CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 2. 1 Theoretical Framework 2. 1. 1Speech as Social Interaction

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 2. 1 Theoretical Framework 2. 1. 1Speech as Social Interaction Surely had known that speech uttered plays a very important role in society,

  not only for one but for thousands purposes. Speech surely has functions. Speech allows us to interact with other people because it loads meanings which some need to be responded by action but some are not. Malinowski (1923) ever claimed that in its primitive uses, language functions as a link in concerted human activity, as a piece of human behavior. It is a mode of action and not an instrument of reflection. Thus after listening to speech, some may directly do something: some may do reflecting, others memorizing, few thinking, little working, lots grumbling, then making new commitment, and much more that this paper is not enough to reveal them all. Perhaps the reader will stacked with above statement. It doesn’t mean that the utterance always brings action, but it could be. There are various kinds of utterance, whether it is to command, to tell, to ask, to inform, to invite, and so on. People actually not always do something physically after others speak, but at least the utterance produced leaves something in mind. Simply we can say that speech as social interaction is not only talking about what the action performed after speaking at all but also how the utterance may communicate one’s idea, suggestion, or whatever, to the interlocutors which may build relationship.

  Another use of speech as social interaction is to establish or reinforce social relation (Hudson, 1996: 109). In face-to-face interaction, such when doing chit chat or mini talk, this is function is clearly observed. When doing this, it is shown that speaker and listener recognize each other’s presence. They are able to continue their conversation after shared the same topic, because the utterances are identifiable that reinforce relation of each other. The same topic meant here, is that nobody ever speaks longer with two different ideas; never be connected. One particular approach to the functional classification of speech that has been extremely applied by linguist is speech act. This approach has been developed in the main philosophers and linguists following the British philosopher J. L. Austin (1962). After this, others linguists and philosophers, included George Yule (1996), expanded his theory and giving own idea in accordance of dividing the classification.

  2. 1. 2An Overview of Speech Act

  It is not a new item in sociolinguistics either in pragmatic. If sociolinguistics analyzes the phenomenon of language in society, the pragmatics analyzes how that language performs action. How people may interact and keep using the language because there is action after using the language. It means that the language uttered has specific meaning with particular purpose that the speakers intended to do something after the message delivered. As Yule (1996: 47) says, “in attempting to express their selves, people do not only produce utterances containing grammatical structures and words, they perform actions via utterances.” Thus the speech delivered is not a blank meaningless sound but it contains action; when someone speaks, he has already acted something. Mey (1998: 1000) also puts his opinion about speech act as he says, “Simply stated, the central tenet of speech act theory is that the uttering of a sentence is, or is part of, an action within the framework of social institutions and conventions. Put in slogan form, saying is (part of) doing, or words are (part of) deeds”. From this statement, we certainly can conclude that when we are saying something, we are doing something too. If we say ‘Take that child away from the door’, we do ‘command’; we command someone. Commanding is considered as action.

  Action brought through the utterance actually is not expected to be done immediately when it is delivered. Such the speech in campaign season, the action expected is to elect the speaker or one who is being promoted not at the time of the campaign but later on at the Election Day. When preparing the speech, the candidate surely must think about words that may attract the people and in certain way he must be able to ensure them about the vision he has. In Inaugural Address, there are also many suggestions delivered which are expected to be done in action. The action is not directly done at the time the speaker uttering the words but later on. In this thesis, we are not talking about the result of the activity performed through utterances but rather than to analyze the classification of speech act and illocutionary function found in it.

  2. 1. 3 Speech Act Verb

  In analyzing the classification of speech act, we surely must able to recognize the verb used in the sentence. The term ‘speech act verbs’ has variously been defined as applying either to all verbs used to refer to any type of verbal behavior or to the much smaller subset of verbs expressing specific speaker attitudes. According to the first, more encompassing definition, verbs such as to claim, to promise, to threaten, to praise, to boast, to complain, to say, to whisper, and to interrupt all count as speech act verbs, whereas the last three of this set are excluded by the second and stricter definition (Mey, 1996: 995). Actually, speech act verbs have been used as synonyms of ‘illocutionary verbs, ‘verbs of communication,’ and ‘verbs of saying’. Verbs such as to say, to whisper, and to interrupt do not lexicalize speaker attitudes; they are semantically less specific than speech act verbs in the narrow sense of the term. For this reason, this contribution is concerned only with speech act verbs that lexicalize combinations of speaker attitudes.

  2. 1. 4 Performativity

  It is a special term in speech act theory which discus about the act brought in utterances. It was produced by Austin in 1995 and explained in his famous book “How to Do Things with Words”. There he explained that the utterances we produce perform something to do. In other words, in using a performative utterance, a person is not merely says something but actually does something if certain real-world conditions are met. Here, the verb is the key to see the action brought in utterances.

  Some speech act verbs can be used not only to denote but also to perform a particular speech act. To test whether a given speech act verb may be used in this way, Austin suggested that it be substituted for the variable x in the formula ‘I (hereby) x . . .’. Any verb that may be used as a part of this formula may be used performatively (Austin, 1962: 67). The verb used indicates the sense of the utterance whether it is to order, to promise, to inform, to criticize, to assert and much more. The performative formula is often part of the institutionalized procedure by which a speaker brings about a particular institutional fact. Consequently, declaratives may generally be used performatively as in I hereby name this ship the ‘King Arthur ‘and “I appoint you chairman.”

  Other types of speech act verbs can be used performatively only if they may be used in utterances that do not require an additional linguistic or nonlinguistic action for a particular speech  act  to be performed. For example, a speaker may promise a hearer to help him or her solely by uttering a sentence such as I promise to help you tomorrow. By contrast, an act of convincing somebody that something is the case requires more than a speaker’s uttering a sentence such as I convince you that Beowulf is the single most important work of English literature. This difference accounts for the fact that to promise may be used performatively, whereas to convince may not .

  2. 1. 5 Speech Act Classification

  Many linguists made their own certain classification of speech act based on careful examination. Not many differences but bring some significance. The first linguist who defined the classification was Austin. Austin (1962) distinguished between five classes by which all performative speech acts could be classified according to what it is that the act of uttering is meant to achieve. So, in essence, Austin set limitations as to the number of possible performative utterance types.

  These utterance types were Verdictives, Exercitives, Commissives, Behabitives, and Expositives. Austin suggested these classes with the forewarning that some fresh classification could be implemented in the future since his definitions were troublesome and prone to overlap.

  Searle (1962), one of Austin’s students who also studied language, goes further than Austin in providing not only the needed general framework for a theory of speech acts but also a richer specification of the detailed structures of speech acts themselves. Thus he distinguishes two kinds of felicity conditions: conditions on the

  performance

  of a speech act and conditions on its satisfaction (you need to fulfill the first in order to issue a promise and the second in order to keep your promise).

  Conditions on performance are divided still further into preparatory, propositional, sincerity and essential conditions. Five classification of speech act delivered by Searle are assertive, directive, commisisve, expressive, and declarative.

  George Yule (1996) also defines five classifications of speech act which not too much different from the recent. The five classifications are: declaration, representatives, expressive, directives, and commissives. He actually follows Searle’s own but there is a little difference found. Below is the further explanation for each.

a. Declarative

  It is a kind of speech act that ‘change the world via utterance’. World here means the situation around the utterances. When using this type, the speaker has to have a special institutional role, in a specific context, in order to perform a declaration properly (1996: 53). Examples:

• Doctor: I predict your wife having the last stage of pancreas cancer.
• Pastor: I at this time baptize you Clark.
• Headmaster: I designate you as my deputy.

  b. Representative

  It is a classification which states what the speaker believes to be the case or not. Simply we can say that the utterance represents speaker’s belief as the fact.

  Statements of fact, conclusions, and descriptions are examples of how this classification uttered. Examples are:

• Austin was the first philosopher who defined the classification of speech act.
• So, this government lack of educated people because the government never cares to our education system.
• The sea comes in wave.

  c. Expressive

  It is a kind of speech act which states what the speaker feels. They express psychological states through their utterances. Statement like pleasure, likes, dislikes, joy, or sorrow are types of utterance that indicate this classification (1996:53). Below are some examples:

• Congratulation for your winning the champion! - I am sorry to hear that.
• It was amazing!

  d. Directive

  This classification of speech act expresses the speaker wants. The interlocutors are expected to do something based on the message of the utterance.

  Directives are such commands, orders, requests, and suggestions. The utterance can be in negative or positive. Examples are following:

• Open the window!
• Could you please hand my assignment to our lecturer?
• Don’t disturb that girl!

e. Commissive

  This last speech act expresses what the speaker intends (1996: 54). Here the speaker uses to commit themselves to some future. There must be something the speaker wants to do after uttering his words. They are promises, threats, refusals, and pledges. Examples as follow:

• I’ll be back for you.
• We will build this country only in four years.
• One day I will come to visit you here.

  2. 1. 6 Illocutionary Function When saying something, the utterances we produce actually have functions.

  Many philosophers and linguists agree with three kinds of speech acts and they are locutinary, illocutionary, and perlocutionary. In definition, Yule says that locutionary is the basic act of utterance or producing a meaningful linguistic expression (1996: 48). When we say ‘Laho ma ahu”, it is considered as locutionary in Bataknese for it has certain meaning with correct grammatical structure; while in English, it is not locutionary. Simply we can say that locutionary is the main meaningful utterance with correct grammatical structure approved in such a language. Illocutionary act is an act performed in uttering something. When a child tell her mother that his teacher (T) told him to bring hand-made sculpture, the utterance of T considered as illocutionary because there is action performed. Thus the illocutionary act can be recognized from the sense of utterance, whether it is to offer, to ask, to make a statement, and much more. The last is perlocutionary, which the utterances we produced give effects to the interlocutor. For example when the T asks her student to close the door by saying “it is better to have the door closed”, thus the hearer or the student will respond it by action.

  There are some important characteristic of illocutionary as proposed to perlocutionary. First, illocutionary acts can often be successfully performed simply by uttering the right explicit performative sentence, with the right intentions and belief, and under the right circumstances. Second, illocutionary acts are central to linguistic communication. Third, and the most important, unlike the perlocutionary, most illocutionary acts used to communicate have the feature that one performs them successfully simply by getting one’s illocutionary intentions recognized.

  Thus, illocutionary has functions and Leech (1991: 104) divides them into four. Below is the further explanation.

  1. Competitive

  This illocutionary goal competes with the social goal. Examples are such ordering, asking, demanding, begging, promising. Here, the negative politeness is used to reduce the unpleasant way between what the speakers want to the politeness should say. For example, “Don’t forget to lock the gate earlier!”.

  2. Convivial

  The illocutionary goal of it coincides with the social goal. Examples are offering, inviting, greeting, thanking, congratulating. In this function, the politeness is applied positively to make a pleasure relationship to the society. For example, “Welcome to our newest program”.

  3. Collaborative

  The illocutionary goal of collaborative is indifferent to the social goal. It can be seen when the utterances are asserting, reporting, announcing, instructing. This function actually does not contain politeness but it commits the speaker to the truth of expressed proposition. For example, “I love this painting”.

  4. Conflictive

  The illocutionary goal of it conflicts with the social goal. The utterances could be threatening, accusing, cursing, reprimanding. The function of conflictive is against the politeness. For example, “One who doesn’t come in time will be punished”.

  2.1. 7 Language, Politic, and Power

  When we speak, we must constantly make choices of many different kinds: what we want to say, how we want to say it, and the specific sentence types, words, and sounds that best unite the what with the how. How we say something is at least as important as what we say; in fact, the content and the form are quite inseparable, being but two facets of the same object. The content somehow determines the way of speaking: when the content is so important and urgent to share, the way to express it surely more serious with settled intonation and careful choosing of words.

  As in political term, we will recognize different sense when politician delivering their speech before the people. Before further talking about the language of politic, we should firstly know what it means by language politic. Mey (1998: 479) determines it as “actual political activity with respect to language”, but distinguished from language policy. Language politics typical agents are state politicians, but they can be members of any polity (institution or community), for example, a family, a religious community, a town, a nongovernmental organization, or an international organization. Objectives of Language politic can vary greatly depending on interests and motives, for example, ‘purifying’ one’s own national language of foreign loans to shape it into a more adequate symbol of national identity, or spreading the language within the state or beyond in order to more efficiently exert power. Language politic has to reckon with existing language rights and may result in new language rights.

  It greatly shows that the using of language in political system contributes great impact to the people. How and what we speak may influence the people and gives impact to their behavior. If we say that the language really has power, people with no doubt will surely agree. Even the language we produce with certain purpose may build a country, the writer thinks so. Well, as Thomas and Wareing say, “…people’s perception of certain issues or concepts can be influenced by language” (1999: 35), also supports the idea mentioned that language really has power: power to influence the people to do the speaker’s intend. It also proves that language has power to control the human’s thought. Schulze also makes his own definition of power and in Rose (1967: 46) he says, “Power will denote the capacity or potential of persons in certain statuses to set conditions, make decisions, and/or take actions which are determinative for the existence of others within a given social system.” Haer also in Rose delivers his own understanding about power that it refers to the ability or authority of individuals or organizations to control, effectively guide, or influence other individuals or groups. These definitions are adequate to drive us to understand that someone who has power will be able to control people. Thus when an utterance may affect people to do something, the utterance surely contains power.

  Delivering a speech which is intended to persuade people as usually found in campaign speech, needs careful preparation in order to achieve the goal. Orwell as quoted in Thomas and Wareing’s book ‘Language, Society, and Power” suggests six things to ponder by politicians, indeed, all speakers and writers in the interests of clear, honest, understandable communication (1999: 39). They are:

  1. Never use a metaphor, simile or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.

  2. Never use a long word where a short one will do.

  3. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.

  4. Never use the passive where you can use the active.

  5. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.

  6. Break any of these rules sooner than say anything barbarous.

  Those six suggestions are better applied when delivering a politician speech such for campaign or in Inaugural Address. It makes the language in politic distinguish from language in medical term or in other fields. Those strategies actually may add the sense of power. The more careful we chose the words of speech the more powerful will be our speech.

  2. 2 Preview of Related Studies

  Here are some relevant studies which helpful to the writer in expanding this research.

  M. Tholhah Al Hadi (2011) in his thesis “An Analysis of Speech Acts Found

  in Barack Obama’s Speech in University of Indonesia”

  gives a good explanation about his findings due to the topic analyzed. Through the research he finds first, the researcher does not find declarative one. As well as conflictive which is one of the function of speech act (illocutionary act), declarative is not found because the context of the utterances being conducted by Barack Obama in University of Indonesia is not to bring about the change in the world even though the purpose of the speech is in the opposite.

  In addition, the utterances of Obama are mostly in the form of assertive (representative) which means committing the speaker to the truth of expressed proposition. The following ranks belong to directive, expressive, and then commissive because there is nothing for declarative. At the same time, the functions of the utterances mostly belong to collaborative. While the following positions belong to competitive, and then convivial. Finally, he suggests to further researchers to analyze such conversations or dialogs in terms of investigating speech act theory.

  However, there are numerous fields in pragmatics, such as politeness strategies, implicature, deixis, and so on. At the same time, the next researchers should not be trapped into speech act theory while they want to investigate pragmatics.

  The other one, HabibMustofa (2009) in his thesis, “Illocutionary Acts in

  Barac Obama’s Inaugural Speech”

  also analyses about the illocutionary act which result as follows. This thesis actually helps the writer in determining the classification of the utterances. Based on the research finding and discussion, the most frequent assertive act performed by Obama is informing, the most frequent directive act performed by Obama is recommending, the most frequent commissive act performed by Obama is promising, the most frequent expressive act performed by Obama is thanking, and the most frequent expressive act performed by Obama is declaring. Finally, all of the types and the function of illocutionary acts are applied by Barac Obama in his inaugural speech, during the observation period of this study.

  Nurul Aini Tsuroyah (2011) with her thesis, “Speech Acts Performed by

  Spider-Man with His Rivals in "The Amazing Spider-Man” Comic

  ” investigates the types and the way of performing speech acts in the comic which are proposed by Searle’s theory. From the research, she found that the utterances of Spider-Man use the all classification of speech act: directive, representative, expressive, verdictive, and commissive. The type of speech acts that is mostly performed by Spider-Man with his rivals is representative. The forms of representative are boasting, affirming, concluding and informing. Besides, commissive is found when the speaker expresses promising in the utterance. The researcher also finds directive in this object when the speaker intends the hearer to do something. In this case, the speaker uses commanding style to perform directive. Then, the speaker uses commissive utterances to commit himself to the performance of action. Here, the speaker has done an action promising to listeners. The next, the speaker uses expressive to express a psychological state about the situation, such as congratulating. Moreover, speakers use verdictive to express a value judgment or rates something, such as assessing. The researcher does not find declarative type.

  Furthermore, she also analyzes direct and indirect speech act. Direct speech act is the most dominant one found here. In this case, the speaker uses it when he intends to clarify, to express his attitude, and to state some messages to the hearer. Moreover, indirect speech act happens when he performs one utterance which can be interpreted into more than one act (illocutionary act). It is produced when the speaker needs to command and affirm the hearer. That’s the summary of this thesis.