AN IMPLICATURE ANALYSIS IN THE CONVERSATION OF “THE LITTLE RASCALS SAVE THE DAY”MOVIE

  

AN IMPLICATURE ANALYSIS IN THE

CONVERSATION OF “THE LITTLE RASCALS SAVE

THE DAY”MOVIE

  

A GRADUATING PAPER

  Submitted to the Board of Examiners as a partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Sarjana Pendidikan Islam (S.Pd.I) English Education Department of Teacher Training and Education Faculty

  State Institute for Islamic Studies (IAIN) Salatiga

  

By:

Chusnul Chotimah

113 10 026

ENGLISH EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

  

TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION FACULTY

STATE INSTITUTE FOR ISLAMIC STUDIES (IAIN) SALATIGA

2015

  

DECLARATION

In the name of Allah, the most gracious.

  Hereby the writer declares that this graduating paper is written by the writer herself. It does not contain any materials which have been published by other people and other people‘s idea except the information from the references.

  This declaration is written by the writer to be understood.

  th

  Salatiga, March 5 , 2015 The writer

  Chusnul Chotimah NIM. 113 10 026

  

MOTTO

―There's always a first time for everything‖

Melissa de la Cruz, Blue Bloods

  

DEDICATION

To

My beloved Dad (Mr. Sutrisno) and Mom (Mrs. Daryatun)

  

My lovely Brother (Aziz)

  

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

  In the name of Allah, the most gracious, the most merciful, the Lord of universe. The writer would like to express her grateful to the almighty Allah SWT for his blessing, chance, and guidance to finish this graduating paper as one of the requirement for Sarjana Kependidikan Islam in English Education Department of

  IAIN Salatiga in 2015.

  Shalawat and Salam are always sent to my beloved prophet Rasulullah SAW for his unparallel effort and sacrifices to show the right path and spread the light of salvation to all mankind and universe.

  However, this success would not be achieved without those supports, guidance, advice, help, and encouragement from individual and institution, and the writer somehow realize that an appropriate moment for me to deepest gratitude for: 1.

  Dr. H. Rahmat Hariyadi, M.Pd. as the Rector of State Institute for Islamic Studies (IAIN) Salatiga.

  2. Suwardi, M.Pd. as the Dean of Teacher Training and Education Faculty of IAIN Salatiga.

  3. Noor Malihah, Ph.D. as the Head of English Education Department of IAIN Salatiga and as the writer counselor

  ‘s who has educated, supported, directed and given the writer advice, suggestion and recomendation for this graduating paper from beginning until the end. Thanks for your patience and care.

  4. All lecturers of IAIN Salatiga who have bestowed their knowledge to the writer, especially the lectures of English Department. Thanks a lot for the very invaluable education.

  5. All staffs of IAIN Salatiga who have helped the writer in processing administration.

  6. My beloved parents. My father Mr. Sutrisno and my mother Mrs. Daryatun who always give me support encouragement, finance, love, trust, advice, and everlasting praying. I love you and Allah always blesses you.

  7. My beloved brother Nur Azis and all of my family, thanks for your encouragement, and praying to Allah.

  8. My best friends the Ponk (Tika Rahmawati, Jayanti, Nur Faizah, Choirin Tria Kartika, Laely Wahidatul, Layla Nurjannah, Malihatun Badroh, Lia Febriyani, Sariyatul Hidayah) Nur Efiana, Sari Marzuqoh, Siti Umatul M and Dyah Saraswati thanks for your helping and support.

  9. My friends in TBI 2010 especially TBI A keep on fire.

  10. My dear Little Foot ACEGU (Yumay, Mami Ari, Etika, Galih) and my sisters (Luthfi, Sani) who always give me support and motivation.

  11. Many people who have helped the writer that I cannot mention one by one, thanks all.

  th

  Salatiga, March 5 , 2015 The writer

  Chusnul Chotimah NIM. 113 10 026

  

ABSTRACT

  Chotimah, Chusnul: 2015. ―An Implicature Analysis in the Conversation of ―The Little Rascals Save the Day‖ Movie‖. Graduating Paper of English Education Department. State Institute for Islamic Studies (IAIN) Salatiga.

