Jurnal Tarbawi Vol. 10, No.

2, Juli-Desember 2013 ISSN : 2088-3102

A SOCIOLINGUISTIC CONTEXT ANALYSIS OF

SPEECH ACTS ILLOCUTIONARY FORCES

By : Haryanto
Dosen Fakultas Tarbiyah dan Ilmu Keguruan
Universitas Islam Nahdlatul Ulama Jepara

ABSTRACT
This paper is aimed at analyzing the components of situational context
of “speech event”, which are grouped in word ‘SPEAKING’ by Dell
Hymes (1972). It is summed up from an acronym of the components
like: Setting, Scene, Participants, Ends, Act Sequence, Key
Instrumentality, Norms, and Genres. It is a Case Study among the
Activist Students of in Campus.

Keywords : Speech Acts, Illocutionary Forces, locution, Illocution,

Perlocution

ABSTRAK
Paper ini bertujuan untuk menganalisa komponen-komponen konteks
situasi “kejadian tutur”, yang terangkum dalam kata ‘SPEAKING’ oleh
Dell Hymes (1972). Singkatan kata ini merupakan rangkuman dari
komponen-komponen seperti: Latar, Layar, Peserta, Hasil, Rangkaian
Tutur, Instrumen Kunci, Norma-norma, dan Jenis Tutur. Tulisan ini
adalah sebuah studi kasus diantara para aktivis mahasiswa di kampus.

Kata-kata Kunci : Tindak Tutur, Dorongan Lokusi, Illokusi, Perlokusi.

80 | Jurnal Tarbawi Vol. 10, No. 2, Juli-Desember 2013

INTRODUCTION
People communicate with others intensively due to the great dependency to one
another in fulfilling each necessity. The media to which people communicate is
language. Through language, people could convey messages to others to express
his idea as well as his desire. Corder (1973:32) describes the functions of
language in terms of such phrases as: “by which man can communicate; a system
of communication; for the purposes of communication”.
The facts that people speak different languages, even different accents on
the same language, has encourage people such language observers, as linguist
observers, as linguist and sociologist, to expand various theories n language.
One of the well-known result of their innovation is The Speech Act
Theories’, a popular theory which has been great topic both in Pragmatics and
Sociolinguistics for decades. The theory was firstly stated by Austin in 1962 and
was expanded firstly by Searle in 1969.
In Speech Act Theories, language is seen as form of acting (Renkema,
1993:21). There are three kinds of action within each utterance: first, locution, the
physical act producing an utterance; second, illocution, the act which is committed
by producing the utterance; third, perlocution, the productionof an effect through
locution and illocution (Renkema, 1993:22). However, within the scope of Speech
Act Theory, illocution has taken the highestposition among the three actions.
Subsequently, illocution has also becomes the prime object for any researchers
who wish to dig up more about Speech Act Theory.
Schiiffrin (1995:90) stated that Speech Act Theory is basically concerned
with what people ‘do’ with language – with function of language. As people usually
mean something when they utter an utterance, Speech Act Theory has defined a
specific term for that, named illocutionary force. It can easily be defined as
communicative intentions.
Searle has made a set of devices to define the illocutionary force on
utterances. Those devices are called IFIDs (Illocutionary Forces Indicating
Devices). IFIDs includes performative verbs, word order, intonation, accent, certain

A Sociolinguistic Context Analysis of Speech Acts Illocutionary Forces | Haryanto |

 Jurnal Tarbawi Vol. 10, No. 2, Juli-Desember 2013 | 81

adverbs, and the mode of the verb (Renkema, 1993:26). Those elements within
IFIDs are the physical characters of utterance which Schiffrin calls as “linguistic
device” (1993:90)
The way illocutionary forces defined by those linguistic devices is the main
reason for most language observers to give out some valuable critics for a more
complete analysis to account for the coherence discourse. Therefore, some
sociolinguists firmly state that a discourse must be viewed entirely, not only from
single utterance.
This criticism is proposed by Michael Stubbs in ‘Discourse Analysis’: The
Sociolinguistics Analysis of Natural Language. In his book, Stubbs tries to give a
sociolinguistic analysis to language theories within both linguistic and literary fields.
Speech Act Theory is one of the discussed topics. Stubbs that Speech Act must be
viewed within a discourse as a whole, not as a contrived isolated sentence (1987:
156-160). In addition, a social context or the extra linguistic element within the
speech act is also urgently considered.
Even though, Stubbs never disregarded the linguistic devices (IFIDs), in fact
he firmly emphasized that the correct interpretation of the illocutionary force,
therefore, depends on both the linguistic form of the utterance and the
understanding of the social network also, for example, the authority status of the
speaker (Stubbs, 1987:161). However, as language theories have been widely
expanded, Stubbs tried to put a new horizon on the analysis of Speech Act Theory
much in a Sociolinguistic Method.
Regarding Stubbs’ point of view, the writer intends to analyse the
illocutionary force in accordance with the conversation among campus activist
student, by applying Hymes’ SPEAKING model.

DISCUSSION
Stubbs has suggested that the understanding of social network is as
important as the understanding of linguistic form (1987:161). It means that the

 | Haryanto | A Sociolinguistic Context Analysis of Speech Acts Illocutionary Forces

82 | Jurnal Tarbawi Vol. 10, No. 2, Juli-Desember 2013

understanding of context is urgent. Schriffin outlines her point about context in

sociolinguistics as being stated:
“Interactional Sociolinguistics and Ethnography of Communication also view
context as ‘knowledge’, and they, too, include ‘knowledge of situation’, these
approaches, however propose frame works and construct through which to
analyse ‘situation’ as part of knowledge (1995:365).”

Hymes (1972) has summed up the components of situational context. He

distinguishes sixteen components of ‘speech event’, which he grouped by using
the word ‘SPEAKING’ s an acronym (Renkema, 1993:43). Renkema cites the
‘SPEAKING’ model from Hymes as follows :
S Setting Times, place, and other physical conditions
surrounding the speech acts.
The psychological counterpart to setting
Scene The participants can change what is meant here is
that a setting, for example, from formal to informal
P Participants The speakers or senders, the addressers, the
listeners, Receivers or Audience, and the Addressee
E Ends The purpose-outcomes, and Purpose goals
A Act Sequence The form and the Context of the messages
K Key The tone of conversation, e.g. serious or mocking
I Instrumentality The Channels, written telegraph, etc, and the Form
of Speech; dialect, standard language, etc.
N Norms The norms of interaction, e.g. interruption, e.g.
interruption or norm interpretation, for example how a
listeners suddenly look away must be interpreted
G Genre Fairy tale, advertisement, etc.

The theory will be applied to analyze the illocutionary forces of the following
conversations, which are labeled according to each topics:

A Sociolinguistic Context Analysis of Speech Acts Illocutionary Forces | Haryanto |

 Jurnal Tarbawi Vol. 10, No. 2, Juli-Desember 2013 | 83

A. Short Dialogue
R: Mbak, The Jus nantisiangMbakWorolho (1)
S: MbakWoro? Insya Allah (,) untukMbakWoroakudatangdeh, (2)
makasih

The setting of this conversation took place in campus, during the spare time
between the exchanges of lecture’s schedule. It was an informal conversation
since the situation was very relaxing and was done in standing position. The
conversation was performed by two participants.
From the first utterance, it can be seen that R give a special call for S
‘mbak’. It means that ‘S’ is ‘R’s senior’. With regard to the content of the first
utterance (1), R seems to announce something to S. It is about the jus along with
‘MbakWoro’ in it. In order to achieve a comprehensive analysis, the meaning of the
special terms or each utterance must be clarified first. For example, the term ‘teh
jus’ seems so awkward when it is combined with another term, such as
‘MbakWoro’. In fact, the jus is not a kind of drink, named juice; it is an acronym for
‘KajianJum’at Siang’, a special event for student in campus, which is aimed to give
Islamic studies for those who are interested in. the speaker of that event, invited by
the committee, is usually a moslem activist, which is known for her capability in
Islamic Studies and Islamic movement. Regarding the fact mentioned, R personally
informs S that ‘MbakWoro’ will be a charming, smart, energetic, and attractive
speaker, that S (2) responds R’s information (1) in such an exciting expression.
The utterance of R (1) is physically formed as announcement. But, respond it with
such utterance ‘….untukMbakWoroakudatangdeh……; it is obvious that R is
actually inviting S to come. The logic explanation is, by responding such utterance,
that S is willing to attend ‘the jus’ as she likes ‘MbakWoro’, and the opposite
meaning of utterance of S would be, “sayanggakjanjibisadatanguntukpembicara
yang lain”. So S positively gives an assurance to the R’s invitation.
Considering the language used within the conversation, it can be seen that
both participants used Indonesian language in an informal speech. There is a norm

 | Haryanto | A Sociolinguistic Context Analysis of Speech Acts Illocutionary Forces

84 | Jurnal Tarbawi Vol. 10, No. 2, Juli-Desember 2013

that can be found on the conversation. The term ‘Insya Allah’ is used by most
Moslems as an obligatory when they wish to plan something such as a promise.
The writer suggests that the genre of the discourse above (between R and S), is a
conversation. This choice is made by considering of coral discourse composed by
Hugo Steger (1974), on the basis of sociological analysis (Renkema, 1993:92).

B. Planning a Meeting
K: Baik (,) Rekan-rekansemua, (1)
behubungkajianumumkitasudahselesai, sayamintarekan-
rekanberkumpulkembaliuntukmembicarakanpanitia RAK (.)
RapatAnggotaKelompok (.) Silakankapankira-kirawaktunya
T: Minggudepan Mas? (2)
K: Oh nggak, mingguinisilakandirundingkan (3)
S: Besokajagimana? (4)
K: Bisasaja (.) yang lainbagaimana? (5)
F: Sepakat (6)
K: Jadibesokmalam jam tujuh e…… (7)
T: Eh…. Sayangggakbisa. Tapiyasilakansayanggakakandatang (8)
(Suddently looking away to the room outside)
K; Ya …. Maaf (.) karena forum (9)
telahsepakatmakarapatpembentukananitia RAK
dilaksanakanbesokmalam (.) HariKamis jam tujuhmalam (.) ada
yang ingindiitanyakan?
F: Nggak: (10)
(most people node their heads)
K: Baik (.) terimakasihataskehadirannya (11)
Assalamu’alaikumWarohmatullahiWabrokatuh
F, S, T Wa’alikumsalamWarohmatullahiWabarokatuh (12)

A Sociolinguistic Context Analysis of Speech Acts Illocutionary Forces | Haryanto |

 Jurnal Tarbawi Vol. 10, No. 2, Juli-Desember 2013 | 85

Setting of the second conversation took place at the house functioned as a

center of activities of organization. The activity was performed in the evening. The
writer concludes that the conversation was semi-formal procedures of the meeting,
which was not being conducted properly. The participants used a quite formal
Indonesian language but they did not apply the norms of meeting procedure
properly, such as the rule of interrupting.
There were many participants involving in the conversation. K is the forum
leader, T as well as the participant, while F, with bolt printed characters, was the
rest forum member, consisting of more than twenty persons. The purpose of this
conversation was to achieve an agreement on meeting schedule.
Utterance one (1) performed by K, might seen asking to the audience or the
member of forum. However, as he said “ ….silakankapankira-kirawaktunya”, he
was offering a chance to the forum to define the exact schedule. T (2) suddenly
replied by questioning the week of the meeting. T (2) seemed to interrupt K (1) as t
(2) asked before K finished his utterance. It obviously shows that the norms of
interrupting were not being applied properly. Going much further on the analysis, it
does not seem hard to catch the idea of each utterance from the first to the
seventh, as the dealing conversation runs smoothly. Suddenly the forum was
frozen out by T (8) who was loudly announcing her objection, even before K (7)
finished his words. T seemed so emotional as she spoke loudly, but then she gave
a short pause before saying much further. As she was suddenly looking away to
outside the room, the forum automatically felt T’s anger. The writer suggested that
it as the logical reason for K (9) who was then uttering his apology to T with many
short pauses. K (9) felt uncomfortable with T’s reaction (8) toward the agreement
settled. Nevertheless K (9) could manage to be calm as he ended his utterance by
offering a chance to the audience to ask questions. The forum replied K’s offer (9)
with an agreement, signed by words “Nggak” (10), which meant there was no
question from them and they agreed with the decision achieved, by the forum.
Finally K (11) closed the meeting with a loud greeting ‘salam’, which is immediately
answered by the forum in a loud voice also.

 | Haryanto | A Sociolinguistic Context Analysis of Speech Acts Illocutionary Forces

86 | Jurnal Tarbawi Vol. 10, No. 2, Juli-Desember 2013

The language used in this conversation mostly was in Indonesian standard.

Though the forum tended to neglect the formal norms of meeting, such as norm of
interrupting, however, they were aware of other norms, such as norms of
interruption, which was being applied to interrupt T’s reaction (8) toward the
agreement. There is another norm, which is needed to be viewed. It is the norm of
ending a forum with a greeting. This ritual is usually done by Moslems.
The writer assumes that the genre of this discourse was a conversation.
This decision is made by applying Steger’s classification of oral discourse (1974)
that is cited by Renkema.

CONCLUSION
The writer agrees with the idea proposed by Stubbs, that understanding
both linguistic form of the utterance and the ‘extra linguistic factors’ or the social
Hymes’ SPEAKING rule within the discourse or the utterance, are critically needed.
Therefore, it is very important to reckon the gestures as well as the style of the
illocutionary forces.
Nevertheless, it is possible to dug up more about illocutionary forces of
speech acts much in a Sociolinguistic way, since the society controls our speech
acts in two ways (Hudson, 1996). The ways are by providing a set of norms, and
the society’s motivation walks on those norms.

A Sociolinguistic Context Analysis of Speech Acts Illocutionary Forces | Haryanto |

 Jurnal Tarbawi Vol. 10, No. 2, Juli-Desember 2013 | 87

BIBLIOGRAPHIES

Corder, S. Pit. 1973. Introducing Applied Linguistics. Great Britain: Hazel Watson &
Viney, Ltd.
Hudson, A.A. 1996. Sociolinguistics, 2nd Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Renkema, Jan. 1993. Discourse Studies. An Introduction TextBook. Amsterdam:
John Benjamin Publishing Company.
Schriffin, Deborah. 1995. Approaches to Discourse. UK: Blackwell
Stubbs, Michel. 1987. “Discourse Analysis”. The Sociolinguistic Analysis of Natural
Language. Great Britain: Basil Blackwell Ltd.

 | Haryanto | A Sociolinguistic Context Analysis of Speech Acts Illocutionary Forces