PRAGMATICS ANALYSIS

By

Muhammad Seoultan Rabbani (200350023)

Pratiwi (200350024)

Rubi Aysha (200350016)

I. INTRODUCTION
Pragmatics is the branch of linguistics that studies language use in context,
focusing on how context influences the interpretation of meaning. It explores the
ways speakers employ language beyond literal meaning, considering factors such as
context, speaker intentions, and the social aspects of communication. In exploring
those things mentioned, there are several topics that will be discussed in pragmatics,
such as speech act, implicature, politeness of maxim, and presupposition.
Speech act theory, within pragmatics, examines utterances not only as a
conveyance of information but also as actions that perform a function. Utterances are
categorized based on illocutionary acts, representing the speaker's intention behind the
speech, such as stating, asking, promising, or commanding.
Talking about intention behind the speech or utterance, Implicature refers to
the inferred meaning that arises in conversation beyond what is explicitly stated. In
his book, Stephen C. Levinson discusses two types of implicature: generalized
conversational implicature, which stems from the cooperative principle, and
particularized conversational implicature, which involves considerations specific to
the context of an utterance.
Generalized conversational implicature is a type of implicature that arises
from adhering to the cooperative principle proposed by H.P. Grice. It involves
speakers assuming that others will follow conversational maxims, leading to implied
meanings that go beyond the literal interpretation of an utterance.
Particularized conversational implicature, as discussed by Levinson, pertains
to context-specific implied meanings. Unlike the generalized form, particularized
implicatures arise due to factors unique to a specific interaction or situation, going
beyond the expectations set by general conversational maxims.
Politeness maxims, influenced by the work of sociolinguists like Erving
Goffman, involve strategies speakers use to maintain face and social harmony during
communication. Levinson delves into politeness theory, examining how speakers
employ linguistic strategies to uphold positive social interactions and avoid potential
face-threatening acts.
Presupposition involves assumptions or background beliefs that are taken for
granted in a conversation. Levinson explores how presuppositions influence
communication by shaping the context in which utterances are interpreted, impacting
the intended meaning.
 II. PURPOSE OF THIS ANALYSIS
This analysis is made for the purpose of the last project that will support the
final examination of pragmatics. This analysis will explore speech act, implicature,
politeness of maxim, and presupposition which will be followed by the conversation
as the example in order to get a deeper understanding.

III. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

This analysis uses pragmatics as the approach and several theories in order to
support. Here are some theories used to analyze the data.
- Speech Act Theory in Pragmatics ebook by Stephen C Levinson 1983 (page
226)
- Conversational Implicature in Pragmatics ebook by Stephen C Levinson (page
97)
- Pragmatics Theories of Presupposition by Stephen C Levinson (page 167)
- The Politeness of Maxim Theory by Geoffrey Leech

IV. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This analysis is supported by several data collected. There are also several
strategies to do this analysis which will be explained below.

- DATA SOURCE AND DATA

There are two types of data in this research. The data that is used in this
research are primary data and secondary data. Primary Data Primary data is a type of
data that is collected by researchers. The primary data that the researcher uses in this
analysis is from the information through the interviewing processes. From the
interview, the researcher can find some information to make the analysis easier. There
are many proofs in the interview that can be used to analyze the objectives. Secondary
Data Secondary data is the data that have been already collected by and readily
available from other sources. Secondary data is usually used in research to make
comparisons between current research and previous research. The secondary data that
the researcher uses in this analysis is ebooks.
 - DATA COLLECTION TECHNIQUE
In this analysis, the researcher collected data by interviewing, identifying and
classifying. Interviewing is the first thing that the researcher does in doing the
research. The researchers collect some information from the interview as the data
required to give the example and the analysis. Then, the researchers identify the data
obtained using the theories and approach used by the researcher in this research. After
that, the researchers classify the interview to each of the objectives of this research.

- DATA ANALYSIS TECHNIQUE

The researcher will analyze speech act, implicature, politeness of maxim, and
presupposition by following the steps outlined below:
First, the researchers interviewed some people to find data that related the topic of the
research. Next, the researchers identify, classify and analyze the data that has been
obtained. The researchers identify and analyze the data using theories and approaches
that have been chosen by the researcher. Finally, the researcher concludes the results
of the analysis to explain the objectives of this research and make research
conclusions.

V. ANALYSIS
This section will elaborate the data of each topic which are taken from the
interviews which also will be analyzed by showing the proof of the conversation. The
analysis process helps uncover insights into the nuances of language use, providing a
basis for drawing conclusions and contributing to the broader understanding of the
field. It involves a detailed examination, evaluation, and interpretation of data,
information, or a situation to uncover patterns, relationships, and underlying
principles. The goal of analysis is to gain a deeper understanding of the subject and
draw meaningful conclusions.
- SPEECH ACT
Speech acts are a central concept in pragmatic linguistics, particularly in the
work of philosopher J.L. Austin and later developed by John Searle. In pragmatic
terms, a speech act is not just about the words uttered but also about the intention
behind the utterance and the effect it has on the listener. Speech can be categorized in
three types: locutionary acts, illocutionary acts, and perlocutionary acts. This research
only focuses on Illocutionary which is illocutionary is the act performed in saying
something, such as asserting, requesting, commanding, or promising. It represents the
speaker's intention or purpose in making the utterance.
Illocutionary acts have various types, each serving a distinct communicative
function. Here are some common types of illocutionary: Constatives, Assertives,
directives, commissive, expressives, declarations, representatives, performatives, etc.
Based on this video, this research only focuses on representatives and directives.
Here are the example and the analysis:

1. Representatives
Representatives are a type of illocutionary act where the speaker
conveys a belief, opinion, or provides information. The primary intention
behind representative speech acts is to represent a state of affairs or to describe
something. This category aligns with the assertive illocutionary type.

1.1 Proof 1 - (00:01:47 - 00:02:10)

Dialogue
Pratiwi : “Bang, abang kan jual pulpen, bermacam - macam
Photocopy officer : “Iya!”
Pratiwi: “Harga jualnya berapaan aja?”
Photocopy officer: “Oh, bermacam - macam sih, ada yang 3 ribu, ada yang 4
ribu, sampai 5 ribu”
Pratiwi: “Tergantung kualitasnya ya bang?”
Photocopy Officer: “Tergantung merk”

Analysis
In the dialogue above, when the photocopy officer stated "Oh,
bermacam - macam sih, ada yang 3 ribu, ada yang 4 ribu, sampe 5 ribu" the
 utterance from the brother shows that the photocopy officer gave information
about the selling price of pens to the listener, which is this utterance can make
the listener trust what he said about ballpoint.

2. Directives
Directives are a specific type of illocutionary act. A directive is a
speech act in which the speaker aims to get the listener to do something. The
intention behind directives is to influence the behavior of the listener,
prompting them to take a specific action. Directives are prevalent in everyday
communication and play a crucial role in interpersonal interactions.

2.1. Proof 2 - (00: 02: 13 - 00:02:53)

Dialogue
Pratiwi: “Kalo ada yang mau ngeprint nih, cara abangnya ngelayaninnya
gimana? “
Photocopy officer: “Ya, disapa dulu, terus ditanya mau ngeprint apa?”
Sultan: “Terus ini nomor sama email fungsinya buat apa nih bang?”
Photocopy officer: “itu biar kalo ada yang ngeprint, “kirim aja dulu filenya
lewat whatsapp kalo gak email gitu””
Pratiwi: “jadi dikirim lewat wa dulu baru biasa nanti di print gitu ya bang!”
Photocopy officer: “Iya baru nanti ada filenya, baru kita print”

Analysis
Based on the dialogue above, the photocopy officer's utterance, "kirim
aja file nya lewat Whatsaap atau gak email gitu" this utterance shows a
directives where the speaker said something to try to get the listener to do
something.

- IMPLICATURE
Based on the video, the focus of this research is only on conversational
implicature. By applying the theory from “Pragmatics” ebook by Stephen C Levinson,
the researchers divide it into two categories, including generalized and particularized
conversational implicature.
1. Generalized Conversational Implicature
This implicature can be defined as an implied meaning of an utterance
from the speaker which requires no special knowledge or information to
understand what is being discussed or spoken, because the speaker only talks
about something general. The proofs which are taken from the video, will be
analyzed below.

1.1 Proof 1 - (00:04:46 - 00:05:17)

Dialogue:
Seoultan: “Sekarang kesibukannya apa sih?”
Mr. Revaldo: “Sekarang saya kesibukannya bekerja, kerja di J&T.”
…
Seoultan: “Di J&T itu maksudnya, sebagai apa atau dimananya gitu?”
Mr. Revaldo: “Jadi saya di bagian gudang, gudang itu termasuk packing dan
sortir kalo ada paket masuk tuh semua Indonesia tuh disitu transit centrenya.”
Rubi: “Wah, sibuk banget.”

Analysis:
Based on the dialogue above, the first utterance from Mr. Revaldo
which is, “Sekarang saya kesibukannya bekerja, kerja di J&T.” can be defined
as generalized conversational implicature, because the implied meaning of that
utterance can be understood by the listener with no special or additional
knowledge. It is only such a general information that Mr. Revaldo spends his
time by focusing on his job at J&T.

Then for the second utterance which is, “Jadi saya di bagian gudang,
gudang itu termasuk packing dan sortir kalo ada paket masuk tuh semua
Indonesia tuh disitu transit centrenya.” is also defined as generalized
conversational implicature, since the information in that utterance is
something general that can be understood easily by the listener with no special
knowledge.
 1.2 Proof 2 - (00:05:26 - 00:05:43)
Dialogue:
Seoultan: “Kalo disitu sistem liburnya gimana?”
Mr. Revaldo: “Kalo disitu, shiftnya itu dalam seminggu cuma 6 hari. Jadi 4
hari masuk, 2 hari libur. 4 hari itu pagi, terus 2 hari libur, lalu pergantian shift,
4 hari malam dan 2 hari libur.”
Seoultan: “Berarti sibuk banget ya?”
Mr. Revaldo: “Iya, bisa dibilang begitu.”

Analysis:
Based on the dialogue above, Seoultan is asking Mr. Revaldo about his
schedule. The utterance from Mr. Revaldo which is, “Kalo disitu, shiftnya itu
dalam seminggu cuma 6 hari. Jadi 4 hari masuk, 2 hari libur. 4 hari itu pagi,
terus 2 hari libur, lalu pergantian shift, 4 hari malam dan 2 hari libur.” is
defined as generalized conversational implicature, since it requires no special
knowledge to be understood. It only shows some general informations about
Mr. Revaldo’s job shift in a week.

2. Particularized Conversational Implicature

This implicature can be defined as an implied meaning of an utterance
from the speaker which requires additional or special knowledge to know the
reference or what is being spoken. The proofs which are taken from the video,
will be analyzed below.
2.1 Proof 1 - (00:07:15 - 00:07:30)
Dialogue:
Seoultan: “Kangen sama siapa disana?”
Mr. Revaldo: “Ya pertama, kangen sama Seoultan, sama ada idolanya dia,
cewe jangkung.”
Seoultan: “Udah ga berlaku tuh do kalo sekarang, bahaya tuh kalo sekarang.”
Mr. Revaldo: “Sekarang udah gaboleh ya.”

Analysis:
Based on the dialogue above, Seoultan and Mr. Revaldo are talking
about their memories in their internship experience at Astra Otoparts Tbk. The
utterance from Mr. Revaldo which is, “Ya pertama, kangen sama Seoultan,
sama ada idolanya dia, cewe jangkung.” is defined as particularized
conversational implicature, since the implied meaning from what is spoken
about “cewe jangkung” cannot be understood directly by the listeners if they
have no special knowledge. It can be seen that, only Mr. Revaldo and Seoultan
which are truly understand about what is being spoken since they have the
same background as the special knowledge, meanwhile Rubi and Pratiwi do
not have the same background.

2.2 Proof 2 - (00:07:34 - 00:08:00)

Dialogue:
Mr. Revaldo: “Cewe jangkung, sama kaka-kaka disana, gimana tuh tan?”
Seoultan: “Aduh, kaka yang mana tuh?”
Mr. Revaldo: “Yang suaminya mirip Seoultan katanya.”
Rubi: “Oh gituu, wah idola ya tan lu disana.”
Seoultan: “Aduh, masih sih kalo sama kaka-kaka yang itu, masih kontakan di
Whatsapp.”
Mr. Revaldo: “Sampe dikasih hadiah dia.”
Seoultan: “Aduh, udah do ya hahaha.”

