DISCOURSE AND PRAGMATICS

I Dewa Putu Wijana

Faculty of Cultural Sciences Gadjah Mada University
idp_wijana@yahoo.com
Introduction
Like any other scientific approach, the emergence of pragmatic
approach in linguistics is underlain by various shortcomings of the
former approaches, i.e. structural linguistics which is too formal in
treating its object, language, the system of human verbal means of
communication. In the first stage of its development, linguistics with
its structural and transformational approach, initiated by Bloomfield
and Chomsky, regards linguistic substance as mono dimensional
entity, i.e. form.
Form, in this matter, constitutes physical linguistic units (sound,
syllable, morpheme, word, phrase, clause, sentence, discourse), etc.
Although, the structuralists have realized the existence of other
substance (meaning), in some of those units, they see that meaning
is something abstract and difficult to describe. This opinion finally
compel them to consider meaning as a peripheral entity, so it should
be neglected. In the course of time, however, the structuralists start
to realize that they cannot hold their opinion for there are many
facts which show that linguistic structures do not merely consist of
formal categorical elements, but they are also built by elements
containing certain semantic characteristics.
◦ This opinion hopefully can be explained by (1) and (2) below:

(1)Mereka sedang jalan-jalan ke Singaraja.

‘They are taking a pleasure trip to Singaraja’
(2)*Meja baru itu sedang jalan-jalan ke Singaraja.
*The new desk is taking a pleasure trip to Singaraja’
The unacceptability of (2) suggests that the linguistic structures is not just
determined by the formal categorical filler, but by their semantic features as well.
In this case, the phrase sedang berjalan-jalan ‘take a pleasure walk’ is not enough
for just having a formal category, noun, but it must also be a (+human). The
violation will result the anomalous sentence (2). This fact then make them realize
that they must integrate semantic aspect to their language theory.
Even though, in the last several decades, meaning has been considered to be a central
element of language, various linguistic issues can not be explained satisfactorily. This is
because the utterances used as the material of analysis are freed from their concrete
contextual usages. This condition makes anomalous cultural utterance (3), contradiction
sentence (4), and tautological expression (5) can be resolved. In fact, the similar
expressions such as (6), (7), and (8) are also found in other languages.
(1)Mobil saya hanya gerobak. ‘My car is a bullock cart’
(2)Orang yang kaya itu sebenarnya dirinya miskin. ‘Those rich person, is actually poor’
(3)Kalau di sini, ya di sini. ‘If you said here, it mus be here’
(4)He sat in the back, and took the front seat.
(5)My car is a lemon
(6)If he gets here on time, he gets here on time.
◦ It is absolutely unreasonable to say sentences (3) to (8) are ungrammatical or illogical.
However, to resolve them just only through non contextual semantics, it would be
unsuccessful. So, it needs a new perspective that is able to see various possibilities
underlying the emergence of (3) to (8). The new approach in linguistics is called pragmatics.
Pragmatics is a branch of linguistics which studies the strategies exploited by language
speakers to communicate their ideas in verbal interactions. By assuming that every speech
act is based on certain intentions, and every interlocutors for all violations they make,
pragmatics can explain all implicatures concealed by (3) to (8).
◦ Because in any speech situation, all speech participants carefully consider cooperative rules
together with all maxims that govern their contributions, pragmatics can easily explain
intentions beyond the choice of (3) to (8). All of these must certainly regard (3) and (8) as
concrete utterances. These mean that (3) to (8) have clear participants (who is the sender or
who is the receiver), utterance spatiotemporal setting, the utterance topics, and so on. This
short introduction hopefully will be fruitful in giving insight of various concepts of discourse
that have developed, and which will become the discussion topic in this paper.
 Concept of Discourse
Discourse linguistically at first is defined as a supra sentential linguistic element. And the
linguistic elements under discourse level are sounds, syllables, morphemes, words phrases,
clauses and sentences. All discourses consist of more than one sentence, while linguistic
elements below them, sentences are sentential, and the rests are sub sentential. Discourse
