CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

In this chapter, the researcher discusses the relevant theories related to the research

problems such as an overview if pragmatics, speech acts, illocutionary acts, the cassification of

illocutionary acts, context, and implicature meaning.

A. Theoretical Description

This chapter discusses some relevant theories which are associated with the research. It is

divided into four sessions: pragmatics, speech acts, and illocutionary acts.

1. Pragmatics

People use language in order to communicate with other people around the world. The

component of language is studied in a science called linguistics. It deals with all internal and

external aspects of language. For instance, sounds are discussed in phonetics and phonology,

morphemes and words in morphology, phrases and sentences in syntax, meanings in semantics,

and text in discourse.

Pragmatics itself is a branch of linguistics covering meaning in use. Meaning is formally

studied in semantics. However, there are some aspects of meaning cannot be captured by

semantics particularly meaning in use or meaning in context. It is because semantics deals with

meaning without reference to the users and communicative functions of sentences (Aitchison:

2003). Pragmatics deals with meaning since it is concerned with the use of these tools in

meaningful communication. Pragmatics is about the interaction of semantic knowledge with our

knowledge of the world, taking into account contexts of use (Griffiths, 2006). Language be able
to use to understanding a various work of mind, especially the capacity of holding, gaining ,

saving the knowledge. Fromkin stated that Pragmatics is concerned with the interpretation of

linguistic meaning in context (Fromkin, Rodman et al, 2003). Pragmatics is concerned with the

study of meaning of communicated by a speaker (or writer) and interpreted by a listener or

reader (Yule, 1996). This study is necessarily involves the interpretation of what people mean in

a context and how the context influences what is said. That is why pragmatics called as study of

contextual meaning. Other definition that Pragmatics is the study of the relationships between

linguistic forms and the users of those forms (Yule, 1996). Language and context are connected,

the users need to know about linguistic form to make understand what the language which

express to the listeners. The advantage of studying language via pragmatics is that one can talk

about people‟s intended meanings, their assumptions, their purposes and goals

Pragmatics, therefore, is concerned with the way of speaker using language in context

which cannot be predicted from purely linguistic knowledge, particularly semantics, which deals

with the internal structure of the language (Griffiths: 2006) Similarly, Kreidler (2002) explains

the differences between semantics and pragmatics. According to him, both semantics and

pragmatics are related to the human ability to use language in meaningful way. The difference is

that semantics deals with the speaker‟s competence in producing meaningful utterance, while

pragmatics the person‟s ability to interpret meanings from particular kind of speech situations

(context). However, Kreidler adds that nowadays the boundary between semantics and

pragmatic is very often overlapped.

Other definition of pragmatics is proposed by Yule (1996). In his explanation of the

differences among syntax, semantics, and pragmatics, he defines pragmatics as the study of

relationship between linguistic form and the user of those forms. The user of the linguistic forms,
that is human being, is the characteristic which makes pragmatics different from syntax and

semantics. The role of the language user leads the scope of pragmatics to the context of the

language itself.

The study of pragmatics covers several subfields or domains, such as deixis, reference,

presupposition, implicature, and speech acts. Deixis is concerned with the referring expressions

which indicate the location of the referents along certain dimensions. Reference deals with the

linguistic forms used by the speaker to enable the listener to identify something. Presupposition

is related to the things that the speaker assumes as the case of an utterance. Implicature is

associated with the existence of norms for the use language in context. Speech acts are concerned

with the use of utterance to perform an act. (Griffiths, 2006)

2. Speech Acts

a. The Concept of Speech Acts

Speech acts are one of the five main topics in the study of pragmatics. The concept of

speech acts is firstly developed by a philosopher, John L. Austin in his book How to Do Things

with Words in 1962 Austin defines speech acts simply as the action performed by saying

something. By means of utterances, ones are able to get others to do something. In other words,

speech acts are actions which are performed via utterances (Yule, 1996)

In speech acts theory, the utterance as a unit of communication has two types of meaning:

propositional and illocutionary meaning. Propositional meaning is also called as illocutionary

meaning. This deals with the basic literal meaning of an utterance which is associated with its

structural aspects. Next, the illocutionary meaning is related to the effect of the utterance to the
readers or the listeners. This meaning is realized by the function or the illocutionary function

such as requests, orders, commands, complaints, and promise (Richard and Schmidt, 2003)

Speech act refers to what is done when something is said (for example, warning,

threatening, promising, requesting) (Toolan, 1997). In other hand, the meaning of speech act are

these basic units of linguistic interaction such as give a warning to, greet, apply for, tell what,

confirm an appointment (Griffiths, 2006:148). Furthermore, Kreidler (1998) said that there are

seven basic kinds of speech acts. There are assertive utterances, performative utterances,

verdictive utterances, expressive utterances, directive utterances, commissive utterances, phatic

utterances

In relation to the concept above, in every speech act, it is able to distinguish three things,

following Austin‟s theory. What is said, the utterance, can be called the locution. What the

speaker intends to communicate to the addressee (the purpose) is the illocution. The message that

the addressee gets, his interpretation of what the speaker says, is the perlocution. If the

communication is successful, the illocution and the perlocution are alike or nearly alike

(Kreidler, 2002).

b. The Classification of Speech Acts

Based on the concept of locution, illocution, and perlocution in every utterance, Austin

divides the speech acts into three major categories. They are locutionary, illocutionary, and

perlocutionary (Yule, 1996)

1. Locutionary acts

Locutionary acts are the production of utterances, with a particular intended structure,

meaning, and reference. In other words, locutionary acts deal with linguistic meaning or
grammatical (or phonological) form of an utterance. This kind of speech acts is also called as the

act of saying something

2) Illocutionary acts

Illocutionary acts are acts performed by speakers in saying something (with an

appropriate intention and in an appropriate context), rather than by virtue of having produced a

particular effect by saying something. This type of speech acts is also called as the act of doing

something. The purpose of expression and the speaker‟s specific purpose are called as

locutionary force or locutionary function.

An illocutionary act is the second dimension of speech act which is performed through

communicative force of an utterance. Mostly, the speaker does not just produce well-formed

utterances with no purpose. The speaker forms an utterance with some kind of function in mind.

Illocutions are acts defined by social convention acts such as accosting, accusing, admitting,

apologizing, challenging, complaining, condoling, congratulating, declining, deploring, giving

permission, giving way, greeting, leave-taking, mocking, naming, offering, praising, promising,

proposing marriage, protesting, recommending, surrendering, thanking, toasting (Hurford and

Heasley, 1983). This is known as the illocutionary force of the utterances

The criteria of illocutionary acts are based on the contexts which determine the forces or

functions of the utterances (Mey, 2001). Same utterances can be categorized as different

illocutionary because of different forces or functions which are greatly influenced by context of

use. According to Nunan (1993) forces are the characteristics that differentiate speech acts from

one another. Forces are mainly about the different ways the content propositions are involved in

speech acts. Some examples of forces are pronouncing, stating, commanding, thanking, and
promising. Those forces are the functional intentions of speaker when performing an utterance.

To determine the illocutionary functions, Yule (1996) proposes two important points:

illocutionary function indicating device and felicity condition as follow:

 Illocutionary function indicating device

Illocutionary function indicating device (IFID) is a formal, literal expression which

explicitly indicates the illocutionary function of utterance (Laurence and Ward, 2006). The

clearest example is the use of specific verb in an utterance. This verb is usually called as speech

act verbs or performative verbs. It is in line with the concept of performative hypothesis. Some

verbs such as “to order, to warn, and to promise” can be used to make the illocutionary function

explicit, e.g. “I order you to leave now‟ (Cutting, 2002). Nevertheless, this condition is

somewhat difficult since in normal usage the utterances are expressed mostly without

performative verbs. The speaker chooses using implicit performative, for instance “I will be

back” can be interpreted as “I promise that I”ll be back” or „I warn you that I”ll be back”.

Furthermore, some verbs are not normally used in full sentence, e.g. to thank “Thank you.‟, and

to congratulate “Congratulation on your success‟ (Mey, 2001)

 Felicity conditions

Felicity conditions are defined as several conditions to be meet in order that the

illocutionary acts are successfully performed. Austin states that the speakers have to fulfill three

conditions: that the participants must understand the roles and the context, that the participants

must perform the acts completely, and that the participants have to have clear purposes (Cutting,

2002).
 Elaborating Austin‟s concept, Yule (1996: 50) the felicity follows at least general

condition is that the participants have to understand the language and the speakers do not

pretend. He also adds content condition, preparatory condition, sincerity condition, and essential

condition, all of which deals with the characteristics of illocutionary acts itself

3) Perlocutionary acts

Perlocutionary acts are speech acts which depend on the production of a specific effect.

This effects is produced by the hearer This type of speech acts is also called as the act of

affecting someone. In perlocutionary, there is an influence affect because the speaker tries to

influence the hearer to do what he or she wants to do. This is called by as perlocutionary effect.

In addition to the classification of speech acts based on the locution, illocution and

perlocution, there is also other classification proposed by the Searle. This classification of speech

acts is based on the syntactic and semantic aspects of an utterance. In other words, it is the

relation between literal sentence meaning and intended speaker‟s meaning. Viewed from the

relationship between the three general types of basic sentence types/ moods (declarative,

interrogative, and imperative) and the three general communicative functions (statement,

question, and command), speech acts are classified into two main types (Yule, 1996)

1) Direct speech acts

In direct speech acts, there is a direct relationship between its grammatical structure and

its communicative function. For instance, an affirmative sentence is used to give a statement; an

interrogative sentence to ask a question; an imperative sentence to give an order or command.

Direct speech act is important in daily conversation. The direct illocution of an utterance is the

illocution most directly indicated by a literal reading of the grammatical form and vocabulary of
the sentence uttered (Heasly, 1996). Direct utterance uses to talk directly. A communication will

be successful when there is no misinterpretation. Knowing the form of direct utterance will be

useful to make a good communication. When a person speaks to another, the speaker must be

aware what is being talked. Kreidler states that the form of direct utterance is divided into three

(Kreidler 1998). The form of direct utterance is declarative utterance, interrogative utterance and

imperative utterance. Knowing the form of direct utterance, knowing purpose of direct utterance

and knowing the kinds of direct utterance are important to make a good communication in daily

activities

2) Indirect speech acts

In contrast to the direct speech acts, in indirect speech acts, there is no direct relationship

between its grammatical structure and its communicative function. For instance, an interrogative

is not only used to question or to ask for an answer from the listener, but it can also convey a

request or warning.

From those explanations, it can be concluded that the determination of direct and indirect

speech acts is not merely based on its syntactical structure. However, it is based on the implied

meaning and purpose of the utterance which rely on the context of use.

3. Illocutionary Acts

a. The Concept of Illocutionary Acts

As stated in the previous section, illocutionary acts are one of the three types of speech

acts proposed by Austin which deal with the purpose, function, or force of utterances. This type

of speech acts is generally said to be the central of speech acts and even said as the speech acts

themselves (Yule, 1996).

 The criteria of illocutionary acts are based on the contexts which determine the forces or

functions of the utterances (Mey, 2001). Same utterances can be categorized as different

illocutionary because of different forces or functions which are greatly influenced by context of

use. According to Nunan (1993) forces are the characteristics that differentiate speech acts from

one another. Forces are mainly about the different ways the content propositions are involved in

speech acts. Some examples of forces are pronouncing, stating, commanding, thanking, and

promising. Those forces are the functional intentions of speaker when performing an utterance.

b. The Classification of Illocutionary Acts

As stated in the previous explanation about speech act classification that when people

communicate, they will form an utterance with some kind of function in mind. This case can be

called as the illocutionary act. The illocutionary act will be performed through the

communicative force of an utterance. People in communication might form an utterance to make

an offer, a request, a promise, or for some other communnicative purpose. Each utterance has

different kinds of illocutionary force. Searle in Yule (1996) divides the illocutionary acts into

five-part classification as follows:

a. Declaratives

The illocutionary point of declaration is that they have 'successful performance' that

brings about the correspondence between the propositional content and reality. It has both a word

to world and a world to word direction of fit, in which no psychological state is expressed, and in

which any proposition can occur. This type changes world through their utterances. Resigning,

dismissing, christening, naming, excommunicating, appointing, sentencing, etc are examples of

communicative forces in declarations.

 Moreover, Searle in Leech (1983) states that this type is a very special category of speech

act because they are performed, normally speaking, by someone who is especially authorized to

do so within some institutional framework. For instance, when the speaker which is a judge

produces an utterance “This court sentences you to nine years imprisonment!”, then the utterance

can put the person into prison. In this case, the judge has authority and power then uses it for

sentencing a person by his utterance Declaratives are illocutionary acts by which the speaker is

able to change the state of affair in the world via the utterances. The speaker has to have

institutional role in a specific context when employing these acts (Yule, 1996). Some

performative verbs indicating these speech acts are to beg, to pronounce, to sentence, to state, to

declare, to resign, to fire, and to appoint.

b. Representatives

Representative can also be called assertive. The illocutionary point of assertives is that

they commit speaker to the truth of the expressed proposition. In this case, the intention of

assertives is to make the words fit the world (of belief), in which a belief is expressed, and in

which any proposition can occur.This type state what the speaker believes to be the case or not.

Stating, suggesting, boasting, complaining, claiming, and reporting are examples of

communicative forces in assertives. Representatives or assertives are illocutionary acts that state

what speakers believe to be factual (true) or not (false). By using these acts, the speaker makes

words fit the world or belief (Yule, 1996). To describe, to call, to classify, to identify, to claim, to

diagnose, to hypothesize, to insist, to predict, and to boast are some performative verbs

indicating these types of acts

c. Expressives
 The illocutionary point of expressives is that they have the function of expressing, or

making known, the speaker's psychological attitude towards a state of affairs which the illocution

presupposes. It has no direction of fit, in which a wide range of psychological states can be

expressed, and in which the proposition ascribes a property or act to the speaker or the hearer.

This type states what the speaker feels. Thanking, congratulating, pardoning, blaming, praising,

condoling, etc are examples of communicative forces in expressives. For instance, when the

speaker says “Thank you so much for your generous gift!”, it means that the speaker expresses

his like which is

Expressives are illocutionary acts that state the speakers‟ feelings or attitudes about

something. These acts involve psychological states of the speakers. When performing these acts

the speakers makes words fit the worlds or feeling (Yule, 1996). Performative verbs denoting to

these illocutionary acts are to thank, congratulate, apologize, condole, deplore, and welcome.

d. Directives

The illocutionary point of directives is that they produce some effects through action by

the hearer. It has a world to word direction of fit, in which a wish is expressed, and in which the

proposition is a future act done by the hearer.In this case, speaker gets someone else to do

something. Directives express what the speaker wants. Ordering, commanding, requesting,

advising, and recommending are examples of communicative forces in directives. For instance,

when the speaker says “Why don't you spend less time watching TV?”, it may mean that the

speaker want the hearer not to watch TV all the time

Directives are illocutionary acts that the speakers use to get something done by the

hearers. These acts express what the speaker wants and the speakers attempts to make the world
fit the words via the hearer (Yule, 1996). Performative verbs denoting to this category are to ask,

order, command, request, beg, plead, pray, entreat, invite, permit, advise, dare, defy, and

challenge.

e. Commissives

The illocutionary point of commissives is that they commit the speaker (to a greater or

lesser degree) to some future action. It has a world to word direction of fit, in which an intention

is expressed, and in which the proposition is a future act done by the speaker. In this case,

speaker commits himself to do something. This type express what the speaker intends.

