THE SPEECH ACTS USED BY THE HOST AND PARTICIPANTS IN THE INDONESIA LAWAK KLUB (ILK) PROGRAM ON TRANS7.

(1)

THE SPEECH ACTS USED BY THE HOST AND PARTICIPANTS

IN THE INDONESIA LAWAK KLUB (ILK)

PROGRAM ON TRANS 7

A Thesis

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

Magister Humaniora

By:

MASNIATI MURNI RITONGA Registration Number: 8136112052

ENGLISH APPLIED LINGUISTICS STUDY PROGRAM POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL

STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN MEDAN

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

In the name of Allah SWT, the most gracious and merciful, all praises for His mercy, guidance and loving care which have been blessed to the writer, so this thesis entitled “The speech Acts Used by the Host and Participants in the Indonesia Lawak Klub (ILK) Program On Trans7” could be completed. Blessing and peace be upon our prophet Muhammad SAW who has brought human being to become civilized and educated in terms of science and technology.

This thesis is conducted to fulfill one of the requirements for the degree of Magister Humaniora at the English Applied Linguistics Study Program, Postgraduate School of State University of Medan. In accomplishing this thesis, the writer wishes to acknowledge her deepest gratitude for all generous guidance and assistance which has been dedicated to her by a lot of closed people, especially for her beloved parents, Alm. Khairuddin Ritonga and Nurmawarni Br Gultom for their loves, prays and more supports both moral and material before, during and after her academic years at Postgraduate UNIMED.

The highest appreciation goes to both of her advisers, Prof. Dr. Sumarsih, M. Pd as her first adviser and Dr. Sri Minda Murni, M. S as her second adviser for their guidance all through the completion of this thesis. And the, her appreciation also goes to Prof. Busmin Gurning, M. Pd. As the head of English Applied Lingustics Program and Dr. Sri Minda Murni, M. S as the secretary of English Applied Linguistics Program who have assisted her in processing the administration requirement during the process of her study in the Postgraduate Program of State University of Medan. And also the greatest thanks go to her examiners, Pof. Amrin Saragih, M. A., Ph. D., Prof. T. Silvana, Sinar, M. A., Ph. D., Prof. Dr. Busmin Gurning, M. Pd. They had criticized, suggestedand

(6)

improved this thesis. She also would like to express her thankfulness for all lectures teaching her in LTBI for more two years. Then, her gratitude goes to her friends as well (Ima, Diana, Fitri) and all students of Executive B2 class XXIII year who had given such encouragement in accomplishing this thesis.

Finally her special gratitude is dedicated to her beloved siblings (Intan Maya sari, Am.,Keb, Zulfikar, S. P, Indah and others). Especially thanks to her beloved one; Dedek Sulaiman, SE who always takes care of her, supports her, facilitates and inspires her indeed.

Medan, July 9th, 2015 The Writer

Masniati Murni Ritonga Reg. No. 8136112052

(7)

ABSTRACT

Ritonga, Masniati Murni 2015. The Speech Acts used by The Host and Participants in The Indonesia Lawak Klub (ILK) Program on Trans7. A Thesis. English Applied Linguistics Study Program, Postgraduate School, State University of Medan.

This study is concerned with the use of speech acts by the host and five participants of Indonesia Lawak Klub (ILK) comedy program on Trans7 in three episodes, namely “Buaya Vs Cicak”, “Vicky Prasetyo” and “BATAK” Banyak Taktik Banyak Akal”. The objectives of the study are to discover the types of speech acts deployed by the host and participants in the ILK comedy program, the most dominant types of speech acts, the way of the host and participants deployed the types of the speech acts and the reason they deployed them as they do. The study was conducted by qualitative content analysis method. The data were taken randomly from the internet and gathered from the host and participants’ utterances in three topics of three different episodes, and then they were transcribed. The transcriptions were analyzed by applying qualitative method. The findings found that all types of speech acts were deployed by both the host and the participants. However, not all participants deployed all types of speech acts such as Komeng, Fitri Tropika, Ronald and Jarwo Kwat. The most dominant types of speech acts deployed by the host is directive speech acts in form of questioning and representative speech acts in form of informing deployed by the participant dominantly. Both the host and participants performed them in four ways, direct, indirect, literal and non-literal. There were some reasons of deploying the speech acts as he is such as the host in running his role in the program to gain as many as information from each participant deployed directive in form of questioning and the participants whose role to respond what the host asked them and inform their party and their analysis in line with the issues debated they deployed representative in form of informing. It was found that there was additional function of this comedy program out of as entertaining and provoking laughter such as provoking thought and insinuating certain part. Therefore, context of speech affects the use of certain types of speech acts very much. It means that everyone (language users) should master a matter of speech acts to understand what speaker meant as well.

(8)

ABSTRAK

Ritonga, Masniati Murni 2015. The Speech Acts used by The Host and Participants in The Indonesia Lawak Klub (ILK) Program on Trans 7. Thesis. Program Studi Linguistik Trapan Bahasa Inggris, Program Pascasarjana, Universitas Negeri Medan.

Penelitian ini berfokus pada penggunaan speech acts oleh pembawa acara dan lima peserta dalam acara komedi Indonesia Lawak Klub di Trans7 dalam tiga episode, yaitu “Buaya Vs Cicak”, Prasetyo” and “BATAK” Banyak Taktik Banyak Akal”. Tujuan penelitian ini adalah untuk menemukan jenis-jenis speech acts yang digunakan oleh pembawa acara dan peserta dalam komedi program ILK. Jenis speech acts yang paling sering digunakan, cara pembawa acara dan juga peserta mengaplikasikan jenis-jenis speech acts tsb dan juga alasan mereka menggunakan speech acts tertentu dengan cara mereka sendiri. Data diambil secara acak dari internet dan dikumpulkan dari ungkapan-ungkapan sang pembawa acara dan peserta lain yang menggunakan jenis-jenis speech acts dalam tiga topic dari tiga episode, kemudian ujaran-ujaran tersebut akan ditranskripkan. Transkripsi tersebut dianalisa menurut penyajian metode kualtatif. Kemudian ditemukan bahwa semua jenis-jenis speech acts digunakan baik oleh pembawa acara atupun peserta. Namun, tidak semua peserta menggunakan semua jenis speech acts seperti Komeng, Fitri Tropika, Ronald dan Jarwo Kwat. Jenis yang paling sering digunakan oleh pembawa acara yaitu directive dalam bentuk pertanyaan (bertanya) dan representative speech acts dalam bentuk informing digunakan oleh para peserta. Baik pembawa acara maupun peserta menampilkan speech acts mereka melalui 4 cara, yaitu direct, indirect, literal dan non-literal. Ada beberapa alasan dalam menggunakan speech acts tersebut, yaitu karena pembawa acara adalah orang yang bertugas untuk memperoleh informasi-informasi penting sebanyak-banyaknya dari setiap peserta, maka ia menggunakan directive dalam bentuk pertanyaan dan peserta yang berperan sebagai perespon apa yang ditanyakan oleh pembawa acara dan menginformasikan partai mereka dan analisa mereka mengenai issue yang diperdebatkan, mereka menggunakan representative speech acts dalam bentuk informing. Lebih dari itu, ditemukan bahwa fungsi dari acara komedi ILK bukan hanya ajang tertawa atau lawak,lebih dari itu acara ini dapat mengajak penonton untuk berfikir cerdas terhadap fenomena yang terjadi dan menyindir oknum-oknum tertentu. Hal ini berarti semua orang sebaiknya menguasai sikap berbahasa untuk memahami dengan baik apa yang dimaksudkan oleh si pembicara

(9)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ... i

ABSTRACT ... iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ... v

LIST OF APPENDICES ... vi

LIST OF TABLES ... vii

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1.1 The Background of The Study ... 1

1.2 The Problems of the Study ... 7

1.3 The Objectives of the Study ... 7

1.4 The Scope of the Study ... 7

1.5 The Significance of the Study ... 8

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE 2.1Theoretical Framework... ... 9

2.1.1 Pragmatics ... 9

2.1.2 Speech Acts ... 16

2.1.2.1 Kinds of Speech Acts... 19

2.1.2.2 The way of Performing Speech Acts ... 21

2.1.2.3Types of Speech Acts ... 24

2.1.3 Reality Television Program ... 26

2.1.3.1Indonesia Lawak Klub (ILK) Talk show program ... 26

2.1.4 Relevant Studies ... 28

(10)

CHAPTER III METHOD OF RESEARCH

3.1 Research Design ... 34

3.2 Data and Data Source ... 34

3.3 Technique of Data Collection ... 35

3.4 The technique of Data Analysis ... 36

3.5 Trustworthiness ... 37

CHAPTER IV DATA, DATA ANALYSIS, FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 4. 1 Data Analysis ... 39

4.1. 1 Types of Speech Acts Used by the Host and the Participants ... 39

4.1.1.1 Types of Speech Acts Used by the Host ... 39

4.1.1.2 Types of Speech Acts used by the Participants.……… ... 40

4.1.2 The Most Dominant Types of Speech Acts Used by the Host and Participants... 43

4.1.2.1 The Most Dominant Types of Speech Acts Used by the Host ... 43

4.1.2.2 The Most Dominant Types of Speech Acts Used by the Participants ... 44

4.1.3 The Reasons and the Aim of the Host and Participants Deployed Types of Speech Acts ... 44

4.1.3.1 The Reasons and the Aim of the Host Deployed Types of Speech Acts ... 44

4.1.3.2 The Reasons and the Aim of the Participants Deployed Types of Speech Acts ... 49

(11)

