Showing posts with label Linguistics. Show all posts

contoh analisis locutionary, illocutionary dan perlocutionary act


An analysis of Speech act: J.L. Austin’s theory of performative act
Oleh: Fatihurrahman

J.L. Austin, in his theory of performative acts, he tries to explain that an utterence which uttered by a speaker has a meningfull message, in which addressed to the hearer and or listener to do wtat is uttered. On the other hands, every single word comes out by human lips carries a meaning. It means, no word has no meaning. In his theory, Austin also emphasize  that "to say something may be to do something". By emphasizing that, then he issues performative acts which is parted into three types: locutionary act is the act  of saying something and/ or what is said; illocutionaryact is the act performed  in saying something; The  perlocutionary act is the act performed  by, or as a consequence of, saying something.
 To make best understanding about those three types of performative acts, then I do analyzing two short conversations between two persons who are in very closed relationship, yet their names will not be stated as what it is! Thus, they are initialized as A and B. The following conversation are:
Conversation 1
A: whatch out! There is a car.
B: Well, thank you.
A’s utterence is a warning to B to be more carefully in crossing the road, because there is a car which quicken in speedily. What A  says is what we call as locutionary act. Where the locutionary act performed by A is meaning by “Watch” and refering by “B”  on his act. B’s respose will indicate whether B understad or not about what  is the intended meaning of A by saying so. On one hand, the locutionary will seem to succed by looking at the B’s responce.  By responding “well, thank you” means that B understands about what is spoken by A. The intended message is well-recognized by B is called as illocutionary act. Then, the result of understanding an utterence utterd by A will be done by B. It is known as perlucotionary act.
Conversation 2
A: Can you come over to my parent’s bith day party tonight?
B: I must vinish my homework.
We can do so by noting that under the right conditions, one can urge just by saying, “Can you come over to my parent’s bith day party tonoght?”, while the adreessee respond by saying, “ I must vinish my homework”. What we can analyse, the addressee replies by using indirect speech act. The Addressee’s utterance may indicate that: “the homework must be assembled tomorrow” and/or “he/she is too busy to join the party”. The example above refers to the Indirect speech act. Form that example I myself  also derived into three kinds of speech acts, the first is Lucotionary, means that the sentence “Can you come over to my parent’s bith day party tonight?” contain of what is said by the speaker and well-undestood by the addressee. The lucotionary act has a literal meaning whether the utterance will be perfomed or not, it is not important. The second, Illucotinary act, means that the utterance above “I must vinish my homework” is not just informing to the speaker that he/she has homework to be done. Yet, the utterance will have an impact toward the speaker’s performance. It is known as perlucotionary act.
To sum up, a speaker not merely produces an utterance but she/he also tries to communicate something by using an utterance. On the other hand, the speaker wants the hearer to respond what is said by him or her. Thus, in every single word and/or an utterence spoken by speaker  is always has a meaning and the speaker supposes the hearer to do what is said. Because what is said is not merely what it is. it is what J.L. Austin meant in his theory of performative acts.  
Linguistics

contoh analisis speech act teorinya austin

An analysis on Speech act: Austin’s theory of performative act
Oleh: Fatihurrahman


               
                Austin, in his theory of performative acts, he tries to explain that an utterence which is uttered by a speaker has a meningfull message, in which addressed to the hearers and/or the readers to do what is uttered. On the other hands, every single word comes out by human lips carries a meaning. In his theory, Austin also emphasizes  that "to say something may be to do something". By emphasizing that, then he issues performative acts which is parted into three types: locutionary act is the act  of saying something and/ or what is said; illocutionaryact is the act performed  in saying something; The  perlocutionary act is the act performed  by, or as a consequence of, saying something.
            There is no singel meaning of an utterence, therefore, the picture above may have many meanings. Firts, it may indicate that the sentence on the picture “Ngamen gratis kecuali afgan/ayu ting-ting” is a warning for a singing beggar for not doing ngamen in that place. The sentence which  is written by the owner of the house is as lucotionary act, which is addressed to readers. in this case a singing beggar and it is also supposed to be understood them. if the singing beggar pass the house, it means that the intended message is well-recognized by the pengamen. It is called as illocutionary act. Then, the result of understanding an utterence uttered by the owner will be done by singing beggar. it can be indicated when they just pass the house and doing ngamen in the other houses next.  It is known as perlucotionary act.
Second, if there are still singing beggar who do ngamen, it means that, they cannot read at all. So the massege of the written utterence has no meaning by them. One thing that should be considered by the owner of the house, not all of the singing beggar has an educational background. Thus, by sticking a written warning utterence will no longger be efficient.

