Professional Documents
Culture Documents
4. Scope of Discussion
The focus of this writing is to answer the problem in this paper. Thus, there are
limitation in this paper. The theory that chiefly used is the conversational Maxim and flouting
maxim proposed by Paul Grice. Jelasin tentang apa itu conversational maxim and flouting
Moreover, this paper also going to use the theory from Leech about meaning to support the
analysis. The focus on this paper is to explain the flouting maxim that occur in Tom Harris’s
novel entitled The Silence Lamb also the implicate meaning and the reason why it happens.
6.2 Concept
The concepts that are used in this proposal are proposed by experts in linguistic,
pragmatic, and philosophy. The concepts are divided into seven concepts which are related to
this topic in order to help the process in understanding this topic; they are concept of
conversation, concept of implicature, concept of conversational implicature, concept of
cooperative principles, concept of Maxims, concepts of Flouting Maxims, and concept of
context of situation.
3. Maxim of Relation
Be relevant
It means that when the speakers ask something, the listener should answer it stick to the
point and relevance to the context. For example, when a mother is cooking a cake, she does not
expect her son to come and give her a good book or even an oven cloth (though this might be
appropriate contribution at later stage.)
A. Conceptual Meaning
Conceptual meaning sometimes called ‘denotative’ meaning or ‘cognitive’ meaning is
widely assumed to be the central factor in linguistic communication. Leech (1981:10) said that
this meaning is the most important element of every act of linguistic communication as it can
be shown that it is integral to the essential functioning of language. The main reason why Leech
said so because conceptual meaning has a complex and sophisticated organization of a kind
which may be compared with, and cross-related to similar organization on the syntactic and
phonological levels of language. There are three kinds of principles according to Leech which
seems to be the basic of all linguistic pattern, they are principle of contractiveness, principle of
structure, and principle of linguistic organization.
Contrastive features underlie the classification of sounds in phonology, for example in
any label we apply to a sound defines it positively by what features is possesses, and also by
implication negatively which is the features it does not possess. Thus, the phonetic symbol /b/
may be explicated as representing a bundle of contrastive features + bilabial, + voice, + stop, -
nasal; the assumption for this is the distinction sounds or phonemes of a language are
identifiable in terms of binary, or largely binary, contrasts. In a similar way, the conceptual
meaning of a language can be studied in terms of contrastive features, so that the meaning of
word ‘woman’ could be specified as + HUMAN, - MALE, + ADULT, as distinct from ‘boy’
which could be defined as + HUMAN, + MALE, - ADULT.
The structure principle is the principle by which larger linguistic units are built out of
smaller units, or by which we are able to analyze a sentence syntactically into its constituent
parts, moving from its immediate constituents through a hierarchy of sub division to its ultimate
constituents or smallest syntactic elements. This aspect of the organization of language is often
given visual display in a tree-diagram.
The principle of linguistic organization is any given piece of language structured
simultaneously on more than one level. At least there are three levels which is necessary for a
full account of the linguistic competence they are phonological representation, syntactic
representation, and a semantic representation. Furthermore, the stages by which one level of
representation can be derived from one another. The aim of conceptual semantics is to provide
for any given interpretation of a sentence a configuration of abstract symbols which is it
‘semantic representation’ and which shows exactly what we need to know if we are to
distinguished the meaning from all other possible sentence meanings in language and to match
that meaning with the right syntactical and phonological expression.
From this picture it can be seen that the ability to match levels operated in one direction
(A-B-C) occurred when we are decoding (listening to a sentence and interpreting it), and the
opposite direction (C-B-A) when we are encoding (composing and speaking a sentence). Thus,
from this account it will be clear that conceptual meaning is an inextricable and essential part
of what language is, such that one can scarcely define language without referring to it, and a
‘language’ which communicated solely by means of expletive words like Oh! AH! Oho! Alas!
And Tally ho! Would not be language at all.
B. Connotative Meaning
Connotative meaning is the communicative value an expression has by virtue of what
it refers to, over, and above its purely conceptual context. However, most of the time he notion
of “reference” overlaps with conceptual meaning. For example, if the word woman is defined
conceptually by three features (+ HUMAN, - MALE, + ADULT), then the three properties
‘human’, ‘adult’, and ‘male’ must provide a criterion of the correct use of that word. These
contrastive features, translated into ‘real word’ terms become attributes of the referent of
woman to possess. They include not only physical characteristic such as having a womb, but
also psychological and social properties such as maternal instinct, and may extend to features
which are merely typical rather than invariable accompanied the womanhood features (capable
of speech, experienced in cookery, skirt or dress wearing).
Furthermore, connotative meaning can also embrace the ‘putative properties’ or
common properties of the referent due to the viewpoint adopted by an individual or a group of
people or a whole society. In the past woman has been burdened with such attributes namely
frail, prone to tears, cowardly, emotional, irrational, and inconstant. Moreover, the dominant
male has been pleased to impose on the woman, with more becoming qualities such as gentle,
compassionate, sensitive, and hard-working. From this it can be seen that connotation are
changed from age to age and society to society. The evidence for it that in the past ‘non-trouser
wearing’ was the connotative for woman. Not only connotative vary through age to age and
society to society but also to some extent vary from individual to individual within the same
speech community.
In addition, connotative meaning is not specific to language, but is shared by other
communicative systems such as visual art and music. It is also relatively stable which means it
vary considerably according to culture, historical period, and the experience of the individual.
This means that connotative meaning is indeterminate and open ended in a sense in which
conceptual meaning is not, it is open ended in the same way as our knowledge and belief about
the universe are open ended because it is not static and changed throughout the age and society.
Thus, to sum it up when we are talking about connotation we are talking about the ‘real world’
experience one associates with an expression when one uses or hear it.
C. Social Meaning
Social meaning is a piece of language that convey about the social circumstances of its
use. In part, we decode the social meaning of a text through our recognition of different
dimensions and levels of style within the same language. We recognize some words or
pronunciations as being dialectal, i.e. telling us something about the geographical or social
origin of the speaker; other features of language tell us something about of the social
relationship between the speaker and hearer.
Crystal and Davy cited in Leech (1981:14) recognized the following dimension of
socio-stylistic variation (Leech added examples of the categories of usage which would help
people to distinguish each dimension)
Variation according to:
Dialect (The language of a geographical region or of a social class)
Time (The language of eighteenth century, etc.)
Province (Language of law, science, advertising, etc.
Status (Polite, colloquial, slang, etc.)
Modality (Language of memoranda, lectures, joke, etc.)
Singularity: (The styles of Dickens, Hemingway, etc.)
This list indicates something of the range of style differentiation possible within a single
language. It is not surprising, perhaps that we rarely find words which have both the same
conceptual meaning and the same stylistic meaning. This observation led people to declare that
‘true synonyms do not exist’. Moreover, the style dimension of ‘status’ is particularly important
in distinguishing synonymous expression. For example:
(1) They chucked a stone at the cops, and then did a bunk with the loot.
(2) After casting a stone at the police, they absconded with the money.
From this example, we can see that sentence (1) could be said by two criminals that talked
about the afterwards of the crime, whereas sentence (2) might be said by the chief inspector in
making his official report. Both describe the same thing, yet the status whom utter the sentence
make the meaning differ as in their common ground of conceptual meaning is evident in the
difficulty anyone would have in assenting to the truth of one of these sentences and denying
the truth of the other. In more local sense, social meaning can include what has been called the
illocutionary force of an utterance, for example whether it is to be interpreted as a request, and
assertion, an apology, a threat, etc. The function of utterance perform in this respect may only
be indirectly related to its conceptual meaning. The sentence I haven’t got a knife has the form
and meaning of an assertion, and yet in social reality if said to the waiter in a restaurant it can
readily take on the force of request such as ‘please bring me a knife’.
D. Affective Meaning
Affective meaning is the sort of meaning which is often explicitly conveyed through
the conceptual or connotative content of the words used. Someone who is addressed “You are
a vicious tyrant and a villainous reprobate, and I hate you for it!” is left in little doubt as to the
feelings of the speaker towards him. But there are less direct ways of disclosing our attitude
than this; for example, by scaling our remarks according to politeness. With the object of
getting people to be quiet, we might say either:
(1) I am terribly sorry to interrupt, but I wonder if you would be so kind as to lower
your voices a little.
(2) Will you belt up.
Factors such as intonation and voice timbre (tone of voice) are also important here. The
impression of politeness in (1) can be reversed by a tone of biting sarcasm; and sentence (2)
can be turned into a playful remark between intimates if delivered with the intonation of a mild
request.
Affective meaning is largely a parasitic category in the sense that to express our
emotions we rely upon the mediation of other categories of meaning (conceptual, connotative,
or stylistic). Emotional expression through style comes about when we adopt an impolite tone
to express displeasure (as in sentence 2), or when we adopt a casual tone to express friendliness.
On the other hand, there are elements of language (mainly interjections such as like, Aha! and
Yippee!) whose main function is to express emotion and attitudes without the mediation of any
other kind of semantic function.
E. Reflected Meaning
Reflected meaning is the meaning which arises in cases of multiple conceptual
meaning, when one sense of a word forms part of our response to another sense. On hearing a
church service, the synonymous expression of The Comforter and The Holy Ghost, both
referring to the Third Person of the Trinity, however these terms conditioned with everyday
non-religious meanings of comforts and ghost. Thus, one sense of a word seems to rub off on
another sense in this way only when it has dominant suggestive power either through relative
frequency and familiarity or through strength of its associations. Only in poetry, which invites
a heightened sensitivity to language in all respects do we find reflected meaning operating in
less obvious favorable circumstances.
The case where reflected meaning intrudes through the sheer strength of emotive
suggestion is most strikingly illustrated by words which have a taboo meaning since their
popularization in senses connected with the physiology of sex, it has become increasingly
difficult to use terms like intercourse, ejaculation, and erection in ‘innocent’ senses without
conjuring up sexual associations.
F. Collocative Meaning
Collocative meaning consists of the associations a word acquires on account of the
meanings of words which tend to occur in its environment. Pretty and handsome share common
ground in the meaning ‘good-looking’; but may be distinguished by the range of nouns with
which they are likely to co-occur or to use the linguist terms collocate.
This, range may overlap each other: handsome woman and pretty woman are both
acceptable, although they suggest a different kind of attractiveness because of the collocative
associations of the two adjectives. Further examples are quasi-synonymous verbs such as
wander and stroll (cows may wonder, but may not stroll) or tremble and quiver (one trembles
with fear, but quiver with excitement). To sum it up, it can be said that collocative meaning is
simply an idiosyncratic of individual words.
G. Thematic Meaning
Thematic meaning is what is communicated by the way in which a speaker or writer
organized the message, in terms of ordering, focus, and emphasis. It is often felt, for example,
that an active sentence such as (1) has a different meaning from its passive equivalent (2)
although in conceptional content they seem to be the same
(1) Mrs. Bessie Smith donated the first prize
(2) The first prize was donated by Mrs. Bessie Smith.
It can be seen clearly that both sentences have different communicative values in that
they suggest different contexts. The active sentence seems to answer an implicit question
“What did Mrs. Bessie Smith donate?”, while the passive sentence seems to answer an implicit
question “Who donated the first prize”. The sentence (1) that contrast with sentence (2) suggest
that we know who Mrs. Bessie Smith is. The same truth condition however, apply to each it
would be impossible to find a situation which (1) was an accurate report while (2) was not or
vice versa.
5.3.4 Conversational Implicature
The theory of conversational implicature is proposed by Paul Grice (1975). Jenny
(2013:66) defined conversational implicature as the additional meaning which arise only in
particular context of utterance. Sadock (1978:283) cited in Moeschler give a schema of Grice’s
theory as shown below:
From this scheme it can be seen that Grice divided conversational implicature into two
types: generalized conversational implicature and particularized implicature.
A. Generalized Conversational Implicature
According to Yule (1996:40-41) generalized conversational implicature occurred when
no special background knowledge is required in the context to calculate the additional
conveyed meaning. Moreover, Zhang (2011: 409) defined generalized conversational
implicature as implicature which arise without requiring any particular contextual condition.
For instance:
A: I hope you brought the bread and cheese
B: Ah, I brought the bread. (Yule, 1996:40)
It can be seen from the example above we do not need any particular knowledge to interpret
the additional meaning from that conversation. It can be seen clearly that B for some reason
only brought the bread and thus this shows that B only buy the brought and forgot about the
cheese.
B. Particularized Conversational Implicature
According to Yule (1996:42) particularized conversational implicature occurred when
the conversation takes place in very specific context in which locally recognized inferences are
assumed. It is also the most common implicature that occur in conversation. Moreover, Zhang
(2011:409) also give a definition of particularized conversational maxim as implicature that
arise in particular contextual conditions and require this condition to find out the conveyed
meaning behind the utterance. For instance:
A: Hey, coming to the wild party tonight?
B: My parents are visiting (Yule, 1996:43)
In order to make B’s response relevant, A has to draw on some assumed knowledge that one
college student in this setting expect another to have. B will spend the evening with his parents,
and time spend with parents is quiet, thus B’s are not going to the party.
Furthermore, Zhang (2011:408-409) put the characterized of conversational
implicatures which are proposed by Grice and modified by Leech and Zhang. The
characterization properties are:
1. Defeasibility: Conversational implicatures can simply vanish in certain linguistic or non-
linguistic context. This happened because conversational implicature are cancelled if they are
inconsistent with (i) semantic entailment, (ii) background or ontological assumption, (iii)
context, or (iv) priority conversational implicatures.
2. Nondetachability: Any linguistic expression with the same semantic content tends to carry
the same conversational implicature. A principled exception is those conversation implicatures
that arise via the maxim of Manner. This is because the conversational implicature are attached
to the semantic content, rather than the linguistic form, of what is said. Therefore, they cannot
be detached from an utterance simply by replacing the relevant linguistic expression with their
synonyms.
3. Calculability: Conversational implicatures can transparently be derived via the cooperative
principle and its component maxims.
4. Non-conventionality: Conversational implicatures, though dependent on the saying of what
is coded, are non-coded in nature. In other words, they rely on the saying of what is said but
they are not part of what is said.
5. Reinforceability: Conversational implicatures can be made explicit without producing too
much of a sense of redundancy. This is because conversational implicatures are not part of the
conventional import of utterance.
6. Universality: Conversational implicatures tend to be universal, because they are motivated
rather than arbitrary. For example, if a language has ‘all’ and ‘some’ the use of semantically
weaker ‘some’ will universally carry the conversational implicature ‘not all’
7. Indeterminacy: Some conversational implicatures may be indeterminate. They can be taken
as conveying an open-ended range of implicatures relating to matters in hand.
7. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Grundy, P. (2000). Doing Pragmatics. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Cruse, D. A. (2000). Meaning in Language: An Introduction to Semantics & Pragmatics.
Oxford University Press, New York.
Levinson, S. (1983). Pragmatics. University Press, Cambridge.
Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. Longman, New York.
Marmaridou, S. (2000). Pragmatic Meaning and Cognition. John Benjamin Publishing
Company, Amsterdam.
Verschueren, J & Otsman. (eds.). (2009). Key Notions for Pragmatics. John Benjamins
Publishing Company, Amsterdam.
Moeschler, J. (2005). Conversational and Conventional Implicatures [Internet]. Available
from: <
https://www.academia.edu/10016856/Conversational_and_conventional_implicatures> [15
November 2018].
Huang, Y. (2011). Types of Inference: Entailment, Presupposition, and Implicature. In:
(Bublitz, W & Neal R. Norrick). (eds.) Foundations of Pragmatics. De Gruyter Mouton,
Berlin.
Griffiths, P. (2006). An Introduction to English Semantics & Pragmatics. Edinburgh University
Press, Edinburgh.
Bach, K. (2012). Saying, Meaning, and Implicating. In: (Allan, K, & Jaszczolt, KM). (eds.)
The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Prativi, I. (2012). An Analysis of Implicature: Flouting Maxims in The Novel Entitled Uncle
Tom’s Cabin Written by Harriet Beecher Stowe. (thesis). Sebelas Maret University, Surakarta.
Evitayani, N. (2016). Flouting Maxims in The Movie “How to Train Your Dragon 2”. (thesis).
Udayana University, Denpasar.
Lestari, G. (2017). Flouting of Grice’s Maxims in “The Age of Adaline” Movie. (thesis).
Udayana University, Denpasar.
Brennan, S.E. (2010). Conversation and Dialogue [Internet]. Available from: <
http://www.psychology.sunysb.edu/sbrennan-/papers/ency_2010.pdf> [21 November 2018].
Leech, G. (1981). Semantics: The Study of Meaning Second Edition. Penguin Books,
Middlesex.
Thomas, J. (2013). Meaning in Interaction. Routledge, New York.
Allen, D.E, & Guy, R.F. (1978). Conversation Analysis: The Sociology of Talk. Mouton, The
Hague.
Hutchby, I, & Woofitt, R. (1998). Conversation Analysis: Principles, Practices, and
Applications. Polity Press, Cambridge.
Locke, T. (2004). Critical Discourse Analysis. Cromwell Press, Trowbridge Wiltshire.
Asri, S. 2015. An Analysis of Flouting Maxim in EFL Classroom Interaction. Journal Vision.
Volume 4 number 2, pg. 243-258.