A Thesis
Submitted to Letters and Humanities Faculty
In Partial Fulfillment of The Requirements for
The Strata One Degree (S1)
ADI IMAM TAUFIK 109026000109
ENGLISH LETTERS DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF ADAB AND HUMANITIES
STATE ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY
SYARIF HIDAYATULLAH
JAKARTA
i
State Islamic University Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta, 2016.
The purpose of this research is to describe the types of illocutionary acts in the
dialogues are found in Fast & Furious 7 movie. It also aims to analyze the context
and meaning of illocutionary acts used in the dialogues of the movie. The other goal
of this research is to divide the direct and indirect speech acts that found in this
movie. The writer used descriptive qualitative method by watching movie deeply,
collecting all data which relate to the research, making some observations and
analyze the types and meaning of illocutionary acts in Fast & Furious 7 movie with
reference to the linguistics theories derived from related literature sources. The
message of story is that all the differences in skin color, race, and language will be
eliminated. the only thing we see is a brotherhood and family. The writer used theory
by Searle and let the other theories to support the thesis. The writer found and
analyzed 19 data of illocutionary acts. In this research the writer had nineteen data of
illocutionary acts which is used by characters in Fast & Furious 7 movie, those are:
five data of representatives, four data of directives, four data of expressives, five data
ii
MOVIE
A Thesis
Submitted to Letters and Humanities Faculty in Partial Fulfillment of The Requirements for
The Degree of Strata One
ADI IMAM TAUFIK NIM. 109026000109
Approved by:
Drs. Saefudin, M.Pd 19640710 199303 1 006
ENGLISH LETTERS DEPARTMENT LETTERS AND HUMANITIES FACULTY
STATE ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY OF SYARIF HIDAYATULLAH JAKARTA
iii NIM : 109026000109
Title : The Illocutionary Acts in Fast & Furious 7 Movie
The thesis entitled above has been defended before the Letters and
Humanities Faculty’s Examination Committee on June 24th, 2016. It has already been
accepted as a partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of strata one.
iv
I hereby declare that this submission is my own and that, to the best my knowledge
and belief. It contains neither material previously published and written by another
person nor material which to a substantial extent has been accepted for the award or
any other degree or diploma of the university or other institute of higher learning,
except where due acknowledgement has been in the text.
Jakarta, June 2016
v
ميح رلاا نمح رلا ه مسب
In the name of Allah, the most Gracious, the most Merciful, and the most Beneficent
Praise is only for Allah SWT, lord of the world. First, the writer is deeply
grateful to Him for His blessing to accomplish this thesis. Blessing is upon to our
prophet Muhammad SAW, his descendants and his followers.
This research could not be completed without a great deal of help from many
people. Therefore, the writer would like to give his sincerest gratitude to his beloved
parents, H.M. Sobari and Hj. Babay Suharsih.
The writer also wants to give his gratitude to Mr. Drs. Saefudin, M.Pd. as his advisors for his time, help, patience and motivation from the first to the final level
of this research. The writer also would like to express deepest gratitude to the
following persons:
1. Prof. Dr. Sukron Kamil M.Ag. as the Dean of Adab and Humanities Faculty State
Islamic University of Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta.
2. Drs. Saefudin, M.Pd. as the Head of English Letters Department.
3. Elve Oktafiyani, M. Hum. as the Secretary of English Letters Department.
4. All the lecturers of English Letters Department for teaching many things during
vi ’
Juanda, Nunung Nurlaela, Asep Rahmatullah, and Wulan Siti Maryam.
7. The writer’s sweethart, Anida Qurrotul Aini.
8. The writer best friends in The Association of Banten’s Student (HMB): Usep
Ardabily Muzani, MK. Ulumudin, Afifudin Fakel, Jhojon Suhendar, Sadam,
Mufti Azmi, Adhiya, Fizma, Fikra, Candra, Neneng, Ecta and Deni Iskandar.
9. The writer best friends in Gema Mathla’ul Anwar Tangsel.
May Allah bless you in everything. The writer realizes that his paper actually
has not been perfect yet, there are many mistakes in its contents. Therefore, the writer
would like to receive any comments, suggestion, or criticism.
Finally, the writer hopes this thesis will be guidance for the reader and those
who are interested in it.
Jakarta, June 2016
vii
APPROVEMENT………..….ii
LEGALIZATION……….………..……iii
DECLARATION…………..……….….iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT………..…v
TABLE OF CONTENT………...viii
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION……….…….….1
A. Background of Research...1
B. Focus of the Research..………..…..5
C. The Research Question………6
D. The Objective of Research……….…..6
E. Significance of the Research...………..…..6
F. Research Methodology....……….………...7
1. The method of Research………7
1.1. Unit Analysis………..7
1.2. Technique of Collecting & Analysis Data……….…….7
1.3. The Instrument of Research………8
viii
B. The Concepts of Pragmatics………...12
C. Context...14
D. Speech Act...17
1. Locutionary Act..…...………...19
2. Illocutionary Act...20
3. Perlocutionary Act...22
E. Classification of Illocutionary Acts... 23
1. Representatives...24
2. Directives...24
3. Commisives...25
4. Expressives...25
Declaratives...24
F. Direct and Indirect Speech...25
CHAPTER III. RESEARCH FINDING AND DATA ANALYSIS...29
A. Data Description………..…..29
B. Data Analysis ………......31
CHAPTER IV. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS…..………....…60
ix
1
A. Background of Research
Basically in our daily life, we always use language as means of
communication with others. Such as making a dialogue, asking, joking,
commanding, apologizing, and so on. In the study of language, there is
meaning which is bounded with the context, on the other hand, there is
meaning which does not need context. The study of linguistics which doesn‟t
observe certain context is called semantics, whereas the study of linguistics
which observes certain context is called pragmatics.
According to George Yule, pragmatics concerns with the study of
meaning as communicated by speaker (or writer) and interpreted by a listener
or reader. It has, consequently, more to do with the analysis of what people
mean by their utterances than what the words or phrases in those utterances
might mean by themselves. Pragmatics is the study of speaker meaning.1
In this case, the writer is interested in discussing pragmatics as the
study of language meaning with the context. In daily life, we will find that
when language is uttered, but doesn‟t fit the context, it will be ambiguous to
understand. If we understand the meaning of language in any context, it will
be easier for us to interact and communicate with others because the key of a
good communication is to understand something in all situations.
