This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
1 Background of Study Nowadays, communication is become a part of our life that it can not be separate from daily life. Sometimes, someone uses implicit and explicit meaning when she is talking, but she does not realize what she says can make many interpretations that can make misinterpretation of it. In recent years a number of philosophers have pointed out important things about what utterance do and how at times their use is quite independent of their form. Shorter utterances are more easily understood than longer ones. Conversation is cooperative activity that whole activity would be entirely unpredictable. It can classify by grammatical structure along a number of dimensions. For example: their clausal type and complexity; active-passive; statement-question-requestexclamatory; various combinations of these and so on. Conversation that closely in general is involves much more than using language to state propositions or convey facts. Utterances that speakers use in conversation enable them to do these kinds of things because conversation itself has certain properties which are well worth examining.
The Aim of Study The aim of this study is to help people learning English. The learner is able to know the importance of speech act, cooperation and face in acting and conversing, so the leaner reconsider of it in daily conversation.
Performative utterance. Constative utterance is utterance that connected in some way with events or happenings in a possible world. of influences as in appointing. that is. but they cannot be made about the actual doing.DISCUSSION 2. Based on Austin (2962) there are two kinds of distinguished in utterance: 1. Exercitives: the exercising of powers. Such utterances perform acts: the naming of ships. how one person tries to figure our how another is using a particular utterances. whereas Searle focuses on how listeners respond to utterances. A speech act changes in some way the conditions that exist in the world. ordering. estimate. warning. It is known as speech act a unit of speaking and performs different functions in communication. or advising. or appraisal.1 Speech Acts: Austin and Searle People are said to perform intended actions while talking. Austin focused on how speakers realize their intention in speaking. Verdictives: typified by the giving of a verdict. a world in which such propositions can be said to either true of false. In speech act. rights. Truth and falsity may be claims made about its having been done. Austin divided performatives into 5 categories: 1. It can be experienced or imagined. it means that a person is not just saying something. Example : I pronounce you husband and wife 2 . grade. To hear someone say to you “I sentence you to five years in jail” in still other circumstances is to look forward to a rather bleak future. but is actually doing something if certain real-world conditions are met. and sentencing in these cases. Example : We find the accused guilty 2. Example: “Have you called your mother?” Or “Your dinner’s ready!” 2. Example: To say “I name this ship ‘Liberty Bell’” in certain circumstances is to name a ship To say “I do” in other circumstances is to find oneself a husband or a wife – or a bigamist. marrying.
Focus on the hearer’s willingness or desire to do something For example: Would you mind not making so much noise? 3 . or commanding. refer to the fact that we must use : I apologize 5. For example: I would like you to go now 3. For example: Have you got change for a dollar? 2. For example: If you say ‘I bet you a dollar he’ll win’ and I say ‘On’. Searle has indicated at least 6 six ways to make requests or give orders even indirectly. Illocutionary acts have to do with the intents of speakers. questioning. the door’s open. I reply. For example: It’s cold in here. 3. promising. Such as stating. your illocutionary act of offering a bet has led to accepting it. Example of exposition Example: I argue. we can perform at least three different kinds of act when we speak. Propositional acts are those matters having to do with referring and predicting: it means we use language to refer matters in the world and to make prediction about such matters. Focus on the hearer’s actually doing something For example: Aren’t you going to eat your cereal? 4. The utterances can also cause hearers to do things. Focus on the speaker’s wish or desire that the hearer will do something. Such as: 1. Focus on the hearer’s ability to do something. and committing one to do something by. I assume Based on Searle. Expositives: term used to refer to how one makes utterances fit into an argument words and sentence if we are to say anything at all. Utterance acts (locutionary acts by Austin). blessing. The utterance types are: 1. cursing or challenging.3. Behabitives: having to do with such matters as apologizing. such as: announcing an intention or espousing a cause Example : I hereby bequeath 4. Commissives: typified by promising or undertaking. For example: Damn 2. congratulating.
A request can be expressed in a statement. This evidence may convince that an English learner should reconsider the importance of speech act theory. quality.5. we are able to converse with one another because we recognize common goals in conversation and specific ways of achieving these goals. 1. that said the uttering of the words counts as undertaking an obligation to perform the action. not just exchanges of words. The preparatory rules. Grice lists four maxims that follow from the cooperative principle: quantity. to realize that language can be made complicated by the speaker. • • The sincerity rules. Moreover. the person promising believes he or she can do what is promised. in this case English. and manner. that is to be placed under some kind of obligation. which require that both the person promising and person to whom the promise is made must want the act done. that require the promise to intend to perform the act. The essential rules. Focus on the reasons for doing something For example: You’re standing on my foot 6. relation. although they are this too. According to philosophers such as Grice. and allows the interlocutor himself to understand the illocutionary acts and perlocutionary with a potential of risking misinterpretation.2 Cooperation and Face: Grice and Goffman We can view utterances as acts of various kinds and the exchanges of utterances that we call conversations as exchanges of acts. 4 . Grice (1975) maintains that the overriding principle in conversation is one he calls the cooperative principle. • A study on speech acts does help people learning a language. 2. Embed one of the above types inside another For example: I would appreciate it if you could make less noise Four rules that govern promise-making: • The propositional content rules. and that would not otherwise be done. is that the words must predicate a future action of the speaker. as in “You left the door open”. The maxim of quantity requires you to make your contribution as informative as is required.
If I need sugar as an ingredient in the cake you are assisting me to make. Manner requires you to avoid obscurity of expression and ambiguity. the answer to the question. I expect you to hand me four.2. 5 . Quantity: If you are assisting me to mend a car. a testimonial letter praising a candidate's minor qualities and entirely ignoring those that might be relevant to the position for which the candidate is being considered flouts the maxim quantity. 3. at a particular stage I need four screws. He gives further examples. I do not expect you to hand me salt. 1. if. metaphoric. Maxims are involved in all kinds of rational cooperative behavior. however. I list briefly one such analog for each conversational category. if I need a spoon I do not expect a trick spoon made of rubber. or even a oven cloth (though this might be an appropriate contribution at a later stage). Relation: I expect a partner's contribution to be appropriate to immediate needs at each stage of the transaction. The maxim of quality requires you not to say what you believe to be false or that for which you lack adequate evidence. for example. He says: it maybe worth noting that the specific expectations and presumptions connected with at least some of the foregoing maxims have their analogues in the sphere of transactions that are not talk exchanges. just as does protesting one's innocence too strongly. and to be brief and orderly. 4. Everyday speech often occurs in less than ideal circumstances. 4. I do not expect to be handed a good book. What we do in understanding an utterance is to ask ourselves just what is appropriate in terms of these maxims in a particular set of circumstances. 'why X is telling me this in this way?' is the past of reaching decision about what exactly X is telling me. We asses the literal content of the utterance and try to achieve some kind of fit between maxims. Grice point out (1975) that these maxims do not apply to conversation alone. Manner. I expect your contribution to be neither more nor less than is required. Consequently. rather than two or six. Quality: I expect your contributions to be genuine and not spurious. Relation is the simple injunction: be relevant. and to execute his performance with reasonable dispatch. or hyperbolic in nature: 'you are a fine friend' said someone who has let you down for example. if I am mixing ingredients for a cake. Other examples are ironic. 3. I expect a partner to make it clear what contribution he is making. 2. For example. in which there is a deliberate exploitation of a maxim.
for they are concerned with what the speaker is trying to communicate about himself or herself on a particular occasion. 1979). manner. and on a third occasion a ‘young woman’ but it is a face which I will generally accept. from an assortment of clues.Grice points out those speakers do not always follow the maxims he has described.’ The affective state of the speaker’ and ‘a profile of his identity’ are much the same as what I have called ‘face’. 2. Goffman (1955). Conversation is cooperative also in the sense that speakers and listeners tend to accept each other for what they claim to be: that is. When we try to apply any set of principles. exploit. nothing would happen. and then proceed to construct a little dramatic encounter. The listener not only has to establish what it was that was said. to show how utterances work when sequenced into what we call conversations. no matter what kind they are. but also has to construct. one that depends on speakers and listeners sharing a set of assumptions about what is happening. may not be all thought out and carefully panned and even 6 . they accept the face that the other offers. They may violate. on another occasion a ‘teacher’. Conversation therefore involves a considerable amount of role-playing: we choose a role for ourselves in each conversation discover the role or roles the other or the others are playing. That face may vary according to circumstances. and the process of implicature which allows them to figure out relationships between the said and the unsaid. protecting our own face. All the world is a stage. the work of presenting faces to each other. or opt out of one of the maxims. We should note that a lot of speech has a certain amount of planning in it. and we are players. Ordinary casual conversation is possibly the most common of all language activities. speakers and listeners are guided by considerations of quantity. quality. has called face-work. Conversation makes use of the cooperative principle. for at one time the face you offer me may be that of a ‘close friend’. and protecting the other’s face. relation. they may implicate something rather different from what they actually say. If anything went in conversation. we run into a variety of difficulties. much of which involves respecting other’s faces. Conversation is a cooperative activity in the Gricean sense.3 Some Features of Conversation Speech can be planned or unplanned (Ochs. or two of the maxims may clash in a particular instance. the affective state of the speaker and a profile of his identity.
rehearsed. speaker and listener combining to construct propositions. simple active sentences. g. and use of deictics. as exhibited in conventional greetings. When we look at how actual speech or conversation is organized. which thus requires an answer. invitations.. e.. Unplanned speech has certain characteristic: repetitions. A question can lead to an answer.. but parts may be preplanned to a greater or lesser extent.. however. as. 7 . which can lead to an acknowledgment . stringing of clause together with and or but or the juxtapositioning of clauses with no overt links at all. It also allows for option in the second member of each pair and for a kind of chaining effect. and so on. For example: The ring of a telephone (summons) can lead to aresponse (‘Hello’) with the raising intonation of a question. Utterance types of certain kinds are found to co-occur: − − − − − − − − − A greeting leads to a return of greeting A summon leads to a response A question leads to an answer A request or offer leads to an acceptance or refusal A complaint leads to an apology or some kind of rejection A statement leads to some kind of confirmation or recognition A compliments leads to acceptance or rejection A farewell leads to a farewell’ So on. and requests. and there. for example. words such as this. is the welcoming speech of a visiting head of state. here. we begin to appreciate how complex such organization is as soon as we try to devise anykind of system of classification for the various bits and pieces we observe to occur and recur. Adjacency pair Nordquist (2008) stated that adjacency pair is a two-part exchange in which the second utterance is functionally dependent on the first. deletion of subjects and referents. and so on. Unplanned speech is talk which is not thought out prior to its expression. There are some formal devices used in conversation: 1. which can lead to a comment. that. is unorganized speech. Unplanned speech.
In most conversations only one person speaks at a time and that person is recognized to be the one whose turn it is to speak. e.or by some combination (Duncan. a telephone conversation may involve an exchange of ‘hello’s’. At the conclusion of that turn another may speak and.It has proved possible to plot the structure of many conversations using these ideas of pairing nad chaining in order to show how dependent we are on them.. and be concludable. as we have indicated. Turn-taking Conversation is a cooperative activity also in the sense that it involves two or more parties. Speaker may signal when they are about to give up a turn in any one of several ways. 2. a gesture with a hand. The beginning of conversation will generally involve an exchage of greetings. Once a conversation has been initiated and the opening forms have been exchanged. may signals closure (Example: by dropping in level on the final syllable) 3) completeness 4) a turn-point. have some recognizable core or substance to them. The topic is obviously the thing that is 8 . principles of turn-taking. 5) (Example: a relaxing of posture. e. topic or topics. each of whom must be allowed the opportunity to participate.) Conversations must have ways of getting started. For example. There must be some principkes which govern who gets to speak.. or directing one’s gaze at the listener. As Nordquist stated turn-taking is a term for the manner in which orderly conversation normally takes place. i. The pitch level of the voice may signal closure An utterance may be deliberately closed syntactically to achieve a sense of Words or expressions like ‘you know’ or ‘something’ can also be used to indicate The body or part of it. 1974): 1) 2) The final syllable or final stressed syllable of an utterance may be prolonged. 1972. There are also certain linguistic and other signals that go with turn-taking. i. it will be necessary to establish a topic or topics on which to talk. there may also be slight overlapping of speaking during the transition between turns.
B: I see. C: Okay. Speakers are sometimes interrupted or even interrupt themeselves. Feedback. an important element in warranting the continuation of a turn.as I was saying. then. i.. These kind of sequence are also sometimes called repairs. and ensuring that the kinds of signals that tend to indicate that a turn is being relinquished are not allow to occur by accident..and as I was saying (telephone rings) Mary. 1968). A: .. 9 .. the telephone may ring... controlling the amount and kind of gaze used between self and others. speakers can keep it going by employing many of the same devices they use as individuals to keep their turns going. it should be next week. then’.talked about. On the other hand. correction of some kind of ‘trouble’ that arises during the course of conversation.. But interruption may still occur: there may be knock at the door.. When such feedback ceases. can also tend approval to the continuation of a topic.. but each of the talkers may have quite different views from others concerning exactly what was talked about. What sometimes occurs then is a kind of insertion sequence (Schegloff. Once a topic is established. that trouble arising out of any one of a variety of factors. a piece of conversational activity with its own structure but a piece completely unrelated to the ongoing conversation and inserted within it. 1972) serves as a kind of clarification: A: you’ll go then? B: I don’t have to wear a tie? A: No! B: Okay. A skillfull speaker may try to lessen the chance of the first kind of interruption by structuring his or her remarks in such way as to lessen the possibilities of interruption. someone may knock over a glass. The BA sequence is a side sequence within the larger AB sequence of ‘You’ll go then?’ and ‘Okay.. both turn and topic are put at risk. a side sequence (Jefferson.e. get the phone. and so on. Here is an example of such insertion: A: .
All the topic have been exhausted and nothing more remains to be said . how one person tries to figure our how another is using a particular utterances. agreed. there are two theories to support it 1st is Austin who focused on how speakers realize their intention in speaking. and the 2nd is Searle who focused on how listeners respond to utterances. An actual closing may involve several steps: 1) The closing down of a topic (e. B: Okay.g. A: Bye. ‘Thanks again’. This 10 . that’s agreed? B: Yep. ‘Good to see you’. A: Okay. A: Good. no problem really.g. The speech act has weakness can make misinterpretation to the speaker statement. that is. It is into such places that you fit pre-closing signals which serve to negotiate the actual closing. but it is not quite the time to exchange farewells. Take care. then’) 2) Repeated by the other party acknowledged in some form 3) Possibly some kind of pre-clossing exchange (e. ‘Bye-bye’) The following is an example of such a closing: A: So. or ‘See you soon’) 4) An exchange of farewells (e.g. ‘So that’s agreed’ or ‘One o’clock. bye. then. A: Thanks for the help. I knew you would. B: Yes. I’ll be back soon. B: Don’t mention it.Conversation must also be brought to a close. In speech act there is the weakness and strength based on the implicit statement of the speaker. CHAPTER III CONCLUSION In speech act.
html. 2011. protecting our own face. Literacy Acting and Conversing. 2010. Accessed on 24th November 2011. Grice points out those speakers do not always follow the maxims he has described. and protecting the other’s face.com/2010/01/acting-and-conversing. Ade.com/ language/sociolinguistics/acting-and-conversing. and then proceed to construct a little dramatic encounter. speaker is able to converse with one another because speaker recognizes common goals in conversation and specific ways of achieving these goals. 11 . Available: http://imoed- forum. 2011. Available: http://ls1959. each conversation discover the role or roles the other or the others are playing. they may implicate something rather different from what they actually say. Grice is overriding principle in conversation that he called cooperative principle. exploit.blogspot. much of which involves respecting other’s faces. Accessed on 24th November Marin. Whereas based on Goffman is used theory that called face-work that presenting faces to each other. The affective state of the speaker’ and ‘a profile of his identity’ are much the same as what have called ‘face’. or opt out of one of the maxims. They may violate. REFERENCES Anggrainy. Lucian E. Based on Grice.evidence may convince that an English speaker should reconsider the importance of speech act theory. concerned with what the speaker is trying to communicate about himself or herself on a particular occasion. or two of the maxims may clash in a particular instance. Acting and Conversing.
Ronald. 12 . An Introduction to Sociolinguistics.Wardhaugh. New York: Basil Blackwell Ltd. 1986.