Presupposition and implicature Jurnal LINGUA CULTURA Vol.2 No.1 Mei 2008: 12-24 12 PRESUPPOSITIONS AND IMPLICATURES IN COMIC STRIPS Ienneke Indra Dewi English Department, Faculty of Literature, Bina Nusantara University, Jl. Kemanggisan Ilir III No. 45, Kemanggisan/Palmerah, Jakarta Barat 11480, ienneke@binus.edu S3 student English Applied Linguistics - Atmajaya University ABSTRACT Article aimed to find out the role of presuppositions, implicatures, as well as to see the maxims violated or flouted in the comic strips i.e. to whether there is a miscommunication among the characters in the comic strips. Data were taken from the three comics, those are Peanuts, Andy, and Tintin, and were analysed based on the pattern that the sender made a presupposition before transferring information and the receiver would try to get the implied message. The results show that presuppositions and implicatures are much influenced by the background knowledge. The more the speaker and hearer know each other’s background, the better presuppositions and implicatures they make and finally, the less miscommunication occurred. Keywords: presuppositions, implicatures, communication, conversation, comic ABSTRAK Artikel bertujuan untuk menganalisis peran presupposisi, implikatur, dan juga maxim yang tidak diikuti dalam naskah komik. Di samping itu, dilihat juga apakah ada kesalahpahaman antara pelaku yang terjadi akibat peran tersebut. Data diambil dari tiga jenis komik, yaitu Peanut, Andy, dan Tintin, dan dianalisis berdasarkan pola bahwa pengirim membuat presupposition dan penerima berusaha untuk mengerti dengan menyimpulkan dari informasi yang diberikan. Hasil penelitian adalah bahwa presuposisi dan implikatur sangat dipengaruhi oleh pengetahuan mengenai latar belakang. Semakin diketahui latar belakang seseorang, semakin tepat dibuat presupposisi dan dilakukan simpulan dan akibatnya semakin mudah diatasi kesalahpahaman dalam berkomunikasi. Kata kunci: presuposisi, implikator, komunikasi, percakapan, komik Presuppositions and Implicatures … (Ienneke Indra Dewi) 13 INTRODUCTION As human beings do not live alone in the world, they need to interact, to communicate one another. Communication, according to Valenzuela (1996) is "Any act by which one person gives to or receives from another person i.e. information about that person's needs, desires, perceptions, knowledge, or affective states.” The case is not very simple as the person giving and receiving that information has his own background. Staltnaker (1977) said that “communication, whether linguistic or not, normally takes place against a background of beliefs or assumptions which are shared.” When a person is having a discussion, they should have some knowledge that they share. When somebody discusses politics, they should have something that they share as they are coming from their own worlds. Dinsmore (1981) uses the term world to indicate a particular world of belief, while Mey (1996) the terms context. In this context before making an utterance, a person needs to assume what the other person in his world knows regarding the topic. This assumption is called “presupposition” by Yule (1996) and Richards (1992). The presupposition is expressed by the speakers in various ways according to their intention. In this case they can just follow the maxims of cooperative principles (quantity, quality, relation, and manner) (Yule, 1996:37) violate or flout them. In doing so, the speaker can express his ideas overtly or covertly. When being expressed covertly, one of the strategies used is using implicatures, i.e. “leaving something implicit in actual language us. Something which is implied in a conversation, that is, something which is left implicit in actual language use” (Mey, 2001:24). In this case, Yule (1996) stressed that in a conversation sometimes an utterance can “communicate more than is said” and in order to understand this part, the speaker should communicate the meaning via implicatures and the listener recognizes the meaning via interpretation/inference (Yule, 1996:40). This article discusses the role of presuppositions, the cooperative principles, and implicatures as well as to see the maxims that are violated or flouted in the communication as shown in the comic strips. The main concern is that in communication, sometimes there is misunderstanding, meaning that the message in the communication does not reach the purpose, or the hearer does not understand what the speaker says or intends to say. The goal of this paper is to find out to see how those items are applied in the communication in the comic strips. In order to achieve the goal, the writer uses four comics taken from three resources, Peanuts, Andy and Tintin. The presuppositions, cooperative principles, and implicatures together with the inference are analysed in order to know the result of the conversations which are later on compared in order to find out the (un)successful ones and the reasons. The data will be in the form of the comic strips and analysed using the framework of the basic theory of communication i.e. the flow of communication combined with the presuppositions, cooperative principles, and implicatures. DISCUSSION Theoretical Background Pre-supposition Levinson (1983) says that a presupposition is background belief, relating to an utterance that must be mutually known or assumed by the speaker and addressee for the utterance to be considered appropriate in context. According to Yule (1996:25) “a presupposition is something the speaker assumes to be the case prior to making an utterance. Speakers, not sentences, have the presuppositions.” Richards (1992) gives simpler definition that a presupposition is what a speaker or writer assumes that the receiver of the message already knows. Kreidler (1998) describes the presupposition using another point of view that is “the information that must be assumed in order for a sentence to be meaningful”. Jurnal LINGUA CULTURA Vol.2 No.1 Mei 2008: 12-24 14 If we look at those definitions we can see that a presupposition dealing with the speaker with his „world‟. The world here means background belief, existence, context and situation, in which Hurford and Healey (1983) call as “the universe of discourse” i.e. the speaker‟s context, situation. In this world, the speaker assumes what the receivers know in his „world‟. By doing this, it is expected that the information given will be understood correctly by the receiver. In order to make sure that the information is objective, the proposition is “treated as a relationship between two propositions” (Yule, 1996:26) and is related with truth condition. The symbol of presupposition is >>. e.g. Mary‟s dog is cute (p) Mary has a dog (q) Proposition p presupposes proposition q p>>q It means that Mary’s dog is cute presupposes Mary has a dog. If we relate it with the definition, before somebody says that Mary’s dog is cute, he assumes that the hearer has already known that Mary has a dog. In order that the communication runs very well, the truth in the presupposition must not change in any conditions. Regarding this truth condition, Mey (1996:27) added that a presupposition is “an underlying element which remains constant”, whether the utterance is true or not. Trask (2007:232) confirms this matter briefly by saying that a presupposition survives negation. The summary of those can be found in Yule (1996) who said that “the presupposition of a statement will remain constant even when the statement is negated”. e.g. Mary‟s dog is cute (=p) Mary has a dog (=q) Mary’s dog is not cute can also presupposes that Mary has a dog.. Van Frassen 1968 in Cummings (2005:32) proposed a formula as follows: A presupposes B if and only if (a) if A is true then B is true, (b) if A is false then B is true In presupposition, the “when we produce the opposite of the sentence is by negating it (=NOT p), we find that the relationship of presupposition does not change. The property of presupposition is generally described as constancy under negation. Regarding the presuppositions, Mey (2001:186) said that “it is important not only to record what people say, but to figure out shy they say things and why they them the way they do”. Cooperative Principles Cooperative principles were proposed by H. Paul Grice (1975, 1989) in Mey (2001:72) and they consist of four maxims as follows. 1. The maxim of quantity a. Make your contribution as informative as required; b. Do not make your contribution more informative than required. 2. The maxim of quality a. Do not say what you believe to be false; b. Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence 3. The maxim of relations Be relevant Presuppositions and Implicatures … (Ienneke Indra Dewi) 15 4. The maxim of manner; Be perspicuous, and specifically: a. avoid obscurity and ambiguity b. be brief and orderly Yule (1996:37) said that “people involved in a conversation will cooperate with each other”. In expressing the ideas, in order to flout the maxim people may imply the information and this process is called implicatures. Implicatures The speaker when uttering in a conversation, sometimes uses the sentence clearly and semantically can be understood directly; however, due to some reasons or background, he implies the meaning. This case is called implicatures. The term implicatures was first introduced by Grice (1967, 1989) in Hough (2002), who defined it essentially as “what is communicated less what is said”. In other words, he continues, in implicatures “whatever is communicated that is not part of what is said by a speaker”. Kreidller (1998:301) defines implicatures as “a meaning derived not from what is said but deduced from the necessary way of interpreting what is said”. Example: Charlene : I hope you brought the bread and the cheese Dexter : Ah, I brought the bread