1

TONY ABBOTT’S SPEECH TOWARDS BALI NINE’S DEATH

PENALTY: PRAGMATICS PERSPECTIVE

COMPREHENSIVE PAPER

Advisors:

Slamet Setiawan, Ph.D

Suharsono, M.Phil., Ph.D

By:

Marisatul Khasanah
NIM 147835095

UNIVERSITAS NEGERI SURABAYA

PROGRAM PASCASARJANA
PROGRAM STUDI PENDIDIKAN BAHASA DAN SASTRA
 2

2016
 1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

This study will be conducted on the systemic functional linguistic analysis

of a speech toward Bali Nine’s death penalty carried out by Tony Abbott, the

former Australian Prime Minister. Delivered in 2015, the speech dropped the

Australian – Indonesian diplomatic relationship by its controversial issues.

Related to the case, this chapter will present background of the study, research

questions, objectives of the study, scope and limitation of the study, significances

of the study, definitions of key terms, and organization of the study.

1.1 Background of the Study

Language is a tool to convey messages to audiences, to express thoughts

and feelings, and to clarify matters for the goal of attracting listeners in social

communication. It has been developed into important means for describing

interpersonal relationships with the development of human society. Sometimes

people use language in communication which aims to affect people’s feelings,

thoughts, and perceptions. It is also been functioned as the primary tool in

achieving audiences’ comprehension of what the speaker is going to say via the

speech.

Language can be used anywhere and anytime. However it depends on the

situations in which it is carried out. Formal language is more usable in academic

fields than casual language. However the formality does not influence the use of

language in conveying the ideas and thoughts of speakers to the listeners.

1
 2

In a study, states that politics is a struggle for power in order to put certain

political, economic and social ideas into practice. In this process, language plays a

crucial role. A political action is prepared, accompanied, influenced and played by

language. This use of language in politics has unique purposes and functions.

People can see how a president uses political language either to gain power,

exercise or keep his power. A politician often conveys his thoughts commenting

about an actual issue without offending others. In this case, the language produced

is aimed to maintain relationship with other politicians. Moreover, a candidate can

use a strategy to manipulate words in suiting his intention and later to win

people’s votes in a campaign. In other words, it provides them an opportunity to

explore the available resources with purpose of maintaining and sustaining their

power. Those spoken texts uttered by politicians in order to convey meaning or

messages used in political situation can be regarded as political speech. Through a

speech, they can make the audiences understand and know about each other's

social culture, custom, idea, and background. Reshaped by functions and contents,

political speech is also a kind of text presented by concerned authorities. While

speaking, politicians do more than talk: they interact with language and employ it

to express interpersonal meanings. And thus a speech becomes a rich, multi-

faceted phenomenon that can be explored from many different points of view .

Some political speeches may be conveyed by avoiding offensive tendency.

However a number of speeches are purposed to directly offend other politicians or

even by using interpersonal language. This interpersonal aspect becomes an

interest to be investigated by linguists nowadays.

 3

Linguists' interest recent times is gradually shifting from the traditional

focus on the linguistic structure of text to how texts figure in the social process.

assumes that an understanding of grammar, morphology, semantics and

phonology of a text does not necessarily constitute understanding of the text. It

cannot be simply said that one can understand what other said or write by

understanding the grammar use. S/he has to consider what, why, or how they write

or speak such utterances. That is what nowadays one need to figure out from

linguistics viewpoints.

A language can also be viewed as a mental reality. It exists in the heads of

people who speak it, and we assume its existence because of people’s ability to

learn languages in general and their practice in dealing with at least one

particular language . But nowadays, language is no longer seen as merely

reflecting our reality, but as central to creating reality. Our words are never

neutral, they carry the power that reflects the interests of those who speak or write

. In other words, how the reality is described, somehow, depends on how the

speaker tells or the writer writes. It is obviously influenced by their backgrounds.

Knowledge, feelings, or interests sometimes decide what is in their mind about

reality.

In line with the above phenomena, linguists have been developing theories

of language which can be used to make deep understanding of a text beyond the

sentences. In the past, people concerned with the well-grammatical constructed

sentences in communication. However nowadays as stated by Yule (2006), how it

is that language-users successfully interpret what other language-users intend to

 4

convey. Further people are expected to understand speakers who communicate

more than they say. When we concentrate to a particular language, we are merely

concerned with the accurate representation of the forms or structures of language.

However, if fact, we are supposed to be capable of more than recognizing the

correct forms and to understand that a conditional relation exists between

clauses/sentences. Besides, views that pragmatics is a speaker’s meaning. It

concerns a study of meaning uttered by a speaker and interpreted by a listener.

Language as a tool of communication can be manipulate to convey

message. By organizing the language, people can offer, asking, declare, or

showing their intended meanings. These intended meanings are carried out

through the sequence of utterances in which every single utterance is a complex

event and is thus associated with a number of situations and other entities .

Furthermore, every components of utterance has particular communicative

functions. For instance, a word functions as reference to a certain thing, place, or

time which the speaker intend to. Hence, the sentence structure can influence the

meaning of the utterance. Therefore, there will always a reason why the

sentence/utterance is formed in such way. In other words, pragmatics study also

concerns with finding the meanings when people utter a set of language.

Pragmatics, as a branch of study of language, has its own perspectives in

viewing how language can be manipulated in certain way. It scopes several

elements which play particular roles when a speaker is delivering the speech. So

how the sentence structure works as supposed to be can be revealed by analyzing

 5

the pragmatics elements. They could be speech acts, implicatures, deictic

expressions, reference, inference, politeness, etc.

Some studies have been conducted to analyze speeches from pragmatics

viewpoint. , in An Analysis of Interpersonal Meanings on SBY’s Speech Entitled

“the Big Shift and the Imperative of 21st Century Globalism”, conducted a study

exploring the appraisal system found in SBY’s speech in order to identify attitude

that the speaker wants to present to the audiences. It tried to reveal the appraisal

devices such as attitude, graduation, and engagement used by Susilo Bambang

Yudhoyono in his speech. It employed the appraisal analytical framework

proposed by Martin and Rose (2005). It reveals how the speaker uses appraisal

devices to express his ideas related to the 21 st century globalism. Meanwhile this

study concerns with other areas of pragmatics which analyzes the roles of

pragmatics elements in the speech.

Besides, conducted analysis entitled Pragmatic Analyses of President

Goodluck Jonathan’s and President Barack Obama’s Inaugural Addresses. It

investigated the first inaugural addresses of two presidents: Nigeria’s

Goodluck Ebele Jonathan (2011) and America’s Barrack Obama (2009). It

considered the illocutionary forces in the speeches as well as the face-threatening

and face-saving acts respectively, with the aim of identifying the similarities and

differences in the speeches. It compared two speeches by using speech acts theory

and principles of face-acts. Meanwhile this study uses more elements. Deictic

expressions are also analyzed to describe the physical context of the speaker.
 6

Another study was conducted by in A Pragmatic Analysis of Victory and

Inaugural Speeches of President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua. The study was

conducted to identify the speech acts features of the speech. Hence, it

focused on the pragmatic functions of locution, illocutionary and perlocutionary

acts following the Speech Act theory of Austin (1962) and Searle (1969). It

merely focused on the speech acts analysis but this study considers three elements

of pragmatics to reveal their roles in the speech. Further, this study tries to find the

intended meaning of the speaker.

Based on those previous studies, it can be concluded that speech can be an

object of linguistic studies. The prior studies focus on the pragmatics analysis

such as appraisal, face-acts, and speech acts. Actually they have similar field with

this study. However, it takes different viewpoints in which the deictic expressions

proposed by Yule (1996), speech acts theory proposed by Searle (1979) and the

politeness principles of face acts proposed by Yule (1996) are employed. These

theories are used to reveal the intended meaning of the speaker.

Briefly, this study analyzes the utterances taken from former Australian

Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s speech delivered on February 18th, 2015. His speech

became controversy as he described Indonesia as ungrateful for refusing to drop

its decision to execute two Australian drug traffickers despite Australia’s A$1

billion worth of aid that was given to Aceh when it was hit by a tsunami in 2004.

This is interesting to analyze how the indexicals, general functions of speech acts,

and politeness principles take any roles in the speech. As pragmatics concerns

with speaker’s intention, this study will conclude all of the findings into speaker’s
 7

intended meaning. It is the description of interpretation about Tony Abbott’s

responds influenced by his believe and attitude regarding the death sentence as he

showed in his speech.

1.2 Research Questions

This study will be conducted in order to answer the following questions:

1) How are the indexicals realized in Tony Abbott’s speech?

2) How are the general functions of speech acts employed in Tony Abbott’s

speech?
3) How are the politeness principles of face-acts employed by the speaker?
4) What is the intended meaning of Tony Abbott’s speech?

1.3 Objectives of the Study

Considering the above questions, this study will be conducted with the

following aims:

1) To describe how the indexicals are realized in Tony Abbott’s speech.

2) To explain how the general functions of speech acts are employed in Tony

Abbott’s speech.
3) To describe how the politeness principles of face-acts are employed by the

speaker.
4) To reveal the intended meaning of Tony Abbott’s speech

1.4 Scope and Limitation of the Study

To limit the wide range of the topic, this study will focus more intensively

on the following areas:

1) The analysis will focus on Tony Abbott’s speech on Tsunami aids related to

the Bali Nine’s death penalty. He was the Australian Prime Minister and the

speech was delivered on February 18th, 2015.

 8

2) This study will analyze the utterances from pragmatics viewpoints. First, the

indexicals help the listeners to identify referents in terms of the three

classifications, person, temporal, and spatial. A listener needs to assign

reference to the words that a speaker uses. When people know what they are

talking about, interpreting the utterances will be easy. The theory is purposed

by Yule (2006).
3) Second, this study employs speech acts theory to describe the use of general

functions of speech acts in the utterances covering five classifications

purposed by Searle (1979) in Yule (1996). They are assertives, directives,

commissives, expressives, and declaratives.

4) Third, politeness principles of face-acts are employed in this study. They are

purposed by Yule (2006) related to face-threatening acts, face-saving acts,

negative face, and positive face.

5) This study will present the analyses by using qualitative approach.

1.5 Significances of the Study

This study is expected to give useful theoretical, practical, and pedagogical

significances related to the development of linguistic studies. Theoretically, this

study is expected to give contribution to the research in linguistics. It provides

information how indexicals, speech acts, and politeness principles can be realized

in a political speech. Besides, the result of the study can be references for further

studies.

Practically, this study is expected to give information for those who are

conveying speeches. The result and theories in this study can be considered for

constructing a speech. For instance, when making a speech, someone needs to

 9

consider to employ pragmatics elements and decide thoroughly the utterances to

be delivered.

Pedagogically, this study is expected to give benefits to lecturers to teach

speech analysis using pragmatics point of view. It give steps and guidance of how

to analysis the speech. Furthermore, it could be applied in analyzing other kinds

of texts.

1.6 Definition of Key Terms

To avoid misunderstanding of the terminologies which are used in this

study, it is necessary to define those terms as follow:

1) Speech Acts

Speech act is the action performed by a speaker via an utterance.

2) Indexicals

Indexicals is linguistic items that point to contextually salient referents

without naming them explicitly.

3) Deixis

Indexicals is referred to as deixis. It is traced by Yule (2002) to a Greek term

that means “pointing” via language.

4) Politeness
 10

Politeness is the means employed to show awareness and consideration of

another person’s face. “Face” refers to two basic wants of every individual:

(1) to be approved of by others (positive face), and (2) to have his / her

actions and thoughts unimpeded by others (negative face).

5) Face-saving act

Face-saving act is the utterances that lessen the possible threat to another’s

face.

6) Face-threatening act

Face-threatening act is the utterances that represent a threat to another

person’s self-image.

1.7 Organization of the Study

This study are divided into five chapters. Those are Introduction, Review

of Related Literature, Research Method, Result and Discussion, and Conclusions

and Suggestions.

Chapter 1 is introduction which covers background of the study, research

questions, objectives of the study, scope and limitation of the study, significances

of the study, definitions of key terms, and organization of the study.

Chapter 2 is review of related literature. it consists of review of

pragmatics, elements of pragmatics covering indexicals, speech acts, and

politeness, Tony Abbott’s speech of Bali nine’s death penalty, previous studies

which covers related studies in the same field, and theoretical framework.
 11

Chapter 3 is research method which presents research design, subject of

the study, data and source of data, procedures of data collection, and procedures of

data analysis.

Chapter 4 is result and discussion which explains the result of the study

and the discussion about the speech acts and contextual analysis.

Chapter 5 is conclusions and suggestions which present the final

statements to conclude all of the results and discussion, then give suggestions for

the further studies.

 12

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF RELATED
12 LITERATURE

This chapter is devoted to review the relevant theories and studies related

to the particular research questions. Pragmatics perspective on deictic expressions,

speech acts, and politeness principles are discussed. Deictic expressions, usually

called indexical, is used to describe the physical context of the speaker by

examining time, place, and person elements. After knowing the context, speech

acts theories are employed to find the functions of the utterances. They are used to

convey the message to the hearer. As a person representing a big country, Tony

Abbott must consider every single utterance he produces by which they represent

his politeness. Therefore the politeness principles are employed in term of face-

saving act and face-threatening act aimed at both conveying the messages and

maintaining relationship. These three elements of pragmatics are applied as the

tools to analyze Tony Abbott’s speech. Consequently, the speech needs to be

briefly presented. Besides, this chapter discusses some previous studies having

related topic to this study. At the end, a theoretical framework relates the theories

to the objectives of this study.

2.1 Pragmatics

Pragmatics is a linguistics branch which maintains the use of context in

understanding and producing speeches or utterances. It is used to develop

principles of work relationship in communication process, therefore the aim of

communication can be gained effectively. Studying pragmatics means studying

 13

meaning in language use by considering the context working behind it. In

addition, the term pragmatics was introduced by Charles Morris in 1930s. By the

time it appeared, linguistics is mainly talking about how the language is used to

communicate something to someone. Since then, linguists have defined

pragmatics in many ways.

Some linguists have their own views about pragmatics. Crystal in assumes

that pragmatics is study of language from the point of view of users, especially of

the choices they make, constraints they encounter in using language in social

interaction and the effects their use of the language has on other participants in the

act of communication. Pragmatics is study about finding a hidden meaning of the

speaker’s utterance which includes context in analyzing it.

Yule (1996:3) views that pragmatics is the study of speaker’s meaning. It

concerns a study of meaning uttered by a speaker and interpreted by a listener.

Besides, he also defines pragmatics as contextual meaning which involves the

interpretation of what people mean in a particular context and how the context

influences what is said. He also assumes that pragmatics is the expression of

relative distance. Then, Watson and Hill’s in define that pragmatics is the study

of language from the view point of the user and the effects on the communication

situation.

Another definition is stated by , pragmatics theory is concerned with the

inferences of presuppositions, implicature, and the entirety of participants’

knowledge of the world and general principle of language usage. Besides, views

that the nature of language can only be understood through understanding of

 14

pragmatics which deals with “how language is used in communication”.

Pragmatics is the study of meaning in relation to speech situational context in

which addresser, addressee, context of utterances, goal of communication, and

speech acts are compromised as the key elements. Sometimes it is influenced by

the cultural, social, psychological, religious, and political bounds.

Those statements come to the conclusion that pragmatics is defined as

study of language use or speaker’s meaning influenced by the context. Pragmatics

studies relation between language and context dealing with more than knowing

the meanings of words and grammatical relation. It gives account of meaning in

context, the factors that affect the making of utterances by users and the

effects of the utterances. Here, people interpret meaning in communication by

considering the relationship between sentences and context.

2.2 Elements of Pragmatics

As discussed in the previous part, this study presents how language is

manipulated to convey messages in the form of speech. The pragmatics elements

are employed in this analysis. Actually, they involve the context, deixis, reference,

inference, anaphora, presupposition, speech acts, politeness, and implicatures.

However, this study only gives limitations in the analysis of physical context,

functions of speech acts, and politeness principles. So, only theories of indexicals,

speech acts, and politeness principles of face-acts will be employed. The

followings are further explanations of them.

2.2.1 Indexicals
 15

states that context is the social and physical world which interacts with

the text to create discourse. It is an important concept in pragmatic analysis

because pragmatics focuses on the meaning of words in context or interaction and

how the persons involved communicate more information than the word they

produce. One of the pragmatics elements that can reveal the context of an

utterance is indexical. It is linguistic item that points to contextually salient

referents without naming them explicitly . It indicates that indexicals rely on

context to get their meanings.

Indexicals are also referred to as deixis. The origin of “deixis” is traced by

Yule (1996:9) to a Greek term that means “pointing” via language. That is why he

defines it as a linguistic form used to accomplish pointing in language. Besides,

Levinson (1983:54) states that deixis concerns the way in which languages

encode or grammaticalize features of the context of utterance or speech event, and

thus also concerns ways in which the interpretation of utterances depends on the

analysis of that context of utterance.

Further, Yule (2006:115) explains three types of indexicals as follows:

a) Person Indexicals: this classification belongs to the category of linguistic

expressions used for the speakers, addressees and others. They concerns the

encoding of the role of participants in the speech event in which the

utterance in the question delivered. Yule (1996:10) further describes that

person deixis involves the speaker and the addressee and operates in basic

three-part divisions such as:

(i) First person (I, my, myself, mine) singular; (we, us, ourselves, our,

ours) plural.
 16

(ii) Second person (you). It is a deictic reference to a person or people

identified as addressee, such as: you, yourself, yourselves, your, yours.

(iii) The third person singular (he, she, it). It is a deictic reference to a

referent not identified as the speaker or the addressee and usually

imply the gender that the utterance refers to. eg. he, she, they, him,

himself, her, herself.

b) Place Indexicals: this is also called spatial deixis by Yule (1996:9). They are

used to indicate the location of people and things being discussed. Examples

of place indexicals are there, here, behind, above, up, etc. Besides, Levinson

(1983:79) states that place concerns for the specification of locations to

anchorage points in the speech event and typically the speaker, and existence

of two basic ways of referring objects by describing or naming them on the

one hand and by locating on the other.

c) Time Indexicals: they can also be called temporal deixis. They concern the

encoding of temporal points and spans relative to the time at which the

utterance was spoken or written message inscribed (Levinson 1985:62). Time

indexicals also refer to events, persons or objects that are near or away from

the speaker or the hearer in relation to time. They are reflected in adverbs of

time and the tense of the verb. Examples of time indexicals are later, now,

then, etc.

From the above explanations on indexicals, their importance in pragmatics

becomes obvious as indexicals help the listeners identify referents in terms of the

three types given above. Here, a listener needs to assign reference to the words

that a speaker uses. When people know what they are talking about, decoding

meaning will be easy. In short, indexicals or deixis is making clearance on

 17

communication, by describing better and explaining better, by pointing out

particularly referring to the background and the environment .

Moreover the context can also be described by examining the deictics as

stated by Levinson (1983:55) that deixis belongs within the domain of pragmatics

because it directly concerns the relationship between the structure of language and

the contexts in which they are used. Based on that reason, this study employs this

theory to analyze the speech.

2.2.2 Speech Acts Theory

In common social perspective, the use of language is meant to convey

information. The speaker chooses a vocabulary with words that are adapted to his

communicative intentions . This choice is not realized through a particular word

but through the organization and combination of various words. Each choice,

which the speaker makes, has a discursive function. The speaker chooses the

words in accordance with what he wants to communicate. Thus, it is believed that

when people say something, they actually try to convey information or message to

others. However, it is not always the case. Some sentences are not only used to

give information or ask question about some information, but also to perform

actions actively. It means when people speak, they are doing more than simply

conveying information they act. In other word, every utterance conveys

meaning/information and performs actions. Furthermore, Yule (1996:43) states

that actions performed via utterances are called speech acts. It is in accordance

with what has been pointed out by Cutting (2002:16) who defines speech acts as
 18

actions which are performed via utterances. In simple words, speech acts is often

said as language in action .

It can be concluded that the utterance is an act of communication with a

speaker as the participant. He uses an utterance to convey speaker’s behavior

which will later be understood and responded by the hearer. Thus, the speaker

uses the utterance to produce an act of behavior which is called speech act.

In the developing the speech acts theory, Austin (1962:12) analyzes three

different levels of speech acts. They are formulated as locutionary acts,

illocutionary acts, and perlocutionary acts. These classifications are based on the

fact that speech acts arise from an utterance that is followed by other utterances as

a response toward the previous utterance and finally causes an effect. The

classifications are explained as follows.

a) Locutionary Act

Locutionary act is called by the act of saying something. According to Austin,

a locutionary act is roughly equivalent to uttering a certain sentence with a

certain sense and reference, which again is roughly equivalent to meaning in

the traditional sense .

b) Illocutionary Act

Illocutionary act is intention behind the words that is uttered by the speaker. It

indicates the speaker’s purpose in saying something. As stated by Hurford

(1983:56), an illocutionary act refers to the type of function the speaker

 19

intends to fill, or the type of action the speaker intends to accomplish in the

course of producing an utterance. It is an act accomplished in speaking.

c) Perlocutionary Act

Perlocutionary act is the effect of the illocution on the hearer. As stated by

Huang (2005:76), perlocutionary act concerns the effect an utterance may

have on the addressee. A perlocution is the act by which the illocution

produces a certain effect in or exerts a certain effect of addressee.

Since speech act represents the speaker’s behavior, the utterance must have

a meaning. In other types, speech acts can be categorized in two groups: direct

speech act when intended meaning is the same as its literal meaning, and indirect

speech act when the intended meaning is different from its literal meaning. Searle

in states that a direct speech act is used when the speaker wants to communicate

the literal meaning that the words conventionally express. There is a direct

relationship between the form and the function in the speech act, for instance, a

declarative form functions as a declaration of something. On the other hand, an

indirect speech act is used when the speaker wants to speak a different meaning

from the obvious meaning. Here the form is not directly related to the function,

for instance, a declarative form functions as request or order; an interrogative

form can function as a request, an order, or an offer; and an imperative can

function as a statement, an offer, or an invitation. In addition, Yule in Cutting

(2002) states that whenever there is a direct relationship between structure and

function, we have a direct speech act. Whenever there is an indirect relationship

between structure and function, we have an indirect speech act. Thus, a

 20

declarative used to make a statement is a direct speech act, but declarative used to

make a request is an indirect speech act.

Speech acts cannot be separated from pragmatics. According to , speech

acts are the central aspects of pragmatics, which is concerned with the meanings.

Searle in divides the functions of speech acts into five categories. They are:

a) Representatives: these speech acts carry the values 'true’ or 'false', i.e., they

commit the speaker to the truth of the expressed proposition such as asserting,

reporting, instructing, concluding, etc.

b) Directives: the speaker's role is to get (to direct) the hearer to do something

(or towards some goal)

c) Commissives: Searle calls them "unexceptionable", i.e. the obligation created

in the word by commissives is created in the speaker not in the hearer. So

they commit the speaker to some future action, such as offering, threatening,

promising, etc.

d) Expressives: these express an inner state of the speaker. They tend to be

intrinsically polite as in greeting, thanking, congratulating, etc.; and the

reverse is true as in blaming and accusing.

e) Declaratives: these show the correspondence between the prepositional

content and reality and as Searle calls "a very special category of speech

acts", such as resigning, dismissing, christening, naming, sentencing, etc.

Here Yule adds that directions are those kinds of speech acts that change

the world via their utterance. As the following example, the speaker has to have a
 21

special institutional role, in a specific context, in order to perform a declaration

appropriately.

1) Priest : I now pronounce you husband and wife.

2) Referee : You’re out!

3) Jury Foreman : We find the defendant guilty.

In using a declaration, the speaker changes the world via words.

Representatives are those kinds of speech acts that state what the speaker

believes to be the case or not. Statements of fact, assertions, conclusions, and

descriptions, as illustrated here are all examples of the speaker representing the

world as he or she believes it is.

1) The earth is flat.

2) Chomsky did not write about peanut.

3) It was warm sunny day.

In using representative, the speaker makes words fit the world (of belief).

Expressives are those kinds of speech acts that state what the speaker feels.

They express psychological states and can be statements of pleasure, pain, likes,

dislikes, joy, or sorrow. As illustrated here, they can be caused by something the

speaker does or the hearer does, but they are about the speaker’s experience.

1) I’m really sorry!

2) Congratulations!

3) Oh, yes, great, mmmmm!

In using an expressive, the speaker makes words fit the world (of feeling).
 22

Directives are those kinds of speech acts that speakers use to get someone

else to do something. They express what the speaker wants. They are commands,

orders, requests, suggestions, and as illustrated here, they can be positive or

negative.

1) Gimme a cup of coffee. Make it black.

2) Could you lend me a pen, please!

3) Don’t touch that!

In using a directive, the speaker attempts to make the world fit the words (via the

hearer).

Commissives are those kinds of speech acts that speakers use to commit

themselves to some future actions. They express what the speaker intends. They

are promises, threats, refusals, pledges, and as shown here, they can be performed

by the speaker alone, or by the speaker as a member of a group.

1) I’ll be back.

2) I’m going to get it right next time.

3) We will not do that.

In using a commisive, the speaker undertakes to make the world fit the words (via

the speaker).

This study employs speech acts theory proposed by Searle in to describe

the functions of the utterance in the speech. By classifying the utterances, it can be

find how the utterance is functioned and whether the locution is functioned as it

is, or any differences between the locutions and the illocutions. Searle in also
 23

relates the speaker and situation and draws them into general functions of speech

acts as presented in the following table.

Speech act type Direction of fit S = speaker;

X = situation
Declarations words change the world S causes X
Representatives make words fit the world S believes X
Expressives make words fit the world S feels X
Directives make the world fit words S wants X
Commissives make the world fit words S intends X
Table 2.1. General Functions of Speech Acts Adopted from Searle in Yule (1996)

Furthermore, Wierzbicka (1987:172) gives speech acts word clues to

recognize the functions of speech acts as follows. The representative keywords are

hypothesize, insist, boast, complain, conclude, diagnose, deduce, and claim. The

directive keywords are ask, order, command, request, beg, plead, pray, entreat,

invite, permit, advice, dare, defy, challenge. The expressive keywords are: thank,

apologize, congratulate, condole, deplore, and welcome. Commisive keywords are

plan, commit, promise, tomorrow, and later. These keywords can be considered to

categorizing the utterances based on the types of speech acts.

2.2.3 Politeness Principles of Face-Acts

Obviously, Tony Abbott gave a speech as Prime Minister of Australia. He

must consider how to convey his message and maintain relationship with

Indonesia at the same time. In line with this reason, this study attempts to find

how he applies the politeness principles in his speech.

According to , politeness, in an interaction, can be defined as the means

employed to show awareness of another person’s face. Yule (2006:119) states that,
 24

the relevant concept in linguistic politeness is “face”, because in pragmatics it is

referred to as one’s public self-image. This represents the emotional and social

sense of self that every person possesses and expects others to recognize.

Therefore, “politeness” is showing awareness of another person’s face”.

There are two kinds of Face Acts, namely; (1) Face-Threatening Act

(FTA), representing those utterances that threaten another person’s self-image. A

direct speech act is used to get someone to do something, for example, “give me

that paper!” Here speaker is behaving as if s/he has more social power than the

other person; and (2) Face-Saving Act (FSA), representing those utterances that

lessen the possible threat to another person’s self-image, which could be negative

or positive depending on the situation. In the form associated with a question, an

indirect speech act removes the assumption of social power, for example, “Could

you pass me that paper?” The speaker is only asking if it’s possible. This makes

your request less threatening to the other person’s face.

However, a Negative Face-Saving Act shows the need to be independent

and to have freedom from imposition. A Positive Face-Saving Act shows the need

to be connected, belong, as well as be a member of a group. According to , face

has two opposed but complementary components:

(i) Negative face: the want of every ‘competent member’ of a society that his

actions be unimpeded by others.

(ii) Positive face: the want of every member of a society that his wants be

desirable to at least some others.

 25

Yule (2006) gives further explanations that a face-saving act that

emphasizes a person’s negative face will show concern about imposition, for

instance, “I’m sorry to bother you ...” and “I know you’re busy, but ...” This

involves avoiding imposing on others, wanting to complete actions without

interference from others, expressing deference to others and expecting respect

from others. Meanwhile, a face-saving act that emphasizes a person’s positive face

will show solidarity and draw attention to a common goal, for instance, “Let’s do

this together ...” and “You and I have the same problem, so ...” this involves

wanting to be liked or wanting others to like the same things as speaker likes,

agreeing with others, expressing solidarity and equality with others.

Another way that is still relevant with concept of politeness is using

different expression within a single speech event. An example is given by Yule

(1996), for instance, when someone arrives at an important lecture, he pulls out a

notebook to take notes, but discover that he does not have anything to write with.

Then he thinks that the person sitting next to him may provide the solution. His

first choice is whether to say something or not. He can rummage in his bag

without uttering a word, but with the intention that his problem will be

recognized. This ‘say nothing’ approach may or may not work, but if it does, it’s

because the other offers.

If the speaker decides to say something, he does not actually have to ask

for anything. He may produce a statement which is not directly addressed to

others. However this statement is aiming to ask for something, for instance,

“Hhmm… I wonder where I put my pen.” This can be called as off record.
 26

In contrast to the off record statement, the speaker can directly address

other as a means of expressing his needs. This direct address form is called on

record. Most of direct approach using imperative forms is known as bald on

record, for instance, “Give me your pen!” or “Lend me your pen!” Direct

command such as bald record is considered appropriate among social equals. In

social interaction, bald on record behavior usually represents a treat to other’s face

and it is generally avoided. Avoiding a face threatening can be done by face

saving acts which use positive and negative politeness strategies explained at

previous discussion. The following is a figure of how to get a pen from someone

else cited from Yule (1996:66).

Figure 2.1 How to Get a Pen from Someone Else

 27

2.3 Abbott’s Speech on Bali Nine’s Death Penalty

This study is conducted to analyze a speech uttered by Tony Abbott, the

former Australian Prime Minister from Liberal Party (2013-2015). The speech

was delivered on February 18th 2015, responding to the death penalty given to the

two Australian drug traffickers, Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran, later

known as Bali Nine Pair. The case became popular at that time as people were

disturbed by headlines discussing his speech on Bali Nine’s Death Penalty. The

issue became controversial as he was suspected describing Indonesia as ungrateful

for refusing to drop its decision to execute two Australian drug traffickers despite

Australia’s A$1 billion worth of aid given to Aceh when it was hit by a tsunami in

2004. The following is the speech delivered by Tony Abbott.

“We will be making our displeasure known, we will be letting

Indonesia know in absolutely unambiguous terms that we feel
grievously let down. Let’s not forget that a few years ago when
Indonesia was struck by the Indian Ocean tsunami Australia sent a
billion dollars worth of assistance, we sent a significant contingent of
our armed forces to help in Indonesia with humanitarian relief and
Australians lost their lives in that campaign to help Indonesia. And I
would say to the Indonesian people and the Indonesian government:
we in Australia are always there to help you and we hope that you
might reciprocate in this way at this time. I don’t want to prejudice the
best possible relations with a very important friend and neighbor but
I’ve got to say that we can’t just ignore this kind of thing if the
perfectly reasonable representations we are making to Indonesia are
ignored by them. We are doing no more for our citizens than Indonesia
routinely does for its own citizens and if it’s right and proper for
Indonesia to make these representations, if it’s right and proper for
other countries to heed Indonesia’s representations, it’s right and
proper for us to make the representations and for them to be heeded.
In fact, they have become, it seems, thoroughly reformed characters in
 28

prison in Bali and they are now helping the Indonesian fight against
drug crime, so much better to use these people for good than to kill
them”

Somehow, a speaker wants his message can be properly interpreted and

still maintains the relationship among the participants. It is interesting to be

analyzed as it was a sensitive issue involving the two countries. How he delivered

the speech is important as he must consider his position and the effects after

delivering the speech.

2.4 Review of the Previous Studies

Some studies dealing with speech analyses have been conducted in the

field of Pragmatics as presented on the previous chapter. The contents are

explained more detail as follows. First, conducted a study which analyzed

Interpersonal Meanings on SBY’s Speech Entitled “The Big Shift and The

Imperative of 21st Century Globalism”. She explored the appraisal system found

in SBY’s speech in order to identify attitude that the speaker wanted to present to

the audiences. Ninety six clauses were analyzed by using appraisal theory. It

focused on the three domains: attitude, graduation, and engagement. It was

qualitative and interpretative in nature in which the data were analyzed by

employing the appraisal analytical framework proposed by Martin and Rose

(2005). It presented the comparison between positive and negative affect; positive

and negative judgment; and, positive and negative appreciation which were used

by SBY. According to the data, positive affect, judgment, and appreciation were
 29

much more applied in his speech than the negative ones. It was revealed that the

evaluation towards speaker had dominantly positive feeling.

Then, conducted analysis entitled Pragmatic Analyses of President

Goodluck Jonathan’s and President Barack Obama’s Inaugural Addresses. It

investigated the first inaugural addresses of two presidents: Nigeria’s

Goodluck Ebele Jonathan (2011) and America’s Barrack Obama (2009). The

study considered the illocutionary forces in the speeches as well as the face-

threatening and face-saving acts respectively, with the aim of identifying the

similarities and differences in the speeches. The analyses were based on the

Speech Act theory according to Searle’s Taxonomy of Illocutionary Act and

Politeness Principles of Face Acts, according to Yule’s contribution. The result

shows that the speeches are relatively alike because each speaker speaks for his

entire nation, regardless of his political party, and both speeches show a

preponderance of ‘representatives’ and ‘commissives’. However, while President

Jonathan’s commissives show predominance in the use of modal verbs to express

intention, President Obama’s commissives consist of modal verbs and infinitive

clauses to project volition and intention.

Another study was conducted by in A Pragmatic Analysis of Victory and

Inaugural Speeches of President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua. The study was

conducted to identify the speech acts features of the speech. Hence, the study

focused on the pragmatic functions of locution, illocutionary and perlocutionary

acts of the speeches. This was done with a view to determine the global pattern of

pragmatic moves of the selected political speeches. The data were drawn from the
 30

Victory speech and Inaugural Speech and analyzed following the Speech Act

theory of Austin (1962) and Searle (1969). The Speech Act analysis of the

political discourses of Umaru Musa Yar’Adua provided the understanding that

political leaders in Nigeria perform various acts through their speeches. These

speech acts assist in the understanding and interpretation of the messages in their

speeches.

From the previous studies above, it is clear that a speech can be analyzed

through some viewpoints. The analyses discuss how certain elements or principles

are functioned and realized in a speech to convey the messages to the audiences

and are investigated both in quantitative and qualitative way. While this study take

more viewpoints describing how the deictic expressions, general functions of

speech acts, and politeness principles of face-acts are realized in a speech. The

utterances to be analyzed is taken from Tony Abbott’s speech related to the Bali

Nine’s Death Penalty.

2.5 Theoretical Framework

Pragmatics is concerned with the study of meaning communicated by the

speaker and interpreted by the listener. It has consequently, more to do with the

analysis of what people mean by their utterances than what the words and phrases

in those utterances might mean by themselves (Yule, 1996:3). In other words,

pragmatics studies the speaker meaning. Hence, it cannot be accounted by only

referring to literal meaning of the sentences. Some aspects are involved in which

the speaker produces the utterances.

 31

The topic issued in this study suggests strongly that Tony Abbott’s speech

contains his attitude regarding the Bali Nine’s Death Penalty. As attitude contains

believes about something, whatever meaning contained in those believes indicates

the attitude towards the death penalty. The attitude shown via utterances can be

either positive or negative.

The beliefs and attitudes of the speaker are realized in utterances. Here,

Tony Abbott realizes them in utterances produced in his speech. Every single of

his utterance has its own function then can be examined by using speech acts

theory proposed by Searle (1969). However, the context should be considered

since the meaning of an utterance will be different if the context is different. It

will establish the interpretation of the utterance. Yule (1996: 21) mentions that

context simply means the physical environment in which a word is used. So this

study also employs indexical analysis to describe the physical context. Then, the

speech is aimed at conveying the messages or statements as a response to the Bali

Nine’s death penalty. However, he must have thought in constructing the

utterances for the purpose of maintaining relationship. Therefore, politeness

principles proposed by Yule (1996) are also involved in revealing the intended

meaning of his utterances. Thus, as pragmatics is concerned with the speaker

meaning, this study analyses the utterances produced by Tony Abbott using the

elements of pragmatics which include indexicals, general functions of speech acts

and politeness principles for the purpose of revealing the intended meaning.
 32

CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHOD

This chapter will discuss how this study is conducted. It involves five main

sub chapters, namely research design, object of the study, data and source of data,

procedures of data collection, and procedures of data analysis.

3.1 Research Design

 33

This study examines utterances of a speech delivered by Tony Abbott who

obviously had a great status. He responded to a death sentence given to Bali Nine

Pair. The focus of this study is to uncover the intended meaning in his speech. It is

important as he needs to maintain relationship with Indonesia and his political

interest toward the case. This study employs elements of pragmatics to analyze the

speech. They are indexicals, speech acts, and politeness principles. Deictic

expressions are used to reveal the physical context of the speaker. Speech acts

theory is used to describe the general functions of speech acts of the utterances.

While how the speaker is trying to maintain the relationship through the speech is

analyzed using politeness principles of face-acts. Then, by referring to the results

of the analyses of those three pragmatics elements, this study reveals the intended

meaning or the speaker. The data are the utterances spoken by Tony Abbott

retrieved from his political speech.

According to , qualitative research is the entire process of the transformation

qualitative data by qualitative researcher. It deals with the process of gathering

data and the process of analyzing data through description, analysis, and

interpretation.
33
The intended meaning of the speaker is tried to be revealed through this

study. Krippendorf (2004:38) states that content analysis has the potential to

disclose many ‘hidden’ aspects of what is being communicated. The intended

meaning is the hidden aspect of the speech which is actually being analyzed here.

So, content analysis is possibly to be applied in this study.

 34

In addition, assert that content analysis is a research technique for the

objective, systematic, and qualitative description of the manifest of the content of

communication. It may also be applied to analyze any form of communication

which is usually written such as textbook, composition, novel, newspapers,

magazine, advertisement, and political speech.

Moreover, explain that content analysis is aimed at obtaining the following

objectives: (1) to produce descriptive information that gives a better

understanding of what the problems are; (2) to cross-validate research finding,

content analysis is useful to check research finding obtained from studies using

other methods, such as an interview; and (3) to test hypothesis, content analysis

can be used to explore relationship and to test theories. From the above objectives,

this study is mostly closed to the first one. This study is aimed at providing better

understanding about a political speech and tries to present analyses from the

pragmatics viewpoints.

Denscombe (2007:236) also explains that content analysis is a method

which helps the researcher to analyze the content of documents. Basically, it is a

method that can be used with any ‘text’, whether it be in the form of writing,

sounds or pictures, as a way of quantifying the contents of that text. Since this

study is aimed to analyze a political speech, it can employ content analysis

technique. Besides, it uses documentary data. So, the technique of data collection

proposed by Denscombe (2007:237) is applied. Then the data is analyzed using

the technique proposed by Miles, et al. (2014:7). The following chart presents the

framework of the study.

 35

Research Questions

 Indexicals  Functions of Speech  Politeness Principles

Pragmatics Perspective
Acts of Face-Act

Deictic Expressions Functions of Speech Politeness Principles

Proposed by Yule Acts of Face-Act
(1996) Proposed by Searle in Proposed by Yule
Yule (1996) (1996)

Data Collection
Procedures of data Collections proposed by Denscombe (2007:237)

Data Analysis
Procedure of Data Analysis proposed by Miles, et al. (2014:7)

Findings Intended Meaning

Figure 3.1

Research Framework

3.2 Object of the Study

The object of the study is the speech delivered by Tony Abbott on February

18th 2015, reminding the Indonesian people about the tsunami aid, marking the

Australian government’s strongest response to the planned executions to date.

3.3 Data and Source of Data

 36

Data used in this study are utterances in the form of clauses or sentences.

They are taken from Tony Abbott’s speech about Australians’ reaction toward the

execution of Bali Nine. Denscombe (2007:227) adds some sources of data such as

government publications and official statistics, newspapers and magazines,

records of meetings, letters and memos, diaries, and website pages and the

Internet. According to this statement, the data of this study can be gathered from

the website pages and the Internet. The speech actually was downloaded from

youtube.com and the transcription was taken from the Guardian Online

Newspaper on February 20th 2015.

3.4 Procedures of Data Collection

Denscombe (2007:227) states that documents can be treated as a source of

data in their own right – in effect an alternative to questionnaires, interviews or

observation. In this study, in spite of conducting interviews, observations, and

distributing questionnaires, documentary technique may be more applicable to

gather the data. The procedures are explained as follows.

1) Choose an appropriate sample of texts or images.

The text is selected and downloaded from Guardian Online Newspaper which

provides valid transcript of Tony Abbott’s speech.

2) Break the text down into smaller component units.

Then it is broken down into smaller units in the form of utterances.

3) Develop relevant categories for analyzing the data.

 37

Then indexicals, speech act, and politeness principles are applied to analyze

the data.

4) Code the units in line with the categories.

Those elements are coded in order to simplify the utterances to be analyzed.

5) Analyze the text in terms of the frequency of the units and their relationship

with other units that occur in the text.

Later this study examines the utterances to answer the research questions and

describe how they are employed in revealing the intended meaning.

3.5 Technique of Data Analysis

This study will analyze the utterances on the basis of pragmatics perspective

to answer the research questions. It will analyze the deictic expressions called

indexicals purposed by Yule (1996). Then, the utterances will be analyzed using

speech act theory, focusing on its classifications of general functions as proposed

by Searle (1969) cited by Yule (1996). Another theory deployed in this study is the

politeness principles proposed by Yule (1996). Finally, the intended meaning will

be revealed by referring to the results of the analysis of these three elements.

To analyze the data, the procedures proposed by Miles et al. is considered

to be employed in this study. The followings are the steps:

1) Data Condensation

Data condensation refers to the process of selecting, focusing,

simplifying, abstracting, and/or transforming the data that appear in the full

corpus (body) of written-up field notes, interview transcripts, documents, and

 38

other empirical materials Miles et al. . It involves selecting, focusing, and

simplifying the raw utterances gathered from Tony Abbott’s speech. Coding is

also important in this step in order to give clear classifications of the

utterances. It is also used to simplify the data display. It is based on the

theories used in this study including indexicals, general functions of speech

acts, and politeness strategies. The following is the example of the coding.

U : utterance

I : Indexicals

Here are the types of deictic expressions which are possibly found in the

utterances.

1. Person indexical

2. Temporal indexical

3. Spatial indexical

S : Speech acts

Here are the general functions of speech acts which are possibly found in the

utterances.

1. Representative

2. Directive

3. Commisive

4. Expressive

5. Declarative

P : Politeness strategies

Here are politeness strategies which are possibly found in the utterances.
 39

1. Off record

2. Face threatening act (Bald on record)

3. Positive politeness (rooted from on record – face saving act –

positive politeness)

4. Negative politeness (rooted from on record – face saving act –

negative politeness)

The detail example can be seen as follows. These underlined

utterances are taken as the example since they can provide us hints to the

further findings.
U1 I1 U1 S3 U1 I1 U2I1 U2S3
“We will be making our displeasure known, we will be letting

U2I1that we feel grievously

Indonesia know in absolutely unambiguous terms U2P4 let

down. Let’s not forget that a few years ago when Indonesia was struck by the
U2S1 U3I2
Indian Ocean tsunami Australia sent a billion dollars worth of assistance, we
U3P3
sent a significant U3S1forces to help in Indonesia with
contingent of our armed

humanitarian relief and Australians lost their lives in that campaign to help

Indonesia.”

The example of coding can be seen as U1I1 means utterance number 1

has person indexical proven by the word “we” and “our”. Moreover, it also

classified into commissive for its general functions of speech act. So the code

U1S3 is given.

2) Data Display

According to , a display is an organized, compressed assembly of

information that allows conclusion drawing and action. He also adds that the
 40

creation and use of displays is not separate from analysis, it is a part of

analysis. The data display in this study firstly presents the general idea of the

speech by which the readers are given a brief overview about the reasons why

the speech emerged. It later assists this study to expose the three elements of

pragmatics used to reveal the intended meanings. The example of data display

can be seen as follow.

Nine Australians, seven of them recruited by Sukumaran and Chan,

were arrested in the resort island of Bali in 2005 over their involvement with

a syndicate bringing drugs to Sydney. The seven recruited members received

prison terms, but Myuran Sukumaran and Andrew Chan were sentenced to

death. The executions were condemned in Australia. In one occasion Tony

Abbott, the former Australians Prime Minister, told reporters on the Gold

Coast. He commented in which he sought to remind the Indonesian people of

the Australians’ help coping with the natural disaster, marks the Australians

government’s strongest response to the planned executions to date. The

speech conveyed certain messages. Those were represented by a bundle of

utterances. However, not all of the utterances significantly contributed in

delivering the messages. So, only the core utterances are examined in this

study. One of them can be shown when Tony Abbott uttered the words, “We

will be making our displeasure known”.

RQ 1: The indexical found in the utterance.

To answer research question number 1, the theory of indexicals by

Yule (1996) will be applied.

 41

The data finding of indexicals shows that the utterance contains only

person indexical indicated by the words “we and “our”. In this case, when

uttering the speech, Abbott must have realized that his speech was globally

reported. People all over the world would have been able to access his speech

either in direct or indirect way. So, what he meant by uttering the word “we”,

actually it was an inclusive “we” in which both speaker and addressees were

included. Abbott used “we” indicating plural subjects. Here, “we” is

described as the Australian people and government. Another person indexical

found in this utterance is the word “our” which also indicates an inclusive

possessive pronoun pointing to the Australian people’s displeasure.

RQ 2: The general functions of speech acts found in the utterance.

To answer research question number 2, the theory of general functions

of speech acts by Searle in Yule (1996) will be applied.

On any occasion, the action performed by producing an utterance will

always consist of three related acts. They are locutionary, illocutionary, and

perlocutionary acts. Abbott is thereby performing locutionary act of saying

that the displeasure (their feeling about the penalty) will be known soon.

However, in this case, he does not just produce well-formed utterance with no

purpose. He is surely driven by a kind of function in his mind. Thus, he

performs an illocutionary act by which he intends to show their

disappointment. At the same time, by producing this utterance perhaps people

will know their feelings and support any moves that they are going to make.

In this circumstance, he produces the utterance on the assumption that the

 42

hearers will recognize the effect he intended. It is known as perlocutionary

act.

According to the above explanation, there is a future action that the

speaker will accomplish. It is proven by the phrase “will be making” which is

considered as a promise. It indicates that the utterance is categorized as

commisive. Commonly, commisive which is considered as one of the general

functions of speech acts, is understood to be the act of the speaker to do

something in the future. It is used by the speaker to deal with the speaker’s

intention after the utterance is uttered. By using such kind of speech act,

Abbott commits to a future action and express what he intends.

RQ 3: Politeness Principles of Face-Act found in the utterance.

To answer research question number 3, the theory of Politeness

Principles of Face-Act proposed by Yule 91996) will be applied.

There are a number of different general principles for being polite in

social interaction within a particular culture. Some of these might include

being tactful, modest, generous and sympathetic towards others. In this

occasion, it can be assumed that Abbot was generally aware that such norms

and principles exist in the society at large. When he produced the utterance he

must have considered them to be applied. In conveying the message of

displeasure towards the death sentence, Abbott tried to be more

straightforward, obvious and simple. Consequently, the utterance he produced

might be interpreted as a threat to another’s face (public self-image). Rather

than performing the face saving act, he considered as performing the face
 43

threatening act. So, in order to lessen the possible threat, he used positive

politeness and avoided to use bald on record form, by which he concerned

with the addressees’ positive face. The tendency to use this positive politeness

form, emphasizing closeness between speaker and hearer, can be regarded as

solidarity strategy. Hence, in his utterance, Abbott used inclusive terms such

as “we” and “our”.

RQ 4: Intended meaning of the utterance.

The answer of research question number 4 is derived by referring to

the results of the previous three elements of pragmatics.

The feeling of displeasure has driven Abbott to produce the utterance.

By referring to the findings of indexicals, speech act, and politeness

principles, the intended meaning is committing Australians and himself to

make their disappointment known. Obviously, there must have been

something happened that made them so strongly displeasured. In this case,

Abbott actually tried to “speak” to Indonesian people and authorities, the ones

who made them displeasured. But in the other side, he needed to maintain the

relationship with Indonesia. So, in attempt to show this feeling effectively,

Abbott expressed it in a certain way considering to lessen the possible threat

of his utterance. This particular way reflected by using inclusive “we” an

“our” which point to the Australians and himself as if he was only speaking to

Australian people. And the effect, later, they will hopefully get support from

other people for this decision.

3) Conclusion and Verification Stage

 44

Miles et al. state that conclusions are also verified as the analyst

proceeds. Verification may be as brief as a fleeting second thought. In this

stage, the findings are linked to the research questions.

The first research question is about how the indexicals are realized in

Tony Abbott’s speech. The answer of this research question will describe

about the use of deictic expressions as one of the pragmatics elements that

can reveal the context of an utterance. It is linguistic item that points to

contextually salient referents without naming them explicitly . It indicates

that indexicals rely on the physical context by examining time, place, and

person elements to get their meanings. The explanation on indexicals,

becomes obviously important as indexicals help the listeners identify

referents in terms of the three types given above. Here, a listener needs to

assign reference to the words that a speaker uses. When people know what

they are talking about, decoding meaning will be easy. Moreover the context

can also be described by examining the deictic expressions as stated by

Levinson (1983:55) that deixis belongs within the domain of pragmatics

because it directly concerns the relationship between the structure of language

and the contexts in which they are used.

Based on the example given before, the analysis of indexicals found

that the speaker used “we” and “our” that reflected as person indexical in

pointing to the Australian people and himself as the government

representation.
 45

The second research question asks about how the general functions of

speech acts are employed. The answer of this research question will describe

about the interpretation of each speech acts level performed by the utterance

and show in which class the utterance plays its function.

In the developing the speech acts theory, Austin (1962:12) analyzes

three different levels of speech acts. They are formulated as locutionary acts,

illocutionary acts, and perlocutionary acts. These classifications are based on

the fact that speech acts arise from an utterance that is followed by other

utterances as a response toward the previous utterance and finally causes an

effect. In the given example, Abbott performs these three levels of speech

acts. Moreover, in the utterance, Abbott commits a future action realized in

the word “will”. So the utterance can be categorized as commisive which

functions as promise.

The third research question is about how the politeness principles are

employed by the speaker. The answer of this research question will describe

the politeness principles applied in Abbott’s speech. According to Yule

(1996:60), politeness, in an interaction, can be defined as the means employed

to show awareness of another person’s face. Yule (2006:119) states that, the

relevant concept in linguistic politeness is “face”, because in pragmatics it is

referred to as one’s public self-image. This represents the emotional and

social sense of self that every person possesses and expects others to

recognize. Therefore, “politeness” is showing awareness of another person’s

face”.
 46

Obviously, Tony Abbott gave a speech as Prime Minister of Australia.

He must consider how to convey his message and maintain relationship with

Indonesia at the same time. For the example given, in conveying the message

of displeasure towards the death sentence, Abbott used positive politeness and

avoided to use bald on record form. He concerned with the addressees’

positive face. The choice to use this positive politeness form is regarded as

solidarity strategy. Hence, in his utterance, Abbott used inclusive terms such

as “we” and “our” emphasizing closeness between speaker and hearers.

The fourth research question is about what is the intended meaning of

Tony Abbott’s speech. The answer of this research question is interpreted by

considering the context and the function of the utterances. As result, the

intended meaning of the first utterance, given as the example, is committing

Australians and Abbott himself to make their disappointment known. Later

they will hopefully get support from other people for their further decisions.
 46

References

Al-Gublan, B. K. 2015. A Pragmatic Study of a Political Discourse from the Perspective of

the Linguistic Adaptation Theory International Journal of English Linguistics
Vol. 5 No. 2 pp. 131-164.
Ayeomoni, Omoniyi Moses, & Akinkuolere, Olajoke Susan. 2012. A Pragmatic Analysis of
Victory and Inaugural Speeches of President Umaru Musa Yar‟Adua. Theory and
Practice in Language Studies Vol. 2 No. pp.
Bauer, Laurie. 2007. The Linguistics Student's Handbook. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
Press Ltd.
Borg, Walter R., & Gall, Meredith Damien. 1983. Educational Research : An Introduction
(4th ed. ed.). New York ; London: Longman.
Brown, P, & Levinson, S. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usages
Cook, Guy. 1989. Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cummings, L. 2005. Pragmatics: A Multidiciplinary Perspective
Cutting, Joan. 2002. Pragmatics and Discourse. New York: Routledge.
Fairclough, Norman. 1989. Language and Power. London: Longman Group Ltd.
Fiske, John. 1994. Media Matters: Everyday Culture and Political Change. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.
Gjergji, Shpresa. 2015. A Pragmatic Analyses of the Use of Types of Deixis in Poetry and
Novels of the Author Ismal Kadare. Academicus International Scientific Journal
No. 12 pp. 134-146.
Huy, P, N. 2011. A Discourse Analysis of Book Reviews in English and Vietnamese.
Unpublished Thesis, University of Danang.
Josiah, Ubong E., & Johnson, Sifonde Effiong. 2012. Pragmatic Analyses of President
Goodluck Jonathan’s and President Barack Obama’s Inaugural Addresses.
International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Vol. 2 No. pp.
Kaplan, Robert. 1990. Concluding Essays: On Applied Linguistics and Discourse. Annual
Review of Applied Language & Communication Vol. 17 No. pp.
Kreidler, C, W. 2002. Introducing English Semantics. London: Taylor and Francis e-Library.
Leech, Geoffrey N. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London ; New York: Longman.
Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Miles, M, B,. et.al. 2014. Qualitative Data Analysis a Methods Sourcebook
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. 2014. Qualitative Data Analysis : A Methods
Sourcebook (Third edition. ed.). California: SAGE Publication.
Nobrega, J. V. da. 2014. Discourse Analysis: Ronald Reagan’s Evil Empire Speech. Open
Journal of Modern Linguistics No. 4 pp. 166-181.
Nur, Shakila. 2015. Analysis of Interpersonal Metafunction in Public Speeches: A Case
Study of Nelson Mandela's Presidential Inauguration Speech. The International
Journal of Social Sciences Vol. 30 No. 1 No. pp. 52-63.
Osisanwo, W. 2008. Introduction to Discourse Analysis and Pragmatics (2nd Ed.)
Parikh, Prashant. 2010. Language and Equilibrium. Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Setyawan, E, N. 2011. An Analysis of Interpersonal Meanings on Sby’s Speech Entitled
“the Big Shift and the Imperative of 21st Century Globalism”. Unpublished
Thesis, University of Jember.
Spencer-Oatey, H., & Zegarac, V. 2002. Pragmatics: An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
Wolcott, Harry. F. 1994. Transforming Qualitative Data
 47

Yule, George. 1996. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

REFERENCES
 48

Al-Gublan, B. K. 2015. A Pragmatic Study of a Political Discourse from the

Perspective of the Linguistic Adaptation Theory International Journal of
English Linguistics Vol. 5 No. 2 pp. 131-164.

Ayeomoni, O. M., & Akinkuolere, O. S. 2012. A Pragmatic Analysis of Victory

and Inaugural Speeches of President Umaru Musa Yar’ Adua. Theory and
Practice in Language Studies Vol. 2

Bauer, L. 2007. The Linguistics Student's Handbook. Edinburgh: Edinburgh

University Press Ltd.

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language

Usages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Cook, G. 1989. Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Creswell, J. W. 2012. Educational Research (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education

Cummings, L. 2005. Pragmatics: A Multidiciplinary Perspective. Edinburg:

Edinburg University Press Ltd

Cutting, J. 2002. Pragmatics and Discourse. New York: Routledge

Denscombe, M. 2007. The Good Research Guide for Small-Scale Social Research
Projects (3rd Ed). London: Open University Press

Fairclough, N. 1989. Language and Power. London: Longman Group Ltd

Fiske, J. 1994. Media Matters: Everyday Culture and Political Change.

Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press

Gjergji, S. 2015. A Pragmatic Analyses of the Use of Types of Deixis in Poetry

and Novels of the Author Ismal Kadare. Academicus International
Scientific Journal No. 12 pp. 134-146.

Huang, Y. 2005. Pragmatics. New York. Oxford University Press

Hurford, J, R. 1983. Semantics: A Coursebook. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press
 49

Huy, P, N. 2011. A Discourse Analysis of Book Reviews in English and

Vietnamese. Unpublished Thesis, University of Danang

Josiah, U. E., & Johnson, S. E. 2012. Pragmatic Analyses of President Goodluck

Jonathan’s and President Barack Obama’s Inaugural Addresses.
International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Vol. 2

Kaplan, R. 1990. Concluding Essays: On Applied Linguistics and Discourse.

Annual Review of Applied Language & Communication Vol. 17

Kreidler, C. W. 2002. Introducing English Semantics. London: Taylor and Francis

e-Library

Krippendorf, K. 2004. Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology (2 nd

ed).Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications

Leech, G. N. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London; New York: Longman

Levinson, S. C. 1983. Pragmatics. New York: Cambridge University Press

Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis:
a methods sourcebook. California: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Nobrega, J. V. da. 2014. Discourse Analysis: Ronald Reagan’s Evil Empire

Speech. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics No. 4 pp. 166-181.

Nur, S. 2015. Analysis of Interpersonal Metafunction in Public Speeches: A Case

Study of Nelson Mandela's Presidential Inauguration Speech. The
International Journal of Social Sciences Vol. 30 No. 1 No. pp. 52-63.

Osisanwo, W. 2008. Introduction to Discourse Analysis and Pragmatics (2 nd Ed.).

Lagos: Femolus-Fetop

Parikh, P. 2010. Language and Equilibrium. Massachusetts: MIT Press.

Setyawan, E, N. 2011. An Analysis of Interpersonal Meanings on SBY’s Speech

Entitled “the Big Shift and the Imperative of 21st Century Globalism”.
Unpublished Thesis, University of Jember
 50

Spencer-Oatey, H., & Zegarac, V. 2002. Pragmatics: An Introduction to Applied

Linguistics. London: Hodder Arnold

Wolcott, H. F. 1994. Transforming Qualitative Data. Thousand Oaks: SAGE

Publications

Yule, G. 1996. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Yule, G. 2006. The Study of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Appendix 1

The transcript of Tony Abbott’s Speech

 51

Code Utterances
U1 We will be making our displeasure known,
U2 we will be letting Indonesia know in absolutely unambiguous terms
that we feel grievously let down.
U3 Let’s not forget that a few years ago when Indonesia was struck by
the Indian Ocean tsunami Australia sent a billion dollars worth of
assistance,
U4 we sent a significant contingent of our armed forces to help in
Indonesia with humanitarian relief and Australians lost their lives in
that campaign to help Indonesia.
U5 And I would say to the Indonesian people and the Indonesian
government:
U6 we in Australia are always there to help you and we hope that you
might reciprocate in this way at this time.
U7 I don’t want to prejudice the best possible relations with a very
important friend and neighbor
U8 but I’ve got to say that we can’t just ignore this kind of thing if the
perfectly reasonable representations we are making to Indonesia are
ignored by them.
U9 We are doing no more for our citizens than Indonesia routinely does
for its own citizens and if it’s right and proper for Indonesia to make
these representations,
U10 if it’s right and proper for other countries to heed Indonesia’s
representations, it’s right and proper for us to make the
representations and for them to be heeded.
U11 In fact, they have become, it seems, thoroughly reformed characters
in prison in Bali
U12 and they are now helping the Indonesian fight against drug crime,
U13 so much better to use these people for good than to kill them.