A Study of Speech Act Types in Conversations in New Interchange 1

Abstract
This research is launched to research adverb which is considered . Ten conversations of
different topics in the text book are chosen at random for data analysis. Searle’s (1976)
classification of speech acts is applied as the framework for data analysis with a combination
with Bach and Harnish’s (1979) framework and appropriate modification. The results show that
representatives, directives, and expressives are the most commonly-used single speech act types.
Also, the possibility for speech act combinations in an utterance is really high with various forms
of combination.

1. Introduction
Discourse analysis is a new linguistics field realized in studies of different
disciplines (Nguyen Hoa, 2003; Hoang Van Van, 2006; Ton Nu My Nhat, 2010 …). There
have been a wide variety of approaches to discourse analysis such as contextual analysis,
grammatical analysis, cohesion analysis, conversational analysis, and pragmatic approach.
Among them, pragmatic approach has proven to be so strong a discipline, of which speech
act studies have been conducted worldwide, contributing a great deal to the interpretation
and use of speech acts across cultures.
This research contributes a specific investigation into speech acts realized in
conversations in the text book New Interchange 1, written by Richards et al., first
published in 1997 and introduced to Vietnam in 2005. The reason for choosing the
textbook for my study lies in the fact that it is a popular textbook used to teach English for
communication in plenty of schools and English centres in Vietnam. Thus, a better insight
into the use and interpretation of speech acts in New Interchange 1 is expected to facilitate
teachers and students using it. Also, it provides the researcher with sufficient spoken data
necessary for a study of speech act types. Besides, no studies of speech acts have been
conducted with the data in the textbook, as far as the researcher knows.
2. A review of notion and classification of speech acts

First suggested by Austin (1962), speech acts are defined as actions performed via
language and can be analyzed in three levels: locutionary act, illocutionary act, and

1
 A Study of Speech Act Types in Conversations in New Interchange 1

perlocutionary act, with the first act being the production of a meaningful linguistic
utterance, the second the speaker’s meaning or intention via the utterance, and the last the
effect of that utterance on the hearer. Of the three levels, it is the illocutionary act that
counts because it conveys the speaker’s meaning (illocutionary force) which can be
realized in different language structures of various semantic meanings. It is for this reason
that Yule (1997: 52) claims, “‘speech act’ is generally interpreted quite narrowly to mean
only the illocutionary force of an utterance”.

Speech acts have been classified according to their functions (Austin, 1962; Searle,
1976; Bach and Harnish, 1979). One of the widely known and applicable classifications of
speech acts is suggested by Searle (1976) who classifies speech acts into declarations,
representatives, expressives, directives, and commissives which are, to some extent, in turn
similar to the terms effectives, constatives, acknowledgements, directives, and commisives
in Bach and Harnish’s classification (1979: 41). There are some differences in the two
ways of classification, however. For example, while Searle (1976) puts suggestions and
predictions in the categories of directives and commissives, Bach and Harnish (1979) put
both of them in constatives, the similar term to representatives by Searle.

Speech acts have also been classified into two broader categories, named: direct
and indirect speech acts by Yule (1997) and others, but it is not the focus of this research.

The classified categories of speech act can, however, be criticized for their limited
ability to cover all communicative functions, their analysis of out-of-context utterances
failing to reflect the correct illocutionary acts, and their exclusion of possibility for
combination of several illocutionary acts in one utterance Gajaseni (1994, in Yu, 1999: 15-
16).

3. Aim and objectives of the study

This study is conducted with the aim of examining speech acts in conversations in
New Interchange 1, with a focus on the following objectives:

2
 A Study of Speech Act Types in Conversations in New Interchange 1

- To examine specific speech act types in terms of occurrence frequency and

manifestation, according to Searle’s (1976) framework;
- To find out how much the investigated speech acts support the theoretical
framework in use.
4. Research methodology
This study is conducted with a combination of the quantitative and qualitative
approach in which the quantitative analysis helps the researcher find out the occurrence
frequency of the speech act types in the conversations under investigation, whereas the
qualitative analysis helps to bring a better insight into the manifestation of those speech
acts.
4.1. Sample of the study
The sample of the study comprises 10 conversations in the textbook New
Interchange 1. These conversations are chosen at random from the 32 conversations in
the 16 units of the text book, having a total of 86 turns and an average length of 70.7
words each (from 62 to 83 words) and covering a variety of topic areas, which is shown in
Table 1.

Table 1: Sample of the study

Conversation Number of Number of Number of Topic area

speakers turns words

1 2 11 72 Describing work
2 3 10 67 Shopping
3 2 9 75 Likes and dislikes
4 2 7 68 Invitations
5 2 7 62 Family
6 2 10 83 Describing exercise
7 2 8 73 On vacation
8 2 9 66 The neighborhood
9 2 8 72 Describing cities
10 2 7 69 Health problems
Total 86 707 10

3
 A Study of Speech Act Types in Conversations in New Interchange 1

4.2. Theoretical framework

The theoretical framework employed in the study is the one suggested by Searle
(1976) with a combination with the one by Bach and Harnish (1979). To be more exact,
Searle’s framework is in use with reference to Bach and Harnish for more specific sub-
types of speech acts. When there are differences in the two systems, Searle’s framework is
applied. However, it is modified a little bit to cover all the speech act manifestations in the
collected data. The modified framework is shown in Table 2.

Table 2: Speech act types (Adapted from Searle, 1976 and Bach and Harnish, 1979)

Single speech acts Combined

speech acts
Declarations Representatives Expressives Directives Commissives
Assertives Apologize Requestives Promises
Retrodictives Condole Questions Offers
Descritives Congratulate Commands Predictives
Ascriptives Greet Requirements
Informatives Thank Prohibitives
Confirmatives Bid Permissives
Concessives Accept Advisories
Retractives Reject Suggestives
Assentives
Dissentives
Disputatives
Responsives
Supportives

4.3. Data analysis

Data analysis is done both qualitatively and quantitatively with the statistic,
descriptive methods being employed. The unit of analysis is utterance existing in one
speaking turn and varying from one word to a phrase, a clause, a sentence, and a
combination of sentences. The illocutionary force is based on for the classification of
speech acts in the collected data

5. Results and discussion

As shown in Table 3, there are 54 single speech acts out of the 86 turns under

4
 A Study of Speech Act Types in Conversations in New Interchange 1

investigation, accounting for 62.8%. The combined group also appears quite frequently
with 32 combinations, making up 37.2%.

Table 3: Major groups of speech acts

Single speech acts Combined speech acts

N/86 % N/86 %

54/86 62.8% 32/86 37.2%

As regards the single speech act types which are described in Table 4, there are no
single declarations and commissives. While the absence of declarations can be predicted
because of their conventional characteristics in felicity conditions, it is a surprise that we
cannot find any commissives. Perhaps, it results from the limited source of the collected
data.

Representatives rank the first, at 32.6%, followed by directives and expressives, at

19.8% and 10.5%, respectively.

Representatives are realized in a variety of sub-speech acts in the framework such

as descritives (Ex 1), informatives (Ex 2), Responsives (Ex3), assentives (Ex4), and so on.

- Ex 1: It looks warmers. (Conversation 2)

- Ex 2: I work for Thomas Cook Travel. (Conversation 1)

- Ex 3: No, I haven’t. (Conversation 10)

- Ex 4: Yeah, you’re right. (Conversation 10)

Directives are the second most frequently-used single speech acts, most of which
can be noticed in questions (Ex 5, 6, 7) and one in commands (Ex 8).

- Ex 5: Where do you work, Andrea? (Conversation 1)

- Ex6: Do you like jazz, Tom? (Conversation 3)

5
 A Study of Speech Act Types in Conversations in New Interchange 1

- Ex 7: Uh, … how well do you play? (Conversation 6)

- Ex 8: Tell me about your brother and sister, Sue. (Conversation 5)

Expressives account for 10.5 %, being realized in the collected data when people
greet (Ex 9), accept thanks (Ex 10), thank (Ex 11), express likes (Ex 12), and so on.

- Ex 9: Hi Craig! How are you? (Conversation 10)

- Ex 10: You’re welcome. (Conversation 2)

- Ex 11: Thank you. (Conversation 8)

- Ex 12: I like the wool one better. (Conversation 2

Table 4: Single speech act types

Declarations Representatives Expressives Directives Commissives

N /86 % N/86 % N/86 % N/86 % N/86 %

0 0% 28 32.6% 9 10.5% 17 19.8% 0 0%

Returning now to combined speech acts, it can be seen in Table 5 that there are 5
combinations of speech acts realized in the collected data and abbreviated as Rep + Exp +
Dir, Dir + Rep, Exp + Dir, Exp + Rep, and Rep + Com.

Table 5: Combined speech act types

Rep + Exp + Dir Dir + Rep Exp + Dir Exp + Rep Rep + Com

N/86 % N/86 % N/86 % N/86 % N/86 %

3 3.5% 12 14% 10 11.6 6 7% 1 1.2%

As is shown in Table 5, the highest percentage of the combined group, 14%, goes
to Dir + Rep, followed by Exp + Dir at 11.6%, Exp + Rep at 7%, and Rep + Exp + Dir

6
 A Study of Speech Act Types in Conversations in New Interchange 1

3.5 %. Rep + Dir just accounts for a small percentage of 1.2%, with only one
representative.

To be more specific, the 14% of Dir + Rep (also used to mean Rep + Dir),
representing the combination of directives and representatives, are illustrated with
different sub-speech acts of each type, as can be seen in Ex 13, Ex 14, and Ex 15.

- Ex 13: It’s $ 499. Would you like to try it on? ([Rep + Dir], Conversation 2)

- Ex 14: Look! These jackets are nice. Which one do you like better? ([Dir + Rep
+Dir], Conversation 2)

- Ex 15: I have two tickets to the Phantom of the Opera on Friday night. Would
you like to go? ([Rep + Dir], Conversation 4)

Ex 16 and Ex 17 below are given for the demonstration of the second combined
group, Exp + Dir (referring to combinations of expressives and directives), accounting for
11.6%. “Really?” in Ex 17 is in the structure of a question, but I do not put in the group of
directives but expressives because based on the illocutionary force of the utterance in that
context, it is used to express a surprise.

- Ex 16: Thanks. I’d love to. What time is the show? ([Exp + Dir], Conversation 4)

- Ex 17: Really? Why? ([Exp + Dir], Conversation 2)

Following are some examples to illustrate other combined groups, including Exp +
Rep meaning combinations between expressives and representatives (Ex 18, Ex 19), Rep
+ Exp + Dir for combinations of representatives, expressives and directives (Ex 20, Ex
21), and Rep + Com for combinations between representatives and commissives (Ex 22).

- Ex 18: Well, I prefer the leather one. It’s more attractive than the wool one.
([Exp + Rep], Conversation 2)

- Ex 19: It was terrific. I really enjoyed it. ([Rep + Exp], Conversation 7)

- Ex 20: Yes, it’s a great job. And I love it. What do you do? ([Rep + Exp + Dir],

7
 A Study of Speech Act Types in Conversations in New Interchange 1

Conversation 1)

- Ex 21: The Cranberies. I love their music. How about you? Do you like them?
([Rep + Exp + Dir], Conversation 3)

- Ex 22: No problem, Rod. I won’t play too hard. ([Rep + Com], Conversation 6).

6. Summary

This present study on speech acts in conversations in New Interchange 1 has

analyzed speech act types in two major categories, namely single speech acts and
combined speech acts. The single group is further divided into five types based on Searle’s
classification, including declarations, representatives, expressives, directives, and
commissives. The combined group is suggested by the researcher herself based on the
practice of her collected data. This group also comprises five types, named: Rep + Exp +
Dir, Dir + Rep, Exp + Dir, Exp + Rep, and Rep + Com. Following are the concluding
remarks of the study.

 The most frequently-used single speech act type is representatives, followed by

directives and expressives.

 The representatives and expressives are realized with various sub-speech acts,
whereas the directives are mainly in the forms of question.

 The possibility for combinations of speech acts is really high (37.2%).

 There are various ways for speech act combination, of which the most possible
ones are Dir + Rep, Exp + Dir, and Exp +Rep.

7. Implications

The results of this study can help to suggest the following implications:

 In teaching English, the analysis of speech act types can help teachers have a
better insight into their use and interpretation of speech acts, thus improving
their quality of teaching. Teachers are, hence, expected to study speech act types

8
 A Study of Speech Act Types in Conversations in New Interchange 1

and do similar research to better their teaching.

 In doing research of speech act types, it is the illocutionary force that must be
based on for the appropriate classification.

 The possibility for speech act combinations is really high and needs to be taken
into consideration for any research of this type.

9
 A Study of Speech Act Types in Conversations in New Interchange 1

References

Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. New York: Oxford University Press.
Bach, K. and Harnish, R. (1979). Linguistic communication and speech acts. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Hoang Van Van (2006). Introducing discourse analysis. Hanoi: Hanoi Open
University
Nguyễn Hòa (2003). Phân tích diễn ngôn: Một số vấn đề lý luận và phương pháp. Hà Nội : Nxb
ĐHQH Hà Nội.
Richards, J. C. et al. (2005). New Interchange: English for International Communication (Book
1). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Searle, J. R. (1976). The classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society 5, pp. 1-23.
Ton Nu My Nhat (2010). An introduction to discourse analysis. Quy Nhon: Quy Nhon University.
Yu, M. C. (1999). Cross-cultural and interlanguage pragmatics: Developing communicative
competence in a second language, PhD. Dissertation. Harvard: Harvard University.
Yule, G. (1997). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

10
 A Study of Speech Act Types in Conversations in New Interchange 1

Appendix: Raw Data – 10 conversations in New Interchange 1, by

Richards, J. C. et al., Cambridge University Press, 2005.

Conversation 1 – Describing work, p.9

Jason: Where do you work, Andrea? [Dir]

Andrea: I work for Thomas Cook Travel. [Rep]
Jason: Oh, really? What do you do there? [Exp + Dir]
Andrea: I’m a guide. I take people on tours to countries in South America, like Peru. [Rep]
Jason: That sounds interesting! [Exp]
Andrea: Yes, it’s a great job. And I love it. What do you do? [Rep + Exp + Dir]
Jason: I’m a student, and I have a part-time job, too. [Rep]
Andrea: Oh, where do you work? [Dir]
Jason: In a fast-food restaurant. [Rep]
Andrea: Which restaurant? [Dir]
Jason: Hamburger Heaven [Rep]

Conversation 2 – Shopping, p. 17
Anne: Look! These jackets are nice. Which one do you like better? [Dir + Rep]
Sue: I like the wool one better. [Exp]
Anne: Really? Why? [Exp + Dir]
Sue: It looks warmer. [Rep]
Anne: Well, I prefer the leather one. It's more attractive than the wool one. [Exp + Rep]
Sue: Hmm. There's no price tag. [Rep]
Anne: Excuse me. How much is this jacket? [Exp + Dir]
Clerk: It's $ 499. Would you like to try it on? [Rep + Dir]
Anne: Oh, no. That's OK! But thank you anyway. [Rep + Exp]
Clerk: You're welcome. [Exp]

Conversation 3 – Likes and dislikes, p. 21

Liz: Do you like jazz, Tom? [Dir]
Tom: No, I don’t like it very much. Do you? [Exp + Dir]
Liz: Well, yes, I do. I’m a real fan of Wynton Marsalis. [Rep]
Tom: Oh, does he play the piano? [Dir]
Liz: No, he doesn’t! He plays the trumpet. So, what kind of music do you like? [Rep +
Dir]
Tom: I like rock a lot. [Exp]
Liz: Who’s your favorite group? [Dir]
Tom: The Cranberries. I love their music. How about you? Do you like them? [Rep +
Exp + Dir]
Liz: No, I don’t. I can’t stand them. [Rep + Exp]

11
 A Study of Speech Act Types in Conversations in New Interchange 1

Conversation 4 – Invitations, p. 23
Dave: I have tickets to The Phantom of the Opera on Friday night. Would you like to go?
[Rep + Dir]
Susan: Thanks. I'd love to. What time is the show? [Exp + Dir]
Dave: It's at 8:00. [Rep]
Susan: That sounds great. So, do you want to meet at the theater? [Exp + Dir]
Dave: Uh, I'd like to, but I have to work late. [Exp + Dir]
Susan: Oh, that's OK. Let's just meet at the theater before the show, around 7:30. [Rep +
Dir]
Dave: That sounds fine. [Rep]

Conversation 5 – Family, p. 29
Rita: Tell me about your brother and sister, Sue. [Dir]
Sue: Well, my sister is a lawyer. [Rep]
Rita: Really? Does she live here in Seattle? [Exp + Dir]
Sue: Yes, she does. But she’s working in Washington DC, right now. Her job is top
secret. [Rep]
Rita: Wow! And what does your brother do? [Exp + Dir]
Sue: He’s a painter. He’s working in Argentina this month. He has an exhibition there.
[Rep]
Rita: What an interesting family! [Exp]

Conversation 6 – Describing exercise, p. 37

Rod: You are in great shape, Keith. Do you work out at a gym? [Rep + Dir]
Keith: Yeah, I do. I guess I’m a real fitness freak. [Rep]
Rod: So, how often do you work out? [Dir]
Keith: Well, I do aerobics everyday after work. And then I play racquetball. [Rep]
Rod: Say, I like racquetball, too. [Exp]
Keith: Oh, do you want to play sometime? [Dir]
Rod: Uh, . . . how well do you play? [Dir]
Keith: Pretty well, I guess. [Rep]
Rod: Well, all right. But I’m not very good. [Rep]
Keith: No problem, Rod. I won’t play too hard. [Rep + Com]

Conversation 7 – On vacation, p. 43
Mike: Hi, Celia. How was your trip to the United States? [Exp + Dir]
Celia: It was terrific. I really enjoyed it. [Rep + Exp]
Mike: Great. How long were you away? [Rep + Dir]
Celia: I was there for about three weeks. [Rep]
Mike: That's a long time! Was the weather OK? [Rep + Dir]
Celia: Yes, most of the time. But it snowed a lot in Chicago. [Rep]
Mike: So, what was the best thing about your trip? [Dir]
Celia: Oh, that's difficult to say. But I guess I like Nashville the best. [Rep + Exp]

12
 A Study of Speech Act Types in Conversations in New Interchange 1

Conversation 8 – The neighborhood, p. 47

Jack: Excuse me. I’m your new neighbor, Jack. I just moved in. [Exp + Rep]
Woman: Oh. Yes? [Dir]
Jack: I’m looking for a grocery store. Are there any around here? [Rep + Dir]
Woman: Yes, there are some on Pine Street. [Rep]
Jack: OK. And is there a laundromat near hear? [Rep + Dir]
Woman: Well, I think there’s one across from the shopping center. [Rep]
Jack: Thank you. [Exp]
Woman: By the way, there’s a barber shop in the shopping centre, too. [Dir]
Jack: A barber shop? [Exp]

Conversation 9– Describing cities, p. 66

Linda: Where in Canada are you from, Ken? [Dir]
Ken: I’m from Toronto. [Rep]
Linda: Oh, I’ve never been there. What’s it like? [Rep + Dir]
Ken: It’s a fairly big city, but it’s not too big. The nightlife is good, too. [Rep]
Linda: Is it expensive there? [Dir]
Ken: No, it’s not too bad. [Rep]
Linda: And what’s the weather like in Toronto? [Dir]
Ken: Well, it’s pretty cold in the winter, and very hot and humid in the summer. It’s nice
in the spring and fall, though. [Rep]

Conversation 10 – Health problems, p. 72

Joan: Hi, Craig! How are you? [Exp]
Craig: Not so good. I have a cold. [Rep]
Joan: Really? That's too bad! You should be at home in bed. It's really important to get a
lot of rest. [Exp + Dir + Pre]
Craig: Yeah, you're right. [Rep]
Joan: And have you taken anything for it? [Dir]
Craig: No, I haven't. [Rep]
Joan: Well, it's helpful to chop up some garlic and cook it in chicken stock. Then drink a
cup every half hour. It really works. [Rep + Dir]

13