1 EEJ 6 (1) (2016) English Education Journal http://journal.unnes.ac.id/sju/index.php/eej THE PERFORMANCE OF EXPRESSIVE SPEECH ACTS AS FOUND ON WAYNE ROONEY’S FACEBOOK Ahmad TauchidDwi Rukmini English Language Education Postgraduate Program Universitas Negeri Semarang, Indonesia Article Info _________________ Received April2016 Accepted May 2016 Published June2016 ________________ Keywords: awareness, realization, Grice’s cooperative principle, implicature, conversation ____________________ Abstract ___________________________________________________________________ People tended to show off their feelings in public. It meant that certain expressive acts were used. This study was to classify what types of expressive speech act were performed by Wayne Rooney on his Facebook, to describe how the expressive speech acts were performed by Wayne Rooney on his Facebook, and to describe how the effects of expressive speech acts performed by Wayne Rooney on the hearers. This study was using descriptive qualitative approach. The findings were that there were four types of expressive speech act on Wayne Rooney‟s Facebook. They were congratulating, complimenting, thanking, and boasting. Expressive speech act of boasting was the most dominant one, namely 46%. Furthermore, each type was performed by Wayne Rooney either with direct expressive speech acts, or with the addition of preparatory acts, supportive acts, as well as the combination of both of them to modify the head acts as the main messages. Expressive speech acts of congratulating tended to cause the hearers to respond the same as what the speaker intended, namely congratulating. Meanwhile, expressive speech acts of complimenting, thanking, and boasting were most likely to cause the hearers to produce a large number of compliments as the responses. ©2016 Universitas Negeri Semarang Correspondence: E-mail: mr.ahmadtauchid@gmail.com Kampus UNNES Bendan Ngisor, Semarang, 50233 p-ISSN 2087-0108 e-ISSN 2502-4566 Ahmad Tauchid/English Education Journal 6(1) (2016) 2 INTRODUCTION When people are communicating with each other, they transfer certain meanings through the language. A branch of linguistics studying about meanings in communication is covered in what so-called Pragmatics. It is concentrated on the dynamic aspects of meanings in context. One main interest of pragmatics is defining the principles for the determination of intended meaning. This meaning may be transmitted verbally or non- verbally. Pragmatics studies language that is not directly spoken. Instead, the speaker hints at or suggests a meaning, and the listener assumes the correct intention. In a sense, pragmatics is seen as an understanding between people to obey certain rules of interaction. In everyday language, the meanings of words and phrases are constantly implied and not explicitly stated. In certain situations, words can have a certain meaning. People might think that words always have a specifically defined meaning, but that is not always the case. The definition might be a bit confusing, so let us look at an example to clarify the role of pragmatics in our language. This example is one that you probably use in your own life every day. When our friend asks, 'How are you today?', do you immediately go into an in-depth account of your health issues, varying mood, relationship status, and everything else going on in your life? Of course not! Usually, you respond with something similar too, 'Fine, how are you?' with the same expectation that our friend will not go into full detail of how he or she truly is. This interaction perfectly shows pragmatics at work. It is understood that this question does not really ask you to explain everything going on in your life. The implication relies on the context and situation. Thus, to understand more about pragmatics in context and situation, it is much better to study about speech acts which become significant aspects to be discussed further. Speech act theory attempts to explain how speakers use language to accomplish intended actions and how hearers infer intended meaning from what is said. This is obviously important to take account of speech acts into a deep analysis in conjunction with a large number of issues which potentially arise. Just take a look at the following illustration. When the speakers utter something, then the hearers afford to catch the meanings produced by the speakers. It can even cause misunderstanding when the hearers fail to process the intended meanings from the speakers. Furthermore, the speakers have something in their mind in which they expect the hearers to do so, but in some cases the speakers‟ expectation is not the same as what the hearers understand. Speech acts try to discuss how any utterances are produced by speakers so that they have intended meanings which should be comprehended by hearers not only explicitly but also implicitly. Furthermore, those intended meanings affect the hearers to react, act, and do something. In speech acts, the terms such as locutionary acts, illocutionary acts, and perlocutionary acts are familiar. Locutionary act refers to the literal meaning of what is said. For example: „It is hot in here‟. Illocutionary act is the social function of what is said. For example: „It is hot in here‟ could be an indirect request for someone to open the windows, an indirect refusal to close the window because someone is cold, or a complaint implying that someone should know better than to keep the windows closed (expressed emphatically). While perlocutionaty act is the effect of what is said. For example: „It is hot in here‟ could result in someone opening the windows. Speech acts have a crucial role in pragmatics because they are not merely a matter of speeches and acts, but there is power or force behind the words which really need a deep analysis. The domain of speech acts is then focused on the intended meanings or illocutionary acts. The concept of an illocutionary act is central to the concept of a speech act. Sometimes what is said is what is meant, but it is very often that what is said is not what is meant. In particular contexts, utterances are contrasted to meanings that want to be conveyed by speakers. When what is said is what is meant, hearers need not do interpretation complicatedly and it is easy to understand. Meanwhile, when what is said is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illocutionary_act Ahmad Tauchid/English Education Journal 6(1) (2016) 3 not what is meant, hearers endeavor hard to catch the meanings of the utterances. Illocutionary acts have a force as an aspect of speaker meaning. It means that speakers, in producing utterances, have power to control someone else to do something in accordance with what they desire. For example, in a classroom situation when a lecturer utters „do this assignment and submit it tomorrow‟ to the students, then the students are most likely to obey what their lecturer instructs. Though the students may possibly refuse the lecturer‟s instruction, they in fact do not do that. Here it is obviously illustrated that an utterance produced by the lecturer is not a mere utterance, but there is power that forces the students to do a lecturer‟s instruction. Pragmatics In learning any language, pragmatics has a significant role. Pragmatics deals with the study of meanings in context, although the context is always an elusive and subjective composite that tries to shed a holistic, though partial, view on reality. Trillo (2012:117) had identified two main traditions in the study of pragmatics: the first understands pragmatics as a dynamic subject in reality, for instance Mey (1993:4): „Pragmatics tells us it is all right to use language in various, unconventional ways, as long as we know, as language users, what we are doing‟. In other words, Pragmatics in this tradition can be the driving force in the transmission of meaning relations in communication. The second tradition describes Pragmatics as a static subject; cf. Leech (1983:6), „the study of meaning in relation to speech situations‟. In other words, the dynamic tradition paves the way for the novelty of speech whereas the static tries to weave a univocal relationship between language and reality. The first would look for inventive relationships between language, reality and individuals, while the second would try to establish the link between words, meanings and situations. From the statements above, it is clear that pragmatics intends to identify the intentions with which utterances are pronounced and how they may help clarify the meaning behind some grammatical structures that do not render their transparent pragmatic force on the basis of their construction. Pragmatics necessarily demands the use of acoustic analysis to identify the elements that are significant for meaning creation at the pragmatics level. It needs to differentiate between the useful features in the description of the individual speaker and those that knit the web of meaning contrasts at the language level. In order to address that general concern, pragmatics engages the scholar in a wide variety of topics. One major area is speech acts. Speech Act When we say something to someone, at the same time we also do something dealing with the arrangement of our utterances. Our acts in using utterances in everyday communication are known as speech acts. The notion of a speech act is fairly well understood. Searle (1969: 7) stated that “the theory of speech act starts with the assumption that the minimal unit of human communication is not a sentence or other expression, but rather the performance of certain kinds of acts, such as making statement, asking questions, giving orders, describing, explaining, apologizing, thanking, congratulating, etc.”In addition, Bach (2003) notes that “a speech act is quintessentially pragmatics because it is created when speaker makes an utterance to hearer in context and must be interpreted as an aspect of social interaction.” In general, speech acts are acts of communications. Moreover, to communicate is to express a certain attitude, and act defined as the units at the lowest rank of discourse (Coulthard, 1977:8). As an act of communication, a speech act succeeds if the audience identities, in accordance with the speaker‟s intention, are expressed. “The first thing one should notice is that speech acts are actions happening in the world, that is, they bring about a change in the existing state of affairs” (Mey, 1993:111). We can make requests, ask questions, give orders, make promises, give thanks, offer, apologies, and so