Thesis

Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1 ..................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

INTRODUCTION .........................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
1. Chapter Overview ...................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.1 Statement of the problem ..................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.2 Significance of Research ....................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.3 Objectives of the Research ................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.4 Research Questions ............................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.5 Methodology .......................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.5.1 Research design............................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.5.2 Sample........................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.5.3 Research tool ................................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.5.4 Procedure ...................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.6 Delimitation of the study ...................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.7 Chapterization ....................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
CHAPTER 2 ................................................................................................................................... 5
LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................................... 5
2.1 Theoretical background of speech act theory .................................................................. 5
2.1.1 Pragmatics .................................................................................................................................... 5
2.1.2 Origin of Speech Act Theory ....................................................................................................... 7
2.1.3 The Concepts of Speech Act: What People Do When They Speak ........................................... 10
2.1.4 Direct and Indirect Speech Act .................................................................................................. 11
2.1.5 Indirect Speech and Flouting of Cooperative Principle ............................................................. 13
2.1.6 Performative Utterance .............................................................................................................. 15
2.1.7 Speech Act and Culture.............................................................................................................. 16
2.1.8 Successful Speech Act: Felicity conditions ............................................................................... 17
2.1.9 Illocutionary Speech Act Classification ..................................................................................... 21
2.1.10 Kinds of Illocutions .................................................................................................................. 22
2.1.11 Searle and Vandeveken’s (1985) Explanation of Speech Acts ................................................ 24
2.2 Practical background of speech act theory ..................................................................... 35
CHAPTER 3 ................................................................................................................................. 45
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY.................................................................................................. 45
3.1 Research Design ................................................................................................................ 45
3.2 Data Collection Tools........................................................................................................ 46
3.3 Speech Act Theory as a Functional Model ..................................................................... 47
3.3.1 Steps of Application of Speech Act Theory by Searle and Vanderveken (1985) ...................... 47
3.3.2 Procedure of Analysis ................................................................................................................ 48
3.4 Population .......................................................................................................................... 50
3.5 Sampling Techniques ........................................................................................................ 50
3.6 Sample Size ........................................................................................................................ 51
3.7 Data Recording and Storage ............................................................................................ 51
3.8 Validity of Data ................................................................................................................. 52
3.9 Time Frame ................................................................................................................... 53
3.10 Delimitation of Research ................................................................................................ 53
3.11 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 54
Chapter 4 ........................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Data Analysis .................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.1 Selected (Criminal) case no.1 ............................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.1.1 Context of the case ........................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.1.2 Judgement of the (Judge) Case ..................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.1. 3 Selected Statements no. 1 of the P.W 2 for the Analysis ............. Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.1.4 The Meaning of P.W 2 Utterances ................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.1.5 Pragmatic Analysis of the Given Speech Act ............................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.1.6 Statement No. 2 ............................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.1.8 Pragmatic Analysis of the Given Speech Act ............................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.2 Selected (Criminal) case No.2 ...........................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.2.1 Context of case .............................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.2.2 Statement of Muhammad Azam, Muhammad Arif and Muhammad Asif, submitted in written
form under Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. ........................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.2.3 Judgement of the case ................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.2.4 Selected statements of the P. Ws for the Analysis ........................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.2.4.1 Statement no. 1 ......................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.2.4.2 The Meaning of P.Ws Utterances ............................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.2.4.3 Pragmatic Analysis of the Given Speech Act .............................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.2.4.4 Statement no. 2 ......................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.2.4.5 The Meaning of P.Ws Utterances .............................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.2.4.6 Pragmatic Analysis of the Given Speech Act .............................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.3 Selected (Criminal) Case no. 3 .....................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.3.1 Context and Statement of witness ................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.3.2 Statement of Ghafoor P.W 10 ....................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.3.3 The Meaning of P.W 10 Utterances .............................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.3.4 Pragmatic Analysis of the Give Speech Act ................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.4 Selected (Criminal) Case no. 4 ..........................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.4.2 Statement of the Irfan alias Fani ................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.4.3 Judgment of the judge ................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.4.4 Selected statement no.1 ................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.4.5 The Meaning of P.W Utterances ................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.4.6 Pragmatic Analysis of the Given Statement .................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.4.7 Context and statement of M. Aslam complainant PW2 ................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.4.8 Statement no.2 of the witness M. Aslam complainant PW2 ........ Error! Bookmark not defined.
The Representative Illocutionary Act is stating and the meanings of the statement are: ........... Error!
Bookmark not defined.
4.4.10 Pragmatic Analysis of Given Speech Act ................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.5 Selected (Civil) Case No.5..................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.5.2 Statement of witness ..................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.5.3 Judgement of the judge ................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.5.5 Pragmatic Analysis of Given Speech Act ....................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.6 Selected (Criminal) Case no.6 ...........................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.6.2 Statement of witness ..................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.6.5 Pragmatic Analysis of Given Speech Act ..................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.7 Selected (Civil) Case no.7 ..................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.7.1 Context of the case. ....................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.7.3 Statement of the witness ............................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.7.5 Pragmatic Analysis of Given Speech Act ..................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
CHAPTER 5 ..................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION ..........................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
5.1 Conclusion ......................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
5.2 Suggestion ...........................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
References ......................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Appendix…………………………………………………………………………………………97
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
As the study is about speech act analysis of perjury in the light of witnesses’ statements in the
courtroom, the chapter reviews literature on speech act theory. This chapter is divided into two
parts; theoretical background of speech act theory and practical background of speech act theory.
The first part, the theoretical background explains the umbrella term pragmatics, the origin of
speech act theory, the various concepts of speech act theorists, namely Austin, Leech, Bach and
Harnish, Stenius, Davidson, Vanderveken and Searle, the notions of what people do at the moment
of uttering the speech, the difference between speech acts; direct and indirect, literal meaning and
metaphorical meaning in accordance with direct and indirect speech acts, flouting of the
cooperative principle by Grice, performative utterance, both implicit and explicit, speech act in a
cultural context by presenting how people from different cultures interpret the same statement to
have different acts, the elements that make the particular act to perform successfully, felicity
conditions and the ways speech act theorists group various acts to each category. The second part,
the practical background of speech act theory discusses the application of speech act theory in
various fields such as drama, poetry, dialogues, songs, different kind of texts, movie scripts, court
room discourses, speeches, identification of writing and documentation.
2.1 Theoretical background of speech act theory
2.1.1 Pragmatics
Charles Morris (1938) is considered as the establishing father of pragmatics. After him, it
was illustrated by Levinson. In Levinson (1983), Morris (1938) characterized pragmatics as the
investigation of the connection of mark to polyglots. As indicated by Levinson (1983), Pragmatics

is the investigation of those particular connections amongst language and setting that are
grammatically encoded, in syntax of language (Levinson,1983).
Leech (1993) is another language specialist who also characterizes pragmatics. Pragmatics,
he explains, is an investigation of meaning or message related to discourse setting and situation
(Leech, 1993). It implies that pragmatics contemplates sense of human speech that concentrates
the circumstance in which the speech is occurred (Tiersma & Solan, 2005).
Additionally, Leech (1993) likewise explained about the few parts of situation which are
important to cogitate when somebody attempts to comprehend a speech, statement or an utterance
expressed by a speaker or recipient. The viewpoints are:
1. Addresser and addressee
Leech alludes addresser and addressee as matter of ease, as S (speakers) and H (hearers).
2. Setting of an articulation
In pragmatics, the setting is prior knowledge that both speaker and recipient share. This
perspective adds to recipient's comprehension of what speaker implies by a certain statement.
3. The purpose of statement / utterance
Not the same as of expression executed by speaker of recipient is intended to pass on
particular meaning and objective. This diverse type of speech can be utilized to direct a similar
reason or the other way around.
4. The statement or utterance as speech act (activity)
Grammar discusses language organization as conceptual elements, for illustrations, sentences
in syntax and suggestion in semantics. On the other hand, pragmatics manages oral act in specific
situation. So, we can say that pragmatics considers speech in more solid level than language
structure. The speaker and recipient, place, time are very much clear as far as pragmatics is
concerned.
5. Utterance or statement as an oral act
In pragmatics utterances or statements are the type of speech acts. Therefore, expression
delivered by speaker and recipient is incorporated into oral act.
It very well may be presumed that pragmatics deals with the language and its various parts. It
discusses about deixis, implicature, presupposition, parts of discourse structure and speech act
(Levinson, 1983).
In the present research, the researcher centers around pragmatics contemplate particularly in
speech acts.
2.1.2 Origin of Speech Act Theory
The beginning of speech act theory is always associated with the Oxford rationalist, J.L
Austin and it was emerged in early sixties. Conveyed as one of the William James addresses,
Austin (1962) portrays the fundamental principle of the theory in “How to do things with words”
as being originated on the presupposition that an addresser accomplishes acts when he or she talks.
The utterer has the point of accomplishing particular outcomes in the reaction from the listener,
for, as Austin (1962) declares, by saying something is meant to do something. In spite of the fact
that the premise of the speech acts theory was attributed to Austin, his production most likely was
a finish of musings and contemplations on the idea of message and speaking by a progression of
thinkers, as well as different researchers too (Kock,1997).

Very nearly an entire decade before Austin, Ludwig Wittgenstein in 1953 distributed his
well known, and around then dubious idea that the significance of the words is uncovered in their
utilization. He stated that the use of language is like to play games whose principles are found out
and made show by really playing games. One gets one's summon of a speech, not by initial taking
in a solitary arrangement of inflexible principles which represent its utilization on all events,
however by participating in a wide range of language amusements, every one of which is confined
to a particular sort of social setting and is controlled by specific social traditions. (Lyons,1983).
The term speech act is derived from the German word ‘sprechackt’ by a German
Etymologist Buhler (1934), as stated by Lyons (1977). After Austin's presently acclaimed
distribution, the theory was created and portrayed in detail by different researchers in rationality.
A bundle of researchers like Strawson (1964), Grice (1967), Searle (1969, 1976), Benjamin (1976),
Davison (1979) and Wachtel (1980) were broadly counseled.
Though at first from a rational circle, the speech act theory stretched out to various
disciplines of the study, and ended up being comprehensively associated in historical
underpinnings generally speaking, in semantics, in etymological structure, in sociolinguistics and
in pragmatics as well. (Kock,1997).
Lyons (1977) concludes that the speech act theory has an 'alluring' impact on language. A
standout amongst the most appealing highlights of the speech acts theory ... is that it offers express
acknowledgment to the societal or relational measurement of dialect conduct and gives overall
structure, as we will see, for the discourse of the semantic and syntactic qualifications that
etymologists have customarily depicted as far as state of mind and methodology (p, 725).
Around one more decade later, Leech (1983) studies the impact of the speech act theory on
pragmatics. Till now, the most grounded outcomes for those working up a practical point of view
have been the significance of a perspective of significance to the degree illocutionary force by
Austin and Searle.
Bach and Hamish (1979) put out their inclusive type of the application of speech act theory
on linguistics. They provided in their publication a universal vantage point, integrating language
rules (linguistics), meanings (semantics), context and setting (pragmatics) and societal facets of
speech with speech act theory. Primarily, they provided rational and philological approach,
interconnecting with mental and social psychology by discovering the factors related to mind and
society, that contribute to meaningful and successful dialectal communication. (Kock, 1997)
It is needed to be mentioned the researchers like Buss (1988), Du Plessis (1988) and Patte
(1988) here. It is maybe because of the importance of the theory places on the discourse facets of
language which stimulates its acceptance, together with the actions that lie beneath communication
and interactional nature of communication of human. Moreover, it indicates the aims set out by
each partaker (personal, social, cultural goals, etc.) together with the principles and/or
presuppositions intricate in each speech setting and situation. Roman Jakobson’s (1960) model of
situation highlights it (situation) in very lucid manner. This model of situation has earned
popularity among speech act researchers and literary scholars as well (Leech, 1983).
The explanation of Jakobson's (1960) model is as follows:
When a speaker directs a message to the hearer, the context is required to make the message
operational. Context is referred to seizability by the listener, and either spoken or able of being
vocalized; a language fully, or partly, general to the speaker and hearer and, lastly, a contact, a
bodily medium and mental association between the speaker and hearer, qualifying together to
come in and staying in the process of discourse (Kock,1997).

2.1.3 The Concepts of Speech Act: What People Do When They Speak
Individuals more often utilize language for getting things done: to welcome, report, make
inquiries, arrange, propose marriage, caution, guarantee and perform numerous different activities
in day by day life. The sentences, individuals express are not utilized just to state something but
rather additionally to get things done. For instance, after "I sentence you to death" is pronounced
by a judge, there will be an activity of executing the detainee. Speech act scholars attempt to clarify
what individuals do when a sentence is expressed. For instance, when a speaker says "Close the
entryway," this speaker plays out the act of requesting and furthermore anticipates that the listener
will perceive the speaker's goal by going to close the entryway. Actions performed when the
speakers express the sentence are called discourse acts. This thought demonstrates that when
individuals utter an utterance, they don't just articulate the sounds or words with syntactic structure,
however they likewise play out a few activities during the time spent talking. There are numerous
scholars saying about speech acts, and the one most said is J.L Austin.
As indicated by Austin (1998) in “How to Do Things with Words”, while creating an
utterance, three related acts are performed;
1. Locutionary Act
The Locutionary Act is the articulation of a sentence o statement with making of sense or
meaning and inclination. For instance: ‘I have made tea recently. This statement is intended to
advise recipient that speaker has made tea with no thoughtfulness regarding play out a
demonstration or to impact the recipient. The purpose of the above mentioned case is "I" is used
as a subject, "made" is used as predicate, and "tea" is used as an object. In the given speech act the
comprehending the aim of the addresser is not required. It just focusses on communication of
language.
2. Illocutionary Act
The illocutionary act is the putting forth of report, proposal, and promise, in articulating an
utterance by uprightness of the regular power related with it (or its unequivocal performative
summarize). The given act is also called the act of accomplishing a thing by saying something. For
instance: "Would you like to take tea?". The speaker who gives this statement to his accomplice,
actually he is just not saying the words but he is also offering tea to the addressee. This act belongs
to one of speech act which makes the individuals enable to accomplish an action not just saying it.
3. Perlocutionary Act
This act deals with the impact caused by a few utterances which are expressed by the
addresser to the listener. It very well may be explained that the under discussion act is the
demonstration of influencing somebody. For instance: "There is a lion in the bushes!", in the event
that one can say this expression to somebody, a few impacts caused by that utterance will be
observed. The listener, after listening the utterance may run (Justová, 2006).
Leech (1998) concurs with Austin in the manner in which that each sentence has a
locutionary act and an illocutionary act, however he alludes to them as sense and power,
individually. In addition, Bach and Harnish (1998) express that when individuals talk there is
common conviction that both speaker and listener allude to a similar thing and meaning, and the
speaker is stating with some unmistakable illocutionary goal (Jacobson, 2010).
2.1.4 Direct and Indirect Speech Act
The correct sentence uttered in one setting can play out an alternate act in another unique
situation. As Searle (1998) says, the utterance can constitute distinctive illocutionary acts, and it
is very mind boggling to tell what the act of the articulation is. For instance, when a spouse says
to a husband at a gathering, It's extremely late, it may be only an announcement of reality and at
times a request. In the event that the speaker plans to express the reality of the time, the
announcement in a declarative sentence compose is direct speech act. In any case, if the speaker
needs to ask for her better half to take them home, the sentence, although declarative, does not
directly play out a representative act but instead the act of request. At the point when the kind of
sentences and the function are not related, the indirect speech act happens. (Morgan,1977)
Jannedy, Poletto, and Welden (1994) bring up that for direct speech acts, declarative
sentences constitute speech acts of assertion, interrogative sentences constitute inquiries, and
imperative sentences constitute requests and orders. We can say in other words that a direct
connection has been found between structure or form and function in direct speech acts to impart
the literal meaning that the words in sentences conventionally express. Subsequently, the
declarative statement ‘the pen is on the sofa’ has the meaning of assertion. The inquiring utterance,
‘to whom is he conversing with’? has the meaning of interrogation, on the other hand, the
imperative utterance ‘open the door’! is an order. Additionally, we can say that the direct speech
acts now and then have performative verbs, for example, I promise to help you always, and I order
you to open the window. These utterances are directly playing the role of order and promise by
using the verbs order and promise, separately. Be that as it may, as a general rule it can't be normal
that declarative sentences dependably function to declare or to assert, interrogative sentences to
ask, and goals to order. It is workable for explanations to play out the act of asking for or
interrogative sentences to give orders. At the point when the form and the meaning are not
specifically related, the wonder is called an indirect speech act that is utilized to convey an alternate
meaning from the surface meaning. (Smith, 1991).

As indicated by Searle (1993) sentences ought to be perused on two levels. One is simply
the meaning passed on by words and sentences themselves or literal message, while the other is
the speaker's intended meaning or figurative meaning. At the point when the speaker passes on
figurative meaning, the speaker's expected meaning for the word or sentence could contrast from
the surface meaning. All of the sentences: "The auto is broken, dear," "Would you be able to enable
me to lift the case?" and "Make the most of your feast" ought to be perused for metaphorical
meaning on the grounds that the speakers’ expected meanings vary from what they really talk.
When individuals talk with indirect speech acts, the listener can comprehend the intended meaning
of the speaker because both sides share background knowledge collectively with the power of
prudence and interpretation on the side of the hearer.
As explained by Searle (1993) the language has a quality that enables speakers to state one
thing to mean something else and the listeners can comprehend what the speakers actually mean.
Searle suggests an indirect speech act as one example where the speaker’s intended meaning and
literal words or sentences are different. Also, intended meaning of sentences and words is based
on the intention of the speaker, and the meaning is different from the sentences and the words.
(SEARLE, 1980)
2.1.5 Indirect Speech and Flouting of Cooperative Principle
The indirect speech acts are usually considered that they belong to the flouting of the
cooperative principle. Grice (1975) expresses that individuals have a helpful standard when they
impart. They decipher language on the supposition that the utterer is observing the four maxims:
the maxim of manner, quality, quantity and relevance.

