explicature

Name : Iffatul lailiyah (04310122)
: Wahid Nugroho (05320 )
: Moh. Jufri (05320121)
: M. Agung Hidayatullah (05320080)

Target Kejagung, 2025 Indonesia bebas korupsi.
Sebab, uang Negara sudah habis. (Mr. Pecut, Jawa Pos: 5 Desember 2008)

Implicatures

- Indonesia will be free from corruption in 2025

- The only target is eradicating corruption

- How about in 2025 -…?

- the government budgets run out

In this case, we believe that the statement above is classified as generalized implicature, because the term of corruption commonly happens in society, even the societies do not learn specifically about corruption itself. So, without context, they will easily understand what the case means.
But, why does Mr Pecut give that comment? Because if we wait until 2025, it will take a long term to solve, and, the government budgets will run out by itself. As matter of fact, the government overcomes this matter as soon as possible. It does not need wait for 17 years later.
Besides, this utterance hedges maxim of relation/relevance. It relates the effort of corruption eradication and the target of Kejagung. It also hedges maxim because Mr Pecut quotes what Kejagung says.

KPK buka informasi kekayaan pejabat.
Pendapatan tambahan sih tetap tertutup. (Redaksi Republika, 5 Desember 2008)

Implicatures

- the additional incomes remain closed

- What about non-government authority?

The utterance above is named as particularized implicature, for not all the readers know about the information of the government wealth. We should have enough knowledge about the aspects of the government wealth, whether it is about their moneys, capitals, investments, houses, cars, or others. In understanding this utterance, also, they should know the context first.
The significance of this case also influences the readers to try to understand this utterance (without knowing the context first), even some of us never thought about others' wealth.
Then, this utterance obeys the maxim i.e. maxim of quantity, since we do not find the hints which can break that maxim whether it is flouting or hedging. Also this utterance is as informative since the redactors want to give information to the readers about the clearing of information of government properties.

Conclusion
Based on the cases/examples above, Jawa Pos tends to use generalized implicature. It is proven with other examples we find in its articles. While Republika likes using particularized implicature. Most of the cases performed are difficult to understand if we do not know the contexts.
Besides, after catching the comments of each utterance, Jawa Pos is more ironic and exaggerated than Republika in making comments. Furthermore, the first one often gives clues to be easily understood by the readers rather than the second one.