Conversational Implicature Between George W Bush and Jimmy Kimmel in Jimmy Kimmel Talk Show

CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURE BETWEEN GEORGE W BUSH AND JIMMY KIMMEL IN JIMMY KIMMEL TALK SHOW

A THESIS

LAILI AISYAH 167052019/MBE

ENGLISH POSTGRADUATE STUDY PROGRAM FACULTY OF CULTURAL SCIENCES UNIVERSITY OF SUMATERA UTARA MEDAN 2019

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA ABSTRACT

This research was entitled Conversational Implicature in George W Bush and Jimmy Kimmel in Jimmy Kimmel Show. This study aimed to find out the types, as well as to explain the realization of conversational implicature and to analyze the implicit meaning used by George W. Bush and Jimmy Kimmel in Jimmy Kimmel talk show by using Grice‘s conversational implicature and Larson‘s implicit meaning theories. The data of this research were utterances. The source of data was the video and transcript. The method of this research was descriptive qualitative. The result of this study showed that there were two types of conversational implicature found in the data. There were generalized conversational implicature and particularized conversational implicature. The generalized conversational implicature was 15 (15.46%) utterances and the particularized conversational implicature was 82 (84,54%) utterances. The types of conversational implicature namely particularized implicature mostly used in George W Bush and Jimmy Kimmel in Jimmy Kimmel talk show. Then, the conversational implicatures were used by applying violation quantity maxim 25 (54,36%) utterances, violation quality maxim 5 (4,3%) utterances, violation manner maxim 2 (30,44%) utterances, and violation relevance maxim 14 (10,87%) utterances. The speaker performed the cooperative principle where it was a must to make a conversational contribution such as required. It meant it was not suggested to say words more than what was needed to share a set of meaning considering the unspoken meaning can be generally assumed since no specific context or knowledge is attached. The implied meaning of conversational implicature was implicit of referential, organizational and situational meaning.

Keywords: Conversational implicature, implied meaning, Jimmy Kimmel talk

show

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA ABSTRAK

Penelitian ini berjudul Percakapan Implikatur antara George W Bush dan Jimmy Kimmel di Jimmy Kimmel talk show. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui jenis, serta menjelaskan realisasi implikatur percakapan dan untuk menganalisis makna implisit yang digunakan oleh George W Bush dan Jimmy Kimmel dalam Jimmy Kimmel talk show dengan menggunakan implikatur percakapan Grice dan teori makna implisit Larson. Data penelitian ini adalah ucapan. Sumber data adalah video dan transkrip. Metode penelitian ini adalah deskriptif kualitatif. Hasil penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa ada dua jenis implikatur percakapan yang ditemukan dalam data. Ada implikatur percakapan umum dan implikatur percakapan khusus. Implikatur percakapan umum terdiri atas 15 (15,46%) ucapan dan implikatur percakapan khusus terdiri atas 82 (84,54%) ucapan. Jenis-jenis implikatur percakapan yaitu implikatur khusus sebagian besar digunakan dalam George W Bush dan Jimmy Kimmel dalam talk show Jimmy Kimmel. Kemudian, implikatur percakapan digunakan dengan menerapkan pelanggaran maksim kuantitas terdiri atas 25 (54,36%) ucapan, pelanggaran maksim kualitas terdiri atas 5 (4,3%) ucapan, pelanggaran maksim cara terdiri atas 2 (30,44%) ucapan, dan pelanggaran maksim relevansi terdiri atas 14 (10,87%) ucapan. Pembicara melakukan prinsip kerja sama di mana harus memberikan kontribusi percakapan seperti yang disyaratkan. Artinya, tidak disarankan untuk mengatakan kata-kata lebih dari apa yang diperlukan untuk menyampaikan makna yang tidak dapat diasumsikan secara umum karena tidak ada berkaitan dengan konteks atau makna yang sebenarnya. Makna tersirat dari implikatur percakapan yaitu makna tersirat referensial, organisasi dan situasional.

Kata kunci: Implikatur percakapan, makna tersirat, Jimmy Kimmel talk show

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Praised be to Allah, Lord of the world, who has given the writer His love and compassion to finish the last assignment in his study. Peace and salutation be upon to the prophet Muhammad SAW, his family, his companion and his adherence. It is a pleasure to acknowledge the help and contribution to all of lecturers, family, and friends who have contributed in different ways hence this thesis is processed until it becomes a complete writing which will be presented to the Postgraduate Program of English in the University of Sumatera Utara in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in English.

I would like to dedicate this thesis to my beloved husband (Heriadi Atmaja), my children (M. Rizqi Al-Ali, Najwa ‗Atiqah Ramadhani, M. Hafiz Al- Farabi,and Gendis Musfirah Yumni). I would like to thank my beloved parents (Alm. H. Peran Yanto and Dra. Hj. Nur‘aini AS), my beloved sisters and brother (Juwairiah,S.Si/Dadang Komaruddin,S.T, Almh. Laila Habsah, S.Pd/Suhadi, Raudatul Fitri,S.Pdi/Ahmad Fendi Surbakti, Muhammad Akbar, AmAk/Juwairiyah Rahmad, S.H), my beloved parents in law (H. Sumardi Admojo and Hj. Ngatmini) and to all families whom I couldn‘t mention here, for their unconditional love, support, and every contribution both financially and mentally. I would like to thank Dr. Ridwan Hanafiah, S.H, M.A., the head of English Postgraduate program study and the secretary, Dr. Drs. Umar Mono, M.Hum., for the opportunity, time, encouragement and remarkable supervision in guiding me completing this thesis. I also would like express gratitude to my supervisors, Dr. Muhizar Muchtar, M.S. and Dr. Ridwan Hanafiah, S.H, M.A. who always give me support, inspiration, encouragement, criticism, and sincere guidance in finishing the thesis. Special thanks to Prof. Dr. Syahron Lubis M.A. and Dr. Eddy Setia, M.Ed. TESP for all their ― private guidance‖ also to me. I also would like to thank all lecturers for their guidance and supports that I have received during my study. I also take

iii

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA this opportunity to thank Mrs. Adri, who provided responses to my questions and service for the administrative. I would like to thank my headmaster of SMPN 28 Medan, Horas Pohan, S.Pd, M.M. for his support, opinion, chance and advice in finishing my thesis. My friends, Kholijah, S.Ag and Khodijah Gozali, S.Pd for their support and contribution to me. I am nothing without you. Insya Allah, we are friends till Jannah. Aamiin. The last but not least, my gratitude goes to my friends in English Post Graduate Program, University of Sumatera Utara, Rika Wahyuni Tambunan, S.Pd, M.A, Nurlaila Sari Harahap, S.Pd, M.A, Felicia Bernadeth Simanjuntak,S.S, M.A, PutriAgustian S.Pd, M.A, Dhara ayu Paramitha, S.Pd, M.A, Muhammad Ali Sakti Nasution, S.Pd, M.A, Ridzky Hidayani, S.S, M.A and Fatimah, S.Pd, M.A.Thank you for your precious time to discuss this thesis.. Finally, I realize that there are still many weaknesses in this thesis. I hope, this thesis may give beneficial contributions to others.

Medan, 29th January 2019 The researcher

Laili Aisyah 167052019

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA TABLE OF CONTENT

Page

ABSTRACT ...... i ABSTRAK ...... ii ACKNOWLEDGMENT ...... iii CURRICULUM VITAE ...... iv TABLE OF CONTENT ...... v LIST OF TABLE ...... vi LIST OF FIGURE ...... vii LIST OF APPENDIX ...... viii LIST OF ABBREVIATION ...... ix CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Background of the Study ...... 1 1.2 Problem of the Study ...... 8 1.3 The Objective of the Study ...... 9 1.4 Scope of the Study ...... 9 1.5 Significance of the Study ...... 10 CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE ...... 11 2.1 Pragmatics ...... 11 2.2 Implicature ...... 12 2.2.1 The Concept of Implicature ...... 13 2.2.2 Types of Implicature ...... 15 2.2.2.1 Conventional Implicature ...... 16 2.2.2.2 Conversational Implicature ...... 17 2.2.2.2.1 Generalized Conversational Implicature ...... 18 2.2.2.2.2 Particularized Conversational Impicature...... 19 2.3 Cooperative Principle ...... 19 2.3.1 The Maxim of Quantity ...... 20 2.3.2 The Maxim of Quality ...... 21 2.3.3 The Maxim of Relevance ...... 22 2.3.4 The Maxim of Manner ...... 23 2.4 Violating a Maxim ...... 24 2.4.1 Violating a Maxim Quantity ...... 24 2.4.2 Violating a Maxim Quality ...... 25

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA 2.4.3 Violating a Maxim Relation ...... 25 2.4.4 Violating a Maxim Manner ...... 25 2.5 Implied meaning ...... 26 2.5.1 Implicit Referential Meaning ...... 27 2.5.2 Implicit Organizational Meaning ...... 28 2.5.3 Implicit Situational Meaning ...... 29 2.6 Previous Study ...... 30 2.7. Conceptual Framework ...... 36 CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHOD ...... 39 3.1 Research Design ...... 39 3.2 Data and Source of Data ...... 40 3.2.1 Data ...... 40 3.3.2 Source of Data ...... 40 3.3 The Technique of Data Collection ...... 40 3.4 The Technique of Data Analysis ...... 41 3.5 Trustworthiness of the Data ...... 45 CHAPTER IV DATA ANALYSIS, FINDINGS, AND DISCUSSION 4.1 Data Analysis ...... 46 4. 4.1. Types of Conversational Implicature ...... 49 4.1.2 The Realization of Implicature Used in Jimmy Kimmel talk show ...... 55 4.1.3 Interpretation of Implied Meaning ...... 63 4.1.3.1 Implicit Referential Meaning ...... 63 4.1.3.2 Implicit Organizational Meaning ...... 65 4.1.3.2 Implicit Situational Meaning ...... 67 4.2 Findings ...... 68 4.3 Discussion ...... 70

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION ...... 74 5.1 Conclusion ...... 74 5.2 Suggestion ...... 75 REFERENCES ...... 76

APPENDIX 1 ...... 81 APPENDIX 2 ...... 93 APPENDIX 3 ...... 110 APPENDIX 4 ...... 121

vii

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Study

A language is a way of communication which forms as the set of sounds.

In the communication process, it is expected for both speaker and listener to use language effectively, so that the communication will run well. Language plays a very important role as a social interaction instrument among people to convey information from one person to another. As a part of social life, language is produced to show people‘s personality. Language is also used to build a social relationship. It means people should know about the context of the situation in their social environment and how they organize and build their conversation to listeners. It seems that both of the participants must be cooperative and refers to the context when they are conversing.

Leech (1983) states that the context can be any background knowledge assumed to be shared by the participants and which will contribute to hearer‘s interpretation of what a speaker means by give utterance. It shows that the speaker and listener need to have shared knowledge to draw mutual understanding about what is being communicated by the speaker since people did not always say what they mean.

The ideas and information are spread from person to person through communication. People also use communication in order to express feelings, emotions, opinions, and values, to learn to teach and improve their status.

Therefore, communication is vital to human interaction whether parents and

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA children, bosses and employees, teachers and students or even husband and wife.

The diversity and characteristics of those involved in any interaction can thus affect communication. Taking account of any diversity in interaction rather than assuming uniformity to achieve effective communication.

The listeners sometimes misunderstand what the speaker says in doing conversation. So, he/she tries to guess what the speaker means. When the meaning is not directly stated by the speaker, it means he/she implies the meaning. Sometimes what the speaker means is different from what the speaker intends to say. It means the speaker does not just share the ideas or the information, but there is another meaning which provides implicit information.

The implicit information is not clearly understood, there are many perspectives will appear on people‘s mind. It is an additional meaning called implicature.

Grice (1989) as the first person who introduces the term of implicature gives the notion of a conversational implicature the theory of speaker meaning.

The implicatures are computed as a relation between what is said and what could have been said based on the general principle of cooperation between participants in a conversation. It means in accepting the speaker‘s presupposition, listeners normally have to assume that a speaker says or mentioned and isn‘t trying to mislead the listeners. The sense of cooperation is simply one in which people having a conversation are not normally assumed to be trying to confuse, trick or withhold relevant information of each other.

In order to make a conversation between the speaker and the listener run well and smoothly, it is necessary in a conversation to consider following these

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA principles: (1) the principle of clarity, (2) the principle of conciseness, and (3) principle of directness. A cooperation is also needed. One of the ways to cooperate each other to avoid misunderstandings in a conversation can be seen in the Cooperative Principles coined by Paul Grice. Grice claims, ‗Make your conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged‘.

In the Cooperative Principles, there are four maxims. One by one can be described as follows: (1) Maxim of Quantity, (2) Maxim of Quality, (3) the Maxim of

Relevance, and (4) Maxim of Manner (Grice:1995). If the principles are followed, it can assist the communication process to proceed smoothly because those maxims can prevent misunderstandings between the speaker and the listener.

Nevertheless, the speaker does not rule out the possibility to violate the maxims intentionally to bring up the conversational implicatures because the speaker has a specific purpose to use implicatures in their conversation. One of the occasions in which the frequent use of implicatures can be found is in a political interview. Politicians are very brilliant in twisting words. They often assert things which mean something quite different from what they literally says.

They are very intelligent in using language. They use language as a weapon in a political world.

In this research, an interview between Jimmy Kimmel and George W Bush in Jimmy Kimmel Talk Show is analyzed as the object of the research. In the interview with George W Bush, Jimmy Kimmel, as one of the well known Master of Ceremony in the United States and even the world, asks the critical issues to a layer of life that the public had never known before about George W Bush when

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA he was young and associated with his life while serving as a president of America.

Since George W Bush‘s answers are likely to be read by millions of loyal audience of Jimmy Kimmel Talk Show, he will surely be careful in answering all the questions. He is aware that the audience will affect the public opinion on him.

Therefore, he often violates the cooperative principles by Grice which generate implicatures. He uses implicatures because he tries not to be straight-out in answering the questions. For example, when he is asked regarding his daily television activity at home when he was still president of America, he was careful to answer not to leave a strange impression on the public. He replied that he only watched the Jimmy Kimmel Talk Show program while having a break which was answered to leave a good impression on the audience because at that time he was invited as a guest Jimmy Kimmel Talk Show

If one of the maxims is violated by some utterances and yet we are still assuming that person is cooperating with us in communication. We can take that violation as a sign that something is being said indirectly. The speaker has deliberately lied, supplied insufficient information or been ambiguous, irrelevant or hard to understand. Cook (1989: 223) states that there are five purposes that can be achieved by violated maxims, namely to create hyperbole and irony, to change the topic, to keep secret, and to create humor. Grice (1995) introduces two types of conversational implicatures: generalized conversational implicature and particularized convesational implicature.

First, generalized conversational implicature is an implicature which is used when the information being conveyed is brief, clear in chronological order and no context is required by the hearers to understand the information. The

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA example of the utterance of generalized conversational implicature from Jimmy

Kimmel talk show between the host (Jimmy Kimmel) and the guest (George W

Bush) is:

JK: Is that something that you enjoy television in general?

GB: Not really.

(28th Line - #Data 33)

By saying ‗not really‘, GB implicates that he did not take part in television programs because of his busy schedule but that did not mean he did not have time to watch television. However, it is still considered acceptable for he obeys the cooperative principle which demands the participant to make the conversational contribution such as is required. It means that what he says is enough to deliver the implied meaning in general.

Second, particularized conversational implicature is an implicature where some assumed knowledge is required in very specific contexts during a conversation. The example of the utterance of particularized conversational implicature from Jimmy Kimmel talk show between the host (Jimmy Kimmel) and the guest (George W Bush):

JK: Did you see that moment with Warren Beatty?

GB: I watched the replay. I‘m going to pander. I thought your opening was

damn good.

(7th Line - #Data 43)

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA Both JK and GB are implying things in their utterances. JK is asking if GB watched one of the episodes in the Jimmy Kimmel talk show when it invited

Warren Beatty as the guest. So, it does not mean JK asked GB whether he saw

Warren Beatty or not. In his response, GB replied that he saw the opening part only when the episode took place, meaning that GB did not watch the whole program only on the opening part. GB praised the opening part of the episode for not disappointed Jimmy Kimmel and Warren Beatty.

There are many talk shows by various TV stations, one of them is Jimmy

Kimmel talk show is in The United States of America. Jimmy Kimmel talk show is a late night talk show program of ABC Studios ( now, Touchstone Television) in the USA hosted by a producer and senior journalist, Jimmy Kimmel himself.

This talk show is chosen as the source data of this thesis because the data contains implicature aspects to be explored as described above. Jimmy Kimmel talk show consistently delivers interesting topics with first class guests. A number of special guests were present and spoke at Jimmy Kimmel talk show, including former

President George Walker Bush, former President Donald Trump, former Vice

President Dick Cheney, BTS and NCT 127 – The Korean boy band.

Jimmy Kimmel talk show has won a number of awards. It won Primetime

Emmy Awards (award for the best television program) awarded by Academy of

Television Arts And Sciences in The USA since 2007-2018. The topic which is discussed among the host and the guest talking about the launching of George W

Bush‘s new book. In doing the conversion, the host asks about his activities after he didn‘t like the president anymore. In the conversation happen during this context, the participants may obey the maxims by giving an informative

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA contribution to what the host asks and violate them by giving uncooperative and unclear answers during the conversation.

The preliminary data showed that implicature and violation occurred in the talk show. Those appeared because they were trying to hide information, convince the hearers, defend their position and sometimes make some jokes. The researcher used Larson‘s theory about types of implicit meaning. Larson explained that implicit meaning was distinguished into three kinds of meaning, implicit referential meaning, implicit organizational meaning, and implicit situational meaning. The example of implicit referential meaning :

JK: A couple of gentlemen introduce these fellas that are here. Hey,

guys , I don‘t know what page.

