DOI: https://doi.org/10.9744/kata.13.1.78-95

Analysis of Misunderstanding Caused by Different Interpretations of Speech Act Labels in Tintin and Asterix Comic Series

Farah Attamimi

Abstract


This paper presents analysis of misunderstanding occurred in a conversation which is caused by different interpretation of speech act labels between the speaker and the hearer. Misunderstanding occurred in these comic series causes various emotional effects to the hearer involved in the conversation. The hearer might feel happy, impressed, embarrassed, or even proud of what the speaker conveys through his/ her utterance. It depends on the face wants used and intended between the participants in the conversation. According to Goffman in Brown and Levinson (1987), “face is something that is emotionally invested, and that can be lost, maintained, or enhanced, and must be constantly attended to in interaction” (p. 60). There are two kinds of face wants. The positive purpose is called face saving act, while the negative one is called face threatening act. The data in this paper are taken from Tintin and Asterix comic series. The theories used cover pragmatics area, especially taxonomy of speech act theory (Yule, 1996; Mey, 2001; Leech, 1991) and theory of the notion of face by Erving Goffman (as cited in Yule, 1996; Thomas, 1995). Therefore, this paper will try to convey how the misinterpretation of speech act labels affects the participants in the conversation.

Keywords


misunderstanding, speech act labels, speaker, hearer, face wants, face saving act, face threatening act, participants

Full Text:

PDF

References


Al-Marrani, Y. M. A. (2010). Polite request strategies by male speakers of Yemeni Arabic in male-male interaction and male-female interaction. The International Journal of Language Society and Culture, 63. Retrieved May 2, 2011, from http://www.pdfssearch.com/Polite-Request-Strategies-by-Male-Speakers-of-Yemeni-Arabic-in-...

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language. Cambridge University Press.

Grundy, P. (2000). Doing pragmatics. London: Arnold.

Kusumarasdyati. (2005). Verbal offer used by snack vendors in Malang. k@ta, 7(1), 14.

Leech, G. (1991). Principles of pragmatics. London and New York: Longman.

Levinson, S. (1995). Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press.

Mey, J. L. (2001). Pragmatics: An introduction. United States of America and United Kingdom: Blackwell Publishing.

Schiffrin, D. (1994). Approaches to discourse. Blackwell Publishers.

Sukarno. (2010). The reflection of the Javanese cultural concepts in the politeness of Javanese. k@ta, 12(1), 59. [CrossRef]

Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in interaction. London and New York: Longman.

Trosborg, A. (1995). Interlanguage pragmatics: Requests, complaints and apologies. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. [CrossRef]

Tupan, A. H., & Natalia, H. (2008). The multiple violations of conversational maxims in lying done by the characters in some episodes of Desperate Housewives. k@ta, 10,(1), 63.

Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford University Press.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.9744/kata.13.1.78-95



The Journal is published by The Institute of Research & Community Outreach - Petra Christian University. It available online supported by Directorate General of Higher Education - Ministry of National Education - Republic of Indonesia