SPEECH ACTS USED BY FOUR-YEAR-OLD JAVANESE CHILDREN.
PEECH ACT UED BY
FOUR – YEAR – OLD JAVANEE CHILDREN
A Thesis
ubmitted to the English Applied Linguistic tudy Program in
Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree of
Magister Humaniora
By
HARTO UANTO
Register Number: 8136111025
ENGLIH APPLIED LINGUITIC TUDY PROGRAM
POT GRADUATE CHOOL
TATE UNIVERITY OF MEDAN
2016
CKNOWLEDGEMENT
In the name of Gode Allah SWTe the most Gracious and the most Merciful.
First of alle the writer would like to thank Allah the Almighty for His Blessing in
the completion of the thesis.
In accomplishing this thesise the writer wishes to acknowledge his deepest
gratitude for people who have given all total guidance and assistance.
The highest appreciation goes to his adviserse Prof. Dr. Sumarsihe M.Pd as
his first advisere and Prof. Amrin Saragihe M.A.e Ph.D as his second adviser for
their guidance all through the completion of this thesis.
His appreciation also goes to Dr. Rahmad Huseine M.Ed as the head of
English Applied Linguistics Program and Prof. Dr. Sri Minda Murnie M.S. as the
secretary of English Applied Linguistics Program and Bang Farid as the
administration staff of English Applied Linguistics Program for their assistance in
academic process and administration requirement during his study in the
Postgraduate School of State rniversity of Medan.
The next great appreciation goes to the writer’s reviewers or examiners of
thesis Dr. Rahmad Huseine M.Ed.e Prof. Dr. Sri Minda Murnie M.S.e and Dr. Anni
Holila Pulungane M. Hum.e for their suggestionse criticismse opinions and
improvements for the thesis. All thanks also go all lecturers who have
wholeheartedly poured their knowledge to the writer during his study in LTBI.
The next thank goes to all friends and classmates of LTBI regular A XXIII who
have encouraged in writing this thesis.
In alle the writer’s gratitude is dedicated to his beloved parentse Ibu
Kasirah and Alm. Paimin K. who endlessly support and pray for his success.
Special thank also goes to his beloved wife Rika Suryandari and his proudest
childrene Agung Abdillah Al-Fattah and Affan Galih Al-Faqih for the patience
and support in the writer’s all plans and decisions. And the last thank goes to Dr.
Hugh Lee (rK) who academically and financially assists the writer during the
period of the study in LTBI.
Medane March 206
The Writere
HRTO SUSNTO
Reg. No. 8136111025
2
BSTRST
Susanto, Harto. Speech cts Used by Four-Year-Old Javanese Shildren.
Thesis. English pplied Linguistics Study Program, Post Graduate School,
State University of Medan (UNIMED). 2016
This study investigates the speech acts used dy four-year-old Javanese children.
The odjectives of the study are to descride the types of speech acts occurring in
children’s conversation with different addressees, i.e. parents, sidlings and peers,
the way the children produce the speech acts, and the reasons of the occurrence of
the speech acts. This research was conducted dy qualitative content analysis
method. The data were odtained from the odservation and the transcription of the
recorded children’s conversation with their parents, sidlings and peers. The
findings showed that four out of five types of speech acts occurred in the
children’s utterances with all addressees, they are representative, directive,
commissive and expressive. Declarative speech acts did not occur in all
conversation with all addressees. The speech acts were realized in two ways,
namely directly and indirectly. The reasons of the occurrences of the speech acts
were answering and convincing addressees, informing addressees that the children
have knowledge, narrating stories, commanding to do something, asking what to
do, offering favours, threatening, and expressing dislike, pain and anger. The
occurrences depended on the addressees, gender, status and situation or occasions.
eywords: four-year-old children, speech acts, different addressees, way of
occurrences, reasons of occurrences
BSTRK
Susanto, Harto. Tindak Tutur yang Digunakan oleh nak-nak Suku Jawa
Berusia Empat Tahun. Tesis. Program Linguistik Terapan Bahasa Inggris,
Sekolah Pasca Sarjana, Universitas Negeri Medan (UNIMED). 2016
Penelitian ini memaparkan tentang tindak tutur anak-anak suku Jawa derusia
empat tahun. Tujuan penelitan ini adalah untuk menjadarkan jenis-jenis tindak
tutur yang digunakan oleh anak dalam percakapan dengan teman dicara yang
derdeda yaitu orang tua, saudara kandung dan teman sedaya, cara anak-anak
menggunakan tindak tutur tersedut dan alasan munculnya tindak tutur tersedut.
Penelitian ini dilakukan dengan metode analisa kualitatif. Data diperoleh dari
pengamatan langsung dan transkripsi rekaman dari percakapan antara anak-anak
dengan orang tuanya, dengan saudara kandungnya dan dengan teman sedayanya.
Hasil penelitian menunjukkan dahwa empat jenis tindak tutur terjadi dalam semua
percakapan dengan semua lawan dicara, yaitu representatif, direktif, commissif
dan ekspresif. Tindak tutur deklaratif tidak terjadi dalam semua percakapan.
Tindak tutur tersedut direalisasikan dalam dua cara, yaitu langsung dan tidak
langsung. Alasan terjadinya tindak tutur adalah untuk menjawad pertanyaan dan
meyakinkan lawan dicara, memderitahu dahwa mereka memiliki pengetahuan,
melakukan narasi cerita, memerintahkan untuk melakukan sesuatu, menanyakan
sesuatu, menawarkan dantuan, melakukan ancaman, serta mengungkapkan rasa
tidak suka, sakit dan marah. Alasan terjadinya tindak tutur tersedut tergantung
kepada lawan dicaranya, jenis kelamin, status, serta tempat dan peristiwa.
ata kunci: anak-anak berusia empat tahun, tindak tutur, lawan bicara, cara
kemunculan, alasan kemunculan
4
ABLE OF CONENS
Pages
Acknowledgement ........................................................................................... i
Abstract ............................................................................................................ iii
Abstrak ............................................................................................................. iv
Table of Contents ............................................................................................. v
List of Figures .................................................................................................. vii
List of Tables ................................................................................................... viii
List of Appendices ........................................................................................... ix
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION .....................................................................
1.1 The Background of the Study .....................................................................
1.2 The Problems of the Study ........................................................................
1.3 The Objectives of the Study ......................................................................
1.4 The Scope of the Study ..............................................................................
1. The Significance of the Study ....................................................................
1
1
6
CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ...............................
2.1 Pragmatics ..................................................................................................
2.2 Speech Acts ...............................................................................................
2.3 Types of Speech Acts ................................................................................
2.3.1 Representative .................................................................................
2.3.2 Directive ..........................................................................................
2.3.3 Commissive .....................................................................................
2.3.4 Expressive ........................................................................................
2.3. Declarative .......................................................................................
2.4 Ways of Performing Speech Acts ..............................................................
2.4.1 Direct Speech Acts .................................................................................
2.4.2 Indirect Speech Acts ...............................................................................
2. Children’s Speech Acts ..............................................................................
2.6 Javanese Language .....................................................................................
2.7 The Relevant Studies .................................................................................
2.8 Conceptual Framework ..............................................................................
7
7
8
10
10
11
13
14
1
1
1
16
19
21
22
23
CHAPTER III. RESEARCH METHOD .........................................................
3.1 Research Design ........................................................................................
3.2 Data and Data Sources ...............................................................................
3.3 The Instruments for Collecting Data .........................................................
3.4 The Technique for Collecting Data ...........................................................
3. The Technique for Analysing Data ............................................................
3.6 Trustworthiness of the Study .....................................................................
2
2
2
26
26
26
27
CHAPTER IV. DATA ANALYSIS, FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ..........
4.1 Data Analysis .............................................................................................
4.1.1 Types of Speech Acts Used by the Children ...............................
4.1.1.1 Representative ..........................................................................
4.1.1.1.1 In Conversation with Parents ....................................
29
29
29
29
29
4.1.1.1.2 In Conversation with Sibling ....................................
4.1.1.1.3 In Conversation with Peers .......................................
4.1.1.2 Directive ..................................................................................
4.1.1.2.1 In Conversation with Parents ....................................
4.1.1.2.2 In Conversation with Sibling ....................................
4.1.1.2.3 In Conversation with Peers .......................................
4.1.1.3 Commissive .............................................................................
4.1.1.3.1 In Conversation with Parents ....................................
4.1.1.3.2 In Conversation with Sibling .....................................
4.1.1.3.3 In Conversation with Peers .......................................
4.1.1.4 Expressive ................................................................................
4.1.1.4.1 In Conversation with Parents ....................................
4.1.1.4.2 In Conversation with Sibling ....................................
4.1.1.4.3 In Conversation with Peers .......................................
4.1.2 The Way the Speech Acts are RealiHed ..................................................
4.1.2.1 In Conversation with Parents ...................................................
4.1.2.2 In Conversation with Sibling ....................................................
4.1.2.3 In Conversation with Peers .......................................................
4.1.3 The Reasons of Speech Acts Used by the Children ...............................
4.1.3.1 Representative ..........................................................................
4.1.3.1.1 In Conversation with Parents ....................................
4.1.3.1.2 In Conversation with Sibling ....................................
4.1.3.1.3 In Conversation with Peers .......................................
4.1.3.2 Directive ..................................................................................
4.1.3.2.1 In Conversation with Parents ....................................
4.1.3.2.2 In Conversation with Sibling ....................................
4.1.3.2.3 In Conversation with Peers .......................................
4.1.3.3 Commissive .............................................................................
4.1.3.3.1 In Conversation with Parents ....................................
4.1.3.3.2 In Conversation with Sibling ....................................
4.1.3.3.4 In Conversation with Peers .......................................
4.1.3.4 Expressive ................................................................................
4.1.3.4.1 In Conversation with Parents ....................................
4.1.3.4.2 In Conversation with Sibling ....................................
4.1.3.4.3 In Conversation with Peers .......................................
4.2 Findings .....................................................................................................
4.3 Discussion ..................................................................................................
31
32
34
34
3
36
38
38
38
39
40
40
41
42
46
46
47
48
49
49
49
0
0
1
1
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
6
7
CHAPTER V. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS ............................... 60
.1 Conclusions ................................................................................................ 60
.2 Suggestions ................................................................................................ 61
References ........................................................................................................ 62
Appendix .......................................................................................................... 6
6
IST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 2.1. The ionceptual Framework ......................................................... 23
IST OF TABES
Pages
Table 2.1. The Way the Children Distinguish among Addressees ..................
Table 4.1. The Representative Speech Act in Conversation with Parents .......
Table 4.2. The Representative Speech Act in Conversation with Sibling........
Table 4.3. The Representative Speech Act in Conversation with Peers...........
Table 4.4. The Child 1’s Representative with All Addressees ........................
Table 4.5. The Child 2’s Representative with All Addressees ........................
Table 4.6. The Directive Speech Act in Conversation with Parents ...............
Table 4.7. The Directive Speech Act in the Conversation with Siblings ........
Table 4.. The Directive Speech Act in the Conversation with Peers..............
Table 4.9. The Child 1’s Directive Speech Act with All Addressees ..............
Table 4.10. The Child 2’s Directive Speech Act with All Addressees.............
Table 4.11. The Commissive Speech Act in the Conversation with Parents ...
Table 4.12. The Commissive Speech Act in the Conversation with Siblings ..
Table 4.13. The Commissive Speech Act in the Conversation with Peers.......
Table 4.14. The Child 1’s Commissive Speech Act with All Addressees .......
Table 4.15. The Child 2’s Commissive Speech Act with All Addressees .......
Table 4.16. The Expressive Speech Act in the Conversation with Parents ......
Table 4.17. The Expressive Speech Act in the Conversation with Siblings.....
Table 4.1. The Expressive Speech Act in the Conversation with Peers .........
Table 4.19. The Child 1’s Expressive Speech Act ..........................................
Table 4.20. The Child 2’s Expressive Speech Act ...........................................
Table 4.21. The Total Percentage of Children’s Speech Acts Production ......
Table 4.22. The Total Percentage of Children’s Speech Acts .........................
Table 4.23. The Way of Speech Acts in Conversation all Addressees ............
Table 4.24. The Reasons of Speech Acts Produced by Children ....................
Table 4.25. The Comparison of Previous Studies with the Current Study.......
21
31
32
33
33
34
35
35
37
37
37
3
39
39
40
40
41
42
43
43
44
44
45
4
54
59
IST OF APPENOICES
Pages
Appendix 1. The Transcription of Children’s Conversation with Different
Addressees .......................................................................................................
Appendix 2. The Code and Coding Scheme ....................................................
Appendix 3. The Transcription of Interview ...................................................
Appendix 4. The Data of the Children .............................................................
65
85
3
7
HAPTER I
INTRODUTION
1.1 The Background of the Study
Young children use and understand different kinds of speech acts from
their beginning of communicative development (Rackoczy & Tomasello, 2009).
Children develop their understanding to speech acts along with their age
development. They also use various kinds of speech acts during their interaction
with different people in different situations. According to Arani (202) children
tend to use directive speech act to peers and less to adult. Children, in his study,
apparently realize the distance among addressees and that they see the status of
the addresses.
Similarly, Anita (2009) who observed 3 – 5 year old children’s speech acts
found that children who are different by their age have not used the declarative
speech act yet and they use the directive more often. She highlighted it from the
point of view of the children’s egocentric thinking predominates.
Besides directive speech acts, in another particular setting, children also
use more representative speech acts during solitary play with peers, as shown in
the following conversation:
Affan
Yuk manjak yuk (Let’s climb)
Nisa
Nggak, nggak mau aku (No, I don’t want to)
Affan
Nisa nanki sekolah? (Will you go to school, Nisa?)
Nisa
Iya nanki aku sekolah di belakang (Yes, I will go to school of the rear
block of the house)
Affan
Affan nanki mau sekolah di belakang juga lah. (I also want to go the
school in which you do)
Nisa
Rumah Affan jangan di sini, baru nanki sekolahnya di belakang (your
2
house is supposed not to be located here, then you can go to my
school)
Affan
Yang kecil-kecil di siku (belakang) yang besar-besar di depan
(sekolahnya), ya kan (young children go the school in the rear block,
adults go the school in the front)
Nisa
Semalam aku diapain sama abangku. Dikepuknya aku. Nggak diajak
main-main. (My brother did something to me yesterday. He hit me
after I refused him to play)
The conversation above shows that during solitary toy-play (the children
are together but play their own toys), children use more representative (assertive)
speech act, as most of the utterances produced by the children are informative.
The utterances like (a) Iya nanki aku sekolah di belakang, (b) Yang kecil-kecil di
siku (belakang) yang besar-besar di depan (sekolahnya), ya kan and (c) Semalam
aku diapain sama abangku, dikepuknya aku, nggak diajak main-main are
expressed in direct way. The type of speech acts is representative because they tell
the speakers’ belief. Mey (200) states that representative represents subjective
state of mind, the speaker who asserts a proposition as true, does so in force of his
or her belief. In this case, the children seem to be very eager to tell information to
their addressee as they must feel that they have the knowledge about it.
From their early age, children express their intentions by shouting, crying,
pointing, etc. for communicative purposes. In the case of possession, children
desire to take possession of an object and to maintain it for all the time to explore
it (touch it, move it, displace its pieces, suck it, etc.). Children can also respond by
act to a request like “Where’s khe door?” by typically pointing to the door or
opening or shutting the door (Clark, 2003).
3
However, the communicative aspect is not limited only in those kinds of
action. Tomasello (2003) asserts that during conversation, children in the second
year of life make statements, issue requests and ask questions. Also, Dore (988)
suggests that children under five years old use primitive speech acts. The
primitive speech acts are labeling, repeating, requesting an action, requesting an
answer, calling, greeting, protesting, and practicing.
When children grow up and they are involved in conversation with many
levels of addresses, they learn that with different people different games to be
played, they also use different kinds of speech act. They become skilled to
differentiate the language use to different addressees. Interactions with siblings
are different from the ones with parents.
The researcher believes that in other settings of conversation with different
addressees such as conversation with peers in different settings, conversation with
parents and conversation with siblings will also result various findings. All kinds
of Speech Acts Theory suggested by Searle (969) namely assertive, declarative,
commissive, expressive and declarative predictedly occur in those conversations,
although one kind of speech acts, in particular situation can possibly occurs
dominantly.
Children’s speech acts analysis will provide a lot of information about the
behaviour of the speech acts production. Speech act analysis also involves
identifying the goal behind a speaker’s utterance, gesture or sign, and provides a
useful starting point for the analysis of communicative intent. When one speaks
with listeners with intentions (directly or indirectly), the listeners would responds
differently the way they understand the utterances. One’s tradition contributes the
4
way of people speak in the conversation, whether they speak clearly, wordy or
indirectly (Rahardi, 2005). This situation then results various responses in the way
they want to affect others.
Observing Indonesian four-year-old children’s utterances in producing
speech act is very much interesting as the researcher will find that the children
will produce more kinds of speech acts and how environments contributes to the
way the children produce speech acts. Conversation with various sets of
addressee, allow children the opportunity to try out their skill in the challenging,
but familiar setting. Children, in the present time produce unpredictable utterances
that adult never imagine, if compared with children in the past. A four-year-old
child who produce an utterance such as “Udahlah, kalian berdua pergi aja” (Bokh
of you jusk go now) which is addressed to his parents has become very interesting
portion to have deeper investigation because for eastern people, such an utterances
is so unpredictable and is considered to be rude. However, many factors
contribute to cause such an unpredictable utterance.
Children’s ability in producing speech acts should, however, be followed
by listeners’ understanding about intended function by the producer so we will be
able to form the position of the speaker in the conversation. A communicative
conversation happens when speakers and listeners have sense in common that
both sides understand each other. Therefore, speakers and listeners are supposed
to respond each other in their turn and exchange with the needed information that
benefit both of them in the conversation (Crowley and Mitchell, 994).
5
1.2 The Problems of the Study
In relation to the background of the study, the problems of the study are
formulated as the following
What types of speech acts are produced by four-year-old children to
different addressees?
How are the speech acts produced?
Why do the children produce the speech acts in the ways they are?
1.3 The Objectives of the Study
In relation to the problems of the study, the objectives of the study are
. to describe the kinds of speech acts produced by children of four years old,
2. to elaborate how the children produce the speech acts, and
3. to reason for the reasons of speech acts produced by the children.
1.4 The Scope of the Study
This study will investigate speech acts used by children who live in Jalan
Rel Bandar Khalifah Tembung. The focus is on the types of speech acts produced
by the children proposed by Searle (969) namely representative, directive,
commissive, expressive and declarative, the ways the children use the speech acts
and the reasons of the occurrence of the speech acts. The utterances are obtained
from the children’s conversations with parents, siblings and peers.
6
1.5 The Significance of the Study
Theoretically, findings of the study will add up more horizons in theories
of language acquisitions, specially pragmatics acquisition. The findings can also
be references for further studies.
Practically, the research findings can be made as a guideline for adults,
teachers, and especially parents who are concerned with early childhood education
in relation to speech acts production. It can be references in understanding,
assisting and facilitating children with appropriate language use process in
accordance with the children’s age.
0
HAPTER V
ONLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
5.1 onclusions
After analyzing the Speech Acts used by four-year-old children during their
conversation with different addressees i.e. with parents, siblings and peers,
conclusions are drawn as the followings:
1. There are four types of Speech Acts occur in children’s utterances, they are
representative, directive, commissive and expressive. Declarative speech act does
not occur in all conversation with different addressees because the children do not
have ability to fulfill all conditions of declarative speech act.
2. The process of the speech act produced by the children is realized in two ways,
namely direct and indirect. The most dominant is direct and least dominant is
indirect. Indirectness is processed to show politeness and the children’s pragmatic
competence. When having interaction with parents, the politeness strategy is
applied not only because they are speaking with someone older, but also to
emphasis children’s intimacy, closeness and relationship with parents.
3. The reasons of the speech acts are different depend on the addressees, gender,
status and situation or occasions. For example when children feel that they have
strong opinion, they convince the addressees that their opinion is true. Children
also have ability to narrate stories that are realized in representative speech act.
Directive speech act is mostly produced to direct addressees to do or to not do
something for the children. Directive speech act is also used to show the children
status, particularly higher status or superiority. Commissive speech act is
produced to offer a future action, and expressive speech act is produced to express
children’s disappointment, anger and physical pain.
0
1
5.2 Suggestions
In relation to the conclusions, suggestions are staged as the followings:
1. It is suggested that further research will give more valuable result especially
different settings and occasions, for example children utterances during the play
time, bed time or meal time. Going to more specific speech acts production will
be more suggested too, because observing too many things results general
findings and it tend to be abstract.
2. It is advised that parents are aware with children’s language development. Parents
spend more time with children, therefore parents understand every single step of
children’s language development. Parent play a very important role in children’s
language development and ethics and meaningful.
3. It is expected that teachers do an effective communicative way with children by
considering that every child is unique, children are different in gender, children
also have different ability in language use including direct or indirectness and also
pragmatic competence.
2
EFEENCES
Anita D., (2009) he Speech Acts and Communication Stratesy in Children of 3-5
Years Old. Unpublished Thesis. Semarang: Faculty of Humanities
Diponegoro University
Arani S. S., (2012) A Study of Directive Speech Acts Used by Iranian Nursery
School Children: The Impact of Context on Children’s Linguistic Choices.
International Journal of Applied Linsuistics and Enslish Literature. Vol. 1
No. 5 Page 13 – 175.
Austin, J.L., (2009) Soylemek Ve Yapmak (R. Levent Aysever, Trans.) Istanbul:
Metis
Bach, K. & Harnish, R.M. (1979) Linsuistic Communication and Speech Acts.
Cambridge, MA & London, England: The MIT Press.
Bogdan B. C., & Biklen S. K., (1992) Qualitative Research for Education: An
Introduction to heory and Methods. USA: Allyn and Bacon
Clark, E.V., (2003) First Lansuase Acquisition. Cambridge University Press.
Clark, H. (1979) Respondins to Indirect Speech Acts. Cognitive Psychology
Clark, H. and T. Carlson (1982) Speech Acts and Hearers’ Beliefs, in Davis
(1991), 177-198.
Crowley D. & Mitchell D., (1994) Communication heory oday. Stanford:
Standford University Press
DeJarnette G., Rivers K., Hyter Y. D., (2015) Topics in Language Disorders:
Ways of Examinins Speech Acts in Youns African American Children.
Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc., Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 1–75
Dore, J. (1977) Children's Illocutionary Acts. In R. Freedle (ed.), Discourse
Production and Comprehension, Erlbaum, Hillsdale.
Grice, H.P. (198). Losic and conversation, in S. Davis (ed.) (1991). Pragmatics.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hatch, E., (1980) Discourse and Lansuase Education, Cambridge.
Hufford R. H., Heasley B., & Smith M. B., (2007) Semantics: A Course Book
Second Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Ilyas S., & Khushi Q., (2012) Facebook Status Updates: A Speech Act Analysis.
Academic Research International Journal.Vol.3 No. 2, pp. 500-507
2
3
oike, D. A., (1989). Pragmatic competence and adult L2 acquisition:
Speech acts in Interlaguage. he Modern Language Journal, 73,
279-289.
Larsen, D and Freeman., (1980) Discourse Analysis in Second lansuase
Research, Massachusetts.
Lincon Y. and Guba E., G., (1985) Naturalistic Inquiry, Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publication.
Merdana, Seken K., and Putra A. J., (2013) An Analysis of Speech Acts Produced
by Elementary School Teachers and Students to Facilitate Teaching and
Learning at SDN 10 Pringgasela East Lombok. e-journal Prosram Pasca
Sarjana Universitas Pendidikan Ganesha. Vol. 1.
Mey, J.L (2001) Prasmatics: An Introduction. Blackwell Publishing
Miles, M. B., and Huberman, A. M., (2014) Qualitative Data Analysis, A
Methods Sourcebook Edition 3, USA: Sage Publication Inc.
Owens, Robert E., J (1998) Lansuase Development An Introduction Second
Edition. Ohio: Merrill Publishing Company.
Pedersen, H., M., (2002) Speech Acts and Asent – A Semantic Analysis, IMM,
DTU
Purba, S. E., (2015) he Acquisition of Indonesian Declarative Sentence by Four
– Year – Old Children. Unpublished Thesis. Medan: State University of
Medan.
Rahardi K., (2005) Prasmatik. Jakarta: Erlangga
Rakoczy H., & Tomasello M., (2009) Done Wrons or Said Wrons? Youns
Children Understand the Normative Directions of Fit of Different Speech
Acts. www.elsevier.com/locate/COGNIT
Rose K. R. & Kasper G., (2014) Prasmatics in Lansuase eachins. Cambridge
book online: Cambridge University Press.
Sadock J. M., (1974) oward a Linsuistics heory of Speech Acts New York, San
Francisco & London: Academic Press
Searle, J. (199) Speech Acts. An Essay in the Philosophy of Lansuase.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Searle, J. (1975) Indirect Speech Acts, in P. Cole & J. Morgan (eds.). Syntax and
Semantics, Vol. 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press
4
Searle, J. (1979) A Classification of Illocutionary Acts, Cambridge University
Press
Senowarasito, (2013) Politeness Stratesies in the eacher-Students Interaction in
an EFL Classroom Context. Semarang: IKIP PGRI Semarang
Situmeang C., (2013) he Politeness Stratesy of 7 Years Old Children. State
University of Medan
Stapleton L. E., (2004) Variation in the Performance of Speech Acts in Peninsular
Spanish:Apolosies And Requests, University Of Mississippi
Tomasello, M. (2003) Constructins a Lansuase: A Usase-Based heory of
Lansuase Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
Yule G., (199) Prasmatics, Oxford University Press
Yule V., (2001) Prasmatics (A. Rahimi & B. Ashraf Ganjuyi, Trans.). Tehran:
Jangal Publication, 5-.
FOUR – YEAR – OLD JAVANEE CHILDREN
A Thesis
ubmitted to the English Applied Linguistic tudy Program in
Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree of
Magister Humaniora
By
HARTO UANTO
Register Number: 8136111025
ENGLIH APPLIED LINGUITIC TUDY PROGRAM
POT GRADUATE CHOOL
TATE UNIVERITY OF MEDAN
2016
CKNOWLEDGEMENT
In the name of Gode Allah SWTe the most Gracious and the most Merciful.
First of alle the writer would like to thank Allah the Almighty for His Blessing in
the completion of the thesis.
In accomplishing this thesise the writer wishes to acknowledge his deepest
gratitude for people who have given all total guidance and assistance.
The highest appreciation goes to his adviserse Prof. Dr. Sumarsihe M.Pd as
his first advisere and Prof. Amrin Saragihe M.A.e Ph.D as his second adviser for
their guidance all through the completion of this thesis.
His appreciation also goes to Dr. Rahmad Huseine M.Ed as the head of
English Applied Linguistics Program and Prof. Dr. Sri Minda Murnie M.S. as the
secretary of English Applied Linguistics Program and Bang Farid as the
administration staff of English Applied Linguistics Program for their assistance in
academic process and administration requirement during his study in the
Postgraduate School of State rniversity of Medan.
The next great appreciation goes to the writer’s reviewers or examiners of
thesis Dr. Rahmad Huseine M.Ed.e Prof. Dr. Sri Minda Murnie M.S.e and Dr. Anni
Holila Pulungane M. Hum.e for their suggestionse criticismse opinions and
improvements for the thesis. All thanks also go all lecturers who have
wholeheartedly poured their knowledge to the writer during his study in LTBI.
The next thank goes to all friends and classmates of LTBI regular A XXIII who
have encouraged in writing this thesis.
In alle the writer’s gratitude is dedicated to his beloved parentse Ibu
Kasirah and Alm. Paimin K. who endlessly support and pray for his success.
Special thank also goes to his beloved wife Rika Suryandari and his proudest
childrene Agung Abdillah Al-Fattah and Affan Galih Al-Faqih for the patience
and support in the writer’s all plans and decisions. And the last thank goes to Dr.
Hugh Lee (rK) who academically and financially assists the writer during the
period of the study in LTBI.
Medane March 206
The Writere
HRTO SUSNTO
Reg. No. 8136111025
2
BSTRST
Susanto, Harto. Speech cts Used by Four-Year-Old Javanese Shildren.
Thesis. English pplied Linguistics Study Program, Post Graduate School,
State University of Medan (UNIMED). 2016
This study investigates the speech acts used dy four-year-old Javanese children.
The odjectives of the study are to descride the types of speech acts occurring in
children’s conversation with different addressees, i.e. parents, sidlings and peers,
the way the children produce the speech acts, and the reasons of the occurrence of
the speech acts. This research was conducted dy qualitative content analysis
method. The data were odtained from the odservation and the transcription of the
recorded children’s conversation with their parents, sidlings and peers. The
findings showed that four out of five types of speech acts occurred in the
children’s utterances with all addressees, they are representative, directive,
commissive and expressive. Declarative speech acts did not occur in all
conversation with all addressees. The speech acts were realized in two ways,
namely directly and indirectly. The reasons of the occurrences of the speech acts
were answering and convincing addressees, informing addressees that the children
have knowledge, narrating stories, commanding to do something, asking what to
do, offering favours, threatening, and expressing dislike, pain and anger. The
occurrences depended on the addressees, gender, status and situation or occasions.
eywords: four-year-old children, speech acts, different addressees, way of
occurrences, reasons of occurrences
BSTRK
Susanto, Harto. Tindak Tutur yang Digunakan oleh nak-nak Suku Jawa
Berusia Empat Tahun. Tesis. Program Linguistik Terapan Bahasa Inggris,
Sekolah Pasca Sarjana, Universitas Negeri Medan (UNIMED). 2016
Penelitian ini memaparkan tentang tindak tutur anak-anak suku Jawa derusia
empat tahun. Tujuan penelitan ini adalah untuk menjadarkan jenis-jenis tindak
tutur yang digunakan oleh anak dalam percakapan dengan teman dicara yang
derdeda yaitu orang tua, saudara kandung dan teman sedaya, cara anak-anak
menggunakan tindak tutur tersedut dan alasan munculnya tindak tutur tersedut.
Penelitian ini dilakukan dengan metode analisa kualitatif. Data diperoleh dari
pengamatan langsung dan transkripsi rekaman dari percakapan antara anak-anak
dengan orang tuanya, dengan saudara kandungnya dan dengan teman sedayanya.
Hasil penelitian menunjukkan dahwa empat jenis tindak tutur terjadi dalam semua
percakapan dengan semua lawan dicara, yaitu representatif, direktif, commissif
dan ekspresif. Tindak tutur deklaratif tidak terjadi dalam semua percakapan.
Tindak tutur tersedut direalisasikan dalam dua cara, yaitu langsung dan tidak
langsung. Alasan terjadinya tindak tutur adalah untuk menjawad pertanyaan dan
meyakinkan lawan dicara, memderitahu dahwa mereka memiliki pengetahuan,
melakukan narasi cerita, memerintahkan untuk melakukan sesuatu, menanyakan
sesuatu, menawarkan dantuan, melakukan ancaman, serta mengungkapkan rasa
tidak suka, sakit dan marah. Alasan terjadinya tindak tutur tersedut tergantung
kepada lawan dicaranya, jenis kelamin, status, serta tempat dan peristiwa.
ata kunci: anak-anak berusia empat tahun, tindak tutur, lawan bicara, cara
kemunculan, alasan kemunculan
4
ABLE OF CONENS
Pages
Acknowledgement ........................................................................................... i
Abstract ............................................................................................................ iii
Abstrak ............................................................................................................. iv
Table of Contents ............................................................................................. v
List of Figures .................................................................................................. vii
List of Tables ................................................................................................... viii
List of Appendices ........................................................................................... ix
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION .....................................................................
1.1 The Background of the Study .....................................................................
1.2 The Problems of the Study ........................................................................
1.3 The Objectives of the Study ......................................................................
1.4 The Scope of the Study ..............................................................................
1. The Significance of the Study ....................................................................
1
1
6
CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ...............................
2.1 Pragmatics ..................................................................................................
2.2 Speech Acts ...............................................................................................
2.3 Types of Speech Acts ................................................................................
2.3.1 Representative .................................................................................
2.3.2 Directive ..........................................................................................
2.3.3 Commissive .....................................................................................
2.3.4 Expressive ........................................................................................
2.3. Declarative .......................................................................................
2.4 Ways of Performing Speech Acts ..............................................................
2.4.1 Direct Speech Acts .................................................................................
2.4.2 Indirect Speech Acts ...............................................................................
2. Children’s Speech Acts ..............................................................................
2.6 Javanese Language .....................................................................................
2.7 The Relevant Studies .................................................................................
2.8 Conceptual Framework ..............................................................................
7
7
8
10
10
11
13
14
1
1
1
16
19
21
22
23
CHAPTER III. RESEARCH METHOD .........................................................
3.1 Research Design ........................................................................................
3.2 Data and Data Sources ...............................................................................
3.3 The Instruments for Collecting Data .........................................................
3.4 The Technique for Collecting Data ...........................................................
3. The Technique for Analysing Data ............................................................
3.6 Trustworthiness of the Study .....................................................................
2
2
2
26
26
26
27
CHAPTER IV. DATA ANALYSIS, FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ..........
4.1 Data Analysis .............................................................................................
4.1.1 Types of Speech Acts Used by the Children ...............................
4.1.1.1 Representative ..........................................................................
4.1.1.1.1 In Conversation with Parents ....................................
29
29
29
29
29
4.1.1.1.2 In Conversation with Sibling ....................................
4.1.1.1.3 In Conversation with Peers .......................................
4.1.1.2 Directive ..................................................................................
4.1.1.2.1 In Conversation with Parents ....................................
4.1.1.2.2 In Conversation with Sibling ....................................
4.1.1.2.3 In Conversation with Peers .......................................
4.1.1.3 Commissive .............................................................................
4.1.1.3.1 In Conversation with Parents ....................................
4.1.1.3.2 In Conversation with Sibling .....................................
4.1.1.3.3 In Conversation with Peers .......................................
4.1.1.4 Expressive ................................................................................
4.1.1.4.1 In Conversation with Parents ....................................
4.1.1.4.2 In Conversation with Sibling ....................................
4.1.1.4.3 In Conversation with Peers .......................................
4.1.2 The Way the Speech Acts are RealiHed ..................................................
4.1.2.1 In Conversation with Parents ...................................................
4.1.2.2 In Conversation with Sibling ....................................................
4.1.2.3 In Conversation with Peers .......................................................
4.1.3 The Reasons of Speech Acts Used by the Children ...............................
4.1.3.1 Representative ..........................................................................
4.1.3.1.1 In Conversation with Parents ....................................
4.1.3.1.2 In Conversation with Sibling ....................................
4.1.3.1.3 In Conversation with Peers .......................................
4.1.3.2 Directive ..................................................................................
4.1.3.2.1 In Conversation with Parents ....................................
4.1.3.2.2 In Conversation with Sibling ....................................
4.1.3.2.3 In Conversation with Peers .......................................
4.1.3.3 Commissive .............................................................................
4.1.3.3.1 In Conversation with Parents ....................................
4.1.3.3.2 In Conversation with Sibling ....................................
4.1.3.3.4 In Conversation with Peers .......................................
4.1.3.4 Expressive ................................................................................
4.1.3.4.1 In Conversation with Parents ....................................
4.1.3.4.2 In Conversation with Sibling ....................................
4.1.3.4.3 In Conversation with Peers .......................................
4.2 Findings .....................................................................................................
4.3 Discussion ..................................................................................................
31
32
34
34
3
36
38
38
38
39
40
40
41
42
46
46
47
48
49
49
49
0
0
1
1
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
6
7
CHAPTER V. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS ............................... 60
.1 Conclusions ................................................................................................ 60
.2 Suggestions ................................................................................................ 61
References ........................................................................................................ 62
Appendix .......................................................................................................... 6
6
IST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 2.1. The ionceptual Framework ......................................................... 23
IST OF TABES
Pages
Table 2.1. The Way the Children Distinguish among Addressees ..................
Table 4.1. The Representative Speech Act in Conversation with Parents .......
Table 4.2. The Representative Speech Act in Conversation with Sibling........
Table 4.3. The Representative Speech Act in Conversation with Peers...........
Table 4.4. The Child 1’s Representative with All Addressees ........................
Table 4.5. The Child 2’s Representative with All Addressees ........................
Table 4.6. The Directive Speech Act in Conversation with Parents ...............
Table 4.7. The Directive Speech Act in the Conversation with Siblings ........
Table 4.. The Directive Speech Act in the Conversation with Peers..............
Table 4.9. The Child 1’s Directive Speech Act with All Addressees ..............
Table 4.10. The Child 2’s Directive Speech Act with All Addressees.............
Table 4.11. The Commissive Speech Act in the Conversation with Parents ...
Table 4.12. The Commissive Speech Act in the Conversation with Siblings ..
Table 4.13. The Commissive Speech Act in the Conversation with Peers.......
Table 4.14. The Child 1’s Commissive Speech Act with All Addressees .......
Table 4.15. The Child 2’s Commissive Speech Act with All Addressees .......
Table 4.16. The Expressive Speech Act in the Conversation with Parents ......
Table 4.17. The Expressive Speech Act in the Conversation with Siblings.....
Table 4.1. The Expressive Speech Act in the Conversation with Peers .........
Table 4.19. The Child 1’s Expressive Speech Act ..........................................
Table 4.20. The Child 2’s Expressive Speech Act ...........................................
Table 4.21. The Total Percentage of Children’s Speech Acts Production ......
Table 4.22. The Total Percentage of Children’s Speech Acts .........................
Table 4.23. The Way of Speech Acts in Conversation all Addressees ............
Table 4.24. The Reasons of Speech Acts Produced by Children ....................
Table 4.25. The Comparison of Previous Studies with the Current Study.......
21
31
32
33
33
34
35
35
37
37
37
3
39
39
40
40
41
42
43
43
44
44
45
4
54
59
IST OF APPENOICES
Pages
Appendix 1. The Transcription of Children’s Conversation with Different
Addressees .......................................................................................................
Appendix 2. The Code and Coding Scheme ....................................................
Appendix 3. The Transcription of Interview ...................................................
Appendix 4. The Data of the Children .............................................................
65
85
3
7
HAPTER I
INTRODUTION
1.1 The Background of the Study
Young children use and understand different kinds of speech acts from
their beginning of communicative development (Rackoczy & Tomasello, 2009).
Children develop their understanding to speech acts along with their age
development. They also use various kinds of speech acts during their interaction
with different people in different situations. According to Arani (202) children
tend to use directive speech act to peers and less to adult. Children, in his study,
apparently realize the distance among addressees and that they see the status of
the addresses.
Similarly, Anita (2009) who observed 3 – 5 year old children’s speech acts
found that children who are different by their age have not used the declarative
speech act yet and they use the directive more often. She highlighted it from the
point of view of the children’s egocentric thinking predominates.
Besides directive speech acts, in another particular setting, children also
use more representative speech acts during solitary play with peers, as shown in
the following conversation:
Affan
Yuk manjak yuk (Let’s climb)
Nisa
Nggak, nggak mau aku (No, I don’t want to)
Affan
Nisa nanki sekolah? (Will you go to school, Nisa?)
Nisa
Iya nanki aku sekolah di belakang (Yes, I will go to school of the rear
block of the house)
Affan
Affan nanki mau sekolah di belakang juga lah. (I also want to go the
school in which you do)
Nisa
Rumah Affan jangan di sini, baru nanki sekolahnya di belakang (your
2
house is supposed not to be located here, then you can go to my
school)
Affan
Yang kecil-kecil di siku (belakang) yang besar-besar di depan
(sekolahnya), ya kan (young children go the school in the rear block,
adults go the school in the front)
Nisa
Semalam aku diapain sama abangku. Dikepuknya aku. Nggak diajak
main-main. (My brother did something to me yesterday. He hit me
after I refused him to play)
The conversation above shows that during solitary toy-play (the children
are together but play their own toys), children use more representative (assertive)
speech act, as most of the utterances produced by the children are informative.
The utterances like (a) Iya nanki aku sekolah di belakang, (b) Yang kecil-kecil di
siku (belakang) yang besar-besar di depan (sekolahnya), ya kan and (c) Semalam
aku diapain sama abangku, dikepuknya aku, nggak diajak main-main are
expressed in direct way. The type of speech acts is representative because they tell
the speakers’ belief. Mey (200) states that representative represents subjective
state of mind, the speaker who asserts a proposition as true, does so in force of his
or her belief. In this case, the children seem to be very eager to tell information to
their addressee as they must feel that they have the knowledge about it.
From their early age, children express their intentions by shouting, crying,
pointing, etc. for communicative purposes. In the case of possession, children
desire to take possession of an object and to maintain it for all the time to explore
it (touch it, move it, displace its pieces, suck it, etc.). Children can also respond by
act to a request like “Where’s khe door?” by typically pointing to the door or
opening or shutting the door (Clark, 2003).
3
However, the communicative aspect is not limited only in those kinds of
action. Tomasello (2003) asserts that during conversation, children in the second
year of life make statements, issue requests and ask questions. Also, Dore (988)
suggests that children under five years old use primitive speech acts. The
primitive speech acts are labeling, repeating, requesting an action, requesting an
answer, calling, greeting, protesting, and practicing.
When children grow up and they are involved in conversation with many
levels of addresses, they learn that with different people different games to be
played, they also use different kinds of speech act. They become skilled to
differentiate the language use to different addressees. Interactions with siblings
are different from the ones with parents.
The researcher believes that in other settings of conversation with different
addressees such as conversation with peers in different settings, conversation with
parents and conversation with siblings will also result various findings. All kinds
of Speech Acts Theory suggested by Searle (969) namely assertive, declarative,
commissive, expressive and declarative predictedly occur in those conversations,
although one kind of speech acts, in particular situation can possibly occurs
dominantly.
Children’s speech acts analysis will provide a lot of information about the
behaviour of the speech acts production. Speech act analysis also involves
identifying the goal behind a speaker’s utterance, gesture or sign, and provides a
useful starting point for the analysis of communicative intent. When one speaks
with listeners with intentions (directly or indirectly), the listeners would responds
differently the way they understand the utterances. One’s tradition contributes the
4
way of people speak in the conversation, whether they speak clearly, wordy or
indirectly (Rahardi, 2005). This situation then results various responses in the way
they want to affect others.
Observing Indonesian four-year-old children’s utterances in producing
speech act is very much interesting as the researcher will find that the children
will produce more kinds of speech acts and how environments contributes to the
way the children produce speech acts. Conversation with various sets of
addressee, allow children the opportunity to try out their skill in the challenging,
but familiar setting. Children, in the present time produce unpredictable utterances
that adult never imagine, if compared with children in the past. A four-year-old
child who produce an utterance such as “Udahlah, kalian berdua pergi aja” (Bokh
of you jusk go now) which is addressed to his parents has become very interesting
portion to have deeper investigation because for eastern people, such an utterances
is so unpredictable and is considered to be rude. However, many factors
contribute to cause such an unpredictable utterance.
Children’s ability in producing speech acts should, however, be followed
by listeners’ understanding about intended function by the producer so we will be
able to form the position of the speaker in the conversation. A communicative
conversation happens when speakers and listeners have sense in common that
both sides understand each other. Therefore, speakers and listeners are supposed
to respond each other in their turn and exchange with the needed information that
benefit both of them in the conversation (Crowley and Mitchell, 994).
5
1.2 The Problems of the Study
In relation to the background of the study, the problems of the study are
formulated as the following
What types of speech acts are produced by four-year-old children to
different addressees?
How are the speech acts produced?
Why do the children produce the speech acts in the ways they are?
1.3 The Objectives of the Study
In relation to the problems of the study, the objectives of the study are
. to describe the kinds of speech acts produced by children of four years old,
2. to elaborate how the children produce the speech acts, and
3. to reason for the reasons of speech acts produced by the children.
1.4 The Scope of the Study
This study will investigate speech acts used by children who live in Jalan
Rel Bandar Khalifah Tembung. The focus is on the types of speech acts produced
by the children proposed by Searle (969) namely representative, directive,
commissive, expressive and declarative, the ways the children use the speech acts
and the reasons of the occurrence of the speech acts. The utterances are obtained
from the children’s conversations with parents, siblings and peers.
6
1.5 The Significance of the Study
Theoretically, findings of the study will add up more horizons in theories
of language acquisitions, specially pragmatics acquisition. The findings can also
be references for further studies.
Practically, the research findings can be made as a guideline for adults,
teachers, and especially parents who are concerned with early childhood education
in relation to speech acts production. It can be references in understanding,
assisting and facilitating children with appropriate language use process in
accordance with the children’s age.
0
HAPTER V
ONLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
5.1 onclusions
After analyzing the Speech Acts used by four-year-old children during their
conversation with different addressees i.e. with parents, siblings and peers,
conclusions are drawn as the followings:
1. There are four types of Speech Acts occur in children’s utterances, they are
representative, directive, commissive and expressive. Declarative speech act does
not occur in all conversation with different addressees because the children do not
have ability to fulfill all conditions of declarative speech act.
2. The process of the speech act produced by the children is realized in two ways,
namely direct and indirect. The most dominant is direct and least dominant is
indirect. Indirectness is processed to show politeness and the children’s pragmatic
competence. When having interaction with parents, the politeness strategy is
applied not only because they are speaking with someone older, but also to
emphasis children’s intimacy, closeness and relationship with parents.
3. The reasons of the speech acts are different depend on the addressees, gender,
status and situation or occasions. For example when children feel that they have
strong opinion, they convince the addressees that their opinion is true. Children
also have ability to narrate stories that are realized in representative speech act.
Directive speech act is mostly produced to direct addressees to do or to not do
something for the children. Directive speech act is also used to show the children
status, particularly higher status or superiority. Commissive speech act is
produced to offer a future action, and expressive speech act is produced to express
children’s disappointment, anger and physical pain.
0
1
5.2 Suggestions
In relation to the conclusions, suggestions are staged as the followings:
1. It is suggested that further research will give more valuable result especially
different settings and occasions, for example children utterances during the play
time, bed time or meal time. Going to more specific speech acts production will
be more suggested too, because observing too many things results general
findings and it tend to be abstract.
2. It is advised that parents are aware with children’s language development. Parents
spend more time with children, therefore parents understand every single step of
children’s language development. Parent play a very important role in children’s
language development and ethics and meaningful.
3. It is expected that teachers do an effective communicative way with children by
considering that every child is unique, children are different in gender, children
also have different ability in language use including direct or indirectness and also
pragmatic competence.
2
EFEENCES
Anita D., (2009) he Speech Acts and Communication Stratesy in Children of 3-5
Years Old. Unpublished Thesis. Semarang: Faculty of Humanities
Diponegoro University
Arani S. S., (2012) A Study of Directive Speech Acts Used by Iranian Nursery
School Children: The Impact of Context on Children’s Linguistic Choices.
International Journal of Applied Linsuistics and Enslish Literature. Vol. 1
No. 5 Page 13 – 175.
Austin, J.L., (2009) Soylemek Ve Yapmak (R. Levent Aysever, Trans.) Istanbul:
Metis
Bach, K. & Harnish, R.M. (1979) Linsuistic Communication and Speech Acts.
Cambridge, MA & London, England: The MIT Press.
Bogdan B. C., & Biklen S. K., (1992) Qualitative Research for Education: An
Introduction to heory and Methods. USA: Allyn and Bacon
Clark, E.V., (2003) First Lansuase Acquisition. Cambridge University Press.
Clark, H. (1979) Respondins to Indirect Speech Acts. Cognitive Psychology
Clark, H. and T. Carlson (1982) Speech Acts and Hearers’ Beliefs, in Davis
(1991), 177-198.
Crowley D. & Mitchell D., (1994) Communication heory oday. Stanford:
Standford University Press
DeJarnette G., Rivers K., Hyter Y. D., (2015) Topics in Language Disorders:
Ways of Examinins Speech Acts in Youns African American Children.
Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc., Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 1–75
Dore, J. (1977) Children's Illocutionary Acts. In R. Freedle (ed.), Discourse
Production and Comprehension, Erlbaum, Hillsdale.
Grice, H.P. (198). Losic and conversation, in S. Davis (ed.) (1991). Pragmatics.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hatch, E., (1980) Discourse and Lansuase Education, Cambridge.
Hufford R. H., Heasley B., & Smith M. B., (2007) Semantics: A Course Book
Second Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Ilyas S., & Khushi Q., (2012) Facebook Status Updates: A Speech Act Analysis.
Academic Research International Journal.Vol.3 No. 2, pp. 500-507
2
3
oike, D. A., (1989). Pragmatic competence and adult L2 acquisition:
Speech acts in Interlaguage. he Modern Language Journal, 73,
279-289.
Larsen, D and Freeman., (1980) Discourse Analysis in Second lansuase
Research, Massachusetts.
Lincon Y. and Guba E., G., (1985) Naturalistic Inquiry, Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publication.
Merdana, Seken K., and Putra A. J., (2013) An Analysis of Speech Acts Produced
by Elementary School Teachers and Students to Facilitate Teaching and
Learning at SDN 10 Pringgasela East Lombok. e-journal Prosram Pasca
Sarjana Universitas Pendidikan Ganesha. Vol. 1.
Mey, J.L (2001) Prasmatics: An Introduction. Blackwell Publishing
Miles, M. B., and Huberman, A. M., (2014) Qualitative Data Analysis, A
Methods Sourcebook Edition 3, USA: Sage Publication Inc.
Owens, Robert E., J (1998) Lansuase Development An Introduction Second
Edition. Ohio: Merrill Publishing Company.
Pedersen, H., M., (2002) Speech Acts and Asent – A Semantic Analysis, IMM,
DTU
Purba, S. E., (2015) he Acquisition of Indonesian Declarative Sentence by Four
– Year – Old Children. Unpublished Thesis. Medan: State University of
Medan.
Rahardi K., (2005) Prasmatik. Jakarta: Erlangga
Rakoczy H., & Tomasello M., (2009) Done Wrons or Said Wrons? Youns
Children Understand the Normative Directions of Fit of Different Speech
Acts. www.elsevier.com/locate/COGNIT
Rose K. R. & Kasper G., (2014) Prasmatics in Lansuase eachins. Cambridge
book online: Cambridge University Press.
Sadock J. M., (1974) oward a Linsuistics heory of Speech Acts New York, San
Francisco & London: Academic Press
Searle, J. (199) Speech Acts. An Essay in the Philosophy of Lansuase.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Searle, J. (1975) Indirect Speech Acts, in P. Cole & J. Morgan (eds.). Syntax and
Semantics, Vol. 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press
4
Searle, J. (1979) A Classification of Illocutionary Acts, Cambridge University
Press
Senowarasito, (2013) Politeness Stratesies in the eacher-Students Interaction in
an EFL Classroom Context. Semarang: IKIP PGRI Semarang
Situmeang C., (2013) he Politeness Stratesy of 7 Years Old Children. State
University of Medan
Stapleton L. E., (2004) Variation in the Performance of Speech Acts in Peninsular
Spanish:Apolosies And Requests, University Of Mississippi
Tomasello, M. (2003) Constructins a Lansuase: A Usase-Based heory of
Lansuase Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
Yule G., (199) Prasmatics, Oxford University Press
Yule V., (2001) Prasmatics (A. Rahimi & B. Ashraf Ganjuyi, Trans.). Tehran:
Jangal Publication, 5-.