CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURE IN THE TONIGHT SHOW

STARRING JIMMY FALLON

An Undergraduate Thesis

Presented to State Islamic University of Sunan Gunung Djati Bandung

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Sarjana Humaniora

In English Literature Department of Adab and Humanities Faculty

By

Alya Nabila

Student ID: 1205030030

ENGLISH LITERATURE

FACULTY OF ADAB AND HUMANITIES

STATE ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY OF SUNAN GUNUNG DJATI BANDUNG

2024
 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

In the part of the introduction, the writer described the background of the study,
research problems, research objectives, significance of the study, scope and
limitation of the study, and definition of key terms to give a clear understanding of
this research.

A. Research Background

Language serves as a tool to facilitate our understanding of everything. We need

language to convey ideas, thoughts, or emotions to build social relationships and
achieve common goals. In this digital era, language can take the form of text,
visuals, or speech. Along with time, language continues to evolve with the addition
of new vocabulary and changes in communication styles. Talking to each other in
good language can produce good communication and easy to understand.

People may make mistakes in communication. Sometimes speakers tend not to

express meaning explicitly so listeners need to understand the meaning of the
sentence. Communication must be done well so that interactions run effectively to
understand each other. Types of interaction are not only direct verbal interaction
but can also be through writing or gestures to convey feelings or ideas. Everyone
wants to have good communication, be easily understood, and not confuse their
interlocutor, but sometimes some people still can’t establish good communication
due to various reasons, one of them being a lack of knowledge of the language. In
the communication process, there is a factor that is often overlooked but has a very
important role, namely the communication context. This refers to the physical,
social, psychological, and cultural environment in which communication occurs.

Context is a sentence that can add clarity to the meaning of a situation related to
an activity. Context includes speakers, addressees, place, time, and everything
involved in a conversation, things like situation, and distance of place are also
included in the context of language use. Context is divided into two, namely into
language context (linguistic) and context outside language (non-linguistic). The
language context is in the form of elements that form the external structure, namely
sounds, words, sentences, and utterances or texts. Non-language context is a context
that doesn’t include linguistic elements. Context is important in analyzing
pragmatics and several linguistic phenomena in pragmatics such as speech acts,
cooperation of principles, politeness of principles, and implicature.

Implicature can be found in conversations. According to Grice's theory, the term

"implicit" is not easily understood by listeners because it has a hidden meaning. The
science that studies the understanding of implied meaning is known as implicature.
Implicature can be interpreted as "the indirect or implicit meaning of an utterance
produced by the speaker" (Grice, 1975:44). This means that when people produce
implicit meaning like this, it can be interpreted as an implicature. If a speaker
produces implicatures in conversation, it means to express something implicitly or
indirectly.

Grice (in Levinson, 1983: 181) states that there are two types of implicature,
namely conventional implicature and non-conventional implicature or
conversational implicature. Conventional implicatures are meanings obtained from
the words used in utterances, not from violating the principles of conversation. Non-
conventional implicatures or conversational implicatures are meanings derived
from implied conversations. Conversational implicature has two types there are
generalized conversational implicature and particularized conversational
implicature. Generalized conversational implicature refers to an implicature whose
meaning is inferred without a specific context and particularized conversational
implicatures refer to implicatures whose meaning is inferred in a particular context.

Conventional implicature is not based on the cooperative principles and maxims

that Grice introduced in conversational implicature. Yule (1996:45) argues that
“conventional implicatures do not have to appear in conversation and don’t depend
on a specific context for their interpretation, but relate to certain words, such as but,
however, therefore and even". Examples include “He is English therefore he is
brave.” In this case, it is said to imply conventionally and not literally. The sentence
says that "every Englishman must be brave". The conventional implicature here is
associated with the presence of the lexical item "therefore".

Conversational implicatures are meanings drawn from a conversation that

depend on the context and the shared knowledge between the speakers (Grice,
1975). For example, the context is when a girl shopping at a clothing store and she
doesn't like the clothes, thus, she might prefer not to say to a shop assistant, as she
hands back a dress “This looks awful on, I don’t want it after all” but rather “I’ll go
away and think about it and maybe come back later”. She doesn’t lie, she knows
that the shop assistant knows that she had no intention to come back. People won't
say explicit utterances, because it might be too rude for people who can respect each
other. It's different if someone is selfish and can't respect other people, maybe they
can just say “I don’t like it”. This example shows that context plays a big role in
whether an utterance has a hidden meaning or not.

Conversational and conventional implicatures are also often found in written or

spoken discourse. Written discourse can generally be found in social media,
magazines, newspapers, and other platforms, while spoken discourse is easily
encountered in television shows, video clips, movies, and YouTube. Conversations
that occur through various electronic media influence how people interact or
communicate in their daily lives.

One of the social media platforms commonly used by people is YouTube.

YouTube contains various types of videos such as films, podcasts, news, talk
shows, and more. The writer is more interested about talk show. According to Ilie
(2001), talk shows can provide a pragmatic framework for description and
interpretation. Talk shows are one of the programs found on television as well as
YouTube, presenting conversations between two people or more. According to
Carbaugh (1988), talk shows are categorized into personality types and issue types
that reflect change. Talk shows can consist of just chatting with personnel to
discussing social issues with the audience and sometimes there are also appearances
from guest stars.
 "The Tonight Show" is the longest-running talk show on television. It features
extended celebrity guest interviews, comedy sketches, parodies, games, and, of
course, Jimmy's Monologue. The show is recorded in front of a live studio audience
at Studio 6B in 30 Rockefeller Center, New York City, and airs weeknights at
11:35/10:35 on NBC and is available on demand on Peacock.

The writer decided to examine the talk show because it contains various
conversational implicatures. Sometimes people don’t understand the implied
meanings conveyed by the host, which is why the topic of conversational
implicatures is interesting to study further. The reason for choosing Jimmy Fallon's
talk show is because it is popular and a top-rated late-night program on the digital
platform. The talk show features a wide range of activities, not just celebrity guest
interviews, but also various games that make the show interesting. The host is
Jimmy Fallon and he is a famous talk show host in New York. The talk show also
has guest stars from various professions, such as musicians, comedians, actors, or
actresses who are public figures for the viewers. Based on this, the writer was
interested in the talk show being the focus of this research.

Based on previous research on conversational implicatures, there have been

three previous studies on implicatures in talk shows. The first study is titled
"Conversational Implicature in Undisputed Movie” by Johan Andika Ferdiansa
from State Islamic University of Sunan Ampel Surabaya in 2019. He focused on
types of conversational implicatures and analyzed violation maxims. The second
study, titled "An Analysis of Conversational Implicature Found in Shawshank
Redemption (1994)” was conducted by Rosyid Bayyin from State Islamic
University Sunan Kalijaga in 2020. He focused only on the types of conversational
implicature in Shawshank Redemption (1994). The last study was conducted by
Muhammad Iqbal in 2018 from State University Sunan Gunung Djati Bandung,
titled "Analysis on Implicature Found in The Legend Film." He specifically focused
on the types of implicature and how implicature occurs in The Legend film.

Based on the three studies above, this study has different points and the same
points. The common point of these three studies is that they are similar in theory.
This study also uses Grice's implicature theory. However, the research
"Conversational Implicature in the Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon" has
differences from the three papers above. First, the differences between the talk show
are analyzed by the writer. Second, differ in target analysis from a few studies
above. This analysis focuses on the types of conversational implicatures, including
generalized conversational implicatures and particularized conversational
implicatures and the functions of these conversational implicatures in a
conversation.

B. Statements of Problem

Based on the background research presented, it is known that there are two types
of implicature, namely conventional implicature and conversational implicature.
From the problems above, the research question is formulated as follows:

1. What are the conversational implicature and types of conversational

implicature found in the conversation on Jimmy Fallon talk show?

2. How do the function of these conversational implicatures in a conversation

spoken in a talk show?

C. Research Purposes

Based on the formulation of the research questions above, the writer made
several goals to examine and describe the problems, so that this research can be
useful for readers. the writer is intended:

1. To describe the conversational implicature and the types of conversational

implicature that used in talk show

2. To analyze the function of conversational implicature in a conversation

spoken in a talk show
D. Research Significances

Theoretically, the result of this study is expected give contribute to thinking

about conversational implicature and hopefully the readers will be more aware of
the phenomenon of language in life so that they can add new experiences in learning
language, especially the improvement of words described in this study. Practically,
this research is expected to be able to increase the writer knowledge about
conversational implicature. The result of this study is supposed to give some
contributions. In addition, it can be a reference for the next writer who is interested
in analyzing conversational implicature especially for college students of English
literature who are interested in linguistics.

E. Conceptual Framework

The research aims to find out the types of conversational implicature and to
analyze the function of conversational implicature in a conversation spoken in a
talk show. This study uses a pragmatic approach because the utterances in the
conversation are in the form of transcripts. To answer the first question, the writer
used the theory of Grice to find out what types of conversational analysis are spoken
by Jimmy Fallon and several guest stars.

Grice (1975: 56) divides conversational implicatures based on the context of the
conversation into two types: generalized conversational implicatures and
particularized conversational implicatures.

1. Generalized Conversational Implicatures

Generalized conversational implicatures are implicatures in dialogue that can be

understood without looking at the context of the conversation. Generalized
conversational implicatures have no specific context to the conversation. Example:

Chesie: I hope you bring me bread and cheese.

Dina: Ah, I only brought bread.

 +> Dina didn't bring cheese.

In dialogue (a) above, Chesie expects bread and cheese to be brought by Dina
However, Dina answer that she only brought bread. This indirectly means that Dina
didn't bring cheese for Chesie. Without having to understand the context of the
situation between Chesie and Dina, the implicature of the dialogue above can be
understood.

Boss: "Will John be at the meeting this afternoon?"

Michael: "His car broke down."

+> In this conversation, Michael meant that John would not come to the meeting,

Because he got some troubles with his car, or John may come late to the meeting.
This conversation occurs when the second speaker wants to give a clear reason or
explanation to his boss and then it is called by generalized conversational
implicature.

2. Particularized Conversational Implicatures

Particularized conversational implicatures, on the other hand, depend on the

specific context of the conversation for their interpretation. These implicatures
require a deeper understanding of the circumstances, relationships, or specific
details of the conversation. The conversation can only be understood after knowing
the context of the conversation. Example:

Tika: Where is Tina, Taki?

Taki: Teressa in the cafeteria.

+> Tina is (probably) in the canteen too because wherever there is Teressa,
(usually) there is Tina too.

In contrast to the examples above, the implicature of Taki's speech can only be
understood if the interpreter understands the context of the situation. For example,
the context is that Tina and Teressa are always together.
 Other Example:

Luky: Watch out for Rendy coming!

Kevin: Hide your cigarettes!

+> Rendy will ask for your cigarettes.

At first glance, there is no connection between Luky and Kevin's speech in the
example above. However, if the context about Rendy is known, there is an
implication that can be concluded, namely that Rendy likes asking other people for
cigarettes and this is not liked by both Luky and Kevin and their other friends.

Particularized conversational implications are different from generalized

conversational implications. Generalized conversational implicatures do not require
reference in any context. This means that generalized conversational implicatures
occur in all types of conversations. In contrast to particularized conversational
implicatures, it only occurs in specific contexts.

Grice's theory of implicature is a fundamental concept in the study of pragmatics,

and it highlights the importance of context in understanding the meaning of
utterances in a conversation.
 Implicature

Conventional Implicature Conversational Implicature

Generalized Conversational
Implicature

Particularized
Conversational Implicature

“Conversational Implicature in the Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon

Fallon”
Conclusion
Figure 1. Analysis Construct

F. Scope and Limitation

This research is included in the scope of pragmatics because it is related to

conversation and context. Implicature is one part of pragmatics. This research
focuses on conversational and conventional implicatures in conversation, their
types, and functions.

The limitation, the writer only analyzed conversational implicatures which are
divided into two types: general conversational implicatures and specific
conversational implicatures that found in Jimmy Fallon Talk show. The data is from
the utterance that is indicated as implicature. Then the implicatures found are
interpreted based on the author's interpretation and understood based on Grice's
implicature theory.
G. Definition of Key Terms

These is some terms used in the study:

1. There are two types of implicature, namely conventional implicature and non-
conventional implicature or conversational implicature. (Levinson, 1983: 181)

2. Conversational implicatures are meanings drawn from a conversation that

depends on the context and the shared knowledge between the speakers (Grice,
1975).

