CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
2.1. Pragmatics as the Study of Meaning
Pragmatics is a field of study which is getting more and more familiar in
linguistics today. This is an interesting fact, considering that fifteen years ago, it was
even rarely mentioned by linguists (Leech 1983:1). Pragmatics is regarded as the
youngest linguistic discipline, yet it is undeniably an appealing field because it is the
only branch of linguistics that allows human into the analysis (Yule 1996:4).
Leech (1983:1) makes an analogy that the history of linguistics can be
described in terms of successive discoveries, in which the things that have been put
in a rag-bag can be taken, sewed, and patched again into a more or less presentable
suit of clothes. In the same sense, the reason why pragmatics was firstly sort of
overlooked and neglected is because it is different from the older disciplines of
linguistics which focus more on the theoritical concepts.
Leech (1983:1-2) then states that it goes way back to the start in the late
1950s when Chomsky discovered the centrality of syntax, but like other
structuralists, he still considered meanings altogether too messy to be put in a serious
discussion. It was then in the early 1960s, when linguisctics grew quickly, that Katz
and Fodor began to think of inserting meanings into formal linguistic theory. The
ultimate transformation happened when Lukoff in 1971 stated that it was not possible
to separate syntax from the study of language use. Henceforth, pragmatics was
Leech (1983:1) says that now, many people would argue that we cannot
really understand the nature of language unless we understand pragmatics: how
language is used in communication.
Yule (1996:4) affirms that the advantage of studying language via pragmatics
is that one can talk about people’s intended meanings, their assumptions, their
purposes or goals, and the kinds of actions that they are performing when they speak.
To analyse meanings means that in the first place, one should be really clear
about what types of meanings that are intended to be analysed. Generally, there are
two types of meaning, literal meaning and non-literal (figurative) meaning. Literal
meaning means the meaning which is written in dictionaries. Meanwhile, non-literal
(figurative) meaning is the meaning that needs more complicated understanding in
order to be figured out.
According to Katz (1998:166), prior to the 1980s, the standard pragmatic
model of comprehension was widely believed. In that model, it was believed that the
recipient would first attempt to comprehend the meaning as if literal, but when an
appropriate literal inference could not be made, the recipient would shift to look for a
figurative interpretation that would allow comprehension.
“Good luck for your performance tonight! Break a leg!”
The statement above, when being examined literally, would create a
terrifying sense, as break a legwould mean that somebody’s leg will be literally
broken . However, when it is analysed figuratively, it can be detected that break a leg
Pragmatics, as a discipline which this thesis uses as its framework, focuses on
the non-literal meaning of a statement, a sentence, or a text. It reaches out to the deep
meaning and explore it in order to arrive at an accurate interpretation. Since
pragmatics deals with deep meanings, at times it can be an exasperating field to be
studied, because involving humans and their thoughts when they produce utterances
is a very subjective matter and therefore hard to be analysed in a consistent way.
Yule (1996:4) says that two friends having a conversation may imply some
things and infer some others without providing any clear linguistic evidence that we
can point to as the explicit source of ‘the meaning’ of what was communicated.
Example:
A : So – you did it?
B : Why should you ask again? I certainly did!
Other people who coincidentally pass by when the conversation above happens
would never have any idea about the thing which is being spoken of. It is something
that can only be understood by the two persons who are having the conversation.
Thus, pragmatics is appealing because it is about how people make sense of each
other linguistically. At the same time, the challenge is that it is not an easy thing to
do, because it requires us to make sense of people and what they have in mind.
2.2. Speech Acts
In general, when people communicate, they use language as a means to
deliver what they have in mind. The language is then transformed into utterances,
be separated from the study of pragmatics. As Fairclough (1989:155) states , “...
speech acts are central aspect of pragmatics, which is concerned with the
meanings.”
However, sometimes in attempting to express themselves, people do not only
produce utterances containing grammatical structural and words. Austin (1962:4)
claims that we very often use utterances in ways beyond the scope of traditional
grammar. Language used by humans, occasionally, functions more than only a way
of stating particular statements, but also of performing actions via utterances (Yule
1996:47).
