CHAPTER II

THEORITICAL AND FRAME OF THINKING

A. Theoritical Review
1. Linguistics
Linguistics, the scientific study of language, is an interesting
study that examines the nature of language by describing human
languages and the processes through which individuals learn and
communicate. Linguistics applies to everyone since language is how
people share and exchange ideas in all sorts of situations. Language
is a complex communication system that humans use to exchange
information and ideas. Language is a system encompassing the
development, acquisition, maintenance, and use of complex
communication processes, particularly by humans. In Hornby's
Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English (1986, p.
495) that cited by Machfudi, I., & Mahbub, M. A. (2022), linguistics
is defined as the scientific study of languages, with a focus on the
language itself, including its structure, acquisition, and relationships
with other kinds of communication. Linguistics covers a number of
topics, including phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax,
semantics and pragmatic. Whereas phonetics is the study of
individual speech sounds, phonology is the study of sound patterns,
morphology is the study of words, syntax is the study of sentence
structure, semantics focuses on meaning, the “what” of language,
while pragmatics adds a whole new layer by exploring how context
influences meaning.
2. Pragmatics
Pragmatics is particularly important for understanding how
language operates beyond the literal meanings of words. In this
context, offers a detailed perspective on pragmatics, stating that it
involves "detailed inferences about the nature of the assumptions
participants are making, and the purposes for which utterances are
being used" (Levinson 1983: 53, as cited in Huang 2017).
Furthermore, defines pragmatics as “the study of language from the
point of view of users, especially of the choices they make, the
constraints they encounter in using language in social interaction,
and the effects their use of language has on other participants”
(Crystal 1997: 301, as cited in Huang 2017).
To elaborate on this notion, Levinson (2017) states,
"Pragmatics is concerned with the ways in which language is used
in context and how the context influences the interpretation of
meaning." This highlights how important it is to take consideration
of the situational context of communication, allowing a deeper
understanding of how speakers communicate meaning besides to the
words they use. Pragmatics is an important part of linguistics that
studies the effects of communication context on meaning
interpretation. Based on Yule (1996), cited by NA Wardani (2011),
its focus is mostly on analyzing the meaning that individuals convey
through their speech rather than the meaning that individual words
or phrases may have on their own. This approach is really important
for understanding how listeners pick up on messages based on social
norms, conversational implicature, and the context of the situation.
It also sheds light on how speakers use language to achieve their
communication goals.
In simple terms, pragmatics is the branch of linguistics that
examines how we use language in daily interactions and interpret
meaning across different contexts. You can think of pragmatics as a
handy tool that helps us create and understand meaning from
language. According to Griffiths (2006:1), cited by Fahrurrozi, M.
R. (2015), pragmatics is similar to a "toolkit" that makes it easier to
comprehend and create meaning through language. This toolkit
includes not only vocabulary but also the structural patterns of the
language that facilitate deeper and more complex communication.
For instance, in Taylor Swift's commencement speech at NYU, when
she says, "I hope you know how proud I am to share this day with
you," the meaning goes beyond simply expressing pride. It’s about
building an emotional connection with the audience, making them
feel seen and appreciated. This is where the importance of context
comes in. Swift is using her words not just to convey information
but to engage with the graduates on a personal level. This is a good
example of how pragmatics helps to understand what’s really
happening in communication, especially in speeches where what the
speaker truly means and how the audience interprets it are so
important.
Despite the impression that pragmatics is just concerned with
communicating information from speakers to listeners, pragmatics
is really an important aspect of language that is sometimes ignored.
In daily conversations, people don’t always consider all the factors
that affect how understanding happens. Huang (2017) explains that
pragmatics is the study of language use in context, emphasizing how
meaning is interpreted based on the context in which language is
used. This includes considering the listener’s expectations and the
speaker’s choices in delivering their message. In the context of
language education, analyzing illocutionary acts in speeches like
those of Taylor Swift and Maria Ressa provides valuable insights
into how language can be used effectively to convey meaning.
Understanding how speakers structure their messages, choose their
words, and employ different illocutionary acts highlights the deeper
meanings in communication, reinforcing the importance of
pragmatic competence in language learning.
Pragmatics is important for comprehending the complexities
of communication, as it examines how meaning is shaped not just
by the words spoken but also by the context in which they are
conveyed. As Kecskes (cited in Capone, 2021) discusses, the
interpretation of meaning in communication is significantly
influenced by the context in which it occurs, highlighting the role of
pragmatics in understanding interactions. This field of study
emphasizes the importance of situational factors, such as the
relationship between speakers and listeners, the cultural background
of the participants, and the specific circumstances surrounding the
conversation. (Jassim, 2023) explain that “Pragmatics focuses on
how context and intentions shape the meaning of linguistic
expressions and influence communication". By focusing on these
elements, pragmatics helps to reveal the layers of meaning that can
exist beneath the surface of language. For instance, a simple phrase
can take on various meanings depending on the tone, context, and
intent behind it. As Yule (2020) explains, "Pragmatics is the study of
‘invisible’ meaning, or how we recognize what is meant even when
it isn’t actually said". These insights into meaning highlight how an
effective understanding of pragmatics improves the ability to
interact with others and impacts the interpretation of language.
McConachy and Spencer-Oatey (2021) further explain that
'Attention to the sociopragmatic domain is crucially important, as it
allows for insights into how cultural knowledge, assumptions, and
values influence the contextual assessments of participants’.
Understanding these practical components helps people
communicate more thoughtfully, leading to greater awareness of
context and improving interpersonal connections across various
cultural contexts.
 Khajieva (2024) elaborates that pragmatics focuses on how
social, cultural, and contextual factors shape language interpretation,
going beyond the focus of traditional linguistic studies that often
center on syntax and semantics. Aznaurova (as cited in Khajieva,
2024) emphasizes the importance of linguopragmatics, which looks
at language units in relation to the individuals using the language,
highlighting the dynamic interaction between speakers and listeners.
Similarly, (Adams 1985, as cited in Khajieva 2024), argues that
pragmatics challenges the boundaries between semantics and
context. Understanding meaning in language, according to Adams,
requires more than just analyzing the words themselves, it involves
interpreting the social dynamics and context surrounding the
communication.
Pragmatics is an interesting field to research since it explores
how language is used in different contexts. Pragmatics conveys
important insights into the social, cognitive, and cultural aspects of
communication by studying how speakers and listeners engage in
speech acts, negotiate meaning, create implicatures, and engage in
conversations (Dey, 2021). Moreover, there's a clear connection
between pragmatics and the psychological aspects of language
learning. For language learners, understand how context influences
language comprehension is important. In order to communicate
effectively, they must learn not just the vocabulary and grammar but
also the cultural and contextual aspects.
Peccei (1999: 2) cited by Mulyana, 2019 that "pragmatics
concentrates on those aspects of meaning that cannot be predicted
by linguistic knowledge alone and takes into account knowledge
about the physical and social world." Pragmatics, syntax, and
semantics are traditionally distinguished from one another in
language study. Semantics studies the connections between
language forms and real-world objects, pragmatics the interactions
 between language forms and their users, and syntax the
interconnections between language forms themselves. Only
pragmatics permits human analysis in this three-part distinction. The
benefits of studying language via pragmatics include the ability to
discuss people's intended meanings, presumptions, purposes or
aims, and the sorts of actions (like requests) they perform when
speaking.
Linguists that study pragmatics examine how context affects
meaning. Levinson (2017) states that pragmatics studies how
listeners and speakers use language in specific contexts and how
these context of a conversation may help interpret implicit meaning.
As Levinson pointed out, the study of speech acts is a key
component of pragmatics. It deals with how speakers use language
to perform activities like pleading, making threats, saying
something, or begging, and how listeners understand these intents
depending on the situation.

3. Speech Acts Theory

The writer of this research will focus on speech act as a part
of pragmatics. Furthermore, the purposes of utterances, also known
as speech acts, such as informing, requesting, and promising, are
also included in pragmatics. There are specific grammatical
structures that correlate to specific functions. For example, the
interrogative structure "Is it raining outside?" has the function of
asking. One may classify this situation as a direct speaking act. On
the other hand, an indirect speech act occurs when the interrogative
structure is employed for a different objective, such as in the request
"Would you mind turning down the music?", which is obviously not
an ability inquiry but rather a polite one. Saying something like, "I'll
be there at six," seems to be acting out the speech act of promising
something. In contrast, when we ask someone, "Can you pass the
salt?" we are not truly inquiring about their abilities. Actually, this
kind of structure is rarely used as a question at all. An instance of an
indirect speech act could be this. (Yule, 2016)
Speech Act Theory was first introduced by J.L. Austin
through a series of lectures which were later published in a book
entitled How to Do Things with Words (1962). Austin shows that
language has a broader function than just conveying information.
Through speech, a person not only makes true or false statements,
but also performs certain actions. Austin realized that in everyday
life, many utterances cannot actually be categorized as just
"statements of fact." For example, when someone says "I promise to
come tomorrow," the person is not describing something that is true
or false, but rather carrying out an act of promising. This prompted
Austin to make a breakthrough by stating that language is not only
descriptive, but also performative. This means that when we say
something, we are also doing something. This is the basis of Speech
Act Theory. Austin's speech act theory emphasizes that words not
only function as tools to convey facts or opinions, but also as tools
to carry out various social actions and interactions. Speech acts
describe the process by which individuals wish to express
themselves. Through these utterances, they execute actions in
addition to producing utterances with words and grammatical
structures. What your supervisor says has more weight than mere
words if you work in a setting where they hold considerable
influence. Speech acts, in general, are activities carried out by
utterances in English, and they are commonly referred to by more
specific terms like apology, complaint, compliment, invitation,
promise, or request.
In How to Do Things with Words, Austin begins by
distinguishing between two types of utterances, constatives and
performatives. Constatives are utterances that describe something
and can be tested for truth, such as the statement "It is raining."
Performatives, on the other hand, are utterances that do something,
such as the sentences "I swear" or "I thank you," in which the
speaker not only states something but also performs an action.
However, as his thinking progressed, Austin realized that almost all
utterances have a performative element. He therefore replaced the
distinction between constatives and performatives with a broader
category, namely the three dimensions of speech acts. According to
Austin, every speech not only conveys whatever it means, but also
uses its unique communication energy to carry out certain actions.
Thus, he establishes three differences between the simultaneous
actions that a person performs when speaking :

1. Locutionary Act :
A locutionary act is the basic linguistic action where the
speaker produces a grammatically correct sentence. This
involves the phonetic, lexical, and syntactic aspects of the
utterance.
Example (from Taylor Swift’s speech) :
"I am proud to be part of this community."
In this sentence, the locutionary act occurs when Taylor Swift
produces a grammatically correct statement that conveys her
feeling of pride.

2. Illocutionary Act :
Illocutionary acts refer to the actions performed by the
speaker when they utter a sentence. This includes the intent and
purpose behind the utterance. Here, the speaker is not just
conveying information but also performing actions such as
advising or motivating.
Example (from Maria Ressa’s speech) :
 "We must not be afraid to speak the truth."
In this case, the illocutionary act is urging courage and action to
speak the truth, reflecting Maria Ressa’s intent to encourage the
audience to be brave in expressing their opinions.

3. Perlocutionary Act :
Perlocutionary acts are the effects that result from the
utterance on the listener. This includes how the spoken words
influence the emotions, thoughts, or actions of others.
Example (from Taylor Swift’s speech) :
When someone hears, "I am proud to be part of this community,"
they might feel inspired and motivated to engage more actively
in the community.
Here, the perlocutionary act is the inspiration felt by the listener,
which may prompt them to become more involved.

4. Illocutionary Acts
Illocutionary act, which was introduced by J.L. Austin in
1962 in his seminal work "How to Do Things with Words," is one of
the fundamental concepts in pragmatic speech act theory. Austin
introduced this concept as part of a broader approach to speech act
analysis, with the aim of understanding how speech not only
conveys information but also carries out certain actions in
communication. This concept was further developed by John Searle
in his work "Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language"
(1969), which provides a deeper theoretical framework regarding
how illocutionary acts function in various contexts.
This study focuses on illocutionary acts because this aspect
reveals the intentions and goals that speakers aim to achieve through
their utterances. In everyday life, words are often used for complex
social actions, such as negotiation, official statements, or advice,
which reflect the social dynamics and power of language as a tool
for communication. John Austin, the founder of Speech Act Theory,
showed that fully understanding the meaning of an utterance
requires considering not only its literal meaning but also its social
context, speaker’s intent, and desired effect. For instance, in a
speech, a speaker might use assertives to assert truth “Success does
not come without failure” or directives to motivate “Do your best
every day”. Illocutionary acts such as promises or commands rely
on the listener’s comprehension, where the illocutionary success
depends on how the utterance is received and interpreted. Building
on Austin’s ideas, Searle (in Yustitiayu & Agustina, 2021) there are
five main types of illocutionary act : Representative, directive,
expressive, commissive and declarative.
1. Representative
Representative is used used when the speaker shares
something they believe to be true or factual. According to Yule
(1996), representative utterances reflect the speaker’s belief
about something, which could be either true or false. These types
of utterances include statements of fact, assertions, conclusions,
and descriptions. Essentially, when someone makes a
representative statement, they’re offering their understanding or
belief about a situation or event, regardless of whether it's
objectively correct or not. For example, stating, explaining,
reporting, showing, mentioning, admitting and convincing.
2. Directive
Directive occur when the speaker asks the listener to do
something. Yule (1996) explains that directives are used to get
someone to take action. The speaker expresses a desire for the
listener to do something, whether it's a request, suggestion, or
command. The goal is to prompt the listener to act in a certain
 way. For example, Example, ordering, requesting, suggesting,
inviting, challenging and advising, Searle (1976).
3. Expressive
Expressive illocutionary acts show the speaker's feelings,
expressing emotions like pleasure, pain, joy, sorrow, likes, or
dislikes. Searle (1976) gave the example such as, praising,
thanking, criticizing, complaining, congratulating, flattering and
blaming.
4. Commisive
According to Searle (1976), commissives are illocutionary
acts where the speaker expresses an intention to do something.
These acts involve the speaker committing to an action or
expressing what they plan to do in the future. For example,
promise, swear, threaten and declare commitment.
5. Declarative
Declarative illocutionary acts are those where the speaker's
words cause a change in reality. According to Yule, declaratives
are utterances that can bring about a shift in a situation or state
of affairs. For example, when a teacher says, "The school year
starts on Monday," the words establish a new reality about the
schedule. Searle (1976) explains that declaratives are used to
perform actions that change the way things are. For example,
decide, cancel, allow, forbid, grant and forgive..

5. Direct and Indirect Speech Acts

Understanding the difference between direct and indirect
speech acts is crucial in analyzing how messages are conveyed
effectively. In everyday communication, language contains three
main types of sentences: declarative, interrogative, and imperative,
each serving a distinct purpose. Declarative sentences make
statements, interrogative sentences ask questions, and imperative
sentences give commands or requests. When the structure of a
sentence directly matches its intended purpose, it is known as
a direct speech act. Additionally, explicit performatives, which often
appear in declarative sentences, are also considered direct speech
acts because they contain verbs that clearly show the speaker's
purpose.
Speech act theory was created by J.L. Austin and further built
upon by John Searle, and it highlights the distinction between direct
and indirect speech acts. As Searle (1969) explains, a direct speech
act happens when the form of the sentence and its purpose align
without confusion. For example:
a. “I request that you pass the salt.” (Declarative) – This is
a direct speech act, where the request is made explicitly.
b. “Pass the salt.” (Imperative) – This also serves as a direct
speech act, expressing a clear command.
c. “Could you pass the salt, please?” (Interrogative) – Here,
an indirect speech act is employed, where a question is used to
make a request.
Yule (1996) suggests that a direct match between a sentence’s
structure and its communicative intent results in a direct speech act,
while an indirect match leads to an indirect speech act. A declarative
sentence functioning as a statement would be a direct speech act,
but if it is used to make a request, it becomes an indirect speech act.
Indirect speech acts often require listeners to infer meaning based
on context, tone, or situational clues, rather than taking the words
literally. For example, consider this statement from Maria Ressa’s
Harvard commencement speech :
“We live in a dystopian science fiction world where
everything can change in the blink of an eye when you have been
forced to turn crisis into opportunity.”
 In this line, Ressa uses an indirect speech act. She does not
give a direct command or instruction but instead encourages the
audience to embrace change, think creatively, and find solutions in
challenging circum
stances. The message serves as an invitation to resilience,
adaptability, and a deeper understanding of social and technological
challengesthat define the modern world.
Direct and indirect speech acts also reflect how language is
used to organize social interactions and achieve communicative
goals. A direct speech act expresses an intended action clearly and
requires no additional interpretation, as seen in requests, statements,
and commands. In contrast, indirect speech acts rely on context,
social norms, and shared knowledge to convey meaning. According
to Pérez-Hernández (2020), indirect speech acts require listeners to
process implied meanings, as the intended message is often not
stated outright but rather suggested through contextual clues, tone,
and shared understanding. In professional and social settings, direct
speech acts are often preferred when clarity and efficiency are
essential, such as in team meetings, formal communication,
and instructional contexts. Clear directives and explicit language
help minimize misunderstandings, streamline communication,
and enhance collaboration. For instance, in a corporate environment,
direct speech acts ensure that all members understand their roles and
responsibilities, fostering effective teamwork and cooperation.
On the other hand, indirect speech acts are more common in
social interactions, diplomatic exchanges, and cultures where
politeness is highly valued. In such cultures, indirect language helps
maintain relationships, show respect, and avoid confrontation.
As Levinson (1983) notes, indirect speech acts often take into
account shared social norms, cultural expectations, and contextual
factors, making interactions more diplomatic and respectful.
 The difference between direct and indirect speech acts also
highlights power dynamics and social interactions. In formal
contexts like courtrooms or business meetings, direct speech acts are
often used in commands, declarations, and instructions issued by
authority figures. Meanwhile, indirect speech acts are employed to
convey meaning subtly, maintaining respect and cooperation,
minimizing conflict, and fostering deeper engagement.
Jasim (2023) further emphasizes this distinction, noting
that direct speech acts are associated with authority and formality,
while indirect speech acts reflect social awareness and sensitivity to
interpersonal relationships. Whether in leadership, public speaking,
or everyday conversation, choosing between direct and indirect
communication allows speakers to adapt to social situations,
maintain respect, and enhance collaboration and understanding.
In conclusion, understanding direct and indirect speech
acts provides a comprehensive view of how language shapes social
interactions, communicates intentions, and builds relationships.
Analyzing these distinctions sheds light on how public figures like
Taylor Swift and Maria Ressa connect with their audiences, inspire
commitment, encourage reflection, and create meaningful
interactions that extend beyond words. Effective communication,
therefore, relies on selecting the right form of speech to suit the
context, maintain respect, and achieve shared understanding,
ensuring interactions that are clear, respectful, and impactful.

6. Context Theory
In the realm of linguistics and pragmatics, the term “context”
plays an important role in communication. Context includes a range
of external factors that influence understanding, including the
physical environment, social dynamics, cultural background, and
psychological state. This shapes the interpretation of spoken words,
highlighting that meaning emerges not only from the content of the
words but also from the surrounding environment. Van Dijk (2009)
emphasizes that context functions as a subjective lens through which
relevant situational aspects are viewed, and this lens changes and
develops throughout communication. These dynamics can give rise
to various interpretations of the speaker's intentions and the listener's
understanding. Yet, as Dervin (1997) wisely notes, “there is no term
that is more often used, less often defined, and when defined,
defined so variously as context.” This observation underscores the
challenges associated with defining context, as its complexity often
goes unrecognized. Understanding context is essential to
appreciating the complexity of language and communication.
Context has a powerful impact on the exchange of meaning between
speaker and listener, reminding everyone that every conversation
occurs within a network of external influences. These influences
range from the environment to cultural norms and shape the way
messages are understood and interpreted.
Types of Context
1. Situational Context
Situational context refers to the time, place, and
circumstances surrounding a speech, all of which influence how
the message is delivered and understood. Commencement
speeches like those by Taylor Swift at NYU in 2022 and Maria
Ressa at Harvard in 2024 are delivered in formal academic
settings with significant meaning. These speeches mark a major
life milestone for the graduates, and the audience, comprising
graduates, their families, and university staff, expects themes of
achievement, future aspirations, and guidance for the next steps
in life. The timing of the speech is also important. Taylor Swift's
speech in 2022 was delivered after the pandemic, during a time
when the world was recovering from its effects. Graduates were
 navigating a post-pandemic world filled with uncertainty and
new challenges, so Swift’s message of hope and encouragement
had additional weight for the audience.
Maria Ressa’s speech in 2024, however, occurred in a time
when global issues like freedom of speech and political unrest
were prominent. As a journalist and activist, Ressa addressed the
graduates not just about their personal futures, but also about
their potential to impact society and address pressing global
challenges. The world the graduates were entering was more
complex, and Ressa’s words encouraged them to think beyond
individual success and focus on contributing to broader social
change. The setting of these speeches, esteemed institutions like
NYU and Harvard, adds another layer of meaning. Graduation
from such institutions carries weight, as these graduates are seen
as future leaders and innovators. Therefore, the speakers’
messages are not only meant to inspire personal achievement
but to encourage graduates to take on important roles in shaping
the future.
In essence, the situational context of a commencement
speech involves more than just time and place; it considers the
mood of the event, the challenges the graduates face, and the
larger global context. These elements guide how the speaker
delivers their message and how it is received by the audience.

2. Social Context
Social context revolves around the dynamic between the
speaker and the audience, as well as how their identities shape
the way the message is perceived. The identities of the speakers,
such as Taylor Swift’s celebrity status and Maria Ressa’s
position as a renowned journalist and Nobel laureate, play a
significant role in framing how their words are received. These
distinct identities influence how each speaker is viewed by their
audience and guide the expectations of the message they deliver.
Taylor Swift, known worldwide as a pop icon, is often seen as
someone who connects with younger generations. Her music
and public persona have made her a relatable figure, especially
for those in their 20s and 30s. Graduates at NYU, many of whom
are part of this demographic, are likely to feel a personal
connection to her. They may see her not just as a celebrity but
as someone who has faced challenges, experienced personal
growth, and understands the pressures of navigating success.
Her approach to communication, then, is naturally informal,
warm, and encouraging. She speaks in a way that resonates with
her audience’s values and experiences, making her message feel
accessible and motivating.
On the other hand, Maria Ressa carries a different form of
authority. Her career as a journalist, particularly her work in
advocating for press freedom and her efforts to expose
corruption and injustice, positions her as a figure of resilience
and bravery. At Harvard, where the audience is likely to be
academically driven and globally aware, her speech is framed
within the context of social responsibility and the challenges of
today’s world. Graduates at this prestigious institution may look
up to her as a role model who has not only achieved success but
has done so while standing up for important causes. Her
message likely focuses on the responsibility of the graduates to
use their voices to influence change, drawing on her own
experiences of confronting political and social issues directly.
The way the audience perceives each speaker’s identity, whether
as a pop star or a courageous journalist, shapes their
expectations of the speech and influences how they interpret the
message. Social context is essential in understanding why and
 how messages are crafted and delivered. It’s not just about the
words spoken but also about the shared understanding between
speaker and audience, built on their respective backgrounds and
the significance of the moment.

3. Cultural Context
Cultural context plays a crucial role in shaping
communication, as it is deeply tied to the values, norms, and
shared experiences of both the speaker and the audience. These
cultural factors influence how messages are crafted and
understood, allowing speakers to resonate more deeply with
their listeners. In the case of Taylor Swift and Maria Ressa, the
cultural context surrounding their speeches is shaped by the
backgrounds and expectations of both the speakers and their
respective audiences. Taylor Swift, as a prominent figure in the
entertainment industry, often incorporates references to popular
culture, trends, and the issues faced by younger generations. Her
language and themes are often reflective of the contemporary
social landscape, which includes topics like mental health,
personal empowerment, and self-discovery. When speaking to
young graduates at NYU, Swift aligns her message with cultural
values that resonate with them, such as the importance of
individuality, social justice, and pursuing one's passions in an
ever-changing world. Her references to popular culture, whether
through music, film, or viral social movements, create a sense
of connection with her audience, making her message feel both
timely and relevant. In this way, Swift’s speech is not only about
personal growth but also about reflecting on the cultural shifts
that define her generation. Additionally, Swift often uses
metaphors and symbolic language to express complex emotions
and ideas, which resonate with her audience on a deeper, more
personal level. For instance, when she says, "The road ahead
will not always be smooth, but with every stumble, you’ll learn
to rise again," she is using the metaphor of a "road" to represent
life’s journey, and the act of stumbling to signify challenges.
This resonates deeply with the audience as it speaks to their
personal experiences of overcoming obstacles.
In contrast, Maria Ressa’s cultural context is rooted in her
experiences as a journalist from the Philippines, where issues
like press freedom, political unrest, and the fight for democracy
have shaped much of her life’s work. Her audience at Harvard,
which is composed of academically focused individuals, is
likely to place a high value on intellectual integrity and the
principles of democracy and justice. Ressa’s speech, therefore,
is often grounded in these cultural values. She may draw upon
the cultural significance of freedom of speech, the role of the
press in holding power accountable, and the importance of
defending democratic values in an increasingly polarized world.
Given her background in facing threats to her own freedom as a
journalist, Ressa’s message to the graduates goes beyond
individual success; it encourages them to embrace their roles as
stewards of truth and justice within their communities and
societies at large. She speaks to a culture that values resilience
in the face of adversity and the responsibility of individuals to
act as change agents in a complex global environment.
Thus, the cultural context surrounding each speaker shapes
not only the content of their message but also how their words
are received. While Taylor Swift appeals to the cultural
sensibilities of youth, creativity, and personal expression, Maria
Ressa draws on the values of courage, social responsibility, and
democratic ideals. The cultural backdrop of each speech
influences the way the speakers connect with their audiences,
ensuring that their messages resonate in meaningful ways,
encouraging graduates to reflect on both their personal journeys
and the broader cultural forces at play in the world around them.
Context plays a crucial role in interpreting illocutionary acts,
which are the speaker's intended meanings behind their
utterances, such as a request, advice, or command. "Language
never occurs in a vacuum," as Kramsch (1993) highlights,
emphasizing that language is always used within a certain
context that gives it meaning and purpose. As Van Dijk (2008)
explains, "contexts are subjective definitions of the ongoingly
relevant and dynamically changing properties of a
communicative situation as represented by participants in
context models." These models are mental representations
based on prior knowledge, social roles, and cultural expectations
that help listeners interpret illocutionary acts according to
situational relevance. For example, the phrase "You should
never give up" in a commencement speech would likely be
understood as encouragement, rather than a directive, due to the
shared understanding within the social context of the speaker-
audience relationship (Van Dijk, 2008).
According to Ben Amer (2022), "an effective communicator
needs to understand all forms of context to master verbal
exchanges of information, making use of background
knowledge about the speaker, concepts, and previous utterances
to infer the speaker's intended meaning." In educational settings,
context plays a fundamental role by framing communication so
that listeners can grasp the intended message based on
situational cues and social expectations. This shared background
knowledge is essential for interpreting illocutionary acts
accurately, as it connects the speaker’s intentions with the
listener’s expectations (Ben Amer, 2022)
 Van Dijk introduces the concept of 'context models' which
individuals construct based on their experiences and knowledge.
These models include essential elements that shape how
messages are interpreted within specific communicative
environments: setting, participants, ongoing social actions,
goals, and current knowledge. Setting includes the time and
place of communication, which are crucial in formal events like
commencement speeches, where the setting itself sets the tone
and seriousness of the situation. Van Dijk (2008) states that
'context models control the ways communication is adapted to
fit social and communicative environments,' making setting a
foundational element. Participants, or the identities of the
speaker and audience, influence social roles and expectations,
which, in turn, shape how a message is received. According to
Ben Amer (2022), "the identities of participants play a key role
in framing how their words are received, with each speaker
bringing unique perspectives that influence audience
expectations and interpretations." For instance, Taylor Swift’s
popularity among younger audiences and Maria Ressa’s
authority as a journalist add layers to their words that guide
audience expectations and shape how their messages are
interpreted. Ongoing social actions refer to the expected
actions within the context of commencement speeches, where
sharing wisdom or encouragement is typical. Van Dijk (2008)
notes that 'participants adapt dynamically based on the ongoing
social interactions,' allowing the audience to anticipate and
interpret the speaker's intent within this framework of shared
social action. Goals represent the specific intentions of the
speaker, such as inspiring, advising, or challenging the
audience, which influence word choice and tone, helping the
audience discern the speaker’s illocutionary intent (Van Dijk,
 2008). Current knowledge refers to shared cultural or
situational references that both speaker and audience
understand, enabling a deeper connection to the message. For
example, Swift’s references to popular culture resonate with
younger graduates, while Ressa’s experiences as an advocate for
freedom connect with socially aware audiences at Harvard (Ben
Amer, 2022).
These context models allow the audience to perceive the
intended illocutionary acts within their social, situational, and
cultural contexts. Van Dijk highlights that context models
control how communication is produced and comprehended,
allowing each audience member to interpret Swift’s or Ressa’s
messages uniquely yet meaningfully within the shared
commencement setting. Understanding context is essential for
analyzing direct and indirect illocutionary acts in Swift and
Ressa's speeches. According to Van Dijk (2008), contextual
factors like social expectations, cultural references, and shared
background knowledge inform how the audience interprets each
speaker’s communicative strategies. These elements ensure that
the messages are effectively conveyed and understood,
providing a nuanced understanding of how context shapes
meaning. In the analysis of illocutionary acts in Taylor Swift’s
and Maria Ressa’s speeches, these factors highlight the
significance of effective language use in language education.

