performative verb mentioned here but the illocutionary force indicating device in the utterance operated on the propositional content that indicates the
direction of fit; make the world fit word. By uttering those utterances, she intended to carry future actions.
Moreover, the felicity conditions employed here were also the factor that constituted making promise. Content conditions, preparatory conditions,
sincerity condition, and essential conditions were utilized by the teacher. With regard to content conditions, the teacher predicated that she would
undertake future act; correcting the student’s writing and giving feedback. Related to preparatory conditions, she assumed that she was able to perform
the act she promised. By employing sincerity condition, she genuinely intended to fulfill her promise. Meanwhile, by using essential condition, she
attempted to create an obligation to carry out what she was promised. The teacher also performed the act of promising in the subsequent
utterances:
The instance above shows that the teacher produced the act of promising. In this case, she promised to her students that she would ask the English word
for peminatan if she met some English teachers from province. The act of promising was typified by the use declarative mood with future tense. The
S: Ma’am, how about special English? T: We don’t know because in outside there is no peminatan. I think
they only have English. I don’t know. There are some special terms for English in Indonesia especially in curriculum 2013.
Later, I will ask if I meet some English teachers from province. I will ask.
M-16923:17-23:40
future tense can be identified from the auxiliary verb or modal “will”. She also stressed her promise by saying the expression “I will ask” twice. It
means that the teacher truly intended to carry an obligation to do something in the near future. Similar to the previous instances, the preparatory
condition, content condition, sincerity condition and essential condition were also utilized by her.
3 Granting
The purpose of granting is to give or allow someone something. Granting usually deals with accepting requests. Here is an example of granting:
One of the students named Angel asked the teacher whether they could use dictionary or not during the activity. The teacher let the students use the
dictionary for writing section by saying “yes”. However, the teacher only allowed the students to use their own dictionary. The students were not
allowed to use their friends’ dictionary. The teacher’s utterance falls into the category of commissives with the illocutionary force of granting. Granting
belongs to commissives since it shows one’s commitment to some future action. By saying that utterance, the teacher committed herself to let the
students use the dictionary during the activity. S: Ma’am, can we use dictionary?
T: Yes. For now you can but your own dictionary.
M-16019:00-19:04
115
CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND SUGGESTIONS
This chapter consists of three parts; conclusions, implications and suggestions. Conclusions are concerned with the summary of the research
findings. Implications provide some implications related to the objectives of the study. Meanwhile, suggestions section is presented to offer some suggestions for
linguistic students, teachers and other researchers.
A. Conclusions
Dealing with the objective of this study, which is to identify the types of Searle’s speech acts in terms of illocutionary acts and illocutionary forces, there
were four types of speech acts employed by the English teacher of X IBB Ilmu Budaya dan Bahasa at SMA N 1 Purworejo. They were representatives,
directives, commisives, and expressives. Regarding the illocutionary forces, they occurred in the form of
confirming, correcting, agreeing, explaining, disagreeing, informing, stating and predicting for representatives, questioning, reminding, warning suggesting,
requesting and ordering for directives, greeting, stating anger, stating annoyance, stating disappointment, apologizing, stating pleasure, stating goodbye or leave-
taking, wishing, thanking, complimenting and stating surprise for expressives, offering, promising and granting for commissives.
Directives were found to be the most performed speech acts by the teacher during the four meetings of English teaching and learning activities which
occurred in 440 utterances 62.77. On the other hand, commissives appeared to
be the least speech acts used by the teacher which only occurred in 7 utterances 0.99.
Directives were used by the teacher to get the students to undertake some actions. Asking or questioning became the most dominant illocutionary force of
directives produced by the teacher which was realized in 286 instances 65.00. The frequent use of directives indicates that the teacher seemed to be aware of her
status as a teacher which was believed to be more powerful than her students. In such restricted context like classroom setting, it is common that the teacher’s
status is higher than her students since the relation between them is inherently asymmetrical. It was through directives the teachers exerted her power over the
students.
B. Implications
Based on theconclusion, the teacher mostly performed directive acts withthe illocutionary force of questioning 65.00. The production of directives
is central to keep the activity proceedings under control. Thus, directives can be applied in the teaching and learning process to manage and control the activities
and the students during the teaching and learning process.
Regarding the illocutionary force of questioning, it is aimed to ask certain information from the students. The teacher’s use of questioning allowed the
students to participate more actively in the lesson. It is also beneficial to check the students’ knowledge or comprehension as well as to promote the students’ critical
thinking. It implies that questioning should be employed by the teacher during
classroom communication practice. However, it is advisable for the teacher to pose more open questions instead of display questions.
Furthermore, the teacher’s speech acts are central in the teaching and learning process since through the teachers’ speech acts, the students learn how
the language should be used. By familiarizing themselves with speech acts, they are also able to comprehend and acknowledge the illocutionary force carried by
the teacher. It implies that the teacher’s production of speech acts should be retained in the classroom. However, the teacher needs to do that wisely. The
students should be given more opportunity to practice the target language so that they are not only apt in recognizing the speech acts but also in producing the
language.
C. Suggestions
Based on the conclusions and the implications, some suggestions are proposed to the following parties:
1. To linguistic students
The linguistic students are expected to learn and explore more about pragmatics especially on the study of speech acts. By understanding speech acts,
the students will be more aware of how the language is actually being used. Thus, the students can avoid misunderstanding or misconceptions in interpreting the
speakers’ intended messages. 2.
To English teachers This research is expected to give English teachers an insight about
language teaching especially on the language phenomena related to speech acts. It
is advisable for English teachers to use English optimally and teach the students the importance of pragmatics so that the students are aware of how language
should be used. It does not mean that teachers should teach pragmatics as a science. Instead, teachers are suggested to incorporate various learning activities
that can promote the students’ pragmatic awareness as well as develop their communicative competence. The teachers should also consider giving students
more opportunities to engage them in the classroom interaction. 3.
To other researchers The objective of this research is limited only to identify the types of
Searle’s speech acts performed by the teacher with focus on its illocutionary acts and illocutionary forces, and its contribution to the English teaching and learning
process. Therefore, it is expected that the limitation of this research will encourage other researchers who wish to carry out similar study to investigate
more about other aspects of pragmatics such as perlocutionary acts, implicature and politeness. It is also suggested to enlarge the study by investigating the
students’ speech acts since the present study has not explored it yet. Moreover, if it is possible, it is recommended to get genuine data so that the study will appear
to be more natural.
REFERENCES
Aitchison, J. 2003. Teach Yourself Linguistics. London: Hodder Headline. Bogdan, R. C., Biklen, S. K. 1982. Qualitative Research for Education: An
Introduction to Theory and Methods. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Brown, H.D. 2000.Principles of Language Learning and Teaching 4
th
Edition. New York: Pearson Education.
Brown, G., Yule, G. 1983. Discourse Analysis.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cazden, C.B. 1988. Classroom Discourse: The Language of Teaching and Learning. Portsmouth: Heinemann.
Celce-Murcia, M. 2000.Discourse and Context in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cruse, A. 2006.A Glossary of Semantics and Pragmatics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press Ltd.
Cutting, J. 2002.Pragmatics and Discourse: A Resource Book for Students. London and New York: Routledge.
Ellis, R. 2003. Task-based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Given, L.M. 2008.The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods Volumes 12. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Griffiths, P. 2006. An Introduction to English Semantics and Pragmatics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press Ltd.
Harmer, J. 2001.The Practice of English Language Teaching 3
rd
Edition.Edinburgh: Pearson Edu Limited. Holmes, J. 1992. An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. London: Longman Group
UK Limited. Kothari, C.R. 2004. Research Methodology: Methods and Techniques 2
nd
Revised Edition. New Delhi: New Age International. Leech, G. N. 1983.Principle of Pragmatics. London: Longman.
Levinson, S. C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