Promising, vowing, offering, are examples of communicative forces in commissives. For

instance, when the speaker says “I'll never leave you”, it means that the speaker commits himself

not to leave the hearer

Commissives are illocutionary acts used by the speakers to commit actions in future.

These acts express what the speaker intends to do. By means of comissives, the speakers

undertake to make the world fit with the words via the speaker (Yule, 1996). Some performative

verbs belong to these speech acts are to promise, to pledge, to offer, to threat, to refuse, and to

vow. To sum up, from the explanation above all the types of illocutionary acts with their general

functions are summarized in Table 2.1

Table 2.1: A Classification of illocutionary acts proposed by Searle

(adapted from Yule, 1996)

Based on the table above. It could be concluded that these classification gives the effect of the

word for the hearer as the sequence of the statements or utterances.

 Context

In a study about Implicature are found in particular conversation, it is important to know

about context in which utterances occur. Idamaningati (2013) asserts that context is dynamic,

not statistic concept. It is to be understood in the widest sense, as the surrounding, enabling the

participants in a conversation process to interact, and that makes the linguistics expression of

their interaction. In addition, context makes us to attend to how senders‟ and receiver‟ needs,

goals, and wants are personalized not just to the conventional meanings of prior text, but also

particular socially and culturally defined communicative situations

Yule (1983) stated that to be understood in the widest sense, as the surrounding, enabling the

participants in In linguistics, context become very importance in disambiguation of meanings as

well as in understanding the actual meaning of words. Therefore, understanding the context

becomes an important task in the area of applied linguistics, computational linguistics, lexical

semantics, cognitive linguistics, as well as in other areas of linguistics as context triggers

variation of meaning and supplies valuable information to understand why and how a particular

word varies in meaning when used in a piece of text. Everyone is familiar with contexts in
language. It is understood that there is hyperbole and some meaning in context. There are

several senses in which theories of meaning might be classified as contextual (Lyon, 1979).

Most words have more than one meaning. The meaning of a word is determined through its

contextual use; the words in the sentence that surround the word you are trying to define will

give you contextual clues to help you define the word‟s meaning. A word is defined within the

context of a sentence. It also suggested to pay attention to whether the word is used as a noun,

adjective, or adverb.

Furthermore Lyon stated meaning is to be regarded as a complex of contextual relations, and

phonetics, grammar, lexicology, and semantics each handles its own components of the complex

in its appropriate context" (Lyon in Firth, 1957). Contextualization can be looked at from two

points of view. It as the process whereby the native speaker of a language pro-duces contextually

appropriate and internally coherent utterances - a process which, as we have seen, involves a lot

more than knowledge of the language-system. It is also as a process which the linguist carries out

in his description of particular languages.

Context may be useful for new words that signify things (i.e., objects, actions, ideas,

feelings) we do know, but context will generally be far less useful in helping us learn new words

for things we do not know. From all definition the writer makes conclusion that the context is

how words and their meanings are connected to each other in a written work. And an utterances

produces implication of certain conversation within certain context. A concept about context

should be grab connection which only have characteristic of linguistics and should be maintained

to analysis of general condition when the language narrated (Cutting: 2002).

 As mentioned in the previously, context factors are important point in studies of speech

acts particularly in relation with discourse in study pragmatics (Cutting: 2002). In other words it

can be said that speech acts are context dependent since the context also influences the

illocutionary functions. Nunan (1993) states that “context refers to the situation giving rise to the

discourse and within which the discourse is embedded.”. From that statement, context is simply

defined as the circumstance or situation around which influences the conversation. Thus, it is an

essential factor in the interpretation of utterances and expressions.

Furthermore, Nunan (1993)) categorizes the context into two types: linguistic and

nonlinguistic context. The first one is related to the language surrounding the discourse, while

the second one is associated with the other-than language or experimental context within which

the discourse takes place. The non-linguistic context includes:

a) the types of communicative events (e.g.: joke, story, lecture, sermon, conversation, and

greeting);

b) the topic;

c) the purpose (function, e.g. stating, describing, thanking, and praising);

d) the setting (physical aspects, such as location and time, and psychological aspects: emotional

situation);

e) the participants and the relationship within them; and

f) the background knowledge and the assumption of the the participants.

Dell Hymes uses the acronym speaking to introduce the context in the use of language which is

often associated with communicative competences (Wardhaugh, 2006).

a) Setting and scene

Setting refers to the time and place or physical condition where the conversation takes place.

Meanwhile, scene refers to the abstract, psychological situation or cultural definition of an event

b) Participants

Participants refer to the various relationships of speaker-listener, addressor-addressee, or sender-

receiver. It includes social specified role in the choice of language, such as the levels of formality

and informality.

c) Ends

Ends refer to the expected outcomes or the purposes and the goals which are resulted in the

conversations.

d) Act sequence

Act sequence refers to the actual form and content of what is said, the utterances which are used

and how they are used, and the relationship of what is said to the actual topic.

e) Key

Key refers to the tone, manner, or spirit where the particular message is conveyed. It is also with

the nonverbal actions such as behavior, gesture, or posture.

f) Instrumentalities

Instrumentalities refer to the choice of channel used in the conversation, such as spoken

or written, as well as the choice of actual form of speech such as register, dialect, or code which

is chosen by the speakers.

g) Norms of interaction and interpretation

Norms of interaction and interpretation refers to the specific behaviors and properties

associated with the conversational exchange, such as the way to open the conversation in a

specific language which is related to its cultural aspects.

h) Genre

Genre refers to the forms or the types of utterances, such as poems, proverbs, jokes,

sermons, prayer, lectures, or editorials. Holmes (2001) also proposes that a conversation occurs

by the influence of social factors. Those social factors are commonly shortened as 5W (Who,

Whom, Where, What, and Why).

a) The participants (Who or Whom)

“Who is speaking? and To whom are they speaking? refer to the participants of the conversation

speaker and listener or addressor and addressee. It also includes the relationship occurring

between the participants.

B) The setting or social context (Where)

“Where are they speaking?‟ refers to the settings – physical or psychological contexts - around

the conversation. The physical aspect includes the location, time, season, and year. Meanwhile,

the psychological aspects involve the feeling of the speaker.

c) The topic (What)

“What is being talked about?‟ refers to the topic being discussed in the conversational exchange.

The understanding of the topic by the participants is necessary to maintain the conversation.
Consequently, the same background knowledge and assumption is a must for both the speaker

and the listener

d) The function (Why)

“Why they are speaking? refers to the purpose of conversation, such as informing, commanding,

inviting, suggesting, promising, greeting, congratulating, and thanking.

 Implicature theory

The concept of implicature was first introduced by Grice in the William James Lectures more

than 30 years ago (Grice 1967, 1989). There are some definitions of implicature. They are as

follows:

1. Anything is that is inferred from an utterance but that is not a condition for the truth of the

utterance.

2. An implicature is something meant, implied, or suggested distinct from what is said.

3. Implicature can be part of sentence meaning or dependent on conversational context, and can

be conventional or unconventional.

4. Is a matter of saying something but communicating something else instead something closely

related to what is said.

Grice (1989) said that implicature denotes either the act of meaning, implying, or

suggesting one thing by saying something else, or the object of that act. Implicatures can be part

of sentence meaning or dependent on conversational context, and can be conventional (in

different senses) or unconventional.

 Furthemore there are conversational implicatures which are according to Grice,

determined by the conventional meaning of the words used (Grice 1975 in Brown and Yule,

1983). Something more than just what the words mean called implicature. It is an additional

conveyed meaning (Yule, 1996).

Implicature is meaning that is not explicitly conveyed in what is said, but that can

nonetheless be inferred. For example, if Carol points out that Alice is not present, and Bill replies

that Alice has a cold, then there is an implicature that the cold is the reason, or at least a possible

reason for Alice’s absence; this is because Bill’s comment is not cooperative-does not contribute

to the conversation-unless his point is that Alice’s cold is or might be the reason for her absence.

Grice in Levinson (1985) classifies implicatures into two kinds, namely: conventional

and conversational implicatures. Conventional implicatures deal with the conventional features

of the words employed in the utterance. Conventional implicatures are non-truth-conditional

inferences that are not derived from super ordinate pragmatic principles like the maxims, but are

simply attached by convention to particular lexical items or expression (Levinson, 1985).

According to George Yule, these kinds of implicatures do not have to occur in

conversation, and they don’t depend on special context for their interpretation (Yule, 1996). He

also states that conventional implicatures are associated with specific words and result in

additional conveyed meanings when those words are used. ‘But’, ‘even’, ‘yet’ are the words

recognized having this kind of implicatures. Grice (in Levinson, 1985) states that the word ‘but’

has the same truth-conditional (or truth-functional) content as the word ‘and’ with an additional

conventional implicature to the effect that there is some contrast between the conjuncts. When

‘even’ is included in any sentence describing an event, there is an implicature of ‘contrary to

expectation’. While the conventional implicature of ‘yet’ is that the present situation is expected

to be different, or perhaps the opposite, of a later time

Meanwhile, conversational implicature is implicature which is derived from a general

principle of conversation plus a number of maxims which speaker will normally obey (Brown

and Yule, 1996). Unlike conventional implicature, conversational implicature depend on context

for their interpretation. In addition to implicature, when no special knowledge is required in the

context to calculate the additional conveyed meaning, it is called generalized conversational

implicature. It means that we do not need to analyze deeply what the speaker said, it is clear that

the utterance of the speaker can be understood by listener easily.

Based on the explanation above, it could be concluded that Pragmatics itself has several

main aspects such as deixis, reference, presupposition, speech acts, and implicature. One of that

pragmatic aspect is speech acts. Speech acts consist of three main topics: locutionary acts,

illocutionary acts, and perlocutionary acts. This research focuses on illocutionary acts performed

by the English teachers in teaching-learning process. Illocutionary acts are categorized into

declaratives, representatives or assertives, directives, expressives, and commissives. They are the

five types of illocutionary acts proposed by Searle (1979). Each of those acts consists of

illocutionary functions. Some of those functions here are declaring, describing, predicting,

agreeing, disagreeing, thanking, greeting, congratulating, sympathizing, apologizing,

commanding, requesting, suggesting, advising, inviting, warning, encouraging, promising,

offering, threatening, and refusing

Related previous studies

There has been related previous studies conducted by other researchers focusing on pragmatics

analysis especially in illocutionary act and implicature analysis. These related previous studies

are discussed below:

1. Kristanti, S. W. (2013) conducts a research about illocutionary act used by Najwa Shihab

in Mata Najwa. By focusing in one episode she observed the kinds of illocutionary act

spoken by Najwa Shihab as a strategy in interview. She uses descriptive qualitative

method with total sampling technique in collecting data in conducting this research.

Based on her research in Mata Najwa dialogues, Najwa Shihab used 3 kinds of

illocutionary act: directive, representative, and expressive. Each kind consist different

illocutionary force to interview her guests. Directive is using question, clarification, and

approval as the illocutionary force. Representative is using accusing and denying as the

illocutionary force. And expressive is use to expressing understanding. So the difference

is the research subject in which Kristanti using Najwa Shihab’s utterance while this

research using utterance produced by the students.

2. Kusumo, D. W. (2015) conduct research to find out types of illocutionary acts and its

function that are used by English Teachers of SMAN 1 Wates, Kulon Progo. He uses

descriptive qualitative method and note taking technique in conducting his research. To

analyze the data he uses interactive qualitative method, and coding system. As result,

there are four illocutionary act performed by the teacher in classroom communication:

representative, expressive, directive, and commissives. Directives appear the most and

commissives appear the fewest. In comparison to this graduating paper, in this graduating

paper researcher analyze the student’s comprehension in making utterances containing

IFIDs.
3. Faidhah, A. (2014) conduct a research to describe and divide illocutionary act of the

utterance in “Port Royal” novel by Linda Chaikin according to Searle’s classification of

illocutionary act. This research found 440 utterances in the novel. Representative is the

most dominant and among these representative utterances, informing is being used the

most. Based on this research the researcher then suggests that the novel can be used as an

authentic material in English Language Teaching especially teaching illocutionary act. In

comparison to this graduating paper, in this graduating paper researcher focus on

analyzing the students as the subject of the study, while Faidhah focused on analyzing

“Port Royal” Novel as the subject of study.

4. A pragmatic research titled Pragmatic Knowledge for Second Language Learners was

held by Margana in 2011. It discusses the implementations of several pragmatic aspects

which are important in Teaching English as Foreign Language. That study is conducted in

several secondary schools in Yogyakarta Regional Province. The researcher investigates

two aspects of pragmatics: lllocutionary acts and conversational implicature. The result is

that there are four types of illocutionary acts (representatives, directives, expressives, and

commissives) and two types of conversational implicature (generalized and particularized

implicature) used by the English teachers of secondary schools in Yogyakarta.

5. Iwan Khairi Yahya (2013) titled Tindak Tutur Direktif dalam Interaksi Belajar Mengajar

Mata Pelajaran Bahasa Indonesia di SMAN 1 Mlati, Sleman (Directive Speech Acts in

Indonesian Teaching-Learning Process in SMAN Mlati, Sleman) investigates the

directive speech acts used by the teachers of Indonesian language in the classroom

conversation. Using classifications of directive speech acts as proposed by Bach and

Harnish, the research results that the use of question in classroom discourse is the most
 dominant (315 out of 826) of other directive functions. The research reveals that the use

of questions in directive speech acts aims at raising the students‟ activeness in the

teaching and learning process

6. Another pragmatics research on language functions and speech acts in ELT is conducted

by Afsin Moradi, Alireza Karbalaei, and Shahram Afraz (2013) in their research entitled

A Textbook Evaluation of Speech Acts and Language Functions in High School English

Textbooks (I, II And III) and Interchange Series, Books I, II, And III. Using Searle‟s

classification of speech acts and Halliday‟s functional language, they compare the use of

speech acts in New Interchange and some Iranian English textbooks. Their research

results 1100 data containing speech acts, with 507 assertives as the dominant acts in New

Interchange. On the other hand, in Iranian English textbook for high school they found

275 speech acts, with 122 directives as the most frequent acts. This study implies that the

use of speech acts in Iranian high school textbook has not been implemented well

compared to the textbooks composed by the native speakers of English, New Interchange

I, II, and II.

While the following related previous studies deal with implicature analysis is presented as

follow:

1. Sheila‟s study is entitled “Conversational Implicature of The Presenters in Take Me Out

Indonesia”. She investigates a Reality show, because her research takes data from the

utterance by announcer and participant of Reality show. This study identified Implicature

that are flouted by announcer and the participant of that show and also types of each

implicature. He found 122 generalized conversational imlicature and 82 of Particuralized

conversational Implicature
2. The secon previous study by Gustawanti (2009) in his study “Violation of Cooperative

Principle Form and the Implicature Meaning of Conversation in the Discourse of Humor

“Epen Kah” Merauke Papua Communities: Overview of Pragmatics”. His study

described the type of violation of cooperative principle, the causes of the violation, and

the implicative meaning of the conversation in the humorous discourse of Merauke Papua

Community "Epen Kah". His study only discussed the word “Epen Kah” in the difference

conversation.

3. Harris Edyanto (2010) in his study “Implikatur Percakapan Tokoh Wanita dan Tokoh

Lakilaki dalam Film “Lari Dari Blora”Karya Akhlis Suryapati”. His study described the

violation of four cooperative principles by man and women characters in the movie and

the meaning of that implicature. In his study, he found 27 implicature, and many

violations happened in maxim quantity.