4.3 Discussion ... 58

CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS 5.1 Conclusions... 62

5.2 Suggestions ... 63

REFERENCES ... 66

APPENDICES ... 68

(12)

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix 1 Transcript of the Host Utterances ... 69 Appendix 2 Transcript of the Participants’ Utterances ... 82 Appendix 3 Transcript of Episodes part II 93, 257 and 220 of

Indonesia Lawak Klub Comedy Program ... 99

(13)

LIST OF TABLES

Table. 1. The Percentage of Speech Acts Used by the Host ... 40

Table.2. The Percentage of Speech Acts Used by Cak Lontong ... 41

Table.3. The Percentage of Speech Acts Used by Komeng ... 41

Table.4. The Percentage of Speech Acts Used by Fitrop ... 42

Table.5. The Percentage of Speech Acts Used by Ronald ... 42

Table.6. The Percentage of Speech Acts Used by Jarwo Kwat... 43

(14)

1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1. Background of the Study

Cultural issues refer to all aspects of society that influence beliefs, opinions, and choices such as advertising, media, public relations, economic globalization, religion and politics. Media is becoming one of the most influential factors in human’s culture now since people or mostly children adopt everything from media, such as TV for instance. We can see that the actors and artists on TV are paid much more expensive to evoke children being worse (by watching bad TV program) but teachers are paid less to educate children being better. In order to understand the forces that perpetuate in the media such as Indonesia Lawak Klub (ILK) program, it is crucial to examine the meanings and goal of communication where culture plays a role in it. Culture and language refer to integrated pattern of human behavior that include language, thoughts, communications, actions, customs, beliefs, values, and institutions of racial ethnic, religion or rather groups (e.g., gender, gender identity/gender expression, age, national origin, sexual orientation, disability) (see. Gabriele Kasper, 1996: 149)

Cultural and linguistic competence is a set of congruent behaviors, attitudes and policies that come together in a system, agency, or among professionals that enables effective work in cross-cultural situations. Language is an expression of who we are as individuals, communities and nations. Culture refers to dynamic social systems and share patterns of behavior, beliefs, knowledge, attitudes and values. Culture provides the environment in which language develops, even as it influences how they are used in interpreted where it

(15)

may find its manifestations in body language, gestures, concept of time, hospitality customs, and even expressions of friendliness. While all these certainly reflect the cultural norms accepted in a particular society, the influence of culture on language use is broader and deeper. To a great extent, the culture into which one is socialized defines how an individual sees his or her place in society. For example : ‘comedy talk show’ in Indonesia is known as illocutionary utterances that have explicit sense and criticize particular part but ‘comedy talk show’ abroad is known as giving pleasure purely. That’s why it’s very worth to know the culture when we understand a language. Ultimately, language cannot be separated from culture since language is part of the culture itself that may influence the behaviors of individuals’ and their attitudes in speech (speech acts). Language is the key to a person’s self-identity. The way of speakers in uttering their speech will be caused by their own language. When a speaker uses a language, he/she is performing a certain speech act.

Branch of linguistics that investigates about speech act of language used in communication is called Pragmatics. Pragmatics is the study of how context affects the meaning of linguistic expression. Pragmatics studies how people comprehend and produce a communicative act or speech act in a concrete speech situation which is usually a conversation. It distinguishes two intents or meanings in each utterance or communicative act of verbal communication. One is the informative intent or the sentence meaning, and the other the communicative intent or speaker meaning (Leech,1983). The ability to comprehend and produce a communicative act is referred to as pragmatic competence (Kasper, 1997) which often includes one's knowledge about the social distance, social status between the

(16)

speakers involved, the cultural knowledge such as politeness, and the linguistic knowledge explicit and implicit. Plenty of researches stated that individuals cannot understand the nature of language itself without understanding pragmatics. It means that pragmatics is the essential aspect of understanding language.

Applied linguistically, pragmatics concerns with the inextricable connection between language and socio-cultural norms and frameworks and also seeks to identify patterns that can lead to an understanding of how members of particular cultures use language to refer to, describe, or function within social organizations (speech acts) (see Hinkel, 1996: 2). For example, politeness is considered to be a universal feature of language use in social organizations, but pragmatic, linguistic, social, intentional, and conceptual realizations vary substantially across different languages and/or cultures. Even speakers of the same language or speakers of different dialects may belong to different sub-cultures and thus have different concepts of what it means to be polite and how politeness should be realized in speech and behavior.