on. A major task Ahmad Tauchid/English Education Journal 6(1) (2016) 4 for the theory of speech acts is to account for how speakers can succeed in what they do despite the various ways which linguistic meaning under determines use. Furthermore, “almost any speech act is really the performance of several acts at once, distinguished by different aspects of the speaker‟s intention. Speech acts might be seen as a prototypically pragmatics phenomenon in the sense that they challenge the notion that there is a one to one correspondence between a form and its function” (Grundy, 1995:105). Classifications of Speech Acts Utterances perform three kinds of act. Austin (1962:108) identifies three distinct levels of action beyond the act of utterance. He classifies the three levels of act began with the effect those words have on an audience. They are called locutionary act, illocutionary, and perlocutionary act. “Locutionary act is the aspect of language which has been the traditional concern of linguistics” (Stubbs, 1983:152). The locutionary act is the act of saying something: producing a series of sounds which means something. In other words, locutionary act is the act simply uttering a sentence from a language; it is a description of what the speaker says. It is the act of using a referring expressions and a predicating expression. It is the acts of saying something in which each word in the sentences is uttered exactly the same as its meaning in the ordinary. Austin (1962:407) states that “the content of locutionary act (what is said) is not always determined by what is meant by the sentences being uttered.” Illocutionary act is performed in saying something, and includes acts such as betting, promising, denying, stating, promising, apologizing, threatening, predicting, ordering and requesting, and ordering. Some of the verbs used to label illocutionary acts can be used performatively. Moreover, illocutionary act can be defined as what the speaker intends to do by uttering a sentence, (Sari, 1988:15). In other words, it is the out in saying something using a certain intention. Coulthard (1977:18) states that “basically an illocutionary act is a linguistic act performed in uttering a certain words in a given context.” The last act is the perlocutionary act produces some effect on the hearer of what the speaker says. Therefore, perlocutionary act is hearer‟s behavioral response to the meaning of utterance. It can be a physical or verbal response, perhaps merely a mental or emotional response of some kind. As with illocutionary act the effect associated with a perlocutionary force of the utterance. Although important to a complete understanding of speech act, perlocutionary act are fortunately, poorly understood at the present time. Perlocutionary act would include such effects as persuading, embarrassing, intimidating, boring, irritating, or inspiring the hearer. For instance a bartender utters the words, „The bar will be closed in five minutes‟. Perlocutionary acts are performed with the intention of producing a further effect. The bartender intends to be performing the perlocutionary acts of causing the patrons to believe that the bar is about to close and of getting them to want and to order one last drink. He is performing all these speech acts, at all three levels, just by uttering certain words. Classifications of Illocutionary Acts Speech acts are all the acts we perform through speaking and it is not just acts of producing certain sounds. Speech acts always deal with our daily life. We tell people how things are, we try to get them to do things, we commit ourselves to doing things, we express our feelings and attitudes, and we bring about changes through our utterance. Perhaps the most significant characteristic of speech acts is that after their performance, the world has changed into a new reality promised something. More dramatically, the world has changed significantly for a particular person after a sentence has been passed on him or her. Searle posits the nation of “illocutionary point” which is the point or purpose of its being act of that type. Searle (1969:34-8) as quoted by Mey (1993:131) proceeds to a classification of illocutionary acts. There are five classes of acts. Ahmad Tauchid/English Education Journal 6(1) (2016) 5 They are representative, directive, commissive, expressive, and declarative. Representative speech act or assertive speech act is a speech act that commits the speaker to the truth of the expressed proposition. It has a truth-value, show words – to world fit, and express speaker‟s belief toward something. Directive speech act is attempted by the speaker to get the addressee to do something. The point of which is to direct the hearer towards doing something; which have a world – to – word direction of fit; in which a wish is expressed; in which the proposition is a future act done by the hearer. In other words, directives use language to try to get someone to do thing as in demanding, commanding, requesting, advising, suggesting, etc. Similar to directives, commisive operates a change in the world by means of creating an obligation; in this case, the speaker creates the obligation. In other words, commisives are acts, which commit the speaker. The main point of expressive is that a certain