Jurnal Sosial dan Teknologi (SOSTECH)
Volume 1, Number 12, December 2021
p-ISSN 2774-5147 ; e-ISSN 2774-5155
How to cite:
Yafet Seftyan Nugroho. (2021). The Illocutionary Acts of Written Conversation in Eleventh Grade Senior
High School Students’ Textbook : Modul Pengayaan Bahasa dan Sastra Inggris Peminatan Semester 2.
Jurnal Sosial dan Teknologi (SOSTECH), 1(12): 1.588-1.594
E-ISSN:
2774-5155
Published by:
https://greenpublisher.id/
THE ILLOCUTIONARY ACTS OF WRITTEN CONVERSATION IN ELEVENTH
GRADE SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS’ TEXTBOOK : MODUL PENGAYAAN
BAHASA DAN SASTRA INGGRIS PEMINATAN SEMESTER 2
Yafet Seftyan Nugroho
English Education Study Program, Faculty Of Language And Arts Education, Universitas PGRI
Semarang
Abstract
Background: Language is method of human communication. It is used as means to communicate
with other people.
Research purposes: to find out the types of illocutionary act in Textbook : Modul Pengayaan
Bahasa dan Sastra Inggris Peminatan Semester 2, to identify dominant kinds of illocutionary act
in Textbook : Modul Pengayaan Bahasa dan Sastra Inggris Peminatan Semester 2.
Research methods: This reseacrh was designed as descriptive qualitative research. The
technique of data collecting there are 3 steps. First, the researcher researcher tries to identify the
data or the dialogues from the written conversation which are related to the statements of the
problems according textbook. Second, the researcher analyzed and classified the types of
illocutionary act and the dominant kinds of illocutionary act. Third, the researcher identified the
illocutionary act found in Textbook : Modul Pengayaan Bahasa dan Sastra Inggris Peminatan
Semester 2 based on types of illocutionary acts.
Research results: The total number of types of the data found were 292, there were 34 utterance
of declaration, 92 utterances of representative, 48 utterances of expressive, 95 utterances of
directives, and 26 utterances of commisive. The dominant type of illocutionary was found is
directives with 95 utterences
Conclusion: Those were declarative, representative, expressive, directive, and commisive. To be
more specific, there are 40 utterances of declarative, 85 utterances of representative, 53
utterances of expressive, 87 utterances of directive, and 26 utterances of commisive.
Keywords: Pragmatics, Speech Act, Illocutionary Acts, Textbook
Abstrak
Latar belakang: Bahasa merupakan metode komunikasi manusia. Digunakan sebagai sarana
untuk berkomunikasi dengan orang lain.
Tujuan penelitian: Untuk mengetahui jenis-jenis tindak ilokusi dalam Buku Ajar : Modul
Pengayaan Bahasa dan Sastra Inggris Peminatan Semester 2, untuk mengidentifikasi jenis-jenis
tindak ilokusi yang dominan dalam Buku Ajar : Modul Pengayaan Bahasa dan Sastra Inggris
Peminatan Semester 2.
Metode penelitian: Penelitian ini dirancang sebagai penelitian deskriptif kualitatif. Teknik
pengumpulan data ada 3 langkah. Pertama, peneliti peneliti mencoba mengidentifikasi data atau
dialog dari percakapan tertulis yang terkait dengan pernyataan masalah sesuai buku teks. Kedua,
peneliti menganalisis dan mengklasifikasikan jenis-jenis tindak ilokusi dan jenis-jenis tindak
ilokusi yang dominan. Ketiga, peneliti mengidentifikasi tindak ilokusi yang terdapat dalam Buku
Ajar : Modul Pengayaan Bahasa dan Sastra Inggris Peminatan Semester 2 berdasarkan jenis
tindak ilokusi.
Hasil penelitian: Jumlah total jenis data yang ditemukan adalah 292, ada 34 ucapan pernyataan,
92 ucapan perwakilan, 48 ucapan ekspresif, 95 ucapan direktif, dan 26 ucapan komisif. Jenis
ilokusi yang dominan ditemukan adalah direktif dengan 95 ucapan.
