A Pragmatic Study of Deploring in Political Speech

Wafaa Abid Ali Mahdi1 Prof. Salih Mahdi Addai PhD1

University of Babylon

HNSJ, 2022, 3(11); https://doi.org/10.53796/hnsj3114

Download File

Published at 01/11/2022 Accepted at 05/10/2022

Abstract

People use language for a variety of reasons, including expressing their thoughts and feelings, conveying claims and arguments, and requesting information.”The study of invisible meaning, or how we recognize what is meant even when it isn’t expressed or written,” says Pragmatics. As a result, Pragmatics entails a study of language, namely what the speaker is trying to convey rather than the actual words or phrases he uses (Yule,2010:128).

Deploring is a strong word that expresses extreme displeasure of something. If you despise the way your mother prepares meatloaf, it’s reasonable, to say you despise it.Deplore is derived from Latin words that indicate “to grieve or bewail.” So if you deplore something, it is something that causes you pain or grief. People frequently criticize things they regret or feel horrible about. This paper attempts to investigate deploring in Political texts from a pragmatic perspective, it tries to answer the following questions: What are the categories of speech acts applied in using deploring in political speeches ? 2) What are the most prominent strategies of politeness used in this speech? It is hypothesized that 1) political speeches have different kind of speech acts; 2) different politeness strategies are used in the political speech.

An eclectic model is developed which utilizes Searle’s (1969) model of speech acts and Brown & Levinson’s(1987) model of politeness. Data of analysis are limited to five political speeches taken from the internet. According to the results of the analysis, it is concluded that: various politeness strategies and pragma-rhetorical devices are used in political speech . It is also found that some types of speech acts are utilized in political speech for the purpose of deploring.

  1. Introduction

The Problem

Pragmatic Language is a set of sounds, words, sentences, or utterances that individuals use to communicate ideas, thoughts, and opinions. Chomsky (2006) claims that language associates sound and meaning in a specific way in order to have command of anything in mind, to grasp what is said, and to produce a signal with a semantic interpretation. Language is a learned vocal system for communicating meaning based on human life experiences, to put it another way. People use language for a variety of reasons, including expressing their thoughts and feelings, conveying claims and arguments, and requesting information.

“The study of invisible meaning, or how we recognize what is meant even when it isn’t expressed or written,” says Pragmatics. As a result, Pragmatics entails a study of language, namely what the speaker is trying to convey rather than the actual words or phrases he uses (Yule,2010:128). Pragmatics, according to Birner (2013:11), is “the study of language usage in context.” As an example

His day was a nightmare.

The preceding example indicates that his day was unpleasant or difficult, rather than that he had a bad dream. In this case, the semantic meaning (a nasty dream)differs from the pragmatic meaning (the speaker’s intended meaning in context.aker’s intended meaning in the

(. This paper attempts to investigate deploring in Political texts from a pragmatic perspective, it tries to answer the following questions: What are the categories of speech acts applied in using deploring in political speeches ? 2) What are the most prominent strategies of politeness used in this speech? It is hypothesized that 1) political speeches have different kind of speech acts; 2) different politeness strategies are used in the political speech.

1.1 Speech Act Theory

Speech act, according to Yule (1996:48), refers to activities carried out through utterance. As a result, people do things in words that are analogous to real acts. According to Searle (1969:16), the primary unit of linguistic communication is the speech act (SA). This means that a speech act is a physical manifestation of what is stated. Furthermore, it is the study of how words are utilized to convey information as well as carry out actions. Individuals not only create sentences with grammatical structures to convey their desires, but also use their words to carry out actions.

1.1.1 Searle’s Categorization of Speech Act (1969 )

The speech act is divided into three actions by Searle (1969: 23-24). When someone speaks, according to Searle, they perform three separate actions: propositional acts, utterance acts, and illocutionary acts. Declaratives, representatives, instructions, commissives, and expressives are the five sorts of speech acts that he categorizes. Each speaking act is divided into a number of subcategories, which are defined by their felicity criteria.

a. Representative

Representatives are statements that link the a listener to the reality of the statement (e.g. arguing, implying, alleging, saying, publishing, bragging, stating, asserting, claiming, etc.) (Searle,1969:66).

The SA of Stating

Stating is a representative speech act. Stating is giving a complete explanation of anything or expressing an official opinion on something (Searle & Vanderveken ,1985:183).

The SA of Asserting

Searle & Vanderveken (‏ (1985:18state that the speech act of asserting is a kind of representative .This type is closely connected to the right of the speaker. The S claims that the case is true.

1.2 Directive

Directives are kinds of speech acts in which the speaker attempt to get the addressee to do something. (Yule, 1996:52). Directives are used to get the hearer to do something in the future by uttering a directive. Requesting, asking, demanding, advising, begging, biding, forbidding, and recommending can be considered as examples of the directive act.

1.3 Expressive speech act

One sort of expressive speech act is when the speaker expresses their emotions (Nurhidayah, 2013:68). This form of speech act is frequently observed in one-on-one conversations. Expressive speech acts are expressions that are based on 21 psychological states and connect to the speaker’s emotional expression on the listener. There are nine main types of expressive illocutionary behaviors, according to Norrick theory (1978) and Ronan & Lausanne study (2015). These are the following:

1. Apologizing, in which a speaker-agent expresses bad thoughts toward a patientaddressee in order to placate them;

2. Thanking, in which the speakers show gratitude to the addressee for a service rendered to them;

3. Congratulating, in which the speakers have noticed that the addressee has benefited from or carried out a certain action.

4. Condoling, which is similar to congratulating but places a negative value on the experienced event;

5. Deploring, or censoring, in which the addressee is chastised for an occurrence that negatively impacted the speaker or a third party;

6. Lamenting, in which the speaker communicates his or her own tragedy, whether caused by themselves or by someone else, and is also the principal spectator;

7. Welcoming, in which the speaker expresses positive feelings about the addressee’s arrival;

8. Forgiving, in which the speaker expresses positive feelings about his or her own actions towards the addressee; and

9. Boasting, in which the speaker expresses positive feelings about his or her own actions towards the addressee. Intentional meaning

According to Brown (1983), the words, phrases, and sentences that appear in a textual record of a dialogue are evidence of a producer’s or writer’s attempts to communicate a message to his interlocutor or hearer. As a result, the hearers deduce the speaker’s intended meaning. Furthermore, according to Brown (1983), we have isolated three parts of the process of interpreting a speaker’s or writer’s intended meaning in the production of discourse. These tasks include calculating the communication, identifying the communicative function (how to send the message), utilizing broad socio-cultural knowledge (world facts), and determining the inference to be drawn. As previously stated, this study employs one component of the process of understanding a speaker’s or writer’s intended meaning in the production of utteranc The aspect is deciding on the inference to be drawn. According to Brown (1983), inference is also used to define the process that a reader or listener must go through in order to understand the literal meaning of what is written or said in relation to what the writer or speaker intended to express. In addition, inference is a person’s interpretation of what they read or hear. Furthermore, inference is a prediction or deduction about anything in a written text, usually related to what the character sees, hears, smells, tastes, or feels.

The SA of Warning

Warning is the directive act, where the speaker warns the listener not to take action. In other words, to warn someone against taking an action is to suggest that he/she should not do this, and it would be risky if he/she does it. Warning has a meaning that contains request and command in the sense, that the addresser warns the addressee by asking him or her to stop acting unpleasantly or badly ( Searle,1975:71).

1.3 Brown and Levinson’s(1987)Politeness Strategies

Mitigation is frequently considered as part of the larger issue of politeness. Brown and Levinson (1987,.42) describe mitigation as “politeness. According to Caffi (2007, 48), the term “mitigation” has traditionally been used in politeness research to refer to a group of strategies used by interlocutors to lessen the effect of what Brown and Levinson (1987) refer to as “face-threatening acts” (FTAs).

Brown and Levinson (1987:5) propose a more explicitly articulated model that considers a larger view of social interaction, developing the idea of face in particular. The concept of face, according to Brown and Levinson(ibid:62), refers to the public self-image of others that is emotionally invested and can be lost, preserved, or reinforced in interaction. Brown and Levinson (1987:65) distinguish between two types of faces: positive and negative. The positive face represents a person’s desire for interaction and solidarity with others, whereas the negative face represents a person’s push for independence and not to be imposed on by others. These two aspects of the face are threatened during interaction, and thus a face threatening act (henceforth FTA) is produced (ibid:66). They argue (ibid) that FTA is an act that contradicts H’s stated desire .In practice, the entire focus of Brown and Levinson’s theory is on politeness strategies (henceforth PSs) that are intended to redress or minimize FTA. Linguists’ primary goal is to discover why people do not use simple and direct language in conversation, but rather complex and sometimes indirect phrases, especially when a listener must be motivated to perform a specific act (ibid:67).

a. positive politeness

According to Brown and Levinson(1987:129), positive politeness asserts the identity of the participants and is meant to meet positive face needs. The strategies of ORPP are redressive strategies directed to H’s positive face in order to satisfy his desire by communicating in some respects similar to his wants. It is worth pointing out here that ORPP functions to minimize the social distance between S H. The strategies of positive politeness are the following:

Intensifying H’s Interests

S uses a good story, vivid present, swinging back and forth between past and present, direct quoted speech, tag questions, or language like “you know?”, “see what I mean?”, or “isn’t it?” to engage H into the delivered speech as a participant (ibid)

2.3.1.2 Including both S and H in the Activity

Brown and Levinson (1987:132) state that S can include H in the activity by using inclusive “we” forms to convey mutual cooperation with H.

b. Negative Politeness

Any attempt to meet negative face wants is known as a negative politeness technique. It widens the gap between S and H in terms of social interaction. Although the language is indirect, the meaning is usually obvious from the context (ibid).

Maximizing the imposition

As politeness strategy, maximizing the imposition aims to maximize the seriousness of the FTA towards the hearer. This method is used by the speaker to imply that the situation was serious and that everyone should treat it highly. It indicates that the imposition particularly severe. It’s should be taken seriously.

1.5 Pragma-Rhetorical Devices

Rhetorical devices are techniques or tropical figures of speech used to convey a point or convince an audience. There are four rhetorical devices used in this study and explained in the following sections:

  1. Understatement

Cruse (2006:186) recognizes this pragmatic rhetorical figure of the speech as implicit by stating something other than what the writer/ speaker intends to convey. So, the speaker attempts to understate and put the hearer beneath the point that is depicted as a human being by understating him/her.

Ortony (1993:267) states that understatement is viewed as flouting of Grice‟s maxim. It flouts the maxim of quantity i.e. “the contribution neither more nor less to the conversation than is required”. According to the Grecian view, the speaker causes the hearer to look for an implicit meaning beyond the literal interpretation of what is said or meant.

  1. Rhetorical Questions

Rhetorical questions are functionally opposed to informative questions since these do not serve to communicate but rather to elicit assertive information. In speech act theory, informative questions are considered to be manifestations of direct speech acts, that is, speech acts characterize by the expression of not more than one illocutionary point. When the speakers utter a rhetorical question do not expect the listener to give an answer to that question, an answer is refrained from being given (Haverkate,1997:223).

In this respect, rhetorical questions are distinct from indirect defectiveness, such as „‟Can you pass the salt?‟‟, where the cooperative interlocutor, who wishes to comply with the speaker‟s request, frequently gives an affirmative answer to the literal question(Haverkate,1997:223).

  1. Metaphor

Metaphor concerns the relations between word and sentence meaning, on the other hand, and speaker’s meaning or utterance meaning on the other hand. So, there are two kinds of sentence meaning, literal and metaphorical although, sentences and words have only the meanings that they have. Thus, whenever the speaker talks about the metaphorical meaning of a word or a sentence, he talks about his intentions to deliver (Ortony , 1993:84).

Meaning of Deploring

Deplore is a strong word that expresses extreme displeasure of something. If you despise the way your mother prepares meatloaf, it’s reasonable, to say you despise it.Deplore is derived from Latin words that indicate “to grieve or bewail.” So if you deplore something, it is something that causes you pain or grief. People frequently criticize things they regret or feel horrible about. Or maybe you just resent your middle school outfit choices(Web source1).

According to Merriam Webster deploring means1. to feel or show pain for deplore the loss of a friend , it refers to profoundly regret deplore my own acts. Many critics criticize his techniques. 2: to consider unfortunate or deserving of scorn. Deploring implies that the character intends to imply or believe that someone has done something wrong. It usually happens when individuals accuse someone or something of having a flaw or wrongdoing. The bemoaning message is delivered straight to the listener. A synonym for the word deploring is lamenting(Web source2).

Lamenting

The phrase “lamenting” refers to a character’s desire to convey sadness and regret over something. Lament is a complicated human emotion, not just a vehicle for emotional release. The kind of lament address is, in fact, a form of sorrow, but not for the purpose of death, but for an existential scream as primitive as a child’s urge to cry. Lamentation is the language of lamentation,’ says Westermann (1994:89). It is, in the words of Ackermann (2003:100), “a language for thinking about thinking about thinking about thinking about thinking about thinking about thinking about thinking about thinking about thinking about thinking about thinking about thinking about addressing, but not resolving, the problem of suffering’ It’s a mode of transportation for expressing the raw feelings that occur from great anguish that cannot be contained expressed in words Pain and suffering are inextricably linked to human existence.

As a result, the expression of suffering is profoundly human. The first sound made by a newborn kid is a cry. Lament has long been a technique of coping with sorrow and facing the unavoidable. It’s tough to write about lament since it’s both public and private, and it has political, social, and religious implications. It is deeply spiritual as well as subversive and political; it accuses and praises; it is deeply spiritual as well as subversive and political. According to Ackermann (2003:110), the English word ‘lament’ does not adequately describe the relationship that exists in Afrikaans between death and mourning(Brueggemann 1995:401-402).

  1. Data Analysis
    1. Description and Analysis

The data of this study are represented by five texts from different Figures and different nationalities. The data is taken from the internet.

3.2 The Model

3.3 The Analysis of Data

Text(1)

U.S. President Joe Biden: “The world will hold Russia accountable.”

The prayers of the entire world are with the people of Ukraine tonight as they suffer an unprovoked and unjustified attack by Russian military forces.

President Putin has chosen a premeditated war that will bring a catastrophic loss of life and human suffering. Russia alone is responsible for the death and destruction this attack will bring, and the United States and its Allies and partners will respond in a united and decisive way.

The world will hold Russia accountable.

Speech Act

  1. Speech Act of Representative

In this speech the president uses a representative speech act in order to alleging and arguing the problem of the war against Ukranai.

  1. Directive Speech Acts

The president in his speech also uses a directive speech act when he invite the world to pray for people in Ukrania.

  1. Politeness strategy
  2. Maximize the imposition

In his speech the president tries to attract the audience attention about the criminal act of Russia against people in Ukraine in his speech “President Putin has chosen a premeditated war that will bring a catastrophic loss of life and human suffering. Russia alone is responsible for the death and destruction this attack will bring”

  1. Intensifying H’s Interests

The speaker is deploring about the situation of people in Ukraine wants to explain to the hearer that the situation needs a serious contribution from other European countries to help people in Ukraine. When he says “and the United States and its Allies and partners will respond in a united and decisive way.

  1. Pragma Rhetorical Devices

Understatment

In this utterance of the speech of the president, he wants to make the hearer to look for an implicit meaning beyond the literal interpretation of what he said or meant. When he talk about the destruction and death of people that causes by Russia.

Text(2)

U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson: “Appalled by the horrific events in Ukraine”

I am appalled by the horrific events in Ukraine and I have spoken to President Zelenskyy to discuss next steps. President Putin has chosen a path of bloodshed and destruction by launching this unprovoked attack on Ukraine. The UK and our allies will respond decisively.

  1. Speech Act
  2. Commissives Speech Act

In his speech, the prime minister commits to do something in the future when he says “the UK and our allies respond decisively”. Because of the attack of Russia against people in Ukraine.

  1. Expressive Speech Act

The prime minister express his feeling when he deplores the work of Putin against people in Ukraine in his utterance “I am appalled by the horrific events in Ukraine and I have spoken to President Zelenskyy to discuss next steps”.

  1. Politeness Strategy

Pessimistic : The prime minister of UK feels afraid and worried about the future of people in Ukraine and their life, so he is pessimistic because of the events. He utters “I am appalled by the horrific events in Ukraine”.

  1. Pragma Rhetorical Strategy

Understatement: The prime minister tries to make the hearer understand the intended or what is beyond message in his speech about the president Putin and his criminal way against human being.

Text(3)

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz: “Dark day for Europe.”

The Russian attack on Ukraine is a blatant violation of international law. There is no justification for it. Germany condemns this reckless act by President Putin in the strongest possible terms. Our solidarity is with Ukraine and its people.

Russia must stop this military action immediately. Within the framework of the G7, Nato and the EU, we will coordinate closely today. This is a terrible day for Ukraine and a dark day for Europe.

  1. Speech Act
  2. Expressive Speech Act: The German chancellor Olaf Scolz express his feeling and thoughts in his speech about the war of Russia. He is deploring the case of Europe in general and Ukraine specially.
  3. Directive Speech Act: The German chancellor intends to get the president of Russian to get rid from this war, he describes Putin as a reckless one in his speech “. Germany condemns this reckless act by President Putin in the strongest possible terms”.
  4. Politeness Strategy

Maximizing the Imposition: The chancellor uses the maximizing strategy to maximize the situation and to attract the hearer attention to this dangerous situation.

  1. Pragma Rhetorical Strategy

Metaphor: The chancellor uses the metaphor as a rhetorical strategy to describe the day of Europe as a dark day when he says “This is a terrible day for Ukraine and a dark day for Europe”.

Text(4)

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg: “Grave breach of international law”

I strongly condemn Russia’s reckless and unprovoked attack on Ukraine, which puts at risk countless civilian lives. Once again, despite our repeated warnings and tireless efforts to engage in diplomacy, Russia has chosen the path of aggression against a sovereign and independent country.This is a grave breach of international law, and a serious threat to Euro-Atlantic security. I call on Russia to cease its military action immediately and respect Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. NATO Allies will meet to address the consequences of Russia’s aggressive actions. We stand with the people of Ukraine at this terrible time. NATO will do all it takes to protect and defend all Allies.

  1. Speech Act
  2. Expressive Speech Act: The General deploring the work of Russian president against people in Ukraine. He is stating his feelings and attitudes towards the situation, when he says “I strongly condemn Russia’s reckless and unprovoked attack on Ukraine”.
  3. Commissive Speech Acts: In his speech there is a clear threats towards Russian, the General says “This is a grave breach of international law, and a serious threat to Euro-Atlantic security”. Andhe continues his speech about their situation clarifying that he is with Ukraine and the will protect the Ukrainian people.
  4. Politeness Strategy
  5. Maximizing the imposition: In this speech the General maximizes the situation because the Nato are very angry towards the Russian war which causes harm to Ukrainian people.
  6. Intensifying the Hearer Interest: The General talks by this way in order to make the hearer notice the dangerous that rounded Ukrainian people and Europe, he tries to win the audience’s affection in the world beside Ukrainian side against Russian president.
  7. Pragma Rhetorical Strategy

Understatment: The General in this situation wants people to understand the message which is the Nato stand beside the Ukrainian people and they refuse what happen to them from a criminal works by Putin.

Text(5)

Canada Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau: “Russia’s brazen acts will not go unpunished.”

Canada calls on Russia to immediately cease all hostile and provocative actions against Ukraine and withdraw all military and proxy forces from the country. Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity must be respected and the Ukrainian people must be free to determine their own future. Russia’s actions will be met with severe consequences. …… In the face of these attacks on Ukraine, Canada will take additional action to stop Russia’s unwarranted aggression. We continue to stand with Ukraine, its people, and the Ukrainian Canadian community here in Canada. Russia’s brazen acts will not go unpunished.

  1. Speech Act
  2. Expressive Speech Act: The prime minister of Canada expresses his feeling and attitudes towards Ukraine, he is deploring and lamenting what happen to those people.
  3. Commissive Speech Act: The Canadian prime minister overtly threats Russian president, because of his rectless works toward the people in Ukraine. He commits to stand with Ukraine and he promises to punish Russian president.
  4. Politeness Strategy

Maximizing the Imposition: The prime minister of Canada tries to maximize the situation, he tries to make the president of Russia to withdraw his forces from Ukraine by his threating “… In the face of these attacks on Ukraine, Canada will take additional action to stop Russia’s unwarranted aggression”.

  1. Pragma Rhetorical Strategy

Understatment: The rhetorical strategy that is used by Canadian prime minister is understatement. He tries to convey a clear message to the hearer that Russian is the cause of death many people in Ukraine.

  1. Results

Table (1) Results of Speech Acts, Politeness Strategies and Pragma Rhetorical Devices

Per. Fr. Pragma Rhetorical Devices Per. Fr. Politeness strategies Per. Fr. Speech Acts No
50% 4 Maximizing the imposition 16% 2 Directive 1
80% 4 Understatement 37% 3 Intensifying the hearer’s interest 33% 4 Commissive 2
20% 1 Metaphor 13% 1 Pessimistic 8% 1 Representative 3
43% 5 Expressive 4
100 5 100 8 100 12 Tot.

According to the analysis, Politicians uses different types of speech acts, but they the expressive and commissive speech act are the most dominant types since these types of speech acts implied deploring as a function of pragmatics. The expressive speech act has a (43% ), the commissive speech act has(33%). According to Brown and Levinson politeness theory, politicians implied the maximizing strategy since its percentage(50%). Finally politicians use understatement as a pragma rhetorical device in their speech, its percentage(80%).

Conclusions

It concludes that:

  1. The results show that expressive and commissive which implied deploring, are more frequently used in politicians’ speech
  2. The results also show that maximizing the imposition is the most politeness strategy that used in the speech of politicians.
  3. Pragma rhetorical devices like understatement, metaphor are used in politicians’ speech.

REFERENCES

Aguert, M., Laval, V., Le Bigot, L., & Bernicot, J. (2010). Understanding expressive speech acts: the role of prosody and situational context in French-speaking 5- to 9-year-olds. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research, 53(6), 1629–1642.

Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things. Cambridge, UK: Harvard University Press.

Brown, G. Y. (1983). Discourse analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Creswell, W. J. (2014). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approach 4 edition. London: SAGE Publications.

Cutting, J. (2002). Pragmatics and discourse. London: Routledge. Feist;, J., & Feist, G. J. (2008). Theories of personaliy 6th. New York: McGraw Hill Company.

Leech, G. (1989). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.

Maiz-arevolo, C. (2017). Expressive speech acts in educational e-chats. Pragmática Sociocultural / Sociocultural Pragmatics, 5(2). https://doi.org/10.1515/soprag-2017- 0016

McMillan, J. H. (2008). Educational research fundamentals for the consumer fifth edition (5th ed.). NewYork: HarperCollins CollegePublishers.

Norrick, N. R. (1978). Expressive illocutionary acts. Journal of Pragmatics, 2(3), 277–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(78)90005-x Nurhidayah,

V. A. (2013). An analysis of translation techniques and quality in terms of accuracy, acceptability and readability of PI’s Expressive Speech Act in the Film of PI. PRASASTI: Journal of Linguistics, 02(02), 67–79.

Ronan, P., & Lausanne, U. De. (2015). Categorizing expressive speech acts in the pragmatically annotated SPICE Ireland corpus. ICAME Journal, 39, 282–290. https://doi.org/10.1515/icame-2015-0002

Searle, J. R. (1976). A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society, 5(1), 1–23. Setyaji, A. (2014). How Speech Acts Work in Translation: An Analysis on Speech Acts in Translating a Script of Titanic Film. PRASASTI: Journal of Linguistics, 03(01), 14–31.

Sidhu, H. R. S. (2019). 49 killed in mass shooting at two mosques in Christchurch , New Zealand. CNN News, pp. 1–6.

Web Sources

  1. dep…<https://www.vocabulary.com
  2. …<http://www.meriam-webster.com