CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURES IN HILLARY CLINTON’S INTERVIEW WITH NDTV AND REFINERY29 IN 2017
A Thesis
Submitted to Letters and Humanities Faculty
In Partial of the Requirements for the Degree Strata One
ARY CHYNTHIA YASNI NIM. 11140260000063
ENGLISH LETTERS DEPARTMENT
LETTERS AND HUMANITIES FACULTY
STATE ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY SYARIF HIDAYATULLAH
JAKARTA
2018
ABSTRACT
Ary Chynthia Yasni, Conversational Implicatures in Hillary Clinton‟s Interview with NDTV and Refinery29 in 2017. Thesis: English Letters Department, Letters and Humanity Faculty, State Islamic University Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta, 2018.
This research discusses about the conversational implicature that is generated by non-observance of maxims in the transcript text of Hillary Clinton‟s interviews with the representative of NDTV and Refinery29 by using Paul Grice‟s Cooperative Principles theory. It is also aimed to find out the meaning of each conversational implicature that have been found in the transcript text of the interviews. The result shows that both particularized conversational implicature and generalized conversational implicature are found in the transcript text. Clinton has done the non-observance towards three out of four maxims in the Cooperative Principles; they are maxim of quantity, maxim of relevance, and maxim of manner. Furthermore, the types of non-observance of maxims that found in the transcript text of the interviews are flouting and opting out. Moreover, most of the conversational implicatures rise because Clinton fails to observe the maxim by flouting maxim of quantity. This research concludes that Clinton wanted the interlocutors to understand what she really meant by giving more information than what was required which made her to flout the maxim of quantity the most. She needed to be clear in answering the questions since she often got critics because as a woman and public figure, she was aware that so many people were paying attention to whatever she was doing.
Keywords: Conversational Implicature, Maxims, Non-Observance of the Maxim
i
APPROVAL SHEET
ii
LEGALIZATION
iii
DECLARATION
I hereby declare that this submission is my own work and that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, it contains no material previously published or written by another person nor material which to a substantial extend has been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma of the university or other institute of higher learning, except where due acknowledgement has been made in the text.
Tangerang Selatan, July 17th 2018
Ary Chynthia Yasni
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful
All praises be to Allah, the lord of the world who has bestowed upon the writer in completing this thesis, without His blessings and His mercy, it is impossible that this thesis can be completed. Peace and salutation be upon the prophet, Muhammad SAW, his family, companions, and adherents who had guided us to be a good and successful person in this world.
On this occasion, the writer would deeply thank her beloved parents, Yasni
Darwis and Sasmita, for giving her support and prayer this whole time, and her sisters, Yuherly, Mery, Novri, and Rina for giving her constant support and motivation to accomplish this thesis.
The writer also would like to express her gratitude to the people who have contributed morally, scientifically, and spiritually to finish this thesis. She would like to express her appreciations to the following people, namely:
1. Prof. Dr. Sukron Kamil, M. Ag. as the Dean of Letters and Humanities
Faculty.
2. Drs. Saefudin, M.Pd. as the Head of English Letters Department.
3. Elve Oktafiyani, M. Hum. as the secretary of English Letters Department.
4. Hilmi Akmal, M. Hum. as the writer‟s advisor who has spent his time to
give inspirations, encouragements, critiques, and sincere guidance for the
writer in finishing the thesis.
v
5. All the lecturers in English Letters Department who sincerely taught and
educated the writer valuable knowledge during her study at State Islamic
University Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta.
6. All the librarians of Adab and Humanities Faculty State Islamic University
Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta.
7. Tartila Aryani, Annisa Elfiana, and Ray Sita for helping the writer by
giving her inspirations, motivations, and suggestions to complete this
thesis.
8. The Glasses Gang, Lulu Azizah, Alyssa Ibrati, and Irvin Vizan
Muhammad who constantly bring laughters to the writer‟s life.
9. The ExoticA, the writer‟s beloved classmates, Nadilah Febryana, Galuh
Nastiti, Nafilah Gustiyani, Sandra Gita, Anggia Ayu, Virza Af‟idati,
Arcciasa Junanda, Angelina Dewi, Fara Kurnia, Shabrina Farahiyah.
10. The writer‟s classmates in Linguistics class.
11. KKN AVATAR 149, especially Tsizy Aqila, Shinta Dara, Mutiara Sari,
Venny Adelia and Intan Rachmasari.
12. Yeh ling for giving the writer endless support and motivations.
13. EXO for giving the writer strength even from afar.
Tangerang Selatan, July 17th 2018
Ary Chynthia Yasni
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT …………………………………………………………………………….. i
APPROVAL SHEET ………………………………………………………………….. ii
LEGALIZATION ……………………………………………………………………. iii
DECLARATION ……………………………………………………………………… iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT …………………………………………………………….. v
TABLE OF CONTENTS …………………………………………………………….. vii
CHAPTER I - INTRODUCTION ...... 1 A. Background of the Study...... 1
B. Focus of the Study ...... 4
C. Research Question ...... 4
D. Significance of the Study ...... 5
E. Research Methodology ...... 5
1. The Objectives of the Research ...... 5
2. The Method of the Research ...... 6
3. The Instrument of the Research ...... 6
4. Unit Analysis ...... 6
5. Technique of Data Collection and Data Analysis ...... 7
CHAPTER II – LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 9 A. Previous Research ...... 9
B. Discourse Analysis ...... 11
C. Cooperative Principles ...... 12
1. Maxim of Quantity ...... 13
2. Maxim of Quality ...... 13
vii
3. Maxim of Relevance ...... 13
4. Maxim of Manner ...... 14
D. The Non-observance Maxim ...... 14
1. Flouting a Maxim ...... 14
2. Violating a Maxim ...... 15
3. Infringing a Maxim ...... 16
4. Opting out a Maxim ...... 17
5. Suspending a Maxim ...... 17
E. Implicature ...... 18
1. Conventional Implicature ...... 19
2. Conversational Implicature ...... 20
CHAPTER III – FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ...... 23
A. Data Description ...... 23
B. Data Analysis ...... 23
CHAPTER IV – CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS ...... 51
A. Conclusions ...... 51
B. Suggestions ...... 52
WORKS CITED ...... 53
APPENDIX ...... 56
viii
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
A. Background of the Study
People communicate with each other using a system of communication which is called a code. In most cases, that code is something that people call a language (Wardhaugh 3). According to Simpson (31) the term „language‟ may be used of human behavior on a particular occasion when an individual speaks or writes or signs. Language is being used for different purposes all the time.
Nevertheless, most humans spend much more time participating in a conversation than any other use of language.
How people use language in communication is discussed in a branch of linguistics study called pragmatics. Pragmatics is acknowledged as the systematic investigation of what and how people mean when they use language as a tool of action in a particular context and with particular intention in mind (Bublitz and Norrick 3). According to Yule (3) the study of pragmatics involves the interpretation of what people want to imply in a particular context and how the context influences what is uttered. In other words, it is the study of a meaning as communicated by a speaker and interpreted by the hearer.
Crowley and Mitchel, as quoted by Tupan (63) said that the speaker and the hearer in a conversation are expected to respond to each other in order to
1
2
exchange information that is needed which would give benefit to both of them.
Hence, both of the speaker and the hearer will understand the meaning of their utterance and the conversation will run successfully. In a conversation, the participants need to observe the Cooperative Principles in order to make the conversation run smoothly. Grice (45) stated there are four maxims that represent Cooperative Principles, they are; Maxim of Quantity, Maxim of
Quality, Maxim of Relevance, and Maxim of Manner. Those maxims will help the interlocutor to assume the meaning and the intention that is conveyed through the utterance of a speaker (Finch 164). However, utterances that do not observe those maxims are still found in some conversations. Participants in the conversation fail to observe those maxims usually because they cannot speak clearly, or because they choose to lie on purpose. Because of those non- observances of maxims, the meaning of the utterance of a speaker may be different with what is actually being uttered.
In some conversations, the meaning of an utterance is not conveyed directly by the speaker so that the hearer has to make assumptions by correlating other aspects such as the culture of the participants itself (Lumsden
1897). In pragmatics, the study about the meaning implied in an utterance is called implicature. The term implicature is first used by Paul Grice in his article titled „Logic and Conversation‟. Grice divided implicature into two categories, that is conventional implicature and conversational implicature.
Conventional implicature is implicature that does not occur in a conversation and does not depend on a particular context of language use to interpret its
3
meaning. On the other hand, conversational implicature is implicature that occurs in a conversation and its meaning is implied through what is being said
(Thomas 58).
Conversational implicature is also found in the transcript text of the interview between Hillary Clinton and the representative of news site from
India, NDTV and the interview between Hillary Clinton and the representative of Refinery29, Arianna Davis. The interviews are talking about Clinton‟s failure to lead the presidential on the election against Donald Trump and discussing about the book she wrote which contains her point of view of the politic in the United State of America. Hillary Clinton was chosen as the U.S
Senator in 2001, and becoming the first woman in U.S history to become the presidential nominee of a major political party later in 2016. Clinton is also known as an activist who defends human rights, such as women rights and
LGBT community. In answering the interviewer‟s questions, Clinton rarely gives a straightforward answer by violating the Cooperative Principles which creates implicatures.
The transcript text of the interview between Hillary Clinton and NDTV and Refinery29 will be used as the object of this research. The researcher finds the interview interesting to be analyzed because those interviews were held after the election and Clinton was expressing her feelings about her failure and her opinions towards her opponent. This research will analyze the non- observance of maxims which generates conversational implicature and the
4
type of implicature in the transcript text of the interview between Hillary
Clinton and the representative of NDTV and Refinery29.
Since the transcript text of interviews is being analyzed in this research, this research is considered as a discourse analysis with pragmatics approach.
Both discourse analysis and pragmatics focus on the meaning of words in interaction and how the participants in an interaction convey more information than the words they use (Cutting 2).
B. Focus of the Study
The research will focus on the conversational implicatures that occur in the transcript text of the interview between the former presidential candidate,
Hillary Clinton and the representative of NDTV and her interview with the representative of Refinery29. The implicature will be analyzed using H. Paul
Grice‟s theory.
C. Research Question
Based on the background and the focus of the study above, the questions of this research concerning the transcript text of the interview of Hillary
Clinton with NDTV and Refinery29 are as follows:
1. How do the conversational implicatures occur in the transcript text?
2. What are the maxims that non-observance in the transcript text?
3. What are the types of conversational implicature occur in the transcript
text?
5
4. What is the meaning of each conversational implicature found in the
transcript text?
D. Significance of the Study
This research is expected to be useful to enrich and intensify reader‟s knowledge about implicature in conversation and can contribute in the study of pragmatics, especially implicature. This research is also expected to be inspiration for other researchers who interested to develop similar research in the future. Practically, this research can help the readers to understand the meaning of each utterance uttered by Hillary Clinton.
E. Research Methodology
1. The Objectives of the Research
Based on the research questions, the purposes of this study concerning the transcript text of the interview of Hillary Clinton with NDTV and
Refinery29 are:
1. To analyze how the conversational implicatures occur in the
transcript text.
2. To identify the maxims that non-observance in the transcript text.
3. To identify the types of conversational implicature occur in the
transcript text.
4. To analyze the meaning of each conversational implicature found in
the transcript text.
6
2. The Method of the Research
Qualitative method will be used in this research because the intention
of the research is to comprehend the reality of society and culture to
understand social and humanities issues better. This research is considered
as a descriptive study because the data that being used is a transcript text of
an interview. Linguistic research is also counted as descriptive research
because the aim of language study is to seek the patterns that form the
principles which have the quality to rule in that language, find out the
systems, and the units of its lingual along with its identities (Creswell 9;
Subroto 6).
3. The Instrument of the Research
The instruments of this research are the writer herself and data card.
Data card is used as the instrument of this research to write, identify, and
classify the data that have been found in the transcript text. The data were
being written, identified, and classified by the writer herself as the
instrument of the research. The data card is used to collect the data and
create a summary from the data or the information that has been found
(Nawawi and Hadari 171).
4. Unit Analysis
The unit of analysis of this research is the transcript text of the
interviews between Hillary Clinton and Refinery29 on September 13th 2017
published at https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/hillary-clinton and her
interview with NDTV on September 21st 2017 published at
7
https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/full-transcript-of-hillary-clintons-
interview-with-ndtv-1753521.
5. Technique of Data Collection and Data Analysis
a. Data Collection
The transcript text of the interview between Hillary Clinton and
Refinery29 on September 13th 2017 and her interview with NDTV on
September 21st 2017 are used in this research. Document technique is
used in this research to collect the data because the research uses a
written source. Document technique uses written sources such as
magazine, newspaper, transcript text, and so on to collect the data
(Subroto 42). The data will be collected through a few steps, there are:
a. Watching the interviews;
b. Reading the transcript texts;
c. Finding the utterances that might contain implicature;
d. Writing down those utterances on the data card;
e. Classifying the data;
f. Processing the data by using random sampling.
b. Data Analysis
To analyze the data that have been collected, descriptive method
will be used to define the conversational implicature in the transcript
text of the interview between Hillary Clinton and the representative of
8
NDTV and her interview with Refinery29 through a few steps as follows:
a. Using Paul Grice‟s conversational implicature theory;
b. Expounding the meaning of each implicature in the data that
have been found;
c. Making a statement based on the conclusion of the research.
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
A. Previous Research
Some previous researches that related with implicatures will be presented in this research. Each research has its own main issue and used different perspective to discuss it. The first research is Linguistic Analysis
Malawi Political Newspaper Cartoons on President Joyce Banda: Towards
Grice‟s Conversational Implicature by Wellman Kondowe, Flemmings
Fishani Ngwira, and Precious Madula. The intention of the research is to identify how the political cartoon in Malawi newspaper makes use of linguistics features to illustrate the political leaders. Twenty Point of Order cartoons which portray President Joyce Banda and her government were chosen from The Nation newspaper from October 2012 until May 2013 and the data were analyzed by Grice‟s conversational implicature theory. The result of the research shows that the cartoonists of Malawi rarely observe the conversational maxims by flouting, suspending, and opting out. The conclusion of the research is the cartoonists provided vague information on purpose not to show lack of authoritative knowledge; instead they wanted to denote precision. They used the vagueness to prompt the readers to create their own understanding of the president‟s action considering the daily social and political context.
9
10
The next research is titled Conversational Implicature in English
Listening Comprehension by Haiyan Wang. The purpose of the research is to see the relation between English learners and the role of conversational implicature in English listening comprehension. The research focuses on the impact of conversational implicature theory by Grice to convey more than what is uttered. The result of the research shows that people improve their listening comprehension ability sustained by linguistics and non-linguistics factors. Grice‟s conversational implicature theory is found very affective for
English learners‟ listening comprehension, especially in comprehending a conversation. Pragmatics theories help the learners to understand the implied meanings in listening to English well.
The next research is titled Violation of Grice‟s Maxims and Ambiguity in
English Linguistic Jokes by Ilham Taghiyev. The violation of maxims and ambiguity can generate implicature. The research focused on the types of ambiguity in English verbal jokes according to Grice‟s cooperative principles.
The research used 10 random English jokes as the data and they were analyzed using Grice‟s non-observance of maxims theory. The result of this research shows that in the first two lines of the verbal joke violates maxim of quantity and maxim of manner. Maxim of manner and quantity are violated quietly and unostentatiously, meanwhile maxim of relevance is violated by flouting of the maxim.
The previous researches that were just mentioned all used Paul Grice‟s
Cooperative Principle and Conversational Implicature theory to analyze the
11
data. However this research is different with the previous researches above.
The purpose of this research is to identify the conversational implicature in the interview between Hillary Clinton and NDTV and her interview with
Refinery29. This research will use Paul Grice‟s conversational implicature theory to identify the implicature that is generated by non-observance of maxim. Types of conversational implicature according to Paul Grice will also be explained further in this research which makes this research differs from the previous ones.
B. Discourse Analysis
A discourse is an instrument to build a social knowledge and practice and language is a symbol of discourse. Garner (41) said that the concept of discourse is essential to understand language as a tool for communication that is by expressing beliefs, values, and assumptions of a speaker‟s individual reality and social. A discourse is a social practice which gives an illustration of how people experience the world through language (Litosseliti and
Sunderland 9). Discourse analysis then is a tool to identify norms of talk in various social and cultural groups in different conversational and institutional context (Holmes 364).
Discourse analysis deals with similar issues as pragmatics. Pragmatics deals with three vast and unwieldy concepts: meaning, context, and communication (Schiffrin 190). Furthermore, both discourse analysis and pragmatics are discussing the same topics; text and function. Both of them analyze the meaning of words in context and parts of the implied meaning in
12
certain context and knowledge where the words take place. Both discourse analysis and pragmatics study the use of language, either spoken or written discourse, focusing on language becomes meaningful and unified for their users (Cutting 2).
C. Cooperative Principles
Bublitz and Norrick (4) stated that pragmtaics study primarily concerned about communicative action in various contexts. Language use and language users, in the pragmatics perspective are the main point in the interaction, in the contrary of language being a system of signs or a set of rules. In most cases, when using a language, both speaker and hearer in a conversation frequently cooperate with each other. The cooperation in a conversation usually does not contain an aspect which would mislead or suppress the essential information between the speaker and the hearer. In some cases, this kind of cooperation makes the participants involved in a conversation would deliberate their utterance in the conversation (Yule 36). That cooperation will run if the language users involved in the conversation observe the Cooperative Principle.
Paul Grice, in his article titled Language and Conversation devised a set of rules in a conversation called Cooperative Principle. The cooperative principle will take place when; a participant gives the contribution as much as needed, the participants are on the same level where the conversation is being held, and the goal of the conversation is accepted by the participants. In a conversation, the speaker and the hearer need to cooperate to avoid
13
misunderstanding between them. Those principles then were being elaborated into four sub-principles called Maxim.
1. Maxim of Quantity
According to Grice (47), the principles of maxim of quantity are:
a. Make your contribution as informative as required.
b. Do not make your contribution more informative than is required.
The speaker is expected to give information that is required in order to make the interlocutor understand the message conveyed through the utterance.
In other words, the speaker needs to give sufficient information, without exaggerating or subtracting the information that is needed.
2. Maxim of Quality
Maxim of quality tries to give true contribution (Grice 47). The principles of maxim of quality are:
a. Do not say what you believe to be false.
b. Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.
The speaker is supposed to utter something that is real with persuasive evidence.
3. Maxim of Relevance
The principle of maxim of relevance according to Grice (47) is:
a. Make your contribution relevant.
14
The speaker needs to give relevant contribution to build a beneficial cooperation in a conversation.
4. Maxim of Manner
The principles of maxim of manner according to Grice (47) are:
a. Avoid obscurity.
b. Avoid ambiguity.
c. Be brief.
d. Be orderly.
The speaker is expected to speak directly and clearly. The speaker also needs to organize his utterance to avoid confusion within a conversation. The speaker should talk briefly and unambiguously to not generate any ambiguity and misperception.
D. The Non-observance Maxim
Even though the participants in the conversation are supposed to follow the cooperative principles, sometimes they fail to observe the maxims by speaking unclearly, or decided to lie on purpose (Grice 49; Thomas 64).
Thomas (64) stated that there are five conditions people fail to observe a maxim, there are; Flouting a Maxim, Violating a Maxim, Infringing a Maxim,
Opting Out of a Maxim, and Suspending a Maxim.
1. Flouting a Maxim
Flouting occurs when a speaker blatantly fails to observe the maxim
so that the hearer needs to make an assumption that the speaker is
15
generating an implicature (Davis 12). For instance, the example of a speaker flouting a maxim as follows (Leech 94).
(I) Context: A has box of chocolates in her room. When she comes back,
the box is no longer in her room. She sees B and asks her about it.
A: Where‟s my box of chocolates?
B: The children were in your room this morning.
B saw that the children were in A‟s room eating her chocolates.
When she asked B, B told her that the children were in A‟s room which is not relevant to A‟s question. B‟s answer is considered as flouting a maxim because she blatantly gave irrelevant information in response to A‟s question.
2. Violating a Maxim
Violating a maxim is considered as the unpretentious non- observance of maxim. The violation of maxim happens if the speaker violates the maxim; her or his utterance will generate a lie and misperception (Thomas 72). The example of a speaker violating a maxim as follows (Cutting 40).
(II) Context: A wanted to act friendly towards B, he then smiled at her
and greeted her politely. A few minutes later a dog came approached
them.
A: Does your dog bite?
B: No.
16
A: [Stroke the dog and got bitten] Ow! You said your dog does not bite!
B: That is not my dog.
B knew that A was talking about the dog in front of them, not B‟s dog at home. However B did not give the information needed by A intentionally without certain reason. B‟s utterance is considered as violating a maxim because she did not give a clear information and give a mislead answer to A.
3. Infringing a Maxim
Infringing occurs when a speaker who does not have any intention to generate implicature or does not have any intention to give deceiving answer fails to observe a maxim. This kind of non-observance can happen when the speaker has deficient knowledge of a language such as a kid or a foreigner, or when the speaker cannot speak clearly (Thomas 74). Mooney, as quoted in Dayanthi gave an example of infringing a maxim as follows
(22).
(III) Context: A customer who is not an English native speaker came to a
restaurant with English native speaker waitress.
Waitress: Would you like ham or salad for your sandwich?
Customer: Yes.
The customer who is not a native speaker did not intend to generate implicature because he did not understand what the waitress was saying.
17
4. Opting out a Maxim
Opting out happens when a speaker ignore to observe the maxim by indicating unwillingness to cooperate in the way the maxim requires
(Grice 49). It can happen when the speaker cannot respond in the conversation for legal or ethical reason. Nevertheless, the speaker is also avoiding to generate inaccurate implicature or to generate an impression of unwillingness to cooperate (Thomas 74). Here is an example when a speaker opting out a maxim (Lumsden 1896).
(IV) Context: A burglar tried to withdraw a safe in a house.
Burglar: What is the combination of your safe?
Householder: I shan‟t tell you.
In the example above, there is no cooperation in the conversation.
The householder opted out a maxim because she did not want to give the information about the safe to the burglar. The householder did not want to cooperate in the conversation because the information about the safe is confidential.
5. Suspending a Maxim
Suspending a maxim occurs when a speaker is aware about something that is not supposed to be spoken. It happens because there are certain occasions that do not expect the participants to fulfill the observance of maxim (Thomas 76). For instance, mentioning someone‟s
18
name that is already passed away in certain condition is considered a taboo.
Thomas (76) gave an example of suspending a maxim.
(V) Context: A speaker is a daughter of a man that has been murdered.
She then talked to Jim Chee, a Navajo Tribal Police.
Police: “Last time you were with that FBI man — asking about the one
who got killed,' she said, respecting the Navajo taboo of not speaking the
name of the dead. “You find out who killed that man?”
In the example above, the girl whose father had been murdered avoided to
mention his father‟s name and called his father „the one who got killed‟
instead.
E. Implicature
Implicature is a component of a speaker‟s meaning that consists of an aspect of what is meant in a speaker‟s utterance without being a part of what is being uttered (Horn 3). In the other words, implicature is a meaning of an utterance that is not conveyed through that utterance itself (Yule 35). Grice stated that implicature happens when the meaning of a speaker‟s utterance is different than what that speaker has uttered. An example of an utterance that consists of an implicature is as follows (Cutting 39).
(VI) A: What do you think of Mark?
B: His flatmate‟s a wonderful cook.
19
In the example above, B did not want to say that she was not interested with Mark directly. Hence, B‟s utterance can be considered as implicature because B‟s utterance has meaning that B did not interest with Mark and B did not mention Mark‟s name in her utterance and said something irrelevance instead.
Grice then divided implicature into two categories, there are: conventional implicature and conversational implicature (Thomas 57).
1. Conventional Implicature
Conventional implicature does not constructed by cooperative principles or maxims. Conventional implicature does not occur in a conversation and does not depend on the social context to interpret the meaning (Yule 45). In some cases, the conventional meaning of the words used determine what is implicated and help to determine what is being said (Grice 44). Levinson, as quoted by Thomas (57) comparatively listed a few examples of conventional implicature, they are: but, even, therefore, and yet. Here is an example of conventional implicature (Horn 4).
(VII) Even Ken knows it‟s unethical.
The example above shows that Ken, someone that was least expected to aware about something being unethical, was aware that something was unethical indicated by the word even.
20
2. Conversational Implicature
Conversational implicature is something that is conveyed in a conversation implicitly in actual language use (Wang 1162). According to
Thomas (58) only occurs in a particular context of utterance. The hearer can interpret the speaker‟s utterance based on the assumption that the speaker is following the cooperative principles. The assumption allows the hearer to identify what the speaker is trying to convey implicitly in a conversation, not explicitly saying (Lumsden 1897). Here is an example of conversational implicature (Lumsden 1896).
(VIII) Context: A, a motorist who was running out of petrol, met B, someone
who happened to pass by him.
A: I am out of petrol.
B: There is garage round the corner.
After hearing B‟s respond, A could make an assumption that B indirectly stated that the garage might be open and might sell petrol for A‟s vehicle.
Even though it was not stated clearly, A could assume that there was nearest garage that might sell petrol for his vehicle.
Conversational implicature happens because of the violation of the cooperative principles in a conversation (Yule 39).
21
a. Generalized Conversational Implicature
Generalized conversation implicature is a type of conversational implicature that does not require any particular knowledge to know the implied meaning in a conversation (Yule 40). Generalized conversational implicature happens when the interlocutor does not need to build assumptions of certain context to understand the meaning of an utterance because the information can be assumed generally. Here is an example of generalized conversational implicature (Yule 41).
(IX) I was sitting in a garden one day. A child looked over the fence.
The implicature in the example above shows that the garden and the child are not the speaker‟s. If the garden and the child are the speaker‟s, the speaker will use „my‟ instead of „a‟. b. Particularized Conversational Implicature
A conversation usually has a particular context that only can be assumed where the conversation takes place. Conversational implicature that requires a particular knowledge or context to make the interlocutor understand the implied meaning is called particularized conversational implicature (Yule 42).
Here is an example of particularized conversational implicature (Yule 43).
(X) Rick: Hey, coming to the wild party tonight?
Tom: My parents are visiting.
22
To identify the meaning of Tom‟s utterance, Rick needs to have a particular knowledge or information. In the example above, Tom indirectly stated that he could not go to the party because his parents were going to visit him and he would spend the night with his family instead.
CHAPTER III
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
A. Data Description
To collect the data, this research uses document technique because the data are found in written sources and uses data card as the instrument of the research. The data are found in the transcript text of the interview between
Hillary Clinton and Refinery29 on September 13th 2017 and her interview with NDTV on September 21st 2017. In collecting the data, the researcher watches the interviews first then read the transcript text of the interviews.
After that, the researcher finds the utterances that contain implicature and write them down on the data card. After writing down the data on the data card, the data will be classified according to its non-observance of maxim which generates the conversational implicature according Grice‟s conversational implicature theory.
In total, there are 27 data found in the interviews and they are classified according to the types of the non-observance of the maxim and their types of conversational implicature.
B. Data Analysis
In total, there are 20 data that will be analyzed in this research. They are selected through random sampling process. There are 17 data that indicate flouting a maxim and three data opting out a maxim. The maxims that
23
24
unobserved are 11 maxims of quantity, six maxims of relevance, and three maxims of manner. There are 19 particularized conversational implicature found in the data while generalized conversational implicature is only found once in the data.
Datum 1
Clinton shared so many personal details about her on the book. She opened up about everything, such as attending President Trump‟s inauguration, raising his daughter, Chelsea, her relationship with the former president Bill
Clinton, and the things she had to go through during the election.
Arianna Davis: What made you want to open up now, and do you regret
not letting that guard down a little bit earlier?
Hillary Rodham Clinton: That's a great question. Because you're right, I
mean, this book is my most candid explanation of not only my life, but
what I believe that I've ever tried to do. It was hard, and I am very proud
of the outcome because it was, kind of, cathartic…
In the conversation above, the conversational implicature is generated because Clinton failed to observe the maxim by flouting the maxim of relevance indicated by her blatantly gave an irrelevant answer in answering the question. The interviewer asked her if she regretted not writing her book and sharing her experiences early but she overtly gave an irrelevant answer in response by describing what is written in the book and the purpose of it. She
25
stated that the book does not only consist of her experience but also the things that she believed and the things she had tried to do.
Clinton‟s answer is considered as particularized conversational implicature because a particular knowledge is needed to understand the implied meaning of her utterance. The hearer needs to know that she had gone through so many things before she decided to release the book. Clinton implied that she did not want to release the book earlier because she was afraid of the outcome. She had so many things going on that she wanted to share but she was afraid of the reactions she would get. By telling her experiences through the book, she expected that it would give some support and encouragement to other people.
Datum 2
People were assuming that her not opening up earlier might be one of the reasons she did not win on the election. It was still rather unclear whether she regretted not opening up earlier or not.
Arianna Davis: Do you ever regret that? Or do you feel like now is the
time for you, where you can really fully be open?
Hillary Rodham Clinton: Well, as I explain in the book, being a woman
in public life is like being on a high wire with no net. And I have been
involved in public service and in politics for much of my adult life, and
there is a double standard about women, and I try to explain that…
26
The conversational implicature in this conversation is generated because
Clinton failed to observe the maxim by flouting the maxim of relevance indicated by her blatantly gave an irrelevant answer in response to the interviewer‟s question. The interviewer asked her again if she regretted not opening up earlier and she also wanted know if Clinton felt that was the right time for her to finally open up but Clinton answered it by giving an irrelevant answer, saying that double standard still exists and that she had been involved in politics for much of her adult life, thus she knew how women were treated in politics and it was not only her experience but everyone she had known as well. She spoke about how discouraging and threatening it was for a women in the public arena.
Her answer is considered as particularized conversational implicature since a particular knowledge is required to understand the implied meaning.
The hearer needs to know that double standard still exist which makes some women afraid to express their beliefs. She implied that because of the double standard, she was afraid of the reactions she would get since she was a woman and she was involved in politics. She thought that she would be criticized for expressing her feelings and opinions in public.
Datum 3
Hillary Clinton was known as someone who supported gender equality and stand up for women‟s right. However, 53% of white women did not vote for her in the election.
Arianna Davis: Do you ever feel abandoned by women?
27
Hillary Rodham Clinton: No. And I did carry a majority of women,
because I like to look at all women, not just women of one
background...but all women, and I'm very proud that I carried all women
by, I think, 54%. And I actually did better with white women than
President Obama had done…
Clinton failed to observe the maxim by flouting the maxim of relevance in the conversation above because she overtly gave irrelevance information in answering the question. The interviewer asked her if she ever felt abandoned by women but she answered it by saying that she liked to defend all kind of women and she was proud of it. She said that even though the majority of white women did not vote for her, she got more vote from them than President
Obama did a few years ago.
Clinton‟s answer is considered as particularized conversational implicature because a particular knowledge is needed to understand the implied meaning. The hearer needs to know that many women supported her because she had been defending women‟s rights. She implied that she did not feel abandoned by women since she got more votes than President Obama did a few years ago. The reason why she did not get more votes from white women was because of the double standard. She thought some people did not like her because she is a woman.
Datum 5
When writing about her relationship with President Clinton, she talked so much about how he supported her throughout not just the campaign but
28
also her career. The interviewer got curious and wanted to know further about their relationship.
Arianna Davis: Did you know he would be [that] kind of husband when
you first married him?
Hillary Rodham Clinton: That‟s a great question. I thought he would
be… When my husband came, he was a year behind me, 'cause he had
spent two years studying in England, and he was just so open and so
supportive. And as I got to know him — he had a working mom; his father
died before he was born, so his mother always had to support him. And he
was very used to having a hard-working woman in the household…
In the conversation above, the conversational implicature is generated because Clinton failed to observe the maxim by flouting the maxim of quantity indicated by her blatantly gave too much information than what was required in response to the interviewer‟s question. The interviewer asked if she already knew that President Clinton was the kind of nice husband when she married to him. She could have simply replied by saying „I thought he would be.‟ but she answered by saying that she did and explained further about her thoughts on him instead. She spoke about how they first met and her opinions about him when she first knew him.
Clinton‟s answer is considered as particularized conversational implicature since a particular knowledge is required to understand the implied meaning. The interlocutor needs to know that Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton
29
had been married for a long time and they both were involved in politics. She implied that she did think that President Clinton would be a great husband when she first married him and she already adored him ever since they first met.
Datum 6
Clinton was talking about how great his husband was. She talked about how supportive he was during the election. When they found out that she lost to President Trump, his husband was there for her and comfort her.
Arianna Davis: Did he have any words of advice that really stuck with
you after election night? What kind of comfort did he offer you?
Hillary Rodham Clinton: Oh, he was wonderful, because it was so
shocking. You know, we thought I was gonna win... And when it happened,
it was really a comfort to have him, because he is, you know, my principal
advisor and supporter…
In the conversation above, the conversational implicature is generated because Clinton failed to observe the maxim by flouting the maxim of relevance indicated by her blatantly gave irrelevance information in answering the question. The interviewer asked her if his husband gave her an advice that stuck with her after the election and she also wanted to know what kind of comfort his husband offered to her but she gave irrelevant information by explaining how she did not expect the obstacles to happen and that she thought it would not affect the election. They all thought she was going to win,
30
turns out she did not and everyone was very devastated. However, President
Clinton was there with her the whole time as her principle advisor and supporter and she was really glad to have him. Even though he lost for
Congress and reelection for the governor himself, he still gave support and courage to his wife.
Clinton‟s answer is considered as particularized conversational implicature because a particular knowledge is needed to understand the implied meaning. The interlocutor needs to know that during the presidential election in 2016, Bill Clinton had always been giving support for Hillary
Clinton. She implied that by giving her support, encourage her, and being there for her was enough comfort for her when she was having a hard time after the election.
Datum 9
Some people were questioning President Trump‟s daughter, Ivanka
Trump, in the White House. Ivanka promised to champion issues of concern to women, including paid family leave. However, she failed to live up to the things that she said she would. People also thought that she lacks of experience in developing and implementing government policy (Robinson).
Arianna Davis: Do you feel that she‟s complicit in the administration‟s
actions, and should we be sympathetic for her?
Hillary Rodham Clinton: The way I look at it is that the person who has
to be held responsible is Donald Trump. He is the president… They‟re
31
either on board with that or they‟re not. And if they‟re not, they need to be
speaking out or leaving…
The conversational implicature in the conversation above is generated because Clinton failed to observe the maxim by flouting the maxim of relevance indicated by her overtly gave irrelevant information in response.
The interviewer asked her if she feels that Ivanka Trump is complicit in the administration‟s actions and if she thinks that people should give sympathy to her. She answered by saying that as a president, Donald Trump was responsible for all the blame towards her daughter. She explained about the things President Trump had done, such as how he tried to impose a political agenda just like the past and how he controlled people that associated with him. She also said that people need to always agree with him or they can leave the administration.
Clinton‟s answer is considered as particularized conversational implicature since certain knowledge is required to understand the implied meaning. The interlocutor needs to know that Ivanka Trump is the daughter of elected President Donald Trump and he made her to be involved in politics as well. She implied that President Trump was responsible for everything he had put his daughter through. She also implied that it was because everyone needed to do whatever they were told to and must agree with him because he was the president after all.
32
Datum 10
Hillary Clinton wrote all the stories about her in her book, including the things that happened during the election. Apparently, it was reported that people from her party did not really look forward to her book because they prefer to look forward and not look back.
Arianna Davis: What do you say to that?
Hillary Rodham Clinton: I‟d say read this book, because it is about
going forward. I talk about what happened, because I am concerned that
what happened could happen again…
The conversational implicature in this conversation is generated because
Clinton failed to observe the maxim by flouting the maxim of quantity indicated by her overtly gave too much information than what was required.
The interviewer asked her about her opinion about the people from her party not looking forward to her book. She could have answered it by simply saying that they need to read the book but she answered it by blatantly giving too much information by explaining what the book is really about instead. She explained that they can learn from what happened in the past to prevent the things that they do not want to happen in the future.
Her answer is considered as particularized conversational implicature since a particular knowledge is required to know the implied meaning. The hearer needs to know that Hillary Clinton released a book which consists of her journey in politics, especially during the election in 2016. She implied that
33
she believed the book is actually about going forward because she wanted it to be a lesson for everyone to not go through the same mistakes again in the future.
Datum 11
During the 2016 election, the Democratic Party showed support to end a longstanding ban on federal funding for abortion. The party‟s willingness to support pro-life candidates was not novel, and prominent Democrats, along with the Democratic National Committee, had echoed the idea that there should be no litmus test (Foran).
Arianna Davis: Do you feel that abortion litmus tests are necessary for
the Democratic Party in red states?
Hillary Rodham Clinton: …So I‟m proud to be a Democrat, and I will
continue to advocate for the policies of the Democratic Party… And
reproductive rights are important in order to make clear that we want to
give women a choice. We‟re not gonna tell you what to do. We‟re not
gonna prevent you from doing…
The conversational implicature is generated because in answering the question, Clinton fails to observe the maxim by flouting the maxim of manner indicated by her blatantly gave a longwinded answer in response. The interviewer simply asked if Clinton thought it was necessary for the Democrat
Party to have abortion litmus test. She could have answered it simply by saying „No, I do not.‟ but she replied by saying that she is proud to be a part of
34
Democrat party and she thinks that every woman has her own choice and no people could tell her what to do. As a human being, a woman‟s decision needs to be protected and defended by the Constitutional right.
Clinton‟s answer is considered as particularized conversational implicature because certain knowledge is needed to understand the implied meaning. The hearer needs to know that Clinton is a part of Democrat Party and the party was against the idea of prohibiting abortion. She implied that she is proud to be a part of Democrat Party because the party had accomplished many good things and it also supports abortion rights. She thinks that people cannot prevent someone from making decisions for their life and whatever decision that has been made needs to be protected and defended.
The interlocutor needs to know the context of conversation to understand the utterance, hence it is considered as particularized conversational implicature.
Datum 15
Even though the election was done, the controversies about it are still going on. Some people criticize Hillary and assumed that she blamed her failure on others instead of herself. The interviewer wanted to know what she thinks about this accusation.
NDTV: Do you accept that criticism, that you haven't taken enough of the
blame on yourself? Again that's something that came up in the campaign,
that "oh Hillary tries to blame other people and not herself". Do you accept
this criticism regarding you and Bernie Sanders?
35
Hillary Rodham Clinton: No, I don't. I mean, I beat him by four million
votes so I don't accept that criticism from former political opponents. I try
to be candid and open in the book about what I did wrong, what
responsibility I feel about it, but it was also important to talk about all
these factors that were happening at the same time.
In the conversation above, the conversational implicature is generated because Clinton failed to observe the maxim by flouting maxim of quantity indicated by her overtly gave too much information than what was required.
The interviewer asked her whether she accepts the criticism towards her or not.
She could have simply answered the question by saying “No, I don‟t.” but she gave too much information by giving further explanations instead. She explained that she did not accept the criticism because she actually did beat
Sanders in the election
Her answer is considered as particularized conversational implicature because certain knowledge is needed to understand the implied meaning. The hearer needs to know that Bernie Sanders lost to Clinton and she also wrote about him on her book. In her answer she implied that she did not accept any criticism towards her because people will always criticize her without knowing what actually happened. She tried to make the interviewer understand that she did not take any criticism by mentioning the hate she received during the election.
36
Datum 16
Clinton is the first woman to be the candidate of presidential nominated by a major party. Clinton herself is a feminist and she wrote in her book about sexism and misogyny issue that happens in America. Feminism is as relevant as ever in the 21st century. People are supporting justice for women and opposition violence against women.
NDTV: Why is it that in America of the 21st Century-you've written in
your book about sexism and misogyny-how do you explain the fact that
even in white women, you didn't win the majority vote?
Hillary Rodham Clinton: Well I think gender in our political system has
not been the motivator that race was, for example, in President Obama's
elections...
The conversational implcature is generated because Clinton failed to observe the maxim by flouting the maxim of quantity indicated by her blatantly gave the interviewer too much information than what was asked. The interviewer asked her why is that in this era where people are all supporting gender equality, she still did not win get more votes from white women. She described that it was because gender issue was not as huge as race issue and compared her situation with the former President Barack Obama‟s situation a few years ago. She stated that majority of women voted for her but not so many white women voted for her during the election. However, even though
37
she did not get many votes from the white women, she still got more white women to vote for her than Obama did in 2012.
Clinton‟s answer is considered as particularized conversational implicature because particular knowledge is required to understand the meaning. The hearer needs to know that gender issue was not as huge as race issue. She implied that double standard still exists and that was one of the reasons she did not get more votes from white women during the election.
Datum 17
During the campaign, his opponent, Donald Trump kept throwing sexism comments and physical assault towards her. Even though she kept receiving those assaults, she almost never attacked him back.
NDTV: You've written in your book about the second debate just a few
days after that sexual assault came out, on how you felt almost invaded
and how part of you wanted to say "back up, get away from me", but you
didn't. Why does a woman in a position as powerful as yours feel the need
to suppress that?
Hillary Rodham Clinton: It's a very good question and it's one I've
thought a lot about, because I think that when you are a woman in a very
high political position, you know things that you have learned over the
course of your life. You know that anger coming from a woman is not
accepted as much as anger coming from a man…
38
In the conversation above, the conversational implicature is generated because Clinton failed to observe the maxim by flouting maxim of quantity indicated by her blatantly gave too much information than what was required in answering the question from the interviewer. The interviewer asked her though she was in a powerful position why did she have to suppress her emotions when she was being attacked by her opponent but she answered by comparing how women and men are treated. She explained that it would be acceptable if a man rant in public but it would be unacceptable if it was a woman ranting and expressing her anger in public. She could have answered it simply by saying that she had to suppress her emotions because double standard still exists but she expounded the double standard that happened between men and women. She also said that it happened not only in politics but also happened everywhere.
Clinton‟s answer is considered as particularized conversational implicature because certain knowledge is needed to understand the implied meaning. The hearer needs to know that before the election, Trump kept throwing hurtful words to Clinton but she did not fight back and double standard in America still exists. She implied that she had to suppress her emotions because people will attack her for expressing her anger in public.
Because of the double standard, she knew that people would judge her because they thought it was unacceptable for a woman to fight back.
39
Datum 18
The dynasty politics also happen in America. Hillary Clinton is married to the 42nd President of United State of America, Bill Clinton. There were a lot of critics about her being a candidate for the presidential regarding that.
NDTV: Now perhaps Chelsea may be the next Clinton to run for office.
Do you think dynasty is an issue that people have criticised you about, do
you take that criticism seriously?
Hillary Rodham Clinton: I really don't and my daughter has absolutely
no interest that she's ever expressed about running for office herself…
In the conversation above, conversational is generated because Clinton failed to observe the maxim by flouting the maxim of quantity indicated by her overtly gave too much information than what was required. She was asked if her daughter wanted to run for presidential whether she would accept the criticism regarding the dynasty issue or not. She could have answered it by saying that she did not take the criticism regarding dynasty issue seriously.
However, she tried to explain that she would not take it as a matter because she thought her daughter did not show her interest in politics.
Her answer is considered as particularized conversational implicature because certain knowledge is needed to understand the implied meaning. The interlocutor needs to know that Chelsea is Hillary and Bill Clinton‟s daughter and he had not involved in politics before. She implied that she did not care when people criticize her regarding the dynasty issue. A particular knowledge
40
is necessary to understand what she was saying, hence her utterance is considered as particularized conversational implicature.
Datum 19
Clinton also wrote about marriage with the former president, Bill Clinton on her book. She talked about how people think it was an arrangement and people‟s opinions about her as a former President‟s wife trying to be the candidate for presidential.
NDTV: Did it help to be Mrs. Bill Clinton or Hillary Rodham Clinton in
this election or do you think perhaps people thought "why have two
Clintons in the White House"?
Hillary Rodham Clinton: Well I'm sure some people thought that, people
are free to think whatever they wish to think. It never presented itself as a
big problem…
In the conversation above, the conversational implicature is generated because Clinton failed to observe the maxim by flouting the maxim of quantity indicated by her blatantly gave too much information than what was asked. The interviewer asked perhaps people did not want to vote her because she was Bill Clinton‟s wife but she did not answer it straightforwardly. She tried to explain that people have their own opinions about her being the wife of Bill Clinton. Whether people see her as Bill Clinton‟s wife or as Hillary
Clinton did not really matter to her. Some people supported her because they liked Bill Clinton‟s administration and wanted to choose her and there were
41
also people who would not choose her because she is Bill Clinton‟s wife. She already tried her best to get people‟s attention to choose her before the election.
No particular knowledge is needed to understand the implied meaning, hence her answer is considered as generalized conversational implicature. By saying „…some people thought…‟ she implied that not all people against her being the next Clinton to be the next president of the United State of America.
Datum 20
Though Clinton often got criticized regarding dynasty issue, Donald
Trump, her opponent also runs a family business. Ivanka Trump, Donald
Trump‟s daughter showed up during G20 session in Hamburg last year and got criticized. She was seen sitting around a table with the Chinese, Russian, and Turkish presidents, the German chancellor, and the British Prime Minister
(Smith). When someone criticized him about it, he would compare it to
Clinton‟s family.
NDTV: So he always brings this out when issues come up about his
family's involvement, Jared Kushner etc., he always tries to draw a parallel.
How would you react?
Hillary Rodham Clinton: Well there's no basis for it. I know he does it,
he does it all the time, he seems to be spending more time thinking about
me and my family than thinking about the work he should be doing as our
President. But that would have never happened. Neither I nor my husband
42
would have ever thought about bypassing officials with deep experience
for our child…
The conversational implicature is generated because Clinton failed to observe the maxim by flouting the maxim of quantity indicated by her overtly gave too much information than what was required. The interviewer wanted to know her reactions regarding Trump comparing his family and Clinton‟s but she described that she knew that Trump had been doing that all the time and she stated that if she were him she would not give an official position to her family or relatives. She also stated that if she were him, she would not do the thing Trump did, which hired people that happen to be his relatives to work in the White House.
Clinton‟s answer is considered as particularized conversational implicature since particular knowledge is needed to understand the implied meaning. The interlocutor needs to know that Trumps‟ relatives were working in the White House. It is conveyed through her utterance that she did not take the criticism about dynasty issue from Trump when he himself hired the people that related to him in the government. She also implied that it was not fair of him to ignored professional people with experience to be in the government because he only trusted people who apparently have relation with him. Since we need to know the context of the conversation to understand his utterance, her answer is considered as particularized conversational implicature.
43
Datum 21
When Bill Clinton was the president, as the first lady, Hillary Clinton did something to balance public service by taking charge of the Task Force on
National Health Care Reform at the start of Bill Clinton‟s administration. She is also admired by people because of her commitment to children‟s and women‟s issue (“The White House Historical Association”). During President
Obama‟s administration, as the first lady, Michelle Obama co-founded the
Joining Forces program to increase educational and employment options for veterans and to raise awareness about the problems plaguing military families in 2011. She also formed Reach Higher to inspire the youths to explore higher education and career-development opportunities during President Obama‟s second term (“First Ladies”). Now as the first lady, Melania Trunp has not done anything compared to the previous first ladies in the White House.
NDTV: It's interesting this whole focus on the first daughter because of
course we've had great first ladies: you, of course, Michelle Obama and
now Melania Trump seems in a sense to not have found her niche or her
voice at all, so far, in the White House. Any advice for her? Or do you
have any thoughts on how Melania Trump is doing?
Hillary Rodham Clinton: I think it's up to each woman who finds herself
in that position to decide what is the role.
The conversational implicature is generated because Clinton failed to observe the maxim by opting out the maxim of quantity indicated by her
44
showeing her unwillingness to cooperate in the conversation and answered the question by giving less information than what was required. The interviewer asked her whether she had any advice or opinions for Melania Trump and she did not answer it directly. Instead she answered it by saying that every woman has their own perspective for the role of being the first lady.
Clinton‟s answer is considered as particularized conversational implicature since particular knowledge is required to understand the implied meaning. The interlocutor needs to know that as the wife of President Trump,
Melania Trump is the First Lady right now. She avoided answering the question for ethical reason, she did not want to tell the first lady what to do and do not because it seemed like something inappropriate.
Datum 22
It has only been a year since Donald Trump was elected when the interview between Clinton and NDTV was held. During his speech in August
21st 2017, Trump singled out Pakistan for sheltering terror groups and destabilizing the region. He also threatened to cut US aid and to create an alliance with Pakistan‟s mortal enemy, India (The World Staff).
NDTV: Do you think the Trump administration has actually done more
against Pakistan-based terror than the Obama administration did?
Hillary Rodham Clinton: Oh I don't know how you can say that.
Certainly at this point, they haven't really done anything except say some
45
things and make up policy to send more American troops to Afghanistan
with no strategy…
In the conversation above, conversational implicature is generated because Clinton failed to observe the maxim by opting out maxim of quantity indicated by her showing unwillingness to cooperate in the conversation.
Clinton‟s reply is considered uncooperative because she did not want to answer the question by saying “Oh I don't know how you can say that.” She also gave too many information by describing that the only thing he had done since he became the president sending more American troops to Afghanistan and according to her, Trump‟s administration had not been doing anything against Pakistan so far.
Clinton‟s answer is considered as particularized conversational implicature because particular knowledge is required to understand the implied meaning. The hearer needs to know that Trump‟s administration was only been one year when the interview was being held. She did not want to answer the question because she felt like it was too soon to say something about Trump‟s administration when it had just been running for a year. She also implied that Trump‟s administration had not been doing anything against
Pakistan his first year administration.
Datum 23
During his first year of administration, Trump had done a few things, such as withdrawing from the Paris agreement, travel ban on six Muslim-
46
majority countries, decertifying the Iran nuclear deal, and repealing and replacing Obamacare (Sampathkumar).
NDTV: How justified that was today and do you think his whole America
First policy has actually lived up to expectations ever since?
Hillary Rodham Clinton: Well again it's too soon to tell. He's banned
Muslims from six countries, ignoring countries that have actually attacked
us or supplied fighters to attack us, he has talked a lot about immigration
and he's made it clear that he wants to limit immigration of all kinds yet he
also seeks visas for people to come work at Mar a Lago, his home in
Florida…
In the conversation above, conversational implicature is generated because Clinton failed to observe the maxim by opting out maxim of quantity indicated by her showing her unwillingness to cooperate in the conversation by saying “Well again it's too soon to tell.” She also gave too much information by describing the things President Trump had done during his first year of administration like him wanted to limit the immigration, seek visa for people who came for work at Mar a Lago, and hired people who according to
Clinton are unprofessional in the government.
Clinton‟s answer is considered as particularzed conversational implicature because certain knowledge is needed to understand the mplied meaning. The interlocutor needs to know the things President Trump had done this past year. She did not want to answer the question because it had just been
47
a year since Trump‟s administration and she felt like it was too soon to judge how justified it was. However, she mentioned controversial things Trump had done and it can be implied that his administration had not lived up to the expectations.
Datum 25
On her book, Clinton wrote that she likes to do yoga. She said that she likes to practice yoga because she finds it very relaxing that she even she tried to keep up and practice during the campaign.
NDTV: You can do alternate-nostril breathing? We'd love to see it!
Hillary Rodham Clinton: (laughs) I'll let your viewers Google it and they
can watch it.
The conversational implicature is generated because Clinton failed to observe the maxim by flouting the maxim of relevance indicated by her overtly gave irrelevant information in response. The interviewer wanted to see her do a yoga movement but Clinton answered it by telling the audience to look it up on Google instead.
Clinton‟s answer is considered as particularized conversational implicature because particular knowledge is required to understand the implied meaning. The hearer needs to know that Clinton likes to do Yoga and had done it in public. It is implied that she had done it before and it was being posted on the internet. She did not want to do it again because she was too embarrassed to do it again this time.
48
Datum 26
After failing in the election, some people are curious to know what she would do after this. Clinton was asked what is she going to do next and she said that she will remain active in politics.
NDTV: Despite how many feathers that may ruffle, because when you say
active in politics you already hear speculation that Hillary Clinton is going
to run for mayor, will she look at governor next? What do you mean active
in politics?
Hillary Rodham Clinton: No, I am not going to be candidate but I am
going to be active in politics…
In this conversation, conversational implicature is generated because
Clinton failed to observe the maxim by flouting the maxim of manner indicated by her overtly gave obscure information in answering the question.
The interviewer asked her if she was interested to join the governor and what does she mean by saying that she will remain active in politics. However, she answered it rather unclearly. She stated that she did not want to be the candidate for the government and that she will be active in politics. She expounded that though she will not be the candidate but she will remain active in politics.
Her answer is considered as particularized conversational implicature because certain knowledge is needed to understand the implied meaning. The hearer needs to know that Clinton remains active in politics even after she lost
49
the election to Donald Trump. It is implied that she will help and give support to the people who would enter the politics. She might not nominate herself to be the candidate but she would help those who wanted to and support them from behind.
Datum 27
Chelsea Clinton, Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton‟s only daughter had never showed her willingness to follow her parents‟ career.
NDTV: You said Chelsea's never expressed any interest in standing for
public office, would you like to see her actually enter public office or enter
politics?
Hillary Rodham Clinton: No, I am very proud of my daughter. She is a
professor, she's a writer, she's active with the Clinton Foundation, she's a
great mom…
The conversational implicature is generated because Clinton failed to observe the maxim by flouting the maxim of manner indicated by her overtly gave information that was unclear in response. The interviewer asked her if she wanted to see her daughter enter politics. Instead of saying her answer directly, Clinton answer it by describing Chelsea‟s non-politics activities such as being active in the Clinton Foundation and being a great mother for her children. She also stated that she will support her daughter doing whatever
50
makes her happy and fulfilled. She explained that if other women come to her and ask her for advice, she will help them and give some lessons to impart.
Clinton‟s answer is considered as particularized conversational implicature since particular knowledge is needed to understand the implied meaning. The interlocutor needs to know that Chelsea was not involved in politics. She implied that she did not really want to see her daughter enter the politics because her daughter is happy doing her non-politics activities even though Clinton will always support all her decisions.
CHAPTER IV
CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
A. Conclusions
Based on the findings, the writer discovers two types of conversational implicature, they are particularized conversational implicature and generalized conversational implicature. According to the 20 data that have been analyzed,
19 data indicate particularized conversational implicature and one datum indicates generalized conversational implicature. The conversational implicatures are generated because Clinton fails to observe the maxims.
Clinton has done the non-observance towards three out of four maxims in the
Cooperative Principles; they are maxim of quantity, maxim of relevance, and maxim of manner. Furthermore, the types of non-observance of maxims that found in the interviews are flouting and opting out. Moreover, most of the conversational implicatures rise because Clinton fails to observe the maxim by flouting maxim of quantity. There are eight data that indicate she flouts maxim of quantity.
Clinton flouts maxim of quantity the most because she wanted to answer the questions clearly so that the interlocutors would understand what she actually meant easily. She made sure to not make people misinterpret what she was saying by giving more information than what was actually required. Since she is a public figure, she was aware that she had to be careful and clear with her choice of words. Just like what she had said, because of the double
51
52
standard, she also needs to be cautious with what she was saying because there will always people that against her because she is a woman in public, especially in politics. Furthermore, the conversational implcatures rise because the interlocutors need to understand the context of the conversation to understand her utterances. The conversation will run smoothly if both of the participants in the conversation know the context and have the knowledge of the conversation that takes place.
B. Suggestions
There are some suggestions that the writer has for further studies on the same field. Type of implicature is not only conversational implicature but there is also conventional implicature. The writer suggests for further studies to look for and analyze the conventional implicature. The types of maxims are not only flouting and opting out but there are also violating, infringing, and suspending. Moreover, the writer suggests for the next researches to observe all five types of non-observance of the maxims because this research only discovers two out of five types of non-observance of the maxims. Furthermore, there are many reasons why people choose to not observing the maxims in the conversation. It is suggested for further studies to analyze the reasons behind the non-observance of the maxims.
WORKS CITED
Books
Bublitz, Wolfram and Neal R. Norrick. “Introduction: The Burgeoning Field of Pragmatics.” In Handbooks of Pragmatics, eds. Wolfram Bublitz, et al. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co., 2011. Creswell, John W. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Appoaches. 2nd ed. California: Sage Publications, 2003. Cutting, Joan. Pragmatics and Discourse. London: Routledge, 2002. Davis, W. A. Implicature (Intention, Convention, and Principle in the Failure of Gricean Theory). Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2007. Finch, Geoffrey. How to Study Linguistics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 1998. Garner, Mark. “Technique of Analysis.” In The Routledge Companion to Sociolinguistics, ed. Carmen Llamas, et al. London: Routledge, 2007. Nawawi, Hadari and Martini Hadari. Instrumen Penelitian Bidang Sosial. Yogyakarta: Gadjah Mada University Press, 2006. Holmes, Janet. An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. 4th ed. New York: Routledge, 2013. Horn, Laurence R. “Implicature” In The Handbook of Pragmatics, eds. Laurence R. Horn and Gregory Ward. Maiden: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2006. Leech, N. Geoffrey. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman Group Limited, 1983. Schiffrin, Deborah. Approaches to Discourse. Cambridge: Blackwell Publisher, 1994. Simpson, J. M. Y. “Language.” In Concise Encyclopedia of Sociolinguistics, ed. Rajend Mesthrie. Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd, 2001. Subroto, Edi. Pengantar Metoda Penelitian Linguistik Struktural. Surakarta: Sebelas Maret University Press, 1992. Sunderland, Jane and Lia Litosseliti. Gender Identity and Discourse Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2002. Thomas, Jenny. Meaning in Interaction: an Introduction to Pragmatics. London: Routledge, 1995. Yule, George. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996.
53
54
Wardhaugh, Ronald and Janet M. Fuller. An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. 7th ed. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2015.
Journals Dayanthi, Ervina. An Analysis of Conversational Implicature in Time Magazine‟s Interview with Donald Trump. Jakarta: Universitas Islam Negeri Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta, 2017. Grice, H. Paul. “Logic and Conversation.” Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Arts. (1975): 41-58. Kondowe, Wellman, Flemmings Fishani Ngwira, and Precious Madula. “Linguistic Analysis Malawi Political Newspaper Cartoons on President Joyce Banda: Towards Grice‟s Conversational Implicature.” International Journal of Humanities and Social Science 4.7 (1) (May 2014): 40-51. Lumsden, David. “Kinds of Conversational Cooperation” Journal of Pragmatics. 40. (2008): 1896-1908. Taghiyev, Ilham. “Violation of Grice‟s Maxims and Ambiguity in English Linguistic Jokes.” INTCESS 2017 4th International Conference on Education and Social Sciences (February 2017): 832-836. Tupan, Anneke H. “The Multiple Violations of Conversational Maxims in Lying Done by the Characters in Some Episodes of Desperate Housewives.” Kata. 10.1 (2008): 63-78. Google Scholar. Wang, Haiyan. “Conversational Implicature in English Listening Comprehension.” Journal of Language Teaching and Research 2.5 (September 2011): 1162- 1167.
Websites Davis, Ariana. “Hillary Clinton.” Refinery29. 13 September. 2017. 15 April. 2018. < https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/hillary-clinton> “First Ladies.” Web Page. History 15 May. 2018
55
NDTV. “Full Transcript Of Hillary Clinton's Exclusive Interview With NDTV”. NDTV News Desk. 21 September. 2017. 15 April. 2018.
APPENDIX
INTERVIEW I
Read The Full Transcript Of Our Exclusive Interview With Hillary Clinton
Arianna Davis September 13, 2017, 9:00 PM At her headquarters in midtown Manhattan last Thursday, Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton sat down for an exclusive interview with Refinery29 to discuss her new book, What Happened, in stores now. She touched on everything from Ivanka Trump's current role in the Trump administration to the misogyny and sexism she experienced during the 2016 election, and what it's really like being a woman in politics. Here, you can watch the video in its entirety (above) and read the transcript in full (below) for additional moments from our sit-down, including how President Bill Clinton supported the former First Lady after her loss; the lessons she's learned from her daughter, Chelsea; and what she has to say to Democrats who aren't looking forward to the release of her book.
Secretary Clinton, thank you so much for being with us today. "Thank you for having me. Thanks for being here to talk to me."
Of course. So Refinery29 — I think all of our readers and our staff, since the election, have been feeling probably equal parts heartbroken and discouraged, but also, in a lot of ways, inspired and motivated. So I'm really excited to talk about what happened. "Good."
56
57
So I read the book, and in the book, you share a lot of really personal details. You open up a lot about everything, from attending Donald Trump's inauguration to what it was like raising Chelsea, even when she was a baby and you were trying to get her to stop crying; even details about your relationship with President Clinton. What made you want to open up now, and do you regret not letting that guard down a little bit earlier? "That's a great question. Because you're right, I mean, this book is my most candid explanation of not only my life, but what I believe that I've ever tried to do. It was hard, and I am very proud of the outcome because it was, kind of, cathartic. But a lot of the personal details are meant to explain to people, particularly to women, especially young women, that we're not in this alone. That there are ways that we can learn from each other, be resilient. "Everybody has losses. Not everybody will lose a presidential campaign, but there will be all kinds of losses and disappointments that are just part of human nature and life. So I wanted to share my story on a very personal level, behind the scenes, pulling back the curtain for people. So that, maybe, what I went through, the life that I've lived, can provide some support, encouragement, and maybe even some guidance to others." I think a lot of people did criticize you on the campaign trail for not doing that a little bit sooner. Do you ever regret that? Or do you feel like now is the time for you, where you can really fully be open? "Well, as I explain in the book, being a woman in public life is like being on a high wire with no net. And I have been involved in public service and in politics for much of my adult life, and there is a double standard about women, and I try to explain that. I have a whole chapter called, 'On Being a Woman in Politics.' Because it's not just my experience. It's the experience of everyone I've ever known. When you venture forth into the public arena, you're immediately criticized — how you look and what you say and what your voice sounds like, all of which can be very discouraging and even threatening to a lot of women. And I want to be honest about the experience but I don't want it to be discouraging. Because we need more women — particularly more young women — in public
58
service, in government, running for office, in politics. But we have to go in with our eyes wide open, and some of what I've experienced, I hope will be helpful to others who, you know, really want to make their mark. "And, I guess one of the best things that's happened since the election is that I worried that my defeat would be discouraging for women, and young women in particular. And I'm so excited by all of the young women who are contacting me, who are going to groups that I'm supporting, and saying, no, they want to get out there and they want to try. But I want them to be well prepared and ready, because they will face all kinds of challenges."
I love that, and I love that you're such a proponent for women, even after everything that happened. "Absolutely."
But I do wonder, you know, 53% of white women did not vote for you, and unfortunately, I feel like your narrative has been largely left out of the conversation around the Women's March. Do you ever feel abandoned by women? "No. And I did carry a majority of women, because I like to look at all women, not just women of one background...but all women, and I'm very proud that I carried all women by, I think, 54%. And I actually did better with white women than President Obama had done. So this has been a challenge for Democrats going back quite some time, and I was aware of that going in. "And I consulted a friend of mine, Sheryl Sandberg, who, as you know, is the COO of Facebook who wrote a really important book called Lean In. And she has both done and collected so much research about women. 'Cause it's not just politics. It's business. It's academia. It's everything. And so she and two of her top researchers came to brief me before the election really got started, before I got into it, and they said something which was so telling. They said, 'All the research shows that the more successful a man becomes, the more likable he becomes. The more professionally successful a woman becomes, the less likable she becomes.'"
59
Ain't that the truth? "And, you know, it was so clearly laid out, and when I left the State Department, I had a 69% approval rating, which I was very proud of because I worked hard. I was honored to serve in President Obama's cabinet. But another point that Sheryl made is that when you are a woman in public life and you are advocating for somebody else, which had been much of my work over many decades, starting with the Children's Defense Fund, which I write about in the book, and the extraordinary role model and mentor that Marian Wright Edelman was to me. I was in service to others, particularly kids, and then I got more involved in the Women's Movement and more work on behalf of women and girls. And when you are in service for someone else, you can go and advocate, and people will accept that. But when you are trying to advocate for yourself as a woman, you are held to such a different standard than when men do the very same thing. And one of the points that Sheryl made to me was, if you're a woman and you advocate for a raise for somebody else, like I go and I tell Refinery29, 'You're terrific, and let's give you more support,' I get big kudos for that because I'm advocating for you. Advertisement "Now, when a man goes and says, 'You know, I'm working really hard and I would like to get a raise,' or 'I'd like to get other benefits,' that's taken in stride. But when a woman goes and says, 'Hey, you know what? I'm working really hard and I think I should be better compensated,' it hurts you. So when I was serving President Obama, or when I was serving the State of New York as a Senator, or when I was working in the White House on behalf of my husband's agenda, I could still be controversial and criticized, but I was viewed as in support of, and when I came back out after, thinking about it, as I describe in the book, about the process that led me to decide to run, and I say, 'You know what? I'm gonna do this again.' Ooh, all of a sudden, it's like, 'Oh, wait a minute.' You know, because we know ambition is a double-edged sword. It's fine for a young man, or a man of any age, to be ambitious. But a young woman, or a woman of any age, to be ambitious raises all kinds of dissonance in people's minds."
60
For sure. One thing I was thinking about as I was reading the book is how you talk so much about President Clinton and the way he supported you throughout not just the campaign but your career. On the campaign, I feel like he was glowing. He was so supportive, and, just, it was really great to see, and I think that the level of support that he has given you might make some men uncomfortable. Did you know he would be [that] kind of husband when you first married him? "That‟s a great question. I thought he would be. We met in law school, so even though when I went to law school, way back in 1969, there were less than 10% women in my class, and in fact, as I write in the book, I was trying to choose which law school to go to, and a professor at Harvard Law School said, 'We don‟t need any more women,' which made me quickly decide to go to Yale. We were in a minority. And so, we were viewed as kind of an oddity, if you will, and it was challenging, but there were a lot of great friends we had among our male colleagues. When my husband came, he was a year behind me, 'cause he had spent two years studying in England, and he was just so open and so supportive. And as I got to know him — he had a working mom; his father died before he was born, so his mother always had to support him. And he was very used to having a hard-working woman in the household. "In fact, when I start the chapter about being a woman in politics, I make the point that if you look at my husband‟s story and Barack Obama‟s story...think about it. You know, Bill never knew his father. President Obama hardly ever, I think he met him once, and he had no real father relationship. Both of them overcame struggles. In Bill‟s case, you know, a level of poverty, abuse from his step-father, and the like. And in President Obama‟s, you know, not having a father; his mother working hard; and a really unique, wonderful story. So, I often thought, you know, I don‟t have that kind of story, but the story that I have is, when I was coming of age, it was a time of opening doors for women. "Along with the Civil Rights Movement, the Women‟s Movement in the 1960s began to question and eliminate barriers to women‟s full equality. And my
61
husband always believed in that. You know, he really was someone who encouraged me and supported me. So I know that I‟m fortunate, but I would like more young men to understand, as you see with Barack and Michelle Obama, the kind of partnership that you can have, which really makes both of you, I think, better and happier."
Did he have any words of advice that really stuck with you after election night? What kind of comfort did he offer you? "Oh, he was wonderful, because it was so shocking. You know, we thought I was gonna win. That‟s what the data we had suggested. I knew that I had taken a big hit from the letter that Director Comey from the FBI sent, which was, I thought, incredibly, unbelievably unnecessary, unprecedented, and damaging. We knew we had hit some problems with the Russian publication through WikiLeaks of emails from my campaign chair. So, we knew we had some obstacles to overcome, but we thought we had — we thought we were heading in the right direction. The night before we had that huge rally in Philadelphia, both Barack and Michelle were there, and they were so encouraging, they were so sure. My husband was feeling good. So it was shocking. And when it happened, it was really a comfort to have him, because he is, you know, my principal advisor and supporter. But he‟d also lost. He‟d lost two races for Congress, and reelection as governor, so he knows the pain of losing. And he was able to both buck me up, but also begin to, you know, point me forward. "Because it was devastating, I‟m not gonna pretend otherwise, when it happened. And you know, that next morning, when I gave my concession speech, I was really worried that young people, particularly young women, would be so discouraged, 'cause it was so shocking, and I wanted to, as I said in the concession speech, and as we discussed in some detail in the book, I wanted young women to know that they were valuable and powerful and that they should pursue their dreams. Yes, will there be setbacks, disappointments, failures? Most likely, but you have to get back up and you have to keep going. And you know, Bill was, as was my daughter and my close friends, incredibly supportive during those first
62
terrible days. And I write in the very first chapter what it felt like going to the inauguration that was going to inaugurate my opponent, and I had raised so many concerns about him. I‟d tried to warn people, and it was painful. And I felt like I owed it to the country that it was a duty that I go. "So, I did. Bill and I went. And then we, you know, just kind of recovered ourselves after it was over. I describe what it felt like to hear the speech he gave, which was so divisive and not at all what I thought should have been done to bring the country together. It was pretty grim. But then the next day, with the Women‟s March, it was exhilarating. And I was able to get minute by minute reports from my friends and so many of my staff from the campaign. We had a lot of them involved in the organizing and logistics of the march. So, that gave me a big boost of spirit and encouragement."
I think that a lot of young women were surprised, though, how much misogyny and sexism played a role in Donald Trump’s campaign, and you write in the book that that did play a big role in the election. What lessons do you think that taught you about men, in the aftermath of the campaign? "Well, I think there are several lessons that are important to get out of this book, and that‟s one of them: that sexism and misogyny, which I describe and differentiate, if you will, are endemic in our society still. And we elected for our president a man who bragged about groping women and sexual assault, who used vile insults to describe women, who called me nasty for challenging him. It was classic, classic misogynistic behavior. So what does that tell us? It tells us that we‟ve made progress. I‟d be the first to say we have, certainly from the time I was your age and younger, but that we by no means have achieved the dream of equality in social, political, and economic terms. And that when someone who is now our president in the White House gives voice to those kinds of degrading comments about women, who‟s caught on tape saying those kinds of things, it gives a license to people to be more outspoken against women, against our progress, against our rights. And I think it‟s really important for young women to recognize, yes, we‟ve made progress, but we have to all continue to stand up for
63
ourselves, to stand up for each other, to stand up for the laws that we need and to take on the sexism that is so prevalent, and which has been given a real boost by Trump. "So I want to explain that, because I think for a lot of young women, and I encountered this in the campaign, they thought, well, those days are done. Thank you very much. Here‟s your gold watch. We appreciate it. And the statistics are pretty clear that if you‟re an educated, college-educated young woman, you start off on parity with your male counterparts in your early-20s. By your late-20s, there begins to be a pay gap. By your 30s, it widens. If you want to be a mom and you want to have a family, it widens further. And it‟s not just because women, you know, take time out for families. It is because there remains institutional bias. We see that at Silicon Valley and we see it across the country. So I want young women to read this book and to think about their own lives, and to be part of the continuing commitment to stand up for and speak out against sexism and misogyny, because it‟s going to limit our own dreams and ambitions if we don‟t."
Yeah, of course. And, your daughter, Chelsea, is one of those young women who is very opinionated and strong, and she’s technically a millennial, and you and President Clinton are Baby Boomers. Has that generational difference ever caused any political differences in your views, and has Chelsea ever helped you to see something a little bit differently when it came to your opinions on things? "Yes. And in the book, I talk about one of the issues that she really did guide Bill and me on, and that was gay marriage. You know, starting in the '90s, we both tried, Bill and I both tried to open doors and eliminate discrimination against the LGBT community. It was rocky. It was, like, sometimes, you know, one step forward, a half a step back, because it was so resisted. And then, when I got in the Senate, I spoke out in favor of ending employment discrimination, and the like. But gay marriage was something that happened so quickly, and millennials led the way.
64
"Chelsea was one of the leaders of a group that advocated for gay marriage here in New York, and I was very proud of her. When I got to the State Department, I made changes in how people were treated, what their expectations could be, what their passports would say in the LGBT community, created opportunities for people in committed relationships to be able to travel overseas together. But she kept talking to me, and as soon as I got out of the State Department, „cause I couldn‟t be in politics then, I said, you know, I support gay marriage and I want to see it be the law of the land. She was very instrumental in that, and other things as well, but that‟s the issue that I point to in the book."
So, Ivanka Trump: She was kind of hailed as a moderating force for the Trump administration on the campaign trail. She started to champion a lot of the same issues that you did. She even wore a white pantsuit to inauguration. But she’s kind of failed to live up to a lot of the things that she said that she would. Do you feel that she’s complicit in the administration’s actions, and should we be sympathetic for her? "The way I look at it is that the person who has to be held responsible is Donald Trump. He is the president. He listens to who he listens to. He tweets and speaks out, makes common cause with white supremacists and neo-Nazis and Ku Klux Klanners, takes away the protections that were granted to 800,000 Dreamers, and so many ways just trying to impose a political agenda that is turning the clock back, or attempting to do so, in ways that I find not only really repulsive, but wrong-headed, in terms of the kind of country we are. So, everyone associated with him: They‟re either on board with that or they‟re not. And if they‟re not, they need to be speaking out or leaving. But if they remain silent and just give lip service to contrary points of view, then they are part of his agenda and should be judged and held accountable for that." For sure. There are some reports that a lot of Democrats are not necessarily looking forward to your book tour because they would prefer to look forward and not look back. What do you say to that?
65
"I‟d say read this book, because it is about going forward. I talk about what happened, because I am concerned that what happened could happen again. And let me just briefly say, this campaign was carried out in an atmosphere of a concerted assault on truth, facts, and reason, contrary to how a democracy is supposed to work. That‟s not going away. Very powerful forces and individuals, whether it is the Mercer family, the Koch brothers, Steve Bannon, and Breitbart, and Fox News, and all the rest of it, have been undermining the truth in ways large and small for years. It came to a head in this campaign. "The Russian attack on our election was a hostile attack by a foreign adversary. We still don‟t know everything they did. We‟re learning more every day, and to what extent the Trump campaign knew, and to what extent they actually cooperated, is being disclosed. I hope we‟ll get to the bottom of it, both in the Congressional investigations and in the Special Counsel. I personally would like to see an independent commission with subpoena power, because this was an attack on America. And so, people who say, 'Well, you know, that can‟t happen.' It is happening. And it will continue to happen. "We talked about sexism and misogyny. That will continue to happen. We have to stand against it, and it‟s not just about me. In the book, I write about wonderful women leaders being attacked, you know, Kamala Harris, Senator from California, being told to shut up, stop talking, when she was questioning Jeff Sessions. Elizabeth Warren, on the floor of the Senate — I was a Senator — reading a letter from Coretta Scott King criticizing Jeff Sessions, told to cease, and she persisted, thank goodness, right? So these are not just what happened to me. This is what happened that we have to understand, and I would add that the suppression of voters, particularly African-Americans and young voters, really worked for the Republicans. You know, the best estimate is that 200,000 voters in Milwaukee were turned away. Big article in The New York Times about a week ago, people in North Carolina showing up to vote who knew they‟d registered, and being told they weren‟t. Was that intrusiveness by the Russians messing with voter roles? Was that decisions by Republican governors, Secretaries of State, legislators? We
66
need to know. This goes to the core of a democracy. One person, one vote should be sacred. "And I guess, finally, the role that the media and social media has to play in our democracy requires a lot of serious thought from journalists and reporters and editors and others, because it was hard to cover the Trump campaign. I understand that. I have a lot of sympathy for how difficult it was, because it was, you know, just a car wreck every day. He said some vile thing there, some crazy tweet here, and it just never ended, and it was really difficult to get your arms around it. But the press has to be ready for a 24/7 media environment with fact checking, with journalistic and editorial standards, so that, no, we don‟t wanna live in a world of alternative facts. That‟s what they want us to live in. We can argue what‟s the best way to deal with climate change, immigration, whatever, but deal with the facts. Don‟t let others kind of insinuate this, you know, assault on reason and truth into our reporting. "So, I think those are things that are just as relevant today as they were in 2016, and will continue to be relevant, because, like, the Russians, for example, they‟re not gonna quit. They were successful. So they‟re gonna keep going after people. They may end up going after Trump. You know? You create a Frankenstein — you may not know where it ends up."
Yeah, it's scary. One of the other things you read about in the book is your passion for moving forward the Democratic Party, and for all of the things that could be possible for this party. Do you feel that abortion litmus tests are necessary for the Democratic Party in red states? "I have to say that I am proud to be a Democrat, and I‟m proud of all the progress that‟s happened in my own lifetime, from the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act and Medicare and Medicaid under Johnson, to the extraordinary work that President Carter did to bring Israel and Egypt to the peace table, to my husband‟s great record of broad-based prosperity, lifting tens of millions of people out of poverty, and a balanced budget. And of course, Barack Obama saving the
67
auto industry, getting us on the path to universal healthcare coverage, saving the economy, these are very significant accomplishments of the Democratic Party. "So I‟m proud to be a Democrat, and I will continue to advocate for the policies of the Democratic Party. But I don‟t think it‟s either/or. You need a very strong economic message, which I think I had, but it was hard to get through. And you need to stand up for human rights, social justice, and civil rights. And a woman‟s right to control her body and her healthcare decisions is a fundamental human right. I believe that there can be personal differences, as I explain in the book. I have worked for more than 25 years to try to bring Republicans and Democrats together around things like teen pregnancy and access to birth control and abortion. I‟m a strong supporter of Planned Parenthood. So, there can be personal differences. In fact, one of the reasons I was proud to have Tim Kaine on my ticket is that he‟s personally opposed to abortion. He‟s a practicing Catholic. But he, like Mario Cuomo long before, recognized that you have to protect the rights of individuals to make the most important and intimate decisions. And reproductive rights are important in order to make clear that we want to give women a choice. We‟re not gonna tell you what to do. We‟re not gonna prevent you from doing. I‟ve seen what happens in other countries — China, Romania, and other places that I‟ve been — so I think the Constitutional right that women have to make this most intimate choice should be protected and should be defended."
I’ve been thinking a lot about the day after the election. In the Refinery29 Offices, there were a lot of people sobbing and crying and upset, and during your concession speech, particularly, there was an electric energy in the room. Is there anything that you would say to those women differently today than you did back in that speech? "I think the speech was certainly reflective of my concerns at that point, which were that people would get discouraged, and they would turn away from public involvement, however they defined it. I‟m not so worried about that. What I am focused on now, with this new organization I‟ve started called Onward Together,
68
is to give more people, young people, the chance to participate through supporting organizations, through being online, through raising money for people who are out in the public arena. I‟m gonna continue to do that. I‟m very committed to it. And I have a little mantra where I like to say, 'Resist, insist, persist, and enlist.'"
I love that. "And enlist is really important. Not everybody‟s gonna run for office by any means, but you can support those who do. You can be part of groups, whether it‟s fighting the unfortunate reversal of EPA rules with our environment and the effects that will have on climate change; whether it is standing up for DACA recipients, because it is so cruel and wrong to rip them away from the only country they‟ve ever known and loved. Whether it is fighting for better rules to protect equal pay and overtime and all of the other pieces, or fighting to get healthcare for people. There‟s so much to be involved in now, and so I feel like the commitment is there. The passion is there. But we just have to organize ourselves as well as we can so that the maximum number of people can be involved, and particularly to vote in elections, because that‟s really what it all comes down to."
Right, of course. Well, to end this interview, Refinery29, we love owning your power, and we are big fans of the power pose. Mine’s kinda something like, like a little… [Poses] It makes me feel confident. Do you have a go-to power pose that makes you feel powerful? "Let me see here. It‟s hard to do sitting down, but I think, you know, sitting up straight, and just looking as fearless as you can about whatever lies ahead of you out there. And just being unapologetic to own your own power and who you are."
I love it. Thank you so much Secretary Clinton. I appreciate it. Thank you very much. "Thank you so much."
69
INTERVIEW II Full Transcript of Hillary Clinton’s Exclusive Interview with NDTV
Updated: September, 21, 2017 22:03 IST
Welcome to this India exclusive, a very special interview with a multi-faceted world leader. A woman who, for the first time, became presidential nominee for the United States election, also an ex-Secretary of State-and she was ranked, at that time, as the most admired woman in the world-and of course a former First Lady. Joining me tonight: Hillary Rodham Clinton. Thank you very much for speaking to NDTV. It is a pleasure. Thank you for coming to talk with me
NDTV: It's been less than a year since that election defeat and your book, "What Happened". Writing it must have been cathartic, in a sense, but responses to it have been interesting to say the least. We had President Trump saying well, Crooked Hillary is trying to blame everyone but herself, Bernie Sanders saying it's time to move forward and also the huge lines at the book signings, the numbers that have just come in on the sales. So very interesting, different responses-in some sense a re-run of the election campaign, some would say. How do you react to that?
Hillary Rodham Clinton: I think it's interesting because the book is selling extremely well in the United States and it is attempt, on my part, to be both personal and political, to write a history as seen through my eyes of what happened in the campaign. Now, clearly, my opponents aren't going to agree with what I say happened, but I think that there are lessons to be learned for democracies, not just our own. That's why I'm so happy talking to you because I think India has a tremendous role to play in maintaining the vitality of democracy in the next hundred years.
NDTV: Do you accept that criticism, that you haven't taken enough of the
70
blame on yourself? Again that's something that came up in the campaign, that "oh Hillary tries to blame other people and not herself". Do you accept this criticism regarding you and Bernie Sanders?
Hillary Rodham Clinton: No, I don't. I mean, I beat him by four million votes so I don't accept that criticism from former political opponents. I try to be candid and open in the book about what I did wrong, what responsibility I feel about it, but it was also important to talk about all these factors that were happening at the same time. It was like the perfect storm. You had sexism and misogyny; you had voter suppression which, in our country, is a real and growing problem; you had the interference of the Russians; you had the manipulation of social media, the phenomenon of fake news. So I just feel like I am taking responsibility but I wrote this book in part so that what happened doesn't happen again.
NDTV: Of course, your election was watched all over the world, you had women around the world rooting for you. In India many couldn't understand, because in India we've been very comfortable with women in political power, we've had a Prime Minister, head of a political party, many senior ministers and popular chief ministers are women, it hasn't been an issue. Why is it that in America of the 21st Century-you've written in your book about sexism and misogyny-how do you explain the fact that even in white women, you didn't win the majority vote?
Hillary Rodham Clinton: Well I think gender in our political system has not been the motivator that race was, for example, in President Obama's elections. I won the vote of a majority of women but not of white women and part of that is their party affiliation, predominantly Republican, although I got more white women to vote for me than President Obama did in 2012. So it's a very complicated situation but I would say this: you have a parliamentary system and I write in the book that I do believe it is somewhat easier for a woman to rise in a parliamentary system. Think about the women who broke through: Indira Gandhi, Margaret Thatcher, Angela Merkel. The majority of women who become head of
71
government come out of a parliamentary system. Our system, you have one person as head of state, head of government and you don't have the strong party basis that helps to select candidates to run for constituencies across the country. So you really start from the very bottom, no matter who you are, no matter what your record has been. You start and you have to raise all the money yourself, you have to run the gauntlet of a very tough political system. I was really honoured to be the first woman nominated by one of our two major parties, but I think that it is harder for a woman to rise in that system compared to a parliamentary system.
NDTV: But what's common, I think, for women politicians around the world, we saw what President Trump tweeted, the meme of you getting hit by a golf- ball and actually falling down. That in a sense is almost like a physical assault being tweeted by the President. You've written in your book about the second debate just a few days after that sexual assault came out, on how you felt almost invaded and how part of you wanted to say "back up, get away from me", but you didn't. Why does a woman in a position as powerful as yours feel the need to suppress that?
Hillary Rodham Clinton: It's a very good question and it's one I've thought a lot about, because I think that when you are a woman in a very high political position, you know things that you have learned over the course of your life. You know that anger coming from a woman is not accepted as much as anger coming from a man. A man can rant and rail and wave his arms and carry on and it's somehow viewed as acceptable. The margins for women are much narrower. So I try to pull the curtain back and invite the reader into thinking about that with me. I really believed, and most women I know in public life have lived this, where you master your emotions, you become calm and composed because you don't want to give any basis for the kind of sexist attacks that will come; "angry" or "weak" or whatever it might be. But when you think about it, it is not just about women in politics, its women in business, in media-you know, you've been a professional. And I was trying to argue that you have to accept the double standard, it exists,
72
and overcome it by supporting women and fighting back. I happened to run against an incredibly, overtly sexist candidate. Trump delighted in insulting women, in trying to dominate women. Everything he said, starting in the primary with the Republicans going into the general election. And I made a very conscious decision to try and maintain my composure, to maintain my maturity, if you will, because I thought at the end of the day more people would vote for that than would vote for the kind of unpredictable behaviour. Now, in fact, more people did vote it, if I'd been running anywhere else in the world I would have won. But it just showed you how difficult it was to try and stay within the arena while you're getting attacked and it doesn't stop. You referenced his recent retweet of a meme showing a golf-ball hitting me in the back and all of that. I mean, why is this happening? Why does someone who's in the most powerful position in the world still feel so insecure that he does that? And that's what frightened me about his candidacy, that's what I tried to warn about. That he was temperamentally not equipped to be President, he didn't have the experience, he didn't have the understanding to be President.
NDTV: One other aspect which I think India and the US perhaps have in common, in India a big focus of political discussion is about dynasty politics and of course in America, it's been referred to as the Bush-Clinton era, the fact that perhaps it could've been a Bush vs Clinton race in the last election before Donald Trump and the fact that critics would say this is too much about the House of Clinton, perhaps we shouldn't have had another Clinton in the race this time. Now perhaps Chelsea may be the next Clinton to run for office. Do you think dynasty is an issue that people have criticised you about, do you take that criticism seriously?
Hillary Rodham Clinton: I really don't and my daughter has absolutely no interest that she's ever expressed about running for office herself. You know anyone can get in and run, I mean that's both the opportunity and the downside about being in politics in the United States: we don't have parties like you do that are much more controlling about who runs and how they are supported or not. So
73
in our system, anybody can run for President. You had 16 people on the Republican side, some of them had famous names, some of them had come from nowhere. Whatever the combination might be. On our side we started off with five candidates, then we went to two and then I very conclusively won. The answer is don't vote for somebody. If you're worried about that don't vote but I was a revolutionary candidate as the first woman with a serious chance to be elected President and I brought my whole experience with me, my own service in the Senate, my own service appointed by President Obama in the Secretary of State office, my long commitment to women's rights and all that I've done. So if people liked that, they could vote for it. If they didn't, they wouldn't; but I would've thought that my experience-including my years as first lady with my husband's presidency-would be a big advantage. And it would have been; had I been elected I would have been ready and able to start moving quickly.
NDTV: In fact, President Obama said in that speech that you are the best qualified to be President of all of them. I remember your husband standing up and clapping when he said that
Hillary Rodham Clinton: Yes he did!
