Peristiwa Bahasa

  1. A.     PENDAHULUAN

Pada dasarnya bahasa merupakan bagian yang tidak terpisahkan dari suatu sistem sosial. Dalam setiap komunikasi manusia saling menyampaikan informasi yan dapat berupa pikiran, gagasan, maksud, perasaan, maupun emosi secara langsung. Para sosiolinguis mempertanyakan keberadaan variasi bahasa dari berbagai tataran yang jelas-jelas bukan merupakan sekedar performansi sebagai akibat kondisi-kondisi gramatikal yang tidak relevan, tetapi adanya benar-benar diakibatkan oleh bermacam-macam faktor ekstralingual sebagai pencerminan dari sebuah masyarakat bahasa yang selalu bersifat heterogen (Wijana, 2012: 12-13). Di dalam masyarakat seseorang tidak lagi dipandang sebagai individu yang terpisah dari yang lain. Ia merupakan anggota dari kelompok sosialnya. Oleh karena itu bahasa dan pemakaian bahasanya tidak diamati secara  individual, tetapi selalu dihubungkan dengan kegiatannya di dalam masyarakat. Dengan kata lain, bahasa tidak saja dipandang sebagai gejala individual tetapi juga sebagai gejala sosial.

Sebagai gejala sosial, bahasa dan pemakaian bahasa tidak hanya ditentukan oleh faktor linguistik tetapi juga oleh faktor non-linguistik, antara lain adalah faktor sosial. Faktor-faktor sosial yang mempengaruhi pemakaian bahasa misalnya status sosial, tingkat pendidikan, umur, tingkat ekonomi, jenis kelamin dan sebagainya. Di samping itu pemakaian bahasa juga dipengaruhi oleh faktor-faktor situasional. Menurut Fishman (1975) pemilihan penggunaan bahasa oleh penutur dalam sebuah peristiwa bahasa tidak terjadi secara acak, melainkan harus mempertimbangkan beberapa faktor yaitu siapa yang berbicara, siapa lawan bicaranya, topik apa yang dibicarakan, dan di mana peristiwa tutur itu terjadi (Wijana, 2012: 7).

Di dalam setiap peristiwa interaksi verbal atau proses komunikasi selalu terdapat beberapa komponen yang mengambil peranan dan terlibat dalam peristiwa tersebut. Bell (1976: 75) menyatakan secara tradisional terdapat tiga  komponen yang  telah lama diakui sebagai komponen utama dari sebuah peristiwa atau situasi komunikasi yaitu: penutur (speaker), lawan tutur (hearer) , dan topik pembicaraan. Dengan kata lain dalam setiap proses komunikasi yang terjadi antara penutur dan lawan tutur terjadi juga apa yang disebut peristiwa tutur atau peristiwa bahasa (speech event). Makalah ini akan membahas tentang etnografi komunikasi (Ethnography of Communication) yang diprakarsai oleh Dell Hymes meliputi peristiwa tutur (speech event) dan kaidah-kaidah yang menandai terjadinya sebuah peristiwa tutur atau peristiwa bahasa.

  1. B.      PEMBAHASAN
    1. 1.         Komunikasi Etnografi (Ethnography of Communication)

Komunikasi Etnografi (Ethnography of Communication) merupakan sebuah pendekatan untuk menganalisa sebuah wacana yang digunakan. Pendekatan ini didasarkan pada antropologi dan linguistik. Pendekatan ini berfokus pada berbagai perilaku komunikatif (communicative competence) dalam masyarakat penutur (speech community), komunikasi berpola dan diatur sebagai sebuah sistem peristiwa komunikatif, dan cara-cara berinteraksi dengan sistem budaya lainnya (Muriel, 2003: 2). Pendekatan ini berusaha untuk:

  1. Menemukan berbagai bentuk dan fungsi yang tersedia untuk berkomunikasi.
  2. Menetapkan cara bentuk dan fungsi tersebut menjadi bagian dari cara hidup yang berbeda.
  3. Menganalisis pola komunikasi sebagai bagian dari pengetahuan budaya dan perilaku.

Tokoh pelopor dan sekaligus pendiri komunikasi etnografi adalah Dell Hymes dengan istilahnya yang terkenal yaitu “ethnography of speaking” (komunikasi etnografi) dalam memahami penggunaan bahasa. Hymes berpendapat :

…that the study of language must concern itself with describing and analyzing the ability of the native speakers to use language for communication in real situations (communicative competence) rather than limiting itself to describing the potential ability of the ideal speaker/listener to produce grammatically correct sentences (linguistic competence). Speakers of a language in particular communities are able to communicate with each other in a manner which is not only correct but also appropriate to the sociocultural context. This ability involves a shared knowledge of the linguistic code as well as of the socio-cultural rules, norms and values which guide the conduct and interpretation of speech and other channels of communication in a community … [T]he ethnography of communication … is concerned with the questions of what a person knows about appropriate patterns of language use in his or her community and how he or she learns about it (Farah (1998) in Wodak, 2011: 59).

… Bahwa studi bahasa harus memperhatikan dirinya dengan menggambarkan dan menganalisis kemampuan dari penutur asli untuk menggunakan bahasa untuk komunikasi dalam situasi nyata (kompetensi komunikatif) daripada membatasi diri untuk menggambarkan kemampuan potensial yang ideal dari penutur / lawan tutur untuk menghasilkan kalimat tata bahasa yang benar (kompetensi linguistik). Penutur bahasa dalam masyarakat tertentu dapat berkomunikasi satu sama lain dengan cara yang tidak hanya benar tetapi juga sesuai dengan konteks sosial budaya. Kemampuan ini melibatkan pengetahuan bersama dari kode linguistik, aturan sosial budaya, norma dan nilai-nilai yang memandu perilaku dan interpretasi berbicara dan saluran komunikasi lainnya dalam masyarakat … etnografi komunikasi … berkaitan dengan pertanyaan-pertanyaan tentang apa yang orang ketahui tentang pola yang tepat dari bahasa yang digunakan dalam komunitasnya dan bagaimana ia belajar tentang hal itu.

Hymes menekankan bahwa bahasa tidak dapat dipisahkan dari bagaimana dan mengapa bahasa itu digunakan, dan bahwa pertimbangan penggunaan bahasa sering sebagai prasyarat untuk pengakuan dan pemahaman tentang banyak bentuk linguistik. Komunikasi etnografi mengambil bahasa sebagai bentuk budaya sosial untuk mengakui dan menganalisis kode itu sendiri dan proses kognitif penutur dan lawan tutur, yang memang konstitutif dalam banyak budaya (Muriel, 2003: 3).

Dalam rangka untuk menggambarkan dan menganalisis komunikasi Hymes membagi ke dalam tiga unit analisis, meliputi situasi (situation), peristiwa (event), dan tindak (act). Situasi komunikatif (communicative situation) merupakan konteks di mana komunikasi terjadi seperti upacara, perkelahian, perburuan, pembelajaran di dalam ruang kelas, konferensi, pesta dan lain sebagainya. Peristiwa komunikatif (communicative event) merupakan unit dasar untuk sebuah tujuan deskriptif komunikasi yang sama meliputi: topik yang sama, peserta yang sama, ragam bahasa yang sama. Tindak komunikatif (communicative act) umumnya berbatasan dengan fungsi tunggal interaksional, seperti pernyataan referensial, permintaan, atau perintah, yang mungkin berupa tindak verbal atau tindak nonverbal (Muriel, 2003: 23-24). Seperti diilustrasikan dalam gambar berikut ini:

  • 2.         Peristiwa Tutur / Peristiwa Bahasa (Speech Event)

Peristiwa tutur adalah sebuah aktifitas berlangsungnya interaksi linguistik dalam satu bentuk ujaran atau lebih yang melibatkan dua pihak, yaitu penutur dan lawan tutur, dengan satu pokok tuturan, dalam waktu, tempat, dan situasi tertentu (Chaer, 2010: 47). Dengan kata lain, tidak dapat dikatakan bahwa dalam setiap proses komunikasi pasti terjadi juga peristiwa tutur atau peristiwa bahasa.

Interaksi yang berlangsung antara seorang pedagang pasar dan pembeli pada waktu tertentu dengan menggunakan bahasa sebagai alat komunikasinya adalah sebuah peristiwa tutur. Hal yang sama juga terjadi dan kita dapati dalam acara diskusi, di ruang kuliah, rapat dinas di kantor, sidang di pengadilan, dan sebagainya.

Hymes membedakan antara peristiwa tutur dan tindak tutur. Hymes berpendapat bahwa peristiwa tutur  (speech event) terjadi dalam sebuah konteks non-verbal. Hymes Dell lebih lanjut membahas peristiwa tutur dan menunjukkan bahwa berbagai komponen harus disertakan dalam deskripsi etnografis komprehensif tindak tutur. Klasifikasi yang ia usulkan dikenal sebagai SPEAKING, di mana setiap huruf dalam akronim tersebut adalah singkatan untuk komponen komunikasi yang berbeda. Tabel di bawah ini menunjukkan komponen ini dengan definisi singkat dari masing-masing.

S Situation
  • Setting berkenaan dengan waktu dan tempat tutur berlangsung.
  • Scene mengacu pada situasi tempat dan waktu atau situasi psikologis pembicaraan.
Waktu, tempat, dan situasi tuturan yang berbeda dapat menyebabkan penggunaan variasi bahasa yang berbeda sebagai contoh berbicara dilapangan sepak bola pada waktu ada pertandingan dalam situasi ramai tentu berbeda dengan pembicaraan di ruang perpustakaan pada waktu orang banyak membaca dan dalam keadaan sunyi.
P Participants Merujuk pada pihak-pihak yang teribat dalam pertuturan, bisa pembicara dan pendengar, penyapa dan pesapa, atau pengirim dan penerima. Status sosial partisipan sangat menentukan ragam bahasa yang digunakan, misalnya anak akan mengguakan ragam atau gaya bahasa yang berbeda bla berbicara dengan orang tuanya atau gurunya bila dibandingkan kalau dia berbicara dengan teman sebayanya.
E Ends Merujuk pada maksud dan tujuan pertuturan. Peristiwa tutur yang terjadi di ruang sidang pengadilan berkamsud untuk menyelesaikan suatu kasus perkara; namun para partisipan di dalam peristiwa tutur itu mempunyai tujuan yang berbeda. Jaksa ingin membuktikan kesalahan terdakwa, pembela berusaha membuktikan bahwa terdakwa tidak bersalah, sedangkan hakim berusaha memberkan keputusan yang adil.
A Act Sequences Mengacu pada bentuk ujaran dan isi ujaran.

  • Bentuk ujaran berkenaan dengan dengan kata yang digunakan, bagaimana penggunaannya.
  •  Isi Ujaran berkenaan dengan hubungan antara apa yang dikatakan dengan topik pembicaraan.
Bentuk dan isi ujaran dalam kuliah umum, dalam percakapan biasa, dan dalam pesta berbeda.
K Key Mengacu pada nada, cara, dan semangat di mana suatu pesan disampaikan. Dengan senang hati, dengan serius, dengan singkat, dengan sombong, dengan mengejek dan sebagainya. Atau dapat ditunjukkan juga dengan gerak tubuh dan isyarat.
I Instrumentalities Mengacu pada jalur bahasa yang digunakan dan juga mengacu pada kode ujaran yang digunakan. Jalur tulisan, lisan, melalui telegraf atau telepon, bahasa, dialek, fragam atau register.
N Norms Mengacu pada norma atau aturan dalam berinteraksi dan juga mengacu pada penafsiran terhadap ujaran dari lawan bicara. Berhubungan dengan cara berinterupsi, cara bertanya, dan sebagainya
G Genres Mengacu pada jenis bentuk penyampaian Narasi, puisi, pepatah, doa, dan sebagainya.
  1. 3.         Contoh Penelitian menggunakan Metode SPEAKING
    1. a.    Peristiwa Tutur Bahasa Jawa Serang dan Sunda Serang di Provinsi Banten oleh Diana Tustiantina, Universitas Sultan Ageng Tirtayasa
  • Rumusan Masalah:
    • Bagaimana peristiwa tutur yang terjadi pada bahasa Jawa Serang dan Sunda Serang di desa Padarincang?
    • Komunitas sosial manakah dalam masyarakat tersebut yang lebih dominan dalam melakukan adaptasi linguistik?
    • Jenis penelitian kualitatif
    • Metode pengumpulan data:
      • Metode simak dengan teknik sadap
      • Metode cakap
      • Analisis data menggunakan rumusan SPEAKING Hymes
      • Analisis Data:

1. Setting dan Scene

PT (1)

A :Iraha bawa Raskin?

(Kapan mengambil Raskin?)

B : Bulan ieu bae sekitar tanggal dua puluh dua.

(Bulan ini saja, Sekitar tanggal dua puluh dua.)

Konteks : Seorang aparat desa bertanya tentang kegiatan yang akan dikerjakan pada aparat desa lainnya.

PT (2)

A : Isukan banja nya!

( Besok belanja yah!)

B : Naon Bae Balanjana?

( Belanja, apa saja?)

A : Bonteng dua kilo.

(Timun 2 kilo)

Konteks : seorang istri meminta suaminya untuk berbelanja kebutuhan di warungnya.

PT (3)

A : Pirang rit narike

( Berapa lama/ berapa putaran menyupirnya)

B : Rongrit

(Dua putaran)

A : Rongrit doang

(Dua putaran, saja)

B : Ya lumayan rongrit gah rokoroko mah nana

(Ia lumayan dua putaran juga untuk rokok saja ada)

Konteks : seorang teman menanyakan pada temannya yang berprofesi sebagai supir angkutan kota.

PT (4)

A : Tilu rebuan tilu rebuan nyeepkeun yeuh!

( tiga ribuan menghabiskan nih!)

B :Dua rebu bae.

( Dua ribu saja.)

A : Teu tiasa ku ongkos ge seep.

( Tidak bias untuk ongkos saja sudah habis.)

Konteks : transaksi tawar menawar barang dan harga antara penjual dengan pembeli.

2. Participants terdiri atas sesama rekan, suami istri, teman seprofesi, dan antara penjuan dengan pembeli.

3. Ends digunakan dengan tujuan bertanya, penjelasan, mengingatkan, mencari solusi, dan permintaan.

4. Act Sequence berbentuk kalimat tidak lengkap, diungkapkan melalui kalimat langsung dan tidak mengandung peribahasa atau kiasan.

5. Key diantaranya dekat dan sekedar kenal dilakukan dengan sikap dan cara ramah, santun, tidak santun, nada suara netral, meninggi, naik turun dengan penjiwaan biasa dan gembira.

6. Instrumentalities menggunakan saluran oral dan berada di pusat kota.

7. Norms sekedar kenal maka tuturan diucapkan dengan sikap dan cara ramah, santun, nada suara netral dengan penjiwaan biasa. Sedangkan bersifat dekat maka diucapkan dengan ramah, tidak santun, nada suara naik turun, meninggi, dan netral penjiwaan gembira.

8. Genre berbentuk dialog.

  • Kesimpulan

Berdasarkan analisis di atas disimpulkan bahwa peristiwa tutur terjadi berdasarkan konteks tertentu dan kontak sosial, terjadi di balai desa, di rumah, di warung, di POSKAMLING dan di Pasar Padarincang. Partisipan terdiri atas sesama rekan, suami istri, teman seprofesi, dan antara penjual dengan pembeli dengan tujuan bertanya, penjelasan, mengingatkan, mencari solusi, dan permintaan, memiliki bentuk dan isi berupa kalimat tidak lengkap, kalimat langsung dan tidak mengandung peribahasa atau kiasan-kiasan perumpamaan. Hubungan yang ada diantaranya dekat dan sekedar kenal dilakukan dengan sikap dan cara ramah, santun, tidak santun, nada suara netral, meninggi, naik turun dengan penjiwaan biasa dan gembira. Alat yang digunakan adalah oral dan berada di pusat kota. Norma yang terjadi Jika hubungan sosial diantara peserta tutur adalah sekedar kenal maka tuturan diucapkan dengan sikap dan cara ramah, santun, nada suara netral dengan penjiwaan biasa. Sedangkan hubungan sosial bersifat dekat maka tuturan diucapkan dengan ramah, tidak santun, nada suara naik turun, meninggi, dan netral penjiwaan gembira dan berbentuk dialog.

Masyarakat desa Padarincang mayoritas berbahasa Sunda. Hal ini berarti hanya sebagian kecil saja masyarakatnya berbahasa Jawa. Dominasi bahasa Sunda dalam setiap kontak komunikasi yang terjadi di masyarakat Padarincang menyebabkan komunitas masyarakat berbahasa Jawa Serang harus memiliki kemampuan lebih yaitu menguasai pula bahasa Sunda Serang sehingga komunitas sosial tersebut lebih dominan mengalami adaptasi linguistik.

  1. b.   A Study on Ethnography of Communication: A discourse Analysis with Hymes ‘speaking model’ oleh Dr. Manas Ray (Professor & Head, Dept.of Anthropology, Visva-Bharati University, Sriniketan Campus, 731236, West .Bengal, India E-mail: manas.ray@visva-bharati.ac.in), dan Mr. Chinmay Biswas (Assistant Professor, Dept. of Anthropology Sree Chaitanya College, West Bengal State University, Barasat, West Bengal, India E-mail: chinmaybiswas333@gmail.com)

A study was conducted in an academic institution, a UG degree college of West Bengal State University in urban setting. The event of interaction was a departmental meeting held in the fall of summer of the current year. The interactive persons were homogeneous in terms of speech character (monolingual: speak in a regional language ‘Bengali’), religiosity (Hindu by birth) and profession (teacher). Altogether 16 persons took part in interaction. One permanent regular faculty was not present in the meeting because of her personal work. One non-teaching staff with one part-time employee (teaching) was not also attended that meeting. The conversation of that meeting was continued near about three hours. The following agenda of the meeting were discussed:

  1. Academic affairs; like, class routine, academic calendars, topic choice and work-load distribution.
  2. Academic field-work related matters.
  3. Miscellaneous.

Here is an example of one study that was based on “Hymes” Model.

Settings: The setting was academic department of UG degree college of West Bengal State University of, situated at Habra, .North 24 Parganas. A round table was in the room with wooden chairs. A window with suitable cover is present. Pictures and academic scenario covered the walls. A clock is on the wall near the door. Head of the department was present in the middle, no definite place was recognized and also no desk.

Participants: There was homogeneous group containing 15 members present. All teaching and nonteaching staffs are requested to express their opinions on the agenda of the meeting. There was an equal opportunity for representing the self opinion for the members. Head of the Dept (HOD), had been addressed as ‘respected Sir/Madam’ by participants, no other honorable term was used.

Ends: The conversation started with short speech of the HOD. According seniority the members were presented their speech.

Act: The speech acts in the meeting were most frequently discussed in terms of interest of the speaker. Another communicative speech was friendly and joking. The meeting officially started at 12 pm and ended 3 pm.

Instrument: The members were met face to face. Notes of the meeting were taken by a teacher in a meeting book.

Norms: There were many norms of the meeting. All members were maintained it carefully.

Genre: A non-teaching staff was not clearly stated his opinion, he was in hesitation But another one of his colleagues help him.

Technique Used:

The basic Ethnographic technique like observation was used for conducting the above discourse analysis using participant observation technique.

Findings of Conversation:

Findings of the present study are deciphered in Stage-1, with Table -1 & 2 for concerning the participant’s occupational status and preliminary cultural profile. To provide in this section in Stage-2 present their statements and Stage-3 stands to the decision making.

Stage-1 : Categorizing the people and their culturalbackground.

Stage-2 : Statement Scenario

Three shift of the college has already been running, therefore M=Morning Girls (General Course), E= Evening for Boys (general) and D=Day for regardless of sex (All Honours subject and B.A, General courses.)

B1= Head of the department. She is the second most senior faculty. She proposed the house that” the all field work of different classes have to be combined if you all agree”

1) A1= He did not give clear cut statement against the agenda. Rather he proposed that all morning session or girls of III yr and Evening boys III yr are arranged to conduct of a field and also respectively II yr of M&E.

2) A2= His statement was clear-cut. He said that field-work of the concerned classes to be held separately.

3) B2 = This was the very interesting cords, which broke harmonic situation of the discussion. The participant had not keep any speech. He said that “I agree with the statement of A2”.

4) C2= His statement was very important, he earnestly requested to the all members that kindly give a clear-cut notions. The meeting somewhat silence was that time.

5) No statement was given by the guest professors.

6) W1= His statement was for the consideration of combined field work.

7) W2= He strongly said to the favor of separate field work in tradition.

Stage-3 : Decision Making

HOD had come to the point of solution and also made it clear that no jointly making field likely to be held. The respective fieldworks would be done separately.

Results

The aforesaid study clearly indicates the importance of ‘Ethnography of  communication’. The communication of participants highly condensed in nature as well as high density of network was signified. The study deciphered the competence of communication. In the above discussion, it was examined that each and every participants had been manifested their self-statements. The all statements of the meeting had built a strong communicative bridge among the all members. At the same time, it can be assumed that the participants are the employee of the Educational Institution for long time and will have been continued. So their level of cognition is praiseworthy. Another important issue is that teaching and non-teaching staff are equally clarified their statement. The total discussion was held in regional language – Bengali. A little amount of English words was used in the total discussion, because to make a clear-cut communication space.

Another achievement was seen that the local and lower castes participants were going to present same mode of statement. But outside, participants though they belonged higher caste strata were presenting contradictory mode of statement. Although both of different castes of people always tried to manifests their

demands or wants within the conversation.

Conclusion

The main purpose of the study was to examine the Hymes ‘speaking model’. The result of the present study assigned that the language in relation to the cultural and social sediment which influence communication. The present study examined that the participants always presented their demands. The group solidarity and relationships were also found. Their mode of speech and high density of network reflected within the study. Every statements of the studied conversation were delightful and bright. The present study also indicates that social status as well as occupational status influenced by the language or mode of speaking, and variability of communication or perceptibility of communication is depended on those social/cultural traits. Language, communication and ethnography are interlocked with each other. These three issues have played a great role in human cultural space (HCS) to the society. Communication sometimes controls the individualism and the social status with group solidarity.

The present preliminary study revealed that the study of ethnography in times and space played as a cognitive devices to clarify human social/cultural identity. Ethnography of communication stated the rural simple way of life reflected through people’s mode of speaking and their sentiment. On the other hand urban settings stand their complexity nature to the mode of communication.

  1. c.    The Analysis of Speech Events and Hymes ‘SPEAKING’ Factors in the Comedy Television Series” “FRIENDS” by Elham Zand-Vakili, Alireza Fard Kashani, and Farhad Tabandeh.

Abstract

This study investigated the occurrence of speech events in “FRIENDS” comedy series (Season #1, Episode #1) to probe such phenomena in media discourse. This study presented not only a sample of spoken discourse about those speech events which were more frequent, but a sample of native speakers’ cultural norms. The results of the study showed that some typical speech events, due to the situational and contextual context of language, were more frequent than others; in the selected sample, the most recurring event in a friendly relationship was found to be confiding one’s secrets or personal affairs and problems with one’s friends and asking them for help, consultation, and sympathy. At the same time, there were some speaking factors affecting each speech event which are in line with Hymes’ (1974) SPEAKING model.

Keywords: Speech, speech events, speech situation, Hymes’ SPEAKING factors, FRIENDS comedy series, ethnography of speaking.

            Research Questions

To fulfill the purposes of the current study, the following research questions were proposed:

  1. What speech events are observed in the first episode of FRIENDS series?
  2. How are Hymes’ SPEAKING factors observed in each speech event in the intended FRIENDS episode?

Method

  1. a.      Instrumentation and Data Corpus

The data used for analysis in this study included natural conversations in the first episode of ‘FRIENDS’ popular comedy series which was chosen from Season #1 as a representative sample of the whole series. Friends is an American sitcom created by David Crane and Marta Kauffman, which aired on NBC from September 22, 1994 to May 6, 2004. The series featured six main characters throughout its run, with many other characters recurring throughout all ten seasons. Friends received positive reviews throughout most of its run, becoming one of the most popular sitcoms of all time. The series won many awards and was nominated for 63 Primetime Emmy Awards. The series, an instant hit from its debut, was also very successful in the ratings, consistently ranking in the top ten in the final primetime ratings.

  1. b.      Data Analysis

In Friends series, as the name betrays, there are six intimate friends that live with each other. They gather in home or a café and talk about their lives, jobs, and their personal affairs and give each other help if it is needed. Accordingly, to find answers to the intended research questions of the study and as Hymes puts it ‘one good technique for getting at speech event, as other categories, is through words which name them’ (1962 as cited in Philipsen & Coutu, 2005: 359), those speech events were identified and labeled by the researchers and then were listed. Moreover, each speech event was followed by its transcript; and since most of the speech events were divided into several scenes, the researchers put all the related scenes together to give readers a clear view of each speech event.

Speech event #1: Confiding

In this speech event Monica tells her friends about her date in the following night.

Setting and Scene: the setting of this speech event is Central Park Café in New York, the place the usually gather in after work to have coffee, rest, and have a friendly talk.

Participants: Monica, Joey, Chandler, and Phoebe

Ends: Monica has a date tonight but she has her doubts. She talks about it with her friends and wants to see her friends’ reaction to this issue.

Act sequence: first Monica talks very generally about her date. Then, her friends start joking about it. It is completely logical because the series is supposed to be comic. After that Monica tries to pretend that it is not a big deal. It is just a simple dinner.

Key: the tone is joking.

Instrument: the channel is totally oral and the register is totally informal.

Norms of interaction: in this kind of speech event it is usually the case that they do not say thing directly and as the tone is joking and sometimes sarcastic, the make wise cracks that are usually short.

Genre: friendly chat

{1350}{1441} Monica: There’s nothing to tell. It’s just some guy I work with.

{1447}{1499} Joey: Come on! You’re going out with a guy.

{1505}{1564} Joey: There’s gotta be something wrong with him.

{1570}{1618} Chandler: All right, Joey, be nice.

{1624}{1725} Chandler: So does he have a hump, a hump and a hair piece?

{1727}{1783} Phoebe: Wait. Does he eat chalk?

{1789}{1866} Phoebe: It’s just cause I don’t want her to go through what I did with Carl.

{1872}{1910} Monica: Hmm, Okay, everybody relax.

{1916}{1961} Monica: Relax. This is not even a date.

{1967}{2081} Monica: It is not. It’s just two people going out to dinner and not having sex.

{2087}{2161} Chandler: Sounds like a date to me.

Speech event #2: Confiding

Here Ross talks about his divorce.

Setting and Scene: the setting of this speech event is Central Park Café in New York. It is afternoon. The scene is the same as the previous one.

Participants: Ross, Monica, Phoebe, Joey, and Chandler

Ends: Ross is totally upset over the way his marital life ended and wants to talk about it with someone to come over the horrible feeling he had about his divorce.

Act sequence: he enters Café and he seems completely depressed. He describes the way he feels at that moment. Monica reveals the reason. Phoebe tries to be nice. Chandler and Joey make some jokes to help him fell better. Ross talks about the positive reaction his parents had about his divorce but Monica lets out parents’ true feeling about it. After that Joey tells him to forget about the matter and to enjoy life. But Ross does not want to be single.

Key: the tone is serious here.

Instrument: the channel is totally oral and the register is totally informal.

Norms of interaction: in this speech event friends should be nice and they should not reproach their friend for the things he should (not) have done.

Genre: friendly chat.

{3495}{3576} Ross: Hi. Joey: This guy says, “Hello”, I wanna kill myself.

{3582}{3627} Monica: You okay, sweetie?

{3633}{3745} Ross: I just feel like someone reached out my throat, grabbed my small intestine, pulled it out of my mouth…

{3751}{3855} Ross: …and tied it around my neck. Chandler: Cookie?

{3869}{3924} Monica: Carol moved out today.

{3930}{4020} Monica: Let me get you some coffee. Ross: Thanks.

{4092}{4198} Ross: No, don’t! Stop cleansing my aura.

{4204}{4261} Ross: Just leave my aura alone, okay?

{4267}{4324} Phoebe: Fine. Be murky.

{4330}{4406} Ross: I’ll be fine. Really, everyone. I hope she’ll be very happy.

{4412}{4436} Monica: No, you don’t.

{4442}{4513} Ross: No, I don’t. To hell with her. She left me!

{4519}{4615} Joey: And you never knew she was a lesbian.

{4720}{4823} Ross: No, Okay. Why does everyone keep fixating on that?

{4825}{4925} Ross: She didn’t know. How should I know?

{4934}{5035} Chandler: Sometimes I wish I was a lesbian.

{5044}{5130} Chandler: Did I say that out loud?

{5155}{5238} Ross: I told Mom and Dad last night. They seemed to take it pretty well.

{5244}{5349} Monica: Oh, Really? So that hysterical phone call I got from a woman sobbing at 3 a.m…

{5355}{5411} Monica: …”I’ll never have grandchildren!” …”I’ll never have grandchildren!”

{5417}{5479} Monica: Was, what? A wrong number?

{5485}{5525} Ross: Sorry.

{5531}{5604} Joey: All right, Ross. Look, you’re feeling a lot of pain right now.

{5610}{5668} Joey: You’re angry. You’re hurting.

{5674}{5729} Joey: Can I tell you what the answer is?

{5735}{5802} Joey: Strip joints!

{5815}{5898} Joey: Come on, you’re single. Have some hormones.

{5904}{5957} Ross: See, but I don’t want to be single, okay?

{5963}{6070} Ross: I just, I just, I just want to be married again.

Dan seterusnya sampai Speech Event #13

Conclusion

The result of the present study assigned the fact that the language in relation to the cultural and social sediment influences communication. The group solidarity and relationships were also found. The present study also indicated that social status as well as occupational status influenced by the language or mode of  speaking, and variability of communication or perceptibility of communication is depended on those social/cultural traits. Language, communication and ethnography are interlocked with each other. These three issues have played a great role in human cultural space (HCS) to the society. Communication sometimes controls the individualism and the social status with group solidarity.

The present preliminary study revealed that the study of ethnography in times and space played as a cognitive devices to clarify human social/cultural identity. Ethnography of communication stated the rural simple way of life reflected through people’s mode of speaking and their sentiment. On the other hand, urban settings stand their complexity nature to the mode of communication. Moreover, speech events usually start with greetings, go on, and finish with some concluding remarks in natural daily speech. In the movies and series, each speech event might start with greetings between participants or start with each new scene and end like that as well. In Friends series, as the name suggests, there are six close friends living together in one district in New York. Their intimate relationship is manifested in their attitude and behavior towards each other, especially their speech. As the data of this study showed, most of the speech events in the first episode of this series centers around what close friends usually talk about and expect their friends to do: confiding, expressing sympathy, telling off (narration), consulting, encouraging, and etc. the findings of the current analysis confirmed that each of these speech events, in turn were affected by SPEAKING factors as Hymes (1974) suggested.

  1. C.      PENUTUP

Dari pembahasan di atas, dapat dilihat dan disimpulkan bahwa betapa kompleksnya sebuah peristiwa tutur/peristiwa bahasa yang kita lihat, atau kita alami sendiri dalam kehidupan kita sehari-hari. Komponen tutur yang diajukan oleh Hymes yaitu “SPEAKING” (Situation, Participants, Ends, Act sequences, Key, Instrumentalities, Norms, dan Genre) menjadi salah satu alat atau pendekatan untuk menganalisa sebuah peristwa bahasa yang ingin diteliti. Dengan kata lain, komponen tutur ini tidak berbeda dengan yang oleh Fishman disebut sebagai pokok pembicaraan dalam bidang sosiolinguistik, yaitu “who speak, what language, to whom, when, dan, what end.”

  1. D.     DAFTAR PUSTAKA

Bell, T. Roger. 1976. Sociolingistics: Goals, Approaches and Problems. London: B.T. Batsford Ltd.

Chaer, Abdul., Leonie Agustina. 2010. Sosiolinguistik: Perkenalan Awal (Edisi Revisi). Jakarta: PT. Rineka Cipta.

Ray, Manas., Chinmay Biswas. 2011. A Study on Ethnography of Communication: A discourse Analysis with Hymes ‘speaking model’. Journal of Education and Practice (Vol. 2, No. 6). http://www.iiste.org

Saville, Muriel., Troike. 2003. The Ethnography of Communication: An Introdution (Third Edition). London: Blackwell Publishing.

Tustiantina, Diana. Peristiwa Tutur Bahasa Jawa Serang dan Sunda Serang di Provinsi Banten. http://sastra.um.ac.id/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/051-Diana-Tustiantina-UnTirTa-Peristiwa-Tutur-Bahasa-.-.-..pdf.

Vakili, Elham Zand. et.al. 2012. The Analysis of Speech Events and Hymes ‘SPEAKING’ Factors in the Comedy Television Series” “FRIENDS”. New Media and Mass Communication (Vol.2: 27-43). Journal of IISTE. http://www.iiste.org/journals.

Wijana, I Dewa Putu., Muhammad Rohmadi. 2012. Sosiolinguistik: Kajian Teori dan Analisis. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.

Wodak, Ruth. Barbara Johnstone. Paul Kerswill. 2011. The Sage Handbook of Sociolinguistics. New York: Sage Publications, Inc.

Berikan Balasan

Isikan data di bawah atau klik salah satu ikon untuk log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Logout / Ubah )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Logout / Ubah )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Logout / Ubah )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Logout / Ubah )

Connecting to %s