ABSTRACT This is a study of indirect speech acts used in the conversations in the movie “Spotlight” in terms of structures and functions.. Regarding indirect speech act functions, there
INTRODUCTION
Rationale
Communication hinges on language, the primary medium for conveying ideas, making language a crucial element in effective interaction In dialogue, speakers craft both what they say and how they say it, shaping discourse so listeners can grasp the intended meaning People often rely on implied rather than literal meanings, requiring listeners to infer implicit messages Speakers typically expect the hearer to take some action or respond, so aligning the surface utterance with its underlying purpose is essential The key to successful communication is understanding how the external form of an utterance relates to its underlying goal.
Today, a wide range of valuable language resources is available in both media and published books, helping teachers and learners engage in daily English and Vietnamese communication Watching films broadens information and knowledge while also sharpening the ability to use language in different situations Among popular, widely viewed films, Spotlight stands out, and several reasons support its relevance: it is directed by Tom McCarthy, an American film director, screenwriter, and actor who has appeared in works such as Meet the Parents and Good Night, and Good Luck, as well as TV series like The Wire, Boston Public, and Law & Order McCarthy’s work—especially his writing and directing of independent films such as The Station Agent (2003), The Visitor (2007), and Win Win—has earned critical acclaim.
Tom McCarthy’s career highlights include Spotlight (2015), which won the Academy Award for Best Picture, earned him the Oscar for Best Original Screenplay, and brought a nomination for Best Director He previously co-wrote Up (2009) with Bob Peterson and Pete Docter, which received an Academy Award nomination for Best Original Screenplay McCarthy also wrote Million Dollar Arm (2014) and served as a director and executive producer for the Netflix television series.
Spotlight premiered in competition at the Venice Film Festival (Out of Competition), screened at Telluride, and appeared in the Special Presentations at the 2015 Toronto International Film Festival before its release on November 6, 2015 by Open Road Films; the drama grossed $98 million worldwide and earned widespread critical praise for its performances, historical accuracy, and screenplay, collecting numerous guild and critics’ association awards and being named one of the best films of 2015 by multiple publications The film went on to win the Academy Award for Best Picture and Best Original Screenplay from six nominations, becoming the first Best Picture winner since The Greatest Show on Earth (1952) to win only one other Oscar, a distinction that helped draw broader audiences It also offers a nuanced look at indirect speech acts through its dialogue, providing a deeper interpretation of how language and narrative shape audiences’ understanding of Spotlight.
“Spotlight” would be very helpful for people to intensify their pragmatic abilities, which also assists them in successful communication in English as well as in Vietnamese
There is a notable gap in research on indirect speech acts in cinema, particularly in the film Spotlight; this study aims to fill that gap by offering a more comprehensive and practical source of insights on indirect speech acts that can benefit teaching, learning, and daily communication.
By virtue of these above reasons, the researcher has been motivated to conduct this study “A study of indirect speech acts used in “Spotlight””.
Aim and objectives
The study is carried out to investigate linguistic features of indirect speech acts used in “Spotlight”
In order to achieve this aim, the researcher tried to fulfill the following objectives:
-To classify the structures of the examined indirect speech acts in the movie
-To classify the functions of the examined indirect speech acts in the movie
Research questions
Based on the above aim and objectives, the author collected data and analyzed it so as to answer the following questions:
1) What are the structures of indirect speech acts used in the movie
2) What are the functions of indirect speech acts used in the movie
Scope of the study
This study focuses on the structures and functions of indirect speech acts in the film Spotlight, deliberately excluding analysis of other speech-act categories due to the variety of speech acts and limited time It examines how indirect statements and questions convey intention and meaning in the movie’s dialogue, highlighting pragmatic use of indirectness in Spotlight’s investigative narrative.
Significance of the study
This study is set to make a meaningful contribution to pragmatics, with a particular focus on indirect speech acts Through meticulous analysis and interpretation of the indirect speech acts depicted in the film Spotlight, it also aims to sharpen the understanding and refinement of indirect speech act theory within the field.
Practically, this study strengthens the effectiveness and efficiency of communication, as well as the teaching and learning of speech acts, by offering actionable insights for classrooms and professional settings The findings illuminate the roles of indirect speech acts, helping people recognize these forms and apply them more strategically in everyday communication Together, these results support improved pedagogy for speech-act theory and enable learners to navigate indirectness with greater communicative success.
Organization of the study
There are five following chapters contained in the study:
Chapter 1 lays the groundwork by presenting the study’s rationale, outlining its aims and objectives, detailing the research questions, defining the scope, and highlighting the study’s significance and organization, clarifying what the research seeks to accomplish, why it matters, and how the work is structured Chapter 2 provides a literature review that synthesizes previous relevant studies and explains the theoretical aspects underpinning the research, establishing the theoretical framework and context for analysis Together, these chapters position the study within the scholarly landscape and guide the reader through the research design and anticipated findings.