concept as a supra sentential unit proposed by Verhaar (1977, 105).
He said that discourse analysis concerns with any activity to analyse the relation between
complete sentences. This concept is the same as what Widdowson (1973) has proposed that
discourse is the use of sentences in combination. Sentences that construct a discourse are
interrelated each other, do not stand alone at random. Unrelated sentence combination is
not a discourse. Accordingly, Kridalaksana (1978) in one of his papers differentiates the
combination of (9) is not a discourse, and (10) is a discourse. Kridalaksana’s paper is the first
paper analysing discourse in Indonesian linguistic study.
(9) Geopolitik dan geostrategi bagi Indonesia hanya merupakan suatu pengalaman perjuangan
bangsa dan pengejawantahan dari aspirasinya. Ketahanan nasional Indonesia dapat didekati secara
historis, kultural, dan yuridis. Kalaupun masalah-masalah itu tidak pernah disadari pada masa-masa
lalu.
◦ ‘Geopolitics and geostrategy for Indonesia are merely an experience of national struggle and
manifestation of its aspiration. Indonesian national endurance can be approached historically,
culturally, and juridically as well. Even though those issues have never been aware of in the past.
(10) Saya berdoa sekuat tenaga semoga kita akan berhasil membina manusia Pancasila menjelang
tahun 2000. Jika ini dicapai maka Indonesia pasti akan jadi sorga, dan kita akan hidup penuh nikmat
dan Bahagia.
◦ I pray as hard as I could, hopefully we will be successful to build Pancasila people by the 2000. If it
can be achieved, Indonesia would certainly become a paradise, and our life would be full of
pleasure and happiness’
Sentence combination in (9) is not a discourse because its combination shows no
relation whatsoever. The repetition of Indonesia in this construction does not indicate
that the two sentences are interrelated. The absence of cohesion marker brings the
readers to the conclusion that each sentence in (9) are autonomous. Unlike (9),
linguistic construction in (10) is built by two interrelated sentences.
The words kita in this discourse are coreferential. The word ini constitutes substitution
marker of keberhasilan pembinaan manusia Pancasila ‘the success of Pancasila people
building’. The word Pancasila clearly has relation with Indonesia. Pancasila is the state
ideology of Indonesia. Semantically the first sentence is a prerequisite of the second.
This relation is marked by jika ‘if’. Using the two examples, it is clear that the formal
marking, either formal or semantic, constitutes an important indicator whether a
sentence combination is a discourse or a random sentence combination. Based on this
principle, it is easy to determine which combination between (11) and (12), taken from
Ramlan (1993, 9-10), is a discourse:
(11) Yogyakarta dikenal juga sebagai kota pelajar. Tanah di sekitarnya sangat subur. Banyak
pendatang baru yang datang untuk mencari pekerjaan. Pada malam hari banyak orang berjalan-
jalan sepanjang Malioboro untuk menghirup udara malam.
◦ ‘Yogyakarta is also well known as student city. The surrounding lands are very fertile. Many new
comers are coming for jobs. In the night many people take a walk along Malioboro to enjoy night
air’
(12) Jalan itu sangat ramai. Pada pagi pukul 6 sudah banyak kendaraan yang lewat membawa sayur-
sayuran dan hasil pertanian yang lain ke pasar. Tak lama kemudian, anak-anak sekolah memadati
jalan itu. Ada yang naik sepeda, ada yang naik sepeda motor, dan ada yang naik sepeda jemputan.
Sesudah itu, datang giliran para pegawai, baik negeri maupun swasta, berangkat ke tempat
pekerjaan masing-masing. Demikianlah hingga malam jalan itu tak pernah sepi.
◦ ‘That road was very crowded. In the morning at 6, many vehicles passed by bringing vegetables
and other crops to the market. Not long after, it was full of students. Some of the students rode
their bike, some did motor bike, or went with some who picked their up. Then, came employees,
state or private, went to their own working places. Until night, the road was never quiet’.
This formal approach seems very influential in relation with discourse analysis researches in
Indonesia. This can be proved by the numerous work inspired by Halliday and Hassan’s work
entitled “Cohesion in English” (1976). Some of them can be mentioned here are Ramlan
(1993), Antono (1985), Baryadi (1986), Sutini (1986), Dwi Astuti (1985), and (1989). Although
Halliday in his later works, admit the role of situational aspects in text creation, his analysis on
cohesion and coherence is very formal. This means that the complete discourse must be
