Particularized implicatures in jimmy kimmel’s talk shows

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING QUY NHƠN UNIVERSITY NGUYỄN NGỌC HƢƠNG GIANG PARTICULARIZED IMPLICATURES IN JIMMY KIMMEL’S TALK SHOWS Field: English Linguistics Code: 8.22.02.01 Supervisor: Assoc Prof Dr NGUYỄN QUANG NGOẠN BINH DINH, 2021 BỘ GIÁO DỤC VÀ ĐÀO TẠO TRƢỜNG ĐẠI HỌC QUY NHƠN NGUYỄN NGỌC HƢƠNG GIANG HÀM Ý HỘI THOẠI ĐẶC THÙ TRONG CHƢƠNG TRÌNH TỌA ĐÀM CỦA JIMMY KIMMEL Chuyên ngành: Ngôn ngữ Anh Mã số : 8.22.02.01 Ngƣời hƣớng dẫn: PGS TS NGUYỄN QUANG NGOẠN BINH DINH, 2021 i STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP I confirm that the work presented in this research paper has been conducted by myself Except where reference is made in the text of the thesis, no other person's work has been used without due acknowledgement in the thesis I confirm that this work is submitted in partial fulfillment for the M.A thesis in English at Quy Nhon University and has not been submitted elsewhere in any other form for the fulfillment of any other degree or qualification Quy Nhon, July 2021 Nguyễn Ngọc Hƣơng Giang ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Firstly, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Assoc Prof Dr Nguyen Quang Ngoan, my supervisor for the continuous support of my M.A thesis and related research, for his patience, motivation, and immense knowledge His window helped me in all the time of research and writing of this thesis I could not have imagined having a better supervisor and mentor for my M.A study I would like to thank all the lectures from the Department of Foreign Languages for their kindness and valuable knowledge without which I would not have been able to conduct this research My special thanks also go to all my dear classmates for the time we spent together as well as for the knowledge and experience we learned from each other Last but not least, no words can reveal my deep love and gratitude to my family whose everlasting love and support have given me strength and motivation to finish this thesis iii ABSTRACT This research was conducted with the aim to find out the types of particularized implicatures, as well as to identify the strategies and purposes of generating the particularized conversational implicatures used by George W Bush and Michelle Obama in Jimmy Kimmel talk shows by using Grice‟s conversational implicature and the theory of verbal deception strategies of generating implicatures proposed by Swati, Gupta, Kayo Sakamoto and Andrew Ortony (2015) The data of this research were utterances The source of data was the videos and transcripts The method of this research was descriptive qualitative The result of this study showed that there were 70 total number of violation maxims of the cooperative principle as the realization of particularized conversational implicature The result showed that maxim of quantity received the highest percentage of violation (53%) As regards the verbal deception strategies of generating particularized conversational implicatures, different ones were found in which augmentation and halftruth were among the highest of occurrence with 57.14 % and 24.28% respectively This result showed that implicatures could be employed with a wide range of strategies iv TABLE OF CONTENTS STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii ABSTRACT iii TABLE OF CONTENTS iv LIST OF TABLES vii LIST OF FIGURES viii CHAPTER 1.INTRODUCTION 1.1 RATIONALE 1.2 AIM AND OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY 1.3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS 1.4 SCOPE OF THE STUDY 1.5 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY 1.6 ORGANIZATION OF THE THESIS CHAPTER LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 2.1 LITERATURE REVIEW 2.2 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 12 2.2.1 Pragmatics 12 2.2.2 An overview of implicature 13 2.2.3 Particularized conversational implicature 16 2.2.4 Cooperative Principle 18 2.2.5 Violating conversational maxims 21 2.2.6 Verbal deception strategies 23 CHAPTER RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 35 3.1 RESEARCH METHODS 35 v 3.2 DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS 36 3.3 VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY 38 3.3.1 Validity 38 3.3.2 Reliability 38 CHAPTER FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 39 4.1 TYPES OF PARTICULARIZED IMPLICATURES EMPLOYED BY GUESTS IN JIMMY KIMMEL‟S TALK SHOWS 39 4.1.1 The types of particularized conversational implicature used by guests in Jimmy Kimmel talk show 39 4.1.2 Violation of the Gricean Maxims of Quantity 41 4.1.3 Violation of the Gricean Maxims of Quality 44 4.1.4 Violation of the Gricean Maxims of Relevance 45 4.1.5 Violation of the Gricean Maxims of Manner 47 4.2 VERBAL DECEPTION STRATEGIES OF GENERATING THE PARTICULARIZED IMPLICATURES BY GUESTS IN JIMMY KIMMEL‟S TALK SHOWS 48 4.2.1 Overstatement 49 4.2.2 Half-truth 50 4.2.3 Augmentation 51 4.2.4 Equivocation 53 4.2.5 Obfuscation 54 4.3 PURPOSES OF USING PARTICULARIZED IMPLICATURES BY GUESTS IN JIMMY KIMMEL‟S TALK SHOWS 55 4.4 SUMMARY 