Speech Acts in Maitama Sule’s Speech: A Pragmatic Analysis

By

¹Ahmed Baba MUSTAPHA &  ²Alhaji Malah GALTI

Department of English and Literary Studies, Kashim Ibrahim University, Maiduguri, Borno State Nigeria

Department of Education, Kashim Ibrahim University, Maiduguri, Borno State, Nigeria

Corresponding author’s email & phone No: ababamustafa@gmail.com

Abstract

This paper analyses the distribution and pragmatic functions of speech acts in a televised political speech of Maitama Sule ‘Call for Revolution in Nigeria and the North’s Role in Oil Discovery’. Using a framework of Searle (1969) that synthesizes political discourse analysis, the study identifies 130 clauses in which 32 speech act elements were identified and analysed, using the mixed method of qualitative and quantitative. The analysis focuses on linguistic indicators such as nominal groups, and verbal groups. The data was transcribed from audio record of the political figure’s speech. The study finds that assertives dominate the speech due to the informative demands of the genre. Expressives mark the speaker’s emotional stance toward governance and national issues. Directives function largely as advice from the speaker as an elder statesman, and commissives are minimal because the speaker lacks the institutional position to make promises, instead reporting commitments of others such as the late Sardauna and the Ghanaian Vice President. The study demonstrates that a speaker’s persuasive effect depends on the ability to shift roles within and across ‘discourse spaces’. The results contribute to understanding how speech acts operate in political speeches where informing, advising, and expressing stance intersect. The paper concludes that the resolution of deictic pronouns and role shifts within discourse spaces is crucial to understanding the persuasive functions of speech acts in political discourse.  

 Keywords: Speech Acts, Pragmatics, Classification of Speech Acts, Linguistic Indicators, Language

Introduction

Language is a vehicle for conveying ideas, emotions and ideology. In certain circumstances, use of plain language to convey message may not suffice, owing to the fact that conveying messages without packaging may not be appreciated. That is the reason for the need to employ idioms, and phrases to disseminate information. In Nigeria, for instance, the activities of government are made known to the public through orators, either revealing negative aspects or upholding and hailing the achievements, such the nature of the state of affairs of the government may not permit the use of ‘call-a-spate-a-spate way. Therefore, use speech acts through pragmatics to reveal the actions performed with words has become pertinent. Speech acts are components of pragmatics. Pragmatics is concerned with context-based meaning of utterances whereas speech acts are concerned with the actions performed through the words. The overall concern is the explanation of meaning achieved beyond literal boundary but context and speaker’s intention.

The use of language in figo-rhetorical way to shape the perception of people in politico-social settings has become pertinent because rhetorico-language and politics have intertwined to an extent that it is now an indispensable tool. Rabiah (2018) states that language has become a tool  used for interaction or tool for communication. This means that it is to convey thoughts, ideas, concepts or even a feeling. Lantolf and Pavlenko (2014) mentions that the language activity is basically ‘who speaks what language, to whom, when and to what end’. From the point of speaker, language serves as a personal or private identity. It means, speakers express their stand points on what they speak out. Furthermore, in the sociolinguistic perspective, language can be used in a variety of ways to communicate. In Nigeria, the politicians employ linguistic strategies to challenge the government policies and programmes.

The use of language by the politicians to address national issues is a crucial strategy that must be ventured into. This necessitates undertaking the analysis of ‘speech acts in Maitama Sule’s speech: a pragmatic analysis. Understanding the criticism requires an analysis of the linguistic tools used to conveying such messages so as to grasp the speaker’s intentions. This work sets out to carry out the analysis with focus on these objectives. These include identifying features of speech acts in the speech, classifying the speech acts into various kinds of speech acts as identified by (Searle 1962) and explaining the speakers intended messages through his use speech acts.

The Concept of Pragmatics

There are many definitions of pragmatics given by linguists, but few would be taken. All the definitions point to ‘meaning of expression based on context’. Pragmatics is the study of meaning in context (Kortmann, 2020). The concept of pragmatic explains how expressions are interpreted based on context. Deeper meaning of expressions ascribe certain factors surrounding the context. Factors necessary for meaning interpretation based on context in pragmatics include the surrounding situational, linguistic context, shared background knowledge, social relationships, interpersonal context, cognitive context, non-verbal cues, and cultural norms (Ibrahim, 2024). These factors are sacrosanct. Any deeper meaning is deduced in consideration to these factors. Pragmatic operates within the sphere of them. Nagy (2015) puts that pragmatic goes beyond literal, semantic meaning to uncover what a speaker implies, making these contextual factors essential for navigating ambiguity and understanding intended meaning. Taking note of the situation surrounding such utterances (expressions), it is imperative to have clear-cut definitions of pragmatics within the political context of language or speech influence.

Pragmatics is a study of contextual meaning which involves the interpretations of what is meant in a particular context and how the context influences meaning. Pragmatics is concerned with the ‘toolkit’ for meaning: knowledge encoded in the vocabulary of language and in its patterns for building more elaborate meanings in meaningful communications (Osuchukwu, 2022). Kroeger (2023) defines pragmatics is about the interaction of semantic knowledge related to the world, as well as context of use. Kecskes (2010) defines pragmatics as the study of how utterances take meaning in situation. Meaning of utterances in relation to the context of language which involves how speakers can produce the best utterance to deliver the intended meaning of the speaker is the concern of the concept pragmatic.

Speech Acts Theory

Pagmatically, an action that is carried out through the use of language is studied under the language labels of speech acts (Ballmer & Brennstuhl, 2013). Speech acts theory explains how the speaker of a language uses the language to attain proposed activities, and the means by which the listeners understand and derive the proposed connotations of what the utterer said (Doyle, 2007). To understand the concept, definitions of the speech act are taken, which linguists gave. Green (2010) states that speech act is a procedure that requires an individual to carry out an act such as expressing the reality of the information, affirming, or disclaiming an unspecified thing, establishing a guess, questioning, giving out an instruction, granting an approval, making a proposal, providing useful information, appreciating an individual and so on. Speech acts theory tries to elucidate the way the utterers of a language use the language to attain the meant actions, and how the deliberate meaning form of the view expressed. Philosophers like Austin (1962) cited in Sbisà (2009), Grice (1957), and Searle (1969) cited in Mabaquiao (2018) provide straightforward understanding into the modern theory of verbal interaction that was established on the hypothesis that verbal communication is not the least identity of human interaction, but instead, the functioning of definite types of acts such as making statement, asking questions, giving directions, apologizing, thinking and so on. According to Austin (1962), speech acts are speaker’s utterances which convey meaning and make listeners do specific things. A speaker can either do certain things with his utterances which are called ‘performative’ (Reimer, 1995), or can describe things which are called ‘constatives’ (Hafifah, 2020). These are utterances for which a truth value conceivably could be determined. Thus, one could ascertain the truth of the utterances, for example, ‘it is raining out’ by looking out the window.

Performatives (for example: ‘I apologize’) are used in order to perform some acts, and hence they are not amenable to a truth-conditional analysis. Austin (1962) tries to describe the total speech act in the total speech situation and warned against oversimplifying complexities of meaning, in particular by reducing meaning to descriptive meaning. Austin classifies speech acts into three categories which are the locutionary, illocutionary and perlocutionary acts. The locutionary act is often termed ‘the act of saying something’, disregarding the speaker’s intent or the effect on the listener. It has a surface-level meaning. For example: if one utters “it is hot in here”, the locutionary act here carries the surface-level (literal) meaning that the temperature is high. The illocutionary acts deal with the societal use of the statement. The illocutionary act is the act, indicating the intention of the speaker performed through saying something. It shows the speaker’s purpose, for example, of promising (I will do the work), declaring (I will contest), commanding (Close the window) and so on rather than mere conveying of literal meaning. The perlocutionary acts are the consequences or effects of the statements made by the utterer on the listener. By implication, the act asks the listener to react. For example, if one utters “It is hot in here”, the listener opens the windows, the act of opening the windows in reaction to the statement is the perlocutionary act.

