CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1.

1 Background of Study Nowadays, communication is become a part of our life that it can not be separate from daily life. Sometimes, someone uses implicit and explicit meaning when she is talking, but she does not realize what she says can make many interpretations that can make misinterpretation of it. In recent years a number of philosophers have pointed out important things about what utterance do and how at times their use is quite independent of their form. Shorter utterances are more easily understood than longer ones. Conversation is cooperative activity that whole activity would be entirely unpredictable. It can classify by grammatical structure along a number of dimensions. For example: their clausal type and complexity; active-passive; statement-question-requestexclamatory; various combinations of these and so on. Conversation that closely in general is involves much more than using language to state propositions or convey facts. Utterances that speakers use in conversation enable them to do these kinds of things because conversation itself has certain properties which are well worth examining.

1.2

The Aim of Study The aim of this study is to help people learning English. The learner is able to know the importance of speech act, cooperation and face in acting and conversing, so the leaner reconsider of it in daily conversation.

CHAPTER II
1

DISCUSSION 2.1 Speech Acts: Austin and Searle People are said to perform intended actions while talking. It is known as speech act a unit of speaking and performs different functions in communication. In speech act, Austin focused on how speakers realize their intention in speaking, whereas Searle focuses on how listeners respond to utterances, that is, how one person tries to figure our how another is using a particular utterances. Based on Austin (2962) there are two kinds of distinguished in utterance:
1. Constative utterance is utterance that connected in some way with events or

happenings in a possible world. It can be experienced or imagined, a world in which such propositions can be said to either true of false. Example: Have you called your mother? Or Your dinners ready!
2. Performative utterance, it means that a person is not just saying something, but is

actually doing something if certain real-world conditions are met. Such utterances perform acts: the naming of ships, marrying, and sentencing in these cases. A speech act changes in some way the conditions that exist in the world. Truth and falsity may be claims made about its having been done, but they cannot be made about the actual doing. Example: To say I name this ship Liberty Bell in certain circumstances is to name a ship To say I do in other circumstances is to find oneself a husband or a wife or a bigamist. To hear someone say to you I sentence you to five years in jail in still other circumstances is to look forward to a rather bleak future. Austin divided performatives into 5 categories: 1. Verdictives: typified by the giving of a verdict, estimate, grade, or appraisal. Example : We find the accused guilty
2. Exercitives: the exercising of powers, rights, of influences as in appointing,

ordering, warning, or advising. Example : I pronounce you husband and wife

2

3. Commissives: typified by promising or undertaking, and committing one to do

something by, such as: announcing an intention or espousing a cause Example : I hereby bequeath
4. Behabitives: having to do with such matters as apologizing, congratulating,

blessing, cursing or challenging. Example of exposition Example: I argue, I reply, I assume Based on Searle, we can perform at least three different kinds of act when we speak. Such as:
1. Utterance acts (locutionary acts by Austin), refer to the fact that we must use

: I apologize

5. Expositives: term used to refer to how one makes utterances fit into an argument

words and sentence if we are to say anything at all. For example: Damn
2. Propositional acts are those matters having to do with referring and predicting: it

means we use language to refer matters in the world and to make prediction about such matters. For example: Its cold in here, the doors open. The utterances can also cause hearers to do things.
3. Illocutionary acts have to do with the intents of speakers. Such as stating,

questioning, promising, or commanding. For example: If you say I bet you a dollar hell win and I say On, your illocutionary act of offering a bet has led to accepting it. Searle has indicated at least 6 six ways to make requests or give orders even indirectly. The utterance types are:
1. Focus on the hearers ability to do something.

For example: Have you got change for a dollar? 2. Focus on the speakers wish or desire that the hearer will do something. For example: I would like you to go now 3. Focus on the hearers actually doing something For example: Arent you going to eat your cereal? 4. Focus on the hearers willingness or desire to do something For example: Would you mind not making so much noise?
3

5. Focus on the reasons for doing something For example: Youre standing on my foot 6. Embed one of the above types inside another For example: I would appreciate it if you could make less noise Four rules that govern promise-making:

The propositional content rules, is that the words must predicate a future action of the speaker. The preparatory rules, which require that both the person promising and person to whom the promise is made must want the act done, and that would not otherwise be done. Moreover, the person promising believes he or she can do what is promised.

The sincerity rules, that require the promise to intend to perform the act, that is to be placed under some kind of obligation. The essential rules, that said the uttering of the words counts as undertaking an obligation to perform the action.

A study on speech acts does help people learning a language, in this case English, to realize that language can be made complicated by the speaker. A request can be expressed in a statement, as in You left the door open, and allows the interlocutor himself to understand the illocutionary acts and perlocutionary with a potential of risking misinterpretation. This evidence may convince that an English learner should reconsider the importance of speech act theory.
2.2

Cooperation and Face: Grice and Goffman

We can view utterances as acts of various kinds and the exchanges of utterances that we call conversations as exchanges of acts, not just exchanges of words, although they are this too. According to philosophers such as Grice, we are able to converse with one another because we recognize common goals in conversation and specific ways of achieving these goals. Grice (1975) maintains that the overriding principle in conversation is one he calls the cooperative principle. Grice lists four maxims that follow from the cooperative principle: quantity, quality, relation, and manner. 1. The maxim of quantity requires you to make your contribution as informative as is required.
4

2. The maxim of quality requires you not to say what you believe to be false or that for which you lack adequate evidence. 3. Relation is the simple injunction: be relevant. 4. Manner requires you to avoid obscurity of expression and ambiguity, and to be brief and orderly. Maxims are involved in all kinds of rational cooperative behavior. Grice point out (1975) that these maxims do not apply to conversation alone. He says: it maybe worth noting that the specific expectations and presumptions connected with at least some of the foregoing maxims have their analogues in the sphere of transactions that are not talk exchanges. I list briefly one such analog for each conversational category. 1. Quantity: If you are assisting me to mend a car, I expect your contribution to be neither more nor less than is required; if, for example, at a particular stage I need four screws, I expect you to hand me four, rather than two or six. 2. Quality: I expect your contributions to be genuine and not spurious. If I need sugar as an ingredient in the cake you are assisting me to make, I do not expect you to hand me salt; if I need a spoon I do not expect a trick spoon made of rubber. 3. Relation: I expect a partner's contribution to be appropriate to immediate needs at each stage of the transaction; if I am mixing ingredients for a cake, I do not expect to be handed a good book, or even a oven cloth (though this might be an appropriate contribution at a later stage). 4. Manner. I expect a partner to make it clear what contribution he is making, and to execute his performance with reasonable dispatch. Everyday speech often occurs in less than ideal circumstances. He gives further examples, however, in which there is a deliberate exploitation of a maxim. For example, a testimonial letter praising a candidate's minor qualities and entirely ignoring those that might be relevant to the position for which the candidate is being considered flouts the maxim quantity, just as does protesting one's innocence too strongly. Other examples are ironic, metaphoric, or hyperbolic in nature: 'you are a fine friend' said someone who has let you down for example. What we do in understanding an utterance is to ask ourselves just what is appropriate in terms of these maxims in a particular set of circumstances. We asses the literal content of the utterance and try to achieve some kind of fit between maxims. Consequently, the answer to the question, 'why X is telling me this in this way?' is the past of reaching decision about what exactly X is telling me.
5

Grice points out those speakers do not always follow the maxims he has described, they may implicate something rather different from what they actually say. They may violate, exploit, or opt out of one of the maxims, or two of the maxims may clash in a particular instance. When we try to apply any set of principles, no matter what kind they are, to show how utterances work when sequenced into what we call conversations, we run into a variety of difficulties. Ordinary casual conversation is possibly the most common of all language activities. Conversation is a cooperative activity in the Gricean sense, one that depends on speakers and listeners sharing a set of assumptions about what is happening. If anything went in conversation, nothing would happen. Conversation makes use of the cooperative principle; speakers and listeners are guided by considerations of quantity, quality, relation, manner, and the process of implicature which allows them to figure out relationships between the said and the unsaid. Conversation is cooperative also in the sense that speakers and listeners tend to accept each other for what they claim to be: that is, they accept the face that the other offers. That face may vary according to circumstances, for at one time the face you offer me may be that of a close friend, on another occasion a teacher, and on a third occasion a young woman but it is a face which I will generally accept. Goffman (1955), has called face-work, the work of presenting faces to each other, protecting our own face, and protecting the others face. Conversation therefore involves a considerable amount of role-playing: we choose a role for ourselves in each conversation discover the role or roles the other or the others are playing, and then proceed to construct a little dramatic encounter, much of which involves respecting others faces. All the world is a stage, and we are players. The listener not only has to establish what it was that was said, but also has to construct, from an assortment of clues, the affective state of the speaker and a profile of his identity. The affective state of the speaker and a profile of his identity are much the same as what I have called face, for they are concerned with what the speaker is trying to communicate about himself or herself on a particular occasion.

2.3

Some Features of Conversation Speech can be planned or unplanned (Ochs, 1979). We should note that a lot of speech

has a certain amount of planning in it; may not be all thought out and carefully panned and even
6

rehearsed, as, for example, is the welcoming speech of a visiting head of state, but parts may be preplanned to a greater or lesser extent. Unplanned speech is talk which is not thought out prior to its expression. Unplanned speech has certain characteristic: repetitions; simple active sentences; speaker and listener combining to construct propositions; stringing of clause together with and or but or the juxtapositioning of clauses with no overt links at all; deletion of subjects and referents; and use of deictics, e. g., words such as this, that, here, and there. Unplanned speech, however, is unorganized speech. When we look at how actual speech or conversation is organized, we begin to appreciate how complex such organization is as soon as we try to devise anykind of system of classification for the various bits and pieces we observe to occur and recur. There are some formal devices used in conversation:
1.

Adjacency pair

Nordquist (2008) stated that adjacency pair is a two-part exchange in which the second utterance is functionally dependent on the first, as exhibited in conventional greetings, invitations, and requests. Utterance types of certain kinds are found to co-occur:

A greeting leads to a return of greeting A summon leads to a response A question leads to an answer A request or offer leads to an acceptance or refusal A complaint leads to an apology or some kind of rejection A statement leads to some kind of confirmation or recognition A compliments leads to acceptance or rejection A farewell leads to a farewell So on....

It also allows for option in the second member of each pair and for a kind of chaining effect. A question can lead to an answer, which can lead to a comment, which can lead to an acknowledgment , and so on. For example: The ring of a telephone (summons) can lead to aresponse (Hello) with the raising intonation of a question, which thus requires an answer, and so on.
7

It has proved possible to plot the structure of many conversations using these ideas of pairing nad chaining in order to show how dependent we are on them.
2.

Turn-taking Conversation is a cooperative activity also in the sense that it involves two or more

parties, each of whom must be allowed the opportunity to participate. There must be some principkes which govern who gets to speak, i. e., principles of turn-taking. As Nordquist stated turn-taking is a term for the manner in which orderly conversation normally takes place. In most conversations only one person speaks at a time and that person is recognized to be the one whose turn it is to speak. At the conclusion of that turn another may speak and, as we have indicated, there may also be slight overlapping of speaking during the transition between turns. There are also certain linguistic and other signals that go with turn-taking. Speaker may signal when they are about to give up a turn in any one of several ways,or by some combination (Duncan, 1972, 1974):
1) 2)

The final syllable or final stressed syllable of an utterance may be prolonged. The pitch level of the voice may signal closure An utterance may be deliberately closed syntactically to achieve a sense of Words or expressions like you know or something can also be used to indicate The body or part of it, may signals closure

(Example: by dropping in level on the final syllable)

3)

completeness
4)

a turn-point.
5)

(Example: a relaxing of posture; a gesture with a hand; or directing ones gaze at the listener.) Conversations must have ways of getting started, have some recognizable core or substance to them, i. e., topic or topics, and be concludable. The beginning of conversation will generally involve an exchage of greetings. For example, a telephone conversation may involve an exchange of hellos. Once a conversation has been initiated and the opening forms have been exchanged, it will be necessary to establish a topic or topics on which to talk. The topic is obviously the thing that is

talked about, but each of the talkers may have quite different views from others concerning exactly what was talked about. Once a topic is established, speakers can keep it going by employing many of the same devices they use as individuals to keep their turns going. Feedback, an important element in warranting the continuation of a turn, can also tend approval to the continuation of a topic. When such feedback ceases, both turn and topic are put at risk. Speakers are sometimes interrupted or even interrupt themeselves. A skillfull speaker may try to lessen the chance of the first kind of interruption by structuring his or her remarks in such way as to lessen the possibilities of interruption, controlling the amount and kind of gaze used between self and others, and ensuring that the kinds of signals that tend to indicate that a turn is being relinquished are not allow to occur by accident. But interruption may still occur: there may be knock at the door, the telephone may ring, someone may knock over a glass, and so on. What sometimes occurs then is a kind of insertion sequence (Schegloff, 1968), a piece of conversational activity with its own structure but a piece completely unrelated to the ongoing conversation and inserted within it. Here is an example of such insertion: A: ......and as I was saying (telephone rings) Mary, get the phone. C: Okay. A: .....as I was saying, it should be next week. B: I see. On the other hand, a side sequence (Jefferson, 1972) serves as a kind of clarification: A: youll go then? B: I dont have to wear a tie? A: No! B: Okay, then. The BA sequence is a side sequence within the larger AB sequence of Youll go then? and Okay, then. These kind of sequence are also sometimes called repairs, i.e., correction of some kind of trouble that arises during the course of conversation, that trouble arising out of any one of a variety of factors.
9

Conversation must also be brought to a close. All the topic have been exhausted and nothing more remains to be said , but it is not quite the time to exchange farewells. It is into such places that you fit pre-closing signals which serve to negotiate the actual closing. An actual closing may involve several steps:
1) The closing down of a topic (e.g. So thats agreed or One oclock, then) 2) Repeated by the other party acknowledged in some form 3) Possibly some kind of pre-clossing exchange (e.g. Good to see you, Thanks again, or

See you soon)

4) An exchange of farewells (e.g. Bye-bye)

The following is an example of such a closing: A: So, thats agreed? B: Yep, agreed. A: Good, I knew you would. B: Yes, no problem really. A: Thanks for the help. B: Dont mention it. A: Okay, Ill be back soon. B: Okay, then, bye. Take care. A: Bye.

CHAPTER III CONCLUSION In speech act, there are two theories to support it 1st is Austin who focused on how speakers realize their intention in speaking, and the 2nd is Searle who focused on how listeners respond to utterances, that is, how one person tries to figure our how another is using a particular utterances. In speech act there is the weakness and strength based on the implicit statement of the speaker. The speech act has weakness can make misinterpretation to the speaker statement. This
10

evidence may convince that an English speaker should reconsider the importance of speech act theory. Based on Grice, speaker is able to converse with one another because speaker recognizes common goals in conversation and specific ways of achieving these goals. Grice is overriding principle in conversation that he called cooperative principle. Grice points out those speakers do not always follow the maxims he has described, they may implicate something rather different from what they actually say. They may violate, exploit, or opt out of one of the maxims, or two of the maxims may clash in a particular instance. Whereas based on Goffman is used theory that called face-work that presenting faces to each other, protecting our own face, and protecting the others face. each conversation discover the role or roles the other or the others are playing, and then proceed to construct a little dramatic encounter, much of which involves respecting others faces. The affective state of the speaker and a profile of his identity are much the same as what have called face, concerned with what the speaker is trying to communicate about himself or herself on a particular occasion.

REFERENCES

Anggrainy, 2011.

Ade.

2010.

Acting

and

Conversing.

Available:

http://imoed-

forum.blogspot.com/2010/01/acting-and-conversing.html. Accessed on 24th November

Marin, Lucian E. 2011. Literacy Acting and Conversing. Available: http://ls1959.com/ language/sociolinguistics/acting-and-conversing. Accessed on 24th November 2011.
11

Wardhaugh, Ronald. 1986. An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. New York: Basil Blackwell Ltd.

12