INTERPERSONAL METAPHOR IN DRAMAS.
ABSTRACT
DAMANIK. FMEUY J\ SUKMADARi\. Interpersonal Metaphor in Dramas. Mcdan:
English Applied Linguistics. (iraduatc Program. UNIMI:-D 2006
This study investigates interpersonal metaphor in Jrama texts. Tw-o arc research
problems an: raised. namely I) how is interpersonal metaphor coded in drama texts. 2)
why is interpersonal metaphor coded a-; it is in drama texts. The analysis based on
interpersonal metaphor as developed in Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL).
Specifically. ocalt with interpersonal metaphor, in this study consists of two types.
namely metaphors of mood
and metaphors of modality. The linding. indicates
interpersonal mdaphors of statement coded in interrogative mood and that of
modality in projecting process are dominat in Sweet Bird of Youth. The occurrences
of the two interpersonal metaphor are caused by the different statuses among the
participants. The different statuses (of an equal one) are imlircctly coded in the two
type of interpersonal metaphor. ThereH.)re. interpersonal metaphor is related wi1h the
context of situation. Because the use of language in drama texts is the impact of one
variable in the context of situation, that is tenor. Tenor refers to who ]staking part. to
the nature participant, their statues and roles.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
rage
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................. ..
AHSTR(~
.................................... ........ ..............................................................
Ill
LIST ()I' 'fARI.F.S ...............................................................................................
Vl
LIST OF FI{;LJRES .............................................................................................
Vll
LIST OF APPENI>IXES......................................................................................
VIII
CHAPTER I INTRODl!CTION
l.l. The Backbrrouml of the Study.....................................................
1.2. The Prohlems of the Study.........................................................
1.3. The Objective of the Study.........................................................
1.4. The Scope of the Study............................................................
1.5. The Significance ofthe Study ................................................... .
1
4
4
5
CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATlJRF.
7 •7•. •
++ • • •
o •
•
o
•
•
o •
o •
•
o •
•
•
o
>.
+ • + •• • •
~
• • •• • • • •••
I I
•••• 0 4 •• I 0 0
o• •
•
0 ••• •
• •• •
+'
0
2.1.1. Experiential Function ............................................................ ..
2.1.2. Logical Function......................................................................
2. 1.3. Textual Function . .... .. ..... ... .. ... .. .. .... . .. .. .. .... .. ...... .. .. .. . .. .. ... ... ... ..
2.1.4. Interpersonal Function ............................................................ .
2.1 .4.1. Speech Function ................................................................. ..
2.1.4.2. Mood and Residue ............................................................. ..
2.1.4.3. Modality ........................................................................... ..
2.1 .4.4. Epithet ................................................................................ ..
.......................................................................... .
2.1.4.5. Euph~mis
2.1.4.6. Connotative Meaning ......................................................... .
2.2. Social Context ........................................................................... .
2.3. Grammatical Metaphor ........................................................... ..
2.1.1. Ideational Metaphor .............................................................. ..
2.3.2. Textual Metaphor ............................................................... .... .
2.:1.3. T terpersonal Metaphor ......................................................... ..
2.3.3.1 . ~ctaphors
ofMood ........................................................... ..
2.3.3 .2. Metaphors of Modality ......... ............................................... .
2.4. Drama ........................................................................................ .
CHAPTER Ill RESEARCH METHOO
3. 1. The Research Design ........ . ......................................................
3.2. The Source of the Data..... .........................................................
3.3. Techniques of Data Collection..................................... .............
3.4. Techniques of the Data Analysis.......................................... .... .
R
10
11
1I
13
1(,
18
2Q
23
23
27
29
30
30
31
33
38
40
40
41
41
CHAPTER IV FINI)INCS ANI> DISCliSSION
4.1. Th~!
Datof1h~Sudy
........................................................... ..
4.2. The Occurrences of Interpersonal Metaphor ............................ ..
4.3. The 0\:currcnccs of Dialog Clarifies the Difkn:nt statuses of
Participant ..... _.... _........ _............................................................. ..
4.4. Findings .................................................................................... .
4.5. Discussion ................................................................................ ..
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION ANn SUGGESTION
REFERENCES .....................................................................................................
APPENDIXES ......................................................................................................
47
42
so
51
52
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Page
1. Table of Interpersonal Metaphor and the Occurrences .................................. 43
LIST OF Fl(;lJlU:S
Figures
Page
1. Theme and Rheme................................................ ........................................
10
2. Speech ~·unctio.
........................................................................
l '1
3. Speech Function and Responses.................................................................
12
4. The realization of Speech Function in Mood...............................................
14
14
6. Speech Function and Typical of Mood .................................J............... .....
IS
7. Mood and Residue Elements..................................... .................................
16
8. Euphemism in Death, Sex. and Hody Function............................................
21
9. Euphemism in Making Sound Better...........................................................
21
I 0. Euphemism in Preventing Strong Negative Stereotypes............................
22
11. Euphemism in Preventing Unwanted Cont~i
.................................. ..
12. Features of Context .................................................................................. ..
13. Social Context and Language .................................................................... .
15. Congment and Metaphorical Realizations of Mood ................................ ..
16. An Interpersonal Metaphor ...................................................................... ..
17. Types of Modality .................................................................................... ..
18. Congruent and Metaphorical Realization of Modality .............................. .
19. The Discourse Structure of Drama ........................................................... ..
I.IST Of API>f..NDIXES
Appendixes
I. Table of Metaphors of Mood .................................................................. .
56
2. Table of Metaphors ofModality ..................................................................
63
57
64
CHAPTER I
INTRODlJCl'ION
t. 1. The Background of the Study
Halliday ( 1985: xvii) states that language is a system for making mcamng; a
semantic system with other systems lor encoding the meamng it produces. It is
also states that the relation between meaning and words is not, however, an
arbitrary one, the form of grammar relates naturally to the meaning which is bcmg
encoded. Thus, language is the system of semantic structure, which covers the
entire system of meaning language, words, grammar and vocabulary. Therefore.
h:;~qcalv
lan£!Ual!e functions to convev mean~J.
uttered by a person to another
one.
Si nee language is defined as the tool of communication to convey the tt;:ehng,
opinion toward something logically and systematically either in written or spoken
language, it also relates to the Jite.raturc. Because literature is defined as wnttcn
composttion that conveys stories, dramaLJzcs situation, expresses feeling, analyzes
and advocates idea (Sihombing, 2006: 75)
Works of literature are grouped into four genres; prose fiction, poetry, drama
and non-fiction prose. This study, is related to drama, hecause it is major genre
literatures which has several dimens10ns that lie beyond of the literary dramatist
or play Wright (Baldick, 1960; 61)
In educational world, drama 1s the one of literary genres, by which one which
can increa~
language development, because it prov1des opportunities for the
students to use language for a Wider variety of purposes as exprcss1vc,
interactional and mlormat10nal ( Hyron, 1986~
133 ). Drama nself consists of t\vo~
comedy and tragedy drama (Sh1pley, 1993:90 & Hartnoll, 1983: oll This stud)· 1s
tocused on tragedy drama. Drama can he understood 1f the readers are involve m
the context of situatwn where the language is used.
How the writer uses language_, what element of linguistic structures is used
and which the meanmg wants to be conveyed can be analyzed through functional
grammar. As functional theory can be used to interpret texts, system and the
element of linguistic structures used (Halliday, 1985: xv1). Since systemic
functional linguistics is detincd as the meaning expression development, it also
can be related to the study of metaphor.
Halliday ( 1985:321) states that if something is said to be metaphorical, there
must also be something that is not, and the assumption is that to any metaphorical
expression correspondence another, or perhaps more than one, that is '"lite ral- or,
prefers called by congruent. In other words, for any given semantic configuration
there is one congruent realization, in the lexicogrammar. There may then be others
that are in somt: respect transferre d, or Metaphorical. llalliday also adds that
metaphorical modes of expression are the characteristic of all adult discourses.
Thompson ( 1996: 165) states that grammatical metaphor
IS
defined as the
expression of meaning through lex ico-grammar forms which originally to express
a different kind of meaning. There are three systems of grammar 1n M cta phoL
ideationa l metaphor. textua l metaphor and interpersonal metaphor.
-,
_)
Smce the language use w drama has the ditkrent way to convey the meanmg
m intt:ract10n and the language itself can defines the relat10nsh1p among the
participant
1n
drama, thus the 'ATiter interests to look at one of component of
grammatical metaphor that JS Interpersonal metaphor existing m drama text.
