Sociolinguistics

THE CORRELATION BETWEEN SPEECH ACT AND PRAGMATICS

A SOCIOLINGUISTICS PAPER

BY

Eko Mulyono

Lecturer : Fahrudin Latif,S.S.,M.Hum.

                                                                    Dedi Subandowo,MA.

MUHAMMADIYAH UNIVERSITY OF METRO

TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION FACULTY

ENGLISH EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM

ODD SEMESTER 2012

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

To the light, our god, who guided me through the way.
To Mr. Fahrudin Latif and Mr. Dedi Subandowo,MA for their great effort of supervising and leading me, to accomplish this fine work.
To my friends and families, they were a great source of support and encouragement, i should say  thank them all and wish them all the best in their lives.
To my  mothers and fathers, for their warm, kind encourage, and love.
To every person gave me something to light our pathway, i say thank them for believing in me.

The Correlation between Speech Act and Pragmatics

EKO Mulyono

ABSTRACT

Narrated Hudhaifa: The Prophet once delivered a speech in
front of us wherein he left nothing but mentioned (about)
everything that would happen till the Hour. Some of us stored
that our minds and some forgot it. (After that speech) I used
to see events taking place (which had been referred to in that
speech) but I had forgotten them (before their occurrence).
Then I would recognize such events as a man recognizes another
man who has been absent and then sees and recognizes him.

This paper examines the existing and interesting relationship between speech act and pragmatics and argues that the speech acts is the main component of pragmatics. Speech act is a pragmatic element that involves speakers and partners or any speech writers and readers. J.L Austin (Tarigan, 1994: 109). This idea can be taken as a given starting point for investigating the question how are linguistics action, or speech act perform or understood? And can be related to pragmatics.  A theories  stated that pragmatics is a linguistics branch which maintains the use of context in understanding and produces speech. It is used to develop principles of work relationship and politeness in communication process, therefore, the aim of communication can be gained effectively. This context itself has relationship with culture which is different from one society to another society. Speech act itself explains how people argues about a language based on the context. In this paper, i argue that one of the important aspect for pragmatics is speech act. In addition to outlining the correlation between speech act and pragmatics itself, i present a paper here to discuss how it can be correlated between speech act and pragmatics.

Keywords : pragmatics, speech act, communication, and context

INTRODUCTION

Language is the primary means of communication and has an expression and a great and informative. Language is needed by humans because human language can find a way to communicate their needs to each other. As a member of the community who are active in daily life, in society people rely heavily on the use of language. This is consistent with the statement that "No society in which there is no use of language." In other words, where the activity occurs, where there is also a language activity (Sudaryanto in Djatmiko, 1992: 2).

Pragmatics studies how people comprehend and produce a speech act in social situations,  usually in  conversation. Our interest is in the effect that the context of an utterance, generally observed principles of communicating, and the goals of the speaker have on the speaker's choice of expression and the hearer's interpretation of an utterance. The concern here is sociolinguistics which is cincerned with language and society entwine. The main component of pragmatics is speech acts

 Linguists usually imposes limits on language as a system of arbitrary sound symbol used by group members to interact the society and identifying (Abdul Chaer, 1994). On the other hand each system and symbol language implies that each symbol languages​​, either a word, phrase, clause, sentence, and discourse always has a specific meaning, which may change at the time and the certain situation. Or even no change at all.

Usually, however, not many people are concerned about how language can be used as an effective communication medium, so as a result, speakers of a language often have misunderstandings in the atmosphere and context of acts. One way to find out about it is through pragmatic viewpoint.

FINDING AND DISCUSSION

What is pragmatics?

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.

Through pragmatics, contextual meaning is exploited and analyzed to discover the “real” meaning. It is important in pragmatics to talk about implied and intended meaning, assumptions, purposes and goals of people in communication and various types of actions.

The inability of semantics to satisfactorily explicate the sociolinguistic and other non-linguistic components of verbal communication gave birth to pragmatics. Thus, pragmatics is a fairly new field of study which shares borders with sociolinguistics and semantics. Pragmatics is discourse in action, action determined by society or interlocutors. When the action is determined by society, it becomes more or less sociolinguistics, but when it is more of intended meaning, it tends or leans towards semantics.

Between Pragmatics and Speech Acts

the correlation between pragmatics and speeh are is pragmatics is talking about the meaning and speech acts is talking about means how people say something by regarding to the context of speech in which it is used. And so speech acts here is one of the the element of pragmatics.

Object Study Pragmatics

In the previous description noted that pragmatics refers to the study of language use based on the context. Field of study relating to it - then commonly called pragmatic field study was deixis, presupposition, speech acts (speech act), and conversational implicature. Each of the above areas of study are discussed briefly below:

1. Speech (Speech Act)

Speech act is a speech / speech that is the functional unit in communication (Richard, Platt and Platt, 1993). In speech act theory put forward by the two language philosopher named John Austin and John Searle in the 1960s. According to the theory, whenever a speaker utter a sentence, he is trying to do things with words (the sentence) it. According to the terms of Austin (1965: 94), "By saying something we do something". A judge who says "I hereby condemn you to prison for five years" is taking action to punish the defendant. The words spoken by the conviction of the accused judges marks. The defendant will not go to jail without a word from the judges (Clark and Clark, 1977:26).

The words expressed by the speakers have two kinds of meaning at once, i.e. propositional meaning or significance locutionary meaning) and illocutionary meaning. Propositional meaning is the literal meaning of the words that were spoken. To understand the meaning of these listeners simply do the decoding of the words are armed with the knowledge of grammatical and vocabulary. illocutionary meaning an effect caused by the words spoken by the speaker to the listener. As an illustration, in the phrase "I'm thirsty" meaning its propotional is a statement that describes the physical condition of the speaker that he was thirsty. Illocutionary meaning was expected effects arising from the statement of the listener. The statement was probably meant as a request to provide refreshments for the listener to the speaker.

Searle (1986) in Joko Nurkamto (2000) divides speech acts into five. First, commissive (commisive), the speech act which states that the speaker will do something in the future, such as promises or threats. Example: I will propose next month. Second, declarative (declarative), the speech act that can change things. Example: With this I declare you pass. Those words changed the status of a person from the state has not passed the state graduation. Third, the directive (directive), which is the function of speech act asks the audience to do something like suggestions, requests, and orders. Example: Please sit down!. Fourth, expressive (expressive), the speech acts used by speakers to express their feelings and attitudes towards something. Example: Student was beautiful. Fifth, the representative (rep), which describes the state of the speech acts or events, such as reports, claims, and statement. Example: Final Exam Semester begins at seven.

From the foregoing it appears that speech act (speech act) is a function of language (language function), which aim to use language, such as praise, apologizing, giving advice, and inviting. These functions can not be determined only from the grammatical forms, but also from the context of the use of language. For example, declarative sentence that is traditionally used to make a statement (statement) can be used to express a request or command (Sinclair and Coulthard, 1975).

Therefore, the theory of speech acts (speech act), the technical term indirect speech act (indirect speech act), the speech act expressed indirectly. Compare the two following speech, uttered a guest to his host:

A: Sorry you know Mom, Her glass leak

B: Mom, I'm thirsty

Sentence (1) is an example of indirect speech acts, and the sentence (2) is an example sentence direct speech act. In everyday communication, direct speech acts are often considered more polite than direct speech acts, especially when associated with the request (requests) and rejections (refusals).

