LWATI: A Journal of Contemporary Research 2021, 18 (4): 130-143 LWATI: A Jour. of Contemp. Res.

www.universalacademicservices.org ISSN: 1813-222 ©Dec., 2021

Open Access article distributed under the terms of the RESEARCH
Creative Commons License [CC BY-NC-ND 4.0]
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0

SPEECH ACT THEORY AND GRICEAN PRAGMATICS:

A REVIEW

Daniel E. EKORO
Department of English and Literary Studies
University of Calabar – Calabar
[email protected]
+2348063140386

Michael GUNN
Department of English
University of Uyo, Uyo-Nigeria
[email protected]
+2348066095327

Abstract
This paper entitled “Speech Act Theory and Gricean Pragmatics: A
Review” appreciates the language of action words since pragmatic
strategies are applied in order to bring out features of speeches.
Pragmatic strategies such as entailment, presupposition, implicatures,
context of situation, speech acts among others were used in this paper.
The paper is also anchored on the pragmatic theory which is a speech act
theory. This theory deals with utterances and how they are used to
express actions. The examples used in this study were utterances used by
some scholars in their research work and some extemporaneous
examples given by the authors of this paper. These utterances served as
our data in this paper. The study concludes that speech act captures an
action performed by someone through his words. Also the central aspect
of the Speech Act Theory is that an utterance is part of an action within
the framework of social institution and conventions. J. L. Austin
proposed three levels of speech acts: locutionary act, illocutionary act
and perlocutionary act which were dissected in this paper.

Keywords: Speech acts, Gricean, Pragmatics, Implicature and

Presupposition.

130
LWATI: A Journal of Contemporary Research 2021, 18 (4): 130-143 LWATI: A Jour. of Contemp. Res.
www.universalacademicservices.org ISSN: 1813-222 ©Dec., 2021
Open Access article distributed under the terms of the RESEARCH
Creative Commons License [CC BY-NC-ND 4.0]
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0

Introduction
Speech act theory also called pragmatic act theory or theory of
pragmeme is the brainchild of the Oxford Philosopher J.L. Austin,
whose 1955 lectures at Harvard University were post-humously
published as How to do Things with Words (1975). The theory was
further developed by scholars like John R. Searle, Bach and Harnish,
Sadock, Cole and Morgan among others.
Every user of language intends among other things to influence
their listener (s), that is, their listeners should behave in a certain way.
This is basically what speech act theory is all about. In other words, the
theory looks at the roles of utterances in relation to the behaviour or
attitudes of the interlocutors in communicative discourse. It considers
the speaker‟s intention and the effect of his speech on the listener. Yule
(1994) observes that language is used to achieve diverse purposes:
educate, instruct, inform, advice, correct. That is, our utterances carry
several meanings and perform different actions and we must understand
these meanings and their indexes.
Speech acts theory looks at the pragmatic function of utterances.
The theory is premised on the belief that language is used to perform
actions. That is, how meaning and actions are related to language
(Udofot, 56).Schiffrin cites Austin (1962) that “the uttering of a sentence
is, or part of the doing of an action, which again would not normally be
described as or as „just‟ saying something”.
Cutting cites Austin (1962) that speech acts mean actions
performed in saying something. That is, doing something with words.
For instance, in sermon, the preacher unravels the communicative action
of the true God who uses words to make a promise, give assurance,
command, and curse, bless, among others. Every user of language
intends, among other things, to influence their listener(s). That is, their
listener should behave in a way that is commensurate with the utterance.
In other words, speech acts theory looks at the behaviour or attitude of
interlocutors in communicative discourse. As Ndimeleputs it,
“utterances are acts… capable of producing enormous and far-reaching
results…”
Akmajian, Demers, Farmer and Harnish define speech acts as
“acts performed in uttering expressions” (394). Finegan avers that
language (words) is used to make request, promise, report, direct, greet,
invite, among other acts that would be achieved verbally, similarly,

131
LWATI: A Journal of Contemporary Research 2021, 18 (4): 130-143 LWATI: A Jour. of Contemp. Res.
www.universalacademicservices.org ISSN: 1813-222 ©Dec., 2021
Open Access article distributed under the terms of the RESEARCH
Creative Commons License [CC BY-NC-ND 4.0]
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0