Analysis:
The dialogue above still related to the previous dialogue which talks
about “cewe jangkung”. In this proof, the utterance from Mr. Revaldo which
are, “Cewe jangkung, sama kaka-kaka disana, gimana tuh tan?” and “Yang
suaminya mirip Seoultan katanya.” are defined as particularized
conversational implicature. It is because the implied meaning in these
utterances can not be understood directly, and the listener will not be able to
know the specific reference about what is being discussed unless they have the
same background as the special knowledge. The word “Kaka-kaka” in the first
utterance, can not be identified by the listener with no special knowledge to
guess who is it. Then the second utterance also will not be able to guessed by
the listener about what is actually happened between Seoultan and “Kaka-
kaka” who has a husband that looks like Seoultan.
- PRESUPPOSITION
Based on the video, this research only focuses on two categories of
presupposition, such as existential and factual. In analyzing those points, the
researchers are supported by an ebook for the theory which is “Pragmatics” ebook by
Stephen C Levinson.
1. Existential Presupposition
This presupposition can be defined as an implicit assumption of the
existence of an entity which named by the speaker and believed that it is truely
exists. The entity can be in 2 kinds of form, such as noun phrase or possesive
construction. The proofs which are taken from the video will be provided and
analyzed below.
1.1 Proof 1 - (00:10:15 - 00:10:27)
Dialogue:
Seoultan: “Halo mas, sebelumnya bisa perkenalkan dulu dengan mas siapa?”
Mas Ari: “Boleh-boleh, mas Ari.”
Seoultan: “Oke mas Ari ini udah, kan pengusaha bakso ya. Udah berapa lama
kira-kira mas?”
Mas Ari: “Sudah dari 2009 sih.”
Seoultan: “Oh 2009, udah lama ya.”

Analysis:
Based on the dialogue above, there are 2 utterances from Mas Ari
which can be combined to produce a perfect information. The first utterance,
“Boleh-boleh, mas Ari.” shows his name is Ari. The second utterance, “Sudah
dari 2009 sih.” indicates that he has opened a Meatball Restaurant since 2009.
The combination of those utterance will be, “Mas Ari has opened his own
Meatball Restaurant since 2009.” The existential presupposition of that
utterances are, “Mas Ari exists”, “He has a restaurant that has been
existed since 2009”.

1.2 Proof 2 - (00:10:28 - 00:10:50)

Dialogue:
Seoultan: “Mas kira-kira, mungkin waktu jaman sekolah atau apa punya
temen ga yang sekarang pengusaha juga kaya mas?”
 Mas Ari: “Ada, tapi ga di daerah Jakarta Timur.”
Seoultan: “Oh, namanya siapa mas?”
Mas Ari: “Si Adi kalo gasalah.”
Seoultan: “Usahanya, apa tuh mas kira-kira?”
Mas Ari: “Dia bakso dan mie ayam juga.”
Seoultan: “Oh sama ya, oke-oke.”

Analysis:
Based on the dialogue above, Mas Ari conveyed three utterances
which are related each other. Those utterances, including “Ada, tapi ga di
daerah Jakarta Timur.” , “Si Adi kalo gasalah.”, and “Dia bakso dan mie ayam
juga.”. If those utterances are combined to produce a complete idea or
meaning, it can be interpreted as “Mas Ari has a friend named Adi who also
has a meatball restaurant in another place”. Then, the existential
presuppositions of these utterances are, “Mas Adi exists”, “Mas Adi’s
meatball restaurant exists”.

2. Factual Presupposition
This presupposition can be defined as an implicit assumption of the
speaker which is believed to be true. It usually relates to the presence of the
verb, regret, glad, know, and realize. The proof which is taken from the video
will be provided and analyzed below.
2.1 Proof 1 - (00:10:53 - 00:11:31)
Dialogue:
Seoultan: “Boleh ga mas, kira-kira mas sebutin hal yang mas sesalin yang
sudah mas lakuin selama hidup atau waktu jualan boleh.”
Mas Ari: “Kalo waktu jualan ada itu, jadi ceritanya waktu itu saya kena prank
orang beli, pesennya lewat WA cuma habis itu, setelah dibuatin, udah jadi,
diliat lagi orangnya di WA udah ga aktif nomornya. Udah menghilang kemana
gatau. Mungkin orang itu dapat nomor saya dari google juga bisa. Jadi saya
menyesali kebodohan saya, keteledoran saya.”
Seoultan: “Jadi mas kaya nyesel udah bikinin gitu ya?”
Mas Ari: “Iya, nyeselnya sampai berhari-hari.”
 Analysis:
Based on the dialogue above, Mas Ari tells about a story that he regrets
for being unaware towards a fake order. The utterance, “Jadi saya menyesali
kebodohan saya, keteledoran saya.” can be interpreted into, “Mas Ari regrets
believing a fake order by a person in Whatsapp.” Then the factial
presupposition is, “Mas Ari believed a fake order in Whatsap.

- POLITENESS OF MAXIM
They were formulated by Geoffrey Leech and are similar to those proposed by
Paul Grice. These maxims are categorized into six main groups: tact, generosity,
approbation, modesty, agreement, and sympathy. Each of these maxims varies from
culture to culture, with what is considered polite varying greatly depending on
cultural norms and expectation
1. Tact Maxim: Minimize the expression of beliefs that imply cost to the hearer; avoid
being blunt or offensive.

2. Generosity Maxim: Minimize the expression of beliefs that imply cost to the
speaker; avoid seeking personal gain at the expense of the hearer.

3. Approbation Maxim: Minimize the expression of beliefs that express disdain for the
hearer; avoid criticizing or blaming.

4. Modesty Maxim: Minimize the expression of beliefs that express praise for the
speaker; avoid boasting.

5. The Agreement Maxim is not provided in the search results, we can infer from the
context that it likely involves aligning with or affirming the statements made by
others.

6. The Sympathy Maxim states: "Minimize the expression of beliefs which express
disapproval of other; maximize the expression of beliefs which express approval of
other"
The idea is that in conversation, people often use various strategies to avoid
causing offense, maintain positive social relationships, and ensure that
communication is cooperative rather than confrontational. Politeness is a crucial
aspect of social interaction, and these maxims help explain how individuals navigate
potentially face-threatening situations in communication. The balance between being
clear and being polite can vary across cultures and social contexts. Here are the
examples of maxim that can help you to understand more.
1. The Tact Maxim
Tact Maxim is one of the six principles of politeness formulated by
Geoffrey Leech. These principles are also known as conversational maxims.
The Tact Maxim states: "Minimize the expression of beliefs which imply cost
to others; maximize the expression of beliefs which imply benefit to others. In
simpler terms, this means that when communicating, one should try to express
things in a way that causes the least inconvenience or disruption to the other
person. At the same time, one should express things in a way that benefits the
other person.
1.1 Proof (00.12.30 - 00.12.54)
- Dialogue:
Ms. Widya : Hey guys can I join?
Rubi : sure
Analysis:
The situation, there are a bunch of friends talking about the exam, in here
Miss Widya not thinking about the cost, she casually wants to join with others,
without knowing what is being talked about. This is categorized as a volition
tact maxim. The real tact Maxim it’s suppose to be like the example below
- Dialogue :
Ms. Widya : Hey guys, may I interrupt you for a second?
Rubi : yes, sure
Ms. Widya : Can I sit here?
Rubi: sure

Analysis :
For example, Ms. Widya might say something like, "May I interrupt
you for a second?" Here, she is trying to minimize the cost caused by her
interruption, and maximize the benefit. you are thus complying with the first
part of the Tact Maxim.
2. The Modesty Maximum
Modesty Maximum is one of the six maxims proposed by Geoffrey
Leech in his Politeness Principle (PP). It is designed to guide conversation in a
way that minimizes praise of oneself and maximizes expressions of self-
disparagement
2.1 Proof (00.12.56 - 00.13.44)
- Dialogue:
Rubi : btw, your clothes look amazing, is it new?
Ms. Widya : really? no it’s an old one, this is my mom blazer
Rubi : oh, really? it’s looks authentic

Analysis :
In the example here, in order to keep humble, Ms. Widya uses Maximum
price to minimize her friend's compliments ("btw, your clothes look amazing,
is it new?") and to maximize the underestimate of herself by saying ("really?
no it’s an old one, this is my mom blazer").
- Dialogue:
Rubi : btw, your clothes look amazing, is it new?
Ms. Widya : Thank you. A lot of people told me this looks like a Gucci one.
Rubi : oh, yeah, it is
Analysis :
In here Ms. Widya doesn't care about other people's opinions. In fact, she
doesn't try to be more humble, she becomes arrogant when someone praises
her, maximum her own price.
VI. CONCLUSION
In conclusion Pragmatics, as the branch of linguistics concerned with language use in
context, sheds light on the nuanced ways in which speakers convey meaning beyond literal
interpretations. The purpose of this analysis, aligned with the last project supporting the final
examination of pragmatics, involves a thorough exploration of these linguistic phenomena.
The theoretical framework, supported by works such as Levinson's "Speech Act Theory in
Pragmatics" and "Conversational Implicature in Pragmatics," as well as Geoffrey Leech's
"The Politeness of Maxim Theory," provides a solid foundation for understanding and
analyzing the data. This paper contributes to the broader understanding of pragmatics by
providing a detailed examination of key concepts, supported by a robust theoretical
framework and a well-defined research methodology. The insights gained from this analysis
enhance our comprehension of how language functions in context, offering valuable
implications for both theoretical linguistics and practical communication.