Dexter has conveyed more than he said via a conversational implicatures (Yule, 1996:40). According to Yule (1996), Mey (2001), Grundy (2000), implicatures are divided into two, conversational and conventional; Meanwhile conversational is divided into particularized and generalized. In conventional implicatures, the meaning “does not depend on a particular context of language” (Mey 2001:49), but on specific words (Yule, 1996:45). Meanwhile, conversational implicature is “something which is implied in conversation, that is something which is left implicit in actual language use.” (Mey, 2001:45). Yule (1996), Mey (2001), and Grundy (2000), say that in conversational implicatures, there are two aspects, generalized conversational and particularized implicatures. In the first the interpretation can be done without looking at the context and the second the interpretation should be done by looking at the context. The most important thing relating to the communication is that the speaker communicates the meaning via implicatures and the listener recognizes the meaning via interpretation/inference (Yule, 2001:40). Discussion The framework of this analysis will follow the above mentioned study of presuppositions, cooperative principles, and implicatures. The pattern will be as follows: The speaker in his own world before uttering an expression will make a presupposition to assume what the hearer knows in his world. Then, in order to deliver his message, actually he should follow the cooperative principles so that the message he sends will reach the hearer as intended. However, sometimes the speaker does not do that, sometimes, he does not express everything clearly; he uses implicatures. The hearer on the other hand, in his own world, hearing the utterance should try to interpret what the speaker intends to say considering the speaker‟s presupposition and implicatures. Then when he wants to reply, he should also make the presupposition, consider the cooperative principles and implicatures. If the participants can put forward their ideas clearly, and infer each other correctly, then it is assumed that there will be no misunderstanding between the two because they can understand the message as it is intended so. The basic patterns of the analysis will be as follows. Jurnal LINGUA CULTURA Vol.2 No.1 Mei 2008: 12-24 16 24 Form of communication messageMESSAGE Backgro und Beliefs Assump tions culture C O D I N G M E D I A D E C O D I N G Backgro und Beliefs Assumpt ions culture PRE SUPPOSI TIONS Cooperative principles Politeness Speech acts INFERENCE implicature speaker hearer Figure 1 Basic Patterns of the Analysis Comic Strip 1: Linus' debut on Peanuts. Sept. 19, 1952 Lucy informs Charlie that her brother, Linus can sit up. At first, Charlie does not believe as he knows that Linus is too small to sit up. Then both of them go to see Linus. When they come, they find out that Linus can sit up but he should be supported by some woods. No Presupposition s (by Speaker) (q) P>>q Maxims violated/flouted Implicatures (By Speaker) Inferences : (Does the speaker infers the hearer correctly?): P: Presupposition I: Implicature Results: Does the communication runs well without misunderstanding? 1.2. Lc: My brother can sit up (p) My brother cannot sit up (NOT p) 1. Lucy has a baby brother p>>q NOT p>>q Quantity: as Lucy does not give complete information about his brother Asking Charlie to see her brother P: Yes, as Ch has already known that Lc has a brother Yes, the communication runs well as Ch infers the presupposition and the implicature well I: correctly inferred as Ch is willing to see Linus 2. The sitting up is according to Lc’s mind sitting I: No as in Ch‟s mind the sitting up is the normal sitting up No.From his face we know that Ch gets surprised (not happy), maybe because he knows that it is not the time for Linus to sit up. Therefore, he asks the question in 3. Presuppositions and Implicatures … (Ienneke Indra Dewi) 17 3. Ch: Really? All by himself? 3. Linus is sitting up like the normal people The expression really indicates that Ch is in doubt about the assertion. All by himself meaning – like normal people? P: Yes, Yes I : Yes Lc understands Ch by using the expression „almost‟ „ I only .. a little bit 4. Lc: Almost, I only had to prop him up a little bit 4 Linus is sitting up Quantity: as Lucy does not give complete information about the sitting up. Manner: as the use of the word a little bit is not clear. Almost – scalar implicature implies that the sitting up is not yet normal. Only a little bit also scalar implicature indicates that Linus only needs a very little help to sit up normally. However, the scalar is not clear P: Yes I : Not really - the scalar is not clear. Nevertheless, Ch still expects something good therefore he smiles No. The picture shows that Ch is smiling at the same time he is frowning. It means that Ch is happy because Linus only