STUDENTS’ ON CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURES OF CIAYUMAJAKUNING DRAMA SCRIPTS

Pragmatics is added into the new curriculum of English Education Department. Pragmatics deals with hidden meaning (Wray et al, 1998). Grice‟s theory of Cooperative Principle and Maxims are a common study in Pragmatics. To relate the study of Pragmatics and other subject in English Education Department, the writers asked students to analyze the drama scripts they had performed. The analysis is about conversational implicatures in Ciayumajakuning drama scripts which involved Grice‟s theory of Cooperative Principle and Maxims. It is a qualitative study that applies a case study. The writers took students‟ analysis on four drama scripts of Ciayumajakuning as the data source. The aims of this research are: 1) to describe how students analyze the flouting of maxims in the drama script, and 2) to describe how students analyze conversational implicatures in the drama script. The research finding shows that 1) students analyzed the flouting of maxims based on Grice‟s theory of maxims. They are maxim of quantity, maxim of quality, maxim of relation and maxim of manner. 2) Students analyzed conversational implicatures in two ways, the first is through the relationship between the question and the answer of the target conversant. The second, some students provided some possible implicatures that might be derived by readers. Then, the students chose one implicature as the most appropriate one for some reasons. menerapkan sebuah studi kasus. Penulis mengambil hasil analisis mahasiswa terhadap empat naskah drama Ciayumajakuning sebagai sumber data. Tujuan penelitian ini adalah: 1) untuk mendeskripsikan bagaimana manashiwa menganalisis floting-maksim pada naskah drama, dan 2) untuk mendeskripsikan bagaimana mahasisawa menganalisis implikatur percakapan pada naskah drama. hasil temuan menunjukna bahwa 1) mahsasiswa menganalisis floting-maxim berdasakan teori maxim Grice. yaitu They are maxim of quantity, maxim of quality, maxim of relation and maxim of manner. 2) mahsisawa menganalisis conversational implicature dalam dua cara, pertama adalah melalui hubungan antara pertanyaan dan jawaban pada target komunikan, dan kedua bebrapa mahasiswa menyajikan beberapa kemungkinan implikatur yang didapat oleh pembaca. kemudain, mahsisawa memilih salah satu implikatursebagai satu yang paling tepat dengan beberapa alasan.


Introduction
Drama as one of the lectures taught at English Education Department of Teaching and Educational Sciences Faculty (FKIP) of UNSWAGATI Cirebon has a certain program for the students" final examination. The students are asked to work in a group and perform a drama performance at the end of the odd semester. It might be called as students" masterpiece work, since they have to work cooperatively with other members of the class. The members of one group of drama are the members of two classes consist of around fifty students. It is a big class where all students have to work cooperatively with all members of the class who involve in drama performance.
Drama performance is not a sudden activity. It needs to be arranged and practiced at the beginning of odd semester. Therefore, the writers, who are the drama lecturers, tell and explain about the drama activity since the very first beginning she meets students in the class. She explained the aims, the rule, the function, the mid and final examination projects of this drama class.
Studying drama in English as a Foreign Language class cannot be separated from understanding the drama script written in English. In academic year of 2016/2017, the writers asked her students to find and or to arrange a drama script telling about the stories, legends or folktales from CIAYUMAJAKUNING (Cirebon, Indramayu, Majalengka and Kuningan). Each class should find one story or drama script from one of the cities mentioned above. The students should analyze the script before they perform the drama for their final project.
The writers are interested to know the students ability in how they comprehend the script of drama. As we know that, dialogues in drama usually have implied meanings.
The readers who read the script are demanded to interpret the implied meaning shown in the dialogues of the characters to get the messages and to understand the whole story of the drama. In line with Trenholm (1991: 16) that everything we do, intentionally or not, is thought to communicate some hidden meaning (Trenholm, 1991: 16). To find out and to understand implied meaning in literary works is one of the challenging tasks, especially in studying drama in an EFL class. The writers are interested to know how English students of UNSWAGATI analyze the conversational implicatures in the drama script that they are going to perform as their final project in drama class. How they arrange the implicatures and what reasons do they choose certain implicature instead of others. Those questions are then formulated by the writers as the research questions as follow: 1. How do students analyze the flouting of maxims in the drama script?
2. How do students analyze conversational implicatures in the drama script?
By determining the research question above the writes are expected to how students analyze the flouting of maxims in the drama script and how they analyze conversational implicatures in the drama script. In the other side, the writers limit the research only on conversational implicatures which were proposed by Grice. The drama scripts are limited to the story from the folk story CIAYUMAJAKUNING. The writers choose some data from drama script of class 3A, 3B, 3C and 3D students of English Education

Department of Unswagati which entitled: Simbar Kencana Males Pati, Ki Bagus
Rangin "Kedondong War", Baridin and Ratminah and Nyi Mas Gandasari. Besides the aims of the research above, the writers also consider to promote some significances of the study that viewed from three aspects; 1). Linguistically, it will give a model of expressions that commonly appear in local drama scripts that contained conversational implicatures, 2). Pedagogically, the findings can give a contribution to the development

The Cooperative Principle and Maxims
The philosopher H.P. Grice developed a co-operative principle (1967/1987)  In short, an implicature can be simply defined as any assumption, which is implicitly communicated.
Mey defines implicature is the word that derived from the verb 'to imply', as is its cognate 'implication'. Etymologically, 'to imply' means 'to fold something into something else' (from the Latin verb plicare 'to fold'); hence, that which is implied, is 'folded in', and has to be 'unfolded' in order to be understood (2001: 45). Mey (2001: 45) also defines a conversational implicature as something, which is implied in conversation, that is, something that is left implicit in actual language use. It could be also said that conversational implicature concerns the way we understand an utterance in conversation in accordance with what we expect to hear (Mey, 2001: 46). According to Grice, conversational implicature covers any meaning that is implied, for instance, conveyed indirectly or through hints, and understood implicitly without ever being explicitly stated (ctd. in Grundy, 2000: 73) Grice claimed that there were two types of implicature: conventional and conversational (ctd. in Gazdar, 1979: 38 (Gazdar, 1979: 39) On other occasions of use, say when we already know that the referent is a school truancy officer, this sentence will not carry this particular implicature. The second subclass is that of generalized conversational implicatures and Grice states that: Generalized conversational implicatures arise when one can say that the use of a certain form of words in an utterance would normally (in the Absence of special circumstances) carry such-and-such an implicature or type of implicature. It is all too easy to treat a generalized conversational implicature as if it were a conventional implicature (qtd.in Gazdar, 1979: 39).
Implicatures are the property of utterances, not of sentences and therefore the same words carry different implicatures on different occasions (Thomas, 1995). In each case the semantic meaning of how old are you? is the same, but the implicature is different.
In example 1 it is a straightforward request for information; in example 2 the father is implying that the son"s behavior is inappropriate for a person of that age (more precisely, he is implying that it is time his son got a job) and the psychiatrist in example 3 is probably trying to prompt the patient to consider whether, at thirty-nine, she isn"t old enough to make up her own mind about whether or not to work.

Research Procedures
The research procedure of qualitative research is shorter and simpler compared to that of quantitative research. Huda (1999: 41-42) cited in Fauziati (2009: 244) summarizes it as follows: 1. The writers selected a topic for the study and a research site; 2. The research visited the field and the collects the data, tries to analyze the data, and then formulates a research problem; 3. Data collection was focused on the attempt to find the answer to the formulated question. During the process, new research questions may emerge to that new data need to be collected and recorded; 4. Data were categorized and analyzed; and 5. Research report was written.

Techniques of Collecting the Data
The data of this research were taken from the third grade students" analysis on drama script entitled Simbar Kencana Males Pati, The Immortal Spirit Of Ki Bagus Rangin "Kedondong War", Baridin & Ratminah, Nyi Mas Gandasari. To get the data, the writers did the following steps: 1. The writers asked the students to read the drama script of Ciayumajakuning stories thoroughly.
2. The writers asked students to write the list of expressions or dialogues in the script that contained conversational implicatures.
3. The writers asked students to analyze those expressions or dialogues using Grice"s theory of Maxims and conversational implicatures.
4. The writers asked students to write the report of their analysis.

