THE DIALOGUE BETWEEN MURSYID AND SALIK AT
SUFISM STUDY OF LATHIFUL QOLBI IN SURABAYA:
DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
Oleh: Abdulloh Dahlawi, S.S.,M.Pd
Dosen Pendidikan Bahasa dan Sastra Inggris
IKIP WDYADARMA SURABAYA
Abstrak: Wacana merupakan sekelompok bahasa dalam susunan kalimat
yang digunakan untuk berkomunikasi di dalam konteks social. Satuan
bahasa terdiri dari sebuah rangkaian kalimat atau ujaran. Wacana bisa dalam
bentuk lisan ataupun tulisan dan mempunyai kualitas transaksional dan
interpersonal. Di dalam peristiwa komunikasi lisan, bisa dilihat bahwa
wacana sebagai sebuah proses komunikasi antara pembicara dan pendengar,
tetapi dalam komunikasi tulis wacana dilihat sebagai sebuah hasil ungkapan
sebuah ide pembicara dan pendengar. Disiplin ilmu yang berusaha mengkaji
penggunaan bahasa yang nyata dalam tindak komunikasi disebut analisis
wacana. Data dalam analisis wacana selalu berupa teks, baik teks lisan
maupun tulis. Teks di sini mengacu pada bentuk transkripsi rangkaian
kalimat atau ujaran. Kalimat digunakan dalam ragam bahasa tulis
sedangkan ujaran digunakan untuk mengacu pada kalimat dalam ragam
bahasa lisan. Sumber data dalam analisis wacana adalah para pemakai
bahasa, namun jumlahnya terbatas seperti dalam kajian kasus. Analisis
wacana pada umumnya bertujuan untuk mencari keteraturan, bukan kaidah.
Keteraturan itu berkaitan dengan keberterimaan di masyarakat. Analisis
wacana cenderung tidak merumuskan kaidah secara ketat seperti dalam tata
bahasa. Analisis wacana ini hanya difokuskan pada jenis-jenis tindak tutur,
bentuk-bentuk ujaran, dan makna ujaran yang digunakan di dalam dialog
sufi, Lathiful Qolbi.
Kata kunci: Tindak Tutur, Piranti Kohesif, Pragmatik dan konteks
wacana.
INTRODUCTION
The aim of Sufism is to bring oneself as near as possible to God, even to unite with
Him (ittihad). Since God is immaterial and holy, the only element of a human being
that could approach Him is the soul, hence the human soul should be pure. Purifying
the soul (heart) is accomplished through worship; to be near to God, a Sufi should
follow the ways / paths (turuq), which are a long and difficult process consisting of
stages (maqamat) as well as certain conditions (ahwal). As in philosophy, Sufism
discusses the basic principles, but unlike the former, which uses reason as a tool,
Sufism utilizes the sense of feeling which is in the heart (qalb) as a means to seek God.
Based on the description above, the researcher wants to analyze the dialogue of
Sufism study of Lathiful Qolbi in Surabaya through the discourse analysis. In this case,
there are several theories that will be used to see the language aspect of the dialogue.
They are Speech acts elements, Discourse elements, and intended meaning. The speech
acts have been analyzed by some researchers but they only emphasize on the written
speech acts. In this study the researcher will analyzes the dialogue through spoken
discourse. So there will be a speech act element will be analyzed they are locutionary,
illocutionary, and perlocutionary acts. In this thesis, used discourse analysis, because
the data happened naturally without any personal interest/conspiration before. It is line
with what Crystal (1997:118) states that discourse is a set of a behavioral unit which
constitutes any recognizable speech event (no reference being made to its linguistic
structuring, if any), e.g. a conversation, a joke, a sermon, an interview.
Language is an instrument of communication. People communicate to one
another by using language. In having conversation with others, one has to utter the
words briefly and clearly, so as the hearer does not misinterpret the spoken language. In
uttering the words, one does not only produce utterances by using grammatical
structures and words, but also perform actions through those utterances. Hurford states
the difference between sentence and utterance. He states that a sentence is conceived
abstractly, a string of words put together by the grammatical rules of a language. An
utterance is the use by a particular occasion of a piece of language, such as a sequence
of sentences, a single sentence, a single clause, a single phrase, or just a single word.
While an utterance is any stretch of talk, by one person, before and after this there is a
silence on the part of that person. Soekemi states that ... "sentence is not an event, while
an utterance is an event" (2000:116). An utterance is called as event because it relates to
contexts which support of communication, therefore an utterance can be stated more
alive than a sentence. Dealing with the utterances, Yule (1996:47) states that actions
performed via utterances are normally named speech acts.
Crystal see Soekemi (1997:116) sates that "speech act is a term proposed by J.
L. Austin (1911-1960) referring to a theory which analyzes the role of utterances in
relation to the behavior of speaker and hearer in interpersonal communication". In
short, speech acts are forms of language the existence of which must be related with
speech context (consisting of speaker and hearer). In analyzing speech acts, the writer
needs discourse analysis. It is necessary because it analyzes the language in use. It is
also appropriate with what Yule and Brown (1983: 1) state that "discourse analysis is
necessarily, the analysis of language in use". While Yule (1996:83) states that discourse
analysis focuses on the record (spoken or written) of the process by which language is
used in some context to express intention.
Basically, verbal communication can be conducted in two different ways,
namely spoken and written language. Any kinds of conversational, from informal to
very formal discussion can be described as spoken communication. On the other hand,
any printed functional text such as newspapers, articles, letters, and advertisements and
continuous text likes novel, drama, religious book, etc are considered written
communication.
It is very important to learn how language is used correctly to achieve some
intended objectives. The study of language in use is called Discourse Analysis.
McCarthy says that Discourse Analysis is the study of the relationship between
language and the context in which it is used (1995:1). It studies language in use: all
kinds of written texts, and recorded spoken data from conversation to highly
institutionalized talks. In short, Discourse Analysis covers the study of both spoken and
written interaction.
This Sufism study called the Lathiful Qolbi which was handled by H.
Muhammad Nasir Adenan as a Mursyid (M). The group of this study has been running
since 20 years ago which was attended not more than 50 participants who find a path to
God as Salik (S). They come from various cities of Surabaya and the surrounding areas.
In Bratang–Surabaya where M settles and teaches Sufism science to his students/Salik
(S) at a group of Lathiful Qolbi.
The utterances in the dialogue are the interesting data that can be analyzed from
the Discourse Analysis (DA) aspect. The study of speech acts have been conducted by
some researchers. Yet, most of the studies are focused on the acts done by the speakers
and the listeners, without paying attention of how the addressers and addresses perform
the speech acts. In this study, the writer wants to analyze trough speech acts, cohesive
devices and pragmatics and discourse context implemented by M and S at Sufism
dialogue at Sufism study of Lathiful Qolbi.
RESEARCH METHOD
On the basis of the research problem, the approach employed in this study is a
descriptive qualitative. This study is categorized into qualitative because several typical
characteristics of qualitative are present in this study. The first characteristic is that this
study relies much on the natural setting. The conversations between the subjects are not
under the writer's control; rather, they run naturally. The second one in this study is in
the form of words rather than numbers. Next, this study is concerned much with the
contexts. Every utterance by the research subjects is understood on the basis of the
contexts.
The approach employed in this study is a descriptive qualitative approach. One
of the characteristics of qualitative research is descriptive. Bogdan and Biklen define
(1975:29),
"The data collected are in the form of word or picture rather than number. They
often contain quotation and try to describe what particular situation or view of
the world like in narrative form. The written words are very important in
qualitative approach".
This research is also used quantitative and descriptive, by some considerations:
(1) the setting occurs in natural setting; (2) the explanation needs some description of
the research phenomenon in the form of words, clauses, phrases and sentences, that's
mean we do not use the form of numeric. It is also used in classifying of the above
research, and analyzing the data, especially about the concepts based on Bang & Gall
(1983:512) who say that the content analysis is a research technique for the objective,
systematic and quantitative description of the manifest content in communication.
Data and Their Sources
The data of this research is the text produced by M and S. Therefore, the participants
really eager to get deep explanation from M. Finally, the dialogue happened here.
Trough discourse analysis the dialogue will be analyzed.
The subject of the study is Mursyid as a guide to find Allah and Salik as the
seeker of path to Allah who come from various cities of Surabaya and the surrounding
areas who are not more than 50 people who are active in this Sufism study.
The setting of the study is a group Lathiful Qolbi (LQ) which was handled by a
teacher as a Mursyid (M). The location is in Bratang –Surabaya where he settles and
teaches Sufism science to his students/Salik (S) at a group of Lathiful Qolbi, twice the
study is held in the week, separated in 2 places, the first meeting is held at the house of
M, while the second meeting at one of participant’s home, that is located in Dukuh
Pakis Surabaya.
Procedure of Data Collection
(Sunarto, 2003:137). states that in collecting data to the qualitative research are
observation, deep interview, document study, and recording. In line with Sunarto's
concept, Creswell (2003:185-188) gives more detail the procedure of data collection.
According to him, the collection procedure in qualitative research involve four basis
types, they are; 1) observation, 2) interview, 3) Collecting documents, and 4) audio and
visual material. In term with this study to collect the data the researcher employs some
techniques such as participant-observation, interview, and recording.
The meaning of participant-observation is the researcher takes field notes on the
behavior and activities or individuals at the research site. In these field notes, the
researcher records in unstructured or semi structured way at the research site. While
interview means the researcher conducts face-to-face interview with Mursyid. These
interviews involve unstructured and generally open-ended questions that are few in
number and intended to elicit views and opinions from the Mursyid, and during the
process of research, the researcher may collect documents by making field note,
recording, and collecting the books which have been established by him as reference.
Instruments of Data Collection
Because this is a qualitative research, the instruments in collecting data such as
interview and observation, but the researcher is as the key instruments. Regarding this
concept, Bogdan and Biklen (1992:29) state Qualitative research has natural setting as
the direct source of data and the researcher is the key instrument. In addition, Cresswel
(2003:198) states that in qualitative research, the researcher is primary instrument in
data collection rather than some inanimate mechanism.
Based on the point of views above, the researcher attempts to know the
symptom which happens naturally in daily life, so he is as a key instrument to
determine in getting the data of this research.
Data Analysis
By data analysis, it is meant that the process of systematically searching and arranging
the interview transcripts, field notes, and other materials that is accumulated to come up
with findings. Data interpretation refers to developing ideas about findings and relating
them to the literature and to broader concerns and concepts. Analysis involves working
with the data, organizing them, breaking them into manageable units, coding them,
synthesizing them, and searching for patterns. Interpretation involves explaining and
framing the ideas in relation to theory, other scholarship, and action, as well as showing
why the findings are important and making them understandable Bogdan in LeCompte
& Schensul (1999:159).
Technique of data analysis
Data analysis is a process to organize and sort the data into patterns, categories, and the
basic outline of the unit so it can be found the theme and working hypotheses can be
formulated as suggested by the data (Moleong, 1995: 103). A method of data analysis
that is used in this research is descriptive method. Associated with descriptive analysis,
Sunarto (2001:157) explained that the descriptive analysis begins with the data
according to aspects and categorization of sub aspect and explain the relationship
between aspects of one another.
Procedure of Data Analysis
Data Analysis procedure is an interactive approach applied in this procedure that
follows these steps (data reduction, data display, triangulation, verification, and
conclusion) are conducted recursively. The key instrument of this research is the
researcher himself. Facilitated with the previous chapter, pragmatic and discourse, he
selects, analyzes and makes some conclusions based on the obtained data (Crewel,
2003:200), (Thomas 2003:36).
In conducting the data analysis the writer follows some procedures and
techniques. Before analyzing the data, the researcher prepares some checking lists
related to the provided focus. She carries it out in order to get data and if necessary she
also uses triangulation approach by doing verification. To do the above procedure, she
uses Mile and Huberman's procedure cited in Denzin K Norman (1994:429). This
procedure has three steps:
(1) Data Reduction: It involves: selecting, focusing, simplifying, abstracting, and
transferring raw data gathered from conversational discourse to become meaningful
data. After data collected, the researcher classifies the data according to the topics and
analyzes data accurately. (2) Data Display: It’s meant as organizing data with the
purpose of making conclusion and determining the following activities; in this step, the
researcher presents the data according to the topic and linked to the topics. Then the
researcher analyzes them, based on the previous focus on the formulated problem, and
connects between data and some presented theories. The writer divides each fragment
from the selected data into several part base on speech acts elements and cohesive
element. He decides on which column each part of the utterances should be entered,
whether it belongs to a locutionary act, an illocutionary act: a commisive, an expressive,
a representative, or declaration, or perlocutionary acts. Here is the example of fragment
that is analyzed: the fragment 1 (Dickens, 1997:2). (3) Verification Stage: It is an
essential procedure to analyze the data. This is connected to the activity that involves an
inductive thinking to obtain valid data, before making any final conclusion. In this
stage, the writer is drawing conclusion and verification which are done from the
beginning of data collection. When gathering the fragment, the writer has prefigured the
conclusion though it is still vague. The writer makes verification to see whether or not
the conclusion and the interpretation done are in line with the Mursyid intended
meaning by producing words, sentences, expressions, or phrases at pragmatic and
discourse devices are as tools to help the reader comprehend a literary work and build
up their language intuition.
RESEARCH FINDING
The finding of Speech Acts
The data that is obtained from the source of data is in the form of utterances that contain
three kinds of speech acts. It is in line with Austin (1962:94-101) states that utterances
can perform three kinds of acts. They are locutionary, illocutionary, and perlocutionary
acts. According to Searle (1980), that he describes the illocutionary acts into five
categories. They are Directives: These acts attempt to get the addresser to do
something e.g. commanding, ordering, requesting and questioning.
Commissives: These commit the speaker to do something e.g. promising, vowing,
guaranteeing, threatening and offering. Expressives: These express the psychological
state of the speaker. They include thanking, greeting, condoling and welcoming.
Representatives: These undertake to represent a state of affair: past, present, future or
hypothetical e.g. stating, explaining, telling, informing, and suggesting. Declarations:
These effect immediate changes in the institutional state of affairs and they tend to rely
on social events. Examples include declaring, firing, baptizing, naming and bidding. In
this study only found two of them they are (1) representative and (2) directive.
Representatives
In the Sufism dialogue, the major of M’s act is informing. This occurs when M gives
answer to all of S’s questions about daily worship activities. This can be seen in M’s
answers below:
(1)
M
: “Anta’budullohu ka’annaka tarohu jadi seoalah-olah Allah berhadapan
dengan kita, jadi kita disiplin jadi ‘ah malu aku ada
Allah’”
(A4/D1/08/‘10/U2/P1)
In English
“Anta’budullohu ka’annaka tarohu so as if Alloh face to face with us,
so that we will be discipline”
Based on the utterance above, it is obvious that the utterance is in declaratives
sentence, the act of uttering that utterannce is locution. So the form of utterance is
declarative performative. The meaning of the utterance is in the textual meaning of
what he is explaining to RO. He should imagine that God always be there as if he is
having face to face with Him, so RO will be discipline and feel shy to God. The form of
illocution is representative. It means asserting to RO that he cannot separate from God,
from the top of his hair to the tip of his toe is in God’s hand. He always sees what he is
doing, so that he must feel shy when he feels lazy to meet Him. The perlocution is the
effect of producing that utterance towards S. It is unrevealed because the context and
the situation of this utterance don’t support to give the effect directly but in this case just
make S give more questions towards M to get more information.
Directives
In the Sufism dialogue, the major of addresser’s act is asking. This occurs when
addresser (S) gives questions to addressee (M) about the way to solve any kinds of
temptations in daily worship activities and the way to be ma’rifat. This can be seen in
S’s questions below:
(2)
RO
:
“Nah, untuk mengalahkan itu gimana itu kalau untuk saya ini Pak
Nasir?”( A4/D1/08/‘10/U10/P1)
In English
“Well, what is the way to defeat it for me Pak Nasir?”
It is obvious that the utterance above is the speech acts namely an act of
uttering. In this utterance, RO asks a question to M by using interrogative sentence. So,
the form of locution and the form of utterance is interrogative. From the form of the
utterance above, it can be seen that its function is questioning. Accordingly, RO is
asking M to explain what is the way how to defeat haw-hawa. So, the locution is
interrogative and it means questioning. So the illocution of this utterance is directive, it
means questioning how to detect haw-hawa’s activities and teach them toward the
goodness. From RO’s utterance above, it produces an effect of utterance toward M that
is M explains to have a high spirit in doing dzikkr or remember Allah by saying Allah
inside the heart. Hence, its activity can be detected, so the perlocutionary act of this
utterance is explaining. It is in line with (Autin 1962) that there are many different
things which speakers can do with words. His most basic insight was that some
utterances are not statements or questions about some piece of information, but are
actions.
The finding of grammatical cohesive devices
There are five grammatical cohesive devices (1) Reference, (2) substitution, (3) Elipses,
(4) Conjuntion, and (5) Lexical. In this case the writer use abbreviation Cohesive
Devices (CD), Line (L)
Reference
In this study the text has interpretation which lies outside the text, in the text of
situation, it is called exophoric relationship which plays no part in textual cohesion,
while the interpretation lies within a text, it is called endophoric. The reference
relationship deals with the relationship between the language elements (words, phrase,
and clause) and the non - linguistic elements (the world or experience). By means of
reference, a speaker indicates which things world (including person) are being talked
about. To establish reference here used lexical items.
(3)
PF
PC
PF
PC
: “sama siapa pak?”
: “sama Abdulloh”
: “lho, mana kok gak…”
: “ngantuk anaknya di mobil” (A5/D2/08/‘10/U41-17/P1)
1
2
3
4
In English
PF
PC
PF
PC
: “Who do you come with?”
: “With Abdulloh”
: “Where is he?”
: “He is sleepy in the car”
It is clear that the text above constitute reference because it refers to a lexical item
named Abdulloh in line 2, a son of PC who is sleepy in the car. In this case, the
relationship of co-reference was illustrated as holding between a lexical Abdulloh in
line 2 and a pronominal ‘nya’ (dianya) he in line 4. It has Anaphorics relation because
the pronominal ‘nya’ (dianya) he in the last sentence of PC refers back to Abdulloh in
the first text of PC, so that we interpret as a whole; the two sentences together constitute
a text. From the text above shows an endophoric reference relationship because the
antecedent refer to the intra textual with the language elements that is a word
‘Abdulloh’ in line 2 and the pronoun ‘nya’ (dianya) he in line 4.
Substitution
Substitution refers not to a specific entity but to a class of items. Substitution can also
be made for nominal, verb groups, and clause.
(4)
M
: “iya, dia tidak tawaduk itu. Kalau orang yang tawaduk
tidak mungkin ‘ya Allah aku sediakan sepatu dan
mangkok untuk susuMu’ he, he, he, … kan kurang ajar
itu. Musa kan… wong iki kurang ajar iki he, he, he,…
tapi Allah ya nggoda sama Musa ‘Musa soal kalimat gitu
itu Aku tidak apa-apa yang penting Aku lihat hatinya
orang itu, akhirnya Musa kan mencari orang itu”
(A5/D2/08/‘10/U53/P9)
In English
“He was not humble. If he was a humble person, he
would not say 'oh, God I provide shoes and a bowl for
Your milk’. ‘That’s impertinent’. Moses said that wong
iki kurang ajar iki he, he, he,… (this person is
impertinent) but Allah tempted Moses 'Moses about such
kind of that sentence, I’m OK the important thing, I see
his heart’ Moses finally find him”
1
3
5
7
It is clear that orang (person), it is clear that in the second sentence refers back
to the dia tidak tawaduk itu (a person who is not humble) in the first sentence. From the
dialogue above shows that it is anaphoric substitution because the word orang (person)
substitutes the word dia tidak tawaduk itu (a person who is not humble). Whereas it is
indeed those same orang (person) which are at issue in the second sentence, it is
relevant to note, and for the reader to understand, have undergone a change of state.
Therefore in the first sentence means that the person is not humble to God that’s way he
said impertinent saying to God. From the explanation above, It can be concluded that
dialogue has represented type of cohesive tie is that of verbal anaphoric substitution.
The finding of pragmatic and discourse context
As has been mentioned previously the data that is obtained from source of data in the
form of utterances are analyzed to see their speech acts, their cohesive devices, and also
their pragmatic discourse context to see their intended meaning. Each utterance is
observed its speech act; (see appendix 1) especially each illocutionary act including its
proposition because to decide the intended meaning of the utterance one should refer to
the illocutionary force of which it is contained. To discuss the illocutionary force, IFIDs
as well as context would be the main aspect in the analysis; it means we arrive to the
discussion of the pragmatic implication of the implicatures and its flow. The discussion
of the implicatures includes the certain premises or strong assumption covering the
assumption that there is a mutual understanding of situation between S and H, and the
assumption that S is observing the cooperative principles. There are three pragmatic
implications to see the intended meaning they are: (1) Presupposition, (2) implicature,
and (3) inference.
(5)
PF
M
: “kalau dikasarkan seperti itu, tapi sebetulya digitukan aja sudah
lari” (A4/D1/08/‘10/U76/P4)
: “kita kan kalau gitu aku ya tidak ngreken kamu, kita brangkat”
(A4/D1/08/‘10/U77/P4)
In English
PF
M
: “the condition will be like that if it is strengthen but just giving
such treatment it will run away”
: “if that so, I don’ care you, then we leave for praying
Based on the utterance above, here PF performs the speech acts namely an act
of uttering. In this utterance PF refers to M. To perform this utterance PF uses
declarative sentence. So, the form of locution and the form of utterance is declarative.
From the form of the utterance above, it can be seen that its function is clarification.
Accordingly, the meaning of the utterance is PF told to M that the condition will be like
that if it is strengthen but just by giving such treatment will run away. Therefore, the
locution is declarative and it means answering. So the illocution of this utterance is
representative, it means asserting.
The presupposition: Based on the text above the presupposition is in PF (1) there is
something should be strengthened, (2) there is such kind of treatment used to make
something be strengthened, (3) there is something run away. The implicature: From
the text above seems the answer not connect that is very difficult for the reader to catch
the real meaning through the theory of language literally. To get what the meaning is,
through the maxim of conversation the relevant or the implicit meaning will be clear.
Literally the text means PF told to M that the condition will be like that if it is
strengthen but just by giving such treatment will run away. It hasn’t cleared enough.
Here the writer explain it trough maxim approach that actually the context is how to
conquer haw-hawa. In this case PF tell to guide haw-hawa is like M explained before,
haw-hawa shown that it was like that. PF say through research or experience. When he
shoots Jin, it had already been reprimanded by Pak Nasir, by using the potential kind of
dzikr it pulverized into dust (it refer to the word ‘kalau dikasarkan seperti itu’). And PF
continues his word by saying ‘tapi sebetulya digitukan aja sudah lari’, it means that
haw-hawa is minor annoyance, through deep breath while include any such sentence of
istighfar, Allah or others is enough to make it away. When haw-hawa come that
watching TV is more important than praying for example, so that needs a bird rifle not
to need a bazooka power to destroy it, it means just take a deep breath while include
one of recitation such as: istighfar, tasbih, salawat, or thawaf is enough and Haw-hawa
will run away by saying ‘kalau gitu aku ya tidak ngreken kamu’ (if that so, I don’ care
you). Then the word ‘kita brangkat’ means we directly go praying or doing worship.
The inference: To conquer haw-hawa by reciting the word of istighfar or Allah
repeatedly within the deepest of hearth.
THE RESEARCH DISCUSSION
This chapter discuses the findings of the research in detail. There are three findings of
the research that is related to the research questions. They are speech acts, grammatical
cohesive of text and pragmatic discourse context. (1) Speech acts: The subchapter of
speech act presents the discussion on each locutionary, illocutionary, and
perlocutionary acts. (2) The grammatical cohesive of the text presents the discussion of
the reference, substitution, ellipses, lexical and conjunction and (3) The pragmatic
discourse context presents the discussion of the presupposition, implicatures, and
inference to see the intended meaning. The source of the data of this research is assorted
based on topical coherence into 64 fragments for speech acts, 53 fragments for the
grammatical cohesive and 25 fragments to see the intended meaning.
The Discussion of Speech Acts
Austin (1962:94-101) states that utterances can perform three kinds of acts. They are
locutionary, illocutionary, and perlocutionary acts. Locutionary act is the act of saying
something and illocutionary act is the performance of an act in saying something. The
interpretation of the locution is concerned with meaning, and the interpretation of
illocution with force. Perlocutionary act is the act of producing some effect on the
thoughts, feeling, or actions of the audiences. Austin describes the distinction between
three related acts, which become the basic ideas of kinds of speech acts. Coulthard
(1998:18) observes that many utterances are the simultaneous performance of the three
speech acts. According to Searle (1980) that he describes the illocutionary acts into five
categories. They are Directives: These acts attempt to get the addresser to do
something e.g. commanding, ordering, requesting and questioning. Commissives:
These commit the speaker to do something e.g. promising, vowing, guaranteeing,
threatening and offering. Expressives: These express the psychological state of the
speaker. They include thanking, greeting, condoling and welcoming. Representatives:
These undertake to represent a state of affair: past, present, future or hypothetical e.g.
stating, explaining, telling, informing, and suggesting. Declarations: These effect
immediate changes in the institutional state of affairs and they tend to rely on social
events. Examples include declaring, firing, baptizing, naming and bidding. In this study
only found two of them they are (1) representative and (2) directive. The object of this
research is Sufism dialogue between Mursyid and some Salik of whom do not have
such authority to express these kinds of utterances to their equal as the researcher.
There are three kinds of speech acts. They are locution, illocution and
perlocution. The Mursyid and Salik use Yule's three structural forms. There are three
forms of utterances or locution, namely declarative, imperative and interrogative.
Declarative and interrogative are found in every fragment. Imperative doesn’t found in
this dialogue because the participants were active in giving more questions in terms of
guidance of life in this case religion science. Their utterances always followed by the
act of uttering (Searle 1977). In this research focuses on the illocutionary acts which
have Representatives, Commisives, Directives, and Expressives. Based on the finding
that this Sufism dialogue between Mursyid and Salik only have representative and
directive. The perlocution is the effect of producing that utterance towards S. It is
unrevealed because the context and situation of those utterances do not support to give
the effect directly but in this case just make S to give more questions towards M to get
more information.
Representatives
Based on the finding above there are 40 fragments of representatives from the
selected data. Most of the utterances produced by M is declarative sentences to give
more explanation towards the Salik’s question. To perform this utterance the M uses
declarative sentence. So, the form of locution and the form of utterance is declarative.
From the form of utterance, it can be seen that its function is explaining. If speakers
always said what they meant, then there would be few problems for speech act theory
or for discourse analysis. But, of course, they do not, and in principle could not, say in
so many words exactly what they mean on any occasion of utterance. A central
problem for analysis is therefore the depth of indirection involved in much discourse:
the distance between what is said and what is meant, and the multiple layers of meaning
between the literal propositional meaning of an utterance and the act whit it performs in
context (Stubbs 1983).
This dialogue (1) takes place at M’s (Mursyid) home. There are two participants
who are involved in the dialogue. They are RO as (Salik) and M as a Mursyid. The
topic of the dialogue is RO wants to know the way how to be discipline in praying
Tahajjud. Sometimes he has woken up because he feels very tired, he is lazy to go to
the bathroom and he takes time to sleep a bit more, finally he losses his Tahajjud
moment because he sleeps until the Subuh moment comes. In this dialogue, firstly, RO
is the addresser while M is the addressee. This is started from RO question on how to
solve the problem of being lazy to wake up early at midnight, he wake up late some
times until the Subuh moment comes. M explains that when RO is praying, he should
imagine as if he is having face to face with God and he should feel shy to God
The utterance (1) above shows us that the utterance is uttered by M to RO. So the
form of utterance is declarative performative. The meaning of the utterance is in textual
meaning that he is explaining to RO that RO should imagine to God always be there as
if he is having face to face with Him, so RO will be discipline and feel shy to God. The
form of illocution is representative. It means asserting to the RO that he cannot separate
from God, from the top of hair to the tip of toe is in God’s hand. He always sees what
he is doing, so that he must feel shy when he feels lazy to meet Him. The perlocution
is the effect of producing that utterance towards RO. It is unrevealed because the
context and situation of this utterance not support to give the effect directly but in this
case just make RO to give more questions towards M to get more information.
Directives
Based on the finding above there are 23 fragments of directives utterances from the
source of the selected data. All of them are in the form of interrogative sentence that
were performed by Salik to the Mursyid. In order to account for the coherence of
discourse we need accounts not only of surface lexical and syntactic cohesion, and of
logical propositional development. We need also an account of speech acts, indirect
speech acts (in which the illocutionary force of an utterance is overlaid by markers of
mitigation or politeness), the context-dependence of illocutionary force, and the
sequential consequences (predictive power) of certain speech acts. In other words, we
have to have multiple theories of discourse coherence (Stubbs 1983:147). It can be
presented the following example:
It is obvious that the utterance above is the speech acts namely an act of
uttering. In this utterance, RO asks a question to M by using interrogative sentence. So,
the form of locution and the form of utterance is interrogative. From the form of the
utterance above, it can be seen that its function is questioning. Accordingly, RO is
asking M to explain what is the way how to defeat haw-hawa. So, the locution is
interrogative and it means questioning. So the illocution of this utterance is directive, it
means questioning how to detect haw-hawa’s activities and teach them toward the
goodness. From RO’s utterance above, it produces an effect of utterance toward M that
is M explains to have a high spirit in doing dzikkr or remember Allah by saying Allah
inside the heart. Hence, its activity can be detected, so the perlocutionary act of this
utterance is explaining. It is in line with (Autin 62) that there are many different things
which speakers can do with words. His most basic insight was that some utterances are
not statements or questions about some piece of information, but are actions.
