Pragmatic Study: Theory of Deixis and The Definition

When language is spoken, it occurs in a specific location, at a specific time, is produced by a specific person and is (usually) addressed to some specific other person. Only written language can ever be free of this kind of anchoring in the extra linguistic situation. A sentence on a slip of paper can move through space and time, "speaker" – less, and addressee – less. All natural, spoken languages have devices that link the utterance with its spatio – temporal and personal context. This linkage is called "deixis." (Tanz in Fromkin, 2003: 217)

Definition of Deixis
Deixis is the way in which a small number of words, such as come, go, I, here and now require an addressee to be able to pick out a person, place, or time relevant in understanding how the word refers (Grundy, 2000: 23). Because I, Here, and now identify particular referents, it can be picked out to refer to if we like. We call these words indexical and this function of language deictic, borrowing the Greek word meaning pointing to or picking out. In addition, Levinson (1983: 54) states that deixis is the single most obvious way in which the relationship between language and context is reflected in the structures of languages themselves. The topic of deixis or as philosophers usually prefer, indexical expressions (or just indexicals), may be usefully approached by considering how truth – conditional semantics deals with certain  natural language expressions.
According to Renkema (1993: 76), deixis deals with connection between discourse and the situation in which discourse is used. The words deixis, which is derived from the Greek word meaning “to show” or “ to indicate”, is used to denote those elements in a language which refer directly to the situation, while deictic words are words with a reference point which is depend on the speaker or writer and is determined by the speaker’s or writer’s position in space and time.
Fillmore in Levinson (1983: 54) states that the importance of deictic information for the interpretation of utterances is perhaps best illustrated by what happens when such information is lacking. For example, finding the following notice on someone’s office door “I’ll back in an hour”, we do not know when it was written, we cannot know when the writer will return. A deictic center is a reference point which is related to a deictic expression or an expression that has a deictic usage which has to be interpreted. (Levinson, 1983 : 64). The central person is the speaker, the central time is the time at which the speaker produces the utterance, and the central place is the speaker’s location at utterance time.
The form of deictic is classified into two, namely deictic in which the context is required to determine the reference and non – deictic in which the reference is general rather than to particular identifiable persons (Grundy, 2000:6). In accordance with Levinson (1983: 68), deictic is used for gestural and symbolic, while non – deictic is used for non – anaphoric, and anaphoric.
Based on the preceding definition, it can be conclude that deixis is a words or expressions whose meaning depends on the context of the speaking. To know  the meaning of the language, we have to determine the speaker who produces the utterance, and the location of the utterance in space and time.

Presupposition in Pragmatics and Semantics

Grundy (2000: 121) divides presupposition into pragmatic presupposition and semantic presupposition. Pragmatic presupposition is cancelable where inconsistent with speaker or hearer knowledge about the world. Semantic presupposition is non-defeasible, contributes to the truth conditional meaning of the sentences. Brown and Yule (1983: 30) state that all of these presupposition are the speaker’s and all of them can be wrong or can be interpreted in other interpretation, since this sentences not speakers have entailment. Entailment means a term taken from logic, thus what is conveyed in an utterance will typically consist of what is said or entailed on the one hand and what is implied (Grundy, 2000: 81). Then, he asserts that entailments are conventional or semantic meanings that cannot by definition be cancelled without creating contradiction.

Renkema (1993: 154) says that presupposition is used to denote a special type of implicit information. In addition, presupposition is about the existing knowledge common to the speaker or the hearer that the speaker does not therefore need to assert. So, when the speaker or hearer, because of certain knowledge between them, understands certain information, the speaker does not need to assert that information explicitly (Grundy, 2000: 119).

Presupposition in Pragmatics

When someone speaks to us, we typically make all sorts of assumptions about the background to their utterance which we presume to be mutually known before the utterances ever occurred (Grundy, 2000: 120). One further significant category of pragmatics phenomena is presupposition. Presuppositions are variously defined but in general constitute assumptions or inferences that are implicit in particular linguistic expressions. For example, in the following utterance:

The doctor managed to save the baby’s life.

It is assumed that the doctor tried to save the baby’s life. Moreover, this assumption is implicit in the meaning of the verb ‘managed’. Yet this assumption is in no way part of the semantic meaning of this verb (Cummings, 2001: 29-30).The defeasibility of presuppositions cannot be explained by any semantic treatment of this notion that is based on truth conditions – the contextual assumptions that override the presupposition normally attached to ‘manage’ are not part of the truth conditions of the sentence that contains this verb. In order to address issues such as defeasibility, theorists have proposed various pragmatic analyses of presupposition (Cummings, 2005: 32).

Furthermore, Givon in Brown and Yule (1983: 29) defines presupposition as the assumptions the speaker makes about what the hearer is likely to accept without challenge. While Stalnaker still in Brown and Yule (1983: 29) says that presuppositions are what is taken by the speaker to be the common ground of the participants in the conversation. Presupposition as is described by Yule (1996: 27) can be divided into potential and existential presupposition. Potential presupposition related to the use of large number of words, phrase and structures which can only become actual presupposition in context with the speaker. Existential presupposition is not only assumed to be present in possessive constructions, but also more generally in any definite noun phrase.

Analysing Implicature in A Dialog of Bahwa Cinta Itu Ada The Movie

A dialog from ‘Bahwa Cinta Itu Ada’ The Movie.
Suatu siang di kampus ITB, para anak muda berbaris untuk registrasi penerimaan mahasiswa baru di tahun ajaran baru, Seorang laki-laki bernama Poltak berpura-pura mengambil pena yang jatuh di tanah untuk menyerobot barisan. Ia mendekati seorang gadis manis yang sedang asyik mengisi form pendaftaran.
Part 1
Poltak    : “Namaku Poltak. Poltak Saut Hutabarat. Asal Pematang Siantar. Masih keluarga dekat dengan Adam Malik, wakil presiden Republik Indonesia.” Ia mengenalkan diri pada si gadis sambil mengambil kesempatan untuk memajukan urutan  antriannya.
Pria Bertopi        :  “Hei-hei..ada orang nehh…”
Poltak            : “Apa seh kau??” (ia menatap sebal ke si pria bertopi)
Giliran si pria bertopi memperkenalkan diri ke gadis itu
Pria Bertopi        : “Saya Fuad dari Surabaya, ”
Si gadis cuek aja, tetap asyik dengan formulirnya.
Pria bertopi    : “Mahmoud Fuad Juriatno lengkapnya. Tonggoe Bung Tomo dan para pahlawan yang menurunkan bendera di Hotel Oranye.” Ia lalu menyodorkan tangan untuk berjabat
Si gadis menyambut uluran tangan dan berjabat dengan si Fuad, pria bertopi dari Surabaya tadi. Setelah aksi si Fuad, giliran seorang pria berkacamata tebal mendatangi si gadis tersebut.
________________________________________________________________________
Part 2
Pria berkaca mata    : “Gun..Gun….Gunarakan, dari USA.” (Ia memperkenalkan diri)
Beni            : “Wah, lu dari USA? (Pronounced ju-es-ei)
Gunar            : “yu-es-ak!!??”
Beni            : “eh, iya Ju Es Ei??”
Gunar            : “Urang Sunda Asliii…” (tertawa cekikikan)
Beni            : “iyaah, terserah deh…
    Hai.. Beni rozali, dari jakarta.” (berkenalan dengan si gadis)
Si gadis hanya memandang sepintas, lalu kembali asyik dengan formulirnya.
Fuad            : “Wah,  Jakartaaaa. .” (seakan kagum karena ketemu orang Jakarta)
________________________________________________________________________
Part 3
Fuad lalu berdehem sambil melihat ke arah laki-laki berbaju resmi ala kantor yang berdiri tak jauh dari kerumunan mereka. Si laki-laki yang lagi diam saja baru paham maksud Si Fuad setelah didehem tiga kali. Si laki-laki itu bernama Slamet.
Slamet    : “Ssss,, saya Slamet, Slamet Hartono dari Trenggale.” (Ia menunjukkan a clumsy expression in his introduction)
Fuad            : “Wuiiihh, Keturunane Empu Sendhok iki, ” (Fuad tertawa)
Poltak menimpali    : “Antik!?.” (Sambil tertawa juga)
Slamet hanya diam saja melihat tingkah mereka. Saat itu Slamet mengantri sambil membawa dua kardus berlapis koran yang ditali dengan raffia.
Gunar            : “Mau daftar atau mau transmigasi neh??, hey, hey, hehehe. . .”
Yang lainnya pun tertawa.
________________________________________________________________________

Part 4
Poltak menanyai si gadis: “Kau pasti Jennifer Miles kan? Yang main di film plastian itu kan?”
Si gadis        : “Aku Ria dari Padang. Ria Marcelina.”
Poltak    : “Orang seberang? Sama kita. (tersenyum)  Kapan kau datang? Naik bus apa kau ke sini?”
Ria            : “Garuda.” (masih tetap cuek)
Poltak            : “Mana ada bis lintas Sumatera yang namanya Garuda?” (tertawa)
Fuad    : “Tak, kuwi pesawat,Tak. Udhuk bis Garudha. Aku yo kampungan tapi enggak ndheso koyo kowe."

______________Thank You and Happy Analyzing______

Kita ngumpul kapan? Ntar kalo ngumpul, tolong udah bawa hasil analisis masing-masing yah..ntar tinggal ditambal kurang-kurangnya ajah.
Adapun bagian masing2:
Part 1: semua analisis dhewe-dhewe sek, engko ketemu digabung. Part 2: Badrul kamal As Salimi. Part 3: Yessiana El Mufidah. Part 4: Siti Anisah Nayyiroh.
Silahkan  mengajukan enaknya kapan? Sepertinya aku prefer hari Senin, kalau malam aku nggak bisa.
________________________________________________________________________

Conversational Implicature

Conversational implicature is any meaning implied by or understood from the utterance of a sentence which goes beyond what is strictly said or entailed. For example it is raining might, in specific context, implicate (alternatively, whoever says might implicate) we cannot go for picnic, we had better close the windows and so on (The Concise Oxford dictionary of linguistic, 1997: Online www.yahoo.com).

Grice as quoted by Levinson (1992:126) distinguished conventional implicature into generalized and particularized conventional implicature. He asserts that generalized conversational implicature is implicature that arise without any particular context or special scenario being necessary in addition, Gruncy(2000:81-82) says that generalized conversational implicature arise respective of the context in which it occurs and it has little or nothing do with the most relevant understanding of an utterance; it derives entirely from the maxims, typically from the maxims of quantity and manner. Therefore, generalized conversational implicature is inferable without reference to a special context.

In contrast with the generalized conversational implicature, particularized, conversational implicature require such specific context (context-bound). Besides, all implicature that arise from the maxim of relevance are particularized for utterance whichare relevant only with respect to the particular topic or issue at hand. In addition, most of the exploitation or flouting maxims can be categorized as particularized implicature (Levinson, 1992; 126).

In short, those implicature have a special importance for linguistic theory, since, it is in particular will be hard to distinguish from the semantic content of linguistic expression, because such implicature will be routinely associated with the relevant expression in all ordinary context.