You are on page 1of 8


Accomplished for Pragmatics Course, Lecturer: Suharsono, Ph.D.

Compiled by:
NIM. 157835467


First of All lets thank to Allah Almighty, Who has been giving us his blessing and his
merciful. So that, the compiler can accomplishes this paper under the title of Discourse and
Culture. This paper is design as well as compiler could.
Secondly, may Shalawat and Salam to our prophet Muhammad to be peace upon him. Who
had guided us from the darkness to the enlighten world as well as the next world.
Thirdly, the compiler say much thank to the honor Parents. Who always give us the best
pray and everything we need, may Allah always protect them. The compiler also wish to express
his deep and sincere gratitude for Suharsono, Ph. D. as a lecturer of Pragmatics course who have
guided in completing this paper.
Finaly, in this paper, you will face many mistakes, error of grammar or even though the
error of language use that may mistaken made by the compiler itself. So, we need the great
comment to make this paper become readable and usefully. Thank you for your time to read this

Surabaya, 09 January 2016


A. Discourse Analysis
B. Coherence
C. Background Knowledge
D. Cultural Schemata
E. Cross Cultural Pragmatics

In this expanded perspective, speakers and writers are viewed as using language not only in its
interpersonal function, but also in its textual function, and also in its ideational function. (Yule,

A. Discourse Analysis
Discourse analysis is to investigate a larger area and the function of what is being said and
written. This discussion covers the activities of a larger area than in the sense of hard focused
on the investigation of words like 'oh' or 'good' used in casual conversation, to learn the
dominant thought in the culture represented, for example, in education or practice political.
However, in the study of this discourse, is dedicated to pragmatic discourse. It tends to
focus specifically on aspects of what is unsaid or unwritten (not communicated) in the
discourse analyzed. It is also more attention to the psychological concept of background
knowledge, beliefs, and expectations.
B. Coherence
Coherence means that language users have in mind inevitably, is said or written will make
sense in term of their normal experience of thing. So coherence means that what language
users have in mind inevitably and not only what was in text.
Plant sale
Garage sale
For who lives in the suburban life will take the meaning of the the plant sale as someone
sell plant and garage sale as someone sell house hold in the garage not sell garage, even
thought it has identical structural with plant sale. It is because they have experience that
garage sale means someone sell house hold. Their environment and society usually do it,
and sometimes do it too. It will have different meaning or will make someone confuse for
other people whose society never use garage sale term. They will think what does its mean
by garage sale is they sell their garage or what.
The basis of coherence is familiarity and knowledge. Because of this, we tend to make instant
interpretation without thinking or see other alternatives.
How many animals of each type did Moses take on the Ark?
If you immediately thought two, it means that you have made coherence interpretation.
Because we have already in mind that Moses take 2 animals for each kind. So if someone ask
about it you will directly answer two that is coherence.

C. Background Knowledge
Scheme( Schemata,plural) is a pre-existing knowledge structure in memory. In communication
field we try to respond and interprete something that is unwritten and unspoken things based
on our pre-existing knowledge. These structures can function like familiar patterns from
previous experience that we use to interprete new experience.actually, there are 2 types of
scema, they are:
Frame ( fixed and Static Schema )
Frame in this case is the package the more specific things into the general one. We only
need to say the one thing in general ,then our background knowledge will directly lead us
to the structure of the thing and has clear perception about it. Even though the specific
parts of the things or what happened is not clearly stated.
For example in this advertisement :
Apartement for rent, Rp 4.000.000 5.000.000,-
From the sentence we can see that, even though the person who advertise the apartement
didnt tell the apartement in details but the readers know that actually apartement consists
of bathroom,kitchen,bedroom etc. In addition, the readers in this context know that the
price for rent the apartement is for per a month not per a year, even though not stated in
the advertisement. It shows that the readers have already had the background knowledge
about it and it can be called as background knpwledge or schema.(if the readers asumed
that the cost is for a week, it means the readers have different frame or maybe experience
with the advertiser.
Script ( Dynamic schemata )
A script is a pre-existing knowledge structure involving sequence of events. We use this
script to build interpretation of accounts of what happened.
For example :
I came to the cinema with my friends but sandy didnt join us.
When the speaker said that she came to the cinema, she no need to explain that she had to
buy the ticket first, then looked for the seat and watched the movie up to the end. However
thee reader has already known about that and the writer doesnt need to explain the sequence
of events. The reader has already had the structure of details of a script are assumed to be
known. The concept of script is symply a way of recognizing some expected sequence of
action in events.
In communication, when the speakers has the same background, it is actually doaesnt need
to or shared script allows much to be communicated that is not said. However for the
speakers that has different culture background it will lead to greast deal of communication.
D. Cultural Schemata
We develop our cultural schemata in the contexts of our basic experiences. For some obvious
differences (for example; cushions instead of chairs), we can readily modify the details of a
cultural schema. For many other subtle differences, however, we often dont recognize that
there may be a misinterpretation based on different schemata.
In one reported example, an Australian factory supervisor clearly assumed that other factory
workers would know that Easter was close and hence they would all have a holiday. He asked
another worker, originally from Vietnam, about her plans
For example:
You have five days off. What are you going to do?
The Vietnamese worker immediately interpreted the utterance in terms of being laid off (rather
than having a holiday). Something good in one persons schema can sound like something bad
in anothers.
Vietnamese Cultural Schemata:
five days off = being laid off
what are you going to do? = What is your plan? (with another job?)
Australian Cultural Schemata:
five days off = Easter Holiday for 5 days
what are you going to do? What is your plan? (for spend your holiday/where to
E. Cross Cultural Pragmatics
The study of differences in expectations based on cultural schemata is part of a broad area of
investigation generally known as cross-cultural pragmatics. To look at the ways in which
meaning is constructed by speakers from different cultures.
When we explored types of speech acts, we didnt include any observations on the substantial
differences that can exist cross-culturally in interpreting concepts like complimenting,
thanking, or apologizing. The typical American English style of complementing creates
great embracement for some Native American Indian Receivers (its perceived as excessive).
Indeed, its unlikely that the division one cultural group makes between any two social actions
such as thanking or apologizing will be matched precisely within another culture.
Example in speech acts:
English : Can I help you?
Chinese : You shen me shi ma? (what is your problem?)
American : How are you doing?
The English speakers using "sorry" and "excuse me", for express a sympathy.
The Japanese speakers using "sumimasen" (excuse me) on several occasions or
providing gifts and invitations.
The Taiwan speakers, a waiter said "I am sorry" when present the dish.

The study of these different cultural ways of speaking is sometime is called Contrastive
Pragmatics. When the investigation focuses more specifically on the communicative behavior
of non-native speakers, attempting to communicate in their second language, it is described as
Interlanguage Pragmatics. Such studies increasingly reveal that we all speak with what might
be called a Pragmatic Accent, that is, aspects of our talk that indicate what we assumed is
communicated without being said.
If we have any hope at all of developing the capacity for cross-cultural communication, we
will have to devote a lot more attention to an understanding of what characterizes pragmatic
accent, not only in others, but in our selves.


Yule, George. (1996). Pragmatics (Vol. 138). New York.