Page 1 of 14
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal – Vol. 10, No. 6
Publication Date: June 25, 2023
DOI:10.14738/assrj.106.14245.
Liliweri, A., Widowati, D., & Manafe, Y. D. (2023). Construction of Meaning in Verbal Communication. Advances in Social Sciences
Research Journal, 10(6). 314-327.
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
Construction of Meaning in Verbal Communication
Alo Liliweri
Communication sudies, University of Nusa Cendana,
Kupang, Indonesia
Dewi Widowati
Dewi Widowati, Institute of Communications and
Business, LSPR, Jakarta, Indonesia
Yermia Djefri Manafe
Communication sudies, University of Nusa Cendana,
Kupang, Indonesia
INTRODUCTION
In the social sciences, coordinated meaning management (CMM) provides an understanding of
how individuals create, coordinate, and manage meaning in their communication processes. In
general, it refers to "how individuals establish rules for creating and interpreting meaning and
how those rules are related in conversation where meanings are constantly coordinated".
(West and Lynn, 2007)." Human communication is seen as a flexible, open and changeable
process that develops in continuous mutual interaction, which allows movements, shifts, and
ways of evolving with one another". According to Miller and Sarah (2019). CMM embodies this
vision and enables interpersonal connections and open conversations between individuals or
groups, and can be applied across a wide range of academic fields and social scenarios.
Therefore, defining CMM has become a challenge. However, some commonly agreed upon
definitions of CMM are: it is "a multi-level structural theory in which rules describe the
movement or relationship between meaning and action. From a CMM perspective, two people
talk about compromises on interpersonal systems with two interpersonal component systems.”
Pearce and Cronen (1984) offer CMM to “encourage us to look at communication processes and
the ways in which meaning is made. We are encouraged to think about the ways we might act
in critical moments." Miller and Sarah (2019) CMM "offers a framework that allows us to take
a collaborative approach to taking the position of working together to explore meaning and
arrive at a shared understanding and an agreed plan for moving forward".
Fundamentally, CMM is also "a social construction theory that posits how we create our
relationships and even the world itself through communication. It is complex and includes ideas
of coherence and mystery". [4] Data and information shared between two parties are
understood visually and socially through “hierarchies and coordination of meanings in our
messages” (Thompson and Kleine, 2016).
Page 2 of 14
315
Liliweri, A., Widowati, D., & Manafe, Y. D. (2023). Construction of Meaning in Verbal Communication. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal,
10(6). 314-327.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.106.14245
CMM THEORY ASSUMPTIONS
Assumptions of CMM suggest that; (1) humans live in communication (social constructionism),
(2) humans create social reality, and (3) information transactions depend on personal and
interpersonal meaning. From the beginning, CMM theorists argued that social situations are
created by interactions. This theory believes that the people involved in conversation build
their social reality which we call social constructionism. From this social construction several
questions can arise: "What do you mean by that?" - the real questions to ask are: "What do we
create together?", "How do we make it?" and "How can we make a better social world?", this is
called human creating social reality.
THE MAIN PURPOSE OF CMM THEORY
This theory aims to explain how people create meaning in conversations. That, everyone, when
conversing uses rules to interpret meaning. These rules can be the same or they can be different
so that they can produce different meanings. The meaning of communication in conversation is
only obtained when those who are conversing follow a constant and coordinated
conversational structure. According to CMM theory; everyone will be able to "organize meaning
hierarchically."
There are at least two things related to the hierarchy of meaning.
First, a hierarchy of meaning defines the context in which regulative and constitutive rules are
to be understood. These are the rules for interacting according to the context or situation of the
communication.
Context setting is part of much communication theory which refers to setting (where and when)
participants, and relationship with (who); communication content (what), intention (why),
means of communication used (how), etc. Interaction (and communication) rules occur within
the context of interaction (and communication). There are also some rules that are generated
in interactions and communication relationships (generative rules), there are also other rules
that are imposed in communication situations (by) groups, communities, or society (enforced
rules).
Second, the above contexts are arranged in an "abstract hierarchy" from the lowest to the
highest. Higher level contexts define - and perhaps encapsulate - lower-level contexts. Or each
context in the hierarchical level can be understood by looking at other contexts because each
context always contextualizes other contexts.
HIERARCHY OF MEANING
There are at least six levels of meaning (from the lowest level to the higher level); namely:
content, speech acts (speech act, episode, connection (relationship, contract, life scripts (sense
of self), and cultural patterns (cultural patterns) (Veron E, Cronen; Pearce, W. Barnett; Harris,
Linda M, 1979).
Page 3 of 14
316
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 10, Issue 6, June-2023
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
CONTENT
According to CMM theory, content or messages are related to the raw data of information
spoken during the communication (conversation) taking place. Simply put, content is the word
(words) used to communicate. Content is the basic building block of any language, but content
alone is not sufficient to construct the meaning of communication. Linguists often refer to
content as indirect speech acts which exist only in and can be understood in terms of context,
is speech act, episode, relationship/contract, life scripts (self-concept) dan cultural patterns.
The following image shows two people having a conversation. Conversational content is
displayed through a series of vowel sounds represented by symbols. "Where is the beef?" is
content whose meaning is 'not enough' understood so that the recipient still wonders what the
sender meant. CMM theory suggests that we move to the next level, namely 'speech act' so that
we can understand the content. (Note: all models in this article are sourced from all models in
this article are sourced from
http://www.rdillman.com/HFCL/TUTOR/Relation/relate5.html > March 4, 2023).
Page 4 of 14
317
Liliweri, A., Widowati, D., & Manafe, Y. D. (2023). Construction of Meaning in Verbal Communication. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal,
10(6). 314-327.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.106.14245
SPEECH ACT
According to CMM theory, speech acts (speech act) can be broken down into categories of
sounds or utterances that 'can' be separated from one another. In linguistics and the philosophy
of language, speech acts, are what the individual utters, the utterances do not only provide
information but are followed by actions (Austin, 1972). This means that every utterance must
have or display a 'story'. So, there are words, there are actions. Example: Ola's father told Soli,
his son; "Soli, if you don't finish your homework then you can't watch TV" (the content
contained in Ola's father's words is, monitoring or possibly punishing the child's behavior).
The CMM theory defines this speech as an illocutionary speech, an utterance from a sender who
intends to make contact with the recipient; which is followed by perlocution as utterances that
intend to change the recipient's behavior. There are many types of illocutionary and
perlocutionary acts, for example questions, answers, orders, promises, and so on; our
knowledge of this matter is very instrumental in communication. The question "Where is the
beef?" need answers. The recipient's answers can vary, beef can be obtained at supermarkets,
or they can refer to the famous fast-food advertisements in the 1980s. This example explains
that the exchange of content meanings between two people is limited by speech act rules.
One common way to understand content is to understand speech acts. If the speech act takes
place several times (episodes) and is supported by 'relationships', the meaning of the content
will be quicker and easier to understand, moreover supported by nonverbal expressions (Bach,
2014). Speech act itu adalah ucapan yang selalu diiringi oleh permintaan suatu tindakan
tertentu. Speech act is something that is common in everyday interactions even though it is
present in many different contexts.
Speech act usually includes words such as apologizing, promising, ordering, greeting, asking,
complaining, warning, ordering, refusing, and congratulating. 12) According to Yule (1996),
whenever we communicate orally, there are always three actions, or layers of interpretation,
that are performed to produce utterances. As Austin (1962) said, the term speech act
contemporaneously refers to the development of performative utterances that Austin (1962)
Page 5 of 14
318
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 10, Issue 6, June-2023
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
calls a 'theory' of locutionary, illocutionary, and perlocutionary acts. Consider some sequences
of sentences based on the type of action as follows:
1) Locutionary act: “Philip said to me, 'Slap the Mary!'; this statement refers to the act of
'slapping' Maria as a target.
2) Illocutionary act: "Philip urged (or suggested, ordered) me to slap Maria!"
3) Perlocutionary acts: (1) Philip persuaded me to slap Maria; (2) Philip made me slap
Maria.
Locutionary Action
in speech act theory (speech act). The act of locution is the act of making a meaningful utterance
(saying) 'something', the act of laying out spoken language. The British philosopher Austin
introduced the term locutionary act or utterance act in his book "How to Do Things with Words"
(1962). Later American philosopher John Searle addressed the same topic in his work "Speech
Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language" (1969) but replaced Austin's concept of
'locutionary action' with 'propositional action', namely the act of expressing a proposition.
Richard Nordquist (2018) quote Austin (1967) which divides speech acts (locutions) into three
types; (1) say "something" which contains the difference between a group of actions that we
say, (2) at the same time we say a conclusion about the action (replacing other words) of
distraction, and (3) say a certain action which is approximately equivalent to what we say. Up
to this point we have recognized two types of locutionary actions, namely (1) speech acts (we
say something, which may not have meaning); and (2) propositional action (we make reference
to a particular action). Sometimes what is meant by 'speech' is also referred to as 'action'; then
'perlocutionary act' is the same as 'perlocutionary utterance').
Austin, when updating his book entitled "How to Do Things with Words" (1975) perfected the
idea of locutionary acts. According to him, the locutionary act comes from "within oneself" or
exists "within oneself", a person's self when he states something meaningful. In carrying out
locutionary actions, we will also take actions, among others;
1) Ask or answer questions
2) Provide some information or guarantee or warning
3) Announcing verdicts or intentions
4) Say sentences
5) Make promises, comparisons, or provide criticism
6) Make identification or provide a description
In other words, locutionary acts are not just meaningless utterances. Austin said that
locutionary acts do not need to be further refined into illocutionary and perlocutionary acts.
Because of what? Because locutionary actions by definition already have meaning, such as
providing information, asking questions, describing something, or even announcing a decision.
Including, also the actions of a person to convey something meaningful in order to communicate
his needs and desires, for example persuading other people to his point of view.
Acts/ Illocutions
An illocutionary act (ilocutionary act) refers to an action when saying something specific (as
opposed to the general action of 'just saying something'). The power of illocutionary lies in the
'intention' of the speaker, for example the intention to provide information, order, warn, take