Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
0203517080
2018
1. Introduction
This part presents the Background of the Study, the Reasons for Choosing the Topic, the
Research Questions, the Objectives of the Study, the Significances of the Study, the Scope of
the Study, the Definition of the Key Terms, and the Outline of the Thesis.
The existence of English as a foreign language in Indonesia makes the English usage
is not as intensive as Bahasa Indonesia or local languages. In relation to the status of a
compulsory subject to be taught in Junior Secondary Schools approximately in the 1955, the
policy to introduce the English language as an optional school subject to elementary school
pupils was not made until the 1990’s (Alwasilah 2011). However, since it is only a foreign
language, there are a lot of problems found in the English language learning; lack of
motivation, poor scheduled time, not enough resources and materials, and the excess of
students in each classroom are undoubtedly some of the problems that teachers have to face
in teaching English as a foreign language.
Sometimes in a conversation, a speaker is doubtful and does not know what to say
next. English conversations contain a lot of small words as linking words such as well, you
know, I mean, which have been referred to as pragmatic markers (Ajmer and Anne, 2009:
223). Fraser (1990: 168) divided pragmatic markers into four types. The first type is basic
markers which signal more or less specifically the force (the kind of message in contrast to
its content) of the basic message, include sentence mood and lexical expression. The second
types is commentary markers which provide a comment on the basic message. The third is
parallel markers which signal an entire message separate from the basic and any commentary
messages. The last, discourse markers which signal a message specifying how the basic
message is related to the foregoing discourse
In this digital era, most of EFL learners are learn faster from electronic media. The
experience make them absorb English instantly, therefore they are imitate and express a
number of English words or sentences similar with the native speaker. This situation
sometimes influences from Hollywood movies and American Television Series. Some of the
Hollywood movies and American short television movies for the last few decades give an
extensive encouragement for Indonesian EFL learners in absorbing a number of expressions,
idioms, vocabularies, or even colloquial and handy words (including certain slangs).
One of the American popular television shows is Americas’ Got Talent. The
Americas’ Got Talent is a big event to look for talented persons that is an adaptation of the
Got Talent franchise owned by Simon Cowell. This television show not only broadcast on
America but almost on TV stations in all countries. In Indonesia the competition has been
broadcast by NET TV. Since the show began, its ratings have been very high, ranging from 9
million viewers to as many as 16 million viewers on youtube. Indonesian viewers are
blooming when an Indonesian participant called sacred Riana joined at AGT 2018 (season
13).
This study is conducted based on the following reasons. First, most of EFL learners
assumed that people are considered good in English learning when they understand the
meaning (semantic) without considering the context (pragmatic). Practically, language users
are required to use the language appropriately with the situation even in using English as the
foreign language. The writer has perception that Indonesian EFL learners are still lacks of
knowledge about English pragmatic markers. This situation was marked by the debate among
some social media users several time ago about Agnez Mo's interview at the 2017 American
Music Awards. Many netizens have criticized that Agnez Mo has too often said the word you
know which is considered too artificial to look cool.
Second, the writer chose Americas’ Got Talent since it is one of the big talent search
event which is watched almost all over the world including Indonesia. Likari (2018) stated
Americas’ Got Talent became the trending topic of youtube due to the Sacred Riana action.
There was so many pragmatic markers like you know what, I told you, absolutely and so on
spoken by the judges in their commentary.
Third, the judges’ commentaries not only have characteristics in terms of influence the
audiences but also implied meaning which need to be observed deeply. It concerns how
pragmatic markers are used in real life. The results of this study are expected to help viewers
especially the EFL learners to understand the intent and message conveyed through the
pragmatic markers used by the Americas’ Got Talent judges’ commentary.
1. to analyze the judges’ commentary in order to explain the realization of basic markers in
Americas’ Got Talent.
3. to analyze the judges’ commentary in order to explain the realization of parallel markers
in Americas’ Got Talent.
5. to analyze the present study in order to describe the implication in EFL learning.
