Conversational Implicature in Hausa: A Study of Doctor-Patient Conversation

Table of Contents

• Abstract
• Introduction
• Doctor-Patient Conversation
• Review of Related Literature
• Data Presentation and Analysis
• Conclusion
• References

Citation: Bala, Y. & Kofar Kaura, H.A. (2024). Conversational Implicature in Hausa: A Study of Doctor-Patient Conversation. Dynamics in the 21st Century Hausa Prose Literature. Tasambo Journal of Language, Literature, and Culture, 3(1), 135-143. www.doi.org/10.36349/tjllc.2024.v03i01.015.

Conversational Implicature in Hausa: A Study of Doctor-Patient Conversation

By

Yasir Bala
 Balayasir@gmail.com
Phone number: 08066696069
Department of English Language and Literary Studies
Zamfara State College of Education Maru

And

  Dr. Hafsat Abubakar Kofar Kaura
Department of English
Al-Qalam University, Katsina , Nigeria
Tel: +2348037434071
E-mail:  Hafsatabubakar955@gmail.com

Abstract

The paper explores the conversational implicature with the view to determine the conversational maxims that are flouted during Doctor-Patient conversations in Federal Medical Centre Gusau. The paper has analyzed the various instances where implicature could occur and the type of maxim flouted as a result of such implicature, ranging from the maxim of quantity, quality, relation and the maxim of manner. The data comes from interviews, observations and recordings while books and journals are consulted. The research uses Grice’s theory of implicature but limits its scope to particularized implicature which is evident in its analysis since the study is context-based. The study also adopts the descriptive approach in its analysis and this has helped in describing how the conversational maxims are flouted as Doctor-Patients converse. The findings of this study show that during Doctor-Patient conversations, the doctors, in about 90% of the data presented, flout the maxim of manner while the patients on their part, flout virtually all the conversational maxims; maxim of quality, maxim of quantity, maxim of manner and maxim of relation.

Keywords: Implicature, Maxims, flout, particularized and Conversational, Doctor-Patient Conversation.

Introduction

This paper studies the conversational implicature in Doctor-Patient conversation with particular reference to Doctor-Patient conversation at the General Outpatient Department (Henceforth GOPD) of the Federal Medical Centre Gusau. This is done to observe the various ways the conversational maxims are flouted during their conversations.

Primarily, the intent of Doctor-Patient encounters within the confines of the medical environment is to achieve the diagnoses and treatment of a patient’s illness. Language, therefore, engenders a platform for the actualization of such intention. Maynard (1991:449) shows that Doctor-Patient interaction involves sequences of talk that have their home in an ordinary conversation. Though the interaction between a doctor and a patient is done in a language clear enough and close to the one engaged in everyday discourse, the communication of the diagnoses between the doctor and other medical personnel who may have contributed to the treatment of the patient cannot be said to be done in an easily accessible language. By far the lion’s share of research on language and medicine is about Doctor-Patient communication because medical practitioners peculiarly use language. The peculiarity of this language use which in turn reveals the observance or otherwise of the conversational maxims is the major concern of this paper. Thus, a link is established between medical discourse and the observance or non-observance of Grice’s conversational maxims, and implicatures. Medical discourse in the context of this paper refers to Doctor-Patient conversation.

Grice’s theory of conversational implicature which attempts to show systematically how a person gets from what is said to what is meant, or from the expressed meaning to the implied meaning has been adopted in this paper. The term ‘Implicature’ was first introduced by Grice’s first detailed presentation on ‘implicature’ in (1967) at William James Lectures of Havard. In Grice’s account, implicature refers to what a speaker can imply, suggest, or mean, as distinct from what the speaker says.

Again, in ‘Logic and Conversation’ (1975) Grice introduced two broad categories of implicature which he calls ‘Conventional and Conversational’. Conventional is an implicature that is part of the lexical item or agreed meaning rather than derived from the principle of language use. It’s that part of implicature in which the meaning is conventionally assumed by the conversant. On the other hand, and which is the focus of this paper, is conversational implicature, which refers to the assumptions suggested by the speaker and inferred by the hearer in an exchange. This is something that is implied and is left implicit in actual language use. Levinson (1983) shows that Grice distinguishes conversational implicature into two types: Generalised Conversational Implicature (GCI) and Particularised Conversational Implicature (PCI). The former is context-independent and is associated with certain linguistic forms, and is inferred without a special reference to the context, while the latter is an implicature which is deducible only in a special context. Levinson (1983) further stated that another way to identify GCI is by using Scalar Implicature (SL) which is marked with scales of value.

