What Is Implicature?
Several
Definitions of Implicature According to Some Experts or Researchers
“Let’s Learn Pragmatics”
Compiled by Irfan Suryana (30 September 2020)
(https://www.pexels.com/photo/photo-of-woman-looking-on-computer-3059748/ by RF._.studio)
Hello
everyone!
Have you known what the implicature is? If you have not, please do not wory because in this moment I would like to share about some definitions of implicature. I have collected some definitions about it from any sources on the internet.
1. Lubis (2015)
Implicature is an implied meaning of the speaker’s utterance and it is contrast to the truth of the speaker’s utterance. Implicature is divided into three parts namely conventional implicature, non-conventional (conversational) implicature, and presupposition.
2. Grice (1975)
Iimplicatures are a branch of pragmatics that refers to
what is suggested in an utterance, even though neither expressed nor strictly
implied by the utterance. In other words, implicature is about speaker’s
meaning. The utterance of the sekaer has an implied meaning. It means that the
meaning behind the speaker’s utterance is conveyed indirectly, even us hidden. Implicature
is so important aspect in pragmatics. It is a theory of the relation among the
expression, the meaning, the speaker`s intention, and its implication. There
are four types of implicature. These are as follows:
a. The first is conventional implicatures. This one no needs a
context to get the meaning of an utterance because it conveys a literal
meaning. Conventional implicature is easy to get what the speaker means
clearly,
b.
The second is the generalized conversational
implicature. This kind of implicature needs context but not too much. Although
the meaning behind the speaker’s utterance is easy enough to be gotten by the
hearer, the hearer still needs context to avoid misunderstanding,
c.
The third is scalar implicature. Scalar implicature
also needs context but it is closely related to the numbers or scale of
something,
d. The last one is particularized conversational implicature. Contrary with conventional implicature, particularized conversational implicature really needs context, even depends on the context. This kind of implicature is difficult enough. The hearer gets what speaker means because the speaker hides the literal meaning behind utterance and sometimes conveys the different meaning of an utterance. So, that is why implicature is closely related to the context because it is needed by the hearer to get what speaker means clearly.
3. Sari & Litbagay (2019)
Implicature is also related to the meaning. an utterance. So, the meaning is also needed by the hearer to get what exactly the speaker means. To measure how intended is the meaning of an utterance, the author uses Stiles’ theory, which is known as levels of intended meaning. The levels of intended meaning are speaker’s literal meaning, speaker’s occasion meaning, the hint level, the manipulation level, the secret deception level, and the last is the subconscious or self-deception level. Through Stiles’ theory, it is easy for the reader to understand how intended is the meaning of an utterance.
4. Nanda (2016)
Implicature is divided into two. The first type is conventional implicature which is considered as the literal meaning of speaker’s utterance. The second type is conversational implicature that refers to the meaning beyond that mere linguistic form or literal meaning. Conversational implicature occurs when the maxims are observed or flouted by the language users.
Reference:
Lubis, Indah S.. 2015. Conversational Implicatures of Indonesia Lawyers Club Probram on TV
One: Calls Journals of Culture,
Arts, Literature, and Linguistics, 1(2), 32 – 44.
Nanda, D. S. 2015. Implicature in John Green’s The Fault of Our Stars: JEELS Journal of English Education
and Linguistics Studies, 2(1), 44 – 61.
Sari, P.
and Anne Julitza Litbagay. Implicature in the Dialogue of 500 Days of Summer Movide by
Marc Webb: the Study of
Pragmatics: English Joirnal Literacy
Utama, 3(1) 35 – 39.
Post a Comment