For instance, when a boy is punished by his teacher, the utterance below could
signify something more than just a statement.
Teacher: You can sweep the floor after class is dismissed!
Via the utterance above, it shows that there is an action that the teacher performs,
which is punishing his student to sweep the floor.
Not only can the utterance provide unpleasant sense as the statement above,
but actions performed via utterances can also suggest a compliment (a), a gratitude
(b), or an expression of surprise (c).
(a). You look drop-dead gorgeous tonight.
(b). I can’t describe how much I thank you for helping me.
Yule (1996:48) then asserts that there are three different aspects when it
comes to speech act. Those three aspects are locutionary acts, illocutionary acts, and
perlocutionary acts, which each concerns with distinctive cases.
2.2.1. Locutionary Acts
To say something is to do something. This is what Austin (1962:94) states
when explaining about locutionary acts. In order to be understood, the actions that
we try to perform via utterances must be expressed linguistically.
Yule (1996:48) says that locutionary act is the basic act of utterance, which is
the act of producing a meaningful linguistic expression. Expression itself can come
through different forms. It can be sounds, words, or full sentences. However, Yule
underlines utterances that can be categorised as locutionary acts are only those
utterances which contains meaning.
Saying, “Bonjour! Comment allez-vous?” in English would not be
considered a locutionary act, simply because the sentence is not understood in
English. However, the sentence is certainly a locutionary act in French.
2.2.2. Illocutionary Acts
Normally people do not utter something without a purpose. They must have
certain intentions when producing words (locutions). This is what we call as
illocutionary act. Illocutionary act refers to the fact that people must have a goal
when expressing their utterances. Illocutions are abstract forms and therefore can
We may produce utterances either to make a statement, an offer, an
explanation, an argument, or other communicative purposes. This is also generally
known as the illocutionary force of the utterance (Yule 1996:48).
For instance, when somebody utters “This room is terribly hot!”, they might not just
saying that sentence for no exact reasons. They might actually intend to ask
somebody else in that room to turn on the air conditioner, or simply to open the
window.
Illocutionary act is certainly more complicated to be figured out, because it
requires us to pay close attention to what actually the speaker intends to imply
through their utterances. Analysing illocutionary act obliges us to not only
understand the utterances, but to go through one’s mind and infer what they aim to
say.
When we cannot infer and make sense of what the speaker intends to mean,
we have failed in understanding the illocutionary act of the utterances. However, it is
worth noting that understanding illocutionary act is actually a very subjective case,
since different people might interpret the utterances differently. For instance:
X : What would you like to drink? A glass of plain water or some fruit juice?
Y : I just had two glasses of orange juice.
The conversation above could be inferred differently. In one case, by saying
“I just had two glasses of orange juice” might actully mean that the speaker prefers
to only have a glass of plain water. In another case, it could also mean that the
speaker is not currently thirsty anymore since he has had two glasses of orange juice
deep understanding, but also the closest interpretation of what the utterances actually
imply.
2.2.3. Perlocutionary Acts
According to Yule (1996:48), we surely do not produce utterances with a
function without intending it to have an effect. This is the third dimension which is
called as perlocutionary act. Perlocutionary act deals with the fact that people utter
something to cause somebody to sense the effect as intended by the speakers.
For instance: “The food is horribly spicy! My mouth is burnt!”
The statement above, when uttered by the speaker, might cause other people
around the speaker to bring him a glass of cold water. This is what we call as
perlocutionary effect, which is the effect on the listeners as intended by the speakers.
When we utter something and the utterance has an effect to the listener, one
of which causes them to react upon the utterance by doing something, it means that
the utterance has a perlocutionary effect to the listener.
2.3. Speech Events
To perform a speech act means that we do it under a certain circumstance. All
speech acts are mostly connected to the circumstance when the speech is spoken.
