Illocutionary Act in Political Debate

This study analyzes illocutionary act in political debate that was conducted by general election commision on March, 30 2019. This debate was about ideology, government, security and defense, and international relationship. In this research, Searle’s theory was used who classified five types of illocutionary act; representative, directive, commisive, expressive, and declarative. This research used descriptive qualitative. The main focus of this study is to get deep understanding and interpretation how the politicians argue each other using illocutionary act. The results of this study suggested that both of the candidates of president did not use all of the illocutionary act types proposed by Searle. The three illocutionary acts used by both of the candidates are, representative, directive, commissive. Meanwhile, another type of illocutionary acts used by one of the candidates is declarative, while another one used expressive.


INTRODUCTION
Debate is one of the activity that contains of two people or two groups in argued something. Based on Oxford dictionary (http://en.oxforddictionaries.com), debate (n) is a formal discussion on a particular matter in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward and which usually ends with a vote. Debate (v) is an argue about ( a subject), especilly in a formal manner. Related to the definition above, Indonesia has conducted debate of president and vice president for several times. Since, in this year, Indonesia has a big party, that is democration party. This event was held on April 17th, 2019. It is a must for all of Indonesian to join and choose the candidate of president, vice of president, and legislative candidate, whether regency, province, or national legislative candidate. Every candidat, they have to declare their vision or mission to the citizen through media, such as electronic media, print out media, or social media, in order that the citizen know their vision and mission. Moreover, for the candidates of president and his vice president, they have to attend debate which is conducted by general election commision (KPU) in electronic media live. In this event, they have to convince their partisan by using strong arguments. In producing their arguments, they use the words that have certain meaning to influence the society in againts debate, they have to be strengthen their words in order the citizen understand well what they said. Further, they have to say it clearly in order that there is no misunderstanding in producing some argument. Yet, in several arguments, the candidate of president used illocutionary acts when they produced the utterance.
Illocutionary is one of types of speech act. Speech act as the actions performed in saying something (Austin, 1962). In speech act, people is not only producing the utterance that contains grammatical structure and words, but also they are performing the actions by the uttarances (Yule, 1996). It means that the speaker do not only deliver a message but also they create a social relation with the listener. Yule (1996) divided speech act into three types. They are locutionary, illocutionary, and perlocutionary act.
Locutionary act is the basic act utterance or producing a meaningful linguistic expression. It is an act of saying something in literal meaning, or it can be said that this act is the utterance that has textual meaning (Yule, 1996). Then, there is no certain meaning in the utterance that is produced by the speaker. For example "my mother asked me to buy some food". From that utterance, it is clearly stated that a mother asked his son to buy some food. It does not need to interpret it, since that sentence is understandable and has truth value.
While illocutionary act is when someone says something, he/she produces that utterance with no purpose, but he/she produces the utterance with some kind of social function in the mind. Moreover, Abdul Chaer (2004) stated that this act related to the intended meaning. It means that, in uttering some words or sentences, the speaker has certain meaning to the listener. For example "It's so hot". There are many interpretations from that sentence. In illocutionary act, it can be intrepreted as the speaker asked someone to open the window, or give an ice, or turn on the fan.
The last type is perlocutionary act. It is assumption that the hearer will recognize the effect of speaker intended. In this act, the hearer will do what the speakers said. It is the action or the effect of the hearer from the speakers said. For example from the utterance above, the hearer directly opens the window, or give an ice, or turn the fan. That action indicates that the perlocution is occurs, since the listener understand with the illocutionary of the utterance. The communication is reached when the hearer understand what the speaker said.
In understanding the utterances is not enough with the literal meaning, but it needs to know the intended meaning behind those. Therefore, illocutionary is needed to be studied, since this act as the main central of communication. Gunarwan (2007:7) stated that illocutionary act is the basic of analysis in pragmatics. Pragmatics is concerned with the study of meaning which is produced by the speaker and it is interpreted by the hearer (Yule, 1996:3). Therefore, the hearer knows the purpose of the speaker by understanding the illocutionary act that is delivered by the speaker. Searle (1976:10) mentioned five classifications of illocutionary act, they are representative, directive, commisive, expressive and declarative. Yet, ecah of them has different meaning and context.
Representative means that the speaker believes something to be the case or not. Leech (1983:105) proposed the examples of this act, such as stating, suggesting, boasting, complaining, claiming, and reporting. In producing a representative, the speaker conveys his/her belief that some proposition is true. In other words, the words that are used by the speaker, state what the speaker believes to be the case, such as describing, claiming, hypothesizing, insisting and predicting (cutting, 2008:14). While Searle in Yule (1996:53) described representative to many types, as stating, denying, admitting, asserting, confessing,notifying, predicting.
Directive means that when the speaker requests to the listener, he/she performs an action. By uttering the directive, the speaker tries to get the listener to do something. This act represents what the speaker wants. When the speaker orders, commands, requests, advises, asks, begs, bids, demands, forbids, and recommends actually he/she tries to get the listener to carry out some actions. While commisive is asking the speaker to do something in the future. By producing commisive, the speaker commits himself/herself to some future action, as promise, vow, offer, volunteer, guarantee, pledge, and bet. Expressive that is showing an expression how the speaker feels about the situation. This act expresses a psychological state. Its function is to express or to know about the speaker's psychological attitude towards a state of affairs which the illocution presupposes. The last is declarative. It changes the world by the utterance which is produced (Searle in Yule, 1996:53). When the speaker produced a declaration, his or her words bring about a new state of affair. By producing some sentences, it can change the status of a person or the ownership of something.
Related to the definiton above, this research conducted llocutionary act that is used by the candidates of president in their debate. Forth debate was taken as my subject, since this debate is about ideology, safety goverment, administration, and international relation. From this debate the audience knows how theirthought of each candidate. They argues each other by using their words which were influenced by their ideology. Hence, this research is interesting to be conducted.
Related to this research, there are some previous studies which relate to this reserach. Rijal S (2016) focused on Illocutionary and Perlocutionary Act on Madurese Language. His finding shows that people in Madura used direct and indirect speech to express what they want. They used locutionary and perlocutionary in their conversation that intends to refuse, threaten, order, forbid, motivate and ask. Widiatmoko P (2017) focused on analysis of presidential inaugural addresses using Searle's taxonomy of speech act. His finding shows that each of inaugural address possessed distinctive characteristics influenced by sociopolitical, economic, and historical ssituation of the countries. Mufiah, dkk (2018) shows their finding that Donald Trump asserts to the audience about the nation will be. Trump's speech acts are intended as statement of fact and assertion. Hajan, B. dkk (2018) focused on A Speech Act Analysis of the Last Two Post-Martial Law Philippine Presidents' First State of the Nation Addresses. Their finding shows that demonstration of utmost power and authority remains as a core quality of presidential speeches. Presidents used assertive to establish authority and supremacy.

METHODS
This research is descriptive qualitative. Descriptive, means that this research is describing the words or utterances that is produced by all of the candidate of president. In this research, I describe the utterance in detail description that contains illocutionary. In addition, this reserach is categorical as qualitative, since this research is to get deep understanding and interpretation how they argued each other using illocutionary act. Moreover, this research uses human as the main instrument. Therefore, this research is classified as descriptive qualitative. The data of this research is in the forms of utterances that are produced by two candidates. The data source of this study is a transcription of debate. The study focused on the illocutionary act that is used by the candidates in the fourth debate.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Results
The results of the study can be seen in the following chart:

Chart 1. The Percentage of Illocutionary Acts within the Collected Data
There are thirty-two (32) utterances collected from the political debate's transcript. These utterances are then analyzed. From Chart 1, it can be seen that the dominant illocutionary acts performed by candidates were representative with the percentage of 72%. Meanwhile, commisive type of illocutionary acts got the percentage of 13%. On the other hand, both directive and expressive type of illocutionary acts got the same percentage with 6% and the candidates only performed declarative type of illocutionary acts by the percentage of 3%. Therefore, from the result, it can be said that the candidates focus more on stating their believes and giving any appropriate response in the form of denying or admitting to the discussed matter.

Discussion
Based on Searle's theory, five types of illocutionary act in the forth of presidential debate has been identifed. (I think that is the strength of our diplomacy in international forums, therefore I always convey in international forums that Indonesia is a country with the largest Muslim population in the world, because many other countries do not know our position, such as that, and in this diplomacy we are now given the confidence to solve many things related to the existing conflicts and wars) 18 Saya kira kekuatan kita, sekali lagi kekuatan kita sebagai negara dengan penduduk muslim terbesar di dunia ini bisa kita jadikan sebagai modal besar bagi kita berdiplomasi dengan negara-negara lain termasuk juga dan kita menawarkan dan produk-produk dalam perdagangan dengan luar negeri ekspor. (I think our strength, once again our strength as a country with the largest Muslim population in the world, we can make as a big capital for us to diplomacy with other countries including as well and we offer the products) Produk-produk yang memiliki kualitas yang baik yang masuk ke negara-negara yang memiliki penduduk muslim. Ini juga salah satu yang menjadi kekuatan dari negara kita.
(The products that have good quality which enter to the countries that have Muslim populations. This is also one of the strengths of our country) As you can see from the analyzed data, not all the types are used. Further, based on the findings above, it can be stated that both of the candidates of president used representative, yet in other of illocutionary, they did not use it all. One of them used it, and one of them did not use it. After analyzing the data, it is found that Joko Widodo mostly used representative of fact and sssertion. It is caused since he is president in Indonesia. Therefore, he produced the utterances that contained fact and assertion. Meanwhile, Prabowo dominated his uttreance in commisive.
Moreover, based on the data analysis, the candidates of president mostly used representative of fact and assertion. They uttered the representative to show what they believe. In assertion, they wanted to show their assertiveness to the audience. In description, both of them just produced an utterance. Prabowo described about the corruption in this country, while Joko Widodo described Indonesia as the largest moslem country in the world. In directive types, Prabowo used recommend, whereas Joko Widodo used order to show his power as president. In commissive, Prabowo used offer, guarantee and promise. While Joko Widodo just used promise. He dominated expressive in his utterances. In this section, he wanted to show his thankfulness and his feeling in respect and love to people. Prabowo did not used this type of illocutionary act. He used declarative to declare himself that he and his partner would be a candidate of president. Joko Widodo did not use this one.

CONCLUSION
In some, it is concluded that both of candidates of president did not use five types of illocutionary act. They just used four of them in producing the illocutionary act. Prabowo just used representative, directive, commissive, and declarative. Joko Widodo used four types too, they are representative, directive, commisive, and expressive.