59 CHAPTER CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS 61 5.1 CONCLUSIONS 61 5.2 IMPLICATIONS 62 vi 5.3 LIMITATIONS 62 5.4 SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDIES 63 REFERENCES 64 vii LIST OF TABLES Number Title Page 2.1 Verbal deception strategies in relation to maxims 29 3.1 Data coding 37 Verbal deception strategies of generating the 4.1 particularized implicatures by guests in Jimmy 48 Kimmel‟s talk shows Purposes of using particularized implicatures by guests 4.2 55 in Jimmy Kimmel‟s talk shows viii LIST OF FIGURES Number 4.1 Title The types of particularized implicature used in Jimmy Kimmel talk show Page 40 52 Data Code Speaker Utterances (Data #60) JK How is unemployment going? Are you embracing it? MO Yeah, it's going okay and I was just trying to think of what we've been doing, but truthfully, we're boring you know? We have a teenager at home, and she makes us feel inadequate every day In this situation, Michelle Obama adds something gratuitous to the truth which distracted the host from the truth From the expression in the guest‟s utterance, it was concluded that Michelle Obama uses augmentation to violate the maxim of quantity Data Code Speaker Utterances (Data # 61) JK Besides your husband and daughters, with which celebrity you text most often? MO Oh you know, there's, I'm not going to tell you, because then, you know, it's like you don't text and tell In this conversation, the host wanted to know about the celebrity who Michelle Obama texted most often Instead of giving the answer directly, she distracted the host from unnecessary information, which was concluded that augmentation is used to violate maxim of relevance 53 Data Code Speaker Utterances (Data # 62) JK Your mom moved in, lived there the whole eight years with you MO Reluctantly, but she stayed She tried to get out It's like, nope, lock the doors And what year did she try to get out? How far in? You know, she felt like by the time she wasn't taking the girls to school every day, they were both in middle school, she thought, I can go, right? And I was like, no, not yet so we let her go home in the summer In the situation about, Michelle Obama was asked about the year her mother moved out of her house Michelle Obama adds something needless to the truth which distracted the host from the truth From the expression in the guest‟s utterance, it was concluded that Michelle Obama uses augmentation to violate the maxim of relevance 4.2.4 Equivocation In cases of equivocation, S deliberately says something ambiguous so as to avoid being committed to the interpretation that is true The analysis provided below is based on the conversation taken from Jimmy Kimmel‟s talk show Data Code Speaker Utterances (Data #14) JK I can‟t help but feel maybe he was faking it a little bit just so he didn„t have to go to the inauguration Yes? (laughter and applause) He„s no dummy GB He is a funny man 54 In the situation above, it is concluded that George W Bush fails to observe the maxim of manner GB used the special term by saying - funny man in which this could mean that his father was cute and funny when he did that silly thing or his father looked ridiculous and strange when he did that GB gave unclear information because the phrase had more than one meaning More often, however, the host Jimmy Kimmel will recognize the ambiguity language and the burden of getting to the truth is placed on the hearer Therefore, George W Bush‟s utterance could be categorized as a violation of manner maxim by using unclear and ambiguous expressions 4.2.5 Obfuscation Obfuscation occurs when the speaker uses confusing or complicated language in the hope that the hearer will either be unable to understand the exact meaning or will misunderstand The analysis provided below is based on the conversation taken from Jimmy Kimmel‟s talk show Data Code Speaker Utterances (Data #50) JK What is he doing right now? MO My husband? JK Yes MO Oh, he's probably in his hole in our new house JK In his office? MO Writing He‟s working on his book In the situation above, after Michelle Obama similized two different things which are “his hole” and “his book”, the host repeatedly asks “In his office?” as a reaction of confusing and misunderstanding Therefore, George W Bush‟s utterance could be categorized as a violation of manner maxim by using confusing or complicated language 55 4.3 PURPOSES OF USING PARTICULARIZED IMPLICATURES BY GUESTS IN JIMMY KIMMEL’S TALK SHOWS Clearly, the interlocutors violate the maxims with certain purposes in mind After having a look at the data, the study summarizes the reasons of their violations of the maxims based on the context of their respective conversations When we studied the purposes of using particularized implicatures, there were a lot of problems even though we had prepared ourselves in advance to face with them In many cases, the purposes were unable to distinguish; sometimes they overlapped, or were not clear In other cases, they might be different depending on particular perspectives It was found the absence of feeling jealous about something in this