American Journal Of Philological Sciences
55
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
VOLUME
Vol.05 Issue02 2025
PAGE NO.
55-59
10.37547/ajps/Volume05Issue02-16
The similarities and differences of pragmatic acts
revealed through English and Uzbek folk proverbs
expressing friendship/enmity
Ergasheva Gulzoda Shermurod kyzi
PhD student of the Namangan Engineering and Technological Institute, Uzbekistan
Received:
12 December 2024;
Accepted:
14 January 2025;
Published:
16 February 2025
Abstract:
This article discusses Speech Act Theory, which is a key concept in pragmatic linguistics. The theory
asserts that a sentence is not merely a unit of information, but an action performed by the speaker, aimed at
various goals such as asserting, questioning, ordering, apologizing, and more. Developed in the late 19th and 20th
centuries, Speech Act Theory was shaped significantly by philosophers John Austin and John Searle. Austin's initial
work in the 1950s divided speech acts into three categories: locutionary, illocutionary, and perlocutionary acts.
Locutionary acts refer to the actual utterance of words, illocutionary acts represent the speaker's intent behind
the utterance, and perlocutionary acts describe the effect the utterance has on the listener. The article further
explores how proverbs in English and Uzbek express these acts, emphasizing the importance of context in
understanding speech acts.
Keywords:
Speech act theory, pragmatics, john austin, john searle, locutionary act, illocutionary act,
perlocutionary act, english proverbs, uzbek proverbs, pragmatic analysis, speech acts.
Introduction:
Speech act theory is an important stage
in pragmatic linguistics, in which a sentence is
interpreted not only as an informative unit, but also as
a speaker's action aimed at various goals. Although the
roots of this theory appeared in the late 19th and early
20th centuries, it was fully formed in the second half of
the 20th century, especially thanks to the work of
philosophers such as John Austin and John Searle.
According to their teachings, through a sentence we
not only report on situations, but also ask, give orders,
promise, apologize and perform many other actions.
Thus, a speech act is not just a language unit, but also
an important tool in human social life.
One of the first to promote the idea of interpreting
speech acts formed in the process of communication as
separate linguistic units and classifying them by
content was Oxford University professor John Austin.
He raised this problem in his lectures at the traditional
“William James Readings” held at Harvard University in
1955. Later, these lectures were published in 1962
under the title “How to do with words”.
METHOD
In grammar, each sentence was classified as either an
affirmation, a negation, or a question. Austin showed
that the sentence has broader and more complex
functions. In his opinion, through the sentence we not
only describe a situation, but also establish
relationships, carry out various actions in social life.
Austin's view aroused great interest in the fields of
linguistics and philosophy. Because this idea shows the
need to study language not only logically, but also
socially and communicatively.
So, “a speech act is the pronunciation of a certain
sentence in a specific communicative environment. The
formation of the content of a speech act is the result of
the “enrichment” and perception of the meaning of the
uttered sentence by the speaker and listener in relation
to the text of communication.
J. Austin divides speech acts into 3 parts: locutionary
act (act of speaking), illocutionary act (act of influence)
and perlocutionary act (act of result).
A locutionary act is related to the linguistic units
themselves, their grammatical structure and meaning.
In other words, it is the literal meaning of the words
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
56
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
American Journal Of Philological Sciences (ISSN
–
2771-2273)
and sentences we say. It includes the phonetic, lexical
and syntactic aspects of speech. For example, in the
sentence “The weather is hot today”, the locutionary
act is simply the joint use of the words “today”,
“weather” and “hot” and their
grammatical structure.
An illocutionary act is what we intend by saying the
linguistic units presented in the locutionary act. This is
the purpose we want to achieve through our words, for
example, giving an order, asking, promising, advising,
etc. This r
epresents the “force” of the speech.
For example: By saying “It is hot today”, we can intend
the following:
- Simply stating a fact.
- Advising the listener to wear lighter clothes.
- Asking or urging them to open the window.
As you can see, the same locutionary act can have
different illocutionary acts. Perlocutionary act (act of
result) is the effect of our words on the listener, that is,
the real changes that occur as a result of our words.
This is related to how the listener responds to our
words or how he acts as a result of them.
According
to
Searle
and
Vanderveken,
“a
perlocutionary act, unlike an illocutionary one, is not a
linguistic phenomenon, since it is possible to achieve a
perlocutionary result without performing any speech
act.” J. Leach also notes that perlocution does not fall
within the scope of linguistic analysis: “The analysis of
perlocutionary results is not part of the task of
pragmatics, since the power of pragmatic influence is
related to the purpose, not to the result.”
For example: After we say “It is hot today,” the listener
may open the window, the listener may put on lighter
clothes, the listener may agree with us or object. A
perlocutionary act may not correspond to our
intention, because it depends on the understanding
and reaction of the listener. So, a locutionary act is
what we say, an illocutionary act is what we intend by
saying the sentence, and a perlocutionary act is what
happens as a result. In our research work, we tried to
show these speech acts through proverbs expressing
the concepts of friendship and hostility in English and
Uzbek. From the above information, it can be
concluded that according to Austin's classification,
speech acts are divided into 3 types: locutionary,
illocutionary and perlocutionary acts. Searle, on the
other hand, paid special attention to the types of
illocutionary acts in his classification of speech acts. So,
if the proverbs we highlighted in Chapter 2 are in the
locutionary form, in this chapter we will analyze
perlocutionary acts using their illocutionary, internal
types and contexts.
According to Searle's classification, we will analyze the
way proverbs express speech acts.
1. Assertive, stating, confirming speech acts. In this
case, the speaker expresses confidence in the
truthfulness of his words. Proverbs such as “A friend in
need is a friend indeed” in English, and “A friend is a
friend in hard times” in Uzbek confirm that the true test
of friendship is in difficult times.
2. Directives: Speech acts that encourage the listener to
perform an action. Command, request, advice, etc. The
proverb “Keep your friends close, but your enemies
closer” in English expresses this act. There are also
many proverbs in Uzbek that express this act, for
example, “Do’sti köp bilan siyaslah, Do’sti oz bilan
sirlash”, “Do’stga lola bo’l, Yovga jala bo’l” and others.
3. Commissives: Speech acts that express the speaker's
commitment to perform a task in the future. Making a
promise, swearing, etc. are part of this act. We cannot
give an example of a proverb that expresses this
structure in terms of content in either English or Uzbek,
but proverbs can be used to express a purpose in
context.
4. Expressives: Speech acts that express the speaker's
feelings about a situation. Gratitude, regret,
congratulations, etc.
5. Declarations: Speech acts that change the world with
the utterance of words. Announcing a marriage, firing
a job, etc.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
The importance of context in pragmatics is so strong
that if there is no context, the meaning can be
interpreted differently. Speech acts such as swearing,
thanking, or declaring, as listed in Searle's classification
above, are revealed precisely through context. Below,
we will examine some of the proverbs expressing the
concepts of friendship/enmity in English and Uzbek in
context and carry out their pragmatic analysis.
Below, we will determine the illocutionary act of the
proverb “Keep your friends close and your enemies
closer” in context t
aken from the COCA (Corpus of
Contemporary American English): “Am I supposed to
just stay at home and raise this child with Barbara while
you go cowboying off all the time? It won't always be
like this. After reunification... Nothing will be different.
Unless you stop being... Me? Hey, Jim. I have to go.
We'll talk after. If there is an after. Oh, yeah?! Oh-ho!
Oswald, where the hell is Nygma? Shouldn't we have
left the city already? Ms. Kean, this may come as a
surprise, but building a submarine from scratch by
yourself takes time. Patience. Easy for you to say.
You're not a walking egg timer. Tell him to get a move
on. And why, exactly, are you hosting Gordon's
gangland get-together? Keep your friends close and
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
57
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
American Journal Of Philological Sciences (ISSN
–
2771-2273)
your enemies closer, my dear. If we're really going to
leave Gotham, we need to keep Gordon happy. You
know all about that, don't you? It was a momentary
slip. The world was on fire. Jim, it's your show. Mi casa,
su casa. I'll make this short. Gotham is running dry. Our
supply of clean water will only last a few more months.
So you have a choice. You can keep killing each other,
fighting over what little water is left, maybe eke out a
few more months, then die. Or... we can all agree right
now to an immediate cease-fire. The government will
not annex a war zone. If we can show them that we
deserve to rejoin the mainland, supply chain will be
restored and we will all survive until reunification.
That's the choice. ”
We will analyze the use of the proverb “Keep your
friends close and your enemies closer
” in the given text
based on Searle’s classification of speech acts.
This proverb is said by Barbara Keene in relation to Jim
Gordon. The context is that Barbara is explaining that
Gordon has arranged a meeting with the criminal
gangs. Her purpose is to emphasize that if they want to
leave Gotham, they need to please Gordon.
The function of the proverb in this context is to give
strategic advice. Barbara recommends the importance
of maintaining relationships with Gordon, even with his
enemies.
According to
Searle’s classification of speech acts, the
use of this proverb corresponds to the Directive speech
act. As we have already noted, the characteristics of
directive speech acts are to encourage the listener to
perform an action, which can be expressed in the form
of an order, a request, advice, a suggestion, a warning,
etc.
The proverb “Keep your friends close and your enemies
closer” corresponds to these characteristics. By using
this proverb, Barbara is advising Gordon to take a
certain action, that is, to be close to her enemies. Her
goal is to change Gordon’s behavior and influence his
strategic thinking.
If we compare it with other speech acts, in this case
there is no Assertive speech act, because Barbara is not
confirming or stating anything. Although she is
assessing the situation, the main goal is to give advice.
There is also no Commissive speech act, because
Barbara is not promising any future action. There may
be elements of an Expressive speech act (e.g., concern),
but the main purpose is not to express feelings, but to
give advice. There is also no Declaration speech act,
since no situation is changing with the use of the
proverb.
Let's look at another context: “alone (m) (m) Live by the
gun(m) Die by the gun(m) In the line(m) That's how the
west was won(m) Live by good(m) Die by good(m) In
the line(m) That's how the west was won(m) West was
won yeah(m) I don't wan na start a war anyways (m)
(m) Oh oh ah ah ah(m) Yeah yeah(m) Live by the gun(m)
Die by the gun(m) In the line(m) That's how the west
was won(m) Live by gun(m) Die by gun(m) In the line(m)
That's how the west was won(m) Live by the gun(m) Die
by the gun(m) In the line(m) That's how the west was
won(m) Live by the gun(m) Die by the gun(m) In the
line(m) That's how the west was won(m) West was
won(m) West was won(m) Ay ay ayYes! Yes, fuck yeah.
Oh, A friend in need is a friend indeed but a friend with
weed is better. Listen, no hiphop or rap jokes tonight
alright. I'm very sensitive about this shit. Anyways, we
have a little confession to make. We didn't think
anydiv was gon na show up so we decided that we
would tweet out that JR Jones was playing with us
tonight. And I found out he's not even in town. Aah.
Come on. What. What. Boo! Fuck this. Hey, relax
alright. It's all good, it's all good' cause guess what?
We're playing some old songs tonight. And we're
definitely gon na play a few new ones. Here's a new
one. It's called Black Roses. (m) All you'll ever get is
black roses (m) (m) All you'll everHey… ”
In this isolated context, the prover
b “A friend in need is
a friend indeed” is used, and according to the context,
the band, worried about the potential low attendance
at their concert, falsely spread a rumor on social media
that famous musician JR Jones would be performing
with them. When the rumor is later exposed, they use
the phrase “A friend in need is a friend indeed but a
friend with weed is better” to defuse the situation and
reduce the anger of the audience.
In this context, the proverb serves several purposes,
including defuse the situation: Instead of apologizing to
the audience for spreading false news, the band is
trying to lighten the situation and make it seem funny;
Changing the concept of friendship: The next part of
the proverb (“but a friend with weed is better”) aims to
change the traditional concept of friendship and give it
an unconventional, humorous meaning. Through this,
the group is trying to justify their behavior, divert the
audience’s
attention;
Also,
maintaining
the
relationship: The group aims to maintain the
relationship with the audience, soothe their anger, and
continue the concert.
According to Searle’s classification of speech acts, the
use of this proverb mainly corresponds to expressive
and partly assertive speech acts. The expressive aspect
is that by citing the proverb, the group is expressing
their attitude, that is, they are taking the situation
lightly, are prone to humor. They are also trying to
change the audience’s attitude, arouse positive
emotions in them.
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
58
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
American Journal Of Philological Sciences (ISSN
–
2771-2273)
The assertive aspect is that the first part of the proverb
(“A friend in need is a friend indeed”) confirms the
traditional concept of friendship. But the next part
changes this affirmation and puts forward a new,
unconventional idea. Compared to other speech acts,
there is no directive speech act, because the group is
not urging anyone to take any action. There is no
commissive speech act, because the group is not
promising to do anything in the future. There is no
declaration speech act, because no situation is directly
changed by the use of the proverb.
Next, let's analyze the proverb from the context given
in Uzbek:
—
I couldn't find another dish.
—
Yes, mug'ombir-yeah, please bring it, fill it up, you
are also from the adults. How much money did I give
you that day? You know, they say, “A friend
who is
responsible never leaves.”
The young man turned pale a little. The thought, “What
if the chairman asks for the extra money he gave me?”
began to cross his mind. Lost in such thoughts, he
stammered, as if he hesitated a little: “The money you
gave me was four thousand three hundred soums,
chairman,” he replied. “Couldn’t you say five thousand,
Galvars!” “I swear to God, chairman. I counted the
money you gave me one by one. It was four thousand
three hundred soums, to be sure.” The chairman and
those around him burst out laughing. The young man
stood awkwardly holding the oil container and looked
at the chairman, not realizing anything. “Okay,” the
chairman said, “let it be as you say. Your monthly salary
is set at four thousand three hundred soums.” "
Eh," the
young man said after a long time, getting to the point,
"if you had whispered that to me, I would have said that
you had six thousand soums." The young man's face
was flushed and his mouth was red.
—
Oh, you simple-minded Mogambier, what's wrong
with four thousand? You worked all summer, combing
cotton, barely earning seven hundred a month. And
then, in the winter, you would beg to have your teeth
cleaned. Now, wouldn't it be nice if four thousand three
hundred went into your pocket every month!
No one thought these words were a joke because the
chairman spoke seriously without laughing. The young
man himself would sometimes blush and sometimes
turn pale, as if he regretted what he had said.
—
Hey, let's set your monthly salary at five thousand,
not six thousand. Do you agree, director?!
When we analyze the use of the proverb “A friend with
a reckoning is inseparable” (A friend with a reckoning is
inseparable/A friendship with a reckoning is
i
ndestructible) in the given text based on Searle’s
classification of speech acts, the main content is that in
the conversation between the chairman and the young
man, the chairman mentions the money he gave the
young man earlier and at the same time cites the
proverb “A friend with a reckoning is inseparable”.
Later, this money is defined as the young man’s
monthly salary.
Here, the proverb performs two functions: Reminding
the past relationship: The chairman reminds the young
man through the proverb that they had a monetary
relationship before, which shows the level of their
relationship (close to friendship). Also, defining the
future relationship: By citing the proverb, the chairman
is supposedly emphasizing that the relationship
between them will be clear and transparent in the
future, and will be built on the basis of calculation.
Here, the proverb also performs the function of
defining the basis for future monthly salary
relationships.
According to Searle's classification of speech acts, the
use of this proverb corresponds more to assertive and
partly commissive speech acts.
The assertive aspect is that by citing the proverb, the
chairman confirms the past and present situation, that
is, he states that there is a certain relationship between
them and that this relationship is based on calculation.
The commissive aspect is that through the proverb, the
chairman determines the form of future relationships,
that is, relationships that will arise through the
payment of a monthly salary. Although there is no
direct promise here, the proverb serves the function of
expressing future obligations.
In this case, if we compare it with other speech acts,
there is no directive speech act, because the chairman
is not urging anyone to take any action. There may be
elements of an Expressive speech act (for example,
expressing friendliness), but the main purpose is not to
express feelings, but to confirm the situation and
determine future relations.
CONCLUSION
Speech Act Theory presents a comprehensive way of
analyzing language, focusing not just on the meaning of
sentences but on their communicative function in
social contexts. The division of speech acts into
locutionary,
illocutionary,
and
perlocutionary
categories helps in understanding the complex
dynamics of communication. Through the analysis of
proverbs in both English and Uzbek, it is clear that these
acts function in various ways to convey meaning,
influence listeners, and shape social relationships.
Context plays a crucial role in interpreting the
illocutionary force of utterances, making the theory a
valuable tool in the study of language in its social and
communicative context.
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
59
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
American Journal Of Philological Sciences (ISSN
–
2771-2273)
REFERENCES
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words.
Harvard University Press.
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the
Philosophy of Language. Cambridge University Press.
Vanderveken, D. (1990). Meaning and Speech Acts:
Volume 1: Principles of Language Use. Cambridge
University Press.
Leach, J. (1983). The Pragmatics of Speech Acts.
Cambridge University Press.
Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford University Press.
Crystal, D. (2008). A Dictionary of Linguistics and
Phonetics (6th ed.). Wiley-Blackwell.
Searle, J. R., & Vanderveken, D. (1985). Foundations of
Illocutionary Logic. Harvard University Press.
Givón, T. (1995). Functionalism and Grammar. John
Benjamins Publishing Company.
Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1975). Unmasking the Face:
A Guide to Recognizing Emotions from Facial Clues.
Prentice-Hall.
Hymes, D. (1972). Models of the Interaction of
Language and Social Life. In Directions in
Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication
(pp. 35-71). Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Agha, A. (2007). Language and Social Relations.
Cambridge University Press.
Kuno, S. (1973). The Structure of the Japanese
Language. MIT Press.
Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (2002). Pragmatics in Language
Teaching. Cambridge University Press.
Bolinger, D. (1977). Meaning and Form: Lexical and
Grammatical Semantics. Longman.
Ladd, D. R. (1996). Intonational Phonology. Cambridge
University Press.
Ur, P. (1996). A Course in Language Teaching: Practice
and Theory. Cambridge University Press.
