CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE, THEORY AND CONCEPT
CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE, THEORY AND CONCEPT A review of the literature is an essential part of academic research project. The literature review is an account of what has been published on a topic by
accredited scholars and researchers. As the literature review, the writer uses the studies from previous researchers who also have interest in the same focus of presupposition especially in talk show.
2.1 Definition of Talk Show
One format that is often used in the television show discourse of "serious" is a talk show. Talk show is a broadcast discourse that can be seen as a product and as a media-oriented talk constantly. As a product of the media, talk shows can be 'text' culture that interact with viewers in the production and exchange of meanings. As a process of dialogue, talk show would pay attention to the problem of efficiency and accuracy, in aspects: emcee control, condition of participants and audience evaluation event
Definition of a talk show by Farlex in The Free Dictionary: A television or radio show in which noted people, such as authorities in a particular field, participate in discussions or are interviewed and often answer questions from viewers or listeners. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Talk+shows).
Talk show has typical characteristics: using a simple conversation (casual conversation) with a universal language (to deal with the heterogeneity of the audience). The theme must necessarily really important (or deemed important) to known audience or at least interesting for viewers. Discourse under discussion was the issue (or trend) and warm growing in the community. Based on the Indonesian Broadcasting Commission Decree No. 009/SK/KPI/8/2004 About Broadcasting Code of Conduct and Standards Program Releases Indonesian Broadcasting Commission on Article 8 mentioned when talk show program included in the factual program. The notion refers to the factual program broadcast programs serving non- fiction facts
There are types of talk show, too. The first is talk show that is light and entertaining. The second is talk show that are formal and serious talk show that formal and serious nature are generally included in the category news, while talk shows that are light and entertaining are included in the category of information. For the second category, talk show usually presented in a relaxed and full familiarity easily digested by the audience. Relaxed atmosphere and light that is reflected from the expertise of the host of the show (hosted) aka liven moderator with comments or ignorant act that provoked laughter
2.2 Theories and Concept
2.2.1 Pragmatics
Yule (1996: 3) explains that pragmatics concerns with 4 areas: Pragmatics is concerned with the study of meaning as communicated by a speaker (or writer) and interpreted by a listener (or reader). It has consequently, move to do with the analysis of what people mean by their utterences than what the words or phrases in those utterances might mean by themselves. Pragmatics is the study of speaker meaning.
This type of study necessarily involves the interpretation of what people mean in particular context and how the context influences what is said. It requires a consideration of how speakers organize what circumstances. Pragmatics is the study of contextual meaning.
This approach also necessarily explores make inferences about what is said in order to arrive at an interpretation of the speakers intended meaning. This type of study explores how a great deal of what is unsaid is recognized as a part of what is communicated. We might say that it is the investigation of invisible meaning.
Pragmatics is the study of how more gets communicated than is said.
This perspective than raises the question of what determines the choice between the said and unsaid. Closeness, weather it is physical, social, or conceptual, speaker determine how much needs to be said. Pragmatics is the study of the expression of relative distance.
Yule (1996:4) also distinguishes three fields of linguistic study to review its relationship with other areas of linguistic analysis. Firstly, he defines syntax as the study of relationships between linguistic forms – how they are arranged in sequences are well-formed. This type of study generally takes place without considering any world of reference of any user of the forms. Secondly, he considers semantics are the study of the relationship between linguistic forms and entities in the world – how words literally connect to things. Semantics analysis also attempts to establish the relationship between verbal descriptions and states of affairs in the world as accurate (true) or not, regardless of who produces that description. Thirdly, he regards pragmatics as the study of relationships between linguistic forms and the users of those forms.
In addition, as social individuals, people spend much of their time talking or interacting with other people, for example when they are getting together with friends, workmates or families over meal time. These interactions involving utterances can be analyzed by pragmatics analysis to find out the speaker’s intended meanings, the listener’s assumptions or receptions regard with some aspects such as who the speaker and the listener are, what relationship they have, and in what context they are in when they interact.
The meaning gained from an utterance may differ from one to another person, it depends on the mentioned aspects. For example, two friends, Maggie and James, are having a conversation which may imply some things and infer some other things without providing any clear linguistic evidence of ‘the meaning’ of what was being
Maggie : “Coffee?” James : “It would keep me awake all night “
Maggie has to know that Jamie has to stay up all night to study for an exam to comprehend that James receives her offering.
Here is another example of utterances in conversation which may often be heard, but what the participants mean depend on the shared knowledge laid between the speaker and listener.
A: “Hey, have you?’
B: “Yup, just this morning.” The meaning of the words in the example is understood, literally, but not what is communicated by the speaker and the listener. However, both speaker and the listener seem to understand each other as B answers A’s question without asking what does A mean with “have you?”