  This study aims to elaborate the implied meaning in the utterances of the conversation in ―The Little Rascals Save the Day‖ movie and disclose the effect of using Conversational Implicature. The method used in analyzing the data in this study is descriptive method, which describes and explaines the meaning of each utterance which is delivered for attention in context as a whole, rather than analyzed a particular sentence separately without a background conversation. From the analysis conducted, the writer finds some utterances which is implied by the speakers and has more than one meaning in speaking. The meaning can be understood if the speakers and listeners have a background in speech and conventional meanings of words which is used. The object of this study is 20 utterances of conversational implicature in ―The Little Rascals Save the Day‖ movie.

  The writer analyses the violating of conversation principles which cause implicature occur in the conversation. There are cooperative principle, politeness principle and ironical principle. The violating of cooperative principles are the most dominant on the mo vie ―The Little Rascals Save the Day‖ conversations. There are so many irrelevant utterance, obscurity expression, unnecessary information and untruth information in the conversation. In addition, the fact shows that the social degree in community may influence the speakers in violating or obeying the conversation principles.

  

Keyword: Implicature, Conversational Implicature, Conversation principle,

Cooperative principle, Politeness Principle, Ironical Principle.

  TABLE OF CONTENT TITLE PAGE .......................................................................................... i

DECLARATION ..................................................................................... ii

ATTENTIVE COUNSELOR ................................................................. iii

CERTIFICATION PAGE ...................................................................... iv

MOTTO ................................................................................................... v

DEDICATION ......................................................................................... vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ...................................................................... vii

ABSTRACT ............................................................................................. ix

TABLE OF CONTENT .......................................................................... x

LIST OF TABLE .................................................................................... xiv

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ...........................................................

  16 2.3.1.1. Maxim of Quantity .....................................................

  24 2.3.2.2.1. Maxim of Tact ...........................................

  22 2.3.2.2. Maxim in Politeness Principle ...................................

  20 2.3.2.1.2. Negative Politeness ...................................

  20 2.3.2.1.1. Positive Politeness .....................................

  19 2.3.2.1. Types of Politeness (Yule, 1996) ...............................

  19 2.3.2. Politeness Principle .................................................................

  18 2.3.1.4. Maxim of Manner ......................................................

  17 2.3.1.3. Maxim of Relevant ....................................................

  17 2.3.1.2. Maxim of Quality .......................................................

  14 2.3.1. Cooperative Principle ..............................................................

  1 1.1. Background of the Study ...................................................................

  12 2.3. Conversational Implicature ................................................................

  9 2.2. Implicature .........................................................................................

  9 2.1. Pragmatics ..........................................................................................

  7 CHAPTER II THEORETICAL REVIEW ..........................................

  7 1.7. Paper Outline .....................................................................................

  6 1.6. Clarification of Key Term ..................................................................

  6 1.5. Limitation of the Study ......................................................................

  5 1.4. Benefit of the study ............................................................................

  5 1.3. Objectives of the Study ......................................................................

  1 1.2. Problem of the Study .........................................................................

  24

  2.3.2.2.2. Maxim of Generosity .................................

  26 2.3.2.2.3. Maxim of Approbation ..............................

  26 2.3.2.2.4. Maxim of Modesty ....................................

  27 2.3.2.2.5. Maxim of Agreement ................................

  28 2.3.2.2.6. Maxim of Sympathy ..................................

  28 2.3.3. Ironical Principle .....................................................................

  29 2.4. Conventional Implicature ...................................................................

  30 2.5. Movie .................................................................................................

  31 2.5.1. Implicature in Movie ...............................................................

  32 CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY .......................................................

  35 3.1. Type of Study .....................................................................................

  35 3.2. Object of the Study ............................................................................

  37 3.3. Data Sources ......................................................................................

  37 3.4. Technique of Collecting Data ............................................................

  38 3.5. Technique of Analyzing Data ............................................................

  40 3.6. Movie Review ....................................................................................

  41 3.6.1. Synopsis ...................................................................................

  43 CHAPTER IV DATA ANALYSIS ........................................................

  46 4.1. Data Presentation ...............................................................................

  46 4.2. Cooperative Principle .........................................................................

  49 4.3. Politeness Principle ............................................................................

  53 4.4. Ironical Principle .................................................................................

  56 CHAPTER V CLOSURE .......................................................................

  57 5.1. Conclusion .........................................................................................

  57 5.2. Suggestion ..........................................................................................

  60 5.2.1. For the Reader .........................................................................

  60 5.2.2. For the Future Researcher .......................................................

  61 REFERENCES ........................................................................................

  62 CURRICULUM VITAE .........................................................................

  64 APPENDIXES .........................................................................................

  65

  LIST OF TABLES 1.

Table 3.1. Table instrument .......................................................... 40 2.Table 3.2. Information Related to the Movie ................................ 42 3.Table 4.1. Type of Violated Conversation Principles ................... 46 4.Table 4.2. Types of Cooperative Principles .................................. 49 5.Table 4.3. Types of Politeness Principles ..................................... 54

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1.1. Background of the Study Language is one of the important things for human life. Language is a media

  connector among people. People use language to communicate to others, for example to give a greeting, ask permission or to ask something. People spend much more time in communicating than they realize. However, they sometimes do not aware that when they communicate they reveal something deeper through their utterances.

  Understanding how the process of communication works is equally important to how to have good communication skill.

  On the other hand, the communication or conversation among the people does not always go well. Sometimes there is any lie, ambiguity, irrelevant or uninformative conversation which creates confusion even misunderstanding among the participants.

  In there the writer gives an example how the conversation is going well because of the speaker and the hearer can understand and match their interpretation about what they talk

  [1] Husband : ―Where are the car keys?‖

  Wife : ―They are on the table in the hall.‖ In example [1] the wife has answered clearly and truthfully, has given just the right information and has directly addressed her husband‘s goal in asking the question. She has said precisely what she meant, no more and no less.

  Regarding to the above statement, people have to inter pret what the speaker‘s saying because the speaker probably has different sense in their utterances, and in pragmatic it is called as implicature. And since this case exists in a conversational area, it is than called as conversational implicature, conversational implicature concern the way we understand an utterance in conversation in accordance with what we expect to hear. Yule (1996: 40) illustrates the use of conversational implicature in example [2]

  [2] Charlene : ―I hope you brought the bread and the cheese.‖

  Dexter : ―Ah, I brought the bread.‖

  From example [2] Charlene assumed that Dexter brought bread and cheese, although Dexter did not mention cheese explicitly in his answer.

  In example [2], the writer sees that, it is sometimes necessary to interpret what the people say. This is because there is an implicit message that the speaker want to say. To understand the case in example [2], the writer can analyze it through pragmatics.

  Conversation may happen in every activity in human life, just like in their daily activity, in a meeting, in the class, in the street, also in the movie. In this study the writer would like to look at the conversations which happen in a movie. As we know that most people in the world love movies such as humor, scary, action, drama, love, war, or others. It can express someone‘s thought and meaning sense. But sometimes, there are some conversations of the movie that make someone confused of the speaker‘s statement. In a movie, many utterances have different meaning. Therefore we have to understand what the conversational purposes are. Besides that, understanding the meaning of conversation is needed by viewer to avoid misunderstanding.

  Before this, Lestari (2013) presents considering the study that having similarity to this study. Lestari‘s study is entitled ―The Analysis of Conversational Implicature in the Movie Script of Despicable Me‖. She investigates the implicature existing in a movie. She collects the main data from utterance. In her conclusion, she presents several the type of conversational implicature based on cooperative principle used in movie. She concludes that the cooperative principle is important to understand the movie.

  Following that study this study is concerned with investigating the meanings and the implicatures that might appear in the film script of ‗The Little Rascals Save the Day‘. The Little Rascals Save the Day is 2014 Americareleased by of the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s (many of which were broadcast on television as The Little Rascals) which centered around the adventures of a group of

  1

  neighborhood children . With the existence of some implicatures that appear in the script, the writer feels interested in studying deeper about the implicatures for the sake of clarity about the meaning implied in sentence or conversation. Since implicatures that often appears in film possibly will not be understood by the movie goers.

  Therefore, the writer looks at the conversational implicature which are on The Little Rascals Save the Day manuscript and the violations. The writer, then, conducts a study entitled ―An Implicature Analysis in the Conversation of ―The Little Rascals Save the Day‖ Movie‖.

1.2. Problem of the Study

  Based on the background of study presented above, this study is conducted to answer the following questions:

  1. What are the types of violated conversation principles found in the movie script ―The Little Rascals Save the Day‖?

  2. What is the most dominant violated conversation principle found in the movie script ―The Little Rascals Save the Day‖?

  3. What is the contextual meaning of the conversational implicature used in the movie script ―The Little Rascals Save the Day‖?

  

1.3. Objectives of the Study

  Based on the problem of the study above, the objectives of the study can be shown in the following sentences:

  1. To identify the types of violated conversation principles found in the movie script ―The Little Rascals Save the Day‖.

  2. To identify the most dominant violated conversation principle found in the movie script ―The Little Rascals Save the Day‖.

  3. To describe the contextual meaning of the conversational implicature used in the movi e script ―The Little Rascals Save the Day‖.

1.4. Benefits of the Study

  The writer hopes that this study give contributions in pragmatic study especially implicature. The findings of the study are expected to be one of references and alternative information about how to apply pragmatic study especially implicature theory in the real field. Since this study is focused on types of implicature namely conversational implicature, the results of the study are expected to provide more exploration toward conversational implicature in the movie`s script and provide deeper analysis toward the types of conversational implicature which exists in the movie`s script. In other word, the results of this study are expected to provide and enrich the conversational implicature study from different phenomenon and object. Then, the results of this study are also expected to fill the gap of the previous related study.

  Furthermore, the writer hopes that this study will raise the reader`s awareness and understanding of predicting that conveyed meaning. Therefore, they will achieve a successful conversation.

  1.5. Limitation of the Research

  This study will be undertaken within the scope of pragmatic study focusing on implicatures that appear in the film script ‗The Little Rascals Save the Day‘. This study is limited to ‗The Little Rascals Save the Day‘ movie, which was released in 2014. Implicatures which occur in ‗The Little Rascals Save the Day‘ become the object of investigation and the utterances spoken by the main character.

  1.6. Clarification of Key Term 1.6.1.

  Implicature An utterance can imply a proposition (a statement) that is not part of the utterance and that does not follow as a necessary consequence of the utterance. (Grice, 1975)

  1.6.2. Conversational Implicature A conversational implicature is, therefore, something which is implied in conversation, that is, something which is left implicit in actual language use (Mey, 1983: 45).

  1.6.3. Movie Movie is a sequence of picture projected on a screen from a developed and prepared film especially with an accompanying sound track. (Webster`s Dictionary, 2004: 654) 1.7.

   Paper Outline

  As guidance for either writer in writing the paper or reader on whole content of the paper, the writer needs to set up paper outline. This study consist of five chapters, those are following: Chapter I is introduction that discusses background of the study, problems of the study, benefits of the study, limitation of the study, clarification of key terms and paper outline. Chapter II presents theoretical review. It consists of discussion about the conversational implicature, the theories of conversation principles. Chapter III discusses the methodology of this study, including the general method of this study, the procedure of the study, technique of collection data, and technique of data analysis. Chapter IV presents the analysis of the data. Finally, in

  chapter V the writer gives the summary that includes conclusion and suggestion. The last part is reference and appendix.

CHAPTER II THEORETICAL REVIEW In this chapter, the writer will discuss several related theories which will be

  used to analyze the implicature in this study. In addition, this chapter also discusses about the definition of movie. This chapter will attach some definition and description as theoretical foundation of the study.

  In section 2.1, the writer will discuss about an overview of pragmatics. Next, the writer will discuss about the general idea of an implicature in section 2.2. In section 2.3, the writer will present the conversational implicature and its principles. In section 2.4, the writer will discuss about conventional implicature. For next in section 2.5 the writer will explain about movie and implicature in a movie will the writer discuss in the last section.

2.1. Pragmatics

  In studying about language, we will meet two branches of language science, semantics and pragmatics. Both of that sciences concern at language but in different side. Semantics refers to the construction of meaning language, while pragmatics refers to meaning construction in specific interactional context. In other word, semantics is study of word meaning and sentence meaning without any relation to context whereas pragmatics also means as the study of utterance meaning, sentences which are used in communication, between speaker and a hearer (Wagiman, 2008: 63). Context is the thing that makes semantics and pragmatics different at their basic.

  If you see a notice like ―drink to your fill‖ on a library shelf, you definitely know what each of the words means, and you also know what the notice means.

  However, you are not likely to think that the notice is asking you to drink some natural liquid water. It is about an advice to read as many books as possible. What you have done is to use the meaning of the words in combination with the context in which they occur and try to decode the meaning which the writer of the notice intended to communicate.

  Speakers and writers often mean much more than they say or write and expect their hearers to understand them. They will generally assume that some aspects of meanings that are not expressed in words are can be concluded from the context. This assumption is based on their shared environment, values, social conventions or world view which guides them to interpret meanings beyond words or grammatical structures. Ultimately the goal is to rightly interpret the speakers intended meaning.

  The notion of the speaker‘s or writer‘s intended meaning is a very crucial element in the study of pragmatics. And as you will see in this study, traditional pragmatics is all about investigating the speaker or writer intended meaning rather than what is expressed in words.

  On the other hand, Parker (1946: 11) states that pragmatics is the study of how language is used to communicate. It has, consequently, more to do with the analysis of what people mean by their utterances than what the words or phrases in those utterances might mean by themselves.

  Different from Parker, Leech and Short (1981: 290) agree that pragmatics is the investigation into that aspect of meaning which is derived not from the formal properties of words, but from the way in which utterances are used and how they relate to the context in which they are uttered. Leech (1983: 6) defines pragmatics as the study of meaning in relation to speech situations. The speech situation enables the speaker use language to achieve a particular effect on the mind of the hearer.

  While Leech looks at pragmatics as related to speech situation, Levinson (1983: 9) views pragmatics as the study, where language and context are related and relevant to the writing of grammar. Notice in this definition that interest is mainly in the inter-relation of language and principles of language use that are context dependent.

  Similarly, Yule (1996: 4) looks pragmatics also as a relation between linguistic form or grammar and the user. However Yule emphasizes that the meaning of the communication by the speaker or writer, or the meaning of the listener or reader‘s interpretation is the main focus.

  In more detail, Yule (1996: 129-133) argues that the coverage of pragmatics

  2

  includes presupposition, implicature, entailment, speech act, and deixis . From the ₂ definition above, the writer concludes that pragmatics is the study about how to

  The writer will not discuss further on this subject, the reader can read George Yule‘s ―Pragmatics‖ understanding the meaning of utterances or sentences not just base on the lexical meaning but it is deeper depending on the context. So, pragmatics is an approach used to explore the way of listener to interfere an utterance that is uttered by the speakers in order to arrive at an interpre tation of the speaker‘s intended meaning.

2.2. Implicature

  In conversation, very often the speaker does not express the meaning explicitly. The meaning is left implicit and the hearer has to unfold the meaning on the basis of the linguistic input and knowledge of the world.

  For theories of implicature, this study will follow what Grice has argued as the writer has discussed above.

  Grice (1975) points out that an utterance can imply a proposition (a statement) that is not part of the utterance and that does not follow as a necessary consequence of the utterance. Grice called such implied statements implicature. Consider example [1] from Parker (1946: 21) below:

  [1] John : ―Uncle chester is coming over for dinner tonight.‖

  Marry : ―I guess I‘d better lock up the liquor.‖

  In example [1], observer of this interchange might draw the inference that uncle Chester has a drinking problem. Thus, in Grice‘s terms, we might say that Marry‘s utterance raises the implicature that uncle Chester has a drinking problem. It is important to make three points about implicature. First, the implicature is not part of utterance. Second, the implicature does not follow as a necessary consequence from the utterance. Third, it is possible for an utterance to raise more than one implicature, or to raise different implicatures if uttered in different contexts.

  That something in conversation must be more than just the word mean, it is an additional conveyed meaning, called an implicature (Yule, 1996: 35). It is attained when a speaker intends to communicate more than just what the word mean. An implicature is a result of a listener making an inference as the most likely meaning an utterance may have in a given context. Implicatures actually occur when the conversational maxims are violated. Yule (1996: 36) added that implicatures are primary examples of more being communicated than is said, but in order for them to be interpreted, some basic cooperative principle must first be assumed to be in operation.

  While discussing implicature, Grice (1989, cited in Mey, 1998: 365) proposes two types of implicature: (i) conversational implicature and (ii) conventional implicature. The writer will discuss each of the two in turn in the next section.

2.3. Conversational implicature

  According to Grice (1989), utterance interpretation is not a matter of decoding messages, but rather involves:

1. Taking the meaning of the sentences together with contextual information, 2.

  Using inference rules 3. Working out what the speaker means on the basis of the assumption that the utterance conforms to the maxims.

  The main advantage of this approach from Grice‘s point of view is that it provides a pragmatic explanation for a wide range of phenomena, especially for conversational implicatures- a kind of extra meaning that is not literally contained in the utterance.

  According to brown and Levinson (1987) and Yule (1996), conversational implicature is derived from a general principle of conversation plus a number of maxims which speaker normally obeys. It‘s mean that conversation principles have a big influence for conversational implicature.

  Grice (1989, cited in Mey, 1998: 365) divides conversational implicature into two kinds. Generalized conversational implicature and particularized conversational implicature.

  Generalized conversational implicatures occur without reference to any particular features of the context (Levinson 1983: 126), it means special background knowledge or inferences are not required in calculating the additional conveyed meaning. Further Levinson divides generalized implicature into Q-implicature, I- implicature, and M-implicature.

  Q- implicature is based on Grice‘s first sub maxim of quantity it means you have to make your contribution as informative as required for the purpose of communication. Next is I- implicature. It based on Grice‘s second sub maxim that is do not make your contribution more informative than what is required, and the last one is M-implicature is based on the third submaxims of manner it is to avoid obscurity of expression, and avoid prolixity.

  In contrast to generalized conversational implicature, particularized conversational implicature is strongly tied to the particular features of the context.

  The meaning is not always actually stated. It is derived from the violation or flouting of the cooperative principle that consists of: be true, be brief, be relevant, and be clear. The speaker violates one of the conversational maxims on purpose, and the hearer has to interpret the meaning of the utterance on the basis of the violation of the maxim, this kind of meaning is called a conversational maxim (Wagiman, 2008: 74). Example [2] illustrates the use of conversational maxim (Wagiman, 2008: 75):

  [2] Teacher : ―Could anyone of you assist me tomorrow at nine o‘clock?

  Student : ―Tomorrow is sunday.‖

  In example [2] about the conversation, the student, who is also a speaker, violates the maxim of relevance. His answer to the teacher‘s question is not relevant, and the meaning is left implicit. The meaning is unfolded by knowledge of the word that Sunday is a holiday and nobody goes to the campus. The meaning of the utterance is that the students cannot help the teacher on the next day.

  There are some principles that work on how implicature appear in the conversations. The writer will explain that principle in 3 sections, section 1 about cooperative principle, section 2 is about politeness principle and the last section is about irony principle.

2.3.1. Cooperative Principle

  Conversational implicatures come about by the exploitation (apparent flouting) or observation of the cooperative principle and a set of maxim, Grice (1989, cited in Mey, 1998: 365).

  Grice observes that when people talk they try to be ―cooperative‖ and attempt to obey some ―cooperative principle‖ which demands that they make their conversational contributions such as is required, at the stage where it occurred, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk in which they are engaged. The conversational principle operates with some ―maxims‖ in the assumption that the speaker does not say what is false, or irrelevant, or too much or too little. There 4 maxims related to cooperative principle as proposed by Grice (1989):

2.3.1.1. Maxim of Quantity

  The maxim of quantity which has the principle of: 1.

  Make your contribution as informative as is required (for the current purposes of the conversation)

2. Do not make your contribution more informative than is required

  Grundy (2000: 74) states 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 informa tive. Following grundy‘s idea about maxim quantity, Wagiman (2008) illustrates the use of maxim quantity in example

  [3]: [3] Mr. Steev

  : ―what is the capital of Australia?‖ Mr. Swart

  : ―Canberra. An elementary school student knows better than you do.‖ In example [3] Mr. Swart flouts the maxim of quantity. He added unneeded comment in his information.

2.3.1.2. Maxim of Quality

  The meaning of maxim of quality is to try to make your contribution one that is true. And there are some principles of the maxim of quality:

1. Do not say what you believe to be false 2.

  Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence

  Grundy (2000: 74) argues 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. As what Grundy argues about maxim quality, Wagiman (2008) illustrate the example of the violating of maxim quality in example [4] below:

  [4] Lewis : ―Does tim drink spirits?‖

  Ruben : ―He has one million bottles of brandy, whisky, gin and rum.

  Ruben violates the maxim of quality to exaggerate, he is not answer the question shortly, but he prefers to added something useless, make his answer hyperbole.

2.3.1.3. Maxim of Relevant

  For maxim of relevant you have to be relevant, your contributions should be such that are relevant to the conversation).

  Grundy (2000: 74) states 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. Wagiman (2008) state the illustration of maxim relevant in example [5]:

  [5] July : ―Could you lend me 500 dollars?‖

  Agnes : ―Am I billionaire?‖ Agnes violates the maxim of relevance, be relevant, in order to be forthright that she cannot lend July 500 dollars.

2.3.1.4. Maxim of manner

  Maxim of manner is when one tries to be as clear, as brief, and as orderly as one can in what one says, and where one avoids obscurity and ambiguity.

  Wagiman (2008) illustrate the violating of maxim of manner on purpose to be polite in example [6]: [6] Max

  : ―I hear you went to the opera last night; how was the lead singer?‖ Be

  : ―The singer produced a series of sounds corresponding closely to the score of an aria from rigoletto.‖ From example [6] we can see b disobeys the maxim of manner, thereby implying that the singer wasn‘t very good.

2.3.2. The Politeness Principles The other principle of conversational implicature is politeness principles.

  According to Yule (1996: 60), politeness can be defined as the means employed to show awareness of another person‘s face. In this sense, politeness can be accomplished in situations of social distance or closeness. Showing awareness for another person‘s face when the others seem socially distant is often described in terms of respect. Showing the equivalent awareness when the other is socially close is often described in terms of f riendliness, ―camaraderie‖ or solidarity.

  Kasper (cited in Nanda et al, 2012: 125) clarifies that conversational view sees politeness principles as a complement to Grice‘s cooperative principles. The cooperative principle controls conversation whose purpose is optimally efficient transmission of information. Lakoff (1989: 64) contends that the principle of politeness addresses relational goals, which mainly serve to reduce friction in personal interaction.

2.3.2.1. Types of Politeness (Yule, 1996) 2.3.2.1.1. Positive Politeness

  Positive politeness which deals with face saving act which is concerned with the person‘s positive face. This tends to show solidarity, emphasizes that both speakers want the same thing and they both have a common goal.

  Positive politeness usually is about attends to the hearer, avoid disagreement, assume agreement, and hedge opinion. Positive Politeness makes the hearer feel good about themselves, interests, or possessions. (Usually audiences are familiar to one another) example: be optimistic, inclusive, use in group markers, joke.

  In addition to hedging and attempts to avoid conflict, some strategies of positive politeness include statements of friendship, solidarity, compliments, and the following examples from Brown and Levinson (1987):

   Attend to hearer‘s interests, needs, wants

  You look sad. Can I do anything?

   Use solidarity in-group identity markers

  

Heh, mate, can you lend me a dollar?

   Be optimistic

I‟ll just come along, if you don‟t mind.

   Include both speaker and hearer in activity

  If we help eac h other, I guess, we‟ll both sink or swim in this course.

   Offer or promise If you wash the dishes, I‟ll vacuum the floor.

   Exaggerate interest in hearer and his interests

  That‟s a nice haircut you got; where did you get it?

   Avoid Disagreement

Yes, it‟s rather long; not short certainly.

   Joke

  Wow, that‟s a whopper!

  Yule (1996: 64) gives an example about positive politeness in example [7] below:

  [7]

  a. How about letting me use your pen?

b. Hey, buddy, I‘d appreciate it if you‘d let me use your pen.

  From example [7] a positive politeness strategy leads the requester to appeal to a common goal, and even friendship, via expression such those in [7].

2.3.2.1.2. Negative Politeness

  Negative politeness can be defined as a face saving act which is oriented to the person‘s negative face which tends to show difference. Risdiyanto (2011) also states that a person‘s negative face is the need to be independent, to have freedom for action, and not be imposed on by others. Yule (1996: 64-65) gives an example about negative politeness statement in example [8] bellow:

  [8]

  a. Could you lend me a pen?

  b. I‘m sorry to bother you, but can I ask you for a pen or something? c. I know you‘re busy, but might I ask you if you-- em

  —if you happen to have an extra pen that I could, you know —eh—maybe borrow?

  In example [8], the most typical form for negative politeness used is question containing a modal verb such as [8a]. [8b] contain expression of apology for the imposition. More elaborate negative politeness work sometimes be heard in extended talk, often with hesitations, similar to that shown in [8c].

  Negative Politeness presumes that the speaker will be imposing on the listener and there is a higher potential for awkwardness or embarrassment. Examples from Brown and Levinson (1987) include:

   Be indirect

  Would you know where Oxford Street is?

   Use hedges or questions Perhaps, he might have taken it, maybe.

  Could you please pass the rice?

   Be pessimistic

  You couldn‟t find your way to lending me a thousand dollars, could you? So I suppose some help is out of the question, then?

   Minimize the imposition

It‟s not too much out of your way, just a couple of blocks.

   Use obviating structures, like nominalizations, passives, or statements of general rules I hope offense will not be taken.

  Visitors sign the ledger.

  Spitting will not be tolerated.

   Apologize

  I‟m sorry; it‟s a lot to ask, but can you lend me a thousand dollars?

   Use plural pronouns We regret to inform you.

2.3.2.2. Maxims in Politeness Principle

  Besides that, according to Leech (1983, cited in Risdiyanto. 2012), politeness principles are distinguished into six maxims:

2.3.2.2.1. The Maxim of Tact

  It requires the participants to minimize cost to other and maximize benefit to other. This maxim implemented by directive / impossitive and commissive utterances. The directive / impossitive utterance is a form of utterance commonly used to show a command either direct or indirect. This utterance can usually be found in some utterances such as; inviting, commanding, ordering, advising, etc.

  Meanwhile, the commissive utterance is the utterance functioning to declare a promise or offer something. The purpose of this maxim is to reduce the words that are not polite and assume negative and detrimental to the listener, but to say that positive remarks and polite.

  Example: Marissa

  : ―Can I finish getting dressed, please? Thank you.

  Stephanie : ―You‘re the one who keeps talking about being a manager. All I am saying is, it could be you.‖

  Marissa employs tact maxim in her utterance since she minimizes the cost to Stephanie. It can be proved by seeing the indirect utterance used by Marissa to Stephanie. This indirect utterance shows that Marissa wants Stephanie to help her, but she makes an utterance as if she doesn‘t ask Stephanie to help her wearing the uniform. It seems that she just wants Stephanie to give more time to her to finish her dressing by herself. Marissa‘s utterance is not force Stephanie to help her friend. It shows that Marissa is being tactful in delivering a request to Stephanie (Nurdianingsih, 2006: 21)

2.3.2.2.2. The Maxim of Generosity

  The generosity maxim is to minimize benefit to self and maximizing cost to self. Like tact maxim, the generosity maxim occurs in commissives and directives/ impositives. This maxim is centered to self, while the tact maxim is to other.