I.

INTRODUCTION
Speech act is an utterance regarding the speakers’ intention, in which indirect speech
act is a commonly used conversational strategy (Justová, 2006). This research focuses on
factors that are affecting indirect speech act within a movie that is well-known in pop culture,
The Devil Wears Prada (2006). This research is conducted to complement other similar
research that deals with indirect speech act by also elaborating the factors behind indirect
speech acts aside from finding cases of the indirect speech acts that are found in the movie.
As mentioned previously, this research is limited to indirect speech act theories that will
be analyzed within the three levels of locutionary, illocutionary, and perlocutionary acts by J.
L. Austin (1962) and will be determined to which factor it is practiced. The theory for the
factors behind indirect speech act is based on Jenny Thomas’ theory (1995) that has been
summarized in Justová’s paper (2006). The indirect speech acts that are going to be analyzed
are taken from the dialogues spoken by the characters from The Devil Wears Prada movie.
The movie that is chosen, The Devil Wears Prada, is considered suitable for the
research because the movie setting presents various context and situations that each practice
of indirect speech act might be determined to each factor. The movie setting derives from a
scene in an office with a conversation between an employer and her employee for formal
context, to a scene in an apartment with a conversation between a couple for a more informal
context. At least 12 cases of indirect speech act will be observed from the movie.
Therefore, the objectives of this research can be formulated into 2 research questions,
which are: (1) to observe the 12 cases of indirect speech acts in The Devil Wears Prada
movie and (2) to determine the factors that are affecting the indirect speech acts that are
found within the movie. This research will answer these questions through a qualitative
method by observation and library research.

II. LITERARY REVIEW

This chapter will elaborate on the theories that will be used to analyze the research data.
Indirect speech act theory is the main theory of the study, complemented by the three levels
of locutionary, illocutionary, and perlocutionary by J. L. Austin as an indicator whether or not
the indirect speech acts are successfully delivered from the speaker to the hearer. Finally, the
theory from Thomas (1995) as summarized by Justová (2006) about the factors that are
affecting indirect speech act is also elaborated so that the data that are collected can be
determined into each factor.
II.1. Indirect Speech Act
Indirect speech act is a case in which the speaker utters a sentence, means what he says,
but also means something more (Searle, 1975, p. 59). This phenomenon is a confusing issue
because the hearer must understand something beyond what is said. In order to determine
1
whether the indirect speech act is understood by the hearer, a case of indirect speech act can
be analyzed using the three levels of locutionary, illocutionary, and perlocutionary acts.
II.2. Locutionary, Illocutionary, and Perlocutionary Acts
Austin (1962) elaborates on these three basic components of forming a speech act. In
short, locutionary act is an utterance that a speaker produce. Then, illocutionary act is an
utterance that a speaker produces that contains a certain function or purpose as illocutionary
act is closely related with the speaker’s intention. While perlocutionary act is the effect on the
hearer of the utterance that speaker produces. Below is an example to further elaborate on
locutionary, illocutionary, and perlocutionary acts.
A: “I’m running out of battery.”
B: “Here, use my charger.”
The example above can be broken down into: (1) locutionary act in A’s utterance stating
they are running out of battery, (2) illocutionary act in A’s utterance that might have a
meaning that A wants to borrow B’s charger, and (3) perlocutionary act in B’s utterance by
offering A to use their charger. This means that A’s illocutionary act is successfully
understood by B, determined by the utterance that B produces fulfilling A’s intention.
II.3. Factors Affecting Indirect Speech Act
Justová (2006, p. 22) summarizes Thomas’ main factors affecting indirect speech acts
in 4 points of motivation: (1) to make one’s language more/less interesting, (2) to increase the
force of one’s message, (3) competing goals, and (4) politeness. These factors are also related
to the context, situation in the background, relationship between the speaker and the hearer,
and even education and social status (Searle, 1979). In her study, Justová (2006) concluded
that politeness is the factor that appears in the majority of indirect speech acts.
II.4. Previous Study
Regarding the topic, indirect speech act is a topic that has been discussed and analyzed
by other researchers in the past. As a comparison for this research, there is another research
under the same topic that will be summarized, which is Speech Act in The Great Gatsby
Movie Script by Dewi (2015). Done with the same methodology which is library research
with qualitative approach and a similar object of study which is a movie, Dewi’s scope of
research is not limited to only analyzing indirect speech act, but also direct speech act. A
distinctive difference from this research to the one the writer is conducting is the absence
element of the factors of indirect speech act. The research titled Speech Act in The Great
Gatsby Movie Script (2015) finds examples of indirect speech acts and analyzed them using
the 5 types of speech act by Searle. Whereas, this research analyzes the indirect speech acts
using a theory by Jenny Thomas.

2
 Therefore, this research will be limited, not to narrow, but to gain deeper analysis, to
focus on indirect speech act and it will complement the missing elements from the previous
research by adding the analysis of factors that are affecting the indirect speech acts.
II.5. The Devil Wears Prada Movie
The Devil Wears Prada is a 2006 comedy-drama movie that is based on Lauren
Weirsberger’s novel from 2003, starring Meryl Streep and Anne Hathaway among other
talents. Directed by David Frankel, the story follows Andrea Sachs, played by Anne
Hathaway, who works as an assistant for a horrible boss, Miranda Priestly, portrayed by
Meryl Streep. The movie pictured Andrea’s struggle in her working environment that it
started to affect her personal life as well. It also brings various context that supports indirect
speech act analysis, such as conversations in an office, between a boss and an employee,
between co-workers, or between characters with age gap. Due to the length of the research,
only 12 cases of indirect speech act are going to observed.

III. ANALYSIS
The process of analysis consists of two steps. The first one is providing 12 cases of the
indirect speech act that are found within the movie and elaborating on their context as well as
explaining the locutionary, illocutionary, and perlocutionary acts. The second step is
assigning the four factors affecting indirect speech acts to each of the example.
III.1. Indirect Speech Acts in The Devil Wears Prada
These are 12 cases of indirect speech act found within The Devil Wears Prada movie.
1) Time stamp: 15.30
Nigel: “I guessed an eight and a half.”
Andrea: “Umm, wow, that’s very nice of you.”
This case is a conversation between a senior employee, Nigel, and a newly-hired
employee, Andrea, in the office. While producing the utterance, Nigel is also making a
gesture of handing a pair of shoes to Andrea. This case can be broken down into: (1)
locutionary act in Nigel’s utterance merely informing that he guessed Andrea’s size to be
eight and a half, (2) illocutionary act in Nigel’s utterance offering a pair of shoes in Andrea’s
size, and (3) perlocutionary act in Andrea’s utterance as the hearer responding to Nigel’s
utterance receiving the shoes that he offered.
2) Time stamp: 17.13
Miranda: “Do you have Demarchelier?”
Andrea: (immediately types on the computer)
This case is a conversation between an employer, Miranda, and a newly-hired
employee, Andrea, in the office, which can be broken down into: (1) locutionary act in
Miranda’s utterance merely asking Andrea whether she has Demarchelier on the phone or not,
(2) illocutionary act in Miranda’s utterance also requesting Andrea to immediately contact

3
Demarchelier, and (3) perlocutionary act in Andrea’s action as the hearer by immediately
getting Demarchelier’s contact from the computer.
3) Time stamp: 30.30
Miranda: “Everyone loved it. Everyone, except me, because sadly, I was not
there.”
Andrea: “Miranda, I’m so sorry.”
This case is a conversation between an employer, Miranda, and an employee, Andrea,
in the office, which can be broken down into: (1) locutionary act in Miranda’s utterance
merely stating that she didn’t attend something that everyone else attended, (2) illocutionary
act in Miranda’s utterance that she blamed Andrea for her absence in the event that everyone
attended and loved, and (3) perlocutionary act in Andrea’s utterance as the hearer responding
to Miranda’s utterance by apologizing, confirming she understands that Miranda blamed her.
4) Time stamp: 34.33
Andrea: “Nigel? Nigel, Nigel...”
Nigel: “No.”
This case is a conversation between co-workers, Andrea and Nigel, in the office after
Andrea told Nigel of her personal struggle, which can be broken down into: (1) locutionary
act in Andrea’s utterance merely calling Nigel’s name, (2) illocutionary act in Andrea’s
utterance, complemented with her tones and gestures, that she is requesting Nigel to do
something for her, and (3) perlocutionary act in Nigel’s utterance as the hearer responding to
Andrea’s utterance by rejecting Andrea’s request, confirming he understands Andrea has a
request to ask from him.
5) Time stamp: 40.51
Andrea: “Excuse me, I’m looking for James Holt.”
Woman: “He’s over there.”
This case is a conversation between strangers, Andrea and a woman she met at a party,
which can be broken down into: (1) locutionary act in Andrea’s utterance merely stating that
she’s looking for a person named James Holt, (2) illocutionary act in Andrea’s utterance also
indirectly asking the woman to point her into the right direction to meet James Holt, and (3)
perlocutionary act in the woman’s utterance as the hearer responding to Andrea’s utterance by
informing Andrea the direction of James Holt, confirming she understands that Andrea is also
asking rather than only informing.
6) Time stamp: 50.07
Miranda: “I would love my steak here in fifteen minutes.”
Andrea: “No problem.”
This case is a conversation between an employer, Miranda, and an employee, Andrea,
in the office, which can be broken down into: (1) locutionary act in Miranda’s utterance
merely stating that she wants her steak in fifteen minutes, (2) illocutionary act in Miranda’s
utterance also ordering Andrea to be the one getting the steak for her, and (3) perlocutionary
4
act in Andrea’s utterance as the hearer responding to Miranda’s utterance by agreeing her
order, confirming she understands that Miranda is ordering her to get the steak.
7) Time stamp: 54.10
Andrea: “Is there anything else I can do for you?”
Miranda: “That’s all.”
This case is a conversation between an employee, Andrea, and an employer, Miranda,
in the office, which can be broken down into: (1) locutionary act in Andrea’s utterance merely
asking Miranda what else she can do for her, (2) illocutionary act in Andrea’s utterance also
challenging Miranda to throw her more difficult assignments to test her ability, and (3)
perlocutionary act in Miranda’s utterance and sour facial expression as the hearer responding
to Andrea’s utterance by stating that she doesn’t have anymore difficult assignments to test
Andrea’s ability, confirming she understands that Andrea is trying to challenge her back.
8) Time stamp: 56.55
Andrea: “Ugh, can’t wait for that.”
Nigel: “Excuse me, can we adjust the attitude?”
Andrea: “I’m sorry.”
This case is a conversation between co-workers, Nigel and Andrea, in a work
environment outside the office, which can be broken down into: (1) locutionary act in Nigel’s
utterance merely requesting Andrea to be less rude, (2) illocutionary act Nigel’s utterance that
he’s offended by Andrea’s rude commentary previously, and (3) perlocutionary act in
Andrea’s utterance as the hearer responding to Nigel’s utterance by apologizing, confirming
she understands that Nigel was offended.
9) Time stamp: 57.45
Miranda: “This layout for Winter Wonderland spread, not wonderful yet.”
Employee: “Okay, I’ll look at it.”
This case is a conversation between an employer, Miranda, and an employee in the
office, which can be broken down into: (1) locutionary act in Miranda’s utterance merely
stating that the layout is not good enough, (2) illocutionary act in Miranda’s utterance
ordering the employee to revise the layout, and (3) perlocutionary act in the employee’s
utterance as the hearer responding to Miranda’s utterance by accepting Miranda’s order,
confirming that he understands that Miranda wants him to do revise the layout.
10) Time stamp: 1.07.35
Miranda: “I need the best possible team with me that no longer includes
Emily.”
Andrea: “Wait, you want me to go?”
This case is a conversation between an employer, Miranda, and an employee, Andrea,
in Miranda’s house, which can be broken down into: (1) locutionary act in Miranda’s
utterance merely stating that the best team doesn’t include Emily, (2) illocutionary act in
Miranda’s utterance that the team would now include Andrea instead of Emily, and (3)

5
perlocutionary act in Andrea’s utterance as the hearer responding to Miranda’s utterance by
asking to confirm whether she is going to go along with Miranda as her team, confirming she
understands Miranda wants to include Andrea instead of Emily in her team.
11) Time stamp: 1.14.14
Christian: “I’m staying at a fantastic little hotel in Seventh, right across the
street from a falafel restaurant that will change your life.”
Andrea: “I’m sorry, I’ll be too busy working.”
This case is a conversation between acquaintances, Christian and Andrea, in an art
gallery, which can be broken down into: (1) locutionary act in Christian’s utterance merely
informing Andrea about his hotel’s location, (2) illocutionary act in Christian’s utterance that
he is also inviting Andrea to come over to his hotel, and (3) perlocutionary act in Andrea’s
utterance as the hearer responding to Christian’s utterance by rejecting his invitation and
providing a reason that she’s going to be busy, confirming she understands that Christian is
inviting her to come over.
12) Time stamp: 1.23.20
Andrea: “Is there anything else I can do?”
Miranda: “Your job.”
This case is a conversation between an employee, Andrea, and an employer, Miranda,
in a hotel room after Miranda telling Andrea about her personal problem, which can be
broken down into: (1) locutionary act in Andrea’s utterance merely asking Miranda is there
anything else she can do, almost like in case number 9, (2) illocutionary act in Andrea’s
utterance that she’s genuinely offering help to Miranda because their previous conversation
about Miranda’s personal problem, and (3) perlocutionary act in Miranda’s utterance as the
hearer responding to Andrea’s utterance by rejecting Andrea’s offer and wants her to forget
about the personal problem and re-establish their professional relationship, confirming she
understands that Andrea is trying to help with her personal problem.
III.2. Factors Affecting Indirect Speech Acts in The Devil Wears Prada
From the 12 cases that had been explained in 3.1., the writer will now analyze each case
further and assign it to one of the four factors by Thomas summarized in Justová (2006).
Case number 1 is a conversation between a senior employee, Nigel, and a newly-hired
employee, Andrea, that takes place in the office. This case is spoken because the speaker,
Nigel, is affected by the first factor, which is to make one’s language more/less interesting, in
this case, more interesting, because there is no statement or message that the speaker is trying
to force, no intention of competing or challenging, and the speaker is not trying to be polite
toward the hearer.
Case number 2 is a conversation between an employer, Miranda, and a newly-hired
employee, Andrea, in a formal context which takes place in the office. This case is spoken

6
because the speaker, Miranda, is affected by the fourth factor, which is politeness. In a formal
context, politeness is the factor that is very commonly affecting indirect speech acts (Justová,
2006). In Miranda’s utterance, there is also no intention of making it more/less interesting, no
particular message that is being forced, and also no intention of competing or challenging.
The next case is a conversation between an employer, Miranda, and an employee,
Andrea, not anymore newly-hired, in another formal context which takes place in the office.
This case is spoken because the speaker, Miranda, is affected by the second factor, which is to
increase the force of one’s message. In her utterance, the message that Miranda is trying to
emphasize is that she didn’t attend the event that everyone else attended and loved, and
eventhough she didn’t directly say it, she was making sure that Andrea, the hearer,
understands that she was to blame for her absence in the event. This case also has no
intention of making the utterance more/less interesting or competing or challenging and the
speaker wasn’t trying to be polite.
Case number 4 is a conversation between co-workers, Andrea and Nigel, in the office,
but in a less formal context because Andrea just told Nigel of her personal struggle. This case
is spoken because the speaker, Andrea, is affected by the first factor, which is to make one’s
language more/less interesting, in this case, more interesting. By producing the utterance,
Andrea has the intention to persuade Nigel, the hearer, to grant her request, therefore she
makes her utterance more interesting. This utterance doesn’t have any message to be forced
or emphasized, no goal of competing or challenging the hearer, and the speaker is not
suggesting politeness.
The fifth case is a conversation between strangers, Andrea and a woman she met in an
informal context, which is at a party. This case is spoken because the speaker, Andrea, is
affected by the fourth factor, which is politeness. Eventhough taking place in an informal
situation, the utterance that Andrea produced indicates politeness because it is directed at a
stranger as the hearer and especially because Andrea’s illocutionary act is to request a favor
from the stranger (to be pointed into the right direction to meet James Holt). This case has no
intention of making the utterance more/less interesting, increasing the force of any message,
and no intention of competing or challenging.
The following case, number 6, is a conversation between an employer, Miranda, and an
employee, Andrea, in a formal context that takes place in the office. This is very similar to
case number 2 in which Miranda’s, the speaker, illocutionary act is ordering Andrea, the
hearer to do something. This utterance is also affected by the fourth factor, politeness. In
Miranda’s utterance, there is no intention of making it more/less interesting, no particular
message that is being forced, and no intention of competing or challenging.
7
 Case number 7 case is a conversation between an employee, Andrea, and an employer,
Miranda, in the office. This case is also similar with the previous ones, but in this one,
Andrea’s role is the speaker and Miranda is the hearer. The utterance in this case is spoken
because the speaker is affected by the third factor, which is competing goals. Andrea
produced this utterance because she wants to challenge Miranda to give her more difficult
tasks because she just successfully finished one very well, and she’s trying to prove to
Miranda that she is capable of doing anything she assigns her. By producing this utterance,
Andrea is not trying to make it more/less interesting, not trying to emphasize or force
message, or trying to be polite.
Next is case number 8, which is a conversation between co-workers, Nigel and Andrea,
in a work environment outside the office, therefore the situation is less formal. This utterance
is spoken because the speaker, Nigel, is affected by the third factor, competing goals. Before
Nigel produced his locutionary act, Andrea made a rude commentary, and Nigel produced an
utterance that tries to compete and challenge Andrea’s previous commentary as well as her
rude attitude. However, because it is an indirect speech act, Nigel’s utterance comes out in
form of a polite request, despite he has no intention being polite. He also doesn’t make his
utterance more/less interesting and not trying to force any particular message.
Subsequently is case number 9, which is a conversation between an employer, Miranda,
and an employee in the office, therefore it is a in a formal context. Eventhough the
illocutionary is similar with case number 2 and 6, the speaker of this utterance, Miranda, is
more affected by the second factor, to increase the force of one’s message. In this utterance,
Miranda emphasize her message on the layout not being good enough and especially on her
purpose on wanting something better, thus, not affected by politeness like case number 2 and
6. Miranda also has no intention to make her utterance more/less interesting or to compete.
Case number 10 is another. conversation between an employer, Miranda, and an
employee, Andrea, in a less formal place, which is in Miranda’s house. Nevertheless, the
topic of their discussion is work-related, making this case happened in a formal context.
Much like the previous case, Miranda as the speaker is affected by the second factor, to
increase the force of one’s message. The message that Miranda forced is that she is excluding
Emily, therefore Andrea has to take her place. Again, Miranda has no intention to make her
utterance more/less interesting, to compete, or try to be polite.
The next case is a conversation between acquaintances, Christian and Andrea, in an art
gallery, which is an informal situation. This utterance is spoken because the speaker,
Christian, is affected by the first factor, which is to make one’s language more/less
interesting. The underlying message in Christian’s utterance is flirtation and inviting Andrea
8
to come over to his place, therefore, he tries to make Andrea more interested in his utterance.
Other than that, Christian isn’t forcing any message, competing, or trying to be polite.
The last case, number 12 is a conversation between an employee, Andrea, and an
employer, Miranda, in a hotel room after Miranda telling Andrea about her personal problem,
therefore making it a less informal context. This utterance is spoken because the speaker,
Andrea, is affected by the fourth factor, which is politeness. Andrea is trying to offer Miranda
help to her personal problem by asking in a formal way. In this case, Andrea is not trying to
make her utterance more/less interesting, increase the force of her message, or compete.

IV. CONCLUSION
After analyzing The Devil Wears Prada movie and relating it to the indirect speech act
theories by Austin (1962) and Thomas in Justová (2006), the research questions were able to
be answered. There are a number of cases of indirect speech act that are found within the
movie and 12 of them are analyzed. From 12 of the analyzed cases, 3 of them are affected by
the first factor which is to make one’s language more/less interesting, another 3 of them are to
increase the force of one’s message, 2 of them are competing goals, while 4 of them are
affected by the fourt factor which is politeness. There were probably more cases affected by
politeness factor because most of the movie is set in the office and portraying the relationship
of employer and employees.
Each of them are found in different context. In total, there are 5 cases in formal context
that takes place in the office, 2 cases in informal context that takes place in the office, 2 cases
in formal context that takes place outside the office, and 3 cases in informal context that takes
place outside the office. There were less number of cases of indirect speech act in informal
context because the writer observed that, in informal context, speakers tend to be more direct.
Another observation that the writer has made is the speaker who produced most indirect
speech acts is Miranda (the employer) with 5 cases, followed by the main character Andrea
(the employee) with 4 cases, then Nigel (the senior employer) with 2 cases, and lastly,
Christian (Andrea’s acquaintance) with 1 case.
From this research, future researchers can observe other movies or literature work with
different setting and portraying different characters to see whether the politeness factor is
really the one that is most commonly affecting indirect speech act. Future researchers can
also support their findings with more evidence from analysis of the intrinsic elements of the
literature work other than providing a piece of the dialogue.