You are on page 1of 12


Dosen pembimbing
4.Prof. Dr. H. Abd Muis Ba’dulu, M.S
5.Prof. Dr. Arifuddin Hamra

Discourse Analysis “NONEVENTS IN



Where, when, and under what circumstatances take place a
separete kind of information constitute called setting. Setting
is important in the study of discourse not only because it
characteristically involve distinctive grammatical construction
like locative, but also because it is common basis for
segmentation of sequential text into their components parts.
It is tricky to distinguish setting from the range role. Either
may, for example, take the form of a locative like a
prepositional phrase. One text that seems to work in a number
of languages is the test of separability.
Settings in a space are frequently distinguished from settings
in time. All languages probably have the capability for defining
a spatial setting by description. Spasial settings many be
redefined during the course of a text either by describing
where each new setting is located, as seems normal in English,
or by a relative redefinition that takes the most recent settings
as its point of departure. The scope of a spatial setting may be
broad or narrow.
Settings in time are equally important. Temporal setting, like spatial
setting, must be distinguished from the temporal properties inherent
in a particular action. Whether an action followed its predecessor
immediately or after a lapse, whether its effects are said to persist,
all are dependent of the general time framework of the narrative, just
as the place where as action orseries of action happens is
independent of those elements of location (range) that are an
integral part of the definition of the action.
Descriptive definitions of time are usually with reference to some
kind of calendric system. The term is used broadly to include bit only
explicit calendric references.
Another kind of time definition makes us of reference to memorable
events. This can shade off into a calendric system of its own in the
case of dynastics or definitions of years by outstanding events.
Some of information in narrative is not part of the narratives
themselves, but stands outside them and clarifies them. Events,
participants, and setting are normally the primary components of
narrative, while explanation and comments about what happens have
a secondary role that may be reflected in the use of distinctive
grammatical patterns.
Much of the secondary information that is used to clarify a narrative (
called background for convenience, even though the form may be
misleading for non-consequential texts when explanatory information
could be thought of as being in the foreground ) has a logical
sounding structure, frequently tied together with words like because
and therefore. It is an attemp to explain. It has this explanatory from
even when the logic in it is invalid or when it falls short of really
explaining what it purports to explain. Explanations, either as
secondary part of narrative or as the central theme of texts, often
involve premises that the speakers feels are generally accepted and
therefore can be left unsaid. Sometimes what is unstated brings
consternations to a linguist from abother culture who is not yet in a
position to supply the missing pieces of the argument.
The handling of the structure of
explanations actually sheds light
on the depth and sensitivity of
the speaker’s estimate of who the
hearer is; because even in
cultures where nearly all parts of
an explanation or argument are
assumed, if the hearer makes it
sufficiently clear that he does not
follow, most speakers will restate
themselves in an attemp to make
up for his lack of understanding.
This is less likely to hold relatively
homogeneous and isolated
cultures, where many of life’s
activities depend upon the
assumption that everyone shares
the same fund of information.
Not only do speakers report the
state of the world; they also tell
they feel about it. The addition
internal feeling to other kinds of
information ( which is not the
same as a simple reporting of
what one’s internal feeling are )
involves specific modes of
linguistic expression.
Often evaluation are imputed to
the hearer or to other people
referred to in the discourse. Any
participant in a discourse can be
assumed to have his own
opinion of things, and the
speaker may feel that knows
what those opinions are
sufficiently well to include them.
There is, however, a restriction
that is pointed out in manuals of
Another kind of evaluation is that of the culture
within which the speaker is speaking, the
conversation of the society he represents. Not
everything in a discourse has to be evaluated.
For this reason, it is useful to recognize the
scope of an evaluative statement. It may be
global, embracing an entire discourse, if so, it
is lokely to be found either at the beginning as
an introductory statement that tells why the
rest of the discourse is being told, or at the
end as e moral to the story of the tag line in a
fable. Evaluations bring the hearer more
closely into the narrative; they communicate
information about feelings to him that goes
beyong the bar cognitive structure of what
happened or what deduction is to be made. In
conversation, and even in monologues, the
hearer may be pressed to give his own
evaluation: What do you think? How do you
suppose they took that?
Evaluative information shades off into
background information or even into setting in
casses where it serves to buid up the
psychological tone of a series of events.
Some information in a narrative,
insteadof telling what did happen, tells
what did not happen. It ranges over
possible events and in so doing sets off
what actually does happen againts what
might have happened.
Collateral information, simply stated,
relates non-events to events. By
providing a range of non-events that
might take place, it heightens the
significance of the real events.
The information about what actually
does happen, then, may take several
forms. If non the collateral expressions
give what really happened as one of the
alternatives, it must be stated as a
distinct event. If was mentioned as part
of the collateral, but only to affirm which
of the possibilities took place.
Both the form and the content of any
discourse are influenced by who is
speaking and who is listening. The
speaker-hearer-situation factors can be
represented in linguistic theory of
performative information.
There are, however, restrictions on
performative utterances. They must be in
the first percon and present tense.
Certain performative are quite common
and are free of special limitations on their
use. The recognition of implicit
performatives behind commands,
questions, and statements, as well as
explicit performatives, paves the way for
a linguistic handling of situational factors
in discourse. Specifically, it gives a place
in linguistic analysis for what are
conventionally known as deictic (pointing)
In the case of persons ( and for
that matter, objects ) the
recognition of the speaker-hearer
axis in communication is basis
for assignment of person
categories. This seems trivial or
obvious for a discourse that has a
single performative. Performative
are pertinent in the identification
of paticipants in other cases
besides direct discourse, but in
different way. In direct discourse,
person assignment are taken
from some performative more
remote than the one
thatdominates the statement
immediately; that is, the one that
constitutes the nearest verb
saying that dominates direct
discourse higher up the tree of
questions. This shows up if we
paraphrase the example just
In addition to the identification
thet relates to performatives,
there are other less easily
recognizable factors whose
effects can be seen the outer
form of language and that find
their place in the conceptual
scheme of linguistics by virtue of
their relation to performatives.
Here, first of all, is where the
speaker’s entire image of himself
as a person is accessible to the
linguistic system. The
performative element not only
serves to relate persons to the
discourse, but also sets the zero
point for time reference.