Introduction
For much of the history of linguistics and the positivist philosophy of language, language was primarily viewed as a tool for making factual assertions, often overlooking its other important functions. Liberman and Whalen (2000:1) describe speech as the verbal means of communication—a system that, in its narrowest form, is a vertically organized structure specialized for linguistic exchange. When this system extends to freedom of speech in national practice, it reflects the ideals of democratic expression. However, in Indonesia, the concept of freedom of speech, enshrined in the constitution, has often been distorted, leading to a chaotic misuse of language and actions that lack clarity and direction. Many, including the nation’s leaders, seem to have forgotten the essential connection between words and actions.
In exploring the language used by Indonesia’s leaders, I draw upon a brief biography of John Langshaw Austin, penned by Guy Longworth from the University of Warwick. Austin’s reflections on speech acts and the connection between language and truth, especially in his books Sense and Sensibilia (1962a) and How to Do Things with Words (1962b), provide the foundation for this discussion. Austin (1911-1960), renowned for his linguistic phenomenology, argued that analyzing utterances is not about proving whether they are right or wrong but about understanding the speaker’s intent and whether it elicits a response from the listener.
Guided by Austin’s philosophy, this essay seeks to explore how language, not just rhetoric, can be a powerful catalyst for meaningful actions and societal change.
Research Method
This study employs literature review and speech analysis to examine the effectiveness of leadership communication. Key texts, including Austin's works and other linguistic studies, serve as the foundation for this research. Speech analysis compares the speeches of two prominent leaders: Indonesia's Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and the United States' Barack Obama.
The aim is to explore the linguistic characteristics and differences between their speeches, analyzing the impact of context on language use. Both transcripts and video recordings are considered to capture the full spectrum of their speech acts, including non-verbal cues such as gestures and delivery style.
By combining these methods, the study seeks to identify how language can prompt action, with Austin’s linguistic phenomenology as the guiding framework.
Section 1: Austin and Wittgenstein: Philosophy of Ordinary Language
Before diving into Austin’s linguistic phenomenology, it is essential to introduce Ludwig Wittgenstein, the pioneer of ordinary language philosophy and Austin’s intellectual predecessor. Although Austin was deeply influenced by Wittgenstein, he also critiqued aspects of Wittgenstein’s ideas. Their lives and philosophies diverged significantly: Austin was a family man, while Wittgenstein led a solitary life in a cabin in Norway.
Wittgenstein’s first major work, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (1921), argues that what can be clearly said should be said, and what cannot be said must be passed over in silence. His “picture theory” of language asserts that words function as representations of reality. Later, in Philosophical Investigations, he introduced the concept of “language games,” highlighting the varied rules and functions of language in different contexts. Wittgenstein’s emphasis on ordinary language—language used in everyday life—paved the way for Austin’s approach.
Austin, as Wittgenstein’s “loyal disciple,” built on these ideas, focusing not on the structure of language but on the phenomena that arise from it. Austin’s work explores how language not only describes the world but also shapes and transforms it.
Section 2: How to Do Things with Words: Austin’s Linguistic Phenomenology
Austin’s contributions to philosophy of language are groundbreaking, particularly in his exploration of how language performs actions. His famous works, including How to Do Things with Words (1962), introduced the concepts of performative and constative utterances, revolutionizing the study of speech acts.
Constative utterances convey factual information and are evaluated based on their truth value. In contrast, performative utterances don’t merely state facts but perform actions by the very act of being spoken. Austin argued that to speak is to do something—it is a form of action, a “speech act.”
Austin categorized speech acts into three types:
- Locutionary Act: The act of producing sounds, forming words, and constructing sentences.
- Illocutionary Act: The intention behind the utterance—what the speaker aims to achieve with their words (e.g., commanding, promising).
- Perlocutionary Act: The effect of the speech act on the listener—the response or emotional reaction it provokes.
For Austin, the study of language is not just about meaning but about how language shapes social realities and influences human behavior. By examining how leaders use language, we can understand how their words translate into actions—or fail to.
Discussion 1: Analysis of Indonesian President Yudhoyono’s Speeches
Applying Austin’s framework, we analyze two key speeches by Indonesia’s President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, focusing on their use of language to communicate critical issues.
Opening Speech at The Fifth Asian Ministerial Conference for Disaster Risk Reduction (Yogyakarta, October 23, 2012): Yudhoyono’s speech is dominated by constative utterances, presenting facts and data about Indonesia’s vulnerability to natural disasters. While informative, his speech lacks the emotional engagement that would provoke a strong response from listeners.
Speech at The 67th Session of the United Nations General Assembly (New York, September 25, 2012): This speech reflects a similar pattern, focusing on factual reports and historical data about global peace efforts. However, it does include a few expositives acts where Yudhoyono references international agreements, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
In both speeches, Yudhoyono’s reliance on constative utterances limits the emotional connection with his audience, making it harder for his words to inspire action.
Discussion 2: Analysis of U.S. President Obama’s Speeches
In contrast, U.S. President Barack Obama’s speeches employ a wide range of speech acts that engage the audience emotionally and intellectually.
Remarks to the United Nations General Assembly (New York, September 25, 2012): Obama starts with a poignant story about U.S. diplomat Chris Stevens, creating an emotional connection with his audience. Throughout the speech, he combines behabitives (sympathy) and commissives (calls to action), urging reconciliation among global nations. His use of perlocutionary acts—aiming to inspire and persuade—demonstrates the power of language to influence feelings and prompt action.
Remarks on Veterans Day (Arlington National Cemetery, November 11, 2012): Obama’s speech here is emotionally charged, especially when he recounts the story of Petty Officer Taylor Morris. This story exemplifies perlocutionary acts, as it deeply moves the audience and stirs feelings of gratitude and respect. Obama also engages in behabitives by honoring the sacrifices of U.S. veterans.
Obama’s speeches effectively blend personal experience, emotion, and data, creating a more compelling narrative that resonates with his audience.
Conclusion
Austin’s linguistic phenomenology reveals the dynamic relationship between a speaker, their speech, and their audience. Analyzing the speeches of Yudhoyono and Obama highlights the importance of engaging language—one that combines facts with emotional resonance and a clear call to action. While Yudhoyono’s speeches focus on factual reporting, Obama’s speeches achieve a deeper connection by intertwining personal stories and emotional appeals.
Incorporating both the intellectual and emotional aspects of communication, leaders can use language not just to inform, but to inspire action. Austin’s insights remind us that every utterance, especially from leaders, carries profound consequences, shaping both the speaker’s intentions and the audience’s response.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar