CHAPTERII

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

This chapter is divided into several parts that are theoretical background, previous
study, and theoretical framework.

A. Theoretical Background
1. Pragmatics
Pragmatics is a branch of linguistics that examines the meaning of a speaker's
utterances in the context of their use. Yule (1996: 3-4) states that pragmatics is the study
of the speaker's meaning. It is concerned with the study of meaning as communicated by
speakers (or writers) and interpreted by listeners or readers. Communication that requires
reciprocity from both parties where the speaker gives expressions and listeners try to
receive and process the meaning that the speaker wants to convey. Still in the view of
Yule (1996) which states Pragmatics is the study of contextual meaning. Pragmatics
involves interpretation of what people mean in certain contexts and how context
influences what is said. After the listener receives the utterance from the speaker,
Another definition is obtained from Levinson (1983:21-27) which suggests that
pragmatics is the study of the relationship between language and the context on which
language understanding is based. From understanding above, to understand the language
we are required to understand the relationship between the context in the language used.
The necessity to understand the relationship between language and context which is often
referred to as pragmatics is explained by Yule (1996: 7) that, pragmatics is needed if we
want a more complete, in-depth, and reasonable explanation of human language behavior.
Therefore it is important for us to learn language in pragmatically in order to be able to
understand the basic contents and uses of the sentences to be expressed.
From some of the expert opinions above regarding pragmatics, it can be
concluded that pragmatics is a branch of linguistics that focuses on the meaning of
several influencing factors such as the meaning of the speaker, the contextual meaning of
the events that take place, how the listener concludes the speaker's intent, and the
expressions used.
2. Implicature
The word "implicature" comes from the word "to implay", etymologically "to
implay" means "to fold something into something else". Some experts argue about the
notion of implicature, According to Brown & Yule (1996:31) Implicature is used to
explain what the speaker might mean, suggest, or imply that is different from what the
speaker actually said. The meaning that someone wants to say is usually different from
what is desired so that an explanation is needed to understand the meaning, that is where
the role of the implicature comes in. Another philosopher who explains implicature is
Grice, he argues that implicature is a clause implied by a sentence statement in its
context, also the same opinion was conveyed by Kridalaksana (20011: 91) who explained
that implicature is what logically becomes the conclusion of an utterance, as well as basic
knowledge that is shared between speakers and listeners in a particular context.
Implicature is divided into two types (Grice 1993:98), conventional implicature
and conversational implicature. What makes the difference between the two is that
conventional is based on something other than conditional truth in general usage or
meaning, certain forms and expressions. Conversational, on the other hand, derives from
a more general set of principles for governing appropriate conversational behavior.
Conventional implicature focuses on general usage and meaning whereas conversational
implicature focuses on general principles of substitution.
Conventional implicature is an utterance that is not based on the principle of
cooperation or maxim, this implicature does not have to be in the conversation and does
not depend on the special context. These implicatures are associated with certain words
and result in additional meanings being conveyed when those words are used, such as the
conjunctions but, and, yet, even. The conventional implicator itself is the opposite, this
implication is show up when people communicate, in communicating they are expected
to comply with conversational maxims and it is expected when communicating using a
cooperative way or cooperative principles.
From some of the expert opinions above, it can be concluded that implicature is
an expression from one of the parties that has meaning in context and requires an
explanation to understand the meaning of the expression, so that listeners and speakers
 can have the same understanding. And it can also be concluded that implicature has the
characteristics of an open interpretation, does not have an absolute relationship with the
utterance that is embodied, occurs because of obedience or disobedience to the principle
of cooperation in conversation.
3. cooperative principle
Study of linguistics in branch of it, pragmatics has many concepts, one of which is
conversational implicature which is based on the idea that people in conversation work
together to achieve the same conversational goals. What is meant is that the interlocutor
can understand what the speaker is saying in explaining something or suggesting
something
Maxim cooperative is the principle created by Grice, when someone
communicates they must be cooperative and understand each other. There are four
maxims that underlie this principle, namely the maxim of quantity, maxim of quality,
maxim of relevance, maxim of manner.
Kind of Grice theory, cooperative maxim :
a. Maxim quantity
Speakers are expected to be able to convey sufficient information, no less
and no more so that ambiguity does not occur.
For example:
Q) Diddy : what did you bring for the hike?
Moon : climbing equipment
P) Diddy : what did you bring for the hike?
Moon :I brought a small flashlight with a long hanger to make a
necklace for Rp. 25.000,00, a tent with a length of 2 meters which
has 2 windows right and left are army green and gray, a pot that
can fit 1 kilo of chicken, ....
S) Diddy : what did you bring for the hike?
Moon : I brought cooking utensils, tents, flashlights,...
In conversation (Q) the explanation given was too little information. In the
conversation (P) the explanation given was too much information. On
conversation (S)gives clear and informative conversations.

b. Maxim quality
Speakers are expected to convey factual information and not speculate.
Speakers are expected not to say expressions that do not have enough evidence.
For example:

stars : what is the name of the place of worship of Muslims?

sky : mosque
The conversation above shows that the answers given are based on the fact
that the place of worship for Muslims is a mosque.
 c. Maxim relevance
Speakers are expected to say information related to topics related to the
topics being discussed and not change the direction of the conversation.
For example:

Mille : may I borrow your eraser, please?

Boobs : I'm playing basketball
The conversation between Mille and Boob above is irrelevant and Boob
diverts the topic.

d. Maxim manner
Speakers are expected to say clear andnot rambling or stuttering.
For example:

Sara: booo what are you watching?

Ian: II- I didn't watch anything.
Ian's statement shows that the answer he gave stuttered, so the
conversation above shows the maxim of manner.

Related to this, there are two types of maxims, namely observance maxims and
non-observance maxims. To identify these two types of maxims is very easy, in
observance maxims are identified when the speaker complies with the rules of maxims
and is pronounced correctly and clearly. Inversely proportional to non-observance
maxims which are identified by not complying with maxim rules and are expressed
vaguely.For example, in this discussion, cooperative principle maxim is an example of
observance maxim, while non-cooperative maxim has various types, including flouting,
violation, hedging, etc.

4. Hedging maxims
Hedging is a sentence delimiter used by the speaker intentionally to convey a
message to the listener that the expression being said are contains an ambiguous sentence.
Hedging includes intentional statements by the speaker or vague statements used to
convince the listener that he or she is trying to comply with the maxims.
Kinds of hedges, as follow:
a. Hedges of quantity
Used when the speaker feels that the information he is conveying is like
having a wrong sentence or not completely bright. (Yule, 1996 ) Some examples
of sentences are as you probably know, to cut a long story short, i won't bore you
with the details, I can't say anymore, I probably don't need to say this, but. ..etc.
For example:
a) As you probably know, I'm allergic to shrimp.
b) I can't say anymore, the things I saw were disgusting.
c) Well, to cut a long story short, the criminal was taken to the police station
for further investigation.

b. Hedges of quality
Used when the speaker feels that the information he has is not based on
facts (but has heard it from other people, for example).(Yule, 1996 ) some
examples of sentences like as far I know, I'm not sure if this is right and I guess, I
may be wrong, but...etc.
For example:
a) As far as I know, Adi is not Mrs. Rosa's biological child.
b) I may be wrong, this man once received an award from the government.

c. Hedges of relations
Used when what the speaker says is irrelevant, meaning the speaker
changes the direction of the conversation.(Yule, 1996) states that hedges relation
can appear in the middle when the speaker is talking like 'oh, by the way, not to
change the subject, I don't know if this is important' and starts to change the
subject. (Huang, 2007:25) also stated that if someone talks too far and is almost
far from the topic being discussed and wants to stop it, they usually use 'anyway'
or 'well, anyway'.
For example:
a) Not to change the subject, but it looks like the grandmother needs help.
b) Well, anyway our discussion is not about that.
 d. Hedges of manner
Used when the explanation is ingive speakers confusing or too long.
According to (Yule 1996:39) and (Huang 2007:27) stated that some of these
sentences can state hedges of manner such as I'm not sure if this is clear, but …; I
don't know if this makes sense, but ...; and this may be a bit confused, but...etc.
For example:
a) And this may be a bit confused, but I've never been in a situation like this.
b) I'm not sure if this is clear, but I made this vase with my own hands.

