(Luận văn) structures and functions of commissives by us presidents

i STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP I declare that this research paper is mine and original No other person‘s work has been used without acknowledgement in the thesis Binh Dinh, 2019 lu an Signature n va gh tn to p ie Xaiyavongkham Vongbouasy d oa nl w ll u nf va an lu oi m z at nh z m co l gm @ an Lu n va ac th si ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor, Assoc Prof Dr Nguyen Quang Ngoan for his support and guidance in my completion of the thesis I am also thankful to all the lecturers at Quy Nhon University for their lu profound knowledge and endless support during my study at Quy Nhon an n va University me and give their best suggestions and encouragement to me during my ie gh tn to I would also like to thank my classmates who are always willing to help p process of conducting the study oa nl w Finally, I owe the completion of this paper to my wife and children, who have always been standing by me on my road to success d ll u nf va an lu oi m z at nh z m co l gm @ an Lu n va ac th si iii ABSTRACT This MA thesis aims to study forms and structures of commissives by Bill Clinton, Barrack Obama, and Donald Trump as the US presidents in their terms The statistic, analytic, synthetic, descriptive, and comparative methods are used to examine 331 commissives, collected from 48 speeches made by the three presidents in their terms The results show that forms of lu commissives are realized in structures with performative verbs, structures an n va with commissive words, and structures without commissive words, among tn to which the last one is the most commonly used As far as functions are concerned, commissives are used by the three presidents to express gh p ie offer/promise, threat/warning and refusal, with the first one being the most d oa nl w frequently employed ll u nf va an lu oi m z at nh z m co l gm @ an Lu n va ac th si iv TABLE OF CONTENTS SUB-COVERS STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP…………………………………… i lu an n va ii ABSTRACT ………………………………………………………… iii TABLE OF CONTENTS …………………………………………… iv ABBREVIATIONS AND CONVENTIONS ……………………… vii LIST OF TABLES ……………………………………………… … viii p ie gh tn to AKNOWLEDGEMENTS ………………………………………… w CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION oa nl 1.1 Rationale .1 d 1.2 Aim and Objectives an lu u nf va 1.2.1 Aim 1.2.2 Objectives ll m oi 1.3 Research questions .3 z at nh 1.4 Scope of the study z 1.5 Significance of the study gm @ 1.6 Definition of terms l m co 1.7 Structure of the thesis an Lu 1.8 Summary .6 n va CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ac th si v 2.1 Theory of speech acts 2.1.1 Notion of speech act .7 2.1.2 Degrees of speech act 2.1.3 Classification of speech acts 2.1.4 Indirect speech acts 11 2.1.5 Role of context in speech act studies .15 2.2 Previous relevant studies 15 2.3 Summary .22 lu an CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 23 va n 3.1 Research methods 23 tn to ie gh 3.2 Research procedures .24 p 3.3 Data sources and samples .24 oa nl w 3.4 Data analysis 29 d 3.5 Validity and reliability 29 lu va an 3.6 Summary .30 ll u nf CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION .31 oi m 4.1 Structures of commissives in speeches by US presidents 31 z at nh 4.1.1 Commissives with performative verbs 32 4.1.2 Commissives with commissive words 35 z @ l gm 4.1.3 Commissives without commissive words .38 4.1.4 Similarities and differences in structures of commissives by Bill m co Clinton, Barack Obama and Donald Trump 41 an Lu 4.2 Functions of commissives in speeches by US presidents .44 n va ac th si vi 4.2.1 Commissives for offer/promise 45 4.2.2 Commissives for threat/warning 49 4.2.3 Commissives for refusal 52 4.2.3 Similarities and differences in structures of commissives by Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and Donald Trump 55 4.3 Summary .56 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS .57 5.1 Conclusions 57 lu an 5.2 Implications 59 va n 5.3 Limitations of the study .60 gh tn to 5.4 Suggestion for further study 60 p ie REFERENCES 61 d oa nl w APPENDIX: 64 ll u nf va an lu oi m z at nh z m co l gm @ an Lu n va ac th si vii ABBREVIATIONS AND CONVENTIONS - Per V Performative verbs - Commissive W Commissive words - Italic is used for linguistic terms mentioned the first time and examples - Italic and bold is used for highlighting the signals of commissives - Examples and tables are numbered according to chapter lu an n va p ie gh tn to d oa nl w ll u nf va an lu oi m z at nh z m co l gm @ an Lu n va ac th si viii LIST OF TABLES Table Titles Page numbers numbers 2.1 Analysis of indirect speech