TOPIC:
IMPLICATURE
Sometimes,
when we are talking with other people, the problem happened is easy to express
an idea but it is difficult to interpret it because every utterance needs to be
interpreted based on its context. It means that what is uttered depends on who,
where, when, and in what occasion the utterance appears.
The
concept of implicature is a theoretical construct which was first introduced by
Grice (1975) in the William James Lectures more than thirty years ago. Grice
used the concept to deal with examples in communication where what a speaker
means goes beyond the meaning literally expressed by a particular utterance.
However implicature was defined negatively as what is communicated less ‘what
is said’. In other words, implicature was characterized simply as whatever is
communicated that is not part of what is said by a speaker. The only positive
characterization of implicature by Grice was his indication that it is related
to the terms imply, suggest, and mean. Now, let us take a deep analysis
toward an expression done by my friends.
For
the part of context, in this conversation, there are two persons (University
students) as the interlocutors who were having a dinner together in a room
after having prayer Maghrib. They are living in a rent house and they are
roommate, and very close friend. While I just visited their room and I was
watching a movie there between them. They are in the same semester but one of
them is two years older than another one. The psychological situation was just
like as usual as when mostly people are eating spicy foods, only fizzing sound
and the sounds of my laptop was heard. But they looked so serious when they
were eating. Probably because of they tasted the spiciness of their food. Their
dinner was bought in the owner of our rent house which sold exactly in the
front of our rent house. The conversation came at the end of their dinner which
uttered by the older one by asking a question related to their dinner. Then, it
was answered with some propositions by other one. Let us say that the older one
is “X” and other one is “Y”. Here are their words:
X : “Sambel mu masih mau kamu makan tah?”
Y : “Ini aja masih kurang!”
X :
“Tambah sambel lagi di ibu boleh gak ya?”
Y :
“Kalo mau nambah, jangan bawa nama aku lho ya”
X :
“Kan kamu katanya masih kurang, hehe...”
Y :
“lihat kan, sambel ku masih banyak, bakalan kurang kalo kamu ambil”
I make an analysis toward this
conversation using implicature theory from Grice (1975), in relation to the
definition derived above, which divided implicature itself in two kinds. They
are Conversational implicature and Conventional implicature. Conversational implicature
happens when there is still correlation among the sentences uttered by the
speakers in certain context. While Conventional implicature is the implicature
which comes from a logical analysis.
The conversation above, based on the
theory, is categorized as conversational implicature. Because the utterances
have been obviously associated with the context which still correlate each
other, even though the utterances uttered go beyond the sentences expected. The
conversation can easily be identified as a conversational implicature because those
utterances are the implication of the proportion which is actually not from
those utterances. We can start from the first utterance spoken by X which said
that “Sambel mu masih mau kamu makan tah?” under a normal circumstance, we
could assume that X just wanted to ask whether Y still want to continue his
dinner or not. Because, indeed, Y seemed like want to stop eating his spicy
food. That is one of the possibilities from that utterance. We do not know what
actually he wanted through asking that way. It is fairly possible that actually
X wanted to give his food to Y, and it is also possible if X wanted to prohibit
Y to not throw his spicy food away. However, from that utterance, by asking politely
to Y, we can identify that actually X wanted to take the sauce from Y, because
X had no sauce anymore while he still had rice and a side dish on his hand.
Continuing to the second utterance,
it is the answer from the question given by X. As we see that actually the
responses of Y when answering the question was quite different, isn’t it? Y did
not even ask “Why?” to X instead of asking why he asked that, but Y immediately
stated “Ini aja masih kurang!” the response of Y goes beyond the expectation
like what the answer should be when someone ask in that way. Through the Y’s
response, we can assume that he had known and understood what actually the
intention or the purposes of X in asking him whether he wanted to continue
eating his rest sauce. Y had understood that, truly, X wanted to take his
sauce. Y, therefore, directly answered that way which means he wanted to
continue eating his food. In implicature analysis, it is a kind of ‘rejection’
or ‘refusal’. In the real proportion, what actually Y mean was that he did not
want to give the rest of his sauce to X, even though his rice was almost habis.
Moreover, the refusal is clearly identified when we look at the next utterace
uttered by X which said “Tambah sambel lagi di ibu boleh gak ya?” even though Y
never stated that he did not want to share his sauce, X directly feel that what
he wanted had been refused by Y and immediately asking whether or not it is
allowed to add the sauce to the seller.
The
next utterance given by Y, “Kalo mau nambah, jangan bawa nama aku lho ya”,
seems ambiguous. Because Y unexpectedly uttered that utterance. My assumption
is that it seems that probably there was a case in which X ever asked something
to the owner of our rent house under the Y’s name which made Y embarrass. Y
probably had assumed that X would say “Bu, Y mau nambah sambal” when asking
permission to add the sauce. Thus, Y suddenly warned X to not bring his name
when adding the sauce.
Then, the assumption of Y, when he
warned to not bring his name, was definitely correct. It can be identified and
judged from the next sentence uttered by X, “Kan kamu katanya masih kurang,
hehe…” It might be possible that X would say “Bu, Y mau nambah sambal, katanya
masih kurang” instead of directly taking the sauce and putting it to his own
food. However, the next refusal come implicitly from Y when saying an
unexpected sentence “lihat kan, sambel ku masih banyak, bakalan kurang kalo
kamu ambil”. The sentence was used to totally reject Y’s willingness to add the
sauce. Y did not want to share his sauce and Y did not want X brought his name
when adding the sauce.
What
we can get from that conversation is that Y always used implicature in the term
of refusal. What Y meant from the whole conversation is to refuse X’s which
want to take his sauce and bring his name when adding the sauce. Y asked and
refused politely the utterances given by X in order to X will never be insulted
by his words. In fact, the words used by them are quite rude in Indonesian
culture, especially the words used by Y, although he refused implicitly.
However, it is fine if we looked at the other point of view in relation to
their relationship in which they are roommate since in the third semester.
Although, X is older than Y, but the rude words used by Y will be pretty fine
for X due to their close relationship.