The last, the owner intentionaly writes the sentence “Ngamen gratis kecuali afgan/ayu ting-ting” to warn the singing beggar, even they do ngamen, they will not get money and/or they will pass the house after reading it. If they do so, means that the lucotinary and illucotionary have been conveyed properly. Then, the last is the act which is based on their understanding,  it is called as perlucotionary act.
Linguistics

Contoh Analisis tentang implicature dengan menggunakan teorinya Grice



                                       Features Of Conversation Refers To Grice’s Theory

Written by Fatihurrahman

Sunday, 01 May 2015
 


In this analysis, I am going to analize the conversations between a buyer and a seller and  also between students of UIN Malang, they are initialized as AG and FT. This analysis will focus on analyzing the features of conversational implicature in their conversations which refers to Grice theory of conversational implicature. In his theory, he says that “the conventional meaning of the words used will determine what is implicated, besides helping to determine what is said and make your conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted  purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged (1975).”
According to Griece there are four prinsiples of conversation, it is known as feature of conversational implicature. These features are the following: (i) linguistic exchanges are governed by the COOPERATIVE PRINCIPLE, the content of which is detailed in the four MAXIMS OF CONVERSATION and their submaxims; (ii) when one of the participants of the exchange seems not to follow the Cooperative Principle, his or her partner(s) will nevertheless assume that, contrary to appearances, the principle is observed at some deeper level. Yet, in this analysis, I will merely focus on both features. It is conversational implicature (Cooperative Principle) and Maxim. Here are the analysis
A.        Context
In understanding an utterence uttered by two persons or more when they are making conversation, in which contain an implied meaning or known as implicature. It means that we  have to look at the context or pragmatic meaning rather than literal meaning of the sentences uttered. In case of understanding implicature, the context will always determine the intended messages whether it is conveyed implicitly or exlplicitly by interlocuters. Therefore, in this study, I firstly analyze the context of the conversations above and afterwards will be the analysis and the discussion.
In analyizing a context in implicature, there are some parts that should be realized, because the context here, there will be the context of time, place, person, setting and the relationship of the partisipants. 
In data 1 below, the conversation is between a buyer and a seller. Athough, the buyer and the seller  have no blood relationship. Yet, in their conversation, they seem have. The seller is an old lady while the buyer is a young man.The seller was born and raised in Malang. Now she lives in Malang, at east Joyosuko Street, number 45a. She is a seller of instant food in a small stall. While the buyer here is one of the students of Brawijaya University. Yet, I did not ask him what semester he was already in. He is also one of the buyer who always eats at the seller’s stall in every morning. Therefore, When they meet one another at the aeting place (warung ibu), they talk like son and mother.  There is no gap between them. On one hand, they talk freely because they always meet one another in every day. The conversation was on  Monday morning of  1 juni 2015, at 8 o’clock. While the setting of the conversation in data 1 was in the  eating place (warung makan), which occured in a bussy morning and the crouded of people who were enjoying eating.
In the data 2 below, the conversation is between two college students. They are young boys. Both are the students of UIN Malang, sixth semester and in chumming since 2012. In other to keep their identity, their name then will be initilized as AG and FT. The conversation happened through cell phone. It happened in the distances between both participants, because they use hand phone to inform one another. The setting of this short sonversation occured at a highway, when FT was on his way to campus. AG asks FT, whether FT will be at campus today or not, by uttering “Kamu nggak masuk enggak kelas pak mudji hari ini?” Then, the FT’s response is “Ban motorku kempes.” The conversation  occured on Wednesday morning 22 April, 2015.
In other to make this analysis easier, the following of both conversatios are proposed as follows:
B.        Data Presentation
Data 1:
Buyer  : Bu, seperti biasa ya!
Seller   : siap mas. Mas iki ada yang baru loh.
Buyer  : enak nggak bu?
Seller   : hahahaha@#$# menu barunya enak mas ,dijamin puas. Mas mau coba
Buyer  : Hari ini hari apa yah bu?
Data 2:
     AG     :  Kamu masuk enggak kelasnya pak mudji hari ini?
     FT       :  Ban motorku kempes bro.

