THE SPEECH ACT IN VERBAL COMMUNICATION OF A SCHIZOPHRENIC CHARACTER IN A BEAUTIFUL MIND MOVIE A CLINICAL PRAGMATIC ANALYSIS

Authors

  • Aris Hidayatulloh Mr
  • Evi Murti Wardhani Universitas Duta Bangsa Surakarta
  • Alif Rahmadhani Universitas Duta Bangsa Surakarta

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.47701/icohetech.v3i1.2218

Keywords:

Clinical Pragmatic

Abstract

Speech act is the study of the implied meaning uttered by the speaker to hearer. The study of speech act includes the locutionary act, illocutionary act, and perlocutionary act which become the basis when someone utters their utterance. Beside the three basic components, the involvement of cooperative principle is needed in communication. In other side, people with schizophrenia have some differences when they communicate. The perception of them is destructed by deletions and it will create misperception in communication. The phenomenon of speech act of schizophrenic becomes the study of this research. This research is discussed the representative speech act and the quality maxim of schizophrenic communication. The problem statements in this research are what kind of representative speech act is uttered and how the quality maxim takes role in schizophrenic.

This research uses words, phrases, and sentences of representative utterances of John Nash in the film entitled A Beautiful Mind as the data mean while the movie, A Beautiful Mind, becomes the source of the data. The data are the utterances or sentences. The data will be obtained from the main character John Nash and focused on representative speech act and the quality maxims in Nash’s conversation. Each utterance chosen by the researcher will be the datum of this research. The movie, A Beautiful Mind, takes role as the source of the data.

From the analysis, the types of the representative speech act uttered by John Nash in A Beautiful Mind movie are:  claiming: 2 data, admitting: 1 datum, informing: 1 datum, denying: 1 datum, reporting: 1 datum, assuring: 1 datum, and concluding: 1 datum. The result shows that the most dominant data is claiming. The reason why it becomes the most dominant category is that the character tend to give claim to the people around him to make sure he is still be able to differ the reality or delusion.  

References

Behrendt, Ralf-Peter and Young Claire. 2004. Hallucinations in Schizophrenia, Sensory Impairment, and Brain Disease: A Unifying Model, journal of Behavioral and Sciences, 6(27): 771-830.

Binz, Britta and Brune, Martin. 2010.Pragmatic Language Abilities, Mentalising Skills and Exceutive Functioning in Schizophrenia Spectrum Disorders Clinical Neuropsyciatry. 7(3) 91-99

Cook,G. 1989. Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Creswell, John W. Research Design: Pendekatan Kualitatif, Kuantitatif, dan Mixed. Terjemahan oleh Ahmad Fawaid.2004. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.

Cummings, Louise. 2009. Pragmatik klinis: Kajian Tentang Penngunaan dan Gangguan Bahasa Secara klinis. Terjemahan oleh Adolina Lefan, Ahmad Ridani, dkk. 2010. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.

Cutting, Joan. 2002. Pragmatics and Discourse, A Resource Book for Students, London and New York: Routledge.

Djajasudarma, Fatimah. 1993. Metode Linguistik. Bandung: PT. Refika Aditama.

Djajasudarma, Fatimah. 2012. Wacana dan Pragmatik. Bandung: PT. Refika Aditama.

Emzir. 2012. Metodologi Penelitian Kualitatif. Jakarta: Rajawali Pers.

Geitman, Hendry. 2011. Psychology : Eight Edition, Canada: Norton Company.

Gentner, Dedre, Molding-Meadow, Susan. 2003. Language and Mind. Londong, England: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Hersen, Michel. 2004. Psychological Assessment in Clinical Practice: A Pragmatic Guide. New York: Brunner-Routledge.

Horn, Laurence R. and Ward,Gregory. 2006.The Handbook of Pragmatics. United Kingdom, Ulackwell Publishmg Ltd.

Huang, Yang. 2007. Pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press.

Jensen, Klaus Bruhn and Jankowski, Nicolas W (ed). 1991. A Handbook of Qualitative Methodologies for Mass Communication Research. London: Rouledge.

Kushartanti. 2005. Pragmatik. Dalam Kusnanti, Untung Yuwono, et.al. Pesona Bahasa. Jakarta: PT Gramedia pustaka Utama.

Leech, Geoffrey. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics, New York: Longman Group Limited.

Levinson, Stephen.C. 1983. Pragmatics, Great Britain: Cambridge University Press.

Matsumoto, David. 2009. The Cambridge Dictionary of Psychology New York: Cambridge University Press.

Mey, Jacob L. 1993.Pragmatics: An Introduction, Great Britain: T.J. Press Ltd, Padstow.

Mey, Jacob L. 2009. Concise Encyclopedia of Pragmatics, United Kingdom: Elsevier Ltd.

Nevid, S. Jeffrey, et all. 2005. Ratri Medya (ed), Psikologi Abnormal, Jakarta: Erlangga.

Noll, Richard, 2007. The Encyclopedia of Schizophrenia and other Psychotic Disorders, New York: Fact on File.

Pecher, Diane and Rofl A. Zwaan. 2005. Grounding Cognition. New York, USA: Cambridge University Press.

Retnaningsih, Woro. 2013. Pragmatic: The New Branch of Linguistics Studies, Surakarta: FATABA Press.

Riyanto, Agus. 2015. Asuhan Keperawatan Jiwa Masalah Utama Gangguan Proses Pikir: Waham Curiga Pada Ny. L Dengan Diagnosa Medis Skizofrenia Paranoid Di Ruang Jiwa A Rumkital . Makalah Berupa Karya Ilmiah Oleh Mahasiswa Program Studi Keperawatan STIKES Hang Tuah Surabaya Sebagai Tugas Akhir.

Rohmadi, Muhammad. 2004. Prakmatik: teori dan analisis, Yogyakarta: Lingkar Media.

Searle, John R. 1976. A Classification of Illocutionary Act, Language in Society, 5(1): 1 – 23

Smith, Peter Wilfred Helsing. 1991. Speech Act Theory, Discourse Structure and Indirecr Speech Acts. Ph.d Dissertation unpublished. United Kingdom: Ph.D program University of Leeds.

Yule, George. 1996. Pragmatics, New York: Oxford University Press.

Yule, George. 1996. The Study of Language, New York: Cambridge University Press.

Downloads

Published

2022-09-17