Eko Prasetyo Nugroho Saputro. 2015. The Analysis of Illocutionary Acts of Jokowi’s Speeches. Yogyakarta: Graduate Program on English Language Studies, Sanata Dharma University.
Speeches became an important media for a president like Joko Widodo (Jokowi) to deliver messages, persuade people, influence audience and the like. The speech making process involved a long discussion between Jokowi and a particular team since they should consider some language aspects such as lexical choices and sentence structure in order to achieve certain goals. With regard to this, languages in speeches became important to be analyzed.
The objectives of this research were to answer the questions in problems Austin (1962) and Searle (2005) in analyzing the data. The research data consisted of two selected speeches delivered by Jokowi in APEC CEO summit 2014 forum held in November 10, 2014 and the speech delivered in World Economic Forum on East Asia held from 19-21 April 2015.
The research was a descriptive qualitative research. The data in this research were speech videos downloaded from www.youtube.com. The videos were then transcribed and analyzed. The main research instrument was the researcher himself supported by the data analysis sheet. The data analysis was performed by categorizing the data based on Searle’s categorization of speech acts which include representatives; directives; commissives; expressives; and declaratives. Each category was, then, thoroughly observed to find the answer of the second and third research questions. The final step was presenting the data and making a conclusion in reference to the findings of the research.
The research findings show that the types of illocutonary acts found in Jokowi’s speeches consist of assertives, directives, commisives and expressives. Assertives have the highest frequency of occurence or 49 (52,1%). It is followed by commisives, expressives, and directives which occur 27 (28,7%), 10 (10,6%) and 8 (8,5%) respectively. Furthermore, the types of assertives include informing, convincing, questioning, describing, and stating. The kinds of directives consist of inviting and requesting. Commisives include promising and offering. The kinds of expressives are thanking, state of pleasure, greeting, saluting and expressions of feeling.
nation.
The dominant illocutionary acts in Jokowi’s speeches were assertives and commisives. Informing showed the highest frequency of assertives. The possible perlocutionary effect of the dominant act of informing was that the audience might jointly work with Jokowi especially in the business sectors. Another dominant act of assertives is describing. By performing this act, the hearers or audiences might perform the changes especially in the economic sector since the economic condition in the world has been changing. In addition, the commisive act was dominated by promising. The performance of this act had possible perlocutionary effects that the audiences might put expectation to Jokowi’s government.
Eko Prasetyo Nugroho Saputro. 2015. The Analysis of Illocutionary Acts of Jokowi’s Speeches. Yogyakarta: Program Magister Kajian Bahasa Inggris, Universitas Sanata Dharma.
Pidato merupakan media yang penting bagi seorang presiden seperti Joko Widodo (Jokowi) untuk menyampaikan pesan, membujuk orang, mempengaruhi orang dan sebagainya. Proses pembuatan pidato melalui diskusi yang panjang antara Jokowi dengan Tim khusus karena mereka mempertimbangkan beberapa aspek bahasa yang digunakan dalam pidato sepeti pemilihan kata dan struktur kalimat agar dapat mencapai tujuan tertentu. Dalam hal ini, bahasa dalam pidato menjadi penting untuk dianalisis.
Tujuan penelitian ini adalah untuk menjawab pertanyaan dalam rumusan masalah penelitian ini. Pertanyaan penelitian terdiri dari (1) apa jenis illocutionary acts pada pidato Jokowi, (2) mengapa Jokowi menerapkan illocutionary acts dilihat dari konteks situasinya dan (3) apa efek yang mungkin ditimbulkan dari penerapan illocutionary acts yang paling dominan. Penelitian ini menggunakan teori Speech Acts yang dikembangkan oleh Austin (1962) dan Searle (2005) untuk menganalisis data penelitian. Data penelitian berupa dua pidato yang disampaikan oleh Jokowi pada forum APEC CEO Summit 2014 pada tanggal 10 November 2014 dan pidato yang disampaikan pada Forum Ekonomi Dunia Asia Timur yang diselenggarakan pada 19-21 April 2015.
Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian deskriptif kualitatif. Data penelitian berupa video pidato Jokowi yang diunduh dari website www.youtube.com. Video yang berisi pidato Jokowi kemudian di transkripsi dan dianalisis. Instrumen penelitian utama adalah peneliti sendiri dengan didukung oleh lembar analisis data. Analisi data dilakukan dengan melakukan kategorisasi data berdasarkan kategorisasi speech acts yang dikembangkan oleh Searle meliputi assertives; directives; commissives; expressives; and declaratives. Masing-masing kategori ditelaah secara mendalam untuk menjawab pertanyaan penelitian yang kedua dan ketiga. Langkah terakhir adalah menyajikan data dan menarik kesimpulan berdasarkan temuan penelitian.
Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa jenis illocutionary acts pada pidato Jokowi meliputi assertives, directives, commisives dan expressives. Assertive menunjukkan frequensi kemunculan paling besar yaitu 49 kali (52,1%). Diikuti commisives, expressives, dan directives dengan frekuensi 27 (28,7%), 10 (10,6%) dan 8 (8,5%) secara berurutan. Jenis assertives terdiri dari informing, convincing, questioning, describing, dan stating Sedangkan jenis directives meliputi inviting dan requesting. Commisives terdiri dari promising dan offering. Tipe expressive mencakup thanking, state of pleasure, greeting, saluting dan expressions of feeling.
berkolaborasi denganpemerintah Indonesia, membangun kepercayaan kepada pendengar, memberikan harapan kepada pendengar terhadap pemerintahannya, membangun kedekatan dengan pendengarnya, dan menunjukkan keseriusan kepada pendengar bahwa Jokowi mampu membawa Indonesia menjadi lebih baik lagi.
Jenis illocutionary acts yang paling dominan pada pidato Jokowi adalah assertive dan commisives. Informing merupakan jenis assertives yang memiliki frekuensi kemunculan paling tinggi. Efek yang mungkin ditimbulkan dari informing yang dominan ini adalah pendengar akan bekerjasama dengan pemerintahan Jokowi terutama dalam sektor bisnis. Jenis assertive lainnya yang dominan adalah describing. Dengan menerapkan tipe ini, efek yang mungkin ditimbulkan adalah pendengar akan melakukan perubahan khususnya dibidang ekonomi karena kondisi perekonomian dunia telah berubah. Disamping itu, tipe commisive didominasi oleh promising. Penerapan promising ini akan menimbulkan kemungkinan efek bahwa pendengar menaruh harapan terhadap pemerintahan Jokowi.
SPEECHES
A THESIS
Presented as a Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Magister Humaniora (M.Hum.) Degree
in English Language Studies
by
Eko Prasetyo Nugroho Saputro 126332012
THE GRADUATE PROGRAM IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE STUDIES SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY
This is to certify that all ideas, phrases, sentences, unless otherwise stated, are the ideas, phrases, and sentences of the thesis writer. The writer understands the full consequences including degree cancellation if he took somebody else’s ideas, phrases, sentences without proper references.
Yogyakarta, October 2015
PUBLIKASI KARYA ILMIAH UNTUK KEPENTINGAN AKADEMIS
Yang bertanda tangan dibawah ini, saya mahasiswa Universitas Sanata Dharma:
Nama : Eko Prasetyo Nugroho Saputro NIM : 126332012
Demi pengembangan ilmu pengetahuan, saya memberikan kepada Perpustakaan Universitas Sanata Dharma karya ilmiah saya yang berjudul:
THE ANALYSIS OF ILLOCUTIONARY ACTS OF JOKOWI’S SPEECHES
beserta perangkat yang diperlukan (bila ada). Dengan demikian, saya memberikan kepada Perpustakaan Universitas Sanata Dharma hak untuk menyimpan, mengalihkan dalam bentuk media lain, mengelolanya dalam bentuk pangkalan data, mendistribusikannya di internet atau media lain untuk kepentingan akademis tanpa perlu meminta ijin maupun memberikan royalty kepada saya selama tetap mencantumkan nama saya sebagai penulis.
Demikian pernyataan ini saya buat dengan sebenarnya. Dibuat di Yogyakarta
Pada tanggal : 27 Oktober 2015
Yang menyatakan
First of all, I would like to thank God for His guidance and blessing so that finally I complete this thesis. My gratitude also goes to my thesis advisor Prof. Dr. Soepomo Poedjosoedarmo for his time, patience, and suggestions during the process of completing my thesis.
I am also thankful to all lecturers in the English Language Studies of Sanata Dharma University who have given invaluable knowledge, especially to Prof. Dr. Soepomo Poedjosoedarmo, Dr. B.B. Dwijatmoko, M.A., Dr. Fr. B. Alip, M.Pd., M.A. and other lecturers that I cannot mention.
My deepest gratitude is also addrresed to my beloved father Wijiyanto, my beloved mother Sri Retnaning Hastuti, my sister Febrina Siska Widyaningtyas and my brother Endar Chrisdiyanto. Moreover, I thank to my grandmother Witodiharjo, Mbah Suratno, Mbah Putri for their love, prayer and support which improve my motivation to finish this thesis. Also, I would like to thank my friends in Linguistic Class of 2012 Simon, Septi, Irene, Agnes, Bu Intan, Mbak Reny, Mbak Ruth, and Rina. I am very pleased for having discussion in class. My
special gratitude goes to Haryo and Binar for their time for sharing and support to finish my thesis.
My thanks also go to my uncle family who has given great support and motivation during the process of finishing my thesis. I also would like to thank all my friends in Faculty of Social Sciences Yogyakarta State University Bu Tiwi, Mbak Sari, Mbak April, Mbak Roma, Pak Adi cilik, Mas Danu, Mas Oky and
others whom I cannot mention. I thank them for always motivating and
who has supported, motivated and helped me in finishing my study and writing my thesis. I wish that God will multiply His blessing for their kindness. Amen.
Page
TITLE PAGE ... i
APPROVAL PAGES ... ii
DEFENSE APPROVAL PAGE ... iii
STATEMENT OF WORK’S ORIGINALITY ... iv
LEMBAR PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN PUBLIKASI ... v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ... vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS ... viii
LIST OF TABLES ... x
LIST OF APPENDICES ... xi
ABSTRACT ... xii
ABSTRAK ... xiv
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION A. Background of the study ... 1
B. Limitation of the problems ... 4
C. Formulation of the problems ... 8
D. Research objectives ... 8
E. The significance of the study ... 9
CHAPTER II: THEORETICAL REVIEW A. Theoretical Review ... 10
1. Pragmatics ... 10
2. Aspects of pragmatics ... 12
a. Utterances ... 12
b. Situational context ... 12
c. Aspects of Speech Situation ... 14
3. The Scope of Pragmatics ... 16
d. Implicature ... 25
e. Speech Acts ... 26
1) Austin’s Categorization of Speech Acts ... 28
2) Searle’s Categorization of Speech Acts ... 29
3) Leech’s Categorization of Speech Acts ... 33
4. Felicity Condition ... 34
5. Context ... 35
6. Language of Politics ... 38
7. The Profile of Joko Widodo ... 39
B. Previous Research Findings ... 41
C. Theoretical Framework ... 44
CHAPTER III: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY A. Type of study ... 49
B. Data Collection Techniques ... 50
C. Data analysis Techniques ... 51
D. Research instruments ... 53
E. The trustworthiness of the data... 54
CHAPTER IV: RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION A. The Types of Illocutionary Acts Found in Jokowi’s Speeches ... 56
B. The Reasons of Performing Illocutionary Acts Viewed from the Context of Situation ... 69
C. The Possible Perlocutionary Effects of the Dominant Illocutionary Acts .. 79
CHAPTER V: CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS A. Conclusions ... 81
B. Suggestions ... 83
REFERENCES ... 85
Page Table 1 The Speech Act’s Classification Proposed by Austin (1962), Searle
(2005), and Leech (1996) ... 45 Table 2 The Frequency of Illocutionary Acts Found in Jokowi’s Speeches 52 Table 3 The Data Sheet of The Types of Illocutionary Acts Found in
Page Appendix 1 The Transcript of Jokowi’s Speech Delivered in APEC CEO
Summit 2014 ... 89 Appendix 2 The Transcript of Jokowi’s Speech Delivered in The World
Economic Forum on East Asia 2015 ... 92 Appendix 3 The Findings on The Types of Illocutionary Acts Found in
APEC CEO Summit 2014 Speech ……… 94 Appendix 4 The Findings on The Types of Illocutionary Acts Found in The
Eko Prasetyo Nugroho Saputro. 2015. The Analysis of Illocutionary Acts of Jokowi’s Speeches. Yogyakarta: Graduate Program on English Language Studies, Sanata Dharma University.
Speeches became an important media for a president like Joko Widodo (Jokowi) to deliver messages, persuade people, influence audience and the like. The speech making process involved a long discussion between Jokowi and a particular team since they should consider some language aspects such as lexical choices and sentence structure in order to achieve certain goals. With regard to this, languages in speeches became important to be analyzed.
The objectives of this research were to answer the questions in problems Austin (1962) and Searle (2005) in analyzing the data. The research data consisted of two selected speeches delivered by Jokowi in APEC CEO summit 2014 forum held in November 10, 2014 and the speech delivered in World Economic Forum on East Asia held from 19-21 April 2015.
