CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
This chapter includes research
context, research focus, objective of the study, the significance of the study,
and research method. Each of the items is discussed clearly as follows: 1.1
Research Context Culture is communication and vice versa (Hall, 1993).
Cultural factors play a role in the development of talking and communication.
For example, in some cultures, it is considered very bad to speak when another
person is talking, while in others this is an expected part of a
conversationalist work. In general, we can say that there are certain rules
governed linguistics behavior which allows us to deal with similar situations
in similar ways across cultures, such as thanking, requesting, and apologizing
(Mey, 1998).
All of us come across situations
when things go wrong due to lack of communication. There can be various
barriers in communication which may lead to such a situation. Conversation has
recently become a focus of interest for speech acts theory and several
proposals have been formulated concerning the possible extension of speech acts
theory to the analysis of conversation (Jacques moeschler, 1993).
A particular instance of
communication is called Speech Acts. A speech acts typically follows a
variation of logical means of delivery. Speech acts are what the writer or
speaker is doing in uttering a particular form of words, and their focus is on
meaning (speaker’s intention). The recognition of
[1] [1] the meaning of
particular speech acts in a given cultural setting is the heart of successful
intercultural communication. Speech is considered universal, nevertheless
research shows that they can manifest differently across languages and
cultures. This cross-cultural difference in language use is indicative of
broader socio-cultural differences that underline language in use internationally
and certainly it is at this level that much inter-cultural misunderstanding has
its origin.Culture is a way of life, the
context in which we exist, think, feel and relate to others. It acts as the
fabric of shared meanings which exist between different people. Culture
provides the substance of meaning and the process of making meaning (Marie
& John, 1991). Language and culture have a relationship and influences each
other. Culture influences our way of thinking and acting, language in
communication is the way to perform and deliver the information in different
culture and context of a conversation. In communication with different culture,
it has different way of thinking, respond by acting directly or indirectly,
admission, reaction, and feed back of the dialogue or conversations. To
address issues in cross-culture communication, linguistic studies have been
conducted in examining the realization patterns of speech acts in different
languages and cultures,
such as requesting
(Blum-Kulka and House 1984; Lee and Song 1994; Zhang 1995,
etc.), apologizing (Olshtain and Cohen 1983,
etc.), refusing (Chen
et al. 1995, etc.), or complimenting (Henderson
1996; Herbert 1989; Yuan 1996; Li and Feng 2000, etc.). The
[1] [1] content and forms
are considered in relation to the variables of social distance and power
relationship, where social distance refers to the degree of intimacy between
the speaker and the hearer, and power relationship to the speaker’s relative
social status in the community. A description of speech acts would be a
description of what makes the meaning of the sentence uttered true or false. In
general, speech acts are acts of communication. To communicate is to express a
certain attitude, and the type of speech acts being performed corresponds to
the type of attitude being expressed. For example, a statement expresses a
belief, a request expresses a desire, and an apology expresses regret. As an
act of communication, a speech act succeeds if the audience indentifies, in
accordance with the speaker’s intention, the attitude being expressed. The
theory of speech acts, as developed by John Austin and Searle sets language in
the context of human action and inquires about the functions and purposes of
human action that are accomplished by sentences. This view points is
potentially useful.According to the John Searle’s,
there are five kind of general categories in Speech Acts; Assertives,
Directives, Comissives, Expressive, and Declarations. All kind of Speech Acts
can be found in conversation of communication (Vern Sheridan Poythress, 2008).
The aim of speech Acts theory is
to justice the facts. People do more things with words to intend their
information (Bach, 1994). Speech Acts are not only performs certain acts behind
utterances. Although, the focus of speech acts theory has been on utterances,
especially those modes are in [1] [1] conversational and
other face to face situation. Utterances made should be taken as a common term
for any kinds of language. As Austin in Bach (2003) that speech acts has three
categories; Locutionary acts that is not always determined by what is meant by
the sentence being uttered. And the second is the Illocutionary acts means what
is said does not determined what it is meant which is being performed. And the
third is Perlocutionary acts is the respond from the listener or hearer. Austin
in “how to do things with word”, (1962) identified what he called primary
performatives, simple sentence conforming to such basic types as declarative,
interrogatives, and imperatives.
One of Searle’s (1969) most
important contributions to speech acts theory was his development of the Austin
concept of felicity. Searle argued that speech acts which are the term he
preferred for Austin’s Illocutionary acts are subject to four types of felicity
conditions; preparatory conditions, sincerity conditions, propositional content
conditions, and essential conditions. Searle and Vanderveken (1985) distinguish
between those illocutionary forces employed by speakers within a given linguistic
community, and the set of all possible illocutionary forces. While a certain linguistic
community may make no use of a force such as conjecturing or appointing, these
two are among the set of all possible forces. Thus, the purpose of this study is
to test and thereby update research on Hmong in contrast to American
communication practices. Different cultures such as China, Laos, or Thailand
between America can show different responds of communication. For example, in
the America workplace, Caucasian [1] [1] colleagues often
mistake Asian’ reserved manner for lack of assertiveness. It is inevitable that
differences in cultural perspectives will be channeled through communication;
and if this communication is to be productive, interactions based on cultural
knowledge and mutual respect will be needed to encourage Hmong and American
relations to progress. For the reasons, the researcher takes “Gran
Torino” as the object of the study. The movie tells about two different
cultures, Hmong Asian and American, living together in a neighborhood. They
communicate each other and practice social life as neighbor. “Gran Torino” was
produced in 2008 and recognized by the American Film Institute as one of the
Ten Best Films of 2008. Clint Eastwood as the Director of Stage production and
one of the actors in this movie was nominated for the Broadcast Film Critics Association
(Critics’ Choice Awards) and by the Chicago Film Critics Association Awards for
Best Actor. It is American Drama film started by Clint Eastwood, Bee Vang, and
Christopher Carley.
The story follows Walt Kowalski
acted by Clint Eastwood, a recently widowed Vietnam War veteran who is
alienated from his family and angry at the world. Walt develops a relationship
with the Hmong family.
This research is related to some
previous studies, those are Hanim’s study (2007) “Speech Acts Which Used by
Main Character in Movie Crash”.
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar