Sei sulla pagina 1di 22

THESIS PROPOSAL

THE REALIZATION OF FRASERS’ PRAGMATIC


MARKERS IN AMERICAS’ GOT TALENT JUDGES’
COMMENTARIES

Maria Fridolin Naben

0203517080

PENDIDIKAN BAHASA INGGRIS


References
PASCASARJANA

UNIVERSITAS NEGERI SEMARANG

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.

1.1 Background of the Topic

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.

An ESL/EFL speaker is not only sufficient to understand the meaning (semantic) of


the conversation but is required to understand the context (pragmatic). Levinson (1983: 5)
stated pragmatics is the study of the relationship between language and context that is
encoded in the structure of language. The pragmatic field in linguistics today is beginning to
get the attention of researchers and linguists because it tends to examine speech function or
language function rather than its form or structure. Horn and Ward (2006: 1) stated that
pragmatics is the study of those context-dependent aspects of meaning which are
systematically abstracted away from in the construction of content or logical form.

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).

In every performance, the judges will give comments to motivate, appreciate or


advice the participants. The writer found that there are huge of pragmatic markers used in the
judges’ commentary. Based on the description above, the writer is interested in investigating
the pragmatic markers used by the judge in their comment. Therefore, the writer wants to
conduct the study about the realization of pragmatic markers in Americas’ Got Talent judges’
commentary

1.2 Reasons for Choosing the Topic

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.

1.3 Statements of the Problems

1. How is the realization of basic markers in Americas’ Got Talent judges’


commentary?

2. How is the realization of commentary markers in Americas’ Got Talent judges’


commentary?

3. How is the realization of parallel markers in Americas’ Got Talent judges’


commentary?

4. How is the realization of discourse markers in Americas’ Got Talent judges’


commentary?

5. What is the implication of the study in EFL learning?


1.4 Objectives of the Study

1. to analyze the judges’ commentary in order to explain the realization of basic markers in
Americas’ Got Talent.

2. to analyze the judges’ commentary in order to explain the realization of commentary


markers in Americas’ Got Talent.

3. to analyze the judges’ commentary in order to explain the realization of parallel markers
in Americas’ Got Talent.

4. to analyze the judges’ commentary in order to explain the realization of discourse


markers in Americas’ Got Talent

5. to analyze the present study in order to describe the implication in EFL learning.

1.5 Significances of the Study

The findings of this study are expected to have the following advantages:

1. The realization of basic markers in Americas’ Got Talent is explained so that


theoretically the finding of the study could be source and information about the
representation meaning of basic markers in Americas’ Got Talent judges’ commentary;
Practically, it can be guideline for the next researcher who investigated about basic
markers. Pedagogically, it will be useful for the teacher as a reference in teaching basic
markers.

2. The realization of commentary markers in Americas’ Got Talent is explained so that


theoretically the findings of the study are expected to provide the information about the
realization of commentary markers in Americas’ Got Talent judges’ commentary.
Practically, it could be one of the references for readers to enrich knowledge about
commentary markers. Pedagogically, the finding of commentary markers could be
valuable teaching material in teaching EFL.

3. The realization of parallel markers in Americas’ Got Talent is explained so that


theoretically the study hopefully obtained further knowledge about parallel markers.
Practically, it can give sufficient information about it. Pedagogically, it can be used as a
learning media to improve students speaking ability

4. The realization of discourse markers in Americas’ Got Talent is explained so that


theoretically the findings of the study are expected to give additional understanding about
discourse markers. Practically, by knowing the discourse marker the readers could deeply
understand about it. Pedagogically, by using discourse maker the EFL learners can
interpreted message conveyed of an utterance.

5. The implication in EFL learning is described so that theoretically, the implementation of


pragmatic markers will broaden. Practically, this study can give insight of other English
pragmatic markers that still unfamiliar for Indonesian. Pedagogically, this material can be
valuable materials in teaching genres in English.

1.6 The Scope of the Study

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.

1.7 Definition of Key Terminologies

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)

2. Americas’ Got Talent

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).

1.8 Outline of the Thesis

2. Review of Related Literature

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.

2.1 Reviews of previous studies.

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.

Some researchers were interested in pragmatic markers in classroom interaction (Chen,


2001; Wei, 2011; Fernandez, et al., 2014; Gilquin, 2018; Sundquist, 2014). In the case of
pragmatic in classroom, Chen (2001) for instance, analyzed pragmatic markers dui bu du
(literary means ‘correct no correct’) in Chinese classroom discourse following the theory of
Fraser (1996). The study contributes to the view that an interpretation of the functions of a
syntactic structure such as dui bu du needs to take into account not only grammatical
information, but also interactional (verbal and non-verbal) information. Wei (2011) investigating
the oral proficiency of college English learners in China. It compares the use of pragmatic
markers in different contexts by students at different proficiency levels. The analysis indicate
that advanced students were more active and involved than intermediate students in the use of
pragmatic markers, and showed a greater sensitivity to different types of simulated interactive
context.
Oral proficiency and pragmatic markers use in L2 spoken Spanish (the case of pues and
bueno) conducted by Fernandez, et al. (2014). The study present a corpus based examination of
pragmatic marker which investigated whether examinees’ proficiency level would influence the
pragmatic markers’ rate of occurrence and variety of function. They underlined that no claims
are being made about causal relationship between the examinees’ pragmatic marker use and the
global ratings they received on the test. The study found that higher proficiency speakers used
both pragmatic markers for a wider range of functions than their lower proficiency counterparts.
The use of pragmatic markers in classroom interaction also studied more specifically by
Gilquin (2018) about hesitation markers. She borrowed the term from Hasselgren which claim
pragmatic markers like “you know, well, I mean” as “small words”. It is an inherent
characteristic of spontaneous conversations and fulfils an important pragmatic function and goes
largely unnoticed in speech (at least native speech). She found that Non-native speakers are more
likely to hesitate than native speakers. This is because next to the question of what to say next
speakers have to work out how to say it and given that the language in which learners express
themselves is not their mother tongue but a – usually imperfectly acquired – foreign or second
language, this second stage normally involves more difficulties for them than for native speakers.
Some recent studies investigated pragmatic markers in written discourse in different
issues. The function and contribution of pragmatic markers in building coherence relationships in
a written narrative (Muhaimi, 2011), argumentative essays (Babanoglu, 2013; Laguna & Soler,
2018), pragmatic markers on manuscript page (Hebda, 2016) vague markers in bussines
discourse (Malyuga & McCharty, 2018)
Muhaimi (2011) analyzed the function and contribution of pragmatic markers in building
coherence relationships in a written narrative. This study is based on the theory of Fraser (1996).
The results show that the most dominant use of pragmatic markers is discourse marker. He also
emphasized that the distribution of pragmatic markers into their types indicates that the use of
pragmatic markers in the narrative is in line with the principle that narrative segments must focus
on developing evaluation and action elements or segments. he concluded that pragmatic markers
are multifunctional in which the context of the situation and the setting of the story are presented
explicitly and clearly.
A corpus-based study on the use of pragmatic markers as speech “like” features in
argumentative essays studied by Babanoglu (2013). The study examines the pragmatic markers
in the written text of Turkish English as foreign language (EFL) learners. The study’s aim is to
analyze the learners’ use of speech-like features when writing an academic essay. He
investigated whether or not learners overuse or underuse such features when compared to native
speakers. He carried quantitative methods to measure the overuse/underuse and to determine
whether the possible differences are statistically significant. The results indicated that Turkish
EFL learners tend to use oral features in their argumentative essays, which may negatively
influence their writing in terms of a stylistically appropriate tone.
Rather different from other writing research Hebda (2016) explores the dynamics of the
textual-visual interface of a medieval manuscript page within the frameworks of historical
pragmatics and pragmaphilological approaches to the study of historical texts. The study
examined the pragmatic markers in visual elements of the manuscript page as mise en page, ink
color, as well as type and size of script will be examined. She emphasized that historical
pragmatics can reach beyond teasing out from the written text features of spoken discourse and
identifying pragmatic markers which organize that discourse in the historical-linguistic context.
One can only understand (historical) textuality when looking through an interdisciplinary lens of
traditional manuscript studies and historical pragmatics and pragmaphilology.
Malyuga and McCarthy (2018) focused on vague category markers in business discourse.
They compare English and Russian vague category markers. By looking at vague category
markers (VCMs) in both English and Russian, it is clear that, while there may be formal features
which are difficult of direct translation (especially, perhaps, the minor variations which any core
VCM phrase can display), both languages appear to have VCMs as part of their repertoire of
chunks or fixed expressions. This is evidenced in the fact that in both languages a VCM may be
attached to a variety of syntactic types of exemplar, thus indicating the absence of an internal
grammar. VCMs in both languages are predominantly noun- and pronoun-based (with the
exception of etcetera, and so on/so forth and their translation equivalents), yet there is a strong
tendency for exemplars to include verb phrases and clauses.
The other study looked at the use of pragmatic marker in adult and adolescents talk
(Erman, 2001), pragmatic markers as interjection in every day tall spoken (Norrick, 2009),
discourse pragmatic markers ‘like’ in native and non-native speakers English in Ireland (Diskin,
2017), pragmatic markers ‘oh wait’ among football players (Balteiro, 2018), pragmatic markers
o, sha and abi in Nigerian English (Unuabonah & Oladipupo, 2018), pragmatic particle ‘ja
Madurese spoken (Irham, 2018).

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.

2.2 Review of Theoretical Studies

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.

2.2.2 Text and Context


The text is the trace of at least one utterance act (whether realized in terms of a verbal,
linguistic trace, or of a non-verbal one – which may be gestural, sensori-perceptual or
prosodic).1 Among the relevant non-verbal signals are nods of the head, winks, gaze
direction, pointing gestures, raising of the eyebrows, and so on; and in the 4 written form of
language, italics, boldface, underlinings, punctuation and layout generally (Clark, 1996) on
what he calls “signaling”. Text, then, refers to the connected sequences of signs and signals,
under their conventional meanings, produced by the speaker and (in informal spoken
interactions: signals of acknowledgement, approval, objection, etc.) by the addressee —
certain of which point to possible ways of grounding the discourse to be constructed within a
particular context, in cognitive terms. These signals correspond to what Gumperz
(1992a:234) calls “contextualization cues”. Text, in normal circumstances of communication,
on the other hand is essentially linear, due to the constraints imposed by the production of
speech in real time – though in the spoken medium, paralinguistic, non-verbal signals may
well co-occur simultaneously with the flow of verbal signs and signals, and overlapping
speech by more than one participant may and does occur. It is the discourse constructed in
terms of the text and a relevant context which is capable of being stored subsequently in
long-term memory for possible retrieval at some later point. On the other hand, the textual
trace of the communicative event is short-lived, disappearing from short-term memory once
that discourse is constructed — or very soon thereafter (Clark, 1996:53). Short-term memory
is by definition very limited in storage capacity.

The discourse partners exploit this trace by simultaneously invoking an appropriate


context in order to construct discourse. The context relevant for a given act of utterance is a
composite of the surrounding co-text, the domain of discourse at issue, the genre of speech
event in progress, the situation of utterance, the discourse already constructed upstream and,
more generally, the socio-cultural environment which the text presupposes —including
mutual personal knowledge on the part of the speech participants as well as more general
encyclopædic and cultural knowledge. The various aspects of this context are in constant
development: the discourse derived via the text both depends on them and at the same time
changes them as this is constructed on line (Roberts 2004; Unger 2006; Connolly, 2007).
The context invoked will serve to select the relevant sense of given lexemes, will narrow this
down so as to be compatible with the discourse already constructed, and will in general act to
disambiguate potentially multiple possible interpretations of given textual segments (cf.
Asher & Lascarides 1996; Wilson & Carston, 2007).

Okada (2007:186) presents a compilation of various authors’ conceptions of context:

(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).

2.2.3 Pragmatic Markers

Fischer ( 2006, p. 1) described pragmatic markers as follows:

The approaches of study pragmatic markers are synchronic and diachronic. ,


formal an informal; approaches building on text linguistic model; models of general
cognitive processing or interactively relevant domains of discourse; as well as approaches
concentrating on syntactic, semantic, pragmatic, or prosodic aspect.

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?

2.3 Theoretical Framework

The theoretical framework of this study can be seen in the following figure:

Pragmatic marker

Sentence meaning

Content meaning Pragmatic meaning

Basic marker Commentary marker Parallel marker Discourse marker


1. Structural 1. Assessment 1. Vocative 1. Topic change
2. Lexical 2. Manner of speaking 2. Speaker 2. Contrastive
3. Pragmatic idiom 3. Evidential displeasure 3. Elaborative
4. Hybrid 4. Consequent effect 3. Solidarity marker 4. Inferential
5. Declarative 5. Hearsay marker
6. Interrogative 6. Mitigation marker
7. Imperative 7. Emphasis marker
Research Methodology

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.

3.1 Research Assumption

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?

2. How is the representation meaning of commentary markers in Americas’ Got Talent


judges’ commentary?

3. How is the representation meaning of parallel markers in Americas’ Got Talent


judges’ commentary?

4. How is the representation meaning of discourse markers in Americas’ Got Talent


judges’ commentary?

5. What is the implication of the study in EFL learning?

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.

3.2 Research Design

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.

3.3 Subject of the Study

3.3 Object of the Study

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).

3.4 Roles of the Researcher

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.

3.5 Research Instruments

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:

No. Clause Attitudes


Basic Commentary Parallel Discourse Markers
Markers Markers Markers

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.

3.6 Method of Data Collection

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).

2. Classifying and marking the pragmatic markers

3. Analyzing the data to reveal the realization of the pragmatic markers

4. Identifying the pragmatic markers based on Fraser (1996) whether it contributes to


the communicative purpose to the commentary.

5. Identifying the implication to EFL learners.

3.7 Method of Analyzing Data

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)

Cresswell, J. W (2012). Educational research: planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative


and qualitative research (4th Ed). Boston: Pearson

Fraser, B. (1996). Pragmatic markers, 6 (2), 167-190

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).

Potrebbero piacerti anche