A SPEECH ACT ANALYSIS OF INDIRECTNESS IN DUL JOHNSON'S MELANCHOLIA.

24 PAGES (9795 WORDS) English Language Project

ABSTRACT

This research analyzes indirectness in selected utterances of characters in Dul Johnson’s Melancholia. It aims to identify how characters in the play deployed direct and indirect speech act in their conversations. It also examines the effects of the indirect speech act on the hearers; and the motives of the characters for deploying speech act in their conversations. Meanwhile, this study adopts Searle’s Speech Act Theory (SAT) 1969. The researcher finds out that characters deployed direct and indirect speech act in their conversations with one another. It also reveals that the speaker’s utterances have effect(s) on the hearers; and that the speakers have various motives for deploying speech act. The research finally concludes that language users use speech act in their daily conversation with one another for various motives to pass across their information.



TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title Page i

Declaration ii

Certification iii

Dedication iv

Acknowledgement v

Table of Contents vii

Abstract ix

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background to the Study 1

1.2 Statement of Research Problem 2

1.3 Aim and Objectives 2

1.4 Significance of the Study 3

1.5 Research Questions 3

1.6 Scope of the Study 3

1.7 Research Methodology 4

1.8 Synopsis of the play, Melancholia 4 




CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

2.1 Speech Acts 5

2.2 John L. Austin’s Contribution to Speech Acts 5

2.3 John R. Searle’s Contribution to Speech Acts 9

2.4 Types of Speech Acts 10

2.4.1 Direct Speech Acts 10

2.4.2 Indirect Speech Act 10

2.5 Some Major Contributors to Speech Act Theory 10

2.5.1 Kent Bach and Robert M. Harnish’s Contribution to Speech Acts 10

2.5.2 Mey, L. Jacob’s Contribution to Speech Acts 11

Previous Studies 13

2.7 Conceptual Framework 14

2.8 Conclusion 14

  CHAPTER THREE: DATA ANALYSIS

3.0 Data Analysis 16

3.1 Findings 28

CHAPTER FOUR: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

4.1 Summary 30

4.2 Conclusion 31

References 33-34