Speech Acts in UN Treaties: A Pragmatic Perspective
- 1 Central China Normal University, Wuhan, China
Abstract
This paper investigates the linguistic behavior, especially the illocutionary forces used in international conventions formulation discourses. It cuts across pragmatics and law—the illocutionary act and a particular register of legal text. Illocution is a dimension of speech act theory which stands for the intention inherent in spoken or written utterances. For extended analysis, a couple of other discursive variables are added. One is mood, a concept borrowed from Halliday’s systemic functional linguistics which maintains that there are basically three types of mood in English language: declarative for statement, imperative for command and interrogative for question. The other is speech act type. Based on Searle’s classification, there are assertive, commissive, representative, directive and expressive. The questions discussed are: 1) What types of illocutionary acts are found in the discourse of U.N. treaties? 2) To what extent are they used? 3) How do those types of illocutionary acts reflect the nature of discourse pattern of a treaty? The data reveal that there is not an exclusive use of a single speech act type. However, there is a higher frequency of constitutive and commissive categories whereas the directive is only used to a lesser extent. This high frequency of commissive and constitutive is understood as a reflection of the nature of a treaty that is not so much about a command as it is about commitment and clear definitions of the relative terms.
- Andor, J. (2011). Reflections on Speech Act Theory: An Interview with John R. Searle. International Review of Pragmatics, 3, 113-134. https://doi.org/10.1163/187731011X563755
- Austin, J. (1955). How to Do Things with Words. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
- Bach & Harnish (1979). Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
- Constable, M. (2014). Our Word Is Our Bond: How Legal Speech Acts. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780804791687
- Elizabeth, F. S., & Gaspar, R. C. (2014). Mitigating Devices: A Comparative Study between Generations of the Corpus. “El habla de Monterry”. Verbum et Lingua.
- Halliday, M. (1978). Language as Social Semiotic. London: Arnold.
- Halliday, M. (1993). Language in a Changing World. Canberra: ALAA Occasional Paper 13.
- Halliday, M. (1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
- Kress, G., & Van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading Images—The Grammar of Visual Design. London: Routledge.
- Martin, J. (1992). English Text; System and Structure. Amsterdam: Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/z.59
- Motulsky, H. (1948). Principe d’une realisation methodique du droit prive: la theorie des elements generateurs des droits subjectifs. Lyon: Dalloz.
- Muijs, D. (2004). Doing Quantitative Research in Education. London: Sage Publication. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849209014
- Nordquist, R. (2020). Speech Act Theory. ThoughtCo.com/speech-act-theory-1691986.
- Sadock, J. M. (1974). Toward a Linguistic Theory of Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press.
- Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Act: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. London: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438
- Searle, R. J. (1979). Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511609213
- Slomanson, W. R. (2011). Fundamental Perspectives on International Law (Vol. 6). Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, Suzanne Jeans.
- Solum, L. (2019). Legal Theory Lexicon: Speech Acts. http://www.Isolum.typepad.com/legaltheory/2019/08/legal-theory-lexicon-speech-acts-html