• winarti winarti Universitas Duta Bangsa Surakarta
  • Aris Hidayatulloh Universitas Duta Bangsa Surakarta


digital comic, speech act, discourse, tolerance


This study discusses speech acts in the Digital Comics discourse made by UIN Raden Mas Said Surakarta students who are members of the Creative Digital Skills Development Class. The comic discourse campaigns for the importance of tolerance from both religion and fellow human beings. The digital comics were created in a creative digital skills class held by the English Literature study program at UIN Raden Mas Said Surakarta. Through digital comic discourse, female students create their ideas with the theme of tolerance. By using Searle’s theory, speech act analysis in the discourse is carried out. Searle gave further categories of illocutionary speech acts into representative, directive, commissive, expressive, and declarative categories. These categories make it easier for researchers to see specifically the intended meaning. The data from this study emphasize the utterances spoken by the main characters of the comics. In addition, images from the data become secondary data from this study because the discourse consists of two units, namely text (verbal) and images (non-verbal). The data is processed and classified into several speech act classifications proposed by Searle. The data is described by the qualitative method. The results of this study indicate that speech acts reflected from digital comics by students of UIN Raden Mas Said Surakarta have topics that refer to tolerance and maintaining harmony between religions or friends. In this work, students took three main sub-themes, namely 1) inter-religious harmony, 2) harmony among friends, and 3) harmony among neighbors. Character emphasizes the female character. The stories of the characters also affect the storyline, most of which emphasize caring and caring for each other, especially for women of different religions or different backgrounds. In terms of speech acts, from the 15 data collected, there are Directive, Expressive, and Representative with the directive portion being more dominant. The results show that 46.2 percent of the main characters show directive speech acts. Expressive speech acts show the second dominant speech act with a percentage of 33 percent. While the representative 13.2 percent in representative speech acts. While the declarative percentage shows 6.6 percent. From this percentage, it can be concluded that the use of directive speech acts is the main and most effective reference in conveying the moral message of an invitation, namely an invitation to maintain harmony. While expressive speech acts are used as speech acts that reflect empathy for others. In this case empathy between friends or religion.



Austin, J.L. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. London: Oxford University Press

Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press

Creswell, John W. 2009. Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches Third Edition. California: Sage Publications.

Cummings, Louise. 2007. Pragmatik: Sebuah Perspektif Multidisipliner (Versi Terjemahan). Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.

Habermas, Jürgen. 1981. Social Action, Purposive Activity, and Communication: On the Pragmatics of Communication. Ed. Maeve Cooke. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.

Hashiuchi, Sachiko dan Oku, Taeko. 2005. “Main Approaches to Pragmatics” CHUGOKUGAKUBN Journal 4 :11–16.

Horn, Laurence R. and Ward, Gregory. 2006.The Handbook of Pragmatics. United Kingdom: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Huang, Yang. 2007. Pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press.

Hymes, Dell. 1989. Foundation Sociolinguistics: An Ethnography Approach.

Kridalaksana, Harimurti. 2001. Kamus Linguistik. Jakarta: Gramedia.

Lamb, A., & Johnson, L. 2009. Graphic Novels, Digital Comics, and Technology-Enhanced Learning: Part 1. Teacher Librarian, 36(5),70-84.

Mahsun. 2007. Metode Penelitian Bahasa: Tahapan Strategi, Metode, dan Tekniknya. Jakarta: PT.Raja Grafindo Persada.

Mey, Jacob.L. 2001. Pragmatics: an introduction 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing

Movement. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

Searle, John.R. 1969. Speech Act: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Pennsylvania: The University of Pennsylvania Press.

Sugiyono. 2012. Metode Penelitian Kuantitatif, Kualitatif, dan R & D. Bandung: Penerbit Alfabeta.

Wijana, I Dewa Putu. 1996. Dasar-dasar Pragmatik. Yogyakarta: Andi Offset .

Yule, George. 2014. Pragmatik (diterjemahan oleh Indah Fajar Wahyuni).

Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.