Expressive Acts in Euphoria Special Episode Part 1: Trouble Don’t Last Always
on
e-Journal of Linguistics
Available online at https://ojs.unud.ac.id/index.php/eol/index Vol. 16, No. 2, July 2022, pages: 213--226 Print ISSN: 2541-5514 Online ISSN: 2442-7586 https://doi.org/10.24843/e-jl.2022.v16.i02.p07.
Expressive Acts in Euphoria Special Episode Part 1: Trouble Don’t Last Always
1Hotman Nasution
Putera Batam University, Batam, Indonesia, [email protected]
2Ambalegin
Putera Batam University, Batam, Indonesia, [email protected]
Article info
Received Date: 16 December 2021
Accepted Date: 24 December 2021
Published Date: 31 July 2022
Keywords:
expressive, illocutionary acts, pragmatics, speech acts
Abstract
The research identifies the type of expressive acts uttered by the characters in a special episode entitled Euphoria Part 1: Rue – Trouble Don’t Last Always and the research implements Norrick theory to analyze the data. Then, the research designs the activity in qualitative method which shapes how the report of the analysis would be descriptively. In collecting the data, the research appropriates Observational method and non-participation technique by Sudaryanto. On the other hand, in analyzing the data, the research appropriates Pragmatic Identity Method and Matching technique by Sudaryanto. The research found 26 utterances identified completely of the types of expressive acts; (2) apologizing, (1) thanking, (1) congratulating, (4) condoling, (5) deploring, (8) lamenting, (2) welcoming, (2) forgiving, and (1) boasting. Lamenting is the most frequent expressive act as the central story of the episode where the main character shared their sorrow and regret to their friend.
Expressive acts has distinctive feature differed itself from other types of illocutionary. For instance, assertives attempts to match the world in their words and declaration attempt to mark change on the world with words. Moreover, directives and commissive attempt attempts to make the addressee to do and to commit something. On the contrary, expressives does not have such feature because expressive attempts to express one’s psyche or the state of affairs (i.e. state of speaker-addressee) (Searle, 2005). In other words, expressive acts arouse people concern through expression such as congratulate, apologize, lamenting, thanking, and to name a few.
One of the phenomena of expressive acts occurs in an interview of Meghan Markle and Prince Harry. This instance is taken from the research conducted by Nasution et al. (2019).
Int : Your Royal Highness, Meghan Markle, congratulations to you both
MM : Thank you.
Before the conversation occurred, Meghan Markle was just appointed as the New Duchess of Sussex. The interviewer (Int), then, as the speaker praised Markle (MM) as the hearer. Having heard this, Markle uttered in ‘thanking’ act indicated with explicit “thank you”.
The speech act phenomenon in real life interview allows the possibility that other media could also capture such unconscious phenomenon. Besides, movies and series are also a manifestation of human reality. There are displays of characters exchanging utterances just like human beings in conversation. In order to prove this, preliminary research needs to be conducted on the conversation of the character. Below is one of the lines from the special episode entitled Euphoria Part 1: Rue – Trouble Don’t Last Always. The episode displays two characters (Rue and Ali) in conversation in a diner who exchanged discussion of addiction, having no faith and hope, and struggling of being sober.
RUE: Why the fuck did I do that? It’s fucking crazy and weird. (Levinson, 2020, 05:22)
In this scene, Rue as the speaker was sharing her stories that she had just been heartbroken to Jules, whom she had loved. However, Jules left her. This resulted the bold utterance in which Rue employed ‘lamenting’ act. She was not literally asking because she never intended to ask other to answer, but to herself. She said because she wanted Ali to concern about her struggle, which determines ‘lamenting’ act.
There are two other studies which studies expressive acts. First, Tanam et al (2020) identified the types of expressive acts, the intended meaning, and personality differences in using expressive acts in Baswedan and Erdogan’s speech using theory of Norrick (1978). In terms of identifying expressive acts, they found three types; condoling, deploring, and lamenting. The journal is similar with this research in terms of identifying expressive acts and theory, but different in terms of the data source and additional theory of intended meaning and personality. Second, Royanti (2019) identified expressive acts uttered in La La Land movie using Norrick’s (1978) and Searle’s (1976) theory. The descriptive-qualitative research found 35 utterances in eight types; (10) apologizing, (10) thanking, (5) welcoming, (2) lamenting, (2) deploring, and (2) boasting. The journal is also similar in terms of identifying expressive acts with Norrick’s theory, but different in terms of data source and additional theory by Searle. These recent studies do not only mean to provide the relevance and the reference but these also account the possibility of conducting the research.
This research sets objectives and significances. The objective focuses on identifying types of expressive acts using Norrick’s (1978) theory. The identification bases on characters’ utterances of Euphoria Special Episode Part 1: Rue – Trouble Don’t Last Always. Furthermore, the objective ends on two significances contributing to the theory and the practice. Theoretically, the result could prove the relevance of theory and provide the analysis as reference for readers. Practically, the research helps reader to comprehend and utilize expressive act effectively in particular context.
Speech acts theory arose from the foundational thinking that human can perform action with language. The idea came from Austin, a British philosopher of language who conceptualized theory of Speech Act. He delineated his basis concept that in uttering something, it does something (Birner, 2013). In other words, there is an action when uttering something, or in the words of Yule (1996), a performative utterance and, likewise, speech act brings changes to the world and the state of affairs (Mey, 1993) as any action could bring by nature. Accordingly, it is reasonable to define speech act as performing through utterance. Therefore, in recognizing
215 utterance as such, Austin (1962) recognized three important aspects; locution, illocution, and perlocution. Locution is generally what is said, illocution is what is meant or intended, and perlocution is what they convinced them to do.
Illocutionary acts is apt when investigating the intention behind the utterance. Austin (1962) defined this part as having force within an utterance or, according to Bakhtir (as cited in Sembiring & Ambalegin, 2019), an intention in the mind of speakers before they utter to the hearers. This could be done through matching the utterances and the situational context in order to understand the intention or specific purpose of the speaker’s utterance (Cuttings, 2002, as cited in Setiani & Utami, 2018). Later, these intentions were classified and the most popular classification was done by Searle. He adopted Austin’s classification, and develop it into five; assertives, directives, commissives, declarations and expressives (2005). Assertives is speaker’s expression of the truth of the world as being the case. Directives is speaker’s attempt to make the addressee perform something. Commissives is speaker’s way to make themselves committed to do something in the future. Declarations is speaker’s way to bring state of change. Expressives is speaker’s sincere expression from their psychological state in responding a state of affairs.
Expressive acts is a type of speech act where the action occurs between psychological expression (words) and the state of affairs (speaker-addressee). Norrick (1978) proposed this further regarding what determines expressive acts, the social function of each acts, and what conditions a successful performance of each act. He differentiated expressive acts into nine: apologizing, thanking, congratulating, condoling, deploring, lamenting, welcoming, forgiving and boasting.
Apologizing is when the speaker taking responsibility of an adversity that affects the hearer. The key in determining apologizing is the speaker admits the wrong they have done and convinces the hearer to forgive. The explicit use of this are “sorry”, “apologize”, “forgive me”, “pardon me”, and “excuse me”.
Example: “I’m sorry it didn’t go well today” (Royanti, 2019).
Thanking is when the hearer acknowledges and expresses gratitude for benefitting the speaker’s service or action, and compliment with hope of future favors. This could be done after or before the service. The explicit use of this are “thank you”, “thanks”, “thank goodness”, “I am truly grateful”, and “I would like to express my gratitude”.
Example: “Okay, first of all, thank you for the long and super complete introduction” (Fauzia & Tressyalina, 2019).
Congratulating functions when the hearer heard the speaker’s achievement or effort and congratulates, encourages, or compliments the hearer to continue their efforts. This strengthen the relationship which support each other. The explicit use of this is “congratulate”.
Example: “Happy Birthday, mister adult man!” (Wijayanti & Widiastuti, 2021)
d. Condoling
Condoling is when the hearer sympathizes with the speaker’s misfortune, sorrow, and bad fate. This would heighten the mood, diminish the pain. The explicit use of this are “sorry”, “condolences”, and “commiserate”.
Example: “On behalf of the people of Jakarta, we are extending our deepest condolences to the families of those whose live had been taken away” (Tamam et al., 2020).
Deploring is when the hearer criticizing or confronting the speaker’s naught, offense, transgression, or fault that either harms the hearer and/or upset the speaker. The explicit use of this are “censure”, “condemn”, “chide”, “resentment” and “disapprove”.
Example: “Jakarta was shocked, more than 40 people have been killed in an unthinkable act of terror, in a shooting during juma’ah prayer” (Tamam et al., 2020).
Lamenting is when the speaker expresses sorrow of their own misfortune or terrible fate, or expresses regret of their own defective act that arouses the hearer’s concern.
Example: “… New Zealand people is known for their peacefulness, openness, and warm toward other people from all work of life” (Tamam et al., 2020).
Welcoming is the hearer’s expression of pleasure and/or pride for the speaker’s help, offer, request, or arrival. In other words, the hearer is willing to be of service in the acts of offering. The explicit use of this are “welcome” and “you’re welcome to …”.
Example: “Well. Welcome back” (Royanti, 2019).
Forgiving is when the speaker accepts the hearer’s apology whether by explicit use of “forgive”, “excuse”, “pardon” or by dismissing the importance of the matter.
Example: “Yeah, Yeah” (Royanti, 2019).
Boasting is when the speaker flaunts or take pride of their own achievement. This could function to impress or inspire or discourage other.
Example: “That we’re ministers has led to popularity, hasn’t it?” (Nuraini et al., 2020)
In identifying the types of expressive act, the research sets proper methodology in order to shape the expected quality of the result. The research design is a qualitative method. This method reports descriptive data; textual and contextual (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The data is collected through observational method (Sudaryanto, 1993) by watching the phenomenon in the data source Euphoria Special Episode Part 1: Rue. The technique appropriates non-participation due the type of data source as media in which the research could not present and experience directly of the phenomenon. The step starts from (1) watching the episode (2) holding the script and marking the theoretically relevant utterances at the time of watching, and (3) describing the context of the chosen utterances on the second viewing. After the data is collected, the data is analyzed through Pragmatic Identity Method (Sudaryanto, 1993) because context is important in analyzing the utterances. The technique appropriates the matching technique. The step starts from
(1) sorting the collected utterances and context altogether, (2) identifying the type of expressive act, and (3) criticizing and matching the findings with the theory.
The research collected 26 utterances of expressive acts from the characters in a special episode entitled Euphoria Part 1: Rue – Trouble Don’t Last Always. These utterances are specified by the types in the table below.
Table 1.
Expressive acts found in Euphoria Special Episode Part 1 - Rue
|
No |
Types of Expressive Acts |
Total |
|
1. |
Apologizing |
2 |
|
2. |
Thanking |
1 |
|
3. |
Congratulating |
1 |
|
4. |
Condoling |
4 |
|
5. |
Deploring |
5 |
|
6. |
Lamenting |
8 |
|
7. |
Welcoming |
2 |
|
8. |
Forgiving |
2 |
|
9. |
Boasting |
1 |
|
Total of Utterances |
26 |
Data 1
RUE : “It doesn't matter. It's stupid.”
ALI : “All right, I'm sorry. Come on. What were you gonna say? Say it.”
RUE : “Nah. I don't wanna—" (Levinson, 2020, 07:54)
Before this scene, Rue wanted to share her woe, but here she thought it was pointless and stupid. She was also afraid that Ali might report her which was shown in her hesitancy. Then, Ali recognized what he had just said made her hesitant. Later, he employed 'apologizing' act. This act was explicitly uttered with the use of “I'm sorry” that he had made Rue hesitant to talk.
Data 2
RUE : “He didn't die to teach us a lesson. Okay? He didn't die to, you know, have us all come together, or whatever the fuck people tell people when they don't have anything to say. He died because he died. That's it. Same stupid reason. I came out of the womb with a couple wires crossed. Right? Just fucking luck. You said it. That's it.”
ALI : “Listen, um... I don't know all the answers, and I'm not gonna pretend to.” (Levinson, 2020, 18:24)
In this scene, Rue as the speaker was triggered by Ali's logic that, without God, she was not going to be alive right now. Having recognized how angry she was, Ali as the hearer implicitly employed ‘apologizing’ act indicated in “I don’t know all the answer”. This utterance shows that Ali admitted his weak and quick conclusion that offended Rue. The other indication is “I’m not gonna pretend to” which convinced Rue for not doing that anymore.
