AN ANALYSIS OF PRESUPPOSITION IN “KICK ANDY” TALK
SHOW
A THESIS
BY:
NURUL SYAKINAH
REG. NO. 090705056
DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH
FACULTY OF CULTURAL STUDIES
UNIVERSITY OF SUMATERA UTARA
AN ANALYSIS OF PRESUPPOSITION IN “KICK ANDY” TALK
SHOW
A THESIS
BY:
NURUL SYAKINAH REG.NO. 090705056
SUPERVISOR CO-SUPERVISOR
_________________ __________________ Dr. Eddy Setia, M.Ed. TESP Drs. Yulianus Harefa, M.Ed. TESOL
Submitted to Faculty of Cultural Studies University of Sumatera Utara Medan in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Sarjana Sastra from Department of English.
DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH
Approved by the Department of English, Faculty of Cultural Studies University of Sumatera Utara (USU) Medan as thesis for The Sarjana Sastra Examination.
Head, Secretary,
_________________ _____________________
Accepted by the Board of Examiners in partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree of Sarjana Sastra from the Department of English, Faculty of Cultural Studies University of Sumatera Utara, Medan.
The Examination is held in Department of English Faculty of Cultural Studies University of Sumatera Utara on 26 May 2014
Dean of Faculty of Cultural Studies University of Sumatera Utara
Dr. H. Syahron Lubis, MA NIP. 19511013 197603 1 001
Board of Examiners
Rahmadsyah Rangkuti, MA. Ph.D ...
Dr. Eddy Setia, M.Ed. TESP ...
Dr. Roswita Silalahi, M.Hum ...
AUTHOR’S DECLARATION
I, NURUL SYAKINAH DECLARE THAT I AM THE SOLE AUTHOR OF THIS THESIS EXCEPT WHERE REFERENCE IS MADE IN THE TEXT OF THIS THESIS. THIS THESIS CONTAINS NO MATERIAL PUBLISHED ELSEWHERE OR EXTRACTED IN WHOLE OR IN PART FROM A THESIS BY WHICH A HAVE QUALIFIED FOR OR AWARDED ANOTHER DEGREE. NO OTHER PERSON’S WORK HAS BEEN USED WITHOUT DUE ACKNOWLEDGMENTS IN THE MAIN TEXT OF THIS THESIS. THIS THESIS HAS NOT BEEN SUBMITTED FOR THE AWARD OF ANOTHER DEGREE IN ANY TERTIARY EDUCATION.
Signed :
COPYRIGHT DECLARATION
NAME : NURUL SYAKINAH
TITLE OF THESIS :AN ANALYSIS OF PRESUPPOSITION IN “KICK
ANDY” TALK SHOW
QUALIFICATION : S-1/ SARJANA SASTRA DEPARTMENT : ENGLISH
I AM WILLING THAT MY THESIS SHOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR REPRODUCTION AT THE DISCRETION OF THE LIBRARIAN OF DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH, FACULTY OF CULTURAL STUDIES, UNIVERSITY OF SUMATERA UTARA ON THE UNDERSTANDING THAT USERS ARE MADE AWARE OF THEIR OBLIGATION UNDER THE LAW OF THE REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA.
Signed :
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Assalamualaikum Warrahmatullahi Wabarakatuh,
Praise and majesty to Almighty Allah SWT for the blessing and endowments in my life. that I can finish my study in Department of English, University of Sumatera Utara and complete this thesis, entitled “AN ANALYSIS OF PRESUPPOSITION IN “KICK ANDY” TALK SHOW.
First and foremost, I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr. Eddy Setia, M.Ed, TESP and my Co – Supervisor, Drs. Yulianus Harefa, M.Ed. TESOL for their attention, contribution and support with all their great patience and understanding to guide me to finish this thesis. I would like to thank Dra. Hj. Rohani Ganie, M.Hum as my academic advisor. I also thank Dr. H. Muhizar Muchtar, M.S. as the head of English Department, Rahmadsyah Rangkuti, Phd. as the secretary, for their attention to all my academic affairs, and Dr. H. Syahron Lubis, M.A. the Dean of Faculty of Cultural Studies, University of Sumatera Utara and the staffs for their help. My gratitude is also addressed to all my lecturers in English Department who have taught me during my college with their love and patience.
A very special gratitude is also addressed to my beloved family. I do truly thank my father, Alm.M.Idris, my mother, Syarifah Nurul Huda, my brother, M.Rasyid and my sister, Maya Laurensi Mangonto. I also thank to my Grandmother, Jidah Syarifah Azizah. I will not be able to finish this thesis without all of your prayers, support and motivations who raise my spirit in writing this thesis.
Finally, I admit that this thesis is still far from being perfect. Any constructive ideas and suggestions which can improve the quality of my next writing are needed. I also hope this thesis can be useful as the references for those who have interest in linguistic study.
Medan, ….. May 2014 Writer,
Nurul Syakinah Reg. No. 090705056
ABSTRACT
The title of this thesis is An Analysis of Presupposition in TalkShow "Kick Andy". In this thesis, the writer analyzes the presuppositions in talk show Kick Andy. The analysis of this thesis is to find out the truth of an utterance and the factors that affect the listener in analyzing the truth of an utterance. The theory used in this thesis is Yule’s theory (1996) that divides types of presuppositions into 6 types, namely,
existential presupposition, factive presupposition, lexical presupposition, structural
presupposition, non-factive presupposition, and counterfactual presupposition. The
ABSTRAK
Judul skripsi ini adalah An Analysis of Presupposition in “KickAndy” Talk Show. Dalam skripsi ini, penulis menganalisis praanggapan dalam talk show Kick Andy. Analisis ini bertujuan untuk menjelaskan kebenaran/makna sebenarnya dari sebuah ucapan dan faktor-faktor yang mempengaruhi pendengar dalam menganalisis kebenaran sebuah ucapan. Analisis ini menggunakan teori Yule (1996) yang membagi jenis praanggapan ke dalam 6 jenis yaitu, existential presupposition, factive presupposition, lexical presupposition, structural presupposition, non-factive
presupposition, dan counterfactual presupposition. Data yang digunakan sebagai
TABLE OF CONTENT
Title Page ... i
Supervisor’s Approval Sheet ... ii
Department’s Approval Sheet ... iii
Board of Examiner’s Approval ... iv
Author’s Declaration ... v
Copyright Declaration ... vi
Acknowledgement ... vii
Abstract ... ix
Abstrak ... x
Table of contents…...…...……...………... xi
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background of the Study...1
1.2 Problems of the Study ...3
1.3 Objectives of the Study ...3
1.4 Scope of the Study ...3
1.5 Significances of the Study ...4
CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE, THEORY AND CONCEPT 2.1 Definition of Talk Show...5
2.2 Theories and Concept...6
2.2.1 Pragmatics ...6
2.2.2 Scope of Pragmatics...9
2.2.2.2 Deixis...10
2.2.2.3 Implicature... ..10
2.2.2.4 Presupposition...12
2.3 Theory of Presupposition...12
2.3.1 Existential Presupposition...12
2.3.2 Factive Presupposition...13
2.3.3 Lexical Presupposition...13
2.3.4 Structural Presupposition...14
2.3.5 Non-Factive Presupposition...14
2.3.6 Counterfactual Presupposition...15
2.4 Review of Presupposition’s Reference...18
2.4.1 Presupposition in Film “Janji Joni” (Gayatri Nadya Paramytha, 2009)...17
2.4.2 An Analysis of Presupposition in Newsweek Advertisements Slogans (Try Reza Essra, 2011)... 19
2.4.3 Analysis of Types of Presupposition Used in The Editorial Articles of The Jakarta Post News Paper (Yeni Marlisa, 2008)...20
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHOD 3.1 Research Design...22
3.2 Data and Data Source...22
3.3 Data Collection Method...23
CHAPTER IV FINDING AND ANALYSIS
4.1 Caricatur Politics...25 4.2 Learning to The Kangoroo Island...30 CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1 Conclusions...36 5.2 Suggestions...37 REFERENCES ...38 APPENDICES
i. Politik Karikatur
ABSTRACT
The title of this thesis is An Analysis of Presupposition in TalkShow "Kick Andy". In this thesis, the writer analyzes the presuppositions in talk show Kick Andy. The analysis of this thesis is to find out the truth of an utterance and the factors that affect the listener in analyzing the truth of an utterance. The theory used in this thesis is Yule’s theory (1996) that divides types of presuppositions into 6 types, namely,
existential presupposition, factive presupposition, lexical presupposition, structural
presupposition, non-factive presupposition, and counterfactual presupposition. The
ABSTRAK
Judul skripsi ini adalah An Analysis of Presupposition in “KickAndy” Talk Show. Dalam skripsi ini, penulis menganalisis praanggapan dalam talk show Kick Andy. Analisis ini bertujuan untuk menjelaskan kebenaran/makna sebenarnya dari sebuah ucapan dan faktor-faktor yang mempengaruhi pendengar dalam menganalisis kebenaran sebuah ucapan. Analisis ini menggunakan teori Yule (1996) yang membagi jenis praanggapan ke dalam 6 jenis yaitu, existential presupposition, factive presupposition, lexical presupposition, structural presupposition, non-factive
presupposition, dan counterfactual presupposition. Data yang digunakan sebagai
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of The Study
There are uncountable interesting topics to talk from all over the world for being broadcasted as television program. One of those programs is talk show where some people sit together and discuss a theme. In Indonesia, talk show is also well known and one of the most well known talk shows is Kick Andy. Kick Andy is a talk show program that hosted by Andy F .Noya. Andy as the host presents several guest stars called speakers, to discuss various issues related to the theme in each episode.
Kick Andy began broadcasting on March 1, 2006 until now. This talk show presents real life stories that are informative, educational and inspiring with the various themes and cover all aspects of life. Andy is well known with his unique character which often asking the speaker straightforwardly and his sarcastic question. But, although, sometimes his question is very straightforward and sarcastic, he can make it sounds fun. The speakers also are not limited by their professions. They can come from any background especially they who have exciting stories to share, connected to the themes discussed.
Kick Andy is packaging well. If there are two different talk shows that discussing the same topic, the writer thinks Kick Andy will seem better because the concept of the show in Kick Andy is not made formal but keep flowing. Andy F. Noya looks very smart in interviewing speakers with serious style, witty but still striking. Kick Andy in the process of interviewing or questioning, Andy F. Noya tends to ask things that are unexpected but it does not contain questions that are niceties. In the interview process, Andy F. Noya always be consistent and not swept away so that the answers of the interviewee do not float or out of context.
The speech interaction that occurs in Kick Andy is also interesting to watch in terms of presuppositions. Mulyana (2005:14) states that all statements or sentence expressions, whether they are positive or negative, still contain the basic assumption as the content and substance of the sentence. According to Mulyana’s statement itself, dialogues tangible interactional questions and answers between the host and speakers at the Kick Andy describes the process speech containing presuppositions. Some questions may only contain the answers yes-no but in talk show, many of utterance let the host assume and conclude the answer from the speaker or vice versa.
1.2 Problems of the Study
Based on the background, there are some questions to be raised as the problems of this analysis, they are:
1. What are the types of presuppositions of the selected utterance in "Kick Andy" talk show?
2. How is the truth of presupposition of the selected utterance in "Kick Andy" talk show?
1.3 Objective of the Study The objectives are as follows:
1. To identify the types of presupposition of the selected utterance in “Kick Andy” talk show.
2. To comprehend the truth of presuppositionof the selected utterance in "Kick Andy"talk show.
1.4 Scope of the Study
will be selected is the utterance that has implicit meaning and the utterances that can cause misunderstanding presuppose which affect the communication
.
