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

Submitted to Letters and Humanities Faculty In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

The Degree of Strata One

OSI AMELIA 1112026000076

ENGLISH LETTERS DEPARTMENT FACULTY OF LETTERS AND HUMANITIES

SYARIF HIDAYATULLAH STATE ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY JAKARTA

Islamic University of Syarif Hidayatullah, Jakarta, 2016.

This research is going to analyze what are the maxim of cooperative principle that are violated (observance) in the movie and how does the non-observance maxim occurs in the movie, then what is the meaning of each implicature that have been done by the characters in the movie Jurassic World. This research used a qualitative method that focuses on the conversational implicature based on cooperative principles on the movie. The writer analyses four cooperative principles which are maxim of quality, maxim of quantity, maxim of manner and maxim of relation in the movie. The data in this uses watch and take notes technique for collecting data.After the writer analyzing Jurassic World movie, the writer finds the conversational rising in this movie because the characters non-observed maxim of the conversation. The maxim of relation and maxim of manner are the most violated on the movie. In addition the writer also finds the existence of the two types of the conversational implicature those are: eight particularized conversational implicature and nine generalized conversational implicature.

Keywords: Conversational Implicature, Generalized ConversationalImplicature, Particularized ConversationalImplicature.

iv

knowledge and believe, it contains no material previously published or written by another person nor material which a substantial extend has been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma of university or other institute of higher learning, except where due acknowledgment has been has been made in this text.

Lord of the world, and the master of the day after, who has given blessing and guidance. Because of his graciousness and mercifulness the writer can write well and finish the thesis.

Sholawat and sallam may Allah send them to our Prophet Muhammad SAW, (peace and salutation be upon him), his families, his companions, and his followers. The best messenger for peopleall over the world. This world becomes peace because of his hard effort in giving the human being advices.

On this opportunity, the writer herewith would like to express profound gratitude, more than the writer can express, to:

1. Prof. Dr. DedeRosyada MA, as the rector of SyarifHidayatullah Jakarta State Islamic University.

2. Prof. Dr. SukronKamil, MA, as the dean of Adab and Humanities Faculties.

3. Drs. SaefudinM.Pd, as the Head of English Language Literature Department, and ElveOktafiyani, M.Hum, as the secretary of English Language and Literature Department. For the contribution and attention. 4. My Advisor, Drs. H Romdani, M.Pd for his valuable guidance,

encouragement, patient, correlation, advice, and suggestion which are very helpful in finishing this thesis. Then,thanks for the time to share his great

vi

away but I felt she always there. In addition to my beloved twin Osa Amelia and my beloved brother, Rio Satria, who motivated, encouraged, reminded the writer to finish the thesis as soon as possible. May Allah SWT does ever safeguard.

6. All lecturers of English Literature Department, who have transferred much knowledge to me. For guidance, instruction and help during study at the university.

7. Special Thanks to my best friends, Mila, Khapsoh, Ana, Khalimatul, Barkah, Novaletc, they all have given me a cheerful and joyful world and beautiful togetherness. There are so many laugh and smile that we pass together.

8. My Best friends since senior high school, Nelly, Desi, Saskia, Mutia, and Ihsan Thanks for our togetherness and your attention.

9. My best friends of Junior High School, Mikel, Yani, thank you for all the support that you guys always gave.

10.Thanks to My Close Friends, Ifa, Dede, Ulfa, Kiki and PutriWhose have given me a cheerful and joyful world and beautiful togetherness; I’ll never forget our happiness and sadness when we were together in female dormitory.

they all have given me a cheerful and joyful world and beautiful togetherness.

13.Last, but far from least, my very sincere thanks to who are not mentioned personally here, without their patience, guidance, support and cooperation this thesis could have never been written.

Finally, the writer hopes it will be a useful thing for the writer herself and for all to improve educational quality.

Jakarta, September 2016

viii

APPROVAL SHEET ... II

LEGALIZATION ... III

DECLARATION ... IV

ACKNOWLEDGMENT ... V

TABLE OF CONTENTS ... VIII

CHAPTER. 1 INTRODUCTION ... 1

A. Background of the Research ... 1

B. Focus of the Research ... 4

C. Research Questions ... 4

D. Objective of the Research ... 4

E. Significance of the Research ... 5

F. Research Methodology ... 5

1. Method of the Research ... 5

2. The technique of Data Collecting and Analysis ... 5

A. Data Collecting ... 6

B. Data Analysis ... 6

3. Instrument of the Research ... 6

4. Analysis Unit ... 7

C. Cooperative Principle ... 11

1. Maxim of Quantity ... 11

2. Maxim of Quality ... 12

3. Maxim of Relation ... 13

4. Maxim of Manner ... 13

D. The Non- Observance Maxim ... 14

1. Flouting the Maxim ... 14

2. Violating the maxim ... 15

3. Infringing the Maxim ... 15

4. Opting-out the Maxim ... 17

5. Suspending the Maxim ... 17

E. Implicature ... 18

1. Conventional Implicature ... 19

2. Conversational Implicature ... 20

2.1 Generalized Conversational Implicature ... 20

2.2 Particularized Conversational Implicature ... 21

CHAPTER III.RESEARCH FINDINGS ... 23

A. Data Description ... 23

x

BIBLIOGRAPHY ... 46

A. Background of the Research

Communication is an important thing in human life, because human is a social creatures. As a social creature, human always communicate with other by using language. The interactional use of language is to describe our reactions to event and to regulate our interaction with other people. By this language, people try to manage their social life (Brown 11-12). That is why in daily activities human always used language to understand among each other. It also means that someone has to say certain meaning and that message which becomes the core of communication can be accepted and interpreted by others.

On the other hand, communication among human does not go well. Sometimes there is any lie, ambiguity or irrelevant communication between them. Sometimes there is a misunderstanding that has been created. In pragmatics it is called implicature. (Yule 35) mentioned that Implicature can be considered as an additional conveyed meaning. It is attained when a speaker intends to communicate more than just what the words mean. ( Grice 158 ) stated the notion of a conversational implicature as one kind of implicature beside a conventional implicature to account for the fact that sentence can imply things that are not directly encoded as part of their meaning. Instead, the implicatures are computed as a relation between what is said and what could have been said based on general

Look at the example below an example of implicature:, Carol and Linda talking about Carol asked Linda to come to the party. An example Stated by (Yule 44) :

(1) Carol: Are coming to the party tonight? Linda: I’ve got an exam tomorrow.

On the face of this short dialogue, Linda’s statement is not an answer to Carol’s question. Linda does not say Yes or No. Yet Carol will immediately interpret the statement as meaning ‘No’ or ‘Probably Not’. Given Linda’s original answer contains relevant information, Carol can work out that ‘exam tomorrow’ conventionally involves ‘study tonight’, and ‘study tonight’ precludes ‘party tonight’. Thus, Linda’s answer is not simply a statement about tomorrow’s activities it, contains an implicature (an additional conveyed meaning) concerning tonight’s activities.

Moreover, the conversational implicature also occurs in a lot of media. One of the media that writer choose is a movie. The movie that the writer used is Jurassic World movie. The writer is interested in analyzing the conversation that has been created by the characters in the Jurassic World Movie. The movie is released in 2015. This movie is a science fiction adventure movie. Director of this movie is Collin Trevorrow. Produced by Frank Marshall and Patrick Crowleyand the stars are Chriss Patt and Bryce Dallas Howard. _{Jurassic World has generated over} $1.6 billion in box office revenue, standing as the fourth highest grossing film of all time and the highest in the franchise.

To know the movie very well we have to know about what is exactly means by the characters in the movie. By focusing on the conversational implicature the writer finds many conversational maxims that are violated in the movie because many of characters in the movie deliberated violated the cooperative principle. Look at the piece of conversation in the movie Jurassic World below:

(2) Context : Gray and his brother Zach are standing to see the kinds of the dinosaurs, but Gray as Zach’s little brother can’t see because there are so many people in front of them and he is not tall enough.

Gray : Lift me up. I can't see!

Zach : I'm not Dad. And you're not five.

Gray : I can still ride the Triceratops. I'm 47-and-a-half inches.

From the dialogue above shows that Zach did not observe the cooperative principle in the conversation. The utterance that Zach gives have no correlated to the question from his little brother Gray, it was uncooperative. The utterance “_I'm not Dad. And you're not five”. _{rising the conversational implicature. Zach does} flouting maxim of manner with makes a statement that obscurity. In this dialogue we can see that there is no situation that can makes Zach speak unclearly like that, so that Zach is flouting maxim of manner and rise conversational implicature. the meaning of the implicature that gave by Zach is “he wants to his brother know that usually just a kid who five years old that want to lift up and he wants to his brother know that his brother not a kid anymore.

brother Gray and wants to his brother know that usually just a kid who five years old that want to lift up”.

However, the research would like to analyze deeper about what are the maxim of Cooperative Principle that non-observed by the characters in the movie, such as how the non-observance maxims occurs in the conversation, and what is the meaning of each implicature that occurs in Jurassic World movie.

B. Focus of the Research

This research will be focus on conversational implicature which has resulted from non- observance maxims by the characters by their conversation in Jurassic World Movie which released in 2015. This implicature will be analyzed using a theory by H.P Grice Theory.

C. Research Question

From the background of the research above, there are 3 questions in this research, those are:

1. What are the maxims of Cooperative Principle that non-observed in the Jurassic World movie?

2. How does the non – observance maxims occurs in the Jurassic World movie?

3. What is the meaning of each implicature that occurs in the Jurassic World movie?

D.Objective of the Research

1. To identify the maxims of cooperative principle that non-observed in the dialogue of the characters in the Jurassic World movie.

2. To know how the non-observance maxim occurs in the Jurassic World movie.

3. To know what is the meaning of each implicature that occurs in the Jurassic World movie

E.Significance of the Research

This research, entitled “The Analysis of Conversational Implicature in Jurassic World (2015) Movie”, is the study of pragmatics that focuses on analyzing the maxim of cooperative principle that non- observed and how the non-observance maxim occurs in the movie, then what is the meaning of each implicature that occurs in the movie. This research is conducted in order to specify the existed research. Thus this research can provide the others with new insight of non- observed of maxim of co-operative principle in conversational implicature analysis.

F. Research Methodology 1. Method of the Research

Because the data in this research are utterances that have been spoke by the characters, this research applies qualitative methodology. The data contained in this research based on utterances that happened in the dialogue of the movie. Hence, the writer finds that qualitative research will positively appropriate to the research.

A. Data Collecting

In this research uses descriptive analysis technique. Then, there are the steps of Data Collecting as follows:

a. The titled as a source data is read thoroughly.

b. The data which contains conversational implicature are given a mark. c. Identifying every conversation from the characters in the movie which

contains conversational implicature.

d. The research uses conversational implicature by H.P Grice to analyze this study.

e. Last steps, concludes the result. B. Data Analysis

In the phase of data analysis, data in this research which implicatures are resulted by the characters in the Jurassic World movie. This research will be analyzed by using a pragmatics theory. The theory that uses in this research is conversational implicature by H.P Grice. The theory will be analyzed through three steps: first, the data will be classified into what are the maxims that non-observance by the characters, and after that, the research will explain how the non-observance maxims occurs in the movie, then what is the meaning of each implicature in the movie.

3. The Instrument of The Research

Instrument of this research is a conversational implicature from Jurassic World Movie which is used to looking for the data. The selected data in this

movie are the data which have violation on maxim because these things are need to analyze one by one.

4. Analysis Unit

As the unit of analysis, the research uses movie titled of Jurassic World from the director Collin Trevorrow, production by Universal Studios and it released in 2015.

CHAPTER II

THEORITICAL FRAMEWORK

A.Previous Research

For consideration in this study, there are a few listed of some previous studies by several researchers that discussed about the same subject. First is, the thesis was conducted by Asrorul Nur Muvida in 2015 with the titled” The Conversational Implicature that used by the three main characters in Hotel Transylvania movie”. This study is focus on analyze how are the main character utterances in the conversation by using a theory of H.P Grice. Besides that, this research related to implicature that can be considered. The writer of this research analyzed one of the four cooperative principles in pragmatics which is a maxim of manner that used by three main characters in that movie and also explain about the context of each utterance that have been spoke. The writer of the research used so many data to count which data that can conclude to the generalized or particularized conversational implicature. Based on the conclusion of this research, the writer found 234 utterances are included as Generalized conversational implicature and found about 44 utterances are included as Particularized conversational implicature.

The second study was conducted by Wakhana Putri in 2011 with the titled “ An analysis of implicature as found in a transcript of interview between Barack Obama and Hisyam Melhem from Al- Arabiya TV”. This research focuses on the implicature as found in the transcript of interview between Obama and Hisyam

Melhem. In this research, applies Grice’s theory about the cooperative principle and Hymes’ theory about context. In analyzing the writer uses pragmatic by which the data are analyzed by determining the unit of certain language used by the speaker as a certain purpose out of the text. In the other word, the writer analyzes the data by using the context of the language used by the speaker. Moreover, in this case, the pragmatic tool is focused on the speaker, Barack Obama. Thus, to get the validity and reliability of the result, the writer tries to view the object from the context in order to get the conclusion.

However, this research is different with two previous researches above. This study will describe further about conversational implicature that occurs in the dialogue between the characters in the movie. This research is going to analyze what are the maxims of Cooperative Principle that non- observed by the characters in the movie. In addition this research also will analyze about how the non-observance maxim occurs in the movie, then what is the meaning of each implicature that occurs in the movie.

B.Pragmatics

The subject of pragmatics is very familiar in linguistics today. Many linguists argue that we cannot really understand the nature of language itself unless we understand pragmatics: how language is used in communication. There are many definitions about the notion of pragmatics defined by linguists.

Further, (Kreidler 18) states that pragmatics is another branch of linguistics that is concerned with meaning. While, (Peccei 5) states that pragmatics concentrates on the aspect of meaning that could not be predicted by linguistic knowledge alone and take into account our knowledge about the physical and social world. The focus of pragmatics analysis is on the meaning of words or sentence.

Furthermore, (Yule 4) in “Pragmatics” said that pragmatics is the study of the relationships between linguistic forms and the users of those forms. Furthermore, pragmatics is the study of those relations between language and context that are grammaticalized or encoded in the structure of language (Levinson 9). The advantage of studying language via pragmatics is that one can talk about people’s intended meanings, their assumptions, their purposes or goals and the kinds of actions that they are performing when they speak.

(Yule 129-133) stated that the coverage of pragmatics includes presupposition, implicature, entailment, speech act, and deixis. From the definition above, the writer concludes that pragmatics is the study about meaning conveyed by the speaker or writer and interpreted by listener or reader. From the speaker view, pragmatics is an analysis about meaning of the speaker utterance rather than the meaning of a word or phrase that is used them. From the contextual point of view, pragmatics is the interpretation about the meaning of a person in a particular context and the influence of context to his or her statement.

In addition, This implies that Pragmatics is the study of speaker meaning since it deals more with what the speaker means by uttering than what the words or phrases in the utterance mean. It also implies that Pragmatics is the study of contextual meaning as it covers the interpretation of what people means in a particular context and how the context influences what is said.

C. Cooperative Principle

(Brown and Yule 36) stated that cooperative principle is the principle when the concept of there being of expected amount of information provide a conversation is just one aspect of the more general idea that people involved in a conversation will cooperate to each other.

(Grice 173) stated that there is a general cooperative principle between speakers and hearers which controls or guides the way they speak. The cooperative principle consists of four maxims with their sub maxims. (Grice 158) formulates the Co-operative Principle as mentioned ‘Make your contribution such as it is required, at the stage at which it occurs’, and the Co-operative Maxims or known as the Conversational Maxims as the principle which consists of four maxims, namely; quality maxim, quantity maxim, relation maxim and manner maxim

a. Maxim of Quantity

1) Make the contribution as informative as required (for the current purposes of exchange).

(Grundy 74) stated that maxim of quantity as one of the cooperative principles is concerned in giving the information as it is required and is not giving the information more than it is required. The speakers just say the information needed, it should not be less informative or more informative. In a normal circumstance, the maxim of quantity provides that the speaker say just enough, that they do not supply less information or more that is necessary. Examples:

a) Ray : What is the capital of United States of America? Tom : It is somewhere in America continent.

b) Anne : Where is Rose book store? Lynch : There will be a signboard. b. Maxim of Quality

1) Try to make the contribution one is true. 2) Do not say what is believed to be false. 3) Do not say that for which lack evidence.

Add by ( Grundy 74) stated that maxim quality can be defined as truthful as required. That means the speaker should inform the truth and they are not allowed to say what they think false and give the statement that run short of proof. Here speaker write are expected to say only what they believe to be true and to have evidence for what they say. However, the speaker must aware of this

expression, that the hearers expect them to honor the maxim of quality.

Examples: a) Romeo : Dear, I totally love you. I will pick up the stars from the sky and bring them to you to prove it.

Juliet : Oo.. That sounds so pretty nice.

Jim : Yes, I think I saw him while I was sleepi c. Maxim of Relation

(Grundy 74) state that maxim of relevance is fulfilled when the speaker give information that is relevant to the topic proceeding. Therefore, each of the speaker or hearer must be relevant to the topic of conversation. Examples: a) Kelly : Mom, I got 3 on my English.

Mommy : You can be an excellent English teacher. b) Abraham : Mike, your girlfriend is really awesome. Mike : Yesterday I hit John until he got fainted.

d. Maxim of Manner : be clear in giving an information 1) Avoid unclearness of expression.

2) Avoid ambiguity. 3) Be brief.

4) Be orderly.

Add by (Cutting 35) stated that maxim of manner is when the speakers put information briefly and orderly, the speaker must avoid the obscure and ambiguous information from the hearer. Therefore, each participant must give the information directly and reasonably, and it should not be vague, ambiguous or excessive.

It is important to recognize these maxims as unstated assumptions we have in conversations. We assume that people are normally going to provide an appropriate amount of information and they are telling the truth, being relevant and trying to be as clear as they can. These rules according to people are expected

to behave when communicating with one another are frequently flouted or violated.

D.The Non- Observance Maxim

Grice pointed out that not all people observe the maxims, when the speaker fails to observe the maxims, this means that there is a distinction between what the speaker says and what he means, in other words, an implicature arises as a result of non-observance of the maxims, and the implicature here plays a great role to get the intended meaning of the speaker's utterance.

Grice distinguished five types by which the speaker fails to observe a maxim; they are flouting, violating, Infringing, opting out, and suspending.

1. Flouting a Maxim

The speaker blatantly fails to observe a maxim in which he has no intention of deceiving or misleading. The speaker wishes to raise the hearer's attention to the implicit meaning which is different from, or in addition to, the expressed meaning. According to Grice this additional meaning is called "Conversational implicature" and the way by which such implicature is generated is called "flouting a Maxim" (Grice 71). An example was given by (Thomas 71):

Interviewer: Did the United States Government play any part in Duvalier's Departure? Did they, for example, actively encourage him to leave?

Official: I would not try to steer you away from that conclusion.

In the above example the official response is extremely long and convoluted and it is obviously no accident, nor through any inability to speak clearly, therefore, he has failed to observe the maxim of manner. The official has

replied 'Yes'. _{The other example which involves the flouting to maxim of} quantity is shown below:

A: How did you find Jones’ thesis? B: It was well typed.