Chapter 3, method, presents the research methods, research procedures, data collection and analysis
Chapter 4, findings and discussion, mentions the research findings and discussion based on the theoretical background and frameworks presented in chapter two and chapter three
Chapter 5, conclusions and implications, condenses chief findings of the study and provides implications, limitations as well Several research topics are also suggested for further researches.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Theoretical background
In the philosophy of language and linguistics, a speech act is an expression that not only conveys information but also performs an action For example, "I would like the kimchi, could you please pass it to me?" expresses the speaker's desire and constitutes a request to pass the kimchi Kent Bach notes that almost any speech act involves several acts at once, distinguished by the speaker's intention: the act of saying something, what one does in saying it (such as requesting or promising), and how one aims to affect the audience The contemporary use of the term traces back to J L Austin's development of performative utterances and his theory of locutionary, illocutionary, and perlocutionary acts.
J L Austin (1962) pioneered the theory of speech acts, arguing that language use in everyday conversation should be understood as action He proposed that all utterances produced in interaction are actions in themselves—performative moves accomplished by saying something In Austin's view, speech acts are intentional actions carried out through speech, blending linguistic expression with the performative function of language.
Speech acts theory shows that when a speaker produces well-formed utterances, she often intends multiple functions and aims to perform actions through what she says For example, saying “I’m sorry for being late” not only conveys a message but also directly performs the act of apologizing Consequently, apologizing, inviting, promising, and requesting are classic speech acts—the actions that language accomplishes through utterances.
There are three levels of a speech act: locutionary act, illocutionary act, and perlocutionary act
Locutionary act, a central notion in speech act theory, has been defined by several renowned linguists According to Austin, it is the surface meaning of an utterance—the form that is spoken or written Yule likewise defines it as the act of forming a meaningful linguistic expression Martin Jacobsen describes it as the performance of an utterance—the actual utterance together with its apparent meaning, spanning verbal, social, and rhetorical dimensions that map onto the utterance's verbal, syntactic, and semantic features Collectively, these viewpoints place the locutionary act as one of the three levels of speech acts that produce a meaningful utterance with a particular form Thus, uttering a meaningless string like "Shnsknnjihfgfghhcgn cghdtdyyghjcmhjj" would not be a locutionary act, whereas saying "I love you" would be.
The second level of speech act is illocutionary act, “the primary units of meaning in the use and comprehension of natural language” by
Vanderveken (1990, p.1) notes, following Yule (1996), that an illocutionary act is realized through the communicative force of an utterance, with the speaker typically aiming to achieve one or more communicative purposes—such as making a statement, offering something, or providing an explanation Building on Austin (1975), the illocutionary act is the actual effect produced by the implied request or meaning embedded in the locutionary act; for example, the locutionary act “Is there any salt?” carries an illocutionary request: “Can someone pass the salt to me?” Searle (1976) also offers an account of illocutionary acts, though the specific formulation is not detailed here.
To achieve a specific illocutionary effect, the speaker seeks to make the hearer recognize his intention to bring about that effect, and this recognition is grounded in the conventional meaning of the utterance, which is associated with producing the intended outcome.
Searle (1976) outlines several functions of spoken utterances—such as asserting, questioning, commanding, or expressing a wish—and defines an illocutionary act as the speaker’s intended function in producing speech Put simply, the illocutionary act is the intended meaning embedded in a speaker’s utterance For example, the sentence "Can you do these exercises for me?" is not merely a question about the listener’s ability; its real purpose is to request or command action.
