Name: Oney Vebriandaru (18320189)

Sukma Dwi R (18320170)

Sholikhatin (18320130)

Dzurriyatul Khofifah Nurfahmi (18320110)

Grup: 7

1. What are the differences? How are they different? 

The differences are:
According to Searle (1969), understanding the speaker's intention is essential to capture the
meaning. Without the speaker's intention, it is impossible to understand the words as a speech
act. Speech acts can be classified into five categories as Searle in Levinson (1983: 240) states
that the classifications are representatives, directives, commissives, expressive, and
declarations.
According to Austin speech acts serve their function once they are said or communicated.
These are commonly taken to include acts such as apologizing, promising, ordering,
answering, requesting, complaining, warning, inviting, refusing, and congratulating. Austin
(1962) grouped speech acts into three level– locution, illocution and perlocution.

2. What are the consequences of the differences? 

The consequence of the differences in the function of speech acts of Austin and Searle is to
produce different patterns of conversation structure. Based on the Searle's theory only
classifies conversations as representative, directive, commissives, expressive, and
declaration, which is less than the function of Autin's theory. Meanwhile, Austin's theory
explains that conversation patterns are divided into locutionary, illocutionary, and
perlocution. It will make the conversation more complex and more responsive.
According to Deleuze and Guattari, the speech acts -as predicated by Austin and Searl for
safe and impartial communication and as criticized by Derrida- is what makes subjectification
(socialization) possible. Language and statement say very clearly what should be retained.
That is, language demands and grammar is a power marker before it is a syntactical marker
(Deleuze and Guattari, 1987:83-103). Sociability assumes language and it is likely that it will
be organized by signs of imperative kinds like command, judgment, and performative words
(Gatens, 1995) that transmit or engender effect and have pragmatic implications.