This paper, therefore, concentrates on conversational implicature and how four maxims of cooperative principles are flouted in the conversation. A phenomenon studied under pragmatism. Pragmatics is a term traditionally used to label one of the three major divisions of semiotics along with semantics and syntactics. In modern linguistics, it has come to be applied to the study of language from the point of view of the users, especially of the choices they make, the constraints they encounter in using language in social interactions and the effects their use of language has on other participants in an act of conversation (Crystal, 2008:379).

Grice (1975) proposed that participants in a conversational exchange are guided by principles that determine how language is used with maximum efficiency and effect to achieve rational communication. He termed this to Cooperative Principle. This cooperative principle is an umbrella term for nine components that guide how we communicate. These nine components are grouped into four categories called the maxims of conversation (encompassing conversation maxim of quality, quantity, manner and relevance) and these maxims are explained below as follows:

1. Maxims of quality

i. Do not say what you believe to be false

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

2. Maxims of quantity

i. Make your contribution as informative as required (for the current purpose of the exchange)

ii. Do not make your contribution more informative than is required

3. Maxim of relation

i. Be relevant

4. Maxim of manner

i. Avoid obscurity of expression

ii. Avoid ambiguity

iii. Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity)

iv. Be orderly

The above principles can also be abbreviated thus;

i. The Cooperative Principle

ii. The Maxims of Conversation

Following the cooperative principles and its maxims ensures that in a conversational exchange, the right amount of information is provided and that the exchange is concluded in a truthful, relevant, perspicuous fashion.

Doctor-Patient Conversation

Conversation between doctor and patient is one of the most important aspects of a patient–centred approach that presumes a holistic interpersonal relationship between doctors and their patients. By talking to patients, doctors can gain quick access to the patient’s condition and take action even before the results of the clinical analysis are ready. To get the most out of the conversation with the patients, doctors must be aware of the peculiarities of this kind of Conversation. What differentiates everyday conversation between friends or family members from the conversation between doctors and patients is the interplay between different factors. This is because the relationship between doctors and patients involves individuals in a non-equal position it is often not voluntary and since it concerns issues of vital importance, it is intrinsically pervaded by emotional response (Starfield 2011).

On the whole, Doctor-patient conversation represents a series of linguistic encounters that take place in the hospital between doctors and their patients. These participants use a series of linguistic and interactional resources specific to the situation and by the participants’ linguistic and cultural competence.

Review of Related Literature

There have been quite several researches on Grice’s maxims and conversational implicature. Many are looking into conversational implicature in both spoken and written forms. The most recent among these works are reviewed below:

Ayasreh and Razali (2018) lay their interest on illustrating some of the maxims that are flouted by the Syrian leader, Bashar Al-Assad during his interview with the ARD channel. According to them, analysis of the maxims of the Arab leader’s interview revealed that the main reason for Assad’s violation of the conversational maxims was to convey meaning in his favour and to them, it could be implicated that political leaders flout maxims to produce particular shades of meanings which may not always be conceivable to all parties to gain support from the masses.

Blecic (2017) analyzes the local nature of the use and the interpretation of implicature that is often omitted from the Gricean Picture in which the speaker generally relies on the capacity of the hearer to work out the intended implicature. He proposed the idea that there are contexts in which the speaker is not justified in doing so and according to him, one such context is related to doctor-patient conversation. He went on to explain that this kind of verbal interaction is pervaded by strong emotional responses that make the use and interpretation of common conversational strategies a potential conversational and ethical problem.

Shahla (2016), attempts to examine the use of the maxim of quantity by Persian male and female speakers in different contexts to close their conversations. The analysis of the results showed that Persian male and female speakers employed the maxim of quantity differently in different contexts regarding the formality features. The findings also revealed that male speakers use more maxim of quantity in informal contexts whereas female speakers use more maxim of quantity in formal contexts to end their conversations.

Naskibi (2015) discusses the flouting of maxims through irony that occurred in the Bad Teacher movie. The study was carried out without indicating what kinds of flouting maxims occur through verbal ironies uttered by the characters in the movie and their implied meanings.