The Discussion of Cohesive Devices
There are five grammatical cohesive devices (1) Reference, (2) substitution, (3) Elipses,
(4) Conjuntion, and (5) Lexical based on Hasan in Hatch (1997:223) Yule in Halliday
& Hasan take the view that the primary determinant of whether a set of sentences do or
do not constitute a text depends on cohesive relationships within and between the sentences, which create texture: `A text has texture and this is what distinguishes it from
something that is not a text. . . . The texture is provided by the cohesive RELATION'
(1976: 2).
Reference
The finding of cohesive anaphoric and cataphoric reference was presented from 8
selected texts that contain reference. Soekemi (2000:13) explains, "Reference
relationship deals with the relationship between the language elements (words, phrase,
and clause) and the non - linguistic elements (the world or experience)". By means of
reference, a speaker indicates which things world (including person) are being talked
about. In this case can be presented as follow:
It is clear that the text above constitute reference because it refers to a
lexical item named Abdulloh, a son of PC who is sleepy in the car. In this case, the
relationship of co-reference was illustrated as holding between a lexical Abdulloh and a
pronominal ‘nya’ (dianya) he (4). It has Anaphorics relation because the pronominal
‘nya’ (dianya) he in the last sentence of PC refers back to Abdulloh in the first text of
PC, so that we interpret as a whole; the two sentences together constitute a text. From
the text above shows an endophoric reference relationship because the antecedent
refer to the intra textual with the language elements that is a word ‘Abdulloh’ in the first
sentence and the pronoun ‘nya’ (dianya) he in the second sentence
Substitution
A second major type of cohesive tie is that of substitution. Hatch (1997:224) says, in
contrast to reference, substitution refers not to a specific entity but to a class of items.
For example; "Did you find the blankets?" "Only the blue ones". The word "ones"
refers not to "the blankets" but to a class of blanket, those that are blue. Substitution can
also be made for nominal, verb groups, and clause. The example as follow:
It is clear that orang (person), it is clear that in the second sentence refers back
to (is ANAPHORIC to) the dia tidak tawaduk itu (a person who is not humble) in the
first sentence. From the dialogue above shows that it is anaphoric substitution because
the word orang (person) substitutes the word dia tidak tawaduk itu (a person who is not
humble). Whereas it is indeed those same orang (person) which are at issue in the
second sentence, it is relevant to note, and for the reader to understand, have undergone
a change of state. Therefore in the first sentence means that the person is not humble to
God that’s way he said impertinent saying to God. From the explanation above, It can
be concluded that dialogue has represented type of cohesive tie is that of verbal
anaphoric substitution.
The Discussion of Pragmatic Implicatures
The discussion of the implicatures includes the certain premises or strong assumption
covering the assumption that there is a mutual understanding of situation between S and
H, and the assumption that S is observing the cooperative principles. There are three
pragmatic implications to see the intended meaning they are: (1) Presupposition, (2)
implicature and (3) inference. Brown and Yule (1983:27) are also purpose the other
ways to interpret the peace of discourse is a researcher or discourse analyst investigates
the use of language in context by a speaker or writer, then he is more concerned with
the relationship between the speaker and utterance, on the particular occasion of use,
than with the potential relationship of one sentence to another, regardless of their use.
Based on the utterance above, here PF performs the speech acts namely an act
of uttering. In this utterance PF refers to M. To perform this utterance PF uses
declarative sentence. So, the form of locution and the form of utterance is declarative.
From the form of the utterance above, it can be seen that its function is clarification.
Accordingly, the meaning of the utterance is PF told to M that the condition will be like
that if it is strengthen but just by giving such treatment will run away. Therefore, the
locution is declarative and it means answering. So the illocution of this utterance is
representative, it means asserting.
The presupposition: Based on the text above the presupposition is in PF (1) there is
something should be strengthen, (2) there is such kind of treatment used to make
something be strengthened, (3) there is something run away. The implicature: Based
on the fragment (10) seems the answer does not connect that is very difficult for the
reader to catch the real meaning through the theory of language literally. To get what
the meaning is, through the maxim of conversation the relevant or the implicit meaning
will be clear. Literally the text means PF told to M that the condition will be like that if
it is strengthen but just by giving such treatment will run away. It hasn’t cleared
enough. Here the writer explain it trough maxim approach that actually the context is
how to conquer haw-hawa. In this case PF tell to guide haw-hawa is like M explained
before, haw-hawa shown that it was like that. PF say through research or experience.
When he shoots Jin, it had already been reprimanded by M, by using the potential kind
of dzikr it pulverized into dust (it refer to the word ‘kalau dikasarkan seperti itu’). And
PF continues his word by saying ‘tapi sebetulya digitukan aja sudah lari’, it means that
haw-hawa is minor annoyance, through deep breath while include any such sentence of
istighfar, Allah or others is enough to make it away. When haw-hawa come that
watching TV is more important than praying for example, so that needs a bird rifle not
to need a bazooka power to destroy it, it means just take a deep breath while include
one of recitation such as: istighfar, tasbih, salawat, or thawaf is enough and Haw-hawa
will run away by saying ‘kalau gitu aku ya tidak ngreken kamu’ (if that so, I don’ care
you). Then the word ‘kita brangkat’ means we directly go praying or doing worship.
The inference: Conquer haw-hawa by reciting the word of istighfar or Allah-Allah
repeatedly within the deepest of hearth!
