Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

5- Directive:

The directive speech acts are used heavily in the discourse under study making (%94.6) frequency of occurrence since they constitute (160) speech acts out of (169). They can be categorized as follows: command , prohibition , advice, warning and praying.’ The speech acts are represented directly and indirectly, as shown in table (5) below:

Table (5):Frequency of occurrence of the direct and indirect available representations of the directive speech acts according to Searle’s model

1-Command:

The frequency of occurrence of the direct directive speech acts of ‘command’ is (%60) since these speech acts are (96) out of (160) ones. The following example illustrates this kind of speech acts:

"Fulfill your agreement and discharge your pledge faithfully"

فحط عهدك بالوفاء وارع ذمتك بالأمانة

The indirect directive speech acts of ‘command’ make (%6.25) frequency of occurrence.These speech acts are (ten) out of (160). An indirect speech act of ‘command’ is structured as a statement. To illustrate this kind of speech acts we can consider the example below:

"He has ordered him to fear Allah"

أمره بتقوى الله

Considering the high frequency of occurrence of the direct commands and low frequency of occurrence of indirect commands reveal the addresser’s preference to use the direct to indirect commands. This preference or tendency of the addresser corresponds the instructive nature of the discourse under study.

2-Prohibition:

  The frequency of occurrence of the direct speech acts of ‘prohibition’ is (%28) since there are forty five out of (160) ones. Indirect speech acts of ‘prohibition’ make (%0.6) frequency of occurrence because there is only one speech act of this kind. The basic difference between a ‘command’ and a ‘prohibition’ is that the former indicates instructing the addressee to do something on the one hand whereas the latter, on the other hand, indicates instructing the addressee NOT to do a given thing. Thus, it could be claimed that a ‘prohibition’ is a kind of a negative ‘ command.’ Direct directive speech acts of ‘prohibition’ are used heavily for the same reasons of using ‘commands.’ The same explanation of the low frequency of occurrence of indirect commands is workable (valid) for its counterpart of ‘prohibition.’ Below, there are two examples of a direct and indirect directive speech acts of ‘prohibition’ put respectively:

Ex: A direct speech act of ‘prohibition’:

"Do not repent of forgiving or be merciful in punishing"

"ولا تندمن على عفو"

The example  above illustrates a direct negative ‘command’ ,i.e., ‘prohibition’ since the addresser prohibits the addressee from repenting forgiving.

Ex: An indirect speech act of ‘prohibition’:

"Then, you can be one of two men. Either you may be generous in granting rights; and then why this hiding in spite of (your) discharging the obligations and good acts that you perform?"...

“وإنما أنت احد رجلين إما امرؤ سخت نفسك بالبذل في الحق ففيم احتجابك “

The above example could be paraphrased as (Do not hide yourself from the people.) That’s why it could be considered as an indirect ‘prohibition’.

3-Advice:

The frequency of occurrence of direct and indirect directive speech acts of ‘advice’ are (%1.25) and (%0.6)respectively. Both of these frequencies reveal the low motivation of the addresser to address the addressee through ‘advice’ speech act. Additionally, although the ‘advice’ speech act is not used heavily in the discourse under study, it is clear that the direct ‘advice’ is used more frequently than the indirect one. The reason behind that is that the instructive nature of a directive discourse is , by nature, not negotiatable. In addition to what has been mentioned above, the direct speech act , though non-negotiatable like ‘advice’, is preferred to the indirect one, being negotiatable, in discourses having an instructive nature. Direct and indirect speech acts of ‘advice’ are illustrated through examples are as shown below:

Ex: Direct speech act of ‘advice’:

“Therefore, the best collection with you should be the collection of good deeds"

فليكن أحب الذخائر لديك العمل الصالح

In this example, there is a direct speech act of ‘advice’ in which the addresser directs i.e., ‘advise’ the addressee to do something. It is not a ‘command’ since the addressee is not forced to accept that advice.

Ex: Indirect speech act of ‘advice’:

“Nothing is more inductive of the reversal of Allah’s bounty or for the hastening of His retribution than continuance in oppression.”

“وليس شيء أدعى الى تغيير نعمة الله وتعجيل نقمته من اقامة على ظلم”

In the example above, there is a declarative statement, however it makes an indirect speech act of a directive ,i.e., ‘advice’ in this case. It could be paraphrased as ‘I advise you not to continue oppressing.’ It could not be considered as a ‘prohibition’ paraphrased as ‘Do not continue oppressing’ since this speech act is negotiatable because the addressee is free to accept or refuse the ‘advice’, unlike ‘prohibition.’

4-Warning

  The frequencies of occurrence of the direct and indirect directive speech acts of ‘warning’ are low, being (%1.2) and (%0.6) respectively. A direct warning is illustrated in the following examples:

Ex: “Beware of comparing yourself to Allah in His greatness”

اياك ومساماة الله في عظمته

This speech act is a directive ‘warning’ since it begins with a typical warning ward i.e., ‘Beware’.

An indirect warning is exemplified through the following example:

Ex: “You cannot offer any excuse before Allah  or before me for willful killing because there must be the question or revenge in it.”

“ ولا عذر لك عند الله  ولا عندي في قتل العمد لان فيه قود البدن “

The example above shows how a declarative statement functions as a ‘warning’ speech act. It could be paraphrased as follows:( I warn you not to kill…).The slight difference in the frequencies of occurrence between direct and indirect speech acts of ‘warning’ refers to the low significance of the speech act of ‘warning’ in the discourse under study. However, there is an important point to clarify here i.e., the relation between ‘warning’ and ‘prohibition.’ Prohibition is a negative ‘command’ i.e., a ‘command’ not to do something on the one hand. ‘Warning’ , on the other hand , is a negative ‘advice’ i.e., an advice not to do something. It is clear that the difference is in negotiatability. The nature of the communicative massage of the discourse under study is instructive preferring no negotiation. Thus, speech  acts that are not negotiatable like commands and prohibitions are used more frequently than negotiatable speech acts like advice and warning.

5-Praying:

There are only two direct directive speech acts of ‘praying’ out  of (160) making (%1.25) frequency of occurrence. There is no indirect praying speech act making (%0) frequency of occurrence. The following example  illustrates the direct speech act of ‘praying’:

Ex: I ask Allah through the extent of His mercy and the greatness of His power of giving a good inclination that He may prompt me and you to advance a clear plea before Him and His creatures…

وأنا أسأل الله بسعة رحمته ، وعظيم قدرته على إعطاء كل رغبة ، أن يوفقني وإياك لما فيه رضاه من الإقامة على العذر الواضح إليه والى خلقه ، مع حسن الثناء في العباد ، وجميل الأثر في البلاد،  وتمام النعمة ،وتضعيف الكرامة

The communicative function (responsibility) of the addresser when making a directive speech act of praying is to address the addressee directly expressing his needs through the prayer. That’s why the only two praying directive speech acts are direct rather than indirect.

Findings:

According to the analysis made above, the following findings could be recognized:

1-The frequencies of occurrence of the illocutionary speech acts adopted by Searle (1969) follow the communicative nature of the discourse under study. Since the discourse under study ‘Epistle’ is directive by nature, the highest frequency of occurrence is that one of the ‘directives’ which make (%94). Other kinds of illocutionary speech acts show different low frequencies of occurrence where representative, declaration and expressive make (%2.95, %1.77 and %0.59) respectively. Various communicative messages conveyed by these various representations of speech acts do not meet intensively the instructive nature of the discourse under study. Furthermore, ‘commissive’ speech acts make (%0) frequency of occurence since they do not convey the intended communicative message of the discourse under study.

2- The frequencies of occurrence of the various available representations of the  directive speech acts are also influenced by the instructive nature of the discourse under study. Command, prohibition, advice, warning and praying are used as the following frequencies of occurrence respectively (%66.25 , %28.75 , %1.87 and %1.25).

3-Command and prohibition have high frequencies of occurrence since they are non-negotiatiable i.e., the addressee is not authorized to refuse the directive speech act.

4-Negotiatiable directives like advice, warning, praying show low frequencies of occurrence since they do not correspond with the instructive i.e., non-negotiatiable nature of the discourse under study.

5-Positive commands are much more preferred than negative commands, i.e., ‘prohibition’ although both of them are non-negotiatiable.

6-The available auxiliary speech acts of explanation, addition, condition show the following frequencies of occurrence respectively (%54.26, %41.86, %3.10, and %0.77). Explanation and addition are heavily used among auxiliary needs. Explanation auxiliary speech act is put before the main speech act, on the contrary to ‘justification’. ‘Addition’ auxiliary speech act shows a high frequency of occurrence because the original discourse is in Arabic in which coordination is used greatly. Condition and justification, though they are used , show a weak motivation of the addresser to use them heavily.

7-The frequencies of occurrence of the direct speech acts (except directives) according to Searle (1969), namely, representative, declaration, expressive and commissive are very low. They are (%2.9 , %0.59, %0 and %0) respectively. It is obvious that there is no significant differences between the speech acts mentioned above concerning directness.

8-Indirect speech acts (except ‘directives’) ,namely, representative, declaration, expressive and commissive occur at very low levels of frequency. The frequencies of occurrence are (%o, %1.18, %0.59 and %0) respectively. These results do not reveal any significant value for indirectness in the speech acts mentioned above.

9-No significant difference is identified when a comparison is conducted between direct and indirect representations of the speech acts (except ‘directives’) one by one , as illustrated in table (4).

10-Direct directive speech acts of ‘command’ and ‘prohibition’ are used extensively. They occurred with (%60 and %28) frequencies of occurrence put orderly. These results correspond with the instructive nature of the discourse under study. However, directive speech acts of ‘command’, (%60), are still much more significant than ‘prohibition’ , (%28). The reason behind that is that ‘prohibition’ is in fact a ‘negative command’, i.e., a command from the addresser to the addressee Not to do a given thing ,which makes it less preferably by the addresser. Advice, warning and praying direct directive speech acts do not show significant frequencies of occurrence since they have the following percentages respectively (%1.2 ,%1.2 and %1.2).

11- Indirectness is not preferred in the discourse under study since the frequencies of occurrence of ‘prohibition’ , ‘advice’ , ‘warning’ and ‘praying’ show very low significance since everyone of them is less than (%1). The indirect directive speech act of ‘command’ shows some significance being (%6.2). However, indirect ‘command’ still shows little significance.

12-If we make a comparison between the frequencies of occurrence of direct and indirect uses of speech acts one by one, we will see that there is no significance difference concerning ‘advice’, ‘warning’ and ‘praying’, although there are some slight preference to prefer direct to indirect.

     Considering the frequencies of occurrence of direct and indirect speech acts of ‘command’ and ‘prohibition’ one by one reveal the strong preference of using directness to indirectness.

References:

1-Abi-Talib ,Ali .Nahj Al-Balagha (Peak of Eloquence). Como, ar-Razi Shareef, Trans, Reza Ali.Vol.2.Qum:Ansariyan Publication.2005 .P.432-473.

2-Alla, K.(2001). Speech Act Theory: An Overview. InConcise Encyclopedia of Sociolinguistics. Edited by Mesthrie, R. Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd.(pp.197-207)

3-Al-Hindawi, F. (1999).Iraqi EFL Learner’s Use of the Speech Acts of ‘Command’ and ‘Request’ University of Baghdad. Unpublished PhD dissertation.

4-Al-Khaz’ali, M. 2009.A Study of Pragmatic Coherence in D.H Lawrence’s Sons and Lovers . University of Babylon. M.A. thesis.

5- Al-Sulaimaan, M. 2010. Semantics and Pragmatics . Mousl: Al-Ula Bureau for Publishing.

6- Cruse, Alan. 2006. A Glossary of Semantics and Pragmatics .Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

7-Crystal,D.2003.A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics . Oxford: Blackwell Publication.

8-Kaplan, R. B. 1980. Cultural Thought Patterns in Inter-Cultural Education, In: Croft, K. Ed.,Reading on English as a Second Language for Teachers and q2Teacher Traineers . Massachusetts, Winthrop Publishers Inc., pp.399-419.

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

10-Ostler,E. 1987."English in Parallels: A Comparison of English and Arabic Prose."  Writing Across Languages: Analysis of L2 Text, edited by U. Connor and R.B. Kaplan. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, pp. 169-185.

11-Sa'adeddin,M.1989."Text Development and Arabic-English Negative Interference,"   Applied Linguistics , Vol.10, No.1.P.36-51.

12-Searle, J.R.1969.Speech acts: an essay in the philosophy of language . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

13-Searle, J.R. 1979.Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

14-Verschueren, J.1999.Understanding Pragmatics . London: Arnold.

15-Yule, G.1996. Pragmatics. Oxford :Oxford University Press.