CHAPTERII

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

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

A. Theoretical Background
1. Pragmatics
Pragmatics is a branch of linguistics that examines the meaning of a speaker's
utterances in the context of their use. Yule (1996: 3-4) argues that pragmatics is the study
of speaker meaning. It concerns the study of the meaning conveyed by the speaker and
interpreted by the listener or reader, this means that communication that requires
reciprocity from both parties where the speaker gives expressions and listeners try to
receive and process the meaning that the speaker wants to convey. Still in the view of
Yule (1996) which states Pragmatic is a sub-study of linguistics that understands
contextual meaning. Yule's opinion means that pragmatics involves interpretation of what
people mean in certain contexts and how context influences what is said. After the
listener receives the utterance from the speaker, then it will be processed in the context
that is happening at that time to be matched. If there is a mismatch in the context
expressed then the context affects the expression spoken by the speaker.
Another definition is obtained from Levinson (1983:21-27) which suggests that
pragmatics is the study of the relationship between language and the context on which
language understanding is based. From understanding above, to understand the language
we are required to understand the relationship between the context in the language used.
The necessity to understand the relationship between language and context which is often
referred to as pragmatics is explained by Yule (1996: 7) that, pragmatics is needed if we
want a more complete, in-depth, and reasonable explanation of human language behavior.
Therefore it is important for us to learn language in pragmatically in order to be able to
understand the basic contents and uses of the sentences to be expressed.
From some of the expert opinions above regarding pragmatics, it can be
concluded that pragmatics is a branch of linguistics that focuses on the meaning of
several influencing factors such as the meaning of the speaker, the contextual meaning of
 the events that take place, how the listener concludes the speaker's intent, and the
expressions used.

2. Implicature
The word "implicature" comes from the word "to implay", etymologically "to
implay" means "to fold something into something else" What is meant here is something
that is implied "to fold" and must be opened to understand the meaning therein. Some
experts argue about the meaning of implicature, According to Brown & Yule (1996:31)
Implicature is used to explain what the speaker might mean, suggest, or imply that is
different from what the speaker actually said. The meaning that someone wants to say is
usually different from what is desired so that an explanation is needed to understand the
meaning, that is where the role of the implicature comes in. Another philosopher who
explains implicature is Grice, he argues that implicature is an expression referred to by a
clause in its context, also the same opinion was conveyed by Kridalaksana (20011: 91)
who explained that implicature is what logically becomes the conclusion of an utterance,
as well as basic knowledge that is shared between speakers and listeners in a particular
context. It can be concluded from expert opinion that implicatures are expressions said by
someone who are used to convey their thoughts so that the other person is in the same
context.
Implicature is divided into two types (Grice 1993:98), conventional implicature
and conversational implicature. What makes the difference between the two is that
conventional is based on something other than conditional truth in general usage or
meaning, certain forms and expressions. Conversational, on the other hand, derives from
a more general set of principles for governing appropriate conversational behavior.
Conventional implicature focuses on general usage and meaning whereas conversational
implicature focuses on general principles of substitution.
Conventional implicature is an utterance that is not based on the principle of
cooperation or maxim, this implicature does not have to be in the conversation and does
not depend on the special context. These implicatures are associated with certain words
and result in additional meanings being conveyed when those words are used, such as the
 conjunctions but, and, yet, even. The conventional implicator itself is the opposite, this
implication is show up when people communicate, in communicating they are expected
to comply with conversational maxims and it is expected when communicating using a
cooperative way or cooperative principles.
From some of the expert opinions above, it can be concluded that implicature is
an expression from one of the parties that has meaning in context and requires an
explanation to understand the meaning of the expression, so that listeners and speakers
can have the same understanding. And it can also be concluded that implicature has the
characteristics of an open interpretation, does not have an absolute relationship with the
utterance that is embodied, occurs because of obedience or disobedience to the principle
of cooperation in conversation.
3. Cooperative principle
Study of linguistics in branch of it, pragmatics has many concepts, one of which is
conversational implicature which is based on the idea that people in conversation work
together to achieve the same conversational goals. What is meant is that the interlocutor
can understand what the speaker is saying in explaining something or suggesting
something
Maxim cooperative is the principle created by Grice, when someone
communicates they must be cooperative and understand each other. There are four
maxims that underline this principle, namely the maxim of quantity, maxim of quality,
maxim of relevance, maxim of manner.
Kind of Grice theory, cooperative maxim :
a. Maxim quantity
Speakers are expected to be able to convey sufficient information, no less
and no more so that ambiguity does not occur.
For example:
Q) Diddy : what did you bring for the hike?
Moon : climbing equipment
P) Diddy : what did you bring for the hike?
Moon :I brought a small flashlight with a long hanger to make a
necklace for Rp. 25.000,00, a tent with a length of 2 meters which
has 2 windows right and left are army green and gray, a pot that
can fit 1 kilo of chicken, ....
S) Diddy : what did you bring for the hike?
Moon : I brought cooking utensils, tents, flashlights,...
In conversation (Q) the explanation given was too little information. In the
conversation (P) the explanation given was too much information. On
conversation (S)gives clear and informative conversations.
 b. Maxim quality
Speakers are expected to convey factual information and not speculate.
Speakers are expected not to say expressions that do not have enough evidence.
For example:

