malinowskis linguistic theory paper

7/28/2019 Malinowskis Linguistic Theory Paper

1/21

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 thisis 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 sociolinguisticones. Malinowskis contextual meaning which inspires further studies by

some linguists of the same interest represents the embryonic ideas onsociolinguistic 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

1


2/21

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

2


3/21

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 contextualmeaning. To obtain the meaning of utterances, Malinowski argues that

one need merely correlate the utterances with the contextof 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

3


4/21

(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).

4


5/21

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

5


6/21

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

6


7/21

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

7


8/21

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

8


9/21

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

9


10/21

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


11/21

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


12/21

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


13/21

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


14/21

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.

Prefers 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.

Erefers 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.

Arefers 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.

Krefers 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.

Nrefers to norm of interaction and interpretation, such as the norms associated

with interaction in a church service or speaking to a stranger.

Grefers to genre, such as poem, sermon or joke.

14


15/21

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


16/21

pragmaticspragmatics is the study of aspects of language that require referenceto 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


17/21

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


18/21

Biodata:

R. Yohanes Radjaban was born on October 10th, 1968 in Purworejo. He completed his SarjanaPendidikan 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 ofTechnology.

Other data:

Nama DosenKantorPusat BahasaFakultas

Universitas Atma Jaya YogyakartaJalan Babarsari 44 Yogyakarta 55281 INDONESIA

62-274-487711 # [ext. kantor], Fax. 62-274-[fax terdekat]e-mail: [alamat e-mail]

RumahPerum Kalangan Baru II No B-7Baturetno, Banguntapan, Bantul

Yogyakarta, INDONESIA0274-43536150274-7832319e-mail:[email protected]

DATA PRIBADI_______________-________________________________________________

Nama lengkap dangelar

: R. Yohanes Radjaban, S Pd., M Hum.

Tempat dan tanggallahir

: Purworejo, 10 Oktober 1968

Jenis kelamin : Laki-laki

Status perkawinan : Menikah

RIWAYATPENDIDIKAN__________________________________________________________

2007 - ..........................Linguistik Deskriptif PPs Universitas Sebelas Maret Solo

2001 - 2003 Magister HumanioraKajian Bahasa Inggris Program Pasca Sarjana Universitas Sanata Dharma YogyakartaExistential There in English

1990 - 1994 Sarjana Pendidikan

Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris IKIP Negeri YogyakartaIndonesian Learners Errors in Simple Present Tense Sentences Made by Students of SMUNegeri 2 Wonosari in 1993.

1987 - 1990 Diploma IIIPendidikan Bahasa Inggris IKIP Negeri Yogyakarta

1984 - 1987 SMA Negeri I Purworejo1981 - 1984 SMP Negeri II Purworejo1974 - 1981 SD K Karitas Purworejo

18


19/21

RIWAYAT PEKERJAAN_________________________________________________-_________

1990 - 1994 Guru Bahasa Inggris SMA K Dominicus Wonosari1994 - Sekarang Dosen Bahasa Inggris di Fak Sastra dan Budaya Univ. Teknologi Yogyakarta2003 - Sekarang Pengajar Tidak Tetap Bahasa Inggris Untuk Pusat Bahasa UJY

RIWAYAT JABATAN___________________________________________________-_________

September 1998 September 1999 Kepala UPT Perpustakan ABYOSeptember 1999 September 2002 Asisten Pembantu Direktur III ABAYO

PENGALAMANKEPANITIAAN_____________________________________________________

1996 2002 Sekretaris Umum Panitia Penerimaan Mahasiswa Baru ABAYO1995 2002 Pelatih Paduan Suara Mahasiswa ABAYO

PENGALAMANORGANISASI______________________________________________________

September 1990 Sekarang Sekretaris Yayasan Astindo GroupSeptember 2003 - Sekarang Sekrataris Yayasan BMW

SEMINAR, LOKAKARYA, PELATIHAN, DLL.__________________________________-

__________

Tanggal Deskripsi

Jenis (beri ) Tingkat (beri ) Peran Serta (berS L P

Lainnya(sebutkan)

R N I Peserta Peny

26 Oktober 2002 Existential There in English 6 8 Mei 2002 Seminar Internasional USD 5 Mei 2003 Topicalisation Principles on

the Rhetoric Function ofEnglish Existential

Keterangan: S : SeminarL : LokakaryaP : Pelatihan

R : RegionalN : NasionalI : Internasional

PENELITIAN________________________________________________________-_________

Tahun Judul Penelitian

Sumber Dana (beri ) Tingkat(beri ) Peneliti (beri

Mandiri UAJYLainnya

(sebutkan)R N I 1

d

Agt The Correlation Between EGRA: Experience,

19


20/21

Des1999

Generalization, Reinforcement, andApplication and ABAYOs Lecturers TeachingAchievements

KOPERTIS

2002 -2003

The Existential There in English (Thesis S-2) Mandiri

Keterangan: R : RegionalN : NasionalI : Internasional

PUBLIKASI_________________________________________________-_________________

Judul Publikasi, IdentitasJurnal/Majalah/Koran/Buku

/Penerbit, Tahun

Sumber Materi (beri ) Tingkat(beri ) Penulis (beri

SkripsiS1

TesisS2

DisertasiS3

Penelitian Lainnya R N I 1d

Verb Positions in English untukLLT Journal PBI USD 2002

Progressive Assimilation onEnglish Voiced Velar /g/ untukJournal Literate FSB UTY 2003

Ambiguous Sentence Patternswith To- Infinitives untukJournal Literate FSB UTY 2004

Deconstructions Between Magicand Modern Communities in J.K. Rowlings Harry Potter andthe Sorcerers Stone untukLiterate Journal FSB UTY 2004

Never On Wednesday, APragmatic paper untuk JournalLiterate FSB UTY 2005

Selamat Pagi for IndonesianPeople untuk Literate JournalFSB UTY 2006


PENGABDIAN PADA MASYARAKAT________________________________________-_________

Tahun Nama Kegiatan

Sumber Dana (beri ) Tingkat (beriMandiri UAJY

Lainnya(sebutkan)

R N

1999 Pendampingan Pengajaran Bahasa Inggris UntukSekolah Dasar



20


21/21



PENGHARGAAN______________________________________________________-_________

Tahun Nama Penghargaan Pemberi PenghargaanTingkat (beri

R N


malinowskis linguistic theory paper

Documents