needs a little help to sit up. On the other hand, he wonders how little would the help be. The speaker in his own world before uttering an expression will make a presupposition to assume what the hearer knows in his world. Then, in order to deliver his message, actually he should follow the cooperative principles so that the message he sends will reach the hearer as intended. However, sometimes the speaker does not do that, sometimes, he does not express everything clearly; he uses implicatures. The hearer on the other hand, in his own world, hearing the utterance should try to interpret what the speaker intends to say considering the speaker‟s presupposition and implicatures. Then when he wants to reply, he should also make the presupposition, consider the cooperative principles and implicatures. If the participants can put forward their ideas clearly, and infer each other correctly, then it is assumed that there will be no misunderstanding between the two because they can understand the message as it is intended so. Comic Strips 2: The first time Linus appears with his security blanket. June 1, 1954 Jurnal LINGUA CULTURA Vol.2 No.1 Mei 2008: 12-24 18 No Presuppositions (by Speaker) (q) p>>q Maxims violated/flouted Implicatures (By Speaker) Inferences : (The speaker infers the hearer correctly?): P: Presupposition I: Implicature Results: The communication runs well without misunderstanding? 1. Ch.: Why does Linus hold the blanket like that? (p) Why doesn’t Linus hold the blanket like that? (NOT p) 1. Linus holds a blanket like that (q) p>> q NOT p>>q I think the way Linus holds the blanket is peculiar. (Holding the blanket and putting/feeling it with his cheek P: Yes I : Yes, as Lc seems to realize that Linus is doing something strange Yes, Lc and Ch agree that Linus is peculiar 2. Lc: I’m not sure … I think maybe it gives him a feelings of security (p) I am sure it may give him a feeling of security NOT 3. Lc: ? 2. It (holding the blanket like that) may give Linus the feelings of security Quality: as Lc actually does not know the truth. However, Lc still uses the hedges I’m not sure, maybe I do not know, Linus does not say a word. I just guess. P: Yes , and Ch. went away while Lucy was left with questions Yes I: Yes, and it seems that Ch has a plan to prove it 3 Upon my explanation: Why are you leaving You do not believe me? What are you going to do? I: Not really. In fact Ch does not care about Lucy. So he might infer the Lc‟s wonders correctly but he does not give any reply No There might be some misunderstanding because Lucy keeps wondering. 4. Ch: It does not work. I feel like an idiot! 4. I want to feel like Linus, having the security using blanket. I am testing Linus‟ way of holding the blanket. I do not feel the security. It is not the normal way of getting the security P: Not really as Lc does not say anything. No There might be some misunderstanding here as Lucy by keeping quiet Lucy implies that Ch is an idiot, she does not tell him to do this. Or That is only her guess, That is Linus‟ world. Ch does not have to do that. I: Not really. She might infer it correctly but she just keeps quiet but does not look happy as well. In the first conversation (no 1 and 2), Lucy and Charlie can infer the presuppositions and implicatures correctly so that there is no problem in their conversation. In number 3, Charlie is leaving without saying anything, and the conversation begins to be in trouble as Lucy has to guess what Charlie is going to do. After Charlie tries Linus‟s way, he feels unhappy because the blanket does not give him security as Lucy says. Therefore he gets disappointed. Seeing Charlie‟s disappointment, Lucy is unhappy as well, maybe because she feels guilty in giving the information. However, maybe, she says, I am just guessing. Presuppositions and Implicatures … (Ienneke Indra Dewi) 19 Data C: My mother’s meals Ad = Andy Tn = Tony Comic Strips 3: I miss my mother’s meals No Presuppositions (by Speaker) (q) p>>q Maxims violated/flouted Implicatures (By Speaker) Inferences : (The speaker infers the hearer correctly?): P: Presupposition I: Implicature Results: The communication runs well without misunderstanding? 1. Ad. I miss the good old days, when mom cooked my meals (p) A. I do not miss the good old days, when mom cooked my meals (NOT p) 1. Mom cooked my meals p>> q NOT p>>q Quality: as Ad does not say the reason of his missing. Manner: the hearer may interpret the statement wrongly I missed her because . . . . (not clear) P: Yes No A little misunderstanding I: No. Then according to Tn‟s logical thinking, this statement means that Ad‟s mother was a good cook 2. Tn: Your mother was a good cook? 2. You had a mother Your mother‟s meals must be so delicious that you missed them P: Yes Yes , but there is a little misunderstanding in the implicature I : Yes 3. Ad :Not particularly 3. Mother was a good cook Yes, my mom was a good cook but that there was something else that I missed. P : Yes Yes, but there is misunderstanding in the implicature I : Yes, but curious to know the „something else” 4. Tn: Then why do you miss her meals? 