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

sky : mosque
The conversation above shows that the answers given are based on the fact
that the place of pray for Muslims is a mosque.

c. Maxim relevance
Speakers are expected to say information related to topics related to the
topics being discussed and not change the direction of the conversation.
For example:

Mille : may I borrow your eraser, please?

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

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

Sara: booo what are you watching?

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

Related to this, there are two types of maxims, namely observance maxims and
non-observance maxims. To identify these two types of maxims is very easy, in
observance maxims are identified when the speaker complies with the rules of maxims
and is pronounced correctly and clearly. Inversely proportional to non-observance
maxims which are identified by not complying with maxim rules and are expressed
vaguely. For example, in this discussion, cooperative principle maxim is an example of
observance maxim, while non-cooperative maxim has various types, including flouting,
violation, hedging, etc.
4. Hedging maxims
Hedging is a sentence delimiter used by the speaker intentionally to convey a
message to the listener that the expression being said are contains an ambiguous sentence.
Hedging includes intentional statements by the speaker or vague statements used to
convince the listener that he or she is trying to comply with the maxims.
Kinds of hedges, as follow:
a. Hedges of quantity
Used when the speaker feels that the information he is conveying is like
having a wrong sentence or not completely bright. (Yule, 1996 ) Some examples
of sentences are as you probably know, to cut a long story short, i won't bore you
with the details, I can't say anymore, I probably don't need to say this, but. ..etc.
For example:
a) As you probably know, I'm allergic to shrimp.
b) I can't say anymore, the things I saw were disgusting.
c) Well, to cut a long story short, the criminal was taken to the police station
for further investigation.

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

c. Hedges of relations
Used when what the speaker says is irrelevant, meaning the speaker
changes the direction of the conversation.(Yule, 1996) states that hedges relation
 can appear in the middle when the speaker is talking like 'oh, by the way, not to
change the subject, I don't know if this is important' and starts to change the
subject. (Huang, 2007:25) also stated that if someone talks too far and is almost
far from the topic being discussed and wants to stop it, they usually use 'anyway'
or 'well, anyway'.
For example:
a) Not to change the subject, but it looks like the grandmother needs help.
b) Well, anyway our discussion is not about that.

d. Hedges of manner
Used when the explanation is ingive speakers confusing or too long.
According to (Yule 1996:39) and (Huang 2007:27) stated that some of these
sentences can state hedges of manner such as I'm not sure if this is clear, but …; I
don't know if this makes sense, but ...; and this may be a bit confused, but...etc.
For example:
a) And this may be a bit confused, but I've never been in a situation like this.
b) I'm not sure if this is clear, but I made this vase with my own hands.

5. Reason for hedging

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

a. Minimizing the “thread-to-face”

The act of embarrassing yourself is known as the Face Threatening Act
(FTA) where the interpretation of the word face in linguistics refers to the respect
that people have for themselves, a person generally tries to make other people not
be embarrassed in public by maintaining that respect publicly/privately.
This FTA is an actwhich makes the interlocutor unable to maintain his
dignity. Yule (1996:36) he has an opinion that most of the incidents experienced
by someone will try to minimize the incident with FTA actions. As an example
someone would warn his neighbor:
 Mita : I'm going to go and tell them to stop this annoying music right
now!
On the other hand, his brother has a sentence that dihedges more.
Simal : maybe you can ask them, if they don't mind to turn off the music
immediately because it's late at night and many people are resting.
So it can be concluded here that hedges are used when someone limits
their sentences to minimize the risk of embarrassing themselves. It is also used to
avoid statements that put someone in an embarrassing situation when a statement
to the contrary appears.

