Ni Wayan Sartini, Muchamad Sholakhuddin Al Fajri, Riza Alifianti Putri

Amerika’nın yeni en iyi modeli ve Asya’nın sonraki en iyi model yarışmalarında jüri yorumlarına ilişkin edimsel eylemlerin analizi: Kültürler arası pragmatik

Bu çalışma, Amerika ve Asya TV dizileri Amerika’nın Yeni En İyi Modeli ve Asya’nın Yeni En Üst Modeli'ndeki model yarışmalarının jüri üyeleri tarafından gerçekleştirilen konuşma eylemlerini tartışmaktadır. Bu çalışmanın amacı, jürinin bir yarışmada karar vericiler olarak görüldükleri için aldatıcı eylemlerini ortaya çıkarmaktır. Amerikan ve Asya kültürleri arasındaki ayrıntılı analiz, çalışmanın bulgularını desteklemek için sunulmuştur. Çalışmanın verileri için, YouTube'dan America's Next Top Model Session 21 Episode 5 ve Asia's Next Top Model Session 6 Episode 1'deki ifadeleri toplandı. Verileri analiz ederken tüm ifadeleri ortografik transkripsiyon yöntemi kullanarak yazıya döküldü. Veriler daha sonra analiz edildi ve nitel betimleme yöntemi kullanılarak Searle (1979) tarafından yazılan günlük konuşma eylemleri teorisi açısından sınıflandırıldı. Bundan sonra, toplanan verilere ve sonuçlara dayanarak bir yorum yapıldı ve daha fazla araştırma için öneriler getirildi. Analizden, toplam günlük konuşma dışı konuşma eylemlerinin 146 ifade olduğu sonucuna varılabilir (72 Amerika'dan ve 74 Asya'dan). America's Next Top Model'in ana türleri iddialı ve açıklayıcıyken (% 33,33), ifade işlevinin Asya'nın Sonraki Üst Modelinde en baskın olduğu ortaya çıktı. Kültürler arası pragmatik bakış açısına göre, bu çalışmanın sonuçları Asyalıların Amerikalılardan daha anlamlı olduğu sonucuna varıyor. Ek olarak, Amerika bağlamında bir özür beyanı varken, Asya bağlamında hiçbir özür ifadesi yoktu. Bu çalışmada, Amerikalıların Asyalılardan daha belirgin ya da aleni olduğu, Asyalıların da Amerikalılardan daha "dikkatli" olarak sınıflandırıldığı görülebilir.

The analysis of illocutionary acts of judges’ comments in America’s next top model and Asia’s next top model competitions: A cross-cultural pragmatic study

This study discusses speech acts performed by judges of model competitions in America and Asia TV seriesAmerica’s Next Top Model and Asia’s Next Top Model. The aim of this study is to find out the illocutionaryacts of the judges since they are considered as the decision makers in a competition. The detailed analysisbetween American and Asian cultures is presented to support the findings of the study. For the data of the study,we collected utterances in the America's Next Top Model Session 21 Episode 5 and Asia’s Next Top ModelSession 6 Episode 1 from YouTube. In analysing the data, we transcribed all utterances using orthographicaltranscription method. The data were then analysed and categorized in terms of the theory of illocutionary speechacts from Searle (1979) using qualitative description method. After that, we made an interpretation based on thecollected data and generated conclusions as well as suggestions for further research. From the analysis, it couldbe concluded that the total illocutionary speech acts were 146 utterances (72 from America & 74 from Asia). Themajor types in America's Next Top Model were assertive and declarative (33.33%), while expressive functionturned out to be the most dominant one in Asia's Next Top Model. In cross-cultural pragmatics point of view, theresults of this study conclude that Asians were more expressive than Americans. In addition, there was anapology statement in the American context whereas there was no expression of apology in the Asian context. Inthis study, it could also be seen that Americans were more to the point or overt than Asians whereas Asians werecategorized to be more "careful" than Americans.© 2020 JLLS and the Authors - Published by JLLS.

PDF

___

Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Clanrendon Press.
Bayat, N. (2012). A study on the use of speech acts. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 70, 213 – 221.
Birner, B. J. (2013). Introduction to pragmatics. West Sussex, UK: Wiley- Blackwell.
Budiasih, L. T., Andayani, A. & Rohmadi, M. (2016). Illocution on speech acts of foreign students in Indonesian learning. Parole: Journal of Linguistics and Education, 6(2), 41-48.
Chaer, Abdul. (2015). FIlsafat Bahasa. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.
Cummings, L. (2005). Pragmatics: multidisciplinary perspective. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Cutting, J. (2008). Pragmatics and discourse: a resource book for students (2nd ed.). Abingdon: Routledge.
Dorney, Z. (2007). Research method in applied linguistic: Quantitative, qualititative, and mixed methodologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Grundy, P. (2000). Doing pragmatics (2nd ed.). London: Hodder Arnold.
Grice, H. P. (2011). Logic and conversation. In D. Archer & P. Grundy (Eds.), The Pragmatics Reader (pp. 43-54). Abingdon: Routledge.
Huang, Y. (2007). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Routledge.
Levinson, S. C. (2001). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Malenab-Temporal, C. (2018). Conversation analysis of ESL learners’ speech acts in classroom discourse. Asia Pacific Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 6(3), 47-56.
Meyer, Charles F. 2009. Introducing English linguistics. New York: Cambridge University Press
Nureddeen, F. A. (2008). Cross cultural pragmatics: Apology strategies in Sudanese Arabic. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(2), 279-306.
Putri, P. D. S. P. (2018). Representative and commissive illocutionary acts in Donald Trump’s inauguration speech. Jurnal Humanis, 22(4), 1057-1062
Rosyidi, A. Z., Mahyuni, M., & Muhaimi, M. (2019). Illocutionary speech acts use by Jokowidodo in First Indonesia Presidential Election Debate 2019. International Journal of Multicultural and Multireligious Understanding, 6(2), 735-740.
Searle, J.R. (1979). Expression & meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge: CUP.
Sholihatin, E. (2020). An analysis of illocutionary and perlocutionary speech act in defamation texts. JOLLT Journal of Languages and Language Teaching, 7(1), 49-56.
Spencer-Oatey, H., & Jiang, W. (2003). Explaining cross-cultural pragmatic findings: moving from politeness maxims to sociopragmatic interactional principles (SIPs). Journal of Pragmatics, 35(10- 11), 1633-1650.
Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in interaction: An introduction to pragmatics. London: Longman.
Tuncer, H. & Turhan, B. (2019). Refusal strategies of Turkish pre-service teachers of English: A focus on gender and status of interlocutor. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 15(1), 01-19.
Utaker, Arild. (1992). Form in Language: Wittgenstein and structuralism. Wittgenstein and Contemporary Theories of Language Papers Edited by Paul Henry and Arild Utaker. Wittgenstein Archives: the University of Bergen.
Wijana, I Dewa Putu. (1996). Dasar-dasar Pragmatik. Yogyakarta: Andi Yogyakarta.
Wierzbicka, A. (2003). Cross cultural pragmatic – the semantic of human interaction. New York: Mouton De Gruyter.
Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. New York. Oxford University Press.