Idiagbon and Ajadi (2014) reveal that doctors flout maxims to regulate and intimidate social distance, and patients make use of hedges to curry for the doctor’s empathy. The study also stated that there is the use of imperative utterances (directive acts) by doctors to maintain social distance.

Muhammad (2013) attempts to focus on the kinds of maxims and flouted maxims used by native and non-native guests in the CNN interview script. The research found that all types of maxims of cooperative principles are used in the dialogues found in the CNN interview script with the guests. All of the guests were doing their conversation co-operatively, the total number who observed the four maxims was higher than those who flouted the co-operative principle. It means that the guests gave information in the CNN interview as required, true, and relevant to the topic and did not show any ambiguity.

Adegbite and Odeblunmi (2006) describe tact in diagnosis in doctor-patient interaction in the English language in selected south-western Nigeria, using recorded conversations between doctors and patients in those hospitals as data, the mutual contextual beliefs of participants, speech act patterns, including linguistic patterns, and other pragmatic features were examined and analyzed from the perspective of the pragmatics of discourse and the study also discovered that the predominance of doctor-initiated spoken exchange in which doctors elicit and confirm the information and give directives to patients, while the patient gives information and attempts to respond appropriately to the doctor’s moves, conversational maxims are flouted and exploited to enhance successful diagnosis in their interaction.

Data Presentation and Analysis

The data of this study were collected based on the following guides: Number of data referring to the number attached to each data collected and analysed in this work; Utterance which has to do with the various conversations extracted from the vast number of conversations where instances of implicature were noticed; Gloss , which entails explanation of the utterance in the original data; Type of Maxim flouted When a speaker provides the information than the situation demands, a maxim of quantity is flouted. Then a maxim of quality is flouted when a speaker provides either untrue information or information for which he or she lacks evidence. A maxim of relation is flouted when a speaker provides irrelevant information to the main topic of the conversation. The maxim manner is also flouted when a speaker is disorderly, vague or ambiguous in his or her reply to the other party.; Type of CI (Conversational implicature), identifying the type of conversational implicature derived when a particular maxim is being flouted (whether particularized or generalized), and Meaning here means the implied or intended meaning attached to a particular utterance.

The research also maintained the dialect of the original data (i.e a variety of Hausa dialect used in Gusau) which could be termed as a variant of the Sokoto dialect because it is the major dialect used by a vast number of the people whose conversations were collected to form the data for this paper and were carefully presented. However, only five (5) extracts are used in the analysis as can be seen in the following examples:

Extract (1)

(1)   Doctor: Mi ke damunki?

( What is your problem?)

(2)   Patient: Kaina ka ciwo kwarai, sai inji kamar inyi amai

( I have a severe headache and I am nauseous)

(3)   Doctor: Kina jin zazza ɓ i?

( Are you feverish?)

(4)   Patient: Wanga irin sauro kuma gashi bani da gidan sauro

( This type of mosquito and I don’t have a net)

(5)   Doctor: Kin ta ɓ a zuwa asibiti?

( Have you ever visited a hospital?)

(6)   Patient: Duk sa’adda zan haihu, sai na zo asibiti

( Whenever I will give birth, I visit the hospital)

(7)   Doctor: A yanzu kina da juna biyu?

( Are you now pregnant?)

(8)   Patient: Yanzu nika shayarwa, ɗ ana watanai shidda.

( I am breastfeeding; my child is six months old)

The utterance of the patient in (4) ‘wanga irin sauro kuma gashi bani da gidan sauro’ flouts the maxim of manner because her information did not indicate either the presence of fever or not. Yet, the statement in the same (4) ‘gashi bani da gidan sauro’ generated an implicature that there is a fever since she has not been sleeping in the net. This is a particularized conversational implicature because there is a need for special background knowledge on what links ‘the fever’ in question with ‘the mosquito and mosquito net’. Again, the Doctor in (5) fulfils the maxim of relation by saying ‘Kin ta ɓ a zuwa asibiti?’ which is related to the conversation, but eventually, the patient in (6) flouts the maxim of relation by providing information that is not required ‘Duk sa’adda zan haihu, sai na zo asibiti’. This implies that the patient has never been to the hospital for another reason apart from maternity. This is a generalized conversational implicature, where no special background knowledge is required before the meaning is conveyed. Subsequently, the Doctor in (7) fulfils the maxim of relation by asking a question that is relevant to the patient’s response in (6), but still, the patient was not cooperative in her response in (8) ‘Yanzu nika shayarwa, dana watanai shidda’. This is an obscure statement because she could be pregnant while still breastfeeding. The implication here is that the patient believed that she could not be pregnant while breastfeeding. This is a particularized conversational implicature since there is the need for special background knowledge on what connects the tendency of being ‘pregnant’ with 'breastfeeding’.

