CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURES IN ‘POLEMIK’ TALK SHOW OF SINDO RADIO.

(1)

CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURES IN ‘POLEMIK’ TALKSHOW

OF SINDO RADIO

A THESIS

Submitted to the English Applied Linguistics Study Program in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirement for the Degree of Magister Humaniora

By:

ASMAYANI

Registration Number : 809111026

ENGLISH APPLIED LINGUISTICS STUDY PROGRAM

POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL

STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN

2015

(2)

(3)

(4)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

After hard struggling to finish this academic achievement, the writer would present my greatest thanks to my Lord Allah SWT that has given a strongness to complete this writing. Besides, so many people have conducted her in some ways but she can’t mention all here.

At the very beginning she benefied greatly from help, advice, and suggestion in improving the writing given by Dr.Eddy Setia, ME being the First Advisers and Dr.Sri Minda Murni, MS being the second Advisor.

An endless gratitude is directed to Prof. Dr. Busmin Gurning, M.Pd and Dr.Sri Minda Murni,MS as the Head and the Secretary of English Applied Linguistics Study Program, Farid as the kindly administration staff for completing the administrative procedures.

Thank also directed to Prof. Berlin Sibarani, Dr. Wayan and Prof. Busmin Gurning for being reviewers and examiners and for their valuable suggestions and improvements to her thesis.

She is especially grateful to her beloved present Abdul Rauf and Zainab for their everlasting love, hopeful prayers in her life and the moral that have enabled her to finish her study. Her thankfulness also dedicated to her brothers and sister to motivate her her study.

And finally thanks for her darling that permitted her to finish this study. I love you so much.

Medan, May 2015

The Researcher

(5)

ABSTRACT

Asmayani, Registration Number : 809111026. Conversational Implicatures

in ‘POLEMIK’ Talk Show of Sindo Radio. A Thesis. English Applied

Linguistics Study Program, Postgraduate School. State University of

Medan.2015

This study deals with the conversational implicatures in ‘ POLEMIK’ talk show of Sindo Radio. The objectives of the study are 1) to find out violating the conversational maxims in three topics by using Grice’s theory; 2) to find the reason using of implicature in the conversational maxim violation. The data of this research were the transcription of audio-recorded dialogues which were taken from three topics during 20014. They are topic of politics, economics and law. The source of data were taken from ‘ Polemik’ talk show program of Sindo Radio. The data were analyzed by descriptive qualitative design.The results of this study shows are violation four conversational maxims found in three topics. The topic of politics and economic are dominantly to violate the quality maxim. These are caused that the interviewees always using the figurative language to response the question. Besides, they also doubtly to give the data. Then the topic of law is dominantly to violate the maxim of manner because in the process of explaining the interview uttered the umbigous words. The reason of using implicature in their utterances various aims however in the topic of economics did not find the implicature of mocking, keeping a secret and praising.

(6)

ABSTRAK

Asmayani, Registration Number : 809111026. Conversational Implicatures

in ‘POLEMIK’ Talk Show of Sindo Radio. Thesis. Linguistik Terapan

Bahasa Inggris, Sekolah Pascasarjana. Universitas Negeri Medan.2015

Tesis ini berkaitan dengan implikatur percakapan pada program talk show ‘Polemik’ di Sindo Radio. Tujuan penelitian ini adalah 1) menemukan pelangggaran maksim percakapan pada 3 topik berdasarkan teori Grice. 2) menemukan alasan menggunakan implikatur dalam pelanggaran maksim percakapan. Data penelitian ini adalah transkrip rekaman interview pada 3 topik selama 2014. Yaitu topik politik, ekonomi dan hukum. Data penelitian dianalisa dengan metode kualitatif deskriptif. Hasil dari penelitian ini menunjukkan 1) pelanggaran 4 maksim percakapan terdapat pada 3 topik ,politik, ekonomi dan hukum. 2) Topik politik dan ekonomi dominan melanggar maksim kuantitas karena pembicara selalu menggunakan bahasa kias dalam merespon pertanyaan. Selain itu mereka juga ragu ragu dalam memberikan data. Kemudian topik hukum cenderung melanggar maksim cara karena didalam menjelaskan, para pembicara menggunakan kata kata ambigu. Mereka menggunakan implikatur dalam melanggar maksim percakapan dengan berbagai alasan namun didalam topik ekonomi tidak ditemukan implikatur dengan maksud mengejek, tertutup dan memuji.

