CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER II
DISCUSSION
TOPIC I : DISCOURSE ANALYSIS, INTRODUCTION
A. A Brief Historical Overview
Historical stages of a language often contain apparently meaningless words and particles, empty or
repetitive phrases, inexplicable morphological forms or uses of inflectional forms, seemingly “primitive”
stylistic features, and uncategorizable or odd text types. While traditionally many of these features have
been viewed as grammatical pleonasms, metrical expedients, intensifiers or emphatics, colloquialisms,
or defects of style, it has proved fruitful in recent years to re-examine these features using the tools of
modern discourse analysis. While a major stumbling block to such a re-examination would appear to be
the lack of oral texts from earlier periods, since discourse analysis has typically been concerned with the
oral medium, with naturally occurring conversations, and oral narratives, this is no longer considered a
serious impediment to historical discourse analysis. First, it is generally agreed that earlier periods of
most written languages, especially medieval texts in the Indo-European languages, are products of the
transition from an oral to a literate culture and, though not oral texts, contain an “oral residue” (Ong
1984), the linguistic characteristics of an oral culture. For Fleischman, it is precisely because discourse
analysis is concerned with oral texts that it will explain many of the features of medieval literature: “I am
convinced that many of the disconcerting properties of medieval vernacular texts . . . can find more
satisfying explanations if we first of all acknowledge the extent to which our texts structure information
the way a spoken language does, and then proceed to the linguistic literature that explores the
pragmatic underpinning of parallel phenomena in naturally occurring discourse” (1990: 23). Second,
much can be deduced about the oral form of earlier languages from “speech-based” genres (Biber and
Finegan 1992) such as court records, sermons, and dramatic dialogue as well as from more colloquial
written genres such as personal letters. Finally, it has become increasingly common to apply the
techniques of discourse analysis to written texts and to recognize separate principles of discourse
structure in such texts: “written texts can be analyzed as communicative acts in their own right” ( Jacobs
and Jucker 1995: 10).
B. Discourse Analysis
Alo (2006:19) describes discourse as "the way texts are put together in terms of product and form,
sequential relationships, structure and organization between sentences. It has to do with the way texts
relate to each other in terms of cohesion and coherence.” Stubbs (1983:1) as quoted by Alo (2006:19)
defines discourse as "a collection of language above a sentence or above a clause, and therefore a larger
linguistic unit, such as the exchange of conversations or written texts. It is also concerned with language
used in social contexts, and in particular with interactions or dialogues between speakers. Moreover,
Fasold (1990:65) argues that "discourse studies are the study of every aspect of language use." In simple
words, discourse analysis is "the study of the language used/study that investigates what language is
used for". The above description is based on the fact that language requires context for its existence and
it is impossible to understand linguistic items, which are used in discourse, without context. As
Fairclough (1992:8) puts it: “Discourse is social. Three social dimensions are distinguished knowledge,
social relations, and social identity - and these each correspond to the three main functions of language.
Discourse is shaped by power relations, and embedded ideologies.”
C. Forms and functions
Form is concerned with syntactic structure up to the sentence level, i.e. the arrangement of morphemes
and words into the larger units of group, clause, and finally, sentence. Form is also concerned with the
syntagmatic relationship between words within clauses and sentences. For example, “I’m taller than
you” is different from “You’re taller than I am”. Inverting “I” and ‘you’ around the comparative adjective
changes the propositional meaning of the sentence. Function however, is concerned with the
utterance’s purpose, i.e. what the utterance is meant to achieve.
According to experts, language functions have different classifications, including: Ogunsiji (2001:77)
argues that "human language is essentially functional in meaning that language is used for various
purposes in society. Brown and Yule (1983) identify two language functions. These are: Transactional
and Interactional. Transactional function deals with the expression of content whereas interactional
function is concerned with the expression of social relations and personal attitudes.
1. Transactional view
From a transactional perspective, language functions to communicate information. Language becomes
the ability to transfer information (factual information or propositions) that enable humans to draw
upon the knowledge of their ancestors, and knowledge of others in other cultures. Bennett (1976: 5)
states, 'most likely, Communication is basically a matter of the speaker trying to tell the listener
something or to give him action'. In transactional language we assume that what the speaker (or
author) which is primarily concerned with the efficient transfer of information. Language used in such
situations is 'message oriented'. So, it is very important for the receiver get the informative details
right. For example, if a doctor tells a nurse how to give a patient care, the speaker should clarify what
he or she said (or wrote). However, if the speaker gives/does unclear communication, fatal
misunderstandings will occur (even disaster) which will harm many parties if the message conveyed is
not understood correct by the recipient.
2. Interactional Display
From an interactional perspective, language is used to develop and facilitate social relationships
interaction process. This is related to the dimensions of speech fatigue. Through this function, language
is used to make contact with other people and to form relationships.The use of conventional language
to open and close conversations. Conversation analysts are particularly interested in using language to
negotiate role relationships, solidarity, exchange of conversation shifts, saving face of speakers and
listeners (cf. Labov, 1972a; Brown and Levinson, 1978; Sacks, Schegloff & Jefferson, 1974; Lakoff,
1973). ). In addition, Brown & Levinson emphasizes the importance of social relations for establishing
common ground and agreeing points of view, and illustrate the extent to which speakers in various
cultures will show agreement, and they state 'agreement can also be emphasized by repeating part or all
of what the speaker said. previously said' (1978: 17). Examples of the use of language in the
Interactional view are: When two strangers stand shivering at the bus stop in the cold wind and one
turns to the other and says 'gosh, it's so cold'. In this case, the speaker is not conveying information but
rather that the speaker is showing a willingness to be friendly and trying to open up chat with strangers
he has just met. The language used by the speaker is to make contact with other people and to form
relationships.
b. Spoken and written language.
The difference between spoken and written language. Spoken and written language differ significantly.
While written language requires the ability to read and write, but spoken language requires speaking
and listening skills. The main difference between spoken and written language is that the latter is more
formal and complicated.
1. Spoken Language
When someone communicates using spoken language, it is usually impulsive and temporary. Speaking
is done with two listeners or speakers, who are often present in the same place space. They can then
make the necessary corrections and gradually change their speech. However, for speech texts, spoken
language often contains repetitions, interruptions, and corrections next to unfinished sentences.
Movement, intonation, loudness, and other elements of spoken language are also used by speakers to
contribute to meaning their words. No spoken language conversations are recorded unless they are.
There are also certain informal grammatical constructions that are unique to pronounce language.
2. Written language
The language in which we write is known as written language. Reading and writing is two major
linguistic abilities used in written language. Because it's written that record, written language is usually
permanent as opposed to spoken language, which is only temporary. It's hard to change something
you've written once you've submitted it. Another fascinating aspect of written language is that, unlike
spoken language, readers and writers can frequently converse
over time and distance. Compared to spoken language, written language tends to be more formal,
sophisticated, and difficult. It might have lengthier sentences in difficult tenses. However, some types of
written communication, such instant messaging and casual letters, are more similar to spoken
communication. Punctuation, headings, style, colors, and other elements of written languages can all be
used to improve the clarity of the message.
Written language must be extremely precise and straightforward because it cannot receive immediate
criticism. Also Steven Bussey claims in an article on andovar.com that spoken language differs from
written language. Written language has a tendency to be more formal and elaborate than spoken
language, which is a significant distinction between the two. Other distinctions include: Writing is more
enduring and less changeable. Anything that has been in print or online is out there forever. However,
the speaker can reassert their position if they are not being recorded.
Spoken language tends to be more spontaneous, with the exception of formal addresses. As a
result, it frequently uses repetitions, breaks, and incomplete sentences. The writing has
improved.
Punctuation is necessary in written language since it is more complex. There is no equivalent to
punctuation in spoken language.
Writing transcends time and location for as long as the medium exists.
C. Sentence and Utterance.
Sentence and utterance is of fundamental importance to both semantics and pragmatics. A sentence is
an abstract theoretical entity defined within a theory of grammar, while an utterance is the issuance of a
sentence, a sentence-analogue, or sentence-fragment, in apublishedn actual context. Empirically, the
relation between an utterance and a corresponding sentence may be quite obscure (e.g. the utterance
may be elliptical, or contain sentence-fragments or 'false-starts'), but it is customary to think of an
utterance as the pairing of a sentence and a context, namely the context in which the sentence was
uttered.