2.2.2 Scope of Pragmatics
Pragmatics is also has its scope. Yule (1996: xii) describes the subject areas of pragmatics as follows:
2.2.2.1 Entailment
Yule (1996: 25) states that entailment is something that logically follows from what is asserted in the utterance. For example: (1 ) Mary’s brother has brought three horses. In producing the utterance (1), the speaker will normally be expected to have the presuppositions that a person called Mary has a brother. The speaker may also hold the specific presuppositions that Mary has only have one brother and that he has a lot of money. In fact, all of these presuppositions are the speaker’s and all of them Mary’s brother bought something, Mary’s brother bought three animals, somebody had bought three horses, and other similar logical consequences.
Moreover, there are two types of entailments; one way entailment and two way entailment. One-way entailment means that the sentences are not true paraphrases each other. For example:
(2) Harry saw a squirrel (3) Harry saw an animal If Harry saw a squirrel, then he necessarily saw an animal. But if he saw an animal, he could have seen a squirrel, but not necessarily. It could have been a mouse, a cat, a tiger, a big crocodile or else.
Meanwhile, two – way entailment means that the sentences are paraphrases of each other. For example: (4) Jane sits in front of Ann. (5) Ann sits behind Jane. Sentence (4) and (5) have meaning relationships between in front of and
behind. We have a situation two – way entailment between the sentences. These sentences are paraphrases one to another that it is also called two way entailment.
2.2.2.2 Deixis
Yule (1996: 9) states that deixis is a process whereby words or expressions rely absolutely on content. It is a technical term from Greek for one of the most basic things we do with utterances which means ‘pointing’ through language. For example:
(6) Jim: “I’ll put this here” (The context is Jim is telling his wife that he is about to put the key of the house in the kitchen drawer)
From sentence (6) it can be seen two deictic expressions – ‘this’ and ‘here’. These deictic expressions are conventionally understood as the expressions of being ‘near speaker’.
2.2.2.3 Implicature
Yule (1996: 131) states that implicature is a short version of conversational implicature which is defined as an additional unstated meaning in conversation.
There is a basic assumption in conversation that each participant (the speaker and the listener) attempt to cooperate to the exchange of talk. People produce implicatures all the time, but are mostly unaware of it. For example, if someone asks, “Could you
close the door?” the listener does not usually answer “Yes,” instead they perform the
non-linguistic act of closing the door. In this case, although the speaker uses a form of words that is conventionally a question, the listener can infer that the speaker is making a request.
Here are two examples of implicature which implicate “I don’t like” and
“I’m not going”:
(7) A: “Do you like the color?”
B: “Red is red.” (The context is – A and B are close friends and A knows well that B does not like red color) Stating that “Red is red” in (7) is apparently both too informative (since people already know that red is red) and not informative enough because B does not directly answer the question of A. There may be some interpretations gained by anyone when hearing B’s answer, but since the context is A knows that B really does not like red, then B has given the answer of the question. Thus, A understands that B does not like the color they are talking about. B does not say that she/he does not like the color but she/he implies it.
For another example: (8) A: “We’re going to the movie, are you going with us tonight?”
B: ‘My parents’ are visiting tonight.”
(The context is that A and B are good friends and A knows that B rarely meets her/his parents who live out of the town) In (8), B’s answer is not related with the question of A, because there is not any relationship between the movie and B’s parents. However, since there is a shared knowledge between A and B, then B has actually answered A’s question. A knows that B seldom meets her parents living out of the town, so A must understand that B is not going with A because B must want to spend the night with her/his parents. B does not say that she is not going to the movie with the other, but she implies it.
2.2.2.4 Presuppositions
Yule (1996: 133) states that presupposition is something the speaker assumes to be the case prior to making an utterance. Speakers, not sentences, have presuppositions. For example:
(9) Where has Anne looked for the keys? Presuppositions of (9): Anne has looked for the keys, but has not found it yet.
(10) Do you want to do it again? Presupposition of (10): You have done it already, at least one time.
(11) My wife is pregnant Presupposition of (11): The speaker has a wife.
2.3 Theory of Presupposition
Since the main focus of this thesis is the presupposition, the writer uses the theory of presupposition as main title for making the reader easier understand the explanation. To answer the first problem, the writer uses the types of presuppositions as follows:
2.3.1 Existential Presuppositions
This type of presupposition is not only assumed to be present in possessive constructions (for example, ‘your car’), but more generally in any definite noun phrase. By using any of the expressions in (12), the speaker is assumed to be commited to the existence of the entities named.
(12) The king of Sweden, the cat, the girl next door, the Counting Crows. Other triggers of existential presupposition: the (definite article). a/an (indefinite article), this, that, these, those (demonstrative) my, their, her, his, our (possessive pronoun).
2.3.2 Factive Presupposition
The presupposed information following a verb like “know” can be tread as a fact and is described as a factive presupposition.
Example:
(13) I regret inviting him Presupposition of (13): I invite him.
(14) It isn’t odd that she come early Presupposition of (14): She comes early.
(15) He didn’t realize that he is a teacher Presupposition of (15): He is a teacher.
Other triggers of factive presupposition: know, be sorry that, be proud that,
be indifferent that, be glad that, be sad that, be odd that, surprised that, know that,
matter, realized that, aware that, notice that, discover that.This is assumption that in using one word, the speaker can act as if another meaning (word) will be understood. For example:
(16) Fathan stopped running Presupposition of (16): He used to run.
(17) You are late agains Presupposition of (17): He was late before.
In this case, the use of the expression stop and again are took to presuppose another (unstead) concept. Other triggers of lexical presupposition: return, no mere, another time, anymore, come back, repeat, still, restore.
2.3.4 Structural Presupposition
In this type, the assumption is associated with the use of certain words and phrases and assumed to be true. WH- question construction in English are conventionally interpreted with the presupposition that the information after the WH- form is already known to be the case.
Example:
(18) When did she travel to the USA? Presupposition of (18): She traveled.
(19) When did you buy the book? Presupposition of (19): You bought the book.
2.3.5 Non-Factive Presupposition
This type is an assumption that is assumed not to be true. In this type, verb like dream, pretend and imagine are used with the presupposition that what follows is Example:
(20) She dreamed that she was married
Presupposition of (20): She was not married
(21)He imagine he was a president
Presupposition of (21): He was not a president
(22)He pretends to be an expert Presupposition of (22): He is not an expert.
2.3.6 Counterfactual Presupposition
The assumption that was it presupposed is not only not true, but also the opposite of what is true or contrary of facts is counterfactual presupposition. For instance, some conditional structural, presupposes that the information, in the if- clause is not true at the time of utterance.
Example: (23) If you were my daughter, I would not allow you to do this.
Presupposition of (23): You are not my daughter. In this thesis, the truth of presupposition are based on Yule’s (1996: 30-32) explanation.The presupposition of a simple sentence will continue to be true when that simple sentence becomes part of a more complex sentence. This is one version of the general idea that the meaning of the whole sentence is a combination of the meaning of its parts. However, the meaning of some presupposition (as ‘parts’) does not survive to become the meaning of some complex sentences (as ‘wholes’).
This is known as the project problem. In example, we are going to see what happens to the presupposition q (‘Kelly was ill’) which is assumed to be true in the simple structure of, but which does not ‘project’ into the complex structure. In order to follow this type of analysis, we have to think of a situation in which a person might say: ‘I imagined that Kelly was ill and nobody realized that she was ill.’
a. Nobody realized that Kelly was ill. (=p) b. Kelly was ill.
(=q)
c. p >>q (At this point, the speaker uttering ‘a’ presupposition ‘b’
d. I imagined that Kelly was ill. (=r)
e. Kelly was not ill. (=NOT q)
f. r >>NOT q (At this point, the speaker uttering ‘d’ presupposes ‘e’, the opposite of ‘b’. g. I imagined that Kelly was ill and nobody realized that she was ill.
(=r&q)
h. r&q>> NOT q (At this point, after combining r&q, the presupposition q can no longer be assumed to be true.
In an example, the technical analysis may be straight forward, but it may be difficult to think of a context in which someone would talk like that.
Perhaps example will contextualize better.
Shirley: It’s so sad. George regrets getting Mary pregnant. Jean: But he didn’t get her pregnant. We know that now. If we combine two of the utterances, we have the sequence, ‘George regrets getting Mary pregnant; but he didn’t get her pregnant’. Identifying the different propositions involved, as in: a.
George regrets getting Mary pregnant.
(= p ) b. George got Mary pregnant.
(= q ) c. p >> q d.
He didn’t get her pregnant.
(= r ) e. George regrets getting Mary pregnant, but he didn’t get her pregnant. (= p & r) f. p & r >> NOT q
One way to think about the whole sentence presented is as an utterance by a person reporting what happen in the soap opera that day. That person will not assume that presupposition q (that George got Mary pregnant) is true when uttering.
A simple explanation for the fact that presupposition do not ‘project’ is that they are destroyed by entailments. Memories that an entailment is something that necessarily follows from what is asserted. In example, Jean’s utterance of ‘he didn’t get her pregnant’ actually entails ‘George didn’t get Mary pregnant’ as a logical consequence.
In analyzing presuppositions, the truth of the data analysis process rests on the truth of presupposition itself. Truth presuppositions according to Yule(1996: 30- 32) can be viewed from the perspective of the kinds of presuppositions. To answer the second problem, the writer uses the kinds of presuppositions as follows.
1. A truth Non-factive presupposition
A truth Non-factive presupposition is one that is assumed not to be true verbs like ‘dream’, ‘imagine’, ‘pretend’, as shown in, are used with the presupposition that what follows is not true. Here is example of a truth Non-factive presupposition: a.I dreamed that I was rich (>>I was not rich) b.We imagined we were in Hawai (>>We were not in Hawai) c.He pretends to be ill (>>He is not ill)
2. A truth counterfactual presupposition
A truth counterfactual presupposition, meaning that what is presupposed is not only not true, but is the opposite of what is true, or contrary to facts. Here is example of a truth counterfactual presupposition: a.
If you were my friend, you would helped me (>>You are not my friend)
2.4 Review of Presupposition’s Reference
2.4.1 Presupposition in Film “Janji Joni” (Gayatri Nadya Paramytha, 2009)
Gayatri Nadya Paramytha conducted a study in 2009 to know utterances presupposition emerge through the scenes of film “Janji Joni”. She used Yule’s and Grundy’s theory in analyzing “Janji Joni” films. In analyzing the data, she used descriptive study using methodology presented by Soejono and Abdurrahman (2005). Soejono and Abdurrahman stated that the descriptive method is no more than research is the discovery of the facts or collectively improvised fact finding.
She formed two research questions to describe presupposition in “Janji Joni” films, which are:
1. How the utterance presuppositions emerge through the scenes of the film
“Janji Joni”? 2. What are the types of presupposition that appeared in scenes “Janji Joni” films associated with the context of the situation, participants, and common knowledge that under lie the speech? Her findings showed the five classifications of presupposition with different frequencies used in both speeches. It was revealed that every classification occurred in Janji Joni’s film. They are presuppositions that are found in each of the data is seven data analyzed factual presuppositions while appearing in seven overall data.
There are two lexical presuppositions and preconceptions of the opposite of all existing data. There is no presumption in the seventh structural data analyzed The contribution of Gayatri’s analysis are giving the writer some ideas in choosing the exact reference theory. The writer and Gayatri has the similarities of the topic of study, which is the presupposition, and it inspire the writer in how to scope the study and make it focus. The first similarity between the writer and Gayatri is the thesis uses the theory of presupposition by Yule to analyze the data. Then, the second are equally make a transcript of the speech in writing in the form of spoken language. The third is writer will examine only utterances the data that have been selected only and not every utterance will be sought of its presuppositions. However, the writer has some clear differences from Gayatri’s study. The first difference is that Gayatri uses two theories; Yule and Grundy’s theory, but the writer does not use Grundy’s theory. The writer only uses Yule’s theory to analyze the data. The second difference is that Gayatri chooses a film as the data, but the writer chooses a talk show as the data.
2.4.2 An Analysis of Presupposition in Newsweek Advertisements Slogans
(Try Reza Essra, 2011)Try Reza Essra conducted a study in 2011 and focused on presupposition in Newsweek Advertisements Slogans. The theory is used to process the research is Yule’s theory. In analyzing the data, he used descriptive qualitative method. He formed two research questions to have a better understanding about presupposition in newsweek advertisements slogans, which are:
What types of presupposition are found in the slogan of newsweek magazine’s advertisement?
2. What does the slogan in advertisements presuppose?
The writer generates two problem statements; to find the types of presupposition and to find the slogan in advertisements presuppose. The writer has some similarities with Try’s study. The first similarity is that both used the theory of by Yule’s to analyze the data. The second one is that both analyze type of the presupposition. However, the writer has some clear differences from Try’s study. The first difference is that Try’s using newsweek magazine’s advertisement slogan as object research, but the writer uses presupposition in talk show “Kick Andy” as object research. The contribution of Try’s analysis for the writer is giving the idea to the writer in how supposing the truth behind the words.
2.4.3 Analysis of Types of Presupposition Used in the Editorial Articles of the
Jakarta Post News Paper (Yeni Marlisa, 2008)Yeni Marlisa conducted a study in 2008 and focused on Presupposition used in The Editorial Articles of The Jakarta Post News Paper. The theories is used to proceed the research is Yule’s theory. In analyzing the data, she used library research to collect and obtain and theories needed for the paper. She formed two research questions to have better understanding about presupposition used in The Editorial Articles of The Jakarta Post News Paper, which are: 1.
How The Jakarta Post uses presupposition in its articles? 2. What types of presuppositions are mostly used in The Jakarta Post?
The contribution of Yeni’s analysis to the writer is as reference of Yule’s theory. Yeni’s analysis also explains the type of presupposition based on Yule’s theory which help the writer to classify the type of presupposition. The writer has of by Yule’s to analyze the data. However, the difference between Yeni’s analysis and the writer’s analysis is the object research or data where Yeni’s uses newsweek as the data and the writer uses a talk show as the data. The writer also explains the comprehend truth of an utterance found from the data.