3. "The Tonight Show" is the longest-running talk show on television. It features

extended celebrity guest interviews, comedy sketches, parodies, games, and, of
course, Jimmy's Monologue. The show is recorded in front of a live studio audience
at Studio 6B in 30 Rockefeller Center, New York City, and airs weeknights at
11:35/10:35 on NBC and is available on demand on Peacock.
 CHAPTER II

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

This chapter discussed theories related to the research topic. The theories used
in this research are Pragmatics, context, and implicature. Starting from a detailed
review of pragmatics, context, implicature, and types as well as examples of each
type of implicature. This chapter also provides various functions of implicatures by
linguists.

A. Pragmatic

Pragmatics is a branch of linguistics that studies how to understand meaning

through language. Pragmatics is related to the speaker's meaning, contextual
meaning, implicature, politeness, presuppositions, conditions, and speech acts.
Pragmatics is also related to the interpretation of meaning in context. Only
pragmatics involves humans in analyzing it.

In studying pragmatics there are also advantages and disadvantages. As

explained in his book "Pragmatics", Yule (1996) stated that the advantage of
studying language through pragmatics is that one can talk about the meanings
people intend, their assumptions, their aims or objectives, and the types of actions
(e.g., requests). The disadvantage of studying pragmatics is that the concepts
studied are difficult to analyze consistently and objectively because pragmatics
studies the meaning of speakers' utterances in-depth and emphasizes the function
of language in communication.

According to Wijana (2010:3-4), pragmatics is the science of language that

studies the structure of language external, namely how the linguistic unit is used
within a language communication or speech. Thus it can be concluded that
pragmatics is the study of meaning in relationships with certain situations.
Pragmatics is a systematic way of explaining language use that occurs in certain
contexts (Moore in Rusminto (2010:16). Pragmatics tries to explain aspects of
meaning about context that cannot be found in terms of words or structure as
explained by semantic studies. According to Rusminto (2010:16) in general,
pragmatics is related to the use of language, both written and written or verbal, in
situations of actual language use. Therefore, a study of the use of language in
pragmatics is needed to pay attention to the complete context.

Leech (in Yuliantoro, 2020: 7) defines pragmatics, which is meaning about

various speech situations and has more to do with the "meaning of speech" than the
"meaning with sentences". This means that speech is determined by the situation
and not by the meaning in the sentence structure which is included in the field of
study of semantics, while the meaning related to the speech situation or context of
speech belongs to the field of pragmatics. So, Pragmatics is the study of the meaning
of speech in the context of the speech situation. in the context of the speech
situation.

Based on the opinions of the experts above, it can be concluded that pragmatics
is the science of language that studies the meaning of speech with the relationship
between the speech situation, or the speaker did communication as an object of
conversation. Study pragmatic theory includes deixis, context, speech acts,
implicature, prepositions, and aspects of discourse structure.

This research involves interpreting what people mean in a particular context and
how that context influences what they say. This requires an understanding of how
speakers organize what they want to say, who they talk to, where, when, and in
what situations. To create effective communication, a large contribution is needed
in interpreting every utterance spoken. In this study, it will be studied in the field
of pragmatics in the form of conversational implicature. Of the many elements of
pragmatics, the study of implicature is chosen because implicature greatly affects
the form of language used by the speaker. In addition, implicature is also very
important in interpreting an implied utterance.
B. Context

To know how pragmatics works we have to know what context is. According to
the Oxford Dictionary, context is the situation in which an event occurs. We need
context to interpret speech and expressions. Meaning in conversation depends on
the context that occurs when the conversation takes place. Mey (2001) argues that
context is an important part of discussing ambiguity in spoken or written language.
Understanding the context of the situation will make it easier for the reader or
listener to grasp the implied message (Sobur, 2001:57). One branch of linguistics
that highlights the context of analysis is pragmatics.

Grundy (2000) stated that pragmatics is interested in the meaning of utterances;

pragmatics are also interested in the context in which utterances occur because
context helps us determine the meaning of what is said to us. According to Holmes
(1922), speech is always related to context because context has an important role in
interpreting it. The words spoken by the speaker are not always the same as what
the speaker intended. Listeners can grasp the meaning intended by the speaker by
connecting the utterance with the context.

Understanding the context is very important to avoid prejudice or

misunderstanding of the information conveyed by the speaker. Context makes us
understand the information conveyed based on their behavior, knowledge,
experience and intellectual capacity, and listeners more easily understand the
message the speaker wants to convey.

Rusminto and Sumarti (2009: 56) state that the role of context in discourse
analysis includes two aspects, first, for speakers, namely to determine the accuracy
of the speech of speech participants. Second, the role of context for speech partners,
namely to determine what speech acts are conveyed by the speaker and to get the
right understanding of the speaker's speech. The role of context in understanding an
utterance can be proven by the fact that an utterance can have a different meaning
if it occurs in a different context. The context in conversational implicature has the
most important role because the context of the conversation can be the background
of the utterance. That is, the context that is created, namely the same assumptions
and understanding between speakers and speech partners about the topic being
discussed. Moreover, in conversational implicature only speakers and speech
partners know the context of the conversation.

From the explanation above, it is clear that the role of context is very important
in understanding language. Context is very closely related to implicature because it
helps understand the implicit meaning conveyed by the speaker. Context is not only
important in implicature but is also important in all other pragmatic issues such as
speech acts and presuppositions.

C. Humor

Humor is an expression that can create laughter, joy, and happiness in others,
often encountered in our daily lives. Humor can be found everywhere, often in our
surroundings, as it transcends social classes and educational backgrounds. In humor
it is very important to understand the context, it is also important to be aware of the
situation that occurs. What is good in one situation will not be good in another
situation.

Wijana (2002) explains that speaking humorously is fundamentally different

from ordinary speech. Humor aims to relieve tension, convey implicit messages, or
build social bonds in communication. Winnick (1976) tends to focus on a different
aspect to define humor, that is, it is defined as the intention of the speaker. He
claimed that "Humor is any kind of communication that has a witty or humorous
intent known in advance to the person telling the story" (Winnick, 1976, p. 124).
From these definitions, it can be concluded that an important aspect of humor is the
quality of being funny.