Ogbulogo says, “speech act theory explains the roles of utterances in

shaping the attitudes of participants in interpersonal communication. It
reflects the intentions of the speaker and the effects the speaker‟s
expressions on the hearer” (67).
For Wardhaugh “Utterances have some functional value,” that
our utterances are actions, they do certain things” (285). Wardhaugh
puts it thus, “one thing that utterances do is make propositions. They do
this mainly in the form of either statements or questions but other
grammatical forms are also possible” (285).
Also, Odebunmi observes that speech act theory is anchored on
the argument that language is used both to say things (speak) and to
perform actions. An important aspect of speech act theory is that actions
are performed using performative utterances by which a speaker
performs an action or does something as distinct from constatives which
determine the truth or falsity of an utterance by a speaker. Performatives
are expressed using performative verbs. And when such verbs are used
in utterances or pragmatic terms they perform actions as in:
- I pronounce you husband and wife (Wardhaugh, 286).
- I declare you president
The sentences above are performatives because they are expressed by
the performative verbs pronounce and declare which are appropriately
used in relation to context (marriage ceremony, swearing-in ceremony)
respectively. Besides, both are in the present tense; and the sentences
contain the first person subjects “I”. The verbs are also contextually and
textually appropriate. All these are conditions necessary for the
expression of speech acts.
Cruse avers that “A performative verb is one which designates a
specific speech act and which, if used appropriately, counts on the
performance of the speech act. For Bach cited in Sharndama,
performative utterances explicitly explain what we are doing. In
addition, performatives are subject to felicity conditions: conditions that
specify whether performatives work or not. That is, these conditions
enable us to say when it is appropriate to perform acts such as reporting,
asking questions, giving command. An utterance may be regarded as
unsuccessful or incomplete if these conditions are not fulfilled or met.
Performatives that do not work, as Austin puts it, are infelicitous.
Grundy argues that reality of performatives depend on the contexts of

132
LWATI: A Journal of Contemporary Research 2021, 18 (4): 130-143 LWATI: A Jour. of Contemp. Res.
www.universalacademicservices.org ISSN: 1813-222 ©Dec., 2021
Open Access article distributed under the terms of the RESEARCH
Creative Commons License [CC BY-NC-ND 4.0]
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0

their operations and the ability of the interlocutors to operate in those

context. In light of the performatory nature of utterances, Ogunsiji
defines speech act as “actions performed via utterances” (p. 10). Bach
describes the performative function of language as follows: “Almost any
speech act is really the performance of social acts at once, distinguished
by different aspects of the speaker‟s intention” (p. 102).
Sharndama cites Bach that performatives could be implicit:
contain a verb that is not clearly defined. It is the context of utterance
that enables the listener to decode meaning of the utterance or the
speaker‟s intention. The utterance, “it is dark”, for instance, is an
implicit performative. If uttered in a room at night, it could be
interpreted as a request that light be switched on.

Classification of speech acts

Austin in his book; How to do things with words, classifies speech acts
into three: locutionary acts, illocutionary acts and perlocutionary acts.
Austin sees locutionary acts as actual utterance or content of speech.
Horn and Ward locutionary act is,

…construction of speech, such as uttering certain sounds or making

certain marks using particular words…in conformity with the
grammatical rules of a particular language… senses and references of
the language (23).
Similarly, Sharndama cites Bach that it is the act of saying
something, which is roughly equivalent to uttering a certain sentence
with a certain sense and reference, according to specific grammatical
conventions.
Illocutionary acts refer to what an utterance is doing. Austin and
his successors observed that it is the use to which language is put. That
is, the meaning that the speaker wishes to convey or the action that
should be performed; the force or effect of an utterance or unit of
language will have when uttered. It is where saying equals doing, as in
betting, welcoming and warning. It is a contrast to locutionary act.
Illocutionary act is therefore the expression of the preacher‟s feeling,
attitude or intention.
A perlocutionary act is the effect of the utterance on the listener.
It is an act that is attributed to the effect of saying something. Black sees
it as the effect of our utterances or what we say on the hearer.

133
LWATI: A Journal of Contemporary Research 2021, 18 (4): 130-143 LWATI: A Jour. of Contemp. Res.
www.universalacademicservices.org ISSN: 1813-222 ©Dec., 2021
Open Access article distributed under the terms of the RESEARCH
Creative Commons License [CC BY-NC-ND 4.0]
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0

Ishaya citing Searle classifies speech acts (locutions and

illocutions) into five, namely; representatives, (assertions, claims,
reports, statements, hypotheses, descriptions, suggestions), directives
(suggestions, requests, commands, challenges, invitations, entreaties,
dares, expressives (complaints, thanksgiving, apologies, congratulating,
condoling, confessing, denying), commissives (promises, threats, offers,
pledges, vows, bettings, agreements) and declaratives (decrees,
declarations, blessing, firing, arresting, commissioning, marrying and
sentencing).
Representatives: Crystal citing Searle explains representatives as
speech acts that tell when the speaker asserts a proposition to be true.
Representatives comprise statements of facts, conclusions, descriptions
which demonstrate the speaker‟s belief in whatever he is saying
(Sharndama, 2015). Verbs which express representations include:
affirm, believe, conclude, deny, report. An example of representative
speech act is shown below:
Let every mountain before you come down now!
In the name of Jesus
(Ayodabo, 2015).

Directives: These verbs of speech acts are used to make the addressee
or hearer do something particularly what the speaker wants. Directives
show command, order, request, and suggestion. Examples include;
- Please go out.
- Why don‟t you wash the plate yourself?
- Will you close that door?
- Rise to your feet
- Shout Hallelujah!

Expressives: These are speech acts in which a particular speaker

expresses feelings and attitude to or about a situation or circumstance.
Expressives include apologies, appreciations, congratulatory remarks,
complaints, as in regret, welcome. Examples are:
- I detest idleness
- I am sorry for coming late.
- I am happy, He is risen.
- Lord Jesus, I have sinned against you.

134
LWATI: A Journal of Contemporary Research 2021, 18 (4): 130-143 LWATI: A Jour. of Contemp. Res.
www.universalacademicservices.org ISSN: 1813-222 ©Dec., 2021
Open Access article distributed under the terms of the RESEARCH
Creative Commons License [CC BY-NC-ND 4.0]
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0

Commisives: these speech acts commit the speaker to do something in

the future, they may be vows, promises or threats:
- I do hereby pledge my loyalty in you.
- I will deal with you.
- Jesus, I promise to serve you all the days of my life.

Declaratives: These are speech acts which alter the state of affairs in the
world. They are normally performed by someone in a position of
authority within an institution (Sharndama. They are associated with acts
such as baptizing, naming, marriage, judging, for example,
- I hereby pronounce you husband and wife
- I hereby sentence you to three years imprisonment
without an option of fine.
- I hereby name this road Abak Road.
- I baptize you in the Name of the Father, the Son and the
Holy Spirit.
- I declare you free in Jesus‟ Name.

The discussion above demonstrates that Speech Acts Theory is

about using language to accomplish a certain goal depending on context.
Our use of language as Ogbologo, Syal and Jindal argue that is
dependent on contextual factors like social and physical circumstances,
abilities, beliefs and the relationship between the speaker and the
listener. The action/reaction of participants in a discourse is very
important in language analysis. Austin‟s classification of speech acts:
locutionary act (the literal meaning of an utterance), illocutionary act
(the social function of an utterance) and perlocutionary force (the effect
produced by an utterance in in a given context) which constitute the
functional units of communication (Udofot, 102).

Gricean Pragmatics
Pragmatics mainly deals with language users in a real life situation, and
about the conditions that enable those users to use linguistic techniques
and materials effectively and appropriately. Udofot cited in Ndimele
sees pragmatics:
…as the analysis of meaning that takes into
account not only the observable aspect of a
language event but also the unobservable: the

135
LWATI: A Journal of Contemporary Research 2021, 18 (4): 130-143 LWATI: A Jour. of Contemp. Res.
www.universalacademicservices.org ISSN: 1813-222 ©Dec., 2021
Open Access article distributed under the terms of the RESEARCH
Creative Commons License [CC BY-NC-ND 4.0]
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0

choices they (users) make, the constraints they

encounter in using their language for social
interaction and the effect their use of language has
on other participants” (127).

