In
most language use in the world, there are three main types of sentences. They
are declarative, interrogative, and imperative. Each of these sentence types
has a different illocutionary force. Declarative for instance, has the
asserting illocutionary force, while interrogative is for asking/questioning,
and imperative is for ordering/requesting. These are the examples of the
sentences types:
[1.8
a]. I am a man. (declarative/stating)
[1.8
b]. I am a man? (interrogative/asking)
[1.8
c]. Be a man! (Imperative/ordering)
[1.8
d]. I (hereby) order you to be a man. (imperative/ordering)
In
these sentences it is possible to see the distinctions of the sentence types of
declarative, interrogative, and imperative. However, other forms of sentences
are sometimes used for an intention or illocutionary force other than the one
that is duly intended in using the sentence types.
Searle
(1979) introduced the idea of indirect illocutionary act which also known as
indirect speech act. This is speaker's act of communicating with hearer more
than what is actually said. It relies on the knowledgeable background
information about the conversation shared by both speaker and hearer. In other
words, indirect speech acts is the act of conducting an illocutionary act
indirectly. For example, one might say "Could you open the door?",
thereby asking the hearer if he/she could open the door. Nevertheless, this
interrogative sentence also requests the hearer to open the window indirectly.
Searle (1979:33) made a point by using this example:
[1.9]
A says to a friend say: "Let's go to the movie tonight."
the friend B answers: "I have
to study for an exam."
In this example [1.9]
it shows that B (second utterance) doesn't answered A's question, but instead
he/she utter a declarative sentence and asserts that he/she needs to study for an
exam. This utterance is in fact, a form of an indirect speech act, and an act
of refusal. As quoted from Mey (2001), Searle proofs that the second utterance
in [1.9] is an act of refusing A's suggestion to the movie using 10 steps:
Step 1: A has made a
suggestion (to go to the movies) and B has uttered a statement (about having to
study for exam). These are facts that happen between both speaker.(Factual
background)
Step 2: A assumes that
B to be cooperative in the conversation and expect an answer that is more
relevant in fulfillment of the Cooperative principle's maxim of relevance.(Cooperative
principle)
Step 3: Relevant
answers in this case should be among the following: acceptance(yes, sure),
rejection(no, thanks), counter-suggestion(Why don't we make it tomorrow?),
suggestion for further discussion(That entirely depends on what's on), etc.(Theory
of speech act)
Step 4: No relevant
answer in step 3 matches the answer made by B. so it is possible to say that it
is not one of these. (Taken from step 1 to 3). (Inference of step 3)
Step 5: Therefore, it
is possible to assume that B means more (or something entirely different), assuming
that his answer is relevant, his illocutionary must differ from the literal one.
Step 2 and 4 is the most important step in this argument, as Searle says "unless
we can distinguish the primary from the literal, there is no way of making
sense of indirect speech act"(Inference from step 2 and 4)
Step 6: Studying for
exam usually takes a lot of time which is precious while going to a movie will
also take some precious times. This is something that a student cannot afford
to lose, especially in pre-exam condition. (Factual background information)
Step 7: Hence, it seems
that B cannot do both studying for the exam and going to the movie.(inferring
step 6)
Step 8: Preparatory
condition of a proposal are the ability and willingness to do the proposed
act.(Theory of speech act)
Step 9: Therefore, it
is possible to assume that B having to do something else, cannot accept the
proposal to go to the movie. (Inferring from step 1, 7, and 8)
Step 10: Therefore, his
utterance about having to study for exam is probably a form of rejection of A's
proposal. (Inferring step 5 and 9)
Indirect speech acts theory is closely related to the
theory of Grice's maxim of cooperative principles, which will be explained in
subchapter 2.2.1 Incongruity theory. As mentioned by Huang (2007), Searle uses
Cooperative principles to find inferences to identify indirect speech acts. He
also mentioned that Searle has developed three approaches to analyze whether an
utterance is a direct or indirect speech act. First, by assuming dual
illocutionary act. The first one is literal or direct and the other one is
non-literal or indirect. Second, find the relevant felicity conditions. The third
step is as mentioned above, using the cooperative principles.
On the other hand, if the illocutionary force and the
sentence type is matched directly, it is called a direct speech act. Like in
example [1.8.d], in that sentence the speaker clearly says his/her intention
which is ordering.
