Abstract
A speech act is an utterance that serves a function in communication. It is the basic unit of language used to express meaning, an utterance that expresses an intention. Normally, the speech act is a sentence, but it can be a word or phrase as long as it follows the rules necessary to accomplish the intention. In our daily life interactions, we perform a speech act whether through greeting, requesting, apologizing...etc. Speech act is generally associated with pragmatic equivalence. It is that approach which asserts that in a translation process what is said has to be translated in addition to what is meant. Philosophers who support this approach claim that without understanding the intention of the speaker, it is impossible to produce a speech act. Many philosophers have contributed in explaining this theory like J. L. Austin (1962) who classified our speech to propositional meaning (the literal meaning), illocutionary meaning (the social function of what is said) and perlocutionary meaning (the effect of what is said). John Searle (1976) claims the illocutionary act is “the minimal complete unit of human linguistic communication, and he introduces five types of illocutionary acts. Paul Grice (1975) proposes the four maxims that occur in our conversation. This research attempts to study pragmatic equivalence and speech act, focusing on the cooperative principle and Austin's locutionary, illocutionary and perlocutionary act. The term "pragmatics" is firstly initiated with the philosopher Charles Morris. Morris seeks to divide the study of semiotics into three branches: first, syntax, which studies the formal relations of signs to one another. Second, semantics: It is generally concerned with meaning and the relations between signs and objects. Finally, pragmatics, which is the core of the study, is "the study of relations of signs to interpreters." (Levinson, 1983, p.1) Pragmatics can be defined as the study of how utterances have meanings in situations. …show more content…
The scope of pragmatics can then be defined in a manner that delimits it from grammar, and at the same time shows the fact that both fields combine together in a consistent framework for studying language. So in the process of understanding the meaning of a sentence, one should take care of pragmatics, not just grammar. This conclusion does not delete the importance of grammar in the development of language. That leads us to the overall conclusion: grammar and pragmatics contribute in the language use. One cannot totally depend on one field and neglect the other; each one of them has its importance. (Leech, 1983, p.14) Pragmatic equivalence is that kind of equivalence that stresses that what is said in the source language and in the target language must have the same effect on the listener or the reader. It is that kind that does not deal with a separate vocabulary; instead it links the whole stretch of talks to produce a meaningful and coherent unit. Pragmatic equivalence in translation stresses that what is said is completely translated in addition to what is meant. It is the study of purposes for which sentences are used, in the real world conditions. Pragmatics then is considered as an integral part of the process of analysis of the sentences under discussion, it defines the purposes of the sentences and at the same time is puts the limits by which the sentences could be called an utterance. Furthermore, semantics is another branch of linguistics that focuses on the meaning behind the concrete sentences but there is a difference between pragmatics and semantics in their study of meaning. Leech, (1983) emphasizes: the problem of distinguishing 'language'(langue) and 'language use' (parole) has centered a dispute between semantics and pragmatics. The difference between them is the different uses of verb 'mean'. Meaning in pragmatics is defined relative to a user of language, whereas meaning in semantics is abstraction from particular situation for specific purposes. (P.6) The process of understanding utterances requires going through different levels of meaning. Based on the fact that one utterance could have many interpretations and different meaning, the receiver or hearer should examine all of these levels in order to understand the intended meaning behind the utterance. The first level is abstract meaning, it deals with individual words, phrases or sentence and it focuses on the semantic meaning (the meaning in the dictionary) of each word. The second level is called contextual meaning or utterance meaning. When in interaction we have resolved all the ambiguities of sense, reference
A speech act is an utterance that serves a function in communication. It is the basic unit of language used to express meaning, an utterance that expresses an intention. Normally, the speech act is a sentence, but it can be a word or phrase as long as it follows the rules necessary to accomplish the intention. In our daily life interactions, we perform a speech act whether through greeting, requesting, apologizing...etc. Speech act is generally associated with pragmatic equivalence. It is that approach which asserts that in a translation process what is said has to be translated in addition to what is meant. Philosophers who support this approach claim that without understanding the intention of the speaker, it is impossible to produce a speech act. Many philosophers have contributed in explaining this theory like J. L. Austin (1962) who classified our speech to propositional meaning (the literal meaning), illocutionary meaning (the social function of what is said) and perlocutionary meaning (the effect of what is said). John Searle (1976) claims the illocutionary act is “the minimal complete unit of human linguistic communication, and he introduces five types of illocutionary acts. Paul Grice (1975) proposes the four maxims that occur in our conversation. This research attempts to study pragmatic equivalence and speech act, focusing on the cooperative principle and Austin's locutionary, illocutionary and perlocutionary act. The term "pragmatics" is firstly initiated with the philosopher Charles Morris. Morris seeks to divide the study of semiotics into three branches: first, syntax, which studies the formal relations of signs to one another. Second, semantics: It is generally concerned with meaning and the relations between signs and objects. Finally, pragmatics, which is the core of the study, is "the study of relations of signs to interpreters." (Levinson, 1983, p.1) Pragmatics can be defined as the study of how utterances have meanings in situations. …show more content…
The scope of pragmatics can then be defined in a manner that delimits it from grammar, and at the same time shows the fact that both fields combine together in a consistent framework for studying language. So in the process of understanding the meaning of a sentence, one should take care of pragmatics, not just grammar. This conclusion does not delete the importance of grammar in the development of language. That leads us to the overall conclusion: grammar and pragmatics contribute in the language use. One cannot totally depend on one field and neglect the other; each one of them has its importance. (Leech, 1983, p.14) Pragmatic equivalence is that kind of equivalence that stresses that what is said in the source language and in the target language must have the same effect on the listener or the reader. It is that kind that does not deal with a separate vocabulary; instead it links the whole stretch of talks to produce a meaningful and coherent unit. Pragmatic equivalence in translation stresses that what is said is completely translated in addition to what is meant. It is the study of purposes for which sentences are used, in the real world conditions. Pragmatics then is considered as an integral part of the process of analysis of the sentences under discussion, it defines the purposes of the sentences and at the same time is puts the limits by which the sentences could be called an utterance. Furthermore, semantics is another branch of linguistics that focuses on the meaning behind the concrete sentences but there is a difference between pragmatics and semantics in their study of meaning. Leech, (1983) emphasizes: the problem of distinguishing 'language'(langue) and 'language use' (parole) has centered a dispute between semantics and pragmatics. The difference between them is the different uses of verb 'mean'. Meaning in pragmatics is defined relative to a user of language, whereas meaning in semantics is abstraction from particular situation for specific purposes. (P.6) The process of understanding utterances requires going through different levels of meaning. Based on the fact that one utterance could have many interpretations and different meaning, the receiver or hearer should examine all of these levels in order to understand the intended meaning behind the utterance. The first level is abstract meaning, it deals with individual words, phrases or sentence and it focuses on the semantic meaning (the meaning in the dictionary) of each word. The second level is called contextual meaning or utterance meaning. When in interaction we have resolved all the ambiguities of sense, reference