PELANGGARAN PRINSIP KERJA SAMA DAN IMPLIKATUR DALAM PERSIDANGAN DEPP VS HEARD (2022)

Abstract

This study examines the pragmatic aspects of Amber Heard’s testimony during the 2022 Depp v. Heard trial, focusing specifically on violations of Grice’s cooperative maxims and the emergence of non-conventional implicatures. Using a qualitative descriptive approach, the research analyzes six selected excerpts from courtroom interactions between Amber Heard and attorney Camille Vasquez. The findings reveal that maxim violations—particularly the maxim of quality—occur frequently through repeated expressions of uncertainty such as “I don’t know” or strategic shifts in terminology, as seen in the use of pledge versus donation. These violations generate implicatures that suggest evasiveness, inconsistency, and attempts to obscure factual clarity. The study concludes that pragmatic analysis provides valuable insight into how linguistic strategies can be employed to influence perception and construct narrative credibility in a legal context. This research contributes to forensic linguistics by demonstrating how language serves as a tool of persuasion and self-defense in courtroom discourse.