Long and Graesser (1998, cited in Hay, 1995, p.6) explain that humor i.e.
"Anything done or said intentionally or unintentionally that is considered funny"
Humor refers to a phenomenon that often occurs in oral interpersonal
communication that is carried out spontaneously and naturally either in real life
(everyday conversations or TV programs) or fiction (dialogues of films and books).

Most of the literature considers that laughter is the most appropriate thing to
support the efforts of humor. However, in addition to laughter, some traits can be
used to distinguish humor from serious discourse. Chiaro (1992) explains how to
identify humor. He suggests that the author or listener pay attention to the
paralinguistic characteristics of a speech such as the choice of words, the use of
euphemisms, intonation, gestures, humorous expressions, whether exaggerated,
casual, or chatty used by the speaker when delivering his speech. The statement is
supported by Pizzini (1991) by stating that when people joke, they signal it with
some clues such as laughing or smiling sounds, intonation, speaking faster than
usual, and a wider range of tones

In other words, humor in a conversation can be distinguished from both the point
of view of the speaker and the audience. The former can be identified through the
paralinguistic and prosodic features of the utterance, while the latter is about how
the audience responds to the humor. From a pragmatic perspective, humor exhibits
diverse pragmatic features. This diversity encompasses various linguistic
phenomena such as speech acts, cooperation of principles, politeness of principles,
and implicatures. Sometimes hidden implicit meanings make some people confused
about the true meaning. Therefore, there is a study to understand the meaning of
speech which is called implicature.

D. Implicature

Etymologically, implicature is derived from the word implicatum. By nominal,

this term is almost the same as the word implication, which means intention,
understanding, and involvement (Echols, 1994: 313). Grice (1975: 43) suggests that
implicature is an utterance that implies something different from what it is spoken.
Something "different" is what the speaker means which is not stated explicitly. In
implicature, someone says and communicates one thing and thereby communicates
things to others as additions (Bach, 1994: 126). An implicature is something that is
implied in (words) what is expressed (Bach, 1994: 140). On the other hand,
implicatures are intentions, desires, or expressions of the heart hidden.

Horn (2006:3) argues that "Implicature is a component of speaker meaning that

constitutes an aspect of what is meant in a speaker's utterance without being part of
what is said." Implicature is a component of speaker meaning that constitutes an
aspect of what is meant in a speaker's utterance without being part of what is said.
Implicature is the hidden meaning of speech. Implicature is different from
presupposition. A presupposition is something that is presumed by the speaker
which is the beginning of producing an utterance. (Yule, 1996: 25).

In general, implicature is the indirect meaning evoked by what is said. Wulandari

and Iskandar, (2018: 155) state that implicature has become part of everyday
language. Implicature is an expression that contains implied meaning, namely an
expression or statement that contains hidden meaning in its use that is not spoken
openly. Implied meaning means that the language or speech has a meaning that is
not clearly expressed and understood. In line with the above opinion Suryanti,
(2020: 43) says that implicature is one of the studies of pragmatics. Implicature is
speech that implies something other than what is said. When implicature is used in
speech, the meaning is to express something indirectly.

Implicature is one part of pragmatics. Speakers and speech partners can

communicate well and smoothly because they both have some kind of common
background knowledge about something that is spoken. Between speakers and
speech partners, there is a kind of unwritten conversational contract that what is
being spoken is mutually understood.

According to Mey (2001:45), the word implicature comes from the word
"imply". According to Gazdar (1979:38), implicature is part of the speaker's
meaning that is implied in the utterance of a sentence in a context; besides, it's not
part of what's actually said. Brown and Yule (1983:31) say that "the term
implicature is used by Grice to explain what can be implied, suggested, or
interpreted by the speaker as something different from what the speaker actually
said". Levinson (1992: 97) further stated that "the idea of conversational implicature
is one of the important ideas in pragmatics. This is said to be because conversational
implicatures contribute to pragmatic diversity.”

The use of implicatures in speaking has a purpose or certain considerations, such

as softening speech, maintaining politeness ethics, insinuating subtly indirectly, and
taking care of each other's things spoken and does not directly offend the feelings
of the other party. An implicature is an utterance that is spoken that does not
necessarily correspond to what the utterance means. Implicature is indicated by an
action that interprets an utterance by saying something different. So, if what the
speaker means is different from what he said, it can be called an "implicature".

Examples of implicatures:

Anne: Where can I get a repair shop?

Bobby: There's a bus stop around the corner.

In the example above, it can be seen that there are implicatures that occur with
Bobby and Anne. Bobby showed Anne where she could get a repair shop. The
concept of implicature does not say the sentence that is appropriate to say. When
Anne asked where the repair shop was, Bobby only answered that there was a bus
stop at the corner of the road. The meaning contained was “that there was no repair
shop until the corner of the road there was only a bus stop”. There is no right or
wrong in implicatures in the sentences spoken, implicatures are just thoughts.

Grice divided implicature into conventional implicature and conversational

implicature. The difference between the two is clearly explained by Lyons (1995:
272) as follows.

“The difference between them is that the former depends on something other
than what is truth-conditional in the conventional use, or meaning, of particular
forms of expressions, whereas the letter derives from a set of more general
principles which regulate the proper conduct of conversation”.
 Grice (as quoted in Grundy, 2000) divided conversational implicatures into
generalized conversational implicatures and particularized conversational
implicatures. Understanding and capturing the meaning behind an utterance is
mostly done by interpretation - which of course in the realm of pragmatics,
interpretation is done by using signs and indicators provided by the context
surrounding an interaction. However, not all utterances that appear in an interaction
have a hidden meaning behind them. There are statements whose meaning is very
clear. Very explicit. There are also things whose meaning is very unclear. Very
implicit.

