SPEECH ACTS IN COMMUNICATIVE EVENTS IN SCHOOL CONTEXTS.

(1)

SPEECH ACTS IN COMMUNICATIVE EVENTS IN

SCHOOL CONTEXTS

A Thesis

Submitted to the English Applied Linguistics Study Program in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Magister Humaniora

By:

LESTARI RUMAHORBO Registration Number : 8136112045

ENGLISH APPLIED LINGUISTICS STUDY PROGRAM

POSGRADUATE SCHOOL

STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN

2017

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Praise is to Jesus Christ, who gives the writer blessing, health, knowledge, power and opportunity to finish this study. The writer’s deepest gratitude is only for Him, the Most Gracious and the Most Merciful.

This research could not be completed without a great deal of help of many people. So in the process of writing this thesis, the writer would like to extend her sincere and special thanks. Her gratitude is intended for her beloved parents, BapakAlm. B.Rumahorbo and Mother Alm. N. Situmorang for their endless love, prays, motivation and their brilliant advice during their lifetimewho make her never gave up in accomplishing this thesis on time. She is not strong and nothing without their fabulous encouragement.

Her enormous gratitude and best appreciation are expressed to Prof.Dr.BerlinSibarani,M.Pd and Dr. Rahmad Husein,M.Ed for his brilliant advisers, who has spent precious time in giving suggestion, encouragement, guidance, advices until this thesis comes to its due time.

She also would like to thanks to all lecturers who have given her the valuable knowledge and science during her study at the English Applied Linguistics Study Program of Postgraduate School, State University of Medan. In particular, she addresses her gratitude to Dr. Rahmad Husein,M.Ed, the Head of English Applied Linguistics Study Program, Dr. Anni Holila Pulungan, M.Hum the secretary of English Applied Linguistics Study Program. The Administration staff (Farid M’aruf)for his assistance in the administrative procedures.

(6)

She is also deeply grateful to all her brothers (A.Rumahorbo / M br. Silalahi, U. Rumahorbo/ M br. Pasaribu, A.Rumahorbo / S. br. Sirait, K. Rumahorbo/ L. Br. Tobing and her sisters N. Situmorang/ L br. Rumahorbo, S.Sihombing/ E br. Rumahorbo, H.Purba/ R. Rumahorbo and F.Silalahi/ L. br. Rumahorbo). Furthermore she would like to express her gratitude to her niece Corrintya, Chrisantya, Agnes, Yocelin, Elditaand to her bestfriends, Friskayanti, Marita Sari, Meylin, Vista, Satria, THM groups, LTBI B4 class and friends that can not mention for sharing ideas and developing her thesis.

Finally, the writer is aware that nothing is perfect as well as this thesis. For that, any constructive criticism, suggestions, or comments will be highly appreciated to bring this next to perfection and she hopes this thesis can give a bit contribution to the language education and will be useful for all.

Medan, 23 December 2016 The Writer,

Lestari Rumahorbo Reg. No. 8136112045

(7)

iii ABSTRACT

Rumahorbo, Lestari.RegistrationNumber : 8136112045.Speech Acts in Communicative Events in School Contexts. Thesis : English Applied Linguistic Program, Postgraduate School, State University of Medan, 2016

This research deals with Speech acts in communicative events in school contexts. The objective of the research were to know how speech acts realized linguistically in communicative events in school contexts. This research conducted qualitative method.The data collected is analyzed by applying interactive model of Miles and Huberman. The location of this research is in SMP Tunas Harapan Mandiri Rantauprapat.Speech acts classify into assertive, directive, commisives, expressive and declarative. The utterances occurred during

the teacher’s meeting were recorded and transcribed, then the speakers were

interviewed to find the answers of the research problems. By uttering speech acts the speaker has to decide what forms of speech acts might be taken. In the line with this, speaker can perform direct and indirect speech acts in the form of declarative, interrogative and imperative. They used direct speech acts, they speak straight to the point and clearly in order to make the listeners understand the intended meaning of the speakers whereas they used indirect speech acts in connection with context of time, participants and politeness because indirect speech acts are generally associated with greater context of time, participants and politeness than direct speech acts.

(8)

iv ABSTRAK

Rumahorbo, Lestari. Registration Number : 8136112045.Speech Acts in Communicative Events in School Contexts. Sebuah Thesis : Linguistik Terapan Bahasa Inggris, Universitas Negeri Medan, 2016.

Kajian ini berkaitan dengan tindak ujaran dalam peristiwa komunikasi dalam konteks sekolah. Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah untuk mengetahui bagaimana tindak ujaran disadari dalam peristiwa komunikasi dalam konteks sekolah.Kajian ini menggunakan desain penelitian kualitative.Data yang sudah dikumpulkan dianalisa dengan menggunakan model interaktif oleh Miles and Huberman.Lokasi penelitian ini dilakukan di SMP Tunas Harapan Mandiri Rantauprapat. Tindak tutur diklasifikasikan ke dalam asertif, direktif, komisif, ekspresif dan deklaratif.Ucapan-ucapan pembicara selama rapat berlangsung direkam dan dicatat, kemudian dilakukan wawancara terhadap mereka untuk menemukan jawaban atas permasalahan yang ada dalam penelitian.Dengan mengucapkan makna ujar pembicara harus mengetahui bentuk dari ujaranya. Dalam hal ini, seseorang dapat menyampaikan tindak ujaran secara langsung maupun tidak langsung dalam bentuk kalimat tanya, kalimat berita atau kalimat perintah. Dengan menggunakan tindak ujaran secara langsung maka mereka ingin menyampaikan maksud dan tujuannya secara langsung pada intinya dan dengan jelas sehingga membuat pendengar mudah mengerti dengan ucapan mereka sementara penggunaan tindak ujaran secara tidak langsung berhubungan dengan penggunaan konteks waktu, peserta, dan kesopanan karena tindak ujaran secara tidak langsung secara umum berkaitan dengan peserta,konteks waktu dan kesopanan.

(9)

TABLE OF CONTENT

Page

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ... i

ABSTRACT ... iii

ABSTRAK ... iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS ... v

LIST OF TABLES ... viii

LIST OF APPENDICES ... ix

CHAPTER I : INTRODUCTION ... 1

1.1 The Background of the Study ... 1

1.2 The Problems of the Study ... 7

1.3 The Objective of the Study ... 7

1.4 The Scope of the Study ... 8

1.5 The Significances of the Study ... 8

CHAPTER II : REVIEW OF LITERATURE ... 9

2.1 Pragmatics ... 9

2.2 Speech Acts ... 10

2.2.1 Kinds of Speech Acts...12

2.2.1.1 Locutionary Act. ... 12

2.2.1.2 Illocutionary Act ... 14

2.2.1.3 Perlocutionary Act ... 15

2.2.2 Classification of speech Acts ... 16

2.2.2.1 Assertives ... 16

(10)

2.2.2.3 Commisssives ... 18

2.2.2.4 Expressives ... 19

2.2.2.5 Declaratives ... 20

2.2.3 The Realization of Speech Acts ... 21

2.3 Communicative Events ... 22

2.3.1 School Context ... 24

2.4 Relevant Studies ... 25

2.5 Conceptual Framework ... 28

CHAPTER III : RESEARCH METHOD ... 30

3.1 Research Design ... 30

3.2 The Data and Data Source... 30

3.3 Tehnique of Collecting Data ... 31

3.4 The Tehnique of Data Analysis... 31

3.5 Trustwhortiness ... 34

CHAPTER IV : DATA ANALYSIS, FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ... 37

4.1 Data Analysis ... 37

4.1.1 The Realization of Direct speech acts ... 48

4.1.1.1 Direct Realization with Declarative ... 48

4.1.1.2 Direct Realization with Imperative... 50

4.1.1.3 Direct Realization with imperative ... 51

4.1.2 The Realization of Indirect speech acts ... 52

4.1.2.1 Indirect Realization with Declarative ... 52

4.1.2.2 Indirect Realization with Interrogative ... 53

4.1.2.3 Indirect Realization with imperative ... 55

4.2 The reason of using Direct and Indirect realization ... 56

(11)

vii

4.4 Discussion ... 64

CHAPTER V : CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION ... 66

5.1 Conclusion ... 66

5.2 Suggestion ... 67

REFERENCES ... 86 APPENDIX ... 70-103

(12)

viii

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE Page

1. Technique of Data Analysis ...31

2. Selecting Data of Direct and Indirect Speech Acts...38

3. Data Analysis of Direct and Indirect Speech Acts...41

(13)

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix Page

1. Observation Sheet ...70

2. Transcript of Headmaster’s Utterances...71

3. Transcript of Schoolboard’s Utterances...76

4. Transcript of Teacher and Student’s Utterances...81

5. Transcript of Teacher’s Utterances...88

(14)

1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 The Background of the Study

People use language as Communication.Communication is simply the act of transferring information from one place to another. People use many variations

in communicating in order to share their feelings and ideas such as verbal and nonverbal communication. According to Buck (2002), there are two types of communication. Verbal communication and nonverbal communication.Verbal communication is the use of sounds and words to express yourself. An example of verbal communication is saying “No” when someone asks you to do something you don’t want to do.

Nonverbal communication is usually understood as the process of communication through sending and receiving wordless messages. Such messages can be communicated through gesture;body language or posture; facial expression and eye contact. In other words it can be divided into four categories: aesthetic,physical, signs, and symbols. These two types are the general media of people to interact each other in which the speech act occurs. Speech act is a kind of verbal communication and it is a subdivision of pragmatics. According to Yule (1996), speech act is a study of how the speakers and hearers use language. Bach (2000) explains that an action in verbal communication has message in itself, so the communication is not only about language but also with action.

(15)

Speech act is the utterance that occurs and act refers to an action. That is the reason why people have to interpret the meaning of communication or language through speech acts. We always perform speech act in our daily life. Sometimes we don’t realize that the utterances we produce consist of speech act. We often use utterances with indirect meaning. Speech act occurs on the process of the meaning in how the communication occurs and how the listener perceives the aim. In many times, people not only saying but also forcing the hearer to do something. When the hearer is doing an act, it means that he or she is doing illocutionary act.

School is a public place to educate students in learning process. As a public place there are many people at school. Almost all the people who enter the school communicate to each other. They may use different utterances, such as declaratives, interrogatives or imperatives. They use sentences according to their situation.For instance,teachers have different communication while they are teaching in the classroomand if they communicate to their friends during their free time.Mostly teachers’ utterances in the classroom are direct speech act while outside the classroom they tend to use indirect speech act. We may see the example below:

[ The teacher’s conversation in the classroom]

Teacher : Minggu lalu kita sudah belajar tentang Tata Surya dan planet. Ada yang mengingat ada berapa jenis dari planet-panet.

[ salah satu anak murid yang bernama Yonatalia tunjuk tangan dan menjawab pertanyaan guru ]

Yonatalia : Ada 8 jenis planet bu.

Teacher : Bagus. Berarti Yona belajar dan mengulangi pelajaran dirumah.

Apa saja yang delapan itu.

(16)

From the conversation above we may see that teacher use direct speech act inthe form of interrogative and the function is as questioning. Yona responses teacher in direct form by saying Ada delapan jenis planet bu. [ Mam, There are 8 kinds of planets]. People don't speak merely to exercise their vocal cords. Generally, thereason people say what they say when they say it is to communicatesomething to those they are addressing. That is, in saying something aperson has a certain intention, and the act of communicating succeedsonly if that intention is recognized by the hearer. The intention isrecognized partly on the basis of what is said, but only partly. What issaid does not fully determine what the speaker is to be taken to bedoing.

Illocutionary act is a very important part of speech act because illocutionary actitself becomes the main central to linguistics in elements of communication. Accordingto Levinson (1983:1) defines thatpragmatics is a study of relation between languages, grammatical and encoded in thestructure of language. So, generally he says that the terms of pragmatics is said as the branch of linguistics which concerns with the use of language in social contexts and theways in which people produce and comprehend meanings through language. Morris (1983) also defines the definition of pragmatics. He says that pragmatics is the study of the relationships between linguistics and the users and also discusses the contextual meaning because pragmatics involve the interpretation of what people mean in particular context and how the context influence what is said.

The ability to comprehend and produce a communicative act is referred to pragmatic competence (Kasper, 1990) which often includes one’s knowledge

(17)

about the social status between the speaker involved, cultural knowledge and the linguistics knowledge. The concept of an illocutionary act is central to the concept of a speech act. Although there are numerous opinions regarding how to define 'illocutionary acts', there are some kinds of acts which are widely accepted as illocutionary, for example promising, ordering someone, and commanding. Illocutionary act has some different types. Yule (1996) has set up the classification of illocutionary speech act as five subdivisions. They are: representative, directive, commissive, expressive, and declarative. Each type has different context and meaning. All of these types will become the media for the writer to analyze utterances in school communication.

The way of people to communicate are always different.We sometimes communicate with direct or indirect speech acts. It depends on certain setting such as in social, science or religion. In social purpose, particularly happened in school environment people tend to use direct speech act in formal setting and indirect speech act in informal setting. The utterances used by headmaster to teachers during the meeting or teachers to students during the learning process are catagorized as formal utterances and the utterances used by teachers in different setting such as at the school canteen, security post during their free time are catagorized as informal setting. For example :

Irma : Masak apa hari ini Ron?

[ Rona seorang penjaga kantin ]

Linda : Ih.. semunya serba pedas

Irma : Wi..gimana si Nona ku ya

[ Nona adalah murid TK putri Ibu Irma ]

Rona : Kan ada Juga yang tidak pake cabe ka.

(18)

The conversation above is in the school canteen. Irma asks question to get information about what food are preapared in the canteen is knonw as locutionary. She also ask question to Rona in order to hear Rona’s response and ready to serve Irma because Irma is hungry and wants to eat in the canteen is known as illocutionary. In helping Irma to serve her food and give it to her directly is known as perlocutionary effect.

Searle (1979) highlights that speech act is presented in real language use situations. Accordingly, he says that the basic assumption on the speech act theory should be that the smallest unit in human communication is the implementation of certain types of acts. AccordingBach(2000), these acts in communication cases are associated with the functional dimensions of language. As opposed to morphological, syntactic and rhetorical dimensions regarding organization of the language structures, pragmatic dimension are associated with producing and understanding speech acts. These two dimensions function reciprocally in communication. Speech acts in one form of utterances can be used by the speakers of interlocutors to convey the meaning of their purposes in communication. In communication itself, pragmatic competence has an important role. In this way, the pragmatic competence as the ability to perform speech acts should be mastered in different types of speech acts.

Pragmatic deals with the speaker’s communicative competence.Speakers use their knowledge of a language to convey and interpret meanings.In the area of pragmatics, the speakers interpret their utterance in social contexts, knowing what to say, how to say it,and when to say it, and how to be with other people. This

(19)

knowledge enables them to produce and understand utternaces in relation to specific communicative purpose and specific speech contexts.

Based on the phenomena above, the researcher is interested ininvestigating the used of speech acts in communicative events in school context. It is focused on the participant’s utterances in order to know how they perform acts. As Leongkamchorn (2011) Speech acts are actions performed via utterances. When people produce an utterance, they might declare, assert, express, order, promise, request, complain, apologize, compliment, warn, threaten, refuse, suggest, etc. All these acts mentioned are in the minds of speakers when they produce the utterances, and the listeners need to recognize the various acts by interpreting the meaning conveyed via the utterances. It is the same when we are at school environment.

Some teachers or students might communicate to others by using different speech scts.They want to assert their beliefs, express their feeling on something, persuade and convince the listeners to do something. Speech act theory nowadays is used widely to study and analyze daily conversation. There is also some research using speech act theory to analyze statements in other contexts.In this case, the choice of the speech acts theory as the Linguistic framework for the analysis of speech acts incommunicative events in school context based on the fact that the every people perform various actions through utterances.

As an act of communication, a speech act succeeds if the audience identifies, in accordance with the speaker's intention, the attitude being

(20)

expressed.Austin (1962) classifies speech acts into, (1) Locutionary acts, (2) Perlocutionary acts and (3) Illocutionary acts. In this thesis, the form and its function of speech acts is the main focus investigation, because by knowing the form and its function, it will make the hearersunderstandthe intended meaning easily.

There are five function of speech acts, those are assertives, directives,commissives, declaratives and expressives. This study was investigated speech act in communicative events in school contexts. The main aspects which were observed are speech acts used by the schoolboard, headmaster and teachers in the school environment, how those typesof speech acts are used by participants and the reasons why those types of speech acts used as the ways they are during the teacher’s meeting or teacher’s conversation.

1.2 The Problem of the Study

Based on the background of the study, the problem of the study as the following.

1. How are speech acts realized linguisticallyincommunicative events in school contexts?

2. Why are the speechactsrealized in the way they are?

1.3 The Objectives of the study

(21)

1. to describe how those types of speech acts realized incommunicative events in school context.

2. to explain the reason why those types of speech acts realized in the waythey are.

1.4 The scope of the Study

The studyinvestigated speech acts used by the participants in school contexts. The main aspect observed were the form and its function of speech acts and the way of speech acts used in communicative events in school context. The data were taken in communicative events in school contexts.The utterances were analyzed based on the types of speech acts used by school boards, headmaster and teachers.In this case, it is important to describe and elaborate the speech acts theory and the realization of linguistic devices in that context so the factors generating the speech acts can be analyzed.

1.5 The Significance of the Study

The findings of this study are expected to be theoretically and Practically. Theoretically, the findings of this research will be expected to provide contribution to the theories of pragmatics and sociolinguistics, especially to the theory of speech act in specific in communicative events in school context. Practically, the findings of the study will give the readers a better understanding of context and speech acts are used in the study of pragmatic. She also hopes it can be benefit for the readers who have interest in speech act theory.

(22)

5.1 Conclusion

This study is concerned on speech acts in communicative events in school contexts. It is aimed at describing how the way of the school board, headmaster and teacher use speech acts in school contexts. After analyzing the data, some conclusions can be stated as the following :

1. There are two three kinds of speech acts. Those are locutionary,

illocutionary and perlocutionary. In performing speech acts people can use two ways of speech acts in communicative events in school contexts, those are Direct and Indirect speech acts. Direct and Indirect speech acts are used in the form of declarative, interrogative and imperative.

2. Direct speech acts generally is the syntactic form of the utterance reflects

the direct illocutionary act. Direct realization of declarative form is used to make a statement, an interrogative form is used to ask a question and in an imperative form is used to give an order or make a request. The participants in school contexts tends to use direct act so that they can clearly understand the speakers’ intention. Indirect realization is assumed if the syntactic form of an utterance does not reflect any indirect illocutionary act associated with it or indirect speech acts are performed indirectly by way of performing the literalillocutionary acts.

(23)

5.2 Suggestion

Based on the above conclusions, the following suggestion are given as follow:

1. It is suggested that other researchers of pragmatics should develop the

theory of speech acts in communicative events in school contexts by introducing it to the students so that they will be interested to conduct a research related to the field.

2. The use of speech acts will influence the successful of communication in

school contexts. So, it is suggested to the school board, headmaster and teachers have to use appropriate speech acts in order that the hearers understand easily the utterance spoken by the speakers. Further research need to be conducted in other school context to compare the use of speech acts used by school board, headmaster and teachers to enrich speech acts theory.

(24)

REFERENCES

Afgari .A. 2011, Effects of Culture and Gender in Comprehension of Speech Acts of

Indirect Request,Journal English Language Teaching Vol. 4, No. 4;

December 2011Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran.

Arif.M.R. 2012.Speech Acts used in courtroomText in Langsa.Journal College of

Basic Education ResearcersVol. 10, No. 1, pp. 528-552.

Austin.J.L . 1962. How to do Things with Words.Clerandon, Oxford, UK.

Bach.B. &Harnish.R.M 2000.Linguistic Communication andSpeech

Acts.Massachusetts, and London, England:The MIT Press Cambridge.

Bascia.N. 2014. The School Context Model, Canada : The University of Toronto.

Barker.S.J. 2004.Renewing Meaning.A speech –Act Theoritic Approach.Oxford

: Clarendon Press.

Bodgan. R. And Biklen, S. 1992. Qualitative research for education (2nd ed).

Boston : Allan and Bacon.

Buck. R and Vanlear C. Arthur. 2002. Verbal and Nonverbal Communication:

Distinguishing Symbolic, Spontaneous, and Pseudo-Spontaneous

Nonverbal Behavior. Journal of Communication. 15, 522-528. Retrieved

November12, 2012

Carbaugh. D. 2007. Etnhnography of Communication. London : The Blckwell

Publishing.

Denzin. N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. ( 1994). Handbook of Qualitative Research.

Thousands Oaks:Sage Publication.

Haverkate. H. 1990. Speech acts, Hearers and Speakers. Reference and

Referential Strategies in Spanish.Holland:University of Amsterdam.

Hurford. J. R&Heasley. B. 1993.Semantic a course book, Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Kasper. G. 1990. ‘Linguistic Politeness: Current Research Issues’, Journal of

Pragmatics. 14, 193-218. Retrieved November 12, 2012

Kissine. M. 2013.From Utterances to Speech acts,Cambridge : Cambridge

University Press.

Leongkamchorn.S. 2011. Speech Act Analysis of British and American poetry,

Chulalongkorn University. Bangkok

(25)

Levinson, S.C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.

Lincon.Y . & Guba, E.G. 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. London : Sage Publication.

Miles. M., & Huberman, M. (2014). Qualitative Data Analysis: A source of New

Method. Beverly Hills : Sage Publication.

Morris. 1983. Oxford Textbooks in Linguistic: Semantics Analysis. Oxford:

Oxford UniversityPress.

Natkare. B. 2015. Speech Act Analysis of Arthur Miller’s ‘A View from the

Bridge’, AsianJournal of Multidisciplinary Studies, 3(3) March

2015,Jejuri: India, Sharadchandraji Pawar College.

Nancy.R. 2009. The Meaning of Context in Communication.Columbia:University

of South Carolina .

Pederson. H. M. 2002. Speech Acts and Agents –A Semantic Analysis.

Lyngby : Denmark,IMM-DTU.

Saeed. J.I. 1997.Semantics, Second edition. London: Blackwell Publishers.

Schiffrin. A. 2005.Modeling speech acts in conversational discourse. Leeds. The

University of Leeds.

Searle.J.R. 1979. Expression and MeaningStudies in the Theory of Speech Acts,

University of California, Berkeley, Cambridge University Press.

Searle.J.R. 1976.A Classification of Illocutionary Acts.Cambridge : Cambridge

University Press.

Troike.M.S. 2003.The Ethnography of Communication.London.England

:Blackwell Publishing.

Yule.G. 1996. Pragmatics.Oxford : Oxford Univerity Press.

Zati. V. W. 2014.Speech Acts used in Televised political debates of governor

candidate of North Sumatera.Jurnal Linguistik terapan Vol. 11 No. 1

(1)

1.2 The Problem of the Study

Based on the background of the study, the problem of the study as the following.

1. How are speech acts realized linguisticallyincommunicative events in school contexts?

2. Why are the speechactsrealized in the way they are?

1.3 The Objectives of the study

(2)

1. to describe how those types of speech acts realized incommunicative events in school context.

2. to explain the reason why those types of speech acts realized in the waythey are.

1.4 The scope of the Study

1.5 The Significance of the Study

(3)

5.1 Conclusion

1. There are two three kinds of speech acts. Those are locutionary, illocutionary and perlocutionary. In performing speech acts people can use two ways of speech acts in communicative events in school contexts, those are Direct and Indirect speech acts. Direct and Indirect speech acts are used in the form of declarative, interrogative and imperative.

2. Direct speech acts generally is the syntactic form of the utterance reflects the direct illocutionary act. Direct realization of declarative form is used to make a statement, an interrogative form is used to ask a question and in an imperative form is used to give an order or make a request. The participants in school contexts tends to use direct act so that they can clearly understand the speakers’ intention. Indirect realization is assumed if the syntactic form of an utterance does not reflect any indirect illocutionary act associated with it or indirect speech acts are performed indirectly by way of performing the literalillocutionary acts.

(4)

5.2 Suggestion

Based on the above conclusions, the following suggestion are given as follow:

1. It is suggested that other researchers of pragmatics should develop the theory of speech acts in communicative events in school contexts by introducing it to the students so that they will be interested to conduct a research related to the field.

2. The use of speech acts will influence the successful of communication in school contexts. So, it is suggested to the school board, headmaster and teachers have to use appropriate speech acts in order that the hearers understand easily the utterance spoken by the speakers. Further research need to be conducted in other school context to compare the use of speech acts used by school board, headmaster and teachers to enrich speech acts theory.

(5)

REFERENCES

Afgari .A. 2011, Effects of Culture and Gender in Comprehension of Speech Acts of

Indirect Request,Journal English Language Teaching Vol. 4, No. 4;

December 2011Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran.

Arif.M.R. 2012.Speech Acts used in courtroomText in Langsa.Journal College of

Basic Education ResearcersVol. 10, No. 1, pp. 528-552.

Austin.J.L . 1962. How to do Things with Words.Clerandon, Oxford, UK.

Bach.B. &Harnish.R.M 2000.Linguistic Communication andSpeech

Acts.Massachusetts, and London, England:The MIT Press Cambridge.

Bascia.N. 2014. The School Context Model, Canada : The University of Toronto.

Barker.S.J. 2004.Renewing Meaning.A speech –Act Theoritic Approach.Oxford

: Clarendon Press.

Bodgan. R. And Biklen, S. 1992. Qualitative research for education (2nd ed).

Boston : Allan and Bacon.

Buck. R and Vanlear C. Arthur. 2002. Verbal and Nonverbal Communication:

Distinguishing Symbolic, Spontaneous, and Pseudo-Spontaneous

Nonverbal Behavior. Journal of Communication. 15, 522-528. Retrieved

November12, 2012

Carbaugh. D. 2007. Etnhnography of Communication. London : The Blckwell

Publishing.

Denzin. N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. ( 1994). Handbook of Qualitative Research.

Thousands Oaks:Sage Publication.

Haverkate. H. 1990. Speech acts, Hearers and Speakers. Reference and

Referential Strategies in Spanish.Holland:University of Amsterdam.

Hurford. J. R&Heasley. B. 1993.Semantic a course book, Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Kasper. G. 1990. ‘Linguistic Politeness: Current Research Issues’, Journal of

Pragmatics. 14, 193-218. Retrieved November 12, 2012

Kissine. M. 2013.From Utterances to Speech acts,Cambridge : Cambridge

University Press.

Leongkamchorn.S. 2011. Speech Act Analysis of British and American poetry,

Chulalongkorn University. Bangkok

(6)

Levinson, S.C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.

Lincon.Y . & Guba, E.G. 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. London : Sage Publication.

Miles. M., & Huberman, M. (2014). Qualitative Data Analysis: A source of New

Method. Beverly Hills : Sage Publication.

Morris. 1983. Oxford Textbooks in Linguistic: Semantics Analysis. Oxford:

Oxford UniversityPress.

Natkare. B. 2015. Speech Act Analysis of Arthur Miller’s ‘A View from the

Bridge’, AsianJournal of Multidisciplinary Studies, 3(3) March

2015,Jejuri: India, Sharadchandraji Pawar College.

Nancy.R. 2009. The Meaning of Context in Communication.Columbia:University

of South Carolina .

Pederson. H. M. 2002. Speech Acts and Agents –A Semantic Analysis.

Lyngby : Denmark,IMM-DTU.

Saeed. J.I. 1997.Semantics, Second edition. London: Blackwell Publishers.

Schiffrin. A. 2005.Modeling speech acts in conversational discourse. Leeds. The

University of Leeds.

Searle.J.R. 1979. Expression and MeaningStudies in the Theory of Speech Acts,

University of California, Berkeley, Cambridge University Press.

Searle.J.R. 1976.A Classification of Illocutionary Acts.Cambridge : Cambridge

University Press.

Troike.M.S. 2003.The Ethnography of Communication.London.England

:Blackwell Publishing.

Yule.G. 1996. Pragmatics.Oxford : Oxford Univerity Press.

Zati. V. W. 2014.Speech Acts used in Televised political debates of governor

candidate of North Sumatera.Jurnal Linguistik terapan Vol. 11 No. 1

SPEECH ACTS IN COMMUNICATIVE EVENTS IN SCHOOL CONTEXTS.