Use of implicit performative utterances  at University of Padjadjaran and at University of Pennsylvania

Amalia, Rosaria Mita

doi:10.24815/siele.v4i1.7005

Cited by 6 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus it can be seen that only those who have power can give commands as well as orders. Amalia (2017) stated that a sentence does not have an explicit performative verb but it has illocutionary force which is known from the context. In this instance, the correlation between a speech act and power can be seen.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A pragmatic study of speech as an instrument of power: Analysis of the 2016 USA presidential debate

Gusthini

Sobarna

Amalia

2018

SiELE

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research was aimed at analyzing the speeches of Donald Trump and of Hillary Clinton in the USA Presidential candidates’ debates as instruments of power. The data is a presidential final debate video of Trump and Clinton made in September 2016 which has been converted into a transcript. The data analyzing technique is divided into three steps: 1) describing the context, 2) analyzing the illocutionary acts, and 3) analyzing the power dimensions. The results of this research show that the speakers use the speech act as an instrument of power with classifications of representative, commissive and expressive. In this regard, the researchers found that the speakers demonstrated their power to try to convince the voters in their society to trust them to be the president. The research results also showed that the usage of speech in debate as an instrument of power can influence the voters especially on Election Day.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A pragmatic study of speech as an instrument of power: Analysis of the 2016 USA presidential debate

Gusthini

Sobarna

Amalia

2018

SiELE

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Context is very influential in presenting and explaining the data in this study. Therefore, understanding the context will help speakers and listeners understand the speaker's meaning (Amalia, 2017).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Dynamics of Neighborhood Speaking: a Sociopragmatic Study

Siagian

Sitorus

2023

PJEE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Neighboring life is a type of social interaction that shows many symptoms of social conflict. The social conflict appears in various illocutionary speech acts found in neighboring social interactions. This study examines illocutionary speech acts using listening and speaking techniques in collecting data and translational and pragmatic equivalent methods in processing data. Data was obtained naturally through mutual interaction with neighbors. This study shows variations and rich pragmatic features in neighborly interactions. All speech acts have hidden meanings that deserve to be studied. The realization of illocutionary speech acts in this study is manifested in five ways: directive speech acts of ordering, expressive speech acts of mocking, commissive speech acts of offering, assertive speech acts of boasting, and declarative speech acts of confirming. In contrast, the speaking strategy obtained from the research data is divided into four parts: speaking frankly without further ado, speaking candidly with positive Politeness, speaking candidly with negative Politeness, and the strategy of vaguely speaking. - vague. Furthermore, the factors that influence the realization of speech acts are speech situation, age, kinship, gender, social status, and social relations. This research has implications for kinship relations between neighbors. Understanding speech acts can prevent social conflict and create closeness between neighbors.

show abstract

“…Language is powerfully associated with the contexts of where and for what it is used (Risdaneva, 2018), and context is one aspect of a speech situation (Amalia, 2017). Discourse, therefore, reveals the relationship between language and contexts.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Discourse markers in diplomatic setting: Ministerial dialogue between Australia and Indonesia

Amalia

Citraresmana

Saefullah

2021

SiELE

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This descriptive research discusses the use of discourse markers in a diplomatic setting between the governments of Indonesia and Australia during a Joint Press Conference between Indonesia-Australia Foreign and Defence Ministers. The particular aims of this research are to identify and analyze forms of discourse markers employed by the representatives of each government and describe the most frequent discourse markers used by these representatives. The data were collected from the transcript of the Joint Press Conference between Indonesia and Australia Foreign and Defence Ministers (2+2) Dialogue. The data are classified based on the typology of discourse markers and analyzed to identify their function within the diplomatic discourse. The data are input into the AntConc corpus analysis toolkit for analysis. The results show that the Foreign and Defence Ministers of Indonesia employed three forms of discourse markers, namely textual discourse marker, interpersonal discourse marker, and cognitive discourse marker, whereas the Foreign and Defence Ministers of Australia only applied textual discourse marker and cognitive discourse marker. Both representatives employed textual discourse markers more frequently than other forms of discourse markers. Discourse markers partially control how meaning is constructed by showing turns between speakers, joining concepts, displaying attitude, and finally, controlling communication. By understanding the discourse markers in ministerial dialogues, spectators can learn to find clues in the change of direction in their talks to better understand the conversation that affects the policies and citizens of both countries involved.

show abstract

Use of implicit performative utterances at University of Padjadjaran and at University of Pennsylvania

Abstract: Abstract

Cited by 6 publications

References 5 publications

A pragmatic study of speech as an instrument of power: Analysis of the 2016 USA presidential debate

A pragmatic study of speech as an instrument of power: Analysis of the 2016 USA presidential debate

The Dynamics of Neighborhood Speaking: a Sociopragmatic Study

Discourse markers in diplomatic setting: Ministerial dialogue between Australia and Indonesia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About