AN ANALYSIS OF ILLOCUTIONARY ACT IN MOVIE
THE PURSUIT OF HAPPYNESS.
A THESIS
BY
MAZNIL KHAIRI PURBA
REG.NO.060705003
ENGLISH DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF LETTERS
UNIVERSITY OF SUMATERA UTARA
MEDAN
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First of all, I would like to say all praises to Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala who always give the chance, health, and everything for me so I can finish this thesis completely by through all the moment.
I would like to express my best gratitude to my supervisor Drs. Muhizar Muchtar, M.S and my co-Supervisor, Drs. M. Syafii Siregar, M.A and my academic supervisor Drs. Matius C.A. Sembiring, MA for their time, advice, suggestion, comment, and support given to me during the process of writing and completing this thesis.
I also would like to thank the Dean of Faculty of Letters USU, Dr. Drs. Syahron Lubis, M.A, the head of English Department, Dra. Swesana Mardia Lubis, M.Hum and the secretary, Drs. Parlindungan Purba, M.Hum and all academics and administrative staff for their helps during the period of my study in the faculty.
I want to say sorry for my friends and family those are not mentioned, but I really want to say thank you for all who help me in completing this thesis.
Medan, ……….
AUTHOR’S DECLARATION
I, Maznil Khairi Purba, declare that I am the sole author of this thesis except the references that I use in this thesis are go from some related texts and books. This thesis has not published yet or extracted in whole or in a part from another thesis.
No other person’s work has been without due acknowledgement in the main text of thesis. This thesis has not been submitted for the aware of another degree in any tertiary education.
Signed :
COPYRIGHT DECLARATION
Name : Maznil Khairi Purba
Title of Thesis : An Analysis of Illocutionary Act in Film The Pursuit of Happyness
Qualification : S-1/ Sarjana Sastra Department : English Literature
I am willing that my thesis should be available for reproduction at the discretion of the librarian of university of Sumatera Utara, Faculty of Letters, English Department on the understanding that users are made aware for their obligation under law of the Republic of Indonesia.
Signed :
ABSTRAK
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.7.Review of Related Literature……….6
2. THE OVERVIEW OF PRAGMATICS………..8
2.1.The understanding of Pragmatics………..8
2.2.The Relationship between Pragmatics and Semantics……….10
2.3.Speech Acts………..12
2.3.1. Locution………12
2.3.2. Illocutionary Act………...13
2.3.3. Perlocutionary Act………13
3. ILLOCUTIONARY ACT………15
3.1.The Categories of Illocutionary Act……….17
3.1.1. Declaratives………17
3.3.2. Indirect Act………23
3.3.3. Literal Act………..24
3.3.4. Non Literal Act………..25
4. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS………..26
4.1.Syntactic Features of Directives………...26
4.2.Direct and Indirect Directives………...27
4.3.Linguistic Classification of Directives……….31
4.3.1. GROUP A: Directives Expressed in Verbal Question………...31
4.3.2. GROUP B: Directives Expressed with Verb in The Stem Form………32
4.3.3. GROUP C: Directives Expressed in Pronominal question...36
4.3.4. GROUP D: Directives Expressed in Statement………..36
4.4.Table of The Analysis Result………37
5. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION……….39
5.1.Conclusion……….39
5.2.Suggestion……….40
BIBLIOGRAPHY……….
ABSTRAK
1. INRODUCTION
1.1. Background of Analysis
The most important aspect in human life which is used as communication is language. All people around the world use the language in communication and interaction to each other. Without language people cannot interact to other people else. People can express their ideas or feelings through the language. Beside it, the communicative function of language as the gift for human being, it is the important thing that makes human being different from animal.
In sharing our ideas, we need to deliver our ideas clearly so that the hearer can catch the meaning or the content of the message we are going to say. The hearer that wants to understand the meaning of the utterance of the speaker should know the languages and the context related to the utterance.
Pragmatics, as a branch of linguistics, plays its role to study about the meaning of language and its relation to the context. Stilwell Peccei (1999) emphasizes that pragmatics concentrates on those aspects of meaning that cannot be predicted by linguistic knowledge alone and takes into account of knowledge about the physical and social world. In the theory of pragmatics, there are three types of acts (locutionary acts, illocutionary acts, and perlocutionary acts), they are called speech acts. Speech acts as the centre of pragmatic study, is defined as a study of how to do the things with words.
J.R. Searle (1965:105) states:
“Behind the word, there is a hidden meaning we want to convey.” He states that on the utterance has two kinds of meaning, i.e. propositional meaning and illocutionary meaning. Propositional meaning is a basic literal meaning of the utterance which is conveyed by the particular words and a structure which the utterance contains while illocutionary meaning is the hidden meaning or the effect of the utterance or written text has on the hearer or reader.