study The present study has found that the violation of conversational maxim is also potentially realized through inject humor and change the subject It can be concluded that different context result different reasons of conversational maxim violation Table 4.2 Purposes of using particularized implicatures by guests in Jimmy Kimmel’s talk shows No Theory Christoffersen (2005) Research Finding Hiding the truth 20 (28.6%) Saving Face Feeling jealous about something Satisfying the hearer Cheering the hearer Avoiding to hurt the hearer Building one‟s belief Convincing the hearer 18 (25.7%) inject humor 16 (22.9%) 10 change the subject 16 (22.8%) 56 The table clearly shows that the speakers involved in the gathered conversations violate the maxims with a purpose And as shown on the table, the speakers who violated the maxims in general wanted to hide the truth, convince the hearer, inject humor and change the subject It must be noted that this is also reflective of speakers who obviously are characterized as funny and wanting of light humorous conversations, instead of heavy dramatic scenarios Hiding the truth Data Code Speaker (Data #52) (Data #53) Utterances JK Now that you‟re out of office, you can anything you want, right? GB True But I‟m not telling you JK Are you not telling me that you looked at them? GB I‟m not telling you anything (laughter and applauded) From the Data #52 and Data #53 above, GB did not give any informative contribution He provided less information by providing very simple answer – “I’m not telling you nothing” In this situation, he actually understood the question but avoided giving the real information in response to the question GB used particularized conversational implicature to reject and hide the truth relating to the question He also wanted to make the audiences laugh Data Code Speaker (Data #33) JK Utterances Is that something that you enjoy television in general? GB Not really 57 Data Code Speaker (Data #48) JK Utterances We are back with president bush This is his book, it„s called - portraits of courage - we„ll go through this and talk about some of the veterans that you painted and wrote about This is a question and to the country When you were in office, I don't know when this happened or if it happened, did you go through the secret files, the ufo documents? Because GB Maybe From the Data #33 and Data #48 above, GB did not give any informative contribution He provided less information by saying very simple answer – “Not really” or “Maybe” In this situation, he actually understood the question but avoids giving the real information in response to the question His purpose was to reject and hide the truth relating to the question Convincing the hearer Data Code Speaker Utterances (Data #66) JK Did you have someone get the supplies for you? GB I did JK Have you been to the supplies store? GB I have JK Isn‟t it funny? GB Yeah, I really really enjoy going 58 In this situation, JK and GB were talking about the supplies JK asked GB whether he enjoyed going to the supplies store or not GB overstated by saying “I really really enjoy going” He exaggerated his reply to convince that he really liked going to supplies Inject humor Data Code Speaker (Data #63) Utterances JK The book is number one on amazon That's got to be an exciting thing for you MO That‟s crazy (laughter and applauded) In this context, the host confirmed that Michelle Obama‟s book was ranked first on amazon which was exciting The way she replied – “That’s crazy” – was concluded as a particularized conversational implicature to make people burst out laughing Data Code (Data #73) Speaker Utterances JK Do you ever paint nudes? GB None of your business (laughter and applause) In this conversation, the guest injected humor by saying “None of your business” which make the audience laugh and applause Change the subject Data Code (Data #52) Speaker Utterances JK If you wanted to get someone in your husband's administration fired, how would you MO why - why you ask? 59 In this conversation, Michelle Obama asked another question instead of answering Jimmy Kimmel‟s question The way she replied, “Why - why you ask?”, was concluded as a particularized conversational implicature to change the subject Data Code (Data 70) Speaker JK Utterances Is she honest with you, if there‟s something she thinks is not good? GB Well, she started off with her body language, making it pretty obvious she didn‟t vote for me In this conversation, GB did not give the answer unswervingly to the answer The way he replied was concluded as a particularized conversational implicature to change the subject 4.4 SUMMARY This chapter is conducted with the aim to present the finding and discussion of the result of our study in the form of tables and figures but also analyzed in terms of description Understanding the implicature in the utterances was one way that was by analyzing the context of the use of utterance The context was also related to the background held by the speakers of the utterance, the social situation, the situation of the language being used, and the channel Based on the data analysis and the findings, in this section, the researcher explained the discussion which is aimed to provide rich descriptions of the research problems that had been formulated in chapter one From the research findings which had answered the research questions, particularized conversational implicature dominated the data because it was used in a talk show on 60 television that public could see George W Bush and Michelle Obama and Jimmy Kimmel in live and also people should need specific knowledge to interpret It also depend on the context of their meaning and only used when speaker and audiences could identify what was being referred to from the situational context Another way in analyzing implicature was by violating the maxims on the principle of cooperation delivered by Grice The maxim was quantity, quality, relevance, and manner To achieve good communication, according to Grice, speakers might obey the principle of cooperation in conversation Based on data analysis, the text of two conversations between George W Bush and Michelle Obama and Jimmy Kimmel violated the maxim of the way Violations of Grice's maxims would result in implicature The principle of conversation Grice had four maxims, namely the maxim of the quantity, quality, relevance, and manner Maxim violated the other maxims Based on the analysis of the data, the implicature of the context of the conversation between Jimmy Kimmel and George W Bush and Michelle Obama, namely Jimmy Kimmel as the host, became more active by asking some questions as guest stars at the talk show From all the finding and discussion above, the researcher showed that particularized conversational implicature was dominated by the data as found by most of the Moreover, it was also found in this present study that the speaker had their own strategies and purposes in uttering an implicature as listed by the researcher 61 CHAPTER CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS This chapter is organized into four sections The first section provides some conclusions on the process and the result of conversation implicature analysis The second section signifies the importance of Grice‟s conversational implicature in real communications The next section includes the limitations of the research Suggestions for further studies are presented in the last part 5.1 CONCLUSIONS The process and the result of conversational implicature analysis based on Grice theory in Jimmy Kimmel talk shows has led to some conclusions Among all conversational utterances in the talk show, there are 70 particularized conversational implicatures which are employed from failures of fulfilling maxims The failures of fulfilling maxims in the talk shows come in violating maxims In particularized conversational implicatures, all implicatures are caused by the failures of fulfilling maxims All maxims, which are the maxim of quality, the maxim of quantity, the maxim of relevance, and the maxim of manner, are violated in Jimmy Kimmel‟s talk shows The types of violation of the Gricean maxims of quantity and relevance frequently occur in George W Bush and Michelle Obama‟s utterances Maxim of quantity receives the highest percentage of violation compared to the other maxims Secondly, the verbal deception strategies used to violate the Gricean maxims include augmentation, half-truth, overstatement, equivocation and obfuscations Among these strategies, augmentation is most frequently 62 applied in the guests‟ utterances in Jimmy Kimmel‟s talk shows From the data, there are no fabrication, abstraction, understatement and denial found in the violation of Gricean maxims Furthermore, the application of particularized conversational implicature which violates the maxims used by George W Bush and Michelle Obama in Jimmy Kimmel‟s talk show has several purposes found in the data Those are hiding the truth, convincing the hearer, changing the subject and injecting the humors The most dominant functions found in Jimmy Kimmel‟s talk show are hiding the truth and injecting humor The fact that violating quantity maxim is generally used by both guests indicates that they both want to hide the truth in order to avoid exposing the truth about their life 5.2 IMPLICATIONS The result of this analysis signifies the importance of Grice‟s conversational implicature as one view of understanding meaning in actual communications as portrayed in the Jimmy Kimmel talk shows At first, this analysis is aimed only to fulfill the requirement to get a master degree; it turns out that the advantages of its process are far greater beyond early recognition So, it is suggested for the readers, no matter who: students, researchers, or those who just accidentally read this analysis, to pay more attention and to take a closer look on meanings of utterances which are heard or read anywhere and anytime 5.3 LIMITATIONS The choice of two given videos as source of data has some strong points They are based on real interviews, so the implicatures used in them seem to be more authentic than other sources of data As analysts, when we study a speaker's intended meaning, we have 63 limited knowledge of what the speaker wants to say We are not the real participants of the conversation We are limited to studying possible interpretations of speaker's utterances In fact, even the hearer also has limited access to what is occurring in the mind of another person, and it is not always the case that he can work out exactly the implicature and the speech acts that the listener assumes him to work out That suggests there be sometimes disagreement with our analysis in this study Anyways, the reliability of our analysis depends on our ability and knowledge, so the subjectivity is unavoidable 5.4 SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDIES This study has been focused on the conversational implicature in terms of the violation of Gricean Maxims Because pragmatics covers much more than that, it is suggested that other researchers who are interested in pragmatics should conduct a study about implicature that focuses on a particular maxim, such as: A study of violating quantity maxims by using rhetorical devices in American best-seller books 64 REFERENCES In English Abdillah, H R (2016) Maxim flouting in non formal debate shows on Indonesian’s TV channels (Unpublished MA thesis) Medan: Postgraduate School, State University of Medan Bogdan, R C., & Biklen, S K (1992) Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and method Boston: Allyn and Bacon Inc Bogdan, R C., & Biklen, S K (1992) Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods Boston: Allyn and Bacon Bolinger, D (1973) Truth is a linguistic question Language, 49(3), 539-550 Christoffersen, D (2005) The shameless liar’s guide New York: Academic Creswell, L J (1994) Research design: Quantitative and qualitative approaches California: SAGE Publications, Inc Cutting, J (2002) Pragmatics and discourse: A resource book for students London: Routledge Finch, G (1997) How to study linguistics New York: Palgrave Macmillan Fitriyah, R (2013) The analysis of conversational maxim and flouting maxim in the land of five towers novel by A fuadi Semarang: Maria Kudus University Green, G (1989) Pragmatics and natural language understanding Lawrence Erlbaum Grice, H P (1975) Logic and conversation New York: Academic Press Griffiths, P (2004) Lying: An augustinian theology of duplicity Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press 65 Grundy, P (1995) Doing pragmatics London: Edward Arnold Hartini, S (2016) Maxims violation of politeness principle in the dialogue of Indonesia’s candidates debate, (unpublished MA thesis) Medan: Postgraduate School, State University of Medan Horn, L R (2004) The handbook of pragmatics Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Kamila A (2014) Analysis of cooperative principles in classroom interaction Salatiga: Universitas Kristen Satya Wacana Leech, G N (1983) The principles of pragmatic London: Longman Levinson, S (1983) Pragmatics Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Liddicoat, A J (2007) An introduction to conversation analysis London: Arthenaeum Limbong, K N (2017) Conversational maxim of the autistic children in SLB Yapsi Tebing Tinggi, (unpublished MA thesis) Medan: Postgraduate School, State University of Medan Lincon, Y., & Guba E G (1985) Naturalistic inquiry London: Sage May, J L (2001) Pragmatics: An introduction (2nd ed.) London: Blackwell Mazeland, H (2006) Conversation analysis In B Keith (Ed.) Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics ( pp 153-162) Cambridge: Elsevier Nasution, J (2014) Conversational maxims in Mata Najwa Talkshow Program on Metro TV, (unpublished MA thesis) Medan: Postgraduate School, State University of Medan Natalia, C H (2017) Conversational maxims in school counseling context, (unpublished MA thesis) Medan: Postgraduate School, State University of Medan 66 Gupta, Swati, Sakamoto, and Ortony (2012) Telling it like it isn’t: A comprehensive approach to analyzing verbal deception In Fabio Paglieri, Luca Tummolini, Rino Falcone, and Maria Miceli (Eds), The Goals of Cognition: Essays in Honor of Cristiano Castelfranchi London: College Publications, 579–610 Thomas, J (1995) The meaning of interaction: An introduction to pragmatics New York: Longman Tupan, A., & Natalia, H (2008) The multiple violations of conversational maxims in lying done by the characters in some episodes of desperate housewives K@ta, 10 (1), 63-78, doi:10.9744/kata.10.1.63-78 Vincent, J M., & Castelfranchi, C (1979) On the art of deception: How to lie while saying the truth In H Parret, M Sbisa, & J Verschueren (Eds), Conference on Pragmatics, Urbino (pp 749-778) Võ Thị Thanh Thảo (2012) A study of conversational implicatures in film Titanic, (unpublished MA thesis), The University of Da Nang Yule, G (1996) Pragmatics London: Oxford University Press In Vietnamese Dương Hữu Biên (1997) Vài ghi nhận lô gic hàm ý T/c Ngơn ngữ, 1, 17-21 Đồn Thị Tâm (2006) Một số phương thức tạo hàm ngôn truyện cười tiếng Việt Luận văn thạc sỹ, Trường Đại học Sư phạm TP Hồ Chí Minh Nguyễn Thị Tú Anh (2012) Hàm ngôn truyện ngắn Nguyễn Huy Thiệp Luận văn thạc sỹ Ngôn ngữ học, Trường Đại học Sư phạm TP Hồ Chí Minh