Implicature used in the context of language does not mean it is an accident or

does not have a certain function. The use of implicature in language has certain
considerations. One of the considerations is to refine speech or maintain politeness
ethics. In implicative speech, speakers and speech partners must have the same
concept in a context. If not, there will be a misunderstanding of the speech that
occurs between the two. The ability to understand implicature in an utterance
depends on one's linguistic competence. A speaker cannot possibly master all
elements of language because one's linguistic competence is limited. However, a
speaker who has limitations in terms of speech can produce unlimited utterances.
The existence of implicatures in a conversation is necessary between others for:

1. Providing a functional explanation of linguistic facts that are not accessible

to structural linguistic theories.
2. Bridging the communication process between speakers.
3. Give a firm and explicit explanation of how the possibility that language
users can understand the message, although what is said outwardly is
different from what is meant.
4. Can simplify the semantic description of relationship differences between
clauses, even though the clauses are connected by the word and the same
structure.
5. Can explain various kinds of linguistic facts and phenomena outwardly
unrelated (Levinson, 1983: 112)
E. Conventional Implicature

Conventional implicatures are implicatures that are conditional and do not have
to appear in conversation and also do not require context to understand them. In
some cases, the conventional meaning of the words used will determine the
implications. For example, when someone looks at someone and he says "Mr. Deni
is old but strong". Conventionally, this speech shows the difference between "old"
and "strong" which means that even though Mr. Deni is old, he is still strong. This
is different from the statement "Pak Deni is old and strong" because the meaning
changes from "but" to "and", because conventional implicatures are closely related
to certain lexical items. (Grundy, 2000:84).

According to Grice (1975), "the conventional meaning of the words used will
determine what is implied, in addition to helping determine what is said". Yule
(1996) explains that conventional implicatures are not based on the principle of
cooperative maxims. According to Yule, conjunctions influence the meaning
conveyed. Some examples of conjunctions are and, so, but, therefore, and however.
To understand conventional implicatures, they are different from conversational
implicatures. In conventional implicature, the meaning is obtained directly from the
word. This is different from conversational implicatures whose meaning is based
on maxims or cooperative principles.

Conventional implicatures are the conventional or general meaning of an

utterance accepted by society. This implicature is an obtained implication directly
from words, based on grammatical rules, and not from conversation principles.
Yule (2014: 78) stated that conventional implicatures do not have to occur in
conversation and do not depend on the specific context for interpreting it.
Conventional implicatures are non-temporary. Meaning or the understanding of
something is more long-lasting.
F. Conversational Implicature

Conversational implicature is the implied meaning of an utterance. Gazdar

(1979) stated that conversational implicatures are implicatures that are described by
pragmatic principles, such as the cooperative principle or informativeness principle,
not the meaning of a lexical element or expression. According to Gazdar (1979:38),
conversational implicature is a statement that may be implied by the speaker and is
different from what the conversational speaker says. Conversational implicatures
are essentially unrelated to any expression. This is concluded from the use of several
utterances in the context.

Conversational implicatures have more meaning and understanding varies. The

reason is, that understanding what is "intended" is very important depending on the
context in which the conversation occurs. These implicatures are temporary (occur
during the event conversational act), and unconventional (something that is implied
has no direct relation to the utterance spoken) (Levinson, 1983: 117).

Implicatures use the whole situation and all the circumstances surrounding the
utterance to truly understand the meaning of what was intended by the speaker of
the statement (Mustafa, 2010: 35). Hermaji, (2021:133) argues that non-
conventional implicature is a type of implicature whose meaning is determined by
the context that surrounds it. Fitriyani, (2016: 54) also states that non-conventional
implicature is an implicative proposition or statement, which is what the speaker
might mean, imply, or mean different from what the speaker actually says in a
conversation.

Conversational implicatures are something that is implied in conversation,

something that is left out implied in the actual use of language. The idea of
conversational implicature is one of the most important parts of pragmatics. An
implication is something that is meant, implied, or suggested differently from what
is said (Wan, 2011: 1162). In conversation, it often happens that one speaker does
not express the meaning directly. What you want is said to be 'hidden', said
indirectly, or what was said was completely different from what he meant.
 Example 1.1

Context: Billy has been traveling to Bandung a lot lately.

What the speaker says: "Lately Billy often travels to Bandung".

The implication: "The speaker believes Billy may have a girlfriend in Bandung".
Implicatures are just thoughts, there is no right or wrong, and the only person who
knows the reason why Billy often travels to Bandung is himself.

Example 1.2

Context: The father asks his son to make him a drink.

Father: Son, the water in the kitchen is boiling.

The son immediately makes coffee for his father without asking, because the son
knows that his father always makes coffee instead of tea.

Conversational implicature has the following characteristics.

1. Conversational implicature requires context information and background

shared knowledge.
2. Implicature is different from the literal meaning of the sentence;
3. Conversational implicatures are beyond the semantic content of what is said.
Implicature depends on pragmatic meaning. The implied meaning is strongly
influenced by context.
4. Conversational implicature requires the background of the speaker.
Conventional meaning is not part of the implicature;
5. The truth of conversational implicature does not depend on the truth of what
is said (what is said may be true -what is implied may be false),
conversational implicature is not based on what is said, but can be taken into
account by how the action that says it;

Conversational Implicatures are divided into two subtypes; generalized

conversational implicatures and particularized conversational implicatures.
 1. Generalized Conversational Implicatures

Generalized conversational implicatures are not related to context but can be

carried out through general knowledge at the time the conversation occurs. Grice
stated that general conversational implicatures arise regardless of the context in
which they appear. Generalized conversational implicatures mean that they can be
inferred without specific context.

Generalized conversational implicature is a type of implicature where the

interlocutor does not need special knowledge to know the meaning of a
conversation because it is not related to the context where the interlocutor who hears
will immediately understand the meaning of the utterance. (Grice, 1975 quoted in
Saragi, 2011).

Grice also said that generalized conversational implicatures arise when someone
can say something without special circumstances. Therefore, to identify general
conversational implicatures, you can use scalar implicatures. Scalar implicatures
are generalized implicatures that are characterized by a scale of values. Every
utterance that belongs to generalized conversational implicature is not required to
count the additional meaning conveyed. This is seen when it comes to expressing
quantities, where the terms are ordered from highest to lowest value as shown
below:

o all, most, some, a little

o always, often, sometimes

Examples of scalar implicatures:

A: Did the children's study tour go well?

B: Some of them have a fever.

The conversation above can be interpreted or implied +> "not all children get flu
and fever" and that is called scalar implicature. From the example above, the writer
concludes that general conversational implicatures do not depend on context but
prepositions can influence what is said.
 Example 1.1

Dodi: Has the invitation been given to Tina and Tika?

May: Tina has been given it.

Dodi asks May about her invitation to a party with her friends Tina and Tika,
and the answer Dodi receives is Tina. It can be implied that Tika has not received
an invitation. The utterance does not require special knowledge to understand, it
can be understood from the choice of answer to the speaker's question.

Examples 1.2

A: Did you buy jam and milk?

B: I bought milk.

In the example above, it can be implied that B did not buy the jam and A will
understand what B meant even though B did not provide further information
regarding this matter. There is no specific background knowledge regarding
implicatures. We can understand it without needing context.

2. Particularized Conversational Implicatures

Grice (1975) stated that particularized conversational implicatures are

conversational implicatures that can be derived using certain maxims and contexts.
Specific conversational implicature is a meaning that must be known because it
requires knowledge of a particular context. Yule (2006:74) explains that often
conversations or utterances occur in very specific contexts where we assume locally
known information.

Therefore, this implicature cannot infer meaning without knowing the specific
context. We must understand who, when, where, and on what occasion the
conversation is taking place. If we don't know the context, we cannot understand
the true meaning of a speech and this will lead to misinterpretation. This implicature
can only be understood by certain people who know the conditions under which the
conversation occurred because the context is limited or bound.
 Particularized conversational implicatures are types of implicatures that
indirectly require help from the listener to understand the meaning of an utterance
because the context used is specific or not general. The meaning of what the speaker
says can differ depending on the context in which the conversation occurs. The
meaning is not through what is said but through the facts contained in the words.

Example 1.1

Rani: Are you going to Juanita's party?

Fanya: My mother is at home.

To interpret this statement, we cannot simply conclude whether it is a rejection

or not. We need context about Fanya's relationship with her mother. If the
relationship between Fanya and her mother is good and Fanya wants to spend time
with her mother, this means that the statement is a rejection to come to the party.
But on the other hand, if she does not have a good relationship with her mother then
she could come to the party to avoid her mother, and these words could be
interpreted as an acceptance that she will come to the party.

Example 1.2

Context: Gina came home from school and it was raining and she didn't have an
umbrella, but a student came up to her and gave her an umbrella.

Gina: Where should I return the umbrella?

Lala: I live in the house in front of the mosque.

The example above implies that Gina did not immediately return her umbrella
because she would use it on her way home, and Lala only told her where she lived,
so that Gina could return the umbrella she borrowed. The conversation also implies
the familiarity between Gina and Lala at the beginning of their introduction. Lala's
address is indirectly the context and background of special knowledge known by
Lala as the speaker and Gina as the speech partner.
 In short, special conversational implicature is the intention spoken from the
conversation by knowing the context of the conversation between the speaker and
the speech partner and having the same background knowledge as that spoken from
the conversation.

Based on the example above, the writer can conclude that particularized
conversational implicatures require more knowledge of the context of an utterance.
The difference between particularized conversational implicatures and generalized
conversational implicatures can be seen from what is interpreted properly. If the
listener can interpret well what the speaker said then it is a general conversational
implicature, on the other hand, if the listener cannot interpret well what the speaker
said and requires a specific context then it is a special conversational implicature.

G. Function

In this research, the implicature function is taken from Searle's theory focused
on five forms of speech, namely declarative, representative, directive, expressive,
and commissive forms of speech. First, Leech (1983: 164) revealed that directive
speech acts are speech acts that have a purpose to produce an effect in the form of
an action carried out by the speaker doing something. This type of speech act
consists of commanding, ordering, requesting, demanding, and giving advice.

Second, expressive speech acts are defined as speech acts that function to express
a person's feelings and attitudes about a situation or thing. Leech (1983: 165)
explains that the main focus in this type of speech act is to express a psychological
state someone who is defined by the condition of honesty about the circumstances
in the content proposition. These expressive acts include the act of expressing
gratitude, congratulating, offering condolences, regret, requesting sorry, and
condemnation. Finally, assertive speech acts are speech acts that function to tell
people about something (Leech, 1983: 166).

In relation to the function of language, Halliday (1994: 67) points out that
assertive speech acts are in line with the informative function of language. So, it
can be concluded that with this assertive speech act the participants speaking in a
conversation can give each other access to information. Next, Searle (1990: 357-
363) classified speech acts illocutions are divided into five types of speech forms,
each of which has a function implicature. The five types of speech forms that show
this function can be summarized as follows:

(1) Assertive, namely a binding form of speech speaker on the truth of the
proposition expressed, for example: stating, suggesting, boasting,
complaining, which is a form of claiming,
(2) Directive, namely a form of speech intended by the speaker to create an
influence on a partner to do something, for example: ordering and
recommending,
(3) Expressive, is a functional form of speech to state or show the speaker's
psychological attitude towards something circumstances, for example:
thanking, congratulating, apologizing, blaming, praising, and condoling,
(4) Commissive, namely a form of speech that serves to express a promise or
offer, for example: promising, vowing and offering,
(5) Declaration, is a form of speech that connects the content of the speech with
in reality, for example resigning, dismissing, naming, appointing,
excommunicating and senting.

From the explanation above, 11 implicature functions can be found in the five
forms of speech, including:

1) Statement, the implicature function of a statement is a statement informative

has the implicature function of reporting/stating something you want to
convey to a particular party.
2) Satire, the function of this implicature is to subtly insinuate does not directly
offend the feelings of certain parties being insinuated.
3) Commands, the function of speech implicatures aim to give orders to
interlocutors to do something.
 4) Request, this implicature function is characterized by the use of the word
please, and so on. This implicature function intends to ask for or ask a certain
party to do something.
5) Invitation, is characterized by the use of words that are inviting, such as come
and so on. This implicature function aims to invite parties certain to do
something.
6) Prohibition, this implicature function intends to prohibit certain parties from
doing something. The implicature of prohibition is marked by the use of the
words don't.
7) The function of implicatures is humor, humor is everything that creates a
funny, strange and odd impression as well as an inconsistency between
concept and reality.
8) Support, implicature function that aims to provide support and assistance to
the interlocutor or other party.
9) Criticism, this implicature function intends/aims to provide a response or
criticism to the interlocutor. Criticism usually takes the form of analysis,
interpretation and assessment of the good or bad of something.
10) Appreciation, an implicature function that is intended to convey self-
awareness towards cultural and artistic values. The function of this
implicature is to provide appreciation to certain parties.
11) Protest, an implicature function aimed at disapproving, opposing and
denying certain parties indirectly.

H. Talk Show

One of the social media platforms commonly used by people is YouTube.

YouTube contains various types of videos such as films, podcasts, news, talk
shows, and more. The writer more interested about talk show. According to Ilie
(2001), talk shows can provide a pragmatic framework for description and
interpretation. Talk shows are one of the programs found on television as well as
YouTube, presenting conversations between two people or more. According to
Carbaugh (1988), talk shows are categorized into personality types and issue types
that reflect change. Talk shows can consist of just chatting with personnel to
discussing social issues with the audience and sometimes there are also appearances
from guest stars.

"The Tonight Show" is the longest-running talk show on television. It features

extended celebrity guest interviews, comedy sketches, parodies, games, and, of
course, Jimmy's Monologue. The show is recorded in front of a live studio audience
at Studio 6B in 30 Rockefeller Center, New York City, and airs weeknights at
11:35/10:35 on NBC and is available on demand on Peacock.

The talk show contains various conversational implicatures. Not everyone

understands the implied meanings conveyed by the host, which is why the topic of
conversational implicatures is interesting to study further. Jimmy Fallon's talk show
is popular and the top-rated late-night program on digital platforms. It features a
wide range of activities, not just celebrity guest interviews, but also various games
that make the show interesting. The host is Jimmy Fallon and he is a famous talk
show host in New York. The talk show also has guest stars from various
professions, such as musicians, comedians, actors, or actresses who are public
figures for the viewers.
 CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter presents the methods used by the writer in research. Consists of
research design, sources of data, data collection techniques, and data analysis
techniques.

A. Research Method, Form, and Approach

Methodology is an important part of research that explains how research should

be conducted. The methodology includes a series of systematic steps to find the
right answers to questions on the object of research. According to Sugiyono (2018),
research methodology is a scientific method used to find or obtain data for specific
goals or uses. Therefore, the methodology is used so that the writer can get the right
results and solve the problems that are researched.

1. Research Methods

The method used in this research is descriptive method. Descriptive method is a

method used to find out a picture, situation, a thing by describing it in as much
detail as possible based on existing facts. Descriptive method according to
Sugiyono (2018) is a study conducted to determine the value of independent
variables, either one or more (independent) variables without making comparisons
or connecting with other variables. This means that this research only wants to know
how the variable itself is without any influence or relationship to other variables
such as experimental or correlation research.

Descriptive method is a study used to find a description or results of an event,

situation, behavior, subject, or phenomenon in society. The writer used descriptive
methods because in this study writer will describe the form of conversational
implicature contained in talk shows, especially conversational implicature.
Azwardi, (2018: 9) argues that the descriptive method is research that aims to
describe research activities carried out on certain objects clearly and systematically.
 This research can be combined with various other research methods such as
descriptive qualitative, descriptive quantitative, to descriptive verification. The
method used in this analysis is descriptive qualitative method. The qualitative
descriptive method is qualitative research whose description form uses facts or
phenomena obtained from the data as they are.

2. Form of Research

The form of research used in this study is a form of qualitative research because
the data taken by the writer is a conversation between the host and guest stars on a
talk show that contains conversational implicature. This qualitative approach is
carried out to explain and analyze individual or group phenomena, events, social
dynamics, attitudes, beliefs, and perceptions. The subject of research with a
qualitative approach covers all aspects or areas of human life, namely humans and
all those affected by them.

Qualitative research aims to explain and describe things that are the focus of
research, namely in the form of words, sentences, phrases, and dialog contained in
the object of research. Azwardi, (2018) argues that qualitative research is research
that aims to describe a phenomenon without going through statistical
procedures/other forms of calculation. In line with the above opinion, Mamik,
(2013: 3-4) also explains that the form of qualitative research is research that does
not use statistics in collecting data and in interpreting the results.

Based on the explanation above, it can be concluded that the qualitative research
form is a form of research that is carried out thoroughly on an object, and then the
research results are explained in the form of words obtained through valid data,
because qualitative research emphasizes meaning rather than generalization and the
data cannot be resolved by statistical calculations. In this qualitative study, the
writer analyzed the topic of analysis as a whole based on the object of analysis,
namely talk show, and then the writer records the information found in the form of
words or sentences, especially those containing conversational implicature.
3. Research Approach

The approach used in this research is a pragmatic approach. Pragmatics is simply

a branch of linguistics that studies the relationship between the external context of
language and the intent of speech through the interpretation of the speaker's
situation. Rohmadi, (2017) explained that the pragmatic approach is linguistics that
is bound by context, namely the context has a strong role in determining the
speaker's intention in interacting with the interlocutor.

Furthermore, Hanum et al, (2020: 26) also argue that "pragmatics is the science
of language that studies the use of language associated with the context of its use".
Based on the above opinions, it can be concluded that the pragmatic approach is a
science that studies the use of language by context and examines invisible meanings
that are directly related to how the language is used when communicating. The
pragmatic approach is also a science of language that can analyze a spoken language
and produce the meaning of each sentence spoken. The pragmatic approach can
also cover a variety of discussions, one of which is about implicature which is the
title of this research.

B. Research Data, Data Sources, and Sample of Data

Data is the result of research recording in the form of facts or figures, while the
data source is the subject from which the data is obtained. In this study, the data in
the form of excerpts of conversation between the host and guest stars, and the source
of data is in this study is a talk show.

1. Research Data

The data in this study is the material that is there to be studied. The object of this
study is a talk show. Hikmat, (2014:40) says that research data is collected in the
form of images, words, and not numbers to ensure the conclusion of the report. The
study contains various excerpts of information that are described in complete and
interconnected words. In line with that Siswantoro, (2020:70) also stated that “Data
is a source of information that will be selected for analysis”.

Based on this explanation, it can be concluded that research data can be collected
in the form of images, words, and quotes, not in the form of numbers. Therefore,
the data of this study are excerpts from words, sentences, phrases, dialogues, and
narratives in the talk show by the formulation of the problem in the study of the
implicature of the conversation implicature.

2. Data Sources

Data sources are needed because these are the most important materials. The
source of the information found must contain accurate information and must be able
to describe. Afifuddin and Saebani, (2018: 96) “The main data sources of
qualitative research at the time of the study were divided into written data sources,
words and deeds, documents, photographs”. The data source is from which data can
be obtained, which is guided by the type of research. Therefore, the source of
information for this study was a talk show hosted by Jimmy Fallon. Therefore, the
type of data is words and conversations that contain the type of conversation
implicature in the talk show.

3. Sample of Data

The data of this research use the script from a talk show by Jimmy Fallon. The
writer used purposive sampling to find through conversation implicature in the talk
show.

Grice (1975: 56) divides conversational implicatures based on the context of the
conversation into two types: generalized conversational implicatures and
particularized conversational implicatures.
 Data 1. Talk show Title: Willie Geist on Taylor Swift, Trump’s Trial Tactics
and Kevin McCarthy’s Failure

Data 1.1

Jimmy Fallon: But who is your favorite type of guest? Is it a politician? Is it a

comedian?

Willie Geist: I love.

Jimmy Fallon: Yes

Willie Geist: I love a musician. I love a musician. I do

Types of Conversation Implicature: Generalized Conversation Implicature

+> Willie prefers guest stars who are musicians over comedians or politicians.

Generalized conversational implicatures are implicatures in a dialogue that can be

understood without considering the conversation's context. In the above
conversation, Jimmy asked what type of guest stars were Willie's favorite in his
show "Sunday Today," and Jimmy gave the options of politicians or comedians.
However, Willie answered “I love a musician”, even though that choice was not
included in Jimmy's question. This indirectly implies that Willie doesn’t like
politicians or comedians. Without needing to understand the context of the situation
between Jimmy and Willie, the implicature of the dialogue above can be
understood.

Data 1.2

Jimmy Fallon: I know everyone asks who your favorite guest is, and you don’t
have to say, we all know, but..

Audience: (Laughter)

Types of Conversation Implicature: Particularized Conversation Implicature

+> Willie (probably) likes Taylor Swift because he discussed Taylor Swift
afterward.
Unlike the examples in data 1.1 above, the implicature of Jimmy's utterance above
can only be understood if the interpreter knows the context of the situation. Jimmy
said “We all know’ the word "we" is only for people who know Willie's personal
life, who follow Willie's social media and know everything about Willie and in fact
not everyone knows about Willie's personal life, and that utterance can be
concluded Willie like Taylor Swift as a musician just because Willie talked about
Taylor Swift afterward. So the utterance includes types of particularized
conversational implicature because of that specific situation.

C. Data Collection Techniques

Analyzing data requires data collection techniques and tools. Data collection
techniques are used to group the parts that are used as the object of research,
especially in sentences or words related to the focus of the problem. Jaya, (2020:
149) states that “qualitative research data collection techniques are data collection
used in natural conditions (natural conditions)”. Data collection techniques in this
study using documentation study techniques. The reason the writer used this
technique is because the study of documentation in this study aims to obtain data
by studying documents related to this study, one of which is media documentation.

According to Moleong (2006) in his book entitled "Qualitative Research

Methodology," Moleong mentioned that documentation studies are "the process of
collecting data by searching and collecting materials or documents that contain
information relevant to the research problem.

Based on the exposure, the writer analyzed documents in the form of media
because media is often found in today's life, and can be accessed by everyone. The
selection of documentary research is based on the fact that the material analyzed by
the writer collects information from the talk show, specifically sentences or words
related to the implicature of the conversation. The technique aims to make research
more objective and analytically stable.
 1) The writer listens to several video podcasts that will be analyzed to gain a
deeper understanding of the conversation content in the talk show.
2) The writer records relevant words, phrases, sentences, or paragraphs related
to the research objectives or questions.
3) The writer interprets the collected data.
4) Fourth, the writer analyzes the data and outlines the main findings.

D. Data Analysis Technique

Data analysis in this study is an important part of the research process because
the data analysis will solve the research problem and achieve the ultimate goal. For
the writer, data analysis is an activity carried out in solving the problems found.
Data analysis techniques are the process of arranging the order of data and
organizing it into a pattern, category, and basic description units. Sugiyono (2018,
P. 285) that data analysis techniques are the means used for calculations to answer
the formulation of problems and testing hypotheses proposed in the study.
Meanwhile, the definition of data analysis techniques according to other experts
such as Patton (in Kaelan, 2012, p. 130) is a process of organizing the order of data,
organizing them into a pattern, categories, and basic description units.

Qualitative data analysis is then divided into several techniques including

content analysis. Content analysis is also known as content analysis and is a
technique for analyzing data that is needed when finding data that needs in-depth
understanding. So that the content of the information in the data obtained must be
understood correctly and carefully to then be processed. Through in-depth
understanding, the writer can find various data that are the most general to the most
specific. Making it easier for the process to process the data, because from the
beginning it was done with a deep understanding.

This study uses content analysis techniques because the writer analyzed the
content of text or available media, such as documents, articles, books,
advertisements, or recorded conversations. According to Rahmat Kriyantono,
Content analysis is a systematic technique to observe a message or communication
content delivered by communicators. The purpose of content analysis is to identify
and understand patterns or themes that appear in the material being analyzed.

One example of the application of content analysis is to analyze interview

transcripts or field notes to identify themes, patterns, or concepts that appear in the
research. This technique usually collects data from spoken, visual, or written text.
This kind of data is found in books, magazines, newspapers, speeches, movies,
interviews, photos, social media, the web, and many other types of content.

Based on the above exposure, the stages of content analysis techniques used by
the writer are as follows:

1) Watch carefully Jimmy Fallon's talk show.

2) Identify or determine data related to conversation implicature
3) Classify the data based on the focus of the problem to be studied.
4) Describe the data that has been obtained and analyzed using a pragmatic
approach based on research focus.
5) Generalizing the results of data analysis in line with the focus of the study
problem