NDTV: It was interesting also, in your book, when you wrote about the kind of reactions you faced, polarising in some sense. Where people said your marriage was an arrangement, you talked about how difficult it was to have your worst moments in the public and again President Trump in that second debate actually had women who had made allegations against your husband out there in the audience. Did it help to be Mrs. Bill Clinton or Hillary Rodham Clinton in this election or do you think perhaps people thought "why have two Clintons in the White House"?
Hillary Rodham Clinton: Well I'm sure some people thought that, people are free to think whatever they wish to think. It never presented itself as a big problem. I was running as Hillary Rodham Clinton. Of course I'm married, of course I'm a mother. I'm a grandmother, I'm a lawyer, I'm a former elected official, I am a
74
cabinet member. I was presenting my entire self for the voters to decide whether or not to support me. Now were there people who disagreed on trade or something else and said "okay I'm not going to vote for his wife"? Probably, I don't know. But were there people who said "I really liked the economy under Bill Clinton it really produced a lot of jobs and helped a lot of people, I'm going to vote for her"? Probably. But at the end of the day it was about me. I was the candidate, my name was on the ballot and it's one of the reasons I take losing so personally, because I think I would have been a good President and I regret that there were lots of forces in this perfect storm that prevented that from happening.
NDTV: What's interesting with President Trump is that many have accused him of running it as a family business and there's been all this. In fact, Ivanka Trump just met our Foreign Affairs Minister a few days ago at the UN and she's coming to India on the invitation of the government as a representative. We've also got that whole issue of when Ivanka Trump sat in on a meeting of G20 leaders and when there was criticism President Trump said, "well if Hillary had done this with Chelsea no one would have complained". So he always brings this out when issues come up about his family's involvement, Jared Kushner etc., he always tries to draw a parallel. How would you react?
Hillary Rodham Clinton: Well there's no basis for it. I know he does it, he does it all the time, he seems to be spending more time thinking about me and my family than thinking about the work he should be doing as our President. But that would have never happened. Neither I nor my husband would have ever thought about bypassing officials with deep experience for our child. In fact, I think it's very telling to hear that from Trump. In part because he has not staffed the government. Hundreds of positions are unfilled, people with expertise are ignored. Yes, he relies on a small circle of people who do not have the collective experience of professionals both in the government and elsewhere so it's an absurd claim and I think it goes to how insulated he is and how he doesn't trust anybody except a couple of people who happen to be related to him.
75
NDTV: It's interesting this whole focus on the first daughter because of course we've had great first ladies: you, of course, Michelle Obama and now Melania Trump seems in a sense to not have found her niche or her voice at all, so far, in the White House. Any advice for her? Or do you have any thoughts on how Melania Trump is doing?
Hillary Rodham Clinton: I think it's up to each woman who finds herself in that position to decide what is the role.
NDTV: Because it's a very powerful position.
Hillary Rodham Clinton: Well, it is but I don't think there's any set requirements. People define it as they choose so I will let her work to figure that out. I'm more concerned about the people that are advising President Trump directly, the people in the White House, the people in the cabinet. You've already seen a number of people forced out because of their failing to report contact with the Russians, because of other things that they've done that violate ethical standards. So I think we should stay focus, in this particular case, since there is no other project or program that she's involved in, we should keep focused on the President and the people that he listens to, both in the White House and outside, because they're the ones that are helping to determine what he does here at home and around the world.
NDTV: Just shifting focus to the whole India-Pakistan question as well, of course that's of huge interest to us, I remember as Secretary of State when you famously said, "well Pakistan can't have snakes in its own backyard and think that they're only going to bite its neighbours" and I think perhaps we've seen the truth of that. But in a sense, many in India actually feel that President Trump has gone further by calling out Pakistan recently about being a safe haven for terrorists or in his Afghanistan policy, dehyphenating India and Pakistan in a sense. Do you think the Trump administration has
76
actually done more against Pakistan-based terror than the Obama administration did?
Hillary Rodham Clinton: Oh I don't know how you can say that. Certainly at this point, they haven't really done anything except say some things and make up policy to send more American troops to Afghanistan with no strategy. So I think that we were very clear when I was Secretary of State, as you well remember, speaking out against Pakistan, going in and killing Osama bin Laden inside Pakistan, making it clear that there were too many safe havens for terrorists across the border. I mean I had many stand-offs with the Pakistani government over their behaviour. So you can't count on what Trump says, you have to see what he does and right now he's not doing anything. He's talking a lot about all kinds of problems without any real back-up or deep understanding of the complexity of what it is he's talking about. His UN speech, I thought, was dangerous, dark, divisive it was not worthy of a President of the United States, it's as though he's almost looking for a nuclear crisis in two different places, on two different continents - with North Korea and Iran. It's hard to understand what he is really believing in and trying to do because he is often contradictory and even incoherent. So I think India should count on a strong relationship with the United States that predates him and hopefully will postdate him where we continue to deepen and strengthen our ties, government to government, people to people, industry to industry and know that the United States supports the world's biggest democracy and I think that that has to be the constant in the relationship, no matter who's in the oval office.
NDTV: In fact, interestingly, in the Indian American community, such a vibrant one that contributes a lot to the US economy, but this whole standoff that there has been about H1B visas, etc. and then candidate Donald Trump talked a lot about this issue of the worry and the fear of all jobs going to India and China. How justified that was today and do you think his whole America First policy has actually lived up to expectations ever since?
77
Hillary Rodham Clinton: Well again it's too soon to tell. He's banned Muslims from six countries, ignoring countries that have actually attacked us or supplied fighters to attack us, he has talked a lot about immigration and he's made it clear that he wants to limit immigration of all kinds yet he also seeks visas for people to come work at Mar a Lago, his home in Florida. So who can make sense of this and I think that everybody understands that given the campaign that he ran there would have to be some adjustments made to the immigration policy. It is my strong hope that it is not done in a way that shuts the door on talent that prevents us from getting the best of people, professionals and workers of all kinds coming to our country. Immigration has been good for America. Immigrants give much more money to our government than they take at all, it's a very clear balance in favour of immigration so if you look at the facts the way that he acts and behaves has no basis, but he didn't win based on facts. He won on stoking anger and fear, pointing fingers, scapegoating people. So I'm hoping that cooler heads prevail and people will get back to understanding, yes, you've got to do everything you can to promote jobs and raise incomes here at home but immigrants actually contribute to that. Immigrants start more jobs than native Americans, end up employing so many people-so let's get back to looking at the evidence not just the rhetoric.
NDTV: You talked about evidence and of course after the election campaign and after the result, more evidence seems to be coming out of possible Russian collusion in what happened in this election. There's an FBI committee looking into it but in an interview with NPR recently you said that you would even consider challenging the result if more concrete evidence emerges. Is that something you mean seriously? Is that something that goes with the kind of tradition we've had in democracies of moving on in a sense or just accepting the result? Would it be a challenge to democracy if you challenged the result?
Hillary Rodham Clinton: That's not what I said. Neither I nor anyone who understands our law and our constitution is urging any contest to the election, that
78
is over. But as we learn more about the role the Russians played, there are questions that should be raised about the legitimacy of the election. I personally think that what we're finding out about how the Russians paid in rubles for ads on Facebook, how they weaponised information, how they sent fake Americans who were Russians to foment discord and demonstrations, how they had a thousand Russian agents, tens of thousands of bots; they were trying to get Donald Trump elected. So those raise legitimate questions about the role that Russia played. Now I'm not going to say what will be proven by these investigations in terms of any cooperation, coordination between Russians and people associated with the Trump campaign but even if none of that is ever proved, we know for a fact that they were influencing the election and they were trying to elect a candidate. No foreign government should be able to do that. I mean, imagine how you would feel if China were trying to influence the election in India, if a foreign government was hacking into government emails and into your voting system, which is one of the best in the world. You would not tolerate that. If I had been elected President and I learned that Russia had been involved, I would have launched an immediate investigation, as serious as any we've ever encountered because we may have won the Cold War but we're losing the Cyber War: our very democracy is under attack. So I think this raises really legitimate concerns that have to be addressed. Right now we have a President and a Congress who are doing little to nothing to try and address that and I think that is a grave error because they may have been trying to hurt me this time, they'll try to hurt someone else, including Republicans next time if it suits their agenda.
NDTV: I can see how passionately you still feel about it and reading the book it was interesting (to see) the different phases you went through, the times you said you wanted to scream at the TV, you wanted to throw a remote and of course when you did yoga! Now for all Indians, that sounds fantastic tell us about the shouting and screaming but the yoga as well.
Hillary Rodham Clinton: (laughs) Well, I really appreciate yoga a lot. I try and keep up practice during the campaign. I'm not good at it-I don't want anybody to
79
get the wrong impression but I found it very relaxing and the breath work-I talk about alternate-nostril breathing-was incredibly calming to me and I wanted to pull the curtain back and share a lot of the personal aspects of my life, of running for President and that was part of what I did to try and keep myself centered during the campaign.
NDTV: You can do alternate-nostril breathing? We'd love to see it!
Hillary Rodham Clinton: (laughs) I'll let your viewers Google it and they can watch it.
NDTV: What next for Hillary Clinton because I think you've said that it's not about you fading away silently-what next for Hillary Clinton?
Hillary Rodham Clinton: I'm going to continue to speak out, speak up, I will remain active in politics, I will support causes and candidates I care about, I will do some more writing, I will do some work with non-profit groups, particularly those that are involved in children and women's issues. I'll probably work with some universities on different things. I've started a new group called Onward Together to support a lot of these new, young, grass-root groups trying to recruit candidates and help them win. So I expect to be very much involved publicly and will get to spend more time with my family and my friends-particularly with my grandchildren-which is an extra added benefit.
NDTV: Despite how many feathers that may ruffle, because when you say active in politics you already hear speculation that Hillary Clinton is going to run for mayor, will she look at governor next? What do you mean active in politics?
Hillary Rodham Clinton: No, I am not going to be candidate but I am going to be active in politics. I was active in politics before I became a candidate myself in 2000. So that's why I've set up this other new group, to be able to do just that. To help candidates and people working with candidates to have the benefit of my
80
experience and my support. So I will remain involved. Those who are wishing my departure will be sorely disappointed.
NDTV: You said Chelsea's never expressed any interest in standing for public office, would you like to see her actually enter public office or enter politics?
Hillary Rodham Clinton: No, I am very proud of my daughter. She is a professor, she's a writer, she's active with the Clinton Foundation, she's a great mom. I want her to do whatever makes her happy and fulfilled. I have a lot of young women though who come up to me and ask for advice and that's one of the ways I'll remain active. I will give advice; I will give support. If I have some lessons to impart, some of them in that book, I hope it will help others because I want to see more women in American politics.
NDTV: As we end this interview, Secretary Clinton, what's the one thing that you regret doing and what's the one lesson perhaps you've learned to never do again and what's the one thing you want to keep doing again and again?
Hillary Rodham Clinton: Well look I think I lost the election in the end because of the FBI Director's intervention so if I had never used the particular email set-up I had despite it being legal and all the rest of it, I wouldn't have ended up in that position. It was a dumb mistake, it was a dumber scandal and it cost me the election so if I could turn the clock back I would certainly not do that again. I think that there's much to be learned though from my experience about how to deal with the rigours and the pressures of being in public life. I ran because I thought I'd be a good President and because I thought I could really make a difference, to help people. I will never give up on that. I will keep doing that, for as long as I am able because that's what I did originally before I was ever in politics, before my husband was ever President and it's what I will keep doing.
NDTV: And to all the viewers who are watching this in India, what would you say? And to young women across the globe-because this wasn't just about
81
America-who were watching you, who were rooting for you, what would you say to them?
Hillary Rodham Clinton: Don't be discouraged by setbacks, either personal or more broadly. There is a backlash going on against women's progress. Some of it is primitive, medieval, what we see from terrorists, for example. Some of it is more subtle: coming up with all kinds of criticism and complaints about women, demeaning women, acting as though women don't have a right to be engineers in Silicon Valley or sports-broadcasters in American media or President of the United States. Do not get discouraged, work to be prepared and ready. If you go into politics, or any career in the public arena, even in the media, you know you have to grow the hide of a rhinoceros, as I quote my predecessor, Eleanor Roosevelt. And you need to support each other. I've been supported by a wonderful group of friends my entire adult life and that's what really matters. They share my joys, they share my sorrows, they are with me and so understand that life is not just about the public part of your experience: it's about your personal, and do your best to integrate the two, but don't give up in the face of sexism, misogyny and prejudice. Stand up and speak out.
NDTV: A message that resonates across the world, Secretary Clinton, thank you for speaking with NDTV.