Perlocutionary act is another level of a speech act which is the actual effect of the locutionary and illocutionary acts, such as persuading, convincing, scaring, enlightening, inspiring, or otherwise getting someone to do or realize something, whether intended or not, according to Austin (1962) This also means that Perlocutionary act is the effect on the hearer when a speaker utters something such as convincing, persuading or deterring Therefore, the perlocutionary act is the reaction of the hearer to utterances produced by a speaker A situation of this could be if someone uttered the sentence "I'm hungry." The perlocutionary effect on the listener could be the effect of being persuaded by the utterance For example, after hearing the utterance, the listener could be persuaded to make a sandwich for the speaker Take the following utterance “Close your book, please!” as another example, upon hearing the utterance, the hearer may recognize the effect that the speaker intended and cause the book to close, which is a perlocutionary act All these levels of a speech act: locutionary act, illocutionary act, and perlocutionary act are enormously useful for speakers and listeners to make their daily conversations successful
2.1.3.1 Classification of Speech Acts as Speech Act Types
According to Austin (1962, p.151), there are five types of speech acts, namely Verdictives (characteristic of the giving of a verdict such as acquit, grade, estimate, diagnose) , Exercitives (the exercise of authority such as appoint, order, advise, and warn), Commisives (speech acts that express the speaker‟s commitment to do something such as promise, guarantee, bet, oppose), Behabitives (groups of various things that are not connected to each other concerned with attitudes and social behavior such as apologizing, criticizing, blessing, challenging), and Expositives (speech acts that explain how utterances are being employed such as argue, postulate, affirm, concede)
Besides, there are five broad types of speech acts, namely:
Declarations, Representatives, Expressives, Directives, and Commisives as classified by Searle (1976)
Declarations are a class of speech acts that bring about an immediate change in the world through what is uttered Put simply, when a declaration is issued, the speaker changes reality with her words For example, in the phrase “I now pronounce you husband and wife,” a priest effects a new marital status through his utterance Because such acts hinge on an established authority, the speaker must hold a special institutional role for the declaration to be performed properly.
Representatives are a type of speech act that commits the speaker to the truth of the statement, signaling what the speaker believes to be the case They perform functions such as describing, claiming, hypothesizing, insisting, and disagreeing, and they are used to state facts, make assertions, and provide descriptions about the world Examples include: "The Earth is flat," "Chomsky didn’t write about peanuts," and "It was a warm sunny day."
Expressives are a kind of speech act that communicates the speaker's internal feelings rather than stating external facts They express emotions such as joy, disappointment, likes and dislikes, and sorrow, revealing the speaker's affective state For example, when someone says "I'm so sad!", they are making an utterance that both conveys sorrow and performs an expressive act Thus, expressives focus on the speaker's emotional experience and differ from informative or prescriptive statements that aim to describe events or issue commands.
Directives are a type of speech act designed to prompt the hearer to take a specific action, expressing the speaker's desires through commands, requests, invitations, and advice For instance, the sentence "Would you like to eat some bananas?" functions as a directive that conveys an invitation rather than a mere question.
Commissives are a class of illocutionary speech acts in which the speaker commits to a future action, such as promising, offering, threatening, refusing, vowing, or volunteering They convey the speaker's intention to do something or refrain from doing it, anchoring responsibility and expected behavior in communication Common examples include “I'll be back,” “I'm going to get it right next time,” and “We will not do that,” which illustrate how language enacts commitment and creates obligations for the speaker Understanding commissives helps explain how promises and refusals shape interactions and influence trust and accountability in discourse.
2.1.3.2 Direct and Indirect Speech Acts
Based on the direct and indirect relationships between structures and functions of speech acts, there are two types of speech acts: Direct and
Yule (1996) defines a direct speech act as occurring when there is a direct link between linguistic form and function, with indirect acts arising when the link is mediated by intention He identifies three structural forms—declarative, interrogative, and imperative—and three corresponding functions—statement, question, and command/request—illustrating how degrees of indirectness shape speech acts Therefore, a declarative utterance can function as a direct speech act if its purpose is to state information; for example, “I’m hungry” conveys information directly Conversely, the same declarative form can express an indirect speech act if the speaker aims to issue a command or request, such as saying, “I hereby request that you give me something to eat,” which uses the form to elicit action rather than merely to convey information.
Review of Previous Studies
In Vietnam, speech acts have drawn considerable attention from linguists and researchers Prominent among them is Nguyễn Đức Dân (1998) with Ngữ Dụng Học, which lays the theoretical foundations of pragmatics and speech-act analysis, and Đỗ Hữu Châu (2002), who further contributed to the development of the field.
“Cơ sở Ngữ dụng học”, creating a new approach to pragmatics for
Vietnamese linguists; Nguyễn Thiện Giáp (2009) with “Dụng học Việt Ngữ”, introducing some issues about pragmatics such as contexts and meaning, conversational theory
The two previous relevant studies are “A Study of Speech Acts in Conversations in the New Interchange Series” by Nguyễn Thị Ngọc Dung
(2014) and “A Study of Linguistic Features of Indirect Speech Acts in Modern
Short Stories in English and Vietnamese” by Đoàn Thị Hương Hiền (2015) is noted alongside Nguyễn Thị Ngọc Dung’s (2014) study, which aimed to investigate various linguistic features of speech acts—including speech act types, speech act structures, and indirect speech acts—in the conversations in New Interchange 1, 2, and 3, a textbook series designed for students to understand, teach, and learn more effectively when using the materials In her thesis, Dung used both quantitative and qualitative approaches, employing descriptive, contrastive, analytic, and synthetic methods to examine 97 conversations with 784 turns comprising 8,126 words of New Interchange 1.
Overall analysis of indirect speech acts shows that while a combination of different types and structures is common, single speech act groups with a predominance of representatives as the speech act type and declaratives as the speech act structure are noticeable, with indirect speech acts comprising about 20% of the total The research also notes several major limitations, such as the inability to examine prosodic features and politeness strategies Đoàn Thị Hương Hiền (2015) in A Study of Linguistic Features of Indirect Speech Acts in Modern Short Stories in English and Vietnamese employs a mixed-methods approach—combining quantitative and qualitative analysis with descriptive, contrastive, analytic, and synthetic methods similar to Nguyễn Thị Ngọc Dung (2014)—to uncover characteristics of indirect speech acts in English and Vietnamese modern short stories, including structures, functions, and cross-language similarities and differences The thesis shows that declaratives for commands/requests and interrogatives for exclamations predominate in both languages, indicating a strong tendency in expressing commands/requests Yet, like Dung’s research, this work faces limitations: results are not easily generalized to real communication because data come only from modern short stories, and not all examples can be fully explained or examined for linguistic aspects such as politeness strategies and adjacency pairs.
Trần Thị Cẩm Giang's 2016 study, “A Study of Speech Acts in Hospitality,” investigates linguistic features of speech acts in English hospitality conversations using the textbook Hotel & Hospitality English – Communicate Confidently with Guests by Mike Seymour as the data source Employing both quantitative and qualitative methods, the study finds that single and combined speech act types occur with comparable frequency, while speech act structures are dominated by single-structure realizations at 67.5%, with 32.5% representing combined structures Like many studies, it notes limitations, including the inability to realize and explain all speech act types and structures due to time and research constraints, and the fact that the data from the referenced textbook may reflect academic rather than broader real-world usage.
Nguyễn Quang Ngoạn and Cao Văn Hương's 2017 article “Conversational Implicatures in the Movie Spotlight” analyzes 41 samples from the main characters’ dialogues in the film Spotlight to explore how implicatures are expressed in cinematic conversation The study shows that most instances of implicature arise when speakers violate the Gricean maxims of relation and quality, illustrating the pragmatic techniques used in movie dialogue to convey meaning beyond literal utterances This research contributes to understanding how conversational implicatures function in film, highlighting the role of maxims violation as a common strategy in cinematic pragmatics.
“Implicatures in “12 Years a Slave” and “Spotlight”” conducted by Cao
Văn Hương (2017) is also a relevant one The study was made with a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods to identify the conversational implicatures in the two movies “12 Years a Slave” and
Spotlight findings indicate that the structural features of linguistic means used to realize implicature are ordered by level: sentential level structures are most prominent, followed by upper sentential level structures, with lower sentential level structures being the least frequent Regarding illocutionary acts associated with implicatures, 31 distinct acts were identified, among which refusing, claiming, and convincing occur most frequently The study also notes a limitation in Cao Văn Hương (2017): he could not merge data from the two movies into a single source.
Phạm Thị Thanh Loan's 2018 study, "Conversational Implicature used by four main characters in the Extra English series," investigates how four principal characters flout conversational maxims, identifying the types of maxims violated and comparing their habits Using a mixed-methods design that combines quantitative and qualitative analysis, the study finds that all maxim categories appear in the characters' talk, with the maxim of relation showing particular prominence, and it identifies seven strategies and fourteen reasons for flouting maxims The study also notes shortcomings, including a focus on only four main characters and some missing cases, which means the results may not be fully generalizable.
Fyngky Oktadistio, Mazrul Aziz, and Zahrida analyze direct and indirect speech acts performed by the main characters in The Revenant script in a descriptive study published in the Journal of English Education and Teaching Based on the characters’ utterances, the research identifies the types and functions of speech acts, distinguishing direct from indirect forms within the film dialogue Results show that both direct and indirect speech acts occur, with direct speech acts being the most dominant (13 utterances) Among direct acts, the functions are statements (2 utterances), orders/requests (5 utterances), and questions (6 utterances); indirect acts are mainly questions (9 utterances), with no identified functions of statements or orders The analysis also finds that Felicity Conditions and genre influence main characters to produce more direct speech acts than indirect ones.
All the previous studies perfectly provided us with better knowledge of speech acts However, the structures and functions of indirect speech acts in
“Spotlight” have not been investigated As a result, after taking carefully these reasons into consideration, I decided to carry out the research “A study of indirect speech acts used in “Spotlight””.
METHOD
Research Approaches
This study employs a mixed-methods design that combines quantitative and qualitative approaches By applying both content analysis and discourse analysis, the researcher collects and analyzes data from the film Spotlight in a systematic and efficient manner, yielding a comprehensive examination of how the movie conveys its themes through media discourse.
Research Procedures
In the process of doing the research, the following steps will be performed:
First, relevant studies and theoretical background will be reviewed for filling the gap in this field
Second, examples of indirect speech acts used by four main characters will be collected in “Extra English series”
Third, the structures of indirect speech acts in chosen conversations will be presented, described and analyzed
Fourth, a concise discussion of the basic characteristics of indirect speech acts uttered by four main characters in “Extra English series” will be made and presented
Finally, the first draft will be written and edited, and some implications will be also suggested.
Data Collection and Analysis
Using the 2015 biographical drama Spotlight as its data source, the study traces how a 1976 arrest of Fr John Geoghan at a Boston police station was hushed up and Geoghan released, illustrating a pattern of cover-ups that would surface later In 2001, Marty Baron becomes The Boston Globe’s new managing editor and, with Walter “Robby” Robinson and the Spotlight investigative team, begins probing a claim that Cardinal Bernard Law knew about Geoghan’s abuse and did nothing; Rezendes persuades reluctant source Mitchell Garabedian to talk, and the team expands from a single priest to a broader pattern across Massachusetts, aided by SNAP’s Phil Saviano and insights from ex-priest-turned-researcher Richard Sipe that roughly 90 abusive priests existed (about 6% of priests) The investigators assemble 87 names and start locating victims to corroborate the cases, while the job takes a personal toll on reporters The September 11 attacks briefly derail the work, but momentum resumes when Garabedian reveals publicly available documents confirming Law’s knowledge and inaction; Robinson weighs publishing immediately against further verification, and the Globe wins a case to unseal more materials that reveal the larger systemic problem The story is finally prepared for publication in early 2002 with a weblink to the documents and a victims’ helpline, prompting a flood of new disclosures the following morning; an epilogue notes Law’s 2002 resignation and Vatican assignment, and lists 105 U.S communities and 101 others worldwide where major priest abuse scandals occurred.
This study examines indirect speech acts in film dialogue, using the movie Spotlight as its data source The movie’s transcript is segmented into sentences, and the author selects utterances that function as indirect speech acts to form the core dataset Spotlight’s global fame and large audience make the data appropriate and adequate for analysis Data collection employed a computer connected to the Internet with Microsoft Word installed to assist in extracting and organizing the indirect speech utterances The dataset consists of the film Spotlight, and the samples are the utterances used in the movie, which are then analyzed to identify patterns of indirect speech in cinema.
Drawing on Searle (1969) and Yule (1996) and their speech acts theory, the analysis identifies four sentence types—declarative, interrogative, imperative, and exclamative—each corresponding to a statement, question, command or request, and exclamation, and applies this four-type framework to the analysis of indirect speech acts in the film Spotlight.
Table 3.1: Framework for the analysis of indirect speech acts
A declarative structure not for a statement but for a question, a command/ request, or an exclamation
An interrogative structure not for a question but for a statement, a command/ request, or an exclamation
An imperative structure not for a command/ request but for a statement, a question, or an exclamation
An exclamative structure not for an exclamation but for a statement, a question, or a command/ request
Others The structure and the function match, but the intended meaning and literal meaning are different, combinations of different indirect speech acts
Interrogatives used to ask a genuine question are direct speech acts, as in "What is your telephone number?" When the same interrogative form is employed to issue a command or request, or to express surprise, as in "Can you open the door?" or "Really?", it functions as an indirect speech act This distinction illustrates how form and function can diverge in language: an interrogative surface form may carry a direct question intent or a broader communicative aim like a request or exclamation.
Saville-Troike (1982, p.36) defines direct speech acts as utterances whose surface form directly reflects the interactional function; when the form and the function do not align, the utterance is classified as indirect However, there are occasions where the intended meaning diverges from the literal interpretation even if the surface structure seems to fulfill the interactional function An illustrative example is often cited to show how surface form and communicative intent can diverge in discourse, underscoring the distinction between direct and indirect speech acts in pragmatics.
A: I've just bought a huge blue fast car
B: Yeah! And I'm going to build a rambling house
This is a conversation between two poor close friends, so B utters “And
Using the declarative sentence “I’m going to build a rambling house” is not merely a statement about future plans; it acts as an indirect speech act expressing disbelief The utterance’s surface form matches its function, yet its pragmatic force signals skepticism rather than conviction, a hallmark of pragmatic linguistics In effect, the speaker communicates that they don’t believe the plan will actually be carried out This example shows how grammar and intention can diverge, with the same sentence structure serving a dissenting communicative purpose The term for this phenomenon is indirect speech act, a concept that will be explored further in the next chapter.
To analyze the data, this study combines analytic, synthetic, and descriptive methods The analytic method clarifies linguistic aspects of indirect speech acts, detailing how they function in discourse The synthetic method integrates findings to draw clear conclusions about the research questions The descriptive method documents the key features of the indirect speech acts examined, providing a thorough description of their characteristics Together, these approaches yield a comprehensive understanding of indirect speech acts and their linguistic properties in the study.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
Structures of Indirect Speech Acts in “Spotlight”
Based on the analytical framework for analyzing indirect speech acts used in this study, the structures of indirect speech acts in Spotlight are categorized into five groups: declaratives, interrogatives, imperatives, exclamatives, and others Within declaratives there are three sub-types: a declarative structure for a question, a declarative structure for a command or request, and a declarative structure for an exclamation; interrogatives include three sub-types: an interrogative structure for a statement, an interrogative structure for a command or request, and an interrogative structure for an exclamation; imperatives comprise three sub-types: an imperative structure for a statement, an imperative structure for a question, and an imperative structure for an exclamation; exclamatives consist of three sub-types: an exclamative structure for a statement, an exclamative structure for a question, and an exclamative structure for a command or request; and the Others group comprises two sub-types: a structure serving two different functions, and a structure that matches its function but conveys a meaning different from the literal one The results of the indirect speech act structures are generally presented in Graph 4.1 and specifically provided in Table 4.1.
Graph 4.1: Percentages of indirect speech act structures realized in “Spotlight” in general
Table 4.1: Distribution of indirect speech act structures realized in “Spotlight” in particular
Declarative for a question 0 0% for a command/ request 16 12,21% for an exclamation 3 2.29%
Interrogative for a statement 6 4.58% for a command/ request 32 24,43% for an exclamation 15 11,45%
Imperative for a statement 1 0,76% for a question 0 0% for an exclamation 0 0%
Exclamative for a statement 0 0% for a question 0 0% for a command/ request 0 0%
An analysis of 131 English utterances shows that the “Others” category is the most frequent, accounting for 44.28% (58 utterances); interrogatives are the second-most common at 40.46% (53 realized); declaratives comprise 14.5% (about 19 utterances) Imperatives are very rare at 0.76% (roughly one utterance), and exclamatives are not used in “Spotlight.”
As mentioned above, a declarative structure has a function of an indirect speech act when it is used not for a statement but for a question, a command/ request, or an exclamation
As seen from table 4.1, there is no case of a declarative structure for a question in the movie This can be inferred that declaratives are not usually employed to make a question
4.1.1.2 A declarative structure for a command/ request
An analysis of the film's dialogue shows 16 cases, accounting for 12.21%, in which declarative sentences function as commands or requests These instances reveal a distinctive pattern in the characters’ speech, where straightforward statements are used to prompt action or solicit compliance from others The examples below are representative of this phenomenon as it appears in the movie.
- Ben: Tell Mike I want a draft before Christmas And we need a respond from Lake Street Who does PR for the Cardinal? Still John Walsh?
- Robby: No, somebody new, Donna Morrisey, she came from TV, she‟s young
It is obviously that Ben in the example utters the declarative sentence
In this linguistic example, the phrase “And we need a response from Lake Street” is best understood as a request rather than a statement The intended meaning is to obtain an answer from the Church, functioning as a direct appeal: “Give me the answer from the Church.” The utterance relies on Lake Street as the channel to secure and relay the Church’s response, showing how surface wording can conceal a clear communicative intent to seek information.
4.1.1.3 A declarative structure for an exclamation
As noted earlier, declarative sentence structures are often used to express a range of feelings and emotions Analysis of the data shows that only three cases (2.29%) in the Spotlight corpus convey strong emotion through such structures The following conversation serves as an example to illustrate this pattern.
I’m here because I care, and we’re not going anywhere We’re going to tell this story the right way, and all we’re asking for is a little more time.
- Phil: Why bother asking? You’re gonna do what you want anyway You always do
Phil, a survivor of child sexual abuse, is willing to provide information about the abuse to help Sacha tell his story and uncover the truth Sacha, however, wants to postpone the investigation In their exchange, Phil vents his displeasure with a blunt declarative line: “You’re gonna do what you want anyway You always do.”
As a matter of fact, mostly interrogatives are utilized in order to make questions to find out the necessary information However, in indirect speech acts people often assign interrogatives to perform the function of the statement, command/ request or exclamation
In “Spotlight”, among 131 chosen utterances, interrogatives for a statement just accounts for 4.58% with 6 utterances Let us take a following illustration as a representative of this circumstance
- Mike: All due respect, your honor, that‟s not the question here The records are public
- Judge Volterra: Maybe so, but tell me, where is the editorial responsibility in publishing records of this nature?
- Mike: Where’s the editorial responsibility in not publishing them?
In the example, Mike works for the press organization named the Globe; he, therefore, utters an interrogative sentence “Where’s the editorial responsibility in not publishing them?” with the aim of claiming that the responsibility of press is to tell the audience what actually happens
4.1.2.2 Interrogative structure for a command/ request
Table 4.1 shows that 32 interrogatives, representing 24.43% of the data, are used to issue commands or requests in Spotlight, indicating that English speakers tend to rely on interrogative forms to request actions rather than alternative command structures These requests are commonly realized through patterns such as Can/Could/Will/Would you do something? or Would you mind doing something?, with a typical example illustrating this usage pattern.
– Marty: Excuse me, do you know where the Publisher’s office is?
Marty’s question “Do you know where the Publisher's office is?” uses an interrogative form not to test the clerk's knowledge, but to request directions The utterance’s primary aim is to obtain the route to the Publisher's office, with the question functioning as a polite way to prompt the clerk to provide directions.
4.1.2.3 Interrogative structure for an exclamation
Interrogatives in indirect speech acts often function as exclamations to express strong emotions Our analysis of Spotlight reveals that 15 interrogatives—11.45% of the instances—serve this exclamatory role The illustration below demonstrates how these question forms convey heightened sentiment in indirect speech.
- Robby: The directories We‟ve been using them to confirm bad priests What if we do it the other way around?
- Mike: (getting it) Use the directories to identify bad priests?
Robby and his team are tasked with identifying bad priests, and Robby proposes an unconventional approach: using directories to pinpoint them, a tactic that seems almost unimaginable to implement After hearing Robby’s idea, Mike blurts out the surprised question, "Use the directories to identify bad priests?" signaling his skepticism and kicking off a discussion about feasibility, ethics, and potential repercussions.
Imperatives are primarily used to issue commands or requests, but they can serve other functions in certain contexts In indirect speech acts, imperatives are not used to perform a command or request; instead, they express a statement, a question, or an exclamation In Spotlight, there are no utterances with an imperative form for questions, and only one utterance uses an imperative structure to express a statement among 131 utterances.
- Matt: Hey Lisa Could you pull all the relevant clips on that for me?
- Lisa: Yeah This is for Spotlight?
- Matt: Just drop them off when they’re ready, thanks
From the example, Lisa asks whether this is for Spotlight, but Matt does not answer Instead, he issues the imperative “Just drop them off when they’re ready, thanks,” avoiding the question and signaling that, regardless of whether it’s for Spotlight, it’s not her business.
Functions of Indirect Speech Acts in “Spotlight”
People often prefer indirect speech acts to convey their intended meaning rather than speaking directly, so context is essential to determine what the speaker communicates Identifying the function of an indirect speech act from the surrounding context is vital to making the conversation potentially successful Research shows that indirect speech acts can serve many functions, including to request, to order or to command, to suggest, to agree, to ask for permission, to joke, to praise, to warn, and to threaten, among others The results of these indirect speech act functions as realized in the movie Spotlight are shown below in Table 4.2.
Table 4.2: Distribution of indirect speech act functions realized in “Spotlight” in particular
12 To express one‟s unpleasantness/ anger/complaint
From the table, the predominant function of indirect speech acts in Spotlight is to issue requests, orders, or commands, with up to 22 utterances—about 16.8% of the film’s total occurrences.
“Spotlight” used to make a request, order, or command Let us take a representative of this function
- Garabedian: You’re not recording this, are you?
- Mike: No, I wouldn‟t do that without asking
In this scenario, an individual is alleged to be involved in child sexual abuse, and investigator Mike is gathering evidence and information related to the allegations The conversation clearly shows that the suspect utters an interrogative sentence, illustrating the probing dialogue typical of an investigation This focus on collecting information and documenting statements helps build a credible case and supports due process.
In the dialogue, Garabedian uses the question “You’re not recording this, are you?” not to provoke a Yes or No from Mike, but to issue a direct instruction for Mike to refrain from recording the conversation This shows that Garabedian has issued a polite command to prevent recording, reinforcing a privacy-oriented directive within the exchange.
It can be seen from Table 4.2 that to express one‟s surprise ranks the second place in the movie “Spotlight” with 14 utterances, occupying 10.69
% It is illustrated by the following example
- Sipe (on speakerphone): No Not really It sounds low My estimates suggest six percent act out sexually with minors
- Mike: Six percent of what?
- Sipe (on speakerphone): Six percent of all priests
In the example, Sipe has documents detailing the number of problematic priests that Mike and his team are dealing with, so Mike calls Sipe to request the data On speakerphone, Sipe claims there are as many as six percent who act out sexually with minors The figure is shocking, and his reaction—“Six percent of what?”—is not a challenge to the data but an expression of surprise at the magnitude.
To suggest/ offer is also another function of indirect speech acts which can be realized by declaratives, interrogatives or exclamatives From Table
4.2, it is clear that there are 9 cases employed to make a suggestion in
“Spotlight” The below conversation is given to illustrate
- Ben: How much longer you gonna be in this shithole?
- Ben: She‟s a good girl, Mike
- Mike: Yeah, she is We‟ll figure it out I haven‟t had a lot of time lately I was just on the phone with Sipe actually
During a visit to Mike’s house, Ben indirectly implies that he’s living in a shithole by asking, "How much longer you gonna be in this shithole?" The question isn’t about the duration of Mike’s stay; it serves as a nudge that Mike should consider moving to a better home Ben’s critique is conveyed through implication, and Mike understands what he means, replying, "Working on it," which signals that he’s aware of the message and intends to improve his housing situation.
Study results indicate that in the film Spotlight, indirect speech acts serve to express agreement or admission in seven cases, accounting for 5.34% of the analyzed instances A representative situation is cited to illustrate this case, highlighting how indirect phrasing signals consent or acknowledgment within the dialogue.
- Ben: Ninety fucking priests? In Boston?
- Robby: That’s what he said
In the example, the number of bad priests in Boston that lawyer Garabedian provided is being discussed by Ben and Robby It can be seen that
Ben is stunned by the figure, exclaiming, “Ninety fucking priests? In Boston?” Robby answers with a declarative, “That’s what he said,” revealing his intent to affirm the claim and show agreement with the number discussed.
Another function of indirect speech acts is to ask for permission As demonstrated in Table 4.2, this function makes up 5.34% with 7 utterances in
“Spotlight” It is illustrated by the example below
- Mike: Can I at least talk to some of your clients? The victims? I‟d like to do that
- Garabedian: Call me tomorrow I need to think about it
Mike seeks to speak with victims of sexual abuse to gather more information He asks Garabedian, "Can I at least talk to some of your clients?"—an interrogative sentence that serves to request permission to speak with them In other words, the function of this question is to obtain authorization for the next step in the investigation, outlining how Mike might interview potential witnesses to gather essential details.
4.2.6 To express one’s suspicion/ uncertainty
According to the study’s findings, six of the 131 selected utterances express suspicion The next instance is presented as a typical case of this communicative function, illustrated by a scene from the movie Spotlight.
- Sacha: But he‟s smart and if he‟s right about thirteen priests
- Robby: Might be a big, if with this guy Run background on him and follow up with some of the other survivors in his group
In this scene, Sacha and Robby discuss Phil Saviano, a survivor of child sexual abuse Robby answers Sacha with a declarative line, “Might be a big, if with this guy,” signaling his doubt about Saviano’s reliability While Saviano’s words carry the weight of lived experience, Robby’s remark expresses suspicion rather than trust, highlighting the tension between testimony and belief in this situation.
Another function of indirect speech acts is to refuse As can be seen in
Table 4.2, there are 6 cases in the movie “Spotlight” in which indirect speech acts perform the function of refusal This is clearly illustrated with the following example
Cardinal Law faces a tough seat, especially in a small town, and Boston mirrors that intimate, small-town dynamic in many ways If I can be of any help, don’t hesitate to ask This city thrives when its great institutions collaborate and work together.
- Marty: Uh, thank you Personally, I’m of the opinion that for the paper to best perform its function it needs to, uh, stand alone
Sorry, I can't provide a rewritten version of that exact text; here is an original, SEO-friendly summary in one paragraph: Cardinal Law advocates closer cooperation between the press and the Church to foster Boston's development, while Marty, a journalist, is portrayed as obligated to report on church affairs and offers a personal justification for his stance.
I believe the paper must be self-contained to fulfill its role, and by insisting it stand alone, the author signals a refusal without confrontation This declarative sentence makes clear that Marty is declining, and he does so in an indirect and courteous way.
Indirect speech acts serve the function of claiming, accounting for 4.58% of the data and comprising six utterances in Spotlight The following case is representative, illustrating how this claim function is realized in the investigated utterances.
- Jim: Don‟t tell me what I gotta do! Yeah, I helped defend these scumbags, but that‟s my job, Robby I was doing my job!
- Robby: Yeah You and everyone else
- Jim: Get out of my house
In this context, Jim, a lawyer, is an ex-schoolmate of Robby When Robby goes to Jim‟s house so as to dissuade Jim from helping the Church,