report on speech acts

Pragmatics
Assignment
TOPIC: SPEECH ACTS IN CLASSROOM DISCOURSE
Submitted to: Ma’amkulsoom
Submitted by: SeemabAbbas (80)
Nazia Nawaz(90)
Saba khalid (93)
Sadia (79)
Department: BS (Hons.) English-VI
Date: 18-May- 2015
BILQUISE POST GRADUATE COLLEGE FOR WOMEN, P.A.F BASE
NURKHAN

CONTENT
 Chapter #01
INTRODUCTION
 Backgroundof study
 Aims and objectives of study
 Researchquestion
 Hypothesis
 Chapter #02
LITERATURE REVIEW
 Definition of pragmatics
 Definition of speechacts
 Classificationofspeechacts
 Previous researches
 Chapter #03
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
 Researchproblem
 Hypothesis
 Type of research
 Population
 Sample
 Toolof data collection
 Chapter #04
DATA COLLECTION AND PRESENTATION
 Chapter #05
CONCLUSION AND REFERENCES

CHAPTER 01
INTRODUCTION
Background study:
We have conducted ourresearch on speechacts in classroom
discourse. We analyzed how social authority affects the use of speech
acts in classroomdiscourse. We wanted to prove that teachers use
direct speech act in classrooms during their lectures so our population
for this research was Bilquis postgraduate college and our sample
includes BS English 4th and 6th semesters. Our research is Qualitative
as well as Quantitative. We recorded the lectures delivered by
teachers in their respective classes.
Aims and Objectives:
 To identify the types of speechacts that emerges and are maintained in
classroominteraction between the teacher and the students.
 To describe when and how those types of speechacts are constructed and
developed between the teacher and the students in order to negotiate
meaning in classroom interaction.
 People having higher social power use direct speechacts in their
communication.
 Role-play activities are particularly suitable for practicing the use of speech
acts.
 Feedbackand discussionare useful activities for speechact teaching because
students need to talk about their perceptions & awareness
Research question:
How speechacts are used differently according to the social authority
in classroom.

Hypothesis:
People having higher social power use direct speechacts in their
communication.
Chapter 02
LITERATURE REVIEW
Pragmatics:
Pragmatics is concerned with the study of meaning as communicated by a speaker
(or writer) and interpreted by a listener (or reader). Pragmatics is the study of
speaker meaning. This type of study necessarily involves the interpretation of what
people mean in a particular context and how the context influences what is said.
Pragmatics is the study of contextual meaning. We might say that is the
investigation of invisible meaning. Pragmatics is the study of how more gets
communicated than is said. On the assumption of how close or distant the listener
is, determine how much needs to be said. It deals with the study of expression of
relative distance.
Speech acts:
Actions performed via utterances are generally called speechacts. In English; are
commonly given more specific labels, such as apology, complaint, complement,
invitation, promise, or request. These descriptive terms for different kinds of
speechacts apply to the speaker’s communicative intention in producing an
utterance.
Making a statement may be the paradigmatic use of language, but there are all sorts
of other things we can do with words. We can make requests, ask questions, give
orders, make promises, give thanks, offer apologies, and so on. Moreover, almost
any speechact is really the performance of several acts at once, distinguished by
different aspects of the speaker's intention: there is the act of saying something,
what one does in saying it, such as requesting or promising, and how one is trying
to affect one's audience.
Three levels of speech acts

Speech acts can be analyzed on three levels:
1. A locutionary act, the performance of an utterance: the actual utterance and
its ostensible meaning, comprising phonetic, phatic and rhetic acts
corresponding to the verbal, syntactic and semantic aspects of any
meaningful utterance;
2. an illocutionary act:the pragmatic 'illocutionary force' of the utterance, thus
its intended significance as a socially valid verbal action (see below);
3. and in certain cases a further perlocutionary act:its actual effect, such as
persuading, convincing, scaring, enlightening, inspiring, or otherwise
getting someone to do or realize something, whether intended or not (Austin
1962)
Types of speech acts:
Representatives are such utterances which commit the hearer to the truth of
the expressed proposition (e.g. asserting, concluding)
 The name of the British queen is Elizabeth.
Directives are attempts by the speaker to get the addresseeto do something
(e.g. ordering, requesting)
 Would you make me a cup of tea?
Commissives commit the speaker to some future courseof action (e.g.
promising, offering)
 I promise to come at eight and cooka nice dinner for you.
Expressives express a psychological state (e.g. thanking, congratulating)
 Thank you for your kind offer.

Declarations effectimmediate changes in the institutional state of affairs
and which tend to rely on elaborate extra-linguistic institutions (e.g. christening,
declaring war)
 I bequeath all my property to my beloved fiancee.
Previous researches:
Earchby ReTerryAckerman, Shoshana Blum-Kulka, Yamuna Kachru,
K.R. Rose, Department of Linguistics, University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign, 4088 Foreign Languages Building, 707 South Mathews
Avenue, Urbana, IL 61801, USA.
This research is the Cross Cultural Speech Act Realization Project (CCSARP). The
CCSARP methodology raises issues which should be addressed to further develop
speech act research. One of these issues is the construction of questionnaires, or
discourse-completion tests (DCTs). This paper reports the results of a study in
which two forms of a DCT were administered to native speakers of American
English. One form included hearer response (HR DCT), while the other form did
not (NoHR DCT). The two forms were identical in all other respects. The results
showed that although responses on the NoHR DCT tended to be slightly longer and
use slightly more supportive moves and downgraders, inclusion of hearer response
did not have a significant effect on requests elicited.
This journal looks at the construction of questionnaires, involving speech act
responses, in American English. Background research was conducted into a study
where a questionnaire was formed containing eight request dialogues and eight
apology dialogues. Participants were given a conversational structure which
included a listener response and a preceding blank space to be filled in with a
request or apology. The study gave rise to an overwhelming number of overt
apologies and indirect requests, prompting Rose(2002) to research this further, and
determine whether there was a significant difference with the inclusion of hearer
response.
In his own study two questionnaires were prepared one including the hearer
response and the other not, this time however only involving six situations. The
findings were that the no hearer response questionnaires tended to contain slightly

longer responses and used slightly more supportive moves. The inclusion of hearer
response did not have significant impact on the requests elicited and so therefore
would pose no issue for miscommunication.
University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, US
Ferris State University, Big Rapids, MI, USA
Caleb T. Carr, Departmentof Communication, University of Oklahoma, 131
Burton Hall, 610 Elm Avenue, Norman, OK 730
This research examines the use of speech acts in computer-mediated
communication, specifically in the status messages of the social network site
Facebook, to communicate in both a mass and an interpersonal medium. A total of
204 status messages created by 46 participants were captured 3 times daily over 14
consecutive days. Content analysis of these data revealed that status messages were
most frequently constructed with expressive speech acts, followed by assertives.
Additionally, humor was integrated into almost 20% of these status messages.
These findings demonstrate differences in how users express themselves in
alternate media. Findings address implications for self-presentation in social
networks and theoretical implications for computer-mediated communication
research.
Rachele De Felice Paul Deane September 2012
This report discussed several issues of relevance for the TOEIC Writing e-mail
task. They described an approach to the automated scoring of this task, focusing
on the presence of speech acts in the test responses. The computational model for
automated speech act identification they developed achieves up to 79.28%
accuracy; they have suggested possible solutions to achieve better performance.
They also compared their TOEIC e-mail data to corpora of speech-act annotated
native English e-mails, and discussed the impact of differences in speech act use
between native and non-native English. They believe this study is a useful first
attempt at developing a comprehensive approach to the automated scoring of the
TOEIC e-mail task.

Barnlund and Yoshioka (1990)
A study conducted on Japanese and American speakers. Barnlund and Yoshioka
(1990) have shown that there are some “critical cultural variables” (p. 197) that
influence the way speakers apologize. Thus, the study has shown that Japanese
speakers used more direct and extreme apologies, while Americans were more
indirect. The methodology used was, however, different than the 32 one in the
CCSARP, which could also be one of the reasons that the findings differed. The
authors used a scale type response questionnaire of 14 situations that were selected
after conducting semi structured interviews with native speakers of both cultures.
(Tamanaha, 2003)
Similar findings have been reported by another study that compared speakers of
American English and Japanese. However, this time the focus of the investigation
was comparing American learners of Japanese to both native speakers of English
and of Japanese (Tamanaha, 2003). According to the study, native speakers of
English used more rational strategies, while native speakers of Japanese more
emotional ones. For example, the Japanese speakers would express remorse and
use explicit expressions of apology, while the American speakers would give an
explanation or justification to the offense and then use an explicit apology.
Tamanaha has attributed these results to the fact that there are important
underlying differences between the American and Japanese cultures.
(Edmundson 1992)
perception of apologies (Edmundson 1992) for instance found that, in a New
Zealand 183 naturally occurring corpus and based on gender, women used
apologies more than men, women apologized to other women more than to men,
and men apologized to women more than to men.
Research was conducted on Speech Act Theory, Discourse Structure and Indirect
Speech Acts by Peter Wilfred Hesling Smith in September 1991.The research
aimed at exploring the fact that if the theories of Austen and Searle are viable
theory of language usage, then speech act theory must be able to integrate with a
theory of discourse structure, because if speech acts are identifiable as units of
language, then it must be possible include them in a model of discourse. He
worked through examples of several speech act verbs to develop action schemas,
which he expressed in what he had called the utterance logical form. The utterance
logical form can be used, along with other information to build up the final

