CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Language is an inseparable part of our everyday lives. It is the main tool used to transmit messages, to communicate ideas, thoughts and opinions. It situates us in the society we live in; it is a social affair which creates and further determines our position in all kinds of various social interactions and situations. In certain circumstances we are literally dependent on its appropriate usage and there are moments when we need to be understood quite correctly. Language is involved in nearly all fields of human activity and maybe that is why language and linguistic communication have become a widely discussed topic among linguists, lawyers, psychologists psychologists and philosophers. According to an American language philosopher J.R. Searle (1976: p.16) speaking a language is performing speech acts, acts such as making statements, giving commands, asking questions or making promises. Searle states that all linguistic communication involves linguistic (speech) acts. In other words, speech acts are the basic or minimal units of linguistic communication. They are not mere artificial linguistic constructs as it may seem, their understanding together with the acquaintance of context in which they are performed are often essential for decoding the whole utterance and its proper meaning. According to the definition above, we are trying to make some analysis of speech act theory and directness or indirectness using some theories from linguists as a fundamental development of our paper. 1.2 Problems of study
1. What is speech act? 2. What
is
the
relationship
between
Locutionary,
Illocutionary,
and
Perlocutionary Act? 3. What are the classes of Illocutionary Act? 4. What is direct and indirect speech act? 1
1.3 Purposes of study
1. To know the definition of speech act and its functions. 2. To
know
the
relationship
between
locutionary,
illocutionary,
and
perlocutionary act. 3. To know the classes of illocutionary il locutionary act and its functions. 4. To know what is called direct d irect and indirect speech act and its i ts functions.
2
CHAPTER II DISCUSSION
2.1 Speech Acts
To produce an utterance is to engage in a certain kind of interaction. This is a fact that, until recently, logicians and philosophers of language have tended to overlook thought it has been stressed by linguists, psychologists, sociolinguists, and anthropologists. One of the most features of the theory of speech act, which was introduced into the philosophy of language by J. L. Austin, is that it give explicit recognition to the social or interpersonal dimension of language behaviour and provide a general framework for the discussion of semantic and syntactic distinctions that linguists have traditionally described in terms of mood and modality (in Lyons 1977:p.725). Austin criticizes the view that the main purpose of sentences would be to state facts or to describe some state of affairs as either true or false. He argues against, which retains the view that the only meaningful statements are those that are verifiable (Austin.1976: p.2). Instead, Austin claims that such truth-evaluable sentences only constitute one type of utterance, pointing out that there are other types of utterances which are neither true nor false, but nonetheless meaningful. He calls this second type of utterance "performative". Performatives are used to carry out an action. In that they differ from other types of declarative sentences (constatives) which only describe the world (constatives) in systematic ways. On the syntactic level, however, both performatives and constatives take the grammatical form of declarative sentences. Austin revises his theory considerably in the course of his lectures and eventually replaces the dichotomy „performative‟ vs. „constative‟ with a more general theory of speech acts which regards every utterance as a type of action. Lyons (1977) which is cited by Nitiasih shows that there are two characteristics of speech act, they are:
3
1) Speech act does not refer to the act of speaking as such (i.e. to the production of actual spoken utterance), but to something more abstract. 2) Speech act is not restricted to communication by means of spoken language because there are also certain non-linguistic communicative acts conveying certain meanings. Speech act can be analysed on three levels. In Austin‟s further development of investigating about speech act, he drew three dictinctions between Locutionary acts, Illocutionary acts, and Perlocutionary acts as the following: 1) A Locutionary Act is an act of saying; the production of meaningful utterance, the utterance of certain noises, the utterance of certain words in a certain construction, and the utterance of them with a certain „meaning‟ in the favourite philosophical sense of that word, i.e. with a certain sense and a certain reference (Austin 1962: p.944 as cited by Lyons 1977: p.730). 2) An Illocutionary Act is an act performed in saying something; making a statement or promise, issuing a command or request, asking a question, christening a ship, etc. 3) A Perlocutionary Act is an act performed by means of saying something; getting someone to believe that something is so, persuading someone to do something, moving someone to anger, consoling someone in his distress, etc. A short illustration example of the relationship between those three acts above can be seen as follows: In uttering the locution "Is there any salt?" at the dinner table, one may thereby perform the illocutionary act of requesting salt, as well as the distinct locutionary act of uttering the interrogatory sentence about the presence of salt, and the further perlocutionary act of causing somebody to hand one the salt.
4
Balinese examples of Locutionary, Illocutionary, and Perlocutionary Act can be seen in the following table: 1. Yeh PDAMe mati 1. An interrogatory
sentence
o?
about
the condition of PDAM water. 2. Bengkung ne, mu 2. A tegehang menek.
used Locutionary Act
Literal Meaning
bin
(often to
give
command
to
command
sentence having
of someone
to climb higher than before.
children) 3. Maal gulane o?
3.An interrogatory
(when someone is
sentence about the
given a cup of
price of sugar.
coffe/tea, but the coffe/tea is low of sugar) 1. Yeh PDAMe mati 1. A
request
sentence
o?
of
requesting water. 2. Bengkung ne, mu 2. A tegehang menek.
Illocutionary Act
Intended Meaning
used
bin
(often to
give
command
to
children)
command
sentence having
of someone
to get down from climbing (opposite meaning).
3. Maal gulane o?
3.A request sentence
(when someone is
of requesting some 5
given a cup of
sugar to be added to
coffe/tea, but the
someone‟s coffe/tea.
coffe/tea is low of sugar) 1. Yeh PDAMe mati 1. A.
(Locution):
One may answer
o?
the question by saying “Oo, be uli ibi yeh PDAMe mati”. B.
(Illocution):
One may take or get
a
glass
of
water to be given to
the
another
one. 2. Bengkung ne, mu 2. A. tegehang
Perlocutionary Act
Actions/Respons
menek.
bin
(Locution):
One may climb
(often
higher
to
give
before.
command
to
used
children)
B.
than
(Illocution):
One
may
down
get from
climbing. 3. Maal gulane o?
3. A.
(Locution):
(when someone is
one may answer
given a cup of
the question by
coffe/tea, but the
saying
coffe/tea is low of
gulane be terus
sugar)
menek jani. barang
“Oo,
hargane Harga be 6
mekejang menek”. B. (Illocution): One may take or get some sugar to be added to the someone‟s coffe/tea.
2.2 Approaches in Defining “Illocutionary Act”
Many define the term "illocutionary act" with reference to examples, saying for example that any speech act (like stating, asking, commanding, promising, and so on) is an illocutionary act. This approach has generally failed to give any useful hints about what traits and elements make up an illocutionary act; that is, what defines such an act. It is also often emphasised that Austin introduced the illocutionary act by means of a contrast with other kinds of acts or aspects of acting: the illocutionary act, he says, is an act performed in saying something, as contrasted with a locutionary act, the act of saying something, and also contrasted with a perlocutionary act, an act performed by saying something. Austin (1975: p.123) eventually abandoned the "in saying" / "by saying" test. According to the conception adopted by Bach and Harnish in 'Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts' (1979), an illocutionary act is an attempt to communicate, which they analyse as the expression of an attitude. Another conception of an illocutionary act goes back to Schiffer's book 'Meaning' (1972: p.103), in which the illocutionary act is represented as just the act of meaning something. Based on their essential conditions, and attending to the minimal purpose or intention of the speaker in performing an illocutionary act, Searle (1975) proposes a taxonomy of illocutionary acts into five mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive classes:
7
Representative or assertive. The speaker becomes committed to the truth of the
propositional content.
Directive. The speaker tries to get the hearer to act in such a way as to fulfill what
is represented by the propositional content. Commissive. The speaker becomes committed to act in the way represented by the
propositional content.
Expressive. The speaker simply expresses the sincerity condition of the
illocutionary act.
Declarative. The speaker performs an action just representing herself as
performing that action. The examples of Illocutionary Act Classes are shown in the following table: Representative
1. He
Expressive
is 1. I
am
Directive
Commisive
Declarative
the 1. I will be there 1. I name this boy “the
glad 1. Close
insect”.
that I pass
door please!
at
people.
the
(command)
(promise)
(representati
exam
something/someone
on of Bali)
(happiness).
)
2. I serve you a 2. I
final
am
so 2. Could
delicious
sorry for my
please
Japanese
mistakes
food.
9.
naughty
Balinese
(giving a name to
you 2. I will finish 2. Dengan the
menyatakan
me a cup of
homework by
kemerdekaan
that I have
tea!
tomorrow.
indonesia.
(representati
done
(request)
(promise)
(Declaration
on of Japan)
(apologize).
3. I play the
3. I am sorry
give
ini
saya
of
independent) 3. Turn the
4. I promise that 4. Manis ti ceweke ne,
traditional
to hear that
light on
I will love
I “madu” adanin ne
Balinese
your father
please!
you until the
mare cocok. (giving
music.
has just
(command)
end of the
a name to
(representatio
passed away
world.
something/someone)
n of Bali)
(condolance
(promise)
).
8
2.3 Illocutionary Force
Several speech act theorists, including Austin himself, make use of the notion of an illocutionary force. In Austin's original account, the notion remains rather unclear. Some followers of Austin, such as David Holdcroft, view illocutionary force as the property of an utterance to be made with the intention to perform a certain illocutionary act rather than as the successful performance of the act (which is supposed to further require the appropriateness of certain circumstances). According to this conception, the utterance of "I bet you five pounds that it will rain" may well have an illocutionary force even if the addressee doesn't hear it. However, Bach and Harnish assume illocutionary force just in case this or that illocutionary act is actually (successfully) performed. According to this conception, the addressee must have heard and understood that the speaker intends to make a bet with them in order for the utterance to have 'illocutionary force'. If we adopt the notion of illocutionary force as an aspect of meaning, then it appears that the (intended) 'force' of certain sentences, or utterances, is not quite obvious. If someone says, "It sure is cold in here", there are several different illocutionary acts that might be aimed at by the utterance. The utterer might intend to describe the room, in which case the illocutionary force would be that of 'describing'. But she might also intend to criticise someone who should have kept the room warm. Or it might be meant as a request to someone to close the window. These forces may be interrelated: it may be by way of stating that the temperature is too cold that one criticises someone else. Such a performance of an illocutionary act by means of the performance of another is referred to as an indirect speech act . 2.4 Direct Speech Act
One subtype of speech acts is that of direct speech. A direct speech act is defined as one in which only the illocutionary force and propositional content literally expressed by the lexical items and syntactic form of the utterance are communicated. What this means, essentially, is that in a direct speech act, only necessary words and word-orderings are used to convey a message. Brown and Levinson (1987: p.66) cite some common uses of direct speech: a) Commands/requests. ( e.g. Open the door please!) 9
b) Suggestions/advice. ( e.g. You should not do that again) ) Expressions of disagreement or disapproval. ( e.g. I do not agree with you) However, because direct speech is employed for maximal efficiency, it is meant to satisfy a speaker‟s desires, the addressee‟s wants are sometimes overlooked, which may result in the addressee taking offence. Offending the listener is undesirable and can be construed as aggressive, while the purpose of speech acts is to gain compliance. Thus, direct speech is avoided when possible and supplanted by indirect speech (Brown & Levinson, 1987: p.60). The examples of Direct Speech Act as the respons to someone utterances/sentences are shown as follows: English
Direct Speech
Balinese
Direct Speech
Sentences/Utterances
Act/Respons
Sentences/Utterances
Act/Respons
1. Would you join me
1. I am sorry, I 1. Melali
to go to the party
would
tonight?
(direct rejection)
2. Could you lend the book for about two
2. I
not.
could
umah 1. Ake
ake nyak?
nok.
me to have a cup of
ngidang (direct
nongkrong 2. Beh, ake sing demen
ajake je minum.
days? 3. Will you go with
sing
rejection)
not. 2. Mai
(direct rejection)
ke
minum.
(direct
rejection) 3. Sorry I won‟t. 3. De (direct rejection)
be
melajah, 3. Sing dadi nyontek.
nyontek gen mani.
coffe?
Harus pedidi.
melajah (direct
suggestion) 4. I have him to finish my homework.
4. You
shouldn‟t 4. Adanan timpale
4.Ahh, ake sing setuju.
do that. (direct
gen orain ngae
Jelek keto.
suggestion)
tugase. Cocok
(disagreement)
asane? 5. How about we
5.Sorry, I don‟t
5.Melali ke umah ake
5.Ake
direclty buy the
agree with you.
nyak?
nok. (direct rejection)
product from the
(disagreement)
sing
ngidang
10
company?
2.5 Indirect Speech Act
In the course of performing speech acts we ordinarily communicate with each other. The content of communication may be identical, or almost identical, with the content intended to be communicated. However, the meaning of the linguistic means used (if ever there are linguistic means, for at least some so-called "speech acts" can be performed non-verbally) may also be different from the content intended to be communicated. One may, in appropriate circumstances, request Peter to do the dishes by just saying, "Peter ...!", or one can promise to do the dishes by saying, "Me!" One common way of performing speech acts is to use an expression which indicates one speech act, and indeed performs this act, but also performs a further speech act, which is indirect. One may, for instance, say, "Peter, can you open the window?", thereby asking Peter whether he will be able to open the window, but also requesting that he does so. Since the request is performed indirectly, by means of (directly) performing a question, it counts as an indirect speech act. Indirect speech acts are commonly used to reject proposals and to make requests. For example, a speaker asks, "Would you like to meet me for coffee?" and another replies, "I have class." The second speaker used an indirect speech act to reject the proposal. This is indirect because the literal meaning of "I have class" does not entail any sort of rejection. Other examples of Indirect Speech Act are shown in the following table: English
Indirect Speech
Balinese
Indirect Speech
Sentences/Utterances
Act/Respons
Sentences/Utterances
Act/Respons
1. Would you join me 1. I have something 1. Melali to go to the party
to do tonight.
ke
ake nyak?
umah 1. Lakar ngae tugas malu.
tonight?
11
2. Could you lend the 2. I am still using 2. Mai book for about two
that book.
nongkrong 2. Mani kuliah pagi
ajake je minum.
nok.
days? 3. Will you go with 3. I have a class
3. Engken asane yen 3. Rame gati bro.
me to have a cup of
nongkrong jani di
coffe?
PP?
4. Would you go to a 4. I movie with me?
have
business
other to
be
4.Tolong je jemput
4.Ake sing ngabe
ake di kos nah.
motor.
done. 5.
How about having
5.I have just had it.
lunch at the restaurant?
2.6 The Analysis of A Conversation
Here is given a conversation with its analysis which may be involving the illocutionary classes, direct speech act and indirect speech act. The conversation is taken from a television show called “Ups Salah” which invloves Vincen as the host and Tantri Kotak as the target. Tantri
: Hallo
Vincen
: Perkenalkan saya putu, eee... saya supervisior ... bali
Tantri
: Iya
Vincen
: Kemarin tantri sempat ke bali ya?
Tantri
: Oooo aku beli ... beli sesuatu di sana
Vincen Tantri
: Iya beli jaket ya? : Iya tadi dipakek juga kan mas?
12
Vincen
: Ohhh yaaa gitu gitu, saya mau minta maaf sebelumnya ini kesalahan
dari kita, tantri.
Tantri Vincen Tantri Vincen Tantri Vincen
: Teruus? : Harga jaketnya kemaren itu yang tertempel di jaketnya itu salah : Lo? : Kan harga di situ tertulis kemarin itu 1,3 : Iya iya : Itu terjadi kesalahan ternyata tidak segitu
Tantri
: Berapa?
Vincen
: Itu harga aslinya 2750
Tantri Vincen
: 2750, Harusnya? : Iya dua juta tujuh ratus lima puluh, tapi bisa nggak tantri kirim via
rekening gitu rekening Bank? Transfer aja bisa?
Tantri Vincen
: (Parah...parah...) mas kemarin kan satu tiga belinya : Ya itu ada kesalahan dari pegawai saya, saya sudah marahin itu
Tantri
: Bentar,bentar ngomong sama manager saya aja ya
Vincen
: Nggak nggak saya mau ngomong sama tantri aja sebentar
Posan
: Kenapa sih?
Tantri
: Harga jaketnya satu tiga, dia lihat gua di Derings, dia bilang
harganya dua tujuh lima puluh Posan
: Maksudnya gimana?
Tantri
: Gua harus nambahin
Vincen Tantri
: Saya, saya mau ngomong sama tantrinya bisa? : Hallo 13
Vincen
: Hallo tantri
Tantri Vincen
: Nggak soalnya gini bli,kita kan kemarin belinya kan 1,3 : Iya
Tantri Vincen
: Dan itu udah fix kan 1,3?masaa tiba tiba di ubah dua koma... : Karena itu jaket kan limited edition kami harap sih tantri bisa
melunasi sisanya
Tantri
: Sekarang kan kesalahannya maaf sebentar dulu, sekarang
kesalahannya di bli kan? Vincen
: Iya betul betul
Tantri
: Di situ tertera harganya 1,3 kenapa tiba tiba saya pakek terus tiba tiba
di ganti dua koma… Vincen
: Tapi mengapa anda pakek dulu gitu kalo kalo anda pakek kan kita
sudah tidak bisa minta Tantri Vincen
: Loo saya beli lo bli di situ cash 1,3 hak saya saya pakek : Ya tapi kan kalo andaikata belum di pakek mungkin tu jaket bisa di
balikin lagi Tantri Vincen
: Saya balikin aja deh bli saya sudah males kayak gini : Tantri, kita megharapkan bisa di balikkan, tapi kalo tantri bilang
sudah dipakai apalagi di sebuah TV gitu jadi mungkin harga jualnya nggak segitu lagi Tantri
: Ya udah sekarang gini bli, sorry, saya beli kemaren 1,3 hak saya saya
akan pakek kapan aja tiba tiba udah 3 hari nambah lagi, nah saya bingung dong? Kalo gitu ambil aja nih ambil sendiri gitu
Vincen
: Tapi kan udah di pakek udah bau gitu nggak nggak
Tantri
: Looooo loooo
Vincen
: Andaikata kalau tu jaket belum di pakek 14
Tantri
: Kesalahan ada di anda mas...kalo anda mau ambil, ambil aja.
Source: (http:/www.youtube.com)
The analysis of the conversation above in details can be seen below: Sentences/Utterances In The Conversation
Analysis
This conversation is a series of utterances which causes the appearance of some expressions. The utterance number 1 is an expression of apologize that affect the second speaker to utter the respon “terus?”. From that utterance, it can be seen that it is an expression of implicit request which having the first speaker to speak more and give more (Series of utterances 1): 1. Ohhh yaaa gitu gitu, saya mau minta maaf sebelumnya ini kesalahan dari kita, tantri. 2. Teruus?
reasons of the utterance number 1. And then, the utterance number 3 is the reason of the utterance number 1 which then causes another respon of expressing confuse in utterance number 4.
3. Harga jaketnya kemaren itu yang
So in short, those 4 utterances if we see from the
tertempel di jaketnya itu salah
illocutionary
classes,
those
can
be
classified as: number 1 is classified as
4. Lo?
expressive class, number 2 is classified as directive class, and number 4 is classified as expressive class.
And if we see from directness and indirectness, those 4 utterances can be classified as: number 1 is classified as direct speech act, number 2 is classified as indirect speech act, number 3 is classified as direct speech act, and number 4 is classified as indirect speech act.
(Series of utterances 2):
1. Iya dua juta tujuh ratus lima puluh,
The italicized utterance in the utterance number 1 seems a question, but actually it is implicit 15
tapi bisa nggak tantri kirim via
command that is uttered politely. It is a command
rekening gitu rekening Bank? Transfer
of having the hearer/other speakers to send amount
aja bisa?
of money through bank account which then make
2. (Parah...parah...) mas kemarin kan satu tiga belinya 3. Ya itu ada kesalahan dari pegawai saya, saya sudah marahin itu
the hearer/the other speakers feel disappointed by expressing an implicit utterance of disappointment that can be seen in the italicized utterance number 2. That makes the first speaker give more reasons
4. Bentar,bentar ngomong sama manager in the next utterance. In utterance number 4 the saya aja ya
5. Nggak nggak saya mau ngomong sama tantri aja sebentar
6. Kenapa sih?
speaker is clearly stating a command of having the hearer to talk to her/his manager because he/she is bored of talking with the hearer for any longer. But then the hearer/the other speakers refuse the command by stating a refusal/rejection expression clearly which can be seen in utterance number 5 that makes the hearer/other speakers feel curious as he/she have stated in the utterance number 6.
So, if we see from the illocutionary classes, those utterances can be classified as: number 1 is classified as directive class, number 2 is classified as expressive class, number 4 is classified as directive class, number 5 is classified as directive class, and number 6 is classified as expressive class.
And if we see from directness and indirectness, those utterances can be classified as: number 1 is classified as indirect speech act, number 2 is classified as indirect speech act, number 3 is classified as direct speech act, number 4 is classified as direct speech act, number 5 is classified as direct speech act, and number 6 is classified as indirect speech act.
(Series of utterances 3):
The italicized utterance in the utterance number 1 16
1. Karena itu jaket kan limited edition
is an expression of hope which is purposed to the
kami harap sih tantri bisa melunasi
hearer/the other speakers. It is causing the
sisanya.
hearer/the other speakers respon the utterance by
2. Sekarang kan kesalahannya, maaf
using implicit command. If it is seen, it seems an
sebentar dulu, sekarang kesalahannya
expression of apologizing, but it is actually a
di bli kan?
command of having the hearer/the other speakers to stop speaking at the moment.
So, if it is seen from the illocutionary classes, those utterances can be classified as: number 1 is classified as commisive class and number 2 is classified as directive class.
And if it is seen from directness and indirectness, those utterances can be classified as: number 1 is classified as direct speech act and number 2 is classified as indirect speech act.
(Series of utterances 4):
1. Saya balikin aja deh bli saya sudah males kayak gini
2. Tantri, kita megharapkan bisa di
The italicized utterance in the utterance number 1 is showing an expression of anger or disappointed clearly. But the respon of that utterance is not relating or it has no relationship. It can be seen in
balikkan, tapi kalo tantri bilang sudah
the utterance number 2. And then, it is causing an
dipakai apalagi di sebuah TV gitu jadi
expression
mungkin harga jualnya nggak segitu
followed by other expressions of confuse and
lagi.
command that can clearly be seen in the utterance
3. Ya udah sekarang gini bli, sorry, saya
of
apologizing
“sorry”
which
is
number 3. Afterwards, we move to the utterance
beli kemaren 1,3 hak saya saya akan
number 5. It can be an implicit expression of
pakek kapan aja tiba tiba udah 3 hari
disappointment, anger, or confuse. But if it is seen
nambah lagi, nah saya bingung dong?
from the context, it is exactly an expression of
Kalo gitu ambil aja nih ambil sendiri
disappointment. Those series of utterances finally
gitu.
causes en expression of explicit command which is
4. Tapi kan udah di pakek udah bau gitu nggak nggak....
uttered by the hearer/the other speakers. It can be seen in the italicized utterance in the last 17
5. Looooo loooo....
utterance/utterance number 7.
6. Andaikata kalau tu jaket belum di
pakek.
If we see from the illocutionary classes, those italicized utterances can be classified as:
7. Kesalahan ada di anda mas...kalo anda
number 1 is classified as expressive class,
mau ambil, ambil aja.
number 2 is classified as commisive class, number 3 is classified as expressive class and directive class, number 5 is classified as expressive class, and number 7 is classified as directive class.
And if we see from directness and indirectness, those utterances can be classified as: number 1 is classified as direct speech act, number 2 is classified as direct speech act, number 3 is classified as direct speech act, number 4 is classified as direct speech act, number 5 is classified as indirect speech act, number 6 is classified as indirect speech act, and number 7 is classified as direct speech act.
2.7 The Relationship Between Speech Act and Discourse Analysis
As discussed above about some of the central ideas of speech act theory as formulated by philosophers Austin and Searle, and then applied these ideas to a particular set of speech acts in a discourse. I this case, the writer find that how speech act theory provides an approach to discourse analysis. In addition, after discussing some key insights and concepts critical to speech act theory, next is how it applies to discourse analysis. Speech act theory provides a framework in which to identify the conditions underlying the production and understanding of utterances as a particular linguistically realized action. The essential insight of speech act theory is that language performs communicative acts.
18
Searle (1969: p.21) states speech act is the basic unit of communication, taken together with the principle of expressibility, suggest that there are a series analytic connections between the notion of speech act, what the speaker means, what the speaker intends, what the hearer understands, and what rules governing the linguistic elements. Related to that opinion, speech act theory is basically concerned with what people do, with language and with the function of language. Typically, the functions focused upon communicative intentions (the illocutionary act) that can be labeled (that have a performative verb) and realized in a single sentence. Language can be used for speech act because people share rules that create the acts: utt erances “count as” successful and non defective performances of speech acts when they fulfill certain conditions. The rules and conditions draw upon linguistic knowledge (the relationship between tense and the reference time of an event) and knowledge about the world, (the relationship between tense and the reference time of an event) and knowledge about the world (people may be obligated to behave in certain ways) that allows certain linguistic devices to indicate illocutionary act. The speech act approach to discourse focuses upon knowledge of underlying conditions for production and interpretation of acts through words. It can be noted that words may perform more than one action at a time and that contexts may help to separate multiple function of utterances from one another. The literal meaning of words and contexts in which they occur may interact in our knowledge of the conditions underlying the realization of acts and the interpretations of acts. Although speech act theory was not first developed as a means of analyzing discourse, speech act theory also provides a means by which segment texts, and thus a framework for defining units that could then be combined into larger structures. If we want to consider speech theory as an approach to discourse, however, we need to consider how speech act function contributes to sequential coherence and how speech act function of one utterance contributes to one that of another.
19
CHAPTER III CONCLUSION
When people speaking a language, they are acting the speech act like asking questions, commands, requests, promises, expressing feelings, and etc. Those have been involved in the speech act theory particularly on three levels of speech act, namely locutionary, illocutionary, and perlocutionary act. Those three levels have a close relationship which cannot be separated each other. Those are the relation of literal and intended meaning which has been produced and reproduces respons of those two meanings. There are also more detail classes that are parts of illocutionary act, they are representative, expressive, directive, commissive, and declarative. All of those classes are often uttered indirectly or even directly. The speech act theory is closely related to the dicourse analysis. It is defined as an approach to dicourse analysis. In other words, every humans activities that is involving a language, it must be involving the speech act. It is related to how people communicate with others and what the tool humans used in communicating with others.
20
REFERENCES
Austin, John L., 1962a, How to Do Things with Words, Oxford: Clarendon. Austin, John L., 1961, “Performative Utterances,” in J.O. Urmson and G.J. Warnock (eds.), Philosophical Papers, Oxford: Clarendon. Grice, H. Paul. (1989) Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourse_analysis.downloaded at 08.00 p.m.Monday 23rd April 2012 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_act.downloaded at 07.30 p.m.Tuesday 24th April 2012 http://ilmuperhotelangratis.blogspot.com/2009/05/contoh-english-conversation-disebuah.html.downloaded at 01.00 p.m.Sunday 13rd May 2012 http://www.yadayadaenglish.com/invitations.htm.downloaded at 01.00.p.m.Sunday 13rd May 2012 http://www.youtube.com.downloaded at 11.00 a.m. Friday 18th May 2012
21
