FRED : I don’t really fancy this color.
MAD-EYE : Well, Fancy this: You're not you, so shut it and strip. MUNDUNGUS : All right, all right
MAD-EYE : You'll need to change too, Potter. FLEUR : Bill, look away -- I'm `ideous. RON : I knew she was lying about that tattoo.
HERMIONE : (wobbling a bit) Harry, your eyesight really is awful.
MAD-EYE : Right then. We'll be pairing off. Each Potter will have a protector. Mudungus, stick tight to me. As for you, Harry...
ALL : Yes?
MAD-EYE : The real Harry! Where the devil you, anyway? HARRY : Here.
MAD-EYE : You'll ride with Hagrid.
HAGRID : Brought yeh here sixteen years ago you were no bigger than
aBowtruckle. Seems only right that I should be the one to take you away now. MAD-EYE : Yeah, it's all very touching. Let's go. Head for the Burrows We’ll rendezvous there On the count of three.
(52)
MAD EYE : One... two… three ! Death Eater 1 : Which one ?
Death Eater 2 : Where are you? He’s on your right!He’s over there! Deat Eater 3 : Down!
HARRY : Hagrid! We've got to help the others!
HAGRID : I Can't do that, Harry. Mad Eye’s Orders Hang on, Hang on Harry HARRY : Hagrid! No. No
VOLDEMORT : Harry,
MRS. WEASLEY : Harry! Hagrid! What happened?! Where are the others? HARRY : Is no one else back?
HAGRID : They were on us right from the start, Molly – we didn’t stand a chace. MRS. WEASLEY : Well, thank goodness you two are all right.
HAGRID : The Death Eaters were waiting for us It was an ambush.
GINNY : Ron and Tonks should've already been back. Dad and Fred as well. LUPIN : Here! Quick. Into the house
MRS. WEASLEY : Oh My boy! Oh, oh GINNY : Lupin! What're you doing!
LUPIN : What creature sat in the corner the first time that Harry Potter visited my office at Hogwarts!
HARRY : Are you mad...? LUPIN : WHAT CREATURE! HARRY : A grindylow!
LUPIN : We've been betrayed. Voldemort knew you were being moved tonight. I had to make sure you weren't an imposter.
SHACKLEBOLT : The last words Albus Dumbledore spoke to the pair of us? LUPIN : `Harry is the best hope we have. Trust him.'
SHACKLEBOLT : What gave you away?
HARRY : Hedwig -- I think. She was trying to protect me -- RON : thanks.
TONKS : Deserves that. Brilliant, he was. Wouldn't be standing here without him.
HERMIONE : Really?
RON : (breaking free of her) Always the tone of surprise. ARTHUR WEASLEY : we the last back? Where's George?
(53)
FRED : How you feeling, Georgie? GEORGE : Saint-like.
FRED : Come again?
GEORGE : Saint-like I'm holy. Holey, Fred, get it?
FRED : the whole wide world of ear-related humor at your disposal, you go for holey? That’s Pathetic.
GEORGE : Reckon I'm still better-looking than you.
BILL : Mad-Eye's dead. Mundungus took one look at Voldemort and isapparated. LUPIN : Mad-Eye reckoned You-Know-Who would expect the real Harry to be with the most skilled Auror. He knew he'd be in the most danger.
HARRY : (Dream)
MAD EYE : Head for the Burrows
DUMBLEDORE : This is beyond anything I imagined Slughorn Seven? RIDDLE : Seven..? A Horcrux
HARRY : They could be hidden anywhere SLUGHORN : To rip the soul into seven pieces.. HARRY : If you did destroy each Horcrux
DUMBLEDORE : One destroys Voldemort Trust me VOLDEMORT : You lied to me. Lied to me, Ollivander RON : Going somewhere?
HARRY : Nobody else is going to die. Not for me.
RON : For you? You think Madeye died for you? You think George took that curse for you? You may be the Chosen One, mate, but this is a whole lot bigger than that. It’s always been bigger than that
HARRY : Come with me.
RON : What, And leave Hermione? you mad? We wouldn't last two days without her. (glancing around) Don't tell her I said that. (back to Harry) Besides, you've still got the Trace on you. We’ve still got the wedding...
