0

1

Zainurrahman
The Writer of The Original of Ideolinguistics

Understanding
Conversation
An Intermediate Ideolinguistics Handbook of Outer
Language Analysis

Dedicated to my Beloved Father and Mother
Special Thanks to Prof. E. Aminudin Aziz, M.A., Ph.D
and Fahriyani
2010, Zainurrahman
Understanding Conversation: An Intermediate Ideolinguistics
Handbook of Outer Language Analysis.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or
utilized in any form or by means electronic or mechanical,
including photocopying, recording, or by any information
storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from
WordPress Publishing



WordPress Publishing
2


Table of Contents
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION 4
STREAM OF CONSCIOUSNESS 6
WHAT IS OUTER LANGUAGE? 9
Textures of Outer Language 11
Structure (Logic and Meaning) 12
Sound (Intonation and Emphasis) 16
WHAT IS INNER LANGUAGE? 18
Fantasy 19
Idea 21
Concept 21
CHAPTER II: OUTER LANGUAGE ANALYSIS 23
Analysis of implicative utterance [IM] 23
Analysis of allusive utterance (AM) 29
Analysis of Acting Speech (ASM) 33
Request 34
Directive 35
Imperative 36
Representative 37
Interrogative 37
3

Negative 38
CHAPTER III: UNDERSTANDING CONVERSATION 40
REGISTERS OF CONVERSATION 40
Field 40
Field of Participant 41
Field of Setting 42
Field of Topic 43
Focus 44
Participant 47
Channel 50
Direct channel 50
Indirect channel 51
Linguistic Schemata 52
Linguistic Database 54
TRIGGERS OF MISUNDERSTANDING 55


4

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION

After writing the first book of Ideolinguistics published
by Wordpress Publishing, I thought it is imperative to continue
the discussion of Ideolinguistics in the more practical topic.
Again, this discussion is not inviting other linguistics branches
to do something; this has to do with the understanding of outer
language; to see the reference, the inner language. I believe if
most readers will have difficulties to understand this book unless
read the first book (The Original of Ideolinguistics) written by
me myself.
This book discusses mainly how to analyze people
utterance, in which I call this outer language; to obtain what the
speaker means, or what is in the speakers mind, in which I call
this inner language. Yes, the core of the Ideolinguistics
discussions is the connection between inner language and outer
language, or more generally, to know language users idea to
say so and so.
It will not be easy if we dont have much understanding
of experience; I understand experience as the existential
awareness of through a condition in the past time. Although
people also talk about sometimes, someplace, or something in
the future, but idea and linguistics schemata are always
constructed on and in the experience.
5

Human consciousness is filled and formed by
experience. Therefore, language, since it reflects human idea (or
consciousness), reflects the stream of consciousness. By
considering that, the discussion in this book is started by
discussing the stream of consciousness. The later is about what
the outer and inner language is. It is strongly recommended to
read the introduction book I mentioned before in order to have
enough understanding of Ideolinguistics.
Through systematically reading chapter by chapter, I
believe you will have enough skills to understand what is in
your classmates mind when he or she says so and so; what is in
your lecturers mind when she or he says this and that; even you
can easily detect the falsehood when someone is telling you a
lie.
We are not going to discuss theoretical dimensions of
language, but the practical dimension of language. It can simply
be said that this is a discussion of language in use, and then I
simply say no. This is not about language in use, but it is about
Ideolinguistics in use; how to understand outer language through
Ideolinguistics spectacles. And again, I strongly recommend you
to not continue reading until you read the first book, find it in
Google, and feel for free.


6

Stream of consciousness

What is consciousness? This is the first question we have
to answer. Does it have a stream? The second answer is heavily
determined by the answer of the first question. Now, let us lay
our body down on the bed, ask who am I?, and then think
deeper. Consciousness is the most abstract thing in our life; it is
not avoidable to acknowledge it. There are at least four
synonyms for this complicated word: awareness, realization,
notice, and perception. What about the antonyms of this word?
We have sleep, oblivion, coma, and nothingness; those words
are the synonyms of unconsciousness. These stuffs may not be
interesting for a long time in linguistics constellation, even it is
ignored; I mean the way we understand a word by looking at the
synonym and antonym.
It has to be realized that people use words to reflect what
is in their idea, where people use the word awareness, there
must something in their mind, which is called awareness, etc. If
it is difficult to find a word meaning, just looking for the
synonym and antonym, you will find what it is. Although in our
discussion they are different, from one word to its synonym, but
they are in the same stream.
Let us continue. Consciousness is awareness, realization,
notice, and perception. In the utterance I realize that it is not
easy. The speaker means he knows and he acknowledges
without lying that it is not easy. In the utterance, I am aware
7

that I am a Muslim. The speaker not only knows his identity,
but also knows his existence as a Muslim. This utterance must
be uttered in a certain context, where the speaker is doing or
dealing something that threats his identity or existence.
The utterance I was sleeping last night, and I didnt
know what happened. The speaker means to explain that the he
didnt monitor what was happening, because he was off.
Simply, consciousness is a condition where we know, we
acknowledge what we know, about our existence in certain
context and we are able to monitor those entire things in the
condition. Consciousness is a condition. Where we are aware,
we are in the self-monitoring zone.
Consciousness or awareness is never neutral, it is
identified because it lays on something, it gives everything
color, shape, smell, size, and so on. Based on the belief that the
reality occurs in language, by saying that means that it is
believed that language controls awareness; in other words,
consciousness is under language control.
Disorder that is occurred in the language use is the
reflection of the disorder of awareness. When an investigator
investigates a prisoner who tries to lie, the prisoner is nervous
and says I dont know, and, actually, I, I, actually this
shows the chaos in the prisoners mind, the prisoners awareness
is unstable. Clearly, someone who cannot monitor his or her
awareness will not be able to use language clearly. This is the
8

picture of how consciousness and language are connected each
other; and Ideolinguistics is the only one philosophy talks about
it.
When a professor is explaining a theory, his language
reflects his stream of consciousness. When a mother tells a fable
to her daughter, the story reflects her stream of consciousness.
That is why, when someone uses a word incorrectly, or the word
is not sufficient to reflect something in his consciousness, the
speaker will make what in Metapragmatic is called repair.
The stream of consciousness is actually the connections
among things in human mind. It is formed by our imagination. It
is the way our awareness is going, and it is under language
control (further explanation read the introduction book). What I
want to share here is that, language controls our consciousness,
and language does not control us when we are sleeping or when
we are under unconsciousness.
And because of that, language always reflects what is in
your mind, when you are telling a lie, your language actually
reflects it but your listener is not qualified enough to see that;
they need to learn Ideolinguistics. One example, when someone
tells you a lie, the story connection will be bad. It happens
because he tries to create something in his mind, which does not
exist before. When you give him questions to run after him
words, the chaos of language use will be easily detected. It
9

occurs because their utterance (as outer language) reflects their
stream of consciousness (as inner language).
What is outer language?

In this section, we will discuss what outer language is.
The similar discussion actually can be found in the first
introductory book entitled The Original of Ideolinguistics and
it is more complete. However, the discussion in that book may
be considered as too philosophic and now we will have a more
practical discussion.
What I mean by terming outer language is based on my
dichotomy of language: inner language and outer language.
Outer language is simply the verbal utterance you produce to
convey message or to do thing with words that you think you
can achieve as well as you do with certain action.
Your verbal product is outer language, because you
verbalize it. If the language is not verbalized, it must be inner
language; it is still in your mind, in your idea. I prefer to make
this dichotomy, to make it easier for us. That is, we only deal
with what people say and what is in their head; what in their
head is inner language and what they say is outer language.
Ideolinguistics, in this regard, posit you as the listener, or the
reader, a good listener and a good reader, you are prepared to be
an interpreter, or even a mind reader.
10

As I mentioned to you that our language reflects our
stream of consciousness; then it is true that our outer language
reflects our inner language. However, how to predict someone
inner language by analyzing his or her outer language? It will be
discussed later on. What important now is that to explain to you
what outer language is, and why it is outer.
We said that outer language is our verbal utterance, but
in this regard, both written and spoken is outer language.
Consider these utterances:
Hey Tommy, last night I saw you in the market, you were there,
werent you? said Anna.
John says Mother, I got A for my semantics subject. His
mother replies good, honey.
We scored only one run that inning, and we walked onto the
field for the first half of the third inning with a sense of doom.
See, what do you think? Which one is written and which
one is spoken? Physically, they are written language, since you
read it and not hear it. However, two first utterances (ore
sentences) are spoken, by considering the quotations used as the
sign that it is said by someone to someone. The third utterance is
written, it is taken from a novel (The Choosen, Chaimpotok). It
is written by considering there is no quotation inserted as the
sign of spoken language. Yes, quotation does not always state a
spoken language; we can distinguish it by the context of the text.
11

Both written and spoken language, as long it is
verbalized, it is outer language. We call it outer because of its
position, which is outside our mind. Something you say, or
you write, it goes out from your mind and what in your mind
remains as inner language. We can say that what you say is
outer and what you think (and you feel) is inner language. In
other words, what really stated by you is outer and your
intended meaning is inner language. Thought and feeling is in
your stream of consciousness, and because it needs words to
work, they are also considered as language.
Now, it is clear that Ideolinguistics considers two forms
of language, outer and inner and they can be distinguished very
easy. Simply, outer language is a realization of inner language.
The discussion of inner language is in turn. Now, we go to the
texture of outer language.
Textures of Outer Language

What meant by texture is the properties the outer
language possess. Outer language has properties like: structure,
sound, and system. Structure consists of the connection (logical
connection and meaning connection) among words and it goes
to the wider context words, sentences, paragraphs, and so on.
Sound consists of intonation and emphasis. Meanwhile System
consists of registers, which will be discussed in the later
discussion.
12

Structure (Logic and Meaning)

We are not discussing the structure of certain language,
but our discussion is general and universal language structure. In
this discussion, we agree that both structure and meaning is
determinant one another. The question is which does determine
which? Does structure determine meaning, or does meaning
determine structure? You cannot say both but you must say
depend. The answer depends on the role of the participant, as
the speaker or the listener; or as the writer or the reader. I will
use the producer refers to speaker and writer, and I will use the
consumer as the listener and the reader. The determinacy of
structure and meaning is what I call structure-meaning
connection.
There is a mirror between the dialectic of producer and
consumer. The mirror is the structure of language produced and
consumed (or perceived). See the illustration bellow:



The explanation:
(a) From the producer standpoint, the meaning determines
the structure.
Producers
meaning
Consumers
meaning
STRUCTURE
13

(b) From the consumer standpoint, the structure determines
the structure.
Structure is the mirror between the producer and the
consumer, and the structure itself determines the understanding
and misunderstanding of dialectic, in this regard. Rational
behind this is that we communicate each other by relying on our
structure transaction, and relying on our understanding of the
structure offered based on our linguistic schemata that will be
discussed later.
When we are hearing or perceiving an utterance take a
seat please, we rely on our knowledge of the structure of four
words above, not others. When we want to ask someone to take
a seat, we, as the producer will use similar structure or other
conventional structure. Therefore, we believe that structure is
the midpoint between meanings.
This connection remains the same, although our role in
conversation (as the producer and consumer) changes in times,
the structure remains the midpoint, the mirror. I call it mirror
because the structure reflects a predictable meaning of the
producer, to make a model that the consumers can utilize to
build their meaning.
This first connection (structure-meaning connection) is
external and universal; the next connection (logical-meaning
connection) is more internal and dependent. It is said that the
first connection is external, because it depends on the
14

communicators roles and it is said as universal because it
occurs everywhere. The next is internal because the connection
is in the internal structure among words, phrases, and
paragraphs; and it is said dependent because the practicality
depends on what language the concept is used. Although the
concept of logical-meaning connection exists in all language, the
practicality will be different.
Consider these utterances:
Take a seat please
This motorcycle is mine
Where is my key?
I dont understand what you said
The first utterance is an imperative utterance. We can see
the logical-meaning connection, as we know that the structure of
words is understandable than to hear a seat please take.
However, for some people, that utterance is understandable as
well. The two utterances may have different structure or words
order, but the meaning is the same. It is logic to say Take a seat
please and A seat? Please take. What makes it logic is that
the connections between the logic of imperative take and the
noun a seat, which is able to be taken.
Nevertheless, the second utterance (a seat? Please take)
is illogic if the context is not sufficient. For example, the seat is
15

not there, and the producer says please take without pointing or
pleasing the consumer to a seat.
The second utterance, this motorcycle is mine, is logic. It
is not about English grammar or syntax but it is about it is logic
or not! The utterance becomes logic because the noun
motorcycle is something that can be owned. Furthermore, this
utterance is logic when the use of demonstrative this is
pointing to a particular thing called motorcycle, and the thing is
there; at least the picture. To convey this meaning, the producer
has to insert at least two entities: the owned and the owner. The
order might be different in other languages, but the concept of
logicality remains the same.
However, the utterance is illogic for some considerable
reasons. For example, the utterance is uttered by someone who
is not verified as the real owner of the motorcycle, the
motorcycle is not there, and it is not motorcycle but something
that cannot be owned like: sky, stars, earth, moon, sun, and so
on. Although syntactically the words order is true, but the
context is illogic, then the utterance is illogic. Here, the
logicality of utterance depends not only the words order, but
also the internal context in which the utterance occurs. When the
utterance is restructured becomes this is motorcycle mine if the
context is true, then the utterance is logic. That utterance shows
that the producer wants to show that the thing is motorcycle and
the motorcycle is his. For example, the thing is covered by a big
cape. This situation makes the utterance becomes logic.
16

The third utterance is an interrogative where is my
key? is logic, because the utterance is asking something that
can be owned and can be lost. When the utterance is restructured
becomes my key, where? the utterance is syntactically illogic,
but in spoken language understanding it remains meaningful or
understandable. It remains the same, since the utterance involves
two entities, first is the thing and second the intention. If it
is in the English syntax frame, it must be illogic, but to
understand people utterance, please do not be too grammatical.
The last utterance I do not understand what you said
involves what is negated with the negation marker do not.
When the utterance is restructured becomes what you said, I
dont understand. The utterance remains understandable. In this
case, we are dealing with the situation which the utterance is
uttered. Although we are discussing the structure of outer
language, we are not dealing with the structure in particular
language rule; what we were discussing is the logic-meaning
between the entities in the structure of utterance. As long as the
entities in the utterance is logically connected, then the utterance
is an outer language understandable utterance.
Sound (Intonation and Emphasis)

The understanding of outer language is not only
promoted by the logical connection of the structure entities, but
also the way the producer utters the utterance, one of the
properties is intonation and emphasis. These properties or
17

textures are not reachable directly in written outer language,
they are directly identified in spoken language. However, the
textures can be obtained indirectly through the understanding of
punctuations.
In this discussion, I would like to share common
understanding of intonation in the inner language realization.
This property of outer language reflects and promotes the
producers meaning. It is common that increased tone is
associated to surprising, anger, assertiveness, and so on; but it is
not always working that way, the meaning of tones in the outer
spoken language is contextual. But one is universal, the tone is
reflecting what entity is emphasized in the utterance.
Let us say that John says George borrows my book the
emphasis might be various. There are four possible emphasis in
the same utterance. Here, the capitalized word is considered as
the emphasized entity. GEORGE borrows my book the
emphasis is on the George; if the producers tone emphasizes
George, then the meaning of the utterance is to say who
borrows. George BORROWS my book the emphasis is on the
borrows. This means the producer wants to convey message that
what George does; or George does something. In the George
borrows MY book the producer wants to emphasize the
ownership of thing. And in the George borrows my BOOK the
producer wants to emphazise the thing lent, or the object of the
utterance.
18

In written language, the increasing tone is symbolized
with (?), decreasing tone is symbolized with (!), pause is
symbolized with (,). But is it true that (?) always reflects
interrogativeness? Of course not! Interrogativeness can be
reflected by (!). The specific understand of tones and
punctuation can be achieved by learning particular culture of
conversation.
The last texture of outer language is its system that
consists of registers. However, this texture of outer language
will be discussed in the other section, in the third chapter section
Registers of conversation. Keep reading.
What is inner language?

After discussing what outer language is, I believe that
you have already understood what outer language in the
Ideolinguistics frame is. Now, it turns to the discussion of the
inner language, or what Vygotsky calls inner speech, or inner
voice. However, they are specifically different, our inner
language here deals with the idea of language users, the
participants.
As mentioned before that outer language is the
realization of inner language. Now you can consider that inner
language is what is really intended by saying this and that. Inner
language is simply defined as the condition of idea in using
language to think or to feel; the language importance is that to
19

connect an idea to another idea, to make sense of something.
When you are thinking, you are simply talking in your mind,
and because you use language to talk, the language you use to
think is inner language.
When our discussion takes this place, we are already in
the discussion of analysis. What I mean with stating that is that
because inner language is the meaning, which can be attained by
analyzing outer language. Te title of this book suggests the
analysis of outer language to attain the inner language.
The discussion of inner language can be found primarily
in the first introductory book published by WordPress
Publishing. Here, we will remind the limitation of inner
language and its textures. The textures of inner language are
different with the textures of outer language.
To discuss inner language, it starts from the discussion
of the tricothomy of inner language, namely: fantasy, idea, and
concept.
Fantasy

This word has at least eight synonyms (dream,
daydream, fancy, hope, desire, etc). Fantasy is a kind of mental
images, which is built by a high desire, not by logic. For
example I have a catle on the sky. This is a kind of fantasies,
which tells us what is in the producers mind. The producer has
a high desire of having a castle on the sky, but it is an
20

imagination only. It is illogic to build a castle on the sky, isnt
it? This kind of mental image is what we call fantasy.
But the synonym hope suggests a possibility that fantasy
might be real, or logic. For example sexual fantasy; someone
tries to create fantasy of making love with a celebrity. Of course
it is not impossible to realize the fantasy. But the point is that it
is not occurred, and it is hardly to be occurred, unless the
fantasy maker is not the celebritys husband.
In fantasying something, people use language; at least to
create an mental experience from the fantasying. The use of
language in fantasying is for connecting entities in the fantasy,
to understand the features of entities, and to identify the
appearance of entities. We are not always aware that in trying to
dream something we use language, because the fantasy is in the
stream of consciousness. We use words to recognize things in
our fantasy, the evidence is that when we forget a word of entity
when we are thinking or fantasying, our fantasying must be
stopped. Simply, Ideolinguistics believes that fantasy is
something appears in our mind as the result of cognitive process.
Sometimes fantasy is not created by us, but it is created by
something else. For instance, you saw a cat (black and dirty cat)
you then tell yourself that the cat is dirty and black. The cats
blackness and dirtiness are saved in your mind and this is
what is simply defined as fantasy.
21


Idea

Still in the last example, you saw a black and dirty cat.
The next day you saw a white-clean cat, and then you are aware
that cat is not always black and dirty but cat can be white and
clean; this awareness is what we call idea. When you try to
combine the phenomena becomes a black-clean cat, it returns to
fantasy.
Concept

Suppose that you saw ten cats with their features and
then you conclude that cat is four-legged, has tail, and other
features cat possesses. The awareness in your mind is what we
call concept. You now have a concept of cat. Therefore,
Ideolinguistics believes that fantasy, idea, and concept are the
hierarchy of awareness. Concept is a final and general mental
image of a phenomenon.
In fantasizing, idealizing, or conceptualizing, language
plays important role to make connections and drives our
thought. Language is the driver of consciousness, as stated that
even to think, human need language.
Now, I believe that you already knew that inner language
is the language in your mind. When you are thinking, you are
using language and the language is inner language. Inner
22

language has its structure, as well as outer language. The
difference is that outer language is a realization of inner
language, and inner language is the intended meaning (and
reference) of outer language. The concept of inner language is
described in a more understandable form when we are analyzing
outer language.


23

CHAPTER II: OUTER LANGUAGE ANALYSIS

This chapter discusses the analysis of outer language.
The discussion will be divided into three parts, according to the
basic principles of Ideolinguistics. Ideolinguistics principles are
(1) Implicative Utterance, (2) Allusive Utterance, and (3)
Acting Speech. There are also intermediate principles of
Ideolinguistics among other (4) Actuality and Possibility
Package, and (5) Language Cosmology. These two last
principles will be discussed somewhere and they are embedded
in the three other basics principles. The advance principle of
Ideolinguistics is (6) Language Mask; this is not discussed in
this book. The principles are divided into two big parts, the first
part is philosophic principles cover: language cosmology and
language mask; the second part is practical principles cover:
implicative, allusive, acting speech, and actuality-possibility
package. The discussion in this book is more practical, thus, the
dominant principles discussed must be the practical principles.
Let us go!
Analysis of implicative utterance [IM]

Firstly, it has to distinguish levels of meaning. We have
at least three levels of meaning, namely: elemental meaning,
single comprehensive meaning, and implicative meaning.
Elemental meaning is that the meaning of utterance elements
like word, phrase, and clause. Although we do not deal with
24

grammar here, but the elements of utterance (or sentence) also
have their meaning, it is called elemental meaning in
Ideolinguistics.
In the dog nips me we have four elemental meanings;
the-dog-nips-me. This way is called word-elemental meaning. In
other case, we have three phrase-elemental meanings; the dog-
nips-me. And in other case, we also have two clause-elemental
meanings; the dog-nips me. In word-elemental meaning, we
have (1) demonstrative awareness of the, (2) the actor dog,
the action nips, and the patient me. I prefer to call them
meaning than function, although they represent their
function, but we recognize them as having meaning in their
position.
Single comprehensive meaning means the meaning
constructed by the unity of elements. the dog nips me is a unit
of system in utterance. It has its single comprehensive meaning,
in which the producer wants to share that something we name
dog has been doing something to him or her. We can get the
message if, and only if, we have common background of what is
dog, and what is nips. In the utterance, these two elements
are the focuses; although you may consider me as the third
element which has important meaning, but in this case, the
producer uses direct speech and the context shows clearly who
is the patient. Therefore, it is stated that when a context shares
the elemental meaning, then it is excluded from the crucial
elemental meaning.
25

When we are doing conversation, our utterances (or
people who speaks against us) reflect details in our stream of
consciousness. The diction or words used is chosen
appropriately to reflect what is in our idea. We are aware to use
those words, but sometimes some exceptional reasons are
allowed when we use inappropriate words. The unknowness
may be the first reason, or sometimes we also use other words
to convey other message and when this occurs, the utterance
has implicative meaning.
In my cat always sleeps on my bed may have a sort of
different meaning. What is in the producers idea when he is
saying this? It is really contextual bound. We can analyze the
utterance wisely through some different ways. We can do it
through see the elemental meaning, single comprehensive
meaning, or implicative meaning. Here we try to analyze the
utterance through implicative meaning.
My cat always sleeps on my bed
This utterance is not uttered suddenly, just consider the
context. The possible implicative meanings are:
IMI love my cat, so I allow it to sleep on my bed
IMMy cat likes to sleep on my bed
IMI have two beds, one for my cat
26

IMI do not like the cat, because it always sleeps on my
bed
IMMy cat means my friend who always eats my
supper, etc.
What we have to understand here that not all the
implicative meanings are true. What is true here is only obtained
by context and utterances flank the utterance. Do not think that
context and flanks-utterance are not playing role; because the
true implicative meaning is heavily determined by them.
Consider this conversation:
Zain : do you like this movie?
Happy : I do not like horror movies!
It is impossible to understand what is in Happys mind
when she makes the negation like that without to know what
movie is intended by Zains utterance. Here, we have to know
what movie Zain is talking about. Just see the context. The use
of demonstrative awareness this by Zain presents the context
that they are in a movie shop or in a theater. The demonstrative
awareness (DA) presents certain movie intended by Zain.
Without the reference of DA, we have a sort of possible
implicative meaning like this:
IM I do not like this movie (DAHorror movie)
27

IM I like this movie (DA comedy or action or
drama)
However, the single comprehensive meaning is true, that
is what is really asserted in the utterance that Happy does not
like horror movie. If the DA reference is horror movie in that
context, then it is true that the movie meant by Zain is not
interesting for Happy. If the DA reference is something other,
then it is true that Happy likes that movie meant by Zain. Again,
it is true that Happy does not like horror movie.
It suggests that sometimes single comprehensive
meaning (SCM) is different from IM [it is signaled with SCM
IM]; but it is not always working that way. Sometimes SCM
is similar as IM [it is signaled with SCM =IM].
Another example:
Zain : we are watching Van Helsing now, would you
mind to join?
Happy : no, I dont like horror movie!
Here, [SCM =IM], since Van Helsing is a horror movie.
The DA Van Helsing gives a reference to Happys idea that Zain
is watching horror movie. Does it mean that Happy has watched
Van Helsing before? May be yes, maybe not. She may hear it
from someone, or from reading movie bulletin, or seeing it in
internet. Do you want to know that? It is really another story.
However, you may come to two IMs, Happy has watched Van
28

Helsing and/or Happy gets information from other sources
about Van Helsing. Why is this another story? Because it is not
in Happys idea, and Ideolinguistics do not deal with that in IM
analysis. Moreover, it is not important to know, and the context
does not share the information. The discussion of this will be
found in Actuality and Possibility Package [signaled with APP].
Last example:
Zain: Hi, how are you doing?
Mahdi: I am so thirsty.
The [SCM] of Mahdis utterance is that he is thirsty and
as if he needs a glass of water. To understand what is in Mahdis
mind, see the context. Is it warm day? Did he come from
somewhere to your home? The IMs may be:
IM I need a glass of water
IM I am fasting
Only one way to ensure that, we suggest us to ask
further. This is a wise way to understand producers meaning in
this regard (some water? Iced tea? Etc). Up to this point, I
believe that you have had a basic knowledge about how to
analyze implicative utterance. Do we always communicate in
this way? Not, we do not do that, but sometimes SCM IM, so
you need to be wise in interpreting people utterance.
29

Analysis of allusive utterance (AM)

Allusive utterance (AU) is considered as special way
used by people to convey messages through utterance. Allusive
utterance is utterance that contains implied meaning. The
difference from implicative utterance is that implicative
utterance is uttered in natural way, but allusive utterance is
uttered with special producers intention. Usually, people use
allusive utterance to minimize the risk that may be caused by the
utterance; although it is stated like that, but the producer really
intends that the consumer can understand and receive the
message.
Context and convention play important role in
understanding Allusive meaning [AM]. Context, in language
use, shares the meaning of utterance, whatever type. What
meant by convention here is that the conventional meaning of
word (or phrase)-elemental meaning used in the utterance. This
must be different from one language to another, because it is
conventional; the meaning is determined by social convention.
Consider this example:
Policeman : You must answer that question!
Mark : I think I need my lawyer.
Policewoman : Good idea, and do not buy ticket this
week.
30

The policemans utterance share the context, Mark is
being investigated informally. We can recognize that from
Marks utterance I need my lawyer. Meanwhile,
Policewomans utterance do not buy ticket this week has
[AM]. The meaning is that the policewoman suspects Mark will
run abroad because of the case. She utters that to anticipate
Mark attempt to go somewhere to avoid the investigation. The
reason of using [AU] is that to minimize the effect that may be
caused, that is, Mark can feel under pressure; she does not want
to make Mark feel being suspected to run, but she does want
Mark to receive her meaning.
You will not think that in this context the policewomans
utterance means that the ticket this week is expensive, or the
weather is critical. We obtain the [AM] above because the
context shares the meaning.
Consider this example:
Lecturer: thank you for the attention, questions,
contribution, your confidence, and your over confidence
(students laugh).
By seeing that students laugh you might come to
understand that the lecturer makes joke, actually not. The
lecturer is using allusive utterance. The [AM] is that one (or
some) of the students made some irrational criticism or irrational
questions (or answers). The utterance reflects the lecturers
pettishness.
31

Other example:
Examiner: I think this is a brave statement.
Examinee: thank you, sir.
In the example, the examinee misunderstand the [AU].
The examinee thinks that the examiner is approving the
statement, but in the context, it is not. The context is in
dissertation examination, the examinee makes an irrational (or
unreason) statement in her dissertation. The [AM] is that you
are fool! Where is the evidence supporting your statement?.
This is conventional, in science or academic field, your
statement must be based on evidence; if you do not have
evidence and you remain to state something, you are brave.
The use of allusive utterance can be recognized by the
use of metaphors, or other rhetoric. Allusive utterance can be
found in praises, jokes, politeness, and insults. Simply, allusive
utterance is used when someone tries to convey a message
indirectly. Again, the purpose is that to minimize the effect that
can be caused by the utterance.
In this regard, the principles of cooperation in
conversation have to be held-high. Mostly people misunderstand
allusive utterances. The misunderstandings can be triggered by
some factors that will be discussed in the last part of this book.
One of the factors is the low of the consumers linguistic
schemata or linguistic database.
32

Allusive utterance may have ambiguous meanings, or
even multiple meaning. Although conversation is about
construction and reconstruction of meaning, the consumers
reconstruction may be different or even opposite to the
producers construction. Do not think that this is triggered just
by the different standpoints, but it is mainly caused by the
different level of linguistic schemata.
To avoid the misunderstanding in using allusive
utterance, the producer should consider the level of linguistic
schemata of consumer. This consideration is functional in order
to make parallel of reference and inference. It is important to
understand that reference is belonging to the producer, and
inference is possessed by the consumer.
Up to this point, I guess that you have understood what
and how to analyze allusive utterance, you also understood the
difference between implicative utterance and allusive utterance
already; now you can do exercise yourself. Look for some
allusive utterances in the novel or short story or in real
conversation and try to understand them. To validate your
understanding, invite your friend to do similar thing and
compare your results.



33

Analysis of Acting Speech (ASM)

Now, we are going to discuss the function of language as
the action doer. We recognize thumb up as praise, and thumb
down as something opposite to that. This shows that sometimes
action reflects more meaning than language. In other side,
language may reflect more meaning than action, even language
can do action. It is usually known as speech act.
However, the term speech act has been challenged by
question who is the doer of action? the producer is the action
doer; since the producer intends to do certain action by using
language. but, it is true that language does not do anything? It is
not hundred percent true. Pragmatics considers speech act as
how people do thing with words. Ideolinguistics considers
acting speech as how words do thing to people.
You can see the difference between speech act and
acting speech by considering the standpoint. If pragmatics
standpoint is on the people do thing with words, then
Ideolinguistics standpoint is on the speech itself. Therefore, the
analysis of acting speech means the analysis of effect of words
(or language) on people.
Since word is the detail chosen by people to convey
message or information in the stream of consciousness, the
words also influents people stream of consciousness. When you
tell your friend can you pass the salt? this is syntactically an
34

interrogative utterance. However, your meaning is request and
the effect you expect is that your friend gives you the salt. The
word-elemental meaning of your utterance contributes
information to your friends consciousness that you need the
salt. Therefore, the meaning of your utterance is not expecting
yes or no answer. It is important to keep in your mind that the
inner language can be different from outer language. It is also
stated that syntactic form of utterance, semantic meaning, and
acting speech meaning [ASM] are different. Again, context
contributes much.
There are at least seven types of acting speech, namely:
request, directive, imperative, representative, interrogative,
offer, and negative. The examples and brief discussions for each
type are in turn.
Request
Context: in the classroom
Jane: oh my God, I forget to buy new pen.
[syntacticalaffirmative] [ASMrequest]
Clark: use mine. (gives pen) [syntacticalimperative]
[ASMoffering]
Janes utterance is syntactically formulated as an
affirmative. She affirms to Clark (or even she talks to herself)
that she forgets to buy a new pen. The [IM-1] is that her old pen
ink has run out already, and [IM-2] she has no pen to be used
right now. As you can see, the word-elemental meaning oh my
35

God contributes information and makes Clark is aware that the
situation is critical. Then, Clarks consciousness must be
touched and the effect of the Janes word-elemental meaning
I forget to buy a new pen inserts message of requesting into
Clarks awareness. Therefore, the [ASM] is request. By
considering the contribution of J anes word-elemental meaning,
then it is logic that Clark responds to Jane by offering the pen. It
can be seen that Clark use minor clause use mine and this is
syntactically an imperative. However, for responding the Janes
[AS] then the Clarks [ASM] is not imperative but offering.
Directive
Context: a computer workshop
Jane: it is written that click the next button to start the
process. [syntacticalaffirmative] [ASMdirective]
Clark: I get it. [syntacticalaffirmative] [ASMNull]
Syntactically, Janes utterance is affirmative. We can see
that Jane is reading the manual book. Jane intends to inform
Clark what the next step is. However, the speech meaning is
directive. This is not directly intended by Jane (this criticizes
pragmatics speech act that people do thing with words, the
speakers intended meaning as illocutionary), but the word-
elemental meaning contributes to Clarks awareness as directive
meaning. Therefore, [ASMdirective]. The Janes utterance is
indirectly direct Clark to click the next button. The meaning of
[ASMNull] is that there is not further effect. Jane understands
36

that I get it means Jane does not need to repeat the sentence,
but this is [IM] and not [ASM.]
Imperative
Context: in the room, storming, raining.
Jane: well, it is cold. [Syntacticalrepresentative]
[ASMimperative]
Clark: should I close the door?
[Syntacticalinterrogative] [ASMNull]
Jane: is your door strong enough?
[Syntacticalinterrogative] [ASMimperative]
We can see that Janes first utterance is syntactically
representative. She acknowledge what she is feeling. This is
actually imperative, she does imperative to Clark, the [AMS] is
you must close the door. Without Janes second utterance, this
will be request. It becomes imperative because the reason is not
only cold but also for saving the door. Clarks response on
Janes first utterance is natural; therefore, there is not [ASM].
Janes second utterance is repetitive acting speech [RAS] as the
emphasis of first [AS]. Again, it is not request, because the
utterance is repeated to emphasis the acting speech. Request is
not repeated with emphasis, it is unnecessary to do that.


37

Representative
Context: in the room, storming, raining
Jane: I need a hot drink, do you have any coffee?
[Syntacticalinterrogative] [ASMrepresentative]
Clark: yes, soon. [Syntacticalminor clause]
[ASMNull]
Janes utterance is having representative meaning, she
wants Clark knows that she is cold, and she needs a hot drink
and she prefers coffee. The second clause-elemental meaning
do you have any coffee can be recognized as having multiple
[ASM]. You can consider this is a request as well. However, the
context shares what Jane wants as representative of feeling and
needs. What is implied in J anes is that she is cold.
Interrogative
Context: Home
Child: I have new toys, mom. [Syntacticalaffirmative]
[ASMNull]
Mother: Someone must be kind to you.
[ASMInterrogative]
The mothers utterance contains [ASM] who gives you
the new toys or where did you find it? but is syntactically
formulated as acknowledgement. The mothers utterance, since
it is interrogative, it needs certain answer.
38

Negative
Context: in the classroom
Student: it is true that one paragraph only contains one
main idea? [SyntacticalInterrogative] [ASMNull]
Lecturer: more than one main idea is not paragraph.
[Syntacticalaffirmative] [ASMNegative]
Student: what if I create paragraph with more than one
main idea? [SyntacticalInterrogative] [ASMNull]
Lecturer: another idea must be supporting idea.
[Syntacticalaffirmative] [ASMNegative]
All the lecturers utterance contains negation on I
negate that there are more than one main ideas in one
paragraph. If the student insists on his utterance, so the lecturer
is under pressure. It is based on the understanding of negation.
Negation meets negation will create pressures.
The last one is declarative, which is similar as
pragmatics. Declarative means [AS] used to declare a situation,
condition, or reality. Acting speech create and change reality
(world). For the example a priest declares a marriage. This is not
Ideolinguistics focus, because declarative function of speech act
depends on felicity condition. Moreover, we are dealing with the
absolute relationship between outer and inner language. When a
priest declares a marriage, he does not have inner language
39

connection to his outer language, this is because what he says in
this regard is a kind of customs, it is just his work.
There are still examples, here I just give some examples
for our basic understanding of analysis. From the discussion of
outer language analysis presented, we know that in certain level,
pragmatics and Ideolinguistics are different but not opposites
each other; the outer language refers to inner language, and so
on. I will not guide your understanding, because the
understanding is now yours.
Sometimes in conversation, we are not aware that we are
analyzing what people say to us, but we are aware that we
understand it. The next chapter discusses things in conversation.
This is a great contribution of Ideolinguistics in language use.
The chapter discusses how to understand conversation and why
misunderstanding occurs in conversation. As the word
conversation suggest, the discussion will be in spoken language
than written.

40

CHAPTER III: UNDERSTANDING CONVERSATION

What is conversation? Conversation is mutual
connection between outer language. conversation is
informational exchange. Conversation is message transaction.
Conversation is connection, exchange, and transaction of
meaning.
In doing conversation, we have to be cooperative each
other. However, to do a good conversation, both the producer
and consumer have to be aware the registers of conversation.
The collision of registers will emerge the misunderstanding. For
the sake, here Ideolinguistics contributes us the registers of
conversation.
Registers of Conversation

Register means the list of important (crucial and vital) of
entities must be understood and must be obeyed by the
participants of conversation. Again, collision on the registers
will emerge misunderstanding.
Field

What is field? Field means area the conversation takes
place and the area of the participants expertise. Participants
of the conversation are the producer and consumer. Field is
41

divided into three categories: field of participant, field of setting,
and field of topic.
Field of Participant
Field of participant is the expertise of participant. People
have their own field that determines their linguistics schemata
and their linguistics database. For example you may be not sure
to invite a computer expert in theology conversation. When it is
done, you must find that the computer expert will use a lot of
computer terms although you are doing conversation about
angel and devil.
See this short conversation:
Zain: well, you know, we are revived in the dooms day.
Abdul: yes, God makes it like we restart our PC.
This occurs because Abduls field is computer, he is a
computer science academic student. Therefore he uses his term
to convey his inner language. However, I use the word
revived rather than recreated because this is my field,
theology.
People field influence their conversation approach in
many ways: diction, the way they rationale their statement, the
way they understand your outer language, etc. It occurs because
they are habituated to use the terms and their stream of
consciousness is directed by their field itself.
42

In order to do a successful conversation, we have to
consider first what is the field of the opponent and what is our
field. Do not use particular term in our field that is not
understood by people in our conversation. This is one of the
Ideolinguistics conversation principle. Simply, the field of
participant determines some aspects of conversation: the use of
terms, the way to convey message, and the way to understand
outer language.
Field of Setting
Field of setting is the area where and when the
conversation takes place. In doing conversation, we should
consider the place and time we are in. is it in the market?
Church? Masjid? Toilet? School? Night? Afternoon? Morning?
Storming? Raining? Summer? Winter? Dinner? Breakfast? And
so on.
We have to considered the place and time we are in
doing conversation. The field of setting has to do with the
appropriateness of conversation place and time. It is not
appropriate to talk about God in the market, or talk about sex in
the Masjid. It is not appropriate to invite someone to talk about
cancer operation when you are dinning. It is not appropriate to
talk about ghost in the late night or in the forest. It is not
appropriate to talk about picnic planning in the storming day,
etc.
The participant will not be interested if the conversation
and the place and time do not match each other. We always hear
43

the saying right place and right time. When we are going to
invite someone to conversation, we have to consider where we
are and when it is. The collision of the field of setting emerges
not the misunderstanding but the obstacles in conversation.
You will not be interested in talking about blood and
hurt when you are eating in the restaurant, all right? That is the
way our conversation must be.
Field of Topic
Field of topic has to do with the topic you are talking
about. This includes the field of participant and the field of
setting. This is also related to the appropriateness of
conversation. However, this is more about the terms used in the
conversation.
When we are talking about television, what is the topic?
Is it about the function of television? The news in television?
The impact of not having television? The price? The model?
The brand? And so on.
For example you are talking about the component of
television, your topic must be electronic. In this regard, the
terms used in conversation frequently might be resistor,
condensator, capasitor, diode, tube, and so on. Will you talk
about this to a priest? He will not understand what you are
talking about if you do not use general term or explanation to
explain what you mean. It occurs when the priest is not an
electronic engineer, his linguistic database will be different with
44

you. Even, you are capable to talk about that stuffs if you are in
the right field of participant.
Since we hope to do meaningful conversation, we have
to consider the participant of conversation topic. This is always
happened, talk about something that is not our field. The result
of the collision is that we are not synchronized each other.
Up to this point, we can narrow down the field into two
big types of field: general and particular field. General field is
the field where all participant possesses, and particular field is
the field owned by the participant as their area of expertise.
As people who lives on the earth, we have general topic
like global warming, corruption, law, religion, and so forth.
However, in particular, we have our personal field that we
posses; our expertise. We can do conversation with all types of
participant, but the field must be general. The way we create the
general conversation field is by using general terms that are also
possessed in the participants linguistic database.
Focus

Keep the focus of conversation is one of the way to
create good conversation. People do conversation, especially
non-formal conversation not in this way. Non-formal
conversation is like tousled yarn. However, we can do keep the
focus although in non-formal conversation.
45

The focus meant here is the kept conversation structure.
If we want to do a conversation, it is important to consider what
is firstly talked, and what is the next. Do not do conversation
recursively.
Recursive conversation, besides takes a lot of time, also
needs unnecessary exploration of consciousness that emerges
unnecessary frustration. One way to avoid these impact is by
keeping the focus of conversation.
Focus is possessed by topic. If we are talking about
linguistics topic, what is the focus? Is it semantics? Syntax? Or
pragmatics? If we are talking about pragmatics, what is the
focus? Is it presupposition? Entailment? Speech act? Or
implicature?
Knowing how to start and how to finish our conversation
is important, without this knowledge, the conversation will be
recursive and even endless. We are not placed in the
conversation arbitrarily, we have fields. Therefore, recursive
conversation is wasting time.
Focused conversation reflects the structured idea of
participants. If participants do recursive conversation, this
reflects the unstructured idea of participants. Simply, to we just
be able to keep focus if our idea is well-structured. We have to
know what is being talked and what is not be able to insert in the
conversation.
46

We realize that conversation develops, the development
of conversation is through the development of idea. however, it
is imperative to make limitation or constrain of conversation.
Without doing this, again, we do not want to do endless
conversation. A good conversation is ended by understanding of
participants, not ended by the time limit or because the
participants have been tired or sleepy.
Focus is heavily determined by our fields understanding.
We do not want to talk about politics in our country in the
midnight, even we are talking that issue with a politician;
because politics is a big issue that will not be finished in one or
two hours, moreover, midnight is sleepy time.
Focus is not developed, we just jump from one focus to
other focus of conversation. In doing conversation, the different
standpoints may emerge the recursive conversation, just
remember that conversation is transaction; one gives and one
accepts.
Overlapping of focus also may be occurred in
conversation, so we have to be aware, be careful. Conversation
is not debate, they are two different thing and you knew it
already. However, sometimes we cannot distinguish whether we
are doing conversation or battling each other. It is because we
have different standpoints and we want to challenge the
participant or we want to maintain our principle.
47

To avoid this, we have to return on the definition of
conversation. It is a transaction, one gives and one accepts.
Overlapping occurs because the role of participants is not longer
under control. Although we personally do not accept what is
participant saying, but our own role as the participant (producer
and consumer) should change systematically. This overlapping
can emerge the jumping of focus, because each participant starts
to look for the weaknesses of other participant. Here, the
conversation is not longer transaction or exchanging, but war.
Keep the focus is about to be a good participant of
conversation. It is not about you are capable or not, but you keep
focus because you understand what are the fields of
conversation and what is the focus of conversation. When the
participant wants to jump to other focus, you still keep it by
saying we are talking about this and not that!
Oral way to keep the focus when you are talking is that
by saying talking about or our focus is you may have
other ways to keep the focus. We concentrate on one topic, one
problem, and talking it one by one, not all at once.
Participant

Participant is the main entity in the registers of
conversation; because participant is the conversation doer. The
participant in Ideolinguistics is divided into two, producer and
48

consumer. Producer is writer and speaker, consumer is reader
and listener.
Considering who or what is our conversation participant
is very important. Participant also has its own registers, in
Ideolinguistics, which are: age, sex, relationship, fields.
The field of participant has been discussed previously.
Here, the discussion will not include fields anymore. The
discussion is around age, sex, and relationship.
We want to do conversation in more polite way with the
older participant. Age also determines the linguistic experience
and linguistics database. We want to do conversation in more
familiar way with our friend which have same age. And the
conversation becomes dominated by you when you are talking
with the younger participant.
To make your older participant understands what you
mean, you have to use appropriate word and not talking about
something irrelevant. For example you will not talk about your
love experience with your classmate to someone who is older
from you or younger. Simply, we do conversation differently for
each different age participant.
However, there is some exceptional reasons. You will
not to rigor in doing conversation about love experience to your
older-friend participant. You will not say Sir, would you mind
to lend me your match? to your older-friend participant. And
49

you will not say Bro, give me your match to your older-not
friend participant. This has to do with the relationship of
participants.
We do not talk with our uncle as we talk with our older
friend. This has to do with the politeness in conversation. We
have to use appropriate way to talk with our participant by
considering who are they.
Sex also plays important role in conversation. It is
assumed that male is more logic than female; female is more
intuitive. Most time, female is more sensitive than male. Thats
why we have to consider the sex of the conversation
participants.
There is a wall between male and female in
conversation, that is, female more keep their privacies. When
two different sex participants do conversation, the relationship
between them plays. You do not want to share your sexual
dysfunction to your female participant; unless she is your doctor
or sexual consultant.
Difference of sex of conversation participant emerges
reluctance or even sentimental issues. Here, we have to consider
the sex of our participant.


50

Channel

Channel of conversation is the last register concerned by
Ideolinguistics. There are two types of channel, they are: direct
channel and indirect channel. Channel of conversation is the
condition mediates the conversation participants.
Direct channel
Face to face conversation is the direct channel of
conversation. When we are doing face to face conversation, the
context and other suprasegmental aspects share, contribute, and
clarify the meaning of inner language.
The context has been discussed already. The context
means the place and time that mediate the conversation
participants. In direct channel, our mimic, intonation, and
gestures share the meaning or our inner language. The elemental
meaning might be very limited, but your mimic and gestures
contribute the implicative meaning very much.
Direct channel also mediates direct feedback, not
postponed feedback. Conversation in this way is very good and
effective, but it is very conditional. Direct channel conversation
is limited by time and place. When the participants are in the
same location, and they are talking about somewhere else, the
conversation only contributes a limited source. The participant
can give response directly and their inner language also can be
attained by looking at the suprasegmental aspects involved in
their way to do conversation. Simply, direct channel
51

conversation is face to face conversation, complete with its
entities.
Indirect channel
Indirect channel is non face to face conversation. The
conversation can be through phone, email, SMS, pager, letter,
chat-box, etc.
Indirect channel is also divided into two sub-types:
straight response and delayed response. Straight response is like
phone and chat-box. Meanwhile delayed response is like email,
SMS, pager, letter, etc.
the strength of indirect channel conversation is that the
participants can be in different place and different time; we have
different time for each far location.
Participants in this channel do not in the same context, or
in the same certain fields. The weakness of indirect channel is
that the lack of suprasegmental aspect of linguistic. We just have
intonation by phone, but it is cannot share more than
punctuation in written conversation.
Indirect channel provides simplification in term of time
and place. But it is weak enough to be called effective
conversation. However, both direct or indirect channel is
conditional; when it is possible to do direct channel conversation
then it is unnecessary to do indirect channel conversation, it is
more economic. Indirect channel can mediate you and someone
in somewhere, you write letter to day and it is read tomorrow
52

and it is responded next week, the sense of topic is no longer
maintained as well as direct channel conversation.
Can we consider that indirect channel is conversation?
Since it is the exchange or transaction of inner language by
using outer language, the answer is yes.
Linguistic Schemata

I have mentioned the term linguistic schemata and
linguistic database many times, for amateur Ideolinguistics these
terms might be strange. I believe that the discussion of the terms
essence is important.
The term linguistic schemata refers to the background
linguistic knowledge possessed by a language user, it is not
about how many words we have memorized but it is about our
understanding of using language.
Our understanding of language is formulated through our
linguistic experience, that is the experience we have in using
language to communicate or to response the participant. Our
understanding forms a schema and the scheme makes
correlations among one linguistic understanding to others
understandings.
Our linguistic schemata is cultural bound, since language
is one of the culture elements. It is also developed through space
and time. We can develop our linguistic schemata when we
53

communicate with other people who have different size of
linguistic schemata, and when we communicate with people
who have different linguistic convention.
Linguistic schemata is like a map of language
understanding, it makes us understand people language (outer
language) easier, or even normally.
In term of age, different age simply reflect different
size of language schemata. It is because the size of linguistic
schemata depends on the experience of using language. A
Chinese might not understand the word freeze when he was
pursued by policeman. Finally, he was shot because he did not
stop running. This is because the exclamation freeze is not
registered in his linguistic schemata.
The example above is not only showing that the Chinese
does not understand what freeze is meant. He knows literal
meaning of that word, but in context, he does not. The word
freeze is used contextually in that example. The understanding
of the language meaning in context and field is what I term as
linguistic schemata.
Another example is that when a doctor tells a patient that
he suffers bronchitis. The patient then asks the doctor what
bronchitis is. The doctor gives example to the patient this and
that. The patient linguistic schemata on this context and field is
then developed through the doctors explanation.
54

It might be my fault to locate the discussion of this term
here, but by doing this, I invite you to reread this book with
further linguistic schemata.
Linguistic Database

Less differently with linguistic schemata, linguistic
database is how many words you memorize and understand;
thus, it is not about size only, but it is only about amount of
linguistic schemata.
Linguistic database is exchequer of linguistic features
in language use; including words, phrases, clauses, and idioms.
However, most time we just have difference in the use of words,
or terms.
Objects on the earth are named, and we name those
object differently based on our linguistic convention, and field
as well. You can consider linguistic database as synonym of
vocabulary. What is different? The difference is that vocabulary
is contextual free and linguistic database is not.
We people have different amount and size of linguistic
database. One might have 50000 words in his mind, and other
might have more or less than that. To develop our linguistic
database, memorizing only is not enough, to use it is better.
See the last example, between doctor and her patient. By
having doctors explanation, not only the patients linguistic
55

schemata is developed, but also his linguistic database amount is
increased.
It is simply said that linguistic schemata and linguistic
database are developed at once. The linguistic schemata size
development is a reflection of linguistic database development.
Linguistic schemata and linguistic database is not only
about how many words we have memorized, but it is about our
understanding of the usage of the words.
Both linguistic schemata and linguistic database takes
place in our mind, if we can organize our linguistic database in a
well map of language understanding, our way of using language
is more structured. Again, I remind you that linguistic schemata
and linguistic database is contextual and field bound.
The formula of understanding is shown:
Linguistic schemata +Linguistic Database =Understanding of
Vocabulary +Context +Field in use.
Triggers of Misunderstanding

Our last discussion is about the triggers of
misunderstanding. We may have some assumptions of why we
often have misunderstanding in conversation or in reading text.
Here, we give the triggers of misunderstanding based on
Ideolinguistics standpoint.
56

The first trigger is the difference of fields. When we are
doing conversation, we should consider the fields (participant,
setting, and topic).
The second trigger is the difference of linguistic
schemata and linguistic database. As mentioned that each
participant might have different size and amount of linguistic
schemata and database.
The third trigger is the collision of conversation
registers. Field is one of the conversation registers. By having
consideration and awareness in this regard, we can avoid
misunderstanding.
The fourth trigger is overlapping. When the conversation
participants are too motivated, then they will break the
conversation rules, because the conversation is overlapped. This
emerges misunderstanding, because there is not well-
transaction.
The fifth trigger is the disconnection between inner
language and outer language. The participant might chose
inappropriate allusion or implicative utterance. Thus, the
misunderstanding or conversation is not only triggered by
consumer, but also the producer as well. When our inner
language is disconnected from outer language, misunderstanding
must be happened.

57


Index
A
acting speech, 33
Allusive utterance, 29, 31
awareness, 7
C
Channel, 50
concept, 21
consciousness, 6, 7
Conversation, 40
D
declarative, 38
demonstrative awareness, 24
disorder of awareness, 7
E
elemental meaning, 29
Elemental meaning, 23
existential awareness, 4
F
Fantasy, 19
field, 40
flanks-utterance, 26
focus of conversation, 44
Focused conversation, 45
G
General field, 44
I
idea, 21
illocutionary, 35
imperative, 36
imperative utterance, 14
implicative meanings, 26
Indirect channel, 51
inner language, 4, 10, 18, 22
inner speech, 18
interrogative, 16
interrogative utterance, 34
L
language schemata, 53
levels of meaning, 23
linguistic database, 54
linguistic schemata, 32, 52
logicality of utterance, 15
logical-meaning connection, 13
N
negation, 38
negation marker, 16
O
outer language, 4, 9, 22
Overlapping of focus, 46
P
participant, 41, 48
particular field, 44
Pragmatics, 33
58

R
Recursive conversation, 45
Register, 40
S
setting, 42
single comprehensive meaning, 27
Single comprehensive meaning, 24
Sound, 16
speech act, 33
streamof consciousness, 8
structure of language, 12
structure-meaning connection, 13
suprasegmental, 50
T
triggers of misunderstanding, 55
U
unconsciousness, 6
V
verbal product, 9











Biography of Author

Zainurrahman was born in Ternate (a city in North Maluku,
Indonesia) on March, 5
th
1983. He finished his undergraduate
study in English Letter and Culture Faculty from Khairun
University of Ternate in 2006. He, then, continues his
postgraduate study in a University in Bandung (Indonesia). He
is interested in Language Education. His first work is The
Original of Ideolinguistics, besides the other ebooks he has
written and distributer FREELY. He is now an English lecturer
in STKIP Kie Raha Ternate. His works are mostly written in
English, and some of them were written in Indonesian.

Email : zainurrahmankalero@gmail.com
Website : http://zainurrahmans.wordpress.com