NEVER ON WEDNESDAY
Abstract
A dialogue is a speech event. As a speech event a dialogue is a unified text. Semantic principle often fails to help understand a text since Semantics does not take into account non-linguistic contexts. Pragmatics principles are needed to understand a unified text since a unified text consists of utterances, which are the representations of the projected worlds of the participants. The projected worlds are very much determined by the life-long experiences of the participants therefore they are varied according to the participants.
Because of the projected world as the background knowledge of the participants and the participants’ assumptions that the partners have similar projected world, they communicate effectively and efficiently. They do not need to state all the ideas in words. With all the pragmatic theories and principles, the participants of a speech event understand that every speech event always has a discourse, which determines the whole process and meaning of the dialogue.
Keywords: pragmatics, speech events, implicature, projected world.
I. Introduction
Fred : ‘Dad, can I use the car tonight?’
Dad : ‘Uhmmm?’
Fred : ‘I said, “Can I use the car tonight?”’
Dad : ‘May I ...
Fred : ‘Okey. May I?’
Dad : ‘No.’
Fred : ‘Why not?’
Dad : ‘It’s Wednesday.’
Reading the above dialogue, common people will immediately think that the dialogue is impossible to understand. People who study Semantics will think that the dialogue is about Fred asking his Dad for permission to use the car. Fred’s Dad does not give him permission, but the reason does not make sense. This group of people will then think that this dialogue is not common, since Wednesday or the other names of the days is not a usual reason for the refusal.
People who study Syntax will think that the dialogue has ill-formed sentences. Fred has limited knowledge on syntax. He makes some mistakes and his Dad is trying to correct him. This group of people will think that the dialogue is a good dialogue for Fred to improve his skills on English syntax, but the choice of words is awkward. It is better for his Dad to choose the word like ‘It’s better for you to study in your room’ or ‘It’s not the time for out play.’ instead of ‘It’s Wednesday.’
People who study Pragmatics will think that the dialogue is an ordinary dialogue. It is meaningful and makes sense. It is a common dialogue that might be repeated daily. How can it be like that? This paper is aimed at discussing some issues on the above dialogue from pragmatics point of view. To be specific, this paper is going to answers the following questions:
1. Why are some of the utterances semantically and syntactically not understandable?
2. What pragmatic theories applied to make each of the participants in the dialogue understand the partner’s utterances, and then produce appropriate responses?
To answer the first question, theories on lexical and sentence meaning will be the basis to analyze the utterances in the dialogue. The answers to the second question will rely on pragmatic theories applied to analyze the utterances in the dialogue.
II. Discussion
To study a dialogue means to study an example of language use. It is clear that language is used for communication, and one of its real language uses is in the forms of a dialogue. From the dialogue, which is pragmatically a speech event, the discussion starts finding the answers to the two questions dealing with how a conversation proceeds in such a way that the participants are able to successfully communicate their ideas appropriately in the daily life.
a. Semantic Analysis on Linguistic Expressions.
Language functions, among others, as a means of communication. People communicate because they need to express themselves to others for the sake of survival. People need language in order to understand what other people are communicating to them. It happens because people express thought in language. A majority of people’s thinking is done in words. The words are the ideas because ideas are generated in language. What people perceived about the world is projected in the forms of ideas. This is why people feel that they have not really understood something until they have been able to express it in language. It means that language does not only express thought, it even also creates it. To understand others, people need to understand what the words, which others express mean.
A branch of linguistics, which studies linguistic meanings, the meanings of words and sentences, is called semantics. In philosophical semantics, meaning is an indirect association between a signifier and a signified, with thought playing the mediating role. Ogden and Richard (in Frawley, 1992: 7) characterize meaning as a semantic triangle, a relation between a symbol (word) and referent (an object), mediated by concept:
Thought/ Concept
Symbol/ Word Referent/ Object
The bond between word and concept is called ‘association’; the bond between concept and object is called ‘reference’; and the bond between object and word is called ‘meaning’. When people try to understand the word table, for example, they try to find the association, with the help of thought, between the word and the object it refers to. Since language is a sort of convention, people of the same language have conventionally the same mechanism of associating the words, with the help of thought, and the objects they refer to. This is why people of the same language are able to communicate, expressing their ideas in the forms of words and understanding other people’s ideas in the forms of words, appropriately.
Since semantics is concerned with the literal and contextually non-variable meaning of linguistic expressions, semantic analyses on a speech event often come to a failure. Some expressions in the dialogue above are semantically not straightforwardly interrelated. Semantically, the expression ‘Uhmmm’ does not refer to any referent. Syntactically, Fred’s first utterance is an interrogative of which the appropriate answer is either ‘Yes’ or ‘No’. ‘Uhmmm’ with a question mark cannot be a proper answer.
Viewed from the lexical and sentence meaning, Dad’s second expression ‘May I ...’ indicates Dad’s intention to ask for permission. Fred’s response ‘Okey. May I?’ either semantically or syntactically cannot be the proper response since ‘Okey’ is an expression indicating an acceptance of an offer or advice. Dad’s last answer ‘It’s Wednesday.’ is not semantically selected to be the answer by the question ‘Why not?’. A question like ‘Why may someone not use the car?’ does not semantically select Wednesday or the other names of the days the answer to the question.
Since some expressions of the dialogue above are not semantically and syntactically interrelated, the whole dialogue is semantically and syntactically not understandable. In the real practice, the short dialogue confuses the people who happen to listen to it. Even if the analyses are semantically able to figure out all the word and sentence meanings of the expressions in the above dialogue, the dialogue is still confusing. It is worth noted that the relation between the signifier and signified is indirect, and expressions in a speech event are unified as a text. As a unified text, the expressions are reductive and therefore cause confusion.
b. Pragmatic Analyses on Linguistic Expressions.
If Semantics focuses on the study of literal and contextually non-variable meaning of linguistic expressions, Pragmatics is a sub-discipline of linguistics, which studies the relation between natural language expressions and context—their uses in specific situations. Pragmatics studies all aspects of meaning not captured in a semantic theory. Pragmatics has, as its topic, those aspects of meaning of utterances, which cannot be accounted for by straightforward reference to the truth conditions of the sentences uttered.
The above short dialogue as a speech event can be the main source to describe all aspects of meaning, which Pragmatics is concerned with and which makes the structure of the dialogue above possible.
As is cited earlier, a speech event is a unified text. The expressions in the text are not merely of stimuli and responses. The expressions in the forms of words, phrases, or sentences are the representations of the comprehensively projected world of the participants in the speech event. The ’projected world’ is very much influenced by the life long experiences of the participants. Since people’s experience is bound to people’s life, all sorts of knowledge, feelings, emotions, practices, and other unlimited aspects of their life accumulate to form the projected world.
Based on this projected world, people communicate with other people who, they presume, have their own projected worlds, which are very much depended on their own life. It needs noting that the developments of people life are, of course, different from one another. This is why people sometimes misunderstand other people’s expressions. It happens when the projected worlds of the people communicating are very much different. On the other hand, this projected world makes people able to proceed communication as is represented by the above dialogue. Since people presume that other people they communicate with have similar projected worlds, people do not need to express all ideas in words. When communicating, people do not need to express all background knowledge that they presume other people already have. This is why in daily speech events, there are some expressions, which seem to be not interrelated, as is described in the above dialogue. It is indeed true that they are semantically not interrelated but pragmatically they are interrelated.
This phenomenon can be clearly seen in Fred’s first expression ‘Dad, can I use the car tonight?’. To express his intention to ask for permission to use the car, he does not need to explain what the pronoun I means and the relation between I and Dad from which it is possible for Fred to borrow a car. The knowledge on kinship and its psychological, social and cultural aspects creates a general knowledge saying that it is common for a son to ask for using his father’s car and other properties. It is impossible for Fred to say the same expression to someone who does not have this relation. He cannot address someone who does not have conditions to be his father with ‘Dad’ and the participant he communicates with will definitely ask for explanation towards what ‘I’ means—who damn are you? It is now clear that using dexis (personal deixis: Dad and I; time deixis: tonight) is common in a real speech event. Using deixis and applying the background knowledge, the participants of a speech event are trying to be economical in using the language. It is worth noted that beside personal and time deixis, there are still some other types of deixis i.e. place deixis: here, there, etc.; discourse deixis: this, that, etc. (referring to some portion of the discourse that contains that utterance); and social deixis: Sir and some other ‘polite’ pronouns and titles of address.
Beside deixis, the above dialogue shows that conversational implicature is also applied. Conversational implicatures are non-truth-conditional inferences, which are not derived from superordinate pragmatic principles like the maxims, but are simply attached by convention to particular lexical items or expressions. In a real conversation, speakers and hearers strictly follow the felicity conditions in which both speakers and hearers assume that they have similar background knowledge and experiences of what they are talking about, and that each of them follows the cooperative principles of a conversation. Since they assume to have similar background knowledge and experiences, speakers and hearers do not express all detail information in their utterances. They tend to be economical by uttering the new information only (or they think new information). Conversational implicature provides some explicit account of how it is possible to mean more than what it is actually said. Grice (in Wardhaugh, 1992: 290) maintains that the overriding principle in conversation is one he calls the cooperative principle. He said: “Make your conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged. You must therefore act in conversation in accord with a general principle that you are mutually engaged with your listener or listeners in an activity that is of benefit to all, that benefit being mutual understanding.”
Based on the theory of conversational implicature above, Fred can immediately understand that his Dad’s expression ‘Uhmmm’ implies that Fred’s father could not catch his words completely and therefore he asks for repetition. The ‘Uhmmm’ (with a question mark) with raising intonation has been internalized in both Fred and his Dad, which implies a specific meaning. Based on this background knowledge, Fred’s Dad presumes (he takes it for granted) that Fred can understand the meaning of his ‘Uhmmm’. Fred takes it for granted that with ‘Uhmmm’ his father wants him to repeat what he has just said. This is why Fred then repeats his question.
Another pragmatic aspect involved in the dialogue above is speech act. According to Austin (1962) and Searle (1969) (in Clark & Clark, 1970: 26) in their theory of speech acts, each sentence is designed to serve a specific function. It can be meant to inform listeners, warm them, order them to do something, question them about a fact, or thank them for a gift or act of kindness. The function it serves is critical to communication. Every time speakers utter a sentence, they are attempting to accomplish something with the words. In this process, speakers are performing a speech act (Austin called it an illocutionary act).
It can be clearly observed from Fred’s first sentence ‘Dad, can I use the car tonight?’. This sentence is an interrogative with which Fred does not merely want to ask for an agreement (Yes or No) but rather intends to ask for a permission to use a car. What Fred says, ‘Dad, can I use the car tonight?’ is the locutionary act; his intention to ask for a permission to use a car is his illocutionary act, and what Fred’s father interpret and the impact it has to his father—to answer ‘No’—is the perlocutionary act. Without applying the speech acts, the dialogue does not work. If Fred’s father fails to get the intention of Fred’s utterance, he will not get proper interpretation and therefore will give different response to Fred’s utterance, which might be inappropriate.
Presupposition is another aspect of pragmatics which is applied in the above dialogue. Presupposition is concerned with the information that must be assumed in order for a sentence to be meaningful. Fred’s first question ‘Dad, can I use the car tonight?’ presupposes that Fred’s Dad has a car and the car is usable. With these presuppositions, both Fred and Fred’s father can communicate economically and effectively. Fred does not need to state that his father has a car first, make sure that the car is usable, and then ask his father for permission to use the car.
The analysis on conversational structure, one aspect of pragmatics, provides explanation to understand the above dialogue. Viewed from the turn-taking principle, the dialogue has good turn-taking sequence. The dialogue shares the turns between the two participants to speak. The sequence is typical to two participant dialogue i.e. A—B—A—B—A—B.
The dialogue (like most of all real speech events), however, seems to violate the adjacency pair principle. This happens because of non-linguistic contexts in the forms of conversational implicatures, presuppositions, speech acts, and background knowledge in the forms of projected world. Because of the contexts, the violations do not cancel the dialogue.
Based on all of the pragmatic theories above, the real conversation can be pragmatically explained as follows:
Fred : ‘Dad, can I use the car tonight?’ (It presupposes that Fred’s Dad owns a car; Fred intends to ask his Dad for permission to use the car that night).
Dad : ‘Uhmmm?’ (It is conventionally understood as an expression of his father for not being able to catch Fred’s expression clearly and for asking for repetition).
Fred : ‘I said, “Can I use the car tonight?”’ (Fred proceeds the turn-taking principle and adjacency pair principles to take the turn to speak and repeat what he said before).
Dad : ‘May I ... (Fred’s Dad is a bit disappointed with Fred’s knowledge on English grammatical structure; that is not good and therefore he needs to correct Fred’s grammars of his English).
Fred : ‘Okey. May I?’ (Fred realizes that he produces inappropriate grammars and agrees to make it up. Fred can also catch the illocutionary act of ‘May I ..., therefore he corrects his grammar).
Dad : ‘No.’ (Fred’s Dad proceeds the turn-taking principle and adjacency pair principles to take the turn to speak and give a definite answer).
Fred : ‘Why not?’ (Fred can catch his Dad illocutionary act, and then proceeds the turn-taking principles and adjacency pair principles to take the turn to speak and give a response to ask for the reason of the refusal).
Dad : ‘It’s Wednesday.’ (Fred’s Dad can catch the illocutionary act of Fred’s question, and proceeds the turn-taking principle and adjacency pair principles to take the turn to speak and give the definite answer; Fred’s Dad is trying to remind Fred of the rules on using a car. One of the rules says that Fred may use the car only at the weekends, and it is Wednesday. This is why Fred is not allowed to use the car).
III. Conclusion
A dialogue is a speech event. As a speech event a dialogue is a unified text. Semantic principle often fails to help understand a text since Semantics does not take into account non-linguistic contexts. Pragmatics principles are needed to understand a unified text since a unified text consists of utterances, which are the representations of the projected worlds of the participants. The projected worlds are very much determined by the life-long experiences of the participants therefore they are varied according to the participants.
Because of the projected world as the background knowledge of the participants and the participants’ assumptions that the partners have similar projected world, they communicate effectively and efficiently. They do not need to state all the ideas in words. With all the pragmatic theories and principles, the participants of a speech event understand that every speech event always has a discourse, which determines the whole process and meaning of the dialogue.
Reference:
1. Clark, H. H., & Clark, V. C., 1970, Psychology and Language, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publishers, New York, USA.
2. Frawley, William, 1992, Linguistic Semantics, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc, Publishers, 365 Broadway, Hillsdale, New Jersey 07642.
3. Gazdar, Gerald, 1979, Pragmatics: Implicature, Presupposition, and Logical Form, Academic Press Inc., 111 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York 10003.
4. Kral, Thomas, 1997, Plays for Reading, Matterials Development and Review Branch, English Language Programs Division, United States Information Agency, Washington, D. C. 20547.
5. Leech, Geoffrey, 1983, Principles of Pragmatics, Longman Group Limited 1983, New York USA.
6. Levinson, C. Stephen, 1983, Pragmatics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge CB2 1RP.
7. Martinich, A. P., 1996, The Philosophy of Language, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
8. Wardhaugh, Ronald, 1992, An Introduction to Sociolinguistics, Blackwell Publishers 108 Cowley Road, Oxford, OX4 1JF, UK.
Radja LinguistiK merupakan blog untuk siapa saja yang merasa bahwa hidup itu indah dan ingin ikut memperindah hidup lewat cinta dan senyum untuk sesama yang benar-benar sama.
Senin, 12 Januari 2009
THE PHENOMENON OF ‘SELAMAT PAGI’
By: R. Yohanes Radjaban
I. Introduction
When an English husband meets his wife at the first time in the morning, he is very likely to say “good morning”. He keeps saying “good morning” to her even though he meets her everyday, and the morning is not really good. He will do the same thing to his children, neighbours on a street, friends at the office, or to strangers in a hotel. He addresses the greeting to either people he knows or to complete strangers.
If Austin (1962) and Searle (1969) are correct in that every sentence is designed to serve a particular function, and every time speakers utter a sentence, they are attempting something with the words, the greeting “good morning” serves a specific function. It seems to be interesting to study why he says “good morning”, and why Indonesians do not say “selamat pagi” in the similar situation.
This paper is aimed at finding the reasons why native speakers of English say “good morning” and why Indonesians do not say “selamat pagi”. To be more specific, this paper is going to find out the answers of the following questions:
1. Why do people greet?
2. Why do greetings differ among different languages?
3. Why don’t Indonesians say ‘Selamat pagi?’
To answer the questions, this paper will rely on actual data analyzed based on related theories. The answer of the first question is based on theories on language functions and speech acts. The answer of the second question is based on theories on varieties of talk, and the last question will be based on the actual data analyzed based on the theories applied to answer the previous questions.
1. ‘Greeting’ as one of language functions
‘In the beginning was the word’. The ‘word’ seems to be the origin of all things. It underwrites the full presence of the world. Everything is the effect of this one cause. With the ‘Word’, people talk for a purpose ––to assert beliefs, request help, promise actions, express feelings, or ask for information. (Clark & Clark. 1970: 40)
The word brings magic to people. When someone asserts George owns a car, he conveys his belief that the proposition that George owns a car is true. When someone suggests, hypothesizes, swears, flatly states, or hints that George owns a car, he is also uttering a representative but at the same time conveying the strength of his belief in the truth of the proposition. The hearers therefore get a notion about the truth ––that George owns a car—in their mind.
With the word, a speaker could attempt to get the listener to do something. By ordering, commanding, requesting, begging, or pleading, the speaker is trying to get the listener to carry out some action. The listener therefore will carry out some action, as the speaker wants him to do.
In another case, a speaker could commit himself to some future course of action. A prime example is the promise, but the category also includes vows, pledges, contracts, guarantees, and other types of commitments. The magic thing happening to the listeners is that this makes them feel safe, secure, calm, relax, or even happy.
When a speaker wishes to express his psychological state about something, he also utters this in words. When he apologizes, thanks, congratulates, welcomes, or deplores, he is expressing how good or bad he feels about some event; and everyone can feel the magic of this.
Obviously, when a speaker utters a declaration his very words bring about a new state of affairs. When he says You’re fired, I resign, I hereby sentence you to five years in prison, or I christen this ship the Dewa Ruci, he is declaring, and thereby causing your job to be terminated, his job to be terminated, you to spend five years in prison, or this ship to be named Dewa Ruci. (Clark & Clark. 1970: 25-28)
Each of these five categories brings different magic to the listeners. The first requires them to take note of the speaker’s belief. The second requires them to determine some course of action and carry it out. The third requires them to take note of new information: namely, the speaker’s intended course of action, his feelings about some fact, or the change in formal status of some object.
Based on the above theories, greeting is one of language functions, which people often utter. When people hear a greeting addressed to them, they will react accordingly. They will identify the speech act—it is a greeting, and then determine some course of action—replying with appropriate response to the greeting.
2. Greetings differ according to the Varieties of Talks
Speech is used in different ways among different groups of people. Each group has its own norms of linguistic behaviour. A society that encourages a wide variety of kinds of talk is likely to be rather different in many non-linguistic ways from one in which speakers are expected neither to waste words nor to use words lightly.
It is instructive to look at some of the ways in which various people in the world use talk, or sometimes the absence of talk, i.e., silence, to communicate. For example, Marshall (1961) has indicated how the !Kung, a bush-dwelling people of South Africa, have certain customs, which help them either to avoid or to reduce friction and hostility within bands and between bands.
The !kung are talkative people. Talk keeps communication open among them; it offers an emotional release; and it can also be used to alert individuals that they are stepping out of the bounds, so heading off potentially dangerous conflicts between individuals.
It is in contrast with the !Kung that the Western Apache of east-central Arizona choose to be silent when there is a strong possibility that such uncertainty exists. They are silent on ‘meeting strangers’, whether these are fellow Western Apache or complete outsiders; and strangers are expected to be silent.
In contrast, other people talk for the sheer pleasure of talking. The Roti, the residents of the southwestern tip of the island of Timor in eastern Indonesia, consider talk one of the great pleasure of life—not just idle chatter, but disputing, arguing, showing off verbal skills, and, in general indulging in verbal activity. Silence is interpreted as a sign of some kind of distress, possibly confusion or dejection.
From the above examples of varieties of talk, it is obvious that the norms of the linguistic behaviours are conventional, and therefore, non-arguable. Members of the society arbitrarily join the norms. It is a convention that the !Kung and the Roti should be talkative. They should talk more otherwise they will be considered unconventional. Both the !Kung and the Roti know well how to behave accordingly to the norms of their linguistic behaviours, and so do the Western Apache of east-central Arizona.
3. English vs. Indonesian Greetings
Both English and Indonesian need to maintain their communication with greetings and some other sorts of phatic expressions. Since English and Indonesian belong to different groups of people with different linguistic behaviours, both of them have different greetings.
In terms of meaning, English greetings seem to deal with non-personal issues and be lack of meaningful information-exchange. Take ‘Good morning’, for example. Semantically, it means about one time of day, which is good. What does it really mean? It is ambiguous. It can semantically mean bright, sunny, not raining, and many others.
In terms of grammatical structure, the greeting is also ambiguous. Based on the expected response, it can be a kind of question, ‘How is your morning? Is it a good morning?’ or it can be a wish, ‘I wish you a good morning.’ Among this type of greetings in English are:
1. Good afternoon, Good evening, Good night, Good bye,
2. Hi!, Hello!,
3. How do you do?
From the examples above, it is worth noting that the greetings are semantically lack of information-exchange and about non-personal issues. It is different from the type of Indonesian greetings. The main characters of Indonesian greetings are true information-exchange and about personal issues. Take a Javanese greeting, ‘Mruput, Mas?’, for example. In terms of meaning, it means semantically ‘Do you start working very early today?’ It is a real question and means to exchange information. Since it concerns with someone’s activity, it concerns with personal issues.
In terms of grammatical structure, it is obvious that it is a question. Based on the expected answers, it is a real question of which the answers can be ‘Inggih’, which means ‘Yes’, ‘Mboten’, which means ‘No’, or ‘Biasa’, which means ‘Not really’. Almost all of Javanese greetings are in the forms of questions and are semantically meaningful. Among the greetings in Javanese are:
1. ‘Tindak-tindak, Pak?’, meaning ‘Are you taking a walk, Sir?’ This greeting is usually addressed to a respected person, who is familiar to the addressor, who is walking around the area close to the house in non-formal clothes.
2. ‘Namung piyambak nopo niki?, meaning ‘Are you coming by yourself (without any companion)?’ This greeting is addressed to a fairly respected person, who is familiar to the addressor, coming to a certain place later than the addressor. It can be for formal or nor-formal occasions.
3. ‘Nglembur to ceritane?’, meaning ‘Are you working extra?’ This greeting is commonly addressed to a fairly familiar person at the same or lower social level with the addressor, who is still working at the afternoon up to the evening.
Almost all Javanese greetings are in the forms of interrogatives (Yes/ No Questions) with meaningful information-exchange. Therefore, the typical responses are ‘Yes’, ‘No’, ‘Not really’. Javanese greetings tend to be about personal business. Since the greetings tend to be about personal business, times of day do not have greater influence to the greetings. Javanese greetings, which are influenced by the times of day are those dealing with people’s working time, like ‘Mruput?’, ‘Nglembur?’, ‘Dereng tindak?’ which means ‘You haven’t left for work, have you?’, ‘Sampun kundur?’ which means ‘You have been home quite early, haven’t you?’.
Indonesian greetings have the same structures and characteristics as the Javanese do. It is because Javanese language has great influence of Indonesian language. It is worth noted that Indonesian nation is composed of at least 60 percent Javanese and 40 percent others. Based on Whorfian’s theories, Javanese culture shapes the Indonesian culture. It means that the Javanese culture on greetings also shapes the Indonesian culture on greetings.
4. Why don’t Indonesians say ‘Selamat pagi.’?
The question becomes the writer’s curiosity since Indonesian people tend to avoid or fail to give appropriate responses to the greeting. From the data the writer recorded, only well-educated groups of people in formal occasions say ‘Selamat pagi.’ (Good morning) as the appropriate response to the greeting ‘Selamat pagi.’ (Good morning).
To get the detail explanation, the following dialogues between the writer and some people from different social and educational backgrounds are worth noting to help understand the reasons why Indonesians do not say ‘Selamat pagi’. It should be noted that ‘Selamat pagi.’ is not typical to the Indonesian greeting.
(1) The following dialogue is between the writer and the security of LPUSD. It is carried out early in the morning at about 07:00 a.m. The relationship between the writer and the security is not quite close. The writer does not know the name of the security and vice versa. This situation happens at their relatively first meetings.
The writer : ‘Selamat pagi, mas.’ (smile)
Security1 : (Smile very politely, without saying anything)
(2) This dialogue is still between the same persons in the same situation except that the writer and the security have been quite familiar. To the writer’s opinion, the security respects him much. The security thinks that the writer is one of lecturers in USD. This happens after a quite intensive meetings.
The writer : ‘Selamat pagi.’
Security1 : ‘Ngasto jam pertama nopo pak?’ (You teach at the first period, don’t you?)
(3) After the relationship between them gets closer and they have quite intensive non-formal chats several times, the dialogue becomes different.
The writer : ‘Selamat pagi.’
Security1 : ‘Mruput, Mas?’ (You start working very early today, don’t you?)
(4) This greeting happens in the same setting but with different people. This happens between the writer and the other security, who is not familiar with the writer yet, in the same place at about the same time of day.
The writer : ‘Selamat pagi.’
Security2 : (Smiles very politely without saying anything)
Security1 : ‘Maklum, Pak. Niki nek enjang dereng iso muni.’ (Sorry, Sir. This guy seems to be dumb in the morning.’)
(5) This greeting is between the writer and his friend (not very close friend, a relatively new lecturer at ABAYO; his name is Nuriadi). It is conducted in the lecturer room in the working hours.
The writer : ‘Selamat pagi.’
Nuriadi : ‘Selamat pagi.’
(6) This greeting is between the writer and his other friend who is very close (they have been working in the same place, ABAYO, for a quite long time; they are about the same age; his name is Eko). This is conducted in the lecturer room in the working hours.
The writer : ‘Selamat pagi.’
Eko : (Looking very surprised) ‘Piye, Ono opo?’ (What’s up?)
The writer : ‘Ra popo.’ (Nothing)
From the above data, it can be generalized that the greeting ‘Good morning’ has different responses. Since ‘Selamat pagi.’ is not typical to Indonesians, who are Javanese, less educated people get difficulty to give the response as is seen in (1) and (4). These two people (Security1 in (1) and Security2 in (4)) are confused because they do not know the real meaning of the greeting. A greeting for them is a question and, as a question, it must be semantically and therefore pragmatically meaningful. Since they are less educated people, they are not well trained to give appropriate response for that type of greeting.
It turns out to be a different matter when the social relationship gets closer. Even though the same greeting is addressed to the same person in a fairly similar setting, the person is able to give response because the social relationship between the addressor and addressee has got closer as is seen in (2) and (3). The interesting thing, however, is that the person give improper responses. It is obvious that the expected response for ‘Selamat pagi’ is ‘Selamat pagi.’, but in (2) and (3), the person gives responses typical to those in Javanese greetings in that the person tries to give responses, which tend to be a meaningful information-exchange and about personal issues.
It turns to be true that the level of intimacy influences the type of responses. It can be seen in (4), (5), and (6). In (4), Security2 cannot give a proper response to the greeting ‘Selamat pagi’ since he has not been familiar yet with the writer. It is different from Security1. He has been relatively quite familiar with the writer therefore he can easily give response to the greeting. In this case the level of education and age does not give much influence on the type of responses to the greeting.
In (5) and (6), the level of intimacy causes different type of responses. In (5), Nuriadi is not quite familiar yet with the writer, therefore formality (the level of formal situation) influences his response. Since he is well educated he knows well the proper response to the greeting. In (6), Eko gives different response to the greeting, because Eko has very close relationship to the writer. Because of this level of intimacy, formality seems to play great role. The greeting ‘Selamat pagi’ for Eko is too formal. It is, therefore, very strange for Eko to be addressed a greeting like ‘Selamat pagi’, which is (for Eko and many other Indonesian educated people) appropriate in very formal occasions. Since it is considered unusual, Eko tends to give improper response, which seems to be typical to Javanese response. In these two cases, the level of education background, intimacy, and formality seem to be very influential to the types of responses given to the greeting ‘Selamat pagi.
III. Conclusion
From the above discussion, some issues on the reasons why Indonesian do not say ‘Selamat pagi’ can be generalized. Based on the theories of speech act, greeting is a sort of phatic function of language. It is to maintain conversations. It is therefore common for people in the world have greetings in their own languages.
Greetings are different according to the different varieties of talks. Since greeting is a sort of phatic function of language, it is very much determined by the linguistic behaviours of the native speakers of the language. Since the structures of the linguistic behaviours among the native speakers of languages are different, the structures and characteristics of the greetings are therefore different.
Indonesian people do not say ‘Selamat pagi’ because the greeting is not typical to Indonesian greeting of which the main characters are interrogative, and true information exchange. Since it is not typical to Indonesian greeting, only educated people are trained to give proper responses, and the greeting has high sense of formality. Because of its sense of formality, proper responses among educated people are given in the formal occasions.
Reference:
Bell, Roger T. 1976. Sociolinguistics, Goals, Approaches, and Problems. B. T. Batsford. Ltd. London.
Clark, H. H., & Clark, E. V. 1970. Psychology and Language. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publishers, NY
Kempson, Ruth, M. 1977. Semantic Theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge CB2 1RP.
Lock, Graham. 1996. Functional English Grammar, An Introduction for second language teachers. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge CB2 1RP.
Martinich, A P. 1996. The Philosophy of Language. Third Edition, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
Wardhaugh, Ronald. 1992. An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Blackwell Publishers, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford, OX4 1JF UK.
By: R. Yohanes Radjaban
I. Introduction
When an English husband meets his wife at the first time in the morning, he is very likely to say “good morning”. He keeps saying “good morning” to her even though he meets her everyday, and the morning is not really good. He will do the same thing to his children, neighbours on a street, friends at the office, or to strangers in a hotel. He addresses the greeting to either people he knows or to complete strangers.
If Austin (1962) and Searle (1969) are correct in that every sentence is designed to serve a particular function, and every time speakers utter a sentence, they are attempting something with the words, the greeting “good morning” serves a specific function. It seems to be interesting to study why he says “good morning”, and why Indonesians do not say “selamat pagi” in the similar situation.
This paper is aimed at finding the reasons why native speakers of English say “good morning” and why Indonesians do not say “selamat pagi”. To be more specific, this paper is going to find out the answers of the following questions:
1. Why do people greet?
2. Why do greetings differ among different languages?
3. Why don’t Indonesians say ‘Selamat pagi?’
To answer the questions, this paper will rely on actual data analyzed based on related theories. The answer of the first question is based on theories on language functions and speech acts. The answer of the second question is based on theories on varieties of talk, and the last question will be based on the actual data analyzed based on the theories applied to answer the previous questions.
1. ‘Greeting’ as one of language functions
‘In the beginning was the word’. The ‘word’ seems to be the origin of all things. It underwrites the full presence of the world. Everything is the effect of this one cause. With the ‘Word’, people talk for a purpose ––to assert beliefs, request help, promise actions, express feelings, or ask for information. (Clark & Clark. 1970: 40)
The word brings magic to people. When someone asserts George owns a car, he conveys his belief that the proposition that George owns a car is true. When someone suggests, hypothesizes, swears, flatly states, or hints that George owns a car, he is also uttering a representative but at the same time conveying the strength of his belief in the truth of the proposition. The hearers therefore get a notion about the truth ––that George owns a car—in their mind.
With the word, a speaker could attempt to get the listener to do something. By ordering, commanding, requesting, begging, or pleading, the speaker is trying to get the listener to carry out some action. The listener therefore will carry out some action, as the speaker wants him to do.
In another case, a speaker could commit himself to some future course of action. A prime example is the promise, but the category also includes vows, pledges, contracts, guarantees, and other types of commitments. The magic thing happening to the listeners is that this makes them feel safe, secure, calm, relax, or even happy.
When a speaker wishes to express his psychological state about something, he also utters this in words. When he apologizes, thanks, congratulates, welcomes, or deplores, he is expressing how good or bad he feels about some event; and everyone can feel the magic of this.
Obviously, when a speaker utters a declaration his very words bring about a new state of affairs. When he says You’re fired, I resign, I hereby sentence you to five years in prison, or I christen this ship the Dewa Ruci, he is declaring, and thereby causing your job to be terminated, his job to be terminated, you to spend five years in prison, or this ship to be named Dewa Ruci. (Clark & Clark. 1970: 25-28)
Each of these five categories brings different magic to the listeners. The first requires them to take note of the speaker’s belief. The second requires them to determine some course of action and carry it out. The third requires them to take note of new information: namely, the speaker’s intended course of action, his feelings about some fact, or the change in formal status of some object.
Based on the above theories, greeting is one of language functions, which people often utter. When people hear a greeting addressed to them, they will react accordingly. They will identify the speech act—it is a greeting, and then determine some course of action—replying with appropriate response to the greeting.
2. Greetings differ according to the Varieties of Talks
Speech is used in different ways among different groups of people. Each group has its own norms of linguistic behaviour. A society that encourages a wide variety of kinds of talk is likely to be rather different in many non-linguistic ways from one in which speakers are expected neither to waste words nor to use words lightly.
It is instructive to look at some of the ways in which various people in the world use talk, or sometimes the absence of talk, i.e., silence, to communicate. For example, Marshall (1961) has indicated how the !Kung, a bush-dwelling people of South Africa, have certain customs, which help them either to avoid or to reduce friction and hostility within bands and between bands.
The !kung are talkative people. Talk keeps communication open among them; it offers an emotional release; and it can also be used to alert individuals that they are stepping out of the bounds, so heading off potentially dangerous conflicts between individuals.
It is in contrast with the !Kung that the Western Apache of east-central Arizona choose to be silent when there is a strong possibility that such uncertainty exists. They are silent on ‘meeting strangers’, whether these are fellow Western Apache or complete outsiders; and strangers are expected to be silent.
In contrast, other people talk for the sheer pleasure of talking. The Roti, the residents of the southwestern tip of the island of Timor in eastern Indonesia, consider talk one of the great pleasure of life—not just idle chatter, but disputing, arguing, showing off verbal skills, and, in general indulging in verbal activity. Silence is interpreted as a sign of some kind of distress, possibly confusion or dejection.
From the above examples of varieties of talk, it is obvious that the norms of the linguistic behaviours are conventional, and therefore, non-arguable. Members of the society arbitrarily join the norms. It is a convention that the !Kung and the Roti should be talkative. They should talk more otherwise they will be considered unconventional. Both the !Kung and the Roti know well how to behave accordingly to the norms of their linguistic behaviours, and so do the Western Apache of east-central Arizona.
3. English vs. Indonesian Greetings
Both English and Indonesian need to maintain their communication with greetings and some other sorts of phatic expressions. Since English and Indonesian belong to different groups of people with different linguistic behaviours, both of them have different greetings.
In terms of meaning, English greetings seem to deal with non-personal issues and be lack of meaningful information-exchange. Take ‘Good morning’, for example. Semantically, it means about one time of day, which is good. What does it really mean? It is ambiguous. It can semantically mean bright, sunny, not raining, and many others.
In terms of grammatical structure, the greeting is also ambiguous. Based on the expected response, it can be a kind of question, ‘How is your morning? Is it a good morning?’ or it can be a wish, ‘I wish you a good morning.’ Among this type of greetings in English are:
1. Good afternoon, Good evening, Good night, Good bye,
2. Hi!, Hello!,
3. How do you do?
From the examples above, it is worth noting that the greetings are semantically lack of information-exchange and about non-personal issues. It is different from the type of Indonesian greetings. The main characters of Indonesian greetings are true information-exchange and about personal issues. Take a Javanese greeting, ‘Mruput, Mas?’, for example. In terms of meaning, it means semantically ‘Do you start working very early today?’ It is a real question and means to exchange information. Since it concerns with someone’s activity, it concerns with personal issues.
In terms of grammatical structure, it is obvious that it is a question. Based on the expected answers, it is a real question of which the answers can be ‘Inggih’, which means ‘Yes’, ‘Mboten’, which means ‘No’, or ‘Biasa’, which means ‘Not really’. Almost all of Javanese greetings are in the forms of questions and are semantically meaningful. Among the greetings in Javanese are:
1. ‘Tindak-tindak, Pak?’, meaning ‘Are you taking a walk, Sir?’ This greeting is usually addressed to a respected person, who is familiar to the addressor, who is walking around the area close to the house in non-formal clothes.
2. ‘Namung piyambak nopo niki?, meaning ‘Are you coming by yourself (without any companion)?’ This greeting is addressed to a fairly respected person, who is familiar to the addressor, coming to a certain place later than the addressor. It can be for formal or nor-formal occasions.
3. ‘Nglembur to ceritane?’, meaning ‘Are you working extra?’ This greeting is commonly addressed to a fairly familiar person at the same or lower social level with the addressor, who is still working at the afternoon up to the evening.
Almost all Javanese greetings are in the forms of interrogatives (Yes/ No Questions) with meaningful information-exchange. Therefore, the typical responses are ‘Yes’, ‘No’, ‘Not really’. Javanese greetings tend to be about personal business. Since the greetings tend to be about personal business, times of day do not have greater influence to the greetings. Javanese greetings, which are influenced by the times of day are those dealing with people’s working time, like ‘Mruput?’, ‘Nglembur?’, ‘Dereng tindak?’ which means ‘You haven’t left for work, have you?’, ‘Sampun kundur?’ which means ‘You have been home quite early, haven’t you?’.
Indonesian greetings have the same structures and characteristics as the Javanese do. It is because Javanese language has great influence of Indonesian language. It is worth noted that Indonesian nation is composed of at least 60 percent Javanese and 40 percent others. Based on Whorfian’s theories, Javanese culture shapes the Indonesian culture. It means that the Javanese culture on greetings also shapes the Indonesian culture on greetings.
4. Why don’t Indonesians say ‘Selamat pagi.’?
The question becomes the writer’s curiosity since Indonesian people tend to avoid or fail to give appropriate responses to the greeting. From the data the writer recorded, only well-educated groups of people in formal occasions say ‘Selamat pagi.’ (Good morning) as the appropriate response to the greeting ‘Selamat pagi.’ (Good morning).
To get the detail explanation, the following dialogues between the writer and some people from different social and educational backgrounds are worth noting to help understand the reasons why Indonesians do not say ‘Selamat pagi’. It should be noted that ‘Selamat pagi.’ is not typical to the Indonesian greeting.