4. You missed your mother‟s meals What the other things that you missed from your mother? P : Yes Yes I : Yes 5. Ad :They (the meals) were free 5. The meals exist (existential presupposition) Now I have to pay for my meals. Or I have the financial problem please pay the meals for me P : Yes No A little misunderstanding and it is not clear whether Tn understands because he does not know actually what Ad wants to say, or what is expected from him. Therefore, he could not say anything I : No In the third data, actually most conversations run quite smoothly as Tony and Andy infer the presuppositions well. The first flouting of the maxim of quality happens when Andy says the „curious‟ statement without any explanation and the hidden reason is ambiguous. This flouting causes the next conversations to happen. Otherwise, there are no more conversations. The result makes the inferring of Jurnal LINGUA CULTURA Vol.2 No.1 Mei 2008: 12-24 20 the implicatures have problems as Tony has his own „world‟ views that usually a child will miss his mother‟s meals because the meals are delicious. There is also the possibility that this opinion is general. However, his „world‟ is different from Andy‟s who might have financial problems or just want to have free meals. If Tony knows Andy‟s „world‟, he will not have asked the question whether Andy‟s mother was a good cook. Nevertheless, this conversation runs well at the end because Tony asks Andy directly what makes him miss her mother, and Andy answers it briefly. Andy‟s answer is the unexpected one therefore Tony gets surprised. Comic Strips 4: Tintin and Captain Haddock Prof. Calculus was trying to join Tintin and Captain Haddock‟s mission to find the treasure. He intended to try out his invention, the ship to protect oneself from sharks. Tintin and Captain Haddock refused the offer, however, Prof. Calculus managed to smuggle himself to their ship. He replaced Captain Haddock‟s drinks with his apparatus. Prof.Calculus was sleeping when they found him. Captain Haddock woke him up. CH = Captain Haddock PC = Profesor Calculus No Presuppositions (by Speaker) (q) p>>q Maxims violated/flouted Implicatures (By Speaker) Inferences : (The speaker infers the hearer correctly?): P: Presupposition I: Implicature Results: The communication runs well without misunderstanding? 1. CH: My whisky, you wretch! (p1)… What you have done with my whisky? (p2) Thundering typhoons, answer me! … Where’s my whisky? (p3) 1. I have whisky You have done something to my whisky I have been looking for my whisky. I found your apparatus in my whisky‟s boxes. P.:No Prof.Calculus is deaf so he could not understand not only the presupposition but the expression at all No Captain Haddock gets shocked I. No, because he is occupied by his own thinking 2. PC: I must confess, I did sleep rather badly, But I hope you will give me a cabin 2. I slept rather badly Relation: The answer of PC is not relevant as CH is looking for his whisky I want to sleep well therefore I need a cabin P: Yes Yes, CH understands that PC needs a cabin. However, that is not the expected answer I: Yes, But actually he is looking for his whisky 3. CH: A cabin . . . …. . . . And my whisky? .. Where is my whisky? 3. I have whisky (repeat the presupposition) My whisky is somewhere You have moved my whisky so you must know where my whisky is P: No. Prof. Calculus still does not infer the message of the captain No. I: No, as he never thinks about other people and is just occupied by his own mind. Moreover he never pays attention to the body language 4. PC: It’s on board, of course 4. The thing (apparatus) exists Relation: it seems that no violation of the maxim, however, actually PC does not relate his topic to CH‟s I would like to inform where the apparatus is P: Yes, but using his own “world” Yes. misunderstanding in the presupposition and the implicature. Therefore Captain Haddock is happy I: Yes, but using his own „world‟ Presuppositions and Implicatures … (Ienneke Indra Dewi) 21 5. CH: It’s on board! … Heaven be praised 5. The wine exists No violation but CH is responding using his own „world‟ I am happy because you tell me the wine. I am happy because I can drink the wine now P: No, because he does not think about the wine No, however both of the participants are happy although actually they are in different worlds. I: No, because CH is talking about the wine and PC infers as his apparatus 6. PC: Naturally it is in separate pieces . . . 6 There is a special way of carrying (the apparatus) (from the word: naturally) Relation: as PC is talking about his own topic You have to know that the apparatus is special therefore it must be specially treated P : No because it does not make sense that whisky is in separate pieces. No, and the happy face of CH disappears. Again the participants both the professor and the captain are living in their own worlds. I : No, CH begins to wonder what the professor is talking about 7. CH: In separate pieces . . . My whisky is in separate pieces? 7 I have whisky CH realizes that PC violates the maxim of relation and tries to draw him back to his topic Are sure that the whisky is in separate pieces? That is not the nature of whisky What are you talking about? P: No, PC still cannot infer even from the captain‟s face and action No, Captain Haddock begins to realize that his „world‟ is not the same as that of the professor‟s. However, the professor does not. I: No, because in the mind of the professor is still the apparatus 8. PC: Of course, it is a little smaller ….. . . . and pack all the parts in the cases. . . 8. The apparatus must be packed like that Relation: PC is not aware that his world is different from CH‟s. You should know the apparatus and the way of packaging it. . . P: No, CH still does not understand because he is thinking about the whisky NO, CH gets frustrated because he really wants the whisky meanwhile the topic of the professor is not clear. I: No, CH does not know what the professor is talking about. 9. CH: Wretch . . . . .I’ll throw you overboard! Overboard, d’you hear 9 We have different topics You do not understand what I am talking about. Instead you are talking about something else. I got mad P: No, as PC still he does not care about CH‟s action or face. No The captain gets more frustrated, angry but cannot do anything I: No, he is still interested in his world and never tries to understand other‟s 10. PC: Thank you Captain. Thank you very much! It just what I expected from you . . . Such a kind welcome!. You’ll see – you won’t regret it. 10. The captain has understood what the professor is talking about Relation PC is actually talking to himself as he does not hear and does not try to understand what CH is talking about. Thus he is still in his „world‟ You have understood my explanation, you are willing to take me in your journey, You give the chance to try my invention, You are willing to give me the cabin I‟ll repay you one day P: No CH does not infer what PC presupposes as he thinks that PC talks something nonsense NO, the communication does not work well until the end, the result is CH gets angry, shocked, surprised, frustrated, while PC is happy because he is living in his own „world‟ . I: No, he does not understand why PC thanks him, meanwhile his purpose is not achieved Jurnal LINGUA CULTURA Vol.2 No.1 Mei 2008: 12-24 22 The conversations between Professor Calculus and Captain Haddock have been very interesting looking from the presuppositions, cooperative principles and implicatures. In general Captain Haddock understands Professor Calculus‟s presuppositions and implicatures, when talking about cabin, however, when Prof.Calculus talks about the apparatus, Captain Haddock cannot infer it at all as he does not know anything about it. On the other hand, Professor Calculus is a person who lives in his own world. He never has any intention to understand either the presuppositions or implicatures of others; his deafness is one of the causes, but if only he has the willingness to understand others, he can infer them from the body language of the captain. Due to his deafness and is ignorance to other people, Professor Calculus always violate the maxim of relation. He always answers using his irrelevant topic. This thing makes him still in his world. Therefore, until the end, there is no understanding between Captain Haddock and Professor Calculus. The message of both of them cannot reach each other. Overall Results In the following, the results of the four data will be compared. Data No Violating maxims Inference Results any misunderstanding? Presupposition Implicature A. 1. Quality and manner Yes Yes Yes 2 No No 3. Yes Yes Yes 4. Yes Not really No B. 1. Yes Yes Yes 2. Quality - hedges Yes Yes Yes 3. No No 4. No No No C. 1. Quality and manner Yes No No 2. Yes Yes Yes 3. Yes Yes Yes 4. Yes Yes Yes 5. Yes No No D. 1. No No No 2. Relation Yes Yes Yes 3. No No No 4. Relation Yes Yes Yes 5. No No No 6. Relation No No No 7. No No No 8. Relation No No No 9. No No No 10. Relation No No No In general, we can see that most of the ideas in Data A,B and C are expressed without violating the maxims, meaning that the ideas should be inferred well. The maxims violated are mostly the maxim of quality and manner in this case the speakers do not provide enough information. The inadequate information makes the ideas unclear and ambiguous thus violating the maxim of manner as the hearer may interpret in the wrong way. However, the violating using hedges will not lead to the misunderstanding such as in Data B2. In Data D, Professor Calculus always violates the maxim of relation, due to his deafness and ignorance to other people. This extreme situation surely leads to the misunderstanding until the end of the conversations. Regarding the presupposition and the implicatures, if the presuppositions are inferred well, the implicatures can also be understood well, and the result is that the communication can run very well without or a little misunderstanding. However, if the hearer cannot conclude the Presuppositions and Implicatures … (Ienneke Indra Dewi) 23 presupposition well, the implicatures cannot be understood as well. The result is that the message in the communication cannot reach the hearer. In data no A4, C1 and C5, the presuppositions are inferred well but not the implicatures and the result is that the message cannot reach the hearer as well. If we compares data A,B,C and D, data A and B are similar, having two yes, and in the analysis we can see that there is misunderstanding between Lucy and Charlie, but the misunderstanding of the results are not serious meaning that there is no bad effects on the participants. In data C, the misunderstanding is the least, having 3 Yes(es) out of 5 parts. This happens as the participants are open in asking questions to open other‟s world. The worst thing is data D, the participants prefer to be in their own worlds, and nobody wants to try to understand the other‟s worlds in addition, moreover, questioning each other to know their worlds. The result is very bad, as until the end, no messages can reach each others at all. CONCLUSION The role of presuppositions and implicatures is very important in the communication in order that the communication run very well meaning that the message sent will reach the hearer according to the sender‟s intention. The success of this communication, would depend on how far a person make the presuppositions, make the assumptions of what the hearer knows prior of making an utterance, sending his message. Then the language chosen, the way of uttering, should be considered whether to say it clearly or implicitly by thinking of the hearer‟s world. The cooperative principles do not always influence the understanding of the message. However, in the extreme situation such as in Data C, this violence of the maxim, causes the wrong inference of the hearer. This also shows that in delivering and receiving the message, we should also try to think about the speaker‟s world; the speaker‟s presupposition and implicature in order that the message i.e. the speaker‟s meaning will reach him correctly. If everybody tries to pay attention to the presuppositions, cooperative principles, and implicatures in communicating, hopefully there will be a little misunderstanding among the participants as the message given in the conversations reaches the hearer as it is intended. Jurnal LINGUA CULTURA Vol.2 No.1 Mei 2008: 12-24 24 REFERENCES Cumming, L. 2005. Pragmatics. Edinburg: Edinburg University Press. Grundy, P. 2000. Doing Pragmatics. New York: Arnold Publisher. Haugh, M. 2002. The intuitive basis of implicature: Relevance theoretic implicitness versis Gricean implying. in Pragmatics 12:2.117-134. Retrieved from http://209.85.175.104/search?q=cache:mZ0TGYVIHwoJ:www.griffith.edu.au/school/lal/staff/ haugh_papers/Haugh2002_Intuitive_basis_of_implicature.pdf+implicature+definition&hl=id &ct=clnk&cd=15&gl=id Herge. 2007. The Adventures of Tintin: Red Rackham’s Treasure. Paris: Egmont Hurford and Heasly. 2007. Semantics A Coursebook Cambridge University Press Cambridge. Kreiddler, C.W. 1998. Introducing English Semantics. Routledge: London Mey, J. L. 2001. Pragmatics an Introduction. Blacwell Publisher Inc. Massachusetts. Richards, J. C. Platt, J., and Platt, H. 1997 Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics.Longman Group UK: Edinburg. Stalnaker, R. 1977. Pragmatic presuppositions. In Proceedings of Texas conference on Performatives, presuppositions and implicatures. Eds Andy Rogers, Bob Wall, and John P.Murphy p.135 – 145. Trask, R.L Edited by Peter Stockwell. 2007. Language and Lingusitics the Key Concepts. Routledge: New York. Valenzuela, Julia Scherba de. 1992. National Joint Committee for the Communicative Needs of Persons with Severe Disabilities. From http://www.unm.edu/~devalenz/handouts/defcomm.html, retrieved 10 April 2008 http://209.85.175.104/search?q=cache:mZ0TGYVIHwoJ:www.griffith.edu.au/school/lal/staff/haugh_papers/Haugh2002_Intuitive_basis_of_implicature.pdf+implicature+definition&hl=id&ct=clnk&cd=15&gl=id http://209.85.175.104/search?q=cache:mZ0TGYVIHwoJ:www.griffith.edu.au/school/lal/staff/haugh_papers/Haugh2002_Intuitive_basis_of_implicature.pdf+implicature+definition&hl=id&ct=clnk&cd=15&gl=id http://209.85.175.104/search?q=cache:mZ0TGYVIHwoJ:www.griffith.edu.au/school/lal/staff/haugh_papers/Haugh2002_Intuitive_basis_of_implicature.pdf+implicature+definition&hl=id&ct=clnk&cd=15&gl=id http://www.unm.edu/~devalenz/handouts/defcomm.html