C.           Analysis
Data 1.
Buyer : Bu, seperti biasa ya!
Seller   : siap mas. Mas iki ada yang baru loh.
When the hearer (seller) listens to the utterence uttered by the buyer, such as in data 1, “bu seperti biasa”,  the seller actually firtly tries to interprate that the speaker is doing the Cooperation Prinsiple with the hearer and B intends to give some information which carries deep meaning than what is said by uttering the utterence. The sentence uttered, “bu seperti biasa”, has an implied meaning which is meant the utterence  involves a presuposition, which is actually not the part of the utterence or it is not explicitly said. Even B does not ask to S direclty, yet the utterence of B is well understood by S. It is indicated by the response of  S, “siap mas. Mas iki ada yang baru loh.” Besides responding, S also informs B that there is a new menu available. Yet, it will be analized later on.  In this case, the cooperative prinsiple which is proposed by Grice is well done. Because both interlocuter are doing communication without misundestanding.
Buyer : enak nggak bu?
Seller   : hahahaha@#$#  dijamin puas mas.
While responding by uttering, “siap mas.” S also gives an information to B by uttering, “Mas iki ada yang baru loh.” Even S does not say that there is a newst menu available now. B has already undestood. Therefore, B immediately respons, “enak nggak bu?”
Buyer  : hahahaha@#$#  menu barunya enak mas  dijamin puas. Mas mau coba
Seller   : Hari ini hari apa ya bu?
In the utterences above, Buyer thinks that the newst menu is not his taste. But, he does not want to hurt S by saying or uttering the utterence, “that is not my taste”, so that B tries to change the topic by uttering “Hari ini hari apa yah bu?” In this communication B breaks the rule of Maxim Relation. It is also known as a floutting in Maxim.
Data 2:
   AG      :  Kamu masuk enggak kelasnya pak mudji hari ini?
   FT       :  Ban motorku kempes.
In the short conversation above, AG asks FT  by uttering “Kamu masuk enggak kelasnya pak mudji hari ini? AG just want to know whether FT will be at campus today or not. Then, FT’s responce is “Ban motorku kempes.” it  has an intended message. The meaning is not explicitly said in the conversation. FT just say that “Ban motorku kempes.” on the other hands, the implied meaning of FT’s utterence more that just the words are said explicitly. In case of understanding the conversation above, the interlocutor should reaslize about the pragmatic meaning, because it is arrenged and interpreted through context. In line with Yule’s ideas (1996: 3), she mentions four definitions of pragmatic, namely  (1) the meaning of speakers; (2) the meaning of the  contex of interlocuters; (3) the meaning of what is said, what is communicated by the speakers; and  (4) bidang yang mengkaji bentuk ekspresi menurut jarak sosial yang membatasi partisipan yang terlibat dalam percakapan tertentu. 

D.           Discussion
After finding the data and analyzing it by using Grice’s theory of feature in conversation. In this analysis I focused on analyzing the implicature which is related to the theory of implicature. What I have explained in the previous, there are four features of conversation. Yet, In the conversations above, based on  Grice’s Theory of Conversational Implicatures (abridged). It  is about  The Cooperative Principle and  The Maxims of Conversation consist of Quality (try to make your contribution one that is true), Quantity (make your contribution as informative and no more so than is required), Relation (be relevant), Manner (be perspicuous).
In short conversations above, I found implicatures and maxims. The implicature which is  found in this investigation is conversational implicature and Maxim relation. While the other features of implicature are not found. It is because in both conversations above, the interlocutors tend to use maxim relation than the others. Likewise, conventional implicature. In addition, interlocuter sometimes does floutting in their conversation, so that they are breaking the rules of Cooperative Principles and maxims.
From the discussion conducted, it may be cocluded that the use of conversational implicature and Maxim of relation are dominant when people do communication, they tend to use both two features of conversation which refers to  Griece’s (1975) theory, there are actually four prinsiples of conversation, it is known as feature of conversational implicature. The use of conversational implicature include Maxim, it needs a big deal with the interlocuters. On one hand, there is no conversational implicature and/or  Maxim without any approval.
E.        Reference
Grice, H. Paul. (1975) Logic and Conversation, in P. Cole and J.L. Morgan eds, Syntax and Semantics, vol. 3. New York: Academic Press.

Yule, G. 1996. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Linguistics
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)