Extract (2)

(1)   Doctor : Mi ke damunka?

( What is your problem?)

(2)   Patient : Wallahi likita juwa ka damuna

( Sincerely Doctor, I am suffering from dizziness)

(3)   Doctor : Akwai ciwon kai?

( Do you have a headache?)

(4)   Patient : Wallahi likita wataran ji nakai kamar kan zai fashe

( Sincerely Doctor, sometimes as if the head will burst)

(5)   Doctor : Akwai zazza ɓ i?

( Is there a fever?)

(6)   Patient : Ai ni likita na fi shekara ina kwana cikin gidan sauro

( Doctor, for about a year, I have been sleeping inside a net)

(7)   Doctor : Ka ta ɓ a yin awon bugawar jini?

( Have you ever been tested for H.P.T.?)

(8)   Patient : Ni wallahi sai yau nitta ɓ a zuwa asibiti

( Sincerely, I have never been to hospital)

The utterance of the Doctor in (3) ‘akwai ciwon kai’ fulfils the maxim of relation while the patient’s response in (4) ‘Wallahi likita wataran ji nakai kamar kan zaifashe’ flouted the maxim of quantity because the patient was not direct, and he provides the information that was not requested by the Doctor. This generated an implicature that the patient has a severe headache. This type of implicature is generalized because no special background knowledge is required to work-out the inferences. Again, the Doctor in (5) ‘Akwai zazza ɓ i’ fulfils the maxim of relation by introducing something which is related to the conversation while the patient in (6) ‘Ai ni likita na fi shekara ina kwana cikin gidan sauro’ flouts the maxim of quantity for giving another information that was not required by the Doctor, thereby generating the Implicature that the patient is not suffering from fever since he has been sleeping in the net for about a year. This is a Particularized conversational Implicature because there is need for a special knowledge to relate ‘sleeping in the net’ and ‘the presence of fever’. Subsequently, the Doctor asked in (7) ‘Ka ta ɓ a yin awon bugawar jini?’ but the patient terminated the whole conversation in (8) by saying ‘Ni wallahi sai yau nitta ɓ a zuwa asibiti’ which still flouts the maxim of quantity because this is not the information that is needed. This is a Particularized Conversational Implicature since the inferences are worked out based on the specific context of the utterance.

Extract (3)

(1)   Doctor: Baba mi ke damunka?

( What is your problem?)

(2)   Patient: Toh! Wallahi twari ka damuna

( Ah! Sincerely I am suffering from a severe cough)

(3)   Doctor: Bayan twarin akwai wani abu?

( Is there anything apart from the cough?)

(4)   Patient: Harda cizon sauro, wallahi. Sauronga na bana musibana

( Including the mosquito bite, the mosquitoes are the worst

this year)

(5)   Doctor: Idan kana twarin, kirjinka na ciwo?

( Is there pain when you cough?)

(6)   Patient: Haba likita an ta ɓ a twari irin haka ba ciwo ƙ irji?

( Doctor! How could there be a severe cough like this without chest

pain?)

(7)   Doctor: Kana kakin majina?

( Is the cough productive?)

(8)   Patient: Hmm! Da majinar na fita aida naji saukin ta

( Hmm! I would have gotten some relief if the cough was productive)

(9)   Doctor: Kana shan sigari?

( Do you smoke cigarettes?)

(10) Patient: Yaro kaga na yi kama da mai shan sigari?

( Do I look like a smoker?)

