Subject : Discourse Analysis – Speech Act
In this conversation, there were two university students,
as the interlocutors) who were joining TEFL II class in the morning. The situation
was quite silent because a presentation was being conducted by a group of
presentation in front of the class. While the presentation was being done, they
were chatting. Didin was handling his laptop (while laughing) and showing an
email to Wildan which contained a reply message from someone and I was sitting
between them. It was a response from someone toward a short story that had ever
been sent by Didin to that person before. The psychological setting at that
time was quite normal like other people following the class. Here are their
words:
Didin : “Wildan, ini Katanya konfliknya kurang digarap, meluas”
Wildan : “Nte’ ku kirimin opo’o Diiiiin…”
Didin :
“iyo ntar”
I
make an analysis toward this conversation using Barch and Harnish’s speech act
Theory. This conversation is a kind of conventional conversation which can be
identified through the agreement between the interlocutors. Because as I can
see that actually the situation was quite different. Didin directly gave and
shown that email to Wildan and not to me who was sitting next to him. It means
that actually there has been an agreement between both of them before. The
agreement to also send wildan’s short story to Didin’s friend (A person who
mailed Didin) to be corrected by that person. It can be identified through the
utterance given by Wildan which immediately uttered “Nte’ ku kirimin opo’o
Diiiiin…” He did not ask question what did DIdin mean like I did, or he did not
ask what is that to Didin. I directly asked to didin what did he mean by that
email. Wildan can directly response in that way because he had have an
agreement with Didin before. The agreement may be a promise to also send
wildan’s short story to the corrector. Wildan wanted his short story to be seen
and responded by that corrector also, because wildan might know the capability
of the corrector in writing short stories. Didin also did not start that
conversation by telling a story which might be this way “Dan, aku kan pernah
ngirim cerpen ku ke seseorang, dan ini respon dia”. He did not do that. It
might be possible for Didin to do that if that utterance given for me, because
I did not know what he is talking about by showing that email. While he was
laughing, DIdin intentionally uttered “Wildan, ini Katanya konfliknya kurang
digarap, meluas”. It means that actually Didin had assumed that wildan will
understand what he was talking about while he is showing the email containing
the suggestion for Didin’s short story. That is called as the agreement which
has been exist between the interlocutors. Therefore, this conversation is
categorized as Conventional.
Discourse
Analysis
IMPLICATURE
Sometimes,
when we are talking with other people, the problem happened is easy to express
an idea but it is difficult to interpret it because every utterance needs to be
interpreted based on its context. It means that what is uttered depends on who,
where, when, and in what occasion the utterance appears.
The
concept of implicature is a theoretical construct which was first introduced by
Grice in the William James Lectures more than thirty years ago. Grice used the
concept to deal with examples in communication where what a speaker means goes
beyond the meaning literally expressed by a particular utterance. However
implicature was defined negatively as what is communicated less ‘what is said’.
In other words, implicature was characterized simply as whatever is
communicated that is not part of what is said by a speaker. The only positive
characterization of implicature by Grice was his indication that it is related
to the terms imply, suggest, and mean.
For
example, if I happen to be with a friend who is eating an ice cream and I ask
something like. “What flavor is it?” my friend might response by offering me a
bite of her ice cream. By offering some of his ice cream to me, my friend has
shown that she thinks I was implying that I would like to taste it. I did not
actually say I wanted to taste the ice cream, and thus I could deny that I
implied this, either directly as in “I didn’t mean I wanted to have a bite”, or
more indirectly as in “Oh, I am not hungry”. However, unless I make some kind
of denial, then the fact that I wanted to taste my friend’s ice cream has been
implied.
Grice on his article “Logical of Conversation” stated that an
utterance can imply presupposition which is not part of that utterance.
Presupposition implicated can be called as a conversational implicature.
Therefore, we can define that conversational implicature is implicated of an
utterance like presupposition which is actually not as the part of that
utterance. There is also conventional implicature which happens caused by
certain context and situation.
My
critical review about implicature comes from the case whether or not implicit
meaning or implicature is fairly needed or not. The real example is we often
find politicians using implicature. Living in the country in which the society
always face to the laws as the consequences, uttering whatever we want to say
is quite useful. For example, although a politician A criticize and offend
politician B, it will never become a crucial thing because he never explicitly
states that. Even If the politician B wants to claim, it might not work to
punish politician A. because the politician A was not explicitly stated,
although it means so.
"HANYA ANJING YANG BOLEH KENCING DISINI"
The
statement “Hanya anjing yang boleh kencing disini” is written as a warning in
many places such as in the corner of someone’s house, in the walls, etc. As I
have ever heard, this warning is commonly found in Batak people’s surrounding.
Actually this statement has an interesting meaning for those who comprehend
what the hidden or the intended meaning behind this warning. In fact, an
interesting story usually came by the time someone started to write this
statement. As obviously seen that this place is a gate of one’s house and has
been a comfortable zone for anyone passing this way take a piss in the corner.
However, the owner of the house is being upset because of this case.
The
question is, does this statement work as a warning? Because there will be no dog
can read this warning, right! Can we imagine that dogs can read this warning?
Certainly there will be many dogs take a piss there. However, this statement is
clearly addressed to anyone who take place to take a piss in that corner.
Hopefully, the owner will not smell aroma of piss when he or she come out to
open the gate. In fact, this statement
does not work regarding the place where this statement posted is very strategic
for pisser.
In
my analysis using Deixis theory, similarly as I have explained ebove, “Hanya
anjing yang boleh kencing disini”, this warning obviously uses deixis partial
which refers to point out a place. The word “Disini” in the picture is telling
us about the exact place where the statement prohibit people to not piss there.
This kind of deixis is used for communication between the writer and the reader
through a written expression. The writers’ imply is to send a message that
prohibit anyone to not piss in his place anymore. Although, the writer wrote
“Disini” which directly goes to the place where people often do pissing, on the
next day, it is possible that the pissers (tukang kencing) will piss again by
just moving beside the word “Disini” itself, because the word “disini” only
refers to the exact place where it is mentioned or where it is written. It
seems that this warning will never work as long as this written expression has
no mark to enlarge the area of the word “disini” refers to from where and until
where. In addition, a written expression is totally different with spoken
expression when you use deixis place to communicate. When you say the word “disini”
you can say it while you are moving around and it refers to anywhere around
you, or in other words ‘it follows you’. While, when you use deixis place in
written expression, clearly, you cannot change the statement position, and the
word “disini only refers to the exact place in which the statement is written
or posted.