(1) The following dialogue is between the writer and the security of LPUSD. It is carried out early in the morning at about 07:00 a.m. The relationship between the writer and the security is not quite close. The writer does not know the name of the security and vice versa. This situation happens at their relatively first meetings.
The writer : ‘Selamat pagi, mas.’ (smile)
Security1 : (Smile very politely, without saying anything)
(2) This dialogue is still between the same persons in the same situation except that the writer and the security have been quite familiar. To the writer’s opinion, the security respects him much. The security thinks that the writer is one of lecturers in USD. This happens after a quite intensive meetings.
The writer : ‘Selamat pagi.’
Security1 : ‘Ngasto jam pertama nopo pak?’ (You teach at the first period, don’t you?)
(3) After the relationship between them gets closer and they have quite intensive non-formal chats several times, the dialogue becomes different.
The writer : ‘Selamat pagi.’
Security1 : ‘Mruput, Mas?’ (You start working very early today, don’t you?)
(4) This greeting happens in the same setting but with different people. This happens between the writer and the other security, who is not familiar with the writer yet, in the same place at about the same time of day.
The writer : ‘Selamat pagi.’
Security2 : (Smiles very politely without saying anything)
Security1 : ‘Maklum, Pak. Niki nek enjang dereng iso muni.’ (Sorry, Sir. This guy seems to be dumb in the morning.’)
(5) This greeting is between the writer and his friend (not very close friend, a relatively new lecturer at ABAYO; his name is Nuriadi). It is conducted in the lecturer room in the working hours.
The writer : ‘Selamat pagi.’
Nuriadi : ‘Selamat pagi.’
(6) This greeting is between the writer and his other friend who is very close (they have been working in the same place, ABAYO, for a quite long time; they are about the same age; his name is Eko). This is conducted in the lecturer room in the working hours.
The writer : ‘Selamat pagi.’
Eko : (Looking very surprised) ‘Piye, Ono opo?’ (What’s up?)
The writer : ‘Ra popo.’ (Nothing)
From the above data, it can be generalized that the greeting ‘Good morning’ has different responses. Since ‘Selamat pagi.’ is not typical to Indonesians, who are Javanese, less educated people get difficulty to give the response as is seen in (1) and (4). These two people (Security1 in (1) and Security2 in (4)) are confused because they do not know the real meaning of the greeting. A greeting for them is a question and, as a question, it must be semantically and therefore pragmatically meaningful. Since they are less educated people, they are not well trained to give appropriate response for that type of greeting.
It turns out to be a different matter when the social relationship gets closer. Even though the same greeting is addressed to the same person in a fairly similar setting, the person is able to give response because the social relationship between the addressor and addressee has got closer as is seen in (2) and (3). The interesting thing, however, is that the person give improper responses. It is obvious that the expected response for ‘Selamat pagi’ is ‘Selamat pagi.’, but in (2) and (3), the person gives responses typical to those in Javanese greetings in that the person tries to give responses, which tend to be a meaningful information-exchange and about personal issues.
It turns to be true that the level of intimacy influences the type of responses. It can be seen in (4), (5), and (6). In (4), Security2 cannot give a proper response to the greeting ‘Selamat pagi’ since he has not been familiar yet with the writer. It is different from Security1. He has been relatively quite familiar with the writer therefore he can easily give response to the greeting. In this case the level of education and age does not give much influence on the type of responses to the greeting.
In (5) and (6), the level of intimacy causes different type of responses. In (5), Nuriadi is not quite familiar yet with the writer, therefore formality (the level of formal situation) influences his response. Since he is well educated he knows well the proper response to the greeting. In (6), Eko gives different response to the greeting, because Eko has very close relationship to the writer. Because of this level of intimacy, formality seems to play great role. The greeting ‘Selamat pagi’ for Eko is too formal. It is, therefore, very strange for Eko to be addressed a greeting like ‘Selamat pagi’, which is (for Eko and many other Indonesian educated people) appropriate in very formal occasions. Since it is considered unusual, Eko tends to give improper response, which seems to be typical to Javanese response. In these two cases, the level of education background, intimacy, and formality seem to be very influential to the types of responses given to the greeting ‘Selamat pagi.
III. Conclusion
From the above discussion, some issues on the reasons why Indonesian do not say ‘Selamat pagi’ can be generalized. Based on the theories of speech act, greeting is a sort of phatic function of language. It is to maintain conversations. It is therefore common for people in the world have greetings in their own languages.
Greetings are different according to the different varieties of talks. Since greeting is a sort of phatic function of language, it is very much determined by the linguistic behaviours of the native speakers of the language. Since the structures of the linguistic behaviours among the native speakers of languages are different, the structures and characteristics of the greetings are therefore different.
Indonesian people do not say ‘Selamat pagi’ because the greeting is not typical to Indonesian greeting of which the main characters are interrogative, and true information exchange. Since it is not typical to Indonesian greeting, only educated people are trained to give proper responses, and the greeting has high sense of formality. Because of its sense of formality, proper responses among educated people are given in the formal occasions.
Reference:
Bell, Roger T. 1976. Sociolinguistics, Goals, Approaches, and Problems. B. T. Batsford. Ltd. London.
Clark, H. H., & Clark, E. V. 1970. Psychology and Language. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publishers, NY
Kempson, Ruth, M. 1977. Semantic Theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge CB2 1RP.
Lock, Graham. 1996. Functional English Grammar, An Introduction for second language teachers. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge CB2 1RP.
Martinich, A P. 1996. The Philosophy of Language. Third Edition, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
Wardhaugh, Ronald. 1992. An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Blackwell Publishers, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford, OX4 1JF UK.
Langganan:
Komentar (Atom)