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
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.
Salatiga, March 5th, 2015 The writer
MOTTO
―There's always a first time for everything‖
DEDICATION
To
My beloved Dad (Mr. Sutrisno) and Mom (Mrs. Daryatun)
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.
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.
Salatiga, March 5th, 2015 The writer
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 movie ―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.
TABLE OF CONTENT
2.3. Conversational Implicature ... 14
2.3.2.2.2. Maxim of Generosity ... 26
2.4. Conventional Implicature ... 30
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
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?‖
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 interpret 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.
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 American comedy film released by
neighborhood children1. 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
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 movie script ―The Little Rascals Save the Day‖.
1.4. Benefits of the Study
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
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
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
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.
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 includes presupposition, implicature, entailment, speech act, and deixis2. From the definition above, the writer concludes that pragmatics is the study about how to
2
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 interpretation 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
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
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.
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,
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
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 informative. 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
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]:
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
terms of respect. Showing the equivalent awareness when the other is socially close is often described in terms of friendliness, ―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.
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 each 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!
[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?
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.
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
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 intention is to show the attitude of courtesy to others in a way willing to do anything for others, to be good without expecting anything from others.
Example:
―You must come and have dinner with us‖.
In this case the speaker implies that cost of the utterance is to his self. Meanwhile, the utterance implies that benefit is for the hearer.
2.3.2.2.3. The Maxim of Approbation
The approbation maxim requires to minimizing dispraise of other and maximizing praise of other. This maxim instructs to avoid saying unpleasant things about others and especially about the hearer. This maxim occurs in assertives/ representatives and expressives.
The expressive utterance is the utterance which its function is
to express the speaker‘s psychological attitude toward a situation. This
Example:
―I know you're a genius - would you know how to solve this
math problem here?‖
2.3.2.2.4. The Maxim of Modesty
In the modesty maxim, the participants must minimize praise of self and maximize dispraise of self. This maxim is applied in assertives/ representatives and expressives like the approbation maxim. Both the approbation maxim and the modesty maxim concern to the degree of good or bad evaluation of other or self that is uttered by the speaker. The approbation maxim is exampled by courtesy of congratulation. On other hand, the modesty maxim usually occurs in apologies.
Example:
―Please accept this small gift as prize of your achievement.‖
In this case, the utterance above is categorized as the modesty maxim because the speaker maximizes dispraise of himself.
2.3.2.2.5. The Maxim of Agreement
between self and other. The disagreement, in this maxim, usually is expressed by regret or partial agreement.
Example:
A: ―Let‘s eat some potatoes tonight‖
B: ―Ok, I will get the potatoes in the market now!‖
2.3.2.2.6. The Maxim of Sympathy
Sympathy maxim requires a speaker and a hearer to maximize sympathy and minimize antipathy between them.
Example:
―I am sorry to hear about your father.‖
Sympathy maxim serves as a way of showing empathy towards others. This includes congratulating, commiserating and expressing condolences.
2.3.3. The Ironical Principle
When Cindy says ―I don't like parties,‖ we cannot interpret what she said
hardly perspicuous to use a sentence to mean the opposite of what the sentence means. Indeed, it is hard to see how any implicatures could be worked out on the basis of the maxims, because it would always be more perspicuous to explicitly state something rather than implicate it. While both are included in manner, perspicuity often clashes with brevity.
We use irony in part because we have conversational goals other than the efficient communication of information. We observe not only the cooperative principle, but also the ironical principle.
Irony indicates that what is meant is the contradictory of what is said. The use of irony is intentional. In other word, we employ this linguistic device in utterance if we want the addressee to encode the extra meaning hidden in the ironical remark. Irony is contradicting either what the speaker has said or usually says, or, contradicting what the take to be true. To read the irony a hearer or reader do not just have to know the context, but also have to be committed to specific beliefs and positions within that context (Colebrook, 2004: 166, Stykatova, 2009: 53).
Irony principle is a second order principle, which builds upon, or exploits, the principle of politeness. It allows the hearer to arrive at the offensive point of the
speaker‘s remark indirectly, by way of implicature (Leech, 1983: 82, Stykatova,
dialogue, it makes explicit and implicit dialogues more sophisticated and it is more laborious for readers.
The use of irony in conversation is intentional. The author of the literary works employs irony with some particular goal; they wish to achieve a particular purpose. Irony can have a function humor and ridicule. It can serve only for entertaining the the readers. The speaker or writer may want to be sarcastic, he or she may want to indicate that something is disapproved but does not want to be too direct when criticizing (Stykatova, 2009: 55).
2.4. Conventional Implicature
According to Grice (1975, cited in Nanda et al., 2012: 124), the conventional meaning of the words used will determine what is implicated, besides helping to determine what is said. Conventional implicature works with specific words and results in additional conveyed meanings when those words are used (Yule, 1996: 45). It is not related with cooperative principle and not tied to the context in which they occur for the interpretation. Conjunctions are the specific words that Yule means in his description. Some examples of the conjunctions are and, so, but, therefore, and however.
We can see a conventional implicature in, ―Umar is a Padangese, and
therefore, he is good at business‖ to implicate that ―every Padangese is good at
conjunction ―but‖. The utterance, ―I gave her money, but she refused it.‖ Consists of
two information‘s, ―I gave her money‖ and ―she refused the money.‖ Implicating
unexpected situation.
2.5. Movie
Movie is something familiar in the showbiz, everybody like it, everybody enjoy it, there are even a few who make it a hobby. Today is not really difficult to find a movie. There are so many artist and producers who make it to entertain and sometimes give interesting information.
A movie or motion picture, is a series of still images which, when shown on a screen, creates the illusion of moving images due to the phi phenomenon, that is an optical illusion causes the audience to perceive continuous motion between separate objects viewed rapidly in succession3.
Movie made for entertaining, showing skill the artist and gets some of profit for that. Technological advances make the better quality of the movie and interesting to watch. The producers are competing to make the movie interesting as possible to attract the audience, because the audience is the main target in the screening.
There are so many kinds genre of movie to watch, like horror, science fiction, musical, melodrama, romantic comedy, action/adventure, fantasy, biopic, war, historical, teen comedy, animation, biblical, mystery, crime thriller, suspense, parody,
3
mockumentary, blaxploitation, disaster, political, court drama, social problem, and also pornography.
All of them are about art, imaginer, does not really exist in reality. And watch movie is something refreshing, enjoying and entertaining.
2.5.1. Implicature in a Movie
As we know according to Grice (1975) 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, it is mean we have to interpret what people implicitly meaning in their utterance. In each utterance people usually not aware when they did not mention directly what they want, at that time implicature arise, make the hearer have to understand well what the speaker mean so there is no misunderstanding between them.
In movie something like that often used. It is makes a variation in the language, and more interesting.
Nanda et al., (2012) investigates a conversational implicature in an Indonesian variety show called Take Me Out. Exactly take me out Indonesia is not a movie, it is such a game show in Indonesia, although it is not a movie but this show aired in Indonesian channel television.
That paper is a pragmatic study that aims at investigating conversational implicature that the presenters of take me out Indonesia operate within their utterances along with the possible implications that lie behind implicature. Qualitative method was employed in processing the transcription of the recorded implicature data.
The study concludes that various types of implicature were used in informal game show conversation to make interaction flows smoothly.
Another study about this pragmatic field is Lestari‘s study (2013). She
investigates the implicature existing in a movie. She collects the main data from utterance. In her conclusion, she presents several the types of conversational implicature based on cooperative principle used in movie. She concludes that the cooperative principle is important to understand the movie.
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
This study is descriptive. Kumar (1998, cited in Inayati et al, 2014: 55) argues that in a descriptive study, the researcher describes systematically a situation, a problem and phenomenon. It is also to provide information about a condition of living in the communities or an issue. Similar to Kumar, Arikunto (2010: 3) also writes that a descriptive study is intended to investigate the situation, condition, circumstances, events, and other activities, and the result presented in the form of the study report.
