University of Tikrit

College of Arts
Department of Translation
Pragmatics
M.A 2nd Semester

Pragmatic Translations of Speech Acts

Prepared by

Marwan Salam Arif

Abdul Kareem Hasan Ahmed
Mohammed Hussein Mohammed

Submitted to

Asst. Prof. Maha Bakir Mohammed (ph.D)

2022 A.D 1442A.H

ABSTRACT: Speech act is a part of pragmatics where there are certain
aims beyond the words or phrases when a speaker says something.
Speech acts are acts that refer to the action performed by produced
utterances. People can perform an action by saying something. Through
speech acts, the speaker can convey physical action merely through
words and phrases. The conveyed utterances are paramount to the actions
performed. In regard to the English as a foreign language, there are things
to consider. It is easy for the speakers or listeners to determine the
intended meaning of utterances if they are spoken in the mother tongue.
Factors such as idiomatic expressions and cultural norms are not function
as barriers to determine the intended meaning. KEYWORDS:
pragmatics, speech acts and translation

A. SPEECH ACT THEORY

Speech act theory

The pioneers of this theory are
1- J. Austin
2- J. Wieettgenstein
3 . J. Searle
In this theory we note the following:
"Knowing the words is not enough"
Speech act theory, most notably attributed to John Searle, is designed to
help us understand how people accomplish things with their words.
1-J.L. Austin (1911-1960) British philosopher of language. widely
associated with the concept of the speech act and the idea that speech is
itself is a form of action. His famous book is (How to do things with
words. 1962).
2- J.L. Wieettgenstein (1889-1951) was an Austrian philosopher who
worked primarily in logic. The Philosophy of Mathematics, Philosophy of
mind and Philosophy of Language. During his life time, he published just
one slim book (The 75- pages Tractatus logico. Philosophicus. 1921).

The Speech act theory is a subfield of pragmatism. This field of study is

concernsed with the ways in which words can be used not only to present
information but also to carry out actions.
The speech act theory was built by Wieettgenstein and Austin in 1962.
- Austin said that "language is a way of making factual assertion and
other uses of language tended to be ignored".
- Wieettgenstein came up with the idea of "Don't ask for the meaning,
ask for the use" showing language is a new vehicle for social activity.
The speech act concept was proposed by J.L. Austin in 1962. one of the

1
founders of pragmatics and later developed by J.R. Searle in 1969, both
philosophers of language believe that language is not only used to inform
or to describe things. It is often used "to do things", or to perform
actions.
In other words, actions performed via utterances are generally called
speech acts.
1- "I'll be there at six" (declarative statement) (literal meaning just
inform) but in other context, it's not informing but giving promise.
2- "Can you pass the salt?" (the form of this sentence or the literal
meaning, just asking question) If you are in a restaurant and you ask
someone to give you the salt and ask him can you pass the salt? are you
ask him this question is either to be his ability to pass the salt or a request
if we take this sentence literally "Can you pass the salt?" the answer of
the hearer will be yes, or no, but it is not understood that it is a question,
but it is a request, and the hearer will understand that this speaker is
asking for a request, and it is not asking about his ability.
So, the form is a question but the use or function expresses the request.
So, we can say that (not just a question to be answered with yes or no but
it has been changed into a act). Because the person stand up or use his
hand to take the salt and give it to him.

B. DEFINITION OF SPEECH ACTS

Communication can be conveyed through verbal and nonverbal

communication. Buck (2002) states that there are two types of
communication, they are verbal and nonverbal communication. Verbal
communication is the way of communicating messages by using words as
elements. Nonverbal communication is the way of communicating
messages by using gesture, body movements, eye contact, facial
expression, or general appearances as the elements. Pragmatics is a study
which belief in what is communicated is more than what is said. The
utterances that the speakers produce in communication contain deeper
sense than the actual meaning of the words or phrases themselves.
Leech (983: 6) also states that pragmatics is the study of meaning which
is related to the speech situations. Speech act, a variety of verbal
communication and also a subdivision of pragmatics, often takes place in
verbal and nonverbal communication. In fact, the notion of speech acts
becomes one of the most important issues in pragmatics. Austin (1962)
introduces the term to mean the actions performed in saying something.
Austin revolutionizes the way people think of language. Not only do
people use language to make statements, but also to perform actions. In
line with this, Yule (1996: 47) states that speech acts is action which is
performed via utterances. Stating the same idea, Birner (2013) also says
2
that uttering something means doing something. Here, people can
perform an action by saying something. Through speech acts, the speaker
can convey physical action merely through words and phrases. The
conveyed utterances are paramount to the actions performed.

C. TYPES OF SPEECH ACTS

There are three types of acts in the speech acts, they are locutionary,
illocutionary and perlocutionary.

1- The locutionary
A speech act is represented by the issuance of a certain kind of utterance
(Austin, 1962: 108). In line with this, Cutting (2002: 16) states that
locutionary is what is said. also proposed by Yule (1996) who states that
locutionary act is the act of producing meaningful utterances.
The example of the locutionary speech act can be seen in the following
sentences:
1. It’s so dark in this room.
2. The box is heavy.
The above two sentences represent the actual condition. The first
sentence refers to the lighting of the room and the second sentence refers
to the weight of the box.

2- The illocutionary
The illocutionary force refers to the intention of the speaker such as
commands, promises etc. (Austin, 1962: 108). The illocutionary act is
performed via the communicative force of an utterance, such as
promising, apologizing, offering (Yule, 1996:48). This act is also called
the act of doing something in saying something.
Illocutionary act can be the real description of interaction condition. For
example:
1. It’s so dark in this room.
2. The box is heavy.
Based on the examples above, the first sentence shows a request to
switch the light on and the second sentence shows a request to lift up the
box.

3-The perlocutionary
The perlocutionary act refers to the effects it achieves on the listener
(Austin, 1962: 108). Hufford and Heasley (1983:250) states that
perlocutionary act is the act that is carried out by a speaker when making
an utterance causes in certain effect on the hearer and others. For
example:

3
1. It is so dark in this room.
2. The box is heavy.

Based on the example it can be inferred that the first sentence is uttered
by someone while switching the light on and the second sentence is done
by someone while lifting up the box.

D. CLASSIFICATION OF SPEECH ACTS

Speech acts can be classified into five categories as Searle in Levinson
(1983: 240)
states that the classifications are representatives, directives, commissives,
expressive and declarations.

1- Representatives
Representatives are speech acts that the utterances commit the speaker to
the truth of the expressed proposition. The utterances are produced based
on the speaker’s observation of certain things then followed by stating the
fact or opinion based on the observation. When someone says “she’s
beautiful”, the speaker can state the sentence based on the fact or just give
his or her own opinion about physical condition of a person.
It also states what the speaker believes to be the case or not. Statements
of fact, assertions, conclusions, and descriptions are all examples of the
speaker representing the world as he or she believes it is. For example
when someone says “The earth is flat”, it represents the speaker’s
assertions about the earth. The speaker has opinion that the earth is flat.
Representatives speech act can be noted by some speech acts verb, such
as: remind, tell, assert, deny, correct, state, guess, predict, report,
describe, inform, insist, assure, agree, claim, beliefs, conclude.

2- Directives
Directives area speech acts that speaker uses to get someone else to do
something. These speech acts include requesting, questioning, command,
orders, and suggesting. For example, when someone says “Could you
lend me a pencil, please?” the utterance represents the speaker requests
that the hearer to do something which is to lend him a pencil.

3- Commissives
Commissives are speech acts that the utterances commit the speaker to
some future course of action, these include promising, threatening,
offering, refusal, pledges. For example when someone says “I’ll be back”,
represents the speaker’s promise that he/she will be back.

4
4- Expressives
Expressives are speech acts that the utterances express a psychological
state. These speech acts include thanking, apologizing, welcoming, and
congratulating. For example, when someone says “don’t be shy, my home
is your home.” The utterance represents the speaker’s expression that
he/she welcomes someone.

5- Declaration
Declarations are speech acts that the utterances effect immediate changes
in the institutional state of affairs and which tend to rely on elaborate
exta-linguistic institutions. These speech acts include excommunicating,
declaring war, christening, firing from employment. For example “you
are dead to me.”

Levinson (1983) criticizes Searle for lacking "a principled basis" and for
not being based on The notion of "felicity conditions" that is suggested to
refer to the criteria of performing an appropriate speech act. (1983: 240).
Austin depends on the "conventional procedures", "the circumstances"
and "the persons" participating in the act (Austin 1962: 14-15). For
Searle, "felicity conditions" are classified into:
1. general conditions: the speaker is not acting nonsense and the hearer
must hear and understand;
2. preparatory conditions: the hearer will benefit from the act;
3. content conditions: different speech acts have different content
conditions;
4. sincerity conditions: the speaker is sincere (Peccei 1999: 51; Cutting
2002: 18).
Leech (1983) proposes a descriptive view of performatives. A
performative is described by reference to the current speech situation. He
assumes that a speech act is semantically a proposition with a
presenttense verb and pragmatically an utterance with a force. He
incorporates semantics in analyzing speech acts (1983: 189-190). In his
view, a regular speech act has the following syntactic characteristics:
1. The verb of the main clause is an illocutionary verb.
2. This verb is in the simple present tense.
3. The subject of this verb is in the first person.
4. The indirect object of this verb, if one is present, is you.
5. Optionally, this verb is preceded by the adverb hereby.
6. The verb is followed (exception elliptical cases) by reported
speech clause (1983: 183-184).

Speech acts are classified into direct and indirect speech acts. In Searle’s
terms, an indirect speech act (ISA) is a speech act performed by means of

5
another (1979: 60). In direct speech acts (DSAs) there is a direct
relationship between the form and the function, whereas in ISAs the form
does not directly reflect its functional use. What is important is how
hearers interpret the force of ISAs. Felicity conditions are quite helpful in
this regard.

E. PROBLEMS OF TRANSLATING SPEECH ACTS

Some problems may appear in the translation of speech acts in a literary

text. The first problem of translating speech acts is due to the fact that
they are culturally bound. They vary from a community to another and
from a culture to another (cf. Blum-Kulka 1982; Scarcella 1979) (El-
Zeini 2001: 171). Aziz (1998: 129) notices that English speakers use
indirectness to express orders or requests, but Arab speakers use direct
speech acts (Abdel-Hafiz 2003: 233). Al-Zoubi and Al-Hassnawi notice
that Arab speakers prefer religious formulas to express thanking and
greeting (2001: 20). Cutting (2002: 21) argues that the utterance “how fat
you are” is considered a speech act of praising in India, but a speech act
of criticizing in England. The second problem is how to translate ISAs.
What is meant by an ISA is actually not in the words themselves but in
the meaning implied. According to Searle, if a speaker uses a DSA, s/he
will communicate the literal meaning which is conventionally expressed
by the words. If s/he uses an ISA, s/he will communicate meaning
different from the literal surface meaning. Translators must first analyze
the speech acts found in the SLT. If they are indirect speech acts,
translators must discover the meaning intended, the illocutionary force of
the speaker, and then decide how that same force can be rendered.

The utterance is mistranslated in the following example where Aisha says

“‫”اين الرحمة‬. It is translated as “where”, which may not be suitable.
-‫ الى ربك تنزل عليه الرحمة من حيث ال تدرين‬c‫ وتوسلي‬, ‫ اذكري ايمانك‬، ‫نعم‬...
-)197 ‫الرحمة أين الرحمة؟! (السكرية ص‬
“Yes, remember your religion and entreat God for merciful relief, which
my come from some totally unexpected source.” “Merciful relief! Where
is it? Where?” (Sugar Street, p.179)

The translation of that ISA is not pragmatic. The intended meaning is the
assertive speech act “there is no mercy”.
In the following example the utterance “‫ ”خيراً ان شاء هللا‬is an ISA, on the
surface an assertive, functioning as a directive with the illocutionary force
of asking for information. It is translated as “good news” which is an
assertive.
)404 ,100 ‫! (بين القصرين ص‬.... ‫خيراً ان شاء هللا‬-

6
- Good news. (Palace Walk, p. 105,427)
:Back-translation !‫اخبار طيبة‬
The back-translation and the SLT are not the same. The speaker intends
to say “What is up?” or “What happens?” In another example the same
.utterance is translated as an expressive act of wishing
)100‫! (قصر الشوق ص‬.... ‫خيراً ان شاء هللا‬-
-I hope it's good news, God willing (Palace of Desire, p. 108)

In fact, the use of religious expressions is very common among Arab

speakers. They sometimes use these expressions in the form of wishing as
in the utterance "‫ ”" خيراً ان شاء هللا‬but with the force of asking for
information. In its underlying structure the utterance is a directive speech
act. In fact, the phenomenon of using religious expression is considered
an aspect of being polite (see politeness). A problem may appear if a
translator does not recognize the intention of the speaker. The TLT would
be overdone with false speech acts.

F. CONCLUSION
The ability to understand the hidden message of utterance is really
important to have. Some words or utterances could be misdirected into
something unpleasant if we are not careful. By understanding Pragmatics
and speech acts we can get clearer understanding of the utterances. Thus,
the study asserts that the form of the speech act should not hinder the
process of translation. Translators should search for the real force of the
speech act.

REFERENCES

Abdel-Hafiz, A.S. 2003. “Pragmatic and Linguistic Problems in the

Translation of Naguib Mahfouz’s The Thief and the Dogs: A Case
Study”. Babel 49, No.3. 229-252.

- 2004. “Cultural elements in the translation of Mahfooz’s The Beginning

and the End and Palace of Desire”. Trans, 15.Nr. Juni 2004. Available on
line: www.inst.at/trans/15Nr/07_1/abdelhafiz15.htm

- (i.p.). “Pragmatics: Concepts and Principles”.

Austin, J. 1960. How to Do Things With Words. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

7
Aziz, Y. 1993. “Explicit and Implicit Reference in Arabic-English
Translation”. Babel 39, No.3. 129-150.

Blum-Kulka, S. 1981. “The Study of Translation in View of New

Developments in Discourse Analysis: The Problem of Indirect Speech
Acts”, Poetics Today 2 (4): 89-95.

Cutting, J. 2002. Pragmatics and Discourse. London and New York:

Routledge.

Ferrara, A. 1985. “An extended theory of speech acts: appropriateness

conditions for subordinate acts in sequences”. Journal of Pragmatics
4:233-252.

Hidayat .A.2016 "Speech Acts: Force Behind Words " p-ISSN 2086-
6003 Vol 9 (1), 2016, 1-12 Available online at: http:
ejornal.radenintan.ac.id/index.php/ENGEDU
Hassan,B.2011."Literary Translation: Aspect of Pragmatic Meaning"
Newcastle, British library Cataloguing.

Ibrahim, Z. and D. Kennedy. 1996. “Figurative Language in the Speech

Patterns of Egyptians and Americans”, in A. Elgibali (ed.),
Understanding Arabic. Cairo: AUC Press.

Leech, G. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.

Levinson, S.C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Peccei, J. 1999. Pragmatics. London and New York: Routledge.
Searle, J. 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of
Language. Cambridge:
-Cambridge university Press. ˰˰˰˰˰. 1976. “The Classification of
Illocutionary Acts”, in Language in Society 5. 1-24
Yule, G. 1996. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press
El-Zeini, N. 1994. Criteria for the Evaluation of Translation: A
PragmaStylistic Approach. Unpublished Thesis. Cairo University.