The Doctor in (3) ‘Bayan twarin akwai wani abu?’ fulfils the maxim of relation by asking something that could be part of the patient’s problems, but eventually the patient in (4) ‘Har’da cizon sauro, wallahi sauronga na bana musibana’ flouts the maxim of manner because the expression is obscure. This implies that the patient is believed to be suffering from malaria fever. This type of Implicature is Particularized because the inferences can be drawn by knowing the context of the utterance. Again, when the Doctor asked in (5) ‘Idan kana twarin, kirjinka na ciwo?’, the patient in (6) flouts the maxim of manner because it is not orderly to say ‘Haba likita, an ta ɓ a twari irin haka ba ciwon ƙ irji’ but still generates an Implicature that the patient also suffers ‘the chest pain’ in question. This is a Generalized Conversational Implicature where no special background knowledge is required before generating the inferences. Furthermore, the utterance of the Doctor in (7) ‘Kana kakin majina?’ fulfils the maxim of relation but the response of the patient in (8) ‘Hmm! Da majinar na fita ai da naji saukin ta’ flouts the maxim of quantity by providing the information that is not required which in turn generates an Implicature that the cough is not productive. This type of Implicature is Generalized, where no special background knowledge is required before the meaning is conveyed. Finally, the Doctor enquired in (9) ‘Kana shan sigari?’ but consequently, the old man was furious, hence his reply in (10) ‘Yaro ka ga nayi kama da mai shan sigari?’ flouts the maxim of manner thereby generating the implicature that the old man believes Cigarette smoking is immoral. This type of implicature is generalized because no special background knowledge is required to work out the inferences.

Extract (4)

(1)   Doctor: Mi ke damunka?

( What is your problem?)

(2)   Patient: Ina fama da yawan hitsari sannan da na ci abinci sai inji yinwa

( I am suffering from frequent urination and shortly after eating,

I become hungry)

(3)   Doctor: Kana yawan jin ƙ isa?

( Do you experience an increase in thirst?)

(4)   Patient: Kai! Ai da na sha ruwa kohi guda to wallahi sai na yi histari

Kohi biyar

( If I drink one cup of water, I will urinate five cups)

(5)   Doctor: Akwai kasala?

( Is there body weakness?)

(6)   Patient: Wallahi likita bani da banbanci da tsumma

( Sincerely Doctor, I am just like a rag)

(7)   Doctor: An ta ɓ a rubuta maka magani?

( Has any drug been prescribed for you?)

(8)   Patient: Saidai na gargajiya, tunda mu mutan kauyena

( Unless herbs, since we are villagers)

The utterance of the patient in (4) ‘Ai da na sha ruwa kohi guda toh wallahi sai na yi histari kohi biyar’ flouts the maxim of quantity because this information was not required by the Doctor. This generates the implicature that the patient suffers from thirst but at the same time cannot drink water for fear of the consequences. This type of implicature is generalized because no special background knowledge is required to convey the meaning. The Doctor in (5) asked ‘Akwai kasala?’ which fulfils the maxim of relation but the response ofthe patient in (6) ‘Wallahi likita bani da banbanci da tsumma?’ flouts the maxim of quantity because the Doctor did not request for this information, hence it generates the implicature that the patient cannot do anything for himself. This Implicature belongs to Generalized Conversational Implicature which doesn’t depend on the context to convey its meaning. Moreover, the utterance of the Doctor in (7) ‘An ta ɓ a rubuta maka magani?’ fulfils the maxim of relation but unfortunately, the patient flouts the maxim of manner for not being cooperative when he says in (8) ‘Sai dai na gargajiya, tunda mu mutan kauyena’. This Implicates that no Doctor has prescribed any drug for him previously. This is a Generalized Conversational Implicature because no special background knowledge is required to work out the inferences.

Extract (5)

(1)   Doctor: Mi ke damunki?

( What is your problem?)

(2)   Patient: Ina fama da zafin ƙ irji

( I am suffering from chest pain)

(3)   Doctor: Miye sanadi?

( What causes the problem?)

(4)   Patient: Gaskiya sanadiyya cin yaji saboda ina da juna biyu

( To be candid, it’s pepper, because I was pregnant)

(5)   Doctor: Kin ta ɓ a shan taaba?

( Did you smoke cigarettes before?)

(6)   Patient: ina dai cin goro

( I only eat colanut)

(7)   Doctor: Kin sha wani magani a gida?

( Did you take any drugs at home?)

(8)   Patient: ko da ɗ ai

( never)

The patient in (4) fulfils the maxim of quality by providing the correct answer ‘it’s pepper’, but at the same time, she flouts the maxim of quantity by saying ‘saboda ina da juna biyu’ thereby generating the implicature: the patient didn’t eat pepper out of negligence. It’s because of the pregnancy. This is a particularised conversational implicature because there is a need for special background knowledge on what links the ‘pregnancy’ with the ‘pepper’. Again, the Doctor in (5) fulfils the maxim of relation by asking a question that is relevant to the conversation ‘Kin ta ɓ a shan taaba?’ . Yet, he flouts the maxim of manner by introducing something like a ‘cigarette’ into the conversation. Thus, generating an implicature that: smoking can cause chest pain. On the other side, the patient in (6) flouts the maxim of quantity by giving the information which is not required ‘ina dai cin goro’. Again, this implies that: she doesn’t smoke cigarettes. The type of implicature generated by both the Doctor and his patient is still particularised conversational implicature since the inferences require special knowledge to know the relevance of both ‘cigarette smoking’ and ‘colanut eating’ with the patient’s problem ‘chest pain’. Furthermore, the Doctor in (7) fulfils the maxim of relation by introducing another thing which is relevant to the conversation, while the patient in (8) flouts the maxim of manner by providing information that is not true. Here the Implicature is that the patient has not taken any first aid before coming to the hospital. This is a generalised conversational implicature, where no special background knowledge is required before the meaning is conveyed.

Conclusion

This paper has succeeded in presenting and analysing the data gathered, and judging from the data, it has indicated that, in a doctor-patient conversation, conversational maxims are flouted unconsciously due to either lack of knowledge or unawareness of the participants to map out appropriate meanings, expressions or even words to suite the conversational context at hand thereby failing to properly uncover the implied meaning. This could be seen in Extract 10 where the doctor made use of the word ‘endoscopy’ instead of substituting it with a word that the patient could properly understand thereby flouting the maxim of manner.

It has also been noted that in the data presented and analyzed above, as doctors and their patients converse, the patient most at times, flout either of the maxims while doctors on their part, do more of achieving the maxim of relevance but only in few cases flout the maxim of manner as it could be seen in extracts 11 and 10 above.

Again, it was observed that, during such conversations (between Doctors and their patients), the Implicature generated is either generalized (an implicature inferable without references to a particular context) or particularized conversational implicature (the conversational implicature derivable only in a particular context) and this was done to dictate where these types of conversational implicature are obtained or noticeable when doctors and their patients converse and this has helped a great deal in showcasing the focal point of this paper.

References

Adebite, W. & Adebunmi, A.A. (2006). Discourse tact in Doctor- Patient Interaction in English: An analysis in medical communication in Nigeria. Nomadic Journal of African Studies, 15 (4): 499-519.

Ahmad, M. (2012). Conversational Implicature (flouting maxims): Applying conversational maxims on examples taken from non-standard Arabic language, Yemeni dialect, and idiolect spoken at IBB city. Journal of Sociological Research Vol. 3 no2.King Saud University, Riyadh, Saud i Arabia.

Arfiyah, R. (2014). A study of conversational implicature of in sentilansentilum Talk. Show on metro T.V. University of wijayaputra, Surabaya. Anneke,

Bach, K. &Harnish, R. (1979). Linguistics Communication and Speech A Speech Acts. Cambridge London: MIT Press.

Bilal, H.A. &Naem, S. (2013). Probing into the dialogue of the President of Pakistan: Application of Grice’s Maxims...International Journal of Linguistics Vol. 3. No. 4.NI948-5425.

Brown, P. & Levinson, S.C. (1975). Politeness. Some universals in Language Usage. Cambridge-London: MIT Press.

Fitri, H. (2013). Analysis of the Violation of Maxims in Mallam Miaggu Miko: Situational Comedy.

Gazdar, G. (1979). Pragmatics Implicature, presupposition and logical form. New York. Academia press.

Gishiwa, M. (2013). An Introduction to Research Methods . Ibadan: Boga Press.

Grice, H.P. (1975). Logic and conservation in Cole & J.LM. Morgan (ed) Syntax and Semantics, Vol, 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press.

H.T. & Helen, N. (2008). The Multiple Violation of Conversational Maxims in Laying Done by the Characters in Some Episodes of ‘DesperteHouse Wives: English Department, Faculty Letters, Petra ChristianUniversity: University Press.

Hadi, A. (2013). A Critical Appraisal of Grice’s Cooperative Principle. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics. 367-72, http:/dx.doi.org/10.4236/Ojml 2013.

Huda, S. (2013). An analysis of conversational implicature of native and non-Native guest in CNN interview Script. University of murai kudus.

Get the full PDF here: