THE PARTICULARIZED CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURE IN A RESPONSE OF A REQUEST IN SEMURUP DIALECT OF KERINCI LANGUAGE
1.1. Background of the Problem.
People use language in communication. Through language as a means they communicate information each other. Wardhaugh (1977:03) stated that language is a system of arbitrary vocal symbols used for communication. Language allows people to say things to each other and express their ideas, feelling and so on. Furthermore, language is the cement of society, allowing people to live, work, and play together, to tell the truth but also to tell a lie. Language is also useful to establish and maintain relationship in society.
In society there are some different ways in communicating that used by people. People from different cultural background have they own style in communication. For example, in communicating apologizes, promises, request, statements, and others. Something may be polite in society but impolite in another society.
People also use various styles in expressing their idea. Sometimes, people tend to express their idea directly or explicitly. In explicit, it means to focus more on the contexts to interpret the goals and meaning of utterances. Others prefer to use implicit way in expressing their idea. In implicit, its mean they try to implicate meaning and something will be ambiguous. To prevent this, information or knowledge about style in speaking or ways in communicating something is very important to be known. There is about implicature might help us in understanding what people say indirectly.
According to Levinson (1983:98), Implicature is the use of utterance to imply meaning during conversation and bridge the gap between what is said and what is communicated. In an utterance that contains implicature, there is something else that the speakers want to communicate to the hearer. It is nothing to do with the words that are said by the speaker’s mind understood by the hearer. Even though there are different types of implicature namely conversational implicature, as this was introduced by the Philosoper H.P Grice. According to Grice (in Marmaridow 2000:223) Conversational Implicature are inferences that arise during conversation, on the basis of some maxims violate, while cooperatively communicating with each others.
In communication ,context is a part involved in. It is impossible to talk except some situations or circumstances. There is a part of Conversational implicature which depends on the context or occasion and situation, namely Particularized Conversational Implicature derivable only in specific context. When, the conversational takes place and who is the participant of the conversation, have a big influence to determine the meaning of Particularized Conversational Implicature it is an additional meaning that has to be assumed in conversation.
According to Hall (cited in Tisria 2003:2), Asian cultural including Indonesian, China, Japan, and Korea are categorized in high context culture. The people usually labeled as implicit or indirect in speaking. Semurup as one of high context culture, the societies tend to use indirect ways in communication. Almost all the meaning and purposes of their utterances are context bound. They consider various factors in doing a conversation. It is related to the social distance and closensess between the speaker and the hearer, especially in choosing response utterance of a request. In daily conversation, sometimes Semurup speakers do not respond a request directly, with consideration of mildness and softness. If someone ask him/her about something, his answer is not clearly, whether ‘yes’ or ‘no’, yet he/she implicates his/her answer in kind utterance. This attitude is the same when he/she responding to a request by implicating the meaning.
Thus, to identify such phenomena, researcher is interested conduct a research about the Particularized Conversational Implicature in a response of a request in Semurup Dialect of Kerinci Language.
1.2. Identification of Problem
Based on the problem above the researcher is interest to conduct a research about the particularized conversational Implicature in a response of a request in Semurup Dialect of Kerinci language. The different ways in using communicating that used by people from different cultural background have their own style in communication. For example, in communicating apologizes, promises, request, statement, and other. Something may be polite in a society but impolite in other society. Sometimes, people tend to express their idea directly or explicitly. In explicit, it means to focus more on the context to interpret the goals and meaning of utterances. Others prefer to use implicit way in expressing their idea. In implicit, its mean they try to implicate meaning and something will be ambiguous. To prevent this, information or knowledge about style in speaking or ways in communicating something is very important to be know. There is about implicature might help us in understanding what people say directly.
1.3. Limitation of The Problem
There are many aspects of spoken language in conversation which can be investigated such as politeness strategy, code mixing, and address form. Beside that, implicature is also one of pragmatic aspect that can be investigated.
In this research, the researcher limit only in analyzing conversation used by Semurup speakers. This research focused on the conversation that contain of Particularized Conversational Implicature in response of request used by Semurup speakers in Pendung Mudik sub-district in informal situation.
1.4. Formulation of the Problem.
The problem can be formulated as follow:
What are the form of utterance, intended implicature of Particularized Conversational Implicature and the strategies in Particularized Conversational implicature in a response of a request used by Semurup speakers in Pendung Mudik sub-district?
1.5. The Purpose of the Study.
- To identify the form of utterance of Particularized Conversational Implicature in a response of request by Semurup speakers in Pendung Mudik sub-district.
- To describe the intended implicature in a response of a request by Semurup speakers in Pendung Mudik sub-district
- To describe the strategies in Particularize Conversational Implicature in response of a request in Semurup Dialect of Kerinci Language.
1.6. Significant of the Study.
1. Theoretically, the findings of the research are expected to be useful for enriching the development of linguistics field especially pragmatics study.
2. Pedagogically, the result of this research are expected to support the teaching and learning Conversational Implicature
3. Practically, the result of this research are expected to give contribution in order to avoid miscommunication among speakers. Then, it is hoped this study will help people who are interested in learning vernacular language especially Semurup dialect..
REVEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
Pragmatics is a topic in linguistics, is the study of the use of language based on the context to make inferences about the meaning, function, and context of language.
Ladvinson (1983:24-27), pragmatics is the study of the relation between language and context. Furthermore, he says that pragmatics is the study of deixis, implicature, presupposition, speech act, and aspects of discourse structure. He also says that pragmatics is the study of the ability of language user to pair sentences with the context in which they would be appropriate. So context is the main problem in analyzing pragmatics.
Grice (as cited in Thomas 1995:56), Pragmatics is concerned with the notion of implicature, i.e. implied meaning is opposed to the mere lexical meaning expressed. There are times when we say (or write) exactly what we mean, but much more frequently we are not totally explicit, as in the following examples.
(Two women discussing their children)
A: How is Tom going at school?
B: Ah, well…… You know what they say: boys will be boys.
A: Yeah, but girls are not easier… You know what jess did the other day?
Speaker B does not explicit state how Tom is progressing at school. Still, her remark “boys will be boys”, which is a tautology and literally quite meaningless, provides sufficient information to her interlocutor for the conversation to continue smoothly. In this case, speaker B conveyed more than the literal meaning of her words would suggest.
Based on some definition above, it can concluded that pragmatics differ from other branch of linguistic in relation to a context. To do an analysis of meaning of an utterance. It is a must know the context of the utterance, because the same utterance can make different meaning and function in dissimilar context.
2.2. The Study of Pragmatics.
According to Levinson (1983:47), some of the aspects of language studied in pragmatics include Deixis, Presupposition, Perfomative, Implicature, and Leaner Language.
Deixis is meaning ‘pointing to’ something. In verbal communication, however, deixis in its narrow sense refers to the contextual meaning of pronouns, aid in its boards sense, what the speaker means by a particular utterance in a given speech context.
Presupposition is referring to the logical meaning of a sentence or meaning logically associated with or entailed by a sentence.
Beside the Performative is implying that by each utterance a speaker not only says something but also does certain things: giving information, stating a fact or hinting attitude. The study performative led to the hypothesis of speech act theory that holds that a speech event embodies: a locutionary act, an illocutionary act, and a perlocutionary act.
Implicature is referring to an indirect or implicit meaning of an utterance derived from context that is not present from its conventional use. Pragmatiticians are also keen on exploring why interlocutors can successfully with one another in a conversation. A principle in their participation so as to sustain the conversation. Another assumption is Politeness Principle that maintains interlocutors behave politely to one another. Thus, there has been growing interest in how people in difference languages observe a certain pragmatic principle. A Cross-Linguistic and Cross-Cultural study reported what is consideration polite on one language is sometimes not polite in another.
Leaner language (Interlingua). That is eventually involved into interlanguage pragmatics, a branch of pragmatics which specially discussed how non native speakers comprehend and produce a speech act in a target language and how their pragmatic competence develops over times.
Grice (In Nirmala Sari 1998:32) pointed that implicature is the use of utterance to imply meaning during the conversation.
The term implicature refers to a product of our conceptual mechanisim that appears to account for this possibility. There are difference types of impliature introduced by the Philosopher H.P. Grice, namely Conventional and Conversational Implicature. Conventional Implicature arising the use of specific linguistic forms only such ‘but’, ‘and’, and others.
Grice (as cited in Marmaridou 2000:220), Conventional Implicaure are not based on the Cooperative principle or the maxims. It is associated with specific word and result in additional conveyed meaning when those words are used.
a. Paula is sick, but she comes to school.
b. P & q (p is in contras to q)
Here, the fact that ‘Paula is sick (p) is contrasted, via Conventional Implicature of ‘but’, with her coming to school (q). Others English words such as ‘even’ and ‘yet’, also Conventional Implicature. When ‘even’ is included in any sentence describing an event, there is an implicature of ‘contrary to the expectation’. The Conventional Implicature of ‘yet’ is that the present situation is expected to be different, or perhaps the opposite, at letter time. H.P. Grice (Marmaridou 2000:223) Conventional Implicature is inference that arising during conversation, on the basis of maxim underlying interaction that interlocutors seem to observe or violate. It is important to realize that even though implicatures arise when language is used; their source is located outside the organization of language, in some general principles governing cooperative interaction. For example:
A: shall we have dinner now?
B: Helen hasn’t come yet.
Obviously, speaker A does not want to know about Helen’s arrival. She is simply proposing dinner. B does not want to talk about Helen, but wants to say something in relation to A proposal, probably to refuse it. These fact can not be accounted for in term of the terms of the sense of the words A and B use, nor in term of truth values of A’s and B’s utterance. Then according to Grice (Marmaridou, 2000:223) Conversational Implicature can be devided into Particularized Conversational Implicature and Generalized Conversational Implicature. Particularized Conversational Implicature is an Implicature that depends heavily in specific circumstance and generealized Conversational Implicature is an Implicature that arise without any particular context but is instead typically associated with the preposition expessed. The example is “Some of my friends never attend a formal school”, means that not all of my friends attend a formal school. Furthermore, the researcher does not want to explain more about Generalized Conversational Implicature but she wants to explain more detail about Particularized Conversational Implicature used by Semurup speakers in a response to a request in information situation.
2.3.1. Particularized Converstional Implicature
H.P. Grice has observed that Converstional Implicature arising in the observance or flouting of maxims and in terms of Cooperative Principle are actually generated in particular context of use. The addressee is expected to calculate implicatures on the basis of very specific circumstance. For this reason, he called this implicature as Particularized Conversational Implicature is the implicature that depends heavily in particular feature of the context.
Indonesia is one of high context culture, it is usually labeled as implicit or indirect. In indirect style of communication , the speaker and listener know where they stan. In addition, directness and indirerctness in expressing ideas often have a relationship with value of polite and impolite. Sometime, someone will implicate meaning in communication because of many reasons; one of them is consideration of mildness and politeness. For example, in such conversation between two students in the campus:
Lia : Kakantin Yuk, Mer!
(Let’s go to canteen, mer!)
Meri: Agi kenyang, bahu makan didumah.
(I have eaten in my house, my stomach is full)
In this case, Meri doesn’t response Lia’s request directly, here, she implicate their meaning. It is means Meri’s response does not clearly whether ‘yes’ (accept the request) or ‘no’ (turn down the request). Actually, intended implicature by Meri is to turn down/refused Lia’s request since Meri’s stomach is full. In the context, Meri implicates her meaning because of consideration of politeness. If she answers ‘no’ straighly to Lia’s request, a misunderstanding might be occurring among them.
Similarly, Semurup speakers often use implicit way to show their meaning/ it is depend on the context (when, and who are participant of conversation). In many cases, a youngest one will turn down the request by the oldest carefully; she/he will imply her meaning in politeness. Such as, the oldest said, “ mnuhut Mak, lbih ilok kou kuliah di Jambei…”(depend on me, it will be better if you study in Jambi), to turn down this request inerectly but mildness, youngest’s response might be ‘kek Jambei kito nia nahuh kluarga, nia ngan nguruh aku… (“ there’s no our relatives whose can give attention on me in Jambei) the youngest speak via particularized conversational implicature, in facther response is to turn down her mother’s request with informating a fact. The other example is the conversation takes place in the house between to children in equal age.
A: tulong kapak buku ini ka dalen kuroh…!
(Please take this book into bedroom…!)
B: Aku nda nunton TV, idak pandai kau ngapak’ suhang?
(I am watching TV, can you take it by yourself?)
Here, B’s response is directly, B does not speak straighly, whether ‘yes’ or ‘no’. B use implicature actually, in order to make B’s response relevant A has to draw on some assume knowledge that B turn down A’s request. Evidently, since B is watching TV B can not take A’s book into bedroom. In addition, B asks A to take her book by herself. B will implicate their meaning without consideration of mildness. Basically, the context in this conversation s between two children in equal age, so politeness is ignored.
2.3.2. The Characteristic of Particularized conversational Immplicature.
Moreover, Grice (cited in Marmaridou, 2000:235) suggest that there are some properties that characterize Particularized Conversational Implicature, which may not shared by Generalized Conversational Implicature one. These properties also distinguish Particularized Conversational Implicature from convensional Implicature. The characteristics of Particularized Conversational Imlicature are :
- Particularized Conversational Implicature is cancelability or, depeasibilty like what has been claimed for certain kind of pragmatics presupposition, the particularized conversational implicature ar cancellabel. Helen has two cars, in fact three. The implicature arising that Helen has only two cars are canceled in the second part without any apparent contradiction.
- Particularized Conversational Implicature is non-detachable. Implicature can not detached from an utterance simply by changing the words. The same prepositional content in same context will always rise to the sum Conversational Implicature, in whatever from it is expressed (Implicature is tied to meaning and not be form).
- Particularized Conversational Implicature is calculabilty. More specially Particularized Conversational Implicature are calculated in term of relation steps that show how the sense of an utterance, the Conversational Implicature and the maxims give arise to inference in order for assumption of Cooperation to be preserve. Conversational Implicature nust be calculable, using stat able General Principle, on the basis of Conversational meaning together with contextual meaning.
- Particularized Conversational Implicature is non-convetionally, another property of Particularized Conversational Implicature by definition, applies to generalized implicatures to a much lesser degree, since the latter do not conventionally attach to specific lexical item, but in the other hand, they systematically occur in certain pragmatic context. Needless to say, non-conventationally can not possibly apply to conventional implicature by definition.
2.4. Spoken Language.
According to Stubbs (Ralp Fasolt, 1986;175) “taking spoken language as primary and written language as primary and written language as derived”. More, he said that spoken language comes first for individual societies. There are no human communities without spoken language. According to Stentrom (1994:30), spoken language can be described in term of five hierarchical levels. Those are transition, exchange, turn, move, and act.
Based on Oxpord Dictionary (1995:1316) utterance is the action of expressing idea, etc in word. According to Stentrom (1994:226) utterance is anything that speakers say.
2.4.2. The Form of Utterance.
According to Stentrom (1994:23), there are three forms of utterance.
The form of Utterance According to Stentrom
In conclution, there are three forms of utterance; they are Declarative form, Interrogative form, Imperative form.
Request is pre-event act; expressing the speaker’s expectation of the hearer’s perfoming an action, verbal or non verbal (Stentrom 1994:226). Furthermore, request is act of politely asking for something (in Oxford Leaner’s Pocket Dictionary, 1995:352).
Request means that speakers want the hearer to do what the speakers intention of supply the demand. There are request for action and request for information and response to request that will be investigated in this research. For example: request for A help, A: Will you open the door, please? In this case the speakers as if he wants his listener to perform an action of opening the door.
It is important to note that request and question have long and complicated relationship in speech act theory. The rules for request seem very familiar or the rules for question. The differences between request and question is that what a speaker want through a request (elicit information) is more specific that what a speakers want through a request (do an action). Question is not specific type of a request; questions are attempts to get a hearer to do a certain action-to provide information.
Requesting is a typically a speech event. A speech an event is an activity in which participants interact via language in some conventional way to arrive at some outcome. In most cases, a request is not made by means of single speech act suddenly uttered.
People have to be clear in giving information to prevent miscommunication between speaker and hearer. She says ‘yes’ to accept the request and ‘no’ to reject the request. In indirect way of responseresponder did not refuse and accept directly but in another word of response. In response of request there are directly and indirectly. In Particularized Conversational Implicature in response of a request, the speakers use indirect way in response (indirect strategies in response). Indonesian people tend to use indirect strategies in response considering politeness and mildness same with Japanese. According to Beebe, Takashi, & Uliss-Weltz, there are the Japanese Strategies in Response Request (retrieved at:http://www.zompist.com/lang.9.html/#9):
- Apologizing / stating regret.
- Giving a reason.
- Offering / requesting another alternative.
- esponding with promising for future acceptance.
- Making an unspecific refly.
- Responding continue with direct action.
- Making a Wish.
- Informing a fact.
It is impossible to talk without in some situation. Suppose you wish to study someone’s talking without any influences from the situation outside the person. We can not eliminate the context; all language use takes place in some situation. The context will have an influence on how the speaker behaves. The human relationship context is also important. we do not talk in same way with all individual. The age between speaker and listener is a point of consinderation in communication. In pragmatics, the context gives the listener many clues about how to interpret what the speaker said. According to Hasan and Halliday (1989:44) there are kinds of contexts: Extra Linguistic context, Cultural context, and Immidiate context.
2.6.1. Extra-Linguistics Context
In extra-linguistic context, to understand a word or a sentence meanings, we have to consinder extra linguistics context. That is consinderable knowledge about the word. It is important to control the uses of language as involved in sarcasm, irony, and others.
2.6.2. Cultural Context.
Cultural context is not including as a language but it will influence the way to express the language. Cultural of language society will determine personality, attitude, and behaviour of society. Furthermore the way of speaking and so on determines the language pattern in ude.
2.6.3. Immediate Context
Immediate context is a context that consist of setting, participant, topic, and form of language. Setting is place, time and situation in which utterance take place. Participant is determining form of language applied by speaker. Form of language refers to the way that one is used; that can be oral or written language. Such as, the language that used in a letter is different from the language directly used in speaking. Topic is what the participant of he conversation talk about. Every part of immediate context has connection each other. It is impossible to produce a meaningful utterance by ignoring one of these parts since each other if them has their own function that determine the completeness of meaning.
Yule (1985:181) says that dialect is term which describe feature of grammar and vocabulary as well as aspect of pronunciation. Yet, there always continue to be other varieties of language, spoken in different regions. Furthermore, there are two kinds of dialect they are region dialect and social dialect.
2.7.1. Regional Dialect
Regional dialect is a dialect spoken in particular region (Wardaugh 1977:250). Dialect is one of region will be different from another region. The number of speakers, and the area itself, can be of arbitrary size. It follows that a dialect for a larger area can contain plenty of sub dialect.
2.7.2. Social Dialect
Social dialect is the dialect spoken by particular social group (Wardhaugh 1977:250). It is means the dialect used by people based on social status, level of education, age and sex. Speaker may show more similarity in his language from the same social status in different area than to people from different social group in same area.
METHOD OF THE RESEARCH
The method in this research is descriptive qualitative. The researcher used descriptive analysis with qualitative approach. The researcher collect the data from naturalistic field which means actual setting, as the direct source of the data and researcher is the key instrument. Qualitative approach is a study, which reports the value nature of information gathered from the field. It focuses on the process that occurring in the field, which is formed with word, pictures and conducted in natural setting (Cresswell, 1994 : 145).
Object of the Research
The object of the research is conversation using Semurup dialect that containing Particularized Conversational Implicature in responding to a request in informal situation.
The participants are Semurup people in Pendung Mudik Subdistrict that using Pendung Mudik dialect in conversation. They have maturity in using language, they have ability in responding a request as well, and have complete organs of speech. The sample are taken from various conversation in various situation. The sample are collected in many places, such as in participants’ house, In the shop, in the mosque, and other places in Larik Batu Uncin sub-district. About the time, samples will be collected in various time, it can be in the morning, afternoon or in the night.
The key of instrument in this researcher is the researcher. Researcher is main person in collecting and analyzing the data. Researcher has big responsible in this research, s/he will involve directly in collecting data. Researcher comes to research field to observe and collect the data, especially the conversation among Semurup speakers, especially the conversation which containing the Particularized Conversational implicature in responding to a request in informal situation.
The data will be collected through Handphone. The researcher will record the conversation by Semurup speaker directly. The conversation will be recorded in Lahik Batu Uncin sub-district by consideration there are most of native speaker live In Lahik Batu Uncin sub-direct.
Data Collection Method.
Observation is one way of collecting data and it used to measure the individual behaviour or to see a process and activity in which it seen in situation (in Sudjana and Ibrahim, 2001: 109)
The researcher will collect the data through recording process. The recording process will be done without known by the participants and sometimes participants will be known that they will be recorded by the researcher but the researcher does not explain about the recorded purpose. The researcher wil conduct the recording process until all important data is enough and the duration of recording process is flexible depend on how long the interaction take place.
To support the data that will be collected through recording process, researcher also will do the field note, the researcher will write the important information that tape recorder incapable to recorded. For example; who are the participants, time of interview, where is the place, and the occasion etc.
By using these kinds of technique, the participants are able to provide historical information under the topic. According to Nunan (1992 : 150)
“The advantages of semi structured interview are in the first instance; that gives the interviewee a degree of power and control over the course of the interviewee. Secondly, it gives the interviewee a great of flexibility. Finally, and the most profoundly, this from of interview gives one privilege access to other people`s lives”.
The Lahik Batu Uncin speaker were asked some questions about whether their utterance really a request/ a response or not, and whether their intended implicature are acceptance or refusal of a request.
Technique of Analyzing the data
The steps of analyzing of the data are :
1. Taking out the utterances with Particularized Conversational Implicature in response to a request from discourse.
2. Transcribing the conversation into written language.
3. Translating the data into English.
4. Determining the influential context of utterance.
5. Analyzing the Particularized Conversational Inplicature based on the from of utterance.
6. Analyzing the intended implicature and strategies of Particularized Conversational Inplicature in a response to a request in Semurup dialect of Kerinci language.
Aif, Ridwan. 2005. The fulfillment and Infringement of Grice’s Convesational Maxim Used by English Departement Students of Jambi University. Unpublished Thesis.
Ausatin, JC. 1995. How to Do Thing with Words, Oxford University.
Brita, Stentrom. 1994, An Introduction to Soken Interaction. Longman. London.
Brown, Gillian and Yule, George. 1996. Analisis Wacana-Discourse Analysis. Jakarta: PT. Gramedia. Pustaka Umum.
Cook, guy. 1989. Discourse. Oxfort University Press.
Creswell, W.J.1994. Research Design: Qualitative & Quantitative Approach. Sage Publication. United Kingdom & India.
Coulthard, M. 1985. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis. Second Edition. Longman Group.
Furcahan, Arief. 1992. Pengantar Metode Penelitian Kualitatif. Surabaya: Usaha Nasional.
Fasold, Ralph. The Socialinguisticsof Language. Georgetown Univebsity.
Gay, L.R. 1992. Educational Research; Competencies for Analysis and Application. Fourt Edition Maxwell Communication Grooup of Companies; Canada.
Hall. (n.d). Culatural Context. (online). Avalable ad:
Haliday, M.A. K & Hasan R. 1989. Language Context and Text; Aspect of Language in social-semiotic perspective. Daeken Univebrity Press.
Leech, Geofrey. 1985. The Study of Language: An introduction. Cambrige University.
Levinson, C Stephen. 1983. Pragmatics. London: Cambridge Univebsity
M.A. Oka. 1993. Prinsip-Prinsip Pragmatik. Univebritas Indonesia. Jakarta.
Marmaridou, 1993. Sophia S.A. 2000. Pragmatics. Pragmatics meaning and cognition. John benyamin Publishing Company.
Nunan, David. 1992. Research methods in language Learning. Cambridge. Unversity Press.
Sari, Nibmala. 1998. Introduction to Sociolinguidtics. Departemen Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan. Jakarta.
Spolsky, Bernard. 1998. Sociolinguistics. Oxford Univebsity.
Skinner, H.Paul. 1978. Speech, language and Hearing, Normal Processes and Disorders. Second Edition. United State of America.
Sudjana & Ibrahim, 2001. Penelitian dan Penilaian Pendidikan. Bandung. Sinar Baru.
Takahashi, Beebe & Weltz, Uliss. Japanese Response Strategies. (n.d).
Available at : (http://www.zompist.com/lang.9.html/#9).
Wardhaugh, R. 1977. Introduction to Linguistics. Second Edition. Oxford UK & Cambridge USA; Blackwell.
Yule, George. 1985. The Study of Language: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press.