HARRY : I don’t care about a Wedding? I’m sorry. No matter whose it is. I have to start finding These horcruxes. They’re only chance to beat him, And the longer we stay here, the stronger he gets.
RON : Tonight's not the night, mate. We’d only be doing him a favor. Do you think he knows? I mean, they're bits of his soul, the Horcruxes. Bits of him. When Dumbledore destroyed the ring and you destroyed Tom Riddle's diary those years ago -- he must've felt something? To kill other Horcruxes we have to
(54)
find them where are they? Where do we start? What I'm saying is, if we do this thing right, if we find the Horcruxes and begin to destroy them one by one... ARTHUR WEASLEY : Please pay attention! It’s your brother’s wedding. Buck up
GINNY : Zip me up, will you?. Seems silly, doesn't it? A wedding. Given everything that's going on.
HARRY : Maybe that's the best reason to have it. Because of everything that's going on.
GEORGE : Morning.
ARTHUR WEASLEY : Come on, Keep up All together now. One, Two, three. How's it look on your end, boys?
FRED : Brilliant!
GEORGE : Bloody hell, what's the Minister of Magic doing here? HARRY : To what do we owe the pleasure, Minister?
SCRIMGEOUR : I think we both know the answer to that question, Mr. Potter. HARRY : And this is?
SCRIMGEOUR : `Herein is set forth the Last Will and Testament of Albus Percival Wulfric Brian Dumbledore. First, to Ronald Bilius Weasley, I leave my Deluminator, a device of my own making, in the hope that – when things seem most dark -- it will show him the light.'
RON : Dumbledore left this For me? What is it? Wicked
SCRIMGEOUR : `To Hermione Jean Granger, I my copy of The Tales of Beedle the Bard, in the hope that she will find it entertaining and instructive.'
RON : Mom used to read me those! The Wizard and the Hopping Pot, Babbitty Rabbity and her Cackling Stump... c'mon! Babbitty Rabbitty No...?
SCRIMGEOUR : `To Harry James Potter, I leave the Snitch he caught in his first Quidditch match at Hogwarts, as a reminder of the rewards of perseverance and skill.
HARRY : Is That it, then?
SCRIMGEOUR : Not quite. Dumbledore left you a second bequest: The Sword of Godric Gryffindor. Unfortunately, the Sword of Gryffindor was not
Dumbledore's to give away. As an important historical artifact, it belongs... HERMIONE : To Harry! It belongs to Harry! It came him when he needed it In the chamber of secrets.
SCRIMGEOUR : The sword may present itself to any worthy Gryffindor, Miss Granger. That does not make it that wizard's property. And in any event the current where abouts of the sword are unknown.
(55)
SCRIMGEOUR : The sword is missing. (before Harry can pursue) I don’t know what you’re up to, Mr. Potter.. But you can’t fight this war on your own. He’s too strong.
LUNA : Hello, Harry! Oh, I've interrupted a deep thought, haven't I? I can see it growing smaller in your eyes.
HARRY : Of course not. How are you, Luna?
LUNA : Very well. Got bitten by a garden gnome only moments ago. XENOPHILIUS LOVEGOOD : Gnome saliva is enormously beneficial! Xenophilius Lovegood. We live just over the hill!
HARRY : Nice to meet you, sir.
XENOPHILIUS LOVEGOOD : I trust you know, Mr. Potter, that we at The Quibbler, unlike those toadies at the Daily Prophet, fully supported Dumbledore during his lifetime and in his death support you just as fully.
HARRY : Thank you
LUNA : Come, Daddy. Harry doesn't want to talk to us right now. He's just too polite to say so.
HARRY : Excuse me, Sir? May I sit down?
ELPHIAS DOGE : Mr. Potter! By all means! Here.
HARRY : Thanks, I found what you wrote in the Daily Prophet really moving, sir. You obviously knew Dumbledore well
ELPHIAS DOGE : Well, I certainly knew him the longest, That is, if you don't count his brother Aberforth -- and somehow, people never do seem to count Aberforth.
