Perpustakaan.Uns.Ac.Id Digilib.Uns.Ac.Id Commit to User 10
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id CHAPTER II THEORETICAL REVIEW A. Sociolingusitics According to Hymes (1975), sociolinguistics could be taken to refer to the use of linguistic data and analysis in other disciplines dealing with social life, and conversely, to the use of social data and analysis in linguistics. He also states that sociolinguistics could also be taken to refer to correlation between language and societies and between particular linguistic and social phenomena. Then, sociolinguistics merits our attention just insofar as it signals an effort to change the practice of linguistics and other disciplines because their present practice perpetuates a fragmented, incomplete understanding of humanity. Sociolinguistics, so conceived, is an attempt to rethink received categories and assumptions as to the bases of linguistic work, and as to place of language in human life. Another definition also stated by Downes (1984: 15), “sociolinguistics is that branch of linguistics which studies just those properties of language and languages that require reference to social, including contextual, factors in explanation”. 10 commit to user perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id 11 In another point, Wardaugh (1986) states that sociolinguistics is the study of the relationship between the language and society with certain people use an appropriate language in order to carry out their daily activities. B. Ethnography of Communication Ethnography of communication is another approach to discourse that not purely linguistics. This approach is based on both anthropology and linguistics (Khader, n.d.). This approach related to both anthropology and linguistics because these two fields share an interest in ―communication‖. According to Schiffrin (as quoted in Khader, n.d.) explains that the main function of human language is communication, since linguistics is the science study of language, it goes that the study of communication is one of the major goals of linguistics. On the other hand, the understanding of communication is important for anthropologists because the way they communicate is part of cultural repertoire for making sense of-and interacting with- the world. Khader (n.d) also adds that ethnography focuses on a wide range of communicative behaviors. It seeks to discover the variety of forms and functions which are available for communication, to establish the way such forms and functions are part of different ways of life and to analyze patterns of communication as part of cultural knowledge and behavior. In the same notion, Bauman and Sherzer (1975) call ethnography of communication as ethnography of commit to user perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id 12 speaking. They state that it is part of linguistics anthropology, arising out of the traditional anthropological concern with the interrelationship among language, culture and society. The ethnography of speaking centers its attention upon an entirely new order of information, bridging the gap between what is conventionally found in grammars on the one hand and ethnographies on the other. Its subject matter is speaking, the use language in the conduct of social life (Bauman & Sherzer, 1975: 95). Ethnography of communication is the approach of sociolinguistics in which the use of language in general is related to social and cultural values. It concerns with the situations and uses, the patterns and functions, of speaking as an activity in its own right. It is also stated that ethnography of communication is the study of the organization of speaking as an activity in human society, the central concept is the speech community (http://www.gumonounib.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/the- ethnography-of-communication-an-introduction-third-edition-by-muriel-saville- troike.pdf.). B.1 Speech Community Hymes and Gumperz (1972: 53) describe speech as a surrogate for all forms of language, including writing, song, speech-derived whistling, drumming, horn calling, and the like. Speech community is a necessary, primary term in that it postulates the basis of description as a social rather than a linguistics entity. One starts with a social group and considers all the linguistics varieties present in it rather than starting with any one variety. commit to user perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id 13 Bloomfield (as quoted in Hymes & Gumperz, 1972: 54) defines speech community as a community sharing rules for the conduct and interpretation of speech and rules for the interpretation of at least one linguistics variety. He also states that those who speaking the same language (or same first language or standard language) are defined as members of the same speech community. Khader (n.d.) states that the notion of speech community has always been a central one in linguistics investigation. Lyons in 1970 (as quoted in Khader, n.d.) describes speech community as all the people who use a given language or dialect. Thus Crystal in 1992 (as quoted in Khader, n.d.) explains that speech community is a regionally or socially definable human group, identified by the use of shared spoken language or language variety. Labov in 1972 (as quoted in Khader, n.d.) also states that speech community can not be conceived as a group of speakers who use all the same forms; it is best defined as a group of speakers who share the same norms in regard with language. B,2 Speech Situation Speech situation is situation associated with or marked by the absecnce of speech. Such contexts of situation will often be naturally described as ceremonies, fights, hunts, meals, lovemaking and the like (Hymes & Gumperz, 1972: 56). They also state that in a sociolinguistics description, it is necessary to deal with activities which are bounded or integral. From the standpoint of general social description, commit to user perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id 14 they may be registered as ceremonies, fishing trips and the like but from particular stand point they may be regarded as political, esthetic, etc., activity. From the sociolinguistics standpoint, they may be regarded as speech situation. Speech situation is not purely communicative; it may be composed of both communicative and other kinds of events. It is not subject to rules of speaking but can be referred to by rules of speaking as contexts (http://www.gumonounib.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/the-ethnography-of communication-an-introduction-third-edition-by-muriel-saville-troike.pdf.). B.3 Speech Event According to Hymes and Gumperz (1972: 56), speech event is aspect of activities which is directly governed by rules or norms for the use of speech. A speech event takes place within a speech situation and consists of one or more speech acts. For example, a joke might be a speech act that is part of conversation (speech event) which takes place at a party (speech situation). It is also possible for a speech act to be the entire speech event which might be the only event in a speech situation (http://www.gumonounib.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/the-ethnography-of- communication-an-introduction-third-edition-by-muriel-saville-troike.pdf.). In another point, Khader (n.d.) also states that speech event is a basic unit of conversation which can be bound by change of scene, or by the exits or entrances of characters, or by the shift in topic, change of concern or focus. He adds that speech commit to user perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id 15 event can be defined by a unified set of components throughout same purpose of communication, same topic, same participants and same language variety. Another definition from Bauman and Sherzer (1975) find that speech event is the central to ethnography of communication as empirical contexts within which speech activity is situated and acquires meaning. B.4 Speech Act Speech act is the minimal term of the set of speech situation and speech event. It indicates remarks in speech event. It represents a level distinct from the sentence and not identifiable with any single portion of other levels of grammar. The level of speech act mediates immediately between the usual levels of grammar and the rest of a speech event or situation in that it implicates both linguistics forms and social norms (Hymes & Gumperz, 1972: 57) B.5 Components of Speech Hymes and Gumperz analyze components of speech as various components which include in a comprehensive ethnographic description of the act of speaking. It is a descriptive theory which requires some schema of the components of speech acts (1972: 58). At first, there are sixteen or seventeen components that should be distinguished. No rule has been found that requires specification of all commit to user perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id 16 simultaneously. But ther are always redundancies. According to Miller in 1956 (as quoted by Hymes & Gumperz, 1972: 59) psycholinguistic work has indicated that human memory works best with classifications of the magnitude of seven, plus or minus two. To make the set of components mnemonically convenient at least in English, Hymes uses the letters of the term SPEAKING. The components can be grouped together in relation to the eight letters without great difficulty. Clearly, the use of SPEAKING as a mnemonic code word has nothing to do with the form of an eventual model and theory and here they are (Hymes & Gumperz, 1972: 59): 1. Message form. The form of the message is fundamental. The most common, and most serious, defect in most reports of speaking probably is that the message form and the rules governing it cannot be recaptured. It can be concluded that message form is the form of the message content (how something is said) whether in sequence dialogue, song, order of speech or even in rhythmical beats of music. 2. Message content. One context for distinguishing message form from message content would be: "He prayed, saying '.