Techniques of Analyzing the Data
The analysis system used in this research is interpretive analysis (Dornyei, 2008, cited in Fauziati, 2009. In general, the writers use listing, classifying, and interpreting the data. For more details, the steps are described below: 1. The writers read the students" reports.
2. The writers interpreted the data by listing the expression or dialogues that flout the maxims analyzed by the students.
3. The writer interpreted the data by listing the expression or dialogues that contained conversational implicatures. 4. The writers wrote the reasons why students choose such maxim and conversational implicatures to be drawn.
5. The writers interviewed students related to their analysis to strengthen the writers" answer on research question number 3.
6. The writers wrote the result and discussion of the research findings.

Results and Discussion
The following data are samples of students" analysis about flouting the maxims and conversational implicatures in drama scripts of Ciayumajakuning stories. The student analyzed as follow

The Flouting of Maxim of Quantity and Its Implicature
In the dialogue above, Prince Panglurah"s answer is too convoluted not to the point.

Raden
Panglurah"s answer is flouting maxim of quantity. The implicature of Prince The student analyzed as follows.
If we look at Sunan Gunung Djati"s answer, it is clear that he did the flouting of maxim of quantity because he answered unnecessary answer. Fatimah just asked him whether Pakungwati is at home, but he answered it by also giving the information where he will go that is not asked by Fatimah. The student"s analysis is as follows.
In the dialogue above, Baridin's statement is flouting the maxim of quantity. Baridin"s answer is more informative. He gave a lot of information that is not needed. Some implicatures that might arise from baridin"s answer are: (a) Baridin did not love Ratminah anymore The student"s analysis is as follows.
Daendels" statement is flouting the maxim of relation because it is not related to what Nicolas said. Nicolas said about the power and the troops in his imagination, but Daendels responsed it by asking Nicolas to take a rest. The implicature is Daendels did not believe in Nicolas" words since it happened only in Nicolas" mind.

Data 13
Daendels : Who gave you all the foods this morning, inladers? Ratinah : It"s not your business!! In this conversation, Ratinah"s answer is irrelevant. Daendels asked about who gave them food, but Ratinah did not mention any name as the answer. The implicature is Ratinah protected the person who helped them by giving them some foods.

Data 14
Ruben : Who teaches you to say like that???? Ratinah : I"m not as stupid as you think!
The student analyzed as follows: The example above is flouting the maxim of relation, because Ruben asked who taught her saying those provocative words, but Ratinah"s answer is not answering Ruben"s question The student"s analysis is as follows: Gandasari did the flouting of maxim of relation. She did not answer Pakungwati"s question. She answered it with another statement which is not related to the question.
She wanted to be called "Nyimas Ayu Gandasari", not Fatimah anymore. The implicature is Fatimah wanted to tell Pakungwati that she has already got a new name.
We can see that Ratminah"s answer is not relevant with the question. Therefore, it is flouting the maxim of relation. The question is asking about place and time, but she answers it by giving information about what happened to her. It is not related to the question. The implicature is Ratminah hopes that his father will not get angry because of her coming home late.

The Flouting of Maxim of Manner and Its Implicature
In the dialogue above, the answer of Guard 1 is ambiguous. The words spoken by Guard The student"s analysis is as follows.
In the conversation above, baridin"s answer is flouting the maxim of manner since he did not give an exact answer to his mother about what kind of obstacle that he had. His answer is not clear. The implicature we may derive from Baridin"s statement is Baridin did not want to tell the obstacle to her mother. (Baridin & Ratminah, DI, 3C)

Flouts Necessitated By a Clash Between Maxims
Flouts necessitated by a clash between maxims happen when the jokes flout more than one maxim, it could be two, three, or even four maxims at once. There are students who analyzed the same data with different maxims. The students categorized them into the data which flouts two maxims or more at once. It is called flouts necessitated by a clash between maxims. They are as follows:

Data 21
Ruben : Who teaches you to say like that???? Ratinah : I"m not as stupid as you think!
The student analyzed as follows: Ruben asks Ratinah about somebody who teaches her become a rebel, but Ratinah does not answer Ruben"s question. So, Ratinah does not give information honestly about somebody who teaches her. It is flouting maxim of quality. Furthermore, Ratinah"s answer is not relevant toward Ruben"s question. So, it is flouting maxims of relation.
Conversational implicature in this conversation means that Ratinah wants to hide this information, defends herself and shows that she is brave and strong.

Data 22
Daendels : Who gave you all the foods this morning, inlander? Ratinah : It"s not your business.
The student analyzed as follows.
In this dialogue, Ratinah does 2 floutings. The first she does the flouting maxim of relation because her answer is not relevant with daendels" question. The student analyzed as follows.
Palembang Gunung"s answer flouts two maxims at once. The student analyzed as follows.
Ki Kuwu"s statement is flouting the maxim of quantity and maxim of relation at once.
Ki Kuwu"s answer was more informative than what was being asked. And the answer was not related at all to the question. Since the question is whose baby it is. The student analyzed as follows.
From the conversation above, we know that Baridin"s answer is flouting the maxim of quantity and also maxim of relation. Baridin answered Mang Bunawas" question more informative than is needed. Besides, Baridin"s answer is not relevant with the question. The interesting thing is students also found the data that flouted two maxims at once.
Most of them are categorized into the data that flouted maxim of relation and quantity at once. The data in this category showed that the speakers" answers or statements are not related to the question and more informative as well. The speaker added much information that is neither related nor needed to the question.
The students analyzed the conversational implicatures from two ways. The first, through the relationship between the question and the answer of the target conversant. The second, some students provided some possible implicatures may be derived by readers.
Then, the students chose one implicature as the most appropriate one. Students also wrote the reasons why he/she chose certain implicature. The reasons are related to the dialogues between the conversant. Besides, students also analyzed the conversational implicatures through situation or atmosphere created by the conversant in the drama script based on what they plausibly assume or observe.

Conclusion & Recommendation
Based on the research findings above, we can see that all students analyzed the data based on Grice"s theory of maxims. Students analyzed the data to be categorized into the flouting of maxim of quality when the speaker is lack of evidence and he/she lies to his/her conversation participant. When the speaker is giving too much or less information that is needed, the students categorized the data into the flouting the maxim of quantity. The data that are not relevant or related to the questions being asked are categorized into the flouting of maxim of relation. There are only limited data categorized into the flouting of maxim of manner. All conversations that are not clear, ambiguous and do not have exact meaning are to be in this category of flouting maxim of manner. The interesting thing is students also found the data that flouted two maxims at once. Most of them are categorized into the data that flouted maxim of relation and quantity at once. The data in this category showed that the speakers" answers or statements are not related to the question and more informative as well. The speaker added much information that is neither related nor needed to the question.
This research is limited to the conversational implicatures analyzed by students of English Department. The object of the research is in the form of english drama script.
This research has contribution and implications to the students' understanding about how to analyze conversational implicatures in pragmatic study. There are still a lot of things that could be explored more in this study related to the conversational implicatures. Such questions for further research as how conversational implicatures related to politeness, how students' gender influence the way they draw the implicatures and how conversational implicatures analyzed from other points of view such as sociolinguistics and psycholinguistics. Future researchers could also analyzed conversational implicatures from different objects such as: talkshow, movie scripts, students-students talks, and teacher-students talks. Hopefully those questions could be explored in another future research theme.
The students analyzed the conversational implicatures from two ways. The first, through the relationship between the question and the answer of the target conversants. The second, some students provided some possible implicatures may be derived by readers.
Then, the students chose one implicature as the most appropriate one. Students also wrote the reasons why he/she chose certain implicature. The reasons are related to the dialogues between the conversants. Besides, students also analyzed the conversational implicatures through situation or atmosphere created by the conversants in the drama script based on what they plausibly assume or observe.