25
The sentences above show that there is a person who tells how heshe fells down from the stairs when heshe was a child. The utterance a has met the
maxim of manner. On the contrary, utterance b fails to fulfill the maxim of manner since the person tries to remember the event but it becomes awkward
when he cannot actually remember what happened to himher when heshe was a child.
d. Implicature
In a conversation, there will be a lot of implied messages delivered by the speakers. The hearers must understand the context of the conversation to get the
meaning of the implied messages. The implied messages are often referred to implicature. According to Grice 1975, implicature is what speakers can imply,
suggest, or mean as distinct from what they literally say. In other words, implicature is an implied message that is based on the interpretation of the
language use and its context. He stresses that there are two types of implicature, namely conventional and conversational implicature.
Conventional implicature occurs when the speakers present a true fact in a a wrong way. According to Yule 1996, it is associated with specific words and
result in additional conveyed meaning when those words are used. It does not have to occur in conversation and does not rely on special context for the
interpretation. It can be said that certain expressions in language implicate ‘conventionally’ a certain state of the world, regardless of their use for instance,
the word last is denoted as ‘the ultimate item of a sequence’ in conventional
26
implicature. Another example is the conjunction but that will be interpreted as ‘contrast’ between the information presented before and after the conjunction.
The conversational implicature is another level at which speaker’s
meaning can differ from what is said, depends on the context of conversation. In conversational implicature, meaning is conveyed not so much by what is said, but
by the fact that it is said. The cooperative principle and the maxims take part when the conversational implicature arises. There are four kinds of conversational
implicature presented by Grice 1975 and Levinson 1983. They include generalized, particularized, standard, and complex conversational implicature.
e. Speech Acts
The utterances produced by the speakers often carry actions such as to inform, to persuade, to express feeling and etc. This is often called speech acts.
With regard to speech acts, the followings present the definition and categorization of speech acts.
Speech acts have become important issues in the field of linguistics. There are many linguists who have provided different definitions of speech acts. The
term speech act was initiated by Austin 1962 and developed by Searle 1969. According to Austin, a speech act is an act performed when someone says
something. Moreover, he classifies the speech acts into locutionary, illocutionary, and perlocutionary acts. In line with Austin 1962, Finegan et.al 1997 state that
speech acts are actions carried out through language. Another definition is presented by Nunan 1993. According to him, Speech
acts are things people do through language for instance apologizing, complaining, PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
27
instructing, agreeing, and warning. Furthermore, Yule 1996 says that actions performed via utterances are often called speech acts.
The next definition is proposed by Aitchison 2003 who states that speech act is a number of utterance functioning like actions. Moreover, she says that
when someone utters a sequence of words, they are trying to achieve some effects from those words. In summary, speech acts are utterances that replace actions for
particular goals in certain situations. Some linguists offer different categorizationss of speech acts. There are
three categorizations of speech acts in reference to Austin 1962, Searle 1969 and Leech 1983. Each is presented below.
1 Austin’s Categorization of Speech Acts
Austin 1962 proposes three different types of speech acts. They consist of locutionary, illocutionary, and perlocutionary acts. Locutionary act is uttering
certain utterances with particular sense and reference, which is roughly equivalent to meaning in the traditional sense Austin, 1962. In other words, locutionary acts
perform the acts of saying something. Moreover, Leech 1996 makes a formula for this act into: s says to h that X. In this formula, s refers to the speaker, h refers
to the hearer, and X refers to the words spoken with a certain sense and reference. Another definition is presented by Yule 1996. He states that this type of
act is the basic act of utterances to produce meaningful linguistic expressions. Similarly, Cutting 2002 defines locutionary act into what is said or the form of
the words spoken. Locutionary acts can be classified into three types based on how English sentences are constructed. They include declarative, imperative and
28
interrogative. Each has the idea of telling something, giving an order, and asking a question respectively Austin, 1962.
The second type of speech acts according to Austin 1962 is illocutionary acts. This is the act of informing, ordering, warning, undertaking, and etc.
According to Austin 1962, illocutionary acts is an utterance which has a particular conventional force. In other words, illocutionary act refers to what one
does in saying something. This act can be formulated into: in saying X, s asserts that P in which P refers to the proposition or basic meaning of an utterance
Leech, 1996. With regard to this kind of act, Yule 1996 gives an example “I’ve
just made some coffee”. In saying that utterance, the speaker makes an offer or a statement.
The next type of speech acts is perlocutionary acts. This act deals with the effects of utterances. In other words, It tells what speakers want achieve in saying
something such as to get hearers to know, to do something, to expect something, to show
speaker’s feeling and to praise Austin, 1969. Furthermore, Austin 1969 gives an example of this act:
if someone shouts, “Fire” then it causes people to exit a room which is on fire, they have performed the perlocutionary act
of getting hearers to exit the room. Meanwhile, Leech 1996 states that the formula of perlocutionary act is by saying X, s convinces h that P e.g. by saying
“I’ve just made some coffee”, the speakers performs the act of causing the hearers to account for nice smell or to get the hearers to drink some coffee. In summary,
the speaker utterances may not be meaningless but their utterances can give PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
29
effects to the hearers in the form of the hearer ’s reaction to the speaker’s
utterances.
2 Searle’s Categorization of Speech Acts
The classification of speech acts is presented differently by Searle 2005. According to Searle 2005, someone performs three different acts when they are
speaking, namely utterance acts, propositional acts, and illocutionary acts. Utterance acts refer to uttering collection of words. Meanwhile, propositional acts
and illocutionary acts deal with uttering words in sentences in certain context, under certain conditions, and with certain intentions. Searle 2005 divides
illocutionary acts into five main types. a Representatives
Representatives refer to the acts which commit the speakers to the truth of the expressed proposition. According Searle 2005, this act describes states or
events in the world including assertions, descriptions, claims, statements of fact, reports, and conclusions. With regard to this, testing this act can be carried out
by simply giving questions whether a case can be classified as true or false. Kreidler 1998 adds that representative acts are performed by speakers and
writers to tell what they know or believe. In other words, representative acts deal with facts. By performing representative acts, the speakers make the words fit
the world or belief. With regard to this act, Yule 1996 provides an illustration by giving an example below:
a The earth is flat
b It was a warm sunny day.
30
The sentences a and b above illustrate the speakers who represent the world as what they believe. In sentence a, the speaker states their belief that the
earth is flat. Meanwhile, in sentence b, the speaker describes their opinion that the day is warm and sunny based on thier belief even though it may not be a hot
sunny day. In this case, the speakers make words fit with the world by performing representative acts.
b Directives In speaking, speakers often intend to get hearers to do something. In this
case, the speakers have performed directive acts. According to Searle 2005, directive acts deal with an attempt of the speakers to get the hearer to do
something through language. He adds that directive acts may include some actions, namely commanding, forbidding, inviting, requesting, and suggesting.
Meanwhile, Yule 1996 says that it expresses what the speakers want. By performing directive acts, the speakers try to make the world fit the words. With
regard to directive acts, Leech 1996 defines it as the speaker’s intention to
produce some effects through an action by the hearer. The following is presented examples of directive acts by Leech 1996:
a You may ask. b Would you make me a cup of tea?
c Freeze The sentence a is a suggestion to ask questions. It contains the directive
acts which function to get the hearers to ask questions as what the speaker wants. Meanwhile, in sentence b, the speaker intends to perform a request that
31
functions to get the hearer to do something, i.e. requesting someone to make a cup of tea. The example c is a command which aims to get the hearers to freeze.
c Commissives Commissives deal with the acts which commit the speakers to some future
course of action. The commisives acts include promising, vowing, offering, threatening, and refusing Searle, 2005. In addition, Kreidler 1998 says that
commissive acts can be expressed using some verbs such as agree, ask, offer, refuse, swear, all with following infinitives. A predicate for commisive is the
verbs that can be used to commit or refuse to commit oneself to some future actions whereas the subject of the sentence is most likely to be I or We. The
examples are presented below: a
We’ll be right back. b
I’m gonna love you till the end. Kreidler, 1998 The content of the sentences above is related to the future actions of the
speakers. The modal will or be going to in certain rules, contexts and situation signify a promise which is considered as commisives.
d Expressives Speakers of a language often express feelings to the hearers when they
speak. By doing so, the speakers have performed the expressive acts. According to Searle 2005, expressive refer to acts that are performed to express a
psychological state of the speakers. Statement of pleasure, pain, like, dislike, joy and sorrow can be categorized into this act. In addition, the expressive verbs may
32
consist of thank, congratulate, apologize, regret, deplore, and welcome. Yule 1996 provides an example of this act as follows
a I’m terribly sorry.
b Congratulation
c We greatly appreciate what you did for us.
The sentence a above is an expression which shows sympathy. Meanwhile, the example b is aimed to congratulate someone and the sentence
c is used to thank or give appreciation to someone.
e Declaratives The utterances produced in a particular context may be able to change the
condition of the world immediately. That is the idea declarative acts. According to Yule 1996 and Cutting 2002, declarative refers to kinds of speech acts that can
change the world via utterances. In order to perform declarative acts appropriately, some circumstances must be met including the speakers must have
specific institutional roles and there must be a specific context. In addition, Leech 1996 states that declarative acts are the illocution of which successful
performance brings about the correspondence between propositional content and reality. The declarative acts may consist of Christening or baptizing, declaring
war, abdicating, dismissing, naming, resigning, and excommunicating. The utterances showing declarative acts are described as follows:
a Boss: “You’re fired”
b Umpire: “Time out” Leech, 1996
33
The utterance a and b are more than statements but they may lead to the change of the condition in reality if they are expressed in an appropriate context.
The utterance a is used to perform the act of ending the employment while the utterance b is used to perform the acts of ending the game.
3 Leech’s Categorization of Speech Acts
Another categorization of speech acts is presented by Leech 1996. Leech 1996 says that the functions of illocutionary rely on how utterances relate to the
social goals of establishing and maintaining community. In this case, speech acts are categorized into four types, namely competitive, convivial, collaborative and
conflictive. The first kind of speech acts is competitive. In this type of speech act, the
goals of the illocutionary compete with the social goals. This speech act functions to show politeness in the form of negative parameter. The important point
regarding this act is reducing the discord in the competition between what the speakers want to gain
and what ‘good manner’ is. Ordering, asking, demanding, begging, and requesting are the examples of this kind of speech act.
The second type of speech acts is convivial. The illocutionary goals in convivial acts are related to the social goals. In contrast to competitive acts,
convivial is intrinsically courteous. This means that politeness is in the positive form of seeking opportunities for comity. Offering, inviting, greeting, thanking,
and congratulating are the examples of this type of speech acts. The next type of speech acts is Collaborative. It has the idea that the
illocutionary goals are different from the social goals. In this case, politeness and PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
34
impoliteness are relevant. This is found in most of written discourse. Asserting, reporting, announcing, and instructing belong to this type of speech acts.
The last type of speech acts is conflictive. This act suggests that the illocutionary goals conflict with the social goals. With regard to this, politeness
does not need to be questioned because the terms in this illocutionary function are used to cause offence or hurt the
hearer’s feeling. Threatening, accusing, cursing, and reprimanding are included as the examples of the conflictive.
4. Felicity Condition
