UNIVERSE DISCOURSE
1.
A. INTRODUCTION
In the field of
language there are several elements requiring further studies. Linguistics
scope wants to understand how language works and is related with identifying
the meaningful element of a specific language. One of the elements in
linguistics is about the meaning aspect. Semantics is study of meaning. It is a
wide subject within general study of language. An understanding of semantics is
essential to the study of language acquisition (how language users acquire a
sense of a meaning, as speakers and writers, listeners and readers) and of
language change (how meaning alter over time). It is important for
understanding language in social context, as there are likely to affect
meaning, and for understanding varieties of English and effect of style. It is thus
one of the most fundamental concept in linguistics.
The word
“semantics” itself denotes a range of ideas, from the popular to the highly
technical. It is often used in ordinary language to denote a problem of
understanding that comes to word selection or connotation. This problem of
understanding has been the subject of many formal inquiries, over a long period
of time. The word is derived from the Greek word (semantikos), “significant” ,
from (semaino), “to signify, to indicate” and that from (sema), “sign, mark,
token”. In linguistics, it is the study of interpretation of signs or symbols
as used by agents or communities within particular circumstances and context.
Within this view, sounds, facial expression, body language, proxemics have
semantics (meaningful) content, and each has several branches of study. In
written language, such things as paragraph structure and punctuation have
semantics content in order form of language, there is other language content.
Semantics is
related to the study of meaning in language term (Hurford, et. al, 2007:01).
The other definition say that Semantic is study of how language organized and
express meaning, it’s mean how language conducting and how language express
meaning (W. Kreidler, Charles 1998:3). According to John lion (1981:3) semantic
is traditionally defined as the study of meaning (the meaning of meaning). In
the other definition, R.L. Trask (1991:249) state that semantics is the
linguistic branch that dealing with the meanings of words and sentences. So it’s
mean that in the semantics element is concern with the meaning device in the
branch of linguistics. The study of semantics includes the study of how
language meaning is constructed, interpreted, clarified, obscured,
illustrated,, simplified negotiated, contradicted and paraphrased.
We should remember
that in this study (semantics) is focus and concern in the study of meaning.
It’s meant that in this context, not study about grammar or structure of the
sentences. The study of meaning contains of several dimensions, such as: sense,
logic, speech act, discourse and so on. Semantics is interrelated with the
discourse in the context of communication form or text form. Because semantics
essentially with the context of discourse element. Actually in the daily life
we always face with the discourse. It can be in the person have the differences
of discourse in the some things in entire the world. In this paper in order to
be interesting we are going to discuss element that related with discourse,
namely the universe discourse. Universe of discourse is as one of the
interesting term of meaning study in the semantics scope. For more clear we
will discuss in the explanation below:
1.
B. DISCUSSION
Before we discuss
about universe discourse deeply, firstly we are going to review some
interesting terms that have relation with it, namely: referring expression,
predicate, predicator, and Argument.
1.
Referring expression
Referring
expression is defined as any expression used in utterance to refer to something
or some one (or a clearly delimited collection of thing or people); used with a
particular referent in mind. (Harford, et al. 2007: 37)
The some
expression can be a referring expression or not (or, as some would put it, may
or may not have a referring expression) depending on the context and situation.
Example:
1.
“Bill hit me” Bill and me are
referring expressions in this sentence
2.
“There is no Bill in this room” Bill is
not referring expression in this sentence
3.
“John phoned me”. John and me are
referring expressions in this sentence.
1.
“There’s no John in this class” John is
not a referring expression
in this sentence.
1.
Predicator
Predicator is the
word (sometimes a group of words) which does not belong to any of the referring
expressions and which, of the remainder, makes the most specific contribution
to the meaning of the sentence (Harford, et al. 2007: 47-48).
Examples:
(1) Rinjani
is in Lombok.
(2) Power
corrupts.
(3) Smoking
is a health hazard.
(4) Jane
is happy.
(5) We
have been to London
1.
Predicate
Predicates is
defined as any word (or sequence words) which (in a given single sense) can
function as predicator of a sentence.
Example:
·
Noun
: crook, bottle, cat, John, school etc.
·
Verbs
: eat, read, swim, write, think, switch on etc.
·
Adjective
: black, tall, beautiful, handsome, ocean blue etc.
·
Preposition :
in, from, under, beyond etc.
Some expressions
are almost referring expressions no matter what sentence they occur. (Soekemi,
2009: 29)
Example:
·
Proper names (Jack, John, Thomson, Jill etc)
In semantic the
distinction between referring expressions and predicating expression is
absolute. Either an expression is used in a given utterance to refer to some
entity in the world or it is not used.
1.
1. The
lion attack a man.
Jack
is a man.
A man in
the first sentence is a referring expression, but it is not in the second.
1.
2. Anak itu menggenggam seekor binatang.
Itu seekor binatang.
From the example
above, we can know that “Seekor binatang” in the first
sentence is a referring expression, but it is a predicating expression in the
second.
1.
Argument
Argument has
several definitions. Cummings (2005: 165) defines arguments as a set of claims
(statements, propositions, etc.) some of which (the premises) must at least
give the appearance of advancing reasons for the acceptance of particular claim
within the set (the conclusion). While Purdue University Writing Lab writes, an
argument involves the process of establishing a claim and then proving it with
the use of logical reasoning, examples, and research. Jackson defines it that
is an entity associated with a predicate. For example, the predicate throw has
three arguments: the ‘actor’ (i.e. the thrower), the ‘patient’ or ‘undergoes’
(the thing thrown), and the ‘goal’ (where it is thrown) (Jackson, 2007: 60).
An argument must
consist of at least two statements. One and only one statement will be the
conclusion. The rest of the statements will be premises of the argument. The
expression of an argument will often contain indicator words that help identify
the premises and conclusion. Some conclusion indicators are:
so
therefore
consequently
as a result
thus
hence
accordingly
it follows that.
These terms tell
us that what follows expresses a conclusion. The other statements in the
argument must be premises.
There are also
terms, which indicate premises. Some of these are:
since
because
for
in light of
in view of
as shown by.
Identifying the
premises allows us to determine that the remaining statement in the argument is
the conclusion.
Unfortunately,
expressions of arguments do not always contain indicator words. In this case,
we must rely on context and relations of support to identify premises and
conclusion. If someone asserts:
There cannot be
the serious unemployment in this country
that the liberals
proclaim. Today’s classified section was full
of help wanted
ads. People just refuse to take the jobs that are available.
we can reconstruct
the structure of the argument based on our knowledge of the context in which
such an assertion would occur. That context would be a disagreement with a
liberal concern with high unemployment. The conclusion is:
There cannot be
the serious unemployment
in this country
that the liberals proclaim.
The premises are:
Today’s classified
section was full of help wanted ads.
People just refuse
to take the jobs that are available.
Conditional
statements should not be confused with arguments. A conditional statement is
usually expressed with an “if…then” sentence.
If the bank is
open, then I can withdraw some money.
There are two
arguments (Moore and Parker, 1986: 189): deductive arguments and inductive
arguments. Deductive arguments are those whose premises are designed to provide
absolutely conclusive reasons for accepting the conclusion, while inductive
arguments are those whose premises are designed to provide some support, but
less than conclusive support, for the conclusion. To make the notion clear,
they give the following examples of deductive arguments:
1.
No republican voted against the President’s
tax proposal. So, since Senator Aardvark is a Republican, he did not vote
against the tax proposal.
2.
If Gonzales runs a Democrat, he will lose the
election. But if Gonzales loses, Smith will win. Therefore, if Gonzales runs as
a Democrat, Smith will win.
(Moore and Parker,
1986: 189)
And for inductive
arguments, they give the following examples;
1.
For the last twenty three years, autumn has
been the season of the least rainfall in San Francisco. Therefore, this coming
autumn will be drier in San Francisco than any of the other seasons.
2.
I have checked out half the floppy disks in
this shipment, and everyone of them has been defective, so I think it’s a safe
bet that the whole shipment is defective.
(Moore and Parker,
1986: 189)
Principally, an
argument consists of conclusion and premises (Moore and Parker, 1986: 182). A
conclusion refers to the claim that is argued for, while premises refer to the
claims that provide the readers or hearers with reasons for believing the
conclusion. They give the examples of arguments and their anatomy as follows:
1.
[Premise] Every officer on the force has been
certified, and [premise] nobody can be certified without scoring above 70
percent on the firing range. Therefore, [conclusion] every officer on the force
must have scored above 70 percent on the firing range.
2.
[Premise] Mr. Conner, the gentlemen who lives
on the corner, comes down this street on his morning walk everyday, rain or
shine. So,[conclusion] something must have happened to him, since [premise] he
has not shown up today.
In many ways,
argument can not be separated from logic. Argument will be strong enough if it
is supported by logic. Soekemi states that logic concerns meaning in a language
system (2000:64). Logic contributes rational behavior significantly. An
argument will be more acceptable if it reflects a rational behavior. Soekemi
adds, rational behavior consists of goals, assumptions and knowledge, and
calculations. He gives an example of rational behavior as follows:
Goal:
To have a just and
prosperous society
Assumptions and
knowledge:
A colonial
government has proved to be suppressing common people. A government dominated
by military groups is only good for the people who have the power and on the
contrary such a government is not good for most people. A liberal government is
not appropriate for most people, either. It gives more right any protection
only the strong. The ideal government is a democratic one, because it gives the
same right and protection to everybody.
The government is
not colonial government, but it is still dominated by military powers. It is
clearly indicated by the fact that so many key positions are occupied by
military men. The Indonesian government is also a liberal government; the weak
do not own the same right and protection as the strong; so that the weak have
become weaker while the strong have become stronger. It is stated in the
Indonesian constitution that the national goal is to build a just and
prosperous society.
If the national
goal is to build a just and prosperous society, the people must have democratic
government so that everybody has the same right and protection. If the
Indonesian government is not democratic, the people must have a democratic
government. A democratic government does not come by itself, therefore the
Indonesia people have to struggle for having a democratic government.
Struggling for a democratic government is identical with struggling for ajust
and prosperous society.
Rational Action;
Struggling for a
democratic government
(Soekemi, 2000: 64-65)
1.
5. Universe
discourse
Language is
“miracle”; it can be used for talking about existing things as well as
non-existing thing.
Example:
1.
1. Did
unicoms really exist?
2.
2. Ratu
Roro Kidul rules in the Indian Ocean.
A language is used
to talk about the real world and can be used to talk about an infinite variety
of abstractions, and even of entities in imagery, unreal world.
Example:
1.
1. Borobudur
temple is wonderful place. (real world)
2.
2. Ramayana
(unreal world)
Definition
There are several
definitions of universe discourse as follow:
“The
universe discourse is a class containing all the entities referred to in a discourse
or argument”(www.dictionary. babylon.com/universe of
discourse).
“The universe of
discourse for any utterance is a particular situation or world, real or imagery
that the participant of the discourse assumes he/ she is talking about at the
time”. (Soekemi, 2000:30)
“The universe of
discourse for any utterance is defined as the particular world, real or imagery
(or part real, part imagery), that the speaker assumes he is talking about at
the time” (Hurfort, et al, 2007: 62).
After we look at some
definition above, in the next we can know that universe of discourse is real or
imagery of the particular world that the speaker assumes he or she is talking
about at the time. So it may occur the differences between one person with the
other in the universe of discourse.
Example:
v When an
astronomy lecturer, in a serious lecture, states that the earth revolved around
the sun, the universe of discourse is as well as all assume. The real world (or
universe).
v When
mother tells her children a bedtime story and says: the dragon set fire to the
woods with his hot breath; the universe of discourse is not real world but a
factious world.
Real
: “Indonesia is suffering from various kinds of
crisis”
Real
: Doctor to a patient: “You cannot expect to live longer than another two
months”
Unreal : “Gatot
Kaca was flying in the sky”
Unreal : “Hanoman
moves mountains”
No universe of
discourse is totally factious world. It can be totally real, or it is a world
which is a combination between real and unreal.
Example:
1)
“Our country (real) & various kinds of crisis” (real)
2)
“Hanoman (unreal) & mountain” (real)
3)
“Ratu Roro Kidul (unreal) & the Indian ocean” (real)
In the following
situations, may occur there are the participants working in the same universe
of discourse (S) or different universe of discourse (D). We can look at in the
example below:
1.
A: “Che Guevara is the prominent figure
socialism from French.”
B: “yes, I see
about it for a long time.” (S)
1.
A: “Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono is the leader of
democrat party.”
B: “yes, that’s
right.” (S)
(The conversations
above are the example of the same universe of discourse)
It is opposite
with the example below:
1.
Theis : “Diseases must serve some
God purpose, or God not allows them”
Atheis : “I cannot
accept your promise.” (D)
Here the, exist is
operating with a universe of discourse which is a world in which God exist. The
atheist’s assumed universe of discourse is a world in which God does not exist.
(The conversation above is the example of different universe of discourse),
let’s see the next example:
1.
A: “Did John sister come in this morning?”
B: “I didn’t know
that John had a sister.”
A: “Then who’s
that tall chap that was here yesterday?”
B: I don’t know,
but I am pretty sure John hasn’t got any sister?”
A: “I am sure
John’s sister was here yesterday”. (D)
(The conversation
in the sentences above is also the example of different universe of discourse)
Every discourse
has universe, we can see the example below:
Example:
·
Nyai Roro Kidul
·
Nyai Blorong
·
Roro Jonggrang and Prambanan Temple
When we tell the
universe of discourse sometimes the participant have the same universe of
discourse or don’t have the same universe of discourse, so if we want to tell
“Nyai Roro Kidul, Nyai Blorong, Roro Jonggrang and Prambanan Temple”, actually
we should tell more about them, so that the hearer will have the same universe
of discourse. It is will occur if we give the understanding to the hearer
firstly until they can understand and obtain same assumption about the
discourse. Because the communication will connected when the conversation have
the same universe of discourse.
The communication
always interrelated with the discourse context. The differences of knowledge or
information to capture anything around us will influence the difference of the
universe of discourse. When we have te communication with the person the
discourse above (Nyai Roro Kidul, Nyai Blorong, Roro Jonggrang and Prambanan
Temple), not rare we will find out some not related communication. For the
example if person A have certain assumption about that discourse it is may be
no problem, but the problem will occurred when the person B have the different
assumption about that discourse of course will happened the unconnected
conversation. So in fact we should giving understanding with the hearer about
the discourse, so that will obtain successfully in communication.
In the picture
below will show the steps of the universe discourse context:
The picture above
shows the steps of the universe of discourse contexts. They are immediate
situation of utterance, context of utterance and the last is the universe of
discourse. It is mean that the universe of discourse is begun from the
immediate situation of utterance, context of utterance finally result the
universe of discourse. It can be the same universe of discourse or different
universe of discourse.
Note the purpose
of the same universe of discourse is essential to successful communication, so
when there are the same universe of discourse of two or more people in the
context of utterance, they will get communication successfully, on the contrary
when there are not same universe discourse in communication term absolutely
they will not get successfully in communication.
1.
C. SOME IMPORTANT
POINTS
After
we discuss deeply related with universe discourse above, actually we will find
some important points related to our discussion namely:
1.
Speaker use referring expressions to refer to
entities which may be concrete or abstract.
2.
The predicate embedded in referring
expression help the hearer to identify its referent.
3.
Semantics is not concerned with the factual
status or things in the world, but with meaning in language.
4.
The notion of universe discourse is introduce
to account for the way in which language allow us to refer to non-existent
thing.
1.
D. CONCLUSSIONS
In semantics term,
the meaning is studied systematically and how languages organize and express
meanings, one of the interesting aspects of discussion is universe discourse.
Actually there is various definition of universe discourse and the common one
is that universe discourse is deal for any utterance as the particular world,
real or unreal (imagery) or (part real, part imagery), that the speaker assumes
he/she is talking about at the time. Universe discourse form is can be in a
world, sentence and also in conversation utterance context. Universe discourse
for any utterance as the particular world can be real or not real (imagery); no
universe of discourse is totally factious world; it can be totally real, or the
combination between real and unreal. The next term of universe discourse is
same or different universe discourse; when there is same universe of discourse,
absolutely will obtain the communication successfully, conversely when not same
universe of discourse occur in the utterance context, automatically will not
get communication successfully, because the purpose of the same universe
discourse is essential to successful communication. So it is mean that one of keys
to get successfully in communication is the same universe of discourse.
Reference
Cummings, Louise.
2005. Pragmatics: A Multidisciplinary Perspective. Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press Ltd..
Hurford, James,
Brendan Haesley, Michael B. Smith, 2007. Semantic: A Course Book,
Second Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kreidler,
W. Charles.1998. Introducing English Semantics.
London: Routledge.
Lion, John.1981. Linguistic and Semantic, an Introduction.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Moore, Brooke Noel
and Parker, Richard. 1986. Critical Thinking: Evaluating
Claims and
Arguments in Everyday Life. Palo Alto: Mayfield
Publishing Company
R.L. Trask
1991. A Dictionary of Grammatical Term in Linguistic.
Brighton: University of Sussex
Rober Audi, Epistemology,
Routledge, 1998. Particularly relevant is Chapter 6, which explores the
relationship between knowledge, inference and argument.
Soekemi,
Kem. Semantics: Workbook, Second Edition.2000. Surabaya: Univhttp://www.dictionary