Austin’s (1962) Classification of Speech Acts

Austin (1966) focuses on illocutionary and perlocutionary acts, and describes language as used to actively perform actions which are illocutionary and perlocutionary acts. Among the locutionary, illocutionary and perlocutionary acts, Austin (1962) especially focuses on the importance of illocution and extends to distinguishing between illocutionary and perlocutionary acts: illocutionary acts are conventional acts, perlocutionary acts are not conventional. To perform an illocutionary acts, the speaker must rely on the socially accepted convention without which the speaker cannot inspire a social force into his/her utterance. It is conventional in the sense that at least it could be made explicit by the performative formulae.

Austin (1962) presents five-fold performative formulae of illocutionary forces of utterance. These are: Verdictives, Exercitives, Commissive, Behabities, and Expositives. Verdictives can be observed when doctors, teachers, mediators or judges for instance giving a verdict. For example: acquitting, grading, diagnosing and so on. Exercitives are related to executions of right authority and influence, such as order or designate. For example: ordering, appointing, warning, and so on.  Commissives are those by which the speaker is obliged to do some acts by uttering the sentence. For example: promise, intend, undertaking, and so on. Behavitives are concerned with attitudes and social behaviours such as congratulation or curse. Expositives clarify the way utterances fit the proceedings of conversation or arguments. For example: describe, accept or explain.

Searle’s (1969) Classification of Speech Acts

Searle (1969) cited in Buch (2024) expands Austin's theory of speech acts. He argues that speech acts are rule-governed, meaning the intentional behaviours that constitute communication is rather than mere description. Furthermore, he classifies illocutionary acts into: assertative which commits the speaker to the truth of the proposition, for example: stating, suggest, insist, tell, describe. Directives in the act in which the utterer intends to make the listener do something by conforming to a certain act, for example, challenging, ordering and commanding. Commissives commit the speaker to future action, for example, promising or vowing. This is similar to Austin’s. Expressives deal with expressing the intellectual state and the seriousness of the utterer's illocutionary acts. This includes, welcoming, condoling, congratulating, appreciating and so on. Declaratives are utterances which bring into reality the current situation to which it is a concern or make reference to, for example, passing judgement, declaring a state of emergency.

Empirical Review

There have been many efforts by different scholars in the field of pragmatics in carrying out works on pragmatic analysis of speech acts. Reviews are carried out in order to situate the work. Blum-Kulka (1981) investigated the role of indirect speech acts in discourse, emphasising how meaning often extends beyond literal utterances. The study uses a combined theoretical framework of Speech Act Theory and Discourse Analysis. The study focuses specifically on indirect speech acts, examining how speakers convey meaning beyond the literal level. Concepts such as illocutionary force, felicity conditions, and the distinction between direct and indirect speech acts are central to the study. The study showed that speakers frequently rely on contextual cues and shared knowledge to convey intentions indirectly. This insight is particularly relevant to political speeches, where speakers strategically employ indirectness to persuade, criticise, or mobilise the audience without explicit statements. Kasper (2006) conducted a study, titled “Speech Acts in Interaction: Towards Discursive Pragmatics”. The data are drawn from real-life communicative events, including institutional talk, classroom interaction, and everyday discourse. The study uses discursive pragmatics, an approach that integrates Speech Act Theory with Conversation Analysis and broader Discourse Analysis. The study shows that speech acts are better understood as part of an ongoing interaction rather than as isolated, one-off expressions. In real conversations, people do not simply produce a single utterance with a fixed meaning; instead, meaning develops over several turns. For example, a request may begin in one statement, but it can be adjusted, clarified, accepted, or even rejected as the conversation continues.

 

Furthermore, Green (2010) carried a study titled “Speech Acts”. The study relies mainly on ideas and illustrative examples, rather than on experimental or field-based data. The theoretical framework the study employed is Speech Act Theory, especially the foundational ideas of Austin and Searle. The findings suggest that not every action carried out through language neatly fits into the usual categories of speech acts. This raises questions about broad definitions and points to the need for a clearer, more precise understanding of what truly qualifies as a speech act. Another linguist, Dascal (1992) carried out a study titled “On the Pragmatic Structure of Conversation”. The study mainly drew on ideas and patterns from discourse, rather than on experimental data.

 

The study used conversational examples to illustrate his points and also built on insights from earlier work in pragmatics and discourse analysis. The study used Speech Acts Theory. The study shows that conversation is not just a chain of separate speech acts; rather, it is a complex and organized process where people actively work together to make meaning. The study explains that misunderstandings, disagreements, and clarifications are normal parts of interaction, and they actually help shape how meaning develops. In addition, the study shows that people often interpret what is said in different ways, depending on the context, their background knowledge, and their goals in the conversation. As a result, meaning is not fixed; instead, it keeps changing and adjusting as the interaction unfolds. More so, Sbisà (1992) conducted a study titled “Speech Acts, Effects and Responses” that looks at how what people say connects with the effects their words have and how listeners react during communication. The study mainly draws on ideas and discourse-based evidence. The study used examples of everyday language and builds on insights from earlier work in pragmatics and the philosophy of language. Instead of relying on experimental data, the study looks at both constructed and naturally occurring utterances to show how speech acts work in real contexts.

Methodology

The sampled data of the speech is transcribed and presented in clauses, and is numbered. There are 130 clauses out of which 32 elements of speech acts were identified and classified. The elements of speech acts identified are foregrounded according to the classification of speech acts identified in the ways of Searle (1969). The number of occurrences and percentages is also calculated and presented. The analysis is done qualitico-quantitative (mixed method), using thematic analysis (each sentence is labelled and used as an extract guide to the analysis) and simple percentage. These clauses are analysed, using the model of Searle’s (1969) Classification of Speech Acts as in the work of Streeck (1980), namely: assertive, directive, declarative, commissive, and expressive.

Theoretical Framework

Searle’s (1969) speech act theory is not just about understanding language in a technical way; it is also very useful when it comes to analysing how people actually communicate in real life. One of the reasons it works so well is that it helps in looking beyond the surface meaning of words and focuses on what speakers really intend and what their words achieve. This makes the theory particularly relevant to this study, as it provides a clear framework for examining how utterances function as actions within specific contexts, allowing the researcher to interpret not just what is said, but what is meant and done through language. When analysing speech, the illocutionary aspect is especially important because it shows what a speaker is trying to do. For example, a sentence that looks like an ordinary statement might actually be a warning, a request, or even a subtle criticism, depending on the situation. This is where Searle’s categories, assertives, directives, commissives, expressives, and declarations, become very helpful, as they give a clear way to group and understand different kinds of utterances. In relation to this study, these categories serve as analytical tools for identifying and classifying the functions of statements within the data, making it easier to systematically interpret patterns of meaning and intention.

Another strength of the theory is that it pays attention to context. In real communication, meaning is not only in the words themselves but also in how, when, and why they are said. Because of this, the theory can be applied to many areas, such as political speeches, classroom discussions, media texts, and everyday conversations. This contextual sensitivity is highly relevant to the study, as it supports a deeper interpretation of discourse by linking utterances to the social and situational conditions in which they occur. It allows analysts to uncover hidden meanings, intentions, and even power relations in what people say. For instance, a politician might use what sounds like a simple directive to gently influence public opinion, or an expressive statement to create a sense of connection with the audience.

Also, the theory is flexible enough to handle both direct and indirect speech. People do not always say exactly what they mean; sometimes they imply things to be polite, persuasive, or strategic. Searle’s approach makes it possible to capture these indirect meanings, which are often very important in communication. This flexibility strengthens its relevance to this study, as it enables the analysis to account for implied meanings and subtle communicative strategies that might otherwise be overlooked, thereby offering a more complete understanding of the data.

Result and Discussion

The extracts from the speech are represented, and are discussed under the classifications of speech acts in sub -headings. The focal phrases are foregrounded and numbered, all in tables, after which discussions follow.

Table 1: Extracts Indicating Expressive Acts

Extract (1)

My belief has always been that the best organisation is a combination of the two; the old and young.

Extract (2)

But remember one thing, you Nigeria are a special case if you could have 15 to 20 years of uninterrupted peace and stability you will be a great country

Extract (3)

But even the market at home will be expanded, the entire West African region will be your

market, but that will not go well with us because you will be a thorn in our flesh.

 

Extract (4)

We need to have sincere, good, responsible leadership with the interest of the country at heart.

Extract (5)

It is a shame driving from Kaduna to Kano, you would have seen it.

Extract (6)

 

Kaduna to Abuja is an eyesore: my goodness! So, we need to do this.

Extract (7)

I believe that God has brought us together so that we may learn to live together, cooperate with one another. Extract (8)

As far as I am concerned, tribalism or religion should not be a barrier in our unity or development.

Extract (9)

We want leadership, not rulership.

Extract (10)

We want leaders with the fear of God

 

From the instances of expressive acts seen on Table 1, the use of the nominal group (henceforth, NG) my belief expresses the speaker's belief for the country, namely, that both the young and old must work together in order to have good governance. In Extracts 2 and 3, it is a reported opinion of a friend in Geneva. In Extract 1, the speaker expresses hope that, with a number of years of uninterrupted peace and stability, Nigeria will be great again. This is achieved through the use of the nominal group (NG) you will be a ‘great country’. Furthermore, the verbal group (henceforth, VBG) will be expanded and will be your market are used by the speaker – a friend in Geneva – to express optimism that, if Nigerians will use their brains, exploit their resources, and stabilize their economy, they will be a strong nation with the local market expanded, and even the whole of Africa will be the country’s market. However, the VBGs will not go well with and will be a thorn in our flesh in 3 express the same speaker’s concern about what the Western world stands to lose should Nigeria become that strong. Similarly, the VBG need to have in Extract 81 expresses the speaker’s strong desire for credible leaders. In addition, the use of the nouns shame and eyesore in Extracts 5 and 6 expresses the speaker's emotion over the despicable state of the Abuja-Kaduna road. In Extracts7 and 8, the speaker conveys conviction through the NGs I believe and I am concerned, respectively. Here, the speaker believes that God has brought Nigerians to learn to live together irrespective of tribal and religious barriers. Finally, in Extracts 9 and 10, the NG we want expresses, once again, the speaker's desire for good leaders and leadership. As discussed above, expressives are used to bring out emotions of desire, conviction, hope, and concern.

Table 2: Extracts Indicating Assertive Acts

Extract 8 (1)

In the same vein, we have to go into history, the purpose of history is to know the past in order

to adjust the present and plan for the future.

Extract 12 (2)

Because of the importance of history, it is necessary to go into the past. How did we start?

Extract 51 (3)

Now that we have northern governors, let them bring this.

Extract 62 (4)

As regards education, UNESCO recommended that developing countries should spend about

23 percent of their budget on education.

Extract 70 (5)

I think we should do something

Extract 78 (6)

One American ambassador advised me and said look this has become a political solution, all you can do is to break the industry into two: have the plan in Ajoakuta, and send them to Onitsha.

Extract 86 (7)

First thing we should do is to look at agriculture, education, power, so that you can have

industries.

Extract 90 (8)

But I beg please, you the politicians to please learn to respect one another in spite of your

differences.

Extract 125 (9)

To turn the table, we need to revisit the past and revive the past glory of Nigeria.

 

Table 3: Extracts Indicating Directive Acts

Extract 8 (1)

In the same vein, we have to go into history, the purpose of history is to know the past in order

to adjust the present and plan for the future.

Extract 12 (2)

Because of the importance of history, it is necessary to go into the past. How did we start?

Extract 51 (3)

Now that we have northern governors, let them bring this.

Extract 62 (4)

As regards education, UNESCO recommended that developing countries should spend about

23 percent of their budget on education.

Extract 70 (5)

I think we should do something

Extract 78 (6)

One American ambassador advised me and said look this has become a political solution, all you can do is to break the industry into two: have the plan in Ajoakuta, and send them to Onitsha.

Extract 86 (7)

First thing we should do is to look at agriculture, education, power, so that you can have

industries.

Extract 90 (8)

But I beg please, you the politicians to please learn to respect one another in spite of your

differences.

Extract 125 (9)

To turn the table, we need to revisit the past and revive the past glory of Nigeria.

As discussed earlier, directives are intended to produce certain effects through the actions of the hearer. This is revealed by the speaker in various ways, as seen in the extracts above. The VBGs have to go, to go, let them bring, should spend, and should do in Extracts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, respectively, requiring some form of action from the hearer.

In Extract 8, the speaker advises leaders to reflect on the past and consider how they can correct present or future problems in the country. Similarly, in Extract 2, the advice is directed at those in government to involve both the young and the old in order to achieve effective leadership. In Extract 3, the speaker urges northern governors to implement the master plan of the late Sardauna regarding agricultural development. Extract 4 contains another directive, though with less intensity, issued by a third party (UNESCO) to developing countries. Likewise, Extract 5 presents a low-intensity requirement from the speaker, urging national leaders to improve the country’s industrial growth.

Moreover, the verbal group complex to break functions both as a directive and as advice from a third party – an American ambassador—to the speaker, suggesting possible action regarding the controversy over the proposed site of the iron and steel company. Similarly, the verbal groups to look, learn to respect, and need to revisit in Extracts 7, 8, and 9 express pieces of advice from the speaker to national leaders to focus on agriculture, education, and power in order to support industrial development. In Extract 7, to look urges leaders to focus on key sectors. In Extract 8, learning to respect serves as advice to leaders, particularly politicians, to show mutual regard. In Extract 9, the need to revisit further advises government leaders to reflect on the past, identify mistakes, make necessary corrections, and restore the country’s former strength.

Tables 4: Extracts Illustrating Commissive Acts

 

Extract (1)

He said he wanted to make northern Nigeria green throughout the year

Extract (2)

We will not be like you.

Extract (3)

We will invest in agriculture, education, roads and hospitals and of course security and we will keep some money reversed for rainy day.

Extract (4)

In your own case, you got the money and you started enjoying the money and spending it, we will not do that.

The VGs in Extract 1, ‘He wanted to make’, shows how committed the late Sardauna was to the just cause of improving agriculture in Northern Nigeria. In Extracts 2 and 3, the claim is made that Ghana will not make the same mistake as Nigeria; that is, they will not rely solely on oil. Furthermore, in Extracts 2 – 3, the then Ghanaian Vice President is quoted as having told Maitama Sule about the discovery of oil in their country and their commitment to invest in agriculture, education, roads, and hospitals, as well as to reserve some funds rather than spend everything, as Nigerians did when oil was discovered.

In essence, commissives are typically made by individuals who are in a position to fulfil the commitments expressed. Hence, the use of the pronoun ‘he’ in reporting the late Sardauna, and the use of ‘we’ by the Ghanaian Vice President, both serve to signal responsibility and inclusive commitment.

Table 5: Occurrences of the Speech Acts

Jjjad  Speech Acts	Frequency	Percentage
E E    Expressive	10	31%
A m     Assertive	09	28%
HFH  Directive	09	28%
C       Commissive	4	13%
Total	32	100%

From Table 5, it can be seen that there are 32 speech acts in the speech. Out of these, 10, equivalent to 31%, are expressives; 9, equivalent to 28%, are assertives; 9, equivalent to 28%, are directives; and 4, equivalent to 13%, are commissives. Thus, the most frequent speech acts are assertives, followed by expressives and directives, which have the same percentage, while commissives occur the least. Declarative speech acts are not identified in the speech.

This distribution is not unexpected because, given that it is a speech, a wide range of speech acts is likely to occur. Moreover, the topic of the speech, “Call for Revolution in Nigeria and the North’s Role in Oil Discovery,” would naturally require such responses. Directives appear prominently because, as an elder statesman with extensive knowledge of national affairs, many of his responses take the form of advice. Expressives are also present because speeches of this nature, which demand personal opinions, often involve expressions of concern and optimism.

Conclusion

The analysis of the speech reveals that speech acts serve distinct pragmatic functions shaped by the speaker’s role and the discourse context. The speech is about informing young Nigerians about the past leadership, and complaining of the current state of affairs. Assertives dominate the data, reflecting the informative nature of the speech and the topic ‘Call for Revolution in Nigeria, and the North’s Role in Oil Discovery’, which requires informing and complaining. Though, the analysis concludes that the speaker conveys desire, conviction, hope, and concern about governance, leadership, and national issues like the Abuja-Kaduna road, which indicate the frequency of Expressives. Despites use of Directives; the status of the speakers makes the function as mere advice with low-intensity commands. Commissives are the least frequent because the speaker no longer holds a position to make promises and can only report commitments made by others, such as the late Sardauna and the Ghanaian Vice President. The speaker seems to have lost hope in the young generation of Nigerians about their commitment to the nation. That is why there is no declarative speech acts which makes the speech unique, making it not just a narration of the past, where the speech is more of assertive and directives in advisory manner rather than using commissives to engage the young Nigerians with declaratives.  Overall, the speaker’s persuasive power rests on his ability to shift roles across discourse spaces – reporting others’ views, expressing personal belief, and advising leaders – while using nominal and verbal groups to encode emotion, optimism, and concern. The paper concludes that the resolution of deictic pronouns and role shifts within discourse spaces is crucial to understanding the persuasive functions of speech acts in political discourse.

References

Ballmer, T., & Brennstuhl, W. (2013). Speech act classification: A study in the lexical analysis of English speech activity verbs: Springer Science & Business Media.

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.

Buch, F. L. (2024). Speech Act Deixis. Sprach-und literaturwissenschaftliche Fakultät.  

Dascal, M. (1992). On the pragmatic structure of conversation. H. Parret & J. Verschueren (Eds.), 35-57.

Doyle, T. F. (2007). The role of context in meaning and understanding. Universitaet Potsdam.  

Green, M. (2010). Speech acts. A companion to the philosophy of action, 58-66.

Grice, H. P. (1957). Meaning. The philosophical review, 66(3), 377-388.

Hafifah, M. (2020). Constative and Performative Utterances in Jokowi’s Speeches. Wahana Inovasi, 9(1), 85-91.

Ibrahim, M. K. (2024). The Effect of Context, Inference, and Intercultural Communication on the Language Use in Cross-cultural Communication Through the Knowledge of Pragmatic Competence. Intent Research Scientific Journal (IRSJ), 3(7), 20-37.

Kasper, G. (2006). Speech acts in interaction: Towards discursive pragmatics. Pragmatics and language learning, 11.

Kecskes, I. (2010). Situation-bound utterances as pragmatic acts. Journal of pragmatics, 42(11), 2889-2897.

Kortmann, B. (2020). Pragmatics: The study of meaning in context English Linguistics: Essentials (pp. 173-199): Springer.

Kroeger, P. R. (2023). Analyzing meaning: An introduction to semantics and pragmatics: Language science press.

Lantolf, J. P., & Pavlenko, A. (2014). (S) econd (L) anguage (A) ctivity theory: Understanding second language learners as people Learner contributions to language learning (pp. 141-158): Routledge.

Mabaquiao, N. M. (2018). Speech act theory: from Austin to Searle. Augustinian, 19(1), 35-45.

Nagy, I. K. (2015). An introduction to the study of Pragmatics: Scientia Kiadó.

Osuchukwu, C. N. (2022). The role of context in meaning construction beyond semantics to pragmatics. African journal of humanities and contemporary education research, 5(1).

Rabiah, S. (2018). Language as a tool for communication and cultural reality discloser.

Reimer, M. (1995). Performative utterances: A reply to Bach and Harnish. Linguistics and Philosophy, 655-675.

Sbisà, M. (1992). Speech acts, effects and responses. SEARLE, John, Herman PARRET y Jef VERSCHUEREN (eds.), 101-113.

Sbisà, M. (2009). Speech act theory Key notions for pragmatics (pp. 229-244): John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Streeck, J. (1980). Speech acts in interaction: A critique of Searle. Discourse processes, 3(2), 133-153.

 

This article is published in ALQALAM: A Journal of Language and Literary Studies, FUGUS, Volume 1, Issue 2 - June 2026