indicated by semantic coherence characterized by a compact information and grammatical
markings, such as substitution, reference, repetition, ellipsis, conjunction and lexical cohesion.
The formal approach toward linguistic elements will certainly deny these elements in many
cases exist due to situational factors. Language, in spite of its ideational characters, is also
situational. In implementing its interactional function, various situational factors should be
carefully considered. The structuralists and behaviourist are streams who refuse the role of
situation in linguistic analysis. The following examples show the shortcomings of formal
approach in defining discourse.
(13) + Siapa Namanya? ‘what is your name?
- Nama saya Jono. ‘My name is Jono’.
(14) + Sepatu saya baru ni, ya? ‘My shoes are new’
- Nggak, hanya baru kali ini saya pakai. ‘No, it is just the first time I put on them’
(15) + Nilai rapornya menurun. ‘His academic performance was getting worse’
◦  Ada acara sepak bola di TV setiap malam’ There was soccer program on TV every night’
◦ Formal approach will automatically reject the above three examples as complete discourses due to the
absence of formal markings. However, is it true that the answers of (-) in (13), (14), and (15) are irrelevant to
the questions proposed by (+). By considering speech situations regarding with with whom they speak, to what
end, when and where the interlocution takes place, the coherence of the discourse can be revealed. In
informal speech situations, especially Javanese speakers commonly do deictic reversal of second personal
pronoun -mu into third one -nya for gaining more polite expressions. The use of this kind of indirectness
probably is intended to avoid unpleasant effect, such as nuances of inspecting, suspecting, etc. This seems the
same as (14) in which (-) is not illogical person. So, (+) knows that (-) teases the new shoes (s)he wears.
For teasing purposes, the non conventionally use of deixis is considered
vary common (Kaswanti Purwo, 1984, 156-180). If it is believed that any
utterance produced by a speaker is always based on reliable reasons, the
answer of (-) in (15) is not random. Their relatedness can be traced by
using inferences as the bridging assumptions which lead us to a
conclusion that (15) is a complete discourse even though there is no
formal marking between them.
The relation can be explained as follow. Watching television everyday is
consuming time, and reducing time for studying, even can make the
students forgetting their school lessons, and as a consequence they will
be just sleepy in class, and fail to maintain their academic performance.
The last three examples clearly show that the situational factors play very important
role in determining speaker’s intention and the wholeness of a discourse. The
importance of speech situation then leads the linguists to give new insights for their
discourse concept. Edmondson (1981) feels necessary to make the following
dichotomy for differentiating between situational and non situational linguistic units.
Edmondson’s dichotomy is actually the elaboration of Widdowson which excludes
situational factors in sentence analysis. Edmondson’s dichotomy distinguishes
between sentence and utterance, and text and (discourse). Sentences is non supra-
sentential and non situational. Utterance is non supra sentential and situational. Text
supra sentential and non situational. Discourse supra sentential and situational.
◦ The dichotomy can be described as follow:
◦ (-supra sentential), (-situational) = sentence
◦ (-supra sentential), (+situational) = utterance
◦ (+supra sentential), (-situational) = text
◦ (+supra sentential), (+situational) = discourse
◦ If situation has been admitted to be an inherent part of a discourse, the problem now is do a discourse
always consist of two or more sentences, or supra sentential? Even though the object of discourse
analysis is commonly supra sentential units, such as paragraphs, conversations, interviews, etc., it is
absolutely unreasonable to say that discourse is merely linguistic units involving at least two or more
sentences. This is so because there are many non supra sentential linguistic units have complete
messages as result of a communicative process. The message depends on the situational and utterance
context, such as (16) to (22) below:
(16) Banyak anak-anak! ‘Many Children!’
(17) Bukan basa-basi ‘it is not just lip service’
(18) Let the taste takes you there!
(19) Ada galian kabel telepon!‘Sorry, there is telephone cable project’
(20) Maaf menganggu jalan anda ‘Sorry to disturb your travel’
(21) Stop!!

