A Pragmatic Analysis of Pragmatics of SP PDF

Arab World English Journal (November 2018) Theses ID 217 Pp.
1-50
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.24093/awej/th.217
A Pragmatic Analysis of Pragmatics of Speech Acts in English Language Classrooms at

Imam Mohammed Ibn Saud Islamic University
Reef Bijad Alharbi

Department of English, College of Science and Humanitarian Studies
Majmaah University, Saudi Arabia
Author: Reef Bijad Alharbi

Thesis Title: A Pragmatic Analysis of Pragmatics of Speech Acts in English Language Classrooms
at Imam Mohammed Ibn Saud Islamic University
Subject/major: Linguistics
Institution: College of Languages and Translation, Al-Imam Muhammad Ibn Saud Islamic
University, KSA
Degree: MA
Year of award: 2017
Supervisor: Dr. Awad Alshehri
Keywords: English language, Pragmatics, speech acts, teachers
Abstract
This research is a pragmatic study aimed at identifying speech acts performed by Saudi English
language teachers based on Searle's (1979) model of classifying speech acts focusing on the
employment of illocutionary acts. The research applied a mixed research method to analyze both
quantitative and qualitative data. The subjects of this study were five Saudi teachers who were
giving classes to Level one and two students. The researcher played the role of a participant
observer as the main first instrument. The second instrument was a digital recorder, and the
secondary instruments were observation card and data sheet. The data were transcribed into
written form, selected to fit the objectives of the study, recorded on the data sheet to complement
the observation cards, and finally analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively using the interactive
qualitative method proposed by Miles and Huberman (1994). The research findings show that
four kinds of speech acts were performed by the teacher: (a) representatives, (b) directives, (c)
expressive, and (d) commissives. The most frequent speech acts used by all participants were
directives with 426 instances. Representatives appeared in 213 utterances and occupied a second
place among the other types. Expressives were used 84 times and therefore occupied third place.
Commissives were revealed in only three instances. Throughout the analysis of the data, no
Arab World English Journal www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229-9327
instances of declarations were produced by any of participants. Therefore, the study found that
Saudi teachers use speech acts during English language skills classes, and they employ four
illocutionary acts out of the five types.
Cite as: Alharbi, R. B. (2017). A Pragmatic Analysis of Pragmatics of Speech Acts in English
Language Classrooms at Imam Mohammed Ibn Saud Islamic University. College of Languages and
Translation, Al-Imam Muhammad Ibn Saud Islamic University, KSA (Master Thesis). Retrieved
from Arab World English Journal (ID Number: 217. November 2018, 1-50.
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.24093/awej/th.217
Arab World English Journal www.awej.org

ISSN: 2229-9327
A PRAGMATIC ANALYSIS OF SPEECH ACTS IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE CLASSROOMS
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
Ministry of Education
Al-Imam Mohammed Ibn Saud Islamic University,
Faculty of Languages and Translation
Department of English Language and Literature
A Pragmatic Analysis of Speech Acts in English Language Classrooms at Imam Mohammed Ibn Saud
Islamic University
By
Reef Bijad Alharbi
Term 2
1437-1438 H
Submitted to Department of English Language and Literature at College of
Languages and Translation in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the
Degree of Master of Arts in Linguistics
Advisor
Dr. Awad Alshehri

A PRAGMATIC ANALYSIS OF SPEECH ACTS IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE CLASSROOMS i
This thesis entitled:
A Pragmatic Analysis of Speech Acts in English Language Classrooms at Al-Imam
Mohammed Ibn Saud Islamic University
Written by Reef Alharbi
has been approved by Department of English Language and Literature
Dr. Awad Alshehri (Supervisor)
Dr. Mohamad Hamdan (Examiner)
Dr. Ahmed Bereir (Examiner)
May 2017
The final copy of this thesis has been examined by the signatory, and we find that both the
content and the form meet acceptable presentation standards of scholarly work in the
above mentioned discipline.

A PRAGMATIC ANALYSIS OF SPEECH ACTS IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE CLASSROOMS ii
A PRAGMATIC ANALYSIS OF SPEECH ACTS IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE CLASSROOMS iii
Abstract
This research is a pragmatic study aimed at identifying speech acts performed by Saudi
English language teachers based on Searle's (1979) model of classifying speech acts
focusing on the employment of illocutionary acts. The research applied a mixed
research method to analyze both quantitative and qualitative data. The subjects of this
study were five Saudi teachers who were giving classes to Level one and two students.
The researcher played the role of a participant observer as the main first instrument.
The second instrument was a digital recorder, and the secondary instruments were
observation card and data sheet. The data were transcribed into written form, selected
to fit the objectives of the study, recorded on the data sheet to complement the
observation cards, and finally analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively using the
interactive qualitative method proposed by Miles and Huberman (1994). The research
findings show that four kinds of speech acts were performed by the teacher: (a)
representatives, (b) directives, (c) expressives, and (d) commissives. The most frequent
speech acts used by all participants were directives with 426 instances. Representatives
appeared in 213 utterances and occupied a second place among the other types.
Expressives were used 84 times and therefore occupied third place. Commissives were
revealed in only three instances. Throughout the analysis of the data, no instances of
declarations were produced by any of participants. Therefore, the study found that
Saudi teachers use speech acts during English language skills classes, and they employ
four illocutionary acts out of the five types.
Keywords: Pragmatics, speech acts, English language, teachers.

‫‪A PRAGMATIC ANALYSIS OF SPEECH ACTS IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE CLASSROOMS‬‬ ‫‪iv‬‬
‫تحليل تداولي ألفعال الكالم داخل فصول اللغة اإلنجليزية في جامعة اإلمام محمد بن سعود اإلسالمية‬
‫ملخص الدراسة‬
‫هدفت هذه الدراسة التداولية الى التعرف على أفعال الكالم التي تستخدمها معلمات اللغة اإلنجليزية السعوديات بناء‬
‫على نموذج العالم سيرل المستحدث عام (‪ )۱۹٧۹‬لتصنيف أفعال الكالم‪ ،‬بالتركيز على توظيف أفعال قوة التلفظ‪.‬‬
‫وقد اتبعت الباحثة المنهج المختلط لتحليل البيانات الكيفية والكمية‪ .‬اشتمل البحث على عينة تتكون من خمس معلمات‬
‫سعوديات يقمن بتدريس مهارات اللغة اإلنجليزية لطالبات المستويين األول والثاني‪ ،‬وقد قامت الباحثة بتأدية دور‬
‫مالحظ مشارك كأداة أساسية اولى في هذا البحث‪ ،‬باإلضافة الى االستعانة بأداتين ثانويتين اال وهما بطاقة مالحظة‬
‫واستمارة بيانات‪ .‬عالوة على ذلك‪ ،‬استخدمت الباحثة المسجل الصوتي كأداة ثانية للبحث‪ ،‬بعدها فرغت البيانات‬
‫في صيغ كتابية اختارتها الباحثة بما يتناسب مع أهداف البحث ثم سجلت البيانات المستخرجة في استمارة البيانات‬
‫بعد ذلك قامت بإكمال الناقص من بطاقة المالحظة‪ .‬هذا وحللت الباحثة البيانات المستخلصة من كال االداتين‬
‫الثانويتين وفقا للطريقة التفاعلية للبحوث الكيفية والتي اقترحها مايلز وهابرمان الصادرة عام (‪ )۱۹۹٤‬وفي النهاية‬
‫حللت البيانات إحصائيا‪ .‬أظهرت نتائج البحث أن المعلمات يستخدمن أربعة أنواع من أفعال الكالم‪ ،‬وهي كالتالي‪:‬‬
‫(أ) أفعال تمثيلية و(ب) توجيهية و(ج) تعبيرية و(د) التزاميه‪ .‬يجدر باإلشارة الى أن األفعال التوجيهية هي أكثر‬
‫األنواع استخداما حيث ظهرت ‪ ٤۲٦‬مرة‪ .‬تأتي األفعال التمثيلية بالمركز الثاني بما يعادل ‪ ۲۱۳‬مرة‪ ،‬وسجلت‬
‫النتائج األفعال التعبيرية المركز الثالث حيث ظهرت ‪ ۸٤‬مرة‪ ،‬واحتلت األفعال اإللتزامية المركز الرابع حيث‬
‫ظهرت ‪ ۳‬مرات‪ .‬لم تظهر اية اثار الستخدام المشاركات ألفعال إعالنية خالل تحليل البيانات‪ .‬بناء على هذ النتائج؛‬
‫تستخدم المعلمات السعوديات أفعال الكالم داخل فصول مهارات اللغة اإلنجليزية حيث أنهن قمن باستخدام أربعة‬
‫أنواع من أفعال قوة التلفظ الخمسة‪.‬‬

A PRAGMATIC ANALYSIS OF SPEECH ACTS IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE CLASSROOMS v
Acknowledgements
First and foremost, praise and thanks are due to Almighty Allah, the source of
mercy, grace, and inspiration, who blessed me with knowledge, power, and thoughts.
My deepest debt and appreciation to my parents, my sisters, and my brothers,
especially Mohammed, for their continuous prayers and encouragement.
Sincerest gratitude and deepest appreciation go to my advisor Dr. Awad
Alshehri, who has a great influence on me. His enlightening comments and valuable
suggestions enabled me to develop and formulate my idea for the research topic and
have helped to bring this thesis about. Moreover, special thanks to Dr. Mohammad
Hamdan, and Dr. Ahmed Bereir for participating in my examination committee.
Special thanks to my friends, and particular to Aljowharah and Nuha, for their
constant encouragement and emotional support all the way through this journey.
A PRAGMATIC ANALYSIS OF SPEECH ACTS IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE CLASSROOMS vi
Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction …………………………………………………….. 1
1.1 Statement of the Problem ………..…………………………..….... 2
1.2 Purpose of the Study …………………………………………… 3
1.3 Research Questions …………………………………………....... 3
1.4 Research Hypotheses ……………………………..……….…… 3
1.5 Significance of the Study ……………………………….……......... 3
1.6 Limitations of the Study ………………………………...…....……. 3
1.7 Definition of Terms ………………………………………………… 4
1.8 Summery …………………………………………………….….……. 4
Chapter 2: Literature Review.…………………………………….……..……..….. 5
Introduction ………………..………..…..………………………….…...... 5
2.1 Theoretical Framework ………..…..………………………….…...... 5
2.1.1 Communicative competence………………………………..… 5
2.1.2 Pragmatic competence ……………………………………...... 7
2.2 Main Aspects of Pragmatics ………………………..……….………. 9
2.2.1 Speech act theory…………..………………………………..… 9
2.2.1.1 The classification of speech act……………………..... 10
2.2.1.2 Direct and indirect speech acts……………………..... 11
2.2.2 Grace’s cooperative principles…….………………………..… 12
2.2.3 The significance of using speech acts inside classes. …………. 13
2.3 Critical Review of Related Studies………………..…………..………………. 14
2.4 Summery..……………………...………………..…………..………………. 17
Chapter 3: Research Method and Procedure …………………..……………... 19

A PRAGMATIC ANALYSIS OF SPEECH ACTS IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE CLASSROOMS vii
Introduction …………………………..…………..…………………. 19
3.1 The Research Design ………………..…………..…………………. 19
3.2 Participants………………………..………………………………… 20
3.3 Instruments………………………..………………………………… 21
3.3.1 Participant observer……………...…………………………… 21
3.3.2 Audio recording ….……………...…………………………… 23
3.4 Procedure .………………………..………………………………… 23
3.4.1 Data collection …………………...………………………… 24
3.4.2 Data analysis....…………………...………………………… 24
3.4.3 Post-data collection procedure....…………………………… 24
3.5 Data Trustworthiness ……………..……………………………… 26
3.6 Summery ………………………..……………………………… 27
Chapter 4: Data Findings, Descriptions, and Analysis……..……………………… 29
Introduction …………………………..……………………………… 29
4.1 Findings …………………………..……………………………… 29
4.2 Thematic Description of the Data ……………...………………… 32
4.2.1 Representatives .………………...……………………………. 33
4.2.2 Directives .……….……………...……………………………. 35
4.2.3 Expressives .……….……………...……………………….…. 36
4.2.4 Commisives .……….…………...……………………………. 38
4.2.5 Summery .……….……………...…………………………….. 39
Chapter 5: Discussion, Conclusions, and Recommendation ………………….. 41
Introduction…………………………………...…...………………………. 41
5.1 Discussion ……………………………………...…………………… 41
5.2 Conclusions ……………………………………...……………..…… 43

A PRAGMATIC ANALYSIS OF SPEECH ACTS IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE CLASSROOMS viii
5.3 Recommendations…………...………………………..………………43
5.3 Summery…………...…………..……………………..………………44
References ………………………………………………………………………..... 45
Appendices ……………………………………………………………………….… I
Appendix A: Formal Letters …..………………………………………………..… I
A1 Formal Request Letter to Conduct a Research…..…...…………....... II
A2 Consent of Participants …….……………………….……………… IV
Appendix B Transcripts………..……………………………………………………IX
Appendix C The Findings of the Data Sheets ………………………...……..……..X

A PRAGMATIC ANALYSIS OF SPEECH ACTS IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE CLASSROOMS ix
List of Tables
Table 3.1: Searle’s (1979) Classification of Speech Acts……………..……… 20
Table 3.2: The Observation Card of the Types of Speech Acts ………….…….. 22
Table 3.3: The Data Sheet of the Types of Speech Acts Performed by the
Teacher ……………………………………………………………………….... 24
Table 3.4: The Statistical Result of Cohen Kappa Inter-rater Agreement……... 25
Table 4.1: Analysis of Responses………………………………………………. 29

A PRAGMATIC ANALYSIS OF SPEECH ACTS IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE CLASSROOMS 1
Chapter 1
Introduction
The most interesting human behavior deals with language. Language, being culturally
determined, affects the way people think and feel. Language, therefore, is the most important
tool of communication in every society, since it is considered a tool to convey thoughts,
ideas, concepts, or feelings (Yule, 1996).
According to Nurhidayah (2015), in order to understand the nature of a language,
people have to be aware of how it should be used in communication. Thus, language should
be viewed as a process versus only a product in the form of utterances. This phenomenon is
studied under the branch of linguistics called pragmatics. The term “pragmatics” was first
coined by the philosopher Morris who described pragmatics as the study of the relationship
between signs and its interpreters.
When people communicate through language, they do not only make a set of
grammatically correct sentences. Rather, these sentences or phrases can convey more
meaning than is superficially expressed; and the utterances people perform are sometimes
different from the meanings they intend. Therefore, there are always hidden motivations,
intentions, or purpose in one’s utterances. This is generally known in language as “speech
acts”: actions performed via language (Yule, 1996).
The theory of speech acts is the grounded theory by the British philosopher of
language J. L. John Austin (1962). This theory was further elaborated by John Searle who
proposed that language is used to carry out actions (1969). Since then, the speech act theory
has become influential within not only philosophy, but also in linguistics, psychology,
literary theory, and many other scholarly disciplines (Zhao & Throssell, 2011).
According to Milleret (2007), in order to achieve effective communication, speech
acts must be used, as they allow people to perform a wide range of functions such as
commanding, requesting, apologizing, thanking, suggesting, insisting, advising, and
expressing. The phenomenon of speech acts occurs anywhere and everywhere, including in
the classroom setting.
The process of teaching and learning includes many interactions where there are a
number of produced utterances, especially during language classes. This is widely known as
“classroom speech acts.” The use of speech acts determines how the teaching and learning
process will occur. It has been emphasized that the language used by the teacher (speech acts)
is particularly important since it supports and enhances learning. In fact, the use of
appropriate speech acts will lead to successful teaching and learning processes and vice versa.
1.1 Statement of the Problem
The use of language can determine the success of the teaching and learning processes.
Misunderstandings or misinterpretations may occur during communication (especially in
instructional settings). Such confusion occurs due to the learners' difficulties in understanding
the speaker’s meaning (Zhao & Throssell, 2011).
The problem lies within the speech act phenomenon itself. In Saudi Arabia, where
English is considered a foreign language, a teacher may employ numerous utterances during
an English class. Such utterances carry the teacher’s varied intentions and acts. However,
sometimes the teacher may not utter what she really means. She may use various kinds of
speech acts to express her intentions depending on the situation. Thus, she may perform
speech acts explicitly or implicitly. Furthermore, she may use a different structure to
accomplish the same functions or vice versa. This may result in misunderstanding, which
leads to a breakdown in communication. Therefore, this study is expected to enrich teachers’
knowledge about the theory of illocutionary acts as well as its implementation as a part of
communicative competence in the English as a Foreign Language Teaching-Learning (TEFL)
context.
1.2 Purpose of the Study
The context of the problem motivated the researcher to conduct an exploratory study
in order to determine whether teachers are employing locutionary and illocutionary speech
acts during English language skills classes in Saudi Arabia. In addition, this study aims to
identify the types of speech acts utilized by the teachers.
1.3 Research Questions:
The main question of the research is “Do teachers use speech acts inside English Skills
classes?” This led to the secondary question, “What types of Searle’s speech acts regarding
illocutionary acts and illocutionary forces are performed by the teacher?”
1.4 Research Hypotheses
The researcher set the following hypotheses:
1. The teachers’ use of speech acts is inadequate.
2. Locutionary and illocutionary acts are not performed satisfactorily by the teachers.
1.5 Significance of the Study
Practically, the results of this study are likely to influence the educational setting
regarding the use of speech acts. This study can serve as a reflection tool on how speech acts
should be performed in the teaching and learning process. Thus, English teachers can
evaluate their teaching in the future regarding the use of speech acts. In addition, the study is
also expected to give an additional reference to other researchers in pragmatics who are
interested in analyzing speech acts.
1.6 Limitations of the Study
Due to the nature of the research method, the researcher encountered many
limitations. First, the sample size was too small since three participants withdrew one day
after the researcher received their consent. Moreover, this study included the female section
only, in Saudi Arabia, males and females are separated in educational settings due to religious
reasons. Including the male section may have yielded different results. Timing also was one
of the limitations. If the researcher had attended more classes, the results might have been
different. Consequently, the results of this study cannot be generalized.
1.7 Definition of Terms
Illocutionary Speech Acts: the function or intention behind the utterance (Yule,1996, p.48) .
Locutionary Speech Acts: the basic act of utterance or producing a meaningful linguistic
expression (Yule,1996, p.48-49).
1.8 Summery
This study aimed at identifying speech acts performed by Saudi English language
teaches, focusing on the employment of illocutionary acts. The participants were five Saudi
teachers giving classes to level one and two. Regardless of the limitations of this study, the
results of this study are likely to influence the educational setting regarding the use of speech
acts. Therefore, serve as a reflection tool on how speech acts should be performed in the
teaching and learning process. In addition, this study is expected to enrich teachers’
knowledge about the theory of illocutionary acts as well as its implementation as a part of
communicative competence in the English as a Foreign Language Teaching-Learning (TEFL)
context.
Chapter 2
Literature Review
Introduction
This chapter presents the theoretical and conceptual framework of what falls under
pragmatic theory and which are of interest to speech acts. In addition, it provides a critical
review of previous related studies, which sheds light on the similarity and differences
between these studies and the current research.
2.1 Theoretical Framework
This study is theoretically grounded in the area of pragmatics.
2.1.1 Communicative competence. Hymes (1972) was the first to introduce the
notion of communicative competence, which has gained remarkable popularity among
linguists and foreign language teaching specialists (Cazden, 2011, p. 364). The development
of the theory of communicative competence occurred in reaction to Noam Chomsky's notion
of “linguistic competence” (1965). Chomsky claimed that:
linguistic theory is concerned with an ideal speaker-listener
in a completely homogeneous speech community, who knows its
language perfectly and is unaffected by such grammatically
irrelevant conditions as memory limitations, distractions,
shifts of attention and interest, and errors (random or
characteristic) in applying his knowledge of the language in
actual performance. (1965, p. 3)
According to Chomsky (1965), the grammar of various speakers in the same
community may differ, yet there is an ideal grammar for any given language. This ideal
grammar represents the linguistic competence of an ideal speaker.

Hymes (1972) called Chomsky's basic assumptions about language into question. The
development of the communicative competence theory came out as proof of Chomsky's
failure to approach problems of communication, as he ignored the most important element of
linguistic ability, which is producing and comprehending utterances in accordance with
context (Hymes, 1972). Hymes believed that language use involves knowledge of which
linguistic competence is only one part of the goal of linguistics (Dlekan, 1990).
Communicative competence, as Hymes (1972) indicated, is a wide term including not
only linguistic knowledge but also knowledge of a set of sociolinguistic codes and the rules
for using them. Communicative competence is “the most general term for the speaking and
hearing capabilities of a person - competence is understood to be dependent on two things:
(tacit) knowledge and (ability for) use" (Hymes, 1972, p. 282). Moreover, the actual theory of
communicative competence, as Hymes suggested, involves four types of knowledge (and
abilities):
1. Whether (and to what degree) something is formally possible.
2. Whether (and to what degree) something is feasible in virtue
of the means of implementation available.
3.Whether (and to what degree) something is appropriate
(adequate, happy, successful) in relation to a context in
which it is used and evaluated.
4.Whether (and to what degree) something is in fact done,
actually performed, and what its doing entails. (Hymes, 1972,
pp. 284-286)
Bouton (1996) pinpointed that the development of communicative competence should
be the goal of language teaching. Most importantly, he mentioned three guidelines that
researchers can follow in order to further contribute to the theory of communicative
competence: (a) the refinement of the study of speech acts as they appear in different
cultures; (b) an investigation to specify the scope to which explicit instruction can make the
rate grow at which non-native speakers develop different aspects of their pragmatic
competence, and (c) the contribution of pragmatics to the presentation of different functions
of a language in textbooks designed for second language learners (Bouton, 1996). In
addition, Eslami, Eslami, and Fatahi (2004) claimed that helping students make the process of
pragmatic decision making explicit will help in successful communication and appropriate
use of the second language and hopefully promote cross-cultural understanding and
appreciation.
2.1.2 Pragmatic competence. Bachman (1990) believed that, although pragmatic
competence has been characterized as one of the indispensable components of
communicative competence, there is no agreed upon definition. Nevertheless, it can be said
that pragmatics is a subfield of linguistics defined as:
The study of language from the point of view of users,
especially of the choices they make, the constraints they
encounter in using language in social interaction and the
effects their use of language has on other participants in the
act of communication. (Crystal, 2008, p. 379)
Yule (1996) indicated that pragmatics is concerned with "The study of meaning
communicated by a speaker (or writer) and interpreted by a listener (or a reader)" (p. 3).
Pragmatics, then, deals with the interpretation of utterances in specific contexts. Additionally,
Yule elaborated the importance of recognizing the intended inferences made by the speaker,
and he considered this as a part of what is communicated.
According to Bachman (1990), pragmatic competence "is concerned with the
relationship between utterances and the acts or functions that speakers (or writers) intend to
perform through these utterances, which can be called Illocutionary Force of utterances, and
the characteristics of the context of language use that determine the appropriateness of
utterances."(p.89) Moreover, it explains both of the relationships between signs and referents
and between the language users and the context of communication. Furthermore, it includes
"the knowledge of the pragmatic conventions to perform acceptable language functions as
well as the knowledge of the sociolinguistic conventions to perform language functions
appropriately in a given context" (Bachman, 1990, pp. 89-90). Bachman's model of pragmatic
competence distinguished it as a necessity not only subordinated to the knowledge of
grammar and text organization, but also coordinated to formal linguistic and textual
knowledge and interrelated with organizational competence, which consists of morphology,
syntax, vocabulary, cohesion, and organization in complex ways. In order to communicate
successfully in a target language, pragmatic competence in L2 must be reasonably well
developed (Kasper, 1997).
Furthermore, it is very interesting to observe how pragmatic routines are teachable to
beginning foreign language learners. This is very important in terms of curriculum and
syllabus design; because it eliminates the belief that pragmatics can only be taught after
students have developed a solid foundation in L2 grammar and vocabulary. Research about
uninstructed first and second language acquisition has indicated that most language
development is function-driven (Nurhidayah 2015). Thus, when people understand and
express messages, they propel the learning of linguistic form. However, in uninstructed
acquisition, pragmatic routines can be learned at the beginning by students who cannot yet
analyze them, but which help them deal with regular, standardized communicative events
from the beginning of their language study (Kasper, 1997).
In addition, it has been indicated that a huge number of benefits result from learning
pragmatics. From the perspective of learning English to apply it to communication in real
life, the most important benefit is that learners can understand the meanings of language from
a broader intercultural perspective. In fact, no one can deny the contribution of pragmatics to
language. Primarily, pragmatics is a study of language and language teaching from a
functional perspective. For this reason, pragmatics is a theory of linguistic performance
(Fératha, 2014).
2.2 Main Aspects of Pragmatics
2.2.1 Speech act theory. The speech act theory is one of the main subfields under
pragmatics. The theory of speech acts is the grounded theory by the British philosopher of
language J. L. Austin who explained the meaning and the nature of speech act as, “In saying
something we are doing something" (Austin, 1962, p. 12). Thus, speech acts are defined as
acts that are performed by utterances such as giving orders, making promises, complaining,
refusing, etc. Accordingly, this phenomenon was based on Austin's development of
performative utterances and his theory of locutionary, illocutionary, and perlocutionary acts
(Ilić & Radulović, 2015).
Later on, Austin (1962) made a distinction between constative statements judged on
the grounds of truth-conditionality and performatives, which require a frame of reference
other than truth-conditionality. "Although this dichotomy is later deserted, it was the reason
to come up with a type of verifiability suitable for performative utterances, which was later
modified by Searle in 1969" (Ilić & Radulović, 2015, p. 23).
Searle (1979) built on Austin's theory of speech acts through the reformulation of the
rules that need to be satisfied so that a performative utterance can be felicitous. Searle
proposed very crucial reformulations of Austin’s classification of illocutionary acts. First,
Searle’s taxonomy did not confuse illocutionary acts with illocutionary verbs, like Austin’s,
"which is one of the most common mistakes in speech act theory" (Searle, 1979, p. ix). At the
same time, he believed that not all illocutionary verbs are performative verbs. In order to
clarify this, Searle made a distinction between the illocutionary force of an utterance and its
propositional content, symbolized as F(p). His classification is about different types of F in

general, not about different types of verbs that carry a specific illocutionary force. Moreover,
Searle established the basic principles for distinguishing illocutionary acts (unlike Austin,
who only gives lists of illocutionary verbs), (Searle ,1979).
These principles included three major differences in the point (or purpose) of the
(type of) act (illocutionary point). The point of an order is to make the hearer do something,
and the point of a description is to represent something. This is a difference corresponding to
the essential conditions. The second difference involves differences in the direction of fit
between words and the world. This criterion is a consequence of the illocutionary point. The
third difference covers differences in expressed psychological states. This criterion is the
sincerity condition of the speech act. For example, when someone states something, s/he
expresses a belief that something is the case. When someone promises something, s/he
expresses an intention to do something. Finally, when someone issues an order, s/he
expresses a desire that the hearer should do something. This is the sincerity condition of the
act (Ilić & Radulović, 2015, p.26).
2.2.1.1 The classification of speech acts. Based on the notion that people do not use
language just to say things but to do things, and on the understanding that that is what is
meant by speech acts, Yule (1996) indicated that Austin proposed three dimensions that are
usually involved in speech acts:
[the] locutionary act which is the basic act of utterance or
producing a meaningful linguistic expression, then [the]
illocutionary act which counts for the function or intention
behind the utterance, it is performed via the communicative
force of an utterance which is generally known as
illocutionary force. Finally, [the] perlocutionary act which
is the effect of the intended utterance. (p.48-49)

Eventually, Austin developed his own classification of five types of speech acts. They are: (a)
verdictives, (b) exercitives, (c) commissives, (d) expositives, and (e) behabitives (Austin,
1962).
Searle claimed that Austin’s taxonomy did not provide a clear distinction between
illocutionary verbs and acts (Nurhidayah, 2015). Subsequently, Searle established his own
classification of speech acts, which also includes five types (Nurhidayah, 2015). The first
type of speech acts in Searle’s classification is assertives, where the illocutionary point is to
commit the speaker to something's being the case or to the truth of the proposition. The
direction of fit is words-to-the-world, and the psychological state expressed is belief. The
second classification is directives, where the illocutionary point is to get the hearer to do
something. The direction of fit is world-to-words, and the psychological state (sincerity
condition) expressed is desire that the hearer should do something. The third type is
commissives, where the illocutionary point is to commit the speaker to a future course of
action or to commit ourselves to doing something. The direction of fit is world-to-word and
the psychological state expressed is intention. The fourth classification is expressives, where
the illocutionary point is to express the psychological state specified in the sincerity condition
about something expressed in the propositional content. There is no direction of fit (the
existence of fit is presupposed). The last type of speech acts according to Searle is
declarations, where the successful performance of these acts leads to the correspondence
between the propositional content and reality. The direction of fit is both words-to-the-world
and world-to-words. There is no sincerity condition (Ilić & Radulović, 2015).
2.2.1.2 Direct and indirect speech acts. Yule (1996) highlighted the different types of
speech acts that can be distinguished from structure. In English, there are three basic types of
structures: statements, questions, and commands (Yule, 1996). Each one has its own
communicative function: declarative, interrogative, and imperative (Yule, 1996). Therefore, it

can be said that there is a direct speech act if there is a direct relationship between structure
and function. The indirect speech act can be found where the structural forms mismatch the
function (Yule, 1996).
2.2.2 Grice's cooperative principles. Lavidas, Alexiou, and Sougari (2014) indicated
that Schiffrin described the Gricean pragmatics as a contemporary version of pragmatics that
emphasizes the meaning in context. Two concepts are central to Grice's Cooperative
Principles. The first concept is speaker meaning and the second one is context (Lavidas et al.,
2014). The speaker meaning signifies a particular view of human communication that focuses
on intentions. Moreover, Lavidas et al. (2014) highlighted how Grice, in 1957, distinguished
non-natural meaning from natural meaning based on the belief that linguistic communication
arises only when a speaker aims to convey certain attitudes to his hearer by using language,
and in turn, he identifies what these attitudes are based upon what has been said. This
cooperative accomplishment between the speaker and the hearer in making meaning is called
“meaning in interaction,” and what has been broadly meant by the term “meaning
negotiation” (Lavidas et al., 2014, p. 254).
According to Lavidas et al. (2014), Schiffrin believed that the speech act theory and
Gricean pragmatics both interpret context as primarily “‘knowledge,’ i.e. what speakers and
hearers are assumed to know and how this knowledge can guide the use of language and
utterance interpretation" (p. 255). Grice elaborated the cooperative principle into four
maxims: (a) the maxim of quantity, which deals with the amount of information that should
be delivered by the speaker, (b) the maxim of quality, which stresses the truth, (c) the maxim
of relation, which forces the speakers to provide statements that are relevant to the topic, and
(d) the maxim of manner, which requires the speaker to create a clear, brief, and orderly
statement (Nurhidayah, 2015).

2.2.3 The significance of using speech acts inside classes. According to Milleret
(2007), the explicit teaching of speech acts to L2 learners can have a positive impact. Thus,
teachers can be a part of the process of learning pragmatics, and they can accelerate their
students’ comprehension and performance of speech acts. As Hinkel (2001) mentioned,
speakers of a second language may depend on preconceived notions about pragmatic norms
and wrongly apply them. They may draw on stereotypes or on simplistic presentations in
textbooks or other materials they have seen or read. Learners may also apply the standards
that exist in the first language communities where they were socialized to the L2 they are
learning.
In fact, the practice of speech acts in the classrooms has not been widely studied and
investigated. Zayed (2014) indicated that Rueda confirmed that three aspects must be
approached in order to build pragmatic competence in a classroom setting: (a) exposing
learners to appropriate target language input, (b) raising learners’ pragmatic awareness about
the instructed aspect, and (c) preparing authentic opportunities to practice pragmatic
knowledge. According to Zayed (2014), Billmyer, in 1990, conducted a study in which he
compared nine female Japanese ESL learners instructed in compliments and compliment
responses to nine learners who were not. The researcher found that learners who were
instructed produced a bigger number of appropriate and spontaneous compliments used more
positive adjectives, and used many more compliments while responding than the other group
(Zayed, 2014). Billmyer concluded that formal classroom instruction regarding the social
rules of language use enables learners to communicate more properly with native speakers
(Zayed, 2014).
Moreover, Yelfiza (2012) stressed that, in any instructional setting, several points
must be taken into consideration in order to fully understand and use the language. A speaker
must be able to (a) refer and predict the differences between truth and falsehood, success and
failure, satisfaction and dissatisfaction, and (b) make certain theoretical and practical correct
inferences and coordinate the participation to the discourse (Yelfiza, 2012).
2.3 Critical Review of Previous Related Studies
Yelfiza’s (2012) research at STKIP PGRI Sumatera Barat, a post-secondary
institution in Sumatera Barat, Indonesia, aimed to study speech acts uttered by the English
lecturers at STKIP. The researcher's questions searched the kinds of speech acts used by the
lecturers and tried to determine which speech acts supported language teaching. The method
of the research was ethnomethodology, which is a method of sociological analysis that
examines how individuals make sense of the everyday aspects of their world and how they
make their social environment accountable to themselves (Harvey, 2012). The participants
were six lecturers. The instruments of the research were video and notebook, and the data
were analyzed by descriptive analysis. The research found that speech acts uttered by the
lecturers could be categorized into eight types: (a) asserting, (b) announcing, (c) informing,
(d) questioning, (e) commenting, (f) clarifying, (g) praising, and (h) commanding. The kinds
of speech acts uttered were influenced by the lecturers’ culture. This study was similar to the
current study, as it identified the kinds of speech acts used by the lecturers in general.
However, a major difference between Yelfiza’s (2012) research and the current one is that
Yelfiza 's sample included lecturers of advanced levels. It is known that advanced levels are
far more exposed to speech acts than beginners are, and the environment in which the
research took place is different. In addition, according to the nature of Yelfiza’s research, the
process of collecting the data was repeated using video as an instrument. However, the
researcher excluded this instrument since the language samples showed only a little variation
in the data. Finally, most of the subjects the researcher observed used Indonesian in
interaction. Consequently, most of the data were not analyzed.

Meanwhile, a study conducted by Merdana, Seken, and Adi Jaya Putra (2013), in
Indonesia, aimed to define, analyze, and clarify types, functions, instructional functions of
speech acts produced by teacher and students, and politeness strategies used in the classroom.
The subjects of the study were both the teachers and the students. The data for this
naturalistic qualitative study were collected through observation, interviews, and note-taking
(Merdana et al., 2013). The result of this study found that the teachers produced more
utterances (72.59%) than the students did (27.41%). The teachers mostly produced directive
types of speech acts, while the students’ speech acts were mostly assertive (i.e., responses to
the teachers’ directions). Additionally, the teachers were found to use more direct directives
than indirect ones in the form of declaratives, interrogatives, and imperatives (Merdana et al.,
2013). The instructional functions of the teachers’ speech acts were of three modes: control,
organization, and motivation (Merdana et al., 2013). This study was similar to the current one
in that it researched what type of speech acts are mostly used in instructional settings. Yet, a
major difference between the studies is that the study conducted by Merdana et al. (2013)
focused on comparing the teachers’ and the students’ use of speech as well as politeness
strategies used in the classroom. In contrast, the current study tries to measure the teachers’
use of speech acts and makes no comparison. In addition, it focuses only on illocutionary
speech acts performed by the teacher.
Bayat (2012), Assistant Professor at Akdeniz University, Turkey, conducted a study
entitled "A Study on The Use of Speech Acts." Bayat focused on the speech act usually
considered within foreign language teaching research that emphasizes and reflects on usage
problems faced by people of different cultures. In addition, Bayat (2012) described the kind
of speech act strategies that are used in a language itself. The sample included 150
participants continuing their education in the Preschool Teacher Education Program. The
participants were freshmen, sophomores, and juniors in formal education. During the analysis
of the data collected (five dialogues written by the participants), data was collected through
content analysis of the short memories that participants wrote (Bayat, 2012). Accordingly, ten
apologies, six refusals, and six thanking strategies were identified (Bayat, 2012). While the
participants generally expressed the acts of thanking, apologizing, and refusing explicitly,
they mostly performed the act of complaining implicitly. The findings of Bayat’s study aimed
to define what kind of speech act strategies were used by a group of teacher candidates while
performing apologizing, complaining, refusing, and thanking acts to prove an understanding
of communication conflicts in the same culture. The results of the study showed that the
participants used different strategies depending on the type of performatives (Bayat, 2012).
Variation in the used strategies was associated with specific conditions of the communication
and qualities of the parties involved in communication (Bayat, 2012). Bayat's study is similar
to the current one in that it aimed to investigate what kind of speech acts are used in classes.
However, the methodology, participants (candidate teachers), and the context in which the
current study is conducted are different.
Another closely related study is a case study conducted by Nurhidayah (2015) at
Yogyakarta State University, which is one of the best private schools in Indonesia. This study
is entitled "A Pragmatic Analysis of Classroom Speech Acts in the English Teaching and
Learning Process." The sample included only one teacher, and it was conducted over a period
four of meetings. The purpose of this study was to identify the types of speech acts performed
by the English teacher in a series of English teaching and learning classes based on Searle’s
theory of illocutionary acts and its forces (Nurhidayah, 2015). The research findings showed
there were four kinds of speech acts performed by the teacher: (a) representatives, (b)
directives, (c) expressive, and (d) commissives (Nurhidayah, 2015). Nurhidayah’s research is
similar to the current study in that it was focused on the teacher's role in the use of the speech
act. However, it investigated both illocutionary acts and forces, and it was applied with
reference to students’ input and effect. In addition, it was measured in the Indonesian context,
while this study is conducted in the Saudi context.
2.4 Summery
In consideration of the previous studies, it can be concluded that, if teachers and
students possess good pragmatic competence, communication barriers will probably
disappear. Therefore, it can be said that the success or failure of the teaching and learning of
language communicative skills is greatly defined by the appropriate use of speech acts. The
need for more research to investigate and identify the types of illocutionary speech acts used
by EFL teachers in different contexts is increasing.
In conclusion, the world is changing, and some concepts are changing, too. While the
leading educational institutions around the world are integrating speech acts as a course in
their curriculum, some still do not even recognize the significant role of speech acts in the
learning and teaching process. This literature review represents an overview of pragmatic and
speech acts. It reveals how important speech acts are for the pragmatic awareness that should
be developed among EFL students. A relatively large number of studies are conducted to
explore teachers’ use of speech acts inside language classrooms and to validate the
importance of using speech acts inside these classrooms. Despite the number of these studies,
the findings cannot be generalized due to differences in cultural backgrounds and educational
environments. This research will try to fill the gap in the literature by investigating the use of
speech acts and their types in the Saudi context, which has never been examined. In addition,
it aims to raise the awareness of speech acts among language teachers and students within the
same context. Therefore, this research was conducted in the Saudi context to identify and
analyze the types of illocutionary speech acts performed by the English teacher during skills
classes at the College of Languages and Translation. The researcher based her study on the
theory of speech acts proposed by Searle (1969), which focused on locutionary and
illocutionary acts.
Chapter 3
Research Methods and Procedures
Introduction
In this chapter, an attempt is made to describe the methods and procedures of the
present study. To demonstrate how the research is conducted, the chapter is divided into five
sections: (a) research design, (b) participants, (c) instruments, (d) procedure, and (e) data
trustworthiness.
3.1 The Research Design
This study adopted the mixed method approach. Mixed research or mixed methods
research involves “mix[ing] or combin[ing] quantitative and qualitative research techniques,
methods, approaches, concepts or language into a single study” (Onwuegbuzie & Combs,
2011, p. 2). Abeyasekera (2005) indicated that the conversion of qualitative data into
numerical codes that can be analyzed quantitatively (i.e., statistically) is known as
quantitizing. Quantitative analytical approaches allow the reporting of summary results in
numerical terms with a specified degree of confidence. Moreover, this research is mainly
focused on describing the phenomenon of language use.
After interpreting the data statistically, this research applied the mixed method
approach. Since a qualitative research actually "deals with qualitative phenomena, i.e.,
phenomena relating to or involving quality or kind" (Kothari, 2004, p. 3), the mixed method
approach is the most suitable approach. This research is intended to analyze speech acts
based on Searle's (1979) model of classifying speech acts. As presented in Section 2.2.1.1,
Searle's (1979) model of classifying speech acts includes five categories: (a) representatives,
(b) directives, (c) commissives, (d) expressives, and (e) declarations. Each of these categories
contains some subcategories. The categories and subcategories of Searle's (1979) model are
presented in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1 Searle's (1979) Classification of Speech Acts
Category Sub-Categories
(Locutionary & (Illocutionary Forces)
Illocutionary Acts)
Representatives Stating, boasting, complaining, claiming, reporting, asserting,
describing, announcing, insisting, guessing, forecasting, predicting,
introducing, calling, complimenting concluding, reasoning,
hypothesizing, telling, insisting, or swearing.
Directives requesting, warning, inviting, questioning, ordering, commanding,
advising, reassuring, summoning, entreating, asking, directing,
bidding, forbidding, instructing, begging, recommending,
suggesting, daring, defying, and challenging.
Expressives Greeting, thanking, apologizing, regretting, commiserating,
congratulating, condoling, deploring, welcoming, surprising,
blaming, and praising.
Commissives Promising, vowing, offering, threatening, refusing, pledging,
intending, and vowing to do or to refrain from doing something.
Declarations Declaring, christening, firing from employment, resigning,
dismissing, naming, excommunicating, appointing, sentencing,
blessing, firing, baptizing, and bidding.
The data is presented using tables compiled from the observation cards and data sheet
(see Sections 3.3.1 and 3.4.1. Moreover, the data is analyzed following the framework of an
interactive model of data analysis developed by Miles and Huberman (1994). The data, then,
is analyzed statistically.
3.2 Participants
This study was conducted in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, at Imam Mohammed Ibn Saud
Islamic University, College of Languages and Translation, Department of English (in the
female section). The department was chosen because of the well-established program and the
variety of teaching staff. The participants in this study were five Saudi teachers who were
selected based upon availability, which renders the sample selection random. Those teachers
were giving classes to beginners between the ages of 19 and 21 in Levels 1 and 2 at the
College of Languages and Translation. Teachers who use speech acts at these levels can
contribute to the improvement of students’ pragmatic competence and raise their awareness
that there is something more than just a well-structured sentence. This, in turn, can reflect
positively on their understanding of communicative competence being an essential
component of linguistic competence. Therefore, the students will reach advanced levels
knowing the difference between the two types of competence.
For ethical reasons, permission to conduct the study was formally obtained from the
college, and consent from the participating teachers was obtained (see Appendix A). The
research was conducted over a period of five meetings. Each meeting was two hours long and
occurred in April 2017. Permission to conduct the research was obtained on April 16, and the
researcher carried out this study over a period of a week and a half from April 17 to 24. The
researcher asked the participants about their schedules and chose to observe one English
Language Skills class taught by each participant. The subjects of the classes varied from
reading to writing, speaking, and listening.
3.3 Instruments
3.3.1. Participant-observer. In this research, the researcher took the role of a
participant observer. This was in accordance with the nature of qualitative research in which
Bogdan and Biklen (1982) highlighted saying that "the key instrument of the qualitative
research is the researcher himself/herself" (p. 27). Kawulich (2005) indicated that this method
helps the researcher develop a holistic understanding of the phenomenon under study. This
understanding is as objective and accurate as possible. Observations, therefore, may help the
researcher have a better understanding of the context and phenomenon under study
(Kawulich, 2005). Accordingly, the data was obtained using the technique of observation.
Since observation is a way for the researcher to see and hear what is occurring naturally in
the research site (Nurhidayah, 2015), the main advantage of this method is that subjective
bias is eliminated if the observation is done accurately (Kothari, 2004, p. 96). Therefore, the
researcher was involved in the course of the research starting from the data collection stage
until the data analysis stage.
The observation card was the secondary instrument that was used to help the
researcher. The researcher used the observation card while observing the classes to identify
and record the data. The format of the observation card is presented in Table 3.2.
The researcher attended classes of reading, writing, speaking, and listening courses taught in
Levels 1 and 2 for ten days accompanied by an observation card (see Table 3.2). The
researcher used a separate observation card for every teacher to facilitate and organize note-
taking during the classes. The main subject and the primary source of this research were the
speech acts produced by teachers of the junior year during the English Language Skills
classes. The data were in the form of recorded lectures by teachers.
Table 3.2 The Observation Card of the Types of Speech Acts
Participant Qualification: Years of Course Name:
NO: 1/5 Experience:
Data Context Types of Locutionary and
Illocutionary Acts
Rep Dir Exp Com Dec
Rep: Representatives Dir: Directives Exp: Expressives
Dec: Declaration Com: Commissives

3.3.2. Audio recording. To transcribe speech that occurs in a setting accurately,
audio recordings must be used in qualitative research since they offer the researcher not only
an opportunity to record what is investigated but also the chance to play it repeatedly until the
researcher reaches a saturation which can be very useful in the analysis process. Therefore,
the researcher used a digital audio recorder as her second instrument in order to help her
record the data.
Digital recorders generally offer a much higher signal to noise ratio and less
background noise compared to non-digital ones. This reduces the risk of lost data and results
in faster and accurate transcription. The digital audio recorder used in this research is
portable, easy to use, has a long recording time, and can transfer the data to the computer via
a USB. Furthermore, it has a rechargeable battery, and it displays information regarding the
remaining battery power and recording time.
The researcher informed the participants of her attendance prior to each class and
obtained their consent. They were informed about what would be done with the data collected
and how and when it would be destroyed. The researcher then followed procedures in order
to obtain the data as accurately as possible. These procedures involved attending the classes
before the teacher’s arrival with a fully charged audio recorder, selecting a seat near the
teacher, placing the audio recorder as close as possible to the teacher, turning the “Start”
button on, and checking the recorder every 15 minutes to make sure it was working properly.
3.4. Procedure
3.4.1. Data Collection. Several procedures were followed after conducting the
observation. First, the researcher listened to the recording and tried to understand the
utterances performed by the teacher. Second, the researcher transcribed the data into written
form. Third, the researcher listened to the recording again to check the accuracy of the data.
Fourth, the researcher selected data from the recording that are in accordance with the
objectives of the study. Five, the researcher recorded the data onto a data sheet. The format of
the data sheet is presented in Table 3.3. Finally, the researcher classified the data.
Table 3.3 Data Sheet of the Types of Speech Acts Performed by Teachers
NO Code Data Context Types of Locutionary and
Illocutionary Acts
1 M-1/00:16- Re Dir Exp Com Dec
00:18
M-1: Number of meetings Re: Representatives Dir: Directives
Exp: Expressives 00:16- 00:18: Minutes Dec: Declaration
Com: Commissives
3.4.2 Data analysis. In the data analysis stage, the researcher first referred to the
observation card. Then she used the data sheet to fill in any missing parts on the observation
cards after listening to the audio recording of each class (see Appendix C). Next, the
researcher analyzed the data statistically using MS Excel 2016 to generate frequencies and
percentages, to address the questions raised in this research, and to test the hypotheses.
Moreover, in order to check the inter-rater agreement, the researcher used Cohen’s kappa
statistic (see Table 3.4).
3.4.3 Post-data collection procedures. To describe the procedures for data analysis,
this research adopted the framework developed by Miles and Huberman (1994): "The data
analysis consists of three kinds of activity: data reduction, data display, and conclusion
drawing and verification" (p. 10). First, data reduction refers to the process of selecting,
focusing, simplifying, reducing, and organizing the data that has been collected (Miles &
Huberman, 1994). The purpose of this phase is to help the researcher organize and classify
the data. In this stage, the obtained data were organized, and the irrelevant data were
eliminated. This was done by using the data sheet as mentioned in Section 3.4.1. The process
included reading the data carefully, identifying and selecting data related to the objective of
the study, and finally, assigning a code for each datum.
Second, data display deals with providing an organized, compressed, assembly of
information that allows conclusion drawing (Miles & Huberman, 1994). The display can be
in the form of texts, graphs, diagrams, charts, matrices, or other graphical formats. In this
study, the data collected were analyzed based on both statistics using MS Excel 2016 as well
as the observation card and the data sheet in Sections 3.3.1 and 3.4.1.
Third, conclusion drawing and verification are concerned with reconsidering the
meaning of the analyzed data and evaluating the data findings to measure their fitness to the
objectives of the study (Miles & Huberman, 1994). At this stage, the researcher read and re-
read the analyzed data to reach conclusions regarding the study. The conclusions were then
verified by rereading the data as many times as necessary. Verification was also enhanced by
peer checking and consultation with the supervisor. The validity was established by checking
with three professors with doctoral degrees to judge the instruments.
As for reliability, the researcher used two methods. The first was the inter-rater
method and the second was comparing the notes from the observation card with those on the
data sheet (one used during the note-taking process and one used during the analysis of the
recorded data) to fill any missing gaps. The researcher used Cohen’s Kappa to compute the
inter-rater reliability that was done by a colleague (see Table 3.4).
Table 3.4 The Statistical Result of the Cohen Kappa Inter-Rater Agreement
Observer A a
Observer B b
Observer A
Observer B 1 2 3
1 5 4 0 9 (27.3%)
2 8 11 2 21 (63.6%)
3 2 0 1 3 (9.1%)
15 15 3 33
(45.5%) (45.5%) (9.1%)

Weighted Kappa 0.142
(Quadratic weights)
Standard error 1756.564

95% CI -1.000 to 1.000
In Table 3.4, the researcher applied the Kappa statistic to test inter-rater reliability.
Cohen suggested the Kappa result be interpreted as follows:
• values ≤ 0 as indicating no agreement
• 0.01–0.20 as none to slight
• 0.21–0.40 as fair
• 0.41– 0.60 as moderate
• 0.61–0.80 as substantial
• 0.81–1.00 as almost perfect agreement. (McHugh, 2017)
Thus, as shown in Table 3.4, there was a perfect agreement between the inter-raters in this
study.
3.5. Data Trustworthiness
Trustworthiness is a term proposed by Lincoln and Guba (Hasmi, 2013). They set
four criteria to determine the trustworthiness of qualitative research: (a) conformability, (b)
credibility, (c) dependability, and (d) transferability. In qualitative research, the criteria to
evaluate a qualitative study includes credibility, dependability, conformability, and
transferability (Shenton, 2004). This research, however, only used credibility, dependability,
and conformability as tools to check the trustworthiness of the data.
Credibility refers to whether the participants’ perceptions of the setting or events
match up with the researcher’s portrayal of them in the research report (Shenton, 2004, p.
64). Moreover, selection of the most appropriate method of data collection is essential for
ensuring the credibility of content analysis (Elo et al., 2014). The credibility in this research
was achieved by discussing how the information provided by the data sources was compared
through the triangulation technique, which includes four main types: (a) sources, (b) methods,
(c) researchers, and (d) theories (Hasmi, 2013), To verify the conclusions, the sources were
utterances uttered by the English Skills teachers of Levels 1 and 2. The researcher collected
the data by observing the speech acts, audio recording them, and then recording them in
writing using the observation cards and the data sheets. Meanwhile, the theories of
pragmatics and speech acts are referred to in this study. Furthermore, the researcher used
member checks in which the transcribed lectures of the researcher’s conclusions are sent to
the participants for review. Once credibility was achieved, the consistency should be fulfilled.
The peer debriefing was checked by asking three professors with doctoral degrees majoring
in linguistics in the English Education Department to give their suggestions and opinions
about the data analysis.
Dependability refers to whether one can track the procedures and processes used to
collect and interpret the data (Lodico, Spaulding, & Voegtle, 2010, p. 275). To achieve
dependability, detailed explanations of how the data were collected and analyzed were
provided. Finally, to avoid such subjectivity, confirmability was applied in this study. To
check on conformability, the triangulation technique was used. This was done by consulting
three professors with doctoral degrees in the English Department. Peer checking was also
conducted to establish confirmability.
3.6. Summery
This chapter explained the method the researcher adopted which is the mixed method
research to analyze the types of the illocutionary acts performed by the teachers. Then, she
presented the main and the secondary instruments she used in the data collection and
analysis, which are participant observer, observation card, data sheets, and audio recorder. In
addition, a clear and detailed description of the data analysis and the trust worthiness of this
research was provided.

Chapter 4
Data Findings, Descriptions, and Analysis
Introduction
This chapter presents the results of the research. As mentioned in Chapter One, the
goal of this research is to investigate whether teachers use speech acts or not, and the types of
illocutionary acts employed by them.
The chapter is divided into two main sections: (a) findings and (b) thematic
description of data. The first section presents the results of the data analysis related to the
types of Searle’s speech acts in terms of illocutionary acts performed by the teachers during
the English Skills classes at Imam University. Meanwhile, the second section provides a deep
and detailed description and interpretation of the findings.
4.1 Findings
The findings of this study are related to the types of speech acts in terms of
illocutionary acts performed by the teacher during the English language skills classes. The
researcher employed the mixed method in order to analyze the qualitative data quantitatively.
Since this research design allows for a complete utilization of data than separate methods
analysis require, Searle (1979) classifies speech acts into five categories (i.e., representatives,
directives, expressives, commissives, and declarations). The data were analyzed using
Microsoft Office Excel 2016. The distribution of each speech act in terms of its illocutionary
acts performed by each English teacher is illustrated in Table 4.1.
Table 4.1 Analysis of Responses
Occurrences by each participant

Total Occurrences
Occurrences 1
Occurrences 2
Occurrences 3
Occurrences 4
Occurrences 5
per Item
No Type
% % % % %
19.61 %
15.07 %
25.9 %
9.2 %
20 %
1 Rep. 13 20 19 19 42 113
66.67 %
69.5 %
77.9 %
67.9 %
60.31
426
110
2 Dir. 98 68 74 76
13.73 %
23.81 %
29 20.5 % 30
1.05 %
6.2 %
3 Exp. 14 1 10 84
1.05 %
0.79 %
0.61 %
4 Com. 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 3
5 Dec. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total
Occurrences 141 102 95 126 162 0
per Participant
As shown in Table 4.1, four types of Searle’s illocutionary speech acts were
employed by the first participant. They were representatives, directives, expressives, and
commissives whereas declarations were not used at all. The table indicated that the total
occurrences of illocutionary acts performed by this participant were 141. Furthermore, the
table showed that the most dominant speech acts used by this participant were directives with
98 instances, which represent 69.5% of the total number of utterances employed by the
teacher. Expressive speech acts occupied a second place among the other types of speech
acts. They appeared in 29 utterances representing 20.5% of the total utterances. The
occurrence of representatives was revealed in 13 instances representing 9.2% of the whole
speech acts. Throughout the analysis of the data, there were no instances of commissives and
declarations produced by this participant.

The second participant employed three types of Searle’s speech acts. They were
representatives, directives, and expressives, whereas commissives and declarations were not
used at all. The table indicated that the total occurrences of illocutionary acts performed by
this participant were 102. Furthermore, the table revealed that the most dominant speech acts
used by this participant were directives with 68 instances, which represent 66.67% of the total
number of utterances. Representative speech acts occupied a second place as they appeared in
20 utterances representing 19.61% of the total utterances. The occurrence of expressives was
revealed in 14 instances with the percentage being 13.73% of the whole speech acts.
Meanwhile, the analysis of the data produced by this participant revealed no instances of
commissives and declarations.
The third participant employed four types of the illocutionary acts. They were
representatives, directives, expressive, and commissives, whereas declarations were not
utilized. Moreover, Table 4.1 indicated that the total occurrences of illocutionary acts
performed by this participant were 95 out of the total utterances produced by her.
Furthermore, the table shows that the most frequent speech act used by this participant was
directives with 74 instances, which represent 77.9% of the total number of illocutionary acts.
Representative speech acts occupied a second place among the other types. They appeared in
19 utterances representing 20% of the total utterances. The occurrence of expressives, as well
as commissives, was revealed in one instance with a percentage of 1.05% of the whole
speech acts throughout the analysis of the data. No instances of declarations were produced
by this participant.
The fourth participant, as shown in Table 4.1, utilized four types of Searle’s
illocutionary acts: representatives, directives, expressives, and commissives. Declarations
were not utilized by the teacher. The table revealed that the total occurrences of illocutionary
acts performed by this participant were 126. Furthermore, the table indicates that the most
frequent speech acts used by this participant were directives with 76 instances representing
60.31% of the total number of utterances. Expressives occupied a second place among the
other types of speech acts, as they appeared in 30 utterances representing 23.81% of the total
utterances. Moreover, the occurrence of representatives was revealed in 19 instances with the
percentage being 15.07%. In addition, commissives were revealed in one instance only with a
percentage of 0.79% of the whole utterances. Throughout the analysis of the data, no
instances of declarations were produced by this participant.
The fifth participant, as presented in Table 4.1, employed three types of Searle’s
illocutionary acts. They were representatives, directives, and expressives. Commissives were
produced only once, and declarations were not utilized at all by the participant. The table
indicates that the total occurrences of illocutionary acts performed by this participant were
162. Furthermore, the table reveals that the most dominant illocutionary act used by this
participant was directives with 110 instances, which represented 67.9% of the total number of
utterances employed by her. Representative illocutionary acts occupied a second place as
they appeared in 42 utterances representing 25.9% of the total utterances. The occurrence of
expressives was revealed in 10 instances with the percentage of 6.2% of the whole number of
utterances. Meanwhile, the analysis of the data produced by this participant revealed no
instances of declarations and only one instance of commissives.
4.2 Thematic Description of Data
The types of speech acts used as the basic tools of the analysis are the ones proposed
by Searle who placed emphasis on the illocutionary acts. The researcher analyzed the data
from both the observation cards and the data sheet to filled any missing parts (see Appendix
C). Based on the findings, four kinds of speech acts were performed by the teachers of Level
1 and 2 English language skills: (a) representatives, (b) directives, (c) expressives, and (d)
commissives.
4.2.1 Representatives. Representatives represent what the speaker believes and does
not believe. The production of representatives was shown as the second highest type of
speech act performed by the teachers. They appeared in 113 acts out of 440. The illocutionary
acts that were performed by the teachers were direct and indirect (i.e., confirming, agreeing,
correcting, explaining, disagreeing, informing, announcing, stating, and predicting).
Many direct and indirect representatives were performed by all of the participants.
The first participant, for instance, performed representatives 13 times during the lecture.
Student: Extinct maybe.

Teacher: If we say that an animal is endangered, it means that not many remained in the
world.
M-1/16:10-16:50
In the datum above, the teacher employed explaining as the indirect form of
representative. The teacher was trying to explain to students the meaning of “endangered” in
the simplest way, as they came across the word in the listening part of the class. She asked
the students about its meaning, and the students thought it means something is extinct and no
longer exist. The teacher, therefore, explained its meaning to them.
Moreover, the second participant performed direct and indirect representatives 20
times during the lecture. For example:

Teacher: l will take the attendance, later, we will start with our new unit. After we
finish, we will talk about the midterm.
M-2/00:23- 00:37
In the above utterance, the teacher informed the students when she would talk about
the midterm. The students seemed concerned about the midterm and tried to ask her about
before she entered the room. Hence, the first thing she did after greeting her students was to
inform them when she would talk about the midterm.

Furthermore, the third participant performed direct and indirect representatives 19
times during the lecture. For instance:
Teacher: No, because I am not describing a process. Here, we talk about what
happened at the beginning, middle and the end.
M-3/ M-3/09:35-13:30
In the datum, the teacher corrected the students who believed that they could use the
same word order in narrative paragraphs as in descriptive ones. Therefore, the teacher
corrected the students’ answers and then explained the difference.
The fourth participant employed direct and indirect representatives 19 times during
the lecture. For example:
Teacher: Yes, this is the last unit. Speaking exam will be out of 20.
M-4/19:27- 21:26
The teacher said this to inform the students that, due to the shortage of time, this
would be the last unit and that later they will take their midterms, which will be graded out of
20 marks.
Furthermore, the fifth participant performed direct and indirect representatives 42
times during the lecture, meaning that she was the one who employed representatives more
often than the other kinds of speech acts. For instance:
Teacher: So, we are done now. We have a presentation. Your friend Nora is going
to do it today. I don’t want anyone to leave unless you have an emergency.
M-5/01: 08:40 -01:11:00
The teacher in the previous utterance informed the students that they are done with the
unit, but a student will do a presentation. Some students asked her if they could leave since
they are done. The teacher then stated that she would not allow anyone to leave unless it was
an emergency.
4.2.2 Directives. Directives are employed by the speaker to make the hearer do
something. During the five meetings, there were 240 directives out of 440 data, representing
the highest significance performed by the teachers. The participants were found to produce
directives more than the other types of speech acts during the five meetings. This finding is
clearly reasonable since the instructional setting requires the teacher to have power over the
students. The teacher used direct and indirect forms of directives. Asking was the most used
indirect directive among the others. The first participant, for example, employed 98 direct and
indirect directives in many instances. One of these is:
Which one of these opinions is the closest to yours?

M-1/1:11: 47- 1:12:47
In the utterance illustrated above, after listening to the audio and asking the students
about the opinions of the three speakers, the teacher asked the students which opinion they
think is the closest to them.
The second participant, also, employed 68 direct and indirect forms of directives. She
used directives mostly to ask or order. One example is:
Teacher: Close the door.
M-1/1:11: 47- 1:12:47
In the datum exemplified above, the teacher employed ordering as the indirect form of
directives. She ordered a student who came in late and left the door of the class open to go
back and close it.
The third participant employed 74 direct and indirect forms of directives out of a total
of 95 utterances. One example is:
Teacher: Ok, let's move on to the next story which is about a nightmare. Do you
know the meaning of nightmare?
M-3/17:40-22:50
In this example, the teacher indirectly ordered the students to go to the next story, and
then asked them about the word “nightmare” which is written in the title of the second
paragraph.
The fourth participant produced 76 direct and indirect forms of directives out of the
126 utterances she made. For instance:
Teacher: Have you had an exam?

M-4/00:13- 00:17
In the utterance above, the teacher asked the students if they had an exam because the
chairs were separated and the students were dragging them back to where they were. The
students answered “yes” to her question.
The fifth participant made 110 direct and indirect forms of directives out of 162
utterances. One example is:
Teacher: Send me an email so I can send you the file. Who wants to read the
topic?
M-5/00:18:12- 00:19:00
The teacher asked the student who was in charge of receiving emails from her because
she had prepared a file that contained a list of extra vocabularies. A student raised her hand to
indicate that she was the one responsible for this task. Then the teacher requested the student
to send her an email, so she could recognize her and send the file. After that, she went back to
the title of Unit 7 and asked the students to read it.
4.2.3 Expressives. Expressives are a type of speech acts that express the speaker’s
feelings or psychological state, which can be thanking, apologizing, stating like, pleasure,
sorrow, and dislike (Nurhidayah,2015). They appeared in 84 acts out of 440 and thus
occupied the third highest significance performed by the teachers. The participants used
direct and indirect forms of expressives, which included greeting, apologizing, thanking,
stating anger, annoyance, disappointment, goodbye, pleasure, surprise, wishing, and
complimenting.
The first participant, for example, utilized 29 expressives out of 141 utterances. For
instance:
Teacher: Good.
M-1/39:02-39:44
The teacher complimented a student who answered correctly. She used the word
“Good” to praise the student who answered.
The second participant employed 14 direct and indirect expressives out of 102
utterances. For example:
Teacher: Excellent
M-2/05:37-05:56
The teacher complimented a student who answered a question that she asked about
the topic correctly. She used the word “Excellent” to express her praise to the student who
answered.
The third participant employed only one expressive out of 95 utterances. As presented
below:
Teacher: Good morning,
M-3/00:02-00:04
In this example, the teacher greeted the students. The greeting contained the very first
words exchanged by the both the teacher and the students. By saying “Good morning,” the
teacher welcomed the students to class that day.

The fourth participant used more expressives than the others did. She employed 30
direct and indirect expressives out of 126 utterances. For example:
Teacher: Good luck.

M-4/00:21- 00:24
In the example above, the teacher expressed her wishes to students. She wished that
they did well on their exam and they will get the marks they want. She employed the indirect
form of expressives and used the expression “Good luck” which is usually used to express
wishes to someone.
The fifth participant employed 10 direct and indirect forms of expressives out of 162
utterances. For instance:
Teacher: Thank you so much Sara, very interesting presentation.

M-5/01:16:19-01:16:23
In the example above, the teacher used the indirect form of expressives, which is
thanking. The participant uses the expression "Thank you so much" to express her
appreciation to the student who did the presentation.
4.2.4 Commissives. Commissives are speech acts performed by speakers to commit
themselves to future actions. In this study, commissives appeared only in three utterances out
of 440. The third participant used the indirect form of commissives once, as illustrated in the
example below:
Teacher: Nora, you have been absent three times!

M-3/51:00 51:40
The teacher produced this utterance while she was taking the attendance. A student
named Nora had been absent three times without excuse. The teacher, therefore, threatened
that if she did it again, she would get a notice.

Likewise, the fourth participant also employed commissives only once, as presented
in the example below:
Teacher: Next week, I will call students by names for the homework.
M-3/51:00 51:40
The teacher threatened the students that she would call them by name to answer the
homework questions. Since only a few students completed the previous homework
assignment, the teacher indirectly threatened them that they would lose marks if they did not
complete the homework.
The fifth teacher was among those who employed the commissives in their speech.
She utilized it only once, as shown in the example below:
Teacher: There is not much time left

M-5/00:25:16- 00:37:24
The teacher threatened students indirectly that she would not accept any presentations
after the specified days regardless of the reason. Many students had not presented yet, and
some had asked her to change the days that were assigned to them two weeks previously.
4.2.5 Summary. It is evident that the questions of the study have been answered and
the hypotheses have been verified. The researcher addressed two main questions: (a) whether
the teachers used speech acts inside speaking classes and (b) what types of Searle’s speech
acts regarding illocutionary acts and illocutionary forces were implemented. The participants
generally employed four types of Searle’s illocutionary speech acts: (a) representatives, (b)
directives, (c) expressives, and (d) commissives. Declarations were not utilized by any of the
participants. Furthermore, Table 4.1 indicates that the most frequent speech acts used by all
participants were directives with 426 instances. Representatives appeared in 213 utterances
and occupied a second place among the other types. The occurrence of expressives was
revealed in 84 instances and therefore occupied a third place. Commissives were revealed in
only three instances out of all the speech acts. Throughout the analysis of data, there were no
instances of declarations produced by all participants.
The researcher believed that the excessive use of directives was reasonable since, in
the classroom setting, the relationship between the teacher and the students is asymmetrical.
The teachers are aware of their higher status and hence performed more directives compared
to the other types of speech acts. Meanwhile, representatives were the second most used
speech act type, because teachers like to inform, state, confirm, announce, and even explain
many things during lectures. Expressives, on the other hand, were not performed as much as
representatives since they depend on factors such as the mood of the teacher and the
interaction of the students. Commissives were the least utilized speech act type because the
nature of the lectures and the setting did not require the teachers to use them. Finally, the
researcher believed that declarations were not used by the participants since they do not fit
with the process of teaching and learning.

Chapter 5
Discussion, Conclusions, and Recommendations
Introduction
Chapter Five consists of three sections: (a) discussion, (b) conclusions, and (c)
suggestions. The discussion presents the most important findings in relation to the previous
related studies. The conclusions present the summary of the research findings related to the
objectives of the research. The suggestions give particular matters suggested to the English
Department students and other researchers.
5.1 Discussion
The main area of investigation of this study was to examine whether teachers use
speech acts during the teaching process or not, and the types of speech acts employed during
the lectures. This study mainly aimed at testing two hypotheses. First, the teachers’ use of
speech acts is inadequate. Second, locutionary and illocutionary acts are not performed
satisfactorily by the teachers. In order to test the hypotheses, the researcher adopted the
mixed approach in which the researcher used qualitative methods in data collection (i.e., the
participant observer method, observation cards, and a recorder) and analyzed the data using
quantitative analysis.
The first hypothesis stated that the teachers’ use of speech acts is inadequate. The
analyzed data showed that teachers ' use of speech acts is fairly adequate. As this study
revealed, speech acts occurred in 440 instances out of the total number of utterances
employed by all of the participants.
The second hypothesis that locutionary and illocutionary acts are not performed
satisfactorily by the teachers. This hypothesis was tested by the researcher using a separate
observation card for each participant to check whether teachers performed locutionary and
illocutionary acts satisfactorily or not. The findings of the study, as shown in Table 4.1,
revealed that teachers do perform locutionary and illocutionary acts satisfactorily.
It is noteworthy that the findings of the current study have similarities with earlier
studies in the field of pragmatics. Those studies are concerned with the pragmatic aspects,
especially speech acts, in language teaching. They are similar to the study that the researcher
has conducted. However, there are some differences in some other aspects. First, in the
pragmatic research done by Yelfiza (2012), the focus was on illocutionary forces only. The
sample included lecturers of advanced levels of education, and the study was conducted in an
Indonesian context. On the other hand, this study focuses on illocutionary acts performed by
Saudi teachers of junior year students.
Similarly, the study of Nurhidayah (2015) aimed to identify the types of speech acts
performed by an English teacher in an Indonesian school based on Searle’s theory of
illocutionary acts and its forces. Unlike Nurhidayah’s research, this study focuses only on
illocutionary acts, and it involves five participants from a public Saudi university.
On the other hand, the study of Bayat (2012) dealt with the kind of speech act
strategies used in a language itself. His study included students only and focused on
expressives including apologizing, complaining, refusing, and thanking acts. The method he
applied was the Discourse Completion Task. In contrast, the current study is focused on
teachers’ use of illocutionary speech acts, and it adopted a mixed method design.
Since the scope of the previous studies was either limited to a certain context, sample,
or even type of speech acts, the researcher applied the study in a different context where the
sample included teachers, and the focus was on the five types of the illocutionary acts.
Therefore, the findings of the current study represent a genuine contribution to the literature
on the pragmatic analysis of speech acts.

5.2 Conclusions
Regarding the objective of this study, which is to investigate teachers’ use of speech
acts and identify the types of Searle’s speech acts in terms of locutionary and illocutionary
acts employed by the teachers, two conclusions were drawn from the analyses conducted in
the previous chapter.
First, teachers used speech acts adequately. All of the participants utilized speech acts
during the lectures. The first participant employed 141 instances of speech acts out of the
total number of utterances she made. The second participant utilized 102 instances of speech
acts while the third participant produced 95 instances out of the total number of her
utterances. Moreover, the fourth participant utilized 126 instances whereas the last participant
produced the highest number with 162 instances out of the total number of her utterances.
Second, four types of speech acts were employed by the English teachers: (a)
representatives, (b) directives, (c) commissives, and (d) expressives. Directives were the most
frequent speech acts used by all participants with 240 instances, which represent 54.5% of the
total number of utterances employed by the teachers. In contrast, representative speech acts
occupied a second place among the other types, as they appeared in 213 utterances
representing 25.6% of the total utterances utilized by the participants. The occurrence of
expressives was revealed in 84 instances with the percentage of 19.09%, and therefore
expressives occupied a third place among the other types. Commissives were revealed in
three instances only with the percentage of 0.68% out of the whole speech acts. Throughout
the analysis of the data, there were no instances of declarations produced by all the
participants.
5.3 Recommendations
Based on the conclusions, some suggestions are proposed. First, English language
students should be aware of pragmatics, especially concerning the study of speech acts,
because understanding speech acts will lead them to understand how language is actually
being used. Thus, the students can avoid misunderstanding or misconceptions in interpreting
the speakers’ intended messages. Therefore, the problems of miscommunication, especially
with native speakers, will disappear.
Second, this research is expected to give English teachers insight into language
teaching, especially regarding the language phenomena related to speech acts. It is
recommended that English teachers discuss the importance of pragmatics and speech acts
with their students in order to help them become aware how language is communicated. In
addition, teachers are advised to integrate various learning activities that can promote the
students’ pragmatic awareness as well as develop their communicative competence.
Third, the results of this research are limited and cannot be generalized by other
researchers due to the environment in which the study was conducted, the limited number of
participants and the identification of the types of Searle’s speech acts performed by the
participants with its focus on illocutionary acts only. Therefore, it is expected that the
limitation of this research will encourage other researchers to investigate different
environments with a larger number of participants and examine other aspects of pragmatics
such as perlocutionary acts, implicature, and politeness. It is also suggested that other
researchers enlarge the study by investigating students’ speech acts since the present study
only investigated teachers’ speech acts.
5.4 Summery
This chapter presented explanations of the findings of the research questions and
hypotheses. Moreover, it explained the similarities and differences between this research and
the previous studies. The researcher provided a summary of the research findings and gave
suggestions that might be of interest to English students and other researchers.

References
Abeyasekera, S. (2005). Quantitative analysis approaches to qualitative data: Why, when and
how? In J. D. Holland & J. Campbell (Eds.), Methods in development research:
Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches (pp. 97-106). Warwickshire, UK:
ITDG Publishing.
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words: The William James Lectures
delivered at Harvard University in 1955. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Retrieved from
http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/pubman/item/escidoc:2271128:3/-
component/escidoc:2271430/austin_1962_how-to-do-things-with-words.pdf
pii/S187704281300058X
Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing.
New York: Oxfrod University Press. Retrieved from
https://books.google.com.sa/books?id=5_KJCfkWgqcC&printsec=frontcover
Bayat, N. (2012). A study on the use of speech acts. Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 70, 213–221. Retrieved February 20, 2017, from http://www.
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187704281300058X
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1982). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theory and methods. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Bouton, L. F. (1996). Pragmatics and language learning. Urbana-Champaign: DEIL,
University of Illinois.
Cazden, C. (2011). Dell Hymes's construct of “communicative competence”.
Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 42(4), 364-369. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-1492.2011.01144.x
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax (1st ed.). Cambridge, Mass.:
MIT Press. Retrieved from https://faculty.georgetown.edu/irvinem/theory/Chomsky-
Aspects-excerpt.pdf
Crystal, D. (2008). A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics (6th ed.). Retrieved
from http://www.mohamedrabeea.com/books/book1_3891.pdf
Dlekan, S. (1990). The relevance of communicative competence theories to
foreign language teaching (Unpublished master’s thesis). Dublin City University,
Dublin, Ireland. Retrieved from http://doras.dcu.ie/18506/1/Samih_Dlekan.pdf
Elo, S., Kaariainen, M., Kanste, O., Polkki, T., Utriainen, K., & Kyngas, H. (2014).
Qualitative content analysis: A focus on trustworthiness. SAGE Open, 4(1).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2158244014522633
Eslami, Z., Eslami, A., & Fatahi, A. (2004). The effect of explicit metapragmatic
instruction on the speech act awareness of advanced EFL students. The Electronic
Journal for English as a Second Language, 8(2). Retrieved from
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1068089.pdf
Fératha, M. (2014). The effect of pragmatic instruction on the speech act awareness
of third year graduate students of English, Annales des letters et des langues (4),
93-111. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.12816/0020336
Harvey, L. (2012). Social research glossary. Quality Research International.
Retrieved from http://www.qualityresearchinternational.com/socialresearch/
Hasmi, M. (2013). A pragmatic analysis of politeness strategies reflected in Nanny McPhee
Movie (Unpublished master’s thesis). Yogyakarta State University, Yogyakarta,
Indonesia.
Hinkel, E. (2001). Building awareness and practical skills to facilitate cross-
cultural communication. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or
foreign language (3rd ed., pp. 443-458). Boston: Heinle and Heinle. Retrieved from
http://melanieburton.weebly.com/uploads/4/8/9/0/48905813/culture_(hinkel,_2001).pd
Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes
(Eds.), Sociolinguistics. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Books.
Ilić, M. B., & Radulović, M. (2015). Commissive and expressive illocutionary acts in
political discourse. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics, 11(1), 19–49. doi:10.1515/lpp-2015-
0003
Kasper, G. (1997). Can pragmatic competence be taught? (NetWork #6)
[HTML document]. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i, Second Language Teaching &
Curriculum Center. Retrieved from http://www.nflrc. hawaii.edu/NetWorks/NW06/
Kawulich, B. B. (2005). Participant observation as a data collection method. Forum:
Qualitative Social Research, 6(2), Art. 43. Retrieved from http://nbn-
resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0502430
Kothari, C. R. (2004). Research methodology: Methods and techniques (2nd rev. ed.). New
Delhi: New Age International.
Lavidas, N., Alexiou, T., & Sougari, A. (2014). Major trends in theoretical and
applied linguistics (Vol. 3, 1st ed., pp. 251-266). Versita Ltd: Versita. Retrieved from
https://www.degruyter.com/downloadpdf/books/
9788376560915/9788376560915.p15/9788376560915.p15.pdf
Lodico, M. G., Spaulding, D. T. , & Voegtle, K. H. (2010). Methods in educational research:
From theory to practice (2nd ed.). San Francisco: JosseyBass.

McHugh, M. (2017). Interrater reliability: The kappa statistic. PubMed Central (PMC).
Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3900052/
Merdana, Seken, K., & Adi Jaya Putra, N. (2013). An analysis of speech
acts produced by elementary school teachers and students to facilitate teaching and
learning at Sdn 10 Pringgasela East Lombok. E-Journal Program Pascasarjana
Universitas Pendidikan Ganesha Program Studi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris, 1(2013).
Retrieved from http://pasca.undiksha.ac.id/e-journal/index.php/jpbi/article/view/723/0
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new
methods. California; SAGE Publications Inc.
Milleret, M. (2007). “Teaching speech acts.” Journal of the Council of Less
Commonly Taught Languages, 4, 29-52. Retrieved from http://www.
ncolctl.org/files/Teaching-speech-act.pdf
Nurhidayah, P. N. (2015). A pragmatic analysis of classroom speech
acts in the English teaching and learning process at SMA N 1 PURWOREJO (a case
study) (Doctoral dissertation). Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta, Yogyakarta, Indonesia.
Retrieved January 2, 2017, from http://eprints. uny.ac.id/21258/
Onwuegbuzie, A., & Combs, J. (2011). Data analysis in mixed research: A primer.
International Journal of Education, 3(1), 1-25.
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Searle, J. R. (1979). Expression and meaning (1st ed.). New York: Cambridge
University Press. Retrieved from https://academiaanalitica.files.
wordpress.com/2016/10/john-r-searle expression-and-meaning.pdf
Shenton, A. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects.
Education for Information, 22(2), 63-75. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/efi-
2004-22201
Yelfiza, Y. (2012). Speech acts for supporting English teaching and
learning. Academia.edu. Retrieved February 10, 2017, from
https://www.academia.edu/9325924/SPEECH_ACTS_FOR_SUPPORTING_ENGLIS
H_TEACHING_AND_LEARNING
Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford.
Zayed, N. (2014, May). Jordanian EFL teachers’ and students’ practice of speech
acts in the classroom. International Journal on Studies in English Language
and Literature (IJSELL), 2(5), 1-10. Retrieved March 8, 2017, from
https://www.arcjournals.org/pdfs/ijsell/v2-i5/1.pdf
Zhao, Y., & Throssell, P. (2011). Speech act theory and its application to EFL teaching in
China. Language, Society and Culture, 32, 88-95. Retrieved May 22, 2012, from
http://www.educ.utas.edu.au/users/tle/JOURNAL/issues/ 2011/32-11.pdf
I
Appendices
Appendix A
Formal Letters
II
Appendix A1
Formal Request to Conduct the study

III
IV
Appendix A2
Participants ' Formal Consent

V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
Appendix B
Transcripts
This is just a sample of the transcripts used in this study. To view or download full transcript
(35 pages), please follow this link:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_dLDguRN44XOGk0VHU3NU1ybXM/view?usp=sharing
M-1/00:29-00:30 Teacher: The voice is clear girls?
M-1/00:32-00:34 Students: yes.
M-1/00:37-00:40 Teacher: Is it ok? Or do you want it higher?
M-1/00:42-00:45 Student: Higher.
M-1/01:49-01:49 Teacher: it is very noisy outside. Close the window,
M-12/02:11-02:46 Teacher: ok girls, open up your books, page 89. Do you remember what
was the topic for this unit? What did we talk about? quiet girls. I want to refresh your
memory. What was it about?
M-1/02:46-02:48 Students: about food and science.
M-1/02:48-02:50 Teacher: Yes, food and science.
M-1/02:52-02:55 Teacher: what about science?
M-1/02:55-02:49 Students: how food additives or colors of the food are added.
M-1/03:00-05:10 Teacher: Do you remember when we talked about the skill of note taking,
note taking. This skill is going to help you in listening, alright, in lectures or conversation and
to help you remember. Right, this is a skill that you have to practice. Ok look at the book
page 90. Note taking skill, in order to remember most important that is said in a lecture. It is a
good idea to review your notes within 24 hours, after a lecture. This is really a good advice
from now until you become graduate.
M-1/05:12-06:09 Teacher: So, how do you know the important words or ideas said in a
lecture? By reading your notes and annotating them. What does it mean annotate? to give
notes on the text, explanations or comments on the text. you have a listening text, what do
you do? You annotate the text. So, what do you do? How do you annotate? The first one is
highlight the important words. Don’t you do that when you study? You highlight the
important ideas. Or underline it. The second step, cross out information that is not important.
Sometimes, you write aa lot of things but when you revise them you think that these
information are..
X
Appendix C
The Data Sheet

This is just a sample of the data sheet used in this study. To view or download full sheet (61
pages), please follow this link:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_dLDguRN44XVHJiTWljTzlULWc/view?usp=sharing
Participant 1
NO Code Data Context Types of locutionary and
Illocutionary Acts
Re Dir Exp Com Dec
M-1/00:29- The voice is The teacher 

00:30 clear girls? enters the
1 class, and
plugs her
device and
asks about the
quality of the
voice.
2 M-1/00:37- Teacher: Is The teacher is 
00:40 it ok? Or do asking the
you want it students about 
higher? the voice after
editing the
volume.
3 M-1/01:49- It is very The teacher 
01:49 noisy indirectly
outside. orders to close
the window
Close the and when no 
window. one made
reaction she
made her
request direct.
4 M-12/02:11- open up The teacher 
02:46 your books, orders the
page 89. Do students to 
you open their
remember books, asks
what was about the 
the topic for topic. Then
this unit? she orders
What did them to be
we talk quiet, and
about? ….. states why she
XI

A Pragmatic Analysis of Pragmatics of SP PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Pragmatic Analysis of Pragmatics of SP PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Pragmatic Analysis of Pragmatics of SP PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Arab World English Journal (November 2018) Theses ID 217 Pp.

A Pragmatic Analysis of Pragmatics of Speech Acts in English Language Classrooms at

Reef Bijad Alharbi

Author: Reef Bijad Alharbi

Arab World English Journal www.awej.org

Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Al-Imam Mohammed Ibn Saud Islamic University,

Faculty of Languages and Translation

Department of English Language and Literature

Reef Bijad Alharbi

Submitted to Department of English Language and Literature at College of

Languages and Translation in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the

Degree of Master of Arts in Linguistics

Dr. Awad Alshehri

This thesis entitled:

A Pragmatic Analysis of Speech Acts in English Language Classrooms at Al-Imam

Mohammed Ibn Saud Islamic University

Written by Reef Alharbi

has been approved by Department of English Language and Literature

Dr. Awad Alshehri (Supervisor)

Dr. Mohamad Hamdan (Examiner)

Dr. Ahmed Bereir (Examiner)

above mentioned discipline.

focusing on the employment of illocutionary acts. The research applied a mixed

four illocutionary acts out of the five types.

Keywords: Pragmatics, speech acts, English language, teachers.

‫أنواع من أفعال قوة التلفظ الخمسة‪.‬‬

My deepest debt and appreciation to my parents, my sisters, and my brothers,

especially Mohammed, for their continuous prayers and encouragement.

Sincerest gratitude and deepest appreciation go to my advisor Dr. Awad

Hamdan, and Dr. Ahmed Bereir for participating in my examination committee.

Chapter 1: Introduction …………………………………………………….. 1

1.1 Statement of the Problem ………..…………………………..….... 2

1.2 Purpose of the Study …………………………………………… 3

1.3 Research Questions …………………………………………....... 3

1.4 Research Hypotheses ……………………………..……….…… 3

1.5 Significance of the Study ……………………………….……......... 3

1.6 Limitations of the Study ………………………………...…....……. 3

1.7 Definition of Terms ………………………………………………… 4

1.8 Summery …………………………………………………….….……. 4

Chapter 2: Literature Review.…………………………………….……..……..….. 5

2.1 Theoretical Framework ………..…..………………………….…...... 5

2.1.1 Communicative competence………………………………..… 5

2.1.2 Pragmatic competence ……………………………………...... 7

2.2 Main Aspects of Pragmatics ………………………..……….………. 9

2.2.1 Speech act theory…………..………………………………..… 9

2.2.1.1 The classification of speech act……………………..... 10

2.2.1.2 Direct and indirect speech acts……………………..... 11

2.2.2 Grace’s cooperative principles…….………………………..… 12

2.2.3 The significance of using speech acts inside classes. …………. 13

2.3 Critical Review of Related Studies………………..…………..………………. 14

Chapter 3: Research Method and Procedure …………………..……………... 19

3.1 The Research Design ………………..…………..…………………. 19

3.3.1 Participant observer……………...…………………………… 21

3.3.2 Audio recording ….……………...…………………………… 23

3.4 Procedure .………………………..………………………………… 23

3.4.1 Data collection …………………...………………………… 24

3.4.2 Data analysis....…………………...………………………… 24

3.4.3 Post-data collection procedure....…………………………… 24