Vavrinchik Regina

PhD student of the Transcarpathian State University (2010 -), research area: Linguistic
Pragmatics, Communicaitve Linguistics. A PhD thesis is intended as an analysis of how the
speech of the religious and theological communication can be interpreted in terms of
functional-pragmatic linguistic paradygm. English teacher in the same University, and also in
the Transcarpathian branch of the Kiev Slavonic University.

THE SPEECH ACTS THEORY APPROACH TO THE ANALYSIS OF

COMMUNICATIVE ASPECTS OF THE EVANGELIC TEXTS
 The relationship of language and religion has always evoked interest among linguists
(A. Gadomsky, D. Crystal, J.-P. van Noppen et al.). Among the studies of the primary source
of the Christian religion, the Bible, the hermeneutic studies are those, which take into account
the linguistic aspect the most. With the appearance of J.L. Austin`s analytical-philosophical
work How To Do Things With Words (1962), a provision that the language except for assertive
dimension has a performative function entered the hermeneutical arena1. With the emergence
of theories that proclaim the pragmatic nature of the language, it became of immediate interest
to apply the Theory of Speech Activity, Discourse Theory, Speech Acts and Speech Genres
Theories to the study of religious texts and communication. Analysis of the communicative
events larger than one word and smaller than a text, utterances, suggests that the most correct
and proper understanding of each word in expressions does not always lead clearly to a
correct understanding of the entire utterance. This gives rise to the necessity of the integrated
analysis of the utterances in their unity with extralinguistic factors. Theologians also
acknowledge the efficiency of the Speech Acts Theory (further - SAT) in the hermeneutic
study of religious texts2.
At the same time, there is a good reason for using the term "utterance" hereinafter
rather than the term "sentence", since the former has the status of an action, i.e. an act of using
the language and is the basic unit of a speech level. It is being generated by the
communicative situation and is a lexically filled intonational entity, while the limits of an
utterance quite often coincide with that of a sentence 3. Consideration of communicative-
pragmatic semantics of an utterance reveals the meaning, which implements the formal,
informational and lingual orientation of an utterance to the addressee in a situation of
linguistic interaction. The main feature of SAT is an approach to a speech act (further - SA) as
an instrument that humans employ for achieving certain goals, together with examination of
the linguistic resources from this perspective4. The correct interpretation of such speech
actions is possible only by considering all the key components of communicative events,

1 Osborne,Grant.The Hermeneutical Spiral a comprehensive introduction to biblical interpretation. 1991. –

Intervarsity Press. Illinois (USA), p.398
2 ibid.
3 Van Dijk, Teun. Text and Context. Explorations in the Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse. Longman
(UK). 1977, p.213
4 The theoretical basis of the SA is such understanding of it, according to which SA is a deliberate speech action,
carried out in accordance with the principles and rules of linguistic behaviour adopted in a particular society; a
unit of normative social-linguistic behaviour that is viewed in the framework of the pragmatic situation. SA is a
complex entity that consists of three simultaneous phases, or levels, or acts – locution, illocution and perlocution
[5, p.229; 4, p. 48; 1, p.131].
which include the context (proper linguistic); the conditions under which it occurs
(extralinguistic context); place and time – ‘chronotopos’ (M. Bakhtin`s term); the social status
of communicants, their age, degree of intimacy etc. In this connection some skeptical remarks
were expressed as to the analysis of Jesus Christ`s utterances, as such that are completely
under the influence of Jewish culture and the Aramaic language. But, Anna Wierzbicka insists
that Jesus`s statements are carrying the message not only for his native people but also for
other nations. In other words, what he said was intended for all nations, and accordingly, the
message had universal significance5 . In the work of Dutch dogmatist H. Berkdorf we can find
support for this view, where the author emphasizes that Jesus in his presentation given by the
Bible is universal, and moreover, adapting him to different geographical and cultural contexts
would give humanity more than one Christ 6. A. Wierzbicka sees a way to the correct
interpretation of instructions and teachings of Jesus in the decomposing his speech into the
local and universal layers. In this paper, our task is to analyze not only SA of Jesus Christ, but
also SA of other characters, thus formulating a role distribution and its effect on their speech
behaviour. In the academic literature, several suggestions were made that not all the
statements of Jesus in the Bible do really belong to him 7. We certainly will not transpass
beyond the scope of linguistics, but we must mark it here that it is largely linguistic factors
that give rise to doubts as to their authenticity. It was noted that, for example, the style,
categoricalness and the general orientation of some utterances does not fit into the discoursive
unity of Jesus' speech.
The basis of a speech act and its most important component is a speaker's
communicative intention to make a certain action (to ask, to advice, to thank, to warn, etc.) by
means of language. Implementation of planned actions is called illocution. The iIllocutionary
force of an utterance being a starting point of a verbal interaction is inextricably linked with
the notion of intentions of the speech producent, his motive and purpose to verbally influence
the listener.
We are familiar with some studies of the Bible texts that employ different variations of
a pragmatic approach. Thus, A. Wierzbicka`s approach is the transformation of Jesus Christ`s
utterances into the primary, universal and understandable concepts of the most primitive level
(SOMEONE, DO, WANT, GOOD, BAD, KNOW, etc.).
5 Wierzbicka Anna.What did Jesus mean?: explaining the Sermon on the mount and the parables in simple and
universal human concepts. Oxford University Press. – 2001.p.9
6 Berkdorf, Henry. Introduction to the Study of Dogmatics. Grand Rapids, Michigan (USA). Translated from the
Dutch edition. – 1982.
7 Wierzbicka Anna.What did Jesus mean?: explaining the Sermon on the mount and the parables in simple and
universal human concepts. Oxford University Press. – 2001, p. 72
 Another attempt to apply SAT to the religious sources has been made also by foreign
linguists G. Alster-Elata and R. Salmon. It consists in the analysis of the Old Testament
covenants of the Torah while regarding them as a performative language utilization 8. This
study focuses, firstly, on those communicative acts between God and man which strike
covenants and in which the oaths are made. Secondly, it defends the position that such SA, in
spite of their similarity to the comissive type of SA are indeed the declarative type of SA.
In our paper, we aim to explore how the illocutionary force of an utterance is
correlated with the propositional meaning of a sentence, taking into account the three-levelled
structure of the SA. In addition, we are to examine the linguistic features of the four synoptic
texts, which by default are parallel. Hence, our objectives are:
a) to identify the efficiency of using direct and indirect SA by the characters in the Gospel;
b) to determine the specificity of propositionally equal SA, which have different forms of
expression, in contrast to those expressions that are equivalent in their meaning having
different forms of expression;
c) to analyze the strategies and tactics of implementing the communicative goal in the speech
behaviour of participants in a communicative situation.
The material of our research is the Gospel, a part of the Bible, in English. The Gospel
comprises the first four texts of the New Testament that are a structural component of the
Bible, together with other 27 texts. Authorship of these texts is attributed to Matthew, Mark,
Luke and John. As it is known, there are numerous English-language versions of the Bible
(Geneva Bible, New American Standard Version Bible, New International Version, New King
James Version, and English Standard Version). We have chosen, after A. Wierzbicka, the New
King James Bible due to the popularity of this version of the Bible, which is justified by the
fact that in the English-speaking religious environment its texts are the most referenced to9.
On the one hand, all the four versions of the Gospel are produced by the same
addresser, the God. However, since the messages of God were given to the mankind through
people, the chosen ones, it is quite likely that these individuals, mediators have influenced the
message being transferred.
Narrative model of the described events representation is the basic one in all four
texts. In each of them, the author describes the events with minimal presence of subjective
attitude. This is implemented by the use of representative and descriptive pragmatic type of

