THE ACQUISITION OF
CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURES
BY A FIVE-YEAR-OLD INDONESIAN CHILD
A Thesis
Submitted to the English Applied Linguistics Study Program in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Magister Humaniora
By:
N U R L I A H
Registration Number: 8106111062
ENGLISH APPLIED LINGUISTICS STUDY PROGRAM
POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL
THE ACQUISITION OF
CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURES
BY A FIVE-YEAR-OLD INDONESIAN CHILD
A Thesis
Submitted to the English Applied Linguistics Study Program in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Magister Humaniora
By:
N U R L I A H
Registration Number: 8106111062
ENGLISH APPLIED LINGUISTICS STUDY PROGRAM
POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
In the name of Allah, The Loving and The Merciful. The very first of all,
the writer’s endless and infinite gratitude is primarily expressed to Allah swt as
The Creator, for His blessings and mercy that the writer can finish this thesis. In
addition, shalawat to the Prophet Muhammad s.a.w also must be delivered for his
loving that all people can be out of the darkness into the lightness especially in
education as experienced by the writer today.
So many people are carried and really helpful in the accomplishing of this
thesis, even with direct or indirectly role. Their contributions are really
uncountable to be revealed because it is realized by the writer that they have
different positions with different ways in supporting the thesis finishing. Hence,
the writer would like to convey her great gratitude to her thesis consultants, Prof.
D.P.Tampubolon, Ph.D and Dr. Anni Holila Pulungan, M.Hm, for their great
ideas, guidance and patience that lead the writer to the end of this thesis
completition. She should also thank to the board of examiners Prof. Amrin
Saragih, M.A, Ph.D, Prof. Dr. Berlin Sibarani, M.Pd and Prof. T. Silvana Sinar,
M.A., Ph.D for their constructive comments, suggestions and valuable time in
improving this thesis.
The writer also would like to extend her sincere gratitude to the Head of
LTBI, UNIMED, Prof. Dr. Busmin Gurning, M.Pd and his staff, Farid, for their
iv
like to thank to all lecturers for their knowledge and character building during the
process of teaching and learning either at classes or outside.
At this opportunity, the writer also must express her thanks to her husband
Sahata Silalahi and her sons Fahmi Syauqi Silalahi (especially for his great role as
the subject of this research) and Tasqinal Ardho Silalahi, for their loves and
understanding during the writer’s time of studying and carrying out the thesis. The
writer knows well that their rights as a husband and children have been reduced
because of the writer’s activity, especially in conducting this research. Later, to
the writer’s parents, Rubiah and Poniman, for their endless spirit and praying. The
writer knows well how both of them always effort to give their attention for the
writer’s success in all of her life sides.
Finally, the writer realizes that this thesis is still so far from being perfect.
Therefore, she really appreciates all of the constructive critics for its
improvement.
Medan, December 2012
Nurliah
v
CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii CONTENTS vi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS x LIST OF APPENDICES xi CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1.1 The Background of the Research ……… 1
1.2 The Problems of the Study ………. 6
1.3 The Objectives of the Study ………... 6
1.4 The Scope of the Study ……… 7
1.5 The Significance of the Study ……….. 7
CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 2.1 Language Acquisition ……… 8
2.1.1 The Process of Language Acquisition ……... 8
2.1.2 Factors that Influence Language Acquisition 11 2.1.2.1 Social ………. 11
2.1.2.2 Perceptual .………... 12
2.1.2.3 Cognitive Processes ………... 12
2.1.2.4 Conceptual .……….……… 13
2.1.2.5 Linguistic ....………. 13
vi
2.4.2. The Characteristics of Conversational Implicature ………. 26
vii
2.4.6.1 Reasons based on the maxims analysis……… 37
2.4.6.1.1 To avoid a deep evaluation from the addresse and to state opinion ………. 38
2.4.6.1.2 To want to get other’s trust and to save selves by lying ……… 38
2.4.6.1.3 To explain based on the expectation and to avoid discomfort things ………. 38
2.4.6.1.4 To show up the knowledge and intelligence and to avoid confrontation ……….. 39
2.4.6.2 Reasons based on the speaker’s background 2.4.6.2.1 The complicated requirements of social communication ……… 39
2.4.6.2.2 The interaction in community ………. 40
2.4.6.3.3 The distinctive culture ………..……….. 40
viii
3.7.2 Transferability ……….. 51
3.7.3 Dependability ……… 52
3.7.4 Confirmability ………. 52
CHAPTER IV DATA ANALYSIS 4.1 Data Analysis ……… 53
4.1.1 Types of Conversational Implicatures …… 54
4.1.1.1 Generalized Implicature ……….. 57
4.1.1.1.1 Clausal Implicature ………. 60
4.1.1.1.2 Scalar Implicature ……… 62
4.1.1.2 Particularized Implicature ……… 65
4.1.1.3 Combination of Conversational Implicatures 66 4.1.2 The Process of Conversational Implicature 67
4.1.3 The Reasons of Using Conversational Implicatures ……… 70
4.2 Findings ……….. 77
4.3 Discussions ……… 79
CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS 5.1 Conclusions ………. 83
5.2 Suggestions ………. 84
REFERENCES
ix
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
A : Appendix
CI : Conversational Implicature
ND : Number of Dialogue
S : Sentence
p : page
gci : generalized conversational implicature
ci : clausal implicature
si : scalar implicature
pci : particularized conversational implicature
om : obeying maxims
fm : flouting maxims
omm : obeying maxim
oqm : obeying quantity maxim
orm : obeying relation maxim
frm : flouting relation maxim
fqm : flouting quantity maxim
fmm : flouting maxim
x
LIST OF APPENDICES
Page
Appendix 1 ………. 90
Appendix 2 ………. 118
Appendix 3 ………. 126
Appendix 4 ………. 130
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1The Background of the Study
The study of children‟s language acquisition is always interesting to be investigated. There are still many puzzles found by the researchers. It‟s about how they acquire the very complex system of language such as phonetics, syntax,
semantics and pragmatics which are related to each other and interwoven in a
single unity. It becomes a miracle for humans and it makes a big question for the
scientists. It is only a gift given by God or in other words it is innate or it is
acquired through processes which engage many factors such as the children
biological aspects, children‟s learning and environmental influences. All of these views are debated year by year since the exact answers of this milestone have not
been found yet.
Dealing with pragmatics acquisition, especially about conversational
implicatures, the phenomena about what types of conversational implicatures have
been acquired and how they are used by children become actual researches. It is
in line with the different subjects with different ages investigated and also
different approaches applied so it results different findings by those researchers.
For example about the phenomenon of conversational implicatures
acquisition can be seen on Fahmi, a five-year-old Indonesian child, the writer‟s own son. One day, suddenly he approached his mother and said „Mi…gak usahlah
2
sekolah ya.‟ (Mom. I do not want to go to school). Her mother at first was
confused with her son‟s expression because during two weeks after registering her son in Kindegarten School, Fahmi looked very happy and was eager to begin to
study at school. But the writer‟s surprise did not emerge any more since Fahmi answered her mother‟s question by saying „Iya. Lama kali pun sekolahnya. Makanya gak usah daftar aja.‟ (Yeah. It‟s so long to enter the school. So, it‟s better to not registering soon). Fahmi‟s utterances are known as conversational
implicature since the utterance is not the same with the speaker‟s intention. The
words „gak usah –do not want‟ does not mean as the literal meaning of the words but actually is influenced by the context that the speaker, Fahmi, is not patient any
more waiting for the time for starting school at kindegarten. So, what is said by
Fahmi is not the same as what is meant by Fahmi himself actually.
Explaining the definition of conversational implicatures as it occurs on the
child above, Grice (1975:158) as the first person who introduces the term of
implicature gives the notion of a conversational implicature as one kind of
implicature beside a conventional implicature to account for the fact that
sentences 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 principles of cooperation between
participants in a conversation.
In addition, according to Brown and Yule (1983:31), conversational
implicature is derived from a general principle of conversation plus a number of
3
meaning by or understood from the utterance or sentence, which goes beyond
what is strictly said or entailed. The meanings depend on how the reader or the
hearer interpretes a certain utterance or sentence. Then, conversational implicature
refers to the inference of the hearer which makes about the speaker‟s intended meaning that arises from their interpretation of the literal meaning of what is said.
Further, Rohrig (2010:10) says that conversational implicature is as
pragmatic inference which is not based on the semantic value of a word but on the
Cooperative Principle as well as the Conversational Maxims and the context.
From all of the definitions above, the writer tends to take the last
explanation which says that conversational implicature is one kind of implicature
in which the speaker‟s meaning or intention can be gotten from the Cooperative Principle as well as the Conversational Maxims and the context.
Grice (1975:158) formulates the Co-operative Principle as mentioned
above as „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. Mulyana (2001:58) adds that the
Co-operative Principle has a character as the regulation for the Conversational
Maxims. That‟s why, normatively, in every conversation, both the speaker and the hearer have to obey it. However, sometimes this regulation is not obeyed. There
are many cases of violation of the cooperative principles. It does not mean that it
4
effort from the speaker to affect the certain implicature such as for lying, making
funny and just kidding.
The example of conversational implicature and the violation or the flout of
the maxim can be seen in the conversation between A and B in the context of
office, A : “Do you have any Decolgen?”, B : “I have some Bodrex, but at home”. In this example, it can be seen that the answer of B to A does not exist expectedly. There is flout of the maxim, namely relation maxim. The expected
answer is „yes‟, „there is Decolgen in my shelf‟ (in the office), but unexpectedly,
the answer is „there is the other medicine namely Bodrex and it is at home.‟ However, the speaker A can understand that actually the interlocutor B just
intends to make a joke by saying that he has no Decolgen but Bodrex as the same
kind of medicine for headache but it is at home. So, the implicature of this dialog
is that „B does not have any Decolgen in his hand or in the office.‟
Grice divides conversational implicature into two subcategories;
particularized implicature and generalized implicature, and the generalized
implicature itself is divided into two, namely scalar implicature and clausal
implicature. The explanation so far about these divisions will be discussed in the
next chapter.
Several previous studies prove that children‟s acquisition of implicature in different ages have different ability in using implicature. For example, as
investigated by Lande (2003), in her thesis about pragmatics acquisition, she finds
that a four and half-year-old child has acquired implicature, that is conversational
5
which focuses on the speech acts and implicatures, she also has the same
assumption as Lande‟s that the types of implicature acquired by a four year-old child still in very limited concepts and just got in the purpose to express what the
child wants.
In accordance with the explanation above, in this research the writer is
interested in studying about conversational implicatures acquisition by a child of
five-year-old as a case study on Fahmi, the writer‟s own son. The topic of conversational implicatures itself is chosen due to the reason as Levinson
(1983:97) states that the notion of conversational implicature is the single most
important idea in Pragmatics.
Unlike the previous researches which are not detailed in discussing the
types and the processes of implicatures acquired, this study further wants to
analyze the implicature types acquired by the subject, Fahmi, by using Grice
theory (1975) of implicatures with the cooperative principle and conversational
maxims analysis. In additian, this study also wants to analyze how the child uses
those types of implicature in his daily conversation with the others around him.
The only one subject or one child is decided in this research since this
study is language acquisition and conducted as a case study, so it must be
investigated personally and can be done on an individual. Further, the age of five
chosen in this study is based on the study of Bates (1976) in Rohrig who describes
in her work that children go through three stages when acquiring pragmatics
before their linguistic behavior reaches the same level of linguistic competence as
6
which applies to 18 month-old babies; the Preoperational Period, which describes
the pragmatic competence between the age of 18 months and 4 years and the
Concrete Operational Period, which refers to four- to six-year-old children. In line
with this description, the writer decides to investigate what, how a-five-year old
child who includes in the Concrete Operational Period acquires conversational
implicatures. As we know that children in this period are considered to be active
speakers with good speaking to communicate his mind. That‟s why the writer is interested in observing the child in this age.
1.2 The Problems of the Study
Based on the background of the study above, the problems are formulated
in questions as the following:
1. What types of conversational implicature are acquired by a five-year-old
Indonesian child?
2. How is the conversational implicature used by the child ?
3. Why is the conversational implicature used in the way it is?
1.3 The Objectives of the Study
In accordance with the problems of the study, the objectives of this
research are:
1. to identify the types of conversational implicatures found in the
7
2. to describe how the conversational implicatures are used in the
utterances produced by the child and
3. to give the reasons of conversational implicatures used in the child‟s utterances.
1.4 The Scope of the Study
The writer conducts this study in the scope of first language acquisition,
particularly the conversational implicatures acquisition as one of the acquisition
field in Pragmatics. The data is limited to the Indonesian words produced by a
five-year-old child in his daily activities.
1.5 The Significance of the Study
Findings of the study are expected theoretically and practically to give
much contribution in the world of children language acquisition research.
1. Theoretically, this study becomes the basic of the further research which is
also interested in investigating the same area with different focus and
object.
2. Practically, findings of this study become some sort of guidelines for the
teachers, adults, and particularly parents who directly touch this area, in
order to be able to guide their children in having good language
83
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
5.1 Conclusions
After deliberately analyzing the data, the conclusions are stated as follows:
1. The two types of conversational implicatures namely clausal implicature
and scalar implicature and particularized implicature in the child’s
utterances are found in different contexts. In addition, a combination of
both of them namely clausal implicature and particularized conversational
implicature is also found.
2. The four processes of uttering conversational implicatures namely by
flouting maxims (quantity, quality, relation and manner maxims) occurred
in the child’s utterances. Those processes occurred when the child refused
command, when he told his opinion and when he revealed his prediction.
3. There are various kinds of the child’s purposes as his reasons in uttering
his sentences. The purposes based on the maxims analysis found as the
theory given involve 12 categories, namely : (1) to say opinion, (2) to
advise, (3) to defend self, (4) to make a joke, (5) to inform, (6) to say like,
(7) to ask something, (8) to say dislike, (9) to avoid discomfort, (10) to ask
help, (11) to avoid quarrel and (12) to avoid the next question. While,
there are 9 categories found beside those reasons namely (1) to refuse, (2)
to guess, (3) to do something soon, (4) to stay at something, (5) to play
84
imagination, (6) to change like and (7) to imitate an action. Beside, among
the reasons based on the speakers’ background, there was only one of them
found in this research namely interaction in community. The other factors
were not found because of the subject’s maturity.
5.2 Suggestions
Based on the conclusions stated above, this study has some suggestions to
the readers with may be different positions as follows :
1. To the other researchers, it is suggested to conduct the same topic with
more subjects with different ages to see the difference between them so the
acquisition of those subjects can be seen more accurately and clearly.
2. To parents or caregivers, it is suggested to use and trigger conversational
implicatures to children since this pragmatics acquisition is the most
meaningful study in language.
3. To teachers, school interaction can be a good environment in helping
children to increase their competences in communication. One of the
competences is using conversational implicature. That’s why, it is
expected to those teachers to build a good interaction with students by
uttering conversational implicature so that the children are accustom to the
ways and later be proficient in their daily conversation particularly with