(Richards and Schmidt 122), explained that by choosing not to be as informative as required, B is suggesting that the other qualities of the thesis were not worth commenting on. B has thus communicated through rules of conversational implicature that it was a bad thesis.

2. Violating the maxims

According to (Grice 49), the speaker violates a maxim when s/he will be liable to mislead the hearer to have such implicature. For example give by

(

Thomas 73)

Context : There was a husband that asked to his wife who was guessed maybe having an affair.

Husband : Is there another man? Wife : No, there is not another man.

Wife‟s reply is true that she is not having affair with another man, but not the whole truth (she is, in fact, having an affair with a woman).

3.Infringing the maxim

When the speaker has an imperfect knowledge or performance of language, the speaker here infringes the maxims like a young child or a learner of

nervousness, darkness, excitement may make impairment of the speaker's performance, in these cases s/he does the infringement (Thomas 74). Sometimes speaker infringes the maxims because he is incapable to speak clearly, he does not know the culture or he has not enough knowledge of language.

For example: Someone learning English as a second language speaks to a native speaker.

English speaker : Would you like ham or salad on your sandwich? Non-English speaker : "Yes"

The implicature has not been generated by interlocutor; s/he has not understood the utterance. The answer might be interpreted as non-operative; this is a case of different social knowledge which implied a different implicature (Dornerus 7).

The difference between violating and infringing located in the fact of speaker's intention; in violating the speaker is liable to mislead the hearer, whereas in infringing the speaker unintentionally fails to observe a maxim. Violating is a kind of misleading the hearer to get implicatures, the speaker here intends to mislead in order to save face or avoid hurting the audiences. Infringement occurs when a speaker fails to observe the maxim because he has no perfect knowledge to communicate

4. Opting out the maxim

When the speaker opts out from the maxim, s/he seems unwilling to cooperate in the way the maxim requires (Grice 71). Moreover, (Thomas 74) said that the "example of opting out occurs frequently in public life, when the speaker cannot, perhaps for legal or ethical reason, reply in the way normally expected. The speaker usually wishes to avoid generating a false implicature or appearing uncooperative". Thomas also stated that giving the requested information might hurt a third party or put them in danger.

For example: If a doctor or a nurse, who has complete confidentiality regarding his/her patients, is asked by the police or the press to reveal something about the patient that s/he is treating, he /she will reply:

A: I am sorry but can't tell you anything.

The doctor or nurse opted out maxim when s/he prevented from answering; the doctor seems to be unwilling to cooperate, due to the procedures of the hospital or for the sake of secret information or something else. (Dornerus 7).

5. Suspending the maxim

If there is no expectation on the part of any participant that the maxims will be fulfilled (hence the non-fulfillment does not generate any implicatures), the speakers do not observe the maxims. It may be culturally-specific to a particular

and obituaries, when the description of the deceased needs to be praiseworthy and exclude any potentially unfavorable aspects of their life or personality. Poetry suspends the manner maxim since it does not aim for conciseness, clarity and lack of ambiguity. In the case of telegrams, telexes and some international phone calls quantity maxim will be suspended because such means are functional owing to their very brevity .It is difficult to find any persuasive examples in which the maxim of relation is suspended (Thomas 76-78).

E. Implicature

Implicature can be considered as an additional conveyed meaning (Yule 35). It is attained when a speaker intends to communicate more than just what the words mean. It is the speaker who communicates something via implicatures and the listener recognizes those communicated meanings via inference. Implicatures are inferred based on assumption that the speaker observes or flouts some principles of cooperation.

The concept of implicature was first introduced by H.P Grice (1975) to solve the problem of language meaning. Implicature is used to determine what the meaning of the utterance whether it is from explicit or implicit. While (Gasdar 38) point out that implicature refers to a proposition implied by an utterance in a context even though it is not part, nor the entailment of what actually said.

Moreover, (Levinson 61) claimed implicatures as one of the most important ideas or thoughts in a pragmatic ("one of the single most important ideas in pragmatics"). One important reason he gives is that implicatures provide explicit

explanations on how to imply more than what is spoken "Provides some explicit account of how it is possible to mean more than what is actually said". Example: A: "Can you tell me the time?

B: "Well, the milkman has come".

The answer from the question above seems irrelevant with a request about time, but B actually wants to say that B exactly does not know what time it was. In the conversation actually B hopes that A can suggest the time by himself by saying that the milkman has arrived. In this context, it seems both A or B knows about what time usually the milkman has come.

1. Conventional Implicature

According to (Yule 45), that conventional implicatures are associated with specific words and result in additional conveyed meanings when those words are used. ‘But’, ‘even’, ‘yet’ are the words recognized having this kind of implicatures. (Grice in Levinson 127) states that the word ‘but’ has the same truth-conditional (or truth-functional) content as the word ‘and’ with an additional conventional implicature to the effect that there is some contrast between the conjuncts. When ‘even’ is included in any sentence describing an event, there is an implicature of ‘contrary to expectation’. While the conventional implicature of ‘yet’ is that the present situation is expected to be different, or perhaps the opposite, of a later time.

In addition, conventional implicature are not based on the cooperative principle or the maxims. They do not have to occur in conversation, and they do not depend on special contexts for their interpretation. (Yule 45).

Conventional implicature is always conveyed, regardless of context. According to (Levinson 127), conventional implicature are non-truth conditional inferences that are not derived from super ordinate pragmatic principles like the maxims, but are simply attached by convention to particular lexical item.

1. Conversational Implicature

Grice says that conversational implicature can be defined as “A different (opposite, additional, etc) pragmatic meaning of an utterance with respect to the literal meaning expressed by utterance” (L. Mey 371). Conversational implicature is to be related to cooperative principle. (Grice 45), states: “Make your contribution such as required; at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged”

The implicature which has been resulted by violating the cooperative principle is conversational implicature. To understand the meaning of conversational implicature, sometimes we must relate it with situation or context where it’s happening (Yule 31). In Levinson’s books the titled “pragmatics”. Grice distinguish conversational implicature into two types, those are Generalized conversational implicature and Particularized conversational implicature (Levinson 126).

Generalized conversational implicatures are implicature that are normally carried by saying that p. As an example of generalized conversational implicature, Grice suggests the use of a/an X, which carries the implicature that X is only remotely related in a certain way to some person indicated by the context. When someone says “John is meeting a woman this evening”, he certainly means that is, conversationally implicates +>“The woman John is meeting this evening is not his mother, his sister or his wife”.

According to his book (Levinson 126) stated that Generalized Conversational Implicature arise without any particular context and special scenario being necessary. Look at the example below:

A. Do you buy cheese and bread? B. I buy bread

By the example above, it means that speaker B does not buy cheese and it can be understood although the speaker B does not give information about that. There is no special background of the implicature.

Information or inference of generalized conversational implicature is obtained by using word which expressed one value from scale of value. Hence, another way to Generalized Conversational Implicature is using scalar implicature.

1.2 Particularized Conversational Implicature

Some assumed knowledge which is required in very specific context during conversation is called particularized conversational implicature. As an illustration,

consider an example where Lara‟s response does not appear on the surface to adhere to relevance. It is simply relevant answer would be „yes‟ or „no‟.

Carol : Are you coming to the party tonight? Lara : I’ve got an exam tomorrow.

(Taken from Yule 131)

In order to make Lara‟s response relevant, Carol has to draw on some assumed knowledge that Lara will be spending that evening with his parents, consequently he is not at party. Based on description above, the writer is capable sum up that the criterion of particularized conversational implicature is conversational implicature that its meaning is out part of the utterance, so that hearer should need knowledge more to interpret what speaker mean. In other word, particularized conversational implicature is the inferences of hearer which only can be work out or interpreted while drawing totally on the specific context of the utterance.

Particularized Conversational Implicature is one of the subclass of Grice’s conversational implicature. However, most of the times of our conversations takes place in very specific context in which locally recognized inferences is assumed (Yule 42).

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH FINDINGS

A. Data Description

In collecting data, this research uses descriptive analysis technique. Then, there are the steps of Data Collecting as follows: a. The titled as a source data is read thoroughly. b. The data which contains conversational implicature are given a mark. c. Identifying every conversation from the characters in the movie which contains conversational implicature. d. The research uses conversational implicature by H.P Grice to analyze this study. e. Last steps, concludes the result.

By using the techniques, there are 17 data that the writer selected and concluded based on the question above.

Table of conversational implicature

DATA

NON-OBSERVANCE

MAXIM CONVERSATIONAL

IMPLICATURE

Data 3 Violating Quantity Generalized

Data 4 Flouting Relation Particularized

Data 5 Flouting Relation Generalized

Data 6 Flouting Manner Particularized

Data 7 Flouting Manner Particularized

Data 8 Flouting Relation Particularized

Data 9 Flouting Manner Particularized

Data 10 Flouting Manner Particularized

Data 11 Violating Manner Generalized

Data 12 Violating Manner Generalized

Data 14 Flouting Relation Particularized

Data 15 Violating Manner Generalized

Data 16 Flouting Manner Generalized

Data 17 Flouting Manner Generalized

B.Data Analysis

Data 1

Context: Zach and his brother Gray are at the airport, they are going to take a vacation. They parents Karen and Scoot are companying them to the airport and give some advices before they left.

Karen: Take care of your brother, answer your phone. I'm serious. It's the green button. When you see my name, push it, okay? And remember, something chases you, run.

Zach: Yeah, you're funny.

the question from his mother Karen and it was uncooperative. The utterance Yeah, you’re funny rising the conversational implicature. Zach flouting maxim of manner with makes a statement that obscurity. In this dialogue we can see that there is no situation that can makes Zach speak unclearly like that, so that Zach is flouting maxim of manner and rise conversational implicature.

Zach actually can answer his mother with the simply answer “Yes mom” but the non-observance maxim occurs in this conversation because “ He do not wants to hear another advice from his mother anymore, Zach assumed that if He answer his mother with “ yes” his mother will continue give another advice for him. So that is why the non-observance maxim occurs in this conversation. while, the meaning of the implicature that gave by Zach is “ he knows what his mother asked for and he will do that advice, but he do not like the way his mother convey that advice. There is no need a special knowledge to know the context of the conversation so the implicature in this conversation is classified as generalized conversational implicature.

Data 2

Context: there’s a husband name Scott and his wife name Karen talking about their family. Scott asked Karen to call her sister because their kids will watch over by Karen’s sister.

Scoot : Did you call your sister? Karen : Straight to voicemail.

Scoot : They'll be fine. She handles twenty-thousand people a day. She can handle two more.

The utterance of Karen “Straight to the voicemail” in response to Scoot’s question is conversational implicature. Karen does a flouting the maxim of manner in the conversation. Karen actually wants to answer his husband Scoot with the simply answer “Yes I do” because the answer actually means that “she is already called her sister”. But she answer with” Straight to voicemail”. the non-observance maxim occurs in the conversation because she assumed that she’s husband knows the voicemail is the same with calling by phone.

Hence, the utterance of Scoot above “They'll be fine. She handles twenty-thousand people a day”. She can handle two more. While, the meaning of implicature that gave by Scoot above certainly implicated that “Karen’s sister is capable to watch over their children”. so that utterance certainly implicated that that Karen’s sister work in a company that required her handles twenty-thousand people a day and that is why she also can handle Karen’s children. The special knowledge about voicemail and Karen’s sister need in this conversation. The implicature was clearly included particularized conversational implicature.

Data 3

Context : Claire and Mr Masrani are going to have a flight using a helicopter. The helicopter will ride by Mr. Masrani.

Claire : Mr. Masrani! You're... flying! Masrani : I got my license.

Flight Instructors : (holds up two fingers) Two more.

maxim of quantity. The meaning of the implicature that gives by Mr. Masrani is “ he already got the license to flying the helicopter so do not have to worry”. Mr Masrani violating maxim of quantity which he lies when he said that he got a license to flight. In fact, Mr Masrani haven’t got the license yet, it can proved by the flight instructors holds up two fingers, it means that Mr Masrani have to do two more flight to get that license. Violating that Mr. Masrani does conclude to violating the maxim quantity because Mr. Masrani not gave the appropriate information to Claire, The non-observance maxim occurs in this conversation because Mr. Masrani wants Claire thinks that he already got the license to flying the helicopter in order to Claire allowed him to flying it.

There is no need a special knowledge to know the context of the implicatrure. So the implicature in this conversation is classified as generalized conversational implicature.

Data 4

Context: Mr. Masrani is talking with his partner Claire. They are talking about their business which is Jurassic World, Mr Masrani suggested Claire don’t thinking too much about the profit of the Jurassic World, because Claire should take a rest for while. Instead Mr Masrani talking about something that have no correlated with Jurassic world.

Masrani : You should spend a day at the beach. Get some sun.

Masrani : Ah, enough about costs! John Hammond entrusted me with his dying wish, and not once did he mention profits. "Spare no expense", he use to say.

Claire : I appreciate that, but the reality of operating a theme park is that it requires--

Masrani : Don't forget why we built this place, Claire. Jurassic World exists to remind us how very small we are.

On the dialogue above, Mr Masrani did not observe maxim of cooperative principle in the conversation. Mr Masrani does flouting maxim of relation with blatantly give irrelevant information more than Claire’s needs. Claire talking about the marketing of the Jurassic World park and the costs of that park, but Mr Masrani replies with saying” Jurassic World exists to remind us how very small we are”. It is not relevant with Claire’s saying. The non-observance maxim occurs in this conversation because Mr Masrani wants Claire to take a rest and not always thinking about costs and profit of Jurassic World. So the meaning of the implicature that gives by Mr Masrani is implicated that we as a human is just a small creature if comparing to the animals in the Jurassic World and human is just a small creature if comparing to the god power or the universe so do not be a greedy person and do not always thinking about costs and profit of Jurassic World.

The special knowledge need to infer what is the meaning of that statement. The special knowledge needs to infer conversational implicature. The implicature is concluded as particularized conversational implicature.

Data 5

Context : Claire visit Owen at his bungalow near the sea. Claire asked Owen to control the raptors (dinosaurs). Owen is ex American Army who works to control the raptors. But Owen talk over about he failed date with Claire and their never have a second date.

Claire : I guess that Mr. Masrani thinks, since you are able to control the raptors...

Owen : See, it's all about control with you. I don't control the raptors, it's a relationship. It's based on mutual respect. That's why you and I never had a second date.

From the description above, Owen does a flouting the maxim of relation because The answer that Owen gives have no correlated to the question from Claire or we can said that it was uncooperative. The non-observance maxim occurs in the conversation because Owen still has a feeling to Claire but Claire never knows that. That is why when Claire talking about the raptors, instead Owen talking about their relationship in the past.

The meaning of the implicature that gave by Owen is “he wants Claire know that he is till has a feeling to Claire and actually he blamed Claire because they first date was failed. There is no need a special knowledge to know the context of

the conversation, so the implicature clearly as a generalized conversational implicature.

Data 6

Context : Claire and Owen are in Owen Bungalow they are blaming to one another because they first date was failed.

Owen : Who prints out an itinerary for a night out?!

Claire : I am an organized person and what kind of a men shows up to a date in board shorts?

Owen : Well, it's Central America; it's hot.

Claire : Ok, ok. Can we just focus on the asset, please?

Owen can simply answer “ it’s hot “ for the question of Claire. But he replies well “it’s Central America” that rising an obscurity information. It means that Owen did non- observe the cooperative principle in the conversation. He is flouting a maxim of manner by giving unclearly information. The non-observance maxim in this conversation occurs because Owen wants to Claire knows that he was wearing the board shorts because it was hot to wear a long shirt. That is why he was wearing a board short to their date. The meaning of the implicature that Owen gave is that “Claire is too old-fashioned “ because she was forbid Owen to wear a long short.

conversation which is Central America that known as a hot area in American continent that is why he used a board shorts to a date with Claire. Because implicature need a special knowledge to know the context this implicature is include as particularized conversational implicature.

Data 7

Context : Gray and his brother Zach are standing to see the kinds of the dinosaurs, but Gray as Zach’s little brother can’t see because there are so many people in front of them and he is not tall enough.

Gray : Lift me up. I can't see!

Zach : I'm not Dad. And you're not five.

Gray : I can still ride the Triceratops. I'm 47-and-a-half inches.

From the dialogue above shows that Zach did not observe the cooperative principle in the conversation. The utterance that Zach gives have no correlated to the question from his little brother Gray, it was uncooperative. The utterance “_I'm not Dad. And you're not five”. _{rising the conversational implicature. Zach does} flouting maxim of manner with makes a statement that obscurity. In this dialogue we can see that there is no situation that can makes Zach speak unclearly like that, so that Zach is flouting maxim of manner and rise conversational implicature. the meaning of the implicature that gave by Zach is “he wants to his brother know that usually just a kid who five years old that want to lift up and he wants to his brother know that his brother not a kid anymore.

Zach actually can answer his little brother with the simply answer “no I won’t” but Zach does a flouting maxim of manner because he won’t to lift up his brother Gray and wants to his brother know that usually just a kid who five years old that want to lift up”. We need a special knowledge to know the context of Zach’s statement. Then, it belongs to particularized conversational implicature. Data 8

Context : one kind of dinosaur makes a disturbance in the Jurassic World park, Mr Masrani as the owner of Jurassic World reprimanded Henry Wu because he reputed.

Masrani : You created a monster!

Henry Wu: Monster is a relative term. To a canary, a cat is a monster. We're just used to being the cat.

In the conversation above, Henry Wu does not observe the cooperative principle. Henry Wu flouting the maxim of relation with blatantly gives irrelevant information that Mr Masrani needs. Mr Masrani stated that Henry Wu created a monster, but Henry Wu replies with “Monster is a relative term, a cat is a monster. We’re just used being the cat”. It is not relevant and it is conversational implicature. Hence, for generating the implicature we have to know how the cat usually is. So the meaning of the implicature that gave by Henry Wu implicated that he is not created a monster like Mr Masrani said. He just made a creature like a cat, we know that usually a cat is not dangerous at all and not like a monster that very dangerous. It made the implicature had the implication what is

The non-observance maxim occurs in this conversation because Henry Wu do not like the utterance that said by Mr Masrani that said “ Henry Wu created a monster”. Special knowledge needs to know the context of what Henry Wu actually means. The implicature was clearly included as particularized conversational implicature.

Data 9

Context : Claire and Zach are looking for Claire’s nephews who escaped from the dinosaurs. They are looking for them in the jungle.

Claire : I’m not one of your damn animals.

Owen : listen, those kids are still alive, but you and I will not be if you continue to scream like that.

Claire : so….. you can pick up their scent? Can’t you? Track their footprints?

Owen : I was with the Navy not the Navajo.

Owen can simply answer “yes or no“ to answer the question of Claire. But he replies “I was with the Navy not the Navajo”, that is rising an obscurity information. It means that Owen does non- observed the cooperative principle in the conversation. He is flouting a maxim of manner by giving unclearly information. The non-observance maxim occurs in this conversation because Owen wants Claire know that he can’t do what Claire asked him to do.

The meaning of the implicature that gives by Owen implicated that he can’t to pick up the scent and track the foot prints like Claire asking. He was just

in Navy and he is not a Navajo, we know that Navajo is an ethnic group from southwestern united stated, that ethnic group usually can track the footprints. It made the implicature had the implication that Owen can’t do what Claire asked. Because this implicature need a special knowledge about what is “ Navajo” the implicature include as particularized conversational implicature.

Data 10

Context : Claire and her assistant Vivian are controlling the dinosaurs from the control room, They are watching the dinosaur just got injection from the screen. The dinosaurs had made the disturbance and he just got a potion in order to makes his calm. Claire asked Vivian “how long to move the dinosaur from there”. Claire : How much longer until they get it out of there?

Vivian : He just got five milligrams of carfentanil. Claire : Yes, he's very stoned.

From the dialogue above shows that Vivian did not observe the cooperative principle in the conversation. The utterance that Vivian gives is obscurity to the question from her assistant Vivian or it was uncooperative. The utterance “He just got five milligrams of carfentanil”. rising the conversational implicature. Vivian flouting maxim of manner with makes a statement that obscurity. The non-observance maxim occurs in this conversation because actually Vivian wants to Claire know that carfentanil can to makes animals like a stoned.

Vivian actually can answer Claire with the simply answer but Vivian says ambiguous language which makes the utterance incomprehensible by addressee,

contexts to understand it. _{We know that carfentanil is a kind of potion that can} makes animal can sleep for long time (the free encyclopedia). So the meaning of the implicature that gave by Vivian “means that to moves the dinosaur from there is needs a long time”. Moreover, to know the context of this conversation we should have a special knowledge about “Carfentanil”. Then, it belongs to particularized conversational implicature.

Data 11

Context : Gray and his aunty Claire are in Claire’s office. Gray was asking Claire to accompany him.

Gray : You're not coming with us?

Claire : Oh, um, I really wish that I could, but tomorrow I can take you into the control room, show you behind the scenes and all of that. That's... that's gonna be cool, right?

From the dialogue above shows that Claire did not observe the cooperative principle in the conversation. Mr Claire does not- observe the maxim of manner. Claire violating maxim of manner which she gives the information more than what Gray needs. Gray asked a very simple question, however what he receives from his Aunt, the meaning of the implicature that gave by Claire is a description about what they will do tomorrow in order to persuade her nephew.

The non-observance maxim occurs in the conversation because Claire wants to makes her nephews understand what are the reasons that make’s she can’t come with the nephews.

There is no need a special knowledge to know the context of the conversation. So the implicature in this conversation is classified as generalized conversational implicature.

Data 12

Context : Karen asking Claire about her children who watch over by Claire.

Karen : Hi, Claire. How's it going?

Claire : Yeah, look. Today turned out to be a really bad day for me. They're in great hands. They're with my assistant. She's British, so they invented nannies.

From the dialogue above shows that Claire did not observe the cooperative principle in the conversation. Claire does not- observe the maxim of manner. Claire violating maxim of manner which she gives the information more than what Gray needs.

Karen asked a very simple question, however what he receives from his aunt, Claire is a protracted description about all of the situations that she faced. Claire is ambiguous; therefore, she violated the maxim of manner. The non-observance maxim occurs in the conversation because Claire wants Karen know the situation that she faced that makes Claire can’t accompanying Karen’s children. The meaning of the implicature that gave by Claire have two interpretations: 1.Claire had such a bad day 2. She explains that Karen’s children are in a great hands because they with Claire’s assistant. Claire is ambiguous;

knowledge to know the context of the implicature. So the implicature in this conversation is classified as generalized conversational implicature.

Data 13

Context : Lowery and Claire are in the control room, they are talking about animals who just got injection.

Lowery : So why don't we show a little sympathy? I mean, you do understand these are actual animals, right?

Claire : Clean up your workspace. It's chaotic.

On the dialogue above, Claire does not observe maxim of cooperative principle in the conversation The utterance that Claire gives have no correlated to the question from his friend Lowery or we can said that it was uncooperative.. Claire does violating maxim of relation with blatantly give irrelevant answer with Lowery’s question. There is no situation that can makes Claire speak unclearly like that Claire can simply answer question with yes or no , but Claire replies with saying “ _{Clean up your workspace. It's chaotic”. ”. It is not relevant at all. In this} example Claire’s answer is by no means irrelevant to the Lowery’s question. One reason why Claire does non-observance the maxim in this conversation is that Claire is trying to evade the interrogation posed by the Lowery. The meaning of the implicature that gave by Claire is that “ Claire wants Lowery to clean up his workspace because the workspace is chaotic.

There is need a special knowledge to know the context of the conversation So the implicature in this conversation is classified as generalized conversational implicature.

Data 14

Context : Zach and his little brother are debating about what will they do, Zach wants to stay out little longer out of the zoo park but Gray won’t.

Zach : Come on, we can stay out a couple more minutes. Gray : But they said it was closed.

Zach : Aunt Claire gave us special wristbands, right? We're VIP, dude. Come on. It'll be fun.

In the conversation above, Zach does not observe the cooperative principle. Zach flouting the maxim of relation with blatantly gives irrelevant answer that Gray needs. From the dialogue above shows that Zach not observed the cooperative principle in the conversation. The utterance that Zach give have no correlated to the statement from his brother Gray or we can said that it was uncooperative. The utterance “ Aunt Claire gave us special wristbands, right? We're VIP, dude. Come on. It'll be fun rising the conversational implicature. Zach flouting maxim of relation with makes a statement that obscurity. The non-observance maxim occurs in this conversation because Zach wants his brother to not worry about the announcement that said the park was closed.

While, the meaning of the implicature that gave by Zach is implicated that they don’t have obey the rules that said the park was closed because they are VIP customers.

To know the context of Zach’s utterance we have to know what VIP is, we know that VIP is a special service that not all the people can get it and usually VIP give a free choice to the people who get it, that is why Zach said do not want to obey the information that said the park was closed. Special knowledge needs to infer the conversational implicature. The implicature was clearly included as particularized conversational implicature.

Data 15

Context : Claire asked Zara to brings her nephews back to the hotel because it was not save if they are out of the hotel.

Claire : Zara. I need you to bring the boys back to the hotel right away.

Zara : I don't know... I've been looking everywhere for them. It's just been quite a while.

Claire : Slow down. I can't hear you.

From the dialogue above shows that Zara did not observe the cooperative principle in the conversation. Zara does not- observed the maxim of manner. Zara violating maxim of manner which she gives the information more than what Claire needs. The non-observance occurs in this conversation because Zara wants Calire know the situation that makes she don’t where Claire’s nephews are. However what she receives from Zara, Zara is a protracted description of her

situation. The meaning of the impplicature that gave by Zara implicated that” she do not know where Claire’s nephews because they’ve run off.

There is no need a special knowledge to know the context of the implicature. So the implicature in this conversation is classified as generalized conversational implicature.

