The analysis of illocutionary acts of judges’ comments in America’s next top model and Asia’s next top model competitions: A cross-cultural pragmatic study

Year 2020, , 1885 - 1898, 30.12.2020

Riza Alifianti Putri Ni Wayan Sartini Muchamad Sholakhuddin Al Fajri

https://doi.org/10.17263/jlls.851015

Abstract

This study discusses speech acts performed by judges of model competitions in America and Asia TV series America’s Next Top Model and Asia’s Next Top Model. The aim of this study is to find out the illocutionary acts of the judges since they are considered as the decision makers in a competition. The detailed analysis between American and Asian cultures is presented to support the findings of the study. For the data of the study, we collected utterances in the America's Next Top Model Session 21 Episode 5 and Asia’s Next Top Model Session 6 Episode 1 from YouTube. In analysing the data, we transcribed all utterances using orthographical transcription method. The data were then analysed and categorized in terms of the theory of illocutionary speech acts from Searle (1979) using qualitative description method. After that, we made an interpretation based on the collected data and generated conclusions as well as suggestions for further research. From the analysis, it could be concluded that the total illocutionary speech acts were 146 utterances (72 from America & 74 from Asia). The major types in America's Next Top Model were assertive and declarative (33.33%), while expressive function turned out to be the most dominant one in Asia's Next Top Model. In cross-cultural pragmatics point of view, the results of this study conclude that Asians were more expressive than Americans. In addition, there was an apology statement in the American context whereas there was no expression of apology in the Asian context. In this study, it could also be seen that Americans were more to the point or overt than Asians whereas Asians were categorized to be more "careful" than Americans.

Keywords

: speech act, illocutionary act, cross-cultural pragmatics; America’s Next Top Model; Asia’s Next Top Model

References

• Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Clanrendon Press.
• Bayat, N. (2012). A study on the use of speech acts. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 70, 213 – 221.
• Birner, B. J. (2013). Introduction to pragmatics. West Sussex, UK: Wiley- Blackwell.
• Budiasih, L. T., Andayani, A. & Rohmadi, M. (2016). Illocution on speech acts of foreign students in Indonesian learning. Parole: Journal of Linguistics and Education, 6(2), 41-48.
• Chaer, Abdul. (2015). FIlsafat Bahasa. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.
• Cummings, L. (2005). Pragmatics: multidisciplinary perspective. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
• Cutting, J. (2008). Pragmatics and discourse: a resource book for students (2nd ed.). Abingdon: Routledge.
• Dorney, Z. (2007). Research method in applied linguistic: Quantitative, qualititative, and mixed methodologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Grundy, P. (2000). Doing pragmatics (2nd ed.). London: Hodder Arnold.
• Grice, H. P. (2011). Logic and conversation. In D. Archer & P. Grundy (Eds.), The Pragmatics Reader (pp. 43-54). Abingdon: Routledge.
• Huang, Y. (2007). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Routledge.
• Levinson, S. C. (2001). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Malenab-Temporal, C. (2018). Conversation analysis of ESL learners’ speech acts in classroom discourse. Asia Pacific Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 6(3), 47-56.
• Meyer, Charles F. 2009. Introducing English linguistics. New York: Cambridge University Press
• Nureddeen, F. A. (2008). Cross cultural pragmatics: Apology strategies in Sudanese Arabic. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(2), 279-306.
• Putri, P. D. S. P. (2018). Representative and commissive illocutionary acts in Donald Trump’s inauguration speech. Jurnal Humanis, 22(4), 1057-1062
• Rosyidi, A. Z., Mahyuni, M., & Muhaimi, M. (2019). Illocutionary speech acts use by Jokowidodo in First Indonesia Presidential Election Debate 2019. International Journal of Multicultural and Multireligious Understanding, 6(2), 735-740.
• Searle, J.R. (1979). Expression & meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge: CUP.
• Sholihatin, E. (2020). An analysis of illocutionary and perlocutionary speech act in defamation texts. JOLLT Journal of Languages and Language Teaching, 7(1), 49-56.
• Spencer-Oatey, H., & Jiang, W. (2003). Explaining cross-cultural pragmatic findings: moving from politeness maxims to sociopragmatic interactional principles (SIPs). Journal of Pragmatics, 35(10-11), 1633-1650.
• Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in interaction: An introduction to pragmatics. London: Longman.
• Tuncer, H. & Turhan, B. (2019). Refusal strategies of Turkish pre-service teachers of English: A focus on gender and status of interlocutor. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 15(1), 01-19.
• Utaker, Arild. (1992). Form in Language: Wittgenstein and structuralism. Wittgenstein and Contemporary Theories of Language Papers Edited by Paul Henry and Arild
• Utaker. Wittgenstein Archives: the University of Bergen.
• Wijana, I Dewa Putu. (1996). Dasar-dasar Pragmatik. Yogyakarta: Andi Yogyakarta.
• Wierzbicka, A. (2003). Cross cultural pragmatic – the semantic of human interaction. New York: Mouton De Gruyter.
• Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. New York. Oxford University Press