b. Being a way of being more precise in reporting results

Hedges are used when someone is stating the speaker's statementtell it as
it is and do not speculate. When trying to say something, the speaker does not
claim ownership of the statement. The speaker also did not exaggerate the
information conveyed.

c. Being positive and negative politeness strategies

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

d. Conforming to an stabilized writing style

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

B. Previous study

Previous studies are needed by a researcher to originalize her research and to find
gaps from previous researchers for research areas that have not been touched and get new
solutions. Because of that, here are some previous studies that have the same research
area as conversational maxim or Grice's cooperative maxim.
The first research was written by Rofa Marlisa and Didin Nuruddin Hidayah
students from the Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University Jakarta with the title 'The
Analysis of Flouting Maxim in Good Morning America (GMA) Talkshow' which was
published on May 21th2020. The purpose of this research is to find out the flouted
maxims performed by the host and guest also to reveal the reason behind the occurrence
of the maxims. The results obtained from this research are the study revealed the relations
behind maxim flouting which were beneficial to build fun communication and to
elaborate more explanations. This study found fifteen sentences containing flouting
maxims, 5 expressions (33%) containing flouting maxims of quantity, 2 expressions
(14%) containing foluting maxims of quality, 3 expressions (20%) containing flouting
maxims of relation, 5 expressions ( 33%) contains flouting maxim manner. The reason
for the flouting maxim quantity is to provide more information and build fun
communication and ask more questions,
The second study was written by Jauhar Helmie and Nursuci Gunawan Lestary
with the research title 'an analysis of flouting maxims in conversation speaking of the
main character in the movie of home alone 2 “lost in new york” by john huges and
published on march 1st2019. This research focuses on the types of flouting maxims and
how flouting maxims can help readers to understand the meaning of the film. The
sampling of this study is the film 'home alone 2 “lost in newyork” by john huges' research
method taken is descriptive qualitative, the data is in the form of dialogue between
characters. The data collection procedure uses content analysis, first checking the script,
then watching subtitles form the film. The results of this study found four reasons for
flouting maxim, namely competitive of flouting maxim, collaborative of flouting,
convivial of flouting maxim, conflictive of flouting maxim. The dominant flouting
maxim found by researchers is the quality maxim. Researchers also found that there is
never a guarantee that when a maxim is violated, communication will be broken.
The third research was written by Asri Dwi E.S. in October 2015 with the title an
analysis of flouting maxim in EFL classroom interaction. The approach used uses a
qualitative approach and the data used is interactions between teachers and students, then
transcribed and each sentence analyzed using Grice's cooperative maxim theory. This
research focuses on the flouting maxim conversations that are created in teacher and
student conversations during the EFL teaching and learning process. After the researcher
conducted research with a sample of teachers and students, the results obtained by the
researcher were violations of the maxims of quantity, quality and manner. Violations are
committed due to a lack of linguistic competence and action, almost all speakers try and
succeed in obeying the maxim so that only a few flouting maxims are obtained.
The last previous research was written by Amer Asasreh, Razlina Razali in May
2018 with the title the flouting of Grice's conversational example from Bashar Al-assad's
interview during the Arab Spring. The focus of the study in this research is to illustrate
the various maxims that are not adhered to by Syrian leaders. The reason the speaker does
this is because he wants to convey messages that benefit his position. The results
obtained by the researchers were that the speakers practiced violating maxims so that the
meaning conveyed could be understood by the general public who supported it and could
add a certain meaning.
C. Theoretical framework

Study of pragmatic has many sub-disciplines, one of which is implicature. The

study of implicature is divided into two branches, namely conventional implicature and
conversational implicature. This research will focus on conversational implicature, which
is a study in pragmatics that examines the implied meaning of a conversation. In this
regard, to find out the meaning of the conversation, the researcher used Grice's 1975
theory of the principle of cooperative maxim, apart from that, the principle of cooperative
maxim also helps the conversation match the purpose of the conversation. Next, maxims
are divided into two according to the conditions, observance maxims and non-observance
maxims, conditions where a person sometimes flout maxims when speaking but when he
tries to avoid flouting maxims he uses hedging maxims, where hedging maxims are a
person's way of drawing a line. the sentence that he was trying to disobey the principle
for certain reasons. Based on the situation, this hedging maxim is included in the non-
observance maxim. After the explanation above, researchers are interested in researching
a podcast which contains the sentence hedging maxim, to find out the type of hedging
and the reasons for hedging carried out by the speaker and the interlocutor.