Data 16

Context : Claire and Owen are talking about the public interest to the dinosaurs, about new program to pull the interest of the people.

Claire : We've been pre-booking tickets for months. The park needs a new attraction every few years in order to reinvigorate the public's interest. Kind of like the space program. Corporate felt genetic modification would up the "wow" factor.

Owen : They're dinosaurs. "Wow" enough.

From the dialogue above shows that Owen did not observe the cooperative principle in the conversation. The utterance that Owen gives have no correlated to the statement of Claire or it was uncooperative. The utterance “They're dinosaurs "Wow" enough. rising the conversational implicature. Owen flouting maxim of manner with makes a statement that obscurity. The non-observance occurs in the conversation because “ Owen does not interested to listen what Claire said”.

The meaning of the implicature that gives by Owen by said “They're dinosaurs. "Wow" enough” implicated that Owen do not agree with Claire

In this dialogue we can see that there is no situation that can makes Owen speak unclearly like that, so that Zach is flouting maxim of manner and rise conversational implicature.there is no need a special knowledge to know the context of the conversation. So the implicature in this conversation is classified as generalized conversational implicature.

Data 17

Context : Gray and his aunty Claire are in the car, they are running from dinosaurs, suddenly the dinosaurs passed into the car and Claire killed it. Claire afraid that her nephew’s Gray see that accident, because Claire thinks that Gray is too young to see the accident.

Claire : Are you boys okay? Did you see that? Gray : I can't wait to tell Mom.

Claire : Please, no. Do not tell your mother about that, ever.

From the dialogue above shows that Gray did not observe the cooperative principle in the conversation. Zach is flouting maxim of manner. The utterance that Gray give have no correlated to the question from his aunty or we can said that it was uncooperative. The utterance “I can't wait to tell Mom”. rising the conversational implicature. Gray flouting maxim of manner with makes a statement that obscurity. The non-observance maxim occurs in this conversation because Gray want to say he is already see but with ambiguous words.

The meaning of the implicature that gives by Gray implicated that he is already saw what his aunt asked about. There is no need a special knowledge to

know the context of the imlicature. So the implicature in this conversation is classified as generalized conversational implicature.

CHAPTER IV

CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

A.

Conclusions

Based on the analyzing, The research analyses four cooperative principles which are maxim of quality, maxim of quantity, maxim of manner and maxim of relation in the movie. Most of conversational implicature happen because flouting the maxim of manner and maxim of relation. Furthermore, this research also analyzes at types of non-observance maxim which are flouting a maxim, violating a maxim, infringing a maxim, opting-out a maxim, and suspending a maxim. Most of non-observance maxim that occurs are flouting a maxim and violating a maxim. In addition, based on the analyzing, the non-observance maxim occurs in the conversation in the movie because many of the characters in the movie often give an obscurity information or obscurity answer that makes the conversation non-observance the maxim.

Moreover, this research also contains that each implicature has the meaning within and to know the meaning of each implicature depends on the knowledge of the speaker. That is why in the conversational implicature there are Particularized conversational implicature and generalized conversational implicature. Particularized conversational implicature need a special knowledge of the participants to understand it. It is opposite with generalized conversational implicature. Hence, the participants have different views of the context of situation around the events. Additionally, sometimes the participants feel that the

questions are not important to be answered truthfully whereas if it happens, the conversations disobey cooperative principles. It can be found in the conversations in the movie which is the writer analyzed. Finally In the analysis of the research, found 9 generalized conversational implicature and 8 particularized conversational implicature.

B.

Suggestions

Based on the explanation, to close this graduating paper the writer proposes some suggestions as follow:

1. Study about conversational implicature is important to learn, because in this study we can know what is another people exactly means. That is why students actually should learn about this study further.

2. In order to analyzing the conversational implicature, students can use so many media. Movie is one of a good corpus, because in movies there are so many conversations that usually have conversational implicature.

3. By understanding of conversational implicature, people will be more

understandable in communication process in their daily life.

Finally, this subject can be one of the references for the students in English major who want to analyze the similar subject.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Brown, Gillian and George, Yule. Discourse Analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press. 1983. Print.

Brown, Keith. Linguistic Today. Suffolk: Fontana Paperbacks. 1984. Print.

Dornerus, Emma. Breaking maxims in conversation: A Comparative Study of How Scriptwriters Break Maxims in Desperate Housewives and That 70’s Show. A research paper of Karlstad Universitet. Karlstad. 2005. Print.

Gasdar, Gerald. Pragmatics: Implicature, Presupposition, and Logical Form. New York: Akademik Press. 1979. Print

Grice, H.P. “Logic and Conversation”. A.P. Philosophy of Language. Ed. Martinich. New York: Oxford University Press, 1975. Print.

Grundy, Petter. Doing Pragmatic. –ed . London: Arnold, a member of the Hodder- Headline Group. 2000. Print.

Kreider, W. Charles. Introducing English Semantics. New York: Routledge. 1998. Print.

Levinson, Stephen C. Pragmatics. New York: Cambridge University Press. 1983.Print.

Mey, Jacob L. An Introduction of Pragmatics. United State of America: Blackwell. 1983. Print.

Nadar, F.X. Pragmatik dan Penelitian Pragmatik. Yogyakarta: Graha Ilmu, 2009. Print.

Nur Muvida, Asrorul. The Conversational Implicature that used by the three main characters in Hotel Transylvania movie. Thesis of Faculty of Adab and Cultural Sciences, State Islamic University Sunan Kalijaga, 2015. Print.

Palmer, F. R. Semantics. New York: Cambridge University Press. 1981. Print. Putri, Wakhana. An analysis of implicature as found in a transcript of interview

between Barack Obama and Hisyam Melhem from Al- Arabiya TV. Thesis of Faculty of Letters, Andalas University, 2011. Print.

Peccei, Jean Stiwell . Pragmatics. London and New York. Routledge. 1999. Print.

Richards, J. C. , & Schmidt. R. W . Language and Communication. Singapore: Longman Singapore Publishers Ptc Ltd. 1983. Print.

Subroto, D. Edi. Pengantar Metode penelitian Linguistik Struktural. Surakarta: Sebelas Maret University Press: 1992. Print.

Thomas, Jenny. Meaning in Interaction: an Introduction to Pragmatics. England: Pearson Education Limited. 1995. Print.

Yule, George. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996. Print.

“Navajo” From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, Web 5 October 2016.

APPENDIX

Data 2

Data 4

Data 6

Data 8

Data 10

Data 12

Data 14

Data 16

52

Data 6

53

Data 8

54

Data 10

55

Data 12

56

Data 14

57

Data 16