CONCLUSION
The results of the study are as follows: the researcher finds that between Mursyid and Salik
at Sufism study of Lathiful Qolbi in Surabaya perform three kinds of speech acts. They are
locution, illocution and perlocution. The Mursyid and Salik use Yule's three structural
forms. They are three forms of utterances or locution, namely, declarative, imperative and
interrogative. The imperative is not found in this study while Declarative and interrogative
are found. From five categories of Illocution Searle (1980) is only found two categories,
they are Representative which means asserting or explaining and Directive which means
questioning. Whereas, the perlocution mostly found in M side, especially when he received
the act of uttering a question from addresser, that is explaining. While, the perlocution from
S side is unrevealed because the context and situation of the utterances do not support to
give the effect directly but in this case just make S to give more questions towards M to get
more information. Cohesive devices also found in the text likes reference, substitution,
ellipses, lexical, and conjunction, and the intended meaning found through pragmatic
implication such as the illocution, presupposition, implicature, and inference.
The finding shows that the speech acts of Sufism dialogue at Lathiful Qolby in
Surabaya consists of 40 Declarative sentences and 23 Interrogative sentences. The
perlocutionary acts are such as: 19 Explaining, 28 Asking, 4 Asserting, 1 Informing, 6
Justifying, 1 Commentting, 2 Confirming, 3 Agreeing, 1 Stating, 1 Suggesting, and 1
Concluding. Meanwhile the Illocution presents 23 Directive, 40 representative (see
appendix 1)
The cohesive devices show that there are a) reference, there are 22 anaphoric
reference and 2 anaphoric reference from 8 subs of the text, b) substitution, there are 13
verbal substitution, 6 nominal substitution, and 1 clausal substitution from 6 subs of thetext
c) ellipses, there are 5 verbal ellipses and 1 nominal ellipses d) lexical, there are 3 General
word, 10 Lexical repetition, 6 Lexical synonym, and 1 super ordinate from 8 subs of the
text, and e) conjunction, 6 additive, 13 adversative, 21 causal, 24 temporal from 23 subs of
the text. The pragmatics implication presents 20 subs of the text from a) illocutionary acts
b) presupposition, c) implicature, and d) inference. Each utterance is observed its speech
act, (see appendix 1) especially each illocutionary act including its proposition because to
decide the intended meaning of the utterance one should refer to the illocutionary force of
which it is contained. To discuss the illocutionary force, IFIDs as well as context would be
the main aspect in the analysis; it means we arrive to the discussion of the pragmatic
implication of the implicatures and its flow. The discussion of the implicatures includes the
certain premises or Strong assumption covering the assumption that there is a mutual
understanding of Situation between S and H, and the assumption that S is observing the
cooperative principles.
Finally, the discourse in this study is all aspects that are discussed and found based on
related theory of the study. This dialogue is analyzed starting from utterance till the
meaning. Utterance is action (Stubb in Austin, 1962) some action can be performed only
through language (Stubbs 1983:1). From the smallest unit of language till the biggest unit of
language they are sound, word, phrase, sentence, and discourse. That is discourse. In this
study from the beginning till the end of this study always related with the series of sound till
the sentence means that discourse is the soul of this study and cannot be separated from it.
REFERENCES
Austin, J, L. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford New York: Oxford
university Press.
Bogdan, Robert C and Biklen, Sari Knopp. 1982. Qualitative Research for
Education; an introduction to Theory and Method Massachusetts:
Allin Abd Bacond
Brown, Gillian and George Yule. 1983. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Cresswel, John W. 2003. Research Design, Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed
Method Approach, 2"° Edition. New Delhi: Sage Publication
Crystal, David. 1997. Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. Cambridge:
Blackwell Publisher Inc.
Denzin K.Norman. 1994. Handbook of Qualitative Research. California: SAGE
published, Inc.
Dickens, Charles, 1861. Great Expectation. USA: Both of The Month Club. Inc.
Hatch, Evelyn. 1997. Discourse and Language Education Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
McCarthy, Michael. 1994. Discourse Analysis for Language teachers. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Moleong. J. Lexy. 2006. Metodologi Penelitian Kulitatif. Edisi Revisi. Bandung:
P.T. Remaja Rosdakarya
Searle, John R. 1977. A Classification of Illocutionary Acts. In Andy Rogers, Bob
Wall and John P. Murphy (eds), Proceedings of the Texas Cconference
on Performatves, Presuppositions, and Implicatures, Washington, DC:
Center for Applied Linguistics, pp. 2745
Searle, John R., Ference Kiefer and Manfred Bierwisch. 1980. Speech Act Theory
and Pragmatics. London: D. Riedel Publishing Company.
Soekemi, Kem. 2000. Semantics: A work Book. Second edition. Unesa: Unesa
University Press
Stubbs Michael. 1983. Discourses Analysis. The Sociolinguistics Analysis of
Natural Language. Chicago: University Press.
Sunarto. 2001. Melodologi Penelitian Ilmu-Ilmu Sosial & Pendidikan. Surabaya:
Unesa University Press.
Yule, George, 1996. Pragmatics. Oxford New York: Oxford University Press.