 2.  Deixis

Deixis is a symptom of semantics contained in the word or construction that can only be interpreted by considering the context of the speech reference (Hasan Alwi, et al., 1998). I said, here, now, for example, does not have a fixed reference but varies depending on a variety of things. References from my words became clear after known who say the word. The word here has a real following in reference to know where the words are pronounced. Similarly, the word now as well known when it is said. Thus the words above include words deixis. Unlike the case with words such as tables, chairs, cars, and computers. Anyone who says, wherever, and whenever, these words have a clear reference and fixed.
Imagine, when a student UIN find writing in a microbus majors GL / LG, which reads today pay, tomorrow free. Similarly, in a food stall around a boarding student, encountered sticker that reads today pay, tomorrow may owe. The above expressions have a meaning only if it said by microbus driver in front of the passenger or by the owners of stalls in front of the visitors feeding stalls.

Deixis can be divided into five categories, namely deixis person (persona), time (time), where (place), discourse (discourse), and social (social) (Levinson, 1983). Deixis with regard to the use of pronouns persona, like me (first person pronoun) you (second person pronoun). Example Can I come in your house? Me and your words can be understood only if known reference who spoke the words, and to whom the speech was addressed.

Deixis time regarding use of time information, such as yesterday, today, and tomorrow. For example, not tomorrow a holiday? The word tomorrow have a clear reference only when known when the sentence was pronounced.

Deixis place regarding the use of information where, as here, there, and in front. Example sit here!. The word here has a clear reference to the sentence only if it is known where it utterance.

Deixis discourse relating to the use of the phrase in a speech to refer to parts of speech containing the phrase (including the phrase itself), such as the following, in the past, and this. For example, said that the sentence that was the funniest story ever heard. Discourse markers linking one sentence to another sentence. As any way, by the way, and in addition also included in deixis discourse. Social Deixis related to aspects of social reality reflected speech given at the time the speech was produced. The use of the word in the sentence Mr. "You can give a lecture today?" What is uttered by a student to his teachers reflect social deixis. In the above example can be known social level speakers and the listener. The speaker has a higher social level than the speaker.

3. Presuppositions

Presuppositions are what speakers are used as the basis for participants with conversation (Brown and yule, 1996), or "What a speaker or writer assumes that the receiver of the message already knows" (Richards, Platt and Platt, 1993). The assumption is specified boundary limits based assumptions about what the speaker is likely to be accepted by the other person without challenges. As an illustration, consider the following conversation:

A: What about inviting John tonight?

B: What a good idea; then he can give Monica a lift

Presumption contained in the above conversation include (1) that A and B are familiar with John and Monica, (2) that John has a car - most likely a car, and (3) that Monica does not have a current vehicle (Richard, Platt and Platt, 1993).
From the example above is understood that when a sentence is uttered, apart from the meaning expressed by the sentence pronunciation, also helped followed additional meaning, which is not expressed by the sentence pronunciation (Bambang Kaswanti Purwo, 1990).

4. Conversational implicatures (Conversational Implicature)

Implicatures term used by Grice (1975) to explain what might be interpreted, suggested, or intended by the speaker, which is different to what was actually said by the speakers (Brown and Yule, 1996). According to Levinson (1983), conversational implicature is a deviation from the charge semantics of a sentence. It is said that: "They grenerate inferences beyond the semantic content of the sentences uttered. Such inferences are, by definition, conversational implicatures, where the term implicature is intended to contrast with the term like logical implication, entaiment and Logical Consequences roomates are generally used to refer to inferences that are derived solely from the 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 interction "(103-104)

An understanding of conversational implicatures is inseparable from the principle of co-operation (co-oprative principle) proposed by Grice (Brown and Yule, 1996: 31-32). The general principles of cooperation reads: "Give your contribution to the conversation as needed, on the stage, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are involved." General principle according to Joko Nurkamto (2000) can be reflected from some maxims, namely: (1) Maxim Quantity: Provide the necessary information you

seimformatif (according to the current conversation. Do not provide information that is more informative than necessary, (2) Maxim Quality: said Do what you believe is not true. Do not say anything if you have no evidence of it, (3) Maxim Relationships: Talk relevant, and (4) Maxim Ways: State clearly. Avoid vague phrases. Avoid words with double meanings. Speak with a short (do not beat around the bush). Talk regularly.

The denial of the above maxims lead to the birth of an additional meaning to the literal meaning of the utterance. Connote that a conversational implicature. Consider the example conversation between A and B like this:

A: I am out of petrol

B: There is a garage round the corner.

From the conversation above, we see that B violated maxim of relation (talk relevant). Its implicature, which come from B addresses to the principle of the presumption of cooperation, are (1) that there is a gas station on the corner, (2) that the petrol station is still open and selling gasoline, and (3) that in the corner of the street is not the distance far. In addition, we must interpret the word A is not only a description of the specific circumstances, but also as a request for assistance, for example.

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

1.      Conclusion

Based on finding and discussion above, the writer can make a conclusion that in sociolinguistics, Pragmatics studies how people comprehend and produce a speech act in social situations,  usually in  conversation. Our interest is in the effect that the context of an utterance, generally observed principles of communicating, and the goals of the speaker have on the speaker's choice of expression and the hearer's interpretation of an utterance. The concern here is sociolinguistics which is cincerned with language and society entwine. The main component of pragmatics is speech acts. While the speech acts is including in pragmatics elements, there are three others elements such as deixis, pressupposition, and converstional implicature.

2. Suggestion

This paper is less of examples so it makes the reader difficult to understand what the writer means. On the other hand, the writer just not to give explanation but also give more examples. And so, the writer should give some pictures to support the explanation.

REFERENCES

Austin, J.L. 1965 How to do Things with Word. Oxfort: Oxford Univercity Press.

Bambang Kaswanti Purwo. 1984. Deiksis dalam Bahasa Indonesia. Jakarta: Balai Pustaka,

Brown, Gillian dan Yule., George. 1996. Analisis Wacana. Jakarta: PT. Gramedia Pustaka Utama.

Canale, Michael. 1983. “From Communicative Competence to Communicative Language Pedagogy. “ dalam Richard, Jack C. dan Schmidt E. (Eds). Language and Communication. London: Longman.

Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Sintax. Cambridge: the M.I.T. Press.

Clark, Herbert H. dan Clark Eve V. 1977. Psychology of Language. New York: Hartcourt Brace Javanivich, Inc.

Hasan Alwi dkk. 1998. Tata Bahasa Baku Bahasa Indonesia. Jakarta: Balai Pustaka.

James, Carl. 1980. Contrastive Analysis. London: Longman.

Joko Nurkamto. 2000. Makalah, Pragmatik. PPS UNS Surakarta.

Leech, Geoffrey. 1997. Prinsip-Prinsip Pragmatik. (Terj. Dr. M.D.D. Oka). Jakarta :UI Press.

Levinson, Stephent C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge Univercity Press.

Nababan, P.W.J. 1987. Ilmu Pragmatik: Teori dan Penerapannya. Jakarta: Depdikbud.

Richard, Jack C,; Platt, John; dan Platt, Heidi. 1993. Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics. England: Longman.

Searle, John R. 1986. Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge Univercity Press.

Sinclair, J. Mch. dan Choulthards, R.M. 1984. Toward an Analysis of Discourse: The English Used by Teachers and Pupils. London: Oxford Univercity Press.

Thomas, Jenny. 1983.” Cross Cultural Failure.” Applied Linguistics, 91-112.

Van Ek, JA. dan Trim, J. L. M.1991. Threshold 1990. Cambridge: Cambridge Univercity Press.

APPENDIX

Another example elements of pragmatics

1. Speech Acts

Complaints	Suggestions	Compliments
And another thing...	Faster checkout.	Good work.
Requests	Apologies	Refusals
Would you like to...	I didn't mean it.	I don't think so.

2. Deixis

3. Pressuposition

 

4. Conversational Implicature