CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
This chapter discusses six items.
They are background of the study, problems of the study, objective of the
study, scope and limitation of the study, significance of the study, and
definition of the key terms.
1. 1. Background of the study Speech
acts theory has had a strong influence on the field of discourse studies as
this theory focuses on the question of what people are doing when they use the
language (Renkema, 1993: 22). The utterances “are you hungry?”, “Is it a good
story?” “What a pity she is!” are the examples of sentences which occur in communication.
These utterances are called speech acts. Austin in Coulthard (1977: 17) divides
speech acts into three kinds, they are: locutionary acts, illocutionary acts
and perlocutionary acts.
Investigation on speech acts has
been carried out by many researchers from disciplinary backgrounds in a variety
of contexts such as the school and the work place. However, very little
attention is paid to examine illocutionary acts in play text. Notable exception
being Taufiq (2006), Suprihatin (2002), Handayani (2004) and Winarsih (2002).
They have similarities ideas of kinds of speech acts, they take from Austin
theory, they are locutionary acts, illocutionary acts and perlocutionary acts.
Taufiq (2006) and Suprihatin
(2002), for example, examine locution acts are the acts of producing the
utterances, the analysis to be done to identify this utterance are mostly referred to the whole
utterances made by the speakers to hearers. For examples: He said to me, “Shoot
her” by uttering ‘Shoot her’ the speakers does not intend to do the act by
himself because the utterance he made does not produce the act that he must do.
The analysis of the illocutionary acts are done by referring back to the acts of
the locutionary force in the form of meaning interpretation. Described that
illocutionary acts are does in which utterances have been made for asking,
request, questions, giving orders and making promises. For example: “can you
stop by in a minute?” (Renkema, 1993: 25), this question is interpreted as
request. On illocutionary acts, in speech acts theory the illocution is the
focus of attention. Certain minimum requirements must be made in illocutionary
to be successful, for example: “it’s raining”, “I promise that I will give you
one hundred dollars tomorrow” (Renkema, 1993:22), in this sentence: “it’s
raining” is made that may or may not be true because it does not make it rain but
in the sentence “I promise” it is not possible to say that it is not true, with
verb such as promise something is not only being said more importantly
something is being done. The kinds four conditions will be illustrated using
the illocution to promise: (a) the propositional content (in this case of
promising the act, which the speakers commit himself to must be a future act to
be carried out by the speaker him self), (b) the preparatory condition (the
condition concerns those circumstances that are essential for the uptake of an
illocution as the intended illocution). (c) The sincerity condition (the
speaker must honesty be willing to fulfil the promise), and (d) the essential
condition (this is the condition that separates the illocution in question from
other illocutions). Perlocutionary Acts can be done by observing the actions
performed by the addressee if the actions can be explicitly seen.
Handayani (2004), examines
locutionary acts is the act of simply uttering a sentence in a language; it is
a description of what the speaker says. For example, if some one says: “I am
hungry” the referring expression is “I”. She also said that illocutionary act
is what the speaker intends to do by uttering a sentence like stating,
promising, apologizing, threatening, ordering, and questing.
Perlocutionary is the effect on
the hearer of what the speaker says. For example, if a husband say to his wife
ten times in five minutes. “Hurry up dear; we’re going to be late for the
party”. The perlocutionary act might be one of urging but perlocutionary acts
is likely to be one of irritating.
Another relevant study was
carried out by Winarsih (2002), who examines described locutionary as the
utterance of a sentence with determined sense and reference. She also described
illocutionary and perlocutionary acts likes researchers before but she adds the
characteristic of illocutionary acts are: (1) understanding a sentence and also
what the utterance counts as, (2) uttering a sentence and meaning, the last (3)
the sentence provides a conventional means of achieving the intention to produce
a certain illocutionary effect on the hearer.
Those four studies as discussed
above have similarities the meaning of speech acts. They kind speech acts into
three kinds. On the other hand, this study is different object of the study
which describes the utterances made by the main characters of the devil and
Daniel Webster play text and also the function of illocutionary acts. The
Devil and Daniel Webster here not only in short story but also in film, but the
writer here just takes from the short story. The Devil and Daniel Webster, begun
at April 7, 1941, a month after the completion of Citizen Kane, has Orson Welles' fingerprints all over it. Robert Wise,
Welles' editor, did the honors for this film.
Welles' great contribution to the ranks
of movie composers, Bernard Herrmann, gave his first Oscar not for Citizen Kane
but for the devil and Daniel Webster (Compare Prices and Read Reviews on The
Devil and Daniel Webster at Epinions.com.htm). The devil and Daniel Webster are
based on a patriotic short story of the same title by Stephen Vincent Benet
(1898-1943). The short story talks about a farmer living in New Hampshire, who
is bored with his poor life, Jabez Stone. He has an ambition to change his
life; he wants to be a rich and state senator, therefore people will look up to
him. To make the dream comes true, he makes a contract with the devil, and he
sells his soul in exchange for good luck.
Moreover, the Devil and Daniel
Webster play text here uses informal and slang words give uniqueness of
language use, such as (1) Whew! Ain’t danced, (2) why I ain’t that is nothing
but moth, (3) I tell you he ain’t dead! Here, this research investigates deeply
on how the main characters perform the utterances in the illocutionary act.
1.2. Problems of the study Based
on the above rationale, this study is carried out to answer the following
question: 1.2.1 what kinds of illocutionary act are used by
the main characters of the Devil and Daniel Webster play text by Stephen
Vincent Benet? 1.2.2. how are the
illocutionary acts used by the main characters of the Devil and Daniel Webster
play text by Stephen Vincent Benet? 1.3. Objective of the study In line with
the statements of the problems, the purposes of the study are: 1.3.1 to describe kinds of illocutionary act used
by the main characters of the Devil and Daniel Webster play text by Stephen
Vincent Benet 1.3.2 to provide
description knowledge on the way of illocutionary acts used by the main
characters of the Devil and Daniel Webster play text by Stephen Vincent Benet 1.4.
Scope and limitation of the study This study is focused on illocutionary acts
uttered or said by the main characters using Austin’s theory. Meaning to be
understood, to make interaction and communication in order to reach the aims,
so that the action on speech acts and the certain condition necessary to make
illocutionary successful are as the main focus in this study.
To avoid broadening of
discussion, the discussion topic is limited. The study only focuses on
description to the elaborating of illocutionary acts used by the main characters of the Devil and Daniel
Webster play text by Stephen Vincent Benet.
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar