CHAPTER II

THEORITICAL FRAMEWORK

1.1 Definition of Pragmatics

Pramatics is concerned with the study of meaning as communicated by a

speaker (or writer) and interpreted by a listener (or reader). It has consequently,

more to do with the analysis of what people mean by their utterances than what

the words or phrases in those utterances might mean by themselves. Pragmatics is

the study of speaker meaning.

Yule (1996:3-4) states that pragmatic is the study of contextual meaning.

This type of study necassarily involves the interpretation of what people mean in

the particular context and how the context influences what is said. It also

considers about who they are talking to, where, when and under what

circumtances.

In other words, context has such a big influence to transfer its meaning to

the listener. Different context must be known before the speaker talks to the

listener therefore both side will understand the meaning for each other. Besides,

one word can create or have more than one meaning depends on the context or

situation such as place, feeling, or time.

Meanwhile, pragmatics is the study of the relationships between

linguistics forms and the users of those forms. The advantage of studying

12
language via pragmatics is that no one can talk about people‟s intended meanings,

their assumptions, their purposes, or goals, and the kinds of actions.

However, goals of pragmatic that will be reached is still the context and

the meaning as well. Not only about context but also studies how people

comprehend and produce a communicative act or speech act in a concrete speech

situation which is usually a conversation. It distinguishes two intents or meanings

in each utterance or communicative act of verbal communication. One is the

informative intent or the sentence meaning, and the other communicative intent or

speaker meaning.

More recent studies, Leech 1993: 1 (cited in Pradiptia Wulan Utami, Nani

Darmayanti, Sugeng Riyanto, 2007) “proposes that one cannot

understandcompletely the characteristic of language, should he/she does not

understand pragmatics, that ishow language is used to communicate.” This

statement shows that pragmatics cannot beseparated form the use of language

because it is used to understand the meaning of its language.

According to (Geoffrey N. Leech: 1983) states that “Pragmatics : how

language is used in communication. In other word, pragmatics however is used to

understand the meaning of utterances in conversation. Not only the meaning, but

also the context because to understand the meaning, the situation must include in

utterances so that there will no misunderstand between the speaker and listener.

Only two studies included in their investigation the pragmatic discourse

properties that go beyond the meanings expressed by actual words or sentences in

13
texts, including the distance between the expectations of readers and writers in

terms of appropriacy and effectiveness of communication within certain contexts ,

Yule, 1996 (cited in Hacer Hande Uysal, 2012).

Morover, pragmatic competence, which refers to the ability to

communicate efficiently in the context of the language use, came into the

attention of the scholars and teachers. The importance of pragmatic competence

can be explained within a language situation. Example:

(1.) “I am sorry”

in Japan saying, “I am sorry” might be enough of an apology in many situations,

whereas in other cultures such as that of Jordan, an explanation for the offense

might be required (Bataineh & Bataineh, 2008).

In addition, according to Levinson 1993:5 (cited in Iman Santoso, Eva

Tuckyta Sari Sujatna, Sutiono Mahdi, 2014) “Pragmatics, in a traditional sense,

comprises “the study of language usage” to be distinguished from syntax, which is

“the study of combinatorial properties of words and their parts“and from

semantics, “ which is the study meaning “. In other word, pragmatics is related to

the meaning in every part of utterances which also discusses about syntax and

semantics.

In addition, Verschueren 1999:7 in Jacob L. Mey (2001) states that

“Pragmatic does not constitute an additional component of a theory of language,

but it offers a different perspective.” In other word, Jacob states that pragmatic

14
does not include in language because it is all about perspective which is different

of people.

Moreover, Pragmatics is seen as the study of language use in particular

communicative contexts or situations of necessity, this would take cognizance of

the message being communicated or the speech act being performed; the

participants involved; their intention, knowledge of the world and the impact of

these on their interactions; what they have taken for granted as part of the context:

the deductions they make on the basis of the context; what is implied by what is

said or left unsaid; etc. Leech, 1983, p. 20; Watson & Hill, 1993, p. 146; Thomas,

1995, p.7 (cited in Suhair Safwat Mohammed Hashim, 2015).

Based on the definitions above, it can be summarized that pragmatics is

the study of language or utterance meaning influenced by the context. It

emphasizes on the realation of language meaning in the context. However,

pragmatics and context cannot be seperated because understanding the situation is

needed in studying pragmatics as well.

1.2 Context

In linguistics, context carries tremendous importance in disambiguation of

meanings as well as in understanding the actual meaning of words. According to

Mey (1993:38) , context is a dynamic not a static concept. It is to be understood as

the surroundings in the widest sense that enable the participants in the

15
communication process to interact and that make the linguistic expressions of

their interaction intelligible.

Context is more than a matter of reference and the understanding of what

things are about. Context is also what gives the utterances deeper. It is also

important in assigning a proper value to such phenomenon as presuppositions,

implicature and the whole set of context oriented features.

George Yule (2006:114) defined there are different kinds of context. One

kind is described as linguistic context, also known as co-text. The co-text of a

word is the set of other words used in the same phrase or sentence. The

surrounding co-text has a strong effect on what people think the word probably

means. In other words, the different context could have different meanings and it

effects the meaning as well.

Taking these factors into consideration, Miller and Leacock 2000 (cited in

Niladri Sekhar Dash, 2008) have classified context into two types: (a) local

context, and (b) topical context. While the local context refers to one or two words

immediately before and after the key word (KW) under investigation, the topical

context refers to the topic of the text where the KW has been used. According to

these scholars, reference to the two contexts is more of less sufficient in

understanding the actual contextual meaning of the KW used in a text.

In addition, Though the scope of pragmatics is far from easy to define, the

variety of research interests and developments in the field share one basic conern:

the need to account for the rules that govern the use of language in context

16
(Levinson 1983). In other word, language usage in society also role by the

government and the context will still need in expressing pragmatics meaning.

More studies, as (Leech 1983:13, cited in Suci Almuslimah) explains

context is “any background knowledge assumed to be shared by S (speaker) and

H (hearer) which contributes to H‟s inetpretation of what S means by given an

utterance.” It means that to be able to understand what the speaker says, the hearer

must have the same background of knowledge with the speaker-which is , the

context.

In conclusion, without context, the listener will find difficultying to

understand or interpret the meaning of the speaker‟s utterance. When there is no

context in conversation, the communication between the speaker and the listener

will fail and will not get its purpose. The listener may be confused or

misunderstand the speaker‟s intention and it effects to the next conversation or

action.

2.3 Speech Acts

Austin in Joan Cutting (2008:13) defined speech acts as the actions

performed in saying something. It is said that the action performed when an

utterance is produced can be analysed on three different levels such as

locutionary, illocutionary, and perlocutionary act. However, action is needed to be

shown when the speaker literally made an utterance.

17
 As (Schmidt and Richards 1980; cited in lknur stifçi, 2009) state speech

acts are all the acts we perform through speaking, all the things we do when we

speak and the interpretation and negotiation of speech acts are dependent on

the discourse or context. There are a series of analytic connections between

the notion of speech acts, what the speaker means, what the sentence uttered

means, what the speaker intends, what the hearer understands, and what the rules

governing the linguistic elements are.

More recent studies proposed (James R. Hurford, Brendan Heasley, and

Michael B. Smith 2007:261)state speech act is an act of assertion is carried out

when a speaker utters a declarative sentence (which can be either true or false),

and undertakes a certain responsibility, or commitment, to the hearer, that a

particular state of affairs, or situation, exists in the world.

In this case, speech act means utterances that need actions to be performed

as a responsibility by the speaker to show true or false meaning of each

utterances. Not only actions is needed to be shown, but also the appropriate

context of each utterances. The hearer must not misunderstand when the speaker

knows the appropriate context to send the message.

According to Sadock 2009 (cited in Muthia Damaiyanti, 2010) speech

acts: „acts done in the process of speaking. In other words, it means that during

the speaking or conversation, the participants do the action of the utterances. The

purpose of people make the utterances is to reach the message and also the action

that has been said by the speaker.

18
 When people speak, they use language to achieve a variety of functions

like expressing differentemotions, start an argument or even insult someone. All

of the „things‟ described before can be said tobe speech acts: „acts done in the

process of speaking‟ (Sadock, 2009). In other hand, people use language to

express their messages or feelings towards other people. Not only about messages,

but also in actions that can be done based on the utterances.

The conclusion is that speech act can be an action that is performed by the

the speaker to the listener through utterances or sentences that have been spoken

depends on the context. The utterances have different meanings based on the

actions that performed by the speaker to transfer its meaning.

2.4 Types of Speech Acts

The division of speech acts into different subcategories largely goes back

to thework of Austin (1962) and Searle (1969, 1976). Of Searle‟s five basic

categories,representatives, directives, commissives, declarations and expressives,

thefirst three have received considerable attention, while the latter two are less

wellresearched.

Austin (1962) defined speech acts as the actions performed in saying

something. Speech act theory said that the action performed when an utterance is

produced can be analysed on three different levels.Example:

19
(2.) John : “Darling, do you want to go out to the show tonight?”

Laura : “I‟m feeling ill.”

John : “That‟s ok. You stay there and I‟ll make soup.”

From the example above, The first level of analysis is the word themselves

called Locution „what is said‟, the form of the words uttered; the act of saying

something is known as the locutionary act. Notice how Laura didn‟t respond to

John‟s question by saying, “No, I don‟t want to go out to the show tonight.” What

she actually said –her locutionary act- was “I‟m feeling ill.”

The second level is what the speakers are doing with their words called

Illocutionary force(act) „what is done in uttering the words‟, the function of te

words, the specific purpose that the speakers have in mind. In-locution (in

speaking) becomes il-locution through phonetic assimilation. In saying that she

feels ill, Laura was telling John that she doesn‟t want to go out.

The last level of analysis is the result of the words called Perlocutionary

effect, „what is done by uttering the words; it is the effect on the hearer or the

hearer‟s reaction. Beyond communicating the state of her health and the answer to

John‟s question, Laura accomplished one more thing through saying “I‟m feeling

ill.” She got John to make her some soup. A perlocutionarry act is focused on the

response others have to a speech act.

20
2.4.1 Locutionary Act

Speech act locution is a speech act to express something: follow say

something to the meaning of that word in dictionary and the meaning of the

sentence according to the rules of syntax (Gunarwan in Rustono,1999:37 cited in

Citra Sparina, 2012). Focus locution is the meaning of spoken utterances, not

questionng the purpose or function of the speech.

2.4.2 Illocutionary Act

In the opinion of J.L. Austin (Rustono, 1999:37 cited in Citra Sparina, 2012)

are illocutionary speech acts that had the purpose and function or power of

speech. Questions raised regarding the illocutionary acts is “to what speech is

done” and was no longer at the level of “what the meaning of the speech?”.

Illocutionary acts of the language is limited by social conventions, for

example: accosting, accusing, admitting, mocking, etc. Those the authors can

conclude the illocutionary act is the utterances which have a certain power , in this

case the speakers not only produce sentences that have a certain sense or specific

reference, but also speech illocutionary aims to produce sentences with a view to

contribute to the specific interaction of communication.

21
2.4.3 Perlocutionary Act

Austin developed, but soon abandoned, the performative hypothesis that

behind every utterance there is a performative verb, such as „to order‟, „to warn‟,

„to admit‟ and „to promise‟, that make the illocutionary force explicit.

Austin realised that often the implicit performatives, ones without the

performative verbs, as in the original version of this dialogue, sound more natural.

He also realised that implicit performatives do not always have an obvious

explicit performative understood.

Searle‟s (1976) solution to classifying speech acts was to group them in the

following macro-classes: Declarations, Representatives, Commissives, Directives,

and Expressives.

2.4.4 Declarations

Declaration is defined by (Yule,1996:128 cited in Firas Abdul-Munim

Jawad) as “a speech act that brings about a change by being uttered, e.g. a judge

pronouncing a sentence.” It belongs to the type of speech this is an impressive

speech with resigning, dismissing, naming, appoiting, pronouncing and

sentencing.It intends to change the state of the wolrd in an immediate way.

In generally, it can be concluded that theclassification according to Searle,

the main areas of positive politeness is in the category of illocutionary commisive

and expressive categories. Examples:

22
(3.) “You are fired!”

In this statement is clearly used to explain the person has lost its job. It has strong

influence when the speaker uses this declarative sentences to make a deal of

something. “Fired” word is used to declare someone has lost his job.

(4.) “You are hereby expelled from the school.”

This statement is explained about the speaker has clearly made a decision to the

person for themselves. This example shows that declarative sentence could

change someone‟s life by some reasons. In this case, “hereby” word is formaly

used as in declarations utterance.

(5.) “I hereby pronounce you husband and wife”

Meanwhile, this sentence is meant for two people who are getting married and

legally acceptable in law and religion. This kind of declarative sentence is mostly

used in daily life in society.

2.4.5 Representatives

It is a speech act, the purpose of which is to convey information about some

state of affairs of the world from one agent, the speaker, to another, the hearer.

Representatives are not constrained as far as their propositional content is

concerned they may express “any proposition”.

23
 Searle (1969 cited in Henk Havertake:18), which is equivalent to stating that

speakers uttering a representative are in a position to assign properties not only to

themselves or to their hearers, but also to any other person. It commits the speaker

to something being the case. The different kinds are suggesting, putting forward,

swearing, boasting, concluding. Examples:

(6.) “No one makes a better cake than me.”

This kind of sentence has an opinion by themselves to be told. It means that

opinion is clearly important in representative sentence to transfer its meaning. The

person claims that his cake is the best one compared with other‟s.

(7.) “I swear I didn‟t do it.”

It is explained that the person describes that he has nothing to do with the case.

Describing is one of representative examples to describe the person‟s statements

or utterances.

(8.) “I think you should do your homework right now.”

“Think” here means that the person has a perspective that it is better to do the

homework right now or he would be in a problem. This statement shows the

opinion of the person which is including in representatives. “I think” word is

clearly showed that as an opinion of someone to clarify his thought.

24
2.4.6 Commisives

Commisive speech act is a speech act that binds the speaker to carry out all

the things mentioned in the utterance. That binds the speaker to carry out the

mandate as well as possible. Soejono Dardjowidjojo (2012:106) suggest that

commisive speech act do not ask anything or command something it is not act that

should be done. It means commisive speech act only in the form of information

delivery.

Commisive tend to be convivial than competitive because its

implementation is more meets the person‟s interest rather than the speaker. It

commits the speaker to do something in the future. This includes acts in which the

words commit the speaker to future action, such as „promising‟, „offering‟,

„threatening‟, „refusing‟, „vowing‟, and „volunteering‟. Examples:

(9.) “I‟m going to Jakarta tomorrow to meet you.”

In this statement is one of commisives example such as promising. The speaker

says this utterance to convince the listener that he will go to Jakarta just to meet

the girl as a promise. “I‟m going to” as same as “I will” which is clearly as a

promise that is said by someone to the listener.

(10.) “I will always love you forever.”

This sentences is a promise that has a big influence to listener. Commisives

sentences take important role in daily life to convince or trust people based on the

sentences the speaker says.

25
(11.) “ Let me do the work. You look exhausted”

This is a volunteering sentence that the speaker says to help other person. The

speaker intentionally helps people used this kind of commisives sentence. Not

only promising, but commisive can be as an offering as well. “Let me..” is kind of

offering word intended to help someone.

2.4.7 Directives

Directive speech act, also known as speech act impositif. It includes the

speaker intended to perform the appropriate action described in the speech help

repair tasks.

This type is often put in a competitive category because it also includes

illocutionary categories that require negative manners. It intends to try making the

addressee perform an action. This category covers acts in which the words are

aimed at making the listener do something, such as „commanding‟, „requesting‟,

„inviting‟, „forbidding‟, „suggesting‟, etc. Examples:

(12.) “Could you close the window please?”

This sentences is kind of commanding in directives. It is explained that the person

wants the listener to close the window and it needs some actions to do so. “Could

you..” word as a request by the speaker to the listener.

(13.) “Sing me a lullaby please?”

26
This utterance is a requesting that the speaker asks to the listener directly. The

speaker asks to the listener to sing her something to help her sleep well. This kind

of utterance is also a request in word “please?” that is used to ask someone for

doing something.

(14.) “You better clean up your room now because it‟s so messy.”

This is one of suggesting sentences in directives. It is meant that the speaker gives

a suggestion to the listener so that he will clean the room immadiately for good.

Not only in requesting, but directives also have a suggesting statement such as

“you better...” word.

2.4.8 Expressives

This speech act also called evaluative speech acts. Its feeling includes in this

type of speech act rather sad or happy. It expresses how the speaker feels about

the situation. This last group includes acts in which the words state what the

speaker feels, such as „apologising‟, „praising‟, „congratulating‟, „deploring‟, and

„regretting‟. Examples:

(15.) “I‟m sorry for your loss.”

This sentence is clearly meant that the speaker feels sorry to the listener beause

one of his family passed away. The speaker expresses his feeling as a symphaty

for his loss. In this utterance, “I‟m sorry..” here means as a symphaty feeling by

the speaker to the listener.

27
(16.) “Thank you for your help. I couldn‟t do that without you.”

This is some kind of thanking sentence that is used to thanked someone else. It is

explained that the speaker expresses thankful feeling because his friend helped

him to do it. Not only in apologizing, but also in thanking or feeling grateful. In

this case, “Thank you..” is the word of thanking by the speaker to the listener.

(17.) “If I‟d known I was gonna live this long, I‟d have taken better care of

myself.”

In this example, this sentence is about regeretting of something. The speaker

regrets that he would do best to himself in his entire life and he would not do

anything bad. Regretting is also kind of expressives speech act in word “If I‟d

known..., I‟d have..”

For Searle, there is a general condition for all speech acts, that the hearer

must hear and understand the language, and that the speaker must not be

pretending or play-acting. For declarations and directives, the rules are that the

speaker must believe that it is possible to carry out the action, they are performing

the act in the hearer‟s best interests, they are sincere about wanting to do it, and

the words count as the act.

These two types of acts of speech are the basis of the language

classification that led to a deeper analysis of the language. Searle (1969) had a

systematic approach and classified speech acts under five main categories:

assertives, directives, commisives, expressives, and declarations. The explanation

below in Table 1.0 was adopted from Verschueren (1999).

28
Table 1.0 Speech Acts (Verschuren, 1999)

SPEECH ACT DEFINITION EXAMPLE

Assertives Expressing a belief, We watched a movie

committing the speaker to yesterday.

truth of what is asserted.

E.g. statements

Directives Expressing a wish, Bring me some hot

making water.

an attempt to get to hearer

to do something.

Commissives Expressing an intention, I promise, I will

commitment for the complete

speaker the work by tomorrow.

to engage in a future

action.

E.g. promises, offers

Expressives Expressing a variety I am sorry for my

ofpsychological disrespectful behavior.

states.E.g. apologies

Declarations Bring about a change Hereby I pronounce you

viawords. E.g. baptizing, husband and wife.

declaringwar, abdicating

29
 Under the category of expressives, apology speech acts hold an important

place in human communication as a face saving act of speech. Thus, it is crucial

for people to understand what an apology is and how it functions. An act of

apology can be considered a remedial act of speech, which means that the speaker

is trying to save his or her face because of an action.

In contrary, Verschuren (1999) has categorized the same five types of

speech acts as Searle‟s. But, Verschuren has another name of representatives

which is assertives that both of them have the same meaning such as belief or

what people may think about something.

2.5 The Natural Meaning of Expressive Speech Acts

In every culture, people have their unique ways of conveying meaning

through language; it is important to understand the variations in communication

patterns and meanings related to the context to be able to learn and teach a

language. One area of linguistics, pragmatics, examines these variations. To be

able to communicate and function effectively in the target language context, a

learner should be able to understand the pragmatics of the target language,

otherwise the communication might not be conducted efficiently. Thus, pragmatic

competence is an important aspect of language learning and second language

acquisition.

First defined by Austin (1962), Speech Act Theory aims to explain the

language as a series of actions. In this theory, speech acts are categorized into five

30
main domains according to how listeners and speakers are affected by the

communication (Celce - Murcia & Olshtain, 2007). These categories include

assertives, directives, commisives, expressives, and declarations.

In addition, expressives are speech acts whose illocutionary content is the

expression of a psychological state about oneself or the world. Searle &

Vanderveken, 1985 (cited in Marc Aguert, Ludovic Le Bigot, Virginie Laval &

Josie Bernicot, 2010). In other hand, expressives speech act is all about

expressions that is being expressed by the speaker to the listener intended to tell

the meaning or the message in utterances.

Meanwhile, expressives are those kinds of speech acts that state what the

speaker feels, George Yule (1996:55). They express psychological states and can

be statements of pleasure, pain, likes, dislikes, jor or sorrow. Those can be caused

by something the speaker does or the hearer does, but they are about the speaker‟s

experience. One of expressive kinds is “sorry” or mostly called apologizing acts.

Apologies, under the category of expressives in speech act theory, have

been one of the main field in pragmatics because of their importance in human

communication as an act of face-saving and politeness. To be able to reach a

clearer understanding of apologies, researchers have approached the matter in

different ways. One of the most crucial approaches is to classify apology

strategies, such as in Cohen & Olshtain (1983) where they created a classification

of universally occurring apology speech acts.

31
2.6 Apologizing Act

When a talk goes wrong between two speakers of different languages, they

may see one another as unfriendly (Bems, 1990). It is known that apology plays a

very important role in everyday communication between speakers. It is a

justification or defense of an act or idea. It can also be for some thing done wrong.

The speaker who has uttered a statement which causes offence to others has a

number of rhetorical strategies in response to subsequent calls for apology.

Therefore, with two parties: an apologizer and an apologizee.

However, only if theperson who caused the infraction perceive himself or

herself as an apologizer do we get the act of apologizing. The act of apologizing

requires an action or an utterance which is intended to “set things right” (Olshtain,

1983:235).

In other hand, apologizing act is a kind of expressive speech acts

where speakers as the apologizer and listener as the apologizee are needed. An

expressive speech act is the point of which is that a certain psychological state is

expressed, which have no direction of fit, in which a wide range of psychological

states can be expressed, in which proposition describes a property or act to

the speaker or hearer (Searle: 1977).

Meanwhile, apologizing act is the way of people can express their

feeling to the others by asking apology for their faults or wrongs. Itis kind of

psychological expression where people can express what they think and what

32
they feel. Expressing sorry must be acceptable and reasonable from speaker to

listener intentionally based on the context.

However, the apology process will run well if the offended can agree the

offender‟s goal to forgive the offender‟s faults. In using apology act, people

need to apply certain strategies of apology. These kind of ways will help

them to success the apologizing acts and maintain the relationship between

the offenders and the offendeds.

In result, the differences of apologizing acts are related to the

behaviour that may also cause differences strategy of apology. It depends on the

levels of high or low and complex or simple strategy used. Apology can be

stated directly or indirectly related to the strategy used by the offender.

People usually use the words “I‟m sorry” for expressing apology. These

words cannot undo the harm already done, but at least it can restore the dignity

of the victim.

Cohen & Olshtain (1983) explains apologies as a speech act occurring

between two participants in which one of the participants expects or perceives

oneself deserving a compensation or explanation because of an offense committed

by the other. In that situation, one participant has a choice to apologize or deny

the responsibility or the severity of the action.

As Marquez-Reiter (2000: 44) states an apology is a “compensatory

action for an offense committed by the speaker which has affected the hearer.

According to Bataineh & Bataineh (2006:1903) apologies fall under expressive

33
speech acts in which speakers attempt to indicate their state or attitude. They add

that in order for an apology to have an effect, it should reflect true feelings.

In other words, as Searle (1979) states a person who apologizes for doing

A expresses regret at having done A so the apology act can take place only if the

speaker believes that some act A has been performed prior to the time of speaking

and that this act A resulted in an infraction which affected another person who is

now deserving an apology.

2.7 Types of Apologizing Act

The way apologies are classified depends very much on the way they are

defined. Thus, the diversity in definitions of apologies also brings about diversity

in classification. According to Daniela Kramer-Moore and Michael Moore (2003:

160-169), there are certain types of apologies that are common across different

categorizations, while other types are unique.

2.7.1. Hurt

(18). I know I've hurt you. Believe me that I didn't intend to. I wish I hadn't done

it or that I could undo it. Given another chance I would be more careful. I

regret having done it.

This type of apology serves as the prototype for the expression of religious

repentance. As mentioned above, even this, seemingly most remorseful,

34
expression carries no information about its sincerity. To clarify this point,

consider that not only religions exact a request for forgiveness.

2.7.2 Sorry (for An Excuse, Politely)

(19.) I know that you consider what I've done wrong or impolite. I wish I didn't

have to do it, but I had no choice. Given the same circumstances, I'd do it

again.

This polite formula has some practical value in that it smoothes interaction

in formal social encounters. While it may also contain a modicum of regret, it

certainly lacks a promise of non-repetition. The following formula bears this out:

"Excuse me! Excuse me!" (Same as the French "Pardon!"), said when pushing

through a crowd, bumping into people repeatedly.

2.7.3Sorry(or Have Lost Your Job, or Unlucky)

(20.) I've got nothing to do with this, but if I could, I'd change it. I say this just to

make you feel better, to show that I commiserate.

While expressing misgivings about the addressee's situation, this speaker does

not assume any responsibility for it. Consequently they can logically express no

regret, nor offer any promises regarding the future. According to Wanderer's

35
report (2001) the solution of the diplomatic standoff hinged exactly on the

ambiguity of "I'm sorry".

2.7.4 Excuse Me?(Polite)

(21.) I didn't hear/understand you; could you please repeat what you've just said? I

know this causes you some inconvenience and I wish I didn't have to do it,

but I have no choice.

This type bears some similarity to second one, above (both belong to the

"polite" category), but it appears in different situations. It implies neither regret

nor a promise of future avoidance. One can see its distance from apologizing

through common dictionary substitutions, such as the less courteous "Come

again?".

2.7.5 Sorry (Intentionally)

(22.) I don't think I've done anything wrong, but if you feel I have, I'll give you

the benefit of doubt and apologize.

Not only does this speaker show no regret, they even condescend and blame

the other for over-sensitivity. By accepting this left-handed apology they accept

the label of touchiness. By rejecting it, they become a bad sport.

36
2.7.6 Excứse Mé!(Ironic, with Two Exaggerated Stresses).

(23.) I know that you'd prefer if I didn't exist, but I won't give you that pleasure. I

have no intention to apologize.

Rather than illustrating apologizing, both this and the following type

provide examples of verbal aggression. Instead of offering an apology, the

speaker hints that the recipient should feel guilty and apologize. A triple-message

characterizes irony and sarcasm: The speaker's unstated agenda, and the two

opposing messages these tropes contain.

2.7.7 Excuse Me?(Exaggeratedly Incredulous).

(24.) I can't believe what I've just heard, so I pretend, ironically, that I've misheard

you.

As in both of the above types, the ambiguity of this utterance puts the

listener at a disadvantage. If s/he takes it at face value and repeats the message,

the recipient will most likely retort: "I heard you the first time!" Any other

response constitutes joining the fray.

Sincere apologies, in which the individual takes upon self the

responsibility for some wrong-doing, absolves one's conscience through so called

undoing. At the other end of the above continuum, the use of apology as a

method for blaming the other puts the recipient on the defensive, and thus entails

the projection of guilt.

37
 Finally, the goals of asking an apology is only to make or to get things

right as it is used to be. In apologizing acts, there is not only “sorry” for a mistake

but also for anything else such as hurt in physically or having

misheard.Apologizing releases the stress produced by guilt feelings, thus serving

as a defense mechanism. Sincere apologies, in which the individual takes upon

self the responsibility for some wrong-doing, absolves one's conscience through

so called undoing.

As a conclusion, there are many different categorizations of apologies.

However, as already mentioned in the section on apologising acts, this speech act

depends on the context, so not all the categories in taxonomies would work for all

the situation or context.Also, one should account both for explicit and implicit

apologies. Lastly, categories such as avoiding and postponing apologies should

also be part of the taxonomy, as choosing not to apologize or apologize later is

also a strategy used when an apology is required.

2.8 Previous Study on Apologies

This research has close relationship with the research entitled “An

Analysis of Apology as a Politeness Strategy Expressed by Jordanian

University Students” by Dr. Mahmoud Ali Al-Sobh, PhD”.This study aims at

finding the common apology expression used by Arabic native speakers used in

different situations. Such studies are useful for Arab EFL learners and Arabic

learners who have learnt contain vocabulary items and structures in the target

38
language and haven developed sociolinguistic competence. Also, this study will

be helpful for curriculum designers and textbook writers. It also aimed at finding

the apology strategies Arabic native speakers use in different situations..

The most common apology expressions used when some one refuses a gift

which is the third situation are: Hathehi Hurreya Shakhseyya, ?a: sif Lan

Akhudhha, /asif la asta‟tee‟. The forth situation is spilling tea or coffee on

someone‟s clothes. The most common apology expressions used are:

?a:sif‟jiddan. ?a: sif Sawfa onadhef thalik, ?a: sif laa qsud, ana a:sif Jidden. For

the fifth situation which is breaking a dish at home, the most common apology

expressions used were: Sha‟y adi, intaha omroh, ?a: sif saashtari wahad Jadeed.

For the sixth situation which is not returning the book on time, the most common

apology expressions were: ?a: sif naseet, ?a:sif dhaa‟ ?a: sif Jiddan saashatari

ketab jadeed.

From the research above, The apology strategies students used were

apology and regret. explanation, offer of repair. Equal- Equal, low high and

responsibility. When a student responded saying that he will bring a new book.

this means that he bears responsibility. Also when another students said that he

would repair the broken dish, this means that he gave an offer of repair. At the

same time, when a student explains the reason being late, this means that he used

the explanation strategy.

In conclusion, the researcher takes this research as previous of study

intended to continue the study of apologizing acts. The differences are in object

and also this research of Dr. Mahmoud Ali Al-Sobh, PhD analyzed about the

39
strategy of apologizing acts that is used by Jordanian in Arab. Meanwhile, the

object that is used by the researcher in this paper is in “Angry Bird” movie.

40
 PRAGMATICS

CONTEXT

DEIXIS

REFERENCE

INFERENCE
UNDERSTANDING LOCUTIONARY
ANAPHORA CONCEPT ACT

PRESUPPOSITION
ILLOCUTIONARY
AUSTIN ACT
SPEECH ACTS (962)
PERLOCUTIONARY
DIRECT AND
ACT
INDIRECT
TYPES OF SPEECH
SPEECH ACTS
ACTS
POLITENESS
PRINCIPLE
SEARLE
NEGATIVE AND (1976)
POSITIVE FACE

DECLARATIONS DIRECTIVES EXPRESSIVES COMMISSIVES REPRESENTATIVES

‘I bet’, ‘I Commanding, Apologising, Promising, Describing, claiming,

declare’, ‘I requisting, thanking, offering, vowing. predicting.
resign’. suggesting. regretting.

1.Hurt 4. Polite 7.Exaggeratedly

incredulous
NB: 2. An excuse 5.Sorry(intention
politely ally)
: The subject of the 41
research.
3.Unlucky 6. Ironic
you‟re sick