acts 12 3.1 Commissive triggers for sample collection 27 lu an 3.2 Total of commissives as samples in the study 28 n va Frequency of occurrence of different commissive tn to 4.1 31 p ie gh structures in total Frequency of occurrence of different commissive 32 structures by president Similarities and differences in commissive structures by 41 d 4.3 oa nl w 4.2 lu 4.4 u nf va an the three presidents Frequency of occurrence of different commissive 44 ll z at nh 4.5 oi m functions in total Frequency of occurrence of different commissive z functions by president 44 m co l gm @ an Lu n va ac th si CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION This chapter presents the rationale, aims and objectives of the study with its research questions, scope and significance The definitions of terms and structures of the thesis are also presented lu 1.1 RATIONALE an n va When political leaders take a new position, they usually make tn to commitments to different things to make people happy or satisfied It is for ie gh this reason that commissive speech acts are commonly made by political p leaders Commissive speech acts or commissives are kinds of speech acts that speakers use to commit themselves to doing something with words w d oa nl Let‘s analyze the commissives in (1.1), (1.2), and (1.3) an lu (1.1) Let us guarantee every American comprehensive health benefits ll u nf Care Reform) va that can never be taken away (September 22, 1993: Address on Health oi m Example (1.1) is a commissive made by Former President Bill Clinton in z at nh his address on health care reform on September 22nd, 1993 Structurally, this commissive is realized in a structure with the commissive word z gm @ guarantee Functionally, it is for making a promise to the audience l (1.2) Going forward, I am committed to addressing these costs openly and m co honestly Our new approach in Afghanistan is likely to cost us roughly $30 billion for the military this year, and I'll work closely with Congress an Lu to address these costs as we work to bring down our deficit (December 1, n va ac th si 2009: Speech on Strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan) In terms of structure, utterance (1.2) uttered by Former President Barack Obama in his speech on strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan on December 1st, 2009 is realized, in the first part, in a structure with the commissive word committed, and in the second part in a structure without commissive words: “I‟ll work” Both of them are, however, promises functionally (1.3) And we‘re pouring a lot of money and a lot of talent into this horrible problem And we pledge to honor the memory of those you lost with action and determination and resolve We’ll get it We will not rest until the end lu an (March 19, 2018: Remarks on Combating the Opioid Crisis) va Utterance (1.3) is a commissive made by President Donald Trump in his n tn to remarks on combating the opioid crisis on March 19 th, 2018 He uses both ie gh the performative verb pledge and structures without commissive words p “We‟ll get it” and “We will not rest” for the promises he intends to make nl w Thus, it is especially interesting to study commissives as a speech act type d oa Surprising, no research of commissives has been conducted in Vietnam an lu although there have been studies in speech act types in textbooks (Nguyễn va Thị Ngọc Dung, 2014; Nguyễn Thị Minh Tâm, 2014), indirect speech acts ll u nf (Đoàn Thị Hương Hiền, 2015), expressives (Võ Trọng Nhơn, 2016), z at nh Thanh Bình, 2011) oi m representatives (Nguyễn Xuân Vĩnh, 2013) and directives (Nguyễn Thị Thus, there has been no study on commissives in Vietnam with a focus on z gm @ structures and functions, especially by US presidents though they are famous for using language to successfully communicate their intended l m co meanings That means there are a literature gap and good reasons for my choice of the research topic “Structure and Functions of Commissives by an Lu US Presidents” for my MA thesis n va ac th si 49 promise indirectly: “America and its allies will take all necessary steps to achieve a denuclearization and ensure that this regime cannot threaten the world” Differently, in example (4.58), Donald Trump uses both the performative verb pledge and structure without commissive words to make his promise: “we pledge to honor the memory of those you lost with action and determination and resolve We’ll get it We will not rest until the end” 4.1.2 Commissives for threat/warning lu Threat/warning is the second category of functions of commissives by the an three presidents When their commissives are used for the purpose of va n threatening or warning people, enterprises or countries, they are put into gh tn to this category Usually, the threats or warnings are not directly made again the direct addressees but against others Following are examples of ie p threats/warnings made by each president w oa nl a Bill Clinton d (4.61) Next month I will send you one of the toughest budgets ever lu va an presented to Congress (January 25, 1994: State of the Union Address) u nf (4.62) And we will impose new taxes on tobacco (September 22, 1993: ll Address on Health Care Reform) oi m z at nh (4.63) In Bosnia we can and will succeed because our mission is clear and limited, and our troops are strong and very well-prepared (November 27, z gm @ 1995: Address on Bosnia) As regards Bill Clinton‘s threats/warnings, in example (4.61) the warning l m co is about the toughest budget ever presented to Congress In example (4.62), the threat/warning is about higher taxes imposed on tobacco, while (4.63) an Lu can be considered as a threat/warning against Bosnia when the president n va says “our mission is clear and limited, and our troops are strong and very ac th si 50 well-prepared” b Barrack Obama (4.64) It should also serve as a message to the world that the United States of America intends to sustain and strengthen our leadership in this young century (August 31, 2010: Address on the End of the Combat Mission in Iraq) (4.65) That‘s what we did with Korea, and that’s what I intend to as we pursue agreements with Panama and Colombia and continue our Asia Pacific and global trade talks (January 25, 2011: 2011 State of the Union lu an Address) va n (4.66) But an additional step we can take to keep insurance companies gh tn to honest is by making a not-for-profit public option available in the insurance exchange (September 9, 2009: Address to Congress on Health ie p Care) oa nl w (4.67) We will strengthen Pakistan’s capacity to target those groups that d threaten our countries, and have made it clear that we cannot tolerate a safe lu an haven for terrorists whose location is known and whose intentions are ll Pakistan) u nf va clear (December 1, 2009: Speech on Strategy in Afghanistan and m oi (4.68) We can and will defeat those who threaten the safety and z at nh security of people all around the world (March 22, 2016: Remarks to the People of Cuba) z @ gm Like Bill Clinton‘s, Barack Obama‘s threats/warning are made both m co l explicitly and implicitly against people, organizations or countries In (4.64), it is a threat/warning against the world that the United States of an Lu America will sustain and strengthen their leadership, while in (4.65) the threat/warning is implicitly inserted in “That‟s what we did with Korea, n va ac th si 51 and that‟s what I intend to do” Likewise, in (4.66) the threat/warning is implicitly made against insurance companies: “an additional step we can take to keep insurance companies honest is by making a not-for-profit public option available in the insurance exchange” However, in (4.67) and (4.68), the threats/warnings are in turn explicitly made when the president states “we cannot tolerate a safe haven for terrorists whose location is known and whose intentions are clear” and ―We can and will defeat those who threaten the safety and security of people all around the world” lu c Donald Trump an n va (4.69) I don’t want to get into that battle, all right? (February 23, 2018: tn to Remarks at the Conservative Political Action Conference) ie gh (4.70) That is why my Administration has been working on improved p vetting procedures, and we will shortly take new steps to keep our Nation nl w safe and to keep out those who would us harm (February 28, 2017: d oa Address to Joint Session of Congress) an lu (4.71) We are prepared to take further action if the government of Venezuelan people ll u nf va Venezuela persists on its path to impose authoritarian rule on the m oi (4.72) We are committed to ensuring that Afghanistan never again z at nh becomes a safe haven for terrorists who want to commit mass murder to our civilian populations (January 26, 2018: Address at the World z gm @ Economic Forum) l (4.73) America and its allies will take all necessary steps to achieve a m co denuclearization and ensure that this regime cannot threaten the world an Lu (December 18, 2017: Remarks on National Security Strategy) When it comes to Donald Trump‘s threat/warnings, they are usually more n va ac th si 52 explicitly stated For example, in (4.69) and (4.70) his warnings are quite direct as he inserts ―I don‟t want to get into that battle, all right?‖ and ―we will shortly take new steps to keep our Nation safe and to keep out those who would us harm” In (4.71), it is an explicit warning against the government of Venezuela when the president insists on taking “further action if the government of Venezuela persists on its path to impose authoritarian rule on the Venezuelan people” The warning in (4.72) is made against terrorists about their mass murder: “We are committed to ensuring that Afghanistan never again becomes a safe haven for terrorists lu who want to commit mass murder to our civilian populations” In (4.73) an the warning is about the future measures to “achieve a denuclearization” va n for the world tn to ie gh 4.1.3 Commissives for refusal p Commissives for refusal are made by the three presidents when they nl w commit themselves to refusing to something or to accept something d oa They are not as popular as the first two functions However, in the u nf va a Bill Clinton an lu examined data, certain refusals are realized and presented below ll (4.74) I refuse to send American troops to fight a war in Bosnia, but I m oi believe we must help to secure the Bosnian peace (November 27, 1995: z at nh Address on Bosnia) (4.75) We cannot accept a world in which part of humanity lives on the z @ cutting edge of a new economy and the rest live on the bare edge of gm l survival (January 27, 2000: State of the Union Address) m co In (4.74), Bill Clinton‘s refusal is explicitly stated with the performative an Lu verb refuse: “I refuse to send American troops to fight a war in Bosnia” In (4.75), the president‘s refusal is realized with “cannot accept”: ―We n va ac th si 53 cannot accept a world in which part of humanity lives on the cutting edge of a new economy and the rest live on the bare edge of survival” b Barrack Obama (4.76) As President, I refuse to set goals that go beyond our responsibility, our means, or our interests And I must weigh all of the challenges that our nation faces (December 1, 2009: Speech on Strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan) (4.77) Now, yesterday the Senate blocked a bill that would have created this commission, so I'll issue an Executive order that will allow us to go lu an forward, because I refuse to pass this problem on to another generation of va Americans (January 27, 2010: 2010 State of the Union Address) n gh tn to (4.78) If you misrepresent what's in this plan, we will call you out And I will not accept the status quo as a solution (September 9, 2009: Address ie p to Congress on Health Care) w oa nl (4.79) Well, I not accept second place for the United States of d America As hard as it may be, as uncomfortable and contentious as the lu an debates may become, it's time to get serious about fixing the problems that ll Address u nf va are hampering our growth January 27, 2010: 2010 State of the Union m oi (4.80) First, I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits, either z at nh now or in the future (September 9, 2009: Address to Congress on Health Care) z @ gm Similar to Bill Clinton, Barack Obama make his explicit refusals with the l performative verb refuse in (4.76) and (4.77) when he states “I refuse to m co set goals that go beyond our responsibility, our means, or our interests” an Lu and “I refuse to pass this problem on to another generation of Americans” On the other hand, Barrack Obama‘s refusals are also made n va ac th si 54 with such structures as “I will not” or “I not” For instance, in (4.79), he claims “I not accept second place for the United States of America” and in (4.80) he states “I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits, either now or in the future” c Donald Trump (4.81) America is governed by Americans We reject the ideology of globalism (September 25, 2018: Address at the 73rd Session of the United Nations General Assembly) (4.82) We don’t want to let other countries take away our sovereignty lu an and tell us what to and how to it (June 29, 2017: Speech at the va Unleashing American Energy Event) n gh tn to (4.83) We don’t want them in our schools (Applause.) We don’t want them (February 23, 2018: Remarks at the Conservative Political Action ie p Conference) w oa nl (4.84) We cannot send our military to confront threats abroad, only to d allow those same threats to cross our borders and to threaten us right here lu u nf va Convention) an at home (July 24, 2018: Speech at the Veterans of Foreign Wars National ll (4.85) We will no longer accept politicians who are all talk and no action m oi – constantly complaining but never doing anything about it (January 20, z at nh 2017: Inaugural Address) z Donald Trump‘s refusal are realized in different patterns such as “We @ gm reject”, “We don‟t want”, “We cannot send” and “we will no longer l accept” For example, in (4.81), the president‘s refusal is explicitly made m co via the per formative verb reject: ―We reject the ideology of globalism‖ In an Lu (4.82), his refusal is emphasized with “We don‟t want” as he speaks not only on his own but also on behalf of his government and people: ―We n va ac th si 55 don‟t want to let other countries take away our sovereignty and tell us what to and how to it” 4.2.4 Similarities and differences in structures of commissives by Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and Donald Trump As for the functions of commissives, it is a fact that the three presidents have many things in common and differ from each other in certain aspects On the one hand, thanks to the similarity in political positions and genre of discourse, the three presidents share similar aspect in their commissives Firstly, they all use commissives for the three functions: offer/promise, lu an threat/warning, and refusal As a matter of fact, most of their commissives, va more than two thirds, are for making offer/promise Besides, they almost n gh tn to use all types of commissive structures for realizing each function On the other hand, the three presidents are different in other aspects when ie p it comes to functions of commissives To begin with, it is threat/warning nl w that Barack Obama uses the least, while the least favourable function of d oa commissives of Bill Clinton and Donald Trump is refusal In addition to an lu that, although the majority of commissives by the three presidents are u nf va offer/promise, the percentage of Bill Clinton‘s offers and promises is approximately 20% higher than the other two presidents Donald Trump ll oi m make the most commissives of the three presidents, accounting for more z at nh than 77%, and he also make the most threat/warning of the three, with 25 items compared to 10 by Barack Obama and only by Bill Clinton z However, it is Barack Obama who makes the most refusal (16.67% of his @ l gm commissives), with 19 items compared to 16 by Donald Trump and only by Bill Clinton What is more linguistic means used to make each function m co is also more or less different For instance, to make offer/promise, Both an Lu Bill Clinton and Barack Obama are in favour of using structure with n va performative verbs or commissive words, while Donald Trump especially ac th si 56 like using structures without commissive words Take refusal for another example, While Barack Obama usually uses “refuse” as a performative verb to make his refusal explicit, Donald Trump enjoy using a variety of structures without commissive words, such as: “We don‟t want”, “I don‟t want”, “We cannot”, “we will no longer”, “We will never” and “I won‟t” For more details, please see the sample analysis in the Appendix 4.3 SUMMARY This is the major chapter, presenting the findings and discussions on different structures and functions of the commissives made by the three US lu an presidents as well as the similarities and differences between them n va p ie gh tn to d oa nl w ll u nf va an lu oi m z at nh z m co l gm @ an Lu n va ac th si 57 CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSION This final chapter draws out the conclusions of the study results Implications, limitations, and suggestions for further research are also presented in order to wrap up everything lu 5.1 CONCLUSIONS an va n This study investigates structures and functions of commissives in tn to political speeches by three US presidents - Bill Clinton, Barack Obama ie gh and Donald Trump – in their terms The statistic, analytic, synthetic, p descriptive, and comparative methods are used to examine 331 nl w commissives, collected from 48 political speeches Conclusions are now d oa drawn out in accordance with the objectives of the study lu va an Firstly, as regards structures of commissives, most of the commissives by the US president are made in structures without commissive words Both u nf ll the other two types of structures – those with performative verbs and those m oi with commissive words – are much less frequently used The structures z at nh with performative verbs typically start with the first singular person subject (I), followed by a performative verb in its simple present tense, such as z gm @ promise, pledge, commit, and so on However, as the speakers are presidents of the country, sometimes they can use We, America, or the USA l m co of America as the subject of the commissive Commissives can also be realized in structures with commissive words They are mainly verbs and an Lu nouns that show signals for recognizing commissives Some typical n va ac th si 58 commissive words are promise, guarantee, commit, recommit, intend, offer, want, and ensure As regards verbs, they are put into this category when they cannot be put in the category of performative verbs It is because on the one hand, they are not performative verbs like want or intend and, on the other hand, they are not in the active, simple present tense to make a commissive explicitly stated Commissives without commissive words are usually realized in structures where there are no commissive words to function as signals for recognizing commissives, but the grammatical structures themselves can help readers interpret them as lu implicit commissives Some of those structures are the simple future tense, an the near future structure, and so on n va tn to Secondly, with regard to functions of commissives, all the three gh presidents mainly use commissives to make offers/promises, with Bill p ie Clinton‘s making up nine tenths and Barack Obama‘s and Donald w Trump‘s both making up three fourths Threat/warning is the second oa nl category of functions of commissives by the three presidents When their d commissives are used for the purpose of threatening or warning people, lu va an enterprises or countries, they are put into this category Usually, the u nf threats or warnings are not directly made again the direct addressees but ll against others Commissives for refusal are made by the three presidents m oi when they commit themselves to refusing to something or to accept z at nh something They are not as popular as the first two functions z Thirdly, when it comes to similarities and differences in commissives @ gm made by the three US presidents, they can be observed in both structures m co l and functions Structurally, as they are all the presidents of the USA making political speeches in their terms, their similar political position and an Lu genre of discourse lead to many things in common that they have First of all, they all use the three types of structures: with performative verbs, with n va ac th si 59 commissive words, and without commissive words Of the three types of structures, it is structures without commissive words that are used the most by all of them and it is structures with performative verbs that are used the least What is more, they all use a variety of lexical and grammatical triggers to help hearers recognize their commissives However, their commissives are more or less structurally different perhaps because of their communication style or policy Functionally, it is a fact that the three presidents have many things in common and a few things different As regards similarities, they all use commissives for the three functions: lu offer/promise, threat/warning, and refusal As a matter of fact, most of an their commissives are for making offers/promises Besides, they almost use va n all types of commissive structures for realizing each function In terms of gh tn to differences, it is threat/warning that Barack Obama uses the least, while the least favourable function of commissives by Bill Clinton and Donald ie p Trump is refusal In addition to that, although the majority of commissives nl w by the three presidents are offers/promises, the percentage of Bill Clinton‘s d oa offers and promises is much higher than the other two presidents Donald an lu Trump makes the most commissives of the three presidents and he also u nf va makes the most threat/warning of the three What is more, linguistic means used to make each function is also more or less different For instance, to ll oi m make offer/promise, Both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama are in favour of z at nh using structures with performative verbs or commissive words, while Donald Trump especially like using structures without commissive words z l gm @ 5.2 IMPLICATIONS To some extent, this thesis is a valuable contribution to the teaching and m co learning of English, especially commissive speech acts as a speech act an Lu type in English For successful communication in English, a good n va knowledge and frequent practice of different types of speech acts, ac th si 60 especially, commissives with various linguistic features of their structures and functions are of great importance 5.3 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY In the scope of an MA thesis, with the lack of time, certain limitations are inevitable With more time, the researcher would have achieved a deeper analysis of commissive structures and functions Also, more pragmatic aspects of commissives in context would have been studied 5.4 SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH lu an Concerning the limitation of the thesis, the researcher would like to make va n some suggestions for further research: ie gh tn to Pragmatic features of commissives by US presidents, p Structures and functions of directives by US presidents, w d