(22) Sst ‘be quiet!’

◦ This fact show that discourses are not always supra sentential. Accordingly, Kridalaksana (1993, 231)
defines discourse as: a complete linguistic unit in grammatical hierarchy, and constitutes the highest
grammatical unit whose realization can be complete composition (book, novel, series of
encyclopedia), paragraph, sentence, or word containing complete message.

◦ The message of a discourse linguistically depends on contexts whether linguistic or extra linguistic
ones. These two sorts of context are called speech situation (Leech, 1983) or speech components
(Hymes, 1974). Structural linguistics with its formal insights only considers linguistic context in
analysing language. And, branches of linguistics arises later, such as sociolinguistics and pragmatics
considering both. Although all of these branches emerge as a reaction of the formal analysis
shortcomings, each branch has its own specificities concerning its study object. Sociolinguistics is more
interested in observing language variation, such as dialect, sociolect, speech level, register, slang, etc.
as reflection of language speakers’ diversities in relation with origin, age, sex, social status, occupation,
etc. Meanwhile, pragmatics studies various language as reflection of speakers’ intention.
Intention in this matter is different from meaning. Intention is external linguistic entities,
while meaning is internal ones. Intention is speaker’s sense, while meaning is linguistic
sense. Because intention exists out side of language, it must be searched in the speech
situations. By pragmatic insights, linguistics are expected enable to reveal speakers’
meanings beyond the utterance, whether as product of locutionary act, illocutionary act,
or perlocutionary act.
Linguistic approach which is internal in characters, can only discover the direct and literal
speech act, and out side of its capacity to be able to identify the indirect and nonliteral
speech act. For this matter, consider (23), (24), and (25). Do the speaker just utter them
for only giving information, asking to, and questioning. If the answer yes, it is just the
locution is grasped. If the answer no, pragmatic factors are involved. For example, if the
speech situation of these utterances is carefully observed, (23) is also possible to use for
apologizing, (24) for prohibiting to finish the jack fruit, and (25) for asking the addressee
to leave the dormitory soon.
(23) Saya tidak bisa datang kemarin. ‘I Could not come yesterday’
(24)Habiskan saja nangkanya. ‘Finish the jack fruit’
(25) Sekarang sudah jam berapa? ‘What time is now’
◦ By these facts, it can be conclude that pragmatics is a branch of linguistics which observes the use of language
in concrete situation, while grammar does in abstract one. The use of language in concrete speech situation
assumes that every utterance has clear participants, spatiotemporal setting, and everything exists in the
location, and linguistic elements preceding and following it. All of these are called context. Sperber and Wilson
(1986, 16) define context as everything already known by speech participants, as shown by the following
quotation.

◦ “A context is a psychological construct, a subset of the hearer’s assumptions about the world. It is these
assumptions, of course rather than the actual state of the world that affect the interpretation of the utterance.
A context in this sense is not limited to information about the immediately preceding utterances; expectation
about the future, scientific hypothesis or religious beliefs, anecdotal memories, general cultural assumptions,
beliefs about the mental state of the speaker, may all play role in interpretation.”
◦ Without a clear back ground knowledge, people who are not from
western countries will find it difficult to understand (26) to (30)
below:
(26) In winter on which day of the week would you like to have your
bath.
(27) The day in summer is very long.
(28) Bring your own.to (33)
(29) Bring your own mug.
(30) No standing any time.
Or conversely, people who are not from Java will be very difficult to imagine (31) to (33) below:

(31) Aku durung ngirim. ‘I have not delivered food’

(32) Aku rep nyumbang dhisik. ‘I will give my charity to the person who gives party’
(33) Sedina aku mung dikongkon nunggu manuk ‘A long the day I was asked to drive out birds’
To understand (26) to (33) people should at least know about cultural aspects of Javanese speakers.
The translation gaps show that translating activity is not a simple task because it involves not just
linguistic matters but also non linguistic ones. This fact indicates that discourse or language is social
fact and not just linguistic fact (Whorf, 1956).

“Each language together with its individual sounds, words, and syntax reflects a separate social
reality which is different from that which is reflected in another.”
◦ For just example compare (34) and (35) below. The structure of (34) is
constructed by Chinese and Asian people when they are speaking English,
while (35) is done by Americans (Scollon & Scollon, 1995, 1-2). People with
Asian cultural back ground tend to speak using circumlocution, do not
express the conversation content at first, but hide it beyond the reasons.
Conversely, the people with Anglo Saxon back ground will tend to speak
directly by saying the conversation content first, and followed by the reasons.
◦ The difference of this speech strategy will potentially arise misunderstandings
in cross cultural communications. The Asians will regard their addressees
blunt and rough, speaking directly without lip service. Meanwhile the Anglo
Saxons perceive that the Asians are mysterious, unpredictable, do not eager
to speak straight forwardly, and the like.
(34) Because most of our production is done in china now, and uh, it is
not really certain how the government will react in the run-up to 1997.
And since I think a certain amount of caution in committing to tv
advertisement is necessary because of the expense. So, I suggest that
we delay making our decision until after Legco makes its decision.
(35) I suggest that we delay making our decision until after Legco makes
its decision. That is because I think a certain amount of caution in
committing to tv advertisement is necessary because of the expense. In
addition to that, most of our production is done in China now, and it is
not really certain how the government will react in the run up to 1997.
Conventional Discourse versus Non-conventional Discourse,
& Pragmatic Discourse Analysis

Based on the creation process, discourse can simply be divided into two types, i.e. conventional and
non conventional discourse. Conventional discourse is one created through a bona fide process of
communication, while non conventional discourse is one done through a non bona fide process of
communication. In conventional locution, both speaker and addressee, according to Grice’s conception,
are tightly bound up by cooperative principle.

To make the communication process fluent, all participants should obey a number of conversational
maxims, that include maxim of quantity, maxim of quality, maxim of relevance, and maxim of manner.
These maxims respectively compel the speech participants to give contribution as much as required,
should be true by supporting everything they say with adequate evidence, should be relevant to the
context, and execute in direct and reasonable ways by avoiding all types of vagueness and ambiguities.
According to Allan (1986), these maxims is just a reference for the speech participants.
◦ This maxims should be obeyed but not very fixed. In implementing them, speakers
can violated them as long as there is strong reasons to do so. Like people who want
to travel to Solo from Yogyakarta. Conventionally they will reach Solo through
Klaten and Delanggu. However, it is also possible they take other routes, such as
Boyolali, Piyungan and Wonosari, or even through Wonogiri as long as there are
strong reasons underlying such choices. These violations are often found in
nonconventional discourses, such as literary works, advertisements, humorous
discourses and its genres, etc.
◦ In shorts, there are not any violations without srong motivations to do so. The
unreasonable violations will make the discourse difficult to comprehend. For
example, the following (36) contains unreasonable violations. This happens
because of unintentional technical errors and very difficult to explain. In normal
situation, it is hardly possible to construct discourse like it because its violations are
too extreme.
(36) Susu Peredam Maag
Lambung yang nota bene merupakan alat pencernaan vital, sebaiknya dijaga kelestarian kerjanya
agar tidak menimbulkan berbagai penyakit dalam. Bila pencernaan kurang sempurna, atasi dengan
minuman secara rutin
Sangrailah empat butir buah kenahatikan undang-undang sekolah atau etika pelajar bila ingin
menulis opini majalah dinding. Merebaiknya kasus porno aksi dalam jurnalistik, tentunya tidak etis
bila dikupas Panjang lebar lewat majalah dinding. Apalagi tuntutan adanya ilustrasi, contoh foto
sebagai penguat tulisan sangat tidak layak tayang untuk majalah dinding sekolah
Landasan pokok yang harus dikemukakan oleh seorang penulis opini adalah mengemukakan
pendapat atau pikiran penulis terhadap sesuatu masalah yang menyangkut kepentingan orang
banyaaall Anti radang
Nanas yang nota bene sebagai pencuci mulut sehabis makan, ternyata sangat bermanfaat untuk
mengobati radang ginjal dan menormalkan sumbatan pembuluh darah. (Minggu Pagi, Minggu III
Juli 1999)
 Milk for Reducing Stomach

