As languages vary from nation to another, the communicative intention may vary in

many parts of the utterance. Not only in the same language, but also across languages. This

applies also within the language. “It has come to be commonly held that many utterances

which look like statements are either not intended at all, or only intended in part, to record or

impart straight forward information about the facts” (Austin 1962). Human beings are

rational beings, and every act they perform in certain situation especially when it is directed

from one human being to another has a certain target. communication through uttering words

to certain extent looks like making noise, just like meaningless sounds produced by animals,

only human beings noise has meaning. They move their mouths in a way that seem to be

arranged with the other participans, and agreed upon to convey certain messages. Therefore,

language is a main source of all acts around us, it is the reason for existence of all other

sciences, and one dares to think that without language, there would be no existence of

anything at all, and humans would be nothing but animals. Human acts originates from

speaking, so language precede action. One thinks of an action then translate it into language

in order to perform such act. This is exactly what both Austin (1962) and Searle after him try

to prove through speech act theory that states every speech include at least three acts;

locution, illocution and perlocution. “To say that A meant something by x is to say that ‘A

intended the utterance of x to produce some effect in an audience by means of the recognition

of this intention’” (Searle, 1971 , pp. 44-45). Locution is utterance made by the speaker, the

surface meaning, illocution is the true intention or the aim of the utterance, and perlocution is

the effect (Searle, 1971, pp. 44-46). All problems of human beings arise from the wrong

identifying of these three acts contained in any speech. Human beings are very smart, and as

we have been saying rational creature; so human being rarely express openly their true

intention. For some people, the ability to interpret the true intention of the speech is the

reward hearer gets for such interpretation; for other people they may be shy or try to be
1
polite. This does not mean at all that human being ignore for any reason the effective

principles of rational conversation. Speech act theory, pragmatics and Grice maxims are

concepts known for most human beings, but only few may think to give them names, among

those few were Austin, Searle and H.Grice. It is not necessary to explain them in order to

observe or find those concepts in our ordinary everday life, only explaining will make those

concepts more clearer.

As language cannot exist independently from the situation it is used in, pragmatics, in

contrast to semantics, relates language to reality. A linguistics distinction that is alike the

distinction between pragmatics and semantics is that distinction exists between synthetic and

analytic meaning which is used in philosophy. Synthetic meaning main concern is the truth of

propositional meaning, which can be achieved in some cases, but will have no real

importance, such as the statement “All children have mothers”. On the other hand analytic

meaning is the one that needs digging up in reality for meaning in order to prove its truth,

such as the statement “All mothers have children”. Opposition to synthetic meaning that is

self proved, Analytic meaning need comparison to reality in order to prove its truth. (Austin,

1962, pp.7; Searle 1969, pp.49) This is important for research in order clear the comparison

between pragmatics and semantics. People usually use words in order to make others do what

they want. Speech act is all about how to do things with words. Pragmatics, along with

speech act theory as presented by Austin, uncover, and show in the same time, how people

use words rhetorically to change the physical reality.

Austin (1961) tends to differentiate between the mere using of speech just to convey

information and using of speech to change the world. Speech Act Theory tries to define the

context-bound speaker's encoded message transmitted, after decoded by the hearer in certain

situation, within certain culture. However sometimes when you are conveying information,

2
you are performing a speech act, speech act is concerned with the ways in which words can

be used not only to present information but also to carry out actions (Austin 1969, pp.14;

Searle 1969, pp.2-4), and when you perform speech act, you are conveying some information.

Although, if the image of communication is pictured, one idea in the speaker’s head travels

through speaking from his mouth to the ear of the hearer to lay at the end in hearer's head is

not true in reality, but the process of such communication may look like it(Austin 1962, pp.3-

4; Searle 1969, pp.14-15). However, One message in a culture may differ in another, the

same process and steps are followed both to perform speech act and analyze the intention of

the speaker. Austin (1962) categorized three components of speech act; locution that is the

propositional meaning of what is said and this is the first stage of the speech made by the

speaker, illocution is what is actually meant by what is said or what the speaker trying to

persuade the hearer of and want the hearer to do and it could be separated from locution, but

only then the speech would fail, and perlocution is how the hearer respond to the utterance

and it is the result of the hearer’s understanding of the illocution so it can not be separated

from illocution, actually it constitute a condition for understanding of the illocution correctly.