Interpersonal metaphor 1s connected with the congruent and mctaphoncal
realizations of speech lunctJOn m mood; the symbolic exchange among the
persons taking part, which gtvcs the two notions of (i) the role taken on by an
interact ant in the exchange and (ti) the nature of commodity being exchangedgood and services versus mlormauon) (Martin & Claire, 1982:58). Followmg the
example taken from a text of tragedy drama as the clarification of interpersonal
metaohor:
Miss Lucy: Baby, why are you sweating and your hands shaking so? You're
not sick, are you?
Chance: S'ick'J Who's sick!
T he example above Implies that Chance uses metaphorical sentence. It can be
seen from his responding. Congruently, the question will he responded by the
answenng m declarat•vc form But, in fact, Chance uses the interrogative lorm to
respond the q ucstJOn.
From the dabora[lon above, the writer thinks significance to analyze d rama
focused on interpersonal metaphor because it has progressive movement to use
languagt: w1der vancty w any purpose s and increases English mastery either m
wnttcn o r spoke n language
1.2. The Problem of the Study
With n.:fercncc to the background, the problems of the study· are lormufatcd as
the followmg:
I. Hov.· is mterpersonal metaphors coded in the drama tex'~
2. Why is the interpersonal metaphors coded as it is in dtama tex'~
I .3. The Objective of The Study
In relation to the problems, the ObJCCtlvcs of the study are
I. to describe interpersonal mc::taphor m the drama text and
2. to investigate the contexts of mterpcrsonal metaphor occurring in drama
text
1.4. The Scope of the Study
This study applies the concept theories of the systemic and other systemicists
functional linguistics (SFL) proposed by Halliday. This analysis is aimed to
investigate the intt:rpnsonal metaphor realized in drama text Specifically, the
study is focused on Tennessee William's play ''Sweet B ird of Youth" based on
Metaphors of mood and rnt:taphors of modahty only.
5
1.5. The Significance of the Study
Fimhngs of this study are expected to be useful for
1. the readers, especially for the students of t::nglish department to recognize
mctaphoncal expression in Lnghsh dramas,
2. tht! drama's writers for the additional mfonnation in application of
interpersonal metaphor in the writing of drama, and
3. other researchers to conduct other research on the basis SFL in which the
finding can g1ve surprising progress in linguistiC freld.
CIIAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SliG
DAMANIK. FMEUY J\ SUKMADARi\. Interpersonal Metaphor in Dramas. Mcdan:
English Applied Linguistics. (iraduatc Program. UNIMI:-D 2006
This study investigates interpersonal metaphor in Jrama texts. Tw-o arc research
problems an: raised. namely I) how is interpersonal metaphor coded in drama texts. 2)
why is interpersonal metaphor coded a-; it is in drama texts. The analysis based on
interpersonal metaphor as developed in Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL).
Specifically. ocalt with interpersonal metaphor, in this study consists of two types.
namely metaphors of mood
and metaphors of modality. The linding. indicates
interpersonal mdaphors of statement coded in interrogative mood and that of
modality in projecting process are dominat in Sweet Bird of Youth. The occurrences
of the two interpersonal metaphor are caused by the different statuses among the
participants. The different statuses (of an equal one) are imlircctly coded in the two
type of interpersonal metaphor. ThereH.)re. interpersonal metaphor is related wi1h the
context of situation. Because the use of language in drama texts is the impact of one
variable in the context of situation, that is tenor. Tenor refers to who ]staking part. to
the nature participant, their statues and roles.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
rage
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................. ..
AHSTR(~
.................................... ........ ..............................................................
Ill
LIST ()I' 'fARI.F.S ...............................................................................................
Vl
LIST OF FI{;LJRES .............................................................................................
Vll
LIST OF APPENI>IXES......................................................................................
VIII
CHAPTER I INTRODl!CTION
l.l. The Backbrrouml of the Study.....................................................
1.2. The Prohlems of the Study.........................................................
1.3. The Objective of the Study.........................................................
1.4. The Scope of the Study............................................................
1.5. The Significance ofthe Study ................................................... .
1
4
4
5
CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATlJRF.
7 •7•. •
++ • • •
o •
•
o
•
•
o •
o •
•
o •
•
•
o
>.
+ • + •• • •
~
• • •• • • • •••
I I
•••• 0 4 •• I 0 0
o• •
•
0 ••• •
• •• •
+'
0
2.1.1. Experiential Function ............................................................ ..
2.1.2. Logical Function......................................................................
2. 1.3. Textual Function . .... .. ..... ... .. ... .. .. .... . .. .. .. .... .. ...... .. .. .. . .. .. ... ... ... ..
