Narrative Structure of `Frog Story` by Two Minang Speakers

by user

Category: Documents





Narrative Structure of `Frog Story` by Two Minang Speakers
ISMIL 18 -­‐ Nepals Narrative Structure of ‘Frog Story’ by Two Minang Speakers
Yusrita Yanti and Santi Kurniati
Universitas Bung Hatta and Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary
Anthropology, Padang Field Station
This paper aims to examine narrative structures (NS) in ‘Frog Story’ by two Minang speakers
coming from Sawahlunto (MS) and from Tapan (MT). In this analysis we use Labov’s
analytical framework. Labov proposed the basic components of a narrative’s structure consists
of six components, namely (1) abstract (summary and/or point of the story); (2) orientation (to
time, place,characters and situation); (3) complicating action (the event sequence, or plot,
usually with a crisis and turning point); (4) evaluation (where the narrator steps back from the
action to comment on meaning and communicate emotion); (5) resolution (the outcome of the
plot); and (6) a coda (ending the story and bringing action back to the present). Data of this
analysis were taken from Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Padang Field
Station. From the data analysis, the result shows not all components of narrative structures are
adhered. For example, in character components, a narrator (MS) only use a pronoun nyo/inyo,
kawan-kawannyo, whereas a narrator (MT) meets all the elements of narrative structures. In the
component ‘orientation’, MT presented the characters Yora, Roro, Ama (mother), Apa (father)
and described the situation in detailed. Then, in the component ‘complicating action’ some
differences were made. Consider the following examples:
1.MS : pas sampai di rumah. pas inyo ngecek ka ama nyo.
"den nio bali sepeda Ma". a nyo jawek dek ama nyo.
"(un)tuk a bali sepeda ndak usah lah bali-bali sepeda ndak ado pitih ama do".
tu inyo mangareh juo nio mintak balian samo ama nyo, tapi ama nyo tetap ndak
nio do. tu inyo mancari jalan lain untuak bisa bali sepeda tu. (complicating action)
2. MT : tu pai nyo pulang kan. ka rumah nyo. nyo tanyoan ka ama nyo.
"Ma e, kawan-kawan punyo sepeda Ma, tadi batamu di den Yora samo apo".
"e samo si Roro di muko tu". nyo kecekan inyo, nyo lah ado sepeda.
"padahal e den ado sepeda lai do ma, baa tu Ma, den nio basepeda Ma".
"manga Ang pakai-pakai sepeda" cek amae. "ancak lah (a)po lai, jalan kaki lai
beko jatuah ko tatungkuik lo ko kan". "tu, tu baa lai tu Ma". "yo kalau punyo nio
bali sepeda bali lah surang manabuang awak, emaik-emaik awak, kalau ama yo
ndak ado pitih do". "ama la jaleh kini miskin". (Complicating action)
The examples (1-2) show some differences in the way to convey the wishes of MS and MT,
they used different words choice and diffrent strategy. In direct strategy (speech), “den nio bali
sepeda ma”, and indirect stratetgy “Ma e, kawan-kawan punyo sepeda Ma, tadi batamu di
den......baa tu ma, den nio basepeda”. This paper will discuss (1) how Minang speakers (MS
and MT) adhere six components of Labov’s analytical framework, (2) language style or words
choice that convey the same idea, (3) some characteristics of Minangkabau dialect such as
manyengek-nyengek (marengek-rengek), tasuruik ati (ibo ati), in expressing emotion, and (4)
how MS and MT share values of Minangkabau culture through the story.
Holmes, J. (2003). Narrative Structure: Some Contrasts Between Maori and Pakeha Storytelling in Sociolinguistics. Edited by Panelston, C.B. and Tucker G.R. Malden:
Blackwell Publishing.
Labov, W. (1972). The transformation of experience in narrative syntax. Language in the Inner City:
1 Studies in the Black English Vernacular. Philadelphia: University of Pensylvania. 354394.
Labov, W. And Waletzky, J. (1967). Narrative Analysis: oral versions of personal experience. In
Helm, June (ed). Essays on the Verbal and Visual Arts. Seatle: University of
Washington Press,12-44.
Smith, J. (2006). Narrative: Sociolinguistic Research. York : Elsevier Ltd.
Fly UP