FC BARCELONA

It is generally accepted that classroom interaction can facilitate students’ language development and communicative competence (Yu, 2008). The most common proposition of the role of classroom interaction is its contribution to language development simply by providing target language practice opportunities. According to Allright (1984), it is the process whereby classroom language learning is managed. In the language classroom the process of negotiation involved in interaction is itself to be identified with the process of language learning. The notion of negotiation is generally defined as ‘discussion to reach agreement’. Learners acquire linguistic knowledge and ability through the interaction.

Furthermore, one of the classroom interaction patterns is classroom discussion, which Yu (2008) considers it as a productive teaching technique. Discussion can be a powerful means of allowing students to engage actively with course material and develop their own views based on sound critical thinking. Barton et al (2004) argue classroom discussion functions best when students are talking to students. Indeed, our goal is to get as many students involved in talking to one another as possible and for the teacher to fade into the background. Students are well practiced in how to talk to and listen to teachers, in how to address and look to authority figures for answers. But they are not well versed in how to talk to and listen to each other, in how to navigate and negotiate and discuss issues of serious consequence and work toward answers among equals.

From the perspectives of applied linguistics, Liu (2007) states that more and more focus has been put on communicative language teaching, or communicative approach, an approach to foreign or second language teaching that emphasizes communicative competence as the goal of language learning. Communicative competence refers to the ability not only to apply the grammatical rules of a language in order to form grammatically correct sentences but also to know when and where to use these sentences and to whom. And there are still some other terms thought to be more effective in describing what it means to know and to be able to use language knowledge. One of these is Bachman’s (1990) communicative language ability and pragmatic competence. Pragmatic competence is generally considered to involve not only the ability of knowing how to use the language but also how to select the language forms to use in different settings, and with people in different roles and with different status.

Moreover, Nunn (2004) states that pragmatics has much, possibly more, to tell us about communication in the educational contexts where so many of us spend so much of our lives communicating and where communication is of the essence. Harlig & Taylor (1999) states that pragmatics explores the ability of language users to match utterances with contexts in which they are appropriate. In the other words, pragmatics is "the study of linguistic acts and the contexts in which they are performed". The main purpose of pragmatics, in the relation to language teaching is to facilitate the learners’ sense of being able to find socially appropriate language for the situations that they encounter. Within second language studies and teaching, pragmatics encompasses speech acts, conversational structure, conversational implicature, conversational management, discourse organization, and sociolinguistic aspects of language use such as choice of address forms.

Regarding the conversational implicature, Grice’s maxims, which are intended to be seen as a set of rules to be obeyed, could serve as useful guiding principles for teachers. Teachers, or students, as normal human beings, deliberately flout them, or unwittingly violate them. Experienced teachers could usefully make conscious attempts to self-observe, applying Grice’s maxims to their spoken communication with students and might also want to consider them as means of making written communication more efficient.

SEBUAH PENGAKUAN
Oh Tuhan aku bukanlah ahli surga
Juga tak mampu menahan siksa neraka
Kabulkan taubat ampuni dosa-dosaku
Hanyalah Engkau pengampun dosa hambaMu
Dosa-dosaku tak terhitung bagai debu
Ya Ilahi terimalah hamba taubatku
Sisa umurku berkurang setiap hari
Dosa-dosaku makin bertambah ya Ilahi
Hamba yang berdosa datang bersimpuh menyembahMu
Mengaku menyeru dan memohon ampunanMu


A CONFESSION
Oh my Lord I’m not deserved to be in Your heaven
Nor I can hold on Your torment in hell
Accepts my false ware and forgives my sins
Coz You're the one who forgives all our sins
My sins are like uncounted dust
Ya Ilahi accepts my false ware
My remaining age decreases day by day
But my sins increase every day
Your sinner servant knees before You
Confessing, hailing, and bagging for Your forgiveness




الاعتراف
اِله لاالست للفردوس اهلا
ولااقوي علي النارالجحيم
فهبل توبة واغفر الذنوبي
فاِنك غافرالذنب العاظيم
ذنوُبي مثل اعدادالرمال
فهبل توبة ياذي الجلال
وعمرنا قص في كل يوم
وذنبي زاِد كيف اختمالي


PENGAKUAN
Duh Gusti ingsun mboten pantes wonten suwargo
Nanging ingsun mboten kiat ngraosaken sikso neroko
Dipun sembadani taubat ingsun lan dipun ngapuro sedoyo duso
Panjenengan Dzat kang ngapunten sedoyo duso
Duso ingsung mboten keitung kados lebu
Duh Gusti terami tobat ingsun
Siso umur ingsun kirang saben dinten
Nanging duso ingsun tambah saben wektu
Kawulo kang hino sujud takdzim ten ngandap Panjenengan
Mengaku menyeru lan memohon pengapunten Panjenengan


UNE CONFESSION
Oh Dieu, je ne suis pas un expert Paradise
Aussi incapable de supporter le châtiment de l'Enfer
Subvention de repentir, pardonne mes péchés
Vous seul le pardon des péchés serviteur
Innombrables comme la poussière Sins
Oui Divine accepter mon serviteur repentance
Time I a été réduit chaque jour
Mes péchés ont augmenté si divine
Sinful serviteurs venus adorer tes talons
Admise appelant et vous demande pardon

Diachronic and synchronic, the first term refers to the study of language from time to time. The basic characteristic of language is dynamic, it means language constantly changes from time to time depend on the necessity of the language users.

Referring to the history of English, the transformation of English recorded by historian happened once. In the ancient time, we will find that English nowadays is very different than English that used at that time. The previous version of English sometime we call it old English version was used in the era of 5 C, in which it was strongly influenced by three Germany tribes, Jutes, Saxons, and Angles, which conquer the land of Great Britain during that time.

During the 1066-1200, England was ruled by the Normandy. The district of this Normandy spread out on the northern coast of France; hence, their language used was much influenced by France. Long period of governing in England territory, the Normandy contributed the language shift of English. English which was resulted from the accumulation of the three Germany tribes stated previously had changed during this era of ruling colored by the existence of France language brought by the Normandy. The France began to manifest itself to the development of old English.

The first link in the chain binding England to the continent was broken in 1204 when King John lost Normandy. As a result, during The Middle English period (1150–1500) was marked by momentous changes in the English language, changes more extensive and fundamental than those that have taken place at any time before or since. They took place more rapidly because the Norman invasion removed from English those conservative influences that are always felt when a language is extensively used in books and is spoken by an influential educated class. The changes of this period affected English in both its grammar and its vocabulary. Those in the vocabulary involved the loss of a large part of the Old English word-stock and the addition of thousands of words from French and Latin. At the beginning of the period English is a language that must be learned like a foreign tongue; at the end it is Modern English. Thus, related to diachronic, we can trace the evolution of language through the recorded data presented by the language historian, and learn from it.

In the other hand, synchronic refers to the study of language in particular period of time. It means that the study of language can be done in the particular of time in which the language is still used and utilized by the language users to communicate each other in a society in particular period of time; it can be present day, 50 years ago, ancient time and so ford. However, one point to be paid attention is that there is no comparison made to other states language or other times. Thus, the first dichotomy introduced by de Saussure is meant to point out that language can be traced from time to time along with the history of it and can be learned in a particular period of time in which the language occur.


Back to THE COMMON GROUND OF LINGUISTICS AND LITERATURES

Many branches of studies include the discussion of the relationship between form and function. In linguistics the note of form and function was first introduced by de Saussure considered as the founding father of modern linguistics. In presenting his ideas concerning linguistics, he tended to use dichotomies. There are six dichotomies granted by Saussure in describing linguistics:

1. Diachronic and Synchronic
2. Langue and Parole
3. signifian and Signifie
4. Form and Meaning
5.
6.

Literature

Tertunduk lesu tak berdaya
Menanti hari yang tak kunjung tiba
Janji terkoyak oleh ketidakpastian
Semangat redup dalam kebosanan

Waktu terlewati dengan percuma
Detik terbuang dengan sia-sia
Sempat lewat begitu saja
Sesal diri pun tiada guna

Mencoba melawan setan dalam diri
Ku kutuk kelemahan yang menjangkiti
Ganyang lingkaran yang menghantui
Tuk bangkit dari keterpurukan abadi

Genderang perang bergema membahana
Ambisi bekobar membakar gelora api jiwa
Secercah harapan segarkan rapuh raga
Ku tatap hari laksana panglima taklukkan dunia

Now bend on knees I pray
To You Almighty only
Never give up hope is the key
Surely tomorrow shines brightly

Malang, 14 Juni 2010

Key issues:
What is sentence?
What is sentential semantics?
What is truth?
What is truth condition theory?
What is componential analysis?


Constative Sentence

Performative Sentence

Tarsky's (1933) postulate:



S is true, iff p Sentence is true if and only if P

S: sentence

p: a condition which can guarantee the truth of the sentence

e.g. "snow is white"

Componential analysis
Explaining the meaning of lexicon by presenting as many components as possible which construct totality of meaning of lexicon.

Can you define and differentiate these words?
Man, woman, boy, girl, bachelor, and spinster.

Perfected by
Ruth M. Kempson (1977)

S means that p necessarily, S is true iff p

: equal and only equal

e.g. "A boy hurried home"

Weaknesses:
1. The theory is circular;
2. It is restricted only on constative/ factual statement

1. Synonymy is a meaning relation which involves two or more expression having the same interpretation. Synonymy will always mean one of two or more words in the English language which have the same or very nearly the same essential meaning.
Synonym: words which have the same meaning.

Three kinds of synonymy

• True synonymy is a meaning relation which involves two or more sentences having the same exact meaning.

e.g.

• Close synonymy is a meaning relation which involves two or more expressions of which the interpretation is not entirely the same but very close.

e.g. war, battle, combat, fight, struggle.

• Partial synonymy is a meaning relation in which the meaning or interpretation of one lexicon only a part of the meaning of the other.

e.g. hen is partial meaning of chicken.


2. Antonymy: a meaning relation which involves two or more lexicons having opposite interpretations/ meanings.

Four kinds of antonymy

• True antonymy: the meaning relation which involves two or more lexicons having true opposite meaning.

e.g. - male vs. female

• Reciprocal antonymy: the meaning relation which involves two or more lexicons having reciprocal opposite meaning. Usually, it is in the form of actions.

e.g. - close vs. open

• Gradual antonymy: the meaning relation which involves two or more lexicons having gradual opposite meaning.

e.g. - uninjured- barely injured –injured- badly wounded- died

• One- to- many antonymy: the meaning relation in which one lexicons has many opposite meanings.

e.g. . sweet vs. bitter
3. Hyponymy: a relationship between two words, in which the meaning of one of the words includes the meaning of the other words
e.g. ‘Eagle’, ‘swallow’, ‘parrot’, etc. are hyponyms of the super ordinate ‘bird’

4. Ambiguity: a meaning relation which involve only one expression having more than one interpretation.

• Lexical ambiguity arises when context is insufficient to determine the sense of a single word that has more than one meaning.

e.g. can, bank, duck etc.

• Syntactic ambiguity arises when a sentence can be parsed in more than one way.

e.g. The chicken is ready to eat

5. Polysemy is a word or phrase with multiple, related meanings
e.g.

Key issues:
Do you know what is the definition of language?
Do you know what are the language feature?
Do you know what is meaning?

Language:

Linguistics:

Semantics:

Lexical meaning
Lexical meaning is the meaning of a word in isolation. The term 'lexical meaning' is to be interpreted as the meaning of lexemes depends upon the meaning of the sentences in which they occur.
Lexical meaning covers among other things the discussion about
Ambiguity:
Synonymy:
Antonymy:
Hyponymy:
Polysemy:
Homophony:
and homonymy:

Can you define for each term?

Sentential Meaning
A sentence is a set of words expressing a statement, a question, or a command. Sentence can be defined as a group of words that forms a statement, command, exclamation or question, it usually contains a subject and a verb and (in writing begins with a capital letter and ends of the mark (.,!,?) (Procter in Ahmadin, 1998: 12)
Theories in sentential semantic:
1. theory of truth condition:
2. theory of deep structure:

Discourse Meaning/ speech act
Discourse is a term used in linguistics to refer to a continuous stretch of language larger than a sentence. In addition, according to Fromkin in Ahmadin (2002: 22) linguistic knowledge accounts for speaker's ability to combine phonemes into morphemes, morphemes into words and words into sentences. Knowing a language also permits combining sentences together to express complex thought and ideas. This linguistic ability makes language an excellent medium for communication. These larger linguistic units are called discourse.

According to Brown and Levinson (1990) politeness strategies are developed in order to save the hearers' "face" Face refers to the respect that an individual has and maintenance that "self-esteem" in public or in private situations. Or simply we can say that 'face' refers to the image that a person projects in his social contacts with others. Usually you try to avoid embarrassing the other person, or making them feel uncomfortable. Since every participant in the social process has the need to be appreciated by others and the need to be free and not interfered with. The need to be appreciated is called 'positive face' and the need to not be disturbed refers to 'negative face. Face Threatening Acts (FTA's) are acts that infringe on the hearers' need to maintain his/her self esteem, and be respected.

• The bald on-record strategy does nothing to minimize threats to the hearer's “face”

• The positive politeness strategy shows you recognize that your hearer has a desire to be respected. It also confirms that the relationship is friendly and expresses group reciprocity

• The negative politeness strategy also recognizes the hearer's face. But it also recognizes that you are in some way imposing on them. Some other examples would be to say, “I don't want to bother you but...” or “I was wondering if...”

• Off-record indirect strategies the main purpose is to take some of the pressure off of you. You are trying to avoid the direct Face Threatening Act of asking something.

Key terms:
• Diglossia
• Bilingualism
• Multilingualism
• Code-Switching,
• and Code Mixing

Diglossia vs. Digraphia

Charles Ferguson (1959)

“Situations where two varieties of the same language are used for different social functions”

Janet Holmes defines diglossia as having three crucial features:
1. In the same language, used in the same community, there are two distinct varieties. One is regarded as high (H) and the other low (L).
2. Each is used for distinct functions.
3. No one uses the high (H) in everyday conversation.

• The "High" form (called "Modern Standard Arabic") is normally used in FORMAL situations.
• The "Low" form (referred to as "dialects," such as Cairene, Levantine, etc.) is used in INFORMAL situations, such as conversations, etc.

Digraphia??

Bilingualism??
Multilingualism??

It is important to note from the outset that "diglossia" and "bilingualism/multilingualism" refer to different, although similar, sociolinguistic situations.

• The key difference is that in a bilingual situation certain INDIVIDUALS (communities, etc.) will use Language A, while other INDIVIDUALS (communities, etc.) will use Language B, but EVERYONE will use the SAME LANGUAGE for all situations.

• Code-Switching??
In conversation
• Code Mixing??
In single utterance

Key terms:
Language variations
Language
Dialect
Accent
Idiolect
Sociolect

Internal Variation: the property of languages having different ways of expressing the same meaning. Importantly, this refers to within language, not across language, differences. (Phones, words, sentences)

External Variation?

Always remember DIALECT is NOT synonymous with accent

Regional Dialect

What are Isogloss, Dialect boundary, and Dialect continuum?
Criterion of mutual intelligibility

 Language issues and non linguistics factors
Prestige (standard vs. non-standard) Overt Prestige vs. Covert Prestige
The standard dialect is the dialect that is associated with prestige in the society at large.

Register (Class)
Politic

 Kinds of variation
• Phonological variations
• Morphological variations
• Syntactic variations
• Semantic variations


Can you give the examples for each?

Key Terms:
What is Sociology?
What is Linguistics?
What is the different between Sociolinguistics and. Sociology of Language?
What is Sociolinguistics concerned about?

Sociology: a study of the characteristics, behaviors, and developments of society. The branch of Social Science which studies about a society and its influences to the human life.

Who is August Comte?

Language:
Linguistics:
Who is Ferdinand De Saussure? (Structuralism)
Language
Langue
Parole

Sociolinguistics vs. Sociology of Language

Sociolinguistics: Language  Society

Sociology of Language: Society  Language

Sociolinguistics (Currie, 1952)

The Areas of Sociolinguistics
1. The influence of society as institutions and its members on the use of language.
Internal vs. External Variety
Internal  Phones, letters, morphemes, sentences
External Dialect, Sociolect, Chronolect.

2. The functions of language in society
- Instrumental
- Interaction
- Personality
- Problem solving
- Imaginative
- Informative

3. The way the language is used by and in society
How language develops culture.

Jean Paul Sartre: literature must be deal with “belles letters” (beautiful writing)
Therefore generally it is defined as the expression of beautiful thoughts and ideas in a beautiful language.
The point is that it appeals to the emotion and to the imagination, and gives the reader certain pleasure and satisfaction.
Literature is a vital record of what men have seen in life, what they have experienced of it, what they thought and felt about those aspects of it.

The functions of literature:
1. Literature stimulates us to understand and comprehend the life which is presented by the author in his work after we interpret it.
2. Literature suggests various possibilities in term of moral, social, and psychological accelerate the reader’s mental maturity and character building process reflected in the behavior and mature thought consideration.
3. Literature can lead the reader to mentally digest and comprehend imaginatively the importance beyond himself and see life through different perspective and point of view.
4. Literature can maintains the existence and the regeneration of culture and tradition of a nation in term of the way of thinking, tradition, history, and the other part of culture.
5. Literature helps the reader to know better about himself and his environment and sharpen his social awareness.

The functions of teaching literature
1. to motivate the students in absorbing the language expressions.
2. as a simulative means in language acquisition.
3. as a media in understanding culture.
4. as a means of interpretative ability development.
5. as a means of education the whole person.
6. as a means in developing students’ imagination.
7. as a means in arising the students’ awareness of the values in society.
8. as a means to stimulate the students in describing their experiences, feeling and opinion.
9. as a means to help the student in developing their intelligent and emotion in learning language.
10. as a means to stimulate the students in gaining the language skills.

It seems that the term of politeness is no longer be held and noticed by the youth. This assumption arises along with the development of the youth who tend to glorify the ‘west’ culture instead of their own culture. They call the one who sustains the ‘east’ tradition with the term ‘old-fashioned’ and consider them as ‘unassociated’. This condition is indeed pathetic and apprehensive, for they are the next generation who will shoulder and determine the fate of this nation. Taking more responsibility of that issue is not only the obligation of the parents, the teachers or the government, but also the entire member of society, for they also contribute in creating this kind of condition either directly or indirectly.
It is undeniable that the role of the media has very significant influence in life. This media can both give benefit and destruction in the same time for the entire aspects of life. It can be used to educate the people or vice versa. As one of the pillars of democracy, it is expected that the existence of media is functioned as one of the controlling institutions to the government. However, in Indonesia, after reformation era had been blown, in which the media is no longer chained by the power of the new order regime, the roles of them are ideally expected to have a bigger proportion to educate the people in all aspects of life, they fail to do the task. Although, they have opened the people’ eyes, changed the people’ point of view, and matured their way of thinking in seeing ‘the truth of power’, it must be appreciated indeed, in many other aspects, they also give very devastating influences, especially concerning the way of life of the people.
The people learn the information and tend to imitate behaviors and actions presented by the broadcasting programs consciously or unconsciously. In addition, the entering of the unfiltered information and programs broadcasted by the media, in this case is television, will definitely cause the culture shift among the people, especially for the youth who still in searching their true identity. It is unwise to say that all things come from the ‘west’ are not good, for in fact, many useful information and knowledge we can obtain from there. However, the core of the problem is the incongruousness of values among those two sides world, the ‘west’ tend to magnify what so called liberalism, in which they inclinate to rightfully elevate their logic instead of the heart, in which it is in contrast with the value of the ‘east’. If this inclination spreads and infects the youth, that will be a doom for our nation.
And now the question is how to anticipate or minimize it? Previously, it is stated that the responsibility of that issue is not only in the government’s hand, but also in all the citizen of the nation. All the member of the society must indeed give contribution to control and filter the entering culture that may be give bad influence to the character building of the youth. We can no longer stand with our ignorance; together we guard the blossom of these flowers.

The phenomenon of holocaust, nowadays, intensively spoken by the world, since, the president chosen of Islamic republic of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad often loudly proclaim it. The story of holocaust has strong relation to the existence of Israeli state, in which they got a piece of land in Palestine in 1945 after War world II from majority of European Countries as the compensation of that issue. The president tried to advocate Palestine people by requestioning the truth of it. According to him holocaust is only a myth consciously spread out to justify the existence of Israeli state. If it was really happened, why should be Palestine not Germany or other European countries that has direct involvement and was responsible on it?
Moreover, the issue of holocaust is not up to date issue. More than fifty years ago it has became controversy among the historians, there were groups which agree and disagree. The first group who agree, majority from Zionist, they consider that Holocaust was really happened, they have obvious evidences to support it. For instance, they believes that the slaughtering of million Jews by Nazi was done in a gas room and that room until nowadays is still exist. According to them, they were butchered by using bio-chemical gas which has green color, and it can be found in that room. Unfortunately, the evidence once never be shown to the public. In the other side was group who disagree called revisionist. They strongly refuse and consider it as a myth, according to them holocaust is the greatest conspiracy ever done by “West” to justify the existence of Israeli state which is supposed as “the hand of West” or “the golden boy of USA” among Middle-East countries. They deny all the evidence given by Zionist by conducting some research. For instance for the gas used as the tools of butchered, hellion, they examined that that gas can not kill living creature, so how can it be used in that genocide as the tool.
In European countries, holocaust becomes some kind of belief in which there is no one who allows doubting, asking or conducting research to verify the truth of it. They are forced to believe without being given a chance to ask why; prison is waiting for those who disbelieve it. More extreme, in some countries there is a written law regulated it, usually someone who disbelieve holocaust is judged as anti-Jews and has to be jailed, they equivocate those kind of people will endanger the harmony of religion relationship.
Recently, a seminar discussed about holocaust was held in Teheran Iran, it was attended by many historians over the world interested in this issue, not only from revisionist historians but also from historians who support it. Indeed, although there is no agreement reached concerning this issue, all participants feel satisfied, because it is the first time seminar has ever been held which discuss concerning this issue. However, there was accidence, after attending this seminar; those historians have to get in touch with their state’s law, even some of them were arrested, and they were accused as anti-Jews.
Moreover, the issue of holocaust for the first time appeared after war world II. The European believes that there was a genocide done by NAZI to estimating 6.500.000 Jews in Europe especially in Germany. Adolf Hitler, the leader of NAZI known as leader who hates Jews very much. At the end of the war, for the consequences, there was an agreement signed by the leader of Germany and Zionist. Germany had to pay five thousand marks for one head; it was paid in installment started in 1965 until 2020. The European countries agreed to relocate the rest living of Jews, for this, they agreed to give a piece of land in Palestine; they reasoned that the land of ancestor of Jews was in Palestine. However, the question is, was the Palestine who live nowadays lived at the moment when million of Jews was expelled by the king of Rome, Nero? Can sin be heir? Should innocent people become the victim?
No matter whether we agree or disagree to the issue, the obvious thing is million innocent die because of this.

May God Smile Upon Us Always

Alkisah, disebuah hutan belantara terjadi pertarungan sengit antara anak kucing dan anjing betina. Si betina mengklaim kalau si kucing telah menempati rumahnya sejak lama dan dia mau merebutnya kembali.

Anak kucing meronta tetapi tetap melawan sekuat tenaga, sementara si anjing betina dengan tanpa ampun menghujami tubuh si kucing dengan cakarnya.

Perkelahian yang tidak seimbang itu mengundang simpati warga rimba, namun seolah takut, mereka hanya melihat saja.

Beruang merah dan panda tetap di tempat mereka dan diam seribu bahasa. Si raja rimba mencoba melerai tapi si betina melihatnya dengan tatapan angkuh yang membuatnya tertunduk tidak berdaya.

Kawanan onta datang dan berbicara dengan sesamanya, wow ada genocida…sementara si burung gereja terus berteriak, hentikan-hentikan, tapi apalah yang dia bisa?

Datang seekor naga hitam mencoba menengahi mereka, tapi mereka tidak tau kalau si naga berkepala dua.

Darah terus mengalir deras dari tubuh si kucing, tetapi tetap si betina tidak melepaskan tikamannya.

Tiba-tiba sekawanan lumba-lumba datang dengan membawa bantuan, tapi dengan ganas si betina mengerang hingga membuat takut para lumba-lumba.

Bagaimana kelanjutan kisahnya?
Tetap di……………….wallahua’lam.


Malang, 5 Juni 2010

I nsanity and brutality
S laughter the innocent with no mercy
R ape and crash the heart of justice savagely
A nnihilate the peace from its locality
E radicate the hope of living in harmony
L ong last endlessly

G o to the Middle East you will see
O n the sky burned by the vanity
T he hostility hand in hand with tyranny
O nly death body can speak with such fluency

H orror and terror seem soon will be over
E cho of liberty drops from heaven like morning dew
L abyrinth of monstrosity once will be passed through
L ight of little candle will be brighter than ever forever



Malang, 8 June 2010

Ku lihat sang surya bertahta di singgasana megahnya.
Ku beranikan diri untuk bertanya,
Wahai sang surya,
Apakah kau membedakan atas pancaran sinarmu?
Lalu dia berkata,
Tidak, aku memberikan sinarku untuk menghangatkan jagad semesta.

Ku menengadah ke atas,
Ku lihat sang langit yang dengan anggun menyelimuti angkasa dengan sayapnya,
Lalu ku beranikan diri untuk bertanya,
Wahai langit,
Apakah kau membedakan atas bentangan sayapmu?
Dia berkata,
Tidak, lebaran sayapku menyelimuti semua yang ada didunia.

Aku terus berjalan,
Ku lihat sang laut sedang tertawa riang bersama ombak-ombaknya,
Aku pun bertanya,
Wahai laut,
Apakah kau membedakan atas ikan-ikan yang kau hasilkan?
Lalu dia berkata,
Tidak, ikan-ikan ku menghidupi semua makhluk fana.

Hari mulai gelap,
Rembulan pun mengerlingkan matanya menyapa cakrawala,
Lalu ku bertanya,
Wahai rembulan,
Apakah kau membedakan atas lembut cahaya yang kau pantulkan?
Dia pun berkata,
Tidak, lembut cayahaku menenangkan semesta raya.

Tiba-tiba terdengar suara dari bawahku dan berkata,
Wahai anak manusia, mengapa kepadaku engkau tak bertanya?
Aku berkata,
Aku malu,
Semua dengan adil memberikan yang mereka punya kepada sesama,
Tetapi tetap aku terus bertempur,
Tetapi tetap aku terus menghancur,
Tetapi tetap aku terus melebur,
Aku malu padamu bumi,
Aku malu pada Mu Sang Maha.

Malang, 1 Juni 2010

Entah kata apa yang pantas,
Bangsat, anjing, setan, ataukah iblis untuk menyebutnya
Entah karna ajaran yang dianutnya ataukah memang sudah tabiatnya,
Keras kepala dan cenderung menghalalkan segala cara
Ketika ku duduk disini menulis sesuatu yang tak berarti pun
Dia dengan bengisnya menghujani maut di tanah yang katanya tempat para nabi- nabi
Menebar aroma kematian di tempat Al Aqso berdiri
Meluluhlantakkan bumi yang dianggap suci bagi tiga agama Illahi.

Sempat dalam hati ku bertanya
Tak berartikah jutaan anak tak berdosa terkapar bersimbah darah tak bernyawa?
Tak terketukkah hatinya mendengar ribuan ibu meraung meratapi anaknya yang hilang entah kemana?
Tak bosankan ia mengalirkan darah para pemuda pemberani yang melawan dengan melempari batu tank- tanknya?

Ah bodohnya aku…..
Dia bukanlah manusia tapi iblis yang menjelma,
Hati dan nurani manalah ia punya!

Ini bukan masalah agama bung!
Bukan masalah sejarah, bangunan megah, ataupun minyak yang melimpah.
Bukan masalah perseteruan abadi antara sunni dan syi'ah
Bukan pula masalah PBB yang tak kuasa berbuat apa-apa
Ataupun para pemimpin bangsa yang berlomba mengutuk keliarannya tanpa melakukan tindakan nyata untuk membela.

Ini masalah genocida jutaan nyawa tak berdosa,
Masalah kemanusiaan yang terkoyak jiwa dan raganya,
Masalah kebiadaban yang luar biasa di luar jangkauan nalar manusia,
Masalah perlu disegerakannya genjatan senjata,
Masalah Negara-negara tetangga yang menutup perbatasan mereka dikala kezaliman merajalela, kekejaman melanda, dan pembantaian membabi buta padahal mereka adalah saudara.

He.. Hamas!, he… Fattah!
Sudahlah..lupakan dulu sengketamu, buang dulu dendam pribadimu
Bersatulah…
Majulah…
Lawanlah….
Bejuanglah…
Demi menyeka air mata darah yang mengalir deras dari mata indahnya,
Demi mengeringkan tanah yang terbanjiri air mata yang bercampur darahnya.


Malang, 12 Januari 2009

Debated issues
• Discourse analyst argued the grammarians only concern with abstract sentences and symbols symbolized meaning but ignore the important of context.
• Grammarians are too much preoccupied by well-formedness. Meanwhile, well-formedness of language sequences is not a sufficient principle.

Fact
The judgment of discourse analyst not all is true:
Discourse analyst will never be able to ignore the role of syntax and semantics in a discourse.

Why???

• The role of syntax in discourse analysis field is in term of the relation of clause in a discourse.

What is clause???
- Clause is a cognitive process used for interpreting the meaning of sentences.

- There are two kinds of clause relation
a. logic clause relation
- Condition-consequence
- Instrument-result
- Cause-effect
b. mixed clause relation
- Compatibility matching (and, or, etc.)
- Context matching (but, however, nevertheless, etc)

In a whole we can say that the role of syntax and semantics to discourse analysis is to maintain the coherence of discourse.

According to Thomas Kuhn, the revolution of knowledge occurs when the paradigm being utilized in an era can be denied by the occurrence of the new paradigm. In linguistics era, it was recorded when the structuralism paradigm, introduced by Ferdinand de Saussure , the founding father of structuralism, was contrasted by the occurrence of the new paradigm mentalism (GTG)which was first echoed by Noam Chomsky . According to structuralism, which strongly influenced by behaviorism paradigm, in acquiring language proficiencies, human learn from the surrounding. The process of transformation of language skills in human mind was through the relation between stimulus and response pattern, further they argued that the human’s mind when he was born was just like a blank paper, tabula rasa, so he/she learned through the surrounding about everything; those were the main thought of the behaviorism’ learning theory. However, the GTG denied those by proposing a new theory which says that language is innate, human is granted by God with language competence since he/ she was born. Therefore, the process of language acquisition is not in the form of relation between stimulus and responses through the surrounding interaction, for he/she has already been furnished that ability in his/her mind. The interaction committed with the surrounding is a kind of media to develop that ability.

In the structure of language, structuralism believes that the structure of language is just the same as the structure of building, so it is built from the smallest unit, in this case is word, word builds phrase, phrase builds clause, clause builds sentence, sentence builds paragraph and so forth. However, this postulate is questioned by the GTG, they claimed that the explanation given by the structuralism is not as adequate as it is required to elucidate what is beyond the surface, in the other words, the deep structure of the language. According to GTG, the postulate of the structuralism has not touched yet the occurrence of deep structure of language.

Now the question is, is it true that Chomsky was the whistle blower of that revolution? By studying more deeply about the history of language development we can reveal that question. Many provided information state that the embryo of theory of innateness in language acquisition was first introduced by Descrates, he claimed that human is granted by God with what so called ‘language usage creativity’ since he/she was born, this was the fundamental assumption underlying the theory of innateness proposed by Chomsky . The second linguist that has to be considered is Juan Huarte, he divided human intelligence into three kinds; first, docile wit: all creatures have ability to seize the signs given by nature with their senses (instinct); second, normal human ingenio (normal intelligence): human has an ability to acquire knowledge from various sources by means of their senses of data and build a cognitive system, and it can be developed automatically in their brain; the last, true creativity: human is granted with the ability to invent totally new things. Moreover, among those three only human have all of them; animal and automaton are only on the stage of docile wit.

In addition, the other thought which underlies the Chomsky’s theory is grammar philosophy, these grammarians’ thought can be found in their legacy, Port Royal Grammar, which contains their vision on the structure of language, in it, they argued the smallest unit in language is not word and inflectional, but phrase. They distinguished between the term meaning and sound as deep and surface structure which later on becomes the fundamental foundation of the theory deep and surface structure in GTG. The last linguist who has strong influence to Chomsky’s ideas is Wilhelm Von Humboldt, he introduced his ideas in the form of postulate, his postulate stated that human has ability to create unlimited sentences with the explanations of the relationship between deep and surface structure and connect it with the representation of sounds and meanings in which it does not contrast with phonology and semantics.

Therefore, all those evidences show that it was not Chomsky who blown the whistle of the revolution, for almost all his ideas come from the previous experts of linguistics discussed above. Chomsky was the one who continued and perfected those ideas to reject the structuralism paradigm.

Mungkin jika kita mendengar kata linguistik, muncul dibenak kita hal-hal yang menyeramkan dan sulit. Terbayang simbol-simbol aneh dan diagram-diagram yang gak jelas apa maksudnya. Anda mungkin pernah bertanya kenapa se para ilmuan kok repot-repot melakukan riset, yang seolah mempersulit diri sendiri, mengkaji tentang dan mencoba merumuskan sesuatu yang mungkin kita anggap remeh?. Kalau kita merenung sejenak memang alam ini adalah jutaan ato mungkin milyaran bahkan trilyunan data mentah yang tersedia untuk diteliti, alam ini berjalan tidak dengan sendirinya tapi mengikuti pola-pola teratur, ato sekenario yang berjalan dengan sangat rapi. Disinilah, otak manusia yang memang memiliki kecenderungan untuk 'ingin tau lebih' tertantang untuk mengetahui pola-pola itu.

Kembali lagi ke bahasa, sebenaranya, memang tidak bisa dipungkiri kalau ilmu ini sulit-sulit gampang untuk dipelajari, kalau bicara masalah teori dijamin pasti membuat pening kepala, tapi jika melihat hal-hal disekitar kita, hampir semua aspek kehidupan bukan hanya manusia tapi semua makhluk tidak lepas dari yang namanya bahasa, dari situlah pentingnya bahasa untuk dipelajari. Jika ada orang bertanya kepada saya 'dalam dunia ini, apa yang paling penting untuk dipelajar menurut anda? Terlepas dari masalah religi, karna menurut saya itu masalah individu masing-masing makhluk, maka dengan mantap pasti saya akan menjawab 'linguistik', dan pertanyaan itu pastilah berlanjut 'mengapa?' ya diatas tadi itu alasannya, manusia tanpa bahasa seperti ikan hidup tanpa air, tidak bisa bertahan. Masak sih! Lha orang bisu kayak apa? Bahkan orang bisu sekalipun berbahasa, walaupun mulut mereka bisu karna dalam istilah kerennya vocal cord mereka bermasalah, mereka menggunakan indera lain untuk berkomunikasi dengan sesama, dalam bentuk gerakan-gerakan ato isayarat-isyarat, lazimnya disebut body language/ gesture.

Banyak sekali aspek-aspek dari bahsa yang bias kita kaji, mulai dari hal yang paling kecil yaitu bunyi (phone) sampai yang terbesar wacana (discourse). Sebelum kita masuk pada apa saja area dari linguistic ini, ada baiknya kita mengetahui dulu ape se bahasa itu? oke.. banyak sekali para sarjana yang mencoba memeberikan definisi tentang bahasa, dari banyak pendapat dapat disimpulkan bahwa yang disebut bahasa adalah system lambang bunyi yang arbitrer (semena-mena)yang digunakan oleh para anggota masyarakat untuk berkomunikasi antar sesama. Dari pengertian ini kita dapat menggarisbawahi bahwa bahasa adalah sistem lambang bunyi yang arbitrer dan alat komunikasi.

Apa pula sistem lambang bunyi yang arbitrer/ semena-mena itu? Begini.. dalam bahasa dalam penamaan sesuatu bersifat semena-mena, tidak ada pola khusus yang mengatur hal ini, mengapa benda yang terbuat dari kayu ato besi ato plastic yang pada umumnya mempunyai empat pasang kaki dan terdapat sandaran di belakangnya yang fungsinya untuk tempat duduk disebut 'kursi', kenapa tidak ''asbak, buku, ato kepala' ato yang lainnya? jawabannya mudah karena bahasa mempunyai sifat arbitrer tersebut, that’s it. Tapi dalam bahasa tertentu, kita ambil contoh bahasa Indonesia, ada kata-kata tertentu yang seolah mempunyai kaitan dengan yang diwakilinya, semisal, kata 'menggonggong' adalah kata yang digunakan untuk menyebut bebiasaan anjing ketika mengeluarkan suara. Kata itu muncul karena memang suara anjing dalam telinga orang Indonesia 'gong..gong..gong…' karenanya hal itu disebut gonggong. Ato suara air yang mengalir di sungai ato tetes air yang jika jatuh mengenai benda lain, seperti batu, tanah dan sebagainya mengeluarkan bunyi kricik..kricik.., disebut 'gemercik', juga 'mengaung', 'mengeong', semilir, dan banyak lagi contoh yang lainnya. Fenomena apa ini? Seakan ada kaitan antara alam dan penamaan suatu benda. Di sisi lain, disamping arbitrer sifat bahasa yang lain secara khusus adalah onomatopoeia ato gema suara alam, lha..fenomena diatas masuk kategori yang kedua, lho kok??? Katanya bahasa sistem lambang bunyi yang sifatnya arbitrer??

Memang, sejak dari jaman Yunani kuno, telah terjadi kontrofersi tentang apakan bahasa itu arbitrer ato onomatopoeia, saat itu terdapat dua aliran yang berselisih pendapat mengenai hal ini, aliran pertama menyebut dirinya phusis, mereka berpendapat kalau bahasa itu onomatopoeia, bahasa adalah gema suara alam, terdapat kaitan yang kuat antara bahasa dengan alam, gema-gema suara alam seperti yang telah dicontohkan diatas dipakai manusia untuk menamakan konsep-konsep kebendaan yang ada di sekeliling mereka. Yang kedua adalah thesis, kebalikannya, mereka berpendapat bahwa bahasa bersifat arbitrer, yang artinya penamaan konsep-konsep kebendaan tidak mengikuti kaidah ato pola tertentu, tapi semena-mena. Pendapat pertama memang tidak sepenuhnya tidak benar, karena sampai hari ini gejala-gejala tersebut dapat kita temukan di hampir di semua bahasa yang ada di dunia, tapi khan tidak semua penamaan konsep kebendaan mempunyai hubungan dengan benda yang diwakilinya ya nggak??, yang ada malah kebanyakan konsep-konsep tersebut bersifat arbitrer, 'kenapa kursi?' 'kenapa meja?', kasur, duduk, berdiri, lari' dan sebagainya adalah contoh-contohnya. Makanya para linguis (sebutan untuk para ahli dan pengkaji linguistik) sepakat kalau sifat dasar bahasa itu arbitrer.

Kata linguistik sendiri secara sederhana berarti ilmu yang mengkaji tentang bahasa. Sarjana Perancis yang sangat tersohor, Ferdinand de Saussure, pernah denger nggak nama ini?? Sarjana bidang linguistic yang sangat brilian, yang oleh sebagian mahasiswa-mahasiswanya, kumpulan kuliah-kuliahnya yang terdiri dari tiga seri dibukukan dan di beri judul Cours de Linguistique Generale yang menjadikannya terkenal sebagai peletak dasar linguistic moderen, oleh karenanya dia disebut-sebut sebagai bapak linguistik moderen sekaligus bapak aliran strukturalisme dalam hal kebahasaan, aliran yang menganggap bahwa bahasa tidak ubahnya seperti bangunan (structure), bahasa menurut paham ini, dibangun dari kalimat-kalimat; selanjutnya kalimat dibangun dari klausa-klausa; klusa dari frasa; dan seterusnya sampai unit terkecil dari bahasa yaitu bunyi.

Saussure membagi bahasa menjadi tiga aspek, yaitu langage, langue, dan parole, ketiganya berasal dari bahasa Perancis yang mengandung pengertian bahasa, tetapi yang cukup berbeda sehingga dimanfatkan oleh Saussure untuk mengungkapkan aspek-aspek bahasa. Perbedaan itu memungkinkan dia untuk menggambarkan ato memposisikan bahasa sebagai benda atau objek yang dapat diteliti secara ilmiah.
Kata pertama, yaitu langage, merujuk pada bahasa manusia secara umum, sebagai sistem lambang bunyi yang arbitrer (semena-mena)yang digunakan oleh para anggota masyarakat untuk berkomunikasi antar sesama. Jadi diantara ketiga istilah diatas cakupan langage adalah yang terluas dan masih bersifat general, abstrak dan universal, tidak merujuk ke bahasa tertentu, tapi bahasa manusia secara keseluruhan. Sedangkan kata yang kedua, langue, lebih sepesifik, merujuk pada system bahasa tertentu secara keseluruhan, ato kita juga bisa menyebut bahwa langue adalah kaidah bahasa suatu masyarakat tertentu. Jadi cakupannya lebih sempit daripada langage. Yang ketiga adalah parole, secara sederhana berarti tindak bicara ato bahasa yang diucapkan oleh anggota masyarakat dalam kehidupan sehari-hari, dalam hal ini berbentuk ujaran-ujaran, jadi lebih konkrit dan lebih condong ke individu masing-masing, pengungkapannya bersifat sementara dan heterogen (manifestasi individu dari bahasa). Kita bisa mengatakan sebagai makhluk social, manusia mempunyai langue, dan sebagai makhluk individu manusia mempunyai parole dalam bebahasa.

Menurut Saussure pengkajian langage terdiri dari dua bagian. Pertama, kajian yang berobyek pada langue, yang pada dasarnya social dan tidak tergantung pada individu. Dan yang kedua pada parole, tataran individual dari langage. Meskipun kedua obyek tersebut berkaitan erat dan saling menunjang, dalam hal ini langue diperlukan agar parole dapat dipahami, karena seperti disebutkan diatas, langue adalah kaidah ato aturan bahasa yang berlaku dalam masyarakat, ujaran ato perkataan seseorang bisa dimengerti oleh orang lain karena di dalam masyarakat tersebut mempunyai sebuah konvensi aturan tentang bahasa yang mereka gunakan, disisi lain parole diperlukan untuk membentuk langue tersebut, kok bisa?? Pada kenyataannya kita belajar mengerti bahasa ibu kita dengan cara mendengarkan orang lain berbicara, hal ini juga menjawab pertanyaan mengapa di dalam ketrampilan berbahasa ketrampilan mendengar menenpati posisi teratas, dan kenyataan bahwa kesan-kesan saat mendengarkan orang lainlah yang merubah kebiasaan berbahasa kita, dalam hal pengkajiannya, antara langue dan parole sangatlah berbeda, kita tidak bisa mempelajari bahasa dengan menggabungkan kedua aspek tersebut.

Pada kenyataannya, realita dari linguistic yang dapat dikaji secara ilmiah adalah langue, bukan parole, karena parole itu sendiri yang bersifat perseorangan, bervariasi, berubah-ubah, dan mengandung hal yang baru. Terlebih lagi di dalamnya tidak ada kesatuan system, jadi tidak dapat diteliti secara ilmiah. Sedangkan langue adalah pola kolektif, yang dimiliki oleh setiap penutur. That's it!!! Moga bermanfaat…….maju terus linguistik Indonesia!!!!!


References:
Chaer, A. 2003. Linguistik Umum. Jakarta: Reneka Cipta.
Robins, RH. 1967. A Short History of Linguistics. Blommington: Indiana University Press.
Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1973. Cours de Linguistique Generale. Diterjemakan oleh Rahayu S. Hidayat. 1988. Pengantar Linguistik Umum. Yogyakarta: Gadjah Mada University Press.
Wahab, A. 2006. Isu Linguistik. Surabaya: Airlangga University Press.
Yule, G. 2001. The Study of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.