oa nl Structures and functions of expressives by US presidents, ll u nf 5.5 SUMMARY va an lu Structures and functions of representatives by US presidents oi m This is the last chapter to end up the thesis with conclusions, implications, z at nh limitations and suggestions for further study z m co l gm @ an Lu n va ac th si 61 REFERENCES Austin, J L (1962) How to things with words Cambridge: Harvard University Press Bach, K., & Harnish, R (1979) Linguistic communication and speech acts Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Bushia Ni‘ma Rashid (2015) A pragmatic anslysis of commissives in some selected American political texts International Journal of Current lu an Research, 7(12), 23805-23814 va Clark, H H (1979) Responding to indirect speech acts Cognitive n Grice, H P (1975) Logic and conversation In P Cole & J L Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts (pp 41-58) New York: Academic Press p ie gh tn to Psychology, 11, 430-477 nl w Đoàn Thị Hương Hiền (2015) A study of linguistic features of indirect speech d oa acts in modern short stories in English and Vietnamese, Unpublished an lu MA thesis Quy Nhon: Quy Nhon University ll u nf va Faerch, C & Kasper, G (1989) Internal and external modification in interlanguage request realization In S Blum-Kulka, J House & G Kapser (Eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies (pp 221-247) Norwood: Ablex oi m Geis, M (1995) Speech acts and conversational interation Cambridge: z at nh Cambridge University Press z House, J & Kasper, G (1987) Interlanguage pragmatics: Requesting in a foreign language In W Lorscher & R Schulze (Eds.), Perspectives on language in performance (pp 1250-1288) Tubingen: Narr l gm @ Hurford R J., Heasley, B & Michael, B S (2007) Semantics: A coursebook m co (2nd Ed.) Cambridge: Oxford University Press an Lu Khalimatul Mauludiyah (2017) An analysis of Donald Trump‟s commissive speech act in USS, Yorktown on December 7, 2015 MA thesis Jakarta: n va ac th si 62 Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University Leech, G (1983) Principles of pragmatics, London: Longman Group Limited Levison, S C (1983) Pragmatics Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Miftakhul Ulum, Djoko Sutopo, and Warsono (2018) A comparison between Trump‘s and Clinton‘s commissive speech act in America‘s presidential campaign speech English Educational Jounal, 8(2), 221-228 Nguyễn Thị Minh Tâm (2014) An Investigation into speech acts in the conversations of the current English textbooks used in Vietnamese high schools Unpublished MA thesis Quy Nhon: Quy Nhon University lu Nguyễn Thị Ngọc Dung (2014) A Study of speech acts in conversations in the New Interchange series Unpublished MA thesis Quy Nhon: Quy Nhon University an n va tn to Nguyen Quang Ngoan & Nguyen Thi Ngoc Dung (2017) Speech act types in gh conversations in the ―New Interchange‖ series VNU Journal of Foreign p ie Studies, 33(6), 78-92 w Nguyễn Quang Ngoạn (2017) Một số hướng nghiên cứu dựa thuyết oa nl hành vi ngôn ngữ Ngôn ngữ & Đời sống, 10(264), 50-56 d Nguyễn Thị Thanh Bình (2011) A Study of syntactic and pragmatic features lu an of indirect interrogative directives in English and Vietnamese u nf va Unpublished MA Thesis Da Nang: Da Nang University Nguyễn Xuân Vĩnh (2014) An investigation into linguistic features of ll oi m teachers‟ representatives with defining functions in lectures in English z at nh Unpublished MA Thesis Da Nang: Da Nang University z Richards, J C et al (1992) Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics (2nd Ed.) London: Longman @ m co l introduction New York: Basil Blackwell gm Saville-Troike, M (1982) The ethnography of communication: An Searle J R and Van Der Veken D (1985) Foundations of illocutionary an Lu logic Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Searle, J (1975) Indirect speech acts In P Cole & J Morgan (Eds.), Syntax n va ac th si 63 and sematics Vol.3: Speech Acts New York: Academic Press Searle, J R (1969) Speech acts Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Searle, J R (1976) The classifications of illocutionary acts Language in Society 5, 1-23 Searle, J R (1979) Expression and meaning Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Thomas J (1996) Meaning in Interaction, an Introduction of Pragmatics, London and New York: Longman lu Võ Trọng Nhơn (2015) A contrastive study of linguistic features of expressives in comments given by judges in America‟s got talent versus Vietnam‟s got talent Unpublished MA thesis Quy Nhon: Quy Nhon University an va n Yule, G (1997) Pragmatics (2nd Ed.) Oxford: Oxford University Press p ie gh tn to d oa nl w ll u nf va an lu oi m z at nh z m co l gm @ an Lu n va ac th si