Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"In the study Self talk as 8 Regulatory Mechanism: How You Do It Matters (Kross et al., 2014) shows the use of names when doing self talk strategies can be used as a mechanism of self regulation of stressors in the future. However, in Indonesia, there is a culture where people are accustomed to calling themselves by name when interacting daily. This study attempted to further understand the influence of name use strategies when self talk to the mechanism of self regulation of future stressors in individuals who have been accustomed to calling themselves by name. The study was conducted in two studies (N = 195) with a university student as a participant. In study 2 participants were people who were accustomed to calling themselves by name. The results of the analysis showed that participants who did self talk strategy using names (M: 0,913; SD=0,417) assessed the stressors in the future as a challenge rather than a threat compared to participants who did self talk strategy using the first person pronoun (M: 0,732. SD=0,368). This difference is significant t(93) = min 1,107, p>0,05 (Study 1). Meanwhile, in participants who are accustomed to calling themselves by name, the assessment of stress triggers in the future does not differ significantly between the conditions of using names (M=0,71; SD= 0,29) and the condition of using first person pronoun (M=0,65; SD=0,27) with the results of the t test as follows, t(93) = min 1,107, p>0,05. (Study 2). That is, the selftalk strategy uses the name of the mechanism of self regulation in individuals who are accustomed to calling themselves by name unable to change judgment (from a threat to challenge) to future stressors."

"ABSTRAKFor anyone who has ever been inspired by a TED talk, this is an insider's guide to creating talks that are unforgettable. Since taking over TED in the early 2000s, Chris Anderson has shown how carefully crafted short talks can be the key to unlocking empathy, stirring excitement, spreading knowledge, and promoting a shared dream. Done right, a talk can electrify a room and transform an audience's worldview. Done right, a talk is more powerful than anything in written form. This book explains how the miracle of powerful public speaking is achieved, and equips you to give it your best shot. There is no set formula; no two talks should be the same. The goal is for you to give the talk that only you can give. But don't be intimidated. You may find it more natural than you think. Chris Anderson has worked behind the scenes with all the TED speakers who have inspired us the most, and here he shares insights from such favorites as Sir Ken Robinson, Amy Cuddy, Bill Gates, Elizabeth Gilbert, Salman Khan, Dan Gilbert, Mary Roach, Matt Ridley, and dozens more-- everything from how to craft your talk's content to how you can be most effective on stage. This is the 21st-century's new manual for truly effective communication and it is a must-read for anyone who is ready to create impact with their ideas""

"[ABSTRAKAnalisis SituasiCreative entrepreneur adalah seseorang yang menanam modal melaluibakatnya sendiri atau orang lain, yang jika dikelola dengan baik akanmenghasilkan manfaat bagi lingkungan dan ekonomi. Creativeentrepreneur merupakan langkah untuk mewujudkan ekonomi kreatifIndonesia. Beberapa tahun belakangan, konsep creative entrepreneurdiminati oleh kalangan anak muda, tak terkecuali mahasiswaUniversitas IndonesiaManfaat dan Tujuan Pengembangan PrototipeManfaat program ini antara lain memberikan informasi lengkap danmemperkenalkan mahasiswa UI tentang creative entrepreneur.Program ini bertujuan untuk memicu semangat kewirausahaan, melaluibakat yang dimilikinya.Prototipe yang DikembangkanProgram radio yang diajukan adalah program yang khusus membahascreative entrepreneur dengan sasaran khusus mahasiswa UI dansasaran umum anak muda Indonesia, dengan usia 18-35 tahun.Program tersebut disajikan dalam format talk show denganmengundang narasumber, sesuai topik per pekannya. Topik-topik yangditawarkan tiap pekannya, berpedoman pada subsektor industri kreatifPekan Produk Kreatif Indonesia 2011 dan riset khalayak.Evaluasi-Pre test dilakukan dengan kuesioner online untuk mendapatkanmasukan agar program bisa lebih baik dan sesuai kebutuhan khalayak.-Evaluasi dilakukan dengan metode penyebaran kuesioner onlinekepada pendengar program Be Creativepreneur!.-Evaluasi dari pendengar juga dilakukan melalui analisis pesan yangmasuk melalui e-mail, SMS, maupun media sosial. Dari evaluasi iniakan terlihat pula seberapa besar respon dan interaksi pendengarterhadap program Be Creativepreneur!AnggaranAnggaran Biaya Produksi Prototipe = Rp 265.000,00Anggaran Biaya Produksi Program per episode = Rp 145.000,00Anggaran Biaya Produksi per episode khusus kompetisi = Rp 715.000,00Total biaya produksi = Rp 3.595.000,00Perkiraan Pendapatan = Rp 500.000Rencana Anggaran Evaluasi = Rp 150.000,00

---

ABSTRACTSituation AnalysisCreative entrepreneur is when a person invests through his own orother people?s skills, which will be useful for environment andeconomy if managed well. Creative entrepreneur is a step to realizeIndonesia?s creative economy. For the past few years, the concept ofcreative entrepreneur interests youth, with no exception ofUniversitas IndonesiaThe Advantages and The Purposes of Prototype DevelopmentThe benefits of this program are giving full information andintroducing UI students about creative entrepreneur.This program aims on triggering the spirit of entrepreneurshipthrough the skills that are owned.The Developed PrototypeRadio program that is proposed is the particular program thatdiscusses creative entrepreneur with UI students as the certain targetand Indonesian youth aged 18-35 as the general target. Theprogram is presented in a format of talk show by invitinginterviewee, according to weekly topic. The topics that are offeredevery week are based on subsector creative industry, Pekan ProdukKreatif Indonesia 2011 and public research.The Evaluation-Pretest is done with online questionnaire to get suggestion so theprogram can be better and fit the public needs.-Evaluation is done by spreading online questionnaire method to thelisteners of program Be Creativepreneur!-Evaluation is also done by analyzing messages in e-mail, SMS, andsocial media. Through this evaluation, it will be clear how muchresponse and listeners interaction to the program BeCreativepreneurs!BudgetPrototype Production Cost Budget= Rp 265.000,00Program Production Cost Budget each episode = Rp 145.000,00Program Production Cost Budget each competition episode = Rp715.000,00Total Production Cost = Rp 3.595.000,00Estimated Income = Rp 500.000Evaluation Budget Plan = Rp 150.000,00, Situation AnalysisCreative entrepreneur is when a person invests through his own orother people’s skills, which will be useful for environment andeconomy if managed well. Creative entrepreneur is a step to realizeIndonesia’s creative economy. For the past few years, the concept ofcreative entrepreneur interests youth, with no exception ofUniversitas IndonesiaThe Advantages and The Purposes of Prototype DevelopmentThe benefits of this program are giving full information andintroducing UI students about creative entrepreneur.This program aims on triggering the spirit of entrepreneurshipthrough the skills that are owned.The Developed PrototypeRadio program that is proposed is the particular program thatdiscusses creative entrepreneur with UI students as the certain targetand Indonesian youth aged 18-35 as the general target. Theprogram is presented in a format of talk show by invitinginterviewee, according to weekly topic. The topics that are offeredevery week are based on subsector creative industry, Pekan ProdukKreatif Indonesia 2011 and public research.The Evaluation-Pretest is done with online questionnaire to get suggestion so theprogram can be better and fit the public needs.-Evaluation is done by spreading online questionnaire method to thelisteners of program Be Creativepreneur!-Evaluation is also done by analyzing messages in e-mail, SMS, andsocial media. Through this evaluation, it will be clear how muchresponse and listeners interaction to the program BeCreativepreneurs!BudgetPrototype Production Cost Budget= Rp 265.000,00Program Production Cost Budget each episode = Rp 145.000,00Program Production Cost Budget each competition episode = Rp715.000,00Total Production Cost = Rp 3.595.000,00Estimated Income = Rp 500.000Evaluation Budget Plan = Rp 150.000,00]"

"Internet yang menghubungkan ratusan juta komputer di seluruh dunia dalam sebuah jaringan merupakan medium komunikasi yang berkembang paling pesat dalam satu dasawarsa terakhir. Dalam komunitas virtual di internet terjadi komunikasi antar-pribadi dalam bentuk yang sedikit berbeda dengan komunikasi antar-pribadi secara tatap muka.Penelitian ini bertujuan mencari perbedaan antara komunikasi antar pribadi,di internet dengan komunikasi antar-pribadi secara tatap muka. Karena beberapa faktor yang berbeda di antara keduanya, model komunikasi yang terbentuk menjadi tidak sama persis.Beberapa faktor yang menyebabkan perbedaan antara dua model komunikasi tersebut antara lain kuatnya anonimitas dalam komunikasi virtual, rendahnya kendala psikologis karena komunikasi dilakukan tanpa melihat lawan bicaranya serta umpan balik yang tidak harus dilakukan secara serta merta dalam beberapa jenis piranti komunikasi. Perbedaan yang juga timbul adalah sulitnya menyampaikan bahasa non-verbal dalam komunikasi antar-pribadi di internet.Untuk menjelaskan perbedaan tersebut, penulis menggunakan jenis penelitian deskriptif dengan metode survei. Populasi yang diamati dalam penelitian ini adalah "komunitas internet Indonesia" yang terdiri dari pengguna internet di Indonesia dan warga negara Indonesia di !ear negeri yang mempergunakan internet.Dari hasil penelitian ini diperoleh, rendahnya kendala psikologis menyebabkan terjadinya keberanian dan ketegasan dalam berkomunikasi (communication apprehension dan assertiveness) yang lebih besar dibandingkan komunikasi secara tatap muka."

"Penelitian ini bertujuan mendeskripsikan aspek komunikasi yang sangat kecil di dalam interaksi sosial. Aspek komunikasi itu yang menjadi fokus kajian ini, adalah tindak tutur (speech act), yang termasuk kajian pragmatic atau sosiolinguistik. Dalam penelitian ini tindak tutur yang ditelaah adalah yang berbentuk pertanyaan dan jawaban dalam peristiwa tutur di pengadilan. Penelitian ini dilaksanakan untuk mencapai tiga jenis tujuan, yaitu (1) mendeskripsikan ciri kebahasaan berbagai jenis bentuk bahasa pertanyaan yang dipakai dalam sidang pengadilan, (2) mendeskripsikan berbagai jenis fungsi pragmatis pertanyaan yang dipakai dalam sidang pengadilan, dan (3) mendeskripsikan jawaban terdakwa/saksi terhadap pertanyaan hakim, jaksa, dan pembela dilihat dari prinsip kerja sama dan klasifikasi maksim percakapan Grice. Rancangan yang dipakai dalam penelitian ini adalah rancangan kualitatif. Data penelitian berwujud (1) bentuk bahasa yang digunakan bertanya dalam peristiwa tutur di pengadilan, (2) fungsi pragmatis penggunaan pertanyaan di pengadilan, dan (3) jawaban terdakwa/saksi yang menggambarkan adanya prinsip kerja sama dan maksim percakapan. Data itu diperoleh dari sumber data tiga puluh satu orang dengan rincian: enam orang hakim, enam orang jaksa, dua orang pembela, dan tujuh belas orang terdakwa/saksi. Kegiatan pengumpulan data dilakukan dengan menggunakan teknik mendengarkan dan menyimak selektif pada saat sumber data melakukan kegiatan percakapan formal di ruang sidang pengadilan. Instrumen yang dipakai untuk mengumpulkan data berupa tape recorder (untuk merekam percakapan antara hakim, jaksa, dan pembela dengan terdakwa/saksi) dan lembar catatan lapangan (untuk merekam situasi atau konteks percakapan). Kegiatan analisis data dimulai dengan pengidentifikasian pertanyaan dan jawaban melalui pentranskripsian rekaman tuturan subjek penelitian. Langkah selanjutnya adalah pengidentifikasian dan pengk1asifikasian bentuk bahasa pertanyaan, jenisjenis fungsi pragmatis pertanyaan, dan jawaban pertanyaan yang menggambarkan prinsip kerja sama dan maksim percakapan. Hasil Penelitian menunjukkan bahwa dalam interaksi kebahasaan di pengadilan ditemukan empat belas bentuk Bahasa pertanyaan yang digunakan o1eh hakim,jaksa dan pembel. Keempat belas bentuk pertanyaan tersebut adalah pertanyaan yang dibentuk dengan menggunakan (1) kalimat Tanya, (2) Kata Tanya apa, (3) Kata Tanya siapa, (4) kata tanya bagaimana, (7) kata Tanya kapan,(8) kata Tanya mana, (9) frase tanya di/ke/darimana, (10) partikel Tanya kah (11) partikel tanya kan, (12) partikel Tanya ya, (13) partikel Tanya masa dan (14) partikel Tanya kok. Pertanyaan hakim, jaksa dan pembela, dalam sidang pengadilan hanya digunakanuntuk menyampaikan tiga tindak tutur yaitu (1) tindak direktif, (2) tindak ekspresif (3) tindak representatif. Tindak direktif meliputi tindak meminta informasi, meminta konfirmasi, menguji dan memberi saran. Tindak ekspresif meliputi tindak menyampaikan rasa tidak puasdan menyampaikan basa-basi. Dan tindak representatif berupa tindak meminta penegasan maksud tuturan. Secara umum jawaban terdakwa/saksi telah menggambarkan penerapan prinsip umum PKS Grice dan menaati keempat maksimnya, yakni maksim kuantitas, kualitas, hubungan, dan cara. Akan tetapi, terdapat sejumlah jawaban terdakwa/saksi yang dinilai melanggar maksim PKS Grice. Maksim PKS Grice yang dilanggar adalah maksim kuantitas (submaksim kedua), maksim kualitas, dan maksim hubungan. Pelanggaran maksim PKS Grice pada jawaaban terdakwa/saksi tersebut tidak dapat dijelaskan dengan prinsip pragmatik yang lain, misalnya prinsip sopan-santun Leech (1985). Hal ini karena tanya-jawab di pengadilan merupakan percakapan formal, dengan topik dan target yang jelas, sehingga tidak ditemukan pertanyaan dan jawaban tidak langsung yang dapat melahirkan implikatur percakapan, yang mungkin dapat dijelaskan dengan prinsip sopan-santun Leech. Hasil analisis data menunjukkan bahwa pelanggaran maksim PKS Grice lebih disebabkan oleh adanya keinginan terdakwa/saksi untuk menghindar dari tanggung jawab dari dakwaan atau membela diri dari tekanan pertanyaan yang diajukan.

---

This study aims at describing a very small communication aspect in social interactions. The communication aspect, which is the focus of this study, is the speech act, which can be studied under pragmatics or sociolinguistics. The speech act investigated in this study is the questions and answers in dialogues in court.

This study has three purposes, namely: (1) to describe the linguistic characteristics,of various types of language forms of questions used in trial, (2) to describe various pragmatic functions of questions used in trial, and (3) to describe the suspect's or witness's answers to the questions of the judge, prosecutor, and attorney under the consideration of Cooperative Principle and conversation maxims of Brice.

This study is qualitative in nature. The data , are in the form of: (I) language forms used in asking questions in the dialogue in court, (2) pragmatic functions of the use of questions in court, and (3) the answers of defendant or witness indicating the existence of cooperation principless and conversation maxims, were provided by thirty-one respondents which include six judges, six prosecutors, two attorneys, and seventeen defendants/witnesses. The data were collected through selective listening to the subjects speaking formally in court.

The instruments of data collection are a tape recorder (for recording the conversations between the judge, prosecutor, attorney, and defendant/wineses) and obsevation sheets (for recording the situation or context of conversation). The data analysis began with the identification of questions and answers from transcripts of the tape-recorded conversations between subjects. The next step is identifying and classifying the language forms of questions, types of pragmatic functions of questions and the answers which indicate cooperative principle and conversation maxims.

The results of this study show that there are fourteen language forms of questions used by the judge, prosecutor, and attorney in linguistic interaction in court. The fourteen questions are those which are formed by using (1) question intonation, (2) question word apa (what), (3) question word siapa (who), (4) question word mengapa (why), (5) question word berapa ( How many/much), (6) question word bagaimana (how), (7) question word kapan (when),(8 )quetion word mana (where), (9)question phrase d i/ ke/darimana (where or where to/ f rom), { 1 0 ) question particle kah (11) question particle kan,(:12) question particle ya, (13) question particle masa (Is it true??), and (14) question particle kok.

The questions of the judge, prosecutor, and attorney in a trial are used to convey three speech acts, namely: (1) directive act, (2) expressive act, and (3) representative act. Directive acts include the acts of asking for information, asking for confirmation, examining, and giving advice. Expressive acts include the acts of conveying dissatisfaction and expressing good manners; while representative act is the act of asking For clarification of the meaning of an utterance.

In general, the answers of defendants/witnesses attes to the application of the principle of Grice's CP and meet the four maxims, namely: maxim of quantity, maxim of quality, maxim of relation, and maxim of manner. However, it was found that a number of answers provided by defendants/witnesses violate the maxims of Grice. The maxim broken was the maxim of quantity (the second submaxim), the maxim of quality, and the maxim of relation. The violation of Grice's CP in the answers of defendants/witnesses could not be explained by other pragmatic principles, for instance the politeness principle of Leech (1985). This is due to the fact that the question-and-answer in court is a formal conversation, with clear topics and targets, so that the researcher did not find any indirect questions resulting in implicatures, which could only be explained by using principle of good conduct.

The results of the data analysis indicate that the violation of the maxims of Grice's CP resulted more from the existence of the defendant/witness's desire to avoid the rensponsibilities of accusation or to defend him/herself from the questions asked."

"The flotation of ONP and OMG misture has been done in the laboratory . ONP and OMG was repulped separately at 4% consistency using Na3SiO and H2O2,up to 350 ml CSF ....."