When a speaker says “can you take the rubbish outside?” to his maid, It is more than just a question of the ability of the maid whether she is strong enough to take the rubbish outside, but it is a kind of command that is uttered in such away. Semantically, we may interpret the utterance as the act of questioning, but we can interpret it as an act of ordering pragmatically. The example above is a kind of illocutionary act that may be concluded that in language there should be an act can be performed. So, the sentence “can you take the rubbish outside?” contains at least two acts, i.e. requesting and ordering
Illocutionary act is an act performed in saying something. It is something the speaker intends to do in making the utterance. This act is performed within the full control of the speaker and it is the evident after the utterance is made. The illocutionary act is carried out by speaker in making an utterance’s significance within a conventional system of social intention.
J.R. Searle in Saeed (1997) categorizes the types of illocutionary acts into five categories.
1. Representatives,
Which commits the speaker to the truth of the expressed proposition (paradigm cases: asserting, concluding);
2. Directives,
3.Commissives,
Which commits the speaker to some future course of action (paradigm cases: promising, threatening, offering);
4. Expressive,
Which expresses a psychological state (paradigm cases: thanking, apologizing, welcoming and congratulating);
5. Declarations,
Which effects immediate changes in the institutional state of affairs and which tends to rely on elaborate extra linguistic institution (paradigm cases: excommunicating, declaring war, christening, marrying and firing from employment).
Every book that discusses about pragmatics or illocutionary act always takes the examples from the utterance of our conversation in daily life since it is easier to connect every utterance which the speaker and the hearer do the conversation. So, it is easier to find out the real meaning of the utterance more than just the semantic meaning. The writer chooses the movie as the object of the research because the conversation of the characters represents our daily conversation and such story of the movie often happens around us.
1.2Scopes of Analysis
the main character, Will Smith, because there are too many characters in this film, so, it needs a limitation. This thesis only analyzes the Directive Illocutionary Act.
1.3Problems of Analysis
Problem of research is very important for systemic step, because without problem, a researcher will get lost of what is being inquired. After determining the scope of the analysis, the problems that appear in this research are:
1. Are illocutionary acts found in the pursuit of happiness?
2. Are the Directive Illocutionary Act found in Chris Gardner’s dialogues?
3. What types of felicity condition of direct and indirect meaning of Directive Illocutionary Acts are found in the pursuit of happyness?
1.4Objectives of Analysis
After looking at the problem of the study above, the writer has the following objectives:
1. To find out whether illocutionary act can be found in the pursuit of hapyiness. 2. To find out the types of illocutionary act in Chris Gardner’s dialogues.
1.5Significances of Analysis
This thesis is expected to give some significances, they are: 1. To enlarge the reader’s knowledge about speech acts.
2. To give more understanding for the readers about how to interpret the language utterance in the film and in the daily utterances.
3. To add more references for the researchers that is going to discuss the same object.
1.6Method of Analysis
In doing this thesis the writer uses the library research, it means that the writer collects some related sources and applies the theory on the objects of the research. In analyzing the data the wrier uses the descriptive quantitative method, by which the data are described by using numbers or tables. There are some steps the writer applies on this thesis, they are:
1. Collecting the data:
Taking the data from the dialogues of the character in the pursuit of happiness. 2. Classifying the data:
Classifying the important data based on the scope of the analysis. 3. Identifying the data:
Determining the categories of the data which belong to the types of directive illocutionary acts.
Describing the data into the more obvious description so that the reader can easily understand.
1.7Review of Related Literature
Generally, Searle in Leech (1993) categorize illocutionary acts into five types, they are:
1. Representatives, in this illocution, it has the truth of proposition which is conveyed (make statement, ideas, reporting)
2. Directives, this illocution aims to make someone do something (ordering, begging).
3. Commissives, this illocution is bound in an act in the future (promising)
4. Expressives, this illocution deals with feeling (thanking, apologizing, welcoming ,etc)
5. Declarations, the success of carrying out this illocution lead to an adjustment between the content of proposition and the reality (firing, christening, marrying, judging, naming)
James R. Hurford (1983 : 212) distinguishes between direct illocution as the illocution most directly indicated by a literal reading of the grammatical form and vocabulary of the utterance and indirect illocution as any further illocution the utterance may have.
associated wih Literal Indirect Act, 13 (7%) Literal Direct Act associated with Nonliteral Indirect Act, Nonliteral Direct Act associated with Nonliteral Indirect Act and found no Nonliteral Direct Act associated with Literal Indirect Act. In this thesis, she found only 25 (11%) of the frequency of types of illocutionary act of directive.
2. THE OVERVIEW OF PRAGMATICS
2.1. The Understanding of Pragmatics
Pragmatics is being the study of relation of signs to interpreters. Pragmatics as another branch of linguistic is the study of meaning which relates to the context or the external meaning of language unit. To get more clear definition about pragmatics, let us look at the following definition below.
Parker (1986:11) as quoted in Wijana (2009:4) states, “Pragmatics is distinct from grammer, which is the study of the internal structure of language. Pragmatics is the study of how language is used to communicate.”
Levinson (1985:21) in Sudaryat (2009:120) states:
Pragmatics is concerned solely with performance principles of language usage and the disambiguation of sentences by the contexts in which they were uttered.. Pragmatics is the study of the relation between language and the contexts that are basic to an account of language understanding.
Some experts said that pragmatics is a branch of semiotics which study about signs and symbols used by man for communicating in a particular language. From the definition above, it seems to be clear that pragmatics is:
1. A single science of language that different from other field since it studies about the external meaning of language, not the external structure of language.
2. Used as a means that study about one of the functions of language namely to communicate.
3. Relating with the context of the language use. It explains the way language use understood well after connecting it to the situation where, when and by whom it is uttered.
Through pragmatics, one can understand the real meaning of an utterance, the motivation of someone to say something by its relation to the context. Actually, based on the definition of pragmatics, we can explore some understanding about the facts with which pragmatics deals:
Facts about the objective facts of the utterance: who the speaker is, when the
utterance happened, and where;
Facts about the speaker’s intention. What language the speaker intends to use,
what meaning he intends to be using.
Facts about beliefs of the speaker and those to whom he speaks and what are
Facts about relevant social institutions, such as promising, marriage
ceremonies, and the like, which affect what a person accomplishes in or by saying what he does.
There may be question about the relationship between pragmatics and semantics. Linguistically, the field of both sciences are the same. They study about meaning, but there are some reasons make them different. It would be discussed in other sub-chapter.
2.2The Relationship between Pragmatics and Semantics
Pragmatics and semantics are two branches of linguistics that discussed the same field namely meaning. Both deal with the meaning of words that uttered by human being in their own language, but it is important to make a clear distinction between them so that there is no more misunderstanding about the study object of the two linguistics’ branches.
However, pragmatics sometimes contrasted with semantics. Pragmatics and semantics can be viewed as different parts, or different aspects, of the same general study. As discussed before, Pragmatics is the study of how language is used to communicate, while Semantics as the study of meaning is concerned with what sentence and other linguistics express, deals with the meaning of language unit, lexically and grammatically.
pragmatics, therefore, tend to go with the distinction between meaning and use, or more generally, that between competence and performance.
In the theory of linguistics, pragmatics is considered as the relation between language and context of situation. Meaning of language is therefore not single relation, but involves a set of various relations holding between the utterance and its parts and the relevant features and components of the environments. For more understanding about the distinction between pragmatics and semantics, let us see some examples below.
a. “We have no any chalk here”
Semantically, this sentence is a statement to inform that there is no chalk here. But, pragmatically, it is a request. It means that the speaker asks someone as the hearer to take the chalk.
b. “ I want more sugar in my coffee”
Semantically, it is a statement or request in which the speaker request for the sugar, but, pragmatically, this means that the speaker wants the hearer to do the action.
c. “your voice is too low”
Semantically, the utterance means, the speaker inform that the hearer has small voice. But, it would means opposite to the semantic meaning when it was happened in the class, when the teacher (speaker) asked one of student (hearer) to read a text, the sentence “your voice is too low” means the teacher ask student to read the text loudly.
Semantically, it is a statement to inform the hearer that he room is very clean. But, pragmatically, It may mean the opposite of what the words mean, “this room is very dirty”
2.3. Speech Acts
Pragmatics is defined as the study of language use and linguistic communication, and the central concern of pragmatics is the study of speech acts. Speech act is a part of pragmatic discussion which relates to what a certain sentence and utterance possesses certain act within it. Speaking a language is performing speech acts, acts such as making statements, giving commands, asking questions, making promises, and so on. In other words, we can do things with speech.
The study of how people do things with speech is the study of speech acts. In studying speech acts one is acutely aware of the importance of the context of the utterance. In some circumstance there is a sheep dog in the closet is a warning, but the very same sentence may be promise or even as mere statement of fact, depending on the circumstance.
In a book written by J.R. Searle, Speech Act: an essay in the philosophy of language (1969), Wijana (2009: 2) notes, at least, there are three types of speech acts
carried out by a speaker namely Locution, Illocutionary and Perlocutionary Act.
2.3.1. Locution
very important act because it is not communicative. It can be performed by a parrot, tape recorder, radio, etc.
2.3.2. Illocutionary Act
Illocutionary act is an act performed in saying something. When an utterance aims to do something, this is what is often called in pragmatic terms, the illocutionary act namely the act of doing something. It can be classified into illocutionary act when we regard to situation and the context of the utterance. For more discussion, this topic will be explained further in chapter 3.
2.3.3. Perlocutionary Act
Perlocutionary act is the third part of speech act which is distinctive from two other kinds of speech act. It is the act that produces effects on the hearer or defined by the hearer’s reaction to the speaker utterance. Let us see the example below:
When I say, “there is a snake beside you” and the hearer believe what I say. Then, it may cause the hearer panic, scream or run. These emotions or action of yours is the perlocution of my utterance, or the perlocutionary act I perform by making that utterance. From the example above, it can be concluded that perlocutionary act happens depends on the hearer’s reaction.
Typical examples of perlocutionary acts are: a. Inspiring
f. Deceiving g. Misleading h. irritating
There are some characteristics of perlocutionary act:
Perlocutionary acts are not performed merely by uttering explicit performative
sentence. For example, thought, feeling, expression and action.
Perlocutionary acts can be represented as an illocutionary act of speaker (S)
and its effects on the hearer (H). it can be illustrated as below: 1. S tells + H believes…= S persuades H that…
3. ILLOCUTIONARY ACT
Illocutionary act is an act performed in saying something. It is something the speaker intends to do in making the utterance. When analyzing an utterance, it does not only deal with what do sentences mean, but also what kind of act does a speaker performs in uttering a sentence. Illocutionary act is performed within the full control of the speaker and it is evident after the utterance is made. In English, there are some examples of illocutionary acts: accosting, accusing, apologizing, admitting, congratulating, complaining, challenging, condoling, etc.
Akmajian et.al (1979) gives some characteristic of illocutionary act:
1. Illocutionary act can often be successfully performed simply by uttering the tight explicit performative sentence, with the right intentions and beliefs, and under the right circumstances.
2. Illocutionary acts are central to linguistic communication. The normal conversation are composed in the right part of statements, requesting, ordering, thanking and the like. The performed acts are governed by rules. When one does perform perlocutionary acts of persuading, one does so by performing illocutionary act of stating or informing.
3. Most illocutionary act used to communicate have the feature that one performs them successfully simply by getting one’s illocutionary intention recognized.
Below are some examples of illocutionary acts: a. I will give you money
The sentence “I will give you money” is an act of promising that on a certain time the speaker promises to give some money to the hearer, and it belongs to commissive category. The second examples, the speaker says “take the knife!” has done an act of ordering. It means the speaker orders the hearer to take a knife. He does not need to say the peerformative verb, “I order you to take a knife”. The hearer should have caught the meaning in the utterance that there is an act of ordering.
3.1. The Categories of Illocutionary Act
Searle proposes five categories of speech act: (1) Declaratives, (2) Representatives, (3) Commissives, (4) Directives, and (5) Expressive.
In this thesis, the writer is going to elaborate those five categories of illocutionary act based on performative verbs, the relation between the words and the world (fact), the responsibility for the action and the typical expression of each illocutionary act. But, in analyzing the script film, the pursuit of happiness, the writer will only find out the Directives illocutionary act.
3.1.1. Declaratives
Declarative illocutionary act is a special type of illocutionary act that bring extra linguistic states of affairs into existence since it deals with a special authority or institution, such as declaring war, naming and the like. As we know that not everyone can declare war or give a name. In this act, the words of the speaker change the world and the speaker is responsible for this action.
Example:
a. I name this dog Mike
b. I pronounce you as man and wife c. You are fired
3.1.2. Representatives
a. Barack Obama is the president of United Sates b. Bali is in Indonesia
For those sentences, the speaker is responsible for the truth of the statements. It means, in reality, Barack Obama must be a president of United States and Bali must be in Indonesia. Typical examples of this illocutionary act are: stating, asserting, describing, affirming, explaining, etc.
