Friday, June 15, 2012

Semantic and Pragmatic


What Is Pragmatic?
            In some cases, we commonly find so many different utterances that someone says to us. Usually, someone talks to us to avoid violent meaning, or to be polite speaker. For this kind of reasons, we usually use pragmatic to speak indirectly even directly. The definition of pragmatic is still ambiguous because there are many definitions of pragmatic, but we can take look at some definitions of pragmatic. Pragmatics are meaning in use, meaning in context, speaker’s meaning, or utterance interpretation. That was what I said that pragmatic is so identic with speaker’s interpretation when saying something to someone. Let’s take a ook at this simple example, a. do you know what is progressive metal?
                                  b. no, I do not like music at all.
In this dialogue, we can know that the speaker B did not know about progressive metal. Thus, speaker did not answer what the speaker A meant. From that example we also know that there is a problen in understanding the abstract meaning instead of the contextual meaning. Commonly, pragmatic meaning is also ambiguous. Ambiguous means that the speaker says something that we know, but we do not really know about it, for example,
a.       Have you ever gone to the theatre to see that movie?
b.      Not yet, but I have ever watched it in my room.
The hearer meant he/she knew the movie, but she/he give the ambiguous meaning when he/she said but I have ever watched it in my room. When we talk about pragmatic meaning, we know the utterance first, we must know what the speaker means to us. If we do not know about the speaker’s meaning, we speak unrelevant with the meaning of the first speaker.
Pragmatic usually speak indirectly because the speaker should see the level of utterance  of speaking. However, the speaker speaks directly to the hearer to reach their purpose spontanously. You speak to the point only.



            When we speak to someone, there is a rule of saying something that called as Maxims. The theory of maxim came from Grice that divided it into four maxims :
a.       Quantity – give clear information when you speak or you ask, or you answer someone. Do not make your contribution more informative that is required.
b.      Quality – do not say what you think/believe to be false.
c.       Relation – be relevant. Say something that relevant to the speaker’s meaning.
d.      Manner – avoid ambiguity, be orderly, avoid obsecurity of expression.
The first example of Quantity, let see:
a.       Would you like to hang out, Maria?
b.      Not now. I am so busy. (from movie : Harold and Kumar)
In this case, Maria give clear information and answer to refuse the invitation. Maria does not give an ambiguous answer, she tried to speak directly, refusing the speaker’s invitation.
Another example:
Harold : what are you doing?
Kumar : I am so high. (Harold and Kumar movie “Go To White Castle”
In this case, there is a failure in observing the maxims. Kumar did not give clear information about Harold’s question, whereas Kumar meant He is cheerful at the moment he was speaking. However, Kumar fail to observe the maxim, but Harold, in this case, knew what Kumar said to him. It observe as not being relevant, and flouts exploiting the maxim of quantity because as I said Kumar did not give clear information. The information was not informative for Harold.
            This is called as violating the pragmatic meaning. When you,as a speaker, talks to someone, and you expect to get informative answer, but you do not get it. As the example above. There are several ways of observing the maxims. It can help us to choose what language we use to speak, to whom we talk, and to what purpose we speak.
           
            In pragmatic also, we can find some indirect speech between the speaker and the hearer. There are some discussion of indirectness, but I just take an example and explain what aspect of indirectness we can discuss on. The first one is indirectness is risky and costly. Let’s take a look at this example:
R : would you like to get a cup of coffee tonight?
V : no thanks.
In order to avoid making a direct speech and it could hurt the his feeling, so this time to speak indirectness as unrisky. In this case, R tried to say indirectly that he want to hang out, but V response it directly. She does not mean to hurt him, but that is it. Indirectness will be risky if the hearer response it directly, not indirectly. How do we know how indirect is? There are four factor to know indirectness, they are:
a.       The relative power of the speaker over the hearer
It means that there is a power of the speaker can say what they want to say. They have power to speak. For example, Partner Chieftain : Rold, this work be your responsibility. I need it tomorrow at 9.00. If we look at this example, we know that Partner Chieftain has a power to ask him to do that job, and it can not be refused.
b.      The Social Distance Between The Speaker and The Hearer.
It means that when we speak to someone that you think close to you in age, sex, or culture, you do not need to speak indirectly, but when you speak to someone you think you need to be more polite, you use indirectness. For example, R is V’s friend: come on, finish you work quickly, I need it.
c.       The Degree To Which X Is Rated An Imposition In Culture Y
Sometime we speake to someone that has different background of culture. When we find this moment, we should speak indirectly about something we want to talk about.
d.      Relative Rights and Obligations Between The Speaker and The Hearer.
When you try to say something indirectly, you can measure you indirectness. To measuring indirectness, we need to see from different perspective in which it is spoken. There are several ways to measuring indirectness. As you tell someone about refusing the request or offering the request, we do not know about it. Let see...

            Let’s go with this example, the short conversation between Harold and Kumar, talking about Maria whom Harold pretend not to love Maria. (Movie – Harold and Kumar)
Kumar : why do not you talk to her, I think, she interest in you, Roldy.
Harold : The only girl who are interested in me are girls I have no interest in.
If we see from this conversation, there are implied meaning that Harold give to Kumar.
a.       Harold try to forget Maria because he think maria does not love him
b.      Harold is just lie on Kumar
c.       Harold does not want Kumar to know his relationship with Maria.
Another way in interpreting indirectness is from background knowledge the speaker and the hearer. Let see this example from the movie “BORAT”,
Borat : may I ask you about a man put his pube to my anus? ( in Borat’s background, he did not know about gay or homosexual).
If you talk to him about homosexual, according to his background, he does not know about it, and he will ask you back about what you have asked him before.
In conclusion of using indirectness in common conversation, we often use indirect speech in some language people use in the world, but sometime we must use indirectness for some reasons :
1.      We do not want our hearer get hurt because of our words.
2.      We try to be polite
3.      We want to show polite speech to the hearer with an implied meaning we put on it
4.      Sometime indirectness can be directness if we want to get a clear information
5.      Indirectness is usefull fro us when we speak with someone from other culture we do not know at all
Thus, from those five reasons, we can decide to choose indirect or direct to talk to one’s because talking indirectly can make us comfortable in conversation, but in some ways instead.

           
In everyday life, we usually hear someone talk to their friend is different when they talk to someone older than them. we also hear they talk to their close people is different with they talk to stranger. That is the discussion we have to observe. I got several example to observe the language they use, and pragmatic meaning they use also, and the flouting maxim they have done.
1.      Harold : what are you doing, man?
Kumar : Daddy needs to urinate. (Harold and Kumar movie “Go To White Castle).
In this example, we observe that there is a flout exploiting the maxim of quantity because Kumar eventually not answering Harold question, right? If he said, “I need to urinate”. It can be clear enough.
2.      Josh : so, Carl says you’re a climber.
W : I have done a little. (From movie “SANCTUM”).
Another example of flouting maxims in common conversation between friend. It was actually not relevant to the question that Josh gave to W. Why do not she just asnwer yes or not . however, I think, W use indirect speech to show that she has just became a climber. Because of that reason, she said “I have done a little”. And Josh understood she meant to him because they have the same background knowledge as climber. That is lucky conversation.
3.      Kumar : dude, we can stay here, get arrested, and end our hopes of ever going to White Castle, or we can take that hang-glider and make our lead towards freedom?
Harold : I hate you, Kumar. (Harold and Kumar “Go To White Castle”).
From this example, Harold has failed the maxims of quality, quantity, and relation because Kumar ask him about his decisio, but Harold just said “I hate you, Kumar”. From his reply, we can conclude that Harold was simply answering Kumar’s question and Kumar got his decision. Also, Kumar in this conversaton used indirect request to Harold, but Harold answered it directly. It was risky to speak directly when someone speake to us indrectly.  
            Hence from those kind of example, we have observed several failure when using the maxims in daily conversation, using indirectness speech with direct answer, and we can see there were many flouting the maxims, it can be quantity, quality, relation, and manner.

            Everything about pragmatic we have discussed above is a small part of pragmatic learning. We can learn many things about language because language is always change in the world. As long as the world is move over, language will become so complicated. After we learned about pragmatic meaning, in other way, what the speaker said is what we answer and what the speaker said is what we have in different way of express our answer.
We can indirectly speech to someone or we become so direct when we talk to someone although he or she is older than us. Nevertheless, there are some reason to talk to someone according to pragmatic rules:
a.       We speak to be more polite.
b.      We speak no to hurt someone.
c.       We speak to say something we should not say spontanously.
d.      We can use indirectness when we speak, but we need the hearer who understand about what we said and the answer also necessary.
e.       If we have power that others, we can ask him to do something.
f.       Social distance also influence our conversation because talking to close friend with old man is very different.
g.      Background knnowledge is also important because it can be unrelevant when you speak something that people do not know about what are you talking about.
In conclusion, pragmatic can be use to understand what the speaker says to the hearer. It means pragmatic determine the speaker’s meaning. Then when you speak to someone, you need to look at the situation with whom you talk to because it can cause unrelevant conversation between you as the speaker and the hearer. Also when you speak to someone, you can use indirectness to become more polite to say something that you do not like or if you want to refuse somone’s invitation, you need to use indirectness, so that the hearer does not get hurt with your words.
“ Language is complicated problem amongst other problems in the world because Language can change spontanously, Language is different from side to side of the world, people in the world have their own Language, world has its International Language that is English Language, Language is Global, Language can relates you to others, and Language can make your life unique”.
Daftar Pustaka
Shapiro, Greg. (Producer) 2004. Harold and Kumar Go To White Castle. New Line Cinema. United States. 136 Minutes.
Jay Roach Cohen, Sacha Baron. (Producer) 2006. BORAT. 20th Century Fox. United Kingdom. 84 Minutes.
Wight, Andrew. (Producer) 2011. SANCTUM. Universal Pictures. Australia. 109 Minutes.

No comments:

Post a Comment