The research was a descriptive qualitative research. The data in this research were speech videos downloaded from www.youtube.com. The videos were then transcribed and analyzed. The main research instrument was the researcher himself supported by the data analysis sheet. The data analysis was performed by categorizing the data based on Searle’s categorization of speech acts which include representatives; directives; commissives; expressives; and declaratives. Each category was, then, thoroughly observed to find the answer of the second and third research questions. The final step was presenting the data and making a conclusion in reference to the findings of the research.
The research findings show that the types of illocutonary acts found in Jokowi’s speeches consist of assertives, directives, commisives and expressives. Assertives have the highest frequency of occurence or 49 (52,1%). It is followed by commisives, expressives, and directives which occur 27 (28,7%), 10 (10,6%) and 8 (8,5%) respectively. Furthermore, the types of assertives include informing, convincing, questioning, describing, and stating. The kinds of directives consist of inviting and requesting. Commisives include promising and offering. The kinds of expressives are thanking, state of pleasure, greeting, saluting and expressions of feeling.
The reasons of performing illocutionary acts viewed from the context of situation included socializing the nation’s agenda, ensuring that the audience are interested to collaborate with Indonesian government, providing description about a sea toll program, providing background information to the audience why changes should be undergone, making his speech attractive, giving an emphasis on a certain issue, showing optimism, getting support from investors, showing the potential of Indonesia, inviting the audience to jointly work with Indonesian
nation.
The dominant illocutionary acts in Jokowi’s speeches were assertives and commisives. Informing showed the highest frequency of assertives. The possible perlocutionary effect of the dominant act of informing was that the audience might jointly work with Jokowi especially in the business sectors. Another dominant act of assertives is describing. By performing this act, the hearers or audiences might perform the changes especially in the economic sector since the economic condition in the world has been changing. In addition, the commisive act was dominated by promising. The performance of this act had possible perlocutionary effects that the audiences might put expectation to Jokowi’s government.
Eko Prasetyo Nugroho Saputro. 2015. The Analysis of Illocutionary Acts of Jokowi’s Speeches. Yogyakarta: Program Magister Kajian Bahasa Inggris, Universitas Sanata Dharma.
Pidato merupakan media yang penting bagi seorang presiden seperti Joko Widodo (Jokowi) untuk menyampaikan pesan, membujuk orang, mempengaruhi orang dan sebagainya. Proses pembuatan pidato melalui diskusi yang panjang antara Jokowi dengan Tim khusus karena mereka mempertimbangkan beberapa aspek bahasa yang digunakan dalam pidato sepeti pemilihan kata dan struktur kalimat agar dapat mencapai tujuan tertentu. Dalam hal ini, bahasa dalam pidato menjadi penting untuk dianalisis.
Tujuan penelitian ini adalah untuk menjawab pertanyaan dalam rumusan masalah penelitian ini. Pertanyaan penelitian terdiri dari (1) apa jenis illocutionary acts pada pidato Jokowi, (2) mengapa Jokowi menerapkan illocutionary acts dilihat dari konteks situasinya dan (3) apa efek yang mungkin ditimbulkan dari penerapan illocutionary acts yang paling dominan. Penelitian ini menggunakan teori Speech Acts yang dikembangkan oleh Austin (1962) dan Searle (2005) untuk menganalisis data penelitian. Data penelitian berupa dua pidato yang disampaikan oleh Jokowi pada forum APEC CEO Summit 2014 pada tanggal 10 November 2014 dan pidato yang disampaikan pada Forum Ekonomi Dunia Asia Timur yang diselenggarakan pada 19-21 April 2015.
Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian deskriptif kualitatif. Data penelitian berupa video pidato Jokowi yang diunduh dari website www.youtube.com. Video yang berisi pidato Jokowi kemudian di transkripsi dan dianalisis. Instrumen penelitian utama adalah peneliti sendiri dengan didukung oleh lembar analisis data. Analisi data dilakukan dengan melakukan kategorisasi data berdasarkan kategorisasi speech acts yang dikembangkan oleh Searle meliputi assertives; directives; commissives; expressives; and declaratives. Masing-masing kategori ditelaah secara mendalam untuk menjawab pertanyaan penelitian yang kedua dan ketiga. Langkah terakhir adalah menyajikan data dan menarik kesimpulan berdasarkan temuan penelitian.
Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa jenis illocutionary acts pada pidato Jokowi meliputi assertives, directives, commisives dan expressives. Assertive menunjukkan frequensi kemunculan paling besar yaitu 49 kali (52,1%). Diikuti commisives, expressives, dan directives dengan frekuensi 27 (28,7%), 10 (10,6%) dan 8 (8,5%) secara berurutan. Jenis assertives terdiri dari informing, convincing, questioning, describing, dan stating Sedangkan jenis directives meliputi inviting dan requesting. Commisives terdiri dari promising dan offering. Tipe expressive mencakup thanking, state of pleasure, greeting, saluting dan expressions of feeling.
berkolaborasi denganpemerintah Indonesia, membangun kepercayaan kepada pendengar, memberikan harapan kepada pendengar terhadap pemerintahannya, membangun kedekatan dengan pendengarnya, dan menunjukkan keseriusan kepada pendengar bahwa Jokowi mampu membawa Indonesia menjadi lebih baik lagi.
Jenis illocutionary acts yang paling dominan pada pidato Jokowi adalah assertive dan commisives. Informing merupakan jenis assertives yang memiliki frekuensi kemunculan paling tinggi. Efek yang mungkin ditimbulkan dari informing yang dominan ini adalah pendengar akan bekerjasama dengan pemerintahan Jokowi terutama dalam sektor bisnis. Jenis assertive lainnya yang dominan adalah describing. Dengan menerapkan tipe ini, efek yang mungkin ditimbulkan adalah pendengar akan melakukan perubahan khususnya dibidang ekonomi karena kondisi perekonomian dunia telah berubah. Disamping itu, tipe commisive didominasi oleh promising. Penerapan promising ini akan menimbulkan kemungkinan efek bahwa pendengar menaruh harapan terhadap pemerintahan Jokowi.
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents the background of the study and explains what prompted the researcher to conduct the research. It then moves to identify the problem that the researcher wants to discuss throughout this thesis and clarifies the objectives and significance of doing this research.
A. Background of the study
Language plays crucial roles in human life since it is the main tool to communicate with one another. People use language to express thought, ideas and emotion by using sounds, gestures and signals for many different purposes and reasons. According to Clark (1977) language stands at the centre of human affairs, from the most prosaic to the most profound. This means that language cannot be separated from everyday life.
When people use language in a conversation, they produce utterances in a particular context. An utterance is a unit of analysis of speech which has been defined in various ways but most commonly as a sequence of words within a single person’s turn at talk that falls under a single intonation counter (Schmidt and Richards, 2002). These utterances must be understood by the hearers in order that the speakers’ messages can be delivered successfully. Therefore, it is
necessary to know the context of the conversation.
The example of an utterance that is influenced by the context is I now pronounce you husband and wife. The sentence above may be uttered in at least
couple getting married in the presence of their assembled families or an actor dressed as a minister to two actors assembled in the same church for a filming. The utterance I now pronounce you husband and wife will affect a marriage between the couple intending to get married. However, the same utterance will have no effect on marital status of any party on the movie location. Thus, the circumstances of utterance create different meanings. The sentence uttered in the wedding context and the sentence uttered in the film context has the same sentence meaning but are different utterances, each with its own utterance meaning.
When the speakers of the language produce utterances in a given context, they also perform actions such as informing, commanding, requesting, etc. These actions are known as speech acts. According to Austin (1962), there are three types of speech acts, namely locutionary acts, illocutionary acts, and perlocutionary acts. A locutionary act is the literal meaning of the utterances. Meanwhile, illocutionary acts refer to the extra meaning of the utterance produced on the basis of its literal meaning and perlocutionary acts deal with the effects of the utterances on the hearer, depending on specific circumstances. In addition, Searle (1976) categorizes speech acts into directives, commissives, representatives, declaratives, and expressives.
the hearers understand speakers’ intention. In fact, the meaning in conversation is sometimes expressed implicitly. The implicit expression provides proposition which is not expressed explicitly in the utterances.
Language is also essential to politicians since most activities performed by the politicians utilize language. Beard (2000) says that political campaigns, speeches, written texts, broadcast are meant to inform and instruct voters about issues that are considered to be of great importance. With regard to this, it is clear that speech making is one of the political activities of politicians which are made possible through the channel opened up by language.
B. Limitation of the problems
The utterances produced by people may have both literal and implied meaning. The implied meaning is often tied with the context. With regard to this, the hearers will have different interpretations. This phenomenon is called pragmatics. According to Widdowson (1996), pragmatics refers to what people mean by the utterances they produce. In addition, Yule (1996) states that pragmatics is the study of contextual meaning. This theory is very useful for analyzing the utterances produced by the speakers.
This research is conducted under the theory of Pragmatics. There are many issues which can be investigated under the scope of pragmatics. They include deixis, presupposition, cooperative principles, implicature, speech acts and the like. Yule (1996) states that deixis refers to pointing by using a language. There are three types of deixis namely person, spatial, and temporal deixis. Person deixis is used to indicate people, spatial deixis is used to indicate location and temporal deixis is used to indicate time. All deictic expressions are much influenced by the contexts that the speakers and the hearers have shared together.
The second issue is presupposition. Presupposition is an assumption implicitly produced by speakers and hearers that are necessary for the correct interpretation of utterances. In other words, it has something to do with the speaker’s assumption before producing utterances. According to Finch (2000) presupposition is the necessary preconditions for statements to be true e.g. My cat was run over yesterday. This sentence is assumed for the truth condition of I have
between two propositions, that gives precondition to be true statements although the statements are negated.
The third issue deals with cooperative principles. These principles describe how hearers interpret speakers' intentions. According to Grice (1975), cooperative principle is a kind of agreement between speakers and listeners to cooperate in communication to make efficient conversation. In addition, Grice (1975) classifies the cooperative principles into four conversational maxims which include the maxims of quantity, quality, relation, and manner.
The fourth issue is concerned with implicature. The notion of implicature has become one of the central concepts in the study of pragmatics. Implicature has something to do with implied meaning of utterances. Yule (1996) points out that implicature is an additional conveyed meaning or something that is more than just what the words mean. He adds that implicature is a primary example of more being communicated than is said. In addition, Grice (1975) stresses that an utterance may imply a proposition, statements which are not part of the utterances and do not follow necessary consequence of the utterances. These implied statements are called as implicatures. Furthermore, Grice (1975) distinguishes between what is said by speakers and what is implied. He classifies implicature into two i.e. conversational and conventional implicature. Conventional implicature deals with the standing meaning of certain linguistic expression. Meanwhile, conversational implicature refers to a non-conventional implicature based on an addressee’s assumption that the speakers follow the conversational maxims.
Many experts provide different categorization of speech acts. Austin (1962) proposes three different levels of action beyond the act of utterances. They consist of locutionary, illocutionary, and perlocutionary acts. Meanwhile, According to Searle in Leech (1983), the classification of illocutionary acts is based on various criteria. Searle in Finch (2000) divides speech act into five main types including representatives, directives, commisives, expressives, and declaratives. Furthermore, Leech categorizes speech acts into competitives, convivials, collaboratives, and conflictives.
The last issue may deal with context. Context plays important role in pragmatic analysis since pragmatics is concerned with the meaning of words in relation to its context. Finnegan et. al. (1997) states that the significant element in the interpretation of an utterance is the context in which the language is uttered. Therefore, analyzing the meaning of utterances cannot neglect the context because the meaning of utterance will be different when the context is different. In addition, Leech (1996) states that context helps understand the meaning of an utterance because the speaker and the addressee share their background in understanding their utterances through the context. Also, a context may provide deeper meaning of utterances.
C. Formulation of the problems
In reference to the limitation of the problems above, the research questions are as follows:
1. What types of illocutionary acts are performed by Jokowi in his speeches? 2. Why did Jokowi perform the illocutionary acts viewed from the contexts
of situation underlying the speeches?
3. What are the possible perlocutionary effects of the dominant illocutionary acts found in Jokowi’s speeches?
D. Research objectives
The language in speeches delivered by the president is different from the daily life language. One of the differences is that the language used in presidential speeches is well prepared by the president helped by a particular team in order to achieve certain intentions such as to get the addressee to know, to do something, to expect something and etc. Therefore, the first objective of this research is to describe the types of illocutionary acts found in Jokowi’s selected speeches in reference to the Austin (1962) and Searle (2005) categorization of speech acts. They consist of assertives, commisives, directives, expressives and declaratives.
The next objective is to describe the reasons why Jokowi performs the illocutionary acts. To meet this objective, the researcher deeply analyzes words, phrases, and sentences by considering the context of situation. By doing so, the speaker’s intentions in delivering speeches are expected to be explored.
expected by the speakers. With regard to this, the last objective of this research is to describe the possible perlocutionary effects of the dominant illocutionary acts performed by Jokowi in delivering speeches.
E. The significance of the study
This study offers both theoretical and practical significance. Theoretically, the results of this study enrich the theories about the analysis of political language utilized by Jokowi in his speeches which are used to build image, persuade and influence people. Also, his language is characterized by the use of some terms in the field of economics since he delivers his speech in the world economic forum. Practically, this study can give the following significance:
1. The findings of the research help understand how a language is used to carry certain actions, why certain actions should be performed, and how it affects the hearers viewed from the analyses of speech acts.
2. This research is also beneficial for the linguistics lecturers and language learners since this research provides examples and analysis of illocutionary acts in speeches. Therefore, this model of speech acts analysis may become linguistics learning sources.
CHAPTER II
THEORETICAL REVIEW
This chapter is divided into three parts. The first part is the theoretical review. It provides a description about the literature related to the topic of the research such as pragmatics, aspects of pragmatics, scope of pragmatics, speech acts, felicity condition, context, language of politics and the profile of Joko Widodo. The next part is the previous research findings. It presents the findings of the similar research that had been conducted. The last part is the theoretical framework. It explains a theoretical basis for the research design adopted in this study. Each is presented as follows.
A. Theoretical Review 1. Pragmatics
Pragmatics is one of linguistics branches which was developed in the late 1970s. It studies how people understand and produce a communicative act or speech act in a concrete speech situation. There are many experts who provide a definition of Pragmatics. According to Yule (1996), pragmatics deals with the study of meaning as communicated by speakers or writers and interpreted by listeners or readers. In addition, he defines pragmatics as (1) the study of speaker’s meaning, (2) contextual meaning, (3) how more gets communicated
assumptions, their purposes or goals, and the kinds of actions (for example, request) that they perform when they speak.
Another expert has different definition of Pragmatics. Mey (1993) defines pragmatics as the science of language viewed from the relation to its user. In this case, pragmatics is seen as the science of language as it is used by real, live people, for their own purpose and within their limitations and affordances. It provides people greater understanding of how the human mind works, how human communicate, how they manipulate one another.
With regard to the definition of Pragmatics, Parker in Wijayana (1996) says that pragmatics is the study of the internal structure of language that is different from grammar. Also, he asserts that pragmatics is the study of how language is used in communication. Moreover, Levinson (1983) says that pragmatics is the study of language use. In other words, it is the study of the relation between language and context that are basic to an account of language understanding. Another definition of pragmatics is presented by Finch (2000). He says that pragmatics deals with the meaning of utterances. Also, pragmatics focuses on what is not explicitly stated and on how people interpret utterances in situational context.
2. Aspects of Pragmatics
This part elaborates three sub-points namely utterances, situational context, and aspects of speech situation. Each is explained as follows.
a. Utterances
When people have a conversation, they produce an utterance. Utterance is a unit of analysis of speech which has been defined in various ways but most commonly as a sequence of words within a single person’s turn at talk that falls
under a single intonation counter Schmidt and Richards (2002). They add that utterances may sometimes consist of stretches of speech shorter than sentences. Moreover, Hudson and Metham (1969) state that utterances are accredited statement, irrespective of the ‘characters’ and ‘language used’. They add that an
utterance is a text which is preceded and followed by pauses and is therefore to be complete and self-contained. It is a text, which is long enough to be relatable directly to be a context of situation.
The meaning of an utterance is also influenced by the context. With regard to this, Finnegan (1997) states that an utterance as the use of a sentence on a particular occasion or in a particular context. He adds that the meaning of utterance includes the (descriptive) meaning of the sentence, along with (social and affective) meaning contributed by contextual factors.
b. Situational Context
convention-bound their use, as language users one always operates in contexts. With regard to this, context has to be taken into account whenever one formulates his thoughts about language as rules and principles.
Linguists have become increasingly aware of the importance of context in the interpretation of utterance since the beginning of the 1970s. The implications of taking context into account are presented by Sadock in Brown and Yule (1983) who states:
There is, then, a serious, methodological problem that confronts the advocate of linguistic pragmatics. Given some aspects of what a sentence conveys in a particular context, is that aspect part of what the sentence conveys in virtue of its meaning… or should it be worked out on the basis of Gricean principles for the head of meaning of the sentence are relevant facts of the context of utterance.
Another expert has provided a definition of context. Cutting (2002) defines context as the physical and social world and assumptions of knowledge that the speaker and hearer share. Moreover, context can be classified into three types namely situational, background knowledge, and co-textual context. Situational context refers to what speakers know about what they can see around them. Background knowledge context is what speakers know about each other and the world. Meanwhile, Co-textual context is related to what speakers know about what they have been saying.
relationship with the participants, by what they know and they assume the sender knows.
The example of the situational context is presented by Cutting (2002) as follows. The conversation in the example occurs in the classroom situation. A male lecturer from London is explaining a mathematical problem to a male pupil from London whose name is Berkam:
Lecturer : Forty-nine? Why you say forty-nine? Pupil : Cos there’s another one here.
Lecturer : Right, we’ve got forty-nine there, haven’t we? But here there’s two. Okay? Now, what is it that we’ve two of? Well, let me give you a clue. Erm, this here is forty, that’s four tens, four ten are forty.
In reference to the conversation above, the situational context is obviously the classroom. Moreover, the lecturer and the pupil are presumably pointing to either the blackboard or an exercise book. The word ‘here’ and ‘there’ are demonstrative adverbs indicating a figure in an equation. Meanwhile, ‘this here’ is a demonstrative pronoun and adverb indicating what is being puzzled over. Without the surrounding situation, the exchange makes little sense.
In reference to the explanation above, it is obviously known that context is an important concept in discourse and pragmatics. Context is the decisive factor influencing a deeper meaning of an utterance.
c. Aspects of Speech Situation
are five aspects of situation to be considered namely, addresser and addressee, the context of an utterance, the goal of an utterance, the utterance as a form of act, . and the utterance as a product of verbal act deals with language at a more concrete level than grammar. Each is elaborated as follows.
The first aspect is addressers or addressees. There is a significant difference between a receiver and an an addressee. According to Lyon in Leech (1983), a receiver is a person who receives and interprets the messages while an addressee is a person who is an intended receiver of the message. A receiver might be a bystander or an eavesdropper, rather than an addressee. This distinction is relevant to the present inquiry, in that the analyst of pragmatic meaning is best thought of a receiver who tries to make sense of the content of a discourse according to whatever contextual evidence is available. The second aspect is context of an utterance. Context has been understood in different ways. It may include ‘relevant’ aspects of the physical or social setting of an utterance. Leech (1983) considers context to be any background knowledge assumed to be shared by speaker and hearer and which contributes to hearer’s interpretation of what
speaker means by a given utterance.
which take place in a particular situation, in time. The last aspect is the utterance as a product of verbal act deals with language at a more concrete level than grammar. With regard to this utterances may refer to the product of a verbal art, rather than to the verbal acts itself. The words ‘Would you be quite please?’
spoken with a polite rising intonation, might be described as a sentence, or as a question, or as a request. However, it is convenient to reserve term like sentence and question for grammatical entities, identified by their use in a particular situation. In this sense, utterances are the element whose meanings are studied in discourse analysis. In fact, it can be described that discourse analysis deals with utterances in relation to the context.
3. The Scope of Pragmatics
Pragmatics, as a branch of linguistics, has many scopes, i.e. deixis, presupposition, cooperative principle, implicature, and speech act (Yule, 1996). Since this research belongs to pragmatics study, this scope will be elaborated in more detail.
a. Deixis
Another definition of deixis is presented by Yule (1996). According to him, deixis is a technical term (from Greek) for one of the most basic things people do with utterances. In other words, deixis means ‘pointing’ via language. He divides deixis into three categories:
1) Person Deixis
Person deixis functions to point people. The examples of person deixis consist of the pronouns for first person I, second person you, and third person he, she, or it. In many languages, these deictic categories of speaker, addressee, and
other(s) are elaborated with makers of relative social status for instance, addressee with higher status versus addressee with lower status.The expressions which indicate higher status are described as honorifics. In other words, person deixis is deictic expressions that indicate people, for example the distinction between the speaker I and the addressee you. It is divided into three parts, i.e. the pronouns for the first person I, second person you, and third person he, she, or it. However, it is not easy to learn these deictic expressions. It requires a very close observation on what is actually happening in a conversation shift.
shows an ironic or humorous case in which one person is very busy cleaning the kitchen while another person at the same place may be reluctant to see the kitchen. In summary, person deixis deals with how people address themselves as a speaker and be addressed in return. It covers with the needs of people to make distance or to be closer with.
2) Spatial Deixis
Spatial deixis functions to point location. In other words, spatial deixis deals with deictic expressions that indicate the location of people and things. The words that show deictic expressions include here, this, that, and there. Moreover, some motion verbs such as “come” and ”go” may perform deictic expressions for example “Come to the living room!‘ or ‘Go to the library!‘. The words “come” and ”go” in those sentences are used to mark movement towards or away from the speakers.
People must be familiar with how the definition of location in each speaker‘s point of view is mentally and physically different. It is often called as a
deictic projection since speakers may project themselves into expected locations, even when the location is manipulated due to the existence of technology for example ‘I am not here now‘. If the sentence is projected to the answering machine of someone‘s telephone, the word ‘now‘will do at any time someone tries to call the telephone not to when someone records the words.
looks like ‘Here, clean me up, will you?‘. The word ‘here‘in that sentence does not literally mean physical location of the speaker but it means the person in the role of being the cute little kitty. If the speaker and the addressee have been so close physically, they will tend to behave the same way psychologically. It is a different treatment when a person is not close enough both physically and psychologically, that person may say ‘that woman over there‘.
In summary, spatial deixis deals with how people project the location of people or things indicated. Using the words ‘here‘, ‘there‘, ‘this‘, ‘that‘, and many more may have different meanings depending on who is speaking, when to speak, and how the speaker and addressee are physically and psychologically connected. 3) Temporal Deixis
(a) I was smart and diligent then. (b) I will come to your party then.
Temporal deixis makes ultimate reference to participant-role. Moreover, the expressions depend on the interpretation known by the relevant utterance time for example the expression ‘be back in an hour‘ which is written on an office door. There will be a possibility for others not to know how long or how short the person will come back.
In reference to the psychological basis, temporal deixis look similar with spatial deixis. The projection can be treated to be near or far away from the speakers like in some English expressions the past two years, the approaching month, the coming year, this Monday morning, etc. Moreover, some types of English temporal deixis are not widely recognized. One of the examples is related to the choice of verb tense as presented in the sentences below.
(a) I work here now. (b) I worked there then.
The present tense in the sentence I work here now indicates the use of proximal forms or the words used to present the near speaker. Meanwhile, the past tense in the sentence I worked there then indicates the opposite.
b. Presupposition
With regard to Presupossition, Yule (1996) states that it is something the speaker
assumes to be the case before producing utterances. Moreover, he says that
presupposition deals with the relationship between two propositions, for instance the
utterance “Mary’s dog is cute” means that Mary has a dog. He categorizes presupposition
into seven. They consist of potential presupposition, potential presupposition, factive presupposition, lexical presupposition, structural presupposition, non-factive presupposition, and counterfactual presupposition.
Potential presupposition is an assumption which is related to the use of linguistic form for example the verb regret in “He regrets doing that” shows an assumption that he actually did that. The second type of presupposition is existential presupposition. It deals with assumptions in which someone or something exists known by the use of a noun phrase e.g. “Your bag”. This is assumed that you have a bag. The third type of presupposition is factive presupposition. It refers to the assumptions in which information said after such words as realize, regret, be, aware, odd and glad is true, for instance “We regret telling him”. This is assumed that we told him.
the assumptions in which particular information is not true e.g. “We imagined we were in Hawaii. This is assumed that we were not in Hawaii. The last type of presupposition is counterfactual presupposition. It deals wirh the assumptions in which certain information has the opposite meaning to the fact e.g “If you were my friend, you would have helped me”. This is assumed that you are not my friend.
c. Cooperative Principles
The cooperation between the interlocutors determines whether or not a conversation runs succcesfully. Grice (1975) states that the cooperative principles can be used as a guidance for the speakers and hearers in a conversation. Moreover, Yule (1996) says that cooperative principle is the basic assumption in conversation in which each participant tries to contribute appropriately, at the required time, to the current exchange of talk. In referencce to Grice’s idea, the cooperative principle in conversation can be explained in terms of four conversational maxims. They include maxim of quantity, quality, relation and manner. Each is described as follows.
The first maxim is maxim of quantity. It puts emphasis on the information. The information delivered by speakers in a conversation are supposed to be neither too little nor too much. In other words, the conversation should be performed as informative as required. The following is an example of the maxim of quantity:
(a) You can see me at 10.30 am at my office.
project. I‘m extremely hungry. Oh, and I hope it‘s going to be a success for you! (Grice, 1975)
The conversation above shows that the speaker wants to make an appointment with his/her colleague. In utterance (a), the speaker has fulfilled the maxim of quantity by providing the required information i.e. the time and place of the meeting. Meanwhile, the utterance (b) has violated the maxim of quantity since it contains too much information about the speaker‘s intention. In this case, the speaker overlaps the knowledge that must be shared by both i.e. having a meeting.
The second maxim is maxim of quality. This maxim means that speakers should provide valid infomation. They are supposed not to say something that they believe to be false or make statement without adequate evidence as presented in the following exmple:
(a) I will be there at 2 o‘clock sharp. Prepare what we‘ve been discussing.
(b) Em, I will be there at 2 o‘clock as far as I remember. Well, prepare what we‘ve been discussing. I hope I remember what I should do, I guess. (Grice, 1975)
The next maxim is maxim of relation. It emphasizes on relevance. In this case, the speaker’s talk must be relevant with the topic being discussed. Speakers who turn the topic of conversation abruptly are considered uncooperative. The sentences below are examples of the maxim of relation:
(a) Q: There is someone at the door. R: I‘m in the bath.
(b) I don‘t really know if this is important, but what time is it? (Grice, 1975)
The utterances (a) and (b) above have different context. The context in a conversation (a) is that someone knocks at the door. R expects Q to understand that his/her reason is relevant to Q‘s utterance i.e. even if there is someone at the door, R cannot go and see who they are because R is in the bath. Meanwhile, the context in utterance (b) is in a first date. In this case, there is a potential for the speaker to have non-relevant material because he or she wants to stop the dating due to some reasons such as getting bored with the situation or getting too late to go home. In short, the speaker who utters sentence (b) flouts the maxim of relation.
The last is maxim of manner. This kind of maxim emphasizes clarity. In a conversation, speaker’s utterances are supposed to be clear and are not ambigious. With regard to this, the speakers must avoid obscurity of expression. The following presents an example of the maxim of manner:
(a) When I was 7, I vividly remembered the way I fell down from the stairs. I was spinning so hard so I felt every single cold and hard stair. I had acrophobia since then.
The sentences above show that there is a person who tells how he/she fells down from the stairs when he/she was a child. The utterance (a) has met the maxim of manner. On the contrary, utterance (b) fails to fulfill the maxim of manner since the person tries to remember the event but it becomes awkward when he cannot actually remember what happened to him/her when he/she was a child.
d. Implicature
In a conversation, there will be a lot of implied messages delivered by the speakers. The hearers must understand the context of the conversation to get the meaning of the implied messages. The implied messages are often referred to implicature. According to Grice (1975), implicature is what speakers can imply, suggest, or mean as distinct from what they literally say. In other words, implicature is an implied message that is based on the interpretation of the language use and its context. He stresses that there are two types of implicature, namely conventional and conversational implicature.
implicature. Another example is the conjunction but that will be interpreted as ‘contrast’ between the information presented before and after the conjunction.
The conversational implicature is another level at which speaker’s meaning can differ from what is said, depends on the context of conversation. In conversational implicature, meaning is conveyed not so much by what is said, but by the fact that it is said. The cooperative principle and the maxims take part when the conversational implicature arises. There are four kinds of conversational implicature presented by Grice (1975) and Levinson (1983). They include generalized, particularized, standard, and complex conversational implicature. e. Speech Acts
The utterances produced by the speakers often carry actions such as to inform, to persuade, to express feeling and etc. This is often called speech acts. With regard to speech acts, the followings present the definition and categorization of speech acts.
Speech acts have become important issues in the field of linguistics. There are many linguists who have provided different definitions of speech acts. The term speech act was initiated by Austin (1962) and developed by Searle (1969). According to Austin, a speech act is an act performed when someone says something. Moreover, he classifies the speech acts into locutionary, illocutionary, and perlocutionary acts. In line with Austin (1962), Finegan et.al (1997) state that speech acts are actions carried out through language.
instructing, agreeing, and warning. Furthermore, Yule (1996) says that actions performed via utterances are often called speech acts.
The next definition is proposed by Aitchison (2003) who states that speech act is a number of utterance functioning like actions. Moreover, she says that when someone utters a sequence of words, they are trying to achieve some effects from those words. In summary, speech acts are utterances that replace actions for particular goals in certain situations.
Some linguists offer different categorizationss of speech acts. There are three categorizations of speech acts in reference to Austin (1962), Searle (1969) and Leech (1983). Each is presented below.
1) Austin’s Categorization of Speech Acts
interrogative. Each has the idea of telling something, giving an order, and asking a question respectively (Austin, 1962).
The second type of speech acts according to Austin (1962) is illocutionary acts. This is the act of informing, ordering, warning, undertaking, and etc. According to Austin (1962), illocutionary acts is an utterance which has a particular conventional force. In other words, illocutionary act refers to what one does in saying something. This act can be formulated into: in saying X, s asserts that P in which P refers to the proposition or basic meaning of an utterance (Leech, 1996). With regard to this kind of act, Yule (1996) gives an example “I’ve just made some coffee”. In saying that utterance, the speaker makes an offer or a
statement.
The next type of speech acts is perlocutionary acts. This act deals with the effects of utterances. In other words, It tells what speakers want achieve in saying something such as to get hearers to know, to do something, to expect something, to show speaker’s feeling and to praise (Austin, 1969). Furthermore, Austin (1969) gives an example of this act: if someone shouts, “Fire!” then it causes people to exit a room which is on fire, they have performed the perlocutionary act of getting hearers to exit the room. Meanwhile, Leech (1996) states that the formula of perlocutionary act is by saying X, s convinces h that P e.g. by saying “I’ve just made some coffee”, the speakers performs the act of causing the hearers
effects to the hearers in the form of the hearer’s reaction to the speaker’s utterances.
2) Searle’s Categorization of Speech Acts
The classification of speech acts is presented differently by Searle (2005). According to Searle (2005), someone performs three different acts when they are speaking, namely utterance acts, propositional acts, and illocutionary acts. Utterance acts refer to uttering collection of words. Meanwhile, propositional acts and illocutionary acts deal with uttering words in sentences in certain context, under certain conditions, and with certain intentions. Searle (2005) divides illocutionary acts into five main types.
a) Representatives
Representatives refer to the acts which commit the speakers to the truth of the expressed proposition. According Searle (2005), this act describes states or events in the world including assertions, descriptions, claims, statements of fact, reports, and conclusions. With regard to this, testing this act can be carried out by simply giving questions whether a case can be classified as true or false. Kreidler (1998) adds that representative acts are performed by speakers and writers to tell what they know or believe. In other words, representative acts deal with facts. By performing representative acts, the speakers make the words fit the world or belief. With regard to this act, Yule (1996) provides an illustration by giving an example below:
(a) The earth is flat
The sentences (a) and (b) above illustrate the speakers who represent the world as what they believe. In sentence (a), the speaker states their belief that the earth is flat. Meanwhile, in sentence (b), the speaker describes their opinion that the day is warm and sunny based on thier belief even though it may not be a hot sunny day. In this case, the speakers make words fit with the world by performing representative acts.
b) Directives
In speaking, speakers often intend to get hearers to do something. In this case, the speakers have performed directive acts. According to Searle (2005), directive acts deal with an attempt of the speakers to get the hearer to do something through language. He adds that directive acts may include some actions, namely commanding, forbidding, inviting, requesting, and suggesting. Meanwhile, Yule (1996) says that it expresses what the speakers want. By performing directive acts, the speakers try to make the world fit the words. With regard to directive acts, Leech (1996) defines it as the speaker’s intention to produce some effects through an action by the hearer. The following is presented examples of directive acts by Leech (1996):
(a) You may ask.
(b) Would you make me a cup of tea? (c) Freeze!
functions to get the hearer to do something, i.e. requesting someone to make a cup of tea. The example (c) is a command which aims to get the hearers to freeze. c) Commissives
Commissives deal with the acts which commit the speakers to some future course of action. The commisives acts include promising, vowing, offering, threatening, and refusing (Searle, 2005). In addition, Kreidler (1998) says that
commissive acts can be expressed using some verbs such as agree, ask, offer, refuse, swear, all with following infinitives. A predicate for commisive is the
verbs that can be used to commit or refuse to commit oneself to some future actions whereas the subject of the sentence is most likely to be I or We. The examples are presented below:
(a) We’ll be right back.
(b) I’m gonna love you till the end. (Kreidler, 1998)
The content of the sentences above is related to the future actions of the speakers. The modal will or be going to in certain rules, contexts and situation signify a promise which is considered as commisives.
d) Expressives
consist of thank, congratulate, apologize, regret, deplore, and welcome. Yule (1996) provides an example of this act as follows
(a) I’m terribly sorry. (b) Congratulation!
(c) We greatly appreciate what you did for us.
The sentence (a) above is an expression which shows sympathy. Meanwhile, the example (b) is aimed to congratulate someone and the sentence (c) is used to thank or give appreciation to someone.
e) Declaratives
The utterances produced in a particular context may be able to change the condition of the world immediately. That is the idea declarative acts. According to Yule (1996) and Cutting (2002), declarative refers to kinds of speech acts that can change the world via utterances. In order to perform declarative acts appropriately, some circumstances must be met including the speakers must have specific institutional roles and there must be a specific context. In addition, Leech (1996) states that declarative acts are the illocution of which successful performance brings about the correspondence between propositional content and reality. The declarative acts may consist of Christening or baptizing, declaring war, abdicating, dismissing, naming, resigning, and excommunicating. The
utterances showing declarative acts are described as follows: (a) Boss: “You’re fired”
The utterance (a) and (b) are more than statements but they may lead to the change of the condition in reality if they are expressed in an appropriate context. The utterance (a) is used to perform the act of ending the employment while the utterance (b) is used to perform the acts of ending the game.
3) Leech’s Categorization of Speech Acts
Another categorization of speech acts is presented by Leech (1996). Leech (1996) says that the functions of illocutionary rely on how utterances relate to the social goals of establishing and maintaining community. In this case, speech acts are categorized into four types, namely competitive, convivial, collaborative and conflictive.
The first kind of speech acts is competitive. In this type of speech act, the goals of the illocutionary compete with the social goals. This speech act functions to show politeness in the form of negative parameter. The important point regarding this act is reducing the discord in the competition between what the speakers want to gain and what ‘good manner’ is. Ordering, asking, demanding, begging, and requesting are the examples of this kind of speech act.
The second type of speech acts is convivial. The illocutionary goals in convivial acts are related to the social goals. In contrast to competitive acts, convivial is intrinsically courteous. This means that politeness is in the positive form of seeking opportunities for comity. Offering, inviting, greeting, thanking, and congratulating are the examples of this type of speech acts.
impoliteness are relevant. This is found in most of written discourse. Asserting, reporting, announcing, and instructing belong to this type of speech acts.
The last type of speech acts is conflictive. This act suggests that the illocutionary goals conflict with the social goals. With regard to this, politeness does not need to be questioned because the terms in this illocutionary function are used to cause offence or hurt the hearer’s feeling. Threatening, accusing, cursing, and reprimanding are included as the examples of the conflictive.
4. Felicity Condition
Appropriate circumstances are badly needed in performing speech acts in order to be recognized as intended. Also, the right context must be matched with the right form of words. This condition is called as a felicity condition (Austin in Finch, 2000). In addition, Austin in Cutting (2002) states that the felicity conditions refer to the context and roles of participants that must be recognized by all parties; the action must be carried out completely, and the speakers must have the right intentions. Searle in Cutting (2002) adds that there is a general condition for all speech acts including the hearers have to listen and understand the language, and the speakers must not be pretending or acting. The performances of speech acts will be inappropriate if there is no specific context e.g. I sentence you to five months in the jail. This utterance will be inappropriate if it is said by
participants must understand the language being used and are not play-acting or being nonsensical. The second pre-condition is content condition e.g. a promise in that the content of the utterances must be about the future course of action. The third pre-condition is preparatory condition, for instance when someone promises to do something, there are two preparatory conditions namely the events will not happen by itself and will have a beneficial effect. The next pre-condition is sincerity condition for example a promise, the speaker genuinely intends to perform the future action. The last condition is essential condition which covers the fact that by uttering a promise, the speaker intends to create an obligation to carry out the action as promised.
5. Context
a. Context of Situation
Context of situation plays an important role in communication. It refers to what speakers know about what they can see around them (Cutting, 2002). In addition, Hymes in Wardhaugh (1986) states that there are many factors involved in speaking. They are described as ethnography of a communicative event which is relevant with understanding how a particular communicative event achieves its objectives. The first factor is Setting and scene (S). Setting deals with the time and place. In other words, it has something to do with the concrete physical circumstances in which a speech occurs. Meanwhile, scene is the abstract psychological setting. The example of setting and scene is: a graduation speech will have a joyful scene whereas the inaugural speech of USA President will have a serious one within a certain setting.
are used, how the words are used, and how the relationship between what is said and the actual topic being discussed is. For instance: in a public lecture, each participant has their own sense of act sequence to follow the system of language and things discussed within. The fifth factor is Key (K). It includes the tone, manner, or spirit in which a certain message is delivered e.g. serious, humorous, sarcastic, light-hearted, gesture, posture, and even deportment. The sixth factor is Instrumentalities (I). Instrumentalities are related to the choice of channel, for example oral, written, telegraphic, and the actual form of speech employed such as the language, code, dialect, or register.
The next factor is Norms of interaction and interpretation (N). This refers to specific behaviors and properties that attach to speaking and also to how these may be viewed by someone who does not share them e.g. loudness, silence, gaze return, and the like. The last factor is Genre (G). It is clearly a demarcated type of utterances. This includes poems, proverbs, riddles, sermons, lectures, prayers, and etc. They are different from casual speeches for instance church services to conduct sermons, colleges’ public lectures, poems reading and etc.
