9
CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
2.1. Pragmatics as the Study of Meaning
Pragmatics is a field of study which is getting more and more familiar in linguistics today. This is an interesting fact, considering that fifteen years ago, it was
even rarely mentioned by linguists Leech 1983:1. Pragmatics is regarded as the youngest linguistic discipline, yet it is undeniably an appealing field because it is the
only branch of linguistics that allows human into the analysis Yule 1996:4. Leech 1983:1 makes an analogy that the history of linguistics can be
described in terms of successive discoveries, in which the things that have been put in a rag-bag can be taken, sewed, and patched again into a more or less presentable
suit of clothes. In the same sense, the reason why pragmatics was firstly sort of overlooked and neglected is because it is different from the older disciplines of
linguistics which focus more on the theoritical concepts. Leech 1983:1-2 then states that it goes way back to the start in the late
1950s when Chomsky discovered the centrality of syntax, but like other structuralists, he still considered meanings altogether too messy to be put in a serious
discussion. It was then in the early 1960s, when linguisctics grew quickly, that Katz and Fodor began to think of inserting meanings into formal linguistic theory. The
ultimate transformation happened when Lukoff in 1971 stated that it was not possible to separate syntax from the study of language use. Henceforth, pragmatics was
included in the linguistic map.
10
Leech 1983:1 says that now, many people would argue that we cannot really understand the nature of language unless we understand pragmatics: how
language is used in communication. Yule 1996:4 affirms that the advantage of studying language via pragmatics
is that one can talk about people’s intended meanings, their assumptions, their purposes or goals, and the kinds of actions that they are performing when they speak.
To analyse meanings means that in the first place, one should be really clear about what types of meanings that are intended to be analysed. Generally, there are
two types of meaning, literal meaning and non-literal figurative meaning. Literal meaning means the meaning which is written in dictionaries. Meanwhile, non-literal
figurative meaning is the meaning that needs more complicated understanding in order to be figured out.
According to Katz 1998:166, prior to the 1980s, the standard pragmatic model of comprehension was widely believed. In that model, it was believed that the
recipient would first attempt to comprehend the meaning as if literal, but when an appropriate literal inference could not be made, the recipient would shift to look for a
figurative interpretation that would allow comprehension. “Good luck for your performance tonight Break a leg”
The statement above, when being examined literally, would create a terrifying sense, as break a legwould mean that somebody’s leg will be literally
broken . However, when it is analysed figuratively, it can be detected that break a leg is actually an idiom that means I hope you do very well.
11
Pragmatics, as a discipline which this thesis uses as its framework, focuses on the non-literal meaning of a statement, a sentence, or a text. It reaches out to the deep
meaning and explore it in order to arrive at an accurate interpretation. Since pragmatics deals with deep meanings, at times it can be an exasperating field to be
studied, because involving humans and their thoughts when they produce utterances is a very subjective matter and therefore hard to be analysed in a consistent way.
Yule 1996:4 says that two friends having a conversation may imply some things and infer some others without providing any clear linguistic evidence that we
can point to as the explicit source of ‘the meaning’ of what was communicated. Example:
A : So – you did it?
B : Why should you ask again? I certainly did
Other people who coincidentally pass by when the conversation above happens would never have any idea about the thing which is being spoken of. It is something
that can only be understood by the two persons who are having the conversation. Thus, pragmatics is appealing because it is about how people make sense of each
other linguistically. At the same time, the challenge is that it is not an easy thing to do, because it requires us to make sense of people and what they have in mind.
2.2. Speech Acts