Name : Febrian Falentino Fredriktho

Student Number : 122114253010

1. Background of the Study

In everyday life, people use language to communicate and code. According to Utaker
(1992), code or system is defined as the words spoken by humans during conversation. This code
is a human intermediary to create a better communication system between speakers and listeners.
In order to communicate, both parties must have a common understanding of a particular
language. For example, without knowledge of Indonesian, English cannot understand Indonesian
and vice versa. Therefore, both the speaker and the listener must have the same knowledge of a
particular language on the same subject at a particular time, place and situation. In the process of
communication there is a term "speech act" that is not limited to the very dimension of
communication. As mentioned earlier, both the speaker and the listener must speak the same
language and have insight into the use of that language in the communication process. In the
study of pragmatics, we consider speech act theory. Pragmatics is the study of the meaning of
speech that differs from the literal meaning of words and phrases depending on context
(Cumming, 2005; Thomas, 1995; Yule, 1996).
In other words, pragmatics is the study of words and utterances conveyed by speakers in
specific contexts. As Leech (1983) puts it, pragmatics is the study of the context of speech.
Austin (1962) defines speech acts as the reactions or actions people make when they say
something. In other words, someone does something by saying something. Speech acts refer not
only to language itself, but also to things beyond language, such as context (Birner, 2013;
Cutting, 2008). The act of speaking in communication is assigned to the functional dimension of
language (Bayat, 2012). The morphological, syntactic, and rhetorical dimensions are more
concerned with the structure of language, while the pragmatic dimension is related to the
production and understanding of language itself. These two dimensions interact in
communication. According to Bayat (2012), the use of appropriate speech acts is acquired
through cultural experience to achieve social relationships. Searle (1979) also emphasizes that
speech acts are conveyed in real language situations. Thus, we see that the basic premise of
speech act theory, the smallest unit of human communication, is the execution of certain kinds of
actions.
Speech act theory was introduced by Austin (1962) and subsequently divided into three
categories: speech act, speech act, and speech act. We focus only on speech acts defined as
utterances containing) force involves performing multiple actions (Austin, 1962; Grice, 2011).
Speakers can use functions to perform specific actions by informing, advocating, advising,
warning, threatening, or asking questions. In other words, a nonverbal act (the act of doing
something) is an utterance that is used not only to say or indicate something, but also to do
something, so long as the circumstances of the utterance are carefully considered. (Levinson,
2001; Wijana, 1996). In this case, John R. Searle (1979) classifies nonverbal acts into five
distinct functions: assertive, referential, binding, expressive, and declarative.
Representative or assertive types are statements that represent statements of fact that can
be tested as true or false (Mayer, 2009). Examples include statements such as explain, speak,
demand, boast, report, complain, suggest, or claim. The second type is directives. A speech act
or utterance intended to make someone do something. B. Questions, Orders, Requests,
Suggestions, Advice (Grundy, 2000; Huang, 2007). Therefore, the Commissive type is said to
force the speaker to perform some action in the future. B. Promise, curse, offer, say (pray). In
addition, the expressive speech act has the function of expressing the attitude of the speaker.
This kind of speech act therefore indicates the speaker's psychological attitude in a particular
situation, such as gratitude, apology, praise, blame, blessing, forgiveness, and mourning. Finally,
declarative speech acts are intended for the speaker to create new things or change state or status.
A successful implementation of this Ilocat will yield the following correspondence between
proportional content and reality: B. Dedication, Removal, Removal, Baptism, Expulsion,
Appointments and Decisions. Table 1 shows types and examples of speech acts.
Table 1. Types of illocutionary acts with examples

No Types of illocutionary act Examples

1 Assertive The pen is on the table
2 Directive I want you to read the book
3 Commissive I promise to visit my parent tomorrow
4 Expressive I apologize for my mistakes
5 Declarative The judge sentences him to four months in
prison
The way people produce speech acts depends on the context. There are many influencing
factors such as gender (Tuner & Turhan, 2019) and culture. Fundamentally, a person's nonverbal
words and actions influence their understanding of behavior. In this case, the pragmatics also
overlaps with other cultures and is commonly referred to as cross-cultural pragmatics
(Wierzbicka, 2003). One example can be found in the international model competition titled
MasterChef Junior US and MasterChef Junior Indonesia. These competitions were chosen
because of the similarity of the two shows, both TV series featuring similar natural dialogue, but
taking place in different contexts or cultures. This article focuses on the commentary verbal
speech act created by the judges. The writer also observed also observed in detail the differences
between American and Indonesian cultures when commenting on the candidates.
The way people produce speech acts depends on the context. There are many influencing
factors such as gender (Tuner & Turhan, 2019) and culture. Fundamentally, a person's nonverbal
words and actions influence their understanding of behavior. At the same time, pragmatics
overlaps with other cultures and is commonly referred to as cross-cultural pragmatics
(Wierzbicka, 2003). One example is the MasterChef Junior US and MasterChef Junior Indonesia
international cooking contests. These competitions were chosen due to the similarities between
the two shows. Both TV series share similar natural dialogues but take place in different contexts
or cultures. This article focuses on verbal acts of comment made by judges for children. The
author also observed the cultural differences between Indonesia and America in detail while
commenting on the candidates.
As noted above, the researchers noted the comments of the MasterChef Junior US and
MasterChef Junior Indonesia judges. A jury is interesting to analyze because it is defined as the
person who decides whether or not a candidate's career should progress to the next stage. Also,
the judges are the decision makers in the competition. The judges' comments are therefore
considered important to the contestants' development by providing suggestions and advice for
the contestants' success in each performance. Therefore, I am interested in examining the non-
verbal behavior of judges when making comments. Due to the large number of seasons of these
TV shows, this study is limited to one episode: MasterChef Junior US Season 5 Episodes 1- and
MasterChef Junior Indonesia Episode 1.
There are several studies that have examined the use of nonverbal speech acts in various
contexts. In the classroom, Budiasih et al. (2016) conducted a study on the non-verbal behavior
of international students in the Indonesian learning environment by influencing the learning
process. Malenab-Temporal (2018) investigated her ESL learners' speech acts in classroom
discourse. These studies show that in the classroom, most speech acts are used to ask questions,
express opinions, and confirm. Speech act analysis was also performed on the utterances.
Rosyidi et al. (2019), for example, investigated Jokowi's non-verbal speech act during the first
Indonesian presidential debate in 2019. Putri (2018) investigated Donald's nonverbal conduct in
his Trump inaugural address. Both studies showed that nonverbal acts are commonly used to
express opinions, promise, and persuade in political speech. As a further type of text, Sholihatin
(2020) analyzed verbal and verbal speech acts in defamatory texts. She found nonverbal acts to
be representative, declarative, and indicative. A review of these previous studies helps show that
each text her genre uses different speech act features. However, in previous studies, different
aspects of speech act were discussed only in one subject, for example in the classroom or in the
context of political speeches. We found limited research on cultural aspects, especially non-
verbal behaviors related to Indonesian culture. Practical research across cultures has focused on
politeness (eg, Nureddeen, 2008; Spencer-Oatey & Jiang, 2003). It is therefore important to
examine how speech acts, especially speech acts, are applied in different contexts by identifying
the relationship between speech acts and other cultural aspects, particularly American and Asian
cultures. . Furthermore, this paper aims to clarify the types and functions of non-verbal speech
acts performed by the comments of the judges of MasterChef Junior US and MasterChef Junior
Indonesia. The importance of this research is to provide and enrich better insight into cross-
cultural practical research, especially non-verbal behavior that also considers cultural
dimensions.

REFERENCES
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Clanrendon Press.
Bayat, N. (2012). A study on the use of speech acts. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences,
70,
213 – 221.
Birner, B. J. (2013). Introduction to pragmatics. West Sussex, UK: Wiley- Blackwell.
Budiasih, L. T., Andayani, A. & Rohmadi, M. (2016). Illocution on speech acts of foreign
students in Indonesian learning. Parole: Journal of Linguistics and Education, 6(2), 41-48.
Chaer, Abdul. (2015). FIlsafat Bahasa. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.
Cummings, L. (2005). Pragmatics: multidisciplinary perspective. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press.
Cutting, J. (2008). Pragmatics and discourse: a resource book for students (2nd ed.). Abingdon:
Routledge.
Dorney, Z. (2007). Research method in applied linguistic: Quantitative, qualititative, and mixed
methodologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Grundy, P. (2000). Doing pragmatics (2nd ed.). London: Hodder Arnold.
Grice, H. P. (2011). Logic and conversation. In D. Archer & P. Grundy (Eds.), The Pragmatics
Reader (pp. 43-54). Abingdon: Routledge.
Huang, Y. (2007). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Leech, G. N. (1983).
Principles of pragmatics. London: Routledge.
Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Routledge.
Levinson, S. C. (2001). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Malenab-Temporal, C. (2018). Conversation analysis of ESL learners’ speech acts in classroom
discourse. Australia Pacific Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 6(3), 47-56.
Meyer, Charles F. 2009. Introducing English linguistics. New York: Cambridge University Press
Nureddeen, F. A. (2008). Cross cultural pragmatics: Apology strategies in Sudanese Arabic.
Journal of Pragmatics, 40(2), 279-306.
Putri, P. D. S. P. (2018). Representative and commissive illocutionary acts in Donald Trump’s
inauguration speech. Jurnal Humanis, 22(4), 1057-1062
Rosyidi, A. Z., Mahyuni, M., & Muhaimi, M. (2019). Illocutionary speech acts use by
Jokowidodo in First Indonesia Presidential Election Debate 2019. International Journal of
Multicultural and Multireligious Understanding, 6(2), 735-740.
Searle, J.R. (1979). Expression & meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge:
CUP.
Sholihatin, E. (2020). An analysis of illocutionary and perlocutionary speech act in defamation
texts. JOLLT Journal of Languages and Language Teaching, 7(1), 49-56.
Spencer-Oatey, H., & Jiang, W. (2003). Explaining cross-cultural pragmatic findings: moving
from politeness maxims to sociopragmatic interactional principles (SIPs). Journal of Pragmatics,
35(10- 11), 1633-1650.
Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in interaction: An introduction to pragmatics. London: Longman.
Tuncer, H. & Turhan, B. (2019). Refusal strategies of Turkish pre-service teachers of
English: A focus on gender and status of interlocutor. Journal of Language and
Linguistic Studies, 15(1), 01-19.
Utaker, Arild. (1992). Form in Language: Wittgenstein and structuralism.
Wittgenstein and Contemporary Theories of Language Papers Edited by Paul Henry
and Arild Utaker. Wittgenstein Archives: the University of Bergen.
Wijana, I Dewa Putu. (1996). Dasar-dasar Pragmatik. Yogyakarta: Andi
Yogyakarta.
Wierzbicka, A. (2003). Cross cultural pragmatic – the semantic of human
interaction. New York: Mouton De Gruyter.
Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. New York. Oxford University Press.