THE KINDS AND DIFFICULTIES OF SPEECH ACTS BY THE FOURTH SEMESTER OF ENGLISH DEPARTMENT STUDENTS AT LETTER FACULTY OF INDONESIA MOSLEM UNIVERSITY
Abstract
The study aimed to elaborate the speech acts used and the difficulties occurred when performing speech acts by the fourth semester of English department students at Letters Faculty of Indonesia Moslem University. The writer used a qualitative research as the research method. The writer collected data by verbal test to analyze this study. The results of this study indicated that the speech acts used by the fourth semester of English Department students at Letters Faculty of Indonesia Moslem University mostly was Locutionary as it was the most common type of speech acts used in communication. In addition, regarding the difficulties occurred in performing speech acts by the students, was how the students needed to change the literal meaning of the sentence to the intended meaning because it sometimes confused the speaker and the listener to understand each other.
References
Arikunto,S. (2003). Manajemen Penelitian. Jakarta: PT. Rineka Cipta.
Austin, J, L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. USA: President and Fellows of Hardvard College.
Chastain, K. (1988). Developing Second-Language Skills Theory and Practice. Orlando: Harcourt Brace Javanovich
Chaer,. (2004). Tata Bahasa Praktis Bahasa Indonesia. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.
Chaer, A. (2010). Kesatuan Berbahasa. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.
Cutting, J. (2002). Pragmatics and Discourse. London and New York: Roudledge.
Dedi, S & Mezia, K, S. (2017). An Analysis of Speech Act Ability Conducted by the Students of English Department in Muhammadiyah University of Metro. The Journal of English Languages Studies 02, no.01
Hartley, J. (1982). Communication, Culture and Media Studies. Australia: The Key Concepts.
Hymes, D. (1972). Direction in Sociolinguistics. USA: Rinehart and Winston.
Kartika, D,. (2016). Teacher and Students Speech Act During Correcting Session of the Students English Works at SMAN 6 Bandar Lampung. Skripsi. Lampung: Lampung University.
Leech & Geoffrey. N. (1983). The Principle of Pragmatics. New York. Longman.
Putra, A., J. (2013). An Analysis of Speech Act Produced by Elementary School Teacher and Students to Facilitate Teaching and Learning at SDN Pringgasela East Lombok. Skripsi. Singaraja: Ganesha University of Education.
Rahardi, K. (2005). Kesatuan Imperatif Bahasa Indonesia. Jakarta: Erlangga.Rohmadi, M. (2004). Pragmatik Teori dan Analisis. Yogyakarta: Lingkar.
Rustono. (1999). Pokok-pokok Pragmatic. Semarang: CV IKIP Semarang Press.
Schleppegrell & Mary J. (2004). The Language of Schooling: A Fundamental Linguistics. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Searle, J. R. (1969). An Essay in the Philosophy of Language: Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Searle,J.R. (1979). Speech Act and Recent Linguistics: Expression and Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sudaryanto. (2003). Research Method. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.
Sugiono. (2014). Metode Penelitian Management. Bandung: Alfabeta
Tarigan, H. & Guntur. (2008). Berbicara sebagai suatu Keterampilan Berbahasa. Bandung: Angkasa.
Tarigan, H. & Guntur. (2009). Pengkajian Pragmatic. Bandung: Angkasa.
Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in interaction. England: Longman
Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. New York. Oxford University Press.
Zulfa, A. & Fatat. (2018). The Types of Illocutionary Act on the Hackemer’s Utterances in the Cyberbully Movie. Skripsi. Yogyakarta: Sunan Kalijaga University.