8 Alster-Elata, Gerda, Salmon Rachel. Biblical Covenants as Performative Language// Summoning: ideas of the
covenant and…”ed.by E.Spolsky. 1993. New-York (USA)
9 On-line resource. The History of the English Bible
 the SA10. For a comparison we can mention that the authors of the first three Gospels
unanimously introduce the direct speech of Jesus in his conversations with people using the
words said, answered. Only John uses in some situations the word cried out, which
significantly increases the intensity of the illocutionary force of what has been said. For
example:
(1) "Then Jesus cried out and said," He who believes in Me, believes not in Me, but in Him
who sent me "(John 12:44)
In the parallel texts the claims like the one in the example, with similar proposition
sound less categorically due to being introduced with the words said, answered.
The second type of SA – the descriptives – is demonstrated in the statements that
include the background information and create the situational context 11. From a linguistic
point of view, the narration of the John`s Gospel text differs from the other three by the
frequent forestalling in the description of events. In addition, John seldom renders the Jesus`
parables, but rather focuses on describing the miracles, which he made, calling them "signs".
The analysis of pragmatic components of communicative initiatives of communication
participants is also of an immediate interest. We shall note here that the initiative tactics of all
the characters can be opposed to the initiative tactics of Christ. The former could be viewed as
a limited number of their typical presentations (see Table 1).

Table 1. Typical communicative initiatives when addressing Jesus

Communicative initiative Direct or Examples
moves indirect SA
Queries about healing direct Son of David, have mercy on us!; Lord,
help me!; Teacher, I implore You, look on
my son, for he is my only child
Questions that ask how to do Who then can be saved?; Good teacher,
or understand things what good thing shall I do that I may have
eternal life?; Lord, teach us to pray, as
John also taught his disciples
Greeting Jesus the Christ Hosanna!; Lord, I will follow You
10 In distinguishing these types of narrative strategies and their features, we take for basis the research of T.T.
Vrabel who has conducted a deep analysis of SA and illocutionary verbs in the English language and identified
the representatives as statements that report the facts, ascertain the state of affairs, reflect the opinion of the
speaker, explain, argue or deny. Their semantics, being generally neutral, contains such components as "speech",
"speaking", "message", "thinking", etc., and uses the narrative strategy which, in its turn, is implemented through
the tactics of neutral evaluation.
11 Врабель Томаш. Словотворча прагматика у сучасній англійській мові. Дис. ..канд. філол. наук.
Донецьк (Україна), 2005, p.115
 wherever You go; Blessed is the King who
comes in the name of the Lord!
Questions which imply an Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife
answer, that will not satisfy for just any reason?; Why do Your
the addresser in any case disciples do not walk according to the
tradition of the elders, but eat bread with
indirect
unwashed hands?
Attempts to lead the Christ Save Yourself, and come down from the
into temptation / to test him cross!; If You are the Son of God,
command that these stones become bread

Communication initiatives of Christ are radically different. The moves presented in

Table 1, which demonstrate the named tactics, are not employed by him: he does not ask, does
not require any explanations which he himself could not give, does not test or offend anyone.
Instead, the most characteristic feature of initiating SA of Jesus Christ is that in fact they are
inherently r e a c t i v e. This is expressed in such his utterances that respond to the utterances,
not uttered by the interlocutors aloud (Luke 7; Luke 11; Luke 13; John 7). For example:
(2) "Whoever receives this little child in My name receives Me; and whoever receives Me,
receives Him who sent Me. For he who is least among you all will be great "(Luke 9:48)
An integral part of a SA as a communicative phenomenon is the specific
communicative situation in which it was uttered as well as the specific pragmatic goal
pursued by the speaker. The narrator of events, Luke tells the reader the situational context of
the representative SA performed by Jesus, the peculiarity of which is the fact that it is a
reaction, a response to what the disciples had in their minds without saying these thoughts
aloud.
We can even assume that this phrase could have been not said at all if there were no
communicative prerequisites for it. In other words, although this assertive SA opens the
discourse, on the semantic level it is a reactive SA.
Both initiative and reactive utterances of Jesus are mainly expressed in the dimension
of directive modality. This, of course, is quite natural, taking into account his status of
Teacher, God, and a King. According to T.V. Teletska, such statements display performativity.
Her argument is that "the directive utterance is a performative one, since in the SA a speaker
performs an action causing"12. However, we do not support such position, because for treating

12 Телецкая Татьяна. Семантика и структура микрополя директивной модальности //Записки з романо-

германської філології / Одеський Універститет ім. Мечникова. – Вип. 13. – Одеса (Україна):Фенікс. – 2003
any utterance as the performative a specific set of conditions has to be observed in addition to
actional character of an utterance and its non-verifiability (impossibility to assess the
utterance in terms of truth/false criterion of its meaning). We mean the criteria of equi-
actionality and self-nomination – equivalence of statements that describe the performative to
the acts performed by them; and self-nomination by performative of that action, which it
performs in being uttered.
(3) "Let your Yes be Yes, and your No be No" (Matthew 5:37)
(4) "Ask, and it will be given to you, seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to
you" (Matthew 7:7)
(5) "Daughter, be of good cheer: your faith has made you well. Go in peace"(Luke 8:48)
As it is implied by the linguistic pragmatics, there are the sentences that describe some
things in the world, and those that accomplish certain things with words. There is no doubt as
for the necessity of an approach that would distinguish such sentences, or rather, utterenaces 13.
We believe that the statements of some linguists who support the "performative hypothesis"
claiming that even statements that describe the state of things, in their essence are a means of
performing a specific action have a rationale14. Thus, when the following Jesus`s utterance
looks like a description of the state of affairs, in fact it is the accomplishment of the act of
forgiveness:
(6) “Son, your sins are forgiven to you” (Mark 2:5)
Or another utterance of similar form, performing an act of promise:
(7) “And whatever things you ask in prayer, believing, you will receive” (Matt.21: 22)
Nevertheless, within the SAT, this approach seems tautological. After all, this is
exactly what SAT declares: speech is an activity, action, and a SA is accomplishing actions
through speech15. Among great number of actions performed by Jesus Christ during his
earthly life, many were carried out merely with the help of words: "and He cast out the spirits
with a word ..."
As a performative, though implicit, we can regard Jesus Christ`s declarative utterance
"Man, your sins are forgiven to you" (Luke 5:20). The speaker himself explicitly equates his
own utterance to another, propositionally quite different, uttered by himself the other time. As
the author and the actual accomplisher of a communicative action, only he can explain what

13 Grundy Peter. Doing Pragmatics. 2-nd edition. Oxford University Press (USA). 2000, p.54
14 I.M. Kobozeva, J. Ross, J. Sadock
15 [5]; [2]; [8]
kind of content he puts into the saying: "Which is easier to say: 'Your sins are forgiven to you'
or 'Rise up and walk’?" (Luke 5:23).
As for the possibility to refer this or any other SA to a certain type of SA, the linguists
found that very often a SA is a hybrid of several illocutionary forces being a polyillocutionary
SA16.
(8) "Lord, if You are willing, You can make me clean." (Luke 5:12)
Although this utterance looks like (a) a statement of fact, its illocutionary force is
obviously a (b) request. This request is made by (c) the expression of incredible self-
abasement and boundless faith. The immediate response that follows "I am willing: be
cleansed" (Luke 5:13), shows perfectly achieved perlocutionary effect that is embodied both
on the verbal and non-verbal levels: repetition of the word willing in the positive meaning and
healing the initiator of the dialogue. Indeed, this example best supports the view that "an act
of communication is successful if it is perceived according to how it is conceived" 17.
The direct speech of the events participants represents the entire taxonomic spectrum
of the most common types of SA accepted by the modern linguists, the representatives
(constatives), comissives (promissives / menassives), directives, declaratives, interrogatives
(quesitives / rogatives) and descriptives with implicatives (expressives ) [8, 2, 4].
Direct relationship between the form and the function of a sentence demonstrate the
direct SA: a sentence in the affirmative form functions as a statement, in the imperative form
as an order/request, in the interrogative form as a question18.
(9) "If only I may touch His clothes, I shall be made well" (Mark 5:28)
(10) "Lord, save me!" (Mat. 14:30)
(11) "Why do you speak to them in parables?" (Mat. 13:10)
Indirect SA are those in which in the background of explicated illocutionary force
another, usually dominant one is manifested. The speaker in such SA relies on the listener`s
understanding, on his background knowledge, on presuppositions and conventions – the
unwritten rules and agreements as for communication accepted in a society19.
(12) "Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of elders, but eat bread with
unwashed hands?" (Mark 7:5)

