1. Pragmatics Wastebasket a. What is wastebasket Wastebasket here means (we take as the analog) a place to throw something that we don’t need. In the development of linguistic matters, we see that at first, some linguists only concern in the structure of a language, it means how the grammatical structure of a sentence, and ignore about meaning, so in this era, semantics is the wastebasket of syntax. Because the study of semantics (about meaning) is beyond the study of syntax. Then, later, some linguists found that if we produce a language, there some aspect that not merely about meaning, linguists found that many language phenomena could not be explained by semantic theory, so all their unsolved question was put into the new wastebasket, that was pragmatics, so pragmatics is semantics wastebasket.

b. What do structuralist and functionalist say about wastebasket? The structuralist believed that in study linguistics, it’s all about the structure, they don’t come to what we call “meaning area”. They thought that the study of semantics is beyond the study of linguistics. While the functionalist began to analyze the study of meaning is foundation of linguistics study instead of syntax.

2. Phenomenon of speech level (unda usuk) in every language of the world from the deixis point of view. Answer: According to Levinson deixis concerns the way in which language encode, feature of the context of an utterance, and thus also concerns ways in which the interpretation of

utterances depends on the analysis of that context of utterance. Deixis is also often and best described as “verbal pointing”, that is to say pointing by means of language. The linguistic forms of this pointing are called deictic expressions, deictic markers or deictic words; they are also sometimes called indexicals. In pragmatics, there are three categories of deixis, those are personal, spatial, and temporal. If we relate deixis with speech level in Javanese language (unda usuk), then the application of deixis in Javanese language will also refer to the social characteristic from the speaker to the hearer. The social characteristics for example: the social status, the age, and the economical status. There are mainly three level of Javanese language, those are ngoko, madya and krama. Ngoko is the lowest level, madya is the middle and krama is the highest level of Javanese language. So the most polite level is Krama. Example: a. Personal deixis: In saying “where are YOU going?” there are three speech level related to mention “YOU” in Javanese language. Kowe arep lungo ngendi? (ngoko) Sampeyan ajeng tindak pundi? (madya) Panjenengan badhe tindak pundi? (krama)

b. Temporal Deixis The example of temporal deixis in Javanese Language is saiki (now), sesuk (tomorrow) and wingi (yesterday). If we related to speech level, we can say “Now, father has already have a house” in these three different expression based on the speech level in Javanese Language. Saiki bapak wes duwe omah. (ngoko) Sakniki bapak sampun gadhah griyo (madya) Sakmenika bapak sampun kagungan dalem. (krama)

c. Spatial Deixis The example of spatial deixis in Javanese language is kene (here), kono (there), kana (there) “Mother sits over there” Ibu lungguh kana (ngoko) Ibu lenggah mrika (madya) Ibu pinarak mrika (krama) Here, “mrika” in madya and krama level is the same.

3. The differences of semantics and pragmatics

Semantics deals with aspects of meaning that remain constant whenever a given expression is uttered: Semantics covers what expressions mean, while pragmatics covers what speakers mean in using the expression. Pragmatics involves how speakers use language in contextualized social interactions -- how they do things with words, as Austin would say. So we can say that semantics focuses on meaning and truth conditions without regard to the speaker meaning, communication and context. While pragmatics studies the speaker meaning regard the context of the communication. The differences between semantics and pragmatics can be seen from three point of views: 1) linguistics meaning vs. use, Semantic focused on linguistic meaning, while pragmatics focused on speaker meaning. (2) truth-conditional vs. non-truth-conditional meaning, Semantics is dealing with truth conditional meaning, while pragmatics is dealing with non truth conditional meaning. (3) context independence vs. context dependence Semantics has context independence while Pragmatics has context dependence. It means that if a sentence is being analyzed from semantics point of view we only see that the sentence has literary meaning, but if we analyze from pragmatics point of view, we have to consider the context (who is the speaker, the hearer, when is the conversation, in what situation etc)

