. ‘ . fifmewi .1... . )2". I, 4%“? . v x I ‘1’ . . Jun; 98.43.. Hum. 3?», a. :erflnz. 1A 2... . .. . . .. 4 93mm. .« slit; 1 .5 3n..h..o1av.l~a|5llel K 1 c t It u. .4. t 3':- n‘. t ‘15 a!) .vKryuu A (Much. ... .31. , I..- THESIS mcmam sum umvensm uamues < 11I'll"l'lllllllllllllllr Michigan 313:“ ' University | This is to certify that the thesis entitled Descriptions of Kasihan, Iba, and Tega: A Semantic Analysis using Natural Semantic Metalanguage presented by Rahayu Dwi Riyanti has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for MA - degree in Linguistics Major professor Date May 11, 2000 07639 MS U i: an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE 11m mlmpsspu DESCRIPTIONS OF KASIHAN, IBA AND TEGA: A SEMAN’I‘IC ANALYSIS USING NATURAL SEMANTIC METALANGUAGE By Rahayu Dwi Riyanti A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Linguistics and Germanic, Slavic, Asian and African Languages 2000 ABSTRACT DESCRIPTIONS OF KASIHAN, IBA AND TEGA: A SEMANTIC ANALYSIS US IN G NATURAL SEMANTIC METALANGUAGE By Rahayu Dwi Riyanti This thesis offers a description of three Indonesian words kasihan, iba, and tega using Natural Semantic Metalanguage (NSM). NSM is a language-independent metalanguage that was designed to be used to describe the meaning conveyed in any language (Wierzbicka, 1996, p.22). The description of a word usually contains words that also need further descriptions. The NSM approach tries to avoid this problem, by providing a set of primitive terms. These terms are indefinable but can be used to define other terms. Since this approach does not distinguish between conventional meaning and conversational implicature, the descriptions of the words being investigated still depend on the context. This thesis proposes descriptions of the words being investigated based only their conventional meanings. In addition, the NSM approach is evaluated. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Profound appreciation in the preparation of this thesis goes to Professor Barbara Abbott, my advisor. Her advice has inspired my fascination for linguistic and guided my way through the whole. thesis. I am grateful to the other members of my committee, Professor Alan Munn and Professor David Lockwood who gave me useful comments. I would like to thank many of my Indonesian friends who always gave me valuable suggestions for my data. I also would like to thank all of my friends for their generosity and support. Finally my gratitude goes to my parents, my sister, and my brothers; their love gave me the strength to finish this thesis. TABLE OF CONTENT CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION CHAPTER 2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 2.1 Natural Semantic Metalanguage 2.1.1 Semantic Primitives 2.1.2 Building the Explication 2.1.3 NSM Primitives in Indonesian 2.2 Other Semantic Primitives 2.2.1 Jackendoff’ 5 Conceptual Structure 2.2.2 Semantic Primitives for Emotion Words 2.2.3 Comparison among the Three Approaches to Semantic Primitives 2.3 Conventional Meaning versus Conversational Irnplicature 2.4 Methodology CHAPTER 3 KASIHAN 3.1 Background Information on Kasihan 3.2 The Analysis of Kasihan 3.2.1 Kasihan in Malay 3.2.2 The Presuppositions and the Entailments of Kasihan 3.3 The Explication of Kasihan 3.4 Conclusion CHAPTER 4 [BA 4.1 Background Information on Iba 4.2 The Analysis of Iba 4.3 The Explication of Iba 4.4 Conclusion CHAPTER 5 TEGA 5.1 Background Information on Tega 5.2 The Analysis of Tega 5.3 The Explication of Tega 5.4 The Relations between Tega and Kasihan, and Tega and Iba 5.5 Conclusion 23 23 25 25 26 38 43 45 54 55 56 56 57 66 68 7O CHAPTER6 CONCLUSION 6.1 NSM Weaknesses 6.2 NSM Strenghts REFERENCES 71 71 76 79 Chapter 1 Introduction The topic of my thesis is the description of three Indonesian words using Natural Semantic Metalanguage (N SM). The three Indonesian words are kasihan, iba and tega. At first I was only interested on the word kasihan. My interest in this word was because of my personal problem in finding the right English translation for the word kasihan. When I looked it up in the dictionary, I found that kasihan can be translated into pity, or feel sorry. I thought these translations are not good enough for kasihan. I know that it is difficult to find a word that can really capture the meaning of another word from a different language. Then my interest shifted to finding a description of words that have ‘similar meaning’. What I mean by this is words that can be used interchangeably. Then I found iba as the best candidate pair for kasihan. Below are examples of sentences using kasihan and iba; l. Saya kasihan melihat Budi I feel sorry see Budi “I feel sorry for see Budi” 2. Saya iba melihat Budi I feel moved see Budi “I feel moved to see Budi” For me these two sentences have the same meaning, i.e. I feel bad when I see Budi. When we see in a dictionary, we can see that kasihan is described using iba and iba is also described using kasihan. The question is what do kasihan and iba mean anyway? Can we always substitute iba with kasihan in any sentences where kasihan appears? These are some of the questions that I want to find out in this thesis. I added tega since it is ‘the opposite’ of kasihan. What I meant by the opposite here is not like cold is the opposite of hot or happy is the opposite of sad. Kasihan refers to a feeling that does not exist when we ‘tega' doing something to somebody. For example; 3. Saya tidak kasihan kepada Budi. Saya tega memukul dia. I no feel compassion to Budi I have the heart hit him “I do not feel compassion for Budi. I have the heart1 to hit him.” 4. Saya kasihan kepada Budi. Saya tidak tega untuk memukul-nya I feel compassion to Budi I no have the heart to hit him “I feel compassion for Budi. I do not have the heart to hit him.” As we can see from these two sentences, when kasihan is present, tega is absent, and vice versa. Kasihan is a noun, whereas iba and tega are adjectives. The sentences below Show these grammatical differences: Sa. *Kasihan hati-nya melihat keadaan Budi pity heart his see condition Budi “His heart feels pity to see Budi’s condition” ' Although “have the heart” is a negative polarity item in English, it is the closest counterpart for tega. b. Iba hati-nya melihat keadaan Budi touched heart his see condition Budi “His heart was touched to see Budi’s condition” c. Tega hati-nya melihat keadaan Budi cold-hearted heart his see condition Budi “His heart is so cold-hearted as to see Budi’s condition” Sentence 5a is not acceptable because of a syntax problem. Semantically, it is okay to feelpity to see Budi’s condition. The aim of this thesis is to find a description for each of the three words mentioned above. As mentioned earlier, I will use NSM approach to describe these three words. Wierzbicka and her theory of NSM seem to offer a good solution for this problem. She claimed that NSM with its semantic primitives could describe words from any language. It can capture the meaning of the word being investigated without losing or adding a meaning to it. Unlike the usual method that is used by Wierzbicka and her followers, which relies mainly on examples of situations and cultural context, I would like to build my explication based on the presuppositions and the entailments of each of these words. I do this because I want my explication to capture the meaning of these words without any influences of context. This can be done if I can separate between conventional meaning and conversational implicature. By separating these two, I hope I can get the best description of kasihan, iba and tega. I think this explication will be applicable to most, if not all, Situations in which these three words can be used. As stated above, Wierzbicka and her colleagues put culture as one of the aspects that influenced the meaning of a word. In this thesis, I do not use culture as my tool to describe the meaning of these three words. This does not mean that I ignore its importance in word meaning. I assume that we can still get the meaning of these words without relating them to culture and we still will not lose their core meaning. The format of this thesis is as follows: The second chapter discusses the theoretical framework. In this chapter I will discuss NSM and its semantic primitives. This will be followed by a discussion of two other versions of semantic primitives. This chapter will also discuss the difference between conventional meaning and conversational implicature. The third, fourth and fifth chapter discuss kasihan, iba and tega respectively. In each chapter, I will try to find the presuppositions and the entailments of each of these words before I make the explication. The last chapter is the conclusion. Chapter 2 Theoretical Framework In this chapter I will discuss the theory that I use in analyzing my data. I will start by discussing the Natural Semantic Metalanguage (NSM) approach, including its semantic primitives, since this is the main theory that I will use for analyzing my data. This will be followed by a discussion of J ackendoff ‘s conceptual theory and also the semantic primitives for emotion words created by Johnson-Laird and Oatley. The third section is about conversational implicature and conventional meaning. The last section of this chapter will discuss the method that I will use in analyzing my data. The discussion of the two other versions of semantic primitives is intended to provide a comparison between these two sets of primitives and the N SM primitives. The section on the difference between conventional meaning and conversational implicature is important since I will try to use only the conventional meaning in my explication. 2.1. Natural Semantic Metalanguage (NSM) NSM is a language-independent metalanguage that can be used to describe the meaning conveyed in any language (Wierzbicka, 1996, p.22). Although this claim sounds too ambitious, since it is almost impossible to describe the meaning of any language in the world, many studies have been done using this approach to describe the meaning of some words from different languages. It is assumed that all languages share a core of primitive vocabulary items which will be direct translations of each other. The method used in this approach is paraphrasing the word, expression, or construction under consideration in a metalanguage based on natural language (Wierzbicka, 1985, p.495). According to Goddard (1998, p.56-7), an ideal NSM semantic analysis (often called an explication) is a paraphrase composed in the simplest possible terms. It should not contain technical words, and should also reflect the full meaning of the word being analyzed. NSM was developed and elaborated by Anna Wierzbicka, although She is not its originator. NSM was originated by Andrzej Bogulawski a Polish scholar in 1960’s (Goddard, 1998, p.56). Wierzbicka has been developing this approach for more than thirty years. She and her colleagues have done many cross-linguistic studies using this approach. Most of her studies are related to language and culture. 2.1.1. Semantic Primitives One important aspect of NSM is its set of semantic primitives. Semantic primitives are a collection of terms which are indefinable but which can be used to define other words. The idea about semantic primitives is not new. Antoine Amauld wrote something like this (taken from Goddard 1998, p.57): I say it would be impossible to define every word. For in order to define a word it is necessary to use other words designating the idea we want to connect to the word being defined. And if we then wished to define the words used to explain that word, we would need still an others, and so on to infinity. Consequently, we necessarily have to stop at primitive terms which are undefined. (Amauld and Nicole 1996 [1662]: 64) These terms will help us in defining words without causing circularity or obscurity. Wierzbicka (1996, p.11) wrote about this “ Without a set of primitives all descriptions of meaning are actually or potentially circular”. Wierzbicka gives the following example: suppose the verb demand is defined as “to request firmly’ and request is defined as ‘to demand gently’. If we do not know the word request, then it will be difficult for us to understand the meaning of demand. These examples Show that in defining a word we need to use words that do not need to be explained or defined any further. There are many versions of semantic primitives. Two of them will be discussed in the next section: Jackendoff’s theory of conceptual structure and Keith Oatley and RN. Johnson-Laird’s proposed semantic primitives for emotions. Wierzbicka and her colleagues have been trying to develop a list of semantic primitives and have tested their capability to be translated into other languages. The list of the terms keeps expanding from time to time, from fourteen terms in 1972 to more or less sixty terms now (Goddard, 1998, p.58). They are given in Table 1. Table l. NSM Semantic primitives Substantives I, you, someone, somethinglthing, people/person Mental predicate think, know, want, feel, see, hear Speech say, word I Actions, events, movements do, happen, move Existence there is Life Life, die Determiners This, the same, other Quantifiers One, two, some, all, many/much Evaluators Good, bad Descriptors big, small Time when/time, now, before, after, a long time, a short time, for some time Space where/place, here, above, below, far, near, side, inside Interclausal linkers because, if Clausal operators not, maybe Metapredicate can Intensifier, Augmentor very Taxonomy, partonomy kind of, Ran of Similarity like The fact that semantic primitives should be translatable to other languages is one of the important aspects of these terms. Some terms, such as “world” and “imagine”, were discarded from the list because of their lack of translatability. As mentioned earlier, most of Wierzbicka ‘5 studies (e.g. 1985, 1992a, 1992b, 1992c, 1996, 1997a, 1997b) are cross- linguistic studies and related to culture. Wierzbicka and Goddard (1994) collected some studies on semantic primitives in different languages, such as Mandarin, Thai, Acehnese, French etc. The purpose of these studies was to see the terms in each of those languages that have the same meaning as those in the English version of semantic primitives. These words do not have to be in the same part of speech. For example, a term which is a verb in English does not have to be a verb in French, Thai, or Mandarin. Another thing that can also happen is that a term can be a bound morpheme in one language and a word or even a phrase in another one. Goddard (1998) mentioned this: It has to be stressed, however, that the term ‘lexical’ is used in a broad sense to include not only words, but also bound morphemes and fixed phrases. In m any language there are primitives which are expressed by bound morphemes, rather than by separate words. For example in Yankunytjatjara the primitive BECAUSE is expressed by the ablative suffix -nguru.(Goddard, 1998, p.59) The most important thing is that in any language there is an expression that expresses the same meaning as each of the semantic primitives. Another important point is the translation of the primitives are also considered to be primitive too, i.e. indefinable. Wierzbicka also (1996) claimed that the NSM primitives are the terms that are acquired by children at an early age. The words like want, big, small, no etc. are some of the words that are used by children when they first acquire a language. Goddard (1998) collected the data on the words that are acquired by children before they reach age five. Based on the data, he claimed that NSM primitives are among the early terms the children learned at an early age. 2.1.2. Building the Explication When Wierzbicka and Goddard build their explication, usually they start by giving examples of situations and also examples of sentences where the word being investigated is used. Examples of sentences in which this word cannot be used are also important. The next Step is making drafts of paraphrases, making sure that these paraphrases have the right entailments. Goddard (1998) mentioned the possibility of using words outside of the primitives as long as they have already been explicated before we use them. For example to describe a term like uncle, grandmother, brother etc., we can use the notion of “mother” or “father”. The important point is we have to describe the notion of “mother” or “father” first using the NSM primitives. The result of the explication will be a description of the word being investigated and this description will be applicable to most of the situations where this word is used. 2.1.3. NSM Syntax Wierzbicka (1996) also claimed that NSM syntax is universal. The NSM sentences are formed by combining the semantic primitives into sentences in the simplest possible way, such as: 1. You did something bad 2. [know when it happened 3. If you do this, I will do the same 4. This person cannot move etc. Simple and basic sentences of this kind are called canonical sentences, and the assumption is that they can be translated into correspondingly simple, basic sentences in other languages. Wierzbicka and her colleagues are still trying to explore the syntax of N SM. 2.1.4. NSM Primitives in Indonesian Wierzbicka claimed that N SM primitives are translatable to other languages without losing or adding any meaning to them. In this section I want to try to see whether this claim is applicable to Indonesian or not. I will provide only the translation and I will also discuss only those which have more than one option. I will not discuss the primitiveness of these Indonesian terms since that will need some research and is beyond the scope of this paper. In Indonesian, there are two words to translate I, i.e. saya and aim. The use of saya and aku depends on people’s preference and style, although aim for me sounds more formal than saya. In general we can use either saya or aku to translate the word I. I think saya is the basic one since it is for first person singular minus the feature of formality. The Indonesian language differentiates between you as a singular and you as a plural. For the first one we have kamu or anda, and the second one we use kalian. For example: 10 5a. A to her friend : Kamu mau kemana? you want where “Where do you want to go?” b. A to her friends: Kalian mau kemana? you want where “where do you want to go?” Wierzbicka mentioned that the primitive of you is you with singular meaning, since singular form is considered to be more basic than the plural one. In the case of Indonesian terms, they can be kamu and anda. Between these two, I think kamu is the basic word since again it lacks the feature of formality. There is only one word that corresponds to many/much, i.e. banyak. Indonesian does not differentiate between countable and uncountable things. For example: 6a. Berapa banyak buku yang kamu punya? How many book FM you have “How many books do you have?” b. Berapa banyak uang yang kamu punya? How much money PM you have “How much money do you have?” Indonesian has three words for ‘no’, tidak, bukan and belum. They are used to negate different functions of grammar. Tidak is used when we negate the predicate, and bukan is used when we negate a noun or nominal constructs (Macdonald and Darjowidjojo, 1967, 160). For example: 11 7a. A: Saya tidak punya uang I no have money “I do not have money” b. B: Saya bukan seorang guru I no a teacher “I am not a teacher” Belum is used to indicate incompleteness, that something has not been happened yet or has not completed yet. c. Saya belum membaca buku itu. I no read book that “I have not read that book” There are many words to translate the words ‘good’ and ‘bad’, such as baik and buruk, baik and jahat, enak and tidak enak. The meaning of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ in the NSM primitives cannot be covered by only one pair. It is also not clear which pair of equivalents of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ should be treated as primitive for Indonesian. I choose baik and buruk as the translation for good and bad since they, at least, can cover most of the meaning of ‘good’ and ‘bad’. Table 2 repeats the semantic primitives given in Table 1 with their Indonesian counterparts in parentheses. 12 Table 2. The NSM primitives and the Indonesian counterparts. Substantives I (saya), you (kamu), someone (seseorang), people/person (orang), something/thing (sesuatu) Mental predicate think (pikir), know (tahu), want (ingin), feel (merasa), hear (mendengar) Speech say (mengatakan), word (kata) Action, events, and movements do (melakukan), happen (tery'adi), move (bergerak) Existence there is (ada) Life live (hidup), die (mati) Determiners this (ini), the same (sama), other (yang lain), Quantifiers one (satu), two (dua), some (beberapa), all ‘ (semua), many/much (banyak) Evaluators good (baik), bad (buruk) Descriptors big (besar), small (kecil) Time when/time (kapan/waktu), now (sekarang), before (sebelum), after (setelah), a long time (lama), a short time (sebentar), for some time (untuk sementara) Space where/place (dimana/tempat), here (disini), above (diatas), below (dibawah), far (iauh), near (dekat), side (sebelah), inside (didalam) Interclausal linkers because (karena), if (kalau) Clause operators no (tidak/bukan/belum), maybe (mung/tin) Metapredicate can (dapat) Intensifiers, augmentor very (sangat), more (lebih) Taxonomy, partonomy kind of (sejenis), part of (sebagian) Similarity like (seperti) 2.2. Other Semantic Primitives As mentioned earlier, there are many versions of semantic primitives. In this section I will discuss two of them: Jackendoff” s conceptual structure and J ohnson-Laird and Oatley’s semantic primitives for emotion words. My reason for choosing Jackendoff’s theory is to Show the simplicity of the NSM approach and its semantic l3 primitives. As for Johnson-Laird and Oatley theory, I chose it because of its focus on emotion words. 2.2.1. Jackendoff’s Conceptual Structure Jackendoff ( 1983) proposed a set of innate conceptual categories which include Thing, Event, State, Place, Action, Path, Property and Amount. These categories can be elaborated into a function argument organization. For example, Event can be elaborated into Go and Stay. To, From, Away are some examples for Path, and state can be elaborated into Be and Orient etc. Below is a schema taken from Jackendoff (1990) that Shows how these categories are elaborated into specialized formation rules. 8a. [PLACE] ---> [place PLACE-FUNCT ION ([THINGD] ' ”To ‘ _ FROM THING b. [mm] ---> lTOWARD {H H] PLACE AWAY - FROM LPath LVIA J c. [EVENT] ___> {[EvcmGOflTHINGMPATHD] ] [Event STAY ([THINGI [PLACED] Sm ORIENTQTHINGI [PATH 1)] [State EXTGTHINGIIPATHD] [5m aEflTHrNol [PLACED] d. [STATE] ---> { } VENT e. [EVENT] ---> [Event CAUSEHEHING H [EVENT 1]] (Jackendoff, 1990, p.43) In 8a we can see that category Place is elaborated as a Place function and a category of an argument Thing. Jackendoff gave under the table as an example of 8a. In 14 this expression the table specifies the object and under expresses the Place-Function that maps the table into the region underneath it (J ackendoff, 1990, p. 44). The category Event in SC has two event functions, Go and Stay. Each of these two functions has two arguments; Thing and Path for Go (ex: Bill went to New York) and Thing and Place for Stay (ex: Bill stayed in the kitchen) (J ackendoff, 1990, p.44). Similar rules also applied to other categories. Later on J ackendoff modified the categories above and added more conceptual functions such as PL (plural), ELT (Element of), CONT (Containing), etc. There are still many terms and rules that were introduced in this new concept of meaning. Below is an example of describing a word using this theory: 9. drink = [event CAUSE ([thing]i, [event GO ([thing LIQUIDD, [path To ([place 1N ([thing MOUTH 0F ([thinglj)])l)])])l This formula can be translated into “drinking is an event in which something causes liquid to go into its own mouth” (Goddard 1998, p.67) J ackendoff’ s theory of conceptual structure is another example of metalanguage that uses primitive terms to describe the meaning of a word. J ackendoff considered functions like Go, Stay, To, From, Cause etc to be conceptual primitives. 2.2.2. Semantic Primitives for Emotion Words Keith Oatley and RN. Johnson-laird (1989) proposed semantic primitives for emotion words. According to them the semantic field for emotion is based on five basic emotion modes, i.e. happiness, sadness, anger, fear, and disgust. They claimed that any words that refer to any of these five basic modes is indefinable. About this they stated: 15 The semantic field is based on the five emotional modes, and words that refer solely to them have no internal semantic Structure -- the modes are primitive and unanalysable states, at least from the standpoint of normal mental processing. (Oatley and Johnson-Laird, 1989, p. 105) Their method of analyzing whether a certain emotion mode is a basic emotion mode or not, i.e. whether it can be defined or not, is by using this test: I feel X but I do not know why. They proposed that X can only stand for one of the five basic emotion modes. They claimed that only these five basic emotion modes can be experienced without knowing the reason. This test shows that X can only be one of the five basic emotion modes. For example it is acceptable to say: 10. I am sad but I do not know why Sad refers to one of the five basic emotion modes. It is acceptable for a person to be sad without any reason. According to them it is odd to say something like this; 11. I am embarrassed but I do not know why. This simple test shows which emotion words refer to the five basic emotion modes. In the same article Johnson-Laird and Oatley( 1989) also proposed a ‘but’ test to determine whether a certain emotion word is related to one of these five basic modes. If two emotion words have no relation between them, then joining two sentences with but will be acceptable. When we negate them and conjoin them with but, they will still acceptable. For example: 16 12a. He was tired, but he was happy b. He was tired, but he was not happy (Johnson-Laird and Oatley, 1989, p.96) As we can see, these two sentences are acceptable. It means that tired and happy are not related, namely being tired is not an emotion that is semantically related to the happiness modes. To describe a “more complex” emotion, they use the formula of “ if you feel complex emotion C then you feel basic emotion B” (Johnson-Laird and Oatley, p. 103). For example: 13. If you feel regret, then you feel sad. 2.2.3. Comparison among the Three Approaches to Semantic Primitives Jackendoff’s conceptual structure is an abstract metalanguage. With Jackendoff’ S theory, we still have to decode the formula into plain English. The example in section 2.1 shows this. To be able to get the description of the word ‘drink’, we have to translate the formula, which is complicated, into an ordinary English sentence. It is also difficult to use this theory to investigate words from other languages. Johnson—Laird and Oatley claimed that some emotion words, they called them basic emotion words, are not analyzable. It is true we cannot describe these basic emotion words using their theory, but we can analyze them by using the N SM primitives. Wierzbicka has done many studies related to emotion words, one of which built an explication for the word ‘sad’. As we know this word according to Johnson-Laird and Oatley is one of the basic emotion words and therefore cannot be analyzable. l7 Wierzbicka’s explication shows that this word actually can be analyzed. Her explication of sad is as follows: Sad (e.g., X feels sad) X feels something sometimes a person thinks something like this: something bad happened I would want: this did not happen(i.e. I wish it hadn’t happened) If I could I would want to do something because of this I cannot do anything because of this, this person feels something bad X feels like this (Wierzbicka, 1992, p.55 This explication shows that the NSM primitives can be used to analyze emotion words, including those that are considered to be the basic emotion words. Theoretically Jackendoff’s primitives are good, but the main goal of this thesis is to have actual descriptions of these three Indonesian words. I think the N SM primitives can suit this goal. The NSM’S primitives compared to the other two primitives are simple and easy to understand. The end results, the explications, are Simple. They can be used to describe words from different languages and also from any grammatical category. 2.3. Conventional Meaning versus Conversational Implicature In this section I will discuss the difference between conventional meaning and conversational implicature. Conventional meaning is a context-independent aspect of meaning. This means that it will not vary from one context to another. Conventional meaning consists of presuppositions and entailments. Presupposition is a proposition semantically associated l8 with a sentence, but not the primary assertion (Abbott,1999). The following examples Show that 14a presupposes 14b: 14a. The king of France is bald b. France has a king (Lewis, 1979, p.339) Entailment is a relationship between sentences so that it is impossible to say A, but not B. The examples below show sentence 15a entails 15b: 15a. The anarchist assassinated the emperor. b. The emperor died. Unlike presuppositions, entailments fail if we negate the entailing sentences. Sentence 163 and b and 17a and b show this: 16a. The King of France is not bald b. France has a king 17a. The anarchist did not assassinate the emperor b. The emperor died The second set of examples shows a different situation: 17a does not entail 17b. The term conversational implicature was first proposed by H. Paul Grice. He introduced the term implicature as “a technical terms that indicates the act of meaning or implying something by saying something else” (Davis, 1998, p.5). Conversational implicatures are different from sentence meaning. Consider this conversation: 18. A: Can I borrow $5? B: My purse is in the hall (Saeed, 1997, p.194) 19 If we see the meaning of B’s sentence, then we can find there is no explicit relation between A’s question and B’s answer. However, B’s answer implicates that B agrees to lend A some money. We cannot get this meaning by looking at each word in B’s sentence. This meaning is implicated by the speaker. Grice proposed a general rule of conversation called the Cooperative Principle, which says: ‘Make your conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs’ (Grice, 1975, p. 45). He broke down this rule into four principles, which he called maxims. They are (Grice, 1975) 1. The maxim of Quantity. a. Make your contribution as informative as is required (for the current purpose of exchange) b. Do not make your contribution more informative than is required. 2. The maxim of Quality Try to make your contribution one that is true: a. Do not say what you believe to be false b. Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence. 3. The maxim of Relation Be relevant 4. The maxim of Manner Be perspicuous a. Avoid obscurity of expression b. Avoid ambiguity c. Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity) d. be orderly. Grice also proposed some criteria for conversational implicature in order to distinguish it from other sentence relations such as entailment, conventional implicature, and presupposition. They are: 1. Cancelability Unlike presupposition and entailment, conversational implicature can be cancelled. It is acceptable to say something like this: 20 19. Some died, indeed all did.(Davis, 1998, p.9) This sentence is not contradictory. Saying ‘indeed all did’ cancels the implicature ‘not all died’ from ‘some died’. 2. Nondetachability The implicatures apply to the utterance, not to the Specific word. 80 if we change the words, we will still get the same implicatures. For example: 20. John is no rocket scientist not an Einstein not a candidate for the Nobel Prize in physics (Lakoff, 1995, p.8) These sentences implicate “John is not smart”. 3. Calculability Conversational implicatures should be capable -of being worked out. This means, to infer the implicature from what was said, using at least one of the maxims in Grice’s Cooperative Principle (CP). Below is the schema of the process of calculating implicature; l. A uttered a sentence with a particular meaning, in a given context, etc 2. B believes that A follows the CP 3. B believes that l and 2 would not be the case unless A believe that p 4. B concludes: A implicates p Let us see the reasoning steps for sentence 18 to Show that this implicature is calculable: 1. B uttered a sentence ‘my purse is in the hall’ 2. IA believes that B follows the rule of relevance 21 3. A believes B’s sentence would not be relevant unless the fact that B telling the location of his/her purse is relevant to 8’5 intention of lending his/her money to A. 4. A concludes: B implicates his/her intention of lending the money to A. I will use these criteria to see whether the propositions which are associated with the situations to which kasihan, iba, or tega apply, are a conversational implicature or part of a conventional meaning. 2.4. Methodology As mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, I will use the NSM approach to analyze my data. I will define each word using Wierzbicka’s semantic primitives. Unlike Wierzbicka who analyzed her data using situations and cultures, I will analyze my data without relating them to culture. I will use situations only to illustrate my points in analyzing the data. Before I make the explication for each word, I try to find the presuppositions and the entailments of each word and use these presuppositions and entailments in my explication. The presuppositions and the entailments will be expressed using semantic primitives. By doing this, I am hoping to capture only the conventional meaning, not the conversational implicatures. These explications hopefully will be able to cover most, if not all the situations where each of these words is used. 22 Chapter 3 Kasihan Before I start analyzing the word kasihan, I would like to explain in brief the format of this chapter. I will give a brief explanation about kasihan in the first section. The second section of this chapter discusses several propositions. I will try to test whether they are presuppositions, entailments or conversational implicatures of kasihan. My reason for doing this is to separate the conventional meaning from the conversational implicatures. Only the conventional meanings will be used in the explication. The third section discusses the explication of kasihan. The last section will be a brief conclusion of this chapter. 3.1. Background Information on Kasihan Kasihan is a noun. In general kasihan is used to express a feeling of sympathy, sorrow or pity for somebody else. For example: 1a. Saya merasa kasihan kepada pengemis itu. I feel pity to beggar that “I pity that beggar” b. Kasihan dia, kedua orang tua- nya telah meninggal feel sympathy he both parents his already died “I feel sympathy for him, both of his parents have already died. ” 23 Although it is used to express sympathy, sorrow or pity for somebody, it is very rare that people express this directly to the object of this feeling. People usually express this emotion to somebody else, as in sentence 1a andlb. In these two sentences, the speaker told the hearer about his or her feeling to the beggar (la) and the man (1b). The reason for this, I think is because people do not like to be pitied by somebody. Although kasihan is not only used to Show pity for somebody, it has a connotation that the object of this feeling is helpless or weak. People have the assumption that only beggars as the ones that should be pitied Since they use this word a lot. Beggars usually use this word to ask people to feel pity or feel sorry for them. For example: 2. Kasihan Pak/Bu, sudah dua hari tidak makan pity sir/ma’am already two days no eat “Pity me sir/ma’am, I haven’t eaten for two days” This does not mean that we cannot express our sympathy or compassion directly, but I think we will use other words to do it. There are various kinds of words that can be use to express our sympathy or compassion directly depending on the Situation. For example when somebody just lost all of his family members, we will feel ‘kasihan’ to him. To Show our feeling we will say something like this; 3. Saya ikut berduka cita atas meninggal- nya keluarga Anda I join grieve on death the family you “ Please accept my condolences for the death of your family” 24 When we discuss this feeling to other people we will use the word kasihan. This is only one example of how to express this feeling directly, but basically people will try not to use kasihan directly to their object. 3.2. The Analysis of Kasihan Before I start my analysis of kasihan, I would like to discuss another explication of kasihan in Malay, a closely related language to Indonesian. I found this explication is interesting since it describes almost the same word. Although it is in a different language, they are mutually intelligible. I think it is interesting to see whether this explication is the same as the one I propose in this chapter (I stumbled across this explication after I had already finished my analysis of kasihan in Indonesian). In the next section I will discuss my analysis of kasihan based on its presuppositions and entailments. 3.2.1. Kasihan in Malay Goddard did an explication of kasihan in the Malay language. He also used the NSM approach to create his explication. He used examples of situations and sentences to build his explication. His explication is as follows; X rasa kasihan (kepada Y) = X feels “ sorry/compassion” (to Y) X thinks something like this: “something bad happened to Y because of this Y feels something bad other people aren’t feeling like this this is not good someone should do something because of this” because of this, X feels something (Goddard, 1996, p.453) 25 Malay and Indonesian are very similar. From the examples given by him in his article, I can see that kasihan in Malay is similar to kasihan in Indonesian. As mentioned before, Goddard did not build his explication based on presuppositions and entailments, so we do not know whether these are the presuppositions or the entailments of kasihan in Malay or not. After I present my own explication in the next section, I will compare it with Goddard’s. 3.2.2. The Presuppositions and the Entailments of Kasihan. When X merasa kasihan to Y, X and Y are the arguments of kasihan and they are human. Y can also be an animal, for example: 4. Saya kasihan kepada kucing itu I feel may to cat that “I feel sorry for that cat” The NP denoting X can be first, second, and third person singular or plural, though when not expressed X is usually understood to be the speaker. For example: 5a. Dia kasihan kepada -nya He/she feel sorry to him/her “He/she feels sorry for him/her b. Mereka kasihan kepada- nya they feel sorry to him/her . “They feel sorry for him/her 26 c. Kami kasihan kepada -nya we feel sorry to him/her “We feel sorry for him/her” I want to propose the following three pr0positions associated with the situations to which kasihan applies. 1. X thinks that something bad happened to Y 2. X wants to help 3. X feels bad We will see whether these three propositions are presuppositions, entailments or conversational implicatures. The following example, taken from a novel, illustrates the most common type of Situation where people used kasihan, i.e. people see that something bad has happened to somebody which triggered this feeling. In this situation, Non has this feeling for Sumi, her roommate in the hospital. Sumi has breast cancer. The doctor has taken both of her breasts, also her womb. Now her legs are swollen, probably the cancer has spread to them too. She is so skinny and pale. When Non sees Sumi’s condition, she has this kind of feeling, she feels sympathy. To describe her feeling she uses the word kasihan. She says this sentence to herself: 27 6. Sumi, kasihan kau. Kecantikan -mu tinggal tersisa pada hidung- mu Sumi poor you beauty your stay left in nose your yang mancung. Kulit - mu yang dulu putih mulus, sekarang FM sharp. skin yourFM used to white smooth now sudah layu already faded (Said, 1987, p.36) “Sumi, poor you. Your beauty is left only in your sharp nose. Your skin which used to be white and smooth, is now already faded.” There are some important facts that can be drawn from this situation. First, Non knows that something bad has happened to Sumi. She sees it directly Sumi’s condition. She heard from Sumi’s parents about what has happened to her. All this information triggers Non’s emotion. So the knowledge that something bad has happened to somebody usually precedes the use of the word kasihan. This knowledge does not have to be gained by seeing directly the object of our feeling, but can be gained by hearing from other sources. For example, Non can tell her friends, who do not know Sumi and have never seen her condition, and they can feel kasihan, too. Sentence 7 is acceptable: 7. Dia merasa kasihan kepada Sumi setelah mendengar cerita Non. ' She feel sorry to Sumi after hear story Non “I feel sorry for Surrri after hearing Non’s story” This fact is important in relation to the discussion of iba later on. Now let us go back to the proposition ‘X thinks that something bad happened to Y’. First, we will see whether this proposition is a presupposition of kasihan or not. To 28 see this first I will negate Non’s sentence, and then make it into a question. If we negate Non's sentence we will get sentence 8a; 8a. Sumi, saya tidak kasihan kepada-mu. Sumi I no feel sorry to you “Sumi, I do not feel sorry for you.” The proposition ‘X thinks that something bad happens to Y (Sumi) still holds. What about if we make it into a question? 8b. Apakah saya kasihan kepada Sumi? Do I feel sorry to Sumi “Do I feel sorry for Sumi?” The presupposition still holds in this sentence, too, people still have the assumption that X (in this case also the speaker) thinks that something bad happened to Sumi when they heard this question. Since we still get this assumption that X thinks that something bad happened to Y in both the negation sentence and question, I think we can conclude that this proposition is a presupposition of kasihan. In the situation given above, there is background information about Sumi’s condition. Non also gave some more information in her utterance about Sumi’s condition. What if somebody suddenly said something like sentence 9a. 29 9a. Dia kasihan kepada wanita cantik itu he feel sorry to woman pretty that “He feels sorry for that pretty woman” This sentence sounds weird because being pretty is not bad at all. The hearers who do not know this pretty woman, might ask such questions as: 9b. What happened to her? c. How come? (1. Why do you say that? From these questions we can see that the hearers found it Strange to hear that somebody felt sorry for a pretty woman, unless there was something wrong about her. From the reactions of the hearers we can see that they also have the assumption that something is wrong with this pretty woman. The speaker of this sentence should give additional information of why X has this kind of feeling concerning this woman. For example; X knows that she married an abusive man who likes to hit her. Compare sentence 9a to sentence 10 10. Dia kasihan kepada Putri Diana he feel sorry to princess Diana “He feels sorry for Princess Diana” The hearers’ reaction when they heard this sentence is different, even though we know that Princess Diana was a pretty woman, too. The presupposition ‘ X thinks that something bad happened to Y (Princess Diana) also holds in this sentence. But why do the hearers accept this sentence without asking any further questions? As we know, Princess Diana married a prince, She always wore beautiful clothes. She had two beautiful 30 sons and everybody adored her. The speaker of sentence 10 is not speaking inappropriately. When a person uttered sentence 10, he or She was referring to Diana’s tragic life, not to her glamorous one. The fact that she is princess, rich, pretty, and famous is not the reason why he or she feels kasihan to her. Unlike sentence 9a where the bearer needs more explanation, no explanation is needed for sentence 10. Why? Because Princess Diana was a famous person, and most people know what happened to her. People know that She died tragically. The hearers of sentence 10 will refer to her tragic life when they hear this sentence. These two examples give more evidence that the proposition ‘ X thinks that something bad happened to Y’ is a presupposition of kasihan. Another question that we should be asking is when this bad thing happened. Has it already happened? Or can we use kasihan when the bad thing has not happened yet? So far from the examples given above, all the bad things either have already happened or are still happening. In Sumi’s case, her condition was still bad when Non expressed her feeling. In Princess Diana’s case, it has already happened. Let us go back to the pretty woman. I will repeat the sentence again: 93. Dia merasa kasihan kepada wanita cantik itu. he feel sorry to woman pretty that “He feels sorry for that pretty woman” Let me revise the situation. Suppose that she has not married that abusive man, but she will marry him next month. The speaker is still speaking appropriately, because X believes that something bad will happen to this woman. I use the word “believe”, because 31 I think the sentence can still be appropriate as long as X believes that something bad will happen. X will not be considered dishonest when it turns out that later on nothing bad happens to that pretty woman. This example gives evidence that kasihan covers past, present and future bad eventualities. The context and situation will help the hearer to find out about the time of the eventuality. To see whether this proposition is an entailment of kasihan or not, we can use a cancelability test. Let us go back again to the pretty woman; if we add a denial to sentence 9a then we will get something like this; 11. Dia merasa kasihan kepada wanita cantik itu, Dia mengira hidup—nya bahagia He feel sorry to woman pretty that He think life her happy “He feels sorry for that pretty woman, he thinks her life is happy” The second part of this sentence denies the assumption that X thinks that something bad happen to Y, stating that he thinks she has a happy life. The result of this denial is a contradiction between the first part of the sentence and the second part. This shows that it is not cancelable. I will use two more tests to Show that this proposition is an entailment of kasihan. They are: A entails B iff; a. it would be inconsistent to assert “A and not B” b. “not 3” implies “not A” Let us say sentence 9a entails 12 32 9a. Saya merasa kasihan kepada wanita cantik itu I feel sorry to woman pretty that “I feel sorry for that pretty woman” 12. Saya kira sesuatu yang buruk telah terjadi pada-nya I think something FM bad have happen to her “I think something bad has happened to her” According to test a, there will be a contradiction if we negate 12. Sentence [3 is the negation of 12 13. Saya tidak mengira bahwa sesuatu yang buruk telah menimpa dia I no think that something FM bad has happen her “I do not think something bad has happened to her” I think there is a contradiction between sentence 9a and 13. Does sentence 13 imply the negation of sentence 9a? I think it implies the negation of sentence 9a. So X knows that something bad happened to Y is an entailment of kasihan. Since this proposition fails in the cancelability test and it works in all of the test for presuppositions and entailments, so I think we can conclude that it is a presupposition and also an entailment of kasihan. The third proposition is X wants to help Y. What I meant by this is that when X kasihan to Y, X wants to do something to help Y. This does not mean that X will do 33 something to help Y. The sentence can still be true even though X does not do anything to help Y as long as there is a desire to help. When Non said that She felt sorry for Sumi, she wants to do something to help her. She might come and encourage her or comfort her. She will do something to ease her suffering. In the pretty woman’s case, the speaker also has the desire to help this pretty woman. She might tell her about her future husband or advise her to reconsider the wedding. We will get a different picture in Princess Diana’s case. If we see the example on Princess Diana, I think the speaker when he or She uttered that sentence, did not have any intention to help her. He or she is just expressing his or her sympathy to her. Apart from those two pieces of evidence about this assumption, I think it is better for me to use the common ‘test’ to see whether this assumption is a presupposition of kasihan or not. Let us see the negation and the question of Non’s sentence again to see whether this assumption still holds or not. 14a. Sumi, saya tidak merasa kasihan kepada- mu Sumi I no feel sorry to you “Sumi, I do not feel sorry for you” b. Apakah saya merasa kasihan kepada Sumi Do I feel sorry to Sumi “Do I feel sorry for Sunri ?” I think the assumption that X wants to help Y disappears in these two sentences. I think this proposition is cancelable. It is acceptable to say something like this: 34 15. Walaupun saya merasa kasihan kepada Sumi, saya tidak ingin although I feel sorry to Sumi I no want - mem-bantu-nya act help her “Although I feel sorry for Sumi, I do not want to help her” Since this proposition is cancelable, it is not an entailment of kasihan. I will apply two more tests before I conclude that this is a conversational implicature. The first one is calculability. Below are the series of reasoning steps for sentence 9a, these steps show that this proposition is calculable: 1. The hearer assumes that the Speaker follows the rule of relevance 2. His remark is not relevant unless the fact that he feels sorry for that pretty woman is the reason why he wants to help her. 3. The hearer knows that when people wants to help somebody is because they have this feeling. 4. The speaker assumes that the hearer will reason this way. 5. The hearer concludes that the speaker intends to convey that he wants to help the pretty woman. The second test is nondetachability test. Let us see the following sentences: 35 l6a. Saya merasa kasihan kepada Sumi I feel sorry to Sumi “I feel sorry for Sumi” b. Saya merasa prihatin terhadap Sumi I feel concerned to Sumi “I feel concerned for Sumi” c. Saya merasa terenyuh melihat Sumi I feel touched see Sumi “I feel touched to see Sumi” It seems the proposition that X wants to help is also nondetacheable. Since this proposition can ‘pass the three tests’, cancelability, calculability and nondetachability, we can conclude that it is a conversational implicature. The last proposition that I want to propose is that X feels bad. First I want to see whether this proposition is an entailment of kasihan or not. I will rewrite sentence 9a here, 9a entails 17; 9a. Saya merasa kasihan kepada wanita I feel sorry to woman “I feel sorry for that pretty woman” cantik itu. pretty that 36 17. Saya merasa tidak enak I feel no nice “I feel bad” I will use the two tests used before. Let us see ‘a’ first, if we negate B, namely X does not feel bad, would it be inconsistent? l8. Saya merasa kasihan kepada wanita cantik itu. Saya merasa bahagia. I feel sorry to woman pretty that I feel happy “I feel sorry for that pretty woman. I feel very happy” There is a contradiction between the first part of the statement and the second part. If the speaker of this sentence is telling the truth, then he or she is contradicting himself or herself. Let us see b now, if we negate B, namely I do not feel bad, will this imply not A? Let us see sentence l9 and 20. 19. Saya tidak merasa tidak enak. I no feel no good .“I do not feel bad.” 20. Saya tidak kasihan kepada wanita cantik itu I no feel sorry to woman pretty that “I do not feel sorry for that pretty woman” It seems that b also holds. So the proposition ‘X feels bad” is an entailment of kasihan. 37 Is this also a presupposition of kasihan? Will this proposition still hold in the negative and interrogative? I will rewrite again sentence 8a and b (21a and b): 21a. Sumi, saya tidak kasihan kepada-mu Sumi I no feel sorry to you “Sumi, I do not feel sorry for you” b. Apakah saya kasihan kepada Sumi? do I feel sorry to Sumi “Do I feel sorry for Sumi?” I do not think that the proposition ‘X feels bad’ holds in these two sentences. The assumption that X feels bad disappears once we negate the sentence or make it into a question. So we can conclude that this proposition is not a presupposition of kasihan. 3.3. The Explication of Kasihan So far we have one presupposition, and two entailments. AS mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, I use only the presuppositions and entailments of kasihan in my explication. l. X kasihan to Y 2. X thinks that something bad happens to Y before now/after now/now 4. Because of 2, X feels bad I put the time markers, before now/after now and now, to cover all the possible times that the eventuality can occur. 38 I have already mentioned earlier that there is another version of explication on kasihan which was written by Goddard. His explication is for kasihan in Malay. It is interesting to see that there are two different versions of explication for two very Similar words. There is a problem I think with his next line. He wrote that it is Y who feels bad because of this bad thing that happened to Y. I do not think this is true for kasihan in Indonesian since we do not know whether Y feels bad or not. In the pretty woman example, it is possible that the pretty woman (Y) does not feel bad. I do not have the proposition “other people aren’t feeling like this” in my explication, so let us see whether this is a presupposition or an entailment of kasihan in Indonesian. As usual I will use the negative and interrogative versions of the sentence to test it. I will use Non’s sentence again, sentence 22 presupposes sentence 23: 22. Sumi, saya kasihan kepada- mu Sumi I feel sorry to you “Sumi, I feel sorry for you” 23. Orang lain tidak merasa kasihan kepada-mu people other no feel sorry to you “Other people do not feel sorry for you” If we negate sentence 22 or make it into a question, does it still presuppose sentence 23? Let us see the following sentences: 39 0r 24. Sumi, saya tidak kasihan kepada-mu Sumi, I no feel son'y to you “Sumi, I do not feel sorry for you” 25. Apakah saya kasihan kepada Sumi? do I feel sorry to Sumi “Do I feel sorry for Sumi?” I do not think we still get the same assumption, i.e. 23 does not hold. This proposition is not a presupposition of kasihan. I think the proposition ‘someone should do something because of this’ is similar to X wants to help. I think this proposition is also not a presupposition or an entailment of X kasihan to Y. As I mentioned in the previous section, this proposition is a conversational implicature. The desire to help is not always present in any situation where kasihan is used. For example in Diana’s example, the speaker does not have any intention to help her. He or she is just expressing his or her sympathy to Diana. There is another problem with Goddard’s explication. The line where it said ‘someone should do something because of this’, the word ‘this’ is not clear where it refers to. Is it to the previous line (this is not good) or to all the line before it? I will discuss this problem in the concluding chapter. There is another explication that I want to discuss and compare to my explication. In one of her articles, Wierzbicka (1992) wrote about the explication of the English word sorry. Her explication is like this: 40 Sorry X feels something Sometimes a person thinks something like this: Something bad happened to someone I would want: this did not happen Because of this, this person feels something bad X feels like this. (Wierzbicka, 1992, p.562) She said that this explication covers the meaning of sorry that could be used to convey a feeling of compassion and a feeling of sorrow to somebody else. Since the meaning of sorry is similar to that of kasihan, so I want to see whether this explication can capture the meaning of kasihan or not. She started her explication by mentioning that X feels something. In the third line she wrote something bad happened to someone. She did not give a possibility that this bad thing can happen in the future. So in her explication, she again limited the meaning of sorry for something in the past. In the next line she included the wish for this bad thing not to happen. This wish is not found in kasihan. To see whether this wish is a presupposition of kasihan or only conversational implicature, I will use the same test used in the previous section. Let us see Non’s sentence again: 26a. Sunri, saya kasihan kepada- mu Sumi I feel sorry to you “Sumi, I feel son-y for you” If we negate this sentence; 41 26b. Sumi, Saya tidak kasihan kepada -mu Sumi I no feel sorry to you “Sumi I do not feel sorry for you” As we can see this wish does not exist in the negated sentence, so I think it is not a presupposition of kasihan. Is it an entailment of kasihan? Let us say sentence 26a entails sentence 27; 27. Saya tidak ingin hal ini terjadi I no want matter this happen “I do not want this to happen.” Test ‘a’ says that it would be inconsistent to assert “A and not B”. Sentence 28 shows this; 28. Sumi, saya kasihan kepada- mu. Saya ingin hal ini terjadi pada -mu Sumi, I feel sorry for you I want matter this happen to you “Sumi I feel sorry for you. I would want this to happen to you.” Test ‘b’ says that not B implies not A. Let us see these sentences: 29a. Saya ingin hal ini terjadi pada Sumi I want matter this happen to Sumi “I want this to happen to Sumi” 42 b. Saya tidak kasihan kepada Sumi I no feel sorry to Sumi “I do not feel sorry for Sumi” I think this proposition ‘passes’ both tests, so we can conclude that it is an entailment of kasihan. I will revise my explication to include this entailment. l. X merasa kasihan to Y 2. X thinks that something bad happens to Y before now/after now/now 3. X would want; 2 does not happen 4. because of 2, X feels bad. In line 4, I put number instead of the word ’this’. By doing this, I include all the possible times of the eventuality to happen. 3.4. Conclusion In this chapter, I analyzed the word kasihan by separating its conventional meaning from its conversational implicature. In the first explication, there are one presupposition and two entailments. At the end of section 3, I added one more entailment that I got from Wierzbicka’s explication of ‘Sorry’. The final explication consists of one presupposition and three entailments. This is a very simple definition of kasihan, but I think we can use this to cover most, if not all, of the possible situations where people use kasihan. 43 Chapter 4 lba I will divide this chapter into four sections. The first section is the background information on iba. This is followed by the analysis of iba in the second section. The third section will discuss on the explication of iba. A brief conclusion will be provided in the last section. 4.1. Background Information on [ha I found that describing iba was the most difficult process among the three words. The reason for this might be because I have never used this word before. Since I have never used it, it is difficult to use my intuition to get the meaning of this word. All I have for iba is indirect evidence from hearing it used by others. My judgement comes from native speakers who use iba in their daily conversation. My first assumption is that kasihan and iba have similar meaning. This assumption is based on the definition of iba and kasihan in a dictionary. In an Indonesian-Indonesian dictionary we can see that iba means the same as berbelas kasihan (lit: ‘have pity’), terharu (lit: ‘moved’, ‘touched’, ‘affected’) and kasihan (lit:‘compassion’) (Kamus Besar Bahasa Indonesia, 1995, 364). AS we can see there is the feeling of kasihan in iba. Under the word kasihan we can also see the feeling of iba. In the same dictionary kasihan means the same as rasa iba hati (lit: ‘the feeling of iba’), rasa belas kasih (lit: ‘the feeling of compassion’). As we can see these two feelings are interrelated to each other. When we feel kasihan, iba is included in that feeling, and vice versa. For me iba sounds very formal. Probably that is the reason why I have never used it. I can imagine if I use the word iba instead of kasihan when I talk to my friends, I can see them staring at me. It’s just not my Style! One of my friends, who is from Sulawesi, used iba several time when she talked to me about the refugees in her region. I remember replying to her comment by using kasihan. My assumption is that whether people use iba or kasihan depends on their preference and style. I will give a brief explanation about the Indonesian language. The Indonesian language is the national language in Indonesia, but is not the only language spoken by Indonesian people. Every region has its own language, and they are different from one another. Most people learn Indonesian at school, and at home they use their native language, such as: Javanese, Sundanese, Balinese, Acehnese, etc. Although there is no study about the frequency or the preference of using iba, I think people who do not use the Indonesian language in their daily life will use iba more than people who use the Indonesian language will. My reason is these people who rarely use the Indonesian language tend to use a more formal word since mostly they use Indonesian in a formal situations. I speak Indonesian in my daily life with many characteristic of Jakarta’s dialect, which is mostly colloquial expressions and iba is not one of them. I will not discuss this issue in this paper further, Since it is beyond the scope of this thesis. My other assumption on iba, besides that it is more formal, is that it expresses a deeper emotion than kasihan and it is more personal. AS we know from the previous 45 chapter, kasihan can be used in almost any Situation where something bad has happened to somebody. We can even feel kasihan for something that has not happened yet. We can feel kasihan to almost anybody, whether we know this person or not. In my opinion, people can feel iba not in all Situations where something bad has happened to somebody. Only when a very bad thing has happened to somebody, then this situation can trigger our emotion to feel iba. Iba is more personal because we can only feel iba to somebody that we know already or at least somebody who we have direct contact with. These are my first assumptions prior to my analysis of iba. We will see whether these assumptions are proven to be true or not. 4.2. The Analysis of Iba It is difficult to discuss iba without relating it to kasihan. So I will occasionally refer to kasihan to make things clearer, since I have already discussed kasihan in the previous chapter. When X (merasa) iba to Y, X and Y are the arguments of iba. X is a human and Y can be either a human being or an animal. For example; la. Dia iba me- lihat Budi He feel moved act see Budi “He feels moved to see Budi” b. Dia iba me- lihat kucing itu he feel moved act see cat that ' “He feels moved to see that cat” 46 In this chapter I propose four propositions associated with iba. 1. Something very bad happened to Y 2. 1 has already happened or be still happening 3. X knows about 1 from Y directly 4. X feels very bad I add the intensifier “very” to accommodate my assumption that iba expresses a deeper emotion than kasihan. Let us see first a common type of situation in which we can use iba. The Situation mentioned below is taken from a magazine. A child was physically abused by her mother. One day he came to school with bruises. He walked unsteadily and cannot sit down. His teacher found that his hips and legs were severely wounded. She has iba feeling toward this child. 2. Dia merasa iba kepada-nya She feel moved to him “She feels moved by him” In this Situation, the teacher sees directly how the child walks and also sees directly the wound. The child’s condition touched her feeling. The bad thing has already happened. It does not really matter whether this bad thing will continue in the future, i.e. the mother will abuse him again, or not. The important thing is the teacher feels iba after _ she sees the way he walks and the wounds that represent the bad thing that has happened to the child. 47 The first proposition is that something very bad happened. Let us see whether this proposition is a presupposition or an entailment of iba. As usual I will test this by negating the sentence and see whether we can still get the same assumption or not. Sentence 3 below is the negation of sentence 2. 3. Dia tidak merasa iba kepada- nya she no feel moved to him “She does not feel moved by him” The assumption that something very bad happened to him still holds in sentence 3. I think this presupposition will still hold in a question sentence, too. Sentence 3b is the question form of sentence 2; 3b. Apakah dia merasa iba kepada - nya? does she feel moved to him “Does she feel moved by him?” In this sentence, we can still get the assumption that something very bad happened to him. From these tests we can see that the first proposition is a presupposition of iba. Is it also an entailment of iba? Let us see. First, let us see whether it is cancelable or not. I will rewrite sentence 2 and add the negation of the proposition something very bad happened to Y. Sentence 4 shows this: 4. Dia merasa iba kepada-nya. Dia balk-balk saja she feel moved to him he fine only “She feels moved by him. He is fine.” There is a contradiction in sentence 4. So I think this proposition is also an entailment of iba. 48 Unlike kasihan in which the bad thing can happen in the past, present or in the future, in iba the bad thing Should have already happened or be still happening. We cannot feel iba for something that has yet to happen. If we say that the time the speaker utters the sentence is t, then X merasa iba to Y presupposes that something very bad happens to Y before tor at t. Compare sentence 5 and 6 below 5. Saya kasihan kepada Budi karena dia akan kehilangan segalanya I feel sorry to Budi because he will lose everything “I feel sorry for Budi because he will lose everything” 6. #Saya iba kepada Budi karena dia akan kehilangan segalanya I feel moved to Budi because he will lose everything “I feel moved by Budi because he will lose everything” Sentence 5 is okay but sentence 6 sounds odd for me. Let us go back to the pretty woman mentioned in the kasihan chapter. I rewrite that sentence below; 7. Saya kasihan kepada wanita cantik itu I feel sorry for woman pretty that “I feel sorry for that pretty woman” 8. Saya iba kepada wanita cantik itu I feel moved to woman pretty that “I feel moved by that pretty woman” Sentence 7 can Still be acceptable regardless the time the bad thing happens to this pretty woman. Sentence 8 can only be acceptable if the bad thing has already happened or is happening when the speaker uttered this sentence. 49 To see whether this is a presupposition of iba or not, I will again use negation and question. The negation of sentence 7 is sentence 9 and sentence 10 is the question form: 9. Saya tidak iba kepada wanita cantik itu I no feel moved to woman pretty that “I do not feel moved by that pretty woman” 10. Apakah saya iba kepada wanita cantik itu? Do I feel moved to woman pretty that “Do I feel moved by that pretty woman?” I think this presupposition still holds for iba even in negative sentence and in question form. I do not put this point as one of the presuppositions for kasihan since in kasihan we do not really care about the time the bad thing happens. The next proposition is “X knows that something bad happened to Y from Y directly”. Let us go back to the first situation mentioned before. In this situation the teacher knew the child, since he is one of her students. The child did not tell the teacher that her mother hit him. The teacher also did not see when the mother abused the child but she saw the wounds and she knew that something bad had happened to this child. I would like to see first whether this proposition is a presupposition of iba or not. After that, I would also like to test whether this proposition is an entailment of iba or not. If we negate sentence 2 and also make it into a question, then we can see whether this proposition still holds or not. Let us see sentence 11 and 12: 50 11. Dia tidak merasa iba kepada-nya. She no feel moved to him “She does not feel moved by him” 12. Apakah dia merasa iba kepada-nya does she feel moved to him “Does she feel moved by him? I think the proposition that X knows that something bad happened to Y directly from Y still holds in these sentences. To see whether this proposition is an entailment of iba or not, I will negate this proposion. If there is an inconsistency, then it is an entailment. Sentence 13 shows this: 13. Dia merasa iba kepada Budi. Dia tahu tentang musibah yang menimpa She feel moved to Budi She know about accident FM happen Budi dari Ali Budi from Ali “She feels moved by Budi. She knows about the accident that happened to Budi from Ali” I think there is a contradiction in sentence 13. As I mentioned in the kasihan chapter, in kasihan we can say something like sentence 14: 14. Saya kasihan kepada Sumi setelah mendengar cerita Non. I feel sorry to Sumi after hear story Non “I feel sorry for Sumi after hearing Non’s story” This is not the case with iba, we cannot feel iba after somebody told us that Something bad happened to Y. Sentence 15 is odd; 51 15. #Saya iba kepada Sumi setelah mendengar cerita Non. I feel moved to Sumi after hear story Non “I feel moved to Sumi after hearing Non’s story” Sentence l6 relates to my assumption that iba is more personal than kasihan. This does not mean that X should know Y well, as long as X has a personal contact directly, either by seeing Y or by listening to Y. The next proposition is X feels very bad. Like kasihan I think this proposition is an entailment of iba too. Let us see whether this prediction works or not. First, is it inconsistent to say something like sentence 16? 16. Saya iba kepada Budi dan saya merasa bahagia. I feel moved to Budi and I feel happy “I feel moved by Budi and I feel happy” The answer is yes. Sentence 16 is inconsistent. So it passes the test number one. If we negate the proposition X feels very bad, then we will get sentencel7; l7. Saya tidak merasa sangat tidak enak . I no feel very no nice “I do not feel very bad” Compare it with sentence 19 18. Saya tidak iba kepada Budi I no feel moved to Budi “I do not feel moved by Budi” 52 bi I think sentence 17 implies sentence 18. When X said that X does not feel very bad, it implies that X does not feel moved toward Y. After we see these evidences, we can say that the proposition that X feels very bad is an entailment of iba. As I mentioned at the beginning, I have some assumptions about iba related to kasihan. I assume that iba is used to express a deeper emotion and more personal feeling than kasihan. First let us see the assumption that iba is used to express a deeper emotion than kasihan. When people say they are iba or kasihan to somebody, usually they also mention explicitly what happened to this person. For examples: 19a. Saya kasihan melihat pengemis buta itu. I feel sorry see beggar blind that “I feel sorry for see the blind beggar” b. Saya iba melihat pengemis buta itu I feel moved see beggar blind that “I feel moved to see the blind beggar” In these two examples, the Speaker mentioned explicitly the bad thing that happened to Y. Now compare those two sentences with the following sentences: 20a. Saya kasihan melihat Ali kehujanan I feel sorry see All caught in the rain “I feel sorry for see Ali caught in the rain” b.? Saya iba melihat Ali kehujanan I feel moved see Ali caught in the rain “I feel moved to see Ali caught in the rain” 53 Oil" ‘62 CO] $0.] at i Ella In the first two examples, the condition of Y is worse than the condition of Y in 20. Being caught in the rain is bad, but not a serious matter. This condition will not trigger the iba feeling when somebody sees it. The question is how do we know which one can trigger iba and which one cannot? I do not know the answer to this question. I think we do not necessarily need to draw a Straight line between the serious and not serious accidents that can trigger iba. Sentence 20a and b are uttered in the same context. In this context, X knows All (Y). In this case it does not matter whether X knows Y well or not. The speaker saw Ali running in the rain without an umbrella. These are all part of the background information that is shared by the speaker and the hearer(s). In this context, sentence 20a sounds ok, but not sentence 20b. Let us change the context into something like this: X knows Y very well. X also knows that Y was sick when Y was running in the rain without an umbrella to work. With this new context, sentence is acceptable. How about sentence 20a, is it still acceptable? The answer is yes, X can feel kasihan in that context too. 4.3. The Explication of Iba The explication for iba will include all presuppositions and entailments that I have already mentioned in section 2. The explication of iba is something like this. 1. X (merasa) iba to Y 2. Something very bad is happening or has happened to Y 3. X knows about this from Y 4. Because of this X feels very bad As we can see the explication is very similar to the explication of kasihan. We can also see the difference between iba and kasihan, i.e. when the bad thing happened and 54 316' uh 3?? 4.4 how X knows about it. In the second line I put all the possible time that this bad thing can happen. This explication also shows the limitation of iba as compared to kasihan. As I mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, people use kasihan or iba based on their preference. I think this assumption iS not wrong especially in a Situation where we can use iba or kasihan. I would like to mention again that kasihan can be used in all situations where iba is used, but not vice versa. There is a problem with this explication. It cannot Show that iba is used in formal situation. I cannot solve this problem, I think this is one of the weaknesses of NSM approach. I will go back to this problem in the conclusion chapter. 4.4. Conclusion In this chapter I have discussed iba. The explication of iba is also simple. Although I still have a problem in including the aspect of formality in this explication, it is good enough to capture the meaning of iba. This explication also shows the similarity and the difference between kasihan and iba. 55 Chapter 5 Tega This chapter will be divided into five sections. The first section will discuss the background information about the word tega. The second section will contain the analysis. This section is followed by the third section which will discuss the explication of tega. The fourth section will discuss the relation between tega and kasihan, and tega and iba. The last section will be a conclusion of this chapter. 5.1. Background Information on Tega Tega is an adjective. Tega has a negative meaning. In an Indonesian-English dictionary it is translated into bring oneself to, and have the heart to (Echols and Shadily, l992,p.558). In general tega is used to describe an action that is considered inappropriate. The most common type of Situation in which people use the word tega is when somebody does something that he or she is not supposed to do. For example a father hits his son. 1. Dia tega memukul anak- nya sendiri He has the heart hit child his own “He has the heart to hit his own child.” The speaker used tega to show that the father did something that he should not do. The father did something inappropriate. This sentence might not be a good example to Show the evidence that tega creates the assumption of inappropriateness. In the following 56 examples I use a verb that describes an ‘ordinary’ action. Let us compare sentences with and without tega before the verb. 2a. Ali memakan kue itu Ali eat cookie the “Ali ate the cookie’ b. Ali tega memakan kue itu Ali has the heart eat cookie the “Ali had the heart to eat the cookie” The difference between these two sentences is the background situation in which a speaker may utter the sentence. The possible situation for sentence 2a is something like the Speaker wants to tell somebody that Ali ate the cookie or to answer a question about who ate the cookie. Nothing Special about the cookie and about the fact that Ali ate it is assumed. A possible Situation for sentence 2b is somebody, let us say her name is Ani, has saved the cookie, for example for her daughter. Everybody in that office knew that her daughter wanted the cookie very much. All came and ate that cookie, even though he knew that Ani had saved it for her daughter. In this situation, the fact that Ali ate that cookie is considered inappropriate. He was being inconsiderate to other people. We can see that adding tega before the verb changes our assumption about the action. 5.2. The Analysis of Tega Despite the examples given above, I will assume that tega has three arguments, X tega Y 22. Y is the action that is performed by X toward Z. X Should be a human being. 2 The fact that Z is a semantic argument of tega but not a syntactic one might cause a problem in deriving semantic representation from syntax 57 In example 2, Z is not mentioned explicitly. Z can be a human or an animal. In example I, Z is the child and in example 2b as described, Z is Ani’s daughter. For an example Showing Z can be an animal see 3: 3. Dia tega me-mukul anjing itu He has the heart act hit dog that “He has the heart to hit that dog” There are five propositions that I think are associated with tega. They are: 1. Y is already carried out. 2. Y is an inappropriate action. 3. X and 2 have a hierarchical relation 4. X is a “bad person” 5. The speaker regrets X doing Y to Z I will discuss these propositions one by one and see which of these are the presuppositions of X tega Y2 and which are the entailments. Let us see the first proposition: Y is already carried out. IS it a presupposition of tega? Let us go back to the previous two examples. I rewrite them again here: 1.Dia tega me-mukul anak-nya sendiri he have the heart act hit child his own “He has the heart to hit his own child” 2b. Ali tega me-makan kue itu Ali have the heart act eat cookie the “Ali has the heart to eat the cookie” 58 In sentence I, we get the assumption that the father already hit his child, and in sentence 2b, Ali already ate the cookie. To test this assumption, I will negate these two sentences and see whether this assumption still holds. lb. Dia tidak tega me- mukul anak- nya sendiri he no has the heart act hit child his own “He did not have the heart to hit his own child” 2c. Ali tidak tega me- makan kue itu Ali no has the heart act hit cookie that “Ali did not have the heart to eat the cookie” As we can see the assumption that Y is carried out does not hold. In the negated sentences, we get the assumption that the father did not hit his child, and Ali did not eat the cookie. The first proposition is not a presupposition of tega. IS it an entailment? If sentence 1 entails this proposition, then we should get a contradiction when we negate the proposition ‘Y is already carried out’. For example: 4. Dia tega me- mukulanak- nya sendiri.Dia tidak me- mukul he has the heart act hit child his own he no act hit anak- nya child his “He has the heart to hit his own child. He did not hit his child.” There is a contradiction between the first part of sentence 4 and the second part. How about if we negate ‘Y is already carried out’, will it also imply the negation of sentence 1? Let us see 59 5. Dia tidak me-mukul anak - nya. Dia tidak tega me- mukul anak- nya he no act hit child his he no has the heart act hit child his “He did not hit his child. He did not have the heart to hit his child” I think this test also works for tega, i.e. the fact that he did not hit his child implies that he did not have the heart to hit his child. From these two tests we can say that the first proposition is an entailment of tega. The next proposition that I want to propose is that Y is an inappropriate action. We already know that we get this assumption from the word tega. Will this assumption hold when the sentence is negated? Sentence lb and 2c Show that this assumption still holds in the negative sentence. So we can say that the proposition that Y is an inappropriate action is a presupposition of tega. The next proposition is that X and Z have a special relation. In the first example the relation is between a father and his child. What about the second example? As mentioned earlier the context of this sentence is somebody saved the cookie (her name is Ani) and Ali ate the cookie. Does this sentence give the assumption that Ali knew the person who saved the cookie? We know that Ali knew somebody saved the cookie, but does he know this person? He might or he might not know this person personally. The situation can be something like this: All came to the room, he saw the cookie and he took the cookie. Somebody in that room told him that the cookie was saved by Ani for her daughter. The fact that the cookie was saved by Ani for her daughter and Ali knew about it made Ali’s action inappropriate. In this case I think there will not be any difference whether Ali knows Ani or not, his action will still be considered to be inappropriate. This example does not Show any special relation between Ali and Ani. Despite this fact, I still 60 think that there should be a special relation between X and Z. What I meant by this relation is something like X is stronger, bigger, or has more power (e.g. boss and employee, teacher and student etc) than Z. In a situation where Z is the one who is superior than X in one aspect then he or she might have a weakness in another aspect. Sentence 6 shows this: 6. Budi tega me- mukul Pak Rahman Budi has the heart act hit Mr Rahman “Budi has the heart to hit Pak Rahman” If the hearers knew that Pak Rahman is Budi’s boss then they will have this kind of picture in their mind: Budi’s boss is old or weak and Budi is big and strong. If this is not the case, i.e. Budi’s boss is bigger and stronger than Budi, then the sentence is anomalous. We will not use tega in a situation where Z is stronger and has more power than X. Usually we would use the word berani (lit: ‘have the nerve’) to describe the action. Compare these two sentences: 7a. # Anak kecil itu tega me- mukul pria yang berbadan besar itu. child small that has the heart act hit man FM body big that “That small child has the heart to hit that big man” b. Anak kecil itu berani me- mukul pria yang berbadan besar itu. child small that has the nerve act hit man FM body big that ”That small child has the nerve to hit that big man” c. Pria yang berbadan besar itu tega me- mukul anak kecil itu man FM body big that has the heart act hit child small that ' “That big man has the heart to hit that small child.” 