This is what we call as a speech event. Speech event is the circumstance or the
condition at the time one produces speech act. Speech events are strongly necessary
to be considered when analysing speech act simply because it influences how one
For example:
Z: The light is on!
The statement above can be interpreted differently, depending on the
condition when it is spoken. When it is spoken by people who are ready to have
some sleep, then it might imply that they are requesting for the light to be turned off.
Meanwhile, when the sentence is spoken after hours of blackout, it could show the
gladness of the speaker that the light is finally on.
Yule (1996:57) states that becoming aware of speech event is important since
it will help us arrive at some outcome when interacting via language. The speech
event can also be categorised as the kinds of impression when an utterance is spoken.
For instance: “I thoroughly dislike that song!”
The statement above is categorised as the speech event of complaining. It is
not necessarily hard to decode what it actually means and signifies. However, Yule
(1996:57) then states that sometimes other utterances can be spoken in order to lead
up to some outcome, without focusing the utterances on the central aspect of
particular speech events.
Anna : I am glad we have a chance to meet today, Davin.
Davin : Me too. What’s up anyway?
Anna : Oh, uhm, the iPhone that I bought last month can’t function well.
Davin : Did it ever fall?
Anna : It did, once. But it didn’t show any damage at that time.
Davin : Then why do you think it can’t function now?
Davin : What type of iPhone do you own?
Anna : It’s iPhone 5s. Do you have some leisure time?
Davin : Sure thing!
Anna : Oh, thanks a lot.
In the conversation above, Anna is indirectly asking Davin to help her fix her
broken phone. We can see that there is actually no words that signify request from
Anna. By asking, “Do you have some leisure time?”, Anna essentially has used
pre-request statement, allowing Davin to say that he is busy or he cannot help Anna at
the moment. In this context,Davin saying “Sure thing” is taken as an
acknowledgment that he does not only have some leisure time, but is also willing to
help Anna even though there is no direct request from her.
2.4. Speaker
Pragmatics, according to Yule (1996:3), has 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. That being said, it is clear that pragmatics
treats utterances in a direct relation with the speaker.
Pragmatics is a study of speaker meaning. An exactly identical utterance,
when uttered by different speakers, might result in different meanings. For instance:
“Wow, this room is so cold!”
The statement above can produce different meanings when stated by two
different speakers. When it is stated by a person who has been doing activities under
the sun for hours, it shows a positive meaning, a thankful expression, or a pleasing
stayed in a cold room for a lengthy time, it gives a negative meaning, a sense of
complain, or a dislike expression.
When it comes to pragmatics, focusing on the speaker is the main key in
order to interpret the meaning correctly. This is what makes pragmatics considered to
be an exceptional branch of linguistics, simply because it is the only one which
allows humans into the analysis (Yule 1996:4).
A question that might raise is, “Do we have no chance at all to analyse
meaning without relating it with the speaker?” Sure thing we do. The statement
“Wow, this room is so cold!” for example, can be analysed without looking at who
the speaker is. However, will the interpreted meaning be objective, especially when
we do not even know who the producer of the statement is? The speaker is regarded
as an important object because it is almost impossible to analyse the correct and
exact meaning of an utterance by ignoring the person who produces the utterance
itself.
By having a knowledge about the speaker, one can analyse the meaning of
the utterances more easily. Speaker is treated as an important object in pragmatics
because, as explained in the beginning, pragmatics does not only focus on the
meaning as seen from the structure of the utterances, but far more than that, the
meaning as implied by the speaker.
Knowing who the speakers are, their backgrounds, statuses, and occupations
will help us tremendously in interpreting the meaning of their utterances. For
harder to believe than when it is stated by a normal and well-rounded person who has
never been involved in crimes.
Getting to know the speaker means that we have reached a point where we
have to put a close observation regarding the speaker’s personality. Pragmatics, as
stated by Yule (1996:4), allows humans into its analysis for one important basis: one
simply cannot separate the relationship between linguistic forms and the users of
those forms. A statement is produced as a result of the condition of the speaker.
Hence, before one talks about invisible meanings, one should be clear about the
“behind the scene” of producing a statement, and relating it with the person who
states it.
2.5. Cognitive Pragmatics
Communication is essentially a cooperative activity shared by two parties, the
speaker and the listener, in order to arrive at one equivalent understanding. Bara
(2012:443) states that the two parties involved in an interaction might have different
aims, but to say that communication has taken place successfully, both parties must
share the same mental states.
“The cognitive emphasis that can be seen in the titles both of the paper and ofthe book is justified by the fact that communication will not be examined herefrom the viewpoint of an external observer, as happens in linguistics and in thephilosophy of language, where attention is focused on the finished product,whether this be an utterance or a discourse. Instead, I will take a standpointwithin the mind of the individual participants, trying to explain how eachcommunicationact is generated mentally — before being realized physically— and then comprehended mentally by the other interlocutors.” (Bara 2012:443)
Based on the quotations of Bara above, it can be concluded that cognitive
pragmatics is a study which sees communication not merely as the act of transmitting
through the mind of the individuals who are involved in the process of
communication.
Human beings posses a series of mental states. These mental states might
include conscious emotional or cognitive. They are fundamentally important when
one talks about pragmatics in a relation with the cognitive process. To communicate
something means that one shares mental states such as attention, knowledge, belief,
and consciousness (Bara 2012:445-446).
The issue of pragmatics itself has been about the difference between what is
said and what is meant. Further than that, it has also been widely discussed about
how people interpret what is meant from what is said (Fairclough 1989:10). These
things have captured the attention of cognitive psychologists; how language is
closely connected to one’s mental state.
The basis standpoint is that we do not simply decode an utterance, but we are
actively involved in the process of matching features of the utterances with the
representations of what has been planted inside our long-term memory (Fairclough
1989:11). These representation are a collection of a lot of things, such as the shape of
words, the grammatical forms of statements, the types of a person, the expected
sequence of events in a particular situation type, and so forth. Some of these are
linguistics, but some others are just not. Therefore, to talk about people’s intended
meaning, we should look further into the cognitive condition of the speaker.
2. 6. Language Manipulation
The study of pragmatics, accoding to Fairclough (1989:8) focuses on the
goals or purposes. Fairclough (1989:6) then states that the use of language for
specific purposes can be categorised as the act of manipulation.
As discussed in the previous sub-topic, there is a splash of element of
cognitive psychology when we talk about pragmatics, because pragmatics analyses
not only the linguistic expression, but also the people who express their thoughts via
language. That being said, pragmatics and psychology can go side by side and
support each other when it comes to the use of language in a relation to speakers and
their intentions.
Braiker (2004:1) states that manipulation is a type of social influence that has
a purpose to change the perception or behaviour of others through underhanded,
deceptive, and even abusive tactics. Nevertheless, social influence through
manipulation is not necessarily negative. At times, it could also be positive,
depending on the context. For example, a doctor influences his patients to consume
healthy medicines is categorised as a positive social influence. When the
manipulation uses abuse and coercion, however, it will be included in the negative
social influence.
The topic of manipulation is getting more and more important because as
language grows quickly nowadays, people become more aware of the power of
language to deliver something far beyond traditional purposes. Language, which
traditionally is used to transfer information in interaction, has been taken to the next
level, which is to direct people’s perspective upon a certain issue, which is also
The use of language to manipulate people is usually practised in several
fields. First, in politics. Politicians often use manipulative language to make people
believe that they are on the side of their citizens. Fairclough (1989:15) claims that
when politicians uses the subject “we” instead of “I”, it is categorised as the act of
manipulating to assure people that they are one of “them” (the citizens). It will create
the sense of closeness between those politicians and the citizens. This kind of
manipulation, though, is not always a negative social influence.
Second, language manipulation is also often practised in marketing fields
(advertisements). Advertisements at all times focus on how to grab people’s interests
to buy particular products so that their advertisements can be considered successfull.
This type of manipulation, though, dwells in the grey line between positive and
negative social influence. When the use of manipulative language simply aims to
attract people’s attention without providing false truth about the advertised product,
then it is a positive social influence. On the contrary, when the products are made up
to be much better and much expensive than it normally is, it is considered as a
negative social influence.
Another field which language manipulation is often practised is in the crime
cases. This field is less popular to be analysed, but at the same, it does not reduce the
interesting fact that criminals often use manipulative language when providing their
defence. Criminals use manipulative language for one general purpose, that is to
cover up their faults and hence to be freed up in the eyes of law.
Getting to know how language manipulation works in practice is important
because it familiarises us with the way to detect the manipulative language once it is
When people use manipulative language, they produce utterances or
statements, which in pragmatics, are called as locutions (They do the locutionary
act). Nonetheless, those statements are not genuinely produced without any particular
intentions by the speaker. The motives behind the manipulation can be analysed by
investigating the illocutionary acts of the statements, which mainly includes the
reasons behind the manipulation itself.
2.6.1. Language Manipulation Strategies
Simon (2000:79) states that almost everyone is familiar with the term
“defense mechanism”. It is the the automatic or unconscious mental behaviors that
people employ to protect or defend themselves from the threat of some emotional
pain. Most of the times, people use it to defend their reputation or self-images from
the chance to feel ashamed or guilty about something.
Since this thesis focuses on an individual object named Ted Bundy, who had
been convicted on crime cases such as murdering, raping, and torturing over 50
women, then he will be regarded as the manipulator, or someone who tries to defend
and justify his behavior using different strategies of manipulation.
Simon (2000:80-92) claims that there are 14 types of language manipulation
strategies. Those strategies are:
1. Denial
Denial is the language manipulation strategy used by manipulators to refuse
all bad behaviors that have been pinned on them when in fact, they are indeed
“This is when the aggressor refuses to admit that they’ve done something harmful or hurtful when they clearly have.” (Simon 2000:80)
2. Selective Inattention
This strategy is used by manipulators when they pretend not to hear or know
the question that is referred to them.
“It’s when the aggressor “plays dumb”, or act oblivious. When engaging in this tactic, the aggressor actively ignores the warnings, pleas or wishes of others, and in general, refuses to pay attention to everything and anything that might distract them from pursuing their own agenda. Often, the aggressor knows full well what you want from him when he starts to exhibit this “I don’t want to hear it!” behavior. By using this tactic, the aggressor actively resists submitting himself to the tasks of paying attention to or refraining from the behavior you want him to change.” (Simon 2000:82)
3. Rationalization
Manipulators use this strategy to justify their behavior as rationally as
possible to make people think that there is a big chance that they are right. Most of
the times, people cannot sense that they are doing manipulation because what the
manipulators say makes just enough sense.
“A rationalization is the excuse an aggressor tries to offer for engaging in an inappropriate or harmful behavior. It can be an effective tactic, especially when the explanation or justification the aggressor offers makes just enough sense that any reasonably conscientious person is likely to fall for it. If the agressor can convince you they’re justified in whatever they’re doing, then they’re freer to pursue their goals without interference.” (Simon 2000:84)
4. Diversion
Diversion is a manipulation strategy in which manipulators try to drag the
topic and direct people’s attention to another issue in order to keep themselves safe
“When we try to pin a manipulator down or try to keep a discussion focused on a single issue or behavior we don’t like, they’re expert at knowing how to change the subject, dodge the issue or in some way throw us a curve. They use distraction and diversion techniques to keep the focus off their behavior, move us off-track, and keep themselves free to promote their self-serving hidden agendas.”(Simon 2000:84)
5. Lying
Lying is a manipulation strategy which manipulators use to cover their fault
to people in a calm and subtle way that sometimes it makes people become
unconscious that the manipulators are currently lying.
“It’s hard to tell when a person is lying at the time they’re doing it. Manipulators often lie by withholding a significant amount of the truth from you or by distorting the truth. They are adept at being vague when you ask them direct questions. This is an especially slick way of lying by omission.”(Simon 2000:86)
6. Covert Intimidation
Manipulators use covert intimidation strategy to give some sort of threats to
people so that people will feel the frightening sense which they are trying to give.
“Aggressor frequently threaten their victims too keep them anxious, apprehensive in one-down position. Covert-aggressive intimidate their victims by making veiled (subtle, indirect or implied) threats.” (Simon 2000:86)
7. Guilt-tripping
Most of the times, manipulators know very well that normal people possess
consciences that are certainly larger than them. As a result, manipulators often make
people sympathize with their condition so that people will try to understand their
position and therefore believe that the manipulators are actually not completely bad
persons.
aggressive personalities know well is that other types of persons have very different consciences than they do. Manipulators are often skilled at using what they know to be the greater conscientiousness of their victims as a means of keeping them in a self-doubting, anxious, and submissive position. The more conscientious the potential victim, the more effective guilt is as a weapon.”(Simon 2000:87)
8. Shaming
Shaming is the strategy that manipulators use which includes saying sarcasm
and even striking people back in a subtle way. This strategy is done to make people
doubt that the manipulators are bad persons.
“This is the technique of using subtle sarcasm and put-downs as a means of increasing self-doubt in others. Covert-aggressives use this tactic to make others feel inadequate or unworthy, and therefore, defer to them.”(Simon 2000:88)
9. Playing the Victim Role
As a mechanism of defending themselves, manipulators use this strategy to
set themselves as victims of one condition.
“This tactic involves portraying oneself as an innocent victim of circumstance or someone else’s behavior in order to gain sympathy, evoke compassion and thereby get something from another. Convince your victim you’re suffering in some way, and they’ll try to relieve your distress.”(Simon 2000:89)
10. Vilifying the Victim
This strategy is mostly similar with playing the victim role, unless it includes
the act of manipulators to make people feel bad about themselves and therefore treat
the manipulators as victims.
11. Playing the Servant Role
Playing the servant role is a manipulation strategy which shows that the
manipulators are contributing in some hard work to conceal their real purpose, which
is to manipulate people.
“Covert-aggressives use this tactic to cloak their self-serving agendas in the guise of service to a more noble cause. It’s a common tactic but difficult to recognize. By pretending to be working hard on someone else’s behalf, covert-aggressives conceal their own ambition, desire for power, and quest for a position of dominance over others.” (Simon 2000:90)
12. Seduction
Manipulators use this strategy to perform themselves as people who are
appealing enough to gain people’s trust. Not only that, they also realise the needs of
others to feel respected so they use this strategy to make people feel good about
themselves.
“Covert-aggressive personalities are adept at charming, praising, flattering or overtly supporting others in order to get them to lower their defenses and surrender their trust and loyalty. Covert-aggressive are also particularly aware that people who are to some extent emotionally needy and dependent (and that includes most people who aren’t character-disordered) want approval, reassurance, and a sense of being valued and needed more than anything. Appearing to be attentive to these needs can be a manipulator’s ticket to incredible power over others.” (Simon 2000:91)
13. Projecting the Blame (Blaming Others)
This is the strategy that manipulators use when they blame something else,
such as circumstances or things as the causes of their bad behaviors.
14. Minimization
Minimization is a manipulation strategy which includes the capability of
manipulators to make people think that their mistakes are not as big as people think
they are.
“This tactic is a unique kind of denial coupled with rationalization. When using this maneuver, the aggressor attempting to assert their abusive behavior isn’t really as harmful or irresponsible as someone else may be claiming. It’s the aggressor’s attempt to make a mole-hill out of a mountain.”(Simon 2000:92)
2.6.2. Language Manipulation Motives
The term “motive” according to English Thesaurus (2011) has the
synonyms with “intention”, “drive”, or “aim”. Therefore when we talk about
manipulation motives, we are essentially talking about the intention of the speaker
behind their manipulative statements, which in pragmatics are called as
illocutions.
According to Braiker (2004:54-57), manipulators often do the act of
manipulating for these three interpersonal motives:
1. To advance manipulator’s own purposes
Manipulators feel the need to have their personal gain upon other people.
Braiker (2004:54) then states that manipulators are entirely self-serving and
selfish by disposition, even if they say otherwise. Manipulators will say and do
everything necessary to advance their own purposes. They might refer themselves
to be honest, unselfish and trustworthy individuals, in order to gain your complete
2. To attain feelings of power and superiority
Manipulators want to feel that they are superior and possess all the power
to conquer his targets. Braiker (2004:55) claims that manipulators want to be
acknowledged and validated. This actually roots from the fact that manipulators
basically are people with inferiority and low self-esteem. They use manipulative
strategies to hide these poor feelings in disguise, so that they appear to be people
with bold self-confidence. They need to demonstrate that they are superior to
compensate for feelings of inferiority and inadequacy.
3. To feel in control of manipulator’s own emotions
Manipulators are essentially people with high level of anxiety. Braiker
(2004:56) states that they want to feel in control of their emotions that symbolise
weaknesses, such as anxiety, sadness and loneliness. They need to be seen that
they are able to control themselves. This need that manipulators have actually
extends beyond their desires or needs to control others. They do not want to feel
like they are losing control and finally being controlled by others. Manipulators
intend to manage their emotions as fine as possible in order to succeed in
manipulating others.
2.7. Previous Study
The similar analysis about language manipulation has ever been done before
byRachman Galih (Universitas Komputer Indonesia: 2012) with the title “Motif dan
Strategi Manipulasi Penutur serta Respons Petutur dalam Skrip Film Sherlock
Holmes” which analyses the strategies, motives and responses of manipulation via
In his thesis, Galih (2012) examined the motives and strategies of the speaker
as well as the responses of the listener found in the movie script entitled “Sherlock
Holmes”. Galih used the theory of Simon (2000) to classify which strategies used by
the speaker to manipulate his target. Meanwhile, in order to analyse the motives of
the speaker and responses of the listener, Galih used the theory of Yule (1996) about
locutionary, illocutionary, and perlocutionary acts.
Galih’s analysis resulted in the findings of 13 language manipulation
strategies used by the speaker to manipulate his target. Those 13 language
manipulation strategies are denial, selective inattention, rationalization, diversion,
lying, covert intimidation, guilt tripping, shaming, playing the victim role, playing
servant role, seduction, blaming others, and minimization. The result of his findings
is a bit different with the result in this thesis, which found 14 language manipulation
strategies used by the speaker.
The analysis of illocutionary acts which drove the speaker to do the act of
manipulating are categorised into two kinds of motives, which are private motives (to
serve one’s personal will) and open motives (to help others). In his analysis, Galih
then concluded that the speaker had more interests to do manipulation by private
motives rather than the intention to help others (open motives).
The responses upon the manipulation can be classified into two parts, verbal
perlocutions and non-verbal perlocutions. Verbal perlocutions refer to the responses
which are given verbally, while non-verbal perlocutions indicate the responses which
are expressed through actions. Based on his findings, Galih then concluded that the
responses can also be achieved by involving both verbal and non-verbal perlocutions
Stirred by the previous analysis mentioned above, this thesis focuses on the
analysis of strategies and motives of language manipulation found in Ted Bundy’s
statements by using the theory of Simon (2000) and Braiker (2004) via pragmatics
approach. To make the analysis in this thesis become easier to understand, here is the
scheme of framework that establishes the analysis.
The Scheme of Language Manipulation PRAGMATICS
LOCUTIONS ILLOCUTIONS PERLOCUTIONS
SPEECH ACTS
LANGUAGE MANIPULATION STRATEGIES
LINGUISTICS