3.1.3. Commissives
Commissive illocutionary act is an act that commits the speaker to do something in the future. The typical examples of this act are promising, vowing, offering, threatening, etc. Contrast to directives, commissives tend to function as rather to be convivial than to be competitive. Thus they involve more positive politeness, because commissives do not refer to the speaker’s importance but to the hearer’s expectation. The speaker of commissive often tends to find the chance to convince the hearer. Examples:
a. She will arrive on time b. I will find my true love
3.1.4. Directives
Directives is the act where the speaker attempts to get the hearer to do something. The relation between the word and the world is the world will fit the word and the hearer is responsible for realization of the changes. The typical expression of this type usually uses imperative structure; however, there are so many ways to expressing this type, not only imperative but also interrogative and declarative structures are often used to perform directive illocutionary act. Example:
a. Take me the water, please! b. Catch the ball!
c. Open the window!
All of those utterances are in form of imperative structure and function to give orders for the hearers to do some action taking, catching, and opening. Paradigm cases, such as: ordering, requesting, advising, suggesting, commanding, warning, etc.
3.1.5. Expressive
Express a psychological state of speaker. In this act, the words of the speaker fit the psychological world and the speaker is also responsible for the action. The typical structure of expression is usually in declarative structure with words referring to feeling such as thanking, congratulating, apologizing, condoling, accousting, greeting, wishing and complaining and the like.
The typical examples of Expressive: 1. For thank people have thank
2. For apologies people have apologize
5. For wishes people have bless, wish 6. For attitudes people have complain. The examples of Expressive are:
a. Thanks for your helping b. Welcome in my home
3.2. The Felicity Condition
The felicity condition of an illocutionary acts are conditions that must be fulfilled in the situation in which the act is carried out if the act is to be said, to be carried properly, or felicitously. Akmajian et. Al (1979) proposes some example for some illocutionary act as follows:
1. Ordering
The speaker must be superior or has an authority over the hearer. For example, a servant orders his princess to wash the plates, ”please wash the plates!” it is felicitous if the sentences uttered by the princess o his servant.
2. accusing
The deed or property attribute to be accused is wrong in some waay. 3. offering
The hearer must not already have the thing offered. 4. requesting
The speaker is tempting to get the hearer to do something 5. promising
the thing promised must be something the hearer wants to happen.
6. apologizing
the speaker must be responsible for the thing apologized for. The hearer must not want the thing apologized for to happen.
7. greeting
the speaker and the hearer must not in the middle of a conversation. The speaker feels some more respect or community with the hearer.
8. naming
the thing or person named must not already have recognized name known
to the speaker.
The speaker must be recognized by the community as having authority to
name. 9. protesting
the speaker must disapprove with the state of affairs protested at.
The hearer must be held to be responsible for the state of affairs protested.
10.enquiring
the speaker must believe that the hearer knows the answer for the question.
Beside the examples of felicity condition above, Peccei (1999) also gives examples of felicity condition for directive illocutionary act as illustrated below:
the speaker must be in a position to direct the hearer to perform the act. The directed act must not be something which has already happened or
would happen anyway.
The directed act must be something the hearer is willing or obligated to
The directed act must be something which is needed by or desirable to the
speaker.
The function of the felicity condition can help us to determine whether an illocutionary act classified into direct or indirect act. When an act does not fulfil the felicity condition, it must has another meaning more than the direct intention of the speaker.
3.3. The Ways of Performing Illocutionary Act
There are three main forms of sentences structures in English namely declarative, imperative, and interrogative form. Each form has their own function such as declarative is used to give and share information, imperative is used to ask for information. There are two main ways of performing illocutionary acts namely direct and indirect act. Besides, illocutionary act also distinguished into literal and non literal act.
3.3.1. Direct Act
Direct act is the way of performing illocutionary act directly by using the form of the sentence. For asking information, the form of sentence used in interrogative, imperative sentence is used to make an order. It means that when the speaker uses such pattern of sentence appropriate to the communicative intention, it is direct illocutionary act. Examples:
The intention of the speaker in the first example is to ask the information about the address of the hearer. The speaker performs an act of asking in the utterance directly by using interrogative pattern and it is appropriate when the speaker uses the pattern in asking for information and it is the so called direct act. o
The declarative sentence in the second example is also appropriate to the intention of the speaker to give information that he comes from Spain. The pattern used to give information is declarative structure and it is appropriate. In the last example, the speaker performs the commissive illocutionary act of promising the hearer to make him to be happy. The appropriate form of sentence to express commissive act is declarative structure. Those are some reasons for determining the examples above as direct illocutionary act.
Another factor of determining an utterance to be or not to be direct act is the felicity condition and it deals with the context, whether the context is felicitous or not to the intention of the speaker and the state of the hearer.
3.3.2. Indirect Act
Indirect illocutionary act is an act which is being performed by the speaker by using another. If the speaker’s utterance is in interrogative sentence, but the illocutionary act inside the utterance is intended as an assertion, it is called indirect way of performing illocutionary act as in the following examples:
You’d better do your homework as soon as possible
A mother’s utterance to a child uses declarative form functioning as an order; do your homework!
