Chapter I introduction



Download 407.12 Kb.
Page1/6
Date06.10.2017
Size407.12 Kb.
  1   2   3   4   5   6



CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

This first chapter discusses the introduction session that covers background of study, formulation of the problem, purpose of the study, significance of the study, scope and limitation of the study, research and definition of key term.



    1. Background Study

In human language comes from the word “manu” (sansekerta), “mens” (Latin), which means to think, understands (1) beings or who understands (capable of mastering other creatures). (2) In human terms can be interpreted a concept or a fact, an idea or a reality, a group (genus) or an individual. In relation to the environment, human life is an organism (living organism). Personal formation is influenced by the environment even in the extreme can be said, everyone comes from an environment, both vertical environments (generic, traditions), horizontal (geographic, physical, social), as well as historical.1 Human are social beings that never separated from the other creatures. In carrying out human life need interaction. Interaction easily understood by humans is the use of language. Because to language, what would be easy to understand human intentions. Armed with the knowledge that continues to be developed consciously and constantly about his world, he can expand various solutions to the problems that he faces in life. One of the goals from product cultural work is a uniquely human language, which is indicated to ensure smooth and effective social interaction with others. Interaction between people, which becomes effective with this language that seems conducive to the member space-blossoms grow other cultural dimensions such as ideology, politics, economics, systems of knowledge, art and values in human society. Through this interaction, human exchange ideology, influence, needs, knowledge, norms of decency, and technology with other human beings. Gradual activities synergism to form the various aspects of institutional culture in human life through a long process, a complex and systematic. Ferdinand De Saussure further develops the elements of meaning and words in the language through a theory of concepts and imagination of the sound (the concept and the sound image). The word tree, for example, consists of imaginative sound of the word “tree” (signifier) and concept of the tree (signified). The system was based on the system of symbolic language of human life. Hence the vocabulary of a language in addition to reflecting the ability of a community in expressing her life experiences, are also generally reflect the knowledge, views of life, their beliefs and thoughts.2

Effectiveness and efficiency social interaction between humans is clearly relying on the language as a means of communication. The language is the main communication tool for interacting with humans to each other to exchange ideas or to express his feelings about his world. By Holmes (2001;259), the language that used in communication activities has two functions, namely functions of referential and affective functions. The first function associated with the use of language in order to exchange knowledge or information with another human. Thus, this function is also called informative function, which allows humans can accumulate and disseminate about how to solve the problems that arise related to the nature that they live. As far as we know, human’s activity exchange information and knowledge with each other has arrived at significant levels, namely the establishment of systems science and technology is very useful for improving quality of life and existence.3 Science and technology development processes is almost impossible to do without the existence of language as a means of recording and disseminating science and technology in the midst of human society from time to time.4

Affective function which is also called social functions related to the use of language by humans in order to maintain social relationship with others. In this case, the language used by human interaction in social activities in order to benefit the other individuals, foster friendship, cooperation agreement, express empathy, and so on. It seems, intended use of language to socialize it has a meaning just as important as the intended use of the language for exchanging information. We can guess that the byproduct of language use within the scope of social relationship is the creation of social harmony and peace.5

The realization of peace and social harmony is a dream every member of a society because basically, people are creatures who do not like conflict. Basic human instincts that we can trace the fact that almost all groups of society, whether left or forward, has a variety of devices and governance norms, values that govern the behavior of how a social interaction should be done. There are the forms of behavior which is acceptable and there is not acceptable. Acceptable behavior that is recommended as a propriety that must be held as a guideline in socializing. On the contrary, the behavior is less society acceptable or not regarded as a taboo that needs to be avoided in social interactions. In other words, social harmony in human society would be achieved if the individuals in the community to behave according to the collective expectations of all members of the society concerned. A collective expectation of the appropriateness of a behavior is what seems to be standard for all behavior, including behavior of members of a society politeness.6

Related to politeness, there is one of the pragmatic experts, he is G. Leech. According leech (1983) princip corporation (PC) is needed to explain correlation between meaning and capacity. Meaning is connected with a sentence structure, and capacity is connected with an intention of meaning a sentence that spoken by someone is connected proposition that appearance “message nucleus” that want to tell speaker to the listener. Leech concludes the level politeness is from luck-harm from the speaker to listener with the theory maxim Leech; (Modesty, generosity, approbation, tact, agreement, and shympathy maxim).

The opinion is in line with the facts showing that the behavior of friendly politeness every speech is unique and peculiar, and seems closely linked to cultural values that they profess. For example in the Java community, politeness meanings are so important in the association community. A member of the Java community has not been commonly called “adult” if they have not been able to ber-madu basa,ber-madu rasa, dan ber-madu brata, each of which significantly polite language, to respond to others’ feelings and earnest worship of his God.7 Polite language for Java means capable of adjusting between the speakers and behavior, each of which relate to how to speak and be a good way to listener when speaking. In behaving and socializing, Java community is guided by basic principles, namely principle Pillars (PR) and Principles of Respect (PH). PR reverts to the attitude of always trying to avoid conflict while the PH is the attitude that has always respected other people in the speaking. A Javanese failed in line with these norms in the speaking often gets called “ora jowo” (not java), which exclusion from Java community groups.

The researcher researchs politeness realization that happen in Surabaya people. These assumptions encourage authors to investigate further about a group of other communities, especially areas such as the people of Surabaya Dukuh Kupang Kec. Dukuh Pakis Surabaya, with reference to the theory of politeness G. Leech as foundation of the research.



    1. Identify of Problem

Based on the above explanation, the general formulation of the problem in this study is how the realization of politeness in society, especially teenagers Surabaya Dukuh Kupang region in performing speech acts fatis. Next question is described as follows:

  1. How is the realization of politeness maxims among teenagers in Jalan Jarak Dukuh Kupang Surabaya?

  2. How do their utterances comply with politeness principle?

  1. How do their utterances Modesty Maxim?

  2. How do their utterances Generosity Maxim?

  3. How do their utterances Approbation Maxim?

  4. How do their utterances Tact maxim?

  5. How do their utterances Agreement Maxim?

  6. How do their utterances Sympathy Maxim?



    1. Purposes of Study

Departing from the view above, the authors are interested in studying the realization of politeness in a society operating in Dukuh kupang Surabaya. Surabaya area is an area that has a mix of languages and is roughly of the Java language from other regions. Let’s take the example:

  1. A : Cok, piye kabarmu? Tak enteni kat dek ingi gak teko-teko kon iku lapo emange?

B : He..he..Onok opo cak?

The word “cok” in their repertoire of Javanese language is the languages that are considered polite or less polite. Since the word “cok” on the last sentence is a short greeting from the word “dancok” meaning to insult the other person. The question is when the people of Surabaya writers, especially young children in the Dukuh Kupang says the word “cok” as pronouns calls to the other person, whether the other person feels offended or did not even think that the other person (the second) was mocked and felt normal without any felling for the disadvantaged with the word “cok”. There are still many taboo words calls in Surabaya which is considered rude in other areas in Java, among others “gatel, taek, matane, asu, etc”.



    1. The significance of The Study

Generally, this study is expected to benefit both theoretical and practical. Theoretically, the results of this research study are able to give an idea of form, strategy and principles of public politeness Dukuh Kupang Surabaya region in particular teenagers. By shifting perspective of studies on politeness than purely pragmatic to socio pragmatic has done in this study are expected to provide more comprehensive explanation of the essence of politeness. Thus, the study of politeness in a particular cultural background is expected to complete the studies of politeness that is claimed to apply politeness universal by experts such as G. Leech (1978).

Related to the lack of socio-pragmatic studies on politeness behavior in a variety of friendly speech in Indonesia, this research may encourage further studies of similar problems by varying the background of different cultures which are owned by various ethnic groups and tribes who resided in the country. Thus, we will again knowledge about politeness repertoire associated with the various norms and social values that apply within a particular speech friendly in the archipelago. Availability of sufficient literature on the empirical description of the behavior of various ethnic politeness encourage the expansions of insight the various communities in the world layer about a specific and unique behavior of different tribes or ethnic language in our country, expected emergence of tolerance, respect and mutual understanding of the high level of communication procedures among the individuals who come from ethnic groups with different cultural background. This will have positive impact on the creation of a national association order and international society that is also built up healthy so essential to word peace.

    1. Scope and Limitation of The Study


In this thesis, the author to restrict the research problem based on the time and energy has writer. The restrictions applied in this research is just digging in the field of data directly with the object of investigation in the area of adolescent Dukuh Kupang and provides some questions to the local community leader in Dukuh Kupang so that authors know the local language decency constraints Dukuh Kupang. To provide validity data, the authors provide a question related to the cultural language of Surabaya. Among others, Agus Sunyoto, religious leaders, community leaders which also language of Surabaya. Researcher uses theory six maxims Leech as the basic theory politeness principle to reference research, because generally theory six maxims Leech that is familiar, that is Modesty, Generosity, Approbation, Tact, Agreement, and Sympathy Maxim.



    1. Definition of Key Term

Definition of key terms is an explanation of the keywords that discussed in this thesis. These words often written in the research because it is very important as basic research. Definition of key terms needs to be given in order to avoid misunderstandings and unwanted widening discussion. The word is politeness, fatis, and behavior.

  1. Politeness

Procedures, customs, or habits prevailing in the society. Politeness is the rules of conduct established and agreed upon jointly by a particular community so that politeness was agreed by both the preconditions of social behavior. Therefore, politeness is called “manners” (ed: Java language).

  1. Pragmatics

George Yule (1985:3) defines pragmatics in many different ways. Firstly, pragmatics is defined as speakers meaning. It concerns a study of meaning as communicated by speaker and interpreted listener. Second, pragmatics is defined as contextual meaning which involves the interpretation of what people mean in particular contect and how the context influences what is said.


  1. Fatis

The utterance is shown to maintain sympathetic and friendly relations among members of society the same cultural background.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THIS RELATED LITERATURE

This chapter focuses on the theories and information that deals with the study on pragmatics analysis of politeness maxims in the conversations among people in Dukuh Kupang Surabaya. This is including the philosophical pragmatics that views the conversational maxim from Geoffrey Leech’s Politeness principle and context.


2.1. Introduction of Pragmatics

Pragmatic studies the ways that context affects meaning. The two primary form of context important to pragmatics are linguistic context and situational context. The term “pragmatics’ was introduced by the Logical Positivist, Rudolf Carnap. This was an attempt to reduce subjective meaning to a secondary status and to treat what remained as objective by following Wittgenstein, who sought to objectify meaning as intent as if it were merely a matter of context. It was Wittgenstein’s own student, G.E.M. Anscombe, however, who re-emphasized the primary of human intent and assumptions whether they were subjective or not, and who also suggested a preference for understanding causes more as influence than as relations or laws. This of course may seem obvious in hindsight when we consider understanding irony, satire, humors, poetry, representation, or foundation theory where intent, assumptions, and various value connotations as influence on our thinking need to be understood by an audience. In short, while we all use objectified meaning and consider important context, when communication breaks down, then the primacy of subjective meaning becomes overwhelming, especially when we finally ask: “what do YOU mean?8

George Yule (1998: 187) defines pragmatics in many different ways. Firstly, pragmatics is defined as speakers meaning. It concerns a study of meaning as communicated by speaker and interpreted by listener. Moreover, it has more to do with the analysis of what people mean by themselves. Second, pragmatics is defined as contextual meaning which involves the interpretation of what people mean in particular context and how the context influence what is said. Basically it deals with who they are talking to, when, where and under what circumstances. Third, pragmatics is defined as investigation of the invisible meaning or intended meaning. It explores how a hearer can make influences about what is said in order to arrive at an interpretation of the speaker intended meaning. Forth, pragmatics is defined as the expression of the relative distance. Closeness whether physical, social or conceptual implies shared experience. Therefore, based on how close or distance the hearer is, the speaker determines how much needs to be said.9 Another definition of pragmatics is suggested by Levinson as “the study of the relations between language and context that are basic to an account of language understanding”. Yet, according to him, the scope of context is not easy to define. Meanwhile Leech stated that the context included where and when the event occurs, the behavior of both Speaker (S) and Hearer (H), the utterances preceding and following the speaker’s one and any background knowledge assumed to share by S and H and which contributes to H’s interpretation of what S means.10

The data sources of pragmatics are utterances, and below is the example of how to analyze utterances pragmatically:

A: Are you going to bed soon?

B: What do you mean?

A: The sooner you go to bed, the better because it’s been 2 hours you play guitar.

Pragmatically it might have more than one meaning. First, A feels disturbed (A is studying) by the guitar sounds and tries to be polite by indirectly asks B to stop playing the guitar. The other meaning depends on the situation and background knowledge of the speaker. Therefore, pragmatics helps explain how we produce and understand everyday by particular uses of language. It will also help to distinguish between what the speaker’s words literally mean and what speaker’s might mean by his or her words.11

Utterances production and utterances comprehension are the two major subjects in pragmatics. They are concerned with the uttered and the interpreter in communication respectively, but if we see then from the angle of the interpreter alone, we may see that they are actually two sides one process. Because when the interpreter tries to comprehend the utterance by the uttered, he may also be prone to first figuring out the way in which the utterance is produced, whether consciously or unconsciously. In other words, if the interpreter has acquired the exact intention expressed in the utterance by the way of producing the utterance.

2.2. Context

The emergence of the concept of context in Linguistics is actually the flow establishment burglar Structural Linguistics (‘paradigm of grammar’). Years of language study in the domination of that aspect in form of a language is the only data that the most feasible to be studied. As a result, the study of meaning less to get a place until the emergence of the knowledge that many cases of language can not be resolved without bringing elements of meaning that depend heavily on the contexts, in the study of language.12

During this time, slightly different contexts defined by experts. Among other things, the opinion of Yule (1998) suggested that the context is the context of a dynamic, not static. He understood as ‘an ever-changing environment that allows participants to interacting and recalled them that help understand the linguistic expressions they want use in a communication process’.13 While Cutting (2002) defines in a more operational context i.e. ‘physical and social world and the assumption that the same knowledge owned by the speakers and listener.14 Further details of contexts are categorized into (i) The context of situation (ii) the context of the knowledge background, and (iii) the context of co-textual.

Context of situation is a physical condition that comes along with the occurrence of an interaction when the conversation took place (at the moment of speaking). More precisely, let us look at the following conversation:

A: katanya Rojak jatuh dari montornya ya? Gimana keadaannya?

B: awalnya kita cukup khawatir. Tapi syukurlah dia nggak apa-apa kok. Hanya kaki kirinya bengkak. Ya beginilah.

A: aduh kasihan. Sudah dibawa ke dokter?

B: sudah. Dokter bilang terkilir biasa. Nanti juga sembuh.

Utterance B in the conversation above, i.e. ‘ya beginilah’. Can not be understood by people who are not located in the vicinity of B and B witness Adi demonstrate how badly swollen feet when conversing with A. with less in other words, to the knowledge needed to understand the utterances of the context of the situation (situational contexts), which is testimony to the movement of B’s hand around his ankles to demonstrate how badly Adi leg swelling.15

Context of background knowledge (background knowledge contexts) are specified again become (a) general knowledge of culture (cultural general knowledge). And (b) knowledge of interpersonal (interpersonal knowledge), the first refers to the knowledge of everything that exists in life in general that are owned and stored in the minds of members of a community group. In conversation 1) above, B say ‘syukurlah dia nggak apa-apa kok’. This seems very reasonable contribution by the A because both because it comes from the same community groups, namely Java. In cultural, Javanese people often express a sense of Sympathy to say ‘syukur’ for a disaster that happened to him or her relatives. In this culture of bias received by members of the Java community groups without causing misunderstanding because the intention is not to say pleasure for the accident which happened but a sense of gratitude towards these unfortunate result that is not too severe as feared.16

Knowledge of interpersonal (interpersonal knowledge) is knowledge gained from the verbal interaction earlier or activities and experiences that have been taken with the participants said, including things that are special and personal to rub off on their own. Examples that we can take from a conversation 1) is contributing A which asks Adi circumstances. Who and what Adi relationship with B in particular has become part of the knowledge of A and B through verbal interactions and social. Adi has a specific reference that is not known by everyone, whether originating from the same communities, and especially from outside the group participants said.17

Context of the latter category is the co-textual, i.e. the context that existed at the text itself, commonly called the verbal context. If we return to conversation 1), we can make the inference that what is meant by ‘we’ is B and other family members involved took Adi to the doctor, and not including A. Such inference can be obtained from co-textual context.18

Of the two experts in the above definition, we can underlines that context plays an important role in the interaction of meaning or message in a communication event. So great role that almost no probably for users to interpret the language of a text message, verbal or written, without knowing how contexts.

And than the context is more than just a reference but is basically an action. Context provide insight into the function of something, it also covers things that are able to give pragmatic meaning of utterances-utterances on us and make utterances-utterances were calculated as an act of pragmatic real (true pragmatics acts).19

Next, an utterance or sentence would not be meaningful if separated from its context.20 For example text “do not park here” does not mean anything if installed in the bathroom. Sentence-utterance the same speech can give a different meaning if backed by a different context.

Context is very important not only in giving meaning or value which is suitable for reference or implicature but also in discussing other issues such as pragmatic pragmatics act, presupposition, and the symptoms of registers in the language.21 For example with register, users can choose a natural language expression of the appropriate forms in the linguistic resources they possess or the environment associated with the situation said that they face. They chose the linguistic expressions which is acceptable in certain situations, both formal and informal.

Almost all forms of human language contain the language used interchangeably based on appropriateness of formal or informal situations. For example in the French language, there are forms of address system known as alternation of T / V. A speaker uses ‘tu’ when they engage in informal conversation and move to ‘yous’ in formal situations. Another example is the use of ‘Tobe’ in Japanese, which vary depending on the degree of formality situation faced conversation. Words da used informal settings and -desu is used in formal situations; and gozaimu used in situations that require speakers at a high level of formality.22



Share with your friends:
  1   2   3   4   5   6


The database is protected by copyright ©hestories.info 2019
send message

    Main page