61 AS we can see sentence 7a sounds weird and sentence 7b and 7c are acceptable. From these examples we see that this relation is important. From those examples, we know that thedirection of the relation is usually from top to bottom, i.e. a father-to his child, stronger to weaker, boss to employee etc, but this is not always the case. In sentence 6, we can see that we can also use tega when an employee hit the boss. In my explanation for sentence 6, I mentioned that although Pak Rahman is Budi’s boss, he is smaller and weaker than Budi. Another example is a child hit the father. Again in this case the child should be in a higher position, namely bigger, or stronger than the father. Compare these two sentences: 9 8a. Anak laki-laki itu tega me-mukul ayah- nya yang lemah. child man the has the heart act hit father his FM weak “The son has the heart to hit his father who is weak” b. # Anak laki-laki itu tega me-mukul ayah -nya yang besar dan kuat child man the has the heart act hit father his FM big and strong “The son has the heart to hit his father who is big and strong” It seems there are two types of relations here, i.e. the hierarchical relation with two directions from top to bottom, or vice versa. Actually, if we see these examples carefully, the relation in sentence 6 and 8 is still a top to bottom relation. It is true that boss (6) and father (8) have a higher rank in a certain aspect, but if we see it in term of Strength, the relation is from stronger to weaker, i.e. top to bottom. This explanation is still not clear so let us see the case when the boss or the father hit his employee or his son. When we say that the boss tega hit his employee, the employee is in a weaker position, nOt in term of strength but in term of authority. Can we say the boss tega hit one of his 62 big and strong employees? The answer is no. This sentence sounds weird for me. This also goes for the case where a father tega hit his big and Strong son. I would say that this relation is a hierarchical relation in which X is in a stronger position than Z. I use the word stronger here in a broad sense, i.e. in a sense of strength or authority, or both. I mentioned earlier that what make the action is inappropriate is because of the relation between X and Z. Without this relation the action loses its inappropriateness. Even for an ‘ordinary’ action like eat in the example 2a, this action becomes inappropriate because of Ali relation to Ani’s daughter,i.e. Ali is bigger than her. If the cookie was saved by Ali’s boss, then using tega will sound odd. Another example of action is stealing. Whether this action is ‘inappropriate’ or not (in this special sense) depends on the relation between the thief and the victim. If it was a son who stole money from his father (who is old and weak), then tega can be used. In the case it is an ordinary thief that stole other people’s money, then we would not use tega. Is this a presupposition of tega? Let us see sentence 6 again. If we negate this sentence we will get something like this; 9. Budi tidak tega me- mukul pimpinan- nya Budi no have the heart act hit boss his “Budi does not have the heart to hit his boss” I think the assumption that X and Z have a hierarchical relation Still holds in this sentence. In this case we can say the proposition that X has a hierarchical relation to Z is a presupposition of tega. 63 We know that when X tega YZ, X is doing something inappropriate to 2. So I think X tega Y Z entails X is a bad person. The word bad sounds too strong, since in some situation the Y (X’s action) is not so bad as to make us consider X to be a bad person. For example in Ali’s case, eating the cookie is not so bad that people will consider Ali a bad person. It is difficult to find the exact word that can fit X’s characteristics especially when we have to use NSM. I will discuss this matter more in the next chapter. For the time being I will use the term “bad person” to refer to X’s characteristic. Let us go back to the entailment of tega. If tega entails X is a bad person, then we Should have a contradiction when we combine sentence 6 with a negative sentence of X is a bad person. I rewrite that sentence into sentencelO; 10a. Budi tega me-mukul pimpinan-nya Budi has the heart act hit boss his “Budi has the heart to hit his boss.” b. Budi se- orang yang buruk Budi one person FM bad “He is a bad person.” c. Budi tega me-mukul pimpinan-nya. Dia bukan se-orang yang buruk Budi has the heart act hit boss his he no one person FM bad “Budi has the hearth to hit his boss, he is not a bad person.” There is a contradiction here. We know that when we use tega Budi (X) is doing something inappropriate to the boss (Z) who is in a weaker position. 80 this entailment 64 works. In a situation where we negate X is a bad person, then it should imply X does not have the heart to hit Z. For example; 11. Budi seorang yang baik hati. Dia tidak tega me-mukul Pak Rahman. Budi a person FM kind heart he no have the heart act hit Pak Rahman “Budi is a kind person. He does not have the heart to hit Pak Rahman” The next proposition that I want to discuss is the proposition that the speaker regrets the action. In this pr0position, it is the speaker who is regretting the action not X, unless X is the speaker. For example: 12. Saya tega me—mukul anak saya sendiri I have the heart act hit child I own “I have the heart to hit my own child” In this sentence the speaker who is also X regrets the action. When people use tega in their sentence, I think it presupposes that they regret the action. Let us see these three examples: 13a. Dia tega me- mukul anak- nya sendiri he has the heart act hit child his own “he has the heart to hit his own child” b. Ali tega me- makan kue itu Ali has the heart act eat cookie that “Ali has the heart to eat the cookie” c. Budi tega me-mukul pimpinan-nya Budi has the heart act hit boss his “Budi has the heart to hit his boss” 65 The speakers of these three sentences are regretting the fact that the father, Ali and Budi did something that they should not do. How about X? Does X regret what X did? We do not know that. From those sentences we cannot assume that X regrets their action, unless the doer is the Speaker. In this case, we can assume that the doer is regretting his or her action. Another piece of evidence that the speaker’s regret is a presupposition is that when we negate those sentences or make them into questions, we still get this presupposition, i.e. the speaker regrets the action. 14a. Dia tidak tega me-mukul anak- nya he no have the heart act hit child his “He does not have the hem to hit his child” b. Apakah dia tega me-mukul anak-nya? does he have the heart act hit child his “Does he have the heart to hit his child?” I mentioned earlier that we cannot know whether X is regretting the action or not, but I think we can assume that X knew that something bad will happen to ‘the victim’. Let us go back again to Ali. In Ali’s case, he knew that the cookie was saved by Ani for her daughter but he still ate it. Ali knew that something bad will happen, Ani’s daughter will not get the cookie, if he eats the cookie. 5.3.The Explication of Tega So far we have already discussed all the presuppositions and entailments for tega. The next Step is to put all these presuppositions and entailments together and see whether they can give a good description of tega. First I want to make clear all the symbols that I 66 will use in my explication of tega. I use S for the speaker of the sentence, X and Z for the arguments and Y for the predicate. I include the Speaker here to accommodate the presupposition that the Speaker regrets the action. The explication of tega l. 2. S says X tega Y Z X does something (Y) to Z before/after now/now X and Z have this relation; if X said to Z to do something, then Z will do it, or X is big and Z is small because of one of these, then X and Z have this relation S knows 2,3 Because of this S thinks that X does something bad to Z before/after now/now S does not like it 10. S thinks X is a bad person In this explication the action is seen from the speaker’s point of view, not from X’s point of view. In the second line I put all the possible times of action to accommodate the flexibility of tega. I do not put X did/does or will do something bad to Z since in this line I think the action is not considered inappropriate yet. S should know 2 and 3 before S makes a conclusion that Y is a bad action. I have a problem in finding the appropriate word for hierarchical or superior relation using semantic primitives. Line 4 shows relation in which X has more authority than Z, and line 5 shows that X has more physical strength than Z. 67 Ichange the word ‘inappropriate’ to the word ‘bad’, Since in semantic primitives there is no term for inappropriate. 5.4. The Relations between Tega and Kasihan, and Tega and Iba IS there any relation between tega and kasihan? Or tega and iba? The answer is yes there is a relation between tega and kasihan, and tega and iba. When X tega YZ, X does not have ‘kasihan’ feeling to Z, and when X tidak (does not) tega YZ, X feels ‘kasihan ’ to Z. When X feels kasihan to Y, X thinks that something bad happened, is happening, or will happen to Y. In the case of iba only the first two apply. Let me describe the relation between tega and kasihan first, then I will move on to the relation between tega and iba. When X tega YZ, something bad happened, is happening or will happen to Z. For example if X tega Y, X does not feel bad about it. The fact that X does not feel bad about it is contradictory with the feeling of kasihan. In kasihan, X feels bad. This shows that when X tega YZ, X does not feel kasihan. How about the assumption that X thinks that something bad happened, or will happen? I think that when X tega YZ, X knows that something bad will happen, and this makes X’s action inappropriate. When I said that the bad thing could have happened in the past, still be happening, or be going to happen in the future, I was referring to the speaker’s point of view. What I meant by this is when the Speaker uttered his or her utterance, the bad thing can have happened in the past, still be happening or be going to happen in the future. The following are the examples of these three time categories: 68 14a. Dia tega me- mukul anak- nya sendiri he have the heart act hit child his own “He has the heart to hit his own child” b. Dia tega me-mukul anak-nya setiap kali dia sedang marah he has theheart act hit child his every time he is angry “He has the heart to hit his own child every time he is angry” c. Dia akan tega me-mukul anak-nya setelah dia melihat raport-nya he will have the heart act hit child his after he see report his “He will have the heart to hit his child after he sees the report” The first sentence shows that the time of the action is before the speaker utters the sentence. The time of the action for the second sentence is before and after the speaker utters the sentence. The last sentence Shows the future action. He has not hit his child yet by the time the speaker utters this sentence, but he will, once he sees the report. Let us go back to the relation between kasihan and tega. People usually relate these two words into a sentence like this: 15. Dia tega me-mukul anak-nya sendiri tanpa rasa kasihan. he has the heart act hit child his own without feeling compassion “He has the heart to hit his own child without any compassion” There is also a relation between iba and tega. It is Similar to the relation between kasihan and tega In this case we have to follow the iba criteria, i.e. the action should not be in the future. The speaker should get the information from “the victim” (Z), i.e. the speaker either saw the action direcly or he or she knew about it from 2. There is another difference between the tega/kasihan and the tega/iba relations. In the tega lkasihan 69 relation, we can relate X action with the absent of kasihan feeling. In the tega/iba relation, I do not think we can say that X tega YZ because X does not have iba feeling to Z. Remember, we cannot have iba for something that has not happened yet. So tega/iba relation is seen from the Speaker’s point of view. For example the speaker can say something like this: 16. Saya iba melihat Z, ayah-nya tega me-mukul dia I feel deeply moved see Z father his has the heart act hit he “I deeply moved to see Z, her father has the heart to hit her” In this sentence, it is the speaker who has iba feeling to Z, and this feeling caused by seeing X hit Z. 5.5. Conclusion In this chapter, we discussed the presuppositions and entailments of tega. The explication of tega is built on the basis of these presuppositions and entailments. Although there is still a problem in describing the hierarchical relation, this explication succeeds in capturing the meaning of tega. In this chapter, we also discussed the relation between tega and kasihan, and tega and iba. 70 Chapter 6 Conclusion This thesis has tried to find a description for three Indonesian words, kasihan, iba, and tega using the NSM approach. The explication of each of these words was based on their presuppositions and their entailments. This is a new method in building an explication. Wierzbicka and her colleagues have usually built their explications based mainly on situations. The explications of kasihan and iba are similar, as I already predicted at the beginning, i.e. kasihan and iba have similar meanings. As for the explication of tega, I think it already captures the meaning of this word nicely, although there is Still a little problem with the description of the relationship between X and Z. This explication also Shows the relationship between tega and kasihan. In the introduction I mentioned that kasihan is in a sense the opposite of tega, i.e. when kasihan is present, then tega will be absent. We have already seen the relation between tega and kasihan, and tega and iba. In this chapter I would like to give some comments on the strengths and weaknesses of Natural Semantic Metalanguage approach. There will be two sections in this chapter, one on the weaknesses and the other on the strengths. 6.1. NSM Weaknesses There are at least three weaknesses that I can find in using NSM approach to analyze my data. : 71 l. The problem of ambiguity in explication. 2. The problem with polysemy of NSM primitives 3. The lack of distinction among entailments, presuppositions, and conversational implicatures The first weakness is the problem of ambiguity in the explication. I mentioned this problem when I discussed Goddard’s explication of kasihan. I will rewrite his explication of kasihan: X rasa kasihan (kepada Y) X think something like this: ‘something bad happened to Y because of this this Y feels something bad other people aren’t feeling like this this is not good someone should do something because of this” because of this, X feels something In the line that says ‘someone Should do something because of this’, the reference of this is not clear. Does it refer only to the previous line (this is not good) or to all the lines before it? McCawley mentioned this problem in his review of Wierzbicka 1980. He mentioned the confusion in the relation between the anaphora and its antecedent in Wierzbicka explication. In that explication, the words ‘that’ and ‘it’ can be the antecedents of any of the clauses mentioned in the earlier lines. He wrote: 72 Since W’s analysis have drastically more complicated constituent structure than do the corresponding analysanda, an analysis that is impeccable with one assignment of antecedents to its anaphora often also admits other, irrelevant, assignments of antecedents. (McCawley, 1983, p.657) This problem can be overcome by referring to the line number instead of using the word ‘this’. The second weakness that I want to discuss is the problem with polysemy. Wierzbicka mentioned this in most of her studies. She discussed the problem with words like know, you and feel which have more than one related meaning. The problem arises when one of these meanings is definable, as in the case of know. There are at least two related meanings attached to know and only one of them is a primitive. For example: 1. I know that this is not true 2. I know this man. Know in 1 means ‘be aware of’, while know in 2 means ‘be acquainted with’. She mentioned that only the meaning in sentence 1 is the primitive. So only know which take a that complement is a primitive. She did not discuss this any further. In the case of you, which has Singular and plural meaning, only the Singular is the primitive. This is because the singular meaning of you is more basic than the plural one, it is you minus the feature of plurality. My problem is in finding Indonesian words as the counterparts of the other primitives. Wierzbicka and Goddard (1994, p.52-54) provide samples of canonical sentences in which these primitives are used. These sentences help the investigators to find the counterpart words for the English primitives limited only to the meaning in these ‘ sentences. I find these sentences are really helpful, but I also find a problem with these 73 examples. My problem is for the words good and bad. The example of the canonical sentences for good and bad are: 1. You did something good/bad 2. Something good/bad'happened to me 3. He is a good/bad man I have no problem finding the counterpart for good and bad with this meaning, i.e. baik and buruk. The problem is there is another meaning of good and bad that is not mentioned in the good and bad section in their book, but it was mentioned in the feel section. In a Sentence like ‘I feel good /bad’, I think the meaning of good and bad is different from the previous one. The Indonesian word for this also different, we cannot use baik and buruk anymore. We have to use the word enak (lit; ‘nice’) and the phrase tidak enak (lit; ‘not nice’). It is not clear whether the words good and bad in the sentence ‘I feel good/bad’ are considered to have the same meaning as in the previous sentences or not. The third weakness is lack of any distinction among presupposition, entailment, and conversational implicature. In building the explication, neither Wierzbicka nor the others discussed these aspects of ‘meaning’ in a broad sense. As we can see, it is important to differentiate among these three aspects of meaning. Another reason why it is important is that each of these aspects has a different behaviour. For example; presuppositions are retained by all members of the S family, they remain constant under: 1. negation 2. question 74 3. embedding under modals 4. embedding as the antecedent of a conditional (Chiarchia and McComell-Ginet, 1990) Ordinary entailments do not have the same behavior as presuppositions; they are not retained by the S family. I think it is important to create an explication that can capture the meaning of a word that can be used in most, if not all, situations. This explication should be ‘free’ from the conversational implicature. Goddard mentioned the need to check entailments when we create the explication, but in general the explication is built by analyzing the different uses of the word in different situations. I agree that situations are an important aspect in describing the meaning of a certain word. However there is also a danger in using only Situations, since we can easily include conversational implicatures in the explication. If this happens then the explication is no longer describing the linguistic meaning of the word. The danger in doing this is that we cannot apply the explication in all the situations where this word can appear. I gave an example of this problem in the third chapter. The pr0position that X wants to help is not a presupposition or an entailment of kasihan. Instead, it is a conversational implicature. If I put this proposition in the explication, then this explication will not work in a situation where kasihan is used but there is no intention from X to help. I think the combination between sentence relations and NSM primitives in creating an explication is a better method than using only situations and examples. Presupposition and entailment make sure that we only include the conventional meaning of the word, not any conversational implicatures. 75 6.2. NSM Strengths There are at least five aspects of NSM that I consider to be its strengths. They are: l. The ability to be translated into other languages 2. The simplicity of the primitives and the explication 3. The ability to avoid circularity 4. The ability to capture the meaning from other languages 5. The ability to describe different forms of words The first point is one of the main principles of NSM, i.e. the primitives should be translatable into other languages. Wierzbicka has done many studies to Show that her primitives are translatable into other languages. As we saw in the second chapter, I can find the corresponding terms for each primitive in Indonesian. The fact that we can translate the primitives into other languages helps us capture the meaning of the word better. I see this aspect of NSM as really helpful in analyzing my data. I can see that if I use Indonesian in my explication I will get the same meaning too. Below is the explication of the Indonesian version of kasihan; l. X merasa kasihan kepada Y X feel sorry to Y ‘X feels sorry for Y” 2. sesuatu yang buruk akan/telah terjadi pada Y something FM bad will/has happen to Y ‘Something bad will or has happened to Y’ 76 3. X kira 2 X thinks 2 “X thinks 2 4. karena ini X merasa tidak enak because this X feel no nice “ because of this, X feels bad” Another good thing about NSM is its simplicity. The explications are simple and easy to understand, because the explications use primitives which are very simple and easy to understand. These terms are supposed to be among the terms that are used by children in their first few years of acquiring a language. Another principle of the NSM approach is avoiding circularity. NSM primitives are terms that can be understood without having to be defined. So if we use these terms to define other words, we will not have a problem that our'definition needs a definition too. As mentioned in the introduction that when we look in the dictionary for the meaning of kasihan or iba, we will see that kasihan is a kind of iba feeling and iba is a kind of kasihan feeling. I already show that we can avoid this circularity by using NSM semantic primitives. NSM has also proven to be able to define words from In any language. As we have already seen in the last three chapters, NSM can capture the meaning of these three Indonesian words well. Although there are problems here and there, in general NSM succeeds in describing the meaning of kasihan, iba and tega. The last point that I want to mention is the ability to describe any forms of words. As we know that these three words are different in their grammatical category, kasihan is 77 a noun and iba and tega are adjectives. NSM does not have any problem in describing them. The fact that we can still find a problem in the explications of the words being investigated shows that N SM needs further studies to overcome these problems. The semantic primitives need to be increased, if possible, so that more concepts can be described. This problem, I think is very crucial, Since there are millions of words in the world. If NSM want to capture the meaning of these words, as they have always claimed, the primitives should be more complete than those in the list. 78 References Abbott, Barbara (1999). Presuppositions as nonassertions. To appear in Journal of Pragmatics. Amauld, Antoine and Pierre Nicole (1996 [1662]). Logic or the art of thinking, tran. Jill Vance Buroker. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chierchia, Gennaro and Sally McConnell-Ginet ( 1990). Meaning and grammar. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Davis, Wayne A (1998). Irnplicature: intention, convention, and principle in the failure of Gricean theory. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Echols, John M and Shadily Hassan (1992). Kamus Indonesia Inggris. Jakarta, P.T Gramedia. Goddard, Cliff and Anna Wierzbicka (eds) (1994). Semantic and Lexical Universals. Amsterdam, John Benjamins Pub Co. Goddard, Cliff (1996). The ‘social emotions’ of Malay (Bahasa Melayu). Ethos, 24 (3), 426-464. (1997). Cultural values and cultural scripts of Malay (Bahasa Melayu). Journal of Pragmatics, 27, 183-201. (1998). Semantic analysis. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Grice, HP (1975). Logic and conversation. Pragmatics: a Reader edited by Steven Davies. New York, Oxford University Press, 305-315 J ackendoff, Ray (1983). Semantic and cognition. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. (1990). Semantic structure. Cambridge, MIT Press. Johnson-Laird, P. N and Oatley Keith (1989). The language of emotion: an analysis of semantic field. Cognition and Emotion, 3 (2), 81-123. Kamus Besar Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian Dictionary) (1995). Jakarta, Balai Pustaka. Lakoff, Robin Tolmach (1995). Conversational Irnplicatures. Handbook of pragmatics, Philadelphia, John Benjamin Pub Co, 1-10. 79 Lewis, David (1979). Scorekeeping in a language game. Pragmatics: A reader edited by Steven Davis. New York, Oxford University Press, 416-427. McCawley, James D. (1983). Review of Anna Wierzbicka’s ‘Lingua mentalis: the semantics of natural language. language, 59(3), 654-9 Oatley, Keith and RN. Johnson-Laird (1990). Semantic primitives for emotions: a reply to Ortony and Clore. Cognition and Emotion, 4 (2), 129-143. Sadock, Jerrold M (1978). On testing for conversational implicatures. Pragmatics: a Reader, edited by Steven Davis, 365-376. Said, Titi (1987). Jangan ambil nyawaku (Don’t take my life away). Jakarta, Alam Budaya. Saeed, John I (1997). Semantics. Oxford, Blackwell Publisher. Wierzbicka, Anna (1980). Lingua mentalis: The semantic of natural language. New York, Academic Press. (1985). A semantic metalanguage for a crosscultural comparison of speech acts and speech gender. Language Society,l4, 491 -514. (1992a). Semantics, culture, and cognition: human concepts in culture- specific configuration. New York, Oxford University Press. (1992b). Talking about emotions: semantic, culture, and cognition. Cognition and Emotion, 3, 285-319. (1992c). Defining emotion concepts. Cognitive Science, 16, 539-581. (1996). Semantics: primes and universal. Oxford, Oxford University Press. (1997a). Understanding cultures through their key words. New York, Oxford University Press. (1997b). Language: a key issue in emotion research. Innovation, 10 (4), 3 19-33 1 . 80 "Il'llllllllllllllllllllll“