II REVIEW OF LITERATURE
2.1. Brief Explanation of Pragmatics
Yule 1996: 3 explains Pragmatics is branch of Linguistics that is concerned with the study of meaning as communication by a speaker or writer and interpreted
by a listener or reader. It has consequently, more to do with the analysis of what people meant by their utterances might mean by themselves. Yule 1996: 3 explains
Pragmatics as below: - Pragmatics is the study of speaker meaning.
- Pragmatics is the study of contextual meaning. - Pragmatics is the study of how more gets communicated than is said.
- Pragmatics is the study of the expression of relative distance. Contrast to Pragmatics, Semantics, as other branch of Linguistics that also
concerned with the study of meaning, it is the study of the relationship between linguistics form and entities in the world; that is, how words literally connect to
things.
2.2. Speech Act Theory
The speech act theory is traceable to Austin 1962, an Oxford philosopher of language, in a series of lectures at Harvard. Collinge 1990: 175 mentioned Austin
and other philosophers were interested in the way natural human language conveys meaning, as a way of understanding the nature of thought, logic and communication.
In his famous work, “How to do Things with Words”, J. L. Austin outlined his
Universitas Sumatera Utara
theory of speech acts and the concept of performatives language, in which to say something is to do something. Austin 1962: 94 told that to say something is to do
something, or in saying something we do something, and even by saying something
we do something. Austin notes that language is not only a tool for constatives assertions about the
world, assessed on the basis of truth or falsity alone but also, it is a tool for creating reality. Austin argues that utterances are of two kinds: constatives and performatives.
The both utterances are not only difference in its uttering but also in its situation and
requirements to be fulfilled Kaelan, 2006: 85. Constatives, to Austin, describes a
reality and therefore, may be assessed as either true or false. Constatives are utterances for which a truth value conceivably could be determined. Thus, one could
ascertain the truth of the utterance, “It’s snowing out” by looking out the window.
Performatives , on the other hand, according to Austin, “can never be either
true or false”. Austin describes performatives as below: “The name is derived, of course, from ‘perform’, the usual verb with
the noun ‘action’: it indicates that the issuing of the utterance is the performing of an action – it is not normally thought of as just saying
something.” Austin, 1962: 6-7.
They are used to perform an action. An action, in the words of Austin that can scarcely be performed with so much precision, in any other way.
Examples: 1.
I name this ship, Liberty. 2.
I apologize. 3.
I welcome you, Austin.
Universitas Sumatera Utara
The uttering of performatives such those above constitutes the performance of the actions specified – naming 1, apologizing 2 and welcoming 3. Those
utterances cannot be true or false. When one says, “I apologize”, one is performing an act, but one’s perform is not amenable to a truth-conditional analysis. Although
one cannot determine the truth value of performatives, there are various ways in
which they can be either successful or not, or to use Austin’s term, be infelicitous.
For example, a request would be ‘infelicitous’ Collinge: 1990: 178: a.
If it did not refer to a future act. Example: “Could you please phone me by 5 o’clock last Tuesday?”
b. Or if hearer were unable to do the act.
Example: “Would you mind translating this letter into Swahili?” Spoken to someone who knows no Swahili.
c. Or if speaker did not want hearer to do the act.
Example: “Please phone me at the office tomorrow.” Spoken by someone who does not want to be phoned, and indeed will be not at the office tomorrow; in
this case the request would be effectively performed, but would not be sincere d.
Or if the utterance did not count as an attempt to get hearer to do the act. Example: “Would you kindly refrain from the laughter?” Spoken by a TV
comic in a situation where there was a clear intention to provoke laughter Other example for Austin’s term of infelicity, when a United State woman
utters the performatives “I declare war on Iraqi”. She will fail to substantially alter the world. Her remark will have no effect it misfires according to Austin because
she has no authority to declare war. Her utterance, although neither true nor false, is clearly infelicitous.
Universitas Sumatera Utara
Austin 1962: 14 proposed three sets of conditions required for the felicitous performance of performatives.
1. There must be a conventional procedure performed by an appropriate person in
an appropriate context that has a conventional effect. For example, a minister can perform a marriage by uttering, in the appropriate context, “I now pronounce
you man and wife.” 2.
The procedure must be executed by all participants both correctly and completely.
3. The person performing the act must have the requisite thoughts, feelings, or
intentions e.g., to perform a felicitous promise the speaker must intend to perform the promised act.
Leech 1993: 316 told that the right way to start a study of verbs of Speech Act is by presenting Austin’s classification of speech act; Austin described three
speech act characteristics, Locutionary act doing the act of saying something, Illocutionary act
doing the act in saying something, and Perlocutionary act
doing the act by saying something.
2.2.1. Locutionary Act
Austin 1962: 94 called the act of “saying something” as the performance of a locutionary act. Locutionary acts include phonetic acts, phatic acts, and rhetic acts.
Phonetic acts are acts of pronouncing sounds, phatic acts are acts of uttering words or sentences in accordance with the phonological and syntactic rules of the language to
which they belong, and rhetic acts are acts of uttering a sentence with sense and more or less definite reference.
Universitas Sumatera Utara
Like what Austin 1962: 95 explains: 1.
The phonetic act is merely the act of uttering certain noises. 2.
The phatic act is the uttering of certain vocables or words, i.e. noises of certain types, belonging to and as belonging to, a certain vocabulary, conforming to and
as conforming to a certain grammar. Example: ‘He said “The cat is on the mat”. 3.
The rhetic act is the performance of an act of using those vocables with a certain more-or-less definite sense and reference. Example: ‘He said that the cat was on
the mat’ A similar contrast is illustrated by the pairs by Austin 1962: 95:
Phatic act Rhetic act
He said “I shall be there” He said he would be there
He said “Get out” He told me to get out
He said “Is it in Oxford or Cambridge?” He asked whether it was in Oxford
or Cambridge.
2.2.2. Illocutionary Act
According to Austin 1962: 98, “to perform a locutionary act is in general, it might be performed an illocutionary act”. To determine what illocutionary act is so
performed we must determine in what way we are using the locution: - asking or answering a question
- giving some information or an assurance or a warning - announcing a verdict or an intention
- pronouncing sentence - making an appointment or an appeal or a criticism
- making an identification or giving a description, and the numerous like.
Universitas Sumatera Utara
The trouble is ‘in what way are the locution is used’. When the performing of a locutionary act, the speech is used, but in what way precisely are the speech used?
For there are very numerous functions of or ways in which the speech used, and it makes a great difference to our act in some sense. Which way and which sense the
speech is being ‘used’. It makes a great difference whether it was advising, or merely suggesting, or actually ordering, whether it was strictly promising or only
announcing a vague intention, and so forth. For example, in order to make a promise one must make clear to one’s hearer
that the act she is performing is promise, and in the performance of the act one will be undertaking an obligation to do the promise thing: so promising is an illocutionary
act. In other words, illocutionary act is the contextual function of the utterance. Performance of an act in saying something as opposed to performance of an act of
saying something; Austin refers to types of function of language or what Austin
called ‘illocutionary forces’.
2.2.2.1. Illocutionary classification
Austin 1962: 150 made classes of utterance, classified according to their illocutionary force, by the following more-or-less rebarbative names:
1. Verdictives
2. Exercitives
3. Commissives
4. Behabitives
5. Expositives
Universitas Sumatera Utara
1 Verdictives
Verdictives is the utterance in which the speaker is verdicting something. Verdictives consist of utterances used in delivering findings, official or unofficial
based on evidence. “Verdictives are typified by the giving of a verdict, as the name
implies, by a jury, arbitrator, or umpire. But they need not be final; they may be, for example, an estimate, reckoning, or appraisal. It is
essentially giving a finding as to something-fact, or value which is for different reasons hard to be certain about.” Austin 1962: 150
Examples by Austin 1962: 152: Acquit
convict find as a matter of fact
Hold as a matter of fact interpret as
understand read it as
rule calculate
reckon estimate
locate grade
rank rate
assess value
describe characterize
diagnose analyze
date measure
place
Austin 1962: 152 continues explaining: “A verdictives is a judicial act as distinct from legislative or executive
acts, which are both exercitives. But some judicial acts, in the wider sense that they are done by judges instead of for example, juries,
really are exercitives. Verdictives have obvious connexions with truth and falsity as regards soundness and unsoundness or fairness and
unfairness. That the content of a verdict is true or false is shown, for example, in a dispute over an umpire’s calling ‘Out’, ‘Three strikes’,
or ‘Four balls’.”
2 Exercitives
Exercitives cover utterances that involve some authority. Austin 1962: 150 explains exercitives are the exercising of powers, rights, or influence. They are
Universitas Sumatera Utara
characterized by the giving of a decision in favor of or against a certain course of action. It is a very wide class.
Examples by Austin 1962: 154:
appoint degrade
demote dismiss
excommunicate name
order command
direct sentence
fine grant
levy vote for
nominate choose
claim give
Bequeath pardon
resign Warn
advise plead
Pray entreat
beg Urge
press recommend
Proclaim announce
quash Countermand
annul repeal
Enact reprieve
veto Dedicate
declare closed declare open
3 Commissives
Commissives are typified by promising or otherwise undertaking. The whole point of a commissives is to commit the speaker to a certain course of action.
Examples by Austin 1962: 156: Promise
covenant contract
Undertake bind myself
give my word Determined to
intend declare my intention
Mean to plan
purpose Propose to
shall contemplate
Envisage engage
swear Guarantee
pledge myself bet
Vow agree
consent Dedicate myself to
declare for side with
Adopt champion
embrace Espouse
oppose favor
Universitas Sumatera Utara
4 Behabitives
Behabitives are a very miscellaneous group, and have to do with attitudes and social behavior. Examples are apologizing, congratulating, commending, condoling,
cursing, and challenging. “Behabitives are a class of speech acts used in reaction to other
people’s behavior and fortune and of attitudes and expressions of attitudes to someone else’s past conduct or imminent conduct. There
are obvious connections with both stating or describing what our feelings are and expressing, in the sense of venting our feelings,
though behabitives are distinct from both of these.” Austin 1962: 159
Examples by Austin 1962: 159: a.
For apologies we have ‘apologize’. b.
For thanks we have ‘thank’. c.
For sympathy we have ‘deplore’, ‘commiserate’, ‘compliment’, ‘condole’, ‘congratulate’, ‘felicitate’, ‘sympathize’.
d. For attitudes we have ‘resent’, ‘don’t mind’, ‘tribute’, ‘criticize’, ‘grumble
about’, ‘complain of’, ‘applaud’, ‘overlook’, ‘commend’, ‘deprecate’, and the non-exercitives uses of ‘blame’, ‘a approve’, and ‘favor’.
e. For greetings we have ‘welcome’, ‘bid you farewell’.
f. For wishes we have ‘bless’, ‘curse’, ‘toast’, ‘drink to’, and ‘wish’ in its strict
performatives use. g.
For challenges we have ‘dare’, ‘defy’, ‘protest’, ‘challenge’.
5 Expositives
Austin 1962: 151 explained that “expositives are difficult to define”. “They make plain how our utterances fit into the course of an argument
or conversation, how we are using words, or, in general, are expository. Expositives are used in acts of exposition involving the expounding of
Universitas Sumatera Utara
views, the conducting of arguments, and the clarifying of usages and of references. Examples are ‘I reply’, ‘I argue’, ‘I concede’, ‘I illustrate’,
‘I assume’, ‘I postulate’.”
Here then is a list of expositives by Austin 1962: 161: Affirm
deny state
describe class
Identity remark
mention interpose
inform Approse
tell answer
rejoin ask
Testify report
swear conjecture
doubt Know
believe accept
concede withdraw
Agree demur to
adhere to object to
recognize Repudiate
correct revise
postulate deduce
Argue neglect
emphasize begin to
turn to Conclude by
interpret distinguish
analyze define
Illustrate explain
formulate mean
refer Call
understand regard as
Based on Austin’s classification of illocutionary acts, it can be concluded that one can exercise judgment Verdictives, exert influence or exercise power
Exercitives, assume obligation or declare intention Commissives, adopt attitude, or express feeling Behabitives, and clarify reasons, argument, or communication
Expositives. Austin’s interest of his work for pragmatics also Searle 1969 centre around
illocutionary acts and illocutionary force understood as the functions or meanings associated with illocutionary acts. Therefore when the term ‘Speech Act Theory’ is
used in Pragmatics, it refers to illocutionary acts Collinge, 1990: 177.
2.2.3. Perlocutionary act
If locutionary and illocutionary act are based on the speaker’s role, perlocutionary act is a hearer’s based or the result of the act upon the listener.
Perlocutionary act is what we bring about or achieve by saying something, such as convincing, persuading, deterring, and even, say, surprising or misleading. To make
Universitas Sumatera Utara
clearer what the difference between the three speech act characteristics is, these are
the examples by Austin 1962: 101-102:
Locution Illocution
Perlocution
He said to me ‘Shoot her ’ meaning by ‘shoot’
shoot and referring by ‘her’ to
her. He urged or advised,
ordered, c. me to shoot her.
1. He persuaded me to shoot her.
2. He got me to or
made me, c. shoot
her.
He said to me, ‘You can’t do that’.
He protested against my doing it.
1. He pulled me up, checked me.
2. He stopped me; he brought me to my
senses, c. 3. He annoyed me
On this view, all speech acts have a dimension of meaning or propositional content and a particular force. In other words, one is doing something with one’s
words. But what exactly is one doing? In Austin’s speech act theory, any utterance involves the simultaneous performance of a number of different acts Holtgraves,
2002: 11.
Relevant Study An Analysis of Speech Acts on Film Script Entitled
The Proposal by Rinandes Minthauli Banjarnahor 2011
In her thesis, Rinandes analyzed the illocutionary and perlocutionary acts produced by the two main characters in the movie of The Proposal, Margareth Tate
Universitas Sumatera Utara
and Andrew Paxton based on each category of illocutionary acts by Searle1979, those are representative, commissives, directives, expressives, rogatives, and
declaratives. By using the descriptive method and the steps done by her are first, watching the movie several times and the next step is collecting the two main
characters to be analyzed the illocutionary and perlocutionary acts produced by them. The results for her thesis are found 365 utterances that consist of 190
representatives 52,21, 72 directives 19,72, 66 rogatives 18,08, 20 commissives 5,4, 13 expressives 3,5, and 4 declaration 1,09. Rinandes
also found 14 perlocutionary acts produced by Margareth and Paxton. The writer uses Rinandes’ thesis as the relevant studies because her thesis is
the current thesis analyzing illocutionary act classification before this thesis. The similarity between this thesis and Rinandes’ is the subject and the object for both of
this theses illocutionary act classification in movies aside her perlocutionary act analysis. But, there are several differences between this thesis and Rinandes’:
a The first one is the difference theory used in the both of thesis. Rinandes
used Searle’s theory which classifies illocutionary acts to be declaratives speaker’s utterance that change the reality in accord with the proposition
of the declaration, representatives what the speaker believes to be the case or not, commissives the speaker commits to some future action,
directives the speaker causes the hearer to take a particular action, expressives the speaker expresses her attitudes and emotions towards the
proposition. While this thesis is done by using Austin’s illocutionary act classification which classifies it to be verdictives the utterance of
verdicting something like done by jury, exercitives utterance which needs
the authority
to make
a decision,
commissives
Universitas Sumatera Utara
the speaker commits herself to do a certain action in the future, behabitives utterance which has a connection to the social behavior, and
expositives utterance which fit the conversation. b
The second is Rinandes only analyzed the illocutionary produced by the two main characters of the movie. It is may be caused by the two main
characters have the biggest role in the movie so their dialogues have been the main storyline builder. But in Speech Act Classification in Slumdog
Millionaire, the writer is analyzing the whole characters’ English dialogues because the main character cannot be separated from the
others. The main character’s dialogue always has connection to others that is way this thesis is analyzing the whole characters’ English
dialogues. c
The writer is using Rinandes’ method of research as one of her reading source. But, in the practicing the writer does not use the sample method
like what Rinandes did in her thesis. The findings in this thesis are done by showing the whole utterances categorized for each illocutionary act
classification by giving the explanation underneath it. Additionally the writer gives the superscript for every utterance to make it easy to find the
more explanation for it in the appendices.
Universitas Sumatera Utara
III METHOD OF RESEARCH
3.1. Research Design
This thesis will be done by applying the qualitative method of case study. Case study research is a study which explores a problem with the detailed limitation,
has deep data retrieval, and include various sources of information Afriani, 2009. Bogdan and Taylor Moleong, 2005: 4 mention qualitative research method is a
procedure generates data in the form of descriptive words written or spoken from people and observed behavior. With the qualitative research, researcher can follow
and understand the chronology and causality in research. Miles Huberman, 1992.
3.2. Data and Data Source
The data source of this thesis is the movie Slumdog Millionaire and the data are the whole dialogues of the movie uttered in English that is in the form of sentence.
3.3. Data Collecting Procedures
The data of this thesis is collected by using the method of document. Where the document is the movie Slumdog Millionaire. The important one is the data that
occurs are in the forms of words and not numeric. The printed movie dialogue script will be matched to the playing movie to get the certain picture of what the dialogues
talk about are.
Universitas Sumatera Utara
Data collecting
3.4. Data Analysis
Kategori