It studies the contextual evidence that encoding and decoding require for
a message to be understood. Mgbemena and Ewurum argue that
pragmatics contributes to our understanding of the language use and
structure. It seeks to explain the symbiotic relationship between what a
person says and the context in which he says it and the circumstances
surrounding such utterance.
Pragmatic analysis therefore entails our assessment of how
language is used and understood contextually (when, how people speak
and its effect or interpretation by the hearer (Crotzier and Deittweiler).
Our primary concern is to determine a language user‟s knowledge of
appropriate pragmatic forms and the appropriate context for their use.
Pragmatic tools such as locution, illocution, perlocution, presupposition,
implicature, entailment, etc are usually considered. In pragmatic analysis
we try to examine how language is used so as to enable us interact with
other people, to take on roles and to express and understand feelings,
attitude and judgment. For Melefa, we engage in pragmatic analysis
because we believe that, nothing happens by chance, especially where
the context of the event is considered.
Pragmatic analysis enables people, particularly, listeners to
unearth the intricacies involved in language use for better understanding.
In the context of our proposed study, it will help the congregation to
understand the language of preachers. A pragmatic analysis of language
in general requires that words are used in agreement with one another in
the context of use. Mey says; “To understand another person‟s wording,
I have to word the world with him or her, by participating in a common
social context” (p. 307).
Pragmatic analysis of language comprises components such as
speech acts and contexts which have been previously discussed. These
include presuppositions, implicatures, entailments, deixis. These
components consider meaning in relation to language users,
communication code and socio-cultural conventions.

136
LWATI: A Journal of Contemporary Research 2021, 18 (4): 130-143 LWATI: A Jour. of Contemp. Res.
www.universalacademicservices.org ISSN: 1813-222 ©Dec., 2021
Open Access article distributed under the terms of the RESEARCH
Creative Commons License [CC BY-NC-ND 4.0]
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0

Presupposition
The notion of presupposition is credited to H. P. Grice. Yule defines
presupposition as the truth of a speaker‟s assumption concerning what
the hearer knows. For Osisanwo (2008), presuppositions are basic
assumptions made by the speaker or writer concerning the hearer or
reader in relation to the topic of discourse. Such assumptions are likely
to be accepted without challenge since they are founded on a common
ground. Ogbologoalso sees presupposition as what the speaker assumes
that the listener already knows. Both the speaker and the listener share a
common form of background knowledge. For example, “Have you
stopped stealing?” presupposes that the person asked was or used to be a
thief. Similarly, the sentence, “When did you stop stealing?”
presupposes that the person asked used to steal, and that he/she no
longer steals.
Presupposition could be semantic (deal with “the logical
relations that hold between sentences” in other words, it is part of
sentence meaning) or pragmatic (concerns the conditions required for a
speech act to be seen as contextually appropriate) (Osisanwo, p. 86).
Implicature
The term is also credited to H. P. Grice. It is an aspect of meaning that is
pragmatic based. Osisanwo (2008) says, “implicature is one of the
strongest aspects of pragmatics because through the contribution of Paul
Grice, scholars… have been able to beam their search light on the inner
working of pragmatics (p. 92). According to Udofot, implicatureis used
to account for what a speaker can imply, suggest or mean as distinct
from what the speaker literary says. Ogbologo sees implicature as “the
act of deducing from an utterance other forms of meaning” (p.160).
For Grundy, implicature is, “an inferred, often with a different
logical (that is non-truth preserving) form from that of the original
utterance” (p.299). If a speaker says “I have a flat tyre”, the implicature
may be that he/she is looking for assistance or wants to be directed to a
vulcanizer. Therefore speaker B may reply, “There is a vulcanizer over
there”. Implicature cannot be interpreted from their
semantic/grammatical meaning but from environmental or
conversational; while conventional implicature “thrives on cooperation
between the two interactants(Grundy, p. 299). Implicature serves a

137
LWATI: A Journal of Contemporary Research 2021, 18 (4): 130-143 LWATI: A Jour. of Contemp. Res.
www.universalacademicservices.org ISSN: 1813-222 ©Dec., 2021
Open Access article distributed under the terms of the RESEARCH
Creative Commons License [CC BY-NC-ND 4.0]
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0

variety of goals beyond communication: maintaining good social

relations, misleading without lying, style and verbal efficiency.

Entailment
This is a communication situation whereby, if one proposition entails
another, the other proposition also entails it. That is, if the first utterance
is true, the second one is automatically true as in:
- I have a wife – I am married.
- Victor killed the dog – the dog is dead.
Saeed says, “Entailment is a relationship between sentences so that if a
sentence A entails a sentence B, then if we know A we automatically
know B”. Alternatively, he adds that, “it should be impossible… to
assert A and deny B” (.4). Similarly, Grundy (2008) defines entailment
as, “A meaning that is always associated with an expression so that on
every occasion when the expression occurs the meaning arises” (298).

The context of situation

Language and context are inseparable as the latter is a necessary
condition for inferring meaning in communication; spoken or written.
Thus Brown and Yule assert that context is the environment,
circumstance of language use. That language analysis may not be
adequate enough if context is not considered. If a grammarian for
instance, wants to ascertain or judge whether a sentence is correct or not,
“he is implicitly appealing to contextual considerations” (25)
Grundy (196; 10) holds that context is very important in
determining the meaning of an utterance. That our inference from “the
utterance we hear and our knowledge of the world (context) “are the two
kinds of premise that give meaning to our utterances”.
In his pragmatic act theory or theory of pragmeme; a theory of
context which considers the verbal behaviourof an individual within the
affordances of context, Mey (43) argues that context determines what
one can say and vice versa. That is, context makes us organized and
meaningful in our utterances. Mey observes further that context goes
beyond mere influence, “Context is action, context is about
understanding what things are for… what gives our utterances their true
pragmatic meaning and allows them to be counted as true pragmatic
acts” (p.19).

138
LWATI: A Journal of Contemporary Research 2021, 18 (4): 130-143 LWATI: A Jour. of Contemp. Res.
www.universalacademicservices.org ISSN: 1813-222 ©Dec., 2021
Open Access article distributed under the terms of the RESEARCH
Creative Commons License [CC BY-NC-ND 4.0]
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0

The above shows that language is not haphazardly used. Every

aspect of human life such as sermons have their unique language. And
one‟s effective use of language is to a great extent, measured by one‟s
mastery and appropriate use of lexical items and expressions as they
relate to different contexts and speech events. Hence Ogbologo (2005,
p.45) defines context as “those factors which determine choices in
language in social interaction”. He adds that differences in meaning are
brought about by the context of language use. Because pragmatics
focuses on language use, it cannot be separated from context. Since
language operates in context not vacuum. Osisanwo observes that
scholars like Firth, Ellis and Halliday have individually worked on the
concept of context as it relates to language use. He observes further that
in discussing context in pragmatics, we are interested in finding out the
different types of context which contribute to our understanding of how
language is used in particular situations.
Context should be physical, psychological and linguistic among
others (Osisanwo, 2008). The physical context covers the
interractants/interlocutors in a discourse, the activities, the place and
time. The place where the discourse is taking place also contributes to
meaning. For instance, a context can be church where the word of God
is preached. Like the other factors, the time of a particular discourse
“can be used in determining what language is being used for” (p. 80).
Psychological context refers to the state of mind of the
individuals involved in a discourse. Is it of happiness, joy, anger,
sorrow? The state of the preacher‟s mind determines his use of language.
For example, a preacher‟s use of language in his sermon on
tithe/offering may be influenced by his temperament, the financial state
of the church, illiterate nature of his congregation, etc.
Linguistic context here points to the peculiarity of language use.
This covers aspects such as lexical or word choice and syntactic types.
Preachers at times create words to amuse their listeners or drive home
their message. This explains why Halliday‟s view that lexical sets of
language are open systems (allow for the creation of novel words) is of
interest to this study.
Lycan (138), Syal and Jindal explain that “pragmatics is the
functioning of language in context”(157).. Lycansays “when a sentence
is uttered, it is invariably uttered in a particular context by a particular
speaker for a particular purpose” (p.12).

139
LWATI: A Journal of Contemporary Research 2021, 18 (4): 130-143 LWATI: A Jour. of Contemp. Res.
www.universalacademicservices.org ISSN: 1813-222 ©Dec., 2021
Open Access article distributed under the terms of the RESEARCH
Creative Commons License [CC BY-NC-ND 4.0]
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0

