This research aimed to classify the types of conversational implicature and the reasons of using implicature in utterances that used by the characters in Antigone drama. The researcher used descriptive qualitative method to analyze the data. All data were collected and analyzed based on the Thomas (1995) theory of conversational implicature for classifying the types of conversational implicatures and Grice (1975) theory of cooperative principles for analyzing maxims violation in Antigone drama. 

The result of the study showed there are 60 data containing the types of conversational implicatures. generalized conversational implicature presents the dominant frequency more than particularized conversational implicature. There are 58 data of violation maxims on generalized conversational implicature (96%). Those are 26 data on violation maxim of quality (43%); 20 data on violation maxim of quantity (26%); 12 data on violation maxim of relevance (Relation) (20%) and 4 data on violation maxim of manner (7%). Some others data, there are 2 data of violation maxims on particularized conversational implicature (4%). And the next rank is particularized conversational implicature. Those are 1 datum on violation maxim of relevance (Relation) (2%) and 1 datum on violation maxim of manner (2%). In addition, the researcher also found some reasons of using implicatures (teasing, refusing, hurting, apologizing, convincing, showing vanity, wishing, caring (sympathy), reminding, informing, guessing, self-defending, angrying, disappointment, ignorance and informing)

, Drs. Agus Wijayanto M.A., Ph.D.

Cahyati, Dani Puji

UMS Digital Library - Selamat datang di UMS Digital Library

  AN ANALYSIS OF CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURE IN ANTIGONE DRAMA MANUSCRIPT      Submitted as a Partial Fulfillment of the  Requirements for Getting Bachelor Degree of  Education in English Department    By  DANI PUJI CAHYATI A320130219     DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH EDUCATION SCHOOL OF TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION UNIVERSITAS MUHAMMADIYAH SURAKARTA 2017    ii      APPROVAL  AN ANALYSIS OF CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURE IN ANTIGONE DRAMA MANUSCRIPT  RESEARCH PAPER  Proposed by  DANI PUJI CAHYATI A320130219    Approved to be examined by Consultant School of Teacher Training and Education     Consultant,   Drs. Agus Wijayanto M.A., Ph.D NIK. 978   i    ii   ACCEPTANCE  AN ANALYSIS OF CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURE IN ANTIGONE DRAMA MANUSCRIPT   By: DANI PUJI CAHYATI A320130219   Accepted and approved by the Board of Examiners  School of Teacher Training and Education Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta in May 2017   Team of Examainers:  1. Drs. Agus Wijayanto M.A., Ph.D.        (                                                 ) (chair Person) 2. (Secretary)                                                (                                                 ) 3. (Member)                                                  (                                                 )      Dean    Prof. Dr. Harun Joko Prayitno, M.Hum. NIP. 196504281993030  iii AN ANALYSIS OF CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURE IN ANTIGONE DRAMA MANUSCRIPT Abstrak Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menggolongkan tipe-tipe percakapan implikatur dan beberapa alasan dari penggunaan implikatur di dalam ucapan-ucapan yang digunakan karakter-karakter di dalam drama Antigone. Peneliti menggunakan metode kualitatif untuk menganalisis data. Semua data dikumpulkan dan dianalisis sesuai dengan teori dari Thomas (1995) tentang percakapan implikatur untuk menganalisis tipe-tipe dari percakapan implikatur dan teori dari Grice (1975) tentang prinsip-prinsip kerjasama untuk menganalisis pelanggaran-pelanggaran maxim di dalam drama Antigone. Hasil penelitian ini menunjukkan terdapat 60 data yang mengandung tipe percakapan implikatur. Generalized Conversational Implicature (percakapan implikatur yang berkontek sumum) menyajikan frekuensi dominan lebih banyak daripada Particularized Conversational Implicature (percakapan implikatur yang berkonteks khusus). Terdapat 58 data yang terjadi pada pelanggaran maxim-maxim yang tergolong Generalized Conversational Implicature (96%). Yaitu terdiri dari 26 data dari pelanggaran Maxim kualitas (43%); 20 data pelanggaran Maxim of kuantitas (26%); 12 data pelanggaran Maxim relevan/Relation (20%) dan 4 data pelanggaran Maxim cara (7%). Beberapa data lainnya, terdapat 2 data pelanggaran maxim yang tergolong pada Particularized Conversational Implicature (4%). Yang pertama adalah 1 data mengenai pelanggaran Maxim relevan/relasi (2%) dan 1 data mengenai pelanggaran Maxim cara (2%). Selain itu, peneliti juga menemukan beberapa alasan di dalam penggunaan implikatur. Diantaranya yaitu: menggoda, menolak, menyakiti, memintamaaf, meyakinkan, menunjukkan kesia-siaan, berharap, peduli (simpati), mengingatkan, memberitahu, menebak, membeladiri, marah, kecewa, tidak tahu apa dan memberitahu . Key: tipe-tipe percakapan implikatur, pelanggaran maxim, alas an dari penggunaan implikatur. Abstract This research aimed to classify the types of Conversational Implicature and the reasons of using Implicature in utterances that used by the characters in Antigone drama. The researcher used descriptive qualitative method to analyze the data. All data were collected and analyzed based on the Thomas (1995) theory of conversational implicature for classifying the types of conversational implicatures and Grice (1975) theory of cooperative principles for analyzing maxims violation in Antigone drama.  1  The result of the study showed there are 60 data containing the types of Conversational Implicatures. Generalized Conversational Implicature presents the dominant frequency more than Particularized Conversational Implicature. There are 58 data of violation maxims on Generalized Conversational Implicature (96%). Those are 26 data on violation Maxim of Quality (43%); 20 data on violation Maxim of Quantity (26%); 12 data on violation Maxim of Relevance (Relation) (20%) and 4 data on violation Maxim of Manner (7%). Some others data, there are 2 data of violation maxims on Particularized Conversational Implicature (4%). And the next rank is Particularized Conversational Implicature. Those are 1 datum on violation Maxim of Relevance (Relation) (2%) and 1 datum on violation Maxim of Manner (2%). In addition, the researcher also found some reasons of using implicatures (Teasing, refusing, hurting, apologizing, convincing, showing vanity, wishing, caring (sympathy), reminding, informing, guessing, self-defending, angrying, disappointment, ignorance and informing). Key: Types of conversational Implicature, maxims violation, reasons of using implicature. 1. INTRODUCTION According to Cruse (2006) Linguistics was divided into six of number there were Phonetics, Phonology, Morphology, Syntax, Semantics, and Pragmatics. Pragmatics was the central topics of linguistic pragmatics were those aspects of meaning which are dependent on context. Yule (1996) argued that Pragmatic was the study of relationship between linguistic form and the users of those form. And pragmatic divided Pragmatics into five numbers. There were deixis, implicature, speech act, discourse and presupposition and aspect of discourse structure. And Thomas (1995) divided implicatures into two types: Conversational Implicature and Conventional Implicature. The ﬁrst type was conversational implicature. It was referred to convoy the meaning of speaker said in conversation, but did not explicitly express.  People needed to communicate with each other everyday. They communicated by using conversations. Conversation was occurred when people communicated and interacted between one and each other. Conversation was the real form of language used in interacting with the 2  other people. Levinson (1983) defined that conversation as the familiar kind of talk in which two or more participants freely alternated in speaking in which generally occurred outside specific institutional settings. It was assumed that, there were at least two participants, the speaker and the hearer who carried out the conversation and they interchange the roles. In conversation, people often used vague communication. It means that people did not use direct communication to convey the meaning of their utterances. Sometimes, they expressed their meaning by indirect communication or implicit meaning. They wanted tocommunicate or to inform more than what they said. The hearers might find the obscure meanings in context of situation in conversation. According to Thomas (1995) there were two types of implicatures. They were Conversational implicature and conventional implicature. Both of them conveyed the meaning of the utterance. Thomas argued that they differed in that in the case of conventional implicature, the same implicature was always conveyed, regardless of context, whereas in the case of conversational implicature that was implied varies according to the context of utterance. The concept of implicature was developed by Grice (1975). His concept was actually a theory about how people used a language. Related to implicature, Grice (1975) claimed that there were four basic maxims that specify the participants have to do in order to converse in maximally efficient, rational, cooperative way where they should speak sincerely, relevantly, orderly, informatively, and clearly, while providing sufficient information. There were four basic maxims of conversation: Maxim of Quality, Maxim of Quantity, Maxim of Relevance, and Maxim of Manner. This research used Antigone Drama manuscript because the researcher found some participants of Antigone drama used conversational implicatures in their utterances. They used violation maxims in some 3  utterance. Drama defined into one of literature work. Drama was a story of human life which played by some characters on the stage.  In this research, the researcher analyzed the utterance used by the characters in Antigone Drama. They were Creon, Antigone, Ismine, Haimon, Messenger I, Messenger II, Teiresias, Sentry and Choragus. Firstly, there was one example of maxims violation analysis in Antigone manuscript:  Antigone said to Ismine:”…that is what is they say, and our good Creon is coming here to announce it publicy; and the penaltystoning to death I the public squarel”.  This conversation explained that Antigone was giving explanation to Ismine about their king Creon who was buried their brother named Etheocles with military honors gave him funeral. But, he gave the proclamation that no one could bury Polineices with the honor too. Ethoecles and Polieneices, both of them were the brother of Antigone and Ismine. They were death because of the war that the made in the city. The utterance “our good Creon is coming” has the implicit meaning. In this utterance, the word “good” was mean irony. The meaning of the word “good” was bad.  Based on the explanation of cooperative principles by Grice (1975) from this review, speaker violated maxim of quality (do not say what you believe to be false). 2. RESEARCH METHOD  This research used qualitative research to analyze the data.The object of the research was conversational implicature of utterances among the characters of Antigone drama. The data in this research were utterances of three main characters of Antigone drama were containing linguistics form especially in conversational implicature which was found on the data. This research used documentation for collecting the data to get information 4  about conversational implicature that used in Antigone. The data would be analyzed based onThomas’s theory related to the types of conversational implicature and Grice’s theory about the cooperative principles of conversational implicature. 3. FINDING AND DISCUSSION Research finding presented on the diagram show the types of conversational implicature and the reasons of using implicature in utterances used by the characters of Antigone Drama. Thomas (1995) divided conversational implicature into two types. There are generalized conversational implicature and particularized conversational implicature. Conversational implicature happened when the participants used the maxims violation in their utterances. Based on the Grice (1975), he divided cooperative principles into four maxims. There are maxim of quality, maxim of quantity, maxim of manner and the last maxim of relevance. This research found four maxims in Generalized Conversational Implicature and one maxim in Particularized Conversational Conversation.The result of data findings is presented in the diagram. Diagram 3.1. Types of Conversational Implicature  0%20%40%60%80%100%120%Generalized Conversational ImplicatureParticularized Conversational ImplicatureManner MaximRelevance MaximQuantity MaximQuality Maxim96% (58 data)4% (2 data)5  Based on the findings, the researcher found 60 data that used implicature. And the researcher served Generalized Conversational Implicature as the dominant frequency of types of implicsture in Antigone drama. The following examples: 1. Generalized Conversational Implicature: a. Maxim of Quality Antigone: “And our good Creon is coming” (Data/01/MQ/Antigone) b. Maxim of Quantity Haimon: “I am your son, father, You are my guide.” (Data/49/MQT/Haimon)  c. Maxim of Relation/relevsnce Creon:“You talk too much” (Data/13/MR/Creon) d. Maxim of Manner Antigone: “Ask Creon. You’re always hanging on his opinions.” (Data/17/MM/Antigone) 2. Particularized Conversational Implicature a. Maxim of Relation/relevsnce Creon:“An enemy is an enemy, even dead.” (Data/29/MR/Creon) b. Maxim of Manner Haimon: “Ah, who is that’s talking like a boy?” (Data/53/MM/Haimon)  The researcher also presented the table of reasons of using implicature in the characters of Antigone drama. This table displayed the number calculate the reasons of using implicature. 6  Table 3.1. Data the reason of violating maxims NO. Maxim Violation The Reason of Using Maxim Violation  (The Reason of Using Implicature)    1.    Maxim of Quality Teasing  Refusing  Hurting  Apologizing  Convincing  someone Showing vanity Wishing  Caring (sympathy)   2.  Maxim of Quantity Convincing Teasing Hurting    3.   Maxim of Relevance Reminding Informing Guessing  Angrying Self-defending   4.  Maxim of Manner Disappointment and ignorance  Reminding  Informing  Teasing   Those were the reason of violating maxim in utterances used by the characters of Antigone Drama. The first was Maxim violation of Quality 7  consisting of the reasons (Teasing, Refusing, Hurting, Apologizing, convincing someone, showing vanity, wishing, caring/sympathy). The second was Maxim violation of Quantity consisting of the reasons (Convincing, Teasing and hurting). The third was Maxim violation of Relevance (Relation) consisting of reasons (reminding, Informing, Guessing, Angrying and Self-defending). And the last was Maxim violation of Manner consisting of the reasons (Disappointment and ignore, Reminding, Informing and Teasing). Based on the analysis of the data, an utterances used by the characters in Antigone drama, the conversational implicature that most often appear was Generalized Conversational Implicature especially in violating of Quality Maxim.   4. CONCLUSSION  This research found 60 data containing of types of Conversational Implicature in utterances used by the characters in Antigone Drama. There were 58 data maxims violation in Generalized Conversational Implicature (96%): Maxim of Quality 43% or 26 data; Maxim of Quantity 26% or 16 data; Maxim of Relevance (Relation) 20% or 12 data; and Maxim of Manner 7% or 4 data. And some others data, there were 2 data violation maxims in Particularized Conversational Implicature (4%) consisting of two maxims violation: Maxim of Relevance (Relation) 2% or 1 datum; Maxim of Manner 2% or 1 datum. It was displayed that the best rank was Generalized Conversational Implicature and the next or the lowest rank was Paricularized Conversational Implicature. The researcher also found some reasons of using implicature. Those were the reasons of violating maxim in utterances used by the characters of Antigone Drama. The first was Maxim violation of Quality consisting of the reasons (Teasing, Refusing, Hurting, Apologizing, convincing someone, showing vanity, wishing, caring/sympathy). The second was Maxim 8  violation of Quantity consisting of the reasons (Convincing, Teasing and hurting). The third was Maxim violation of Relevance (Relation) consisting of reasons (reminding, Informing, Guessing, Angrying and Self-defending). And the last was Maxim violation of Manner consisting of the reasons (Disappointment and ignore, Reminding, Informing and Teasing). Based on the analysis of the data, an utterances used by the characters in Antigone drama, the conversational implicature that most often appear is Generalized Conversational Implicature especially in violating of Quality Maxim.  BIBILIOGRAPHY Cruse, A. (2000).Meaning in Language: An Introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cook, Jiyon. (2014). “Context, Expectation and Conversational Implicature: A Pragmatic Analysis of Good”. Theory and Practice in Language Studies. Branch: Islamic Azad University. Seoul: Sogang University. Grice, H. P. (1989) Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press Levinson, S C. 1983. Pragmatics.Retrieved October 13, 2016, from http://www.stanford.edu/~jurafsky/prag.pdf. Mey, Jacob L. (2004). Pragmatics 2nd edition. Australia: Blackwell Publishing Thomas, Jenny. (1995). Meaning in interaction: An introduction to pragmatics.Harlow: Pearson Education. Retrieved October 13, 2016, from http://www.Amazon.com.books/.pdf. Yule, George. 1996a. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.  Yule, George. (2006). The Study of Language. An Introduction Australia: Cambridge University Press.  9  

An Analysis of Conversational Implicature in Antigone Drama Manuscript

http://eprints.ums.ac.id/53770/17/naspup-1.pdf

An Analysis of Conversational Implicature in Antigone Drama Manuscript

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

UMS Digital Library - Selamat datang di UMS Digital Library