Comparison of Commissive Acts between University of Oxford’s and Universitas Indonesia’s Prospectuses

Fajriyati Waibah Mosambonga, I. Yuliasri, Abdurrachman Faridi
{"title":"Comparison of Commissive Acts between University of Oxford’s and Universitas Indonesia’s Prospectuses","authors":"Fajriyati Waibah Mosambonga, I. Yuliasri, Abdurrachman Faridi","doi":"10.21462/jeltl.v7i2.863","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study aimed to compare Oxford University (OU) as a native English speaker and Universitas Indonesia (UI) as a non-native English speaker in presenting commissive acts in their university prospectus to see their similarities and differences. This study used the descriptive qualitative method. The data were an English-written prospectus from OU, The World's Best University and UI, The Best Indonesian University in 2020, based on the 2020 World University Rankings by Times Higher Education (THE). Specifically, data were taken only from forty-nine courses in Undergraduate Programs from each prospectus. Data were analyzed using six types of commissive acts instruments according to Searle, (1976), namely Promise, Threaten, Guarantee, Refuse, Volunteer, and Offer supported with (IFIDs) and Felicity Conditions. Data were analyzed by identifying the types of commissive acts, classifying, comparing, interpreting, and concluding. This study found four similarities; both only presented three types of commissive acts such as Promise, Offer, and Guarantee. Both dominant presented the Guarantee type. Both tend to present commissive acts implicitly. For Promise and Guarantee, both do not present them explicitly. Three differences were; OU presented more commissive acts (312), while UI only (193). On the Promise type, OU tends to address its readers using (you), while UI used (students). On the Offer type, OU only presented it explicitly (27) times, while UI did it explicitly (17) and implicitly (3) times. The results of this study are expected to provide additional information regarding the proper use of commissive acts to attract readers' interest.","PeriodicalId":223469,"journal":{"name":"Journal of English Language Teaching and Linguistics","volume":"238 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of English Language Teaching and Linguistics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21462/jeltl.v7i2.863","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study aimed to compare Oxford University (OU) as a native English speaker and Universitas Indonesia (UI) as a non-native English speaker in presenting commissive acts in their university prospectus to see their similarities and differences. This study used the descriptive qualitative method. The data were an English-written prospectus from OU, The World's Best University and UI, The Best Indonesian University in 2020, based on the 2020 World University Rankings by Times Higher Education (THE). Specifically, data were taken only from forty-nine courses in Undergraduate Programs from each prospectus. Data were analyzed using six types of commissive acts instruments according to Searle, (1976), namely Promise, Threaten, Guarantee, Refuse, Volunteer, and Offer supported with (IFIDs) and Felicity Conditions. Data were analyzed by identifying the types of commissive acts, classifying, comparing, interpreting, and concluding. This study found four similarities; both only presented three types of commissive acts such as Promise, Offer, and Guarantee. Both dominant presented the Guarantee type. Both tend to present commissive acts implicitly. For Promise and Guarantee, both do not present them explicitly. Three differences were; OU presented more commissive acts (312), while UI only (193). On the Promise type, OU tends to address its readers using (you), while UI used (students). On the Offer type, OU only presented it explicitly (27) times, while UI did it explicitly (17) and implicitly (3) times. The results of this study are expected to provide additional information regarding the proper use of commissive acts to attract readers' interest.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
牛津大学与印尼大学招股说明书委托行为之比较
本研究旨在比较以英语为母语的牛津大学(OU)和以非英语为母语的印度尼西亚大学(UI)在其大学招股书中提出的委托行为,以了解两者的异同。本研究采用描述性定性方法。根据泰晤士高等教育(The)的2020年世界大学排名,世界最佳大学OU和2020年印度尼西亚最佳大学UI的英文撰写的招股说明书。具体来说,数据仅取自每个招股说明书中的49门本科课程。数据分析使用六种类型的委托行为工具根据Searle,(1976),即承诺,威胁,保证,拒绝,志愿和提供支持(IFIDs)和幸福条件。通过识别犯罪行为类型、分类、比较、解释、总结等方法对数据进行分析。这项研究发现了四个相似之处;两者都只提出了承诺、要约和保证三种类型的委托行为。两种优势均呈现担保型。两者都倾向于含蓄地表现出犯罪行为。对于承诺和保证,两者都没有明确地表示它们。三个差异是;OU出现了更多的委托行为(312),而UI只有(193)。在Promise类型中,OU倾向于使用(you)来称呼它的读者,而UI则使用(students)。在Offer类型上,OU只显式地(27次)呈现它,而UI显式地(17次)和隐式地(3次)呈现它。本研究的结果有望为如何正确使用委托行为来吸引读者的兴趣提供更多的信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Misunderstanding of Islam in Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s Speech Based on Islamic Perspective: A Semiotic Analysis Teaching EFL/ESL in the Digital Age: Education Post COVID-19 Pandemic Iranian EFL Students’ Perceptions of Foreign Language Writing Anxiety and Perfectionism in Essay Writing Instructional Materials and Their Influences on Students’ Academic Performance: A Case of Post-Basic School English Curriculum in Burundi Exploring Indonesian Learners’ Attitudes and Beliefs toward English Accents: A Case Study in an Indonesian University
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1