According to Armstrong and Ferguson (2010) language should

be seen as “a set of meaning-making resources” which is not only
dependent on a set of syntactical semantic construct” but also on the
communicators‟ environment or situation of operation. Different
contexts require different kinds of vocabulary and different expressions
that are suitable to that particular context (Armstrong and Ferguson,
2010, citing Butt, Fahey, Feez, Spinks and Yallop. Ifeanyicites Halliday
who in his Language as a social semiotic:The social interpretation of
language and meaning (1978) explains the relevance of context in
meaning or language.
The question is, how does a hearer choose which interpretation
to select? How does he know which interpretation the speaker intended?
In an attempt to provide answers to such questions, Grice (1975)
proposed maxims of conversation which constitute principles for
selection of inferences. These were maxims of quality, quantity,
relevance and manner (Udofot, 129).
Conclusion
Speech acts is a technical term in linguistics and philosophy of language.
It captures an action performed by someone through his words. The
British philosopher J. L. Austin who contributed the term (speech acts)
to pragmatics claimed that, by speaking, a person performs an act, or
does something (such as state, predict, or warn) and that meaning is
found in what an expression does. Simply put, the central aspect of the
Speech Act Theory is that an utterance is part of an action within the
framework of social institution and conventions. Austin proposed three
levels of speech acts: locutionary act, illocutionary act and
perlocutionary act. A locutionary act is the actual utterance and its
ostensible meaning, comprising phonic, phatic and rhetic acts actually
corresponding to the verbal, syntactic and semantic aspects of any
meaningful utterance. A phonic act produces an utterance-inscription. It
is concerned with physical act of producing a certain sequence of vocal
sounds (in the case of spoken language), or a set of written symbols (in
the case of written language). A phatic act is an act of composing a
particular linguistic expression in a particular language. It is the act of
constructing a well formed string of sounds/symbols (a word, phrase, or
sentence in a particular language). Rhetic act is an act of contextualising
the utterance-inscription (Austin, 1962). It is responsible for tasks such

140
LWATI: A Journal of Contemporary Research 2021, 18 (4): 130-143 LWATI: A Jour. of Contemp. Res.
www.universalacademicservices.org ISSN: 1813-222 ©Dec., 2021
Open Access article distributed under the terms of the RESEARCH
Creative Commons License [CC BY-NC-ND 4.0]
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0

as assigning reference, resolving deixis, and disambiguating the

utterance-inscription lexically and grammatically.
By the idea of illocutionary act, Austin believes that saying is
doing. Therefore, "by saying something, we do something else." For
instance when someone orders someone else to come by saying
"Come!", or when a minister joins two people in marriage saying, “I
now pronounce you husband and wife”. An interesting type of
illocutionary act is that performed in the utterance of what Austin calls
performatives. Typical instances of these are “I demand an apology”, “I
assure you there will be a change”. In these rather explicit cases of
performative sentences, the action that the sentences describe
(demanding, ensuring) are performed by the utterance of the sentences
themselves.
Furthermore, Austin explains that perlocutionary acts entail the
consequences or effects of utterances on the audience in a linguistic
encounter; such consequences or effects being special to the
circumstances of utterance. Its actual effect, such as persuading,
convincing, scaring, enlightening, inspiring, or otherwise getting
someone to do or realize something, whether intended or not. For
instance, the locution, „See a snake behind you‟ has an illocutionary act
of informing or warning. The perlocutionary act will be manifested in
the addressee who either runs or screams.

References
Akmajian, A., Demers, R.A., Farmer, A.K. andHarnish, R.M.
Linguistics: An introduction to language and communication
(5thed.). new Delhi: Asoke K. Ghosh, PHI . 2001. Print.
Armstrong, E. & Ferguson, E. A.Language, meaning context and
functional communication.In research online publications.
Retrieved December 10th, 2016 from
(http://ro.edu.edu.an/ecuworks/6525)
Austin, J.L. How to do things with words. London: Oxford University
Press.1962. Print.
Ayodabo, J. O. Pragmatics of English as a vehicular language in
Nigeria. In issues in language and linguistics: Perspectives from
Nigeria. 3 p.138-161.Ayodabo, O, &Butari, N. (eds). Ilorin:
Hartee Press. 2015. Print.

141
LWATI: A Journal of Contemporary Research 2021, 18 (4): 130-143 LWATI: A Jour. of Contemp. Res.
www.universalacademicservices.org ISSN: 1813-222 ©Dec., 2021
Open Access article distributed under the terms of the RESEARCH
Creative Commons License [CC BY-NC-ND 4.0]
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0

Bach, K. (2006). Speech acts. In Routledge encyclopedia of philosophy.