2.1.4. Interpersonal Function ............................................................ .
2.1 .4.1. Speech Function ................................................................. ..
2.1.4.2. Mood and Residue ............................................................. ..
2.1.4.3. Modality ........................................................................... ..
2.1 .4.4. Epithet ................................................................................ ..
.......................................................................... .
2.1.4.5. Euph~mis
2.1.4.6. Connotative Meaning ......................................................... .
2.2. Social Context ........................................................................... .
2.3. Grammatical Metaphor ........................................................... ..
2.1.1. Ideational Metaphor .............................................................. ..
2.3.2. Textual Metaphor ............................................................... .... .
2.:1.3. T terpersonal Metaphor ......................................................... ..
2.3.3.1 . ~ctaphors
ofMood ........................................................... ..
2.3.3 .2. Metaphors of Modality ......... ............................................... .
2.4. Drama ........................................................................................ .
CHAPTER Ill RESEARCH METHOO
3. 1. The Research Design ........ . ......................................................
3.2. The Source of the Data..... .........................................................
3.3. Techniques of Data Collection..................................... .............
3.4. Techniques of the Data Analysis.......................................... .... .
R
10
11
1I
13
1(,
18
2Q
23
23
27
29
30
30
31
33
38
40
40
41
41
CHAPTER IV FINI)INCS ANI> DISCliSSION
4.1. Th~!
Datof1h~Sudy
........................................................... ..
4.2. The Occurrences of Interpersonal Metaphor ............................ ..
4.3. The 0\:currcnccs of Dialog Clarifies the Difkn:nt statuses of
Participant ..... _.... _........ _............................................................. ..
4.4. Findings .................................................................................... .
4.5. Discussion ................................................................................ ..
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION ANn SUGGESTION
REFERENCES .....................................................................................................
APPENDIXES ......................................................................................................
47
42
so
51
52
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Page
1. Table of Interpersonal Metaphor and the Occurrences .................................. 43
LIST OF Fl(;lJlU:S
Figures
Page
1. Theme and Rheme................................................ ........................................
10
2. Speech ~·unctio.
........................................................................
l '1
3. Speech Function and Responses.................................................................
12
4. The realization of Speech Function in Mood...............................................
14
14
6. Speech Function and Typical of Mood .................................J............... .....
IS
7. Mood and Residue Elements..................................... .................................
16
8. Euphemism in Death, Sex. and Hody Function............................................
21
9. Euphemism in Making Sound Better...........................................................
21
I 0. Euphemism in Preventing Strong Negative Stereotypes............................
22
11. Euphemism in Preventing Unwanted Cont~i
.................................. ..
12. Features of Context .................................................................................. ..
13. Social Context and Language .................................................................... .
15. Congment and Metaphorical Realizations of Mood ................................ ..
16. An Interpersonal Metaphor ...................................................................... ..
17. Types of Modality .................................................................................... ..
18. Congruent and Metaphorical Realization of Modality .............................. .
19. The Discourse Structure of Drama ........................................................... ..
I.IST Of API>f..NDIXES
Appendixes
I. Table of Metaphors of Mood .................................................................. .
56
2. Table of Metaphors ofModality ..................................................................
63
57
64
CHAPTER I
INTRODlJCl'ION
t. 1. The Background of the Study
Halliday ( 1985: xvii) states that language is a system for making mcamng; a
semantic system with other systems lor encoding the meamng it produces. It is
also states that the relation between meaning and words is not, however, an
arbitrary one, the form of grammar relates naturally to the meaning which is bcmg
encoded. Thus, language is the system of semantic structure, which covers the
entire system of meaning language, words, grammar and vocabulary. Therefore.
h:;~qcalv
lan£!Ual!e functions to convev mean~J.
uttered by a person to another
one.