1
In the study of pragmatic, there is an entity that is central and
fundamental to be understood by the students. It is speech act. According to
Austin, speech act is an act that a speaker performs when making an
utterance.2 Speech acts as a form of communication has a function, contains a
purpose, and specific purposes or effect to the hearer. Basically when
someone says something, he/she also does something. By the time someone
uses the word 'apologize', it is not only saying but also taking action
„apologize‟.
Speech has a purpose and a specific intention to produce
communication. The purpose of speech is one aspect that should be present in
a speech, because the purpose of speech is an effort to get the result that is
intended by the speaker to the hearer. The goal is to convey information and
news, persuade, advise, rule and so on. In this case the speaker should be able
to convince partners of his speech purpose.
When we talk to our partner, we produce three types of speech acts,
which are locutionary acts, illocutionary acts and perlocutionary acts.
Locutionary act is the act to express something. It is only giving an
information to the hearer (the act of saying something). For example; humans
have ten fingers, the fire is hot and ice is cold. Here, the speaker does not
have the specific intention of his speech but only to provide information. We
are from the utterance with some kind of function in mind.3
2
J.L. Austin, How To Do things With Words, (Oxford; Oxford University Press. 1962), p. 253.
3
The illocutionary act is performing via the communicative force of an
utterance. 4 Illocutionary act is not only providing information to the partners,
but it has the intention and purpose of what we told. It is not only expressing,
but doing something (the act of doing something). For example; your hair is
long. The illocutionary analysis of the sentence is a command to cut his hair
because it was long.
According to Hurford and Heasley, perlocutionary act carried out by a
speaker making an utterance is the act of causing a certain effect to the hearer
and others.5 Perlocutionary act has force to influence or effect for the hearer.
For example; yesterday my father was ill. The perlocutionary analysis of the
sentence is something that was uttered by someone who could not attend the
invitation. Then locutionary acts just want to convey any information that my
father was sick and illocutionary act meaning is to apologize.
From three categories of speech acts, the writer is interested in
analyzing illocutionary act because it is the reality of utterance. Here we do
not only study about the information which the speaker said to the hearer, but
the intention of what he said. Sometimes an utterance has a specific purpose
to get even if it is only a joke. The intention of the speech can be seen in a
certain context. Therefore we need to understand the context in a
conversation so that we can understand the intention expressed by the
speakers to the hearer.
Illocutionary act is not only found in daily communication but also
4
Hurford and Heasley, Semantics: A Course book, (Cambridge: University Press, 1983), p. 244.
5
found in the film. The film is the copyrighted work of art and culture which
is one of the audiovisual media of mass communication are made based on
the principles of cinematography recorded on celluloid, video tapes, video
discs, and/or projection system is shown with mechanical, electronic and
other systems. Based on the reason above, the writer chooses the Fast &
Furious 7 movie as the object of research.
The writer chooses this movie because this is the latest film in 2015. I
want to analyze an object that has not been investigated previously by others
in order to get the authenticity of a study. Studying more about the
illocutionary acts from the movie is very interesting because it could be
useful for further research in the future.
The writer focuses on Searle‟s theory in the study of illocutionary acts
to analyse the dialogue of the movie and let other theories support Searle‟s
theory. The writer analyzes the types of illocutionary acts, explains the
context and meaning in the dialogue, finds the function and divides the
category into the direct and indirect speech act in this thesis.
The writer wants enrich the previous research because it only analyzed
the types of illocutionary without classifying the direct-indirect speech act
and giving more explanations about the function of illocutionary acts. To
make us understand about the analyses, here one example of the movie‟s
dialogues:
A conversation between Brian O‟Conner and the teacher in minutes 00:07:46
– 00:07:48, as follows:
In this context, Brian drove to the school of child in order that he
could entrust the child to the teacher for studying with his friend. Then Brian
thanked to the teacher due to the fact that she helped Brian to keep the child
until the end of class. The Illocutionary act based on the context above is
obvious that is expressive. Expressive is an action or an utterance that asserts
our feeling.
In this case, it is clear that the utterance is praising and thanking,
included in the paradigmatic of expressive. The example: “I appreciate it,
thank you” as ilustrated in the example that the utterance is an illocutinary act
which is said directly. As we know that direct speech act is used to say
something, inform something, ask someone, beg someone, or give a
command.
B. Focus of Research
In this research, the writer focuses on types and meaning of the
illocutionary act which are found in Fast & Furious 7 movie. The writer uses
Searle‟s theory in the study of illocutionary acts to analyse the the types of
illocutionary acts found in the film. The writer also analyzes the context and
meaning in the dialogue, and divides the category into the direct and indirect
speech act in this thesis.
The writer wants to enrich the previous research because it only
analyzed the types of illocutionary without classifying the direct-indirect
speech act and giving more explanations about the function of illocutionary
C. The Research Questions
Here the writer found the research questions that will be analized in
this thesis, there are:
1. What types of illocutionary acts which are found in Fast & Furious 7
movie?
2. What are the functions and the meaning of illocutionary acts used in the
dialogues of the movie?
D. The Objective of Research
The writer wants to give the explanation about the aims of this
research, those are:
a. To describe the types of illocutionary acts in the dialogues by the
characters which are found in Fast & Furious 7 movie.
b. To analyze the meaning of illocutionary acts used in the dialogues of the
movie.
E. Significances of the Research
Theoretically, it is expected to enrich the previous research and
improve body of knowledge especially in linguistics field.
Practically, the results of this study are expected to make better
understanding for the readers in the relation with illocutionary act that is often
use in the daily life, especially in the Fast & Furious 7 movie. Thus, it can
F. Research Methodology
1. The Method of Research
This research is in Pragmatics field. This research uses qualitative
method, by analyzing and describing the corpus tha uses in the film. It is
related to study of speech acts. Subroto says that qualitative method
commonly used in humanities sciences to make a description of situation
and interpret phenomenon.6 This method is suitable to analyze the content
of research. The research describes the types and meaning of illocutionary
acts in the dialogues by the characters which are found in Fast & Furious
7 movie.
The writer collected all data related to the research, made some
observations and identified the types and meaning of illocutionary acts in
Fast & Furious 7 movie with reference to the linguistics theories derived
from related literature sources. After identifying the data, the writer
classified and analyzed the types of illocutionary acts according to the
characters of Fast & Furious 7 movie.
Then the writer reduced some data according to the types of
illocutionary acts in the movie dialogue. In this research the writer found
nineteen data of illocutionary acts, those are: five data of representatives,
four data of directives, four data of expressives, five data of commisives,
and one datum of declarative.
6
1.1. Unit Analysis
The analysis unit of this research is Fast & Furious 7 movie
cassette, released in April, 2015 by Universal Pictures Company in
assosiation with MRC & China Film Co., Ltd. An original film/One Race
Film Production.
1.2. Technique of Collecting & Analysis Data
The writer divided technique of collecting and analysis data into
three stages as follows:
a. The writer found some data and watched movie thoroughly.
b. The writer Chose and classified the types of illocutionary acts which
are found in the film.
c. The writer Analysed the types and meaning of illocutionary acts
contained in the movie and drawing the conclusions of them.
1.3. The Instrument of the Research
The instrument of this research is the writer himself by watching
the movie thoroughly, identifying data, and analyzing the types and
meaning of illocutionary acts which are found in Fast & Furious 7 movie.
1.4. Time and Place of the Research
The research started from April up to March 2016 in English
Letters Department, Letters and Humanities Faculty of State Islamic
University Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta, the library of State Islamic
University Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta, some libraries around Jakarta as
9
A. Previous Research
There are many previous researches which have analyzed the study of
pragmatics. The first research was written by Ana Laili Rahmah(2005). The
research focused on illocutionary acts found in sign language used by Zhao
shen-shen: the main character in the Silence movie in scope of pragmatics.
Searle‟s theory is used to analyze the data. The result of analysis would be
dependent on such situation. This research used qualitative descriptive
method. The main difference of this study from previous ones was the object
and its focus of study: sign language.7
The second research was conducted by Jihan Rizky Widyasari (2008).
This research focused on the directive types of illocutionary acts. The aim of
the research was to know the directive types of illocutionary acts and its
meaning. The research used the theory of directive speech acts by Yule and
Searle. The method of the research is descriptive qualitative.8
The third research was written by Emy Hidayatullah Amanah (2007).
The writer intended to perform the illocutionary force that was complicated
because it was something different from what the speaker said orally and it
relied on the context of situation. Regarding the complexity of illocutionary
forces, this research was focused on the illocutionary act types and
7
Ana Laili Rahmah, Illocutionary Acts Expressed through Sign Language In “Silence
Movie, (Faculty Of Humanities and Culture, The State Islamic University Maulana Malik Ibrahim, Malang, 2005)
8
illocutionary forces in the movie. The research used qualitative descriptive
method and the research. The research used the theory of directive speech
acts by Austin (1962) and Searle (1969 and 1979).9
Finally, the fourth research was conducted by Muhammad Tadarus
(2007). The writer focused the research in the analyzing illocutionary act and
its felicity condition in this movie. The aim of the research was to know the
types of illocutionary act and its felicity condition. The research used the
theory of speech acts by Austin, Leech and Searle. The method of this
research is qualitative descriptive method.10
From the previous research above, we saw many differences from this
research. It employed Searle‟s theory in the study of illocutionary acts to
analyse the dialogue of the movie and used other supporty theories. The
writer analysed the types of illocutionary acts, and explained the context &
meaning in the dialogue.
And the last, this research is divided into the direct and indirect
speech acts category. Hopefully it will give complete and authentic analysis.
Moreover, it can give new information and contribution as the references of
study and improve reader‟s knowledge of understanding illocutionary acts.
9
Emy Hidayatullah Amanah, Illocutionary Acts in Movie Script of Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch, And the Wardrobe by Stuart C., (Faculty of Letters, Udayana University, Bali, 2007)
10
B. The Concepts of Pragmatics
Pragmatics studies the use of language in human communication as
determined by the condition of society.11 According to Gazdar, pragmatics is
the study of deixis (at least in part), implicature, presupposition, speech acts
and aspects of discourse structure.12 Pragmatics is a branch of linguistics that
studies words in utterances in order to give influence something is being
talked about and sometimes in fact it has no meaning dearly.13
We need to understand the entire social context in which a sentence
was uttered, a different level of interpretation that is studied within
pragmatics, which explore the role that context plays in the interpretation of
what people say.14 Victoria Fromkin describes pragmatics as the study of
interpreting linguistics meaning in context.15
Pragmatics is a branch of linguistics that is increasingly recognized in
the present. Around two decades ago, this science is rarely or almost never
referred to by linguists. This is supported by the growing of linguists‟
awareness, that the attempt to uncover the nature of language will not bring
the expected result without basic understanding of pragmatics, that is, how
language is used in communication.16
In addition to the definitions above, a number of other definitions are
11
Jacob L. Mey, Pragmatics: An Introduction, 2nd Ed, (England: Oxford, 2001), p. 6.
12
F.X. Nadar, Pragmatik dan Penelitian Pragmatik, (Yogyakarta; Graha Ilmu, 2013), p. 5.
13
Stephen C. Levinson, Pragmatics: An Introduction, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), p.5.
14
Charles F. Meyer, Introducing English Linguistics, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), p. 48.
15
Victoria Fromkin, Robert Rodman, Nina Hyams, An Introduction to Language 7th Ed
(Boston: Thomson Place, 2003), p. 207.
16
also noted by Levinson that pragmatics is one of those words that give the
impression that something quite specific and technical is being talked about
when often infact it has no clear meaning.17 Searle, Kiefer and Bierwisch
asserted that pragmatics has as its topic those aspects of the meaning of
utterances which cannot be accounted for by straightforward reference to the
truth conditions of the sentences uttered.18
Katz and Fodor suggested that a theory of pragmatics would
essentially be concerned with the disambiguation of sentences by the context
in which they were uttered, causing the using context of language created
interpretations in contexts.19
Pragmatics deals with a particular aspect of human communication,
namely the relationship between language and the context in which is used,
and as result it is concerned with analyzing and explaining particular types of
data. It is often described as being a branch or field of linguistics. Linguistics
is the academic subject that is concerned with the analysis, description and
explanation of human language and pragmatics contributes to this project by
focusing on the interaction between language and context.20
What we have returned to here is the gap which exists between
language and the world, or human experience. We have many more meanings
than we have exact syntactic forms to express them. In an ideal world perhaps
every possible speech act, whether direct or indirect, would have its own
17
F.X, Nadar, op. cit, p. 5.
18 Ibid. 19
Stephen C. Levinson, op. cit, p. 8.
20
corresponding syntactic form. Ambiguity, confusion, and misinterpretation
would then be eliminated from our language use.
In brief, pragmatics is the study of language use which is bounded
with contexts. In other words, within the meaning of pragmatics determined
by the context, ie, who is speaking to whom, where, when, how, and what the
function of the utterance. Pragmatic studies the purpose of speech, that what
is „X‟ utterance done for. And basically pragmatics asks "What do you mean
by X?” Not “What X means?”
Therefore, by studying pragmatics, we can understand what people
intended, their assumptions, and their goals or purposes when they speak in
certain context. So that pragmatics comprehension is really important for us
in order to make good communication between one and each other.
C. Context
The context is very important in understanding the illocutionary force
of utterance. For example: if a debt collector who lends you money says “I
promise to visit you tomorrow.” This utterance can be understood as a
threat.21The term „context‟ defined by Mey as the surrounding, in the widest
of sense, that enables the participants to interact in the process of
communication, and that make the linguistic expressions of their interaction
understandable. The importance of context in pragmatic is also emphasized
by Wijana who states the pragmatics examines the contextual meaning.22
Moreover, Leech defines the context as background knowledge
21
Ralph Fasold, An Introduction to Language, ed. Jeff Connor-Linton (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), p. 163.
22
assumed to be shared by speaker and hearer and which contributes to hearer
interpretation of what speaker means by given utterance. Thus, the context is
things that relate to the physical and social environment of a speech or
background knowledge that is owned both by speaker and hearer, and with
the context, the hearer can easily understand and interpret the meaning of an
utterance.23
Furthermore, Leech explains reference to one or more of the following aspects of the speech situation with the following criteria.
(i) Addressers or addressees
Following the practice of Searle and others, Leech shall refer to addressers and addressees, as a matter of convenience, as S (Speaker) and
H (Hearer).
(ii) The context of an utterance
Context has been understood in various ways, for example to include relevant aspects of the physical or social setting of an utterance. Leech consider context to be any background knowledge assumed to be shared by speaker and hearer, which contributes to the hearer‟s interpretation of what speaker means by a given utterance.
(iii) The goal(s) of an utterance
Leech finds useful to talk of a goal or function of an utterance, in preference to talking about its intended meaning, or the speaker‟s intention in uttering it.
(iv) The utterance as a form of act or activity: a speech act
Pragmatics deals with verbal acts or performances which take place in particular situation, in time.
(v) The utterance as the product of verbal act
There is another sense in which the word utterance can be used in pragmatics. It can refer to the product of a verbal act, rather than to verbal act itself.24
Context and pragmatics are like birds with wings. Birds can not fly
23
Ibid. p. 4
24
without wings; otherwise the wings are not too perfect function if there are no
birds to fly. That means if we are talking about pragmatics automatically we
have to talk about the context or otherwise. For context, it is good for us to
refresh our memories with explores a pragmatics constraint. This is
considered necessary because pragmatics can not be separated with the
context.
In brief, we can say that context is a condition where a situation
occurs. To fully understand the meaning of a sentence, we must also
understand the context in which it is uttered. Communication will not be
perfect if it does not involve the context (with the characteristics mentioned
above) as a lingual extra element that should not be ignored in a speech.
Context is very important to do with pragmatics, because communications
involving context could make it more communicative, effective, and efficient.
D. Speech Act
Speech acts are verbal actions happening in the world. Uttering speech
act means I do something with my words: I perform an activity that (at least
intentionally) brings about a change in the existing state of affairs.25 When
people communicate each other, they don‟t only produce utterance containing
words that are grammatically structured; they also perform actions through
their utterances.26
For example; when we were in the forest with our brother, and we
said to him “there is bear behind you” may be intended as a warning in
25
Jacob L. Mey, op. cit, p. 95.
26
certain contexts, or may in other context be a statement of fact.27
Speech act theory emerged in the 1960s by John Austin and John
Searle. According to their theories, when the speaker utters a sentence, he is
doing something according to what he is saying. The Austin‟s opinion is „by
saying something we do something’. Austin began his note by pointing out
that not every speech seems to lead the statement. The speech that is a
sentence or half of a sentence to do common act for saying something; is
performative speech, and he distinguished it from constantive speech, a
declarative statement in which truth or falsehood can be accounted.28
Most of the implementation of speech acts are not so “official”, but
they all depend on the speaker using an utterance so that the hearer can infer
the speaker‟s utterance and carries out some actions that are intended by the
speaker through his/her utterances.29
Austin developed his theory of speech acts. He made important
observation. Austin observed that there are ordinary language declarative
sentence that resist a truth-conditional analysis in similar fashion. The point
of uttering such sentences is not just to say things, but also actively to do
things. In other words, such utterances have both a descriptive and an
affective aspect. Accordingly, Austin called the performatives and he
distinguished them from assertions, or statement making utterances, which he
called constantives.30
According to Searle, speech acts as the units of linguistics
27
Victoria Fromkin, op. cit, p. 595.
28
Deborah Schiffrin, Ancangan Kajian Wacana, (Terjemahan) (Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar, 2007), p. 64.
29
Ralph Fasold, op. cit, p. 162.
30
communication is not the symbol, word or sentence. But rather the production
of the symbol or word or sentence in the performance of the speech act.31
In addition to Austin‟s opinion (1962) about performative, Searle
(1975) expended the hypothesis saying that basically, all utterances contained
„act‟, and not only that have performative verbs. In addition with developing
hypothesis that every utterance contains action, Searle also divides speech
acts into three different kinds of actions; locutionary act, illocutionary act,
and perlocutionary act.32
Based on the description above, it can be concluded that speech act is
theory that examines the meaning of language based on the relationship
between speech and action taken by the speaker to hearer in communication.
It means the speech will be meaningful if it is realized in real communication
actions.
Thus the essence, Speech act is an entity that is central to the
pragmatic so that is a staple in the pragmatics. The nature of the speech act is
an act that is expressed with meaning or function (purpose and objectives) are
attached to the speech.
In other words, we can simply say that the speech act is an utterance
that contains an action. Here more explanation from Searle about locutionary
act, illocutionary act, and perlocutionary act;
31
Jacob L. Mey, op. cit, p. 95.
32
1. Locutionary Act
“Locutionary act is the act of saying something that is understable
and reasonable in language and follows the rules of pronunciation and
grammar”. 33
For example:
“I have just made a cup of tea”
Mostly we don‟t just produce well-formed utterances with no
purpose.
Another example is when someone says “there is an elephant in
the zoo”, in this case, he is just making a statement that there is an
elephant in the zoo without any intention. He does not warn or ask the
hearer to move or shut the gate. From pragmatics perspective, the role of
illocutionary act is actually less important in understanding speech act.34
Based on the opinion above, it can be concluded that basically
locutionary acts doesn‟t matter about the speech function because of the
meaning contained in the sentence which is uttered.
We can say that locutionary act is a speech act that expresses
things as they are. Moreover, locutionary act is a speech act that relatively
easy to identify because its identification could be done without the
context of utterances which are discussed in speech event.
33
John I. Saeed, Semantics, (UK: Blackwell Publishing Inc.1997), p. 228.
34
2. Illocutionary Act
According to Yule, illocutionary act is performed via the
communicative force of utterance.35
For example:
“It‟s hot in here!”
From example about, it means we want some fresh air.36 The
illocutionary act is an utterance which is intended by by the speaker under
his/or her full control. An illocutionary act refers to the type of function
the speaker intends to fulfill, or the type of action the speaker intends to
accomplish in the corse of producing an utterance. It is an act
accomplished in speaking. Example of illocutionary acts include accusing,
apologizing, blaming, congratulating, giving permission, joking, nagging,
naming, promising, ordering, refusing, swearing and thanking.37
According to Bloomer, illocutionary act is the act which is carried
out when the speaker makes an utterance. The illocutionary act in its
implementation has a certain communicative purpose. When we say “I’ve
just made some coffee” to make a stetement, an offer, an explanation, or
some other communicative purposes, the intention or purpose of an
utterance is generally known as the illocutionary force of the utterance.
An utterance can have more than one illocution; it is useful to
introduce the distinction between direct and indirect illocutions. Direct
illocution of an utterance is the illocution most directly indicated by a
35
Geogre Yule, loc. cit.
36
Jenny Thomas, Meaning and Interaction: An Introduction to Prfagmatics, (London: Longman Group Limited, 1995), p. 49.
literal reading of the grammatical form and vocabulay of the sentence
uttered. While the indirect illocution of an utterance is any further
illocution the utterance may have.38
The direct illocution of “can you pass the river?” is an enquiry
about the hearer‟s ability to pass the river. The indirect illocution is a
request that the hearer pass the river.
Based on the explanation above, when a person delivers
something, it does not only convey information but the majority of
utterances are expected to get a response in actions. So, the writer can say
that illocutionary acts besides giving information about something, also
the implication of the speech which is uttered.
3. Perlocutionary Act
A perlocutionary act is the act by which the illocution produces a
certain effect in or exerts a certain influence of addressee. Still another
way to put it is that a perlocutionary act represents a consequence or
by-product of speaking, whether intentional or not. It is therefore an act
performed by speaking.39 Some perlocutionary acts are always the
producing sequel of alerting or even alarming.40
According to Austin “perlocutionary act is the actual effect
achieved by saying”. According to Wijana, this act is known as an act of
38
James R. Harford,Semantics: A Course book, ( Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), p. 259.
39
Yan Huang, op. cit, p. 103.
40
affecting someone.41
For example:
“Shoot her!”
One may say of this utterance that, in appropriate circumtances, it
had the illocutionary force of variously, ordering, arguing, advising, the
address to shoot her. But the perlocutionary effect of persuading, forcing,
or frightening the addressee into shooting her.
In other words, perlocutionary act is the act that has an influence or
effect on the partner or who heard the speech. In perlocutionary act, the
speaker hopes to get the attention of the hearer about what he conveys.
This is often experienced by every person with different goals and
interests, such as the aim to apologize, pay for attention, understand person
situation and so on.
E. Classification of Illocutionary Acts
Many theories of speech acts have been described and classified by
the linguists especially by Austin and Searle who concern on analyzing the
speech act. Austin suggested that the illocutionary act always contains
explisit meaning throughthe use of performative sentences. Austin
categorized the illocutionary acts into five basic categories of verdictive,
expositive, exersitive, commisive and behabitive.42Austin‟s five classes, a
brief explanation of each, and a few examples of each are as follows:
41
F.X. Nadar, op. cit, p. 15.
42
1. Verdictives: acts that consist of delivering a finding, e.g., acquit, hold (as
a matter of law), read something as, etc.43
2. Exercitives: acts of giving a decision for or against a course of action,
e.g., appoint, dismiss, order, sentence, etc.44
3. Commissives: acts whose point is to commit the speaker to a course of
action, e.g., contract, give one’s word, declare one’s intention, etc.45
4. Behabitives: expressions of attitudes toward the conduct, fortunes, or
attitudes of others, e.g., apologize, thank, congratulate, welcome, etc.46
5. Expositives: acts of expounding of views, conducting of arguments, and
clarifying, e.g., deny, inform, concede, refer, etc.47
Searle criticized Austin for operating with overlapping criteria. As we
saw in the preceeding section, Searle finds fault with Austin taxonomy of
speech act for various reason (inconsistency, incompleteness, and so on). The
five category that Searle ends up establishing are representatives (or
assertives), directives, commisives, expressives, declarations (or
declaratives).48 I will discuss the categories in this order:
1. Representatives
These speech acts are assertions about a state of affairs in the world
(hence they are also called assertives; Leech 1983:128), and thus carry the
values „true‟ or „false‟. This is their „point‟; as to fit, they should of course,
43
Jerrold Saddock, The Handbook of Pragmatics, (Blackwell: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004), p. 64.