psychological state is expressed. It is to express the speaker‟s inner state toward a certain thing. It has no direction of fit; in which the proposition ascribes a property or act to the speaker or the hearer. In other words, expressive uses language to express the feelings and attitudes, such as apologizing, thanking, condoling, congratulating, complaining, lamenting, protesting, deploring, boasting, complimenting, praising, greeting, and welcoming.Declarative act is made by someone who is especially authorized to do so within some institutional framework. It is to bring something about in the world, which has both a world – to – world direction of fit; in which no psychological state is expressed; in which any proposition can occur. Furthermore, Petrus (2010:225) added that performances of a certain sort of actions, viz. as illocutionary acts are construed as communicative acts. A communicative act is an utterance or set of utterances (communicative act set), that we use to perform some sort of linguistic action or function in communication. A written communicative act has a role which is not only to pass on a message to the addressee, as typified in mainstream speech act theory and face-to-face interaction, but also to signal group status and esteem within the competitive political apparatus of the country. Fetzer (2013:224) stated that written communicative acts, as opposed to oral or spoken acts, do not require immediate feedback, e.g. in the form of an illocutionary effect or a perlocutionary act; are open to different interpretations across time and cultures, and may be made up of several individual speech acts functioning together to realize the communicative intent of the communicative act.In expressing the speech act, speakers generally use modifiers to either mitigate or upgrade or aggravate the effect of their speech acts. Trosborg in Fetzer (2013:226) classified modifiers into preparatory acts and supportive acts. Preparatory acts are other sentences or utterances that come before the head act (the main message), while supportive acts are other sentences or utterances that come after the head act. These modifiers and the head act work together to form a communicative act, i.e. a social speech event realizable in more than one complete syntactic structure. The modifiers could be different types of speech acts, for instance, for thanking to be realized appropriately, a compliment (an expressive speech act) could be used as a preparatory act. Types of Expressive Speech Acts When people express their psychological state, their expressions simultaneously carry out certain acts. These acts are what so-called expressive speech acts. The following utterances are the examples of expressive speech acts; “wow”, “excellent result!”, “that was stupid”, “he has damn well spent our money”, etc. Then Searle (1985:211) mentioned that expressive speech acts can be divided into apologizing, thanking, condoling, congratulating, complaining, lamenting, protesting, deploring, boasting, complimenting, greeting, and welcoming. The first classification of expressive speech act is apologizing. The point of apologizing is to express sorrow or regret for some state of affairs that the speaker is Ahmad Tauchid/English Education Journal 6(1) (2016) 6 responsible for. The preparatory condition is thus that the speaker must be responsible for the thing about which the sorrow is expected. For this reason most of the things one apologizes for are one‟s actions, but they need to be actions provided that the speaker assumes responsibility for them. And the second preparatory condition is that the proposition is true and the state of affairs represented by the propositional content is bad for the hearer. The secondis thanking. The point of thanking is to express gratitude. The preparatory conditions are that the thing in question benefits or is good for the speaker and the hearer is responsible for it. As with apologies, one normally thanks for the actions, but the propositional content need not necessarily represent an action provided that the hearer is responsible. It is important to note that one apologizes to the hearer and one thanks the hearer in each case for something about him and his relation to the state of affairs specified in the propositional content. It is important to notice that one apologizes to the hearer and one thanks the hearer in each case for something about him and his relation to the state of affairs specified in the propositional content. Condoling is also a part of expressive speech act. The verb “condole” is obsolete and has been replaced by the use of the noun “condolence”. Thus one sends one‟s condolences. When one condoles, one expresses sympathy and the preparatory condition is that the thing in question is bad for the hearer – usually some great misfortune. The next is congratulating. The opposite of “condoling” is “congratulating”. In congratulating one expresses pleasure with the preparatory condition that the thing in question is beneficial or good for the hearer. Unlike thanking, and like condoling, congratulating need not involve an act or anything the hearer is responsible for. It may be simply some item or good fortune. The symmetry between condoling and congratulating is reflected in the fact that condoling is expressing sympathy for the misfortune or others; congratulating is expressing pleasure at the good fortune of others. In each case one condoles or congratulates only the person or persons whose fortune or misfortune is involved. Complaining can be considered as expressive speech act. When one complains, one expresses discontent. The preparatory condition is that what one is expressing discontent about is bad, though this need not strictly be a presupposition since one can complain simply by saying that it is bad. There is no preparatory condition that the hearer must be in any way responsible for what one is complaining about. One can complain about the weather, inflation, or etc. This is why complaining can be either an assertive or an expressive. One can complain by asserting that something is bad or one can simply express one‟s discontent. One can say, for example, “That was a terrible thing to do” (assertive), or one can complain by saying “How awful” (expressive). Lamenting, unlike complaining, need not be a speech act. One can simply feel sorrow for something and therefore be said to be lamenting it. There is, however, a use of the verb “to lament” in which it denotes strong public or overt expressions of sorrow. Again, as with complaining, one need not be assigning any responsibility to the hearer for the thing lamented.Lamenting is closely related to mourning for and grieving over, though mourning and grieving have closer connections with death and loss that does mere lamenting. One might reasonably be said to lament the passing of the glass milk bottle, but it would at best be ironic to say that one mourned for it or grieved over it. Protesting, like complaining and lamenting, presupposes that what is represented by the propositional context is bad. However, protesting has some specific features of its own. First, the psychological state expressed is not mere sorrow or discontent, but rather disapproval and protesting is a formal expression of disapproval. Secondly, though the hearer may not be directly responsible for the bad state of affairs, he must be able to change it and be responsible for it at least in the sense that he could change it and has not so far done so. For Ahmad Tauchid/English Education Journal 6(1) (2016) 7 example, one may protest to higher authorities about the behavior of their subordinates. Thirdly, protesting is a demand for change. Thus, for example, one protests to the authorities about some political or economic situation, but it would make no sense to protest about the weather; one would not know whom to protest to, though one can certainly complain about the weather. Deploring, like lamenting, need not be overt speech act. One can simply bewail, bemoan, weep for, or feel outraged about something and thereby deplore it. However, deploring also has a use where it marks an overt speech act, strong expression of sorrow, or discontent, and, unlike lamenting, it seems to carry with it the implication that someone is responsible for the thing deplored. If I lament someone‟s death, I merely express feelings of sorrow about it. If I deplore his death, I am holding someone responsible for it, even though the person addressed in my deploring may not be the person I hold responsible. I might deplore the death of prisoners in South African jails, but it would make no sense for me to deplore the weather or the patter of the tides. Boastingis one of the expressive speech acts as well. Boasting is expressing pride with the presupposition that the thing one boasts about is good for the speaker (and therefore will be admired or envied by the hearer). Boasting, like complaining, can be either assertive or expressive. One can for example boasts by saying that one did something good or that something good happened to one. As remarked earlier boasting does not and could not have a performative use. This is because boasting carries with it the suggestion that the speaker is trying to conceal the fact that he is boasting. Similar remarks apply to brag. People very often compliment other in communication. To compliment is to express approval of the hearer for something. Complimenting presupposes that the thing hearer is complimented for is good, though it need not necessarily be good for him. One might, for example, compliment him on his heroic and self-sacrificing behavior. Complimenting, like boasting, can be either assertive or expressive. This kind of expressive speech acts is likely to happen in daily life. Greeting is the only marginally an illocutionary act since it has not propositional content. When one greets someone, for example, by saying “Hello”, one indicates recognition in a courteous fashion. So we might define greeting as a courteous indication of recognition, with presupposition that the speaker has just encountered the hearer. The last is welcoming. To welcome somebody is to receive him hospitably, and thus welcoming might be defined as an expression of pleasure or good feeling about the presence or arrival of someone. Welcoming, like greeting, is essentially hearer-directed. METHODS The writer designed his study by using a qualitative approach. This was because he often made knowledge claims based primarily on constructivist perspectives (i.e., the multiple meanings of individual experiences, meanings socially and historically constructed, with an intent of developing a theory or pattern) or advocacy/participatory perspectives (i.e., political, issue-oriented, collaborative, or change oriented) or both. He also used strategies of inquiry such as narratives, phenomenology, ethnographies, grounded theory studies, or case studies. The writer collected open-ended, emerging data with the primary intent of developing themes from the data. Furthermore, he intended to view perspectives of studies about complex meanings which were experienced individually, socially, and historically. A qualitative approach was usually implemented in the study in which statistical data were ignored. The writer had tendency to interpret the data in the form of words. The object of the study was expressive speech acts on Wayne Rooney‟s Facebook because the writer saw that there were many expressions found on it. The data were taken from Wayne Rooney‟s Facebook, starting from January 2012 to May 2016 and it was gained 91 Ahmad Tauchid/English Education Journal 6(1) (2016) 8 data as a whole.Because research was a complex process involving the writer to collect data related in the study. In conducting the study, the writer played his role as the key instrument that collected and analyzed the data as well as interpreted the findings. The units of analysis in this study were in the form of utterances. This was because expressive speech acts were related to acts performed with utterances. The utterances could be in the simple or complex forms. The analysis took expressive speech acts such as apologizing, thanking, condoling, congratulating, complaining, lamenting, protesting, deploring, boasting, complimenting, greeting, and welcoming. The procedures of collecting data were determining the object, searching for Wayne Rooney‟s authentic Facebook account, reading the status updated by Wayne Rooney accurately, and highlighting the data. The procedures of analyzing data were classifying the data, reducing the data, interpreting the data, and drawing an inference. The triangulation used was expert triangulation. Analysis, Results and Discussions Of the twelve types of expressive speech act classified by Searle (apologizing, thanking, condoling, congratulating, complaining, lamenting, protesting, deploring, boasting, complimenting, greeting, and welcoming), the writer found four types of expressive speech act on Wayne Rooney‟s Facebook. They were expressive speech acts of congratulating, complimenting, thanking, and boasting. Most of the utterances were dominated by expressive speech acts of boasting as many as 42 utterances (46%), followed by expressive speech acts of congratulating as many as 22 utterances (24%), complimenting as many as 15 utterances (17%), and thanking as many as 12 utterances (13%). Expressive speech acts of congratulating were performed either with direct speech acts as many as 7 utterances (32%), or with the addition of preparatory acts as many as 3 utterances (14%) and supportive acts as many as 12 utterances (54%). Expressive speech acts of complimenting were performed either with direct speech acts as many as 5 utterances (33%), or with the addition of preparatory acts as many as 1 utterance (7%) and supportive acts as many as 9 utterances (60%). Expressive speech acts of thanking were performed either with direct speech acts as many as 1 utterance (8%), or with the addition of preparatory acts as many as 2 utterances (17%), supportive acts as many as 5 utterances (42%), as well as the combination of preparatory acts and supportive acts as many as 4 utterances (33%). Expressive speech acts of boasting were performed either with direct speech acts as many as 19 utterances (45%), or with the addition of preparatory acts as many as 2 utterances (5%), supportive acts as many as 20 utterances (48%), as well as the combination of preparatory acts and supportive acts as many as 1 utterance (2%). For expressive speech acts of complimenting, the effects on the hearers were expecting, congratulating, asserting, complimenting, criticizing, thanking, encouraging, suggesting, wondering, requesting, and greeting. Of the whole expressive speech acts of complimenting, the most dominant effects were complimenting as many as 78 utterances, followed by asserting 42 utterances, encouraging 11 utterances, expecting 4 utterances, thanking 3 utterances, wondering 3 utterances, requesting 3 utterances, suggesting 2 utterances, greeting 2 utterances, congratulating 1 utterance, and criticizing 1 utterance. For expressive speech acts of thanking, the effects on the hearers were expecting, congratulating, complimenting, suggesting, encouraging, asserting, thanking, thanking back, greeting, feeling glad, wondering, criticizing, forbidding, and requesting. Of the whole expressive speech acts of thanking, the most dominant effects were complimenting as many as 45 utterances, followed by asserting 37 utterances, congratulating 9 utterances, requesting 6 utterances, expecting 5 utterances, encouraging 3 utterances, thanking back 3 utterances, greeting 3 utterances, forbidding 3 Ahmad Tauchid/English Education Journal 6(1) (2016) 9 utterances, suggesting 2 utterances, thanking 1 utterance, feeling glad 1 utterance, wondering 1 utterance, and criticizing 1 utterance. For expressive speech acts of boasting, the effects on the hearers were expecting, encouraging, asserting, welcoming, feeling glad, feeling sad, feeling proud, complimenting, requesting, criticizing, wondering, suggesting, thanking, greeting, congratulating, forbidding, and condoling. Of the whole expressive speech acts of boasting, the most dominant effects were complimenting as many as 180 utterances, followed by asserting 103 utterances, expecting 26 utterances, requesting 24 utterances, wondering 14 utterances, encouraging 12 utterances, welcoming 11 utterances, criticizing 10 utterances, greeting 10 utterances, congratulating 8 utterances, feeling glad 7 utterances, thanking 6 utterances, suggesting 3 utterances, feeling proud 2 utterances, condoling 2 utterances, feeling sad 1 utterance, and forbidding 1 utterance. CONCLUSIONS This study contained four of twelve types of expressive speech act proposed by Searle. They were expressive speech acts of congratulating, complimenting, thanking, and boasting. Of the four types of expressive speech acts found on Wayne Rooney‟s Facebook, expressive speech act of boasting was the most dominant one, as much as 46%. Furthermore, each type was performed by Wayne Rooney either with direct expressive speech acts, or with the addition of preparatory acts, supportive acts, as well as the combination of both of them to modify the head acts as the main messages. It turned out what Wayne Rooney performed on his Facebook had a lot of effects on the hearers which were realized in the form of comments. Those comments came up variously in every status posted by Wayne Rooney. They included asserting, complimenting, condoling, congratulating, criticizing, encouraging, expecting, feeling glad, feeling proud, feeling sad, forbidding, greeting, requesting, suggesting, thanking, and even welcoming, as well as wondering. Expressive speech acts of congratulating tended to cause the hearers to respond the same as what the speaker intended, namely congratulating. Meanwhile, expressive speech acts of complimenting, thanking, and boasting were most likely to cause the hearers to produce a large number of compliments as the responses. REFERENCES Ainurrohmah, 2011.The use of Illocutionary Acts in Stephenie Meyer‟s New Moon.Thesis (Unpublished). Semarang: State University of Semarang. Austin, J.L. 1962. How to do Things with Words. Melbourne: Oxford University Press. Bach, K. 2003. Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy Entry.In http://online,sfsu,edu/~kbach/spchacts.html. [Accessed on October 2010]. Bayat, Nihat. 2013. A study on the Use of Speech Acts. Science Direct. 213 – 221. Brown, Keith and Miller, Jim. 2013. The Cambridge Dictionary of Linguistics.New York: Cambridge University Press. Coulthard, M. 1977. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis. London: Longman Group Ltd. Cresswell, John, W. 2003. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (Second Edition). California: Sage Publications, Inc. Fetzer, Anita. 2013. The Pragmatics of Political Discourse. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Grundy, P. 1995. Doing Pragmatics. New York: Edward Arnold. Hiani, K, E. 2015. Performing Speech Acts among Moroccan EFL Advanced Learners.Science Direct. 479 – 485. Http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary. [Accessed on January 2016]. Http://www.yourdictionary.com/Facebook. [Accessed on December 2015]. Https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_act. [Accessed on December 2015]. Https://Zephoria.Com/Top-15-Valuable-Facebook- Statistics/. [Accessed on March 2016]. Ilyas, Sanaa and Khushi, Qamar. 2012. Facebook Status Updates: A Speech Act Analysis.SAVAP International.Vol.3, No.2. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary http://www.yourdictionary.com/facebook https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_act https://zephoria.com/Top-15-Valuable-Facebook-Statistics/ https://zephoria.com/Top-15-Valuable-Facebook-Statistics/ Ahmad Tauchid/English Education Journal 6(1) (2016) 10 Leech, G. 1983. The Principles of Pragmatics. New York: Longman Group Ltd. Mey, J.L. 1993. Pragmatics: An introduction. Oxford: Blackwell. Owens, Jr. Robert E. 2000.Language Development: An Introduction.Fifth Edition. New York: State University of New York Genesco. Petrus, Klaus. 2010. Meaning and Analysis: New Essays on Grice.New York: Palgrave Mcmillan. Qiang, Kang. 2013. OnPerlocutionary Act.CSCanada. 60 – 64. Sari, N. 1988.An Introduction to Linguistics. Jakarta: DepartemenPendidikandanKebudayaan. Searle, J.R. 1969.Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Searle, J.R., and Vanderveken, D. 1985. Foundations of Illocutionary Logic. Great Britain: Cambridge University Press. Stubbs, M. 1983. Discourse Analysis: The Sociolinguististic Analysis of Natural Language. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Thomas, R, Murray. 2003. Blending Qualitative & Quantitative Research Method in Theses and Dissertations. The United States of America: Corwin Press, Inc. Trillo, R.J. 2012.Pragmatics and Prosody in English Language Teaching. Netherlands: Springer. Verschueren, J and Ostman, J.O. 2009.Key Notions for Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Banjamin Publishing Company.