SOSIOLINGUISTIK - ETNOGRAFI KOMUNIKASI - MODEL "SPEAKING" HYMES
KOMUNIKASI ETNOGRAFI - MODEL "SPEAKING" HYMES
Oleh
Casimirus Andy Fenanlampir
12706251052
Oleh
Casimirus Andy Fenanlampir
12706251052
A. PENDAHULUAN
Pada dasarnya bahasa merupakan bagian yang
tidak terpisahkan dari suatu sistem sosial. Dalam setiap komunikasi manusia
saling menyampaikan informasi yang 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.
B. PEMBAHASAN
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:
a. Menemukan berbagai bentuk dan fungsi yang
tersedia untuk berkomunikasi.
b. Menetapkan cara bentuk dan fungsi tersebut
menjadi bagian dari cara hidup yang berbeda.
c. 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.
|
3.
Contoh Penelitian menggunakan Metode SPEAKING
a.
Peristiwa Tutur Bahasa Jawa Serang dan Sunda
Serang di Provinsi Banten oleh Diana Tustiantina, Universitas Sultan Ageng
Tirtayasa
Ø 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?
Ø Jenis penelitian kualitatif
Ø Metode pengumpulan data:
·
Metode simak
dengan teknik sadap
·
Metode cakap
Ø Analisis data menggunakan rumusan SPEAKING
Hymes
Ø 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.
Ø 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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.”
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.
mantap
BalasHapusbaik
BalasHapusGood
BalasHapusApakah, sy boleh minta file bapak sebagai previous study? Thanks
BalasHapus