Speech acts study about the act performed by speaker in expressing their thought or ideas through language in certain occasion, such as in apologizing, complaining, instructing, agreeing and warning. As stated by Searle (000), in his speech act theory distinguished three different types of act involved in or caused by the utterance of a sentence: a locutionary act – speaker's production and hearer's perception of meaningful linguistic expression –, an illocutionary act – the speaker's intentions of uttering a sentence –, and a perlocutionary act – the result or the effect of speaker's utterance on the hearer or listener. So, pragmatic competence is the knowledge of how an addressee determines what a speaker is

(17)

saying and recognizing intended illocutionary force conveyed through subtle “attitudes” in different types of speech acts.

However, the use of speech acts is different in certain settings, such as in social, science or religion. In social purpose, particularly happened in the reality TV shows that they are monologue which used as truth-signs of direct access to the authentic. The power of monologue in the reality genre promotes the transformation of television from a mass medium to first-person medium addressing masses of individuals. The power of the monologue in reality TV can be seen as a parallel to the fascination of the entire genre of its audiences. The monologue as reality programming in general contains ambiguous interplay of the pre-scripted and scripted, individual and collective, performed and non-performed and fake and real. Consequently, the thrill for viewers is to hunt for the few rare authentic moments when the participant seems to reveal their ‘real-self’(Hill, 2002). The monologue situations hardly resemble any everyday talk events, but the literary way of talk does not diminish the claim for authenticity. Rather, the form serves the purpose of giving the viewers the ultimate opportunity to assess the key characteristic of authenticity: the participant’s integrity and credibility when it comes to feelings. The paradox of an individualized society is that while one is talking alone about one’s deepest emotions, at the same time one is selling one’s authenticity to viewers.

Moreover TV talkshow is becoming one of the focus of being studied in a research, as done by Muhammad Reza Pahlevi (2014) “Speech Acts in the Apprentice Asia TV Program” he found that all types of speech acts performed but not all participants used them in the boardroom where they performed it as

(18)

they were. However, in line with this (Lidya Oktoberia, 2012) in her study entitled “ Types of Directive Speech Acts Used in Harry Potter-The Deathly Hallows and Bride Wars movie scripts” found that the most frequently directive speech act used by characters in Bride Wars movie (comedy film) is request type because requests are generally conceived as polite ways of getting the addressee to do something (Tsui, 1996: 92). And it is really affected by the genre of the sociolinguistics where comedy movie is known as more friendly and common style of language use.

So, the researcher found that speech is used in many different ways among different groups of people and each group has its own norms of linguistic behavior where it can not be separated from the sociolinguistics factors. In order to analyze the language of specific groups, it is necessary to rely on some clearly defined frameworks for ethnographical study of speech (Hymes, 1974). ILK is one of comedy program on TV broadcasted by Trans7. The concept of this program is gathering the Indonesian comedians in a forum to discuss the heated issues recently. The comedian collaborate talking about a phenomenon and try to grab a solution or way out in pleasure sounding. This program is actually the parody of ILC (Indonesia Lawyers Club) showed on TVone. This program also invites an adviser to give the real conclusion of what have they conveyed explicitly through jokes.

After watching out this kind of TV program, the researcher thought that some of the Indonesia native speakers in this comedy deployed unique speech acts in responding each other in shake of pleasuring or entertaining the audiences.

(19)

For example: S : kenapa disimbolkan dengan cicak dan buaya? (why is symbolized with a lizard and crocodile?)(directive-questioning) P : karena ci-cak and bu’aya adalah nama untuk perempuan yang

suka cakar- cakaran dan mata duitan. (since ci’cak and bu’aya are names for women characterized by fighting and money oriented. (quoted from youtubecourtesy)(representative-informing)

The host deployed directive-questioning to direct the participant give the information he wanted (Yule, 1996: 54), because the host is the one who will peal the information as much as necessary from the participants through giving questions, so the speaker (Denny) asks questions to get a lot of information from the participant (Cak-Lontong) in order to inform audiences and test the participant’s analysis about this topic through jokes to please audiences and it is supported by Austin, 1962: 3 that the meaning of a sentence uttered by a speaker is described in a relation among linguistic conventions correlated with sentences, the situation where the speaker actually says something to the hearer, and associated intentions of the speaker. So then, since this is a comedy program, the participant did not answer it in literal speech act but non-literal speech acts where the participant (Cak lontong) does not mean by what he said (Grundy, 2000) that ci-cak and bu’aya are names for women identical with money oriented and quarrel, but he means that our parliamentary are just like women and they are money oriented. In the form the speech acts itself, the participant deployed representative to state his believe and treat that his statement is true and provoke the audiences to have the same assumption.

(20)

By paying attention at the host, adviser and other participants, the researcher was interested to investigate further this phenomenon. The researcher investigated whether the act of each speaker in uttering some utterances occupies as the function and the character. Then, what makes the Indonesian native speakers acted the certain speech acts, particularly the host and the participants in ILK program? Either the host or the participants deployed the speech acts based on their characters or otherwise. So, in this research the researcher investigated some of the speakers such as the host (Denny Chandra), cak lontong (participant), Jarwo kwat (participant), and Fitri Tropica and also the response from an audience who sent his/her Voice note to ILK.

As stated in the previous section that the use of speech acts is different in certain setting. Absolutely, this matter is affected by the pragmatic context. That’s why this research was conducted to see the the speech acts deployed by the host and the participants in the context of ILK program since Indonesian societies love this program very much. It means that the audiences accept the speech acts deployed by the Indonesian native speakers in the ILK.

1.2 Problem of the Study

In line with the phenomena above, the problems of this study are:

1. What types of speech acts are deployed by the host and participants in the context of ILK comedy program on Trans7?

2. What is the most dominant type of speech acts deployed by the host and participants in the context of ILK comedy program on Trans7?

3. Why do the host and participants of ILK deploy certain speech acts dominantly in the ways they are?

(21)

8 1.3 Objectives of the Study

Based on the research problems formulated above, this study has some objectives as follow:

1. To discover the types of speech acts deployed by the host and participants in the context of ILK comedy program on Trans7.

2. To find out the most dominant type of speech acts deployed by the host and participants in the context of ILK comedy program on Trans7.

3. To explain the reasons and the aim why the host and the participants of ILK deployed certain speech acts dominantly in the ways they are.

1.4 Scope of the Study

This research investigates the types of speech acts deployed by the host and participants of ILK in three episodes (part II 93, 257 and 220). These episodes peal some fields such as (1) politic; episode 93 (January 29th 2014) in line “Buaya Vs Cicak”, (2) social; episode 257 (December 29th _{2014) in line “Vicky Prasetyo”} and (3) culture; episode 220 (November 6th _{2014) in line “BATAK” Banyak} Taktik Banyak Akal”. The focus is on the types of speech acts proposed by Searle (2000). Furthermore, the investigation is on the realizations of speech acts and reasons for their occurrences.

1.5 Significance of the Study

This research is expected to have both theoretical and practical significance for the readers, English teachers and also English department students.

Theoretically, the findings of this research are expected to enrich the theories of pragmatics and sociolinguistics, specifically give a better

(22)

understanding and new insight on how speech acts are related to the aspects of pragmatics study and it is very worth to inform how pragmatics play a fascinating role in social life of communication since by understanding the pragmatic’s meaning as well, it’s hoped that there will be no more gaps or debates among audiences about the speech acts deployed by the host and participants of ILK program on Trans7.

Practically, it is expected to be guidance for those who are interested in reality TV program discourse analysis and for those who will be involved in that setting as well. Eventually, this hopes to the audiences to open their broad critical thinking in understanding the speakers’ and the participants’ intent meaning. Furthermore for the audiences, it’s hoped to have a sense of humor, so then they are able to choose the material which aims to build, and which material is only as entertainment.

(23)

67 CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS 1.1. Conclusion

After analyzing the data in three topics of different three episodes, namely Buaya Vs Cicak”, “Vicky Prasetyo” and “BATAK” Banyak Taktik Banyak Akal in ILK comedy program, some conclusions are drawn as the following:

a) All types of speech acts were deployed in those three topics in different episodes of ILK comedy Program, namely representative, directive, ,commissives, expressive and declaratives. All those types of speech acts were not deployed by all participants. Fitri Tropika did not deploy declarative, Komeng did not deploy declarative and commissive, Ronald did not deploy declarative and Jarwo Kwat did not deploy commissive and declarative. The most dominant type of speech acts deployed by the host was directive in form of questioning, while representative in the form of informing is often deployed by the participants.

b) There were four ways deployed by participants in performing their speech acts in discussing the issues debated, namely direct, indirect, literal and non-literal. When uttering the sentences non-literally, both the host and the participants tended to deploy allusion to allude or criticize certain part and a matter of provoking thought. And those meanings were fully understood by audiences.

c) The directive speech acts in form of questioning deployed by the host because of his role as the one who had authority to gain as many as important information from each participant needed to be known by

(24)

audiences. The representative speech acts in form of informing deployed dominantly by the participants because of their obligation to answer or inform what the host questioned to them. It was used by the participants to inform their own party (where they are from) and inform their analysis about the issues debated.

d) Jarwo Kwat deployed expressive speech acts in form of anger dominantly because he is the one who was in low level status, who was always bullied and underestimated purposely.

e) In performing declarative types of speech acts, it was found that only Cak Lontong and Ronald deployed it. As related with Searle that declarative is used to change the world with words, it means that the other three participants have no great power of words to utter powerful words that can fit the world with their words. They have no enough authority to utter so even actually they have the same position in ILK comedy program. It can show their identity and their power of words. f) In performing non-literal utterances, the participants deployed

indirect-non-literal speech acts to provoke audiences and insinuating certain part, they provoke audiences to think and understand deeper what they meant by their words. This becomes additional function of ILK comedy program except as entertaining public. In short, it can be provoking thought for audiences about the current issues debated and insinuating certain part.

(25)

69 5.2 Suggestions

a) The audience of ILK comedy program is supposed to have a sense of humor and broad thinking in order to understand and get the meaning of what was provided by the host and the participants. They also must be able to choose the material which aims to build, and which material is only as entertainment. Moreover, the participants, the guests and audience of ILK comedy program should have to possess noble hearts to take all given statements without being easily offended.

b) Besides the students, everyone is also important to study the matter of speech acts, because by understanding this material, it would be easier for them to understand why and for what purpose someone utters an utterance.

c) It is suggested that the lecturers of pragmatics should develop the theory of speech acts used by exemplifying the theory with the TV program discourse by which the lectures can be enlivened and the students’ interest in research can be aroused.

(26)

70 REFERENCE

Arief, M. R. 2012. Speech Acts Used in Coutroom Text in Langsa. An

unpublished Thesis. Medan: English Applied Linguistics Study Program, State University of Medan.

Austin, J. L. 1962 How to Do Things With Words, New York: Oxford University

Press.

---. 1999. How to Do Things with Words, second revised ed. Oxford

University Press, London.

Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. 1989. Functionalism and the competition model. In

B. MacWhinney & E. Bates (Eds.), The Cross-linguistic Study of

SentenceProcessing (pp. 3-73). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. 1989. Cross-cultural pragmatics:

Requests and apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Bogdan, R & Biklen, S. 1982. Qualitative Research for Education (2nd _ed)_.

Boston: Allan & Bacon.

Brown, P. & Levinson, S. 1978 Universals in language usage: Politeness

phenomena, in Goody, E. (ed.) Questions and Politeness: Strategies in

Social Interaction, pp56~311, Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Denzim, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. 1994. Introduction Entering the Field of

Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Grice, H. P.1975. 'Logic and Conversation', in Cole, P. & Morgan, J. (eds.)

Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, New York: Academic Press.

---. 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard

University Press.

Grundy, P. 2000. Doing Pragmatics. New York: E. Arnold.

Hymes. 1974, Speech Acts, Meanings and Intentions. Critical Approaches to the

Philosophy of John R. Searle, Berlin/New York: de Gruyter (1990), 29-61.

Kasper, G. & Blum-Kulka, S. 1993. Interlanguage Pragmatics, Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Kasper, G. 1995 'Interlanguage Pragmatics', in Verschueren, J. & Östman

Jan-Ola & Blommaert, J. (eds.) Handbook of Pragmatics 1995, pp1~7, Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co.

(27)

Knight, C. M. & Hurford, J. R. (Eds.). (2000). The Evolutionary Emergence of

Language: Social Functions and the Origins of Linguistic Form.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Leech, G. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.

Lincoln, Y & Guba, E. G.1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. Sage Publication. Newbury

Park, CA

Marrying, P. 2000. Qualitative Content Analysis. Forum: Qualitative Social

Research

Miller, J.H. 2002. Speech Acts in Literature. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis. Thosards

Oarks, CA: Sage.

Nabi, R.L., et al. 2003. Reality Based Television Programming and the

Psychology of Its Appeal. Media Psychology.

Nunan, D. 1993. Introducing Discourse Analysis. London: Penguin.

Oktoberia, L. 2012 . Types of Directive Speech Acts Used in Harry Potter-The

Deathly Hallows and Bride Wars movie scripts. English Department

Faculty of Language and Art StateUniversity of Padang.

Olshtain, E & Andrew D. C. 1989. Speech Act Behavior across Languages. In

H.W. Dechert and M. Raupach, eds., Transfer in Language Production.

Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corporation, 53-67.

Pahlevi, R. 2014. Speech Acts in The Apprentice Asia TV Program. An

unpublished Thesis. Medan. English Applied Linguistics Study Program, State University of Medan.

Patton, M. Q. 2002. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. London:

Sage.

Purnomo, M . D. 2009. Speech Acts Used by Street Children in Medan. An

unpublished Thesis. Medan. English Applied Linguistics Study Program, State University of Medan.

Schiffer, S. R. 1972. Meaning, Oxford University Press. Oxford.

Searle, J. R. 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language,

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

---. 1975. Indirect speech acts, in P. Cole, J.L. Morgan. Syntax and

(28)

---. 1979. Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Act.

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

---. 1983. Intentionality: An essay in the Philosophy of Mind.

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

---. 1985. Foundations of Illocutionary Logic, Cambridge University

Press, Cambridge.

---. 2000. Soz Edimleri. (R. Levent Aysever, Trans). Angkara: Ayrac

Yaymevi.

Smith, M. J., & Wood, A.F. 2003. Survivor Lessons: Essays on Communication

and Reality Television. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company.

Stapleton, L. E. 2004. Variation In The Performance of Speech Acts in Peninsular

Spanish: Apologizes and requests. A dissertation. Louisiana State

University and Agricultural and Medichanical College.

Sugiyono, 2011. Metode Penelitian Kuantitatif, Kualitative dan R&D. Bandung.

AVABETA, cv.

Thomas, J. 1995. Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics.

London: Longman.

Yule, G. 1996. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Vanderveken. 2001. Essays in Speech Act Theory, John Benjamins. Amsterdam.

Verschueren, J. 1999. Understanding pragmatics. London: Arnold.

Wray, et al. 1998. Projects in Linguistics: A Practical guide to researching

language. London: Arnold

Journal Materials:

Blum-Kulka,, S and Olshtain, E. 1986 “Too Many Words: Length of Utterance

and Pragmatic Failure”, SSLA 8: 165-180.

Hassell, L. & Christensen, M. (1996). Indirect speech acts and their use in three

channels of communication, British Computer Society: Retrieved, 16

August, 2006.

Hill, A. 2002. Big Brother, The Real Audience, Television and new media 3 (3):

323-40. Vol. 1. No. 2

Hinkel, E. 1996. When in Rome: Evaluations of L2 pragmalinguistic behaviors.

(29)

Kasper, G. 1997. Errors in speech act realization and use of gambits. Canadian

Modern Language Review, 35, 395-406.

---. 1996. Introduction: Inter-language pragmatics in SLA. Studies in

Second Language Acquisition, 18, 145-148.

Oishi, E. 2006. Austin’s Speech Act Theory and the Speech Situation. Esercizi

Filosofici. pp. 1-14 ISSN 1970-0164

Perkins, M. R. 2005. Pragmatic ability abd disability as emergnt phenomena.

Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 19 (5). ISSN 367-377. 1464-5076

Sbisa, Marina. 2002. Speech Acts in Context. Languange and Communication 22

(2002) 421-436. Department of Philosophy, university of Trieste, via

Dell’Universita 7, 34123, Trieste, Italy.

www.elsevier.com/locate/longcom.

Searle, J. 1976, ‘The Classification of Illocutionary Acts’, Language and Society

5, pp.

1–24.

Jeroen Vandaele. 2002. Humor Mechanisms in Film Comedy. CETRA, Leuven.

6635 POETICS TODAY 23:2 / sheet 29 of 176. Copyright. 2002 by the Porter Institute for Poetics andSemiotics.

Website Materials:

http://www.univ.trieste.it/~eserfilo/art106/oishi106.pdf

http://ewic.bcs.org/conferences/1996/comms/papers/paper9.pdf.

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/realitytvl.html www.wikepedia.org

(1)

d) Jarwo Kwat deployed expressive speech acts in form of anger dominantly because he is the one who was in low level status, who was always bullied and underestimated purposely.

(2)

69 5.2 Suggestions

(3)

70 REFERENCE

Arief, M. R. 2012. Speech Acts Used in Coutroom Text in Langsa. An unpublished Thesis. Medan: English Applied Linguistics Study Program, State University of Medan.

Austin, J. L. 1962 How to Do Things With Words, New York: Oxford University Press.

---. 1999. How to Do Things with Words, second revised ed. Oxford University Press, London.

Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. 1989. Functionalism and the competition model. In B. MacWhinney & E. Bates (Eds.), The Cross-linguistic Study of SentenceProcessing (pp. 3-73). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. 1989. Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Bogdan, R & Biklen, S. 1982. Qualitative Research for Education (2nd _ed)_. Boston: Allan & Bacon.

Brown, P. & Levinson, S. 1978 Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena, in Goody, E. (ed.) Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction, pp56~311, Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Denzim, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. 1994. Introduction Entering the Field of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Grice, H. P.1975. 'Logic and Conversation', in Cole, P. & Morgan, J. (eds.) Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, New York: Academic Press. ---. 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard

University Press.

Grundy, P. 2000. Doing Pragmatics. New York: E. Arnold.

Hymes. 1974, Speech Acts, Meanings and Intentions. Critical Approaches to the Philosophy of John R. Searle, Berlin/New York: de Gruyter (1990), 29-61. Kasper, G. & Blum-Kulka, S. 1993. Interlanguage Pragmatics, Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Kasper, G. 1995 'Interlanguage Pragmatics', in Verschueren, J. & Östman Jan-Ola & Blommaert, J. (eds.) Handbook of Pragmatics 1995, pp1~7, Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co.

(4)

Knight, C. M. & Hurford, J. R. (Eds.). (2000). The Evolutionary Emergence of Language: Social Functions and the Origins of Linguistic Form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Leech, G. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.

Lincoln, Y & Guba, E. G.1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. Sage Publication. Newbury Park, CA

Marrying, P. 2000. Qualitative Content Analysis. Forum: Qualitative Social Research

Miller, J.H. 2002. Speech Acts in Literature. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis. Thosards

Oarks, CA: Sage.

Nabi, R.L., et al. 2003. Reality Based Television Programming and the Psychology of Its Appeal. Media Psychology.

Nunan, D. 1993. Introducing Discourse Analysis. London: Penguin.

Oktoberia, L. 2012 . Types of Directive Speech Acts Used in Harry Potter-The Deathly Hallows and Bride Wars movie scripts. English Department Faculty of Language and Art StateUniversity of Padang.

Olshtain, E & Andrew D. C. 1989. Speech Act Behavior across Languages. In H.W. Dechert and M. Raupach, eds., Transfer in Language Production. Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corporation, 53-67.

Pahlevi, R. 2014. Speech Acts in The Apprentice Asia TV Program. An unpublished Thesis. Medan. English Applied Linguistics Study Program, State University of Medan.

Patton, M. Q. 2002. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. London: Sage.

Purnomo, M . D. 2009. Speech Acts Used by Street Children in Medan. An unpublished Thesis. Medan. English Applied Linguistics Study Program, State University of Medan.

Schiffer, S. R. 1972. Meaning, Oxford University Press. Oxford.

Searle, J. R. 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

---. 1975. Indirect speech acts, in P. Cole, J.L. Morgan. Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts. Academic Press, New York.

(5)

---. 1979. Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Act. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

---. 1983. Intentionality: An essay in the Philosophy of Mind. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

---. 1985. Foundations of Illocutionary Logic, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

---. 2000. Soz Edimleri. (R. Levent Aysever, Trans). Angkara: Ayrac Yaymevi.

Smith, M. J., & Wood, A.F. 2003. Survivor Lessons: Essays on Communication and Reality Television. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company.

Stapleton, L. E. 2004. Variation In The Performance of Speech Acts in Peninsular Spanish: Apologizes and requests. A dissertation. Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Medichanical College.

Sugiyono, 2011. Metode Penelitian Kuantitatif, Kualitative dan R&D. Bandung. AVABETA, cv.

Thomas, J. 1995. Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. London: Longman.

Yule, G. 1996. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Vanderveken. 2001. Essays in Speech Act Theory, John Benjamins. Amsterdam. Verschueren, J. 1999. Understanding pragmatics. London: Arnold.

Wray, et al. 1998. Projects in Linguistics: A Practical guide to researching language. London: Arnold

Journal Materials:

Blum-Kulka,, S and Olshtain, E. 1986 “Too Many Words: Length of Utterance and Pragmatic Failure”, SSLA 8: 165-180.

Hassell, L. & Christensen, M. (1996). Indirect speech acts and their use in three channels of communication, British Computer Society: Retrieved, 16 August, 2006.

Hill, A. 2002. Big Brother, The Real Audience, Television and new media 3 (3): 323-40. Vol. 1. No. 2

Hinkel, E. 1996. When in Rome: Evaluations of L2 pragmalinguistic behaviors. Journal of Pragmatics, 26, 51-70.

(6)

Kasper, G. 1997. Errors in speech act realization and use of gambits. Canadian Modern Language Review, 35, 395-406.

---. 1996. Introduction: Inter-language pragmatics in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 145-148.

Oishi, E. 2006. Austin’s Speech Act Theory and the Speech Situation. Esercizi Filosofici. pp. 1-14 ISSN 1970-0164

Perkins, M. R. 2005. Pragmatic ability abd disability as emergnt phenomena. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 19 (5). ISSN 367-377. 1464-5076 Sbisa, Marina. 2002. Speech Acts in Context. Languange and Communication 22

(2002) 421-436. Department of Philosophy, university of Trieste, via

Dell’Universita 7, 34123, Trieste, Italy.

www.elsevier.com/locate/longcom.

Searle, J. 1976, ‘The Classification of Illocutionary Acts’, Language and Society 5, pp.

1–24.

Jeroen Vandaele. 2002. Humor Mechanisms in Film Comedy. CETRA, Leuven. 6635 POETICS TODAY 23:2 / sheet 29 of 176. Copyright. 2002 by the Porter Institute for Poetics andSemiotics.

Website Materials:

http://www.univ.trieste.it/~eserfilo/art106/oishi106.pdf

http://ewic.bcs.org/conferences/1996/comms/papers/paper9.pdf.

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/realitytvl.html www.wikepedia.org

THE SPEECH ACTS USED BY THE HOST AND PARTICIPANTS IN THE INDONESIA LAWAK KLUB (ILK) PROGRAM ON TRANS7.