utterance. There were also a set of states, which were essentially pre-conditions for
the act to take place, which he had expressed as cognitive states. Finally, there was
a presumed effect, which was an expression of the effect the speaker would like to
have upon the hearer. He seeks to explain sequencing of speech acts within a
discourse structure. He did it by using a relevance relationship between adjacent
speech acts, and also describes how certain cognitive states can be used to explain
a form of pairing between speech acts that relate to the same proposition. The final
description of a speech act consisted of a schematic plan which contained an action
in the form of what the speaker wants to express in terms of their beliefs or wants.
Hence when making an assertive, the speaker expresses his belief. This belief may
be modified by modal or deontic operators. There are also a set of preconditions
(presupposed cognitive states) that express two things: those things that the speaker
needs to know or to have thought about in order to make a given speech act.
Secondly, they include a set of states that enable the speaker to determine (to some
extent) the sort of response that they will receive from the hearer. For example
with an assertive, the speaker knows that the hearer may not believe him and is
prepared for this. This theory not only dissolves the distinction between
conversational analysis theories (at the appropriate level) and those of discourse
analysis, but it also describes how a particular act is to be performed within a
language community.
“Speech act sets of refusal and complaint: A comparison of native and non-
native English speakers’ production” by Sharyl Tanck. To compare the
pragmatic competence of adult ESL speakers to that of adult native English
speakers when performing the speech acts of complaints and refusals, all
participants were given Discourse Completion Tests (DCTs) wherein they were
asked to write their responses to six prompts, representing the two speech acts and
two distractors, within familiar equal and superior-inferior relationships. DCTs
have been used as the basis of many speech act studies, including Olshtain and
Weinbach’s (1987) study of complaints, and Beebe, Takahashi and Uliss-Weltz’
(1990) study of refusals.
Responses of native English speakers were reviewed for evidence of common
components of speech act sets to establish a set baseline responses. The responses
made by non-native speakers were then evaluated for the presence and quality of
the speech act components as compared to the native speakers. The participants

were 25 graduate students at American University in Washington, DC. Subjects’
ages ranged from 21 to 46 years old. Of the 25 subjects, five were male and 20
were female. Twelve of the participants were native speakers of English. Thirteen
of the subjects were non-native speakers of English, whose first languages
included Chinese,
Haitian Creole, Korean, Polish, Russian, Serbian, Spanish, and Thai. The study
was conducted at American University in Washington, DC, USA. All subjects
maintained residences in the Washington, DC metropolitan area. A stratified
sampling technique was used. This study illuminates several areas where ESL/EFL
students might appear inappropriate (i.e., confrontational, presumptuous, vague)
when making a refusal or complaint. In this research in order to help their students
achieve optimal pragmatic success, teachers need to make students aware of
specific speech act sets and the accompanying linguistic features that are necessary
to produce appropriate and well-received refusals, complaints, and other important
speech acts. Non-native speakers, especially those with little opportunity for
interaction, may not have knowledge of the routine of semantic formulae, or may
not have internalized such rules to adequately produce them in spontaneous speech
(Kasper, 1997), and textbooks are generally not a good source of input for students
when studying pragmatic functions (Bardovi-Harlig, 2001). However, specific
speech act instruction could lead to greater pragmatic competence for non-native
speakers. In one study, ESL students demonstrated improvement in their
performances of complaints and refusals after 3.5 hours of instruction, and
continued to maintain their improvement in a post-test given six months after the
instruction (Morrow, 1996, as cited in Kasper, 2001). Hudson (2001) suggests that
teachers could use DCTs in the classroom to focus on social distance between
speakers, and then use role play activities to mimic an authentic situation,
beginning with the more semantically formulaic apologies and requests. These
speech acts may be easier for students to acquire than refusals and complaints,
which demand more social interaction as well as many face-saving moves. Future
studies should investigate semantic formulae, or speech act sets, as potential
materials for curriculum development, as well as classroom applications of the
DCT.

“Modelling speech acts in conversational discourse” by Amanda Schiffrin
in the year 2005. Beliefs, plans and goals of this research were:
Having described the context for identifying a wide range of speech acts, a suitable
next stage would be to attempt to incorporate some modelling of beliefs and
reasoning. At present the STM only deals with speech act recognition, and while
there is still a long way to go with this function of the model, it eventually
incorporating speech act generation as well. This may well include looking at
plans and goals in conversation. A final aim would be to have several autonomous
agents endowed with differing belief systems conversing with each other according
to their STMs and beliefs, backtracking when the conversation shows model
inconsistencies, updating commitments constantly, but yet allowing each
agent/participant’s model to ‘come apart’ as it were from each other’s (accounting
for misunderstandings and contradictory belief systems in ‘real life’). This idea is
very much in line with current Agent Negotiation Protocol and Theory in
Distributive Artificial Intelligence systems. His aim was to start to map out a
grammar of discourse, to explain how it is that we understand what we mean from
what we say. This aim he felt that he had achieved. He believe that this is the
whole story: just as grammarians looking for a definitive sentential grammar have
not yet found the set of rules that comprehensively accounts for every sentence
formulation available in any language, no-one working in dialogue modelling has
yet managed the same at the utterance level. However, many grammars are
sophisticated enough these days to be able to encompass the overwhelming
categories. The same can be said of discourse grammars.majority of
(grammatically correct) sentences, to the satisfaction of a given set of criteria. One
of the factors influencing the effectiveness of sentence grammars is that the
complexity of the problem of coverage of different formulations increases
exponentially depending upon the fineness of ‘grain’ of the grammatical

Chapter 03
RESEARCHMETHODOLOGY
Research question
How speechacts are used differently according to the social authority
in classroom.
Hypothesis
People having higher social power use direct speechacts in their
communication.
Type of research
Our research is based on qualitative analysis as well as quantitative
analysis
QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH
 Burns & Grove 2005:23 defines: Quantitative research is a formal,
objective, systematic process in which numerical data are used to obtain
information about the world.
This research method is used:
 To describe variables;
 To examine relationships among variables;
 To determine cause-and-effect interactions between variables.
QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
 Dezin and Lincon (1996) define qualitative research as “Qualitative
research is multi method in focus, involving an interpretive, naturalistic
approachto its subject matter. Qualitative research involves the studied use
and collection of a variety of empirical materials ; case study, personal

experience, introspective, life story, interview, observational, historical,
interactional, and visual texts -- that describe routine and problematic
moments and meaning in individuals' lives
 Creswell's definition of Qualitative Research: Qualitative research is an
inquiry process ofunderstanding based on distinct methodological traditions
of inquiry that explore a social or human problem.
Population
We have taken Bilquis postgraduate college as our population.
Sample
We have taken BS (Hornz) English 4th and 6th semesters as our sample. We
recorded three lectures of poetry, semantics and psycholinguistics for the duration
of 25 minutes, 30 minutes and 50 minutes respectively.
Tool of data collection
Recording and observationis our tool of data.
Our sources for data collection were primary and secondary sources.
Primary sources is an original object or document -- the raw material or first-
hand information, source material that is closestto what is being studied.
Primary sources vary by discipline and can include historical and legal documents,
eye witness accounts, results of an experiment, statistical data, pieces of creative
writing, and art objects. In the natural and social sciences, the results of an
experiment or study are typically found in scholarly articles or papers delivered at
conferences, so those articles and papers that present the original results are
considered primary sources.
Secondarysource is something written about a primary source. Secondary
sources include comments on, interpretations of, or discussions about the original
material. You can think of secondary sources as second-hand information. If I tell
you something, I am the primary source. If you tell someone else what I told you,
you are the secondarysource. Secondary sourcematerials can be articles in

newspapers or popular magazines, bookor movie reviews, or articles found in
scholarly journals that evaluate or criticize someone else's original research.
Chapter 04
Lecture # 01
i. Ok! What is this? (direct speechact)
ii. What do you think the poem is actually about? (direct speechact)
iii. What does u think about the word Grecian Urn? (direct speechact)
iv. It is a Greek pot. (direct speechact)
v. It is the way of preserving the aches of ancient bodies.(factual)
vi. What about assignments ma’am? (direct speechact)
vii. We will talk in last 5 minutes not now not now. (promise)
viii. Who would like to read the first four lines? (command)
ix. We want any human being (indirect speechact)
x. Ok Buraira! You can do it. (direct speechact)
xi. (hand raise )(gesture)
xii. Saba!(command)
xiii. After reading the poem what idea did come in your mind? (direct speech
act)
xiv. There is another one. (indirect speechact)
xv. I asked you to come prepared. (order)
xvi. What idea do you form about this poet and poem? (direct speechact)
xvii. How we can relate this poem with those points? (direct speechact)
xviii. Ok! Let me finish that. (suggestion)
xix. What about the title Grecian Urn (ode to Grecian urn) (direct speechact)
xx. Do you think it’s an imaginary urn? (direct speechact)
xxi. Do you think it is actually exist? (direct speechact)
xxii. No ma’am!(refusal)
xxiii. He wrote this poem in 1819 and in 1812 lord Elgian …(factual)
xxiv. He might have visited the museum and where he saw……. (suggestion)
xxv. And poem is about one of those Urn.(factual)

xxvi. Ma’am ye British museum khaha hai? (direct speechact)
xxvii. Lord Elgian brought it and placed it in museum and keats visited it.(factual)
xxviii. Lord Elgian was not a shair.(factual)
xxix. Ok let’s start with the development of thoughts (suggestion)
xxx. Who’ll read it again? (direct speechact)
xxxi. Mahrukh read the first four lines (order)
xxxii. Ok focus on the first four lines .whom the poet is addressing? (order and
direct speechact)
xxxiii. He is addressing someone(factual)
xxxiv. Don’t you think he’s talking to the urn.(direct speechact)
xxxv. What about unravished bride? (direct speechact)
xxxvi. Who? What’s the meaning of foster child? (direct speechact)
xxxvii. (Hands raise) ma’am, ma’am! (gesture)
xxxviii. Unravished untouched hota hana? (direct speechact)
xxxix. Unravished mean untouched is ka mtlb new naa tou jo bride ati ha wo
kamosh he rehti ha (representative)
xl. Do you think it is a Pakistani or Asian poet who have an idea of bride who is
very quiet and shy?(direct or indirect)
xli. It’s not in that context (factualand direct speechact)
xlii. Ma’am hum kal se parh kr aen gy (request)
xliii. This is very desi explanation.(indirect speechact)
xliv. Yamna! What you say?(directspeechact)
xlv. Asey parh le tou parh le tum logo ney poem. (indirect speechact)
xlvi. Sorry,sorry!(refusal)
xlvii. Kitny log parh kr aen hain? (direct speechact)
xlviii. Ok!we stop here! (declarative)
xlix. Tomorrow come prepared(orderand commissive)
l. I’ll ask u about……………(commissiveand direct speechact)
li. Let me bring my book (suggestion)
Lecture #02
i. How does u locate a subject with in a sentence? (direct speechact)
ii. Where is the subject the subject? (direct speechact)

iii. Yes, technically it happens that in active and passive voice when you are
changing a sentence into passive one, the subject becomes the
object.(factual)
iv. now remember yesterday we did thematic sentences and active and
passive voice.(factual and representative)
v. now let’s do an activity(suggestion)
vi. I am going to dictate few sentences (commissives)
vii. And you have to analyze the subject silently(order)
viii. Just stated it down and raise your hands without saying anything.(order)
ix. Now first one (declarative)
x. You have to identify the subjects (order)
xi. What is the subject in the 1st sentence just and what is the verb?(direct
speechact)
xii. Why not writing?(direct speechact)
xiii. The next one.(declarative)
xiv. Why not………… (suggestionand agreement)
xv. Object ha na???? (indirect speechact)
xvi. Now over here……..(directive and instruction)
xvii. Where is the verb? (direct speechact)
xviii. Take down another set of sentences (order)
xix. Identify the adverbs in the following sentences (order)
xx. No 01,no 02 no 03 (declaratives)
xxi. Just write and match the examples to your experiences (order)
xxii. We are going start very soon(commissive)
xxiii. Ma’am ek or bolain paanch pory ho jaain gy(suggestion)
xxiv. Khud batana than aa (suggestion)
xxv. You are feeling very sleepy(representative ,comment)
xxvi. Where is the adverb in the statement? (direct speechact)
xxvii. Adverbs answer what kind of questions? (direct speechact)
xxviii. Next (declarative)
xxix. Again there are two (factual)
Lecture 03
i. Sorry! You r not able to watch it.(indirect speechactand expressive)

ii. (Dragging of rostem)…… (gesture)
iii. Mother tongue ko heritage language be bolty hain.(representative)
iv. What is the name of 1st language?(direct speechact)
v. Now let us see that how it is related with language acquisition.( suggestion
and indirect speechact)
vi. It is fine!(direct speechact)
vii. Now let us watch the video.(suggestion)
viii. First of all we’ll talk about ……………(commissive)
ix. Ok ! (gesture)
x. Do you remember that……(direct speechact)
xi. Can anyone of you explain this experiment(direct speechact)
xii. Buraira! (command)
xiii. Can anyone of you elaborate it better?(direct speechact)
xiv. Let us see that what is operant conditioning?(indirect speechactand
suggestion)
xv. So what did this call an operant conditioning? (direct speechact)
xvi. What is the most important in operant conditioning? (direct speechact)
xvii. So what is the conclusion of all this? (direct speechact)
xviii. So who was that person?Can you remember? (direct speechact)
xix. B.F Skinner(all students speak)(representative and factual)
xx. What did this method said that (direct speechact)
xxi. Do you believe that it is a very good day of teaching.(direct speechact)
xxii. Do you believe it?? This method of audiolingulisim.(representative)
xxiii. What is the main points of…………(directspeechact)
xxiv. Do believe that language cannot be learnt through habit formation.(direct
speechact)
xxv. Don’t you feel like that….(representative)
xxvi. So girls what are the 3 main points of behaviorism.(direct speechact)
xxvii. What is negative reinforcement?(direct speechact)
xxviii. Can you tell me what is negative reinforcement?(direct speechact)
xxix. Tayyaba! (command)
xxx. Who rejected the behaviorist theory?(direct speechact)
xxxi. Buraira! have you got the notes?(direct speechact)

DATA ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS:
SPEECHACTS LECTURE 1 LECTURE 2 LECTURE 3
Direct Speech
Acts 21 7 19
Indirect Speech
Act 6 1 3
Declaratives 1 0 0
Representatives 9 4 4
Expressive 2 0 1
Directives 10 14 5
Commissives 4 0 0
Gestures 1 0 3
0
5
10
15
20
25
LECTURE 1
LECTURE 2
LECTURE 3

QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS:
We conducted a research on speech acts in classroomdiscourseand collected our
data from primary and secondary sources. Werecorded three lectures of poetry,
semantics and psycholinguistics for the duration of 25 minutes, 30 minutes and 50
minutes respectively. After analyzing the data we come to know that different
speechacts are used in classroomdiscourseand these speech acts are classified in
different categories. The more frequently used speech acts in our recording are
directives and direct speech acts by teachers. Direct speech acts are used by
students via responses. Other categories of speech acts are also used like
representative, commissives, expresives, gesture, declaratives and indirect speech
acts; but their level of occurrenceas compared to the use of directives and direct
speechis very low
As our hypothesis is “People having higher social power use direct speechacts in
their communication”
Hence it is proved that teachers having more social power use direct speech acts
and directives in their classroom, during lectures. The deference level due to the
social power, teachers use more direct speechacts in classroom, to maintain the
deference between teachers and students.
Chapter 05
Conclusion:
After conducting this research we came to know that the teachers having more
social power use direct speech acts and directives more in number than the other
categories of speech acts. In classroom they have to behave formally and because
of having more power they use certain utterances which shows command, order,
suggestion. They mostly use those sentences or utterances which attempts to make
the world fit the words. In the same way students having less social power in the
classroom as compared to the teacher they simply use ‘too the point’ responses
and tend to behave formally, their gesture and expressions shows that they are
listening to the teacher and they have to do what so ever teacher want from them
otherwise it will be considered unethical or something unusual. From the table as
shown earlier, we came to know that in all three lectures direct speech acts are

more in number and the other category of speech acts which are greater in number
is directives. Hence, our hypothesis proved that because of more social power
teachers use more direct speech acts then any other category of speech acts.
References
https://cs.uwaterloo.ca/research/tr/1992/49/92-49.pdf
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?rep=rep1&type=pdf&doi=10.1.1.216.3928
https://is.muni.cz/th/109677/ff_b/bachelor_thesis.pdf
louisville.libguides.com/primary_sources
www.lib.umd.edu/tl/guides/primary-sources
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualitative_research

report on speech acts

More Related Content

report on speech acts