Kesimpulan: Deklaratif, representatif, ekspresif, direktif, dan komisif. Untuk lebih spesifiknya,
terdapat 40 tuturan deklaratif, 85 tuturan representatif, 53 tuturan ekspresif, 87 tuturan direktif,
dan 26 tuturan komisif.
Kata kunci: Pragmatik, Tindak Tutur, Tindak Ilokusi, Buku Ajar
Diterima: 26-11-2021; Direvisi: 29-11-2021; Disetujui: 15-12-2021
The Illocutionary Acts of Written Conversation in
Eleventh Grade Senior High School Students‟ Textbook :
Modul Pengayaan Bahasa dan Sastra Inggris Peminatan
Semester 2.
e-ISSN 2774-5155
p-ISSN 2774-5147
Yafet Seftyan Nugroho
1.589
INTRODUCTION
Language, both spoken and written is used by human to express his thought
(Tarigan & Stevani, 2021), ideas and emotion by using sounds, gestures and signals in
various purposes and reasons. There are two types of language that always use are spoken
and written. The spoken language is the language that directly produced by the speaker
(Herbert et al., 2021). The written language is the language that is produced in a written
form (Anderson, 2021) and in communication it is not produced directly (Aggelopoulos
& Tsakiroglou, 2021). In communication, we need a partner or a hearer to understand and
respond what we talk about. Speakers and hearers usually use the same language to
communicate (Detges et al., 2021), so the message can get across easily. But, in some
communication cases, speakers could not get their messages across due to a different
cultural background or divergences. From this, we will use the language differently
(Nguyen, 2021). The best understanding of the conversation is according to the language
which is used (Juniata & Mulatsih, 2021), so we have to be careful of the language we
use to make sure that the partner whom we talk to is really understand (Willis, 2021).
(Felappi, 2021) state “to fully understand the meaning of a sentence, we must
understand the context in which it is uttered. Pragmatics concerns itself with how people
use language within a context and why they use language in particular ways. This unit
examines how speaker and hearer affect the ways in which language is used to perform
various function.”
(Yanti et al., 2021) points out that when people use language, they are performing a
kind of action that is called speech acts. The use of the term speech act covers „actions‟
such as requesting, commanding, questioning, and informing (Akram et al., 2021). In
studying pragmatics, we concern on how to utter a speech so that the listener can interpret
the meaning that is conveyed by the speaker.
According to (Sinha, 2021) pragmatics is the study of meaning in relation to the
context in which a person is speaking or writing. This includes social, situational and
textual context. It also includes background knowledge context; that is, what people know
about each other and about the world. Pragmatics assumes that when people communicate
with each other, they normally follow some kind of co-operative principle; that is, they
have a shared understanding of how they should co-operate in their communications. In
the grammatical study, there is no relevancy between language and context of utterance,
but in the pragmatics, absolutely, there is relevancy between language and context. The
meaning and purpose of the language can interpreted suitably if the use of language is
relevant to the context.
The speech act theory is a reputable pragmatic concept that has imbued with
research since its first appearance in 1962 until now. The historical tracers of this theory
state that it has first engendered by Wittgenstein, the German philosopher, but has given
some linguistic tint by Austin and Searle, later on.
Austin starts his widely cited work by distinguishing between “statements which he
prefers to call “constative” and another type of utterances which he calls “performatives”.
Later on, Austin has abandoned the constative-per formative distinction to
conclude that all utterances (i.e. constative and per formative) have both a doing and a
saying element at the same time, and their meaning is wholly dependent on the context in
which they are issued.
Illocutionary act is called is called by the act or doing something (Mulyana &
Engliana, 2021). Not only used for informing something, but also doing something as far
as speech event was accurate considered (Göpffarth, 2021).
Vol. 1, No. 12, pp. 1.588-1.594, December 2021
1.590 http://sostech.greenvest.co.id
(Rotich et al., 2021) states that speech acts are language as action. Speech acts,
which explore the performative nature of utterances, are the ways in which what people
say to each other has force as well as content. There is an intention as content of what
people say that is delivered via language with its force to get the message inside the
utterances. However, language is the principal means that people have to greet,
compliment and insult one another, to plead or flirt, to seek and supply information, and
to accomplish hundreds of other tasks in a typical day.