Data 1
ALI : “I got faith in you.”
RUE : “Why?”
ALI : “I don’t know I just do. Granted, I was a Christian before I became a Muslim, so, I've been wrong before.”
RUE : “Thanks.” (Levinson, 2020, 51:46)
In this scene, Ali as the speaker convinced her that he had faith in her to support her to try to be clean. He also believed in her because he had been wrong before that he could not be clean. The support she got from Ali made Rue as the hearer employed ‘thanking’. This act was explicitly uttered with ‘thanks’ that functions socially when someone do a good service or help or support. In this context, Ali as the speaker gave a good support to Rue as the hearer.
Data 1
RUE : “Um... When I'm, uh, when I'm clean, you know, when I'm present, uh, like a part of this world, I don't just think about relapsing. It's, uh, it's darker than that. And, uh, you can say that sobriety is my, uh, greatest weapon, but... To tell you the truth, drugs are probably the only reason I haven't killed myself.”
ALI : “Oh. Now we're talkin', now you're being real, now you're being honest. Because this whole bullshit about being a functioning drug addict, about finding balance, that ain't true. That's a lie.” (Levinson, 2020, 08:06)
In this scene, Rue as the speaker eventually shared her struggle after her hesitancy that Ali might report her. She shared his struggle of drugs because it was her only reason to be alive. Then, Ali as the hearer employed 'congratulating' act. “Now you’re being real” means that he congratulated Rue for not pretending and being real with herself. Ali emphasized later with “Now you’re being honest” to congratulate Rue’s honesty talking her struggle. Besides, admitting and sharing the struggle of addiction is the most difficult decision to do for any addicts. Here, Ali had employed ‘congratulating’ which functioned to appraise her courage in and encourage her to express everything she hid.
Data 1
RUE : “Is that fucked up?”
ALI : “What? That you don't want to get clean? Yeah, yeah, of course, it's fucked up. Ah, I'm a piece of shit, huh? Yeah, yeah, yeah, you're a piece of shit. You're a piece of shit.” (Levinson, 2020, 11:10)
In this scene, Rue as a speaker had just told Ali that she did not want to get clean and asked whether it was wrong to think. Ali as the hearer answered bluntly and humorously by employing ‘condoling’ act in the utterance “Ah, I’m a piece of shit, huh?”. The utterance assumed himself as Rue who just realized that it was really messed up. “I’m” referred not to
219 himself, but Rue in mind. This positioning means he understood Rue well and, therefore, he sympathized with her. In other words, any utterance of sympathy belongs to ‘condoling’ act.
Data 2
RUE : “'Cause, I, I, I love talking to you. I do. And I agree with, um, almost everything you're saying. And I understand it. But, um... I just don't plan on being here that long.”
ALI : “I get it. We're living in dark times, huh? Not a lot of hope out there.” (Levinson, 2020, 47:13)
Before this scene, Rue as the speaker had shared her biggest struggle that she did not plan to live for long despite the support and the talk. Here, Rue emphasized that even she loved talking to him, the need to end was still there. Having heard this, Ali as the speaker employed ‘condoling’ act. This contained in the utterance “We’re living in dark times” meaning that Ali understood Rue. In other words, he sympathized with her struggle.
Data 3
RUE : “I don't know if I care about the big things in life.”
ALI : “Come on, now, of course you do because you obviously don't care about the small things, like being right, or being angry. All the things that kill curiosity and keeps us from... keeps us all from looking deeper. You said it earlier. I love talking to you. Because we talk about the real shit. Shit that matters.” (Levinson, 2020, 49:54)
In this scene, Rue as the speaker told Ali that she was hopeless. Aware of her hopelessness, Ali as the hearer employed ‘condoling’ act in the utterance of “Come on, now, of course you do”. This is indicated on the imperative utterance encouraging Rue and reminded her that she actually cared things in life. This encouragement and reminder show concern or sympathy which is the key of ‘condoling’ act.
Data 4
ALI : “How do you want your mom and sister to remember you?”
RUE : “As someone who tried really hard to be someone I couldn't.”
ALI : “I got faith in you.” (Levinson, 2020, 50:49)
In this scene, Ali as the hearer asked her who she was going to be for her family to remember. Rue answered that she wanted her family to know that she had tried to be someone she could not. Having heard this, Ali employed ‘condoling’ act contained in “I got faith in you”. Believing in her means that Ali had sympathized for the wellbeing of Rue.
Data 1
RUE : “So, you're saying the reason my dad died is because God didn't believe in him?”
ALI : “Rue, uh, that's not what I was saying—"
RUE : “There's nothing that makes me angrier than that fucking argument.” (Levinson, 2020, 17:13)
In this context, Rue as the hearer was offended by Ali’s logic and she confronted him. When confronting, Rue employed 'deploring' act through rhetorical question which Rue had already known based on Ali’s logic, a logic that someone died because God did not believe in them. Surely, this rhetorical question is ‘deploring’ act because it has a function to let Ali recognize the fault as indicated in his response.
Data 2
RUE : “Your life has a purpose, right? Well, why does your life have a purpose, and my dad's doesn't? Because I could argue that my dad's purpose was to raise me and my sister. To be there for my mom. That was his purpose, I think. But, you know. He's dead.”
ALI : “Listen—" (Levinson, 2020, 17:46)
Seconds before this scene, Ali as the speaker had said something offensive to Rue. He had concluded that people were not alive if God did not even believe in them. Here, Rue as the hearer confronted and challenged Ali’s logic that offended her. In her utterance, Rue employed 'deploring' act indicated by the rhetorical question addressed directly to Ali. The rhetorical question was understood as her means to confront Ali’s logic and her ends to let Ali recognize his logical fallacy.
Data 3
ALI : “Listen—"
RUE : “Ali, if you're, if you're about to tell me that he died for a reason, or you know, whatever, I will literally walk the fuck out.”
ALI : “I, I wasn't.” (Levinson, 2020, 18:13)
Previously, Rue as the hearer had confronted Ali about his logic that offended her; a logic that concluded her father died because God did not believe in him and he did not have a purpose in life. Ali tried to correct it. However, for the third time, she employed another ‘deploring’ act as an ultimatum indicated in conditional utterance warning if he insisted to tell the same thing. Ultimatum warned the hearer and this warn correspond to ‘deploring’ act.
Data 4
ALI : “I just had this feeling, and I thought, fuck you, Nike! You don't give a fuck about anything or anyone. Chinese Muslims are sewing these Kaepernick sneakers for seven cents an hour, and you're tellin' me my Black ass matters. Give me a fucking break.” (Levinson, 2020, 23:00)
In this particular scene, Ali as the speaker told Rue as the hearer his past story about buying Nike’s pair of shoes. It was expensive despite the advertisement showing support to black people as ploy marketing. In response to this, Ali employed ‘deploring’ act in his utterance indicated with “you don’t give a fuck” addressing to Nike for the injustices. Criticizing the injustices correspond to ‘deploring’ act.
Data 5
ALI : “But at the same time, your generation's full of some mark-ass bitches, because they've tapped into your phones. Yeah, yeah. They've read your likes. They've predicted your moves, and trapped yo' asses. You think you out here fighting a revolution, and Bank of America's on your side? Give me a fucking break.” (Levinson, 2020, 23:31)
Previously, Ali talked about how advertisers manipulated people as if they had support for the consumer. Here, Ali confronted to Rue’s generation with ‘deploring’ act. He criticized how Rue’s generation was so easy to be manipulated even though they fought for revolution. He deplored to the generation pointlessness to fight when, inside, they were manipulated.
f. Lamenting
Data 1
RUE : “Fuckin' Jules. The way I was, like, putting way too much of my emotional wellbeing in her hands, you know, without ever, like, talking about it, or, or saying it. I...” (Levinson, 2020, 05:02)
In this scene, Rue as the speaker was sharing what she felt to Ali. In her time of sharing, she employed ‘lamenting’ in the bold utterance. It was indicated by the frequent use of ‘I’ indicating it was reflective. Moreover, the utterance was understood as her regret for depending her well-being to Jules, who she once loved and who she was left. Lastly, the utterance was addressed to nobody, but herself because Jules was not there. These three indications correspond to the types of ‘lamenting’.
Data 2
RUE : “Especially the way I was fuckin'... making plans for the rest of our life and shit. And I just... And I look back and I'm just like, why the fuck did I do that? It's fuckin' crazy. And weird.” (Levinson, 2020, 05:13)
In this scene, Rue as the speaker was sharing her feeling to Ali as the hearer about how regretful she was to be with Jules, who had left her. Rue employed ‘lamenting’ act in the bold utterance indicated through the use of ‘I’ in interrogative form questioning to herself for expecting that to Jules.
Data 3
RUE : “Eh, I don't know. I guess I just, like, made her the point, but she's, like, not the point. I'm the point, you know?” (Levinson, 2020, 05:28)
In this scene, Rue as the speaker was talking about how foolish she was to be with Jules, who left her. Here, Rue employed ‘lamenting’ act in the bold utterance. The utterance was understood as Rue’s regret for making Jules the point in her life. Regretting her own defective act corresponds to the feature of ‘lamenting’ act.
Data 4
RUE : “You know, that's what, like, I, I don't understand about the world. 'Cause, like, there is tons of people who, you know, drink and do drugs, and sometimes their life is good. And sometimes, life's just bad, you know? It's fucking life. There's ups and downs to this shit, but, I mean, whether you believe me or not, I'm, like, I'm good.” (Levinson, 2020, 06:33)
In this scene, Rue as the speaker was high and she asserted that she did not understand how the world worked, and sometimes she had a good life and a bad life. Next, she uttered “It’s fucking life.” with a low sigh employing ‘lamenting’ act. This utterance was best understood as her own way to express her own misfortune, which indicates ‘lamenting’ act.
Data 5
RUE : “Like the whole thing at the train station. Her trying to get me to run away with her, even though I was, um, scared, and... didn't have my medication... Just kind of fucked up, and selfish. I didn't think she was actually gonna go. You know, like, leave me.” (Levinson, 2020, 36:00)
In this scene, Rue as the speaker was sharing her sorrow. Rue thought that Jules know that she loved her despite telling her. Rue had loved and trusted her, but Jules left her. This resulted Rue uttering her disbelief in “I didn’t think she was actually gonna go”. In this utterance, she had employed ‘lamenting’ act indicated in her disbelief “I didn’t think”.
Data 6
RUE : “I mean, there's nothing else to say, you know? Except that I loved her. I trusted her.
And when I look back at it, you know, just, it's like she lied to me. And, uh, manipulated me.” (Levinson, 2020, 35:46)
In this scene, Rue as the speaker was sharing how Jules betrayed her trust and love yet Rue never even told she loved Jules. That is to say, Rue’s unawareness was defective. Besides, one of the keys in determining ‘lamenting’ is it comes from one’s own defective act. Therefore, she had employed ‘lamenting’ act indicated in disbelief “it’s like she lied to me.”
Data 7
RUE : “And it just started, like, this avalanche of shit, about maybe I deserve it, maybe this is the universe's punishment for me being a piece of shit my entire life. Stealing from my mom, hitting her in the face, that's what I've done, Ali. I have, I have hit my mom in the face.” (Levinson, 2020, 37:27)
In this scene, Rue as the speaker was sharing her misfortunes that made her relapse. Recounting her defective act which was being the worst person to anyone, Rue employed ‘lamenting’ act. She employed it to expressed her grief for the defective act she had done. Expressing one’s own defective act in a sorrow indicates it as ‘lamenting’.
Data 8
RUE : “I picked up a piece of glass, and I pointed it at my mom and I threatened to kill her.
That is some unforgivable shit. Maybe I deserve to get my ass left at a train station at 1:00 a.m., you know? Drugs change who you are as a person. Every time I attacked my mom, I wasn't high.” (Levinson, 2020, 38:04)
In this scene, Rue as the speaker recounted what defective acts she had done; threatening her mother with a piece of glass. This resulted the bold utterance in which Rue had employed ‘lamenting’ act. This is indicated with “Maybe I deserve…” because her intention was to express her own regret for the defective act. This determines the utterance as ‘lamenting’.
Data 1
RUE : “Like, for real, if-- If I say some dark shit, you're not gonna report me to the state or something?”
ALI : “Uh, Rue, I'm not a guidance counselor. I'm just a crackhead who's trying to do a little good on this Earth before I die.”
RUE : “Uh, you're, you're a trip, man.”
ALI : “What were you gonna say?”
RUE : “Ah. It doesn't matter. It's stupid.” (Levinson, 2020, 07:46)
In this scene, Rue as the speaker wanted to ask Ali as the hearer but she was afraid that it would make him report her. Having recognized Rue’s worry, Ali uttered the bold utterance which employed ‘welcoming’ act. This is indicated in the form of question, but more of willingness to help. This willingness corresponds to ‘welcoming’ act.
Data 2
RUE : “It doesn't matter. It's stupid.”
ALI : “All right, I'm sorry. Come on. What were you gonna say? Say it.”
RUE : “Nah. I don't wanna—" (Levinson, 2020, 07:54)
In this scene, Rue as the speaker was hesitant to tell something that might scared him. Recognizing her hesitance, Ali as the hearer employed ‘welcoming’ act in the bold utterance. This is indicated through imperative utterance to let her talk. By letting her talk, Ali had shown his willingness to offer a service to listen. Offering to listen corresponds to ‘welcoming’ act.
Data 1
ALI : “Oh, hey, hey! Aah. I didn't know you were gonna pick up. I-I thought I was gonna get your voicemail. Uh... heh. Nah, nah, I'm not... Not trying to guilt trip you. It's just... It's Christmas. Merry Christmas.” (Levinson, 2020, 27:35)
In this context, Ali as the speaker answered his call from his ex-wife as the hearer. He was surprised that she called him back after his voicemail. Despite the voice of the ex-wife was unheard in the episode, Ali had employed ‘forgiving’ act in the bold utterance. This is indicated from the collocation of the bold utterance and the previous utterances, which shows that the exwife had just apologized for not answering the call sooner. This explains how the bold utterance saying he was fine and he dismissed the matter seriously.
Data 2
ALI : “I'm doing good. I'm... I just came from my meeting. Now I'm standing in the parking lot. Ha. … Nah, nah, nah, I'm just getting pancakes with a kid I sponsor.” (Levinson, 2020, 28:58)
In this scene, Ali as the speaker was being called by his ex-wife as the hearer outside the parking lot. Ali employed ‘welcoming’ act in his utterance above. Even though the ex-wife’s voice was unheard, this could be inferred from the bold utterance and the previous utterances that his ex-wife apologized that might had interrupted him. The utterance indicated with repeated “nah, nah, nah, …” to dismiss her concern. In other words, dismissing the matter correspond to ‘welcoming’ act.
Data 1
ALI : “How long you been clean?”
WAITER : “Seventeen years, by the grace of God, seventeen years. Never thought I'd be
able to say that. But I say it with a lot of pride. Seventeen years.” (Levinson, 2020, 31:32)
In this particular scene, Ali as the speaker wanted to convince Rue that being clean from drugs is possible, which she did not believe earlier. Ali asked the waiter as the hearer whom he knew in the diner. She answered him by employing 'boasting' act indicated in her repeated “seventeen years” mediated with gratitude “by the grace of god” expressing her achievement to be clean for seventeen years which was long.
4. Conclusion
Expressive acts arouse people’s concern. As has been discussed, there are ways in which expressive acts could be performed. According to Norrick, there are apologizing, thanking, congratulating, condoling, deploring, lamenting, welcoming, forgiving, and boasting. These occurred in everyday life and media such as tv series. In this research, the hypothesis was tested on a special episode entitled Euphoria Part 1: Rue – Trouble Don’t Last Always. The research found 26 utterances identified with nine expressive acts. There are (2) apologizing, (1) thanking, (1) congratulating, (4) condoling, (5) deploring, (8) lamenting, (2) welcoming, (2) forgiving, and
(1) boasting. In this data source, Lamenting becomes the most frequent of all the utterances because the entire episode displayed Rue sharing her feeling and Ali helped her went through it. Another finding worthily be noticed is many of these types were expressed implicitly and could only be determined through the social function and features of each type according to the theory. This means that these utterances, if failed in reading the situation, could be perceived nothing but a mere statement. In this case, Rue as the speaker who struggled with addiction would feel ignored if Ali failed to grasp her intention as lamenting. Therefore, the findings help providing instances of particular phenomenon and the indication.
References
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford University Press.
Birner, B. J. (2013). Introduction to Pragmatics. Blackwell Publishing.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc.
Fauzia, & Tressyalina. (2019). Expressive speech actions in the novel Ayahku Bukan Pembohong and Dia adalah Kakakku by Tere Liye. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Language, Literature and Education, ICLLE 2019, 22-23 August, Padang, West Sumatra, Indonesia. https://doi.org/10.4108/eai.19-7-2019.2289495
Levinson, S. (2020). Euphoria Special Episode Part 1: Rue - Trouble Don’t Last Always. HBO Studio;A24 Television; Dreamcrew; Little Lamb; Tedy Productions; The Reasonable Bunch.
Mey, J. L. (1993). Pragmatics: An introduction (1st Ed.). Blackwell Publishing.
Nasution, M. A. S., Lubis, S., & Mono, U. (2019). Illocutionary act in ABC new interview with Meghan Markle and Prince Harry: A pragmatic study. Journal of Language, Literature, and Teaching, 1(2), 7–21. https://doi.org/10.35529/jllte.v1i2.7-21
Norrick, N. R. (1978). Expressive illocutionary acts. Journal of Pragmatics, 2(3), 277–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(78)90005-x
Nuraini, F. I., Santoso, D., Rahmi, N. S., & Kaptania, R. O. (2020). Expressive speech acts in Lakon Politik Republik episode of Mata Najwa talkshow. Leksema: Jurnal Bahasa Dan Sastra, 5(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.22515/ljbs.v5i1.1853
Royanti, R. (2019). Expressive speech act as found on La La Land movie. Inovish Journal, 4(2), 131–140. https://doi.org/10.35314/inovish.v4i2.1162
Searle, J. R. (1976). A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society, 5(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500006837
Searle, J. R. (2005). Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge University Press.
Sembiring, W. A., & Ambalegin, A. (2019). Illocutionary acts on Aladdin movie 2019. Journal Basis, 6(2), 277–284. https://doi.org/10.33884/basisupb.v6i2.1419
Setiani, A., & Utami, D. P. (2018). An analysis of illocutionary act in “How to Train Your Dragon 2” movie. PROJECT: Professional Journal of English Education, 1(3), 225–234. https://doi.org/10.22460/project.v1i3.p225-234
Sudaryanto. (1993). Metode dan aneka teknik bahasa. Duta Wacana University Press.
Tamam, B., Setiawan, S., & Anam, S. (2020). The expressive speech act used by Anies Rasyid Baswedan and Recep Tayyip Erdogan as the reaction of the attacks in Christchurch New Zealand. Prasasti: Journal of Linguistics, 5(1), 16–29.
https://doi.org/10.20961/prasasti.v5i1.39424
Wijayanti, A. A. R. P., & Widiastuti, N. M. A. (2021). Direct and indirect expressive
225 illocutionary acts in the movie Onward. E-Journal of Linguistics, 15(2), 279–286. https://doi.org/10.24843/e-jl.2021.v15.i02.p14
Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Biography of Authors
Hotman Nasution is currently an undergraduate seventh-semester student and soon to be graduated from university. He took English Literature at Putera Batam University as he interested in learning linguistics and literary criticism.
Email: [email protected]
Ambalegin, S. Pd., M. Pd. is an active lecturer at Putera Batam University. He also contributes frequently in conducting research. His interest of research ranges from Pragmatics, Phonetics, Morphosyntax, Sociolinguistics, Applied Linguistics, Language Maintenance and English Language Teaching. He earned his Bachelor degree of English Language Education in Universitas Negeri Medan and his Master degree of English Language Education in UST Yogyakarta. His research publications are available at:
Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.co.id/citations?user=Nbfj2Z4AAAAJ&hl=id Email: [email protected]
Discussion and feedback