PRAGMATIC CONTEXTS

MALINOWSKIS CONTEXTUAL MEANING AND PRAGMATIC MEANING

By: R. Yohanes Radjaban

Abstract A study on context is problematic (Schiffrin, 1994: 383). One reason for this is that the study on context means the study on something else that is vague and really broad in a sense. Another reason for the study is that there is often overlapping definitions on context proposed by pragmatics and sociolinguistics since both of them study contexts. This article is particularly going to discuss pragmatic contexts that are different from sociolinguistic ones. Malinowskis contextual meaning which inspires further studies by some linguists of the same interest represents the embryonic ideas on sociolinguistic context. His affected followers try to define contexts to help understand utterance meaning. Keywords: pragmatic context, contextual meaning, utterance meaning I. INTRODUCTION When first I read J. K. Rowlings three-year-bestseller book Harry Potter and the Sorcerers Stone, I found out that Rowlings way to begin her story is similar with the one found in Peter Pan, The Indian in the Cupboard, The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe. Each book begins with the real world and moves to the fantasy, and then returns to the real world. There is a kind of a classic fantasy pattern in those five books. It is worth noting that the books have different authors, settings, plots, and even themes. Is it a coincidence? Surprisingly, the answer is no. It is not a coincidence. Lvi-Strauss (Widdowson, 1997; 73) argues that all mythsstories and other cultural products are considered mythshave structural pattern which gives the myths meanings. He believes that this linguistic model will uncover the basic structure of the human mindthe

structure, which governs the way human beings shape all their institutions, artifacts and forms of knowledge. (pp. 73-74) To Lvi-Strauss, the structures of myth point to the structures of human mind common to all peoplethat is, to the way all human beings think. Myth thus becomes a languagea universal narrative mode that transcends cultural or temporal barriers and speaks to all people, in the process tapping deep reservoirs of feeling and experience. (Guerin, L. Wilfred & Friends; 1992: 336) Lvi-Strauss, like other structuralists, agrees that literature has a special relationship with language: it draws attention to the very nature and specific properties of language. (Widdowson, 1997; 72) According to Jan Mukarovsky, the work of art is perceived as such only against a more general background of signification. In Saussures view, words are not symbols which correspond to referents, but rather are signs which are made up of two parts: a mark, either written or spoken, called a signifier, and a conceptwhat is thought when a mark is madecalled a signified. (p. 67 68) Language is one among many sign-systems. The science of such system is called semiotic. (p. 68). Within semiotics, Morris (Levinson, C. Stephen, 1983: 1) distinguished three distinct branches of inquiry: syntactics, being the study of the formal relation of signs to one another, semantics, the study of the relations of signs to the objects to which the signs are applicable, and pragmatics, the study of the relation of signs to interpreters. Talking about pragmatics means talking about meanings of utterances which cannot be accounted for by straightforward reference to the truth conditions of the sentences uttered. (Qazdar in Levinson, 1983; 12) It means that pragmatics is concerned with the study of the aspects of meaning not covered in semantics. Another definition of

pragmatics says that pragmatics is the study of the relations between language and context that are basic to an account of language understanding. Poedjosudarmo differentiates meanings into two types of meanings. One is contrastive meaning and the other is contextual meaning. To obtain the meaning of utterances, Malinowski argues that one need merely correlate the utterances with the context of concurrent human activity. In this paper, the discussion will mainly focus on meanings, which Malinowski concerns and which pragmatics concerns. I am interested in talking about this simply because both Malinowski and pragmatics correlate meanings to contexts. I would like to find out if both of their views on meaning have relation. This paper will also explicate (1) the principles of Malinowskis view on meanings, (2) the definitions of pragmatics and the aspects of meaning in pragmatics. I. DISCUSSION In this section, I will describe some theories related to the main focus of this paper. They are (1) the principles of Malinowskis view on meanings, (2) the definitions of pragmatics and the aspects of meaning in pragmatics. Based on these theories, the paper will analyze the relation between Malinowskis contextual meaning and pragmatic meaning. a. Malinowskis view on meanings Bronislaw Malinowski is an anthropologist. He did a lot of research in ethnographical fields. He was the only anthropologist who had had an abiding interest in language. (Langendoen, D. Terence, 1968; 2) Malinowskis view on language are reflected on his ethnographical findings summed up in: Classificatory Particles

(1920), Argonauts of the Western Pacific (1922), The Problem of Meaning (1923), and Coral Garden and Their Magic (1935). 1. Classificatory Particles (1920) Throughout the paper, Malinowski asserted that there is a need for the development of a theory of semantics that will enable researchers in linguistics to probe more deeply into language structure. He argued that a semantic theory should be connected closely with ethnographic theory, since an understanding of what people mean by what they say depends upon what their culture is (p. 7). Since Malinowskis understanding of universal grammar was traditional school grammar, he proposed that a semantic theory must provide a basis for the definition of the traditional parts of speech, their modification like cases and tenses, and certain grammatical relations like subject and predicate. Malinowski added that the definition of categories and relations of universal grammar should take into account the semantic circumstances provided by the cultural environment in which the language is spoken (p 10). Malinowski simply argued that the cultural importance of bunches of fruit in Kiriwina accounts for the existence of a special classificatory particle for each of several nouns designating bunches of fruit in the language. Similarly, there is a classificatory particle used only with a noun designating batches of fish , since batches of fish play an important role in the economic life of the island (p 11).

2. Argonauts of the Western Pacific (1922) Malinowski had little to say about language in Argonauts of the Western Pacific. He remarked that the language of magical texts is not like ordinary language. Magical style does not serve to communicate ideas from one person to another but is an instrument serving special purposes. It is for the exercise of mans specific power over things and its meaning can be understood only in correlation to this aim (p. 15). Malinowski seemed to believe that the meaning of magical text could be arrived at through rules, which are different from the rules governing the meaning of ordinary discourse. In sentences of ordinary discourse, the meaning is arrived at by concatenation of the meanings of the elements in the sentences. He added that the order of words in sentences reflects the order of ideas in the mind. The semantic properties of magical texts are exceptional. 3. The Problem of Meaning (1923) In this article, Malinowskis linguistic views are radically different. He exactly reversed his assertion in Argonauts of the Western Pacific that the language of magic is a kind of a language use. In this article he considered that the language of magic is an exemplification of the basic and primary use of language, and that the use of language to communicate ideas is special or derivative. An utterance receives its meaning not from a logical concatenation of the ideas expressed by the words comprising it but from its relation to the situational context in which it occurs (p. 16). Utterances and situation are bound up with each

other and the context of the situation is indispensable for the understanding of words. Utterance has no meaning except in the context of situation. To obtain the meaning of utterances, Malinowski argues that one need merely correlate the utterances with the context of concurrent human activity. The problem then occurs when one is going to obtain the meaning of written language. Written language is the only kind of language for which a semantic interpretation cannot be supplied by a context of human activity. He then explains that it might be possible to characterize the meaning of the sentence in terms of the meanings of the lexical items comprising it. At one point Malinowski denied the assumption that the meaning of lexical items is contained in them, yet here he explicitely refers to the meaning of lexical items (p. 19). Malinowski proposes three different types of context of situation. Those are: (1) situation in which putatively speech interrelates directly with bodily activity that is culturally significant, (2) narrativesthe situation of the moment of narration and the situation referred to by the narrative, (3) situation in which speech is used to fillso to speaka speech vacuum. (p. 21) 4. Coral Garden and Their Magic (1935) In this book, Malinowski introduced three major ideas into his semantic theory, and all of them are related to the notion that the objective of linguistic analysis is to interpret actual texts in a foreign language in the language of the ethnographer. The first is concerned with the context of linguistic data. The real linguistic fact is the full utterances within its context of situation. The second new major idea concerns with the range of meaning. If a sound is used in two different contexts, it

cannot be called one word. It must be considered as really two words that happen to be homophonous. The third major notion in Coral Garden is that the context of situation may be enable one to disambiguate sentences that are semantically ambiguous. Within Malinowskis theory, on the other hand, no sentence should be ambiguous, since it can be correlated with at most only one context of situation at a time. (p. 30 31) b. Defining Pragmatics and the Aspects of Meaning in Pragmatics A number of distinct usages of the term pragmatics have sprung from Morriss original division of semiotics: the study of the huge range of psychological and sociological phenomena involved in sign systems in general or in language in particular; or the study of certain abstract concepts that make reference to agents (Carnaps sense); or the study of indexicals or deitic terms (Montagues sense); or finally the recent usage within Anglo-American linguistics and philosophy. Traditionally, syntax is taken to be the study of he combinatorial properties of words and their parts, and semantics to be the study of meaning, so (1) pragmatics is the study of language usage. Such a definition hardly suffices to indicate what the practioners of pragmatics actually do. Let us consider a set of possible definitions of pragmatics. One possible definition might go as follows: (2) pragmatics is the study of the principles that will account for why a certain set of sentences is anomalous, or not possible utterances. The sentences like Freds children are hippies, and he has no children; I order you not to obey this order do not have contexts in which they could be appropriately used (Levinson, 1983: 7). Although an approach of this sort may be quite a good way of illustrating the kind of principles

that pragmatics is concerned with, it will hardly do as an explicit definition of the field. Another kind of definition that might be offered would be that (3) pragmatics is the study of language from a functional perspective, that is, that it attempts to explain facets of linguistic structure by reference to non-linguistic pressures and causes. Such a definition for pragmatics would fail to distinguish linguistic pragmatics from many other disciplines interested in functional approaches to language, including psycholinguistics and sociolinguistics. One quite restricted scope for pragmatics is that (4) pragmatics should be concerned solely with principles of language usage, and have nothing to do with the description of linguistic structure . To ivoke, Chomskys distinction between competence and performance, pragmatics is concerned solely with performance principles of language use. Katz and Fodor suggested that a theory of pragmatics would essentially be concerned with the disambiguation of sentences by the contexts in which they were uttered. (p. 8) In fact, it is clear that contexts do a lot more than merely select between available semantic reading of sentences. Here we come to the heart of the definitional problem. Let us consider some potential definitions that are more plausible candidates. We may begin with a definition that is specially aimed at capturing the concern of pragmatics with features of language structure. (5) Pragmatics is the study of the relations between language and context that are grammaticalized, or encoded in the structure of a language. (p. 9) The main strength of this definition of pragmatics is that it restricts the field to purely linguistic matter. It is a definition that handles the aspect of

pragmatics concerned with linguistic structure, but not the side concerned with principles of language usage, or at least only indirectly as they impinge on linguistic organization. In the definition above, the notion of encoding implies that pragmatics is concerned with certain aspects of meaning. One kind of definition that would make this central might run is that pragmatics is the study of all those aspects of meaning not captured in a semantic theory. Such a theory means that there will be a great deal of the general field of meaning left unaccounted for by a restricted semantic theory, and this could be indeed the domain of pragmatics. (p. 12) The distinction between sentence and utterance is of fundamental importance to both semantics and pragmatics. A sentence is an abstract theoretical entity defined within a theory of grammar, while an utterance is the issuance of a sentence in an actual context. Semantics is concerned with sentence-meaning, and pragmatics with utterance-meaning. (p. 18 19) Let us turn to another definition that would give he context-dependent nature of such phenomenon more centrality. (6) Pragmatics is the study of relations between language and context that are basic to an account of language understanding. Here the term understanding is used to draw attention to the fact that understanding an utterance involves a great deal more that knowing the meanings of the words uttered and the grammatical relations between them. The strengths of such a definition are hat it recognizes that (7) pragmatics is essentially concerned with inference (Thomson in Levinson, 1983; 21). Given a linguistic form uttered in a context, a pragmatic theory must account for the inference

of presuppositions, implicatures, illocutionary force and other pragmatic implications. Secondly, it does not make the distinction between semantics and pragmatics along the encoded or non-encoded line. This is important because there still controversy over whether such pragmatic implications as presuppositions or illocutionary force are or are not encoded or grammaticalized in linguistic forms. Thirdly, it includes most aspects of the study of principles of language usage. (p. 21) Let us now turn to one of the definitions most favoured in the literature. This definition would make central to pragmatics a notion of appropriateness or felicity. (8) Pragmatics is the study of the ability of language users to pair sentences with the context in which they would be appropriate . Such a definition provide a nice parallel with semantics: for just as a semantic theory is concerned with the recursive assignment of truth conditions to well-formed formulae, so pragmatics is concerned with the recursive assignment of appropriateness-conditions to the same set of sentences with their semantic interpretations. In other words, a pragmatic theory should predict for each and every well-formed sentence of a language, on a particular semantic reading, the set of contexts in which it would be appropriate. (p. 24 25) Let us now turn to the last definition of pragmatics that is simply to provide a list of the phenomena for which a pragmatic theory must account. (9) Pragmatics is the study of deixis, implicature, presupposition, speech act, and aspects of discourse structure. (p. 27) c. Defining Pragmatic Context Based on the definition of pragmatic context above general pragmatics focuses the study on real language utterances. In the real communication, any utterance is

10

always affected by communicative contexts usually called pragmatic contexts. In a simple way, pragmatic contexts consist of all factors defining utterances meanings. The fact that there is a relationship between language and the context in which it occurs can be demonstrated in a number of ways. First, note that we use different language to achieve similar purposes in different contexts. (1) You havent got any money on you, but want to buy a newspaper. (2) You need to borrow a few thousand pounds to buy a new flat. (3) You would like to go on a world cruise, but need to borrow most of the money for this from your bank. Clearly, in each situation many different things could be said. What is important to note is that different types of language are likely to be appropriate in different contexts, and our choice of language depends on such things as who is involved in the communication and the relationship between them, and what we hope to achieve through our communication. Second, the same language can have different meanings in different contexts. Think about what the questions mean in the following situations: (4) Andi has fallen off his bike and landed awkwardly. Dany does an initial assessment of his injuries and the says: Can you move your legs? (5) Nicole is sitting with legs outstretched in an armchair in a small sitting room. Nanny is carrying a tray of glasses past where Nicole is sitting. Nanny says: Can you move your legs?

11

While an analysis of linguistic form would suggest that the two utterances are identical, the messages they convey in the invented contexts is different. In the first, Dany asks about Andis physical ability to move his legs in order to assess the seriousness of the injury. In the second, Nanny makes a request. The same words, then, can convey different messages depending on the context in which they occur. Third, even when a stretch of language is taken out of context, we can sometimes infer a great deal about the context from which it was taken. Think abour what we can say about the context for each of the following: (6) Fifteen love. (7) First check the content to make sure that nothing is missing. (8) This town aint big enough for both of us. The usual context for the first is quite specific: said by an umpire in a tennis match. The second is often the first instruction that comes with a self-assembly item, for example flat-packed furniture. The third is the kind of thing said in old cowboy and western films prior to a confrontation between two characters. d. Approaches to study linguistic contexts Although Malinowski highlighted the significance of context in

communication, he did not set out to describe precisely either the nature of context, or its impact on language choice, and it has left to later researchers to explore in more detail the relationship between context and how language is organized to achieve communication. Three in particular John Rupert Firth, Dell Hymes, and Michael Halliday have had a major impact on linguistic contexts.

12

1. John Rupert Firth Firths concern was to determine which of the many variables in a situation allow us to predict the language to be used. He suggested the following dimension of situation as being of potential influence: 1) The relevant features of participants: persons, personalities, (i) The verbal action of the participants,

(ii) The relevant objects, (iii) The effect of the verbal action. To illustrate, we might imagine a scene in a theatre box office where a customer is booking a ticket for a future performance. Relevant features of the participants may be that one is a customer who wishes to check seat availability and purchase a ticket while the other is a booking clerk who has access to information about availability and the means of receiving payment. Verbal actions may involve greeting, checking, requesting, confirming, and so on. Non-verbal actions may include keying in information on the computer, pointing to a seating plan, and handing over a credit card. Relevant objects might include a computer, a seating plan, a credit card, and a machine for transacting credit card payments. The effect of the verbal action is that the customer receives tickets for the performance, and the seats are designated reserved by the booking clerk. 2. Firsts interest in specifying the features of context which are potentially relevant to the form, appropriacy and meaning of utterances was also pursued by Dell Hymes (in Bell, 1976). Hymes provides what is essentially a checklist of contextual factors that could be noted by researchers in investigating

13

communicative events. He usually organizes these using the mnemonic SPEAKING: S refers to the setting and scene, including the time, place and concrete physical circumstances in which the event is produced. P refers to the participants involved. Some events, such as a conversation, may have just two participants who encourage roles between speaker and hearer, while a formal lecture will have many participants but only one who takes on the role of speaker. E refers to ends, or the purposes or goals of an event. Some events have very clear ends. Announced over the public address system during the interval in a concert, the purpose of the following is very clear: Ladies and gentlemen. This evenings performance will recommence in five minutes. Please take your seats in the auditorium now. A refers to act sewuence, or the form and content of the event. Events such as lecture, chat, shopping, list and instruction manual will be associated with different things talked or written about and different kinds of language. K refers to key, the tone in which a communicative act is done, such as serious or painstaking. I refers to instrumentalities, including the channel in which communication takes place such as speech, writing or some other mode of communication. N refers to norm of interaction and interpretation, such as the norms associated with interaction in a church service or speaking to a stranger. G refers to genre, such as poem, sermon or joke.

14

3. Building closely on Firths work, Michael Halliday explores which aspects of context influence how we use language. For Halliday (1978) the social context consists of those general properties of the situation which collectively function as the determinants of text, in that they specify the semantic configurations that the speaker will typically in contexts of the given type. He suggests that in any situation these general properties can be organized into three dimensions that have linguistic consequences, which he calls the field, tenor, and mode. Field refers to what the language is being used to talk about. Tenor refers to the role relationships between the people involved in the interaction. Significant variables include the relative status of the interactants, how frequently interaction between them occurs, and the extent to which the interactants are involved emotionally in a situation. Mode refers to the way in which language function in the situation: for example, whether it is spoken or written.

II. CONCLUSION From the two different basic theories, we may say that Malinowski made of the knowledge of context of situation to interpret particular utterances in the texts that he had collected. We discover that in fact he use it to supply their semantic interpretation and to supplement his knowledge of their meaning, which he obtained independently of his knowledge of their contextual setting. In evaluating the influence of Malinowskis views about language, and in particular about semantics, it is important to realize that his idea on the role of context to assert meanings have great effects. Viewed from the sequence of time, I can say that Malinowskis idea influences very much Morriss introduction of

15

pragmaticspragmatics is the study of aspects of language that require reference to the users of the language. Afterwards, Malinowskis idea on contextual meaning plays very great role on pragmatists further definitions on pragmaticsdefinitions (6), (7), (8), and (9). From the date of publication, Malinowskis articles about semantics, in particular about the important role of contexts in decoding meanings, were issued earlier Classificatory Particles (1920), Argonauts of the Western Pacific (1922), The Problem of Meaning (1923), and Coral Garden and Their Magic (1935)than Morriss introduction of the trichotomy syntax, semantics, and pragmatics(1938). I do not think that Morriss semiotic trichotomy was issued three years after Malinowskis Coral Garden and Their Magic (1935) was a coincidence. Based on the two arguments above, I might argue that Malinowskis views on semantics, in particular about the idea of his contextual meanings, very much inspired the scope of pragmatics meanings, especially the ones which account for the role of contexts in decoding meanings.

16

Refferences:
Barthes, Roland, (1957), Mythologies, Hill and Wang, USA Bell, Roger, T., 1976, Sociolinguistics: Goals, Approaches and Problems, B. T. Batsford, Ltd., London. Clark H. Herbert & Clark V. Eve, (1970), Psychology and Language, an Introduction to Psycholinguistics, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Publishers, USA Dineen, Francis P. S J., (1967), An Introduction to General Linguistics, George Town University Press. Eagleton, Terry, (1996), Literary Theory, The University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN 55401-50 Firth, J. R., 1957, Men and Culture: An Evaluation of the Work of Bronislaw Malinowsky , London, England: Routledge and Kega Paul. Gazdar, G. 1979, Pragmatics: Implicatures, Presupposition and Logical Form, New York, Academic Press. Guerin, L. Wilfred, (1992), A Handbook of Critical Approaches to Literature, Oxford University Press Halliday, M. A. K., 1978, Language as Social Semiotic, London: Edward Arnold. Hewings Ann, & Hewings, Martin, 2005, Discourse Analyses, Routledge 2 Park Square, Oxon, USA. Langendoesn, D. Terence, (1968), The London School of Linguistics, The M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts Levinson, Stephen, 1983, Pragmatics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Malinowski, B., 1923, The Problems of Meaning in Primitive Languages, Suplement to Odgen & Richards, 4th ed, 1966. Poedjosoedarno, S. ( ), Meaning and Distinctive Semantic Features, Schiffrin, Deborah, 1994, Approaches to Discourse, Blackwell Publishers Inc., Malden, Massachusetts, USA. Widdowson, Peter & Peter Brooker, (1997), A Reader Guide to Contemporary Literature Theory, Prentice Hall/Harvester Wheatsheaf, Hertfordshire, HP2 7EZ

17

Biodata: R. Yohanes Radjaban was born on October 10th, 1968 in Purworejo. He completed his Sarjana Pendidikan at IKIP Negeri Yogyakarta (UNY: State University of Yogyakarta now) in 1994. He pursued his S-2 degree at English Language Studies Graduate Program of Santa Dharma University in 2003. He works for Faculty of Letters and Culture of Yogyakarta University of Technology. Other data:

Nama Dosen
Kantor
Pusat Bahasa Fakultas Universitas Atma Jaya Yogyakarta Jalan Babarsari 44 Yogyakarta 55281 INDONESIA 62-274-487711 # [ext. kantor], Fax. 62-274-[fax terdekat] e-mail: [alamat e-mail]

Rumah
Perum Kalangan Baru II No B-7 Baturetno, Banguntapan, Bantul Yogyakarta, INDONESIA 0274-4353615 0274-7832319 e-mail:welltied4raja@yahoo.com

DATA PRIBADI_______________________________________________________________
Nama lengkap dan gelar Tempat dan tanggal lahir Jenis kelamin Status perkawinan : : : : R. Yohanes Radjaban, S Pd., M Hum. Purworejo, 10 Oktober 1968 Laki-laki Menikah

RIWAYAT PENDIDIKAN__________________________________________________________
2007 - .......................... Linguistik Deskriptif PPs Universitas Sebelas Maret Solo 2001 - 2003 1990 - 1994 Magister Humaniora Kajian Bahasa Inggris Program Pasca Sarjana Universitas Sanata Dharma Yogyakarta Existential There in English Sarjana Pendidikan Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris IKIP Negeri Yogyakarta Indonesian Learners Errors in Simple Present Tense Sentences Made by Students of SMU Negeri 2 Wonosari in 1993. Diploma III Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris IKIP Negeri Yogyakarta SMA Negeri I Purworejo SMP Negeri II Purworejo SD K Karitas Purworejo

