pragmatics

Eva Nur Mazidah
120710209
Pragmatics
Final Examination

Maxim of Conversation and Conversational Implicature in Four English Department Students

Utterance sometimes can not be understood semantically. Therefore in doing conversation we need to know further what lies behind the utterance. We have to see the context in which the utterance is spoken. Therefore, we need to study pragmatics to know further what actually happens within conversation.
Some of pragmatics studies are about cooperative principle, maxims and conversational implicature. Basically these three study work on the similar notion in pragmatics. They all deal with conversation contribution.
When we communicate each other, we try to make meaningful conversations by providing conversational contribution as is required (Grice in Paltridge, 2000). It is so-called the cooperative principle. It is a fact that not all people apply this cooperative principle. They are sometimes uncooperative in conversation. Thus it leads to speech errors but still they ignore such errors because the participants are trying to understand the underlying meaning of the conversation.
Grice in Yule (1996) argues that there are four maxims of conversation. They are maxim of quantity, quality, relation, and manner. Maxim of quantity tries to make the contribution as informative as required and make the strongest statement as can be given. Maxim of quality attempt not to say what is believed to be false and not to say for which adequate evidence is lacked. Next, maxim of relation asks the speaker to be relevant and maxim of manner asks the speaker to avoid obscurity of expression and ambiguity and to be brief and orderly. Though theses maxims have provided general rules in conversation, in fact, speakers tend to ignore these rules. Upon Grice maxims, we also recognize so-called floating maxim in which leads to conversational implicature. When a speaker obviously violates a maxim, he can imply something beyond what he says.
Therefore, in this writing, the objects are the use of maxims, the identification of maxims and their implicature in the conversations within 4 English department students.

See conversations listed in the table below.
Maxim of Quantity Used/Violated Implicature
Eva: How’s your city tour?
Rimba: Nice.

Maxim : used. Rimba gives a suitable response to Eva. Rimba answers with appropriate response to Eva’s question. Her city tour was nice
Eva: How about Sandra?
Rimba: she socialized well but her boyfriend is so awful. He always texts us. Annoying.

Maxim : violated. Information given is too much. Rimba gives too much. Eva only asks about Sandra while Rimba gives her additional information about how annoying Sandra’s boyfriend is. Rimba wants to say that Sandra is fine but the problem comes from Sandra’s boyfriend.
Eva: Did you go to Kota Gede?
Rimba: I went to Mirota

Maxim : violated. Yes or no is the appropriate answer needed by Eva. Rimba’s response should be yes or no. Rimba gives her too much information about where she went. Rimba implies that she did not go to Kota Gede, instead, she went to Mirota.
Eva: Are you satisfied with your proposal presentation?
Bunga: No, because they asked me many things.

Maxim: violated. Yes or no answer is enough. Bunga provides too much informationa to Eva. Bunga implies that the satisfaction loses because of many things.
Eva: What did they ask you?
Bunga: many things. They make me confused.


Maxim: violated. There are too much info given and generalization. Eva actually wants to know details questions given to Bunga. But Bunga over generalizes that by saying ‘many things’ and gives Eva her complaint. So, Bunga does not give proper information to Eva and implies that ‘there are too many to tell’.
Eva: Who are you proposal advisors?
Bunga: Mrs. Ita and Mr. Edy

Maxim: used. The answer is suitable. Bunga gives information as required.
They are her advisors.
Eva: Anyway, your jilbab is beautiful. I want to buy such jilbab. Where did you buy it?
Bunga: karmen market.

Maxim: violated Bunga actually gives the proper response to Eva’s question. But Eva implies further that Eva wants to know specific information where she buys jilbab. Eva hopes that she gives her which seller Bunga means.
Eva: what places did you visit in Madura?
Rita: I visited beach, museum, Asta Tinggi, and markets.

Maxim: used Rita gives Eva appropriate response as Eva needs.
Rimba: What are you doing here?
Eva: I’m waiting for Bunga.

Maxim: used Eva’s answer is compatible to the question given. Eva’s waiting for Bunga when Rimba asks her.




Maxim of Quality Used/Violated Implicature
Rita: what pages can I find the questions?
Eva: ehm.. Just open chapter 5. No, it’s 6th. The chapter is The Ethnography something. I think they are there. You’d better ask Bunga or Kunyit.

Maxim: violated. there is a repair in the utterance and it shows uncertainty. Eva is not really sure with her answer. She also repairs some information. Therefore she suggests Rita to ask Bunga or Kunyit. Basically, what has been stated by Eva lacks of evidence. Eva implies that “Don’t ask me, I don’t know for sure. Ask somebody else is better.”
Rita: where is my dictionary?
Eva: Bunga. Or in your black bag. Don’t you use it last night?

Maxim: violated. Too many options given to Rita to think. Eva does not know where Rita’s dictionary is. She just guesses her answer and her answer lacks adequate evidence.
Eva: I’m waiting for your championship in NUEDC.
Rimba: That’s very kind of you.


Maxim: violated. Words ‘for you championship’ is seen to be so burdening and the response is also deceiving when Rimba says ‘that’s very kind of you’. Eva unfortunately implies Rimba has to win. And Rimba’s response with ‘that’s very kind of you’ contrastively, sarcastically implies not to put such a big hope or pressure on her. She implies ‘Winning NUECD is not that easy’.
Eva: Kak, how’s your presentation?
Rita: You know, I was like watching Saw III. Feel like it was the end of the day and I’d say “oh just kill me, I’m fine. Don’t pass my proposal, it’s okay”. But at the end, they say that mine is fine. Wow, I’m shocked.

Maxim: violated. Rita gives to much information about her presentation. Rita is confused how to say her presentation. She just describes the moment before the presentation and the end of it. She might want Eva to know how she was at that time. She can not say whether it was good or bad.



Maxim of Relation Used/Violated Implicature
Eva: Did you watch the opening ceremony of FIFA World Cup?
Rimba: Thank God I’m not a soccer freak

Maxim: violated Rimba implies “No, I didn’t” to Eva’s question. But she prefers to say not a soccer freak.
Rita: Can you tell me what to do?
Eva: Man is a thinker and woman is a feeler.


Maxim: violated. Rita wants Eva her suggestion. Eva perhaps does not know what to say to Rita. Upon her question, Eva only says that man’s a thinker and woman’s a feeler. Rita’s friend may no be sensitive to Rita’s feeling.
Bunga: Any questions?
Eva: I’m tired.

Maxim: violated. Eva supposes to say that she has no questions. She directly changes the topic and says that she is tired. Eva implies that she has no more questions to Bunga.
Eva: Did you watch Irwansyah?
Bungah: Going date is more fun. Sleeping is better.

Maxim: violated. Bunga changes the topic given by Eva to her preference. Bunga implies that she does not watch Irwansyah and perhaps she does not like Irwansyah.

Maxim of Manner Used/Violated Implicature
Eva: Are you mad at him?
Rita: imagine! When I arrived there, he just kept silent and when he met his friend, I was ignored.

Maxim: violated. Rita does not say that she is mad at him. Rita may feel so disappointed to her friend. She just tells how it was not like what she hopes. She wants Eva to interpret Rita’s feeling. Basically Rita implies ‘how can I not be mad if I was ignored without reasons.’
Eva: what did you do then?
Rita: I just kept silent. When I met Yuni, I sit next to her. We chatted. 15 minutes later, I decided to home. I walked so fast and left him there.

Maxim: used. She tells in details of chronological sequences. Rita tells what she did afterwards. She tells chronologically to Eva.

Based on the result of conversations taken, most of them violate the maxim of conversation, either by giving too much information, changing topic, providing ambiguity. Somehow, the implicature of those conversations are understood by the speakers. Violating maxims indeed still happen because of many reasons the speakers have for instance it can be purposive to certain cases.

REFERENCES

Paltridge, Brian. (2000). Making Sense of Discourse. Queensland: Gold Cost.
Yule, George. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.