#Data 92

On the first data, there was referential implicit meaning which indicated by word here and guys on Jimmy Kimmel and George W Bush‘s utterances. The utterance here was categorized as the closest place to the speaker or Jimmy

Kimmel at that time which was at the Jimmy Kimmel studio talk show. Then, the word guys said by Jimmy Kimmel is to interact with the audience in front of him.

The demonstrative pronoun here which referred to the place, it did contain implicit information because the appointment of location by using the word here could be used in various places if this is not explained correctly. Same with the case of using the word guys in this utterance, which can refer to any one. The fact that some information was left implicit in certain grammatical constructions lead to ambiguities.

The example of the implicit organizational meaning:

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA JK: Do you ever paint nudes?

GB: None of your business (laughter and applause)

On the data above, the substitution word which categorized as clausal substitution shown by the word none contained in George W Bush‘s utterance.

The word none has implied the word that refers to a thing of George W Bush‘s, that was the paint nudes. In this case, the substitutions none replaced nominal substitution George W Bush‘s paint nudes in the previous sentence.

The example of implicit situational meaning :

JK: So. Do you pull up to the white house and say--

GB: In a purple gremlin (laughter)

Based on the phenomenon mentioned above, this study investigated the implicature in Jimmy Kimmel Talk Show. It is expected to analyze the types of conversational implicatures found in the utterances, explain the realization the conversational implicatures used by the participants and analyze the implicit meaning of the conversational implicature used by the participants.

1.2 Problem of the Study

The problems of the study are formulated in the following questions:

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA 1. What types of conversational implicatures are used by George W Bush

and Jimmy Kimmel in Jimmy Kimmel Talk Show?

2. How is the conversational implicature realized by George W Bush and

Jimmy Kimmel in Jimmy Kimel Talk Show?

3. How are the implicit meanings of conversational implicatures by George

W Bush and Jimmy Kimmel in Jimmy Kimmel Talk Show?

1.3 Objectives of the Study

The objectives of the study take an important role in research. Besides that, they also can help the researcher to solve the problems. In relation to the problems, the objectives of the study are:

1. To find out the types of conversational implicatures used by George W.

Bush and Jimmy Kimmel in Jimmy Kimmel talk show.

2. To explain the realization of conversational implicature used by George

W. Bush and Jimmy Kimmel in Jimmy Kimmel talk show.

3. To analyze the implicit meaning used by George W. Bush and Jimmy

Kimmel in Jimmy Kimmel talk show.

1.4 Scope of the Study

The scope of the study is limited into the pragmatics feature in implicatures used by George W Bush and Jimmy Kimmel in Jimmy Kimmel talk show. It is focused on the conversational implicature used uttered both generalized conversational implicature and particularized conversational implicature, the realization of conversational implicature in the talk show and the implicit meaning used by the speakers in the talk show. Those are the scope for the analysis of the data.

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA

1.5 Significances of the Study

The findings of the study are expected to give some relevant contributions

both:

Theoretically, the results of this study are useful:

1. To enrich and develop the student's knowledge of pragmatics particularly

with the conversational implicature subtopic.

2. As the source of information to other researchers who want to carry out

further study on conversational implicature of the other fields.

Practically, the results of the study are useful:

1. As the guiding information for the interviewer and interviewee to obey the

cooperative principle during having communication.

2. As the guidance for the participants to increase the sensitivity in practicing

effective cooperation and politeness in using daily conversation.

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

2.1 Pragmatics

Pragmatics is concerned with the study of intended meaning as communicated by a guest and interpreted by the listener. In short, in Pragmatics the main concern is not in the literal meaning, but what guests intend to do with their words and what it is which makes the intention clear (Yule, 1996:3). It can be concluded that pragmatics is a language science that is related to meaning and is closely related to the context of the situation.

Pragmatics is one study of human speech. Pragmatics as part of a branch of linguistics specializes in the field of speech-language involving all the contexts surrounding the speech. For pragmatics, the context becomes something important because this context determines the purpose of speech. The attachment to this context makes the intention different even though the form of speech is the same.

Levinson (1983) states that pragmatics is the study of the ability of language users to link sentences with contexts that are appropriate for those sentences.

Pragmatics is a branch of language science that studies the structure of language externally, namely how the linguistic unit is used in communication. The meaning that is studied in pragmatics is the meaning that is bound by context (context independent) so that pragmatics assesses the intent of speakers with opposing speech externally.

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA Pragmatics is interested more in what people mean by what they say, than what words or phrases might, in their most literal sense by themselves

(Yule:1996). Consider, for example, a simple and familiar utterance such as ―

What is your name?‖. Grammatically, it is an interrogative English sentence; taken literally, it is a question about someone‘s name. It also more typically is a greeting, to be answered reciprocally along the lines of ― My name is Intan, and you?”. Yet, it could also, depending on context take on much other meaning besides.

Therefore, Levinson (1983) concludes pragmatics is the study of those relations between language and context that are grammaticalized or encoded in the structure of a language (Levinson, 1983:9). It is the way speakers and writers accomplish goals as social actors who do not just need to get things done but must attend to their interpersonal relationships with other participants at the same time

(Leech, 1983:8).

2.2 Implicature

Implicature is a meaning implied in a speech both oral and written. The term implicature is used by Grice, as stated by Gillian Brown and George Yule in their book Discourse Analysis, to explain what might be interpreted, suggested, or intended by speakers, which is different from what is actually said by speakers

(Brown and Yule, 1983:31). It is possible for someone to express his intentions but not directly express them in their sentences or with certain sentences.

Someone wants something that is actually not written in the sentence.

For example, The day is very hot

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA The speaker of the sentence above is not merely stating that the day is very hot. The speaker says the sentence actually requires the partner to do something.

The actions that must be taken by the partner depends on the context in which the sentence is spoken. If at that time they are in a room, the speaker wants the air conditioner to be turned on. Another case, when they are around a stall that sells drinks. The meaning above means that an invitation to buy drinks. If they are in the middle of the field, the meaning of the speech becomes an invitation to take shelter. Grice (1996) in his article entitled Logic and Conversation suggests that a speech can imply a proposition that is not part of the speech concerned. The implied proposition is called implicature because implicature is not a part of speech that implies it, the relationship between the two propositions is not a necessary consequence. Here's an example to make it clearer.

a) May: Now, Nur already has many ducks

b) Mia: It's hard to take care of the plants in her yard

Mia's utterance is not part of May's utterance. May's utterance emerged due to inference based on the background of shared knowledge about ducks with all their characteristics. As for one of the characteristics of ducks is the pleasure of pegging plants. In the absence of a semantic relationship between utterances and what they imply, it can be estimated that utterances will allow an infinite number of implicatures.

2.2.1 The Concept Of Implicature

Communication can run smoothly when the speech partners and speakers have some kind of similarity in background knowledge about something that is

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA spoken. The background of knowledge in terms of implicature is related to the context itself, the intended context is the epistemic context. The context that influences implicature is not just the epistemic context, there are physical, social, and so on. Implicature used in the language is not merely doing with the accident or having no function. Implicature used in language has consideration in the meaning of speech. Consideration of the meaning of speech in implicature sometimes has the function of insinuating, declaring, governing, and so on. These functions are not usually expressed directly to maintain the ethics of politeness to keep from offending speaker or listener.

According to Levinson (1991), there are four types of benefits of the concept of implicature:

a) Implicature can provide explanations of meaning or linguistic facts

unreachable by linguistic theory

b) Implicature can provide a clear explanation of the external differences of

what the language user means

c) Implicature can give a simple semantic description of the causal

relationship associated with the same conjunction

d) Implicature can describe various facts that outwardly appear unrelated,

even opposite (like metaphors).

The core concept of implicature is to explain the differences that exist between what speakers say with what is implied by pragmatics speaker. The pragmatic implication is what is logical is the conclusion of a speech, and what background known together by the speaker and listener in a particular context

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA (Kridalaksana, 2008: 91). It could be said that the implicature is actually is information that the speaker wants to convey but not expressed by speakers.

2.2.2 Types Of Implicature

Grice (1975) divided implicature into three main types; they are conversational implicature which has a relationship with certain discourse features and conventional implicature which refers to how one proposition applies to the next proposition. The last is the presupposition.

Speaker meaning

What is said What is implicated

Conventionally Conversationally Presupposition

Generalized Conversational Implicature Particularize Conversational

Implicature

The explanation of the above scheme is what the speaker means through his utterance contains what he says and implies to the listener. The content of utterance can be expressed and can be implied. The implied utterance also might be conventional, conversationally and presupposition. Conversationally is divided into generalized conversational implicature and particularized conversational implicature. The implication obtained from the utterances refers to conversational implicature; then known as implicature whereas the implication of conversational is called as a pragmatic implication. Let see the example of this utterance which taken from the talk show below:

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA JK: Human is harder than dogs?

GB: Dogs don‘t really talk back to you. (Data #82)

In this part of the utterances, JK asked about GB‘s new activity, namely painting. As it is known that GB began his painting by painting his mother's dog.

Then, JK asked the difference between painting a dog and human. In this regard, knowledge is needed to understand this speech. It not only general knowledge but also knowledge which is particular. GB does not provide answers that are directly on target but GB answers using the word metaphor which means that dogs cannot tell bad things about humans because they are animals. Conversely, it is human beings who can say bad things to a human being. Therefore, from the GB question, it can be said that GB prefers to paint dogs than human. The utterance classified as particularized conversational implicature.

2.2.2.1 Conventional Implicature

Yule (1996: 45) states that conventional implicatures are not based on the cooperative principle or the maxims. They do not have to occur in conversation, and not depend on the special contexts for their interpretation. Conventional implicatures are associated with specific words and result in additional conveyed meanings when those words are used. The specific conjunctions are found in conventional implicature such as; and, but, even, and yet.

Mary suggested black, but I chose white.

(Example is taken from Yule, 1996: P. 45)

The conjunction ―but‖ used in the sentence shows that the information between the first and the second clauses are the interpretation of any utterance an

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA implicature of contrast. Other English words such as ―yet‖ and ―even‖ also have conventional implicatures. The conventional implicature of ―yet‟ is that the present situation is expected to be different, or perhaps the opposite, at a later time. ―And‟ is a convention of addition or plus., ―Even‟ describe an event of contrary to expectation.

2.2.2.2 Conversational Implicature

Implications are divided into five, namely conversational implicature, general conversational implicature, scale implicature, conversation implicature specifically, and conventional implicature (Yule, 2006: 69). Grice (1996) states, that there are two kinds of implicatures, namely 1) conventional implicature, and

2) conversational implicature. Usually, the implicature will only be divided into two, namely conversational implicature and conventional implicature. This division, because general conversation implicatures and special conversation implicatures are part of conversational implicatures, scale implications can be classified as conventional implicatures, because scale implicatures are implicatures that do not have to occur in conversations, and do not depend on specific contexts. Scalable implications can be found when there are words that express quantitatively values like all, many, several, few, and so on.

For example:

A. Mia: Would you come to my house, May?

B. May: Sorry Mia, my uncle will come to visit me later.

The principle of cooperation and maxims can be used to explain conversations that occur between A and B. In these conversations it can be

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA understood if A (Mia) wants to do a joint action B (May), but B (May) is trying to do a gentle rejection. Implications of conversation in this example have a consideration of politeness that is in accordance with the culture of Indonesian society. The use of implicature in communication has a consideration, namely refining speech and maintaining the ethics of modesty. This can be illustrated in the context of Indonesian cultural context, for example in communicating when rejecting, rebuking and asking.

Conversational implicatures are divided into two categories, they are generalized conversational implicature and particularized conversational implicature.

2.2.2.2.1 Generalized Conversational Implicature

Generalized Conversational Implicature is implicature that arises without any particular context or specific scenario is necessary. (Grundy,2000:81-82).

In generalized conversational implicature, we can use the maxim of quantity to invite the inference that no more can be said, as in:

A: ― I wish you buy a bag or shoes‖

B: ―I buy a bag‖

From the illustration above, it means B does not by shoes. B has bought a bag and it can be understood that the utterance is informative as required the answer for the question arisen by A. The utterances can be classified into generalized conversational implicature since the implicit meaning can be

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA understood by the reader since the context is already given from the question arise.

2.2.2.2.2 Particularized Conversational Implicature

Particularized Conversational Implicature is the implicature which needs special contexts. It only can be understood by the listener if the context is provided. Levinson (1983:127) states that all implicatures that arise from observing the maxim of relevance are particularized since utterances are relevant only with respect to the particular topic or issue at hand.‖ Peter Grundy (1995:45) said that particularized implicatures are derived, not from the utterance alone, but from the utterance in context. They vary with the context. Thus, based on the illustration above to identify the particular conversational implicature through observing the maxim of relevance based on its context.

Example: Bert: Do you like ice cream?

Ernie: Is the pope catholic?

(Example is taken from Yule, 1996;43)

Erni‘s response does not provide a ‗yes‘ or ‗no‘ answer. Bert must assume that Erni is being cooperative, so he considers Erni‘s ‗Pope‘ question and clearly the answer is ‗Yes‘.

2.3 Cooperative Principle

The cooperative principle is one of the fields that is studied in pragmatics. It is coined by Paul Grice in his paper ―Logic and Conversation‖

(Grice, 1975:45). Grice describes the cooperative principle as a set of rules in an

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA ordinary conversation. It is formulated as follows: make your contribution such as is required, at the stage at which occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged. The speaker and the listener have to cooperate with each other to avoid misunderstanding between them.

In a particular conversation, people certainly is one of the fields that is studied in pragmatics. It is coined by Paul Grice in his paper ―Logic and

Conversation‖ (Grice, 1975:45). Grice describes the cooperative principle as a set of rules in an ordinary conversation. It is formulated as follows: make your contribution such as is required, at the stage at which occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged. The speaker and the listener have to cooperate with each other to avoid misunderstanding between them. In a particular conversation, people certainly. Grice (1989:26) states that the cooperative principle is divided into four maxims, those are quantity, quality, relation, and manner and each has its own regulations respectively:

2.3.1 The Maxim of Quantity

In this maxim, there are some principles that have to be followed according to Grice, which are:

(i) Make your contribution as informative as is required

(ii) Do not make your contribution more informative than is required

Maxim of quantity is related to the amount of information that is expected from any conversational exchange. It occurs when people are talking to someone that they assume it is obliged to give them enough detail to enable the

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA listener understanding the speaker. If the speaker does not attempt to give enough information, he or she can be seen as a person who does not want to cooperate. At the same time, however, the speaker must avoid giving too much information and he must create a restriction in an ongoing conversation (Finch, 1997:157).

Thus, the speaker is expected to provide sufficient information, relatively adequate, and informative as possible. If such information is beyond the information that is needed by the listener or otherwise, less than is required by the listener, it can be said violating the maxim of quantity in Grice‘s cooperative principle (Rahardi, 2005:53).

A: Who‘s eaten the biscuits?

B: I‘ve had some.

If B‘s answer is true that he or she only eats some of the biscuits, B‘s reply is appropriately cooperative because he or she replies A‘s question with the information that is needed. The B‘s answer does not violate the maxim of quantity

(Finch, 1997:158).

2.3.2 The Maxim Of Quality

In this maxim, there are some principles that have to be followed according to Grice, which are;

(i) Do not say what you believe to be false

(ii) Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.

Maxim of quality is a maxim which considers that lying is an obvious violation of the cooperative principle (Finch, 1997:159). The speaker is expected to deliver something tangible and also in accordance with the fact. The fact must

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA be supported and based on clear evidence (Rahardi, 2005:55). If we say something that does not correspond to the facts, it can violate the maxim of quality.

A: Where does C live?

B: Somewhere in the South of France.

B‘s answer implicates that he or she does not know exactly where C lives. France is a big country. He or she only knows that C lives in the South of

France, but he or she does not know the exact location. Therefore, he or she cannot be more specific. If he or she tries harder to give the exact location, it will lead to a violation of a maxim quality if his or her answer is not totally correct.

B‘s answer follows the maxim of quality because the answer is in accordance with the fact that he or she knows.

2.3.3 The Maxim of Relevance

In this maxim, there are some principles that have to be followed according to Grice, which are;

(i) Make your contribution relevant.

In the maxim of relevance, it is stated that in order to create good cooperation between the speaker and the listener, each should be able to provide a relevant contribution of something that is spoken (Rahardi, 2005:56). People in a conversation who change the topic abruptly are normally considered rude or uncooperative. Thus it would violate one of the principles in the cooperative principle. In this case, it will violate the maxim of relevance (Finch, 1997:158).

A: Where‘s my chocolate?

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA B: The children were in your room this morning.

It is clear to see that B‘s reply is explicitly relevant to the question, so it does not violate the maxim of relevance. The answer implicates that there is a probability that the children who were in A‘s room eat the chocolate.

2.3.4 The Maxim of Manner

In this maxim, there are some principles that have to be followed according to Grice, which are;

(i) avoid obscurity

(ii) avoid ambiguity

(iii) be brief

(iv) be orderly

Maxim of manner requires participants to speak directly, clearly, and not hazy (Rahardi, 2005:57). This maxim also obliges us to organize our utterances in an orderly manner to provide information in a way which can be received by the listener (Finch, 1997:159). The purpose of the maxim of manner is to avoid ambiguities in a conversation. Speakers should avoid vague expressions, avoid ambiguous words, and speak briefly (Thomas, 1995:64).

A: Where are the car keys?

B: They‘re on the table in the hall.

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA In the case above B‘s reply is clearly not ambiguous. He or she replies in accordance with what A needs to know. Therefore, it follows the maxim of manner and it certainly does not violate it.

2.4 Violating a Maxim

Violating a maxim is the unostentatious or covert non-observance of a maxim. Grice asserts that the speaker in violating a maxim will be liable to mislead. According to Thomas, a speaker can be said to ‗violate‘ a maxim when they know that the hearer will not know the truth and will only understand the surface meaning of the words (Cutting, 2002:40).

2.4.1 Violating a Maxim of Quantity

The following example is a violation of a maxim quantity

(Khosravizadeh and Sadehvandi, 2011:123).

John: Where have you been? I searched everywhere for you during the past three

months!

Mike: I wasn't around. So, what's the big deal?

Mike‘s answer is insufficient and less informative. Mike does not want

John to know where he was, so he just confirms John‘s question which asks his nonexistence for the past three months is true, but he does not tell John where exactly he was. Hence, Mike‘s answer leads to a violation of a maxim of quantity.

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA 2.4.2 Violating a Maxim of Quality

The following example is a violation of a maxim quality (Khosravizadeh and Sadehvandi, 2011:122-123).

The son has been playing all day long.

Mother: Did you study all day long?

Son: I‘ve been studying until now!

The son violates the maxim of quantity because he does not tell the truth to his mother by conveying a lie. It is probably because he is afraid of the unpleasant consequences he will get such as punishment or to be forced to study for the rest of the day.

2.4.3 Violating a Maxim of Relation

The following example is a violation of a maxim relation (Khosravizadeh and Sadehvandi, 2011:123).

Teacher: Why didn‘t you do your homework?

Student: May I go and get some water? I‘m so thirsty.

The student‘s answer to the teacher‘s question is not relevant. The teacher expects the student to explain the reason why he or she does not do the homework, the student replies it back with another question instead of an explanation of his or her laziness. The student‘s answer clearly indicates a violation of a maxim relation. One reason for the answer can be the fact that the student is trying to evade the interrogation posed by the teacher.

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA 2.4.4 Violating a Maxim of Manner

The following example is a violation of a maxim relation (Khosravizadeh and Sadehvandi, 2011:123).

Sarah: Did you enjoy the party last night?

Anna: There was plenty of oriental food on the table, lots of flowers all

over the place, people hanging around chatting with each other. . .

Sarah asks a simple question, but Anna replies with a long unnecessary answer. She does not answer it clearly which causes the answer she expresses is likely to have two interpretations:

 Anna has such a good time at the party and she is obviously too excited and

has no idea where to begin.

 Anna has such a terrible time and she does not know how to complain about

it. In this case, Anna‘s answer is ambiguous, therefore it violates a maxim

of manner.

2.5 Implied Meaning

Larson (1984: 34) states that the implicit meaning is the meaning of which is not shown but is a part of a conversation or purpose to be conveyed by the speakers. In the process of understanding the meaning of this implicit meaning, talk responders sometimes must strive to arrive at the proper interpretation among others through the imagery or interpretation. Responders need to know certain things that become a reference, situation, and context.

Knowledge of the context will greatly assist responders to get a proper interpretation. Aminuddin, citing the opinion of Samuel and Kiefer, puts forward their expression of reading the lines, which is read to understand the meaning of

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA the letter and the phrase reading between the lines, that is read to understand the implicit meaning. Thus, the meaning can be distinguished between the explicit meaning and implicit meaning (1985: 92).

Still according to Aminuddin (1985: 50) in order that responders can reach a proper interpretation, in the process of interpretation, the meaning must be aware of its association with things as follows:

1) Characteristics or internal elements of language.

Communication requires the medium which called as language. Apart from the written and spoken form, language can be gestural, symbolic etc.

2) Social and cultural systems that underlie.

The patterned social arrangements in society that are both emergent from and determinant of the actions of the individuals.

3) The user, either as speakers or talk responders.

This process of interpretation occurs not only in one speaker but every member who participates in a conversation.

4) Characteristics of information and variety of speech that delivered.

The issues discussed in a conversation or speech have their own character to violate the principle of cooperation or also establish cooperation between speakers in a speech or conversation

2.5.1 Implicit Referential Meaning

The existence of the referents in interpreting the meaning is very important. The meaning will be difficult to understand if the reference were unknown. "The description of the meaning produced by linguistic elements in the form of words, sentences and other elements in connection with elements outside

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA the language both in the form of reality and experience is called referent

(Aminuddin 1985: 88). Kridalaksana (1993: 186) says that the reference is the outside elements of language designated by the language elements.

The meaning of language elements here includes the word or phrase.

Referential meaning, according to Kridalaksana, is the meaning of the language elements that very close relationship with the world outside the language (object or idea), and which can be explained by the component analysis (1993: 199). In other words, this meaning refers directly to the meaning of objects, events, attributes, or certain relationships that can be seen or imagined that the content of the information or something that communicated.

For example, ―Bambang goes to work but forgets to bring the purse‖. That included in the category of the persona of persona referents is a pronoun persona

(I, you, he, she, ...). According to Halliday and Hasan (1976: 45), the term of persona is a bit vague because which is included in the persona referents not only human beings but also references non-persona, which is a reference to the object.

2.5.2 Implicit Organizational Meaning

Aminuddin stated that the organizational meaning is the meaning that arises from grammatical events, both between affixes with the basic words and between words with a word or phrase by phrase called organizational. A sentence is formed of those words in a sentence unity that is the organizational meaning.

Sometimes the organizational meaning is left implicit, so we know the meaning of organizational (contextual) implicitly.

In implicit organizational meaning, a passive sentence is one of the parts.

Allen (1987: 270) states that the general principle in the use of the passive

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA sentence is when the focus of the speaker is located at the activity or work performed not on the subject that does the job. The sentence ―people speak

English all over the world‖ is to give more weight to the subject of ―people‖.

When the main focus is speaking English, so the sentence should be converted into a passive sentence and becomes ―English is spoken all over the world‖.

Information about the subject in passive sentence frequently are not necessary to its existence was eliminated.

2.5.3 Implicit Situational Meaning

According to Larson (1984: 37), the implicit situational meaning is the meaning that arises because of the relationship between speech and the situation at the time of the speech was spoken. The meaning of speech situation according to

Kridalaksana (1993: 200) is elements out of the language that associated with speech or discourse till the speech or discourse became meaningful.

According to Larson (1984: 133-138) meanings can be affected by things such as: the relationship between the speaker and the responders, cultural background, the enactment of the communication process, the timing of the speech, age and gender, social situation speakers and responders, presumptions appears in the communication situation and gestures that occurred during the communication process takes place. Elements, as mentioned earlier, is very influential in determining the meaning, because of that the stuff outside the language also plays an important role in determining the implicit situational meaning.

For example, ―I really really love Jodie Foster in The Silence of The

Lambs‖. The Silence of the Lambs is a fairly famous American movie and Jodie

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA Foster is a protagonist female artist of that film. For those people who are not familiar with Jodie Foster or The Silence of the Lambs, the sentences above do not have any meaning even tend to be confusing. But for some people in

Indonesia who are familiar with American movies, the sentence above has been quite clear, because they know that Jodie Foster is a leading female artist and The

Silence of the Lambs is one of her films.

2.6 Previous Study

Research conducted by Al-Qaderi (2015) focuses on investigating Grecian

Theory of Conversational Implicature and its application to the Arabic language.

Semi-structured interviews with 15 participants who speak the Yemeni dialect were recorded for the purpose of investigating such a theory. There were four

Ph.D. candidates, four M.A. candidates, and seven B.A. candidates. All interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, translated and interpreted. Both a qualitative and quantitative approach was adopted. The analysis focused on flouting the maxims. The findings revealed that the Grecian Theory of Conversational

Implicature can be applied to the Arabic language, particularly the Yemeni dialect. Additionally, the analyzed data showed that the maxim of Quantity was most frequently flouted. After that, the maxims of Relation, Quality, and Manner were flouted respectively.

Slocum (2016) describe specific rational principles observed by people who obey the Cooperative Principle. There is a maxim quality (―Try to make your contribution one that is true‖), a maxim of relation (―Be relevant) ‖maxim of quantity (―Make your contribution as informative as is required (for the current

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA purposes of the exchange)‖ and ―Do not make your contribution more informative than is required‖), and various maxims of manner (―Be perspicuous‖) . The maxims enable effective communication and are a way of explaining the link between utterances and what is understood from them. Conversational implicatures arise on the basis that the maxims are being preserved. The Gricean maxims of conversational implicatures are the norms that apply to an ordinary conversation, where the purpose of the participants in the cooperative exchange of information. But the legal case is quite different. The enactment of a law is not a cooperative exchange of information. Therefore, we should not be surprised if some of the Gricean maxims may not apply to the context of legislation and, more problematically, it is often not clear meanings to legal texts are commonplace, and some of these deviations from literal meaning can be explained as implicatures.

Fitriyani (2016) investigates conversational implicature of students of

STKIP Muhammadiyah Pringsewu, Lampung. This study is aimed to investigate the type and function of students‘ conversational implicature. The researcher used pragmatic-in-dividing. The indicator is interlocutor. In collecting the data, the researcher used recording, observation, and writing technique. In analyzing the data, the researcher recorded the source data, observed, wrote, and examined the conversation which is related to the type and function of implicature. The result indicated that many students of STKIP Muhammadiyah Pringsewu, Lampung used non-conventional implicature. While the conversational implicature function that students used was communicative and informative.

Nugraha (2017) reports on the flouting of cooperative principle maxims in a comedy movie. The data were taken from conversational exchanges of a comedy

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA movie entitled Meet the Parents and were collected by transcribing the exchanges exposing humor occurred in the movie. The exchanges potentially flouting the maxims were analyzed in the light of Grice‘s cooperative principle maxims, elaborated further in Thomas (1995), to look into the types of maxims flouted and the ways the maxims were flouted. The exchanges were then further analyzed to find whether the types of verbal humor are particular to each maxim flout. The analysis revealed that the four types of maxims, i.e. Quantity, Quality, Relevance, and Manner, occurred to have been floated so as to create humor. The Quality maxim was the most commonly flouted (55.6%), whereas the least commonly flouted was the Relevance of maxim (6.3%). The speakers flouted the maxims in a number of different ways particular to each maxim. Moreover, the analysis found that maxim flouts were relevant to the types of verbal humor. Therefore, given the importance of pragmatic competence that the foreign language (FL) learners should acquire, it is suggested that pragmatics should be explicitly taught and integrated into the teaching of English.

Govindarajulu (2017) is successful with well-received novels, notable essays, crowd-drawing plays, and more than a hundred short stories. But unfortunately, his critics branded him a 'commercial' writer and an artistic failure.

Paul Grice introduced the technical notions of Cooperative Principle and

'conversational implicature to arrive at the right meaning of an utterance. This study applies Grice's theory of conversational implicature to interpret the language of Somerset Maugham in his short story The Punctiliousness of Don Sebastian to show his language gifts. His Cooperative Principle and the four Maxims of

Conversation – quantity, quality, relation, and manner - helping to understand the

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA linguistic meaning of words in a sentence when implications are intended.

Implicature refers to what is suggested in an utterance, even though neither expressed nor strictly implied. It helped ―to clarify the intuitive difference between what is expressed literally in a sentence and what is merely suggested by an utterance of the same string of words.‖His influential theory of 'implicature' explained how conversational implicatures arise. In everyday speech, people indulge in many implicatures, which help them to use and understand language.

His Cooperative Principle and the four Maxims of Conversation help to understand the linguistic meaning of words in a sentence when implications are intended.

Li Xin (2017) believes that in all the language communication activities, there is a tactic understanding between speakers and hearers to achieve a specific goal; and both sides should abide by the principle, that is Cooperative Principle.

The Cooperative Principle includes four maxims: the maxim of quantity, the maxim of quality, the maxim of relation and the maxim of manner. In people‘s daily life, they do not always follow the Cooperative Principle during communication. When they violate one of the maxims of the Cooperative

Principle, there has the implicature. And only when the hearer shares the same knowledge with the speaker, the communication could move smoothly. In recent years, a variety of subjects Chinese TV series emerge. Especially, the historical

TV plays become more and more popular around the world. Nirvana in Fire which was released in 2015 is well received. This story revolves around a young man

Lin Shu who is devoted to revenging for his father and Chi Yan Army. The plots are ups and downs and at the same time, the dialogue between the characters is

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA also very characteristic. In this thesis, the author mainly uses the theory of

Cooperative Principle and implicature to analyze the dialogue in Nirvana in Fire.

By analyzing the selected examples, we can better understand the character, the plot and the theme. Due to the limitation of the material and the current competence of the author, the selected examples are mainly classical examples. In the case study, the author analyzes every maxim of violating the Cooperative

Principle to help the readers better understand the characteristics of the characters and the development of the plot. Meanwhile, the author also hopes to help the readers know more about Grice‘s Cooperative Principle and Conversational

Implicature.

Al- Shawi (2017) Conversational implicature is known as an additional meaning indirectly implicated by saying another thing. In this sense, the aim of this paper is to discuss the problems of translating conversational implicature from English into Arabic. The data is selected from two English literary works;

Lord of the Flies and Nineteen Eighty-Four along with their Arabic translation.

Two theoretical frameworks are implemented for the descriptive analysis of the selected texts, Scoops approach and Grice‘s Implicature. These two theories, along with their rules, provide appropriate standards to measure the accuracy of such translations from the English language into Arabic. The analyses reveal that the translators encountered problems and obstacles during the translation into

Arabic for several reasons, including linguistic, social and cultural. Therefore, the translators followed different approaches and techniques to achieve consistent coherent Arabic text, equivalent to that of the original. In conclusion, the study illustrates that both theories are successful and applicable at varying levels, in

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA translating conversational implicature from English into Arabic. Nevertheless,

Grice‘s approach is more successful in translating the conversational implicatures within the framework of this study. Accordingly, this study answers all the designed questions.

Thoriqussu‘ud (2018) analyzes what implicature is implied in the conversation verses of Surah Al A‘raaf‘s translation by Abdullah Yusuf Ali and how the speakers imply the implicature. The study uses the descriptive qualitative method to collect and analyze the data, which the data were derived from Quranic

English Translation by Abdullah Yusuf Ali. The data are in the form of conversational verses. To avoid any wrong interpretation, the writer uses Tafseer

Ibn Katsir and Tafseer al-Jalalayn. Then, the writer analyzes the way speakers implied the hidden meaning, whether directly or indirectly, and through the contribution of Grice‘s four Maxims: Quality, Quantity, Relevance, and Manner.

Moreover, the writer used data sources triangulation and investigator triangulation to eliminate bias and increase the truthfulness of the qualitative researcher. The findings of this study indicate that among 120 times, the speakers implied the implicature directly, which is a direct match between a sentence type and its function is directly, and the rest is among 23 times, they expressed less directly, which is whenever there is no direct relationship between sentence type and its function. Moreover, among 75 dialogs, contained in 66 verses, 143 implicatures are implied, and there are 244 of the contribution maxims. In this study, Grice‘s

CP and its contributory maxims have been observed in the Surah Al A‘raaf, in the most cases, the observing of Grice‘s maxim is found in the maxim of quality and the least is manner. Based on the findings of the study, it is possible that more

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA than one implicature are implied out of the same utterance and consequently more than one maxim or principles are involved.

Many research studies on conversational implicature concluded by mentioning some data, like the related studies above. They give the contribution to help the researcher develops the idea of how the conversational implicature is used in the talk show as a whole. Based on the related studies have been described, the researcher found some reports conducted and the results obtained will also have differences. Then, almost previous research more used the implicature in general rather by using Grice (1996). Many previous studies only investigated routing maxim and other types of implicature. While in this research, the researcher analyzed violating maxim, the types of implicatures contained in the data and implied meaning used in the data using the support of the theory of

Larson (1984). The researcher applies Grice's theory in this study is that Grice is the originator of the term implicature to express the intent contained in a speech, but it is lacking or not stated directly. Then, Grice divides it in detail by expressing four maxims or cooperative principles that must be obeyed by participants in an effort to smooth the course of the communication process. The four maxims are quantity, quality, relevance, and manner in which maxim is a principle that must be understood by two parties, speakers and listeners, when communicating so that the communication process can run well.

2.7 Conceptual Framework

Talk show cannot be separated from communication. Therefore, talk show becomes an important topic in linguistic study, especially pragmatics. Although there are still several approaches could be applied to analyze the utterances in a

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA talk show, i.e. sociolinguistics, discourse analysis, and stylistics. Pragmatically, the talk show is created by the use of Grice‘s cooperative principle. Usually, people should observe maxims to conduct right information in communication, however breaking any of four basic maxims sometimes is needed to get something interesting for example to make interconnected utterances. Then, talk show as the corporation and violation of maxims here are specified in such types, the realization, and the implied meaning.

A famous talk show in America entitled Jimmy Kimmel Talk Show applies various terms to communicate and also performs a various kind of conversational implicature. This research draws attention to how the conversational implicature is used to create interconnected utterances followed by the types, the realization, and the implied meaning of the utterances in that talk show. The researcher applies Grice‘s theory of conversational implicature to identify the types of conversational implicature. The figure of the research formulation is presented in the analytical construct on the following page.