Hence, the wrong interpretation of locution will result in wrong interpretation of the

illocution and consequently performing another perlocutionary other than the intended one.

The purpose intended by a speaker may be represented in the perlocutionary intention; a

component that many linguists argued about the existence of which as it simply can be

included in illocutionary act of speech. It can only be true if it was representing the true

intention of the speaker regardless of what hearer understand or do; for example if someone

come in late to the class and the teacher asked him “what is time now?" in such situation the

teacher does not expect an answer for his question, but he is actually tells him he is, so the

answer expected from the hearer is "I am sorry" and nothing else.

3
 1. Different types of speech acts are assertive, directive, commisive, expressive,
declarative (Searle 1969, pp.44). By this types that searle divides speech people
perform acts while speaking an utterance. There are rules and traditions for sure that
must be followed, as one would find himself obligated within entire web of social
relations, conditions and rules. People use a certain type from the above types of
speech acts to perform different act in order to appear to be polite such as when
someone is walking in the street and another person tells him "can i take a minute
from your time?" it is for sure a question to take more time, if the hearer replied “yes,
you can” and continues to walk then that would be infelicitous conditions as felicitous
conditions are not satisfied; as the hearer does not understand speech act correctly.
Austin (1962, pp.14-15) defines Felicity conditions as follow:
A. “There must exist an accepted conventional procedure having a certain conventional
effect, that procedure to include the uttering of certain words by certain persons in
certain circumstances.
B. The particular persons and circumstances in a given case must be appropriate for the
invocation of the particular procedure invoked.
C. The procedure must be executed by all participants both correctly and completely.
D. Where, as often, the procedure is designed for use by persons having certain thoughts
or feelings, or for the inauguration of certain consequential conduct on the part of any
participant, then a person participating in and so invoking the procedure must intend
so to conduct themselves, and further must actually so conduct themselves
subsequently.”
Speech according to Austin can be divided into performative and non-performatives.

Performative means that the speaker is performing an act by the utterance produced, and non-

performative is exactly the opposite which is conveying information without performing any

act. The different use of these two kinds of speech, according to Austin (1962), is part of

deceiving means that people use to pretend of making some performative or non

performative of certain utterance such as “I promise that sun will rise from west”, although

this seems to be a performative utterance, it is actually a non-performativedue to

impossibility of satisfying felicity conditions and the absence of what Austin calls accepted

4
conventional procedure. Austin (1962) in his book How to do things with words argues that

the only guarantee for performative utterances in order for it not fail to be performative, as

someone may say something and perform something else, there are first conditions must be

satisfied. Every situation requires particular speaker and not one else, as in court this speaker

may be judge or laywer, if the same speaker uttered the same words in another situation,

these words may not perform the same effect. So every speaker should utter the words in

certain situation and certain circumstances;which are called accepted conventional procedure

and is characterized by conventional effect, it is to include person within certain

circumstances uttering of certain words, this person and those circumstances in particular

case should be characterized by appropriateness for “the invocation of the particular

procedure invoked", conventional procedure must be jointly performed correctly and

completely, subsequence of role by participants must be in the right order and every

participant to the maximum extent must try to maintain smooth conducting of the procedure.

Utterance varies from one context to another: the components that make it vary are

the very essence of speech Act Theory. Utterances are not always perform what the surface

meaning appear to bear. The only case that they perform according to the surface meaning is

when locution and illocution match each other completely. So the surface meaning may only

concern when hearer feel that speaker is trying to say something else indirectly, and the

utterance actually means something else, or he has a different intention from the obvious one.

For example as previously explained, when a teacher tells the student, “the lecture begins at 8

o'clock sharp” the utterance seems to be assertive, but, actually she means to order him/her to

come to class at 8 sharp, so it is directive. It can also be commisive, she maybe promising the

student to be there at 8 o'clock sharp.Pragmatics is what makes clear which one is meant.

The purpose of pragmatics is to bring text into its linguistic communicative context along

with speech act, both identify relevance of an utterance.

5
 Speech act studies a present situation in which the speaker encodes a message and

send to a hearer, with a certain intention, and then the hearer start decoding this message to

realize what is expected from the hearer to do(perlocution required from him by

prelocutioanry intention of the speaker). The right understanding of perlocution results in

felicity conditions. The target of speech acts is mainly to let the hearer ends up with the

original intention of the speaker; speech acts of which surface meaning wouldnot always be

enough to obtain this original idea. The only case in which surface meaning would be

sufficient is when locution make an exact match of illocution such as when mother tell her

child "come here", it is simply understood that what is meant is an order, surly unless this

mother before utterance agrees with the child not to obey her, this would an instance of an

implied order not to come, the exact opposite of the surface meaning of the speaker. Even if

the hearer faces an inability of understanding that may only affect perlocution; the locution

and illocution of speech will be the same and will not change.

Knowledge of the language of utterance does not necessary mean that hearer may

understand the implied message of the speaker. This is more reflected in translation from/to

another language. As the translator need to analyze every and each word to realize the

intended meaning (perlocutionary intention of the author) in order to transmit it to the

translated text.

The reason for people to use surface meaning to express ambiguous implied meaning

differs from one to another and from situation to another. It is widely expected that people

have certain purposes from making such use of speech in another indirect form. This is quite

manifested in literature, such as Jane Austin’s novel; what the characters in the novel say has

nothing to do with what they intend to perform by such saying and is completely different

from the perlocutionary force other characters perform. The plot is mainly built on the wrong

6
interpretation of locution intention of characters. Speech Act theory is built upon complicated

relations; what the speaker says versus what his intention is versus what hearer understands is

all what speech act theory is about.

Pragmatics target is to bring speech to its context in order to understand correctly.

Pragmatics cannot by any means be explained without comparing it to semantics. Semantics

is known as the study of literal meaning, on the other hand, pragmatics is the study of non-

uttered meaning intended by a speaker. Pragmatics is not concerned with the mere meaning

of the language, rather it is concerned with examination of language and the effects of

language on hearer. Speaker may say a lot more than what is being uttered, and this actually

submits to the cooperative Gricean rules. With reference to the above said of speech act,

when the speaker utters some words, by this the speaker participates in four acts. Pragmatics

examines utterance closely enabling people to make distinction in order to make it easier for

people to communicate with each other.

Therefore, pragmatics is concerned with the meaning variation of a certain utterance

according to the situation in which it is uttered. Thus, pragmaticians believe that no meaning

can be assigned to a certain utterance, where meaning is defined as the hidden intention of the

speaker. In semantics changing of words is sufficient for change in the propositional

meaning. But in pragmatics, there is no need for word changing necessary for change in

meaning. For example, when a parcel arrives for one absent member of the family, when he

comes and ask for his parcel, he might be told that it is either in the bedroom or in the dining

room. The meaning of the utterance in such situation is that the speaker does not know the

exact place of the parcel. While if the speaker who sends the parcel is present and playing a

game with the one who wants to give him the parcel which has been hidden by the speaker,

the hearer would ask him to give a hint, and he will reply to him that it is either in the bed

7
room or the dining room. In the second situation utterance of the speaker indicate the

opposite of the first situation, this indicates that the speaker is aware of the place of the

parcel. Although in the last example, the same utterance is made, meaning of both of them is

the opposite of the other. Politicians may make such utterances when they need the support,

then claim that utterance is conditioned to certain context which is changed and start to make

excuses for changing of circumstances or due to acts of God or force majeure. When a

politician is nominated and wants to get people support he will never tell them directly vote

for me, but rather, he will say something on the abstract meaning seem to be anything else

but voting for me, For example, when someone nominates himself in presidental election, this

person never tell people “vote for me to be the president take all decisions”, but always

slogans are like “together we rule”, "I came for you and not me" or "All people are the true

ruler of the country", although his true intetion is to become the ruler. This is what makes

How To Do Things With Words book very interesting. It allows its reader to know how to

play with words, and get exactly what one wants.

Since pragmatics is concerned with function, intention and effect of utterance, there

are three levels of meaning that should be taken into consideration while studying from

pragmatics point of view: abstract meaning, contextual meaning and the force. The abstract

meaning is surface meaning that a word or a sentence semantically carry, which can be found

in the dictionary. The problems of this level of language are sense, reference, and

construction. Semantic consider this abstract meaning as mere never-changing meaning, and

that is major problem according to sense as the same word or sentence can have more than

one sense. Pragmatics move step further to another level of language which can choose

suitable sense of this surface meaning according to contextual meaning which is another level

of language. The force that control such choice –previously mentioned- may relate to speech

act theory. So, pragmatics is what establish the relation between abstract meaning and context
8
in which it is used, or rather relate the literal meaning to contextual meaning with target to

obtain awareness of the suitable meaning should be assigned, from the whole various choices

of different senses. Reference constitute another major component that constitute the meaning

of the word or the phrase as whole which is being uttered as the whole utterance can be

understood, however the intention is understood due to lack of refernce for the hearer, for

instance when a student who was absent last class, comes and the teacher tells him, "they

donot only sing but also most of them speaks different language", the utterance sense is

completely understood but student has no clue about what the teacher refers to. Construction

of the phrase or the meassage has also a great effect on the meaning or the communicated

intention. For instance, “chicken table" this construction suggests two meanings the first is

table which the chicken uses and the other meaning which is table on which there is chicken

or chicken food, and another instance is when a mother tells one of her children "Bring the

dog and eat", it is obviouse in this example for native speaker that the mother means to bring

the dog then eat and not to bring the dog to eat but this may be completely understod by non-

native speakers, which relates the whole issue to translator and translation.

Pragmatics is necessary to linguistics to distinguish the true intention of the utterance

and the target for which it is produced, regardless of whether the hearer obtains such intention

or not. Pragmatics is concerned with the implicit meaning of maximsof Herbret Paul Grice

who believes that people tend to be cooperative when they communicate with each other, it is

like contractual agreement between member of society, as we are civilized rational creatures.

Grice sees that all people in communicating situations are being cooperative with each

other, they are following certain self-evident principles agreed upon that all people know and

agree upon. Grice coins the term "implicature", it is whatever is meant but not literally said.

He sees that the most important kind of implicature is conversational implicature, the

9
implicatures that happens due to general features of conversation, such as conversation

conducted by an angry speaker, for example, when glass of juice fall on someone, and he

says "that's great, it really made my day" he doesnot really means that, but rather the

implicature meaning is exactly the opposite. And since, from Grice's point of view, people

are cooperative creatures when it comes to communication and conversation, he concluds all

his thoughts and observation with one central rule called cooperative principle. cooperative

principles of conversation states that each participant in a conversation contribute as required.

However, rational cooperative activity needs some sort of maxim to govern the way of

interacting in general. The maxims may be applicable not only on conversation, but also on

writing. These maxims are maxim of quantity, quality, relation and manner.

Maxim of quantity the contribution of participants should not exceed the limit that is

required and in the same time shouldnot be lower. such as when someone asks "what is the

time now?", the answer should be "it is 8 o'clock", and not "the time is measured according to

the sun and depending on some theory humans invented watches in order to know the time

and divided earth into section, and drew Greenwich Mean Time to be international time

countries know time through, and accordingly, it is 8 o'clock” . The second one is maxim of

quality, means that the speaker shouldnot to say what he/she believes to be false, particularly,

not to say what he/she lacks adequate evidence for it to be true. With reference to the

previous example, when answer is "it is eight o'clock." I should not say it is seven or i am not

sure so i give any number without looking in the watch. The Third maxim is relation maxim

which states simply to be relevant and avoid irrelevance, again with the example of time,

speaker should not answer with "i am not hungry". The last one is maxim of manner, this one

is about the way of communicating, just avoid obscurity of expression and ambiguity, speak

briefly and orderly, bearing in mind the previous example, the answer should not be

10
"According to local time of our country, till this moment Jesus was born from two thousands

and thirteen years and eight hours night".

Along with the maxims some facts need to be known that help to identify implicature

performed by people. These facts are the purpose of a conversation, the context of a

conversation and knowledge of the world. Implicature is easily identified and distinguished

when all the above become known. For example, when a student returns home and his mother

asks him, if she sholud serve lunch, and he replies "I stopped at restaurant on my way", his

mom would assume that he is being cooperative in conversational context, so he is giving

relevant information regarding eating, and she concludes that he must have eaten some food

in the restaurant although he did not say so, by this he is following maxim of relation and as

he answers to the question as only to the extent it is required, and the maxim of quality as he

told her the truth, and finally the maxim of manner as he said it as simple as possible with no

obscurity or ambiguity.

Since utterance meaning is bound to context, pragmatics is considered the attempt to

prevent assigning wrong meaning, wrong interpreting, to the words seperately from their

context. Interpreting meaning of words, as has been explained before, involve moving

between levels of language, abstract meaning, contectextual meaning and the force. Abstract

meaning is the level of semantically possible meanings can be assigned to words; variety of

senses and reference may be possible for word to bear. Assinging such senses and references

is mainly moving from abstract toward contextual meaning. Although both process are

different from each others, they are both to some extent the same.

Understanding the intention of the speaker (which is the force), in addition to

untterance meaning, is the only way to know the true meaning of an utterance. But in some

common cases, utterance meaning may be understood without the force. The hearer

11
sometimes misinterprete the true intetion of the speaker by the words. And conversely, the

case may be the other way around. the hearer can understand the intention of the speaker. In

the two previous cases hearer could know the intention of the speaker, but there are rarely

cases where neither intention nor utterance meaning is understood, and this result in failing to

interpret what speaker meant correctly. For pragmatics, these two components of speaker

meaning are dependet i.e force (intention) is derived from meaning, but sometimes as in the

first and second previouse cases, one can use som nonlingustic or paralingustic features to

convey the intended meaning, or even rely completely on the context. On the other hand

failing in conveying the meaning can result in failing of realizing the force, if one couldnot

define the utterance meaning, invetiably no one can define the force (intention). There is only

one self-evidenced fact which is that these two are inseprabele.

One idea must be hold in mind that although terms differ, at the end they are all the

same, i.e utterance meaning is locution, speaker intention is illocution, illocutionary,

implicature and the force. There is only two aspects of the utterance will always exist what is

said and what is meant.

In translation of dialogue between speakers, it is considered greatly important to

distinguish between these two elements; as both of them will constitute the thin line between

successful and unsuccessful translation. In an attempt to discover to how long could one

translator convey these both elements, or rather the more important one from colloquial

Egyptian into English, the following analysis woud be performed on some parts of one of

Egyptian plays called In Plain Arabic wrote by Lenin Al-Ramly.

Example 1:

12
 ‫بس مش مفتوح قوي‬..‫ فكر مفتوح‬.‫وابقى قابلني‬..‫كده وكده! دستور‬..‫ صحافة حره‬.‫نعمل أحزاب بس مش بجد‬

‫ نفكر ثواني وننام تاني‬.‫لياخد هوا‬.

Translation 1:

Form some parties...but not for real. A free press..only in part. A constitution...you're joking!

Free open thought....no too open, might catch a cold! Think for few seconds then go back to

sleep.

There is lack of pagmatics equivalence in the whole example. The first sentence, ‫نعمل‬

‫ أحزاب بس مش بجد‬meant that parties posses fake freedom and they are formed for the sake of

formailty, not to represent the people, so the translation of ‫ بس مش بجد‬cannot be "but not for

real" as the reader may think that not for real mean imaginitive parties, and have no existence

on the contrary of speaker i.e author intention; as these parties are exist in the real world and

not imaginitive, but they are fake parties formed for the sake of formailty and fraud. The

translation of second sentence ‫كده وكده‬..‫ صحافة حرة‬is another example of lack of pragmatics

equivalence; the true meaning this sentence convey is not very different from meaning of the

previous sentece, "fake" press that is made only for the sake of formality and doesnot by any

mean represent the true opinion of the people. In these two sentences the translator impled

meaning in the first part making flouts exploiting the maxim of manner and quality, and then

expressed what he meant in the second part of the arabic source sentence.

