Speech Act And Pragmatics Analysis

2.1 Theoretical Background
2.1.1 Speech Act and Pragmatics
The study of communication is called Pragmatics, i.e. the study of how language is manipulated by the speakers. In other words, pragmatics is the realm that link language autonomous, decontextualized methods and more complex theories entailing the considerations of the linguistic situation and extralinguistic perspectives in which utterances occur. Brinton (2001: 140) demonstrates that pragmatics is commonly equated with speech act theory. According to Austin’s ‘speech act theory’, language as action serves a scope of various functions such as, asserting, , complaining, apologizing, describing promising, etc.
According to the speech act theory, apology is an illocutionary act, which

Grice states the cooperative principle as follows: at the stage at which it occurs, the participants should make their conversational contribution such as is required by the accepted intention or direction of the talk exchange in which they are exchanged. If the speaker’s words express other than their literal meanings, the context peculiarly highlights to a conversational implicature (Grice, 1975: 45).
On the basis of the above explanation, it is possible to recognize between direct and indirect apologies. The use of appropriate performatives reflect direct apologies whereas indirect apologies contains linguistic forms which involve verbs other than the performative ones. Thus, it is obvious that the indirect apology can be understood by depending on their speech acts’ knowledge, apart from the general criteria of cooperative conversation which are reciprocally shared factual information, and a general ability to draw inferences.
2.1.2 Sociolinguistic

In understanding the need for apologies and the determination of their suitable form requires larger cultural background as it plays a significant role in any context. As Brown and Levinson (1987) demonstrate that apology is always face-threatening for the speaker; yet not making a necessary apology in any occasion, more serious face loss will be in the long run. The weightiness of a contemplated apology as a face threat must be computed by giving consideration to the intimacy and power relationships of the parties involved, and the seriousness of the misdeed that occasioned