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA Pragmatics

Jimmy Kimmel and George W Bush‘s Utterances

Conventional Implicature Conversational Implicature

Particularized Generalized Conversational Convesational Implicature Implicature

The Types of Conversational Implicature

Maxim of Maxim of Maxim of Maxim of Quantity Quality Relevance Manner

The Realization of Conversational Implicature

Violation Violation Violation Violation of of of of Quantity Quality Relevance Manner Maxim Maxim Maxim Maxim The Implied Meaning

Implicit Implicit Implicit Referential Organizational Situational Meaning Meaning Meaning

Finding Figure 2.7 Conceptual Framework

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHOD

The research method is an important thing in scientific research because whether the result of research can be said as a scientific one or not depends on the way of choosing and using the method which is relevant with the research object.

This chapter discusses research design, a unit of analysis, the source of the data, the technique of data collection, and the technique of data analysis.

3.1 Research Design

This research uses the qualitative descriptive method as a research type.

Bogdan and Biklen (1992: 30) state that qualitative research is descriptive.

Qualitative means to find out how a theory works in different phenomena whose data collected are in the form of words rather than numbers. By using the qualitative descriptive method, this study is intended to find out and describe aspects of conversation within the conversation between Jimmy Kimmel and

George W. Bush by counting what was set the source of the data for getting the number of violation maxims and conversational implicature in the talk show.

The researcher uses the formula from Malo (1986: 200) to calculate the percentage the formula of the data. It can be done by calculating the number of a subcategory of data divided the number of all data and times one hundred percent.

The formula is used to explain how often implicature and the violation of maxims occur. This analysis shows the percentage of the conversational implicatures and the violation of maxims type appearances that are analyzed.

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA 3.2 Data and Sources of Data

3.2.1 Data

Bogdan and Biklen (1992: 29) stated one of the characteristics of qualitative research is that research has the natural setting as the direct source of data and the researcher is the key instrument.

Based on the statement, the data of this research is the utterances between the host (Jimmy Kimmel) and the guest (George W. Bush) in the dialog of Jimmy

Kimmel talk show.

3.2.2 Source of Data

The primary data of this research is a video and utterances of the speakers between Jimmy Kimmel and George W. Bush. The source data of the research is the video which takes place in a studio on March 4, 2017, and the duration is

19:17 minute. This video was downloaded from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ir1hhpkwbo with English subtitle and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5irhhpkwbo is the original one.

3.2 Techniques of Data Collection

There are some steps in collecting the data:

1. Downloading the data interview between Jimmy Kimmel and George W.

Bush from Youtube.

2. Listening and transcribing the data interview into a written text.

3. Reading the utterances of the data carefully and select them which belongs

to conversational implicature.

4. Finding the implicit meaning in the utterances.

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA 3.3 Techniques of Data Analysis

To answer the research questions, the researcher attempts to present the result by explaining the types of conversational implicature used by Jimmy

Kimmel and George W Bush in Jimmy Kimmel talk show. The researcher analyzed the utterance of Jimmy Kimmel as the host in Jimmy Kimmel talk show and George W Bush as the guest from the beginning till the end to get various data. Resulting from the research subject, basically, there are 97 data containing implicature in a 19.17-minute video. Each data is containing conversation and utterances with implicature between George W Bush and Jimmy Kimmel.

The utterances that contain the implicature are marked with the bold text which completed with the context description and analysis after listing the conversation. The data were analyzed by applying the theory of Miles, Huberman and Saldana (2014) namely data condensation, data display, and drawing a conclusion.

1) Data condensation

The first step data condensation is selecting. In this step, the utterances that are selected only Jimmy Kimmel as the host and George W Bush as the guest‘s utterances in appendix 1. The process can be in the form of selecting, focusing, simplifying, abstracting, and transforming.

a) Selecting

In selecting, the utterances acquires in the conversation between Jimmy

Kimmel (JK) and George W Bush (GB) in Jimmy Kimmel show are selected.

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA JK: How are you? thank you for coming. I was just told moments ago that

you requested a little meeting with jermaiguill before the show.

GB: Donde Esta Guillermo (Data #1)

In this study, Jimmy Kimmel (JK) and George W Bush (GB) as the utter in this talk show are selected as the data. Those utterances are coding as Data #1,

Data #2, Data #3,...... (The complete data that has been coded are clearly shown in appendix 2).

b) Focusing

After selecting the utterances, the next stage is focusing. The researcher only focuses on JK and GB‘s utterances which contain violation maxims

(violation of quantity maxim, violation of quality maxim, violation of manner maxim, and violation of relevance maxim) and conversational implicature

(generalized conversational implicature and particularized conversational implicature). The more complete transcript is briefly shown in Appendix 1 and the more complete analysis of conversational implicature is briefly shown in

Appendix 2, while the complete analysis of maxim was briefly shown in appendix

Table 4.1 The Process of Focusing

No No of Types of Conversational The Ways of Data Implicature Performing Violation 1 Data #1 Particularized Maxim Relevant Conversational Implicature 2 Data#2 Generalized Conversational - Implicature 3 Data #3 Generalized Conversational - Implicature 4 Data #4 Generalized Conversational Maxim Relevant

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA Implicature 5 Data #5 Generalized Conversational Maxim Quantity Implicature 6 Data #6 Generalized Conversational - Implicature 7 Data #7 Generalized Conversational - Implicature 8 Data #8 Generalized Conversational - Implicature 9 Data #9 Generalized Conversational - Implicature 10 Data#10 Generalized Conversational Maxim Quantity Implicature 11 Data #11 Generalized Conversational - Implicature

c) Simplifying

In this part, the researcher simplifies the obtained data by separating all the utterances into some categorizations namely, violation of quantity maxim, violation of quality maxim, violation of manner maxim, violation of relevance maxim, and the implicit meaning.

d) Abstracting

After simplifying the data, the researcher abstracts the data which have been simplified by looking up the utterances whether the rules have been matched to the simplified data.

e) Transforming

The last step is transforming the data are transformed into written form to give complete descriptive analyses of the data. In this part, the researcher wants to show and clarify data in Appendix.

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA 2) Data Display

The researcher has to display the data in specific form whether it is tables, matrices, graphs, charts or networks so it can be seen clearly by people. For example, entering the findings within tables, graphics, and charts, they are: (1) the types of implicatures used in the Jimmy Kimmel show. (2) the realization of implicature by a violation of maxims found in the Jimmy Kimmel talk show:

Table 4.1.1 Data Display

No Types of Conversational Implicature Total Percentage

1 Particularized Conversational Implicature 82 84.54 %

2 Generalized Conversational Implicature 15 15.46 %

Total 97 100%

Table 4.1.1.2 The Realization of implicature by a violation of maxims found in

Jimmy Kimmel Talk Show

No The Realization of Implicature found in Total Percentage

Jimmy Kimmel Talk show

1 Violation of quantity maxim 25 54.36%

2 Violation of quality maxim 2 4.3%

3 Violation of relevant maxim 14 30.44%

4 Violation of manner maxim 5 10.87%

Total 46 100%

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA 3) Drawing Conclusion/ verifying

The last step of this analysis is drawing a conclusion. It refers to make drawing/ verifying conclusions bases on research findings on applied implicature

(types of implicature and the realization of implicature in the Jimmy Kimmel talk show). The conclusion is drawn based on the data display.

3.4 Trustworthiness of the data

According to Lincoln and Guba (1985), trustworthiness is significant in qualitative research. The aim of trustworthiness is to support the argument that the inquiry‘s findings are worth paying attention to.

Denzin in Lincoln and Guba (1984) tells four basic types for improving the validity of the data. First, data involves sources which include time, space and person. After that, the researcher does the investigation. Next, the researcher involves using more than one theoretical scheme in doing the interpretation of the phenomena. Finally, methodological involves using more than one method to gather the data, for instance, interviews, observation, questionnaires, and documents.

For making the data credible, the theory of triangulation is used by the researcher. The researcher uses more than one theory in discussing the research, they are the theory of types of conversational implicature by Grice and Larson for explaining the implicit meaning. The utterances which are analyzed by the researcher in order to answer the question. The researcher checks all utterances of the research for several times. In assuring the credibility of this study, member- checking conducts continuously through the data collection.

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA CHAPTER IV

DATA ANALYSIS, FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter discussed the result of analysis as the answers to the problems of the research to find the types of conversational implicature used by GB and JK in Jimmy Kimmel talk show, analyzed how the conversational implicature realized in GB and JK‘s conversation in Jimmy Kimmel talk show and analyzed the implicit meaning used by GB and JK in Jimmy Kimmel talk show. The result then lead to some significant findings which gave a closer look at Grice‘s conversational implicature.

4.1 Data Analysis

The data in this study were the utterances between GB and JK in the

Jimmy Kimmel talk show. The researcher analyzed the utterance of JK as the host in Jimmy Kimmel talk show and GB as the guest from the beginning till the end to get various data. Resulting from the research subject, basically, there were 97 utterances containing implicature in a 19.17-minute video. Each data was containing conversation and utterances with implicature between GB and JK. The utterances that contained implicature were marked with the bold text which completed with the context description and analysis after listing the conversation.

These utterances were selected and then decapitated into fragments of conversation pairs, then analyzed based on the prinssciple of cooperative conversation proposed by Grice. In each sub-heading, there was a page code for the utterances that contain fragments of the conversation context. Suppose that

#Data 3 indicated that the fragment of the context of the conversation was on the

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA 2nd line of Particularized Conversational Implicature in the conversation between

GB and JK. The following was a description of the data in the context of the conversation and analysis.

JK: I can‘t help but feel maybe he was faking it a little bit just so he didn‘t

have to go to the inauguration. Yes? ( laughter and applause)

He‘s no dummy.

GB: He is a funny man.

(Generalized Conversational Implicature - #Data 15)

Based on #Data 15, there were 2 speakers namely GB and JK to get 4 maxims in the cooperative principle Grice was used to analyzing. Topic: Funny information about nostalgia when GB‘s father became president of the USA.

Time setting: At night

Setting location: In the Jimmy Kimmel Talk Show studio

Background Event: JK summed up the speech from GB which told him about

his father in the past

Channels: An Oral language with happy facial expressions

Code: English

Objective: If you wanted to deliver news to JK based on the analysis above, some maxims were violated and maxims were fulfilled, as follows:

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA The violated maxim was the maxim of quantity. The maxim of quantity was violated because the GB answer was not needed by JK. JK just tried to conclude what GB had said for that, the response from GB was not needed.

JK: So, do you pull up to the white house and say—

GB: In a purple Gremlin. (laughter)

(4th Particularized Conversational Implicature - #Data 20)

Based on #Data 20, there were 2 speakers namely George W Bush and

Jimmy Kimmel to get 4 maxims in the cooperative principle Grice was used to analyzing.

Topic: Funny information about nostalgia when George W Bush

had a date with President Nixon‘s daughter.

Time setting: At night

Setting location: In the Jimmy Kimmel Talk Show studio

Background Event: JK asked GB if GB tried to say something in front of the

famous purple mirror in the white building about his date

but before JK finished his question, GB already knew JK's

questions and answered them immediately.

Channels: An Oral language with happy facial expressions

Code: English

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA Objective: In the analysis above, some maxims were violated and the maxims were fulfilled, as follows:

The violated maxim was a maxim of manner. That maxim was violated because GB answered questions from JK without allowing JK to finish the question. Violation of the maxim manner could be seen in the fragment of conversation in the example above. Then, the maxim that was fulfilled, was the maxim of quality. This maxim was fulfilled for reasons of GB that provide information needed by JK. The fulfillment of quality maxims could be seen in the conversation fragments in the example above.

4.1.1 Types of Conversational Implicature

Through the analysis of complete video‘s recording, the researcher wrote the utterances in the forms of sentences, and then analyzed the sentence by sentence using the theory of conversational implicature proposed by Grice. The utterances used by Jimmy Kimmel and George W Bush are grouped and classified into the types of implicature.

After writing the utterances of Jimmy Kimmel and George W Bush presented in Appendix 1, then the analysis of utterances was presented in appendix 2 and 3. Since the deep analysis presented in Appendix 2, about the conclusion of the analysis, appendix 2 could be seen in the table of the types of implicature used in Jimmy Kimmel talk show as follows:

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA Table 4.1.1 The Types of Conversational Implicature

Types of Conversational Implicature Total Percentage

Particularized Conversational Implicature 82 84.54%

Generalized Conversational Implicature 15 15.46%

Total 97 100%

The total number of implicature found in Appendix 2 was 97 utterances.

They were the total of conversational implicature found in Jimmy Kimmel and

George W Bush‘s utterances in Jimmy Kimmel talk show. Based on the data analysis above, it could be concluded that the utterers mostly uttered the generalized conversational implicature than particularized conversational implicature to deliver the meaning. Since the researcher found the total number of generalized conversational implicature used in was 15 and the particularized conversational implicature was 15. The utterers mostly used generalized conversational implicature in order to deliver the information briefly and in chronological order without giving any particular knowledge to understand the meaning. In this case, George W Bush as the guest delivered the information directly to Jimmy Kimmel as the host. It could be seen in this following utterances:

JK: That wasn‘t a joke.

Do you remember the first time you were at the white house?

GB: I do. You‘re not gonna believe this.

1969, I had a date with Trisha Nixon. (#Data 15)

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA In #Data 15, the researcher selected GB‘s response I had a date with

Trisha Nixon when JK asked him a question during he was living at the white house. GB gave the answer clearly and straightly to the point. The utterances classified as generalized conversational implicature. The process was the maxim of quantity since the information that GB gave what he had done at the white house for the first time. He made a date with the daughter of Richard M. Nixon, the president of America at that time.

JK: Where did you take her?

GB: I took her to a dinner with-- my dad had a dinner for Frank Borman,

who was an astronaut friend of his from Houston. So I took her to dinner.

(#Data 21)

From the conversation above, JK asked a question related to #Data 15, GB again gave a simple answer but could fulfill the answer by my dad had a dinner for Frank Borman to what JK had asked. His utterance could be classified as generalized conversational implicature since he stated the point of the topic concisely. Then, the generalized conversational implicature was also found in this following utterances:

a) JK: You go on a date with the president‘s daughter.

And you would know this from your own daughters.

Does the secret service come?

GB: Yes, they do. (#Data 23)

b) JK: Alec Baldwin was here last night.

He plays Donald Trump on ―Saturday nightlife‖.

Have you seen him do that?

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA GB: No (#Data 26)

c) JK: Is that something that you enjoy television in general?

GB: Not really. (#Data 33)

As the host in this talk show, Jimmy Kimmel asked a lot of questions to his guest so that the talk show‘s atmosphere would be interactive. For the talk show, Jimmy Kimmel did not merely discuss serious questions but also simple ones even if he made them. As a guest, George W Bush also answered Jimmy

Kimmel's simple questions with simple answers and delivered by him directly and answered Jimmy's questions, as the data a), b) and c) did. George W Bush delivered information directly to Jimmy Kimmel and audiences. Therefore, his utterances could be classified as generalized conversational implicature.

JK: That‘s a mature way of looking at it.

Where do you get your news on a daily basis? (#Data 64)

GB: ―Wall Street Journal‖

JK: You read that every day?

GB: Yeah. Dallas morning news as well. (#Data 65)

In this utterance, JK asked about the daily basis that GB did. These utterances were a kind of generalized conversational implicature because there was no special knowledge of the context uttered was required in order to make the necessary inference. The information was delivered clearly to the hearer. These implicatures were based on the quantity of information offered by the speaker.

JK: Seemed like you‘d at least have the electric one. I don‘t know, you‘re the

president. And this is a classic, something I would love to have for my

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA home. You painted yourself in the bath. Were you in the bath while

painting this?

GB: No, I was not in the bath while photographing this. (#Data 87).

In this utterances, JK asked about the picture of GB painting in the bathroom, then JK confirmed it by asking if GB was in the bathroom when painting it. Then, GB directly confirmed that it was not true. GB delivered information about his bathroom painting directly and clearly to JK and audiences.

Therefore, his utterances could be classified as generalized conversational implicature.

Next, the utterances of particularized conversational implicature found in the data.

JK: How are you?

Thank you for coming. I was just told moments ago that you requested

a little meeting with jermaiguill before the show.

GB: Donde Esta Guillermo. (#Data 1)

When the talk show was started, JK as the host welcomed GB as the guest by greeting. However, GB replied to JK‘s greeting by using Spanish, which was not certain that everyone who was there including JK understood what GB said or not. The information contained in GB‘s utterance was very difficult to understand and couldn‘t be ascertained whether the Spanish language used by GB really answered the greetings from JK or not. Therefore, GB‘s utterance could be classified as particularized conversational implicature.

Then, the particularized conversational implicature also found in this following utterances:

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA JK: I would imagine so. I think it was for the whole country really to see him

doing that.

GB: Yeah, he is a great guy. (#Data 13)

In that utterance above, JK asked about the news from GB's father, namely

George Bush Senior. Then, GB told the good things his father did by saying he is a great guy which was seriously praising his father as a good father because he could do many good things and looked great at that time. In this utterance, GB violated maxim of quality since he said the good things about his father but what

GB says was unclear because he did not explain good things his father had done so that JK and the audiences understood about the information provided by GB.

Therefore, this utterance could be classified as particularized conversational implicature.

JK: Did you see that moment with Warren Beatty?

GB: I watched the replay. I‘m going to pander.

I thought your opening was damn good. (#Data 43)

In this utterance, JK asked something that in this context seemed to be understood by both of them and maybe some people who were loyal to watch this talk show every day. JK asked about whether GB watched the Jimmy Kimmel show that invited Warren Beatty yesterday. This GB‘s statement I watched the replay. I’m going to pander was included to particularized conversational implicature because GB should answer "yes" or "no" to make it to the point and not only provided the information that was not asked by JK. The information he provided did not directly answer JK's questions. Therefore, to understand this utterance, the knowledge was needed in order to understand it by watching the

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA episode of Warren Beatty so that people could see that what GB said about damn good was true.

This following utterance was also one of particularized conversational implicature found in the data:

JK: Human are harder than dogs?

GB: Dogs don‘t really talk back to you. (#Data 82)

In this part of the utterances, JK asked about GB‘s new activity, namely painting. As it was known that GB began his painting by painting his mother's dog. Then, JK asked the difference between painting a dog and human. In this regard, knowledge was needed to understand this speech. It was not only general knowledge but also knowledge which was particular. GB did not provide answers that were directly on target but GB answers using the word metaphor which mean that dogs couldnot tell bad things about humans because they were animals.

Conversely, it was human beings who could say bad things to a human being.

Therefore, from the GB question, it could be said that GB prefered to paint dogs than human. The utterance classified as particularized conversational implicature.

Based on the analysis above, generalized conversational implicature was dominantly used in the conversation between Jimmy Kimmel and George W Bush in Jimmy Kimmel talk show. The reason why generalized conversational implicature was used because the utterers wanted to share the information directly to the audiences in order to ease the audiences to understand what the utterers talked about in the talk show.

4.1.2 The Realization of Implicature Used in Jimmy Kimmel talk show

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA The realization of implicature used was divided into four categories namely by violation of quantity maxim, violation of quality maxim, violation of manner maxim, and violation of relevance maxim. The data for the realization of implicature were presented in Appendix 3. Based on data analyzed, it was found the four ways of implicature were used in the utterances. Then, the conclusion for the realization of implicature‘s analysis could be seen from the table below:

Table 4.1.3 The Realization of implicature used in Jimmy Kimmel talk show

The Realization of Implicature used in Total Percentage Jimmy Kimmel talk show Violation of quantity maxim 25 54.36%

Violation of quality maxim 5 4.3%

Violation of manner maxim 2 30.44%

Violation of relevance maxim 14 10.87%

Total 46 100%

The utterances that had been classified of the types of implicature used in

Jimmy Kimmel talk show were drawn into the table, then they could be calculated into the numbers of violation maxims as the realization of implicature. Based on the utterances which had been selected between Jimmy Kimmel and George W

Bush‘s utterances in Jimmy Kimmel talk show, there were 46 total number of violation maxims of cooperative principle as the realization of conversational implicature. The process of violation quantity maxim was 25 (54.36 %), the process of violation quality maxim ws 5 (4.3%), the process of violation manner

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA maxim was 2 (30.44%), and the process of violation relevance maxim was 14

(10.87 %).

From the data display above, it could be concluded that the most violation maxim dominantly used in George W Bush‘s utterances in Jimmy Kimmel talk show (see in appendix 3). It was a violation of maxim quantity as the ways of performing implicature. The utterances had mostly used the violation of quantity maxim rather than a violation of quality maxim, violation of manner maxim, and violation of relevance maxim. They gave the information by expressing too much or less information which made the contribution not informative. The process of violation quantity maxim found in George W Bush‘s utterance while the question was being asked by Jimmy Kimmel. The process of violation quantity could be seen in Data #10 below:

JK: And there‘s a photograph of you. You lived in Compton, in the heart of

L..A. For real, that‘s not a joke. When was this?

GB: I was 3.

JK: 3 years old.

GB: Yeah, my dad was selling oil field supplies. We also lived in Bakersfield.

(Data #10).

In this utterances, JK as the host in that talk show asked for a photo which was a portrait of GB when he was a child and JK asked about the age of GB in that photo. Then GB gave information to JK. In answering the question from JK,

GB violates maxim of quantity as he provided too much information ―my dad was selling oil field supplies. We also lived in Bakersfield”. His utterances could be

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA classified as particularized conversational implicature because he intended to grab people‘s attention to create a positive image. He answered the question related to her granddaughter‘s birthday. Therefore, his contribution violated the maxim of quantity.

JK: Where did you take her?

GB: I took her to a dinner with-- my dad had a dinner for Frank Borman,

who was an astronaut friend of his from Houston.

So I took her to dinner. (#Data 21)

In this speech, JK asked about GB's first date with President Nixon's daughter in 1969. Then GB contributed to answering JK's questions. In answering the question from JK, GB violated maxim of quantity by saying “my dad had dinner for Frank Borman, who was an astronaut friend of his from Houston”.

Therefore, the answer given by GB could be concluded as a violation of quantity maxim due to more information than was required. GB provided the information that was not needed from JK's questions, even though GB had provided the information in the form of answer.

Another process of violation quantity maxim found in GB‘s utterance:

JK: Do you have much free time at all when you‘re president?

GB: If you make it. It depends. I exercised every day.

So I tell the schedulers, I want an hour every day.

But you have set priorities and live by them. But not much free time.

(#Data 36)

In this utterance, JK asked if there was the free time that could be spent by

GB as a president to relax. The information in the form of answers provided by

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA GB illustrates his very busy condition as a president who made him give more information to JK that he asked his schedulers to vacate an hour in a day. From

JK's question, he just wanted to know whether there was free time for GB, but GB violated maxim quantity by saying more information that was not required in this utterance.

The process of violation quantity maxim from GB‘s utterance below:

JK: Now that you‘re out of office, you can do anything you want, right?

GB: True. But I’m not telling you. (#Data 52)

JK: Are you not telling me that you looked at them?

GB: I ’m not telling you anything ( laughter and applauded ). (#Data 53)

In this utterance, JK wanted to confirm something to GB which was about what he would do because he was now outside the office. But, in affirming JK's question, GB preferred not to contribute in providing information. From the Data

#52 and Data #53 above, GB did not give any informative contribution. He provided less information by saying very simple answer ―I’m not telling you nothing”. The way GB responds to the question was categorized as a violation of quantity maxim. Besides that, his utterance could be classified into particularized conversational implicature. The word ―I’m not telling you nothing” was not only rejection but also the way to hide information.

Another process of violation quantity maxim from GB‘s utterance couldn be seen:

JK: We e-mail from time to time. He was very kind to be a part of something

I did Emmy‘s last year. I wonder because I was thinking about it, with

my little brother, like if I guy was saying things about my little brother, I‘d

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA want to kill. Want to beat him up. Did you ever get angry and have that kind of reaction?

GB: No. (#Data 61)

In answering the question from JK, GB violated maxim of quantity by saying because ―no‖. Therefore, the answer given by GB could be concluded as a violation of quantity maxim due to less information than was required.

Particularized conversational implicature found in GB‘s utterance. Another process of violation quality maxim from GB‘s utterances could be seen:

JK: Is that something that you enjoy television in general?

GB: Not really. (#Data 33)

In this speech, JK as the host in the talk show wanted to ascertain whether

GB enjoyed the programs on television. In answering JK's questions, GB contributed in the form of uncertain information by saying ―not really‖. In responding to the question from JK as the host, GB violated quality maxim as he conveyed information with lack of certainty. It could be seen that GB did not surely convey whether it was correct or not, he only expressed his answer to reply to JK‘s question. GB sometimes did not feel enjoy in watching television and sometimes felt enjoy to watch that. The utterance above could be classified as particularized conversational implicature which violated the quality maxim.

The process of violation quality maxim found in GB‘s utterance:

JK: We are back with president bush. This is his book, it‘s called ―portraits of

courage. ― we‘ll go through this and talk about some of the veterans that

you painted and wrote about. This is a question and to the country. When

you were in office, I don't know when this happened or if it happened, did

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA you go through the secret files, the ufo documents? Because ---

GB: Maybe. (#Data 48)

GB stated information that he himself was still doubting with the statement. At the beginning of his utterance, he said ―maybe‖ to convey his information. The word ―maybe‖ was the lack of strong evidence to prove something which was right or wrong. It made JK try to guess the hidden information from GB. His utterance was classified as particularized conversational implicature. Then, these following utterances were the violation of the maxim manner:

JK: I can‘t help but feel maybe he was faking it a little bit just so he didn‘t have

to go to the inauguration. Yes? (laughter and applause) He‘s no dummy.

GB: He is a funny man. (#Data 14)

In response to JK's utterance in #Data 14, GB responded to his father. GB wanted to say that his father was very good at doing silly things, like throwing coins in a large bowl (as stated in #Data 12). GB used the special term by saying

―funny man‖ in which this could mean that his father was cute and funny when he did that silly thing or his father looked ridiculous and strange when he did that.

GB gave unclear information because the phrase had more than one meaning.

Therefore, GB‘s utterance could be categorized as a violation of manner maxim and particularized conversational implicature.

Then, these following utterances were the violation of relevant maxim:

JK: How are you? Thank you for coming. I was just told moments ago that

you requested a little meeting with jermaiguill before the show.

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA GB: Donde Esta Guillermo. (#Data 1)

In opening the talk show, as the host of Jimmy Kimmel talk show, JK opened the talk show by welcoming the guest invited in that episode, namely

George W Bush (GB). JK also greeted GB who at that time was present as a guest star. Then, GB contributed to this utterance by using Spanish which was irrelevant to the utterances used by JK in English. In answering the question from JK‘s question, GB violated maxim of relevance as he conveyed information unmatched with the question being asked. It could be seen as GB said “Donde Esta

Guillermo”. Another process of violation of relevance maxim could be seen:

JK: Do you know who won the academy award for best picture?

GB: Pass the envelope, please. (laughter and applause). (#Data 42)

In this utterance, JK tested GB's knowledge about the showbiz world or

Hollywood entertainment. Then, JK confirmed GB's knowledge of the winner for the best picture in the academy award. GB‘s utterance was selected to be analyzed since his contribution was not relevant to the question being asked by JK. When

JK asked him a question, GB did not give the answer but he changed the subject by asking JK to pass the question in the envelope by saying “Pass the envelope, please”. His utterance was not matched with the concept of Grice‘s relevance maxim. His utterance could be classified as particularized conversational implicature. Another process of violation relevance maxim occurred in his utterance.

JK: That‘s beautiful. I think we should give these to the soldiers. Do you guys

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA want these? Do you mind if I give mine? I‘m going to put my signature on

your right there. Thank so much for being here, Mr. President.GB: Can I

say one thing? (#Data 97)

In the utterances above, GB responds JK‘s gratitude to GB by asking a question but his response is not relevant to JK‘s gratitude by asking “can I say one thing?‖. He obviously violated the maxim of relevance. Through GB‘s utterance, he tried to deliver a question to the audiences. What was asked was different from JK‘s gratitude. The way GB asked the question was particularized conversational implicature.

4.1.3 Interpretation of Implied Meaning

The researcher used Larson‘s theory about the type of implicit meaning and Halliday & Hassan‘s theory to support the classification of the type of references. Larson explained that implicit meaning was distinguished into three kinds of meaning, implicit referential meaning, implicit organizational meaning, and implicit situational meaning. The data was analyzed as follow (Appendix 4):

4.1.3.1 Implicit Referential Meaning

Reference was completely important in translating the meaning. Besides, it turned difficult things to understand if its reference was unknown. The reference was outside language elements which were indicated by the language elements.

The meaning of language elements was found in words and sentences. In conjunction with the statement above, Kridalaksana (2009) added that the referential was the meaning that had a very close explained by doing an analysis of the component. In other words, it referred to the meaning of objects, event,

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA attributes, or a particular relationship that was seen or imagined which the content of the information was informed.

JK: A couple of gentlemen introduce these fellas that are here. Hey, guys , I

don‘t know what page

#Data 92

Kimmel at that time which was at the Jimmy Kimmel studio talk show. Then, the word guys said by Jimmy Kimmel is to interact with the audience in front of him.

The demonstrative pronoun here which referred to the place, it did contain implicit information because the appointment of location by using the word here could be used in various places if this is not explained correctly. Same with the case of using the word guys in this utterance, which can refer to anyone. The fact that some information was left implicit in certain grammatical constructions lead to ambiguities.

JK: I would imagine so. I think it was for the whole country really to see him

doing that

GB: Yeah, he is a great guy.

#Data 13

Then, in George W Bush‘s utterance, there was found referential meaning indicated by the word he. The word he was recognized as a personal pronoun.

Based on the context of the text, this word implied George W Bush‘s father. It

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA was literarily shown to a male. In a language, the word she or he was personal pronoun which referred to female or male without any differences. While in

English, people directly knew the personal pronoun she for a female and him for a male. The implicitly seemed to appear because of the word he implied two references that used to be female or male in a language term. The native-speaker did not make it necessary to include this information, and since it was a common culture supplied to them. However, if non-native speaker watched this without mastering reference in a language, it caused ambiguity to their perspective.

JK: Are there really great secrets that you know that you can‘t share

with people?

GB: Yeah

#Data 54

On the data above, the referential meaning indicated on Jimmy Kimmel‘s utterance shown by word there. The word there was recognized as an adverbial demonstrative reference. Based on the context of the text, this word implied a subject that referred to the current situation to George W Bush who did not want to tell people about the files he had and it was assumed that full of secrets. If the utterance there was understood literary that would be mean a location. It could be seen that the word there seemed awkward and rigid. Thus, the way of understanding the word there in this utterance should tend to be semantically which focused on the meaning that transferred into the target language. As a result, the understanding of the word there would be understandable to the reader and listener.

4.1.3.2 Implicit Organizational Meaning

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA a) Passive Construction

JK: How are you? thank you for coming. I was just told moments ago that you

requested a little meeting with jermaiguill before the show.

GB: Donde Esta Guillermo

#Data 1

Passive construction in Jimmy Kimmel‘s utterance indicated implicitly, it was shown in the utterance I was just told. As Larson mentioned, to indicate passive construction in a sentence, the first thing needed to do was placing semantic proposition, and it would be (something) I was just told, however, because it occurred in the passive sentence here, semantic proportion did not need to be placed here. It was meant that this passive construction was being as explicitly which the word I indicated as the agent in this passive construction.

This word was such a clear and appropriate pattern of passive sentences in

Bahasa.

b) Substitution Word

JK: Do you ever paint nudes?

GB: None of your business. (laughter and applause)

#Data 84

On the data above, the substitution word which categorized as clausal substitution shown by the word none contained in George W Bush‘s utterance.

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA JK: Why not. You have one of those crappy shaving mirrors.

GB: I do.

#Data 86

On the data above, the substitution was Why not. It was replaced by a clause in the previous sentence. It had occurred in the utterance of Jimmy Kimmel when he talked about George W Bush‘s crappy shaving mirrors. The word Why not still left implicit because the meaning of this word implied some message that not conveyed properly. Basically, this implied some reason in Jimmy Kimmel‘s response to George W Bush‘s statement. Jimmy Kimmel revealed the possibility of George W Bush to make muscles a little bigger that replaced by clause Why not in the previous George W Bush‘s statement.

4.1.3.3 Implicit Situational Meaning

a. Caused by Speaker-Addressee Relationship

JK: So. Do you pull up to the white house and say--

GB: In a purple Gremlin. (laughter)

#Data 20

The situational meaning in speaker and addressee occurred in this data, it was shown by in a purple Gremlin. The word in a purple gremlin implied situational meaning that causes in the speaker-addressee relationship. This word had occurred in George W Bush‘s utterance when he cut Jimmy Kimmel‘s question about his dating with President Nixon‘s daughter. George W Bush used the word in a purple gremlin to replace a gremlin car. Gremlin car was a compact car manufactured around 1970. The cars were sold and marketed in 1970-1978 by

American Motors Corporation (AMC). In total, there were 671,475 gremlins

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA produced in one generation. Currently, there was no reproduction anymore. That was the thing which made the situation between Jimmy Kimmel and George W

Bush‘ utterances were peppered with laughter. For people who did not know the shape of the car, they ought to consider this normal, so that the situation of humor could only be felt by those who had seen or known the car.

4.2 Findings

From the finding, the researcher found that all the maxims proposed by

Grice that there were 46 utterances from 97 utterances were violated. The most frequently violated maxim was the maxim of quantity which was 25 (54.36%) utterances. The second most frequently violated maxim was the maxim of relevant which was 14 (30.44%) utterances and third was the maxim of manner which was

5 (10.87%) utterances. The least frequently violated maxim was the maxim of quality which was 2 (4.3%) utterances. Then, the conversational implicature found in the data was 82 (84.54%) Generalized Conversational Implicature and

15 (15.46%) for Particularized Conversational Implicature.

The speakers frequently violated the maxims in his performance by being not cooperative to the topic being talked. Maxim of quantity became the most frequent maxim, instead of giving an informative contribution in the conversation, the speaker tend to give more information that was not required in the conversation and even the speaker chosed to not give any information in the conversation which was literally false to corporate in a conversation. The implication that commonly arises were the speaker replied the questions by saying

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA something more and less than he should. Maxim of quantity was focused on make a contribution as informative as required, so if the speaker intentionally gave a contribution that was not as informative as required in his utterance meant that he violated maxim of quantity.

Then, the maxim of relevance was also violated. The maxim of relevance was violated to avoid saying something explicitly regarding his experiences and background knowledge by saying irrelevant things. The implication that commonly arises were the speaker did not want to be serious about the topic.

However, the maxim of relevance in this talk show was violated. For instance, JK greeted GB in the opening of the talk show in English but GB replied JK‘s greetings in Spain. The audience also realized when GB replied JK‘s greetings in

Spain but the audience knew that GB said it intended to make the talk show as enjoyable as it iwas (see appendix 1).

Finally, the violation of the maxim manner was also applied in this talk show. In the utterances, the speaker tend to violate the maxim of the manner by being not brief and in order as well as saying something that was ambiguous and obscure. The violation of maxim of manner, in the case, being not brief was to clarify the real meaning. Therefore, the speaker was not being brief by giving a long explanation. The implication was the speaker did not want to be clear in saying his utterances intentionally to explain something.

It could be concluded that in Jimmy Kimmel show found that 46 utterances are violated by the speaker. How the maxims were violated was by saying something that indicates the speaker tend to not being cooperative. The

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA speaker implied what he said by violating the maxims. The aims were varied.

However, in the end, the violation in the utterances were for the sake of entertaining the audience.

4.3 Discussion

Understanding the implicature in the utterances was one way that was by analyzing the context of the use of utterance. The context was also related to the background held by the speakers of the utterance, the social situation, the situation of the language being used, and the channel.

Based on the data analysis and the findings, in this section, the researcher explained the discussion which is aimed to provide rich descriptions of the research problems that had been formulated in chapter one. From the research findings which had answered the research questions, there were two types of conversational implicature on Jimmy Kimmel talk show, those were generalized conversational implicature and particularized conversational implicature. Relate to the focus of the research, those kinds of conversational implicature consisted of

15 generalized conversational implicature and 82 particularized conversationally.

In this research, the finding showed that particularized conversational implicature dominated the data because it was used in a talk show on television that public could see their ex-president of the USA and Jimmy Kimmel in live and also people should need specific knowledge to interpret. It also depend on the context of their meaning and only used when speaker and audiences could identify what was being referred to from the situational context.

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA Generalized conversational implicature was commonly used in daily conversation and it would be very contrasting if it was often used on a television talk show like this especially the speakers were the persons who were very exemplary and respected by Americans. It was consequently used when the speakers did not want to utter the sentences or did not see the importance in the context of the informal conversation. It seemed that participants focused on the point being made so that a specific utterance for the concept was not important.

Another way in analyzing implicature was by violating the maxims on the principle of cooperation delivered by Grice. The maxim was quantity, quality, relevance, and manner. To achieve good communication, according to Grice, speakers might obey the principle of cooperation in conversation.

Based on data analysis, the text of the conversation between George W

Bush and Jimmy Kimmel violated the maxim of the way. The explanation was as follows: Submission carried out by George W Bush haltingly and not delivered concisely. Jimmy Kimmel questions "Humans are harder than a dog" on data 82.

Based on the maxim of manner, Jimmy Kimmel shouldn't convey the message directly without asking permission first even though he didn't mean to do bad things.

In addition, the answers from George W Bush contained ambiguity, which could be seen in the clause "Dogs don't really talk back to you". This indicated that George W Bush also wanted to answer it with ambiguity. Violations of

Grice's maxims would result in implicature. The implicature in the 82 text data

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA conversation, George W Bush answered the ambiguous question from Jimmy

Kimmel with an ambiguous answer as well.

Then for the maxim of quantity, there was a maxim of the quantity that was adhered to because George W Bush gave the answer Jimmy Kimmel wanted and was not excessive as found in data 77 when Jimmy Kimmel asked how

George W Bush could find a teacher to paint ‖ And how do you find an art instructor? Is it Craig's list kind of deal?‖ then immediately George W Bush explained the answer to Jimmy Kimmel by saying ―Fortunately got some artist friends in Dallas, and a woman named Pam suggested Gayle, and she came over and we got started and a painted a cube‖.

Besides that, there was also a violation of maxim quantity due to the provision of excessive information or responding to the other person with a sentence that was not needed. This happened when Jimmy Kimmel confirmed

George W Bush's statement that Alexander wanted to become a firefighter in LA by saying ―is that right?‖ in data 96. Then, George W Bush responded his question by saying ―trying to‖. This resulted in the non-fulfillment of the respondents asked by Jimmy Kimmel so that the word that George W Bush put forward was not required.

The quality is also not fulfilled because George W Bush responded to

Jimmy Kimmel's question based on what was happening but with full uncertainty in data 33. This happened when Jimmy Kimmel wanted to know if there was a television program that was often watched by the former president in his spare time. This could be seen in fragments of the sentence ―is that something that you

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA enjoy television in general?‖. Then George W Bush answered it by saying ―not really‖.

The maxim of relevance also occured in this data. Based on the quotations on the maxim of quality, it could be seen that what was conveyed with the situation that occurs was interconnected. Violating maxim of relevance was found in data 24 when Jimmy Kimmel revealed the things that would certainly be felt if he became the son of a president by saying ―that’s the greatest thing about being president‖. Then George W Bush replied in a joke by saying ―unless you’re dating the president’s daughter‖. This was certainly not relevant to what was conveyed with Jimmy Kimmel, but the audience would understand the intent of

George W Bush‘s statement with specific knowledge.

The principle of conversation Grice had four maxims, namely the maxim of the quantity, quality, relevance, and manner. Maxim violated the other maxims.

For example, violating the quantity maxim to achieve quality maxim. The maxims that exist in the principle of cooperation could be violated for certain purposes.

For example, by providing information that was more than what was needed by the addressee. This was because speakers wanted to convey more detailed information so that speakers could better understand. Information that was beyond semantic meaning was often called an implicature. Based on the analysis of the data, the implicature of the context of the conversation between Jimmy Kimmel and George W Bush, namely Jimmy Kimmel as the host, became more active by asking George W Bush some questions as guest stars at the talk show. From all the finding and discussion above, the researcher showed that particularized conversational implicature was dominated by the data as found by most of the

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA previous studies. But, some different results were also found in this present study that the speaker had their own purpose in uttering an implicature as listed by the researcher in five functions of implicature.

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

This chapter discusses the conclusion and suggestion. The conclusion was drawn from the result of the analysis in chapter IV. Meanwhile, the suggestion is made for the recommendation and future research.

5.1 Conclusion

The process and the result of conversational implicature analysis based on

Grice theory in Jimmy Kimmel show had led to some conclusions. Among all conversational utterances in the talk show, there were 97 which contain conversational implicature including 15 (15.46%) generalized conversational implicatures and 82 (84.54%) particularized conversational implicatures. The implication occured from either obeying the cooperative principle or failing to fulfill maxims: 51 from obeying the cooperative principle and 46 from failures of fulfilling maxims. The failures of fulfilling maxims in the talk show came in violating maxims. There were 46 violations. All maxims (quantity, quality, relevance, and manner) had been violated in the talk show; there was no opting out and being faced with the clash.

In generalized conversational implicatures found in the talk show, the speaker performed the cooperative principle where it was a must to make a conversational contribution such as required. By which means, it was not suggested to say words more than what was needed to share a set of meaning considering the unspoken meaning could be generally assumed since no specific context or knowledge was attached. As a result of obeying the cooperative

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA principle, there was a part of the meaning which did not appear in the utterance;

Grice (1989) called it the implicatum. On the other hand, violating maxims were rare in generalized conversational implicatures. The rest occured by obeying the cooperative principle. In particularized conversational implicature, all implicatures were caused by the failures of fulfilling maxims. All maxims, which were the maxim of quality, the maxim of quantity, the maxim of relevance, and the maxim of manner, had been violated in Jimmy Kimmel show. The failures of fulfilling maxims in the movie came in violating maxims. There was 46 violation in maxim. The implicit meaning consisted of implicit referential meaning, implicit organizational meaning, and implicit situational meaning. Finally, the conversational implicatures found in Jimmy Kimmel show had clarified that meaning did not always appear only on what a speaker literally said. It sometimes goes beyond.

5.2 Suggestion

The result of this analysis signifies the importance of Grice‘s conversational implicature as one view of understanding meaning in actual communication as portrayed in the Jimmy Kimmel talk show. At first, this analysis is aimed only to fulfill the requirement to get a master degree; it turns out that the advantages of its process are far greater beyond early recognition. So, it is suggested for the readers, no matter who: students, researchers, or those who just accidentally read this analysis, to pay more attention and to take a closer look on meanings of utterances which are heard or read anywhere and anytime. It means, the next researcher can be used another theory to find out the implied meaning of the conversational implicature in another talk show.

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA REFERENCES

Al – Shawi, M, A. 2017. ‖Challenging Issues in Translating Conversational

Implicature from English into Arabic‖, International Journal of

Comparative Literature & Translation Studies. vol.5.No.2. April 2017.

Al – Qaderi, I, A. 2015. ―Conversational Implicature in Arabic: A Pragmatic

Analysis of Applying Flouting the maxims to the Yemeni Dialect‖,

Macrothink Institue, Vol.7.No.6. December 2015.

Aminuddin. 1985. Semantik : Pengantar Studi Tentang Makna. Bandung: Sinar

Baru.

Black, E. 2006. Pragmatic Stylistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh Press Ltd.

Brasoveanu, A. 2006. Conversational Implicatures The Basics. New Jersey:

Rutgers University.

Bogdan, R. C., & Bigden, S.K. 1992. Qualitative Research for Education, An

Introduction to Theory and Methods. Syracuse University: Allyn and

Bacon.

Brown and Yule. 1983. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Charles F.M. 2002. Introducing English Linguistics. Newyork: Cambridge

University Press.

Cook, G. 1989. Discourse. New York: Oxford University Press.

Cruse, A. 2006. A Glossary of Semantics and Pragmatics. Edinburg: Edinburgh

Press.

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA Cutting, J. 2002. Pragmatics and Discourse: a Resource Book for Students.

London: Routledge

Eggins, S & Slade. D. 1997. Analyzing Casual Conversation. London: Cassel

Fairclough, N. 2001. Language and Power. London: Longman.

Fang G, Xin Li. 2017. ―An Analysis of Conversational Implicature in Nirvana in

Fire from the Perspective of Cooperative Principle‖. Journal of Arts &

Humanities. Vol.6.Issue.07.

Finch, G. 1997. How to Study Linguistics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Fitriyani, D. 2016. ―Implikatur Percakapan Mahasiswa STKIP Muhammadiyah

Pringsewu Lampung‖. Jurnal Pesona. Vol.2.No.1. January 2016 p 53 -

Grice, H.P. 1975. Logic and conversation. New York: Academic Press.

Grundy, P. 2000. Doing Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Guba, E.G. 1981. Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic

inquiries. Educational Communication and Technology Journal 29.

Gumperz, J. J. 1992. Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: University Press.

Isaac, S., & Michael, W. B. 1987. Handbook in research and evaluation. San

Diego CA: Edits Publishers

Kridalaksana, H. 1993. Kamus Linguistik. Gramedia: Jakarta

Khosravizadeh, P. & Sadehvandi, N. 2011. ‖ Some Instances of Violation and

Flouting of The Maxim of Quantity by the Main Character (Barry&Tim)

In Dinner for Shmucks‖. International Conference on Language

Literature and Linguistics.

Larson, M. L. 1984. Meaning-Based Translation: A Guide to Cross-Language

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA Equivalence: University of America.

Leech, G. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman. 1983.

Levinson, S. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

McCarty, M. & Carter, R. 1994. Language as Discourse: Perspective for

Language Teaching. London: Longman.

Meyer, F.C.2002. Introducing English Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press New York.

Miles, M. B., & H, M.A. 1984. Qualitative Data Analysis. London: Sage

Publication Inc.

Nababan, P.W.J. 1987. Ilmu Pragmatik (Teori dan penerapannya). Jakarta.

Nugraha, S. I. 2017. ―The Flouting of Cooperative Principle Maxims;

Implications for the teaching of Pragmatics in EFL Classroom‖. AISLE

Indonesian EFL Journal. vol.3 July 2017.

Prayogi, M.L. 2009. Conversation Analysis between Rush and Ann Coulter on the

Rush Limbaugh Show. Semarang: Dian Nuswantoro University.

Rahardi, R. K. Pragmatik: Kesantunan Imperatif Bahasa Indonesia. Jakarta:

Penerbit Erlangga. 2005.

Raj Ulu, S. G, K. B. Dr. 2017. “An Application of H. P. Grice‘s Theory Of

Implicature to Somerset Maugham‘s Short Story The Punctilious of Don

Sebastian‖. Global Journal for Research Analysis. Vol.6. Issue-5 May

2017.

Ramlan, MA. 1991. Introduction To Linguistics Analysis, Semarang: IKIP

Semarang Press.

Saeed, I. J. 2003. Semantics Second Edition, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA Schifrin, D. 1994. Approach to Discourse. Oxford and Cambridge: Blackwell.

Slocum, G. B. 2016. ―Conversational Implicatures and Legal Texts‖. Ratio Juris

Journal. Vol.29. No.1 March 2016.

Stenstrom, A.B. 1994. Introduction to Spoken Interaction. London and New

York: Longman.

Thomas, J. A. Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. London:

Routledge. 1995.

Thoriqssu‘ud, M., Alvin N. M. 2018. ―The Way of Muslim Communication

Based on Implicature on Surah Al A‘raaf‘s‖. International Conference of

Muslim Society. vol.2. 2018. page 23 – 32.

Yule, G. 1996. Pragmatics. London: Oxford University Press.

Wardhaugh, R.1992. An introduction to Sociolinguistic. Oxford: Blackwell

Website:

Transcript and Audio: Jimmy Kimmel interview George W. Bush from

Https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5irhhpkwbo

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA APPENDIX 1

JK : Jimmy Kimmel B : Brian GU Guillermo

GB: George W. Bush BM : Brian‘s Mother

JK: How are you? thank you for coming. I was just told moments ago that you

requested a little meeting with Jermaiguill before the show.

GU: Donde Esta Guillermo.

JK: He‘s over there. And you spoke in Spanish before the show. How was his Spanish, Guillermo?

GU : perfecto (laughter)

JK When your vice president Dick Cheney, when he shot that guy in the face, how did he tell you? Did he come in and close the door? How did that go down?

GB: What really irritated me about that, he shot the only trial lawyer for me in Texas.

JK: That‘s right. The guy was a lawyer.

GB: It was an unusual period.

JK: It would imagine so. Did it ever seem funny at all to you?

GB: Well, every time Cheney would come in, a lot of people yelled ―duck‖!

JK: So you guys had fun with it?

GB: I did.

JK: Or in this case, quail.

GB: It not bad.

JK: And you lived in L.A when you were a little kid for a time.

GB: Yeah I did.

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA JK: And there‘s a photograph of you. You lived in Compton, in the heart of L.A. For real, that‘s not a joke. When was this?

GB: I was 3.

JK : 3 years old.

GB: Yeah, my dad was selling oil field supplies. We also lived in Bakersfield.

JK: You have the gun pointed. I can‘t help but feel that you may have been the inspiration for other Compton residents. (laughter and applause)

I feel like maybe you might be the W. from NWA.

How are your parents doing, by the way?

GB: Thank you for asking. They are doing great.

JK : I bet people are asking that all the time.

GB: Yeah.

You know, when he came out to flip the coin at the super bowl, it was a very joyful moment.

JK: I would imagine so. I think it was for the whole country really to see him doing that.

GB: Yeah, he is a great guy.

JK: I can‘t help but feel maybe he was faking it a little bit just so he didn‘t have to go to the inauguration. Yes? ( laughter and applause)

He‘s no dummy.

GB: He is a funny man.

JK: That wasn‘t a joke. (laughter)

Do you remember the first time you were at the white house?

GB: I do. You‘re not gonna believe this. 1969, I had a date with Trisha Nixon.

JK: With President Nixon‘s daughter?

GB: Yeah.

JK: How did that happen

GB: It was an arranged date.

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA JK: By whom?

GB: My dad.

JK: Oh, really? Wow

GB: Yeah, it was interesting.

JK: So. Do you pull up to the white house and say--

GB : In a purple gremlin.(laughter)

JK: Where did you take her?

GB: I took her to a dinner with-- my dad had a dinner for Frank Borman, who was an astronaut friend of his from Houston. So I took her to dinner.

JK: So it was a group dinner?

GB: Yeah.

JK: You go on a date with the president‘s daughter. And you would know this from your own daughters. Does the secret service come?

GB: Yes, they do.

JK: That‘s the greatest thing about being president.

GB: Unless you‘re dating the president‘s daughter.

JK: Then it‘s not so good. And I assume it didn‘t work out with this, or we would know. That‘s an unbelievable story.

GB: Glad to share it with you.

JK: Alec Baldwin was here last night. He plays Donald Trump on ―Saturday nightlife‖. Have you seen him do that?

GB : No

JK: I happened to chat with Will Ferrell on the phone today. He did you, very famously on ―Saturday nightlife‖

GB: Want to hear something terrible?

I had dinner with Lorne Michaels and he came up with strategery. And I said, wait a minute, I said strategies. And he said, no, you didn‘t say strategies. I said I damn sure did. I said, let me ask you this, did he come up with misunderestimate? (laughter)

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA JK: Who does the best imitation of you?

GB: A guy who‘s now dead.

JK: Oh, really?

GB: Yeah, sadly Steve Bridges.

JK: Did you have anything to do with his death? (laughter)

GB: I hope not. A guy named Bridges. He was very, very funny google it.

JK: I will.

GB: So I did a white house correspondents dinner, and Bridges and I come out together, and I would say something and then Bridges would say, you know, kinda, this is what he really meant. It was pretty funny.

JK: Did you enjoy the white house correspondents dinner?

GB: Yeah, I worked with a guy, London Parman, he was a very funny girl. I love humor, and the best humor is when you make fun of yourself.

JK: Tell that to the president. (laughter and applause)

He doesn‘t think so when you were president of The United States, did you watch television? What that part of your day?

GB: I only watched this guy, Kimmel. Uh, no.

JK: You never did, really?

GB: Never really did.

JK: Is that something that you enjoy television in general?

GB: Not really.

JK: Or you were just too busy to do it?

GB: Both.

JK: You probably should n‘t be watching television when you‘re the president.

GB: You got a lot to do. You‘re busy.

JK: Do you have much free time at all when you‘re president?

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA GB: If you make it. It depends. I exercised every day. So I tell the schedulers, I want an hour every day. But you have set priorities and live by them. But not much free time.

JK: Funny, because that would be the first thing I cut out. Not exercising for at least 8 years. Do you pay attention to pop culture?

GB : No

JK: So, you don‘t know that Beyonce is pregnant?

GB : No

JK: Do you know who Beyonce husband is?

GB : No

JK: Do you know who Beyonce is?

GB: Yes

JK: She‘s from--

GB: She‘s from Texas.

JK: Do you know who won the Academy Award for best picture?

GB: Pass the envelope, please. (laughter and applause)

JK: Did you see that moment with Warren Beatty?

GB : I watched the replay. I‘m going to pander. I thought your opening was damn

good.

JK: Thank you very much, I appreciate it. Oh, you watched that.

GB: O, no, I watched the opening

JK: Okay, I gotcha.

GB: And i saw a replay of the faux pas

JK: When you see that, you‘re opening the door, there was mission

accomplished, that was a big one. Do you take pleasure, or do you feel

sorry for...

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA GB: I felt sorry for him. I kinda felt sorry for you. You looked a little lost up

there.

JK: I get that a lot

GB: Price water house did it. ( laughter )

JK: This is the book. We‘ll be right back ...

---- advertisement ---

JK: We are back with President Bush. This is his book, it‘s called ― portraits

of courage. ― we‘ll go through this and talk about some of the veterans

that you painted and wrote about. This is a question and to the country. When you were in office, I don't know when this happened or if it happened, did you go through the secret files, the ufo documents? Because---

GB: Maybe

JK: If I was president, that would be the first thing I did

GB: My daughters asked the same question.

JK: They did?

GB: Yeah

JK: Would you be allowed to tell your daughters what was in those files?

GB: No

JK: Now that you‘re out of the office, you can do anything you want, right?

GB: True. But I‘m not telling you.

JK: Are you not telling me that you looked at them?

GB: I ‘m not telling you anything ( laughter and applause )

JK: Are there really great secrets that you know that you can‘t share with

people?

GB: Yeah

JK: There are? And you never write about them?

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA GB: No

JK: Nothing? What if you were to get a little loopy and --

GB: Start drinking again?

JK: Yeah. Guillermo, get some tequila! ( laughter )

Were you jealous of the size of the crowds at trump‘s

inauguration.

GB: I was -- I was there.

JK: I know you were

GB: I was the guy trying to put the --

JK: The poncho on. We noticed that, actually. When you‘re president and you have a poncho handler. When you‘re out of the office, you‘re on your own. I was looking at Dick Cheney, while that was happening, he seemed to be enjoying that poncho moment.

GB: Helping me with the poncho?

JK: Well, he was not so much help you, so much as glaring at you. Jeb Bush is a guy. That I am friendly with. I have a relationship with Jeb.

GB: So do i.

JK: We e-mail from time to time. He was very kind to be a part of something I did the Emmys last year. I wonder because I was thinking about it, with my little brother, like if I guy was saying things about my little brother, I‘d want to kil him. Want to beat him up. Did you ever get angry and have that kind of reaction?

GB: No

JK: You don‘t care about Jeb ( laughter )

GB: I had been in a number of campaigns and, pretty well used to that stuff.

JK: It goes with the territory?

GB: Yeah, it does

JK: That‘s a mature way of looking at it. Where do you get your news on a daily basis?

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA GB: ― Wall Street Journal

JK: You read that every day?

GB: Yeah. Dallas morning news as well.

JK: Where do you think Romo will go, by the way?

GB: He‘s a dear friend of mine, by the way.

JK: He‘s a dear friend of mine too ( laughter ).i don‘t know where he‘s going real cold in Denver, but you‘ll get used to it.

GB: He‘s a wonderful guy and he‘s handled it this extremely well with Dak

Prescott

JK: I think he‘s handled it very well

GB: Yes

JK: He‘s a good guy. But they don‘t care about any of that stuff. Let talk about the paintings. When did all this happen?

GB: Getting a little bored

JK: All the brush had been cleared on the property?

GB: Brush cleared. You go a hundred miles an hour. Next day you wake up and, nothing. Go get the coffee yourself, buddy ( laughter ). And so I wrote these

books, which surprised a lot of people.

JK: Yeah, right

GB: Especially on the coasts.

JK: You wrote like five books

GB: They didn‘t think I could read much less write. Anyway, I wrote an essay about Winston Churchill painting as a pastime. And I say, if this guy can paint, so can i.

JK: Did you as a kid? GB: No. Never interested in it.

JK: What the next step?

GB: I brought bushes and paint and hired an instructor

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA JK: Did you have someone get the supplies for you?

GB: I did

JK: Have you been to the supplies store?

GB: I have

JK: Isn‘t it funny?

GB: Yeah, I enjoy going.

JK: And how do you find an art instructor? Is it Craig's list kind of deal? (laughter)

GB: Fortunately got some artist friends in Dallas, and a woman named Pam suggested Gayle, and she came over and we got started and a painted a cube.

JK: Is she honest with you, if there‘s something she thinks is not good?

GB: Well, she started off with her body language, making it pretty obvious she didn‘t vote for me. (laughter)

JK: I would imagine you turned her around.

GB: I‘m sure you can understand, the art community was not exactly my base of support. (laughter)

JK: Yeah, no rallies in galleries. You started out painting primarily dogs.

GB: Yeah, because I called mother and said, I‘m a painter. She said you can‘t paint. And I said, I damn sure can. She said, paint my dog. So I was a pet portrait painter.

JK: Then you have dogs down, graduate to humans?

GB: Exactly.

JK: Human is harder than dogs?

GB: Dogs don‘t really talk back to you.

JK: Do you have people sit for you?

GB: I go with photos

JK: Do you ever paint nudes?

GB: None of your business. (laughter and applause)

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA JK: This is technically a nude. This is a self-portrait, you in the shower. Now, how do you capture that? Did Laura take a picture?

GB: Well, I kind used my imagination. You can see, I made muscles a little bigger.

JK: Why not. You have one of those crappy shaving mirrors.

GB : I do.

JK: Seemed like you‘d at least have the electric one. I don‘t know, you‘re the president. And this is a classic, something I would love to have for my home. You painted yourself in the bath. Were you in the bath while painting this?

GB: No, I was not in the bath while photographing this.

JK : I see.

GB: And as you notice, I learned way back.

JK: And did you take that picture with your phone?

GB: Yes, I did.

JK: Oh, that's very dangerous. That‘s one of the most dangerous things any president‘s --

GB: You want to know why I did that? I wanted to figure out perspective and paint water hitting water. Plus I was testing the humor of my instructor.

JK: Gayle was impressed by that? So these paintings are of veterans, a couple of whom are here in our audience tonight.

GB: Yeah

JK: A couple of gentlemen introduce these fellas that are here. Hey, guys, I don‘t know what page.

GB : I do. Here‘s Brian.

JK: Let me show that to everybody. So brian‘s right there in the audience. Brian, what do you think of your likeness?

B: That‘s an incredible honor. Looks great.

JK: It does look good.

GB: So the question, doesBriant's mother like it?

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA JK: And does Briant‘s mother like it?

GB: She‘s here.

JK: Oh, do you like it? That‘s your baby.

Bm: So, the answer is yes, I do. I love it it's amazing.

JK: Do you have the original painting?

Bm : No. But I do have a book.

GB: Get that out of your mind.

JK: Well, I thought it might be fun if we drew each other while you‘re here.

GB: That‘s Alexander

JK: He‘s right there next to Brian. Alexander‘s..it was an unshaven period for Alexander. Alexander, what do you think? Turn your head a little, Alexander.

GB: You know what he‘s doing? He‘s going to become a firefighter here in L.A

JK: Is that right?

GB: Trying to

JK: Oh, good. I‘ll burn something and you can come over. (laughter)

I thought it would be fun if we do an art demonstration on the show because there‘s nothing more interesting on television than watching people draw. When we come back. In fact, let‘s grab them now and we‘ll get started and maybe we‘ll draw each other.

---- advertisement ----

JK: All right, we‘re back with the president. So, um, you want to show yours first? Or should I? (laughter)

That sounded dirty, but it really wasn‘t. Okay, let‘s just hold it up right there. Yep, that‘s me, all right. If you‘ve seen this man, contact your local police. Okay, so I drew you and then in the background there, I had Guillermo. So, I couldn‘t help it.

Gu: That‘s good. (laughter and applause)

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA JK: That‘s beautiful. I think we should give these to the soldiers. Do you guys want these? Do you mind if I give mine? I‘m going to put my signature on your right there. Thank so much for being here, Mr. President.

GB: Can I say one thing?

JK: Say whatever you like?

GB: Anybody who buys this book, the money, the proceeds go to this program to help our vets. All of it.

JK : Excellent. That‘s the book right there. ― Portraits of courage: A Commander in Chief‘s Tribute to America's Warriors‘ is available now artwork.

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA APPENDIX 2

Speakers‘ code :

JK : Jimmy Kimmel

GB : George W Bush

B : Brian

GU : Guillermo

BM : Brian‘s Mother

Implicature‘s Code

Generalized Conversational Implicature

Particularized Conversational Implicature

J: How are you? Data #1

Thank you for coming. I was just told moments ago that you requested

a little meeting with Jermaiguill before the show.

G : Donde esta guillermo 1

J : He‘s over there. And you spoke in Spanish before the show. How was his Spanish, Guillermo? Data #2

GU : Perfecto (laughter) 1

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA J: When your vice president dick Cheney, when he shot that guy in the face, how did he tell you? Did he come in and close the door? How did that go down? Data#3

G: What really irritated me about that, he shot the only trial lawyer for me in Texas. 2

J : That‘s right. The guy was a lawyer. Data #4

G : It was unusual period. 2

J: It would imagine so. Did it ever seem funny at all to you? Data #5

G: Well, every time Cheney would come in, a lot of people yelled “duck”! 3

J : So you guys had fun with it? Data #6

G : I did. 4

J : Or in this case, quail. Data #7

G : It not bad. 5

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA J : And you lived in LA when you were a little kid for a time. Data #8

G : Yeah i did. 6

J : And there‘s a photograph of you. You lived in Compton, in the heart of L..A. For real, that‘s not a joke. When was this? Data #9

G : I was 3. 7

J: 3 years old. Data #10

G: Yeah, my dad was selling oil field supplies. We also lived in Bakersfield. 8

J: You have the gun pointed. I can‘t help but feel that you may have been the inspiration for other Compton residents. (laughter and applause) I feel like maybe you might be the w. From NWA. How are your parents doing, by the way? Data #11

G: Thank you for asking. They are doing great. 9

J: I bet people are asking that all the time. Data #12

G: Yeah. You know, when he came out to flip the coin at the super bowl

It was a very joyful moment. 10

J: I would imagine so. I think it was for the whole country really to see him doing that. Data #13

G : Yeah, he is a great guy. 3

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA J: I can‘t help but feel maybe he was faking it a little bit just so he didn‘t have to go to the inauguration. Yes? ( laughter and applause)

He‘s no dumny. Data #14

G: He is a funny man. 11

J: That wasn‘t a joke.(laughter) Data #15

Do you remember the first time you were at the white house?

G: I do. You’re not gonna believe this. 1969, I had a date with Trisha Nixon. 12

J: With president nixon’s daughter? Data #16

G: Yeah. 13

J: How did that happen Data #17

G: It was an arranged date. 14

J: By whom? Data #18

G: My dad. 15

J: Oh, really? Wow Data #19

G: Yeah, it was interesting. 16

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA J: So. Do you pull up to the white house and say-- Data #20

G: In a purple gremlin.(laughter) 4

J: Where did you take her? Data #21

G: I took her to a dinner with-- my dad had a dinner for Frank Borman, who was an astronaut friend of his from Houston. So I took her to dinner. 17

J: So it was a group dinner? Data #22

G: Yeah. 18

J: You go on a date with the president‘s daughter. And you would know this from your own daughters. Does the secret service come? Data #23

G : Yes, they do. 19

J: That’s the greatest thing about being president. Data #24

G: Unless you’re dating the president’s daughter. 20

J: Then it‘s not so good. And I assume it didn’t work out with Trisha, or we would know. That’s an unbelievable story. Data #25

G: Glad to share it with you. 21

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA J: Alec Baldwin was here last night. He plays Donald Trump on ―Saturday nightlife‖. Have you seen him do that? Data #26

G: No 22

J: I happened to chat with Will Ferrell on the phone today. He did you, very famously on “Saturday nightlife” Data #27

G: Want to hear something terrible? 5

I had dinner with Lorne Michaels and he came up with strategies. And I said, wait a minute, i said strategie And he said, no, you didn‘t say strategies.I said I damn sure did. I said, let me ask you this, did he come up with misunderestimate? (laughter)

J: Who does the best imitation of you? Data #28

G: A guy who’s now dead.

J: Oh, really?

G: Yeah, sadly Steve Bridges. 6

J: Did you have anything to do with his death? (laughter) Data #29

: I hope not. A guy named bridges. He was very, very funny google it.

J : I will. 24

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA G : So I did a white house correspondents dinner, and Bridges and I come out together, and I would say something and then bridges would say, you know, kinda, this is what he really meant. It was pretty funny. Data #30

J: Did you enjoy the white house correspondents dinner?

G: Yeah, i worked with a guy, London Parman, he was a very funny girl. I love humor, and the best humor is when you make fun of yourself. 25

J: Tell that to the president. (laughter and applause) Data #31

He doesn‘t think so when you were president of the united states, did you watch television? What that part of your day?

G: I only watched this guy, kimmel. Uh, no. 26

J: You never did, really ? Data #32

G: Never really did. 27

J: Is that something that you enjoy television in general? Data #33

G: Not really. 28

J : Or you were just too busy to do it ? Data #34

G : Both. 29

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA J: You probably should n’t be watching television when you’re the president. Data #35

G: You got a lot to do. You’re busy. 30

J: Do you have much free time at all when you’re president? Data #36

G: If you make it. It depends. I exercised every day. So I tell the schedulers, I want an hour every day.

But you have set priorities and live by them. But not much free time 31

J: Funny, because that would be the first thing i cut out. Not exercising for at least 8 years. Do you pay attention to pop culture? Data #37

G: No 32

J: So, you don’t know that Beyonce is pregnant? Data #38

G: No 33

J : Do you know who Beyonce husband is? Data #39

G: No 34

J: Do you know who Beyonce is? Data #40

G: Yes 35

100

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA J: She’s from-- Data #41

G: She’s from Texas. 36

J: Do you know who won the academy award for best picture? Data #42

G: Pass the envelope, please. (laughter and applause) 37

J: Did you see that moment with Warren Beatty? Data #43

G: I watched the replay. I’m going to pander. I thought your opening was damn good. 7

J: Thank you very much, I appreciate it. Oh, you watched that. Data #44

G: No, no, I watched the opening 38

J: Okay, i gotcha. Data #45

G: And I saw a replay of the faux pas

J: When you see that, you‘re opening the door, there was mission accomplished, that was a big one. Do you take pleasure, or do you feel sorry for... Data #46

G: I felt sorry for him. I kinda felt sorry for you. You looked a little lost up there

101

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA J: I get that a lot Data #47

G: Price water house did it. ( laughter ) 41

J: This is the book. We‘ll be right back ....

---- advertisement ---

J: We are back with president bush. This is his book, it‘s called ― portraits of

courage. ― we‘ll go through this and talk about some of the veterans that you

painted and wrote about. This is a question and to the country.

When you were in office, I don't know when this happened or if it happened, did you go through the secret files, the ufo documents? Because --- Data #48

G: Maybe 42

J: If I was president, that would be the first thing i did Data #49

G: My daughters asked the same question. 43

J: They did? Data #50

G: Yeah 44

J: Would you be allowed to tell your daughters what was in those files? Data #51

G: No 45

102

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA

J: Now that you‘re out of office, you can do anything you want, right? Data #52

G: True. But I’m not telling you. 46

J: Are you not telling me that you looked at them? Data #53

G: I’m not telling you nothing ( laughter and applaused ) 47

J: Are there really great secrets that you know that you can’t share with people? Data#54

G: Yeah 48

J: There are? And you never write about them? Data #55

G: No 49

J: Nothing? What if you were to get a little loopy and -- Data #56

G: Start drinking again? 50

J: Yeah. Guillermo, get some tequila! ( laughter ) Data #57

Were you jealous of the size of the crowds at Trump’s inauguration(laughter)

G: I was -- I was there. 51

103

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA J: I know you were Data #58

G: I was the guy trying to put the -- 52

J: The poncho on. We noticed that, actually. When you‘re president and you have a poncho handler. When you‘re out of office, you‘re on your own. I was looking at Dick Cheney while that was happening, he seemed to be enjoying that poncho moment

G: Helping me with the poncho? Data #59 53

J: Well, he was not so much helping you, so much as glaring at you. Jeb Bush is a guy. That I am friendly with. I have a relationship with Jeb. Data #60

G: So do I. 54

J: We e-mail from time to time. He was very kind to be a part of something i did the emmys last year. I wonder, because I was thinking about it, with my little brother, like if I guy was saying things about my little brother, I‘d want to kill him. Want to beat him up. Did you ever get angry and have that kind of reaction? Data#61

G: No 55

J: You don‘t care about Jeb ( laughter ) Data #62

G: I had been in a number of campaigns and, pretty well used to that stuff. 7

J: It goes with the territory? Data #63

G: Yeah, it does 56

104

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA J: That‘s a mature way of looking at it. Where do you get your news on a daily basis? Data #64

G: “ Wall street journal.” 57

J: You read that everyday? Data #65

G: Yeah. Dallas morning news as well. 58

J: Where do you think romo will go, by the way? Data #66

G: He’s a dear friend of mine, by the way. 8

J: He‘s a dear friend of mine too ( laughter ) I don‘t know where he‘s going real cold in Denver, but you‘ll get used to it. Data #67

G: He’s wonderful guy and he’s handled it this extremelly well with Dak Prescott

J: I think he‘s handled it very well Data #68

G: Yes 60

J: He‘s a good guy. But they don‘t care about any of that stuff. Let talk about the paintings. When did all this happen? Data #69

G: Getting a little bored 61

105

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA J: All the brush had been cleared on the property? Data#70

G: Brush cleared. You go a hundred miles an hour. Next day you wake up and, nothing. Go get the coffee yourself, buddy ( laughter ). And so I wrote these books, which surprised a lot of people.

J: Yeah, right

G: Especially on the coasts. 62

J: You wrote like five books Data#71

G: They didn’t think i could read much less write. Anyway, I wrote an essay about Winston Churcill painting as a pastime. And i say, if this guy can paint, so can I.

J: Did you as a kid? Data#72 G: No. Never interested in it. 63

J: What the next step? Data#73

G: I brought bushes and paint and hired an instructor 64

J: Did you have someone get the supplies for you? Data #74

G: I did 65

J: Have you been to the supplies store? Data #75

G: I have 66

106

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA

J: Isn’t it funny? Data #76

G: Yeah, I enjoy going. 67

J: And how do you find an art instructor? Is it a Craig’s list kind of deal? (laughter) Data#77

G: Fortunately got some artist friends in Dallas, and a woman named Pam suggested Gayle, and she came over and we got started and a painted a cube.

J: Is she honest with you, if there’s something she thinks is not good? Data #78

G: Well, she started off with her body language, making it pretty obvious she didn’t vote for me. (laughter) 69

J: I would imagine you turned her around. Data #79

G: I’m sure you can understand, the art community was not exactly my base of support.(laughteer) 10

J: Yeah, no rallies in galleries. You started out painting primarily dogs.

Data #80

G: Yeah, because I called mother and said, I’m a painter. She said, you can’t paint. And I said, I damn sure can. She said, paint my dog. So I was a pet portrait painter. 70

107

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA J: Then you have dogs down, graduate to humans? Data #81

G: Exactly. 71

J: Human is harder than dogs? Data #82

G: Dogs don’t really talk back to you. 11

J: Do you have people sit for you? Data #83

G: I go with photos 12

J: Do you ever paint nudes? Data #84

G: None of your bussiness. (laughter and applause) 72

J: This is technically a nude. This is a self-portrait, you in the shower. Now, how do you capture that? Did Laura take a picture? Data #85

G: Well, I kind used my imagination. You can see, I made a muscles a little bigger

J: Why not. You have one of those crappy shaving mirrors. Data #86

G: I do. 74

J: Seemed like you‘d at least have the electricone. I don‘t know, you‘re the President. And this is a classic, something I would love to have for my

108

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA home. You painted yourself in the bath. Were you in the bath while painting this? Data #87

G: No, I was not in the bath while photographing this. 75

J: I see. Data #88

G: And as you notice, I learned way back. 13

J: And did you take that picture with your phone? Data #89

G: Yes, i did. 76

J: Oh, tha‘ts very dangerous. That‘s one of the most dangerous things any President‘s -- Data#90

G: You want to know why I did that? I wanted to figure out perspective, and paint water hitting water. Plus I was testing the humor of my instructor.

J: Gayle was impressed by that? So these paintings are of veterans, a couple of whom are here in our audience tonight. Data #91

G: Yeah 78

J: A couple of gentlemen introduce these fellas that are here. Hey, guys , I don’t know what page. Data #92

G: I do. Here’s Brian. 79

109

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA

J: Let me show that to everybody. So brian‘s right there in the audience. Brian, what do you think of your likeness?

B: That‘s an incredible honor. Looks great.

J: It does look good.

G: So the question, does Brian‘s mother like it?

J: And does Brian’s mother like it? Data #93

G: She’s here. 80

J: Oh, do you like it? That‘s you baby.

Bm: So, the answer is yes, I do. I love it. It‘s amazing.

J: Do you have the original painting?

Bm: No. But I do have a book.

G: Get that out of your mind.

J: Well, I thought it might be fun if we drew each other while you‘re here. Data #94

G: That’s Alexander

J: He‘s right there next to Brian. Alexander‘s..it was an unshaven period for Alexander. Alexander, what do you think? Turn your head a little, Alexander. Data #95

G: You know what he’s doing? He’s going to become a firefighter here in L.A 14

110

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA J: Is that right? Data #96

G: Trying to 82

J: Oh, good. I‘ll burn something and you can come over. (laughter)

I thought it would be fun if we do an art demonstration on the show, because there‘s nothing more interesting on television than watching people draw. When we come back. In fact, let‘s grab them now and we‘ll get started and maybe we‘ll draw each other.

J: All right, we‘re back with the president. So, um, you want to show yours first? Or should I? (laughter)

Gu: That‘s good.(laughter and applause)

J: That‘s beautiful. I think we should give these to the soldiers. You guys want these? Do you mind if I give mine. I‘m going to put my signature on yours right there. Thank so much for being here, Mr. President.

G: Can I say one thing? Data #97

J: Say what ever you like? 15

G: Anybody who buys this book, the money, the proceeds go to this program to help our vets. All of it.

J: Excellent. That‘s the book right there. ― portraits of courage: a commander in chief‘s tribute to america‘s warriors‘ is available now artwork.

111

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA APPENDIX 3

Speaker‘s code:

JK : Jimmy Kimmel

GB : George W Bush

B : Brian

GU : Guillermo

BM : Brian‘s Mother

Maxim‘s Code

1. Maxim of Quantity

No Data Utterances

1 3 JK: When your vice president Dick Cheney, when he shot that guy in the face, how did he tell you? Did he come in and close the door? How did that go down?

GB: What really irritated me about that, he shot the only trial lawyer for me in Texas.

2 10 JK : 3 years old.

GB: Yeah, my dad was selling oil field supplies. We also lived in Bakersfield.

3 12 JK : I bet people are asking that all the time.

GB: Yeah.You know, when he came out to flip the coin at the super

bowl, it was a very joyful moment.

112

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA 4 15 JK: That wasn‘t a joke. (laughter)

Do you remember the first time you were at the white house?

GB: I do. You’re not gonna believe this. 1969, I had a date with Trisha Nixon.

5 21 JK: Where did you take her?

GB: I took her to a dinner with-- my dad had a dinner for Frank Borman, who was an astronaut friend of his from Houston. So I took her to dinner.

6 25 JK: Then it‘s not so good. And I assume it didn’t work out with this, or we would know. That’s an unbelievable story.

GB: Glad to share it with you.

7 27 JK: I happened to chat with Will Ferrell on the phone today. He did you, very famously on “Saturday nightlife”

GB: Want to hear something terrible?

8 29 JK: Did you have anything to do with his death? (laughter)

GB: I hope not. A guy named Bridges. He was very, very funny google it.

113

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA 9 30 GB: So I did a white house correspondents dinner, and Bridges and I come out together, and I would say something and then Bridges would say, you know, kinda, this is what he really meant. It was pretty funny.

JK: Did you enjoy the white house correspondents dinner?

GB: Yeah, I worked with a guy, London Parman, he was a very funny girl. I love humor, and the best humor is when you make fun of yourself.

10 35 JK: You probably should n’t be watching television when you’re the president.

GB: You got a lot to do. You’re busy.

11 36 JK: Do you have much free time at all when you’re president?

GB: If you make it. It depends. I exercised every day. So I tell the schedulers, I want an hour every day. But you have set priorities and live by them. But not much free time.

12 45 JK: Okay, I gotcha.

GB: And i saw a replay of the faux pas

13 52 JK: Now that you‘re out of the office, you can do anything you want, right?

GB: True. But I’m not telling you.

14 53 JK: Are you not telling me that you looked at them?

GB: I ’m not telling you anything ( laughter and applause )

114

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA

15 57 JK: Yeah. Guillermo, get some tequila! ( laughter )

Were you jealous of the size of the crowds at trump’s

inauguration.

GB: I was -- I was there.

16 61 JK: We e-mail from time to time. He was very kind to be a part of something I did the Emmys last year. I wonder because I was thinking about it, with my little brother, like if I guy was saying things about my little brother, I‘d want to kil him. Want to beat him up. Did you ever get angry and have that kind of reaction?

GB: No

17 65 JK: You read that every day?

GB: Yeah. Dallas morning news as well.

18 67 JK: He‘s a dear friend of mine too ( laughter ).i don‘t know where he‘s going real cold in Denver, but you‘ll get used to it.

GB: He’s a wonderful guy and he’s handled it this

extremely well with Dak Prescott

19 71 JK: You wrote like five books

GB: They didn’t think I could read much less write. Anyway, I wrote an essay about Winston Churchill painting as a pastime. And I say, if this guy can paint, so can i.

115

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA 20 77 JK: And how do you find an art instructor? Is it Craig's list kind of deal? (laughter)

GB: Fortunately got some artist friends in Dallas, and a woman named Pam suggested Gayle, and she came over and we got started and a painted a cube.

21 78 JK: Is she honest with you, if there’s something she thinks is not good?

GB: Well, she started off with her body language, making it pretty obvious she didn’t vote for me. (laughter)

22 79 JK: I would imagine you turned her around.

GB: I’m sure you can understand, the art community was not exactly my base of support. (laughter)

23 80 JK: Yeah, no rallies in galleries. You started out painting primarily dogs.

GB: Yeah, because I called mother and said, I’m a painter. She said you can’t paint. And I said, I damn sure can. She said, paint my dog. So I was a pet portrait painter.

24 84 JK: Do you ever paint nudes?

GB: None of your business. (laughter and applause)

25 96 JK: Is that right?

GB: Trying to

116

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA 2. Maxim of Quality

No Data Utterances

1 33 JK: Is that something that you enjoy television in general?

GB: Not really.

2 9 JK: And there‘s a photograph of you. You lived in Compton, in the heart of L.A. For real, that‘s not a joke. When was this?

GB: I was 3.

3. 18 JK: By whom?

GB: My dad.

4 33 JK: Is that something that you enjoy television in general?

GB: Not really.

5 48 JK: We are back with President Bush. This is his book, it‘s

called ― portraits of courage. ― we‘ll go through this and

talk about some of the veterans that you painted and

wrote about. This is a question and to the country. When

you were in office, I don't know when this happened or if

it happened, did you go through the secret files, the ufo

documents? Because--

GB: Maybe

117

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA

3. Maxim of Relevance No Data Utterances

1 1 JK: How are you? thank you for coming. I was just told

moments ago that you requested a little meeting with

Jermaiguill before the show.

GU: Donde Esta Guillermo.

2 4 JK: That‘s right. The guy was a lawyer.

GB: It was an unusual period.

3 24 JK: That’s the greatest thing about being president.

GB: Unless you’re dating the president’s daughter.

4 42 JK: Do you know who won the Academy Award for best picture?

GB: Pass the envelope, please. (laughter and applause)

5 43 JK: Did you see that moment with Warren Beatty?

GB : I watched the replay. I’m going to pander. I thought

your opening was damn good.

6 56 JK: Nothing? What if you were to get a little loopy and --

GB: Start drinking again?

118

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA 7 59 JK: The poncho on. We noticed that, actually. When you‘re

president and you have a poncho handler. When you‘re

out of the office, you‘re on your own. I was looking at

Dick Cheney, while that was happening, he seemed

to be enjoying the poncho moment.

GB: Helping me with the poncho?

8 62 JK: You don‘t care about Jeb ( laughter )

GB: I had been in a number of campaigns and, pretty

well used to that stuff.

9 66 JK: Where do you think Romo will go, by the way?

GB: He’s a dear friend of mine, by the way.

10 85 JK: This is technically a nude. This is a self-portrait, you in the shower. Now, how do you capture that? Did Laura take a picture?

GB: Well, I kind used my imagination. You can see, I made muscles a little bigger.

11 90 JK: Oh, that's very dangerous. That‘s one of the most dangerous things any president‘s --

GB: You want to know why I did that? I wanted to figure out perspective and paint water hitting water. Plus I was testing the humor of my instructor.

12 94 JK: Well, I thought it might be fun if we drew each other while you‘re here.

GB: That’s Alexander

119

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA

13 95 JK: He‘s right there next to Brian. Alexander‘s..it was an unshaven period for Alexander. Alexander, what do you think? Turn your head a little, Alexander.

GB: You know what he’s doing? He’s going to become a firefighter here in L.A

14 97 GB: Can I say one thing?

JK: Say whatever you like?

4. Maxim of Manner

No Data Utterances

1 13 JK: I would imagine so. I think it was for the whole country really to see him doing that.

GB: Yeah, he is a great guy.

2 14 JK: I can‘t help but feel maybe he was faking it a little bit just so he didn‘t have to go to the inauguration. Yes? (laughter and applause)

He‘s no dummy.

GB: He is a funny man.

120

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA APPENDIX 4

Implied Meaning in George W Bush and Jimmy Kimmel’s utterances in

Jimmy Kimmel Talk Show

No Implicit Referential Meaning Implicit Organizational Meaning Implicit Situational

Meaning

How are you? Thank you for I was just told moments ago that Donde esta Guillermo1st line

coming. I was just told you requested a little meeting

moments ago that you with Jermaiguill before the

requested a little meeting show1st line

with Jermaiguill before the

show1st line.

He‘s over there. And you I hope not. A guy named Perfecto2nd line

spoke in Spanish before the bridges. He was very, very

show. How was his Spanish, funny Google it24th line.

Guillermo? 2nd line

When your vice president When you see that, you‘re With President Nixon’s

Dick Cheney, when he shot opening the door, there was daughter?16th line

that guy in the face, how did mission accomplished, that was

he tell you? Did he come in a big one. Do you take pleasure,

and close the door? How did or do you feel sorry for...46th line

that go down?3rd line

It not bad7th line Would you be allowed to tell In a purple gremlin.

121

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA your daughters what was in (laughter)20th line

those files?51st line

Yeah. You know, when he He‘s wonderful guy and he’s You go on a date with the came out to flip the coin at handled it this extremely well president‘s daughter. And the super bowl. It was a very with Dark Prescott67th line you would know this from joyful moment12th line your own daughters. Does

the secret service come?23rd

line

I can‘t help but feel maybe he I think he’s handled it very Alec Baldwin was here last was faking it a little bit just so well68th line night. He plays Donald he didn‘t have to go to Trump on ―Saturday night inauguration. Yes? ( laughter life‖. Have you seen him do and applause) He‘s no that?26th line dummy. 14th line

I took her to a dinner with-- All the brush had been cleared I happened to chat with Will my dad had a dinner for on the property?70th line Ferrell on the phone today.

Frank Borman, who was an He did you, very famously astronaut friend of his from on ―Saturday nightlife‖27th

Houston. So I took her to a line dinner17th line.

Alec Baldwin was here last None of your business. (laughter So I did a white house night. He plays Donald and applause)84th line correspondents dinner, and

122

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA Trump on ―saturday night bridges and I come out live‖. Have you seen him do together, and I would say that? 26th line something and then bridges

would say, you know,

kinda, this is what he really

meant. It was pretty

funny30th line

Want to hear something Why not. You have one of those terrible? I had dinner with crappy shaving mirrors86th line lorne michaels and he came up with strategerie. And I said, wait a minute, I said strategerie. And he said , no, you didn‘t say strategerie.i said I damn sure did. I said, let me ask you this, did he come up with misunderestimate?

(laughter)27th line

She‘s from texas36th line. Oh, that‘s very dangerous. Funny, because that would

That‘s one of the most be the first thing i cut out.

dangerous things any president‘s Not exercising for at least 8

– 90th line years. Do you pay attention

123

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA to pop culture?37th line

The poncho on. We noticed Gayle was impressed by that? And I saw a replay of the that, actually. When you‘re So these paintings are of faux pas45th line president and you have a veterans, a couple of whom are poncho handler. When you‘re here in our audience tonight91st out of office, you‘re on your line own. I was looking at dick cheney while that was happening, he seemed to be enjoying that poncho moment53rd line.

Well, he was not so much When you were in office, i helping you, so much as don't know when this glaring at you. Jeb bush is a happened or if it happened, guy. That I am friendly with. did you go through the I have a relationship with secret files, the Ufo jeb60th line. documents? Because ---48th

line

We e-mail from time to time. The poncho on. We noticed

He was very kind to be a part that, actually. When you‘re of something I did the emmys president and you have a last year. I wonder, because i poncho handler. When

124

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA was thinking about it, with you‘re out of office, you‘re my little brother, like if I guy on your own. I was looking was saying things about my at dick cheney while that little brother, I‘d want to kill was happening, he seemed him. Want to beat him up. to be enjoying that poncho

Did you ever get angry and moment59th line have that kind of reaction?61st line

It goes with the territory?63rd ― wall street journal‖64th line line

He‘s a dear friend of mine too ( laughter ). I don‘t know where he‘s going real cold in

Denver, but you‘ll get used to it67th line.

He‘s a good guy. But they don‘t care about any of that stuff. Let talk about the paintings. When did all this happen?69th line

Is she honest with you, if there‘s something she thinks

125

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA is not good?78th line

Yeah, because I called mother and said, I‘m a painter. She said, you can‘t paint. And I said, I damn sure can. She said, paint my dog. So I was a pet portrait painter81st line

A couple of gentlemen introduce these fellas that are here. Hey, guys , I don‘t know what page92nd line

You know what he‘s doing?

He‘s going to become a fire fighter here in L.A95th line

126

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA