REPRESENTATIVE ILLOCUTIONARY ACTS USED BY BARRACK OBAMA IN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION DEBATE 2008-2012 PERIOD.

REPRESENTATIVE ILLOCUTIONARY ACTS USED BY BARRACK
OBAMA IN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION DEBATE 2008-2012 PERIOD

THESIS
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Sarjana Degree
of the English Department Faculty of Arts and Humanities
State Islamic University of Sunan Ampel Surabaya

By: Mega Sagita Nanda Putri
Reg Number: A03212050

ENGLISH DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF ARTS AND HUMANITIES
STATE ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY OF SUNAN AMPEL
SURABAYA
2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Inside Cover Page....................................................................................................ii
Declaration Page.....................................................................................................iii
Approval Sheet Page ..............................................................................................iv

Thesis Examiner’s Approval Page...........................................................................v
Motto.......................................................................................................................vi
Dedication Page.....................................................................................................vii
Acknowledgement................................................................................................viii
Table of Contents.....................................................................................................x
Abstract.................................................................................................................xiii
Intisari...................................................................................................................xiv

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the study....................................................................................1
1.2 Research Problems.............................................................................................5
1.3 Research Objectives...........................................................................................5
1.4 Significance of the study....................................................................................5
1.5 Scope and Limitation.........................................................................................6
1.6 Definition of Key Terms....................................................................................6

CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF LITERATURE
2.1 Theoretical Framework…….……………………………………………….…8
2.1.1 Pragmatics .............................................................................................. 8
2.1.2 Speech acts ..............................................................................................8

2.1.2.1 Locutionary Act………………………...………………………..9
2.1.2.2 Illocutionary Act..………………………………...………..….…9
2.1.2.2.1 Representatives………………………………………...10
2.1.2.2.2 Directives………………………………………………10
2.1.2.2.3 Commisives …………..……………………...…...…....10
2.1.2.2.4 Expressives ………….………...………………….…....10
x

digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id

2.1.2.2.5 Declaratives………………...…………………………..10
2.1.2.3 Perlocutionary Act……………........................…….....…….….11
2.1.3 Representative Acts................................................................................11
2.1.4 The Functions of Representative Illocutionary Acts..............................12
2.1.4.1 Announcing……………..…...………..………………….……..13
2.1.4.2 Reporting………………...……….....…………………….….....13
2.1.4.3 Instructing………..………………...……..………………..…...13
2.1.4.4 Asserting…………..……............………………………….…...13
2.2 Review of Previous Studies.............................................................................13

CHAPTER III: RESEARCH METHOD
3.1 Research Design……………………………………………………...………15
3.2 Data Collection ......................................................................... ......................15
3.2.1 Data and Data Sources...........................................................................15
3.2.2 Instruments.............................................................................................16
3.2.3 Techniques of Data Collection...............................................................16
3.3 Data Analysis ..................................................................................................17

CHAPTER IV: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Findings : Kinds and Functions of Representative Illocutionary Acts………21
4.1.1 Informing..............................................................................................23
4.1.1.1 Informing to assert……...............................................................24
4.1.1.2 Informing to report.......................................................................26
4.1.1.3 Informing to instruct....................................................................29
4.1.2 Agreeing…..........................................................................................30
4.1.2.1 Agreeing to announce.................................................................30
4.1.2.2 Agreeing to assert.........................................................................32
4.1.3 Denying……………………...……………………………………….34
4.1.3.1 Denying to assert.……………………..……….…….………....34
4.1.4 Suggesting............................................................................................36

4.1.4.1 Suggesting to instruct………………..…………………….……36

xi

digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id

4.1.4.2 Suggesting to assert…………………..…………………………38
4.1.5 Disagreeing……………………………………………………..……40
4.1.5.1 Disagreeing to announce……………………………………..…41
4.1.6 Confirming…………………………………………………………...43
4.1.6.1 Confirming to assert…………………………………………….43
4.2 Discussion........................................................................................................44

CHAPTER V : CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1 Conclusion .......................................................................................................48
5.2 Suggestion........................................................................................................49

REFERENCES.......................................................................................................50
APPENDICES

xii

digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id

ABSTRACT
Putri, Mega, S.N. 2016. Representative Illocutionary Acts used by Barrack
Obama in Presidential Election Debate 2008-2012 Period. English
Department, Faculty of Arts and Humanities, State Islamic University of
Sunan Ampel Surabaya. Advisor: Prof. Dr. Hj. Zuliati Rohmah, M. Pd
Keywords: Speech acts, Illocutionary Act, Representative, Barrack Obama.

In this research, the researcher discusses the use of Representative
Illocutionary Acts, which is uttered by Barrack Obama in Presidential Election
Debate 2008-2012 period. Furthermore, the focus of this research is to find what
types of representative illocutionary acts and what functions of representative
illocutionary acts are used by Barrack Obama.
The researcher uses descriptive qualitative methods to collect and analyze
the data. The researcher collects the data from the script of Barrack Obama’s
conversation. Moreover, to analyze the data, the researcher uses representative
illocutionary act theory of John Searle and Leech.

The findings show that the kinds and the functions of representative
illocutionary acts used by Barrack Obama are a) informing to assert (32.16%); b)
informing to report (30.06%); c) denying to assert (11.88 %); d) agreeing to
announce (9.06%); e) agreeing to assert (6.92%); f) disagreeing to announce (5
%); g) suggesting to instruct (2.79%); h) suggesting to assert (2.09%); i)
confirming to assert (1.39%); j) informing to instruct (0.69%); Thus, it can be
conclude that the most dominant is informing to assert type. It was happened
because he intended to give important information based on the fact of situation,
which was happened in their nation, United States.

xiii

digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id

INTISARI

Putri, Mega.S.N. 2016. Representative Illocutionary Acts used by Barrack Obama
in Presidential Election Debate 2008-2012 Period. Jurusan Sastra Inggris,
Fakultas Adab dan Humaniora, Universitas Islam Negeri Sunan Ampel
Surabaya. Dosen Pembimbing: Prof. Dr. Hj. Zuliati Rohmah. M. Pd.

Kata Kunci: Tindak tutur, tindak ilokusi, representatif, Barrack Obama.

Dalam penelitian ini, peneliti membahas tentang penggunan ilokusi
representatif yang digunakan oleh Barrack Obama, pada debat pemilihan calon
presiden tahun 2008 sampai 2012. Fokus permasalahan dalam penelitian ini
adalah untuk menemukan jenis ilokusi representatif dan fungsi dari ilokusi
representatif yang digunakan oleh Barrack Obama.
Penelitian ini menggunakan metode deskriptif kualitatif untuk
mengumpulkan dan menganalisa data. Peneliti mengumpulkan data dari naskah
percakapan yang digunakan oleh Barrack Obama. Selain itu, untuk
mengumpulkan data, peneliti menggunakan teori ilokusi representatif dari John
Searle dan Leech.
Hasil dari penelitian ini menunjukan bahwa macam-macam dan fungsi
ilokusi representatif yang digunakan oleh Barrack Obama adalah a)
menginformasikan untuk penegasan (32.16%); b) menginformasikan untuk
pelaporan (30.06%); c) membantah untuk penegasan (11.88 %); d) menyetujui
untuk pemberitahuan (9.06%); e) menyetujui untuk penegasan (6.92%); f) tidak
menyetujui untuk pemberitahuan (5%); g) menyarankan untuk memerintahkan
(2.79%); h) menyarankan untuk penegasan (2.09%); i) mengkonfirmasi untuk
penegasan (1.39%); j) menginformasikan untuk memerintahkan (0.69%); Jadi,

dapat disimpulkan bahwa yang paling dominan adalah tipe menginformasikan
untuk penegasan. Hal ini terjadi karena Barrack Obama menginformasikan
tentang sesuatu yang dianggap penting yang terjadi di Amerika Serikat dan
didukung dengan fakta-fakta yang mendasari.

xiv

digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id

ABSTRACT
Putri, Mega, S.N. 2016. Representative Illocutionary Acts used by Barrack
Obama in Presidential Election Debate 2008-2012 Period. English
Department, Faculty of Arts and Humanities, State Islamic University of
Sunan Ampel Surabaya. Advisor: Prof. Dr. Hj. Zuliati Rohmah, M. Pd
Keywords: Speech acts, Illocutionary Act, Representative, Barrack Obama.

In this research, the researcher discusses the use of Representative
Illocutionary Acts, which is uttered by Barrack Obama in Presidential Election
Debate 2008-2012 period. Furthermore, the focus of this research is to find what
types of representative illocutionary acts and what functions of representative

illocutionary acts are used by Barrack Obama.
The researcher uses descriptive qualitative methods to collect and analyze
the data. The researcher collects the data from the script of Barrack Obama’s
conversation. Moreover, to analyze the data, the researcher uses representative
illocutionary act theory of John Searle and Leech.
The findings show that the kinds and the functions of representative
illocutionary acts used by Barrack Obama are a) informing to assert (32.16%); b)
informing to report (30.06%); c) denying to assert (11.88 %); d) agreeing to
announce (9.06%); e) agreeing to assert (6.92%); f) disagreeing to announce (5
%); g) suggesting to instruct (2.79%); h) suggesting to assert (2.09%); i)
confirming to assert (1.39%); j) informing to instruct (0.69%); Thus, it can be
conclude that the most dominant is informing to assert type. It was happened
because he intended to give important information based on the fact of situation,
which was happened in their nation, United States.

xiii

digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id

INTISARI

Putri, Mega, S.N. 2016. Representative Illocutionary Acts used by Barrack
Obama in Presidential Election Debate 2008-2012 Period. Jurusan Sastra
Inggris, Fakultas Adab dan Humaniora, Universitas Islam Negeri Sunan
Ampel Surabaya. Dosen Pembimbing: Prof. Dr. Hj. Zuliati Rohmah. M. Pd.
Kata Kunci: Tindak tutur, tindak ilokusi, representatif, Barrack Obama.

Dalam penelitian ini, peneliti membahas tentang penggunan ilokusi
representatif yang digunakan oleh Barrack Obama, pada debat pemilihan calon
presiden tahun 2008 sampai 2012. Fokus permasalahan dalam penelitian ini
adalah untuk menemukan jenis ilokusi representatif dan fungsi dari ilokusi
representatif yang digunakan oleh Barrack Obama.
Penelitian ini menggunakan metode deskriptif kualitatif untuk
mengumpulkan dan menganalisa data. Peneliti mengumpulkan data dari naskah
percakapan yang digunakan oleh Barrack Obama. Selain itu, untuk
mengumpulkan data, peneliti menggunakan teori ilokusi representatif dari John
Searle dan Leech.
Hasil dari penelitian ini menunjukan bahwa macam-macam dan fungsi
ilokusi representatif yang digunakan oleh Barrack Obama adalah a)
menginformasikan untuk penegasan (32.16%); b) menginformasikan untuk

pelaporan (30.06%); c) membantah untuk penegasan (11.88 %); d) menyetujui
untuk pemberitahuan (9.06%); e) menyetujui untuk penegasan (6.92%); f) tidak
menyetujui untuk pemberitahuan (5%); g) menyarankan untuk memerintahkan
(2.79%); h) menyarankan untuk penegasan (2.09%); i) mengkonfirmasi untuk
penegasan (1.39%); j) menginformasikan untuk memerintahkan (0.69%); Jadi,
dapat disimpulkan bahwa yang paling dominan adalah tipe menginformasikan
untuk penegasan. Hal ini terjadi karena Barrack Obama menginformasikan
tentang sesuatu yang dianggap penting yang terjadi di Amerika Serikat dan
didukung dengan fakta-fakta yang mendasari.

xiv

digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id

1

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
In this chapter, the researcher gives a brief explanation about her study. There
are six parts in this chapter : background of the study, research problem, research
objectives, significance of the study, scope and limitation, and the last one is the
definition of key terms.

1.1 Background of the study
Language is part of communication and has important meaning in the world of
politics, especially in debates politic, such as it was did by the candidates of
President in presidential election debates. Thus, language becomes an important
rule to express the opinion, ideology and maintain power.
This research describes the study of representative utterances which is used by
Barrack Obama in his political debate. The specific aims of this research is to
describe not only the kinds of representative acts which is used by Barrack Obama
in the political debate, but also the functions of representative utterances are used
by Barrack Obama. In addition, Barrack Obama is used representative utterances
to deliver some true statements. In this case, the president must be having an
experience or knowledge about the condition of his/her country. Thus, he
indirectly provoke his people to believe his words to vote him. Moreover, in this
study, the researcher takes source of data in the script from 2008 until 2012 period
to analysis this study.
Debate is one of the part of the campaign, which it is to explore the candidates
intellectual capacity, their vision and mission and to gain people support. Thus,

1

digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id

2

from the debate, candidates will not only express their opinions, viewpoints,
arguments, but also convince to the public to vote him.
According Buck and Vanlear (in Francisca and Silitonga, 2012:2), there are
two types of communication. Those are verbal communication and nonverbal
communication. Verbal communication is the way of communicating messages by
using words as the elements. However, nonverbal communication is the way of
communicating messages by using gesture, body movements, eye contact, facial
expression, or general appearances as the elements. Furthermore, political debate
is a speech that using verbal communication, which is by means of using words as
elements, because the listeners can understand what the speaker mean.
Representative is an important aspect in daily communication, especially
political debate speech, which is their candidates deliver their speech to convey
information to the listener, so that they can show their capacity and capability
being a leader and the listener can easily choose the leader candidate.
The researcher prefers to choose analyzing speech debate of Barrack Obama
in Presidential Election Debate, because Barrack Obama is the first president of
African American and he can hold the office from 2008 until 2012 period. One of
the reasons the researcher analyze the speeches is because she is greatly interested
in political area especially on political speech.
The researcher refers to use the theory of pragmatics, because it related to this
research. Communication is usually defined as conversation, for sending and
receiving message. For sending message named the speaker, and the receiving
message named the hearer. However, between the speaker and the hearer must be

digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id

3

have a good communication. If one of them cannot send or receive the message,
the communication does not work well. In this case is related with this research
that is the study of meaning, which is communicated by a speaker (or writer) and
interpreted by listener.
In communication, language has an important role because it explains what
the speaker intended. In a case of saying a word, sometimes someone uses a word
not only to say things but also to do things with an action, and it is called speech
acts. Austin (1962:108) said that speech act is the action performed in saying
something, so that people needs to not only understand what speaker said, but also
what the speaker wants the listener to understand and do something. Therefore,
according to Van Djik (1998:42), speech acts are the basic units of human
communication. The words speech acts are derived from two words ‘speech’ and
‘act’. ‘Speech’ is the utterance that occurs and ‘act’ means action. Thus, that is the
reason why people have to interpret the meaning of communication or language
through speech acts (Kumalasari, 2011:3).
There are some researchers which were closely related to this research. The
first research was written by Rachmadiah (2014), under the title “A Study of
Illocutionary Acts Used by Vladimir and Estagon in Waiting for Godot”. In her
thesis, she described about five types of illocutionary act based on Searle and the
function of Illocutionary act. She found 29 data in her thesis, and the data were
taken from some conversation between Valdimir and Estragon in Waiting For
Godot. For this study almost representative that arise. In Rachmadiah’s research,
Valdimir and Estagon most dominant to inform something.

digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id

4

The second is a study entitled “Illocutionary Acts in Stand-Up Comedy”,
which was conducted by Putri and Murni (2012). They studied about the types of
illocutionary acts, the most dominant type, and the implication of the dominant
type. Besides that, they used quantitative and qualitative method, and the finding
of their research is the representative aspect was the most dominant illocutionary
acts type. Then, they explained that the comics who dominantly conveyed their
belief that some proposition is true and they also indirectly provoke the audience
to believe their words.
The other study is “Representative and Directive Act used by main characters
in The Bayton Outlaw’s Movie”, which was conducted by Andriyansah (2015).
His study are focused the kinds of illocutionary act that are representatives and
directives illocutionary acts. He used theory based on George Yule. The findings
of his research showed that the characters used representative for informing news,
stating curiosity, and making relaxed. Then, the purposes of directives are for
asking, commanding people, begging and convincing someone. However, in this
study has similar topic to find out representative illocutionary acts and the
function or the purpose of illocutionary acts.
The last study is “An analysis on representative acts in film “Harry Potter and
the philoshoper’s stone by J.K Rowling” which was conducted by Nikmah (2015).
In her study focused on representative acts. However, among Dewi’s study and
this present research has similar about representative acts, but the differences is
about an object and research problem. Dewi’s object study is a movie, but in this
present research object is debate.

digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id

5

Based on previous literature review, the researcher wants to analyze debate
speeches because she is eager to find out the representative illocutionary acts
which is occurred in debate speech. Moreover, the researcher hopes that this
research makes the readers are more understand about representative utterances.

1.2. Research Problems
Based on the background of the study above, the researcher formulates the
questions:
1. What are representative illocutionary acts performed by Barrack Obama in
Presidential Election Debate 2008-2012 period?
2. What are the functions of representative illocutionary acts performed by
Barrack Obama in Presidential Election Debate 2008-2012 period?

1.3 Research Objectives
Based on the problem research above, the objectives of the study aim to:
1. To describe representative illocutionary acts used by Barrack Obama in
Presidential Election Debate 2008-2012 period.
2. To reveal the functions of representative illocutionary act performed by
Barrack Obama in Presidential Election Debate 2008-2012 period.

1.4 Significance of the Study
The significance of the research is theoretically and practically. Theoretically,
this further research gives information to the linguistic students who are interested
to the speech acts. Besides that, it can be a reference for everyone who wants to

digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id

6

investigate the representative illocutionary acts. However, practically, the result of
this study is to give contribution in linguistic fields, expecially pragmatic study.

1.5 Scope and Limitations of the study
The scope of the research is pragmatics, which is concerning on language used
and focusing on interaction utterance between speaker and hearer. Second, this
research mainly focuses on the representatitve illocutionary acts used by Barrack
Obama’s utterance delivered in the years of 2008-2012 in Presidential Election
Debate of United Stated. There are five debate speeches; on October 5, 2008, on
October 18, 2008, on October 21, 2008, on October 3, 2012, and October 16, 201.
Besides that, the kinds of representative illocutionary acts are analyzed by using
Searle’s classification and the functions of representative illocutionary acts are
analyzed by using Leech’s theory.
However, the limitation of this research, the researcher does not include the
tone and body gesture of Barrack Obama. Thus, the limit of this research is
merely of the text of Obama.