HARRY : I didn’t even knew he had a brother.
ELPHIAS DOGE : Ah, well, Dumbledore was always very private. Even as a boy.
WOMAN : Don't despair, Elphias. I'm told he's been thoroughly unriddled by Rita Skeeter. In 800 pages no less. Word has it that someone talked to her someone who knew the dumbledore family well Both you and I know who that is, Elphias ELPHIAS DOGE : A monstrous betrayal.
HARRY : Who are we talking about? MURIEL : Bathilda Bagshot.
HARRY : Who?
MURIEL : My god, boy, she's only the most celebrated magical historian of the last century. She was as close to the Dumbledores as anyone oh, I’m sure Rita keeter thought it well worth a trip to Godric’s Hollow to take a peek into old bird’s rattled cage
(56)
HARRY : Godric's Hollow? Bathilda Bagshot lives in Godric's Hollow? MURIEL : Well, that’s where she first met Dumbledore.
HARRY : You don't mean to say Dumbledore lived there too?
MURIEL : The family moved there after his father killed those three Muggles. Oh. It was quite the scandal. (eyeing him) Honestly, my boy, are you sure you knew him at all?
PATRONUS : The Ministry has fallen. The Minister of Magic is dead. They are coming...
ELPHIAS DOGE : Nice meeting you, Mr. Potter! HARRY : Ginny!
LUPIN : Harry! Go! Go! RON : Where are we?
HERMIONE : Shaftesbury Avenue. I used to come here to the theater with my mum and dad. I don't know why I thought of it. It Just popped into my head.... This way! We need to change.
RON : How the ruddy?
HERMIONE : Undetectable Extension Charm. RON : You're amazing, you are.
HERMIONE : Always the tone of surprise. Ah. That'll be the books.
HARRY : What about all the people at the wedding? Do you think we should go back?
RON : They were after you, mate. We'd put everyone in danger going back. HERMIONE : Ron's right. Cappuccino, please.
RON : What she said. HARRY : Same.
RON : (as she exits) So where do we go from here? Leaky Cauldron?
HERMIONE : It’s too dangerous. If Voldemort's taken over the Ministry, none of the old places are safe. Everyone from the wedding l have gone underground, into hiding
HARRY : My rucksack. With all my things. I’ve left it at the Burrow – You're joking.
HERMIONE : I've had the essentials packed for days. Just in case. RON : By the way -- these jeans? Not my favorite.
HARRY : DOWN! Stupefy! DEATH EATER #2 : Expulsio!
(57)
HERMIONE : Petrificus Totalus! Go. Leave
HARRY : Lock the door, get the lights. This one's name is Rowle. He was on the Astronomy Tower the night Snape killed Dumbledore.
RON : This is Dolohov. I recognize him from the wanted posters. So what do we do with you, huh? Kill us if it was turned round, wouldn't you?
HARRY : If we kill them, they'll know we were here. HERMIONE : Ron
RON : Suppose he did Mad-Eye How would you feel then? HARRY : It’s better wipe their memories
RON : You're the boss. Hermione? You're the best with spells. HERMIONE : Obliviate.
HARRY : How is it they knew we were there?
HERMIONE : Maybe you still have the Trace on you.
RON : Can't be. The Trace breaks at seventeen. It's Wizarding law. What? HERMIONE : We didn't celebrate your birthday, Harry. Ginny and I -- we prepared a cake. We were going to bring it out at the end of the wedding...
HARRY : Hermione. I appreciate the thought -- honestly. But given that we were almost killed by a couple of Death Eaters a few minutes ago...
HERMIONE : Right. Perspective.
RON : We need to get off the streets, get somewhere safe. What was that all about?
HERMIONE : Probably Mad-eye's idea, In case Snape decided to come snooping. Homenum revelio. We're alone.
OLLIVANDER : I believed another wand VOLDEMORT : You lied to me
OLLIVANDER : It makes no sense I believed a different wand would work I swear There must be another one
RON : Harry? Hermione, where are tou?
HERMIONE : I think I’ve found something Lovely Regulus Arcturus Black...? RON : R... A... B.
