CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURES IN ORGANIZATION MEETING

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Communication is the most important process in human interaction that requires at least two agents in order to be succesfull. Commonly, human doesn’t directly say what he/she intended to say. Sometimes, a person doesn’t not literally express what s/he wants to say nor implies it during the conversation.

Organization is a group of people that have agreement to have the same goal. According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organization), defined that an organization is a social entity that has a collective goal and is linked to an external environment. Since the people involve in this social entity have the same mind concept, they will have a kind of group meeting either it is organized or unorganized by daily, weekly, monthly even yearly.

Communication cannot be separated from organization, because the way a member of organization delivers his/her own idea or point of view is through communication. Type of communication usually use in organization can be vary, it depends on the purpose of the meeting, it can be formal or casual. Whether it contains truly bright idea or just contains a joke.

In order to produce a better outcome of communication, people need a set of rules which will limit the idea of the utterances so that it will not be misinterpreted or misunderstood by the addressee. When people interact, they must have minimal assumptions (implicatures) about one another. The first is conventional implicature in which the sender and receiver do not require any particular context in order to understand (or infer) the message. The second one is conversational implicature in which it is implied varies according to the context of an utterance.

According to Grice (1975) who states the term implicature has purpose to account for what a speaker can imply, suggest, or mean, as distinct from what the speaker literally says. Conversational implicatures refer to the implications which can be concluded from the form of an utterance, on the basis of certain cooperative principles which managed the efficiency and normal acceptability of conversations, as when the sentence This window is dirty is taken to mean ‘you should clean it up’; they contrast with explicatures, which are the propositions that are explictly communicated (the fact that the window is dirty, in this example).

On the other words, this writing aims to examine the characteristic of conversational implicature used in organization meeting. The primary concern of this paper is limited to the communication in an organization named STATEMENT (Student Association of English Department), Teacher Training and Education Faculty, The University of Mataram on July, 5th 2013 in Room C2.

CHAPTER II
FRAME OF THOUGHT

A.      Conversational Implicature

According to Grice (1975) who states the term implicature has purpose to account for what a speaker can imply, suggest, or mean, as distinct from what the speaker literally says. Conversational implicatures refer to the implications which can be concluded from the form of an utterance, on the basis of certain cooperative principles which managed the efficiency and normal acceptability of conversations, as when the sentence This window is dirty is taken to mean ‘you should clean it up’; they contrast with explicatures, which are the propositions that are explictly communicated (the fact that the window is dirty, in this example).

As the writer presents in the beginning of this paper, there are two kind of implicature (minimum assumption) when people doing conversation. The first one is the most implicature in which cause miscommunication  because when one person speak and doesn’t directly says direct message (implied meaning), the other one may have different assumption about the message conveyed. The last is the case commonly happened and related to conversational implicatures.

According to Azhar (http:/www.slideshare.net/ wardahazhar/ implicatures) there are four types of conversational implicatures : Context dependence; Defeasibility/cancel ability; Non-detachability, and Calculability.

Context dependence means that an expression with a single meaning (i-e, expressing the same proposition) can give rise to different conversational implicatures in different contexts. Next, defeasibility means that conversational implicatures can be cancelled by additional material without contradiction or anomaly (irregularity). Then, non-detachibility means that the same propositional content in the same context will always give rise to the same conversational implicature, in whatever form it is expressed (implicature is tied to the meaning, not the form). Last, calculability means that conversational implicature must be calculable, using state able general principles on the basis of conventional meaning together with contextual information.

People may have misinterpretation when two people are doing conversation, especially for the addressee. For instance, A is a speaker and B is an addressee. One day, A is going to go to the Public Library in hurry. Then B suddenly comes and approach A. Then B asks, “Where are you going in such a hurry?”. In turn, A replies, “The deadline of the submission of final assignment is at 10.00 A.M, two hours left”. What actually happen in this conversation shows that A answers B with no relevance, it means that there is a violance of Cooperative Principles in which closely related to Conversational Implicatures.

According to Grice (1975) who states that conversational implicatures depend on features of the conversational situation or context and not just on the conventional meanings of the words used. The notion of a conversational implicature is thus a pragmatic notion. It is defined in terms of the Gricean Maxim Cooperative Principle.

B.       Maxim Cooperative Principles

According to Grice (1975:45) who formulates the Cooperative Principle in which it sounds “make your conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are enganged”. Grice’s logic of conversation is based on the idea that contributors to a conversation are rational agents; that is, that they obey a general principle of rationality known as the cooperative principle (CP). In order to fulfil the cooperative principle, the speaker must follow nine maxims of conversation, grouped in four Kantian categories: Quantity, Quality, Relation and Manner. Grice’s definitions of these maxims are as follows (Grice 1975: 45-6):

a.      Maxims of Quantity:

1. Make you contribution as informative as is required.

2. Do not make your contribution more information than is required.

b.      Maxims of Quality: Try to make your contribution one that is true.

1. Do not say what you believe to be false.

2. Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.

c.       Maxim of Relation: Be relevant.

d.      Maxims of Manner: Be perspicuous.

1. Avoid obscurity of expression.

2. Avoid ambiguity.

3. Be brief.

4. Be orderly.

C.      Communication in Organization

Organizational communication is defined as the process by which individuals stimulate meaning in the minds of other individuals by means of verbal or nonverbal messages in the context of a formal organization (Levinson, 2000). Furthermore, Levinson (2000) proposes that thera are four components in communication as follows :

  1. The Source : the person who originates a message.
  2. The Message : any verbal or nonverbal stimulus that elicits meaning in the receiver.
  3. The Channel : by which a message is carried from one person to another.
  4. The Receiver : the person who acquires the source’s message.

Communication flows in two directions in the organization: vertically and horizontally. Vertical communication is concerned with communication between employees at different hierarchical levels in the organization. It focuses on downward and upward communication between managers and employees. Horizontal communication is concerned with communication between employees at the same level in the organization. It focuses on communication between peers, people ,at equal or very nearly equal levels in the organization. It is communication that goes across the organization (Cohen, 1971).

CHAPTER III
DATA PRESENTATION AND DATA ANALYSIS

A.      Data Presentation

By providing the data, the writer aims to identify and examine the four types of Conversational Implicatures in Organization Meeting : STATEMENT on July, 6th 2013. The conversation took place at Faculty of Teacher Training and Education (FKIP) Room C2, starting from 3 P.M.-4 P.M.

The data was got through recording and transcribing into the textual form. The writer  propose this method aiming to discover and describe the type of conversational implicatures used in this organization meeting.

The writer uses observed-participant technique in collecting the data, it means that the writer observed and at once roled as passive participant. Passive participant means that the writer doesn’t roled actively in the meeting.

B.       Data Analysis and Discussion

The following schenes are transcribing data which the writer recorded during the meeting. The writer modifies the name of group members by using initial name. The participants are JR, SH, FA, AS, BI, RS, NI, NH, RR, MM and RF.

1.      Context dependence

Scene 1

FA : Baiklah kawan-kawan, langsung saja, pada meeting kita sore ini, kita akan membahas tentang persiapan acara kita, yakni FBS (Fasting Break STATEMENT). Langsung saja ya, bagaimana menurut teman-teman?

(Ok guys, let’s begin. In this meeting, we will discuss about our event, it is FBS (Fasting Break STATEMENT), Let’s create a new committee directly. Do you agree?)

JR   : (Mengacungkan tangan), permisi saya mau masuk.

((Raising hand), can i get in?)

FA : Ya, silakan.

(Yes, please)

JR : Terima kasih, maaf sebelumnya, saya ingin memberikan gambaran sedikit, sebelum kita membentuk kepanitiaan, saya kira alangkah lebih baik jika ada serah terima jabatan terlebih dahulu dari ketua yang lama ke yang baru. Walaupun kita belum melaksanakan Laporan Akhir Pertanggungjawaban (LPJ), tapi ini sebagai simbolis bahwa kepengurusan lama sudah benar-benar berakhir. Terima Kasih.

(Thank you, let me give a little bit of my view to you all. It will be better if there is the handover ceremony of the position from the Previous President to the New Presiden before we creating the Committee. Eventhough we haven’t conducted LPJ yet, it will become a symbolic ceremony that the Previous Organization Period is truly over. Thank you).

This conversation shows that JR doesn’t agree with the offering from FA. JR expression’s with a single meaning by giving short view  can give rise to different conversational implicature in different contexts. So, the type is context dependence.

2.      Nondetachability

Scene 1+Scene 2

FA : Baiklah kawan-kawan, langsung saja, pada meeting kita sore ini, kita akan membahas tentang persiapan acara kita, yakni FBS (Fasting Break STATEMENT). Langsung saja ya, bagaimana menurut teman-teman?

(Ok guys, let’s begin. In this meeting, we will discuss about our event, it is FBS (Fasting Break STATEMENT), Let’s create a new committee directly. Do you agree?)

JR   : (Mengacungkan tangan), permisi saya mau masuk.

((Raising hand), can i get in?)

FA : Ya, silakan.

(Yes, please)

JR : Terima kasih, maaf sebelumnya, saya ingin memberikan gambaran sedikit, sebelum kita membentuk kepanitiaan, saya kira alangkah lebih baik jika ada serah terima jabatan terlebih dahulu dari ketua yang lama ke yang baru. Walaupun kita belum melaksanakan Laporan Akhir Pertanggungjawaban (LPJ), tapi ini sebagai simbolis bahwa kepengurusan lama sudah benar-benar berakhir. Terima kasih.

(Thank you, let me give a little bit of my view to you all. It will be better if there is the handover ceremony of the position from the Previous President to the New Presiden before we creating the Committee. Eventhough we haven’t conducted LPJ yet, it will become a symbolic ceremony that the Previous Organization Period is truly over. Thank you).

SH    : Biar kita tidak lama-lama menunggu, sebaiknya sekarang Presiden lama memberikan the last speech, so that the New STATEMENT 2013 can contribute soon, terus ijab kabul deh.

(To make time use efficiently, it will be better soon if the Previous President give his last speech, so the New STATEMENT 2013 can contribute soon, after that he will handover the position to the new one.)

As JR and SH opinions, it is clearly that both of them have the same point of view. Although their speech form is different, but they lead into one conclusion, it is they do not agree with FA offering. So, it is the case of non-detachability.

Scene 3

FA    : Oke, sekarang kita beralih membahas masalah Staffing. Saya kira kita tidak bisa membentuk kepengurusan hari ini karena minimnya anggota yang hadir. Kita akan mencari satu waktu minggu depan, mungkin. Bagaimana menurut teman-teman?

(Oke, let’s move into Staffing. I think we cannot create the structure of organization today because of minimal members. We will look for a certain time next week. How do you think?)

JR     : Permisi, saya masuk. Kalau menurut saya, sebaiknya dibentuk saja sekarang, dengan anggota yang minim, sebaiknya dibentuk kepengurusan inti saja dulu, karena mengingat waktu yang sudah mendekati bulan puasa, akan sulit untuk mengumpulkan teman-teman pada waktu puasa. Mengenai staf-staf yang akan mengisi di masing-masing departemen, itu kan wewenang presiden.

(Excuse me, I think it will be better if we create the organizational structure today. Looking to the fact that the members who come today is minimal, it is better to determine the core members. Due to the Fasting Month that will come in next few days, it will be difficult to make them come into a meeting. For the staffs that will get on the position, it is the Presdident’s authority.)

SH    : Masuk ya, benar kata Pak Presiden. Saya setuju lebih baik jika kita memilih satu waktu, mengingat anggota yang hadir cuma sedikit.

(I will get in first, I agree with President, it will be better if we choose a certain time, looking to the fact that the members here is minimal.)

JR     : Masuk ya, sekarang saja, kan tinggal pilih nama saja.

(I think it is better now if we choose the name.)

SH    : Tergantung kesepakatan forum saja si kalau begitu.

(It depends on the agreement of the forum I think.)

RS     : Masuk ya, kalo menurut saya di mapping saja dulu yang pengurus inti dan koordinator masing-masing departemen, nanti staf-staf yang lain menyusul, sambil pak Presiden menyusun dan menghubungi staf-staf tersebut apakah mereka setuju untuk ditempatkan di departemen tertentu.

(I will get in first, I think it is better to map the core members and coordinator for each department, the other staffs will be choosen later, while the President forming and calling those staffs whether they agree or not.)

BI     : Masuk ya, setahu saya, kalo di organisasi lain, yang berwenang me-mapping kepengurusan itu Presiden langsung sendiri, jadi biar waktunya tidak terbuang, tunggu apa lagi?

(According to what I have experienced, in other organization, the one who have authority to map the organization structure is the President itself. So, what are we waiting for?)

FA    : Oke, mari kita tulis.

(Ok, let’s write it.)

This conversation shows the type of conversational implicature, it is non-detachability, because JR, RS, and BI have the same opinions which lead into the same meaning, eventhough those have the different syntactic structures.

CHAPTER IV
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

A.      Conclusion

From the data analysis and discussion above, it is concludes that the type of conversational implicatures used in the organization meeting are context-dependence and non-detachability. The writer assumes that the organization members have been experiencing and being together for the one year so that they have the similar and parallel habits in meeting. Furthermore, they use the similar types on the previous meetings.

The data shows that the participants have the different way to deliver his/her opinion although they have the similar idea or opinion. It is a kind of the emphasis on certain idea that they think that it is the most reasonable and applicable idea.

B.       Recommendation

The data analysis shows that the types of conversational implicatures are two. It is interesting for the next researcher to find the other organization type in order to discover the two other types which haven’t been found here.

REFERENCES

Grice, H. Paul. 1975. Logic and Conversation. In Peter Cole and Jerry L. Morgan, editors, Syntax and Semantics III: Speech Acts. Academic Press, New York, NY, pg. 41-58.

Cohen, L. Jonathan 1971 Some remarks on Grice’s view about the logical particles ofnatural language. In: Yoshua Bar-Hillel (ed.), Pragmatics of Natural Language, 50-68. Dordrecht: Reidel.

McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1997), Communication in educational organizations. Acton, MA: Tapestry Press.

Levinson, S. (2000) Presumptive Meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. MIT.

Websites :

Azhar, Wardah. http://www.slideshare.net/wardahazhar/implicatures, accessed on July, 7th 2013

http://anneberger.wordpress.com/2010/09/30/miscommunication/, accessed on 10th of April, 2013.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organization, accessed on July, 7th 2013.

This paper was submitted to accomplish my lecture on Discourse Analysis on Prof. Mahyuni’s class.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s