Example: A: Kamu sudah makan? B1: Saya belum makan, tapi tidak ingin makan. B2: Saya sudah makan barusan (berbohong, padahal belum makan) B3: Saya masih kenyang kok. The answer B1 states that in reality, B hasn’t eaten yet, and he told A that he didn’t want to eat at that time. This answer can be understood with semantic analysis. But the answer of B2 is the way to respect A’s offer, B didn’t want to make A feel sad if B refuse A’s offer, so B answered something that is actually not true. It is happened also in answer B3. So, we can conclude that answer B2 and B3 can’t be analyzed with semantics point of view, but can be explained by pragmatics point of view, because that answers (B2 and B3) consider some aspect outside from linguistic matters.

4. Clarify that speakers have presupposition while sentences, not speakers, have entailment. Answer: When speaker produce utterance, there will be some presupposition, speakers have assumption that is associated with the utterance. While, entailment is something that logically follows from what is asserted in the utterance. Example: Santi had three week vacation in Europe. In producing that utterance, the speaker will normally be expected to have the presupposition that a person called Santi is exists and she is very rich, or her job is a tour guide. All of the presupposition is on the speaker’s mind and all of them can be wrong. And, that sentence will be treated as having the entailment that Santi had three or two week vacation in Europe. This entailment follows from the sentence, regardless whether the speaker right or wrong. So, the entailment is not coming from the speaker.

5. Have you stopped beating your wife? Why is it a difficult question to answer? Answer: The question is difficult to answer because if someone answers “yes” (assuming that he has no wife or he has never beaten his wife), is wrong, because it implies that he used to beat his wife and then stopped, but if someone answer “no” is also wrong (the answer is even worse), because it suggest that he has a wife and is still beating his wife. As a result, the question cannot be answered because it depends on incorrect assumptions. This kind of question is usually called as N/A or not applicable, a term often used to indicate the question cannot be answered because the conditions of the question do not match the reality. And it is usually called as a loaded question: a question which contains a controversial or unjustified assumption.

6. A relationship between conversational implicature and cooperative principle. Answer: In a communication, hearers and speakers must speak cooperatively and mutually accept one another to be understood in a particular way. The cooperative principle describes how effective communication in conversation is achieved in common social situations. For example if the speaker asking about the weather, then the hearer have to answer about the weather too, not about a birthday party. Grice divided the cooperative principles into some maxims, those are quantity, quality, relevance, and manner. But however, it is possible to flout a maxim intentionally or unconsciously and thereby convey a different meaning than what is literally spoken. As long as the hearer knows about this, then the communication will run smoothly, even though the answer from the hearer violates the cooperative principles. Hearer has some intention why he/she violates the maxim. By violating the maxim, he/she imply something to the speaker and it is understood by the speaker. So the answer from the hearer is the example of conversational implicature, because she/he imply something. Example: A: Did you get me any stamps? B: The post office was closed.

When A ask to B whether B bought stamp or not, so A wants B to answer yes or no, but B answer that “the post office was closed”, it seems to violate the maxim of relevance, because B’s answer is not relevant with A’s question. But, by saying that “the post office was closed” it implies the answer that A wants. So, A understand that B didn’t buy the stamp. So, by saying the post office was closed, B give the extra information that we call conversational implicature.

7. Explain the Box. Answer: In the box, the box written “what is implied” is bigger than the box of “what is said”. And the box “what is said” is inside the box of “what is implied”. It means that when we produce an utterance, we’re not merely have an intention just the same as we said, because sometimes when we say A it doesn’t mean that we want A, but sometimes we want B or C. For example: If a girl produce an utterance in the declarative form: “It is a nice Saturday night” to her boyfriend when they have a conversation, that’s not mean the girl give the information only that at that time is a nice Saturday night, but she intends beyond what she said, she wants her boyfriend asks her to go out for a date or for having a romantic dinner at that time. So, “what is implied” is greater than “what we said”, if we said A, the intention or the illocutionary force can be vary.

References: Levinson. 1991. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Yule, George. 1996. Pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.