CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE,
THEORY AND CONCEPT
A review of the literature is an essential part of academic research project.
The literature review is an account of what has been published on a topic by
accredited scholars and researchers. As the literature review, the writer uses the
studies from previous researchers who also have interest in the same focus of
presupposition especially in talk show.
2.1 Definition of Talk Show
One format that is often used in the television show discourse of "serious" is
a talk show. Talk show is a broadcast discourse that can be seen as a product and as a
media-oriented talk constantly. As a product of the media, talk shows can be 'text'
culture that interact with viewers in the production and exchange of meanings. As a
process of dialogue, talk show would pay attention to the problem of efficiency and
accuracy, in aspects: emcee control, condition of participants and audience
evaluation event
Definition of a talk show by Farlex in The Free Dictionary: A television or
radio show in which noted people, such as authorities in a particular field, participate
in discussions or are interviewed and often answer questions from viewers or
listeners. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Talk+shows).
Talk show has typical characteristics: using a simple conversation (casual
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:
Pragmatics is concerned with the study of meaning as communicated by a
speaker (or writer) and interpreted by a listener (or reader). It has consequently,
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.
Yule (1996:4) also distinguishes three fields of linguistic study to review its
relationship with other areas of linguistic analysis. Firstly, he defines syntax as the
study of relationships between linguistic forms – how they are arranged in sequences
are well-formed. This type of study generally takes place without considering any
world of reference of any user of the forms. Secondly, he considers semantics are the
study of the relationship between linguistic forms and entities in the world – how
words literally connect to things. Semantics analysis also attempts to establish the
relationship between verbal descriptions and states of affairs in the world as accurate
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 meaning of the words in the example is understood, literally, but not
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
If Harry saw a squirrel, then he necessarily saw an animal. But if he saw an
animal, he could have seen a squirrel, but not necessarily. It could have been a
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)
In (8), B’s answer is not related with the question of A, because there is not
any relationship between the movie and B’s parents. However, since there is a shared
knowledge between A and B, then B has actually answered A’s question. A knows
that B seldom meets her parents living out of the town, so A must understand that B
is not going with A because B must want to spend the night with her/his parents. B
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.
(12) The king of Sweden, the cat, the girl next door, the Counting Crows.
Other triggers of existential presupposition: the (definite article). a/an (indefinite
article), this, that, these, those (demonstrative) my, their, her, his, our (possessive
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.
In this case, the use of the expression stop and again are took to presuppose another
(unstead) concept. Other triggers of lexical presupposition: return, no mere, another
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
The assumption that was it presupposed is not only not true, but also the
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.
A simple explanation for the fact that presupposition do not ‘project’ is that
they are destroyed by entailments. Memories that an entailment is something that
get her pregnant’ actually entails ‘George didn’t get Mary pregnant’ as a logical
consequence.
In analyzing presuppositions, the truth of the data analysis process rests on
the truth of presupposition itself. Truth presuppositions according to Yule(1996:
30-32) can be viewed from the perspective of the kinds of presuppositions. To answer
the second problem, the writer uses the kinds of presuppositions as follows.
1. A truth Non-factive presupposition
A truth Non-factive presupposition is one that is assumed not to be true verbs
like ‘dream’, ‘imagine’, ‘pretend’, as shown in, are used with the presupposition that
what follows is not true. Here is example of a truth Non-factive presupposition:
a.I dreamed that I was rich (>>I was not rich) b.We imagined we were in Hawai (>>We were not in Hawai) c.He pretends to be ill (>>He is not ill)
2. A truth counterfactual presupposition
A truth counterfactual presupposition, meaning that what is presupposed is
not only not true, but is the opposite of what is true, or contrary to facts. Here is
example of a truth counterfactual presupposition:
a. If you were my friend, you would helped me (>>You are not my friend)
2.4 Review of Presupposition’s Reference
2.4.1 Presupposition in Film “Janji Joni” (Gayatri Nadya Paramytha, 2009) Gayatri Nadya Paramytha conducted a study in 2009 to know utterances
presupposition emerge through the scenes of film “Janji Joni”. She used Yule’s and
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 contribution of Gayatri’s analysis are giving the writer some ideas in
choosing the exact reference theory. The writer and Gayatri has the similarities of
the topic of study, which is the presupposition, and it inspire the writer in how to
scope the study and make it focus. The first similarity between the writer and Gayatri
is the thesis uses the theory of presupposition by Yule to analyze the data. Then, the
second are equally make a transcript of the speech in writing in the form of spoken
language. The third is writer will examine only utterances the data that have been
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?
The writer generates two problem statements; to find the types of
presupposition and to find the slogan in advertisements presuppose. The writer has
some similarities with Try’s study. The first similarity is that both used the theory of
by Yule’s to analyze the data. The second one is that both analyze type of the
presupposition. However, the writer has some clear differences from Try’s study.
The first difference is that Try’s using newsweek magazine’s advertisement slogan as
object research, but the writer uses presupposition in talk show “Kick Andy” as
object research. The contribution of Try’s analysis for the writer is giving the idea to
2.4.3 Analysis of Types of Presupposition Used in the Editorial Articles of the Jakarta Post News Paper (Yeni Marlisa, 2008)
Yeni Marlisa conducted a study in 2008 and focused on Presupposition used
in The Editorial Articles of The Jakarta Post News Paper. The theories is used to
proceed the research is Yule’s theory. In analyzing the data, she used library research
to collect and obtain and theories needed for the paper. She formed two research
questions to have better understanding about presupposition used in The Editorial
Articles of The Jakarta Post News Paper, which are:
1. How The Jakarta Post uses presupposition in its articles?
2. What types of presuppositions are mostly used in The Jakarta Post?
The contribution of Yeni’s analysis to the writer is as reference of Yule’s
theory. Yeni’s analysis also explains the type of presupposition based on Yule’s
theory which help the writer to classify the type of presupposition. The writer has
some similarities with Yeni’s study. The first similarity is that both used the theory
of by Yule’s to analyze the data. However, the difference between Yeni’s analysis
and the writer’s analysis is the object research or data where Yeni’s uses newsweek
as the data and the writer uses a talk show as the data. The writer also explains the
