AimandObjectives
Aim
This study aims to analyze the structures and functions of commissivesspeech acts made by US presidents in their terms to understand thembetterasaspeechacttype.
Objectives
- Toidentifyandanalyze thefunctionsofcommissives m a d e by theinvestigatedUSpresidentsin their terms.
Researchquestions
Inor de r toa ch ie ve theaim ando b j e c t i v e s , theresearchertries t o findtheanswerstothefollowingquestions:
3 Whata r e t he si mi la ri ti es a n d d if fe re nc es i n t he c o m m i s si v e s m a d e bytheinvestigated USpresidents in theirterms?
Scopeofthe study
Thepresentstudyislimitedtoasmallscaleresearchtof u lf i l l therequirements for anMAthesis inEnglishLinguistics.
Thelinguisticfeaturesarelimitedtostructuresandfunctionsofcommissives The structures are divided into structures with performativeverbs,structureswithcommissivewords,andstructureswithoutcom missive words The functions are further classified into offer/promise,threat/ warning,andrefusal.
Samplesare commissives by US presidents in their terms.T h e y i n c l u d e 331 commissive speech acts collected from 48 political speeches made bytheinvestigatedUS presidents.
Obama, andFormer PresidentBillC l i n t o n , t h e t h r e e latest presidentsofthe USA.
Significanceofthe study
Thisstudyisexpectedtocontributeaspecific,thoroughstudyofcommissivespeec hactsandrelevantissuesinthegenreofpoliticaldiscourse.Theresultsofthisstudya reexpectedtohelpVietnameselearnersofEnglishimprovetheirunderstandingofstru cturesa n d functionsofspeech actstobettertheircommunicationin English.
Definitionof terms
- commissives/commissivespeechacts:kindsofspeechactsthatspeakers use to commit themselves to doing something with words Theyexpress what the speaker intends Representatives of this group includepromising,offering,threatening,warning,refusing,vowingandvolunt eering They can be performed by the speaker alone, or by thespeaker as a member of a group, e g.“I‟ll be back”, “I‟m going to get itrightnexttime”,“Wewillnotdothat”.
Structureof the thesis
The study consists of 5 chapters; each chapter takes responsibility for aparticularfunction.
This chapter reveals the overview of the study including the statement ofthe problem, research aim and objectives, research questions, scope of thestudy,significanceofthestudy,andstructureof thethesis.
Inthischapter,allthetermsaswellasthekeytheoreticalconceptsincluding the notion of speech act, degrees of speech act, types of speechactsandindirectspeechactsthatthepresentstudyisbasedonarethoroughlydi scussed.Also,previousstudiesonspeechacttypesandcommissives are reviewed.
Thischapterdescribestheresearchmethodsusedinthes t u d y Additionally,ther esearchprocedures,datasourcesandsamples,data-analyzingmethods andcommissivetriggersarealso mentioned.
This chapter depicts the results of the study that the researcher finds outfrom the collected data based on the three research questions and a detaileddiscussion on the research findings concerning structures and functionsusedintheinvestigated commissivesbyUSpresidents.
Asummaryofthestudy,majorfindings,implications,limitationsaswell assuggestionsforfurtherstudiesareallmentionedinthisfinalchapter.
Summary
This chapter reveals all the major aspects introducing the study, such asrationale, research aim and objectives, research questions, research scope,and soon.
This chapter presents a review of relevant theories and previous studiesrelevant studies to the research topic It deals with theories of speech acts,commissives as a speech act types, and previous studies of speech acttypes andcommissives.
Theoryofspeechacts
Notionofspeech act
The study of speech acts was pioneered by Austin (1962) According tohim, all utterances should be viewed as actions of the speakers, actionsperformed by speech He pointed out that the declarative sentences are notonly used to say things or describe states of affairs but also used to dothingssuchasmakingrequestsorinvitations.Austin(1962)d e f i n e d speech acts as the actions performed in saying something When peopleutter something, they often perform actions via those utterances Theseactions are called speech acts such asapology, complaint, compliment,invitation,promiseorrequest.
Yule (1997) defined that "in attempting to express themselves, people donot only produce utterances containing grammatical structures and words,theyperformactionsviathoseutterances".Accordingtohim,actionsperform ed viautterancesarespeechacts.
To a certain extent, both well-known linguists agreed that speech acts areactionsi n t e n d e d t o d o b y a s p e a k e r t h r o u g h u t t e r a n c e s h e p e r f o r m s i n conversationswithothers.
Degreesofspeech act
As initially classified by Austin (1962), supported and followed by Searle(1969), Richards et al (1992), Geis (1995) and Yule (1997), a speech actconsists of threerelated acts includingl o c u t i o n a r y a c t ,illocutionary actandperlocutionary act.
Locutionaryactisthebasicactofproducingameaningfullinguisticexpression.Thel ocutionaryactisperformedwithsomepurposesorfunctions in mind When you utter something meaningful in a language,you performalocutionaryact.
Illocutionary actis an act performed via the communicative force of anutterance Hurford et al (2007) also stated that one way to think about theillocutionary actis that it reflects the intention of the speaker in makingutterance in the first place.Likewise,Yule
(1997)statedthatwem i g h t utter to make a statement, an offer, an explanation, or for some othercommunicativepurposes.Toputitsimple,illocutionaryactist h e speaker‘s intended meaningwhenheutterssomething
Perlocutionary actis what we bring about or achieve by saying something,suchasconvincing,persuadingordeterring.Perlocutionaryactsare performed only on the assumption that the hearer will recognize the effectthe speaker intended Perlocutionnary acts are what the speaker cannotcontrol like whathecandowiththe other twoacts.
Forexample,whenmakingtheutterance―Canyoutellmewherethe rector‟sofficeis?”thespeakermakesaloccutionaryact.Bythatlocutionary act,he wants to make his illocutionary act which is a politerequest For theperlocutionary act, the speaker may get the addressee toshowhimthe way.
Of the three levels, it is theillocutionary actthat counts because it conveysthe speaker‘s intended meaning (illocutionary force) which can be realizedindifferentlanguagestructuresofvarioussemanticmeanings.T hathelpstopartiallyexplainwhyYule(1997:52)claims,“„speechact‟isgenerall yinterpretedquitenarrowlytomeanonlytheillocutionaryforceofanutterance”.
Classificationofspeechacts
Onegeneralclassificationsystemlistsfivetypesofgeneralfunctionsperformedbys peechacts- declarations,representatives,expressives,directives,andcommissives(Searle197 6:1-15,Levinson1983:240).
• Declarationsare those kinds of speech acts that change the world viatheirutteranceandviawords.Theyeffectimmediatechangesintheinstitution al state of affairs and tend to rely on elaborate extra-linguisticinstitutions (declaring war, firing from employment) (Levinson 1983: 240).The given examples below illustrate that the speaker has to have a specialinstitutional role, in a specific context, in order to perform a declarationappropriately.For example,
• Representativesarethosekindsofspeechactsthatstatewhatthespeakerbelie vestobethestateornot.Statementsoffact,assertions,conclusions,anddescriptions areallexamplesofthespeakerrepresenting the world as he or she believes it is Typical functions of this category aredescribing,claiming,hypothesizing,insistinganddisagreeing.Thefollowin gexamplesillustratewhatarementionedabove.Forexample,
• Commissivesare those kinds of speech acts that speakers use to committhemselves to doing something with words They express what the speakerintends.Representativesofthisgroupincludepromising,offering,threate ning,refusing,vowing,pledging,committing,andvolunteering.Theycanbeperfo rmedbythespeakeralone,orbythespeakerasa memberof agroup.For instance,
• Directivesarethosekindsofspeechactsthatspeakersusetogetsomeoneelset odosomething.They expresswhatthespeakerwants.Typical functions of this group arecommanding,ordering,requesting,suggesting, inviting, advising,andquestioning They can be positive ornegative,asillustrated inthese examples:
• Expressivesare those kinds of speech acts that state what the speakerfeels They express psychological states and can be statements of pleasure,pain,likes,dislikes,joyorsorrow,complimenting,congratulating,tha nking, welcoming As illustrated in the examples below, they can becausedby somethingthespeakerdoesorthehearerdoes, butt h e y a r e about the speaker‘sexperience.
This above classification is viewed as one of the most influential and auniversaltaxonomyof speechacts.
Indirectspeechacts
―illocutionaryact”.Hestated:"Inindirectspeechactsthespeakercommunicates to the hearer more than he actually says by way of relyingontheirmutuallysharedbackgroundinformation,bothlinguisticandno nlinguistic, together with the general powers of rationality and inferenceonthe partofthehearer".
Speech acts may be eitherdirectorindirectspeech acts depending on thedirect and indirect relationships between their structures and functions.Discussing the perspective of direct and indirect speech act, Searle (1975)stated that the simplest cases of meaning are those in which the speakerutters a sentence and means exactly and literally what he says and definedindirectspeechactsascaseswhereanillocutionaryactisperformedindirectl ybywayof performinganother.
More simply, direct speechacts occur when the speaker says what hemeans, while in indirect speech acts, the speaker means more than what iscommunicated.Yule(1997)suggestedthethreestructuralforms(declarative, interrogative and imperative) andthe three correspondingcommunicative functions (statement, questionandcommand/request) toclassifyspeechactsasbeingdirectorindirect.Hestated:―Whereverthere is a direct relationship between a structure and a function, we have directspeech act Whenever there is an indirect relationship between a structureandafunction,wehaveanindirectspeechact‖.
To make a direct speech act, there has to be a direct relationship between astructureandafunction.Forexample,theutterance―HeisanEnglishstudent‖ is a declarative sentence If the speaker wants to make a statementwith that structure, it is direct However, if that is the answer to the request“Could anyone translate this instruction into English?”, it is an indirectcommand/ request,withthespeaker‘sintention being“Tellhimtodothat”. b Characteristicsofindirectspeechacts
Therelationshipbetweenstructureandfunctionisthecriteriont o determine indirect speech acts As Yule (1997) argued, whenever there isan indirect relationship between a structure and a function, we have anindirectspeechactandthesecondarymeaningderivedfromi n d i r e c t speecha ctsrequirestheparticipationfromboththespeakerandthehearer.
In Nguyễn Thị Ngọc Dung‘s (2014: 29) study, she clarified Yule‘s (1997)point of view by suggesting specific cases of indirect speech acts, as shownin Table2.1.
Ad e c l a r a t i v e s t r u c t u r e n o t f o r a s t a t e m e n t b u t a n exclamation,aquestion,oracommand/request
Ane x c l a m a t i v e s t r u c t u r e n o t f o r a n e x c l a m a t i o n but for a statement, a question, or acommand/request
+Interrogative Aninterrogative structurenotfora questionb uta
-Question statement,anexclamation,oracommand/request
Others Thestructureandfunctionmatch,buttheintended meaning and literal meaning are different; combinationsofdifferentindirectspeechacts
Forexample,whenaspeakerusesaninterrogativesentence,andhisintentioni s t o sa t i r i z e , i t i s a n i n d i r e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e f u n c t i o n andstructure. Forexample,ifafathersays,―Whyhaveyounotdoneyourhomework? Do you want me to do it for you?‖, the father does not reallywish to help On the contrary, he is ironic, and the utterance is an indirectspeech act Uttering a sentence while meaning something else happenseverydayinhumancommunications.
In indirect speech acts , the form differs from the function Usually inthese cases,theindirect speech acts carries meaninginthe utterance, buttheintended forceinthe speech act has a secondary meaning also. AsSearle(1975)stated,―thespeakeruttersasentence,meanswhathesays,butal someanssomethingmore‖.Theclassicexample―Canyoupassthesalt?”is clearly a case for indirect speech acts Theliteral meaning ofthisutterancereferstotheabilityofthehearerto passt h e s a l t p h y s i c a l l y , whiletheintendedmeaningo r p e r l o c u t i o n a r y e f f e c t o f t h e u t t e r a n c e i s fort h e h e a r e r t o p a s s t h e s a l t
S e a r l e ( 1 9 7 5 ) d e s c r i b e d t h e i n d i r e c t speechactsas―caseswhereoneillocutionaryactisperformedin directlyby wayofperforming another‖.
AsSaville-Troike(1982:36)stated,―directactsarethosewheresurfaceform matches interactional function‖, it can be drawn that indirect speechacts are those whose surface form does not match interactional function.Nevertheless,sometimes th estructurematches th efunction well butitis notadirectspeechactbutanindirectone.Forexample,whenbeingasked
‖onecananswerbysaying―Ilivewithmyaunt‖.Theresponseshouldbeinterpret edas―Idon‟thaveahouse‖,soitisviewedasanindirectspeechactratherthanadire ctone,thoughthestructurematchesitsfunction.
InClark(1979,citedinĐoànThịHươngHiền,2015:17-18),s i x properties of indirect speech acts based onthe work of many researchersared i s c u s s e d as follows:
- Indirect speech acts have multiple meanings There are literal andimplied meanings.
- Indirect speech acts follow logical priority of meanings.Sincemultiplemeanings areavailablein theutterance, themost logicalandsalientone willbe selected basedonthe given context.
- Indirectspeechactsarerational.Basedontheprinciplesofcooperativen ess in Grice(1975), speakersand hearers assumethat theutterancesarerationalanda c c o r d i n g t o t h e m a x i m s s e t f o r co nversation.
- Indirect speech acts have conventionality Speakers tend to speakidiomaticallyratherthandirectly.Thisidiomaticusagehasbecomeconve ntional,soin―Canyoureachthesalt?”theabilityisnotquestioned,but ratherserves as an indirectspeech actforpassing thesalt.
- Indirectspeechactsarepolite.Indirectnessisawidelyusedconversatio nal strategy People tend to use indirect speech acts mainly inconnection with politeness because sometimes direct addresses may evenappear impolite as in ‗Would you lend me some money?‘ and ‗Lend mesome money!‘ The latter variant would be absolutely unacceptable in somecontexts.
- Indirectspeechactsarepurposeful.Basedonthenotionoflinguistic politeness, the indirect speech acts are used to fulfill a certainsocietalnormofindirectnessandservethepurposeformeetingthespeake r‘s intentions.
Tosumup,thereviewofindirectspeechactshelptheresearcherunderstandexplicit/ implicit ordirect/indirectcommissivesbetter.
Roleofcontextinspeechactstudies
When one analyzes speech acts and their role in conversations, he/she isaware of the significance of context The same utterance can be employedtoexpressdifferentillocutionaryactsindifferentcontexts.Therefore,co ntextmustbecarefullyconsideredwheneverspeechactsareinterpreted.
Yule (1997) suggested thatcontextrefers to the physical environment of aspeech event and it includes the participants, location, time, and otherphysical aspects The linguistic material concerning the linguistic partspreceding and/or following an analyzed utterance is, as stated by Yule,calledc o - t e x t However, as it was claimed by Thomas (1996), contextcouldbeanalyzedinthreelevels:thesocio- culturalbackground,thephysical environmentand the linguistic parts surroundinganutterancebeing investigated.
Whenever a speech act is analyzed, it is highly important to put it in itscontext for the persuasive interpretation of the speaker‘s meaning That iswhy in my study, I provide the necessary contextual clues of the speakers,locations,times,andtopicsofthepoliticalspeechesunderinvestigation.
Previousrelevantstudies
Previousstudiesrelevanttotheresearcher‘spresentr e s e a r c h i n c l u d e tho seconcerningspeechactsandcommissives.Thesehavebeenstudied byafewresearchersboth in Vietnamandthroughouttheworld.
Asanoverview,NguyễnQuangNgoạn‘s(2017)studyaimsa t investigating studies of speech acts having been conducted for the MADegree in English Language at the typical institutions where the major hasbeen trained in the period of five years, from 2011 to 2015 Purposes are,on the one hand, to examine the MA theses in English on speech actsconcerning research trends, data types, and theoretical frameworks in theinvestigated MA theses and, on the other hand, to suggest new trends andtopicsforspeechactstudiestomeetthedemandofMAstudentso f English The study was approached both quantitatively and qualitatively.Thequantitativeapproachwasoptedfortoworkoutthequantitativeas pects of the data realized in the percentage of each category of the MAtheses investigated, while the qualitative approach was chosen for the helpin further interpretation and discussion in detail of the characteristics ofeachcategory.Acombinationofdifferentmethodsfordataanalysis,including analytic, synthetic, descriptive, and contrastive was applied. Onemajorconclusionisthatwhentheresearchtrendsareconcerned,thefindings were that the number of theses conducted with single speech actswas equal to the ones on speech act groups The most common researchtopics were on complaining, refusing, requesting and apologizing Studieson speech act groups were marked with studies of directives, responses todirectives, representatives, and speech act types with the samples beingadjacencypairs,announcements,gossips,interviews,andtelephoneconversation s The findings showed that many other sing speech acts werenotstudies.Sowerespeechactgroupssuchascommissivesandexpressives.Eng lish-
NguyễnQu an g Ngoạn & N g u y ễ n Th ịN gọ c Dung(2 01 7) studied speech acts in the conversations of New Interchange 1, 2, and 3 The aim of thestudy was to examine speech act types in the conversations investigated.Both the quantitative approach and qualitative approach were employedwiththeassistanceofdescriptive,contrastive,analytic,andsyntheticmet hodstohelpworkoutthebestpossiblefindings.Thedataconsistedofa total of 784 turns comprising 8126 words in 97 conversations of
NewInterchange1,2 ,and3 Th er esul ts sh o w e d i n t e r e st i n g sp e e c h a c t ty pes To be more specific, although there was a strong tendency for combinationof different speech act types, single speech act groups were preferred withthepredominanceof representatives.
Nguyễn Thị Ngọc Dung‘s (2014) study of speech acts in the conversationsof the New Interchange series presented a more detailed description ofspeech act types in the series She also focused on indirect speech acts Sheconcluded that indirect speech acts, just accounted for approximately 20%,reflectingthelinearcommunication styleofEnglishspeakers.
Also related to textbooks, Nguyễn Thị Minh Tâm‘s (2014) study examinedspeech acts realized in conversations in the current high school Englishtextbooks in Vietnam, with a focuso n t y p e s , s t r u c t u r e s , a n d f u n c t i o n s o f the speech acts realized in the investigated conversations Based on thetheory of speech acts, 281 speech acts collected from the conversations inthe high school English textbooks were investigated Also, a comparisonbetweentheconversationsinthehighschoolEnglishtextbooksa ndthoseintwovolumesofSolutions,anauthenticmaterialwrittenbynativespeaker s,wascarriedouttofindoutthesimilaritiesanddifferencesbetween them. Descriptive and contrastive methods were used in the study.It was found that representatives, directives, commissives and expressivesoccurring in the studied conversations carried 8 language functions andcouldb e r e a l i z e d i n v a r i o u s s t r u c t u r e s a n d c l a u s e p a t t e r n s A d d i t i o n a l l y , despite having some features in common, the conversations in the twosourcesofdataweredifferentinthe frequency of occurrenceofeachspeech acttype andfunction.
In terms indirect speech acts, Đoàn Thị Hương Hiền (2015) examined theconversations of modern short stories in English and Vietnamese in termsof structures and functions The data consisted of 300 samples taken fromvariousEnglishandVietnamesemodernshortstories.Descriptive,contrastiv e,analyticandsyntheticmethodswereemployed.Thestudyrevealedinterestingresult sconcerningindirectspeechactstructures,indirectspeechactfunctionsaswell asmajorsimilaritiesanddifferencesin structures and functions of the investigated speech acts between Englishand Vietnamese Specifically, declaratives for command/ request showedthe predominant frequency in English while interrogatives for exclamationwerepreferredinVietnamese.
When it comes to speech act groups, Võ Trọng Nhơn‘s (2018) study wasmainly carried out with the aims of investigating various linguistic featuresofexpressivesincommentsgivenby judgesinAmerica‘sGotT a l e n t versusVietnam‘sGotTalentfromstructureasw ellasfunctionperspectives Inordertoconductt h i s s t u d y , t h e r e s e a r c h e r m e r e l y focused on oneseason of each nation which was America‘s Got
Talentseason9with50givencommentaryturnscontainingexpressivesandVietna m‘sGotTalentseason3with50givenc o m m e n t a r y t u r n s containing expressives Both of these seasons took place in 2014 To take acloserlook,theresearcheranalyzedlinguisticfeatureso f e x p r e s s i v e speecha ctsincommentsinbothstructuresandfunctions.Theresultsshowed that in general, there are 337 cases found in the whole data inwhich 244 items,staying at 72.4%, came from single expressive speech actfunctionsandtherestofthat(93ones)holdingarateof27.6%,wereborn incombinedexpressivespeechactfunctions.