1.5 Significance of the Study
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).
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 with one or more speakers invited to discuss hot topics. The topics that are light and 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:
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, implies shared experience. On the assumption of how close or distant the listener is, speaker determine how much needs to be said. Pragmatics is the study of the expression of relative distance.
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 communicated.
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 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:
2.2.2.1Entailment
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 can be wrong. The sentence in (1) will be treated as having some entailments such as 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
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. 2.2.2.2Deixis
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’.
2.2.2.3Implicature
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
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)
2.2.2.4Presuppositions
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. 2.3Theory 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 theory. In this thesis, types of presupposition are based on Yule’s (1996: 25-32) 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.
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.
2.3.3 Lexical Presupposition
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.
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 not true.
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
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
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.
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
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 factual presuppositions. Existential presuppositions of data appearing in six of the 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 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:
1. What types of presupposition are found in the slogan of newsweek magazine’s advertisement?
2. What does the slogan in advertisements presuppose?
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?
CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHOD
3.1 Research Design
The research method in this thesis is qualitative research which observes and analyses directly the subject of this study. Qualitative research is concerned with developing explanations of social phenomena. Bogdan and Biklen (1982) propose five characteristics of qualitative research as quoted from Aulia (2010:29), they are;
a. Qualitative research has the natural setting as the direct source of data and researcher is the key instrument.
b. Qualitative research is descriptive. The data collected is in the form of words of pictures rather than number.
c. Qualitative research is concern with process rather than simply with outcomes or products.
d. Qualitative research tends to analyze their data inductively. e. “Meaning” is essential to the qualitative approach.
The design of this research is descriptive qualitative method since the data are in the form of words. This point discusses the way to collect, analyze, and get the valid data due to the need of completing the research objectives. The data are analyzed descriptively based on Yule’s theory especially on the types of presupposition used by Kick Andy talk show.
3.2Data and Data Source
from the Kick Andy talk show which has been made as a book. The tittle of that book is Kick Andy Kisah Inspiratif 3. Another source for completing this thesis are the books about pragmatic and presupposition that are connected to the problem of this thesis as references.
This thesis focuses on presupposition in the talk show Kick Andy. From the data source, the researcher analyzes the presupposition focusing on the types of presupposition based on Yule’s theory and find out the comprehend truth of the utterance.
3.3 Data Collection Method
The Kick Andy is already made as a book for make the reader easier accessing the topic discussed during the talk show. In this thesis, the writer uses the book to analyze the utterance in talk show Kick Andy. The title of that book is Kick
Andy Kisah Inspiratif 3. Related to the data collection, this research uses the
following steps. First, the writer collects all the related data from the library and internet. The next steps are selecting, and picking up the data referring to the problems of this study by classifying and selecting. The last step is arranges the data systematically deal with the objective of the study.
3.4 Technique of Data Analysis
Bogdan and Biklen (1992) state in qualitative research, the data gathered appear in words rather than in numbers. The first procedure of the data collection is observation. The data are analyzed through these following steps:
b. Arranging the data systematically deal with the objective of the study. c. Selecting, and picking up the data referring to the problems of this study
by classifying and selecting. In this thesis, the writer chooses the theme entitled politic of caricature and learning to Kangaroo Island and select the utterance that has implicit meaning and the utterances that can cause misunderstanding in a communication.
CHAPTER IV
FINDING AND ANALYSIS
Behind a word, sometimes there is an implicit meaning that should be found out for finding the comprehend truth. Presupposing meaning is also not only occurring in a direct conversation or utterance, it is also needed for the written text. For this thesis, the writer is analyzing the presupposition in some selected utterances taken from Kick Andy talk show. Here are the themes that are analyzed:
4. 1 Caricature of Politics
The first of them on Kick Andy that should be analyzed is Caricature of Politics. In Kick Andy’s show entitled Caricature of Politics, there are some caricaturists invited as the speakers for discussing this theme. In this theme, the writer has found some utterance especially the utterance that has the implicit meaning or the utterance that can cause misunderstanding in a conversation which need to be found out its actual meaning. Here are the presuppositions:
“Nah, sejak itu saya yakin harus selalu bikin yang jelek. (Page 54) “Since that, I sure I have to make it ugly.”
Here is said by Priyanto, one of the speakers for this theme. He is a caricaturist and well known as the caricaturist that has high concern of situation and condition that are on happening. Here are the analyses of the presuppositions:
Type : Lexical presupposition
Comprehend Truth :
1. Priyanto is caricaturist that always makes the ugly caricature. 2. Priyanto has the reason why he makes his caricature ugly.
Here can be stated because in that conversation, Priyanto’s friends in Tempo’s magazines saying that the pretty characters are only for advertisement consumption. By hearing that statement, Priyanto chooses that his caricature style must be ugly characters. That statement is also has presupposition that Priyanto caricature is not about advertisement consumption. In fact, his caricature is always identical with the critic of politic social.
Since Priyanto has many caricatures in media, there is also a case where people being pro and contra with his caricature. But he seems have no problem with it. Here is what he says that also has the comprehend truth to presuppose:
“Yang satu bilang menghina, yang lain mengatakan, ‘Nah, itulah fitrah manusia, makanan harus memilih’. Saya tidak perlu menjawab, biarkan pembaca bertengkar sendiri.”(Page 55)
“Some people say it does humiliate, the others say, ‘Look, this is the original character of human. Food must choose’. I do not need to answer it, let the reader having quarrel by themselves.”
Type : Factive Presupposition and Lexical Presupposition
The first sentence is the factive presuppostion because the information following a verb like ‘know’ can be tread as a fact. From the utterance, he knows that there is the pro and contra about his caricature. The next sentence is lexical presupposition because this is the assumption that in using in one word, the speaker can act as if another meaning (word) will be understood. In this utterance, he doesn’t give any comment about his caricature as if his opinion will be understood.
Comprehend Truth :
2. There are people who agree with his caricature.
3. There is a contravention of people’s opinion about his caricature. Here is the reason why there is the first and second comprehend truth above. 4. There are some people who saying that his caricature is showing the truth
about human being.
5. Priyanto thinks he does not need to give the answer of the contravention about his caricature.
6. People can have a quarrel with other people only because of having different opinion of something.
In introducing his way in caricature, Priyanto also has his own style. Here is how Priyanto describes his way in being caricaturist:
“Menjadi seorang karikaturis adalah jalan hidup saya yang tak akan mati.” (Page 56)
“Being the caricaturist is my way of life that will never die.”
Type : Factive Presupposition
The type of the utterance above is the factive presupposition because the information following a verb like ‘know’ can be tread as a fact and the others triggers of the factive presupposition contain of the ‘realized that’. The utterance can be understood being the Priyanto realizes that his choice is being the caricaturist.
Comprehend Truth :
1. Priyanto will always be caricaturist for his whole life.
2. Although Priyanto may have different job/career, being caricaturist is always in his life.
3. Priyanto loves caricature very much.
“Ya, inilah, memaksakan diri pengin jadi orang kaya, tapi tetap memamerkan kemiskinan.”(Page 56)
“Yeah, here is it, forcing ourselves to be the rich people but keep showing the proverty.”
Type : Lexical Presupposition
The type of the utterance above is the lexical because this is the assumption that in using in one word, the speaker can act as if another meaning (word) will be understood.
Comprehend Truth :
Oom Pasikom is well known with his coat that has patch. The statement above gives people some ideas to suppose. Here are the comprehend truth:
1. Coat is identical as the clothes for rich people.
2. A patch is identical as the clothes for the poor people. 3. People look at someone else by the way they are dressed. 4. Oom Pasikom has his own style.
This is probably because Oom Pasikom, who is a caricaturist that also criticizes the social by his caricature, uses his style of dressing as critic of social, “That’s how the society looks like.” This is because Indonesia is well known as the rich country, but there is much poverty among its citizens.
Those samples above may easily be understood by people. But there are many words that are related to general understanding of people in one area and only understood by that area. For that case, people have to find the correct presuppositions or it can give the misunderstanding. Here is the sample found in Kick Andy talk show:
“Dwi Koen muntah.”(Page 62) “Dwi Koen (is) vomit.”
The type of the utterance above is the lexical because this is the assumption that in using in one word, the speaker can act as if another meaning (word) will be understood.
Comprehend Truth :
Literally, it means that Dwi Koen is vomit. It may because of she eats something which is rejected by her body or other medical reasons. But here, the comprehend truth of that statements is something related of general understanding of people’s habit. In Indonesia, vomit can be understood as the real vomit and can be understood as allegory. According to the allegory of Indonesian’s point of view, vomit can also say by people who see something continuously and mostly they are bored for seeing it again and again. As a ratio, in Indonesia, someone can say “I want to vomit” if he/she sees or hears something repeatedly. It is not really connected with stomach, but other people can understand it well.
In this case, the journalist of culture who saying those words uses that statement as allegory for showing how much Dwi Koen’s caricature on media, so people can see it again and again. This allegory also has a ‘feeling’ for the reader. If someone likes the way Dwi Koen makes caricature, he/she can assume the word vomit as positively, but if someone does not like the way Dwi Koen makes caricature, he/she can assume it negatively.
By understanding the literal meaning and the allegory meaning, here are the comprehend truth of that statement:
1. Dwi Koen is really vomit.
The first truth is as literal meaning and the second is the allegory meaning. Once people misunderstanding, they will get the meaning of that statement that very far of the correct meaning.
Here is also found another presupposition connected with general understanding of people:
“Iya. Ini masih lama sebelum ramai-ramai berita korupsi di DPR. Tapi, saya masih coba-coba bikin karena ada kabar-kabar tidak terlalu ‘open’. Ternyata, di belakang SBY sendiri banyak tikusnya.”(Page 62)
Yes. Here is still old before there are many news about corruption in DPR. But, I am still trying to make it because there are issues which are not opened. In fact, there are also many rats in SBY’s backside.”
Type : Lexical Presupposition
The type of the utterance above is the lexical because this is the assumption that in using in one word, the speaker can act as if another meaning (word) will be understood.
Comprehend Truth :
The words that are interesting to be underlined is the rats on “there are many rats in SBY”s backside because in this sample, rats is also an allegory which refers something else. Literally, rat refers to an animal. But, considering who is the subject in that statement, for this sample is SBY, rats should be translated in political way because SBY, as the president of Indonesia for period 2004-2014, is exist in politics. In politics, rat means corruptor. So, by analyzing the subject and what the word refers to, people can assume some comprehend truth:
1. There are many corruptors on SBY’s sides.
biggest vote in general election also mean many of his people also win the general election to take them to the ruling chair in government.
3. The government hides the case of corruption of being broadcasted to the public.
Meanwhile, if someone is misunderstanding to presuppose that word, he/she can assume that SBY is a breeder of rats as the comprehend truth.
4.2 Learning to the Kangaroo Island
In this talk show’s session, the host is using theme of learning to the Kangaroo Island. There are some teachers, as speakers, who are going to Kangaroo Island that share their experience of teaching method, system and anything else they get from Kangaroo Island. They can go to Kangaroo Island by a program called BRIDGE (Building Relationship trough Intercultural Dialogue and Growing Engagement) which having exchange program and sister schools as their programs. By talking of Kangaroo Island, people will have one country to think of. By talking presupposition, if people say Kangaroo Island, people also will suppose it as Australia.
The first speaker of this theme is Ahmad Fais, the teacher of biology in a school in Surabaya. When he visits the gas station in Australia, the worker uses the pin with a written text ‘smile’ in it. Then, he gets an idea from it and he wants to apply the pin idea in Indonesia.
“Saya ambil ide itu, kemudian kenapa tidak itu dicoba di sekolah saya, tapi bukan smile. Masa guru disuruh senyum terus, kan….”(Page 139)
Type : Factive Presupposition
The type of the utterance above is the factive presupposition because the information following a verb like ‘know’ can be tread as a fact. From the utterance, the people know the information that Ahmad Fais gets an idea from Australia.
Comprehend Truth :
He does not finish his words in the utterance above. He stops it after giving a conditional how if the teacher keeps smiling. The presupposition here is to guessing what he wants to say and the point of his saying and why he stops it. By analyzing it, here are the comprehend truth:
1. He gets an idea in Australia.
2. He wants to apply the idea in Indonesia.
3. He uses some modification in how to apply the idea.
4. He has considered the effect of using the idea by using same written text ‘smile’ in the pin.
For the point that he has considered the effect of using a pin ‘smile’, he stops his saying and let the reader guessing it. Normally, if people see someone that keep smiling in every situation, people will consider him/her as insane people. This analysis is also got by the host, that why he says “Nanti dibilang gendeng iki,” which can be translated being “Then people will say ‘here are crazy people’”.
The modification of the pin is the text. The text ‘smile’ is changed being ‘Speak English with me, please,’ which mean everyone who meet the one using the pin must speak English with him/her. When Andy asks the reaction of the teachers about the pin, here is Fais’s answer:
“Here is the first, Mister Andy, the people…the teacher who get this pin usually…at first is talking much, now is not talking much.”
Type : Lexical Presupposition
The type of the utterance above is the lexical because this is the assumption that in using in one word, the speaker can act as if another meaning (word) will be understood.
Comprehend Truth :
1. At first, the teachers who get the pin are talking too much. At first, Fais also uses the word ‘people’ before changing it specifically into ‘teacher’, it may have the comprehend truth that people usually talk too much, too. 2. After getting the pin ‘Speak English with me, please,’ the teachers are
talking less.
3. The teachers can not speak English well. Here is proven by the reaction of the teachers. If they can speak English well, it should not be a problem for them to talk as much as before the pin is exist.
The other speaker is Budy Waluyo, an English teacher who graduated from (University) IKIP Mataram. During in Australia, Budi says he has learnt many things about the students, disciplines and cleanness. He also explains in Australia the students has one hour for the break time. They can go to supermarket, mall, cafeteria or any place they want to visit but, ten minutes before the bell, the students already comeback to the class. But he explains that this method can be applied in Indonesia for this reason:
“Istirahat satu jam, hilang semua anak saya, Pak.”(Page 144) “One hour for break, all my students will be lost, Sir.”
The type of the utterance above is the lexical because this is the assumption that in using in one word, the speaker can act as if another meaning (word) will be understood.
Comprehend Truth :
1. There is topic of talking on how if the students in Indonesia has one hour in break time.
2. There is cause and consequence in that utterance where the cause is if break time is one hour, the consequences is the students will be lost. 3. The students will be lost means if the students has one hour for the break,
they will take the time more that they get and will not come back again to the next class.
This presupposition is connected to the habit. If someone does not know the habit of the students in Indonesia, they may think that the students is lost because they are kidnapped by someone, getting lost somewhere or seriously disappear without any track. But, by knowing the habits, they can assume that ‘lost’ means they will forget the time and not come back to the school for the next class.
“Ya, mereka dapat niruin.Tapi, penggunaannya, ketika mengantarkan kami dari satu ruangan ke ruangan lain, dia justru bilang gini, ‘Bu, saya cape, deh,’”(Page 148)
“Yeah, they can copy it. But, its use, when she takes us from one room to another room, she says this, ‘Mam, saya cape, deh,’”
Type : Factive Presupposition
The type of the utterance above is the factive presupposition because the information following a verb like ‘know’ can be tread as a fact. From the utterance, the people know that the Australian can speak Indonesian slang language although the Austalian does not get the correct meaning of the slang.
Comprehend Truth :
The writer can not translate the word ‘Cape, deh’ because it will lose its sense. In this case, that utterance is because the misunderstanding of presupposition. That utterance is already being the slang language among Indonesian. “Cape, deh” is usually says to mock someone in funny way without intention to hurt his/her feeling. But someone who does not know its slang, they will think that ‘cape’ is the translation of the word ‘tired’. Here are the comprehend truth of the presupposition:
1. The Australian teacher can copy the slang language in Indonesia.
2. The function and its use are not completely different of what the Indonesian teacher means.
3. The Australian teacher seriously translates the word ‘cape’ as ‘tired’ in English.
The sample above is sample of the wrong presupposition of the listener. The Australian teacher already suppose something in her mind that are different from the correct meaning which affect her uses the words in different way than how it should be. The word ‘slang’ which is also known as the popular language also can make people supposes many things when they hear it. Here is the sample found in Michael Bliss’s saying:
“Saya kira proses pembagian pengalaman masing-masing guru ini sangat berguna untuk kedua pihak. Dan, saya sedikit terkejut bahwa bahasa gaul sangat populer di beberapa sekolah di Australia.”(Page 151)
“I think this sharing process of each teacher is very useful for the both sides. And, I am little bit surprise that (Indonesian’s) popular language (slang) is very popular in some schools in Australia.”
Michael Bliss is a minister of counselor in Australian’s Embassy. By analyzing the utterance above, here is the comprehend truth found:
Type : Factive Presupposition
The type of the utterance above is the factive presupposition because the information following a verb like ‘know’ can be tread as a fact.From the utterance, the people know Michael Bliss’s opinion and the fact that Indonesian’s slang is popular in Australia.
Comprehend Truth :
1. There is process of sharing experience between Indonesian and Australian teacher.
2. According to Michael’s opinion, the sharing experience of the teachers is useful for Indonesian teacher and also for Australian teacher.
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
5.1Conclusions
Basically, normal people speak something, hear something and respond something. In the process of communication, people should able to assume what they partner trying to say or the point of their saying which called as presupposition. In this thesis, the type of presupposition found are four types: existential presupposition, lexical presupposition, factive presupposition, and non-factive presupposition which means those four types of presupposition often contain of allegory meaning.
because background of someone has the influence in how he/she chooses the word to say. Two people can say the same thing in the same way, but the background of listener can make him/her suppose something differently.
5.2 Suggestions
REFERENCES
Aulia, Adisti Maryam. 2010. “A Brief Description of Code Switching and Code Mixing in Informal Conversation used by 2009 Batch Students of English Department University of Sumatera Utara”. Unpublished Thesis. Medan: Universitas Sumatera Utara.
Bogdan, R. and Biklen, S. 1982. Methods of Social Research. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Bogdan, R. and Biklen, S. 1992. Qualitative Research for Education: An Introduction to Theory and Methods (2nd Ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Caffi, C. 2006. Pragmatic Presupposition. Italy & Switzerland: Elsevier. Dia, Eva Eri. 2012. Analisis Praanggapan. Malang: Madani.
Koyama, W. 2006. The Pragmatics and Semanticsn. Jepang: Elsavier.
Leech, Geofrey. 1993. Prinsip - Prinsip Pragmatik. Jakarta: UI Press.
Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Marlisa, Yeni. 2008. Analysis of Types of Presupposition Used In The Editorial Articles of The Jakarta Post News Paper. Unpublished Thesis. Jakarta: Universitas Bina Nusantara.
Moleong, J Lexy. 2005. Metodology Penulisan Kualitatif. Bandung: Remaja Rosdakarya.
Nadya Paramytha, Gayatri. 2009. Praanggapan Dalam Film Janji Joni. Unpublished Thesis. Jakarta: Universitas Indonesia.
Noya, Andy F. 2012. Kick Andy: Kisah Inspiratif 3. Yogyakarta: Bentang.
Peccei, Jean Stilwell. 1990. Pragmatics. China: Taylor & Francis.
Purwo, Bambang Kaswati. 1990. Pragmatik Dan Pengajaran Bahasa. Yogyakarta: Kanisius.
Rahardi, R.Kunjaya. 2008. Pragmatik: Kesantunan Imperatif Bahasa Indonesia. Jakarta: Erlangga.
Reza Essra, Try. 2011. An Analysis of Presupposition In Newsweek Advertisement Slogans. Unpublished Thesis. Medan: Universitas Sumatera Utara
Soejono dan Abdurrahman. 2005. Metode Penelitian Suatu Pemikiran dan Penerapan. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.
Sudaryat, Yayat. 2008. Makna Dalam Wacana. Bandung: Yrama Widya.
Yule, George. 1996. Pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press.
Zeevat, H. 2006. Pragmatics: Optimality Theory. Amsterdam: Elsavier.
APPENDICES
i. Politik Karikatur
Kritik bisa disampaikan dengan banyak media dan cara. Ada yang memilih menyampaikannya secara vulgar dan frontal hingga berakhir anarkis. Ada pula yang menyajikannya dalam bahasa gambar, yaitu karikatur. Karikatur dengan karakter dan celetukan yang khas, berisi sindiran atau olok-olok, tetapi tetap penuh humor dan sarat pesan. Adalah Timun, tokoh karikatur di harian Kompas ini, dihidupkan melalui monolog oleh Butet Kartaredjasa dalam membuka acara Kick Andy. Celoteh Timun---tokoh rekaan Rachmat Riyadi---menyindir banyak persoalan, mulai dari pidato-pidato kosong para politikus, tragedi terbunuhnya Munir, obat-obatan palsu, hingga susu yang mengandung melamin. Sindiran Timun yang sarat pesan berhasil mengundang tawa dan tepukan para penonton.
“Tapi, saya bingung ini. Saya ini Timun apa semangka?” celetuk Butet pada akhir penampilannya.
“Kalau dari kepalanya, sih, kelapa muda,” ujar Andy yang disambut tawa penonton. ***
Rachmat Riyadi merupakan sosok di balik kemunculan “Timun” yang populer di harian Kompas. Kartunis dan penulis strip komik dengan nama samaran Libra ini, juga dikenal lewat berbagai penerbitan yang dibuatnya di majalah dan surat kabar nasional, sebutlah saja “Tomat” di majalah Kawanku, “Toge” di majalah Warta
Pramuka, “Tipi” di tabloid Monitor, dan “Dr. Otomot” di tabloid Otomotif.
Tekad menggebu-gebu untuk menjadi kartunis dan karikaturis profesional membuat Rahmat meninggalkan kuliahnya di Fakultas Teknik Universitas Katolik Atmajaya Yogyakarta dan hijrah ke Jakarta. Ia kemudian menawarkan gambarnya ke majalah berita mingguan Tempo yang belum memiliki rubrik karikatur, tetapi ditolak oleh Goenawan Mohammad. Terdampar di Jakarta tidak membuat Rahmat patah arang. Setelah malang-melintang ke sana kemari akhirnya dia diterima sebagai reporter di mingguan Ekspres, bahkan menjadi penulis skenario film. Salah satu filmnya yang laris di pasaran berjudul Yang (1985), dibintangi oleh Rano Karno dan Zoraya Perucha.
Pada 1981, “Timun” lahir sebagai media penyampai kritik dengan gaya humornya yang khas. Meskipun “Timun” muncul pada masa sensor pemerintah masih ketat, Rahmat tidak merasa takut membuat karikatur politik. Pria kelahiran 61 tahun silam ini menyederhanakan kasus-kasus politik menjadi masalah rumah tangga dengan sentuhan humor yang lebih kental, tetapi tetap terkait dengan kasus-kasus politik yang dibahasnya. Salah satu contohnya soal gas elpiji. “Saya menyederhanakan kasus yang besar menjadi kasus yang sebetulnya bisa terjadi di dalam rumah tangga, “ kata Rahmat.
jelasnya. Ketika Andy menanyakan siapa yang mengingatkannya ketika merasa bahwa kritikannya terlalu keras atau terlalu kasar, Rahmat menjawab, “Sensornya saya sendiri.”
