Introduction
For
much of the history of linguistics and
the positivist philosophy
of language, language was viewed primarily as a way of
making factual assertions, and the other uses of language tended to be ignored. When language is related to speech,
Liberman and Whalen
(2000:1) says that speech is the verbal means of communicating. Taking speech
in its narrow sense from the less conventional view, it will be defined as a
constituent of a vertically organized system, specialized from top to bottom
for linguistic communication. Speech is then related to freedom of speech when
speech is used in the practice of national life. In Indonesia, the freedom of speech, which is protected by the
constitution, has been misled into the chaos of meaningless language and
minimalistic actions. Many people, including the leaders of the nation, have
abandoned and forgotten the importance of the clear allignment between their
words and their their actions.
Discussing the matter of
leaders’ speech in Indonesia which is observed through the language of its
leaders, the writer would like to refer to a short biography of John Langshaw
Austin which was composed by Guy Longworth from University of Warwick. The
center of the observation, as the result of the research upon Austin’s two
acclaimed books: Sense and Sensibilia (1962a)
and How to do Things with Words (1962b),
was Austin’s reflections on speech acts and the relationship between language
and truth. J.L. Austin (1911-1960) was widely known by his linguistic
phenomenology. Austin always believed that the analysis of the utterances was
not about to prove that the series of utterances or sayings are right or wrong,
but it stresses more on the motive of the speaker or whether the motive will
create a certain effect to his or her listener.
The whole discussion of this essay will be
guided by and referred to the extraordinary ideas of Austin’s philosophy of
language. It can be promised that the philosophy will point out the right
language, instead of mere rhetoric, which is more possible and credible to be
directed into the right actions.
Research Method
The writer used literature study and speeches analysis,
as the research methods in this essay. The literatures used to assist the
research were Austin’s writings and other supportive sources, including from
linguistics sources. The analysis on speeches was applied by comparing two kind
of speeches from two different leaders: from Indonesia and from the United
States of America.
The
application on the speeches analysis was aimed to search and to observe the language
characteristics and the differences among of the leaders’ speeches. Each of the
leaders’ speeches were taken from some different themes to acknwoledge the
effect of the different situation which occured within the speeches. The
analysis was not only applied by reading the transcript of the speeches, but
also by watching the videos of them to see the gesture and the way of the
leaders addressing the speeches.
These
two methods were expected to be the paths for the writer to find and to
conclude the language for the right actions. The combination of these two methods
were considered as the most appropriate for the observation. Through the
combination, the writer applied Austin’s linguistic phenomenology over two
selected compared speeches from Indonesia’s and United States’ leader.
Section 1: Austin and Wittgenstein: Philosophy of
Ordinary Language
Before the writer discusses and analyses Austin’s
linguistic phenomenology, it is very important to introduce his predecessor
whom was the pioneer of the philosophy of
ordinary language: Ludwig Wittgenstein. Austin is mentioned as Wittgenstein’s
‘loyal disciple’. Wittgenstein’s ideas and philosophy have much affected on
Austin’s progressive philosophy, though Austin had also critised his own
predecessor’s thought. The differences of their lives showed how different
their philosophical thoughts and ideas are. Austin was a family man, but
Wittgenstein was a loner who lived in his own cabin in Norway.
Ludwig Wittgenstein was born in Vienna, Austria on April 26th, 1889. His
first work, “Logischphilosophische
Abhandlungen” (Logical and philosophical reviews) was published in 1921.
