CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
B. Theoretical Background
10. Indexicality
Indexicality theory is well known by account of the meaning of indexical expression. Expression meaning depends on essentially on some sorts of explicit or implicit pointing or indication [Anzeigen] and therefore on some contribution by the surroundings of speaker and hearer.
Expression or utterance is embedded by sign and token. For gaining the truth meaning of the utterance, Perry (1997) gives the definitions of token, utterance, statement, expression such as: 1. Token are physical events or objects, bursts of sound or bits of written or electronic text that are used by agents in their utterances. 2. An utterance is an act that involves the use of token and typically the production of a new token, utterance can be spoken, written, typed, etc. 3. A statement is an utterance of a declarative
66 sentence. 4. An expression is type, either a word or longer phrase such as a sentence. All of these definitions indicate that utterance and expression are inherent as the parts of utterances of larger expression for example “I was born in Lombok Island” involve a sub-utterance of “I”.
Furthermore, Perry said that the important thing in gaining the meaning of utterance is through the one of semantic devices “anaphora”
what one word designates depend on another word in same bit of discourse, to which the word in question is anaphorically related, designates. The meaning of utterance is what the rules of language associate with simple and complex expression; content is an attribute of individual’s utterance. He divided the content of utterance into four kinds;
1. The content of a statement is a proposition, incorporating the truth of the statement.
2. The content of utterance of a predicate (for our purposes, a declarative sentence with some of its terms replaced by variables) is a condition on objects.
3. The content of an utterance of a definite description will be mode of presentation.
4. The content utterance of a name will be individual.
Based on the four kinds of content above, it can be concluded that the content of utterances derive the meaning of language associates with expression. The meaning of expression assigns the same content to each and every utterance of the expression. Sometimes, token is used for the
67 act of speaking, writing, or otherwise using language. At other times, it used for an object that is produced by, or at least used in such an act.
Mulligan (1998), analyzed Husserl’s speaking explicitly of
‘occasional expressions’, that is of expressions like ‘this’ and‘that’ whose meanings depend on features of the occasion of use. It is possible togauge the full implications of his explicit remarks if these are read in conjunction with what he says elsewhere in the Investigations, especially on the subject of perceptual judgments and proper names. Mulligan explained the Husserl’s deliberations on indication, perception and naming, as also what Husserl has to say on demonstrative pronouns, spatial and temporal adverbs and tenses must themselves be understood – like everything else in this work – as applications of a very general theory of meaning and of structure or dependence.
Based on the explanations above, it can be said that indexical is at the first time is equal to demonstrative pronoun; this, that, and there/over there. It has been developed to classify noun, adjective, verb, adverb and an object. Indexical function is to relate out the identity of speaker through the word she /he expressed. The most extensive theoretical articulation of how indexical processes construct identity within interaction is found in the work of Elinor Ochs(1990, 1992, 1993, 1996).The focus of her study was the primarily relation to the study of language socialization. She analyzes the role of indexicality in the social construction of gender has been particularly influential within identity studies.
68 She notes that a fundamental challenge for researchers concerned with identifying gendered language use is that “few features of language directly and exclusively index gender” (1992: 340) original emphasis.
Rejecting a correlational view of the connection between language and gender, she argues that only a semiotic perspective rooted in indexicality can account for the complexity of this relationship. Ochs (1992: 342), States that
“Knowledge of how language relates to gender is not a catalogue of correlations between particular linguistic forms and sex of speakers, referents, addressees, and the like. Rather, such knowledge entails tacit understanding of (1) how particular linguistic forms can be used to perform particular pragmatic work (such as conveying stance and social action) and (2) norms, preferences, and expectations regarding the distribution of this work vis‐‐vis particular social identities of speakers, referents, and addressees…”.
The quotation above indicates that the speaker and referent are extremely determined by linguistics form or word choice of the speaker uses in communication. The meaning of utterance is gained by listener through paying attention to the attitude or the stance as speaker in performing the expression pragmatically. The way of speaker’s speaking indicates his/her individual norms and interest. It means that speaker’s expression can refer to him/her or self-referent and to the other. Speaker’s self-referent can be conducted by direct form to him/herself “I”, and can be others way indirect form (by something; object, adverb, adjective, verb, possessive pronoun and etc) which are having relationship with him. Ochs
69 (1992), he explains the operational of speaker’s self-referent which is adopted by Du Bois (2007) and Gal (2000: 148) such as:
“Ochs proposes that the indexical relationship between language and social meaning should be seen as involving two levels. At the level of direct indexicality, linguistic forms most immediately index interactional stances—that is, subjective orientations to ongoing talk, including affective, evaluative, and epistemic stances (cf. Du Bois 2007). ___The indexical perspective therefore suggests that gender is not the explanation for a speaker's use of a particular linguistic form, but rather the indirect effect of using such language, a reversal of causality that underlies current social‐constructionist thinking about language and gender”.
Ochs’ theory has been applied by Dunn for investigating Japanese honorific. Japanese honorifics may be broadly divided into two main categories: addressee honorifics and referent honorifics. In the addressee category, any predicate involves a choice between the direct form and the distal form). Direct forms are generally used among family members, friends, and in other informal situations involving relatively open and spontaneous self-expression. Distal forms index a more disciplined and
“public” expression of self and are frequently used in more formal situations involving out-group members or the expression of hierarchical deference (Cook, 1996; Dunn, 1999).
By contrast, referent honorifics are directly related to the person about whom someone is speaking and are grammatically tied to the sentence subject. Referent honorifics involve a three-way choice between no use of honorifics, subject honorifics, and humble forms. Subject honorifics are used to show deference to the person who is the grammatical subject of the sentence. Humble forms are used to refer to
70 the speaker or a member of the speaker’s in-group and place of them in the lower status position as a way of showing deference to someone else.
Figure 1 illustrates these contrasts for the verb ‘to say’.
The subject honorific forms would be used when speaking about someone to whom the speaker wishes to show deference. Conversely, the speaker could use the humble verbs moosuor mooshiageru to refer to him/herself as a way of showing deference to either the addressee or an absent third party. (Both moosuand mooshiageru are humble forms, with mooshiageru being somewhat more polite or deferential than moosu).
Table 2.2 Referent of Honorific No Referent
Honorific
Subject Honorific (for
others)
Humble (for self) Direct (no
addressee honorific) Iu Ossharu moosu,
mooshiageru Distal
(with addressee honorific)
ii-masu osshai-masu mooshi-masu, mooshiage-masu
Although the use of addressee honorifics is sensitive to various situational factors, research on the use of addressee honorifics in actual discourse has demonstrated that speakers often shift between distal and direct speech styles even in the course of a single speech situation. Such shifts between distal and direct have been found to index shifting degrees of empathy or social distance (Ikuta, 1983), varying degrees of awareness of the addressee (Maynard, 1993), and shifts between a more public vs.
spontaneous presentation of self (Cook, 1996; Dunn, 1999). Thus the use of addressee honorifics is not simply determined by the status of the
71 addressee or other situational factors; nor is it simply a matter of the speaker identifying and following social norms for that speech situation.
Rather, speakers shift between distal and direct to communicate subtle shifts in the speaker’s presentation of self and stance towards the addressee.
There have been considerably fewer empirical studies of referent honorific use, but here too the evidence suggests that speakers are not always consistent in their use of honorifics, even when speaking about the same person in the same speech situation. Yamaji (2000) provides examples in which shifts between the use and non-use of subject honorifics index shifts in speaker attitude toward the referent, while Okamoto (1999) suggests that speakers mix honorific and non-honorific forms as a way of creating an appropriate level of deference or formality.
While the studies by Yamaji and Okamoto have demonstrated variation in the use of subject honorifics.
This research focused on Actor’s (achiever group’s elitism) used honorific expression to acknowledge their elitism through self-reference.