44 Ibid. 45
Ibid. 46
Ibid. 47
Ibid. 48
match the world in order to be true.49 It is including asserting, stating,
claiming, concluding, and reporting.
In performing this type of speech act, the speaker represents the
world as he or she believes it is, they make an utterance according to what
they believe and in accordance with the fact. E.g. The Berlin Wall came
down in 1989.50 The example above is entered to stating.
2. Directives
These are kinds of speech acts in which the speaker wants the
hearer to do something. They express the speaker‟s desire to the hearer to
do something. Examples of directives are action such as advising,
commanding, ordering, questioning, and requesting. In using a directive,
the speaker intends to to obtain some future action of the hearer. E.g.
Close the door!51
3. Commisives
These are kinds of speech acts that require the speaker to perform
some future actions. That expresseed the speaker‟s desire to do something.
Examples of commisives are actions such as offering, pledging, promising,
refusing, and thretening. E.g. I‟ll give you money tomorrow.52
4. Expressives
These are kinds of speech acts that express a psychological attitude
or state of speaker such as exitement, sadness, and likes/dislikes.
49 Ibid. 50
Yan Huang, op. cit, p. 1004.
51 Ibid. 52
Examples of expressives are actions such as apologizing, blaming,
congratulating, praising, and thanking. E.g. Well done, Elizabeth!53
5. Declaratives
These are kinds of speech acts that cause immediatechanges in
some situations, in performing this type of speech act, the speaker brings
about changes in the world; the propositional content of the speaker‟s
utterance changes the state of hearer in reality. Examples of declaratives
are actions such opening a bridge, declaring war, excommunicating, firing
from employment, and nominating a candidate. E.g. I object, Your
Honor.54
So, we can take the conclusion based on the explanation above.
First, representative is a speech that binding the speakers of the truly
utterance. Second, directive is binding speaker to take the actions
mentioned in the speech. Third, commissive is the act that binding the
speaker to do somethingin the future. Fourth, expressive is the act that
expresses feelings of the speaker. And the last, declarative is the act which
may cause new situations or status.
F. Direct and Indirect Speech
The speech acts can also be said directly and indirectly. Direct speech
act can be directly recognized from its syntactical form. 55 When an
interrogative structure such as “Did You....? Are They....? or Can We....?” is
used with the function of a question it is described as a direct speech act. But
53 Ibid. 54
Ibid. 55
when it is used as a request or command, it is described as an indirect speech
act. 56 Direct speech act is used to say something, inform something, ask
someone, beg someone, or give a command, if the utterance is conveyed
directly. The example: “Bring me my coat!” As ilustrated in the example that
the utterance is an illocutinary act which is said to vary directly. It means that
the speaker wants the hearer brings his coat.
The direct speech act above is different from the indirect speech act.
As a sentence with the phrase “Can you bring my coat?” is an indirect
illocutionary act. Indirect speech used to communicate what someone else
said, but without using the exact word. The tenses of the verbs are often
changed. Indirect speech acts are generally associated with the greater
politeness in English than direct speech act.57 The study of indirect speech act
(or indirect illocutions) brought a challenge both to the classical speech
speech act theory of Searle, and to grammatical version of speech acts
attempted by means of the performative hypotesis.58
As discussed above, Searle (1969) distinguished between effects that
areachieved by getting the hearer to recognize that the rules governing the use
of an illocutionary force indicating device are in effect, which he called
illocutionaryeffects, and those effects that are achieved indirectly as
by-products of thetotal speech act, for which he reserved the term perlocutionary
effects. But the effect might be very similar and we might use the same words
to describe it, whether it is an illocutionary or perlocutionary effect.
56 Ibid. 57
F.X. Nadar, op. cit, p. 18.
58
Sadock (1970, 1972) argued that, in certain cases, there were some
conventional indications in the form of the utterance of what might be taken
as an indirect, perlocutionary effect. The central sort of example is the
utterance at a dinner table of an apparent question like “Could you pass the
salt?” The utterance appears to be a question, but when produced at a dinner
table, a commonly achieved effect is to arouse in the addressee a feeling of
obligation to pass the salt.59
Sadock noticed that the question “Could you pass the salt?” can also
include the word please sentence internally, which indicates clearly the
intention of the speaker to produce the kind of effect that illocutionary acts of
requesting typically do. It is important to notice that not all questions that can
provoke such a feeling in the addressee can felicitously include this word.
Thus Isn’t it cold in here can give the right circumstances, because an
addressee to feel obligated to close a window, light a fire in the fireplace,
fetch a blanket, or the like. But even when intended to produce such results,
one cannot say in idiomatic English *Isn’t it please cold in here. Sadock
argued that examples of the former kind are conventionalized in a sense
sufficient to justify analyzing the intended effect as directly illocutionary
rather than as an indirect perlocutionary effect.60
Thus, from the explanation above, we can conclude that direct speech
act is the speech that reflects the appropriate communication between the
speech with expected action, such declarative utterances to inform something
59
Jerrold Saddock, op. cit, p. 69.
and interrogative utterances to ask. Indirect speech act is the utterance that
reflects inappropriate communication between the speech with the expected
action interrogative utterances in order to get utterance that considered more
28
A. Data Description
In this data descripion, the writer compiles and classifies the data from
the dialogue scripts of Fast and Furious 7 movie. And then tabulates the
collected data classification into the following table accrording to Searle
categories of illocutionary acts. The data are grouped based on types, direct &
indirect, and functions of the illocutionary acts found in the movie scripts as
described below.
TABLE 1: THE ILLOCUTIONARY ACTS OF REPRESENTATIVES
No Data Illocutionary classification Timeline
1. Letty: It's not fair. You know I don't.
Representative
(Asserting) 00:03:19 - 00:03:35 2. Elena: You're a terrible liar!
See you tomorrow, boss.
Representative
(Asserting) 00:10:07 - 00:10:28
3.
Roman: They don't suppose to look... like that. I'm just saying, like how they normally wear them li'l weird glasses... that's all crooked, with pimples all over they face from drinking soda.
Representative
(Stating) 01:00:57 - 01:01:12
4. Zafar: Impossible. Representative
(Claiming) 01:06:41 - 01:06:43 5. Dom. Torreto: I don't have
friends. I got family.
Representative
TABLE 2: THE ILLOCUTIONARY ACTS OF DIRECTIVES
No Data Illocutionary
Classification Timeline
6.
Dom. Torreto : Keep it under 9000 RPMs. Kid's gonna fire
his pistons after the first 200.
Directive
(Ordering) 00:04:37 - 00:04:50
7. Ramsey: There's a cliff. Cliff! Cliff!
Directive
(Commanding) 00:52:08 - 00:53:00 8. Dom. Torreto: Let’s get to
(Ordering) 01:47:18 - 01:47:24
TABLE 3: THE ILLOCUTIONARY ACTS OF EXPRESSIVES
No Data Illocutionary
classification Timeline 10. Elena: Thanks, Hobbs.
Thanks for everything.
Expressive
(Thanking) 00:11:04 - 00:11:13
11.
Ramsey: And then break in when they access it. So you're talking about hacking my hacking device. That's brilliant.
Expressive
(Praising) 01:31:08 - 01:31:19
12. Ramsey: I'm sorry. Expressive
(Apologizing) 01:20:54 - 01:21:03
13.
Mr. Nobody: You just changed the face of manhunts forever. Congratulations.
Expressive
(Congratulating) 01:23:31 - 01:23:42
TABLE 4: THE ILLOCUTIONARY ACTS OF COMMISIVES
No Data Illocutionary
classification Timeline
14.
Hobbs : You sure as hell ain't the IT guy so you better start talking, before I break that finger six different ways... and stick it straight right wherethe sun doesn't shine.
Commisive
15. Mando: You’ll be safe. Commisive
(Promising) 00:21:46 - 00:22:00
16. Brian O’conner: I won't let you
down, Mia.
Commisive
(Promising) 00:24:06 - 00:24:16
17.
Mr. Nobody: No, you're not. I carry my own health
insurance. SOCOM Medics on standby. They're already
inbound.
Commisive
(Refusing) 01:29:27 - 01:29:38
18. Dom. Torreto : I'll come back for that.
Commisive
(Promising) 01:31:53 - 01:32:16
TABLE 5: THE ILLOCUTIONARY ACTS OF DECLARATIVES
No Data Classification Illocutionary Timeline
19.
Hobbs : You just earned yourself adance with the devil, boy.
You're under arrest.
Declarative
(Declaring) 00:12:17-00:12:20
B. Data Analysis
The writer used the data from the dialogues of Fast and Furious 7
movie. Four stages for the writer to analyze the data. First, the writer
observed the context which supports the analysis. Second, he identified the
classification of illocutionary acts found in the dialogues. Third, he divided
into direct and indirect illocutionary acts. And the last, he analyzed the
functions used in the dialogues of the movie. In this analysis, the writer
selected 19 numbers of data to be analyzed. So the data description above can
be analyzed as follows.
DATUM 1
A conversation between Letty and Dominic Torreto in minutes
00:03:19 – 00:03:35, as follows:
Dom.Torreto: They say an open road helps you think about where you've been... where you're going. So you don't remember any of this yet.
Letty Ortiz : It's not fair. You know I don't.
a. Context
Context is something important that must be understood by the
writer before he begins with the research because it will give some
information outside language which must be understood in a conversation.
These are aspects which support analysis of the context:
1) Addresser & Addressee : Letty Ortiz & Dominic Torreto
2) Setting : In the sport car– Day
3) Context : In this context, Dom asked to letty whether
she still remembered the place that was used to be the race wars. In
fact, Letty still didn‟t remember anything at all, and she also
emphasized that it was unfair to her because Letty still forgot what
happened in the past.
b. Illocutionary act
From the dialogues above, Letty said “It’s not fair. You know I
don’t.” Letty asserted to Dom that she couldn‟t remember about
something happened in the past because she had amnesia. It was really not
fair for her because it was hard to make her memory back as before, but
Dom was still trying to remind her about their past due to the fact that he
knew that it was not easy as he thought.
Based on the context, it is obvious that illocutionary act is
something. In this case, representative is an action or an utterance that
describes the speaker‟s truthful proposition. Letty expressed what she felt
to Dom about inequity. In this case, it is clear that the utterance is
asserting, included in the paradigmatic case of representative.
c. Direct & Indirect Speech Act
Based on the context above, the illocutionary act is uttered directly.
Direct speech act is used to say something, inform something, ask
someone, beg someone, or give a command. The utterance is conveyed
directly. Letty asserted to Dom about her truthful proposition. She tried to
explain her condition to Dom by saying “It's not fair. You know I don't.”
The utterance: is an illocutinary act which is said directly.
DATUM 2
A conversation between Elena and Hobbs in minutes 00:10:07 –
00:10:28, as follows:
Elena : You're disappointed, aren't you?
Hobbs : What are you talking about?
Elena : The last arrest. It was too easy. Target didn't even run.
Hobbs : Ah, it's okay. Give me a chance to hit the iron. Also, lets me work on my stamping skills.
Elena : You're a terrible liar! See you tomorrow, boss.
a.Context
These are aspects which support analysis of the context:
1) Addresser & Addressee : Elena & Hobbs
2) Setting : In Diplomatic Security Service Los Angeles
Division - Night
because he could not hit the enemy. He said that he just needed more
time to hit the iron. Elena knew that he was lying to her. So, she
asserted by the statement “You are terrible liar”because Hobbs was
not a good liar.
b. Illocutionary act
In the dialogues above, Elena‟s uttered “You are terrible liar!” In
this context, Elena wanted to assert that Hobbs was not good to lie because
he could not cover his disappointment with his lying. Actually Elena knew
that Hobbs was still disappointed about the last arrest, but in order to
convince her thinking of truthful proposition, she asked to Hobbs
immediately.
Based on the context, it is clear that the illocutionary act is
representative of asserting. The illocutionary force of this utterance is to
assert something. In this conversation, Elena wanted to represents the
world that she believed. She made an utterance according to what she
believed and in accordance with the fact. In this case, it is obvious that the
utterance is asserting, included in the paradigmatic case of representative.
c. Direct & Indirect Speech Act
Based on the context above, the illocutionary act is uttered directly.
The utterance “You are terrible liar!” is an illocutinary act of
representative which is said automatically. In the dialogue, the utterance of
Elena in truthful proposition is said to Dom immediately.
DATUM 3
A conversation between Roman and Tej in minutes 01:00:57 –
Roman : She don't look like a hacker to me.
Tej : Oh yeah? And what do hackers look like?
Roman : They don't suppose to look... like that. I'm just saying, like, how theynormally wear them li'l weird glasses...that's all crooked, with pimples all over they face from drinking soda.
a. Context
These are aspects which support analysis of the context:
1. Addresser & Addressee : Roman & Tej
2. Setting : In a hut beside a ravine – Day
3. Context : In the context, Roman said to Tej that the girl
didn‟t look like a hacker for him. Then Tej asked what hackers look
like to him? Roman answered and emphasized that hackers normally
wore those li'l weird glasses...that's all crooked, with pimples all over
they face from drinking soda.
b. Illocutionary act
From the dialogue, Roman said to Tej “They don't suppose to
look... like that.” In this context, Roman wanted to give a statement that
the real hacker didn‟t look like that girl, Ramsey. He believed that the real
hacker normally wore the little weird glasses with pimples all over they
face from drinking soda.
Based on the context, it is obvious that Roman‟s illocutionary act is
representative of stating. The illocutionary force of this utterance is to state
something. It describes the speaker‟s truthful proposition. Hence, that
utterance is representative of stating included in the paradigmatic of
c. Direct & Indirect Speech Act
In this context, the illocutionary act is uttered directly. The
utterance “They don't suppose to look... like that”in normal condition is an
illocutinary act of representative which is said automatically. In the
dialogue, Roman stated immediately about what he believed in truthful
proposition. In his mind, saying of that is a truth, not an illusion or
falsehood.
DATUM 4
A conversation between Dominic Torreto and Zafar in minutes
01:06:41 – 01:06:43, as follows:
Dom. Torreto : We're gonna need it back.
Zafar : Impossible. a. Context
These are aspects which support analysis of the context:
1) Addresser & Addressee : Dominic Torreto & Zafar
2) Setting : In Abu Dhabi‟s foreshore – Day
3) Context : In this context, Zafar has sold the speed
driver to the prince of Jordanian. Dominic Torreto got anger and
wanted to get it back because it was important for the team. Zafar
answered calmly “it’s impossible”due to the fact that the device was
very safe, and it was put in the super car in the top floor of the
b. Illocutionary act
From the dialogue, Dominic Torreto said to Zafar that he needed it
back. And Zafar said calmly by saying “Impossible” to Dom. In this
context, Zafar wanted to claim that was impossible to get the speed drive
back. He believed that it was really difficult to take because device was
very safe, and it was put in the super car in the top floor of the apartment.
Based on the context, it is obvious that Zafar‟s illocutionary act is
representative of claiming. The illocutionary force of this utterance is to
claim something about his belief in the truthful proposition. Zafar
Expressed what she believes to Dom about impossibility. In this case, it is
clear that the utterance is claiming, included in the paradigmatic case of
representative.
c. Direct & Indirect Speech Act
In the dialogue, Zafar uttered something immediately to Dominic
Torreto. The utterance “impossible” in the normal condition is
representative illocutionary act of claiming which is said directly. In the
dialogue, Zafar claimed about what he believed in truthful proposition.
DATUM 5
A conversational between Deckard Shawand Dominic Torreto in
minutes 01:26:17 – 01:26:24, as follows:
Deckard Shaw : Have you ever heard the saying:"The enemy of my enemy...is my friend"?
a. Context
These are aspects which support analysis of the context:
1) Addresser & Addressee : Deckard Shaw & Dominic Torreto
2) Setting : In the factory – Night
3) Context : In this context, Deckard Shaw wanted to
inform Dominic Torreto that he was not alone anymore because he got
a lot of friends. But Dominic Torreto emphasized him by saying “I
don't have friends. I got family.”He wanted to assert that he only has
a big family in his life.
b. Illocutionary act
From the dialogue, Deckard Shaw said to Dominic Torreto by
saying “Have you ever heard the saying: The enemy of my enemy... is my
friend?” It meant that he was not alone in the actions, because a lot of
friends backed him up. But Dominic Torreto emphasized him by saying “I
don't have friends. I got family.”
Based on the context, we can see that Dominic Torreto‟s
illocutionary act is representative of asserting. The illocutionary force of
this utterance is to assert that he has no friend at all, but family. In his
principle, family would always stay closer to use in the pleasure and
sorrow, but friends sometimes just came only when in need. In this case, it
is obvious that the utterance is asserting.
c. Direct & Indirect Speech Act
In the dialogue, Dominic Torreto said “I don't have friends. I got
The type of illocutionary act is representative of asserting which is said to
really directly. In the dialogue, Dominic Torreto asserted his principle
about family because he has only big family in his life. In this context, he
believed his saying in truthful proposition.
DATUM 6
A conversation between Dominic Torreto and Letty in minutes
00:04:37 – 00:04:50, as follows:
Dominic Torreto : Keep it under 9000 RPMs. Kid's gonna fire his pistons after the first 200.
Letty : You know that's not my style, I got to ride or die, right?
Dom. Torreto : How about you just ride on this one.
a. Context
These are aspects which support analysis of the context:
1) Addresser & Addressee : Dominic Torreto & Letty
2) Setting : In the race wars– Day
3) Context : In this context, Dominic Torreto reminded
Letty to keep the speed under 9000 RPMs because kid was going to
fire his pistons after the first 200.
b. Illocutionary act
In the dialogue, Dominic Torreto ordered Letty to take care about
the speed because he wanted Letty to get safe in the race. Dominic Torreto
said “Keep it under 9000 RPMs. Kid's gonna fire his pistons after the first
200.” In this context, Dominic Torreto only needed her darling to ride for