7. Politeness Theory
Politeness theory is a key approach in pragmatics, aiming to
explain how speakers use language to maintain social harmony and
respect interpersonal boundaries. One of the most influential
frameworks in this field is Brown and Levinson's (1987) theory,
which centers on the concept of "face." Derived from Goffman’s
(1967) work on social interaction, face refers to an individual’s
desired social image. Brown and Levinson divide face into two main
types: positive face, which is the need to be liked and accepted, and
negative face, which is the second and refers to the desire for
autonomy and freedom from imposition. To address these needs,
they propose four main politeness strategies: bald on-record,
positive politeness, negative politeness, and off-record. Bald on-
record is the most direct approach, used for clear and urgent
communication with minimal concern for social sensitivity. Positive
politeness strategies aim to affirm the listener’s sense of approval or
belonging, often through expressions of solidarity or compliments.
Negative politeness strategies respect the listener’s autonomy, often
using indirect language, hedging, or formalities to reduce
imposition. Finally, off-record politeness is a highly indirect
strategy, leaving the intended meaning open to interpretation, which
helps the speaker avoid direct responsibility for potentially face-
threatening acts (FTAs). In line with this, Al-Duleimi et al. (2016)
emphasize the value of Brown and Levinson’s (1987) approach in
safeguarding face during social interactions by addressing these face
needs effectively (p. 263). This highlights the importance of Brown
and Levinson's theory in pragmatics, as it provides a structured
approach to understanding how politeness strategies help speakers
navigate social interactions while maintaining harmony and
respecting face needs.
In addition to Brown and Levinson’s framework, other
notable politeness theories offer different perspectives on social
interaction. Robin Lakoff (1973, 1975) was among the first to
formalize politeness, combining Grice’s conversational maxims with
social interaction rules. Lakoff proposed two primary principles: “be
clear” and “be polite,” with sub-rules such as “don’t impose,” “give
options,” and “make the listener feel good.” While Lakoff’s model
laid the foundation for politeness studies, it has been criticized for
being overly simplistic and lacking cross-cultural adaptability. This
critic is echoed by Al-Duleimi et al. (2016) also point out that
Lakoff’s framework has been questioned for its simplicity and
limited cultural specificity (p. 264). Geoffrey Leech (1983, 2005)
later expanded the concept with the Grand Strategy of Politeness,
which focuses on politeness in cross-cultural contexts. Leech
emphasizes that politeness is not universal, as cultural factors
strongly influence how politeness strategies are applied. His model
includes various maxims, such as tact, generosity, and sympathy,
which help mitigate FTAs and promote balanced, respectful
exchanges. Leech also addresses the need for cultural sensitivity,
especially in considering East-West differences in politeness norms,
offering a more culturally flexible approach. As result, Al-Duleimi
et al. highlight that Leech’s (2005) Grand Strategy of Politeness
provides a more inclusive framework that acknowledges both
Eastern and Western cultural norms (p. 267). This suggests that
Leech’s approach provides a more adaptable framework for
analyzing politeness, taking into account the diverse cultural norms
that shape social interactions across different contexts.
However, critics argue that Brown and Levinson’s
framework often reflects a Western bias, as it emphasizes
individualism and autonomy, which may not align with collectivist
or high-context cultures, such as those in East Asia. Scholars like
Matsumoto (1989) and Mao (1994) point out that in cultures
prioritizing social harmony and group cohesion, politeness is less
about protecting individual autonomy and more about maintaining
group values. This critique suggests that the universal application of
Brown and Levinson’s strategies may overlook the complexities of
non-Western cultural contexts. In response to these critiques,
Leech’s (2005) later revisions aim to address such cultural diversity
 in politeness norms. Al-Duleimi et al. (2016) acknowledge these
critiques, stating that Brown and Levinson’s framework may
inadequately address collectivist cultures that prioritize social
harmony over individual autonomy (p. 266). This illustrates how the
model falls short in fully capturing the complexities of politeness
across different cultural contexts. Overall, these theories provide a
solid foundation for examining the strategic use of politeness in
various communicative settings, including public speeches like
those by Taylor Swift and Maria Ressa, where speakers must balance
directness with social sensitivity to effectively engage their diverse
audiences. Such a balance is particularly essential as the way
speakers manage politeness can significantly influence how their
messages are received and interpreted across different cultural
contexts.

8. Conversational Implicature
Conversational implicature, a concept introduced by Grice
(1975), refers to the implied meanings that speakers convey without
stating them directly. In everyday communication, people often
communicate indirectly, relying on listeners to interpret these
implied meanings through shared context and understanding. Grice
(1975) proposed that effective communication relies on
the Cooperative Principle, a framework based on conversational
guidelines known as maxims. These maxims include the Maxim of
Quantity, which encourages speakers to provide sufficient
information without excess; the Maxim of Quality, which stresses
the importance of truthfulness and evidence; the Maxim of Relation,
which keeps contributions relevant; and the Maxim of Manner,
which emphasizes clarity and orderliness. When speakers follow
these maxims, listeners can infer additional meaning, or implicature,
based on the assumption of cooperative and clear communication.
The interpretation of implicatures depends significantly on context.
Grice (1975) identified two main types: generalized conversational
implicature, which can be understood without specific context,
and particularized conversational implicature, which depends on
the particular features of a given situation. For instance, when
someone says, “Some guests have left,” it often implies that not all
guests have left, even if this is not explicitly stated. This aligns with
the Maxim of Quantity, where speakers generally provide only
necessary information. Sometimes, speakers
intentionally flout these maxims to suggest underlying meanings.
For example, spelling out “I-C-E C-R-E-A-M” instead of saying
“ice cream” may signal a hidden intent, such as keeping the term
from young children. Such flouting invites listeners to search for an
implied meaning beyond the literal.
Another key concept Grice (1975) introduced is scalar
implicature, where terms are related along a scale, such as “some”
and “all.” For instance, using “some” often implies that not all items
in the set are included, based on the speaker’s adherence to the
Maxim of Quantity, which provides only necessary information. The
concept of calculability is also important in conversational
implicature, as listeners derive implied meanings logically based on
conversational principles. This calculability allows conversational
implicature to function as a rational, powerful element of
communication, enabling speakers to convey complex or subtle
messages effectively through shared context and understanding.
Dang Thi Hong Nhung (2023) emphasizes that conversational
implicature plays a crucial role in interpreting everyday dialogues,
where speakers often rely on context and shared norms to make their
implied meanings clear. According to Nhung, the understanding of
implicature highlights the significance of context in uncovering a
speaker’s intended meaning, which is essential for effective
 communication. This perspective is particularly relevant in
analyzing public speeches, such as those by Taylor Swift and Maria
Ressa, as it allows us to explore how implied meanings add depth
and resonance to their messages without overtly stating them.
In the analysis of commencement speeches, conversational
implicature provides a valuable framework for examining how
Taylor Swift and Maria Ressa convey indirect messages that
enhance emotional or motivational impact on the audience. Each
speaker’s use of implicature reflects their cultural and social
contexts, potentially revealing communication strategies tailored to
connect effectively with their respective audiences.

9. Relevance Theory
Relevance theory, introduced by Sperber and Wilson (1986),
is a pragmatic approach that explains how humans instinctively
process communication based on relevance. This theory emphasizes
that the relevance of information depends on the balance between
the cognitive benefits it provides and the effort required to process
it. Given the limitations of cognitive resources, individuals naturally
prioritize processing information that delivers the most value with
the least amount of mental effort. Wilson and Sperber (2004) argue
that the greater the positive cognitive effects an input generates, such
as strengthening beliefs, invalidating old assumptions, or leading to
new conclusions, the more relevant that input becomes. On the other
hand, greater processing effort reduces the relevance of the
information. They define relevance as the quality of an input that
delivers positive cognitive effects with minimal effort. According to
Allott (2019), Relevance theory effectively addresses skepticism
about the possibility of studying pragmatics systematically by
demonstrating that sensitivity to context is a key element in
pragmatic inference. He explains that this theory is invaluable in
modeling how humans select relevant information despite the
complexities of their cognitive environment. In an environment
flooded with information, the ability to filter out the irrelevant and
focus on what matters most in a given moment becomes crucial. This
theory offers a valuable approach to analyzing how public speakers
ensure their messages resonate with audiences, balancing cognitive
benefits and processing effort. In public speaking, a message is not
only about delivering facts but also about connecting with the
audience, capturing attention, and aligning with existing knowledge
or values. By applying Relevance Theory, it becomes clear how
messages can be shaped to engage audiences effectively, making key
points accessible without overwhelming them with excess
information.
At the level of communication, the Communicative Principle
of Relevance asserts that every communicative stimulus carries an
implicit assumption that the information conveyed is relevant
enough for the audience to process. This means that speakers must
intuitively understand what their audience cares about and what will
grab their attention, based on the context of the interaction. Sperber
and Wilson (1995) further argue that speakers tend to craft their
messages to achieve optimal relevance, meaning that the message is
relevant enough to capture the audience's attention without
overwhelming them with excessive processing effort. In other
words, the speaker must strike a balance, ensuring the message is
engaging and thought-provoking, but not so complex that it becomes
difficult to follow. In the context of public speeches, such as
commencement addresses, these principles help explain how
speakers create a powerful impact. A great speech doesn’t just share
information; it connects with the audience in a way that makes them
feel the message is personally relevant, making the information
resonate deeper. Wilson and Sperber (2004) suggest that effective
speakers leverage the collective experience or cultural values of their
audience to generate positive cognitive effects that reinforce their
message. By understanding the shared experiences and values of
their audience, the speaker can craft a message that feels not just
informative but meaningful and relatable to everyone in the room.
For instance, a speaker who connects their personal struggles to
challenges faced by the audience is more likely to foster emotional
engagement and make the message easier to understand. When the
speaker speaks to universal experiences or struggles the audience
relates to, it creates a bond, making the message feel even more
relevant and impactful. Wearing (2014) adds that the effectiveness
of communication relies on how well the speaker balances the
complexity of the message with the audience's capacity to process
it. This is especially true in situations where the audience may not
have a deep background in the subject matter, so the speaker must
find ways to explain complex ideas in simple, relatable terms.
Information that is too simple may lack impact, while overly
complex information may hinder comprehension. Therefore, a good
speaker carefully considers how to communicate complex ideas in
an accessible way, ensuring that the audience can grasp the message
without feeling overwhelmed. Therefore, a good speaker uses clear
yet meaningful language, creating a balance between processing
effort and the cognitive benefits the audience gains. By striking this
balance, the speaker ensures that the audience is not only engaged
but also leaves with a clearer understanding and stronger connection
to the message.
In the commencement speeches of Taylor Swift and Maria
Ressa, the principles of Relevance Theory can be clearly observed.
Taylor Swift often links her messages to personal, relatable
experiences, allowing her to connect with her audience on a deeply
personal level. By sharing her own struggles, triumphs, and personal
 insights, she is able to create an emotional bond with her young
audience, who see parts of their own journey reflected in her words.
This approach not only makes her message more accessible but also
amplifies its emotional impact, encouraging the audience to reflect
on their own potential and future. On the other hand, Maria Ressa
draws on universal values, such as press freedom and
courage, which resonate across different cultures and generations,
especially in an academic setting like Harvard. She uses these values
to establish intellectual and moral relevance for the Harvard
audience, reminding them of the responsibility they carry to protect
fundamental freedoms and stand up for truth in the face of adversity.
Both speakers demonstrate how relevance can be built through a
combination of emotional, intellectual, and social elements, tailored
to the needs of their respective audiences. While Swift’s message
resonates on an emotional level, Ressa’s appeals to the intellect and
ethical sensibilities of her audience, ensuring both emotional and
intellectual engagement. Thus, relevance theory provides a strong
framework for analyzing communication strategies in public
speeches, helping us understand how speakers craft their messages
to leave a lasting impact on their listeners. By understanding the core
principles of Relevance Theory, it becomes clear how both Swift and
Ressa effectively capture and maintain their audience’s attention,
ensuring their messages are not only heard but deeply felt.

10. Rethoric
Rhetoric, the art of persuading an audience, has been a core
element of communication since ancient Greece. Aristotle defined
rhetoric as the ability to see the available means of persuasion in any
given situation, emphasizing its purpose not only to convince but
also to move, inform, and entertain the audience (Aristotle, 2007).
In public speaking, rhetoric serves as a powerful tool for speakers to
achieve their goals, whether to inspire, motivate, or shift
perspectives. Aristotle categorized rhetoric into three main
components: ethos (the character of the speaker), pathos (the
emotions of the audience), and logos (the logic or reasoning behind
the argument). These elements work together to reinforce the
message being conveyed.
As Burke (1969) observed, rhetoric is multifaceted and
varies depending on cultural and situational contexts. He described
it as available means, good man, or even remedies for
misunderstanding, highlighting its complexity. Garrett (1993)
further explained that rhetoric is not just a set of techniques but a
reflection of how arguments and persuasion are shaped by specific
cultural contexts. In the case of commencement speeches, for
example, Taylor Swift and Maria Ressa adjust their rhetoric to suit
the values and experiences of their audience, the graduates.
Understanding the needs and context of the audience significantly
influences the effectiveness of the rhetoric employed.
Sperber and Wilson’s (1995) Relevance Theory provides a
useful framework for analyzing rhetoric. The theory asserts that the
relevance of a message depends on two key factors: the cognitive
effect—the change in assumptions it produces in the audience—and
the cognitive effort required to process it. Larson (2018) emphasized
that both rhetoric and pragmatics share their roots in ancient Greek
traditions, focusing on the strategic use of language to create
meaning and impact. According to Larson, Relevance Theory is
particularly valuable in modern rhetorical analysis because it
explains how speakers design messages to maximize impact with
minimal effort.
Building on Relevance Theory, Larson introduced the
Cognitive Pragmatic Rhetorical (CPR) Theory, which integrates
cognitive, pragmatic, and rhetorical elements. This theory broadens
 the concept of relevance by including the goals and emotions of the
audience within the cognitive environment. In this framework,
speakers must understand the assumptions, goals, and emotions of
the audience to deliver an effective message. For instance, Taylor
Swift connects with her audience through personal anecdotes, while
Maria Ressa emphasizes universal values such as freedom and
democracy to enhance her credibility as a journalist.
The rhetorical devices of ethos, pathos, and logos remain
central to persuasive communication. Ethos helps to build the
speaker's credibility, pathos evokes emotions in the audience, and
logos presents logical arguments to support the message. A careful
balance of these elements can either strengthen or weaken the
connection between the speaker and the audience. In
commencement speeches, where the audience is often receptive to
both inspiration and education, the combination of these rhetorical
appeals ensures that the message is both persuasive and memorable.
Therefore, rhetoric, particularly when combined with Relevance
Theory, offers a powerful framework for understanding how
speakers such as Taylor Swift and Maria Ressa adapt their strategies
to create meaningful and impactful messages.