NguyễnThịThanhBình‘s(2011)investigatedlinguisticfeaturesofdirectives in school announcements in English This research was carriedoutincontrastiveanalysisofthesyntacticandpragmaticfeaturesofindirect interrogative directives in English and Vietnamese speech events,which focused mainly on verbal communication through the analysis of thedata collected from the conversations, books, novels, short stories, …inboth English and Vietnamese The results showed that the illocutionaryforce of indirect interrogative directives in English and Vietnamese couldbe indicated by any clause types; the formation of indirect directives couldcontain vocatives, polite markers in forms of polite expressions, mitigatingdevicesandhedgesasnon- propositionalcomponents;andtheEnglishshowed consideration to the hearer‘s negative face with the preference onthe indirect way of giving directives,whereast h e V i e t n a m e s e d i s p l a y e d the care for the hearer‘s positive face with the preference on the direct wayofgivingdirectives.
Nguyễn Xuân Vĩnh‘s (2013) examined the teachers‘ representatives withdefining functions in lectures in terms of syntactic, semantic and pragmaticfeatures He focused on such issues of syntax like clausal structures of therepresentativeutterancesinviewofFunctionalgrammarwherebythesyntactic functions of lexical items used in teachers‘ representatives withdefiningfunctionswereexaminedinclauseasmessageandclause ofmaterial.Thestudylookedintoissuesofsemanticslikethesemanticfunctions of the components of an act of defining It also explored theattitudinal meaning of the modal markers used in teachers‘ representativeswith defining functions The sampling was made with the searching forinstances of teachers‘ representatives with defining functions of a widerangeo f l i n g u i s t i c s t r u c t u r e s i n l e c t u r e d i s c o u r s e s 2 0
0 e x a m p l e s w e r e collectedfrom different sourcesof lecturesboth inform oft e x t i n p a p e r and in form of electronic texts on the internet as well The results showedthat, syntactically a typical definition could be structurally realized in theclauseasmessageandclauseasrepresentationwheresuchlinguisticstructuresasno minalgroupcouldassumethepositionofaThemeandaRhemeintheclause.TheThemewa srealizedwithanominalgroupfunctioningasSubjectdenoting the entity to be defined and this was a starting point to develop adefinition.ThisRhemecouldbesyntacticallyrealizedwiththeotherstructuralunitssuc hasadjectivalgroup,verbalgroupplusacomplementsignaledbyanominalgroup.Pragmatic ally,apartfromthetypicalfunctionofarepresentativespeechactofdefininginreflec tingtheideationalorexperiential meaning about the scientific knowledge or external world, thisact of defining could be modified with some expressions functioning ashedgestofacilitate the speaker‘sexplanationof thekey term andtheaudience‘s comprehension of the definition This could be achieved withtheinternalmodificationandexternalmodificationoftheactofdefining.
More closely related to the present study, Miftakhul Ulum et al.‘s (2018)study aimed to compare Trump‘s and Clinton‘s commissive speech actswhich included its types and functions Descriptive qualitative method wasapplied in this study The data were analyzed by using commissive speechact instrument adapted from Searle and Vandervecken The result showedthat there were six types of commissive speech acts used by Trump Theywere promising, threatening, pledging, offering, refusing, and assuring,thefunctionsofwhichweretogivesolution,toinsult,toshowcare,t o threaten, to encourage, and to convince Meanwhile, Clinton only used twotypesofcommissives:promiseandassure.Thesetypeshadthefunctio nstogivesolution,toshowcare,andtoconvince.Regardingt h e i r similarities, it was found that both of them used two similar commissives:promisingandassuring.Inaddition,promisingbecamethemostd ominant type found They also used these speech acts to give solution, show care,and convince the audience Meanwhile, as for the differences, it was foundthat Trump used more types of commissive speech acts rather than Clintondid. They were threatening, pledging, offering, and refusing Trump alsousedmorefunctionsofhiscommissivespeechactsthatwerea s threatening,ins ulting,and encouraging.
Bushia Ni‘ma Rashid (2015) analyzed specific commissive acts (promise,threat, guarantee and pledge) in some selected American political speechesof four American presidents: George Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bushand Barack Obama This study dealt with the problem of applying thespeech acts theory in political speeches It also attempted to reveal theoverlappingoftheseactsinpoliticalspeeches.Inordertosuittheobjectives of the work, this study attempted to modify Searle's FelicityConditionsandsemanticrulesofpromisefortheactsofthreatening,guarant eeingandpledgingbyextractingsomesemanticrulesfortheSpeechActofthreateni ng,guaranteeingandpledgingandtakingintoaccount the general framework thatw a s p r o p o s e d b y S e a r l e T h i s s t u d y also proposed a specific classification for these acts, in order to overcometheoverlappingandambiguity.
Khalimatul Mauludiyah‘s (2015) study focused on commissive speech actsuttered in You Tube in Donald Trump‘s campaign speech in the State ofUSS, YorkTown whenhestated that hewouldforbidMuslimsfromentering the United States. The writer used qualitative research methods inwhich he kept a focus on interpreting the meaning the speaker intended tosay abouttheproblem orissue. Ther e s e a r c h e r l i s t e n e d t o t h e c o n t e n t o f the speech and then observed and paid attention to the details to understandthe whole sentence in context The results of the study showed that thecommissivei l l o c u t i o n a r y a c t s d i v i d e d i n t o c o m m i t , p r o m i s e , a s s u r e , threaten,refuse,guarantee,andbetwereutteredindirectly.
To sum up, the process of reviewing the literature helped the researcher agreat deal in working out the theoretical framework for the study as well asdetermining the literature gap for his research to be conducted To be morespecific, no studies of commissives have been found in Vietnam In theworld, there have been some studies of commissives in political speeches,especially by US presidents However, none of them have compared andcontrastedcommissivesbyBillClinton,BarackObama,andDonaldTrump.What is more, none of the studied has focused on structures ofcommissives,leavingtheliteraturegapforthepresentstudy.
Summary
Thischapterhas,sofar,reviewedthespeechacttheory withr e l e v a n t issues as well as previous studies to set up a solid background and find outtheliteraturegapforthe present study.
Chapter three presents the research methodology of the study First, itreveals the research methods and research procedures employed in thestudy Then, it describes the data collection and data analysis before theclaims forvalidityand reliabilityaremade.
Researchmethods
The research was approached mainly qualitatively, with the support ofcertainquantitativedata.Quantitatively,statisticsofthefrequencyofoccurrenceofs tructuretypesandfunctionsofcommissivesint h e speeches by the US presidents under investigation is done.
Researchmethodsemployedintheresearchincludedtheanalytic,synthetic, statistic, descriptive, and comparative methods These methodswereemployedin combinationasfollows:
- The analytic method was used to analyze and classify the forms andstructuresof commissives.
- The synthetic method was to help the researcher synthesize thefindingsand drawoutconclusions in thefinalprocessoftheresearch.
- The statistic method was used to work out the quantitative data forexaminingthefrequencyofoccurrenceofformsandstructuresoftheinvestigated commissives.
- Thedescriptivemethodhelpedtodescribethemainlinguisticfeatures ofthe forms and structures oftheinvestigated commissives.
- The comparative method was used to compare and contrast thesimilaritiesanddifferencesincommissivesusedbydifferentU S presidents.
Researchprocedures
In order to reach the aim and objectives of the study, the following stepswerecarriedout:
To start with, the researcher did the literature review and consulted thesupervisor to find out a literature gap for his study That was structures andfunctions of commissivesusedbyUS presidents.
Afterthat,theresearchsampleswerepreparedforthestudy.T h e researchercollect ed48speechesmadeintheirtermsbyBillClinton,Barack Obama andDonaldTrump.
Then, the commissive triggers were prepared for the selection of samples.As aresult,331samplesofcommissive were gathered.
Finally, based on the results of the analysis, the researcher synthesized thefindings, tabularized them, interpreted and discussed them before drawingout conclusionsandmakingimplications.
Datasourcesandsamples
As stated, the sources for the research data were the 46 speeches made intheir terms by the three US presidents: Bill Clinton, Barack Obama andDonald Trump, with an equal number of 16 speeches from each.Thenamesofeach speechtogetherwith itsspeakerand timeis listed below:
12 November30,1995:A d d r e ss t otheE m p l o y e e s of theMac ki e Me talPlant
16 January 27, 2000: State of the Union
1 February 7, 2009: Remarks on the American Recovery andReinvestment Act
16 March 21, 2013: Address to the People of
14 September 25, 2018: Address at the 73rd Session of the United
Fromthedatasources,thesamplingwasworkedout.Thetriggerspresented in Table 3.1 were prepared for the selection of raw samples.Then, based on the characteristics of commissives, 331 samples werefinallychosenfor thestudy
LexicalTrigger Grammaticaltriggers guarantee will refuse won‘t intend willnot volunteer do offer don‘t pledge donot vow goingto contract gonna swear notgonna embrace can covenant cannot want can‘t take must consent mustnot commit mustn‘t accept committed ensure
As shown in Table 3.2, it is Donald Trump who contributes the biggestnumber, up to 149 commissives, taking 45.02%, almost a half It wasfollowed by Barrack Obama, at 34.44% (114 samples) and Bill Clinton, atonly20.54%(68samples)
Following are some typical samples of commissives from the collecteddata.
(BillClinton,September22,1993:Address onHealthCare Reform)
(3.2) I refuse to send American troops to fight a war in Bosnia, but
(3.3) We will help Egypt regain access to markets by guaranteeing
$1billion in borrowing that is needed to finance infrastructure and jobcreation.
(3.4)It should also serve as a message to the world that the United Statesof
Americaintendsto sustain and strengthen our leadership in this youngcentury.
(3.5)And we‘re pouring a lot of money and a lot of talent into this horribleproblem.An d w e pl ed ge t o honor th em e m o r y oft h o se y o u lo s t w i t h action and determination and resolve We’ll get it We will not rest untilthe end (Donald Trump, March 19, 2018: Remarks on Combating theOpioid Crisis)
(3.6)So together, let us resolve to use our power, our resources, and ourvoices , not just for ourselves, but for our people —to lift their burdens,toraisetheirhopes, andtoempowertheirdreams;to protecttheirfamilies, their communities, their histories, and their futures (DonaldTrump,January26,2018: Address at theWorld EconomicForum)
Thecompletesamplingof331commissivesbythethreep r e s i d e n t s , dividedi ntodifferentstructuresandfunctionsispresentedint h e Appendix.
Dataanalysis
As previously presented, the analytic, synthetic, statistic, descriptive,andcomparativemethodswereallemployedtoexaminethedatafromdifferentangl es,based onSearle‘s(1976)and Yule‘s(1996)theory.
Validityandreliability
The reliability of the data can be ensured with the 331 commissives exactlycollected from 48 speeches made by the three US presidents on a reliablewebsite,namely:https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/presidential- speeches The lengths of the speeches range from 1000 to 5000 words. Theexamples illustrating the categories and findings in the study aree x a c t l y thesame as those inthe original speeches.
Thevalidityofdataanalysisisstrengthenedwithdetailedanalyticalframeworksbu iltupfromSearle‘s(1976)andYule‘s(1996)t h e o r y , whichhavebeenwidelyac cepted.Specifically,Searle‘s(1976)classification of speech acts into five types, among which commissives asaspeechacttypewithallitssub- typesorfunctionsintroducedbySearle
(1976)andaddedbyhisfollowerswereemployed.Yule‘s(1996)discussion on performative verbs and the performative hypothesisw a s also appliedtoanalyzing structuresof commissives.
All the statistics has been conducted exactly with the help of computer.For each category under investigations, relevant examples from the dataareused forillustration andcan becheckedintheappendix.
Summary
This chapter has revealed the research design for the present study with adescription of research methods, research procedures, data sources andsamples,anddata analysis.
This chapter presents the findings of the study with relevantc o m m e n t s andexamples.Itstartswiththestructuresofcommissives,andthencontinues with functions of commissives in speeches made in their termsbythreeUSPresidents:BillClinton,BarrackObama,andDonaldTrump.
StructuresofcommissivesinspeechesbyUSpresidents
Commissiveswithperformativeverbs
Following are the examples representing commissives with performativeverbs by each presidentint h e e x a m i n e d d a t a T h e s t r u c t u r e s t y p i c a l l y start with the first singular person subject(I), followed by a performativeverb in its simple present tense, such as promise, pledge, commit, and soon.H o w e v e r , a s t h e s p e a k e r s a r e p r e s i d e n t s o f t h e c o u n t r y , s o m e t i m e s they can useWe, America,orthe USA of Americaas the subject of thecommissive. a BillClinton
(4.1)Toyouwhobroughtushere, Ipromisewe willbethenewpathfinders, for we are the children of your sacrifice (April 30, 1993:National Service Address)
(4.2) I refuse to send American troops to fight a war in Bosnia, but Ibelieve we must help to secure the Bosnian peace (November 27, 1995:Address onBosnia)
(4.4)Together today, with all our hearts and all our souls, we bid themshalom, salaam, peace (September 13, 1993: Remarks at the Signing oftheIsraeli-PalestinianAgreement)
(4.5)We need to build a bridge to the future And that is what I commit toyoutodo (August29,1996:RemarksattheDemocraticNationalConvention)
Examples (4.1) to (4.5) show that Bill Clinton uses the subject I4 t i m e s and We once (4.4) with different commissive verbs including promise in(4.1), refuse in (4.2), pledge in (4.3), bid in (4,4), and commit in (4.5) tomakehis commissivesexplicitlystated. b BarackObama
(4.6)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 ournation faces (December 1, 2009: Speech on Strategy in Afghanistan andPakistan)
(4.7) I refuse to accept the notion that we cannot summon that unity again.
(December1,2009:Speechon Strategyin Afghanistan and Pakistan)
(4.8)Now, yesterday the Senate blocked a bill that would have created thiscommission,soI'llissueanExecutiveorderthatwillallowustogoforward, because I refuse to pass this problem on to another generation ofAmericans.
(4.9)Today, as the President of the United States of America, I offer theCuban people el saludo de paz (March 22, 2016: Remarks to the PeopleofCuba)
(4.10)Today, we honor those from the U.N family who lost their lives inthe earthquake, and commit ourselvesto stand with the peopleo f H a i t i until they can stand on their own two feet.( S e p t e m b e r 2 3 , 2 0 1 0 :
Like Bill Clinton, Barack Obama also uses the subjects If o u r t i m e s a n d We once (4.10) and performative verbs such as refuse (4.6-4.8), offer (4.9),and commit (4.10) to make his direct commissives explicit Refuse is apreferableperformative verbusedbyBarackObama. c DonaldTrump
(4.11) I promise I won‘t say anything more about you (June 29, 2017:Speech atthe Unleashing AmericanEnergyEvent)
(4.12)Tonight, we pledge to honor Otto‘s memory with American resolve.
(4.13)And we‘re pouring a lot of money and a lot of talent into thishorrible problem And we pledge to honor the memory of those you lostwith action and determination and resolve We’ll get it We will not restuntiltheend (March19,2018: Remarkson CombatingtheOpioidCrisis)
(4.14) we vow to always remember the heroes of the USS Cole.
(4.15)Oneday-WednesdayuntilThursday,about11o‘clockonWednesday I bet those lines are going to be long and beautiful, because hedeserves it Not everybody deserves it But very few people — you lookback, Ronald Reagan was so honored (February
Similar to Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, Donald Trump uses the samesubjects, I and We, but he uses We more often (3 times) His performativeverbs are also more varied and strong, and they include promise(4.11),pledge(4.12-4.13),vow(4.14),and bet(4.15).
Commissiveswithcommissivewords
Commissives can be realized in structures with commissive words Theyare mainly verbs and nouns that show signals for recognizing commissives.Sometypicalcommissivewordsarepromise,guarantee,c o m m i t , recommit, intend, offer, want, and ensure As regards verbs, they are putinto this category when they cannot be put in the category of performativeverbs It is because on the one hand, they are not performative verbs likewant or intend and, on the other hand, they are not in the active, simplepresent tensetomakeacommissiveexplicitlystated. a BillClinton
(4.16) That is thepromiseof the Democratic Party (August 29,
(4.17) Ourplanwillguarantee thathigh qualityinformationisavailable in even the most remote areas of this country so that we can have highqualitys e r v i c e , l i n k i n g r u r a l d o c t o r s , f o r e x a m p l e , w i t h h o s p i t a l s w i t h high-tech urban medical centers (September 22, 1993: Address on HealthCareReform)
(4.18)On this 100th day of my administration I want torecommitmyselfand those who work with me to the values that have made our Nationwithout peer in all human history, those of opportunity, responsibility,community, and respect for one another (April 30, 1993: National ServiceAddress)
(4.19)But we must also leave on our terms We must do it right And hereiswhatIintend todo Thispastweek'seventsmakeitclearthatevenas wepreparetowithdrawfromSomalia,weneedmorestrengththere.
(4.20) The United States is committed to ensuring that the people whoare affected by this agreement will be made more secure by it and toleading the world in marshaling the resources necessary to implement thedifficult details that will make real the principles to which you commityourselves today (September 13, 1993: Remarks at the Signing of theIsraeli- Palestinian Agreement)
As shown in examples (4.16) to (4.20), Bill Clinton‘s commissives instructures with commissive words are realized with the noun promise in(4.16), the verb guarantee in (4.17), the verb recommit in (4.18), the verbintend in (4.19), and the verbcommitted in (4.20). Thesec o m m i s s i v e words are used in different verb tenses such as the simple present tense in(4.16), (4.18), (4.19), and (4.20) and the simple future tense in (4.17) Theyare also realized both with the passive voice in (4.20) and active voice inotherexamplesfrom(4.16)to(4.19) b BarrackObama
0 0 0 j o b s nationwide over the next few years (April 15, 2010: Remarks on SpaceExplorationinthe 21stCentury)
(4.22) Anditistimetoembrace andeffectivelymonitornormsthat advance the rights of civil society andguaranteeits expansion within andacrossborders. (September23,2010: Addressto theUnited Nations)
(4.23)It should also serve as a message to the world that the United Statesof
Americaintendsto sustain and strengthen our leadership in this young century (August 31, 2010: Address on the End of the Combat Mission inIraq)
(4.24)And what my proposal says is if you still can‘t afford the insurancein this new marketplace, then we’re going toofferyou tax credits to do so.(March 15,2010:SpeechonHealthCareReform)
(4.25)In developing this new vehicle, we will not only look at revising ormodifying older models; wewantto look at new designs, new materials,new technologies that will transform not just where we can go but what wecan do when we get there (April 15, 2010: Remarks on Space Explorationinthe 21stCentury)
Compared to Bill Clinton‘s, Barrack Obama‘s commissives in structureswithcommissivewords arerealizedwiththenounpromisein( 4.21)andthe verbs guarantee in (4.22), intends in (4.23), offer in (4.24), and want in(4.25) These commissive words are triggers making it easy for readers torecognize the commissives used in the collected data As a matter of fact,BarrackObamaemploys moreverbsthannounsas commissivewords. c DonaldTrump
(4.26)Above all else, we will keep ourpromisesto the American people
(4.27)Eighteenyears AndI’llguarantee ,withinamonthortwomonths, that 18 will be even a much higher number (July 24, 2018: Speech at theVeteransof ForeignWars NationalConvention)
(4.28)Like them, Iintendto address some of the very serious threats before us today but also the enormous potential waiting to be unleashed. (September19,2017:AddresstotheUnitedNations GeneralAssembly)
(4.29) We want toensurethat when there are warning signs , we can actand act very quickly (February 23, 2018: Remarks at the ConservativePolitical
(4.30) My Administration iscommittedto fighting the drug epidemic andhelping get treatment for those in need (January 30, 2018: State of theUnion Address)
WhenitcomestoDonaldTrump‘scommissivesinstructureswithcommissive words, there are many things in common in comparison to BillClinton‘s and BarackObama‘s perhaps because of the similarity in thegenre of discourse (i.e., political speech) and position of speakers (i.e.,presidents of the United State of America) In the illustrating examples,Donald Trump uses the noun promises in (4.26) and the verbs guarantee in(4.27), intend in (4.28), ensure in (4.29) and committed in(2.30) to makehis commissiveseasier tobe recognized.
Commissiveswithoutcommissivewords
Commissives without commissive words are usually realized in structureswheretherearenocommissivewordstofunctionassignalsf o r recognizi ng commissives, but the grammatical structures themselves canhelpreadersinterpretthemasimplicitcommissives.Someofthosestructures are the simple future tense, the near future structure, and so on.Let‘stakeacloserlookatthefollowingutterancesmadebyeachpresident. a BillClinton
(4.31)I also want to say that America must help more nations to break thebondsofdisease (January27,2000: StateoftheUnion Address)
(4.32)So I say to you tonight, let's give our children a future Let us takeaway their guns and give them books (January 25, 1994: State of theUnion Address)
(4.33) We must all take responsibility for ourselves, our conduct, and ourattitudes (October 16,1995:Address onRaceRelations)
(4.34) We cannot accept a world in which part of humanity lives on thecutting edge of a new economy and the rest live on the bare edge ofsurvival (January27,2000:State oftheUnionAddress)
(4.35)Now we will intensify efforts to have other countries deploy moretroops to Somalia to assure that security will remain when we're gone. (October7,1993:AddressonSomalia)
AsforBillClinton,in(4.31),whenhesays―Americamusthelpmorenations to break the bonds of disease”, the subject“ A m e r i c a ” , followedby the verb phrase“must help”makes it easy for us be able to interpret hisutterance as a commissive Similarly, other structures in examples (4.32) to(4.35) showing signals of commissives are“ l e t ‟ s g i v e ” in (4.32),“Wemustalltake”in(4.33),“Wecannotaccept”in(4.34)and“wewillinte nsify”in(4.35). b BarrackObama
(4.36) We will help Egypt regain access to markets by guaranteeing
$1billioninborrowingthatisneededtofinanceinfrastructureandjobcreation. (May 19, 2011: Speech on American Diplomacy in the MiddleEast andNorthAfrica)
(4.37)Butanadditionalstepwecantaketokeepinsurancecompanies honestisbymakinganot-for-profitpublicoptionavailablein theinsurance exchange (September 9, 2009: Address to Congress on HealthCare)
(4.38)And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan's securityforcesand governmentsothattheycantakeleadresponsibilityforAfgha nistan'sfuture.(December1,2009:SpeechonStrategyinAfghanistan andPakistan)
(4.39)So tonight I'm proposing thatw e t a k e $ 3 0 b i l l i o n o f t h e m o n e y Wall Street banks have repaid and use it to help community banks givesmall businesses the credit they need to stay afloat.( J a n u a r y 2 7 ,
(4.40)And over the next several weeks, in towns just like this one, I’mgoing to lay out my ideas for how we build on the cornerstones of what itmeans to be middle class, what it takes to work your way into the middleclass.(July24,2013: Remarks on Educationand theEconomy)
Similar to Bill Clinton, Barack Obama also uses a variety of structures tomake his implicit commissives For example, his commissives are realizedby“Wewillhelp”in(4.36),“wecantake”in(4.37),“ w e m u s t streng then‖ in (4.38),“I‟m proposing”in (4.39) and“I‟m going to layout”in(4.40).Thoughtherearenocommissivewordsinthoseexample s,itisveryeasyforthehearerstointerpretthattheyarei n d i r e c t commissives. c DonaldTrump
(4.41)So together, let us resolve to use our power, our resources, and ourvoices , not just for ourselves, but for our people - to lift their burdens, toraise their hopes, and to empower their dreams; to protect their families,theirc o m m u n i t i e s , t h e i r h i s t o r i e s , a n d t h e i r f u t u r e s ( J a n u a r y 2 6 , 2 0 1 8 :
(4.42)It's been a little over a month since my inauguration, and I want totake this momenttoupdatetheNationon the progressI'vemadeinkeeping those promises (February 28, 2017: Address to Joint Session ofCongress)
(4.43)And we can get it done under budget , and we want to get it doneahead of schedule Because you don‘t have too many of them.
Underbudget and ahead of schedule (February 1, 2018: Remarks at the Houseand Senate RepublicanMember Conference)
(4.44) America and its allies will take all necessary steps to achieve adenuclearization and ensure that this regime cannot threaten the world. (September19,2017:AddresstotheUnitedNations GeneralAssembly)
(4.45)And we love our country And we’re going to take care of ourcountry (February 23, 2018: Remarks at the Conservative Political
Like what Bill Clinton and Barack Obama do, Donald Trump uses variousstructures without commissive words to convey his indirect commissives.They realized by“let us resolve to use”in (4.41),“I want to take”in(4.42),“we can get it done”and“we want to get it done”in
(4.43),“America and its allies will take”in (4.44) and“We are going to take careof”in(4.45).
Similaritiesa n d d i f f e r e n c e s i n s t r u c t u r e s o f c o m m i s s i v
Table 4.3.Similarities and differences in structures of commissives by thethreepresidents
The commissives made by the three presidents have both similarities anddifferences.
On the one hand, as they are all the presidents of the USA making politicalspeechesintheirterms,theirsimilarpoliticalpositionandgenreofdiscours e lead to many things in common that they have First of all, theyallusethethreetypesofstructures:withperformativeverbs,withcommissive words, and without commissive words Of the three types ofstructures, it is structures without commissive words that are used the mostby all of them and it is structures with performative verbs that are used theleast What is more, they all use a variety of lexical and grammaticaltriggerstohelphearersrecognizetheircommissives.Altogether, atotalof
29lexicalandgrammaticaltriggersareusedbythethreepresidents.Among them, they all use 11 triggers: 6 lexical items (guarantee, intend,reject, promise, (re)commit, and want) and 5 grammatical ones (will/‘ll,willnot,can,must,andlet).
On the other hand, their commissives are more or less different in somewaysperhapsbecauseoftheircommunicationstyleorp o l i c y F o r exa mple, only Bill Clinton uses“bid”as a trigger, while only BarackObama uses“embrace”, “commitment”, “do not”, “can‟t”and“have to”as triggers and only Donald Trump uses“vow”and“bet”.
Additionally,OnlyBillClintondoesnotuse“won‟t”,“don‟t”,and“g oingto”inhis commissives;onlyBarackObamadoesnotuse“ensure”,“pledge”,“cannot”a nd“let us”, while“refuse”, “offer”,and“need”are whatDonaldTrump does not employastriggersforhis commissives.
FunctionsofcommissivesinspeechesbyUSpresidents
Similaritiesanddifferencesinstructuresofcommissivesby BillClinton,BarackObamaandDonaldTrump
performativeverb to make his refusal explicit, Donald Trump enjoy using a variety ofstructures without commissive words, such as:“We don‟t want”,
“I don‟twant”,“Wecannot”,“wewillnolonger”,“Wewillnever”and“ I won‟t”.For moredetails,pleaseseethesampleanalysisintheAppendix.
Summary
Thisisthemajorchapter,presentingthefindingsanddiscussionsondifferent structures and functions of the commissives made by the three USpresidentsas wellasthesimilaritiesand differencesbetween them.
Thisfinalchapterdrawsouttheconclusionsofthestudyresults.Implications, limitations, and suggestions for further research arealsopresented inorder towrap upeverything.
Conclusions
Thisstudyinvestigatesstructuresandfunctionsofcommissivesi n political speeches by three US presidents - Bill Clinton, Barack ObamaandDonaldTrump–intheirterms.Thestatistic, analytic, synthetic,descriptive,andcomparativemethodsareusedtoexamine331commiss ives, collected from 48 political speeches Conclusions are nowdrawnoutinaccordance withthe3objectivesofthestudy.
Firstly, as regards structures of commissives, most of the commissives bythe
US president are made in structures without commissive words Boththe other two types of structures – those with performative verbs and thosewith commissive words – are much less frequently used The structureswith performative verbs typically start with the first singular person subject(I), followed by a performative verb in its simple present tense, such aspromise,pledge,commit,andsoon.However,asthespeakersarepresidents of the country, sometimes they can useWe, America,orthe USAof Americaas the subject of the commissive Commissives can also berealized in structures with commissive words They are mainly verbs andnounst h a t s h o w si g n a l s f o r r e c o g n i z i n g c o m m i s s i v e s S o m e t y p i c a l commissivewordsarepromise,guarantee,commit,recommit,i n t e n d , offer, want,andensure As regards verbs, they are put into this categorywhentheycannotbeputinthecategoryofperformativeverbs.Iti s because on the one hand, they are not performative verbs like want orintend and, on the other hand, they are not in the active, simple presenttensetomakeacommissiveexplicitlystated.Commissiveswithoutcommis sive words are usually realized in structures where there are nocommissive words to function as signals for recognizing commissives, butthe grammatical structures themselves can help readers interpret them asimplicit commissives Some of those structures are the simple future tense,thenear future structure,andsoon.
Secondly,withregardtofunctionsofcommissives,allthet h r e e presidents mainly use commissives to make offers/promises, with BillClinton‘smakingupninetenthsandBarackObama‘sandD o n a l d Trump‘s bothmakingupthreefourths.Threat/warningisthesecondcategory of functions of commissives by the three presidents When theircommissives are used for the purpose of threatening or warning people,enterprisesorcountries,theyareputintothiscategory.Usually,t h e threat s or warnings are not directly made again the direct addressees butagainst others Commissives for refusal are made by the three presidentswhen they commit themselves to refusing to do something or to acceptsomething.Theyarenot aspopularas thefirst two functions.
Thirdly,whenitcomestosimilaritiesanddifferencesinc o m m i s s i v e s made by the three US presidents, they can be observed in both structuresandfunctions.Structurally,astheyareallthepresidentsoftheUSAmaking political speeches in their terms, their similar political position andgenre of discourse lead to many things in common that they have First ofall,theyallusethethreetypesofstructures:withperformativeverbs,with commissive words, and without commissive words Of the three types ofstructures, it is structures without commissive words that are used the mostby all of them and it is structures with performative verbs that are used theleast What is more, they all use a variety of lexical and grammaticaltriggerstohelphearersrecognizetheircommissives.However,theirc ommissivesaremoreo r l e s s s t r u c t u r a l l y d i f f e r e n t p e r h a p s b e c a u s e o f their communication style or policy Functionally, it is a fact that the threepresidents have many things in common and a few things different.
Asregardssimilarities,theyallusecommissivesforthethreefunctions:offer/ promise,t h r e a t / w a r n i n g , a n d r e f u s a l A s a m a t t e r o f f a c t , m o s t o f their commissives are for making offers/promises Besides, they almost useall types of commissive structures for realizing each function In terms ofdifferences, it is threat/warning that Barack Obama uses the least, while theleastfavourablefunctionofcommissivesbyBillClintonandDonaldTrump is refusal In addition to that, although the majority of commissivesby the three presidents are offers/promises, the percentage of Bill Clinton‘soffers and promises is much higher than the other two presidents DonaldTrump makes the most commissives of the three presidents and he alsomakes the most threat/warning of the three What is more, linguistic meansused to make each function is also more or less different For instance, tomake offer/promise, Both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama are in favour ofusingstructureswithperformativeverbsorcommissivewords,whileDonaldTru mpespeciallylikeusingstructureswithoutcommissivewords.
Implications
To some extent, this thesis is a valuable contribution to the teaching andlearning of English, especiallycommissive speech acts as a speech acttypeinEnglish.ForsuccessfulcommunicationinEnglish,agoodknowledgea n d f r e q u e n t p r a c t i c e o f d i f f e r e n t t y p e s o f s p e e c h a c t s , especially, commissives with various linguistic features of their structuresand functionsare ofgreatimportance.
Limitationsofthestudy
In the scope of an MA thesis, with the lack of time, certain limitations areinevitable With more time, the researcher would have achieved a deeperanalysis of commissive structures and functions Also, more pragmaticaspectsofcommissivesincontextwouldhavebeen studied.
Concerning the limitation of the thesis, the researcher would like to makesomesuggestionsforfurtherresearch:
This is the last chapter to end up the thesis with conclusions,implications,limitations andsuggestionsforfurther study.
Austin,J.L.(1962).Howtodothingswithwords.Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress. Bach,K.,&Harnish, R (1979) Li ng ui st ic communicationand speechacts Cambridge:Cambridge UniversityPress.
Bushia Ni‘ma Rashid (2015) A pragmatic anslysis of commissives in someselectedAmericanpoliticaltexts.InternationalJournalofCurrentRese arch,7(12),23805-23814.
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: AcademicPress. Đoàn Thị Hương Hiền (2015).A study of linguistic features of indirect speechacts in modern short stories in English and Vietnamese,
Faerch,C.&Kasper,G.(1989).Internalandexternalmodificationininterlanguage requestrealization.In S.Blum-Kulka,J House &G.Kapser (Eds.),Cross- cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies(pp.221-247).
Geis, M (1995).Speech acts and conversational interation.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
House, J & Kasper, G (1987) Interlanguage pragmatics: Requesting in aforeign language In W Lorscher & R Schulze (Eds.),Perspectives onlanguagein performance(pp.1250-1288).Tubingen:Narr.
Hurford R J., Heasley, B & Michael, B S (2007) Semantics: A coursebook(2 nd Ed.).Cambridge:OxfordUniversityPress.
Khalimatul Mauludiyah (2017).An analysis of Donald Trump‟s commissivespeechactinUSS,YorktownonDecember7,2015.MAthesi s.Jakarta:
Leech,G.(1983).Principlesofpragmatics,London:LongmanGroupLimited. Levison,S.C.(1983).Pragmatics.Cambridge:C a m b r i d g e UniversityPress.
Miftakhul Ulum, Djoko Sutopo, and Warsono (2018) A comparison betweenTrump‘s and Clinton‘s commissive speech act in America‘s presidentialcampaignspeech.EnglishEducationalJounal,8(2),221-228.
NguyễnThịMinhTâm(2014).AnInvestigationintospeechactsintheconversation s of the current English textbooks used in Vietnamese highschools.UnpublishedMAthesis.QuyNhon: QuyNhon University.
Nguyễn Thị Ngọc Dung (2014).A Study of speech acts in conversations in theNew Interchange series Unpublished MA thesis Quy Nhon: Quy
Nguyen Quang Ngoan & Nguyen Thi Ngoc Dung (2017) Speech act types inconversationsinthe―NewInterchange‖series.VNUJournalofForeignSt udies,33(6),78-92.
Nguyễn Quang Ngoạn (2017) Một số hướng nghiên cứu mới dựa trên thuyếthànhvingônngữ.Ngônngữ&Đời sống,10(264),50-56.
NguyễnXuânVĩnh(2014).Aninvestigationintolinguisticfeaturesofteachers‟ representatives with defining functions in lectures in English.UnpublishedMAThesis DaNang:DaNangUniversity.
Richards, J C et al (1992).Longman dictionary of language teaching andappliedlinguistics(2 nd Ed.).L o n d o n : Longman.
Saville-Troike, M (1982) The ethnography of communication:
Searle,J.(1975).Indirectspeechacts.InP.Cole&J.Morgan(Eds.),Syntax