Conversational Implicatures on Saturday Night Live Talk Show

Authors

  • Sri Yulianti Hasanuddin University
  • Burhanuddin Arafah Hasanuddin University
  • Ummu Rofikah Hasanuddin University
  • Andi Muhammad Syafri Idris Hasanuddin University
  • Nurfaizah Samsur Hasanuddin University
  • Azhariah Nur B. Arafah Universitas Gunadarma

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.1301.22

Keywords:

conversational implicatures, types of conversational implicatures, Saturday Night Live, talk show

Abstract

Conversational implicature seems to be an everlasting concern in pragmatics for its wide-ranging investigation possibility. Applying Gricean’s principles, the present study examined the types of conversational implicatures found in the Saturday Night Live talk show. This research used a qualitative method with a pragmatic approach. The research data were collected from the utterances in Season 46 Episode 5 accessed from MBC's channel (www. saturday night live – NBC.COM). The result indicated that there were two types of conversational implicatures found in Saturday Night Live talk show namely: First, particularized conversational implicature, and second, generalized conversational implicature. We found that the utterances containing particularized implicature outnumbered the ones with generalized implicature. In our interpretation, the dominance of particularized implicature reflects the centrality of the particular context in producing and inferring utterances for meaningful and effective communication.

Author Biographies

Sri Yulianti, Hasanuddin University

English Language Studies Postgraduate Program, Faculty of Cultural Sciences

Burhanuddin Arafah, Hasanuddin University

English Department, Faculty of Cultural Sciences

Ummu Rofikah, Hasanuddin University

English Language Studies Postgraduate Program, Faculty of Cultural Sciences

Andi Muhammad Syafri Idris, Hasanuddin University

English Language Studies Postgraduate Program, Faculty of Cultural Sciences

Nurfaizah Samsur, Hasanuddin University

English Language Studies Postgraduate Program, Faculty of Cultural Sciences

Azhariah Nur B. Arafah, Universitas Gunadarma

Faculty of Psychology

References

Alfina, E. O. (2016). The Maxim Violation on Mata Najwa Talk Show “Selebriti Pengganda Simpati” Unpublished Doctoral Thesis. Semarang: Diponogoro University.

Al, R. A. (2020). An Analysis of Implicatures Found in Whatsapp Stories. Prosidi, 14 (1), 65-71.

Arafah, B, & Hasyim, M. (2019) Linguistic Functions of Emoji in Social Media Communication. Opcion. Volume 35, No. 24, 558-574.

Arafah, B., & Hasyim, M. (2020). Covid-19 Mythology and Netizens Parrhesia Ideological Effects of Coronavirus Myths on Social Media Users. Palarch’s Journal of Archaeology of Egypt/Egyptology. Volume 17 Issue 4, 1398-1409

Arafah, B., & Kaharuddin, A. (2019). The Representation of Complaints in English and Indonesian Discourses. Opción, Volume 35, 501-517.

Arafah, B., Thayyib, M., Kaharuddin, & Sahib, H. (2020). An Anthropological Linguistic Study on Maccera’ Bulung Ritual. Opción, 36 (27), 1592-1606.

Arafah, K., Arafah, A.N.B., & Arafah, B. (2020). Self-Concept and Self-Efficacy’s Role in Achievement Motivation and Physics Learning Outcomes. Opción, 36 (27), 1607-1623.

Birner, B. J. (2012). Introduction to Pragmatics. Vol. 38. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

Brown, G & Yule, G. (1983). Teaching the Spoken Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Clark, H. H. (1996). Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Crystal, D. A. (2008). Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. 6th Edition. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Crowley, D. J., & Mitchell, D. (Eds.). (1994). Communication Theory Today. Redwood City: Stanford University Press.

Cutting, J. (2002). Pragmatics and Discourse. London: Routledge

Cutting, J. (2008). Pragmatics and Discourse. London: Routledge

Green, G. M. (1990). The Universality of Gricean Interpretation. Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Vol. 16, No. 1, 411-428.

Green, G. M. (2012). Pragmatics and Natural Language Understanding. London: Routledge.

Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and Conversation. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Grice, P. (1989). Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Griffiths, P. (2006). Introduction to English Semantics and Pragmatics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Grundy, P. (2000). Doing Pragmatics. London: Arnold

Gunarwan. (1994). Pragmatik. Jakarta: Lembaga Bahasa Unika Atmajaya.

Hasjim, M., et al. (2020). Principles Behind Semantic Relation between Common Abbreviations and their Expansions on Instagram. International Journal of Criminology and Sociology. Volume 9, 2270-2276.

Hasyim, M., et al. (2020). The New Toraja Destination: Adding Value ‘Toraja Coffee’ of the Sustainable Tourism Development. IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 575 012072

Horn, L. R. (1988). Pragmatic Theory. Linguistics: the Cambridge Survey, 1, 113-145.

Horn, L. R. (2004). Implicature in L. Horn and G. Ward (eds), Handbook of Pragmatics, Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell

Jordà, M. P. S. (2005). Third Language Learners: Pragmatic Production and Awareness. Clevedon, Buffalo: Multilingual Matters.

Kaharuddin, K., & Rahmadana, A. (2020). Problem-Based Group Discussion: An Effective ELT Technique to Improve Vocational High School Students’ Transactional Speaking Skills. Jurnal Ilmu Budaya, 8 (2), 247-258.

Kamridah, A. H. Yassi., Arafah, B., & Imran, N. (2016). Correlation between Level of Anxiety and Public Speaking Performance through Systematic Learning Approach in Foreign Language. International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR), 5(9), 1658-1663.

Lakoff, R. T. (1989). The Limit of Politeness: Therapeutic and Courtroom Discourse. Multilingual Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication, 8 (2-3), 101-130.

Levinson, Stephen C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Levinson, Stephen C. (1989). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Levinson, S. C., Stephen, C., & Levinson, S. C. (2000a). Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Levinson, S. C. (2000b). Conversational Implicatures in Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Lindblom, K. (2001). Cooperating with Grice: A Cross-Disciplinary Meta perspective on Uses of Grice's Cooperative Principle. Journal of Pragmatics, 33 (10), 1601-1623.

Mey, J. (2004). Pragmatics; An Introduction. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Paltridge. (2006). Discourse Analysis. London: Continuum

Purwaningsih, Y. R., Arafah, B., & Abbas, H. (2020). An Ambition of Infidelity “Emma Bovary” as Wife: Sexuality Problems. Medicina Clínica Práctica, 3 (S1):100108, 1-3.

Saragi, Y. M. (2011). Flouting Maxims in Conversational Implicatures in the Elle Degenerates Talk Show. Surabaya: State University of Surabaya

Sobhani, A., & Saghebi, A. (2014). The Violation of Cooperative Principles and Four Maxims in Iranian Psychological Consultation. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 4 (1), 91–99.

Sperber, D., and Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell

Suryadi, H., & Muslim, M. (2019). An Analysis of Conversational Implicature Strategy in A Drama “the bear” by Anton Chekhov and its Application in ELT. Journal of Languages and Language Teaching, 7 (2), 82-95.

Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatic. London: Longman

Virgin, J. A., & Utami, C. P. (2016). Dominant Maxim violations in ‘Behind the Lawyer Profession’of Hitam Putih Talk Show. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Applied Linguistics (CONAPLIN 9), Advances in Social Science, Education, and Humanities Research (ASSEHR), Vol. 82, 185-188.

Verschueren, J. (1999). Understanding Pragmatics. London: Arnold.

Wishnoff, R. J. (2000). Hedging Your Bets: L2 Learners’ Acquisition of Pragmatic Devices in Academic Writing and Computer-Mediated Discourse. Second Language Studies, 19,127157.

Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Yule, G. (2006). The Study of Language. 3rd Edition. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Downloads

Published

2022-01-02

Issue

Section

Articles