RESEARCH METHOD
Based on the research objectives that the researcher applied, that is to know how
“TextBook : Modul Pengayaan Bahasa dan Sastra Inggris Grade Eleventh Peminatan
Semester 2” describes the speech act as seen from meaning of types of illocutionary act
perspective. The researcher takes some steps to collect data as follows read the textbook,
write the conversation and display the data. The researcher uses descriptive techniques to
identify the types of sppech acts by utterances such as identyiing, interpreting, classifying
and interpreting.
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
The following are description of each types of illocutionary acts found in
textbook: Modul Pengayaan Bahasa dan Sastra Inggris Grade Eleventh Peminatan
Semester 2.
Types of Illocutionary Act
No.
Illocutionary
Acts
Utterence
Unit 6
Unit 7
Unit 8
Unit 9
Unit 10
Frequency
Percentage
1.
Declaration
13
9
9
0
3
34
11,6%
2.
Representative
37
11
25
6
2
92
31,5%
3.
Expressive
25
6
11
2
3
48
16,4%
4.
Directive
51
8
29
0
5
95
32,5%
5.
Commisive
16
2
6
0
2
26
8,9%
Total Utterence
292
100%
The autor writes on book with total 291 utterances. From the table above we
know the most dominant part was Directive with 95 utterances (32,5%) consisting
commanding, warning, and questioning. The second dominant is Representative with
92 utterances (31,5%) consisting of stating, informing, reporting, agreeing, arguing,
explaining, describing, convining, predicting, telling the truth, and stating opinion.
Then Expressive with 48 utterances (16,4%) consisting of greeting, thanking,
apologizing, complimenting, stating confusing and stating pleasure. Then followed
Declaration with 34 utterances (11,6%) consisting declaring, confirming, blessing,
approving, betting, and dismissing. Then The last position occupied by Commissive
which are 26 utterances (8,9%) offering and promising.
Example 1
Unit 6 Task 1 Ririn : Sure, Please say a “hi” to Sinta, okay?
In this dialogue, Ririn asked Hanung to say hello to Sinta and Sinta is a friend of
the two. Those utterances were types of explaining that being part of based on
directive Yule (1996). The author invited the reader to do what is told through the
dialogue by asking the reader to say the word "Hi".
The Illocutionary Acts of Written Conversation in
Eleventh Grade Senior High School Students‟ Textbook :
Modul Pengayaan Bahasa dan Sastra Inggris Peminatan
Semester 2.
e-ISSN 2774-5155
p-ISSN 2774-5147
Yafet Seftyan Nugroho
1.591
Example 2
Unit 10 Final Semester Assessment Mrs. Yui : Good afternoon. I’d like to
know the time of the trains from Solo to Malang. In this dialogue Mrs. Yuli wanted to
asked and to know what time the train would depart from Solo to Malang. This proved
that the utterances were included in the directive, the sub-type of the questioning.
Example 3
Unit 6 Task 3 Nadila : No need. School has supply the cleaning tools.
Through a dialogue between Nadila and Ratna, Nadila who was on the phone by
Ratna told what Nadila actually got information at school that the school has provided
the tools needed for the school go green event.
So, the proper illocutionary function of those utterances was representative in
sub-type of telling the truth. In Yule (1996), telling the truth was one of representative
as illocutionary function that has social purpose to express the truth proposition. And
this utterence could also be included in the sub-types of informing because the
statement also contains information that has not been given by Ratna.
Example 4
Midrem Assessment Unit 8 (Dialouge for no. 14-19) Mr. Stefan: Actually, I call
you for giving information that I will not be able to attend the meeting. I‟m very
sorry because I‟m getting sick so I will make an appointment for tomorrow at 2.00
p.m., Sir.
The sentence above Mr. Stefan gave a statement to Mr. Riko that she could not
attend the meeting because she was sick. Those expressions kind of explain that being
part of the representative based on Yule (1996) and can also fall into the sub-type of
informing because Mr. Stefan informed him that he could not attend the meeting due to
an illness.
Example 5
Competence Test Unit 8 Saski: Thanks a lot. I know more about the differences
betwen a chef and a cook from you.
Saskia thanks Leila for explaining the difference between a chef and a cook.
Previously, Saskia did not know about it but because Leila explained it, now Saskia
understands.
Those utterances belong to stating pleasure based on Yule (1996). The word
Thanks a lot... can be refers to inviting expression. It proved that those utterances can
be classified into expressive as sub-types thanking of illocutionary act.
Example 6
UNIT 7 Task 3 Nina: But, it’s so expensive.
Nina's statement was doubtful because the brochure she saw was very expensive,
not because the price of the brochure was expensive but because of the price of the
goods in the brochure. Nina was surprised because the price of the motorbike in the
brochure was very expensive. He doubted whether he could buy it or not. It fits to Yule
(1996) that mentioned part of expressive was Stating Doubt. Those utterances also
relates to Stating Doubt because it refer to doubt expressions.
Example 7
Unit 6 Task 17 Dewi: Saturday? Well, I don’t have any appointment but I
planned to finish the assignment. Why? What did you have in mind?
This sentence states that Dewi has declared that she planed to complete all her
tasks before Saturday. Those utterances are related to Leech (1993) that one of
declaration sub-types is declaring.
Example 8
UNIT 6 Remidial Anton : Oh, that’s nice. I’d love to. Thank you so much.
Vol. 1, No. 12, pp. 1.588-1.594, December 2021
1.592 http://sostech.greenvest.co.id
Those utterances were belongs to declaring sub-types approving. Anton agrees
or thinks the same as Indah. The utterance “Oh, that's nice. I'd love to…” Anton said
that he liked cake and agreed to be brought by Indah. Leech (1993) states that one of
declarative category is approving and those utterances are relating to that.
Example 9
Midrem Assessment Unit 8 (Dialouge for no. 1-8) Reservation Clerk :
Erlang Persada Airlines, good morning. May I help you?
In this case the Reservation Clerk offered to help Arya Pamungkas for booked
flight tickets. The utterances May I help you? including to offering. It in line with
Yule (1996) that offering is one of sub-categories in commissive.
Example 10
Unit 10 Final Semester Assessment Mrs. Yui: Well, I’ll call you later. Thank
you for your help.
In the dialogue that Mrs. Yuli promised to call the ticket officer again after he
made a reservation to book train tickets. Those kinds of utterances are belong to
promising, sub-category of commissive. It proves that those dialogues can be classified
into illocutionary act based on Yule (1996).
The dominant kinds of illocutionary act in “ Textbook : Modul Pengayaan
Bahasa dan Sastra Inggris Grade Eleventh Peminatan Semester 2 “.
The Dominant Kinds of Illocutionary in Textbook : Modul Pengayaan Bahasa
dan Sastra Inggris Grade Eleventh Peminatan Semester 2. In Types of Illocutionary
Act table know the most dominant part is Directive with 95 utterances (32,5%)
consisting commanding, warning, and questioning. From the data, it can be seen that
the directive is used more by the author in the conversations contained in the book, so
that the directive is the most used illocutionary act.
In this section, the researcher answers the research problem by providing an in-
depth explanation using the related theories that have been described previously in
chapter II. In addition, this section also provides several examples to support the
explanation of the research results.
In the research findings, it is stated that the most common type of illocutionary
in the data was directive followed by representative, expressive, declaration, and the
least is commissive. All types of illocutions are influence by illocutionary factors as an
explanation that these types are related to learning objectives. Therefore, one type of
illocutionary can be influenced by more than one function based on the context of the
sentence.
Directives, as written in (Yule, 1996:54) is types of speech acts use by speakers
to make listeners do what speakers want. In use representation, the author of the book
makes sentences according to what he is tell to do. After analyzing the data, the
researcher realized that most of the utterances written by the author of the book are
relate to directives. This was because the author use a lot, he use the sentence
Questioning, Requesting and Commanding or other subtypes so that it leads to respond
to the reader doing what the author of the book write. In addition, each utterance
influence by several different functions related to learning objectives.
CONCLUSION
Based on the data analysis and research findings in the previous chapter, the
researcher draws the following conclutions Research question was there were five types
of illocutionary act stated by Yule (1996) related to Textbook : Modul Pengayaan Bahasa
dan Sastra Inggris Grade Eleventh Peminatan Semester 2. Those were declarative,
The Illocutionary Acts of Written Conversation in
Eleventh Grade Senior High School Students‟ Textbook :
Modul Pengayaan Bahasa dan Sastra Inggris Peminatan
Semester 2.
e-ISSN 2774-5155
p-ISSN 2774-5147
Yafet Seftyan Nugroho
1.593
representative, expressive, directive, and commisive. To be more specific, there are 40
utterances of declarative, 85 utterances of representative, 53 utterances of expressive, 87
utterances of directive, and 26 utterances of commisive. Dominant types of illocutionary
acts, based on Leech (1993) is according to how illocutionary acts relate to social goals or
goals to build student creativity, maintain politeness and have positive goals. Dominant
types of illocutionary is Directive with 95 utterence and the percentage reaches 32.5%.
All of Directive act were commanding, requesting, inviting, questioning, warning and
suggesting.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aggelopoulos, C. A., & Tsakiroglou, C. D. (2021). A new perspective towards in-situ
cold plasma remediation of polluted sites: Direct generation of micro-discharges
within contaminated medium. Chemosphere, 266, 128969.
Akram, M., Divaya, A., & Javed, M. (2021). Speech Act Analysis of Muhammad Hanif‟s
Novel „Red Birds.‟ PalArch’s Journal of Archaeology of Egypt/Egyptology, 18(10),
1611–1621.
Anderson, T. (2021). The socialization of L2 doctoral students through written feedback.
Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 20(2), 134–149.
Detges, U., Waltereit, R., Winter-Froemel, E., & Wolfsgruber, A. (2021). Positioning
reanalysis and reanalysis research. Journal of Historical Syntax, 5(32–39), 1–49.
Felappi, G. (2021). Otto Said that I am a Fool: Sententialism, Indexicals and Kaplanian
Monsters. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 102(2), 172–191.
Göpffarth, J. (2021). Activating the socialist past for a nativist future: far-right
intellectuals and the prefigurative power of multidirectional nostalgia in Dresden.
Social Movement Studies, 20(1), 57–74.
Herbert, R., Webster, D., & Anderson, E. (2021). Syntactic cueing of spoken naming in
jargon aphasia. Aphasiology, 35(1), 126–147.
Juniata, A. M., & Mulatsih, S. (2021). Conversation Analysis on Interview with a Covid-
19 Vaccine Expert Dr. Jerome Kim in Asian Boss Channel. Undergraduate
Conference on Applied Linguistics, Linguistics, and Literature, 1(1), 368–375.
Mulyana, L., & Engliana, E. (2021). Direct And Indirect Illocutionary Speech Acts On
Donald Trump‟s Victory Speech In 2016. INFERENCE: Journal of English
Language Teaching, 4(1), 60–67.
Nguyen, T. T. T. (2021). Language and intercultural peer interactions: Vietnamese
students in Taiwan‟s bilingual academic settings. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 84, 86–94.
Rotich, H., Bartoo, P., & Wathika, L. (2021). Pragmatic Forces of Speech Acts Used By
Members of County Assembly during Debates In Bomet County, Kenya. British
Journal of English Linguistics, 9(4), 31–46.
Sinha, K. K. (2021). The Role of Pragmatics in Literary Analysis: Approaching Literary
Meaning from a Linguistic Perspective. International Journal of English and
Comparative Literary Studies, 2(2), 29–40.
Tarigan, K. E., & Stevani, M. (2021). Ecology of The Batak Toba Medicinal Plants in
Praxis Social Approach. British Journal of Biology Studies, 1(1), 42–48.
Willis, J. (2021). A framework for task-based learning. Intrinsic Books Ltd.
Yanti, D. R., Amin, M., & Amrullah, A. (2021). The Analysis of Speech Acts Used by
EFL Teachers‟ in Classroom Interaction at SMAN 2 Mataram in Academic Year
2021/2022. International Journal of Multicultural and Multireligious
Understanding, 8(5), 90–98.