1987 - 1990 1984 - 1987 1981 - 1984 1974 - 1981

18

RIWAYAT PEKERJAAN__________________________________________________________
1990 - 1994 1994 - Sekarang 2003 - Sekarang Guru Bahasa Inggris SMA K Dominicus Wonosari Dosen Bahasa Inggris di Fak Sastra dan Budaya Univ. Teknologi Yogyakarta Pengajar Tidak Tetap Bahasa Inggris Untuk Pusat Bahasa UJY

RIWAYAT JABATAN____________________________________________________________
September 1998 September 1999 September 1999 September 2002 Kepala UPT Perpustakan ABYO Asisten Pembantu Direktur III ABAYO

PENGALAMAN KEPANITIAAN_____________________________________________________
1996 2002 1995 2002 Sekretaris Umum Panitia Penerimaan Mahasiswa Baru ABAYO Pelatih Paduan Suara Mahasiswa ABAYO

PENGALAMAN ORGANISASI______________________________________________________
September 1990 Sekarang September 2003 - Sekarang Sekretaris Yayasan Astindo Group Sekrataris Yayasan BMW
DLL.__________________________________-

SEMINAR, LOKAKARYA, PELATIHAN, __________

Tanggal 26 Oktober 2002 6 8 Mei 2002 5 Mei 2003
Keterangan:

Deskripsi

Jenis (beri ) Lainnya L P (sebutkan)

Tingkat (beri ) R N I

Peran Serta (beri ) Peserta Penyaji

Existential There in English Seminar Internasional USD Topicalisation Principles on the Rhetoric Function of English Existential
R : Regional N : Nasional I : Internasional

S : Seminar L : Lokakarya P : Pelatihan

PENELITIAN_________________________________________________________________
Tahun Agt Judul Penelitian Sumber Dana (beri ) Mandiri The Correlation Between EGRA: Experience, UAJY Lainnya (sebutkan) R Tingkat (beri ) N I Peneliti ke(beri ) 2 1 dst.

19

Des 1999

Generalization, Reinforcement, and Application and ABAYOs Lecturers Teaching Achievements 2002 - The Existential There in English (Thesis S-2) 2003
Keterangan: R : Regional N : Nasional I : Internasional

KOPERTIS Mandiri

PUBLIKASI__________________________________________________________________
Judul Publikasi, Identitas Jurnal/Majalah/Koran/Buku /Penerbit, Tahun Verb Positions in English untuk LLT Journal PBI USD 2002 Progressive Assimilation on English Voiced Velar /g/ untuk Journal Literate FSB UTY 2003 Ambiguous Sentence Patterns with To- Infinitives untuk Journal Literate FSB UTY 2004 Deconstructions Between Magic and Modern Communities in J. K. Rowlings Harry Potter and the Sorcerers Stone untuk Literate Journal FSB UTY 2004 Never On Wednesday, A Pragmatic paper untuk Journal Literate FSB UTY 2005 Selamat Pagi for Indonesian People untuk Literate Journal FSB UTY 2006
Keterangan: R : Regional N : Nasional I : Internasional

Sumber Materi (beri ) Skripsi S1 Tesis S2 Disertasi S3 Penelitian Lainnya R

Tingkat (beri ) N I

Penulis ke(beri ) 2 1 dst.

PENGABDIAN _________
Tahun 1999 2000 2001

PADA

MASYARAKAT________________________________________Sumber Dana (beri ) Lainnya Mandiri UAJY (sebutkan) Tingkat (beri ) R N I

Nama Kegiatan Pendampingan Pengajaran Bahasa Inggris Untuk Sekolah Dasar Pendampingan Pengajaran Bahasa Inggris Untuk Sekolah Dasar Pendampingan Pengajaran Bahasa Inggris Untuk Sekolah Dasar

20

2002
Keterangan:

Pendampingan Pengajaran Bahasa Inggris Untuk Sekolah Dasar

R : Regional N : Nasional I : Internasional

PENGHARGAAN_______________________________________________________________
Tahun Nama Penghargaan Pemberi Penghargaan Tingkat (beri ) R N I

Keterangan:

R : Regional N : Nasional I : Internasional

21