Have a nice weekend!
Tell me why we should go from here
Imperative form functioning as an assertion: why should we go from here? Who cares?
Interrogative form functioning as an assertion: no one cares. Can you turn on the fan for me?
Interrogative form functioning as a request: turn on the fan for me!
From those examples above, it can be concluded that not every form sentence functioning as it is, but also can be used for any other purpose. Such examples show us that indirect act is carried out when the form of the sentence used by the speaker is not appropriate to the intention of the speaker. A speaker may utter in an interrogative sentence, but the meaning or the intention is to make an act of requesting and so on.
3.3.3. Literal act
When listening to someone’s utterance or sentence, a listener sometimes finds that is very easy or hard to understand what the speaker wants in his utterance. When a speaker means what he says or he does not have the hidden the meaning, it is called literal meaning. Its meaning is indicated by the literal reading of the grammatical form and the vocabulary of the sentence. See the example below:
My mother is very beautiful I have two sisters
3.3.4. Non Literal Act
The meaning is non literal if a speaker means something different what the words mean. When someone utters a non literal utterance, the hearer may got hard to find the exact meaning. See the examples below:
Her voice makes me sleepy His song makes me hungry
4. THE ANALYSIS OF DIRECTIVE ILLOCUTIONARY ACT
4.1. Syntactic Features of Directives
As mentioned in the previous chapter, Directives are defined as part of illocutionary acts in which the speaker is attempting to get the hearer to do something. In this thesis, the writer analyzes the utterances of the main character in the movie the pursuit of happiness, Chris Gardner, and it will be categorized into directives only. Searle (1969) observes that this class may have certain syntactic feature in that one can characterize and perform directives act as follows:
I verb + you + volitional verb + (NP)
This syntactic feature of directives is in the form of performative sentence which uses performative verb after subject of the first person singular or plural.
For example:
I order you to finish your work, Jack
The normal form of a request is an imperative sentence; imperative is normally constructed with verb in the stem form without a subject, for example:
4.2. Direct and Indirect Directives
Dealing to the fact that directives can be expressed in the form of declarative and interrogative sentences, it is important to firstly consider which verses of the pursuit of happyness movie script are regarded as directive and which are not. By considering directives can be performed directly (by means of performative and imperative sentences) and indirectly (by means of other types of acts).
The term directive denotes the kind of an act carried out, i.e. getting (directing) someone to do something. Thus, there can be direct directives (sit down here!) And indirect directives, (can you sit down here?). The force of illocutionary act can be inferred through the implicature of that utterance especially the indirect act. The analysis will be discussed as follows:
1. Chris : Look, I can’t get Christopher today. Direct : stating
Indirect : the speaker orders the hearer to get Christopher today. 2. Chris : Why don’t you let me do this?
Direct : The speaker asks the hearer.
Indirect : The speaker orders the hearer to let him do that by himself. 3. Chris : All right, just relax. Okay?
Direct : The speaker suggests the hearer to get relax. 4. Chris : Come here, calm down!
Direct : The speaker suggests the hearer to calm down. 5. Chris : Let’s get ready for bed.
Direct : the speaker orders the hearer to put his plate. 7. Chris : you take care.
Direct : the speaker suggests the hearer to take care.
8. Chris : I don’t need you to tell me about my sales call, Linda.
Direct : the speaker suggests the hearer not to tell about the sales call. Indirect : the speaker asks the hearer not to tell about his sales call. 9. Chris : So go ahead!
Direct : The speaker order the hearer to go ahead. 10.Say goodbye to it, because I’m coming back without it.
Direct : the speaker asks the hearer to say goodbye. 11.Chris : So, you are not supposed to learn that.
Direct : The speaker suggests the hearer to do what the speaker says. 12.Chris : Can you at least put the dog upstairs in your room or something?
Direct : Asking whether the hearer can put he dog upstairs or not. Indirect : The speaker command the hearer to put the dog in other place. 13.Chris : come on.
Direct : The speaker literally requests the hearer to stay closed. 14.Chris : You should’ve seen me out there today.
Direct : The speaker suggests the hearer to see him out there. Indirect : The speaker asks the hearer to see what has happened.
15.Chris : Hey, Roy. Roy! Can you beat your little rug, when nobody’s out here? Direct : The speaker asks the hearer whether he able or not.
Indirect : The speaker orders the hearer to beat his little rug in other place. 16.Chris : Hey wait a second. Look, Linda, relax.
17.Chris : Let me see it.
Direct : The speaker asks the hearer to let him see. 18.Chris : Give it here!
Direct : The speaker command the hearer to give it. 19.Chris : Listen!
Direct : The speaker asks the hearer to listen what the speaker says. 20.Chris : See!
Direct : The speaker wants the hearer to see something. 21.Chris : Just flip around!
Direct : The speaker literally orders the hearer to flip around. 22.Chris : Look!
Direct : The speaker wants the hearer to have attention. 23.Chris : Linda, wait a minute. Hold it, hold..
Direct : The speaker literally orders the hearer to wait. 24.Chris : Hold on one second.
Direct : The speaker orders the hearer to hold on. 25.Chris : Go ahead. I have one.
Direct : The speaker literally orders the hearer to go ahead. 26.Chris : Can’t talk to you about numbers right now.
Direct : stating
Indirect : The speaker asks the hearer to keep silent and not to talk about numbers.
27.Chris : Don’t take my son away from me again.
Direct : The speaker orders the hearer to go. 29.Chris : Stop!
Direct : The speaker literally orders the hearer to stop. 30.Chris : Christopher’s living with me!
Direct : Stating
Indirect : The speaker wants the hearer to let him stay with his son. 31.Chris : You gotta get Christopher from day care.
Direct : The speaker orders the hearer to take their son from day care. 32.Chris : Just keep him for the night and I’m...And... just one night.
Direct : the speaker orders the hearer to do what the speaker say. 33.Chris : Come on, Linda.
Direct : The speaker wants the hearer to follow what the speaker says. 34.Chris : take him to the park... and bring him back, all right?
Direct : The speaker orders the hearer to do as the speaker says. 35.Chris : Just bring me my son back. Okay?
Direct : The speaker requests the hearer to bring his son back. 36.Chris : Listen!
Direct : The speaker wants the hearer to have attention.
37.Chris : I don’t want you shooting this ball all day and night. All right? Direct : stating that the speaker don’t want the hearer shooting the ball. Indirect : warning the hearer to do what the speaker say.
38.Chris : All right, go ahead!
Direct : ordering the hearer to do what the speaker say.
40.Chris : You got a dream... you gotta protect it.
Direct : The speaker suggests the hearer to give protection as the speaker says, Indirect : The speaker orders the hearer to do what the speaker says.
41.Chris : If you want something, go get it.
Direct : The speaker suggests the hearer to get something he want. Indirect : The speaker orders the hearer to do what the speaker says. 42.Chris : Let’s go!
Direct : The speaker invites the hearer to go. 43.Chris : Come on, come on. Keep up.
Direct : the speaker asks the hearer to do what the speaker say.
4.3. Linguistic Classification of Directives
This classification of directives is based on their linguistic forms. There are four ways of classifying directives based on their syntactic structure, they are to show that English certainly has many ways of expressing directives.
4.3.1. GROUP A: Directives Expressed in Verbal Question
Questions are sentences marked by one or more of these criteria : a. The placing of he operator immediately in front of the subject :
- Will Jack speak to you today?
b. The initial positioning of an interrogative or the WH-element - Who will speak to you today?
- Jack will speak to you?
Whereas, verbs can be divided into two types: a. Lexical: watch, write, read, walk, etc.
b. Auxiliary: (b.1) primary auxiliary: do, have, be.
(b.2) modal auxiliary: can, may, shall, will, could, might, should, would, must, ought to, used to, need, dare.
Verbal questions which can express directives in this group are the questions of the first type that places auxiliary verb immediately in front of the subject. Below are the classifications:
- Can you at least put the dog upstairs in your room or something? - Can you beat your little rug, when nobody’s out here?
- Can not talk to you about numbers right now
4.3.2. GROUP B – Directives Expressed with Verb in the Stem Form
Many English lexical verbs have five firms: the BASE (STEM), the –s FORM, the –ING PARTICIPLE. One of the functions of the verb in stem form is to construct imperative. Imperative are used to normally in performing command or order.
Directives of group B are as follows: 1. Just relax, okay?
7. So go ahead 8. Say goodbye to it
9. So you are not supposed to learn taht 10.Come on!
11.You should’ve seen me out there today 12.Wait a second
25.You gotta get Christopher from day care 26.Just keep him for the night...
27.Take him to the park 28.Just bring me my son back 29.Let’s go
30.Do no t ever let somebody....
32.Come on, come on. Keep up
The directives of group B above can be categorized into 4 types, they are: 1. Directives of Group B without a subject
- It has no subject,
- It has an imperative finite verb (the base form the verb without endings for number or tense)
18.Come on, Linda 19.Take him to the park 20.Just bring me my son back 21.Come on, come on. Keep up.
2. Directives of Group B with a subject
It is implied in the meaning of a command that the omitted subject of the imperative verb is the second person ‘you’. This is confirmed by the occurrence of ‘you’ as subject of a following tag question (open the door, will you?). there is a type of command in which the subject ‘you’ is retained, differing from the subject of a finite verb in always carrying stress:
- You take care
- You should’ve seen me out there today - You got a dream, you gotta protect it - You gotta get Christopher from day care
3. Directives of Group B with Let The examples are:
- Let’s get ready for bed - Let me see it
- Let’s go
4. Negative Directive of Group B
- Do not talk to me like that
- You are not supposed to learn that - Do not take my son away from me again - Do not ever let somebody....
4.3.3. GROUP C – Directives Expressed in Pronominal Question
There are three criteria of which questions are made. Pronominal question, here, is included in the second criteria of questions, for the initial positioning of wh – element before the subject and auxiliary verbs. It is also called WH-Question.
- Why don’t you let me do this?
4.3.4. GROUP D – Directives Expressed in Statement
Statement is one kind of simple sentences in which the subject is always present and generally precedes the verb.
- Jane will speak to the boss today
Declarative is the adjective term for statement. Besides interrogative and imperative, declarative can also be used to express directives. Below are the examples taken from film the pursuit of happiness:
- I can’t get Christopher today
- I do not need you to tell me about my sales call - Christopher is living with me
4.4. Table of the analysis result
The result of the analysis is drawn in the table below that explains in detail, the frequency, and the classification of Directive Illocutionary Act.
NO. Types of Directive Illocutionary Acts
Frequency of Occurrence in filmThe Pursuit of Happyness
1. Direct Directives 43
2. Indirect Directives 11
3. Group A : Directive Expressed In Verbal Questions
Total Group B Directive Expressed with Verb in The Stem
32
5. Group C : Directive Expressed in Pronominal Question
1
The table above shows us that there are 95 cases of Directive Illocutionary Acts which presence in the film The Pursuit of Happyness. The order of each utterances in the verses of this film are:
43 utterances for direct directives
32 utterances for group B directive expressed with verb in the stem and it is
divided into:
o 21 utterances for directive of group B without a subject
o 4 utterances for directive of group B with subject
o 3 utterances for directive of group B with let
o 4 utterances for negative directive of group B 11 utterances for indirect directives
5 utterances for group D : directive expressed in statement 3 utterances for group A : directive expressed in verbal questions 1 utterance for group C : directive expressed in pronominal questions
5. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
5.1 Conclusions
analyse them in more detail on one of film, “The Pursuit of Happyness” with the help of he former observation of those of some linguists.
5.2. Suggestions
In this chance the writer would like to suggest the readers to do the other analysis on pragmatics, particularly illocutionary acts on the other subject such as advertisements, headline news, speech, songs, and others. Lots of cases that happen in human’s everyday communications pragmatically are able to be analyzed. Study pragmatics is interesting, although it is quite difficult.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Banjarnahor, Rosmaida Mariati. 2005. An Analysis of Illocutionary Acts in Never Been Kissed (unpublished). Medan: University of Sumatera Utara
Hartley, A.F. 1982. Linguistic for Language Learners. London: The Macmillan Press Hasibuan, Dedy Thridha. 1999. Illocutionary Act in Tennessee William’s play: The Glass Menagerie (unpublished). Medan University of Sumatera Utara Hickey, Leo. 2001. The Pragmatic of Translation. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign
Language Education Press
Hurford, James R. And Brendan Heasley. Semantics: A Course Book. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Jannrdie, Stefanie.et.al. 1994. Language. Ohio: Ohio State University Press Leech, Geoffrey. 1993. Prinsip-Prinsip Pragmatik. Jakarta: Penerbit Universitas Indonesia.
Nawawi, H. 1993. Metode Penelitian Bidang Sosial. Yogyakarta: Gajah Mada University
Parera, J.D. 2004. Teori Semantik. Jakarta: Erlangga
Peccei, Jean Stilwell. 1999. Pragmatics. London: Taylor and Francis Limited Saeed, John I. 1997. Semantics. Beijing. Blackwell Publisher. Ltd
Searlee, J.R. 1961. Language. New York: Holt Rincord and Winston, Inc Tarigan, Henry Guntur. 1984. Psikolinguistik. Bandung: Penerbit Angkasa Wjana, I Dewa Putu. 2009. Analisis Wacana Pragmatik. Surakarta: Mata Padi Presindo
Yasin, Anas. 2008. Tindak Tutur: Sebuah Model Gramatika Komunikatif. Padang:
