Praanggapan dalam Tuturan Dialog Bahasa Persidangan di Pengadilan Negeri Kelas 1A Pekanbaru

  • Erni Erni Universitas Islam Riau, Pekanbaru, Indonesia
  • Herwandi Herwandi STKIP Rokania, Indonesia
  • Indah Sari
Keywords: speech act, dialogue, presupposition

Abstract

Interpersonal verbal communication will run fluently, if there is a continuity of the propositions spoken. Well-connection is a manifestation of the understanding between speaker and listener; understanding of information from utterances. This study examined the types of presupposition that appear in the speech of prosecutor with a witness in the Domestic Court of IA class, Pekanbaru. The classification of types of presupposition refers Yule’s theory in 1996. This research was descriptive study. To answer the research questions, data was collected through all the speeches of the prosecutor and witnesses during submission of witnesses in criminal case session in the Domestic Court of IA class, Pekanbaru. The results showed that there are four types of presupposition found from prosecutors’ speeches regard to Yule’s theory. Further, two types of presupposition that do not appear in the prosecutors’ speeches. These two presuppositions are caused by all the prosecutors’ speeches are based on factual information. The most frequencies of the presupposition are structural presupposition and the rare frequencies are factual presupposition. Structural presupposition is dominant because almost of prosecutors’ speeches contain of interrogative utterances mode.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Chaer, Abdul dan Agustina Leonie. 2004. Sosiolinguistik Perkenalan Awal. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.

Clark dan Clark (1977:228). Psychology and Language: An Introduction to Psycolonguistics. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovitch Inc.

Davis, Steven. (ed.) 1991. Pragmatics: A. Reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Grice, H.P. 1989. “Logic and Conversation” dalam Steven Davis. et.al., 1991. Pragmatics: A Reader.Oxford: Oxford University Press

Ibrahim, Abdul Syukur dan Supono. 2003. Sosiolinguistik. Modul. Jakarta: Universitas Terbuka.
Kaswanti Purwo, Bambang. 1990. Pragmatik dan Pengajaran Bahasa: Menyibak Kurikulum 1984. Jogyakarta: Kanisius

___________(ed.), 1993. Pertemuan Linguistik Lembaga Bahasa Atma Jaya Keenam (PELLBA 6). Jakarta: Kerjasama Lembaga Bahasa Atma Jaya dengan Kanisius

Kridalaksana, Harimurti. 1984. Kamus Linguistik. Jakarta: Gramedia

Leech, Geofferey. 1983. The Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman Group Ltd.

Levinson, S.C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Mahsun. 2005. Metode Penelitian Bahasa. Jakarta: Rajawali Press.

Nababan, P.W.J. 1987. Ilmu Pragmatik (Teori dan Penerapannya). Jakarta: Departemen Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan

NarbukodanAchmadi. 2008. MetodologiPenelitian. Jakarta: BumiAksara.

Parker, Frank. 1986. Linguistics for Non-linguists. London: Taylor & Francis Ltd.

Rokhman, Fathur. 2013. Sosiolinguistik Suatu Pendekatan Pembelajaran Bahasa dalam Masyarakat Multikultural. Yogyakarta: Graha Ilmu.

Stalnaker, R. C. 1978. “Assertion”. dalam Steven Davis (ed.) 1991. Pragmatics: A. Reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Suandi, I Nengah. 2014. Sosiolinguistik. Yogyakarta: Graha Ilmu.

Sumarsono. 2012. Sosiolinguistik. Yogyakarta: Sabda Lembaga Studi Agama, Budaya dan Perdamaian Pustaka Belajar.

Tarigan, H. G. 1986. Pengajaran Pragmatik. Bandung: Angkasa

Veerhar, J.W.M. 1977. Pengantar Linguistik Jil. I. Bajah Mada University Press

Wijana, I Dewa Putu dan Muhammad Rohmadi. 2013. Sosiolinguistik Kajian Teori dan Analisis. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Belajar.

Yasin, Anas. 1991. “Gramatika Komunikatif: Sebuah Model. Disertasi tidak dipublikasikan. Malang: Program Pascasarjana IKIP Malang

Yule, George, 1996. Pragmatics. Oxford Introduttion to Language Study. (Series Editor, h.G. Widdowson). Oxford: Oxford University press.
Published
2019-12-08