◦ Stomach which is nota bene a vital digestion organ, must be kept healthy for
avoiding. If you have problem with your stomach, have fresh drink routinely.
Fry four “Kenahatikan” fruit, School regulation or student ethics if they want
to write opinion in wall magazine. The spread of pornoaction cases in press,
will certainly be impolite to discuss in detail in wall school magazine. Let
alone it is completed with illustrations. The use of photos as supporting data
is strongly not suitable to show in the magazine.
◦ The basic principle which should be proposed by an opinion writer is to state
their opinions or ideas which involve public interests. Anti Inflammation
◦ Pineapple which is nota bene used as desert after meal, in fact is very useful
for healing kidney inflammation and to make blood circulation normal.
The other example is the dialog (37) below taken from Allan (1986):
(37) Interviewer: A stich in time save nine. What does it mean?
Schizophrenic: Oh! That’s because all women have a little bit of magic in them, I
found that out. And, it’s called it is sort of good magic. And nine is a sort of magic
number. Like, I’ve got nine colours, here you will notice. I ‘ve got yellow, green, blue,
grey orange, blue and navy. And, I ‘ve got black. And, I ‘ve got a sort of clear white.
The nine colours to me they are the universe, and they symbolic every man, woman,
and the child in the world. (Sherry Rochester and James R Martin, Crazy Talk 1974:
94-5)

Different from the last two examples, the following discourses show violations with
pragmatic purposes for achieving jocular or comic and effects or other communicative
purposes.
(38) + Mengapa Gunadharma mendirikan Borobudur?
‘Why did Gunadharma construct Borobudur’
- Karena dulu tidak mungkin medirikan lapangan Banteng.
- ‘Because it was not possible to construct Banteng Air port’
◦ + Siapa raja Singasari yang kedua?
◦ ‘Who is the first king of Singasari?’
- Pengganti raja yang pertama’
- ‘The successor of the first’
◦ + Raden Fatah memindahkan kerajaan ke Demak bukan ke kota lain. Sebutkan alasannya.
◦ ‘Why did Raden Fatah moved his kingdom to Demak, instead of to other cities.
◦ If he moved to Vladivostok, it was not strategic, to Panmunjom will raise anger for the
Korean., to Qatar there was already a Sheik there, to Timbuktu, He probably did not know
if there was a city names Timbukti in Africa. (Humor 03, page 16-17)
- (39) + Dengan uang Rp. 100,000. Anda dapat menempati rumah dengan fasilitas
kredit BTN. ‘With only Rp. 100.000, You can occupy a house with BTN credit
facility’
(40) Kalau sampai nekadku ‘When my determination is coming’
◦ Kumau tak seekorpun malu ‘I would like no one felling embarrassed’
◦ Tidak juga cow ‘So, you are cow’
◦ Yang perlu sedu sedan pilu ‘What we need is the agony sob’
◦ Kita binatang memang jalang ‘We are trully crazy animals’
◦ Sudah kumpul lantas dibuang ‘After having slept together, and then thrown’
(41) Sir, how is my test?
◦ ‘With regard to your writing, it is neat.’
From Grice’s conversational implicature theory, (-) answers in (38) are obeying maxim
of quality, because the answers are right. At that time, it was not possible to
construct Banteng Airport because air craft had not been invented yet. And, it is also
really true that King of Singasari II is the successor of the I. However, these answers
are flouting maxim of relevance, they are far from what (+) expects. But, all of these
irrelevances are intended to attain humorous effects.
The farther the relevance, the stronger the humorous effect possible to elicit by the
text because of its higher degree of the unexpectedness. This unexpectedness is
clearly shown by the final part of the dialog when (-) try to answer the reasons of
Raden Fatah moving his kingdom to Demak. All of the humorous effect will disappear
if (-) answer the (+) questions properly by obeying cooperative principles. For this
matter, compare (38) to (42) below. Without other contextual devices, (42) is
impossible to evoke jocular effects.
(42) +Mengapa Gunadharma mendirikan Borobudur?
‘Why did Gunadharma build Borobudur?
Karena ia pemeluk Budha yang kuat.
‘Because he was an obedient Budha follower’
+ Siapa Pengganti Raja Singasari yang pertama?
‘Who succeeded King Singasari I?
- Ken Arok.

+ Raden Fatah memindahkan kerajaannya ke Demak, bukan kota lain. Sebutkan alasannya.
‘Raden Fatah moved his Kingdom to Demak, not to other places. Please mention the
reasons!’
- Karena Demak letaknya sangat strategis. Selain itu, kota ini sangat tepat untuk
mengembangkan perniagaan.
‘Because Demak was very strategic, in spite of a proper place to develop commerce.
◦ Different from (38), the commercial ad (39) violates quality maxim. It is very
unreasonable just by Rp. 100.000, someone can live in a BTN house no matter
small and simple the house is. But, that was the characteristics of advertisement
discourse. A copy writer should be able by any means to attract their costumers.
The bigger the benefit that will be possible to perceive by a costumer, the higher
the persuasive force of the advertisements.
◦ Accordingly, despite many kinds of violations, advertisements commonly exploit
visual and verbal hyperbolism. By (39), the copy writer expects their potential
costumers not to consider all deceptions concealed by the discourse. The critical
costumers usually able to avoid various tricks and persuasions possessed by
advertisements regardless many of low income employees are deceived by
promises of housing commercial ads.
◦Discourse (40) is a humorous discourse which can not be understood without
extralinguistic context, i.e. the famous Chairil Anwar’s poem entitled “Aku”. The
choice of the poem itself has already had intention for the readers enable to
recognize to ease them resolving intertextually. If the two texts are compared, it is
clear that the heroic lyric I (Aku liris) in the original text is contrasted with lyric I
which has dispraised characters, like to deceive girls, and leaving them without
responsibility. The strong contrast is developed by violating maxim of manner which
concerns with the way of speaking, such as sound addition mau ‘to want’ to be malu
‘ashamed’, semantic play kau ‘you’ to become cow ‘cow’, kumpul ‘to gather’ to
become kumpulan ‘group of’, terbuang ‘undeliberately thrown’ dibuang
‘intentionally thrown’. So, their meanings are contrastively deviated. These
deviations make the readers able to associated the poem with sex and prostitution.
The speaking manner constitute common ways used for creating jokes.
◦ Different from (40), (41) is a conversation between a teacher and a
student which in conversational situation have possibility to contain
humour. However, the most important things is that the discourse show
violation of maxim of relevance. The answer given by (-) is not relevant
to the question proposed by the student. Because in pragmatics, all
violations must be based on responsible reasons, the task of linguists is
to discover any possible reason underlain those violations. In this kind
of situation, the circumlocution is intended to indirectly say that the
student’s test is bad. The teacher seems worried about the direct
answer could raise various unpleasant feelings for the students. The
teacher regards that the irrelevant way of speaking is one of the most
strategic methods to avoid such unexpected situations.
Conclusion
◦ In the later development there are a lot of discourse analysis
models which are exploited for understanding everything relevant
for understanding all levels of discourse structure. Critical discourse
analysis for example is intended to understand how ideologies,
beliefs, cultural practises, etc. influence discourse linguistic
structures (Mesthrie, et als., 2004,312-313). Not all discourse
analysis is pragmatic in character even though they all use
discourse (oral or written) as the study objects. The characters of
them strongly depend on the purposes of the discourse studies,
what the linguists want to reveal.
References
Allan, Keith. 1986. Linguistic Meaning. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Antono, Herry. 1985. Penghubung Antar Kalimat Bahasa Indonesia. Yogyakarta: Tesis Sarjana Fakultas Sastra Universitas Gadjah Mada.
Astuti, Wiwiek Dwi. 1985. Elipsis sebagai Penanda Hubungan Antar Kalimat Bahasa Indonesia. Yogyakarta: Tesis Sarjana Fakultas SastraUniversitas Gadjah Mada.
Baryadi, Praptomo. 1985. Substitusi sebagai Penanda Hubungan Antar Kalimat Bahasa Indonesia. Yogyakarta: Tesis Sarjana Fakultas Sastra Universitas Gadjah Mada.
Edmondson, Willis. 1981. Spoken Discourse. London: Longman.
Grice, H.P. 1975. “Logic and Conversition” in Peter Cole and Jerry Morgan (Eds.). Syntax and Semantics 3: speech act: New York: Academic Press.
Hymes, Dell. 1974. Foundation in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Kaswanti Purwo. Bambang. 1984. Deiksis dalam Bahasa Indonesia. Jakarta: Balai Pustaka.
Kridalaksana, Harimurti. 1978. “Keutuhan Wacana”, Bahasa dan Sastra, No. 1th. 4. Jakarta: Pusat Pembinaan dan Pengembangan Bahasa.
Kridalaksana, Harimurti. 1993. Kamus Linguistik. Jakarta: Gramedia Pustaka Utama.
Leech, G.N. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. New York: Longman.
Mesthrie, Rajend, Joan Swann, Ana Deumert & William L. Leap. 2004. Introducing Sociolinguistics, 2nd Edition. Edinburgh University Press.
Ramlan, M. 1993. Paragraf: Alur, Pikiran, dan Kepaduannya dalam Bahasa Indonesia. Yogyakarta: Andi Offsett.
Riana, I Ketut. 1988. Hubungan Antar Kalimat, dan Hubungan Makna yang Dinyatakannya dalam Bahasa Bali. Yogyakarta: Tesis S2 Fakultas Pascasarjana Universitas
Gadjah Mada.
Scollon, Ron & Suzanne Wong Scollon. 1995. Intercultural Communication: A Discourse Approach. Oxford: Blackwell.
Sperber, Dan & Deidre Wilson. 1986. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Sutini. 1986. Pengulangan sebagai Penanda Pertalian Pertalian Antar Kalimat Bahasa Indonesia. Yogyakarta: Tesis Sarjana Universitas Gadjah Mada.
Verhaar, J.W.M. 1977. Pengantar Lingguistik. Yogyakarta: Gadjah Mada University Press.
Whorf, B.L. 1956. Language, Thought, and Reality. Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Widdowson, H.G. 1973. “Directions in Teaching of Discourse”. S.P. Corder & E. Roulet (Eds.). Theoretical Linguistics: Model in Applied Linguistics. Brussel: AIMAV.