HARRY : I know I will be dead long before you read this... I have stolen the real Horcrux and intend to destroy it...
RON : R.A.B. was Sirius' brother?
(58)
HARRY (O.S.) : You’ve been spying on us, have you? KREACHER : Kreacher has been watching
HERMIONE : Maybe he knows where the real locket is. HARRY : Have you Ever seen this before? Kreacher, KREACHER : It’s Master Regulus' locket.
HARRY : But there were two, weren't there? Where's the other one? KREACHER : Kreacher doesn't know where the other locket is. HERMIONE : Yes, but Did you ever see it? Was it in this house?
KREACHER : Filthy Mudblood -- The Death Eaters will soon be coming... (gargling the words) Blood-traitor Weasley --
HARRY : Answer her.
KREACHER : Yes. It was here, in this house. A most evil object... HARRY : How do you mean?
KREACHER : Before Master Regulus died, he ordered Kreacher to destroy it. But no matter how hard Kreacher tried, he could not do it..
HARRY : Well, Where is it now? Did someone take It,?
KREACHER : (nodding) He came in the night. He took many things, including the locket.
HARRY : Who, did? Who was it, Kreacher? KREACHER : Mundungus. Mundungus Fletcher. HARRY : Find him.
CORMAC : My father will hear about this. NEVILLE : Hey, losers, He isn’t here,
MINISTER : As your new Minister for Magic I promise to restore this temple of tolerance To its former glory There for begining todays each employee will submit themselves for evaluation. But know this: You have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide
HERMIONE : be a bit gentler. They have flesh memories. (nodding) When Scrimgeour first gave it to you, I thought it might open at your touch -- that Dumbledore had hidden something inside it.
DOBBY : Harry Potter! So long it's been -- MUNDUNGUS : Get off me
KREACHER : As requested, Kreacher has returned with the thief Mundungus Fletcher!
(59)
MUNDUNGUS : What are you playing at -- setting a pair of bleedin' `ouse-elves after me!
DOBBY : Dobby was only trying to help! Dobby saw Kreacher in Diagon Alley, which Dobby thought was curious. And then Dobby heard Kreacher mention Harry Potter's name, which Dobby thought was very curious. And then Dobby saw that Kreacher was talking to the thief Mundungus Fletcher, which Dobby thought was very, very --
MUNDUNGUS : I'm no thief, you foul little git. I'm a purveyer of rare and wondrous objects --
RON : You're a thief, Dung. Everyone knows it. DOBBY : Master Weasley! So good to see you again! RON : Wicked trainers.
MUNDUNGUS : Listen, I panicked that night, all right? Could I help it if Mad-Eye fell off his broom?
HERMIONE : Tell the truth!
HARRY : When you turned this place over -- don't deny it! -- you found a locket, am I right?
MUNDUNGUS : Why? Was it valuable? HERMIONE : You've still got it.
RON : No. He's worried he didn’t get enough money for it.
MUNDUNGUS : Bleedin' gave it away, didn't I? There I was, flogging me wares in Diagon Alley when some ministry hag comes up and asks to see my license. Says she's a mind to lock me up and would've done it too, if she hadn' taken a fancy to that locket.
HARRY : Who was she? This witch?
MUNDUNGUS : No, I Well, she's there, look? Bleedin' bow an' all.
HERMIONE : Rught, Remember what we said. Don't speak to anyone unless absolutely necessary. Just try and Act normal. do what everybody else is doing. If
We do that -- then with a bit of luck – we’ll get inside. And then... HARRY : It gets really tricky.
HERMIONE : Correct. HARRY : This is completely mental.
HERMIONE : Completely,
RON : The world's mental. Come on, We've got a Horcrux to find. REG CATTERMOLE/RON : We flush ourselves in?
ALBERT RUNCORN/HARRY : Apparently so.
(60)
ALBERT RUNCORN/HARRY : Are those...?
MAFALDA HOPKIRK/HERMIONE : (nodding; with disgust) Muggles. In their rightful place.
REG CATTERMOLE/RON : I gotta tell you, I'm starting to freak out a bit. ALBERT RUNCORN/HARRY: How long did you say this batch of Polyjuice Potion would last, Hermione?
MAFALDA HOPKIRK/HERMIONE : I didn't.
YAXLEY : Cattlemole! It's still raining in my office. Two days now. REG CATTERMOLE/RON : Have you tried an umbrella?
YAXLEY : You do realize I'm going downstairs downstairs, don't you, Cattermole?
REG CATTERMOLE/RON : Downstairs...?
YAXLEY : To interrogate your wife! Now, If my wife's blood status were in doubt and the Head of the Department of Magical Law Enforcement needed a job doing, I think I might make just that a priority. You've got one hour.
REG CATTERMOLE/RON : Oh my god. What am I going to do? My wife's all alone downstairs?
ALBERT RUNCORN/HARRY : Ron. You don't have a wife.
REG CATTERMOLE/RON : Oh. Right. But how do I stop it raining? MAFALDA HOPKIRK/HERMIONE : Try Finite Incantatem. This is you. REG CATTERMOLE/RON : Finite Incantatem, okay. And if that doesn't work...?
ALBERT RUNCORN/HARRY : (whispering quickly) if we don't locate Umbridge within the hour, we go find Ron and come back another day. Deal? MAFALDA HOPKIRK/HERMIONE : Yes
UMBRIDGE : Ah, Mafalda! Travers sent you, did he? Good. We'll go straight down. (eying Harry) Albert, aren't you getting out?
THICKNESSE : Runcorn.
ALBERT RUNCORN/HARRY : Accio locket.
BALDING WIZARD (O.S.) : All right, all right. Let's calm down, shall we? Let’s get back to work, please
BALDING WIZARD : R-Runcorn.
REG CATTERMOLE/RON : M-morning. ALBERT RUNCORN/HARRY : Ron, it's me.
(61)
REG CATTERMOLE/RON : Harry! Blimey, I forgot what you looked like. Where's Hermione?
ALBERT RUNCORN/HARRY : She’s gone down to the courtrooms with Umbridge --
CATTERMOLE/RON : Bloody cold down here.
SCARED MAN : I'm half-blood, I tell you! My father was a wizard! Look him up! William Alderton! He worked here for thirty years...
UMBRIDGE : Mary Elizabeth Cattermole? MARY CATTERMOLE : Yes.
UMBRIDGE : Of 27 Chislehurst Gardens Great Tolling, Evesham? MARY CATTERMOLE : Yes.
ALBERT RUNCORN/HARRY : It's here...
UMBRIDGE : Mother to Maisie, Ellie and Alfred? Wife to Reginald? MARY CATTERMOLE : Reg...
UMBRIDGE : Thanks you, Albert. Mary Elizabeth Cattermole? MARY CATTERMOLE : Yes.
UMBRIDGE : wand was taken from you upon your arrival at the Ministry today, Mrs. Cattermole. Is this that wand? Would you please tell the court from which witch or wizard you took this wand.
MARY CATTERMOLE : But I didn't take it. I got it in Diagon Alley, at Ollivander's, when I was eleven. It chose me.
UMBRIDGE : You’re Lying Wands only choose witches. And you are not a witch.
MARY CATTERMOLE : But I am! Tell them, Reg! Tell them what I am! UMBRIDGE : What on earth are you doing, Albert?
ALBERT RUNCORN/HARRY : You're lying. Dolores... And one mustn’t tell lies Stupefy!
MARY CATTERMOLE : it's Harry Potter!
REG CATTERMOLE/RON : `Tis, isn't it? This'll be one to tell the kids. ALBERT RUNCORN/HARRY : EXPETO PATRONUM!
REG CATTERMOLE/RON : Mary. Go home. Get the kids. I'll meet you there. We have to get out the country, understand? Mary! Do as I say!
REG CATTERMOLE : MARY! Who’s that?
RON : Long story. Nice meeting you. Expelliarmus. Oh my God
HERMIONE : ’Shh, shh, shh, it’s all right. It’s okay. Harry, quickly, in my bag, there's a bottle labeled `Essence of Dittany.' Quickly!
(1)
for a while. And I think you have too. [Hermione starts to cry]
Hermione Granger: I'll go with you.
Harry Potter: No. Kill the snake. Kill the snake, and then it's just him. [Hermione hugs Harry]
[in the Forest Harry finds the Resurrection Stone in the Golden Snitch and then he sees his parents, Remus and Sirius]
Lily Potter: You've been so brave, sweetheart. Harry Potter: Why are you here? All of you. Lily Potter: We never left.
[he turns to Sirius]
Harry Potter: Does...does it hurt? Dying? Sirius Black: Quicker than falling asleep. James Potter: You're nearly there son.
Harry Potter: I'm sorry. I never wanted any of you to die for me. And Remus, your son?
Remus Lupin: Others will tell him what his mother and father died for. One day, he'll understand.
Harry Potter: You'll stay with me? James Potter: Until the end.
Harry Potter: I hear I won't be able to see you. Sirius Black: No. We're here, you see.
[points to Harry's heart] Harry Potter: Stay close to me. Lily Potter: Always.
[as Harry meets Voldemort in the Forest]
Lord Voldemort: Harry Potter. The boy who lived, come to die.
[Voldemort slowly raises the Elder Wand and fires the Killing Curse at Harry]
[after Harry has been hit with the killing curse he wakes up in a marble white train station, there he finds a child-like and bloodied version of Voldemort bent in a fetal position under a seat]
Dumbledore: You can't help him. Harry, you wonderful boy. You brave, brave man. Let us walk.
[they start walking]
Harry Potter: Professor, what is that?
Dumbledore: Something beyond either of our help. A part of Voldemort sent here to die.
(2)
Harry Potter: And exactly where are we?
Dumbledore: I was gonna ask you that? Where would you say that we are? Harry Potter: Well, it looks like Kings Cross Station, only cleaner and without all the trains.
Dumbledore: King's Cross, is that right? This is, as they say, your party.
[as they continue walking in the clean looking station]
Dumbledore: I expect you now realize that you and Voldemort have been connected by something other than fate, since that night in Godric's Hollow all those years ago.
Harry Potter: So, it's true then, sir. A part of him lives within me, doesn't it? Dumbledore: Did. It was just destroyed many moments ago by none other than Voldemort himself. You were the Horcrux he never meant to make, Harry. [they sit down on one of the white marble benches]
Harry Potter: I have to go back, haven't I? Dumbledore: Oh, that's up to you.
Harry Potter: I have a choice?
Dumbledore: Oh, yes! We're in King's Cross, you say. I think if you so desired, you'd be able to board a train.
Harry Potter: And where would it take me? Dumbledore: On.
Harry Potter: Voldemort has the Elder Wand. Dumbledore: True.
Harry Potter: And the snake's still alive. Dumbledore: Yes.
Harry Potter: And I've nothing to kill it with.
Dumbledore: Help will always be given at Hogwarts, Harry, to those who ask for it. I've always prized myself on my ability to turn a phrase. Words are, in my not so humble opinion, our most inexhaustible source of magic. Capable of both inflicting injury and remedying it. But I would in this case amend my original statement to this; help will always be given at Hogwarts to those who deserve it. Do not pity the dead, Harry. Pity the living. And above all, all those who live without love.
Harry Potter: Professor, my mother's Patronus was a doe, wasn't it? It's the same as Professor Snape's. It's curious, don't you think?
Dumbledore: Actually, if I think about it, it doesn't seem curious at all. I'll be going now, Harry.
(3)
Harry Potter: Professor? Is this all real? Or is it just happening inside my head? Dumbledore: Of course it's happening inside your head, Harry. Why should that mean that it's not real?
[Dumbledore turns and he disappears into the white light] Harry Potter: Professor, what shall I do? Professor? [Harry re-awakens then in the Forest]
[referring to the still body of Harry lying on the Forest ground] Bellatrix Lestrange: The boy...is he dead?
[Narcissa walks over to Harry and sees that he's alive whispers to him] Narcissa Malfoy: Is he alive? Draco, is he alive?
[Harry nods his head to confirm seeing this Narcissa turns to Voldemort and the others]
Narcissa Malfoy: Dead.
Lord Voldemort: Harry Potter is dead! Ginny Weasley: [screams] No! No!
[she runs towards Hagrid who's carrying Harry's body]
Lord Voldemort: Silence! Stupid girl! Harry Potter is dead. From this day forth, you put your faith in me.
[turning to his crowd of followers]
Lord Voldemort: Harry Potter is dead! And now is the time to declare yourself. Come forward and join us or die.
[after Voldemort has asked them to join him, Neville steps forward and limps towards him]
Lord Voldemort: Well, I must say I'd hoped for better. [Voldemort's followers laugh]
Lord Voldemort: And who might you be, young man? Neville Longbottom: Neville Longbottom.
[Voldemort's crowd laughs again]
Lord Voldemort: Well, Neville I'm sure we can find a place for you in our ranks. Neville Longbottom: I'd like to say something.
Lord Voldemort: Well, Neville I'm sure we'd all be fascinated to hear what you have to say.
Neville Longbottom: It doesn't matter that Harry's gone. Seamus Finnigan: Stand down, Neville.
Neville Longbottom: People die everyday! Friends, family. Yeah, we lost Harry tonight. But he's still with us. In here.
(4)
Neville Longbottom: So is Fred and Remus, Tonks. All of them. They didn't die in vain.
[he turns to Voldemort]
Neville Longbottom: But you will! Because you're wrong! Harry's heart did beat for us. For all of us!
[Neville pulls the Sword of Gryffindor out of the Sorting Hat he'd been carrying] Neville Longbottom: And it's not over!
[at that moment, Harry jumps out of Hagrid's arms to reveal he's still alive]
[as Harry and Voldemort are battling it out]
Harry Potter: You were right. When you told Professor Snape that wand was failing you. It will always fail!
Lord Voldemort: I killed Snape.
Harry Potter: But what if that wand never belonged to Snape? What if its
allegiance was always to someone else? Come on, Tom. Let's finish this the way we started it. Together!
[Harry grabs Voldemort around the neck and throws themselves over the edge of the castle]
[after war is finally won and Voldemort has been killed]
Hermione Granger: Why didn't it work for him, the Elder Wand?
Harry Potter: It answered to somebody else. When he killed Snape, he thought the wand would become his. But the thing is, the wand never belonged to Snape. It was Draco who disarmed Dumbledore that night in the Astronomy Tower. From that moment on, the wand answered to him. Until the other night, when I
disarmed Draco. At Malfoy Manor. Ron Weasley: So that means... Harry Potter: It's mine.
Ron Weasley: What shall we do with it? Hermione Granger: We?
Ron Weasley: Just saying, that's the Elder Wand. The most powerful wand in the world. With that, we'd be invincible.
[Harry snaps the wand in half and throws the pieces over the edge of the bridge]
[last lines; 19 years later Harry and Ginny now married take their children to Platform Nine and Three-Quarters to board Hogwarts Express]
Albus Severus Potter: Dad, what if I am put in Slytherin?
Harry Potter: Albus Severus Potter, you were named after two headmasters of Hogwarts. One of them was a Slytherin and he was the bravest man I'd ever known.
(5)
Albus Severus Potter: But just say that I am.
Harry Potter: Then Slytherin House will have gained a wonderful young wizard. But listen, if it really means that much to you, you can choose Gryffindor. The Sorting Hat takes your choice into account.
Albus Severus Potter: Really? Harry Potter: Really.
[the train warden sounds his whistle for everyone to board the train] Harry Potter: Ready?
Albus Severus Potter: Ready.
[Harry hugs his son, then Harry, Ron, Hermione and Ginny watch as their children depart for school on the Hogwarts Express]
(6)
Name : Muhamad Syaiful Bahri
Place, Date of Birth : Jakarta, January 13th, 1991
Sex : male
Marital Status : Single
Nationality : Indonesia
Contact Address : Jl. Otista Raya Gg. Tanjung Lengkong Rt/Rw 011/07 No. 24
Bidaracina Jatinegara Jakarta Timur 13330
Mobile Phone : 0813 1622 6875
E-mail Address : black.id.street@gmail.com
Jakarta, December 2014 Sincerely yours,