5. Reason for hedging

The use of hedges by someone has various underlying reasons, according to
Slager-Mayer (1994:108-115) there are 4 reasons someone violates hedges:

a. Minimizing the “thread-to-face”

The act of embarrassing yourself is known as the Face Threatening Act
(FTA) where the interpretation of the word face in linguistics refers to the respect
that people have for themselves, a person generally tries to make other people not
be embarrassed in public by maintaining that respect publicly/privately.
This FTA is an actwhich makes the interlocutor unable to maintain his
dignity. Yule (1996:36) argues, in most cases one will want to minimize the threat
of FTA action. As an example someone would warn his neighbor:
Mita : I'm going to go and tell them to stop this annoying music right
now!
On the other hand, his brother has a sentence that dihedges more.
Simal : maybe you can ask them, if they don't mind to turn off the music
immediately because it's late at night and many people are resting.
So it can be concluded here that hedges are used when someone limits
their sentences to minimize the risk of embarrassing themselves. It is also used to
avoid statements that put someone in an embarrassing situation when a statement
to the contrary appears.
 b. Being a way of being more precise in reporting results
Hedges are used when someone is stating the speaker's statementtell it as
it is and do not speculate. When trying to say something, the speaker does not
claim ownership of the statement. The speaker also did not exaggerate the
information conveyed.

c. Being positive and negative politeness strategies

According to Brown and Levinson in Paltridge (2000: 49) says that
politeness has the meaning of positive and negative face, positive face means a
person's desire to be recognized by others, while negative face means a person's
desire to stand up on his own will.
Related to politeness, in positive politeness it means that someone
acknowledges the wishes of others to be acknowledged, positive politeness occurs
when a person's reciprocal relationship is in good condition and working together.
Negative politeness means that someone tries to force their will to be recognized
by others. In this case, the sentence hedges can be interpreted as saying polite
disagreement or expressing certainty for the listener.

d. Conforming to an stabilized writing style

Hedges are not only used to comply with principles or protect facejust. In
some cases hedged is used to match existing conditions, because Miller
(1994:108) argues that hedges in some cases have conventional characteristics.
When the speaker is required to speak briefly and concisely, but explaining to an
older person sometimes requires more explanation, because the habit
(conventional) makes the speaker have to use hedges.

B. Previous study

Previous studies are needed by a researcher to originalize his research and to find
gaps from previous researchers for research areas that have not been touched and get new
solutions. Because of that, here are some previous studies that have the same research
area as conversational maxim or Grice's cooperative maxim.
The first research was written by Rofa Marlisa and Didin Nuruddin Hidayah
students from the Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University Jakarta with the title 'The
Analysis of Flouting Maxim in Good Morning America (GMA) Talkshow' which was
published on May 21th2020. The purpose of this research is to find out the flouted
maxims performed by the host and guest also to reveal the reason behind the occurrence
of the maxims. The results obtained from this research are the study revealed the relations
behind maxim flouting which were beneficial to build fun communication and to
elaborate more explanations. This study found fifteen sentences containing flouting
maxims, 5 expressions (33%) containing flouting maxims of quantity, 2 expressions
(14%) containing foluting maxims of quality, 3 expressions (20%) containing flouting
maxims of relation, 5 expressions ( 33%) contains flouting maxim manner. The reason
for the flouting maxim quantity is to provide more information and build fun
communication and ask more questions,
The second study was written by Jauhar Helmie and Nursuci Gunawan Lestary
with the research title 'an analysis of flouting maxims in conversation speaking of the
main character in the movie of home alone 2 “lost in new york” by john huges and
published on march 1st2019. This research focuses on the types of flouting maxims and
how flouting maxims can help readers to understand the meaning of the film. The
sampling of this study is the film 'home alone 2 “lost in newyork” by john huges' research
method taken is descriptive qualitative, the data is in the form of dialogue between
characters. The data collection procedure uses content analysis, first checking the script,
then watching subtitles form the film. The results of this study found four reasons for
flouting maxim, namely competitive of flouting maxim, collaborative of flouting,
convivial of flouting maxim, conflictive of flouting maxim. The dominant flouting
maxim found by researchers is the quality maxim. Researchers also found that there is
never a guarantee that when a maxim is violated, communication will be broken.
Third research are written by devi rusdiana, a student at STKIP PGRI Jombang in
2016 with the title 'flouting maxims in a thousand words movie (2012)'. This research
focuses on conversational implicature in a thousand words movie, the research objective
is to find kinds of conversational implicature and flouting maxims used in a thousand
words movie. This research uses a qualitative research design with the data used is a
script of movie, the instrument is a document. Data collection has the first plot of
watching a movie, identifying utterances and scenes, selecting the data that consists of
flouting maxims. From the research that has been done, the researcher found 15 sentences
indicated as conversational implicatures including 3 generalized conversational
implicatures, 12 particularized conversational implicatures.
The fourth study was written byirva mirawati in 2016 students of STKIP PGRI
Jombang with the title 'flouting maxim in:”this talk show net TV on 5th november 2014”:
a pragmatic study'. The purpose of this research is to investigate the type of flouting
maxim and the speaker's sense of flouting maxim done by the participants of the "ini
talkshow" program. The sampling in this study is a talk show video broadcast on the Net
television program. The data in this study uses utterances in the video that shows
flouting, this data uses non-participant observation. Data collection was taken by
selecting the talkshow, making transcript, identifying and classifying stages. The
procedures for processing the data in this study are the stages of analyzing the flouting
maxim, amking the interpretation of the speaker's sense based on the context that
occurred, checking its validity, and reporting. The results of the research that has been
carried out by the researchers above are as follows, 4 maxims of quantity reason obtained
because the speaker is too enthusiastic in his explanation so that he provides too much
information. 6 maxim of quanlity with the reason that the participants are trying to make
some jokes in the conversation. 10 maxims of relevance with reasons to make
conversation funnier by making jokes, 7 maxims of manner with reasons the participant
said something obscurity in order to create such kind of joke.
C. Theoretical framework
 The basic of this research, in the study of pragmatic analysis pragmatics is the
study of language in the context of its use. Implicature is a pragmatic subdiscipline, an
expression directly or indirectly produced by speakers. According to Grice (1975; 44)
implicature is divided into two, conventional implicature and conversational implicature.
Conventional implicature focuses on general use and meaning, this implicature is not
based on the principle of cooperation nor does this implicature have to exist in
conversation because it does not depend on a special context. Meanwhile, conversational
implicature appears when someone communicates, according to Grice 1975 in
communicating it is expected to comply with conversational maxims, it is hoped that
people communicate in a cooperative manner. Another well-known term is the
cooperative maxim, in this principle divided into 4 by Grice, namely the maxim of
quantity, maxim of quality, maxim of relation, maxim of manner. Maxim is divided into
two parts, observance maxim is a maxim that is expressed openly, while non-observance
maxim is a maxim that is expressed explicitly. Non observance maxim is divided into
several categories, one of which is hedging, which is an expression that the speaker
deliberately uses to show that he is trying to comply with principles but has ambiguous
words. In the theory described above, the researcher wants to analyze the hedging content
in the rice to meet you podcast 'a podcast about asian culture'. maxims of relation,
maxims of manner. Maxim is divided into two parts, observance maxim is a maxim that
is expressed openly, while non-observance maxim is a maxim that is expressed explicitly.
Non observance maxim is divided into several categories, one of which is hedging, which
is an expression that the speaker deliberately uses to show that he is trying to comply
with principles but has ambiguous words. In the theory described above, the researcher
wants to analyze the hedging content in the rice to meet you podcast 'a podcast about
asian culture'. maxims of relation, maxims of manner. Maxim is divided into two parts,
observance maxim is a maxim that is expressed openly, while non-observance maxim is a
maxim that is expressed explicitly. Non observance maxim is divided into several
categories, one of which is hedging, which is an expression that the speaker deliberately
uses to show that he is trying to comply with principles but has ambiguous words. In the
theory described above, the researcher wants to analyze the hedging content in the rice to
meet you podcast 'a podcast about asian culture'. Non observance maxim is divided into
several categories, one of which is hedging, which is an expression that the speaker
deliberately uses to show that he is trying to comply with principles but has ambiguous
words. In the theory described above, the researcher wants to analyze the hedging content
in the rice to meet you podcast 'a podcast about asian culture'. Non observance maxim is
divided into several categories, one of which is hedging, which is an expression that the
speaker deliberately uses to show that he is trying to comply with principles but has
ambiguous words. In the theory described above, the researcher wants to analyze the
hedging content in the rice to meet you podcast 'a podcast about asian culture'.