SEMANTICS ANALYSIS ON SPEECH ACT USED IN BEMO (KUPANG’S PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION)

This study presents a semantics analysis on speech act used in bemo (Kupang’s public transportation). The aim of this study are to find out the types and functions of speech act used in bemo. To obtain the data, the writer did observation and took picture to find the speech act used in Kupang’s public transportation. Then the data are analyzed using descriptive qualitative analysis. The result showed that there are three types and six functions of speech act used in bemo. The types of speech act are locutionary act, illocutionary act and perlocutionary act. The example of expression is: santai tapi enak (relax but pleasant). The locutionary act of this expression is used to tell somebody’s feeling in his or her life. The illocutionary act is this expression is used to ask people to enjoy their life. The perlocutionary act of this expression is used to ask people to agree with this expression and enjoy their life too. There are six functions of speech act used in Kupang’s public transportation (bemo), they are representatives, declaratives, commisives, directives, expressives and rogatives functions. One example for the function of speech act used in bemo is nona b cinta lu kuat – kuat (Girl I love you so much). This expression is functioned as a representative speech act because it is used to represent the fact of a man’s feeling to his girlfriend and it is showed the true feeling of a man. Another example is Mantan pacar di larang numpang (Ex girlfriend is prohibited to get into the bemo). The expression is directive because it’s functioned as a warning. The example of commissives is berani komen jantung stop (Dare to comment, heart stop beating). This speech act is used to make a threat against somebody. Based on the result, the writer concluded that there are three types and six functions of speech act used in Bemo (Kupang’s public transportation)

Sharing as speech act

Social media platforms allow users to perform different speech acts: status updates could be assertives, a like is an expressive, a friendship request is a directive, and so on. But sharing (or "retweeting") seems to lack a fixed illocutive status: this explains why present controversies concerning the sharing of misinformation have been debated in legal procedure and discussed from the point of view of personal responsibility without reaching a general consensus. The premise of this paper is that the diffusion of false or unwarranted information could be better analyzed if we consider sharing a precisely definable speech act. I will describe some dominant interpretations of the act of sharing that are not, however, sufficient to fully explain it. As an alternative, it will be shown that there is a specific illocutive structure of the act of sharing, which not only consists in asserting the "shareworthiness" or the relevance of a content, but is primarily comparable to an "attention-orienting" directive

Protest and Speech Act Theory

This paper attempts to explain what a protest is by using the resources of speech-act theory. First, we distinguish the object, redress, and means of a protest. This provided a way to think of atomic acts of protest as having dual communicative aspects, viz., a negative evaluation of the object and a connected prescription of redress. Second, we use Austin’s notion of a felicity condition to further characterize the dual communicative aspects of protest. This allows us to distinguish protest from some other speech acts which also involve a negative evaluation of some object and a connected prescription of redress. Finally, we turn to Kukla and Lance’s idea of a normative functionalist analysis of speech acts to advance the view that protests are a complex speech act constituted by dual input normative statuses and dual output normative statuses

Triadic to Trinitarian: Kevin J. Vanhoozer’s Application of J.L. Austin’s Speech Act Theory

The basis for Christian theology, the Bible, has come under considerable attack by decontructionalists in their attempt to disregard authorial intent and to prove that understanding the meaning of an author\u27s words is an impossible task. Kevin J. Vanhoozer is an evangelical scholar who has done much in defense of authorial intent and has found fertile philosophical ground in Speech Act theory. This essay looks at Vanhoozer’s use of J.L. Austin’s variety of Speech Act theory to determine if Vanhoozer uses Austin correctly, then turns to Vanhoozer’s bibliological use of Austin whereby he analogically applies Austin’s Triadic formula of a speech act to the Trinitarian formula of the inspiration and interpretation of Scripture

Elocutional Force of Expression in Speach

The problem of indirect speech acts is tightly connected with the problem of illocative strength of expression. The problem is how to make possible understanding of indirect speech act by a hearer, when hearable and understandable means something more. Analysis of illocative strength of expression showed that the same speech act can be realized by means of some different sentences. The direct meaning of sentences is the element of language system, as the language is included into the sphere of a human activity, so the speech act is necessary to consider in more wide context. The main function of an interrogative sentence is the expression of question.

Assertion: Just One Way to Take It Back

According to Jonathan Kvanvig, the practice of taking back one’s assertion when finding out that one has been mistaken or gettiered fails to speak in favour of a knowledge norm of assertion. To support this claim, he introduces a distinction between taking back the content of the assertion, and taking back the speech act itself. This paper argues that Kvanvig’s distinction does not successfully face close speech-act-theoretic scrutiny. Furthermore, I offer an alternative diagnosis of the target cases sourced in the normativity of action

Variations of Speech Act Realizations in the Jakarta Post Readers' Forum

The research investigated variations of speech act realizations in The Jakarta Post readers' forum. The research focused on the speech acts found in The Jakarta Post readers' forum and the variations made when a speech act was realized by using a speech acts theory proposed by Bach and Harnish (1979). Based on the theory, speech acts are classified into four major categories in which each category consists of subcategories in a system namely, a taxonomy of communicative illocutionary acts. The data were obtained from six pages of The Jakarta Post readers' forum online edition under the heading of the topic about a lack of religious tolerance. The data were analyzed by categorizing the kinds of speech acts and the variations of each category according to speech acts classification provided by the taxonomy. The research founds that the kinds of speech acts realized by the contributors to the readers' forum were Constatives, Acknowledgments and Directives. Each of which was comprised of finer classes of speech act variations. The research concluded that the readers' forum has been used to serve several functions in accommodating its contributors' beliefs, feelings and desires. The contributors provided many reasons in form of beliefs to encourage a reasonableness of the blaming/complaint/critique or even an urgency of the order/asking/advice

Speech Act Analysis of Madurese Wedding Ceremony in Kalidandan Village, Pakuniran, Probolinggo

Pragmatics is the study of those relations between language and context that are grammaticalized, or encoded in the structure of language. This study aims to describe kinds of speech acts especially locutionary act, illocutionary act, and the perlocutionary act of Madurese wedding ceremony in Kalidandan village, Pakuniran district, Probolinggo regency. The results of this study showed that the illocutionary act of the Madurese wedding ceremony in Kalidandan village, Pakuniran district, Probolinggo regency has various kinds of speech act, 1) direct speech act; 2) indirect speech act; 3) literal speech act; 4) non-literal speech act; 5) direct literal speech act; 6) indirect literal speech act; 7) direct non-literal speech act, and 8) indirect non-literal speech act.Keywords: Speech act, Kinds of speech act, and Madures