1. The maxim of quality. It implies that the speaker dependably says reality. He won't state
something that he accepts is false, and he won't state things for which he doesn't have the sufficient
proof.
2. The maxim of quantity. It is accepted that the speaker takes after the control of sufficiently
giving data. The speaker does not say excessively or too little; he will be as informative as required.
3. The maxim of relevance. It implies that the speaker ought to be pertinent when he takes part in
the correspondence. Whatever he says ought to be identified with the point of correspondence.
4. The maxim of manner. The speaker won't talk something uncertain or cloud, and he will
influence his speech to stream efficient. In the event that the speaker does not take after every
agreeable rule, it is said that he violates the specific maxim; thus, the listener can't comprehend
what the speaker needs to pass on. Now and then, the speaker appears to violate the principal,
however he really does not and the listener can at present comprehend what the speaker truly needs
to state. For instance, the speaker may utilize overstatement, however this isn't on the grounds that
the speaker expects to disregard the maxim of quality, and he doesn't lie, also. He just makes his
point more intense, while the listener comprehends his aim. On the off chance that this
circumstance happens, it is called flouting, not violating (Levinson, 1983, pp. 101-102).
According to Sadock (2004), flouting the cooperative principle is identified with the
indirect speech act. At the point when the indirect speech act is utilized, no less than one maxim
of cooperative principle is being floated. For instance, in the setting that a visitor of an eatery who
finds the nourishment sickening says, this feast is delectable, the speaker is flouting the maxim of
quality since he doesn't talk reality. The listener, who does not know the context and takes the
surface meaning, thinking the speech is playing out the direct speech act, will find this is the act
of complimenting; be that as it may, the genuine goal of the speaker is to censure or to whine. The
statement is sarcasm or irony, so the addresser does not literally mean what he says. By
complimenting it as if it were the speech act of admiring, the addresser actually performs the
speech act of impugning. For the listener to understand the indirect speech act the utterance
performs, the listener and the addresser need to share sufficient background about the situation or
context. When A asks a question, do you like fruits? and B does response Is the Pope Catholic? B
is flouting the maxim of relevance because it seems that the sentence of interrogation does not
answer the question, Do you like fruits? If A does not know that Pope is the religious spearhead
of Catholics, the interrogative sentence cannot be taken by A, Is the Pope Catholic? as the answer
Yes for the question “Do you like fruits?”, but A might be taken it as a question being asking of
him. Although “Is the Pope Catholic? is an interrogative sentence, it is used to accomplish the act
of response or the utterance, not the question demanding the answer “yes” or “no. Moreover, only
individuals sharing the knowledge of “the Pope” will be able to understand the sentence correctly
(Sobhani & Saghebi, 2014).
2.1.6 Performative Utterance
The idea of performative utterance is broadly talked about, when the speech act is
discussed. Austin (1998) was the simple first individual who endeavored to differ constative
speech act with performative expression. For Austin, performatives were activities as known as
illocutionary acts, for example, to order, promise, and so on., while constatives were to make
utterances or give depiction. This thought is contradicted via Searle, who trusts that expressing
and depicting are additionally activities like promising or requesting. Austin likewise proposed
two sorts of performatives: implicit and explicit. The express performative is appeared by the recipe
that does explicit the illocutionary act that the addresser means to achieve in articulating the
utterance like " I hereby order you to leave the room," while "Leave the room" without the
performative verb and performative adverb (hereby) is an implicit performative verb (Sadock,
2004).
Conversely, Searle (1998) considers performative utterance just when it is explicit with the
verb naming the act, and the verb can be both in active and passive form, the speaker isn't lying,
and the expression isn't indirect speech act. Searle additionally trusts that performative utterances
are likewise declarations. They can be declarative in term of additional linguistic declarations that
can change the world, for example, proclaiming the war, articulating somebody man and spouse,
naming a ship, condemning a criminal, and as far as linguistic, for example, promising, requesting,
and expressing (Doerge, 2013).
Bach and Harnish (1998) bolster the idea of extra-linguistic declaration that is institutional
or customary and etymological announcement that is ordinary performative, yet they stress the
distinctions of the impacts while articulating a genuine statement "I articulate you a couple"
contrasted with a conventional performative "I order you to leave the room." Bach and Harnish
can't help contradicting Searle on the possibility that performative utteranves must be just
unequivocal. For them, there are certain performative expressions as Austin accepted, however the
implicit performative articulation is utilized so as to make the performative clear. In addition, they
restrict Searle's view that a performative articulation must be just a direct speech act in light of the
fact that as long as the listener can perceive the speaker's goal, the performative expression can
succeed (Leongkamchorn, 2010).
2.1.7 Speech Act and Culture
Speech acts are additionally identified with culture. As per Cutting (2002) the methods for
communicating speeech acts change from nation to nation, from culture to culture. He gives a case
of Indian culture which has an uplifting demeanor towards chunky individuals since they show
thriving and wellbeing. That is the reason "How fat you are!" in India is the speech act of
congratulating and praising. In any case, "How fat you are!" in Western culture currently will be
perceived as criticizing. To compliment female Westerners on their appearance, "How slim you
are!" is utilized. In Thai culture, individuals once adulated an unborn youngster by saying "how
ugly the infant is" on account of in the past numerous infant kids passed on exceptionally youthful
and individuals trusted that the apparitions jumped at the chance to take the lovely children. In any
case, these days with the movement of the prescription and healing facility, that conviction has bit
by bit vanished and "How ugly the infant is!" isn't a compliment any more. Individuals have
changed to state, "How lovely the infant is. Any more here, similar to a ris5k in one culture isn't a
danger in another. Subsequently, the best approach to play out the speech act in one culture is not
quite the same as another culture. (Leongkamchorn, 2010).
2.1.8 Successful Speech Act: Felicity conditions
As said, individuals can perform speech acts by means of their expressions: to ask, to
request, to apologize, to order, to urge, to congratulate, to assert, to inform and so forth. The issue
is the way they can show what sorts of speech act are performed. For instance, what influences
them to realize that "close the window" plays out the speech act of ordering. It gives the idea that
the speech act is unclear, and there is no ideal heuristic gadget to show what sorts of speech act
the speaker expects to perform. It relies upon numerous components, for example, context and
intention of the speaker. The listener can just speculate the probability of the act; however, no one
can precisely tell the genuine aim of the speaker. (Sadock, 2004)
The speech act scholars have attempted to make sense of instruments that can be utilized
to choose what act a specific sentence performs. Austin (1998) made a formula of an explicit
performative verb in the basic current state with an adverb "hereby", to obviously demonstrate what
act is being performed; for example, on the off chance that one says "I hereby promise…," others
can realize that the speech act of promise happens. In addition, as indicated by Austin (1998) all
together that the performative act will be legitimate or effective, there must be a few conditions
referred to as felicity conditions to choose as Vanderveken (1998) calls it method of
accomplishment; for instance, the method of accomplishment of the begging act is to be modest
and amiable to get the listener to accomplish something (Justová, 2006).
Speech acts are used by the speaker and are steered to the hearer. The fact of the matter is
to impact the hearer, or, to use an expansive advancement, to change the world, i.e. to accomplish
another situation or to change the recipient's points of view, et cetera. speech acts, in the event that
they by one means or another figured out how to fit or productive, must meet certain conditions,
i.e. they ought to be performed relevantly. For instance, when the speaker says I pronounce you
husband and wife, this speech act exhibition will be great (it will change the world) in wedding
the overall public just on condition the individual communicating it is possessed all the necessary
qualities to solemnize social associations. If not, the speech act exhibition has no authenticity: the
man and the woman won't advance toward getting to be life partner and spouse. The conditions
that qualify an utterance as a speech act showing are called felicity conditions. They were exhibited
by Austin and clarified by means of Searle, who insinuated them as constitutive rules. Five
conditions are perceived e.g. general conditions, content conditions, preparatory conditions,
sincerity conditions and essential conditions.
The marriage pronouncement is infelicitous and inappropriate if two people relishing a bar
get hitched and ask the bartender, who used to be a court associate, to remember the right words
that must be said remembering the ultimate objective to marry people. Disregarding the way that
these two people encounter the capacity before witnesses, and the bartender says "I pronounce you
husband and wife", this is definitely not a successful marriage as the bartender does not have the
right or authority to state to such an extent or play out the wedding administration. For the
declaration " I pronounce you husband and wife " to be appropriate, the felicity conditions of this
impactful are that the speaker must be the perfect individual talking the declaration at the ideal
time in the right place. So to speak, the speaker ought to be a priest who has the pro to explain
people to be companion and spouse. This priest must talk the words at the wedding administration
in an assembly in order to fulfill the felicity conditions and adequately play out a speech act of
pronouncement (Verikaitė, 2010).
Each act needs an arrangement of felicity conditions so the specific act could be performed
fittingly. As indicated by Jannedy, Poletto, and Welden (1994) the felicity conditions of question
are that:
1. S does not know reality about P.
2. S needs to know reality about P.
3. S trusts that H might have the capacity to supply the data about P that S needs.
(Where "S" stands for the speaker, "H" for the hearer, "P" for some situation, and "A" for some
activity)
While the felicity conditions of request are as per the following.
1. S trusts A has not yet been finished.
2. S trusts that H can complete A
3. S trusts that H will complete A-type things for S.
4. S needs A to be finished.
Also, Searle (1998) depends on tenets or conditions to demonstrate kinds of speech act and
choose whether the specific utterance plays out its fruitful speech act or not. The fundamental
govern for each act to succeed is that both speaker and listener know the language and what they
are doing, have no physical issue for correspondence, and are not kidding, not playing a joke
(general condition). There are likewise extra conditions for every specific speech act. For instance,
the speech act of caution has the content condition that it must be about the future occasion as
propositional content.
The conditions that the listener knows the event will happen, and the event won't profit the
listener are the preparatory conditions for a warning. Conversely, the preparatory conditions of a
promise are that the event won't occur independent from anyone else, and the event will profit the
listener. There is likewise the sincerity condition; for instance, the speaker means that the future
event won't give the useful impact to the listener as a genuineness state of warning, while the
speaker expects to influence the future activity to occur as a sincerity condition of promise.
Ultimately, there is the essential condition that joins with a detail of what must be in the utterance
content, the context, and the speaker's aims, all together for a particular speech act to be properly
(aptly) performed. For instance, for the speech act of promise, the promise utterance changes the
speaker's state from non-commitment to commitment, while the speaker's condition of non-
educating of a terrible future event is changed to advising for the act of warning. At the point when
a sentence is delivered under these said conditions, Searle's rule verifies that the sentence plays
out the speech act effectively.
Searle (1998) likewise makes standards or conditions for different illocutionary acts to be
fruitful. For example, Searle distinguishes the rules for a fruitful speech act of promising as takes
after: the listener must hear and comprehend the language, while the speaker must not lie or be
play acting; the speaker predicts a future act of the speaker; the listener would incline toward the
speaker doing the demonstration to his not doing the act, while the speaker trusts the listener would
lean toward his doing the act to his not doing the act; it isn't evident to both the speaker and the
listener that the speaker will do the act; and the speaker means that the utterance will put him under
a commitment to do the act. To sum up, to decide and check what speech act the speaker is
performing and whether the specific speech act was effectively performed or not, the felicity
conditions ought to be utilized as a compelling apparatus (Searle, 1998).
Finegan (1994) once gave the felicity condition of request. For the ordinary request "Please
pass me the salt", the content must distinguish the act requested of the listener, while the frame
must be in the customary style. The preparatory condition is that the speaker trusts that the listener
can pass the salt. The sincerity condition is that the speaker truly wants the listener to pass the salt,
and the essential condition is that the speaker expects by the utterance to get the listener to pass
the salt to him (Finegan, 1994).
2.1.9 Illocutionary Speech Act Classification
Numerous speech act theorists have different strategies to assemble acts into each unique
classification, the majority of which depend on the idea of such goals themselves and the sorts of
impacts they are intended to accomplish in beneficiaries (Levinson, 1983, p.241) However, there
is no defined framework for characterizing speech acts, and the exertion of grouping proceeds with
numerous acts rising. Five classifications were suggested by Austin for illocutionary acts. The
classification is as under.
1. Verdictive acts: the acts that comprise of conveying a discovery, e.g., absolve, grasp (as an issue
of law), study something as, and so on.

2. Exercitive acts: the acts that give a choice for or in contradiction of a game-plan, e.g., select,
expel, arrange, sentence, and so forth.
3. Commissive acts: the acts whose purpose is to confer the utterer to a game-plan, e.g., contract,
help anyone, pronounce one's goal, and so forth.
4. Behavitive acts: articulation of state of mind toward the lead, fortunes, or dispositions of others,
e.g., say sorry, express thanks, salute, welcome, and so forth.
5. Expositives acts: acts that describe the views, leading of disputations, and illuminating, e.g.,
deny, educate, yield, refer, and so on (Sadock, 2004, p.64)
2.1.10 Kinds of Illocutions
Austin's illocutionary speech acts were further categorized by Searle. In his article, he
characterized illocutionary acts into five classifications, for example, representatives, directives,
commissives, expressives and declaratives (Searle, 1976).
The basic five types of illocution of an action or utterance that a speaker performs in the
process of speaking, explained by Searle (1965), they are:
1. Representatives/Assertives
Representatives are speech acts that might be judged valid or false on the grounds that they
objective to depict a situation on the planet. Representatives are those which have a fact esteem
that states what the S accepts to be the situation, or not. For instance, 'Snow is white'; 'His book
isn't about Yemen'. These are a portion of the cases of the S introducing the world as he trusts it
seems to be. In utilizing a confident, the S utters words fit for the world (of conviction). Assertive
speech acts are asserting, informing, claiming, proposing, announcing, stating, and closing, and so
on.
This act clarifies the situation, which confers the speaker to reality of the communicated
proposition, for example, stating, asserting, reporting, concluding and informing. For instance:
"I’ve been listening to a song that really got me". The sentence is intended to affirm that the
addresser regularly listening the melody that truly got the addresser.
2. Directives
Directives are speech acts that endeavor to make the other individual's activities fit the
propositional content. Directives are attempts to inspire H to accomplish something. They express
what the S needs. Asking, requesting, summoning, prompting, reducing, rejecting, telling,
requiring, encouraging, commanding, cautioning are directive speech acts. In utilizing directive, S
endeavors to make the world fit the universes through the H. For instance: 'Might I be able to
obtain your pen, kindly?', 'Don't contact that' and Ali! Pass a cup of coffee'.
3. Commissives
The aim of this act is to urge the speaker to accomplish something, for example, promising,
swearing, debilitating, threatening, offering and advertising. The addresser who articulates any
sentence to his companion is to urge to complete something.
4. Expressives
The expressive act communicates the addresser's state of mind as expressing gratitude
toward, apologizing, inviting, commending, and saluting. They have a tendency to be pleasant
and along these lines characteristically neighborly. The reserve is valid, in any case, of such
expressive as 'accusing' and 'blaming'.

5. Declarations
The given act is utilized to maintain a specific speech act that influence prompt alterations in
the established situation and which have a tendency to depend on explaining additional linguistic
foundation as announcing war, suspension, dedicating, designating, and terminating from
business.
From the above given classification, the researcher aims at to focus only two types speech acts;
Directives and Assertives Illocutionary Act, because these two acts help the utterer to make the
listener to do something according to his will and thinks about the world as he thinks.
2.1.11 Searle and Vandeveken’s (1985) Explanation of Speech Acts
2.1.11.1 A description of Assertive Speech Acts
1. Claim
Searle and Vanderveken (1985) express that claim might be dealt with in the very same
route as assert, anyway there are noteworthy contrasts between them that should be investigated.
Claim advances some view, as assert, however it is a more intense act in light of the fact that when
a speaker makes a claim, he is actually imagining resistance and (apparently) has confirmation to
back up the claim. On the off chance that when a speaker makes claim, he has proof to help it, we
can say that the speaker is aware of something from which it could be construed that thing. (p.
183)
2. Assure
Searle and Vanderveken (1985) depict assures as: attesting with the perlocutionary
expectation of persuading the listener to reality of the propositional content in the realm of the
expression.
Wierzbicka states that assure is likewise removal of "stress" from the brain of the listener.
Assure is particularly worried about individuals (as stood out from affirm, where one can affirm
reports and so forth., also assure implies guaranteeing somebody of reality or precision of
something. (p. 184)
3. Argue
Searle and Vanderveken (1985) define argue as differing from assure only in that the
speaker gives supporting evidence for something. Searle and Vanderveken state that argue requires
supporting evidence and this implies some sort of inter-speech act relation (p.184).
4. Inform
Searle and Vanderveken (1985) express that: To inform is to state to a listener with the
extra preliminary condition that the listener does not definitely recognize what he is being educated
of. This somewhat shortsighted clarification of the contrast amongst illuminate and attest does not
appear to epitomize the fundamental distinction between the two discourse act verbs. Inform most
importantly, seems to rule out questions, in that in the wake of being educated that P the listener
needs to trust that P is valid. The distinction it would show up from this is educate conveys with it
some idea of expert regarding the matter of P. Not really settled or official specialist, but rather an
implicit assertion amongst speaker and listener that the speaker is an expert on the topic of (p.
185).
5 Swear
To swear that P is an endeavor to influence the listener to need to trust that what we are
stating is genuine regularly by calling after something that is holy to the speaker as an observer to
the honesty of the announcement. In spite of the fact that this could be viewed as another kind of
discourse act, I have precluded it from my rundown of discourse acts and to order it under a
rundown of discourse acts that I plan to call Formal Speech Acts. It causes no issues for the
subjective state approach, aside from that there is an "outside" component to the discourse
demonstration, in particular calling upon a god or some other hallowed question.
2.1.11.2 Commissive Speech Act Verbs
1. Promise
This is the first of the speech acts that fall into the commissive group. Commisive verbs
include a commitment with respect to the speaker, and one of the measures utilized via Searle and
Vanderveken for commissive verbs is the level of quality of the responsibility (Searle and
Vanderveken,1985, p. 192) This straight estimation needs examination.
When we promise to do P, we are influencing a pledge to embrace P, to regardless of
whether we guarantee that another person will do P (Boguslawski 1983 and Wierzbicka,1985, p.
205) we are as yet influencing an endeavor to make sure that that individual to will do P. The
impact of guarantee is to make the listener trust that the speaker will attempt to do P. Also the
commitment itself is with the end goal that what the speaker is doing is to put his validity hanging
in the balance (Verscheuren 1983, p. 630).
2. Consent
In her depiction of consent, Wierzbicka (1985) invests some energy looking at consent and
concur, expressing that consenting is reliant upon the speaker's generosity while concur happens
on an equivalent premise (p. 112).
Notwithstanding, as Wierzbicka later states (1985), in spite of the fact that consent and
permit frame two practically identical discourse acts, the distinction between the two is that
consenting is dynamic in that it happens because of a specific demand, though allow may occur
without the information that the listener is currently looking for authorization. It is interested that
Searle and Vanderveken (1985) in their scientific classification of discourse acts incorporate assent
as a commissive speech act while allow is incorporated into the rundown of orders. Furthermore,
consenting includes adequately expressing that OK, I need it to happen, while allow includes
basically expressing OK, I wouldn't fret in the event that it happens (p. 113).
3. Refuse
A refusal is a genuinely limit method for saying no, I won't do it. Searle and Vanderveken
(1985) recommend that decline is the illocutionary denegation of assent. It resembles assent in that
it is a reaction to a real or suggested ask for (p. 195).
2.1.11.3 Directive Speech Act
We currently go to the class of speech acts depicted via Searle (1979) as directives. direct
is depicted via Searle and Vanderveken (1985) as the crude mandate act (p. 198). Be that as it may
Wierzbicka (1985) considers it to be a complex of various acts. Right off the bat, she depicts it as
being "somewhere close to asking for and requesting" in that by guiding the speaker needs the
listener to accomplish something, and anticipates that him will do it with no contention, but in the
meantime isn't making a request that the listener do the demonstration. One might say it is co-
agent conduct. Her second significance of direct is much the same as giving bearings, and, third
which is extremely a variation on the second looks for a clarification for why headings are now
and again given as objectives. I pick not to incorporate the second and third clarifications of direct,
in light of the fact that it more often than not identifies with an entire succession of acts, not only
one. Consequently, I would incorporate direct when utilized for giving rules in indistinguishable
fundamental class from contend, e.g. a structure and not a speech act (p. 42)
This leaves just Wierzbicka's (1985) first portrayal of direct. Since it seems to infer a formal
connection amongst speaker and listener, in particular that in issuing an order, the speaker has a
changeless organized position of expert I have chosen to incorporate it in the rundown of formal
discourse acts.
1. Request
Searle and Vanderveken (1985) reveal request as: a directive illocution that takes into
consideration the likelihood of refusal (p. 199).
Smith (1970) describes requset as: a politer word for indistinguishable thing from inquire. In the
meantime, he proceeds to call attention to that there is frequently a suggested feeling of expert that
makes it likened to a charge (p. 123).
Wierzbicka echoes this utilizing the illustration: Passengers are requested to extinguish their
cigarettes.
2. Tell
Both Searle and Vanderveken (1985) and Wierzbicka (1985) appear to be in understanding
that there are two unique implications of tell: right off the bat, it tends to be utilized in the feeling
of advising somebody to accomplish something and also in the feeling of recounting a story. The
less demanding of the two implications is likely the first. This importance is like ask and demand
in that it is a method for communicating the way that the speaker needs the hearer to accomplish
something (p. 200).
3. Require
Searle and Vanderveken (1985) propose that require varies from advising somebody to
accomplish something just in that it conveys with it a more noteworthy level of quality, and that
there is an extra preliminary condition that it should be finished.
Require seems to suggest a component of commitment, however the speaker has no expert
over the listener. A decent case of its utilization is in the "except if" letter that goes before a request.
E. g. You are required to pay the remarkable adjust inside 28 days or we will start procedures to
recuperate the previously mentioned sum without additionally take note. Here the operator issuing
the danger to make lawful move is informing the beneficiary of his commitment, however not
really requesting him to pay, as he has no specialist to do as such (p. 201).
4. Permit
A decent case demonstrating the refinement amongst allow and permit is given beneath.
The individual who grants something isn't concerned such a great amount with the activity itself
as its impact on something.
The medical attendant enabled the guests to stay past the doctor's facility visiting hours,
despite the fact that it was not allowed. (Hayakawa 1969, p. 441).
5. Asking
"Ask" has two particular directive employments. One can request that somebody
accomplish something or make inquiry (e.g. "ask whether", "inquire as to why", "ask whom"). In
the primary utilize, "ask" names the same illocutionary drive as "ask". To request that or ask for
that somebody does P (Propositional Content) is a similar thing. In the second use, to make an
inquiry is to ask for the listener to play out a future discourse act that would give the first speaker
a right solution to his inquiry (extraordinary propositional content condition).
For instance: "Where are we going?"
The word where demonstrates the demonstration of inquiring.
6. Begging
The verb "beg" has two particular engagements. In one, to beg is to ask for nicely (method
of accomplishment) as in "I beg your pardon". In the other practice, to beg is to ask for
submissively as in the exceptional instance of the "beggars", who supposedly is constantly
begging. In the two uses, the speaker communicates a powerful urge for the thing "begged for".
For example, “Please, I must talk to somebody. My name is not on the list!”
The word please demonstrates the act of asking.
7. Commanding
A command requires authority or if nothing else imagined systematized control. In this
way, to give a request is to request of the listener that he accomplishes something while at the same
time conjuring a place of expert or of control over him (unique method of accomplishment), while
a summon is simply to make a request from a place of specialist.
For instance: "Fly the plane!"
The expression fly the plane is the demonstration of commanding speech act.
2.1.11.4 Declarative Speech Act
The first of the declarative acts depicted via Searle and Vanderveken (1985) is declare.
They call the declarative speech acts as formal speech acts. The speech acts that show up in Searle's
definitive classification for the most part have some additional etymological measurement. They
must be utilized in unmistakable conditions, cases of these are sanctify through water or suspend
(p. 205).
2.1.11.5 Expressive Speech Act
Expressive speech act follows up on the other hand are a fairly blended gathering of acts.
Some of them have all the earmarks of being to a great extent conventional, for example, welcome,
however others do appear to have a capacity like the other informative speech acts. As a result of
their temperament, i. e. that they talk about sentiments, for example, lament, it is fairly hard to
characterize them similarly as has been improved the situation alternate kinds of informative
discourse act. In any case, it is as yet conceivable to investigate their utilization inside talk.
This is the central model that can exhibit every one of the 5 straightforward illocutionary
powers assigned by Vanderveken (1998) as crude illocutionary powers of expression (p, 187).
Vanderveken claims that there are just 5 illocutionary acts, and all other illocutionary powers are
gotten from these 5 crude powers by including new uncommon segments, or expanding or
diminishing the level of quality. For instance, the demonstration of proposal can be acquired from
the mandate illocutionary constrain by diminishing the level of quality. The protest demonstration
is gotten from agent constrain by including "the genuineness condition that the speaker is
disappointed with the situation spoken to by the propositional content" (Vanderveveken, 1998,
p.189).
In other words, Searle's scientific classification can incorporate every single conceivable
capacity it could be said that every classification can have subsets: in the mandate classification,
there can be the subsets to arrange, to propose, to induce and so forth.
Finegan (1994) included a verdictive class, appraisal or judgment act, to Searle's
characterization, yet to evaluate and to judge can in any case be gotten from definitive and agent
classifications (Smith, 1991).
2.1.11.6 Six Component of Vanderveken
To begin with, illocutionary force has been classified into six main components presented by
Vanderveken (1999) who illuminates certain conditions to be successful as well as felicitous if met
all the components accordingly.

1. Illocutionary Point
The Illocutionary Point is regarded as the foremost component of illocutionary force as it
leads the direction of fit to utterances with force. A speaker may have other intention and
Perlocutionary purposes while performing an act like, while making an assertion, he may intent
to amuse, embarrass or sway the hearer. But his intention is always to find out the Illocutionary
Point on the propositional content as this point is considered to be integral while he performs.
As indicated by Vandervaken (1990), there are five fundamental illocutionary purposes of
articulations, those are: The assertive, the condition the propositional content speaks to as situation.
They are affirmations, conclusions, and portrayals; the commisive, it is where the propositional
content is a future demonstration of the speaker to verbalize what the speaker expects. They are
guarantee, dangers, refusals and promises; the directive it is where the propositional content is the
future demonstration of the listener, to express what the speaker needs. They are summons,
requests, demand, and proposals; the revelatory, it is the condition which is brought into reality a
situation by speaking to oneself as playing out that activity; and the expressive, it is the outflow of
the speaker about a situation. They express mental states and can be explanations of joy, torment,
likes, abhorrence, euphoria or distress.
Linguistically speaking, this configuration of illocutionary points is experimentally
acceptable because only these five Illocutionary Points are considered to be essential to access the
Illocutionary force makers.
Logically, there are four possible directions of fit of utterances and these four directions of
fit are naturally linked with five illocutionary points. These four are:
a. Words-to-World Direction of Fit
By applying the illocutionary act, the propositional content fits a state of affairs which are
generally independent in the world by their existence. The approach to speech act with such
assertive point such as, estimates, testaments, speculations, declarations, and oppositions, has the
words-to-world direction of fit. Their placement is appropriate if applied to the world.
b. World-to-Words Direction of Fit
When the Illocutionary Act is fulfilled, the world is altered to fit the propositional content.
Speech Acts with commissive or directive point of view such as, assurances, oaths, approvals,
applications and demands have the World to Word Direction of Fit. Their want the world to be
altered by the future course of action of the speaker(commissive) or of the hearer(directives) so as
to compete the propositional content of the utterance. The essential role is played by speaker or
hearer with such performances of speech act that language discriminates logically two different
Illocutionary points with the World-to-Word Direction of Fit. The main concern to achieve the
goals of fit transferred to the speaker who gives directive utterance if delivered to the hearer.
c. Double Direction of Fit
When the Illocutionary Act is done successfully, the world is converted into present action of
the speaker who fits the propositional content with such reality that the speaker embodies it to be
transformed. Speech Act is to be regarded as Declarative Illocutionary Point such as, employing,
proposing, approving and identifying, have the Double Direction of Fit. Their point is to get the
world match the propositional content.
d. Null or empty Direction of Fit
Lastly, there is no question of win or lose of fit in some Illocutionary Acts and their application
is generally considered to be true. Speech Act in Expressive Point seems to be some words such
as, excuses, thankfulness, complements, and sympathy, have the Null or Hollow Direction of Fit.
Their point appears to explain a propositional attitude of the speaker dealing with state of affairs.
These state of affairs are concrete in the world.
2. Mode of Achievement
The means of achieving the Illocutionary Point of Illocutionary Force is the component which
regulates how its topic is expended to the propositional content with successful performance of an
act along with force.
3. Propositional Content Conditions
Some Illocutionary force enact the condition on the arrangement of prepositional that can be
taken as propositional contents of act with that force in setting of expression.
4. Preparatory Conditions
Vandervaken (1990) said in his book that the preparatory condition determiner which
proposition must take for granted when he does an Illocutionary Act with that force in a context
of speech.
5. Sincerely Conditions
When a speaker performs an Illocutionary Act, he also states mental conditions of certain
psychological approaches about the state of affairs denoted by the propositional content
(Vandervaken, 1990, p.117).
6. Degree of Strength
The mental conditions entering the sincerely conditions of Speech Act, are explored with
altered steps of strength which is liable to the illocutionary force.
According to Vanderveken’s theory the Illocutionary Force of Directive and Assertive
Illocutionary Acts have the Directive and Assertive Point along with the neutral way of attainment,
has strength, content, preparatory and sincerity conditions. These six components are considered
as felicity conditions which are compulsory to make the act thriving and momentous. These six
components are the model of analysis of the statements of the witnesses.
2.2 Practical background of speech act theory
Acting on the stage for Austin (1998) should be barred from realistic speech acts. As
nobody would regard as that the marriage in the play was genuine, that two actors who were
married on the stage were actually husband and wife, or that an actor who performed a role as
marrying the couple had the right to enunciate anybody husband and wife; the conditions of the
speech act of declarative would not be consummate. As a result, language used on the stage does
not have the power of being performative for Austin. Another area that Austin and Searle see as
“parasitic” is literature.
Austin (1998) explains with details that poetry, fiction and drama are considered to be
devitalized as they are dependent on unsupportive and false telling, which are inferior to women
and animals. According to him, literature is deficient, sponging and contaminated comprising
fruitless effort in speech act. He further proves his claim by giving an example from a line of a
poem, “go and catch a falling star”, which is imperative sentence voiced, but there seems no serious
meaning in catching the falling star by hearer or reader. He suggests that the use of subjectivity
(I) should be applied to speaking with careful intention in a poetry, novel and drama, which
actually means to lead a standard speech with mindfulness, appearance and ultimate truth, instead
of false pretentions.
On the other hand, the theory presented by Austin, is contradicted by Derrida. With
reference to Miller (2001) Darrida is of the view that there exists no adultered, customary and
typical speech act. Every said word has its semantic meaning which creates different shade of
meaning in reader’s mind and he himself perceives the best to his understanding. The speaker does
not explain the actual meaning and it is left upon “reader or listener to comprehend. So, there is no
exact concept of standard speech act. Derrida strengthens his view by the excessive use of certain
expressions used in daily life in the form of jokes, fun, pun, irony, satire, tragedy, and fiction. As
it all becomes a source of performance. Neither “Promise” nor” Order” exists in quality language
and literary one as it is actually impotent, but it plays a key role in performing act. Here Miller
(2001) says that utterances found in literature should be integrated in speech act which means to
analyze accordingly (Miller, 2011)
Although Austin (1998) thinks literature, including poetry, as “parasitic” outside the sphere
of speech act consideration, the speech act of expressive utterance is often found in poetry. As
poetry deals a lot with love, there is performative effect of arousing the passion of readers.
As language in literature can be analyzed for speech act, there has been some research focusing on
investigating speech acts in “parasitic” forms. Rozik (2000) conducted the research of speech act
metaphor in theatre using Ionesco’s “Exit the king”. According to Morgan, Nishimura (2005)
found various speech acts in the novel “Tess of the D'Urbervilles” (Morgan, 2007, p. 215).
Certain Japanese funny books have been translated to Thai where Supawattana (2004)
relates the speech act analysis to the kingdom of cartoons. She examines characters and their
utterances to define how they execute so as to make the hearers or viewers to do something. To
conclude it, she finds most of the performed acts are in the form of declarative, imperative and
informative (Supawattana, 2004).

Taking about the field of songs, Kuhn (1999) relates speech act theory to probe into
tempted strategy in blue lyrics. It is concluded that the male song composers practice the tempted
strategy as practiced by people in real life in the form of request (Kuhn, 1999).
Morris (2006) applies the theory based on speech act by J.L Austin to the daily language
which is a practice to be done in Modern versified African American songs, Hip Hop (Morris,
2006).
Suetrong (2007) investigates that the requestive speech acts are reflected in the love lyrical
songs based on Battles. He claims that the strategies for request in songs appear in the form of
motives, deseries, servility, promises and fears. It is a fact that Austin was against using speech act
theory in literature, but many researchers use functional method to explore literary arts
(Leongkamchorn 2010, p. 18).
Dore (1973) conducted a study in which he observed natural interaction between children
approximately one-year-old and their mothers. Data were analyzed in terms of speech events and
speech acts, and the results attempted to explain the nature of the child's linguistic utterances in
terms of "primitive speech acts." Dore categorized these primitive speech acts as follows: labeling,
answering a question, calling, request-command, greeting, imitating, protesting, and practicing.
The following four types of data were used in determining primitive speech acts: The child's
utterance, his non-linguistic behavior, his mother's response, and the context. The results indicated
that infants have different styles (structural and functional) of speech act production before syntax,
and Dore concluded that the speech act is a viable unit for the analysis of language acquisition
(Dore, 1973).
Prutting and Kirchner (1987) used a psycholinguistic approach, applying speech acts to
speech language pathology. They viewed speech acts as "the ability to take both speaker and
listener role apt to the context" (p. 118). Prutting and Kirchner (1983, 1987) took a slightly
different view from Levinson (1980) and others and essentially interpreted Searle's "speech act"
as the entire speech event, a communicative task comprised of the utterance act, the propositional
act, the illocutionary act, and the perlocutionary act (Prutting & Kirchner, 1987).
Some of the famous linguists named Schiffer (1972), Harris (1978) and Fromkin and
Rodman (1986) played a key role in speech act theory while applying on semantics as well. Apart
from them, some of others are Sadock (1974) and Fraser (1973) who also applied their theories to
linguistics.
Preisler (1986) another linguist focuses on taxonomy of speech act through Bales’ (1970) system
of I P A (Interaction Process Analysis) categories. By the excessive use of speech act theory
doctrines, the classification leads to indefinite behavioural actions which do not give the deep
meaning as said by Bach and Harnish (1979). This kind of taxonomy can be applied to exploring
further domains, particularly the sub- categories of “dramatizing and showing of tension (Jucker
& Taavitsainen, 2010).
Harrah (1994) regards speech acts as not only analytical tools, but also a domain which
brings great chances to sharpen of these tools (Harrah 1994, p.21)
Harnish (1994) highlights how variations found in stylistic approach, can be useful by
applying speech act principles regarding usage of language. Hornsby (1995) clarifies the notion
that firm relations between speakers and linguistic groups are at the core if viewed as illocutionary
act (Juker & Taavitsainen, 2008).
Jacobson (1995) applies speech act theory which focuses on performability and inherent
values of labral speech with especial reference to pornography. He compares freedom of speech
with the freedom of locutionary acts where sovereignty of speech does not give assurance to
perlocutionary frustration which means no effect as we wish to have upon words (Jacobson, 1995).
Halion (1992) moves back to the question to differ between the usage of language normally
and literally. With reference to Austin’s speech act theory, Halion makes an effort to prove the
distinction between parasited and parasite does exist. He claims his hypothesis on the basis that
the ability of the reader makes him proficient in comprehending contextual meaning (Halion,
1992).
Campbell (1990) has given the concept that the theoretical application of writing gives a
favorable action for a “new rhetoric” in the arrangement of writing. He further proves the
explanation of the theory keeps the goodwill while writing the negative messages. It also offers a
valuable arrangement of explanations which are based on Austin’s joyful conditions (Campbell,
1990)
Another linguist named Bal (1988) applies the principles of speech act theory to analyze
the difference between the riddle and the vow, with reference to the book of Judges in the Bible.
She proves that character’s speech acts actually explore the meaning in the book of Judges unlike
the narrator’s discourse.
Talking about the poetry of Chaucer and Gower, Green (1989) says that it can be easily
identified that a straight similarity between the medieval example and speech acts, presents the
issues of assurance and sensible conduct (Green 1989). Presently, the typology of speech acts
appears to be treasure for scholars who want analytical reviews of literary texts.
Nischik (1993) takes references to Margaret Attwood’s texts to highlight the character’s
speech tactics for critical analysis. According to her Polarities, a speech act analysis of character
communication based on subtle verbal actions between two characters lead them to further
disastrous situations which cause one of them to mental asylum. Her analysis concentrates on three
points:
1: The taxonomy of speech acts presented by Schmachtenberg (1985).
2: the proper sequences given in the speech acts.
3: The indirect speech acts by Nischik to statistical character’s speech acts.
These points lead to the abilities of identifying specific qualities of character and meaningful
speech planning so as to penetrate more into other character or more go away. Nischik finds out
clearly that validity in conversation, deficiencies in emotions, lack of passions in each other,
effective and non-effective communicative planning, break of communicational convictions, and
the attitude adopted by characters towards each other, are a few bitter realities. The acts done by
mediating narrative level of communication and their usage in details based on contrastive use of
direct and indirect speech acts affect the communication to the level of great sympathy. He
explores the domain of speech act by developing a new analytic research method to get more about
fictions (Nischik, 1993).
Petrey (1990) pays attention to the performative function of speech acts in articulating a
goal and why the speech act theory is effective in playing a vital role in the life of literary scholars.
The theory becomes a challenge to the basic principles of the linguistic schools. The concept
creates a difference between what language is and what language does-the words and their usage.
The linguistic philosophers see a formal structure while it is a social process (Petrey, 1990).
Haverkate (1994) applies speech act theory along with Gricean sayings and politeness
theory to get to know a pragmatic linguistic analysis, presenting verbal behaviour of heroes from
Cervantes’ novel Don Quixote de la Mancha. He signifies the qualities in them. The formal
communicative strategies have been assumed in the outline of speech act theory with reference to
the typology of speech acts accorded with Searle (1976). The analysis of characters’ social
interaction is based on their performance or flouting of the Gricean sayings regarding positive and
negative politeness. Such way may enable the researcher to find out definite prototypical
interactions (Haverkate, 1994).
Astington (1988) presented a theory based on children’s use of commissive speech acts.
As Dore (1977) investigated that commissives have nothing to do with pre-school infants because
they do not have the need to be independent in personal commitments (Smith,1991).
Some of the researchers find biblical texts to be valuable tool for speech act theory.
According to Botha (1991) biblical texts become a great tool for scholars who observes deeply
smaller units of text for interpretation. The functions in some of the speech acts theory along with
other critical theories such as narrative and receptive criticism, play a key role in enhancing great
learning steps in reading of texts, which means to be proficient with multiple knowledge
(Botha,1991).
The emphasis laid upon the communicational aspects of language, develops structure
which involves the action along with interactional nature of human communicative approach. It
further determines the goals focused on participant’s personal, social and cultural situations,
varying in communication. Such situation has been presented by Roman Jakobson (1960) and he
became very famous not only in speech act researchers but also in literary scholars. Variations
found in Jacobson’s model of verbal communication have got popularity. The speech act theory
seems to be at home in a pragmatic environment where its functional, interpersonal, textual and
linguistic principles are verified in terms of conversational goals (Leech,1983, p.5).
Sahar Farouq Altikriti (2011) has worked on speech act analysis with reference to short
stories. She applied her research to three short stories pragmatically and she found that every short
story differs from one writer to another not only quantitively but also thematically. The
communication done by the characters in these short stories has individual importance according
to the speech act theory as every writer has functionalized his work differently in applying figural
speech acts (Altikriti, 2011).
The research done by Ita Watiningish (2011) is entitled as “An Analysis of Directive
Speech Acts employed by The Main Characters in the Movie Oliver Twist (2005)”. She
concentrated her research on analyzing different kinds of directive speech acts and how they were
applied by the main characters in the Oliver Twist. She concludes four types found in directive
speech acts employed in the movie. They are directive, commissive, expressive and declarative
(Watiningish, 2011).
Jabber and Jinquan (2013) fished out the model verbs used by the President of the United
States in the speech act of request. Request is one of the typical examples of speech act directives.
It was Obama’s speech delivered on US-China strategic and economic dialogue at the Ronald
Reagan Building and International Trade Centre Washington, on July 27, 2009. This research is
done with the applicable theory of Searle (Jabber & Jinquan, 2013).
Samir Jamal Ibraheem (2016) has applied speech act theory to analyze the political texts.
He argues that tackling any text, e.g. political one, without pragmatic theory constitutes a real
problem in the communicative act. The need to shed light on distinctive rules concerning the
speech act of assertion is crucial. So his study is concerned with how to establish a model of
expressing the speech act of assertion, whether direct or indirect, by using the sentence types of
declarative, interrogative, or imperative sentences. Since this utilization highly overlaps with other
speech acts as command, obligation, permission, ability. The results of his study are as under:
His research study formulates a form for both direct and indirect speech act based on
Searle's speech act theory, supported by Leech's speech situation. Study conducts an opposite
felicity conditions for the speech act of assertion. In political texts, the direct and indirect speech
act of Assertion can be productively applied to express the speaker's feeling to convey the meaning
of assertion. The direct speech act of assertion is naturally realized by the declarative sentence
type. The indirect speech of assertion can sometimes be realized through the use of interrogative
and imperative sentences uttered with the appropriate intonation in political texts (Ibraheem, 2016).
In “Speech Acts in Early Modern court trials”, Kastovsky (2009), in the trial documents,
discusses the issue of the degree of orality present and the notional details of diachronic analysis
of speech acts (Kastovsky, 2009)
Matin and Rahimi (2014) published a paper entitled,” ‘Forensic Discourse Analysis: Legal
Speech Acts in Legal Language’. Its purpose was to highlight the theory and practice based on
forensic discourse analysis which is a tool applied to interpretation and analysis of legal context
with the aim at focusing on legal pragmatics in Persian legal events. Its objective laid a foundation
of Persian legal system through the process of forensic linguists, dealing with practice of discourse
analysis. Their focus was on the Legal Speech Acts on the theory of Searle. J (1969) (Matin &
Rahimi, 2014).
Khovi and Behnam (2014) analyzed and took the cases from Iranian Law Courts on the
subject of Cooperative Principles and Speech Acts. They wanted to examine the different speech
acts used by criminal courts. They studied the written and terminated documents from judiciary
files. They gathered the date through Iran’s judicial courts for studies (Khovi & Behnam, 2014).
Zidros (2015) worked on historical courtroom discourse, speech acts, Gricean maxims and
ideas of impoliteness. The meaning of utterance was reserved and altered by the text, so court
records were to be checked within the historical background related to the society in which they
were produced due to the bust nature historical data. The investigation attempted in Zidros' (2015)
postulation exhibited the hypothetical and methodological underpinnings enabling the current
recorded sociopragmatic investigation of the source content containing the examination of Anne
Hutchinson by the General Court in Puritan New England, 1637. The power elements of the
preliminary were examined as far as the down to earth techniques used by the interlocutors spoke
to in the court record. (Zidros, 2015).
The present research aims at analyzing the perjury statements of witnesses by applying
assertive and directive speech acts with literal interpretation and comparison between the felicity
conditions and what happens in the statements. The research is to explain the form, literal meaning
and the intended meaning of the statements of witnesses in the courtroom.

CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This chapter explains the methodology and the procedure of the study undertaken. It
covers research design, data collection and data collection tools, speech act theory as a functional
model, steps of application of speech act theory by Searle and Vandeveken (1985), procedure of
analysis, population, sampling and sample size, data recording and storage, validity of data, time
frame, delimitation of research and conclusion.
3.1 Research Design
The present research is an exploratory research based on qualitative content analysis
method approach which includes qualitative research methods. According to Burns and Groove
(2001), the exploratory research is done to gain new outlook, bring to light new conception, and
for the enrichment of the understanding of the phenomenon understudy (Mabuda, 2009). For the
purpose of this study, exploratory research was used to get a picture of intentions and meanings of
the witnesses in the courtrooms.
Data used in this research are the statements of the witnesses in the courtrooms. There
were a lot of cases in the courts that were pronounced and judged as perjuries after trial and the
statements of the witnesses were proved to be false and incredible. Qualitative research design was
used to collect the data. Parahoo (2014) states a research design is a strategy that describes how,
when and where data are to be gathered and evaluated. Holloway and Wheeler (2002) describe
qualitative research that it is a type of social query that emphases on the way individuals take to
mean and make sense of their experience and the world around in which they live. Qualitative
research method is a method to inquire about flexible human behavior. With the help of qualitative
analysis technique, various explanations are calculated to achieve an in depth consideration as why
certain behaviour appears in a human being. More precisely, we can say that qualitative research
methodology explains how and why certain judgements come forward in specific settings.
According to Cresswell (2003), in qualitative approach, the researcher often obtain data
rooted mainly on constructivist outlooks i.e., the manifold meanings of experiences of individual,
social and historical meanings fabricated with an intent of developing a theory or pattern) or
advocacy/participatory perspectives or both. Furthermore, the researcher gains open-ended data
with the intention of constructing themes from the collected data.
Qualitative Content Analysis as research design was used. Qualitative content analysis has
been defined as “a research method for the subjective interpretation of the content of text data
through the systematic classification process of coding and identifying themes or patterns” (Hsieh
& Shannon, 2005, p.1278).
According to Mayring (2000), the qualitative content analysis is, an approach of
observational, methodological controlled analysis of writings inside their setting of
correspondence, following content explanatory principles and well-ordered models, without rash
measurement, and Patoon (2002) characterizes qualitative content analysis as any qualitative
information decrease and sense-production exertion that takes a volume of qualitative material and
endeavors to recognize center textures and implications.
3.2 Data Collection Tools
In the present research, the collection of data was done by qualitative content analysis
method. In order to gather the information from the participant of the study, qualitative content
analysis method was adopted. A speech act analysis of contents was used to observe the presence
of certain words, meanings, images or concepts within the statements of witnesses. Researchers
reckon (i.e. count) and investigate (i.e. examine) the manifestation, meanings and connections of
words and ideas, then make interpretations about the messages within the courts, the witnesses and
time of which these are a part.
3.3 Speech Act Theory as a Functional Model
By applying speech act theory, the researchers have been analyzing literary texts, dialogues
in drama and theatre, movie scripts, songs, leaders’ speeches, semantics, semiotics, comic book
translations, legal cases, courtroom trials and courtroom discourses to comprehend the core
messages of the said fields or dimensions. So, speech act theory by Searle and Vandeveken (1985)
can be applied as a functional model to identify and analyze representatives and directives speech
acts and to understand the core meanings of the statements of the witnesses in the courtroom. This
is the main purpose of the research which is undertaken.
3.3.1 Steps of Application of Speech Act Theory by Searle and Vanderveken (1985)
For the present study, the steps of the model of data analysis are as follow:
1. Identifying the perjury statements of witnesses from the view point of context (FIR) and
judgments of the judges of those particular cases.
2. Finding the witnesses’ statements in the form of Representatives and Directives Speech
Acts.
3. Categorizing the witnesses’ statements based on the role of Representatives and Directive
Speech Acts such as stating, suggesting, reporting, asserting, claiming concluding, asking,
requesting, begging, and commanding, telling, informing and urging.
4. Analysing the statements by applying the six components which make the act successful,
felicitous and meaningful.
5. Describing the meaning of the statements of witnesses of legal cases in the courtroom.
6. Qualifying the statements that contain assertive and directive speech acts.
7. Analyzing the core messages or objectives sent by the witnesses
3.3.2 Procedure of Analysis
The speech act theory proposed by Searle and Vandeveken (1985) was used in the research
to analyze the acts as it was broad enough for many subset acts to be assembled into and stretchy
enough for any possible acts to occur.
While analyzing the data to determine what act they perform, it is analyzed from the point
of view of the witnesses who have the intentions to perform the acts. It is very helpful to analyze
the statements if the felicity conditions are agreed to the particular act. After the felicity conditions
were agreed for each act, these conditions were then compared with what happened in the certain
statement presumed to perform the specific act.
Using the felicity condition device to assure that each statement of the witness did perform the
specific act. By using the felicity condition analysis, it was necessary to list all conditions of the
specific act relating to the speaker, the hearer, the event, and other contexts, and then compare with
the elements or what happened in the statement to determine whether all fixed the model conditions
or not. When all matched, it proved that statements of the witnesses really had illocutionary force
to do that particular act. This also affirms that statements could be analyzed for a particular speech
act like other texts, it is the first aim of the study. Furthermore, to check whether the statement
successfully performed that specific act by using the felicity conditions to list down the essentials
of speaker, hearer, event or contexts of what happened in each statement could clearly explore how
elements in the particular statements inspire it to perform a specific act, which is the second aim
of the study.
By giving a statement, a witness has his objective and intention to convey his own
messages to the listener: how he feels, thinks, or views the world. In other words, the witness
performs the speech act: to ask, to assert, to tell, to request, to report, to suggest, to claim, to state,
to express, to order, to warn, to criticize, etc., in his statement. If the listeners know what speech
act the witness performs, they could also find his message conveyed in the statement. Finding out
the illocutionary force or speech act of the statements by relying on felicity conditions could help
analyzing the core messages or objectives sent by the witness, which is the last aim of the research.
After taking the felicity conditions of every act as a framework, each statement of the
witness in the study is investigated and analyzed to find out the elements by comparing with the
felicity conditions. It is done so to assure that the statement really performs the specific act. If it is
checked that what happens in the statement fits those models of felicity conditions, it could be said
that it successfully performs that act, while its literary interpretation could be confirmed true. The
data are portrayed based on the kind of act. Each act is addressed together with its felicity
conditions; then, every statement performing the particular act is presented with its content of the
legal case statement, its literary analysis, and the comparison between the conditions of the act and
elements in the statement.
Case of felicity condition for request for (speech act)
Propositional content condition: the requested act is a future demonstration of the audience.
Preparatory precondition: 1) the addresser trusts the recipient can play out the requested act; 2) it
isn't evident that the audience would achieve the asked for act without being inquired.
Sincerity condition: the speaker genuinely needs the listener to play out the asked for act.
Essential condition: the articulation considers an endeavor by the utterer to have the audience
complete a demonstration.
The felicity conditions for an order are:
The speaker trusts the activity ought to be finished.

The listener can do the activity.
The listener has the commitment to do the activity.
The speaker has the privilege to advise the beneficiary to do the activity.
3.4 Population
A population is a set of individuals, people, entities, or items that have alike characteristics
from which samples are taken for measurement. According to Harun (2010), “Population is a
group of interest to the researcher, the group for which he would like the results of the study to be
generalizable (p, 138). The population of the present research is the legal cases. In the research,
the researcher has employed the critical case sampling from purposive sampling for population.
3.5 Sampling Techniques
According to Baran (2016) “The sampling is an act, process, or technique of selecting a
suitable sample, or a representative part of a population for the purpose of determining
characteristics of the whole population” (p. 108). The researcher collected the data from different
legal cases. In the research, the researcher has employed the critical case sampling from purposive
sampling for population.
Critical case Sampling was used to collect data from different legal cases e.g. murder,
looting, kidnapping, fighting and attempt to murder. According to Patton (2002) critical case
sampling is a sort of purposive sampling system that is especially valuable in exploratory
qualitative research, research with restricted assets, and in addition research where a solitary case
(or modest number of cases) can be conclusive in clarifying the marvel of intrigue. It is this
conclusive part of critical case sampling that is apparently the most vital. To know whether a case
is conclusive, consider the accompanying articulations: If it occurs there, it will happen anyplace;
or on the off chance that it doesn't occur there, it won't occur anyplace; and If that gathering is
having issues, at that point we can make certain every one of the gatherings are having issues?
(Patton, 2002, p.237).
Purposive sampling which is otherwise called specific, judgment, or abstract sampling, is
a sampling procedure in which researcher depends without anyone else judgment while picking
individuals from populace to take an interest in the investigation. Purposive sampling is a non-
probability sampling method and it happens when components chose for the example are picked
by the judgment of the researcher. Researchers frequently trust that they can get an agent test by
utilizing a sound judgment, which will bring about sparing time and cash. (Patton, 2002).
Purposive sampling was employed to acquire data from the legal cases e.g. murder,
looting, kidnapping, fighting and attempt to murder. According to Bernard et al. In purposive
sampling, the researcher takes decision according to his discretion what he/she requires to know
and embarks on to search the participants who can provide the required information on account of
knowledge and experience (Tongco, 2007, p. 147).
3.6 Sample Size
It is requisite that both the sampling techniques employed and the size of the sample should
be appropriate so that the findings of the study can be generalizable after making inferences about
a population. Seven legal cases were the sample size of the research. Nine perjury statements were
taken from these selected legal cases for speech act analysis.
3.7 Data Recording and Storage
The researcher went to the Session Courts of Pattoki, Kasur, Gujranwala, Gojra, Narowal
and the High Court Lahore to collect the data from the concerned lawyers and the judges of those
particular cases which were selected for speech act analysis. The researcher conducted
unstructured interviews from the concerned Lawyers of the cases. Cases were discussed with the
Lawyer living in my locality, Pattoki. Most of them were my friends. Seven cases were selected
for analysis and 9 perjury statements of the witnesses were chosen for speech act analysis from
selected cases.
3.8 Validity of Data
The statements in the selected cases were read and examined to analyze what speech acts
they perform based on the speech act classification of Searle as shown in Table 3.8
Table 3.8 Speech Act Classification Proposed by Searle (1969)
Category Description Examples
Declaratives Changing the world Baptism, pronouncing someone a couple
Representatives Believe of speaker is stated Fact, information, claim, assertion, conclusion,
Directives Causing the hearer to do something Request, command, advice, invitation
Expressives Expressing the speakers’ emotion Pleasure, pain, like, dislike, apology
Commissives Committing the speakers to do Promise, threat, oath, offer, vow, volunteer
something in the future
Table 1:
The most important tool used in the study to validate and check the data were the felicity
conditions. Felicity Conditions are the conditions that must be achieved for a performative to
succeed;
A. (I) there must be a conventional strategy having a conventional impact (e.g.,wedding,
announcing war, dedicating, wagering, and so forth.) (ii) the conditions and people must be proper,
as indicated in the methodology.
B. the method must be executed (I) accurately (e.g., utilizing the correct words) and (ii)
totally (as per conventional desires)
C. (I) people included must have the imperative considerations, emotions and goals, as
determined in the technique and (ii) if ensuing behavior is indicated, the significant gatherings
must take after the guidelines of direct if conditions not satisfied performatives may neglect to do
things classes of infelicities:
• misinvocations, which deny an implied demonstration (see A. above)
• misexecutions, in which the demonstration is hindered by mistakes or oversights (see B.)
• abuses, where the demonstration succeeds, however members don't have the normal musings and
sentiments.
3.9 Time Frame
The data of the perjury statements of the witnesses from legal cases were collected within three
months because of non-availability of lawyers and judges. The distance among Pattoki, Kasur,
Gujranwala, Gojra, Narowal and Lahore had also been very problematic for the researcher.
3.10 Delimitation of Research
This research integrates a bundle of fields in its progression including pragmatics, law,
sociology, anthropology, and cultural (national, social, ethnical, racial, educational) studies etc. In
the way of the present study, it would be very difficult to analyze deeply into all the fields in detail.
Hence, the research is restricted to the particular areas related to the research questions specified
above. Within one research work, all such detailed topics are impossible to converse, scrutinize
and diagnose. The areas mentioned above demand a thorough study; hence the current study is
fixated simply on one particular area of the study, that is, speech act theory. The research is to
highlight the multiple layers of the statements of witnesses in the courtroom. Perjury statements
of witness are taken for analysis and speech act theory by Searle and Vanderveken (1985) was
applied for analysis.
3.11 Conclusion
Methodology and the procedure of data analysis has explained in this chapter. It has
covered research design, data collection and data collection tools, population, sampling and sample
size, data recording and storage, validity of data, time frame, delimitation of research, procedure
of analysis and conclusion. The next chapter is about data analysis.

Thesis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Thesis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Table of Contents

CHAPTER 1 ..................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

room discourses, speeches, identification of writing and documentation.

2.1 Theoretical background of speech act theory

investigation of the connection of mark to polyglots. As indicated by Levinson (1983), Pragmatics

grammatically encoded, in syntax of language (Levinson,1983).

he explains, is an investigation of meaning or message related to discourse setting and situation

important to cogitate when somebody attempts to comprehend a speech, statement or an utterance

expressed by a speaker or recipient. The viewpoints are:

1. Addresser and addressee

perspective adds to recipient's comprehension of what speaker implies by a certain statement.

3. The purpose of statement / utterance

Not the same as of expression executed by speaker of recipient is intended to pass on

reason or the other way around.

4. The statement or utterance as speech act (activity)

Grammar discusses language organization as conceptual elements, for illustrations, sentences

5. Utterance or statement as an oral act

delivered by speaker and recipient is incorporated into oral act.

2.1.2 Origin of Speech Act Theory

thinkers, as well as different researchers too (Kock,1997).

Davison (1979) and Wachtel (1980) were broadly counseled.

disciplines of the study, and ended up being comprehensively associated in historical

underpinnings generally speaking, in semantics, in etymological structure, in sociolinguistics and

in pragmatics as well. (Kock,1997).

Austin and Searle.

The explanation of Jakobson's (1960) model is as follows:

come in and staying in the process of discourse (Kock,1997).

As indicated by Austin (1998) in “How to Do Things with Words”, while creating an

utterance, three related acts are performed;

speaker is stating with some unmistakable illocutionary goal (Jacobson, 2010).

2.1.4 Direct and Indirect Speech Act

that declarative sentences dependably function to declare or to assert, interrogative sentences to

meaning from the surface meaning. (Smith, 1991).

prudence and interpretation on the side of the hearer.

2.1.5 Indirect Speech and Flouting of Cooperative Principle

the maxim of manner, quality, quantity and relevance.

(Sobhani & Saghebi, 2014).

2.1.6 Performative Utterance

and expressing (Doerge, 2013).

succeed (Leongkamchorn, 2010).

2.1.7 Speech Act and Culture

quite the same as another culture. (Leongkamchorn, 2010).

2.1.8 Successful Speech Act: Felicity conditions

referred to as felicity conditions to choose as Vanderveken (1998) calls it method of

and amiable to get the listener to accomplish something (Justová, 2006).

sincerity conditions and essential conditions.

pronouncement (Verikaitė, 2010).

1. S does not know reality about P.

2. S needs to know reality about P.

While the felicity conditions of request are as per the following.

1. S trusts A has not yet been finished.

2. S trusts that H can complete A

3. S trusts that H will complete A-type things for S.

out the speech act effectively.

conditions ought to be utilized as a compelling apparatus (Searle, 1998).

the salt to him (Finegan, 1994).

2.1.9 Illocutionary Speech Act Classification

of law), study something as, and so on.

expel, arrange, sentence, and so forth.

help anyone, pronounce one's goal, and so forth.

e.g., say sorry, express thanks, salute, welcome, and so forth.

deny, educate, yield, refer, and so on (Sadock, 2004, p.64)

2.1.10 Kinds of Illocutions