New York: Routledge
Bahago, S. (1999).A pragmatic analysis of the language of religion in
selected sermons of William kumuyi.Unpublished M.A thesis,
Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria.
Black, E. (2006). Pragmatics stylistics. Edinburg: Edinburg University
Press.
Bloor, T. & Bloor, M. (2004).The functional analysis of English.
London: Arnold.
Brown, G. & Yule, G. (2000).Discourse analysis. Beijing: Foreign
Language Teaching and Research Press.
Crotzier, &Dettweiler, S. (2011). Keys to language development and
bible translation. Bukuru: African Christian textbooks (ACTS).
Cruse, A. (2006).A glossary of semantics and pragmatics. Edinburg:
Edinburg University Press.
Cutting, J. (2000).Pragmatics and discourse: A resource book for
students. London: Routledge
Finegan, E. (2004). Language: Its structure and use (4thed).
Massachusetts: Michael Rosenberg.
Grice, P. (1975). “Logic and Conservation.”Reprinted in Studies in the
way of words. Harvard University press Retrieved from http://
grammer.about.com/od/c/g/cooperative.principleterm.htm on 17
September, 2016.
Grundy, P. (2000). Doing pragmatics (2nded) India: Replika Press.
Grundy, P. (2008). Doing pragmatics (3rded) India: Replika Press.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1978). Language as social semiotics: The social
interpretation and meaning. London; Edward Arnold.
Horn, L. R. & Ward, G. (2006).Pragmatics.Yale: University of
Northwestern.
Ifeanyi, O. S. (2007). A linguistic analysis of the language of preaching
in selected churches in Calabar. Department of English and
Literary Studies University of Calabar.
Ishaya, Y. T. (2018). A pragmatic analysis of language of sermons in
selected Pentecostal churches in Jalingo. Unpublished Ph.D.
thesis submitted to the Department of English and Literary
Studies. University of Calabar, Calabar.
Lycan, W.G. (2008). Philosophy of language: A contemporary
introduction. New York: Routledge.

142
LWATI: A Journal of Contemporary Research 2021, 18 (4): 130-143 LWATI: A Jour. of Contemp. Res.
www.universalacademicservices.org ISSN: 1813-222 ©Dec., 2021
Open Access article distributed under the terms of the RESEARCH
Creative Commons License [CC BY-NC-ND 4.0]
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0

Melefa, O. (2014). A pragmatic analysis of conceptual metaphors in

Soyinka‟s.The Trial of Brother Jero.Currents in African literature
and the English language (CALEL), ix, p.105, May 2014.
Mey, J.L. (2001). Pragmatics:An introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.
Mey, J.L. (2004). Between culture and pragmatics: Sylla and Charybdia?
The precarious condition of intercultural pragmatics.Intercultural
pragmatics, 1(1) pp.27-48.
Mgbemena, J. & Ewurum, R. (2014). Drop the acid, use the words: A
discourse and pragmatic study of the Nigerian first lady‟s speech on
the 7th first ladies summit. Studies in stylistics and discourse
analysis. Fakuade, G. (ed). Ilorin: Language contact and language
conflict study group (LCLC). Department of Linguistics and
Nigerian Languages. University of Illorin.
Ndimele, O.M. (1997). Semantics and the frontiers of communication. Port
Harcourt: University of Port Harcourt Press.
Odebunmi, A. (2006). Meaning in English: An introduction. Ogbomoso:
Critical sphere.
Ogbulogo, C. (2005). Concepts in semantics. Lagos: Sanon Iroamusi.
Ogunsiyi, Y. (2010). Analytical linguistics. Ago-Iwoye: OlabisiOnabanjo
University press.
Osisanwo, W. (2008).Introduction to discourse and pragmatics. Lagos:
Femolus-Fetop
Saeed, J. I. (2003). Semantics (2nded) Australia: Blackwell Publishing.
Schiffrin, D. (1994). Approaches to discourse. Cambridge: Blackwell
Publishers
Searle, J.R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sharndama, C. E. (2015). Pragmatics of political discourse: A speech act
analysis of the manifests of the people‟s democratic party. In issues
in language and linguistic perspectives from Nigeria. 3, pp. 105-
120. Ayodabo, O &Butari, N. (eds). Ilorin: Hartee Press.
Syal, P. & Jindal, D. V. (2014).An introduction to linguistics: language,
grammar and semantics (2nd d). New Delhi: Asoke, K. Ghosh, PHI.
Udofot, I. (2004). English semantics.Uyo: Scholar‟s Press.
Wardhaugh, R. (2006). An introduction to sociolinguistics (5thed).
Australia: Blackwell.
Yule, G. (1994). The study of language (2nded). Cambridge University
Press.

143