A Pragmatic Comparison of Commissive Acts in Grammarly and QuillBot advertisements on YouTube
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24256/ideas.v13i2.7266Keywords:
Commissive Acts, Digital Advertising, Grammarly, Pragmatics, QuillBot, Speech Act Theory, YouTubeAbstract
Abstract
This study aims to compare the utilization of commissive acts in Grammarly and QuillBot advertisements on YouTube from a pragmatic perspective. In digital advertising, brands often use language to express commitments that influence viewer behavior. However, limited research has focused on how brands strategically use commissive acts to build trust and persuade viewers. This study specifically analyzes how commissive acts like promises, guarantees, and offers are utilized by Grammarly and QuillBot to convey brand commitments and influence viewer perceptions. A qualitative descriptive methods were applied to fourteen video advertisements (seven per brand) published between 2021 and 2025. Each commissive utterance was identified, categorized by type, and analyzed using the illocutionary force indicator device (IFID). The findings revealed 33 guarantees, 24 promises, and 4 offers in the Grammarly advertisements, while QuillBot displayed 14 guarantees, 11 promises, and 26 offers. In addition, ten informants participated in a Likert-scale questionnaire and semi-structured interviews to assess the clarity, persuasiveness, and credibility of commissive messages. The results showed that Grammarly tended to emphasize emotionally driven promises and assurances to build credibility, while QuillBot focused on functional offers related to academic tasks. The informants generally considered Grammarly’s commissive acts clearer and more persuasive, while QuillBot’s were perceived as practical but less emotionally appealing. The study concludes that commissive acts play an important role in digital brand communication and that pragmatic analysis provides valuable insights into how linguistic strategies shape audience responses.
References
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford University Press
Afzaal, A. (2022). Identification of Speech Acts: A Linguistic Analysis of Advertisements in Pakistan. Journal of English Language, Literature and Education, 3(3), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.54692/jelle.2021.030398
Alafnan, M. A. (2022). Uniting for Peace: A Speech Act Analysis of the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 377 A (V). World Journal of English Language, 12(6), 50–58. https://doi.org/10.5430/wjel.v12n6p50
Bani, M., & Masruddin, M. (2021). Development of an Android-based harmonic oscillation pocketbook for senior high school students. JOTSE: Journal of Technology and Science Education, 11(1), 93-103.
Bucholtz, M. (2007). Variation in transcription. Discourse Studies, 9(6), 784–808. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445607082580
Chairani, M., Sofyan, D., & Hardiah, M. (2020). Illocutionary and Perlocutionary Acts on YouTube Videos Employed by Niana Guerrero. Journal of English Education and Teaching, 4(3), 413–430. https://doi.org/10.33369/jeet.4.3.413-430
Chen, A., Zhang, Y., Liu, Y., & Lu, Y. (2023). Be a good speaker in livestream shopping: A speech act theory perspective. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 61 (June 2022), 101301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2023.101301
Fitria, T. N. (2021). QuillBot as an online tool: Students’ alternative in paraphrasing and rewriting of English writing. Englisia: Journal of Language, Education, and Humanities, 9(1), 183. https://doi.org/10.22373/ej.v9i1.10233
Grundlingh, L. (2018). Memes as speech acts. Social Semiotics, 28(2), 147–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2017.1303020
Ibrahim, N., & Qura, U. (2021). Speech Acts Used by a Gaming YouTuber in an Online Game Video. RETORIKA: Jurnal Bahasa, Sastra, Dan Pengajarannya, 14(2). https://doi.org/10.26858/retorika.v14i2.18891
Kone, N. (2020). Speech Acts in UN Treaties: A Pragmatic Perspective. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 10(06), 813–827. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojml.2020.106051
Kurniati, E. Y., & Fithriani, R. (2022). Post-Graduate Students’ Perceptions of QuillBot Utilization in English Academic Writing Class. Journal of English Language Teaching and Linguistics, 7(3), 437. https://doi.org/10.21462/jeltl.v7i3.852
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press
Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 140, 1–55
Ma, X., Ren, J., Lang, X., Yang, Z., & Li, T. (2024). The influence of live video hosts’ speech acts on purchase behavior. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 81(92), 103984. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2024.103984
Maulidina, P., & Wibowo, H. (2022). The Use of Grammarly Tools to Enrich Student’s Writing Ability. Lingua, 18(2), 179–189. https://doi.org/10.34005/lingua.v18i2.2246
Mosambonga, F. W., Yuliasri, I., & Faridi, A. (2022). Comparison of Commissive Acts between the University of Oxford’s and Universitas Indonesia’s Prospectuses. Journal of English Language Teaching and Linguistics, 7(2), 365. https://doi.org/10.21462/jeltl.v7i2.863
Ochs, E. (1979). Transcription as theory. In E. Ochs & B. Schieffelin (Eds.), Developmental Pragmatics. Academic Press
Pratama, H. (2020). Improving Scientific and Technological Awareness Through Language Classroom. 443(Iset 2019), 450–453. https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.200620.116
Pratama, H., & Semarang, U. N. (2019). Politeness Online (Issue November).
Rababah, L. M. (2023). Examining Speech Acts in Jordanian Advertising: Pragmatic Functions, Linguistic Features, and Rhetorical Devices. Journal of Ethnic and Cultural Studies, 10(5), 212–223. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejecs/1722
Rahma Putri, A., & Pratama, H. (2019). Journal of Literature, Linguistics and Cultural Studies The Use of Speech Act by Native and Non-native Guests in the Ellen Show: A Comparative Study Article Info. 8(2). http://journal.unnes.ac.id/sju/index.php/rainbow
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge University Press
Searle, J. R. (1976). A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society, 5(1), 1–23.
Searle, J. R. (1979). Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge University Press
Susanti Wulandari, R. (2021). Alienasi Terhadap Alam: Kritik Ekofeminis Terhadap Karya Barbara Kingsolver, Homeland. Adabiyyāt: Jurnal Bahasa Dan Sastra, 5(1), 94–114. https://doi.org/10.14421/ajbs.2021.05105
Syafitri, W. (2019). An Analysis of Commissive Speech Acts Used by the Shopping Hosts of MNC Shop. Jurnal Arbitrer, 6(1), 28–34. https://doi.org/10.25077/ar.6.1.28-34.2019
Yule, George. (1996). Pragmatics. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
Citation Check
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Vivin Sumanti, Hendi Pratama, Rini Susanti Wulandari
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under an Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See the Effect of Open Access)
