Implikatur Percakapan dalam Studi Linguistik Pragmatik (Conversational Implicature in Pragmatic Linguistic Studies)

Tulisan ini membahas implikatur percakapan, yakni sebuah studi dalam ilmu linguistik pragmatik yang mengkaji maksud penutur dalam percakapan. Tujuan penulisan ini adalah untuk mendeskripsikan apa itu implikatur percakapan, bagaimana mengidentifikasi dan memaknai implikatur, serta mengapa penutur menggunakan implikatur dalam tuturannya. Untuk mengkaji permasalahan digunakan teori Grice tentang prinsip kerja sama (PK), maksim percakapan (MP), dan implikatur percakapan. Data percakapan diperoleh dari observasi percakapan natural antara penulis dan mahasiswa, serta percakapan di antara mahasiswa yang terjadi di lingkungan kampus. Hasil analisis menunjukkan bahwa pada dasarnya dalam setiap percakapan digunakan implikatur. Implikatur digunakan bukan karena tidak ingin bekerja sama dalam percakapan, tetapi ada alasan yang lebih diprioritaskan dan alasan tersebut tidak dapat mematuhi semua maksim dalam MP. Implikatur percakapan digunakan untuk tujuan efisiensi verbal, pengalihan tanpa berbohong, kesopanan, dan tujuan estetika, serta ironi. This paper discusses the conversational implicature, which is a study in pragmatic linguistics that examines the intent of speakers in conversation. The purpose of this paper is to describe what the conversational implicature is, how to identify and interpret the implicature, and why do speakers want to engage in implicature. To study the problem Grice's theory of the cooperative principle, maxims of conversation, and the conversational implicature are used. Conversation data is obtained from observations of natural conversations between writers and students, as well as conversations between students that occur on campus. The results of the analysis show that basically in every conversation the implicature is used; The implicature is used not because they do not want to cooperate in conversation, but because there are prioritized reasons and those reasons cannot comply with all maxims in maxims of conversation. The conversationalimplicature is used for the purpose of verbal efficiency, misleading to lying, politeness, and aesthetic purposes, as well as irony.

Verbal Extremes and Excess

This conclusion brings together the book’s key findings in relation to dialogue in selected American independent cinema. It surmises that such speech is often written, performed, recorded and integrated in such ways that audiences construct meaning by joining the dialogue dots, or filling in the dialogue blanks. Individual lines are rarely memorable, yet this is not found to be a weakness of such independent film dialogue. Instead, it is the outcome of speech that is carefully entwined with the films’ various components. The remembering and repetition of specific lines by audioviewers is uncommon in these cases precisely because the language accumulates meaning through its execution in the finished film. Instead, indie dialogue can operates on complex levels that allows for alternative forms of audience pleasure. Overall, such dialogue is found to be characterized by: (1) alternations between verbal efficiency and excess; (2) ‘gaps’ in verbal meaning and (3) the reflexive, exaggerated treatment of mainstream dialogue norms. The book’s conclusion relates such cinematic forms of verbalism back to independent and art cinemas more broadly. It also identifies future research directions.

Implicature

Implicature as applied to speakers is the act of meaning that one thing is the case by saying that something else is. It is an indirect speech act closely related to implying. Semantic implicatures are determined by the meaning of the sentence used, whereas conversational implicatures depend on the context of utterance. General forms of implicature, used frequently with a wide variety of sentences and languages, include figures of speech (irony, hyperbole, meiosis, litotes, metonymy, synecdoche, metaphor) and modes of speech (relevance, strengthening, limiting, and metalinguistic implicature, damning with faint praise, and loose use). These forms are conventional ways of using and understanding speech, essential for fully understanding speakers, and acquired at an early age along with lexical and semantic conventions. A sentence has an implicature when speakers conventionally use sentences of that form with the corresponding implicature. In addition to the semantic implicatures, sentences have a variety of generalized conversational implicatures, including some limiting implicatures, strengthening implicatures, ignorance implicatures, common metaphors, and embedded implicatures. Implicatures become idioms when they cease to be indirect. There are many reasons why speakers implicate things. Some also apply to saying (communication, self-expression, record creation) while some distinguish implicating from saying (verbal efficiency, misleading without lying, veiling, good social relations, style, and entertainment). A sentence has an implicature today because that use became self-perpetuating and was picked up by today’s speakers from previous speakers. Traditional pragmatic theories maintain that conversational implicatures can be derived from various principles governing conversation, but the dependence of implicature on intention and convention, and the variety of conflicting goals implicature serves, make such derivations unsound and invalid. Like understanding sentences, interpreting implicatures is largely the automatic exercise of a competence acquired with one’s native language rather than derivation from general principles.

Implicature

Implicature for speakers is meaning one thing by saying something else. Semantic implicatures are part of sentence meaning, whereas conversational implicatures depend on the utterance context. Conventional forms of conversational implicature include figures and modes of speech like irony and relevance implicature. A sentence has an implicature when speakers conventionally use sentences of that form with the corresponding implicature. Speakers implicate things for many reasons. Some apply to saying (communication, self-expression, record creation), others do not (verbal efficiency, misleading without lying, veiling, good social relations, style, and entertainment). A sentence has an implicature today because that use became self-perpetuating. The dependence of implicature on intention and convention, and the variety of conflicting goals implicature serves, show that implicatures cannot be derived from conversational principles. Interpreting implicatures is largely the automatic exercise of a competence acquired with one’s native language rather than calculation.