Suggested Translation:

Form legitimate parties..but pseudo ones. Free press..with fake freedom.

13
 In suggested translation intention of speaker i.e author was observed along with

maxim of manner which ignored all obsecurity or ambiguity of expression, in addition to

illustration of the quality maxim which was used intentionally by the reader to express

implied meaning.

Third instance of lack of pragmatics equivalence is translation of sentence ‫وابقى‬..‫دستور‬

‫ قابلني‬as speaker said the word ‫ دستور‬and meant changing in constituation or even improving

the existed one, but not by any mean writing a new one, flouts of manner wasnot truely

communicated in the target language. In the second part ‫ ابقى قابلني‬expresses conviction

within speaker that constitution would never represent the true opinion of people whether it

will not be changed at all or changed in favour of people who write it, this was not conveyed

correctly by phrase you're joking! as it may give the thought of participating of the hearer

which doesnot exist in the source arabic text.

Suggested Translation:

Improved constitution...bet you nothing would improve.

In fourth sentence ‫بس مش مفتوح قوي لياخد هوا‬...‫ فكر مفتوح‬there is flouts explointing the

maxim of relation, as speaker used the pun to criticize the level of thinking of people and the

observation imposed by government on freedom of thought. The speaker stressed the maxim

of quality of what he is saying by mention something irrelevent to what he is saying, this was

not communicated correctly in the translation. The image stems from Arabic language and

willnot be that beautiful in English language as it is. The translator should have thought of

another equivalent image.

Suggested Translation:

open-minded way of thinking...but not too open, to protect it from invadors.

14
 The whole paragraph general function performed by its speech act is representative

from the speaker point of view according to searl classification. The Structural form is

declarative and the general communicative function is questions to reprobate all what other

speaker try to convince him with; so it is indirect speech act.

In Scene VI the translator achieved the pragmatic equivalence in many places, for

instance:

Example 2:

‫من ركن المتحدثين| في حديقة هايد بارك بلندن يتحدث إليكم‬...

Translation 2:

From speakers’Corner in Hyde Park in London, this program is presented to you

by…

In translating the situation of which this utterance exist, the translator observed the

cooperative maxims, and considered the implied meaning. Since passive voice is no unusual

in English language, it is smoother for the english hearer, while literal translation would not

fit that much in such context. This speech act is direct representative speech act, the structural

form is declarative and the general communicative function is statement.

Another achieving of pragmatics equivalence, through using idiomatic replamcement

which conveyed the whole meaning correctly in the following example:

Example 3:

‫!أجدع ناس نتكلم ولسانا اطول مننا‬

Translation 3:

We are the best at tongue-wagging!

15
 The figurative meaning of the english idiom enabled the translator to convey the

meaning of utterance of speech act. It is direct speech act, but contain an implied meaning, it

is not that our tongue is realy taller than we are, but it means that we are eloquent, this may

be expressed through name of the play. The translator could successfully achieve such

equivalence by using the figurative idiomatic image. Flouts exploiting the maxim of manner

in the source utterance was greatly observed by the translator in conveying the meaning.

And another instance of cultural pragmatical equivalence was manifested in example

4 in which semi-idiomitic image was used in order for the translation to fit correctly.

Example 4:

‫مثل برنامج أوائل الطلبة‬.

Translation 4:

Like contestants in a quiz show

The utterance' literal meaning is completely different, but the implied meaning is

exactly the same, the cooperative maxims were observed too much, and speech act is direct

representative speech act.

While in example 5 utterance in the source text'structural form is imperative and

general communicative function is request, but it is more considered directive, but the form

of request was used in order for the speaker to be polite. The translator observed the implied

meaning and conveyed directly in the form of command in order to make the target text seem

to be originally written in the traget language. The Tranlsator observed also the attempt of

speaker to be more polite and achieved in the target text correctly through using Please. The

literal meaning of both source and target texts are greatly different, while the implied

meaning is precisely the same.

16
 Example 5:

‫المتكلم األول يتفضل‬

Translation 5:

First speaker, please take the floor.

Another example within the same scene of adhere to pragmatic equivalence is in the

following example where the form of utterance is different from the act it perform:

Example 6:

‫أنتي نسيتي ان زمايلك هما اللي طردوني ومارضوش نبقى اصهاب سوا؟‬

Translation 6:

Did you forget that it was your friends who sent me away and didn’t want us to

keep our friendship?

In this example translator preferred not to adhere to indirect speech act which is

classified as representative, in the source text the speech act structural form is declarative and

general communicative function is questions, while in the target text translator preferred to

stick to direct form which is intterrogative form. The hearer expects speaker to observe

cooperative maxims of conversation so that utterance is related to previouse one performed

by the hearer. Cooperative maxims were observed correctly by the translator. The same was

applied on the next example which is the respond of the hearer.

Example 7:

‫تقومي تقفي ضدي وتشمتيهم فيا؟‬

17
 Translation 7:

Does it mean you have to stand against me and insult me?

But here in this example the translator replaced a word for another to some extent

didnot conveyed the meaning correctly which is ‫ تشمتيهم فيا‬and translated with to insult while

the meaning of the word is make other people happy for one's lose or bad decision. It would

be more acceptable if meaning was explained.

Suggested Translation:

let them crow over me.

In scene VII pragmaitic equivalence was demonstrated and comprehended by

translator. In the following example the lack of manner maxim satisfaction in source arabic

language was dealt with skillfully by translator.

Example 8:

‫انا اخدت حجي وزياده ضربت لحد ما شبعت‬

Translation 8:

I took my revenge and much more. I punched to my heart's content!

The implied meaning of utterance has nothing to do with hungry, the literal translation

would not be appropriate by any mean, speaker only mean that he was satisfied. The

idiomatic meaning in colloquial arabic was translated into its pragmatic equivalent in english.

The classification of the speech act is expressive one, the structural form is declarative and

the general communicative function is statement. maxim of manner wasnot observed at all as

the meaning contained some ambigious meaning could not be understood without

understanding the whole contextual situation.

18
 Example 9:

(‫)إيفا تظهر باكيه وجورج خلفها‬

Translation9:

[EVE appears, crying, george patting her on the shoulder]

In Example 9, the translator adhered to pragmatical equivalence through observing the

contextual situation. The General function performed by this speech act is representative.

Structural form is declarative, and general communicative function is statement. So it is

direct speech act. In source text there is flouts exploiting the maxim of quantity, as the whole

situation is described, which results in clash between maxims. But translator observed such

flout and translated after observing all conversational maxims.

Example 10:

‫توبة أخيرة وجربني هالمره‬.

Translation 10:

I repent. It’s the last time, give me a chance....

In this exaple the speaker is promising God that it would be the last time to commit a

sin. He acknowledges his guilty. The general function performed by this speech act is

commissive. The general form of the source text is declarative, and general communicative

function of it is statement. while the general function performed by the translation's speech

act is directive, the general form of target text is imperative, and general communicative

function is request.

Example 11:

‫طمنينا‬...
19
 Translation 11:

Put our minds at rest.

Here is another example of adhereing pragmatic equivalence from arabic into english.

The speakers is requesting from the hearer to tell them good information if it exists. The

speaker means to remove their fear and tell them that they are wrong. This exactly what the

transaltor conveyed. the general function performed by this speech act is directive. Structural

form is imperative and the general communicative function is request. In source there was

flout of quantity maxim as utterance was not complete, so the translator communicated the

same flouting in the translation. This adhering to flout of quantity maxim is suitable and

appropriate in this part of translation.

Example 12:

‫يارب تموتوا كلكوا ويعيش حبيبي‬

Translation 12:

I pray to god you all die and my lover lives!

In the previouse example, speaker is being expressive, the general fuction performed

by the speech act is expressive, the speaker is expressing her feelings towards those

people staying with her. The structural form is declarative, and general

communicative function is statement. While the transaltor conveyed the meaning of

religious practice, the translation was pragmatically equivalent. Grice Conversational

.maxims were greatly observed in the two versions, the arabic and the english

Example 13:

‫يا اخوانا كلنا معرضين نتكل‬

20
 Transaltion 13:

Brothers, we are all susceptible to error.

Lack of pragmatic equivalence in this example is very noted. The meaning

intended by the speaker wasnot susceptible to error but susceptible to death. The

translator in this example infringing a maxim of quality as the implied meaning meant

by the speaker is different from what the translator communicated. The general

function of both texts is representative, the structural form is declarative and the

.general communicative function is statement

:Suggested Translation

.Brothers, we are all susceptible to death

Example 14:

‫!لكن ما تبدأ بنفسك يا أخي‬

Translation 14:

But why don’t we start with you?

The translator in this example changed the structural form of the utterance, but he

preserved in the same time the implicite comunicative function which is request. The

general function performed by the speech act in both texts is directive. Structural form

in the source text is imperative and the general communicative function is request.

While structural form in the target text is interrogative, buth the general

communciative function is request. So the speech act in the source is direct and in the

target is indirect. In both cases speaker wanted his colleague to beging confessing his

sins and misntakes.

21
 Example 15:

‫يعني بدك ننجي فايز ونوجع روحنا في شر أعمالنا‬

Translation 15:

You wan us to resuce Fayez by throwing ourselves into the deep end?

This is an example of pragmatic equivalence as translate attempted to interpret what

speaker meant by his utterance. The general function performed by the speech act is

representative. Structural form is intterrogative and the general communicative

function is question. There was an intended flout of quality maxim, the speaker

wanted to emphasise on what his friend suggest to do by saying exactly the opposite

of what speaker wants to do.

Example 16:

‫بهذه المناسبة انبه عليكم جميعا بعدم مغادرة البالد إال بإذن من جهة التحقيق‬.

Translation 16:

By the way, i advise you all that you may not leave the country without permission

from the investigative authority.

The general fuction performed by the previouse speech act is directive. Structural

form is imperative and the general communicative function is command. The

translator decided to translate the utterance keeping all the forms and function of

.utterance, the translator also observed all conversational maxims

In conclusion, the pragmatic realization from the reader side is proved to be critical

for shaping the true meaning inteded by the writer. Incomplete grasp of any senses of

meaning would result in loss of the whole meaning. The translator thus has to see the big

22
picture of the meaning of every word, and observe the pragmatic equivalnce in conveying

that meaning. Translation vary from one person to another depending on the understanding of

each person. That is why studying such theories as speech act and Grice conversational

maxims, in addition to applying them while translating would be fundemental for correct

translation. As Translator need to observe equivalence on all different levels of meaning,

.even in such translation of pure colloquial egyptian arabic translation

23
-:Bibliography

Austin, J. (1961). Philosophical papers. London: Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Austin, J. (1962). How to do things with words. London: Cambridge: Harvard

University Press.

Hatim, B., & Mason, I. (1990). Discourse and the translator. London: Longman.

Levinson, S. (2000). Pragmatics. Cambridge [u.a.]: Cambridge Univ. Press.

Mey, J. (2001). Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Searle, J. (1969). Speech acts. London: Cambridge University Press.

Searle, J. (1971). The philosophy of language. London: Oxford University Press.

Searle, J. (1979). Expression and meaning. Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge

University Press.

24
 Arabic Translation in the light of
Speech Act Theory and Grice Maxims
(Pragmatic equivalence in translation of
Lenin Al-Ramly’s In Plain Arabic)

Submitted to:
Dr/Nouran Ibrahim

By:
Mohamed Atef Mohamed Bassiouny

Ain Shams University

Al-Alsun Faculty
English Department
2014/2015
25