(7)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Pages

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS………i

ABSTRACT ………...……….…………..ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS………..……….…..…iii

LIST OF TABLES ……….…….iv

LIST OF FIGURES ……….………v

LIST OF APPENDICES ………vi

CHAPTERI INTRODUCTION 1.1The Background of the Study………..1

1.2 The Problems of the Study ………..……….3

1.3 The Objectives of the Study……….… ……….. 3

1.4 The Scope of the Study……….,…3

1.5 The Significances of the Study ………...4

CHAPTERII REVIEW OF LITERATURE 2.4 Conversational Implicature ………..…….…. 5

2.5.1 Generalized Conversational Implicature ( G.C.I)……..……..7

2.5.2 Particularized Conversational Implicature ( P.C.I )…….…. ..8

2..2 Cooperative Principles………..…………9

2.3 Conversational Maxims………..……....10

2.3.1 Maxim of Quantity ………..….…...11

2.3.2 Maxim of Quality ………..11

2.3.3 Maxim of Relevance ……..……….…...…… 12

2.3.4 Maxim of Manner ………..13

(8)

2.6 ‘Polemik’Talk Show Program in Sindo Radio ...……….. ..16

2.7 Relevant Studies ………..………... 17

CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHOD 3.1 The Design of the Research………..………20

3.2 The Data and Data Sources ………..………..21

3.3 Technique of Data Collection ……….………..……….21

3.4 Instrument of Data Collection..………...21

3.5 Techniques of Data Analysis …………..………21

3.6 Thrustworthiness of the Data………..………..23

CHAPTER IV DATA ANALYSIS, FINDINGS, AND DISCUSSIONS 4.1 Data Analysis ……….……… 24

4.1.1 The Violations of Conversational maxims in ‘Polemik’ Talkshow program on Sindo Radio ….……….….. 24

4.1.1.1 Violating the Maxim of Quality ……….…... 25

4.1.1.2 Violating the Maxim of Quantity ………….………….… 28

4.1.1.3 Violating the Maxim of Manner ……….…………... 31

4.1.1.4 Violating the Maxim of Relevance ……….…. 34

4.1.2 Reasons of Using Conversational Implicatures………. 37

4.1.2.1 Topic of Politics………. 37

4.1.2.2 Topic of Economics……… 38

4.1.2.3 Topic of Law ….………..…….. .. 38

4.2 Findings ……….………….……….…… 39

(9)

CHAPTER V CONCLUSSIONS AND SUGESTIONS

5.1 Conclussions…………..…………..………..……..….……42

5.2 Suggestions ……….………43

REFERENCES…….………..……… 44

APPENDIX 1……….……….……….………… .46

APPENDIX 2…………..……….167

(10)

LISTS OF TABLES

Table Page

(11)

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

(12)

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX Page

1 The Transcription of Dialoques and Its Analysis………..…… 54 2 Analysis of Conversational Implicatures and Their violations………..169 3.1 The The Description of the Interviewees’ Reason in Topic of Politics ………..….229 3.2 The Description of the Interviewees’ Reason in Topic of Economics………… …237 3.3 The Description of the Interviewees’ Reason in Topic of Law…………..………..240

(13)

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

1.1 The Background of the Study

Nowadays various ways to convey aspirations and opinions of society whether through written, broadcast, spoken and so forth. However it needed language as a bridge to communicate. In a communication, the speaker and listener should understand each other. For this reason, Grice ( 1975) proposed the rules of cooperative principle. It realized in conversational maxims “ make your conversational contribution such as required at stage which it occurs by the accepted purpose or direction of talk exchange in which you are engaged”. This statement is known as maxim of quality, quantity, manner and relevance. According to Paltridge ( 2006 ) said that by following the cooperative principle, it will avoid some misunderstanding.

Nevertheless, in daily life Grice’s theory can not always be obeyed. It is done in various reasons why the speakers disobey. It may be created to show respect to the hearer, to create hyperbola and irony, to change a topic, to keep a secret and create a humour. ( Cook, 1983 :31 ). In this line with Brown and Yule (1996) said that the reasons why the people can not follow the rule of cooperative principle such as to avoid a deep evaluation, get other’s trust in conversation, show up the knowledge and avoid confrontation. In other words that although in an interaction disobey the rules but it still runs well.

This phenomenon can also occur in a formal discussion like a talk show. A Talk Show is the most popular in the world to share everything especially in Indonesia such as Indonesia Lawyers Club (ILC) TalkShow on Tv One, Mata Najwa TalkShow on Metro TV, and so on. In a talk show program is lead by a interviewer and one or more invited guests as interviewees. The interviewees did not always response the interviwer’s question

(14)

directly or seriously or not answer it at all. It means that the rules of cooperative principle did not always fulfill fully.

“Polemik” is a talk show program which is live by Sindo Radio always discusses the hot issue such as education, politics, sport, social,etc. that spreading in Indonesia comprehensively and exclusively by practioners, observers, academics, professionals. “Polemik” talk show is one of famous programs as the innovation program winner 2013 and the best radio program versus Indonesia Journalists Association. (www.sindotrijaya.com). The interviewees of ‘ Polemik’ talkshow speak to convey their ideas and fact however they potentially violate the cooperative principle. Grice’s account that conversational implicature is caused breaking the conversational maxims. It means that the implicature will appear when the utterances of the speakers violate one or more of the conversational maxims. It can be seen in one of dialoques which has conversational maxim taken from the talk show :

(1) H : Bagaimana Anda menerbitkan tabloid ini?

S : Saya kenal margareth sudah lama ,teman saya sama sama di majalah tempo tahun98 ,ya mungkin saya dulu disebut anak nakal, bukan anak yang baik.satu pembicaraan yang lain Karena itu mengapa saya memakai baju ini, karena saya berhubungan dengan stakeholder atau pemangku kepentingan Jakarta. Saya pemillik KTP Jakarta asli. Saya pernah kerja di DKI ketika Jokowi jadi gubernur. Kembali ke laptop… (“Hitam Putih Kampanye”episode, 14 June 2014).

( I knew margreth so long, she was my friend who worked at Tempo Magazine in 1998, yeah, maybe I was named a naughty man, not a good man. Another speaking. Because of it, why I was wearing this uniform, because this related to stakeholder or an important worker at Jakarta. I have an original identification card Jakarta. I ever worked at DKI when Jokowi would be a governor . Back to Laptop..)

Those utterances violate the conversational maxim that the speaker said too much information. To answer the host’s question, he answered firstly not relevant. His statement implicated that he wants to tell how his story life before he produced the tabloid. So he

(15)

violated the quantity and relevant maxims as well. Besides, he violated since he used the word ‘ back to laptop’. It is ambuigous meaning. The word “ laptop” is one of technology media. But in this case, “back to laptop” implicated that S will focus again to topic discussion because before he told irrelevantly. In this way, S violated the maxim of manner.

The example above represents that in a formal situation like a talk show occurred breaking Grice’s law about conversational maxims. Therefore this study tries to find out the conversational implicatures related to violating the conversational maxims during the interview in ‘Polemik’ Talk Show Program on Sindo Radio.

The Problems of the Study

In relation to the background, the problems are formulated as the following.

1) What conversational maxim violations are caused conversational implicatures in ‘Polemik’ Talk Show Program ?

2) Why do they use implicature the way they do ?

1.3 The Objectives of the Study

In relation to the problems, the objectives of the study are :

1) to identify violating the conversational maxims are caused conversational implicatures in ‘Polemik’ Talk Show Program.

2) to find out the reasons why the interviewees used the implicature in “Polemik” Talk Show Program.

1.4 The Scope of the Study

As the previous explanation that conversational implicature not only found in daily life but also in formal situation like in talkshow. Therefore this study attempts to observe the process of conversational implicatures which are shown only by the

(16)

interviewees in ‘Polemik’ Talk Show on Sindo Radio. The aspects are investigated by applying Grice’s (1975).

1.5 The Significances of the Study

It is expected that findings of the study to be significantly relevant theoretically and practically. Theoretically, they are useful for the enrichment of linguistic knowledge of the conversational implicature especially violating conversational maxims in different topics. To enrich the application of pragmatics on the phenomena that occur around us which consists of many subjects including social, economic, etc.

Practically, the result of this study is useful for as a reference for the university students who interested to study the conversational implicature . As the guiding information for the host and informant to comply the cooperative principle during communication.

(17)

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

5.1 Conclussions

After analyzing and drawing all the conversational maxims in ‘Polemik’ Talk Show Program on Sindo Radio, the writer draws the conclussion as follow :

1. Violating four conversational maxims found in the topic of politics, topic of economics, topic of law. They are the violation of maxim of quality, quantity, manner and relevance.

2. The reasons of using implicature due to violating the conversational maxim in three topics are different. The implicature of mocking, keeping a secret and praising did not find in the topic of economic.

a. The interviewees of topic politics used the implicature to mock, motivate, create a humour, refuse something, praise, identify, remind, excuse, suggest, keep a secret, tell the information, and critic.

b. The interviewees of topic of economics used the implicature to tell something, spicify, compare, suggest, create, suppose, propose, ask, plan, refuse, remind, choose, promote, and hope.

c. The interviewees of topic of law used the implicature to smooth the situation, tell the information, demand a fair, ask an evidence, clarify, mock, compare, express feeling, estimate, explain, praise and hide something,

(18)

5.2 Suggestion

In relation to the conclussions, the writer would like to propose the suggestions as follows :

1. It is suggested to next researcher who interested to reveal the violation of conversational maxims elaborate with the lexical choice to know the ideology of the speakers especially in different topics.

2. It is expected to Politicians and Practicians to pay attention the rules of cooperative principles especially the conversational maxims to make clear information. Because they share the information not only for academies but also for common society.

3. However, it is hard to avoid breaking the conversational maxims, it is suggested that speakers keep the use of language in order to avoid confrontation.

(19)

REFERENCES

Alwi. 1992. Tata Bahasa Baku bahasa Indonesia. Jakarta: Balai Pustaka.

Brown and Yule. 1983. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge; Cambridge University Press. Chaer. 2006. Tata Bahasa Praktis Bahasa Indonesia. Edisi Revisi. Cetakan Kedua. Jakarta:

PT Rineka Cipta.

Cook.G ( 1989). Discourse. Oxford.Oxford Universtiy Press.

Crowley,David and Mitchell,David (1994) Communication Theory Today. Stanford: Standford University Press.

Cruse. D.A.(2000) Meaning in Language : An Intrduction to Semantics and Pragmatics, New York : Oxford University.

Denzin,NK & Lincoln,Y.S. (1994). Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks : Sage Publication

Drew, Paul, and John Heritage (editors). 1992.Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings. . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gasdar.G. (1979). Pragmatics: Implicature, Presupposition and Logical Person .England : Acdemic Press.

Grice, H.P. 1975. Logic and Conversation, New York : Academic Press Grundy, P. 2002. Doing Pragmatics. London: Arnold.

Gunarwan. 1994.Pragmatik.Jakarta: Lembaga Bahasa Unika Atmajaya Jakarta.

Hofmann,R.(1980). On The Derivation of A Conversational Maxim. Shimane National University Matsue City, Shimane. Japan 690.

Jamaluddin.2014. Conversational maxims in Mata Najwa TalkShow Program On Metro Tv. Unpublished Thesis. PostGraduate School State University of Medan.

Leech,Geoffrey N. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman. Levinson, S. C. 1995. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Lincoln, Y. S, & Guba, E. A.1985. Naturalistic inquiry.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Marrying,P.2000. Qualitative Content Analysis. Forum; Qualitative Social Research. Miles, M.B & Huberman, AM. 1984. Quaitative Data Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Nofsinger, R.E. 1991. Everyday Conversation. Newbury.Sage

(20)

Patltriage, Brian. 2006. Discourse Analysis : An Introduction. London; MPG Books. Sidnell.J.2011. Conversation Analysis: An Introduction.Carrabean. John Willey&Sons

Tangkas, I.W.D, 2005, Research Methodology in Social And Education, First Edition.

Timberg,BM, 2002. Television Talk A History of the TV TalkShow. University of Texas Press.

Tupan,Anneke.H and Natalia,Helen,2008. The Multiple Violations of Conversational Maxims in Lying Done by Characteristics in Some Episodes of Desperate Housewives.

Journal Volume 10 No.1.

Wang,H. 2011. Conversational Implicature in English Listening Comprehension. Journal of Language Teaching and Research. Volume 2. No.5. ojs.academypublisher.com. Wijana, I D. P. and Muhammad Rohmadi. 2009. Analisis Wacana Pragmatik:Kajian Teori

dan Analisis. Surakarta.Yuma Pustaka.

Yang, C.G. 2008. Language Use in Context: A Course in Pragmatics.Beijing: University of International Business and Economics, Press.

Yule.1996.Pragmatics.New York : Oxford University Press.

Website materials : www.id berita .yahoo.com www.Djakartapost.com www.sindotrijaya.com

(1)