UNIVERSE
DISCOURSE
Aang Fatihul Islam)*
A.
INTRODUCTION
In the field of
language there are several elements requiring further studies. Linguistics scope
wants to understand how language works and is related with identifying the
meaningful element of a specific language. One of the elements in linguistics
is about the meaning aspect. Semantics is study of meaning. It is a wide
subject within general study of language. An understanding of semantics is
essential to the study of language acquisition (how language users acquire a
sense of a meaning, as speakers and writers, listeners and readers) and of
language change (how meaning alter over time). It is important for
understanding language in social context, as there are likely to affect
meaning, and for understanding varieties of English and effect of style. It is thus
one of the most fundamental concept in linguistics.
The word
“semantics” itself denotes a range of ideas, from the popular to the highly
technical. It is often used in ordinary language to denote a problem of
understanding that comes to word selection or connotation. This problem of
understanding has been the subject of many formal inquiries, over a long period
of time. The word is derived from the Greek word (semantikos), “significant” ,
from (semaino), “to signify, to indicate” and that from (sema), “sign, mark,
token”. In linguistics, it is the study of interpretation of signs or symbols
as used by agents or communities within particular circumstances and context.
Within this view, sounds, facial expression, body language, proxemics have
semantics (meaningful) content, and each has several branches of study. In
written language, such things as paragraph structure and punctuation have
semantics content in order form of language, there is other language content.
Semantics is related
to the study of meaning in language term (Hurford, et. al, 2007:01). The other
definition say that Semantic is study of how language organized and express
meaning, it’s mean how language conducting and how language express meaning (W.
Kreidler, Charles 1998:3). According to John lion (1981:3) semantic is
traditionally defined as the study of meaning (the meaning of meaning). In the
other definition, R.L. Trask (1991:249) state that semantics is the linguistic
branch that dealing with the meanings of words and sentences. So it’s mean that
in the semantics element is concern with the meaning device in the branch of
linguistics. The study of semantics includes the study of how language meaning
is constructed, interpreted, clarified, obscured, illustrated,, simplified
negotiated, contradicted and paraphrased.
We should remember
that in this study (semantics) is focus and concern in the study of meaning.
It’s meant that in this context, not study about grammar or structure of the
sentences. The study of meaning contains of several dimensions, such as: sense,
logic, speech act, discourse and so on. Semantics is interrelated with the
discourse in the context of communication form or text form. Because semantics
essentially with the context of discourse element. Actually in the daily life
we always face with the discourse. It can be in the person have the differences
of discourse in the some things in entire the world. In this paper in order to
be interesting we are going to discuss element that related with discourse,
namely the universe discourse. Universe of discourse is as one of the interesting
term of meaning study in the semantics scope. For more clear we will discuss in
the explanation below:
B. DISCUSSION
Before we discuss about universe discourse
deeply, firstly we are going to review some interesting terms that have
relation with it, namely: referring expression, predicate, predicator, and
Argument.
1.
Referring expression
Referring expression is defined as any
expression used in utterance to refer to something or some one (or a clearly
delimited collection of thing or people); used with a particular referent in
mind. (Harford, et al. 2007: 37)
The some expression can be a
referring expression or not (or, as some would put it, may or may not have a
referring expression) depending on the context and situation.
Example:
1.
“Bill hit me” Bill and me are referring expressions in this sentence
2.
“There is no Bill in
this room” Bill is not referring
expression in this sentence
3.
“John phoned me”. John
and me are referring expressions in this sentence.
4.
“There’s no John in
this class” John is not a referring expression
in
this sentence.
2.
Predicator
Predicator is the word (sometimes a
group of words) which does not belong to any of the referring expressions and
which, of the remainder, makes the most specific contribution to the meaning of
the sentence (Harford, et al. 2007: 47-48).
Examples:
(1) Rinjani is in Lombok.
(2) Power corrupts.
(3) Smoking is a health hazard.
(4) Jane is happy.
(5) We have been to London
3.
Predicate
Predicates is defined as any word (or sequence
words) which (in a given single sense) can function as predicator of a
sentence.
Example:
·
Noun : crook, bottle, cat, John,
school etc.
·
Verbs : eat, read, swim, write, think,
switch on etc.
·
Adjective : black, tall, beautiful, handsome,
ocean blue etc.
·
Preposition : in, from, under, beyond etc.
Some expressions are almost
referring expressions no matter what sentence they occur. (Soekemi, 2009: 29)
Example:
·
Proper names (Jack,
John, Thomson, Jill etc)
In semantic the distinction between
referring expressions and predicating expression is absolute. Either an
expression is used in a given utterance to refer to some entity in the world or
it is not used.
1.
The
lion attack a man.
Jack
is a man.
A man in the first
sentence is a referring expression, but it is not in the second.
2.
Anak itu
menggenggam seekor binatang.
Itu
seekor binatang.
From the example above, we can know
that “Seekor binatang” in the first
sentence is a referring expression, but it is a predicating expression in the
second.
4.
Argument
Argument has several definitions. Cummings (2005: 165) defines
arguments as a set of claims (statements, propositions, etc.) some of which
(the premises) must at least give the appearance of advancing reasons for the
acceptance of particular claim within the set (the conclusion). While Purdue
University Writing Lab writes, an argument involves the process of establishing
a claim and then proving it with the use of logical reasoning, examples, and
research. Jackson defines it that is an entity associated with a predicate. For
example, the predicate throw has three arguments: the ‘actor’ (i.e. the
thrower), the ‘patient’ or ‘undergoes’ (the thing thrown), and the ‘goal’
(where it is thrown) (Jackson, 2007: 60).
An argument must consist of at least two statements. One and only
one statement will be the conclusion. The rest of the statements will be
premises of the argument. The expression of an argument will often contain
indicator words that help identify the premises and conclusion. Some conclusion
indicators are:
so
therefore
consequently
as a result
thus
hence
accordingly
it follows that.
These terms tell us
that what follows expresses a conclusion. The other statements in the argument
must be premises.
There are also terms,
which indicate premises. Some of these are:
since
because
for
in
light of
in
view of
as
shown by.
Identifying
the premises allows us to determine that the remaining statement in the
argument is the conclusion.
Unfortunately,
expressions of arguments do not always contain indicator words. In this case,
we must rely on context and relations of support to identify premises and
conclusion. If someone asserts:
There
cannot be the serious unemployment in this country
that
the liberals proclaim. Today's classified section was full
of
help wanted ads. People just refuse to take the jobs that are available.
we
can reconstruct the structure of the argument based on our knowledge of the
context in which such an assertion would occur. That context would be a
disagreement with a liberal concern with high unemployment. The conclusion is:
There
cannot be the serious unemployment
in
this country that the liberals proclaim.
The
premises are:
Today's
classified section was full of help wanted ads.
People
just refuse to take the jobs that are available.
Conditional statements should not
be confused with arguments. A conditional statement is usually expressed with
an "if...then" sentence.
If the bank is open, then I can
withdraw some money.
There are two arguments (Moore and Parker, 1986:
189): deductive arguments and inductive arguments. Deductive arguments are
those whose premises are designed to provide absolutely conclusive reasons for
accepting the conclusion, while inductive arguments are those whose premises
are designed to provide some support, but less than conclusive support, for the
conclusion. To make the notion clear, they give the following examples of
deductive arguments:
a.
No republican voted against the President’s
tax proposal. So, since Senator Aardvark is a Republican, he did not vote
against the tax proposal.
b.
If Gonzales runs a Democrat, he will
lose the election. But if Gonzales loses, Smith will win. Therefore, if
Gonzales runs as a Democrat, Smith will win.
(Moore and Parker, 1986: 189)
And
for inductive arguments, they give the following examples;
- For the last twenty three years, autumn has been the season of the least rainfall in San Francisco. Therefore, this coming autumn will be drier in San Francisco than any of the other seasons.
- I have checked out half the floppy disks in this shipment, and everyone of them has been defective, so I think it’s a safe bet that the whole shipment is defective.
(Moore and Parker, 1986: 189)
Principally, an argument consists of conclusion and
premises (Moore and Parker, 1986: 182). A conclusion refers to the claim that
is argued for, while premises refer to the claims that provide the readers or
hearers with reasons for believing the conclusion. They give the examples of
arguments and their anatomy as follows:
a.
[Premise] Every officer on the force has
been certified, and [premise] nobody can be certified without scoring above 70
percent on the firing range. Therefore, [conclusion] every officer on the force
must have scored above 70 percent on the firing range.
b.
[Premise] Mr. Conner, the gentlemen who
lives on the corner, comes down this street on his morning walk everyday, rain
or shine. So,[conclusion] something must have happened to him, since [premise]
he has not shown up today.
In many ways, argument can not be separated from
logic. Argument will be strong enough if it is supported by logic. Soekemi
states that logic concerns meaning in a language system (2000:64). Logic
contributes rational behavior significantly. An argument will be more
acceptable if it reflects a rational behavior. Soekemi adds, rational behavior
consists of goals, assumptions and knowledge, and calculations. He gives an
example of rational behavior as follows:
Goal:
To
have a just and prosperous society
Assumptions
and knowledge:
A
colonial government has proved to be suppressing common people. A government
dominated by military groups is only good for the people who have the power and
on the contrary such a government is not good for most people. A liberal
government is not appropriate for most people, either. It gives more right any
protection only the strong. The ideal government is a democratic one, because
it gives the same right and protection to everybody.
The
government is not colonial government, but it is still dominated by military
powers. It is clearly indicated by the fact that so many key positions are
occupied by military men. The Indonesian government is also a liberal
government; the weak do not own the same right and protection as the strong; so
that the weak have become weaker while the strong have become stronger. It is
stated in the Indonesian constitution that the national goal is to build a just
and prosperous society.
If
the national goal is to build a just and prosperous society, the people must
have democratic government so that everybody has the same right and protection.
If the Indonesian government is not democratic, the people must have a
democratic government. A democratic government does not come by itself,
therefore the Indonesia people have to struggle for having a democratic
government. Struggling for a democratic government is identical with struggling
for ajust and prosperous society.
Rational
Action;
Struggling
for a democratic government
(Soekemi,
2000: 64-65)
5.
Universe
discourse
Language is
“miracle”; it can be used for talking about existing things as well as
non-existing thing.
Example:
1.
Did
unicoms really exist?
2. Ratu Roro Kidul rules
in the Indian Ocean.
A language is
used to talk about the real world and can be used to talk about an infinite
variety of abstractions, and even of entities in imagery, unreal world.
Example:
1.
Borobudur
temple is wonderful place. (real world)
2.
Ramayana
(unreal world)
Definition
There are several definitions of universe discourse
as follow:
“The
universe discourse is a class containing all the entities referred to in a
discourse or argument”(www.dictionary. babylon.com/universe of
discourse).
“The
universe of discourse for any utterance is a particular situation or world, real
or imagery that the participant of the discourse assumes he/ she is talking
about at the time”. (Soekemi, 2000:30)
“The
universe of discourse for any utterance is defined as the particular world,
real or imagery (or part real, part imagery), that the speaker assumes he is
talking about at the time” (Hurfort, et al, 2007: 62).
After we look at some definition above, in
the next we can know that universe of discourse is real or imagery of the
particular world that the speaker assumes he or she is talking about at the
time. So it may occur the differences between one person with the other in the
universe of discourse.
Example:
v When
an astronomy lecturer, in a serious lecture, states that the earth revolved
around the sun, the universe of discourse is as well as all assume. The real
world (or universe).
v When
mother tells her children a bedtime story and says: the dragon set fire to the
woods with his hot breath; the universe of discourse is not real world but a
factious world.
Real : “Indonesia is
suffering from various kinds of crisis”
Real : Doctor to a patient: “You cannot expect
to live longer than another two months”
Unreal : “Gatot Kaca was flying in the sky”
Unreal : “Hanoman moves mountains”
No universe of
discourse is totally factious world. It can be totally real, or it is a world
which is a combination between real and unreal.
Example:
1)
“Our country (real)
& various kinds of crisis” (real)
2)
“Hanoman (unreal) &
mountain” (real)
3)
“Ratu Roro Kidul
(unreal) & the Indian ocean” (real)
In the following
situations, may occur there are the participants working in the same universe
of discourse (S) or different universe of discourse (D). We can look at in the
example below:
1.
A: “Che Guevara is the
prominent figure socialism from French.”
B: “yes, I see about it for a long time.” (S)
2.
A: “Susilo Bambang
Yudhoyono is the leader of democrat party.”
B: “yes, that’s right.” (S)
(The conversations above are the example of the same
universe of discourse)
It is opposite with the example below:
3.
Theis : “Diseases must serve some God purpose, or God
not allows them”
Atheis : “I cannot accept your promise.” (D)
Here the, exist is operating with a
universe of discourse which is a world in which God exist. The atheist’s
assumed universe of discourse is a world in which God does not exist. (The conversation
above is the example of different universe of discourse), let’s see the next
example:
4.
A: “Did John sister
come in this morning?”
B: “I didn’t know that John had a sister.”
A: “Then who’s that tall chap that was here yesterday?”
B: I don’t know, but I am pretty sure John hasn’t
got any sister?”
A: “I am sure John’s sister was here yesterday”. (D)
(The conversation in the sentences above is also the
example of different universe of discourse)
Every discourse has universe, we can see the example
below:
Example:
Ø Nyai Roro Kidul
Ø Nyai
Blorong
Ø Roro
Jonggrang and Prambanan Temple
When we tell the universe of discourse
sometimes the participant have the same universe of discourse or don’t have the
same universe of discourse, so if we want to tell “Nyai Roro Kidul, Nyai
Blorong, Roro Jonggrang and Prambanan Temple”, actually we should tell more
about them, so that the hearer will have the same universe of discourse. It is
will occur if we give the understanding to the hearer firstly until they can understand
and obtain same assumption about the discourse. Because the communication will
connected when the conversation have the same universe of discourse.
The communication always interrelated
with the discourse context. The differences of knowledge or information to
capture anything around us will influence the difference of the universe of
discourse. When we have te communication with the person the discourse above (Nyai
Roro Kidul, Nyai Blorong, Roro Jonggrang and Prambanan Temple), not rare we will find out some not
related communication. For the example if person A have certain assumption
about that discourse it is may be no problem, but the problem will occurred
when the person B have the different assumption about that discourse of course
will happened the unconnected conversation. So in fact we should giving
understanding with the hearer about the discourse, so that will obtain
successfully in communication.
In the picture below will show the steps
of the universe discourse context:
 |
The picture
above shows the steps of the universe of discourse contexts. They are immediate
situation of utterance, context of utterance and the last is the universe of
discourse. It is mean that the universe of discourse is begun from the immediate
situation of utterance, context of utterance finally result the universe of
discourse. It can be the same universe of discourse or different universe of
discourse.
Note the purpose
of the same universe of discourse is essential to successful communication, so
when there are the same universe of discourse of two or more people in the
context of utterance, they will get communication successfully, on the contrary
when there are not same universe discourse in communication term absolutely
they will not get successfully in communication.
C. SOME IMPORTANT POINTS
After
we discuss deeply related with universe discourse above, actually we will find some
important points related to our discussion namely:
1.
Speaker use referring
expressions to refer to entities which may be concrete or abstract.
2.
The predicate embedded
in referring expression help the hearer to identify its referent.
3.
Semantics is not
concerned with the factual status or things in the world, but with meaning in
language.
4.
The notion of universe
discourse is introduce to account for the way in which language allow us to
refer to non-existent thing.
D. CONCLUSSIONS
In semantics
term, the meaning is studied systematically and how languages organize and
express meanings, one of the interesting aspects of discussion is universe
discourse. Actually there is various definition of universe discourse and the
common one is that universe discourse is deal for any utterance as the
particular world, real or unreal (imagery) or (part real, part imagery), that
the speaker assumes he/she is talking about at the time. Universe discourse
form is can be in a world, sentence and also in conversation utterance context.
Universe discourse for any utterance as the particular world can be real or not
real (imagery); no universe of discourse is totally factious world; it can be
totally real, or the combination between real and unreal. The next term of
universe discourse is same or different universe discourse; when there is same
universe of discourse, absolutely will obtain the communication successfully,
conversely when not same universe of discourse occur in the utterance context,
automatically will not get communication successfully, because the purpose of
the same universe discourse is essential to successful communication. So it is
mean that one of keys to get successfully in communication is the same universe
of discourse.
Reference
Cummings,
Louise. 2005. Pragmatics: A Multidisciplinary Perspective.
Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press Ltd..
Hurford, James, Brendan Haesley, Michael
B. Smith, 2007. Semantic: A Course Book,
Second Edition. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Kreidler, W. Charles.1998. Introducing
English Semantics. London: Routledge.
Lion, John.1981. Linguistic and Semantic, an Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Moore, Brooke Noel and Parker, Richard. 1986. Critical Thinking: Evaluating
Claims and
Arguments in Everyday Life. Palo Alto: Mayfield
Publishing Company
R.L. Trask 1991. A
Dictionary of Grammatical Term in
Linguistic. Brighton: University of Sussex
Rober Audi, Epistemology, Routledge, 1998.
Particularly relevant is Chapter 6, which explores the relationship between
knowledge, inference and argument.
Soekemi, Kem. Semantics: Workbook,
Second Edition.2000. Surabaya: University Press
www.dictionary. babylon.com/universe of discourse
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar