Scribd
Upload
24 views

Pragmatik 6

Pragmatik 6

Uploaded by

reza azizah
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
24 views

Pragmatik 6

Pragmatik 6

Uploaded by

reza azizah
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

Nama : Reza Azizah

The cooperative principle hedges

1. Implicature

Implicature, a concept introduced by Grice, refers to what a speaker


implies beyond the literal meaning of their words. It helps distinguish
between what is explicitly stated and what is indirectly communicated.
Implicatures are pragmatic, depending on context, shared knowledge, and
the assumption that both speaker and listener follow the cooperative
principle. They arise from inductive reasoning by the listener to infer the
most likely meaning. Implicatures can be of two types:

a. Conventional implicature: Meaning derived from specific words,


independent of context. Example: “Aline isn’t beautiful, but she is
good-looking” indicates a contrast implied by “but.”
b. Conversational implicature: Context-dependent and derived from
following conversational maxims like relevance and quantity.
Example: “I have a black pen” implies the speaker has only one.

Grice also distinguishes between generalized and particularized


conversational implicatures. Generalized implicatures are context-free,
while particularized ones require contextual understanding.

2. Cooperative Principle

The cooperative principle, as described by Grice, underpins successful


communication. It suggests that conversational participants aim to make
their contributions appropriate to the exchange, enabling meaningful
interaction. The principle is explained through four maxims:

a. Maxim of Quality Be truthful. Do not say what you believe to


be false or provide information without evidence.
b. Maxim of Quantity : Be as informative as necessary, neither
too little nor too much. Example: A brief but sufficient reply
like “I am studying” signals refusal to engage without
excessive detail.
c. Maxim of Relation: Be relevant. Contributions should be
related to the topic. Example: “I saw the cat running through
the window” implies that the cat likely ate the food.
d. Maxim of Manner : Be clear. Avoid ambiguity, be concise, and
present information in an orderly fashion. Example: A simple,
direct statement like “I can draw the Kalimantan Island” fulfills
this maxim by being clear and to the point.

In communication, these maxims guide efficient and effective exchanges.


Even when they are flouted or hedged, listeners often recognize the
deviation and adjust their understanding accordingly. The cooperative
principle aids in interpreting both literal and implied meanings in
conversation.

The material discusses how conversational maxims, introduced by


philosopher H.P. Grice, can be deliberately flouted or hedged for specific
communicative effects. Let’s break down the key concepts in detail.

1. Flouting Maxims

Flouting a maxim refers to deliberately breaking one of Grice’s


conversational maxims while still adhering to the cooperative principle.
The purpose is often to make the listener draw inferences and derive an
implicature (an indirect meaning). The four conversational maxims Grice
defined are:

When these maxims are deliberately flouted, listeners infer deeper


meanings beyond the literal content of the utterance.

a. Tautology

A tautology is a statement that is inherently true but provides no new


information because it repeats the same idea unnecessarily. While
normally redundant, it can be used to emphasize a point. For example,
saying, “A triangle has three angles,” is redundant, but it could be used to
stress something specific about the shape.

b. Metaphor

A metaphor flouts the maxim of quality because it states something that


is not literally true. For instance, when someone says, “You are the
sunshine of my life,” the speaker doesn’t mean the person is literally
sunshine, but instead uses the metaphor to imply warmth and
importance.

c. Overstatement
Overstatement violates the maxim of quantity by exaggerating the
situation. For instance, “I’ve told you a million times!” clearly overstates
the number of times, but the listener understands it to mean the speaker
feels exasperated from repeating something multiple times.

d. Understatement

Understatement also violates the maxim of quantity, but by providing less


information than necessary or downplaying the situation. For example,
when someone says, “It’s just a scratch,” to refer to a more serious injury,
they are minimizing the severity.

e.Rhetorical Questions

Rhetorical questions flout the maxim of relation. They are asked not to
receive an answer, but to emphasize a point. For example, “How many
times do I have to tell you?” implies frustration rather than expecting an
actual number in response.

f. Irony

Irony involves saying the opposite of what is meant, flouting the maxim of
quality. For instance, saying, “Oh, great!” when something bad happens
indicates the opposite meaning—disappointment or frustration—rather
than literal enthusiasm.

2. Hedging Maxims

Hedging involves softening or qualifying a statement to show that the


speaker is not fully committing to the truth or strength of their utterance.
It can also signal uncertainty or politeness.

a. Hedging Quality: The speaker avoids taking full responsibility for


the truth of their statement, using phrases like “They say” or “It
seems.” For example, “They say an egg is good for your brain”
indicates that the speaker is not guaranteeing the information’s
accuracy.
b. Hedging Quantity: The speaker limits the scope of their
knowledge, suggesting that their information is not exhaustive.
An example would be, “All I know is that an egg is good for the
brain,” signaling that the speaker is only offering partial
information.
c. Hedging Relevance: The speaker indicates that their statement
may not be entirely relevant to the conversation, often using
phrases like “by the way.” For instance, “Where’s your sister, by
the way?” acknowledges that the topic might not align with the
flow of the conversation but brings it up nonetheless.
d. Hedging Manner: The speaker may indicate that their statement
is somewhat unclear or not fully precise. For example, “If you see
what I mean,” suggests that the speaker recognizes a potential
lack of clarity and wants to ensure the listener understands.

In sum, flouting and hedging maxims both serve specific communicative


functions. Flouting creates indirect meanings that invite inference, while
hedging softens or qualifies statements to avoid overcommitment, show
politeness, or acknowledge conversational constraints.

Referensi

Creswell. 1994. Research Design: Qualitative & Quantitative Approach.


London:

Sage Publications.

Grundy. 2000. Doing pragmatics. London: Arnold.

Brown & Yule. 1983. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University


Press.

You might also like