Thesis Writing

Review of Previous Study

Achmad Jerry Husaimi
(1614025025)

Keke Shabila Fitrianisa

(1714025054)

Sri Rahayu (1614025025)

CONTENTS Categorizing Expressive Speech Acts in the
01
Pragmatically Annotated SPICE Ireland Corpuse
(ICAME Journal, Volume 39, 2015, DOI: 10.1515/icame-2015-0002)

02 The Pragmatics of Deception in American

Presidential Electoral Speeches
(International Journal of English Linguistics; Vol. 7, No. 5; 2017)

03
A Study on the Personal Diexis of Korbafo Dialect in
Rote Language
(Internasional Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Culture.Volume 2,
No.1, Januari 2016, pages : 8-15)
01
Categorizing Expressive Speech Acts in the
Pragmatically Annotated SPICE Ireland Corpuse
ICAME Journal, Volume 39, 2015, DOI: 10.1515/icame-2015-0002
 Topic :
Categorizing Expressive Speech Acts in the
Pragmatically Annotated SPICE Ireland Corpus

Purpose Methode
: an : analyze and
ield research,
To offer overview and classification of
expressive speech acts in SPICE Ireland Corpus evaluate data from ICE-
Ireland corpus made by
SPICE-Ireland (Kirk,
Kallen, Lowry, Rooney,
Theory :
Pragmatics speech acts, expressive speech acts
and Mannion 2011)
by Searle (1969, 1976), Austin (1962), Norrick
(1978),
Findings
 Conclusion
The paper has investigated the use of expressives in a sample of formal, semi-formal and informal
discourse in Ireland English taken from the SPICE Ireland corpus. Expressives from 2.3 per cent of
the overall speech acts in that corpus. On the basis of the corpus data, eight distinct categories
(agreement, disagreement, volition, thanking, apologizing, non-directed complaints in exclamations,
expressing sorrow and greetings) have been identified which partly correspond to a survey of different
types of expressive by Norrick (1978)
02
The Pragmatics of Deception in American
Presidential Electoral Speeches
International Journal of English Linguistics; Vol. 7, No. 5; 2017
 Topic Theory

The Pragmatics of Pragmatics speech act, violation

Grice's maxims such as
Deception in American
ostensible promise,
Presidential Electoral 2 equivocation, fabrication, and
Speeches dissociation.

Purpose
to investigating how
presidential candidates try
to deceive/mislead the
public resides within the
domain of pragmatics
Methode
The data of analysis are
collected from two election
speeches delivered by Donald
Trump and Hillary Clinton.
Analyzing the pragmatic aspect
of deception in the speeches
under investigation.
 Findings
Trump’s Election Speech
“They are killing us, but you don’t hear that from anyone else. They will never make
America great again. They don’t even have a chance. They are controlled fully; they
are controlled fully by the lobbyists, by the donors and by the special interests.
Fully, they control them”
• He violates the maxim of manner by making use of an expression with no clear
reference. He utilizes the pronoun “they'' four times without specifying its referent as in
“They are killing us”, “They will never make America great again”, “They don’t even have
a chance”, and “They are controlled fully”. In the previous utterances, Trump resorts to
the ambiguous use of pronouns. He uses the pronoun "they" with no specific reference
to issue his tendentious utterances. Thus, his utterances are misleading.
• Trump asserts things from his point of views with the aim of attacking others for the sake
of advertising himself.
• Moreover, Trump utilizes the cognitive strategy of negative other representation by
criticizing others (i.e., Obama and his government) for the sake of positively
representing himself.
 Continue
“I will be the greatest job president that god ever created, I tell you that. I'll
bring back our jobs, and I'll bring back our money”
• Trump is giving ostensible promises, that is, long-term promises which he himself
is not sure whether he will be able to fulfill or not. By saying “I will be the greatest
job president that god ever created” and “I’ll bring back our jobs”, he is deceiving
the public in the hope of being elected. Thus, he violates the maxim of quality.
• Trump uses a commissive speech act, particularly, the speech act of promising;
he promises the public to end unemployment by providing jobs. He also promises
them to bring back their money “I’ll bring back our money”. Trump makes use of
the cognitive strategy of positive self-representation. He magnifies himself by
saying that he will be the greatest job president that god ever created. In a similar
vein, he utilizes a metaphor-an extended conceptual metaphor- by saying that he
will be the “greatest job president
 Clinton’s Election Speech
“As your President, I’ll do whatever it takes to keep America safe. I’ll always seek
common ground with friend and opponent alike. But I'll also stand my ground when I
must. It's no secret that we’re going up against some pretty powerful forces that will
do and spend whatever it takes to advance a very different vision for America. We
have to stop the endless flow of secret, uncountable money that is distorting our
election, corrupting our political process, and drowning out the voices of our people”
• Hillary Clinton uses the deceptive strategy of giving ostensible promises. She gives long-
term promises which she herself is not sure whether she will be able to fulfill or not as in
“I’ll do whatever it takes to keep America safe”, “I’ll always seek common ground with
friend and opponent alike” and “I’ll also stand my ground when I must”.
• Cognitively, Hillary uses the strategy of negative other representation “pretty powerful
forces that will do and spend whatever it takes to advance a very different vision of
America” and positive self-representation in showing the reforms that she will make if she
is elected as a President.
• Personification, as a type of metaphor, is manifested in “drowning out the voices of our
people” where the use of “drowning out” with “voices” is metaphorical.
 Conclusion :

-The American presidential candidates in question utilize certain deceptive

strategies to achieve their goals. These include strategies violating Grice’s
maxims like: equivocation, fabrication, ostensible promise, and
depersonalization; cognitive strategies such as: metaphor, presupposition,
and positive-self representation and negative other representation.
-As far as speech acts are concerned, the pragmatic and statistical
analyses have shown that deception in the data under scrutiny is mainly
defined as an insincere assertion whose main point is that of persuasion.
-Deception in the current study is seen as a violation of Grice's maxims,
particularly, those of quality and manner. This results in such strategies as
equivocation, depersonalization, fabrication, and ostensible promise.
-American presidential candidates utilize certain cognitive strategies such
as metaphor, presupposition, positive self-representation and negative
other representation to fulfill certain goals.
03
A Study on the Personal Diexis of
Korbafo Dialect in Rote Language
Internasional Journal of Linguistics, Literature and
Culture.Volume 2, No.1, Januari 2016, pages : 8-15
 Topic Purpose Theory Methode

Personal deixis
To analyzing The method that used
Personal Diexis base on
Personal Diexis in this study is
of Korbafo Levinson (1983)
of Korbafo linguitics field
Dialect in Rote thRee kinds of
Dialect in Rote research methode an
Language deixis : personal
Language interview and
deixis, time
decriptive methode to
deixis, and
analyze data.
place deixis.
Findings

Personal deixis systems in Korbafo dialect in are categorized in two

types :
Singular Pronouns
Singular pronouns in Korbafo Dialect consist of a first person “Au”, second
person “Ko”, and third person “Ndia”.

Plural Pronouns
Plural pronouns consist of a first person, second person, and third person.
Plural pronouns of the first person in Korbafo Dialect have two forms.
They are “ita” and “ami”. Ita is INCL first person while ami is EXCL first
person. Then for the plural pronoun of second person is “kemi” and for the
third person is “sila”.
 Conclusion

The research concludes that there are three

kinds of personal deixis in Korbafo dialect;
comprising both singular and plural forms of
first-person deixis, second person deixis
and third person deixis. The personal deixis
on singular forms comprising the speaker
Au (1 Singular), the addressee/ hearer Ko (II
Singular), and the non-speaker Ndia (III
Singular). The personal deixis on plural
forms comprising; Ita (I Plural Incl), Ami (I
Plural Excl), Kemi (II Plural), Sila (III Plural).
THANKS