8

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

This chapter describes about review of related literature. It includes

pragmatics, implicature, conversational implicature, Sentilan-sentilun Talkshow,

and previous studies.

A. Pragmatics

Pragmatics is study of meaning in relation to the context in which a

person is speaking or writing. This includes social, situational and textual

context.1 Context has a key position in communication, meaning could

change or imply depend on the context and context has relation with culture.

The topic in pragmatics major discuss about how language is used by

language users in communicative. Hence, the communication is succeeded if

both meaning and context. Pragmatics principle study the way language is

appropriate to the contexts, it is used.

Pragmatic is concerned with the study of meaning as communicated by

a speaker (or writer) and interpreted by a listener (or reader). This type of

study necessarily involves the interpretation of what people mean in

particular context and how the context influences what is said. It requires a

consideration of how speaker organize what they want to say in accordance

with who they are talking to, where, when and under what circumstance.

1
Brian Paltridge, Discourse Analysis: An Introduction, (London: Continuum, 2008), 53.
 9

According to Yule, one traditionally distinction in language analysis

contrasts pragmatics with syntax and semantics. Syntax is the study of the

relationships between linguistic forms, how they are arranged in sequence and

which sequence are well formed.2 This type of study generally takes place

without considering any world of reference or any user of the forms.

According to George Yule in “Pragmatics”, semantics is the study of the

relationships between linguistic forms and entities in the world; that is, how

words literally connect to things.3 Semantic analysis also attempts to establish

the relationships between verbal descriptions and states of affairs in the world

as accurate (true) or not, regardless of who produces that description.

George Yule in “Pragmatics” said that pragmatics is the study of the

relationships between linguistic forms and the users of those forms.4

Furthermore, pragmatics is the study of those relations between language and

context that are grammaticalized or encoded in the structure of language. 5 In

this three part distinction, only pragmatics allows human into the analysis.

The advantage of studying language via pragmatics is that one can talk about

people’s intended meanings, their assumptions, their purposes or goals and

the kinds of actions that they are performing when they speak.

Further Kreidler states that pragmatics is another branch of linguistics

that is concerned with meaning.6 While, Peccei states that pragmatics

concentrates on the aspect of meaning that could not be predicted by

2
George Yule, Pragmatics, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), 4.
3
Ibid., 4.
4
Ibid., 4.
5
Stephen Levinson, Pragmatics, (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1983), 9.
6
Charles Kreider, Introducing English Semantics, (New York: Routledge, 1998), 18.
 10

linguistic knowledge alone and take into account our knowledge about the

physical and social world.7 The focus of pragmatics analysis is on the

meaning of words or sentence.

The relationship between linguistics form and communication function

is of central interest in the area of pragmatics and as Cameron argues, is

highly relevant to the field of discourse analysis.8 Pragmatics study has the

circumstances of when, where and how language is used. Pragmatics has

several distinctive discussions in particular field such as deixis, speech

act,implicature, politeness theory, and others. This study takes implicature as

main topic idea, implicature is one of theory in discourse that explains about

meaning in the context of spoken and written language.

B. Implicature

The term ‘Implicature’ used by Grice to account for what speaker can

imply, suggest or mean as distinct from what speaker literally says. We can

see in daily conversation, all of people use some indirect language to give

signal or only answer. We can make difference about it, we should realized

about the ‘what the speaker said?’ and ‘what the speaker intention?’.

In addition, we can take some explanations from other rhetoricians. The

contrast between ‘say’ and ‘meant’, and derivatively between the ‘said’ and

the ‘implicated’ (the meant but unsaid), back to the fourth-century

7
Jean Stiwell Peccei, Pragmatics, (London and New York: Routledge, 1999), 5.
8
Ibid., 53.
 11

rhetoricians Servius and Donatus who characterized litotes-pragmatics

understatement as a figure that we say less but mean more.9

The speaker’s utterance depend on the context, it means that

implicature is a component of speaker meaning which constitutes an aspect of

what is meant in speaker’s utterance without being part of what is said.10 In

this part, the hearer should understand what is speaker’s meant although the

speaker did not said what actually they wanted to say. Carston in

Ni’maturrohmah said that a very explicature and implicature in the

pragmatics processing of utterances. She gives an example:11

A : How is Jane feeling after her first year at university?

B : She did not get enough units and cannot continue.

Carston notes that there is ambiguity in ‘B’ utterance which is the world

‘get’ and ‘units’. The ‘B’ intention has different meaning in other context.

Everyone agree to deny that ‘B’ utterance is implicit meaning which needs

specific context. Based on ‘B’ utterance and the context, it means that Jane

cannot continue her university studies. Moreover, the pragmatics process is

sensitive with semantics meaning of specially direct object argument of this

verb and has nothing to do with implicature derivation.

Depend on Grice divided into two kinds in meaning. They are natural

meaning and non-natural meaning. Natural meaning is depending on ‘what

said’ and conventional implicature. Non-natural meaning is depending on

9
Laurence R. Horn, The handbook of Pragmatics, (UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2006), 3.
10
Ibid., 4.
11
Ni’maturrohmah, “Implicature Used in Suzanne Collins’ Mockingjay Novel”, (Thesis, STAIN
Kediri Kediri, 2015), 10.
 12

conversational meaning which consists of generalized conversational

implicature and particularized conversational implicature.

Implicature can be considered as an additional conveyed meaning. 12 It

is attained when a speaker intends to communicate more than just what the

words mean. It is the speaker who communicates something via implicatures

and the listener recognizes those communicated meanings via inference.

Implicatures are inferred based on assumption that the speaker observes or

flouts some principles of cooperation. In pragmatics, there are two types of

implicature; they are conversational implicature and conventional

implicature. Grice says that conversational implicature can be defined as “A

different (opposite, additional, etc) pragmatic meaning of an utterance with

respect to the literal meaning expressed by utterance”.13

C. Conversational Implicature

The notion of conversational implicature is one of the single most

important ideas in pragmatics (people shall often refer to the notion simply as

implicature as a shorthand). Implicature is generated intentionally by the

speaker and may (or may not) be understood by the hearer.14

Conversational implicature deals with utterance meaning which is the

study of extra linguistic. According to Hurford, utterance meaning is what the

12
George Yule, Pragmatics, 35.
13
Jacob L. Mey, Concise Encyclopedia of Pragmatics, (New York: Elseiver, 1998), 371.
14
Jenny Thomas, Meaning in Interaction: an Introduction to Pragmatics, (England: Pearson
Education Limited, 1995), 58.
 13

speaker means (i.e. intends to convey) when he uses a piece of language.

Utterance meaning also called pragmatics meaning that means the meaning of

a sentence when it is used by speaker and a hearer. Then, sentence meaning is

the study of intra linguistic. Sentence meaning is what a sentence (or word)

means, i.e. what it counts as the equivalent of in the language concerned.15

Furthermore, implicature is related to the method by which speakers

work out the indirect illocutions of utterance. When the listeners hear the

expression in a certain conversation, they first have to assume that the speaker

is being cooperative and intends to communicate something. That something

must be more than just what the words mean. It is an additional conveyed

meaning which is called an implicature.

Conversational implicature can be defined as a different (opposite,

additional, etc) pragmatic meaning of an utterance with respect to the literal

meaning expressed by that utterance.16 This different meaning is, in the

prototypical case, intended by the speaker and expected to be understood

(implied) by the hearer. The basic assumption in conversation is that, unless

otherwise indicated, the participants stick to the cooperative principle and the

maxims.

Grice’s term of conversational implicature which provides some

explicit account of how it is possible to mean (in some general meaning)

more than it is actually ‘said’ (i.e. more than what is literary expressed by the

15
James R. Hurford, Semantics of Coursebook, (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1983), 3.
16
Jacob L. Mey, Concise Encyclopedia of Pragmatics, 371.
 14

conventional sense of linguistic expression uttered).17 Conversatinal

implicature is implied varies according to the context of utterance.

Furthermore, Jacob L. Mey in “An Introduction of Pragmatics” said that

conversational implicature is dependent on the context of a particular

language use.18

In contrast to conversational implicature there is conventional

implicature. It elaborates about conventional implicature. The conversational

implicature discussed here, conventional implicature are not based on the

cooperative principle of the maxims. They do not have to occur in

conversation, and they do not depend on special contexts for their

interpretation. Same with lexical presuppositions, conventional implicatures

are associated with specific words and have a result in additional conveyed

meanings when those words are used.19

In conclusion, it is quite different from conventional implicature.

Conversational implicatures are primary examples of more being

communicated than is said, but in order for them to be interpreted. Some

basic cooperative principle must first be assumed to be in operation.

The theory of Conversational Implicature was first proposed by

Herbert Paul Grice, who is an American linguistic philosopher. H. P. Grice

delivered three speeches in his William James lectures at Harvard University

in 1967. Among these, the second lecture entitled “Logic and Conversation”

17
Stephen Levinson, Pragmatics, 97.
18
Jacob L. Mey, An Introduction of Pragmatics, (United State of America: Blackwell, 1983), 103.
19
George Yule, Pragmatics, 45.
 15

came out in Syntax and Semantics. There, he presented the theory of

“Cooperative Principle” and “Conversational Implicature.”

In order to understand comprehensively and thoroughly the purpose

and the significance of the proposition of “cooperative principle” and

“conversational implicature,” we should figure out some ideas of Grice’s

basic theory about “meaning,” which can be divided into natural meaning and

non-natural meaning. Natural meaning refers to the meaning of the utterance

that can be generally gained by the conversational participants. While the

non-natural meaning refers to the intended meaning conveyed by the speaker

and must be inferred by the receiver in particular contexts.

On the base of it, Grice proposed the key ideas of conversational

implicature. If the participants both have the expectation to achieve a

successful conversation, they must cooperative with each other, and speak

sincerely, sufficiently, relevantly and clearly. To put it another way, they

must observe the co-operative principle and the maxims of quality, quantity,

relevance and manner. If someone who participate the conversation flouts the

co-operative principle and any of the maxims, he must have intended to do

so. And the receiver can infer the speaker’s intended meaning in particular

contexts. For example:

A: Do you know when John left the pub last night?

B: Eleven o’clock. And he went to Mary’s apartment instead of his

own.
 16

According of quantity maxim, the contribution should not be more

informative than is required. In this way, in the example, as the answer to A,

generally, “Eleven o’clock,” is enough. However, B adds the later sentence,

provides some information that seems not necessary and violates the quantity

maxim. We infer that B wants to tell A that John might have some special

relationship with Mary.

Cruse (2000: 349) points out that conversational implicatures are

characterized as “propositions or assumptions not encoded, completely or

incompletely, in what is actually said.” Whether what is said and what is

meant are considered as completing each other or as distinct entities, it could

be still vital that meaning identification is the most dynamic and effective

conversational tool that the speaker can handle in order to pass the intended

meaning (illocutionary force) to reach the desired perlocutionary act by the

hearer/listener whether the hearer/listener is a second party or it is the speaker

himself/herself (in monologues). The speaker passes the implicated meanings,

and if the hearer/listener receives and perceives it, he/she could form

inferences out of them.

Grice's theory of conversational implicatures is considered as one of

the basic and most interesting theories in the history of pragmatics.20 It sets

forward the mechanism that language users should follow in order to

understand each other in so many instances when meanings and intentions are

not explicitly conveyed.

20
Stephen Levinson, Pragmatics, 97.
 17

In the Gricean scheme, utterances make sense no matter whether there

are missing or incomplete elements. Interlocutors are able to derive meanings

from what is unsaid (implicated) depending on drawing related inferences to

the particular utterance. What is implicated is made reasonable by what Grice

calls implicatures or conversational implicatures. Meaning is inferred from

the use of some utterance in context. Grice's theory of implicature is

concerned with the ways in which meaning can be communicated not only by

what is said, but also by how it is said.21 Grice wants to show the inferential

paths that lead interlocutors from what is said to what is meant. Its guiding

principle is that " constrains on the use of utterances and the information

conveyed by them arise not only from the semantically encoded meaning ,

but also from the communicative uses to which they are put" (Soames).

The Grice’s opinion in Haiyan Wang，conversational implicature has

five characteristics. Those arecancellability, non-detachability, calculability,

non-conventionality, indeterminacy.22

1. Cancellability

Conversational implicatures are cancelable or defeasible if

we add some other premises to the original ones.

2. Non-detachability

The conversational implicature is attached to the semantic

content of what is said, not to the linguistic form used. Therefore it

21
Ibid., 97.
22
Haiyan Wang, Conversational Implicature in English Listening Comprehension,JournalQingdao
University of Science and Technology, 30, 1,(2011), 1163.
 18

is possible to use a synonym and keep the implicature intact. In

order words, the implicature will not be detached, separated from

the utterance as a whole, even though the specific words may be

changed.

3. Calculability

The conversational implicature of an utterance is different

from its literal meaning. There is no direct link between the two.

So if it is to succeed as the speaker intends to, there must be ways

for the hearer to work it out.

4. Non-conventionality

Conversational implicature is an extra meaning, not

inherent in the words used. One cannot find conversational

implicature listed in the dictionary. To work out the conversational

implicature of an utterance, one needs to know its conversational

meaning and the context in which it is used. In other words, a

conversational implicature is the adding up of the conventional

meaning and the context. The context changes, the implicature

will also change.

5. Indeterminacy

An expression with a single meaning can give rise to

different implicature on different occasions, and indeed on any one

occasion the set of associated implicature may not be exactly

determinable.
 19

D. Sentilan Sentilun Talkshow

Sentilan Sentilun Talkshow is an entertainment program which

presented every Saturday at 19:30 pm on Metro TV. The name of talkshow is

Sentilan Sentilun because in Indonesian, the meaning of sentil is scolding. So,

Sentilan Sentilan Talkshow is showed to criticize the political and issue in

Indonesia. The talkshow performances with the Javanese culture setting.

There are ndoro Sentilan and his assistant Sentilun. They use the traditional

clothing of Javanese culture. Besides that ndoro Sentilun always wears male

batik headdress and Sentilun always wears napkin in every performance.

They use the Indonesian to speak with their guest stars, but sometimes they

use Javanese. And they use some attitudes to express their meaning of their

conversation in specific situation, it is like say “no” but they receive the offer

of the speaker.

The guest stars in Sentilan Sentilun Talkshow are often from the

politician in Indonesia like Mahfud MD, Yenny Wahid, Brigjen Pol.

Rikwanto and others. The talkshow talks about the country and government

problems like injustice, social behavior which diverge, and others. In Sentilan

Sentilun Talkshow, the critical issues presented with satirize between

characters of Sentilan and Sentilun, and their guest stars. In the end, Sentilun

as the assistant of ndoro Sentilan give the conclusion from the performance.

Sentilan Sentilun Talkshow was an adaptation from a manuscript

entitled "Death of the Critic" by the famous literary of Agus Noor who played

a monologue by an artist Butet Kertaradjasa. In the end, Sentilan and Sentilun

played by the different person who ndoro Sentilan is as an employer of a Java

family so wealthy, it played by the old actor Slamet Rahardjo. And Sentilun

is as an assistant of ndoro Sentilan, it played by Butet Kertaradjasa.

Basically, the Sentilan Sentilun criticism can be seen and digested

anyone with ease even though the topics covered in general are heavy topics,

because the show is always packed with spoofs a light and fresh comedy. So

that this program is not only entertaining, but also as a means of political

education, inexpensive or can be said to make the viewer political literacy so

that viewers will always know the progress of on going political situation in

the country by means of light.

Presenting hot issues and different themes every episode is a major

capital program which will certainly attract viewers to watch, so it

economically profitable for the manufacturer because the audience will be

interested to watch this program. Sentilun scolding continues the theme of the

current events surrounding the issue of political, social, economic, and

cultural, in packs complete with satirical comedy critical. Starting from the

personal lives of politicians, corruption scandals, to be used as a country

problemparody in this event. The general public can easily absorb the

problems that already exist, with presented drama / parody light and filled

with comedy.
 21

E. Previous Studies

Related to the topic in thesis, there are some previous studies found by

the researcher. There are three previous studies that discuss the implicature.

The first researcher is Ni’maturrohmah from STAIN Kediri, the second

researcher is Adven Desi Niatri from Sanata Dharma University of

Yogyakarta. And the third researcher is Tatsuroh Yamazaki from Japan.

The first research on implicature has been conducted by

Ni’maturrohmah, the title is Implicature Used in Suzanne Collins’

Mockingjay Novel.23 The results of her research was two kinds of implicature

in utterances of Suzzane Collins’ Mockingjay novel that are conventional

implicature and conversational implicature. Firstly, her research founds two

patterns of conventional implicature which has three utterances. Secondly, in

conversational implicature, it is found nine patterns of generalized

conversational implicature of maxim organizations which at least one maxim

is violated and most three maxims. And there are thirteen patterns of maxim

organizations of particularized conversational implicature which at least one

maxim is violated and the most three maxims are violated. In the maxim

organization, the most maxims violated are quantity, quality and manner.

The next research was a research that had been conducted by Adven

Desi Niatri, the title is Implicature of Conversational Interfigure in Raditya

23
Ni’maturrohmah, “Implicature Used in Suzanne Collins’ Mockingjay Novel”, (Thesis, STAIN
Kediri, 2015), 30.
 22

Dika’s Marmut Merah Jambu Movie.24 She found two results of her research.

First, the researcher found three types of implicature of conversation

interfigure in Raditya Dika’s Marmut Merah Jambu movie. They were

specific implicature of conversation, general implicature of conversation, and

scaled implicature of conversation. Each of these types was divided into

several types based on the meaning of the utterances and specific

characteristic of the implicature of conversation. The third kind of implicature

conversation was each divided into several types according markers

characteristic and shape the conversation.

The second result of her research is generally the function of

conversation implicature interfigure in Raditya Dika’s Marmut Merah Jambu

movie shows the real life occured adolescents in senior high school (SMA).

Specifically, the function of conversation implicature are three. First, the

implicature of conversation created characters image (actor) and humor to

support the scene. Next, the implicature of conversation used to convey the

messages which are advice and appeal for the daily life, in particular the

adolescents’ life. The last function of conversational implicature refine the

speech to draw sympathy and/or quell anger hearer.

The third research conducted by Tatsuroh Yamazaki, the title is

Conversational Implicature in Stand-up Comedies.25 This paper investigates

24
Adven Desi Niatri, “Implicature of Conversation Interfigure in Raditya Dika’s Marmut Merah
Jambu Movie”, (Thesis, Universitas Sanata Dharma Yogyakarta, 2016), 36.
25
Tatsuroh Yamazaki, “Conversational Implicature in Stand-up Comedies, (Thesis: University of
Japan, 2010), 63.
 23

plays on words involving conversational implicaturesor hidden meanings in

short stand-up comedies by a Japanese duo. It isobserved that regular patterns

of wording exist in such conversational exchanges which cause the audience

to laugh. Those patterns are typically composed of three parts: subtext, punch

line and follow-up, and they appear inthat order. Each part is allotted a

particular function: the subtext carries an implicature, the punch line reveals it

to make the audience laugh and the follow-up explains or summarizes the

punch line. The duo induces the audience’s laughter by intentionally

betraying or flouting people’s natural assumption or implicature resulting

from the conversational flow.

All of the reseaches above included in pragmatics, that is implicature.

There are some differences between all of the researches above and this

research. In this research is to describe the implied meaning of conversational

implicature in the dialogue between Sentilan and Sentilun, and their guest in

Sentilan Sentilun Talkshow on Metro TV. And this research is focused on

pragmatic field of conversational implicature. This study is limited to the

conversation between the two main characters and guest stars in a Sentilan

Sentilun talkshow in Metro TV, namely Ndoro Sentilan and his assistant

Sentilun in two episodes entitled "Godaan Penegak Hukum" and"Indonesia

Damai". So, the researcher focuses to analyze the implied meaning on

conversational implicature in Sentilan Sentilun talkshow in Metro TV which

does not researched yet by the researchers above.