In this chapter, the writer presents type of study in section 3.1, and object of the study in section 3.2. In section 3.3, the writer discusses the data source and in section 3.4, the technique used to collect the data. Finally, in section 3.5, the writer discusses the technique of analyzing data and in section 3.6, the writer presents the
information about ―The Little Rascals Save the Day‖ movie in movie review.
3.1. Type of Study
Creswell 1994: 147) state that qualitative study is interpretative study. As such, the biases, values, and judjement of the researcher become stated explicitly in the research report.
Arikunto (2010: 27) states that in qualitative study, the writer does not use numbers in collecting data and in providing interpretation of the results. However, it does not mean that in this qualitative study researchers did not use numbers.
Woods (2006, cited in Inayati at al., 2014: 55) argues that qualitative method focuses on natural setting, has interest in meaning, perspectives and understanding, and gives great consideration on process.
The purpose of qualitative research is to understand something specifically, not always looking for the cause and effect of something and to deepen comprehension about something that studied (Moleong, 2009:31).
Qualitative research is concerned with developing explanations of social phenomena. It aims to help us to understand the social world in which we live and why things are the way they are.
In this study, the general methodology used to investigate the implicature in
the conversation in ―The Little Rascals Save the Day‖ movie is socio-pragmatic
3.2. Object of the Study
The object of the study was the conversational implicature used in ―The Little
Rascals Save the Day‖ movie scripts. The writer analyzed all of the conversational
implicature which appeared in the movies conversation in the form of script.
3.3. Data Sources
Moleong (1998, cited in Arikunto, 2010: 22) states that data sources of qualitative study presented in spoken or written that accurate by the writer. Data source should be original, however if the original data is difficult to get, photocopy or imitation is not be a problem, as long as the evidence can be acquired.
According to Arikunto (2010: 21-22), a qualified study is study that has complete data, primary data and secondary data. Primary data is data in the form of verbal or words spoken orally, gestures or behavior by subjects who can be trusted, in this case is the subject of research subjects (informants) with respect to the variable owned. Secondary data is data obtained from the documents graphics (tables, records, meeting notes, SMS etc), photographs, films, video recordings, objects, etc., which can enrich the primary data.
In this study, the primary data was taken the document from the script of 2014
American comedy‘s movie. ―The Little Rascals Save the Day‖ movie was carried out
brings back the ―Our Gang‖ kids in another slapstick-filled comedy4. The script of
this movie was taken from website5 which the writer compressed in text form. The secondary data were taken from books, journals and websites.
3.4. Technique of Collecting Data
The exact method for qualitative study is a mix of various data sources and multi-method of the data collection (Arikunto 2010: 25). The data source can be either human, object, situation, event or occurrence, appearance and behavior of people (or other creatures like animal), and various forms of writings, drawings, graphs, and other graphical forms.
In this study, the writer used documentation as the way to collect the data. According to Arikunto (2010: 201), documentation was from the original word document, which means that stuff writing. In implement the method of documentation, researchers investigated the objects written as books, magazines, documents, regulations, meeting notes, diaries and so on.
Usually the method of documentation is used to be observe inanimate objects. Documentation method is the primary method if researchers want to use content analysis approach. Arikunto (2010: 202-203) continues that documentation methods is looking for a data about things or variables in the form of notes, transcripts, books,
4The Little Rascals Save the day is a remake of The Our Gang 1937‘s movie. The writer explained
little bit in chapter 1 and the whole about the movie is in next chapter.
5
newspapers, magazines, inscriptions, meeting notes, etc. This method is somewhat not so difficult, because if there is a mistake about the data the source data remains unchanged.
In this study, the writer uses documentation method to analyze data from ―The
Little Rascals Save the Day‖ movie. The writer also uses taking note method to
complete the data. To sum up, the steps that are used to collect the data are as follow: a. The writer decided to investigate the movie ―The Little Rascals Save the Day‖ b. The writer watched the movie
c. The writer searched the script of the movie, and changed in printed form d. The writer read the script in order to understand the story well
e. The writer selected the conversational implicature which were found in the movie scripts
f. The writer collected and took a note about the conversational implicature from the movie scripts
Table 3.1. Instrument used to collect the data
Field Code Information
1st CPMQN Cooperative Principle – Maxim of Quantity CPMQL Cooperative Principle – Maxim of Quality CPMR Cooperative Principle – Maxim of Relevant CPMM Cooperative Principle – Maxim of Manner PPPP Politeness Principle – Positive Politeness PPMA Politeness Principle – Maxim of Approbation PPMM Politeness Principle – Maxim of Modesty
IP Ironical Principle
2nd 01, 02, 03… Number of occurrence as specified in the 1st
field
3rd 01, 02, 03… Number of data
A combination of codes as per table 3.4, creates a technique string of code for each conversation in the data. For example: CPMQN01001, means that the data is a conversation which violates maxim quantity; this is data number 1 in this type and data number 1 for all the data. Therefore, there is no data has the same string of code as another.
3.5. Technique of Analyzing Data
In summary, the steps which the writer uses in analyzing the data are as follow:
a. Reading and analyzing ―The Little Rascals Save the Day‖ movie script.
b. Selecting the Conversational Implicature on ―The Little Rascals Save the Day‖ movie script
c. Collecting the Conversational Implicature on ―The Little Rascals Save the
Day‖ manuscript.
d. Describing and analyzing the Conversational Implicature and socio-cultural
background on ―The Little Rascals Save the Day‖ movie script.
e. Making the conclusion and suggestions based on data analysis.
3.6. Movie Review
―The Little Rascals Save the Day‖ is a 2014 American comedy movie
released by Universal Pictures. The movie is an adaptation of Hal Roach's Our Gang, a series of short movies of the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s which focuses on the adventures of a group of neighborhood children6.
In this section the writer discusses any information relevant to the ―The Little
Rascals Save the Day‖ movie. The information is listed in table 3.2 below:
Table 3.2 Information related to ―The Little Rascals Save the Day‖ movie7.
Alex Zamm is an American movie director. He has directed numerous movies from 1998 to now. Raised in Woodstock, New York, Alex started his career as a
―The Little Rascals Save the Day‖ full cast & crew
Director Alex Zamm Greg Germann as Ray ―Big Ray‖ Kaye
cartooning and illustration at the School Of Visual Arts, before receiving a Master of Fine Arts (MFA) in screenwriting and directing from Columbia University's Graduate Film Program, where he was mentored by such directors as Miloš Forman and Martin Scorsese.
Alex Zamm is known for his work on Chairman of the Board (1998), Inspector Gadget 2 (2003) and My Date with the President's Daughter (1998)8.
3.6.1. Synopsis
This movie tells about the story of a group of neighborhood children that consist of 5 boys. They are Spanky, Alfafa, Stymie, Porky, Buckwheat and one girl named Mary Ann plus their dog, called Petey. Spanky gives names for their group as The International Silver String Submarine Band, because their group also a band.
The stories begin in the class where Spanky, Alfafa, Mary Ann and Steimy get their last day in the school before their long holiday. Before the class is over, Spanky gives a signal to Alfafa. Alfafa continues the signal to Mary Ann and she gives the signal to Stymie. Stymie makes a sound to continue the signal to their dog Petey in the window. Then Petey comes and wakes Porky and Buckwheat up. The meaning of the signal is to start their plan to get out from the class. They finally can get out from the class but they feel regret. This because, they miss their ice cream cake that their teacher has bought to them to celebrate their last day in the school.
8
The stories continue in Grandma‘s bakery shop. The kids practice their music
in their tree house beside Grandma‘s bakery shop. Suddenly, Grandma calls them and
asks them to keep the shop for a while because she has to handle something in the bank. This is so funny and troublesome when they got an order to make a big red velvet cake from the costumer. They try to make a big cake by them self with a strange flavor and this makes a big trouble. They destroy the shop with a big blast from their strange cake.
The side story of this story is the love story between Alfafa and his dreaming girl Darla, also his rival Waldo. Alfafa always dream that one day he can get Darla as
his lover. However, although he always tries to get Darla‘s attention but he always
failed. This is because Waldo always gets Darla in his side by his power of money. The problems arise when Grandma tells the kids that the shop has to be closed. A bank officer informs Grandma that she owes the bank $10,000. If she is unable to pay the money in two weeks, she will lose her bakery. The matters get
worse when Waldo‘s father wants to buy the bakery and replace it with a shopping
mall and Waldo wants the kids' tree house for himself.
wrestling competition. But they get nothing for all of their work, they just gets some trouble.
CHAPTER IV
DATA ANALYSIS
In this chapter the writer presents data presentation in section 4.1. Next, the writer discusses analysis of cooperative principle in section 4.2, analysis of politeness principle in section 4.3 and the last is the analysis of ironical principle in section 4.4.
4.1. Data Presentation
In this section, the writer discusses the data collected from the main issue of this study. In this study, there are 20 conversations with violates 3 conversations principles: cooperative principle, politeness principle and ironical principle. These violation leads to the occurrence of implicature. The data is presented in table 4.1.
Table 4.1. Types of violated conversations principles in
―The Little Rascals Save the Day‖ movie.
No Type of violated conversations
principles Number Percentage
1 Cooperative Principle 10 50
2 Politeness Principle 6 30
3 Ironical Principle 4 20
Total 20 100
From table 4.1, the frequency of conversation which violates the cooperative principle is the highest (50%). The writer assumes that this is because of the genre of
naughtiness of the kids in the movie. In the conversation, there are so many parts when the kids answer irrelevantly when someone ask or talk to them. Sometimes, there are also part when the cast speak hyperbole, something false or indirectly, and those are violates the types of cooperative principles.
The writer gives the example of each conversation principles which appear in
the ―The Little Rascals Save the Day‖ movie in example [1], [2], and [3].
[1] CPMR01005 (Cooperative Principle)
Alfafa : Hey, are you going to the library? Darla : I love books about cats. See?
Darla directly gives irrelevant answer toward Alfafa question. When Alfafa meets Darla on the way, he asks Darla whether she is going to the library or not. However, Darla does not answer Alfafa along with ‗yes‘ or ‗no‘. Instead, Darla
shows alfafa that she likes to read books about cat. Darla‘s answer implies that she is
going to library to read books about cats. Darla‘s answer violates maxim of
relevance, which is the types of cooperative principle, this happen when someone speak or tell the information irrelevant with the question.
[2] PPMA01012 (Politeness principle)
Officer Kennedy : Look, don't touch. You understand?
Spanky : Isn't there supposed to be a diamond on it? Oh, there it is. It looks real nice when you can see it.
Alfafa : Well, good luck, Officer Kennedy. Officer Kennedy : Thank you.
The kids greet Officer Kennedy well at first, but then they suddenly mock Officer Kennedy. They ask about how the relationship between Officer Kennedy and Ms. Crabtree, their beautiful teacher in the school. Officer Kennedy replies that he will soon confess his feeling to Ms. Crabtree. He shows the ring that he has just bought. The kids begin mocking Officer Kennedy by asking whether there is any diamond in the ring or not. Stymie put out a magnifying glass and tries to see if there is a diamond on the ring. The kids then talk impolite to Officer Kennedy by saying
‗not to blow it‘. The conversation in example [2] is show that the kids violated maxim
of approbation from politeness principle by look down towards Officer Kennedy.
[3] IP02018 (Ironical Principle)
Alfafa : Oh, man. Did you see that cake? Mary Ann : Not just a cake, an ice cream cake.
Stymie : Yeah, ice cream and cake. The two best things in the world all mixed together.
Spanky : Too many calories, men. And you all could stand to lose a few pounds anyway.
In the next sections, the writer will discuss the more detailed about conversation principles, especially for cooperative principle, politeness principle and ironical principle.
4.2. Cooperative Principle
The cooperative principle, along with the conversational maxims, partly account for conversational implicatures. Participants assume that a speaker is being cooperative, and thus they make conversational implicatures about what is said. Cooperative principle and their maxims or the rules have been discussed in chapter 2.
From table 4.1, there are 10 conversations which violate the cooperative principle. Based on the analysis, the writer identified each data into 4 types of cooperative principle. They are maxim of quantity, maxim of quality, maxim of manner and maxim of relevant. The 4 types of cooperative principle is show in table 4.2.
Table 4.2. Types of Cooperative Principles
No Types of Cooperative Principle Number Percentage
1 Maxim of Quantity (CPMQN) 2 20
2 Maxim of Quality (CPMQL) 2 20
3 Maxim of Manner (CPMM) 2 20
4 Maxim of Relevant (CPMR) 4 40
Total 10 100
cooperative principle occur relatively equal (20% for each type). The writer assumes that this issue is because the basic of the story, ―The Little Rascals Save the Day‖ movie is about how the kids make some trouble in their neighborhood, so sometimes they answer irrelevantly when someone ask to them.
From the analysis of ―The Little Rascals Save the Day‖ movie, the writer
gives the example of each violating maxim from cooperative principle in example [4], [5], [6] and [7].
As in Chapter 2, maxim of quantity is a condition when someone has to give the information just the necessary information only and do not give a contribution more informative than is required. The writer illustrates an example of conversation that violates maxim of quantity in example [4].
[4] CPMQN01001
Grandma : Oh, so, isn't there still one more day left at school? Spanky : They never do anything important on the last day. Stymie : Except eat ice cream cake.
This conversation happens when the kids come to Grandma‘s bakery after
they get off from the school. Grandma asks whether or not there is still one more day left at school. But, Spanky and Stymie answer her question with the information that
is exactly not really important to know. Spanky answer‘s is not an effective and
there is one more day left in the school. However, what he tells is that there is no important thing in their last day in the school so they decided to get off from the class.
From ―The Little Rascals Save the Day‖ movie scripts, the writer found 2
conversations which violates maxim of quality.
As what the writer presents in chapter 2, maxim of quality is a condition when the speaker should tell the truth, no lies and have the evidence of what his information about. The writer gives the example of conversation that violates maxim of quantity in example [5].
[5] CPMQL02004
Stymie : What are we going to do now? Yeah, we all got fired from our jobs.
Spanky : Alfalfa and me didn't get fired, we resigned. Working conditions were terrible. Mmm-hmm.
Conversation in example [5] occurs when the kids gather in tree house and discuss their next plan after they are all fired from their jobs. Styme asks about the plan; but Spanky does not answer his question, instead he implicitly says that he also get fired by saying that he does not get fired not resign from the job because the works condition is terrible. Example [5] is conversation which violates maxim of quality. In this conversation, Spanky does not tell the truth because the truth is that he makes a trouble in the Golf field and they got fired from their job.
should avoid obscurity, avoid ambiguity, speak directly, and not to be hyperbole when they tell the information. The violation maxim of manner in this data is because their information is so hyperbole or so obscure.The conversation violating maxim of manner is illustrated in example [6].
Bank Officer : This isn't a cookie. It's nirvana. It's bliss. It's a warm puppy. It's sleeping late on a summer morning, or walking barefoot on the beach at sunset. If this cookie were a woman, I would ask it to marry me.
Conversation [6] is a conversation which violates maxim of manner. Actually bank officer just wants to say that the cookies are really amazed. The cookies are really delicious, but he confesses it so hyperbole and absurd. So from the analysis above, it is clear that conversation in example [6] violates maxim of manner from cooperative principles.
From table 4.2 there are 4 conversations violate maxim of relevant. Maxim of relevant is that the speaker has to tell the information relevant with the ongoing topic (see chapter 2). One example of conversation violates maxim of relevant is shown in example [7].
[7] CPMR04008
Alfafa : Did I win?
Spanky violates the maxim of relevance, because his answer has no relation with what Alfafa has said. This scene is about Alfafa who gets really angry with Waldo. Alfafa imagines that he can hit Waldo with his hand and makes Waldo collapse, in reality he just hit a basket ball and the ball hit back his head and make him collapse and ask the kids unconsciously did he wins. And Spanky just answers what Alfafa said by the information that he gets big idea to get money by Alfafa incident.
4.3. Politeness Principle
Politeness Principle proposes how to produce and understand language based on politeness (see chapter 2). The purpose of Politeness Principle is to establish feeling of community and social relationship. Thus, Politeness Principle focuses on process of interpretation that the center of the study is on the effect of the hearer rather than the speaker.
From the analysis of ―The Little Rascals Save the Day‖ movie in table 4.1, the
Table 4.3 Type of Politeness Principle
NO Type of Politeness Principle Number Percentage
1 Maxim of Approbation (PPMA) 4 66,67
2 Maxim of Modesty (PPMM) 1 16,665
3 Positive Politeness (PPPP) 1 16,665
Total 6 100
There are 6 conversations which violate politeness principle. From the 6 conversations, the writer identifies each of them in more detail based on the type of politeness principle. From table 4.3, it seeing that conversations which violating maxim of approbation occur most frequently (66,67%).
The writer assumes it is because that the theme of this movie is about the naughtiness of the child, so usually they talking down each other or not showing their respect to the older one. But actually they are not usually like that, it is happen when they talk or speak with the antagonist character.
Example of each conversation violating types of politeness principle is shown in example [8], [9] and [10]. As the writer explains in chapter 2, maxim of approbation shortly has a meaning appreciation. Always try to give a respect to the other, not mocking, cursing, and talking down each other.
[8] PPMA02013
Manager : Here they are, gentlemen your new caddies. Mr. Kaye : Is this some kind of a joke?
It is the scene when Spanky and Alfafa becomes a caddie in Mr.Kaye‘s Golf
club. That is one of their ways to get the money for their grandma. The word ―is this
some kind of joke‖ by Mr. Kaye is an expression of not believing in the ability of
Spanky and Alfalfa. Mr. Kaye looked down Spanky and Alfalfa and sees them as a joke. And it is how Mr. Kaye violated the maxim of approbation because he did not respect Spanky and Alfafa.
In the data there is conversation violating maxim of modesty, maxim of modesty is a maxim about the simplicity or the humility. Being humble by reducing compliment or not too proud of oneself. The writer gives the example of conversation violating maxim of moodesty in example [9].
[9] PPMM01016
Mr. Kaye : Mrs. Larson? Ray Kaye, but my friends call me Big Ray, because I think big.
Grandma : Well, what can I do for you, Mr. Kaye?
Mr. Kaye‘s utterance violated maxim of modesty. He wants Grandma to
recognize that he is a rich person, has a big popularity and authority. His arrogant attitude is seen by his utterance and his annoying attitude in front of Grandma.
[10]PPNP01011
Alfafa : But I thought we were going to the library.
Waldo : That's okay, I'll take her. I'd offer you a ride, too, but clearly there's not enough room for three.
Darla : Sorry. Bye, Alfalfa.
Waldo has his opinion to take Darla with him without Alfafa. He tries to comfort Alfafa, by offer a ride together although it is just a joke for Alfafa. At the last, he gets Darla with him and left Alfafa behind.
4.4. Ironical Principle
From table 4.1 there are about 20% from all the data which violate ironical principle. Irony indicates that what is meant is the contradictory of what is said. To read the irony the hearer or reader do not just have to know the context, but also have to be connected to specific beliefs and positions within that context (see chapter 2).
Based on the analysis the writer gives the example of conversation violating the ironical principle below:
[11] IP03019
Postman : What is that noise? Grandma : That's the kids' band.
Postman : Oh... Well, tell them to keep practicing.
The postman comes to Grandma‘s bakery when the kids have been practicing.
The postman‘s expression is so bad when he heard the sound from the band.
CHAPTER V
CLOSURE
The purpose of this study is to identify the implicature in the conversations of
―The Little Rascals Save the Day‖ scripts movie. After collecting, presenting and
analyzing the data, the writer has also discussed the results of the analysis focusing on how conversation principles influence the implicature which occur in the conversation. Finally in this chapter, the writer would like to present the conclusions and suggestions of this study.
5.1. Conclusion
Based on the analysis of the data in chapter 4, the writer has answered the three problem question given in chapter 1. Thus, in this chapter the writer present the answers in three major conclusions as the findings found in this study: (1) types of violated conversation principles; (2) the most dominant type of violated conversation principles and (3) the context meaning of each conversational implicature. The writer will elaborate each of the conclusions in turn as follow.
