AN ANALYSIS OF CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURES DURING THE DEBATES BETWEEN 2012 CANDIDATES OF DKI JAKARTA GOVERNOR.

(1)

Dony Wijaya Kusumah, 2015

AN ANALYSIS OF CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURES DURING THE DEBATES BETWEEN 2012 CANDIDATES OF DKI JAKARTA GOVERNOR

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | \.upi.edu perpustakaan.upi.edu

AN ANALYSIS OF CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURES DURING THE

DEBATES BETWEEN 2012 CANDIDATES OF DKI JAKARTA

GOVERNOR

A Research Paper

Submitted to the Department of English Education in Partial Fulfillment of

the Requirements for Sarjana Sastra Degree

By:

Dony Wijaya Kusumah

1003418

(2)

THE FACULTY OF LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE EDUCATION

INDONESIA UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION

(3)

AN ANALYSIS OF CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURES DURING THE DEBATES BETWEEN 2012 CANDIDATES OF DKI JAKARTA GOVERNOR

AN ANALYSIS OF CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURES

DURING THE DEBATES BETWEEN 2012 CANDIDATES

OF DKI JAKARTA GOVERNOR

Oleh

Dony Wijaya Kusumah

Sebuah skripsi yang diajukan untuk memenuhi salah satu syarat memperoleh gelar Sarjana pada Fakultas Pendidikan Bahasa dan Sastra

Agustus 2015

(4)

AN ANALYSIS OF CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURES DURING THE DEBATES BETWEEN 2012 CANDIDATES OF DKI JAKARTA GOVERNOR

(5)

AN ANALYSIS OF CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURES DURING THE

DEBATES BETWEEN 2012 CANDIDATES OF DKI JAKARTA

GOVERNOR

A Research Paper

By

Dony Wijaya Kusumah

1003418

Approved by:

Main Supervisor Co-Supervisor

Eri Kurniawan, M.A., Ph.D. Ruswan Dallyono, S.Sos.,M.Pd.

NIP. 198111232005011002 NIP. 197008032005011002

The Head of English Education Department

The Faculty of Language and Literature Education

Indonesia University of Education

(6)

(7)

AN ANALYSIS OF CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURES DURING THE DEBATES BETWEEN 2012 CANDIDATES OF DKI JAKARTA GOVERNOR

An Analysis of Conversational implicatures During the Debate between 2012 Candidates of DKI Jakarta Governor

Dony Wijaya Kusumah1, Eri Kurniawan2, and Ruswan Dallyono3

English Education Department, Faculty of Language and Literature Education, Indonesia University of Education

(Email: donykusumah1992@USA.com)

This study seeks to investigate the conversational implicatures during the debate between 2012 candidates of Jakarta Governor and to identify which maxims the candidates failed to observe, also to identify what implicatures that are attained from the violated maxims. Data were taken from DKI Jakarta governor candidates debate aired on Metro TV on August 18, 2012. Data relevant to implicatures were marked and numbered. The data were analyzed by classifying conversations with maxim violations. The results show that the governor candidates commit flouting towards Grice's (1975) maxims. The maxim the candidates violated the most was relevance maxim. Furthermore, the flouting occurs due to several factors comprising lack of knowledge, insufficient evidence, and avoidance answering questions in purpose. However, even though some violations were done, some of the candidates were able to use sentences or utterances in compliance with the cooperative principles since only half of the data that are violated.

Keywords: Conversational Implicatures, Debate, Grice's Maxims, Maxims Flouting

Abstrak: Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui implikatur percakapan pada acara debat

antara calon Gubernur Jakarta tahun 2012 dan untuk mengidentifikasi maksim-maksim apa saja yang di langgar, serta untuk mencari tahu apa makna implisit yang terkandung ketika pelanggaran maksim tersebut terjadi. Data di ambil dari debat para calon Gubernur DKI Jakarta 2012 yang ditayangkan di Metro TN pada tanggal 18 Agustus 2012. Data yang berhubungan dengan implikatur ditandai dan diberi nomor. Data kemudian di analisis dengan cara mengelompokan percakapan dengan jenis maksim yang dilanggar. Hasil penelitian menunjukan bahwa benar adanya para calon Gubernur DKI Jakarta 2012 melakukan pelanggaran terhada maksim Grice. Maksim yang paling sering dilanggar adalah maksim relevan. Hal ini disebabkan oleh beberapa faktor yang diantaranya adalah karena kurangnya pengetahuan, kurangnya bukti dalam menjawab, bahkan beberapa pelanggaran sengaja dilakukan demi menghindari menjawab pertanyaan Bagaimanapun, terlepas dari maksim yang dilanggar oleh para calon kandidat, para calon tetap sadar akan prinsip kerjasama dalam percakapan.