1.6 Definition of Key Terms
In this explanation, the writer gives definition related to support the title and
also to avoid misunderstanding and the best way for the reader knows this study.
a) Speech act is the basic unit of language.
b) Illocutionary act is the intended action by the speaker, the force or
intention behind the words.

digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id

7

c) Representatives commit the speaker to something’s being the case, to the
truth of the expressed proposition.
d) Barrack Obama is a President of the United State and he is the first
African American to hold the office and to win of presidential debate in
election 2008 until 2012 period.
e) Presidential Election Debate is a debate which is done by the presidential
or vice president candidate before the general election. Sometimes, they
are talked about controversial issues at that time. Further, it can influence
the result of general election, whether it will be increased or decreased.

digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id

8

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
In this chapter, the researcher presents the related literature about pragmatic,
speech acts theory, the types of speech act, the definition of representative
illocutionary acts, the functions of representative illocutionary acts and review of
related the study.

2.1 Theoritical Framework
2.1.1 Pragmatics
Pragmatics is a field of linguistics studying communication. It is the study of
the aspects of meaning and language use that are dependent on the speaker,
addresse, the context of utterance and the function of utterance. Yule (1996:3)
said that pragmatics is the study of meaning as communicated by a speaker or
writer and interpreted by a listener or reader. It means that this study try to
explains that communication needs a further analysis on what people mean by
their utterances of words or phrases in those utterances.

2.1.2 Speech Acts
According to Austin (1962:108), speech act is the action performed in saying
something. Austin (in Susanto, 2014:9), work was systematized and further
developed by J. R. Searle, an American philosopher, who stated that claims that
all linguistic communication involves linguistic acts. Besides that, he stated that
speech act is a basic unit of a communication, it means that there are a series of a
analytic connection between the notion of speech acts, what the speaker means,

8

digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id

9

what the sentence uttered means, what the speaker intends, and what the hearer
understands. (Searle, 1969 as cited in Schiffrin, 1995:90).
Austin mentioned that speech act theory can be analyzed on three levels.
These are: Locutionary act, illocutionary act, and perlocutionary act.
2.1.2.1 Locutionary act
Locutionary act is the act of saying, the literal meaning of the utterances.
According Paltridge (2006:55), locution is refers to the literal meaning of the
actual words. So, locution is what was said. This is the level which is connected
with the production of utterance such as grammar, phonetic and phonology.
According Austin (in Sakdiyah 2014:3), locutionary act is the act of meaning
conventionally. Based on Austin analyzes the locutionary act into three parts. The
phonetic act is the act of uttering certain noises, the phatic act is the act of
uttering certain vocables or words, and the rhetic act is the act of using those
vocables with a more or less definite sense and reference.
2.1.2.2 Illocutionary act
Illocutionary act is the act of what speaker is doing uttering the words.
According Peccei (in Francisca and Silitonga, 2012:3), there are some uttering
words what the speaker doing utterance, such as commanding, offering,
promising, threatening, and thangking other. Thus, illocutionary act is what was
mean by the speaker.
According to Searle and Vanderveken (1985), illocutionary acts is the minimal
units of human communication. Some examples of there are statements,
questions, commands, promises and apologies. Moreover, according to Searle,

digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id

10

Illocutionary acts divided into five categories: representatives, directives,
expressives, commisives and declaratives.
2.1.2.2.1 Representatives or assertives
It is the speakers do to the truth of the expressed proposition, such as:
suggesting, claiming, and reporting. In this case, assertive or can be called
representative acts it commits the speaker to the truth of expressed proposition
(the sun rises in the east). Types of representative acts are informing, denying,
stating, asserting, predicting, announcing, conjecturing, and disagreeing.
2.1.2.2.2 Directives
It is intended to produce some effect throug action by the hearer. The acts can
be requesting, questioning, commanding, pledging, inviting, and daring.
2.1.2.2.3 Commisives
It is speaker do to some future action, such as promising, offering, refusing.
This point is concerned with altering the world to match the words, but this time
the point is to commit the speaker her/himself to acting and it necessarily involves
intention.
2.1.2.2.4 Expressives
It is the speaker feels. It can be shown in the acts of thanking, apologizing,
welcoming,congratulating, deploring, condolence, greeting, and complaining.
2.1.2.2.5 Declaratives
It is the kinds of speech acts that change the world via utterances. It means
that the acts of this kind of the utterance are used as an approving, betting,
blessing, christening, confirming, declaring, dismissing, resigning, naming etc.

digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id

11

2.1.2.3 Perlocutionary act
Perlocutionary act is the effect of the utterance on the hearer through the
uttering of linguistic expression. According to Paltridge (2006:55), perlocutionary
is the effect of the utterance has on the thoughts or actions of the other person. So,
perlocution act is what happened as a result. Austin in Levinson (1983: 236) said
that perlocutionary act is the bringing about of effects on the audience by means,
of uttering the sentence, such effects being special to the circumstances of
utterance.

2.1.3 Representative acts
Representative is one of the kinds of illocutionary act. It is an important aspect
in daily communication, especially political debate speech, which is their
candidates deliver their speech to convey information to the listener, so that they
can show their capacity and capability being a leader and the listener can easily
choose the leader candidate.
Accoding Searle (in Tarigan, 1979:49), representatives commits the speaker to
the truth of expressed proposition. The verb of representatives are informing,
suggesting, agreeing, disagreeing, denying, and confirming. The detailed is below:
a) Inform is used by the speaker to inform something.
-

Example: I’m sick today.

Here, the speaker tells the information that she getting sick to the hearer.
b) Suggest is used by the speaker to give solution.
-

Example: You should go to the hospital.

digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id

12

From this example below, the speaker gives suggest, advise that the hearer
must be go to the hospital to check the condition of the hearer.
c) Agree is used by the speaker that have the same direction.
-

Example: I agree with you.

The speaker tells that she consents with the argument of the hearer.
d) Disagree is used by the speaker that have not the same direction.
-

Example: I don’t agree with your argument.

From this example, the speaker tells that she disagree about the opinion of
the hearer.
e) Deny is used by the speaker to refuse something.
-

Example: No, I never do that.

Here, the speaker’s disprove what the hearer’s say.
f) Confirm is used by the speaker to clarify the direction.
-

Example: I never said like that, here what I said.

From this example, the speaker’s clarify of her argument that she never
says that.

2.1.4 The functions of representative illocutionary acts
According to Leech’s (1993: 104) statement, the function of representative
illocutionary act is seen based on how illocutionary acts relate to the social goals
or purposes of establishing and maintaining politeness. The function of
representatives illocutionary act is called collaborative.

digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id

13

Collaborative illocutionary functions is categories of representatives acts. The
aim is to ignore the social purposes, such as asserting, reporting, annoncing, and
instructing.
2.1.4.1 Announcing is used by the speaker to give information by announcing
statement to the hearer.
2.1.4.2 Reporting is used by the speaker to give information by adding number
to approve the data.
2.1.4.3 Instructing is used by the speaker to give information by giving
instruction as a solution to what will do.
2.1.4.4 Asserting is used by the speaker to state the statement with clear
information.

2.2 Review of Previous Studies
There are some review the previous that related in this study. The first
previous studied is Andriansyah (2015), he analyzed representative acts that used
by main characters in “The Baytown Outlaw’s movie. The aim of this study is to
find out the representative acts and to find out the purpose of use representative
acts that used by main characters. He used qualitative method. The result of his
study is the main characters mostly used to state, to claim, to complain, to suggest,
to assert, to conclude, and to describe something. Each representative has purpose
for informing news, stating curiosity, for making relaxed, thanking, mocking
someone, and for discussion. The intended meaning of representative is about
announcement, discussion about job, telling strory, curiosity of main character.

digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id

14

The second previous studied has done by Muskananfola (2009), she analyzed
illocutionary acts in Victory Speech and Inagural of Barrack Obama. She formed
two research question to describe Obama’s utterances and his action in Victory
Speech and Inagural Speech, are a). What are the classifications of illocutionary
acts occuring among the utterances in the “Victory Speech” and “Inagural
Speech” of Obama, b) What is the frequency occured of each classification of
illocutionary acts found in those speeches. She used descriptive qualitative
mothod on Illocutionary Acts of speeches delivered by Barrack Obama. The result
of her study is Barrack Obama mostly used representative acts in Inagural Speech
than in Victory Speech. Obama transmit his message the audience to assert the
fact.
The last previous studied done by Rianto (2006), she analyzed of illocutionary
acts in the political speech. Rianto focused on the application of the illocutionary
acts in the speech text. He formed two research to research question are: a) What
types of illocutionary acts are found in the speech “I Have a Dream” by Martin
Luther King, Jr. b). What type of illocutionary acts that the highest number of
occurence in the speech “I Have a Dream” by Martin Luther King, Jr. She used
descriptive method to described the application of types of illocutionary acts in
the speech. Therefore, the resulted of her research is representatives as a type that
most dominant type.

digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id

15

CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHOD
This chapter contains research design, data, data source, instrument,
techniques of data collection, and data analysis.

3.1 Research Design
This present research is focused on the representative illocutionary acts used
by Barrack Obama in Presidential Election Debate 2008 until 2012 period. In
addition, the purpose of this study is to identify the kinds of representative
illocutionary acts in debate speeches, and the functions of representative
illocutionary acts used by Barrack Obama.
This present research, the researcher used the qualitative research. Qualitative
approach is a way to collect the data from analyzing and description. Wahyuni
(2012:76) said that qualitative is an inductive approach and its goal is to gain a
deeper understanding of a person’s or group’s experience. Moreover, the
researcher choosed this approaches because in the data analysis, the researcher
doesn’t put any numeric data.
3.2 Data Collection
3.2.1 Data and Data Sources
The data of this research was the utterance, which is used by Barrack Obama
in Presidential Election Debate 2008 until 2012 period. Besides that, the
researcher got the source to transcribe the data of Barrack Obama’s debate on
http://www.debates.org/index.php?pages-debate-transcripts.

However,

the

15

digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id

16

researcher downloaded the script of Barrack Obama debate’s fifth times. The first
transcript is 33 pages. The second transcript is 31 pages. The third transcript is 32
pages. The fourth transcript is 32 pages. The fifth transcript is 38 pages. Thus, the
total of the transcripts is 163 pages. Moreover, the data source of this study are
taken through internet with an assumption that internet is less trustworthy than
other sources.

3.2.2 Instruments
The main instrument of this research is the researcher herself. Polit and
Hungler (2004) said that the concept of researcher as instrument was frequently
used to describe the researcher’s significant role in collects and analysis data.
Thus, the researcher is the main instrument because the writer collected the data,
analyzed the data, interpreted the data, and drawn a conclusion of the research.
The researcher is the main instrument though watched the video of Barrack
Obama’s debate, downloaded the scripts, then the researcher collected the data,
focused on Barrack Obama’s utterance, identified the kinds of representative
illocutionary acts and the functions of representative illocutionary acts, which was
Barrack Obama’s utter.
3.2.3 Techniques of data collection
The data collection technique is a technique used to collect the data. There are
several techniques to collect data:

1. The researcher search on youtube and downloaded the videos of Barrack
Obama: Presidential Election Debate 2008-2012 period.

digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id

17

2. After finding the video, the researcher downloaded the script of the
Barrack Obama’s utterance.
3. The researcher watched the video while read the script and take some
notes to construct the analysis based on the data obtained.
4. Then, the researcher selected the data and identified both the kinds and the
functions of representative illocutionary acts of Barrack Obama
conversation on the script Barrack Obama in the sixth section: Presidential
Election Debate 2008-2012 period

3.3 Data Analysis
The researcher used some step to analyze the data, as these following steps:
1. Identifying
The researcher identified the data, which are collected from conversations
Barrack Obama: Presidential Election Debate 2008-2012 period from the first
debate until the final debate. She identified the utterances that containing the
kinds of representative illocutionary acts used by Searle’s theory. The process to
identify the data, the researcher make easier analyzed by giving underline every
utterance, which include answer research problem number one, through using
various color in each kinds of representative. The color red is for informing, green
is for suggesting, blue is for agreeing, purple is for disagreeing, yellow is for
denying, and brown is for confirming. Moreover, the purpose of the color marks is
to make easier the researcher analyzing the data. Besides that, to answer research
problem number two, the researcher identified the data by putting the suitable
codes, which is according to the code above. Then, to identify the function of

digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id

18

representative, the researcher gives code to make easier analyze the data. The
researcher used Leech’s theory and she gives code the data to underlie based on
rules:
Codes for Function of Representative:


Announcing is coded AN



Asserting is coded AS



Instructing is coded IS



Reporting is coded RP

2. Classifying
After analyzing an utterance containing kinds of representative illocutionary
acts and the functions of representative illocutionary acts, the researcher classified
every utterances produced used by Barrack Obama by marked code.

Picture 3.1 The print screen of classifying data with technique code
Notes:

digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id

19

3. Determining and calculating
After analyzing and classifying the data, the researcher make a table to
determine the total and calculate the percentage for kinds and functions of
representative illocutionary acts which produced by Barrack Obama in debate.
Moreover, the ways of the researcher counts the total number each kinds and
functions (n) times a hundred percent (100%) and divided the total number of all
of the total data (N). The formula: P =

below:
NO

1

2

3

4

5

6

Kinds of
Representative

n

�

×

Functions

Announcing
Reporting
Informing
Instructing
Asserting
Announcing
Reporting
Suggesting
Instructing
Asserting
Announcing
Reporting
Agreeing
Instructing
Asserting
Announcing
Reporting
Disagree
Instructing
Asserting
Announcing
Reporting
Denying
Instructing
Asserting
Announcing
Reporting
Confirming
Instructing
Asserting
TOTAL

%. It will be illustrated in table 1

Data

Total

Frequency
…..%
…..%
…..%
…..%
…..%
…..%
…..%
…..%
…..%
…..%
…..%
…..%
…..%
…..%
…..%
…..%
…..%
…..%
…..%
…..%
…..%
…..%
…..%
…..%
100%

digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id

20

Notes: Data

4. Interpret the data
After analyzing the data, the researcher analyzed the data of kinds
representatives acts based on speech acts classification by Searle’s theory, and
analyzed the data of functions representatives acts based on Leech’s theory.
5. Drawing conclusion
The last step of this research, the researcher drawn a conclusion from the
result by interpreting the data to answer the research problem about the finding of
kinds and functions of representatives illocutionary acts used by Barrack Obama
in his debate which is based on Searle’s classification and Leech’s theory.

digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id

21

CHAPTER IV
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter be composed of two sections are findings and discussion. The
first section is the finding of this research which divided into two parts.
Meanwhile, the second section is discussion. In this section the researcher
discusses the finding in detail.

4.1 Findings: Kinds and Functions of Representative Illocutionary Acts
The finding in this research is divided into two parts according to the
statement of the problem. The first part is kinds of representative illocutionary
acts used by Barrack Obama’s utterance in “Presidential Election Debate” 2008
until 2012 Period which used Searle’s theory. The second part is the functions of
representative illocutionary acts used by Barrack Obama’s utterance in
“Presidential Election Debate” 2008 until 2012 Period which used Leech’s
theory.
Based on the data analysis, the researcher found 143 data containing kinds
and functions of representative illocutionary acts used by Barrack Obama’s
utterance. The diagram below shows the data of kinds and functions of
representative illocutionary acts which are divided into six kinds based on
Searle’s theory and the functions of representative illocutionary acts are divided
into four functions based on Leech’s theory. It presents in total number of each
kinds and functions of representative illocutionary acts.

21

digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id

22

Announcing

Reporting

Instructing

Asserting

46
43

17
13
9
0

1

Informing

7

4 3
0 0
Suggesting

0 0
Agreeing

0 0 0
Disagreeing

0 0 0
Denying

0 0 0

2

Confirming

uFigure 1: Kinds and Functions of Representatives Illocutionary Acts
The diagram above shows that informing to assert type is commonly used by
Barrack Obama’s utterance in “Presidential Election Debate” 2008 until 2012
Period. Diagram above shows that in Presidential Election Debate, Barrack
Obama uses kinds of representative act, they are, informing, suggesting, agreeing,
disagreing, denying, and confirming. The informing type has three function, they
are, reporting, instructing, and asserting. The suggesting type has two function,
they are, instructing and aserting. The agreeing type has two function, they are,
announcing and asserting. The disagreeing type have one function is announcing.
The denying type have one function is asserting. The last is confirming type have
one function is asserting.
The first kinds and the functions of representative illocutionary acts that
Barrack Obama’s utterances are informing to assert. It is the highest number
which consists of 46 data out of 143 data or 32.16% of all data. It shows that in

digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id

23

Presidential Election Debate, Barrack Obama used more informing to assert
something than other kind and function of representative illocutionary acts. The
second number is informing to report type, which consists of 43 data out of 143
data or 30.06% of all data. The third number is denying to assert type, which
consists of 17 data out of 143 data or 11.88% of all data. The fourth number is
agreeing to anounce type, which consists of 13 data out of 143 data or 9.06% of
all data. The fifth number is agreeing to assert type, which occur 9 data out of 143
data or 6.92% of all data. The sixth number is disagreeing to announce type,
which occur 7 data out of 143 data or 5% of all data. The seventh number is
suggesting to instruct type, which occur 4 data out of 143 data or 2.79% of all
data. The eight number is suggesting to assert type, which occur 3 data out of 143
data or 2.09% of all data. The ninth number is confirming to assert type, which
occur 2 data out of 143 data or 1.39% of all data. The tenth number is informing
to instruct type, which occur 1 data or 0.69% of all data.
The kinds and the functions of representative illocutionary acts are explained
in detail.

4.1.1 Informing
This is the most common kinds of representative illocutionary acts used by the
speaker utterances to say something. These utterances used by the speaker to give
information, tell the facts, or the important things to the hearer. Every utterance
certainly has meaning or function to give information. The informing type has
three functions. They are, asserting, insisting, and reporting.

digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id

24

4.1.1.1 Informing to assert
Informing to assert occurs when a speaker gives information and insist on
having speaker’s opinions in strong and definite way. “It is important” is the
example of the kinds and functions representative acts. It occur 46 datum out of
143 data or 32.16% of the total percentage. The detailed data is in Appendix 2.
Here the researcher takes three data to be presented.
Fragment 1 (Datum 1/1-18)
Lehrer

Obama

: Good evening from the Ford Center for the Performing
Arts at the University of Mississippi in Oxford. I'm Jim
Lehrer of the [...]
:Well thank you [..] commission and the University of
Mississippi, Ole Miss, for h