AINA ZA PROPOSISHENI

Fleming (1988:53-57)
anasema kuwa proposisheni ni za aina tatu ambazo ni: Proposisheni ya hakika,
proposisheni ya thamani na proposisheni ya sera. Sehemu hii inadhamiria ama
kuorodhesha aina za proposisheni. Inafuatwa na mjadala kuhusu aina hizi za
proposisheni na hatimaye tutatoa mifano kwa kila mojawapo. Proposisheni ambazo
tutazichanganua ni kama zifuatavyo:

PROPOSISHENI YA HAK1KA

Proposisheni hii ni
tamko ambalo hulenga hasa katika imani ya msikilizaji, kama ni ya kweli ama ni
ya uongo. Jinsi itakavyojadiliwa ndivyo itakavyoibua namna msikilizaji
atakavyoichukulia kuwa ni ya kweli au uongo. Mfano huu hapa chini utatoa
mwangaza zaidi. Kwa mfano: ‘ Vyuo vikuu vyole hupatikana mjini Tamko hili
litategemea jinsi msemaji atakavyoinshawishi msikilizaji. Kama msikilizaji hana
mfano wowote wa Chuo Kikuu anachokijua kuwa mjini, basi atakubali kuwa
proposisheni hii ni ya kweli, lakini kama anakijua Chuo Kikuu chochote ambacho
hakimo mjini basi kwake proposisheni hii itakuwa ni ya uongo. Proposisheni
katika mfano, ni:

1)
Msemaji anamaanisha kuwa vyuo vikuu havipo mahali pengine ila katika miji tu.

2)
Huenda ikawa msemaji anataka kumsawishi msikilizaji kuwa kauli hii ni ya kweli.

3)
Labda msikilizaji hana ufahamu wa kutosha kuhusu vyuo vikuu.

Vilevile, katika mfano
mwingine unaoafikiana na huu.

Kwa mfano: ‘ Wanaume wote ni wabaya’.

Kauli kama hii
itategemea mtazamo wa watu mbalimbali. Kuna wale wanao amini ilhali wengine
wanakataa. Pia itategemea ushawishi kutoka kwa msemaji kuhusu tajriba yake
ikilinganishwa na tajriba aliyonayo msikilizaji kuwahusu wanaume, kisha ataweza
kuamua kauli kama hii inajambo ambalo ni la kweli au la ni jambo la uongo.
Huenda ikawa msemaji amekabiliwa na janga fulani lililo sababishwa na mwanamume
ilhali, msemaji hajawahi kupatwa na jambo lolote baya kutoka kwa mwanamume
yeyote.

Proposisheni katika mfano,
ni kuwa:

1)
Msemaji anajumlisha wanaume wote kuwa ni wabaya.

2)
Msemaji labda ana sababu ya kusema jambo hili.

3)Msemaji
anonekana kuwa na hasira.

PROPOSISHENI YA THAMANI

Proposisheni hii ni
tamko ambalo msemaji hutoa ili kutaka kupata maoni ya kutathmini kama tamko
lake ni nzuri kimaadili au la, ni sawa au si sawa. Msikilizaji hasa
hulinganisha vitu viwili na kuuliza ni kipi kilicho bora zaidi.

Kwa mfano: ‘Kuna mwanafunzi anayekula darasani, ilhali
wengine wanamsikiliza mwalimu’.

Proposisheni katikamfano,
ni kuwa:

1)
Kuna wanafunzi walio darasani.

2)
Kuna mwalimu ambaye anafunza katika darasa hilo.

3)
Mwalimu anapofunza kuna mwanafunzi mmoja ambaye yuala katika darasa hilo.

Kauli hii itategemea
maoni ya msikilizaji ambaye katika proposisheni anayoifahamu ni maadili mema
kumsikiliza mwalimu darasani badala ya kula. Mwanafunzi anafahamu kuwa si sawa
kula darasani kama mwalimu anafundisha, lakini labda analifanya jambo hili kwa
kusudi fulani. Hivyo basi, wasikilizaji wataamua ni jambo lipi lililo bora
zaidi ya lingine. Vilevile, mfano mwingine wenye kueleza jambo lililo sawa na
hili.

Kwa mfano: ‘Kuna mtu anqyepiga gumzo kanisani ilhali
Padre anahuhiri.’

Proposisheni katika
mfano, ni kuwa:

1)
Kuna wakristo walio kanisani kwa ibada.

2)
Kuna mtu mmoja ambaye anazungumza ndani ya kanisa.

3)
Padre anaendelea na shughuli ya ibada huku mtu fulani akipiga gumzo.

Vilevile kauli kama hii
itategemea maoni ya washiriki katika mjadala kama huu. Watu wasio mcha Mwenyezi
Mungu hawataliona kuwa ni jambo baya kufanya kitendo kama hiki. Kwingineko, wanaomheshimu
Mwenyezi Mungu watachukulia kuwa ni dhambi. Hivyo basi, ubora wa tendo kama
hili utategemea mitazamo ya watu walio na tajriba tofauti kuhusu maisha.

PROPOSISHENI YA SERA

Proposisheni hii ni
tamko ambalo hutoa mawazo kuhusu jambo litakalofanywa kama hatua ifaayo.
Msikilizaji hupaswa kupitisha sera mwafaka au kujitolea kwa tendo maalum.

Kwa mfano: ‘Mtuyeyote atakayepoteza kitabu alichokiazima
atanunua kingine ’.

Kauli hii ni kulingana
na sera iliyopangwa na wahusika. Hivyo basi, kauli hii, ina proposisheni kuwa:

1) Kila mmoja wao amekubali tendo maalum la kununua kitabu
atakachokipoteza.

2)
Kuna vitabu ambavyo huazimwa mahali pale.

3)
Kuna masharti fulani ambayo ni lazima yazingatiwe kuhusu kitabu kilichoazimwa.

Vilevile, hakuna mtu
yeyote ambaye ataepuka hatua hii kwa sababu yajumlisha watu wote. Kwingineko,
katika mfano: ‘Mwanafunzi yeyote
atakayechelewa kuwasili shuleni atarudi nyumbani’

Proposisheni katika mfano,
ni kuwa:

1)
Mahali pale ni shuleni.

2)
Kuna wanafunzi ambao huhudhuria shule ile.

3)
Kuna sheria fulani ambazo lazima zizingatiwe kuhusu kuchelewa shuleni.

 

Sera iliyopo katika

shule hii na baadhi ya shule ni kuwa mwanafunzi yeyote anapaswa kuwasili

shuleni kabla ya wakati uliovvekwa kama sheria au mara tu wakati huo

unapowadia. Atakayefanya kinyume na haya basi ataadhibiwa kwa kuambiwa arudi

nyumbani ilhali, wenzake wataendelea na masomo siku hiyo. Hakuna mwanafunzi

yeyote ambaye ni bora zaidi ya wengine kuwa hataadhibiwa.

MAREJELEO

Abraham, S.

(1996). A Theory o f Structural Semantics’. Mouton and Company Publishers.

Akmajian, A. na

Wenzake. (2004) Linguistics. An lntrodution to Language and Communication. Fifth

Edition: MIT Press, Cambridge.

Atichi, A.R. (2004) The

Semantic Distinctiveness of Kenyan English: UON. Unpublished MA

Thesis.

Atoh, F.O. (2001)

Semantics Analysis of Dholuo Nowns: The Semantics Field Approach. UON.

Unpublished MA Thesis.

Blass, R. (1990)

Relevance Relations in Discource. A Study in Special Reference to Sissala:

Cambidge University

Press.

Brown, G. na Yule, G.

(1983) Discource Analysis: Cambridge University Press.

Bussman, H. (1996)

Route ledge Dictionary o f Language and Linguistics: International

Thompson Publishing

Company.

Cambridge (2008)

Cambridge Advanced Learners Dictionary. Cambridge University.

Carston, R. (2002)

Thoughts and Utterances. The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. MA:

Blackwell Publishers

Ltd.

Comford, F. M. (1957)

Platos Theory o f Knowledge: Routeledge and Kegan Paul Ltd.

Crystal, D. (2003) A

Dictionary o f Linguistics and Phonetics. Fifth Edition. Oxford: Blackwell

Publishers.

Falsod, R. W. (2002) An

lntrodution to Language and Linguistics. Cambridge University Press.

Fleming, (1998) Google

Search. Powered by The Ultimate Programming Weblog. Sil

lntematinal: http://

worldnet Princeton. Edu/Pert/Webwn.

Fodor, J. D. (1997)

Semantics: Theories o f Meaning in Generative in Generative Grammar:

Harper and Row ,

Publishers.

Fretheim, A. (2000)

Pragmatic Markers and Propositional Attitude: John Benjamin Publishing

Company.

Green, G. M (1996)

Pragmatics and Natural Language Understanding. Second Edition:

Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates Publishers.

Greenbaum, S. na

Wenzake. (1985) A comprehensive Grammar o f English Language: Longman

Group UK Ltd.

Griffin, E. M (1991) A

First look at Communication Theory. Wheaton College: Me Graw- Hill,

Inc. Company.

Hofmann, T. R. (1993)

Realms o f Meaning: An Introduction to Semantics: Longman Group UK

Ltd.

Ifantidou, E. (2001)

Evidentials and Relevance. Volume 86: John Benjamin Publishing

Company.

Kamau, S. K. (2008) An

Analysis o f Truth Conditions in Pragmatics: Relevance Theory

A p p r o a c h . UON.

Unpublished MA Thesis.

Kasher, A. (1998)

Pragmatics. Critical Concepts. Volume V: Communication, Interaction and

Discourse: Routeledge

Publishers.

Katie, W. (2001) A

Dictionary o f Stylistics: Longman Group UK Ltd.

Katz, J.J. (1977)

Propositional Structure and Illocutionary Force. A Study of the contribution of

Sentence meaning and

Speech Acts: The Harvest Press.

Kempson, R. M. (1975)

Pressuposition and The Delimination o f Semantics: Cambridge

University Press.

Larson, M. L. (1984)

Meaning-Based Translation: A Guide to Cross-Language Eqivalence:

University Press of

America, Inc.

Leech, G. (1974)

Semantics: Penguin Books Limited.

Leech, G. N. (1971)

Towards a Semantic Description o f English: Longman Group Ltd.

Linsky, L. (1952)

Semantics and the Philosophy o f Language: University of Illinois Press.

Longmans (1968)

Longmans English Larousse: Longmans, Green and Co. Ltd.

Munga, C. M. (2009)

Sence Relations in Gikuyu: A Lexical Pragmatics Approach. UON

Unpublished MA Thesis.

Ndug’u, M. N. (2009)

Mada na Fokasi katika Kiswahili: Mtazamo wa Muundo wa Taarifa.

UON. Unpublished MA

Thesis.

Ogola, C. A. (2006) A

Pragmatic Analysis of Intercultural Communication Failures. UON,

Unpublished MA Thesis.

Palmer, F. R. (2006) An

Introduction to Language and Linguistics: Cambridge University Press.

Rouchota, V, na Jucker,

H. (1998) Current Issues in Relevance Theory: John Benjamin

Publishing Company.

Saeed, J. L. (2003)

Semantics. Second Edition: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Schroeder, H. (2005) Do

we Speak the same Language? A cognitive Pragmatic Explanation of

Cultural

Misunderstanding. In Across Borders: Benefiting from Cultural Differences.

Conference Proceedings.

17^-18th March: 2005.

Sperber, D na Wilson,

D. (1995) Communication and Cognition, 2nd Edition: Blackwell

Publishers.

Sperber, D na Wilson,

D. (2004) A Handout on Relevance Theory (1985-2002): Blackwell

Publishers.

Tuki (1990). Kamusi ya

Isimu na Lugha. Taasisi ya Uchunguzi wa Kiswahili: Educational

Publishers and

Distributors Ltd.

 

Tuki (2006)

English-Swahili Dictionary. Third Edition: Book Printing Services Ltd.

Chanzo>>>>>[url=http://erepository.uonbi.ac.ke:8080/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11295/5896/njue,carolinew_uchanganuziwaproposishenikatikakiswahili:nadhariayauhusiano.pdf?sequence=1][/url]