16 Маслова Алина. Введение в прагмалингвистику. Уч. Пособие. Москва (Россия).: Флинта, Наука. 2-е
изд. – 2008, p.68
17 Bach, Kent. Speech Acts / Routledge Encyclopedia entry (USA)
18 Grundy Peter. Doing Pragmatics. 2-nd edition. Oxford University Press (USA). 2000, p.59
19 Формановская Наталья. Речевое общение: коммуникативно-прагматический подход.-Москва (Россия),
Рус.язык, 2002, p.117-118
 What here looks like a question actually has the illocutionary force of a reproach.
Moreover, for this question the Pharisees do not expect any reasonable answer as for them
there is no righteousness except for theirs. Their goal is to disgrace Jesus by bringing him to a
blind corner.
Two communicative situations can be regarded equivalent if their perlocutionary effect
is equivalent. We can compare the parallel communicative situations that are transmitted not
verbatimly, when the centurion asks Jesus to heal his servant. The strategy of obtaining the
miraculous help from Christ is being achieved through the following tactics:
- self-abasement by the acknowledging the high status of the adressee – the representative SA
of assertion;
- expressing the faith in the power of the adressee – the directive SA of request.and it has been
achieved with the help of this strategy.
(13) "Lord, I am not worthy that You should come under my roof. But only speak a word, and
my servant will be healed "(Matthew 8:8)
(14) "Lord, do not trouble Yourself, for I am not worthy that You should enter under my
roof.Therefore I did not even think myself worthy to come to You. But say the word, and my
servant will be healed "(Luke 7:6)
In trying to find an answer, why Jesus so often spoke in parables Anna Wierzbicka
argues that it was because the sense that Christ represented to the people was so new that
there were no appropriate words and concepts to express it literally. However, Jesus himself
gives the answer: "Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and
hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand" (Matthew 13:13).
In many cases, Jesus explained the parables to the multitude immediately after telling
them, but it was not always the case. In the Gospel, we encounter several instances where
Jesus' disciples did not understand this or that parable, and when there was a chance, asked
him about its meaning. Thus, the question arises: what communicative effect did Jesus expect
by telling parables to the multitude of ordinary people, knowing that the parables are
sometimes so complex that even the disciples could not understand them? How were ordinary
people from the crowd supposed to understand this message? Relying on the principle of
successful communication, which has been formulated in linguistics over the years of
domination of the functional paradigm, "the communicative success is achieved if the speaker
chooses his words in such a way that the hearer will, under the circumstances of utterance,
recognize his communicative intention" 20, then some Jesus`s SA (like this parable) focused
20 Bach, Kent. Speech Acts / Routledge Encyclopedia entry (USA)
on something else than on direct and immediate understanding of his words by the recipient
(individual, group, mass). His communicative strategy can be seen in motivating people to
conversion to God through the following lingual tactics:
- Presenting the complex, globally important things in simple examples, often taken from
domestic and everyday life;
- Simplicity of these examples hides a challenge for the mind and consciousness of an
addressee;
- Encouraging the recipient to reflections, the aim of which is to result to the awareness of the
benefits that are offered by God.
Given the status of biblical texts, as well as the status of the words spoken by Jesus in
the Gospel texts under consideration, a reader can unconditionally accept everything said by
Christ as personally designed for him or her (and try not to despair of inability to fulfill some
orders of Christ, such as to give away all one`s possession to the poor, or leave one`s family,
or pluck out one`s eye). Another way is to realize who is the real addressee of a certain
statement (command, advice, promise, expression of outrage e.g. "Brood of vipers!", etc.), and
to take these holy words through the prism of this fact.
While summarizing the analysis of English texts of the Gospel, we are to note that
Jesus' utterances are characterized by a number of speech peculiarities, one of which is that a
significant number of Jesus Christ`s SA in which he initiates verbal communication is actually
reactive (response) SA. His communicative moves are mainly represented by the direct
speech acts, unlike those of other participants of the events who dominantly express their
intentions by means of transposed, indirect SA. As for the illocutionary orientation of
utterances in the Gospel, the SA of Jesus are in some cases contrary to the commonly
accepted conventions of speech behaviour called to ensure the success of an utterance. It was
noted that the illocution is deliberately concealed behind the locution level, which is unclear
to the recipient. Parallel Gospel texts are remarkable for speech similarity of texts by Mark,
Matthew and Luke. The specificity of the text by John lies in demonstrating the most
considerable linguistic differences.
It is expected that the obtained observations and conclusions will contribute to the
further analysis and study of theological discourse and religious communication.

Literature:
1. Бацевич Флорій. Нариси з лінгвістичної прагматики: монографія. Львів:ПАІС
(Україна). – 2010. -336 с.
2. Врабель Томаш. Словотворча прагматика у сучасній англійській мові. Дис.
..канд. філол. наук. Донецьк (Україна), 2005.- 241 с.
3. Кобозева Ирина. Перформативность глагола и его лексическое значение /
[Электронный ресурс] / И.М. Кобозева // Linguistische Arbeitsberichte. – Leipzig, 1986. –
B. 54/55. – S. 176-189. – Режим доступу:
http://www.philol.msu.ru/~otipl/new/main/articles/kobozeva/.
4. Маслова Алина. Введение в прагмалингвистику. Уч. Пособие. Москва (Россия).:
Флинта, Наука. 2-е изд. – 2008. – 152 с.
5. Полюжин Михайло. Курс лекцій з лінгвоісторіографії. Навч. Посібник. –
Вінниця (Україна): Фоліант, 2004. – с.272
6. Россолова Оксана. Перформатив как координатор коммуникативного
взаимодействия и средство адресованности. Дис. канд. філол. наук. 10.02.01. -
Петропавловск-Камчатский (Россия) – 2008 . – с. 193
7. Телецкая Татьяна. Семантика и структура микрополя директивной
модальности //Записки з романо-германської філології / Одеський Універститет ім.
Мечникова. – Вип. 13. – Одеса (Україна):Фенікс. – 2003. С.197 – 204
8. Формановская Наталья. Речевое общение: коммуникативно-прагматический
подход.-Москва (Россия), Рус.язык, 2002.-216 с.
9. Alster-Elata, Gerda, Salmon Rachel. Biblical Covenants as Performative Language//
Summoning: ideas of the covenant and…”ed.by E.Spolsky. 1993. New-York (USA). P.27-
10. Bach, Kent. Speech Acts / Routledge Encyclopedia entry (USA)
11. Berkdorf, Henry. Introduction to the Study of Dogmatics. Grand Rapids, Michigan
(USA). Translated from the Dutch edition. – 1982. – 114 p.
12. Van Dijk, Teun. Text and Context. Explorations in the Semantics and Pragmatics of
Discourse. Longman (UK). 1977
13. Grundy Peter. Doing Pragmatics. 2-nd edition. Oxford University Press (USA). 2000.
– 287 p.
14. Osborne Grant R.. The Hermeneutical Spiral: a comprehensive introduction to biblical
interpretation. 1991. – Intervarsity Press. Illinois (USA)
15. Wierzbicka Anna.What did Jesus mean?: explaining the Sermon on the mount and the
parables in simple and universal human concepts. Oxford University Press. – 2001. - 509 p.
16. The English Bible History. Electronic resource:
http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/index.html