Imran Ho Abdullah
Pusat Pengajian Bahasa & Linguistik
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
1. Pengenalan
Semantik merupakan cabang ilmu linguistik yang mengkaji makna. Dari segi sejarah ilmu
semantik (barat), semantik merupakan satu cabang kajian falsafah yang kemudiannya diangkat
oleh disiplin linguistik sebagai salah satu daripada komponen bahasa yang utama selain
sintaksis, morfologi dan fonologi. Ada yang merasakan bahawa kajian semantik seharusnya
menjadi fokus utama dalam linguistik kerana peranan utama bahasa adalah untuk
mengungkapkan sesuatu yang bermakna. Dalam ilmu linguistik, terdapat beberapa pendekatan
dalam kajian semantik seperti semantik struktural, semantik berasaskan kebenaran, semantik
formal dan juga semantik kognitif. Setiap pendekatan mempunyai beberapa teori. Secara
umumnya, semantik struktural mengkaji makna sebagai satu sistem dalaman bahasa. Semantik
bersyaratkan kebenaran (truth-conditional semantics) mengaitkan makna dengan satu kebenaran
sesuatu proposisi Semantik berasaskan kebenaran sering dikaitkan dengan semantik formal
yang mengambil pendekatan menghuraikan makna secara formal dan logikal dengan
menggunakan perlambangan operasi matematikal. Semantik kognitif menghuraikan makna
dengan berpandukan kepada sistem kognitif dan menyamakan makna dengan konsep.
2. Semantik Struktural
Semantik Struktural sering dikaitkan dengan ahli linguistik Peranchis, Ferdunand de Saussure.
Mengikut Saussure sistem bahasa merupakan satu sistem dalaman. Dengan erti kata lain, untuk
menghuraikan makna sesuatu kata, kita perlu memahami bagaimana kata itu berfungsi dan
berbeza daripada kata lain dalam sistem bahasa itu sendiri. Makna sesuatu kata itu adalah
keseluruhan kaitan bagi kata tersebut dalam perbendaharaan kata bahasa tersebut. Kaedah
menganalisa bahasa yang lazim dikaitkan dengan mahzab Semantik Struktural adalah analisis
komponen.
Analisis komponen sebagai satu kaedah analisa makna menghuraikan makna sesuatu kata
itu kepada “atom makna” atau fitur makna. Dengan kaedah begini, satu kata dalam sesuatu
medan semantik yang sama dapat dibezakan daripada kata yang lain dalam medan yang
sama. Misalannya, makna meja, kerusi dan almari mungkin boleh dibezakan dengan
menggunakan analisis komponen makna PERABOT, BERKAKI, BERPINTU, RERUANG, PERMUKAAN
DATAR, BERTEMPAT DUDUK. Analisis komponen, lazimnya adalah berdasarkan satu sistem
binari, di mana sesuatu komponen makna atau fitur itu ada (+) atau tiada (-) bagi
mendefinasikan kata tersebut.
meja + + - - + -
almari + ± + + - -
kerusi + + - - - +
Analisa seperti ini mempunyai banyak kekangan. Antaranya adalah
a. konsep binari itu tidak semestinya sah untuk semua jenis perkaitan antara satu himpunan
kata atau satu medan semantik.
b. Berapa banyak dan apakah status fitur itu sendiri?
c. Kaedah komponen ini tidak menjelaskan apa-apa kerana ia hanya mendefinasikan satu
kata itu dengan menggantikannya dengan kata-kata yang lain
Dalam kaedah semantik formal, perlambangan makna secara logikal adalah matlamat
penghuraian semantik. Penghuraian semantik mazhab semantik formal menekankan sistem logik
yang dikenali sebagai kalkulus proposisi dan juga kalkulus predikat dalam mengkaji makna
sesuatu ujaran linguistik. Misalannya, analisa semantik kata kerja bunuh dan mati dalam bentuk
kalkulus predikat adalah seperti berikut:
Untuk ayat pula, makna sesuatu ayat dihubungkaitkan dengan nilai kebenaran ayat tersebut
berdasarkan satu dunia nyata. Misalannya untuk memahami makna ungkapan “Bunga itu cantik”,
kita harus dapat menyatakan dunia hakiki di mana ungkapan itu benar. Dalam hal ini, analisis
semantik ayat itu adalah seperti berikut:
(x) (cantik x )
Masalah
3. Semantik Kognitif
secara metaforik. Contohnya, metafora konsepsi Kuasa itu Atas mendasari ungkapan
seperti pegawai tinggi, kenaikan pangkat, atas perintah, bawah kawalan dan sebagainya.
Metafora konsepsi Marah itu Panas dan Jasad Manusia itu Bekas untuk Perasaan
membolehkan kita memahami ungkapan seperti : terpendam dalam hati, ‘You make my
blood boil’; ‘He's just blowing off steam’; ‘He boiled over’. ‘He blew his top’. ‘I can't
keep my anger bottled up anymore’. (http://cogsci.berkeley.edu
/metaphors/Anger_Is_Heat.html)
Bab ini disusun seperti berikut. Dalam bahagian seterusnya, satu deskripsi kerangka
semantik kognitif yang digunakan dalam analisa konsep negara bangsa akan
dibincangkan dengan tumpuan pada konstruk ‘konsepsi metafora’. Ini diikuti oleh
analisa bagaimana perbincangan ‘negara bangsa’ semasa membingkaikan (frames)
konsep ‘negara bangsa’ di Malaysia. Bahagian terakhir akan memberikan beberapa
cadangan bagi membingkaikan semula semantik dan sekaligus konsep “negara bangsa”
dengan menggunakan via the use of alternative metafora pengkonsepsian dalam
wacana domestik negara bangsa Malaysia.
Intipati bab ini, selain menghuraikan semantik leksikal satu ungkapan yang begitu
kerap (tetapi mempunyai implikasi serta pengertian yang penting) adalah untuk
menunjukkan bagaimana linguistik kognitif, khususnya semantik kognitif dapat
mengupas kepelbagaian maksud satu ungkapan linguistik melalui konsep
pembingkaian dan pelbagai metafora pengkonsepsian. Kefahaman yang lebih jelas
tentang satu istilah seperti “negara bangsa” adalah penting memandangkan ungkapan
ini sering digunakan dalam pelbagai konteks dengan pengertian yang pelbagai. Analisis
yang dibuat di sini juga dapat mengupas apa yang tersirat disebalik penggunaan
ungkapan ini. Namun, analisa di sini bukan bersiat mutlak atau dan hanya dapat
meneliti beberapa isu dengan harapan agar analisa dan penggunaan kerangka semantik
kognitif dapat menyumbang kepada pembentukan negara bangsa Malaysia dengan
lebih jelas.
Konstruk Kajian
Geeraerts (1997) melihat linguistik kognitif sebagai satu pendekatan kepada analisa
bahasa yang memberikan penekanan kepada bahasa sebagai satu alat untuk organise,
memproses serta menyanpaikan maklumat. As such, the analysis of the coneptual dan
experiential basis of linguistic categories is seen to be of primary importance. “The
formal structures of language are studied not as if they were autonomous, but as a
reflection of general conceptual organisation, categorisation principles, processing
mechanisms, dan experiential dan environmental influences” (Geeraerts 1997:7).
Although the CL enterprise is not a monolith (Goldberg 1996:3), most if not all cognitive
linguists share some foundational assumptions. Newman summarizes the theoretical
assumptions of the cognitive linguistics enterprise as follows (Goldberg 1996:3-4;
Geeraerts 1997:7, Heine 1997:3-7):
(a) there are important links between linguistic structure dan human
cognition, making it imperative to acknowledge the role of human
cognition dan human experience in motivating dan explicating
linguistic structure;
(b) a language community imposes its own categorisations upon the
entities which constitute reality dan such categorisations may differ
considerably from one language community to another;
(c) most of the categories relevant to linguistics are viewed as having
central dan less central members rather than being criterially
defined;
(d) where the meaning of a form needs to be elaborated, then a larger
context or ‘frame’ [domain] needs to be invoked in order to
properly describe the meaning.
Newman (1996:ix)
A particular strong influence in the semantik kognitif paradigm has been the work of
Lakoff. For Lakoff, our conceptual system is fundamentally metaphorical in nature. Non-
metaphorical thought is for Lakoff only possible when we talk about purely physical
reality. Being a linguist, Lakoff seeks to illustrate the above thesis by recourse to the
everyday language we use to talk about various things.
The present paper shares the above assumptions dan accepts the Cognitive Linguistics
conception of semantic representation dan their views on a system of metafora
pengkonsepsians in everyday language as essentially correct. Specifically, the semantic
structure of an item or expression can be explicated in terms of conventionalized
metafora pengkonsepsians dan the meaning of the expression can be defined with
respect to some domain (Rudzka-Ostyn 1989:615). In cognitive linguistics, metaphor is
defined as understanding one conceptual domain in terms of another conceptual
domain, e.g. one person's life experience versus another's. A conceptual domain is any
coherent organization of experience (Lakoff 1987). The semantics of “negara bangsa” to
be drawn out in this study is dependent on the notion of metafora pengkonsepsians dan
the identification of the source domains of such metaphors in the discussion of negara
bangsa. Fundamentally, the framework accepts the expression used in the discussion of
negara bangsa may utilize different metafora pengkonsepsians with some conventional
metaphors being the “default” or the “preferred” metaphor. To this extent, how
someone defines “negara bangsa” is dependent on the organizing metaphor or the
“framing” of the discourse. Such “framing” can place a portion of coherent referent
situation into the foreground of attention while placing the remainder of that situation
into the background (Talmy 1994). In this regard, one’s understanding of negara bangsa
might very well be dependent on that is what is foregrounded dan what is
backgrounded.
Dalam hal ini adalah penting kita kembali kepada konsep makna yang dipelopori oleh ahli
falsafah seperti Richards dan Odgen (1923). Richards & Odgen mengemukakan segitiga makna
seperti berikut:
Dari segi semantik struktural, kajian makna meliputi hubung kait antara ahli dalam sistem
tersebut yang dikenali sebagai hubungkaitan sensa (sense relationship). Antara hubungkaitan ini
termasuklah antonimi, sinonimi, homonimi, polisemi, hiponimi dan sebagainya.
You will find explanations below of how each of these relates to the theoretical study of semantik.
Kedua bentuk itu secara semantik formal mempunyai makna yang boleh dikatakan
serupa. Namun kita juga boleh mengatakan ada penekanan makna yang berlainan yang
terlihat pada aturan subjek dan objeknya. Lazimnya ayat pasif memberi penekanan
kepada objek manakala ayat aktif memberikan penekanan kepada subjek atau pelaku.
Begitu juga dengan semantik. Leksikon (atau perbendaraan kata) sesuatu bahasa
kadang-kala memberikan kita pilihan untuk merepresentasikan sesuatu. Realiti yang
dilambangkan oleh sistem terbikin (constructed) menurut cara sistem itu distrukturkan
oleh aumber bahasa tersebut (ataupun penulis).
Sebagai contoh, konsep waktu kita terbentuk mengikut kata leksikal seperti pagi,
tengahari, petang, malam dan juga kata pinjam arab seperti subuh, zuhur, asar, maghrib
dan ishak. Dengan itu kita dapat menandakan atau mengaturkan satu waktu untuk
berjumpa seperti
Mereka akan ke rumah selepas (waktu) ishak.
Other examples
• Specialised terminology: major; minor; baroque; repertoire; waltz;
jazz etc.
• Feminism: English is a sexist language = Mr. Mrs. Miss. / chairman /
man;
– Time is Money
• Spend a week at home…
• Wasted an hour of my time…
• Save a few minutes for me …
– constructing meaning/reality
• Negotiating meaning
• Cross-cultural Meaning
End note
• Why language? – bahasa jiwa bangsa – encoded in the device / tool
most flexible, productive and vital for communciation in that society.
Simbol dan rujukan
Satu kata merupakan satu simbol yang melambangkan sesuatu benda atau perkara.
Perlambangan dalam linguistik merujuk kepada sama ada perlambangan ortografik atau
perlambangan fonetik yang digunakan menurut konvensi (kelaziman) dalam bahasa tersebut.
Benda atau perkara yang dikenalpasti oleh “kata” atau lambang itu dikenali secara teknikal
sebagai rujukan atau referent. Rujukan ini mungkin satu objek yang berada di dunia fizikal atau
satu entiti yang abstrak.
Conceptions of meaning
Words → things: This view is found in the Cratylus of Plato (427-347 BC). Words “name” or
“refer to” things. It works well for proper nouns like London, Everton FC and Ford Fiesta. It is less
clear when applied to abstractions, to verbs and to adjectives - indeed wherever there is no
immediately existing referent (thing) in the physical world, to correspond to the symbol (word).
Words → concepts → things: This theory was classically expressed by C.K. Ogden and I.A.
Richards, in The Meaning of Meaning (1923). It states that there is no direct connection of symbol
and referent, but an indirect connection in our minds. For each word there is a related concept.
The difficulty is in explaining what this concept is, and how it can exist apart from the word. In
Nineteen Eighty-Four George Orwell imagines a society whose rulers remove disapproved
thoughts by removing (from print and broadcasting) the corresponding words. However there are
many real-world examples of concepts which came before the words which described or named
them (hovercraft, Internet) or where the symbols have changed, but not the concepts they refer to
(radio for wireless, Hoover for vacuum cleaner). This suggests that the concept is independent of
particular language symbols.
Stimuli → words → responses: Leonard Bloomfield outlines this theory in Language (1933). A
stimulus (S) leads someone to a response (r), which is a speech act. To the hearer the speech
act is also a stimulus (s), which leads to a response (R), which may be an action or
understanding.
Jill is hungry, sees an apple (S) and asks Jack to bring it her (r). This new language stimulus,
Jack's hearing her (s) leads to his action (R) of bringing her the apple. Bloomfield's behaviourist
model leads to obvious problems - Jack doesn't bring Jill the apple because of a quarrel years
before, or he brings several apples and a glass of beer.
Back to top
Words and lexemes
As a lexical unit may contain more than one word, David Crystal has coined the term lexeme.
This is usually a single word, but may be a phrase in which the meaning belongs to the whole
rather than its parts, as in verb phrases tune in, turn on, drop out or noun phrase (a) cock up.
Back to top
Denotation
This is the core or central meaning of a word or lexeme, as far as it can be described in a
dictionary. It is therefore sometimes known as the cognitive or referential meaning. It is possible
to think of lexical items that have a more or less fixed denotation (sun, denoting the nearest star,
perhaps) but this is rare. Most are subject to change over time. The denotation of silly is not today
what it was in the 16th century, or even the 18th, when Coleridge referred to the silly buckets on
the deck. Denotation is thus related to connotation, which leads to semantic change.
Back to top
Connotation
Back to top
Implication
This is meaning which a speaker or writer intends but does not communicate directly. Where a
listener is able to deduce or infer the intended meaning from what has been uttered, this is known
as (conversational) implicature. David Crystal gives this example:
Back to top
Pragmatics
According to Professor Crystal, pragmatics is not a coherent field of study. It refers to the study of
those factors which govern our choices of language - such as our social awareness, our culture
and our sense of etiquette. How do we know how to address different people like the queen?
How do we know how to express gratitude for a gift or hospitality?
Pragmatics can be illustrated by jokes or irony which rely on the contrast between expected and
subsequently revealed meaning. Consider this example from a 1999 episode of Barry Levinson's
TV police drama, Homicide: Life on the Streets. (The TV audience is assumed to know police
procedure for arresting suspects.) An arresting officer says to a suspect (whose hands are raised,
so he is not resisting arrest): “You have the right to remain silent”. Instead of continuing with the
reading of rights, the officer shoots the suspect. The audience enjoys the wordplay and the
dramatic revelation of the officer's real meaning, because pragmatics tells us what You have the
right to remain silent normally leads to - more words and no bullets.
Back to top
Ambiguity
Ambiguity occurs when a language element has more than one meaning. If the ambiguity is in a
single word it is lexical ambiguity. If in a sentence or clause, it is grammatical or structural
ambiguity.
We can illustrate lexical ambiguity with an example from Sue Townsend's Secret Diary of Adrian
Mole. Adrian displays a notice in school, advertising a gay society. When a teacher rebukes him,
Adrian asks what is wrong with a club for people who want to be jolly or happy.
Structural ambiguity can often be seen in punning headlines, like the wartime example
CHURCHILL FLIES BACK TO FRONT. The late polar explorer, Dr. Vivian Fuchs, was the
subject of a similar headline: DR. FUCHS OFF TO ANTARCTIC. In this case, the structural
ambiguity is not present to a reader who knows standard spelling, but might confuse a hearer, if
the headline is spoken aloud. The absence of linking grammatical words (articles, conjunctions,
prepositions) in headlines makes such ambiguity likely.
Consider this example (from The Guardian's sports supplement, Saturday November 20, 1999):
Christie back under ban threat. Is back a noun (anatomy or position in rugby) or adverb? Is ban
a verb, noun or attributive adjective? Is threat verb or noun? The reader's prior knowledge gives
the answer. Christie is the UK athlete, Linford Christie, who has been threatened with a ban
previously. So back is short for is back and ban threat is a noun phrase, leading to the structural
meaning: (Linford) Christie (is) back (=again) under (=subject to) (the) threat (of a) ban.
Back to top
A real-life forensic example comes from a cause célebre of the 1960s. Derek Bentley was hanged
for murder after his accomplice, Christopher Craig (too young to hang) shot a policeman. Bentley
allegedly shouted to Craig: “Let him have it”. Did this mean (as the prosecution claimed and the
jury believed) “shoot him” (the victim) or (as the defence argued) “give it [= the gun] to him [= the
policeman]”.
Another example that combines lexical and structural ambiguity is in a joke. Two men are looking
at televisions in a shop-window. One says: “That's the one I'd get!” Around the corner comes a
Cyclops, who thumps him. The lexical ambiguity works best in speech - if we read it we must
“hear” the speech to get the point. If you don't understand the joke, tell it to some people who may
see the point. If you still are puzzled, you may lack awareness of the denotation of Cyclops. They
have only one eye. Get (like git) is an insult in some regional varieties of spoken English
(especially in north-west England).
Back to top
Metaphor, simile and symbol
Metaphors are well known as a stylistic feature of literature, but in fact are found in almost all
language use, other than simple explanations of physical events in the material world. All abstract
vocabulary is metaphorical, but in most cases the original language hides the metaphor from us.
Depends means “hanging from” (in Latin), pornography means “writing of prostitutes” (in Greek)
and even the hippopotamus has a metaphor in its name, which is Greek for “river horse”. A
metaphor compares things, but does not show this with forms such as as, like, or more [+qualifier]
than. These appear in similes: fat as a pig, like two peas in a pod.
Everyday speech is marked by frequent use of metaphor. Consider the humble preposition on. Its
primary meaning can be found in such phrases as on the roof, on the toilet, on top. But what
relationship does it express in such phrases as on the fiddle, on call, on demand, on the phone,
on the game, on telly, on fire, on heat, on purpose? Why not in? Launch denotes the naming of a
ship and its entering service, but what does it mean to launch an attack, launch a new product,
launch a new share-issue or even launch oneself at the ball in the penalty area?
Back to top
Personal computing abounds in metaphor, to suggest a semantic relationship with the real world -
thus a user interface has a desktop, wallpaper and Windows, while a suite of useful programs is
called Office. Bundles of data are files. Once they went in directories but now are grouped in
folders. The Windows interface is an environment. The ideas of waste-disposal and
environmental responsibility are both suggested by the recycle bin - the current metaphor for the
program which organizes files after the user has deleted them temporarily.
A metaphor established by usage and convention becomes a symbol. Thus crown suggests the
power of the state, press = the print news media and chair = the control (or controller) of a
meeting.
Back to top
Semantic fields
In studying the lexicon of English (or any language) we may group together lexemes which inter-
relate, in the sense that we need them to define or describe each other. For example we can see
how such lexemes as cat, feline, moggy, puss, kitten, tom, queen and miaow occupy the same
semantic field. We can also see that some lexemes will occupy many fields: noise will appear in
semantic fields for acoustics, pain or discomfort and electronics (noise = “interference”). Although
such fields are not clear-cut and coherent, they are akin to the kind of groupings children make
for themselves in learning a language. An entertaining way to see how we organize the lexicon
for ourselves is to play word-association games.
Back to top
Synonym, antonym and hyponym
Synonym and antonym are forms of Greek nouns which mean, respectively, “same name” and
“opposed (or different) name”. We may find synonyms which have an identical reference
meaning, but since they have differing connotations, they can never be truly synonymous. This is
particularly the case when words acquire strong connotations of approval (amelioration) or
disapproval (pejoration). We can see this by comparing terrorist with freedom fighter or agnostic
(Greek) with ignoramus (Latin). Both of the latter terms express the meaning of a person who
does not know (something). A pair which remains more truly synonymous (but might alter) would
be sympathy (Greek) and compassion (Latin). Both mean “with [= having or showing] feeling”, as
in the English equivalent, fellow feeling.
Some speakers will not be aware of synonyms, so cannot make a choice. But those with a wide
lexicon will often choose between two, or among many, possible synonyms. This is an area of
interest to semanticists. What are the differences of meaning in toilet, lavatory, WC, closet, privy,
bog, dunny and so on?
Back to top
Intelligent reflection on the lexicon will show that most words do not have antonyms. When
Baldric, in BBC TV's Blackadder, attempts to write a dictionary he defines cat as “not a dog” - but
the two are not antonyms. A cat is not a fish, banana, rainbow or planet, either - it is not anything,
but a cat! We can contrast simple pairs like fat/thin but realize that both are relative to an
assumed norm. Such lexeme pairs (for example: big/little, clever/stupid, brave/cowardly, hot/cold
and beautiful/ugly) are gradable antonyms . True and false may show a clearer contrast. Clear
either/or conditions are expressed by complementary antonyms: open/closed, dead/alive, on/off.
Another kind (not really opposites at all) are pairs which go together, and represent two sides of a
relation: these are converses or relational antonyms. Examples would be husband/wife,
borrow/lend, murderer/victim, plaintiff/defendant.
Where one lexeme includes others, as cutlery includes knife, fork, spoon but not teacup it is a
hyponym for these. This traditional term denotes a grouping similar to a semantic field. So fish is
a hyponym for cod, guppy, salmon and trout, while fleet is a hyponym for battleship, aircraft
carrier, cruiser, destroyer and frigate.
Back to top
Collocation, fixed expression and idiom
Some words are most commonly found paired with other words, to create a semantic unit or
lexeme. Thus false is often found together with passport, teeth or promise. These pairs are
known as collocations. They are very helpful in establishing the meanings of the words in the pair.
Porn is likely to be followed by film, mag, star or video. It may be collocated with actor, director or
merchant but is less likely to be followed by customer, operative or minister. After estate you
expect agent. How often have you seen whole new (whole new ball-game) as a collocation (here
whole is redundant)? Think of collocations including these words: American, British, coffee, dirty,
first, mad, millennium, native, Ninja, prime, police, rotten, speed, surf.
When words become grouped in almost predictable ways these are fixed expressions. Examples
include jewel in the crown, desirable residence, criminal mastermind, world of work, address the
issues, I put it to you.
Back to top
Sometimes the group is so well rooted in the language that the meanings of the component
words are ignored, or metaphorical meanings (in dead metaphors) are never visualised. Such a
group has a meaning that is not to be found in analysis of its parts, and is an idiom. Examples
include: keep your nose clean, stick your nose/oar in, beneath your station, bed of roses, load of
crap, not my cup of tea, a piece of cake, get on your high horse, off your own bat (frequent
substitution of back shows the speaker is unaware of the original meaning) or skin of your teeth,
get stuffed (what did this originally mean?).
Back to top
Semantic change and etymology
Over time lexemes may change their meaning. This kind of change is semantic change. Perhaps
a connotation will take the place of the original denotation. More often a second (or third)
meaning will develop side by side with the original. In time, this may come to be the primary
reference meaning. Gay has both the sense of “happy” and “homosexual”. In spoken British
English today the primary meaning is more likely to be the second of these. Queer has the sense
of both “odd” and “homosexual”, but in contemporary spoken British English is more likely to have
the first meaning. For both, however, the context of the lexeme may suggest the meaning.
Etymology is the systematic study and classification of word origins, especially as regards forms
and meanings - it is therefore an important concept both for semantik and the study of language
change. The etymology of a given lexeme denotes an account of its historical-linguistic origin.
Back to top
We can illustrate semantic change through the etymology of gentle. In the 14th century gentil had
the meaning of “noble”, referring both to social class and to character. Because a noble person
was supposed to be kind and considerate, the adjective today has the sense of “tender”, “careful”
or “delicate”. The older meaning is preserved in gentleman, genteel and gentility. Until recently
public toilets in the UK were designated Gentlemen or Ladies - where now we usually see a male
or female picture representation. But these meanings live on in spoken English, as when
someone says, perhaps in a public house, that she is off to the ladies’ or he is going to the gents’.
Villain has come to mean a wicked person, especially in drama or literature. Originally, it meant a
person who farmed land under the feudal system. It is thus a class insult when used of the noble
Romeo by Tybalt (“Thou art a villain”), or of the common Iago by Othello (“Villain, be sure thou
prove my love a whore”). We may see how this leads to the modern meaning.
Back to top
The Old English and (related) Scandinavian words for a town give us modern forms such as by,
burgh, borough and brough. From the German Hamburg came Hamburger, either a person of the
town or a kind of sausage. This name was later used in the USA for a slice of the sausage in a
bread cake. A mistaken belief that the initial ham refers to pig-meat has led to variants, such as
beefburger, cheeseburger and veggieburger. Now burger alone denotes the food. Its earlier
meaning of “resident of a town” is fading.
Holocaust has a fascinating etymology. It is a compound of two elements from classical Greek -
holos (meaning “whole”, as in holistic, hologram) and kaustos (meaning “burnt”, as in caustic,
hypocaust). It was first coined in writing by the translators of the Septuagint, a Greek translation
of the Hebrew Scriptures made in Alexandria for King Ptolemy II in the third century BC. In its
original context, the noun appears over two hundred times to translate Hebrew ’olâ (meaning
literally “that which goes up”, that is, a sacrificial burnt offering). In modern times it has been used
to denote the massive destruction, especially of people, in the world wars of the 20th century.
Since the 1950s, it has been used more narrowly to denote the Nazis' murder of European Jews
between 1941 and 1945.
Back to top
Back to top
Polysemy
Polysemy (or polysemia) is an intimidating compound noun for a basic language feature. The
name comes from Greek poly (many) and semy (to do with meaning, as in semantik). Polysemy
is also called radiation or multiplication. This happens when a lexeme acquires a wider range of
meanings.
For example, paper comes from Greek papyrus. Originally it referred to writing material made
from the papyrus reeds of the Nile, later to other writing materials, and now to things such as
government documents, scientific reports, family archives or newspapers.
Back to top
Homonymy, homophones and homographs
Homonyms are different lexemes with the same form (written, spoken or both). For example,
bank is both an elevated area of ground and a place or business where money is kept. You may
think these are the same words, but this is not so, since the meaning is an essential feature of a
word. In some cases, the same form (as with paper) has the same origin but this will not always
be the case. The etymology of a lexeme will tell us where it comes from and how it acquired a
given meaning.
Identity of form may apply to speech or writing only. David Crystal calls these forms “half”
identical. They are:
Homophones - where the pronunciation is the same (or close, allowing for such
phonological variation as comes from accent) but standard spelling differs, as in flew
(from fly), flu (“influenza”) and flue (of a chimney).
Homographs - where the standard spelling is the same, but the pronunciation differs, as
in wind (air movement or bend) or refuse (“rubbish” or “disallow”, stress falls on first and
second syllable, respectively).
Back to top
Lexicology and lexicography
Lexicology is the systematic historical (diachronic) and contemporary (synchronic) study of the
lexicon or vocabulary of a language. Lexicologists study semantik on a mass scale. Lexicography
is the art and science of dictionary making. Lexicography also has a history. Although dictionary
compilers today, as in the past, wish to create an authoritative reference work, their knowledge
and understanding of language has changed radically. Different dictionaries serve very different
purposes - some only give information about semantik (word meanings, descriptions or
definitions) and orthography (standard spellings). Others give information about etymology,
variants and change of meaning over time.
An unfortunate by-product of English teaching in the UK is a preoccupation with standard spelling
forms to the exclusion of much else. Children are encouraged to use dictionaries for spell
checking and not to learn about the language more generally. You should, with any dictionary,
read the introduction to discover which principles have been used in compiling it, what models of
language the compilers works from.
In checking an etymology cited above (git) I used three dictionaries - Funk and Wagnall's New
Practical Standard (US, 1946) the Pocket Oxford (1969) and the complete (1979) Oxford English
Dictionary. None of these listed git. Modern dictionaries may well give a range of world Englishes.
Dictionary functions built into computer software give the user a choice of different varieties - UK,
US, Australia/New Zealand or International English.
Back to top
Thesauruses, libraries and Web portals
Students of semantik attempt to categorize and explain meaning in language. But there are other
people who face a similar task. A thesaurus is a reference work in which words are arranged
under general, then more specific semantic fields. As with much of language study there is a
problem in making a linear representation of a complex model.
Libraries organize books under categories and sub-categories, the most popular model by far
being the Dewey system named after its inventor. And portal sites on the World Wide Web
organize information and links by (usually) a hierarchy of categories. These may all be helpful to
you, in understanding semantic fields.
Back to top
Epistemology
This is the traditional name for the division of philosophy otherwise known as theory of
knowledge. Epistemology underlies semantik in a fundamental way. Historically, it has had a
profound influence on how we understand language. For example, a modern language scientist,
looking at the class of words we think of as nouns, might wish to subdivide them further. But there
is no very good reason to split them into those that denote physical and material realities and
those that denote feelings and concepts - that is concrete and abstract nouns. This division
comes from Plato, who divided things absolutely into the categories of mind (nous) and matter
(physis). It breaks down when we apply it to modern phenomena, such as artificial intelligence.
Plato also divided things into universals and particulars. Some names represent a massive
category of things, in which countless individual examples are included - boy, dog, car and cloud.
Others are unique to one individual thing - Elvis Presley, Lassie, New York. In English and other
European languages the word classes of common and proper nouns mark this distinction. In
written English we signal that a word is a proper noun usually with initial capital letters. In written
and spoken English, we also show it by omitting articles or determiners in many (not all) contexts,
where a common noun would have these.
Back to top
But the distinction does not bear close scrutiny - many nouns which we capitalize stand for a wide
category, not just a single individual, as with VW Beetle or Hoover. And what of eponyms - words
named for a single individual, but now applied widely, as with sandwich, Wellington, boycott and
quisling (look it up)?
At a more fundamental level, epistemology may help us decide whether the concepts of language
are coherent and objective - as with word classes: are the notions of noun, verb, pronoun,
adjective and so on logical as regards their referents?
Back to top
Colour
David Crystal (Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language, p. 106) draws attention to the way the
semantic field of colour shows “patterns of lexical use in English”, because the visible spectrum is
a continuum. Crystal points out some interesting features of languages other than English, in
identifying colour, such as the absence in Latin of lexemes for “brown” and “grey”. He suggests
that modern English has eleven basic colour lexemes - white, black, red, green, yellow, blue,
brown, purple, pink, orange and grey. You may not agree with this - for example, you may think of
orange and purple as secondary, being mixtures of or intermediate between others. Our sense of
primary colours may come from the world around us - blue for the sky, green for grass and red for
blood, for example.
The lexicon of colour is interesting when we study it historically (what colours are most frequent in
the writings of Chaucer or Shakespeare) or in a special context. What names do manufacturers of
paint or cosmetics favour? For parts of the body (especially hair) we have a special lexicon - hair
is not yellow but blonde (the word indicates both hair colour or, as a noun, people with this colour
of hair), brunette (although brown is also standard for males) and redhead (where red has a
special colour denotation - not the scarlet or crimson it usually suggests). Another special lexicon
(which may preserve historical differences) applies to horse colours - bay, grey (which denotes a
horse more or less white) and chestnut.
Back to top
Studying semantik: sources of information
Crystal, D. (1987) The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language, pp. 100 - 107; Cambridge;
ISBN 0-521-42443-7
Crystal, D. (1995) The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language, pp. 138, 156 -
170; Cambridge; ISBN 0-521-59655-6
Potter, S. (1950) Our Language, pp. 104 - 116; Penguin; ISBN 0-14-02-0227-7
Aitchison, J. (1997) The Language Web, pp. 61 - 78; Cambridge; ISBN 0-521-57475-7
Alternatively, listen to the fourth of Jean Aitchison's 1996 BBC Reith Lectures, A Web of Words.
1. Pengenalan
Pragmatik satu cabang linguistik yang mula mendapat perhatian dan menapak pada
akhir 1970an. Ilmu pragmatik mengkaji bagaimana manusia memahami dan
menggunakan bahasa dalam komunikasi harian. Sesuatu hasilan linguistik atau
ungkapan linguistik dianggap sebagai satu lakuan bahasa. Lakuan bahasa hanya wujud
dalam satu situasi komunikasi, lazimnya dalam sesuatu perbualan (conversation) atau
wacana (discourse). Maka kadang kala pragmatik juga dikenali sebagai analisa perbualan
(conversation analysis) atau lebih umum analisa wacana (discourse analysis). Yang
penting, pragmatik mengkaji makna dalam satu konteks atau situasi perbualan dan
makna tidak terpisah daripada konteks tersebut.
Dalam kajian pragmatik, pembezaan dibuat antara dua bentuk maksud (atau niat)
dalam sesuatu ungkapan atau lakuan bahasa (Leech, 1983; Sperber and Wilson, 1986):
Dari segi teori bahasa, keupayaan memahami dan menghasilkan sesuatu lakuan
komunikatif dipanggil kompetens pragmatik (pragmatic competence) berbanding dengan
keupayaan menghasilkan struktur sintaksis, morfologi dan fonologi yang “betul” yang
dianggap sebagai sebahagian daripada kompetens linguistik (linguistic competence).
Kompetensi pragmatik melibatkan pengetahuan tentang pelbagai perilaku sosial dan
kemasyarakatan serta budaya masyarakat bahasa tersebut. Contohnya, pengetahuan
kesantunan serta status sosial amat penting dalam pemilihan kata ganti nama Melayu.
Teori ini mula dipelopori oleh J.L. Austin berdasarkan siri syarahan beliau di Harvard
University pada tahun 1955. Siri syarahan ini kemudiannya diterbitkan sebagai sebuah
buku dengan judul How To Do Things with Words pada tahun 1962 selepas beliau
meninggal dunia. Buku ini menjadi asas kepada Teori Lakuan Bahasa. Usaha beliau
disambung oleh seorang pelajar beliau John R. Searle terutama dalam buku beliau
berjudul Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language (1969) terbitan Cambridge
University Press. Dalam bahasa Melayu istilah “Speech Act Theory“ diterjemahkan
sebagai “Teori Lakuan Bahasa” atau “Teori Lakuan Perucapan” (Ahmad Mahmood
Musanif, 1998) atau “Teori Perilaku Bahasa”.
Pada masa 50 an – 60an, teori semantik bersifat logikal yang lebih dikenali sebagai
semantik berasaskan kebenaran (truth-based semantics). SBK ini menekankan kepada
analisa kebenaran proposisi sesuatu ayat dalam sesuatu dunia nyata atau dunia ciptaan.
Hakikatnya, sesuatu ayat mempunyai nilai semantik hanya jika proposisi ayat itu
bernilai “BENAR”. Ini membataskan kajian bahasa hanya kepada ayat bentuk
pernyataan / declarative sahaja.
Sebagai reaksi kepada falsafah bahasa yang berasaskan logik, Austin memperkenalkan
teori beliau yang lebih bersifat “common-sense” dan oleh itu mahzab Austin ini dikenali
juga sebagai “ordinary philosophy of language”.
Contohnya:
Dalam ayat (1), saya membuat satu pernyataan dan proposisi pernyataan itu sama ada
BENAR atau TIDAK. Jika ayat itu mempunyai nilai kebenaran BENAR, maka proposisi
yang dinyatakan itu juga merupakan intipati semantik ayat berkenaan dan dapat
diberikan satu tafsiran dengan menghubungkaitkan proposisi itu dengan referens dunia
sebenar / dunia hakiki / real world. Jika ayat itu mempunyai nilai kebenaran PALSU,
maka hubungkait itu tidak dapat dilakukan dan oleh itu maksud proposisi itu tidak
dapat ditafsirkan secara logik.
Ayat (2) tdak ditentukan nilai kebenarannya. Sebaliknya, ayat itu boleh dinilai dari segi
kesesuaiannya (felicity conditions) bergantung kepada situasi ujaran atau dinilai dari
segi perasaan penutur. Ini kerana ayat ini bukan ayat pernyataan tetapi merupakan satu
lakuan bahasa atau perilaku bahasa atau satu perbuatan yang dilakukan dengan
menggunakan bahasa. Dalam hal ini penutur menggunakan bahasa untuk
menyampaikan salam mengucapkan selamat bila bersua muka pada waktu pagi.
Maka, secara mudah teori lakuan bahasa berfokuskan kepada “apa yang dilakukan oleh
sesuatu ujaran”. Bahasa mempunyai fungsi perhubungan sosial yang berperanan untuk
manusia berkomunikasi di antara mereka. Berbahasa merupakan satu bentuk perilaku
atau sesuatu yang dilakukan dengan tujuan tertentu.
Mengikut SBK, ujaran di atas mempunyai nilai kebenaran (truth-value). Proposisi yang
dinyatakan oleh ujaran itu sama ada BENAR atau PALSU. Dan nilai semantiknya
bergantung kepada nilai kebenaran atau truth-value proposisi berkenaan.
Apa yang diperhatikan oleh Austin, sebenarnya amat mudah. Beliau berpendapat apa
yang penting adalah dari segi apa yang dilakukan oleh ujaran tersebut. Dalam hal ini
ujaran itu mungkin berupa satu “PERNYATAAN” dan lakuan itu adalah satu lakuan
membuat kenyataan. Namun begitu, ujaran itu juga boleh digunakan untuk bercakap
besar; atau mungkin juga untuk memberi amaran. [misalannya bila diungkapkan oleh
seorang wanita kepada seorang lelaki yang cuba memikat beliau]. Apa yang penting
mengikut Austin adalah apa yang mahu dilakukan (atau yang mahu dicapai) oleh
penutur (penulis) apabila beliau membuat ujaran itu.
Bercakap (atau membuat satu ujaran) merupakan satu perbuatan seperti juga dengan
perbuatan menendang bola, mengangkat tangan, menabik, menadah tangan, berjabat
tangan. Perbuatan yang boleh dilakukan melalui ujaran termasuklah memberi salam;
mengucapkan tahniah / takziah, memanggil seseorang; melarang sesuatu. Dalam hal
ini, teori lakuan bahasa boleh diapplikasikan kepada pelbagai bahasa dan
berkemungkinan lakuan bahasa Melayu mempunyai perbezaan dan persamaan dengan
lakuan bahasa Inggeris, bahasa Arab atau bahasa Jepun. Kaedah memberi salam dalam
pelbagai bahasa mungkin berbeza dan bersifat spesifik kepada bahasa tersebut.
Contohnya lakuan “acts of welcoming / expressions of goodwill / (greetings) sebagai
pembuka bicara kata dalam bahasa Melayu berpola Selamat Pagi, Selamat Tengahari,
Selamat Petang [pola in boleh diekstensikan kepada Selamat Datang, Selamat tinggal,
Selamat Pengantin Baru, Selamat Tahun Baru Cina, Selamat Hari Raya] sementara
dalam bahasa Inggeris pola “greetings” atau “ucapan selamat” bermula dengan “Good”
dalam Good morning, good afternoon, good evening. Ekstensinya juga boleh berperanan
untuk mengucapkan selamat tinggal atau penutup bicara (good night, good day).
Olek kerana bahasa itu merupakan satu jenis perilaku atau perbuatan bahasa, ia
mempunyai satu situasi pengunaan yang nyata yang dilabuhkan kepada penutur dan
pendengar, di mana niat masing-masing adalah relevan dan amat penting untuk
interpretasi dan kefahaman sesuatu ujaran. Prinsip atau andaian ini melihat bahasa
sebagai komunikasi linguistik di mana setiap penghasilan linguistik (di mana sahaja
peringkat sama ada fonim, leksim atau ayat) adalah dibuat dengan sesuatu niat (cf.
intentions Searle 1969:16)
Maka, tidak hairanlah jika niat mempunyai tempat yang penting dalam TLB dan
merupakan satu ciri pengkategorian jenis lakuan bahasa. Niat sebagai istilah teknikal
TLB tidak terhad kepada niat penutur sahaja. Niat juga melibatkan syarat-syarat
kesesuaian dan keikhlasan (felicity and sincerity conditions) bagi sesuatu ujaran, yakni
bagaimana sesuaut lakuan bahasa berfungsi dalam masyarakat yang membolehkan
manusia dapat berkomunikasi dan saling memahami dalam kebanyakkan situasi.
Dalam hal kajian lakuan bahasa Melayu, persoalan tertumpu kepada bagaimana sesuatu
perilaku komunikasi berfungsi dalam masyarakat Melayu dengan penelitian kepada
syarat yang terpakai dalam komunikasi dalam masyarakat Melayu. Sebagai contoh
ujaran “InsyaAllah” yang diujarkan dalam masyarakat Melayu mempunyai “nilai”
lakuan bahasa yang mungkin berbeza dengan penggunaan dalam masyarakat Arab.
Bahasa yang digunakan atau lebih tepat lagi, perilaku berbahasa (yakni membuat
sesuatu ujaran) adalah seratus peratus bergantung kepada konteks sesuatu situasi di
mana perilaku itu terhasil / dihasilkan. Segala penggunaan bahasa (perucapan /
penulisan) adalah bahasa yang bersituasi; sesuatu lakuan bahasa bukan hanyalah satu
perilaku bahasa tetapi harus dipertimbangkan keseluruhan situasi kegiatan berbahasa
di mana pengujaran merupakan satu bahagian sahaja. Oleh itu menurut Mey (2001: 94)
sesuatu lakuan bahasa merupakan satu lakuan pragmatik.
5. Bukti bahawa ujaran = perbuatan / perilaku / lakuan [Bukti untuk TLB]
Lakuan bahasa merupakan satu perilaku verbal di satu dunia nyata. Menurut Austin
lagi, dengan mengungkapkan sesuatu lakuan bahasa, seseorang itu sebenarnya
melakukan sesuatu dengan kata-kata yang diujarkan itu. Kebiasaannya LB itu
membawa satu perubahan dalam keadaan sedia ada.
Dalam (3), apabila habis sahaja ujaran tersebut, seminar itu dianggap telah dirasmikan
sehinggalah majlis penutup (jika ada) dan sebelum ujaran itu, seminar bolehlah
dianggap sebagai belum rasmi lagi. Begitu juga dalam (4), sebaik sahaja ungkapan itu
dibuat majlis konvokesyen itu dianggap tidak tertangguh lagi dan disambung semula.
Pemerhatian Austin bahawa ujaran boleh “mengubah” sesuatu situasi sedia ada [seperti
juga perbuatan lain yang mengubah situasi misalnya menendang / menyepak bola,
menulis cerpen dan sebagainya], mendorong beliau kepada TLB dan merupakan intipati
kepada teori ini..
Ujaran (3 – 4) lazimnya dikenali sebagai ujaran perfomatif, yakni ujaran itu melakukan
sesuatu yang jelas berdasarkan kata kerja yang digunakan, yakni “merasmikan”;
“mengistiharkan”.
Bukti bahawa berbahasa boleh dianggap sebagai satu perbuatan jelas dalam hal kita
mengucapkan syabas kepada seseorang dengan mengujarkan kata “syabas”. Perbuatan
atau aksi “mengucap syabas” boleh juga disampaikan dengan menepuk belakang bahu
orang itu atau dengan memberikan isyarat “thumbs up” dengan ibu jari ke atas dan jari
lain digenggam.
Begitu juga kita boleh melakukan perbuatan melarang seseorang daripada merokok
dengan ujaran “Jangan merokok di sini” atau dengan hanya mengeling kepala dan
tangan. Memandangkan ujaran dalam dua keadaan membawa kesan (pengertian) yang
boleh dilakukan dengan perbuatan tanpa berbahasa, maka ujaran tersebut boleh
disamakan dengan perbuatan tanpa bahasa itu. Pemerhatian ini juga menyokong teori
lakuan bahasa, yakni sesungguhnya, bahasa itu merupakan sejenis “perbuatan” [dan
juga pengertian kepada tajuk buku TLB yang ulung “How to do things with words”].
Semua ayat di atas boleh dianggap sebagai membuat pernyataan , yakni menghuraikan
sesuatu keadaan. Namun dalam sesetengah konteks ujaran ini mempunyai fungsi lebih
daripada hanya membuat kenyataan dan dalam sesetengah konteks ujaran (5 – 8)
mungkin langsung bukan berupa kenyataan.
Ujaran (5), misalannya boleh mempunyai fungsi untuk memberi amaran. (6) pula
berfungsi untuk memohon sesuatu dilakukan dan (7) untuk menandakan
ketidaksetujuan. Ternyata bergantung kepada konteks ujaran, (5 – 7) bukan sekadar
membuat pernyataan (assert / delarative). Misalannya ayat (8) boleh mempunyai fungsi
yang berbeza:
[Dalam hal ini, TLB mungkin mempunyai persamaan dengan konsep “cakap berlapik” dalam
masyarakat Melayu.]
Bagaimanapula dengan jenis ayat selain dari ayat penyata (declaratives) seperti ayat
tanya (interogative); ayat suruhan (imperative)? Mengikut TLB, ayat-ayat seperti itu
juga boleh dianalisa dari segi “lakuan” atau perbuatan yang dilakukan oleh ujaran /
ayat tersebut. Dalam setiap ujaran di bawah, lakuan bahasa yang sama boleh tercapai
dengan menggunakan ujaran yang berlainan dengan struktur ayat yang berbeza.
Dengan kata lain tidak kira jenis ayat, sama ada ayat tanya, ayat seruan, ayat penyata,
kesemua ujaran itu boleh bertindak sebagai lakuan meminta (request) :
Lakuan bahasa boleh dibahagikan kepada dua jenis utama yakni Lakuan Bahasa
Langsung (LBL) dan Lakuan Bahasa Tak Langsung. Tidak banyak yang perlu
diperkatakan tentang LBL kerana lakuan bahasa seumpama ini mempunyai maksud
literal atau harfiah yang terkandung dalam kata serta bentuk ayat yang diujarkan.
Sebagai contoh lihat data perbualan telefon di bawah:
Lakuan Bahasa Langsung ujaran (A) adalah untuk menanya sama ada Encik Ahmad itu
ada di situ. Ini nyata dari bentuk dan kata yang terkandung dalam ujaran itu.
[Kemungkinan juga A mengatakan “Boleh saya tanya, Encik Ahmad ada?” [apa
perbezaan antara: “Boleh saya tanya, Encik Ahmad ada?” dengan “Encik Ahmad ada?”]
Lakuan Bahasa Tak Langsung dalam hal [A] merupakan satu permintaan untuk
bercakap dengan Encik Ahmad yakni maksud yang tidak langsung terkandung dalam
kata atau ayat ujaran tersebut.
Menurut Clark (197(), umumnya, dalam komunikasi atau perbualan antara manusia,
pihak pendengar dapat membalas (bertindak balas) kepada sesuatu LBTL boleh
mengambil beberapa rupa:
tindak balas atau maklum balas yang diidamkan oleh penutur daripada pendengar –
dalam hal “siapa bertugas hari ini?’ Pihak pendengar harus membuat satu pernyataan
tentang siapa yang bertugas atau menyampaikan / memberikan nama mereka yang
bertugas pada hari itu. Jika pendengar “mahu bekerjasama” dan situasi membenarkan,
maklumbalas itu yang akan diberikan. Ini dinamakan sebagai “maklumbalas atau
tindakbalas yang dijangkakan” (expected response).
Namun, penutur juga mungkin silap membuat andaian yang pihak pendengar “tahu”
siapa yang bertugas (mungkin jadual bertugas kelas sudah tercabut / belum disediakan
oleh ketua kelas dan sebagainya). Dalam hal sedemikian, pendengar mungkin memberi
maklumbalas seperti “Tiada orang bertugas hari ini” atau “Saya tidak tahu” atau
“Jadual bertugas belum disiapkan”. Mungkin juga jika pendengar tidak memahami
ujaran pengucap (misalannya tidak jelas dengan tugasan apa yang dimaksudkan kerana
ada yang bertugas menyapu dan ada orang lain yang bertugas memadam papan hitam
dsbnya.) mungkin juga pendengar membalas dengan pertanyaan “Tugas apa, cikgu?”
Maklumbalas seperti di atas juga merupakan tindakbalas pendengar yang “mahu
bekerjasama” tetapi bukanlah “maklumbalas atau tindakbalas yang dijangkakan”.
Mungkin juga pendengar tidak begitu gemar atau suka dengan pengucap dan tidak
mahu bekerjasama dengan pengucap. Dalam hal ini, pelbagai jenis maklumbalas tidak
mahu bekerjasama (uncooperative responses) diberikan.
Jika pendengar (yang mahu bekerjasama) merasakan dirinya tidak boleh mencapai
ketiga perkara di atas maka tindakbalas yang diberikan itu boleh mempunyai fungsi
awalan. Contohnya dalam kes “Siapa bertugas hari ini?” – pendengar mungkin
bertindakbalas “Biar saya semak …. Danial. Dia tak datang hari ini” Bahagian
awalan “biar saya semak” bukanlah merupakan tindak balas yang dijangkakan
tetapi merupakan mempunyai tindak balas awalan bagi meyakinkan pengucap
bahawa pendengar faham maksud pengucap. Bahagian kedua “Danial” merupakan
tindakbalas yang menepati maksud pengucap dan berfungsi sebagai tindakbalas
yang menepati jangkaan. Tindak balas penambahan adalah tindak balas yang tidak
bertindak menangani maksud ujaran pengucap. Dalam kes di atas “dia tak datang
hari ini” merupakan tindak balas penambahan. [cf. “yang bertugas tak hadir hari
ini”]