Si nee language is defined as the tool of communication to convey the tt;:ehng,
opinion toward something logically and systematically either in written or spoken
language, it also relates to the Jite.raturc. Because literature is defined as wnttcn
composttion that conveys stories, dramaLJzcs situation, expresses feeling, analyzes
and advocates idea (Sihombing, 2006: 75)
Works of literature are grouped into four genres; prose fiction, poetry, drama
and non-fiction prose. This study, is related to drama, hecause it is major genre
literatures which has several dimens10ns that lie beyond of the literary dramatist
or play Wright (Baldick, 1960; 61)
In educational world, drama 1s the one of literary genres, by which one which
can increa~
language development, because it prov1des opportunities for the
students to use language for a Wider variety of purposes as exprcss1vc,
interactional and mlormat10nal ( Hyron, 1986~
133 ). Drama nself consists of t\vo~
comedy and tragedy drama (Sh1pley, 1993:90 & Hartnoll, 1983: oll This stud)· 1s
tocused on tragedy drama. Drama can he understood 1f the readers are involve m
the context of situatwn where the language is used.
How the writer uses language_, what element of linguistic structures is used
and which the meanmg wants to be conveyed can be analyzed through functional
grammar. As functional theory can be used to interpret texts, system and the
element of linguistic structures used (Halliday, 1985: xv1). Since systemic
functional linguistics is detincd as the meaning expression development, it also
can be related to the study of metaphor.
Halliday ( 1985:321) states that if something is said to be metaphorical, there
must also be something that is not, and the assumption is that to any metaphorical
expression correspondence another, or perhaps more than one, that is '"lite ral- or,
prefers called by congruent. In other words, for any given semantic configuration
there is one congruent realization, in the lexicogrammar. There may then be others
that are in somt: respect transferre d, or Metaphorical. llalliday also adds that
metaphorical modes of expression are the characteristic of all adult discourses.
Thompson ( 1996: 165) states that grammatical metaphor
IS
defined as the
expression of meaning through lex ico-grammar forms which originally to express
a different kind of meaning. There are three systems of grammar 1n M cta phoL
ideationa l metaphor. textua l metaphor and interpersonal metaphor.
-,
_)
Smce the language use w drama has the ditkrent way to convey the meanmg
m intt:ract10n and the language itself can defines the relat10nsh1p among the
participant
1n
drama, thus the 'ATiter interests to look at one of component of
grammatical metaphor that JS Interpersonal metaphor existing m drama text.
Interpersonal metaphor 1s connected with the congruent and mctaphoncal
realizations of speech lunctJOn m mood; the symbolic exchange among the
persons taking part, which gtvcs the two notions of (i) the role taken on by an
interact ant in the exchange and (ti) the nature of commodity being exchangedgood and services versus mlormauon) (Martin & Claire, 1982:58). Followmg the
example taken from a text of tragedy drama as the clarification of interpersonal
metaohor:
Miss Lucy: Baby, why are you sweating and your hands shaking so? You're
not sick, are you?
Chance: S'ick'J Who's sick!
T he example above Implies that Chance uses metaphorical sentence. It can be
seen from his responding. Congruently, the question will he responded by the
answenng m declarat•vc form But, in fact, Chance uses the interrogative lorm to
respond the q ucstJOn.
From the dabora[lon above, the writer thinks significance to analyze d rama
focused on interpersonal metaphor because it has progressive movement to use
languagt: w1der vancty w any purpose s and increases English mastery either m
wnttcn o r spoke n language
1.2. The Problem of the Study
With n.:fercncc to the background, the problems of the study· are lormufatcd as
the followmg:
I. Hov.· is mterpersonal metaphors coded in the drama tex'~
2. Why is the interpersonal metaphors coded as it is in dtama tex'~
I .3. The Objective of The Study
In relation to the problems, the ObJCCtlvcs of the study are
I. to describe interpersonal mc::taphor m the drama text and
2. to investigate the contexts of mterpcrsonal metaphor occurring in drama
text
1.4. The Scope of the Study
This study applies the concept theories of the systemic and other systemicists
functional linguistics (SFL) proposed by Halliday. This analysis is aimed to
investigate the intt:rpnsonal metaphor realized in drama text Specifically, the
study is focused on Tennessee William's play ''Sweet B ird of Youth" based on
Metaphors of mood and rnt:taphors of modahty only.
5
1.5. The Significance of the Study
Fimhngs of this study are expected to be useful for
1. the readers, especially for the students of t::nglish department to recognize
mctaphoncal expression in Lnghsh dramas,
2. tht! drama's writers for the additional mfonnation in application of
interpersonal metaphor in the writing of drama, and
3. other researchers to conduct other research on the basis SFL in which the
finding can g1ve surprising progress in linguistiC freld.
CIIAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SliG