Difference between Sentences and Utterances
In pragmatics, sentences, and utterances are interpreted as two different types of units hiving varied
purposes, structures and effects as presented.
1. Usually sentences are written formally and separated from context. While utterances are spoken,
they are mostly informal and related to context.
2. The sentence also contains a complete meaning. While utterances may contain incomplete
meanings.
3. Sentences manifest lexico-grammatical rules for demonstration or display purposes. While utterances
embody rules for communication purposes.
4. A sentence ends with a full stroke. While speech lacks full stroke.
5. A sentence can be decontextualized. Meanwhile, speech is always contextualized.
6. A sentence is not accompanied by sound quality or suprasegmental. Meanwhile, speech is
accompanied by sound quality and supra-segmental.
7. A sentence is not supported by body language. While speech is supported by body language.
8. A sentence has a verb tense (limited verb). For example: It was (verb) a beautiful day. Meanwhile,
uaran usually does not have a tense verb. For example: What a day! (no verb used here).
9. A sentence does not have repeated words or phrases. Whereas utterances may have repetition of
expressions.
10. A sentence has capitalization and may have mechanics. While speech does not need capitalization.
11. A sentence is usually studied semantics and syntax. Meanwhile, speech is usually studied in
pragmatics.
12. A sentence is a unit of analysis whose meaning or significance is formed by a paradigmatic
association with other sentences. Meanwhile, utterances are units of analysis whose meanings
meanings are formed by syntagmatic associations with other utterances.
Example sentences:
He is travelling there by train.
Examples of speech:
He, the boy's travelling there, to Kendari by train....
TOPIC II : THE ROLE OF CONTEXT IN INTERPRETATION
A. Pragmatics and Discourse Context
Yule (1996:4) defines pragmatics as “the study of the relationship between linguistic forms and the users
of these forms”. Stalnaker’s definition is more explicit (see Hatim and Mason 1991:59): Pragmatics is the
study of the purposes for which sentences are used, of the real world conditions under which a sentence
may be appropriately used as an utterance.
In a discourse, the existence of context is very important, because context can affect the meaning of
words in a discourse, both spoken and written. Discourse is actually a combination of text and context.
In other words, a text can be called as a discourse if there is context. In this case, speakers will
understand a text if they also understand the context that accompanies the text. Context can be
classified into 3 types, namely:
- situational context, namely the knowledge of speakers based on everything they see around them. In
other words, the state of the physical situation visually regarding the place where the interaction
between the speaker and the addressee occurs.
- background knowledge context, namely the speaker's knowledge about the interlocutor and also
about the world. The context of this basic knowledge consists of cultural knowledge and interpersonal
knowledge. if the interlocutors were from the same group, they would normally assume the same
knowledge about everything they know. Sharing the context of interpersonal knowledge requires verbal
interaction or previous experience.
- Co-textual context or commonly known as context, which is the speaker's knowledge of what he has
said.
Pragmatics and Discourse Context are divided into 4, including:
1. Reference
Reference is the linkage of a text with humans or objects. References are also part of cohesion. So
reference is definitely cohesion, but cohesion is not necessarily reference. Reference is the relationship
between the word and the reference. The words that function as references are called diexist while the
elements what it refers to is called antecedents (Sudaryat, 2009: 153). Reference (designation) is the use
of the word or phrase to designate or refer to words, phrases, or perhaps other grammatical units
(Ramlan, 1993: 12). In the context of discourse, references (designations) are divided into two types,
namely exophora and endophora.
a. Endophyric is a textual reference, which means that the reference or reference is in the text or
discourse. Endophoric references are divided into two patterns, namely anaphora and cataphora.
Anaphora is a thing or function that points back to something that has been mentioned before in a
sentence or discourse (which is called the antecedent). Meanwhile, the kataphora refers to something
that is mentioned behind. For example:
2. Presupposition
Presuppositions are what the speaker assumes to be the case before making an utterance. The concept
of presupposition is often treated as a relationship between two propositions.
In the analysis of how speakers' assumptions are usually expressed, presuppositions have been linked to
the use of a large number of words, phrases, and structures. These linguistic forms are considered here
as indicators of potential presuppositions, which can only be actual presuppositions in context with the
speaker. The types of presuppositions are:
a. Existential presupposition is the assumption of the existence of the entity mentioned by the speaker.
For example, when a speaker says "Tom's new car", we can assume that Tom exists and he owns a car.
b. Factual presuppositions are assumptions that something is true because of the presence of several
verbs such as "know" and "to realize" and phrases involving happy, for example. So when a speaker says
that he doesn't realize someone is sick, we can assume that someone is sick. Also, when he says "I'm
glad it's over", we can assume that it's over.
c. Lexical presupposition is the assumption that, in using one word, the speaker can act as if another
meaning (word) will be understood. For example: You are late again. (You were late earlier). In this
case, the use of the expression "again" is taken to presuppose another (unmentioned) concept.
d. Structural presuppositions are assumptions related to the use of certain words and phrases. For
example, the wh-question in English is conventionally interpreted with the presupposition that
information after the wh-form (eg when and where) is already known to be the case. When did he go to
the United States? (he travels)
e. Non-factiva presuppositions are assumptions that something is not true. For example, verbs such as
"dream", "imagine" and "pretend" are used with the presupposition that what follows is not true. I
dreamed that I was rich. (I'm not rich)
f. A counterfactual presupposition is an assumption that what is presupposed is not only untrue, but
contrary to what is true, or contrary to fact. For example, some conditional structures, commonly called
conditional counterfactuals, presuppose that the information, in the if clause, was not true at the time it
was said.
If you were my daughter I would not let you do this. (you are not my daughter).
3. Implicature
According to Levinson in Pragmatics (1983:103-104), conversational implicature is a deviation from the
semantic content of a sentence. Levinson says that: “ . . . by definition, conversational implicature,
where the term implicature is intended to contrast with the term like logical implication, entailment and
logical consequences which are generally used to refer to inferences that are derived solely from logical
and semantic content. For implicatures are not semantic inferences, but rather inferences based on
both the content of what has been said and some specific assumption about the co-oprative nature of
ordinary verbal interaction.” Implicature can also be interpreted as an implied or a concept that refers to
something that is implied by an utterance that is not explicitly stated by that utterance. The term
implicature was first put forward by Grice (1975) to explain what the speaker might explain, mean,
suggest, or mean, which could be different from what the speaker actually said.
From the definition above, we can conclude that the understanding of implicature cannot be separated
from the principle of cooperation between the two speakers in a conversational interaction. So for
clarity, we define in more detail the three terms implicit, implication and implicature. Implicit can be
interpreted as the meaning contained (although not stated clearly and openly), implication has a
meaning that is included or concluded but not stated, while implicature has a hidden meaning in a
conversation or the meaning intended by the speaker related to the cooperation to find out the
meaning that can be different. For example:
Luki : Watch out Rocky is coming!
Kemal : Hide your cigarettes!
Other friends : Rocky will ask for your cigarettes.
At first glance, there is no connection between Luki and Kemal's speech in example above. However, if
the context about Rocky is known, there is an implicature that can be concluded, namely Rocky likes to
ask other people's cigarettes and Luki and Kemal and other friends dislike that.
4. Inference
Inference is defined as information that is not expressed explicitly by the text but which can be derived
from the text on the basis of understanding knowledge and which is encoded into a representation of
the understanding construction of the text.
According to Collins Dictionary, Inference is the conclusion we draw about something using the
information we already have about it. Another opinion emerged from the Literary Terms, inference is
the process of drawing conclusions from supporting evidence. That's when we go beyond the evidence
and reach some further conclusions. We also make inferences when we read the literature. The author
gives us a clue as to what happened, and we have to find out based on that evidence. The author
implies; readers conclude. Meanwhile, according to the Philosophy Terms, Inference is the process of
drawing conclusions based on evidence. Based on some evidence or “premises”, we make a conclusion.
It can be concluded that inference is an idea or conclusion made by the reader based on information or
facts in the text that are not written directly, because usually the conclusion has an implied meaning
from within the text. There are 3 types of inference. Among others;
a. Deductive.
Deductive inference is part of a series of conclusions based on logical certainty. It usually starts with a
general principle and then concludes something about a particular case study
b. Inductive
Inductive inference is inference based on probability. It usually starts with specific information to
conclude more general principles. Or it can also be said that induction is a conclusion that leads to a rule
or principle or general conclusion, based on sample observations or case observations.
c. Abductive
In the philosophical literature, the term abduction is used in two related but distinct senses. In both
senses, the term refers to some form of explanatory reasoning.
However, in the first sense historically, it refers to explanatory reasoning in generating a hypothesis,
whereas in the sense it is most often used in modern literature it refers to explanatory reasoning in
justifying a hypothesis. In the last sense, abduction is also often called "Inference for the Best
Explanation". Examples of inference in everyday life, for example:
1. Sally arrives home at 3:00 p.m. and finds out that her mother will be home from work at 5:00 p.m.
Sally also saw that the lights in their house were off
Sally can conclude that her mother is not home yet
2. John hears the smoke alarm in the house next door and smells burnt meat.
John can conclude that his neighbour’s cooking is burnt (scorched).
3. Norman sees cookie crumbs on the floor and chocolate around his son's mouth.
Norman could conclude that his son ate cake.
4. Julia works in a pet shop and has four cats, a lizard, a dog, and a rabbit.
It can be concluded that Julia is a pet lover.
TOPIC : III
THE ROLE OF CONTEXT IN INTERPRETATION
A. The Context of Situation
Situational context, or context of situation, refers to the environment, time and place, etc. in which the
discourse occurs, and also the relationship between the participants. This theory is traditionally
approached through the concept of register, which helps to clarify the interrelationship of language with
context by handling it under three basic headings: field, tenor, and mode.
Field of discourse refers to the ongoing activity. We may say field is the linguistic reflection of the
purposive role of language user in the situation in which a text has occurred. Tenor refers to the kind of
social relationship enacted in or by the discourse. The notion of tenor, therefore, highlights the way in
which linguistic choices are affected not just by the topic or subject of communication but also by the
kind of social relationship within which communication is taking place. Mode is the linguistic reflection
of the relationship the language user has to medium of transmission. The principal distinction within
mode is between those channels of communication that entail immediate contact and those that allow
for deferred contact between participants. The Context of Situation are divided into 3, including:
1. Features of Context
Context is an aspect of the environment that is physically or socially linked in an utterance or text that
appears (Kridalaksana, 2011: 134). Context can also be the cause or background of a dialogue. A
discourse or paragraph still has to have related elements in one context to be understood together.
Consider two invented scenarios in which an identical utterance is produced by two distinct speakers.
a. Speaker: a young mother, hearer: her mother-in-law, place: park, by a duckpond, time: sunny
afternoon in September 1962. They are watching the young mother's two-year-old son chasing ducks
and the mother-in-law has just remarked that her son, the child's father, was rather backward at this
age. The young mother says: I do think Adam's quick
b. Speaker: a student, hearers: a set of students, place: sitting round a coffee table in the refectory, time:
evening in March 1980. John, one of the group, has just told a joke. Everyone laughs except Adam. Then
Adam laughs. One of the students says: I do think Adam's quick (In each case phonological prominence is
placed on Adam.)
Clearly, we can do a formal analysis on these tokens and, in both cases, the speaker says of Adam that
he is quick. It is clear, however, that the utterances in the contexts of situation in which they are cited,
would be taken to convey very different messages. In (a) we shall simplistically assume that the
referents of I and Adam are fixed by spatio-temporal co-ordinates. This 'Adam' is being compared (or
contrasted), favourably, with his father. Quick, may be interpreted, in the context of backward, as
meaning something like 'quick in developing'.
In (b) different referents for I and Adam are fixed spatio-temporally. This 'Adam' is being compared (or
contrasted) not with his father and favourably, but with the set of other students unfavourably. In this
case quick must be interpreted as meaning something like 'quick to understand I react I see the joke'.
Moreover, since it is said in a context where Adam has just manifestly failed to react to the punch-line as
quickly as the set of other students, the speaker (given this type of speaker to this type of hearer in this
type of surroundings) will be assumed not to be intending to tell an untruth, but to be implicating the
opposite of what she has said.
