Melola Discovery

← Melola Discovery

Journal

The Realization of Commissive Speech Acts in the First Debate of South Carolina Governor Election 2018

English Education Journal · Vol. 9 No. 3 (2019) · pp. 354–360

DOI
10.15294/eej.v9i3.31368
ISSN
2087-0108, 2502-4566
Published
2019-07-17
Publisher
Universitas Negeri Semarang
Language
eng

Abstract

In communication, commissive is a kind of speech acts that commit a speaker to do some future action. People should have the ability to produce and understand sentences which are appropriate in order to communicate effectively. The aims of this study are to analyze the candidates’ utterance and the candidates’ visual expression, and also to explain the roles of power and social distance in the debate. Qualitative method is applied in this study. There are five instruments which are used in this study, such as observation, recording technique, Searle and Vanderveken’s (1985) theory, Navarro and Karlin’s (2008) theory, and Trosborg’s (1994) theory. The collected data are especially in form of words, sentences, or pictures. The findings showed that there are six types of commissive speech acts used by two candidates, namely promise, assure, threaten, guarantee, offer, and refuse. It indicated that the most common commissive speech acts found is a promise. In addition, the second findings presented that there are seven types of visual expressions by two candidates, such as putting the hand in the pocket, tongue-jutting behavior, furrowed forehead, arm-distancing, palms-up, interlaced fingers, and hand-steepling. The most dominant visual expression by two candidates is palms-up. It meant that the candidates wanted to be believed or wanted to be accepted. The last findings explained that power (status) and social distance. They had equal status in power, had different perception, and had a space line in the debate. Hence, this study can be used in pragmatics class for language learners, especially they will apply appropriately commissive speech acts for the purpose of persuading voters or audiences in communication.

Collaboration network of the authors

40 authors · 170 co-authorship links · 2 across different organisations · showing the 40 most connected

Hover or tap a name to highlight its co-authors. Double-click to open the author's page.

  • Mulawarman University
  • Hasanuddin University
  • Politeknik Negeri Malang
  • University of Brawijaya
  • Affiliation unknown
  • Different organisations
  • Same organisation
  • Affiliation unknown
  • Thicker line = more joint articles · bigger circle = more articles
Show as table
Co-authorOrganisationJoint articles
Djoko SutopoAffiliation unknown14
Sri Wuli FitriatiAffiliation unknown10
Mursid SalehAffiliation unknown10
Dwi RukminiAffiliation unknown9
Suwandi SuwandiAffiliation unknown8
Issy YuliasriAffiliation unknown7
Abdurrachman FaridiAffiliation unknown6
Rudi HartonoAffiliation unknown5
Widhiyanto WidhiyantoAffiliation unknown4
Abdurrahman FaridiAffiliation unknown4
Dwi Anggani Linggar BharatiAffiliation unknown4
Dwi Anggani Linggar BharatiAffiliation unknown3
Henrikus Joko YuliantoAffiliation unknown3
Zulfa SakhiyyaAffiliation unknown3
SRI WAHYUNIAffiliation unknown2
Putri AnggraeniAffiliation unknown2
Dwi Anggani Linggar BharatiAffiliation unknown2
Jumadi JumadiAffiliation unknown2
Hamdani HamdaniMulawarman University2
Bistari BistariAffiliation unknown2
Rustam RustamHasanuddin University2
Veven VevenAffiliation unknown2
Sri Wuli FitriatiAffiliation unknown2
Agung Ginanjar AnjaniputraAffiliation unknown1
Aprilian Ria AdistiAffiliation unknown1
Wahyu Nur HidayatPoliteknik Negeri Malang1
Rahmana Ilmi HakimUniversity of Brawijaya1
Ellvina Pramitadewi PramitadewiAffiliation unknown1
Fauziyatur RohmahAffiliation unknown1
Aldhy Sigma Lintang PamungkasAffiliation unknown1
Heri CahyonoAffiliation unknown1
Moh. AsroriAffiliation unknown1
Dzulkifli AbdullahAffiliation unknown1
Lina ardiyantiAffiliation unknown1
Hermin Anggrianing TyasAffiliation unknown1
Eka Putri Dea Ayu MaharaniAffiliation unknown1
Dery Tria AgustinAffiliation unknown1

Affiliations come from OpenAlex; journal OAI-PMH metadata carries none. Authors without an OpenAlex ID are matched by name, which can merge or split people.

Metadata source: OAI-PMH (metadata jurnal) https://journal.unnes.ac.id/sju/index.php/eej/oai, first harvested 5 Nov 2026, last seen 8 Nov 2026.
Original metadata (oai_dc)
<oai_dc:dc xmlns="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/  http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd">
	<dc:title xml:lang="en-US">The Realization of Commissive Speech Acts in the First Debate of South Carolina Governor Election 2018</dc:title>
	<dc:creator>Dashela, Tarina</dc:creator>
	<dc:creator>Mujiyanto, Januarius</dc:creator>
	<dc:creator>Warsono, Warsono</dc:creator>
	<dc:description xml:lang="en-US">In communication, commissive is a kind of speech acts that commit a speaker to do some future action. People should have the ability to produce and understand sentences which are appropriate in order to communicate effectively. The aims of this study are to analyze &amp;nbsp;the candidates’ utterance and the candidates’ visual expression, and also&amp;nbsp; to explain the roles of power and social distance in the debate. Qualitative method is applied in this study. There are five instruments which are used in this study, such as observation, recording technique, Searle and Vanderveken’s (1985) theory, Navarro and Karlin’s (2008) theory, and Trosborg’s (1994) theory. The collected data are especially in form of words, sentences, or pictures. The findings showed that there are six types of commissive speech acts used by two candidates, namely promise, assure, threaten, guarantee, offer, and refuse. It indicated that the most common commissive speech acts found is a promise. In addition, the second findings presented that there are seven types of visual expressions by two candidates, such as putting the hand in the pocket, tongue-jutting behavior, furrowed forehead, arm-distancing, palms-up, interlaced fingers, and hand-steepling. The most dominant visual expression by two candidates is palms-up. It meant that the candidates wanted to be believed or wanted to be accepted. The last findings explained that power (status) and social distance. They had equal status in power, had different perception, and had a space line in the debate. &amp;nbsp;Hence, this study can be used in pragmatics class for language learners, especially they will apply appropriately commissive speech acts for the purpose of persuading voters or audiences in communication.</dc:description>
	<dc:publisher xml:lang="en-US">Universitas Negeri Semarang</dc:publisher>
	<dc:date>2019-07-17</dc:date>
	<dc:type>info:eu-repo/semantics/article</dc:type>
	<dc:type>info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion</dc:type>
	<dc:type xml:lang="en-US">Peer-reviewed Article</dc:type>
	<dc:format>application/pdf</dc:format>
	<dc:identifier>https://journal.unnes.ac.id/sju/eej/article/view/31368</dc:identifier>
	<dc:identifier>10.15294/eej.v9i3.31368</dc:identifier>
	<dc:source xml:lang="en-US">English Education Journal; Vol 9 No 3 (2019): September 2019; 354-360</dc:source>
	<dc:source>2087-0108</dc:source>
	<dc:source>2502-4566</dc:source>
	<dc:source>10.15294/eej.v9i3</dc:source>
	<dc:language>eng</dc:language>
	<dc:relation>https://journal.unnes.ac.id/sju/eej/article/view/31368/13672</dc:relation>
	<dc:rights xml:lang="en-US">Copyright (c) 2019 English Education Journal</dc:rights>
</oai_dc:dc>