(8)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION ... i

ABSTRACT ... ii

PREFACE ... iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ... iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS ... v

LIST OF APPENDICES ... viii

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ... 1

1.1 Background of the Study ... 1

1.2 Research Questions ... 5

1.3 Purpose of the Study ... 5

1.4 Scope of the Study ... 6

1.5 Significance of the Study ... 6

1.6 Research Methodology ... 6

1.6 Organization of the Study ... 7

CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW ... 8

2.1 Grice (1975)’s Cooperative Principles... 8

(9)

2.1.2 Maxim of Quantity ... 10

2.1.3 Maxim of Relevance ... 11

2.1.4 Maxim of Manner ... 11

2.2 Conversational Implicatures ... 12

2.2.1 Generalized Conversational Implicatures ... 13

2.2.2 Implicature Scale ... 13

2.2.3 Specific Conversational Implicatures ... 14

2.3 Politeness:Principles and Maxim ... 14

2.4 Hedges ... 18

2.5 Concluding Remarks... 20

CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ... 21

Research Design ... 21

3.1 Data Collection ... 21

3.2 Data Analysis ... 21

3.3 Concluding Remarks... 23

CHAPTER IV FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS... 24

4.1 Research Findings ... 24

4.1.1 The flouting of Quality Maxim. ... 25

(10)

4.1.3 The flouting of Relevance Maxim ... 30

4.1.4 The flouting of Manner Maxim ... 36

4.1.5 Scaled Implicatures ... 40

4.1.5.1 Quantity Scale ... 40

4.1.5.1 Frequency Scale ... 41

4.1.5.1 Certainty Scale ... 42

4.1.6 Hedges ... 43

4.2 Discussion ... 46

BAB V CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS ... 50

5.1 Conclusions ... 50

5.2 Suggestions ... 51

REFERENCES

(11)

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | \.upi.edu perpustakaan.upi.edu LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix 1 Data Collection Technique

Appendix II Data of Violation towards Maxims

STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION

I certify that the research paper entitled “An Analysis of Conversational Implicatures During the Debate Between 2012 Candidates of DKI Jakarta Governor” and submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of sarjana

sastra degree is my own work, except where due references are made in the text,

and that it contains no material which has been submitted for the award of any other degree or diploma in any university or institution.

Bandung, August 2015

(12)

ABSTRACT

An Analysis of Conversational Implicatures During the Debate Between 2012 Candidates of DKI Jakarta Governor

Dony Wijaya Kusumah (1003418)

Main Supervisor: Eri Kurniawan, M.A., Ph.D.

Co-Supervisor: Ruswan Dallyono, S.Sos.,M.Pd.

(13)

Keywords: Conversational Implicatures, Debate, Grice's Maxims, Maxims

Flouting

PREFACE

First and foremost I want to thank Almighty God, the compassionate, the almighty Merciful, who kindly helped me to complete this research by providing the blessings of health, strength and ability.

The research paper, entitled “An Analysis of Conversational Implicatures During the Debate Between 2012 Candidates of DKI Jakarta Governor” is submitted to the English Education Department in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for Sarjana Sastra Degree.

(14)

Bandung, August 2015

Dony Wijaya Kusumah

ACKNOWLDEGEMENT

The success of this research is attributed to the extensive support and assistance from my supervisor, Mr. Eri Kurniawan, M.A., Ph.D. I would like to express my grateful gratitude and sincere appreciation to him for his guidance, valuable advice, supervision, encouragement and kindness to me throughout this study. He’s been a father figure to me and had never made me feel that my father is not with me by providing me the advices at times. Not to forget Mr. Ruswan Dallyono S.Sos.,M.Pd, who deserves my huge appreciation for his intellectual supports, valuable ideas, guidance and patience in directing and correcting my writing.

(15)

Your support and care helped me overcome setbacks and stay focused on my study. I greatly value our friendship and I deeply appreciate your belief in me.

(16)

(17)

1 Dony Wijaya Kusumah, 2015

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

This chapter is an introductory section of the present study. It consists of background of the study, research questions, aims of the study, significance of the study, scope of the study, clarification of key terms, and organization of the paper.

1.1 Background of the Study

The function of language has become more important especially when it comes to debating. A debate forum functions as a media which provides some 'big' ideas for the people who are the audience of the forum to assess one’s interests through the language used by the debaters. A debater is forced to speak well, to the point and to follow the context of the current issues which is being discussed. Context of language use is limited from everything that is outside the text knowing context is a natural trait that grows beyond language or discourse

meaning in speech (Saragih, 2006).

Conversation is essentially a spoken language event between two or more

participants which generally occurs in a relaxed atmosphere. Conversation is a container that allows the realization of the principles of cooperation (maxims) and decorum in speaking events. In order to do so, an understanding towards conversational implicatures is needed, so that what is said and implied can be understood well by the hearer.

(18)

Conversational implicatures are used to describe the meaning behind what is actually written or said or something that is implied. Conversational

Paradoxically enough, people fail to observe the maxims whether deliberately or accidentally. There are five major ways of failing to observe a maxim, namely: flouting (to lead the addressee to look for a covert, implied meaning), violating (prevents or at least discourages the hearer from seeking for implicatures), infringing (occurs when a speaker fails to observe the maxim, although s/he has no intention of generating an implicature and no intention of deceiving), opting out (unwillingness to cooperate in the way the maxim

requires.), and suspending (no expectation on the part of any participant that one or several maxims should be observed).

Based on the explanation above, it can be concluded that the knowledge of conversational implicatures is needed when we are about to observe one’s interest through language. A debate is one of activities in which implicatures occur. This happens because the participants are not only forced to answer panelist's questions critically, but also they need to get their opinions delivered and accepted by the people in the forum.

(19)

Participating in politics is a consequence of politicizing communication (Nimmo, 2011). Such notion is done through one’s socializing experience in establishing trustworthiness, value and hopes that are relevant with politics. It causes the grown-ups to actively play a role in politics.

As a form of evaluation towards the election, there is an urgent need to give a concrete effort in participating towards the provision of candidates capable of improving the election quality. One of the efforts done in doing so is through a candidate debate.

A candidate debate forum or candidate dialogue has been a means of improving candidates’ quality given that in this forum (1) the candidate will describe the background of their participation as well as the programs to be done once they get elected, (2) the candidates are able to convince people with constructive and critical insights, (3) the people will freely and democratically get

acquainted with the agendas proposed by the candidates, (4) the candidates are demanded to truthfully compete with other candidates’ programs, visions and

missions.

In the candidate debate forum, the candidates are required to communicate well and assertively. There is a crucial need to consider the linguistic context suitable with current society condition. The classification of context is very facilitative in interpreting the meaning of language used by such candidates. The public needs pragmatic-related knowledge to get a grasp on the meanings beyond such political language.

The classification of context puts ease in interpreting a meaning as shown in illustration as follow. A panelist asked a question to a governor candidate regarding what action that he will take in order to clear problems of the city which he is about to govern once he wins the election.

(20)

(B) "There are things that I would like to do once I become the governor. I know clearing all the problems in this city will not be easy. But, If I win this election, I promise I will make this city better than before."

In this illustration, B expresses more meanings than just a group of words he has delivered. The response given by B was not informative towards A's question. B has obviously violates relevance maxim: when A wants clear strategies or actions that B will conduct when he is elected, B only promises that he will make the city he is about to govern better. Here, a possible implicature is that B only focuses on promoting himself and has no clear strategy to conduct once he is elected as a governor.

A debate is consequently a crucial vehicle for candidates to advance their ideas or interests. Hence, today's candidate debates are publicized by way of any media to reach broader audience. This is considered effective to express one's interest in the politics.

Research on conversational implicatures has investigated a number of areas such as language acquisition, comedy, reality show and also debate. Among

others are Pessy (2003) and Tuti Tresnawati (2005). Pessy (2003) studied child acquisition of pragmatics by an Indonesian boy. Since he focuses on speech acts and implicature, his findings reveal that the boy had obtained four of the five types of speech acts, namely: representative, expressive, directive, and commissive. Moreover, implicature is derived from phrases the boy used when he wants something.

(21)

A Similar line of research came from Nanda (2012) through his analysis through “Take Me Out Indonesia”. He found that the conversational implicatures were analyzed in the same way which was by analyzing what maxims were not observed during the conversation.

Departing from some of the results obtained from the previous studies, there appears a gap that it is not only violations that pose a conversational implicature, but also the form of adherence to the Grice (1975)’s principless of cooperation. Conversational implicatures with the intention of explaining what might be interpreted, implied, or intended by the speaker in a conversation serve as the main element in conveying humor or other purposes which is missing from all the studies.

This phenomenon has inspired the researcher of this study to conduct research on conversational implicatures during a debate between 2012 candidates

of DKI Jakarta Governor. A debate between DKI Jakarta Governor is chosen because Jakarta is considered as the capital city of Indonesia. Thus, it is taken to

be the battle ground for all political parties. Besides, during this election the candidates come from outside of Jakarta which makes it interesting. The data analysis will focus on the candidates' answers towards panelist's questions in order to find what maxims fail to be observed and to show what the candidates should have been said to avoid some violations to Grice (1975)'s cooperative principles.

1.2 Research Questions

The research questions of this study are as follows:

1. What cooperative principles were not observed in the 2012 Jakarta Governor’s election?

2. What conversational implicatures were generated during the debate as a result of the violation of cooperative principles?

(22)

This study aims to do the following:

1. To reveal what cooperative principles were not observed in the 2012 Jakarta Governor’s election.

2. To reveal what conversational implicatures were generated during the debate as a result of the violation of the cooperative principles.

1.4 Scope of the Study

This study is limited to a discussion of the principles of cooperation in conversation when maxims are not observed or violations are difficult to avoid during a debate between 2012 candidates of DKI Jakarta governor. The selected data were taken from a debate forum which was shown by Metro TV on August 18, 2012.

1.5 Significance of the Study

This study is to serve as the basis for future plans to teachers/researchers who are working in the field of pragmatics. The result is hoped to shed light on

how exactly maxims are purposely violated by the speaker in order to conceal some of his or her intentions or interests. Furthermore, this study is expected to

benefit some future researchers by providing the facts needed to compare their study during the time they conduct similar studies.

1.6 Research Methodology

In order to solve the problem of this research, there were three steps being

taken, namely 1) data collection, (2) analyzing the data, and (3) presenting the results of data analysis (Sudaryanto, 1993). The selected data were taken from a

(23)

1.7 Organization of the Study

(24)

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter presents the methodology used in this study. As mentioned in Chapter I, this study seeks to investigate the conversational implicatures during the debate between 2012 candidates of Jakarta Governor and to identify which maxims failed to observe by the candidates, also to find what implicature that is attained from the violated maxims. The rest of this chapter presents the data collection, the data analysis and a sample of the data alaysis.

Research Design Sudaryanto (1993). The procedures of this study were undertaken by the process of recording the candidates' debate show, Transcribing the results of these candidates debate, identifying the conversation according to Grice (1975)'s theory of cooperative principles and classifying the violated conversational maxims.

3.2 Data Analysis

(25)

implicature comes after the process of identification is done. These conversational implicatures were obtained by interpreting the non-observant conversations according to Grice (1975)'s maxims. Interpretation can be done by connecting the data with linguistic context and social context which includes the elements of situation, culture and ideology. A sample of the data analysis is as follow:

A question from panelist:

(Bahasa Indonesia)

"Apabila kita melihat ternyata inflasi di Indonesia eh.... di jakarta, itu sangatlah tinggi. Nah, bagaimana stabilitas harga terutama kebutuhan pokok masyaakat Jakarta, yang miskinnya, bisa distabilkan? apa yang harus dilakukan?

(English)

“When we also look at the actual inflation in Indonesia eh… in Jakarta, it is very high. So, how can the price stability especially on the essential needs for Jakarta people, especially the poor, be stabilized. What will be done?”

The response from Alex Nurdin:

(Bahasa Indonesia)

"Bagaimana menstabilkan bahan pokok... mengetahui kalau masalah kebutuhan pokok mencakup tingkat nasional, saya pikir banyak gubernur yang akan datang ke menteri-menteri yang bersangkutan terhadap isu kebutuhan pokok ini untuk menyelesaikan kasus ini. Maka dari itu, pemerintah pusat haruslah bisa bekerja sama dengan pemerintahan jakarta dalam menyelesaikan masalah ini. Hal ini serupa dengan apa yang pernah kita alami, minyak contohnya. Bagaimana cara kita melakukan proses dalam mengkonversi gas emh... minyak menjadi gas. Hal tersebut membutuhkan kerjasama yang baik."

(English)

“How can the stability of the essential needs… since the issue on the essential needs copes nationally, I suppose more governor will come to the ministries relevant to the issue on the essential needs to solve the problem. More data regarding poverty caused by the essential needs. Thus, the national government will be able to cooperate with Jakarta to solve such problem. It’s just like what we experience, oil for example. How is the process to convert gas emh… oil to gass. It needs a good coordination.”

(26)

Alex has not got definite ideas on how to overcome the problems on poverty and the unstable price of the essential needs.

The response that should have been given by Alex to be obedient to the relevance maxim is as follow. “As a new personnel in government environment, we will discuss the issue regarding the essential needs with the respective departments and discuss the strategies to be taken to stabilize the price of the essential needs.”

3.3 Concluding Remarks

(27)

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

This chapter is the last part of the paper. It presents conclusions and suggestions related to the present research. Some suggestions are offered to future researchers who are interested in analyzing the conversational implicatures in any context.

5.1. Conclusions

After analyzing the data, it can be concluded that, (1) the governor and vice governor candidates commit flouting towards conversational maxim namely quality maxim, relevance maxim, quantity maxim, and manner maxim in communicating their response towards panelists’ questions. The relevance maxim happened to be the most violated maxim due to the purpose of DKI Jakarta governor candidates to be acknowledged by the audiences or to avoid specific questions.

(2) The flouting occurs mainly due to several factors comprising lack of

comprehension on what is being asked, lack of knowledge on the field being asked by the panelists, insufficient evidence on the existing problems in Jakarta

and psychological aspects such as nervousness and lack of confidence resulting in the flouting of conversational maxim.

Furthermore, (3) the candidates are not aware that they commit the flouting of conversational maxim when they give their responses. The responses communicated are irrelevant to the panelist’s question, unclear, groundless and unnecessarily excessive. Moreover, the candidates also commit flouting of more than one type of conversational maxim.

(28)

5.2. Suggestions

(29)

References

George, Y. (1996). Analisis Wacana (edisi terjemahan oleh I. Soetikno). Jakarta: PT Gramedia Pustaka Utama.

Goffman, E. (1956). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday

Grice, H.P. (1975). Logic and Conversation, Syntax and Semantics, vol.3 edited by P. Cole and J. Morgan, Academic Press

Jannedy, S. (1994). Language Files: Sixth Edition. Ohio: Ohio State University Press Columbus.

Levinson, C.. (1997). Pragmatics. Great Britain: Cambridge University Press.

Lyons, J. (1977). Language, Meaning and Context. London: Cambridge University Press.

Mujiyono, W. (1996). Implikatur Percakapan Anak Usia Sekolah Dasar. Malang: IKIP Malang.

Nababan, P. (1987). Ilmu Pragmatik (Teoridan Penerapannya). Jakarta: Depdikbud Dirjen Pendidikan Tinggi Proyek Pengembangan Lembaga Pendidikan Tenaga Kependidikan.

Parera, J. (2004). Teori Semantik: Edisi Kedua. Jakarta: Erlangga.

Peccei. (1999). Pragmatic. London: Routledge.

Pessy. (2003). A Study of Speech Acts and Implicature Acquisition and The

Acquisition of A Four-Years Old Indonesian Boy. Skripsi S1. Jakarta:

Universitas Kristen Petra.

Renkema, J. (2004). Introduction to Discourse Studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

(30)

(31)

Sudarma, T. (1993). Metode Linguistik: Rancangan Metode dan Kajian. Bandung: Eresco.

Sudaryanto. (1993). Metode dan Aneka Teknik Analisis Bahasa: Pengantar

Penelitian Wahana Kebudayaan secara Linguistis. Yogyakarta: Duta

Wacana University Press.

Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in Interaction: an Introduction to Pragmatics. London/New York: Longman.

Tresnawati, T. (2005). Implikatur Percakapan Sebagai Unsur Utama

Pengungkapan Humor Dalam Wacana Komedi Situasi Bajaj Bajuri.

Skripsi S1. Semarang: Universitas Negeri Semarang.