p-Index From 2021 - 2026
5.806
P-Index
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 3 Documents
Search
Journal : Paradigm: Journal of Language and Literary Studies

AN ANALYSIS OF COMMISSIVE SPEECH ACT USED BY THE MAIN CHARACTER OF “KNIVES OUT” Maya Fitriana Devi; Agwin Degaf
PARADIGM: Journal of Language and Literary Studies Vol 4, No 1 (2021): Paradigm: Journal of Language and Literary Studies
Publisher : English Letter Department, Universitas Islam Negeri Maulana Malik Ibrahim Malang

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.18860/prdg.v4i1.10932

Abstract

Commissive speech acts are speech acts that bind the speaker to carry out what is stated in the speech. This research aims to analyze the types and the functions of commisives speech acts used by the characters in the Knives Out movie. The method used in this research is qualitative descriptive in which the research instrument is the researcher herself. The utterances were classified based on the theory proposed by Searle (1985) and Austin (1969). The utterances found in that movie are classified into six types of commisives speech act: the promise, guarantee, refusal, threat, volunteer, and offer. The results revealed there are 13 data found in the Knives Out film. The function that the characters mainly use in the film is an act of illocution. In contrast, from 13 data, the researcher found 6 types of commisive speech acts are found in the Knives Out movie: 2 utterances for guarantee (guarantee), 2 utterances for promises (promise), 2 utterances for offers (to offer), 3 utterances for refuse (refuse), 2 utterances for threats (threatening), and 2 utterances for volunteers (volunteers). Then, the commissive speech act that is mainly produced by the characters is rejection.
MICRO TEXTUAL ANALYSIS ON FIRST PRESIDENTIAL SPEECHES IN U.S. PRESIDENT’S INAUGURAL ADDRESS M Nizar Zulhamsyah; Agwin Degaf
PARADIGM: Journal of Language and Literary Studies Vol 5, No 2 (2022): Paradigm: Journal of Language and Literary Studies
Publisher : Department of English Literature, Universitas Islam Negeri Maulana Malik Ibrahim Malang

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.18860/prdg.v5i2.17797

Abstract

In an inauguration day, a president should deliver his first speech which often consists of essential matters for him to convey his vision, mission and strategies in leading the nation which are significant, vital and sometimes different from one president to others. In this paper, first presidential speeches performed by Barack Obama and Donald Trump in the U.S. President’s inaugural address are studied through micro textual analysis. This study results the difference and diverse characteristics found from analysing micro textual element, comprising stylistic, syntactic and semantic element employed by both presidents. It is expected that the study contributes theoretically to develop the use of micro textual structure on disclosing one’s ideology and practically improve the way people perceive one’s speech because it always has an idea which is rather delicate to understand.
MORALIZING WAR AND CONSTRUCTING ENEMIES IN TRUMP’S 2025 IRAN SPEECH Degaf, Agwin; Ashfiya, Hamadah
PARADIGM: Journal of Language and Literary Studies Vol 8, No 2 (2025): Paradigm: Journal of Language and Literary Studies
Publisher : Department of English Literature, Universitas Islam Negeri Maulana Malik Ibrahim Malang

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.18860/prdg.v8i2.36758

Abstract

The growing intersection of political communication and ideological persuasion raises concerns about how language is used to legitimize state violence. Although previous research has addressed themes of populism and nationalistic rhetoric, limited attention has been given to how wartime speeches function as discursive practices that construct moral legitimacy for military intervention. Addressing this gap, this study investigates how Donald Trump’s June 2025 Iran speech constructs the enemy, moralizes war, and normalizes pre-emptive military violence. Using qualitative critical discourse analysis, the study examines both the transcript and delivery of the speech through Van Dijk’s socio-cognitive model of discourse, focusing on the ideological square and micro-level strategies such as actor description, metaphor, hyperbole, euphemism, presupposition, religious authority, victimization, and lexicalization. The findings show that the speech constructs a polarized moral framework in which the United States and its allies are represented as morally virtuous and divinely sanctioned, while Iran is framed as an irrational and existential threat. Military aggression is legitimized through hyperbolic glorification, religious invocation, euphemistic framing of destruction, and the strategic omission of civilian suffering, presenting war as a moral necessity rather than a political choice. While limited to a single case and not supported by corpus-based analysis, the study contributes to the literature on wartime political discourse by extending Van Dijk’s socio-cognitive model to contemporary conflict rhetoric and identifying a morally framed adaptation of the burden argument, shifting from economic to security and ethical justification. These findings underscore the ideological power of political language in shaping public consent for military action and highlight the need for sustained critical scrutiny of wartime political communication.