Its translation in English was entitled Tractatus
logico-philosophicus (Tractatus) from
which he achieved his Doctor of Philosophy in Cambridge in 1929. After teaching
in some schools and in Trinity College and publishing some books, he left his
professorate to finish his Philosophical
Investigations. He passed away on April 29th, 1951 in Austria after suffering
a cancer for two years (Bertens, 2002:39-43)
In the introduction of his own book, Tractatus, Wittgenstein himself obviated his effort by stating,
“The whole sense of the book might be summed up in the following words: What
can be said at all can be said clearly, and what we cannot talk about we must
pass over in silence”. Therefore, Tractatus
discusses about language or more precisely about language logic. One of the
most significant element within his reviews on Tractatus is what is so called ‘picture theory’ which can be
considered as ‘meaning theory’. To explain the language, many ways can be
utilized. In Philosophical Investigations,
Wittgenstein introduced the term of language
games, i.e. the types of language games which can be found in daily life
and have their own rules. The meaning of language is its usage in a complex,
spontaneous, unlimited and various human life. The implication is that the
mankind in every aspect of his/her life always used a certain language games-rules
to distinguish with another certain language games. Through language
games-rules, Wittgenstein also suggested that language analysis has to be based
on and treated as the ordinary language,
i.e.: the daily life language. (Bertens, 2002:45, 50-51)
As one of the philosopher of ordinary language and
Wittgenstein’s ‘loyal disciple’, Austin really ensured that from an ordinary
daily language, there are many aspects can be learnt. As Wittgenstein put his
focus in the language games and their rules, Austin devoted himself on the
phenomena behind the language. It is called as Austin’s linguistic
phenomenology, i.e. how to explain phenomenons through language analysis.
Section 2: How to
do Things with Words: Austin’s Linguistic Phenomenology
Austin learnt classical philology and philosophy until he
became one of the acknowledged philosophy professor in Oxford. After his death
on his age of 48, his three books were published by J.O. Urmson and G.J.
Warnock, they are: Philosophical Papers (1961;
extended edition on 1970), a collection of Austin’s papers which he addressed
in various opportunity; Sense and
Sensibilia, a collection of Austin’s lectures in Oxford; and How To Do Things With Words (1962), his
single lecture which he addressed in The
William James Lectures, Harvard (1955) (Bertens, 2002:60)
Among the British philosophers, there is probably no
other who is so enthusiastic to observe daily speech like Austin. He ensured that we can
learn many things by paying attention in ordinary language. In daily language,
there are so many distinctions and soft nuances which have been improved by
many generations of language users in the effort to manifest their ideas. Austin
frequently asked what to say when,
where the language aspect (what) is
considered as important as the phenomenon world (when). So that, Austin himself valued linguistic phenomenology as the place to perform his effort,
because by the term, his examination is revealed to explain the phenomenons
through a language investigation. (Bertens, 2002:60)
The most well known Austin’s contribution for the study
of language is his analytical idea about performative utterances, constative
utterances and speech acts. Constative utterances are the kind of language
utterances which picture a factual condition or a real incident which contains
a consequence to be defined its right-or-wrong based on factual relationship
between the speaker and the real fact. In other words, to value the
right-or-wrong of a constative utterance, its fact should be investigated and
proved first. That is the reason why Austin confirms that a constantive
utterance is one’s way to give a statement which contains a historical
reference or a real incident. In a constative
utterance, there is also performative utterance, that is an utterance which
implies on its deserved-or-undeserved and its happy-or-unhappy of the speaker
to utter it. According to Austin, by his/her performative utterance, one does
not only inform something, but also commit a deed as it is expressed. (Wibowo,
2011:29-30)
Austin’s critical notes about performative utterance and
constative utterance are proposed by Austin himself in his book, How to Do Things with Words. He
concludes that to utter a sentence is an action, a speech act. In the book, Austin
himself tries to detail speech acts. In his effort to observe speech acts,
Austin differentiates three types of act or
the deed which can play its role, if we utter a sentence (Wibowo, 2011:37-43),
i.e.:
1.
Locutionary act.
This is the speech act which addresses a definite topic,
although there is no obligation for the speaker to perform the content of
his/her utterance. Austin categorises locutionary
act into three sub categories:
a.
Phonetic act: a
speech act to utter certain phonems.
b.
Phatic act: a
speech act to utter a certain vocabulary which forms a certain grammatic which
is also recognised as a direct speech.
c.
Rhetic act: a
speech act to report what is being uttered by the speaker which is also
recognised as indirect speech.
2.
Illocutionary act.
This is the speech act which states a topic using a typical force which
makes the speaker acts according to his utterance. In another statement,
illocutionary act is an act in uttering a speech (performative) which is
against with the act of uttering a speech (constative). Austin categorises
illocutionary acts into five sub categories:
a.