The findings of this study are expected to have the following advantages:
This study is limited to analyze the realization of pragmatic markers from judges’
commentary in Americas’ Got Talent 2018 (Season 13). The judges of the Americas’ Got
Talent in this season are, Simon Cowell, Mell B, Howie Mandel and Heidi Klum. The study
focuses on pragmatic markers theory by Fraser; basic markers, commentary markers,
discourse markers and management markers.
1. Pragmatic markers
Any signal that has an effect at the communicative, as opposed to the strictly
propositional, level can be considered a pragmatic marker (Fraser, 1996: 168). A given
form is a pragmatic marker if a given use of a given form can be considered a pragmatic
marker (Aijmer, et al., 2006: 102)
American talent show competition broadcast on the NBC television network which
abbreviated as AGT. The show attracts a variety of participants, from across the United
States and abroad, to take part and who possess some form of talents, with acts ranging
from singing, dancing, comedy, magic, stunts, variety, and other genres.
3. Judges’ commentary
The judges’ commentary generally given to appreciate, support, advice or evaluate the
participants. According to Martin and White (2005), appraisal is composed of three
interacting domains: attitude (feelings, emotional reactions, judgments of behavior and
evaluation of things), engagement (sourcing attitudes and the play of voices around
opinions in discourse), and graduation (grading phenomena whereby feelings are
amplified and categories blurred).
This chapter contains three main topics. There are reviews of previous studies which reviews
previous study with the same topic in different research. It aims to compare what has been
analyzed before and what is being analyzed. Theoretical reviews cover the general theories as for
the big umbrella in the research. The last theory is the theoretical concept which figure out the
relation between some theoretical reviews in one research.
Some studies related to this present study have been conducted focused on spoken and
written discourse with different point of view. Here, the researcher took several previews study
to support present study. To enlarger a deeper understanding about this study, the writer takes
some previous studies related to the use of pragmatic markers in written and spoken discourse.
The concepts of pragmatic markers and discourse markers (and a variety of others) have been
competing for roughly the same class of expressions (Redeker, 1990; Fraser, 1996; Andersen,
2000; Aijmer, 2013). Redeker (1990) viewed that the implicitly understood coherence relations
are not (or at least not mainly) semantic, but pragmatic. Furthermore, she argued that coherence
always has both an ideational and a pragmatic component. This distinction will now be further
specified and defined. Two discourse units are ideationally related if their utterance in the given
context entails the speaker's commitment to the existence of that relation in the world the
discourse describes.
Andersen (2000) showed that pragmatic markers may affect the truth conditions of
utterances. Some pragmatic markers have capacity for taking a narrow scope and modifying
propositional constituents rather than entire propositions (eh, yeah). She emphasized that the role
of pragmatic markers in utterance interpretation is to facilitate processes of pragmatic inference,
processes that are required in order for the hearer to arrive at the intended meaning that the
speaker wishes to communicate, including attitudes towards what is said.
Focus on phrase “you know” Erman (2000) investigated pragmatic markers in adult and
adolescents talk. The study aimed to know whether adolescent speakers use the pragmatic
marker you know differently from adult speakers in spontaneous interaction and do the results
support the hypothesis that this pragmatic marker is undergoing a change in meaning and
function. The results revealed that young speakers increasingly seem to be using this marker as a
metalinguistic monitor with a modal function emphasizing the force of the speech-act and as a
social monitor eliciting a reaction from the addressee(s); adults, in contrast, primarily use the
marker to build up a text, and create coherence, the marker functioning as a textual monitor. As
for the second question, the results appear to point to an ongoing change in the use of you know.
The direction of the change speaks for the marker being further pragmaticalized, and thus having
at least a potential for being grammaticalized and ending up as a grammatical morpheme.
Norrick (2009) studied interjection as pragmatic markers in every day talk. He finds both
primary interjections like oh and mhm and secondary interjections like wow and boy. Much of
the interactional significance of primary interjections derives from their characteristic position as
turn initiators, and much of their meaning in any particular case depends on their intonation
contour. Particularly secondary interjections display a range of functions, first acting as parallel
pragmatic markers, but also in functions beyond parallel markers, namely with typical discourse
marker functions of signaling contrast, elaboration and transition. On the basis of several large
corpora of English conversation, this study seeks to demonstrate the open-ended nature of the
class of interjections, which apparently accepts an unlimited number of new items. Despite their
variability, the pragmatic functions of ever new interjections seem always to be clear to
participants in the concrete context. Interjections represent a large, potentially infinitely
extendable class of items, unlike the relatively circumscribed, closed classes of other pragmatic
markers, and their pragmatic marker functions follow from their general status as expressions of
shifts in cognitive states of various kinds.
One of the researchers who interested in pragmatic marker which focuses on discourse
markers is Diskin (2017). He investigated the word like between native and non-native English
speaker in Ireland. The data of the study was taken from Polish and Chinese migrants in Dublin,
Ireland. The frequency of like is investigated, along with its variable positioning within the
clause, and its discourse- pragmatic function. . The results show that the frequency of like among
the non-native speakers reaches the levels of the native speakers after approximately three years
of residence in Ireland. Proficiency in English is not found to be significant, suggesting that it is
exposure to native speaker input that drives this acquisition. The results also show that like in
clause-final position, considered to be an emblematic feature of Irish English (and a ‘non-
standard’ feature of world English more generally), was employed significantly more often by
the native Dubliners, with no effect in this instance for length of residence among the migrants.
As regards the function of ‘like’, it was found to be used predominantly to illustrate, explain or
introduce information.
Pragmatic markers also mention as pragmatic particle by Irham (2017) investigated
pragmatic markers in Madurese spoken “ja”; its position in the sentence and in sequences of
interaction, and how it functions in conversation. The finding showed that the particle jâ’
predominantly occurred in turn-initial positions. In addition, the particle jâ’ also appeared in
sentence-initial and sentence-middle positions but not in sentence-final positions. In terms of
function, the particle jâ’ could function as topic shifts, prohibitive markers, and emphatic
markers.
This section will give explanation of some theories related to this study. It contains discourse,
context, text, pragmatic particle, the representation of pragmatic meaning and appraisal.
2.2.1 Discourse
The term discourse is used in everyday language alternately with discussion or dialogue.
For those interested in language structure, it is now generally recognized that discourse is
more than an autonomous level beyond the sentence.
Discourse, on the other hand, refers to the hierarchically structured, mentally represented
product of the sequence of utterance, propositional, illocutionary and indexical acts that the
participants are jointly carrying out as the communication unfolds (Hymes 1972:57). Each
participant severally constructs his or her own discourse model of the communicative event
taking place; thus in principle, these may diverge, but only within the confines of the risk of
misinterpretation and communicative breakdown (which can and occasionally does happen).
Such sequences are primarily directed towards the realization of a local and/or global
communicative goal of some kind (Parisi & Castelfranchi 1977). Discourse is both
hierarchical and defeasible (a provisional, and hence revisable, construction of a situated
interpretation).
According to Mithun (2015, p. 12) Discourse structure is indicated by markers at all
levels. It is more than the simple manipulation of sentences. The study of speech in its full
discourse contexts can reveal cross-linguistic differences at all levels that may not be
obvious when grammatical analyses focus on one level of structure at a time, each in
isolation from the others. Mithun illustrates the kinds of intimate relations that hold between
discourse and grammar in a language that is typologically quite different from more familiar
major world languages. The elements of structure component like collection and analysis of
substantial bodies of connected, interactive speech, complete with the sound that carries it,
from the smallest to the largest, play important roles in shaping discourse; discourse in turn
plays crucial roles in shaping structures of each. She emphasized that a language is much
more than a set of structural parameters. It is the entirety of how speakers choose to express
themselves, to package their ideas into words, sentences, and discourse to meet their
communicative and social needs.
In other case Fasold (1990) defines the study of discourse as the study of any aspect of
language use. Heller (2015, p. 250) stated that we can learn the major threads to understand
the interaction as the production discourse; (1) the nature of the interactional, discursive
mechanics of the social construction of reality, and, in particular, what dimensions of these
mechanics are universal and what are culturally, socially, or historically contingent or even
specific; (2) the nature of the relationship between those mechanics and the conditions of
their existence. Keating (2015) analyzing discourse, space, and place has contributed to and
is productive in understanding symbolic behavior. These include space as a tool for
expression, built space, private versus public space, space and identity, space and place,
space and access, space and language structure, space and cognition, and space and
technology. These nine areas encompass many interesting ways space, place, and discourse
are integrated in everyday life, such as how physical space is used analogously to represent
and share ineffable aspects of human experience; how space is used to represent and
instantiate social inequality; how space impacts language change and speakers of languages;
relations between space and identity; relationships between structures of institutions, the
environment, and human agency; sign language and spoken language structure; the
contribution of bodies in space and their surrounding context to communication;
relationships between semiotic modalities; the authorization of history and access to
knowledge through spatialized memory processes; using space to make tangible the sacred
or visible the invisible; influences of technology on space; and how spatial terms used in
language influence cognitive processing.
(a) Physical context comprises the actual setting or environment in which the interaction
takes place, such as a house-warming party or a hospital.
(b) Personal context comprises the social and personal relationships amongst the
interactants, for instance the relationships between intimate friends or between
employer and employees.
(c) Cognitive context comprises the shared and background knowledge held by
participants in the interaction, including social and cultural knowledge. It is
sometimes referred to [as] schemata. For example, knowledge about how an
interview, a wedding or a lecture is conducted.
(d) Textual context comprises the world which the text constructs, that is the textual
world (…) (Okada 2007:186).
Aijmer (2013) viewed that a given form is a pragmatic marker if a given use of a given
form can be considered a pragmatic marker. He categorized pragmatic markers into 3 types
1. Reflexivity; an utterance thus has a ‘meta’ status and an understanding of pragmatic
markers. The speakers’ cognitive processes are hidden to observation. However
pragmatic markers (and other devices) can emerge as overt indicators (or windows
on) ongoing metalinguistic activity in speakers’ mind. Reflexivity is so pervasive
and essential that we can that language is by nature, fundamental reflexive (e.g. oh,
uh, um).
2. Indexicality; the semiotic status of pragmatic markers. Some grammatical forms and
structure that participate in expressing prepositional content are also deictic;
pronouns, tense forms, adverb of time and place. So, pragmatic markers may index
positioning in relation to person or to the proposition itself. (e.g. but, moreover)
3. Heteroglossia; all language use in the world actually is a dialogue and monologue
does not really exist (related to the concept of Bakhtin). This means that a world
dominated by heteroglossia, no utterance has meaning on its own and that all text
reflected the existence of other text and can only be understood in these terms (e.g.
of course, surprisingly).
Fraser (1996) assumed that every sentence has a Direct Message Potential and sentence
meaning, the information encoded by linguistic expressions can be divided up into two
separate and distinct parts; proposition and non-proposition. He divide the pragmatic
markers into four subtypes as follows:
1. Basic markers
Basic message which uses the sentence proposition as its message content. Basic
markers, which signal more or less specifically the force (the kind of message in
contrast to its content) of the basic message includes sentence mood and lexical
expressions. These markers are illustrated by the examples bellow with the
pragmatic marker in bold face type.
a) I regret that he is still here.
b) Admittedly, I was taken in.
2. Commentary markers
Provide a comment on the basic message. Commentary messages and hence the
presence of commentary markers, are optional - a sentence need not contain any.
When they do occur,their message is typically very general, with a single word
often signaling both the message force and content. Obviously, they constitute
pragmatic idioms. The sentence bellow illustrates this type of marker.
Stupidly, Sara didn’t fax the correct form in on time
3. Parallel markers
Signal an entire message separate from the basic and any commentary messages.
The sentences bellows are illustrative of parallel markers.
a) John, you are very noisy.
b) In God's name, what are you doing now?
4. Discourse markers
Signal a message specifying how the basic message is related to the foregoing
discourse.
a) Jacob was very tired. So, he left early.
b) Martha's party is tomorrow. Incidentally when is your party?
The theoretical framework of this study can be seen in the following figure:
Pragmatic marker
Sentence meaning
This chapter discusses research assumption, research design, object of the research, role of the
researcher, research instrument, method of data collection, method of analyzing data and
triangulation.
The judges’ commentaries in Americas’ Got Talent event implied a huge of meaning.
The comments given in the form of support, appreciation or input are spontaneous language
spoken when viewing participant performances. The utterance like, you know, well, I swear
signal a certain message.
By using pragmatic markers proposed by Fraser (1996), the writer would like to fulfill the
objectives of the study as follows:
1. How is the representation meaning of basic markers in Americas’ Got Talent judges’
commentary?
The judges commentary analyzed are in the form of written text or document. The document
analysis is a study which focuses of written, recording and notes (Kurniawati & Fitriati,
2017, p. 196). In analyzing documents, discourse analysis design is used in order to answer
my research questions.
The data in this study were written data as the main source. The data were transcribed of
Americas’ Got Talent judges’ commentary which taken from internet. In this study, the
writer chooses the quarter final episodes of the events which performed 36 participants
(Season 13). The data were qualitative data since they were in the form of documents.
Documents consist of public and private records that qualitative researchers obtain about a
site or participants in a study (Cresswell, 2012, p. 223). Documents represent a good source
for text data for qualitative studies.
The main object of the study involves the judges’ commentary about participants’
performance in Americas’ Got Talent event. Those commentaries were analyzed in order to
know the realization of basic markers, commentary markers, parallel markers and discourse
markers. To do the investigation, the writer used pragmatic markers proposed by Fraser
(1996).
In conducting the study, the writer played the role only as the data analyst and the data
reporter since the data were documents that have already provided by the internet. Cresswel
(2003, p. 22) stated that data analysis and interpretation involves preparing the data,
representing the data and making an interpretation of the larger meaning of the data. After
doing the analysis, the writer reported the findings in the form of thesis.
Tables were used as the research instruments. The data were analyzed based on each
subsystem of pragmatic markers. In order to collect the data in this study, the researcher used
the following tables:
In analyzing the pragmatic markers, the writer bolded the words or phrases that categorized
as pragmatic markers. The bolded words or phrases aims to make the writer easier to
indentify the data.
In qualitative research, identifying the types of data that will address to the research
questions is necessary. According to Cresswel (2003, p. 212) the varied nature of qualitative
forms of data are placed into several categories namely, observations, interviews and
questionnaires, documents and audio visual materials. The main source data in this study was
transcribed of the judges’ commentary which taken from the internet. They represent public
documents since it is provide by some website and could be downloaded by anyone without
having to ask permission. Therefore, the researcher took several prosedur based on the
Cresswel (2005, p. 214-220), those are:
1. The writer downloaded the Americas’ Got Talent videos contains the judges’
commentary from the website www.youtube.com then read and identified the types of
documents that might provide useful information to answer the research questions.
Then, the writer categorized them into pragmatic markers by Fraser (1990).
Some Procedures were done in analyzing the data that would be described in the following:
1. Transcribing
The data was provided by the internet in a form of video. Therefore, to get the correct
words, the writer transcribed it carefully into written text.
2. Reading
After transcribed the videos into the documents the writer read the document in order to
get deep understanding about the meaning of each judges’ commentary.
3. Categorizing
The next step is break up the text into words or clauses and highlight the them that belong
to the pragmatic markers.
4. Analyzing
After doing the procedure above, the writer analyzed and described the findings based
data.
3.8 Triangulation
REFERENCES
Alwasillah (2011)
Likari, Imelda. (2018, August). Aksi the sacred Riana di Americas Got Talent 2018 raih trending
topic di youtube. Retrieved from https://paragram.id/selebritis/
Kurniawati, A.R., & Fitriati, S.W. (2017). Realization of teachers’ question to uncover students’
cognitive domain of English subject matter in classroom interaction. English Education Journal,
7 (3).