Drawing data from everyday dialogues or daily communication of Sasak People achieved high social statuses. Researcher analyzed the Actors’ HE (addresser and addressee) whether do not consistently use HP for self-reference or they are filming, arrogant (politic/polite) or unconscious of HP in ways that index social background. Based on the above, researcher formulated the theoretical framework as the following:
72 Sasak Speech Community lives in Lombok Island West Nusa Tenggara Province. West Nusa Tenggara Province has two big Islands, Lombok on the west or located on east of Bali Island and Samawa Island on the east of it. Samawa Island is resided by two ethnics, Mbojo on the east speak Mbojo language (Bima language) and Samawa on the east of Lombok Island speak Sumbawa language.
Although Lombok Island neighbors with Mbojo and Samawa ethnics, Sasak Language (SL) is not influenced by them. Sasak Language
Sasak Language
Speech Community
Demography:
- Religious - Education - Economy - Age
- Assigned Status
Ethnography:
- Jajar Karang - Madya / Menaq - UtamaRaden
Language and
Ideology Actor Language and
Culture Speech Level
Honorific Expression Self Reference Politic Verbal Behavior Indexicality
Glossia
73 is influenced by Balinese and Javanese. The differences of lexical, morphological and meaning between Sasak Language and both of them base on ideology and culture value. The ideology and culture value influenced Sasak People costume to honor and to respect each other.
Sasak Speech Community is constructed by ethnography and demography of social statuses. Sasak People (SPl) ethnography consists of three social status; Jajar Karang, Madya and Utama. Meanwhile, Sasak People (SPl) demography consists of some achieved high social statuses of achiever group elitism) base on religion, education, economy and age.
These happen because no new marked status in ethnography system, for example madya and utama (heritage elite). Sasak demography can be marked as achieved high social status of achiever group’s elitism and undeniably it is available assigned status.
Achieved and assigned social statuses above give big impacts to the Sasak Speech Community to respond the social milieu. They want to practice, communicate with the other by choosing Base Alus (high level/honorific). Commonly the Sasak commoner Jajar Karang before they got achieved high social status, they speak by Base Jamak (low level).
When they got achieved high and assigned social statuses they got honorable status or addressed by honorific addressing form.
Spontaneously, they acknowledge their elite by expressing the honorific expression in everyday dialogues.
74 In everyday dialogue or daily communication, they speak without Honorific Principle (HP).Researcher has researched the way achiever group whose high social statuses using honorific (H) to acknowledge their elitism in everyday dialogues whether, they were conscious and unconscious of Honorific Principle (HP). On the other hand, they disobey budaya adat-tata-karma (culture, norms and rules) or can be impolite Sasak People (SPl). Hence Base Alus (BA)/Honorific (H)was necessary to be researched and important also to be investigated the entire sequences of community (family, age, authoritarian, government policy, school and attitude). These sequences have also big impacts to honor and to respect each other. Where, all of those were the moderator variable in this research, achiever group got different treatment to clarify all independent variables. Meanwhile the sequences of community were considered as moderator variable.
Next, the others community were family members, public service institutions (head village office, governments office) the informal and formal groups which possibly use Franca two languages; Base Alus (BA)/Honorific (H). The researcher gave the extreme intention to the traditional events as in social-culture contexts, these groups have been conducted as independent variables.
Participants in this research were chosen based on achiever groups whose achieved high social statuses such as religious, education, economy, age and assigned status. All of samples were Sasak origins
75 born and live in Lombok Island and use Sasak Language (SL). The Sasak families are Jajar Karang or Dengan Menak noble man who uses Sasak Language (SL) for daily communication. The men in public service or government institution who predicted use the mixing code or bilingualism (Sasak and Indonesia) were selected as the other of data source.
The aim of this research is to investigate the Honorific Principle (HP) referent of Sasak Speech Community orally as (text) and language politeness as context. Base Alus (BA)/honorific (H) was considered as medium to honor and respect each in everyday dialogues. Sasak People have the positive act to everyone whose status are changed and give honor and respect by Base Alus (BA).