Research and Innovation in Language Learning Vol. 2(1) January 2019 pp. 15-30 P- ISSN: 2614-5960 e-ISSN: 2615-4137 http://jurnal.unswagati.ac.id/index.php/RILL Copyright ©2019 Jimmi, Juniato Sidauruk 15 SPEECH ACTS ANALYSIS IN DONALD TRUMP’S SPEECH: TRUMP BANS ALL REFUGEES AND CITIZENS OF 7 MAJORITY MUSLIM COUNTRIES ENTERING U.S. Jimmi Universitas Bina Sarana Informatika, Jakarta -Indonesia Juniato Sidauruk Universitas Bina Sarana Informatika, Jakarta - Jakarta ABSTRACT The purpose of this research is to understand and discuss in a more detail of Speech Acts of the president of the United States of America, Donald Trump. The speech will be discussed linguistically by the writers. In analyzing Trump‟s speech, the writers will relate it to the speech acts belong to J. L. Austin, those are: locutionary act, illocutionary act, and perlocutionary act. The analysis that will be elaborated by the writers is about Austin‟s types of speech acts contained in Donald Trump‟s speech, and then the most and the least types used in Donald Trump‟s speech, and also determining does perlocutionary is always exist in every Trump‟s utterance. This research is using descriptive qualitative method. In this case, the writers found 10 utterances related to Donald Trump‟s speech. In those utterances, there include 10 data of locutionary forces, 10 data of illocutionary forces, but only 2 data that show perlocutionary forces, because not all utterances conduct perlocutionary. Locutionary forces are always followed by illocutionary force, but not for perlocutionary force. Thus, every utterance can be analyzed linguistically in order to see whether every speech always conduct perlocutionary forces or not. Keywords: Linguistics, Speech Acts, Donald Trump’s speech Sari Tujuan dari penilitian ini adalah untuk memahami dan membahas secara detail mengenai tindak tutur dari pidato Presiden Amerika, Donald Trump. Pembahasan tindak tutur secara keilmu bahasaan yang akan di telaah oleh penulis. Dalam menganalisa pidato tindak tutur Donald Trump, penulis akan menggunakan teori pemahaman tindak tutur yang di prakarsai oleh J.L Austin, yaitu lokusi, ilokusi, dan perlokusi. Teori Austin akan dirinci oleh penulis berdasarkan pidato Donald Trump yang terdiri dari tipe-tipe tindak tutur milik Austin yang terdapat dalam pidato Donald Trump, lalu tipe-tipe yang paling banyak dan yang paling sedikit digunakan dalam pidato Donald Trump, serta menentukan apakah daya perlokusi selalu ada dalam setiap ujaran Trump. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode deskriptif kualitatif. Dalam kasus ini, penulis menemukan 10 ujaran terkait pidato Donald Trump. Di dalam 10 ujaran tersebut, termasuk 10 data daya lokusi, 10 data daya ilokusi, namun hanya 2 data yang menunjukan daya perlokusi, Jimmi & Sidauruk, J. 16 p-ISSN 2614-5960, e-ISSN 2615-4137 karena tidak semua ujaran menghasilkan perlokusi. Daya lokusi selalu diikuti oleh daya ilokusi, tetapi tidak selalu diikuti daya perlokusi. Jadi, setiap ujaran dapat dianalisa secara linguistik, agar bisa dilihat apakah setiap ujaran selalu menghasilkan daya perlokusi atau tidak. Kata kunci: Linguistik, Tindak Tutur, Pidato Donald Trump Received 04 September 2018 last revision 11 December 2018 published 24 January 2019 Introduction It cannot be ignored at present time that foreign language mastery has significant role. Many people are trying to raise their language level competence to be able to compete with other people from around the world. One of the skills that people prefer to be mastered is English. Because in English consist of four language skills that people have to learn it. They are free to choose what skill they will need to in the future. These needs should be well prepared before begin to learn English. One of the English skill must be observed specifically in define its meaning of the sentence and words is linguistics. In communication, it finds two factors; they are the speaker and the hearer. When people as a hearer focused on the implicit meaning by the speaker‟s idea, and then the people catch a meaning that is highly depended by the context, it definitely can be called pragmatic. Pragmatic has three parts of the discussion, those are: speech act, presupposition, and implicature. Presupposition can be said the same as preconception, where between speakers and hearers have the same preconception, so it can facilitate the communication. Implicature can be said as an additional meaning which delivered by the speaker, which is sometimes not contained in the speech itself. Among the three discussions, the writers are very eager to choose speech acts to be analyzed. Without people knowing, speech acts are the discussion in pragmatics that people always use every day. Although not everyone is aware of it, most of the time, everything that people do is the result of speech acts. Research and Innovation in Language Learning Vol. 2(1) January 2019 p-ISSN 2614-5960, e-ISSN 2615-4137 17 Al-Rassam (2010) in College of Basic Education Researchers Journal Vol. 10, No. 1 highlights the perspective of performance how politicians in political interviews rely on pragmatic strategies to grapple with the conflict between being uncooperative and truthful. His article limits the discussion on word play, metaphor, circumlocution, use of approximation and numbers, citing historical speeches and citation from the Holy Quran. This puts the idea that discussion on politicians statements are on the coming up researchers attention. Štefanovičová (2011) also wrote articles Conversational Implicature in Political Discourse. The articles deals with Conversational Implicature in political discourses and divided into theoretical and practical parts as referred to H.P. Grice theory. The political discourse are only identified and classified as in the theory of H.P. Grice. However, at least the article affirms that the theory of particularized conversational implicature as a useful tool for reasoning of concrete maneuvers in political discourse and their understanding, and to show the way in which public listeners can distil information that goes beyond an utterance. By identifying, classifying implicatures of politicians will then open wider discussion and varies interest research topics in the area of pragmatics. Much of the excitement of speech act theory is its demonstration that entities often taken as incompatible are instead thoroughly interactive. Words and things, speaking and doing are one and the same when language performs. Words do things in social setting because it is the foundation on which every other rule is erected. Related to the speech acts, there is something which is very important that the writers want to analyze. Reflected in recently period appears in the United States of America, Donald Trump has been elected as the 45 th president of the U.S. on November 9 th , 2016, defeating his opponent, Hillary Clinton. During his campaigning period, Trump has so much controversy. Trump‟s slogan says “Make America Great Again” has made many people think of Trump. Donald Trump also bans seven Muslim countries entering to the U.S. This will become reaction for people of America whether they are in pros or cons. After the election and Trump elected to be president of United Stated of America, President Trump kept his promise to ban these seven Muslim Jimmi & Sidauruk, J. 18 p-ISSN 2614-5960, e-ISSN 2615-4137 countries. Trump‟s statement is fully political related to the American Presidential election. Speech Atcs are found many in political statement. This idea supports the idea of Dylgjeri. Dylgjeri (2017) in European Journal Of Social Sciences Studies eagerly states “Undoubtedly, political discourse has been a major domain of language use that has attracted the interests of researchers for a long while. This is because political discourse is a complex human activity that deserves critical study particularly because of its central place in the organization and management of society.” It is bravely saying that discussion in speech acts related to utterances in political discourse will be on researchers‟ interest for the future. Based on the background above, the writers prefer to analyze further and detail information about Speech Acts based on Donald Trump spoken, especially in the point of view of locutionary, illocutionary and perlocutionary forces. The perlocutionary of his spoken whether exist in Trump utterance or not. That is why the writers prefer to choose Speech Acts Analyze of in Donald Trump‟s Speech: Trump Bans All Refugees and Citizens of 7 Majority Muslim Countries Entering U.S. This speech is contained in President Trump Signs Executive Order for Refugees and Citizens from 7 Majority Muslim Countries‟ video. Some questions appear during this discussion that must be explained and answered. The questions are as a follow: (1) What types of speech acts used by Donald Trump based on Austin‟s category? (2) What is the dominant speech acts used in Donald Trump‟s speech? (3) Does perlocutionary always exist in every utterance that uttered by Donald Trump? Methods This analysis used descriptive qualitative method. It can be defined the writers did analysis and review the Donald Trump Speech based on the topic have been discussed. The way of the discussion would be analyzed descriptively. The discussion of this research is regarded to type of speech acts, the most and the least of Speech Act‟s being used by Donald Trump, and did perlocutionary always exist in every utterance? Research and Innovation in Language Learning Vol. 2(1) January 2019 p-ISSN 2614-5960, e-ISSN 2615-4137 19 Regarding to the discussion, the writers have to understand on speech acts. The writers must observe the speech acts from the experts, the types of speech acts by the experts. After recognized and understood about speech acts terms, then the writers watched to related speech video for several times, scripted the speech and re-checked the results of speech script. This activity is finished in order to confirm the theory to the data obtained. The writers verified the speech acts which contained in the video. Soon, the data were analyzed. After that, the writers arranged and bundled the data in this research. Results and Discussion A. Type of Speech Acts in Donald Trump’s Speech In this discussion, the writers want to provide the analysis of speech acts in Donald Trump‟s speech based on Austin (1962) The analysis to be given by the writers is in the form of Donald Trump‟s utterances, and the next will be described in a coherent manner, ranging from locutionary, illocutionary, to perlocutionary forces. In these discussions, the writers will discuss illocutionary more detail, because illocutionary has some important point to be analyzed. The writers will add additional categories to make the illocutionary process clearer. The addition of these categories are only additional, and do not alter the meaning or form of the entire writers‟ analysis. Data 1 “I’m honored to stand here today among so many Patriots.” (Pentagon, 00:06:01 – 00:06:04) Locutionary, this utterance can be interpreted that Trump felt honored because he can stand to deliver the speech in front of his people, and among the Patriots. Illocutionary, Trump is stated his feeling. Relate to the Austin‟s category, Trump did expositive as his illocutionary forces, especially stating, because he is stated to the public about his feeling. Jimmi & Sidauruk, J. 20 p-ISSN 2614-5960, e-ISSN 2615-4137 From that utterance, the word „stand‟ is showing that Donald Trump did expositive; he is standing among the patriots. Because he is standing among the patriots, he feels honored and proud, because he did it. So, Trump is stating his feeling to people. This is in accordance with Austin‟s category namely expositive especially in stating of something. However, there was no perlocutionary force after this utterance. Data 2 “Believe me, warriors they are and to save our wondrous liberties and to save this God-blessed land, they shed their blood and poured out the love from their hearts to protect our home.” (Pentagon, 00:07:29 – 00:07:45) Locutionary, Trump said that the warriors have fought to save their blessed land, the U.S., and they shed their blood and poured out the love to protect their home, that was the United State of America. Illocutionary, Trump tried to emphasize people about the struggle of the warriors in saving U.S. Relate to the Austin‟s category, emphasize belonged to the expositive of illocutionary, because in his utterance, Trump had asserted his people to appreciate their warriors. From that utterance, the expositive can be seen from „to save our wondrous‟, „to save this God-Blessed land‟, „they shed their blood and poured out the love‟, and „to protect our home‟, he tried to emphasize his utterance, to make the people realize, to appreciate their warriors. This was in accordance with Austin‟s category namely expositive especially in emphasize of something. There was no perlocutionary force after this utterance. Data 3 “That is why today I'm signing to executive actions to ensure the sacrifices of our military are supported by the actions of our government, and they will always be supported by the actions of our government, believe me.” (Pentagon, 00:07:59 – 00:08:19) Locutionary, Trump said that on that day he wanted to sign the executive order to support their military, and the government would always support their military. Illocutionary of Trump‟s utterance was commissive, in specific was „declare my Research and Innovation in Language Learning Vol. 2(1) January 2019 p-ISSN 2614-5960, e-ISSN 2615-4137 21 intention‟ Relate to the Austin‟s category, he was not only declared about the executive order, but also declared about his intention, the reason why he wanted to sign the executive order. From that utterance, commissive was not only seen from declaring about his intention, but there were two parties, „I am‟ as Trump, and the military. In this utterance, Trump as a subject to the military, because Trump wanted to do a certain course of action, he and the government were always support the military by the actions. This was in accordance with Austin‟s category namely commissive especially in declare my intention of something. There was no perlocutionary force after this utterance. Data 4 “First, I'm signing an executive action to begin a great building of the armed services of the United States, developing a plan for new planes, new ships, new resources and new tools for our men and women in uniform and I'm very proud to be doing this.” Locutionary, Trump said that firstly he wanted to sign the executive order to begin a great building for their military services of the U.S., and developed a plan for some attributes of military such as new planes, new ships, new resources, and new tools for their military, and Trump felt proud to be done this. Illocutionary of this utterance was exercitive, in specific was „giving of a decision‟. Relate to the Austin‟s category, Trump gave a decision that he was signing an executive order, and he did a certain course of action to building the U.S. military, so the people could call it as exercitive. This was in accordance with Austin‟s category namely exercitive especially in giving of decision. In illocutionary, Trump is explained about the plans to develop the U.S. military, while Trump finished his utterance, many people were giving applause to him because his great plans to make U.S. great again, especially in developing U.S. military. Data 5 “Secondly, I'm establishing new vetting measures to keep radical Islamic terrorists out of the United States of America.” (Pentagon, 00:09:08 – 00:09:18) Jimmi & Sidauruk, J. 22 p-ISSN 2614-5960, e-ISSN 2615-4137 Locutionary, Trump said that he wanted to establish new vetting measures, and kept radical Islamic terrorist out of the United States of America. Illocutionary of Trump‟s utterance was exercitive, in specific was „proclaim‟. Relate to the Austin‟s category, the writers assumed that Trump‟s utterance w a s not only proclaims about something, but he had the power and a certain course of action to make Islamic terrorist out of the U.S. This was in accordance with Austin‟s category namely exercitive especially in proclaim of something. There was no perlocutionary force after this utterance. Data 6 “We don’t want them here.” (Pentagon, 00:09:19 – 00:09:20) Locutionary, Trump said that he did not want Islamic terrorism in the U.S., and also the refuge and citizens of seven majority Muslim countries, those are: Libya, Sudan, Iran, Yemen, Somalia, Suriah, and Iraq. Illocutionary, Trump denied and he is stated that he did not want the existence of seven Muslim countries, because the seven Muslim countries were identified to have the terrorist organization which operates significantly in the region, or the countries were considered as a “heaven” for terrorist. That was why the seven Muslim countries were the most cautioned countries by the U.S. Trump did expositive as his illocutionary, because expositive are used in acts of exposition involving expounding of views. Trump denied and stated about what he wanted, it is caused the expounding of views from the existence of seven Muslim countries that banned by Donald Trump. This was in accordance with Austin‟s category namely expositive especially in deny and state of something. There was no perlocutionary force after this utterance. Data 7 “We only want to admit those into our country who will support our country and love deeply our people.” (Pentagon, 00:09:30 – 00:09:38) Research and Innovation in Language Learning Vol. 2(1) January 2019 p-ISSN 2614-5960, e-ISSN 2615-4137 23 Locutionary, Trump said that they were only wanted to admit those into their country who will support the U.S. and love deeply their people. Illocutionary, in this utterance, it can be seen that Trump wanted to affirm the people. Relate to the Austin‟s category for this utterance, Trump did expositives, especially „to affirm‟. From that utterance, „to affirm‟ can be seen from „we only want to admit‟, „will support‟, and „love deeply‟, because Trump literally wanted to affirm the people about who will be admitted and accepted in the U.S. The people who will be admitted and accepted in the U.S. are the people who will support the U.S., and the people who love the U.S. deeply. Thus, Donald Trump will be ignored the people who did not support and love the U.S. This was in accordance with Austin‟s category namely expositive especially in affirm of something. There is no perlocutionary force after this utterance. Data 8 “We will never forget the lessons of 9/11 nor the heroes who lost their lives at the Pentagon.” (Pentagon, 00:09:39 – 00:09:48) Locutionary, Trump said that they would never forget the lessons of 9/11 nor the heroes who lost their lives at the Pentagon. From that utterance, Trump did commissive, especially „vowing‟, and also can be a promising, or swearing. Relate to the Austin‟s category, commissive can be seen from „we will never forget‟, it showed that Donald Trump is vowed to himself, and also his people that they committed to a certain course of action, they never forget the lessons of 9/11 nor the heroes who lost their lives at the Pentagon. This was in accordance with Austin‟s category namely commissive especially in vowing of something. There was no perlocutionary force after this utterance. Data 9 “We will honor them not only with our words but with our actions, and that's what we're doing today.” (Pentagon, 00:09:51 – 00:09:58) Jimmi & Sidauruk, J. 24 p-ISSN 2614-5960, e-ISSN 2615-4137 Locutionary, Trump said that they would honor the heroes not only with their words but with their actions, and that was what they were done on that day. Illocutionary, Trump did commissive, especially „vowing‟, and also can be promised or swearer. Relate to the Austin‟s category, commissive can be seen from „we will honor them‟, and there are three parties in this utterance, Donald Trump, the people, and heroes. Donald Trump and his people were vowing that they will always honor the heroes, not only with words, but with their action too, that was why Trump signed the executive order. It showed that Trump and his people were commit to a certain course of action to the heroes. This was in accordance with Austin‟s category namely commissive especially in vowing of something. There was no perlocutionary force after this utterance. Data 10 “And thank you very much for accepting this responsibility.” (Pentagon, 00:11:07 – 00:11:23) Locutionary, Trump said that he thanked the people for accepting that responsibility. Illocutionary, from that utterance, Trump did behabitive, especially „thank‟. Relate to the Austin‟s category, behabitive can be seen from „thank you very much‟ that uttered by Trump to other. Trump gave an attitude and respect to other. This was in accordance with Austin‟s category namely behabitive especially in thank of something. Perlocutionary, after Trump finished his last utterance of speech, many people gave his applause, because of his good speech for the U.S. From the analysis above, it can be concluded that in Donald Trump‟s speech, there are locutionary, illocutionary, and perlocutionary forces in ever utterances that spoken by Trump. Every utterance has its own meaning, so that it makes the writers will be easier in analyzing the data. B. The Dominant of Speech Acts Used in Donald Trump’s Speech In a conversation or a speech, without the people realize either directly or not, many of them did speech acts contained in the conversation or speech. The main theory of Research and Innovation in Language Learning Vol. 2(1) January 2019 p-ISSN 2614-5960, e-ISSN 2615-4137 25 speech acts proposed by Austin, he expressed that there are three main types of speech acts, those are locutionary, illocutionary, and perlocutionary. These three things are the ones that make it easier for people to analyze speech acts, because every utterance could be separated by type, to make it easier to analyze further. In this case, after the writers analyzed Donald Trump‟s speech for several time, the writers found three types of Austin‟s category that contained in Trump‟s speech, locutionary, illocutionary, and perlocutionary. But the most type of speech acts that contained in Donald Trump‟s speech are locutionary, and illocutionary forces, and the least type of speech act that contained in his speech is only perlocutionary. Locutionary and illocutionary were always tandem, because illocutionary can be said to be the process or function of a locutionary forces, so the portion in a utterance between locutionary and illocutionary were balanced, that was why locutionary and illocutionary cannot be separated from one to another. Literally was different from perlocutionary. Perlocutionary can be said as the result of locutionary and illocutionary forces. Perlocutionary was the form of a concrete action undertaken by the hearer, as a result of locutionary is forced conducted by the speaker. From the analysis above, perlocutionary i s forced that the writers analyzed was not many, there were only two perlocutionary forces resulting from locutionary and illocutionary, those were data 4 and data 10, because perlocutionary was not depending on both of it. So, there were different in the amount of the three. C. Findings Perlocutionary on Donald Trump’s Speech As mentioned earlier, perlocutionary was a form of concrete action undertaken by the hearer, as a result of locutionary and illocutionary are forced conducted by the speaker. From the previous analysis, it can be seen that perlocutionary force is only found two data, it was not as many as locutionary and illocutionary. Jimmi & Sidauruk, J. 26 p-ISSN 2614-5960, e-ISSN 2615-4137 Of 10 data discussed, it can be said that there are only 2 data utterances that contain perlocutionary forces. It proved that not all actions of locutionary and illocutionary had perlocutionary in every utterance. A lot of locutionary and illocutionary forced had no effect to the listener, so they did not act of perlocutionary. Whereas of every utterance that contain locutionary force is then in tandem to illocutionary force, but not for perlocutionary force. Many factors behind the lack of occurrence of perlocutionary is forced, such as lack of sensitivity to the speaker, or probably the speech did not require any perlocutionary forced in it. From the analysis above, two of the perlocutionary that occurred is showed the applause of Donald Trump's speech only. The first one was perlocutionary shown because in Trump‟s utterance, he wanted to develop the U.S. military, many people gave applause to him because his great plans to make the U.S. great again. And the second was perlocutionary shown because Trump said „thank you” to people, so that people give applause to him. It is proved that not all the locutionary and illocutionary is forced by Trump should get perlocutionary from the hearer. Then it can be said that perlocutionary does not depend on the locutionary and illocutionary forces, because not all of the utterance can result perlocutionary. From the whole analysis above, it can be concluded that the writers found three types belonging to Austin, locutionary, illocutionary, and perlocutionary forces in every utterance that spoken by Trump, but there were differences in the amount of the three. Perlocutionary is found by the writers were not many, there were only two perlocutionary force resulting from locutionary and illocutionary forces, those are data 4 and data 10, because perlocutionary was not depend on both of it. Perlocutionary forces made by the hearer are done only at a certain moment, not in all moment. It proves that not all the locutionary and illocutionary forces done by Trump should get perlocutionary from the hearer. Research and Innovation in Language Learning Vol. 2(1) January 2019 p-ISSN 2614-5960, e-ISSN 2615-4137 27 Conclusion & Recommendation The conclusion of the whole analysis as a follow: First, the locutionary may be regarded as the first utterance, which has broad and general meaning, merely an utterance. Illocutionary can be regarded as the process or function of utterance, which is processed in more detail and depth. With illocutionary, the people know the meaning or function of the utterance, along with the classification of the utterance. Perlocutionary is an end result of locutionary and illocutionary forces. Perlocutionary is considered as feedback or response made by the hearer to the speaker. These three things are interconnected with each other in an utterance; to analyze an utterance, the thing that people must do is to analyze the utterance from its head or from locutionary, only then to continue to the illocutionary and perlocutionary. Second, the writers found many locutionary, those are ten data‟s, and ten data of illocutionary. The amount of locutionary and illocutionary are more rather than perlocutionary in the data that the writers analyzed, because where it is locutionary, there must be an illocutionary. Locutionary and illocutionary forces are always in tandem, because illocutionary cannot be analyzed if locutionary does not exist. Therefore, the amount of locutionary and illocutionary in Trump's speech is same. In contrast to perlocutionary, the amount of perlocutionary is only a little, only found in data 4 and data 10, because perlocutionary does not depend on the locutionary and illocutionary, it stands alone, so there are differences in the amount of the three. Finally, Not all locutionary and illocutionary can conduct perlocutionary. It proved there only two of ten data that have perlocutionary forces. It is caused by many factors behind the lack of occurrence of perlocutionary, such as lack of sensitivity to the speaker, or probably the speech does not require any perlocutionary forces in its. From this analysis, the writers and the people are recognizing about locutionary, illocutionary, and perlocutionary, also understand the function of each utterances that spoken by the speaker. Jimmi & Sidauruk, J. 28 p-ISSN 2614-5960, e-ISSN 2615-4137 References Al-Rassam, Eba M. 2010. Analyzing Political Discourse: Towards a Pragmatic Approach. College of Basic Education Researchers Journal Vol. 10, No. 1. Austin, John Langshaw. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. London: Oxford University Press, Ltd. Dylgjeri, Ardita. 2017. Analysis of Speech Acts in Political Speeches. European Journal Of Social Sciences Studies., Vol. 2, Issue 2. ISSN 2501-8590. Factbase. 2017. Remarks: Transcript Donald Trump – Washington, DC – January27, 2017. United States: FactSquared, Inc. Kreidler, Charles W. 1998. Introducing English Semantics. London: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group. Marschark, Mark, and Patricia Elizabeth Spencer. 2003. Oxford Handbook of Deaf Studies, Language, and Education. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc. Sapir, Edward. 2001. Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World. Searl, John Rogers. 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. London: Syndics of the Cambridge University Press, Ltd. Searl, John Rogers. 1979. Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. New York: Cambridge University Press, Inc. Štefanovičová, Michaela. 2011. Conversational Implicature in Political Discourse. (from https://dk.upce.cz/handle/10195/42403?locale-attribute=en) Tatham, Mark, and Katherine Morton. 2011. Speech Production and Perception. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, Ltd. Trump, D. 2017. President Trump Signs Executive Order for Refugees and Citizens from 7 Majority Muslim Countries. United States: Youtube, Inc. (Retrieved from https:youtube.com) Biography Jimmi, an English lecture in Universitas Bina Sarana Informatika, Jakarta. His research is interesting in writing subject, literature study, teaching, linguistic, and toefl. The writer is also as head of Language Center of BSI. The available email can be found at jimmi.jmm@bsi.ac.id https://dk.upce.cz/handle/10195/42403?locale-attribute=en Research and Innovation in Language Learning Vol. 2(1) January 2019 p-ISSN 2614-5960, e-ISSN 2615-4137 29 Juniato Sidauruk, an English lecture in Universitas Bina Sarana Informatika, Jakarta. His research is in teaching, writing, linguistics, and literature. The available email can be found at junianto.jnd@bsi.ac.id mailto:junianto.jnd@bsi.ac.id Jimmi & Sidauruk, J. 30 p-ISSN 2614-5960, e-ISSN 2615-4137