The context is A and B are close friends and A knows well that B does not like red colour
Stating that “Red id red” in 7 is apparently both too informative since people already know that red is red and not informative enough because B does not directly answer the question of A.
There may be some interpretations gained by anyone when hearing B’s answer, but since the context is A knows that really does not like red, then B has given the answer of the question.
Thus, A understands that B does not like the colour they are talking about. B does not say that shehe does not like the colour but shehe impies it.
For another example: 8
A: “We’re going to the movie, are you going with us tonight?” B: “My parents are visiting tonight.”
The context is that A and B are good friends and A knows that B rarely meets herhis parents who live out of the town.
In 8, B’s answer is not related with the question of A, because there is not any relationship between the movie and B’s parents. However, since there is a shared knowledge between A and
B , then B has actually answered A’s question. A know that seldom meets her parents living out of the town, so A must understand that B is not going with A because B must want to spend the
night with herhis family. B does not say that she is not going to the movie with the other, but she implies it.
2.2 Speech Acts
Many linguist made their own certain classification of speech act based on careful examination. Not many differences but bring some significance. The first linguist who defined the
classification was Austin. Austin 1962 distinguish between five classes by which all performative speech acts could be classified according to what it is that the act of uttering is
meant to achieve. So, in essence, Austin set limitations as to the number of possible performative utterance types. These utterance types were Verdictives, Exercitives, Commisives, Behabitives,
and Expositives. Searle 1962, one of Austin’s students who also studied language, goes further than Austin in
providing not only the needed general framework for a theory of speech acts but also a richer specification of the detailed structures of speech acts themselves. .
2.2.1 Types of Speech Act
In this thesis, types of speech act arebased on Searle explanation. The types of speech act are:
A. Locution
Locution a figure of speech a use of a word that diverges from its usual meaning, or a phrase with a specialized meaning not based on the literal meaning of the words in it such as
a metaphor, simile, or personification
Speech Acts locutions is a speech act that states something in the sense of saying or speech acts in the form of sentences that are meaningful and understandable . For example , the teacher told
me that I should help him . Searle calls this speech act locutions dngan term follow- language prepositions because this speech act is only concerned with meaning .
B. Illocution
Illocutionary act is a term in linguistics
introduced by the philosopher John Austin
in his investigation of the various aspects of
speech act .I llocution in society it is very affordable
because it can change people’s point of view, mindset, and even reaction of something that they never think before.
Related with the nation of illocutionary acts is the nation of the consequences or the effects, such acts have the effects on the action, thought, believes of the hearers.
Here is Searles classification for types of illocutions: •
Assertive E.g. stating, claiming, hypothesizing, describing, telling, insisting,
suggesting, asserting, or swearing that something is the case : an illocutionary act that represents a state of affairs.
• Directive
• : an illocutionary act for getting the addressee to do something.
E.g. ordering, commanding, daring, defying, challenging. Commissive
E.g. promising, threatening, intending, vowing to do or to refrain from doing something : an illocutionary act for getting the speaker i.e. the one performing the
speech act to do something.
• Expressive
E.g. congratulating, thanking, deploring, condoling, welcoming, apologizing : an illocutionary act that expresses the mental state of the speaker about an
event presumed to be true.
• Declaration
E.g. blessing, declaring, baptizing, bidding, passing sentence, excommunicating : an illocutionary act that brings into existence the state of affairs to which it
refers.
C. Perlocution
A perlocutionary act or perlocutionary effect is a speech act, as viewed at the level of its psychological consequences, such as persuading, convincing, scaring, enlightening, inspiring, or
otherwise getting someone to do or realize something. This is contrasted with locutionary and illocutionary acts which are other levels of description, rather than different types of speech
acts. Austin 1992 characterizes perlocutionary acts as an acts performed by uttering something; acts
that produces certain effects on the hearer, acts that involving the effects of other acts. Unlike the notion of locutionary act, which describes the linguistic function of an utterance, a
perlocutionary effect is in some sense external to the performance. It may be thought of, in a sense, as the effect of the illocutionary act via the locutionary act. Therefore, when examining
perlocutionary acts, the effect on the hearer or reader is emphasized. As an example, consider the following utterance: By the way, I have a CD of Debussy; would
you like to borrow it? Its illocutionary function intended might be to impress the listener, or to show a friendly attitude, or to encourage an interest in a particular type of music.
In his 1992 study, Hitler: The Führer and the People, J. P. Stern, a professor of German literature, describes the early speeches of Adolf Hitler as perlocutionary acts of propaganda.
Based on that, we can get a conclusion that locution, illocution, and perlocution are the point of view and mindset changing of publics for the idea that our bring linguistically.
2.3 Advertisements
