Pragmatics and Discourse Analysis: The Properties of Everyday Language Found in “From South Sumatera to Ohio, Indiana, & Utah”
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.46918/seltics.v7i2.2160Keywords:
Everyday Language Properties, Literary Works, Pragmatics, Discourse AnalysisAbstract
Analyzing everyday language properties is crucial for uncovering the nuanced layers of meaning within literary works. Therefore, this study explores Prof. Diemroh Ihsan's book, From South Sumatera to Ohio, Indiana, and Utah, through the lens of pragmatics and discourse analysis, focusing on everyday language properties as outlined in Grundy's (2008) framework. Specifically, the study examines indirect meanings, cultural contexts, and inferences present in the narrative. The qualitative descriptive technique was chosen for its suitability in systematically capturing and interpreting descriptive data, such as written words in the book, allowing for a detailed exploration of linguistic nuances within the text. This approach enables an in-depth understanding of how language operates within cultural and contextual dimensions of the narrative. The analysis reveals eight instances of implicit meaning, nine cultural contexts, and one inference, illustrating the intricate dynamics between language and culture. By acting as a cultural bridge that portrays diverse culinary traditions, festive celebrations, and economic perspectives, this study highlights the interplay between language and cultural interpretation. The findings lay a foundation for future cross-cultural analyses, contributing to a deeper understanding of how language and culture intersect in literary works.Everyday Language Properties
References
Al-Hindawi, F. H., & Saffah, M. D. (2017). Pragmatics and Discourse Analysis. Journal of Education and Practice, 8(19), 93–107.
Allott, N., & Textor, M. (2022). Literal and metaphorical meaning: In search of a lost distinction. Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020174x.2022.2128867
Arlanova, T. (2022). Subject of linguistic pragmatics and aspects of modern pragmatic research. Vestnik of Samara University: History, Pedagogics, Philology, 28(2), 144-151 https://doi.org/10.18287/2542-0445-2022-28-2-144-151
Bendtz, K, et.al. (2022). Individual differences in indirect speech act processing found outside the language network. Neurobiology of Language, 3(2), 287–317. https://doi.org/10.1162/nol_a_00066
Black, E. (2006). Pragmatic Stylistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Borodenko, M., & Petrovsky, V. (2021). The semiology of humour. The European Journal of Humour Research,9(2), 7-25. https://doi.org/10.7592/EJHR2021.9.2.553
Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse Analysis. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511805226
Chemia, E., & Bott, L. (2014). Processing inferences at the semantics / pragmatics frontier: Disjuctions and free choice. Cognition, 130(3), 380 – 396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.11.013
Dewaele, J. (2008). “Appropriateness” in foreign language acquisition and use: Some theoretical, methodological and ethical considerations. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 46(3), 245-265. https://doi.org/10.1515/IRAL.2008.011
Fawcett, R. P (2000). A theory of syntax for systemic functional linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/cilt.206
Fetzer, A. (2004). Recontextualising Context: Grammaticality Meets Appropriateness. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.121
Giles, H., & Ogay, T. (2007). Communication Accommodation Theory. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Giles, H., Coupland, J., Coupland, N. (1991). Contexts of Accommodation. Cambridge University Press.
Giles, H. (2016). Communication Accommodation Theory: Negotiating Personal Relationships and Social Identities Across Context. Cambridge University Press.
Grundy, P. (2008). Doing pragmatics. London: Hodder Education.
Gwilliams, L., & Fontaine, L. (2015). Indeterminacy in process type classification. Functional Linguistics, 2(8), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40554-015-0021-x
Karasu, O., & Tunaboylu, O. (2022). Pleasure reading: The gains of student teachers of english obtained from a reading journey. The Eurasia Proceedings of Educational and Social Sciences, 25, 194-201. https://doi.org/10.55549/epess.1221495
Maryeliwati, Rahmad, H. A., & Charaka, K. P. (2022). Minangkabau traditional theater in the framework of discourse studies teater tradisonal minangkabau dalam bingkai kajian wacana. Journal of Pragmatics and Discourse Research, 2(1), 31–38. https://doi.org/10.51817/jpdr/v2i1.196
Mindt, I. (2008). Appropriateness in discourse: The adjectives surprised and surpring in monologue and dialogue. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 1503-1520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.04.014
Nassaji, H. (2015). Qualitative and descriptive research: Data type versus data analysis. Language Teaching Research, 19(2), 129-132. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168815572747
Sahadevan, P., & Sumangala, M. (2021). Effective cross-cultural communication for international business. Shanlax International Journal of Management, 8(4), 24-33 https://doi.org/10.34293/management.v8i4.3813
Saputra, D.P.R., Ramendra, D.P., & Swandana, I.W. (2020). The analysis of communication accommodation strategies used by students of English language education of ganesha university. Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris Undiksha, 8 (1), 5-12. https://doi.org/10.23887/jpbi.v8i1.28637
Scarantino, A. (2017). How to Do Things with Emotional Expressions: The Theory of Affective Pragmatics. Psychological Inquiry, 28(2–3), 165–185. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2017.1328951
Schaefer, U. (2021). Communicative Distance: The (non-) reception of Koch and oesterreicher in English-speaking linguistics. Anglistik: International Journal of English Studies, 32(2), 15-42. https://doi.org/10.33675/ANGL/2021/2/5
Sellers, C. (2019). ‘Fitting in’ and ‘standing out’: The peer group and young people’s development of reader identity. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 40, 938 - 952. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2019.1622407
Shen, L. (2013). Relevance and coherence. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 4(4), 852-857. https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.4.4.852-857
Sperber, D. (1995). How do we communicate? In John, B., & Katinka, M (eds.). How things are: A science toolkit for the mind (pp 191-199). New York
Tao, S., Dutta, S., Hacker, R., Irvin, D., Buzhardt, J., & Hansen, J. (2022). Curating feedback for parents based on interactions during parent–child book reading activities. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0016301
Tsai, C. H. (2023). Wisdom: A Skill Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009222884
Ulfah, B. (2019). The analysis of pure borrowing technique in Indonesian translation of “does my head look big in this” novel. Language Circle: Journal of Language and Literature, 13(2), 114-121. https://doi.org/10.15294/lc.v13i2.18974
Usman, A.H., Mahmudm A.F., Daud, A., & Dahlan, S. (2020). Language as a social instrument. Edukasi, 18(2), 259-276. https://doi.org/10.33387/J.EDU.V18I2.2101
Wodak, R. (2007). Pragmatics and Critical Discourse Analysis. A cross-disciplinary inquiry. Pragmatics & Cognition, 15, 203-225. https://doi.org/10.1075/PC.15.1.13WOD.
Wrana D and Galanova O (2014) Reflexion. In Wrana, D., Ziem, A., Reisigl, M., Nonhoff, M., & Angermüller, J (eds). DiskursNetz Wörterbuch der interdisziplinären Diskursforschung. Suhrkamp Verlag: Berlin, Germany.
Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zienkowski, J. (2017). Reflexivity in the transdisciplinary field of critical discourse studies. Humanities And Social Sciences Communications, 3. https://doi.org/10.1057/palcomms.2017.7
Allott, N., & Textor, M. (2022). Literal and metaphorical meaning: In search of a lost distinction. Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020174x.2022.2128867
Arlanova, T. (2022). Subject of linguistic pragmatics and aspects of modern pragmatic research. Vestnik of Samara University: History, Pedagogics, Philology, 28(2), 144-151 https://doi.org/10.18287/2542-0445-2022-28-2-144-151
Bendtz, K, et.al. (2022). Individual differences in indirect speech act processing found outside the language network. Neurobiology of Language, 3(2), 287–317. https://doi.org/10.1162/nol_a_00066
Black, E. (2006). Pragmatic Stylistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Borodenko, M., & Petrovsky, V. (2021). The semiology of humour. The European Journal of Humour Research,9(2), 7-25. https://doi.org/10.7592/EJHR2021.9.2.553
Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse Analysis. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511805226
Chemia, E., & Bott, L. (2014). Processing inferences at the semantics / pragmatics frontier: Disjuctions and free choice. Cognition, 130(3), 380 – 396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.11.013
Dewaele, J. (2008). “Appropriateness” in foreign language acquisition and use: Some theoretical, methodological and ethical considerations. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 46(3), 245-265. https://doi.org/10.1515/IRAL.2008.011
Fawcett, R. P (2000). A theory of syntax for systemic functional linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/cilt.206
Fetzer, A. (2004). Recontextualising Context: Grammaticality Meets Appropriateness. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.121
Giles, H., & Ogay, T. (2007). Communication Accommodation Theory. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Giles, H., Coupland, J., Coupland, N. (1991). Contexts of Accommodation. Cambridge University Press.
Giles, H. (2016). Communication Accommodation Theory: Negotiating Personal Relationships and Social Identities Across Context. Cambridge University Press.
Grundy, P. (2008). Doing pragmatics. London: Hodder Education.
Gwilliams, L., & Fontaine, L. (2015). Indeterminacy in process type classification. Functional Linguistics, 2(8), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40554-015-0021-x
Karasu, O., & Tunaboylu, O. (2022). Pleasure reading: The gains of student teachers of english obtained from a reading journey. The Eurasia Proceedings of Educational and Social Sciences, 25, 194-201. https://doi.org/10.55549/epess.1221495
Maryeliwati, Rahmad, H. A., & Charaka, K. P. (2022). Minangkabau traditional theater in the framework of discourse studies teater tradisonal minangkabau dalam bingkai kajian wacana. Journal of Pragmatics and Discourse Research, 2(1), 31–38. https://doi.org/10.51817/jpdr/v2i1.196
Mindt, I. (2008). Appropriateness in discourse: The adjectives surprised and surpring in monologue and dialogue. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 1503-1520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.04.014
Nassaji, H. (2015). Qualitative and descriptive research: Data type versus data analysis. Language Teaching Research, 19(2), 129-132. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168815572747
Sahadevan, P., & Sumangala, M. (2021). Effective cross-cultural communication for international business. Shanlax International Journal of Management, 8(4), 24-33 https://doi.org/10.34293/management.v8i4.3813
Saputra, D.P.R., Ramendra, D.P., & Swandana, I.W. (2020). The analysis of communication accommodation strategies used by students of English language education of ganesha university. Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris Undiksha, 8 (1), 5-12. https://doi.org/10.23887/jpbi.v8i1.28637
Scarantino, A. (2017). How to Do Things with Emotional Expressions: The Theory of Affective Pragmatics. Psychological Inquiry, 28(2–3), 165–185. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2017.1328951
Schaefer, U. (2021). Communicative Distance: The (non-) reception of Koch and oesterreicher in English-speaking linguistics. Anglistik: International Journal of English Studies, 32(2), 15-42. https://doi.org/10.33675/ANGL/2021/2/5
Sellers, C. (2019). ‘Fitting in’ and ‘standing out’: The peer group and young people’s development of reader identity. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 40, 938 - 952. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2019.1622407
Shen, L. (2013). Relevance and coherence. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 4(4), 852-857. https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.4.4.852-857
Sperber, D. (1995). How do we communicate? In John, B., & Katinka, M (eds.). How things are: A science toolkit for the mind (pp 191-199). New York
Tao, S., Dutta, S., Hacker, R., Irvin, D., Buzhardt, J., & Hansen, J. (2022). Curating feedback for parents based on interactions during parent–child book reading activities. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0016301
Tsai, C. H. (2023). Wisdom: A Skill Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009222884
Ulfah, B. (2019). The analysis of pure borrowing technique in Indonesian translation of “does my head look big in this” novel. Language Circle: Journal of Language and Literature, 13(2), 114-121. https://doi.org/10.15294/lc.v13i2.18974
Usman, A.H., Mahmudm A.F., Daud, A., & Dahlan, S. (2020). Language as a social instrument. Edukasi, 18(2), 259-276. https://doi.org/10.33387/J.EDU.V18I2.2101
Wodak, R. (2007). Pragmatics and Critical Discourse Analysis. A cross-disciplinary inquiry. Pragmatics & Cognition, 15, 203-225. https://doi.org/10.1075/PC.15.1.13WOD.
Wrana D and Galanova O (2014) Reflexion. In Wrana, D., Ziem, A., Reisigl, M., Nonhoff, M., & Angermüller, J (eds). DiskursNetz Wörterbuch der interdisziplinären Diskursforschung. Suhrkamp Verlag: Berlin, Germany.
Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zienkowski, J. (2017). Reflexivity in the transdisciplinary field of critical discourse studies. Humanities And Social Sciences Communications, 3. https://doi.org/10.1057/palcomms.2017.7
Downloads
Published
2024-12-17
How to Cite
Ulfah, B. (2024). Pragmatics and Discourse Analysis: The Properties of Everyday Language Found in “From South Sumatera to Ohio, Indiana, & Utah”. Seltics Journal: Scope of English Language Teaching Literature and Linguistics, 7(2), 259–276. https://doi.org/10.46918/seltics.v7i2.2160
