JULISA "Journal of Language" | ||||
 |
 |
|||
Links to Other PlacesLink OneLink Two Link Three |
M. Bahri Arifin This study aimed at analyzing and describing the Indonesian concepts used to verbally represent sensory perception toward external stimuli perceived through three sensory channels: auditory, olfactory, and gustatory. The study found out that there are 27 concepts used in Indonesian to represent sensory perception in the three specified channels: 6 concepts for auditory channel, 9 concepts for olfactory channel, and 12 concepts for gustatory channel. The meanings of the concepts are analyzable into a set of semantic components i.e. speech, repeated, crowded, and inherence for auditory-channelled concepts; pleasant, sharp, emanation, and cause for olfactory; and agreeable, acrid, and emphasis for gustatory.Faculty of Teacher Training and Education University of Borneo, Tarakan East Kalimantan And Jumino Suhadi Faculty of Literature Islamic University of North Sumatra, Medan Abstract Keywords: componential analysis, sensory perception, auditory, olfactory, gustatory INTRODUCTION Human beings are equipped by the Creator with approximately the same set of physical organs for perceiving the world; eyes to see, ears to hear, nose to smell, tongue to taste, and skin to feel. The physical organs, more familiarly referred to as the sensory, through which the world comes to reach our nervous system, employ mechanical system of perceiving the world universal to human beings, regardless of whether or not the human beings are different in sexes, ages, ethnicities, cultures, languages, and whatsoever sorts of built-in distinctive characteristics of human groupings. Accordingly, the world should be the same to us all, and the concepts—in different languages—designated to represent the extensional reality should all refer to exactly the same semantic components. As a matter of fact, a concept in a particular language often apparently heightens particular components which are dimmed by its equivalence concept in other languages. Everyone’s favourite examples are the concepts of snow and colour. The latter belongs to Indonesian vocabulary of approximately as many terms as to English. Other languages are more restricted in their colour terms than is Indonesian or English. No single language is, linguistically, better than the others in the sense that each language has its own degree of expressiveness which is more or less equal to that of the others. This is to say that all languages are mutually translatable. If it were possible to say certain thing in one language, the other languages are capable as well of saying the thing in question though it might, for some languages, be in various ways of wording. African languages—the ones spoken where there is no snow—do not have a word for it. Still they could describe it as for example, “white, cold flowers from the sky that turn to water when they are touched” (Chaika 1982:195). The Ambonese of Indonesia do not have any term for the Indonesian concept sepupu (cousin), they say saudara (brother/sister) instead. What, then, significant from these and elsewhere linguistic evidence is the emergence of Fishman’s very important thesis “that different linguistic communities have unique ways of viewing the world and that their languages give us systematic clues to what those views are” (Loveday 1982:45). The present study is a semantic-based approach, investigating the distinctive features of the Indonesian concepts of sensory perceptions by elucidating the concepts into their semantic components. Two major questions were put forward: (i) What concepts are used in Indonesian to represent sensory perception? and (ii) What semantic components constitute the meaning of each concept of sensory perception in Indonesian? The object of the study is all the concepts used in Indonesian to symbolize sensation induced by stimuli perceived through three sensory channels: auditory, olfactory, and gustatory. The exclusion of visual and sensory (skin) channels is consciously decided due to the following considerations. First, the concepts designated to represent different colours and shapes (the two phenomena perceived by visual-channel) have had standard criteria in Chemistry and Arithmetic’s/Geometry respectively. Second, the empirical stimulus for sensory (skin) nerves: the temperature, is gradable and scaled in nature, and the concepts designated to represent temperature may easily lend themselves to the standardized scaling procedure in Physics such as that of thermometers. The other stimulus perceived through this channel, shape, more particularly surface phenomena and the concepts used to symbolize them are not independent of the involvement of visual nerves. COMPONENTIAL ANALYSIS One of the approaches many linguists have been making use of is an analysis of distinct elements of meaning of which a lexical item is made up. Such a kind of analysis is referred to by the linguists as componential analysis (Kempson 1977). The idea of this approach emerges from the assumption that words do not have unitary meanings but are complexes of components. The notion of components does not introduce a further kind of relation; rather it purports to offer a theoretical framework for handling all the relations. A very simple example of this analysis may adequately be provided in the words man, woman, boy, girl and other related words in English. These words, Leech says, belong to the same semantic field, “human race”, for which sex and adulthood are distinctive semantic components. A third component, human, is obviously applicable in the analysis if the words are related to non-human species. The semantic components of which the words are made up can be formulated as in the following chart (Leech 1974:89, Jackson 1988:81). man = [+HUMAN], [+ADULT], [+MALE] woman = [+HUMAN], [+ADULT], [- MALE] boy = [+HUMAN], [- ADULT], [+MALE] girl = [+HUMAN], [- ADULT], [- MALE] A particular characteristic of the componential analysis is that the words being analyzed are decomposed into components in terms of binary opposite e.g. human/non-human, animate/non-animate, adult/non-adult, male/female, etc. Notational convention as the use of plus-minus distinction indicates that when a word corresponds to the component, say, male for example, it is notated as [+male] whereas the other word corresponding to female is notated as [-male] and so forth. Furthermore, we can refer to the lack of sex distinction by [+male] notation. By notating man as [+male] and pregnant as [-male], we can bring out logical relation being associated with the given notation by means of which we would agree to rule out such a construction as *pregnant man. Similarly, by marking boy as [+man], [-adult], [+human] and child as [+adult], [+human] we can arrive at a safe conclusion that There were two boys entails There were two children; and Children are a nuisance entails Boys are a nuisance (Palmer 1976:111). The use of binary opposites in decomposing words into components does not presuppose words of having to correspond to only either of the opposites. In many cases however, a single common word may be geared to both of the opposite components. Take, for example, the component sets such as sex: [+male], [- male] and adulthood: [+ adult] [- adult] and apply them to the word cousin. It is inevitably obvious that the word cousin is adequately characterizable with all the four components simultaneously. Although one may certainly say, for example, My forty-five years male cousin won the bull–race in Madura last August--the word cousin in this construction must be [+ male], [+ adult] and not otherwise-it does not necessarily mean that cousin is never [- male], [- adult]. The concern of the speaker of such a construction, as we would agree with, is the immediate referent of the word cousin in that particular context which is significantly clarified by the successive adjectival pre-head modifiers, forty-five years and male. In some particular instances, however, an identified component may appear with a multiple values, the component to which binary choice is not applicable. Such instances require another way featuring, that is by allowing the specified value(s) suited the concepts in question. The component limb and speed of the lexemes walk, run, crowl, jog, and sprint, for instance, are multi-valued in nature, whereas the component contact (whether or not the limbs remain in contact with the surface at all times) is in binary choice. When these lexemes are analyzed in terms of semantic components, the matrix will appear as below (Jackson 1988:88). [LIMBS] [CONTACT] (SPEED] walk feet + slow run feet - fast crowl hands + legs ± slow jog feet - slow sprint feet - very fast Componential analysis was used in particular by anthropologists to investigate the kinship and colour terms used by communities of different cultural background. Among the exponents of such investigations, who were first developing the technique of componential analysis, are Good and Lounsburry (Palmer 1976). It was noted by Lounsbury as in Palmer (1976:108) that in Spanish, for instance, the sex is clearly indicated in kinship terms, that is, ending in -o for male and ending in -a for female as in the following: tio uncle tia aunt hijo son hija daughter abuelo grandfather abuela grandmother hermano brother hermana sister Besides the sex, generation differences and degrees of relationship are two other component sets for kinship terms. For generation differences, there are at least five kinds of generation common to many languages each of which may be labelled as g1, g2, g3, g4, and g5 respectively. Degrees of relationship, notably vary from language to language, involve linearity which may be labelled as DIRECT for grandfather, father; COLINEAL for brother, uncle (but with different generation); and ABLINEAL for cousin. By these three sets of components, all English kinship terms can be handled. Aunt, for example, is female, g2, and colineal; cousin is male or female, g3, and ablineal; and so forth (Palmer 1976). In the field of colour terminology, Berlin and Kay make a comparison of almost a hundred languages. Berlin and Kay’s publication entitled Basic Colour Term was “ ... remarkable not only for its coverage of data from a wide range of diverse languages, but also for the surprising claim it made for universalism on a terrain previously regarded as a happy hunting-ground for the relativist semantics” (Leech 1974:233). Cross-lingual evidence on the colour terms from the work of Berlin and Kay is presented much later within this review). It is worth noting, said Bierwisch, that by the term semantic components we mean not merely the “physical properties and relations outside the human organism” but symbols for the “internal mechanism by means of which such phenomena are conceived and conceptualized” (Kempson 1977:19). Given the definition of semantic components as the internal mechanism, labelling the components as to [+male], [+adult], etc is not simply a matter of associating a word in question with physical appearance of its extentional referent, but rather the matter of displaying the in mind association the word holds with the world reality in a more economical way. It follows that the terms used to label semantic components are subject to expansion in line with the diversity of internal mechanism unique to particular language in conceiving and conceptualizing world reality. The distinction between English concepts of murder and kill, Kempson gives example, can be stated explicitly and economically- if murder is analyzed as having a meaning which is a complex of components representing intension, causation and death; whereas kill as having a complex of only the components representing causation and death (Kempson 1977:93) We now come to observe how componential analysis may establish logic in-mind association (as described in the preceding paragraph) words hold with world reality. Such an observation leads to an attempt of justifying a componential analysis. Justifying a componential analysis, Leech defines, means “showing that the contrasts and combinations of meaning one has recognized are necessary and sufficient to explain relevant data. The data of semantic analysis are regarded here as a set of basic statements of entailment. . .” (Leech 1974:97). If we analyze woman as a complex of components including [+adult] and boy [- adult] for example, the following statements of entailment: The teacher is a woman entails The teacher is an adult; She teaches many boys entails She teaches many children are adequately explaining the data in favour of the given definition and, thus, justifying the adequacy of the componential analysis. Making a review of any theory, approach, method, and whatsoever of the like will arrive at a fair end if the review touches both sides of extreme, the strength and the weakness--triggered by the emergence of the theory, approach, method etc. As a matter of fact, the primacy of a theory is often attributable to its ability to call for opposite extremes and, more importantly, its success to fade such extremes. Componential analysis is by means void of criticisms and objections. It assumes a diversity of claims postulating its limitation in vocabulary coverage. Yet he addresses himself as the one who stands at the side of componential analysis favour, Leech insists on putting forward the criticisms and objections emerged from the opposite extreme. In his attempt to describe componential analysis, Leech (1974) elucidates at least six major criticisms or “a less favourable view”—so is the way Leech calls it—as well as his defensive remarks as we shall, in part, review in the subsequent paragraphs. “It is often said that CA (componential analysis) accounts for only some parts of a language vocabulary especially those parts which are neatly organized” (Leech 1974:117). To this criticism, Leech gives a considerably plausible remarks and takes it as certainly a true objection only if one restricted himself to too simple a concept of Componential Analysis. Indeed, he has tried to show in a number of pages how the Componential Analysis can be enriched to deal with a much wider range of vocabulary. Even so, he explicitly states that Componential Analysis could impossibly deal with the whole vocabulary of a language. “I accept the force of this objection, but rather than throw out CA because of it, I aim to show that CA can be fitted into a more powerful model of meaning” (Leech 1974:177). It is also objected that Componential Analysis postulates semantic features unnecessarily. This sense often unfavourably compares the CA with another type of analysis which uses meaning postulates. The rule of meaning postulates, like CA, are concerned with the relations of hyponymy and incompatibility but, unlike CA, can be formulated to operate on the word-forms themselves. For example, one rule which is symbolized as man → human might postulate that “for all X, if X is a man, X is a human”. Similarly, a rule which is symbolized as male → not female might postulate that “for all X, if X is male, X is not female. Nevertheless, there has been no clear justification on how much such rules deal with ambiguities and with appositeness other than binary ones (Leech 1974:118). CA has also been claimed as being explanatory in the sense that it does not provide precise interpretation of semantic features in terms of the real—world properties and objects that they refer to. For example, (+adult] remains an abstract, uninterruptible symbol for we cannot specify what adult is like. Such a claim is clearly indicating an expectation beyond the reach of CA for it expects CA to provide not only a “theory of meaning” but of “reference” as well. The latter is beyond the goal of CA as Leech (1974:118) says “ ... I have already argued that CA cannot have this wider goal: it is meant to explain word sense, not the encyclopaedic knowledge which must enter into a theory of reference, objects that they refer to”. METHODOLOGY 1. Sources of Data Semantic components of a concept are traceable in the descriptively-recorded use of the concept. Unabridged descriptive dictionaries are of high relevance for such a trace in which one may find recorded data of language use in multidimensional contexts. The dictionaries chosen to be the main sources of data for the research were: a. Kamus Besar Bahasa Indonesia oleh Tim Penyusun Kamus Pusat Pembinaan dan Pengambangan Bahasa Indonesia, Departemen Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan Republik Indonesia, Balai Pustaka, Edisi I (1988), II, (1989), III (1990). b. Kamus Umum Bahasa Indonesia oleh W.J.S. Poerwadarminta, diolah kembali oleh Pusat Pembinaan dan Pengembangan Bahasa Departernen Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan Republik Indonesia, Balai Pustaka, 1986. c. Kamus Inggris Indonesia dan Kamus Indonesia Inggris oleh John M.Echols dan Hassan Shadily, Cetakan XVIII, Jakarta, PT Gramedia, 1990. 2. Procedure of Data Collection In collecting data, the researchers consulted the main sources of data, and made cross-comparison of the data found in different sources. There were two main phases of data collecting the researchers had been involving in: the phase of determining what concepts used in Indonesian to symbolize sensory perception; and the phase of compiling constructions (phrases and sensences) from the sources of data given as the sample use of the concepts decided in the first phase. The decision on what Indonesian concepts used to symbolize sensory perception was reached after adequately consulting Kamus Besar Bahasa Indonesia and Kamus Umum Bahasa Indonesia. Since neither of the two dictionaries makes a special list of Indonesian lexemes assigned as to sensory perception, the researchers should have intuitively prescribed the concepts; and the two dictionaries have served as cross-references for justification and/or refutation of the diagnostic concepts intuitively prescribed by the researchers. 3. Technique of Data Analysis The study is descriptive in nature and thus, the data were analyzed descriptively by means of tabulation and qualitative description. For the sake of componential analysis, the data were analyzed by decomposing the concepts of sensory perception into the semantic components constituting the concepts. In this stage, the concepts are decomposed into the semantic components identified from the sample uses of the concepts in the sources of data. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION A. Concepts of Sensory Perception The Indonesian concepts of sensory perception considered here were taken up from Kamus Besar Bahasa Indonesia and Kamus Umum Bahasa Indonesia. The two dictionaries do not in fact make a special list of Indonesian lexemes assigned as to sensory perception but they served as cross-references for justification or refutation of the diagnostic concepts intuitively prescribed by the researchers. 1. Auditory perception The concepts used in Indonesian to represent sensory perception towards stimuli perceived through auditory channel are presented systematically in the following table. Table 1. Indonesian concepts of auditory perception No. Concepts No. Concepts 1. Berisik 4. Ingar-bingar 2. Bising 5. Rebut 3. Gaduh 6. Riuh 2. Olfactory perception The concepts used in Indonesian to represent sensory perception towards stimuli perceived through olfactory channel are presented in the following table. Table 2. Indonesian concepts of olfactory perception No. Concepts No. Concepts 1. amis 6. Pesing 2. anyir 7. Semerbak 3. apak 8. Tengik 4. busuk 9. Wangi 5. harum 3. Gustatory Perception The concepts used in Indonesian to represent sensory perception to stimuli perceived through gustatory channel are presented in the following table. Table 3. Indonesian concepts of gustatory perception No. Concepts No. Concepts 1. asin 7. Masam 2. enak 8. Pahit 3. gurih 9. Pedas 4. hambar 10. Pulen 5. lezat 11. Sepat 6. manis 12. Tawar B. The Distinctive Features of the Concepts The present section takes into account of the semantic components that constitute the concepts of sensory perception in Indonesian. The semantic components of the concepts are taken into account in terms of componential analysis, and the array of the semantic components may be presented in either one of binary or non-binary techniques, or in combination of both. 1. Auditory perception The concepts of auditory perception refer to interpretation and awareness of the effects as such induced by stimuli perceived through auditory nerves. The concepts considered here are confined to those that are characteristically engendered by sounds with audibly high volume. The concepts, therefore, all share the common semantic component, loud, to one another. To make an array of the semantic components of the concepts, the concepts were analyzed in terms of four components: speech, repeated, crowded, and inherence. The first three of the components are in binary choice and the last one is multi-valued in nature. By speech, each concept is made apparent in terms of whether or not it distinguishes the stimuli into speech sounds and non-speech sounds; the former refers to sounds produced by human-speech organs whereas the latter to any sound which has access to auditory nerves. By repeated, the sounds are identified into whether or not they undergo a certain amount of constant duration such as that of insistently repeated sounds. Crowded distinguishes the concepts into the group of perception which signifies sounds traceably originating from a single source, the group of mixed/composite sources, and the group of both. Inherence specifies the distinctive features which make a concept different from the others. Since the inherent characteristics may vary from one concept to the other, the component is multi-valued in nature and, accordingly, it cannot be displayed in binary choice. The semantic components of the six Indonesian concepts of auditory perception are presented in table 4 below.. Table 4. Semantic components of Indonesian concepts of auditory perception Components Components SPEECH REPEATED CROWDED INHERENCE Berisik ± ± ± lower volume Bising ± - ± earsplitting Gaduh ± ± + unruly Ingar-bingar ± + + earsplitting Ribut ± ± ± disapproval Riuh ± ± + wavy Berisik is an auditory perception which may or may not include speech sounds. It may be used for either repeated or non-repeated sounds, and it is independent of the feature crowded. Of all the Indonesian concepts of auditory perception considered in the study, it is berisik which may easily lend itself to sounds with relatively lower quality: (1) Saya tidak dapat tidur karena anak-anak berisik di luar; (2) Hai, jangan berisik, aku mau tidur. Bising differs from berisik in that it needs not refer to repeated sounds, and suggests more earsplitting than does berisik. It is, like berisik, characterizably neutral in speech and crowded components i.e. it may or may not refer to speech sounds, and is applicable to either crowded or non-crowded ones: (3) Bunyi kapal terbang yang akan berangkat sangat bising; (4) Jangan berbuat bising di sini. Gaduh, like berisik, may or may not indicate speech sounds, and is applicable to sounds which are neutral in the component repeated. Unlike berisik, gaduh is always associated with crowded sounds characterized by unruly nature: (5) Bunyi gendang yang ditabuh anak-anak secara bergantian sangat gaduh; (6) Jangan gaduh di sini, ada orang sakit. Ingar-bingar signifies earsplitting induced by crowded sounds. It is applicable to either speech or non-speech sounds, and is always characterized by repeated sounds: (7) Pasar memang selalu ingar-bingar; (8) Suara radio di kamar lajang itu ingar-bingar. Ribut is the most neutral concept in this group. It is applicable to any loud sounds emanating from any source. It has a very specific semantic trait referring to disapproval. Ribut includes speech and non-speech sounds, and is not restricted to repeated sounds. Furthermore, it is independent of the component crowded: (9) Kelas itu sangat ribut, mungkin gurunya tidak datang. Riuh signifies wavy sounds which have the component crowded. It may or may not symbolize repeated sounds, and the sound need not necessarily be speech ones. (10) Terdengar suara riuh dari kelas itu; (11) Suara riuh rendah tidak berhenti-henti sejak pagi. 2. Olfactory perception The concepts of olfactory perception represent interpretation and recognition of odour as it reaches the olfactory nerves. In terms of semantic components, the concepts were analyzed in four components: pleasant, sharp, emanation, cause. It follows that each of the concept is comparable with and distinguishable from the others by means of the four semantic components. The component pleasant distinguishes a concept from the others on the basis of whether or not the concept symbolizes agreeable sensation induced by the odours perceived. The component Sharp classifies the concepts into the recognition and awareness of offensive smell, delicate, and neutral one. The component emanation specifies the meaning of a concept on the basis of the objects from which the odours emanate. Unlike the other two components, emanation allows non-binary choice because it is a multi-valued component. Some concepts represent recognition of odours which emanate from different objects; and general is the value assigned to these concepts. The other concepts represent recognition of odours which emanate from particular objects. Two slightly different values are assigned to suit these concepts. Those which emanate from particular but unspecified objects are given the value distinct, whereas those from the specified ones are indicated by the objects they emanate from such as fish and blood. The last component, cause, is another multi-valued one. There are some noticeable causes of odours upon which the concepts are dependent such as aging, decaying, etc. These specified causes are assigned as the values of the component cause. There are still another two values of this component i.e. general and intrinsic. While general qualifies the concepts signifying odour due to any potential cause, intrinsic emphasizes the fact that the objects from which the odour in question emanates do intrinsically have the substance that induces the smell specified in the concept. The semantic components of Indonesian concepts of olfactory perception are given in table 5 below.. Table 5. Semantic components of Indonesian concepts of olfactory perception Concepts Components PLEASANT SHARP EMANATION CAUSE amis - + fish/blood intrinsic anyir - + fish/blood intrinsic apak - ± General aging busuk - + General decayed harum + ± General general pesing - + Urinate intrinsic semerbak + ± Distinct intrinsic tengik - ± Distinct aging wangi + ± Distinct intrinsic Amis and anyir are synonymous, representing olfactory perception to odours characterized by the nature of or resembling the smell of fish and blood. They denote sharp odours and are applied to unpleasant ones: (12) Bangkai ikan yang amis berserakan di pantai; (13) Darah yang tercecer membuat tempat itu bau amis. Apak denotes an unpleasant odour which may emanate from any object. The odour may or may not be sharp, and it is caused mostly by aging or long-storage: (14) Apak benar bajumu ini; (15) Beras itu sudah apak karena lama tersimpan dalam karung. Busuk denotes olfactory perception to odours which emanate from any source, and mostly caused by decaying or decomposing. It signifies unpleasant and offensive odours:(16) Mangga itu sudah busuk; (17) Bangkai tikus itu busuk benar baunya. Harum denotes olfactory perception to odours which emanate from any source and of any cause. It can be applied to either sharp or delicate odours: (18) Bunga mawar itu harum baunya. Pesing is characterized by the nature of or resembling the smell of urin It denotes unpleasant odours and is applicable to offensive odour: (19) Anak itu merasa malu karena celananya basah dan berbau pesing. Semerbak and wangi are synonymous in most senses. They symbolize pleasant odours emanating from distinct sources such as flower and perfume. They denote delicate smell of particular objects, and are characterized by freshness. Semerbak sometimes signifies a more purposive fresh odour than does wangi: (20) Bunga-bunga di depan rumah baunya semerbak; (21) Ruangan itu wangi karena diseproti parfum. Tengik denotes unpleasant odour emitted by particular sources such as cooking oil. The odours may or may not be sharp to olfactory nerves, and they are mostly caused by aging: (22) Jangan menggoreng dengan minyak kelapa yang sudah tengik. 3. Gustatory perception The concepts of gustatory perception refer to awareness and interpretation of stimuli perceived through gustatory nerves. The concepts were analyzed in terms of three semantic components: agreeable, acrid, emphasis. The first two components are in binary choice and the last one is multi-valued. The component agreeable distinguishes a concept from the others in terms of whether or not the concept in question symbolizes an agreeable sensation. On the basis of this component, the concepts considered here perform three distinct characteristics. Some concepts apparently suggest agreeable sensation, some others do not, and the rest are neutral in that they may suggest either one of the opposing sensation. By the component acrid, the concepts were distinguished on the basis of whether or not a concept in question symbolizes a flavour which is strongly biting to gustatory nerves. On the basis of this component, the concepts considered here do perform three characteristics similar to those on the basis of agreeable. The component emphasis, a multi-valued one, is assigned to specify the distinctive feature so as to make it unique. In some particular cases, the inherent feature of the concepts is indicated by the object from which the perceived flavour traceably emanates. The semantic components of the twelve Indonesian concepts of gustatory perception are presented in table 6 below. Table 6. Semantic components of Indonesian concepts of gustatory perception Concepts Components AGREEABLE ACRID EMPHASIS asin ± + Salt enak + ± General pleasure gurih + - Fried hambar ± - Bland lezat + ± great pleasure ntanis ± - sugar/honey masam ± + acid/vinegar pahit ± + Aspirin pedas ± + pepper/chili pulen + - rice/tubers sepat - + unripe salak tawar ± - Bland Asin is a gustatory perception, referring to flavour characterized by salt and other substance of similar taste. It belongs to the group of perceptions which symbolize acrid taste, and is neutral to the component agreeable: (23) Ibu memberinya telur asin yang sudah direbus; (24) Ikan asin seperti ini banyak dijual di pasar. Enak, gurih, pulen, and lezat all fall into the group of gustatory perception which signifies agreeable taste. Enak is the most general concept in the group. It is applycable to any agreeable taste emanating from any source. It may be induced by either acridly or delicately agreeable tastes: (25) Kue ini enak rasanya; (26) Masakan ibu sangat enak. While enak refers to agreeable taste emanated from any source, gurih is more closely associated to agreeable taste of fried food which is not acrid to gustatory sense: (27) Ikan goreng ini gurih rasanya. Lezat emphasizes the great pleasure. It is, like enak, applicable to any agreeable taste emanating from any source and neutral in the component acrid: (28) Menu hari ini sangat lezat; (29) Ia suka makanan yang lezat. Pulen signifies agreeable taste which is not acrid to gustatory sense. It is applicable to some sorts of food stuff such as rice and all kinds of tubers: (30) Ia membeli beras yang nasanya pulen. Manis may signify either agreeable or disagreeable sensation toward a taste. It is a sensation which does not suit the acrid taste. It is characterized by the taste of such substance as sugar and honey: (31) Campurkan madu agar lebih manis, (32) Rasanya manis seperti gula. Pahit denotes either agreeable or disagreeable taste which is characteristically acrid and biting. It symbolizes taste induced by such substance as aspirin, quinine, and other substance of similar taste character: (33) Jamu temu hitam itu pahit rasanya; (34) Rasanya sepahit empedu; (35) Obat antibiotik umumnya pahit. Pedas is a perception to the taste emanated from or caused by such substance as pepper and chili. A taste would be said to be pedas if it is biting and acrid to gustatory sense. Pedas may be referred to as either agreeable or disagreeable sensation: (36) Masakannya pedas karena merica yang berlebihan; (37) Sambal ini amat pedas. Masam denotes the taste characteristically induced by such substance as acid, vinegar and other substance having similar taste character. The taste symbolized is sharp to gustatory nerves, and neutral in the component agreeable: (38) Buah muda ini masih masam. Sepat signifies a disagreeable taste. It belongs to the perceptions toward the taste which is offensive and acrid in nature, characterized by some sorts of unripe fruit: (39) Buah salak yang mentah rasanya sepat. Hambar and tawar are synonyms of each other. They refer to sensation of gustatory nerves stimulated by any taste which is void of the character of any concept of gustatory perception here considered. In other words, they symbolize stimuli with a particular taste independent of any taste symbolized in the other concepts of gustatory perception: (40) Air ini rasanya tawar; (41) Gulai ini hambar karena kurang bumbu. CONCLUSION 1. The research found that there are 27 concepts used in Indonesian to represent sensory perception in the three specified sensory channels. 2. The concepts of auditory perception are analyzable into the semantic components: speech, repeated, crowded, and inherence. The first three components are in binary value, whereas the last component is multivalued in nature. 3. The concepts of olfactory perception are analyzable into the semantic components: pleasant, sharp, emanation and cause. The first two components are in binary value, whereas the other two are multivalued in nature. 4. The concepts of gustatory perception are analyzable into the semantic components: agreeable, acrid, and emphasis. The first two components are in binary value, whereas the last one is multivalued in nature. REFERENCES Chaika, E. 1982. Language, The social Mirror. Massachusetts: Newbury Hans Publishers, Cruse, D.A. 1986. Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jackson, H. 1988. Words and Their Meaning. London: .Longman Group UK Ltd. Kempson, R.M. 1977. Semantic Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Leech, G. 1974. Semantics. Middlesex: Penguin Books. Loveday, L. 1982. The Sociolinguistics of Learning and Using a non-native Language. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Palmer, F.R. 1976. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Labels: April 2007, Volume 7 Number 1 posted by Barus at 6:57 PM 
0 Comments: |
About Me
Name: Barus Location: View My Profile
Previous Posts
Archives
February 2009
|
||
 |
 |
|||
| optional footer | ||||
|
blogger template designed by savatoons
web design.
| ||||
Post a Comment