***
Mata melotot laiknya bola pingpong, garis tubuh yang tidak tegas, merupakan ciri karikatur yang rutin menghias majalah Tempo dalam setiap terbitannya. Priyanto Sunarto, sang kreator, dikenal sebagai karikaturnis yang memiliki kepekaan tinggi terhadap situasi dan kondisi yang tengah berlangsung. Andy F. Noya pun dengan spontan menanyakan gaya karikatur Priyanto yang sering terlihat aneh. Ide-ide membuat karikatur biasanya lahir dari rapat redaksi, browsing, dan obrolan. Awalnya memang Priyanto kebingungan untuk menentukan karakter karikaturnya. Rekan-rekannya di Tempo pun berucap bahwa kartun yang bagus hanya untuk konsumsi iklan.
“Nah, sejak itu saya yakin harus selalu bikin yang jelek,“ guraunya.
Karikaturnya yang selalu identik dengan kritikan tentang kondisi sosial politik membuat Priyanto pernah di-blacklist ketika menampilkan tema lemak babi. Tema tersebut dianggap menyinggung sebagian masyarakat. “Apa reaksinya?” tanya Andy. “Yang satu bilang itu menghina, yang lain mengatakan, ‘Nah, itulah fitrah manusia, makanan harus memilih’. Saya tidak perlu menjawab, membiarkan saja pembaca bertengkar sendiri,” terang Priyanto yang disambut tawa para penonton.
Tangan Priyanto tampaknya selalu gatal untuk “menyindir”. Ia pernah membuat karikatur bertajuk “Kabinet Langsing, Mbak!” yang mengusung cerita soal pasangan presiden dan wakil presiden periode keempat, Gus Dur dan Megawati. Sindiran itu mengena dengan telak. Ihwalnya, pasangan pemimpin negara tersebut berniat membentuk kabinet yang langsing, tetapi pada kenyataannya malah terus membengkak, mengakomodasi kepentingan partai-partai. Bahkan, Aa Gym yang pernah marah karena film Buruan Cium Gue juga tidak luput dari sindiran dengan karikatur yang berjudul sama.
Priyanto yang menjadi seorang karikaturis sejak 1973 melihat ada perbedaan prinsipil antara kritik pada zaman Orde Baru dan kritik pada zaman sekarang ini. Pada zaman Orde Baru, para karikaturis harus banyak akal jika tidak ingin karyanya dicekal. Sebaliknya, zaman sekarang semua bisa dikritik bahkan cenderung kebablasan dengan menyerang pribadi tertentu
“Menjadi seorang karikaturis adalah jalan hidup saya yang tak akan mati,” tegas Prayitno yang pernah mendapatkan penghargaan dari PWI.
***
Konon, namanya diambil dari kata “Si Kompas”, yang kalau diulang-ulang menjadi “sikompassikompas”. Maka, lahirlah nama unik itu. Oom Pasilkom tidak hanya dikenal lewat media cetak, tokoh karikatur ini bahkan sempat difilmkan di layar lebar maupun layar televisi.
Butet Kartaredjasa, yang mendapat kehormatan memerankan Oom pasilkom selama 13 episode di sebuah produksi sinema elektronik mengatakan bahwa tokoh karikatur yang diperankan memiliki wajah Indonesia dengan sisa-sisa londo, yang oke nasionalis, tetapi tetap Jawa.
“Ya, inilah, memaksakan diri pengin jadi orang kaya, tapi tetap memamerkan kemiskinan,“ ujar Butet menjawab pertanyaan Andy soal jas bertambal menjadi penanda Oom Pasikom.
G.M. Sudarta hingga kini masih aktif mengajar di suatu perguruan tinggi di Jepang selama 4 tahun. Baginya, dunia kartun adalah media yang tepat untuk menyampaikan kritik melalui humor ringan, tetapi menggelitik. Oleh karena itu, “Oom Pasikom” selalu mengangkat topik-topik yang hangat di bicarakan di media massa dan di masyarakat. Selain Oom Pasikom, Sudarta juga banyak membuat karikatur-karikatur kritis lainnya. Ia mengaku tantangan yang ada pada zaman Orde Baru membuatnya lebih kreatif untuk berkarya. Sasaran kritiknya tidak hanya Presiden, tetapi juga keadaan dan rakyat yang kerap menjadi kegelisahannya.
“Kartunis itu oposan yang berdiri di luar pagar, tidak memihak ke mana-mana, hanya di pihak yang lemah.” tegas Sudarta.
Selain G.M. Sudarta, ada Agustin Sibarani yang kenyang makan asam garam karena sudah membuat karikatur sejak masa Bung Karno. Pada usianya yang ke-83 ini, Agustin sudah jarang memproduksi karikatur karena alasan kesehatan. Bakat dan keterampilannya menggambar mulai terasa lewat pertemuannya dengan Haryadi, seorang pelukis yang berdomisili di Yogyakarta pada awal 1948. Masa-masa pemberontakan banyak memberikan inspirasi bagi Agustin, terutama dari dunia yang telah digeluti sebelumnya, dunia militer.
Sejak 1950-an, pria kelahiran Pematangsiantar, Sumatera Utara ini banyak mengkritik tokoh-tokoh politik lewat coretannya yang tegas dan kejam. Karya-karya karikaturnya pada era 1950-an hingga awal 1970-an tersebar di sejumlah penerbitan. Ketika Orde Baru berjaya, Agustin menjadi salah satu karikaturis yang dicekal, karya-karyanya dilarang muncul di berbagai media. Meskipun demikian, ia terus menghasilkan karya yang tajam dan kontroversial. Sebagian karyanya masih tersimpan apik di musium kartun di Denpasar, Bali, termasuk karikaturnya mengenai modal asing yang dibuat pada 1959.
“Saya kurang tahu persis kenapa upaya hukum itu gagal. Alasannya mungkin tentang administratif. Tetapi, mungkin juga ada unsur lain. Pada waktu itu jarang sekali pengadilan memenangkan rakyat biasa,“ kata Gorky, anak Agustin Sibarani.
***
Eko Nugroho, salah satu komikus muda yang mewakili generasi komikus
underground Indonesia menggagas sebuah komik berjudul Daging Tumbuh. Komik
ini awalnya hanya dikenal dikalangan mahasiswa, tetapi kemudian meluas di kalangan komunitas komik underground dan masyarakat Yogyakarta.
Nama Daging Tumbuh muncul atas keinginan untuk memutarbalikan logika manusia dari sebuah perkataan. Komik ekspresif berisi kata-kata “menjijikan” yang tidak lazim di masyarakat. Karya-karya komik strip dan karikatur yang mengisi kompilasi ini mulai dikumpulkan sejak 2000 dari komikus lain yang tidak mampu memublikasikan karyanya. Penjualannya dilakukan dan didistribusikan dari tangan ke tangan serta keuntungan yang diperoleh dikumpulkan untuk membuat edisi berikutnya atau proyek seni rupa lainnya. Uniknya, setiap edisi hanya dicetak dan dijual sebanyak 150 eksemplar, selebihnya pembeli diperbolehkan untuk memfotokopi sendiri jika kehabisan.
“Nggak ditangkap gara-gara pembajakan?” tanya Andy.
“Ya, kami memang mengiyakan, sih. Halal untuk di-copy malahan,“ jawab Eko dan disambut tepuk tangan para penonton.
Kumpulan komik karya Eko lainnya yang sudah diterbitkan oleh sebuah penerbit independen adalah The Konyol. Komik ini berisi cerita keseharian yang terjadi di masyarakat dan dikemas dengan humor segar. Sejak krisis ekonomi pada 1998, Eko sudah rajin membuat komik selebaran bolak-balik dan membagikan 50 sampai 100 lembar fotokopi komiknya ke pedagang pasar dan tukang becak dengan maksud menghibur.
Eko yang terpilih sebagai salah satu Manusia Cemerlang tahun 2005 oleh majalah
Tempo ini merasa karikatur telah menjadi bagian hidup dan menginspirasi studinya
sejak duduk di bangku SMP hingga SMA. Meskipun kritis melalui karya-karya karikaturnya, ia jarang menggambar figur tokoh yang disindirnya dan lebih mementingkan teks sindirannya.
“Dari semua yang Anda alami, kritik melalui kartun atau karikatur itu efektif nggak, sih?” tanya Andy ingin tahu.
“Sejauh bagaimana kritik itu mampu menyampaikan pesannya sendiri. Apakah masyarakat bisa menerima kritik sebagai hal yang menyenangkan sekaligus mencerdaskan atau justru menyuramkan situasi? Ini tantangan kartunis atau karikaturis untuk memunculkan karya-karya yang tidak hanya bisa mengkritik, tetapi juga bisa menjadi badut,” jawab Eko.
***
yang selalu muncul di harian Kompas edisi minggu ini mengambil latar belakang zaman Majapahit pada 1293-1520 dengan dua tokoh utamanya Koming, si abdi dalem yang penuh sopan santun dan Pailul, si orang kampung yang ceplas-ceplos. Atas saran seniornya, kartunis G.M. Sidharta, Dwi Koen membuat riset untuk menyambungkan berbagai isu dan peristiwa yang berkembang dalam masyarakat. Meskipun dibuat dengan setting zaman Majapahit, “Panji Koming” dianalogikan dengan kondisi Indonesia masa kini, terutama masa Orde Baru dan sesudahnya. “Saya mau menyindir perilaku yang tidak manusiawi dengan bahasa yang tidak terlalu vulgar, dengan canda,” ujarnya.
“Panji Koming” mulai dimuat di Kompas edisi Minggu sejak 14 Oktober 1979. Komik ini pun terkadang mengalami ancaman tidak naik cetak jika gambarnya dinilai terlalu berani. Namun, sejak 1999, ketika Soeharto terjungkal dari takhtanya, Dwi Koen lebih berani memainkan goresan penanya. Setiap hari ia membuat karikatur-karikatur, kartun-kartun dengan figur pejabat-pejabat yang mau dikritik. Sampai-sampai Efix Mulyadi, wartawan kebudayaan, mengatakan, “Dwi Koen muntah.”
Dalam membuat kartun, Dwi Koen terlebih dahulu melakukan riset kecil melalui koran dan televisi untuk mendapatkan materi kartun yang menarik. Proses selanjutnya, Dwi Koen akan membuat dialog dan menempatkan gambar tokohnya satu per satu. Pengerjaan gambar kartun dilakukan secara manual menggunakn kertas dan pensil. Barulah hasil dari gambar ini di-scan melalui komputer.
“Panji Koming” memang kerap menjadi tingkah polah anggota DPR. “Kita melihat ada pertengkaran di dalam DPR, mereka sebagai wakil rakyat malah berantem sendiri,” jelas Dwi.
“Pailul selalu jadi korban disini karena rakyat jadi gampang dikorbankan, ya?” tohok Andy.
Selama membuat “Panji Koming”, Dwi selalu berpegang teguh pada kode etik
Kompas, yaitu “membela hati nurani rakyat”. Baginya, selama tidak melanggar kode
etik tersebut maka tidak akan ada masalah dan aman.
“Ini mengenai melawan musuh dalam selimut. Ini mengenai korupsi, ya?” tanya Andy menunjuk salah satu kartun “Panji Koming” yang ditampilkan.
“Iya. Ini masih lama sebelum ramai-ramai berita korupsi di DPR. Tapi, saya coba-coba bikin karena ada kabar-kabar semacam itu ... kabar-kabar yang tidak terlalu
open. Ternyata, di belakang SBY sendiri banyak tikusnya,” jawab Dwi Koen panjang
lebar.