11. Conceptual Metaphor Theory

Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT), introduced by George
Lakoff and Mark Johnson in Metaphors We Live By (1980), explains
that metaphors are far more than decorative language; they are
essential tools for shaping how individuals understand and interact
with the world. Kövecses (2017) highlights the profound influence
metaphors have on cognition and behavior, demonstrating their role
in forming mental frameworks that shape perception and action.
Instead of merely offering alternative ways to express abstract ideas,
metaphors create cognitive structures that determine how concepts
are understood and responded to. These frameworks affect not only
language but also thoughts, emotions, and actions, making
metaphors central to the way humans navigate their realities. Lakoff
and Johnson further developed the idea of experientialism, which
emphasizes the importance of human embodiment in shaping
cognition and language. According to this view, metaphors arise
from our physical and sensory experiences. For example, metaphors
such as "time is money" illustrate how abstract concepts like time are
understood through concrete, familiar domains such as money,
making them universally relatable. As Charteris-Black (2005) points
out, metaphors are more than just linguistic tools; they shape how
people see and engage with the world around them. By connecting
abstract concepts to familiar, concrete experiences, metaphors make
complex ideas easier to grasp and more relatable. Similarly, Orazali
Karjawbaev et al. (2024) explain that metaphors are rooted in our
physical and lived experiences, influencing not only how we
understand ideas but also how we act on them. These mental
structures help break down abstract ideas into simpler, more
relatable forms, making it easier for people to process and connect
with them.
The theory emphasizes the role of conceptual metaphors,
where one domain of experience, known as the source, is used to
understand another, called the target. Metaphors like "life is a
journey" simplify life’s complexity by presenting it as a process with
paths, destinations, and challenges. This method turns abstract ideas
into something concrete and easy to understand while fostering
emotional connections with the concepts. Conceptual metaphors, in
this way, provide a structure for understanding and experiencing
ideas on a deeper level.
CMT explains how a source domain, often a real or concrete
idea, is used to understand a target domain. This mapping breaks
down complex ideas and presents them in ways that are easier to
understand. In Taylor Swift’s commencement speech, the
metaphor “We are led by our gut instincts, our intuition, our desires
and fears, our scars and our dreams” connects abstract emotional
states to more physical, relatable concepts like scars and dreams.
Similarly, Maria Ressa’s metaphor “Our world on fire needs
you” conveys the urgency of global crises by grounding the abstract
idea of societal turmoil in the vivid and familiar image of fire. These
metaphors connect abstract ideas to familiar imagery, helping them
resonate more deeply with audiences. This connection between the
concrete and the abstract plays a crucial role in public speaking,
allowing speakers to communicate complex, emotionally charged
issues in ways that are accessible to their audience. According to
Kövecses (2017), such metaphors enable audiences to not only
understand but also emotionally connect with the urgency or
importance of the message being conveyed.
The systematic mapping between source and target domains
is a key feature of CMT. For example, the metaphor "anger is fire"
ties the intensity of fire to the intensity of anger, leading to phrases
like "burning with anger" or "smoldering with rage". Similarly,
Swift’s speech uses the metaphor “Today, you leave New York
University and then go out into the world, searching what's next, and
so will I” to frame life as a journey, presenting the future as an
exciting adventure. Ressa’s metaphor “Welcome to the battlefield”
presents societal challenges as a collective struggle, encouraging
graduates to actively engage in the fight for justice and freedom.
These metaphors not only help clarify abstract ideas but also deepen
the emotional impact of the message. As Charteris-Black (2005)
suggests, metaphors in public speeches are powerful tools for
stirring deep emotions and motivating audiences to take action. For
instance, Ressa’s use of "battlefield" evokes a sense of urgency and
 responsibility, framing the graduates’ future work as part of a larger
fight for justice and democracy.
CMT also highlights how metaphors shape societal
narratives and how they are influenced by cultural and contextual
factors. While some metaphors, like “life is a journey” or “anger is
fire”, are nearly universal, others are deeply rooted in specific
cultural experiences. For example, the metaphor of fire can vary in
meaning and intensity depending on the culture, shaped by traditions
and historical contexts. The metaphors used by Swift and Ressa are
not just shaped by universal cognitive processes; they are carefully
designed to resonate with the specific social contexts of their
audiences. Swift’s metaphors align with the celebratory atmosphere
of NYU’s graduates, while Ressa’s metaphors connect with the
socially conscious graduates of Harvard.
Metaphors are powerful tools for conveying ideas in a way
that leaves a lasting emotional impression. They make messages
more memorable and help connect with the audience on an
emotional level. In Swift’s use of metaphors about overcoming
challenges and personal growth, such as the “patchwork
quilt” metaphor, encourages reflection on individual journeys and
achievements. Similarly, Maria Ressa uses metaphors like “freedom
as a beacon in the darkness” and “the fascists are coming” (13:07)
to highlight the urgent need to defend democracy and justice. These
metaphors go beyond simply expressing ideas; they stir emotions,
motivating the audience to align with the speaker's values and take
action.

12. Communicative Action Theory

Communicative Action Theory (CAT), developed by Jürgen
Habermas, serves as a profound framework for understanding how
communication facilitates mutual understanding. CAT emphasizes
that communication transcends the transfer of information,
functioning instead as a social process aimed at creating shared
meaning through rational, honest, and socially embedded
interactions. Habermas identifies three key validity claims essential
to effective communication: factual accuracy, sincerity of
expression, and moral and social appropriateness (Habermas,
1987b). These criteria are fundamental in establishing
communication that is credible, trustworthy, and capable of fostering
meaningful connections within any social context.
At the core of CAT is the distinction between two closely
connected, yet often opposing, concepts: lifeworld and system. The
lifeworld includes the cultural, social, and personal aspects that
shape how people interact with each other, guided by shared values
and norms. On the other hand, the system refers to structured
processes driven by practical goals, such as power, bureaucracy, and
economic efficiency (Kemmis, 2001; Habermas, 1987b). These two
realms often overlap in modern society, but their different focuses
can lead to conflicts. While the lifeworld values collaboration and
mutual understanding, the system tends to prioritize efficiency and
control, sometimes at the cost of meaningful human connections.
In public communication, such as commencement speeches,
the connection between lifeworld and system becomes especially
clear. Commencement speeches go beyond being ceremonial; they
are carefully crafted messages meant to inspire, motivate, and
emotionally connect with their audience. These speeches aim to
spark reflection, encouraging audiences to reconsider their values
and prompting them to take action or think in new ways. Within the
framework of CAT, the effectiveness of these speeches depends on
how well they resonate with the audience’s lifeworld—drawing on
shared cultural values, social norms, and collective goals (Kemmis,
2001). For instance, motivational elements in these speeches are
often designed to build a sense of unity and encourage reflection,
which aligns with the lifeworld’s role in fostering social cohesion
(Habermas, 1987b).
A good example of CAT in public communication can be
seen in Maria Ressa’s commencement speech. Her address
emphasized the urgency of protecting press freedom, framing it as a
responsibility that belongs to everyone. This call to action reflects a
form of communicative action that seeks to engage audiences
through reason and shared moral values rather than coercion or
manipulation. Such speeches demonstrate the potential of
communication to drive social change by appealing to collective
human values rooted in the lifeworld.
Beyond focusing on communication itself, CAT looks at how
communication helps keep culture, social structures, and individual
identities alive. Habermas points out three important roles of
communication: it helps pass down culture through shared
meanings, it strengthens social bonds through common values, and
it shapes personal identity through interactions with others in both
personal and social settings (Habermas, 1987b). These processes not
only help cultural traditions continue but also encourage unity and
personal growth, connecting individual experiences to the wider
society (Crossley, 1996).
The relevance of CAT to commencement speeches is in how
it sheds light on how speakers achieve their goals through well-
crafted communication. By addressing the values and experiences of
their audience, speakers can build trust, create a connection, and
inspire a shared sense of purpose, making their message more
meaningful and impactful. This aligns with Habermas’s belief that
“rationality can still provide hope for the non-violent construction
of better worlds, established through communicative action aimed at
mutual understanding and directed toward unforced agreement
 among people” (Kemmis, 1993). The strength of CAT lies in its
ability to explore how communication balances symbolic and
practical aspects, particularly in contexts like commencement
speeches. These speeches often bring people together in moments of
reflection and celebration, making the balance between lifeworld
and system especially important. By examining both direct and
indirect illocutionary acts in these speeches, it becomes clear how
language can unite, motivate, and inspire, while also reflecting the
cultural and societal forces that influence the audience’s response.
The speeches of Taylor Swift and Maria Ressa provide a
strong opportunity to examine these dynamics. As highly influential
figures addressing themes of empowerment, resilience, and social
justice, their speeches navigate the dual demands of engaging with
the lifeworld of their audiences while acknowledging broader
systemic realities. Through CAT, the analysis of these speeches will
uncover how communicative strategies effectively resonate with
listeners and enhance pragmatic competence, offering insights into
the transformative power of language in language education.

B. Relevant Research
Research on illocutionary acts has consistently demonstrated their
critical role in understanding the impact of language in public speeches.
These studies provide a foundation for analyzing the speeches of Taylor
Swift and Maria Ressa, offering insights into the strategies used by
speakers to engage their audiences effectively.
A notable study by Lanjar Mulyana, titled "Direct and Indirect
Illocutionary Speech Acts on Donald Trump’s Victory Speech in
2016," explores how Trump utilized various illocutionary acts to
connect with his audience. The study revealed the distribution of speech
acts in his address: expressive (24.6%), commissive (24%), declaration
(22.7%), representative (17.3%), and directive (9.3%). Expressives
dominated the speech, demonstrating Trump’s emphasis on gratitude
and acknowledgment. The researchers also found that most of the
speech was delivered directly, reflecting the straightforward nature of
Trump’s communication style. These findings highlight the importance
of balancing illocutionary acts to achieve a speech's intended impact, a
concept that is useful when examining the speeches of Swift and Ressa.
Mulyana's research on illocutionary acts in political speeches provides
a valuable comparison when analyzing Swift's and Ressa's use of similar
acts in their commencement addresses. Mulyana's study analyzed both
direct and indirect illocutionary acts, which is essential when examining
the different delivery styles of Swift and Ressa's speeches.
“An Analysis of Illocutionary Act Used by Taylor Swift in NYU’s
2022 Commencement Speech” by Nurul Azizatul Khusnah, Hasbi
Assiddiqi, and Toneng Listiani. This study explores the illocutionary
acts in Taylor Swift’s speech using Searle’s classification and focuses on
the integration of motivational elements. The research identified 37
representatives, 9 directives, 12 expressives, 6 commissives, and no
declaratives. Representatives dominated Swift's speech, emphasizing
storytelling and personal experiences to inspire the audience. This
analysis highlights the importance of illocutionary acts in effectively
conveying motivational messages, which can serve as a useful reference
for understanding the communication strategies in Swift's and Ressa's
speeches. This study serves as an important reference for understanding
how illocutionary acts in Swift’s speech, particularly representatives,
align with motivational communication strategies also seen in Ressa's
address. The analysis of representatives in Swift's speech offers a
comparison to similar elements used in Ressa’s speech, where
storytelling and personal experiences are also crucial to engagement.
Another notable study is "Illocutionary Speech Acts Analysis in
Nadhira Afifa’s Speech as a Student Speaker at Harvard Graduation
2020." by Amalia, Hidayat, and Alek (2020). This research analyzed the
types of illocutionary acts employed in Afifa’s 2020 graduation speech
at Harvard University. Using a qualitative descriptive approach
grounded in Yule’s (1996) theory, the researchers collected data by
downloading the speech video from YouTube and transcribing it into
written form. The findings identified four types of illocutionary acts:
representatives (56.4%), which were predominantly used to deliver
information about the importance of public health; expressives (30.7%),
reflecting emotions and gratitude; commissives (7.7%), which conveyed
commitments to values or actions; and directives (5.1%), offering advice
to the audience. Interestingly, no declarative acts were identified in the
speech. This study highlights how Afifa’s speech strategically combined
these acts to effectively communicate her message and engage the
audience and highlights how representatives and expressives can
dominate a speech, similar to the strategies used in Swift’s and Ressa’s
speeches to convey emotion and personal connection. Amalia’s study
focuses on how illocutionary acts such as representatives and
expressives can drive the emotional tone of a speech, which is also
crucial in Ressa’s and Swift's addresses.
Finally, “Legitimating Meritocracy as Part of the American Dream
through the Ritual of Commencement Speeches” by Victoria Martín de
la Rosa and Luis Miguel Lázaro examines commencement speeches as
cultural and rhetorical artifacts. Using Critical Discourse Analysis
(CDA) and Critical Metaphor Analysis (CMA), the study identifies four
key legitimating strategies: authorization, self-commitment, altruism,
and mythopoesis. The research found that authorization often relied on
the authority of expert and role model figures, while self-commitment
emphasized values such as effort, perseverance, and determination,
aligning with the discourse of meritocracy. Altruism projected moral
justification by focusing on the collective well-being, and mythopoesis
used storytelling, often reinforced by metaphors, to legitimize societal
values. These strategies illustrate how commencement speeches inspire
 graduates while embedding cultural narratives like the American
Dream. This study offers an essential framework for analyzing how
cultural ideologies shape rhetorical strategies in Taylor Swift’s and
Maria Ressa’s speeches. Martín de la Rosa and Lázaro’s study of
meritocracy and cultural narratives in commencement speeches
provides an important context for understanding the cultural and
rhetorical impact of Swift’s and Ressa’s speeches.

C. Framework of Thinking
This research examines the direct and indirect illocutionary acts in
the commencement speeches delivered by Taylor Swift (NYU 2022) and
Maria Ressa (Harvard 2024). The goal is to explore the types of
illocutionary acts used by each speaker, how these acts are conveyed,
whether directly or indirectly, and how their communication strategies
shape the effectiveness of their messages. By comparing the two
speeches, the study aims to uncover patterns and differences in how
these two influential figures use language to reach their audience and
achieve their communicative goals..
1. Illocutionary Acts in Speech Act Theory
Speech Act Theory (Austin, 1962; Searle, 1969) is essential to
understanding how language can be used to do more than just
convey information, it can actually perform actions. An illocutionary
act is not simply an utterance; it is an act performed through
language to achieve a specific goal, such as informing, requesting,
commanding, expressing emotions, or declaring something. This
study focuses on five key types of illocutionary acts:
• Representatives: These are statements that convey information
about the world or reflect the speaker's beliefs, such as asserting
facts or describing events. For example, Taylor Swift might use
representatives to reflect on her journey as a public figure, while
 Maria Ressa might use them to address societal issues or discuss
the importance of truth.
• Directives: These are requests, commands, or suggestions that
aim to influence the actions or thoughts of others. A directive
seeks to get the audience to do something or adopt a particular
point of view. In Taylor Swift's speech, she might encourage the
audience to take risks and follow their passions, while Maria
Ressa could suggest standing up for democracy and truth. Both
speakers use directives to inspire action, though in different
ways.
• Commissives: These acts involve the speaker committing to
future actions. This could include promises or pledges to
continue supporting a cause or to achieve specific goals. Taylor
Swift might commit to future creative projects, while Maria
Ressa might pledge to continue advocating for press freedom
and human rights.
• Expressives: These are acts where the speaker conveys
emotions, feelings, or attitudes. These are essential for
establishing an emotional connection with the audience. Taylor
Swift, for example, might use expressives to convey gratitude
or pride about the graduates’ accomplishments, while Maria
Ressa might express empathy or admiration for their potential
to create change.
• Declaratives: These acts bring about a change in the social
reality, such as officially acknowledging an achievement or
marking a significant moment. For example, declaring the
success of the graduates or the importance of the
commencement ceremony would be declarative acts. Both Swift
and Ressa may use declaratives to emphasize the significance of
the moment.
 By analyzing these five types of illocutionary acts, this study
seeks to break down the strategies each speaker employs to
achieve their communication goals, whether it is to motivate,
inform, or challenge the audience.

2. Direct and Indirect Speech Acts

Understanding the difference between direct and indirect
speech acts is crucial for analyzing how each speaker conveys their
message. Direct speech acts are those in which the speaker's
intention is immediately clear, and the meaning is explicit. For
instance, if Taylor Swift says, "I urge you to pursue your dreams,"
the intention is clear: she wants the audience to take action.
In contrast, indirect speech acts are more complex. The
speaker’s intention is not directly stated, and the listener must infer
the meaning from the context or surrounding information. For
example, when Maria Ressa says, "The world needs truth now more
than ever," the message is indirect. It encourages the audience to take
responsibility for truth and justice, but it doesn’t directly command
them to act.
This distinction between direct and indirect speech acts
reveals how each speaker uses language to achieve their goals. The
study will explore how each speaker uses direct speech acts to
clearly express their intentions and how they use indirect speech acts
to suggest, encourage, or imply actions that require the audience to
reflect more deeply.

3. Social and Cultural Contexts (INI GANTI)

The social and cultural contexts of both Taylor Swift and Maria
Ressa shape the way they communicate their messages. Their
personal experiences, professional roles, and social backgrounds
influence the types of illocutionary acts they use and how they are
delivered. These contexts inform their language choices, the tone of
their speeches, and the strategies they employ to convey their
messages.
• Taylor Swift’s Social and Cultural Context
As a prominent artist, Swift's background in the
entertainment industry influences her communication style. Her
experience with fame, creativity, and personal growth allows her
to use representatives and expressives to share personal
stories and connect emotionally with her audience.
Her directives are often motivational, encouraging the
graduates to follow their passions and embrace their
individuality. The social context of being a public figure in the
music industry informs her speech style, which is likely to focus
on self-expression and resilience.
• Maria Ressa’s Social and Cultural Context
Ressa’s role as a journalist and human rights advocate
informs her speech, which focuses on truth, justice, and the
responsibility to take action in society. Her work fighting for
press freedom shapes her use of directives and commissives,
where she urges the graduates to commit to social change and
uphold democratic values. Her representatives might focus on
the importance of press freedom or the role of truth in combating
corruption. Ressa’s speeches are more likely to contain indirect
speech acts, encouraging reflection on pressing global issues,
such as authoritarianism and the need for transparency.
By analyzing the social and cultural contexts of each speaker,
this study explores how their roles and backgrounds shape their use
of illocutionary acts and the way they convey their messages.
 CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

A. Location and Time of Research

This research is conducted using a descriptive qualitative approach,
with the object of analysis being the commencement speeches of Taylor
Swift (NYU 2022) and Maria Ressa (Harvard 2024).
1. Location of Research
This research took place in environments with minimal distractions,
acknowledging the importance of focus for comprehensive analysis.
The study was conducted in several locations, including at home, in
a coffee shop, and sometimes at the library of the Postgraduate
Campus of Indraprasta University PGRI. Since the research
involves only videos, it allows for flexibility in conducting the
analysis anytime and anywhere. Each location was chosen for its
reliable internet access, making it easy to find additional literature
and research materials. This setup made it possible for the research
to proceed smoothly without interruptions.

2. Time of Research
Sept Oct Nov Des Jan
No Criteria
3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
Permit Ö
1
Processing
 2 Title Ö
Approval
3 Chapter 1-3 Ö Ö Ö Ö Ö Ö Ö Ö Ö

4 Chapter 1-3 Ö
(Submission
& Revision)

5 Chapter 4-5 Ö Ö

6 Chapter 4-5
(Submission
& Revision)
7 Chapter 1-5
Approval

B. Research Method
This research is qualitative descriptive in character as the
subject under investigation requires close observation, with the goal of
describing the situation and drawing broad conclusions. This research
was neither planned nor created utilizing methods or statistics, other
than that type. In descriptive research, specific words, phrases, speech,
images, photos, and videos are recorded with great care and attention;
statistics are not used. According to Sugiyono (2014:21), which
references the work of Bogdan and Biklen, as well as contributions
from Purba and Herman (2020) and Nainggolan et al. (2021), data is
collected using a qualitative descriptive technique rather than numerical
data. I chose this method because it allows me to closely examine the
speeches, focusing on their content and context. This approach helps
me analyze the illocutionary acts and their meanings without relying on
numbers or statistics, which would not effectively capture the richness
of the data.
The purpose of research is to establish facts, theories,
applications, and principles in science. Furthermore, a methodical,
scientific approach to gathering data with greater accuracy under certain
 conditions is known as the research design. Using scientific approaches,
this investigation was done to find answers and provide truths that have
been hidden. A qualitative descriptive method was used to carry out this
investigation. This study focuses on information that is expressed
through written words or descriptions (Sudaryanto, 2015). Descriptive
data rather than statistical data was gathered. carried out through data
collection, classification, and analysis, with spoken conclusions
provided.
The author applies a qualitative descriptive method to analyze
the commencement speeches of Taylor Swift and Maria Ressa. This
method involves detailed observation, classification, and explanation of
both speeches. Through this approach, the author not only compares the
use of illocutionary acts in each speech but also examines how these
acts are conveyed, whether directly or indirectly. This method is
considered the most suitable for the research as it aligns with the
objective of understanding the types and delivery of illocutionary acts
in both speeches. It enables a comprehensive analysis of the speakers'
communication strategies in effectively delivering their messages.

C. Research Subject
The commencement speeches by Taylor Swift at NYU in 2022
and Maria Ressa at Harvard in 2024 are the focus of this study. These
speeches were chosen because of their rich structure and the variety of
communication strategies they use, making them perfect for analyzing
how language works in formal settings. Both speeches serve as key
sources for this research, as they contain various examples of direct and
indirect illocutionary acts, showcasing how language can be used to
deliver ideas effectively. The analysis focuses on two speeches: one by
Taylor Swift and the other by Maria Ressa, both of which were accessed
through their YouTube recordings. Each speech is broken down into
sections, such as the introduction, argument development, personal
 stories, and conclusion. These sections are examined closely to identify
the different types of illocutionary acts used, paying attention to
whether they are direct or indirect.
The aim of this study is twofold: first, to compare the use of
direct and indirect illocutionary acts in both speeches, and second, to
explore how the analysis of these speech acts provides insights into the
significance of effective language use in communication. The analysis
will carefully examine how these acts are used and what types are
present in each part of the speeches. Through this analysis, the research
aims to offer a better understanding of how language is used in public
speeches, particularly how Taylor Swift and Maria Ressa convey their
messages using illocutionary acts. Ultimately, this study aims to
highlight the role of speech acts in public speaking and their
implications for language use in educational and communicative
contexts.

D. Data Collection Method

1. Data Source
The research focuses on the commencement speeches delivered by
Taylor Swift at NYU in 2022 and Maria Ressa at Harvard in 2024.
These speeches will be accessed through the official videos
available on YouTube, making sure the content and context are
accurately represented. Transcripts from reliable sources will also
be collected to keep the data accurate.

2. Data Collection Technique

The process of collecting data involves a few important steps:
1. Speech Transcription: The first step is to get accurate
transcripts of both commencement speeches. These will be
taken from reliable platforms to make sure the data reflects
what was actually said.
2. Categorization of Speech Acts: After transcription, the next
step is to identify and categorize the direct and indirect
illocutionary acts in each speech. This will be based on the
speech act theories of J.L. Austin and John Searle, looking at
how the speakers convey their intentions through statements,
commands, implications, and suggestions.
3. Textual Analysis: Then, a textual analysis will be conducted
to identify patterns in how each speaker utilizes illocutionary
acts. This involves examining the ways they convey their
messages, whether they are direct or more indirect, and
considering how the overall structure of their speeches
enhances their communication.
4. Contextualization: Each illocutionary act will be analyzed in
the context of the entire speech. This approach helps reveal
how the specific circumstances and the speakers' intentions
influence their communication style. It also involves looking
at the structure of the speech, including the introduction, main
points, and conclusion, to understand how these elements
connect and contribute to the overall message.
5. Qualitative Interpretation: The next step is to interpret the
analysis results qualitatively. This means exploring the
meanings and effects of the illocutionary acts in the context of
the speeches. The aim is to see how these acts support what the
speakers want to achieve and enhance the audience's
understanding.
6. Documentation and Reporting: Finally, the findings will be
organized and presented in the final thesis report. This will
include tables and examples to support the analysis, along with
clear explanations of how the illocutionary acts were
categorized and analyzed.
E. Research Instrument
This research is qualitative descriptive in character, as the
subject under investigation requires close observation, aiming to
describe the situation and draw broad conclusions. Descriptive research
involves recording specific words, phrases, speech, images, photos, and
videos with great care, without relying on statistics. According
to Sugiyono (2014:21), descriptive qualitative research focuses on
gathering non-numerical data, allowing for in-depth study of the
phenomenon. This approach aligns with Merriam & Tisdell (2016),
who argue that qualitative research is inherently subjective, with the
role of the researcher evolving throughout the study, guiding data
collection and interpretation through continuous reflection and
positionality. This is also supported by Creswell (2014), who
emphasizes the central role of the researcher as the primary instrument
in qualitative research. The researcher’s understanding, skills, and
reflections significantly shape the data collection and interpretation
process. However, it is essential to manage personal biases and strive
for transparency to uphold the validity and trustworthiness of the
findings. According to Creswell, documenting influences and
reflections.
The instrument used in this study was developed based on the
theoretical framework presented in Chapter 2, aiming to analyze the
illocutionary acts in Taylor Swift's 2022 commencement speech at New
York University and Maria Ressa's 2024 commencement speech at
Harvard University. The focus is to identify the types of illocutionary
acts present in both speeches, determine whether they are conveyed
directly or indirectly, and examine how the analysis of these acts
provides insights into the effective use of language in communication.

F. Data Analysis Technique

 (GANTI NIH)
The data analysis technique used in this study follows the
interactive model proposed by Miles and Huberman (1994), offering a
structured approach to analyzing qualitative data. This method involves
three key stages: data reduction, data display, and conclusion drawing
and verification. These stages are applied to examine the direct and
indirect illocutionary acts in the speeches of Taylor Swift and Maria
Ressa, with a focus on their linguistic features and how their
communication strategies contribute to effective language use in
educational contexts.
The first stage, data reduction, entails carefully selecting and
categorizing relevant utterances from the speech transcripts. Here, the
researcher identifies instances of illocutionary acts and determines
whether they are conveyed directly or indirectly. This process
streamlines the data, ensuring that only the most pertinent examples are
considered, while excluding any unrelated information. As Miles and
Huberman (1994) explain, this stage involves "sharpening, sorting, and
focusing" the data, making it more manageable and meaningful for
further analysis. In the second stage, data display, the reduced data is
organized into clear, structured formats such as tables and narrative
summaries. These tables categorize each utterance by its type of
illocutionary act (e.g., representative, directive, commissive), whether
it is direct or indirect, and how these speech acts contribute to effective
language use in educational contexts. According to Miles and
Huberman (1994), effective data displays help researchers better
understand the data and recognize emerging patterns or relationships.
In this study, these displays serve as visual and descriptive tools to
present findings in an accessible and comprehensive manner. he final
stage, conclusion drawing and verification, involves interpreting the
data to uncover patterns, themes, and relationships between the use of
illocutionary acts and their role in shaping effective communication. A
 comparative analysis is conducted on the speeches of Taylor Swift and
Maria Ressa, focusing on how each speaker uses illocutionary acts to
convey their intended messages and how these findings offer insights
into language use in language education. Verification is carried out
through triangulation, which involves comparing the findings with
established theories like Speech Act Theory (Austin, 1962; Searle,
1969) and Context Theory (Van Dijk, 2008; Yule, 2020). This
ensures the conclusions are reliable, consistent, and grounded in
the theoretical framework. (GANTI)
By following these systematic stages, the data analysis
technique provides a thorough and structured approach to exploring
illocutionary acts in the selected speeches, offering valuable insights
into the relationship between linguistic choices and contextual
influences.

G. Data Validity Check

Several key steps will be implemented throughout the research
process to validate the data and confirm the reliability of the analysis.
First, triangulation will involve comparing findings from multiple
sources, including the speeches themselves, relevant literature on
illocutionary acts, and theories of pragmatics. By cross-checking these
various elements, any inconsistencies can be identified and addressed,
making the findings more consistent and credible.
Additionally, a peer review process will be an essential part of
the study. Experts in pragmatics will be invited to review the research,
focusing on the identification and classification of illocutionary acts in
the speeches, as well as how the speakers' use of language contributes
to effective communication in educational contexts. This external
feedback will help refine the analysis and verify that it aligns with
established theoretical frameworks. To further confirm the reliability of
the analysis, intercoder reliability will be checked by having two
independent coders analyze the speeches separately. Their findings will
then be compared, and any discrepancies will be resolved through
discussion and collaboration. This process reduces the risk of individual
bias and helps maintain consistency in identifying and classifying
illocutionary acts.
Finally, contextual validation will play a key role in the
research. The backgrounds and experiences of the speakers will be
carefully examined and cross-referenced with relevant background
information to understand how these aspects influence their language
use in an educational context. This will clarify how these factors shape
the communication strategies used by Taylor Swift and Maria Ressa in
their commencement speeches. By considering both the speakers’
communicative approaches and the relevance of their messages to
language learning, the analysis aims to provide a deeper understanding
of how illocutionary acts contribute to effective language use in
education.