Verdictives:
speech acts which are assigned by a discernment connected with right-or-wrong,
but the discernment is not the final, e.g.: to free, to punish, to interpret,
to count, to discern, to suspect, to measure, to picture, to place, to order.
b.
Exercitives:
speech acts which are the consequences of the presence of power, right or influence,
e.g.: to appoint, to name, to proclaim, to advise, to direct, to insist, to
vote, to warn, to command and to choose.
c.
Commissives:
speech acts which are assigned by a treaty or an action which causes the
speaker to do an action, e.g.: to act, to contract, to vow, to announce, to
resist, to bet, to support.
d.
Behabitives:
speech acts which reflect a social concern connected with symphaty,
reconciliation and inter-supportive, e.g.: to congratulate, to forgive and to
grieve.
e.
Expositives:
speech acts which are used in simplifying the definition which comes from a
certain reference.
3.
Perlocutionary act.
This is the effect of a speech act from a speaker to
his/her co-speaker. In another statement, if locutionary act and illocutionary
act stress more on the role of the speaker’s act, the perlocutionary act
stresses more on the reaction of the co-speaker. According to Austin, it is
related with the function of language as the influence to ideas and feelings.
The words in this category are to ensure, to delight, to deceive, to frighten,
to persuade and to direct.
Through
his observation on speech acts, Austin indeed affirms that an analysis on a
language utterance should not be limited merely on its speech meaning, but it
has to be also analysed from its consequence which is caused by the utterance
itself. It is so emphasised by Austin that in people’s speech, including the
leaders of nations’, the life orientation of language users is always implied.
Discussion 1: Analysis on Indonesian President’s
Speeches: Yudhoyono
As
the tool of this essay discussion, Austin’s linguistic phenomenology helps to
analyse the speeches of Indonesian leaders. To represent the leaders, Republic
of Indonesia’s recent president, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and his speeches are
selected to be analysed. From all of his speeches and remarks along his
administration, two of most recent and significant ones are taken to be viewed
and analysed with Austin’s linguistic phenomenology. The consideration of the
selection is the varied themes and contents of the speeches: discussion of
disaster sustainable management, international issues and children.
The
two speeches and the analyses are as follows:
a.
Opening Speech at The
Fifth Asian Ministerial Conference for Disaster Risk Reduction in Yogyakarta, October 23rd, 2012.
There are 50 paragraphs and 132 sentences in this speech
which is addressed by Yudhoyono as the president of the Republic of Indonesia
in the ministerial meeting. The president’s utterances in this speech were
dominated by constative ones where he described Indonesia’s fragile condition
to natural disasters. He also exposed the facts and data about his governmental
effort to reduce the disaster risk within his country. A single part of
illocutionary act which is being manifested in a exercitives act of speech can
be pointed in the last sentences which he advised steps to strengthen the
cooperation among countries in developing every efforts of disaster risk
reduction.
b.
Speech at The General
Debate of The, 67th Session of The United Nations General Assembly, in New
York, September 25th, 2012.
Before the general assembly of the United Nations,
Yudhoyono addressed the speech which contains the discussion on the effort of
sustaining peace among the countries across the world. Along the 34 paragraphs
and 90 sentences speech, Yudhoyono put his trademark in exposing the fact, data
and history, this time, in a broad frame of conflicts and ‘warm peace’. The
exceptions were applied in his expositives acts of speech where he took some
references from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, post-MDG’s
development agenda and also the achievement of ASEAN’s regional
cooperation.
By
the analyses upon the two speeches, it can be concluded that in his position as
the recent President of Republic of Indonesia, Yudhoyono is very frequent in
expressing facts, data and history out of himself which hardly move and affect
his listeners. The president’s and his assistants’ utterances selection in his
speech is very constative, because of the factual and historical content they
apply. Constative utterances almost do not involve any concern which affects
and moves the listeners emotionally as applied in perlocutionary acts.
Discussion 2: Analysis on United States President’s
Speeches: Obama
Austin’s
linguistic phenomenology helps to analyse the speeches of the leader of another
country. It is proposed as the comparison of the previous analysis. Recent
United States of America’s president, Barrack Obama and his speeches are
selected to be analysed in this part of discussion. Among Obama’s speeches and
remarks, before and after his re-election for his second term of his
administration, three of them are put to be analysed. The selection of the
speeches and remarks is based on their significancy and themes variation:
international issues, disaster relief, and war veterans.
The
analyses of the two selected speeches are as follows:
a.
Remarks by the US
President to the United Nation General Assembly in New York, September 25th,
2012.
Before the representatives of UN General Assembly members,
Obama started his remarks with a very touching story about the late Chris
Stevens (par. 1-4). He was a US diplomat who has been killed by a terrorist
attack in Benghazi, Libya. This kind of berbatives act which was performed very
well by Obama is the most characteristics of Obama’s speeches and remarks. His
berbatives acts, in this remark, were also combined with commisives acts along
his 55 paragraphs remark to invite for a reconciliation among the conflicted
groups and countries. Most of this 186 sentences-remark was coloured by this
combination of berbatives and commisives acts, especially in Obama’s support on
freedom and democracy strengthening around the globe. Obama also performed
phatic acts by citing some quotes, one of them is Nelson Mandela’s: “"To
be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that
respects and enhances the freedom of others." Obama is quite an eminent speaker by elegantly condemning
the disgusting movie which assaults Prophet Muhammad. This is the example of
verdictive acts which he performs as well as the other performed acts within.
b.
Remarks by the US
President on Veterans Day in Arlington National Cemetery, Virginia, November
11th, 2012.
On this remark, the most heart-moving and touching part
is when Obama told the audience a story about Petty Officer Taylor Morris (par.
11). On May 3rd, while out on patrol, Taylor
stepped on an IED. The blast threw him into the air. When he hit the ground,
Taylor realized that both his legs were gone,
also his left arm and his right hand. But as Taylor laid there, fully conscious,
bleeding to death, he cautioned the medics to wait before rushing his way. He feared another IED was
nearby. Fortunately, the area was
cleared. After rescued out of the battlefield, Taylor was survived . The story
is the most excellent example of Obama’s perlocutionary act where he was able
to move the hearts’ of his listeners. Obama also made his behabitive acts in
this speech remarkably by saluting the service of the veterans and also by
grieving for the sacrifice of the US soldiers around the globe (par. 4-9). By
announcing the nation’s gratitude for the service of the soldiers and the
veterans, Obama also performed his very best on comissive acts (par. 8). Along
this 99 sentences and 27 paragraphs remarks, Obama had also shown his ability
in constative utterances by proposing the history of US soldiers’ fight in the
battlefield since World War I.
The
characteristics of behabitives acts and the perlocutionary acts which are
applied by Obama and his team in composing the remarks has succesfully
connected the president with his listeners. It is consequently not surprising
that most of Obama’s speeches and remarks always bring great impacts to his
listeners. As being pointed and affirmed by Austin, perlocutionary acts are the
most appropriate model of speeches to involve the listeners emotionally. These
kind of speeches and remarks are expected not only being frozen in mind, but
coming down to heart.
Conclusion
Austin’s linguistic phenomenology provides the idea on
how the speeches can be observed and analysed. The observation and the analyses
show three relations between three main aspect of a speech: the speaker with
his/her speech, the speaker with the situation within the content of his/her
speech (phenomenon) and the speaker with his/her audience. These three
relations should be considered important in addressing a speech.
The analyses and the observations on
Yudhoyono’s and Obama’s speeches illustrate two different kinds of speeches.
Yudhoyono’s speech merely provides history data, reports, and suggestions.
There is hardly any emotion nor heart feeling described within his speeches.
The different characteristic is shown within Obama’s speeches in which he has
the confident to perform his inner emotion in stories and his own personal
experiences among the formal content of his speeches.
By performing emotion and personal experiences,
a speaker is easily engaged with three other aspects: his/her speech, the
situation within the speech and the audience. The speeches will be deliberately
directed into the right actions. However it needs openness and humility of the
speaker to put him/herself within the engagement. As Austin has suggested that
every language implies the life orientation of its speaker, so every leaders
can be valued his/her credibility and quality through his/her speeches.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar