The Implication of Conversational Implicature Used by Teachers in Offline Classroom Interaction

Suci Pole Mappaita

doi:10.56209/badi.v1i2.47

Authors

Suci Pole Mappaita English Education Deparment,Graduate Program, State university of Makassar, Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.56209/badi.v1i2.47

Keywords:

Conversational Implicature, Classroom Interaction, Teacher’s Conversation

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine the variation or types of Conversational Implicatures used by teacher interactions in the classroom. This study uses qualitative or descriptive methods and uses them according to the theory of Yule. Data were taken from junior high schools and several teachers as research subjects. The data were analyzed by recording and transcribing and also the data was collected using selection, description, and verification techniques. The author categorizes several dialogues spoken by the teacher which show the types of conversational implicatures in-class interaction. The results showed that there are variation or types of conversational implications in classroom interactions that are used by teachers, including (1) specific implicatures, (2) general implicatures, and (3) scaled implicatures. conversational implications identified by the teacher using specific conversational implicatures of the dominant type.

References

Abrar, M., Mukminin, A., Habibi, A., Asyrafi, F., & Marzulina, L. (2018). " If our English isn't a language, what is it?" Indonesian EFL Student Teachers' Challenges Speaking English. The Qualitative Report, 23(1), 129-145. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315278858

Alsmari, N. (2020). The effect of flipped classroom instruction on developing Saudi EFL learners’ comprehension of conversational implicatures. International Journal of English Linguistics, 10(2), 107-127. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v10n2p107

Anggrarini, N. (2017). Conversational Implicature Analysis Of Text Message Between Native Speakr And Foreign Language Speaker Of English. Wiralodra English Journal, 1(1), 59-73. https://doi.org/10.31943/wej.v1i1.17

Aresta, R. (2018). The influence of translation techniques on the accuracy and acceptability of translated utterances that flout the maxim of quality. Humaniora, 30(2), 176-191. https://doi.org/10.22146/jh.33645

Azar, A. T., & Hassanien, A. E. (2015). Dimensionality reduction of medical big data using neural-fuzzy classifier. Soft computing, 19(4), 1115-1127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-014-1327-4

Betti, M. J., & Khalaf, N. S. (2021). A Pragma-Stylistic Study of Implicature in Shakespeare's Hamlet and Twelfth Night. International Linguistics Research, 4(3), p12-p12. https://doi.org/10.30560/ilr.v4n3p12

Buz, E., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Jaeger, T. F. (2016). Dynamically adapted context-specific hyper-articulation: Feedback from interlocutors affects speakers’ subsequent pronunciations. Journal of memory and language, 89, 68-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2015.12.009

Clark, L., Pantidi, N., Cooney, O., Doyle, P., Garaialde, D., Edwards, J., ... & Cowan, B. R. (2019, May). What makes a good conversation? Challenges in designing truly conversational agents. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1-12). https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300705

Derakhshan, A., & Eslami, Z. (2020). The effect of metapragmatic awareness, interactive translation, and discussion through video-enhanced input on EFL learners’ comprehension of implicature. Applied Research on English Language, 9(1), 25-52. https://doi.org/10.22108/are.2019.118062.1476

Geurts, B. (2019). Communication as commitment sharing: speech acts, implicatures, common ground. Theoretical linguistics, 45(1-2), 1-30. https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2019-0001

Gibson, E., Futrell, R., Piantadosi, S. P., Dautriche, I., Mahowald, K., Bergen, L., & Levy, R. (2019). How efficiency shapes human language. Trends in cognitive sciences, 23(5), 389-407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2019.02.003

Gisladottir, R. S., Chwilla, D. J., & Levinson, S. C. (2015). Conversation electrified: ERP correlates of speech act recognition in underspecified utterances. PloS one, 10(3), e0120068. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0120068

Hellbernd, N., & Sammler, D. (2016). Prosody conveys speaker’s intentions: Acoustic cues for speech act perception. Journal of Memory and Language, 88, 70-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2016.01.001

Huang, Y. T., & Snedeker, J. (2018). Some inferences still take time: Prosody, predictability, and the speed of scalar implicatures. Cognitive psychology, 102, 105-126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2018.01.004

Indriani, M. S. (2012). Makna Pragmatis Dalam Percakapan Novel Menjaring Seribu Mimpi Karya Mira Karmila. Prasi: Jurnal Bahasa, Seni, dan Pengajarannya, 8(14). https://doi.org/10.23887/prasi.v8i14.443

Kupisch, T., & Rothman, J. (2018). Terminology matters! Why difference is not incompleteness and how early child bilinguals are heritage speakers. International Journal of Bilingualism, 22(5), 564-582. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006916654355

Mazzarella, D., Reinecke, R., Noveck, I., & Mercier, H. (2018). Saying, presupposing and implicating: How pragmatics modulates commitment. Journal of Pragmatics, 133, 15-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.05.009

McCusker, K., & Gunaydin, S. (2015). Research using qualitative, quantitative or mixed methods and choice based on the research. Perfusion, 30(7), 537-542. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267659114559116

Moore, R. (2017). Gricean communication and cognitive development. The Philosophical Quarterly, 67(267), 303-326. https://doi.org/10.1093/pq/pqw049

Mozuraitis, M., Chambers, C. G., & Daneman, M. (2015). Privileged versus shared knowledge about object identity in real-time referential processing. Cognition, 142, 148-165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2015.05.001

Nida, E. A. (2015). A Componential Analysis of Meaning. In A Componential Analysis of Meaning. De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110828696

Omotayo, F. O. (2015). Knowledge Management as an important tool in Organisational Management: A Review of Literature. Library Philosophy and Practice, 1(2015), 1-23. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/1238

Papi, M. B. (2010). How does pragmatics fit with the brain? New challenges from complex systems theories. Italian journal of linguistics, 22(1), 209-228.

Siddiqui, A. (2018). The principle features of English Pragmatics in applied linguistics. Advances in language and literary studies, 9(2), 77-80.https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.9n.2p.77.

Sileo, J. M. (2011). Co-teaching: Getting to know your partner. Teaching exceptional children, 43(5), 32-38. https://doi.org/10.1177/004005991104300503

Simaremare, Y. N., Nainggolan, W. C., & Herman, H. (2021). Pragmatics Analysis on Conversational Implicature Used in Mulan (2020) Movie. Middle European Scientific Bulletin, 15. https://doi.org/10.47494/mesb.2021.15.696

Skordos, D., & Papafragou, A. (2016). Children’s derivation of scalar implicatures: Alternatives and relevance. Cognition, 153, 6-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2016.04.006

Sofyan, A., Yudistira, R., Alfani, F. R., & Ghaffar, A. A. (2022). The Analysis of Conversational Implicature Between Students and Teachers at Al-Azhar Islamic Boarding School. RETORIKA: Jurnal Ilmu Bahasa, 8(1), 65-72. https://doi.org/10.55637/jr.8.1.4042.65-72

Suryadi, H., & Muslim, M. (2019). An analysis of conversational implicature strategy in a drama “the bear” by Anton Chekhovand its application in ELT. Journal of Languages and Language Teaching, 7(2), 82-95. https://doi.org/10.33394/jollt.v7i2.1956

Tsojon, I. Y., & Jonah, P. K. (2016). An Analysis of the Pragmatic Implicatures of Selected Advert Billboards around Jos Metropolis in Terms of Grice (1975) Maxims of Cooperative Principle. International Journal of English Language Teaching, 3(1), 42-49. http://dx.doi.org/10.5430/ijelt.v3n1p42

Tsoumou, J. M. (2020). Analysing speech acts in politically related Facebook communication. Journal of Pragmatics, 167, 80-97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.06.004

Uktolseja, L. J., Sujaja, H., & Matinahoru, M. F. (2019). A contrastive analysis between English and Indonesian kinds of sentences. IJET (Indonesian Journal of English Teaching), 8(1), 54-61. https://doi.org/10.15642/ijet2.2019.8.1.54-61

Widdowson, H. (2015). ELF and the pragmatics of language variation. Journal of English as a lingua franca, 4(2), 359-372.https://doi.org/10.1515/jelf-2015-0027.

Wilson, D., & Kolaiti, P. (2017). Lexical pragmatics and implicit communication. Implicitness. From Lexis to Discourse/P. Cap and M. Dynel (Eds.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 147-175. http://digital.casalini.it/9789027265487.

Woods, M., Paulus, T., Atkins, D. P., & Macklin, R. (2016). Advancing qualitative research using qualitative data analysis software (QDAS)? Reviewing potential versus practice in published studies using ATLAS. ti and NVivo, 1994–2013. Social Science Computer Review, 34(5), 597-617. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439315596311

Yonashiro‐Cho, J., Cote, S., & Enguidanos, S. (2016). Knowledge about and perceptions of advance care planning and communication of Chinese‐American older Adults. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 64(9), 1884-1889. https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.14261

Yulianti, S., Arafah, B., Rofikah, U., Idris, A. M. S., Samsur, N., & Arafah, A. N. B. (2022). Conversational implicatures on saturday night live talk show. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 13(1), 189-197. https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.1301.22